# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: JouleSeeker on May 20, 2011, 05:21:55 AM

Title: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker 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 enjoy this forum and the enthusiasm.  I developed a straightforward 1-transistor 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf circuit sj1, easy-to-build, shows promise
Post by: 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 ;).

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.)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf circuit sj1, easy-to-build, shows promise
Post by: k4zep on May 28, 2011, 04:34:25 PM
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 ;).

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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf circuit sj1, easy-to-build, shows promise
Post by: hartiberlin on May 28, 2011, 05:02:28 PM
Looks great Prof. Jones.

Here are the 2 video Sterling D. Allan took of it:

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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf circuit sj1, easy-to-build, shows promise
Post by: Omega_0 on May 28, 2011, 05:06:24 PM
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. :)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf circuit sj1, easy-to-build, shows promise
Post by: hartiberlin 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+/V- strip 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf circuit sj1, easy-to-build, shows promise
Post by: hartiberlin on May 28, 2011, 05:44:33 PM
Here are again the circuit and a few other pics about it:
Title: Re: PhysicsProf circuit sj1, easy-to-build, shows promise
Post by: 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.....
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf circuit sj1, easy-to-build, shows promise
Post by: JouleSeeker 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.

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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf circuit sj1, easy-to-build, shows promise
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 28, 2011, 07:06:24 PM
Looks great Prof. Jones.

Here are the 2 video Sterling D. Allan took of it:

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!    (Gotta run for a while now with family; will return later.)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hartiberlin on May 29, 2011, 01:38:46 AM
Here is a replication video from User itsusable:

Seems it is not so easy to measure the output power in his case.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: wopwops 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!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on May 29, 2011, 03:30:54 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Groundloop on May 29, 2011, 05:39:41 AM
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 29, 2011, 06:26:24 AM
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...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 29, 2011, 06:32:19 AM

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."
Title: Re: PhysicsProf circuit sj1, easy-to-build, shows promise
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 29, 2011, 06:38:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: 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 .

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 29, 2011, 06:45:46 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 29, 2011, 06:51:16 AM
@ 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 29, 2011, 07:01:16 AM
Here is a replication video from User itsusable:

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).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Mk1 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.

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

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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 29, 2011, 03:14:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on May 29, 2011, 05:37:35 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  ;D 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 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.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Omega_0 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 29, 2011, 10:47:33 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  ;D 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.

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?  )

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on May 29, 2011, 11:32:19 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.   "Novel EM energy"?  Anomalous energy?  Green energy?  )

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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on May 30, 2011, 02:44:01 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.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on May 30, 2011, 02:59:12 AM
@Xee2

OK.
Thanks for the vid.
I do like the assembly.
I often use this kinda 'layout' too.

Very Best
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 30, 2011, 04:14:32 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on May 30, 2011, 05:30:54 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.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual 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. :D

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 (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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on May 30, 2011, 07:19:12 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.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on May 30, 2011, 10:01:01 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: powercat 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.  ;D
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 30, 2011, 04:53:34 PM
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?

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker 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. "

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on May 30, 2011, 07:13:51 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.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points 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 (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 30, 2011, 09:00:12 PM

Meanwhile, a quick test today:

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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on May 30, 2011, 09:25:39 PM
[...]
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!

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 30, 2011, 09:36:51 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!

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

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)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: yssuraxu_697 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on May 30, 2011, 10:53:11 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  =   0.2288 mW

note > watt = Joule/sec

What did I do wrong?

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on May 30, 2011, 11:18:13 PM
[...]
therefore over 30 seconds =  6.864/30  =   0.2288 mW

note > watt = Joule/sec

What did I do wrong?

LOL - if you're wrong then at least two of us are!

[...]
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!  :)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi 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)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on May 30, 2011, 11:23:35 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  =   0.2288 mW

note > watt = Joule/sec

What did I do wrong?

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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on May 30, 2011, 11:50:19 PM
You should not square then subtract the capacitor voltage. You subtract the voltage, THEN square it.

;)

.99

Thanks.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on May 31, 2011, 12:01:14 AM
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!

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on May 31, 2011, 12:06:13 AM
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)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on May 31, 2011, 12:34:04 AM
Yep, agreed. Sorry.

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: LarryC on May 31, 2011, 01:22:46 AM
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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: 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? 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?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on May 31, 2011, 01:58:53 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.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on May 31, 2011, 02:09:30 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.

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

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on May 31, 2011, 02:35:45 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: WilbyInebriated on May 31, 2011, 05:05:17 AM
No.
imagine that...
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. ;)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on May 31, 2011, 05:46:00 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: LarryC on May 31, 2011, 05:49:54 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on May 31, 2011, 05:56:52 AM
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

What would sufficient proof be for you?

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker 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.
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...)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: WilbyInebriated on May 31, 2011, 06:27:55 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.

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.  ::)

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!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker 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...

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on May 31, 2011, 09:44:45 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: WilbyInebriated 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.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on May 31, 2011, 01:35:23 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

greetings
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: yssuraxu_697 on May 31, 2011, 01:57:51 PM

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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on May 31, 2011, 04:04:23 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 31, 2011, 05:05:09 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 input-voltage, 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?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: yssuraxu_697 on May 31, 2011, 06:11:09 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.

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.

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...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: prm on May 31, 2011, 07:03:02 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.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: 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).
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

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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 31, 2011, 08:58:21 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 31, 2011, 09:33:08 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: 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.

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.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hoppy on May 31, 2011, 10:24:23 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 31, 2011, 10:28:03 PM
Thank you for the succinct summary, jmmac:

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

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 31, 2011, 10:56:14 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.   Pls do post your work here.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: prm on May 31, 2011, 11:22:38 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

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

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hoppy on June 01, 2011, 12:28:27 AM
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

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 01, 2011, 02:39:48 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?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 01, 2011, 03:05:37 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 ):

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:
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]
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ghauff 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: 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.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 01, 2011, 08:05:27 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?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: 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

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi 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".
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jmmac 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

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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: bolt 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hoppy on June 01, 2011, 11:38:16 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: bolt on June 01, 2011, 12:50:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hoppy on June 01, 2011, 01:06:20 PM
Post deleted

Hoppy
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hoppy on June 01, 2011, 02:07:17 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: 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

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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: yssuraxu_697 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hoppy on June 01, 2011, 02:55:25 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: 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:

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) super-efficiency, Pout/Pin > 1.

Thanks for taking a look at this!
Steven
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Montec 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.)

:)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jmmac 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
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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: mscoffman on June 01, 2011, 10:07:03 PM
@All

Hereâ€™s the thing , expensive instrumentation doesnâ€™t 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 itâ€™s 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 itâ€™s
behavior and causing incorrect readings â€“ he says that; â€œThe
circuit is behaving in an unstable way, it has insufficient operating
margins.â€ 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 canâ€™t 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. Itâ€™s 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 itâ€™s behavior does not change when
you attach instrumentation. I suggested using RC time constants
out of precision identical components. But donâ€™t worry, you will find it
extremely difficult to design a circuit that actually produces overunity
energy. But at least you wonâ€™t be fooling yourself with instrumentation
error.

:S:MarkSCoffman

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hoppy on June 01, 2011, 10:31:08 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 01, 2011, 10:40:27 PM
@jmm -- I intersperse responses in bold:

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.

[/]
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 01, 2011, 11:06:28 PM
Could I ask you to draw up in this fashion my hand-drawn circuit shown in post #2 of this thread??

Done.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 02, 2011, 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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 02, 2011, 12:47:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 02, 2011, 12:51:39 AM
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, itâ€™s 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? Whatâ€™s wrong with you? If youâ€™re really so smart?

Why the debate on Free Energy? Nature has been doing it for billions of years!

Oh to be constructive...

Chris

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on June 02, 2011, 01:07:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 02, 2011, 01:55:24 AM
"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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 02, 2011, 02:16:40 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.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 02, 2011, 02:20:18 AM
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!]

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 02, 2011, 07:27:18 AM
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.

Steven
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on June 02, 2011, 09:18:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 02, 2011, 09:47:34 AM
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

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 02, 2011, 11:09:33 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.

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

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 02, 2011, 11:24:36 AM
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

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jmmac on June 02, 2011, 11:39:56 AM
Prof. Jones,

"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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hoppy on June 02, 2011, 12:49:27 PM
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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 02, 2011, 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.

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

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 02, 2011, 01:09:29 PM
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
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi on June 02, 2011, 01:35:17 PM
...
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 ?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi on June 02, 2011, 01:36:18 PM
deleted. accidental double post
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 02, 2011, 02:02:26 PM
@ 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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 02, 2011, 03:01:51 PM
[...]
ps: this is just peaking the voltage, not increasing energy ?

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

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi on June 02, 2011, 03:12:51 PM
@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.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 02, 2011, 03:57:19 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

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 02, 2011, 04:16:49 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

i meant to say above, nice clean build you have there - compared with my 'birdsnest' construction!

all the best
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 02, 2011, 04:17:00 PM
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!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ltseung888 on June 02, 2011, 10:43:24 PM
My experience with this type of "resonance" circuits is that the performance can be greatly affected by changing the length of the wires; changing their spacing and using different holes on the breadboard.

In Hong Kong, we used two ATTEN Oscilloscopes to compare the Input and Output.  Much time was used to tune (compare the Output Power waveform with the Input Power waveform).

Simply connecting the circuit and performing the measurement is unlikely to yield the "resonance" results.  Replication will not be achieved without tuning, tuning and tuning.

Hope this hint helps.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 02, 2011, 11:54:07 PM

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

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Hi nul-points,

Appologies, Yes I will make the images smaller. Sorry. I have seen to many small bad resolution images showing really nothing of any value so I try to always get the best clearest images I can to really make the image of value to others.

All the best.

Chris

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: e2matrix on June 03, 2011, 12:12:55 AM

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

i meant to say above, nice clean build you have there - compared with my 'birdsnest' construction!

all the best
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Sorry to drag this off topic for a minute but I basically agree with what you say on pic size.  However as my main browser since the early 90's has been Opera if you haven't tried it you'll find it's great for dealing with this situation.   Hit the minus key on the keypad a couple times (each press reduces page size 10%) and everything fits nicely on the page.  Or just go direct to the menu made for directly resizing with your mouse and jump down to or up to whatever size you want (menu is 20% up to 900%).  The plus key sizes it up also.
Now back to our regularly scheduled OU discussion :)

hyiq,  am I reading your screen caps correctly that you are getting about 19 times OU?  While I realize we are dealing with very low power here if you do have 19 > COP then isn't there a way to loop it?  That would certainly end any argument about measurement errors.
I would envision getting it started with a battery and using a fast multi-pole relay to switch out the battery and switch into looped mode maybe with a cap in there to hold it until its self running.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 03, 2011, 01:38:38 AM
hyiq,  am I reading your screen caps correctly that you are getting about 19 times OU?  While I realize we are dealing with very low power here if you do have 19 > COP then isn't there a way to loop it?  That would certainly end any argument about measurement errors.
I would envision getting it started with a battery and using a fast multi-pole relay to switch out the battery and switch into looped mode maybe with a cap in there to hold it until its self running.

Hi e2matrix,

Yes.

My goals are:

1: Replicate this effect - done.
2: Understand this effect - In-progress.
3: Try to scale up this effect - TODO.
4: Self Power and power a Load - TODO.

I dont know if any of you know, but I have played with this type of circuit for many years:

Not exactly the same circuit but similar concept. I guess this is what has drawn me to replicate Dr Jones Circuit.

Nikola Tesla : "He threw the switch for a brief instant, and was again caught off guard by the stinging pressure wave!"

Could we be seeing the same effect?

All the best.

Chris

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 03, 2011, 01:08:55 PM
Hi All,

I have a Bi-Polar Circuit working but this is really giving me VERY unusual Measurements on the scope. I am getting Negative Current on the sense resistor on the input. Please let me know what your thoughts are. If I flip the Earth and the probe around on the input I do get a positive current reading.

All the best

Chris

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on June 03, 2011, 02:30:28 PM
Hi Chris,

Sorry to chime in, I believe xee2 made some good comments on the measurements in his Reply #143  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg289292#msg289292

Have you considered those comments or may be you disagree with them?

Thanks,  Gyula

Hi All,

I have a Bi-Polar Circuit working but this is really giving me VERY unusual Measurements on the scope. I am getting Negative Current on the sense resistor on the input. Please let me know what your thoughts are. If I flip the Earth and the probe around on the input I do get a positive current reading.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 03, 2011, 02:39:03 PM
@ 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.

Hi Gyula, sorry Xee2, I missed your suggestion.

I only have one scope. I only take one measurement at a time, so the Earth is not shorting anything out, rest assured.

I will move the Current Sense Resistor/Scope Probe points, as you mentioned. Please can you explain how and why you think there will be any current/Power that is not measured here? I dont understand why this may be? I have no Earth on one of my power cords for my scope if this is your concern. I have two power cords and one has an Earth and one has not. I have checked both. No visable change to the readings.

Please let me know what your thoughts are and I will be happy to change and retry the measurements.

My Replication Circuit V4 is attached.

All the best

Chris

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 03, 2011, 03:17:31 PM
Hi e2matrix,

Yes.

My goals are:

1: Replicate this effect - done.
2: Understand this effect - In-progress.
3: Try to scale up this effect - TODO.
4: Self Power and power a Load - TODO.
[snip]

All the best.

Chris

On the road (about 500 miles needed today), just wanted to say from the motel that I totally agree with these goals by Chris (Hyiq).  I'm so impressed by you guys who will jump in and do the replication then proceed with improvements and further tests.  Experimental science at its best, IMO -- and I would add to Chris' list:

5.  Experiments to determine just where the energy is coming from
(as with trying to understand high-temp superconductivity, this may take a while)
6.  Scale the system way up to provide power at the home-level.

Also, I agree with Chris on the importance of tuning as I also noted in the vid:

Quote
"I tune to get the lowest input power I can but get the LED as bright as I can."

Right!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 03, 2011, 03:26:38 PM

Please can you explain how and why you think there will be any current/Power that is not measured here?

Hi Chris,

With R3 in the new position you are measuring all of the input current. Where you had it there would have been a ground loop around R3 if you had both grounds connected at the same time. This would have provided a path that bypassed R3. You have everything correct now. Thanks for posting such good schematics.

EDIT: LEDs do not obey ohms law. The voltage drop is set by the junction, not the current. So care must be used when measuring power with an LED in the load. I think you are doing this correctly, I am just giving a word of warning.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on June 03, 2011, 03:29:33 PM
Hi Chris,

From my part, I was mainly concerned with the scope Earth shorting out R3 and VR2 when two probes used at the same time.

Regarding the position of current shunt R3, it is interesting...

R3 and C3 (220uF) surely form an RC low pass filter and from AC point of view the AC voltage drop across R3 can only be very very small if I assume a similar inner impedance for the 4V battery or 4V supply like the 220uF has at the oscillator working frequency  i.e. I suppose also very low.

If you reposition R3 as xee2 suggested, then the low pass filtering situation changes and the AC voltage drop across R3 can be higher than before, much closer to reality.

However, supposing  the current consumption of this oscillator only a few milliAmper (or less) then the best instrument to use for checking the DC voltage drop across an 0.1 Ohm resistor would be a DC (milli)Voltmeter and not really a scope, especially not a scope in your diagram shown in Reply# 153 above as you have got the low pass filter with R3C3. (at a few milliAmper draw even the DC voltage drop is very low but the AC voltage drop is much much lower than the DC due to the AC shunting effects of C3 and the 4V battery)
I would check the DC voltage drop across R3 for polarity too with a DC multimeter in your present setup (maybe disconnect the scope completely from the circuit for the time using a handheld DC DMM).  And if you still find the polarity to be negative, then you surely have an interesting circuit... worth checking and testing further.  ;)

Thanks,  Gyula

EDIT  just noticed you corrected the schematic in Reply# 153 too and repositioned R3 as xee2 suggested.  I mention this for those members who try to understand what we are talking about....  :D

Hi Gyula, sorry Xee2, I missed your suggestion.

I only have one scope. I only take one measurement at a time, so the Earth is not shorting anything out, rest assured.

I will move the Current Sense Resistor/Scope Probe points, as you mentioned. Please can you explain how and why you think there will be any current/Power that is not measured here? I dont understand why this may be? I have no Earth on one of my power cords for my scope if this is your concern. I have two power cords and one has an Earth and one has not. I have checked both. No visable change to the readings.

Please let me know what your thoughts are and I will be happy to change and retry the measurements.

My Replication Circuit V4 is attached.

All the best

Chris

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 03, 2011, 03:58:43 PM
Hi All,

Thanks for your suggestions. This circuit is a very unusual circuit. I am still not sure on the whole thing. Sometimes it seems to be looking really good then other times it does not. It may be the latest Bi-Polar Circuit is not much to rave about as input current consumption does go up and this Bi-Polar circuit and it is not what we want it to do. We need to keep the current down for this effect.

I will take a fresh look tommorrow. Please keep the suggestions coming and if others are replicating please let us know your results.

@Gyula - Yes, I fixed as you Xee2 suggested. Would you suggest a diode on the negative rail? This may help any ripple? I am trying to measure only DC Voltage, but measure the AC Current as this does bounce around crazy at points. Not sure if the Bi-Polar circuit is any good yet. May be its a dud. It works, but give us the same effect, not yet anyway.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 03, 2011, 04:40:36 PM
I agree Chris --
1.  "This circuit is a very unusual circuit."
2.  "We need to keep the current down for this effect."
3.  "Sometimes it seems to be looking really good then other times it does not. "

I have had the "glitch" in one session on the Tek 3032 myself a while back, where the circuit was performing very well, n>1 per the Tek 3032.
I made measurements of Pin and Pout repeatedly, back and forth, and kept getting n>1 for about 45 minutes, varying Rr and Ro, and getting variations in n but always n>1.
Then all of a sudden, it changed for unknown reasons to n<1.   Sorry I did not mention this sooner -- I thought the "glitch" was for it to fall out of the super-efficiency condition temporarily, or perhaps I caused an inadvertent short in the system -- I could not find what made it glitch.   Later, it looked fine again.

During this same session at the university lab, I tested the build by my friend Les Kraut.  He tried to replicate the sj1 circuit exactly.   His build showed n ~ 8, after the "glitch" showed up in my initial circuit-testing.

Later -- I have felt one of the resistors being very hot to the touch during a run, and this MAY be a reason for the "glitch". I was not at the Tek 3032 this time.   I suggest feeling the resistors if your circuit "glitches" again.

Clearly the goal is to understand our observations and to keep the device in the super-efficiency condition.
Thanks again, Chris, and my apologies for not mentioning this sooner.  I do not think this "invalidates" the circuit, but it is something we must try to understand.
Steven

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 03, 2011, 04:51:42 PM

Would you suggest a diode on the negative rail? This may help any ripple? I am trying to measure only DC Voltage, but measure the AC Current as this does bounce around crazy at points.

Adding diode here will help some.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 03, 2011, 05:04:14 PM
@ hyiq

Kooler and I have been able to get Joule thief circuits to light an LED dimly on as little as 5 micro-watts of input power using a MPSA06. You may want to try that if you can get one. The MPSA06 seems to work better than a 2N2222 at low power.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 03, 2011, 05:50:46 PM

firstly, a quick thank you to Chris for re-sizing your circuit - still very readable - but no need to scroll across now - or reduce the page size & not be able to read the writing!

Steven

there have been some developments which you may find interesting

apologies that there is a mass of detail and calcs - in this case, i feel that 'the end justifies the means'!

i ought to mention in passing that i modified my circuit slightly to decouple the AC output from the DC biasing conditions of the oscillator by adding a tertiary winding on the transformer (see schematic below)

i don't believe that the following information is influenced by the output coupling method - current draw from the supply cell and LED illumination appear to remain at a similar level as before

i've been able to use an opto-coupler with my low-freq. 'inverted looped' sr1 circuit variant to get a handle on the o/p level issue

i used the opto LED in place of the discrete LED in the circuit**
(and confirmed that this didn't significantly alter the DC current draw of the circuit from the single AAA NiMH supply cell)

i used a DVM resistance range to bias and measure the opto transistor C-E 'impedance'

(transistors are viewed as having 'transconductance' between terminal current paths, but let's not get into 'terminology' just yet!)

i applied a time-constant to the DVM reading by connecting a capacitor in parallel with the opto o/p, to act as a DC 'smoothing' filter on the reading

Please see the details and calcs in the following post!...

[EDIT:  ** please note, i'm not claiming this is a precision method, or that this approach can't be refined to give more accurate quantified readings - i'm suggesting that this approach can be used as a simple comparative method to provide a ballpark value for DC Power equivalent of LED o/p in a suitable situation]

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 03, 2011, 05:51:20 PM
In the following calculations i'm using DC Power values - since all of these values are equally proportional with time, they're equivalent to using Joule values (ie. working with energy)

Steven

i realise that you already make use of this method yourself - the previous comment is only for the benefit of others! (get ready for howls of protest...)  :)

Measurements for the 'Inverted, Slowed, but NOT looped' sr1 circuit
===============================================
Vbatt: 1.243V
Iin: 107uA

DC Pin total: 133uW

let's just emphasize, here:
with 1.243V across the oscillator supply, the oscillator will draw 133 uW of DC Power

Measurements for the 'Inverted, Looped & Slowed' sr1 circuit
===========================================
Vbatt: 1.243V
Iin: 65uA

DC Pin total: 81uW

after losses, the available o/p energy is stored in the buffer cap

some energy from the buffer cap gets transferred back to combine with the input energy to meet the total DC Power draw requirement of the circuit

since the DC Power drawn from the battery decreases to 81uW, when feedback is applied, then the DC Power contribution from the buffer capacitor:
133 - 81 =  52uW

let's just emphasize, here:
the contribution of DC Power In from the o/p feedback path to the oscillator circuit is 52uW

so now the question is: "what are the various energy losses in the system?"

- light
- heat

let's consider the energy conversion in the LED

firstly, find the equivalent DVM reading (of the opto o/p) to that caused by in-circuit LED replacement by the opto LED
(see schematic below)

Opto LED DC Power comparison (opto LED in series with variable resistor)
===============================================
Vbat: 2.77V
Iin: 84uA

DC Pin total: 233uW

Variable resistor set to 21.8 Kohms (to match opto o/p with in-circuit value)

Joule loss in Var Res:
0.000084 * 0.000084 * 21800 = 154uW

Therefore DC Power converted by LED: (233 - 154) = 79uW

ie. the LED is providing the equivalent of 79uW DC power

since the opto LED is 'diverting' 79uW (mostly as light, some heat),
the total DC Power supplied by the buffer cap:
52 + 79 = 131uW (at least, ignoring losses)

let's just emphasize here:
the total DC Power provided from the buffer capacitor is 131uW

OK, so the oscillator circuit DC Power requirement is:
133uW

and when looped,

DC Power supplied by energy source A (NiMH cell):
81uW

DC Power supplied by energy source B (Buffer cap):
131uW

Total DC Power supplied to the oscillator + LED:
81 + 131 = 212uW

let's just emphasize here:
the total DC Power converted by the whole system is 212uW

the total DC Power supplied by the NiMH cell is 81uW

so the efficiency value, 'n' is 212/81 = 2.62

...and that's ignoring losses (heat & e/m radiation)

[EDIT:  note that 79uW equivalent of DC Power is dissipated by the LED and is lost to the system, which would reduce the 'available' electrical 'n' to be 133 / 81 = 1.64]

now it's my turn to ask if YOU would mind kindly checking MY math, thanks Steven  :)

and finally (Phew!) let's quickly 'lead out' a possible objection...

DA:
"Ah, Mr Nul-Points, that's all just fancy footwork - in reality when you looped the circuit back you probably just increased the total circuit impedance, so THAT is why the DC Power In from the battery decreased!"

NP:
"Not so fast, Mr DA - connecting a load in parallel with the oscillator would conventionally be expected to reduce the system impedance and tend to increase the DC Power draw from an external supply;
what we're seeing here is REDUCED DC Power draw from external supply, when connecting a load to the sytem"

let me know what you think

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 03, 2011, 07:19:40 PM
COMMENTS ON DR. STEVEN E. JONES CIRCUIT (using hyiq schematic)

This circuit has an advantage in that almost all of the energy in the collapsing magnetic field of L2 is transferred to C2. Where as in a normal Joule thief some of this energy is returned to the battery. This is a result of the resistor VR2 preventing rapid current flow back to the capacitor/battery and thus forcing the energy into C2. However, in order to be over unity the energy in the collapsing magnetic field of L2 would have to be greater than the energy used to create the magnetic field. This would conflict with historical experimental data on energy stored in magnetic fields of coils.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 03, 2011, 07:37:53 PM
COMMENTS ON DR. STEVEN E. JONES CIRCUIT
[...]
This circuit has an advantage in that almost all of the energy in the collapsing magnetic field of L2 is transferred to C2
[...]
However, in order to be over unity the energy in the collapsing magnetic field of L2 would have to be greater than the energy used to create the magnetic field. This would colflict with historical experimental data on energy stored in magnetic fields of coils.

hi Xee

you might be interested in the results and calcs in the previous post before yours, then
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi on June 03, 2011, 07:52:02 PM
null-point : awsome work. Any chance to create a second circuit like first one ? instead looping just attach C2 in to C1 out. I'm not expecting to get some specific output at C2, just curious what will happen. Thanks.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hoppy on June 03, 2011, 08:04:51 PM
I have had the "glitch" in one session on the Tek 3032 myself a while back, where the circuit was performing very well, n>1 per the Tek 3032.
I made measurements of Pin and Pout repeatedly, back and forth, and kept getting n>1 for about 45 minutes, varying Rr and Ro, and getting variations in n but always n>1.
Then all of a sudden, it changed for unknown reasons to n<1.   Sorry I did not mention this sooner -- I thought the "glitch" was for it to fall out of the super-efficiency condition temporarily, or perhaps I caused an inadvertent short in the system -- I could not find what made it glitch.   Later, it looked fine again.

I experienced the same problem where initially I saw a unity reading. I think this is a triggering problem. Its important to get the trigger set where the mean voltage reading across the shunt resistor is as stable as possible. If you monitor the readings at various different triggering points, I think you can find a nice overunity spot!

Hoppy

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 03, 2011, 08:41:19 PM
hi Xee

you might be interested in the results and calcs in the previous post before yours, then

133 uW in and 52 uW out seems like reasonable performance for a Joule thief. The rest was not clear to me. I will have to look at it for a while.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 03, 2011, 08:44:59 PM
133 uW in and 52 uW out seems like reasonable performance for a Joule thief. The rest was not clear to me. I will have to look at it for a while.

i agree that "133 uW in and 52 uW out" is  reasonable performance for a JT

however, these results for a variant of Steven's circuit are showing 81uW in and 133uW out - 212uW out if you include the LED o/p!

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 03, 2011, 08:51:38 PM
null-point : awsome work. Any chance to create a second circuit like first one ? instead looping just attach C2 in to C1 out. I'm not expecting to get some specific output at C2, just curious what will happen. Thanks.

thanks Tudi - i have done something similar with a different circuit in the past, so i'll try to move on to that

at the moment tho', i'm just monitoring the voltage trend on the supply cell & buffer cap

i believe that NiMHs are only 50% efficient when you charge them, so i'm not expecting too much of the present setup (would need COP = 2 just to keep cell charged - but LED dissipates 79uW so now have COP < 2)

anyway, this might be more evidence for Steven - we'll have to see what he thinks about this data

all the best
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 03, 2011, 11:32:20 PM
I agree Chris --
1.  "This circuit is a very unusual circuit."
2.  "We need to keep the current down for this effect."
3.  "Sometimes it seems to be looking really good then other times it does not. "

I have had the "glitch" in one session on the Tek 3032 myself a while back, where the circuit was performing very well, n>1 per the Tek 3032.
I made measurements of Pin and Pout repeatedly, back and forth, and kept getting n>1 for about 45 minutes, varying Rr and Ro, and getting variations in n but always n>1.
Then all of a sudden, it changed for unknown reasons to n<1.   Sorry I did not mention this sooner -- I thought the "glitch" was for it to fall out of the super-efficiency condition temporarily, or perhaps I caused an inadvertent short in the system -- I could not find what made it glitch.   Later, it looked fine again.

During this same session at the university lab, I tested the build by my friend Les Kraut.  He tried to replicate the sj1 circuit exactly.   His build showed n ~ 8, after the "glitch" showed up in my initial circuit-testing.

Later -- I have felt one of the resistors being very hot to the touch during a run, and this MAY be a reason for the "glitch". I was not at the Tek 3032 this time.   I suggest feeling the resistors if your circuit "glitches" again.

Clearly the goal is to understand our observations and to keep the device in the super-efficiency condition.
Thanks again, Chris, and my apologies for not mentioning this sooner.  I do not think this "invalidates" the circuit, but it is something we must try to understand.
Steven

Hi Dr Jones,

yes, this is correct, I have observed the same. I was thinking my scope was on the blink, it samples @100mhz so I thought this should be enough, but was getting inconsistent readings.

My Bi-Polar Circuit version seems to be the dud however, it draws too much current and so far it seems to loose the effect. I will keep working on it as if I can get it working then its only a diode or two and it should self loop.

I am up with a fresh start today so will see what the old brain can come up with today.

All the best

Chris

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on June 03, 2011, 11:33:50 PM
....
@Gyula - Yes, I fixed as you Xee2 suggested. Would you suggest a diode on the negative rail? This may help any ripple?
....
Chris

Regarding the small power levels involved in this circuit, the good old germanium diodes like 1N34, 1N34A  or also some ancient germanium European types like OA160, OA161, OA5 etc could be used. If you happen to have any germanium bipolar transistor left somewhere, you can use it here also as a diode, by connecting its base to its collector and it will be the anode and the emitter will be the cathode (for an NPN transistor of course, for a PNP they reverse).  Only drawback is the much lower reverse voltage capability due to the 5-7V or less base-emitter reverse voltage ratings.

With such diode any AC that might come from the circuit direction via the negative rail (or the positive if you place the diode there) will be half-wave rectified, you may wish to move the C3 filter further towards the battery in this case so that it should not shunt any AC before the diode.

Gyula

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 03, 2011, 11:52:06 PM
Adding diode here will help some.

Hi Xee2,

Thanks for your suggestion. Circuit Schematic is attached. I put that this is experimental as I had the POT on the positive rail and the effect was lost so as I have not yet tested this circuit its experimental. I will test it today though.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 03, 2011, 11:56:21 PM
@ hyiq

Kooler and I have been able to get Joule thief circuits to light an LED dimly on as little as 5 micro-watts of input power using a MPSA06. You may want to try that if you can get one. The MPSA06 seems to work better than a 2N2222 at low power.

Hi Xee2,

I have seen some very broard results with the transistor/fett 's I have used. Some are no good at all and some work ok but some work really well. I agree, this is very important to try as many Fetts/Transistors as one can to get the best results here. Not any old Transistor/Fett will do.

Thanks I will source a MPSA06 and give that a go.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 04, 2011, 12:09:14 AM
Hi nul-points,

Nice work!

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 04, 2011, 12:25:08 AM
COMMENTS ON DR. STEVEN E. JONES CIRCUIT (using hyiq schematic)

This circuit has an advantage in that almost all of the energy in the collapsing magnetic field of L2 is transferred to C2. Where as in a normal Joule thief some of this energy is returned to the battery. This is a result of the resistor VR2 preventing rapid current flow back to the capacitor/battery and thus forcing the energy into C2. However, in order to be over unity the energy in the collapsing magnetic field of L2 would have to be greater than the energy used to create the magnetic field. This would conflict with historical experimental data on energy stored in magnetic fields of coils.

Hi Xee2,

I agree. Here are my thoughts. First I don't disagree with science. Science is mostly correct but in my opinion we have not fully understood all of it yet.

The Energy :

The Energy we are seeing I believe is not directly from the Coil or the Magnetic Field. I believe this "Extra" Energy is from the Short duration Pulses we are shunting into a very low resistance (The low impedance Coil). Nikola Tesla explained it but I cant find the exact quote, but it goes similar to the following: "The operator threw the switch and was killed instantly"

As the switch is closed for an instant, a surge of Energy shunted into the low impedance of the coil causes a pressure wave and this pressure wave draws in the surrounding Energy of the Vacuum.

EDIT: Causing SOME of the oscillations we are seeing...

I could go a bit further here but think it would cause controversy.

So this is where I believe it is coming from thus far but have no proof.

So what next, how to self power and scale? This could be looked at in many ways. Lots of little oscillators all connected in parallel, or in series, or in a flip flop arrangement.

To much speculation could have us spend to much time not being constructive so I must leave my speculations here.

All the best

Chris

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 04, 2011, 12:35:42 AM
Regarding the small power levels involved in this circuit, the good old germanium diodes like 1N34, 1N34A  or also some ancient germanium European types like OA160, OA161, OA5 etc could be used. If you happen to have any germanium bipolar transistor left somewhere, you can use it here also as a diode, by connecting its base to its collector and it will be the anode and the emitter will be the cathode (for an NPN transistor of course, for a PNP they reverse).  Only drawback is the much lower reverse voltage capability due to the 5-7V or less base-emitter reverse voltage ratings.

With such diode any AC that might come from the circuit direction via the negative rail (or the positive if you place the diode there) will be half-wave rectified, you may wish to move the C3 filter further towards the battery in this case so that it should not shunt any AC before the diode.

Gyula

Hi Gyula,

Your expertise is very much appreciated! Thanks. So just to confirm, move the diode in Circuit V5 in Reply #174 to the other side of C3? So the Cap is not affected by the diode?

Thanks for your other suggestions also. I will have  A look around and see what I have.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 04, 2011, 07:22:28 AM
Hi Xee2,

Thanks for your suggestion. Circuit Schematic is attached. I put that this is experimental as I had the POT on the positive rail and the effect was lost so as I have not yet tested this circuit its experimental. I will test it today though.

All the best

Chris

Hi All,

I have tested this circuit (Chris's Circuit Replication V5 - Experimental Input Diode D3 Small) and there is a deminished end result. I believe there is an oscillation through the battery also and this increases the output. Maybe like the Bedini Charge Popping?

Not 100% conclusive yet, but all tests point to a Diode being not good on the Positive Rail.

If the Electric Charge works like Edward Leedskalnin said it does, and this can be debated, we would get different results with the transistor on the Negitive side of the low impedance Inductor and possible loose the end result all together. It appars this is true so far.

I am still getting good results but attempts in looping/self running have all failed. This does not mean this is not COP < 1. Just that I have failed to date at self looping.

Scaling up is also still something I am having trouble with. Increased Voltage should mean increased Turns on the Low Impedance coil but also means in the adjusting of the circuit components, components burn out much quicker if the right values are not achieved quickly.

Still working on this, also trying to get some work done on my other projects so may be a bit before my next post.

All the best

Chris

EDIT : P.S. The best Circuit to consistently measure an "Energy Gain from the Vacuum" to date is:
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on June 04, 2011, 12:50:59 PM
....
So just to confirm, move the diode in Circuit V5 in Reply #174 to the other side of C3? So the Cap is not affected by the diode?
....

Yes,  that is what I thought as a good step but my brain did not work fully last night and did not consider that a forward biased diode (from battery 4V) just conducts continuously and is a few Ohm resistance...  so any small AC coming from the circuit towards the battery will pass unrectified...
sorry for this.
So a series diode even in the negative rail would not catch the AC either...
a different approach like nul-points series coils put in the rails may be a step in the good direction, the series coils increase inner impedance of the battery from AC point of view.  But it seems still difficult to catch the very small AC current or voltage amplitudes...

Gyula
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 05, 2011, 02:26:16 AM
Yes,  that is what I thought as a good step but my brain did not work fully last night and did not consider that a forward biased diode (from battery 4V) just conducts continuously and is a few Ohm resistance...  so any small AC coming from the circuit towards the battery will pass unrectified...
sorry for this.
So a series diode even in the negative rail would not catch the AC either...
a different approach like nul-points series coils put in the rails may be a step in the good direction, the series coils increase inner impedance of the battery from AC point of view.  But it seems still difficult to catch the very small AC current or voltage amplitudes...

Gyula

Hi Gyula, and All,

Yes you are right. Early tests show a huge increase in output by simply winding and wiring the coil like a Tesla Series Connected BiFilar Coil.

Voltage goes way up.

4 Volts / 9 Turns = 0.4 reoccurring. This is the voltage between each winding on a single filar coil.

In our case, whats the Math for this?

2 Squared / 0.4 Squared = 4 / 0.16 = 25 times more efficent..... Interestingly a Tri-Filar Coil only makes it 9 times more efficent.

All the best

Chris

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 05, 2011, 03:20:48 AM
Hi All,

This is the best Circuit to date. I will get some measurements through soon. But this is considerably better than my last results. Nikola Tesla's Bi-Filar coil makes a huge difference to the output. See last post.

All the Best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 05, 2011, 05:56:24 AM

This is the best Circuit to date.

Good research. Do you think the way you wound the coil is better than just doubling the number of turns on L2?

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 05, 2011, 06:30:31 AM
[...]
Early tests show a huge increase in output by simply winding and wiring the coil like a Tesla Series Connected BiFilar Coil.

Voltage goes way up.
[...]
Chris

interesting to have confirmation of this, Chris - i wind my coils like this,also

unidirectional wind per layer, with next layer interleaved in same direction -  a part turn to get back to start each time

then repeat for each/any next two 'layers' - etc

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 05, 2011, 07:25:15 AM
Good research. Do you think the way you wound the coil is better than just doubling the number of turns on L2?

Hi Xee2,

Thanks. I am still trying to get conclusive measurements. The measurements I am getting bounce around from - to +. Very hard to get the right measurements.

I seem to be getting much more oscillations also.

The output does seem much more, but my frequency is much less because of the extra turns/inductance. If anyone can replicate and see if they get better results maybe.

I am fairly sure the big increase is because of the way I have wound and wired the coils. Same as Tesla Patent.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 05, 2011, 07:28:24 AM
interesting to have confirmation of this, Chris - i wind my coils like this,also

unidirectional wind per layer, with next layer interleaved in same direction -  a part turn to get back to start each time

then repeat for each/any next two 'layers' - etc

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Hi Nul-Points,

Yes, this seems to be a better way. I will refine my Circuit/Coil and try to update soon.

All the best

Chris

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 05, 2011, 08:09:23 AM
Hi All,

After a fair bit of mucking around the result is : "Just Under Unity"

Thats if my measurements are now correct. The Bi-Filar Coil creates a bunch of oscillations and the readings on the scope are fluctating all over the place. The Load LED was a fair bit brighter but the input has gone up a bit also. This circuit with the Bi-Filar Coil is not as good as the previous circuit if my current measurements are correct. 98 - 99 %

Sorry for the false alarm on this one. Back to the V4 Circuit.

All the best

Chris

P.S. If someone, maybe with a better scope than me can check this though. Just in case I have made a measurement error.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 06, 2011, 12:36:09 AM

Hi All,

Re-Checking my last measurements, because I was not satisfied they were correct, does show an Over Unity Measurement this morning.

Input : 102.4 milli watts
Output : 182.6 milli watts

This is with the Bi-Filar Coil. It is interesting that this Circuit, with the Bi-Filar Coil is so much harder to measure. The oscillations are quite large and I believe there may have been a Capacitance from Ground (Earth on my scope (Now using my power cord with no Earth Pin)) that may have been causing run off oscillations.

Interested to see others results also still.

So far the result is still better on the other Circuit, V4. Which is still surprising because the output seems much more for only a small increase on the Input. This could have something to do with the self inductance between the windings. The big difference here being the Series Connected Bi-Filar Power Coil vs the Single Filar Power Coils.

Well, interested to hear your thoughts on these results.

All the best

Chris

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 06, 2011, 12:46:44 AM

Input : 102.4 milli watts
Output : 182.6 milli watts

Wow. Over unity. Congratulations.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 06, 2011, 12:52:44 AM
@ hyiq

You might try moving the rectifying diode to the other side of the output capacitor. The way it is the capacitor can loose charge through VR2 back to the battery.

EDIT - Flipping it when moved.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 06, 2011, 01:16:40 AM
Wow. Over unity. Congratulations.

Hi Xee2,

19 x is the best I have measured. This was on circuit V3 and V4.

My Measurements are inline with Dr Jones results less 1. Dr Jones got 20x.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 06, 2011, 01:20:50 AM
@ hyiq

You might try moving the rectifying diode to the other side of the output capacitor. The way it is the capacitor can loose charge through VR2 back to the battery.

EDIT - Flipping it when moved.

Hi Xee2,

I will do this and come back to you asap.

thanks.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 06, 2011, 02:12:46 AM

Hi All,

I have noticed that when I measure the output, in Circuit V5, the LED light does dim some what, up to about 60% or so. So the last measurements I was getting, although OU, are still not correct even though I still believe this is OU. The Bi-Filar Coil has introduced a whole new set of problems.

I have tried my scope with both Earth pin connected and not connected. it helps to get a measurement with no Earth Pin connected but either way the output is reduced no matter what as soon as I connect the scope to the circuit's output.

Any Ideas?

@ Xee2 - I tried the diode on the other side like you suggested. Marginal change to the output. Will keep testing though.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 06, 2011, 02:16:38 AM

Hi All,

I have noticed that when I measure the output, in Circuit V5, the LED light does dim some what, up to about 60% or so. So the last measurements I was getting, although OU, are still not correct even though I still believe this is OU. The Bi-Filar Coil has introduced a whole new set of problems.

I have tried my scope with both Earth pin connected and not connected. it helps to get a measurement with no Earth Pin connected but either way the output is reduced no matter what as soon as I connect the scope to the circuit's output.

Any Ideas?

@ Xee2 - I tried the diode on the other side like you suggested. Marginal change to the output. Will keep testing though.

All the best

Chris

Great work.  Remember that the original JTs were bifilar so I am not too surprised at your measuring difficulties as many of us have been through this.  I have never claimed OU for any of my JT circuits but, I have always thought that there was something there so I wish you, and Dr. Jones the best in proving this out.  This is great stuff.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Bruce_TPU on June 06, 2011, 02:53:38 AM
Hi hyiq,

Version 3 and version 4, show aprox 19 times COP.  My suggestion would be to go back to them, and instead of trying to increase the COP even more, to use the output to drive say 3 more identical circuits.  Now, you have amplified the COP to 60.

Now for the sake of some fun math, think of the following...  You have COP of 19 and you run the output into 10 identical circuits, as their input, and now you have amplified the COP to 190 times, the output over the input.

And then, anywhere along the line, you tap in, loop it and make it self run.  Then, to scale it up, you shrink it down.  All of the components, except for the toroid are made into a chip.  These can then be added, as many as needed for the power needed.

In the meantime, the good professor and others can begin to figure out the source of the excess power.  Just saying it "comes from the ambient" is simply a way of saying, "we have no idea from where the access is coming from." IMHO  Is it coming from standing waves, harmonics, intermodulation, from?  IF the circuit is truly putting out more output then input, then all of the above is doable.  I for one know that there is an untapped ocean of power via geometric progression harmonics linked to the resonance of the cavity between the ionesphere and the earth, known as the Shumanns resonance.  It would also be interesting to compare the toroid diameter, to a wavelength, and look with a spectrum analyzer at the harmonics being produced.

There has to be a mechanism for gain, in play.  So identifying it, and scaling up as suggested should be the priority, in my humble opinion.

Cheers,

Bruce
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 06, 2011, 03:40:20 AM
Great work.  Remember that the original JTs were bifilar so I am not too surprised at your measuring difficulties as many of us have been through this.  I have never claimed OU for any of my JT circuits but, I have always thought that there was something there so I wish you, and Dr. Jones the best in proving this out.  This is great stuff.

Bill

Hi Bill,

Thanks! I can fairly consistantly measure OU on this circuit. It does not mean it is OU though. I am trying to prove either way. This is an interesting Circuit.

@All - I have fixed the scope Probe draning he output problem, I put another diode in place where I had it before as well as the one Xee2 suggested. It has made a difference. Still getting OU Measurements.

All the best

Chris

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 06, 2011, 03:45:09 AM
Hi hyiq,

Version 3 and version 4, show aprox 19 times COP.  My suggestion would be to go back to them, and instead of trying to increase the COP even more, to use the output to drive say 3 more identical circuits.  Now, you have amplified the COP to 60.

Now for the sake of some fun math, think of the following...  You have COP of 19 and you run the output into 10 identical circuits, as their input, and now you have amplified the COP to 190 times, the output over the input.

And then, anywhere along the line, you tap in, loop it and make it self run.  Then, to scale it up, you shrink it down.  All of the components, except for the toroid are made into a chip.  These can then be added, as many as needed for the power needed.

In the meantime, the good professor and others can begin to figure out the source of the excess power.  Just saying it "comes from the ambient" is simply a way of saying, "we have no idea from where the access is coming from." IMHO  Is it coming from standing waves, harmonics, intermodulation, from?  IF the circuit is truly putting out more output then input, then all of the above is doable.  I for one know that there is an untapped ocean of power via geometric progression harmonics linked to the resonance of the cavity between the ionesphere and the earth, known as the Shumanns resonance.  It would also be interesting to compare the toroid diameter, to a wavelength, and look with a spectrum analyzer at the harmonics being produced.

There has to be a mechanism for gain, in play.  So identifying it, and scaling up as suggested should be the priority, in my humble opinion.

Cheers,

Bruce

Hi Bruce,

Exactly Right! I agree. This latest experiment does give a few small clues. EG: Self Inductance may be playing a role and so on.

I do plan to back track for a bit. I just dont want to pass this over to easy just in case there is something I am missing.

I will come back with some more data soon.

Is anyone else replicating? Would like to see some results other then mine? Just to confirm my measurements are not spirious.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 06, 2011, 04:39:47 AM

Steven & all

my apologies - i obviously had my brain in 'Park' last Friday!

the value for 'n' in my looped inverted sj1 circuit should be 1.62

(81uW In; 131uW Out)

i was obviously feeling greedy that day and tried to 'sneak' the DC Power Input in with the value for the total energy converted

Chris
this correction brings the 'n' for my system more in line with the results for your bi-filar system showing 'n' =  182 / 102= 1.78

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 06, 2011, 07:06:29 AM
Hi Nul-Points,

Thanks for the update. I was starting to think I was going mad.  :o

Its good to know this is something others are seeing. Before I go back to the single power coil I am going to try one more wind on my toroid. Instead of Tri-Filar, one filar for the feed back oscillator and two filars hooked in series like in the Tesla Patent, I am going to wind Bi-Filar power coil on 0.75 of the Toroid and a single coil on the other 0.25 part.

I will report results asap. If this fails then back to the last circuit.

All the best and thanks for reporting results!

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 06, 2011, 07:11:49 AM

Steven & all
[snip]
this correction brings the 'n' for my system more in line with the results for your bi-filar system showing 'n' =  182 / 102= 1.78
thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Chris:
Quote
@All - I have fixed the scope Probe draning he output problem, I put another diode in place where I had it before as well as the one Xee2 suggested. It has made a difference. Still getting OU Measurements.

Thank you so much for replications -- GREAT work!  very encouraging, although I realize much work remains to be done.

I'm here in Calif at a conference, where I have broached the topic of "new energy devices" with colleagues.  The research was surprisingly well-received.   Consensus is that we will need to:
1.  get the device to self-run
2.  do experiments to find out where the energy is coming from.

I'd like to contribute as much as I can to these critical steps.  Nul-pts and Chris, there have been variations to the basic circuit, which is great -- but would you re-post your "best" version please?  by Wed pm when I will finally get back to my home lab would be GREAT.  My plan is to replicate your latest versions, with your permission, and then proceed with steps 1 and 2 above, after I re-check the Pin and Pout with the Tek 3032...  I'll use a cap for Pin and measure Pin that way also, as a check.

I would appreciate some further discussion on point 2:   do experiments to find out where the energy is coming from.

A faraday cage will be an obvious start; having a self-running device would make such tests much easier.

I also have a few ideas to add... later, as I'm at a hotel again.  Surrounded right now by colleagues, discussing the problems at Fukushima (sp?) Japan with the leaking reactors -- and the oil spill in the Caribbean.  GREAT support for this energy research!

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 06, 2011, 07:14:26 AM
Hi Nul-Points,

Thanks for the update
[...]
I am going to try one more wind on my toroid. Instead of Tri-Filar, one filar for the feed back oscillator and two filars hooked in series like in the Tesla Patent
[...]
Chris

i guess it's a bit more evidence for Steven - i'm not sure if my DVM data is as representative/accurate as your scope data, though

i'm interested to hear how your new wind performs

i'm going to try for another view on the relative i/p to o/p energy - coming up...

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 06, 2011, 07:28:39 AM

Steven

i've 'unlooped' my inverted SJ1 circuit to try a  'cell-->circuit-->cell' setup

i believe that NiMHs are only about 50% efficient at storing i/p charge energy, so an approx.  value of 'n' = 2 would be required to maintain the charge in this new setup when swapping the two cells between test runs

with my updated value of 'n' = 1.6, we wouldn't expect to maintain charge

anyway, i've started monitoring terminal voltage trend data for the two cells to get another view of the performance for this system

member 'Tudi' has suggested connecting two SJ1 circuits 'back to back' to try for a self-running system

its looking to me like that test is going to be necessary to give a definitive answer to whether these values of 'n' > 1 can translate into clearly 'visible' improvement of performance

hope your trip has gone well

[EDIT:  apologies, Steven, our posts just crossed!  glad your conference is going well!  will be happy to help with more info where i can  - also, please feel free to use anything here of mine which proves useful

i'm using an inverted variant of your circuit at the moment for historical reasons (initially wanted to harvest coil-collapse current back into supply with just the original bi-filar windings) but  tertiary winding now decouples o/p current sense from driving circuit, so the loop-back & charging tests can be applied to your original configuration with an NPN transistor]

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi on June 06, 2011, 10:14:56 AM
@nul-points : the idea about having 3 circuits and not 2 is that in case it operates only in a specific volt/amp range, then you can divide the output of C1 to C2 and C3, then you can sum the output of C2 and C3 to see if it indeed scales.
It is possible that if you chain only 2 circuits in series, output of C2 will be the "same" as C1 ( In case there is a specific range this circuit will function. There is always a physical limit for physical devices )
+ Someone mentioned the output is inverted input. Chaining 2 circuits should eliminate the need of a rectifier.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 06, 2011, 11:45:57 AM

Hi All,

Steven, I agree. The most important thing is to get it to self run. Its different Measureing OU and actually having a machine that can self run and provide output power. In my opinion its important to find the best improvements to increase the output so we can step this up a knotch.

Where this power is comming from? I already have an idea but do not yet wish to discuss on the forums.

Nul-Points - Excellent work! I like your Circuit diagrams. Nice and clear.

I have some time on my hands for the next few hours now so will try a few more things out. I need to get some more parts, more high F Toriods and so on.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 06, 2011, 02:27:23 PM

Hi All,

I did not wind the Bi-Filar with a seperate single filar. But, I did wind another Bi-Filar and tested that.

N = 37

Nice result so far. I also started going through parts to see if I have exactly the same parts to build two circuits to try self looping. I hope tommorrow I will have two circuits running and then try to self loop.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Bruce_TPU on June 06, 2011, 04:06:34 PM
Hi All,

I did not wind the Bi-Filar with a seperate single filar. But, I did wind another Bi-Filar and tested that.

N = 37

Nice result so far. I also started going through parts to see if I have exactly the same parts to build two circuits to try self looping. I hope tommorrow I will have two circuits running and then try to self loop.

All the best

Chris

Hi Chris,

So your new winding nearly doubled the output?  A drawing of your bifilar when you have some time, as well as size wire, inductance, etc.  Very impressive results to say the least.  Was that the only thing that you changed from your version 4?

Cheers,

Bruce
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on June 06, 2011, 08:07:58 PM
What do you think about an
Amidon FT140A-J

goldmine is sold out of the G6683
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 07, 2011, 12:37:28 AM
Hi Chris,

So your new winding nearly doubled the output?  A drawing of your bifilar when you have some time, as well as size wire, inductance, etc.  Very impressive results to say the least.  Was that the only thing that you changed from your version 4?

Cheers,

Bruce

Hi All, Hi Bruce,

Input = 4.612 mw
Output = 168.32 mw

[EDIT : Wire Gauge is 0.8mm, 9 turns Bi-Filar, Ferrite toroid is 29mm long, 18.5mm OD, and 10mm ID]

Its a little messy but here it is.

All the Best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 07, 2011, 12:53:41 AM

Hi All,

There is a voltage drop accross R3. Here is the updated figure for the input: 5.537 mw

All the best

Chris

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 07, 2011, 01:17:49 AM

Hi All,

Small modification to Circuit V7. This is to ensure the Input Voltage reading is correct and remembering Input Current will now be netigive so adjust when measuring the input.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on June 07, 2011, 01:25:07 AM
You are not doing it right.

Your nice applet computations, to ridiculous false precision, are for strict DC and do not apply to the computation of power in signals that are ringing, oscillating and of very short duty cycles like you are measuring.
Taking the "Mean voltage" and the "Mean current" as computed by the scope, and multiplying them, does not give you anything meaningful for this signal.

The only valid way of measuring power for a signal of this type is to have your scope do a realtime, INSTANTANEOUS multiplication of the current and voltage values at each of its sampling instants. This resulting waveform will be your instantaneous power waveform, and it may be reasonably averaged..... but again, the "average power" is nearly useless for demonstrating any kind of COP or excess energy.

Note that last word: ENERGY. Only energy multiplication or production matters. And the ENERGY of this circuit, in and out, can be easily found, if you will only measure and compute the instantaneous power curve and then integrate it over a suitable time period.

And a note on precision: Your answer in any computation CANNOT be more precise than the LEAST precise of your input data. If you only know your voltage to the nearest millivolt, then your answer CANNOT POSSIBLY have twelve real digits of precision. In other words, the only thing you really know about a number like "254.54756382 milliwatts" is that it is... WRONG.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 07, 2011, 01:59:27 AM
You are not doing it right.

Your nice applet computations, to ridiculous false precision, are for strict DC and do not apply to the computation of power in signals that are ringing, oscillating and of very short duty cycles like you are measuring.
Taking the "Mean voltage" and the "Mean current" as computed by the scope, and multiplying them, does not give you anything meaningful for this signal.

The only valid way of measuring power for a signal of this type is to have your scope do a realtime, INSTANTANEOUS multiplication of the current and voltage values at each of its sampling instants. This resulting waveform will be your instantaneous power waveform, and it may be reasonably averaged..... but again, the "average power" is nearly useless for demonstrating any kind of COP or excess energy.

Note that last word: ENERGY. Only energy multiplication or production matters. And the ENERGY of this circuit, in and out, can be easily found, if you will only measure and compute the instantaneous power curve and then integrate it over a suitable time period.

And a note on precision: Your answer in any computation CANNOT be more precise than the LEAST precise of your input data. If you only know your voltage to the nearest millivolt, then your answer CANNOT POSSIBLY have twelve real digits of precision. In other words, the only thing you really know about a number like "254.54756382 milliwatts" is that it is... WRONG.

Hi TinselKoala,

You may have noticed, I am measuring nearly straight DC on the output. There is very little AC Wave, its more like a DC Ripple.

If you believe I am measuring this Circuit wrong please layout a guide for us to follow measuring it your way. I understand this circuit opens a bag of worms and is very tricky to measure and the only real way to prove OU is to simply make it self run.

What are you working on? It takes 5 minutes to build this Circuit, maybe yould like to throw it together and send us your results?

All the best

Chris

[P.S. My Scope is taking an average of 128 Points in taking these measurements by the way. If this is still not correct, please let me know.]
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Bruce_TPU on June 07, 2011, 03:48:40 AM
Hi TinselKoala,

You may have noticed, I am measuring nearly straight DC on the output. There is very little AC Wave, its more like a DC Ripple.

If you believe I am measuring this Circuit wrong please layout a guide for us to follow measuring it your way. I understand this circuit opens a bag of worms and is very tricky to measure and the only real way to prove OU is to simply make it self run.

What are you working on? It takes 5 minutes to build this Circuit, maybe yould like to throw it together and send us your results?

All the best

Chris

Hi Chris,

Great job on your write up, circuit and build.  I would not respond to TinselKoala, but that is just me.  Long story.

I am in the middle of a build on a "mechanical" TPU, in nearly all of my spare time, in testing for our Solid State Version.  But I do have time to offer a couple of suggestions.

First, build a second circuit identical to this one and see if your measurements are also close to identical.  And then as you wrote, combine the outputs (336 mw) and loop to input.

What ideas do you have to scale it up, aside from what we discussed yesterday, shrinking it, etc.?

Cheers,

Bruce

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 07, 2011, 04:04:10 AM
Hi Bruce,

Thanks for the advise. I am always open to constructive suggestions, TinselKoala has not replied and I don't expect one now. Maybe he has looked at my data again and thought other wise?

The first thing I plan to do is up the input voltage, and up the turns on the coil. We have seen some huge differences in just a few windings so I will also keep experimenting with this also. Load components need to be increased also.

You are right, I need to build another circuit and replicate the same conditions in another circuit. I am in progress doing this now.

The Hyperfast Diodes made a big difference to the output, you can see it is nearly DC now. My Scope, if I up the Res, does see lots of DC Ripple but wow what a difference. Oh, they are soft recovery, so they may have slightly higher internal capacitance?

Thanks again for the encouragement!

All the best

Chris

P.S. If anyone See's a mistake please let me know. Sometimes I work on this under tired wary conditions so like anyone I do make mistakes. I do try to always double check things however. A better way to do something is always a better way!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 07, 2011, 04:14:33 AM
What do you think about an
Amidon FT140A-J

goldmine is sold out of the G6683

Hi dimbulb,

I have not got any but yeah give them a go, try anything you can get your hands on.

best of luck

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 07, 2011, 06:54:29 AM
Chris -- I agree with Bruce-TPU that your design and build are looking very good.
I use the instantaneous power-waveform method, multiplying V(t) * I(t) for the power (input and output separately), and that's what gave me the super-efficiency result I reported, noting this is "evidence for" rather than proof.

Certainly no measurement method tops the self-running prototype.

Still traveling, visiting my son this evening.  He's sharp, in his thirties, has some good ideas about open source and getting a product out without the impedance/hindrance from the patent system... How to de-centralize production, etc..  (A bit ahead of where we are now, but something to plan for IMO>)

Still in Calif.  When I get back to my home lab, I can look at the power waveform and give you more feedback on your  latest versions, Chris and nul-pts.

The bottom line  I think is agreed by all -- we need to loop back (some of) the output power and feed it back into the input and get a self-runner.  The first bona fide self-runner "wins"!

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi on June 07, 2011, 08:39:23 AM
Chris, i read eagerly your every update and cross my fingers that you succeed. I'm a professional noob and can't build even such a simple circuit, so you guys are my super heroes :P.
Since day 1 i tried to convince people that you should be trying to extract / store the output energy in any form you wish ( heat, mechanical, electrical ) instead looping it back. Such a circuit can behave as an energy storage system : slowly draining input, using it for some type of consumer a part of the energy, looping it back.. after a while a balance builds up about the amount it is consumed/eaten up/looped. Probably this is what you are measuring. This is why i think the looping idea as nice it sounds, it is not valid as long as you are constantly feeding the circuit.
I also think that at this frequency it is almost irelevant to try to make precise measurements. I and V might be out of phase, your osciloscope has 1 time reference point and you are measuring at 2 points. Use at least 2 scopes to be able to obtain in phase scope V(t)*I(t) measurements. Even so. This circuit according to osciloscope tends to be in the range of MegaHertz. Most osciloscopes crap out at even Kilohertz range. I think the simplest proof is that you get negative input values. You can make 128 point measurements / second but at MHz range that is 1million / 128 precision ( 0.000128 % correctness in 1 second interval for energy amount ? )
Don't take these as negative comments. As i said. I'm just a noob trying to contribute what i can.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 07, 2011, 09:50:06 AM

Hi All,

I have spent a few hours today trying to get the Dual Circuit, see below Picture, to run itself. So far, no luck. Still working on it.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 07, 2011, 09:58:06 AM

Hi Tudi,

I agree, there is a looping there, I am at the point now that I am going to try NON Polarised Caps in my Circuit to try to get the Looping running better.

Its entirely possible, like Steven said, this Circuit is not OU. Even though it does consistently give good measurements, it may not be.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hoppy on June 07, 2011, 10:00:11 AM
Whist I agree wih TK about getting meaningful measurements, I disagree with him that mean readings across a shunt resistor are meaningless. A comparative reading is quite possible. I need to try out a bifilar coil but so far as I reported earlier, using a conventionally wound coil gives me a result way under unity as expected.

Chris, if you measure the voltage across C2 with a parallel connected 1K load (without the LED in circuit) and multply this by the shunt current or simply square the voltage across the load resistor and divide by 1000, I will be most surprised if you get anything above 60% front to back efficiency. You can do this with a DVM. I'm not sure where you are getting your output voltage from but if its across the shunt, you can't use this  to work out the power consumed by the load. All components in the output circuit will consume power at a ratio determined by their respective resistances. Most importantly, power sharing also applies to all components in the input circuit.

Hoppy
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: woopy on June 07, 2011, 10:11:31 AM
Hi Chris

i am crossing my fingers for your looping

thanks for sharing your remarquable work

Go on this superb work

and good luck at all

Laurent
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 07, 2011, 11:07:31 AM
Hi Hoppy,

Thanks for your advise and encouragement! Yes, I have tried the 1K resistor in the early Circuits. You can see i have ensured I have put measuring points on my Circuits, Vout is accross C2, Iout is accross Shunt, or R4, and the same on the input side.

Although no Electronice Engineer, I agree with you and this should be a fairly comparitive measurement if only a guide, its still pretty accurate most of the time.

Below are the two circuits I have gone through and checked. It takes some adjusting, but an Over Unity Measurement is possible the way you described.

[EDIT - I just want to add, I went through about 50 different types of Fet's/Transistors/JFet's to get one that gave a nice result. Its Important that the Transistor is chosen carefully.]

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 07, 2011, 11:08:56 AM
Hi Woopy,

Thanks, I hope it comes off. My Fingers are crossed also. As yet, no luck.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hoppy on June 07, 2011, 11:46:50 AM
Hi Chris,

Thanks for posting your circuits again for clarity. Have you worked out the power consumed by L1 / L2, as this should be added to the power consumed by the shunt resistor to gain a total input power measurement?

Hoppy
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 07, 2011, 11:54:22 AM

Hi Hoppy,

Could you please explain this further? In my understanding, in Circuit V7, all power being consumed in the input side of the circuit should pass through the Input Shunt Resistor R2 giving a total calculation of the Input Current to the rest of the Circuit? Is this not correct? Have I missed something?

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi on June 07, 2011, 12:08:47 PM
Chris: the output is inversed as the input as i heard. Summing this in looped mode with the power source might still give a different result then feeding it directly to C2. You might need to invert the output of C1 before feeding it to C2
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 07, 2011, 12:26:51 PM

Hi Tudi,

Yes, It is Inverted. It makes self Looping very difficult. Still working on it, no success yet.

Wont it be nice to build a small circuit that powers itself... Nice.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hoppy on June 07, 2011, 01:26:31 PM
Hi Hoppy,

Could you please explain this further? In my understanding, in Circuit V7, all power being consumed in the input side of the circuit should pass through the Input Shunt Resistor R2 giving a total calculation of the Input Current to the rest of the Circuit? Is this not correct? Have I missed something?

All the best

Chris

Chris,

The shunt resistor is just a convenient way of measuring the current in the complete circuit. Power does not pass through components, it is consumed by them, so each components dissipation is additive. Once you add the coil dissipation and dissipation in the transistor itself, then the total will be found to be much greater than the total power dissipation in the output circuit. Power in Watts over time in seconds = energy in Joules and its energy 'in' v 'out' that's important to get a full picture of efficiency.

Hoppy

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 07, 2011, 05:37:27 PM
@ hyiq

I think you should confirm the scope readings by replacing R4, D2, and VR2 in circuit V7 with a 1 K resistor and computing the output power by measuring the voltage across the 1 K resistor with a battery powered DVM. Watts = volts squared divided by resistance. Since the output is close to DC, this should give readings close to the scope readings. If not, the scope may not be giving accurate results.

EDIT:  using a 10 K resistor will produce higher voltage readings and may thus be more accurate.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 07, 2011, 05:53:22 PM

How I made the power measurements is as follows, see attached schematic for the numbers of the points on the circuit where scope connections were made.

Pinput:  Connect 2 probe grounds to point 1.  Then one probe to point 2 (for current measurement, voltage across 1-ohm resistor) and one probe to point 3 (for voltage measurement).  Probes x10.
Then Pin = the math product of the two probe voltages.  I then take numerous cycles of the waveform and have the Tek 3032 calculate the MEAN input power.

Poutput:  Connect 2 probe grounds to point 4.  Then one probe to point 5 (for current measurement, voltage across 1-ohm resistor) and one probe to point 6 (for voltage measurement).  Probes x10.
Then Pin = the math product of the two probe voltages.  I then take numerous cycles of the waveform and have the Tek 3032 calculate the MEAN output power.
Note that when Rr is zero/removed, then point 4 is connected to/becomes point 1 and one does not have to move the two ground probe-connections when going from Pin to Pout measurements.

I have also measured Pin (as a check) using the Cap/stop-watch method described on the thread.  Ein = 1/2CV**2 and Pin = Ein/time.  This gave me Pinput ~ 0.23 to 1.1 mW, on two separately-built devices.  This measurement is in reasonable agreement with the Tek 3032 method described above, but appears to disagree with the DMM measurement method.  I trust the Cap/time method the best as this relies simply on input Energy and the time for the partial discharge of the cap -- and the voltages on the Cap before and after the run are done with the cap disconnected from the circuit.

Poutput could be measured via temperature rise on Ro, eliminating the need for CSRout.  In that case, I would replace LEDout with a diode.  I have not done that test yet.

In these ways, one could measure Pin and Pout without the use of oscilloscopes.

But I think that a self-running device would demonstrate super-efficiency more compellingly than such measurements.

Best wishes,
Steve
On the road again in minutes

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on June 07, 2011, 07:24:20 PM
Hi Bruce,

Thanks for the advise. I am always open to constructive suggestions, TinselKoala has not replied and I don't expect one now. Maybe he has looked at my data again and thought other wise?
(snip)

P.S. If anyone See's a mistake please let me know. Sometimes I work on this under tired wary conditions so like anyone I do make mistakes. I do try to always double check things however. A better way to do something is always a better way!

I'm trying, I really am.
If you want to see some of what I've been working on in the past, you can look at my YT channel, and put "Joule Thief" into the search window. I have posted a couple of videos concerning measurement of energy using oscilloscopes in the Joule Thief and in the Rosemary Ainslie circuit. Please note the dates, they are pretty old.
Also, you might look at the Rosemary Ainslie thread here, and look at what poynt99 is trying to illustrate.
The main problem that I see here is that some intelligent and creative people are wasting a lot of time making meaningless measurements, when they have the apparatus at hand to attack the problem properly. They might not get results they like, though, and THAT is really the problem.
I am willing to do "power analyses" the same way you are doing them. Let's start with my TinselKoil and see what kind of COP we get. I am also willing to do them properly and share the techniques for doing so.
Now... are you willing to do the measurements the way I suggest, just for comparison's sake? That is, use the amount of energy in a cap bank, applied over a period of time, for input energy, and use the integrated instantaneous power curve over the same time, for output energy, and compare the two, for a true COP efficiency value?

(ETA: Once we are taking proper energy measurements, we can start talking about probe placement, stray inductances and circuit layout. These are so critical that they can actually have large effects on measurements and the calculated values derived from them. Very very large.....)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on June 07, 2011, 07:41:04 PM
Perhaps the difficulty is that it isn't being understood, that the energy is calculated by multiplying the Power times the Time over which the power is dissipated.
In the DC case, the "instantaneous" multiplication of voltage and current yields a straight line. So you just take some time period... like a scope screen .... and multiply the "average power" in Watts, which is also the value of the straight line power, by the time interval in Seconds, and that gives you the energy in Joules passing your measurement point in that time period.
It's just the same problem as finding the area of a rectangle, with the height equal to the wattage and the width equal to the time.
The "Integration" of any curve, geometrically, corresponds to the area under it, just like in the rectangular case above. Find the area and you've done the integration. For a rectangle DC waveform that's easy, it's height times width. But for a real AC HF power curve you can't do that.
So... for a complicated signal like an instantaneous power waveform, you need some way of approximating the area under it during a time interval, to get to the Joules of energy. I've described a simple manual way of doing it using tracing paper, but it's fairly easy --if relatively expensive, ha ha -- nowadays to get the oscilloscope to do it for you.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Omega_0 on June 07, 2011, 07:47:05 PM
@hyiq

I agree with TK. Setup a measurement protocol first.
Since you are in a milli and micro range, nothing is reliable. Even touching the probe or keeping a PC on besides it will alter everything.

Since the waveforms don't allow direct looping back, the only way is proper measurements. (For those who don't have expensive calorimeters)

I'd also advise you to go back to the original circuit of Prof. We all have a tendency to forget that we are doing a "Replication" and start twisting the original to suit our own convenience. I see that you are falling in the same trap.

All the best.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: yfree on June 08, 2011, 01:50:50 AM
@hyiq

Chris,
You should watch this video:
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 08, 2011, 05:17:37 AM

Hi All,

Yes I agree.  Thanks for your advise. I think I will wait for Dr Jones to come back and check this circuit, then work together. I have gone a bit off track and am starting to loose the focus of this replication effort.

To prove or dis prove an above unity circuit...

Hoppy, sorry for the questions, so does that mean, a "Sense Resistor" is not a good idea of measurements?

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hyiq on June 08, 2011, 05:29:15 AM
I am willing to do "power analyses" the same way you are doing them. Let's start with my TinselKoil and see what kind of COP we get. I am also willing to do them properly and share the techniques for doing so.
Now... are you willing to do the measurements the way I suggest, just for comparison's sake? That is, use the amount of energy in a cap bank, applied over a period of time, for input energy, and use the integrated instantaneous power curve over the same time, for output energy, and compare the two, for a true COP efficiency value?

(ETA: Once we are taking proper energy measurements, we can start talking about probe placement, stray inductances and circuit layout. These are so critical that they can actually have large effects on measurements and the calculated values derived from them. Very very large.....)

Hi Tinselkoala,

Yes, A better way to do something is always a better way. I am prepared to measure this circuit your way. Like I said, always open to suggestions.

All the best

Chris
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hoppy on June 08, 2011, 09:39:03 AM
Hi All,

Yes I agree.  Thanks for your advise. I think I will wait for Dr Jones to come back and check this circuit, then work together. I have gone a bit off track and am starting to loose the focus of this replication effort.

To prove or dis prove an above unity circuit...

Hoppy, sorry for the questions, so does that mean, a "Sense Resistor" is not a good idea of measurements?

All the best

Chris

Chris,

A sense / shunt resistor will allow you to scope the current waveform whilst adding negligible load to the circuit. However, when dealing with complex waveforms and looking at efficiency, this is more involved and its necessary to have a good understanding of electrical principles. TK has the knowledge to guide you well on the right way to do this.

Hoppy
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on June 08, 2011, 10:41:30 AM
@hyiq

Chris,
You should watch this video:

Dear yfree,

If you understand Russian, does it turn out how long his 'free energy circuit' runs?
He charges up the input capacitor on the left side of his schematic first with the 12V battery, then the circuit runs from that (puffer) capacitor.  Because this circuit is basically a tipical blocking oscillator, with the usual spike waveforms and with very little current consumption, I believe the run time just depends on how long the initial charge lasts in the capacitor.
Of course the output of the oscillator is rectified and fed back to the puffer capacitor as an additional supply voltage, making the run time longer than without the feedback.
So I wonder how long his circuit has run for him?
I built blocking oscillators in the past and they run for about half an hour from a 4700uF puffer capacitor but once the charge was consumed from the capacitor the circuit stopped. I wonder why he calls this a free energy circuit? Maybe his circuit does not stop?

Thanks,  Gyula
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jmmac on June 08, 2011, 11:33:35 AM
I don't know Russian but what i understood from the video was that, he first shunted the capacitor on the left then he charged the capacitor using the battery and left the circuit to run alone without battery. As he does this, he shows the waveform of the pulses on the scope so that we can see its amplitude. When the circuit starts running alone, the amplitude decreases (maybe because the capacitor on the right is charging) and then increases again and stabilizes.

If my understanding is correct and there is no trick, then this should mean the circuit is self running with at least n = 2 since capacitor charging dissipates 50% of the energy by joule effect.

This seems to be an interesting circuit to compare with. It uses a separated coil to collect the energy and with less turns than the primary coil so that the pulses have lower amplitude and greater current. This should make it easier to feedback. The 'collecting coil' also has a middle connection that allows full wave rectifying of the pulses with only 2 diodes instead of 4 which means less voltage drop (0.7V instead of 1.4V).

Regards,
Jaime

Dear yfree,

If you understand Russian, does it turn out how long his 'free energy circuit' runs?
He charges up the input capacitor on the left side of his schematic first with the 12V battery, then the circuit runs from that (puffer) capacitor.  Because this circuit is basically a tipical blocking oscillator, with the usual spike waveforms and with very little current consumption, I believe the run time just depends on how long the initial charge lasts in the capacitor.
Of course the output of the oscillator is rectified and fed back to the puffer capacitor as an additional supply voltage, making the run time longer than without the feedback.
So I wonder how long his circuit has run for him?
I built blocking oscillators in the past and they run for about half an hour from a 4700uF puffer capacitor but once the charge was consumed from the capacitor the circuit stopped. I wonder why he calls this a free energy circuit? Maybe his circuit does not stop?

Thanks,  Gyula
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: futuristic on June 08, 2011, 01:48:43 PM
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on June 08, 2011, 02:51:19 PM
I don't know Russian but what i understood from the video was that, he first shunted the capacitor on the left then he charged the capacitor using the battery and left the circuit to run alone without battery. As he does this, he shows the waveform of the pulses on the scope so that we can see its amplitude. When the circuit starts running alone, the amplitude decreases (maybe because the capacitor on the right is charging) and then increases again and stabilizes.

If my understanding is correct and there is no trick, then this should mean the circuit is self running with at least n = 2 since capacitor charging dissipates 50% of the energy by joule effect.

This seems to be an interesting circuit to compare with. It uses a separated coil to collect the energy and with less turns than the primary coil so that the pulses have lower amplitude and greater current. This should make it easier to feedback. The 'collecting coil' also has a middle connection that allows full wave rectifying of the pulses with only 2 diodes instead of 4 which means less voltage drop (0.7V instead of 1.4V).

Regards,
Jaime

Hi Jaime,

Thanks for your answer. I fully agree with your observations as happening in the video but let me quote this from you:

"If my understanding is correct and there is no trick, then this should mean the circuit is self running with at least n = 2 since capacitor charging dissipates 50% of the energy by joule effect."

While I believe there is no trick involved I think we have to elaborate on what your n=2 could exactly mean. Is it a COP of two?  (COP= coefficience of performance when you compare total output power to the input power you furnished in)  But if COP=2 then it should mean the puffer capacitor would not be discharged ever, right?  [Years ago I found about a half an hour run for such blocking oscillator (it was from Naudin TEP circuits if I recall correctly), then the 4700uF puffer cap gradually got discharged.]

Or we should introduce a so called temporary COP term where such circuits like this extend the total discharge time for the puffer cap when their ouput power is fed back to the input as an additional supply voltage?  Because this is what I believe happens here: run time is extended and your n=2 may mean run time doubles?

So it is ok that this circuit self-runs but the big question is: for how long? for hours? days or weeks? more?

By definition a COP of 2 means the run time is theoritically endless (in practice it boils down to the first component failure which can be many months or years).

This is why I think a temporary COP ought to be established lol to characterize such circuits, assuming of course what I think that this circuit stoppes working after some definite time like half an hour, an hour etc.

Thanks,  Gyula
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jmmac on June 08, 2011, 04:06:13 PM
Hi Gyula,

About the 50% energy dissipation when charging a capacitor, it happens when you charge a capacitor using a resistor, for example. I'm not sure anymore if it happens in this case. Maybe someone else can say something about this.
If there is no energy loss, then my conclusion is wrong!

n (COP) is a ratio between the energy that enters and leaves the system by unit time (or power). In this case there is feedback and in order to maintain the system going forever, n must be >1. Since i was considering a 50% loss in the capacitor charging, the system had to compensate that with at least n=2 (EDIT: Here I was not counting the capacitor as belonging to the "system").

I don't have much experience with this kind of circuits but i'd guess the energy dissipation in the diodes alone, would be sufficient to lower the capacitor voltage and the amplitude of the oscillations in a small amount of time. Maybe i'm wrong.

Regards,
Jaime

Hi Jaime,

Thanks for your answer. I fully agree with your observations as happening in the video but let me quote this from you:

"If my understanding is correct and there is no trick, then this should mean the circuit is self running with at least n = 2 since capacitor charging dissipates 50% of the energy by joule effect."

While I believe there is no trick involved I think we have to elaborate on what your n=2 could exactly mean. Is it a COP of two?  (COP= coefficience of performance when you compare total output power to the input power you furnished in)  But if COP=2 then it should mean the puffer capacitor would not be discharged ever, right?  [Years ago I found about a half an hour run for such blocking oscillator (it was from Naudin TEP circuits if I recall correctly), then the 4700uF puffer cap gradually got discharged.]

Or we should introduce a so called temporary COP term where such circuits like this extend the total discharge time for the puffer cap when their ouput power is fed back to the input as an additional supply voltage?  Because this is what I believe happens here: run time is extended and your n=2 may mean run time doubles?

So it is ok that this circuit self-runs but the big question is: for how long? for hours? days or weeks? more?

By definition a COP of 2 means the run time is theoritically endless (in practice it boils down to the first component failure which can be many months or years).

This is why I think a temporary COP ought to be established lol to characterize such circuits, assuming of course what I think that this circuit stoppes working after some definite time like half an hour, an hour etc.

Thanks,  Gyula
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: yfree on June 08, 2011, 05:12:08 PM
@jmmac, @gyulasun,

My understanding of Russian is limited, self-taught.
jmmac, you are correct in understanding the video. The experiment has it's own thread. It starts somewhere here: http://www.001-lab.com/001lab/index.php?topic=1056.2800  , unfortunately it is in Russian. You will notice there that the schematic was updated with the capacitor in parallel with the collector coil. This tunes the ringing of the oscillator to the natural frequency of the ferrite. Somewhere in the thread he, Tiger2007, explains how to identify this natural frequency: a coil is wound on the ferrite and driven with the square-wave, the ringing occurring during the transitions of the waveform is at the natural frequency of the ferrite.

Best regards,

yfree
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on June 08, 2011, 07:18:16 PM
Hi Gyula,

About the 50% energy dissipation when charging a capacitor, it happens when you charge a capacitor using a resistor, for example. I'm not sure anymore if it happens in this case. Maybe someone else can say something about this.
If there is no energy loss, then my conclusion is wrong!

n (COP) is a ratio between the energy that enters and leaves the system by unit time (or power). In this case there is feedback and in order to maintain the system going forever, n must be >1. Since i was considering a 50% loss in the capacitor charging, the system had to compensate that with at least n=2 (EDIT: Here I was not counting the capacitor as belonging to the "system").

I don't have much experience with this kind of circuits but i'd guess the energy dissipation in the diodes alone, would be sufficient to lower the capacitor voltage and the amplitude of the oscillations in a small amount of time. Maybe i'm wrong.

Regards,
Jaime

Hi Jaime,

My understanding of this circuit shown in the Russian video with respect to the right hand side capacitor charging is that it is not a direct cap to cap discharge-charge scenario (where the 50% loss occurs if done directly): the left hand side (puffer) cap feeds the circuit and a circuit's component the coil's collapsing field charges up the right hand side cap. So a 50% loss in this charge transfer cannot occur as it does with a direct cap-to-cap setup: the energy comes from collapsing magnetic field when no energy is taken from the input (puffer) capacitor. This is how I think this works.
So there is some energy loss in this process but nowhere near the 50%.

The energy dissipation in the diodes can be minimized by using Germanium types like 1N34A types, also the transistor's saturation voltage could also be minimized by a good switching type bipolar transistor.
Question is still valid: how long can such a selfrunning circuit run?  :)

Thanks,  Gyula
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on June 08, 2011, 07:41:25 PM
@jmmac, @gyulasun,

My understanding of Russian is limited, self-taught.
jmmac, you are correct in understanding the video. The experiment has it's own thread. It starts somewhere here: http://www.001-lab.com/001lab/index.php?topic=1056.2800  , unfortunately it is in Russian. You will notice there that the schematic was updated with the capacitor in parallel with the collector coil. This tunes the ringing of the oscillator to the natural frequency of the ferrite. Somewhere in the thread he, Tiger2007, explains how to identify this natural frequency: a coil is wound on the ferrite and driven with the square-wave, the ringing occurring during the transitions of the waveform is at the natural frequency of the ferrite.

Best regards,

yfree

Hi yfree,

Thanks and unfortunately my Russian is rather rusty and miserable so if sometimes I catch one or two words it is a success...  ;D

It is interesting that Tiger2007 tunes the coil hence the oscillator to the natural frequency of the ferrite and I assume when he shows the blown-up scope shot in the video on the ringing he just mentiones that. Maybe a magnetostrictive movement of the core material is achieved here (like in transducer used in an ultrasonic cleaner, not in a piezo but in a magnetic type) and this might give some extra juice. If this is so and this process is involved in the extended running time, then maybe it is worth experimenting with it further on. It would be good to read Tiger2007's findings on this circuit with respect to the longest runtime.

rgds,  Gyula
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on June 08, 2011, 07:44:50 PM

Thanks for this link too and if you happen to figure out info on the runtime, please mention it here.

Gyula
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 09, 2011, 01:03:22 PM
I'm back from the trip to California where I spoke to colleagues.  A brief summary of where we stand on the blocking oscillator OU? device seems in order.

1.  After months of development and learning, the initial device was tested by me using a Tektronix 3032 scope to measure  I(t) as voltage drop across a 1-ohm resistor and V(t) and the instantaneous Power was displayed as the product:  P(t) = V(t) * I(t).  Then the Tek3032 was used to calculate the MEAN power from this waveform, over numerous cycles.  Finally, I calculated n = Poutput / Pinput and found n ~ 8 for this circuit, by this method.
My early measurements involved hand-integration of the energy of the power waveforms for Pin and Pout, P(t) = V(t) * I(t), for one cycle, and these integrations yielding Ein and Eout also showed n>1 (back in the Feb-March 2011 time frame).

2.  The same procedure using the Tek3032 was followed for an "exact-as-possible" replication of the circuit by Les Kraut, which showed again n ~ 8.  At this point, I noted that we had "evidence for" (NOT "proof of") OU and shared the straightforward circuit design publicly, inviting any who wanted to test/develop the circuit to do so.  It was the success of the replication and pushing by Sterling Allan that induced me to release the development publicly -- to those willing to build and test the device.  I am a strong supporter of open source development of alternate-energy devices.

3.  In both cases, mine and Les', the input power was tuned (using especially the variable resistors in the circuit) to be close to zero.

4.  The low value of the input power  was checked using the input-capacitor + stop-watch method, Ein = 1/2 CV**2 and Pin = Ein /time, and the values came out:  0.23 mW for my initial circuit and 1.1 mW for Les Kraut's replication, with the output LED dimly but visibly lit in both cases.

5.  I urged replicators to assure that the Pinput was in this low range with the output LED lit, as a first test of whether the replication was in the same ballpark as our DUT's.

6.  Chris built a replication then several versions, measuring n>1 but by a different method which was challenged...  Chris found that sometimes the circuit would stop producing n>1 (by his measurement), and he worked on the stability of the circuit.  He is attempting to build a self-running version as am I.

7.  A few others built or are building replications, but again the power-measurement is a difficult issue, especially for the output power.

8.  We discussed various power or energy measurement methods to check/complement the math-mean method using an advanced scope to evaluate power, including use of capacitors and use of a calorimeter.  But the self-running system would be the most compelling (in my opinion and that of others).

9.   It was noted that Russian work shows an apparently similar long-running blocking-oscillator circuit, again all solid state, but the Russian is hard to read and how long it runs is not yet understood.

Thanks for this link too and if you happen to figure out info on the runtime, please mention it here.

Gyula

Agreed -- again the link to the Russian blocking oscillator is here:  http://freeenergylt.narod2.ru/vladimir_pantiuhov/   I have been to Russia for conferences on fusion energy a couple of times, but I do not read enough Russian to be of help in understanding Pantiuhov's work.  If someone could post the "best" schematic from this Russian research, it would be appreciated.

10.  As for myself, I'm planning to work on the circuit using first the method of capacitor-in and output-capacitors -- in order to better understand energy-flow in this circuit.  Then I will proceed with an effort to build a self-runner.  This may take several days or even weeks -- patience requested.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 09, 2011, 02:37:35 PM

welcome back Steven, i hope your trip was successful and enjoyable (as much as a several hundred mile road trip allows!)

i too have doubts now, as expressed by some with their own readings, as to the validity of my DVM measurements - even when filtered

in one test where readings suggested a value for n > 1,  i checked by observing the load value just sustained by the o/p cap

my system was able to sustain a load of approx 82K ohms, equivalent to an o/p DC power of approx 18uW, but the filtered i/p DC power (according to DVM) was approx 50uW

however, in another experiment (detailed above) i noted that the DC power equivalent o/p from the LED was approx 80uW, which approached that of the measured DC power i/p from an external cell - whilst in addition to the LED o/p it appeared that the o/p feedback was also contributing a similar level of mutual input to the oscillator

further investigation definitely needed!

i am presently testing another variation to see if it's possible for the system to feedback any excess charge into its own supply, using a diode in place of the LED

this new setup also adds an extra transistor to connect the battery only when the o/p oscillation stops

the o/p is fed back both to the oscillator (with buffer capacitor), so that it can sustain a certain amount of operation from an intermittent connection to the cell, and also to the cell

in practice, the operation is such that around 6 short bursts of oscillation occur per second, each burst lasting approx 400us

the cell voltage is certainly rising, but this kind of test is notorious for producing 'false positives' due to cell 'recovery' after previous loading, so it will be necessary to give this particular test a good long run to establish if it can continue to sustain or increase cell voltage

i'll report back as appropriate

good luck with your ongoing investigations, Steven, Chris & any other replicators

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 09, 2011, 04:43:29 PM

welcome back Steven, [...]

i am presently testing another variation to see if it's possible for the system to feedback any excess charge into its own supply, using a diode in place of the LED

this new setup also adds an extra transistor to connect the battery only when the o/p oscillation stops

the o/p is fed back both to the oscillator (with buffer capacitor), so that it can sustain a certain amount of operation from an intermittent connection to the cell, and also to the cell

in practice, the operation is such that around 6 short bursts of oscillation occur per second, each burst lasting approx 400us

the cell voltage is certainly rising, but this kind of test is notorious for producing 'false positives' due to cell 'recovery' after previous loading, so it will be necessary to give this particular test a good long run to establish if it can continue to sustain or increase cell voltage

i'll report back as appropriate

good luck with your ongoing investigations, Steven, Chris & any other replicators

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Very interesting approach, np.
I really like this community of EXPERIMENTERS.  That's the way to get answers, by experiments.  You guys have jumped in and made the measurements, and reported results and its so refreshing!

I also wish success to ongoing investigations, including the Muller/Romero and other approaches.  The solid state approach under discussion here has advantages of ease of build and testing, and I'm learning a lot from this experiment.

Thanks again,
Steven
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: yfree on June 09, 2011, 05:46:55 PM
@All

In the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcftGrBEaL0&feature=player_embedded#at=25, Tiger2007 says he does not know how long it would run. However, later in his forum, he explains that the longest time it ran was 20 hours; it runs nicely during the day, but at night it tends to stop (temperature dependence?). He also tried to load it with the LED but the voltage was  dropping. When he disconnected the LED, the voltage went up again and stabilized at 7 - 9 V as it usually does. The capacitor he is using after the rectifier is 6 x 2.2 mF. I understand he is still working on this project.
I stumbled on this accidentally, as I understand Russian to the point of being able to read scientific literature in Russian, although my Russian is self-taught and passive. If you have any further questions, I will try to answer them to the best of my ability.

Best regards,

yfree
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: beno on June 09, 2011, 07:02:56 PM
@yfree:
The issue with that the circuit tends to stop at night is most likely caused by that it fetch energy from the ambient environment.

You would actually see the same if you connected an antenna to a capacitor (through a rectifier - which one can make of four diodes), and measured the charging capability during the day and night, and in different weather.

If you measure this, like I have, you'll see that:

* The charging capability tends to decrease at night
* I found that it tends to be reverted comparing to the weather - by this I mean: The charging capability tends to be bad in good weather, but good in bad weather (like rain).

Best regards

Beno
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: beno on June 09, 2011, 07:32:47 PM
Now the question remains why?

Does the charging capability seems to decrease at night .. This could be because of less electric noise pollution from radiostations, mobilephones and so on at night

Does the charging capability seems to be good in bad weather .. well one also see more lightning in bad weather than in good  ;)

Best regards

beno
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jmmac on June 09, 2011, 09:35:49 PM
Hi yfree and beno,

This information that the russian circuit works longer during the day is very interesting. I've been learning about the work of prof. Konstantin Meyl (which claims to have achieved overunity with a setup similar to one by Tesla) and he has a theory that it's possible to extract energy from the solar neutrino flux that constantly goes through the earth. He states that scientists are now learning that neutrinos interact with the earth and a part of that flux is absorbed. He says that the neutrino flux measured during the night is about half that measured during the day - because at night the neutrinos have to cross the earth to reach the detectors.

I tried to confirm this on the web ... and found a different explanation to the differences in neutrino flux measurements. See: http://140.119.115.32/sa/pdf.file/en/e015/e015p048.pdf
It explains neutrino research and observations and it seems that neutrinos oscillate between different states as they travel from the sun to earth. When they reach earth (daytime side) there are more neutrinos in one particular state and when the flux reaches the other side of the earth (nighttime side), the flux has changed and there is less neutrinos in that state. See page 5 of the document - there is a good illustration of this phenomena.

This could be an explanation to why the russian circuit works longer during the day - somehow it is able to interfere with a particular kind of neutrino and extract energy, and that kind of neutrino is more present during the day. Who knows!

Regards,
Jaime

@All

In the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcftGrBEaL0&feature=player_embedded#at=25, Tiger2007 says he does not know how long it would run. However, later in his forum, he explains that the longest time it run was 20 hours; it runs nicely during the day, but at night it tends to stop (temperature dependence?). He also tried to load it with the LED but the voltage was  dropping. When he disconnected the LED, the voltage went up again and stabilized at 7 - 9 V as it usually does. The capacitor he is using after the rectifier is 6 x 2.2 mF. I understand he is still working on this project.
I stumbled on this accidentally, as I understand Russian to the point of being able to read scientific literature in Russian, although my Russian is self-taught and passive. If you have any further questions, I will try to answer them to the best of my ability.

Best regards,

yfree
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on June 10, 2011, 12:22:36 AM
Hi Folks,

yfree,

Thanks for the interesting infos.  I recall Floyd Sweet also found his setup performed differently during the nights vs daytime.
Well, 20 hours run time sounds good. Hopefully it can be improved to COP>1.
His using a LED as a load proved to be too much load for that circuit, max some ten to some hundred microwatt power is involved. that is why measurements are very hard to do. Looping seems also difficult because the self consumption of the switch mode DC-DC converter (I believe it is needed) is hard to build for small currents but still high efficiency but perhaps not impossible.

jmmac,

The neutrino issue sounds believable, at least not impossible, an approach not to be rejected offhand, thanks for the link.

beno,

Some years ago I was in a yahoo mailgroup where such blocking oscillators were 'at stake' and once a member reported his circuit continued running when he disconnected its battery. Then, some hours later he realized his circuit picked up some EM radiation from his laptop that was placed on the same table he normally tinkered with circuits.
So enviromental 'inputs' can enter our setups but we have to be aware of all man-made signals, radiations, near-fields etc when doing tests.

Thanks,  Gyula
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi on June 10, 2011, 10:14:29 AM
As long as it can make 1 lightbulb shine "forever" for everyone in the city. I would be happy to accept almost any source of energy that does not cause some harm ( like eat up radio signals ).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 10, 2011, 12:01:11 PM
Now the question remains why?

Does the charging capability seems to decrease at night .. This could be because of less electric noise pollution from radiostations, mobilephones and so on at night

Best regards

beno

hi all

apologies for a marathon post here - i hope you will consider it all to be on-topic wrt recent posts

firstly, from observing my 'slower' variation of Steven's circuit (approx 25uS pulses with a very low 'mark-to-space' ratio, more like the Russian circuit) i see a decreasing amplitude 'sine'-like oscillation, approx 55kHz, immediately after the pulse

this sine wave is occurring when the system enters a high-impedance state when the 'driven' pulses stop - ie. no load, little dissipation

the wave usually decreases as a small amount of energy remaining in the self-resonant winding setup dissipates during each cycle

i've found that this waveform is significantly reduced or 'killed' by applying any load - the energy left in the system just dissipates more quickly

when i was experimenting with different forms of feedback in the last few days, i added a 'tuning' cap across the o/p winding (as per the Russian cct) and i could easily get the sine waveform to sustain for several seconds after the intended pulses had stopped (at the same amplitude, approx 1V) until the sine suddenly 'snapped' to off

interestingly, when i replaced the transistor base bias variable resistor (250K ohms) with a schottky diode (1N5187), using the reverse leakage of the diode as a very high impedance bias 'resistor', the circuit spontaneously started to produce this 55kHz sine wave of approx 250mV pk-pk (from cap charge alone) without ever getting into pulse generation mode

i watched it for several minutes to see if it started to decrease in amplitude and, if anything, it appeared to continuously fluctuate up & down slightly, without any obvious pattern

i suspect that these oscillators can operate in a very high-impedance mode (as if the whole circuit has a high 'Q' factor) and they can use remnant voltage in the system very efficiently

however, my requirement was to generate short bursts of pulsed energy which i could feedback into a NiMH cell, and since this 'continuous' wave couldn't provide sufficient amplitude or power to achieve this, i noted that this behaviour was interesting, but not useful to me at this time

i suspect that the Russian circuit is showing similar behaviour

my second comment, relating to all this, picks up on a couple of other investigations i've done - one a couple of years ago, monitoring the self-charge of capacitors, and the other an ongoing experiment with simple D-I-Y cells

in both these experiments i've recorded a daily fluctuation of self-charge of isolated (and enclosed in metal case) systems

the major correlation of the self-charge appears to be temperature, but other factors have appeared to contribute also, and sometimes these seem to link to astronomical conditions

in one test, i used a capacitor which previously had been shunted by a 1M ohm resistor for at least 6 months continuously

under these conditions the voltage on the cap had shown a continual cyclic positive charge of a few mV pk-pk

i removed the shunt resistor, replaced the cap in the metal case, and took 'spot' voltage measurements over the next few months

in the first couple of weeks, the voltage on the cap rose exponentially to somewhere in the region of 50-100mV, and then it settled into a linear increase with time

when i stopped monitoring the capacitor after about 6 months it had reached 300+mV

this was NOT because the capacitor was 'relaxing' back to a previous state of charge - it's maximum voltage for the previous 6 months was only a few mV!

details of all my test findings can be downloaded in PDF format from:

the D-I-Y cell experiment is interesting, not only because one cell appears to be self-sustaining (with a very small load) - several months achieved so far - but the cell voltages rise & fall with temperature

most of the cells i've made have had a positive temperature co-efficient (cell voltage increased with temperature rise) - and i expected that energy was being supplied to the cell with ambient heat enabling the voltage to rise on-load

however, the cell which is now self-sustaining shows an INVERSE temperature co-efficient!
(details via the Blog link below)

i can't explain that one - the load circuit is the same - the cell parts are the same materials (possibly very slight constructional method)

so - in both these cases the charge effect is different at night - but this is mainly because the temperature changes by a few degrees, compared to daytime

i don't rule out the possibility that these low-powered experiments are also being affected by cosmic particles - but i can certainly discount electromagnetic influence when the systems are operating inside e/m shielding

np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: beno on June 10, 2011, 04:20:54 PM
nul-points, Your post was not long at all ;)

I think that you in your secret_life_of_capacitors are a lot closer to the real reason for this effect, than the story about neutrinoes, which I find a bit hard to belive (but this may be a problem with my imagination).

Because the way I read it,it can be boiled down to:

* Temperature

And interaction with the earth capacitor (the schumann cavity):

* Height
* Time of day

Actually it was also this cavity which Nikola Tesla "worked" with in some of his experiments.

Best regards

beno

P.s. I happen to test this with a simple capacitor setup which loads two 1000uF capacitors up with about two volts per day, but this is without any real load. So the energy involved is not that great, and therefore not of any real value other than having some fun.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 10, 2011, 05:59:54 PM
As long as it can make 1 lightbulb shine "forever" for everyone in the city. I would be happy to accept almost any source of energy that does not cause some harm ( like eat up radio signals ).

I agree with this post totally!  I have argued this for years.  Many of my devices have been accused of tapping into man made energy transmissions...but...the radio transmitter has no idea how many radios are tuned in right?  1 or 10,000 still the same output.  So, since I am no scientist I can't really argue where the energy is coming from  BUT, I still call it free energy (Of which I have and use many devices)  I never call it OU.  My earth battery that lights my Christmas lights every year for free (400 leds) is free.  I can run a Bedini motor from it also that charges my batteries for free.  I think of it like solar, not OU but stick a panel outside and you can do useful things with it for free.

I will never forget a post to one of my Youtube videos where a "Scientist" claimed that it took over \$10,000 of energy to produce the transistor I was using. (2N3904)  Since I only paid like \$.59 for it I guess someone is getting ripped off.  I am sure this fellow makes more money than I do,....go figure.

This is a great topic and I really respect Dr. Jone's attitude toward all of this.  The more folks that replicate this, the better.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: beno on June 10, 2011, 06:34:46 PM
I also agree on this too. But if we can find where the power comes from, we can more easily improve on our "harvesting" process.
And thereby build more simple devices, which people perhaps even can make at home. Or buy them cheap.

Maybe it is me but I miss a list of which "devices" that have a proven record for harvesting this "free energy" or whatever we call it.
The more simple the devices are to build, the better.

Because I think that we are more people trying to build the same "device" and make the same mistakes.

Therefore we need to see if we can replicate this devices and the results, and then this can make it to this list too.

Best regards

beno
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gauschor on June 10, 2011, 06:49:53 PM
Maybe it is me but I miss a list of which "devices" that have a proven record for harvesting this "free energy" or whatever we call it.
The more simple the devices are to build, the better.

I'm also very interested in them :)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi on June 10, 2011, 08:13:01 PM
..I will never forget a post to one of my Youtube videos where a "Scientist" claimed that it took over \$10,000 of energy to produce the transistor I was using. (2N3904)  Since I only paid like \$.59 for it I guess someone is getting ripped off.  I am sure this fellow makes more money than I do,....go figure.
well there is a design phase, there is a HW simulation in software, there is a "matrix" / factory adjustments in order to produce it ( just think at it as a new software to control robots ). Once all this is done, the mass production costs litle. ( finished CPU design university... )
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 10, 2011, 09:18:27 PM
@ hyiq

The following circuit may not be measuring input power correctly. R1 should be in series with the battery. The way it is may work, but having the ground between the resistor and the battery can cause problems. With R1 in series with the battery there is no possibility for problems.

EDIT: You can just reverse the scope probes so that the ground is where the current sense point is and the current sense point moves to where the ground is. You will probably get the same readings, but it is a better way to do it.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: LarryC on June 12, 2011, 12:49:59 AM
FYI, for those that don't know, the mean of instantaneous V * I as used by Dr Steven with the Tek scope can be obtained with much lower cost home scopes.

My RIGOL DS1025E has a math function, whereby instantaneous V * I can be displayed, but it does not give a mean or average value for the math trace like the Tek. However, it does have the capability to download Ch1 and Ch2 instantaneous values to a PC. Load these values into a spreadsheet and the mean of instantaneous V * I is easy to calculate.

Regards, Larry
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi on June 12, 2011, 09:19:41 AM
FYI, for those that don't know, the mean of instantaneous V * I as used by Dr Steven with the Tek scope can be obtained with much lower cost home scopes.

My RIGOL DS1025E has a math function, whereby instantaneous V * I can be displayed, but it does not give a mean or average value for the math trace like the Tek. However, it does have the capability to download Ch1 and Ch2 instantaneous values to a PC. Load these values into a spreadsheet and the mean of instantaneous V * I is easy to calculate.

Regards, Larry
the question is the sampling rate for v * i. For example, a hardware arduino board has an internal clock of 16kHz. In case this circuit has a frequency of a couple of MHz then you are only sampling aprox every 1000th value. Far from precise enough(imagine the luck you are skipping 60% of the negative values). You might get lucky to tune in to some function like pattern for positive values for the osciloscope value smoothing ( avarage) function to aproximate a better value then it is actually.
This is why a simple collect and measure the amount principle works better even if the result is not so pleasing then a bad measurement.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: LarryC on June 12, 2011, 04:52:08 PM
the question is the sampling rate for v * i. For example, a hardware arduino board has an internal clock of 16kHz. In case this circuit has a frequency of a couple of MHz then you are only sampling aprox every 1000th value. Far from precise enough(imagine the luck you are skipping 60% of the negative values). You might get lucky to tune in to some function like pattern for positive values for the osciloscope value smoothing ( avarage) function to aproximate a better value then it is actually.
This is why a simple collect and measure the amount principle works better even if the result is not so pleasing then a bad measurement.

No luck needed. The scope is 50Mhz. Note the time column change of .000000001 seconds per observation. All so note the scope graph and the spreadsheet graph is the same.

An associate has a EE Masters and downloads data the same way on his home scope.

Regards, Larry
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi on June 12, 2011, 10:06:05 PM
@LarryC: i don't want to argue about your skills to measure something. I'm a software enginier, and from time to time i strugle with heisenbug ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unusual_software_bug ). Simply saying that measuring something so small, sensitive in a world that is not prepared enough for it, might make it look different then it is in reality.
Just make 2 circuits and try to see if the thing scales=simple math rules apply to the presumed values.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 13, 2011, 03:17:20 AM
@ All:
I built a few of these Hartley oscillators circuits to use with my cement battery cells.  I don't have a scope so I've been trying to see which circuit outputs the most light, and can work with the 50 mAs that the cement cells can produce.  Most Jtc will not work, they simply consume all the available energy and the leds get dim almost immediately. So, I've been working with the backwards Jt to see if there is any benefit, as they are more efficient when using low amp circuits.  But I still find that even the Hartley circuits are hogs, also, when connected to the cells as a source. The big advantage that I can see is that they do self run, to a degree, and do feed back to the battery, or otherwise the leds would go out after a day or two.  The real trick is to balance the led's load consumption with the amount of feed back going to the battery,  thus keeping the led(s) lit,  24/7.
I have replicated Koolers tiny Backwards Jtc (first picture), and is still the best and the smallest of all the ones that I have working so far.
I use a kn2222A trans, a 103 cap, 2 to 5 k trim pots, and no resistors, at all.
NickZ

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 13, 2011, 03:39:40 AM

and can work with the 50 mAs that the cement cells can produce.

Do you mean 50 uA instead of 50 mA?

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 13, 2011, 03:57:37 AM
@ Xee:
All my latest cement beach sand cells produce 55 to 65 mA each cell, not micro amps.
The last picture in my previous post is of a capacitor can cement cell, it outputs 55 mA, 1.2 volts).  Most of the larger aluminum beer cans output 65 to 70 mA, 1.4 volts.
These cells will not connect in parallel, only series.  I've gotten over 10 volts from them so far, by using 8 cells.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi on June 13, 2011, 09:43:07 AM
@ Xee:
All my latest cement beach sand cells produce 55 to 65 mA each cell, not micro amps.
The last picture in my previous post is of a capacitor can cement cell, it outputs 55 mA, 1.2 volts).  Most of the larger aluminum beer cans output 65 to 70 mA, 1.4 volts.
These cells will not connect in parallel, only series.  I've gotten over 10 volts from them so far, by using 8 cells.
cooool, so they work forever ? :D Practical :) . Someone mentioned havign 400 leds running forever on earth battery
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: pese on June 13, 2011, 11:07:16 AM
I agree with this post totally!  I have argued this for years.  Many of my devices have been accused of tapping into man made energy transmissions...but...the radio transmitter has no idea how many radios are tuned in right?  1 or 10,000 still the same output.  So, since I am no scientist I can't really argue where the energy is coming from  BUT, I still call it free energy (Of which I have and use many devices)  I never call it OU.  My earth battery that lights my Christmas lights every year for free (400 leds) is free.  I can run a Bedini motor from it also that charges my batteries for free.  I think of it like solar, not OU but stick a panel outside and you can do useful things with it for free.

Bill
Hi Bill,

Over this RF fields i have think years ago .
Following:

Give attention that sensitive world-multiband-receivers have input sensitivity of 0,5 uV
But this voltage WILL RECEIVED ONLY FROM on an very hight ohmic resonance-circuit (made by L/C),
that will come without (nearly) NO POWER losses to FET or other Semiconductor (or tube) amplifiers)

Any low ohm  power tapping in the recervers antenna circuit will only change  the fieldstrengh
of the RF-fieid (coming from from long distance station,.. only some meters around  with
very fast degreasing by distance from this shorted "tuned" circuit (that deliver
no usually power).  I tried this 1950 with best results, so my father and grand-dad
(both e-engineers) was wondering and couldn not explain me.

U know also that directly in front of an /example AM) Transmitter it is possible to lightning
filament-bulbs. with "watt-ages in power". such "Wonder-Experiment" that you find anyway
with LED, Neons, Lightning-tubes ... its nothing, they starting with static fields of near no
power to light.

So please do not so mutch in conflicts if you think "to have or can find" Power. It isÂ´nt.   Most is wrong mesuared  or wrong way calculated
Gustav Pese

P.S.
SO it make NO DIFFERENCE, if in long distance 1 or 1 Million Radios are tuning on ONE Station.

They are transitting 10KW to MWatts. More "grounding" absorbers suck more power of as all radio receivers that
are tuned over the world to this station.

This is the wrong way.  TESLA have not used "tuned" Herz-ian
waves.  He have spoken out this , if he was asked for his
"arrow electric car".
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 13, 2011, 03:53:27 PM
cooool, so they work forever ? :D Practical :) . Someone mentioned havign 400 leds running forever on earth battery

IIRC, the electrodes on the earth battery are not "forever" -- they degrade during operation of the battery.  Isn't that correct?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 13, 2011, 04:34:44 PM
I have some further results to share.  I'm working with two capacitors now, 10,000 uF = 10mF each, so a total of 20 mF.  Charged to 2.58V using 2 rechargeable AA's.  I use the caps to run the device until the voltage drops to 1.5V on the caps and note the time t required using a stop-watch.  Thus, I have a reliable measure of Ein and Pin:

E = 1/2 C V**2,  P = E/t,

So Pin = 1/2 20mF (2.58V**2 - 1.5V**2) /t   = 44.06mJ/t

So 44.06 mJ are put into the system, and dividing this Ein by the time, I derive Pin.  The measurements have proven repeatable -- and interesting.
Here are some results this morning:

Basic conditions:
Rb 52Kohms
MPS2222
C-B 151 pF
D red LED
L-B, L-O bifilar 9turns, ferrite toroid 1"OD,  ~120uH each

Ro = 1Kohm
Rr= 0, CSRout = 0 (removed)

1.  With the above conditions, the caps discharge from 2.58V to 1.5V in t = 37.8 seconds, so Pin = 44.06mJ/37.8s = 1.17 mW.
LED dim but clearly visible throughout the run.

2.  Next, I removed the Ro/LED from the system, so current flows back to ground through L1 loop only, t = 37.0 s, Pin = 1.19mW.
A bit of a surprise, repeatedly, with the Ro/LED out of the circuit, without that load, the input power drain INCREASES.
A bit hard to explain without OU perhaps, but not sure.  In any case, the power drain through the LED and 1Kohm resistor is small (if not negative ;) )...

3.  So I take the output of L1 and connect it to point 6 (instead of to point 4), so that the return path is through the 1Kohm Rout.   Rout/LED back in the circuit.
Now the LED is extremely dim, but visible in a darkened room.  t= 52s, Pin = 0.85mW.  Pin went down, as might be expected since the current through L1 is impeded by the 1Kohm Ro.

4.  Next, change Ro from 1Kohm to 220ohms.  Same test as in 3, now t = 62.2 sec, Pin = 0.71mW.  Now this is surprising to see Pin go down with Ro reduced, since  the current through L1 is impeded LESS by 220ohms than by 1Kohm Ro -- we are approaching the situation in 1 where the L1 output goes directly to ground.

5.  Back to condition as in 1, but with Ro=220ohms, t= 38.2 s, Pin = 1.15mW (about the same as with Ro=1Kohm).

6.   Next, I removed the Ro/LED from the system, so current flows back to ground through L1 loop only, t = 37.1 s, Pin = 1.19mW.
A bit of a surprise, repeatedly, with the Ro/LED out of the circuit, without that load, the input power drain INCREASES.  As before.

Next I went to my own "replication", with the conditions as in 4 above, and found t=54 seconds (0.82mW), rather than 62.2 s (0.7mW) with the 1st DUT.  So small variations make a difference (not too surprising) -- in particular, the toroid/windings differ in the replication.

Now, this gives us an idea of how the circuit behaves, and a measure of the low power consumption in this device.

I believe this is a reliable way to measure Pin, without the use of an oscilloscope, using capacitors to provide the input energy.  Next I'm looking into means of measuring the output power; proving to be more challenging.  I'm looking at vacuum-thermocouples.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 13, 2011, 04:59:52 PM
I am continuing to try different Hartley Oscillators trying to build one that will work with the cement cells small output.  Although I'm getting closer I'm still not there yet, as these hartley circuits seam to draw more than the 50 or 60 mA. that my cells can provide, to light just one led.  I can light a single white led direct off of two of the cement cells, but not through the BWJt, at least not for long.

Interesting observation:
Last night I connected a 3v button cell battery to the capacitor can cement cell that I showed previously, overnight. Then this morning I took the button cell off of the cement cell, and the single red led (connected to the cement cell) is still lit, (3 hours later) from just the charge the button cell gave the cement cell last night, while at the same time lighting an led, all night, and not draining the charge on the button cell charge by much, (1/2 volt).  So, a single cement cell is lighting an led, directly.
The point is that there is a good relation between the cement cells as a source of power, capacitors, and other batteries, when all connected together.
I'm still hoping to find a circuit that will help to take the small power factor from these cells, and increase that, some more.  But, I think that it takes some current, and not just voltage to do so,  I'm hoping to be wrong though, and that 50 mA is enough to start with.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 13, 2011, 05:11:04 PM
Now with my replication, more results:

1.   I take the output of L1 and connect it to point 6 (instead of to point 4), so that the return path is through the 220ohm Rout.  Rout/LED back in the circuit.
Now the LED is dim, but clearly visible.   t= 54s, Pin = 0.82mW.  (repeat from above)

2.  Connect L1 direct back to point 4.   t= 50.8s, Pin = 0.87mW.   I observed that with this condition, the LED is growing dimmer as the voltage from the caps drops -- until about 1.2Vin, then the LED suddenly gets brighter -- unexpected.  I repeated this experiment and observation.

3.  Place a 220-ohm R in series with L1, then to point 4.   t= 59.8s, Pin = 0.74mW.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 13, 2011, 06:21:54 PM
I am continuing to try different Hartley Oscillators trying to build one that will work with the cement cells small output.  Although I'm getting closer I'm still not there yet, as these hartley circuits seam to draw more than the 50 or 60 mA. that my cells can provide, to light just one led.  I can light a single white led direct off of two of the cement cells, but not through the BWJt, at least not for long.....

NickZ -- If you can build my little sj1 circuit diagrammed above, you should be able to draw much less than 50mA.
My results, stated above, show about 1 mW at approx 2V, IOW, ~ 0.5mA -- a factor of 100 less than your 50mA.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 13, 2011, 08:32:19 PM
JouleSeeker:
In answer to your question:  if the cement cells electrodes show signs of erosion? Just the normal oxide coating on the copper and no deterioration anywhere else that I can see.  The picture is of a three month old cement cell that had dried out and showed no voltage or current. It was soaked for a week in tap water, and just now showed 1.2 volts, and 25 mA, each can.  They measure 1.5" by 1/2" in size, and can light the red led that I just tried on it. Electrode is fine on them.

I realize that many are getting very low microamp draws and readings from their Hartley circuits, but so far all the Hartley type Jt circuits have been real joule hogs when connected to these cells. When I connect my various BWJT circuits to an AA battery they light up great.
How long will your current circuit run on a regular new 600 mA AA battery???  A day? Weeks?
The only test that is valid for me is that the device self runs, other that that,  all the test data obtained can be very questionable.
Kooler claims to have run a couple of his BWJT for 5 months.  I'd be happy with 5 days.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 13, 2011, 08:41:20 PM
I can play with the circuit until Pin is quite small, and the LED lights up for longer and longer on the two caps...but I need to get  Pout measured in the best way possible, without an oscilloscope preferably.  I want to check the scope results and develop a reliable method I can do in my home lab.  The goal is maximum Pout/Pin.   Working on that.

Meanwhile, this weekend I have been puzzling over a relativity puzzle.  Also a lot of fun, and a mental challenge.  At a conference a week ago, a fellow posed a question and I've modified it so that now it looks like a real puzzle, in that momentum conservation appears to be violated...  which "cannot happen".
OK, so show me what's wrong.  I like to pose puzzles like this to other scientists, and if any of you have answers, pls let me know.  I admit haven't found an answer yet... and somehow, it MIGHT relate to what we're doing here.  Of course, at present its a thought-experiment, not done physically yet...

Consider two loops of wire facing each other, A and B, 3 cm apart as shown in the attached.  We're going to use the fact that magnetic fields  propagate at the speed of light so that it takes time for the field generated in A to reach B, and vice versa,
t = 3cm/3X10**10cm/s = 0.1 nanosecond (ns) for a field generated at A by a current pulse to reach B.

Sure, edge effects, etc. -- I'm not worrying about those, yet.

We send a pulsed current through A and (with time delay as shown) through B.  A "positive current pulse" is such that a North pole points to the right, a negative current pulse generates a North pole pointing left.  When the first + pulse goes through A, B is off.  But as the field from A arrives, B switches on with a negative pulse and thus is REPELLED, pushed to the right.  We can end the thought experiment there, with A turned off now and so feels no effects, while loop B (free to move) travels to the right.  There is motion to the right only, which does not conserve momentum... Can you find an error?

But we can go on and get loop A to move also.  The field from B travels back towards A and when it arrives 0.1 ns later, A has a negative pulse and so is pulled to the right and begins to move right.  THAT field from A propagates at the speed of light towards B... which is pushed to the right when it arrives, and so on.
Thus, the whole "system" moves to the right (one can connect the loops on a platform, or a space-ship ;) , with an apparent violation of conservation of momentum...

I haven't found the error if there is one...  let me know why this won't work.  Thanks.   :)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 13, 2011, 08:46:30 PM
JouleSeeker:
In answer to your question:  if the cement cells electrodes show signs of erosion? Just the normal oxide coating on the copper and no deterioration anywhere else that I can see.  The picture is of a three month old cement cell that had dried out and showed no voltage or current. It was soaked for a week in tap water, and just now showed 1.2 volts, and 25 mA, each can.  They measure 1.5" by 1/2" in size, and can light the red led that I just tried on it. Electrode is fine on them.

I realize that many are getting very low microamp draws and readings from their Hartley circuits, but so far all the Hartley type Jt circuits have been real joule hogs when connected to these cells. When I connect my various BWJT circuits to an AA battery they light up great.
How long will your current circuit run on a regular new 600 mA AA battery???  A day? Weeks?
The only test that is valid for me is that the device self runs, other that that,  all the test data obtained can be very questionable.
Kooler claims to have run a couple of his BWJT for 5 months.  I'd be happy with 5 days.

We seem to be posting about the same times, Nick...
OK -- but when the cement cell is delivering a current, then do the electrodes show deterioration?  you're not saying the cell puts out power "forever", are you?

"Kooler claims to have run a couple of his BWJT for 5 months. " -- do you have a link for that, or do you have the circuit diagram?  that is remarkable all right.

I agree that the final test is a device that self-runs...  and puts out power to boot.  We're all working on it.. ;)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 13, 2011, 09:38:50 PM
This is the link to Koolers video:  two 5 month running BWJT:

Yes, I am saying the beach sand cement cells run....  well forever is a long time,   but they run similar to solar cells.
My beach sand cells will not add or increase in current when connected in parallel. Each cells outputs 1.2 to 1.5 volts, and 50 to 65mA. and can be connected in series to get the needed voltage.
To connect the above BWJT to these cement cells in my current goal.  But it may not be needed as these battery cells can connect direct to the leds, at 4v or 12volts or higher...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 13, 2011, 10:11:04 PM
Thanks, Kooler...  I appreciate the link.  where is your beach sand cement cell further described?  would appreciate it!

Now back to the relativity puzzle;
Quote
"We send a pulsed current through A and (with time delay as shown) through B.  A "positive current pulse" is such that a North pole points to the right, a negative current pulse generates a North pole pointing left.  When the first + pulse goes through A, B is off.  But as the field from A arrives, B switches on with a negative pulse and thus is REPELLED, pushed to the right.  We can end the thought experiment there, with A turned off now and so feels no effects, while loop B (free to move) travels to the right.  There is motion to the right only, which does not conserve momentum... Can you find an error?

But we can go on and get loop A to move also.  The field from B travels back towards A and when it arrives 0.1 ns later, A has a negative pulse and so is pulled to the right and begins to move right.  THAT field from A propagates at the speed of light towards B... which is pushed to the right when it arrives, and so on.
Thus, the whole "system" moves to the right (one can connect the loops on a platform, or a space-ship ;) , with an apparent violation of conservation of momentum...
I haven't found the error if there is one...  let me know why this won't work.  Thanks.   :)

I can't believe this would work ...
But if it did... following some experiments certainly...

Then, I would arrange the loops (small, short-wire coils probably) into a wheel, and let the push-pull described above generate circular motion -- There's your motor, to drive a generator or a car...  you see where this could lead..  ^-^
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 13, 2011, 11:23:01 PM

Consider two loops of wire facing each other, A and B, 3 cm apart as shown in the attached.  We're going to use the fact that magnetic fields  propagate at the speed of light so that it takes time for the field generated in A to reach B, and vice versa,
t = 3cm/3X10**10cm/s = 0.1 nanosecond (ns) for a field generated at A by a current pulse to reach B.

Sure, edge effects, etc. -- I'm not worrying about those, yet.

We send a pulsed current through A and (with time delay as shown) through B.  A "positive current pulse" is such that a North pole points to the right, a negative current pulse generates a North pole pointing left.  When the first + pulse goes through A, B is off.  But as the field from A arrives, B switches on with a negative pulse and thus is REPELLED, pushed to the right.  We can end the thought experiment there, with A turned off now and so feels no effects, while loop B (free to move) travels to the right.  There is motion to the right only, which does not conserve momentum... Can you find an error?

But we can go on and get loop A to move also.  The field from B travels back towards A and when it arrives 0.1 ns later, A has a negative pulse and so is pulled to the right and begins to move right.  THAT field from A propagates at the speed of light towards B... which is pushed to the right when it arrives, and so on.
Thus, the whole "system" moves to the right (one can connect the loops on a platform, or a space-ship ;) , with an apparent violation of conservation of momentum...

I haven't found the error if there is one...  let me know why this won't work.  Thanks.   :)

Accepted answer is Feynman's virtual photons traveling backwards in time, which I am sure you have studied. Personally, I think this is nonsense. But that is the official explaination.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on June 13, 2011, 11:43:36 PM
Hi Steven,

Interesting setup you show.  My first thought is whether a EM field or (to be more precise) rather in your example a "magnetic flux packet" is able to exert a similar force to a like pole when the source is switched off and left on its own?  I am not sure in a positive answer for this.  If I think of loop A as an kind of antenna, then it can sure emit an EM wave and this wave will travel by known laws (believed) valid in practice, regardless of the fact that you switch off the source, i.e. a transmitter feeding a loop  A.  However, to utilize input power for radiation with high efficiency you have to use very high frequency (well into the microwaves) to get a practical loop size for a motor or generator-like setup. I believe nano technology may help here.

How quickly the magnetic flux field gets diminished to say zero from the moment you switch an electromagnet off? Does it diminish to zero at the speed of the light too?
And if you launch a pulse into the loop whose frequency corresponds to the physical sizes of the loop (loops mainly work with good radiation efficiency with a perimeter very near to a full wavelength) then you are forced to work in the microwave bands, this is why I mentioned nano technology.

What do you (or anyone else) think?

rgds,  Gyula

Consider two loops of wire facing each other, A and B, 3 cm apart as shown in the attached.  We're going to use the fact that magnetic fields  propagate at the speed of light so that it takes time for the field generated in A to reach B, and vice versa,
t = 3cm/3X10**10cm/s = 0.1 nanosecond (ns) for a field generated at A by a current pulse to reach B.

Sure, edge effects, etc. -- I'm not worrying about those, yet.

We send a pulsed current through A and (with time delay as shown) through B.  A "positive current pulse" is such that a North pole points to the right, a negative current pulse generates a North pole pointing left.  When the first + pulse goes through A, B is off.  But as the field from A arrives, B switches on with a negative pulse and thus is REPELLED, pushed to the right.  We can end the thought experiment there, with A turned off now and so feels no effects, while loop B (free to move) travels to the right.  There is motion to the right only, which does not conserve momentum... Can you find an error?

But we can go on and get loop A to move also.  The field from B travels back towards A and when it arrives 0.1 ns later, A has a negative pulse and so is pulled to the right and begins to move right.  THAT field from A propagates at the speed of light towards B... which is pushed to the right when it arrives, and so on.
Thus, the whole "system" moves to the right (one can connect the loops on a platform, or a space-ship ;) , with an apparent violation of conservation of momentum...

I haven't found the error if there is one...  let me know why this won't work.  Thanks.   :)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jmmac on June 14, 2011, 12:27:47 AM
Hi Professor,

This is a bit too much for me but interesting... 2 questions:

- The conservation of moment must happen in 'real time' or is it possible to have delays because of the propagation times?

- In the setup you described and considering only one pulse: that current pulse in loop A produces a magnetic pulse, it travels to B,  induces a current pulse in loop B, the current pulse in B produces an opposing magnetic field and makes B move to the right. Will that opposing magnetic field pulse produced by loop B travel to A and produce a similar effect, moving A to the left?

Regards,
Jaime

[...]
Meanwhile, this weekend I have been puzzling over a relativity puzzle.  Also a lot of fun, and a mental challenge.  At a conference a week ago, a fellow posed a question and I've modified it so that now it looks like a real puzzle, in that momentum conservation appears to be violated...  which "cannot happen".
OK, so show me what's wrong.  I like to pose puzzles like this to other scientists, and if any of you have answers, pls let me know.  I admit haven't found an answer yet... and somehow, it MIGHT relate to what we're doing here.  Of course, at present its a thought-experiment, not done physically yet...
[...]
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on June 14, 2011, 12:47:45 AM
Hi OU blokes,

No momentum conservation...  And then ?

It is just another "paradox" (a very useful word).
It sounds like Physics were not complete. Is it?

What about "RHYTHMODYNAMICS" (Yuri N. Ivanov)?
http://www.mirit.ru/rd_2007en.htm
Action without Reaction.
(End of the article after the picture included (Fig 124 in the article)).

Very Best
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on June 14, 2011, 01:08:08 AM

I would say that if you do anything you should think about others well known experiments with very fast low current pulses. We know that there is a very large field surrounding the coil and the rest of the system in the slayer pop bottle coil. I don't know if it was slayer or someone else who authored it but to tell you the truth it works because current does not effect the voltage component. It is the other way around. Voltage effects the external current flow twords the system. There are tons of experiments out there that show this. Slayers being the top of the list.

I think what you are missing is an input and output transmitter like an antenna. Between two antennas you would get a flow, much like if we greatly increase the voltage component it becomes very clear what it looks like. When we have a direction of flow it is gonna pick up more potential as it flows.

I have seen some pretty amazing experiments from respected individuals that show size and shape of the antennas are very important when designing the unit. The virtual ground could be a block of metal like aluminum and the antenna should be some (1/2 1/4 1/8) wave equivelent to the systems frequency. I'll chat more if you guys like. Got to do some work now...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 14, 2011, 01:13:03 AM
IIRC, the electrodes on the earth battery are not "forever" -- they degrade during operation of the battery.  Isn't that correct?

Mine have not shown any problems at all after 3+ years.  Stubblefield said if aligned in the earth properly, degradation is not a problem at all.  So far, in my experience, this has been true.  Of course, it has not been forever yet.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 14, 2011, 04:01:04 AM
I think think I'm showing more wear and tear.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 14, 2011, 06:17:53 AM
Mine have not shown any problems at all after 3+ years.  Stubblefield said if aligned in the earth properly, degradation is not a problem at all.  So far, in my experience, this has been true.  Of course, it has not been forever yet.

Bill

Bill, or someone -- can you tell me HOW to MAKE one of these "cement cells"?  I like the way you guys jump in and do "crazy" experiments.  Someday, we're going to make a breakthrough (gut feeling).

Thanks for comments on the relativity puzzle -- note that violating Newton's third law is essentially equivalent to non-conservation of momentum.  Will return to that discussion soon.

More studies today with the circuit, trying to achieve low Pin (< 1mW), then look at Pout without using an oscilloscope --

Conditions:
Ein by 10,000uF cap = 10mF
Rb 52Kohms
MPS2222
C-B 372 pF (note increase)
D red LED
L-B, L-O bifilar 9turns, ferrite toroid 1"OD,  ~120uH each
L1 connected to point 6 (between LED and Ro)
Ro = 220 ohms

Rr= 0, CSRout = 0 (removed)

Then, using Cap + stopwatch method, Pin is 0.41mW with LED glowing dim but easily seen in lit room

Next, to look at Pout -- crudely.  I simply replaced Ro with a 10mF capacitor

Ro = > replaced by 10,000 uF cap, same as the input-power cap (yes, I realize I need to measure the actual capacitances -- using my colleague's meter).

Using cap and stop-watch method for BOTH caps, get following results.

Ein = 1/2 C (Vstart**2 - Vfinal**2)   -- discharging to provide Pin
Eout = 1/2 C (Vofinal**2 - Vostart**2)  -- charging to estimate Pout.  Note that the LED is glowing, and that energy is NOT captured, (various losses also not counted) so this provides a conservative estimate of Pout.

n = Eout/Ein -- since Cin ~ Cout,

n ~ (Vofinal**2 - Vostart**2) / (Vstart**2 - Vfinal**2)  -- conservative estimate, made using matched capacitors for input and output energy.

Typical result:
n ~ (1.58**2 - 1.30**2) / (2.54**2 - 2.25**2)  = 0.58 = 58% (conservative)

Note, Pin = Ein/time ~ 0.25 mW  (Pin is less with this system, with the cap replacing the 220 ohm Ro).
Please note the LOW value for required input power to light the LED.

Best result tonight:
n ~ (1.366**2 - 1.258**2) / (2.0**2 - 1.89**2)  = 0.7 = 70% (conservative)

Now, this is with matched caps for input energy and output energy, with the energy in the LED "thrown away", as it was lit visibly.  Hope you're following what I'm doing here -- achieve a low Pin while LED is still lit visibly (quite bright), then get a FIRST CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE for Pout (or Eout in this case).

Next -- a simple test, 10mF cap at 2.53V, so Ein = 32 mJ,  connect matching cap in parallel --> both caps now at 1.22 volts (volts drops by half as the charge is shared, conservation of charge).  But
E = 1/2 10mF V**2

So Ein = 32 mJ, Eout = 15 mJ (measured using voltages before and after joining caps in parallel) -- so HALF THE ENERGY IS LOST JUST CHARGING ONE CAP WITH A CHARGED-CAP (= capacitances).  n = 50% is the best one can do under these circumstances.  Not certain if that applies in this circuit...  a sim might tell that...

Here, I get n ~ 58% typically and n~ 70% best run.

Conclusion:  interesting, not definitively OU in this configuration IMO -- still would like a better way to measure Eout or Poutput routinely so I can tune caps and resistors -- and the wound-toroid -- to maximize Pout/Pin = Eout/Ein.  On the road to self-running (I hope!)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 14, 2011, 06:53:21 AM
Back to the relativity puzzle:
Xee2:
Quote
Accepted answer is Feynman's virtual photons traveling backwards in time,

I don't that will work in this case, xee, because we can move the loops arbitrarily far apart and get the effect.  Virtual photons are limited by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle  -- which also applies to Jmmac's question"

Hi Professor,

This is a bit too much for me but interesting... 2 questions:

- The conservation of moment must happen in 'real time' or is it possible to have delays because of the propagation times?

Momentum non-conservation is allowed for a short time for virtual particles per Heisenberg, delta-momentum*time < h-bar, where h is Planck's constant.  This is an exceedingly short time, for this set-up, compared with 0.1 n-seconds.  Nope, Heisenberg won't help solve the puzzle.

For your other question and gyula's, let's simplify the experiment to this:  one short current pulse in A, then A off.  As the field reaches B (we know when this will be, from t = separation D/speed-of-light c), B receives a current (from the outside current source, not eddy because the source is otherwise high-impedance) so it receives a jolt, a push.  THAT field from B propagates to A, but A is OFF by then (again essentially zero eddy currents due to high impedance).

Your diagram with the water flowing up and down is interesting, NerzhDishual , but not a clear violation of Conservation of Momentum -- because the ball going up impedes the water coming out of the hose upward, so more water will flow downward to compensate.  There is (clearly) water moving both up and down -- whereas in this thought experiment, A launches a field (which moves both left and right) which pushes B to the right due to the momentary current in B, but there is nothing pushing A to the left (i.e., no compensating force).

I think - and may be wrong, but I can't see anything pushing A to the left.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 14, 2011, 07:11:31 AM
I think think I'm showing more wear and tear.

Nick -- are you referring to the "cement cell"?  could you be more specific - what is showing wear and tear?
Thanks -- honesty is what we need to make solid progress.

About antennas -- " I have seen some pretty amazing experiments from respected individuals that show size and shape of the antennas are very important when designing the unit. "
YES!  but for the relativity-puzzle-thought-experiment, two simple loops will suffice for the discussion, because that's all we need for the simple electromagnets, one pushing on the other and not being pushed back...

If the action were INSTANTANEOUS, instead of limited by the speed of light, we would not have this conundrum...  But it is an important effect, the limit imposed by the speed of light.  (Thanks Albert!)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MeggerMan on June 14, 2011, 02:36:23 PM
Best result tonight:
n ~ (1.366**2 - 1.258**2) / (2.0**2 - 1.89**2)  = 0.7 = 70% (conservative)

Now, this is with matched caps for input energy and output energy, with the energy in the LED "thrown away", as it was lit visibly.  Hope you're following what I'm doing here -- achieve a low Pin while LED is still lit visibly (quite bright), then get a FIRST CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE for Pout (or Eout in this case).
Hi JouleSeeker,
I have wound a toroid that comes out as about 119uH and 118uH per coil.
I have 2N2222 transistors but not the MPS2222 - I think they are equivalent.
The rest of the parts I have in stock.
It seems your 8x OU could be a measurement issue, but discharging/charging a cap seems a very fair way of comparing in to out.
What you might want to consider is the adding some 0.1uF caps in parallel with your input and output caps to ESR (effective series resistance) of the electrolytics.
Look forward to your next test results.
Thanks.
Rob
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 14, 2011, 04:02:19 PM
Hi JouleSeeker,
I have wound a toroid that comes out as about 119uH and 118uH per coil.
I have 2N2222 transistors but not the MPS2222 - I think they are equivalent.
The rest of the parts I have in stock.
It seems your 8x OU could be a measurement issue, but discharging/charging a cap seems a very fair way of comparing in to out.
What you might want to consider is the adding some 0.1uF caps in parallel with your input and output caps to ESR (effective series resistance) of the electrolytics.
Look forward to your next test results.
Thanks.
Rob

Yes, thanks MeggerMan, I look forward to your results also.  I agree that "discharging/charging a cap seems a very fair way of comparing in to out" with the caveat that we are capturing only a portion of the output energy.

Over at OUResearch, laneal makes this observation:
Quote
Thanks professor for sharing those measurements.

So with a 10mF capacitor in place of R0, the voltage rises to 1.58V from 1.30V.
For a red LED, the forward voltage drop is about 1.67V (I measured mine with a DMM, please replace it with your own measurement).
Therefore, the power spent on the LED is: C * deltaV * Vdiode = 10mF * (1.58 - 1.30) * 1.67 =  4.676mJ.
The total energy stored in the cap is  (1.58**2 - 1.30**2) * 10mF /2 = 4.03
So, total output is: 4.676+4.03 = 8.706mJ.

Total input: (2.54**2 - 2.25**2) * 10mF/2 = 6.9455

Therefore n = 8.706 / 6.9455 = 1.253

Hey, that's more like an OU  :) But clearly it needs an accurate measurement of your Vdiode.

P.S.: my calculation shows that as long as the Vdiode > 1.04125V, we will have n>1.

Quote
[more from laneal: ]
Quotes Prof:  Best result tonight:
n ~ (1.366**2 - 1.258**2) / (2.0**2 - 1.89**2)  = 0.7 = 70% (conservative)

For this best case, if Vdiode > (1.366V+1.258V)/2 = 1.312V, then n > 140%.
Vdiode is the voltage drop over the diode at the moment when the capacitor is being charged.

For this best case, if Vdiode > 0.667, n>1.
Of course, this is still a conservative computation of n, as we have not calculated power wastes in the transistor and toroid.

Quote
Here I attach a photo of the set-up, using one cap for Ein and the second cap to capture some of the Eout.  Two DMM's read the voltage, one on each cap.

Also a screen shot of the voltage across the LED, while powered by the Ein cap alone, with the second cap charging (from approx 0 volts, starting voltage).

Vmean 40 mV, which is approx what I read with the DMM across the LED...  but --
Vpp  4.84V
Vrms 680mV
Vtop 3.12V -- this is the voltage in the forward direction, the direction of the current flow allowed by the LED

So you tell me, you asked for the voltage across the LED -- but which voltage does one use??
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MeggerMan on June 14, 2011, 04:46:15 PM
Yes, thanks MeggerMan, I look forward to your results also.  I agree that "discharging/charging a cap seems a very fair way of comparing in to out" with the caveat that we are capturing only a portion of the output energy.
Hi JouleSeeker,
The other thing I thought of is that the spike voltage will be suppressed to a degree by the output capacitor and this may be pulling down your output gain.
So the effect could rely on the sudden surge and capturing it would be a real challenge.
One way may be a synchronized switch using a mosfet that cuts in near the peak of the spike, perhaps using the "avalanche" process. Then dump this into a capacitor.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JimU on June 14, 2011, 08:20:12 PM
If the action were INSTANTANEOUS, instead of limited by the speed of light, we would not have this conundrum...  But it is an important effect, the limit imposed by the speed of light.  (Thanks Albert!)

I've seen credible arguments that near-field, that is the non-radiated field, actually may have instantaneous effect, or at least not limited to "c".  Perhaps some experiments as well.  Should be a do-able experiment with the very high-speed scopes available today.

Jim
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 14, 2011, 10:25:57 PM
Hi JouleSeeker,
The other thing I thought of is that the spike voltage will be suppressed to a degree by the output capacitor and this may be pulling down your output gain.
So the effect could rely on the sudden surge and capturing it would be a real challenge.
One way may be a synchronized switch using a mosfet that cuts in near the peak of the spike, perhaps using the "avalanche" process. Then dump this into a capacitor.

You have a good point -- the "capture" of output energy on a cap may be affecting the operation of the circuit.  I'm also looking into use of a thermal wattmeter in lieu of the output cap -- it may be able to measure Pout without affecting the operation (or at least, in a different way).
Whew!  a simple circuit, but not so easy as it looks.  I'm still amazed that with so little input power, Pin<1mW typically, the LED lights so well.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 14, 2011, 10:29:39 PM
I've seen credible arguments that near-field, that is the non-radiated field, actually may have instantaneous effect, or at least not limited to "c".  Perhaps some experiments as well.  Should be a do-able experiment with the very high-speed scopes available today.

Jim

Welcome, JimU!
I would like to see those arguments.
Very interesting:  " the non-radiated field, actually may have instantaneous effect, or at least not limited to "c".  Perhaps some experiments as well.  "

Any references or URL's?
Not limited to "c" will have remarkable effects, indeed.  An "instantaneous effect" would explain the puzzle, not in the way I expected certainly.

Come back, Jim!   Beam me up!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 15, 2011, 12:07:21 AM

hello Steven

here's some data from an experiment which is certainly NOT moving anywhere near lightspeed!

first i should just stress again that these results may just turn out eventually to represent the 'battery relaxation' phenomenon (which i've seen in many previous experiments) - i'm just sharing the data here to keep you posted with progress on my current test

the graph below represents the terminal voltage, recorded over the last 7 days, for a single AAA NiMH cell which is powering my inverted, looped SJ1 circuit with supply interruption**

** the immediate supply to my SJ1 variant oscillator circuit is a 2200uF capacitor - whenever the oscillator o/p stops, the capacitor gets a momentary re-charge from the NiMH cell via a transistor switch

the oscillator o/p (from a tertiary winding) is fed back to the oscillator supply and to the NiMH cell, and is also used to gate the supply interruption switch

the trace below shows a typical output 'pulse burst' (here measured at the anode of the schottky diode i/p to the NiMH cell) - a group of around 3 of these pulse bursts are occurring within approx 100-300ms, the group being repeated at an interval of approx 1 second

so the average number of pulses per second is approx 15

the first pulse width is approx 30uS, its coil-collapse width approx 25uS;
schottky diodes are limiting the coil-collapse voltage peaks  to approx 560mV above the cell voltage (voltage values  obtained with  x10 probe)

i'll update after another week - or earlier, if the cell voltage starts to decrease

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JimU on June 15, 2011, 12:25:10 AM
I would like to see those arguments.
Very interesting:  " the non-radiated field, actually may have instantaneous effect, or at least not limited to "c".  Perhaps some experiments as well.  "

Any references or URL's?
Not limited to "c" will have remarkable effects, indeed.  An "instantaneous effect" would explain the puzzle, not in the way I expected certainly.

I'm working from memory, but I think Phipps in his book "Heretical Verities" analyzes an experiment by Hill, where Phipps makes the argument that the result in question would imply that near-fields have instantaneous effect, as one example.  I'll keep digging into my memory on this...

Best,    Jim
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 15, 2011, 07:17:25 AM

hello Steven

here's some data from an experiment which is certainly NOT moving anywhere near lightspeed!

first i should just stress again that these results may just turn out eventually to represent the 'battery relaxation' phenomenon (which i've seen in many previous experiments) - i'm just sharing the data here to keep you posted with progress on my current test

the graph below represents the terminal voltage, recorded over the last 7 days, for a single AAA NiMH cell which is powering my inverted, looped SJ1 circuit with supply interruption**

** the immediate supply to my SJ1 variant oscillator circuit is a 2200uF capacitor - whenever the oscillator o/p stops, the capacitor gets a momentary re-charge from the NiMH cell via a transistor switch

the oscillator o/p (from a tertiary winding) is fed back to the oscillator supply and to the NiMH cell,
and is also used to gate the supply interruption switch

the trace below shows a typical output 'pulse burst' (here measured at the anode of the schottky diode i/p to the NiMH cell) - a group of around 3 of these pulse bursts are occurring within approx 100-300ms, the group being repeated at an interval of approx 1 second

so the average number of pulses per second is approx 15

the first pulse width is approx 30uS, its coil-collapse width approx 25uS;
schottky diodes are limiting the coil-collapse voltage peaks  to approx 560mV above the cell voltage (voltage values  obtained with  x10 probe)

i'll update after another week - or earlier, if the cell voltage starts to decrease

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

VERY intriguing, nul-pts!  So you're using a tertiary winding to extract power and feed back to the rechargeable battery, and using a switch to power-up the input-capacitor -- very clever, I must say.  If I've misunderstood, pls correct me.

Thanks much for keeping us posted on the result, and pls keep us posted as this goes forward.
Very clever.  Sometime, pls share the more complete circuit diagram, would you?

I'm frankly amazed that you can do this while continuing your work on the Muller/RomeroUK device.  (As I read on the now-huge thread about that.)
Keep up the good work!
Would like to meet you some day and shake your hand.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 15, 2011, 07:29:03 AM
I'm working from memory, but I think Phipps in his book "Heretical Verities" analyzes an experiment by Hill, where Phipps makes the argument that the result in question would imply that near-fields have instantaneous effect, as one example.  I'll keep digging into my memory on this...

Best,    Jim

I found reference to Phipps' paper in the American Journal of Physics (one of my favorite journals!):

Quote
American Journal of Physics -- August 1988 -- Volume 56, Issue 8, pp. 765
Heretical Verities: Mathematical Themes in Physical Description
Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., Author and Jeff Nicoll

Did Phipps write a book also?  anyway, I should be able to pick up the journal article at the University tomorrow, and save the \$30 fee for getting it on-line!

There is another paper in AJP I enjoyed as a graduate student, while at Stanford doing research and finishing class work -- about the Special Theory of Relativity vs. Lorentz-Ives ether theory.  I'll try to get that reference also.
Do you have physics background, JimU?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 15, 2011, 07:45:33 AM
Went to Amazon, and I see that Phipps did write a book on this also.  About \$20 with shipping.  I'll first look at his AJP article, then we'll see about that book.

Found "related" books also, particularly this one which appears may address my question ("electromagnetic retardation" is the basic point):

Quote
Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of Relativity: New Chapters in the Classical Theory of Fields, Second Edition [Paperback]
Oleg D. Jefimenko

REVIEW: 5.0 out of 5 stars Fresh and thought-provoking, August 24, 2006
By
Travis Norsen
This review is from: Electromagnetic Retardation and Theory of Relativity: New Chapters in the Classical Theory of Fields, Second Edition (Paperback)
This is a very nicely written, interesting, and thought provoking book. The author has written extensively over the decades (both published articles and books) on the concept of retardation in electromagnetism -- basically, the idea is just that "information" about the charges/currents that give rise to E&B fields propagates at the speed of light, so that the fields at a given point can be calculated in terms of integrals over the charge/current distributions but using the "retarded time" -- i.e., integrals over all the little bits of charge/current at the locations they were at when they were sending out the "information" that arrives at the field point in question now.

The point of this book is to construct a detailed argument that much or most of what is usually considered "relativity" can be inferred directly from a consistent application of the concept of retardation. [snip]
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 15, 2011, 12:11:40 PM

[...]
Sometime, pls share the more complete circuit diagram, would you?
[...]
I'm frankly amazed that you can do this while continuing your work on the Muller/RomeroUK device
[...]
Would like to meet you some day and shake your hand.

thanks for the kind words, Steven

fortunately, once longer-term monitoring tests have been setup (such as this one, and my DIY cell experiments, linked below) it's not a problem to fit an occasional measurement into the daily schedule

i'm including the generic schematic for my ongoing looped (inverted) SJ1 test below

more details to follow here, if longer term results suggest anything more than 'battery relaxation' occurring

you'll notice that i replaced the LED with a schottky diode (D1), to reduce the amount of energy escaping the system for this test (to maximise any energy available to feedback to the supply cell)

however, last night i thought i would just take a look at what would be the effect on the o/p waveform, if i replaced D1 with the LED in this system

the effect is quite marked, the average number of pulses in each 'burst', when using the LED, increases to around double that when using the schottky diode

there are also intermittent periods of slightly lower amplitude 'driven' oscillation (approx 70kHz) which can occur in amongst the pulses in the 'burst' (this is not the damped sine-wave which we see in the trailing 'high-impedance' state of the system immediately  following the last pulse in a 'burst')

since the slope of the cell terminal voltage is fairly flat at present, and has been for a few days, i decided to leave the LED in place of D1 for sufficient time to see how it compares with the last few days results

it would be a privilege to meet you, if the opportunity arose - it's great to have an accredited scientist who is interested in 'alternative' energy, as part of the forum - i hope we can all learn from each other's knowledge and experience

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JimU on June 15, 2011, 05:13:20 PM
I found reference to Phipps' paper in the American Journal of Physics (one of my favorite journals!):

Did Phipps write a book also?  anyway, I should be able to pick up the journal article at the University tomorrow, and save the \$30 fee for getting it on-line!

There is another paper in AJP I enjoyed as a graduate student, while at Stanford doing research and finishing class work -- about the Special Theory of Relativity vs. Lorentz-Ives ether theory.  I'll try to get that reference also.
Do you have physics background, JimU?

Hi Dr. Jones,

Yes, I have Phipps' book by the same name, don't know if the journal article would include this material, since the book is 600+ pages in length...

My memory was faulty, the experiment Phipps discusses is one by Sherwin-Rawcliffe, not someone named Hill!  Phipps discusses the potential hill, which is probably why that name stuck in my mind.  This experiment is with electric potentials at the microscopic level.

Another experiment, at the macroscopic level, was reported in:

P. T. Pappas and Alexis Guy Obolensky:
Dec. 1986: Thirty six nanoseconds faster than light [Pappas&Oblensky_Elect&WW_v94n1634(1988)1162-1165]
Â© Electronics + Wireless World: Queries: http://www.electronicsworld.co.uk

In this case, a large capacitor was constructed, from two approx 2-foot square metal panels, maybe 6 feet apart (again from poor memory!), then allowed to discharge and the change measured by a fast scope, which showed an immediate pulse, interpreted to be the effect from changing near-fields, then a later one (36ns later) interpreted to be the lightspeed radiation pulse.

So, both dealt with electric near-fields, not magnetic.  I'd expect a magnetic experiment measuring one-way delay effect with today's very fast scopes could be set up, if someone were motivated to do so.

Yes, I studied physics in college, 3 years into the graduate program before deciding to make a living in computer software.  But, I've maintained an ongoing interest and try to keep an open mind on possibilities.

Best,    Jim
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 15, 2011, 05:52:13 PM
Thank you for the circuit diagram, NP.
It will be interesting to see what the LED does to the measurements, certainly a higher load than D.

This method for measuring Poutput suggested by .99 over at OUR.com:
Quote
For a possible Pout measurement, we can try using a single diode or FWBR output to charge a capacitor. Then connect a potentiometer across this output cap and monitor the DC output with a DMM. Slowly decrease the resistance of the potentiometer until the DC output voltage begins to drop steadily. Back it off until the output voltage holds steadily. Now use the output voltage and resistance reading on the pot to compute power. I would suggest somewhere between a 10k to 50k pot.

Quote
We can know the Pinput from the cap/stop-watch tests and can then run off a battery at a steady Vin, and with your cap/poten. measurement for Poutput, we can keep conditions steady.  It concerned me that with variable voltages on Vin and on the output cap, one could not really "tune" the circuit.  This way is much better.

Comments on this method are welcomed.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 15, 2011, 05:59:36 PM
Hi Dr. Jones,

Yes, I have Phipps' book by the same name, don't know if the journal article would include this material, since the book is 600+ pages in length...
[snip]

So, both dealt with electric near-fields, not magnetic.  I'd expect a magnetic experiment measuring one-way delay effect with today's very fast scopes could be set up, if someone were motivated to do so.

Yes, I studied physics in college, 3 years into the graduate program before deciding to make a living in computer software.  But, I've maintained an ongoing interest and try to keep an open mind on possibilities.

Best,    Jim

600+ pages for 20 bucks -- I'm going to spring for this book.  Thanks, Jim.
I discussed the experiment with a physicist last evening at some length.  A few modifications arose from that discussion, but the conclusion was the same (apparent non-conservation of momentum).

1.  Have the current on in coil A for some period of time at the start, so the B-field at B is established.
2.  Turn A off at the same time that the current in B is turned ON.
In this way, B is immersed in the field from A when it turns on, so receives an impulse to the right,
and A will be off (and open so no effective eddy currents) when the field from B arrives.

Keeping an open mind is key to scientific progress, IMO -- thanks, Jim.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 15, 2011, 07:15:39 PM

Thank you for the circuit diagram, NP.
It will be interesting to see what the LED does to the measurements, certainly a higher load than D.

This method for measuring Poutput suggested by .99 over at OUR.com:
[...]
Comments on this method are welcomed.

actually i already used that method on a previous test

and it didn't seem to tally at all with the previously reported DVM-based results (which suggested 'n' = 1.3 approx, iirc)

hence my latest test looking at the possibility of increasing or maintaining the state of charge of the supply cell

trying to 'simulate' a load level across a capacitor can be counter-intuitive sometimes - it's possible that you don't end up with an equivalent 'load resistance' but instead you form a 'potential divider' arrangement between source impedance and 'load resistor' - in which case the capacitor terminal voltage will tend to change towards the 'o/p' voltage of the divider

taking up your comment about the LED & Diode, above, i agree the two will cause different behaviour of the test circuit - hopefully, their target loads (AAA NiMH and 2200uF capacitor) will dominate over any differences in the forward transfer characteristics of the two components

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on June 15, 2011, 09:43:57 PM

@Prof. Joule_Seeker  :)

Thank you for you comment about Yuri N. Ivanov. I'm not a physicist and I have  not done this experiment (Ivanov proposes one with a balance).

I can also just remember that violation of action-reaction principle has been 'claimed' by some people.

Now, to move the discussion forward, would I dare to say that Nul-Points  (the 'misnamed') is also a very good bass player?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Very Best

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 15, 2011, 11:36:43 PM

[...]
Now, to move the discussion forward, would I dare to say that Nul-Points  (the 'misnamed') is also a very good bass player?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Very Best

Mr Dishual - how many moons have passed since we exchanged insults in a thread?!?  too many  :)

i have heard on good authority that if you shake a tree in Bretagne then a musician will fall out - unfortunately that authority wasn't referring to Grande Bretagne!!

'nul-points' is not so misnamed wrt my bass playing  - i've listened to Breton Rock played with Free NRG and i know when i am beaten!  ;)

good to see you here, i hope you will have some more contributions to make

salut!
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 16, 2011, 06:27:20 AM
Speaking of humor... see attached.  We do need a little lightening up now and then.

Scarecrow invited me to be on his show tomorrow, hopefully it will work out.
He will have some time for Q&A if you wish to show up.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JimU on June 16, 2011, 10:31:11 PM
600+ pages for 20 bucks -- I'm going to spring for this book.  Thanks, Jim.
I discussed the experiment with a physicist last evening at some length.  A few modifications arose from that discussion, but the conclusion was the same (apparent non-conservation of momentum).

1.  Have the current on in coil A for some period of time at the start, so the B-field at B is established.
2.  Turn A off at the same time that the current in B is turned ON.
In this way, B is immersed in the field from A when it turns on, so receives an impulse to the right,
and A will be off (and open so no effective eddy currents) when the field from B arrives.

Keeping an open mind is key to scientific progress, IMO -- thanks, Jim.

Hi Dr. Jones & all,

Per an open mind and relativity, have you perused the corpus of work
done by the Process Physics group at Flinders U in Adelaide, AU, which
is Prof Reg Cahill's group?

They have re-analyzed the Michelson-Morley experiment, and the various
subsequent interferometer experiments and find they were not null results
after all.  In fact, they all agree on a preferred reference frame and our
velocity w/r/t to it.  More recent experiments of the one-way velocity of
lght have shown the same results, and the same velocity vector in space.

From this, they derive a new gravity theory which explains various anomalies,
such as dark matter (no need for it), etc.  There is a lot more and quite
interesting.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Per measuring the output power of your circuits, I've not been carefully
following all the great work done here, so this may be redundant, but
JL Naudin on his 2SGen project uses what looks like a simple and
effective approach:   A diode bridge on the ouput feeds, on each
leg, a parallel cap & resistor of suitable sizing, which then go to ground
or the circuit return.   So, the output pumps the caps up to a voltage level
on each leg that sustains the drain through the resistor.  Simply
measuring the steady-state voltage on each cap lets one compute
the output power on each leg of the bridge.

Section 7 of Mr. Naudin's 2SGen project shows a good schematic:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/html/s2genep7en.htm

Actually, this section 7 of JL's 2SGen project, when I analyze it for
power, seems to show a clear 2:1 out/in power ratio.  Curiously,
JL himself never analyzed in this way, instead preferring to compare
the ratio of the two output legs of the diode bridge, per magnetization
and demagnetization, focusing on a theory by N. Zaev.  But, maybe
he's already got the tiger by the tail here!  Top level link to 2SGen:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm

Anyway, perhaps Mr. Naudin's output measuring method would be

Regards,     Jim
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 17, 2011, 06:38:02 AM

actually i already used that method on a previous test

and it didn't seem to tally at all with the previously reported DVM-based results (which suggested 'n' = 1.3 approx, iirc)

hence my latest test looking at the possibility of increasing or maintaining the state of charge of the supply cell

trying to 'simulate' a load level across a capacitor can be counter-intuitive sometimes - it's possible that you don't end up with an equivalent 'load resistance' but instead you form a 'potential divider' arrangement between source impedance and 'load resistor' - in which case the capacitor terminal voltage will tend to change towards the 'o/p' voltage of the divider

taking up your comment about the LED & Diode, above, i agree the two will cause different behaviour of the test circuit - hopefully, their target loads (AAA NiMH and 2200uF capacitor) will dominate over any differences in the forward transfer characteristics of the two components

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Thank you for these insights, NP.
I mentioned your work on the Smartscarecrow broadcast this evening -- hope that's OK.  I really appreciate your work.

@JimU, note the comments by NP above, which jive with my experiments.

Experimentally -- I placed a 10mF cap across Rout and found 5.1 V across the cap when the variable resistor was 2.51 Kohms.  This gives Pout ~ V**2/R = 5.1**2 / 2.51 K = 10.4 mW, which is not unreasonable, but evidently n<1 for this case.  (And not counting the Power dissipated in the LED, which was very bright, not sure how to do that reliably.)
However, I found that the waveform (power) is significantly distorted -- and see caveats above.

Thanks for the URL's - I hope to get to those tomorrow.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 17, 2011, 07:02:35 AM
While it is very difficult (at least for me) to measure Pin and Pout reliably and simultaneously, I think much can be learned just from the effort to reduce Pin in this circuit, or ANY JT-type circuit.

I'm proposing a little "contest" to this end, to see which circuit can draw the LEAST POWER INPUT and still light an LED with reasonable visibility.  (That's a little hard to define, but say -- visible in a lighted room -- and visible in a photograph.)

By varying Cb, Rb, the wound-toroid, I've reached 0.17 mW Pin -- see photo showing the set-up.

It will be necessary to measure Pin reliably -- I used the Cap/stopwatch method.
P = Ein/time, measuring Ein using a cap, from 2.55 V to 1.5 V, so around 2Volts in.
Best result (to date):  12.7 seconds using a 1000 uF cap for Piin, so
P = 1/2 10mF (2.55**2 - 1.5**2)/12.7s

= 0.17 mW = 170 uW.

Conditions: Rb = 47 Kohms
Cb = 223 pF (ceramic cap)
MPS 2222 transistor
Ro =  220 ohms
Lo ~ Lb ~ 130 uH
No CSRout or Co or Rr or CSRin.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 17, 2011, 07:12:30 AM
(could not get this portion to post, so adding here)

I believe I can measure Pin quite accurately, to roughly +/- 5%, with this method -- once I measure C, which I need to do.  (At a colleague's in town.)

It would be helpful to know the frequency of operation of the devices, but not necessary since not everyone has an oscilloscope (or other means to determine frequency).

I would like to encourage replications (and learning), and so I'm proposing a small "contest" -- to see who can reach the lowest Pin for any JT-type circuit.  (See, e.g., attached)    Pin to be measured by this method, cap + stopwatch for Pin.  LED present, visibly glowing.
Incentive (wish I were richer; this is just to make it fun; I just found \$100 tonight I didn't know I had!):  Lowest Pin in one month -- on July 17th,  will receive \$100 minus (\$microwatts/10).
THus, my entry today would be \$100 - 170/10 = \$83.

However, please announce results as you go along (as I'm doing above), so we can see the progress.

If someone reaches Pin = 0 in a self-runner, that goes to \$200 PLUS I'll be glad to help you get this forum's OU prize which now reaches roughly \$20,000.

Just for fun -- and learning!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: kooler on June 17, 2011, 07:49:19 AM
(I would like to encourage replications (and learning), and so I'm proposing a small "contest" -- to see who can reach the lowest Pin for any JT-type circuit.  (See, e.g., attached)    Pin to be measured by this method, cap + stopwatch for Pin.  LED present, visibly glowing.
Incentive (wish I were richer; this is just to make it fun; I just found \$100 tonight I didn't know I had!):  Lowest Pin in one month -- on July 17th,  will receive \$100 minus (\$microwatts/10).
THus, my entry today would be \$100 - 170/10 = \$83.

Just for fun -- and learning!
hey,hey
paypal??
100\$ nice
what voltage you want me to use.. with that 0.17 watts..
any jt type circuit or can i use a two transistor circuit..
12.7 seconds on a 1000uf cap.. rgr that..
i don't have to put all those resistors in there do i.. like ur circuit..
can i use more than one led..

let me know buddy..
robbie

psss.. money talks.. haha
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi on June 17, 2011, 01:07:44 PM
does that include antena type energy captation by some components ? can i use like really long wire ? :D
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 17, 2011, 02:02:59 PM
My money is on Kooler or possibly Gadgetmall for this prize.

This is a nice idea for this contest, thank you for putting it out there.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 17, 2011, 02:33:35 PM
Thanks, Bill:
Quote
"My money is on Kooler or possibly Gadgetmall for this prize.

This is a nice idea for this contest, thank you for putting it out there.

Bill"

You raise a valid caveat, Tudi:
Quote
does that include antena type energy captation by some components ? can i use like really long wire ? :D
OK, I see what you're saying -- and no, this prize would not be for pick-up from the electrical grid or from radio signals.  No poaching off the system (which after all is poaching off of us with bank bail-outs, etc)...  And that "prosaic source of power" may be a little tricky to exclude, but a Faraday-cage test would do it, or operation a long ways up in the mountains (around here), or in a deep cave...

hey,hey
paypal??
100\$ nice
what voltage you want me to use.. with that 0.17 watts..
any jt type circuit or can i use a two transistor circuit..
12.7 seconds on a 1000uf cap.. rgr that..
i don't have to put all those resistors in there do i.. like ur circuit..
can i use more than one led..

let me know buddy..
robbie

psss.. money talks.. haha

Glad money talks, Kooler, ;) ... to get us going and add a little spice to life.

More than one LED and/or transistor is fine; eliminate or add resistors and caps as you wish, and other components. Test at no lower than 2.0 volts on average -- note that my example was a test from 2.55V down to 1.5V, so average just over 2 V.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 17, 2011, 04:52:13 PM

... I'm proposing a small "contest" -- to see who can reach the lowest Pin for any JT-type circuit.  ... LED present, visibly glowing.

This is a circuit I posted some time ago. It is not OU. Input power can be reduced even more by increasing R and C values, but LED will get dimer. I am sure kooler has some circuits with even lower input power.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 17, 2011, 05:45:46 PM
Xee2:

Ah, sorry, I forgot your circuits in my previous post.  My money is on you as well.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 17, 2011, 05:59:15 PM
This is a circuit I posted some time ago. It is not OU. Input power can be reduced even more by increasing R and C values, but LED will get dimer. I am sure kooler has some circuits with even lower input power.

How did you measure the current (A), Xee2?  Looks like this is running about about 150 uW, right?
************
I had a good discussion on alternative energy with SmartScarecrow which was recorded last evening -- see here:

After his news-with-views, and technical difficulties, we get started at about the 30:55 mark.  You can tell, I enjoyed the discussion.  Views about muon-catalyzed fusion, cold fusion, new electrodynamic energy possibilities also.
I put in several notes for overunity.com .

Hope you enjoy it as I did.   I'd like to see some of you on his show --  Especially as this community gets to self-runners!  Its one way to get the word out.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 17, 2011, 05:59:43 PM

Guys
Yes, Kooler had BwJT circuits running for months, very bright, (not barely visible), so that gives me hope that we can replicate that same effect.
So far, I can only get these circuits to light a single led for a day or two and the battery dies, and does not keep the same voltage as when the test started.  If you turn the trim pots resistance up, the battery last longer, but at the cost of what we are trying to develop, a USABLE low draw lighting device.   Dim leds... are boring...
Even the Doc has not mentioned how long his best working or longest lasting device lasts, when connected to a single AA. Only that his regular Jt only lasted 12 hours.  Is this because there has nothing to tell???  Only did an overnight test, one time, that showed the same battery voltage???  What about all the other days and nights. He and others has been working on this project for months, or years, in Koolers case. But he had something to show...  bright led lights, and a perpetual device, until the non rechargeable battery leaked, and he tore them down to recycle the parts again.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 17, 2011, 06:04:55 PM
Nick:

Even the really basic bifilar JT on a ferrite toroid with a 2n3904 transistor will run for over a month with a regular output led.  That is 24/7 running very bright.  The device I made for my Mom was nothing special and used a 5mm led.  also, mostly on that one I used "dead" batteries and they lasted about 1 month before I had to replace it.  I am sure a new lithium would go a long way.  And, as I said, this circuit was nothing special at all...very basic.  Were you using real ferrite on yours?  Of high permeability?

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 17, 2011, 07:05:12 PM

How did you measure the current (A), Xee2?  Looks like this is running about about 150 uW, right?

Measured with RadioShack 22-812 multi-meter. Watts = amps x volts = (1.0 volt) x (0.01 mA) = 10 uW approximately
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Tudi on June 18, 2011, 12:32:09 AM
i guess the fair winner will be a DC to 15-24 Hz pulse generator circuit peak 1.2 v with minimal R to barely light up the diode ? I guess with a bit math a simple circuit could be designed.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 18, 2011, 02:02:59 AM
Bill:
Yes, you've mentioned that before.  But, who else has a device that runs while lighting 3 leds for 5 months on a button cell battery?  Not even those using the best 15.000 perm cores can beat that.
Kooler was not using ferrite, he is using a 3.8 inch crappy yellow iron powder cores on one of them, you can see the yellow color right through the windings.  5 months Bill... so, if it works with the low perm cores, then it's not the just the core.
I only have access to mostly pc power supply toroids.  But Kooler has made it work even just using inductors.  He's probably laughing...
If it weren't for him, I'd have given up already.   Thanks Kooler...
and thank you Bill.  I'll keep trying...
The picture below is of my best lighting unit, (a Kooler replication), uses a tiny ferrite core, and does not use iron powder core, like his.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 18, 2011, 03:23:26 AM
Nick, as I said, I'm more interested right now in getting the input power down to the lowest value possible -- with a reliable and repeatable capacitor/stop-watch measurement.    Hence the monetary prize incentive.  Yes, I think this will turn up several interesting circuits that will run for a LONG time, and perhaps we'll learn something along the way.

Measured with RadioShack 22-812 multi-meter. Watts = amps x volts = (1.0 volt) x (0.01 mA) = 10 uW approximately

OK -- now, so that we can compare using the SAME METHOD for consistency, please use the cap/time method to evaluate Pinput:

Here are the straightforward equations:
Ecap = 1/2 C V**2
so
Pinput = 1/2 C (Vstart**2 - Vstop**2)/time

My best result (to date):   using a 1000 uF cap for input energy, Cap dropped  from 2.55V to 1.5 V in 12.7seconds --  so
Pinput = 1/2 10mF (2.55**2 - 1.5**2)/12.7s

= 0.17 mW = 170 uW.

Easy. Repeatable by most anyone.

@Xee2 and @NickZ -- can you see how long it takes for a capacitor to go from about 2.5 to 1.5V while powering your device? Then we can calculate Pin from above equation, and we can make a direct comparison.

I believe this is an accurate and reliable way to measure Pinput, all you need is a DVM and a stop-watch.  Click "stop" when the DVM over the Cap reaches 1.50 volts.  I measure twice usually, and values come out very close (then take an average).

I would really like to see what Pinput is drawn by Lasersaber's JouleRinger device,
especially if he could put the output on just one LED.

The idea is to measure input Power by an easy, repeatable method --  so we can make direct comparisons of Power usage for various circuits.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on June 18, 2011, 03:32:00 AM
Proffesor,

If I missed this, I apologize;

What is the stated criteria for the meaning of "powering the circuit"?

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on June 18, 2011, 03:35:59 AM
OK, I saw that you stated the following:

Quote
...which circuit can draw the LEAST POWER INPUT and still light an LED with reasonable visibility.

Is that in reference to the start or end of the run?

Super-brights!  :o

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 18, 2011, 03:59:19 AM
@JS:
Your device source capacitor drained a volt in 12 seconds,  so where is the gain??? Or am I missing something?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 18, 2011, 04:11:01 AM
OK, I saw that you stated the following:

Is that in reference to the start or end of the run?

Super-brights!  :o

.99

Clearly, we would need to quantify a MINIMUM brightness for the LED to make useful comparisons between circuits...

I have another idea -- experimenter will replace his LED with a common diode, 1N4148, and then use the stop-watch/Cap method to determine INPUT power.

In this way, we approach a reliable STANDARD METHOD for evaluating the INPUT POWER for various devices.

And the input voltage needs to average out to 2 volts, at present.  Hmmm...  thinking of a standard, we may want to go from 3.24 V (fresh AA's to charge the input-energy Cap) to 1.50V on the cap.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on June 18, 2011, 04:14:13 AM
Clearly, we would need to quantify a MINIMUM brightness for the LED to make useful comparisons between circuits...
This only works if everyone uses the same type of LED, and everyone has a means of measuring the LED's intensity.

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 18, 2011, 04:19:39 AM
@JS:
Your device source capacitor drained a volt in 12 seconds,  so where is the gain??? Or am I missing something?

Nick -- right now, we're working on a STANDARD means of measuring the INPUT POWER, to compare various circuits reliably, repeatable by anyone with a voltmeter and a stop-watch.  Easy.
Does your circuit draw less power than mine?  we can soon know with a repeatable method.

I replaced my LED with a 1N4148 diode, from 2.55 to 1.5 V came out at 12.6 seconds -- still at 170 uW (OK, 169 by the calculator).

GAIN is of course the next question, and requires a method to measure the output POWER reliably.  Do you have a good way to measure Poutput so we can get the efficiency?

I'm proposing a Thermal Wattmeter, given the strong AC components in the output typically... Still working on that.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 18, 2011, 04:21:32 AM
This only works if everyone uses the same type of LED.

.99

AS I SAID,  test requires that you replace the LED with a 1N4148 for the "final" test, to permit comparison.  Maybe our posts are crossing in ether-space?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on June 18, 2011, 04:28:34 AM
AS I SAID,  test requires that you replace the LED with a 1N4148 for the "final" test, to permit comparison.

This does not solve the problem of having a baseline for comparison. What criteria would there now be for the circuit operating?

With your current criteria, I am certain I can beat everyone. I can build a circuit that will drop from 2.5V to 2.4V in 10 seconds.....do I win?

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 18, 2011, 04:46:15 AM
This does not solve the problem of having a baseline for comparison. What criteria would there now be for the circuit operating?

With your current criteria, I am certain I can beat everyone. I can build a circuit that will drop from 2.5V to 2.4V in 10 seconds.....do I win?

.99

Required is a JT-type circuit, with at least one transistor and one bifilar-wound toroid and it must light an LED to observable brightness in a lighted room (all as I said before IIRC) before the final test with a 1N4148 replacing the LED.

And the winner will check the FREQUENCY also...
I'm going to add a provisional stipulation that the frequency of input-power pulses be above 200 Hz, to prevent pulsing "once in a blue moon" and also to avoid 60-Hz pick-up.  If you can persuade me this is not a "fair" stipulation, I'm listening.

The winning device cannot be poaching from the grid.

How's that?  and I do appreciate your checking the criteria, .99.  Rigor without rancor.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on June 18, 2011, 05:01:30 AM
Required is a JT-type circuit, with at least one transistor and one bifilar-wound toroid and it must light an LED to observable brightness in a lighted room (all as I said before IIRC) before the final test with a 1N4148 replacing the LED.

And the winner will check the FREQUENCY also...
The winning device cannot be poaching from the grid; that may require some additional tests.

How's that?  and I do appreciate your checking the criteria, .99.  Rigor without rancor.

No problem. ;)

So this contest excludes anyone that does not have an oscilloscope.

Best to measure and use output power then. You need a baseline Pout and baseline Vbat.

Pout:

1) remove all output diodes/LEDs, and replace with only a fixed non-inductive resistor, of some chosen value that all will use.

2) measure Vout across Rout with scope probes (very close to body of resistor).

3) Have the scope compute rms of measured voltage.

4) Pout = Vrms2/Rout

5) Don't Panic! This works and has been proven.

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 18, 2011, 05:20:04 AM
No problem. ;)

So this contest excludes anyone that does not have an oscilloscope.

Best to measure and use output power then. You need a baseline Pout and baseline Vbat.

Pout:

1) remove all output diodes/LEDs, and replace with only a fixed non-inductive resistor, of some chosen value that all will use.

2) measure Vout across Rout with scope probes (very close to body of resistor).

3) Have the scope compute rms of measured voltage.

4) Pout = Vrms2/Rout

5) Don't Panic! This works and has been proven.

.99

It's true that some means of getting the frequency would be required at the end, if only to preclude the question of a prosaic 60-Hz source.   but you know, a guy can get a decent DSO for about \$300 these days, or go to the local high school and check the frequency.  There are three guys that I know of within a few blocks of my house with oscilloscopes, Abe, Les and Bob.

Now, with regard to output power -- you're changing the system dramatically here and it's not the same system when you do this:
Quote
1) remove all output diodes/LEDs, and replace with only a fixed non-inductive resistor, of some chosen value that all will use.

Are you kidding?  You're drastically altering the dynamics of the device!

What I'm proposing is to replace each output resistor(s) with a resistor(s) whose heat-rise is calibrated for power measurement.  That way we actually leave the diodes and everything in place, and don't destroy the system in an attempt to measure it.  (Misses the power dissipated in the diode still.)

What you're suggesting is like throwing a sledge-hammer at a finely-tuned watch in a (vain) effort to see what's inside, how it works.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on June 18, 2011, 05:26:29 AM
Now, with regard to output power -- you're changing the system dramatically here and it's not the same system when you do this:
Are you kidding?  You're drastically altering the dynamics of the device!

What I'm proposing is to replace each output resistor(s) with a resistor(s) whose heat-rise is calibrated for power measurement.  That way we actually leave the diodes and everything in place, and don't destroy the system in an attempt to measure it.

What you're suggesting is like throwing a sledge-hammer at a finely-tuned watch in a (vain) effort to see what's inside, how it works.

Then I've misinterpreted this response of yours?

Quote
In any case, no I would not make a "specific requirement to have a diode or LED in the output" if you're going to measure Pout.  The LED in the output was for the cap/stopwatch test for Pinput, with the LED glowing... something any one can do without a scope.

That is why I asked, so that it could be simplified. If removing the diode changes the circuit too much and invalidates the proposed contest, then so be it. It was simply a suggestion and I was trying to help out.

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 18, 2011, 06:19:16 AM
It is true that as the criteria were refined, the following were specifically delineated AFTER the sentence you quoted, .99:

Required is a JT-type circuit, with at least one transistor and one bifilar-wound toroid and it must light an LED to observable brightness in a lighted room (all as I said before IIRC) before the final test with a 1N4148 replacing the LED.

And the winner will check the FREQUENCY also...
I'm going to add a provisional stipulation that the frequency of input-power pulses be above 200 Hz, to prevent pulsing "once in a blue moon" and also to avoid 60-Hz pick-up.  If you can persuade me this is not a "fair" stipulation, I'm listening.

The winning device cannot be poaching from the grid.

How's that?  and I do appreciate your checking the criteria, .99.  Rigor without rancor.

And you replied, so you did get this...  Yes, .99, a diode is required.

Further, there are two things going on here --
1.  A contest (with a prize offered) to get the minimum Pinput with the above criteria
and
2.  An effort to measure Pin and Pout -- and thereby the efficiency of such devices.
This is really a separate issue, since the contest does not require a Measurement of Pout.

Better not to confuse the two goals.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 18, 2011, 07:06:04 AM
BTW, .99, the sentence you quoted was from a separate discussion on a different forum altogether!  which you neglected to link or even mention....  isn't that a bit odd?

I think the criteria for the contest -- discussed ONLY in this forum -- have been clear all along, including the provision for an observable LED in the circuit, replaced by a 1N4148 diode for a final test using the cap/time method (for the contest).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 18, 2011, 07:54:17 AM
End of 2010 and earlier this year, I followed the JouleRinger work by LaserSaber and others.
These devices are truly impressive in their low-input-power requirements.  LaserSaber's DUT lit up CFLs for hours as I recall off of several caps...  though replication was difficult for many IIRC.

I wonder if any of you could apply the cap/time method to a "good" JouleRinger device using one LED -- and finally a standard 1N4148 diode -- in the output, instead of CFL's (which are notoriously non-standard).  Then we would be able to compare these circuits with other circuits (going forward) in a meaningful way.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jmmac on June 18, 2011, 02:17:20 PM
Hi Professor,

I bought some components i was missing and was able to replicate your circuit. It now shows waveforms similar to yours - input current and power oscillating around zero.

Using a 10mF capacitor instead of a battery, i let the circuit run and the capacitor discharged from 2.48V to 1.50V in 104s which i believe gives an average input power of 37uW.
For this setup i used a 2N2222 transistor, Cb = 151pF, Rb = 1MOhm, Ro = 0. The led is red, very bright and needs very little current to light up. It was very visible as shown in the picture. The other picture shows part of a cycle of the input current. The frequency is around 10.6Khz made of very short pulses. I didn't measure the real capacitance of the 10mF capacitor which may have a higher value.

If i try the same setup but change the transistor with the 2N3904, the led is dimmer but perfectly visible and the capacitor discharges in 296 seconds which i believe corresponds to an average power of 13.18uW.

I'm not sure we can conclude much from these results and it's very difficult to compare results from different experimenters since there is no way to measure the led brightness. If i use the diode i get similar discharge times (a little longer).

I also tried running the circuit from the capacitor and charge a second 10mF capacitor via a schottky diode. I let the source capacitor discharge to 1.50V and at that point disconnected the charging capacitor. Calculating Ein and Eout, n is around 0.42.

Regards,
Jaime

EDIT: The coil has 20-21 turns in the primary and secondary with what appears to be a normal ferrite toroidal core. The inductance is unkown.

EDIT2 - The power calculations are wrong. In the first case its 184uW and in the second its 65.9uW.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 18, 2011, 02:44:54 PM

... replaced by a 1N4148 diode for a final test using the cap/time method (for the contest).

I recommend using RK44 diodes since the forward drop is only about 0.2 volts at 10 ma. This is another kooler discovery.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 18, 2011, 03:30:33 PM

good morning Steven

i've been running my SJ1 variant tests from a single  (depleted) AAA NiMH, and the voltage has been around the 1.12-1.15V range

just for fun i constructed another unit to add to the comparative results you're getting back from folks

the circuit is a minor mod to one of my earlier tests with a variant of your SJ1 circuit (see schematic below for this test circuit)

C1 0.022uF
D1 1N5817 (schottky)
Q1 2N3906
T1 approx 50:50:100; 0.45mm wire; tri-toroid (ferrite)
C2 1000uF (nominal)
L1 approx 0.5mH
LED1 6mm(?) HiBrite (visible, but not bright)

i'm using a tertiary winding to decouple the AC o/p from the DC operating conditions of the oscillator

this circuit takes 433 seconds (7min 13sec) to discharge a nominal 1000uF cap from 2.24V to 1.5V

C2 1000uF (nominal)
2.24V => 2.509mJ
1.50V => 1.125mJ
-------
Ein: 1.384mJ

Pav: 1.384/433 = 3.2uW

this is all just ballpark at the moment, obviously - to be more accurate, the 1000uF cap would need measuring

also, the pulse repetition frequency is outside your stated conditions, so this circuit doesn't qualify for your competition

it starts at approx 28Hz, with no visible flicker, and the frequency increases as the supply voltage falls

the pulse 'burst' is approx 15uS long

since i have the o/p DC decoupled with the tertiary wind, i can now revert back to the NPN config of your original SJ1, so i'll be able compare efficiency between the two

[EDIT:  i'll also try with a 1N4148 (& then a schottky) replacing the LED, to see the effect on discharge time]

on the subject of the lower frequency limit for your stated conditions, i feel that in general, any frequency of LED drive which the eye perceives as 'continuous' should be counted in - this would be one of the 'design limits' for a commercial lighting product

i agree that care would be needed, in these tests, to ensure isolation from utility & broadcast sources of 'ambient' energy,  but it's not difficult to discount these other sources of input by using a metal case, or taking measurements with the device in a microwave oven

in fact, with wi-fi, bluetooth and cordless phone signals around the home this sort of shielding will likely be advisable anyway, in which case the lower frequency limit does not need to start at 200Hz

just my 2c

good idea to start a competition, looking forward to seeing how this develops!

greetings
np

[EDIT: corrected D1 partnum.]

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on June 18, 2011, 03:37:04 PM
BTW, .99, the sentence you quoted was from a separate discussion on a different forum altogether!  which you neglected to link or even mention....  isn't that a bit odd?
It was laziness. Don't read too much else into it.

Quote
I think the criteria for the contest -- discussed ONLY in this forum -- have been clear all along, including the provision for an observable LED in the circuit, replaced by a 1N4148 diode for a final test using the cap/time method (for the contest).
imho, you will not be able to accurately make comparisons this way, and jmmac has not only reiterated this, but shown this with his post.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg291482#msg291482

In order to make fair comparisons, the Vbat and Pout must be the same in each case, then you measure Pin with your method and compare. LED intensity will not enable proper comparisons, even if substituted with a diode afterward.

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 18, 2011, 03:38:39 PM
Hi Professor,

I bought some components i was missing and was able to replicate your circuit. It now shows waveforms similar to yours - input current and power oscillating around zero.

Using a 10mF capacitor instead of a battery, i let the circuit run and the capacitor discharged from 2.48V to 1.50V in 104s which i believe gives an average input power of 37uW.
For this setup i used a 2N2222 transistor, Cb = 151pF, Rb = 1MOhm, Ro = 0. The led is red, very bright and needs very little current to light up. It was very visible as shown in the picture. The other picture shows part of a cycle of the input current. The frequency is around 10.6Khz made of very short pulses. I didn't measure the real capacitance of the 10mF capacitor which may have a higher value.

If i try the same setup but change the transistor with the 2N3904, the led is dimmer but perfectly visible and the capacitor discharges in 296 seconds which i believe corresponds to an average power of 13.18uW.

I'm not sure we can conclude much from these results and it's very difficult to compare results from different experimenters since there is no way to measure the led brightness. If i use the diode i get similar discharge times (a little longer).

I also tried running the circuit from the capacitor and charge a second 10mF capacitor via a schottky diode. I let the source capacitor discharge to 1.50V and at that point disconnected the charging capacitor. Calculating Ein and Eout, n is around 0.42.

Regards,
Jaime

EDIT: The coil has 20-21 turns in the primary and secondary with what appears to be a normal ferrite toroidal core. The inductance is unkown.

Thank you for doing the replication AND the cap/time method test, Jaime!

1.  "I'm not sure we can conclude much from these results and it's very difficult to compare results from different experimenters since there is no way to measure the led brightness. If i use the diode i get similar discharge times (a little longer)."
The use of a common diode like the 1N4148 allows us to make direct comparisons between different experimenters; we don't have to measure the LED brightness!
@Xee2-  your suggestion of another "standard" diode Rk44 is noted; let me try it out experimentally and see how it differs.  The 1N4148 is so common, that provides some advantage for a "standard input-power test" .

2.  I need to check your numbers; pls spell out the algebra in the future -- that would help to see where there may be a discrepancy.  I get:

Ecap = 1/2 C V**2
so
Pinput = 1/2 C (Vstart**2 - Vstop**2)/time

Pinput = 1/2 C (2.48**2 - 1.5**2)/time
= 1/2 * 10mF * (6.15-2.25)/time
= 19.5mJ/104s
= 0.188mW = 188 uW  (not 37uW -- pls re-check)

For your longer discharge time, 296 s, I get
Pinput = 19.5mJ/296 s =66uW

Please re-check the numbers, would you?  we should agree on the calculated average input power.

Also, I note that with a charging cap on the output leg I typically found n~0.5-0.7 so we're not far different.  Of course, this method for Pout neglects the power dissipated in the LED (and other components), but is a first estimate (as I noted earlier).  Thanks for doing this test.

Important:  what was the POLARITY on this output cap (compared with the direction of the LED)?

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 18, 2011, 03:44:44 PM
It was laziness. Don't read too much else into it.
imho, you will not be able to accurately make comparisons this way, and jmmac has not only reiterated this, but shown this with his post.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg291482#msg291482

In order to make fair comparisons, the Vbat and Pout must be the same in each case, then you measure Pin with your method and compare. LED intensity will not enable proper comparisons, even if substituted with a diode afterward.

.99

Laziness it is then -- but pls explain why using a standard diode at the end will not give a basis for comparisons of Pinput FOR THIS CONTEST.  (AGAIN, I'm asking you not to confuse the contest goal with the separate goal of measuring Pout and efficiency n.)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 18, 2011, 03:58:49 PM

good morning Steven

i've been running my SJ1 variant tests from a single  (depleted) AAA NiMH, and the voltage has been around the 1.12-1.15V range

just for fun i constructed another unit to add to the comparative results you're getting back from folks

the circuit is a minor mod to one of my earlier tests with a variant of your SJ1 circuit (see schematic below for this test circuit)

C1 0.022uF
D1 1N5187 (schottky)
Q1 2N3906
T1 approx 50:50:100; 0.45mm wire; tri-toroid (ferrite)
C2 1000uF (nominal)
L1 approx 0.5mH
LED1 6mm(?) HiBrite (visible, but not bright)

i'm using a tertiary winding to decouple the AC o/p from the DC operating conditions of the oscillator

this circuit takes 433 seconds (7min 13sec) to discharge a nominal 1000uF cap from 2.24V to 1.5V

C2 1000uF (nominal)
2.24V => 2.509mJ
1.50V => 1.125mJ
-------
Ein: 1.384mJ

Pav: 1.384/433 = 3.2uW

this is all just ballbark at the moment, obviously - to be more accurate, the 1000uF cap would need measuring

also, the pulse repetition frequency is outside your stated conditions, so this circuit doesn't qualify for your competition

it starts at approx 28Hz, with no visible flicker, and the frequency increases as the supply voltage falls

the pulse 'burst' is approx 15uS long

since i have the o/p DC decoupled with the tertiary wind, i can now revert back to the NPN config of your original SJ1, so i'll be able compare efficiency between the two

[EDIT:  i'll also try with a 1N4148 (& then a schottky) replacing the LED, to see the effect on discharge time]

on the subject of the lower frequency limit for your stated conditions, i feel that in general, any frequency of LED drive which the eye perceives as 'continuous' should be counted in - this would be one of the 'design limits' for a commercial lighting product

i agree that care would be needed, in these tests, to ensure isolation from utility & broadcast sources of 'ambient' energy,  but it's not difficult to discount these other sources of input by using a metal case, or taking measurements with the device in a microwave oven

in fact, with wi-fi, bluetooth and cordless phone signals around the home this sort of shielding will likely be advisable anyway, in which case the lower frequency limit does not need to start at 200Hz

just my 2c

good idea to start a competition, looking forward to seeing how this develops!

greetings
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Impressive work, nul-pts!  very good.
And I agree with your numbers, which are amazingly low (3.2uW) --

Ecap = 1/2 C V**2
so
Pinput = 1/2 C (Vstart**2 - Vstop**2)/time
= 1/2  1mF  (2.24**2 - 1.5**2)/433 s
= 3.2 uW

Wow!  Very impressive.  I also agree with your argument that 28 Hz is OK -- and I'm going to drop the minimum 200 Hz requirement, with the proviso that 60 Hz is NOT OK (50Hz in Europe and much of Asia)...  and I would like to see a test of your device in a Faraday cage!  that would be interesting in itself.  E.g. a microwave oven (OFF!) should allow you to see and time the voltage drop...  yes, with the DMM inside the cavity also.

I have found, as did Jmmac, that replacing the LED with a 1N4148 diode for a standard changes the Pinput somewhat, but not much -- suggesting to me that our eye-ball estimate of a "dim LED" is not bad.  Still, would appreciate it if you would repeat the test with a 1N4148 if you would, and also if you would try to start at about 2.5 - 2.6 V...  You can start with 2 fresh AA's and run the circuit down to approximately 2.55 V then stop, and you're prepared for the "standard" starting voltage of close to 2.55V.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on June 18, 2011, 04:12:59 PM
Laziness it is then -- but pls explain why using a standard diode at the end will not give a basis for comparisons of Pinput FOR THIS CONTEST.  (AGAIN, I'm asking you not to confuse the contest goal with the separate goal of measuring Pout and efficiency n.)

It's alright Professor; apparently I'm interfering, so I'll pass.

Good luck to all with the contest.

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 18, 2011, 04:42:45 PM
One of the problems with this test is that the frequency will change in the devices as the batteries or charge cap drop in charge.  So their ideal running voltage and frequency sweet spot will be vary, and be lost.  Especially when using a weak 1000 uf cap. The special quality of these low microamp circuits will be overlooked.
Question:  if these circuits are really running on micro amps, why are they discharging their source battery or cap as quickly as they are?
I've got 4 BwJt running every day 24/7, they all have the same trans, cap 103, and pots, and no resistors.  They all work very different since they have different coils on them.  The leds are also all different. All of them drain the battery in a day or two.  There are even difference in using the same type of transistor, etz...
If all the test are showing that the capacitor or batteries are being discharged, and are not maintaining their original voltage, this shows that there is no real or special efficiency with this set up. Just another Jt draining its source.  What it the point???  On the other hand if you had a unit that does NOT get discharged at all, but instead charges up to a higher value (like Koolers do), that would interest me.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 18, 2011, 05:07:04 PM

thanks Steven, i reran the test from 2.55V and got the following results:

553 seconds (9min 13sec) to discharge a nominal 1000uF cap from 2.55V to 1.5V

C2 1000uF (nominal)
2.55V => 3.251mJ
1.50V => 1.125mJ
-------
Ein: 2.126mJ

Pav: 2.126/553 = 3.8uW

i believe i have some 1N4148s, but i can't remember in which 'very safe' hiding place i stored them!  :)

before this latest 2.55V run with an LED , i tried a 1N914 in place of the LED, from 2.24V start - interestingly, it discharged approx 7 seconds faster than with the LED !  (eventually will need to run these tests several times & average, as you suggested)

will try & locate the 4148s - but not 'til next week now unfortunately

will also try with a germanium OA93 when i get a few minutes

you mentioned putting the DVM in the MWO with the DUT, which suggests that you leave the DVM in place for your measurements

i'm sure your DVM is better quality than mine - i only connect to the DUT to take 'spot' readings, so that my DVM doesn't add extra drain (or supply!)

also, i sometimes use empty biscuit tins to provide larger metal (mild steel) cases as Faraday shields for experiments  - removing any paint round outer top edge to ensure good electrical contact with lid

glad the frequency limit can come down!  will try to avoid 50Hz here  :)

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 18, 2011, 05:17:57 PM
One of the problems with this test is that the frequency will change in the devices as the batteries or charge cap drop in charge.  So their ideal running voltage and frequency sweet spot will be vary, and be lost.  Especially when using a weak 1000 uf cap. The special quality of these low microamp circuits will be overlooked.
Question:  if these circuits are really running on micro amps, why are they discharging their source battery or cap as quickly as they are?
I've got 4 BwJt running every day 24/7, they all have the same trans, cap 103, and pots, and no resistors.  They all work very different since they have different coils on them.  The leds are also all different. All of them drain the battery in a day or two.  There are even difference in using the same type of transistor, etz...
If all the test are showing that the capacitor or batteries are being discharged, and are not maintaining their original voltage, this shows that there is no real or special efficiency with this set up. Just another Jt draining its source.  What it the point???  On the other hand if you had a unit that does NOT get discharged at all, but instead charges up to a higher value (like Koolers do), that would interest me.

Can you point me to the link to one of Kooler's devices that do "NOT get discharged at all"?
I'm hoping that Kooler will make an entry here.

But even so, Nick, I would not agree with you that a circuit like NP's that discharges a small 1000uF cap in 433 seconds is discharging "quickly."  That's over SEVEN MINUTES from a small cap!  and under 5 microwatts for Pin.

I agree that conditions will change as the voltage drops from the input cap, and we might later want to limit the range of that voltage drop.  The reason I like the larger range here (approx 2.55 V down to 1.5V) is that the device may indeed go through a "sweet spot" as you say.  I would like to place one of these devices in a sensitive calorimeter, running off a cap with known Ein, and measure with the cal. the precise Eout (total Eoutput).  Do you see where I'm headed with this?   But for now, getting high evident efficiency as shown by LOW Pinput with an LED lighted is the intermediate (and first) goal, and the goal of this little contest.

I don't expect you will join the contest, but it has merit IMO in teaching us about these low-power consumption circuits and in developing ideas of how to make the circuits more efficient (LED still lit with minimal input power).  That's why I offered a small incentive, again,
\$100 - (\$Pinput in uW/10).

If someone gets the prize for over \$99, I will be very pleased at the progress made!

And if someone gets the device to build a charge, OU that is, then the incentive goes to \$200 plus help in getting the whopper prize now standing at this forum -- nearly \$20,000 -- a big carrot for further research!

To summarize the conditions for the "contest" here:

Quote
Dr. Jones' Contest Conditions:
Required is a JT-type circuit, with at least one transistor and one bifilar (or higher)-wound toroid and it must light an LED to observable brightness in a lighted room.   The final test is conducted with a 1N4148 replacing the LED, and the device placed in a microwave (OFF) or other Faraday cage to exclude ambient energy sources. (The winning device cannot be poaching from the local electrical grid; operation at 50-60Hz is excluded.)   The input power is to be measured by the capacitor/time method:
Ecap = 1/2 C V**2
so
Pinput = 1/2 C (Vstart**2 - Vstop**2)/time

Where Vstart is approx. 2.55V and Vstop is 1.5V.
The circuit with the LOWEST Pinput wins, and the award amount is currently:
\$100 - (\$Pinput in uW/10).

(18 June 2011)

2.55 V for the start can be reached by beginning with two fresh AA batteries and running the device so that the cap discharges to approximately 2.55V, then pausing to take measurement of Vin the cap before proceeding with the test.   (One measures the actual value of Vstart on the cap in order to calculate Ein)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 18, 2011, 05:26:30 PM
NP:

Quote
553 seconds (9min 13sec) to discharge a nominal 1000uF cap from 2.55V to 1.5V

C2 1000uF (nominal)
2.55V => 3.251mJ
1.50V => 1.125mJ
-------
Ein: 2.126mJ

Pav: 2.126/553 = 3.8uW

Over nine minutes on a small 1000uF cap!  phenomenal, NP.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 18, 2011, 05:29:23 PM
ok, i find this interesting - i just replaced the LED with an OA93 (germanium diode)

the discharge time decreased to 359 seconds (5min 59sec)

Pav = 2.126/359 = 5.9uW

i wasn't ready for that!   maybe the 1N914 discharge time was correct after all?

perhaps there's a good reason why someone mentioned earlier about using several LEDs!!!  ;)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jmmac on June 18, 2011, 05:38:24 PM
You are correct, i didn't recheck my calculations. I get the same values you mentioned. Sorry about that.

For the setup where i charge the capacitor, the diode anode is connected to the ground, the cathode is connected to the capacitor plus and the capacitor minus is connected to the transistor emitter.

I disagree with you regarding the use of the 1N4148 in order to compare results. The only thing it achieves is to make sure everyone has the same diode (voltage drop). It does nothing to solve the problem of comparing led brightness (power consumption).

My led is so sensitive that i can light it up connecting one end to the ground of my scope and touching the other end with my finger!

Thank you for doing the replication AND the cap/time method test, Jaime!

1.  "I'm not sure we can conclude much from these results and it's very difficult to compare results from different experimenters since there is no way to measure the led brightness. If i use the diode i get similar discharge times (a little longer)."
The use of a common diode like the 1N4148 allows us to make direct comparisons between different experimenters; we don't have to measure the LED brightness!
@Xee2-  your suggestion of another "standard" diode Rk44 is noted; let me try it out experimentally and see how it differs.  The 1N4148 is so common, that provides some advantage for a "standard input-power test" .

2.  I need to check your numbers; pls spell out the algebra in the future -- that would help to see where there may be a discrepancy.  I get:

Ecap = 1/2 C V**2
so
Pinput = 1/2 C (Vstart**2 - Vstop**2)/time

Pinput = 1/2 C (2.48**2 - 1.5**2)/time
= 1/2 * 10mF * (6.15-2.25)/time
= 19.5mJ/104s
= 0.188mW = 188 uW  (not 37uW -- pls re-check)

For your longer discharge time, 296 s, I get
Pinput = 19.5mJ/296 s =66uW

Please re-check the numbers, would you?  we should agree on the calculated average input power.

Also, I note that with a charging cap on the output leg I typically found n~0.5-0.7 so we're not far different.  Of course, this method for Pout neglects the power dissipated in the LED (and other components), but is a first estimate (as I noted earlier).  Thanks for doing this test.

Important:  what was the POLARITY on this output cap (compared with the direction of the LED)?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 18, 2011, 06:35:03 PM

Of course, this method for Pout neglects the power dissipated in the LED (and other components)...

input  = 0.5*(10e-6)*(2.48^2 - 1.5^2)/104 = 1.875e-7 = 188 uW

I can not calculate output power since end voltage was not given.

LED should not be used when measuring output power. The LED should be replaced with rectifier diode. The power lost in the rectifier diode is I^2 x R where R is the on resistance of the diode (very small for RK44).

I do not think the waveform matters, since all of the energy going to output is from energy stored in magnetic fields of coils. How this energy dissipates is not critical, only the "total amount" of energy matters.

If all of the energy dissipated in all of the components is added up it should theoretically always be exactly equal to the total input energy (n=1.00). Only the load power needs to be measured, the rest is irrelevant. When charging a capacitor, the capacitor is the load.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 18, 2011, 06:46:36 PM

My led is so sensitive that i can light it up connecting one end to the ground of my scope and touching the other end with my finger!

:o This should not happen. That means the scope ground is sourcing high frequency current and voltage.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 18, 2011, 09:22:31 PM
Possibly the adding of more than one led may help to obtain the magic numbers.  Kooler (my Hero) used three leds on one of his 5 month long test units.  Worth a try.
Resonance has everything to do with this, but a steady voltage also needs to be maintained, as the battery is part of the draw in these circuits. The oscillator is also charging the battery or the cap to a degree. In most cases, without the use of the resonance factor the feed-back charge is not of a high enough degree to keep the voltage from dropping. So, it is a flow balancing act to keep it going strong. One volt input,  8 volts back to the battery.  Similar to the Joule Ringer.  I don't belief that anyone has really hit the nail on the head yet.  But, I do hope to see it done.
Good luck with your tests... we may all learn something from them.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 19, 2011, 12:56:08 AM
NickZ:

Quote
I don't belief that anyone has really hit the nail on the head yet.  But, I do hope to see it done.
Good luck with your tests... we may all learn something from them.
Thanks, Nick -- agreed.

I also agree with Xee2 on this; consistent with what I've been suggesting:
[snip]

LED should not be used when measuring output power. The LED should be replaced with rectifier diode. The power lost in the rectifier diode is I^2 x R where R is the on resistance of the diode

There is resistance in the diode chosen, and so we choose a STANDARD and I've proposed the 1N4148 diode since this is commonly available.

@NP -- I'm not surprised if your input power goes UP with a diode in place of an LED; this evidently means that the effective resistance of the diode is greater than that of the LED.  That's OK; we're seeking a STANDARD METHOD to measure Pinput for various circuits, so we can make valid comparisons.  Everyone using the same standard diode for the output leg.

IF we could find a commonly available LED, I suppose we could use that as a STANDARD...  it makes for a much more interesting video and allows one to SEE the output.  Are Radio Shack parts available worldwide?  we could choose a red LED from RS and make that our standard I suppose.  Meanwhile, testing with the 1N4148 should teach us something.

@Jmmac --
Quote
My led is so sensitive that i can light it up connecting one end to the ground of my scope and touching the other end with my finger!--Jmmac
if you will measure the frequency of the oscillation, I'm quite certain you will find that it is 60 Hz (or 50Hz in Europe).  Place your scope probes across the LED that lights up with the "antenna effect" to check this prediction.  Of course, poaching from the local grid is not allowed by the contest.  And I'm very sure you would not see this effect you describe inside a Faraday cage (also required in the "contest").

Xee2:  "If all of the energy dissipated in all of the components is added up it should theoretically always be exactly equal to the total input energy (n=1.00). "

Correct -- theoretically.  But here we are experimentalists and so we allow the possiblity of an empirical measurement of n>1 (as I think you would agree).  Right now we're seeking a consistent, straightforward way of standardizing measurement of Pinput.   Doing the same for Poutput (or equivalently, Eoutput) comes later and is beyond the parameters of this exercise / contest.  I'm looking at calorimetric methods, but again, that comes later.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 19, 2011, 01:40:06 AM
I've been thinking about the next step, measuring (and maximizing) Poutput, so that we can evaluate efficiency n empirically.

In order to do this using calorimetric methods, there needs to be some heat produced in the output leg of the DUT.
Therefore I'm thinking we need a small resistance in the output leg of the circuit in series with the 1N4148 diode in order to do the next step... I'm proposing requiring a 1.0 ohm resistor (within say 0.04 ohms; but measure the actual resistance accurately)  in series with the diode for the purpose of a SECOND contest AND the next step described above....

The time for cap discharge will come way down, I'm quite sure.... less fun perhaps... but this will result in a more meaningful result in the long run, I think.

Rather than "changing the rules of the first contest" now, I'm proposing this as a "Second Contest".  Same rules as before with the ADDED condition that the output leg include at least one LED (1N4148 diode in the final step) and at least 1ohm resistor.

Again -- an additional \$100 incentive, minus (\$Pinput in microwatts divided by 10) -- incentive to make it fun.

PS -- I may change the output resistance as I study up on calorimetric methods, but I think 1 ohm will be fine.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 19, 2011, 02:28:46 AM
Possibly the adding of more than one led may help to obtain the magic numbers.  Kooler (my Hero) used three leds on one of his 5 month long test units.  Worth a try.
Resonance has everything to do with this, but a steady voltage also needs to be maintained, as the battery is part of the draw in these circuits. The oscillator is also charging the battery or the cap to a degree. In most cases, without the use of the resonance factor the feed-back charge is not of a high enough degree to keep the voltage from dropping. So, it is a flow balancing act to keep it going strong. One volt input,  8 volts back to the battery.  Similar to the Joule Ringer.  I don't belief that anyone has really hit the nail on the head yet.  But, I do hope to see it done.
Good luck with your tests... we may all learn something from them.

Nick:

First, I had no idea Kooler had used powdered iron for his core, I never had any luck with those...this is good to know.

Just a thought on the 3 leds idea...depending upon how the leds were wired, might this not be similar (if not exactly) the same as an Avromenko plug?  The AV plug is made from 3 diodes and, as we all know, leds are diodes.  IF this is the case, the circuit might be picking up high frequency energy through the air similar to Dr. Stiffler's SEC.  I am not saying this is what is happening, it just occurred to me as a possibility is all.  I have a small AV plug that lights up near my Jeanna's circuit built from the 3 3/8" toroid.

@ Dr. Jones:

My local RS does not carry much at all.  They do have a few leds, but like everything else over there, they are way overpriced.  I can buy 100 leds for the price of one of theirs.  I do agree it would be a good idea for all to use the same led though.

Bill

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 19, 2011, 03:19:37 AM
Steven

i'm thinking that it might be necessary for the different contributors to 'characterise' their caps (as well as get a more accurate reading of their value)

iirc you did this yourself a while back, when you first started testing the possibility of using caps to measure Pin

i've just charged my test system's cap to 2.55V and let it self-discharge for 10 minutes (a convenient value, similar in length to the discharge period for this system)

the cap discharged to 2.36V in 600 seconds, so the average self-discharge power (effectively an additional parallel load to the system) was 0.78uW, nearly 20% of the 3.8uW drawn by the total system

since the cap self-discharge is occurring completely in parallel to the main test, and is not involved in the functioning of the circuit, it seems logical to remove this variable from everyone's Pin results (since everyone's cap will have different self-discharge rates)

what do you think?

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 19, 2011, 04:27:17 AM
Bill:
I am assuming that the tiny yellow toroid core in Koolers video is a iron powder core, as he himself does not remember where he got it. Most of the yellow ones come from pc motherboards or power supplies.
I have a dozen of those cores in my Jtc lighting up just about every corner of my house at night, they do work ok, but just not as well as the ferrites. So for those guys using iron powder cores, i suggest having two AAs.  They work just fine for at least a couple of days.

In the Docs video he mentions that the regular Jt that he had, only last 12 hours.  So, my question to him is:  How long does the a regular AA 600 mA battery keep his Hartleys going???  I've asked several times, I hope that it's not too tough question.
I am not too concerned about the draw or efficiency of the circuits, as they are now connected to the cement batteries cells, which don't need ever need recharging.  I was hoping the the Hartley circuits would work even better with the cement cells, but they don't, at least not for me.
I do think that trying three leds may help.  I use 15 leds on my BwJt.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 19, 2011, 04:36:59 AM
Radio Shack is world wide,  at least here in Costa Rica there are several of them. They do have red, and white, leds of several sizes. so it should not be a problem to obtain them in many places in the world.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 19, 2011, 11:43:06 AM
@ NickZ

run time in hours = (battery mA-hrs) / (circuit battery drain in mA)

Most AA batteries are about 2000 mA-hrs. Therefore my 0.01 mA circuit should run about 2000/0.01 hours on one AA battery (which is about 22 years).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 19, 2011, 04:22:35 PM
Xee2:
22 years huh?  And what do you get as far as light with .01 mA draw. Do you have a picture of it?  Please refer us to your diagram or info on it.
Like I said I'm really not too concerned about the efficiency, as my cells are providing even more than 22 years worth of light for free.  I may not live that long though.  But, I am looking for usable light, not just a boringly dim led, that has no purpose,
My purpose is to light my house for free, and I'm getting there, without paying for it.  But, I do feel that there is a chance of creating a self-runner also, but one that works, and give a useful amount of light. Not a toy.

Kooler's BwJt has 70 leds lighing off of one AA.  (brightly)...  But,he doesn't say for how long.   He mentioned that he's built over a hundred of these circuits.  One of these days he'll feel better and will speak for himself.

Yes, I know that some of you have built circuits that last a while, and I also know that you need to use best core to get the best results.  The correct winding on the core is what going to make it or break it.

Hopefully this is not just like the Joule Ringer or TPU which nobody can replicate.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 19, 2011, 05:07:52 PM

... what do you get as far as light with .01 mA draw.

Very dim light and batteries do not last 22 years. Circuit was posted a few pages back. Reduce base resistor value to increase LED brightness (and increase battery drain). 2 mA can give bright LED, 20 mA can give many very bright LEDs. Read through Joule thief thread and you will find a lot of info.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on June 19, 2011, 05:56:09 PM
RE: the video smart_scare_crow
let's use a thermal wattmeter,  I agree, I think this is progress
when everybody has one of these there will be enough data
to create the kind of catalyst necessary to really take off.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 19, 2011, 11:27:19 PM
Steven

i'm thinking that it might be necessary for the different contributors to 'characterise' their caps (as well as get a more accurate reading of their value)

iirc you did this yourself a while back, when you first started testing the possibility of using caps to measure Pin

i've just charged my test system's cap to 2.55V and let it self-discharge for 10 minutes (a convenient value, similar in length to the discharge period for this system)

the cap discharged to 2.36V in 600 seconds, so the average self-discharge power (effectively an additional parallel load to the system) was 0.78uW, nearly 20% of the 3.8uW drawn by the total system

since the cap self-discharge is occurring completely in parallel to the main test, and is not involved in the functioning of the circuit, it seems logical to remove this variable from everyone's Pin results (since everyone's cap will have different self-discharge rates)

what do you think?
thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

I agree, NP -- we should characterize the cap used for the test; and this is not difficult to do as you point out.

Bill:
Quote
I do agree it would be a good idea for all to use the same led though.

And Nick notes that Costa Rica has Radio Shack also...  The cost of a high-brightness red LED should hopefully not be too great for all experimenters...   If anyone has one to recommend, by RS part number, that would be helpful...  NP?  Xee2?

Nick -- I'm running my sj1 circuit just for you, with a single AA battery.  Will report V-drop tomorrow.  Start:  1.623 volts (15h03 my time).

Dimbulb:
Quote
RE: the video smart_scare_crow
let's use a thermal wattmeter,  I agree, I think this is progress
when everybody has one of these there will be enough data
to create the kind of catalyst necessary to really take off.

Welcome to the discussion, Dimbulb.    Yes, although these thermal wattmeters are not so easy (or cheap) to procure these days.  I have a lead on one and will try to make it available to other users -- this will allow a test of Poutput to go along with the "standardized method" for measuring Pinput we've come up with here.  And thus, we can reliably evaluate efficiency n.  :)

(There may be other methods that are just as good....  but the discussion here suggests that the cap/time method for measuring Pinput is easy to do and worthwhile.  We'll see about calorimetric methods as we get more actual data on these...)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 20, 2011, 01:36:38 AM

Very low power Joule thief. Video at >>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIQ2D1pqZNc

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on June 20, 2011, 02:11:35 AM
I agree, NP -- we should characterize the cap used for the test; and this is not difficult to do as you point out.

Bill:
And Nick notes that Costa Rica has Radio Shack also...  The cost of a high-brightness red LED should hopefully not be too great for all experimenters...   If anyone has one to recommend, by RS part number, that would be helpful...  NP?  Xee2?

Nick -- I'm running my sj1 circuit just for you, with a single AA battery.  Will report V-drop tomorrow.  Start:  1.623 volts (15h03 my time).

Dimbulb:
Welcome to the discussion, Dimbulb.    Yes, although these thermal wattmeters are not so easy (or cheap) to procure these days.  I have a lead on one and will try to make it available to other users -- this will allow a test of Poutput to go along with the "standardized method" for measuring Pinput we've come up with here.  And thus, we can reliably evaluate efficiency n.  :)

(There may be other methods that are just as good....  but the discussion here suggests that the cap/time method for measuring Pinput is easy to do and worthwhile.  We'll see about calorimetric methods as we get more actual data on these...)

Thankyou for the welcome,
I see a bird thermal milliwattmeter, I think this would have the right scale.
http://www.bird-technologies.com/resources/discontinued/bec_manuals/6300-368.pdf

I have seen RF mW meters not too difficult to build.
If it could be modified and shown that it works alright.
I have seen that amatuer radio qrp contest clubs
have come up with a meter. they seem to be
measuring OU also.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 20, 2011, 03:45:22 AM
@ Xee2:
Thanks for the diagram.  I have been looking at all the Jt theads, and all the videos for years.  It makes my head spin trying to decide which of the hundred circuits is worth replicating. What really interest me is the self running aspect, otherwise these circuits don't offer much of an incentive. If you have a source of 3 or 4 volts the best thing is to connect the leds direct to the source, and obtain the full power and light intensity from each led. But I know there are some anomalies with these circuits, once you hit on resonance which is not going to happen unless the voltage and frequency is stable.
I will try to follow the best longest running BwJt circuits as they become available.  The 1" goldmine core is the best deal out there, but not available here, so some of us have to make due with what we have.
JS:  Thanks for the test on your device running on a single AA,  I really appreciate that. A regular AA non-rechargeable is 600 mA not the 2700mA like Xee uses, as that one has more than 4 times the output current.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 20, 2011, 05:04:16 AM
@ Xee2:
You know what comes to mind is that the meters and scopes are not giving us an accurate reading on this type of recycling circuits.  They are being fooled by these circuits. Otherwise you would get the 22 years run time, but you don't, nor does anyone else that has these super low draw readings.
So, again I don't think we are really getting accurate readings on these device's true consumption.
The best test is the run time on a single AA, in my opinion.  A 1000 micro farad cap will not stay on the sweet spot long enough to notice any real gain and the circuits will just discharge the cap, as you will notice with the tests.
This will also happen when using an AA, but to a lesser degree, and so it should be a slightly more accurate way to see the anomalies.
Now, if the circuit running on a cap lasts a month, or several months,  then we could say that the circuit is running on well, nothing,  or something,  but what.  To me there is only one answer, that at the right frequency they become an Aether conversion device.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: downunder on June 20, 2011, 05:10:17 AM
<snip>
JS:  Thanks for the test on your device running on a single AA,  I really appreciate that. A regular AA non-rechargeable is 600 mA not the 2700mA like Xee uses, as that one has more than 4 times the output current.

According to wikipedia, the weakest non-rechargeable AA battery is 1100 mAh and to get a 600 mAh AA you would need to go with a NiCd rechargeable. Perhaps you are thinking of non-rechargeable AAA batteries which can be as low as 250 mAh according to wikipedia. I realise that wikipedia is not always the most reliable source, so if anyone can prove it wrong then you can feel free to just ignore this post.  :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AA_battery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AA_battery)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_battery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAA_battery)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TEKTRON on June 20, 2011, 05:26:44 AM
Nick -- right now, we're working on a STANDARD means of measuring the INPUT POWER, to compare various circuits reliably, repeatable by anyone with a voltmeter and a stop-watch.  Easy.
Does your circuit draw less power than mine?  we can soon know with a repeatable method.

I replaced my LED with a 1N4148 diode, from 2.55 to 1.5 V came out at 12.6 seconds -- still at 170 uW (OK, 169 by the calculator).

GAIN is of course the next question, and requires a method to measure the output POWER reliably.  Do you have a good way to measure Poutput so we can get the efficiency?

I'm proposing a Thermal Wattmeter, given the strong AC components in the output typically... Still working on that.

Dr. Jones. Do you think this watt meter circuit will help determine Pout? ...attached
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 20, 2011, 05:45:41 AM
Thanks for the schematic Xee2 -- very clear.  Will try to replicate tomorrow..

@Nick-- agreed, there are LOTs of circuits out there.  Xee2's is particularly straightforward and attractive.  Note:  One could use a larger-capacity cap if you are worried about missing the "sweet spot", or run over a shorter time --  so that the input voltage is nearly constant.

@dimbulb:
Quote
I have seen that amatuer radio qrp contest clubs
have come up with a meter.
they seem to be
measuring OU also.

Both your statements are intriguing -- can you provide more detail or links?

@Tektron - thanks, will look at this tomorrow as its getting late here now.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 20, 2011, 05:54:59 PM

Will try to replicate tomorrow..

The type of LED I used is the best I have found for very low power. Other LEDs will probably not be as bright. But you should be able to show that the circuit will work at 4 uA. You can lower the resistor value to make the LED brighter but this will also increase battery current.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 20, 2011, 06:10:53 PM
Downunder and All:
Thank you for the info on the AAs. I was not aware that they can vary from about 1500 to 3000 mA.  And the current is not shown on the batteries themselves.
So, I'm afraid that unless we all use the same exact battery this test would not be very accurate either.
But still, supposing that we use the most common and available AA,  a relative run time can be obtained.  A higher farad cap would also help.
The idea is to see if there really is any self-running aspect to this circuit, which can recycles the energy within the device, similar to the Joule Ringer.  And if that is not the case then, what advantage there might be over a regular Jtc.
I personally feel that the additional energy that can keep a device running for months on end, does not come from recycled energy, but instead is drawn from the ambient.  But, that all needs to be proven.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 20, 2011, 06:30:14 PM
@ Pirate:
Three leds were connected in parallel on Koolers BwJt, I don't know if that has any relation to the diode plug (can't spell it) that you mentioned.
I think that there may be a point where a higher draw is better, so long as there is resonance.  His circuits are charging instead of discharging the battery. But the other device in the same video does not use three leds, just a single one, and he mentioned that it was brighter than the one with three leds.
He also mentions that his device are constantly going from 1.2 volts down to 0.6 volts, and back up to 1.2v, and back down the 0,6 volts.
Has anyone else found this to be the case???
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 20, 2011, 06:52:11 PM
@ Pirate:
Three leds were connected in parallel on Koolers BwJt, I don't know if that has any relation to the diode plug (can't spell it) that you mentioned.
I think that there may be a point where a higher draw is better, so long as there is resonance.  His circuits are charging instead of discharging the battery. But the other device in the same video does not use three leds, just a single one, and he mentioned that it was brighter than the one with three leds.
He also mentions that his device are constantly going from 1.2 volts down to 0.6 volts, and back up to 1.2v, and back down the 0,6 volts.
Has anyone else found this to be the case???

Can you provide the link(s) for Kooler's DUT that you're talking about here?  sounds very interesting.

With the sj1 circuit, after 15 hours of running on a single AA battery, the measured voltage is:
Start: 1.623 V
15Hrs: 1.621 V

Hope that is useful to you.  I will keep it running this way a while longer.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: fritz on June 20, 2011, 06:55:46 PM
I was not aware that they can vary from about 1500 to 3000 mA.

One reason why most of the primary (non-rechargeable) cells have no rated amp-hours is - that the discharge characteristic is quite flat. (you have to specify a final discharge voltage)
Another reason is - that the consumable energy totally depends on the way you load the cell.
For a high dc current load (few hundred milliamps) - the consumable amp-hours can be a fraction of what you get with pretty less load (microamps).
If you load the cell with a pulsed load - for example pulsed microamps - the entire consumable energy can be a multiple of what the cell is rated for DC.
Conclusion:
A primary cell is no (huge) capacitor. (we exclude here electrolytic or super-caps- because they are effected by chemistry either)
The energy is derived from an electrochemical process with internal losses.
You can consume energy until this electrochemical process is exhausted.

Attached an example of a primary cell datasheet - duracell "AA" ultra.
You can find lots of datasheets for primary cells on the net.

rgds.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 20, 2011, 07:26:45 PM
Very low power Joule thief. Video at >>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIQ2D1pqZNc

@Xee2-- a most fascinating circuit, Xee2.  I'm enjoying studying it on my bench.

I had one of the Goldmine toroids already wound with 14 turns of 22 gauge wire, so I used that.  (Good thing I bought ten of these toroids months ago, as they are out-of-supply now.)

R = 2.3 Mohms
MPSA06
Green LED and red LED that I have gave similar Pinputs, using the cap/time method.

Here is what I found exciting -- the operation changes dramatically with Vinput voltage:

2.8 V - 1.65 V, green LED is brightly lit at the start, dims then goes essentially out at ~ 1.65V.  Power consumption is quite high:

Einput = 1/2 C V**2

So Pinput = 1/2 C (Vstart**2 - Vend**2)/time

= 1/2 10mF (2.8**2 - 1.7**2) / 3.4 seconds   = 7.3 mW = 7300 uW

Not too exciting so far, but I noticed that the LED came BACK ON at approx 1.63 Volts!  Not bright, but clearly glowing.  Note that Xee2 on his schematic specifies 1.366V as Vinput, so this would be in the range of much lower power consumption, Pinput.

Note that the power consumption is hundreds of times LESS:

Pinput = 1/2 C (Vstart**2 - Vend**2)/time

= 1/2 10mF (1.431**2 - 1.243**2) / 200 seconds   = 0.0126 mW  = 12.6 uW  !!

The input power has dropped by a factor of over 500.
This is what Nick was talking about, there seems to be a "sweet spot" for operation.

BTW, I noticed the same pattern for the sj1 circuit a while back, dimming, then the LED comes back on and glows for a lot longer thereafter.  I thought it was just a curiosity when I discussed this with smartscarecrow last week, but now I see this as an important effect -- and very dramatic with Xee2's circuit, a huge reduction in Pinput.

With a red LED instead of Green, the Pinput is roughly the same (11 uW from 1.291V to 1.117V in 200s).  The red LED goes out at about 1.44 Vin (from the cap) and back on at lower Pinput, at about 1.406 Vin.

Now this is exciting -- but why the huge drop in Pinput at a critical voltage?? I really don't know, but would like to understand.  Will some of you jump and let's see if we can figure this out?  My GUESS is that the lower Pinput range is the most interesting in terms of seeking OU.

I checked with my DSO -- before and after the transition voltage to lower Pinput, the frequency of operation is about the same -- about 48 Hz for my build.  (21msec = Period)  But above 1.7Volts, we see that the pulses are large and pulsed DC, whereas below the critical voltage, the pulses are smaller but have a significant AC component.

Thanks, Xee2!

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on June 20, 2011, 07:29:27 PM
Downunder and All:
Thank you for the info on the AAs. I was not aware that they can vary from about 1500 to 3000 mA.  And the current is not shown on the batteries themselves.
So, I'm afraid that unless we all use the same exact battery this test would not be very accurate either.
But still, supposing that we use the most common and available AA,  a relative run time can be obtained.  A higher farad cap would also help.
The idea is to see if there really is any self-running aspect to this circuit, which can recycles the energy within the device, similar to the Joule Ringer.  And if that is not the case then, what advantage there might be over a regular Jtc.
I personally feel that the additional energy that can keep a device running for months on end, does not come from recycled energy, but instead is drawn from the ambient.  But, that all needs to be proven.

I agree that a constant voltage and constant current is much more accurate.

Since constant current is a function of constant
voltage a voltage IC such as the LM431 @ 1.223V followed by constant current clamp will enhance the
battery source.  Being in agreement on this would allow comparison between two joule thieves so
illuminating battery drift.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 20, 2011, 08:40:09 PM
@ JouleSeeker

My LED stays on down to capacitor voltage of about 0.8 volts

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 20, 2011, 08:41:48 PM
JouleSeeker and All:
Thank you for your latest test.  That is some very useful information, to me.  In comparison the Docs regular Jt lasts 12 hours, so...
Please keep it going as long as possibly and register the voltage, instead of  the current, as time goes by.  The most important point is the sweet spot, other wise it will only show the battery further discharging, as in all the other tests.  This sweet spot is caused to happen by resonance, and is the source of the anomaly.  Very important to look into just how this all works.

A couple of links that you requested.   The second video of his BwJt   lighting 70 leds.  I'll ask him how long it last, as soon as he makes it back to life.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 20, 2011, 09:00:47 PM
Thanks, gentlemen.
@Nick -- i hope Kooler is OK!

I added a 1ohm resistor in series with the green LED here, and measured the voltage drop across this resistor (I will attach some waveforms soon), so that V = IR = I since R=1.

Further interesting -- the Pinput did not change much, perhaps down a little with the added 1ohm R:

1.261V to 1.200 V (on 10mF cap) in 80 seconds => 9.4 uW (compared with 11uW without the 1ohm R)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: forest on June 20, 2011, 09:00:54 PM
Xee,NickZ,JouleSeeker

Is it possible to disconnect that part of winding which goes to base of transistor completely from battery ? I see that there is capacitor placed there but it still is connected to plus of battery and by lenz rule drain amperage from it. I'm seeking the way to turn on/off transistor with minimal influence on transformer while still to sense the change to open transistor.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 20, 2011, 09:03:23 PM
@ JouleSeeker

My LED stays on down to capacitor voltage of about 0.8 volts

Mine also, but the question is -- what happens to the LED lighting if you START at  2 V or above?  Does your LED go "off (or VERY dim)" at roughly 1.67 V  then clearly back ON at approx 1.648V  --as mine does ?

I see the same off-back on effect with a red LED, but at around 1.45 V...  so your device will probably show Off-Back on at some other voltage than 1.67/1.64 -- but probably it will occur, and in the range between 1.35 V and 2.5V.  Would you check?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 20, 2011, 09:12:21 PM
I'm seeking the way to turn on/off transistor with minimal influence on transformer while still to sense the change to open transistor.

Short base to emitter.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 20, 2011, 10:06:55 PM
I have looked at the waveforms produced by the JT-variant by Xee2 (my build) -- see attached.  I have added a 1ohm R in series with the LED, and the waveform shows the voltage drop across this R:  V=IR = I since R=1.

Upper left shows one pair of pulses typical of operating in the region of interest (below the critical voltage as defined in my recent post above).  IOW, the LED has turned OFF and is now back ON.

Lower left expands the first pulse.
Right waveforms are of the right-most pulse of the pair; note that the right-most pulses differ, as seen by juxtapoing two observed waveforms.
Interesting (IMHO).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 20, 2011, 11:38:21 PM
I have looked at the waveforms produced by the JT-variant by Xee2 (my build) -- see attached.  I have added a 1ohm R in series with the LED, and the waveform shows the voltage drop across this R:  V=IR = I since R=1.

Upper left shows one pair of pulses typical of operating in the region of interest (below the critical voltage as defined in my recent post above).  IOW, the LED has turned OFF and is now back ON.

Lower left expands the first pulse.
Right waveforms are of the right-most pulse of the pair; note that the right-most pulses differ, as seen by juxtapoing two observed waveforms.
Interesting (IMHO).

I do not have a real scope (just a toy). But I have seen that there are often two pulses. This makes it hard to measure frequency without a scope (I would measure frequency by time between large pulses). I can not think of any reason why the waveform does not repeat.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 21, 2011, 02:32:15 AM
@ JS:
That effect may be caused by the pot.  Try a different one, of higher or lower value, I'll bet it goes out and on again at a different voltage. But, that may not be very important in relation to finding the sweet spot.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 21, 2011, 03:43:18 AM

Steven

i made an interesting discovery - the tertiary winding for the o/p in my previous circuit is  redundant!  (see below for updated schematic)

the latest circuit, using a 1000uF 35V cap as C2 (all other other parts as posted above) takes 687 seconds (11min 27sec) to discharge a nominal 1000uF cap from 2.55V to 1.5V

C2 1000uF (nominal)
2.55V => 3.251mJ
1.50V => 1.125mJ
-------
Ein: 2.126mJ

Pav: 2.126/687 = 3.1uW (including cap leakage)

thanks
np

PS  if the 'blanking' voltage is different between two different coloured LEDs and nothing else changed in the circuit, presumably then it's related to the excitation levels involved in the different turn-on and forward-voltage drop characteristics of different colour LEDs?

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 21, 2011, 05:48:44 AM
ENERGY CALCULATION USING VOLTAGE CHANGE

10,000 uF capacitor
start voltage = 1.366
end voltage = 0.936
time = 21 minutes = 21 * 60 seconds = 1260 sec.

Joules = 0.5*C*(V1^2 - V2^2) = 0.5*10000e-6*(1.366^2 - 0.936^2) = 0.0049493

watts = Joules / seconds = 0.0049493 / 1260 = 3.9 uW

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 21, 2011, 06:10:04 AM

Steven

i made an interesting discovery - the tertiary winding for the o/p in my previous circuit is  redundant!  (see below for updated schematic)

the latest circuit, using a 1000uF 35V cap as C2 (all other other parts as posted above) takes 687 seconds (11min 27sec) to discharge a nominal 1000uF cap from 2.55V to 1.5V

C2 1000uF (nominal)
2.55V => 3.251mJ
1.50V => 1.125mJ
-------
Ein: 2.126mJ

Pav: 2.126/687 = 3.1uW (including cap leakage)

thanks
np

PS  if the 'blanking' voltage is different between two different coloured LEDs and nothing else changed in the circuit, presumably then it's related to the excitation levels involved in the different turn-on and forward-voltage drop characteristics of different colour LEDs?

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Remarkable achievement, NP!   Hope you keep experimenting... you might get to a self-runner yet ;)  .
(Has the 3.1uW been corrected yet for cap leakage?)
I like the simplicity of this circuit of yours; and of Xee2's circuit.

@Nick:  Yes, increasing the R in series with the LED increases the voltage at which the LED turns off, then back on.  For 21 ohms = R, the green LED goes off at ~ 1.694V and back on (with less power consumption) at 1.664 V.  Interestingly, the Pinput calculated using the cap/time method is about the same for R= 21 ohms (9.8uW) as for R=1 ohm.

In any case, NP's circuit is still the front-runner with regard to the LOWEST Pinput.  (NP, have you found a 1N4148 yet?)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 21, 2011, 06:32:17 AM
Just saw your post, Xee2 -- 3.9uW is also remarkable!  Thanks for using the cap/time method.
ENERGY CALCULATION USING VOLTAGE CHANGE

10,000 uF capacitor
start voltage = 1.366
end voltage = 0.936
time = 21 minutes = 21 * 60 seconds = 1260 sec.

Joules = 0.5*C*(V1^2 - V2^2) = 0.5*10000e-6*(1.366^2 - 0.936^2) = 0.0049493

watts = Joules / seconds = 0.0049493 / 1260 = 3.9 uW

Now, NP is going from about 2.55V down to 1.5 V and you're going from 1.366V to  0.936V.  (My best Pinput to date is ~7.2mW, not in the running... ;)  )
To compare circuits, it is important to have consistent starting and ending voltages.

I've observed with my Xee2 replication (as explained above) that below a critical voltage, the Pinput consumed goes down dramatically, so this circuit should be tested below your 1.37 volts.

1.  Can you both test from 1.37 V down to 1.10 V, using the cap/time method?  That should give plenty of time to get an accurate reading.  You may use different caps as you wish, but please give the correction for cap leakage (done by seeing how the cap voltage drops over the same time as the run -- but without cap connected to the DUT. Subtract this "effective cap-power loss" from the measured Pinput. This leakage correction will be smaller for shorter time in the run).

2.  AND, if you have a 1N4148 diode available, pls repeat the test with this "standard diode" in place of the LED.

We still have some days left in the "competition" and you guys have done remarkably well, and I htink we've learned a lot (I know I have).  Actually, I'd like to move the "end date" for the contest up to July 1st, 2011, if no one objects.  Fast recent progress suggests this change.  And my wife says we have a trip to see grandchildren a bit later in the month, so would like to get closure on the contest before we go.

Thanks, guys!  any others want to jump in?   Lowest Pinput (input power) consumed (with a few conditions stipulated above) gets the prize.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 21, 2011, 01:10:21 PM

Thanks, guys!  any others want to jump in?   Lowest Pinput (input power) consumed (with a few conditions stipulated above) gets the prize.

I am not in the contest. My posts were to show what a standard Joule thief circuit can do.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 21, 2011, 03:02:32 PM
I understand, Xee2 -- thanks for contributing significantly to the discussion.  The purpose of the "contest" was for learning and to have a little fun while doing it.
Do you have any suggestion of why your JT draws so little power?  did you find that one element was "most" important to this effect?

BTW -- Where are Kooler and Clanzers? I sincerely hope they are all right...  I rather hoped they would contribute to the discussion also.

Anyway, I have checked my "Xee2 replication" and found that with a 1N4148, the power usage (Pinput) INCREASES by about 40% with the 1N4148 compared to a green LED, and also would not have allowed me to SEE the change in energy usage as the voltage from the cap dropped through a critical value.  Further, a red LED I have draws more power than the green LED I have... a bit surprising, but observed.

SO -- I'm dropping the request of using a 1N4148 in place of the LED.  The LED is an active part of the DUT and the experimenter is allowed therefore to select the LED of his/her choice.  Likewise the voltage range of choice. I'm just asking that the cap/time method be used -- and I thank you fellows for using this method here to test your devices, to allow some comparisons using this method.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 21, 2011, 03:40:03 PM

[...]
NP   Hope you keep experimenting... you might get to a self-runner yet ;)  .
[...]

good morning Steven

i can't see me either getting a self-runner or even winning a competition with my test circuit - i don't think that the LED is visible much below 1.2V!!

i've rerun the cap/time tests for the reduced voltage as requested and it's looking like my LED/circuit combination is already below its 'critical voltage', because i can't state categorically that the LED is still visibly lit at 1.10V

maybe there's a basic performance difference between the usual JT oscillator config (as used by Xee2) which is a 'Common Emitter' type oscillator, and your SJ1 config which is a 'Common Collector' type oscillator?

i've used your SJ1 config (my PNP variant) for all these tests so far - at 1.10V supply the oscillator is still generating positive peaks of approx 2V, even though it's very difficult to see if the LED is still lit

anyway, the cap voltage/timing results for this test are as follows:

the circuit takes 191 seconds (3min 11sec) to discharge a nominal 1000uF cap from 1.37V to 1.10V

C2 1000uF (nominal)
1.37V => 0.938mJ
1.10V => 0.605mJ
-------
Ein: 0.333mJ

Pav: 0.333/191 = 1.74uW

cap leakage for 191 seconds from 1.37V:
1.370V => 0.938mJ
1.367V => 0.934mJ
--------
Ein: 0.004mJ

the cap leakage is less than 0.25%, which i think can be ignored (both here and in the previous 2.55V -> 1.5V test)

at least i have a better cap now for subsequent tests, even if my present LED/circuit is not so good!

i will try and get a more accurate capacity value for it, to use in future

i haven't found my 1N4148s yet (so will buy some more) - but i was thinking about your aim to standardise LEDs and had an idea for a possible solution:

Opto coupler devices contain an LED and these kinds of parts are more likely to be available as a standard distributed item than a particular LED part

they would only need to be used for the standard reference measurement - the usual visible LED could be used to experiment with the circuit for optimum visual results

an opto coupler would also open up possibilities to take some measurements direct from the transistor o/p

- either using a filtered DVM resistance range reading, like i used a few weeks back as a comparison with the internal LED DC power consumption;

- or making a simple amplifier circuit to provide a voltage o/p representing the DC average of the LED continuous power which could either be measured by DVM for 'spot readings' or be logged for graphs or accummulated data

just an idea

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 21, 2011, 03:47:49 PM
Just saw your post, NP -- good morning!  :)

Quote
i don't think that the LED is visible much below 1.2V!!

i've rerun the cap/time tests for the reduced voltage as requested and it's looking like my LED/circuit combination is already below its 'critical voltage', because i can't state categorically that the LED is still visibly lit at 1.10V  -- NP

As noted this morning above, I've relaxed the request to run at a "common" voltage-range (also the request for using a 1N4148) since the device itself is affected significantly by the choice of LED (or diode) and by the voltage range.

LED-off, then back-on effect:  I have re-confirmed the effect with my build of Xee2's circuit, as the voltage from the cap drops, the LED goes OUT then comes back on at a lower voltage -- and at much lower energy usage.  With a 5-ohm resistor in series with the green LED in my circuit, the LED goes out at 1.665 V and then, after several seconds as the cap loses voltage very slowly, the LED comes back on (very visibly) at 1.631 V.  I was glad to learn about this effect.

I am also pleased that also that Xee's circuit allows resistance in series with the LED and works fine.  I get roughly the same power usage (Pinput) with 1, 5, and 21 ohms in series with the LED.    I did burn out two MPSA06 transistors yesterday in the process of playing with the circuit...   :-\    Not sure how I did that.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 21, 2011, 04:13:49 PM
@ JS:
You had mentioned that your voltage test with the single AA showed hardly no discharge rate.  Did that change now???
My BwJt are still discharging the AA battery in two days.  So, I have not really seen the benefit of this circuit yet.
I'll bet the capacitor test will only show discharging. While your first days test with the AA showed no discharge of the battery.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 21, 2011, 04:24:47 PM

I made some small changes to the very low power Joule thief video.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 21, 2011, 04:26:20 PM
If the 5 of a buck 1" Goldmine ferrite toroids are not available, maybe the original Hartley type of air coil can be used instead. It was wound on a straw using 50 turns one way and 25 turns in the opposite direction.
There may be loses due to the ferrite cores.  An air core may provide less losses, may be worth testing.
The different types of cores will effect the result even when the other components are all the same.  I have several different cores going going 24/7, but they are all discharging the battery.  So, there must be a trick or two to learn still.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 21, 2011, 04:33:47 PM
@ Xee2:
How long will your 1.3 volt source battery last on your latest circuit before the led dies.?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 21, 2011, 05:24:45 PM
@ Xee2:
How long will your 1.3 volt source battery last on your latest circuit before the led dies.?

The battery in the video is rechargeable, they go dead in about 6 months even if not used. With an alkaline battery the LED should stay lit for more than 5 years. But it is very dim, not very useful.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 21, 2011, 07:24:36 PM
Thanks for the vid, Xee2.

@Nick --
Quote
"My BwJt are still discharging the AA battery in two days. "
The test you requested is still going on the little sj1 circuit -- I'll keep it going for two full days.
We are at 44 hours now and the AA battery has dropped from 1.623V to 1.618V.  I think the cap/time method is more useful.

I have done further tests with Xee's circuit.  My best results came with the following changes:
Replaced green LED with red, e-Goldmine #G13713  - see attached
(5 for a buck; available; could be used as a standard perhaps)

Two 10 nF caps in parallel, connected to the MPSA06 base
(this lowers the frequency to about 24 Hz, visible flicker seen)

The red LED does not go "out" at the transition voltage to lower Pinput, as the green LED does, but it does go very dim to quite bright at 1.57V, and thereafter the power consumption is small.

LED in series with a 21-ohm resistor.

Pinput measured by the cap/time method, using a 10mF cap for Ein:
1.320 volts to 1.240 volts in 187 seconds => 5.4 uW.

Summer solstice, 8 minutes ago!  :)  Beautiful sunny day here.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 21, 2011, 07:55:41 PM
The green LED I used is from Anchor Electronics (408-727-3693), min order \$25 plus shipping.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 21, 2011, 11:41:51 PM
@ JouleSeeker

I think your circuit has a problem. I replaced the green LED with a 10mm white high power LED and my circuit still draws 4.0 uA.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 22, 2011, 02:07:17 AM
@ JouleSeeker

I think your circuit has a problem. I replaced the green LED with a 10mm white high power LED and my circuit still draws 4.0 uA.

Please clarify -- which circuit? and what is the problem you see?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 22, 2011, 02:21:52 AM
@Nick -- I ended the AA-battery test on the sj1 circuit after 2 days (+13 minutes).  The voltage was 1.617V, beginning V was 1.623V.

Returning to the sj1 circuit, I found that the red diode dims down to 0.89V, then becomes suddenly brighter again.  This is similar to what I observed (as noted above) with my build of Xee2's circuit.

So, I remeasured the Pinput for this region FOLLOWING the re-brightening of the diode in the sj1 circuit (with 50 kohms to the base of the transistor), with the result that the power consumption dropped dramatically, to 8.5uW.

So again, I see evidence that this is an important effect, this re-brightening of the diode (now in both circuits) at a critical voltage.  For below V-crit, the power consumption drops off while the brightness of the LED increases.  I'm enthused by these results -- its an intriguing effect IMO, one that I'd like to better understand.

Next, by increasing the R to the base from 50 Kohms to 390Kohms, the power consumption goes down to  4.6uW, and the brightening occurs at 1.03V.
(0.90 V to 0.86 V on a 10mF cap, in 77 s).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 22, 2011, 03:31:37 AM
Please clarify -- which circuit? and what is the problem you see?

You were getting changes in input power for different LEDs in your copy of my circuit. I do not. The input power is primarily set by the base current. The LED used should not effect this.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 22, 2011, 04:06:13 AM
@ JS:
You have some great results, but, if the led is barely lit, what purpose does it serve?  With Koolers devices the leds are bright, even three of them for months.
I do have one BwJt that if I turn the pot down all the way the led is about 1/2 brightness and after two days still shows almost the same voltage, but the current has dropped to half of what it started at.  Still this show that I'm getting closer to your results, even without using the Goldmine toroids, which I think are the key to your success.
The point is that you are getting there by sacrificing the brightness of the led light.  Now maybe try to maintain the brightness from getting dim, and still maintain the same voltage and current. That is where using or tuning to the sweet spot will help.
Thanks again for doing your AA test.  I do think that it shows more than your cap test, as the cap test only show discharging of the cap, where as the AA show no sign of loss, or hardly any.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 22, 2011, 06:24:40 AM

Steven

here's an update on the logging results for my SJ1 variant with interrupted supply

as you can see, it does look like it was a case of 'battery relaxation', as expected

i'm going to leave the test running for a while longer, though, because now that the peak cell voltage has been passed, i can observe the comparative effects of different config changes on the cell discharge slope

i've dug out my 4-channel USB micro-logger and connected it up to my  latest SJ1 variant - i've been trying out a few different ideas with either NPN or PNP configs (battery supplied) and i can log a single cell terminal voltage, and coil/core and ambient temperatures simultaneously for sustained lengths of time

i'm following your investigation of the 'critical' point with interest - when you first mentioned it, i thought you were referring to the slight 'burst' of light which sometimes occurs immediately before a capacitor supplied LED circuit finally extinguishes - which i put down to some non-linearity in the transistor transfer function around a volt or so (a more 'active' region which suddenly 'consumed' the remaining usable energy - and where there is a slight current surge associated)

but obviously, the effect which you've noticed is indeed related to different levels of efficiency, apparently within the LEDs themselves - a good catch!

greetings
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 22, 2011, 06:30:31 AM
You were getting changes in input power for different LEDs in your copy of my circuit.

Nope, I don't think I said that.  Reduction of Pinput was evidently caused by the addition of (quoting from my earlier post):
Quote
Two 10 nF caps in parallel, connected to the MPSA06 base
(this lowers the frequency to about 24 Hz, visible flicker seen)

and LED in series with a 21-ohm resistor

These lower Pinput.  Hope this helps.

It is true that changing the LED alone changed the "transition effect" as I've previously noted; the green LED goes completely out for several seconds in the set-up I described, whereas the red LED get dim but does not go completely out -- then both get brighter again.  I don't know if you've seen this interesting effect, but it can be quite dramatic when the conditions are right, as I've explained I think.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 22, 2011, 06:38:35 AM
@ JS:
You have some great results, but, if the led is barely lit, what purpose does it serve? With Koolers devices the leds are bright, even three of them for months.
I do have one BwJt that if I turn the pot down all the way the led is about 1/2 brightness and after two days still shows almost the same voltage, but the current has dropped to half of what it started at.  Still this show that I'm getting closer to your results, even without using the Goldmine toroids, which I think are the key to your success.
The point is that you are getting there by sacrificing the brightness of the led light.  Now maybe try to maintain the brightness from getting dim, and still maintain the same voltage and current. That is where using or tuning to the sweet spot will help.
Thanks again for doing your AA test.  I do think that it shows more than your cap test, as the cap test only show discharging of the cap, where as the AA show no sign of loss, or hardly any.

OK, thanks.  I'm hoping this decrease in power consumption Pinput while the LED brightens at a critical voltage will be important in our quest for OU.  Don't know yet, but I suspect you would agree with that goal.

@np -- thanks very much, and your interest int he critical point is much appreciated.
Quote
i'm following your investigation of the 'critical' point with interest - when you first mentioned it, i thought you were referring to the slight 'burst' of light which sometimes occurs immediately before a capacitor supplied LED circuit finally extinguishes - which i put down to some non-linearity in the transistor transfer function around a volt or so (a more 'active' region which suddenly 'consumed' the remaining usable energy - and where there is a slight current surge associated)

but obviously, the effect which you've noticed is indeed related to different levels of efficiency, apparently within the LEDs themselves - a good catch!

greetings
np

I don't know where the different levels of efficiency reside... interesting question.

I will feel more confident when someone else observes the same effect, which I have seen now with BOTH the sj1-circuit and Xee2's JT.  It appears to help to add a small R in series with the LED -- 5 ohms has worked well for me.  The color of the LED does also seem to play a significant role in how the "transition effect" plays out.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 22, 2011, 06:59:09 AM

[...]
I will feel more confident when someone else observes the same effect, which I have seen now with BOTH the sj1-circuit and Xee2's JT.  It appears to help to add a small R in series with the LED -- 5 ohms has worked well for me.  The color of the LED does also seem to play a significant role in how the "transition effect" plays out.

hmm - such a low resistance involved - that IS interesting!

first thoughts - some of these resistors are manufactured as a resistive spiral (around the length of the central body)  - aka an inductor!

so, with low ohms (less damping) you could get a nice tuned circuit at some high (> 1MHz?) frequency

i believe that an LED works by introducing light energy into a 'reflective well' to achieve a type of optical standing wave to help cohere the light some? (in fact, i heard a reference somewhere to LEDs being 'failed' lasers)

anyway, with some possible 'negative resistance' behaviour in the LED mechanism (as in tunnel diodes) and a reactive component, sounds like you've cooked up a good recipe for a compact little 'burst' oscillator?

just my 2c

...i must get some sleep - 6am here now, woke up at 1am & got started on the tech stuff!

all the best
np

PS will try to look for the effect - when i free up a test board!  ;)

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 22, 2011, 08:00:42 AM
Thanks for the comments and for you enthusiasm to look and do experiments, NP.
Hope you get (or by now, got) some good rest.

Over at the Muller/Romero thread, I noticed something, but they don't like jabber -- so I'll mention it here if y'all don't mind.

Earlier today (here) Romero said several things, including:
Quote
I would love to clarify many things and shut off all this questions but I am not in the position to do it.
I have made a big mistake without any intention and that turned back to me, but this is life, we all do mistakes, now is done and must move on.
At the begining I had no ideea what is happening and I was scared to dead, cannot explain that, many are brave and laughing, I am not. Since then I had more understanding, talked to some people and understood what is all about.
[snip]
There are so many patents that have full details..."

OK, seems logical that Romero was approached by suits who represent a company trying to protect their patents.  They threatened him with lawsuits I expect.  He made the mistake of talking about "Muller devices" in some detail, and using the name "Muller" in his discussions --  He also said that he is not going to work on "Muller" devices any more, but rather a device of his own design...  You can guess which company approached him...  but I don't have enough clues to be sure about that.  He is hesitant to say anything really helpful now about his "Muller device"/video, but he can talk about his non-Muller device, which he feels does not step over the line re: this threat from a company holding what they think is a big patent.

Make sense?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 22, 2011, 09:17:08 AM
Can't sleep just now... wheels turning.

OK -- next deduction re:company M that "visited" RUK -- what did they REALLY want from Romero?
A:  his device.  R-UK said it was confiscated,
did not say by whom (probably under threat again).
Q:  why did they want his device?
A:  because they believe RUK found a way to get it operate better, or perhaps even a "secret" that inventor Muller (now dead, we know) did not reveal prior to his demise.
They needed the actual Romero device to back-engineer, to make their patent useful to them!

If this line of reasoning is correct, they are now feverishly trying to get their machine on the market, incorporating Romero's "secrets"... and they may be willing to silence others until they get the device into production.  They are almost certainly following the discussion here at OU to glean more information useful to them...

Is this a good thing?  No, certainly not good what they did to RUK, "scared to death" he said.  And his device was confiscated.  You gotta admit, that was bold of whoever seized it.

If company M is seeking to monopolize this invention and "protect their patents", they may try to squelch the discussion here.  Or they may just follow it from a distance...
They may go after other "successful replications."   Of course, this line of reasoning suggests a way to find out about these guys and their intent... one just claims a self-running build of a Muller device, and...
You can figure it out from there.  A good novel if nothing else!
But seriously..... I gotta get some sleep.  zzzzzzzz.......
Cheers!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 22, 2011, 09:31:15 AM
Can't sleep just now... wheels turning.

OK -- next deduction re:company M that "visited" RUK -- what did they REALLY want from Romero?
A:  his device.  R-UK said it was confiscated,
did not say by whom (probably under threat again).
Q:  why did they want his device?
A:  because they believe RUK found a way to get it operate better, or perhaps even a "secret" that inventor Muller (now dead, we know) did not reveal prior to his demise.
They needed the actual Romero device to back-engineer, to make their patent useful to them!

If this line of reasoning is correct, they are now feverishly trying to get their machine on the market, incorporating Romero's "secrets"... and they may be willing to silence others until they get the device into production.  They are almost certainly following the discussion here at OU to glean more information useful to them...

Is this a good thing?  No, certainly not good what they did to RUK, "scared to death" he said.  And his device was confiscated.  You gotta admit, that was bold of whoever seized it.

If company M is seeking to monopolize this invention and "protect their patents", they may try to squelch the discussion here.  Or they may just follow it from a distance...
They may go after other "successful replications."   Of course, this line of reasoning suggests a way to find out about these guys and their intent... one just claims a self-running build of a Muller device, and...
You can figure it out from there.  A good novel if nothing else!
But seriously..... I gotta get some sleep.  zzzzzzzz.......
Cheers!

Dr. Jones:

I agree with all of your deductions in this case.  The only thing that does not make any legal sense to me is that a patent does not preclude someone building an exact replication for personal use...that is not part of the intellectual property protection as I understand it.  So, how did those lawyers BS Romero into giving up his device?  Possibly a lot of legal threats to which there are no actual basis?

I would not have caved into that type of bullying but possibly Romero did not understand what his rights were in this case and just went with the path of least resistance.  I wish he would have obtained his own legal counsel and then he would have found out that all of those threats were baseless.

I am not faulting Romero here at all.  If he was not used to dealing with folks like that, I am sure he got spooked.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: forest on June 22, 2011, 10:00:13 AM
Pirate88179

I'm perfectly sure that when \$\$\$ is on route there is no such thing like "personal usage"  :-\  , except when it's clear you cannot build device from scrap parts in garage (like solar panels for example)
Now what Kapanadze was doing makes even more sense : he  dismantled his device after every demonstration.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 22, 2011, 03:06:58 PM
Nope, I don't think I said that.

Sorry. I misunderstood.

I also noticed that some of the Joule Ringer circuits would get brighter just before they finally went out. It may be that the transistor gain is higher at the point where the transistor is just barely on. But I have no data to show this.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 22, 2011, 04:11:55 PM
Dr. Jones:

I agree with all of your deductions in this case.  The only thing that does not make any legal sense to me is that a patent does not preclude someone building an exact replication for personal use...that is not part of the intellectual property protection as I understand it.  So, how did those lawyers BS Romero into giving up his device?  Possibly a lot of legal threats to which there are no actual basis?

I would not have caved into that type of bullying but possibly Romero did not understand what his rights were in this case and just went with the path of least resistance.  I wish he would have obtained his own legal counsel and then he would have found out that all of those threats were baseless.

I am not faulting Romero here at all.  If he was not used to dealing with folks like that, I am sure he got spooked.

Bill
Thanks, Bill.
I'm not faulting Romero, either.  He said weeks ago that he has a heart condition and a family, and needs to back out from this matter (following the visit from the suits).  I fault the stiff-armed tactics of the suits, and the taking of his device.

RUK gives this further insight into what happened (in a post yesterday):
Quote
Then we had Baroutologos who made a big mistake and that was all. Baroutologos was in private discussions with me for a long time and we exchanged info and talked about many things. I know he had no intention to do any harm but when he realised was too late.

Evidently, it was Baroutologos who would know just what leverage these "private discussions with [Romero]" provided to the suits who then intimidated RUK.  I would guess these discussions including Romero and Bar. making money somehow from their work.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ramset on June 22, 2011, 04:45:57 PM
Prof,
I got a whole different feel for what Romero said took place,seems much more like an NDA violation then MIB!
He said he was working with some folks that had the intention of patenting?
Somewhere he crossed the disclosure line ...........

Of Course patenting an OU device is like trying to patent Air , water or sunshine!
Good luck to them ,
And Godspeed to Romero....................

Chet
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 22, 2011, 04:53:49 PM
[...]
RUK gives this further insight into what happened (in a post yesterday):
Evidently, it was Baroutologos who would know just what leverage these "private discussions with [Romero]" provided to the suits who then intimidated RUK.  I would guess these discussions including Romero and Bar. making money somehow from their work.

Steven

Bara published, in the MD thread here, the URL of Romero's personal forum (on which mainly R & B used to exchange info about their current builds) - R's short response to B was "Bad idea!"

B then edited his post to remove the URL but it had already been seen by many

the forum was registered to R, and therefore would have had all his private contact details (phone, address, possibly email)

shortly after this (iirc) R was deluged with contact - and eventually by the 'suits' (?)

i originally thought along the company 'M' lines wrt to R's problems, but with his most recent revelations i wonder if it could be other commercial interests at play

anyway, R says that we should be seeing some developments wrt patents etc soon, which may reveal more about the source of the 'intervention'

not sure if R had to hand over his device, or just consider that he wasn't free to continue discussing it

hope this helps
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 22, 2011, 05:06:39 PM
Thanks for the discussion.  I do think that along with the technical work, we need to consider HOW TO PROCEED to get the developments out to the people.  Otherwise, we're just doing free work for the monopolistic elitists corporations.  See?

This following from a post I made over at the Maller/Romero thread yesterday; would appreciate comments here.  (They wish to keep that thread on the technical work only.)
_________

OK -- this discussion about how to make a decent "return on investment" was raised again today by Romero, with a solution embedded in the response by Sean [Clanzers] above:
So there is a huge demand -- not surprising really -- for a system that will allow for testing, as Gyula said:
If you could do something along these lines with your latest non-Muller device, Romero, many would be willing to buy a "Lego set" and put it together...

I think Konehead (Doug Konzen) could also do this with his "OU pulse motor".
Ideal to start with an existing motor + generator and tell us how to modify it as you have done.

My interest is personally not in making a lot of money on electrodynamic energy research, but rather in helping these devices to reach families and communities throughout the world, while preventing BigOyl from stomping or controlling the new energy source.  (Or even some smaller corporation that stomps on inventors because they want to "protect their patent;" either of the above may have happened to friend Romero.)

The answer, IMHO, is to do as Sean is doing... "Lego sets" for us nerds who want to build and at the same time make a little money in our local areas while working towards independence from grid/greed.  A royalty would go to the "Lego set" provider via signed agreement on purchase of a Lego set (e.g. with Sean or Konzen or Romero) for each unit built and sold locally.

The idea is to get the idea out quickly with local "businesses" building the units in non-centralized fashion; with royalties going back to the inventors. OK, signed honor-system, but I think this is better than expecting big gov't to protect your patent from BigOyl etc..

If centralized power is the problem, then independent off-grid families and communities are the answer...

"Revenge of the Nerds"!    ;)

How's that sound?

PS -- I would forget about the 3-year patent procedure followed by more years of fighting down the attempts to steal it from you...  Gov't may stomp on you right away, saying your invention is a "national security" matter, as now some Gov'ts evidently seek to protect the profits of Big Global Corps and Banks.

PPS -- the inventor could invite "associates" to pay for a demonstration model, from which the associate in other areas and countries would build models/devices for sale in his/her local area.  Royalties would flow back to the inventor, and to the associates.  The devices would be kept at low cost to permit rapid spread of the new technology.  Communications would be kept private, hopefully -- e.g, each associate and the inventor would have the password to an email account.  Nothing would be emailed, just "saved" at that email account for associates to read.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 22, 2011, 05:40:16 PM

oops - about to post a tech update & saw your 'distribution process' related suggestions, Steven - yes, i think i'm with you on that one, pretty much 100%   :)

back on the tech trail now...

my latest SJ1 variant (now NPN) merges a couple of the components from the previous v. low power version, plus it adds a second feedback path to the battery (see schematic below)

L1 becomes merged with T1 as a tertiary winding again,  now on the  collector-side, 'morphing' the whole circuit into a hybrid of Common-Collector AND Common-Emitter (but not Common-Base!) - so it's become a sort of combined SJ1-JT config

i'm not sure yet if the 2nd feedback path is doing anything significant (LED2 on dim to start, but extinguishes as C3 charges), but i'll keep it in for the moment and maybe later try with it removed  for comparison (i tried a diode in place of LED2 - slightly different operation dynamics)

the most interesting aspect for me presently, has emerged from having a temperature probe available with the logger

i believe that the mutli-toroidal core is operating at a very slightly lower temperature than ambient

i only have some preliminary data at the moment, but if the circuit behaviour proves interesting in other ways then i'll focus on the temperature aspects some more

the red LED is not bright but would be suitably visible for equipment 'ON' indication - a v slight flicker, so its pulse repetition rate is probably just under 20Hz

the circuit has been operating continuously for at least 16 hours now and the terminal voltage across the 2x AAA NiMH cells, which  i'm using as a supply battery, has risen by 1-2 mV

again, this could turn out to be battery 'relaxation', so i'm not expecting too much at present

on this note, i find the whole subject of battery 'relaxation' under load - and it's cousin 'dielectric adsorption' in capacitors  - to be very interesting

i wonder if there is some aspect of these components drawing on ambient energy to gain a slight 'recharge' after providing energy to a load

maybe we could discuss that, and some other related, off-topic issues separately sometime?

as before, i'll keep you posted of progress with this latest test

greetings
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 22, 2011, 09:08:12 PM
....[snips for brevity] saw your 'distribution process' related suggestions, Steven - yes, i think i'm with you on that one, pretty much 100%   :)...

my latest SJ1 variant (now NPN) merges a couple of the components from the previous v. low power version, plus it adds a second feedback path to the battery (see schematic below)

L1 becomes merged with T1 as a tertiary winding again,  now on the  collector-side, 'morphing' the whole circuit into a hybrid of Common-Collector AND Common-Emitter (but not Common-Base!) - so it's become a sort of combined SJ1-JT config

i'm not sure yet if the 2nd feedback path is doing anything significant (LED2 on dim to start, but extinguishes as C3 charges), but i'll keep it in for the moment and maybe later try with it removed  for comparison (i tried a diode in place of LED2 - slightly different operation dynamics)

the most interesting aspect for me presently, has emerged from having a temperature probe available with the logger

i believe that the mutli-toroidal core is operating at a very slightly lower temperature than ambient

i only have some preliminary data at the moment, but if the circuit behaviour proves interesting in other ways then i'll focus on the temperature aspects some more

the red LED is not bright but would be suitably visible for equipment 'ON' indication - a v slight flicker, so its pulse repetition rate is probably just under 20Hz

the circuit has been operating continuously for at least 16 hours now and the terminal voltage across the 2x AAA NiMH cells, which  i'm using as a supply battery, has risen by 1-2 mV

again, this could turn out to be battery 'relaxation', so i'm not expecting too much at present

on this note, i find the whole subject of battery 'relaxation' under load - and it's cousin 'dielectric adsorption' in capacitors  - to be very interesting

i wonder if there is some aspect of these components drawing on ambient energy to gain a slight 'recharge' after providing energy to a load

maybe we could discuss that, and some other related, off-topic issues separately sometime?

as before, i'll keep you posted of progress with this latest test

greetings
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Very interesting contributions, as usual, NP.  Yes, pls keep track of the temp along with other data.  Although I'd be surprised if this temp-effect persists, it is certainly worth examining in detail, along with the other effects you mention.
I'm open-minded (but not empty-headed).  Great work!
Steven
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 22, 2011, 10:31:49 PM
Nick --  I understand the supplier is out of the toroid I (also Xee2 and others) have been using.  If you will send me your snail-mail address, I would be happy to send you a goldmine toroid; I have an extra.   (Profsjones@gmail.com)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on June 22, 2011, 11:27:34 PM
REgarding the power measurement.

The faint glow of an led is not a good milliwatt meter but is better than the tektronix 3032.
The claim of 7.9 is unsubstantiated without seeing the math if do don't mind.
My best effort to find a way (using someone elses idea on this) is to find the correct type of bolometer.
I have a very difficult time on this because turning the led down low brings the cost
up significantly to hack an astrophysics bolometer. leaving the led on overnight has
complicated the effort in finding objective instumentation.

The good news is that a thermistor bolometer can be made inexpensively.
I am not saying long runtime is not an indicator.
I am saying to do this right a bolometer is less problematic.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 23, 2011, 12:34:21 AM
@dimbulb -- always interested in new methods...

Would you explain the bolometer?  I'd look it up but gotta run --
- my daughter is having her first baby!  Hurray!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 23, 2011, 01:42:02 AM

[...]
gotta run --
- my daughter is having her first baby!  Hurray!

hope all has gone well (not too much waiting!) and we get to call you Grandad Jones pretty soon!

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Freezer on June 23, 2011, 01:54:32 AM
Can't sleep just now... wheels turning.

OK -- next deduction re:company M that "visited" RUK -- what did they REALLY want from Romero?
A:  his device.  R-UK said it was confiscated,
did not say by whom (probably under threat again).
Q:  why did they want his device?
A:  because they believe RUK found a way to get it operate better, or perhaps even a "secret" that inventor Muller (now dead, we know) did not reveal prior to his demise.
They needed the actual Romero device to back-engineer, to make their patent useful to them!

If this line of reasoning is correct, they are now feverishly trying to get their machine on the market, incorporating Romero's "secrets"... and they may be willing to silence others until they get the device into production.  They are almost certainly following the discussion here at OU to glean more information useful to them...

Is this a good thing?  No, certainly not good what they did to RUK, "scared to death" he said.  And his device was confiscated.  You gotta admit, that was bold of whoever seized it.

If company M is seeking to monopolize this invention and "protect their patents", they may try to squelch the discussion here.  Or they may just follow it from a distance...
They may go after other "successful replications."   Of course, this line of reasoning suggests a way to find out about these guys and their intent... one just claims a self-running build of a Muller device, and...
You can figure it out from there.  A good novel if nothing else!
But seriously..... I gotta get some sleep.  zzzzzzzz.......
Cheers!

I don't think "they" need to back-engineer anything, they already have much better stuff on the shelf. If anything, the fact that the spooks even showed up, probably means it worked, and they needed to silence the guy who figured it out.  He seemed to be compliant by giving up the motor, so I guess deadly force wasn't needed, you know..like how some people get suicided.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on June 23, 2011, 02:07:34 AM
@ JS:
Thank you for the offer to send me a toroid, I do appreciate that, but I'll just wait and see if Goldmine stocks them again in the near future, and I'll get a bunch of them,  in case they run out again.  Would have been nice if Radio Shack had them, as they have stores here, but it doesn't look like it.  In any case I'm used to swapping AAs, I've got several charging all the time for these projects.  But would really like to see a device that does not need to have the batteries replaced at all.  Like with my cement cells,  perpetual output.  Thanks again.
Nick

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 23, 2011, 08:00:18 AM
I don't think "they" need to back-engineer anything, they already have much better stuff on the shelf. If anything, the fact that the spooks even showed up, probably means it worked, and they needed to silence the guy who figured it out.  He seemed to be compliant by giving up the motor, so I guess deadly force wasn't needed, you know..like how some people get suicided.

You may be right, Freezer. But then why does Romero feel free to develop another roto-device, NOT a "Muller device", he emphasized in his post (yesterday, IIRC).

And will "they" try to silence others who come up with a self-running device of the Muller type?  other similar type?  interesting questions.

I'm just curious, I guess.  But beyond that, I would like to see an OU device get out to empower people without being stomped-on or enriching the wealthy elitists...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: sysrun on June 23, 2011, 08:47:48 AM
Tried another coil-style. Saw this in Teslas U.S. Patent 0,382,282.

Needs only one Transitor. Oscillates with 30-40 Khz on 4.5 Volt.

Unfortunately my equipment is not that professional. Got only  DSO NANO...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lanenal on June 23, 2011, 09:49:57 AM
Making the circuit self-charging is another way to reduce input. Attached is my LTSpice simulation of a simple self-charging JT circuit. Very straight to implement if you have already built the traditional one: same components, only different way to wire them. The diode in the circuit could be replaced with a LED.

lanenal
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lanenal on June 23, 2011, 10:05:41 AM
If you only got a PNP transistor (PNP 3906, for example), the circuit below can be used. Similar modifications can be made to make it self-charging.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: forest on June 23, 2011, 10:13:50 AM
If you only got a PNP transistor (PNP 3906, for example), the circuit below can be used. Similar modifications can be made to make it self-charging.

What is the frequency on whcih transistor is opened ? Is that resonant frequency of C and L here or only part of L connected between baze and emitter ?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Freezer on June 23, 2011, 10:23:25 AM
You may be right, Freezer. But then why does Romero feel free to develop another roto-device, NOT a "Muller device", he emphasized in his post (yesterday, IIRC).

Well, he obviously has people watching him now, so if he is successful with anything else, he will probably get another visit.

And will "they" try to silence others who come up with a self-running device of the Muller type?  other similar type?  interesting questions.

You can bet the farm on that one.  They have, and will continue to do so, and they have all the legal power behind them.  "Secrecy act of 1971"  Anything they deem as a threat to national security, they can seize and take possession of, anytime.  What does nation security mean in this case, ... anything they feel like.. If you are not in the U.S., it doesn't matter, money will buy suppression in one way or another.

I'm just curious, I guess.  But beyond that, I would like to see an OU device get out to empower people without being stomped-on or enriching the wealthy elitists...

The only way to get a invention out in the public is to precisely and clearly draw up the complete schematic, to where anyone can understand it, and release it as soon as you can across multiple boards.  After that they can't touch you because they have nothing to suppress.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lanenal on June 23, 2011, 12:08:25 PM
What is the frequency on whcih transistor is opened ? Is that resonant frequency of C and L here or only part of L connected between baze and emitter ?

Good question. I would just say: the similar frequency condition with Professor Jones's circuit, since it is an exact mirror (NPN --> PNP) circuit.  It seems to me the frequency is a composition of two: half cycle it is the charging of the small cap via the base resistor (let the frequency be f1 Hz ), and half is the discharging of the cap through one of the two coils (let it be f2 Hz). Then the whole thing is at frequency of f = 2/(1/f1 + 1/f2).

@all: It is easy to get other JT circuits to work in self-charging mode. See below for another example.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: forest on June 23, 2011, 12:24:13 PM
Good question. I would just say: the similar frequency condition with Professor Jones's circuit, since it is an exact mirror (NPN --> PNP) circuit.

@all: It is easy to get other JT circuits to work in self-charging mode. See below for another example.

Can you post your LTSpiceIV input file ? I downloaded this program and plan to learn how to operate it.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lanenal on June 23, 2011, 12:31:56 PM
Can you post your LTSpiceIV input file ? I downloaded this program and plan to learn how to operate it.

OK. It is a text file, you need to change the extension to .asc after download.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: forest on June 23, 2011, 02:31:09 PM
Sorry folks. This LTSpiceIV simulation must be seriously flawed.I've got COP 26 from slight modification of circuit.Bizzarre....
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on June 23, 2011, 02:34:31 PM
Sorry folks. This LTSpiceIV simulation must be seriously flawed.I've got COP 26 from slight modification of circuit.Bizzarre....

What is your mod, and how are you measuring the input and output power?

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lanenal on June 23, 2011, 03:14:20 PM
Sorry folks. This LTSpiceIV simulation must be seriously flawed.I've got COP 26 from slight modification of circuit.Bizzarre....

Interesting. This is first time I heard somebody saying LTSpice getting OU simulation results. Could you upload your modification and tell us how did you measured cop?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 23, 2011, 03:46:05 PM
Laneal, appreciate your input.  At the same time, please note that Xee2 and Nul-pts and Gibbs and I have previously placed the diode across C-E of the transistor.

Below is a circuit diagram from Xee2 (right) compared with your entry today (left).  Note the similarities.  Xee2 does add a small cap which is important.

He and I both MEASURE around 5-6 microwatts Pinput to light the LED with the circuit on the right... does your SIM allow that?  Same question to .99.  (I am using the cap/time method, L~120 uF.)
Thanks.

PS -- Nul-pts mod is running at around 2 uW, and IIRC Gibbs' at about 5uW.

@forest -- welcome.  I'm trying to understand your sketch, but it looks similar to the bifilar-wound coils in use in devices here.
ps -- false alarm on the grand-child delivery... but we know she will come out!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lanenal on June 23, 2011, 04:00:44 PM
Laneal, appreciate your input.  At the same time, please note that Xee2 and Nul-pts and Gibbs have previously suggested placing the diode across C-E of the transistor.

Below is a circuit diagram from Xee2 (right) compared with your entry today (left).  Note the similarities.  Xee2 does add a small cap which is important.

He and I both MEASURE around 5-6 microwatts Pinput to light the LED... does your SIM allow that?  (I am using the cap/time method.)
Thanks.

ps -- false alarm on the grand-child delivery... but we know she will come out!

Professor, you have got the wrong guy -- the one you compared with Xee's is the traditional JT without looping -- and it is the other in the same post that will loop the device. I used the same understanding to introduce looping into the circuit you have brought our attention to.

P.S.: that's not a false alarm, it is a rehearsal.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: forest on June 23, 2011, 04:07:56 PM
Interesting. This is first time I heard somebody saying LTSpice getting OU simulation results. Could you upload your modification and tell us how did you measured cop?

He he Sorry, it hast to be me first time playing with this simulation program. Check your self. What if we step input voltage ? Is there any way to avoid placing high voltage across battery ?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: forest on June 23, 2011, 04:10:50 PM
Btw. do you have a feeling that something is wrong with all simulations  ?

1. At start occur strange spike of energy
2. Final result sometimes depends on which time of computation data is presented to user; for example if from starting point or from some time later (even 0.01ms later)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lanenal on June 23, 2011, 04:19:09 PM
Btw. do you have a feeling that something is wrong with all simulations  ?

1. At start occur strange spike of energy
2. Final result sometimes depends on which time of computation data is presented to user; for example if from starting point or from some time later (even 0.01ms later)

Thanks for the upload, will take a look when I get to my LTSpice.
The spike is probably by reason of cap and the ideal voltage source, and for #2, I don't know, that would be quite easy to fix. It seems to me, when you simulate a long time, and only capture the last moment, the whole simulation would still start from the very beginning and take the same amount of work to finish.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 23, 2011, 04:41:42 PM
Laneal -- I see, I will try your "top circuit" later today, grand-child permitting.

Would you check your SIM -- will it allow LED to light up with 5uW input power?  (Xee2's circuit, for example -- straightforward circuit to test.)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 23, 2011, 04:51:41 PM

my LTSpice simulation

You have gotten really good at spice. I did not realize LTspice had coupled coils. Can you recommend a good site for tutorial?

EDIT: I like your 2N2222 circuit. It should be very efficient. But, looking at the plots it seems that input current is larger than the diode current so I do not think it will self-run. Am I missing something?

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lanenal on June 23, 2011, 05:16:03 PM
You have gotten really good at spice. I did not realize LTspice had coupled coils. Can you recommend a good site for tutorial?

EDIT: I like your 2N2222 circuit. It should be very efficient. But, looking at the plots it seems that input current is larger than the diode current so I do not think it will self-run. Am I missing something?

Thanks, Xee -- it is partly by reason that I was not very good at building, but I am getting better slowly. You have done a lot of good experiments to inspire many here.

I mainly used the help system, and played a little with the example circuits come with it. The "K L0 L1 0.9" directive is introduced not too long ago, it is documented somewhere in the system.

I agree with you, according to the simulation, no self-run is possible. Is it ever possible with traditional theory?

@Professor, will do some simulation when I get to my LTSpice.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on June 24, 2011, 02:10:13 AM
Congradulations on new baby. miracle of life OU

A fast way to measure this output in temperature is to fasten an LM35 temp sensor to the resistor
with a drop of epoxy. The LM35 is linear and should'nt matter what waveform. Quantitative
the input current needs to bring the sensor up over ambient.

Leds are relatively cool and not as directly related to work as the heat of a pure resistive load.
traditionally light bulbs were resistive and ac was simple sine.
The type of pulses being output will not be measured accurately on most digital multimeters
Using a better method will greatly improve the errors.

Dr Stiffler and Ashworth are doing the sec/steorn board measurement this week.
with a decscent calorimeter setup, they are getting the jump on you.

Better to stay with nominal value 12 volt or 5 volt input
at this stage battery drift would give error, constant voltage is preferred.
this way constant current will be available to dial in the just over ambient.

Simple example would look like:
fixed input 10 mA @5V DC has 28 degrees C measured on resistor
the same   10 mA @5V 8X Jones  has  40 degrees C measured on resistor
ou done
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 24, 2011, 02:23:07 PM
Congradulations on new baby. miracle of life OU

A fast way to measure this output in temperature is to fasten an LM35 temp sensor to the resistor
with a drop of epoxy. The LM35 is linear and should'nt matter what waveform. Quantitative
the input current needs to bring the sensor up over ambient.

Leds are relatively cool and not as directly related to work as the heat of a pure resistive load.
traditionally light bulbs were resistive and ac was simple sine.
The type of pulses being output will not be measured accurately on most digital multimeters
Using a better method will greatly improve the errors.

I agree with your concern regarding use of DMM's for the Pout.
I checked on the LM35 you suggest, and it does look like a good way to measure temp.
I'm thinking of having two "identical" LM35+resistor combo's, one for calibration and the other for measuring Poutput in the circuit.  Calibration is done easily using a known DC Vin and Ain, P=IV.  One could adjust this "known" P with the steady temp over ambient seen in the DUT, to determine the Pout in the DUT.

In effect, an inexpensive calorimeter.

Quote
Dr Stiffler and Ashworth are doing the sec/steorn board measurement this week.
with a decscent calorimeter setup, they are getting the jump on you.

I'm interested and supportive of their work, and hope that SOME approach will succeed SOON in demonstrating OU definitively.  As I see it -- it's not a horse race...  it's the human race that will benefit if someone succeeds AND is able to get the device out to people so as to empower the people and self-sustaining communities (rather than the super-wealthy).  That second part is as important as the first... IMHO.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: totoalas on June 24, 2011, 04:20:23 PM

I would like to encourage replications (and learning), and so I'm proposing a small "contest" -- to see who can reach the lowest Pin for any JT-type circuit.
Just for fun -- and learning!
Hi to all and Dr, Jones
My setup hopefully  qualify for  the 100th position   but at least   somebody can notice and replicate it    also
cheers

totoalas

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4999-joulethief-sec-exciter-variants-post134504.html#post134504 :) :)

http://www.energeticforum.com/134504-post1627.html
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 24, 2011, 07:24:08 PM
Hello, totoalas -- nice device, lighting LOTs of LEDs!
You wrote:  "12 v 1m A Simply the Best"

Most of the devices in the running here are below 12uW, whereas yours is at 12mW...  but if you could scale this down (perhaps by adding resistance to the base resistor), it would be interesting to see!   also, could you provide a schematic drawing for this circuit?
In any case, thanks -- I like the work you have done.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on June 24, 2011, 07:42:29 PM
Hello, totoalas -- nice device, lighting LOTs of LEDs!
You wrote:  "12 v 1m A Simply the Best"

Most of the devices in the running here are below 12uW, whereas yours is at 12mW...  but if you could scale this down (perhaps by adding resistance to the base resistor), it would be interesting to see!   also, could you provide a schematic drawing for this circuit?
In any case, thanks -- I like the work you have done.

Scale it down?
Interesting, at the beginning of your project it was about scaling it up to be useful. I would think 45-120 White LED's or 6W FL's from a few mills has greater potential than a dim LED that one must view in the dark.

Not trying to put what is going on here down, yet the folks using variations of SEC, Tesla and Slayer/Tesla are years ahead here, even doing (Power) transmission wireless. IMHO its not scale down, its scale up. So for a dim LED at a few uW what is wrong with tens to hundreds of watts with a few watts in, the CEC is still >1.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 24, 2011, 07:51:02 PM
Scale it down?
Interesting, at the beginning of your project it was about scaling it up to be useful. I would think 45-120 White LED's or 6W FL's from a few mills has greater potential than a dim LED that one must view in the dark.

Not trying to put what is going on here down, yet the folks using variations of SEC, Tesla and Slayer/Tesla are years ahead here, even doing (Power) transmission wireless. IMHO its not scale down, its scale up. So for a dim LED at a few uW what is wrong with tens to hundreds of watts with a few watts in, the CEC is still >1.

I'm impressed by this other work, and nothing wrong with what totoalas has done.

If you read back several pages, you will see that there is a contest going on here -- working on the input power side, and using the cap/time method for measuring Pinput, and trying to minimize Pinput while continuing to light an LED visibly in a lighted room (not in the dark).  In the process of this effort, it has been observed that at a critical voltage, the LED goes very dim/off -- then re-lights, with the input power consumption going down two orders of magnitude.  Thus, we are learning new things by means of this little contest.

Admittedly a small contest, and the great goal remains -- DEMONSTRATING a self-running device, or electrical Pout/Pin > 1.

I'm still very interested, as I said early on, in scaling to higher power once OU has been definitively demonstrated.

Thanks for your comment Dr. Stiffler -- and sincere best wishes on your efforts to demonstrate CEC > 1.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on June 24, 2011, 08:06:34 PM
I'm impressed by this other work, and nothing wrong with what totoalas has done.

If you read back several pages, you will see that there is a contest going on here -- working on the input power side, and using the cap/time method for measuring Pinput, and trying to minimize Pinput while continuing to light an LED visibly in a lighted room (not in the dark).  In the process of this effort, it has been observed that at a critical voltage, the LED goes very dim/off -- then re-lights, with the input power consumption going down two orders of magnitude.  Thus, we are learning new things by means of this little contest.

Admittedly a small contest, and the great goal remains -- DEMONSTRATING a self-running device, or electrical Pout/Pin > 1.
I'm still very interested, as I said early on, in scaling to higher power once OU has been demonstrated.

Thanks for your comment Dr. Stiffler -- and sincere best wishes on your efforts to demonstrate CEC > 1.

I'm fully aware of the 'Contest' and wonder how the thinking is going. So is it that a device that will give you OU has no energy consumption? Is it in essence just a passive energy receiver? Isn't this so called OU determined by Pin/Pout? So if you reduce a circuit to margin of error input readings have you not removed the Pin term from the equation and we now have only Pout?

I also question how measuring the heat on a load resistor has any bearing at all on the overall gain in the circuit. Unless the entire circuit was indeed passive, except at the load, there are indeed other losses and (all) of these losses must be summed in order to see the magical OU.

I have indeed demonstrated a CEC>1, using calorimetry and this has been replicated by reputable third parties and has no bearing on what I have addressed about you direction. Condescending rebuttal does not elicit any help from someone that has already walked the same path.

Good Luck Sir!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 24, 2011, 08:13:42 PM
I'm fully aware of the 'Contest' and wonder how the thinking is going. So is it that a device that will give you OU has no energy consumption? Is it in essence just a passive energy receiver? Isn't this so called OU determined by Pin/Pout? So if you reduce a circuit to margin of error input readings have you not removed the Pin term from the equation and we now have only Pout?

Rather, OU is determined by Pout/Pin > 1; I suppose this is what you meant.  We are not reducing a circuit to "margin of error" readings -- the cap/time method is capable of some accuracy in the microwatt range.

Quote
I also question how measuring the heat on a load resistor has any bearing at all on the overall gain in the circuit. Unless the entire circuit was indeed passive, except at the load, there are indeed other losses and (all) of these losses must be summed in order to see the magical OU.

I have indeed demonstrated a CEC>1, using calorimetry and this has been replicated by reputable third parties and has no bearing on what I have addressed about you direction. Condescending rebuttal does not elicit any help from someone that has already walked the same path.

Good Luck Sir!

If the gain is sufficient, the temperature rise in a load resistor (output leg of the circuit) may suffice to demonstrate Pout/Pin >1.

And calorimetric methods are certainly in order, carefully done -- as I've said above also, early on.

You state, "I have indeed demonstrated a CEC>1, using calorimetry " -- that's truly wonderful, are the results available that I and others might see them?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on June 24, 2011, 08:20:11 PM
Rather, OU is determined by Pout/Pin > 1; I suppose this is what you meant.  We are not reducing a circuit to "margin of error" readings -- the cap/time method is capable of some accuracy in the microwatt range.

And calorimetric methods are certainly in order, carefully done -- as I've said above also, early on.

You state, "I have indeed demonstrated a CEC>1, using calorimetry " -- that's truly wonderful, are the results available that I and others might see them?

A Non-Disclosure and Proprietary Rights Agreement signed in part by any reputable institution is currently all that is required. Private individuals are not included as it is impossible to determine who they are and what interests they represent.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 24, 2011, 09:03:46 PM
A Non-Disclosure and Proprietary Rights Agreement signed in part by any reputable institution is currently all that is required. Private individuals are not included as it is impossible to determine who they are and what interests they represent.

Makes some sense, yes.  Does the individual at a reputable institution sign, is that sufficient, or does a representative of the institution need to sign also?

I'm very interested in seeing that developments such as yours reach the people, as opposed to enriching the elitists/big corporations.  Is that your approach also?  or do you seek to sell to a corporation?

To me, this is an over-riding consideration.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: e2matrix on June 24, 2011, 09:20:22 PM
A Non-Disclosure and Proprietary Rights Agreement signed in part by any reputable institution is currently all that is required. Private individuals are not included as it is impossible to determine who they are and what interests they represent.

Doc,  you do know who Jouleseeker is don't you?  BYU physics professor retired IIRC and somewhere here is his web page at BYU.  I'll just say I believe Jouleseeker has nothing but good intentions here for the world as a whole.  I recall he has donated hundreds of devices to third world people so as to help them have ability to cook and have clean water (fuzzy on the details but it's something close to that).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on June 24, 2011, 09:35:11 PM
Makes some sense, yes.  Does the individual at a reputable institution sign, is that sufficient, or does a representative of the institution need to sign also?

I'm very interested in seeing that developments such as yours reach the people, as opposed to enriching the elitists/big corporations.  Is that your approach also?  or do you seek to sell to a corporation?

To me, this is an over-riding consideration.
My Barristers are stern on this point and it all is about responsibility if breached, so no, alumni will not do it, has to be the University.

I have already lost one circuit to another country with no recourse due to the 'Public Domain' aspect of postings. Although I am not holding out for a sale to a major corporation or confiscation under national security, I fully believe the general public can not replicate in kind a device that would benefit them in any meaningful way. You should be aware at your current stage of what is called 'Creative License', where, whatever I have in parts should work just as well in my design as yours????? Over the years less than 10% of followers of my work would do it as I specified (in Toto). The ones that did had replications and the ones that did not failed only to bash me and my circuits. The most predominate of those individuals exist on this forum and are either COINTELPRO or total idiots. Anyway back to the requirements, I am walking a thin line as you will if you find the key to you so called OU. To obtain my data and the third party results will require the request from an institution that has resource to go after if they violate the terms of the agreement.

Oh, the PRA does indeed include a non-compete clause.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on June 24, 2011, 09:48:06 PM
Doc,  you do know who Jouleseeker is don't you?  BYU physics professor retired IIRC and somewhere here is his web page at BYU.  I'll just say I believe Jouleseeker has nothing but good intentions here for the world as a whole.  I recall he has donated hundreds of devices to third world people so as to help them have ability to cook and have clean water (fuzzy on the details but it's something close to that).

Of course I do, so what?

Does a title or a long history of anything insure you are correct in everything you do?

I think Dr. Jones would be the first to admit that if he has or will obtain what he is looking for that he indeed must renounce much of his past understanding as regards (conventional Physics) unless as is the natural course, just develop an overlay like Quantum or String Theory has done as the underlying layers could not supply the answers.  Of course we have those that would mold something into convention so as not to rock the boat.

I have the 'Utmost Respect' for Dr. Jones and his background, albeit to say I have a far more comprehensive background in this particular area. Do I, or have I ever obtain respect, NO! and I do not need it, my circuits and speak for themselves regardless of what the pundits and so called 'Alternative News' say.

So flat out I do Respect Dr. Jones, but does that mean what he is doing or what he has is insured to be a gift to humanity, no...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: totoalas on June 24, 2011, 10:52:47 PM
Hello, totoalas -- nice device, lighting LOTs of LEDs!
You wrote:  "12 v 1m A Simply the Best"

Most of the devices in the running here are below 12uW, whereas yours is at 12mW...  but if you could scale this down (perhaps by adding resistance to the base resistor), it would be interesting to see!   also, could you provide a schematic drawing for this circuit?
In any case, thanks -- I like the work you have done.

Thanks  Jouleseeker  / Dr, Stiffler   / Dr Jones / Groundloop/Lidmotor / Gbluer :Slayer}and  Jonny   and Xee2  and all

Thought this is for fun  so hope it stays that way
Practical application  for a self loop  circuit will undoubtly  be the most appropriate

Below is the circuit
http://www.energeticforum.com/134003-post1616.html
Modified  circuit   description
http://www.energeticforum.com/134611-post1634.html
Test method for Verification by Groundloop
http://www.energeticforum.com/134705-post1639.html
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 24, 2011, 11:00:10 PM
My Barristers are stern on this point and it all is about responsibility if breached, so no, alumni will not do it, has to be the University.

I have already lost one circuit to another country with no recourse due to the 'Public Domain' aspect of postings. Although I am not holding out for a sale to a major corporation or confiscation under national security, I fully believe the general public can not replicate in kind a device that would benefit them in any meaningful way. You should be aware at your current stage of what is called 'Creative License', where, whatever I have in parts should work just as well in my design as yours????? Over the years less than 10% of followers of my work would do it as I specified (in Toto). The ones that did had replications and the ones that did not failed only to bash me and my circuits. The most predominate of those individuals exist on this forum and are either COINTELPRO or total idiots. Anyway back to the requirements, I am walking a thin line as you will if you find the key to you so called OU. To obtain my data and the third party results will require the request from an institution that has resource to go after if they violate the terms of the agreement.

Oh, the PRA does indeed include a non-compete clause.

Very interesting -- and thank you for your frankness, Dr. Stiffler.
And thanks, e2matrix.  My website can be found by googling " Dr BYU "

Quote
Dr. Jones has given several hundreds of the aluminized-mylar Solar Funnel Cookers to families in developing countries in Haiti, Bolivia, Kenya, Turkey and Ecuador, with the most recent solar-cookers given to folks in Mali (2006, see photo below) and Mozambique (2007).  More will go to help refugees who have fled from Iraq and/or Kenya.
(Most folks call me Steve, please.)

I'm not likely to get BYU to sign an NDA to look at your device, Dr. Stiffler.   And I'm personally going open-source with all my alt-energy work now, including the solar cooker/cooler I developed.   I would avoid signing a non-disclosure agreement because it might restrict me from talking about my own research in alt-energy.  I've already turned down getting information on one "magnetic generator" because of they insisted that I sign an NDA first -- and they didn't even have a working prototype.  No thanks, I told them.  An NDA appears to me inconsistent with open-source development of energy for humankind.

Frankly, I'm glad I accepted early retirement so that I can invent without having to worry about "my institution" claiming "intellectual property" for anything I might come up with.

I'm not competing with you or with anyone -- well, BigOyl might consider OUR work as competitive... but my goals are to empower the people WITHOUT getting stomped on or bought out by the elitist corporations.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: totoalas on June 24, 2011, 11:04:11 PM
Here are some great stuff   by bluer based on Dr. Stifflers   NILS  circuit
happy experimenting
totoalas

http://www.energeticforum.com/134192-post1622.html
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 24, 2011, 11:07:06 PM
Thanks  Jouleseeker  / Dr, Stiffler   / Dr Jones / Groundloop/Lidmotor / Gbluer :Slayer}and  Jonny   and Xee2  and all

Thought this is for fun  so hope it stays that way
Practical application  for a self loop  circuit will undoubtly  be the most appropriate

Below is the circuit
http://www.energeticforum.com/134003-post1616.html
Modified  circuit   description
http://www.energeticforum.com/134611-post1634.html
Test method for Verification by Groundloop
http://www.energeticforum.com/134705-post1639.html

Thanks, totoalas -- I wish to look at your work in more detail, and I wish to sincerely congratulate you and Dr. Stiffler and others for years of research in alternate energy.  I consider that we're in this together.
And yes, it should be fun as you say, totoalas.

Today, working with the circuit design, I have it working without the 2Mohm resistor at all, not needed even for start-up.  Now that's fun!
Basically the attached circuit, without the 2Mohm resistor (totally removed).

Laneal -- can you start with this circuit by Xee2 and tell me how you would get it to "self-charge"?    Thx.
PS -- my DUT (measured with 2Mohm in place) stays lit for about 18 minutes after the battery (2.6V) is removed.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 25, 2011, 12:21:16 AM
[...]
you do know who Jouleseeker is don't you?
[..]

i think we can all see who JouleSeeker is - he's obviously someone who gives a damn about other people

no idea who Stiffler is though

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 25, 2011, 01:56:16 AM

i think we can all see who JouleSeeker is - he's obviously someone who gives a damn about other people

no idea who Stiffler is though

Whoa -- thank you for the vote of confidence, NP but I'd go easy on Dr Stiffler, who I think is on top of some very good research.  I think your last sentence was meant as humor  -- I've certainly heard of his work a long time ago.
I've seen communities/forums torn apart by stuff, hoping that won't happen here.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on June 25, 2011, 03:14:44 AM
I am sure Ron has given much thought to this.
I would have bought the sec 15 board long ago but I felt certain a new revision would happen soon.
Very good price for what you get. fixed the tuning,  much work and effort for humanity.

now I see this latest arrangement a good combination.
nobody told Ron this is a milestone.
yes the input being so small, why is this happening.

If there is anyway Jones oscillator can use this that would be
bigger than milestone. Even if it is only a hint of what needs to happen.

We really need any help Ron can give. Those are his terms
and nobody can take what is his anyway. A careful look at
the agreement may settle the issue. BYU would have trouble
explaining all the open source software on that campus if
these type agreements were not allowed.

I am confident BYU could give a letter that would
accomplish what Ron has addressed in principal, that would be sufficient.
Anyway talking it up might arouse interest, without Steve having to go back to work.
win win is all I see with this

thankyou
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 25, 2011, 09:41:47 AM
--Note below by my wife, Lezlee.  All is turning out well, but a hard row.
Will be out of touch helping with daughter for a while...

Dear family and friends,
We wanted you to know that our Becky had her baby this morning about 1:00 am.  It was a hard row.  Her waters broke three days ago and so she has been monitored, however, still at home.  This evening she reached the midwife clinic about 8:00 pm.  She was having hard labor but not making progress.  Finally, the midwife could feel clearly her little behind.  The baby  was breech.

Becky was quickly brought to UVRMC about 11:00 pm.  She was prepped and went into surgery for a C-Section and left here about 12:45 am.   The nurse and Calvin brought Xandra by about 1:10 am so we could see her.  She is beautiful!   It was a short visit.  They were stitching up Becky so we should see her in a little while.  She will be in here for an hour before they take her to her room.  Thank you all for your support and prayers.
Love,
Lezlee

Thanks to you all.
Steve  -- tired but happy -- now the grand-daughter is here, and both are fine!

6lbs 12 ounces.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TEKTRON on June 25, 2011, 09:48:34 AM
--Note below by my wife, Lezlee.  All is turning out well, but a hard row.
Will be out of touch helping with daughter for a while...

Dear family and friends,
We wanted you to know that our Becky had her baby this morning about 1:00 am.  It was a hard row.  Her waters broke three days ago and so she has been monitored, however, still at home.  This evening she reached the midwife clinic about 8:00 pm.  She was having hard labor but not making progress.  Finally, the midwife could feel clearly her little behind.  The baby  was breech.

Becky was quickly brought to UVRMC about 11:00 pm.  She was prepped and went into surgery for a C-Section and left here about 12:45 am.   The nurse and Calvin brought Xandra by about 1:10 am so we could see her.  She is beautiful!   It was a short visit.  They were stitching up Becky so we should see her in a little while.  She will be in here for an hour before they take her to her room.  Thank you all for your support and prayers.
Love,
Lezlee

Thanks to you all.
Steve  -- tired but happy -- now the grand-daughter is here, and both are fine!

6lbs 12 ounces.
Very happy 4u. Congratulations! How bout a pic, proud GRANDPA?

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on June 25, 2011, 10:06:04 AM
Dr. Jones (Grandpa)

Congratulations on a successful delivery.  If it were me, I would wait at least 3 months before having her try to wind a JT circuit, ha ha.

God bless the miracle of birth.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lanenal on June 25, 2011, 10:38:19 AM
...
Laneal -- can you start with this circuit by Xee2 and tell me how you would get it to "self-charge"?    Thx.
PS -- my DUT (measured with 2Mohm in place) stays lit for about 18 minutes after the battery (2.6V) is removed.

Steve, congratulations! Also here is how to loop xee's jt circuit.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 25, 2011, 10:39:36 AM

[...]
We wanted you to know that our Becky had her baby this morning about 1:00 am.
[...]
[...]
tired but happy -- now the grand-daughter is here, and both are fine!

6lbs 12 ounces.

Steven

congratulations to you and your family!!

welcome to the Grandpa Club! - now it's a question of patience, waiting 'til you can share the wonders of science with a developing mind and help inspire a new generation  :)

of course, the waiting's not hard because in the meantime you get to rediscover those same wonders watching a new life unfold

pleased to hear that they picked up on the breech in good time

6lb 12oz - that's a good weight for a future physicist, isn't it?  ;)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jmmac on June 25, 2011, 03:23:46 PM
Professor Jones, many congratulations for your grand-daughter!

I tested some of the circuits guys showed here but wasn't able to get smaller power inputs. My best is around 6uW. I'm really not sure there is any kind of OU or anomalous phenomena going on in these circuits just because there is a coil involved. Maybe the original circuit had some kind of special setup that produced an anomalous behavior but, there has been so many variations that i believe there is simply normal physics working. Electronic engineers work with coils for a century and don't see anomalous behaviors. Iâ€™ll wait with interest the measurements made with the calorimeter.

Watching all the efforts in this thread to minimize power consumption i asked myself the question of what is the minimum power required to dimly light a led, forgetting about coils, back EMF and OU. To answer this, i used a simple pulse generator with controllable frequency and pulse width (circuit 1). I used very very narrow pulses with low frequency and used a bipolar\mosfet transistor to switch the led on for the duration of the pulses. The result was very low power consumption.

Using circuit 2 or 3 (without coils) i was able to light a led, dimly and flickering with around 1uW. The pulse generator uses a battery but it doesn't contribute with energy/power to light the led. All the power to light the led comes from the discharging capacitor that is pre-charged to the desired voltage. In circuit 3, there is no current flowing through the mosfet gate. In circuit 2 there is current going through the base of the transistor but it isn't used to light the led.

Then i introduced a coil in the circuit and the led is lighted with the energy that is stored in the coil's core when current flows â€“ pulse (circuit 4 and 5). The minimum power to light the led is also around 1uW.

Itâ€™s hard to compare the circuits with and without a coil since the coil generates pulses with higher voltage. Without a coil, the led brightness decreases more rapidly as the capacitor discharges, than with a coil.
Using a coil and discharging the capacitor from 2.50v to 2.00V i was able to get average input powers from 0.7 to 1.6 uW. Using a mosfet instead of a BJT did little difference. In fact it seems to decrease efficiency.

I hope this approach and info helps in some way. My feeling is that this race will achieve very efficient circuits to light leds but with no anomalous phenomena.
I propose a different contest that in my view is more interesting: Wins the one who is able to transfer the greatest percentage of energy stored in one capacitor, to a different capacitor. Several requirements can be added like the minimum energy/voltage stored in the primary capacitor.

Regards,
Jaime.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on June 25, 2011, 05:56:13 PM
A general aid in how to look at why many feedback (self-charging) circuit designs fail and really it makes no difference if you have a 2X or infinite gain (coherence).

One only needs to look at the transfer curves of the transistor and answer a few questions. 1) What happens when we increase Vcc? 2) With an increased Vcc does Ic increase? 3) If Vcc increases and Ic increases does that not reduce the I available to be pumped back into the battery?

If you can feedback to the battery a charging voltage and current which is high enough to flow back into the battery have we now created a current junction in which current is split between the battery and the circuit? Therefore if we could feedback via a shelf charging method one must insure that the circuit itself does not change it operational point as a result of a higher Vcc. If one uses a regulation method, the regulator will convert energy into lost heat via its normal operational mode.

There IMHO does not exist a door that can be opened that will provide infinite coherence, therefore all of the above points are very valid and the circuit must be at an operational stable point if one expects a self charging system. In short, method of regulation removing the circuit from the changes of the battery.

Now lets say we want to make heat in a load (resistor). Sounds good, but is there such a thing as cold electricity and isn't it written in the old literature that it does not produce heat? Why do LED's appear to be thermal-neutral when operating on systems such as SEC exciters? So if you want to show OU in the form of heat can it be done in a resistor or does another medium need to be present, say a gas plasma?

Just some thoughts and facts that may clear up some point for some out there.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 25, 2011, 08:18:28 PM

Steven

congratulations to you and your family!!

welcome to the Grandpa Club! - now it's a question of patience, waiting 'til you can share the wonders of science with a developing mind and help inspire a new generation  :)

of course, the waiting's not hard because in the meantime you get to rediscover those same wonders watching a new life unfold

pleased to hear that they picked up on the breech in good time

6lb 12oz - that's a good weight for a future physicist, isn't it?  ;)

Yes, that's a good start for a future physicist.  ;)  Thanks, NP and everyone.

@Laneal -- thank you for the circuit suggestion- - I'm anxious to try it.  May have to wait for a visit today to the future physicist, though.
I should note that the baby and mother are doing well -- but are located in a hospital 70 miles distant from our small town.  So it's a bit of a drive.
We got home this am at 4:30 am, so I'm also a bit tired.  But worth the effort!

@Jaime -- interesting work.  Would you do me a favor -- I routinely place a resistor R in SERIES with the LED and measure the Power input (consumption).  I find that the LED gives out close to the same light (per my eye, not too bad a measure for sameness IMO) for R values up to 69 ohms, then the LED gets dimmer.  At R = 21 ohms, I found with a Xee2 circuit that the Pinput was right around 4 microwatts uW.
Would you check the Pinput for 21 ohms and for 69 ohms (approx is fine) for YOUR circuit?   This will provide IMO a useful comparison.
It is true that eventually (soon) we will wish to compare Pout and Pin.
Also, I'm not so sure that your signal generator to the base of the transistor is NOT adding energy to your circuit...  my guess is that it does add energy to the system (increasing your Pinput).  Remember, we're now working at the uW level; and transistors are not perfect gating devices.

@DrStiffler -- interesting points -- yes, agreed that:
Quote
Therefore if we could feedback via a self charging method one must insure that the circuit itself does not change it operational point as a result of a higher Vcc. If one uses a regulation method, the regulator will convert energy into lost heat via its normal operational mode.

This is a valid concern, and underscores the difficulty in self-running.
Curious -- what do you think of RomeroUK's device that uses a DC-to-DC converter and which appears to be self-running?

Quote
Now lets say we want to make heat in a load (resistor). Sounds good, but is there such a thing as cold electricity and isn't it written in the old literature that it does not produce heat? Why do LED's appear to be thermal-neutral when operating on systems such as SEC exciters? So if you want to show OU in the form of heat can it be done in a resistor or does another medium need to be present, say a gas plasma?

I don't know about "cold electricity".  But for a device to be useful, there will need to be a means to extract power from the device and if used in some appliance (etc) that extracted power will produce heat.  Right? so it seems there must be some way to extract useful heat-producing power.  Are you saying that this new energy, by its nature, will not yield useful heat-producing power?

Oh -- photos of our physicist later.  The ones we took in the wee hours of the morning did not turn out too well...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on June 25, 2011, 08:38:20 PM
@JouleSeeker

In answer to your question about RomeroUK, I have absolutely no opinion or knowledge other than passing interest in what it was. As with everyone we have our pet ingrained opinions and beliefs and one of mine is that a mechanical device will not cohere energy and if it appears to be doing so, analysis will show that indeed the coherence is coming in at such point that it could be done without all of the mechanical fuss.

Sad we can not discuss Cold Electricity as it is the the total opposite to what one normally works with and manifests. I'm sure the over the years you will be drawn in that direction and because of its controversial nature I no longer go into it in open forum.

'Just a suggestion' You might think of making you device available in a constructed research form and the reason being the 'Grab Bag' syndrome. It would indeed provide a certified (your device) for researchers to look at and work with.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on June 26, 2011, 02:40:22 AM

You know one thing that I have noticed in all of these systems it that there is a conversion to a higher voltage potential of a high current storage device. This conversion based on the magnitude of the transformer gets to a point where very little is lost in the transfer but they get an extreme potential raise that can be transformed yet again to net a gain in current.
What that point is has yet to be established but I think Tesla was onto something with his "magnifying transformer" that he used to simulate static discharges of the Wimshurst machines. With statics we all know surface area is the most important aspect and I believe it is the same with this technology.

You are going in the right direction looking for the lowest input because if you could get it to that point it would start to pull in tremendous potentials from the surrounding area.

I had great luck in using a device that the good Doctor was researching a while back. We coined the phrase "Captret" and it seemed to connect with the source without pulling to much current. Although I don't believe this is the correct method to tap the source. Something in the capacitive end of the spectrum is like a filter. It keeps the flow of current very low and allows the potential to swing wildly or effortlessly enhancing the force by giving it momentum with very little input. Think of it as a biased modulator, with the bias being the cap voltage level. The swing comes from the capacitors ability to pass ac at that point enhancing the swing of the ac signal, in effect giving it more punch.

I'm starting research on ways to have this separation of load to the source. This will have to be done through caps hooked up in such a way that there is no direct link to the load. Each side of the battery will have polarized caps on it and a third cap to act as a swing tank. Three caps hooked to the source. Like I said I'm starting research in this area so nothing was done yet just some ideas from what I have been seeing in all these peoples experiments.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jmmac on June 26, 2011, 03:47:26 PM
@Jaime -- interesting work.  Would you do me a favor -- I routinely place a resistor R in SERIES with the LED and measure the Power input (consumption).  I find that the LED gives out close to the same light (per my eye, not too bad a measure for sameness IMO) for R values up to 69 ohms, then the LED gets dimmer.  At R = 21 ohms, I found with a Xee2 circuit that the Pinput was right around 4 microwatts uW.
Would you check the Pinput for 21 ohms and for 69 ohms (approx is fine) for YOUR circuit?   This will provide IMO a useful comparison.
It is true that eventually (soon) we will wish to compare Pout and Pin.
Also, I'm not so sure that your signal generator to the base of the transistor is NOT adding energy to your circuit...  my guess is that it does add energy to the system (increasing your Pinput).  Remember, we're now working at the uW level; and transistors are not perfect gating devices.

Professor,

To ensure there is no energy coming from the pulse generator, i used a optocoupler to electrically separate the 2 parts. To keep the circuit simple with small power input, i used the transistor in the optocoupler to switch the led on and off. I couldn't find a good configuration for the setup with the coil.

With the circuit in the picture i was able to dimly light the led, flickering a bit, with around 1uW. I found out that the multimeter consumes some power so i tried connecting it only from time to time. The result was that average power input dropped to around 0.6uW! (100uF cap going from 2.50v to 2.00v in 180-200sec).

I haven't yet tried the resistor in series with the values you suggest but, in theory it should increase the power in for the same led brightness since the resistor will dissipate power.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 26, 2011, 04:19:57 PM
@All -- attached is a photo of our budding physicist and her mother...

Jaime -- use of an optocoupler is a good idea.  Awaiting your result with the resistor(s) added... for comparison with a JT-type circuit.

@JouleSeeker

In answer to your question about RomeroUK, I have absolutely no opinion or knowledge other than passing interest in what it was. As with everyone we have our pet ingrained opinions and beliefs and one of mine is that a mechanical device will not cohere energy and if it appears to be doing so, analysis will show that indeed the coherence is coming in at such point that it could be done without all of the mechanical fuss.

Sad we can not discuss Cold Electricity as it is the the total opposite to what one normally works with and manifests. I'm sure the over the years you will be drawn in that direction and because of its controversial nature I no longer go into it in open forum.

'Just a suggestion' You might think of making you device available in a constructed research form and the reason being the 'Grab Bag' syndrome. It would indeed provide a certified (your device) for researchers to look at and work with.

I have borrowed a copy of the Bedini-Bearden book on "Free Energy" -- but I'm most interested in EXPERIMENTAL evidence for Pout/Pinput > 1.   As with high-temp superconductivity, which was a stunning breakthrough, the theory can come later.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: allcanadian on June 26, 2011, 05:19:54 PM
@Jouleseeker
Quote
I'm not likely to get BYU to sign an NDA to look at your device, Dr. Stiffler.   And I'm personally going open-source with all my alt-energy work now, including the solar cooker/cooler I developed.   I would avoid signing a non-disclosure agreement because it might restrict me from talking about my own research in alt-energy.  I've already turned down getting information on one "magnetic generator" because of they insisted that I sign an NDA first -- and they didn't even have a working prototype.  No thanks, I told them.  An NDA appears to me inconsistent with open-source development of energy for humankind.

I would agree, history is littered with persons having dreams of grandeur and an overwhelming sense of self-importance but the result of their efforts usually evaporates into thin air. Thus we could say any technology no matter how grand which is not utilized by the masses is basically useless and of benefit to very few. I believe our future has little room for people of this character who place their needs first, are motivated by profit and recognition, and it is an antiquated concept I think our great, great grandchildren will find quite amusing. I think many people have a sense that this experiment we call the "American Dream" has run its course and proven to be unsustainable as it should be obvious no system based solely on consumption, continuous growth and greed is sustainable.
Personally I have a great deal of respect for persons who are selfless, who openly give all their knowledge to others in spite of the criticism they usually recieve for doing so. Keep up the good work ;)
Regards
AC
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 26, 2011, 05:32:18 PM

@All -- attached is a photo of our budding physicist and her mother...
[...]

they both look a picture of health - the bonding starts here!

the little one may spend of a lot of her early hours sleeping, but i bet she's already dreaming of things like quarks, electron affinity and fun stuff which she will eventually pioneer  ;)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on June 26, 2011, 05:39:29 PM
Professor,

To ensure there is no energy coming from the pulse generator, i used a optocoupler to electrically separate the 2 parts. To keep the circuit simple with small power input, i used the transistor in the optocoupler to switch the led on and off. I couldn't find a good configuration for the setup with the coil.

With the circuit in the picture i was able to dimly light the led, flickering a bit, with around 1uW. I found out that the multimeter consumes some power so i tried connecting it only from time to time. The result was that average power input dropped to around 0.6uW! (100uF cap going from 2.50v to 2.00v in 180-200sec).

I haven't yet tried the resistor in series with the values you suggest but, in theory it should increase the power in for the same led brightness since the resistor will dissipate power.

Is there really no energy obtained from the Photons, might like to look at;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on June 26, 2011, 05:44:10 PM
@Jouleseeker
I would agree, history is littered with persons having dreams of grandeur and an overwhelming sense of self-importance but the result of their efforts usually evaporates into thin air. Thus we could say any technology no matter how grand which is not utilized by the masses is basically useless and of benefit to very few. I believe our future has little room for people of this character who place their needs first, are motivated by profit and recognition, and it is an antiquated concept I think our great, great grandchildren will find quite amusing. I think many people have a sense that this experiment we call the "American Dream" has run its course and proven to be unsustainable as it should be obvious no system based solely on consumption, continuous growth and greed is sustainable.
Personally I have a great deal of respect for persons who are selfless, who openly give all their knowledge to others in spite of the criticism they usually recieve for doing so. Keep up the good work ;)
Regards
AC
I always thought the definition of the American Dream was the ability to work for something and gain in return, not to have it all handed to you, can not understand where incentive and motivation would ever come from if you were assured of a few taking care of the masses.

But this is a political difference and not a science difference. You have a right to you view and I to mine, although it is questionable and uninformed that you feel you can speak of my motivations.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: CLaNZeR on June 26, 2011, 11:19:16 PM
@All -- attached is a photo of our budding physicist and her mother...

Congrats to the family addition that end !!

Also while busy cutting out the Modular Rig Systems I had a good mate Harv who visits me from abroad every year.
I had all the parts for the replication and let Harv have a go at putting the circuit together and doing some tests.

We only tried 3 configurations/variances in the position of the 10K pot on the LED load, but here are the results so far.

We know that there are multiple variances between the two 10K pots, one on the input and one on the output, but due to time restraints we just chose 3 different ones and it was a quick knock up.

Not being able to plot the energy in realtime using the maths function on the scope slowed us down alot as we had to manually plot each of the configurations.

Cheers

Sean.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 26, 2011, 11:48:26 PM
Thanks for the discussion.  Must say I personally resonate more with the views of AC.

they both look a picture of health - the bonding starts here!

the little one may spend of a lot of her early hours sleeping, but i bet she's already dreaming of things like quarks, electron affinity and fun stuff which she will eventually pioneer  ;)

No doubt!  Cute ain't she?  smart little cuss...

I'm using at the moment a green LED, Jameco 333542.  I decided to connect this simply to a cap, in series with a 1Mohm variable resistor -- this is the "control expt" -- and compare the green glow with what I get from the xee2 circuit, with 21ohms in series with the green LED.  True, the comparisons are by EYE, so this is just an indication -- not a quantitative result.
@2.3 volts in the control circuit, I get much the same glow intensity per my eye as in the Xee2-primed circuit (I've modified it a bit).  R-control was found to be 24.8Kohms for this condition, and the Power drawn in the control circuit is 54 uW... whereas the power drawn in the X2 circuit is about 5 uW, so about a factor of ten LESS than the control circuit.

Now, we'd like to get a quantitative measure of the total output power.  Rather than building "my own" calorimeter based on heat rise in a single (output) resistor as discussed above, I've been thinking for months of dropping the whole circuit into a sensitive calorimeter and measuring the TOTAL heat output.  With Pinput from a cap.  Easy...??

Yesterday, I finally got word back from a retired Professor/friend, who is expert in calorimetry and who has access to top-notch calorimeters...  and he is somewhat FAVORABLE to doing the experiment I've proposed (on a few DUT's), but would want to talk first.... so, wish me luck...

Unfortunately, he is traveling right now in Europe (which is why I've had trouble reaching him), and he'll be back in a FEW WEEKS...

You see, the work we've been doing lately leads to a few DUT's that I'd like to drop into the CM for evaluating the total Poutput.

And I WELCOME a few more devices to test.
HERE we have a contest that most will probably agree to -- and another 100-buck incentive (sorry, I'm not rich) to the device that gives the BEST n = Pout/Pin, with Pout = total Pout measured in the calorimeter, and Pin by a COMMON capacitor for the input. This X-contest named after my smart g-daughter (here name starts with X).
The prize jumps to \$300 bucks if you get Pout>Pin with your device, plus lots of cheers from the public...  (I also must practically guarantee a lot of derision and headaches from the globalist-elitists, whatever you want to call them, but there is a good sized community here that will help get the device out to humanity...)

Note that once I calibrate the input Cap, I propose to use that same CapIn for all DUT's tested (for ease and consistency -- see what I mean?).

Here's my plan, and I welcome comment:

1.  Control experiment -- also to calibrate the energy in the physical capacitor =
CapIn + R + LED, as described above.
I charge the cap, drop the control circuit (CC) into the Calorimeter (CM) and let it drain the cap, measuring the total Pinput...    Hmmm...The LED turns off at a certain voltage...  I may therefore simplify the above and go with:
CapIn + R, no LED, and just let the Cap drain to ~ zero volts.  At the few-mV level, the energy left in the cap is negligible...
E = 1/2 CV**2...  and that equation should give an energy comparable to that measured in the calorimeter CM...
This is our check on the analysis system.

2.  Next, we drop the DUT into the CM and let 'er run, and measure the TOTAL Poutput...

3.  Problem:  how to turn the DUT on and off INSIDE the calorimeter.  I welcome comments on that!  Ideally, we charge the cap to a fixed voltage for a given DUT, then turn it on (easy enough) and turn it OFF just before the LED would go "off"... or just let the LED go off, and let the system slowly drain the cap anyway (no OU for that last part, no doubt).   A means to turn OFF the DUT would be great, and I welcome ideas... (perhaps a Zener would do the trick, but we don't want to mess up the DUT).

I'm sure some will predict Poutput = Pinput in such a system, but that's what we determine via Experiment only.
(But -- pls let me know why you think the DUT will not show OU in a calorimeter, if that's what you think.)

Ah, more fun!  finally getting to the nitty gritty (use of a calorimeter as I and others proposed long ago on this thread and elsewhere)...

Again -- I cannot "promise" that Prof. H will allow me to use his calorimeter...  but I think he'll let me conduct a FEW tests...  quite optimistic.  What do you all think?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 26, 2011, 11:59:45 PM
Congrats to the family addition that end !!

Also while busy cutting out the Modular Rig Systems I had a good mate Harv who visits me from abroad every year.
I had all the parts for the replication and let Harv have a go at putting the circuit together and doing some tests.

We only tried 3 configurations/variances in the position of the 10K pot on the LED load, but here are the results so far.

We know that there are multiple variances between the two 10K pots, one on the input and one on the output, but due to time restraints we just chose 3 different ones and it was a quick knock up.

Not being able to plot the energy in realtime using the maths function on the scope slowed us down alot as we had to manually plot each of the configurations.

Cheers

Sean.

Hey, Sean -- good to hear from you.  Your post came in while I was doing the long post above about use of a calorimeter...
Thanks for your work on this with Harv...    Well, the output/input doesn't look too exciting at this point, but we're learning, me especially.

Note from past pages of discussion -- I have noted that the DUT's show a voltage dependence on the glow of the LED that seems quite important.  I observe with the sj1 and Xee2 circuits that the LED gets dimmer as the cap providing Pin loses power, stage 1, and the LED may go "off" for several seconds --
then the LED re-brightens and the DUT enters stage 2...  In stage 2, after re-brightening, the DUT consumes much less input power (factor of roughly 100 less).  So -- the question is -- does your device show this effect?  and if so, then pls measure the Pout/Pin in stage 2...
gotta run -- family duty calls...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hartiberlin on June 27, 2011, 12:08:10 AM
Hello to All,
as I am currently on a vaccation trip through Scandinavia with my girlfriend
in my old used Mobile Van car,
I visited today Per-Johan in Abod Ã–glunda, Sweden to work on the Prof. Jones circuit..
I just stopped by Per-JohanÂ´s place on my trip to say hello,
as I was near him and he was very friendly and showed me his Prof. Jones circuit he was working on.

Then we tweaked it all a bit and got the battery to charge up in voltage while running it lighting the LED.

Look at the circuit diagram in the video.

We used 4 x 1N4148 diodes for the FWBR diodes, but with
better diodes this would work even better.

We also tried to selfloop it via a capacitor instead of the battery,
but we only had an hour of time to play with it at my visit, so there were too many
losses and also the 2 x 1 Ohm resistors were still in there, so the pickup coil
with the bridge puts out less current than the whole circuit  consumes, but due to the voltage spikes the battery does charge indeed a bit up during runtime of the circuit.

Other conclusions could not be drawn in the short amount of time of the visit.

Many thanks to Per-Johan and his wife for the friendly hospitality and the nice talks we had.

Watch::

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: SkyWatcher123 on June 27, 2011, 12:15:38 AM
Hi folks, I'm trying out a 6 filar secondary with this circuit and testing out different wiring setups.
Hi allcanadian, very, very well said, though I would rethink the term persons as that is the term the manipulators use to call the fictional human being from birth.
Hi Stiffler, So I would ask then, how is that working out, your quote, "I always thought the definition of the American Dream was the ability to work for something and gain in return, not to have it all handed to you, can not understand where incentive and motivation would ever come from if you were assured of a few taking care of the masses."
As we can see, when a culture of human beings does not share all their time, energy, labor and ideas freely and expects a reward or selfish gain, well I can see the rewards we reap and that is more and more dictatorial government and systems that mirror our thinking or conditioned thinking at this point.
So we get worthless ink paper, so that a few can steal our time, energy, labor and ideas and place the majority of the so called gain in their control.
Sure sounds like that dream is working, though it has backfired and is working for an elite few. Be cautious of what you wish for, as if it is not for the good of all, this is what happens.
Cause and effect.
This is not political or scientific, this is spiritual and spiritual knowledge carries the highest wisdom.
peace love light
tyson ;)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hartiberlin on June 27, 2011, 12:23:01 AM
P.S: Congratulation on the new born baby Dr. Jones and family !

P.P.S: When tuning the circuit we tested today at Per-JohanÂ´s place, I saw,
that it works like a Joule Ringer circuit.
Changing the Base current pot just changes the frequency of the
Spikes and the waveforms looks very simular to the waveforms of a
JouleRinger.

The 3rd coil on the core is the easiest way to get rid of the different DC level problems
when you want to feedback the output to the input.

Without the 3rd coil we tried to use the FWBR directly parallel at the emitter coil
and there it charged up a 2200uF to about 5 Volts, but you canÂ´t feed this back to the input
directly cause otherwise you short out one diode of the FullWaveBrdigeRÃ©ctifier .

So the easiest part to work around this is to put a third coil around the core
and use this to extract the energy from the circuit.
Then you can also easily feed it back to the input,
cause you have no DC level problems.

Regards, Stefan.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hartiberlin on June 27, 2011, 12:30:42 AM
Here is again the circuit diagram from the video
for those that can not watch the video.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 27, 2011, 01:55:40 AM
Steven

here's the initial data for my ongoing logging of a supply cell voltage on my latest SJ1 variant test (schematic posted on 22nd June, post #427)

as you can see, the cell terminal voltage (green trace) has been increasing for nearly 120 hours, so far, since this particular run started (around 2am on 22nd June)

the circuit is supplied by two AAA NiMH cells in a reasonable state of charge - i'm logging the terminal voltage of one cell, the other cell is also increasing in voltage at a similar rate

at the moment it looks to follow my earlier SJ1 variant cell voltage results i posted a couple of weeks back

the test will need to run for at least another few days to see if it's the same battery 'relaxation' effect seen with the earlier circuit

the previous results showed the battery voltage increase peaking after approximately 190 hours continuous operation, so that is the target for this circuit to beat!

(BTW  i eventually lowered the logger a few inches, to be at the same height as the DUT near the floor. and that brought the two temperature readings closer - although for about a further day the core temperature was still slightly less than the 'ambient')

as before, i'll keep you updated with developments

the possibility to have access to some full-calorimetry equipment is very encouraging!  i hope that proves acceptable with your contact

i'm sure you'll get plenty of ideas for controlling the run - i'll throw in the possibilities of either having a magnetic reed switch holding off connection between DUT & supply cap until you remove an external magnet (assuming suitable materials & distances) - or a tilt-switch which would just need two distinct orientations of the calorimeter - 'load' & 'run' (assuming test gear can be 'rotated')

it's possible to get stand-alone micro-loggers which might possibly fit alongside the DUT, within the calorimeter - data can be downloaded back to a PC via USB afterwards

hope this helps

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jmmac on June 27, 2011, 01:14:19 PM
Jaime -- use of an optocoupler is a good idea.  Awaiting your result with the resistor(s) added... for comparison with a JT-type circuit.

Professor,

As you requested, i tested the optocoupler version with an added resistor between capacitor plus and led anode. I tested 3 setups: with R=0 Ohm; R=22 Ohm ; R= 68 Ohm. The led brightness is almost the same in the 3 setups, i almost can't see a difference. The circuit was tested without multimeter or scope connected and with the pulse generator electrically separated. The pulses had a frequency of around 50Hz and duration of around 540ns.

I made 3 measurements for each setup letting the cap discharge from 2.50v to 2.00v. I got the following average Pin:

R=0 Ohm   : Pin = 0.585 uW
R=22 Ohm : Pin = 0.578 uW
R=68 Ohm : Pin = 0.575 uW
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on June 27, 2011, 02:26:10 PM
jmmac,

Bravo to you for demonstrating the fact that these LED's require next to no power to illuminate!

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: forest on June 27, 2011, 03:35:52 PM
I think you know that leds produce nice amount of voltage and not so nice current when pointed directly to sun light (even if sun is not visible). At this level of current measured you have to take it into consideration even with artificial dim light around led.
I have easily got 1.4V from one clear yellow LED pointed directly to sun hidden behaind clouds in rainy day.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 27, 2011, 04:12:13 PM
@Skywatcher, agreed.

Thank you, Stefan:
P.S: Congratulation on the new born baby Dr. Jones and family !

P.P.S: When tuning the circuit we tested today at Per-JohanÂ´s place, I saw,
that it works like a Joule Ringer circuit.
Changing the Base current pot just changes the frequency of the
Spikes and the waveforms looks very simular to the waveforms of a
JouleRinger.

The 3rd coil on the core is the easiest way to get rid of the different DC level problems
when you want to feedback the output to the input.

Without the 3rd coil we tried to use the FWBR directly parallel at the emitter coil
and there it charged up a 2200uF to about 5 Volts, but you canÂ´t feed this back to the input
directly cause otherwise you short out one diode of the FullWaveBrdigeRÃ©ctifier .

So the easiest part to work around this is to put a third coil around the core
and use this to extract the energy from the circuit.
Then you can also easily feed it back to the input,

cause you have no DC level problems.

Regards, Stefan.

This is NP's approach as well -- using a third coil to extract energy from the circuit, and feed it back into the input.   Hope to hear more results!

Thanks for your continued work and observations, NP!

@Jaime -- interesting, and note that the power did not go up as you had predicted with the addition of resistor...  Of course, my goal [to be brief] is to determine whether or not a circuit involving a magnetic coil can produce Pout/Pin > 1.  There is no magnetic coil in your test, but the results regarding LED lighting are nonetheless interesting.

@all --  I heard back from Prof H, my friend with the calorimeters --
Quote
If we can put everything into the calorimeter except some wires extending to the outside and switch it on after it has thermally equilibrated, we can measure the signal and correct for the time constant of the calorimeter. It is better to have good thermal contact, but not necessary as long as we have good contact on some part of the device. The calorimeter measures thermal power, but that can be integrated to give total energy.

So it appears he is warming to my request to use his calorimeter...    At the same time, I congratulate and encourage the efforts at a self-running device!

Thanks for the ideas regarding turning the device on and off, NP.  You see that one can have thin wires leading to the device, only to turn it on and off.  I like your idea of a gravity-switch; clever.

I'm quite sure that Prof H will allow more than one test in his sensitive calorimeter, now.
And this should be available for further tests as we learn more.  Of course, I'm hopeful that one or more of the circuits now being discussed will demonstrate OU...  that is the goal.

Along with getting the "empowerment" out to the public in a scaled-up device!  (PS -- I do not seek the "American dream" if that dream is to get wealthy via some globalist profit-motive-control-freak corporation while humanity is screwed.  IMHO, some governments now seem focused-first on protecting  the profits of big corporations and banks.  Sometimes I wonder if the latter are not in fact in de facto control of those governments... so that government-enforcement methods are in fact applied to protect the profits of big Oil, big Banks, Monsanto, Halliburton, big Pharma, and so on. )

Prof. H states that the cavity in his calorimeter is about the size of a D-cell battery.  Please consider sending your "best" device for testing in this cavity...  and designing it to fit in this volume, and to accept power from one of two standard capacitors (which I will provide.)  One with higher C than the other; high enough so that the voltage drop will be fairly small during the course of the run... (I'm open to better ideas, as always.)

Quote
1.  Control experiment -- also to calibrate the energy in the physical capacitor =
CapIn + R, no LED, and just let the Cap drain to a ~zero volts.  At the few-mV level, the energy left in the cap is negligible...
E = 1/2 CV**2...  and that equation should give an energy comparable to that measured in the calorimeter CM...

2.  Next, we drop the DUT into the CM and let 'er run, and measure the TOTAL Poutput...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on June 27, 2011, 05:19:17 PM
A single toroid can put out an interesting flow

one person says output is linear and another sees the ring as a rotational field moving straight line.
some say both I am glad it is observable.

for example a portable radio set inside a microwave oven should not pick up a transverse wave.

the import of this post is what is observable ?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jmmac on June 27, 2011, 05:45:06 PM
@Jaime -- interesting, and note that the power did not go up as you had predicted with the addition of resistor...  Of course, my goal [to be brief] is to determine whether or not a circuit involving a magnetic coil can produce Pout/Pin > 1.  There is no magnetic coil in your test, but the results regarding LED lighting are nonetheless interesting.

Professor,

Power should go up for the same led brightness which was not what happened with my tests. Of course power will come down if i add a resistor in series with the led and do not change the rest, but the led will be less bright.

This test was only meant to show that these leds light up with very little power and so, the power inputs that we have obtained with the coil circuits don't show much by themselves.

Before i used the optocoupler (which doesn't allow me to make a coil circuit with low power input) i made 2 circuits with coils (one with a bipolar transistor and another with a mosfet) and both consumed around 1uW (should go down to 0.6uW if i remove the multimeter). The reason i introduced the optocoupler was because you suggested that the pulse generator was giving energy to the circuit, which doesn't seem the case acording to the results with the optocoupler.

I'm glad there is a good possibility of using the calorimeter, i put my money on that method :)

Jaime

PS: Regarding the procedure with the calorimeter, will it measure the power converted to light by the led? Using a diode would ensure all the power is converted to heat.
Can there be wires comming from the circuit to the outside of the calorimeter?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 27, 2011, 11:52:01 PM
Professor,
[snip]
I'm glad there is a good possibility of using the calorimeter, i put my money on that method :)

Jaime

PS: Regarding the procedure with the calorimeter, will it measure the power converted to light by the led? Using a diode would ensure all the power is converted to heat.
Can there be wires comming from the circuit to the outside of the calorimeter?

Yes, even light will be captured in the closed calorimeter and converted to heat.
There may be THIN wires from circuit to environment... this is not a problem.

@Forest - good point.  LED placed in light will produce a voltage.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 28, 2011, 04:37:41 AM
@Laneal -- I built the circuit you suggested, attached LEFT.

For comparison, I show Xee2's circuit RIGHT.

I re-built the Xee2 circuit with new components, so that I could implement your mods (left) and make comparisons.     But I used 3Mohms instead of 2Mohoms, and a 3.3mF cap.

As I noted previously, the Xee2-circuit (like the sj1 circuit) shows a "re-brightening effect" -- and I think this is an interesting effect:

1.  Stage 1, the green LED glows brightly at first (3.13V) but dims rapidly, essentially off at 1.674V .

2.  Off or about 4 seconds, then

3.  The LED comes back on again, and now the power consumption is way down.

In stage 1, the Pinput measured by the cap/time method is about 1400 uW.
In stage 3, the  Pinput measured by the cap/time method is about 8 uW, for this build.

I find this dramatic off-rebrighten effect with LARGE change in power consumption to be very interesting.  I can't explain it yet.

Now, the Laneal mod, shows Pinput as:

1.6V to 1.5V in 68 sec => 7.4uW, about the same as the Xee2 version
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 28, 2011, 04:57:47 AM

1.  Stage 1, the green LED glows brightly at first (3.13V) but dims rapidly, essentially off at 1.674V .

With Vin = 3.13 volts you are driving the LED directly from the battery/capacitor through the collector coil. This is equivalent to putting the LED directly on the battery and there is no current limiting except for the LED. When Vin drops to below the LED turn on voltage, then the LED is only turning on when the magnetic field of the collector coil collapses.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 28, 2011, 07:26:11 AM

With Vin = 3.13 volts you are driving the LED directly from the battery/capacitor through the collector coil. This is equivalent to putting the LED directly on the battery and there is no current limiting except for the LED. When Vin drops to below the LED turn on voltage, then the LED is only turning on when the magnetic field of the collector coil collapses.

i agree - for the Xee2 circuit - but this explanation doesn't apply for the other circuits (eg SJ1) where the LED is connected in reverse polarity to the DC supply

WRT  Forest's comment about the 'solar' power characteristic of LEDs:
i've used LEDs as a supply source for v. low-powered circuits in the past and they will only provide input when they are connected with a particular polarity (ie. forward biased wrt the supply rail polarity - as in xee2's example)

for example, you'll notice from all my SJ1 variants posted here, that i always have the LED reverse-biased wrt the supply rail polarity - this way the LED is never providing additional supply as an optical source (and incidentally, neither will it experience 'direct drive' from the source if the supply voltage is increased greater than the LED 'turn-on' voltage)

for circuits which DO have the LED in the same polarity sense as the supply then the tests results can be confirmed with some test runs either in a suitably darkened room,  or with the LED suitably covered

hope this helps
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 28, 2011, 05:39:09 PM

i agree - for the Xee2 circuit - but this explanation doesn't apply for the other circuits (eg SJ1) where the LED is connected in reverse polarity to the DC supply

WRT  Forest's comment about the 'solar' power characteristic of LEDs:
i've used LEDs as a supply source for v. low-powered circuits in the past and they will only provide input when they are connected with a particular polarity (ie. forward biased wrt the supply rail polarity - as in xee2's example)

for example, you'll notice from all my SJ1 variants posted here, that i always have the LED reverse-biased wrt the supply rail polarity - this way the LED is never providing additional supply as an optical source (and incidentally, neither will it experience 'direct drive' from the source if the supply voltage is increased greater than the LED 'turn-on' voltage)

for circuits which DO have the LED in the same polarity sense as the supply then the tests results can be confirmed with some test runs either in a suitably darkened room,  or with the LED suitably covered

hope this helps
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Excellent points, Xee2 and NP...  especially this (NP):

Quote
i agree - for the Xee2 circuit - but this explanation doesn't apply for the other circuits (eg SJ1) where the LED is connected in reverse polarity to the DC supply

Last evening I was re-checking the waveforms.  Xee2 circuit at 3+ volts shows no circuit pulsing, and direct LED lighting is confirmed.  Pulsing starts at lower voltage, around 1.6V in my build.

OTOH, sj1 circuit always shows pulsing when operating, and the waveform has a complicated high-frequency pattern, typically over 1 MHz.

Thanks again.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 28, 2011, 05:48:12 PM
I've been reading the Muller/RomeroUK thread, trying to keep up.  Good discussion.  Bolt and a few others continue to assert that an OU device ALREADY exists, even though the OU.com prize remains unclaimed.

I'd appreciate comments on the assertion.  Do you think it is true that Konehead (Doug K) or Bedini or Stiffler or Muller company  (or someone else )  has ALREADY a working device?  PlasmERG?  Magnacoaster?

If so, what is needed now?  Better testing / verification?  Publishing the results?  Patents?  Or building devices around the world?  Are we to that point yet??

Your comments would be appreciated...  I guess I'm new to so much of the research in this area.
I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed, not much actually published (in scientific journals) if anything...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: e2matrix on June 28, 2011, 06:37:42 PM
I've seen and talked with people for around 20 years on this including meeting konehead in person many years ago as well as some other inventors.  And some people I've met just by chance who new of someone who had been running an OU device quietly.  I have no doubt some of the big news devices hailed as being OU which then seem to fade into the woodwork have either been paid by certain interests to hold off production or threatened or any number of other things that happen.  Somewhere around here is a document detailing a couple hundred different devices that for many of those reasons and others are not yet available to the public.  Murders, threats, bought out and shelved, legal troubles that suddenly show up, gone into hiding and a myriad of other reasons are what you see.  Some of course are outright scams.   That is why I think it's almost as important to have a plan in place before finding OU as to how you can get it out into the world.  It's a difficult but I believe not impossible problem.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JimU on June 28, 2011, 07:50:31 PM
I've been reading the Muller/RomeroUK thread, trying to keep up.  Good discussion.  Bolt and a few others continue to assert that an OU device ALREADY exists, even though the OU.com prize remains unclaimed.

I'd appreciate comments on the assertion.  Do you think it is true that Konehead (Doug K) or Bedini or Stiffler or Muller company  (or someone else )  has ALREADY a working device?  PlasmERG?  Magnacoaster?

If so, what is needed now?  Better testing / verification?  Publishing the results?  Patents?  Or building devices around the world?  Are we to that point yet??

Your comments would be appreciated...  I guess I'm new to so much of the research in this area.
I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed, not much actually published (in scientific journals) if anything...

As far as just existence of an OU device, if it is actually possible, then it would seem the
breadth of work by numerous folks would have produced one and probably more than once.

But as stated by others above, this does not make such a device visible nor necessarily accessible
to the world, for various and sundry reasons, such as holding back details for possible commercial
development, quite a reasonable decision.

Back when I was becoming interested in OU, the Sweet VTA had recently been demonstrated
to Bearden and others, for instance.  Their feedback was that it was for real.  But, even if so,
there was apparently serendipity at work making it hard to replicate and also some details were
kept quiet.  Since then Mr. Sweet has left this world and his knowledge with him.

I personally like JL Naudin's S2Gen as a potential OU candidate, though JL is not clearly claiming
it as such, as I wrote in an earlier reply.

Best,  Jim
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: neptune on June 28, 2011, 08:40:00 PM
@Jouleseeker . You ask does an OU device already exist . I personally believe that it does . I believe the Plasmerg engine is real . Heat pumps are obviously real . I would expect it likely that the Military of many nations are using OU machines . What about the 10, 000 patents seized by the American government . You are a learned man in your chosen field , but like the rest of us , there are perhaps things you need to learn about Psychology and Politics . If the Plasmerg engine hits the market place , it will necessitate a complete change in the way we live our lives . An end to pollution , starvation and poverty . But also a change for the Ivy League fat cats . The first sign of change will be Rossi`s Ecat . Mankind may be destined for a Golden Age , but first , a terrible amount of blood will be shed .
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jmmac on June 28, 2011, 11:58:50 PM
This subject is interesting: Are there OU devices?

I really hope so. It would make the life of humanity much easier and it would be very interesting to see - new developments in physics.

There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence of the existence of extraordinary devices, from many countries, for many decades...

But... There is something bothering me a lot! I have a really hard time believing that for over 100 years, so many people have constructed OU devices but there is always a strange reason for it not becoming available, for not being commercially exploited. It defies statistics. I just don't buy the conspiracy theories. Maybe in the US the government is always conspiring in the shadows and sends MIB. But not in the rest of the world where there are also many allegations of OU devices.

So, why aren't those OU devices developed in the 70s, 80s and 90s producing GWh of free energy right now? Why aren't the inventors rich? I don't know and that bothers me.

Jaime.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on June 29, 2011, 12:25:30 AM
98% of OU claims are false. That being said most everyone falls for at least one false claim and gets burned.
Those who persist begin to narrow the search finding commonality among reputable theorists.
If you want to do this right takes a real disciplined study and historical savy of this field along with a humble attitude
about would be scientist that were discredited, ridiculed and murdered. In between this endeavor is relaxation.

Humility to open your mind to people who may not be educated but may have a small piece of the puzzle.
In doing so whole souled may require unbuttoning your shirt and watching Joseph Newman spin
500 pound magnet preaching unorthodox magnetic theory, force your mind not to form any opinion other than it is interesting.
I enjoy your work it takes creativity who knows what part of the puzzle it may someday solve.
An exercise in not forming opinion:
step two unbutton the shirt this will convince businessmen with basic knowledge of golf carts.

Everyone has their own way when it comes to exploring uncharted waters.
Are there OU devices, most definitely.
Are there men in black. yes
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 29, 2011, 02:13:51 AM
Thanks for the comments; I resonate especially with dimbulb here:

98% of OU claims are false.  [snip]
Humility to open your mind to people who may not be educated but may have a small piece of the puzzle.
...
I enjoy your work it takes creativity who knows what part of the puzzle it may someday solve.
...

Everyone has their own way when it comes to exploring uncharted waters.
Are there OU devices, most definitely.
Are there men in black. yes

There were interesting corroborative statistics presented -- I recall, but don't know where, this forum is so huge -- in essence said:
A rich fellow decided to use his money and expertise to explore OU claims.  He visited over 100 "inventors".  Of these:
1.  Half were bogus, but the inventors did not know it -- poor measurement methods etc.
Many of these would not believe him when he showed them wrong...

2.  A large percentage were bogus, scams.

3. TWO actually were OU, by his testing.  He tried to help the inventors get their devices out for use.  One fellow wanted an enormous amount of money UP FRONT from a European royal -- the deal fell through.

Did any one else see this posting?  I think it was on the Romero/Muller thread... if you find it, pls let me know... I'd like to get the story straight.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 29, 2011, 02:22:45 AM
I found it!  I must say, Nul-Pts always provides intriguing posts, and I found this in a posting of his in May.  (I used "prince" to find it in my search, I recalled that word):

Nul-points post, and if you care to comment further NP, I'm all ears!!
Quote
Here is a small snippet from an email I received a few weeks ago. I have edited out the names. I thought this was very telling.

I know a man xxxxxxxx He made it big in the xxxxx business. He sold out to some international conglomerate and is set for life. As part of his humanitarian contribution to the world he decided to search for a true free energy technology and do what it takes to finance it and develop it into something workable, hoping to do an end run around the MIB.
He doesnâ€™t do all his work on the Internet.

For the last two years he has traveled to the prospective inventors with about \$50,000 in Tektronix energy analyzers and other support equipment (including the FET probes). When I talked to him last, about 4 months ago at xxx here in xxxx, he said he had personally interview 118 individuals in 10 different countries. He said:

4% are outright Fraud (I thought that number was low)
48% have instrumentation errors and 80% of those are with current analysis â€“ especially pulsed current.
48% are delusional about their accomplishments and the manner in which they evaluate their results

Itâ€™s those last 48% that clog up the forums and discussion groups. You can show them with the latest equipment that their setup is only running at 70% efficiency and they will continue to think they have made a breakthrough and want you to provide them a research grant and buy stock in their company.

So far he has found two legitimate OU devices one that operated at the 1 watt power level and another at 1000 watts. He attempted to get the second one together with a prince in Europe that was ready to finance a manufacturing effort, but the inventor wanted 60 million Euros up front. So far the people with the working inventions are impossible to do business with. No wonder so many inventors go to the grave with their secret. This is the same problem that Stan myers had.

Thanks again, NP, my good man!  very interesting statistics, and sounds about right to me.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 29, 2011, 06:34:34 AM
2 uA Joule thief. Video at >>>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9HQkDnIuU&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 29, 2011, 06:57:53 AM
energy calculation for 2 uA Joule thief:

10,000 uF capacitor
start voltage = 1.358
end voltage = 0.599
time = 84 minutes = 84 * 60 seconds = 5040 sec.

Joules = 0.5*C*(V1^2 - V2^2) = 0.5*10000e-6*(1.358^2 - 0.599^2) = 0.0074

watts = Joules / seconds = 0.0074 / 5040 =  1.468 uW
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: conradelektro on June 29, 2011, 08:58:58 AM
P.P.S: When tuning the circuit we tested today at Per-JohanÂ´s place, I saw, that it works like a Joule Ringer circuit.
Changing the Base current pot just changes the frequency of the Spikes and the waveforms looks very simular to the waveforms of a JouleRinger.

The 3rd coil on the core is the easiest way to get rid of the different DC level problems when you want to feedback the output to the input.

Regards, Stefan.

@Stefan: I like Per-Johan's idea (the third coil on the toroid). May be Per-Johan is willing to provide more details of his circuit (value of capacitor and resistor at the base of the transistor, which transistor, number of wire turns on the toroid).

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: conradelektro on June 29, 2011, 09:07:10 AM
2 uA Joule thief. Video at >>>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9HQkDnIuU&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

@xee2: may be one can combine Per-Johan's idea (third coil on the toroid with full bridge rectifier) and your low power JT circuit in order to feed back power to the 10.000ÂµF capacitor? This should reduce the power consumption even more.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 29, 2011, 01:01:29 PM

I found it!  I must say, Nul-Pts always provides intriguing posts, and I found this in a posting of his in May
[...]
Nul-points post, and if you care to comment further NP, I'm all ears!!
[...]

thanks for the kind words as always, Steven...

i'll just bask in those words a little longer - before having to point out that your quote about OU statistics must have been posted by someone** other than me!  :)
[EDIT:  ** it was by toranarod]

here is my contribution to the list of reported OU development, hopefully with a reasonably mainstream emphasis:-

rauen
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Rauen_Environmental_Heat_Engine (http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Rauen_Environmental_Heat_Engine)

sheenan

dragone
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3842.0;attach=52700 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3842.0;attach=52700)

turtur
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf (http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf)

kanarev
http://pesn.com/2010/10/13/9501712_Kanarev_announces_self-running_motor-generator/ (http://pesn.com/2010/10/13/9501712_Kanarev_announces_self-running_motor-generator/)

rossi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer)

these are just a sample, or review, of some of the work which these people have been doing

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 29, 2011, 01:27:39 PM

energy calculation for 2 uA Joule thief:

10,000 uF capacitor
start voltage = 1.358
end voltage = 0.599
time = 84 minutes = 84 * 60 seconds = 5040 sec.

Joules = 0.5*C*(V1^2 - V2^2) = 0.5*10000e-6*(1.358^2 - 0.599^2) = 0.0074

watts = Joules / seconds = 0.0074 / 5040 =  1.468 uW

hi Xee2

this result based on a start voltage of 1.3V and an end voltage of 0.6V, along with the previous test runs we did from 1.5V (?) to 1.1V, really highlights how the power consumption falls with supply voltage

you can see that your initial continuous DC Power in at 1.36V & 2mA is 2.72uW, yet your overall average is 1.47uW

obviously the lower the end voltage, the lower the average DC power value that we'll measure for a particular test

hence Steven's guideline of a voltage range between 2.55V and 1.5V  for reference purposes (also, using 1000uF caps, for direct time comparisons, of course)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 29, 2011, 01:42:44 PM

@Stefan: I like Per-Johan's idea (the third coil on the toroid). May be Per-Johan is willing to provide more details of his circuit (value of capacitor and resistor at the base of the transistor, which transistor, number of wire turns on the toroid).

the tertiary winding approach looks good, but my experiences with it (posted earlier in this thread, post #163, 3rd Jun'11) suggest that it's main benefit is in decoupling the pulse o/p from the DC biasing necessary for the oscillator
(see first schematic below)

the most 'efficient' config i've been able to achieve has been to use a different approach to Looping and DC Decoupling and remove the tertiary winding altogether
(see second schematic below)

utilising both +ve & -ve o/p pulses also gave an increase in input current draw, so having a FWBR on the o/p (with the additional loss in forward voltage drops of 2 diodes, rather than a half-wave rectifier) doesn't appear to be a good way to go (in this circuit)

hope this helps
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 29, 2011, 03:36:45 PM

hence Steven's guideline of a voltage range between 2.55V and 1.5V

If you want to use 2.55 volts you can. But, as you noted, to get lowest power consumption the battery voltage should be as low as possible. The test voltages I use are what ever the battery voltage happens to be when I do the test.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 29, 2011, 03:48:18 PM

If you want to use 2.55 volts you can. But, as you noted, to get lowest power consumption the battery voltage should be as low as possible. The test voltages I use are what ever the battery voltage happens to be when I do the test.

you can use any voltage you like (within the transistor device operating limits) for your own testing

in that case, however, the results will have no meaning for comparing between different approaches and circuits - which is why Steven asked people to make their measurements within his guidelines

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 29, 2011, 04:00:19 PM
may be one can combine Per-Johan's idea (third coil on the toroid with full bridge rectifier) and your low power JT circuit in order to feed back power to the 10.000ÂµF capacitor? This should reduce the power consumption even more.

My testing has shown that there is no gain in efficiency by using an additional coil on the toroid. I only use the extra coil to get higher output voltages.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 29, 2011, 04:10:19 PM

you can use any voltage you like (within the transistor device operating limits) for your own testing

in that case, however, the results will have no meaning for comparing between different approaches and circuits - which is why Steven asked people to make their measurements within his guidelines

I am sorry my tests have no meaning for you. To me the meaning is quite clear - if you want to reduce power consumption you should reduce the input voltage.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 29, 2011, 04:13:52 PM

thanks for the kind words as always, Steven...

i'll just bask in those words a little longer - before having to point out that your quote about OU statistics must have been posted by someone other than me!  :)

here is my contribution to the list of reported OU development, hopefully with a reasonably mainstream emphasis:-

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Oops, I thought you posted this, but apologize for the evident mistake...
And thanks for your sense of humor, NP, gave me a hearty laugh this morning.

Xee2 -- yes, by increasing the cap feeding the base transistor, you decrease the pulse-rate on the LED (to 18 Hz) so that it flickers, and this decreases the input power.  It is remarkable to get the device to run for over 80 minutes on a 10,000 uF cap, but at the same time, let's note that decreasing the rep rate does not (almost certainly) change the Pout/Pin ratio.  Increasing that ratio, to a value > unity, is the major goal of this line of research.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: conradelektro on June 29, 2011, 04:28:32 PM

the most 'efficient' config i've been able to achieve has been to use a different approach to Looping and DC Decoupling and remove the tertiary winding altogether
(see second schematic below)

hope this helps
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

@nul-points: thank you for (re)posting the circuits.

What is a useful value of C1 in the second circuit?

What kind of coil is L1 (number of turns, material) in the second circuit?

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 29, 2011, 04:30:07 PM
Let me hasten to add that I plan to place into the calorimeter (in about two weeks, when Prof H gets back from Europe) -- in separate tests with a "standard" cap for the input power:

1.  the "original" sj1 circuit

2.  my build of the Xee2 circuit, which runs for about 18 minutes on a 10,000uF cap

3.  my build of the NP circuit shown on the previous page (and earlier), still working on it...

4.  I may also include Chris' circuit discussed early on in this thread.

I haven't found any other circuits yet that look promising enough -- and SMALL enough -- for the calorimeter tests. (E.g., Laneal's test was not an apparent improvement; but I could reconsider this.)  Suggestions welcomed!
The calo.'s cavity is the size of a D-cell battery, the one Prof H has talked about letting me use.  (There are larger calorimeters of course, but those would be for future studies...)

@NP:  About your circuit with bifilar on the toroid (not trifilar), I have questions:

A.  Is the 1N5817 necessary?  it appears to have a breakdown voltage of 20V, which does not seem particularly relevant to this circuit.  I could get the 1N5817 if you recommend it, however.

B.  Your L1 of approx 0.5mH -- what kind of inductor is this?  or can it be an off-the-shelf inductor of ~0.5mH?

C.  When you say T1 is approx 50:50, are you referring to 50 windings in each?  on what type of toroid?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 29, 2011, 04:39:13 PM
PS --  if anyone (including Xee2 and NP and Chris) wishes to send me HIS own DUT, I would be glad to put it into the calorimeter for testing, assuming I can get enough time on the calo...  As long as I'm not asked to sign a long-term NDA (I could understand signing a short-term NDA and giving the inventor the calorimeter results immediately following the tests.)

Note again the present tight volume restriction -- it needs to fit into a cylindrical cavity the size of a D-cell battery; and very thin wires are permitted leading from the outside to the DUT.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 29, 2011, 04:41:48 PM

I am sorry my tests have no meaning for you
[...]

those are not my words

this is what i said:

[...]
in that case, however, the results will have no meaning for comparing between different approaches and circuits - which is why Steven asked people to make their measurements within his guidelines
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 29, 2011, 05:00:30 PM

[...]
What is a useful value of C1 in the second circuit?

What kind of coil is L1 (number of turns, material) in the second circuit?

C1 mostly decides the repetition of the o/p pulse 'burst' (while keeping other component values the same)

i've been using values between 0.1uF and 0.001uF, as required, to fit within Steven's requirements here for low-power consumption, LED visibility down to lower voltage supply, and less-visible flicker

L1 is approx 4 metres of 0.45mm enamelled copper, wound on a ferrite tube approx 30x15mm OD (obtained from Maplin, material unknown)

L1 decouples the DC supply from the oscillator and allows the LED to be driven by the resulting voltage swing across the oscillator as a whole
(providing for the possibility of some looping of energy back to the supply after each pulse)

greetings
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 29, 2011, 05:32:30 PM

[...]
@NP:
[...]
A.  Is the 1N5817 necessary?  it appears to have a breakdown voltage of 20V, which does not seem particularly relevant to this circuit.  I could get the 1N5817 if you recommend it, however.

B.  Your L1 of approx 0.5mH -- what kind of inductor is this?  or can it be an off-the-shelf inductor of ~0.5mH?

C.  When you say T1 is approx 50:50, are you referring to 50 windings in each?  on what type of toroid?

aha - now it's my turn to go back and read the thread!  i've been re-constructing one of my circuits into a format for you to fit into a 'D' cell volume!  but it sounds like you intend to fabricate each of our circuits yourself?    LOL

my multi-toroid setup wouldn't fit the space requirements, so i've rewound my coil and inductor on ferrite tubes, in solenoid form

the cores & L1 winding are as per my previous posting just now to Conrad
(30x15mm OD, 7mm ID, ferrite); the oscillator coil is a bifilar wind of 2 strands of approx 3 metres of 0.45mm enamelled copper

C1 is 0.001uF; Tr is BC547

the diode(s) used for DC biasing of the transistor isn't critical - i'm just using the reverse leakage current as a high impedance supply for the base, rather than a resistor - but it's a question of 'select-on-test', unfortunately!

on the unit i've just been making to send you, i'm using a 1N5817 in series with an OA93 to give reasonably flicker-free LED operation down to below a volt, with a power draw similar to my previous results obtained with the larger toroids

i'm happy to continue finishing off this more compact version and posting to you, c/o BYU, if that helps (assuming Calr. availability timing is met)

let me know what you think

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 29, 2011, 05:35:03 PM
Note again the present tight volume restriction -- it needs to fit into a cylindrical cavity the size of a D-cell battery; and very thin wires are permitted leading from the outside to the DUT.

Normally, efficiency is the ratio of input power to power delivered to a load. If that convention is followed, only the load resistor needs to be put in the calorimeter.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: conradelektro on June 29, 2011, 05:55:41 PM
C1 is 0.001uF; Tr is BC547

thanks
np

@nul-points: thank you for providing the details.

Concerning the transistor: I understood you are using a PNP-type transistor (in the discussed circuit 2), which would be the BC549?

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 29, 2011, 06:09:03 PM

aha - now it's my turn to go back and read the thread!  i've been re-constructing one of my circuits into a format for you to fit into a 'D' cell volume!  but it sounds like you intend to fabricate each of our circuits yourself?    LOL

my multi-toroid setup wouldn't fit the space requirements, so i've rewound my coil and inductor on ferrite tubes, in solenoid form

the cores & L1 winding are as per my previous posting just now to Conrad
(30x15mm OD, 7mm ID, ferrite); the oscillator coil is a bifilar wind of 2 strands of approx 3 metres of 0.45mm enamelled copper

C1 is 0.001uF; Tr is BC547

the diode(s) used for DC biasing of the transistor isn't critical - i'm just using the reverse leakage current as a high impedance supply for the base, rather than a resistor - but it's a question of 'select-on-test', unfortunately!

on the unit i've just been making to send you, i'm using a 1N5817 in series with an OA93 to give reasonably flicker-free LED operation down to below a volt, with a power draw similar to my previous results obtained with the larger toroids

i'm happy to continue finishing off this more compact version and posting to you, c/o BYU, if that helps (assuming Calr. availability timing is met)

let me know what you think

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

For the Cal'r test, I'd much rather have your device to test, NP!  so glad that you are building a version that will fit into the tight space.
The test will not be until the week of July 11th, and that if Prof H agrees...  I have a family trip planned starting July 18th, so I hope the cal'r tests can be done the week of July 11-16... that's my goal.
Post:  PO Box 325, Spring City, UT 84662
UPS or other shipping:  265 East 200 North Street, Spring City, UT 84662

Thanks so much for working with me on this, NP!  I hope we succeed.
It may take a few iterations I suppose.

@Xee2 -- correct, one could just put the "load" alone inside the calorimeter, and I'll do that for you if you request that be done.... Just define what goes INTO the cal'r and what stays outside.

This makes some sense, but note that by putting the entire device inside, we measure the TOTAL heat output, and have a check on things -- for if the cal'r is working properly, the "efficiency" should be UNITY theoretically for each device, that is, the cal'r should capture the energy initially stored in the cap -- now  in the form of heat, integrating from all elements of the DUT.

If  "excess energy" for some reason is dumped in the toroid (for example), then we will still see this IF we place the entire circuit into the calorimeter.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Mk1 on June 29, 2011, 07:10:15 PM
@all

In the old days when they spoke of computer core it was referring to a bunch of toroid wired together , some for logic operation some for memory . The later one dose imply storing energy ...

I also wonder if you have seen this

The coil it self goes one way and comes back over it self  (a la bifilar ) and cross in the center of the toroid .

Mark

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on June 29, 2011, 07:29:47 PM
For the Cal'r test, I'd much rather have your device to test, NP!  so glad that you are building a version that will fit into the tight space.
The test will not be until the week of July 11th, and that if Prof H agrees...  I have a family trip planned starting July 18th, so I hope the cal'r tests can be done the week of July 11-16... that's my goal.
Post:  PO Box 325, Spring City, UT 84662
UPS or other shipping:  265 East 200 North Street, Spring City, UT 84662

Thanks so much for working with me on this, NP!  I hope we succeed.
It may take a few iterations I suppose.

@Xee2 -- correct, one could just put the "load" alone inside the calorimeter, and I'll do that for you if you request that be done.... Just define what goes INTO the cal'r and what stays outside.

This makes some sense, but note that by putting the entire device inside, we measure the TOTAL heat output, and have a check on things -- for if the cal'r is working properly, the "efficiency" should be UNITY theoretically for each device, that is, the cal'r should capture the energy initially stored in the cap -- now  in the form of heat, integrating from all elements of the DUT.

If  "excess energy" for some reason is dumped in the toroid (for example), then we will still see this IF we place the entire circuit into the calorimeter.

@JouleSeeker
Yes you are looking at it correctly. If you first test for excess heat and find that you indeed have a gain or a mysterious lack of expected heat, then one can begin to find where the anomalous energy is coming from. In other words is it in the transistor, the core, the load? I don't think anyone would believe that a carbon resistor would in any way be at the root of the excess energy, rather a radiator thereof. The excess must come into the circuit (not generated in the circuit), otherwise Physics has a big problem. What would be found is that a diode, transistor or a special core might be the source if present. Coils themselves will interact with the lattice, provided the capacities are low. The capacity of the lattice is so low that one has a job to achieve something that will grab some of the energy. Now if it is something like the diodes, LED's or core, them it will require the minds to explore and fit a theory to it.

Sound like this is a comparative chamber (balanced) unit used for bio work, is this correct?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 29, 2011, 08:39:14 PM
removed by author. Was not correct.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 29, 2011, 09:06:47 PM
I was about to respond to you, Xee, when I saw that you had found error in your post and removed it.  Thanks.  (Note: the circuit in the cal'r will not have a battery in it at all; planning to use a cap.)

@JouleSeeker
Yes you are looking at it correctly. If you first test for excess heat and find that you indeed have a gain or a mysterious lack of expected heat, then one can begin to find where the anomalous energy is coming from. In other words is it in the transistor, the core, the load?

I don't think anyone would believe that a carbon resistor would in any way be at the root of the excess energy, rather a radiator thereof. The excess must come into the circuit (not generated in the circuit), otherwise Physics has a big problem. What would be found is that a diode, transistor or a special core might be the source if present. Coils themselves will interact with the lattice, provided the capacities are low. The capacity of the lattice is so low that one has a job to achieve something that will grab some of the energy. Now if it is something like the diodes, LED's or core, them it will require the minds to explore and fit a theory to it.

Right, agreed.

Quote
Sound like this is a comparative chamber (balanced) unit used for bio work, is this correct?

Sounds like it to me, too, but Prof H is still over in Europe.  When I sit down with him, I'll find out the details.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on June 29, 2011, 09:26:37 PM
I was about to respond to you, Xee, when I saw that you had found error in your post and removed it.  Thanks.  (Note: the circuit in the cal'r will not have a battery in it at all; planning to use a cap.)

Right, agreed.

Sounds like it to me, too, but Prof H is still over in Europe.  When I sit down with him, I'll find out the details.

@JouleSeeker
Sounds very good and I am sure your Prof H will full understand his own device (not saying you do not).

Here is the results of a hurried test a few nights ago when I was suffering from a Cold? (first in 20+years) that I would be interested in how it all compares to what you will find in a few weeks. The text is from a running blog I have.

***********
Unless of course one does a heat analysis, then the measurement equipment will resolve only to a calorimeter. This is what I spent my time with last night and the results were as expected. The test was set up rapidly and fine-tuning is required, although the result is well within +/-15% where I am able under ideal conditions to resolve to +/-0.005%.

No CEC>1 is evident. In fact the test resulted in an over all heat production (entire circuit) of 93.255% of input. The circuit is not running cold; the missing heat is a result of the setup procedures and the fact that time allowed for only one test to be run. I am although fully comfortable that this circuit (the one I replicated) does not have a CEC>1
***********

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 29, 2011, 10:09:23 PM

@nul-points: thank you for providing the details.

Concerning the transistor: I understood you are using a PNP-type transistor (in the discussed circuit 2), which would be the BC549?

LOL it's getting confusing with all the variants which have been/are being tried!  :)

if you haven't seen all the earlier posts which record the progression of different variants, then i'm basing all my circuit variants round Steven's original SJ1 configuration (a Common Collector oscillator) as opposed to the JT type circuit (which is usually a Common Emitter oscillator, eg, like Xee2's)

in order to try different methods of looping, sometimes i use a PNP variant and sometimes an NPN variant

the circuit i'm constructing to send to Steven for calorimeter testing is the NPN variant, and that's why i mentioned the BC547 to him

the circuit i re-posted for you was a simplification (ie., removing the tertiary winding) of the schematic in post #345:

which contains all the parts - i see that the transistor i used then was a 2N3906

i've also used a C560B successfully (hFE slightly greater than the 2N3906)

the second schematic i re-posted for you came from post #394:

no extra components, just removed the tertiary winding and achieved slightly lower Pin

i'm sure you can use other PNP types (higher gain is probably better) in this variant - or you could invert the oscillator section and use an NPN transistor - both work

hope this helps

greetings
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on June 29, 2011, 10:34:31 PM
I was about to respond to you, Xee, when I saw that you had found error in your post and removed it.  Thanks.  (Note: the circuit in the cal'r will not have a battery in it at all; planning to use a cap.)

Right, agreed.

Sounds like it to me, too, but Prof H is still over in Europe.  When I sit down with him, I'll find out the details.

I tried to measure the circuit efficiency, but the circuit current changes if I replace the LED with a diode. So I agree with you that the only way to measure the output power is to put the LED in a calorimeter and measure the heat output.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on June 30, 2011, 01:49:06 AM
Thanks, Xee2.

This is interesting from Pop Sci:

Quote
A new alloy with unique properties can convert heat directly into electricity, according to researchers at the University of Minnesota. The alloy, a multiferroic composite of nickel, cobalt, manganese and tin, can be either non-magnetic and highly magnetic, depending on its temperature.

Multiferroic materials possess both magnetism and ferroelectricity, or a permanent electric polarization. Materials with both of these properties are very rare; check out this explainer from the National Institute of Standards and Technology if youâ€™re interested in the electron orbital arrangements that cause these phenomena.

Related Articles
Starting This Summer, Cars Will Harvest Their Own Waste and Turn Exhaust Into Energy
Your Hybrid Car Is Hogging All the Rare Earth Metals
New Nanocomposite Magnets Could Reduce the Demand for Rare Earth Elements
...
In this case, the new alloy â€” Ni45Co5Mn40Sn10 â€” undergoes a reversible phase transformation, in which one type of solid turns into another type of solid when the temperature changes, according to a news release from the University of Minnesota. Specifically, the alloy goes from being non-magnetic to highly magnetized. The temperature only needs to be raised a small amount for this to happen.

When the warmed alloy is placed near a permanent magnet, like a rare-earth magnet, the alloyâ€™s magnetic force increases suddenly and dramatically. This produces a current in a surrounding coil, according to the researchers, led by aerospace engineering professor Richard James. Watch a piece of the alloy leap over to a permanent magnet in the video clip below.

A process called hysteresis causes some of the heat energy to be lost, but this new alloy has a low hysteresis,
the researchers say. Because of this, it could be used to convert waste heat energy into large amounts of electricity.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on June 30, 2011, 09:49:22 PM

For the Cal'r test, I'd much rather have your device to test, NP!  so glad that you are building a version that will fit into the tight space.
[...]

hello Steven

i've finished the 'compact' version of my SJ1 looped bifilar variant

i don't have a 'D' cell to display against in a photo, so i've shown the unit alongside an AAA cell (see below)

the 'end-on' photo shows the unit operating from a 1000uF cap (temporarily connected to the screw contacts which will accept the supply wires when loaded in the Calorimeter)

the device will be a close fit to a 'D' cell envelope, and i guess that the Calorimeter will be either copper or steel, so it remains to be seen if the circuit still operates in close proximity to the container walls in the test!

i'll try and get that posted off to you asap (may have to be after the weekend)

that new ferroic material sounds very interesting - it surely can't be long until we start to see some form of domestic level heat-to-electricity converters becoming available -  that would be a boon in many 'developing' countries!

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on June 30, 2011, 10:09:25 PM

hello Steven

i've finished the 'compact' version of my SJ1 looped bifilar variant

i don't have a 'D' cell to display against in a photo, so i've shown the unit alongside an AAA cell (see below)

the 'end-on' photo shows the unit operating from a 1000uF cap (temporarily connected to the screw contacts which will accept the supply wires when loaded in the Calorimeter)

the device will be a close fit to a 'D' cell envelope, and i guess that the Calorimeter will be either copper or steel, so it remains to be seen if the circuit still operates in close proximity to the container walls in the test!

i'll try and get that posted off to you asap (may have to be after the weekend)

that new ferroic material sounds very interesting - it surely can't be long until we start to see some form of domestic level heat-to-electricity converters becoming available -  that would be a boon in many 'developing' countries!

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

A pro job!

I do not know if you might have ready access to a copper pipe to slip the unit into or may be just pull the batteries out of a flash light or (touch) and slip the unit in and see if it still works. Heck stuff it into a metal mint box or something. It would benefit as you know an early conclusion (result), if it does die in a close proximity container then are you not wasting Dr. Jones access to the device?

Oh sorry, you don't know who Stiffler is... Forgive me for offering a logical suggestion.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 01, 2011, 12:55:20 AM

[...] a flash light or (touch)
[...]

...did you mean to say 'torch'?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 01, 2011, 01:06:31 AM

hello Steven

i've finished the 'compact' version of my SJ1 looped bifilar variant

i don't have a 'D' cell to display against in a photo, so i've shown the unit alongside an AAA cell (see below)

the 'end-on' photo shows the unit operating from a 1000uF cap (temporarily connected to the screw contacts which will accept the supply wires when loaded in the Calorimeter)

the device will be a close fit to a 'D' cell envelope, and i guess that the Calorimeter will be either copper or steel, so it remains to be seen if the circuit still operates in close proximity to the container walls in the test!

i'll try and get that posted off to you asap (may have to be after the weekend)...

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Very impressive work, NP.  I now have three working DUT's, including my build of a Xee2 circuit, so that makes four for testing in the cal'r!  Fun...

Xee2, Chris, anyone really who wants to build a device as we're doing, for testing in the cal'r in this first round -- pls do and let me know.

DUT needs to fit inside a cylinder the size of a D-cell battery; I plan to use a standard cap OUTSIDE the Cal'r for these initial tests, with two wires leading in.  Will charge the cap to a specific voltage, measure voltage-start (then disconnect meter), then run down the voltage for a specific TIME, then switch off -- and then re-connect the DMM and measure the voltage-final.  Prior measurement will allow one to get the Vfinal close to what is expected, just from the time of the run.

You may let me know what voltage-range you wish to have tested, to include a "sweet spot", as you wish.  Otherwise, I will probably go from about 1.55V (single AA pre-charging the cap) down to 1.1V.

The goal of these tests is -- maximum Pout(from DUT inside cal'r) / Pinput (from cap).    I don't know if I expressed this contest-X clearly before, but the highest Pout/Pin from these initial tests will get at least a \$100 incentive/prize!

(There is also a separate \$100 prize for the JT-type circuit having the lowest required Pinput to light an LED visibly... but the above contest-X is of course the more significant test.)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hartiberlin on July 01, 2011, 01:14:21 AM

L1 is approx 4 metres of 0.45mm enamelled copper, wound on a ferrite tube approx 30x15mm OD (obtained from Maplin, material unknown)

L1 decouples the DC supply from the oscillator and allows the LED to be driven by the resulting voltage swing across the oscillator as a whole
(providing for the possibility of some looping of energy back to the supply after each pulse)

greetings
np

Hi NP,
can you please show a scopeshot of what this L1 is doing and how it recharges the
battery together with the rest of the circuit ??
Maybe show a voltage waveform on a 1 Ohm shunt near to it ?
Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 01, 2011, 03:03:06 AM

Xee2, Chris, anyone really who wants to build a device as we're doing, for testing in the cal'r in this first round -- pls do and let me know.

I will not be sending a device. I am quite sure that my circuit is not over unity. The point was to show how little power it takes to light an LED.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 01, 2011, 09:24:13 AM

Quote from: nul-points on June 29, 2011, 05:00:30 PM
[...]
>>(providing for the possibility of some looping of energy back to the supply after each pulse)

Hi NP,
can you please show a scopeshot of what this L1 is doing and how it recharges the battery together with the rest of the circuit ??
Maybe show a voltage waveform on a 1 Ohm shunt near to it ?
Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

hi Stefan

here is a trace recorded across a 1 ohm current sensing resistor in series with a 1.6V supply (2x AAA NiMH, depleted)

as you can see, each time the transistor is triggered there is a pulse of current supplied to the oscillator from the supply, followed immediately by a pulse of current in the opposite direction (ie. returned to the supply)

exporting the trace data into Excel shows that the energy supplied to the oscillator is 189 units per pulse, and the energy returned to the supply is 149 units per pulse (ie. the net energy converted is 40 units per pulse)

so approximately three-quarters of the energy transferred from the supply, each cycle, gets returned to the supply (in this case) - this means that the system is nearly five times as efficient as it would be without any energy feedback to the supply

of course, this is not the only energy conversion per cycle - there will be energy transmitted as light, and also some energy dissipated as heat

the calorimeter tests, will enable us to quantify these other energy 'outputs' more accurately and get a better understanding of why the original 'scope alone' results show a value for 'n' > 1

by using a variety of different (but related) circuit types in the tests, it should provide more insight into a generic understanding of how and where energy is being converted to work in this kind of oscillator

hope this helps
np

[EDIT: replaced results using alkaline cells as a supply, with results using NiMH]

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 01, 2011, 03:18:13 PM
Thanks for this waveform and additional information, NP -- very insightful.

I will not be sending a device. I am quite sure that my circuit is not over unity. The point was to show how little power it takes to light an LED.

Understood, Xee2 -- no problem.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 03, 2011, 05:56:46 AM
Yesterday and today, I have performed a simple experiment described below, and I wonder if others have tried this.  This link was given on the Romero thread (which I have not read all of-- getting long!).
In our discussion above, a critical element is the bifilar-wound coil -- and the experiment below is related:

Quote
[ http://www.tesla-coil-builder.com/bifilar_electromagnet.htm ]
Things you'll need:
2 - 16 penny nails  [I used 2- 10 penny nails]
about 3 feet of magnet wire - (20 to 28 gage)
1 - D Cell battery

4 - Paper Clips
Wind the first nail with 100 turns of magnet wire.  Leave about 3 inches of wire on both ends of the winding.

Wind the second nail with 100 turns of magnet wire, but in the following way.  Cut two equal length wires about 12" long each.  Holding the two wires together, begin turning 50 parallel turns of magnet wire around the nail.  When you have finished winding the coil trim off the excess wire so that there are 3" of wire on both ends of the coil.  Take the two inside leads from each end and twist them together.  Remember to clean the ends of the magnet wire so they can make an electrical connection.
This is what they should look like: (click on the image for a closer view)
[attached]

Two Electromagnets
Now connect the battery to the end leads of the single wound nail.  This will energize the coil and cause the nail to become magnetic.  Now pick up as many paper clips with the nail as you can.

OK, connect the battery to the ends of the bifilar wound coil.  Now pick up as many paper clips as you can with this electromagnet.

The same amount of voltage, from the same battery, produces twice as much energy in the bifilar wound coil as in the single wound coil.  This is just one of the many techniques Nikola Tesla used to make his inventions highly efficient.

My windings on two 10-penny nails had a total of 40 windings on each, once a simple winding and once bifilar, as he describes the experiment above.
I checked that the currents were close to the same, using a power supply with digital read-out.

My results --
1.  Simple coil picked up 4 small paper clips; and separate expt, 3 small steel screws.
2.  BIFILAR coil picked up 5 small paper clips; and separate expt, 4 small steel screws.

Same D-cell battery...

I like experiments that work, and this was straightforward.
Now --
1.  Why does the bifilar-wound coil pick up more than the simple-winding?
Both have the same power source, the same total number of windings, essentially the same current...  should have the same B field... I think.
But that is not the case, experimentally.

2.  Can we quantify this?  using a hall-probe, for example, to actually measure the two B fields so we can compare them Quantitatively.  The author wrote
Quote
produces twice as much energy in the bifilar wound coil as in the single wound coil
I think we can do a little better in quantifying the result, in terms of measured strength of B fields in the two cases.  But his write-up is  a good start!

3.  Has any one seen this result discussed as to WHY there is a difference?  or better yet, a publication in a journal on this subject??

As always, I'd appreciate comments on this experimental result and these questions.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 03, 2011, 07:24:51 AM
[...]
3.  Has any one seen this result discussed as to WHY there is a difference?  or better yet, a publication in a journal on this subject??

As always, I'd appreciate comments on this experimental result and these questions.

you'll find some better quantified results here, Steven:

hope this helps
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on July 03, 2011, 02:20:15 PM
Dr. Jones:

Remember that the original JT circuit was bifilar and so was the Stubblefield coil.  I have wound a number of both of them and I can say that they did it that way for a reason.  I do not know that reason but, since Stubblefield was a sort of buddy with Tesla, who also used bifilar windings, that tells me there is something to it.

I also think it is possible to wind 2 bifilar windings on a single toroid on opposite sides of the toroid.  I have not as of yet done this but plan on it in the near future.  The Jeanna circuit uses 3 windings on a single toroid but none are bifilar but this grew out of the MK1 windings in the JT topic.  I am going back to bifilar because I believe it gives some unique properties that can not be achieved any other way.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: neptune on July 03, 2011, 04:47:00 PM
@Jouleseeker . I too tried the bifilar electromagnet experiments a couple of days ago , see the Muller thread . The nail pickup tests are crude to say the least , and results vary from one experiment to the next .What I can definitely say , is that bifilar ALWAYS picks up more nails , varying between say 25% extra , and up to 3 times as many . I found that a quadrifilar wound coil was better than a normal wind , but not better than a bifilar . If you get time , please try a quadfilar . It is hard to see how a difference in the capacitance or inductance of the wind would have an effect on a DC circuit , and we have been told that field strength is proportional to Amp-turns . Somewhere , I read a theory that with less inductance , The "rise time" of the field was quicker , more like hitting the core with a hammer than a gradual push , resulting in a stronger field .What do you think ?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 03, 2011, 07:39:20 PM

1.  Why does the bifilar-wound coil pick up more than the simple-winding?

It has more inductance. Thus stronger magnetic field for same amount of current.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 04, 2011, 12:29:35 AM

you'll find some better quantified results here, Steven:

hope this helps
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Helps a lot!  I read the reference and found it well done.   This should be published (IMO) in a technical journal!  What an exciting result.  I've attached the last part of the report here for easy reference.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 04, 2011, 12:37:36 AM

@Jouleseeker . I too tried the bifilar electromagnet experiments a couple of days ago , see the Muller thread . The nail pickup tests are crude to say the least , and results vary from one experiment to the next .What I can definitely say , is that bifilar ALWAYS picks up more nails , varying between say 25% extra , and up to 3 times as many . I found that a quadrifilar wound coil was better than a normal wind , but not better than a bifilar . If you get time , please try a quadfilar . It is hard to see how a difference in the capacitance or inductance of the wind would have an effect on a DC circuit , and we have been told that field strength is proportional to Amp-turns . Somewhere , I read a theory that with less inductance , The "rise time" of the field was quicker , more like hitting the core with a hammer than a gradual push , resulting in a stronger field .What do you think ?

Thanks for your experimental results, Neptune.  Very interesting that different tries give different results, with bifilar B-field strength always greater than single-wound.

@Neptune and @Xee2:  Note that in the report posted above, with actual measurements of inductance in the two windings, the inductances are nearly the same:
208 and 205 uH.
So I don't think that a small variation in inductance is what is causing this large observed difference in B-field strength.

Actually (Xee2), the single-wound had the higher L (so your explanation appears to fail).

@Pirate:
Quote
I am going back to bifilar because I believe it gives some unique properties that can not be achieved any other way.

Bill

I'm inclined to agree, based on the empirical results we're seeing!
Lot's to understand in this simple experiment (above).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: frankly on July 04, 2011, 05:40:18 AM
Hello all. It has been a few years since I entered here but I see the whole game is still afoot, and only now, when someone shows the fact that energy from a battery, when applied to both ends of a core at once, produces a stronger magnetic field, do you begin to question whether you might have missed something really, really important.

Indeed, you have.

The answer to your present quandry lies in the core. At the core.

Tesla used, not only bifilar winds and such, he also used an entirely different energy signature.

This was derived from, first, a homopolar generator and then, from a DC generator based upon the same principles as the operation of the Homopolar.

Also, Tesla utilised condensors. NOT capacitors. They are two very different things.

A condensor can best be described as an element which absorbs and releases amperage. Lots of it. Quickly.

This allowed his devices to ring quite differently than with voltage alone, which you will get with capacitors.

What the present circuit is touching upon is energy amplification. However, without any understanding of exactly what energy is, you will never catch your tail.

I know this sounds abrasive. Coming from my perspective, I mean it. I posted some things here a while back, in another thread and was shouted down. These have been deleted I see.

Now, years later, the thoughts of the many are beginning to come to where I was then.

The "Rotating Magnetic Field" Tesla utilised was not a mechanical device. Rather, it was an area of polarisation in a core.

In doing so, a coil in proximity received the signature and converted the magnetic flux into energy as if a solid magnet passed by.

However, with the present geometry, all you will get is Transient Spike conversion.

I have been trying for years to explain this simple thing to people, to no avail. Perhaps now, there are ears to hear?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 04, 2011, 05:56:22 AM

Actually (Xee2), the single-wound had the higher L (so your explanation appears to fail).

I do not have an inductance meter so I can not check this. If the bi-filar coil does not have a higher inductance then this is indeed a mystery.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 04, 2011, 07:16:13 AM
@ JouleSeeker

Is this how you have the bifilar windings connected?

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: neptune on July 04, 2011, 01:48:28 PM
@Xee . My bifilar winding was as per your diagram .
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ramset on July 04, 2011, 02:19:16 PM
Frankly
Quote;
a coil in proximity received the signature and converted the magnetic flux into energy as if a solid magnet passed by.

However, with the present geometry, all you will get is Transient Spike conversion.

I have been trying for years to explain this simple thing to people, to no avail. Perhaps now, there are ears to hear?

Sir
Perhaps you can expound upon the proper technique [geometry et al]?

That would be very nice....................

And we're all trying to be much Nicer theses days  ;D
Welcome back!

Chet
PS
And reguarding the "Tesla Condensor" info,
as Johny Carson used to say,
"I did not Know that"
Thank you
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on July 04, 2011, 03:57:43 PM
Frankly;
You need to be specific.
What homopolar motor/generator, condenser, core, information reference.
Tesla had so many. This thread has specific information that could be reproduced.
You say you tried before people slammed you. If you want to make a point
then do it with fact.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 04, 2011, 04:33:50 PM
@Xee . My bifilar winding was as per your diagram .

Mine also.

I agree with dimbulb and Ramset, Frankly -- please be specific with references; interested in what you have to say if you will please be clear.

Quote
Frankly;
You need to be specific.
What homopolar motor/generator, condenser, core, information reference.
Tesla had so many. This thread has specific information that could be reproduced.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 04, 2011, 05:10:53 PM
THE SIMPLISTIC VIEW OF PROBLEM:
The current flows through all loops of coil in both circuits, thus each loop of coil has the same amount of current flowing through it in both circuits. Current flows through loops in same direction in both circuits. Since magnetic field is result of current flow, it should be the same for both circuits. Obviously the simplistic view is missing something.

LESS SIMPLISTIC VIEW OF PROBLEM:
Inductance of coil is caused by the inductive coupling between the loops. The larger the inductance of the coil is, the more energy is stored in the magnetic field of the coil. The magnetic field is created while current is increasing in the coil (when power is first connected) and remains until power is removed. Normally, there is a direct relation between inductance and magnetic field strength. Changing winding configuration changes coupling between loops and thus changes inductance of coil and thus changes magnetic field strength. Steady state current through coil is set by coil resistance and is independent of inductance of coil (inductance only effects current while the current is increasing). Obviously, this view is also missing something.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: frankly on July 04, 2011, 07:30:11 PM
Perhaps I can ask this. What is present in a coil of material to form the B field in the first place? If energy traverses the skin of the wire, what forms the B field? Which part of the material is effected and by how much?

Before you say "the core material", think about an air core coil. Or, even a single wire with no turns.

The B field is caused by the electric component interacting with something. What is that thing and how does this work? What does it mean in regards to "magnetic potential", or in other words, amperage?

Everyone assumes that electricity is the same now as in Tesla's day. It is not.

In fact, it is made now to prevent any possibility of discovering what I am putting forth, which is why it has been so denied. Yes, I can prove that statement. No, I do not have referances, only devices from the early part of the 20'th century in which the circuit elements are different to manage the different energy signature.

There are patents done by Tesla of wiring seguences for generators, and Eric Dollard also did a few drawings of the correct method of energy generation.

But alternators, and rectified energy from these, will not furnish the required energy to establish Tesla's "Rotating magnetic field".

This field is not a motor, nor a winding cage. That is a deception designed to cover the truth.

It is a manufactured state we have now, make no mistake. The trouble is in trying to undo what has been done.

As an example which is easy to do, place two counterwound coils upon a core and energise one with AC energy from the wall. Now, correct me if I am wrong, (as I frequently am), but, a collapsing B field inductiively sends it's energy to the other coil, correct, as they are wound in opposite directions? If the same direction, the building B field would be mirrored in the other coil? So, with counterwound, one should see the opposite B field occur, or a matching polarity. This I built, and, although the second coil delivers 240 volt energy, it has no amperage compared to the input phase. So, in reversing the current, any amperage that was set up in the core, is then removed. All that is left is the reluctance energy. This is a key to understanding where the true energy lies.

Telsa, used oscillating DC and early in the 20'th century, alternators with polyphase energy were used. AC of equal but opposite potentials.

This is far different to today.

This includes batteries and also permanent magnets, (though to a lesser degree).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: e2matrix on July 04, 2011, 07:44:20 PM
Hello all. It has been a few years since I entered here but I see the whole game is still afoot, and only now, when someone shows the fact that energy from a battery, when applied to both ends of a core at once, produces a stronger magnetic field, do you begin to question whether you might have missed something really, really important.

Indeed, you have.

The answer to your present quandry lies in the core. At the core.

Tesla used, not only bifilar winds and such, he also used an entirely different energy signature.

This was derived from, first, a homopolar generator and then, from a DC generator based upon the same principles as the operation of the Homopolar.

Also, Tesla utilised condensors. NOT capacitors. They are two very different things.

A condensor can best be described as an element which absorbs and releases amperage. Lots of it. Quickly.

This allowed his devices to ring quite differently than with voltage alone, which you will get with capacitors.

What the present circuit is touching upon is energy amplification. However, without any understanding of exactly what energy is, you will never catch your tail.

I know this sounds abrasive. Coming from my perspective, I mean it. I posted some things here a while back, in another thread and was shouted down. These have been deleted I see.

Now, years later, the thoughts of the many are beginning to come to where I was then.

The "Rotating Magnetic Field" Tesla utilised was not a mechanical device. Rather, it was an area of polarisation in a core.

In doing so, a coil in proximity received the signature and converted the magnetic flux into energy as if a solid magnet passed by.

However, with the present geometry, all you will get is Transient Spike conversion.

I have been trying for years to explain this simple thing to people, to no avail. Perhaps now, there are ears to hear?

I'd also like to know more.  However in doing a Google search and looking at a half dozen pages or so (some from tech sites) they all seemed to say capacitors and condensers are the same thing.  The term condenser was said to just be old terminology for capacitor and more commonly found in automotive terminology.  So maybe you can start with some info on that.  I've got a 650 Farad 2.7 volt ultra 'capacitor' that can quickly release a whole lot of current at low voltage.  Enough to turn a wire red hot.  So is that a condenser?  There are of course a lot of types of capacitors.  Is there a particular type in current production that you would call condensers?  In doing a search on the very large electronics suppler site mouser.com for condensers I get microphone elements (condenser mikes) and only a few small value polyester film capacitors (which are called capacitors in the listing).  So I'm confused and would certainly be grateful to know this little known difference between condensers and capacitors.  All ears :)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: e2matrix on July 04, 2011, 07:51:43 PM
frankly,  I guess I was posting while you were writing.   Having read your last post I'm even more 'all ears' :)  I guess the capacitor vs. condensor may not be that significant compared to what you just posted but if you have some info on that I'd like to know for trivia purposes at least.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: e2matrix on July 04, 2011, 08:08:24 PM
In trying to absorb what you last posted can you elaborate on the oscillating DC Tesla was using?  Is that to say it is positive only pulses for example?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: frankly on July 05, 2011, 12:40:27 AM
The main difference between a condensor and a capacitor is one of geometry. I am not sure how the ultra caps are oriented, but, basically, using an element in a resonating circuit to hold and bounce back, the energy, which is specifically designed to clamp resonations, is what you are doing with a capacitor today.

A condenser is either a set of series connected plates, interspaced with either a di-electric medium if negative or a conductor if positive.

A bank of these placed in a circuit was known as a battery. This term was used from it's root meaning which is of course equally applicable to armory. Any collection of like things to deliver force.

Tesla describes in one of his papers the difference between the methods of construction. An end connected, interwound plate of the condensor, seperated by the insulating ,(or conducting, as with electrolytic condensors), set into a Faraday tube, is able to resonate at the specific frequency of the load. Modern elements do not allow this.

As to the oscillating DC. The energy delivered was both positive and negative of equal force. Only with this energy will it be possible to lock onto the wheel-work of nature.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TEKTRON on July 05, 2011, 02:38:18 AM
The main difference between a condensor and a capacitor is one of geometry. I am not sure how the ultra caps are oriented, but, basically, using an element in a resonating circuit to hold and bounce back, the energy, which is specifically designed to clamp resonations, is what you are doing with a capacitor today.

A condenser is either a set of series connected plates, interspaced with either a di-electric medium if negative or a conductor if positive.

A bank of these placed in a circuit was known as a battery. This term was used from it's root meaning which is of course equally applicable to armory. Any collection of like things to deliver force.

Tesla describes in one of his papers the difference between the methods of construction. An end connected, interwound plate of the condensor, seperated by the insulating ,(or conducting, as with electrolytic condensors), set into a Faraday tube, is able to resonate at the specific frequency of the load. Modern elements do not allow this.

As to the oscillating DC. The energy delivered was both positive and negative of equal force. Only with this energy will it be possible to lock onto the wheel-work of nature.

http://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/ferroelectrics/fabrication.php ? ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: rukiddingme on July 05, 2011, 04:03:47 AM
Condensers vs Capacitors:

"Condenser" still designates the rotating synchronous machine used to supply leading kvars in a power circuit (a function of which capacitors are also capable), because unlike a capacitor, the synchronous condenser cannot store energy electrostatically; it lacks the property of "capacitance." For the non-rotating device, however, capacitor is the proper term.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3726/is_200506/ai_n13643083/

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: frankly on July 05, 2011, 04:40:38 AM
And, here we are. Arguing about the internet's description of condensors versus capacitors.

The original post was to ask what formed the B field within a wire? What substance within the wire becomes magnetised, for as we know, copper is non magnetic. I mentioned capacitors as another issue altogether.

Tell you what. Take some apart.

Get an old ignition coil condensor and cut open the casing. Then, do the same for a radio suppressing condensor on an alternator. Then, an electrolytic condensor, and, while you are at it, take apart a capacitor from a microwave oven, and an AC motor, and think about the description I gave earlier.

The evidence shows us the truth, no matter what the theory is.

Look into which speach Tesla gave where he describes the condensor's construction. This will tell you what I have learned. That there is a major difference. A fundamental one in fact, without which, you will never understand the purpose of asking "what is it that forms the B field in the first place"?

I have used referance pages before, to have them changed. So, it is better to simply do the research yourselves. The components are not that hard to find. Get a hack saw and start investigating.

That is what I did.

Look into old stuff. Go to junk yards and garage sales. Get something, anything old, and pull it apart to tease the truth from it, before the "recycling" movement swallows all the history, and all proof is gone.

Even better yet, make a condensor yourself and apply it to a circuit. The components are not hard to assemble. Remember, there are positive condensors, and negative condensors. There are also both, but that is a power source. We are interested in only catching and holding one side of the energisation.

No.

I am getting lost again.

Let us focus on the task at hand. The reason why B fields manifest around a wire when energised.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on July 05, 2011, 05:26:56 AM
Let us focus on the task at hand. The reason why B fields manifest around a wire when energised.

How is it that the movement of charge does not cause the B-field to manifest?

I ask this because I assume you assert that the standard theory does not explain it.

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: frankly on July 05, 2011, 06:07:48 AM
No, I am asking what causes the B field to form, when the wire is energised by an electric field. Which specific component in the air or wire is aligned to form the magnetic flux? Why does this phenomena have reluctance,  reactance and capacitance? What FORMS it? For it to exhibit reluctance, it must be influenced by gravity, and therefore have mass. WHAT IS IT?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on July 05, 2011, 06:27:09 AM
The movement of charge creates the formation of the B-field.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 05, 2011, 06:30:13 AM
Deleted by author. Sorry, this was not appropriate for this thread.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on July 05, 2011, 07:14:19 AM
A slightly different perspective:

http://www.sinequanonthebook.com/Magnetism2.html

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: e2matrix on July 05, 2011, 07:31:31 AM
No, I am asking what causes the B field to form, when the wire is energised by an electric field. Which specific component in the air or wire is aligned to form the magnetic flux? Why does this phenomena have reluctance,  reactance and capacitance? What FORMS it? For it to exhibit reluctance, it must be influenced by gravity, and therefore have mass. WHAT IS IT?

Well with my limited knowledge I'd take a guess at electrons in the air molecules OR possibly something to do with (darn I can't remember what I'm trying to recall but I think it was related to natural radon in the air causing electrons to be released).

Now for some progressively further out guesses:
-short-lived virtual photons

-positron-electron pairs popping in and out of existence

-the active vacuum/spacetime itself

-zero-frequency transverse waves that travel in perpendicular to their circulation plane

- nitrogen

- deuterium

- O3

BTW in case it's not obvious I don't have a clue what I just said.  ;)    Well not totally clueless but mostly.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: e2matrix on July 05, 2011, 07:57:58 AM
I like what poynt99 pointed to (oh yes the word play)  as I like any theory relating to vortex's which are everywhere in the nature and the universe: "The following two figures show how the entire wire acts as a sink. The dynamic pressure of the wire causes it to have low static pressure. This low static pressure causes the surrounding aether to flow towards it to equilibrate the density disturbance. Any flow of a fluid to a common center causes it to flow spirally. This is what occurs around wires with a current of electrons passing through it.
The Faraday-Maxwell electromagnetic theory of this â€œelectrically induced magnetic fieldâ€ only considers the tangential component of the â€œmagnetic field,â€ and totally neglects the radial flux toward the wire. This neglect is similar to that of the tangential component of gravity."

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: frankly on July 05, 2011, 10:19:22 AM
The field surrounding an electrified form, which is magnetic in nature, and yes, swirling, is not what causes the field to form. The electric energy is the force creating it, yes. But what is it that the electric energy acts upon, to form the magnetic flux lines? Electrons???? How can a thing act upon itself to form another energy signature? That would be like wind glowing. The electron is the charge carrier apparently, acting upon....what....to form the magnetic field which is in proportion to the amperage content.....meaning the two are linked, magnetism and amperage. .......Now, there is a big hint!!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on July 05, 2011, 12:59:37 PM
use of ferroelectrics in condensers used by tesla is interesting possibility:

It is likely that Tesla was aware of the properties of ferroelectrics
in particular rochelle salt a likely canadate for condenser material.
http://www.ieee-uffc.org/ferroelectrics/teaching/articles/e003/e0030291.pdf

a contemporary application given
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080246366

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on July 05, 2011, 02:09:49 PM
The electron is the charge carrier apparently, acting upon....what....to form the magnetic field which is in proportion to the amperage content.....meaning the two are linked, magnetism and amperage. .......Now, there is a big hint!!
Unless you're going to bring the aether into the picture, the only "thing" pre-existing when you apply the electric field is the electric field. Therefore, the charge carrier acts in relation to or upon the applied electric field.

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ramset on July 05, 2011, 02:47:18 PM
Frankly
You have the little grey cells in my brain all "charged up"

You seem to be on the verge of sharing an "Ah HaH "
Moment??
That would be "very Nice"!
Chet
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: tinu on July 05, 2011, 02:58:55 PM
I like what poynt99 pointed to (oh yes the word play)  as I like any theory relating to vortex's which are everywhere in the nature and the universe: "The following two figures show how the entire wire acts as a sink. The dynamic pressure of the wire causes it to have low static pressure. This low static pressure causes the surrounding aether to flow towards it to equilibrate the density disturbance. Any flow of a fluid to a common center causes it to flow spirally. This is what occurs around wires with a current of electrons passing through it.
The Faraday-Maxwell electromagnetic theory of this â€œelectrically induced magnetic fieldâ€ only considers the tangential component of the â€œmagnetic field,â€ and totally neglects the radial flux toward the wire. This neglect is similar to that of the tangential component of gravity."

There is no spiral whatsoever as the dumb iron fillings clearly teaches us. We are smarter than that, I hope?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: tinu on July 05, 2011, 03:15:46 PM
The field surrounding an electrified form, which is magnetic in nature, and yes, swirling, is not what causes the field to form. The electric energy is the force creating it, yes. But what is it that the electric energy acts upon, to form the magnetic flux lines? Electrons???? How can a thing act upon itself to form another energy signature? That would be like wind glowing. The electron is the charge carrier apparently, acting upon....what....to form the magnetic field which is in proportion to the amperage content.....meaning the two are linked, magnetism and amperage. .......Now, there is a big hint!!

Magnetic field is a relativistic effect due to the limit of the speed of interaction (c).
An electron is always acting upon another electron(s) and if one is to compute the resultant E field in a relativistic manner (taking into account the propagation time, i.e. retardation), there is no need to introduce a secondary â€œmagnetic fieldâ€. Therefore, magnetic field is an illusion, a convenience for our simplicity and also a happening that Chinese compass was ahead the time of Maxwellâ€™s who in return was before Einsteinâ€¦
What is wrong with that?

An electron is also acting upon space-time itself but that is a different subject if I understand you well.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lasersaber on July 05, 2011, 05:47:52 PM
I decided to jump in and give this circuit a try.  I ended up modifying it.  I am excited by what I have seen so far.  I plan on trying a few more thing to improve the efficiency even more.

Thank you PhysicsProf for sharing.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 05, 2011, 07:05:06 PM
I decided to jump in and give this circuit a try.  I ended up modifying it.  I am excited by what I have seen so far.  I plan on trying a few more thing to improve the efficiency even more.

Thank you PhysicsProf for sharing.

Now this is exciting to me, to have one of my heroes jump in-- Lasersaber!  I followed your work on the JouleRinger some months ago...

So glad you're experimenting with the circuit and making modifications and tests, as have Nul-pts and Chris and others.

I curious about the "sweet spots" you found and demonstrated, and also your ability to run the circuit down to 0.1 microamps (and even lower, per the DMM) -- remarkable!
The ability of an external permanent magnet affecting the behavior of the circuit is also dramatic.
While the discussion regarding theory is intriguing, and I hope to learn more, to me "the proof is in the pudding" -- real experiments such as Lasersaber is doing.

Thanks again, Lasersaber.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: frankly on July 05, 2011, 07:26:02 PM
Unless you're going to bring the aether into the picture, the only "thing" pre-existing when you apply the electric field is the electric field. Therefore, the charge carrier acts in relation to or upon the applied electric field.

It seems there are some things that don't make sense here. No offence, but there are holes in your logic. How can the electric field be "pre-existing", before electric energy is applied? Are you saying a circuit is preenergised? Also, the charge carriers, which bring with them the energy to form the B field, act upon themselves????? This sounds a little preposterous I think.

If I drop a stone in a pond.....the ripples extend outward, yet the ripples are not the stone, nor does the stone bounce continually upon the water, causing standing waves to form of higher amplitude than the original wave from the first contact when the returning ripples from the edge of the pond meet and combine.

Also, if one looks at a magnet with a peice of magnetic viewing film, one will see a Bloch wall between the North and South pole, at the hemisphere, and another at the poles. THIS is the magnetic field. The iron filings show the flux path.....the energisation path, not the magnetic path, kind of like the pond again.....Floating leaves show us the top of the water, and whether it is still or moving, but not the depth of the waters.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 05, 2011, 11:30:05 PM
Consider the B (magnetic) field outside a solenoid -- 1st loosely wound, which has significant measurable B outside, then very tightly wound and long = an ideal solenoid -- which has very nearly ZERO B field outside.  See attached.

Now, let us focus on the ideal solenoid and rapidly ramp up the current in its wire, and also put a loop of wire around this solenoid, shaped like an Omega symbol.  Place a small resistor across the ends of the wire loop.

Will the wire-loop experience a voltage and current in it, due to the nearby changing magnetic field -- even though the measured B field outside the solenoid is ZERO?

Experimentally, the answer is yes.  This phenomenon is rarely discussed in Physics classes (from my experience).  There must be some change in the "vacuum" around the toroid in order for there to be an induced current in the loop.  This to me is one of the marvels of nature.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 06, 2011, 12:12:34 AM
This video appears to show a self-running Motor-Generator:

After a while, he connects to a battery and shows that the battery voltage is going UP rather quickly.  OK -- is this a self-runner?  or a case of "battery relaxation"?
Note that there is a circuit diagram... and this text:

Quote
Uploaded by Mopozco on Jul 2, 2011

one driving (motor) bedini coil and five generating (generator) coils to BR and Cap and Its' following pulse discharge by Reed Switch to battery; the same time a bemf pulses helping to charge bttry and run motor for hours...

He notes, "and run motor for hours..." -- would it not run indefinitely if self-charging?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on July 06, 2011, 12:28:01 AM
Now, let us focus on the ideal solenoid and rapidly ramp up the current in its wire, and also put a loop of wire around this solenoid, shaped like an Omega symbol.  Place a small resistor across the ends of the wire loop.

Will the wire-loop experience a voltage and current in it, due to the nearby changing magnetic field -- even though the measured B field outside the solenoid is ZERO?

Experimentally, the answer is yes.  This phenomenon is rarely discussed in Physics classes (from my experience).  There must be some change in the "vacuum" around the toroid in order for there to be an induced current in the loop.  This to me is one of the marvels of nature.
While the flux is changing through the coil, an electric E field is produced that encircles the solenoid. It is this circular E-field which causes the emf in the wire loop. The E field is produced whether the coil loop is there or not.

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on July 06, 2011, 12:48:07 AM
@frankly,

You misunderstood me.

Why don't you just go ahead and convey your theory as to what causes the B field?

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 06, 2011, 12:56:49 AM

Will the wire-loop experience a voltage and current in it, due to the nearby changing magnetic field -- even though the measured B field outside the solenoid is ZERO?

I do not know about an open loop wire, but if a loop is placed around the solenoid I believe current will be induced in it because all of the flux in the solenoid is still going through the center of the added loop. I have several car ignition coils that are built this way. Did I misunderstand your question?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 06, 2011, 01:00:24 AM

This video appears to show a self-running Motor-Generator:

An increasing battery voltage does not mean the battery is gaining energy. Dozens of experimenters on this site have been fooled by this.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 06, 2011, 02:37:13 AM
An increasing battery voltage does not mean the battery is gaining energy. Dozens of experimenters on this site have been fooled by this.

Right -- as I noted, this could be "battery relaxation" (for example).

With regard to the ideal toroid experiment -- I wrote,
Quote
Will the wire-loop experience a voltage and current in it, due to the nearby changing magnetic field -- even though the measured B field outside the solenoid is ZERO?

Experimentally, the answer is yes.  This phenomenon is rarely discussed in Physics classes (from my experience).  There must be some change in the "vacuum" around the toroid in order for there to be an induced current in the loop.

The question is, how is the change in magnetic field at the center of the loop SENSED by the loop, when the magnetic field outside the toroid itself is ZERO?    There is no magnetic field to affect the electrons in the wire, from the toroid, just an electric field.  And does this electric field propagate outward from the toroid at the speed of light?  I suppose so.

I'm hoping Frankly will consider the appearance of the electric field outside the toroid in the absence of a magnetic field outside the toroid, in his theoretical model.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 06, 2011, 02:53:44 AM
For those that have not seen Koolers bwjt video lighting 70 leds at 27mA:

And for those that want to light 60 leds "forever" for less than \$10:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160614929505+&clk_rvr_id=245930330144

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 06, 2011, 02:55:40 AM
Sorry for the double post...  I hit the post button and nothing happens, so I hit it again, and...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 06, 2011, 03:12:04 AM
There may be a lot more to "battery relaxation" than meets the eye.  As both capacitors and metal cased batteries display this same effect to a certain degree.  I believe it to be caused by aether absorption pulled in by the device.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 06, 2011, 03:40:20 AM

The question is, how is the change in magnetic field at the center of the loop SENSED by the loop, when the magnetic field outside the toroid itself is ZERO?    There is no magnetic field to affect the electrons in the wire, from the toroid, just an electric field.  And does this electric field propagate outward from the toroid at the speed of light?  I suppose so.

I do not think the magnetic field outside of the solenoid is zero. I think that if a compass is brought near either end of the solenoid it will show a magnetic field. These field lines are continuous and go from one end of the solenoid to the other end. There does not appear to be a magnetic field close to the sides of the solenoid because the fields cancel each other out there. Note, I am posting this without checking to make sure I am correct, so I could be wrong, but I do believe this is correct. For a toroid, the magnetic fields are all (almost all) contained inside the toroid since it has no open ends.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 06, 2011, 05:27:38 AM
An increasing battery voltage does not mean the battery is gaining energy. Dozens of experimenters on this site have been fooled by this.

i agree with the 'intention' of this statement - but, as they say in all the best 'law films' : "it's the truth, but not the whole truth"...

the 'truth' is that OUR CIRCUIT may not be increasing the energy of the battery - but the WHOLE truth is that the battery energy IS increasing

let's think about it - a battery has an effective internal resistance, let's call it Rbatt

the voltage we measure at the battery terminal, Vb, is a result of the 'potential division' of the 'real' battery potential, Vint, by the combined effect of Rbatt and Rload:

for example, let Vint = 12V,  Rload = 11 ohm, and Rbatt = 1 ohm (to  simplify math only!)

Vb = 12 x (11/ (1 + 11)) = 12 x 11/12 = 11V

now if we have a constant Rload (and we haven't recharged the battery), then the only ways for Vb to have increased since its previous load, are EITHER

a) the internal voltage, Vint, has increased

- OR -

b) the internal resistance, Rbatt, has decreased

BOTH of these states are taken as an indication that the battery is now in a higher state of charge - effectively, the available energy stored in the battery HAS increased

whether we like it or not, when a battery terminal voltage INCREASES under constant load then the available energy in that battery HAS increased

that in itself is a matter of interest to me, at least (as i mentioned a few posts ago, in relation to the tests i've been reporting here about looping some of the o/p energy back to the battery)

however, as we've all acknowledged, it is possible for this operation to occur WITHOUT that extra energy coming TOTALLY from our circuit

and so THIS is a closer approximation to the WHOLE truth about battery 'relaxation'

(and this is what is often mistaken as an increase caused solely by our circuit)

as Nick has rightly pointed out, what we've just seen referred to cells/batteries can ALSO apply to capacitors - and not just the 'relaxation' effect

(i give some experimental evidence of this in my PDF file 'The Secret Life of Capacitors', the subject of one of my threads here in this forum)

it seems to me that 'battery relaxation' and 'dielectric adsorption' are, at present, merely 'labels' not explanations - there is real increase in stored energy and this must either have come from some internal conversion of kinetic energy back to potential energy at the micro (quantum) level, or else there has been an input of energy from the ambient environment

just my 3 x (2 / (1+2)) cents!  :)
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: frankly on July 06, 2011, 06:31:47 AM
Right -- as I noted, this could be "battery relaxation" (for example).

With regard to the ideal toroid experiment -- I wrote,
The question is, how is the change in magnetic field at the center of the loop SENSED by the loop, when the magnetic field outside the toroid itself is ZERO?    There is no magnetic field to affect the electrons in the wire, from the toroid, just an electric field.  And does this electric field propagate outward from the toroid at the speed of light?  I suppose so.

I'm hoping Frankly will consider the appearance of the electric field outside the toroid in the absence of a magnetic field outside the toroid, in his theoretical model.

Well, although I have not received any enlightenment from .99 regarding the questions I posed to HIS/HER statements, only the idea that I misunderstood HIS/HER statements somehow, (and if so, would like explanation please), I will answer this somewhat crossed message question.

Firstly, please be specific.....are we looking at a solenoid, or a torroid? Secondly, There is no Bloch wall formed on an electromagnet with present energisation, so a different set of phenomena are used to establish the rules of interaction than are used with magnets alone. Thirdly, with a torroid, or closed core transformer, as you rightly point out, all the magnetic energy for "induction" is within the core, therefore, how can this be "transferred" to the adjoining coil and provide useable energy via the collapsing or building magnetic lines of force.....and do it so well? The only answer is that the wire is being energised in some way that is not immediately apparent, and is occuring within the bounds of the primary coils' geometry, as it cannot be "sensed" untill the secondarie's winds are lower to the face of the torroid than the primary, so energy is lost. In the same manner, by placing wraps further out, there is loss. I wonder, has anyone used flat strap to wind a transformer? Probably not in nearly a hundred years. Interestingly, this is what was used for transformers with the AC electricity in it's early form...wire ribbon. Why? What did they know that seems to have been forgotten, or missed?

Previously I asked why amperage and magnetic strength of the B field were related. I wait for an answer.

As to "just conveying my thoughts" on what the form of the wheelwork of nature really is?? That thing that is the water in our pond? If I did that, what would you learn? No. How about you reflect on what I have said. The answer is there. Right before you. Only one person thus far has even attempted to think and imagine a solution, then, (hopefully) test that idea with apparatus. Oops, sorry. Did I just suggest that someone do science?

I wonder, did anyone measure the mass of the plates in the battery that is charging and measure the capacitance of the entire circuit and find the resonant frequency.....to see if there is a correlation with the running frequency?

What of these reported "sweet spots" with the present design?

Where are the joyous words extolling the solution has been found, for it is these that prove the thoughts. The basis of the harmonic scale of matter.

Have any mass measurements been done?

Why does the mass of the primary and secondary have to be so similar in transformers? What does "harmonic resonance" lock onto?

We hear the standing wave in our well tuned musical instruments all the time. Pianos are a prime example. Why is it that no-one has applied that thinking to energy amplification.

I recently learned that an "amplifier" in electrical engineering is not "amplifying" anything. To amplify means to increase in strength. So, the end result must be that energy is greater out than in via some sort of fulcrum or pulley. Like a gearbox, amplifying the mechanical energy to push the car faster with less engine speed. Utilising inertia to relieve torque. This was the reason for heavy flywheels in old engine designs. The storage of inertia so the energy from it could be amplified via pulleys and such.

However, nowadays it seems that to amplify a signal means to hold back on the original strength of the current, or working force, and control it. This means that the highest amplification of the signal possible is the same as having no amplifier present. The control of the signal DOWNWARDS in strength is referred to as amplification. It is this type of thinking that prevents discovery of the truth.

How, in what manner, can we amplify energy when we are not taught that energy spins and has inertia, just like a flywheel??

This motion is called reactance, reluctance and resistance and is the source of all of the original though forms and quaternion equations that once described, in perfect detail, the overall manner in which electricity operates based upon circles not lines.

How can vectors describe rotation of subatomic particles? It cannot. So, "science" invents quantum math to blur the edges of their straight lines, and gets further and further away from the truth.

Anyway, I am now ranting.

Back to the issue at hand.

What is affected by the energy from a source of electricity to form a magnetic field around the energised current carrying medium?

Ohh, and also, if you take out the core of a transformer and leave the coils adjacent, does it still work? Why? What must be done to prevent them interacting and transferring energy one to the other with the changing magnetic field?

This type of science is what must be done, all over again, to find the truth. I cannot just blurt it out, for I will not be believed. I tried that once before.

I have no credentials, only experimental experience. And, without the math skills to back me up, all I have is these words.

I can point the way, but you must walk.

I can show you pictures, and videos 'till the cows come home. These would only be the source of more conjecture.

I tried asking for expert assistance, none came. So, I now ask the questions of you that I asked myself, in order that you may also do the same thinking. This is what a teacher does, so the student may learn for themselves. Only in that manner will the result, once realised, be believed.

Do the investigations I suggested, think on the real reasons behind the simple processes, and the truth will be revealed.

Or, you can simply do nothing but continue along, blundering in the dark. Frankly, I don't give a damn.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 06, 2011, 07:10:50 AM
I think that all Jt circuits have a certain amount of feed-back to source. But, most all of these circuits are drawing more juice than they are returning, and will therefore always discharge the battery. The battery or capacitor while forming part of a circuit also have a natural resonance factor of one type of another. Once disturbed or drained by the draw, will try again to reach an equilibrium, if and when it can do so. And will do so by drawing from the only available source, Aether.   This is a usually overlooked by most people as being relatively unimportant in ordinary electronics circuits.
I also feel that the small capacitor (103, 471, etz) that is being used in the Hartley or Backwards Jt type circuits may be one of the keys to this anomaly.
Now some people are finding that you can light the led, by just using coils, and yes, that capacitor, with no battery, just a ground connection.
My two pesos...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: rukiddingme on July 06, 2011, 08:34:15 AM
TIL that a microwave oven can be used as a Faraday cage.

Thank you.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 06, 2011, 09:35:55 AM

i agree with the 'intention' of this statement - but, as they say in all the best 'law films' : "it's the truth, but not the whole truth"...

I was referring to the MoPoZcO video. But the statement is true. I (and many others) have noticed that if a run down battery is left over night, without any energy being applied, it will sometimes have a higher voltage in the morning. If the voltage can increase without any power being added then battery voltage increase is not a good indicator of energy being added to the battery. I am not saying this is always the case, only that using battery voltage is not a reliable way to measure energy in a battery since it can sometimes be misleading.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 06, 2011, 11:27:39 AM

The question is, how is the change in magnetic field at the center of the loop SENSED by the loop, when the magnetic field outside the toroid itself is ZERO?    There is no magnetic field to affect the electrons in the wire, from the toroid, just an electric field.  And does this electric field propagate outward from the toroid at the speed of light?  I suppose so.

Sorry, I do not think I answered this question with my previous post. Sometimes it takes a while to sink in.

Each loop is coupled to the toroid core as a result of charges in loop (moving electrons) causing magnetic field in core. This coupling is bi-directional. If the loop current can effect the core, then the core can effect the loop current. The coulpling is between to the moving charges (electrons) in the loop and the moving charges (electrons) in the core domain atoms. I do not think that the coupling can be explained with classical "Faraday/Maxwell" concept of magnetic fields. I think it requires a relativistic solution for electric fields of moving charges. I think the best classical solution is to compute the current induced in loop from the change in flux through the center of the loop. I hope that is a better answer.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 06, 2011, 12:48:46 PM

[...]
Frankly, I don't give a damn.

i don't give a damn either, frankly

if you have something to share, do it and cut the cr&p

if you just want to groom a bunch of acolytes you can patronise, then go start your own thread
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on July 06, 2011, 03:35:18 PM
@ frankly,

I have already provided the answer to the question regarding how current is induced in a loop of wire outside of either a solenoid or toroid. It's the electric field.

Now, regarding your initial question about what causes a magnetic B field:

The electron has charge. A spinning charged particle has a magnetic moment, i.e. it is a magnetic dipole. There are many free electrons in copper. When an electric field is applied to a copper wire, the magnetic moments of these free electrons become aligned such that a net magnetic moment (or field) is created which encircles the wire.

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on July 06, 2011, 04:35:45 PM
Frankly
I see your frustration on the many aspects of the tesla magnifier,
I can tell that the rant is really a caring one and not giving up.
Your focus on battery as a  negative resistor function is good priority.
The math aspect in this regard is working within the negative resistance zone.
The battery impedance shifts and needs tuning until stablized.

As you know the tesla constraints on voltage are often extreme to most.
I don't know what Nickola had exactly in every part of his system.

I have heard that when tuning at minimum he would look for faint corona discharge
that was hard to see except under low light.

I used 11 turns for L2 and it was inline with L1 tightly wound no gaps except
between L2 and L1 was approx 3/32 to 3/8 inch. this was my finese adjustment.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: frankly on July 06, 2011, 07:27:58 PM
@ frankly,

I have already provided the answer to the question regarding how current is induced in a loop of wire outside of either a solenoid or toroid. It's the electric field.

Now, regarding your initial question about what causes a magnetic B field:

The electron has charge. A spinning charged particle has a magnetic moment, i.e. it is a magnetic dipole. There are many free electrons in copper. When an electric field is applied to a copper wire, the magnetic moments of these free electrons become aligned such that a net magnetic moment (or field) is created which encircles the wire.

.99

Excellent, now we are getting somewhere.

So, could the amount of these dipoles in the wire, all lining up in one direction, have anything to do with the capacity of the wire? So, if long, or in a coil, deliver a pulse of energy to a load? In other words....is that what amperage is? The amount of dipoles aligned and then relaxing? Is that what the term reluctance equates to? The dipoles' relaxation speed?

SO.

Resistance then, must be related to the SIZE of the dipole. It's mass. So, aluminium, a lighter substance and yet, a metal and a conductor, conveys energy far easier for less space, the dipole's are smaller.

Cool. I hope you see the correlations here, because it is important to understand this simple stuff.

So, if the dipole, being aligned, and then allowed to relax, delivers that inertia to another component, called a load, or in the case of DC energy, has to be pulsed, (except with a resistance like light bulb, which is itself a resonating element), why does it have to stop spinning? Why not simply, instead of aligning the dipoles in the wire, and then allowing them to relax, set them spinning?

This, then, is also a changing magnetic field, so, delivers energy to the load just the same.

It is just that, one must use OSCILLATING DC energy to achieve this rotation of the dipoles.

If you investigate the actions of the elements in the present circuit, I think you will find, once the calculations are done, that the "sweet spots" described, are where the capacitance and inductance match harmonically, so, some extra rotation of the core's dipoles is occurring.

Also, the "feedback loop" is simply where this opposite polarity energy is coming from to achieve this.

Tesla was using OSCILLATING DC of HIGH FREQUENCY and HIGH POTENTIAL.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: e2matrix on July 06, 2011, 07:35:37 PM
The field surrounding an electrified form, which is magnetic in nature, and yes, swirling, is not what causes the field to form. The electric energy is the force creating it, yes. But what is it that the electric energy acts upon, to form the magnetic flux lines? Electrons???? How can a thing act upon itself to form another energy signature? That would be like wind glowing. The electron is the charge carrier apparently, acting upon....what....to form the magnetic field which is in proportion to the amperage content.....meaning the two are linked, magnetism and amperage. .......Now, there is a big hint!!
While it doesn't seem to quite fit with the last half of your reply above nor will it probably even sound sane to most people I keep coming back to photons as a possible answer to what energy acts upon to form magnetic flux lines.   A quote from an online source: " A Photon is the force carrier for electromagnetic force."  Just another wild shot in the dark  ... ;)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 06, 2011, 08:12:52 PM
Again, the theoretical discussion is interesting, but to me, experimental studies are more likely to be productive of substantive results.

Thanks again to Lasersaber for your build -- and if you're reading:   Just how did you connect your larger cylindrical coil into the circuit?  and what kind of coil was this?
Thanks, all.

I decided to jump in and give this circuit a try.  I ended up modifying it.  I am excited by what I have seen so far.  I plan on trying a few more thing to improve the efficiency even more.

Thank you PhysicsProf for sharing.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: e2matrix on July 06, 2011, 08:22:19 PM
Agree.  It would be good if frankly started his own thread.

I think the coil is one of lasersabers coils from his JouleRinger circuit or similar to those he used in that fun little circuit.  I even gave that one a try and got about 4.5 minutes of light from a CFL off just the capacitor.  It's a bifilar wound coil.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on July 06, 2011, 11:08:17 PM
@Frankly

Sincerely and honestly, you must be half a genius.

Actually, you managed to get Nul-Points (the misnamed) loosing his temper
but not his English Humour, (hence the halving). ;D

Yes, theoretical issues are very interesting  but Sadi Carnot did not invent
the Stream machine and serendipity exists.

Very Best

Ps: I'm aware that this post will not be of any help regarding your experiments. :P
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ElectroGravityPhysics.com on July 07, 2011, 03:29:15 AM
Very interesting results reported by Dr. Jones for the electronic circuit.

Does anyone have a suggestion on how to measure the input-output power ratio - without using a state of the art oscilloscope?  For example, a diode bridge with a capacitor - or perhaps a way to make the circuit self-running etc?

I am not a fan of testing alternative energy devices for light output with the human eye, or a battery that does not run down etc.  We want to do 'real science' with real repeatable measurements.

-Nils
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: e2matrix on July 07, 2011, 03:59:26 AM
Very interesting results reported by Dr. Jones for the electronic circuit.

Does anyone have a suggestion on how to measure the input-output power ratio - without using a state of the art oscilloscope?  For example, a diode bridge with a capacitor - or perhaps a way to make the circuit self-running etc?

I am not a fan of testing alternative energy devices for light output with the human eye, or a battery that does not run down etc.  We want to do 'real science' with real repeatable measurements.

-Nils

Welcome to OU.com.  I don't know of any way to measure OU accurately that does not involve high end equipment.  One member here has pushed the idea that probes for measuring such will cost even more than the oscilloscope.  I personally feel that if it's not at least a couple times OU than it's not worth getting into as it won't be able to self run or loop.  If it's over 2 or 3 COP than it should be able to loop and self run.  At that point I think you have irrefutable proof.
Having studied a lot about modern LED's and Lumen output vs. perception with the human eye I fully agree that LED's are not impressive in measuring OU.  After all they are just another circuit component - a diode that happens to have the side effect of some luminosity.  Also batteries as has been mentioned numerous times can by some means regain some of their voltage just sitting there not even in a circuit.  I've got LCD clocks still running on the same AA alkaline for 10 years and have flashlights that still put out light from AA Lithiums well after 10 years.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ElectroGravityPhysics.com on July 07, 2011, 06:07:40 AM
Thanks e2matrix for the welcome and the common sense comments.

I agree with you about inconclusive battery testing methods for energy devices, and also taking measurement of light from a LED as any kind of proof.  I read somewhere that the LED output can be pulsed at a 10% duty-cycle and still look as bright as a steady state DC current - to the human eye...

I am guessing there may be a lot of difficult to measure phase relationships between high frequency currents and voltages in the Dr. Jones circuit, but I like to think there must be a simple way to add a high frequency bridge rectifier to his circuit that is feds into a small capacitor to measure the resulting rise in DC voltage?

Perhaps there a reason Dr. Jones has not already done this simple method of high frequency rectification to DC?  Any thoughts?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 07, 2011, 09:32:02 AM

[...]
We want to do 'real science' with real repeatable measurements.
[...]
-Nils

...awww, shucks, teacher - you're such a Bohr!

[...and now, folks - let's find out who is the next shiny new persona on tonight's show!  ;)  ]
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 07, 2011, 05:22:52 PM
Very interesting results reported by Dr. Jones for the electronic circuit.

Does anyone have a suggestion on how to measure the input-output power ratio - without using a state of the art oscilloscope?  For example, a diode bridge with a capacitor - or perhaps a way to make the circuit self-running etc?

I am not a fan of testing alternative energy devices for light output with the human eye, or a battery that does not run down etc.  We want to do 'real science' with real repeatable measurements.

-Nils

Nils,     We have in the preceding pages discussed measurement methods at some length.
Clearly, creating a self-running device (with load) is an optimum test.  Ideally, this would not have a battery anywhere in the circuit.

Measuring the total input energy available is quite straightforward using a known capacitor charged to a measured voltage:  E = 1/2 CV**2.
Measuring the total energy released by the system while running can be measured by inserting the device into a sensitive calorimeter. This is the approach I am taking now, and I hope to have such a measurement on this device in the next few weeks (as my calorimeterist colleague returns from travel in Europe).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 07, 2011, 05:50:26 PM
Today, I came across a Declaration signed by physicist Harvey Fletcher, inventor of a stereo sound system and the hearing aid, and a key experimenter regarding the precision measurement of the electron's charge.

I personally spoke to Dr. Fletcher (September 11, 1884 â€“ July 23, 1981)  while I was an undergraduate student at Brigham Young University in about 1972.  He was a bright and cheerful person, animated and full of life; he was about 88 years old when I met him.

Dr. Fletcher's Declaration was signed and notarized in Provo, Utah, on May 25, 1979.  (Available here:  http://thmoray.org/, and attached.)  In it he states for the record that he personally observed Dr. T. Henry Moray's energy device; he writes:

Quote
I do know that it did function for the several hours of time that I observed it.  I could discern no batteries, and could observe no other known methods of inducing electric power into the box or its loads.

Having met Dr. Harvey Fletcher and admiring his clarity of mind and sincerity, I find the above statement to be quite compelling.
--Steven E. Jones (Spring City, Utah, July 7, 2011)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 07, 2011, 06:08:01 PM
Joule Seeker and All:
I have gotten my BwJt to go from draining a new AA in a couple of days, to now ongoing 6 days, and still lit although very dimly.  So, at least I'm going in the right direction.  This is using the 3/4 inch iron powder Pc core (not ferrite), and a kn2222A  transistor, 5 k pot, and 104 cap.
I was wondering if Joule Seeker has finished with the test using an AA.  Last time I heard, in your first days test, the voltage reading had not dropped by hardly anything after a days run time. So, how many total amount of days did it run for on a new single AA???  Hopefully with some usable light intensity, not barely lighting.
Although this kind of test is not very scientific, I give more credence to it, over any scope, meter, or heat analysis.  As they can be fooled by the recirculating, recycled energy.  But my eyes, are never fooled.
Kooler has also found that the voltage goes from 0,6 to a 1.5 volts, up and down constantly.  How would any instrument be able to measure that type of result correctly?   As the battery in this case is part of the load.  The output from one of his devices secondary coil is only 4 giving volts, yet is lighting 70 leds.
I think that these backward Jtc have gotten my brain running backwards also. So, if I sound a bit off...  you'll know why.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 07, 2011, 06:30:30 PM
Funny how after so many years we still can't replicate the Moray device, that knowledge died with him. Thank you for bringing it up.

Dr. Stiffler has made a self running device using three small coils, a tiny capacitor, and a ground connection, only.  No batteries, at all.   It does not seam to output much power to light an led,  but it's a start.
There is no device that is really "self running", as they are all run on some type of energy conversion process.  Misnomers don't help to understand the cause of the effect generation.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 07, 2011, 06:50:32 PM

Today, I came across a Declaration signed by physicist Harvey Fletcher, [...]
Dr. Fletcher's Declaration was signed and notarized in Provo, Utah, on May 25, 1979.  (Available here:  http://thmoray.org/, and attached.)  In it he states for the record that he personally observed Dr. T. Henry Moray's energy device;
[...]
Having met Dr. Harvey Fletcher and admiring his clarity of mind and sincerity, I find the above statement to be quite compelling.
--Steven E. Jones (Spring City, Utah, July 7, 2011)

thank you for sharing that document - a fascinating glimpse behind the 'legend' of Moray - and a great connection for you, Steven!

i'm pleased to learn that people of Fletcher's calibre were able to be present at such a demonstration

the sketch which i've seen of a circuit diagram (if it truly represented the device demonstrated) appears to be little different from a valve radio in configuration - the unusual parts being Moray's special valves (as hidden in his hand during the inspection of the device at the demo), i believe they may have contained isotopes of some material(s)

my SJ1 variant is on its way, regular airmail post [no NDA required!  ;) ], hopefully arriving by early next week, in time for your access to a calorimeter

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 07, 2011, 06:56:42 PM

Dr. Fletcher's Declaration was signed and notarized in Provo, Utah, on May 25, 1979.  (Available here:  http://thmoray.org/, and attached.)  In it he states for the record that he personally observed Dr. T. Henry Moray's energy device; he writes:

Thank you for posting this. I personally feel that Moray's device is the best documented free energy device. I fail to understand why the technology was allowed to be lost. His device seems to have been real and seems to have produce very significant amounts of free energy. I hope you will attempt to duplicated it.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 07, 2011, 09:47:03 PM

thank you for sharing that document - a fascinating glimpse behind the 'legend' of Moray - and a great connection for you, Steven!

i'm pleased to learn that people of Fletcher's calibre were able to be present at such a demonstration

the sketch which i've seen of a circuit diagram (if it truly represented the device demonstrated) appears to be little different from a valve radio in configuration - the unusual parts being Moray's special valves (as hidden in his hand during the inspection of the device at the demo), i believe they may have contained isotopes of some material(s)

my SJ1 variant is on its way, regular airmail post [no NDA required!  ;) ], hopefully arriving by early next week, in time for your access to a calorimeter

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Awesome, NP -- thanks so much for sending your DUT for testing and for comments!
@Xee -- I don't think anyone really knows how to duplicate Moray's device....  I certainly don't have enough information.
But I found this letter from Dr. Fletcher, which provides a little insight further:

Quote
"(Copy of the letter written by Dr. Harvey Fletcher of the Western Electric Company under the date of Oct. 6, 1928 to Mr. Robert L. Judd of Salt Lake City. The letter was written in New York City.).

"Dear Judd:

"We had a very pleasant return trip, arriving here in about six and a half days. The constant driving made me somewhat tired but after two days rest I feel fine. One can get a very good conception of what our country is like by driving across it in an automobile.

"Now regarding the experiments Mr. Moray showed us, I will say at the outset that I am just as puzzled as ever. I can give no satisfactory explanation of the result. If I saw all the parts that enter into the production of the light I would certainly agree with Mr. Moray that either the tubes or the rectifier or the coil had some very remarkable properties. As a scientist I should like to see them investigated in some physical laboratory which is equipped to do such work. If Mr. Moray's statement that the tubes have a capacity of a farad is even approximately true, the tubes alone have a great scientific value.

"The evidence as presented seems to favor Mr. Moray's explanation of where the energy came from. However, because it is so contrary to all previous notions about electrical sources and also because Mr. Moray was unable or unwilling to state how the various parts functioned, I am still of the opinion that all of us, including probably Mr. Moray, have overlooked something which will explain the lighting of the light in an orthodox way.

"There are certain facts which became evident to me as I saw the experiments:

"(1) There is considerable energy drawn from somewhere. Apparently you have satisfied yourself that it is not from other power stations in the city. Then it must be in the set itself. This looks improbable although not impossible. Some careful experiments in a laboratory would settle this points.

"(2) The energy is transferred from a high impedance circuit to a low impedance circuit by means of a high frequency current. The high frequency is probably produced by an oscillatory circuit in the system and I think tests would reveal that the frequency of oscillation was entirely controlled by the constants of the circuit and not by outside influences. Any attempt to obtain current or voltage readings on the high impedance side of the circuit by ordinary meters would probably result in failure. This is confirmed by Mr. Moray's experience.

"(3) If the source of energy is within the system, by redesigning the system the same performance can be obtained without the use of the antennae.

"(4) If the rectifier has only the function Mr. Moray claimed for it, then a substitute can easily be found which is much more stable and reliable. "Assuming Mr. Moray is correct in his explanation, in my opinion it would be many years before he would be able to perfect his device by working all alone by the cut-and-try methods that he must necessarily use. Progress is not made in these days by lone workers. There are so many phases to such a problem that it requires the coopers ion of specialists to answer satisfactorily the different phases of the problems. Unless Mr. Moray changes his attitude it seems to be hopeless to expect any progress whether he is right or wrong. He expects everybody to trust him and give him support but still he will trust nobody. When he will take into his confidence such fine men as Marshall and Eyring to such an extent that they can duplicate his apparatus I really think something good will come out of it, probably in quite a different way than he now expects."

"Sincerely yours,

Signed (Harvey Fletcher)* "

Clearly, the device had: "I would certainly agree with Mr. Moray that either the tubes or the rectifier or the coil had some very remarkable properties. "

The "rectifier" was evidently Moray's doped-germanium crystal (?) -- remember, this was before the days of the transistor even.  I wonder if that coil was bifilar? ;)

Does anyone understand this? or know how high the frequency was? :

Quote
The energy is transferred from a high impedance circuit to a low impedance circuit by means of a high frequency current. The high frequency is probably produced by an oscillatory circuit in the system -- Fletcher

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 07, 2011, 10:01:04 PM
Funny how after so many years we still can't replicate the Moray device, that knowledge died with him. Thank you for bringing it up.

Dr. Stiffler has made a self running device using three small coils, a tiny capacitor, and a ground connection, only.  No batteries, at all.   It does not seam to output much power to light an led,  but it's a start.
There is no device that is really "self running", as they are all run on some type of energy conversion process.  Misnomers don't help to understand the cause of the effect generation.

Yes, it appears Dr. Moray's "invention" -- the key to it -- died with him.... as far as I can tell, although his son claims to have "notes".

WRT the run of my DUT with a battery, I ended that after three days and already presented the data (several pages back).   The battery voltage dropped very little.   I needed to do other tests with the circuit, which I felt more important than just running with a battery on and on.
Quote
"
Dr. Stiffler has made a self running device using three small coils, a tiny capacitor, and a ground connection, only.  No batteries, at all.  -- Nick"

Is there a link regarding his device?  thanks.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 07, 2011, 10:13:35 PM

If the source of energy is within the system, by redesigning the system the same performance can be obtained without the use of the antennae.

I do not believe the energy was coming from the antenna. Unfortunately no one thought to disconnect the antenna and see if the device still delivered power. With this much power coming down the antenna wire it would have been very dangerous and produce sparks when connected and disconnected.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 07, 2011, 10:43:16 PM
[...]
NP -- thanks so much for sending your DUT for testing
[...]

you're welcome - i hope it's a useful addition to your set of circuits for the thermal testing

Quote from: JouleSeeker
[...]
The "rectifier" was evidently Moray's doped-germanium crystal (?) -- remember, this was before the days of the transistor even.  I wonder if that coil was bifilar? ;)

Does anyone understand this? or know how high the frequency was? :

there doesn't appear to be much to go on wrt to operating parameters

Fletcher raises the question as to whether the energy is 'within the system' or not

the antenna length suggests that any frequency being 'received' is most likely in one of the Short-Wave bands - unlikely that this would be the source of the full energy o/p, otherwise Radio Hams around the world would have had their heads fried by now!

i'd hazard a guess to say that the antenna is either a 'diversion', to help keep his secret safe -  or that the small amount of energy received is used as an i/p to a different 'mechanism' within the system which merely uses the received frequency to modulate, or invert, the true power o/p so that it can be handled by conventional tube power-amp techniques and be transformed to the required o/p conditions

both of these answers suggest that the power is 'within', as i think Fletcher may have suspected

[EDIT: just seen your later post re: antenna - i believe he did demonstrate that disconnecting the antenna stopped the o/p - but of course this test would still not discriminate between the antenna receiving the full i/p power or just a 'modulating' signal to drive a power inverter]

the fact that Moray was only concerned to withold information about something smaller than his hand suggests that the power source, if conventional, could be 'nuclear' in nature  (or aetheric, if unconventional!)

fascinating - but unlikely to be resolved, i feel
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on July 07, 2011, 11:21:31 PM
I do not believe the energy was coming from the antenna. Unfortunately no one thought to disconnect the antenna and see if the device still delivered power. With this much power coming down the antenna wire it would have been very dangerous and produce sparks when connected and disconnected.

Hi,

While I also believe the kiloWatts did not come via the antenna (and the ground) wire, reports by witnesses clearly included when either the antenna  (or the ground) wire was disconnected, the output power ceased.
You can read this here (paragraph starting with: Mr Moray removed his equipment from the automobil) :
http://merlib.org/node/5238

Quote: "After tuning in for slightly more than 10 minutes the key or switch was put on the operating post and the light appeared immediately. While the lights were burning, the antenna lead-in wire was disconnected from the apparatus and the lights went out. Connected again and the light re-appeared. Moray disconnected the "ground wire" and the lights went out. He then re-connected it and the lights appeared again."

Some people hypotese Moray tuned in a not-man-made radiation with his several stages of resonant circuits, the antenna and the ground was the very first stage, followed by several high frequency selective LC circuits which was separated by the special 'diodes' (to prevent power feeding backwards) and after transformation to lower voltages a single special 'power diode' (what he did not let anyone examine) 'coupled out' the energy.  Some others think the diode (or the resonant circuits) was 'treated' with weak radioactive material.
One thing is certain, Dr Stiffler demonstrated that with 2 and 3 coupled resonant passive LC circuits a LED diode is lit when they connected to a ground wire. (I do not assume those solenoid coils received broadcast AM stations energy...)

Gyula

EDIT: here is another useful reading: http://www.svpvril.com/Moray.html
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 07, 2011, 11:48:00 PM

While I also believe the kiloWatts did not come via the antenna (and the ground) wire, reports by witnesses clearly included when either the antenna  (or the ground) wire was disconnected, the output power ceased.

Thanks for the info.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 08, 2011, 12:48:51 AM
Steven

i wanted to thank you for raising our interest in your oscillator circuit and its associated investigations

i have to admit, when i saw your thread start i didn't follow it up at first because i thought the subject would have been exhausted in the various JT threads already in existence (not that i have anything against them!)

however, i'm hooked!

even in this seemingly simple circuit, all sorts of basic issues have been raised; it's certainly been a worthy test-vehicle so far - and we've only just got out onto the freeway  :)

what prompted me to write this now, is that i've been doing some of my own experiments since the end of last year, with DIY cells using thin sheet & foils of dissimilar metals & unusual hydrocarbon-rich 'electrolytes'
(as noted at my blog linked below)

i'm attempting to achieve a self-sustaining combination of cell & LED flasher circuit (ie. the system will need to obtain energy from the ambient environment)

i appear to have succeeded with one combination which has maintained an average 2 cell voltage of 1.2V since the beginning of March (all other attempts have discharged the cells within a couple of months)

although my existing LED flasher circuit is very low-powered (approx 1uW), it can only continue flashing the LED down to around 1V supply, which means that i need 2 cells in series as a supply battery

however, as a result of my experiments with low-powered variants of your SJ1 circuit, i have now been able to produce an LED flasher which is operating down to around 0.4V, flash rate approx 1 per 20 seconds - so i can now power an LED flasher load circuit using only 1 cell - and reduce the component count down from 12 parts to 7!

i've altered the base capacitor and diode values to achieve a slow flash, and i've connected a piezo sounder across the base capacitor to generate a 'click' with each flash

i've just run a capacitor-only test with that variant and i was able to generate 42 flashes from a 100uF capacitor charged to 0.8V (taking approx 10 minutes)

using only 0.8V as supply, this circuit can develop a pulse of approx 64V across the supply inductor (whilst on-load to the LED flasher) and it has actually increased the terminal voltage of one of my DIY cells back up to 0.81V, the original o/c voltage i measured when the cell was created

as you can imagine i'm very impressed with this deceptively 'simple' circuit and i look forward to seeing what else we can learn from our investigations

thanks again
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 08, 2011, 01:31:24 AM
@ Joule Seeker:
Here is the link that you requested.

Dr. Stiffler has mentioned that the device can also light two white leds, and not just the one red one shown in the video.  I stumbled upon this video the other day, as it caught my attention.
He uses an antenna wire and a ground connection, but no transistor, pot, or resistor.  It's different than any other device out there, like most of his projects.  Great find...

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 08, 2011, 01:33:20 AM
@ nul-points

Getting a silicon transistor to work from 0.4 volts is a good accomplishment. Congratulations.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 08, 2011, 01:53:46 AM

@ nul-points

Getting a silicon transistor to work from 0.4 volts is a good accomplishment. Congratulations.

thanks, but i think the congrats are due to Steven for bringing this type of oscillator to our attention!  :)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on July 08, 2011, 02:02:30 AM
@ Joule Seeker:
Here is the link that you requested.

Dr. Stiffler has mentioned that the device can also light two white leds, and not just the one red one shown in the video.  I stumbled upon this video the other day, as it caught my attention.
He uses an antenna wire and a ground connection, but no transistor, pot, or resistor.  It's different than any other device out there, like most of his projects.  Great find...

Wow!  Dr. Stiffler has done it again.  That is really amazing to me.  It would be very interesting to see if this could be scaled up a bit.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 08, 2011, 02:07:34 AM
After watching Doc's video again, he mentioned that the black wire with the alligator clips is not an antenna,  but it sure looks like it to me. Reminds me of the uhf coil antenna, which can also lose it's signal if you get close to it.  Or where else is the energy coming from???  Yes, it could be coming in through the coils. I think that the whole circuit is an antenna, with a ground connection. In any case its a very interesting circuit.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: SkyWatcher123 on July 08, 2011, 03:25:32 AM
Hi folks, Hi nickz, do you happen to have the link to the thread or circuit diagram of koolers hartley circuit, if not I'll search through the bjt thread, thanks. The circuit from this video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgX1gYlmVsk&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgX1gYlmVsk&feature=related)
Going to try and replicate his results.
peace love light
tyson :)

edit: I think i found the kooler/hartley circuit, is this it? Though in his video, he shows 20 turn secondary, 6 and 3 turns on bifilar oscillator.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: frankly on July 08, 2011, 04:30:59 AM
Well, I am not sure what happened. I thought someone asked how energy could "come into" a circuit. In the describing of what "energy" is, I showed the thought process that led to (in a small way), understanding what forms energy, or amperage.

The amplification of this, is what I thought everyone was looking for. Small energy in, 10^13 times out, or something.

So, I spoke freely. To everyone here.

It seems I have either been ignored or shut out. No feedback, no thoughts, no expressions of consideration whatsoever in days....what gives, people??

All sorts of terse words for my continued musings, when I was trying to encourage discussion and thought among what I thought were like minded people, yet, after the point was made, nothing.....

The "wheelwork of nature" revealed in words, and not even a blip.....

Would a video be better?

Or, some drawings???

Would that help convey the thoughts?

Been there, done that. It doesn't make a difference.

If you look up "Watt meter design" you will find that modern science is already well educated in the inertia of eddy currents.

Place this mechanism, (which is supported by the background energy of the universe, just as the domains in a permanent magnet are), into a transformer core, and you have energy amplification. Simple really. But, has anyone realised this? Or are willing to discuss the implications? It would seem not.

Either I am being ignored, or everyone is feeling a little abashed that they have missed something so simple for so long.

Let me know which it is please, so I may move on.

I spend hours composing messages every time I try to get the message across. My time would be better spent enjoying my children, not ensuring their future. After all, why shift the status quo?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 08, 2011, 04:36:23 AM
SkyW:
Good to hear that you're interested in replicating that circuit.
It looks like his latest and best BwJt to date.  I don't have the circuit  diagram, but from looking at the video he explains it fairly well.
I think that the cap is probably a 103, but he also uses the small blue 471, I use the 472.  He used to use the 2n2222 transistor at first, but has changed to a different one in the last couple of videos (BC something). The inductor is on the negative rail, as well as the smaller leds, the other 16 bigger leds are off the secondary of his coil.  I don't think that the small pot is very important, possibly any 2k to 5k pot would do.
He never mentioned how long the single AA lasts, which would be an important point.  If you look at some of his other videos you can see which transistor he uses.  I just don't remember anymore. He does show a circuit in his other videos.  The 27 mA draw is impressive, especially for  lighting 70 leds.  I know this limited info won't help much, but it's the best I can do.
I'm hoping that he will come back to the forum, and continue where he left off.  I'm afraid he may have hurt himself again, as he like to drink,    "I was bored" he says...
In the pictures are some of my replications, they might help you to see the wiring layout.  They're pretty simple circuits once you get the hang of them. But their magic is harder to find,  I'm still at it...
Good luck.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 08, 2011, 04:46:34 AM
Frankly:
This kind of thing happens at times.  It helps if you stay on the topic of the thread or subject and discussion at hand, and direct your ideas at someone in particular. Otherwise you may just be talking to yourself.  Try it.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TEKTRON on July 08, 2011, 06:51:16 AM
use of ferroelectrics in condensers used by tesla is interesting possibility:

It is likely that Tesla was aware of the properties of ferroelectrics
in particular rochelle salt a likely canadate for condenser material.
http://www.ieee-uffc.org/ferroelectrics/teaching/articles/e003/e0030291.pdf

a contemporary application given
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080246366

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 08, 2011, 07:07:59 AM
Thanks for the good discussion.

Steven

i wanted to thank you for raising our interest in your oscillator circuit and its associated investigations

i have to admit, when i saw your thread start i didn't follow it up at first because i thought the subject would have been exhausted in the various JT threads already in existence (not that i have anything against them!)

however, i'm hooked!

even in this seemingly simple circuit, all sorts of basic issues have been raised; it's certainly been a worthy test-vehicle so far - and we've only just got out onto the freeway  :)

what prompted me to write this now, is that i've been doing some of my own experiments since the end of last year, with DIY cells using thin sheet & foils of dissimilar metals & unusual hydrocarbon-rich 'electrolytes'
(as noted at my blog linked below)

i'm attempting to achieve a self-sustaining combination of cell & LED flasher circuit (ie. the system will need to obtain energy from the ambient environment)

i appear to have succeeded with one combination which has maintained an average 2 cell voltage of 1.2V since the beginning of March (all other attempts have discharged the cells within a couple of months) [snip, for brevity]

Congratulations are in order!  Let us know if this continues.  Lots of exciting developments around here.

@Nick -- thanks for pointing out the URL; three coils, a diode and a cap -- to light an LED.  Very interesting.  What is the source of the energy?  Does he know?
I had something similar a while back (well, maybe similar) -- no battery, but req'd a ground connection -- but when I measured the frequency it was 60 Hz, so I had grid pick-up I'm quite sure.  Lit up an LED though...

@Frankly, if you start another thread, you might find folks who are more interested in the theoretical side of things -- also, diagrams/drawings help a lot.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: e2matrix on July 08, 2011, 07:15:43 AM
Well, I am not sure what happened. I thought someone asked how energy could "come into" a circuit. In the describing of what "energy" is, I showed the thought process that led to (in a small way), understanding what forms energy, or amperage.

The amplification of this, is what I thought everyone was looking for. Small energy in, 10^13 times out, or something.

So, I spoke freely. To everyone here.

It seems I have either been ignored or shut out. No feedback, no thoughts, no expressions of consideration whatsoever in days....what gives, people??

All sorts of terse words for my continued musings, when I was trying to encourage discussion and thought among what I thought were like minded people, yet, after the point was made, nothing.....

The "wheelwork of nature" revealed in words, and not even a blip.....

Would a video be better?

Or, some drawings???

Would that help convey the thoughts?

Been there, done that. It doesn't make a difference.

If you look up "Watt meter design" you will find that modern science is already well educated in the inertia of eddy currents.

Place this mechanism, (which is supported by the background energy of the universe, just as the domains in a permanent magnet are), into a transformer core, and you have energy amplification. Simple really. But, has anyone realised this? Or are willing to discuss the implications? It would seem not.

Either I am being ignored, or everyone is feeling a little abashed that they have missed something so simple for so long.

Let me know which it is please, so I may move on.

I spend hours composing messages every time I try to get the message across. My time would be better spent enjoying my children, not ensuring their future. After all, why shift the status quo?

I for one was very interested and trying to be interactive as I can with my current knowledge but this IS Dr. Jones thread and he did suggest we try to stay on topic a bit more (not the exact words but I'm sure it was the intent) and so I suggested with such an interesting and extensive discussion possible on this subject that you might start your own thread.  This thread after all is about a modified Joule thief and how to get verification and replications of the possible OU.  I'd be happy to start a thread for you if needed (I don't know if new posters here need a certain post count to start a thread).   I think you will find I and some others here are quite humble and eager to learn.  But some here have had their share of 'carrot danglers' who seem to never be able to fully open up about knowledge they claim to have.  This is the only reason I think some may seem less than cordial.
So how about a thread title like "The missing (5th) Element in OU" ?  Or we can leave out the 5th but sure like that Bruce Willis movie ;)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TEKTRON on July 08, 2011, 08:22:26 AM
Well, although I have not received any enlightenment from .99 regarding the questions I posed to HIS/HER statements, only the idea that I misunderstood HIS/HER statements somehow, (and if so, would like explanation please), I will answer this somewhat crossed message question.

Firstly, please be specific.....are we looking at a solenoid, or a torroid? Secondly, There is no Bloch wall formed on an electromagnet with present energisation, so a different set of phenomena are used to establish the rules of interaction than are used with magnets alone. Thirdly, with a torroid, or closed core transformer, as you rightly point out, all the magnetic energy for "induction" is within the core, therefore, how can this be "transferred" to the adjoining coil and provide useable energy via the collapsing or building magnetic lines of force.....and do it so well? The only answer is that the wire is being energised in some way that is not immediately apparent, and is occuring within the bounds of the primary coils' geometry, as it cannot be "sensed" untill the secondarie's winds are lower to the face of the torroid than the primary, so energy is lost. In the same manner, by placing wraps further out, there is loss. I wonder, has anyone used flat strap to wind a transformer? Probably not in nearly a hundred years. Interestingly, this is what was used for transformers with the AC electricity in it's early form...wire ribbon. Why? What did they know that seems to have been forgotten, or missed?

Previously I asked why amperage and magnetic strength of the B field were related. I wait for an answer.

As to "just conveying my thoughts" on what the form of the wheelwork of nature really is?? That thing that is the water in our pond? If I did that, what would you learn? No. How about you reflect on what I have said. The answer is there. Right before you. Only one person thus far has even attempted to think and imagine a solution, then, (hopefully) test that idea with apparatus. Oops, sorry. Did I just suggest that someone do science?

I wonder, did anyone measure the mass of the plates in the battery that is charging and measure the capacitance of the entire circuit and find the resonant frequency.....to see if there is a correlation with the running frequency?

What of these reported "sweet spots" with the present design?

Where are the joyous words extolling the solution has been found, for it is these that prove the thoughts. The basis of the harmonic scale of matter.

Have any mass measurements been done?

Why does the mass of the primary and secondary have to be so similar in transformers? What does "harmonic resonance" lock onto?

We hear the standing wave in our well tuned musical instruments all the time. Pianos are a prime example. Why is it that no-one has applied that thinking to energy amplification.

I recently learned that an "amplifier" in electrical engineering is not "amplifying" anything. To amplify means to increase in strength. So, the end result must be that energy is greater out than in via some sort of fulcrum or pulley. Like a gearbox, amplifying the mechanical energy to push the car faster with less engine speed. Utilising inertia to relieve torque. This was the reason for heavy flywheels in old engine designs. The storage of inertia so the energy from it could be amplified via pulleys and such.

However, nowadays it seems that to amplify a signal means to hold back on the original strength of the current, or working force, and control it. This means that the highest amplification of the signal possible is the same as having no amplifier present. The control of the signal DOWNWARDS in strength is referred to as amplification. It is this type of thinking that prevents discovery of the truth.

How, in what manner, can we amplify energy when we are not taught that energy spins and has inertia, just like a flywheel??

This motion is called reactance, reluctance and resistance and is the source of all of the original though forms and quaternion equations that once described, in perfect detail, the overall manner in which electricity operates based upon circles not lines.

How can vectors describe rotation of subatomic particles? It cannot. So, "science" invents quantum math to blur the edges of their straight lines, and gets further and further away from the truth.

Anyway, I am now ranting.

Back to the issue at hand.

What is affected by the energy from a source of electricity to form a magnetic field around the energised current carrying medium?

Ohh, and also, if you take out the core of a transformer and leave the coils adjacent, does it still work? Why? What must be done to prevent them interacting and transferring energy one to the other with the changing magnetic field?

This type of science is what must be done, all over again, to find the truth. I cannot just blurt it out, for I will not be believed. I tried that once before.

I have no credentials, only experimental experience. And, without the math skills to back me up, all I have is these words.

I can point the way, but you must walk.

I can show you pictures, and videos 'till the cows come home. These would only be the source of more conjecture.

I tried asking for expert assistance, none came. So, I now ask the questions of you that I asked myself, in order that you may also do the same thinking. This is what a teacher does, so the student may learn for themselves. Only in that manner will the result, once realised, be believed.

Do the investigations I suggested, think on the real reasons behind the simple processes, and the truth will be revealed.

Or, you can simply do nothing but continue along, blundering in the dark. Frankly, I don't give a damn.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TEKTRON on July 08, 2011, 09:01:54 AM
Very interesting results reported by Dr. Jones for the electronic circuit.

Does anyone have a suggestion on how to measure the input-output power ratio - without using a state of the art oscilloscope?  For example, a diode bridge with a capacitor - or perhaps a way to make the circuit self-running etc?

I am not a fan of testing alternative energy devices for light output with the human eye, or a battery that does not run down etc.  We want to do 'real science' with real repeatable measurements.

-Nils

Sorry, off topic...
Nice site Nils, I'll be back to check it out soon :)

ElectroGravityPhysics.com

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 08, 2011, 09:21:08 AM

[...]
... eddy currents.

Place this mechanism, (which is supported by the background energy of the universe, just as the domains in a permanent magnet are), into a transformer core, and you have energy amplification. Simple really. But, has anyone realised this? Or are willing to discuss the implications? It would seem not.
[...]

Aspden has not only discussed this at length in his reports and papers, he has patented a reversible heat-to-electricity device on the principle

[...]
Either I am being ignored, or everyone is feeling a little abashed that they have missed something so simple for so long.
[...]

you may find that people are more likely to engage in discussion with you if you stop patronising them - winding your ego in a few notches wouldn't go amiss, either

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: frankly on July 08, 2011, 10:09:16 AM
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11116.0

I think  I did it correctly. Sorry for the "Jacking". Seems my communication limitations have thwarted me again.

This is only the second time I have attempted to communicate in forums like this, and I don't understand much of the processes and social etiquette.

Hope to see some like minds join me.

Frankly.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on July 08, 2011, 02:01:12 PM
Wow!  Dr. Stiffler has done it again.  That is really amazing to me.  It would be very interesting to see if this could be scaled up a bit.

Bill
@Bill
Did you see Ben's replications?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 08, 2011, 03:53:24 PM

Did you see Ben's replications?