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 invite replications  -- and terse/technical comments only, please.

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 ;).

  For more info, ask, or go over to the OUResearch.com forum (link in post#1 above).

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 ;).

  For more info, ask, or go over to the OUResearch.com forum (link in post#1 above).

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:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7tj5VT_lw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_fGKtmp8Cc


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:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7tj5VT_lw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_fGKtmp8Cc


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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV4xMeZ_41Y

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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kdve9sKrxQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ntFxscwi00
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kdve9sKrxQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ntFxscwi00

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV4xMeZ_41Y

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?  )

Thanks again for comments. 
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?  )

Thanks again for comments.

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 answering.
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. "

Read more:  http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/
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
Hey, I appreciate your comments Xee2 and Nul-points. 

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
Hey, I appreciate your comments Xee2 and Nul-points. 
[...]
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

maybe you can add 'patience' to your list of virtues?  ;)

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
maybe you can add 'patience' to your list of virtues?

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 ):

Itsu -- I just watched your latest vid:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7x2Y0gdXWQ&feature=uploademail

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
link=topic=10773.msg289174#msg289174 date=1306947746
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

Here’s the thing , expensive instrumentation doesn’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 it’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 it’s
behavior and causing incorrect readings – he says that; “The
circuit is behaving in an unstable way, it has insufficient operating
margins.” 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 can’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. It’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 it’s behavior does not change when
you attach instrumentation. I suggested using RC time constants
out of precision identical components. But don’t worry, you will find it
extremely difficult to design a circuit that actually produces overunity
energy. But at least you won’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, it’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? What’s wrong with you? If you’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. 

Best wishes for your success,
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. 

Best wishes for your success,
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 ?


thanks for your comments Tudi

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

thanks in advance for your help with this


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

thanks in advance for your help with this


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:
http://www.hyiq.org/Library/Catching_Radiant_Energy.htm (http://www.hyiq.org/Library/Catching_Radiant_Energy.htm)

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
PLEASE NOTE:
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
 - e/m radiation


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 = a 'Devil's Advocate')

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
(please see schematic below)

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.

I will keep at it, thanks for your advise and encouragement!

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?

Thanks in advance.

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?

Thanks in advance.

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
Having received a question via email about measurements --  my reply:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLRqM0nDT_M
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcftGrBEaL0&feature=player_embedded#at=25
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?

Thanks all for your help and advise!

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?

Thanks all for your help and advise!

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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcftGrBEaL0&feature=player_embedded#at=25

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
Here is some more info about this: http://freeenergylt.narod2.ru/vladimir_pantiuhov/
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
Here is some more info about this: http://freeenergylt.narod2.ru/vladimir_pantiuhov/

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

Just to answer your questions about runtime.
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

Just to answer your questions about runtime.
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:
     link-->http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc/pages/secret_life_of_capacitors.pdf (http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc/pages/secret_life_of_capacitors.pdf) 


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


hope this has been helpful
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
the home-quality-receivers abot 5 uV.  (ON VERY-HIGH OHM LOAD!)
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 is´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.

Also, does the electrode degrade over time on your cement battery?
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:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dplIIhCbMcE
   
   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.

Can we ask your problem like this:
  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.

Here is my reply --

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).

The measurements read:
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]
© 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.

My reply:
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

   link-->http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg290346#msg290346 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg290346#msg290346)

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?

http://flinders.edu.au/science_engineering/caps/our-school/staff-postgrads/info/cahill-r/process-physics/
http://flinders.edu.au/science_engineering/caps/our-school/staff-postgrads/info/cahill-r/process-physics/papers/

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
helpful here, if it has not already been tried out.

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

   link-->http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg290346#msg290346 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg290346#msg290346)

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT6rSVCx1z0

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

With your numbers,
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

With your numbers,
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.
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dplIIhCbMcE
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgX1gYlmVsk&feature=related
   
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.
The new link is >>>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHdhMZzwQ_g

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.

Does anyone know this "Baratolougus" (sp?) fellow -- seems he might know more about this "mystery"... 
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.

Does anyone know this "Baratolougus" (sp?) fellow -- seems he might know more about this "mystery"... 
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.

Thanks for your comments, dimbulb.  Do you have a link for Dr Stiffler's current work?
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.   
   Adding quickly -- I appreciate your research NP -- very creative!
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. I’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 – pulse (circuit 4 and 5). The minimum power to light the led is also around 1uW.

It’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.

I must say about this energy-truth community, you guys have made me feel welcomed and quite at home.  Thank you sincerely.

@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.

http://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?2210-Replication-of-Dr....

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.

http://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?2210-Replication-of-Dr....

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 Öglunda, Sweden to work on the Prof. Jones circuit..
I just stopped by Per-Johan´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::

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdY87mXqi1o



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-Johan´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 can´t feed this back to the input
directly cause otherwise you short out one diode of the FullWaveBrdigeRéctifier .

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-Johan´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 can´t feed this back to the input
directly cause otherwise you short out one diode of the FullWaveBrdigeRéctifier .

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMLop6MIwUU&

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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55RN1Pbh93w
step two unbutton the shirt this will convince businessmen with basic knowledge of golf carts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg4_c7InHrI

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.
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg4_c7InHrI

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 doesn’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 – especially pulsed current.
48% are delusional about their accomplishments and the manner in which they evaluate their results

It’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-Johan´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).

Greetings, Conrad
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 10.000µF capacitor? This should reduce the power consumption even more.

Greetings, Conrad
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
http://paradigmcontent.s3.amazonaws.com/paradigm%20magazine%20article.pdf (http://paradigmcontent.s3.amazonaws.com/paradigm%20magazine%20article.pdf)

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).

Greetings, Conrad

hi Conrad

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 10.000µF capacitor? This should reduce the power consumption even more.

Hi Conrad,
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
hi Conrad

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?

Greetings, Conrad
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?

Greetings, Conrad


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?

Greetings, Conrad
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

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w54lxNS3Hus


Basically i am pulling the secondary load without loading the transistor .

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
Quote from: JouleSeeker :Plink=topic=10773.msg293276#msg293276 date=1309374407
  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?

Greetings, Conrad


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:
  link-->http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg291492#msg291492 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg291492#msg291492)

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:
  link-->http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg291904#msg291904 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg291904#msg291904)

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 you’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 — Ni45Co5Mn40Sn10 — 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 alloy’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. 
  (Ps, my shipping address above.)

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:

  link--> http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf (http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf)


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:

  link--> http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf (http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf)


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
Thanks for comments!

@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

-black body case radiation energy

-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 “electrically induced magnetic field” only considers the tangential component of the “magnetic field,” 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"
With your comments...........

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 “electrically induced magnetic field” only considers the tangential component of the “magnetic field,” 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 “magnetic field”. Therefore, magnetic field is an illusion, a convenience for our simplicity and also a happening that Chinese compass was ahead the time of Maxwell’s who in return was before Einstein…
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.

So please, be more explicit.
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.

Video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS2W_48_QKQ

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.

Video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS2W_48_QKQ

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH-1rjKbdEM&feature=feedu

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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgX1gYlmVsk&feature=related
   
   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
                                          Not a bad deal, huh?
   
   
   
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

let's apply an external load, Rload, across a battery, soon after a previous heavier load

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:

Vb = Vint x Rload /(Rbatt + 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)
  link to PDF download page-->http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=479 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=479)


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.

Video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS2W_48_QKQ
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.

Comments anyone?

-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.

Comments anyone?

-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.

Comments anyone?

-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 – 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. 
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIIhgHTEoM0&feature=related
   
   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. 
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIIhgHTEoM0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIIhgHTEoM0&feature=related)
   
   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


http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=20080246366&num=10
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.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_magnetic_domain
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.

Comments anyone?

-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?
http://www.youtube.com/user/k4zep#p/u/8/kAXP-gnjATM
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?
http://www.youtube.com/user/k4zep#p/u/8/kAXP-gnjATM

Yes, but Ben suggests this is AC-grid pick-up, to light the LED, if I understood him.
Isn't that right?   Can you rule this out in your vid with the three coils?

@all -- note that I will be traveling north today, to give a talk at a university in Idaho.  I will be talking about novel energy research -- very favorably of all or nearly all of you at this forum!  NP, Chris -- hope you don't mind if I use photos of yours; also intriguing vid by Lasersaber.  Thanks -- back in two days.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 08, 2011, 04:27:58 PM
[...]
@all -- note that I will be traveling north today, to give a talk at a university in Idaho.  I will be talking about novel energy research -- very favorably of all or nearly all of you at this forum!  NP, Chris -- hope you don't mind if I use photos of yours; also intriguing vid by Lasersaber
[...]

no problem - hope the proceedings go well, have a good trip!
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on July 08, 2011, 04:35:15 PM
@ TEKTRON thankyou for the ferroelectric generator patent link, see above.
It is another good source on doping solid state materials for alternative energy.

@ Dr Stiffler, Ben's replication obvious issues, design changes, the smallest lab has variety of noise.
lt may be inconclusive at this point to conclude that your setup is only absorbing ambient emf.

If Ben would pull that video we would appreciate it until we know whats going on at Stiffler labs. 73's  :o
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 08, 2011, 04:45:05 PM
   @ Dr. Stiffler:
   Even if Ben or you are picking it from up grid, this is still a possibly useful circuit for those close to power lines.  I have lines crossing over my house both in front and on one side, so, it may be useful in my case.  In both the your video as well as Bens the led does not look fully lit.  Might just be the angle. Are the two white leds the most that can be lit. What is the voltage and current?  Just trying to understand what's going on.
 Dr. Stiffler: Thank you in advance for your answer.
I hope you don't mind me uploading your video link onto this thread without asking you first. It just happened to fit into our thread discussion at this time, and many of us probably had not seen it yet.
 Thanks for sharing.
                              NickZ
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 08, 2011, 04:51:33 PM
@ DrStiffler

Even if your circuit is running off the ground line noise I think it is still very impressive. Is this the way you have the coils connected?





Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on July 08, 2011, 09:10:00 PM
@ DrStiffler

Even if your circuit is running off the ground line noise I think it is still very impressive. Is this the way you have the coils connected?
@xee2
For you as I think most of what is here is...

If one were to take the time to explore what is out there, it would put an end to this 200 year continuous 'it was this, it was that, he did this, that guy did that". If one were to fully explore the channels that have been presented and see that some people have expended hundreds of dollars in faith to see if it is possible, maybe this on and on saga would produce something that everyone could enjoy. Yet we have the ego's, the manic depressives and the illusionists that just will not back off so something can come of this to benefit all.

For the 'BOOKS' as Ben found out after spending $700+ US for an SA, this is not 60Hz. I have shown for years the frequencies where the coherence is possible, yet with the COINTELPRO, Entombed Academics and just plain uninformed, for 20 years I have seen the same things over and over and over. Morey, Tesla... okay if all these have done it, we must all be really stupid that after 200 years all we have is talk and platitudes to our friends or idols.

I really just get a major enjoyment in watching it all unfold and repeat and repeat, great fun.

Okay Xee2, yes indeed if it were the 60Hz or 50Hz ambient it would be great, yet when properly done this is ruled out. Three years ago someone (?) took an Exciter and Light System to the far reaches of the 'OutbacK' and low and behold it still did its magic???

I only posted here again so Bill could see and explore Ben's Channel, I have no interest here unless the "slander" gets out of hand.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: neptune on July 08, 2011, 09:25:44 PM
@Dr Stiffler .I get no pleasure at all in watching it unfold and repeat .Every day that it goes on , more and more people die needlessly from starvation .You may remember we talked about the motivation of the Pyramid man . It is said that truth is the first casualty of war . Well ,it has been a while since World War 2 ended , but truth is still in a coma . We live in an age of Information Technology . Unfortunately much of it is false . How do we separate the signal from the noise ? You may wish to help by answering the question put by Xee " above ?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on July 08, 2011, 09:32:28 PM
@Dr Stiffler .I get no pleasure at all in watching it unfold and repeat .Every day that it goes on , more and more people die needlessly from starvation .You may remember we talked about the motivation of the Pyramid man . It is said that truth is the first casualty of war . Well ,it has been a while since World War 2 ended , but truth is still in a coma . We live in an age of Information Technology . Unfortunately much of it is false . How do we separate the signal from the noise ? You may wish to help by answering the question put by Xee " above ?

@neptune
****Moderator - Please Remove if you fell this is not an appropriate response. ****

Every breath I take is worth more to humanity that your worthless post!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 08, 2011, 10:02:52 PM
I only posted here again so Bill could see and explore Ben's Channel, I have no interest here unless the "slander" gets out of hand.

Thank you for your post. If you will note, I did not say your device was getting its power from the ground wire. I said that even if it was getting its power from the ground wire, it was still very impressive. I agree that there is an energy source available that is not within the current concepts of mainstream science. As I have said in this thread, I think that the Moray radiant energy device seems like it actually was producing large amount of free energy. Good luck with your research and your health.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 08, 2011, 10:05:14 PM

@neptune
****Moderator - Please Remove if you fell this is not an appropriate response. ****

Every breath I take is worth more to humanity that your worthless post!

...'s funny how Supreme Beings & Saviours of the Universe can't spell for toffee
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on July 08, 2011, 10:20:00 PM
...'s funny how Supreme Beings & Saviours of the Universe can't spell for toffee

@nul-points
You are indeed such an addition to the pursuit of the OU technologies and the betterment of humanity I wonder if you would be willing to post your "REAL Name and address" so that we could all be more comfortable with you less than logical posts?

You see, anyone can go to 'Google' and see my address, view may home yard and house, BUT who are you? Hiding behind 'Nul-Points?', Dr. Jones is not hiding, I am not hiding, WHO ARE YOU?.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 08, 2011, 10:34:34 PM
@nul-points
[...]
You see, anyone can go to 'Google' and see my address, view may home yard and house
[...]


LOL

my details have been on the web for years - you should have known that


(...why would anyone want to view your home yard and house - or mine?    strange)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: neptune on July 08, 2011, 10:55:58 PM
@Dr Stiffler . I am surprised that you found my post inappropriate . No direct criticism of you was made or implied . I stand by my statement that people are starving for want of affordable energy . I did not say that it was your fault . I addressed you by your title ,and I was not rude to you . All I asked was that you answer a simple technical question . Are you having a bad day or something?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 08, 2011, 11:19:14 PM
@Dr Stiffler
[...]
I addressed you by your title ,and I was not rude to you . All I asked was that you answer a simple technical question . Are you having a bad day or something?

LOL

mr neptune, have you heard the parable about the scorpion and the frog?

  link-->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog)

 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 08, 2011, 11:24:41 PM
   @ Doc Stiffler:
   I like Bill, am very appreciative and amazed at your discovery.
   Sorry to hear that sometimes some of us can't seam to get along. Very unfortunate, as this is a very important point in furthering our understanding.    I would be glad to give you, or anyone else any information that I have about anything, including real name, e-mail, phone,  address etz...  If that were to help in any way to further our cause.
  Thanks for letting us know that the energy does not come from the grid, and clarifying Bens comments.  This make is all the more interesting and worthwhile. 
              NickZ   Costa Rica
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 08, 2011, 11:57:04 PM
   @ Doc Stiffler:
   I like Bill, am very appreciative and amazed at your discovery.
   Sorry to hear that sometimes some of us can't seam to get along. Very unfortunate, as this is a very important point in furthering our understanding.    I would be glad to give you, or anyone else any information that I have about anything, including real name, e-mail, phone,  address etz...  If that were to help in any way to further our cause.
  Thanks for letting us know that the energy does not come from the grid, and clarifying Bens comments.  This make is all the more interesting and worthwhile. 
              NickZ   Costa Rica


hey Nick

do you recall the days when this thread used to be about the Prof Jones circuit?

those were happy days, eh - the days before people came round demanding to know our names and addresses?

let's get back to those happy days!

i noticed that the resistor values in the base connection of your transistor are quite low, i think this is why your current draw is still high

if you look at Xee2's schematic you'll see that he's using 2 or 3 Mohms and achieving very low current draw

hope this helps
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 09, 2011, 01:16:21 AM
  Nul-P:
   Yes, most of my 1 k resistors have been changed to pots. I was trying to replicate Koolers original circuit, the one that he had running for 5 months. What is hanging me up is the iron cores, but I have gotten even them to run an AA for 6 days, so not too bad, although I won't win the prize using them.  Too bad Steven didn't continue the test using a single AA for more than 3 days.  That means more to me than anything else.
  Right now I'm watching one of my circuits blinking, it has found its own sweet spot, where it is no longer draining the battery, just blinking as it get new energy to it, on its own. Although it can run like that for a long time, I don't need blinking leds, I'm looking for a self runner with usable light.
   I hope we can get back the the subject at hand, with no more misunderstanding...
   Best luck to all,
                              Nick
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 09, 2011, 08:50:56 AM
 
  Nul-P:
   Yes, most of my 1 k resistors have been changed to pots. I was trying to replicate Koolers original circuit, the one that he had running for 5 months. What is hanging me up is the iron cores, but I have gotten even them to run an AA for 6 days, so not too bad, although I won't win the prize using them.  Too bad Steven didn't continue the test using a single AA for more than 3 days.  That means more to me than anything else.
  Right now I'm watching one of my circuits blinking, it has found its own sweet spot, where it is no longer draining the battery, just blinking as it get new energy to it, on its own. Although it can run like that for a long time, I don't need blinking leds, I'm looking for a self runner with usable light.

the first step is looking at ways to improve efficiency and start getting it close to 100% - increase the ratio of light energy out to electrical energy in


[...]
   I hope we can get back the the subject at hand, with no more misunderstanding...
   Best luck to all,
                              Nick

i'm sure if everyone keeps the thread on-topic and experimentally-based, as Steven has requested, then we can move forward

np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: LarryC on July 09, 2011, 03:31:45 PM
Check it out!

http://www.gizmag.com/scavenging-ambient-electromagnetic-energy/19163/
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on July 09, 2011, 04:48:00 PM
I think that an initiative whereby personal well being and safety for
alternative energy developers be given concideration that the "risk" factor
be further reduced. Community awareness perhaps and continued momentum
of all of the valid contributions to alt-energy together may help ?

Being mindful that history and going public on alt-energy shows
what a person believes. In this context it is easier to understand why
questions go unanswered and the delivery of the concept becomes priority.
The continued requests for more pdf instruction and progress is an
indicator of a larger movement.

As personalities are not always evident in print, much forum time is apologetic.
Some like to be celebrities and others do not want to be patronized.
It can be understood that certain types will tout in order to get an answer.
The confrontation becomes heated and the social nature is dysfunctional.

Now I must order a toroid  that is always readily available.
I guess it needs to be over 25mm OD and will be useful 500 Khz to 500 Mhz
it is mostly a  procurement dilemma.
Any suggestions on how to locate a reasonable source for toroid that will work
for this experiment ? goldmine is thrifty but carries mostly surplus parts and
that is usually a best guess for finding the data sheet.
 

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 09, 2011, 05:47:39 PM
  Possibly some of you are interested in seeing a device that runs for as long as possible, while I'm interested in one that gives the most light from its source.  Sometimes it can be the same thing, but not when the leds are dim to obtain the long or permanent runner. What's the point or purpose.  Any blinking or dim light, is not going in the right direction, it means that the battery has drained or is not self charging itself to a usable degree, or at least not maintaining its original starting voltage, or higher voltage. 
  Kooler says "you don't need all those resistors. And he says "I've made a hundred of them"   
  What was amazing to see was his 5 month running Bright Led light using just a few very simple and available components,  as well as running 70 leds on 27mA.  That is almost unreal... too bad nobody has been able to replicate it.  That has been my purpose in continuing to bring it up. Although it may not seam like the same thing as what this thread is about, it it is basically just another version of the same Hartley or backwards Joule thief circuit. 
    I have already obtained self running circuits by connecting any of the Jt onto my cement batteries. I am now looking to improve the light intensity.  But so far I have not been able to produce any more light intensity by using any of these circuits than by simply connecting the leds direct to the cement cells.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 09, 2011, 06:10:09 PM
  After looking at Stefan's new video made at his friend cabin in Sweden, I'm thinking that the secondary, or multiple secondary coils,  are the way to go, especially to light more than one led.   SJ1 design does not include that option, as each led that is added on the primary will only further drain the source.
  Thanks to Stefan for reminding us of that.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on July 10, 2011, 01:00:21 AM
Nick:

Look over at the large JT topic and you will see designs by MK1 that have multiple secondaries, or pick-up coils as we called them, that will run additional leds with no increase in amp draw.  The Jeanna's Light circuit came out of those experiments.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 10, 2011, 02:23:12 AM
   Bill:
   Yes, thanks for the reminder.  I'm familiar with what everyone has done before, as I have been at this with you all for a while.  But,  the Swedish guy's circuit is a little different. He has made a trifilar coil wound all together, with one of the windings feeding back to the source, to help keep the battery up.  Simple circuit, hope it works.  They didn't get too specific on the specs, or the results.
   Kooler's BwJt secondary circuits is the only one  that uses the secondary to light many leds on just 27mA.  At one point he said he would make a big BwJt,  hope he does...
Stefan was looking happy, looks like he's having a good time.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 11, 2011, 04:24:33 PM
  Back from my speaking engagement -- there is a LOT of interest in alternative-energy approaches.  I wish I had had more time to go into detail, but I did address the world-wide research going on... which is very exciting to me and to many people who are hoping for our success.  Thanks NP for permission to use photos of your devices -- excellent work!

   I appreciate the efforts on this thread to bring in the "best" experimental efforts. 

@Xee2, or anyone, if you are able to replicate the three-coil set-up pls let us know.
And I hope the trifilar build in Sweden meets with success, along with NP's loop-circuit which may be similar, it appears so to me.

At the same time, I've read more about Dr. Moray and how the critical element of his device, a solid-state component that he came across by trial-and-error, was smashed with a hammer:

Quote
"In April, 1939, a department of the United States Government on its own initiative, sent a gentleman to Salt Lake City who had been introduced to me as Dr. Frazer. This gentleman was in the Moray laboratory for a total of about two months spending hours each day making tests and taking pictures of the Moray Radiant Energy discoveries… and gathering information for written reports to his superiors in Washington, D.C.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 11, 2011, 04:28:44 PM
For some reason, only part of what I posted made it to the actual posting... the rest is here:

Quote
"In April, 1939, a department of the United States Government on its own initiative, sent a gentleman to Salt Lake City who had been introduced to me as Dr. Frazer. This gentleman was in the Moray laboratory for a total of about two months spending hours each day making tests and taking pictures of the Moray Radiant Energy discoveries… and gathering information for written reports to his superiors in Washington, D.C.

“Then one morning in Henry's laboratory — totally unexpectedly — Frazer took a hammer and smashed the radiant energy device.  He said "Now I cannot ask for any more tests!” and “walked out”.
 â€œLater when my father made protests, Felix claimed that Dad had destroyed his own device.

“The question is often asked why Felix Frazer would do this. What was his purpose? From the evidence, I am convinced that it was to force Henry into cooperating with him and his associates.. He realized that Henry was not in a financial position to re-produce the device.
"Henry [Moray..] refused to enter any contractual arrangements with the government at this point.
 
  "In 1939, Henry wrote the following and sent it to Washington: "I wish I could have someone come out here from our Government who believes in the strength of our laws, who believes [in] the Government that Washington and Lincoln stood for…
“someone who believes in the continued strength and protection of our United States laws, including the patent laws, and with faith in the preservation of the principles and the Spirit of '76...“[For] mad reasons they wish to control Radiant Energy... and force their will upon the people."

"Dad refused to cooperate further with Felix. He discontinued any active direct correspondence with the government… He insisted that the government furnished equipment be taken out of the laboratory and that the government withdraw from the research.

http://www.only1egg-productions.org/AltSci/SOE/Sea_Of_Energy_5thEd_Chapter6.htm

I am persuaded that we need to think twice before letting "government researchers" into our labs or into our lives...  I'm hoping we can further develop the technology then get it out to empower the People, rather than Big Government in league with Big Business.  I suppose I may get into trouble for saying such things, I don't know, but that is how I feel.

I made a few notes from Romero regarding the "visit" he had from the suits; among other things, he said:

Quote
“What will you do after a special visit like that? I tell you, you will sh*t yourself and never touch anything.
“… know that the big guys are trying everything to stop all research towards any Free Energy device.”  Romero, 21 June 2011


I meet with my calorimetrist colleague this week and hope to put my device and NP's into the calorimeter this week also.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 11, 2011, 05:31:32 PM
   JS:
   Thank you for the article.  We must not let our fears stop us either.
It is not fear that will stop progress, but it is the fear of having fear, that can affect even these free open source projects that we are working on.  Although our results may seam insignificant to some, possibly even most people, including the government (hopefully),  they are a start...
  Looks like there was more work done on these types of projects many years ago, or maybe it was that there were more real geniuses then.
  Our current best genius are now working for the government in secret black projects etz...  or for GE., MicroSoft, and NASA, and are keeping the best secrets all for their own gains.  While we plod along like the blind following the blind.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 11, 2011, 05:43:07 PM
   JS:
   Thank you for the article.  We must not let our fears stop us either.
It is not fear that will stop progress, but it is the fear of having fear, that can affect even these free open source projects that we are working on.  Although our results may seam insignificant to some, possibly even most people, including the government (hopefully),  they are a start...
  Looks like there was more work done on these types of projects many years ago, or maybe it was that there were more real geniuses then.
  Our current best genius are now working for the government in secret black projects etz...  or for GE., MicroSoft, and NASA, and are keeping the best secrets all for their own gains.  While we plod along like the blind following the blind.

Totally agree that we must not let our fears stop us.  Nor join the suits at GE etc. " keeping the best secrets all for their own gains.  While we plod along like the blind following the blind."  Thanks for the comment.

  Let me say this -- I will do all I can to get the OU technology, if and when we get there on a definitive basis, out to the broadest segment of the population worldwide as I can, and not sell out to GE/bigOyl/big gov't, and I hope you all will join me in this. 

  I think the best way to do this is to have the detailed plans out to a large number of researchers in this OU community worldwide, hopefully along with distributed manufacturing (NOT centralized).  Somehow this needs to be done quietly until we are ready with MANY operating devices, without drawing the attention of the "big guys".  I think we can do this... but I'm not sure how best to accomplish this.

  I am becoming convinced that if we just announce our self-running devices here and on youtube, the bigguys will either stomp us or seize our inventions, for their gain in both cases.  As they did with Dr. Moray and evidently with Romero also.

  So along with our "fun" efforts, and it is fun, we must think about how to develop distributed manufacturing and sudden dissemination of detailed plans, worldwide.  IMHO>
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on July 11, 2011, 06:24:15 PM
  They may get some guys, but not all of us...   All the more reason to share what you have instead of hiding it, for yourself.  There may be no right or wrong on any of this.  But, I feel good in helping everyone to succeed, and not just myself. 
                                             NZ
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jhilldlt on July 11, 2011, 07:27:22 PM

Please try the "King of toroids" http://www.kitsandparts.com/toroids.php
Check if it works for you.
jhilldlt
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 11, 2011, 09:03:52 PM

@Xee2, or anyone, if you are able to replicate the three-coil set-up pls let us know.


I am looking at the possibility of making a circuit that will light an LED without using a battery. But it would be different than Stiffler's circuit.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 12, 2011, 12:43:19 AM
Agreed with this, Nick:

  They may get some guys, but not all of us...   All the more reason to share what you have instead of hiding it, for yourself. ... I feel good in helping everyone to succeed, and not just myself. 
                                             NZ

Good luck on this effort, Xee: 
Quote
I am looking at the possibility of making a circuit that will light an LED without using a battery. But it would be different than Stiffler's circuit.

Welcome jhilldlt, to the discussion.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 12, 2011, 07:58:10 PM
  I've arranged to meet with colleague at the university with a cal'r on Friday for preliminary tests.  He noted that there it takes a long time for the cal'r to settle down in temperature once the device is inserted, so one has to put it in and wait a while.  He noted that he may need to do some tests next week or so, since I will be on travel starting 18 July -- a long-planned family trip to the midwest and Maryland.

  Right now, I'm planning on cal'r tests for three devices:

1.  sj1 circuit
2.  Nul-pts mod; hoping it arrives in time!  I think it will.
3.  A circuit sent to me by Lawrence Tseung; see attached.

I'm willing to test other circuits in the future, when I get back (so after Aug 6th).   Welcoming further entries; you may wish to see how Round One in the cal'r goes.

As regards the "contest" that I proposed, the clear winner is Nul-points!  (Xee2 said he did not want to be in the contest per se, and Lasersaber's device came in too late...)  Soon as I get your address, NP, I wish to send you the $100 prize... I keep my commitments as best I can.   And, as I said, if it turns out to be OU in the Cal'r test, then that goes up to $200...  Not much (sorry), but hey, it may the first prize awarded in the OU research field!  (Does anyone know of a previous prize awarded?  or even a bet won?) 

Congratulations NP and thanks so much for participating in this research effort.

BTW -- the Tseung device (attachment) uses a lot of Pinput -- measured by two 10,000 uF caps, I find about 90mW for Pinput.  BUT -- what counts in the next "contest" is the RATIO of Pinput (measured used the cap/time method) and Poutput (measured in the cal'r), that is, n = Pout/Pin.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 12, 2011, 09:49:02 PM

welcome back, Steven!

it's good to hear that it's possible to find a positive reception for alternative energy efforts

of course, the regular 'renewable energy' approaches are not in question, but it would be great to see some of the serious funding currently directed at very esoteric research being shared with more immediately applicable novel energy conversion technology

i'm sure that investigations in the alternative energy arena could be just as challenging and fulfilling as some of the ongoing high-profile, international experiments - and hopefully more productive and beneficial to a wider section of the global community


i hope your arrangements for the calr. test work out for you timewise - i was hoping that my circuit would be with you early this week, but you have a few circuits to test, so hopefully it will arrive while you're testing the other units

that's very kind of you to say that my circuit won the competition - i think there were equally good contributions from all, in one respect or another!  it was good fun to try out different variations and see if improvements could be made, and also learn a lot about the different characteristics of this seemingly 'simple' circuit

please keep the prize from this stage and combine it with the prize for achieving a self-runner - i feel that so far we've been attempting just to improve efficiency using standard techniques, but if we can achieve a self-runner then we'll have achieved something which is a totally new concept to classical science

i'm looking forward to hearing some results from the calr. testing - whatever the outcome it will be interesting to get a better picture of the energy behaviour of these circuits


thanks and good luck with the testing!
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DrStiffler on July 12, 2011, 10:06:23 PM
welcome back, Steven!

it's good to hear that it's possible to find a positive reception for alternative energy efforts

of course, the regular 'renewable energy' approaches are not in question, but it would be great to see some of the serious funding currently directed at very esoteric research being shared with more immediately applicable novel energy conversion technology

i'm sure that investigations in the alternative energy arena could be just as challenging and fulfilling as some of the ongoing high-profile, international experiments - and hopefully more productive and beneficial to a wider section of the global community


i hope your arrangements for the calr. test work out for you timewise - i was hoping that my circuit would be with you early this week, but you have a few circuits to test, so hopefully it will arrive while you're testing the other units

that's very kind of you to say that my circuit won the competition - i think there were equally good contributions from all, in one respect or another!  it was good fun to try out different variations and see if improvements could be made, and also learn a lot about the different characteristics of this seemingly 'simple' circuit

please keep the prize from this stage and combine it with the prize for achieving a self-runner - i feel that so far we've been attempting just to improve efficiency using standard techniques, but if we can achieve a self-runner then we'll have achieved something which is a totally new concept to classical science

i'm looking forward to hearing some results from the calr. testing - whatever the outcome it will be interesting to get a better picture of the energy behaviour of these circuits


thanks and good luck with the testing!
np


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

@nul-points
I must congratulate you on you admiral decision not to accept the 'Dr. Jones' prize. I must admit I will eat crow on my initial feelings of if someone would take receipt. Had they, they would have been a non-credible contributor to the endeavor. I am still not sure why a Prize even had to be offered when everyone feels its a humanitarian search?

In short, I must rethink your direction.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 12, 2011, 10:55:42 PM
@nul-points
I must congratulate you on you admiral decision not to accept the 'Dr. Jones' prize. I must admit I will eat crow on my initial feelings of if someone would take receipt. Had they, they would have been a non-credible contributor to the endeavor. I am still not sure why a Prize even had to be offered when everyone feels its a humanitarian search?

In short, I must rethink your direction.

  I guess we don't need your approval, friend Dr., but a small prize might be fun and encouraging and a milestone of sorts.  The current prize goes to the device with the largest efficiency, n = Pout/Pin , where Pout is measured in a cal'r and Pin is measured by the cap/time method (both for increased precision).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 12, 2011, 11:05:26 PM
@nul-points
I must congratulate you on you admiral decision not to accept the 'Dr. Jones' prize. I must admit I will eat crow on my initial feelings of if someone would take receipt.
[...]
In short, I must rethink your direction.

that's very honourable of you, thanks
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ltseung888 on July 13, 2011, 01:57:21 AM

BTW -- the Tseung device (attachment) uses a lot of Pinput -- measured by two 10,000 uF caps, I find about 90mW for Pinput.  BUT -- what counts in the next "contest" is the RATIO of Pinput (measured used the cap/time method) and Poutput (measured in the cal'r), that is, n = Pout/Pin.

Dear Prof. Jones,

Thank you for showing the FLEET prototype.  It is almost one year since we demonstrated a FLEET prototype with peak-to-peak Output Power > Input Power on July 13, 2010 in Hong Kong.  I placed a one year review article at my bench in reply 26:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=755.msg15473#new

I am training a 13 year old student, Michael Du, to do the prototypes for me.  He is also learning the Physics and Mathematics – starting from Newton’s Laws of Motion, kinetic theory of gases, resonance etc.  It will take him sometime.  With God’s Blessing, he has produced a FLEET prototype based on Multiple LCR resonance with an air core toroid. 

I shall order the oscilloscopes, signal generators and other test equipment and electronics.  Their spare guest room and/or garage is likely to be the laboratory.  When the equipments arrive, I shall be able to re-demonstrate my best FLEET prototype with peak-to-peak COP > 200. 

I do appreciate the excellent work you have done.   Some groups in Hong Kong and in US (e.g. Mr. Harvey Gramm, the moderator in my debate with Poynt99) indicated that they achieved resonance or results similar to the Steven Mark TPU.  Theoretically, I know that it is possible.  Hopefully, with the help of Michael, we can show that result in Irvine, California in the near future.

May God guide us in our efforts to benefit the World.  Amen.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on July 13, 2011, 06:20:16 AM
@ JouleSeeker

Are there going to be any on line reports from the free energy conference you went to?

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: beno on July 13, 2011, 08:49:38 AM
First of all let me start with an excuse if it is not correct that I'm posting it here. Perhaps I should have started another thread. If so do please accept my appology.


Now the reason for this thread was that I asked this simple question: Is it at all possible to to reach overunity? A gut-reaktion would most likely be no - energy does not come out of nothing. But what about from at matimatical point of view?  I'll here show that the answer is Yes - but there might be something wrong in the calculations below.


Do please feel free to show where my calculation goes wrong - but here goes...


Background:
This theoretical approach involves an ideal-battery [fixed voltage, draws only current], two coils (wound on some core), and minimum a load transistor on the "secondary"
I was thinking about a pulsating input on a 2 magnetic coupled coils in some circuit, and there should be a load transistor on the secondary.

Now I do know that, a real circuit would need alot more components but just to get us starting.



Math:
If the input is a squareform, the output would most likley be given by:

  V(t)=Vdc +- Vp*exp(-t/tau)   That is exponential decreasing over time, but down to the DC value which is the value which we are shitching around..
   Where: t is time, Vdc is the base voltage, Vp is the peak voltage (above/belov Vdc) - one could call it delta-voltage - caused by switching a coil on and off, tau = L / R, Where R is the load-transistor. Please note that this wave-form is purly theoretical, I have not yet put a coil and a scope to the test, as I currently has no oscilloscope.

   That is a peak value which decrease over time, and in the the next part of the duty-cycle the voltage is reversed.


Therefore the current over time would be something like:

  I(t) = V(t)/R = (Vdc +- Vp*exp(-t/tau))/R

Power input durring a cycle f=1/dT and therefore: dT=1/f

P=Vdc*I(t)      for a battery with fixed voltage - this is of cause an ideal battery which does not have much todo with a real battery

Pin = [0 to t/2] Vdc*{(Vdc - Vp*exp(-t/tau))/R} + [t/2 to t] Vdc*{(Vdc + Vp*exp(-t/tau))/R}   where [] means integration over time - sorry for the missing integration sign.
    = [0 to t/2] Vdc*{(Vdc - Vp*exp(-t/tau))/R} + [t/2 to t] Vdc*{(Vdc + Vp*exp(-t/tau))/R}   where [] means integration over time - sorry for the missing integration sign.

If we say that the both the negative and positive amount equals each other (that it is just inverted) - they will cancel out each other. Therefore in an ideal world it would be:

    Pin = (Vdc*Vdc/R)*dT ; dT is delta time

The output on the load resistor is:

Pout    = [0 to t] (V(t)*V(t))/R

Or put in another way:

Pout   = [0 to t/2] (Vdc - Vp*exp(-t/tau))*(Vdc - Vp*exp(-t/tau))/R + [t/2 to t] (Vdc + Vp*exp(-t/tau))*(Vdc + Vp*exp(-t/tau))/R

Now we know that: (a-b)*(a-b) + (a+b)*(a+b) = a*a + b*b - 2*b*a + a*a + b*b + 2*b*a = 2*a*a + 2*b*b  This gives:

Pout   = [0 to t] [2*Vdc*Vdc + 2*(Vp*exp(-t/tau))^2]/R
Pout   = 2*Vdc*Vdc*dT/R + [0 to t] [(2*(Vp*exp(-t/tau)))^2/R]               where [] means integration over time - sorry for the missing integration sign.

                                  2*Vdc*Vdc*dT/R + [0 to t] [(2*(Vp*exp(-t/tau)))^2/R]
Efficiency = Pout/Pin = -------------------------------------------------------         where [] means integration over time - sorry for the missing integration sign.
                                               (Vdc*Vdc/R)*dT
           
                         [0 to t] [(2*Vp*exp(-t/tau))^2/R]          [0 to t] [(2*Vp*exp(-t/tau))^2/R]
            =  2 + ----------------------------------- = 2 + -----------------------------------
                              (Vdc*Vdc/R)*dT                                    (Vdc*Vdc/R)*dT


So this means that it should be possible to reach overunity (if we can keep the second part under -1) - but under which circumstances?
To investigate this we need to solve the integral. But something interesting would most likely happen around dT=tau.

 
Because: a*[0 to t] exp(-T*t) = a/T*(1-exp(-T(t/2))) This means:


[0 to t] [(2*Vp*exp(-t/tau))^2/R] = ((2*Vp)/(1/tau))*(1-exp(-(1/tau)*(t/2))^2/R
              = {2*Vp*tau*(1-exp(-(dT/(2*tau))))}^2 / R

Because tau = L/R this gives     = (4*Vp*Vp*L*L*R*(1-exp(-(dT/(2*tau))))^2) which again gives:


                                      (4*Vp*Vp*L*L*R*(1-exp(-(dT/(2*tau))))^2)
Efficiency = Pout/Pin =  2 + -------------------------------------------
                                                    (Vdc*Vdc/R)*dT


If the above caculations are correct, then we have an efficiency of around: 2231 for the following values:

  Frequency: 50 kHz , means dT=0,00000009 sek (1/f)
  Vp : 0,5 V      Now I do not know how big this value actually is.
  Vdc : 2,5 V
  L : 90 uH
  R : 1 kOhm

Now this is theory and the rest of the circuit do needs power to maintain opperation, but it should be enough to drive the circuit. Otherwise one might try to increase the Vdc


Best Regards

beno
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 13, 2011, 07:27:08 PM
@Lawrence,  so sorry to hear about your eye problems...  I do hope you will find improvement. You wrote, "peak-to-peak Output Power > Input Power"  and I have studied what you mean by this.  IIRC, to calculate output power, you took the peak-to-peak output voltage  times the peak-to-peak output current measured across a resistor. Please correct me if wrong.  Unfortunately, this does not give a reliable measure of the output power, as we discussed at length on the OUR forum.

After much discussion, I instead used a Tek 3032 scope to provide
Pout (t) = V(t) * I(t), showing the waveform, then let the Tek calculate the MEAN output power.  Even this, I now believe, has potential for measurement error, hence the move to put the device in a calorimeter where the total output energy can reliably be determined.

The input energy is easier, obtainable from driving the circuit with a known capacitor, from a known start voltage to a known stop voltage, and using E = 1/2 C*V*V.  We will then determine the efficiency using Eout/Ein.


@Xee2:  the conference I was invited to in Idaho was primarily related to home preparedness (given conditions in the US and world-wide).  The people there were very interested in home-energy production, and the latest work in alternative energy production.
Unfortunately, it turned out that time was limited as I was the "keynote" speaker on Friday evening, following a healthy list of speakers, and about one hour was shaved off my allotted time as other speakers went over, so I could not say much that I wanted to say. There will be other opportunities...  I think there will be a summary on youtube; will watch for that.

@beno -- you wrote, "Perhaps I should have started another thread."  I think so in this case... but -- if you will summarize for us how your "theory" translates into experiments that could be performed (based on your equations) -- then THAT would be welcomed.  What experiment-modifications are you proposing? (If more general and theoretical than that, I would indeed recommend another thread).
   I would suggest that the valuable theories are those which lead to or guide experiments.

Thanks @all for comments.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: beno on July 13, 2011, 08:18:36 PM
@Jouleseeker: I'll start another tread - but I'll propose to change first of all the "input waveform" into the coils. Sorry for my comments into your thread.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ltseung888 on July 14, 2011, 08:23:10 AM
Dear Prof. Jones,

Thank you for your reply and the hard work on Mean, Peak-to-peak and rms values.  It was pointed out to me by the United Nation Experts that my FLEET prototypes showed standing wave characteristics in March 2011.  Standing wave is a characteristic of resonance.  In order to compare the energy content of a standing wave, we need to consider the peak-to-peak values.  (All perfect standing waves have a mean value of zero. If we use the mean for comparison, we would get the result that all prototypes are equal!)

Sorry that I am re-opening the discussion again.  I now firmly take the side of the United Nations Experts.  The peak-to-peak power waveform MUST be considered when we deal with standing waves in resonance.  The FLEET waveforms are NOT perfect standing waves but they are actual experimental results.  Our work in Hong Kong was not wasted.

Please refer to the following article:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7434-lee-tseung-lead-out-bring-energy-theory-4.html#post137594

Please read reply 108, 114 and 115.

In the reply 108, we have the comparison of the Input and Output Power waveforms.  Note that the Output Power Waveform is a standing wave.  The sampling of the oscilloscope is fast enough to capture and display the two waves travelling in opposite directions on the same wire.

Such a standing wave has the classic node and antinode (maximum amplitude and minimum amplitude).  As shown, that standing wave is not a perfect standing wave but it is a captured actual experimental wave.

This particular standing wave is a result of resonance.  At resonance of LCR circuits, it is possible for the pulsing energy from the circuit to bring-in the Electron Motion of the orbiting electrons (dipoles).  That pulsing order changed the random orientation of the dipoles to a more ordered orientation.  The net magnetic effect of the dipoles is no longer random and can be compared with oscillating magnets.

Experimentally, when we see standing waves in LCR circuit setups, we know that some type of resonance may be taking place.  The other common wave form at resonance is pure sine waves no matter the source of pulsing.

Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 14, 2011, 03:40:41 PM
  Lawrence, please be clear -- let's start here:  are you saying that you take the peak-to-peak (PP) input voltage (not the battery voltage) and multiply that times the PP input current through a resistor, to evaluate the input power?  (And similarly, for the output power?)
   
   Also, have you ever evaluated Pinput using the capacitor/time method?  (Described above, but I would be glad to summarize if you wish.)  This method is considered very reliable for determining input power, and could be compared with your PP method to assess its accuracy.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on July 14, 2011, 03:46:43 PM
Lawrence,

You appear to be confused between the MEAN value of a voltage wave form, and the MEAN value of a power wave form; they are not the same.

Yes, the MEAN of a perfectly symmetrical sine wave voltage is zero. But remember that voltage times current is power, and the PRODUCT is what needs to be averaged, not the individual voltage and current.

If a circuit is either receiving or using power, the PRODUCT (v x i)(t) will not be symmetrical above and below zero as you are showing; there will always be some asymmetry. When you take the MEAN of this result, you will obtain the average power used or received.

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ltseung888 on July 14, 2011, 04:41:31 PM
  Lawrence, please be clear -- let's start here:  are you saying that you take the peak-to-peak (PP) input voltage (not the battery voltage) and multiply that times the PP input current through a resistor, to evaluate the input power?  (And similarly, for the output power?)
   
   Also, have you ever evaluated Pinput using the capacitor/time method?  (Described above, but I would be glad to summarize if you wish.)  This method is considered very reliable for determining input power, and could be compared with your PP method to assess its accuracy.

Dear Prof. Jones and Poynt99,

Let me recite the discussion with the United Nations Expert again.  The basic arguments were:

1.   In using the oscilloscope method, we should capture and analyze every detail including the voltage waveform, the current waveform and the power waveforms.  Their shapes and relations are important in any understanding and analysis.
2.   Once we detect a standing wave – does not matter whether that is a voltage, current or power waveform, we know that some resonance effect is taking place.
3.   From the vigorous theoretical model (reference the debate with Milehigh), a piston hitting a ball moving towards it will transfer some kinetic energy from the piston to the ball.  A ball hitting the piston from behind will transfer some kinetic energy from the ball to the piston.  If the pulsing is correct, more energy can be transferred from the balls to the piston!  This mathematical model explains sympathetic vibration perfectly.
4.   The random motion of the air molecules can be changed into a pulsed order.  This pulsed order can transfer more energy from the air molecules to the vibrating tuning forks.  This is correct physics.  This occurs at resonance.
5.   The resonance of LCR circuits will act on similar physics and mathematics.  In this case, the random orientation of the dipoles is comparable to the random motion of the air molecules.  The Electron Motion energy of the Orbiting Electrons is transferred (brought-in) into the device as compared to the kinetic energy of the Air Molecules.
6.   Multiple tuning forks sound louder and last longer.  Multiple LCR circuits may even being-in enough electron motion energy to power a Steven Mark type device.

That was the basis that the United Nations Group wanted us to conduct a couple of workshops or seminars.  The FLEET prototypes with power waveforms showing standing waves would be key features in such workshops or seminars.  The new results from my group will include every detail in point 1 as they are all important in the understanding.  In other words, the raw data must be preserved and presented in its entire state.  How one interprets them may be different from different points of view!

Harvey Gramm and wife Catlady visited me some weeks back.  He finally realized the importance of resonance.  Within two weeks of his visit, he sent me waveforms indicating resonating secondary LCR circuits.  But I shall not steal his thunder here.

My 13 year old student helper, Michael Du, already has something similar but I shall wait for the arrival of oscilloscopes to confirm his results before posting.

May God guide us all in our efforts to benefit the World.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: forest on July 14, 2011, 04:56:00 PM
ltseung888
Very nice, now close the lopp and measure true power dissipation from battery.
Where is your thread to continue discussion ?

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 14, 2011, 06:42:09 PM
  Again, we face the important challenge of accurately measuring POWER, both input and output Power.

   @Lawrence, .99 is correct about this:  "But remember that voltage times current is power, and the PRODUCT is what needs to be averaged, not the individual voltage and current.
If a circuit is either receiving or using power, the PRODUCT (v x i)(t) will not be symmetrical above and below zero as you are showing; there will always be some asymmetry."

   Now, I have been using oscilloscopes, but I'm looking for an accurate alternative for measuring power.  I've been concerned about RF pick-up in the probes, for example.
Hence I've pushed for the used of the cap/time method for measuring Pinput -- direct, straightforward. 

    For Poutput, I'm proposing the use of a simple calorimeter.  Here's the latest from discussion with my colleague to get a ~5-10% measurement of Poutput.  (After tests at this level are made on several devices, one can use the expensive calorimeter at the university for better precision.)   

This design one may be able to use at home.  I welcome comments!!  especially on the temperature measurement -- is there something better than a Seebeck device, on the block of aluminum?   


From Prof H:
Quote
A block of aluminum (around 4" diameter and 1" thick) to act as a constant temperature heat sink. This does not have to be temperature controlled unless you want to operate away from room temperature.
Stick a 2" square BiTe thermoelectric (Seebeck device or thermopile) on the block with heat sink compound or the right type of silicone glue. Connect the wires from the [Seebeck or thermopile] device to a microvoltmeter and a computer.

Place the [DUT] device on the Seebeck device so it makes good thermal contact, maybe use heat sink compound. [We should think about this part... resistors, LED's etc. need to dump their heat "through" the thermopile, for the measurement of Poutput to be accurate.  In time, and with good insulation, the heat will go through, but it may be very slow unless thermal contact is good... comments?] 

 Run the wires around the aluminum block and tape them down...
Cover the whole thing with a Styrofoam box.
To run the experiment:
Wait until the signal from the voltmeter is stable, record some baseline for a few minutes, trigger the device, and continue recording until the signal returns to baseline.
Integrate the signal above the baseline to get the total heat.
Calibrate the system with an electrical resistor in place of your device.


And note that this cal'r is not a Faraday cage... the DUT sits on top of the thermopile, which sits on the heat sink (Al cylinder). 
Comments welcomed.


Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 14, 2011, 08:14:03 PM
 
[...]
For Poutput, I'm proposing the use of a simple calorimeter.  Here's the latest from discussion with my colleague to get a ~5-10% measurement of Poutput.  (After tests at this level are made on several devices, one can use the expensive calorimeter at the university for better precision.)   

This design one may be able to use at home.  I welcome comments!!  especially on the temperature measurement -- is there something better than a Seebeck device, on the block of aluminum?   


From Prof H:

And note that this cal'r is not a Faraday cage... the DUT sits on top of the thermopile, which sits on the heat sink (Al cylinder). 
Comments welcomed.


Sounds like a good first step - if it seems that you have some worthwhile results from this initial setup then its worth going on to run some higher precision tests on the main test rig

my comments:-

a) Faraday shielding is a must, to eliminate pickup of extraneous energy

b) total thermal capacity of the heatsink should be chosen preferably to give suitable resolution of the anticipated quantity to be measured - may need small range of heatsink 'bases' for different sized experiments

c) use a small block of the same heatsink material, in good thermal connection with base heatsink, and with a suitable horizontal 'through hole' to mount test o/p resistors (packed with thermal compound), and a suitable vertical 'through hole' to accept LEDs pointed at the base heatsink

d) presume main heatsink is thermally insulated below?


i've seen a report describing a low-tech measure of heat produced from a capacitor-charge experiment - i'll check to see what type of sensor they used (their overall approach was just to use a copper tube for the test resistor, pack with compound, and measure max temp rise for DUT compared to DC o/p thro' same resistor - i guess this could be simpler setup for an initial go/no-go check as to whether to do a full calr. test?)

[EDIT:  yes, they used copper-constantan thermocouples - one on the o/p resistor copper tube - and one on a reference copper disk near the DUT - and measured the difference between the sensor o/ps, all long wiring was laid out in a non-inductive pattern within the area of the thermal test, all of which was located on a suitably-sized styrofoam base]

hope this helps
np

[PS   if my device for test hasn't arrived yet, then i guess it's attracted some attention from homeland security!!]


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: neptune on July 14, 2011, 08:25:52 PM
Just a Crazy idea . Why not immerse the whole circuit in a glass jar full of oil , and measure the temperature rise of the oil . I know that oil does not damage resistors in the short term , as I made a "dummy load " for a transmitter using resistors in a jar of oil . 20 years later , the resistance was still 50 ohms . This method eliminates [ or nearly] losses due to convection.I used ordinary car engine oil , but ideally , the oil used to cool large transformers if you can get it . When choosing an oil , check it for conductivity with a multimeter .
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 14, 2011, 09:12:47 PM
 
Just a Crazy idea
[...]

Mr neptune, we expect nothing less from you!!  ;)


Why not immerse the whole circuit in a glass jar full of oil , and measure the temperature rise of the oil
[...]
 When choosing an oil , check it for conductivity with a multimeter .

yes, interesting idea (you can clean-up my circuits for me afterwards, tho!)

one possible issue, maybe just for sensitive circuits (and being a sensitive sort of person, ALL my circuits are sensitive)... is that i've recently seen that someone like Lidmotor (or Lasersaber?) has been experimenting with using oil as an 'electrolyte-replacement' in a DIY voltage cell

so although a dummy resistive load for a transmitter may work mostly as intended when immersed in oil, it's just possible that a more complex electronic circuit would start to exhibit some unexpected behaviour

hey - maybe that's the answer - remove the battery - drop the whole thing in a jar of oil - and Robert's your paternal sibling ...a self-energising circuit!!

now where's my 3-in-1 oil.....  ;)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ltseung888 on July 14, 2011, 09:45:52 PM
Lawrence,

You appear to be confused between the MEAN value of a voltage wave form, and the MEAN value of a power wave form; they are not the same.

Yes, the MEAN of a perfectly symmetrical sine wave voltage is zero. But remember that voltage times current is power, and the PRODUCT is what needs to be averaged, not the individual voltage and current.

If a circuit is either receiving or using power, the PRODUCT (v x i)(t) will not be symmetrical above and below zero as you are showing; there will always be some asymmetry. When you take the MEAN of this result, you will obtain the average power used or received.

.99

Dear Poynt99 and Prof. Jones,

Let me clarify our different points of view.  I know that the Steven Mark Device and similar are working at resonance.  To be more exact, I believe such circuits “hop in and out” of resonance.  To find out how much “electric energy” that can be drained out in such a setup, we need to examine the standing power waveform.  The higher the amplitude of the node or the larger area enclosed by the positive or negative power waveform, the larger will be the “electrical energy” that can be extracted.

This is different from the actual output power which you correctly pointed out – is given by the mean power.

With the resonating FLEET circuits, we “hop in and out” of the resonance zone.  Electron Motion energy can be brought-in at resonance but will stop coming-in as soon the frequency or setup shifts away from resonance.  My peak-to-peak power waveform measurement is absolutely correct in indicating the “possible energy that can be brought-in”.

Two FLEET prototypes can have extremely different node amplitudes.  The mean output power can be approximately equal.  I am interested in the node amplitude.  You are interested in the actual output power.  To achieve multiple LCR circuits pulsing/resonating, I can use the standing power waveform as a stepping stone.  If that peak-to-peak power is large, I know that much more energy can be extracted.

I am very clear on the exact mechanism now.  Thus there is no point in further debate or discussion which will confuse the average forum member more.

Please wait for the 13 year old, Michael Du, to come up with the results when the oscilloscopes arrive.  He is the only one trained by me who is willing to share the results free.  Hopefully, he will not change his mind.

God has shown His Divine Revelations.  Humans confused themselves and each other either deliberately or ignorantly. Amen.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 15, 2011, 03:42:20 AM


Sounds like a good first step - if it seems that you have some worthwhile results from this initial setup then its worth going on to run some higher precision tests on the main test rig

my comments:-

a) Faraday shielding is a must, to eliminate pickup of extraneous energy

b) total thermal capacity of the heatsink should be chosen preferably to give suitable resolution of the anticipated quantity to be measured - may need small range of heatsink 'bases' for different sized experiments

c) use a small block of the same heatsink material, in good thermal connection with base heatsink, and with a suitable horizontal 'through hole' to mount test o/p resistors (packed with thermal compound), and a suitable vertical 'through hole' to accept LEDs pointed at the base heatsink

d) presume main heatsink is thermally insulated below?


i've seen a report describing a low-tech measure of heat produced from a capacitor-charge experiment - i'll check to see what type of sensor they used (their overall approach was just to use a copper tube for the test resistor, pack with compound, and measure max temp rise for DUT compared to DC o/p thro' same resistor - i guess this could be simpler setup for an initial go/no-go check as to whether to do a full calr. test?)

[EDIT:  yes, they used copper-constantan thermocouples - one on the o/p resistor copper tube - and one on a reference copper disk near the DUT - and measured the difference between the sensor o/ps, all long wiring was laid out in a non-inductive pattern within the area of the thermal test, all of which was located on a suitably-sized styrofoam base]

hope this helps
np

[PS   if my device for test hasn't arrived yet, then i guess it's attracted some attention from homeland security!!]


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

Very helpful -- thanks, NP.
 I plan to discuss such ideas with Prof H tomorrow afternoon, so keep the cal'r - related questions and ideas coming, @all.
DUT hasn't arrived yet; so you may be right.  However, I'm keeping my hopes up, that it will arrive in the next day or two.  Small town here.

@Neptune -- clever to immerse in oil ;)  but like NP says, may require a bit of clean-up afterwards.

@all -- I think we're interested in a test that can be done fairly quickly and at the same time reliably on the 5-10% accuracy scale, so that we can test and compare a number of "promising" circuits... and make quick variations, e.g. in the bifilar-wound coil, or the capacitor(s) and resistors.  The cap/time method can get this accuracy for Pinput in about ten minutes... or even less, depending on the power consumed.  I'm hoping the cal'r methods we come up with will give us ~5-10% measurements of Poutput in a half-hour, or less.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ltseung888 on July 15, 2011, 09:47:33 AM
Some relevant questions and answers:

1.   The difference between a Joule Thief and the old FLEET prototypes appears to be addition of a secondary LCR circuit.  The new FLEET has multiple LCR circuits.  Is that correct?

Answer:  Yes.  With the old FLEET, we have many prototypes showing standing waveforms for the Output Power Curve.  That is already a sure sign that we have achieved some type of resonance condition.  We now add another (or more) secondary LCR circuit and hope that Multiple LCR circuits will also achieve resonance.  In addition, we hope for sympathetic vibrations.

2.   With the Michael Du prototype, the LED at the Joule Thief circuit will not light up but the many LEDs on the two secondary circuits lighted up.  What does that imply?

Answer: That may imply negligible Input Power because the LED at the Joule Thief circuit did not light up.  We also know that the power or energy required to maintain a standing wave is negligible (theoretically zero).  The two secondary circuits can light up many LEDs.  This implied possible overunity – Output Power greater than Input Power.  It may also imply that Electron Motion Energy is brought-in at the toroid – energy is not supplied from the battery.

Without the oscilloscopes displaying the various waveforms, we cannot say with certainty what is happening.  However, it hinted at the correct approach we took from the early days of research of FLEET – tune for resonance. 

3.   Is it possible to use a different pulsing source such as a Signal Generator?  We can vary the frequency easily.

Answer: Yes.  The very first FLEET used a signal generator.  If we want pulsed DC signal, we can either add a diode or a LED.

With resonance, change in environment such as immersing the electronic components in oil etc. is likely to change the resonance condition.  I have my doubts.  Is it possible to take oscilloscope measurements at the same time?  Can we observe the change in waveforms with components in the calorimeter?

Knowledge will be gained by hard work.  Amen.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 15, 2011, 02:59:51 PM
 
[...]
change in environment such as immersing the electronic components in oil etc. is likely to change the resonance condition
[...]
Is it possible to take oscilloscope measurements at the same time?
[...]


hard to say...

you might just be able to do it if you had a large enough tank of oil, and a snorkel
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 15, 2011, 04:51:09 PM
"A snorkel"!  LOL.  Thanks for the humor, NP.

Just a quick note as I leave soon to see my calorimetrist colleague...
RomeroUK jumped in over at OUR.com with a couple of posts worth noting (IMO):

@cheappower2012
Please leave Muller daughter alone, there is no connection at all with her in what happened, it is only my fault, I should have  kept my mouth shut.
I respect her for what she does and follow her father work. How many ladies we have in this field??? very few and that makes her special.
She has also encouraged all to try and replicate the original Muller Dynamo.


The device I built was not 100% Muller arrangement only even/uneven magnets and coils, even that was not as Bill Muller sugested, I should I had 8 magnets and 7 coils to keep it to the original.
I will not comment that device anymore, fake is fine if is not is fine too.
I moved away from that device, why don't you all  who believe that is only a simple dynamo move away too?
There are so many other devices that can be replicated, many of them much more easy and cheap to be built.

Best regards,
Romero

Thank you, Romero, for jumping in here and clarifying this --  "Please leave Muller daughter alone, there is no connection at all with her in what happened,"
I have communicated with Carmen Muller and found her to be intelligent and cooperative. 

I appreciate Romero's calm and insightful responses.

Quote
RomeroUK today:  @cheappower2012
this was nothing compared with other devices already discovered and presented recently.
The future energy is not going to come from any devices like this, this one had a lot of problems and had a lot of limitations.
If you consider that me, SM, Kapanadze and others are  betrayers of mankind what will you do? It is so easy to talk when you are not in my position.
If you have to chose between you and all others what will you chose?. In an ideal world 'maybe' will chose the others but this world is far from ideal, we are all struggling, including me.

Regards,
Romero
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 16, 2011, 07:19:50 PM
   I should report on my visit with my calorimetrist colleague at the University yesterday.
Prof. H and I visited for quite a while, and it was clear that he would much prefer that I build a straightforward calorimeter rather than coming up to repeatedly use his fancy cal'r.  So he provided a lot of information about how to do this, to get 5-10% measurements of the total heat output. 

@NP -- your device has yet to arrive; maybe you're right about the MIB? 
I will keep looking for it to come...I suspect it will, in time. 

   I will post details about the small calorimeter later -- I've got some important errands this morning to tend to.   
@all  Thanks for your patience; it looks like it will be a while before the "home cal'r" is built and used, since we have a long family trip planned starting next Monday (in two days).  But I'm looking forward to having this instrument for Poutput measurements, and it looks like it will work very well.  And Prof H will help in the future, that is clear.  Good meeting with him. 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 16, 2011, 08:49:44 PM
   A side note, but relevant to our quest for novel energy sources.  First a quote from ChrisC:

Quote
Just in case you missed this one.  It's real.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4967330n

cheers
chrisC

  Thanks, ChrisC -- Yes, I saw it -- months ago.  LOL.

Notable to me, Fleischmann on camera stated that he should never have called what he was seeing "fusion" in the first place.  (OK, I can agree with that.)
But he did not saw what it should be called.... 


     Recall that I and colleagues at BYU and U of Arizona published claims of a much smaller effect, but clearly d-d- fusion from the energetic neutrons and protons observed.  (See our publication in Nature, April 1989). Our claimes were put on solid footing when the “BYU-level” cold-fusion effect was made 100% reproducible by experiments in Japan and Europe, along with the use of state-of-the-art equipment (which we also used). Replication is the heart of science. The best metal for catalyzing cold fusion found so far is a lithium-palladium alloy. A brief summary can be found here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf


  People have asked me about the claims of heat-production via proton-Nickel “cold fusion” by Rossi and Focardi in Italy. Below is an abbreviated version of my response, which is also a challenge to the “inventors” to do serious experiments and to publish those results.

 First the claim (by Focardi):
Quote
“Here’s what’s going on: there, in the container, we have nickel and hydrogen, then we heat up the system. Then, let’s say, the hydrogen nuclei, which are protons, move inside the system and these protons are able to come into contact with the nickel, with the atom, penetrate into the atom and even into its nucleus. So, when the proton penetrates into the nickel nucleus, nickel is turned into copper...” – Focardi, http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/sergio-focardi-father-of-ni-h-cold.html
                 Adding a proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi will produce Copper isotopes, predominately Cu-59 and Cu-61, since the predominate isotopes of nickel are Ni-58 (68%) and Ni-60 (26.2%). Both Cu-59 and Cu-61 are highly radioactive and easily detectable. And detecting their presence via decay products would conclusively demonstrate the occurrence of the proton-capture reaction on Nickel. I challenge Rossi et al. to make quantitative measurements to demonstrate the proton-Nickel reaction they claim. I would use a gamma-ray detector; detailed gamma spectra from the decay of Cu-59 and Cu-61 are given in this reference: http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/

                Cu-59 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-59%20EC Half life: 81.5 s – short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not.

                 Cu-61 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-61%20EC Half life: 3.33 hrs, also short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not

Thus, while some have pointed to this claim as "confirmed," to me the Rossi claims are NOT confirmed until they show direct evidence for the process they are claiming, as outlined above.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on July 17, 2011, 01:08:34 AM
I think it is possible to get the 8X joule thief to output most of what is seen on the scope.
It is a question of which principles must be employed.
It is fun to find the longest running led but can we translate this into useful application on the 8X.
Is the next logical step a question of how can we merge all those waves efficiently ?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 17, 2011, 03:03:07 AM
Dimbulb, IMO the next logical step is to measure Einput (easy) and Eoutput (difficult) for various circuits, calculating efficiency n.  I like to see rigor without rancor, and this forum is one of the best for that approach.

I hasten to add to my remarks about the Rossi device -- I have written him (months ago now) and I hope that he will accept the challenge to:

 
Quote
make quantitative measurements to demonstrate the proton-Nickel reaction they claim. I would use a gamma-ray detector; detailed gamma spectra from the decay of Cu-59 and Cu-61 are given in this reference: http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/

Do you see what a difference this will make to the scientific community?  huge.  And thus I hope my "challenge" will be understood as a desire to help.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on July 17, 2011, 09:01:58 PM

Steven, i hope you have an enjoyable break from these energy investigations and find some quality time with family and friends

who knows, some important development might be germinating out of sight even now, and need a week or so, undisturbed, before 'breaking through to the surface' and into view  :)

we look forward to continuing recent ideas about preliminary thermal testing when you return

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 July 18, 2011, 06:12:24 AM
Steven, i hope you have an enjoyable break from these energy investigations and find some quality time with family and friends

who knows, some important development might be germinating out of sight even now, and need a week or so, undisturbed, before 'breaking through to the surface' and into view  :)

we look forward to continuing recent ideas about preliminary thermal testing when you return

all the best
np


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

Thanks so much, NP -- kindly and well put.  I resonate with everything in your post.  Our family trip begins tomorrow and goes nearly four weeks...  I will have sporadic computer contact, but hope to keep up with developments.

And I agree -- " some important development might be germinating out of sight even now,"  -- I hope so! I would like to contribute to novel energy research along with you and so many fine researchers around the world -- I truly am happy when ANYONE makes a breakthrough, either in measurement or (especially) in a promising device.

 I won't disappear ;), just traveling and away from the lab for awhile (sigh...)

And I understand there are some major FE conferences coming up in the next few weeks...  While I cannot attend myself, I have provided  "travel assistance" so a friend in this area CAN attend (no strings attached).

 Hope we can all rejoice in the developments "germinating even now"! 

Thanks again, NP and all. 
Cheers,
Steven
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ElectroGravityPhysics.com on July 25, 2011, 03:30:57 AM
I finished my replication last night, and have the following results:

1)  The Dr. Jones circuit is easy to construct and get into oscillation mode - even with a ground plane breadboard, a decoupled power input (with an electrolytic capacitor) and using as short wires as possible.

2)  I noticed huge differences in current and voltage reading when inserting oscilloscope probes at various points around the circuit - most likely due to lots of stray inductance or capacitance between wires. This is  the RF (high frequency) nature of the circuit. 

Also, breadboards are not supposed to be used over 10 MHZ, depending on the nature of the circuit.  A wire length of only 10 mm can introduce some serious inductance at frequencies about 10 MHz
   
3)  The frequency of oscillation of this circuit is very high (around 2-5 MHz) with lots of overtones up to 50 MHz or higher, as seen with FFT on the scope.  I suggest using RF design methods and shielding the circuit in a grounded box and using BNC connectors to feed to the scope for reliable testing results of the input/output voltage readings.

4)  I found there are different modes of operation of the oscillations with this circuit, depending on battery input voltage and values of components.

5)  After tuning the different component values and measuring the output power (CSR RMS voltage divided by current sensing resistor value times load RMS voltage) - on a high frequency scope, I found the efficiency of the circuit was anywhere between 25-75%.  It was never greater than 100%

I wish I had better results to report, but I have to tell it like it is.  Good luck to others that are still working on replications. 

I strongly suggest to double check your measurement methods and using RF shielding/design techniques for testing.  Here is a basic link for basic understanding the different methods of bread boarding – including “dead-bug” or “ugly-board” method that is often used for high frequency building:

http://www.qrp.pops.net/ugly.asp

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sullivan/prototyping.pdf

Thank you all guys.  I am interested in your results.

-Nils

(Founder of electroGravityPhysics.com)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ElectroGravityPhysics.com on July 25, 2011, 04:18:20 AM
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.

This is a little bit off topic in this thread, but actually Dr. Morray did disconnect the wire antenna while running the device for several witnesses, with large sparks showing from the wire - yet he did not appear to be electrocuted. 

This clearly shows his circuit and antenna was producing a high frequency voltage, very similar to a Tesla coil where you can touch the Tesla coil and show sparks flying off your fingers, without being damaged.

Dr. Murray also said he came up with the idea for his device while hearing the humming from high voltage power lines when bush fires where burning below the power lines.

My guess is his transistor valve and transformer circuit is amplifying the back noise of all electronic circuit [perhaps due to unproven electrogravity effects all around], and feeding this back to the input antenna for positive feeback and decoupling from atomic resonances in the earth ground below.

This is of course pure speculations, and I really have no idea how the Dr. Morray device was designed.  (smile)

-Nils

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hoppy on July 25, 2011, 05:22:47 PM
The use of 'Ugly Board' for constructing high frequency Joule Thiefs is excellent advice from Electro gravity physics. Breadboard just does not cut it and will lead to measuring errors.

Hoppy
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 26, 2011, 04:06:03 PM
[snip]

5)  After tuning the different component values and measuring the output power (CSR RMS voltage divided by current sensing resistor value times load RMS voltage) - on a high frequency scope, I found the efficiency of the circuit was anywhere between 25-75%.  It was never greater than 100%

[snip]

Thank you all guys.  I am interested in your results.

-Nils

(Founder of electroGravityPhysics.com)

Traveling, now in Michigan where I have wifi access today...

Nils --

1.    As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I do not trust this method:  "the output power (CSR RMS voltage divided by current sensing resistor value times load RMS voltage)". 
   For example, suppose the output has a strong AC component with current out-of-phase with the voltage waveform...  will your method give the correct output power?  Suppose the RMS current (over the CSR) is close to zero -- does that mean the output power is really zero?
 
1b.  Do you agree that using the calorimetric method I've proposed above will provide a more accurate measurement of Poutput than your RMS-method?

2.  How did you measure the input power? 

3.  What value of Pinput did you determine? 

4.  Did you use the capacitor/time method for measuring Pinput with your method, to check it?

Thanks.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on July 27, 2011, 03:28:35 PM
I finished my replication last night, and have the following results:

5)  After tuning the different component values and measuring the output power (CSR RMS voltage divided by current sensing resistor value times load RMS voltage) - on a high frequency scope, I found the efficiency of the circuit was anywhere between 25-75%.  It was never greater than 100%

-Nils

(Founder of electroGravityPhysics.com)
It's not possible to obtain a correct Pout this way UNLESS the load is a pure resistance.

If the load is inductive or dynamic (such as the case with a diode or LED), then you must use either a calorimetric or sampled MEAN[v(t) x i(t)] method to obtain an accurate Pout.

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ElectroGravityPhysics.com on July 28, 2011, 02:09:56 AM
1.    As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I do not trust this method:  "the output power (CSR RMS voltage divided by current sensing resistor value times load RMS voltage)". 
   For example, suppose the output has a strong AC component with current out-of-phase with the voltage waveform...  will your method give the correct output power?  Suppose the RMS current (over the CSR) is close to zero -- does that mean the output power is really zero?
1b. Do you agree that using the calorimetric method I've proposed above will provide a more accurate measurement of Poutput than your RMS-method?
2.  How did you measure the input power? 
3.  What value of Pinput did you determine? 
4.  Did you use the capacitor/time method for measuring Pinput with your method, to check it?

Thanks for your patience and thoughtful comments.  It shows that you have worked with a lot of students over the years, in your career as a Physics teacher.  (smile) 

Here are my answers, as best I understand it:

Power Input:  I tested both a lead-acid battery (a small 6 volt) and a lab-bench supply with variable voltage and current.  I found the highest efficiency of the circuit at around 3.5 volt input with a lab-bench supply, using a decoupling capacitor of 47 uF mounted right on the +V and –V rail on the bread-board.  The ripple voltage is 200 mV with the decoupling capacitor and about 1.4 V without.  The ripple frequency is a high frequency of 12.2 MHz.
 
Due to the small ripple with the decoupling capacitor, the effective input-power is just 3.5 (DC) * Icsr (mA) RMS of about 110 mW, since the there is no significant phase relationships between this DC voltage and an AC current.

Capacitor/Time Method: I have not tried the capacitor/time method for measuring input/output power.  I will be happy to try if you think it would be worth the time and effort, despite the initial negative results.  Let me know.

I also sometimes wonder if an old worn out battery with a larger internal resistance is important in this circuit, to achieve high power efficiencies.  And, perhaps using a decoupling capacitor for the power supply is throwing the baby out with the bath-water i.e. killing the high power gain effect that we are trying to measure?

CSR RMS voltage: Since I do not have access to a high-end scope to do integrals of the instantaneous input/output power waveforms, I used the inaccurate and “quick and dirty” method of multiplying Urms with Irms.  I know this is not accurate – but it has some value as I will describe now.

My reason is that if the RMS power calculations shows less than 100% output efficiency - there is no point to start measuring accurate phase relationships between voltage and current. 

In other words; an in-phase (perfect sync) sine wave of current and voltage will always show the highest apparent and active power value, but an out-of-phase current will always show a lower active power. 

For a reactive load, where the voltage and current are out of phase, the apparent power will [ALWAYS] be greater than the active power.

For those folks who do not already know, here is a quick primer: http://home.earthlink.net/~jimlux/hv/varvom.htm

So, if your circuit shows an efficiency of more than 100% (like the report in your initial video) I would be excited to investigate further - and to try to measure with accurate current voltages values, including phase to quantitatively document the power gain/loss.  But, in my version of your circuit it shows a lower than 100% efficiency - from the quick RMS calculation, so what is the point to do an accurate integral of the voltage and currents then?  We already know the active power result will even be less than the apparent power - due to the phase difference between U(t) and  I(t).

Does my logic make any sense? (smile)

Calorimetric Method: If you think this circuit is following the entire standard and agreed upon laws of the physical sciences, and there is no external source of “non-heating energy” - for lack of a better word, then YES this test would be perfect.

However, if you think there might be some unusual effects and possible a tunneling effect of “cold energy” – non-heating energy – then I do not think the calorimetric method will measure correctly.

Speculation: There are reports that Mr. Floyd Sweet shorted the wires of his electromagnetic device, and got a nasty frost bite on his fingers.  This is opposite of standard heating current which will heat and melt any metal wires that come together – like a welding machine.
 
Also, Dr. Moray reported his wires were cold, when his machine was running and heating a large array of light bulbs.  This seems to raise some questions about what type of energy is this – does it come from heat or is it some sort of energy that produces work without heat?!

Perhaps you may call it “cold energy” – as an over-used and popular buzz word in the over-unity community, but a regular BxV field effect (motional electrical field from moving magnets and/or moving charges) may be non-shieldable and produce no work - even when causing electric charges to move in its field. 

I am so impressed with this largely ignored property of the BxV field effect that I have dedicated a whole web site to it at www.ElectroGravityPhysics.com

It is possible your circuit is tapping into the BxV field effect from the bifilar wound coil.  It is easy to show with simple vector math that the magnetic field can cancel – under certain circuit configurations, like a bifilar wound coil and others – yet still produce a BxV field effect. 

Even Floyd Sweet talks about the BxV field effect as the driving principle in his electromagnetic energy device, yet most people seem to ignore it.

Summary: I hope this answers some of your questions, but please note that the last part contains some speculation, other than the BxV field effects from moving charges and/or magnets which seem quite real, even if non-mainstream. 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 28, 2011, 03:03:39 PM
EGP --  thanks for the replies.

You wrote:
Quote
Due to the small ripple with the decoupling capacitor, the effective input-power is just 3.5 (DC) * Icsr (mA) RMS of about 110 mW, since the there is no significant phase relationships between this DC voltage and an AC current.

Capacitor/Time Method: I have not tried the capacitor/time method for measuring input/output power.  I will be happy to try if you think it would be worth the time and effort, despite the initial negative results.  Let me know.

YES, I think it is worth measuring the input power using the cap/time method.
A large cap, Pinput =Einput/time, Einput from 1/2CV**2 .  Straightforward -- and a very important check on your RMS method (which I doubt is accurate, as noted also by .99). 

That is, we can then compare your Pinput from the RMS method (110mW) with that which you'll deduce from the cap/time method.
 

Also, please note that your reported Pinput of 110mW is MUCH higher than what I've found in my original circuits (typically <15mW, and down to a few microwatts).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 28, 2011, 03:07:27 PM
EGP:
Quote
Also, Dr. Moray reported his wires were cold, when his machine was running and heating a large array of light bulbs.  This seems to raise some questions about what type of energy is this – does it come from heat or is it some sort of energy that produces work without heat?!

Perhaps you may call it “cold energy” ...

I have a particular interest in the Moray device, and I'm reading a book on the subject by his son.  But I have not seen this report that "his wires were cold, when his machine was running."   Could you provide any type of reference for this?  for Moray's device, that is.  Very interesting if true.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ElectroGravityPhysics.com on July 29, 2011, 12:47:21 AM
EGP:
I have a particular interest in the Moray device, and I'm reading a book on the subject by his son.  But I have not seen this report that "his wires were cold, when his machine was running."   Could you provide any type of reference for this?  for Moray's device, that is.  Very interesting if true.

Yes, I have read the book also, but not much building information comes out of it, in my humble opinion.  Here is a quote from one of the pages in the book:

"[p. 111 ] The device was housed in a wooden box something like 12" by 18", with an antenna and a ground going into it. Wires leading out of the box led to a bank of some forty 100-watt light globes and to an electric iron. My uncle touched a switch at the top of the box with a hand electrostatic plate and the globes all lighted brilliantly. We all noted that the bulbs burned cold except each had a hot spot about the size of a dime on the top slightly off center. I also recall that I could turn the lights on and off by approaching and retreating to and from the device, either with my whole body or my hand. If my memory is clear, the machine had to be tuned with a dial to be placed in this condition. [Chester M. Todd, March 19, 1971]"

[p. 40] While the light was burning Mr Moray disconnected the antenna lead-in wire from the apparatus and the light went out. He connected it again and the light appeared. He also disconnected the ground wire and the light went out. He then connected it and the light appeared again."

If seems like the device is a highly tuned HF receiver of sorts, since the power generation is affected by people walking to and from the device.  The "cold white bulbs" comment is very subjective, but it is worth mentioning.

I am very interested to learn more about the Dr. Moray, Floyd Sweet and Hendershot type of devices.  Let me know your thoughts, or in a personal message if this is off topic in this thread.

-Nils
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ElectroGravityPhysics.com on July 29, 2011, 01:28:33 AM
EGP:
I have a particular interest in the Moray device, and I'm reading a book on the subject by his son.  But I have not seen this report that "his wires were cold, when his machine was running."   Could you provide any type of reference for this?  for Moray's device, that is.  Very interesting if true.

This also interesting as to the nature of the energy produced/received by Dr. Moray: 

"The terminal attached to the antenna was disconnected. A vigorous arcing occurred and the sparks jumped over an air gap as much as eighteen inches. This would indicate that the power was high voltage and the nature of the sparks indicated a high frequency.."

http://www.svpvril.com/Moray.html

-Nils
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ElectroGravityPhysics.com on July 29, 2011, 02:46:06 AM
Also, please note that your reported Pinput of 110mW is MUCH higher than what I've found in my original circuits (typically <15mW, and down to a few microwatts).

@JouleSeeker:  UPDATE!

Thanks for your suggestion about the abnormally HIGH power consumption, on the input. 

I went back to the test bench and found a sweet spot around 2.0 VDC from the lab-power supply, with a 47uF decoupling capacitor on the +V and -V rails on the breadboard.  The power consumption is only 2.0 mW (!), with the LED just faintly on - at this voltage.

It seems like the circuit latches into a high power consumption mode when the input power is more than 2.5 V.  I can suddenly notice the LED light when is goes from dim to very bright when I slowly turn the power voltage up from 2.0 to 2.5 volts.

I am confident the input power calculation is accurate, since the DC voltage has such a small ripple with the decoupling capacitor even though the current is AC dominated.

The output calculation shows 8.6 mW (!), yet I know this is much more than the input power of 2.0 mW.  I am using the inaccurate RMS calculation method for this measurement, but even so this RMS measurement is something new and exciting I have never seen before.

We all know the RMS method is not reliable - for an out of phase voltage and current, but at least I NOW have something to investigate further to make some more accurate measurements - that includes corrections for the phase between voltage and current on the output.

I am using the ATTEN digital storage scope, which I think is the same as in your youtube video.  In your video you mention that you manually integrated the U*I curves.  Did you just eyeball it directly on the scope - with a piece of paper, or did you download the a scope measurement via the USB cable to your computer?  Please give me some more information on how you did this so I can replicate it.

I am now encouraged to try to cap/time measurement method, as well.

Let me know your thoughts.

-Nils
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 29, 2011, 04:52:07 PM
Thanks for your comments on the Moray device, and for this, EGP:

@JouleSeeker:  UPDATE!

Thanks for your suggestion about the abnormally HIGH power consumption, on the input. 

I went back to the test bench and found a sweet spot around 2.0 VDC
from the lab-power supply, with a 47uF decoupling capacitor on the +V and -V rails on the breadboard.  The power consumption is only 2.0 mW (!), with the LED just faintly on - at this voltage.

It seems like the circuit latches into a high power consumption mode when the input power is more than 2.5 V.  I can suddenly notice the LED light when is goes from dim to very bright when I slowly turn the power voltage up from 2.0 to 2.5 volts.

I am confident the input power calculation is accurate, since the DC voltage has such a small ripple with the decoupling capacitor even though the current is AC dominated.

The output calculation shows 8.6 mW (!), yet I know this is much more than the input power of 2.0 mW.
I am using the inaccurate RMS calculation method for this measurement, but even so this RMS measurement is something new and exciting I have never seen before.

We all know the RMS method is not reliable - for an out of phase voltage and current, but at least I NOW have something to investigate further to make some more accurate measurements - that includes corrections for the phase between voltage and current on the output.

I am using the ATTEN digital storage scope, which I think is the same as in your youtube video.  In your video you mention that you manually integrated the U*I curves. Did you just eyeball it directly on the scope - with a piece of paper, or did you download the a scope measurement via the USB cable to your computer?  Please give me some more information on how you did this so I can replicate it.

I am now encouraged to try to cap/time measurement method, as well.

Let me know your thoughts.

-Nils

Alright-- progress.  Yes, I noted a reduction in power consumption at a critical voltage also...  and it depends on the R value, in series with the LED.

Yes, I used an ATTEN DSO, using its math-multiply function to get the instantaneous POWER waveform.  (From P(t) =V(t) * I(t),  where I = V/1ohm, that is, voltage drop across a 1-ohm CSR) 

What I did is to carefully trace the power waveform for one cycle with respect to time, for input and output Powers.  Next I integrated the area under the curves by hand, not too difficult, then n = Eout/Ein (for one complete cycle).

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JimU on July 30, 2011, 12:30:05 AM
The earlier topic of bifilar-wound electromagnets having larger strength fields (as seen in their ability to pick up more items) has really caught my attention, since it would seem to indicate new physics.  I'm speaking now of the DC current case, not to mention the equally interesting AC case per the referenced Oliver Nichelson paper.

In the DC case,presumably the same current flows in the wire (should be measured) for bifilar and single-filar winding, so how could a bifilar winding affect magnetic field strength, since E-M would say the solenoid should produce the same magnetic field and induce the same strength magnetic field in the magnetic core (such as an iron rod).

Assuming a single-layer bifilar winding, adjacent windings have a larger voltage drop and thus electric field between them - per Tesla's patent - than a single-filar standard winding.  And the bifilar electric field changes direction 180-degrees stepping from adjacent wire to wire.

Could this between-wire back-and-forth electric field condition the magnetic core metal in some to-be-explained manner and cause it to respond to the overall winding field more strongly?

Alternatively, perhaps this static between-wire alternating-polarity electric field conditions the current electrons or wire lattice atoms in a way to affect the strength of the field induced in the magnetic core?

In any case, fascinating to see potential new physics from a "lowly" electromagnet!  Very worth of further experiments.

Regards,       Jim
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 30, 2011, 12:54:22 AM
The earlier topic of bifilar-wound electromagnets having larger strength fields (as seen in their ability to pick up more items) has really caught my attention, since it would seem to indicate new physics.  I'm speaking now of the DC current case, not to mention the equally interesting AC case per the referenced Oliver Nichelson paper.

In the DC case,presumably the same current flows in the wire (should be measured) for bifilar and single-filar winding, so how could a bifilar winding affect magnetic field strength, since E-M would say the solenoid should produce the same magnetic field and induce the same strength magnetic field in the magnetic core (such as an iron rod).
[snip for brevity]

In any case, fascinating to see potential new physics from a "lowly" electromagnet!  Very worth of further experiments.

Regards,       Jim

I agree, Jim.  To be certain of the same current, I suggest ONE power source and run the DC current through BOTH coils (bifilar and single-wound) at the same time.  This will guarantee that both have the same current.

Of course, one must count the windings to make sure that both have the same total number of windings.  And finally, both must have identical cores (air cores would make a nice test). 

Then "physics" says that the B-fields must be the same.  But in my "simple" experiments, picking up paper clips and screws, the strengths were not the same.

My last trip to the university near my home, I contacted a colleague who has a means of measuring B-fields (uses a Hall probe) quantitatively.  That's what is needed here IMO.  These experiments will have to wait - for me- for a few weeks till I get back home from the family trip...

But if anyone else wishes to do the experiments -- please do!  and kindly report results here.  Lots of fun, and as you say, Jim -- surprising Physics if we can confirm the effect with
1.  Repeatability
2.  Quantitative results
then 3.  Try to understand the "new"? physics.

It may be that these simple experiments will lead to an understanding !
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NextGen67 on July 30, 2011, 05:15:37 AM
Thanks for comments!

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: 
I'm inclined to agree, based on the empirical results we're seeing! 
Lot's to understand in this simple experiment (above).

A bit slow reply here, but I'm way behind on catching up due to busy times here.

The single wound core has an Capacitance of 0.34 pF, while the bifilar wound one has a capacitance of 1.02 pf (three times as much).

This indicates that besides current, the bifilar coil stores 3 times more voltage field (potential field).

This could mean that although we seem to input the same amount of current, the bifilar is acting like to charge a -larger- 1.02 pF capacitor, and thus would ' in a time-varying way ' use more energy momentarily.

Nevertheless, after being charged, there appears to be more B-field strength with the bifilar style wind.

Possible reasons:
-------------------

1) The domains in the material (nail) might get a 'harder' turn than in a conventional way, resulting in a more uniform shape and as such result in a higher B-field strength ?
2) The potential field tension is able to -help- increase the B-field strength (this would be contrary to the belief that -only- current is responsible for the buildup of a magnetic field) ?
3) It takes time for the 'electricity' (magnetic field) to go from start to end of the wire.... in the bifilar wind, the first wind of the series, induces an emf in the second wind of the series. This induced emf might increase B-field strength ?
4) I'm sure there might be a few more scenarios to think of ?

For each of the above, there could be thought of a test to find out which of them could be causing said effect.

I will come back on this on a later point of time when I have some spare time, and share my results.
I'm inclined to believe case #2 has some ground to be true, as I have done some tests before like these.

In any case, the bifilar wind takes more energy during the saturation buildup  time of the coil. (Do the nails test again, and wind an extra different wind on the nail and connect a scope with single shot on it).  To make it more interesting, do it again, but now use straws instead of nails :-)

@jouleseeker: Did you receive my personal message?

--
NextGen67
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 30, 2011, 08:05:02 PM
Good hypotheses to experiment on,  NG67.  Best wishes.

OK -- I read your PM, thanks.  I think I'll try the calorimetric method next, but your approach seems reasonable also.  Note that determining the output current is not necessarily easy in this circuit; strong AC component, for example.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ElectroGravityPhysics.com on July 31, 2011, 04:58:05 AM
But if anyone else wishes to do the experiments -- please do!  and kindly report results here.  Lots of fun, and as you say, Jim -- surprising Physics if we can confirm the effect with
1.  Repeatability
2.  Quantitative results
then 3.  Try to understand the "new"? Physics.
It may be that these simple experiments will lead to an understanding!

I fully support people – like many in this forum - that have an experimental leaning towards Physics.  There are just too many people chasing string theories and other hard-to-test Physics ideas.  I enjoy working with things I can build, test and then postulate a theoretical model for better understanding - and then rinse and repeat.  (smile)

To this end I would like to share this link to build a less than $10 gauss meter, so we can test the bifilar magnetic nails.  The build might not be an accurate absolute measurement of the magnetic field, but it should give an excellent relative measurement between the simple coil and bifilar configuration.

http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/magmeter.htm

There are plenty of gauss meters on the market – even on eBay, but they usually run $200 and up.

http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p5197.m570.l1312&_nkw=DC+gauss+meter&_sacat=See-All-Categories

PS  I “regret” I am going on vacation for a few weeks, so I will sadly be away from my lab.  But, keep up the good work; I look forward to seeing  Dr. Jones calorimetric tests while I am traveling.

-Nils
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JimU on August 01, 2011, 11:28:34 PM

The single wound core has an Capacitance of 0.34 pF, while the bifilar wound one has a capacitance of 1.02 pf (three times as much).

This indicates that besides current, the bifilar coil stores 3 times more voltage field (potential field).

This could mean that although we seem to input the same amount of current, the bifilar is acting like to charge a -larger- 1.02 pF capacitor, and thus would ' in a time-varying way ' use more energy momentarily.

Nevertheless, after being charged, there appears to be more B-field strength with the bifilar style wind.

Possible reasons:
-------------------

1) The domains in the material (nail) might get a 'harder' turn than in a conventional way, resulting in a more uniform shape and as such result in a higher B-field strength ?
2) The potential field tension is able to -help- increase the B-field strength (this would be contrary to the belief that -only- current is responsible for the buildup of a magnetic field) ?
3) It takes time for the 'electricity' (magnetic field) to go from start to end of the wire.... in the bifilar wind, the first wind of the series, induces an emf in the second wind of the series. This induced emf might increase B-field strength ?
4) I'm sure there might be a few more scenarios to think of ?

For each of the above, there could be thought of a test to find out which of them could be causing said effect.

In any case, the bifilar wind takes more energy during the saturation buildup  time of the coil. (Do the nails test again, and wind an extra different wind on the nail and connect a scope with single shot on it).  To make it more interesting, do it again, but now use straws instead of nails :-)

--
NextGen67

Hi NextGen67,

      Good find on the higher capacitance of the bi-filar wound coil.  This is
actually the point of Tesla's patent on such windings, for AC currents.

      Per your #2 above, on thinking about the different capacities of the two
winding types, and even though the "current" should be the same in each,
the bifilar winding should pack more charge into the windings than the normal
winding would.  This is the definition of a capacitor after all.  And interestingly,
the magnetic field strength in a solenoid comes from the amount of charge
circulating in the coil.  Since there is more charge packed into the coil due
to the higher capacity (at the given EMF), there should be a higher magnetic
field generated.  So, a new application of old physics.  Interestingly, even if,
per Dr. Jones' suggestion to put a standard-wound and bifilar-wound
coil in series to do this test, thereby certifying the same current in each coil,
we would still have larger "current" in the bifilar-wound coil due to its higher
capacity.  So, this could really be about charge distribution of a current flow, a
second-order effect on the normal way of looking at current in a DC circuit.

Regards,     Jim
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 02, 2011, 01:11:44 AM
The single wound core has an Capacitance of 0.34 pF, while the bifilar wound one has a capacitance of 1.02 pf (three times as much).

This indicates that besides current, the bifilar coil stores 3 times more voltage field (potential field).

This could mean that although we seem to input the same amount of current, the bifilar is acting like to charge a -larger- 1.02 pF capacitor, and thus would ' in a time-varying way ' use more energy momentarily.
[...]
NextGen67

hi NextGen

i don't think that capacitance values of the order of 1pF are going to contribute much to the energy stored in these windings at DC and a few volts - the inductance will likely have the most significant contribution to energy stored (as shown by data provided in earlier link comparing one regular and one bifilar coil)


Steven, i hope you are enjoying your vacation - and if so, then why are you reading this?!?  ;)

i said i'd post an update with data from my test combining my inverted looped variant of your SJ1 circuit with one of my DIY voltage cells

as you can see from the on-load terminal voltage graph below, the results have become quite interesting over the last 200 hours of continuous operation!

it's looking hopeful for another 'self-sustaining' system with one of my DIY cells  :)

as always, i'll keep you posted
np


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

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NextGen67 on August 02, 2011, 06:38:12 AM
hi NextGen

i don't think that capacitance values of the order of 1pF are going to contribute much to the energy stored in these windings at DC and a few volts - the inductance will likely have the most significant contribution to energy stored (as shown by data provided in earlier link comparing one regular and one bifilar coil)
<...>
np

@nul-points

Quote
the inductance will likely have the most significant contribution to energy stored (as shown by data provided in earlier link comparing one regular and one bifilar coil)
Do you refer to the document 'VOLTGN.pdf' on page 38, reply #556 on this topic? Because they show in that document that in both cases, the inductance is the same -nearly- at 208uh and 205uH for single and bifilar wind coil.

Also remember that -for any coil in resonance- the energy stored in the system sloshes back and forth between the Capacitor and Coil. This means that at one moment in time, ALL the energy is stored in the coil, and at another moment in time, ALL the energy is stored in the CAPACITOR. Do not let the small value reading of a capacitor fool you, as the same amount of energy is stored in it, as in the -much larger valued- coil. We could say an E-field stores Energy more compact than an B-field -when both contain the same amount of energy-.

When a coil is in self resonance, it's energy slashes back and fort between the coil and it's internal capacitors.

Sadly their document did not show any B-field strength measurements. I will do the same test later on, and will include some B-field measurements.

However, going from the belief that the B-field indeed increased, one might reason this:

The amount of voltage field that the bifilar wind coil can store is three (3) times as much as compared to the standard wind, but this comes at the cost of a particular lowering of the frequency of the coil [ StdCoilFreq/sqr(3) ]. So although the coil would produce or store more B-field, it could do this only at a cost of reduced frequency.

The above paragraph also implies that as the voltage field is three times as much, likewise the coil MUST have the capability to store this three times more energy, else there would be no self resonance!

Energizing any coil with -continuous- DC will only result in energizing the coil up to its saturation point (the maximum amount of energy the coil can hold). After that, any more applied DC will be 'lost' energy, as this is not stored in the coil anymore.

Once we charge a capacitor, the charge will stay there forever if we disconnect the source (assuming a perfect capacitor).

Once we charge a coil, the charge will be rapidly lost when we disconnect the source.

So, one might say we can store AND hold an E-field, but we cannot store AND hold an B-field.

What happens if we 'charge' the -internal- capacitors contained inside a coil, and then remove our source... will the charge now also stay in the 'capacitors', even tough the B-field is rapidly collapsing ?

What happens if we charge a 'contra connected' bifilar coil? This type coil has ZERO inductance (even with thousands of winds), but it does has capacitance. So we could only 'charge' the coil through meaning of E-field, and presumably, there would be NO B-field formed by the coil itself - tough the material containing the coil might do so?-

This might be food for a new topic. If my measurements are interesting, a new topic might be started on this.

@ JimU

Correct. Some of my coming experiments will focus on that -but keep in mind I work on multiple projects and have a 'normal family life' besides it also-. I am particularly interested in the zero inductance high capacitance toroid coil measurements. But I would need to measure the energizing propagation speed of a bifilar -high inductance-  versus a bifilar 'zero inductance' toroid coil, while both have the same amount of turns and wire length.

As a minor note:

... thereby certifying the same current in each coil, we would still have larger "current" in the bifilar-wound coil due to its higher capacity.' ...

That would be: we would still have larger (more) ENERGY in the bifilar-wound coil due to its higher capacity.

Anyhow, as this is a side topic, better focus back to Steven his sj1 device.

--
NextGen67
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 02, 2011, 08:35:46 AM
@nul-points
[...]
When a coil is in self resonance, it's energy slashes back and fort between the coil and it's internal capacitors.
[...]--
NextGen67

the topic was prompted by the steady-state DC conditions of a bifilar coil energised by a 1.5V cell supply

under these conditions a 1.2pF capacitor will store 1.35 picoJoules and a regular coil of, say, 20uH energised with several amps from the cell will store energy about 2 orders of magnitude greater than the 1.2pF capacitor

Oliver Nichelson's measurements showed a 930% increase in voltage gain over theoretical for his bifilar wound coil - ie. his bifilar was giving improved performance compared to a regular coil


Quote from: NextGen67
Anyhow, as this is a side topic, better focus back to Steven his sj1 device.

that shouldn't be a problem - Steven was the one who raised this topic (July 3, the day before his post you quoted in reply #729)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NextGen67 on August 02, 2011, 09:36:17 AM
the topic was prompted by the steady-state DC conditions of a bifilar coil energised by a 1.5V cell supply

under these conditions a 1.2pF capacitor will store 1.35 picoJoules and a regular coil of, say, 20uH energised with several amps from the cell will store energy about 2 orders of magnitude greater than the 1.2pF capacitor

Oliver Nichelson's measurements showed a 930% increase in voltage gain over theoretical for his bifilar wound coil - ie. his bifilar was giving improved performance compared to a regular coil

that shouldn't be a problem - Steven was the one who raised this topic (July 3, the day before his post you quoted in reply #729)

Quote
Quote from: nul-points

    hi NextGen

    i don't think that capacitance values of the order of 1pF are going to contribute much to the energy stored in these windings at DC and a few volts - the inductance will likely have the most significant contribution to energy stored (as shown by data provided in earlier link comparing one regular and one bifilar coil)
    <...>
    np

Ahh ok, I thought you were referring to the experiment as described in the VOLTGN document, as that is where my 0.34 and 1.02pf was coming from in the first place, and what I described was in reference to that doc.

Yes, in the nails experiment, the inductance of the bifilar wound one is higher -due to mutual inductance-, hence its ability to store more energy, resulting in a stronger magnetic field.

--
NextGen67
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TEKTRON on August 04, 2011, 07:45:05 AM
I fully support people – like many in this forum - that have an experimental leaning towards Physics.  There are just too many people chasing string theories and other hard-to-test Physics ideas.  I enjoy working with things I can build, test and then postulate a theoretical model for better understanding - and then rinse and repeat.  (smile)

To this end I would like to share this link to build a less than $10 gauss meter, so we can test the bifilar magnetic nails.  The build might not be an accurate absolute measurement of the magnetic field, but it should give an excellent relative measurement between the simple coil and bifilar configuration.

http://my.execpc.com/~rhoadley/magmeter.htm

There are plenty of gauss meters on the market – even on eBay, but they usually run $200 and up.

http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p5197.m570.l1312&_nkw=DC+gauss+meter&_sacat=See-All-Categories

PS  I “regret” I am going on vacation for a few weeks, so I will sadly be away from my lab.  But, keep up the good work; I look forward to seeing  Dr. Jones calorimetric tests while I am traveling.

-Nils

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10716.msg287416#msg287416
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 05, 2011, 02:36:18 AM
[snip]
Steven, i hope you are enjoying your vacation - and if so, then why are you reading this?!?  ;)

i said i'd post an update with data from my test combining my inverted looped variant of your SJ1 circuit with one of my DIY voltage cells

as you can see from the on-load terminal voltage graph below, the results have become quite interesting over the last 200 hours of continuous operation!

it's looking hopeful for another 'self-sustaining' system with one of my DIY cells  :)

as always, i'll keep you posted
np


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

Hi, NP -- wow!  that's an intriguing graph, showing a clear rise in the cell voltage in the last 150 hours or so.  Pls do keep us posted on this....

  Indeed the vacation has been fun, with family reunions and activities.  Just saw your post from 2 days ago, today.   

  Back with a bit more free time now.  A topic I raised a while back -- conservation of momentum in electromagnetic systems, especially considering speed of light constraints (changing fields "expand" and interact with particles at a later time).  I found this in Wikipedia regarding Lenz's law -- someone else is concerned about the sort of paradox I raised several weeks back:

Quote
Lenz's law (play /ˈlɛntsɨz lɔː/) is a common way of understanding how electromagnetic circuits must always obey Newton's third law and The Law of Conservation of Energy.[1] Lenz's law is named after Heinrich Lenz, and it says:

    "An induced current is always in such a direction as to oppose the motion or change causing it"
[snip]
Conservation of momentum

Momentum must be conserved in the process, so if q1 is pushed in one direction, then q2 ought to be pushed in the other direction by the same force at the same time. However, the situation becomes more complicated when the finite speed of electromagnetic wave propagation is introduced (see Retarded potential). This means that for a brief period of time, the total momentum of the two charges are not conserved, implying that the difference should be accounted for by momentum in the fields, as speculated by Richard P. Feynman.[2] Famous 19th century electrodynamicist James Clerk Maxwell called this the "electromagnetic momentum", although this idea is not generally accepted as a part of standard curricula in physics classes as of 2010.[3] Yet, such a treatment of fields may be necessary in the case of applying Lenz's law to opposite charges. It is normally assumed that the charges in question are like charges. If they are not, such as a proton and an electron, the interaction is different. An electron generating a magnetic field would generate an emf that causes a proton to change its motion in the same direction as the electron.
[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz%27s_law

   This seems correct -- but then the moving particles, electron in one direction and proton in the SAME direction -- appear to be violating conservation of momentum, since both are moving in the same direction. 

Pls note that Newton's Third Law is equivalent to the law of Conservation of Momentum:

F12 = -F21  ::  dPvector1/dt = -dPvector2/dt, so change in Pvector1 = MINUS the change in Pvector2.

You see, we can apply this to a rather simple transformer also, and get violation of Lenz's law IMO ... but I'll save that for a future post as family duties call... 
Ciao

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 06, 2011, 05:29:50 AM
  I have posed the question about the two dipoles on 2 physics forums... no answer yet.

As mentioned in the first post here, one may add a material M of high magnetic permeability on the Z axis, extending between the loops.
 
Now the speed of propagation for the changing B field in this material becomes important. 
In vacuum, a change in the B field -- that "information" -- will propagate at the speed of light. 
But in M, the propagation speed will be less because the dipoles in M must physically move (align) to become more oriented (for an increasing B).  This takes time.
Indeed, the magnetic propagation speed may be much less than c.

OK -- to simplify, take a strong permanent magnet and attach it (very rapidly) to the end of a rod made of nanoperm, no, let's make it iron (so that we might find a speed-value in existing literature).

How fast will the B-field from this magnet travel along the iron?

I think this is an important question -- does anyone know if magnetic-field propagation speeds for various materials have been measured?


This may all seem very esoteric, but I hope to demonstrate that this relates to achieving OU... in time as we proceed.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: forest on August 06, 2011, 08:27:45 PM
  I have posed the question about the two dipoles on 2 physics forums... no answer yet.

As mentioned in the first post here, one may add a material M of high magnetic permeability on the Z axis, extending between the loops.
 
Now the speed of propagation for the changing B field in this material becomes important. 
In vacuum, a change in the B field -- that "information" -- will propagate at the speed of light. 
But in M, the propagation speed will be less because the dipoles in M must physically move (align) to become more oriented (for an increasing B).  This takes time.
Indeed, the magnetic propagation speed may be much less than c.

OK -- to simplify, take a strong permanent magnet and attach it (very rapidly) to the end of a rod made of nanoperm, no, let's make it iron (so that we might find a speed-value in existing literature).

How fast will the B-field from this magnet travel along the iron?

I think this is an important question -- does anyone know if magnetic-field propagation speeds for various materials have been measured?


This may all seem very esoteric, but I hope to demonstrate that this relates to achieving OU... in time as we proceed.

You are good, man ! Yes, this is one way to "violate" len'z law, and plenty patents exists on this topic.The most famous is Kuner patent, other also famous is Floyd Sweet VTA device...and probably one version of Steven Mark  TPU.Add this also all thouse various magnetic flux modification patents.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on August 07, 2011, 11:43:16 AM
  I have posed the question about the two dipoles on 2 physics forums... no answer yet.

As mentioned in the first post here, one may add a material M of high magnetic permeability on the Z axis, extending between the loops.
 
Now the speed of propagation for the changing B field in this material becomes important. 
In vacuum, a change in the B field -- that "information" -- will propagate at the speed of light. 
But in M, the propagation speed will be less because the dipoles in M must physically move (align) to become more oriented (for an increasing B).  This takes time.
Indeed, the magnetic propagation speed may be much less than c.

OK -- to simplify, take a strong permanent magnet and attach it (very rapidly) to the end of a rod made of nanoperm, no, let's make it iron (so that we might find a speed-value in existing literature).

How fast will the B-field from this magnet travel along the iron?

I think this is an important question -- does anyone know if magnetic-field propagation speeds for various materials have been measured?


This may all seem very esoteric, but I hope to demonstrate that this relates to achieving OU... in time as we proceed.

I agree whole heatedly, that the narrow window of opportunity happens in copper
at 1.5 x 10e-19 seconds.  For everyone to have a piece of wire that is doped so the time of relaxation is in 1 x 10e-3 Sec would require a materials scientist so we have been
stumbling along putting diodes in series and making Hutchison power cells barely lighting an led has been less than dignified.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: CompuTutor on August 07, 2011, 02:22:28 PM
I agree whole heatedly...

Heheh, funny pun

Intended, or typo ?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on August 08, 2011, 06:54:52 PM
  I have posed the question about the two dipoles on 2 physics forums... no answer yet.

As mentioned in the first post here, one may add a material M of high magnetic permeability on the Z axis, extending between the loops.
 
Now the speed of propagation for the changing B field in this material becomes important. 
In vacuum, a change in the B field -- that "information" -- will propagate at the speed of light. 
But in M, the propagation speed will be less because the dipoles in M must physically move (align) to become more oriented (for an increasing B).  This takes time.
Indeed, the magnetic propagation speed may be much less than c.

OK -- to simplify, take a strong permanent magnet and attach it (very rapidly) to the end of a rod made of nanoperm, no, let's make it iron (so that we might find a speed-value in existing literature).

How fast will the B-field from this magnet travel along the iron?

I think this is an important question -- does anyone know if magnetic-field propagation speeds for various materials have been measured?


This may all seem very esoteric, but I hope to demonstrate that this relates to achieving OU... in time as we proceed.

The speed your talking about is the speed of gravity. Tesla maintained that it's Pi over 2 times C. Take the sun away, and you don't think the Earth would continue to orbit empty space for 8 minutes do you? Gravity's traveling faster then the speed of light by exactly that much, and so is the longitudinal magnetic power wave, currently known as the scaler wave. Measuring the speed your talking about really dosen't make any sense because it travels through time and arrives before it leaves in the future!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on August 08, 2011, 11:37:28 PM
 Hasn't anyone figured out that you guys are shorting out the magnetic field into the core. You are only using the e-field. This is why you are starting to scratch the surface of this. When you short out the heavy magnetic field the e-field becomes free to attract charges<-heavy magnetic field particles to the source e-field. I would not be using this in a Faraday cage because you are limiting your unit from collecting the charges and yes the charges are in the form of heat.

 These systems run cold because they are depleted of their ambient charges or heat and then draw in charges from the e-field to follow back to the source high voltage(wire). This is where this energy is coming from. Increase the voltage and the field grows to collect from a bigger area. Give the field a different geometry and it will focus or amplify this collected charges. Now if you did a short test of adding an antenna of say 12 inches and a smaller in dimension antenna with equal mass to the system you might be able to draw even more and amplify the results by concentrating the collected charges onto the smaller antenna.

 I doubt you will be able to effectively measure the power input in traditional ways here. This voltage has nearly no amperage at all. That means it is using the sub component of our traditional electricity. When you have one half of the fields
locked into the torrid there is very little resistance and hence the lower amp draw from the source. Except of course to fill the components with both the fields. Once the magnetic field is at full strength in the core then the draw goes way down and the e-field is free to interact with the environment.

 I know this changes the direction to this experiment but I highly believe this system you are looking at is too closed looped to draw in enough to be useful. What you need to do is shield the wires with a static shielding all around the system then expose the antennas to the environment. Do not ground the shielding, leave it be so it creates an inductive bottle and keep the voltage from being satisfied by the environmental charges. Once the charges enter the system from the environment you should see plenty of power in the load.

 If I'm way to off from your experiment then maybe there is something in my words that might clue you into knowing what is happening in this system you are looking at.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on August 09, 2011, 09:09:42 PM
Hasn't anyone figured out that you guys are shorting out the magnetic field into the core. You are only using the e-field. This is why you are starting to scratch the surface of this. When you short out the heavy magnetic field the e-field becomes free to attract charges<-heavy magnetic field particles to the source e-field. I would not be using this in a Faraday cage because you are limiting your unit from collecting the charges and yes the charges are in the form of heat.

 These systems run cold because they are depleted of their ambient charges or heat and then draw in charges from the e-field to follow back to the source high voltage(wire). This is where this energy is coming from. Increase the voltage and the field grows to collect from a bigger area. Give the field a different geometry and it will focus or amplify this collected charges. Now if you did a short test of adding an antenna of say 12 inches and a smaller in dimension antenna with equal mass to the system you might be able to draw even more and amplify the results by concentrating the collected charges onto the smaller antenna.

 I doubt you will be able to effectively measure the power input in traditional ways here. This voltage has nearly no amperage at all. That means it is using the sub component of our traditional electricity. When you have one half of the fields
locked into the torrid there is very little resistance and hence the lower amp draw from the source. Except of course to fill the components with both the fields. Once the magnetic field is at full strength in the core then the draw goes way down and the e-field is free to interact with the environment.

 I know this changes the direction to this experiment but I highly believe this system you are looking at is too closed looped to draw in enough to be useful. What you need to do is shield the wires with a static shielding all around the system then expose the antennas to the environment. Do not ground the shielding, leave it be so it creates an inductive bottle and keep the voltage from being satisfied by the environmental charges. Once the charges enter the system from the environment you should see plenty of power in the load.

 If I'm way to off from your experiment then maybe there is something in my words that might clue you into knowing what is happening in this system you are looking at.

 If you do decide that antennas would merit further experimentation then the proper placement of those antennas should be after the voltage increase and the antenna line is protected from a reverse from happening by a diode on the antenna line. The load should be connected before the diode and to one side of the load. The other side of the load should be connected to the smaller in dimension but equal mass antenna. This way the charges flow towards the high potential through the device after they are picked up by the smaller antenna.

 This works in a method of line compression. The larger antenna has more surface area over a larger area of the environment. This makes the electric field around the larger antenna less dense. The smaller antenna has the same field but it is more compressed or higher density which makes it's value larger. The lines will connect from the larger antenna to the smaller antenna and because the larger antenna is lower in potential then the smaller, the flow will be towards the smaller antenna. Any charges that enter the system will be attracted around the smaller antenna and into the system towards the source voltage to try and balance it and drive your load in the process. Since resistance doesn't react to high voltages in the same way the resistance of the load means nothing except to force the charges to convert and be released as work which coincidentally is movement or heat again to be released into the environment by the load.
 At that point I would strongly think about a transformer to separate the load from the unit and facilitate a better conversion of the high voltage down to a safer level for the load to use. Any extra charges would cause a raising of the current available after the transformer. This way you are inductively coupling to the source and the whole input system will not be in direct connection to the load. This should make tuning the system easier especially when the real load you are trying to run is based off of induction or capacitance or even resistance. The transformer coil would be a fixed load I would think.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 10, 2011, 11:20:24 PM
.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: kooler on August 11, 2011, 04:58:40 AM
wow
you guys got alot further than i thought you would .. good job..
xee2.. you got 2 ua's.. good    but i think i will send you some 70,000 perm cores you can do better than that. dude..

the mentor has to out do the understudy..

i envy u guy having the time to work on this stuff..   my time is limited but i wish i could do more in it

robbie
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on August 11, 2011, 08:52:46 AM
   Robbie:
   Good to hear back from you, its been a while.
                                                                       Nick
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 12, 2011, 02:28:07 PM
Xee2 from the JT topic has a circuit that should light an led from an AA for seven years!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2SwZvE41Ok&feature=feedu

Bill

***EDIT***

Great job X!  Very well done sir.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 13, 2011, 04:10:41 PM
.

Remarkable, NP -- how the voltage has come back up.  Pls keep us informed on how it goes.

Good to hear from you, Kooler...  long time no hear, glad you're still kickin'.     (I wonder where my friend Feynman is??)

I'm back from the LONG family trip, met with family and friends in Maryland, Penna, Michigan, and Missouri... 
Ready now to get back in the saddle of research.

Thanks again, Nul-pts, for your work and for your replication/modifications -- I'm looking forward to studying these further as we go forward.

Steven J
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: kooler on August 14, 2011, 07:07:23 AM
hello.. nick and mr jones  good to talk to folks again

last year i found some nanocrystalline amorphous cores.. i'm thinking the permeability of one of my cores is around 40000-50000
they worked so well i have since bought a bunch more.. and these are 70000 and 80000 perm.. and they are beening shipped to me as i write.. :-\   
even the ones i have will light a led and my meter wont show the draw from the battery cause its so low..
but do you guys and girls know were i might pick up some more very high permeability cores.. higher than 80000 permeability..
please let me know..

robbie
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 15, 2011, 01:56:19 AM
hello.. nick and mr jones  good to talk to folks again

last year i found some nanocrystalline amorphous cores.. i'm thinking the permeability of one of my cores is around 40000-50000
they worked so well i have since bought a bunch more.. and these are 70000 and 80000 perm.. and they are beening shipped to me as i write.. :-\   
even the ones i have will light a led and my meter wont show the draw from the battery cause its so low..
but do you guys and girls know were i might pick up some more very high permeability cores.. higher than 80000 permeability..
please let me know..

robbie

Hey, Robbie --

  Intriguing post-- are you willing to share the circuit you're using? to do, as you say, "will light a led and my meter wont show the draw from the battery cause its so low"...  I'd like to try it out...

Also, can you tell us where you got the approx "80000 perm" cores -- and are these toroids (I assume)?

Thanks, Kooler!  keep up the good work.
StevenEJones

PS -- I'm looking closely at nul-pts circuit (earlier in the thread) -- really cool!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: kooler on August 15, 2011, 06:46:55 AM
yes i will share.. :-X
these cores i bought.. i was going to test them first before i tell you guys about were the buy..
cause there fairly cheap.. so i am hoping they are what they say they are..
and if they are.. i got a few i might send to a couple ppl here at this forum..
i already have real good cores.. i just trying to find you guys and girls some nice toroids..

robbie
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on August 15, 2011, 05:31:45 PM
  Robbie:
   I've looked for the higher perm cores, as it seams that the newer ones (nano ferrite cores) can go all the way up to 200.000 perm.  But I have not really come across anything higher than 70.000. Most of the regular ferites cores available only go to 15.000
   I really think that the way to make these circuits work properly is by using the right cores, otherwise they will not perform as we'd like.
  As of last year 2010, there has been a lack of the high perm cores as they are being sent overseas.
  At one time IST gave the link to where he bought the big 6 inch 15000 perm ferite toroids, but I have since lost that link. 
                              Nick

   
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on August 15, 2011, 05:38:48 PM
  For those interested this is one place that sells the nanoperm cores?
   http://www.feryster.pl/polski/nanoperm.php?lang=en
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on August 15, 2011, 07:41:58 PM
yes i will share.. :-X
these cores i bought.. i was going to test them first before i tell you guys about were the buy..
cause there fairly cheap.. so i am hoping they are what they say they are..
and if they are.. i got a few i might send to a couple ppl here at this forum..
i already have real good cores.. i just trying to find you guys and girls some nice toroids..

robbie

 Hey Kooler do you know if they make 10 inch outer diameter cores? I am making a toroid electric field generator for a project and I need something bigger. Maybe an inch thickness? It needs a very high permeability rating. I'm using a full bar soft iron now and I need a little less loss in the shorted magnetic material. I do hope they have the bigger rounds. It needs to be a round and not a square circle. you know doughnut like.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on August 15, 2011, 09:03:23 PM
do you know if they make 10 inch outer diameter cores?

If you are rich, you can get 14 cm diam toroids with 10,000 perm here > http://www.mag-inc.com/products/ferrite-cores/ferrite-toroids

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: kooler on August 16, 2011, 01:32:12 AM
here is where i got mine but i have not tested them yet..

http://www.cwsbytemark.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=206_247 (http://www.cwsbytemark.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=206_247)

here is a pic of what i got.. seems like i have saw these before..??

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: kooler on August 16, 2011, 06:10:41 AM
i forgot to include this pic
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 17, 2011, 04:32:35 PM

The short essay below is based on a post in another forum back in March, and I invite comments.
I realize that my own little device is far from producing tens of watts...

  I have been active in novel-energy research since the early 1980's beginning with my research in muon-catalyzed fusion.  See, for example, my paper in Nature 1986:
S.E. Jones, "Muon-Catalysed Fusion Revisited," (Invited article) Nature 321: 127-133 (1986).

   I share with many of you an overall goal of seeking for and promoting novel energy sources -- with scientific RIGOR including careful measurements -- without RANCOR or mocking.  I have found  this forum to provide a decent venue to promote rigor while -- for the most part-- avoiding mocking and rancor.  That's why I'm here.

I have at my home electronics bench an ATTEN 1062C digital storage oscilloscope, a DC power supply and a self-ranging multimeter, and a decent supply of transistors, resistors, inductors, capacitors, LED's, wire, etc.   At the University from which I retired after a career of physics research and teaching for over twenty years, I have access to more expensive scopes such as a Tektronix 3032 ( which will calculate MEAN power) as well as function generators, gaussmeters, etc.  I now live in the country, but I drive up to the university from time to time.   IOW, I have some pretty decent test equipment available -- and I would be glad to use to it to test YOUR novel-energy device, if you claim it meets the criteria below.

I would define a "novel energy"  device that has merit for science and for society as follows -- here are my criteria at this time:

1.  Energy from a non-conventional source.  This excludes:  fossil fuels and biomass burning, solar (including wind and wave power), geothermal, nuclear fission or fusion (although I should not exclude cold fusion -- but see point 3).  It does not exclude:  earth's gravitational or magnetic fields, galactic magnetic fields.  Even currently unknown sources are allowable -- and sought.

2.  More power out than in (that is, efficiency n = Pout/Pin > 1), also known as "overunity" (OU).  This does not mean that principles of physics such as conservation of energy are (necessarily) violated.  It does imply a novel energy source.  Multiple methods of measurement are preferable, but the experimental method and the measurements must bear scrutiny (e.g., a peer-reviewed paper would be great!)

3.  The observation of OU must be repeatable.  A device must work every time specified conditions are met.  Successful replication must be demonstrated also.

4.  The power output must be capable of scaling up.  (Unlike extracting tiny currents from a magnet or iron pyrite, for example.) To be more than a curiosity, a scaled-up working device should produce at least tens of watts.

5.  I would prefer that results and inventions be freely available worldwide -- certainly not controlled by some big corporation or government entity.  A benefit to humanity is sought, not beaucoup-bucks for an elite few.

6.  If a theoretical model is claimed, the basis of that model needs to be empirically demonstrated. 

I welcome comments on the stated criteria, which I may amend as time goes on.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: kooler on August 18, 2011, 05:59:20 AM
so
i messed around with the core tonight and they are great.. but there not good for low current circuits.. but that might be me.. i stated with 6 turns bifiliar.. and went to 12 turns bifilar which lowered my draw 5 ma in my circuit.. so i might need to try more turns on the primany windings.. the bemf of this with the jt circuit is real good.. right now i got 80 turns of 24 awg and it lites a neon really good.. 113 dc in a capacitor with a 7.4 ma draw.. i was hoping better results from a 80000 perm core..
oh.. i was using a 1.2 volt AA battery to test this core..
so i will look around for a better core for all us to use later..
i know this core would work 200 % better without this thick plastic cover on it.. cause the core is a 1/16 away from my wires..
but if you do buy one of these.. don't touch the tape wound core inside the cover it is very thin and sharp.. it makes a razor blade feel dull..
but if you discharge a cap thru one of these with 80 turn secondary it will get you about 4000 volts at 14 hz..
oh and it makes no noises at 2 khz - 27 khz..
the toroid core i have that i get smoking results from has a aluminum band on the outside and inside of the toroid.. and has 32 turns bifilar on it.. it is purple..

robbie

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on August 18, 2011, 05:47:32 PM
Hi Prof. Jones,

Has your circuit been scaled up with higher power levels?

If this has 8x cop just imagine using a 230 watt solar panel as the driving input. (230w*8cop)-230win= 1.61Kw spikes out. Buffer the spikes in a ultra-cap bank, dump to charge controller to maintain the battery and run a water heater on the dump load.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 18, 2011, 07:07:14 PM
Robbie:

I have always read that Metglass has the highest perm.  We used to make the ceramic nozzles for the production of Metglass.  Google it and check the numbers to see if I am correct.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ElectroGravityPhysics.com on August 19, 2011, 12:25:41 PM
I would define a "novel energy"  device that has merit for science and for society as follows -- here are my criteria at this time:

1.  Energy from a non-conventional source.  This excludes:  fossil fuels and biomass burning, solar (including wind and wave power), geothermal, nuclear fission or fusion (although I should not exclude cold fusion -- but see point 3).  It does not exclude:  earth's gravitational or magnetic fields, galactic magnetic fields.  Even currently unknown sources are allowable -- and sought.

2.  More power out than in (that is, efficiency n = Pout/Pin > 1), also known as "overunity" (OU).  This does not mean that principles of physics such as conservation of energy are (necessarily) violated.  It does imply a novel energy source.  Multiple methods of measurement are preferable, but the experimental method and the measurements must bear scrutiny (e.g., a peer-reviewed paper would be great!)

3.  The observation of OU must be repeatable.  A device must work every time specified conditions are met.  Successful replication must be demonstrated also.

4.  The power output must be capable of scaling up.  (Unlike extracting tiny currents from a magnet or iron pyrite, for example.) To be more than a curiosity, a scaled-up working device should produce at least tens of watts.

5.  I would prefer that results and inventions be freely available worldwide -- certainly not controlled by some big corporation or government entity.  A benefit to humanity is sought, not beaucoup-bucks for an elite few.

6.  If a theoretical model is claimed, the basis of that model needs to be empirically demonstrated. 

I think this make good sense, and I fully support this as marching orders going forward.

-Nils
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: BobTEW on August 19, 2011, 04:02:06 PM
MAGNET REPULSION  The TWINKIES Theory.  A "novel energy" needs "novelty cake" for a simplified view. I view the magnet's forces like the twinkie, the yellow (baked/heat) cake as the "attraction force" and the white (injected/ cold) cream center the "repulsion force".  The two outside spheres are the "d" orbital electron cloud spheres; these being bulk dependant{OU} ;)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 19, 2011, 11:11:56 PM
Steven

latest update on my SJ1 variant circuit with my DIY cell #5 as supply

after early discharge for first few hundred hours continuous operation of the SJ1-based LED flasher circuit, the cell terminal voltage has recharged to a slightly greater than initial value and now after 1000 hours operation it appears to be sustaining at that level
(please see graph below)

my control experiment with the 'sister' cell driving an equivalent load (fixed resistor) is starting to show a gradual discharge - i'll post that graph when i have data for a further week or so

so it appears that the dynamic load is necessary for the self-sustaining ability of these systems (my DIY cell #2 + my own LED flasher circuit has so far self-sustained since March - 5.5 months)

thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
 
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on August 20, 2011, 12:33:24 AM

 Please drop by my topic Professor Jones and look at it for me. Don't pay attention to my rants but try to read the whole thing and see if you understand it. Thanks

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11258.0

 Jbignes5
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jan.kolar on August 21, 2011, 03:23:40 PM
I will return to the beginning of this story. So far no one has explained discrepance between oscilloscope measurement of input power (10.04 mW) and measurement based on 40 mF capacitor discharging over 30 seconds (0.23 mW). This are pretty much different numbers. As a result also output power measured with oscilloscope is not reliable.
In my opinion oscilloscope based power measurements are quite accurate if some basic requirements are kept up namely:
1. Circuit should not contain frequencies higher than the oscilloscope can measure. Today practically all oscilloscopes on market are digitall which means they measure electrical signals by digitizing (sampling) them with high frequency. Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem says that if you want to completely describe some analog signal with set of numbers, you must sample it with at least twice the maximum frequency component. So if signal bandwidth is 100 MHz, you must use oscilloscope with bandwidth at least 100 MHz (and sampling frequency 200 MHz). This condition can be forced by some sort of low-pass filter.
2. When measuring current indirectly by measuring voltage over resistor you should use calibrated resistor with very precise value. Beware that resistance value in 37 MHz range (looking at your waveforms) can be much higher from what you measure in DC range because of so-called skin-effect! Look at this table on wikipedia its relevant to our case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect#Characteristics_of_telephone_cable_as_a_function_of_frequency
If possible you should measure current directly if oscilloscope gives this option.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jan.kolar on August 21, 2011, 03:48:08 PM
In my humble opinion skin-effect explains so called "over-unity" in Dr. Jones circuit. As all of you can see output current drawn in blue line (if i correctly interpret diagrams) has much higher frequency compared to input current. Higher frequency means higher skin-effect. So in reality output power can be 10x or so lower (say 15 times). Input current measurement is also biased but not so much because of lower frequency (say 5 times). So real numbers may be (just guessing):
input power - 2 mW
output power - 5 mW

Exact numbers depends on construction of resistors. So maybe real COP (coefficient of performance calculated as output power divided by input power) isnt 8 but only 2.5 (which isnt bad in principle).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 22, 2011, 08:30:19 PM
Steven

latest update on my SJ1 variant circuit with my DIY cell #5 as supply

after early discharge for first few hundred hours continuous operation of the SJ1-based LED flasher circuit, the cell terminal voltage has recharged to a slightly greater than initial value and now after 1000 hours operation it appears to be sustaining at that level
(please see graph below)

my control experiment with the 'sister' cell driving an equivalent load (fixed resistor) is starting to show a gradual discharge - i'll post that graph when i have data for a further week or so

so it appears that the dynamic load is necessary for the self-sustaining ability of these systems (my DIY cell #2 + my own LED flasher circuit has so far self-sustained since March - 5.5 months)

thanks
np


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

Wow!  very intriguing results, NP.  For the " SJ1 variant circuit"  to achieve this is very noteworthy: " the cell terminal voltage has recharged to a slightly greater than initial value and now after 1000 hours operation it appears to be sustaining at that level".

It may well be that a pulsed "dynamic load" is important here.  Awaiting your further results!

NickZ -- note that NP is doing what you requested essentially -- running with a battery and showing no drop in voltage... indeed, now an apparent small increase above the starting voltage.

Thanks, NP.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 22, 2011, 08:33:16 PM
Thanks for your comment, Nils (EGP) -- glad we're on the same page on this.

Please drop by my topic Professor Jones and look at it for me. Don't pay attention to my rants but try to read the whole thing and see if you understand it. Thanks

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11258.0

 Jbignes5

Will do, Jbignes5...  I'm a bit behind in responses and even reading.  Fascinating research overall!

Kooler -- thanks for this reference:

http://www.cwsbytemark.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=206_247


Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 22, 2011, 08:51:39 PM
In my humble opinion skin-effect explains so called "over-unity" in Dr. Jones circuit. As all of you can see output current drawn in blue line (if i correctly interpret diagrams) has much higher frequency compared to input current. Higher frequency means higher skin-effect. So in reality output power can be 10x or so lower (say 15 times). Input current measurement is also biased but not so much because of lower frequency (say 5 times). So real numbers may be (just guessing):
input power - 2 mW
output power - 5 mW

Exact numbers depends on construction of resistors. So maybe real COP (coefficient of performance calculated as output power divided by input power) isnt 8 but only 2.5 (which isnt bad in principle).

 You may well be right, Jan.  Thanks for comments.  What I've been looking at is -- other means to measure the output power and input power than using oscilloscopes -- as one can see in this thread as it goes along .
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on August 22, 2011, 09:23:43 PM
    Guys:
   The blinking led gives the circuit a chance to recuperate between pulses.  I get that on some of my BwJt circuits as the battery get low, it gets to a point where it will perpetual blink an led.  I didn't see the point in seeing how many months it would blink for...   But, bright led(s), after a month or more of non-stop use, are worth noting.
  A self-running BwJt circuit, is the only test that I can honestly trust. As these devices can fool any scope or meter. 
  Are these open or closed system devices? That is still my question.
 
  I think that a working combination of a crystal power cell along with an efficient BwJt circuit, is a realistic way to get to that perpetual self runner.  As I don't have magic shoes.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 23, 2011, 02:24:35 AM
Nick

the circuit doesn't 'recuperate' between pulses

each flash discharges some energy from the buffer capacitor across the supply

what happens between pulses is that the voltage cell has to recharge energy lost by the capacitor

if you remove the cell from the circuit then the voltage on the capacitor will just keep decreasing until the voltage is too low for the circuit to flash the LED any more

if you connect a conventional cell as a supply then it will discharge also - yes, it will take a long time, but if you make a graph of the supply voltage against time you will see that the terminal voltage steadily decreases

i have done this (and i show a sample discharge trend for a NiMH cell with a similar circuit on my blog)

the difference with the results i'm posting above is that these are not conventional cells - they are more like the crystal cells you mention

the combination of cell and circuit is able to self-sustain its operation - ie. the system recharges, it doesn't steadily discharge

these cell/circuit systems are each contained inside metal cases, so they are 'closed-systems' as far as external electromagnetic energy is concerned

however, they are not isolated from the influence of ambient heat, and so i believe that is the source of the extra energy required to keep these systems charged

the point of this experiment is to confirm the principle that a system can operate without external supply of energy by the user but using a novel renewable energy source (ie not solar, wind, hydro, etc)

no magic shoes required!  ;)

np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on August 23, 2011, 04:31:56 AM
   NP and All:
   Although I agree with most of what you have mentioned, I must say that there are some anomalies in these BwJt or Hartley Oscillator circuits. The ultimate anomaly is that the source battery is being recharged with every pulse, as I mentioned.  Most circuits are not efficient enough to keep up with that low or tiny incoming source of energy, and will run down and discharge the battery.  But, every once in a while, like with Koolers 5 month running BwJt circuits (two) as an example,  the circuits did last, until the non-rechargeable batteries leaked from constant self charging.  The pulses are going back to the battery, I believe that can be confirmed. 
  Maybe now that Kooler is posting again, he can answer some questions about his long running, almost perpetual circuits, himself.  As his leds were still very bright, after 5 months of use.  I have not been able to replicate those results myself,  yet...  Now he is using the 50.000 to 80.000 nano(perm) toroids, on his newest circuits.
  Dr. Stiffler came up with another example of light out of thin air, with his three coils, no transistor, or any battery source set up, lighting an led or two.
   
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 23, 2011, 05:09:31 AM
Nick

the type of circuit used is not critical - it doesn't need to be a Hartley-type oscillator or any type of JT

i have one system which has now been running continuously since mid-Feb and self-sustaining for more than 5 months - it uses a 'relaxation' type oscillator: the cell charges a capacitor and, when the voltage reaches the trigger level, an SCR type circuit triggers the switching transistor to discharge energy from the cap and pulse it thro' an LED. The cell then recharges the cap and the process repeats

the Stiffler 3-coil circuit is unshielded and has an Earth connection - a good scheme to harvest any stray emissions in the area or from the Utility lines

the systems i'm reporting are all shielded and have no earth connection - essentially each one is inside its own Faraday cage - no pickup of stray signals

of course it would be interesting to hear more detail from Kooler about any of his circuits, but in this case since one of my circuits has already been running for 6 months, without nanoperm cores, and the simple DIY cells are still in good condition then maybe i can give some tips to him!  ;)

good luck with your replications
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on August 23, 2011, 06:05:18 AM
   NP:
   Dr. Stiffler has mentioned that what is being pick-up are not stray radio, Tv, or grid signals.
   I'm not sure I follow your circuit with a blinking led. Do you have a video or circuit of it? A source battery is charging a cap that discharges through an led?  But the battery is not dropping, is that correct?  Can it maintain a useful steady bright led light without the battery dropping in charge?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: kooler on August 23, 2011, 06:19:31 AM
the type of circuit used is not critical - it doesn't need to be a Hartley-type oscillator or any type of JT
i have one system which has now been running continuously since mid-Feb and self-sustaining for more than 5 months - it uses a 'relaxation' type oscillator: the cell charges a capacitor and, when the voltage reaches the trigger level, an SCR type circuit triggers the switching transistor to discharge energy from the cap and pulse it thro' an LED. The cell then recharges the cap and the process repeats
the systems i'm reporting are all shielded and have no earth connection - essentially each one is inside its own Faraday cage - no pickup of stray signals
of course it would be interesting to hear more detail from Kooler about any of his circuits, but in this case since one of my circuits has already been running for 6 months, without nanoperm cores, and the simple DIY cells are still in good condition then maybe i can give some tips to him!  ;)
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

i would love to see your scr working your transistor.. and please show me what your triggering the scr with at such low volts.. without sticking open and draining the whole device.. i have 30 or so different volt triggers from 2-5 volts which cost me 5 ua in a circuit and then the scr cost me 100ua.. ??
oh lets see how bright your 6 month circuit is ..  ::)
i can make a dull led lite ..probably till i die.. sooner than you think..  :D

but really..  teach me something.. i am always open to learning
theres so many phd's is these forums in the last 2 years.. you would think we would have atleast a 500 kw unit by now..
show me something really kool and i will give you my two transformer device..

oh.. i like your nice line charts.. keep up your good work..

i may not be back for comments till thursday or friday.. so if you want to flame me wait till then .. thanks

robbie
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hope on August 23, 2011, 06:38:33 AM
Ok to gain some BEMF and turn it into real power we need to watch and understand this link instead of asking Steven to teach us.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Perepiteia_Generator_by_Potential_Difference_Inc

This is one of the things big brother didn't want us to know.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 23, 2011, 06:05:55 PM
 
i would love to see your scr working your transistor.. and please show me what your triggering the scr with at such low volts
[...]

hi Robbie, good to meet you, too, Nick has told us all a lot about you

the SCR-type circuit below will switch on Q3 at i/ps around 0.9-1.2V, select zener or diode on test to adjust pulse switch time-constant. Equivalent load resistance of the full circuit, including LED drive, is several Mohms, so the current draw is well under 1uA

i used it extensively until i found something better


Quote from: kooler
[...]
 ..probably till i die.. sooner than you think..  :D
[...]
robbie

yeah, me too - tho' the Doc has at least managed to get my BP down to exactly half of what it was last year - on both numbers
 
 
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 23, 2011, 08:28:39 PM
 I've been working also on the Bi-toroid transformer (BTT) approach, and in particular, the Gabriel Device.  Big announcement today:

RE:
It look like I have some good news...
Test was with amplifier, at 24 Volts input.
Observation:
1) It seems the output power depend directly of the input current...
2) The secondary current seems to be constant at all load...
3) The best result was when I don't saturate the inner, (inner was at more or less 1 Tesla)...
4) Two test was made: one with 100 Hz and another with 250 Hz...
5) At 100 Hz the output the bulb more brighter than input bulb.
6) At 250 Hz the input bulb was off but the output was gloomy.
7) If I up frequency the output become darker.
8 ) It seems to have an asymmetric, unproportional current between input and output...
9) Traditional transformer windings ratio doesn't work here, 12V 100 turns will not turns into 24V 200 turns for example !!!

Hypothesis:

1) I think is better to not saturate the inner.
2) To increase output with no input, I think to wind more turns at secondary OR
3) The FE effect is not related to Heins effect but rather a phase difference between primary and secondary, more the shell is thick more you have phase difference, at 90° you can put any load you want the input will remain zero..
4) OR both phenomena described above...

Now Photos !!!

Congratulations!  I stand behind you.  WAY behind you in this Xformer development (but see photo of my electronics bench this morning -- at least I'm working on it, climbing the learning curve).

Mavendex says it's a "winner", and I think he's right... but needs QUANTITATIVE measurements ASAP.

QUESTION:  what do you fellows think is the BEST way to make quantitative measurements of Power-in and Power-Out, for this device?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on August 23, 2011, 11:11:20 PM
Thanks for your comment, Nils (EGP) -- glad we're on the same page on this.

Will do, Jbignes5...  I'm a bit behind in responses and even reading.  Fascinating research overall!

Kooler -- thanks for this reference:

http://www.cwsbytemark.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=206_247

 Thats ok I understand how daunting being a professor and researching can be. Like I said it is still in work form so it might be a little hard to follow. As a side note others have also been coming to this conclusion and they are also professors as well. I think the best way to approach this is to understand how energy transfers in the first place. Our current theory has way to many holes in it to be correct and I believe we have gotten it wrong based on something we invented to shore up our current theories and not based on what is present in front of our eyes.
 Thanks for responding.
 Jbignes5
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 25, 2011, 11:24:54 PM
NP -- glad to hear this!!
Quote
yeah, me too - tho' the Doc has at least managed to get my BP down to exactly half of what it was last year - on both numbers

   I'm trying to get more exercise lately...  but alt-energy is such fun (!) that time is a bit of a factor   ;)

   I finally made it to a small lab at the university and borrowed a Hall-probe to take magnetic-field measurements on two winding types, that we've discussed (above):

1.  Single-wound, 30 turns
2.  Bifilar-wound, total of 30 turns also.

So both have N = 30 turns and should (theoretically) have the same fields... now to compare the field strengths. 
(The Hall probe gives me relative measurements in mV, stronger field shown by higher readings; not calibrated yet... )

Photo shows the set-up.  Data coming.  (I'm finding the 500 kB limit on photo to be time-consuming to do...)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 25, 2011, 11:32:58 PM
These photos show results on the ambient B-field, earth's field, with Hall-probe approx. parallel to the meter.  Note that the nail without windings is the same as the probe held approx 10 cm above the nails+windings -- at 1.0 mV in each case. 

This is the ambient reading.

Looking at the photo left, you can see the single-wound coil on a nail, and a bifilar coil is also seen.  These are what we will compare -- as to the B-fields produced.  Notice that the current is sent through BOTH coils at the SAME time; that is, they are connected in series.  This insures that both coils have the exact same DC current.
StevenEJones
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 26, 2011, 12:29:30 AM
  OK -- now for results, as promised.

Attached, we observe the Hall-probe readings for the bifilar-wound coil on the left, and the single-wound coil on the right.  The current through both coils (connected in series) is 3.0 amps. The two readings are repeated, as shown in the second attached photo-pair, showing that the readings are repeatable. 

Recalling that the ambient field reading is 1.0 mV (see above), we have:
B-bifilar ~ 3.2 mV - 1.0 mV = 2.2 mV
B-single ~ 1.8 mV - 1.0 mV = 0.8 mV.

Consistently in these experiments, I have found that:
THE BIFILAR-WOUND COIL GIVES HIGHER B-FIELD READINGS THAN SINGLE-WOUND COIL.

Since both coils have identical currents and the same number of turns (30 in these cases) and the same cores (nails from the same box), I do not understand the physics that causes the bifilar-wound coil to have higher readings, consistently.  But that is the observation.

As a scientist, I would like to see the experiment tried again (and again).  In particular, I would like to use a calibrated Gaussmeter for the comparisons.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 26, 2011, 12:51:00 AM
  I tried variations, reversing the current direction, changing the order in which the coils were connected (always in series), changing the current -- consistently the same result:
THE BIFILAR-WOUND COIL GIVES HIGHER B-FIELD READINGS THAN SINGLE-WOUND COIL.

I had two different pairs (4 coils total), and the second pair gave the same conclusion and approximately the same numbers on the Hall-probe readings (within roughly 8% measurement error-bar).  I learned as I went along that changing the angle of the probe with respect to the coil axis and with respect to North made some difference; and this may account for the estimated 8% measurement error-bar (1 sigma; approximate). 

 In the proposed follow-up experiment, I would fix the angles of a calibrated Gaussmeter and the coil, with respect to North, and that should reduce measurement error to less than 8%.

 The tests shown above are with the coils wound CW (clock-wise, as the winding proceeded away from the starting point.) The attached test shows the result when I re-wound one of the single-wound coils, so that it is in the CCW sense, whereas the bifilar wound coil remains in the CW sense, and the current was set at 2.0 Amps.

Recalling that the ambient field reading is 1.0 mV (see above), we have:
B-bifilar ~ 1.8 mV - 1.0 mV = 0.8 mV
B-single ~ 0.6 mV - 1.0 mV = -0.4 mV.

Note that the B-field in the CCW coil is reversed from that of the CW coil, as expected; again we have the result:
THE BIFILAR-WOUND COIL GIVES HIGHER B-FIELD READINGS THAN SINGLE-WOUND COIL.

Furthermore,
THE HIGHER THE CURRENT, THE LARGER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIFILAR AND SINGLE-WOUND FIELDS,

although this conclusion is tentative since it is based on only two currents, 2.0 and 3.0 Amps DC.

Comments are welcomed.  Whew!  lots of fun!   Makes me wonder if ou can better be achieved using bifilar-wound coils.  IIRC, this type of winding originated with Tesla.



Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hope on August 26, 2011, 01:27:30 AM
IF and I say only if there is a condensed zero point inside a magnetic vortex (like a Rodin coil in operation) could we insert a ground plane into it and hold a wire extending up and out to a variable resistor or cap with a load on the far side can we measure any electrical characteristics? And thank you for being here Steve, your making a difference.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on August 26, 2011, 01:33:26 AM
  OK -- now for results, as promised.

Attached, we observe the Hall-probe readings for the bifilar-wound coil on the left, and the single-wound coil on the right.  The current through both coils (connected in series) is 3.0 amps. The two readings are repeated, as shown in the second attached photo-pair, showing that the readings are repeatable. 

Recalling that the ambient field reading is 1.0 mV (see above), we have:
B-bifilar ~ 3.2 mV - 1.0 mV = 2.2 mV
B-single ~ 1.8 mV - 1.0 mV = 0.8 mV.

Consistently in these experiments, I have found that:
THE BIFILAR-WOUND COIL GIVES HIGHER B-FIELD READINGS THAN SINGLE-WOUND COIL.

Since both coils have identical currents and the same number of turns (30 in these cases) and the same cores (nails from the same box), I do not understand the physics that causes the bifilar-wound coil to have higher readings, consistently.  But that is the observation.

As a scientist, I would like to see the experiment tried again (and again).  In particular, I would like to use a calibrated Gaussmeter for the comparisons.

 First thing I would do is this: Do not use a core. Make them air cored or plastic cored. This way you are measuring the real field and not the cored channeled field. Try not to put them in series as one will effect the other and use an amp controlled power supply. This way each coil will receive exactly 1.5 amps and not interfere with each other.
 The hall effect sensor I believe has been mistakenly taken for a magnetic sensor and I think this is in error. What it is, is actually an electric field sensor and only applies to that if the sensor is put into a normal magnetic field with all it's components it read the electric field and then we can compare that to the magnetic field rules.
 If I am mistaken then lets try to rule it out. Try detecting a voltage only field like Tesla used and you are now playing with. Very little current and higher voltage and see if the Hall effect responds in the same way. This way if the hall effect detector responds with the electric field then you know it is a misuse of the probe and can correct for the error.

 Read the Tesla patent and see if you can understand what he says about his coil.
Here is a link: http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-512,340-coil-for-electro-magnets?pq=Y29pbA==
 His coil is much different then yours. They commonly call them pancake coils now because of their flat appearance. What Tesla states is that the bifilar coils act like capacitors allowing for much higher capacity of the electric field between the windings and some how reduce the magnetic field or counter(False) currents as well. The reason Tesla used them was to convert the planar bursts of high voltage he was using to collect the energy from around the bursting wire. This was termed longitudinal waves. Of course if used in an active way it increases the electric field density and you get a stronger e-field.

 When a Core is used you are channeling the magnetic lines into that effectively increasing the e-field around the wires of the bifilar coil. When you use a toroid core this is a unique core. Very special things happen here. The magnetic field is locked into the core and the full electric field is free to play with a substantial boost to the density. When the core is axial the magnetic field come back into play after a short channel through the core.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 26, 2011, 07:42:30 AM
First thing I would do is this: Do not use a core. Make them air cored or plastic cored. This way you are measuring the real field and not the cored channeled field. Try not to put them in series as one will effect the other and use an amp controlled power supply. This way each coil will receive exactly 1.5 amps and not interfere with each other.
 The hall effect sensor I believe has been mistakenly taken for a magnetic sensor and I think this is in error. What it is, is actually an electric field sensor and only applies to that if the sensor is put into a normal magnetic field with all it's components it read the electric field and then we can compare that to the magnetic field rules.
 If I am mistaken then lets try to rule it out. Try detecting a voltage only field like Tesla used and you are now playing with. Very little current and higher voltage and see if the Hall effect responds in the same way. This way if the hall effect detector responds with the electric field then you know it is a misuse of the probe and can correct for the error.

 Read the Tesla patent and see if you can understand what he says about his coil.
Here is a link: http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-512,340-coil-for-electro-magnets?pq=Y29pbA==
 His coil is much different then yours. They commonly call them pancake coils now because of their flat appearance. What Tesla states is that the bifilar coils act like capacitors allowing for much higher capacity of the electric field between the windings and some how reduce the magnetic field or counter(False) currents as well. The reason Tesla used them was to convert the planar bursts of high voltage he was using to collect the energy from around the bursting wire. This was termed longitudinal waves. Of course if used in an active way it increases the electric field density and you get a stronger e-field.

 When a Core is used you are channeling the magnetic lines into that effectively increasing the e-field around the wires of the bifilar coil. When you use a toroid core this is a unique core. Very special things happen here. The magnetic field is locked into the core and the full electric field is free to play with a substantial boost to the density. When the core is axial the magnetic field come back into play after a short channel through the core.

First, I'm not saying this is the Tesla "flat" bifilar coil, just thought the general concept should be credited to him.
2.  I did the test with air core, and with aluminum-core.  Both of these tests -- with either loop -- showed the ambient field level, 0.9 to 1.0 mV.  It would be interesting to do the tests with air core AGAIN, but it would have to be at much higher current.
2b.  Moreover -- the interesting application IMO would be with a core, such as in the wound-ferrite-toroids described in this thread, and in the Gabriel device.  So the differences between single-wound and bifilar-wound with a CORE become the most interesting (OK, to me anyway).

3.  As I said, I would like to follow up with another instrument, a calibrated gaussmeter.
4.  However, I do not see how there is an electric field present (external to the Hall probe), since the magnetic field is constant, not changing.
5.  I saw no evidence that the two coils interfered in terms of the measurement -- I made sure that the distances were far apart; and in any case, I varied things a great deal and saw the same effect.
Note the cast above where I rewound one coil in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION... surely that would change the mutual interactions, if any.  Yet the results were consistent, so I find no evidence for interference between coils when taking these B field measurements.  The Hall probe measures B field quite effectively when fields are static, as in this case.  See, e.g.,
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:DjPDHlVvvcsJ:online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys401/spring11/Files/Hall%2520Probe/E67_Spring09.pdf+hall+probe+qv&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgg5KRmlDboxxVd0WJ5ZRxAgzhzcKjqUWjDzzjLVZOl8uliKRzfzLaSENOUiIXXHKloQfsvj6JptAMcc_ENK_a2pQhFJurBB4CuBZ1wd2n-h9okhRsuoA3TR6c-ZTUD--vXgPOr&sig=AHIEtbSUT96ZzoxR-9IFQHTb2WcxvsDQrw
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Jack Noskills on August 26, 2011, 08:32:31 AM
I saw a guy making tests with bifilar and normal coils in some youtube video, he put same DC through and used it as a magnet to collect paperclips. Bifilar wound got two times more paper clips than normal wound coil.

I read somewhere that tinned or silver coated wire gives three times the magnetic field compared to plain copper wire. If you have such a wire then perhaps you could see if you these add up. Make bifilar coil with such a wire and see if you get better results.

And if yo have Litz wire it would be interesting to see how 3d bifilar windings using that would work. You can make kind of winds with Litz, converting vortex, expanding vortex, converting and expanding at the same time. Lots of possibilities to explore with 3d bifilar.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 26, 2011, 01:08:23 PM
I saw a guy making tests with bifilar and normal coils in some youtube video, he put same DC through and used it as a magnet to collect paperclips. Bifilar wound got two times more paper clips than normal wound coil.

I read somewhere that tinned or silver coated wire gives three times the magnetic field compared to plain copper wire. If you have such a wire then perhaps you could see if you these add up. Make bifilar coil with such a wire and see if you get better results.

And if yo have Litz wire it would be interesting to see how 3d bifilar windings using that would work. You can make kind of winds with Litz, converting vortex, expanding vortex, converting and expanding at the same time. Lots of possibilities to explore with 3d bifilar.

That result on YT sounds consistent with what I observed -- depending on the current he used, Jack.  Thanks -- and if someone finds the url for this vid, pls let us know.
I agree that tests with different kinds of wire would be great!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on August 26, 2011, 03:48:16 PM
 I did not want to make you do things that you do not see relevant. The core issue was due to fact that any small eddies tend to mess up the works.

 When you have two coils in series there will be and interaction between the two. The regular coil acts like a choke and starves the bifilar coil of it's amperage.

 With the tests of the two different coils the bifilar coil will do more magnetically because the coil itself rejects the Magnetic lines better and forces more into the core. The regular coil has a normal field both inside and outside of the coil.

 If we look at the structure of the magnetic field there are two distinct fields at play. One being the electric and the other traditionally called the Heavy magnetic or magnetic field lines. These magnetic field lines are dependent on the electric field to hold them away from the source of the electric field and usually are 90 degrees out of phase so to speak. The electric field lines are 90 degrees from the wires plane and go outwards radially but the magnetic field lines are parallel to the wire and seem to ride the electric field lines in an cymatic fashion.

 When you use electricity no matter if it is ac or dc these two fields form with dc being a steady state field and ac being much more dynamic and full of resistance to the flow. But when you learn how to separate the two fields it amplifies both field lines density and you get an increase in the field strength of the two but using a core that is not circular allows both fields to mix again and you have a lessening of the filed strengths.

 I'm sorry to say this but you can not have one field without the other but if you learn how to channel one completely away from the other they both seem to get stronger.

 As in our electronics current follows the voltage and in magnetic fields the magnetic field lines always come after the electric field lines. It seems to me that the magnetic field lines are a response of the environment to the electric field lines. When we pump more current into the electric field it of course strengthens the magnetic lines trough the electric field.
 Example given: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/equipot.html
 This is how we teach the premise currently and I have to agree with the results because it makes sense.

 This is also what we are seeing in a round about way of the field around a wire: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elecyl.html#c1

 The Gaussian surface is what the magnetic field lines would be. This example, the Gaussian surface is where the current develops and is transferred not via the wire itself.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hope on August 26, 2011, 04:29:21 PM
I agree that silver tinned copper wire would be a interesting test.  In Walter Russell's harmonic periodic chart of elements they are harmonic opposites.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JimU on August 26, 2011, 11:16:51 PM
  I tried variations, reversing the current direction, changing the order in which the coils were connected (always in series), changing the current -- consistently the same result:
THE BIFILAR-WOUND COIL GIVES HIGHER B-FIELD READINGS THAN SINGLE-WOUND COIL.

I had two different pairs (4 coils total), and the second pair gave the same conclusion and approximately the same numbers on the Hall-probe readings (within roughly 8% measurement error-bar).  I learned as I went along that changing the angle of the probe with respect to the coil axis and with respect to North made some difference; and this may account for the estimated 8% measurement error-bar (1 sigma; approximate). 

 In the proposed follow-up experiment, I would fix the angles of a calibrated Gaussmeter and the coil, with respect to North, and that should reduce measurement error to less than 8%.

 The tests shown above are with the coils wound CW (clock-wise, as the winding proceeded away from the starting point.) The attached test shows the result when I re-wound one of the single-wound coils, so that it is in the CCW sense, whereas the bifilar wound coil remains in the CW sense, and the current was set at 2.0 Amps.

Recalling that the ambient field reading is 1.0 mV (see above), we have:
B-bifilar ~ 1.8 mV - 1.0 mV = 0.8 mV
B-single ~ 0.6 mV - 1.0 mV = -0.4 mV.

Note that the B-field in the CCW coil is reversed from that of the CW coil, as expected; again we have the result:
THE BIFILAR-WOUND COIL GIVES HIGHER B-FIELD READINGS THAN SINGLE-WOUND COIL.

Furthermore,
THE HIGHER THE CURRENT, THE LARGER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIFILAR AND SINGLE-WOUND FIELDS,

although this conclusion is tentative since it is based on only two currents, 2.0 and 3.0 Amps DC.

Comments are welcomed.  Whew!  lots of fun!   Makes me wonder if ou can better be achieved using bifilar-wound coils.  IIRC, this type of winding originated with Tesla.

Hi Dr. Jones,

      My take on this, FWIW, and I wrote this up earlier, is that the bifilar coil has
higher capacitance and therefore holds more charge at a give voltage drop
across it.   When current is flowing, there are then more electrons in that
coil than the standard-wound one.  The solenoid magnetic field is produced
by the electrons moving around the coil.  Even though the current is the
same in both coils (electrons flowing in or out per second), there are more
electrons packed into the bifilar coil and thus moving around the bifilar coil
windings producing therefore a higher magnetic field.  So, Q=CV means
more charge in the coil, and the standard B=uNi/L is not an accurate formula
when capacitance differences arise.  Larger currents means a larger voltage
drop across each coil, thus packing relatively more charge into each, the
bifilar growing more.  Presumably this would lead to your observation of
the ratio of difference in the magnetic fields growing for larger currents.
Of course, I should calculate all this to see if this theory matches the results!

      Regards,     Jim

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 27, 2011, 09:00:07 PM
Hi Dr. Jones,

      My take on this, FWIW, and I wrote this up earlier, is that the bifilar coil has
higher capacitance and therefore holds more charge at a give voltage drop
across it.  [snip for brevity sake]

      Regards,     Jim

  Interesting, Jim -- I will measure the Capacitance of the two coils, bifilar and single-wound, and let you know the result.    How much difference in capacitance C would you expect, to give such a large difference in observed B?   (approx.)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on August 27, 2011, 10:25:30 PM
 Well if you make it like Tesla's pancake coil he said he could get 250,000 Time more capacity of a coil.

 "relations with each other as to materially increase the self-induction.
I have found that in every coil there exists a certain relation between its self-induction and capacity that permits a current of given frequency and potential to pass through it with no other opposition than that of ohmic resistance, or, in other words, as though it possessed no self-induction. This is due to the mutual relations existing between the special character of the current and the self-induction and capacity of the coil, the latter quantity being just capable of neutralizing the self-induction for that frequency. It is well-known that the higher the frequency or potential difference of the current the smaller the capacity required to counteract the self-induction; hence, in any coil, however small the capacity, it may be sufficient for the purpose stated if the proper conditions in other respects be secured. In the ordinary coils the difference of potential between adjacent turns or spires is very small, so that while they are in a sense condensers, they possess but very small capacity and the relations between the two quantities, self-induction and capacity, are not such as under any ordinary conditions satisfy the requirements herein contemplated, because the capacity relatively to the self-induction is very small.
In order to attain my object and to properly increase the capacity of any given coil, I wind it in such way as to secure a greater difference of potential between its adjacent turns or convolutions, and since the energy stored in the coil—considering the latter as a condenser, is proportionate to the square of the potential difference between its adjacent convolutions, it is evident that I may in this way secure by a proper disposition of these convolutions a greatly increased capacity for a given increase in potential difference between the turns."

 But I think you need to make the coil like he designed and then parallel them or serial them per capacitance rules to get the desired results you are looking for. Doing the coil the way you did kinda ruins the results a bit since there has to be an order to the coil for the capacitance to build properly. This would mean that your coil would have much less capacitance then the way he did it.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on August 28, 2011, 02:58:44 PM

   I finally made it to a small lab at the university and borrowed a Hall-probe to take magnetic-field measurements on two winding types, that we've discussed (above):
....
1.  Single-wound, 30 turns
2.  Bifilar-wound, total of 30 turns also.

So both have N = 30 turns and should (theoretically) have the same fields... now to compare the field strengths. 
....

Hi Steven,

Would like you to clarify for me because it is not a 100% clear for me from the photo of your coils. When you made the bifilar winding on the nail, did you wind 30 turns with the two pieces of parallel guided wires  OR did you wind only 15 turns and the 30 turns already include the 15 + 15 turns in series?
Because in case of 30 turns from the parallel guided wires already mean 30 + 30 turns when you connect them in series aiding.

Sorry for this question, just wish to understand the two kind of coils on the two nails (the angle of the nails in the photos do not readily let an easy visual comparison of the winding lengths to see the answer).

Thanks, Gyula

EDIT:  Just found your photo in Reply #785 in which the two windings on the two nails can be seen in 'a correct angle)  and now I think your bifilar winding has 15 + 15 turns i.e. 30 turns alltogether, just like the single winding on the other nail.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on August 29, 2011, 05:59:36 AM
yes i will share.. :-X
these cores i bought.. i was going to test them first before i tell you guys about were the buy..
cause there fairly cheap.. so i am hoping they are what they say they are..
and if they are.. i got a few i might send to a couple ppl here at this forum..
i already have real good cores.. i just trying to find you guys and girls some nice toroids..

robbie

Thanks for the core. Video of 1.5uA Joule thief using the core you sent me >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfMj4B7c0Ww

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on August 29, 2011, 08:34:08 PM
Hi Professor and ALL;

I am new to the site, but am experimenting with Dr. Jone's circuit for 8X overunity.  Have tried several coils with the circuit, but so far no gain above unity.  Am waiting for the specified torroid ferrite core to be delivered so am compatable with his design.  I did notice a small steady state DC current being used by the circuit I have, which I assume is being accounted for, as well as the AC pulses centered around zero.   If I ignore the DC, I get the 8X gain, otherwise less than unity.  Am a bit frustrated by this so far, but will keep trying.  I have a EE background, so can follow most of the discussion.  Any help would be appreciated.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 30, 2011, 04:30:03 PM
Hi Professor and ALL;

I am new to the site, but am experimenting with Dr. Jone's circuit for 8X overunity.  Have tried several coils with the circuit, but so far no gain above unity.  Am waiting for the specified torroid ferrite core to be delivered so am compatable with his design.  I did notice a small steady state DC current being used by the circuit I have, which I assume is being accounted for, as well as the AC pulses centered around zero.   If I ignore the DC, I get the 8X gain, otherwise less than unity.  Am a bit frustrated by this so far, but will keep trying.  I have a EE background, so can follow most of the discussion.  Any help would be appreciated.

Welcome to the discussion, albertouno.  Can you provide a circuit diagram for your build? -- this will help in trying to understand differences.  Also, does your scope have the multiply function, and are you using it to provide the power = V(t)*I(t) waveform?

Finally, if you will perform the capacitor/time test on the Input Power for your build as delineated above, one can compare the Pinput for your build with other builds.  This will help us determine whether or not your build is "in the same ballpark" as my DUT and Nul-pts builds (for example).

@Gyula: Thanks, Gyula -- I see you found the answer.  Yes, both nails have the SAME windings, 30 turns all-together.

Quote
EDIT:  Just found your photo in Reply #785 in which the two windings on the two nails can be seen in 'a correct angle)  and now I think your bifilar winding has 15 + 15 turns i.e. 30 turns alltogether, just like the single winding on the other nail.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on August 31, 2011, 04:48:50 PM
This is not my work but I thought someone should look at it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPX2xvrgvfU&
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on September 02, 2011, 08:02:01 PM
Thanks Joulseeker for your suggestions and offer to help.  My scope does not have the multiply capability for showing power.  I tried to attach a copy of the schematic of circuit being used,  which is appears essentially identical to yours.  I thinkt the 1 inch torroid is the recommended one, with 9 turns of #22 guage wire.  Inductance TBD.   The base resistor was 56k and 100pf fixed cap, plus variable cap to get 150 pf total.   2N2222 transistor.used (tried several).

 Per your suggestion, I did the capacitor/stopwatch test.with a 10 farad supercap. The circuit output resistor was 1000 ohms. Note 10,000 ohms causes scope probe to affect LED brightness.  Test voltages were 2.84v at start, 2,58v after 5 minutes, 2.35v after 10 min.  I get 23.5 mwatts after 5 min, and 21.2 mw after 10 min.  This seems too high for getting overunity.  All scope and voltmeter probes were disconnected during test, except at indicated times. The output after 30 min, with 1.70v input, was series of pulses across resistor of 5v peak and 2 us period.   Led was very dim.   

Calculating output power is a challenge.  Maybe heat some distilled water with the output resistor is a small container?  Any suggestions on reducing input power?  I didn't have much luck using a pot on input return leg  as shown in your video.  The circuit did jump into a strange higher voltage mode at output when input voltage exceeded 5 volts.  Are component values very critical for getting overunity?

 

--





















Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 03, 2011, 04:10:10 PM
  OK -- now for results, as promised.

Attached, we observe the Hall-probe readings for the bifilar-wound coil on the left, and the single-wound coil on the right.  The current through both coils (connected in series) is 3.0 amps. The two readings are repeated, as shown in the second attached photo-pair, showing that the readings are repeatable. 

Recalling that the ambient field reading is 1.0 mV (see above), we have:
B-bifilar ~ 3.2 mV - 1.0 mV = 2.2 mV
B-single ~ 1.8 mV - 1.0 mV = 0.8 mV.

Consistently in these experiments, I have found that:
THE BIFILAR-WOUND COIL GIVES HIGHER B-FIELD READINGS THAN SINGLE-WOUND COIL.


Since both coils have identical currents and the same number of turns (30 in these cases) and the same cores (nails from the same box), I do not understand the physics that causes the bifilar-wound coil to have higher readings, consistently.  But that is the observation.

As a scientist, I would like to see the experiment tried again (and again).  In particular, I would like to use a calibrated Gaussmeter for the comparisons.

@JimU -- I have borrowed a good LCR meter to take capacitance C measurements -- an MCP BR2822 meter.  The meter measures C at various frequencies.  At 100 and 120 Hz, C values are ZERO for both the bifilar and single-wound coils.  At 10 KHz, I get 104 uF for the single-wound and 122 uF for the bifilar -- so the bifilar is higher, but again, my measurements of B were taken with DC current (where the capacitance as measured would be zero or close to it).

It is interesting that the measured inductance L values are different also,
Single wound, L = 10 uH (@100 Hz), 1.9 uH (@ 10 KHz)
Bifilar wound,  L = 11 uH (@100 Hz), 2.4 uH (@ 10 KHz)

@albertouno --   Your Pinput values seem reasonable, although somewhat higher than mine as you read back through the thread.   

Measuring Poutput is much more difficult, given the high-frequency oscillations in the Poutput waveform.  I measured Poutput using the scope's multiply function on V(t)*I(t)  [output] -- as delineated above.

 Since your scope does not have that function, you will have to use some other means.  Measuring temp rise in a small amount of water as you mentioned is one way, basically a simple calorimeter -- but it would have to be calibrated in some way (perhaps with a resistor and a known energy input from a cap). 

As I mentioned above, I was quite excited when a colleague would allow me to use his sophisticated calorimeter at the university; but he then grew very reluctant to allow me to put a circuit into his calorimeter...  So at the moment, that effort has hit a wall... 

Meanwhile, I am looking into other methods for approaching OU also which are taking time -- and teaching me a great deal!  In particular, looking at the Gabriel device and the Tesla/Smith/Zilano device.  These approaches have the advantage of scaling easily (if they provide OU!) to output powers in the kilowatt range.    Lots of fun!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 03, 2011, 05:44:18 PM
   I should add that a VERY good way to show OU is to loop output power back into the input... not so easy in this case, but Nul-Pts has shown a path for doing just this. 

His schematic and very interesting RESULTS are given by him earlier in this thread.

Other modified builds were also interesting -- please see the video by Lasersaber:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS2W_48_QKQ
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on September 03, 2011, 06:06:03 PM
...
It is interesting that the measured inductance L values are different also,
Single wound, L = 10 uH (@100 Hz), 1.9 uH (@ 10 KHz)
Bifilar wound,  L = 11 uH (@100 Hz), 2.4 uH (@ 10 KHz)
...

Hi Steven,

Would like to suggest a a couple of things to make your B field measurements more precise.

First I suggest to use a simple self adhesive tape for fixing the winding ends onto the nails because as I could make out from your pictures on the setup the windings can spring out (spread out lengthwise), this may explain the small difference in the L inductance at 100Hz between the single and bifilar coils. The higher difference in L at 10kHz may involve also the effect of the loose winding ends, together with some nonlinear permeability change at such a frequency for a nail iron material (normally very bad cores above some hundred Hz, with increasing eddy losses too).

Second I suggest to place the B field probe to the head end of the nails where the facing areas are more defined, comparing this to the needle end of the nails where you actually placed the probe (more uncertainty can creep in).  You could touch the probe straight onto the head, facing the probe to it. This way the mV values would be higher too due to the bigger surface area of the head ends.

Maybe shifting the position of the single coil on the surface of the nails before fixing it with a tape and finding the same L value the bifilar coil has at 10kHz could help making the two coils more uniform, this would bring more meaningful B field measurements. (Not that your data so far is less meaningful of course, the factor of 2 difference in the B field is surely close to reality.)

Regarding the self capacitance measured values of 104uF or 122uF is meaningless for me (I think this is an artifact of the meter)  unless the meter showed a transformed value of the normally expected some pF parallel self C into the equivalent higher series value at 10kHz. Could you study the User manual of the meter, maybe it includes some hints on coils self capacitance measurement. 
Normally a coil's  self C is measured by connecting two different known C values in parallel with it, one after the other and measure the two different resonance frequencies, then calculate self C from the Thomson formula.
http://www.qsl.net/in3otd/inductors.html 
Here is another tip:
http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=8660  but this involves using a grid-dip meter (a frequency calibrated variable oscillator) for learning on the coil's self resonance frequency.

Thanks,  Gyula

EDIT  PS: MAybe my suggestion of bringing the two coils self inductance equal at 10kHz (by shifting the single coil axially on the nail) sounds absurd (due to the DC current excitation when tested in series).  In case you can nicely fix the number of turns tightly on the nails for both of the coils with tape and then find the 100Hz inductance measurement match better than before for the 10 and 11uH results, then the 10kHz "fine tuning" is not needed of course.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on September 03, 2011, 08:24:59 PM

Single wound, L = 10 uH (@100 Hz), 1.9 uH (@ 10 KHz)
Bifilar wound,  L = 11 uH (@100 Hz), 2.4 uH (@ 10 KHz)


Thanks for taking the measurements. I think this answers your original question as to why bifilar picks up more - it has 10% more inductance. Since the magnetic field strength is related to inductance, the bifilar has a stronger magnetic field and thus picks up more.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 07, 2011, 04:41:28 PM
Thanks for taking the measurements. I think this answers your original question as to why bifilar picks up more - it has 10% more inductance. Since the magnetic field strength is related to inductance, the bifilar has a stronger magnetic field and thus picks up more.

The next question is -- why does the bifilar-wound coil have greater L than the single-wound coil?  both have a total of 30 turns...

@Gyula:
Thanks,  Gyula

Quote
EDIT  PS: MAybe my suggestion of bringing the two coils self inductance equal at 10kHz (by shifting the single coil axially on the nail) sounds absurd (due to the DC current excitation when tested in series).  In case you can nicely fix the number of turns tightly on the nails for both of the coils with tape and then find the 100Hz inductance measurement match better than before for the 10 and 11uH results, then the 10kHz "fine tuning" is not needed of course.

I will try that experiment, good idea (when I get back up to the University).
Thanks. 
Steve
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on September 07, 2011, 06:05:12 PM
Steven

there's a new arrangement being reported on the 'Joule Thief' thread where the circuit is run from two batteries in series and two similar batteries are placed in parallel to receive some re-charge at the connection between the supply and the oscillator - the parallel batteries can receive charge both from the supply and from the coil-field collapse current, fed back thro' a diode or LED

the initial idea is to run the circuit for some time, then swap the charging batteries to become the new supply and make the previous supply batteries receive a charge - over time the graph of the battery voltages will show if the batteries are charging/self-sustaining/discharging

i've made a new inverted looped variant of your SJ1 circuit to include this feature and i'm now including it with my other ongoing logging of SJ1 variants - i'm using 2 pairs of AAA NiMHs for this experiment

thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
 
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hope on September 07, 2011, 06:07:48 PM
I think I know this one!  Magnetic fields at 90 degree angles to each other pass thru each other without interfering with each others flux.  (Lots of each others sorry). So magnetic fields have phasing, would this mean other fields have polarization to?  Whats your understanding on this effect Steve?
How can we apply this to our builds to an advantage?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: forest on September 07, 2011, 07:27:44 PM
I think I know this one!  Magnetic fields at 90 degree angles to each other pass thru each other without interfering with each others flux.  (Lots of each others sorry). So magnetic fields have phasing, would this mean other fields have polarization to?  Whats your understanding on this effect Steve?
How can we apply this to our builds to an advantage?

Hope

Somebody did that already. Flayd Sparky Sweet. Remember - nothing is something !
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on September 07, 2011, 10:42:49 PM
The next question is -- why does the bifilar-wound coil have greater L than the single-wound coil?  both have a total of 30 turns...

@Gyula:
Thanks,  Gyula

I will try that experiment, good idea (when I get back up to the University).
Thanks. 
Steve

 I would suggest that they both have the same L. What is different is exactly what Tesla states and that is, that the normal coils have the BEMF restricting the flow of current through self induction. The bifilar coil is designed to counter the BEMF and runs unrestricted except for the normal wires resistive value. That one fact allows the field to build in a much greater capacity in and around the bifilar coil. I bet, if you designed your little system there to pulse the bifilar coil in a burst mode you would see a much bigger field happen because the burst would flow though the bifilar very very fast with little restriction and would allow you more field to collect through an external pickup coil as well.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on September 08, 2011, 03:18:30 PM
The next question is -- why does the bifilar-wound coil have greater L than the single-wound coil?  both have a total of 30 turns...

It is the way the induced currents add up in each case. No simple math solution. Needs to be solved like arbitrary shaped wire antenna problem. Look in antenna theory text books and/or look at Lawrence Livermore national laboratory NEC computer code.



Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ltseung888 on September 08, 2011, 05:32:01 PM
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/8694-multiple-lcr-resonance-circuits-3.html

Dear Prof. Jones,

I finally have one Atten Oscilloscope in USA.  Another one is in transit and should arrive within 3 weeks.

I put much information on the energetic forum for discussion and stored the daily development information at my bench (ltseung888) at overunityresearch.com.

With the single Atten oscillocaope, I managed to do the following:

1.   Obtain the mean Power via saving the csv files.  The csv file format is compatible with EXCEL and thus I can do much analysis.

2.   Use the Output mean Power and Input mean Power to obtain COP and the results of all the prototype in USA showed COP>1 after tuning.

3.   The tuning was achieved by observing the Output Power waveform and placing the connection wires closer or further away from each other.  Another trick was to unplug the electronic component from the breadboard and re-plug them elsewhere.  Such action should affect the effective capacitance value.

4.   I managed to detect voltage activity after the Secondary was tune to produce standing waves and the battery was taken away.  The waveform was compared with the background case of probes connected to nothing (or to non-resonance circuit).

5.   As you have already experienced, slight modification of the circuit – including placing the hand close to it, could affect the resulting waveform.  In tuning with one oscilloscope, I cannot guarantee the same configuration on disconnecting the Input probes and then use them to measure output.  The coming second oscilloscope will solve this problem.

My gut feel at this point is that two or more LCR circuits in a toroid set up may act in a similar fashion to tuning forks on resonance boxes.  Two or more tuning forks placed appropriately will sound louder and last longer than when one is struck alone.  The multiple LCR circuits may do even better in leading-out or bringing-in electron motion energy of the orbiting electrons.  The Steven Mark TPU is not a hoax.  My research so far is leading in the same direction.

See the above link for details.

May God bless and guide us all.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 08, 2011, 08:09:04 PM
Steven

there's a new arrangement being reported on the 'Joule Thief' thread where the circuit is run from two batteries in series and two similar batteries are placed in parallel to receive some re-charge at the connection between the supply and the oscillator - the parallel batteries can receive charge both from the supply and from the coil-field collapse current, fed back thro' a diode or LED

the initial idea is to run the circuit for some time, then swap the charging batteries to become the new supply and make the previous supply batteries receive a charge - over time the graph of the battery voltages will show if the batteries are charging/self-sustaining/discharging

i've made a new inverted looped variant of your SJ1 circuit to include this feature and i'm now including it with my other ongoing logging of SJ1 variants - i'm using 2 pairs of AAA NiMHs for this experiment

thanks
np


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

Thank you, NP!  exciting work.  Please keep us informed of your continued results as the tests you are conducting progress.

PS -- what transistor did you use?  and cap of C1?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 08, 2011, 08:25:19 PM
I would suggest that they both have the same L. What is different is exactly what Tesla states and that is, that the normal coils have the BEMF restricting the flow of current through self induction. The bifilar coil is designed to counter the BEMF and runs unrestricted except for the normal wires resistive value. That one fact allows the field to build in a much greater capacity in and around the bifilar coil. I bet, if you designed your little system there to pulse the bifilar coil in a burst mode you would see a much bigger field happen because the burst would flow though the bifilar very very fast with little restriction and would allow you more field to collect through an external pickup coil as well.

That is an interesting concept, Jbignes5.   I should like to try it out sometime... 

Meanwhile, I have succeeded in stretching the wound wire coils on the nail and found that as I spread out the windings, the measured inductance L goes DOWN in both cases.   By stretching out the bifilar-wound coil in this way, I get down to L = 10 uH -- the same as the single-wound coil (in tightly-compressed condition).

I propose to repeat my experiments with the L values now the same, 10uH in each case.  (I will also take measurements with the probe at the "flat" end in addition to the "pointed" end, as someone suggested.)

In addition, I now have a simple power supply that produces a "spiked" output (AC though), which I will post about later.

@Lawrence:   I look forward to your continued work on resonant LC circuits.  You might look at the following thread based on resonant LC circuits also -- quite interesting -- based on Tesla coil concepts:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-22.html#post154306


Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ltseung888 on September 09, 2011, 04:27:05 AM

@Lawrence:   I look forward to your continued work on resonant LC circuits.  You might look at the following thread based on resonant LC circuits also -- quite interesting -- based on Tesla coil concepts:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-22.html#post154306

Thank you for the link.  Your excellent work is much appreciated.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on September 09, 2011, 08:01:18 AM
 
Thank you, NP!  exciting work.  Please keep us informed of your continued results as the tests you are conducting progress.

PS -- what transistor did you use?  and cap of C1?


thanks Steven, will do


on the latest SJ1 variant shown above:

C1   0.1uF ceramic       }    select on test, for required
D1   OA93 germanium }         pulse rate (10-20Hz here)
Q1   C560B PNP
LED1 Blue

there's also a 100uF Tantalum cap across the supply battery
(not shown in schematic)

i'll post a graph for this latest experiment when i have a little more data for the latest 2x AAA charging test


UPDATE: SJ1 looped variant with DIY cell #5
the SJ1 LED flash variant with my DIY cell has now been recharging/self-sustaining for approx 1000 hours, having returned back up to around it's original voltage (as at the start of this continuous run, July 8th)

the control experiment with a similar DIY cell loaded with just a cap & resistor, is behaving quite differently to its 'sister' cell powering the LED flasher - it's not clear yet if its average voltage is going to discharge slowly or sustain around an average level, but it's been showing some relatively large voltage swings which last for several days, even though it only has a stable, passive load

(see attached images below for the 2 graphs)


thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
 
 
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 10, 2011, 01:18:03 AM
  Thanks for the information and the INTRIGUING data-plots, NP.  I say Wow!

  @All:  Your input is requested on the following.

I have been invited to examine/validate an energy device -- which is great, just what I would like to do to help in this energy research effort.
BUT -- inventor seeks:

1.  Signed non-disclosure agreement, for 3 years or until marketed.  (He is seeking a patent, I understand.)
2.  Over $150,000 for a "non-exclusive license" so that I could proceed to build these devices, sell them, start a small company (which I already have) etc.

Now, I'm basically OK with #1, I think, as this protects the invention for a time.

But #2 is just too much for me...  IMO.  I mean, I don't have that kind of money, but I know a fellow who probably does --IF  I validate FIRST.
Also, I would not mind being involved in distributed manufacture -- all over the world is what he evidently wants -- great. BUT $150K+ for a license and disclosure  ...  he indicates this is not greedy, but to cover costs etc.   And that he will, in time, release the data freely to the public.

What should a guy do? 
Comments welcomed.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on September 10, 2011, 01:47:48 AM
I wouldn't go for it. Your initial instinct is right. There are far too many scams over this topic and to tell you the truth if it does work then securing the patent is enough of a protection. The NDA is designed to keep you quiet for three years so no other people find out about if this is a scam. By then, he is gone with both the device (if he really has one) and your money or in your case your friends money.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on September 10, 2011, 03:49:05 AM
 
  Thanks for the information and the INTRIGUING data-plots, NP.  I say Wow!

  @All:  Your input is requested on the following.

I have been invited to examine/validate an energy device -- which is great, just what I would like to do to help in this energy research effort.
BUT -- inventor seeks:

1.  Signed non-disclosure agreement, for 3 years or until marketed.  (He is seeking a patent, I understand.)
2.  Over $150,000 for a "non-exclusive license" so that I could proceed to build these devices, sell them, start a small company (which I already have) etc.
[...]

thanks Steven


wrt the 'approach by an inventor':

if step 1) is  independent of 2) then you can evaluate before deciding whether/how to proceed with step 2)

if step 1) costs then bail

if the device evaluates as genuine, then you have to decide if the sales-volume costing, which you would wish to see applied in order to make that product available in your 'countries of special interest', are viable whilst also paying you and any partners back your investment of $150,000

if not viable to get full payback of investment at that projected sales-volume,  then i'd say it's a choice between subsidising each unit to get it into the hands of a deserving recipient at an affordable price for them - or just not being able to support that level of subsidy and therefore not proceeding with 2)


in any case, nothing can happen until you've verified the technology through step 1) - this should be at no cost or other 'risk' to you (including foreign travel to 'view' a device)

caveat emptor


just my 2c
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hope on September 10, 2011, 05:02:47 AM
Do you think a bi-filar made with nano crystalline wire wound be better?  They make this wire just google it.  BTY looks as if Energy Forum has made headway on a COP > 1 device, the build stuff is available.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 10, 2011, 06:07:25 AM
Thanks for the comments Jbig and NP --
NP:
Quote
"
if step 1) is  independent of 2) then you can evaluate before deciding whether/how to proceed with step 2)

I just found out (to my relief) that step 1 IS independent of step 2.  Also, inventor is working on a self-running device!  great! so I will wait and see what happens with that before going to my rich friend regarding step 2...    for sure.  ;)


Do you think a bi-filar made with nano crystalline wire wound be better?  They make this wire just google it.  BTY looks as if Energy Forum has made headway on a COP > 1 device, the build stuff is available.

I like bi-filar winding as I described above -- note that there may be different definitions for this term.  @HOPE:  can you provide the link to the "energy forum" for a "COP>1 device" that you're talking about?  Thanks.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hope on September 11, 2011, 10:13:22 AM
So someone has a device to license, great.  But this is an open source concept that finally gelled and with it your devices should work find.

 I got a clear picture of what is going on with this natural sea of energy now.   Everything has a natural cohesion to like atoms (similar to water surface tension) But all wavelengths have it.  So when we disrupt it, it re-balances using it's own energy.  If we disrupt the electrical properties say using voltage spike (the higher the voltage the more energy types it disrupts, the more the potential differences the more the disruption).  Like the bigger the rock we throw in the pond the bigger the splash and not only in the water but splashes on the shores too.  So all we have to do to use this natural re-balancing energy which is coming thru the air (bad conductor) is provide it with a good conductor that doesn't become saturated (we have an antenna that is attached to a load which provides a path that is less resistant than the air) if it does become saturated there is no potential difference and the flow stops using it, and uses the air again or another less resistant path.  So HV disrupts the cohesion, this imbalance is a potential difference.  Nature flows to balance the potential difference, we make a path and work to keep this path less resistant than the air.  BINGO we get to use natural energy (of course we may have to keep the spark gap going to keep disruptions causing a potential difference).  Perhaps just the loads draw can keep it flowing??  Now this is how it is done and I believe we can all make devices using this principle.

Richard T. Williams   it only took me 50 years...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on September 11, 2011, 10:54:39 AM
[...]
BTY looks as if Energy Forum has made headway on a COP > 1 device, the build stuff is available.

hi Hope

are you referring to the "Use for the Tesla Switch" thread at EnergeticForum?:
 
     link-->http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/962-use-tesla-switch-120.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/962-use-tesla-switch-120.html)

thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hope on September 11, 2011, 01:55:42 PM
Steve,

 It is the same as nul-points just linked  "Using the Tesla Switch".

Looks like the scope is at the P.O. and I should be able to pick it up Monday.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 12, 2011, 08:00:33 AM
  Thanks NP and Hope:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/962-use-tesla-switch-120.html

Now, that thread is about 120 pages long!    Can someone summarize a little pls -- what is the key concept/design here?   how is OU measured for this?   

(Or are there a FEW key pages?)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on September 12, 2011, 08:21:50 AM
  Thanks NP and Hope:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/962-use-tesla-switch-120.html

Now, that thread is about 120 pages long!    Can someone summarize a little pls -- what is the key concept/design here?   how is OU measured for this?   

(Or are there a FEW key pages?)

the concept is to switch charge from one set of batteries to another, through a load and charging the 2nd battery set - with the intention of later swapping the roles of the supply and charging battery sets, etc

the setup is usually called a 'Tesla Switch' but apparently has no direct link with any of Tesla's designs

the aim is to pulse charge the 2nd battery set whilst also gaining useful work from the charge transfer

early circuits were mostly just switching charge directly, but some recent designs also attempt to capture and return coil-field collapse energy into the batteries

the recent development i mentioned above, re: the 'Joule Thief' thread on this forum is related to this concept

my latest SJ1 variant shown above is using 2x AAA NiMHs in series to charge 2x AAA NiMHs in parallel to test if there is any evidence for OU when using this technique with the family of circuits we've been investigating here on your thread

one of the members at the EF link i provided above is intending to produce a 'How To' file to gather all the info necessary to replicate - watch that space!

hope this helps
np


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

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on September 12, 2011, 01:56:21 PM
 I think you missed a key component of the Tesla switch. You run a load off of one polarity. Tie both negatives together and run a load off of just the positive. If you have 4 12 volt batteries, 2 in series and 2 in parallel there is a voltage difference between the two. One set of 12 volt batteries is 12 volts parallel. The other is 24 volts in series. Now hook a load in between the positives only and you can run a 12 volt load and charge the parallel batteries all at the same time.
 The switch part is rather complicated and very difficult to master. Ronald Brant was the only one that I know of to do this in a silicon version. But there were reports of very weird things happening while using his system. Especially if it sat still and idled for extended periods of time. The switch part has to deal with 4 batteries as said before but the system itself switches the batteries around via complicated relays and strategic diodes in order to automatically switch the batteries from series on one side to parallel on the other. When this happens you need to use the now ac power or use a diode rectifier to change the now ac signal from the swapping back and forth to dc for use.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 12, 2011, 03:48:56 PM
  This is very helpful, NP, as always.    I had not realized that your latest incorporates some of these same ideas.    I think this is very exciting -- and I hope we all see some approach working well, to benefit humanity at large.   We see the markets falling again today, as if "financial energy" is being sucked out of the system.  I'm also trying to understand your comment, Jbignes5-- thank you.

the concept is to switch charge from one set of batteries to another, through a load and charging the 2nd battery set - with the intention of later swapping the roles of the supply and charging battery sets, etc

the setup is usually called a 'Tesla Switch' but apparently has no direct link with any of Tesla's designs

the aim is to pulse charge the 2nd battery set whilst also gaining useful work from the charge transfer

early circuits were mostly just switching charge directly, but some recent designs also attempt to capture and return coil-field collapse energy into the batteries

the recent development i mentioned above, re: the 'Joule Thief' thread on this forum is related to this concept

my latest SJ1 variant shown above is using 2x AAA NiMHs in series to charge 2x AAA NiMHs in parallel to test if there is any evidence for OU when using this technique with the family of circuits we've been investigating here on your thread

one of the members at the EF link i provided above is intending to produce a 'How To' file to gather all the info necessary to replicate - watch that space!

hope this helps
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on September 12, 2011, 04:26:55 PM
 Ok let me explain then.

 2-12 volt in parallel(12v) and 2-12 volt in series(24v).

 The common (-) of each pair are connected together. Now using a voltage meter measure the difference of the positive terminals and you will read 12 volts. When you hook up a 12 volt load between the two positive terminals it will operate normally and charge the parallel set of batteries while draining the series pair of batteries. This is because you are using 12 volts for the load and maintaining the parallel set of batteries from the left over 12 volts of the series.

 In order to not drain the 24 volt set you need to swap them into a parallel set of 12 volts while swapping the old parallel set into a new series set. This reverses the flow and then recharges the old 24 volts set. Thats only one cycle. The need for the diodes is to make it so it isn't a shorting condition while swapping the series to parallel and vise versa. The swapping has been tried with mechanical relays but they never last that long, about 2 weeks before the contacts wear out. The other mechanical way is to use a contact wheel which was done successfully by a company that way given the design and that had tested it for over 3 years constantly. The last way is to use silicon latching transistors, I believe, and that was Ronald Brandt.

 With the story of Ronald Brandt there come many many reports of strange events happening while the system was used in an electric vehicle. These reports varied from the batteries changing and not being able to take a normal charge to weird fields being setup around the vehicle, kinda like a dampening field that even effected people or metal objects around the vehicle.

 As to the validity of these claims I can not attest to. There are a great many rumors surrounding that method. Why I don't know for sure. But it appears it is one reason why Ronald Brandt could not get the vehicle patented and released.

 Here is a link to a pdf of most of the systems out there: http://www.panaceauniversity.org/Tesla%20Switch.pdf
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 12, 2011, 11:38:25 PM
  Ah, I'm understanding now; thanks jbignes5.

 It is intriguing that the Adams, RomeroUK, Bedini etc. motors MAY have as the common key, the switching itself and the use of batteries as we see in the Tesla switch.   ???   

  So where is Matt Jones posting mostly now?  and does he post at OU?  and is there a Yahoo group on this device?

Thanks guys!  Truly enlightening.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on September 12, 2011, 11:56:59 PM
  Ah, I'm understanding now; thanks jbignes5.

 It is intriguing that the Adams, RomeroUK, Bedini etc. motors MAY have as the common key, the switching itself and the use of batteries as we see in the Tesla switch.   ???   

  So where is Matt Jones posting mostly now?  and does he post at OU?  and is there a Yahoo group on this device?

Thanks guys!  Truly enlightening.

 Mathew Jones is posting mostly at energeticforum.com. I don't frequent that place anymore because it is ran by a person that is only out to make money from the membership(fellow researchers). He is a sales person trained by college. He also is part owner in a heath products store and is another reason I find the site rather lame.

 I don't know if he is posting here or has a yahoo group Sorry about that.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on September 13, 2011, 01:17:38 AM
Steven

i can't help with any b/g on Matt either - i just found that thread after following up on Hope's mention of developments on the EF forum (i knew about the general 'Tesla Switch' concept previously)


attached below is the data for the first week continuous run of the SJ1 inverted looped variant with 2 serial NiMH supply charging 2 parallel NiMH (and driving an LED)

blue graph is the Vb for the 2 parallel charging NiMHs

red and yellow graphs are the Vb readings for the 2 serial supply NiMHs

i've just swapped the supply cells for the charging cells, so then it's another waiting-game to see if this technique does what it says on the tin (i haven't seen any data presented previously to support OU claims for a Tesla Switch)

thanks
np


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

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 13, 2011, 07:09:17 AM
Steven

i can't help with any b/g on Matt either - i just found that thread after following up on Hope's mention of developments on the EF forum (i knew about the general 'Tesla Switch' concept previously)


attached below is the data for the first week continuous run of the SJ1 inverted looped variant with 2 serial NiMH supply charging 2 parallel NiMH (and driving an LED)

blue graph is the Vb for the 2 parallel charging NiMHs

red and yellow graphs are the Vb readings for the 2 serial supply NiMHs

i've just swapped the supply cells for the charging cells, so then it's another waiting-game to see if this technique does what it says on the tin (i haven't seen any data presented previously to support OU claims for a Tesla Switch)

thanks
np


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

You're right to go after solid data, NP -- thanks for pointing us back to the need for hard physical evidence.

At energeticF, Matt today wrote:

Quote
Thats because I haven't given the instructions out yet... Just a shopping list of parts.

Its all coming.

Matt

   Not saying he is "wrong", just that the instructions are not given out yet, and data is sparse IMO...
Interesting approach, though -- and I'm glad to see that you're trying out a variation experimentally, NP!   
Some are using a motor-driven switch, from what I've seen.  (Still haven't found Matt's actual vid)  Going with a solid-state switch may be more difficult, but should be the goal of a working device IMO -- to improve the reliability and hopefully reduce the cost.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 13, 2011, 07:24:46 AM
Matt has a few vids on various things, found this on his Tesla switch which goes back -- over a year ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKrmM0skifI&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 15, 2011, 05:21:43 AM
  I spent much of today reading up on Tesla Switches and NP's work three years ago on switches + caps + inductor(s).   VERY interesting, and I can readily observe the admirable tenacity of many of you who have been at this for a long time, like NP.   I appreciate your humor also, NP, NerzhDishual and so many others.  Fun reading.

   As for me, early work in alt-energy was in muon-catalyzed fusion then cold fusion...  which we're still pursuing, although my involvement there at the university is less than it was:

Quote
Construction of a Low-energy Single-wire Z-pinch Apparatus for Metal-catalyzed Fusion Studies http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/4CF06/Event/55778  • B4.00001 Laboratory Nuclear Astrophysics or The universe as seen from underground. • B4.00002 Low energy accelerator for studying laboratory nuclear astrophysics.

   From what I've learned over the past year or so on this and related forums, it seems the following have the greatest hope for early success -- and frankly, I'm not so sure this tail-spinning economy is going to fly much longer, so I sense some urgency in our joint efforts:

(No particular order)

1.  Joule Thief/ sj1 - style circuits -- the main subject of this thread.  Thanks to Nul-pts for his tenacity on this one!

2.  Gabriel and Thane-Heins bi-toroidal transformer approaches

3.  Motor-generators,  Adams, RomeroUK, Bedini, Konehead, Muller, etc.

4.  Tesla-Brandt switches

5.  Tesla coil approaches

(The above appear to have in common collapsing fields/switching) 

6.  Gravity/motion devices

Comments solicited on which path (or describe another!) --  is "most likely to succeed for mankind in a hurry"!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Shadesz on September 15, 2011, 06:43:41 AM
I have been interested deeply in the muller type generators, BUT I wonder if/when they do become (and are accepted as) OU, if they will really help humanity. They usually rely heavily on neo magnets. And neo magnets are mostly produced in China. Regardless of where they are produced, I feel if a generator using neos were to go OU, the price of the magnets would jump so high that it would be out of reach for most of the people who really need it. Sad but probably true.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 15, 2011, 06:58:19 AM
  I spent much of today reading up on Tesla Switches and NP's work three years ago on switches + caps + inductor(s).   VERY interesting, and I can readily observe the admirable tenacity of many of you who have been at this for a long time, like NP.   I appreciate your humor also, NP, NerzhDishual and so many others.  Fun reading.

   As for me, early work in alt-energy was in muon-catalyzed fusion then cold fusion...  which we're still pursuing, although my involvement there at the university is less than it was:

   From what I've learned over the past year or so on this and related forums, it seems the following have the greatest hope for early success -- and frankly, I'm not so sure this tail-spinning economy is going to fly much longer, so I sense some urgency in our joint efforts:

(No particular order)

1.  Joule Thief/ sj1 - style circuits -- the main subject of this thread.  Thanks to Nul-pts for his tenacity on this one!

2.  Gabriel and Thane-Heins bi-toroidal transformer approaches

3.  Motor-generators,  Adams, RomeroUK, Bedini, Konehead, Muller, etc.

4.  Tesla-Brandt switches

5.  Tesla coil approaches

(The above appear to have in common collapsing fields/switching) 

6.  Gravity/motion devices

Comments solicited on which path (or describe another!) --  is "most likely to succeed for mankind in a hurry"!


My money is on the JT circuit.  With the research and experiments I have done to date, I believe this is the most viable one.  I may be correct, I may be wrong, but this is my opinion.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 15, 2011, 04:11:01 PM
My money is on the JT circuit.  With the research and experiments I have done to date, I believe this is the most viable one.  I may be correct, I may be wrong, but this is my opinion.

Bill

Thanks, Bill, and Shadesz for the input.  Very helpful.

I have obtained some toroids with very high permeability and low hysteresis loss, to compare with the ferrite toroids I've been using in the JT/sj1 circuits.  These are nanocrystalline/amorphous toroids -- with permeabilities as shown:

CWS CN32-20-10G  perm = 80,000

CWS CN40-32-15G  perm = 70,000   

I look forward to giving these a go! 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 15, 2011, 04:17:04 PM
PS -- I would like to go to much higher power output now.  Above in the thread, we had a bit of fun going to low power INPUT, but this resulted also in low power output. 

Let's crank it up -- to the level of tens of watts (the more the better) POWER OUT with the JT/sj1 type circuits, shall we?.

 Sure, this will require higher P-in as well, but let's get into the realm of watts and tens of watts, and see what the Pout/Pin ratio does as we do so!

Can we do it? 

Besides, the world needs abundant light and power, not so much long-battery life low-level LED light sources.

Best Wishes to All,
Steven J
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: viny on September 15, 2011, 06:41:32 PM
  I spent much of today reading up on Tesla Switches and NP's work three years ago on switches + caps + inductor(s).   VERY interesting, and I can readily observe the admirable tenacity of many of you who have been at this for a long time, like NP.   I appreciate your humor also, NP, NerzhDishual and so many others.  Fun reading.

   As for me, early work in alt-energy was in muon-catalyzed fusion then cold fusion...  which we're still pursuing, although my involvement there at the university is less than it was:

   From what I've learned over the past year or so on this and related forums, it seems the following have the greatest hope for early success -- and frankly, I'm not so sure this tail-spinning economy is going to fly much longer, so I sense some urgency in our joint efforts:

(No particular order)

1.  Joule Thief/ sj1 - style circuits -- the main subject of this thread.  Thanks to Nul-pts for his tenacity on this one!

2.  Gabriel and Thane-Heins bi-toroidal transformer approaches

3.  Motor-generators,  Adams, RomeroUK, Bedini, Konehead, Muller, etc.

4.  Tesla-Brandt switches

5.  Tesla coil approaches

(The above appear to have in common collapsing fields/switching) 

6.  Gravity/motion devices

Comments solicited on which path (or describe another!) --  is "most likely to succeed for mankind in a hurry"!


Dr. Jones: Would you not consider on your list Donald Smith device (mod. by Zilano on Energetic forum), since he could get an OP around 10 KV in a close loop?

    Viny
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 15, 2011, 09:46:10 PM
Dr. Jones: Would you not consider on your list Donald Smith device (mod. by Zilano on Energetic forum), since he could get an OP around 10 KV in a close loop?

    Viny

YES!  that is included in item #5 -- Tesla coil devices.  I followed the Zilano discussion thread with great interest, but in the last few days she has gone away after saying she would go...  I don't know what to think of that...  What do you think of her "disappearance"?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hope on September 15, 2011, 11:01:16 PM
 :D

First Steve,  struck a sample deal if this is alright for M457 at under 60 Euro each. They will give the forum a great deal if we all use a descriptor they assign us.

If I will order four of them.  The M-616 are NOT in stock. So ordering from source is large shipping costs.

What I feel we really need is a input core with a BI-FILAR winding in place to be used to set the magnetic pathways. BUT this core should not be moved once it is magnetized and then the winding should be used to control the inputs.

Also on the secondary,  a BIFILAR pick up, I think then initial pulsing to set these pathways alignment should be done with a totally assembled device and it would be best NOT to re-orient or move the device  unless you're re-aligning it when it is in the new location.  It will matter how it is oriented and there will be a optimum due to natural magnetic currents.  But this will also be a value to us while designing to make it the best we can and then will matter only a bit when we move the device around to use it later.   Each time we move a device the tests will turn out a little different due to natural magnetic currents interacting on out devices currents.

Last of all, is it the permeability or the Tesla rating that is most important??  Can we agree upon a band of frequency or a range of the frequency we suspect will be effective.  If Mavendex will call an talk to their engineer he can relay what he thinks overall and we can truly get a lot of "not optimum" cores out of the picture.   They have lots of cores of many types, they can even build cores like Thanes or Klingelhofers for samples to us.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: viny on September 16, 2011, 03:32:51 AM
YES!  that is included in item #5 -- Tesla coil devices.  I followed the Zilano discussion thread with great interest, but in the last few days she has gone away after saying she would go...  I don't know what to think of that...  What do you think of her "disappearance"?

Woops! what a shame..
Title: Intriguing offer...
Post by: prato_braun on September 16, 2011, 12:10:30 PM
Hi Steve,

concerning the intriguing offer you've got to see a working device under NDA, you should maybe check how much it resembles the work here.
Maybe I'm paranoid but it would be sad if you'd find out that everyone here was super close and now you're not allowed to talk about it anymore.
I'm just mentioning this because in the crystal battery thread John Bedini now needs to avoid some questions because of NDA. On the other hand, he's got a working 'solid state' device powering a LED for probably many, many years patented by Marcus Reid.
Keep up the great work everybody ;)
Cheers

Prato
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 16, 2011, 03:55:46 PM
:D

First Steve,  struck a sample deal if this is alright for M457 at under 60 Euro each. They will give the forum a great deal if we all use a descriptor they assign us.

If I will order four of them.  The M-616 are NOT in stock. So ordering from source is large shipping costs.

  A very good price, Hope.  I say go for it!  and pls remind me of the dimensions of the M457 toroid.
(@all:  Hope is talking about the Gabriel nested bi-toroid transformer.  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10518.0 )

Quote
Hope: What I feel we really need is a input core with a BI-FILAR winding in place to be used to set the magnetic pathways. BUT this core should not be moved once it is magnetized and then the winding should be used to control the inputs.

Also on the secondary,  a BIFILAR pick up, I think then initial pulsing to set these pathways alignment should be done with a totally assembled device and it would be best NOT to re-orient or move the device  unless you're re-aligning it when it is in the new location.  It will matter how it is oriented and there will be a optimum due to natural magnetic currents.  But this will also be a value to us while designing to make it the best we can and then will matter only a bit when we move the device around to use it later.   Each time we move a device the tests will turn out a little different due to natural magnetic currents interacting on out devices currents.

Last of all, is it the permeability or the Tesla rating that is most important??  Can we agree upon a band of frequency or a range of the frequency we suspect will be effective.  If Mavendex will call an talk to their engineer he can relay what he thinks overall and we can truly get a lot of "not optimum" cores out of the picture.   They have lots of cores of many types, they can even build cores like Thanes or Klingelhofers for samples to us.

Those (permeability etc. ) are questions for folks who are now doing testing/construction -- like David or Mav or Mags (IMO).

 Great that they will do windings...  but at what cost? any idea of the costs involved for them to do the winding?

IMHO the Thanes construction is easier, with E-I cores instead of toroids. There I think one could simply purchase pre-wound air-core coils, and place these onto the E-I cores (without tedious winding by hand, for example.)     What do you think of the Thanes approach?

Thanks, Hope, keep up the good work.   And I would say you have struck a good deal on the M457's!
Steve
Title: Re: Intriguing offer...
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 16, 2011, 04:01:38 PM
Hi Steve,

concerning the intriguing offer you've got to see a working device under NDA, you should maybe check how much it resembles the work here.
Maybe I'm paranoid but it would be sad if you'd find out that everyone here was super close and now you're not allowed to talk about it anymore.
I'm just mentioning this because in the crystal battery thread John Bedini now needs to avoid some questions because of NDA. On the other hand, he's got a working 'solid state' device powering a LED for probably many, many years patented by Marcus Reid.
Keep up the great work everybody ;)
Cheers

Prato

Welcome, Prato!  Thanks for your first post, and for your concern:
Quote
it would be sad if you'd find out that everyone here was super close and now you're not allowed to talk about it anymore.

I agree!  so a few days ago, I told the guys doing this device that BEFORE I could sign an NDA, I would need to see:
1.  a self-running device
2.  quantitative test data - especially showing HOW MUCH power is being produced.


They do not have either 1 or 2 in hand...  I'll let you guys know, here, if'n they get to either of these goals. 
Thanks again for the caveat... totally in agreement.

Can you provide the link to the discussion of the crystal battery?  I see that Lidmotor has a vid on his build of a crystal battery... looks fun!   

Again, is there any " quantitative test data - especially showing HOW MUCH power is being produced" for the crystal battery?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 16, 2011, 05:17:54 PM
PS - @Hope:  I see the dimensions of the M-457 are 200-175-30, which is a good size for the toroid, but that the permeability is only 8,000 ...   In the Gabriel device, it is evidently important to have very high permeability for the inner core-toroid.  Sorry -- I don't know if 8,000 is enough...  Please ask Mav, Mags or David what they think.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: prato_braun on September 16, 2011, 08:32:44 PM
Hi Steve,

so far test data isn't ready yet but John is working on it really every day. It's awsome how that whole thread developed

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7351-bedini-earth-light-48.html

and here is his latest video showing a radiant energy converter which should work for a pretty, gazillion pretty long time ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kIOVv_Cqkk

Cheers,

Prato
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 16, 2011, 10:40:51 PM
  Thanks, Prato -- will look at these soon.

  I've purchased several sizes of nanocrystalline/amorphous cores, as shown in attached photo.

My small ferrite toroids, used in JT and sj1 circuits as described above, have approximately 100 uH (as in micro).  Today I bifilar-wound the white nano-core (permeability = 70,000) with 18 AWG wire, 200" 37 double-turns (74 total turns).  For this, L = 285 mH (as in milli)

Interesting that each single wire on the nano-toroid gives L = 99 mH, so together in bifilar configuration, L= 285 mH is more than twice the L of a single winding alone. 

   The bigger toroid has 534 uH; iron-powder IIRC.    Clearly the material in the core changes things dramatically.

Now to play with this new bifilar-wound toroid... :)   I configured it such that it could be used in JT/sj1-type circuits AND possibly also to test Gabriel-type devices...  ;)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on September 16, 2011, 11:11:23 PM
... 
 Today I bifilar-wound the white nano-core (permeability = 70,000) with 18 AWG wire, 200" 37 double-turns (74 total turns).  For this, L = 285 mH (as in milli)

Interesting that each single wire on the nano-toroid gives L = 99 mH, so together in bifilar configuration, L= 285 mH is more than twice the L of a single winding alone. 
...

Hi Steven,

If you twist the two wires and wind the core with the twisted wire pair, then the resulting L could be even higher, up to 4 times of the single wire of 99mH  in your above example i.e. 4*99=396mH in an ideal case where coupling between the wires were just 1 (in practice coupling 'k' is anywhere between 0.5-0.95 or so).
Here is a good link for those wishing to know the explanation why this is so:
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/series-inductors.html  go down to 'Mutually connected inductors in series'.
Regarding the k coupling, here is info:
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/mutual-inductance.html and go down to the bottom of the page.

rgds,  Gyula
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on September 17, 2011, 01:17:35 AM

 I also would like to throw in a blurb about what they are doing on energetic forum about the crystal batteries.

 http://www.slideshare.net/siddharth4mba/boron-4825407

 This might give you some insight into the main component of what they are doing. Boron is the key element and is concentrated in the crystal formations they are using. Very ingenious if you ask me!

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 17, 2011, 06:45:06 AM
Thanks, Jbignes5 -- I'll take a closer look!  fun stuff.

Dr. Jones: Would you not consider on your list Donald Smith device (mod. by Zilano on Energetic forum), since he could get an OP around 10 KV in a close loop?

    Viny

Follow-up on this effort -- Zilano said she was leaving a few days ago.   (Said she was an "alien" and earlier said she was 14 years old.)  Yesterday and today people are reporting that her posts are being deleted at Energetic forum.
Aaron responded (today):

Quote
this thread  I have received a few messages about some pages "disappearing". This has nothing to do with the moderators of Energetic Forum.

The only thing I see are message that have been deleted by the very member(s) who posted them. If someone deletes a message that they posted, that is their right.

My suggestion is to make a copy of anything of interest while you see it in case it ever does get deleted.

Furthermore, a major replicator of Zilano/Smith's device reports today:
Quote
Ok, my third video still no ou yet, at least I don't think so. As you can see in the video I'm nowhere near the output that a 6 watt bulb should have....
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-21.html

It's not looking too good right now for the Zilano/ Don Smith claims...  sigh   :-\
Unless, she was "told to shut up..."  I guess that's also possible. sigh again...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 17, 2011, 09:55:08 PM

   From what I've learned over the past year or so on this and related forums, it seems the following have the greatest hope for early success -- and frankly, I'm not so sure this tail-spinning economy is going to fly much longer, so I sense some urgency in our joint efforts:

(No particular order)

1.  Joule Thief/ sj1 - style circuits -- the main subject of this thread.  Thanks to Nul-pts for his tenacity on this one!

2.  Gabriel and Thane-Heins bi-toroidal transformer approaches

3.  Motor-generators,  Adams, RomeroUK, Bedini, Konehead, Muller, etc.

4.  Tesla-Brandt switches

5.  Tesla coil approaches

(The above appear to have in common collapsing fields/switching) 

6.  Gravity/motion devices

Comments solicited on which path (or describe another!) --  is "most likely to succeed for mankind in a hurry"!


About #3 above, I follow the RomeroUK/Muller thread from time to time, and on 15 Sept 2011, RomeroUK responded to a question regarding who was getting close with this device:

 
Quote
Mariuscivic and toranarod  are close enough.Both will have to concentrate to get the effect at lower speed. After a certain rpm you will have no gain then again at the next step will have again and so on...

Example: if starting the effect at 1000 rpm then the gain is going to vanish at 1600rpm then we can get it again starting at 2000rpm... at one point in every cycle voltage drops down even if the rpm is going high.We are getting multiple resonance points and not all are the seme, some are better than others. This is only one example, don't take for real and start looking to have 1000rpm...
Now I am not looking to get the speedup too much, I want the rpm to stay stable at any load or short. I am going to have it confirmed when I will finish my new generator, towards the end of this month.

Romero

I take it from this that there are 2 replicators who are "close" -- but evidently not "there" yet, and that Romero himself is building a "new generator".  Interesting...

SO ...  the problem seems to be in getting successful replications, even with MONTHS of work by replicators. 
I'm still waiting for a SUCCESSFUL replication of the Gabriel device and the Tesla Switch ...  If any of you hear of such successes, pls let us know here, as it's difficult to keep up with all the working threads.
--Steve
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on September 18, 2011, 01:47:55 AM
 More Research on the subject of crystalline battery might have some great impact. Here is what we know currently about the borax they are using:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boron

 Reading this wiki it is clear that they have created a new structure of boron! This is the unknown structure I believe they are talking about in the description or possibly another unknown polycrystalline form that shares superconductivity at ROOM temperature or near superconducting at room temps and hence the voltage they are seeing.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 18, 2011, 08:03:35 AM
  Fun stuff, jbignes.. thanks.

And Here's a find I made this evening while searching, pondering...
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3759-bedini-solid-state-oscillator-tesla-switch-combination-2.html

Reminds me of nul-pts circuit; comparison shown below.  Exciting IMHO.
Gotta build.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on September 18, 2011, 11:36:25 AM
[...]
And Here's a find I made this evening while searching, pondering...
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3759-bedini-solid-state-oscillator-tesla-switch-combination-2.html

Reminds me of nul-pts circuit; comparison shown below

hello Steven

yes, that's the arrangement which surfaced recently, as a replication, in the 'Joule Thief' thread and i mentioned here a week or so ago:

  link-->http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg299685#msg299685 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg299685#msg299685)

my latest SJ1 variant is testing exactly that concept to get some actual data as to the overall charge/discharge performance

that idea of using 2 batteries in series to charge 1 (or 2 in parallel) is the fundamental approach behind the Tesla Switch (as featured most recently by M Jones in the EF thread mentioned previously) - batteries are then swapped either manually or automatically depending on the complexity of the circuit

my test is approaching the second full week of continuous operation and includes the first 'battery swap' (see latest graph below - blue graph shows voltage of charging cells, red & yellow show voltages of the the 2 supply cells)

at present, the trend appears to be slightly discharging but it COULD be that the whole system has to 'settle' to an operating level which is dictated by the load on the system (ie. LED o/p + losses), so i think the test needs to run for some weeks (or maybe even months?) to confirm this

if this 'go/no go' test shows promise then i'll replace the test with an improvement i've drawn up which should be able to recharge all batteries as it runs, without manual or automatic swapping

as usual, i'll keep you informed
np


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

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on September 18, 2011, 11:38:12 AM
(i hit 'Quote', not 'Modify' - doh!)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 19, 2011, 05:59:29 AM
NP:
Quote
[snip for brevity] so i think the test needs to run for some weeks (or maybe even months?) to confirm this

if this 'go/no go' test shows promise then i'll replace the test with an improvement i've drawn up which should be able to recharge all batteries as it runs, without manual or automatic swapping

as usual, i'll keep you informed
np

Great work, thanks NP!  I'm starting a fresh build seeking higher Poutput and looping, myself....  Best wishes to all, as mankind is in great need...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Shadesz on September 19, 2011, 09:45:50 AM
Sorry to distract. I have noticed some smart brained folks on this and the Gabriel thread. I was wondering if you guys could review this post I made about the Muller/Romero/Adams style generators. I am mostly looking for information about phase shifting... feel free to post on that thread or the Muller thread @ this forum. Thanks in advance.

http://www.energeticforum.com/157895-post1765.html
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 21, 2011, 05:31:52 AM
Sorry to distract. I have noticed some smart brained folks on this and the Gabriel thread. I was wondering if you guys could review this post I made about the Muller/Romero/Adams style generators. I am mostly looking for information about phase shifting... feel free to post on that thread or the Muller thread @ this forum. Thanks in advance.

http://www.energeticforum.com/157895-post1765.html

Your post makes a lot of sense to me, David...  Several have been thinking along similar lines, I think, but you expressed it very clearly and cogently.
::cheers::
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on September 21, 2011, 05:52:48 AM

Hi Ou dot Com people,

Hey! I had my 'name' quoted by the very Prof. Steven Jones himself... I do not deserve such considerations.

BTW: Prof S. Jones, as you must know about it, articles propositions in magazines are just propositions.  It could change. But, who knows? In another issue, perhaps?
This was a private message. Anyway, thanks.

I'm just a lazy experimenter. I'm just also lost in this thread.

Anyway? Should we were at it...
Did Nul-point-the-misnomer(d?) tell about his charge conservation anomaly experiments? I made some similar experiments, with a kinda Joule Thief. We are not the only ones. See JL Naudin for ex.

Yes, non charge conservation. Just impossible. Something must be wrong somewhere. Sorry for disturbing.

Else: with a mere Joule Thief, I made some experiments.
I measured (with a black pipe) and a luxmeter some LUXs out given by 9 LEDs. I used a cheap 2 Euros 'torch'.

Unfortunately, as a bl' f' non scientist, I'm not able to convert LUXs to watts. Is it possible? I bet it is.

I just can say that my measurements were something like:

With 3 (exhausted) AAA  bats. Input (under load) = 4 volts * 150ma.  LUXs out: about 240.
With a simple Joule thief and a single (strong) AAA bat: 1.5 volts (under load) * 12 ma. LUXs out about 120.

Now, first case.
IN = 4 * 150 = 2400 mW
OUT LUX = 240.
So, for one LUX you have to give 2400/240 = 10 mW

Joule Thief case:
IN = 1.5 * 12 = 18 mW. Saying 20 mW
OUT LUX = 120.
So, for one LUX you have to give 20/120 = 0.17 mW. Saying O.20 mW

20/0.20 = 100! Or I'm I missing something?

Please note that my Joule Thief is just from a lazy experimenter.

Very Best







Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on September 21, 2011, 08:27:20 AM
[...]
I'm just a lazy experimenter
[...]
IN = 4 * 150 = 2400 mW
[...]
So, for one [DC] LUX you have to give 2400/240 = 10 mW

[...]
So, for one [JT] LUX you have to give 20/120 = 0.17 mW. Saying O.20 mW

20/0.20 = 100! Or I'm I missing something?
[...]
Very Best


mr Dishual, usually i'd say that 'lazy' would be the last word to describe your very thorough replications

if one were to look for a word to describe a Breton musical-scientific-mariner then perhaps the word 'relaxed' would spring to mind  ;)

however...

"4*150 = 2400"  ?!?

and

"10 mW ['IF' 4 * 150 = 2400 ] divided by 0.20" = "20 / 0.20"  ?!?

this is scientific music which is new to me!


please may i have a glass of whatever you're drinking  :)

very best regards from little big Bretagne
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: tagor on September 21, 2011, 10:11:40 AM


Unfortunately, as a bl' f' non scientist, I'm not able to convert LUXs to watts. Is it possible? I bet it is.


Pour "convertir" le flux lumineux (en lumen) en flux de puissance (en W) il faut que vous connaissiez l'efficacité lumineuse de votre source lumineuse (en général notée "k") ...

pour une lampe à incandescence classique k vaut de 8 à 13 lm.
pour un halogène k vaut environ 15 lm.
et pour un tube fluorescent k vaut de 40 à 100 lm.

 
PS :
sorry it is in french
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hoptoad on September 21, 2011, 10:39:49 AM
snip...

Unfortunately, as a bl' f' non scientist, I'm not able to convert LUXs to watts. Is it possible?
I bet it is. I just can say that my measurements were something like:

With 3 (exhausted) AAA  bats. Input (under load) = 4 volts * 150ma.  LUXs out: about 240.
With a simple Joule thief and a single (strong) AAA bat: 1.5 volts (under load) * 12 ma. LUXs out about 120.

Now, first case.
IN = 4 * 150 = 2400 mW
OUT LUX = 240.
So, for one LUX you have to give 2400/240 = 10 mW

Joule Thief case:
IN = 1.5 * 12 = 18 mW. Saying 20 mW
OUT LUX = 120.
So, for one LUX you have to give 20/120 = 0.17 mW. Saying O.20 mW

20/0.20 = 100!
snip....


Even with your maths corrected to :

First case.
IN = 4 * 150 = 600 mW
OUT LUX = 240.
So, for one LUX you have 600/240 = 2.5 mW

Joule Thief case:
IN = 1.5 * 12 = 18 mW.
OUT LUX = 120.
So, for one LUX you have 18/120 = 0.15 mW

That's still a massive difference of power input per lux output between the two methods.

I do wonder however, if the led output in lux, is linear with power consumption.?

Interesting data you've presented, if accurate. You saying "my measurements were something like"
isn't quite as reassuring as saying : 'these are my measurements'

Cheers
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on September 21, 2011, 07:24:17 PM
The tesla switch really deals with velocity in relation to an open system.
The joule thief or blocking oscillator when used in a closed system arrangement can suffer from the ring down lag.
Take for example a radar blocking oscillator can do an incredible job measuring velocities.
This is after ring down lag has been corrected and this fix results in some insertion loss.

The current lagging the voltage perspective is true but not all of what happens.
We cannot be tied so closely to the oscilloscope that we overlook the field outside the circuit.


I experimented with this idea and found a  point of entry.  I corrected the ring lag and used varactor diodes
to adjust the resonance after some experimentation I noticed the location was above the diodes.
Hand capacitance near the toroid that was previously concidered the point of entry, I found it was tuning a detuned circuit,
however while the complete interaction with the toroid field is not completely understood it is communicating frequency.

This information should be of encouragement that straight coils are not the only inductors useful in energy harvesting.
As a suggestion the Xee2 efficient design adapted into a harmonic generator using diodes with step recovery charecteristic
may find better demonstration even going beyond self runner.

I expect you will be successful soon and would like to say that the science community will only concider this as a magic trick
regardless of proof and evidence the heckling and laughter (peer review)will be emotionally frustrating for a long time.

Reference: John Bedini, Ron Stiffler, David Ricketts
Tom Bearden, llya Prigogine, Theodore Hansch,
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on September 23, 2011, 02:02:44 AM

@Nul-Point,

Sorry about 4*150 = 1200. ???
It was just a trap to allow me figuring out if I was listened to and who were listening to me.

Actually, no! You are right!  :P
It was caused by this cheap French rosé in a 5 liters container. But, be assured, I did not absorbed all the container. This rosé should be very efficient because I calculated twice... I was vaguely aware that something must be wrong. Hence my conclusion.

Anyway, JTs are almost as efficient as rosé. Are they not?  ;D
----------------------
@Tagor,

Merci mon cher Tagor, mais je ne connais pas le 'K' d'une LED.
Cela doit dépendre du type. Peut-être que l'image jointe pourrait être utile ?
Mon but était plus de montrer l'efficacité d'un JT que de prouver une quelconque "Sur-Unité". Cependant, merci pour votre aide.

Thanks my dear Tagor but I'm not aware of the Light Efficiency ("K") of one LED. It should be depending upon the kind. Perhaps the attached picture could be of any help? My aim was more to show the efficiency of a JT than to prove any 'OU'. Anyway, thanks for your help.
----------------------------
@Hoptoad

Quote
"I do wonder however, if the led output in lux, is linear with power consumption.?"

I do not really know.
What I just can tell, for the moment, is:
'Over feeding' the small 'torch' should blow out the leds. But I can try with 4 AA bats or more strong 3 AA bats. Of course It must be dependant. Linear ?

Now, 'feeding' the JT with 2 AA bats does not (LUXs-wise) improve the JT efficiency. I have tried it.

You are just giving me an idea: to use a variable DC supply. I will try it.

About my "something like" measurements. I had not my notes (were upstairs).
I would assure a 10/20% error.
Yes, you could argue that It was a "rosé effect". It was not. This strange "rosé effect" only appears in calculations. :P

BTW, you could try it. Luxmeters are not so expensive.

I just wanted to see if there was a 'cheap' mean to figure out any efficiency.
I just can said that, IMHO, and also In My Humble Measurements that JTs are almost ten times more efficient than "brute force".

I just also have to repeat that my JT is a very simple one.

Very Best





Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on September 24, 2011, 06:36:45 AM
@Nul-Point,

Sorry about 4*150 = 1200. ???
It was just a trap to allow me figuring out if I was listened to and who were listening to me.

Actually, no! You are right!  :P
It was caused by this cheap French rosé in a 5 liters container. But, be assured, I did not absorbed all the container. This rosé should be very efficient because I calculated twice... I was vaguely aware that something must be wrong. Hence my conclusion.

Anyway, JTs are almost as efficient as rosé. Are they not?  ;D
----------------------
@Tagor,

Merci mon cher Tagor, mais je ne connais pas le 'K' d'une LED.
Cela doit dépendre du type. Peut-être que l'image jointe pourrait être utile ?
Mon but était plus de montrer l'efficacité d'un JT que de prouver une quelconque "Sur-Unité". Cependant, merci pour votre aide.

Thanks my dear Tagor but I'm not aware of the Light Efficiency ("K") of one LED. It should be depending upon the kind. Perhaps the attached picture could be of any help? My aim was more to show the efficiency of a JT than to prove any 'OU'. Anyway, thanks for your help.
----------------------------
@Hoptoad

I do not really know.
What I just can tell, for the moment, is:
'Over feeding' the small 'torch' should blow out the leds. But I can try with 4 AA bats or more strong 3 AA bats. Of course It must be dependant. Linear ?

Now, 'feeding' the JT with 2 AA bats does not (LUXs-wise) improve the JT efficiency. I have tried it.

You are just giving me an idea: to use a variable DC supply. I will try it.

About my "something like" measurements. I had not my notes (were upstairs).
I would assure a 10/20% error.
Yes, you could argue that It was a "rosé effect". It was not. This strange "rosé effect" only appears in calculations. :P

BTW, you could try it. Luxmeters are not so expensive.

I just wanted to see if there was a 'cheap' mean to figure out any efficiency.
I just can said that, IMHO, and also In My Humble Measurements that JTs are almost ten times more efficient than "brute force".

I just also have to repeat that my JT is a very simple one.

Very Best

I have only run all of my jt circuits on one single aa battery.  There is never any need to use more in my opinion.  You can light as many leds as you want (within reason) with a single aa.  My record is 400 although I know I could light many more, that was just all I had at the time.  It is unreal the amount of light you can get with a "dead" aa battery.  This is why I have always called them "free energy" devices because I get all of my dead aa's from my friends and family.  They would have thrown them away but yet I can get many, many hours of light from them.  So, I guess it is more like "free to me" energy.  But, with 1,000 volts you can light up a lot of things. (Jeanna's circuit JT)

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on September 24, 2011, 08:47:34 AM

@Nul-Point,
[...]
Actually, no! You are right!  :P
It was caused by this cheap French rosé in a 5 liters container. But, be assured, I did not absorbed all the container
[...]

Very Best

so... le vin c'est pas fin?

sounds good to me - as long as there is at least '2400' ml remaining!  :)


the Lux meter also sounds good to me - i hope you can use it do some more comparisons

i've tried using an opto-isolator for power comparisons between DC & pulsed o/ps, but there is always the issue of the overall frequency response of the device - the Lux meter might be a better way to go


BTW  one should never have to apologise for simplicity - only complexity!  ;)

a plus tard
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hope on September 24, 2011, 02:47:29 PM
You can build a lux meter easily with a photo diode, it may be a little crude but you can get consistent reading.  This will serve as a baseline to correlate data from.

http://www.electronics-lab.com/blog/?p=1834

http://elm-chan.org/works/lux/report.html
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 24, 2011, 09:09:29 PM
  Thanks for that, Hope.

I've been following discussion and  developments of the "Tesla switch", and -- like Nul-Pts -- I've incorporated some of these ideas into my sj1 circuit.  Thus, trying to re-charge batteries using the sj1 circuit as a "switch" -- a very fast switch.  I just started a run today, will report results over the next days/weeks.

  TODAY (9/24/11)  Matthew Jones has posted his "GUIDE" Part 1  for his Tesla Switch at energeticforum -- I would attach his PDF here for our convenience, but it's huge...  See his "Guide" here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/962-use-tesla-switch-123.html

Also, his post today -- it's fair to call it a challenge -- "Il lance le defi"--

Quote
Part 1 released
@all

This is the first of 2 parts of the Guide for the Simple switch. I am pretty sure I covered everything as far as small one goes.
Part 2 will include the big one and will compiled with this version.

Simple Switch TS Guide Part 1

If you have any questions feel free to post them. If your not currently trying to build and all you wanna do is analyze I am not interested in answering your questions. Make sure before you ask you can provide a picture of the parts, unless its a question about ordering parts.

Make sure to read the whole paper before you attempt to build and defendantly follow the startup and safety guidelines outlined in last part of the writeup. They will save you alot of grief.

Now as far as specific go alot of different things can be used. If you do not know the difference between things then just buy the parts I listed in th PDF. If you do know the difference feel free to change the recipe but do not expect me to be able to help with really weird things.

I at first I said I was going to cover alot of different IC's. I didn't and I am not going to. If you choose to use another IC outside of the listed ones PIC and Stamp you do so knowing you need to find the correct code to make it work.
I give you enough info to find and write the correct code.

Several times I speak about a switch that is not Published and is very powerful. I will not even discuss this switch with you unless you have a working prototype of the outlined switch. Before you the mistake of asking ME IN PRIVATE without providing a workup of the outlined switch I will cut you off and not help you again.
When the time comes and some of you manage to get a handle on the SIMPLE LITTLE SWITCH or the big one for that matter, I will contact YOU, and we will go into an agreement before I share anything with you.

Post your work and results. This the key to gaining knowledge of the next step. Nothing not even money will get you any further.

Enjoy
Matthew Jones



He claims OU, somewhere around 300% IIRC... the thread is about 120 pages long now; here:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/962-use-tesla-switch-123.html

Can't find a thread here at OU on Matt Jones' build -- perhaps we should start a new thread??

What do you think about this one?  IS THIS IT?


Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on September 25, 2011, 04:56:28 AM
[...]
[Matthew Jones] claims OU, somewhere around 300% IIRC
[...]
What do you think about this one?  IS THIS IT?[/b]

Steven

here's my 2c....

the 'Simple Circuit' by MJ is only designed to re-charge 2 out of its 4 batteries as it runs (and MJ clearly states that battery voltage will decrease)

so if his claim of '300%' OU applies to this arrangement then this figure must presumably rely on the rectified output from the transformer

i don't recall seeing any hard data which relate to performance of this circuit

the tests which you and i are running with SJ1-related circuits are designed to re-charge 2 batteries (or cells) in parallel from a similar pair of batteries/cells in series, whilst simultaneously driving a separate load

this approach directly enables us to determine if there is a net gain in charge in the DUT (by periodically swapping the battery/cell pairs)

this is the basic principle of the so-called Tesla Switch - more complex arrangements just automate this battery/cell pair swapping (or arrange for two mirror-image circuits to mutually re-charge each other's supply on a cycle-by-cycle basis)

until MJ (or ANO replicator) provide some hard performance data for the published design(s), we can obtain our own indication as to the likelihood of a Tesla Switch type device producing OU results


update shown below on my ongoing test with SJ1 variant and 2 serial cells charging 2 parallel cells bellow (Blue graph shows terminal voltage for 'charging' cell pair; red & yellow show terminal voltages for individual supply cells; vertical line indicates swap of cell pair - their data changes from 'supply' to 'charging' & vice versa)


thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
 
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 25, 2011, 07:38:51 AM
Steven

here's my 2c....

the 'Simple Circuit' by MJ is only designed to re-charge 2 out of its 4 batteries as it runs (and MJ clearly states that battery voltage will decrease)

so if his claim of '300%' OU applies to this arrangement then this figure must presumably rely on the rectified output from the transformer

i don't recall seeing any hard data which relate to performance of this circuit

the tests which you and i are running with SJ1-related circuits are designed to re-charge 2 batteries (or cells) in parallel from a similar pair of batteries/cells in series, whilst simultaneously driving a separate load

this approach directly enables us to determine if there is a net gain in charge in the DUT (by periodically swapping the battery/cell pairs)

Excellent points, NP!  Yes, this is what I'm doing also, just as you said above.

Quote
this is the basic principle of the so-called Tesla Switch - more complex arrangements just automate this battery/cell pair swapping (or arrange for two mirror-image circuits to mutually re-charge each other's supply on a cycle-by-cycle basis)

until MJ (or ANO replicator) provide some hard performance data for the published design(s), we can obtain our own indication as to the likelihood of a Tesla Switch type device producing OU results


update shown below on my ongoing test with SJ1 variant and 2 serial cells charging 2 parallel cells bellow (Blue graph shows terminal voltage for 'charging' cell pair; red & yellow show terminal voltages for individual supply cells; vertical line indicates swap of cell pair - their data changes from 'supply' to 'charging' & vice versa)


thanks
np


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

Again -- right on.  Thanks, my friend. 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 25, 2011, 07:44:29 AM
  Some of you, like me, have been following the RomeroUK saga...  very interesting.  Today he is "confessing" some things at the OUR.com forum.  Suggest you read the full context if you're interested:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1102.100


For instance, reply #107,

Quote
You are right, I am frustrated, that device had a x wire, and is not possible to get even close to OU with it, I keep trying, there are unlimited things I can try and I love it.
With this confession are people going to be more happy? Who knows?


Best regards,
Romero
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on September 26, 2011, 01:16:03 AM
   Guys:
   Greetings from Costa Rica, where it's raining cats and dogs right now.
   I don't believe that there even exists such a thing as OU, but rather a conversion of one type of energy to another more usable form.  That said, I'd like to show you what I've put together. 
It is a Kooler type, Hartley oscillator, that now needs no recharging, charging, or switching, etz... as the source battery, or cell, does not discharge itself.
  I've made a Quartz/Carbon Crystal Cell, this one is in the form of an AA battery.  It looks like an AA, it works like an AA, but it is not an AA. As It does not ever need to be switched, or even touched.  Output is 1.5 volts, and can even light (by itself) a red led without the oscillator attached.  I know that this has been done before, but not quite like this. 
   My video on how to make a quartz/carbon crystal cell:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIx8qYgZCP8

   If you have any questions, just let me know.
                                                                  NickZ

   
                   
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on September 26, 2011, 03:34:40 AM
Hi OU dot com experimenters,

Sorry for answering late. I was busy. Yes, I sometimes might be.

@Pirate88179,
Thanks for your precious precisions. Thanks also for pointing out "Jeanna's circuit JT".
I will google this.

You know what ?
I have not dared to connect more than about 12 LEDS !
Also: I have not such an huge bunch of LEDS. :P
"Timorousity" is against 'OU' achievement. Is it not?

Now, with a black box and a mere LUXmeter it should be possible to prove that
some JT's are 'OU'. Should it not be?

The only question is: how to convert 'LuXs out' into 'watts out'?
'Watts in' is easy.
It sounds like 'OU' is indeed possible but what (watts?) is virtually impossible
is only any obvious measurements.  What a strange situation.

-----------------

@Nul-Point(s)
First of all: sorry for having used the simple past after 'DID' in my previous post.
It is strictly forbidden. Is it not?

Thanks also for all your encouragements.
This "Luxmeter trick" was "inspired" by JL Naudin.
KAPAGEN Power OUTPUT measurements
http://jnaudin.free.fr/kapagen/kapagen33io.htm
IMHO, his calculation are not so explicit.

Now, was not your water pump good idea "Aether captured" by this guy? 
The High Efficiency Pump experiment
http://jnaudin.free.fr/hep/index.htm
Worth you be consulted. IMHO.

Very Best
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 26, 2011, 05:02:30 AM
   Guys:
   Greetings from Costa Rica, where it's raining cats and dogs right now.
   I don't believe that there even exists such a thing as OU, but rather a conversion of one type of energy to another more usable form.  That said, I'd like to show you what I've put together. 
It is a Kooler type, Hartley oscillator, that now needs no recharging, charging, or switching, etz... as the source battery, or cell, does not discharge itself.
  I've made a Quartz/Carbon Crystal Cell, this one is in the form of an AA battery.  It looks like an AA, it works like an AA, but it is not an AA. As It does not ever need to be switched, or even touched.  Output is 1.5 volts, and can even light (by itself) a red led without the oscillator attached.  I know that this has been done before, but not quite like this. 
   My video on how to make a quartz/carbon crystal cell:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIx8qYgZCP8

   If you have any questions, just let me know.
                                                                  NickZ

   
                   

Hello again, Nick.  Welcome.  I enjoyed your vid; questions:

1.  What voltage does the quartz/carbon (Si/C) battery run at?
(quartz is silicon-dioxide)
2.  How LONG does it run?  compared to a "D" cell battery, for example?
3.  What "wears out" in your Si/C battery? 
4.  Do you WET the Si/C layers with any liquid??

5.  Can any other sources of carbon be used?   grinding battery-cores is a pain.
How about charcoal briquets??

6.  And how about clean quartzite= sand instead of laboriously grinding up quartz?   

An engineer-friend of mine said "a good engineer must be lazy... and clever."



Fun stuff.  You can see that I'm new to this Si/C idea really, but I would like to climb the learning curve.  I'm amazed that quartz and carbon produce a current at all, to tell the truth. 
Most beach sand is just SiO2, I understand, as is quartz.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 26, 2011, 05:06:36 AM
[snip]

The only question is: how to convert 'LuXs out' into 'watts out'?
'Watts in' is easy.
It sounds like 'OU' is indeed possible but what (watts?) is virtually impossible
is only any obvious measurements.  What a strange situation.


-----------------

@Nul-Point(s)
First of all: sorry for having used the simple past after 'DID' in my previous post.
It is strictly forbidden. Is it not?

Thanks also for all your encouragements.
This "Luxmeter trick" was "inspired" by JL Naudin.
KAPAGEN Power OUTPUT measurements
http://jnaudin.free.fr/kapagen/kapagen33io.htm
IMHO, his calculation are not so explicit.

Now, was not your water pump good idea "Aether captured" by this guy? 
The High Efficiency Pump experiment
http://jnaudin.free.fr/hep/index.htm
Worth you be consulted. IMHO.

Very Best

Hi, Nerzh -- agreed that measuring the output energy or power is the DIFFICULT PART.    Best wishes on your luxmeter approach.

Meanwhile, I'm following NP on some measurements with battery-charging, that seems to me a viable approach, because when we charge batteries, these can be used to power the input on the next run (or device B), or run a load, doing work.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on September 26, 2011, 06:11:01 AM
  @ Joule Seeker, and All:
   I've just come up with this type of cell a couple of weeks ago, so I'm just learning about what it can do.  It does not discharge, and has a unloaded voltage of 1.5 volt,  and the best cells output can reach and stay at about 50 mA.
   I still working on different mixes for the cells, but carbon is the main part of the electrolyte. The cells rely on, or use, the potential difference of two different metals as the driving force. Carbon is used as both the electrolyte as well as the positive center anode. The normal aluminum cans that I use for most of my cells of this type come from capacitors, but the one on the Hartley circuit is the can that the AA came with (zinc?) Carbon rods, are used for the anodes. 
  Some of you may be wondering what the quartz does in these cells.  That is a good question... I'll let you know, when I find out.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 26, 2011, 06:24:26 AM
Nick:
Quote
The normal aluminum cans that I use for most of my cells

Ah, aluminum...  I'm guessing this is a critical part of the cell, Nick, and that the aluminum degrades as the cell runs.
If you can run a cell with a plastic can, I'll retract this...  but I'm pretty sure that Al is a critical component and degrades (probably oxidizes) as the cell runs.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on September 26, 2011, 07:13:16 AM
  Although the aluminum cans (cathode) can wear down when running "wet cells", the idea here is to not utilize a galvanic reaction that consumes the metals. And that is what is being worked on presently.  Ideally a hermetically sealed cell that would not be affected by humidity, and have little or no oxidation in the metals is what would work best.
  I use no heat, nor additional water or liquids, and I  don't charge these cells.  The goal is to obtain a cell that runs on ambient energy, instead of a chemical reaction. And that has not been an easy thing to do, up to now.

  Yesterday I made a cell with just some plain wood carbon (as the electrolyte) that I found on the beach by my house.  Even that works, but not as well, it gave 0.8 volt, and 6mA. , no chemicals... I soaked and washed out any salt out of it, in case it had any. 
  Anyways, just having some fun with this. It's nice to watch the leds these cells and circuits light up at night, and all day, and all night...   And, it's just another way to help keep the low drain type of circuits that you guys are working on,  running,  and their leds lighting, for a long time,  hopefully.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on September 26, 2011, 04:11:13 PM
Nick:
Ah, aluminum...  I'm guessing this is a critical part of the cell, Nick, and that the aluminum degrades as the cell runs.
If you can run a cell with a plastic can, I'll retract this...  but I'm pretty sure that Al is a critical component and degrades (probably oxidizes) as the cell runs.

 I think you are right about the aluminum being a critical component but they don't seem to degrade the material used. This is what has everyone scratching their heads and hence why I tried to point you to the thread.
 It dawned on me that since you were aiming for low current draw in your earlier work that if you found a device that didn't degrade and provided "forever" current forever then figuring out the power in would be essentially easier. Free is free right?

 These cells when made right tend to loop the charge carriers in the crystal lattices inside of the material giving them the ability to run and not degrade the electrodes because of the crystal lattice. They take a few days to stabilize and run and seem to grow over a period of weeks if left alone. I would be very interested to have one disassembled after it has formed itself over a couple of weeks to be able to see the structure it forms. Maybe we could figure out just how these work then but who knows....

 On another front research into this effect and it's causes could be this process: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5353809/Worlds-first-battery-fuelled-by-air.html
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on September 26, 2011, 07:09:40 PM
 
Steven

as you can see in the first graph below, the terminal voltage trend of my DIY voltage cell powering my LED flasher variant of your SJ1 Hartley-type oscillator is still showing increasing voltage on-load 80 days after start of test on 8th July

i originally thought that its self-sustaining action might be due to energy from ambient temperature, but its also clear from the graph that the ambient temperature has been steadily decreasing since 8th July (as you would expect in the Northern hemisphere!)

when i opened up some previous cells it was evident that there was no corrosion on the electrodes (they were in fact brighter than at the start of the test runs) and i believe that the cell activity is not galvanic (although dictated by the differing Work Functions of the two metals)

since my separator is more dielectric (in fact, in semiconductor range) than electrolytic, i decided to test this avenue and found that i could achieve a cell voltage using latex as a separator!

the control experiment with one of my cells loaded by just a resistor and capacitor in parallel is showing a gradual discharge trend (albeit with quite large peaks and troughs in the terminal voltage), so i think it is safe now to assume that the ability of the LED flasher system to not just self-sustain but actually increase its own supply voltage is due in part to the pulse nature of the load circuit


the updated graph (2nd one shown below) for my 'Tesla Switch' type variant of your SJ1 Hartley-type oscillator is starting to show an interesting trend as the average of the 'charging' and 'supply' cells converge - initially it looked to me as if the systems would just settle into a continued gentle discharge curve, but with the latest battery swap there is a hint of the system moving towards a stable operating level - if this continues then i have a draft circuit 'waiting in the the wings' to test a 4 battery full self-recharge attempt

thanks
np


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



Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on September 26, 2011, 09:35:29 PM
 I think what is very interesting is the fact that they attribute air being the supply for energy and it makes sense because if you look at the crystalline structure to most of these crystals you will find the binders are in fact hydrogen. and when there is ample supply of air or a supply of water in the system they seem to run forever in a cycle of dissemblance and recombination of the hydrogen in water inside of the system.
 I would postulate that the system doesn't have a direct short because of the crystalline lattice but just like crystals use in the communications realm, they vibrate allowing the flow of charges to pass the structure and into the structure of the electrodes. One is reliant on the other and this is why most of the cells need a kick start.
 What should be done next is to really start to understand the system we have put together in these batteries. Just from vibratory energy we can see that one type of crystal cell is active and the other crystal cell type is the receiver. Rochelle salt is highly piezoelectric and with the addition of other crystalline structures we have the actuator driven by the imbalance between the two electrodes and the further process of hydro imbalancing you can see there are a great many things driving this type of cell. Not one process in this battery is responsible for the battery effect we are seeing.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 27, 2011, 12:27:22 AM

Steven

as you can see in the first graph below, the terminal voltage trend of my DIY voltage cell powering my LED flasher variant of your SJ1 Hartley-type oscillator is still showing increasing voltage on-load 80 days after start of test on 8th July

i originally thought that its self-sustaining action might be due to energy from ambient temperature, but its also clear from the graph that the ambient temperature has been steadily decreasing since 8th July (as you would expect in the Northern hemisphere!)

when i opened up some previous cells it was evident that there was no corrosion on the electrodes (they were in fact brighter than at the start of the test runs) and i believe that the cell activity is not galvanic (although dictated by the differing Work Functions of the two metals)

since my separator is more dielectric (in fact, in semiconductor range) than electrolytic, i decided to test this avenue and found that i could achieve a cell voltage using latex as a separator!

the control experiment with one of my cells loaded by just a resistor and capacitor in parallel is showing a gradual discharge trend (albeit with quite large peaks and troughs in the terminal voltage), so i think it is safe now to assume that the ability of the LED flasher system to not just self-sustain but actually increase its own supply voltage is due in part to the pulse nature of the load circuit


the updated graph (2nd one shown below) for my 'Tesla Switch' type variant of your SJ1 Hartley-type oscillator is starting to show an interesting trend as the average of the 'charging' and 'supply' cells converge - initially it looked to me as if the systems would just settle into a continued gentle discharge curve, but with the latest battery swap there is a hint of the system moving towards a stable operating level - if this continues then i have a draft circuit 'waiting in the the wings' to test a 4 battery full self-recharge attempt

thanks
np


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

Exciting results, NP! 
Quote
"the control experiment with one of my cells loaded by just a resistor and capacitor in parallel is showing a gradual discharge trend (albeit with quite large peaks and troughs in the terminal voltage), so i think it is safe now to assume that the ability of the LED flasher system to not just self-sustain but actually increase its own supply voltage is due in part to the pulse nature of the load circuit"

I'm studying this further...  and congratulate your hard work.

The SiO2/C cell is also fascinating.

   I gotta hit the road today and the next several days -- visiting with family and friends.   So less contact here for me for a little while -- but please carry on the great discussion!
Thanks guys,
Steve
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on September 27, 2011, 12:42:01 AM
   @ All:
    I agree that there is more than one process going on with the cells. And the galvanic reaction is only one of them.
  First off these are not batteries, nor do they need to be a jump started.  These cells don't need to be charged, at all. Nor do they discharge. Although internal cell impedance or resistance can affect or lower their output in time.  Mostly due to any oxidation of the metal electrodes. 
   The output is perpetual, and with only a single cell a Hartley or efficient Jtc can be maintained working and  running some leds, CONSTANTLY.  For how long? Depends on the particular build. Years possibly.
   The idea is to design "dry cells" that do not depend on galvanics, but on the potential difference in voltage of the two different metals, instead. This means that the metals will not become deteriorated, as with Sacrificial Cathodes, when referring to the aluminum cans, or the negative pole.
   There are many ways to build these cells, and some that don't wear out, so we try to focus on dry or solid electrolytes, to make long lasting cells.
  These cells are able to permanently run the oscillator circuits, without having to make any other changes to  your oscillators.
   The last picture of the Hartley has been running for days, (about a week or more now), and is still doing well, another two cells have been lighting a red led for over two weeks now.  Which is about as long as I've been working on this particular cell idea.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: wattsup on September 27, 2011, 02:30:35 PM
@JouleSeeker

Here is a thought process about charging those small 1.5vdc AA batteries.

I had mentioned this on OUR about standard batteries not being able to handle more them 20% of their amperage rating as a recharge and maybe in many cases it is better to put more batteries in parallel if the recharge has a higher amperage then the 20%. Some said putting them in parallel is dangerous but that is simply crazy talk at the levels we are discussing. I don't know for small batteries if the 20% applies or if it is far less then that.

I many cases, when I am confronted with a problem I try to look at the conventional or commercially available methods. In this case what I am thinking is that the standard battery chargers that are commercially available on the market like those small wall socket plug in battery chargers have been developed over the years by the major battery brands and they must have spent some pretty serious money on R&D to find the best trickle charge method to both quickly and completely recharge their batteries. So why not use their R&D in your research.

If you take one of those chargers and scope the output as it charges a battery, maybe this will give you some better parameters. Even open up the circuit and scope around to have a better idea on how the majors go about charging these AA batteries and see where your circuit could fit into such a scheme.

The problem with our OU destined devices charging batteries is that in most cases even though the battery may show it is recharged to 1.5 vdc, the battery does not possess the same attributes of power output longevity. It has happened to me so many times. As soon as you put on a load, the voltage drops so much faster then if the battery was charged by a standard charger.

Just some food for thought. Some of the majors must have spent millions on such R&D so why not use their know how which is proven to work.

Also, maybe consider using more of your circuits in parallel. I have found that in many cases pulsing one toroid or two toroids makes no difference on the supply side and there is more then enough energy circulating to energize more then that one. The energy being used may not be totally used by the single toroid but may better be used by more toroids. The effects you guys are creating are so subtle that I am sure more would produce more.

wattsup

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 27, 2011, 05:18:44 PM
  Some good ideas, wattsup -- thanks.

  "Air" + penny battery from Lidmotor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2BKkVY0xpw&feature=uploademail

  I'm on the road the next several days... love to visit family and friends.  But I've brought my revised circuit along and I'm getting some interesting results.  Just to mention one -- the supply batteries (2 AA rechargeables in series) maintain a constant 2.50 Volts (may vary in the mV range, but not measurable on my little DMM) while running an LED red, brightly -- and charging 2 AA rechargeables in parallel...  for over 24 hours.

  Note that I've removed the CSResistors.  Lo and Lb are 354 and 355 uH respectively, R is 51Kohms, Q is 2n2222.    Bifilar-wound toroid described in the first few posts of this thread.   

Before posting numbers on the recharge voltage rise, I want to repeat the experiment - this time with a control.

Gotta run -- on the road again.

Steve
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on September 28, 2011, 04:32:26 AM

[...]
  I'm on the road the next several days... love to visit family and friends.  [...]
Steve

have a good trip, Steven - look forward to comparing results of the charging tests on your return
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 02, 2011, 04:43:15 PM
  Still on travel, but would call your attention to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement that has continued, growing evidently, for the past few weeks.  NYTimes article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/nyregion/wall-street-occupiers-protesting-till-whenever.html?_r=1&hp

A video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6KorAAqgxQ&feature=player_embedded

Declaration of the protesters includes support for "alternate forms of energy", which I also strongly support as you know:

Quote
Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, , gender identity and sexual orientation.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless nonhuman animals, and actively hide these practices.

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.



http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: viny on October 03, 2011, 02:25:01 AM
@ All: This is to report interesting progress on Don Smith device (Zilano model – enegetic forum), made by drak (post 30:874), this is the vid  - Don Smith device Just testing 5 - YouTube  - Sorry for the link, have no luck with this.
Zilano is responding PM´s and helping a lot.

                     Viny
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on October 03, 2011, 08:21:57 AM
@ All: This is to report interesting progress on Don Smith device (Zilano model – enegetic forum), made by drak (post 30:874), this is the vid  - Don Smith device Just testing 5 - YouTube  - Sorry for the link, have no luck with this.
[...]
Viny

hi Viny

here's the YT link-->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw4j-QoOYMM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw4j-QoOYMM)

and here's the EF page
    link:-->http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-30.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-30.html)

HTH
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: viny on October 03, 2011, 06:33:52 PM

hi Viny

here's the YT link-->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw4j-QoOYMM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw4j-QoOYMM)

and here's the EF page
    link:-->http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-30.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4864-donald-smith-devices-too-good-true-30.html)

HTH
np

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



Hi NP: Thank you for your hand. Hey BTW you have a great page.

                Viny
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on October 05, 2011, 01:57:31 AM
Hi NP: Thank you for your hand. Hey BTW you have a great page.

                Viny

you're welcome Viny  :)

thanks for your kind words about my blog - although it shows OU behaviour of my DIY cells, at such low power it is perhaps more scientific interest than practical


Steven

as promised earlier, here's an update to the data for the ongoing experiment with my SJ1 variant circuit with a series-connected 2x NiMH cell supply charging a 2x NiMH cell parallel-connected arrangement (whilst also driving a load)

as you can see, i've been swapping the supply cell pair with the charging cell pair when the supply reaches an arbitrary level of approx 1.255V; and the trend so far shows the peak charge level to be decreasing after each swap

i'll continue the experiment for some time to allow for the possibility that the whole system will eventually settle and sustain around some discharge/charge levels which relate to the particular LED load being applied


although at present the 'Tesla Switch' concept applied here is not achieving OU with regard to battery charge *levels* - there is still the question as to whether this approach has enabled more work to be done for a given drop in battery charge

in order to get a 'ball-park' answer to this second question, i'll eventually run a subsequent experiment which uses only one of these cells (ie. no charging cells), into the same LED load and then compare the duration of continuous operation between the same start and end levels of terminal voltage recorded in this data for the same cell

(NB. to achieve the same *rate* of work, the supply voltage will need to be reduced by 1 cell because the opposing load voltage of the 'charging' cell pair will have been removed)

if the duration of the follow-up experiment measures significantly less than half of the equivalent 'Tesla Switch' result then the TS setup will be worth investigating in more detail


but first i'll let the existing setup discharge to a new lower level

thanks
np


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

 
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on October 08, 2011, 01:19:24 AM
JouleSeeker:

Hi again after being absent for a while.  I tested your "reduced" no resistor circuit with supercapacitors on the input and output to see what gain was possible.  I used a 2.57 Vdc charge on 10 farads at the input to drive the circuit.  The load was another 10 farad supercap starting at 0 Vdc.  I let it run for 2 hours measuring the voltages on each every 30 minutes.  The energy gain averaged only about 10% over this period.  The input current, and output voltage waveforms were sawtooth in nature. The pulse period decreased from 7.6 us at the start to about 4 us after 2 hrs.  I measured a constand DC current at the input of 3.5ma at the start.  This seems a long way from overunity, and not sure what is wrong.  I have not been able to achieve a Gain greater than 1.0 with any combination of coils or components on this circuit so far.  Help!!  Is your torroid coil using a special material?

best wishes.
albertouno

 

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on October 08, 2011, 01:53:07 AM
JouleSeeker:

During the past two weeks I have been investigating a Canadian Patent Application that claims to get  overunity (20 to 1?) for real power output vs input using a clever transformer design.  Of course, the device uses AC and not DC, but is scalable to  larger powers.  The application# is 2-594-905 dated 7/18/2007, and can be easily downloaded on the official Canadian patent web site.  The measurement data included with the application was verified by a qualified person (PHD Chief Engineer for a Canadian power company).  I have my own thoughts on what is happening with this device, but thought you might be interested in what is being claimed.  He has apparentl discussed the theory at MIT also.  Interesting device, but is it really creating new energy in violation with the known laws of physics, or just transforming reactive power to real power?

Albertouno
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on October 08, 2011, 05:14:10 AM
JouleSeeker:

During the past two weeks I have been investigating a Canadian Patent Application that claims to get  overunity (20 to 1?) for real power output vs input using a clever transformer design.  Of course, the device uses AC and not DC, but is scalable to  larger powers.  The application# is 2-594-905 dated 7/18/2007, and can be easily downloaded on the official Canadian patent web site.  The measurement data included with the application was verified by a qualified person (PHD Chief Engineer for a Canadian power company).  I have my own thoughts on what is happening with this device, but thought you might be interested in what is being claimed.  He has apparentl discussed the theory at MIT also.  Interesting device, but is it really creating new energy in violation with the known laws of physics, or just transforming reactive power to real power?

Albertouno

 Thats Thane Hines setup. a very interesting one to boot. Much can be learned by his process if we chose to look at it.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on October 08, 2011, 05:20:22 AM
[...]
application# is 2-594-905 dated 7/18/2007, and can be easily downloaded on the official Canadian patent web site
[...]
Albertouno

hi Albertouno

that's Thane's BiTT device which Prof Jones has mentioned earlier in this thread (it also has a sizeable thread of it's own on this Forum)

HTH

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on October 08, 2011, 03:37:16 PM
JouleSeeker:

During the past two weeks I have been investigating a Canadian Patent Application that claims to get  overunity (20 to 1?) for real power output vs input using a clever transformer design.  Of course, the device uses AC and not DC, but is scalable to  larger powers.  The application# is 2-594-905 dated 7/18/2007, and can be easily downloaded on the official Canadian patent web site.  The measurement data included with the application was verified by a qualified person (PHD Chief Engineer for a Canadian power company).  I have my own thoughts on what is happening with this device, but thought you might be interested in what is being claimed.  He has apparentl discussed the theory at MIT also.  Interesting device, but is it really creating new energy in violation with the known laws of physics, or just transforming reactive power to real power?

Albertouno

Hi Alberto,

I would be interested to learn about your views on what is happening with this device. Would you be so kind to share your opinion.

Thanks, Gyula
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on October 08, 2011, 07:24:35 PM
Gyula:

I have an EE background (Masters degree), and not a physist, but thanks for your interest.  JouleSeeker can cover the physics better.  I had to go back and review old college stuff to better understand the theory of transformers, etc.  While I think its a clever idea, I don't believe new energy is being created here.  Inductors and capacitors normally receive energy from  an AC source during the first part of a cycle, then return the energy to the source in a later part of the cycle.   It is termed out-of-phase or reactive power.   However, A resistor typically absorbes the energy as heat, and this is termed in-phase or "real" power.  The symantics are not great.

For this transformer, the input looks reactive (inductance), but the output looks resistive.  The power co. normally charges money for drawing real in-phase current to a resistive load (lights, etc).  I think that this device would enable the collection of energy from a power grid without having to pay for it, but Not creating anything new.  Any thoughts JouleSeeker? 

Albertouno
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: forest on October 08, 2011, 09:38:14 PM
What's the difference ? If you have a way to convert reactive power into real power, then creating reactive power is just an engeneering task of resonant radio circuit ?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on October 08, 2011, 10:40:18 PM
...
For this transformer, the input looks reactive (inductance), but the output looks resistive.  The power co. normally charges money for drawing real in-phase current to a resistive load (lights, etc).  I think that this device would enable the collection of energy from a power grid without having to pay for it, but Not creating anything new. 
...


Hi Alberto,

Thanks for your answer and I also understand Thane Heins transformer setup (as described in the patent) is working on reactive input power. 
It remains to be seen that any claim as per the useful output power could be also fed back (in a controlled/regulated way) to the input, because this would be the ultimate proof from those who claim this transformer setup produces more output than it needs at its input. It would be very good to have such a device then.

Gyula
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on October 08, 2011, 11:10:11 PM
Hi Forest et All:

My appoligies, I was not aware of the earlier thread on this subject.  Not sure I understand your response,  we may be agreeing with each other.  It takes energy to create either reactive power or real power.  Converting from one to another doesn't create new energy when drawing from the same energy source.  So nothing is gained from the Canadian device except the money normally paid to the power company.  The power co. still has to generate the original energy.  They seem to be the looser here.  Hope I am wrong and some new energy is being created.   The worlds energy problems would be solved.   The Canadian idea is very creative, but not sure what it could lead to for overunity?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on October 09, 2011, 03:34:43 PM
Hi Forest et All:

My appoligies, I was not aware of the earlier thread on this subject.  Not sure I understand your response,  we may be agreeing with each other.  It takes energy to create either reactive power or real power.  Converting from one to another doesn't create new energy when drawing from the same energy source.  So nothing is gained from the Canadian device except the money normally paid to the power company.  The power co. still has to generate the original energy.  They seem to be the looser here.  Hope I am wrong and some new energy is being created.   The worlds energy problems would be solved.   The Canadian idea is very creative, but not sure what it could lead to for overunity?

 Well I would say it does show us that just from a potential we can cause a flow to happen. Harnessing that flow without shorting it out is the trick! The only thing Thane is doing is utilizing the potential of the source.

 Two questions come to mind: 1) how far can we load the source potential? 2) Is there any limits to this process?

 Those two questions might seem to be the same but actually they are very different. By most of the experiments, we have seen for our own eyes on here how we can manifest energy from a static device. The experiments with high voltage are very extreme in this sense because when you raise the potential to a very high state, as we have seen, resistance doesn't effect it much. This means the transfer behaves much differently then when a resistance is presented with higher currents.
 The Bifilar coil is a coil that presents a greater field quicker and the only real resistance is of the wire itself. With no chance of anti field capability this coil is the perfect device to capacitance fire the coil. Think of the burst capabilities of the bifilar coil and you can see where we could harness a great blast at this coil.
 If Tesla has shown me one thing, that thing would be that a capacitor big enough has all the power of near instant release of that energy. Harness these two things and now you have a way to control that blast. To steer or channel it's power is where we need to go from there.
 One avenue of great importance to pay attention to the spark gap technology. We have messed around with spark gap but have not improved it much. Might we start looking into conditioning the spark gap environment. Keeping the space constant would help tons with regulating the spark gap discharge environment. Maybe an oil filled magnetic quenched gap might do the job? the magnetic quenching could be dynamic also with moving magnetic quenchers around the gap to better control the frequency amplifying process Tesla used.
 I believe the winds in his motors and most devices made by him were all bifilar after a certain point. It seems to me that he discovered the process accidentally through a lot of experimentation in most of his devices after he started using the bifilar wind in his high voltage converter. This converter raised the voltage up so High that resistance had a nil effect on it's transfer. In fact he figured out that once there is this field of high potential you can interrupt it with near instant results even at it's highest of ranges. The best way to interrupt that field was a spark gap. Analogue shorting controlled with magnetic fields is the way to go. Who knows what frequency he was using because of that Technology. This is where the real power comes from. It back feeds from all the Universe's pressure. Increase the bubble we create and the power gets immense in the response from the universe.
 I would suggest this investigation of the bifilar and using high voltages would be the way to go. With each engine being a separate tap into the Universal pressure grid. Understanding how two of these fields interact should be another avenue of discovery be as we all know interference patterns are essentially what matter controls. It is the reason matter exists. Matter is merely a static frequency, controlled by the potential inside of the smallest parts of matter. That matter, is part of the frequency pattern or the other way around and are closely related.

 From the investigations with crystal batteries we are finding out that there are tons of vibrations to feed the piezoelectric nature of the crystalline formations we are using in those batteries. An interesting discovery would be to send one out in space and see if it reduces the electrical response we are seeing on our planet. My prediction is that it would go down in voltage and current capabilities but would not stop. But also the forces out in space are much less and we would need very little to run our crafts out there if we used them in that kind of application. These batteries would be used to charge our capacitors to fire the bifilar coils and get the field we needed to run our applications on our crafts. In fact some of the batteries have shown that they act like capacitors and could store more energy that is induced off of the bifilar coils to recharge the batteries as well. So the batteries would have a minimum charge level that is self sustainable to a lower extent. More research is needed in that field!

 Has anyone taken one of these crystal batteries and exposed it to the electric field of an exciter? Now that might be a great experiment.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 10, 2011, 02:18:09 AM
@albertouno:
   
  As I follow various approaches/ attempts at OU, I'm finding that measuring Pout and Pin (to evaluate Pout/Pin = efficiency n)  accurately is difficult -- particularly measuring Pout.   

A few months back, on this thread, I recommended use of a capacitor and time measurement to evaluate Pinput -- still a solid method. 
Measuriing Pout has proven difficult here.  Like you, I tried charging a capacitor on the output leg -- but there is a problem (discussed in detail earlier and in nul-pts notes).  If you discharge a chap into another cap B (at 0 volts initially), you find that charge is conserved but ENERGY IS LOST -- to sparking, resistance etc.  Follows from basic physics and you can retrace on this thread if you wish.

SO -- I am currently using two batteries in series for the input, and two batteries (all rechargeable) in parallel for the output.   This may provide a solid test -- results noted in my post earlier:


[with] my revised circuit along and I'm getting some interesting results.  Just to mention one -- the supply batteries (2 AA rechargeables in series) maintain a constant 2.50 Volts (may vary in the mV range, but not measurable on my little DMM) while running an LED red, brightly -- and charging 2 AA rechargeables in parallel...  for over 24 hours.

  Note that I've removed the CSResistors.  Lo and Lb are 354 and 355 uH respectively, R is 51Kohms, Q is 2n2222.    Bifilar-wound toroid described in the first few posts of this thread.   

Before posting numbers on the recharge voltage rise, I want to repeat the experiment - this time with a control.

Gotta run -- on the road again.

Steve

Now I'm back and will be posting results -- whatever they turn out to be -- in the next several days.
Right now, I'm establishing a baseline for battery voltages... Batteries need to "sit" for some time to reach stable voltages.   Clearly we need to measure to the mV scale which I do easily with the older Keithley in my home lab.

The circuit I'm using is repeated below -- VERY simple, really. 
Can you duplicate this circuit, alberto?  If so, pls do.

I'm following the Thanes' transformer also...  I don't know if there is "real" OU here or not, but replications claiming OU are there (but few).  Would like to try a build, in parallel with my work on this blocking-oscillator circuit (attached).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on October 10, 2011, 03:36:17 AM
JouleSeeker

Thanks for the response, glad you are back.  I will try testing your suggested circuit, but will be heading to Hawaii for a 2 wk vacation soon, so would like to finish before then.   I have  charged batteries before with the Bedini circuit.  I believe some batteries may have an equivalent circuit which includes a large capacitor (farads).  Noticed this when plotting the discharge curve of a battery to estimate the energy collected.  (like an exponential RC decay).  Not sure if this will complicate the test. 

alberto 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 10, 2011, 05:47:39 AM
JouleSeeker

Thanks for the response, glad you are back.  I will try testing your suggested circuit, but will be heading to Hawaii for a 2 wk vacation soon, so would like to finish before then.   I have  charged batteries before with the Bedini circuit.  I believe some batteries may have an equivalent circuit which includes a large capacitor (farads).

 Noticed this when plotting the discharge curve of a battery to estimate the energy collected.  (like an exponential RC decay).  Not sure if this will complicate the test. 

alberto

Have a great vacation, alberto.
Can you explain how your plotted "the discharge curve of a battery to estimate the energy collected"? == I'm interested.

(I can imagine draining a battery into a large cap and using E = 1/2 C V**2, except it may be difficult to calculate the loss of energy due to "leakage" from the cap...)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: forest on October 10, 2011, 08:33:26 AM
Here is your overunity: http://www.w8ji.com/vswr_reactive_power.htm
Apply reactive power to real power lenzless transformer like Thane kind or others.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on October 10, 2011, 08:45:20 AM
hi Steven

welcome back!  i hope you had a productive trip and an enjoyable time with family & friends

can i add some battery charge test info, too?

when i was pulse charging NiMHs & NiCds with my switched-charge capacitor circuit a couple years back, i would 'characterise' the cells/batteries first: ie.

 - give the cell(s)/battery under test a full charge from my commercial charger;
 - then discharge them through a known resistive load (say approx C20 discharge) down to about 75% nominal voltage, datalogging the terminal voltage every few minutes;
 - then import the data into Excel and get the total energy from  instantaneous power & time calcs.

then i would charge the test cells/battery with my circuit and repeat the data logging exercise

for comparison, choose a representative 'start' & 'end' voltage as the limits for the energy 'integration' calc

see example graph posted below

anyway, that's just one method - over to you Albertouno

thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ltseung888 on October 10, 2011, 05:06:53 PM
Dear Prof. Jones,

I believe that I might have performed the conclusive experiment on sound resonance.  Please see
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=588.msg17563#msg17563
for details.

The experiment absolutely confirms that placing 1,2,3,4 resonance boxes at appropriate locations and distances from a constant sound source will create louder sounds.  The extra sound energy must come from the environment - led-out or brought-in the already available kinetic energy of the air molecules.

This fact will have great impact on all our research - including multiple LCR resonance.

Lawrence
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on October 10, 2011, 05:20:58 PM
Good morning again Steven and Nul-Points:  (I am on East Coast time)

"Have a great vacation, alberto.
Can you explain how your plotted "the discharge curve of a battery to estimate the energy collected"? == I'm interested.

(I can imagine draining a battery into a large cap and using E = 1/2 C V**2, except it may be difficult to calculate the loss of energy due to "leakage" from the cap...)"


Interesting info Nup-Points.    T0 explain, I was charging a very depleted battery with a Bedini circuit and trying to estimate what energy I was getting out.  Just connected the charged battery to a small resistor (R), and measured voltage decay vs time in discrete increments.   Don't have a plot handy, but compared the battery discharge voltage to a simple RC exponential decay curve on an Excel plot. Noticed very similar shapes.  If I assume that the battery has a capacitive equivalent circuit, I can calculate that capacitor value as follows:

C=T/(R*(ln(V1)-ln(V2)).  Where V1 is starting voltage, V2 is ending voltage at time T.  I can then use the usual energy equation for the capacitor and V1 to estimate what the battery starting energy must have been.  Not sure if this is valid, but I did get some interesting results, and repeatability for different charging times. (The cap value is usually in farads).  Hope this helps.  Note, I read that most alkaline batteries are rechargable (and certainly cheaper), and I have also noticed this.  I may try this test on the subject oscillator circuit.

Best Wishes,
Alberto
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on October 10, 2011, 06:09:50 PM
hi Alberto

it's interesting that you say you were starting with a very depleted battery in your (Bedini) charge tests:

my results with discharging a reasonably well-charged battery seemed to suggest a mostly linear voltage decline with a fixed resistive load over the working range

however, as you can see from the example graph above, which  i just picked at random, once the level of charge has decreased beyond the working range then you do see a more exponential decrease in terminal voltage

could it be that the batteries in your test were not getting charged into the working range level?

there is another possibility - ie. that your batteries were fully charged

i noticed when discharging fully charged cells/batteries that just before entering the working range the terminal voltage discharged more quickly, so that would be another possible position for a more capacitor-like discharge curve

you can see a bit of that characteristic on the example graph below - the results of discharging an 8.4V NiMH: the 'linear' discharge range is sandwiched between two more 'exponential' slope regions (although the extremes were not recorded in this graph)


of course, i guess you may have been using Lead-Acid batteries - whereas i was using NiCds and NiMHs, so this could account for the difference in characteristics we've observed

i look forward to learning of the results which you and Steven get from your charging tests with the blocking oscillator

thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
 
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on October 10, 2011, 07:14:26 PM
Nul-Points:

Thanks for the info.  I believe that my depleted (alkaline) test batteries were starting well below the normal working voltage range, as you pointed out in your first curve example.  In fact, I tried to make sure they were quite depleted before charging them.  By accident, this made the comparison to a capacitive discharge obvious and easy to calculate.  Is it better to do the test with depleted batteries for this reason?  Does just the voltage difference accurately measure the energy input to a more fully charged battery?

Alberto
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 11, 2011, 04:21:17 AM
  Thank you NP and Alberto for the comments on batteries -- very helpful plot, NP.

NP: "- then discharge them through a known resistive load " -- I have found when I do this with rechargeable AA's, that when the battery voltage gets to roughly 0.9V, that the battery drops in voltage rapidly -- with a constant resistive load (about 100 ohms).  Then, when the load is removed, the voltage on the batt climbs back up to close to what it was...  I.e., it is difficult to discharge one of these batts to say 0.6V using a constant R... 

Anyway, I discharged 4 of these in parallel through about 100 ohms for approx 20 hours, then let them sit for about 10 days.  The voltage on each was close to 1.0 V as it turned out and quite stable after this "rest".  I took the two with lower voltage and put these in series as Vinput in my circuit (simplified circuit shown above on this page), and the other two in parallel located in series with the LED so as to be CHARGED (see circuit above). 

I will report results after about 20 hours of running.  Here are the starting voltages:

Vinput (2 AA's in series) = 1.9317 V

Voutput (2 AA's in parallel) = 1.0334 V

both measured using the same Keithley DMM.

One important change -- I found that the LED still lit up quite brightly when I cranked the potentiometer (Rb) up to about 0.9 Mohms, megaohms.  (When I stop the run, I will measure the resistance more precisely.)    I was surprised that from roughly 300kohms to 900kohms, I could see no noticeable drop in light-intensity from the LED (by eye).  So I left Rb at the high resistance, to cut down on drain from the input batteries while keeping the output (LED) fairly steady.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nightwind on October 11, 2011, 04:33:57 AM
Hi Forest et All:

My appoligies, I was not aware of the earlier thread on this subject.  Not sure I understand your response,  we may be agreeing with each other.  It takes energy to create either reactive power or real power.  Converting from one to another doesn't create new energy when drawing from the same energy source.  So nothing is gained from the Canadian device except the money normally paid to the power company.  The power co. still has to generate the original energy.  They seem to be the looser here.  Hope I am wrong and some new energy is being created.   The worlds energy problems would be solved.   The Canadian idea is very creative, but not sure what it could lead to for overunity?

You absolutely correct about utility metering.  Their meters only record real power on residences, but they do record power factor (reactive power) on industrial and large commercial facilities.  Funny thing is that the more efficient a homeowners electric motors become, the more visible they are to the power company's meter.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on October 12, 2011, 01:43:29 AM
Greetings   JouleSeeker:

Per your request,  I completed several tests on your oscillator circuit.   First, I tested it with a resistive load of 1000 ohms.  The base resistor was 55k.  A 2.67 volt battery source was used.  The input power was primarily based on a 3.6 ma DC input current present.  Pin was 9.6 mw.   The resistor output was a more complex pulse waveform, which was calculated to yield about 1.4 mw.  The LED was bright during the test, and was estimated to consume  about 4 mw.  This results in a gain for the resistor load of 0.113 or 11.3%.  Counting the LED, the GAIN is  0.47 or 47%.
Going on to the next test, with a second  battery to be charged, the input power remained about the same.   I decided , because of time constraints, to do the “Alberto Capacitor Estimation test” for Pout.  This was described earlier where a depleted battery is charged, and then discharged into a fixed resistor to estimate Pout.  The discharge curve is compared to an ideal capacitor discharge, and energy stored on the battery estimated.  The charging time was 1.5 hours or 5400 seconds.  A copy of the discharge curves is attached, and a capacitor equivalent of 10.3 farads was used.  The curves are not as close as I have observed in the past, possibly due to over discharging the battery before the test,  but  should enable a “ballpark” estimate of Pout to be made.  The results for Pout for the battery was 8.41 joules, Pout for the LED of 21.6 joules, and total Pin of 51.7 joules.  This results in a GAIN of  0.163 for the battery, and 0.581 (58.1%) for the total circuit.
In summary, this circuit did not exhibit overunity, which is disappointing.  Hope this info is helpful, and I will be very interested in your battery test results. 

Alberto
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on October 12, 2011, 09:37:10 PM
Nul-Points:
[...]
Is it better to do the test with depleted batteries for this reason?  Does just the voltage difference accurately measure the energy input to a more fully charged battery?

Alberto

Alberto:

apologies, i forgot you mentioned earlier that you've been using alkali cells - i don't have any experience trying to recharge these

i find it useful to use very depleted NiMH & NiCd cells when i'm looking for evidence of charging (or self-charging) because the cell (or battery) voltage slope is much larger in this condition and so it is easier to observe a change in charge (ie. the voltage changes more per unit charge than it does in the 'working range' - as seen in my earlier 'discharge' graph of the two)

however, i only use this method as a 'ballpark' indication of charging/discharging

i found that it is possible to approximate actual charge when operating within the working range (because the slope is very approximately linear), but it's necessary to have a reasonably good measurement of the equivalent load impedance (or power draw directly)

i used the actual cell discharge graph (with known load resistance) when i needed a more accurate indication of 'full-charge' to compare with 'actual charge' achieved by one of my circuits under test

i hope this helps!


i'm intrigued by your approximation of the cell charge using the capacitor equation - a neat approach for low-powered experiments!!


Steven:

yes, the cell terminal voltage graph on-load with a known resistor does give apparently conflicting information when reaching the fully discharged level - by 'bouncing back' when disconnected

but i think the explanation has to do with the equivalent 'internal resistance' of the loaded cell: i believe that unlike the capacitor (which reflects its level of charge directly in its terminal voltage), the cell voltage is mainly dictated by the chemical equation in the cell

i believe that when we discharge a cell, the re-distribution of the ions causes the internal resistance to increase - so we mostly see the drop in terminal voltage when the cell is on a reasonably significant load - and the ratio of the loaded to unloaded voltage decreases with increase in discharge

that would explain the effect we see of the terminal voltage rising back as we unload the cell after a good amount of discharge

co-incidentally, i happened to have recorded exactly this effect in the 2nd 'discharge' graph above - you can see that after discharging the 8.4V battery down to just below 6V on-load, i remove the load before stopping the datalogging and the unloaded terminal voltage returns to approx 8V within a few minutes!

at this level of charge, it's the loaded terminal voltage which gives a true indication of charge level - which is why for better accuracy we ought to measure a given cell with a known resistive load always to get a comparative value for the 'real' state of charge

however, within the working range (for light to medium load tests) it's probably acceptable to use the unloaded terminal voltage as a reasonable measure of charge - allowing for the cell to 'settle back' first, if necessary, following some power draw from it


i'm away on leave soon, so i'm going to post an update below of the latest data for my SJ1 variant circuit using 2x NiMHs in series to charge 2x NiMHs in parallel with occasional swapping of the two pairs

you can see that although i'm swapping the cell pairs when the supply pair discharge to approx 1.255V, the max voltage reached by the charging pair has been steadily decreasing

the experiment has been running for over 850 hours continuously now (just over a month)

so - no evidence so far that the generic 'Tesla Switch' approach maintains the total charge level of the batteries

if this behaviour continues, then i'll move on to the next test, which is to compare the length of time taken to discharge the supply with a similar 'work' load but without charging another battery pair

i'll have to stop this test run whilst i'm away, but i'll continue again when i return - it's almost at the point where i'll need to lower the discharge setpoint chosen for the swap


hope your experiments go well guys

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 October 12, 2011, 11:31:11 PM
Greetings   JouleSeeker:

Per your request,  I completed several tests on your oscillator circuit.   First, I tested it with a resistive load of 1000 ohms.  The base resistor was 55k.  A 2.67 volt battery source was used.  The input power was primarily based on a 3.6 ma DC input current present.  Pin was 9.6 mw.   The resistor output was a more complex pulse waveform, which was calculated to yield about 1.4 mw.  The LED was bright during the test, and was estimated to consume  about 4 mw. This results in a gain for the resistor load of 0.113 or 11.3%.  Counting the LED, the GAIN is  0.47 or 47%.

How do you estimate the Poutput?  sorry, what you have said is just insufficient to tell how accurate your estimates are.


Quote
Going on to the next test, with a second  battery to be charged, the input power remained about the same.   I decided , because of time constraints, to do the “Alberto Capacitor Estimation test” for Pout.  This was described earlier where a depleted battery is charged, and then discharged into a fixed resistor to estimate Pout.  The discharge curve is compared to an ideal capacitor discharge, and energy stored on the battery estimated.  The charging time was 1.5 hours or 5400 seconds.  A copy of the discharge curves is attached, and a capacitor equivalent of 10.3 farads was used.  The curves are not as close as I have observed in the past, possibly due to over discharging the battery before the test,  but  should enable a “ballpark” estimate of Pout to be made. The results for Pout for the battery was 8.41 joules, Pout for the LED of 21.6 joules, and total Pin of 51.7 joules.  This results in a GAIN of  0.163 for the battery, and 0.581 (58.1%) for the total circuit.
In summary, this circuit did not exhibit overunity, which is disappointing.  Hope this info is helpful, and I will be very interested in your battery test results. 

Alberto

A "ballpark estimate" is not much to go on.  Again, you see as we have discussed at some length above, the difficulty in measuring Pout -- also the importance of optimizing the circuit.

Thanks for your comments also, NP.

Now for my latest results, where I actually charge 2 batteries on the output circuit as I describe above, and measure the voltage Vin and Vout.  Also, I use a much higher base R (Rb) about 0.9 mega-ohms as I described above, and I've measured it at 0.91Mohms.

The results are interesting, I suppose.  Takes a lot of patience.  I seem to be running into the problems you mentioned, NP, with battery voltages relaxing etc.  But I let the batteries "rest" for hours before beginning the run.  Because of the "relaxation" problem with rechargeable batteries, I'm thinking about going back to capacitors as I will describe in a subsequent post.  But first the data using batteries in the circuit -- schematic above.

10 Oct 2011:
@20h00, Vinput = 1.934V (two AA's in series),  Voutput = 1.031V (on the AA's in parallel, charging).


@22h048, Vinput = 1.943V,  Voutput = 1.0340V.
So both voltages actually went UP a little, per the Keithley DMM.

The next morning, 11/11/11
@8h00, Vinput = 1.9447V,  Voutput = 1.03460V

@10h44, Vinput = 1.9438V,  Voutput = 1.03464V
Vinput is down, Voutput continues up.

@0:15 (this morning 12 Oct), Vinput = 1.9466V,  Voutput = 1.0356V

@6h21 (this morning), Vinput = 1.9441V,  Voutput = 1.0362V

At this point, with not enough sleep (yawn), I accidentally touched the DMM probe wires in such a way as to discharge the input batteries for about a second; this ends the run.


Observations:  Vinput seems to go up and down, but does not vary much.  Clearly the input power is very small...  The output power is also small with Rb = 0.91Mohms, but the voltage on the two rechargeable AA's on the output climbs rather steadily... and slowly.   

The efficiency?  Voutput rose from 1.031V to 1.0362V so the 2 AA's on the output leg did charge as expected given the direction of the diode in the LED, while the Vinput was roughly the same... but I don't think this is particularly conclusive due to battery-relaxation questions.

Conclusion:  this run was about 46 hours.  This is too long for rapid progress ;) -- to change variables such as Rb, or the transistor or the capacitor, and to see results.   I will go back to capacitors and see what I can learn (in the absence of a calorimeter... sigh...)





Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 12, 2011, 11:51:51 PM
   I have obtained some fairly high-quality, low-leakage caps and have done some encouraging tests today using these.

By using a charged 60,000 uF (from now on, 60mF) cap and connecting this to a 10mF cap, I find:

Vinitial = 1.97 V, V final = 1.78V and
Vinitial = 2.54 V, V final = 2.28V in another quick test -- both consistent with theory.  Using E = 1/2 CV**2, initially and finally, we find that the efficiency is about 93% in both cases.

  We EXPECT to lose some energy in such a process, but note that with 60mF initially and 70mF finally, we lose only about 7% of the initial energy.  If I had used 10mF initially and 20mF finally (that is, connecting a charged 10mF cap to another (uncharged) 10mF cap), we would have lost half the initial energy -- this follows from charge conservation and E = 1/2 CV**2.

The caps also "leak", losing energy by leakage through the dielectric (no doubt).   So far, I have found  two caps that together leak at almost exactly the same rate as my 60mF cap, so I can keep track of the leakage that way.  I will input into the 10mF cap from my circuit, in place of the AA's on the output leg of the circuit, so as to lessen "theory" losses as described above. Tthe leakage on that cap is remarkably small.

Test results later, looks like tomorrow given duties today.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 13, 2011, 12:15:06 AM
[snip] But first the data using batteries in the circuit -- schematic above.

10 Oct 2011:
@20h00, Vinput = 1.934V (two AA's in series),  Voutput = 1.031V (on the AA's in parallel, charging).


@22h048, Vinput = 1.943V,  Voutput = 1.0340V.
So both voltages actually went UP a little, per the Keithley DMM.

The next morning, 11/11/11
@8h00, Vinput = 1.9447V,  Voutput = 1.03460V

@10h44, Vinput = 1.9438V,  Voutput = 1.03464V
Vinput is down, Voutput continues up.

@0:15 (this morning 12 Oct), Vinput = 1.9466V,  Voutput = 1.0356V

@6h21 (this morning), Vinput = 1.9441V,  Voutput = 1.0362V

At this point, with not enough sleep (yawn), I accidentally touched the DMM probe wires in such a way as to discharge the input batteries for about a second; this ends the run.


Observations:  Vinput seems to go up and down, but does not vary much.  Clearly the input power is very small...  The output power is also small with Rb = 0.91Mohms, but the voltage on the two rechargeable AA's on the output climbs rather steadily... and slowly.   

The efficiency?  Voutput rose from 1.031V to 1.0362V so the 2 AA's on the output leg did charge as expected given the direction of the diode in the LED, while the Vinput was roughly the same... but I don't think this is particularly conclusive due to battery-relaxation questions.

Conclusion:  this run was about 46 hours.  This is too long for rapid progress ;) -- to change variables such as Rb, or the transistor or the capacitor, and to see results.   I will go back to capacitors and see what I can learn (in the absence of a calorimeter... sigh...)

I should add that the results are more encouraging when one accounts for the power consumed by the LED on the output leg of the circuit... it MAY be ou, but Pin and Poutput are both small and I'm not too happy with working in this range frankly.

The output LED remained visibly lit throughout the run.  The output was pulsed, I observed (again) on the oscilloscope.  Scope shots and photos later.

Steve
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on October 13, 2011, 01:52:06 AM
Joule Seeker
I  did not include all the details before because of the message length.  If you want to see my calculation of Pout for the resistor load test,  here it is:
First Test:  Voltage across resistor :  saw tooth like pulse with rounded top at 7 volts peak, and base of 1.5us duration.  Shape factor  of 0.6 used to estimated average voltage over the pulse duration.  Period of pulses was  5.3us.  The equivalent DC voltage over one period  is then 1.19 volts.  The output power is then 1.19^2/1000, which equals  0.0014 watts.  With a measured input power of .012 watts, the gain is 0.113, not including the LED.   As we know, this measurement is somewhat subjective.  Accuracy of this calculation not estimated,  but  I would have to be in error by a factor of 10 to achieve overunity.  Highely unlikely,  unless you see a calculation error.
Power for the LED used similar method.  Voltage pulse peak 11.0.  The  dc equivalent voltage over the period equals 3.2 volts.  Current in output across a 10 ohm resistor was .0014 amps.  The Power for the LED was estimated at .004 watts.   Total power out was .0059 watts.  Gain for circuit was 0.470.
Second test:  Assuming an  ideal capacitor of 10.3 farads is a reasonable estimate of the battery discharge characteristic (see previous attachment), then the usual ½*C*V^2  equation can be used to estimate the original charge on the battery after  1.5 hours of charging.   The voltage was 1.278 volts at the start of the discharge, hence 8.41 joules was the estimated energy of Pout on the charged  battery.   
 I called this a “ballpark” estimate because the two discharge shapes are not identical.  Again this would have to be hugely in error to achieve overunity.  Since my Pout estimation method has not been previously verified, I can’t say what the error range is.  So far, I have not seen any better method used for batteries that can be done in a short period of time.    But not in love with this method. 
If we have a device that can generate over  800% gain, shouldn’t  that stand out in the measurements, even if they were as much as 100% in error? 
Ciao,   Alberto
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 13, 2011, 08:34:23 PM
  @alberto -- you say your build does not appear to be ou, based on your method of calculating Pin and Pout.  That's probably the case, but if you will look at my first several posts on this thread, you will see that I based the ou calculation on power in and power out as measured using a Tektronix 3032 scope that both multiplies V(t)*I(t) and calculates the instantaneous P(t) and plots that, and then calculates the mean of the power in -- same method for power out.

I do not trust a method in which V and I (not instantaneous) are calculated separately and then multiplied (as you do) to estimate P, because I have found serious discrepancies with that crude method of estimating -- compared with the Tek 3032 method.  The latter "power-waveform" method also has potential errors, and that is why I'm seeking -- and using -- other methods of measurement also.  Note that I claimed "evidence for" ou using the Tek 3032 P(t) method described -- not "demonstration of" ou.

Your battery method is probably better than multiplying estimated V and I (not instantaneous) -- will you pls give the initial and ending voltages for your Vinput and Voutput?  also, if you have a chance, you could then compare with the results I presented above? -- where I DO provide the  initial and ending voltages for  Vinput and Voutput and it looks pretty good actually, IMO.

There may be significant differences in our builds also.  Let's try these tests:
1.  what is the inductance of your bifilar-wound toroid, for each separate winding?  I had L values of approx. 390 and 395 uH on my ferrite-toroid, with 20 windings in each one (total of 40 windings, in all).   Let's compare.

2.  My build lights the LED just fine at 51 kOhms -- bright, at 0.9 Mohms quite bright,
and at 4.6 megaohms -- dimmer but clearly lit.  How does your build function at these resistances on the base resistor?

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 13, 2011, 09:02:58 PM
I attach a photo of my battery-recharging sj1 circuit to go along with the schematic for the circuit, which I post anew so everyone can see both easily.  Again, the Rb base resistor is 0.9 mega-ohms, and the LED is lit visibly.  L ~ 390 uH for each "half" of the bifilar wound toroid, clearly seen in the photograph.

@alberto -- I ask that you do the same, the schematic and photo for your build, so we can make comparisons.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on October 13, 2011, 10:20:02 PM
Hi again JouleSeeker:
I am running  low on spare time right now, due to my forthcoming trip, but will try to provide some of the  data that you requested.  I would certainly like to see this project successful.  I suspect that my build is somehow different than yours, particularly for the coil, and possibly due to some resistive  breadboard connections.   I did just build a second circuit model with short soldered wires, and it does behave differently with the same coil.  Strange!   I will have to explore this further when I get back.  Used  a newly bought  breadboard for my test.  Do you have a hard wired model?
For the battery test, the voltage at the end of 1.5hrs of circuit charging was 1.278 volts.  After 300 seconds of discharge into 22 ohms, it was 0.123 volts, 0.09 volts after 600 seconds, and 0.067 after 900 seconds of discharge.  A depleted NI-CD  AA600 Malibu  battery was used.
 Using my equation for the equivalent capacitor values:   C=T/(R*(ln (v1)-ln(v2))), where  v1= the starting voltage for the discharge, and v2 the subsequent voltages for each time, I get 5.8 farads, 10.3 farads and 13.9 farads respectively.  The spread is larger than I would like, but selected the middle value to calculate the battery energy at start.  My curves are attached again for reference.  Note the relative energy obtained would be proportional to the value selected.
The blue “Goldmine” toroid coils may not be  consistent, or of good quality.  The meter I have only measures to 2 places, and I get .04 mh that’s millihenries on each bifilar winding, with 12 turns each.  However,  that coil drew an unusually large DC input current (20 ma) so I went to a different coil material  for my test.  This one uses a rectangular ferrite core with a measured wide frequency response, and had 16 turns.  The inductance was 0.67mh each side.  It only drew about 4 ma DC at the circuit input.  This DC amounts to the dominant input power on my model.  Your toriod is clearly different.
I will have to try the base resistor tests later.  Used  55K for my test.  In the past, when I went to higher values, I think that the output voltage across a resistive load was also lower, but need to repeat this test.
Hope this helps,
Alberto
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on October 14, 2011, 04:08:44 PM
Good Morning JouleSeeker:

Per your request, I did a quick test of my copy of your circuit (and my coil) with two different values for Rb (the base resistor).  Cb was left at 150 uf for each test. Same breadboard wiring model. The following are the results:

A. Rb=55k.  Vin=2.70v, Iin = 4ma DC, Vout across 1000 ohm load=7 v pulse peak, period=5.2us, Iin AC= pulse=10mv p-p, 0.2us duration.  LED= bright.  These are the same values I obtained with my resistor test before.  GAIN est=.47 for circuit.
 
B.  Rb=470K ohms.  Vin=2.68 v, Iin=0.42ma, Vout across 1000 ohm load=7 v peak, Period=60us, Iin AC=2mv peak.  LED= DIM.
    Notice, while the input power (DC based) did drop almost by a factor of 10, the output pulse PERIOD increased by a factor of 10, which means the output power should have dropped proportionally.  Hence no apparent GAIN increase for the circuit.  The longer output pulse period would also result in a lower charge on a battery, if my observations are correct.

I did not have time to do more, but not an encouraging result.  If you did get overunity with 55k before , why are you trying these higher values for Rb now?  It gives us a moving target to replicate and test.  If I got an overunity result, I would  measure each component, and freeze the circuit and test data until it was thouroughly understood and replicated, etc.  You may have already done that.

Happy testing,
Alberto
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 15, 2011, 01:08:14 AM
  Alberto --   You asked "If you did get overunity with 55k before , why are you trying these higher values for Rb now? "   As I have said before to you, I did not claim overunity, but I did show "evidence for" ou based on the Tektronix 3032 P(t) = V(t)*I(t) waveform method.  (Which method I have explained in some detail.)  Would you comment on that method compared to your method for measuring Power in and Power out?

Frankly --  have your read all of this thread?  If so, perhaps you would have a better understanding why I am using the circuit now under testing.  You will note that I am looking at other approaches and finding similarities between them which provides me/us with ideas for testing.  I expect to continue in this process, with or without your approval -- my motive being that I would like to see SOME approach  achieve repeatable and readily-measurable overunity.

Would you kindly provide a photo of your set-up, so I can see your toroid and your build?  Note that I provided a photo (as I have done with earlier versions in general).

Also, I provided the Initial and Final voltages for 1) Input batteries and 2) Output batteries -- and I asked you to do the same.  Would you?

Also,  I asked you to provide the results for the case where Rb is 4.6 megaohms (as I did) -- how bright is your LED under this condition?

 I'm trying to help, but without direct responses to these straightforward requests, I'm finding it difficult. 

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on October 15, 2011, 04:22:43 PM
JouleSeeker:
Here is some of what you requested, picture attached.  The LED is lit but doesn’t show up well.  A battery pack, 2.67 volts, is connected to the input, with  a resistor load of 1000 ohms.
Hard to comment on the Tektronix 3032 gain measurement without being able to replicate it myself.  I assume others have repeated it, or otherwise witnessed the actual scope measurements.  However, If that is the only data showing gain for the circuit, I would obviously be  skeptical.  I assume that the scope can handle any waveform shapes including a mix of DC and AC? 
I have read all 62 pages of the discussion following your work, and found it interesting.  You have done an excellent job describing your tests.  However, I was hoping to see some scope pictures of the output waveform  on a different time scale over one period (assuming it is periodic).  That would help me compare  to my observations and estimates of output power.
So far without capability of the tektronix, I have tried three types of tests, capacitor to capacitor, visual scope estimates using the output waveform , and the battery to battery tests.  All have their pitfalls as you describe.  No gain greater than 60% obtained with any of these.  Your quest to find other approaches is great,  I certainly wasn’t trying to be critical, but didn’t see where the Rb resistor variation test was going, particularly since I havn’t seen your output waveform shape over one period.  I don’t happen to have a resistor value of 4.6 megohms in the house, so can’t give you that info.  My LED was very dim with less than 1 Megohm.
The input battery voltages for my 1.5 hour charging period was nearly constant, 2.68 volts start, and 2.66 ending voltage.  The charging battery  voltage was 0.2V when discharged the night before the test.  It was up to 1.140 when starting the charging test, an increase similar to your experience.  That is a concern with the use of batteries. However, it was certainly depleted.  The discharge values were given before. 
Alberto
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 15, 2011, 06:19:15 PM
JouleSeeker:
Here is some of what you requested, picture attached.  The LED is lit but doesn’t show up well.  A battery pack, 2.67 volts, is connected to the input, with  a resistor load of 1000 ohms.
Hard to comment on the Tektronix 3032 gain measurement without being able to replicate it myself.  I assume others have repeated it, or otherwise witnessed the actual scope measurements.  However, If that is the only data showing gain for the circuit, I would obviously be  skeptical.  I assume that the scope can handle any waveform shapes including a mix of DC and AC? 
I have read all 62 pages of the discussion following your work, and found it interesting.  You have done an excellent job describing your tests.  However, I was hoping to see some scope pictures of the output waveform  on a different time scale over one period (assuming it is periodic).  That would help me compare  to my observations and estimates of output power.
So far without capability of the tektronix, I have tried three types of tests, capacitor to capacitor, visual scope estimates using the output waveform , and the battery to battery tests.  All have their pitfalls as you describe.  No gain greater than 60% obtained with any of these.  Your quest to find other approaches is great,  I certainly wasn’t trying to be critical, but didn’t see where the Rb resistor variation test was going, particularly since I havn’t seen your output waveform shape over one period.  I don’t happen to have a resistor value of 4.6 megohms in the house, so can’t give you that info.  My LED was very dim with less than 1 Megohm.
The input battery voltages for my 1.5 hour charging period was nearly constant, 2.68 volts start, and 2.66 ending voltage.  The charging battery  voltage was 0.2V when discharged the night before the test.  It was up to 1.140 when starting the charging test, an increase similar to your experience.  That is a concern with the use of batteries. However, it was certainly depleted.  The discharge values were given before. 
Alberto

OK -- the photo and answers are very helpful.  One sees differences between your circuit and mine right off:

1.  You show FOUR resistors; I have only ONE = the base resistor.  Each resistor represents LOSS in the system -- what are your other three resistor for?

2.  "I don’t happen to have a resistor value of 4.6 megohms in the house, so can’t give you that info.  My LED was very dim with less than 1 Megohm."  So again, with this empirical result we see a major difference...  I would ask if you can get the base resistance up to about 4 or 5 mega-ohms, so we can further check, but this result helps.

3.  A major difference may well be in the bifilar-wound inductor -- mine is toroidal, yours is rectangular. 

4.  Next, I agree we should compare waveforms.  Suggest we look at the voltage across the LED for different values of Rbase.
I'm going to post this then go and photograph the waveforms for 4.6 K-ohms (left screen-shot, which is what I ran last night), and 0.9 M-ohms (right screen-shot photo, ran earlier this week).  You will see, as one changes Rbase, the waveform changes and it is QUITE POSSIBLE that the Pout/Pin ratio will change also (that is one of the main variables I'm testing).

I also made two short vids from my runs on this circuit last evening, which I hope to upload to Youtube...  Fact is, I have never uploaded a vid to youtube personally, so any pointers on how to do that would be appreciated.

Edit-- added photo-shots of the waveforms, only change in circuit was Rbase of 4.6 K-ohms goes to 0.9 Mega-ohms.  Vertical scale = 1 volt for both waveforms.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on October 15, 2011, 07:50:15 PM
Joule Seeker:
Yes there are differences.  I see one of my postings didn’t get listed properly on the web site.  I had described the rectangular coil in more detail.  Note, the picture of the coil got cut off when uploading.  You can only see the lower half.  I tried the blue “Goldmine” purchased  toroidal coil with 12 turns, but for some reason it drew 20 ma of DC current on the input, so went to my rectangular version , which drew only 4 ma of DC current.  The toroid measured .03 millihenries (both sides),  while the rectangular one (with 16 turns) measured 0.67 millihenries (with my 2 digit meter, on  both sides).  It must be a better ferrite material?
One of the 4 resistors was a 1000 ohm load (removed for battery tests), another in series was 10 ohms for measuring output current, the third was 1.2 ohms  for measuring input current.  The base was the 4th.  I had suggested building a hard wired circuit with short soldered wires.  I just did this, and noticed a difference with the blue toroid.  Resistance of the breadboard may also be affecting these results. Somethings  to explore later.
I have to start packing for my Hawaiian trip, so won’t be able to do more for several weeks. 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on October 15, 2011, 09:51:01 PM
Wow what a big picture. Even at 1900 resolution on my TV I have to pan.

 There is another aspect to your picture. The toroid appears to be ran differently where windings are concerned. Is that a bifilar winding?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on October 15, 2011, 10:24:51 PM
 You need to resize your pics to a maximum of 800 by 600, or the whole post gets too wide to view properly.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: albertouno on October 15, 2011, 10:31:35 PM
Hi Jbigness5:

Yes the coil is definitely bifilar.  Wound it carefull myself, and used different colored 22 ga wire to insure even windings, etc.  The inductance measured much greater than the blue toriod version. Not sure why.  I believe this ferrite has a broad frequency range, based upon manuf. info. 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on October 16, 2011, 03:37:20 PM
ok it might be wound bifilar but it's connections are definitively not bifilar. there should only be 2 connections to the board. You have 4. I have never really used a split bifilar wind to run these simple systems. The action of a bifilar wind is two fold. One action is shorting the magnetic field to the core by keeping the paths minimal between polarities of your working voltage. This also has an added value of creating an acceleration of the current because of two things. One is odd even channels. Also there is little holding the current back considering that a bifilar has no other resistance other then the wire at that point. There is very little self induction to a bifilar. This one fact allows the acceleration of the current up to the resistance of the wire. Lower the resistance enough by paralleling strands or even the material of the wires and one can see amazing results. Especially when a cap is fired into these!

 There are 4 connections yes but only two are supposed to be connected to the outside world or your device. Although I have played with a jewel thief type device I never could get anything substantial out of it. Only when I isolated the main circuit from the source did I see anything amazing. That took a special device called a Captret. I'll leave you to research the captret, it is on this forum.

 This split bifilar only shows half of the potential of this wind. The Bifilar is supposed to be the end of one strand connected to the other strands beginning. This is when you will start to see some pretty amazing things happen. If it is not too much trouble try and connect the bifilar wind to the way it should be. This might force you to change the circuit to get the connections right.

 Just my two cents,

 jbignes5
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 17, 2011, 07:23:40 AM
  Helpful comments; thanks.  I seem to be coming down with something... headache, tired, etc.  Will be back in a day or 2 or 3. 
@Jbignes5  if you can say anything more about the captret, would appreciate.

@all: Thanks again.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on October 17, 2011, 03:26:39 PM
 Yes me and IBpointless started investigating the captret after he thought he came up with the idea. what it entails is hooking up a electrolytic capacitor in an unusual way. We started using the case as an electrode for the battery. then used the regular tabs as connections to an led. The connections were negative to the case and the positive from the battery went to the positive of the cap. from what I can tell all caps have a leakage factor. This lekage went back to the battery through induction. Because there was no direct connection this leakage was very finite but it was still a flow. The Led turns on and short circuits the cap and fires through the induction path, which is the negative. Same amount of charge but at a faster rate.

 One can think of it like this. when you are at a pond who's skin is very regular. Throw a stone very lightly and it hits with a certain result. Now throw it harder and you see that results with more effect. In this case we have a capacitor that has a decent amount of push once it it filled. When the diode turns on it shorts for a blink then dims out. Now take all that energy and do it many many times in less time intervals. Remember an led is just a diode, we have a cap filled with just a hint of charge from the source. In this case the sources was a depleted 12v gel cell that when measured only had 9 or so volts. So any shorting in this case wouldn't cause to big of a bang.

 One thing I can say about my experiments with the captret was that it left me scratching my head. I believe we established a polarization that allowed a gentle breeze sorta thing to set in. This breeze was scant. When the cap filled it dumped instantly from the cap through the led and into the battery. The thing is the batteries stopped lower in voltage. In fact the whole thing started gaining voltage up to a certain point. What that point was I did not analyse. I would assume from my current work with "crystalline batteries" that there is some sort of matter charge thing involved. Like the mass in the battery and the differences between the plates. Once the right type of crystal growth is established the battery becomes like a very sensitive diode that is only adding positive energy. I think this has the same effects we see with the captret. Seeing that the electrolytic capacitors are much like the battery in design they showed the same growth or polarization effects. But the chemistry is not right in the electrolytic cap. If one wanted the permanent locking in of this crystalline diode one needed to have a locking agent or crystalline material in sufficient quantities in the chemistry. Thats why I moved to the crystal batteries.

 The one thing that is negative about the captret is when it induces the negative side it deforms the can and can explode. Another reason to be extra careful.  Although I have never had one explode they have pushed the bottoms out pretty far making them rounded. The cans were not designed to take that kind of stress on the ends. in most cases they have X marks on them to allow them to release pressure if a direct short ever happens. IT happens because of the frequency of the shorts in the led. This is mostly determined from the color of the emitted light. You could think of it as an oscillator based on the frequency of the emitted light from the led.

 So my conclusions on the captret is not complete. I opted out of the3 captret to explore the crystal batteries because they react to invisible light and other frequencies that coincide with these crystals, which is present all the time or more so then visible light.

 I hope this helps some. The thread for the captret is on this forum if you want to check it out. Also most of my work was done on Energetic Forum but my acess was taken from me because of personal differences with the owner. Mostly about saying the forum is open to the public yet we can be booted for taking issue to the powers that be who seems to be only using the forum for his personal sales board or gain.

 I am an open source empirical scientist. I have taught myself most of what I know after getting a formal education in electronics and subsequent Computer Technician career. Most of which I have had to give up because my body seems to be failing me. I have had scoliosis my entire life and now it has become chronic. Along with a bunch of shaking and uncontrollable twitches it is becoming harder to even do my new chosen field.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on October 17, 2011, 06:27:56 PM
   Guys:
   I also played with the captret idea for quite a while.  My results were mixed, but the whole point of the captret was to make a device that would work without discharging the batteries. Well that just did not happen.  It DOES discharge the batteries, or we would still be using it.
I also burnt out every led (many) that I had in getting the system working. As well as bulging all the capacitor cans.   I used 18 to 27 volts from the two or three 9 volt batteries. If just one 9 volt battery is use you barely get any light from the led.
  So, I don't advice anyone trying it, unless you are looking to waist some time.  Below are a couple of  pics of some of my many captrets.
   I have now used most of the bulging capacitors to make output cells that do produce about 1.2 volts and up to 50 ma, and can be used with the Hartley type oscillators, as in the last picture. Just one cell by itself can light a red led even with no oscillator.
   
   For those that are not following Dr. Stifflers work latest work, lighting a leds with no battery, I would point you in that direction.

  jbignes5:  I understand what happened to you at Energetic Forum as I have talked to more than one person that has has a similar experience.  It is a real shame, as there are some very bright people that were put on read only status, because of that. 

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: viny on October 17, 2011, 09:30:39 PM
Hi All: Just to make me sure you already knew of the next vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJBpNKSsdqw), they claim a successful replication of one Don Smith device  (150W output  around 5 W input), made by an International  group of  people (Stivep, T1000, and someone else), posted in this thread Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #7671
 (http://Re: Selfrunning Free Energy devices up to 5 KW from Tariel Kapanadze
« Reply #7671)


 Viny
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: jbignes5 on October 18, 2011, 03:42:15 PM
 See nick the thing with the captret was where we are now with the batteries. We investigated it and looked for the simularities. It was a stepping stone to our understanding of the process. Even in the captret the internal components are very similar to what we have in our current study of the crystal batteries. Although in my results my batteries stopped going down in voltage and held steady at the voltage they stopped at. All the while giving light through an led. The problem from then on was that the captret could not lock in the polarization we needed. These batteries can do that!

 Will they be anything but a potential supply is how ingenious we become with the process. If we treat it like a fluid (energy,charge) and compress it, it will squirt out with more force. But we need a better understanding of the process then we currently know now. One thing is clear. There are pockets of no movement in this charge. It is a fluid like substance and the attraction is greater the higher you go in potential. We should be able to apply tube technology to this process. Meaning the static potential alone can become a steering mechanism. with that steering mechanism we need to design a generation section to harness that flow. Maybe like a laser beam hitting crystal tips surrounded in a metal pickup ring much farther away relatively speaking. this ring could be closed ended and encrusted with crystals to increase the generation capability but you need to remember it will be massed based. More mass of the electrode the higher the potential it will attain and the higher the resistance to flow backwards.

 Remember I said that the gentle breeze we are playing with here is very light. It's resistance to back flow is very little. Since we are enveloping the center electrode with a metal mass it is creating a static bubble. The crystal lattice that forms twords the center is an amplifier of the outer potential in twords the inner electrode. With the depletion zone in the crystals having a two way conduit this means we have a diode in the truest sense. It's a different kind of diode. A static diode or battery with amplifying effect of the static potential. The oscillator in our case is the led (external) and the capacitance of the battery (internal) guided but the light emitted from the diode.

 I am starting to think that the depletion zone needs to be connected to the outside world. It is the entrance of the outside potential to the whole device. I am thinking we need another layer of metal on this to work properly. So there would be an outside cup(external shield), a middle ring (depletion zone conductor or in) and a center electrode to collect the amplified potential (or out). You could think of the outside conductor as being the negative with the center most conductor being the positive. The energy or charges enter the device via the depletion zone and separate via the diode like formations in the cell. With the outside having the static potential of the environment and the internal conductor having a multiple value of the external. Lets say 1000 to 1. So if the ambient voltage level is say 1 micro volt then the internal value will be very near 1k micro volt. This is simply a Tesla switch in solid form. It uses the same potential of positive and compares one voltage to the other via wires to use for a load. The main problem now is how to increase this event and make it stronger. Maybe metal screening in the depletion layer would do that. It could be what the dopants are doing but there isn't enough of the dopants to make this a strong result.

 Sorry to have high jacked your thread JouleSeeker but the idea just came to me lol.

 Yeah I'm afraid Nick that Energetic forum is nothing but a targeted sales tool. Buck the system of that and you get removed. No problem.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 23, 2011, 08:04:50 AM
  I've been out for several days -- sorry.  Got over my illness.. whatever caused it.  Feeling better.

I also have some new results from tests of my build... nothing spectacular, but interesting. 
But first -- I have a question that's been on my mind. 

Why are we so anxious to go ahead with inventing in an open way, if there is little hope of a novel device getting out to the public? 

Could an "anomalous EM device" possibly get out to the public quickly?

Let's assume that someone comes up with a self-runner.

Two choices come to mind:

1.  Get rich by selling to Big Oyl or Big Power, etc.  And they will likely sit on it as they rake in Big  profits on oil and gas.   Or - would they try to get the new technology out to the public as fast as possible?  I doubt it... too much invested in oil and gas (wars being fought, etc)

2.  He declines to sell this to Big Oyl or GE etc, resolving to get his device out to the public quickly instead.  Distributed manufacturing, simultaneous announcements in various countries where replications have been done quietly until the day of disclosure.  Then -- it hits the media and the truth about the device spreads like wildfire.

Let's assume that Big Oyl does not like this, because with the announcement, the price of oil suddenly drops dramatically.  Let's posit that Big Guv-mint does not like the shake-up either and seeks to preserve Big Corp profits -- and a semblance of the status quo (economies and workers dependent on oil and gas...)

Predict --
Gov-mint will clamp down on sales of the device, saying it is untested/unsafe -- and has not met regulations in being UL approved.


SO -- what happens to the wonderful self-runner, the "anomalous EM device" seeking to be born, to help mankind?  Is it welcomed with open arms?  hardly.  More likely with a smashing fist, I'm afraid.

Is there any way around this?  ANY way to get the new EM device out to the public WITHOUT selling out to a Big Corp OR being stomped by Big Gov't?

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 23, 2011, 08:15:06 AM

Quote
Is there any way around this?  ANY way to get the new EM device out to the public WITHOUT selling out to a Big Corp OR being stomped by Big Gov't?

Possible solutions from my ponderings on this question:

1.  Form a small company, or work with an existing company with a keen public-interest, and seek the necessary UL-testing and approval -- or equivalent in some country.  Perhaps bill the device as a safe lighting device for an RV (or some "small" application to avoid drawing too much attention while it is being developed and then built in quantities).

Or
2.  Build and distribute in a country without the regulatory-hoops of the US or UK etc, and get it going and popular.   THEN get it into newspapers, get the public to DEMAND that the new device be made available to them.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on October 23, 2011, 09:55:18 AM
  By the time we figure out how to make a true self running device, China will already be making them cheaper than we can even buy the parts to make it ourselves.  So, I think that it's only a matter of time, no matter what we do or don't do.  An example is their solar Christmas lights, that can light over 100 leds all night, off of a single rechargeable AA battery, and can be bought for $10, plus shipping.

   The self running technology has probably been around for many many years already, but has been kept secret and is still being kept secret
  Just look at what happened to Tariel Kapanadze. His device can output 150 watts, with a 5 watt input.  Sooner or later his device will be replicated. That time may have finally come. Although he is still sick and in the hospital from the poison that he was given on the plane.

   I'll bet that within a year you'll be able to buy a self running device through Ebay, and soon afterwards they'll be sold in all the outlet stores as well.  But who is going to compete with the price of products from China, they work for 22 cent per hour? 
  So, if you can't beat them... may as well buy it from them.   
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 24, 2011, 10:47:01 PM
  By the time we figure out how to make a true self running device, China will already be making them cheaper than we can even buy the parts to make it ourselves.  So, I think that it's only a matter of time, no matter what we do or don't do.  An example is their solar Christmas lights, that can light over 100 leds all night, off of a single rechargeable AA battery, and can be bought for $10, plus shipping.

   The self running technology has probably been around for many many years already, but has been kept secret and is still being kept secret
  Just look at what happened to Tariel Kapanadze. His device can output 150 watts, with a 5 watt input.  Sooner or later his device will be replicated. That time may have finally come. Although he is still sick and in the hospital from the poison that he was given on the plane.

   I'll bet that within a year you'll be able to buy a self running device through Ebay, and soon afterwards they'll be sold in all the outlet stores as well.  But who is going to compete with the price of products from China, they work for 22 cent per hour? 
  So, if you can't beat them... may as well buy it from them.

You raise a good point, Nick, but the Chinese need SOMETHING WORKING to COPY  ;)

At OUR.com,
Quote
Quote from: WaveWatcher on Today at 11:20:38


Trying to propagate information about a free energy device may work better if a high fee is charged. That way the reputation of the device isn't likely to be destroyed by failed replications of those not able to follow instructions.




  Good point, warning about failed replications.  Hmmm... better to have a build from readily available parts and "level 1" easy to build IMO  -- so as be able to spread the technology quickly.  If it works ;)

 Look at the Romero/Muller motor-gnerator and even the Gabriel device -- guys have been working on these for about SIX MONTHS, with little in the way of successes.  Especially the RM device, which is complicated VERY hard to replicate evidently.  The Gabriel device (nested transformer) seems to be meeting with more success but is still difficult, expensive with the high-permeability inner toroidal core.

  Again, I'd like to see -- a device that works -- with readily available parts and "level 1" easy to build, with clear instructions.  THAT guy is going to do a service to humanity, if he keeps it open source!

Side note:  my invention of a solar funnel cooker, nearly twenty years ago, is now in Haiti, Bolivia, Kenya, Phillipines -- all over the world!  Totally open source.  Needed components (e.g. windshield reflector and oven-safe bag) are readily available.

google "Dr BYU" , top listing.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on October 28, 2011, 11:30:36 PM
Steven

i'n now back from leave, pleased to see you're feeling better!


here's an update on my version of the '2 Serial NiMHs charge 2 Parallel' SJ1 variant:

the average cell voltage (considering 4 cells) is now approaching approx 1.258V , having started out around approx 1.263V - this represents a drop of 5mV (see 'supply vs charging' voltage graphs below) over the duration of this test

the test has now run continuously for 1245 - (1121-903.25) = 1027.25 hours (ie., 42.8 days)

i just re-configured the setup briefly to get a 'ballpark' value for the current draw with only ONE NiMH as supply, no NiMH charging:  average DC current approx 25uA

the current draw is approx the same when the supply is TWO NiMHs in series, but this will need to be confirmed more rigourously, eventually, using the 'Capacitor Discharge' method for both configs

So, when using double the energy input (ie, from 2 NiMHs) then half that total energy is getting used to charge the 2 parallel NiMHs - ie. it appears that the step of adding a second NiMH in series into the supply is energy-balanced by adding the 2 parallel NiMHs to get charged

the other half of the energy input is shared between driving the LED and heating the transformer

if this 2nd energy value is approx constant, regardless of whether we're just using ONE NiMH as supply (no charging) or TWO NiMHs charging TWO OTHER NiMHs AND driving the LED plus heating the transformer, then here's the question:
   Have we extended the energy supplied to drive the LED and heat the transformer just by adding an extra supply/charge section to the circuit?

i believe that we can answer this question by charging the cell which started at 1.263V back to that voltage and then using it to run a single supply (no charging cells) config continuously and measuring how long it takes for the supply voltage to reach 1.258V and compare with the graph below

such a test should clearly indicate whether there is any likely merit in the Tesla Switch arrangement (when using a long-term switching strategy)


the initial '1.263V' cell' is presently getting charged, so i'll run the circuit until that cell has reached say, 1 mV greater than that voltage and then let it rest for a few days to settle - then i'll reconfig the circuit with that as the only cell and start the new test run


please let me know if you see any issues with this plan

thanks
np


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





Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 31, 2011, 08:47:24 PM
Steven

i'n now back from leave, pleased to see you're feeling better!


here's an update on my version of the '2 Serial NiMHs charge 2 Parallel' SJ1 variant:

the average cell voltage (considering 4 cells) is now approaching approx 1.258V , having started out around approx 1.263V - this represents a drop of 5mV (see 'supply vs charging' voltage graphs below) over the duration of this test

the test has now run continuously for 1245 - (1121-903.25) = 1027.25 hours (ie., 42.8 days)

A 0.005V drop in 1027 hours -- that is impressive, NP!

Quote
i just re-configured the setup briefly to get a 'ballpark' value for the current draw with only ONE NiMH as supply, no NiMH charging:  average DC current approx 25uA

the current draw is approx the same when the supply is TWO NiMHs in series, but this will need to be confirmed more rigourously, eventually, using the 'Capacitor Discharge' method for both configs

So, when using double the energy input (ie, from 2 NiMHs) then half that total energy is getting used to charge the 2 parallel NiMHs - ie. it appears that the step of adding a second NiMH in series into the supply is energy-balanced by adding the 2 parallel NiMHs to get charged

the other half of the energy input is shared between driving the LED and heating the transformer

if this 2nd energy value is approx constant, regardless of whether we're just using ONE NiMH as supply (no charging) or TWO NiMHs charging TWO OTHER NiMHs AND driving the LED plus heating the transformer, then here's the question:
   Have we extended the energy supplied to drive the LED and heat the transformer just by adding an extra supply/charge section to the circuit?

i believe that we can answer this question by charging the cell which started at 1.263V back to that voltage and then using it to run a single supply (no charging cells) config continuously and measuring how long it takes for the supply voltage to reach 1.258V and compare with the graph below

such a test should clearly indicate whether there is any likely merit in the Tesla Switch arrangement (when using a long-term switching strategy)


the initial '1.263V' cell' is presently getting charged, so i'll run the circuit until that cell has reached say, 1 mV greater than that voltage and then let it rest for a few days to settle - then i'll reconfig the circuit with that as the only cell and start the new test run


please let me know if you see any issues with this plan

thanks
np


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

I applaud your plan, NP and look forward to results.

I have better results when using rechargeable batteries for input -- and charging two in parallel on the output leg -- much better than when using capacitors for input and output-catching.  It's interesting and I'm not quite sure what to make of it.   For instance, from one recent run,
Input V (2 AA's in series), 1.9447V at 8h00  to 1.9441V at 18h21 (10hours 20 min later).
Meanwhile,
Output V(2 AA's in parallel), 1.03460 V at 8h00 to 1.03618 V at 18h21.
LED fairly bright -- easily visible -- throughout the run (although I did not watch it every minute LOL).

It is interesting, but some battery relaxation may be going on?? even though I allowed the batteries to sit ("rest") for some time.  The other problem is that the runs are very LONG...

So I tried capacitors.  With a 60,000 uF (hereafter 60 mF) cap on the input and a 10 mF cap on the output, simply charging the zero-V 10mF with the 60mF @1.97V by connecting in parallel, I get a final energy of close to 90% of the initial energy, as expected (conservation of charge, q = CV, same V-final = 1.78V). 

OK, then I use the 60 mF as input to the circuit and 10 mF on the output leg, charging up.  Each run just takes a few seconds, and the LED is brightly lit throughout.   But now the Efinal/Einitial comes in at about 20-40% as I vary conditions.  Hmmm...  not great.

Is there a difference in OPERATION with batteries instead of capacitors? 

I'm giving a talk at Snow College in Ephraim, Utah, this afternoon-- in less than an hour, so gotta run again.  Glad my health is back up.  Thanks, NP.
Steve
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 02, 2011, 02:44:39 AM
  I tried uploading a vid to youtube; part of the vid made it, so you can see the experimental set-up at least.  Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow9N1TueIws

This is my battery-charging circuit shown in reply #888 (this thread).

  The talk yesterday at Snow College went well -- packed room actually, which was fun.  I suggested that if we in the global free-energy community can finally reach energy-production mode for the masses (and escape the hands of the wealthy-power-elite guys), then this will be "The Revenge of the Nerds."  Attached are my final two slides...    :)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 05, 2011, 04:59:39 AM
 Taking another step which I hope will be of interest to the community of energy-for-mankind experimenters:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11661.msg304423#msg304423

Please take a look.  I hope that many of you who have contributed to this thread will take a stab at the New Renaissance Prizes!   
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 10, 2011, 07:40:14 AM
Gents -- just a quick update.

I'm working on a Thane Heins device-build, and a colleague in Washington state is doing this also.

Are any of you interested in discussing Thane's approach? I find it fascinating!  I saw another thread on this, but principal experimenters there (gotoluc and OUguide) have gone on travel now, and the thread has gone slow/almost quiet. 
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11350.510

I have questions and ideas...  starting with -- where are OUguide's vids available now?  he explained on that thread that he was taking them down due to his travel etc., but there was discussion of backing them up...

My congratulations to Thane Heins for intriguing development and demonstrations! just what we need IMO. 

I would really like to see a build with off-the-shelf parts, where possible, to simplify and speed replications.  (I found good-size high-permeability > 40,000 C-cores, which would be great for the two secondaries -- but when I wrote the manufacturer in China, they would evidently not deal with an individual or even my small company= S&J Scientific Co.  Sigh. )  Any ideas?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on November 11, 2011, 04:34:41 AM

Hi OU experimenters,

It sounds like this thread were almost dying.
What a pity...

So, we have, here, in this very forum, a real scientist with an huge positive background, who is searching the truth and even proposing some rewards out of his own money.
Answering results: almost nil. (for the moment?)
--------------------------
Now, being completely "off topic", please let allow me to present you a Breton "against the beat" piece: Denez Prigent(Sarac'h) - E Garnison 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOgfjKOcCjg
Should this kinda music awaken us...
-----------------------------------------
BTW: In the last issue of the French version of Nexus magazine, "they" talk about
a person named "Prof. Steven Jones". So, ideas are in the "Aether".
Of course, I will scan this article.

Very Best
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on November 11, 2011, 08:29:57 AM

Hi OU experimenters,

It sounds like this thread were almost dying.
What a pity...

[...]
Now, being completely "off topic", please let allow me to present you a Breton "against the beat" piece: Denez Prigent(Sarac'h) - E Garnison 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOgfjKOcCjg
Should this kinda music awaken us...
[...]
Very Best

salve signore Dishual!

if it appears that we have fallen asleep in 'les salles de manger' it is only because we are busy in 'les cuisines'!!!

(my on-going SJ1 / Tesla-Switch experiment has now recharged a test cell back to 1.263V so i will start the comparison test run to see how long it takes to discharge the same voltage drop without the TS configuration - i'll post initial feedback early next week)

i'll look forward to listening to mr Prigent when i return after visiting family this weekend  :)

greetings all
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Staffman on November 12, 2011, 06:47:14 AM

I would really like to see a build with off-the-shelf parts, where possible, to simplify and speed replications.  (I found good-size high-permeability > 40,000 C-cores, which would be great for the two secondaries -- but when I wrote the manufacturer in China, they would evidently not deal with an individual or even my small company= S&J Scientific Co.  Sigh. )  Any ideas?

You may have already check these folks out, but it's a shot.... www.metglas.com... they sell samples and also have distributors. I'm sure they will have more than what you need.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 12, 2011, 07:53:32 PM
salve signore Dishual!

if it appears that we have fallen asleep in 'les salles de manger' it is only because we are busy in 'les cuisines'!!!

(my on-going SJ1 / Tesla-Switch experiment has now recharged a test cell back to 1.263V so i will start the comparison test run to see how long it takes to discharge the same voltage drop without the TS configuration - i'll post initial feedback early next week)

i'll look forward to listening to mr Prigent when i return after visiting family this weekend  :)

greetings all
np


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

  ACtually, my friends, there is some interest in the "New Renaissance Prizes" which I'll discuss as that work proceeds.  All too slowly, it seems at times, but this is a HUGE goal we are undertaking in our quest for novel energy sources. 
 
Exciting result, NP -- I look forward to your further results.  Your combination of an sj1-type circuit with Tesla-switching is clever and I hope successful.

Meanwhile, forgive me (pardonnez moi) -- but I have become enamored with testing the BiTT devices proposed by Thane Heins.  And I'm bringing a discussion with WOOPY on the BiTT into this thread if I may.  We consider all sorts of things here, but I find it difficult to keep track of multiple threads - so here go:


Quote
Hi Joule Seeker

Now that i think to understand better the BITT from Thane Heins. i tried to find an aplication with a windturbine proposal.

If i have understood right, the Bitt would really improve the efficiency of a windmill system, and of course of all other AC powered systems.

It seems too good to be true, isn'it?

I tried to measure the voltage and current of my primary with my scope . But when i connect the ground of the scope i get a big bang (fired the fuse of the grid by using my VARIAC  >:(). I wonder if i connect the main scope probe to the phase of the variac and the ground of the scope to the neutral of the variac, i can measure without danger.
 I need to measure those values to see if this fence wire (isolated ) core can work properly with my very crude BITT proto. Because if it works it is very cheap and easy to do. But perhaps we need high grade core material ??
Any proposal ?

I wonder if this subject is at the right place here, or if it should be moved to your other thread ?

Anyway good luck at all

Laurent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNVdVrny8s4

Yes, I agree this discussion on Thane's BiTT should go to my "other thread" as you say -- it's over here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.945

About your vid, Woopy -- yes, clearly the phase angle in a NORMAL Transformer is approximately Zero with no load, and approx. ONE with load.  When we look at waveforms (attached), which could readily be obtained using an oscilloscope, the difference is easy to see.


I like to think in terms of ENERGY flow.  With no load, energy from the grid goes into the inductor and is stored temporarily (first quarter cycle), returning BACK to the grid on the second quarter cycle.  Hence, the AVERAGE power consumed with no load is ZERO, shown by the blue line flat at zero.

With LOAD applied to the secondary, then the energy goes into the load (resistive in this case) and does NOT return to the grid -- and the average power consumed is positive, REAL, non-zero.

I want to turn to the contrasting behavior of the BiTT in my next post.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 12, 2011, 09:06:02 PM
At OUR.com, MHigh wrote
Quote
The implication in the term "delayed-Lenz effect" is that you are somehow cheating Lenz' law and you have discovered a "work around" and as a result you are getting more output energy because you have less Lenz drag.  This of course is not true. 

I replied:
Quote
I have to tell you that the "OF COURSE" argument is not persuasive to me.  I go with experiments, not with conventional wisdom or "of course" arguments.

Now, I suggest we set aside the "rotor speed up" business involving motors -- AND turn our attention to the Bi-toroidal Transformer (BiTT) EXPERIMENTS.  No moving parts.  Much easier (for me at least) to replicate.

Here, I would like to discuss with Woopy and anyone else interested, the EXPERIMENTAL data.  Let us start with this video of experiments performed by OUGuide (OUG), and archived by Deepcut -- which can be viewed (I hope you will take a few minutes to see the Experimental Results) here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGQhwSDDCQY

OUG demonstrates that at 200 Hz, the MOT behaves as we would expect from a normal transformer, that is:
PF = 0 with no load and PF = 1 (approx) with load.


BUT -- by going to 950 Hz, he shows that the PF stays at or near zero without OR WITH load.
  That is, the waveform stays about the same WITH or without load!  see attached.  (In an earlier vid in DC's archive, OUG shows the same effect with an incandescent light as the load; different transformer.  Thane has shown this effect with his BiTT transformer also.)

And, correspondingly, the watt-meter shows that the input power goes DOWN when the load is applied at 950 Hz (Pin goes up when load is applied at 200 Hz).

These are experimental data to be explained.  My questions:

1.  Is the observed effect at 950 Hz due to decreased REAL input power being required with load (suggesting a possible path to OU) -- or is it merely a problem or "trick" with the watt-meter?

2.  What MEASUREMENTS can we do to answer the above question?   (no "of course" arguments, please)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hope on November 13, 2011, 07:53:52 AM
Good video Steven,  is this effect scalable?  And I saw Rosie remarking on the E-Cat economic disaster topic  :)

Do you have access to a lab at this time for certification of a cold fusion reaction?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: woopy on November 13, 2011, 11:02:24 PM
Hi Prof

Thank's to having moved my post here it is logical

Now we have a small problem, because in the OUG video he is using a frequency variation to decrease the power under load, it is almost the same problem as the acceleration under load  ( in rotating rotor ) at a specific  speed treshold. I got it on my experiment very clearly.

But in the BITT it seems that the frequency as not so much involvement, because it is a magnetic flux path problem , if i read correctly in the Thane's explanations and vids.

So in the Thanes work there seems to be 2 different  ideas.

1- is the regenerative acceleration  wich implies the mutation of a coil from an inductor to become a capacitor, or something like that
and this system is very dependant of the frequency.

2- the BITT where he found that with a specific primary to secondary organisation, you can get a separation of the coupling which generaly occures in standard transformer. And in this case we are very dependant from the phase shifting ability of the system.

Youp i hope i am not too much out of phase here

I join here a video where i tried to link the theory to the real world :D

but so interesting

good luck at all

Laurent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WPpRjSSnAw
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 13, 2011, 11:55:55 PM
Good video Steven,  is this effect scalable?  And I saw Rosie remarking on the E-Cat economic disaster topic  :)

Do you have access to a lab at this time for certification of a cold fusion reaction?

I don't know whether the effect is scalable, Hope -- hope so!   I guess several of us are working, experimenting along these lines so we should find out before too many months pass...

Ah... Rossi's e-cat. I've been following this and asking questions.  I would be very glad to be able to test a "Rossi device" -- I would look for gamma's from isotopes of copper allegedly produced in the reaction.

There is some recent information -- let's take a look at the latest data that has come out:
Quote

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece
The used powder contains
ten percent copper
...
For copper to be formed out of nickel, the nucleus of nickel has to capture a proton. The fact that this possibly occurs in Rossi’s reactor is why the concept of cold fusion has been mentioned – it would consist of fusion between nuclei of nickel and hydrogen.
A term that many consider to be more accurate, however, is LENR, Low Energy Nuclear Reaction.

Ny Teknik: For how long has the powder supposedly been used in the process?
Kullander: The powder has reportedly been used for 2.5 months continuously with an output of 10 kW (according to Rossi). It corresponds to a total energy of 18 MWh, with a consumption of up to 100 grams of nickel and two grams of hydrogen. If the production had been done with oil, two tons of oil would have been required.
Ny Teknik: What analyses have you done on the powders?
Kullander: Element analysis and isotopic analysis. At the Ångström Laboratory in Uppsala, Sweden, element analysis has been made using X-ray Fluorescence (XRFS). Dr. Erik Lindahl undertook the investigation. At the Biomedical Center in Uppsala, both element analysis and isotope analysis has been done through Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS). Associate Professor Jean Pettersson has made the measurement.

Ny Teknik: What results have you obtained from the analyses?
Kullander: Both measurements show that the pure nickel powder contains mainly nickel, and the used powder is different in that several elements are present, mainly 10 percent copper and 11 percent iron. The isotopic analysis through ICP-MS doesn’t show any deviation from the natural isotopic composition of nickel and copper.

Ny Teknik: How do you interpret the results?
Kullander: Provided that copper is not one of the additives used as catalyst, the copper isotopes 63 and 65 can only have been formed during the process. Their presence is therefore a proof that nuclear reactions took place in the process. However, it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%). This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. However, there are two stable isotopes of nickel with low concentration, nickel-62 and nickel-64, which could conceivably contribute to copper production. According to Rossi copper is not among the additives. 100 grams of nickel had been used during 2.5 months of continuous heating with 10 kW output power. A straightforward calculation shows that a large proportion of the nickel must have been consumed if it was ‘burned’ in a nuclear process. It’s then somewhat strange that the isotopic composition doesn’t differ from the natural.

Indeed -- VERY strange that the copper in the "ash" after 2.5 months of running (with no copper initially) -- strange that the ash shows produced-copper in the "NATURAL isotopic composition".  As the scientist under-states:
Quote

 it’s remarkable that nickel-58 and hydrogen can form copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%).  This means that in the process, the original nickel-58 should have grown by five and seven atomic mass-units, respectively, during the nuclear transmutation. .

Right -- naturally-occurring nickel, as in the initial powder -- has this isotopic composition:

Quote
Ni-58   ( 68.077% ) Ni-60   ( 26.223% ) Ni-61   ( 1.140% ) Ni-62   ( 3.634% ) Ni-64   ( 0.926% )
http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/
Adding ONE proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi will produce Copper isotopes, predominately Cu-59 and Cu-61, since the predominate isotopes of nickel are Ni-58 (68%) and Ni-60 (26.2%).  {Add one proton to Ni-58, becomes Cu-59; add proton to Ni-60, becomes Cu-61.) Furthermore, both of these copper isotopes are highly radioactive (releasing gammas) and easily detectable!  And detecting their presence via decay products would conclusively demonstrate the occurrence of the proton-capture reaction on Nickel.

  I wrote Rossi months ago and challenged him to allow gamma-detection during operation of his e-cat device.  NO positive response from him yet.  I noted:
Quote
Cu-59 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-59%20EC Half life: 81.5 s – short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not.

                 Cu-61 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-61%20EC Half life: 3.33 hrs, also short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not

But now we learn  that the end products are NOT Cu-59 (which decays to Ni-59, decays in turn to cobalt-59 finally) and Cu-61, but rather the NATURALLY occurring isotopes found in copper, namely copper-63 (70%) and copper-65 (30%) [percents are approx.].   

Now how do you explain THAT?  easy -- its CONTAMINATION of natural copper into his device.
  That's my preliminary conclusion.  This conclusion is supported by the observed IRON (11%) in the final powder, see scientists' data released above.  If there is NO contamination, then where did all that IRON come from? 

BUT--  If its proton capture on nickel, as claimed by Rossi -- then he's got some EXPLAINING TO DO.   How do you get copper-63 (70%) with ONE proton capture on natural nickel?  And- How do you get copper-65 (30%) with ONE proton capture on natural nickel?    We're talking about NEUTRONS coming out of nowhere? where? in order to get up to the naturally-occuring ratio of Cu-63(70%) and Cu-65 (30)%.  Where do these neutrons come from, in just the right ratios?

Do you grasp the problem? One more time:  proton capture on the predominant isotope of NICKEL, Nickle-58 (68%) would produce Copper-59, not the observed Cu-63 (and Cu-65).
You have to add FOUR more NEUTRONS (not protons) to Cu-59 to get to stable Cu-63, and do it in less time than it takes for Cu-59 to decay away (half life of Cu-59 is only 81.5 seconds).


C'mon-- we're not that gullible...  IMHO, we should be skeptical.  Rossi is claiming a very specific process, proton capture on nickel, but the experimental RESULTS do not support his claims.  Sorry.


Note from Steven Krivit of New Energy Times, regarding the Rossi claims:
Quote
But the time-honored question to ask in all situations like this is, What is the total energy balance? Anybody who gets excited about this public demonstration without such information is vulnerable to deception. The next questions to ask are, Exactly how has the energy been measured? And by whom?

A power measurement – without the total energy balance – is virtually meaningless. Without answers to these questions, this experiment and demonstration could easily be a scam. Sadly, I have been a first-hand witness to deceptions.

The red flags with Rossi have been up for months.

In October 2010, a New Energy Times reader in Italy sent the following to me:

“I imagine you are aware that Rossi’s patent [application] has been [partially] rejected in a preliminary report by the patent examiner. Piantelli also published a new WIPO patent [application] a few months ago too.

“I wish Rossi well in his endeavors although I also feel he’s claiming as an invention merely the scaling up of Piantelli’s pioneering work. Any working devices ought to be good news for mankind regardless [of] who discovered what first. If anything works, we will all get some share of the glory (and perhaps profits?).”

Today, another New Energy Times reader in Italy sent the following to me:

“Pay close attention to Andrea Rossi; he has a dirty past. Twenty years ago he was arrested for illegal importing of gold from the Swiss.

“Not only that, but in the 1980s he was involved in a scam with industrial waste. It is a complex thing to explain, but the scam cost the Lombardy region € 25 million. He honestly does not convince me as a person, and I am not convinced about the test done at Bologna today.

“Check this link: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroldragon

“In friendship, I suggest you be careful, I smell something burning.”

According to the link, in 1995, Rossi was jailed for conspiracy to engage in tax fraud for his involvement in a business that was trading precious materials between Switzerland and Italy.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: BobTEW on November 15, 2011, 03:42:59 PM
Professor Jones, Have you tested the 'perpetual magnet holder'? The best and simple solid state circuit example I know of. NERDS - New Energy Renaissance Development Society.
Take two Iron Rods and two cylindrical magnets to start with.  I demo. Ohms' law within the magnet to couple of tech school instructors. They told me I was showing them a magnet has a charge or current flow and physics world would not support that idea. This was about 1985 along came SUPER- superconductivityand supermagnets. The picture of a magnet floating over wafer was my " look Ma no hands"  part of my theory. Cut a magnet in half and you have two magnets; no monopoles; power follows. When two poles attract this show the 'series' side; repulsion is 'parallel' side of the force.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on November 16, 2011, 01:01:49 AM

OK Gentlemen,

Salve ingegnere Nul-Point(s) !

So, a lot of good stuffs are still cooking in the kitchen.
The  main courses are not yet served in the dining room.

You know what? I do believe that.

Actually, it sounds like Thane Heins and his followers are into something big.
I was recently told about a French experimenter who came across very
interesting results too. More to come about this when it is disclosed.

It also sounds like that *most* of our "official scientists" are lacking
curiosity and free mind. Yes, this is a truism.
Come on skeptics! Let see the evidences. 

Now, another, off topic, musical interlude.
"This drummer is at the wrong gig"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItZyaOlrb7E

BTW: Did you notice the guitar in the previously quoted vid ?
OUG ARCHIVE 7. MOT Microwave Oven Transformer Delayed Lenz Experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGQhwSDDCQY

Actually, it again sounds like music is not contradictory with free NRG.
I have noticed that a lot of free energy experienters are also musicians.
I would bet that Nul-Point(s) is oK with this (very philosophical and profound) remark. :P

Very Best

PS: Spell Check sounds like to be out of order.
So, sorry for spelling mistakes.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 16, 2011, 06:56:55 PM
Thanks, NerzhD -- yes, the Thane Heins approach is highly interesting.

Professor Jones, Have you tested the 'perpetual magnet holder'? The best and simple solid state circuit example I know of. NERDS - New Energy Renaissance Development Society.

Good suggestion, Bob.

Quote
Take two Iron Rods and two cylindrical magnets to start with.  I demo. Ohms' law within the magnet to couple of tech school instructors. They told me I was showing them a magnet has a charge or current flow and physics world would not support that idea. ...

Sounds like a fun experiment :)     How do you do this again?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on November 17, 2011, 08:11:05 PM
 

Salve ingegnere Nul-Point(s) !
[...]
PS: Spell Check sounds like to be out of order.
So, sorry for spelling mistakes.

LOL i  *always*   switch my SpellCheck off so that i look more like an engineer than a musician!!  ;)

i'm looking forward to watching the 'drummer at the wrong gig' video - although i should admit that the drummer in my band always plays exactly the right thing for our music!


...so - here is a soupcon of what has been happening in 'the kitchen'...


i think i now have a better understanding of what's required to discriminate between OU and non-OU behaviour in the SJ1 variant 'Tesla Switch' circuit:

at any one time during the first phase of the experiment, one pair of NiMH cells was providing the total input supply to the circuit and a separate pair of NiMH cells was being pulse-charged whilst the circuit also supplied pulsed power to an LED and coil

looking at the resulting terminal voltage graphs we can see that one of the original supply cells, in a pair, started at a voltage of 1.263 and ended at (approximately) the same voltage at 1553.1 hours**
(** the total operational period was 1335.35 hours because i interrupted the test run for a week, whilst i was on leave)

therefore we can consider that this pair of cells has contributed zero net energy (approximately) and can be removed from the energy balance calculations for this period

during the same period, each of the cells in the other pair discharged from a terminal voltage of 1.266V down to a voltage of 1.25 (a difference of 16mV) - representing a total drop of 32mV for the two cells

if we remove the opposing voltage of the NiMH cell parallel-pair getting charged, we can supply the circuit with just one cell and the power input to the oscillator circuit should remain the same

now the net total energy input to the oscillator resulted in a terminal voltage drop of 32mV over a period of 1335.35 hours, therefore we can measure what continuous period of operation, with a single cell, results in a terminal voltage drop of 32mV: if this new period of operation is significantly less than 1335 hours then it would be strong evidence of OU operation in the SJ1 variant 'Tesla Switch' circuit


the second test phase has now been operating continuously for 1 week - how is it looking?

well, so far, the discharge slope for the oscillator circuit with a single cell (following the vertical red 'bar') appears to be very similar to the discharge slope for each cell when part of a pair in the '2 serial charge 2 parallel' arrangement  - so this supports the deduction that the power input to the oscillator is the same when the charging NiMH pair is removed and the oscillator is only supplied by a single cell

the terminal voltage has discharged by 10mV in 147 hours (6.1 days) - this represents 31% of the target voltage drop in 11% of the target time

so,  IF  the single cell continues to discharge at this rate then the target voltage drop of 32 mV will take approx. 470 hours (19.6 days)

operating the 'Tesla Switch' version of this circuit and using the same quantity of input energy would power the same load for 1335/470 = 2.84 times as long - or to put it another way, the 'Tesla Switch' arrangement would deliver 284% of the energy to the same load as that supplied by the regular SJ1 variant circuit

watch this space!
np


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


Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 18, 2011, 01:08:12 AM
  This is a VERY intriguing conclusion, NP:

Quote
operating the 'Tesla Switch' version of this circuit and using the same quantity of input energy would power the same load for 1335/470 = 2.84 times as long - or to put it another way, the 'Tesla Switch' arrangement would deliver 284% of the energy to the same load as that supplied by the regular SJ1 variant circuit
watch this space!
np


A significant development!   Especially considering that energy is being dissipated in the LED and in the coil.

 I will "watch this space" -- and thank you for this ongoing research. --Steve
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on November 18, 2011, 01:18:51 AM
Hi OU Sirs,

Greeting Dr Steven E. Jones.

As far as I can figure it out, Mister Nul-Point(s), as a genuine British gentleman, you are a master of cryptic humour. RU not?

I have printed out your post and will read it. Thanks for it.
I hate to read too much long technical text on a computer screen.
A matter of age. I guess.
---------------------
Now, trying to be 'general'...

I'm watching this vid from Peter Lindemann: "Electric Motor Secrets"
In a condensed nutshell, P. Lindeman is, notably showing (demonstrating) us that a mere small DC magnet electric motor is about 75% efficient. OK.

But, shoud we get rid of this nasty Back EMF (Counter Electromotive Force) that "one efficiency" of this motor is 300%. I quote : "Conclusion : The back EMF masks the excellent performance of the motor and hides it below a very low COP".
-------------------------
My naive conclusion: coils and capacitiors are intrinsically OU...
------------------------
We, particularly, do not figure it out because of the geometry of our devices.
A guy named Eric Dollard (With a final 'd', please) is saying sometyhing like :
"Just multiply by the square root of -1" = rotate it 90°.

About this, you can consult:
"Longitudinal Waves and Transverse Waves tests".
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lmdtem.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lmdtem.htm)
You can also see that a vertical mill wind seems to be more efficient and less harmfull. 
It sounds like that, for the moment, humanity is just building devices the wrong way.

I would dare to add : just also take the time into account.
"Delayed" is about time. Is it not?
Please, for that, google "Claus Turtur".
----------------------------------------
And now, the, off topic, musical intermezzo:
Roy Rogers (slide guitar) - Walkin Blues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW08Rc802MQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW08Rc802MQ)
A real US bluesman guy. Is he not?

Very Best
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 18, 2011, 02:02:59 AM
Dear JouleSeeker
I wonder if you could advise us if you are one and the same person as our member who variously identifies himself as Physics Prof and Steven E Jones?  Surprisingly I'm in receipt of a personal message from B**** - who also, apparently, shares the same name.  Such an extraordinary co-incidence.  Regarding this post of yours.


There is some recent information -- .....Adding ONE proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi will produce Copper isotopes, predominately Cu-59 and Cu-61, since the predominate isotopes of nickel are Ni-58 (68%) and Ni-60 (26.2%).  {Add one proton to Ni-58, becomes Cu-59; add proton to Ni-60, becomes Cu-61.) Furthermore, both of these copper isotopes are highly radioactive (releasing gammas) and easily detectable!  And detecting their presence via decay products would conclusively demonstrate the occurrence of the proton-capture reaction on Nickel.

Where exactly have either Rossi and/or Focardi claimed this?  I believe this was a claim made by a 3rd party and is entirely unsubstantiated.  Nor do I find any support of this finding - by anyone at all. Then.  I'm merely a member of that 'vulnerable' public who, thankfully, you're  anxious to 'protect'.  The copper that was found was, as I understood it, 'stable' - is that the right term?  Presumably this means that it had no 'isotopic'? - again terminology - help me out here - imbalance?  Which, again as I understand it - means that it would not, therefore emit that 'radioactive' decay.  Those 'gammas'.  Golly.  One's alarm bells start ringing.  Without any kind of schooling - even I know that 'gamma rays' are somewhat toxic if not lethal.  IF, indeed, this E-Cat was emitting Gamma Rays - then SURELY?  We should do our level best to resist any further progress of this technology?

Unless, of course, there isn't actual PROOF of this or, indeed, any toxic emission.  Poor Rossi.  Neither he nor Focardi - nor any of those academics who actually REPLICATED his E-Cat findings - were able to find any emissions at all.  Which just goes to show.  Give a sample to an independent laboratory for analysis - and God alone knows what they'll find.  One hopes that sample wasn't tampered with.  The comfort is this.  If was - then it was not by Rossi et al.  They're on record.  They can find ABSOLUTELY no toxicity in this technology AT ALL.  Possibly it was simply 'claimed' by whoever it was that's 'claiming' this.  My vote would be to get a second independent laboratory onto the job.  It could be that there's an over zealous detractor at the laboratory who's trying to discredit cold fusion.  We need to look out for such people.  They're those dedicated 'disinformants' who are trying to keep over unity evidence out of the eye of our public.  God forbid that they succeed.  We need to beware.

But there's another point to this.  If, indeed, the E-Cat is able to transmute nickle to copper and iron - and if it comes out in such copious quantities - then - frankly - why bother with using the E-cat as a generator?  I would have thought that Rossi's time would be far better spent in manufacturing copper.  HUGELY profitable.  One should alert him to this potential.  It seems that he's overlooked it.  I'm absolutely satisfied that he would make considerably more money in this way than in trying to sell those working units of his to the needy public. 

Actually, come to think of it - even our academics would know this - and they're not renowned, as a rule, for their business acumen.  Perhaps - after all - it was simply 'contaminated' - as you propose.  But then I wonder if Rossi would have contaminated it.  It rather works against his claim - and simply confuses the issue.  No.  On the whole I would suggest that the contamination was from that 'plant' at the plant.  lol.  Probably he's in the pocket of our rich oil or grid supply monopolists.  Golly.  This is all giving me a headache. 

Anyway - in conclusion - and as a rule - I think we should rather desist from alleging anything at all.  It's like any speculation.  It just goes around in circles.  The best thing to do here is to support any MEASURED EVIDENCE of over unity - in the E-cat - and leave it at that.  And, happily, that evidence is incontestable.  Being, as I am, a member of the vulnerable public - I'm glad there are those such as you to protect our best interests in all things.  Clearly we can hardly assess anything at all - for ourselves.  But actually, I for one would not care if Rossi was a Christian, a Buddhist, an ultruist - or even an outright capitalist.  Golly.  I would just love to see his technology available to us all without any further gossip mongering.  Unless - of course - there are proven FACTS against his good name. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

By the by.  This post of yours has nothing to do with your thread topic.  I notice it's been copied on yet another thread of yours.  Something to do with coins that you're offering as a prize for a perpetually running motor.  Just as an aside - I think a perpetual motor may just earn even more than the value of those coins.  But is is nonetheless, excessively generous of you to offer anything at all.   If you check out the board here you'll see that we have a member who has dedicated a thread to the promotion of the E-Cat.  You may find some answers to those 'allegations' that you're promoting.

Golly.  And I also see that it's the identical post copied at Overunity Research.com.  You've clearly been rather busy. 
;D

Kindest again,
R
I took out B**** 's name to protect his identity.  Sorry about that.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 18, 2011, 02:37:34 AM
Dear JouleSeeker,

Just another point.  Don't feel bad that Rossi didn't reply to your offer to check out that 'gamma ray' emission.  He's probably rather busy.  I imagine he's be a bit preoccupied at the moment. It's hardly likely to be that he suspects you are out to 'blacken' his good name.  The evidence shows us that you are MOST objective.

Kindest regards again
Rosemary
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on November 18, 2011, 04:44:28 AM

Ouch, this thread is suddenly getting cold and harsh even with some
"Dear", "Regards" and "Kindest".

When I was young, I was taught that Maths and Science were the ultimate
non questionable knowledges. Was I being lied to?
Is, for example, Georg Cantor, really right?

Very Nothing.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 18, 2011, 05:35:16 AM
Ouch, this thread is suddenly getting cold and harsh even with some
"Dear", "Regards" and "Kindest".

When I was young, I was taught that Maths and Science were the ultimate
non questionable knowledges. Was I being lied to?
Is, for example, Georg Cantor, really right?

Very Nothing.

I apologise that my post was off topic.  I was confused.  You see the thread is promoted by JouleSeeker about a claim by PhysicsProf Steven E Jones - to encourage work - presumably - on his circuit.  Yet that discourse on the E-Cat was posted here and NOT on the E-cat thread.  Anyway.  Hopefully Professor can post both his comments and my reply to the appropriate.  I do feel that - since he took the trouble to post it - that he wanted some comment.  Surely?

Kindest as ever,
R
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on November 18, 2011, 08:23:03 AM
 

Ouch, this thread is suddenly getting cold
[...]

fortunately the e-Cat generates plenty of excess heat - both 'in' and 'out' of forums!  ;)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 18, 2011, 04:49:07 PM
Dear JouleSeeker,

Just another point.  Don't feel bad that Rossi didn't reply to your offer to check out that 'gamma ray' emission.  He's probably rather busy.  I imagine he's be a bit preoccupied at the moment. It's hardly likely to be that he suspects you are out to 'blacken' his good name.  The evidence shows us that you are MOST objective.

Kindest regards again
Rosemary

Thanks for that last comment Rose -- I do value objective measurements.

So my friend Fransceso Celani went to a Rossi demo and brought with him a Sodium-Iodide gamma spectrometer, an elegant measuring tool.  Here's what happened:

Quote
When Celani went in to see the [Rossi] experiment in action, he brought out the sodium iodide detector and prepared to change it to spectrum mode, which would give him more information about the ongoing reaction. Rossi objected vociferously, saying the spectrum would give Celani (or anyone else who see it), all they need to know to replicate the machine ...

Celani later groused that there is no point to inviting scientists to a demo if you have no intentions of lett[ing] them use their own instruments.
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51226.html (http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg51226.html)

I welcome:

1.  Objective measurements with the best devices available -- such as an NaI gamma-spectrum detector, as brought by physicist Celani -- and opposed "vociferously" by Rossi.
Celani was not allowed to use his objective measuring device.  Gamma spectral lines would quickly provide data on which (if any) nuclear reactions or decays were occurring.

2. Replication of experiments, which is the heart of good science -- also evidently opposed by Rossi.  Indeed -- has anyone replicated the Rossi experiment?
 

3.  Open source, sharing of inventions for the good of MANKIND, rather than for beaucoup-bucks. 
(As I did with my Solar Funnel Cooker, for example, and my cold-fusion results.)
Fair compensation for inventors and builders is expected.

So here you see it - a good scientist, Celani, was prepared with his own instrument to take measurements and PROVE (or disprove; that's objectivity) the Rossi claims -- and was prevented from making measurements by Rossi.  Sigh.  Not good for science and humanity, is it?

What else could it be, if not "cold fusion"?  Celani answers with a degree of scientific caution:

Quote
Celani says ready for anything that went ... with 20 kg of equipment! The possible tricks could be a power cable hidden in the reactor or radioactive material. http://pesn.com/2011/07/25/9501876_E-Cat_Competitors_Revealed_During_Viareggio_Conference/ (http://pesn.com/2011/07/25/9501876_E-Cat_Competitors_Revealed_During_Viareggio_Conference/)


You see, Rose, I welcome objective measurements by independent scientists, replication and open-source sharing of information for the benefit of mankind (as opposed to secrecy and big-money-seeking). 


 
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 18, 2011, 06:30:11 PM


You see, Rose, I welcome objective measurements by independent scientists, replication and open-source sharing of information for the benefit of mankind (as opposed to secrecy and big-money-seeking). 



Indeed, these are the goals of the New Renaissance prizes, but if you do not support these objectives (do you?) then I would expect you would not support the New Renaissance either.

PS --
Quote
Rosemary said:  If, indeed, the E-Cat is able to transmute nickle to copper and iron - and if it comes out in such copious quantities - then - frankly - why bother with using the E-cat as a generator?  I would have thought that Rossi's time would be far better spent in manufacturing copper.  HUGELY profitable.  One should alert him to this potential.  It seems that he's overlooked it.  I'm absolutely satisfied that he would make considerably more money in this way...

I don't think so Rose -- check the numbers, comparing the amount of copper produced in this way versus the cost of the electricity produced.  (Again -- IF Rossi's device works as claimed.  Note also that some of the copper SHOULD be radioactive, one would expect as I explained earlier.)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 18, 2011, 07:35:25 PM
Hello again Professor,

I've already been called out for elaborating on that Rossi business on this thread.  I suppose we should just leave it there.  Or better still - discuss it where it is more the thread topic.

I was rather confused when I saw the JouleSeeker claiming PhysicsProf - Steven E. Jones has a circuit producing COP>8.  If that's the case - and, as it seems that you and PhysicsProf are the same person - then indeed.  It's wonderful news.  Well done.  Hopefully, in the fullness of time, you'll tell us all how you managed this.

Kindest regards, as ever,
Rosemary
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 19, 2011, 05:28:43 AM
Hello again Professor,

I've already been called out for elaborating on that Rossi business on this thread.  I suppose we should just leave it there.  Or better still - discuss it where it is more the thread topic.

I was rather confused when I saw the JouleSeeker claiming PhysicsProf - Steven E. Jones has a circuit producing COP>8.  If that's the case - and, as it seems that you and PhysicsProf are the same person - then indeed.  It's wonderful news.  Well done.  Hopefully, in the fullness of time, you'll tell us all how you managed this.

Kindest regards, as ever,
Rosemary
Dear Professor,

I'm only quoting myself here because it seems I can't put in a post script to my previous response.  Sorry about that.  As a rule I find it offensive to refer to one's own posts. It always smacks of 'self promotion' somehow. 

Anyway.  I'm delighted to have found some information from the 'official' E-cat news site.  If you have the time I strongly recommend a read here.  You'll have the real satisfaction of learning more about the news - but without those rather damaging 'innuendos'?  - is that the right term?  History - told as it should be told - with absolute impartiality.  Nice work indeed.  This is especially evident in the video at the conclusion to that script.  Very interesting indeed.  And most commendably - it gives both sides of the argument.  Nice to see that Rossi himself prefers history reported in this way.

I'm reasonably certain, Professor - that you'd want to remain absolutely impartial to all this - as is befitting a Professor Emeritus who spends so much time advancing our research into viable alternatives to our energy production.  Your interest in all this speaks for itself.

Here's that link.http://ecat.com/inventor-andrea-rossi (http://ecat.com/inventor-andrea-rossi)

In the unlikely event that anyone else if reading here - I would strongly recommend that you also dip into that link.  It's an eye opener.  Frankly I think we're engaging in a momentous event which will long be heralded in history. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

By the way - Professor.  You're spot on about that copper-nickle thing.  Copper - at the moment is half the price of nickle.  And nickle set to drop - due to lack of demand?  Hopefully the E-cat will revitalise some investment in this commodity.

Regards again,

R
EDITED - changed 'of' this commodity to 'in' this commodity.
;D
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 19, 2011, 10:38:45 PM
Rosemary: 
Quote
I'm reasonably certain, Professor - that you'd want to remain absolutely impartial to all this - as is befitting a Professor Emeritus who spends so much time advancing our research into viable alternatives to our energy production.  Your interest in all this speaks for itself.

Here's that link.   (http://ecat.com/inventor-andrea-rossi)http://ecat.com/inventor-andrea-rossi (http://ecat.com/inventor-andrea-rossi)


I went to the link and enjoyed the reading.  I have expressed my reservations, but at the same time wish the researchers well -- especially as they allow independent scientists to use their own equipment in testing/verifying the claims, and as they seek to make the invention rapidly available to all mankind (not just a privileged or wealthy few).


Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on November 19, 2011, 11:43:54 PM
Rosemary: 

I went to the link and enjoyed the reading.  I have expressed my reservations, but at the same time wish the researchers well -- especially as they allow independent scientists to use their own equipment in testing/verifying the claims, and as they seek to make the invention rapidly available to all mankind (not just a privileged or wealthy few).



Dear Professor,

Delighted to read this.  You see for yourself that we've been doing our level best to keep up with all this development.  The E-cat's 'out the bag' - so to speak.  Not much to be added to what we already know.  Which is probably as well.  Otherwise we may all have been influenced by those adverse reports that you alerted us to.  Then we'd simply have dismissed all that evidence - out of hand.  it would have been a shame.

  If Rossi presumes to exploit this technology for his personal enrichment -  I for one, would not mind unduly.  It's the precedent that's been set by all our great inventors.  I believe that even Tesla wasn't above lodging the odd patent or two.  Actually, come to think of it - the entire 1st world is sort of progressed by a combination of capitalism and democracy.  Can't be all bad. The trick, perhaps, is to prevent outright monopolies.  But with a technology this desirable - it's more than likely that he'll get competition.  And if he doesn't - then there's very little that any of us will be able to do about it.  It is, nonetheless a clean energy source.  That's got to count for something.  And - in the final analysis it has the real merit and potential of unlocking our grid dependency.  When that happens then I think it will be rather difficult for anyone at all to control the technology.

Well.  Onwards and upwards - as they say.  Who knows?  Perhaps we'll hear an outright acceptance of this 'proof of over unity' from more and more of our academics.  I was shocked to learn that the most of them haven't even heard of this yet.  We're doing our level best correct this.  Hopefully we'll get in there before their opinions are biased against this - based on spurious allegations about the technology.  Or - worst still - based on the the rather desirable evidence that there are no toxic emissions to speak of.  That would be the ultimate irony.  Golly.

In any event.  I think we can now drop this subject and - hopefully - you can get on with this thread.  I for one will not keep banging on about this - here.  I'm not sure that your posters are in the least bit interested in this subject.  I believe they're replicating your own over unity claim.  So nice.  I shall follow this closely.  Hopefully we'll learn more about it - in due course.

As ever,
Rosemary
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on November 20, 2011, 02:38:54 AM



[...]
I for one will not keep banging on about this - here.  I'm not sure that your posters are in the least bit interested in this subject
[...]Rosemary


LOL  the rest of us have been following the development of the e-Cat with interest, for a good part of the year - some of us even have a link to Rossi's e-Cat blog on our own blogs  ;)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on November 28, 2011, 12:27:04 AM

OK people.

Peace to Rosemary Ainslie.
Humour and heat to Nul-Point(s) (decidedly misnamed).

Ecat or not Hecate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecate)

IMHO: Names are not innocent/insignificant and Hecate seems not to be
a "cool" Goddess. Hence the differings (that are over my head, BTW).

Hecate is also the Goddess of the crossroads.
Are we presently not in a crossroad: Free Energy (OverUnity) or slavery?

Very Best
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on November 28, 2011, 09:14:25 PM

[..]
IMHO: Names are not innocent/insignificant and Hecate seems not to be
a "cool" Goddess. Hence the differings (that are over my head, BTW).
[...]

your posts are always an education, Mr Dishual !

the ancient stories of Hecate (or Hecat, as Shakespeare apparently refers) have passed me by in my many decades of ignorance

however, if we were to add some 'Power' to her name, then she could have enjoyed being called 'Hepcat' - the very 'Queen of cool'  ;)

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepcat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepcat)


keep on keeping us 'on our toes'

a plus tard
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on December 02, 2011, 11:53:34 PM
Hello NP and People,

As far as I can see, Mr Nul-Point(s) has not lost his legendary humour and his
strong musical inclination.

It sounds like that speaking about Hecate (or Hecat) has cut this thread off...
Hecate is also the Dark Moon and one of the keyword about "it" is "cutting".

Now, to be more 'light', musical and also on our toes  8) :
What Tau Sounds Like. (BTW: TAU = PI *2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3174T-3-59Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3174T-3-59Q)
A must see vid for any musician (IMHO)...

Very Best
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on December 30, 2011, 05:59:35 AM

to itsuseable,
I would think a comparator would measure the light output.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on January 07, 2012, 05:16:08 PM
Greetings.  I've gone on to a much higher-power device that I'm testing, discussed here (where I'm "PhysicsProf"):

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/8999-peter-daysh-davey-water-heater-query-55.html#post174647 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/8999-peter-daysh-davey-water-heater-query-55.html#post174647)

From mW and uW with the circuit of this thread, to hundreds of watts...  Resonance is still in play!!

I find that my friends from this this thread have also studied this type of "sonic boiler" or "Davey device", especially Nul-Points and Nerzh.  Just curious -- why did you stop working on the Davey device, friends?  Would you reconsider?

I welcome comments you have.  This topic is "heating up" with the work especially in Serbia by Prof. Savic and in Sweden by DaemonBart.   It's difficult to keep up with all forums, but I will try to respond to comments here.  I have posted first detailed measurements; see below.


________________________  from the EF forum posting; also discussion at overunityresearch.com.

 OK, I have some first results from my sonic boiler (call it SBSJ1) set up, as shown in photo attached.

   I will show my method for determining Pinput and Poutput and the results, and invite comments on both.

  I have a CEN-TECH P3 "Kill-a-watt" meter that displays KW-H to 0.01 accuracy.  I ran this P3 meter with a load until it just turned on the display to 0.05 KWH.  Next I ran my SBSJ1 device until it reached boiling (which stirs the water), stopped registering the time elapsed with a stop-watch, 62 seconds.  I quickly measured Temperatures inside the inner bell and between the inner and outer bells using an infrared temp probe and took an average Temp.

I let the sbsj1 cool (to 98F) and ran a second time with the same measurements, and this time the P3 turned to 0.06 KWH, so I stopped the run there to take measurements, 31s.  The total elapsed time was 62+31 = 93 s.

By using the P3 JUST AS the reading turns to a higher value, increasing by 0.01KWH, I believe the accuracy is quite good, probably within 10% with this method.

Consider a 100W bulb for 1 hour = 0.1 KWH.  Thus, 0.01 KWH in 1/10th hour = 6 minutes = 360 s.
Here in my experiment we have 0.01 KWH in 93 seconds, so the power is more than 100W, and I calculate:
Pin = 360s/93s X 100W = 387W.

Next, to calculate the output power, first I calculate the heat-energy Q calorimetrically, using the Temp-rise in the water.
Q = Cg X m X (Tfinal - Tinitial).

For the first run of 62 s, Tfinal - Tinitial = 147Fahr - 83F = 64F = 36Celsius temp rise.
For the second run of 31 s, Tfinal - Tinitial = 145F - 98F = 47F = 26Celsius temp rise.


Here, Q = 4.18 [J/g-C] X 125g X 36C = 18810 J for the first run, and
     Q = 4.18 [J/g-C] X 125g X 26C = 14120 J  for the second run.
Total heat measured, Qtotal = 32930 J in 93 s, so
Pout = Q/total-time = 32930J/93s = 354W.

Which is less than Pinput.

Finally, I calculate the efficiency n = Pout/Pin = 354W/387W = 0.91   Not surprising -- no attempt at tuning for this baseline run.


Any comments on the method or the results? 

PS -- the outer bell has OD about 65 mm and the inner bell about 39 mm.  See photo.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 08, 2012, 01:01:52 AM
Hello again Professor - and compliments of the season.

I see you've been busy debunking this new claim.  Well done.  I was reasonably satisfied that you'd rally. 

Sorry to move a tad off topic here but I've been trying to reach you.  I wonder if you could send me your email address.  My own is ainslie@mweb.co.za.  I forwarded an email to Poynty and asked him to please notify you.  You see I've asked that you and he also attempt to debunk our own claim as I believe we're strong contenders for your prizes and we're rather anxious to get this assessed.

Do let me know.  I've taken the liberty of evaulating your own prize contribution - and am not sure that it'll entirely cover the cost of this 'evaluation'.  Poynty hasn't replied to me.  Not sure why.  Possibly he's just not able to debunk as he's fairly familiar with our circuit.  And that means that he's denial of over unity in ours and other experiments will be shown to be entirely fallacious.  Possibly he's concerned that this may lessen his credibility somewhat.  But I know that your own impartiality is such that you will more likely want to engage.  I do hope so.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on January 08, 2012, 02:48:04 AM
Hello again Professor - and compliments of the season.

I see you've been busy debunking this new claim.  Well done. [snip]

Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
What are you talking about, Rose?  I did NOT debunk the tuned-sonic boiler claims, not at all.  I explained that I was not surprised that my preliminary results show an efficiency close to unity -- because, as I clearly stated, I did not TUNE the device at all.  Further, I referred to these data as a "baseline" run. 
Now about testing your device, I'm willing to take a look.  I'll send you an email.  But somehow you have got to stop twisting what I say into something that I did not say at all.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 08, 2012, 03:33:46 PM
Hello Professor,

Just a few points.

OK, I have some first results from my sonic boiler (call it SBSJ1) set up, as shown in photo attached.
I wonder if it wouldn't be better to call it SBSP(Serbian Professor) lest his initialising all this get lost in the 'noise'?
 :D

I will show my method for determining Pinput and Poutput and the results, and invite comments on both.
And this.  That Pinput and Poutput - is really confusing and entirely non standard terminology.  All the more irritating as you then resolve your numbers in Watts which is not 'P' anything at all.  Professor - there is nothing wrong with the standard model's standard terminologies.  I believe Poynty Point has been rather more successful than is merited in introducing that PIN POUT nonsense.  And, while the most of us are already struggling with physics I'm not sure that we're helped by an introduction of these rather strange acronyms.  You see the problem I hope?  If POUT exceeds PIN then PIN must have been initialised by POUT. Much better to simply reference the source of the input energy compared to the dissipated energy.  That way there are no confusions.  If you need to impose an acronym - then, perhaps it would be as well to define your terms.

I have a CEN-TECH P3 "Kill-a-watt" meter that displays KW-H to 0.01 accuracy.  I ran this P3 meter with a load until it just turned on the display to 0.05 KWH.  Next I ran my SBSJ1 device until it reached boiling (which stirs the water), stopped registering the time elapsed with a stop-watch, 62 seconds.  I quickly measured Temperatures inside the inner bell and between the inner and outer bells using an infrared temp probe and took an average Temp.
And this.  How can you claim that level of accuracy when the machine is measuring hundreds of watts with an instrument that measures in the Kilowatt range?  Possibly it will work as a comparative measurement.  But I'm not sure that the number is entirely reliable.  Perhaps you can put our minds at ease on this point.

I let the sbsj1 cool (to 98F) and ran a second time with the same measurements, and this time the P3 turned to 0.06 KWH, so I stopped the run there to take measurements, 31s.  The total elapsed time was 62+31 = 93 s.
And this.  Would it not have been better to let the experiment cool to it's initial temperature before you ran the second test?  If this assumption is simply wrong then I'm sure that there would be others too, who would like to understand this better.  May we impose on you to explain this?

You see this I hope.  There are those of us who are entirely unqualified.  And we would prefer to follow the rarefied thinking behind all you professionals.  It would help us all understand things better.  And it really doesn't add much more time to write INPUT than it does to write PINPUT.  I'd have thought.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on January 08, 2012, 08:13:17 PM
  Waiting for the water in my test device to cool back to room temp would have taken a long time, Rose, so I let it cool to 98F (body temp LOL) then I started up the DUT again for the tests.  I don't think it would have made much difference really, starting the second run at 98F or 70F... especially since the device was not tuned at all.

  It is a good suggestion, heard also on other forums, to simply use ENERGY input and energy output, which I will do in the future -- although evaluating the power consumed by the device is also useful IMO.

 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on January 08, 2012, 08:45:54 PM

Hi Prof. Jones,

Thanks for reactivating This Peter D. Davey's device.

Why did I stop working on this device? 
Just because I was disappointed by my results.
And also, perhaps, because a lack of perseverance.  :-[
Anyway, I continue to believe that this device is worth to be tested with a positive mind.

Would I reconsider?
Yes, of course.

-------------------------
I agree with your your method. I used a similar one.
I got some "COP = Coefficient Of Performance" more than 0.9.
I also measured few "COP" slightly > 1 but, IHMO, these are measurements errors.
I did not use any calorimeter.

I only considered the initial and final (tap) water temperature and the volume of the said water to calculate "what was going out" assuming that my kinda "Kill-a-watt" meter was able  to tell me "what was going in" with enough accuracy. Actually, with a mere boiler I did not get unusual results.

I use prudent "inverted commas" just because I noticed that writing some appellations immediately rose some stinging remarks. :P

Just in case, my page :
http://freenrg.info/Sonettes_Davey/calcul_sonette.htm (http://freenrg.info/Sonettes_Davey/calcul_sonette.htm)

I did not try any "input current frequency" tuning.
I just tried different "boilers" pathetically hoping to stumble upon a good tuned one.
I mean: a boiler that resonate at an upper harmonic of 50 Hz (in Europe).

I also tried to figure out the main "self freq" or some devices (in air).
http://freenrg.info/Sonettes_Davey/Freq/ (http://freenrg.info/Sonettes_Davey/Freq/)

This should be useless as the "self freq" of a device is not the same in water than in air. Is it?

Tired to blow too many "main fuses", I also built a fuse box allowing only "input amps" < 15.
With this limitation I did not try to boil water but I could perform some electrolysis at the same time.

--------------------

Now, I guess that I should experiment:
Inverse osmosis filtered water.
Distilled water.

If you have any suggestion, I would be pleased to experiment.

Very Best

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on January 08, 2012, 09:10:25 PM
  although evaluating the power consumed by the device is also useful IMO.

 

Absolutely.  If the circuit(not the source or the load) consumes, as in heating of resistors, semiconductors(needing heat sinks), these data are very important.

Lets say we have 10w in and 9w out, that doesnt "necessarily" mean that 3w couldnt be dissipated by the circuit. Especially if OU is what we are looking for. ;]

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on January 09, 2012, 05:34:24 PM
Good point, Mags.

Hi Prof. Jones,

Thanks for reactivating This Peter D. Davey's device.

Why did I stop working on this device? 
Just because I was disappointed by my results.
And also, perhaps, because a lack of perseverance.  :-[
Anyway, I continue to believe that this device is worth to be tested with a positive mind.

Would I reconsider?Yes, of course.

-------------------------
I agree with your your method. I used a similar one.
I got some "COP = Coefficient Of Performance" more than 0.9.
I also measured few "COP" slightly > 1 but, IHMO, these are measurements errors.
I did not use any calorimeter.

I only considered the initial and final (tap) water temperature and the volume of the said water to calculate "what was going out" assuming that my kinda "Kill-a-watt" meter was able  to tell me "what was going in" with enough accuracy. Actually, with a mere boiler I did not get unusual results.

I use prudent "inverted commas" just because I noticed that writing some appellations immediately rose some stinging remarks. :P

Just in case, my page :
http://freenrg.info/Sonettes_Davey/calcul_sonette.htm (http://freenrg.info/Sonettes_Davey/calcul_sonette.htm)

I did not try any "input current frequency" tuning.
I just tried different "boilers" pathetically hoping to stumble upon a good tuned one.
I mean: a boiler that resonate at an upper harmonic of 50 Hz (in Europe).

I also tried to figure out the main "self freq" or some devices (in air).
http://freenrg.info/Sonettes_Davey/Freq/ (http://freenrg.info/Sonettes_Davey/Freq/)

This should be useless as the "self freq" of a device is not the same in water than in air. Is it?

Tired to blow too many "main fuses", I also built a fuse box allowing only "input amps" < 15.
With this limitation I did not try to boil water but I could perform some electrolysis at the same time.

--------------------

Now, I guess that I should experiment:
Inverse osmosis filtered water.
Distilled water.

If you have any suggestion, I would be pleased to experiment.

Very Best



OK!   Je suis heureux, mon ami!

Good to hear from you again, Nerzh. 
  Let's say a good fellow in Serbia provides such a "sonic boiler" that begs to be tested.  (I will spare you all the details of the discussion between him and me... Proceeding very well!)
  However, it needs 50 Hz and 220-230 volts to operate.  Hence, I seek someone (or ones) to do the testing in Europe.  Should be straightforward.  Do you have a kill-a-watt meter or equivalent to measure input power from the mains?
 (Shipping costs etc provided by moi -- no problem.) 

Would you be willing to measure Ein and Eout (heat) and post results no matter what they turned out to be?    and we could arrange for follow-up testing especially if it turns out that COP>2 as he claims...
Further, he agrees that this will be OPEN SOURCE, so there is no secrecy or proprietary stuff to worry about! 

What do you think?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on January 10, 2012, 08:05:15 PM

Hi Prof. Steven Jones,

Thank you for your awakening  proposition !

I have an Energy Meter.
It is in not  "Kill a Watt" branded but should do the job.
I can try to measure the precision of this device with a non inductive charge
(a mere resistor).

I also can afford some new equipments and also some parts and shipping costs.
All the fees are on me.  ;D

Yes, of course, I will be very pleased to do any tests and to
measure "PIN/Ein" versus "POUT/Eout" and to post my results should they were
negative.
Open Source of course (OSOC)!
 
Please just give me the instructions.

Very Best


Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on January 10, 2012, 10:33:48 PM
Hi Prof. Steven Jones,

Thank you for your awakening  proposition !

I have an Energy Meter.
It is in not  "Kill a Watt" branded but should do the job.
I can try to measure the precision of this device with a non inductive charge
(a mere resistor).

I also can afford some new equipments and also some parts and shipping costs.
All the fees are on me.  ;D

Yes, of course, I will be very pleased to do any tests and to
measure "PIN/Ein" versus "POUT/Eout" and to post my results should they were
negative.
Open Source of course (OSOC)!
 
Please just give me the instructions.

Very Best

Great!  The game is afoot...

OSOC!  and of course, I hope the results will be positive!  but whatever they are, as scientists, we need to report our results.  That's IMO.

And I'll pay all shipping fees (please!).

OK -- pls send your shipping address information to my private email, emdevice12@yahoo.com.
Then we'll go from there.  I'm hoping the device can be sent to you rather soon.

(Let's ask NP to join the adventure!)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on January 11, 2012, 12:00:43 AM

OK Prof !

Sounds very good. I have just sent you a private email.

BTW: about NP/ND exchanges and strange emails...
Usually ( ??? ) a lot of our emails vanish in Hyperspace, 4Th Dimension or whatever.

Just one recent example:
NP sent me an email on 24 Dec 2011.
I procrastinated (as usual) but answered him on 01 Jan 2012 (I gave him some excuses for answering late  :P ).

Guess what? My delayed answer seems also to have disappeared...

So, Mr Nul Point(s), please feel reassured: I'm not trying to be silent and/or rude. ;D

Very Best
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 12, 2012, 07:37:24 AM
Hello again, Steve

I'm not sure that you subscribe to my thread.  May I ask you to dip in there.  I'm in need of some discussion - obviously only if you have time.  I see you're very busy here.

Kindest,
Rosemary
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on January 13, 2012, 05:21:10 AM
Hello again, Steve

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

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

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

Thanks, ND and all who support this research effort.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 13, 2012, 05:26:47 AM
Hello Steve,

Here it is.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/new/topicseen/#new

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ltseung888 on January 14, 2012, 03:02:37 PM
Dear Prof. Steve Jones,
 
It has been over a year since I sent you a FLEET prototype.  Thank you for the excellent work you have done.  I now have two ATTEN 1102 Oscilloscopes in Irvine, USA.  I have been training students and interested engineers.
 
I am happy to report that many can now produce Joule Thief or FLEET prototypes with COP > 1.  We can use the saved CSV files that can be manipulated with EXCEL.  We can get the average or mean power values.  We can get just the positive or negative power values.  Knowledge is one of the rare things that the more you give, the more you have!
 
A Taiwan Company is introducing the technology into one of their products.  Please see the attached.
 
Your comments are always appreciated.
 
Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited (Hong Kong)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NickZ on January 14, 2012, 07:08:37 PM
   Dr. Steven:
   I just found out that a joule thief using only chokes and no toroid or hand wound coils has already been made and is being marketed.  It may not be an everlasting light device, but it's cheap to buy in a ready made kit, and including shipping is not a bad deal at $10.  China will soon catch on, as we were mentioning earlier on... only they will produce it even cheaper. 
There are already solar garden lights selling at some dollar stores for a buck...  Who can compete with that...
                                                  NickZ
   Joule Thief Boost Circuit (http://www.joulethief.com/kit.php)
   
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on January 20, 2012, 04:43:24 PM
Thanks, NickZ -- nice little circuit!  and frankly, I'm glad someone is out there selling it inexpensively, just 10 bucks. 

Now an update on what I noted earlier:


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

Thanks, ND and all who support this research effort.

The device has arrived at the testing lab in France and tests will proceed soon.  Stay tuned.  ;)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 02:04:03 AM
My dear Professor,

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

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

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

Do let us know.

Kindest regards
Rosemary
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on January 21, 2012, 03:06:11 AM

@Rosemary Ainslie,

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

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

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

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

Very Best
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 21, 2012, 06:00:06 AM
@Rosemary Ainslie,

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

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

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

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

Very Best

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

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

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

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

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

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

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

EDITED - Added an apostrophe

Rose,
The answer is here --

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

I copy the basics here for your convenience:

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

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

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

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

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

By this I mean "open source" of the details of the device and NOT seeking a patent -- hopefully with a fair return to the inventor(s) as explained previously.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on January 24, 2012, 02:26:13 PM
Rose,
The answer is here --

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

I copy the basics here for your convenience:

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

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

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

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

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

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Sorry I should have added the link.  Here it is.
http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/new/#new
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ltseung888 on February 01, 2012, 02:10:26 PM
Prof. Steven Jones,
 
I tried to put all relevant test data for a particular prototype in a single xls file.  Hopefully all my tests (and my students) will be in a similar format.
 
Attached is an example of a COP=74 FLEET prototype.  You are welcome to double check the calculations and analysis.
 
Continue your great research.  Enjoy the Divine Wine.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 06, 2012, 07:47:19 AM
Dear Professor, 
May I ALSO impose on you to answer Itseung.   I'm rather concerned that this appeal of his will be IGNORED and this because he is not dissipating the required 15 Watts - that you've retrospectively added as a qualification for your prize.  I'm sure he would not have gone to the trouble to ALERT YOU to this if he did not think that he - at it's least - qualified for CONSIDERATION of that prize.  The way you ignore him could be construed as being rather rude.  I'm sure that's not your intention.

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

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

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

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

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

AS A POINT OF INTEREST (APOI)
I would point out that I'm only answering you here because you seem incapable of replying on our own thread.  Not sure if you can't find your way there with the link provided.  Or if you think it's more diplomatic to just ignore that thread.  Either way.  I have NO PROBLEM in using your thread as you prefer.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 06, 2012, 08:10:47 AM
I possibly need to remind you about our claim.

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

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

We are absolutely committed to Open Source,

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

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

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on February 06, 2012, 05:53:50 PM
Now you're talking, Rose:

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

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

We are absolutely committed to Open Source,...

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

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

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

Calorimetric measurements like this are great!  and I look forward to seeing your data, Rose.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 06, 2012, 06:22:45 PM
Now you're talking, Rose:

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

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

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

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

Hello Professor, 

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

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

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

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

Please do clarify this.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ltseung888 on February 06, 2012, 08:53:43 PM
Hello Professor, 

I hardly know where to start in the face of all this enthusiasm. 
 â€¦If I could impose on you to look at my earlier post here.  He's proposing that the CORRECT analysis is to ASSUME that the battery - under closed circuit conditions - actually delivers a 'negative wattage'?  Which is extraordinary.  …  Convention requires that the wattage would be positive.  Would you concur?

Unless we iron this out - then we're at an impassable impasse - so speak
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Dear Rose,
 
I do not know why you are so frustrated with Negative Power.  Even with AC delivery systems, we have Negative Power.  The standard explanation is that Positive Power represents Power Supplied from the Source to light lamps, drive motors etc.  Negative Power represents Power fed back to Source.
 
For perfect resistance environment, the AC Voltage and Current will be in phase.  There is only positive power.  However, if the load has inductive elements, the AC Voltage and Current will NOT be in phase and the Power Waveform as seen on any good oscilloscope will show negative Power.
 
In particular, the Joule Thief and FLEET prototypes can be tuned to such conditions that the net average Input or Output Power becomes negative.  This implies “recharging Circuits”.  More energy is fed back to source – my explanation is that external energy from the environment is led-out or brought-in.
 
If you examine a sample Output and Input Power waveform comparison of a FLEET prototype, you can see that the Output Power Curve is much larger than the Input.  The area under the Power Curve represents energy.  The Output Waveform contains much more energy than the Input.  Once we have such prototypes, we can do the many wonderful things described in the long Joule Thief Thread in overunity.com.  We can light up many LEDs, recharge batteries, heat up water etc.
 
I do not need or want to claim any prizes.  I do not believe that I am the Inventor.  I just used two oscilloscopes to show the Power waveforms.  Now I use EXCEL to analyze the csv files to be more scientific.  In particular, a Taiwan LED manufacturer is already improving their LED hat product.  Their laboratory results are confirmation of the many claims in the long Joule Thief Thread.  I treat the overunity FLEETs as Divine Revelations.  The water has turned into Wine.  I am just a server of this Divine Wine. 
 
If you have any questions related to the Power Waveform Comparisons or Negative Power (Recharging circuits), you can go to my workbench at overunityresearch.com (ltseung888).  The best thread to follow there is the Two Oscilloscope Tests.  Continue your excellent work.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 06, 2012, 09:04:30 PM

Itseung,

I am absolutely not talking about the power analysis on switching circuits.  What Poynt has proposed is that power delivered by a battery during closed circuit conditions delivers what he requires to be a negative wattage.  This is quite simply wrong.  And he relies on this distortion to then apply that same skewed logic to our own circuit analysis.  I'm obliged to CONFRONT it else everyone will be left with the ERRONEOUS impression that our experimental evidence DOES NOT EXCEED UNITY.  IT DOES.  Not only that.  But with this new 'convention' he will be able to deny over unity in just about every switched circuit - extant.  I'm not going to 'sit quiet' in the face of this abuse.

I have no idea whether you're interested in the prize that's on offer.  But you should be.  Not for the prize but for promoting the evidence of over unity.  That's what these forum are here for.  They've been dominated by an agenda to deny evidence.  And that has now escalated to the poynt where Poynty is proposing to UP END standard protocols rather than concede this evidence.  And I am personally rather irritated that I have never seen an analysis of your own test results that makes any kind of scientific sense.  It's all been SNARLED in undefined acronyms.  We need some clear analysis.

Regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on February 06, 2012, 10:23:53 PM
  I certainly agree with this, Rose:
OK, so we're focussing for now on the Input power of your device; that's fine.

I certainly agree with you here, Rose:
Quote
We need some clear analysis.

Regards,
Rosemary

  On the previous page, you refer to this "debate" with poynty, but I could not see the link to the debate.  In order to understand WHAT you are talking about, this "negative wattage" business, I should like to see the debate details -- Please provide the link. 
(Sorry to ask if you already provided it and I've missed it.)  Perhaps this discussion will enlighten Lawrence too -- all of us!

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on February 07, 2012, 02:03:59 AM
Replaced, your in the wrong place.

If you think saying stuff like that is going to discourage, well your wrong.

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 07, 2012, 03:17:43 AM
Dear Professor,

Regarding this question - so that we're on the same page so to speak, where you asked...
On the previous page, you refer to this "debate" with poynty, but I could not see the link to the debate.  In order to understand WHAT you are talking about, this "negative wattage" business, I should like to see the debate details -- Please provide the link.

And this in answer to my own question where I asked...
...And we would, all of us, like to know if you are endorsing Poynty Point's evaluation of the following circuit that the CORRECT MEASURE OF ENERGY IS AS HE CLAIMS 250 POSITIVE watts DISSIPATED BY THE LOAD and 250 NEGATIVE watts delivered by the battery supply?  SURELY NOT? 

Which in turn was detailed by Poynty Point in this post on my own thread...
You are getting close, however you're still struggling with the polarity.  Your own clue was that something is in anti-phase when comparing the battery and load, TRUE.  Explained in words, the power dissipated or supplied by any component (resistor OR battery) is the product of the voltage across it and the current through it.

Now, have a close look again at the diagram. The current is clockwise. Convention is that voltage "drops" across a load in the direction of the current (i.e. + to -).

Therefore both the current and voltage are "in-phase" when considering the load resistor. So we have:

PRLOAD = +V x +I = W (a POSITIVE polarity)

The battery however is a different story. By observation, one can see that the current and voltage are NOT "in-phase", therefore ONE of them MUST have a negative sign associated with it. Since the current has not changed direction, the negative sign must be assigned to the battery voltage, therefore:

PVBAT = -V x +I = -W (a NEGATIVE polarity)

So the answers to the question are:

a) Battery Power = -250W
b) RLOAD Power = 250W

Understood? Agreed?
THERE IT IS.  IN BLACK AND WHITE.  Actually.  I've taken the trouble to 'highlight' his argument in red.  ::)

Now here's the thing.  Here's where we find ourselves between the Devil and the deep blue sea - as they say.  Where we're skewered.  On the horns of a dilemma.  Trapped between a rock and a hard place.  You get the drift?  It's because your prize is 'hooked' somehow to Poynty's prize at OUR.com.  And Poynty Point has insisted that unless I and my collaborators FIRST commit the unpardonable HERESY of CONCEDING THAT THE BATTERY IN THE FOLLOWING SCHEMATIC IS DELIVERING A NEGATIVE WATTAGE?  :o ?  :o ?  8) ?  :-[   then he WON'T EVEN TALK TO US - LET ALONE CONSIDER OUR CLAIM FOR A PRIZE? 

NOT ONLY THAT - but he also reserves the right to USE that method as an alternate convention in analysing our tests.  :o   And you see for yourself?  It's a parody of logic.  An abuse of science as taught by our esteemed and revered.  A rebuttal of the logic forged by our Greats.  A challenge to and a criticism of the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC FRATERNITY who require that convention determines the wattage delivered by the battery is POSITIVE. 

NOW.  IF indeed, he is allowed this rather, as I've described it 'QUIXOTIC' measurement's convention - then we will NEVER be able to argue that our results are OVER UNITY.  You see why I trust?  Because where we would NORMALLY compute a negative wattage, where even our little LeCroy Oscilloscope computes a negative wattage in measuring our test results - then - IN THE FLICK OF AN EYE - at the WAVE OF A WAND - Poynty Point will change our NEGATIVE WATTAGE MEASUREMENTS in our own experimental results TO POSITIVE.   :o Which means we'll have no gain at all.  Which is somewhat troubling.  And if you ENDORSE this 'convention' then you too would be able to deny us.  Which is not actually playing 'fair'.

Again.  Please comment.  I'll try and download that schematic again - lest we lose sight of where he's applying this utterly INSANE protocol.  And lest you think that my own delusions are that rampant that I've misconstrued his argument.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 07, 2012, 03:58:05 AM
And Professor,

Regarding that post of mine - you'll see that I've avoided mention of the science 'behind' the established protocol.  I could, I suppose, rabbit on about the fact that the direction of current flow is determined by the polarity of the applied voltage.  And I could also explain that the voltage induced across a load resistor is in anti phase with the potential difference from the supply.  But the truth is that I've argued this through 27 pages on my own thread where every mention of it was IGNORED.  And I'm rather concerned that should I try and argue those rather elementary facts - then they'll be ignored again.  So what I've done now - is SIMPLY present Poynt's argument - IF such it is - and I'll let you deal with it as best you can.  Possibly there's something that not only I, but the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY has overlooked.

And as Poynty Point has argued.  'Who cares?'  What does it matter?  What difference would it make if I merely argued science?  He's bound to be believed over any argument that I present -  because he's got 27 years of experience in electronics under his belt.  I've puzzled over that poynt of his - that 'justification'.  I'm not sure that it's entirely relevant.  You see.  What's at question has NOTHING to do with electronics and EVERYTHING to do with elementary power analysis.  And from where I sit - he needs to do a refresher course here.  Unless, of course, he's deliberately misleading us all.  Which I hope is NOT the case.

Again, regards, and as ever
Rosie 
edited - for clarity.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ltseung888 on February 07, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
Dear Prof. Jones,
 
I just received an email and the attached picture from Mr. Wang Shen He.  If you have no objections, I shall try to put him in contact with you directly.
 
Mr. Wang cannot speak English but he has colleagues who can translate the emails for him. 
 
It may be a good thing to have you or some famous Western Universities to do a verification of his inventions.
 
My gut feel is that China is already in possession of even more powerful technology and is willing to declassify some advanced technologies.
 
May be we should start a dedicated thread on his devices at an appropriate time.
 
More Divine Wine?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on February 08, 2012, 12:55:53 AM
  @Lawrence -- I would be pleased to correspond with Wang Shen He.  Thank you.
"May be we should start a dedicated thread on his devices at an appropriate time."  Yes, that would be a very good idea.

Likewise, Rose -- I think your work should follow your thread (not this one so much); if you would please tell me which thread would like me to go to to provide comments, I would appreciate it.

I see that Sterling Allan will travel to So Africa very soon to see an FE device; is it possible this is your device?  He does not say much detail about it.  It appears he is definitely flying to South Africa:

Quote
http://pesn.com/2012/02/07/9602034_Fund_Drive_for_S._Africa_Trip_to_See_New_Number_1_Free_Energy_Technology/ (http://pesn.com/2012/02/07/9602034_Fund_Drive_for_S._Africa_Trip_to_See_New_Number_1_Free_Energy_Technology/)
You are here: PureEnergySystems.com > News > February 7, 2012
Fund Drive for S. Africa Trip to See New #1 Free Energy Technology

Sterling Allan has been invited to South African to visit a company who claims to have developed a commercially-ready, solid-state, 5 kilowatt Fuel Free Generator that will be available as early as March for their existing customers. Sterling has also been offered to buy a system to test, with a money-back guarantee.

Shortcut to the Donation Link


by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News


A week ago today, I found an email in my inbox that had been sent to me on November 28 that I had overlooked. It was from a person representing a company in South Africa stating that they had a Fuel Free Generator, and that they had seven working prototypes with outputs ranging from 5.5 kilowatts to 60 kW. Included in the email were a couple of pdf documents: a FAQ and a brochure.

I responded with some questions and received quite a few answers.

The system is allegedly a solid-state (no moving parts) device that picks up energy from the environment (the "wheelwork of nature", as Tesla described it) while alternating power between two battery banks. And it would cost "less than grid power". From the best that I can understand, it is probably closest to the Bedini / Bearden type of technology.


The company's first 200 devices, each with a power output of 5 kW, are set to be completed in March, with customers already lined up; with a production rate of 200/month at first, ramping up to 500/month, but that's just for the S. African market. They are entertaining licensing to manufacture the technology elsewhere in the world as well. And they claim to have third party testing results.

"If this is for real, then we have a new #1 in our Top 5 Exotic Free Energy Technologies listing," I've been saying.

I've written a couple of story drafts for their review, to let you all know about them; but the most recent reply came back that they don't want me speaking hypothetically, they want me to speak affirmatively. Instead of "this could be huge," they want me to be able to say, "This IS huge." So they invited me to come see for myself, and to buy a unit to test for myself, which they would refund if it didn't work as described.

    "We wish to invite you to our facility in South Africa to see, understand and test for yourself. This way you will report based on proven facts. Alternatively we could sell you a 5kW unit for testing purposes. If we do not prove our technology we will cover 100% of your travel and land arrangement costs. South Africa is a very beautiful and in-expensive country, and I suggest you visit. Remember we have many world firsts such as 1st human heart transplant (Dr Chris Barnard), Fuel from coal (Sasol), and now the FFG."

They don't have a website yet, and nothing has been written about them anywhere on the web other than my brief mention in yesterday's story about my recent interview on Late Night in the Midlands, where I talked about the technology.

Meanwhile, the company seems to be moving ahead at full steam. Not only do they have a receptionist (rare in the world of exotic free energy), but my contact even has an office secretary. I had to go through those two yesterday before talking to him.

The purpose of this present story is 1) to give you a heads up on this technology, and 2) to seek your help in pulling together the funds for this trip and purchase of a test unit.

I've been given permission to install one on the home we're renting so I can 1) prove this technology, and 2) demonstrate what I've been saying in various radio programs that 5 kW is adequate for a home if the occupants are careful about not turning on multiple high-power loads at the same time. ...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 08, 2012, 01:06:53 AM
I think your work should follow your thread (not this one so much); if you would please tell me which thread would like me to go to to provide comments, I would appreciate it.

I see that Sterling Allan will travel to So Africa very soon to see an FE device; is it possible this is your device?  He does not say much detail about it.  It appears he is definitely flying to South Africa:
My Dear Professor,

You keep asking for this link and I keep giving it to you.  Here it is again.  And ... No.  Sadly that has NOTHING to do with me.  But WHAT EXCITEMENT.  I'll wait for the morning and see if I can learn more.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg311961/#msg311961
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ltseung888 on February 08, 2012, 04:02:13 PM
Dear Prof. Jones,
 
Do you think that you can provide the csv files for both Input and Output?  I can use EXCEL to do more analysis.  I believe you mentioned that the voltage of your battery hardly dropped after 9 hours.  Bill also mentioned that some of the batteries of his Joule Thief circuits lasted for months.
 
I also have FLEET prototypes that seem to have long battery lives.  One of them is showing negative mean (average) power on Input. 
 
My understanding on Power is that - positive power means power supplied by the source.  Negative Power means Power fed-back to the source.  If we have negative average Input Power, this implies that more power is fed-back to the battery.  This can explain the very long life of the battery.  An EXCEL analysis of the CSV files can confirm that.
 
My Atten Oscilloscopes have that capability under the save button.  Hope that it is not too much trouble for you.  Thank you in advance.
 
Lawrence
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on February 09, 2012, 01:01:47 AM
Steven Jones,
If there is more out than in then a second and third stage and so on might
show evidence of an increase of useful energy.

If I have a AA batter with a 1000 ohm resistor and led in a conventional circuit
has a predictable amount of light.
When placed side by side with the Jones oscillator,
It is either brighter or it is not.

Lately phenomena that we are experiencing may follow Randell Mills theory.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on February 09, 2012, 02:23:42 AM
There is a difference in using dc for an led vs pulsing the led.

Leds can go into a higher output mode when pulsed.

Look into older laser diode tech

So comparing brightness is not a good gauge of power output when considering dc and pulsed circuitry for leds.

Some bicycle tail lights use the pulse circuitry to save on battery life and brighter output.

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on February 09, 2012, 02:33:13 AM
Mags,

When you say "pulsed", do you mean as in pulsed but still appearing continuously lit, or do you mean ON for half a second, OFF for half a second type thing?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on February 09, 2012, 03:07:55 AM
Mags,

When you say "pulsed", do you mean as in pulsed but still appearing continuously lit, or do you mean ON for half a second, OFF for half a second type thing?

Hey Poynt

Considering the freq of on and off in fiber optics, I dont believe there is much output that lingers when power is disconnected from an led. I would say it is off, no light output.

I bought a laser diode back around 1979, 8th grade. When looking for circuits to drive it, no internet then, I found a simple 1 trans circuit that required 65v input(7 9v batteries. The article explained the overdrive of pulsing.

I had later experimented with leds with this idea.
I used my old Color Computer from Radshack to simply operate a relay(to adjust the freq) with adjustable  12v in.

When you shine some leds(clear lens) on paper, at certain distances, you can see a clear view of the diode chip(square ;]) and even the tiny anode lead can be seen.

I dont remember the freq of operation but it wasnt that high due to relay properties. You know.

Anyways, as I increased the voltage in closer to 12v, when watching the chip image on the paper, you could see the 4 edges of the chip go into that overdrive mode. One side would go brighter then another and then all, as the voltage was increased.

All true.  ;]   all real.  ;]

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on February 09, 2012, 03:19:08 AM
White leds may have some lingering output after power off, due to the phosphorous overlaid on a blue or ultraviolet led chip.
I forget the term for the amount of time phosphorous can emit light after being excited.  Oh well, gettin old. ;]
 I also wonder if the phosphorous might glow even without the led chip being energized, during off cycle, by way of reverse HV from such devices as a Jt. Not sure there, but I wonder.  ;]

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on February 09, 2012, 06:07:28 AM
Use whatever conventional oscillator you want but compare.
it is equivalent energy, light output. The current limiting resistor is used on both so having same current
It will show if the Jones oscillator gives more light for a given V and I then conventional oscillator circuit
such as a hartley, colpitts, clapp, blocking  ect. It should not take 70 pages.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on February 09, 2012, 06:20:19 AM
Use whatever conventional oscillator you want but compare.
it is equivalent energy, light output. The current limiting resistor is used on both so having same current
It will show if the Jones oscillator gives more light for a given V and I then conventional oscillator circuit
such as a hartley, colpitts, clapp, blocking  ect. It should not take 70 pages.


Even with the resistor inline, how can you compare brightness between an led that is driven with dc or a pulse/AC/on and off   on and off for periods of time?
Will the light meter being used average out when the led is lit and not lit during the pulse/AC cycle?

So I would say that if the pulsed/oscillated led is reading the same brightness, then I would also say that there is more energy sent through the pulsed led than the continuous dc led, to achieve the same brightness levels.

Mags

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on February 09, 2012, 07:30:43 AM
Either way, if using the current resistors, measuring the resistor for power out would be the best bet.

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on February 10, 2012, 07:31:37 PM
Either way, if using the current resistors, measuring the resistor for power out would be the best bet.

Mags

Agreed, Mags.  And I like to see more than one method used to measure power out, as a check.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 10, 2012, 08:00:15 PM
Dear Professor,

I apologise for imposing on your thread.  Please address my post on my thread so that we can finalise the question related to our qualification for your prize.  Or do you not know how to evaluate our paper?  Mags has proposed a test that may answer your concerns. 

Kindest regards
Rosemary


Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on February 15, 2012, 01:24:16 AM
Agreed, Mags.  And I like to see more than one method used to measure power out, as a check.

My question has always been this:

Why must the load be a diode or LED? Can the load not be a pure resistance?

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on February 15, 2012, 02:40:06 AM
My question has always been this:

Why must the load be a diode or LED? Can the load not be a pure resistance?

.99

Actually, I wouldnt use a diode as a load in any case. What for?   :o

I am also not keen on using leds as indicators of power. I think we talked this the other day. ;]

And, just above, on this page, I posted this, "Either way, if using the current resistors, measuring the resistor for power out would be the best bet."  8)

http://www.overunity.com/10773/physicsprof-steven-e-jones-circuit-shows-8x-overunity/msg312165/#msg312165

 ;)

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on February 15, 2012, 03:06:25 AM
Actually, I wouldnt use a diode as a load in any case. What for?   :o

I am also not keen on using leds as indicators of power. I think we talked this the other day. ;]

And, just above, on this page, I posted this, "Either way, if using the current resistors, measuring the resistor for power out would be the best bet."  8)

http://www.overunity.com/10773/physicsprof-steven-e-jones-circuit-shows-8x-overunity/msg312165/#msg312165 (http://www.overunity.com/10773/physicsprof-steven-e-jones-circuit-shows-8x-overunity/msg312165/#msg312165)

 ;)

Mags

Yes, I saw the recent posts.

I assumed that the "current resistor" is still in series with either a diode or LED.

Did I assume incorrectly?

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on February 15, 2012, 03:44:52 AM
Yes, I saw the recent posts.

I assumed that the "current resistor" is still in series with either a diode or LED.

Did I assume incorrectly?

.99

Yea, but I still objected to using led brightness as an indicator of power when comparing 2 circuits. Depending on the circuits, sure one may drive the led at 20ma and another at 30ma, then we could say  something about the power out by saying one is brighter than the other thus more power. But I would count on the measurement before relying on the led brightness to evaluate how much power. So I  (pre)agree,  no led needed. ;]

Mags

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on February 15, 2012, 03:53:16 AM
So if you agree that no LED or diode is required, please post a diagram of the circuit. Please also indicate which resistor is the load.

Has anyone tested the circuit without a diode/LED? Does this then still conform to the Professor's circuit and claim?

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on February 15, 2012, 04:26:13 AM
My question has always been this:

Why must the load be a diode or LED? Can the load not be a pure resistance?

.99

Lol, why dont you?   ;)

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 15, 2012, 04:27:08 AM
Dear Professor,

I'm sure you'll forgive me taking this thread a tad off topic again.  But for reasons that I can't understand Harti has seen fit to lock my thread.  Which means this is the only place that I can reach you.  I see you've been wrestling with some test that may be definitive - as it relates to our claim.  I've outlined one such - that was carefully designed by our experts at BP some years back.  In any event - this most certainly IS definitive.  And although the test is different - the principle is the same.

One of the consequences of that early closure of my thread is that our challenge to you and Poynty Point may be misconstrued as being 'off the table' so to speak.   May I assure you that it is NOT.  I've detailed my challenge in the attached link.  And you may answer me through OUR.com.  I think they've got a thread there related to our claim. 

I know how anxious you are to promote over unity.  And I trust that our own modest efforts may have some kind of relevance to science generally and to unity breaches in particular.

Kindest regards Professor,
Rosie
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/02/255-challenge.html
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on February 15, 2012, 04:50:27 AM
Lol, why dont you?   ;)

Mags

Your response doesn't make sense. Did you mean to quote the next post?

If so, I'm chiming in late here, so I am not aware of what the latest circuit is that you were just discussing, re. the "current resistor".

The reason I ask about the replication minus the diode/LED, is because in my experience with JT's, they don't seem to work that well (or at all in some cases) without them.

What has your JT experience shown in this regard mags?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on February 15, 2012, 05:14:30 AM
Poynt, its getting twisted here.

You said why a diode for a load, in response to Prof quote that was in agreement with me.

Either you didnt see what was posted, which was why I replied to you, or , you disapprove of the Prof agreement with me, about just using a resistance as a load, just as you said in your post?  :o   What is the beef?  Dang.

Then you want me to describe a circuit that you propose as the way to do it?  :o   

What that all about?   ;)
Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on February 15, 2012, 05:23:58 AM
Either way, if using the current resistors, measuring the resistor for power out would be the best bet.

Mags

If it is implied that a diode or LED is still used ALONG WITH the "current resistor", then you are still using a diode or LED, correct?

If that is correct, then you are still using a diode or LED as part of the load, and just measuring the power in the "current resistor" is NOT going to give you an accurate measurement of Pout.

Now, if I am assuming incorrectly with the above, then please correct me. If not, then I am not twisting things, I'm simply trying to get clarity regarding the reference to "current resistor".
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on February 15, 2012, 05:35:52 AM
in the middle of winding a trifi by hand, be back in a while. 
mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on February 16, 2012, 01:56:16 AM

Even with the resistor inline, how can you compare brightness between an led that is driven with dc or a pulse/AC/on and off   on and off for periods of time?
Will the light meter being used average out when the led is lit and not lit during the pulse/AC cycle?

So I would say that if the pulsed/oscillated led is reading the same brightness, then I would also say that there is more energy sent through the pulsed led than the continuous dc led, to achieve the same brightness levels.

Mags
Take a solar cell (photovoltaic) and hook a resistor across it. Monitor the voltage output with an oscilloscope. Make a little light tight fixture that will contain the PV and your test LED. Do some DC calibrations.... easy enough, right? Put a known DC current through the LED and look at the voltage trace from the PV. Use several different DC currents, compute the associated power values, and plot your results on a graph: Power in to LED, Power out from PV. Now you have a DC calibration of your PV.
Now hook the same LED to your JT circuit or other oscillator. Monitor the PV with the scope.... instead of a straight line like in the DC calibration, you should see some peaks that correspond to the LED's brightness fluctuations. The area under these peaks will be proportional to the illumination's power, just as the area under the DC straight line is proportional to the DC power. You can compare the total light energy for a given DC current (read off your graph) with the total energy in the pulsed case by adding up the areas during a suitable time frame.
Then, if your LED is a known type, you can do an absolute calibration, because the light output at a given DC current should be on the data sheet.

I'd also recommend doing a "psychophysical" calibration: Use 2 identical LEDs, one to the JT oscillator at a known input power, and the other a DC variable voltage input. Sit in the dark, vary the voltage until the variable LED is the same apparent brightness as the JT LED. Measure the DC current. Change the JT input power, repeat the adjustment of the adjustable LED, plot the results, calibrate absolutely with the data sheet at a known current.

I think the diode, whether it's an LED or a regular diode, is needed for the proper functioning of an ordinary JT. I think.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on February 16, 2012, 02:20:10 PM
Great suggestion TK.

Mags, I wonder if you might take the time to address my above post? I know you're busy winding trifilars and all, but you haven't forgotten about us have you?

 :)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on February 16, 2012, 07:18:48 PM
If it is implied that a diode or LED is still used ALONG WITH the "current resistor", then you are still using a diode or LED, correct?

If that is correct, then you are still using a diode or LED as part of the load, and just measuring the power in the "current resistor" is NOT going to give you an accurate measurement of Pout.

Now, if I am assuming incorrectly with the above, then please correct me. If not, then I am not twisting things, I'm simply trying to get clarity regarding the reference to "current resistor".

Well yes. But why not just say led as a load instead of diode or led?  To some, a diode is a diode and an led is an led.  What if a newbe goes out to rad shack to get some diodes to use as loads? or even someone that is just taking your word for it?
Specifics


"If that is correct, then you are still using a diode or LED as part of the load, and just measuring the power in the "current resistor" is NOT going to give you an accurate measurement of Pout."   

Well, the current through the resistor IS the current flowing through that branch of the circuit. The voltage across that resistor is V-Vdiode. So if we know Vdiode, it is simple math. 

Ah, you are right. Current resistor.  Ya know, I wasnt rereading it that way. Sorry. have a lot on my mind lately. Will try to be better prepared when replying.
lol I was looking back in this thread for the diagram you posted of where we discussed loosing the light bulbs for resistors. Couldnt find it and wen nuts, but that was Roses thread.   Right now, I dont remember the reason I had to use that example.  Couldnt get on here for the first half hour of my lunch here, due to the site only going to the home page. Im actually taking a longer lunch to respond here.

Hey TK

Can you produce a data sheet that shows output levels of an led throughout the power range? I looked for 10 min here at lunch and none so far show that.

I have to say that yes, if we have a map of the levels of brightness along side a power chart, then I would agree that we could measure power this way. And if there are no brightness/power charts, one could be made fairly easy.

All said, this would only work withing the safe limits of operation of the led used. Maybe if over driving it some, where the led is just not capable of producing more specified  wavelength output, but maybe more infrared(heat), then the sensor used would have to be able to read all wavelengths equally well. 

Is suppose it would be a worth while test to compare measuring the light output of the led and just measuring the "current limiting" resistor current x (V-Vled).

Hmm, it gets more complicated. If we only see the light output to measure power used from the source, does it figure in the "current limiting resistor" power used?  So we have to take note of both to know power used from the source.

Gota go. Im super late.

Mags

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on February 16, 2012, 08:29:40 PM
Well yes. But why not just say led as a load instead of diode or led?  To some, a diode is a diode and an led is an led.  What if a newbe goes out to rad shack to get some diodes to use as loads? or even someone that is just taking your word for it?
Specifics
I thought I WAS being specific. When I say "diode or LED", that is precisely what I mean. In other words, one could have installed a diode OR a LED. Either would work, and BOTH have been used and discussed with JT replications. I was NOT implying that the two terms were synonymous!

Quote
Well, the current through the resistor IS the current flowing through that branch of the circuit. The voltage across that resistor is V-Vdiode. So if we know Vdiode, it is simple math.
You don't really believe it is that simple, do you?  :o

Consider the voltage "V" as you put it; what exactly does that wave form look like, and is the LED "ON" all the time? Is the current steady or fluctuating?

.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on February 17, 2012, 06:19:05 AM
@.99: thanks!
@Mags: Data sheets won't have a range, but generally the LED will have a specified output listed at one stated current. Some give this brightness figure in Watts of optical power as measured by an optical wattmeter, others will give a brightness in Candela or Lumens, but always at a specified current. So this gives you your "absolute" calibration point.
It's important to realize the difference between "brightness", which is a sensation ( like sound volume) , and light output power, which is a physical value (like sound amplitude). So "twice as bright" visually might not mean "twice as much power". This is why I suggested a psychophysical calibration as well as the PV instrumental one.
You are right that this method is "fraught", as someone once said.... there are pitfalls, and it's not the way I'd measure the power myself... I'd use something like the Clarke-Hess power meter.... it's just sitting over there gathering dust right now. But I realize that I'm luckier than the average bear, to have kit like that to grub around with.

@ both of you: thanks for the excellent discussion about you-know-who on OUR. I wasn't aware that the situation was nearly as bad as it is until I got caught up on your work there.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 17, 2012, 07:05:52 AM

@ both of you: thanks for the excellent discussion about you-know-who on OUR. I wasn't aware that the situation was nearly as bad as it is until I got caught up on your work there.

TK - so cryptic?   :o   Can you enlighten us on what discussion between Mags and Poynty Point.  I've just dipped in there and I see no discussions at all?  Do let us know.  I think all the readers here would enjoy some elaboration.

Regards,
Rosie
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on February 17, 2012, 07:12:41 AM
I think YOU, Rosemary, are the one who would like elaboration. Everybody else reading here has had about all the elaboration about you that they need. Perhaps you would like to explain to Professor Jones how you go about calculating the output energy, compared to the battery's capacity, for your circuit that you think qualifies for his prize. Just repeat the calculation that you posted last week and explain it.
NO--- on second thought you had better not, we don't want this thread to be shut down too.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 17, 2012, 07:17:22 AM
I think YOU, Rosemary, are the one who would like elaboration. Everybody else reading here has had about all the elaboration about you that they need. Perhaps you would like to explain to Professor Jones how you go about calculating the output energy, compared to the battery's capacity, for your circuit that you think qualifies for his prize. Just repeat the calculation that you posted last week and explain it.
NO--- on second thought you had better not, we don't want this thread to be shut down too.

Hello TK.  Thanks for bringing this up.  Yes, indeed.  I'd be delighted to repeat the offer.  Here's the link to my blogspot
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2012/02/255-challenge.html

And here's the substance
This is my challenge to Poynty Point and Professor Steven E Jones.
 
 We are more than willing to engage in a test that will be designed to compare comparative 'draw down rates' between our own test and a control.  Of the 9 batteries that we started with we only have 6 remaining that have not been recharged through standard conventional recharging methods.  We will use those batteries - 3 applied to the control and 3 applied to our own circuit.  The heat dissipated at the loads of both the control and our experiment will be as close as dammit. We will then monitor the voltages of both tests until the one or the other battery bank has discharged to 10 volts.  Then we will RECHARGE both batteries - through standard conventional recharging methods - to a full state of charge.  Then we will SWAP those batteries.  The control batteries will now be used for our test.  The test batteries will be applied to the control.  We will rerun those tests.  We will carefully monitor their voltages until one or other of those sets of batteries discharges to 10 volts.
 
 With the caveat - that this test carries the open and acknowledged acceptance that this proof will be considered definitive - by not less than 2 academics (our own esteemed Professor Jones, excepted as he has a vested interest in the outcome).  Then we will be able to organise some means of securing that the test results cannot be tampered with - possibly by including a 3rd academic from this end.
 
 Now again to the claim.  We are able to generate a continual current flow that is enabled during the period that our battery is ENTIRELY disconnected.  It results in a negative wattage that has no relevance to known physical paradigms.  At its least it points to the existence of an alternate energy supply from the circuit material.  We have resolved this by proposing that magnetic fields comprise tachyons that structure themselves in fields, along Faraday's Lines of Force.  This would have the further merit of resolving Quantum and Classical dichotomies and is in line with proposals advanced by our String Theorists.
 
 Should Professor Jones not be able to rally the required academics - then I put it to you all, that there is an impassable hurdle to over unity claims - when our esteemed and revered are not prepared to evaluate the evidence. It means that they've committed the unpardonable disgrace against the noble art of science - which FIRST AND FOREMOST requires theory to be PROVED OR DISPROVED against experimental evidence. And ever thereafter it will be IMPOSSIBLE for them to salvage their own credibility.  All those who work for evidence of over unity will then be entirely justified in denying them the respect that is ONLY afforded to SCIENCE.  You cannot claim to be a scientist without acknowledging that experimental evidence TRUMPS theory.
 
 And with the utmost respect to Poynty Point and his minions - LET ME ASSURE YOU - that while your vaunted prize is MOST desirable - it would hardly compensate for the required acknowledgement by our experts. Because without that acknowledgement then our science CANNOT be progressed. Which is why the test REQUIRES academic engagement.
 
 Kindest regards,
 Rosemary
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 17, 2012, 07:27:43 AM
And this post copy should more or less cover that math error and get to the object of that mission of mine related to our prize challenge.  LOL.  Hopefully Professor will forgive you this diversion that you've demanded - away from his thread topic.

Lol.  I've woken up to all this?  And everyone objecting to my math?  Surely not?  I'd forgotten that was in there - I must confess.  And I'm delighted it was included - because it shows me that you're actually READING what I write.  Anyway.  There is, indeed, the outside chance the analysis was a tad 'out'.  But I wrote all that many months ago.  And, in my defense, I was so, SO much younger then.

And here we have a sample of Poynty's real genius which is to POYNT at anything and everything that is ENTIRELY irrelevant. ... or is that tangential?  Can never remember.  Either way - those 'poynters' of his are rather too nominal...  Therefore?  I rest my case.  I'm not sure who else commented.  Mainly because I really don't care enough.  But ...I've had my first real laugh both at my own adventurous reach into elementary mathematics and your own transparent need to refer to this and nothing else.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If I didn't know better - I'd be inclined to think that you didn't like me any more than you like our technology.  Fortunately I know this isn't the case.

Anyway lest I entirely lose my ... - then let me re-iterate.  Or rather. Let Poynty 're-iterate'.  It's a refreshing example of his 'courtesy' which is also lacking in 'parts'.

Quote from: poynt99 on February 13, 2012, 06:23:12 AM (http://www.overunity.com/../../../../../../11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg312650/#msg312650)
TO HELL WITH THE ACADEMICS ROSEMARY. THAT'S A RUSE. STOP PISSING AROUND PLAYING SILLY BUGGER; GET OFF YOUR DAMN ASS, AND JUST DO THE DAMN TEST!

And here's my answer.  AGAIN.

My dear Poynty Point,

.   If you're referring to the battery draw down test - then may I refer you to my 'conditions'.
.   If you're referring to a demonstration of the tests included in our paper - GLADLY.  Just nominate the venue.
.   If you're referring to that absurd test related to 'lights' and what have you - then 'NO'.

But only because a far more significant variation has been done.  And it resulted in the a single row of LED's STAYING LIT.  And draw your own conclusions from this.  They none of them will conform to standard prediction.

Kindest regards,
... etc
I edited out a few rather obscure inferences.
R.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on February 18, 2012, 07:53:03 AM
No, Rosemary, that does not "more or less cover" your math and conceptual errors. In fact it dodges the issue altogether. Let's try again.

Here's what you calculated, unedited by me, a direct quote from your post:

Quote
I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES. 

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.

Now, YES or NO: Is this RIGHT, or WRONG?

If it's an ERROR, please CORRECT IT.

And here's what you concluded, also directly quoted without editing:

Quote
All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

Now, YES or NO: Is this RIGHT, or WRONG?

If it's WRONG..... then you MUST RETRACT YOUR CLAIM and post a CORRECT CALCULATION AND CONCLUSION.

(It's actually no surprise that your batteries could be "fully charged" after a few of these tests, since they only use about 1/50 the energy you have claimed in the calculations.)


Otherwise... you are simply lying. Again.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 18, 2012, 07:58:00 AM
Tk - this is goodbye.  I won't be answering any more of your posts as you're trying to get me banned.  Or you're also trying to get THIS thread locked.  Either way you are OFF TOPIC.  If you want to discuss my errors - then start a thread.  And that way you can transpose the rubbish from the hate blog to this forum.  And then you'll get some exposure.  That should help your propagandising.

Rosemary
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on February 18, 2012, 08:05:26 AM
"Rubbish? That hate blog?"

How do you figure that? You have the only hate blog I know about.

I'm trying to get you to tell the truth. Are you afraid to tell the truth? How is it "off topic" to demonstrate that you don't know how to do proper energy calculations, where you are claiming Jones's prize concerning energy?

Correct your math and retract your claims which are based on your math and conceptual errors.


Ironically, the post where you repeated the above sillyness is post # 666 in that thread.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/666/ (http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/666/)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on February 18, 2012, 08:17:11 AM
In my opinion, Rosemary, this takes the cake. Nobody should believe you about ANYTHING, not even the time of day, until you CORRECT YOUR CALCULATIONS and the CLAIMS BASED ON THEM. You can dodge the issue, run from thread to thread, from forum to forum, but the simple fact remains: your entire set of claims about overunity, battery charging, and so forth are based on those errors, and you've been good enough to illustrate them right out in the open for all to see. Your behaviour to others and your responses to me show that you are not interested in the truth or in accuracy, not in learning, not in correcting your errors. You are only interested in pushing your own agenda, and it is to the detriment of all who encounter you.

I don't want you to get banned. I want you to admit your errors, correct your mistakes, and FFS, GROW UP.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: poynt99 on February 18, 2012, 03:58:05 PM
Sorry to interject with some on-topic subject matter, but I thought it might be worthwhile seeing that the GL/SJ Joule Thief runs perfectly fine without a diode or LED in series with the load. I've made this simulation with a 100 Ohm resistive load.

I also have this running with your component tweaks, where Rload is 9.8k, Rb is 2k, V2 is 3V, and the series battery resistor (R6) is 3.1 Ohms.

Steve, I would encourage you to try this and see if:

a) it still runs,
b) it still gives you a COP>1 measurement.

Regards,
.99
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on February 18, 2012, 06:28:22 PM
  Thanks for bringing the discussion back to the thread topic, .99. 

  I recall having looked at this approach (without LED or diode in the output leg of the circuit) some time ago, but I'm certainly willing to take another look.  I'm in the middle of another project at the moment, but plan on some new observations early next week.

Thanks again,
Steve
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on February 21, 2012, 06:49:35 AM
Sorry to interject with some on-topic subject matter, but I thought it might be worthwhile seeing that the GL/SJ Joule Thief runs perfectly fine without a diode or LED in series with the load. I've made this simulation with a 100 Ohm resistive load.

I also have this running with your component tweaks, where Rload is 9.8k, Rb is 2k, V2 is 3V, and the series battery resistor (R6) is 3.1 Ohms.

Steve, I would encourage you to try this and see if:

a) it still runs,
b) it still gives you a COP>1 measurement.

Regards,
.99

@.99:  OK, I've removed the LED, as you suggested.  It rings, although there are significant changes as we shall see.  (I note that you posted your question on OUR.com also; so I'm responding both places you posted.)

 Photo shows the scope traces for V across Rload -- left is with LED in, right is with LED removed.  Clearly the scope trace changes -- the frequency goes from 152.1 kHz with LED to 182.5kHz without LED, Vpp goes from 2.22 V to 4.44 V (note that the scale left is 0.5 V/div and 1 V/div on the right).  Of course, the pattern changes dramatically as one can see.

  Conditions:  Rload is 986ohms, Rb = 48.6k.  Vbatt = 1.62V.  Then I replaced the battery with a 10,000 uF cap to provide the input energy -- permitting a straightforward determination of the INPUT ENERGY (without using a DSO).  Thus, I like to use a cap for the input energy rather than a battery -- this also permits rapid comparisons when changes are made in the circuit.   (The second photo shows the circuit running off a 10,000 uF cap.  It is now a very straightforward circuit.)

For example, with the 10,000 uF cap charged initially to 1.62V, the LED glows for 46 seconds then the circuit continues to "ring" as seen on the DSO for a total of 1min 44s.  (The scope pattern, V across Rload, changes about the time the LED goes "out", but the circuit continues to ring as seen on the scope.)

Same conditions except removing the LED, the scope shows that the circuit rings for a lesser time = 51 seconds.

So, yes, the circuit changes quite dramatically without the LED, but still rings.

Now, .99, you said with this change,
Quote
Measuring Pout now becomes a lot easier.

If you will then explain how you would measure Pout with this change, I'll do it and calculate Eout/Ein.
 
I'm looking forward to your suggestion for Pout; thanks.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: dimbulb on February 24, 2012, 04:57:41 PM
The problem is presented, (very good way of presenting it) ... possibly one approach might be to declare the variables.
As a thought wondered if this article titled "How to measure spectrum" going down to subheading
"Resolving Power versus Spectral Coverage" Drawing attention to what is not seen on an oscilloscope but
can be represented across a range of EM spectra.
http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/~wpb/spectroscopy/measure.html (http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/%7Ewpb/spectroscopy/measure.htmlmy)

my thinking, that regardless of how the circuit is terminated and sensed
the complete output needs to be declared.

In this software the dispersion of spectra can be adjusted. 

http://www.spectraplus.com/screenshot_DT_main.htm
A composite of these:
http://www.spectraplus.com/screenshot_spectrum.htm

Finally the software might be modified further to show a summation or combination of these. 
If presented in a meaningful way could reveal some trace of what we are missing.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on April 08, 2012, 08:08:12 PM

Sorry for the lack of postings lately...  My wife and I are in Maryland helping our daughter with the arrival of a wonderful grand-daughter!  she was born last week; some complications, but both doing fine now.

I came across a very good vid, Michael Faraday, on PBS -- and it shows his homopolar motor at the end, the very first motor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVDHKKTC4tA

I'm doing some research on Faraday's paradox now... based on the homopolar motor / generator.

Next, a short vid showing some budding scientists -- grandchildren!   There should be a certain child-like curiosity and joy as we undertake experiments in freedom energy, IMO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itXT8H5EXoo&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on April 13, 2012, 11:55:39 PM

Hi Prof. Jones,

Thanks for the vid about Michael Faraday.

Unfortunately, this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itXT8H5EXoo&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itXT8H5EXoo&feature=youtu.be)
Seems to be private. :'(

Gwella Gourhemennou
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on April 28, 2012, 02:18:26 AM
Sorry, Nerzh, for the slow response.  I've been traveling -- just greeted our 10th grand-child to the world!  and what a world it is.  Would be much better with freedom energy!

Here's the link, to see the budding scientists:  http://youtu.be/itXT8H5EXoo (http://youtu.be/itXT8H5EXoo)   
 This rising generation needs our help and attention!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on April 28, 2012, 03:41:30 AM

Hi JouleSeeker,

Yes, IMO, the world sucks (an huge lot).

10th grand-child?

For my part, I keep on trying. OU-wise.

This rising generation is, fortunately, very + witty and very +  conscious.

Just wondering whether it was not *we* that need their help and attention.
Almost kidding. :P

Very Best from Brest Brittany.

PS and BTW:
http://youtu.be/itXT8H5EXoo (http://youtu.be/itXT8H5EXoo)   
Yet Another Private Vid? (YAPV)?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on April 28, 2012, 03:25:56 PM
Nerzh, pls try the video once more... I hope the "repair" stays in place!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itXT8H5EXoo&feature=youtu.be

And you're right -- the rising generation is " very + witty and very +  conscious"!

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 03, 2012, 05:13:36 PM
A variant of the blocking oscillator circuit is provided by Lasersaber:

 lasersaber jouleringer2 :  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=homZvbKZHlU   and http://laserhacker.com/SuperJouleRinger2.html
 
 lidmotor build of above:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0fCQghOQ-E&feature=uploademail

Congratulations Lasersaber, Lidmotor et al. on a very fun circuit!


  Replicator Peanutbutter291 provides a first estimate of Power out versus Power in with the New JouleRinger circuit:
Super Joule Ringer Light output comparisons, Info, improvements, etc. Part 1 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw_-2c19YwI&feature=g-all-u)

He uses a light meter to first verify that a 7.5 W LED bulb (120V bulb) puts out 490-500 lumens, as advertised with this particular bulb.
Then he drives 7 bulbs, at full output this would be 7 x 7.5W = 52.5W. 

First run, he gets 85% of full brightness, so 52.5W x 0.85 = 44.6W is his estimated Pout.
The power supply is at this time providing 1.55A at 12V = 18.6 W input.
Efficiency is roughly 44.6/18.6 ~ 2.4; interesting though still a rather crude measure at this point.

Second run, with choke added in series with the load,
 he gets 78% of full brightness, so 52.5W x 0.78 = 40.95 W is his estimate Pout.
The power supply is at this time providing 1.52A at 11.5V = 17.48W input.
Efficiency is roughly 41/17.5 ~ 2.3; again interesting.

Attachments show from his (long) vid the calculations of Pout and Pin, along with his revised circuit diagram.
Note that he first adds bias through a resistor to the base, to get the ringing started, and for the second run he adds a choke.

Thanks and congrats for a fun little circuit!
Steven Jones
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 06, 2012, 07:30:25 PM
 Michael Faraday invented the world's first electrical motor in 1821 in England, now called the "homopolar motor."   I put together various versions as we visited family from Maryland to Missouri to Utah in the last several weeks.  Fun and educational.  Perhaps you will find something that YOU would like to build.  It's quite easy (see videos) and fascinating to study.     The simplest version, shown in the first segment, requires just one 1-inch diameter disk magnet with conducting coating (about 3 mm thick), a 9" piece of 14-gauge wire, and a battery (C-cell or AA-cell is best).   You can buy the needed neodymium/rare earth magnet(s) from supermagnetman.com and other sources.  I went to a hardware store to get the copper wire -- pulled one wire out of ordinary electrical wiring for a house. Note the ground wire has no insulation and is easiest to use. 
Also, I recommend that you learn more about Michael Faraday and his discoveries!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfKzleMWE60
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 06, 2012, 07:57:16 PM
Nice Vid  ;]

That was the first time Ive seen the battery and mag in motion. Spins up good for the distance from the loop(white wire demo) It would be interesting to see how far the wire loop could be away from the suspended Batt/mag and still spin up like that. Maybe just spin the mag, without the battery as part of the armature.  ;]  I got some ideas from this. Thanks

If you look deep enough, you will find that the first electric cars are from the mid to late 1830s. In fact, they could do 100 miles per charge at 15 to 20 mph.

When the gas engines arrived, the people didnt like the new noisy, smokey carriages compared to the electric counterparts, which had been around over 50 years at the time.

Even the history channel got it wrong The History Of Cars.  Why would they not have come across accurate "history" of these facts? Whats the issue against electric cars?

Its funny. The first car dealership in the world, was an electric car dealership. ;]

Mags n The Moonies   ;]
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on May 06, 2012, 09:39:44 PM

Hi Prof. Jones,

I have already "built" another version of this homopolar motor.
This version: "Faraday Motor demonstration"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=k7JTyRBfeF4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=k7JTyRBfeF4)

I use a nail and a bigger magnet. It works very well! You can amaze your friends (should one of them be a 'know it all' skeptic scientist).

Mainstream Science is just avoiding some very simple 'garage' experiments, and hence, ignoring some very simple evidences.

BTW? "Centrifugal force - is it OU?"
http://www.overunity.com/12194/centrifugal-force-is-it-ou/msg317221/ (http://www.overunity.com/12194/centrifugal-force-is-it-ou/msg317221/)
Officially it is not. Of course.

Very Best
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 07, 2012, 04:22:07 AM
Thanks for the comments and encouragement, Mags and Nerzh.

  What a fun little motor!

  Soon, I plan to turn my attention to the homopolar generator.... 
I like the vid where the fellow has two ring magnets on either side of a conducting disk, and he spins it with a drill.
Pretty decent output -- should have high DC current with low voltage.  This I could send into the joule-thief variant, to give me much higher voltage (and lower current).  See? 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on May 07, 2012, 05:20:04 AM
Hi Prof. Jones,

First of all. Did you receive my email (about one parcel)?

Else:
Should I have missed something?

"I like the vid where the fellow has two ring magnets on either
side of a conducting disk, and he spins it with a drill."

I'm not aware of such a vid with 2 magnets and a drill.
Sorry.

Very Best
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 07, 2012, 06:17:21 PM
Bonjour, Nerzh --
Oui, I look forward to receiving your parcel!  will let you know when it arrives.
This vid was interesting:
Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75p5JwlXwlo

http://gigagauss.com (http://gigagauss.com/) Testing this farady paradox generator, both ali and magnets spin together and generate electron flow to the rim of the disc, i managed to get 1.2 volts at 400rpm out of this once i had finalised the conection points

I would be surprised if he actually got 1.2 V at 400rpm... sounds high to me! 
He uses microwave oven magnets... good idea.

Please let me know how your Centrifugal force expts go...   !


Steve
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 07, 2012, 06:33:27 PM
  Here's a decent write-up on how to extract magnets from a microwave oven.  Be sure to safely discharge the big capacitor first thing!
http://www.c-realevents.demon.co.uk/inprogress/mcwave/mwave.html

And photos of the magnets coming out of the magnetron, and of a simple Faraday-paradox dynamo (call it "Faradox"):
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 07, 2012, 08:30:51 PM
Low resistance is the key to success with homopolar generators. Think about it... the maximum voltage may be only a few hundreds of millivolts or 1 volt for tabletop machines at reasonable speeds. So any resistance in contacts or external circuits will kill the power. Once you've got very low contact resistance you can get amazing currents, but the voltage will always be low and Ohm's Law will always be respected.
May I recommend for your consideration the material called Gal-In-Stan? It is the eutectic alloy of gallium, indium and tin, and has many advantages over mercury for liquid-metal contacts. It's non toxic and has extremely low vapor pressure, for example.
Molten solder has also been used to good effect but it's a bit messy and harder to arrange than a nice room-temperature liquid metal contact.
Another good way of making contact with the rim of the generator disk wheel is to use a metal belt, as if the wheel were a pulley. Run the metal belt or band around another smaller pulley and take the contact from its shaft.
Careful though ... it is easy to weld ball bearings with the currents produced by HPGs.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 08, 2012, 06:25:09 PM
Thanks for the input, TinselKoala, especially regarding the Indium-based eutectic.
However -- I am seeking to extract power WITHOUT any external (non-moving) brushes or contacts...!

   I would be interested to hear if you / anyone thinks this is even POSSIBLE.  Thomas Valone experiments, etc., may suggest it is not possible.  I wonder what he thinks about this today...Meanwhile, yesterday evening I succeeded with my first homopolar GENERATOR.  Photos below will help a brief explanation.

First, I designed a simple motor using a 1" diam neo magnet with metal casing, held magnetically to a short/fat bolt.  (Extra mass helps keep it spinning during the generator phase.)  This in turn holds to a screw which I punched through a box to hold the system from above.  The screw-tip provides a good "bearing".

1.5 V is applied from a DC power supply shown, and the 1.77 A is typical for revving up the motor.  +1.5V to the screw, ground via contact wire to the rim of the magnet-disk.

Then, with the magnet+bolt spinning magnet spinning and power supply disconnected, it now has a potential due to {E = velocity X B effects} -- that is, it serves now as a generator.  Yes, even with the magnet co-spinning with the bolt. 

To measure the effect, I have connected one probe of an ammeter to the screw and the other via a separate contact wire, touching the rim of the spinning magnet.  One hand holds the contact wire, the other hand holds the camera -- and you see 0.9 mA measured on the meter produced by the simple homopolar ammeter, demonstrating output power from the homopolar generator.

This experiment was repeated several times.  About 1mA current was typical.  The voltage will be small (as TK correctly observed) especially with such a small diameter rotating magnet and has not been measured, but current generation has been demonstrated and measured.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: neptune on May 08, 2012, 06:44:59 PM
Can I ask a fundamental question here? Generators of all types and sizes are commercially available. So what if any, are the advantages of a homopolar generator? Is it possible that this type of generator produces power without drag? In other words, is the "run down" time the same with or without the load? It would appear that Edison found a way to mitigate the problems with rim contacts. His generator uses 2 discs and 3 magnets , arranged so that the discs are of opposite polarity. The rims are connected together, and power is drawn from the two seperate shafts.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 09, 2012, 04:25:00 AM
I had a few ideas back in a homopolar gen thread a while back. It was more of a configuration where you put together 2 thin bar magnets south to south so that the 2 north poles faced outward.

In my thoughts, the larger the area of the pole sides, the better. Now wind the copper wire around the mag samich ;]   Now, instead of 1 big conductor(disk) we have many conductors in series giving us more voltage generated at the output.

Say we use an led as a load and connect it to the leads of the winding.

Now, this is where we use the paradox to our advantage like Depalma.  With the mag samich with coil wound on it and led connected as 1 unit, if we attach it to the outer rim of a say bicycle wheel, say 2 to balance the bicycle wheel, if the orientation of the unit is in motion emulates the paradox, the led should light, just by moving it through space(energy in the vacuum, dark energy, the field that exists all around us), the gen should light the led.

Imagine a gen of this sort in an electric car. The faster you go the more the batteries charge.

The mag samich that I came up with allows current to be generated in the coil like the Faraday. If the wheel is spun in the opposite direction, or mag poles are reversed, from what I know, the current is reversed, from center to outer rim  to  rim towards the center.

 So by making the mag samich same pole out on both sides, this allows Us to easily wind the pickup as I described while both sides will generate current as a sum of all the turns as it moves through space. If Depalma, and I believe Tesla said it also, mounted the mags to the copper disk, so the mag and disk move as one, then we are essentially doing the same thing without the complications and restrictions of known designs. 

Even if it were to be made into an axle driven gen, brushes would be of standard kind and with higher voltages, and the amperage handling of the brushes need not be that great as what the standard Faraday gen needs to be successful in any manor of producing readily usable common output voltages and currents.

It has been on my list of things to do for a while now. Will try to get something put together by the weekend. Its simple enough to do, and may have strange potential. ;]

If there is no drag as it moves through space, this could be pandoras box on steroids.  :o ;D

Saw what you posted at OUR today Prof anf thought you might be interested. It has all the ingredients to function and provide more output voltage due to each half turn of the coil on the mags is a faraday generated voltage all added in series.

And it is easier than what weve seen. And no brushes or friction of any kind.  Its frickin genius if ya ask me. ;]

Mags n The Moonies
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 09, 2012, 06:29:55 AM
And here is a version of the wheel that will give 4 times the voltage out and both brushes can be on the axle instead of one on the outer edge of the disk. Note the 2 open connections near the center axis.

The red mags are N and blue S. These can be had in different divisions of pie pieces, some are made for windmill gens. The part of the conductor(orange) that is in front of the blue will have current flowing outward and on the red flowing inward( depending on rotation direction). 4 times the standard output voltage should be achieved. More pie pieces and/or conductors in series, the more the output voltage.

In the end, the advantage of these systems is no drag of conventional generators.  ;]

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 09, 2012, 06:56:58 AM
Considering the standard solid copper disk, the main reason I see that the voltage is so low is the very low resistance from any place to anywhere else on the disk.

So if we have say just 4 20ga wires outward from a center connection ring and an outer dia connection ring. All using the original mag configuration as Faraday used. I have to imagine the voltage would be higher this way than compared to the super low ohm of a solid copper disk.

Like in my pic above, the conductor can be many in series, increasing the voltage times the no. of conductors that zig and zag inward and outward across the appropriate mag pole. Something like that. ;]

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: BobTEW on May 09, 2012, 03:24:26 PM
Thanks for the input, TinselKoala, especially regarding the Indium-based eutecti
   I would be interested to hear if you / anyone thinks this is even POSSIBLE.  Thomas Valone experiments, etc., may suggest it is not possible.  I wonder what he thinks about this today...Meanwhile, yesterday evening I succeeded with my first homopolar GENERATOR.  Photos below will help a brief explanation.

First, I designed a simple motor using a 1" diam neo magnet with metal casing, held magnetically to a short/fat bolt.  (Extra mass helps keep it spinning during the generator phase.)  This in turn holds to a screw which I punched through a box to hold the system from above.  The screw-tip provides a good "bearing".

1.5 V is applied from a DC power supply shown, and the 1.77 A is typical for revving up the motor.  +1.5V to the screw, ground via contact wire to the rim of the magnet-disk.

Then, with the magnet+bolt spinning magnet spinning and power supply disconnected, it now has a potential due to {E = velocity X B effects} -- that is, it serves now as a generator.  Yes, even with the magnet co-spinning with the bolt. 

To measure the effect, I have connected one probe of an ammeter to the screw and the other via a separate contact wire, touching the rim of the spinning magnet.  One hand holds the contact wire, the other hand holds the camera -- and you see 0.9 mA measured on the meter produced by the simple homopolar ammeter, demonstrating output power from the homopolar generator.

This experiment was repeated several times.  About 1mA current was typical.  The voltage will be small (as TK correctly observed) especially with such a small diameter rotating magnet and has not been measured, but current generation has been demonstrated and measured.

  I look at the magnet as one 'pole' attraction two "poles" repulsion -- current locked in motion. The true reason for Faraday's paradox. Perpetual motion internal to the magnet.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: neptune on May 09, 2012, 05:35:11 PM
I have been doing some research. The very best article on the homopolar generator is as follows.
www.zamandayolculuk.com/Cetinbol/faradaydisc.htm
 I can not create a link as such . There is apparently no back drag, and the article explains that OU is posible. To build a machine with a worthwhile output requires a lathe , lots of skill and a fat wallet.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 09, 2012, 10:28:07 PM
Can I ask a fundamental question here? Generators of all types and sizes are commercially available. So what if any, are the advantages of a homopolar generator? Is it possible that this type of generator produces power without drag? In other words, is the "run down" time the same with or without the load?

Mine runs down faster with a load.

The homopolar motor/generator is:
1.  Easy to build
2.  Educational
3.  "Possible ou" -- see work for example by DePalma (but also Thomas Valone)

You also wrote --
Quote
It would appear that Edison found a way to mitigate the problems with rim contacts. His generator uses 2 discs and 3 magnets , arranged so that the discs are of opposite polarity. The rims are connected together, and power is drawn from the two seperate shafts.

This is very interesting!  Can possibly provide a link or more info regarding how the disks were arranged by Edison?  Are you sure it was Edison and not someone else?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: penno64 on May 09, 2012, 10:28:40 PM
hi Neptune,
 
can you double check that link please?
 
Penno
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 09, 2012, 10:40:17 PM
Mags -- VERY interesting ideas you have! 

Thanks also to BobTEW...

My idea lately was to have two conducting disks on the same shaft, but separated by say 10 cm or so, and one with NtoSouth to the right and the other, NtoSouth to the left.  That way, when the shaft is spun, the rims acquire OPPOSITE charges... and one should be able to extract power by allowing current flow between the rims  -- also, between the disk-central areas, which would need to be insulated from the shaft.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on May 10, 2012, 12:14:36 AM
Hi People,

About the Homolar generator, is not Paramahamsa Tewari
an experimenter worth to be consulted?  http://www.tewari.org/ (http://www.tewari.org/)

J.L. Naudin has also experimented it:
"The Faraday Homopolar Generator Experiment"
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/farhom.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/farhom.htm)

Please do not to speak too ill About JLN. He is an acquaintance 
of an acquaintance of mine.  :P

Yes the homopolar motor is an amazing device.
A motor/generator with a mere magnet and no coil.

-------------------
Are you aware of the Ball bearing motor: a motor without magnet and coil?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHZbHMFWS2k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHZbHMFWS2k)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrmTmG2buMg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrmTmG2buMg)
In Japanese
For my part: Watashi Wa Nihon go ga wakarimasen.
http://sdweisman.blogspot.fr/2006/12/watashi-wa-nihon-go-ga-wakarimasen.html (http://sdweisman.blogspot.fr/2006/12/watashi-wa-nihon-go-ga-wakarimasen.html)

Ball Bearing Motor 2900rpm 119Amp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g60okBMeTKo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g60okBMeTKo)

I have tried it during 2 or 3 seconds. It works but I do not want to
kill my battery.

IMO it is just an amazing and annoying effect.
Some scientists say that it works 'with heat'?
Science is not complete. What do you think about that "Thin Set Coil ail all"?
---------------
@Prof. Jones:

Thanks for you experiments. I have some (4/5?) micro wave oven magnets and I will
be interested in testing some of your ideas.

About my experiment with centrifugal force: I have not yet received my 2 tiny Meccano motors.
I must confess that I do not expect too much with this experiment.
Anyway these 2 motors could be usefull to built some gyroscopes (or any device).

Very Best
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: neptune on May 10, 2012, 01:12:41 PM
@Jouleseeker. My mistake it was not Edison, it was Tesla. I can not find the article again. Regarding the web address I gave in my last post, let me try again.
 www.zamandayolculuk.com/Cetinbal/faradaydisc.htm


 Please note that this is not a link as such, you will have to type it in yourself. I dont know how to create a link . If someone finds it, please create a link. Trust me, this is a must read article for those wishing to build a homopolar generator.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on May 10, 2012, 05:44:36 PM
@Jouleseeker. My mistake it was not Edison, it was Tesla. I can not find the article again. Regarding the web address I gave in my last post, let me try again.
 www.zamandayolculuk.com/Cetinbal/faradaydisc.htm (http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/Cetinbal/faradaydisc.htm)


 Please note that this is not a link as such, you will have to type it in yourself. I dont know how to create a link . If someone finds it, please create a link. Trust me, this is a must read article for those wishing to build a homopolar generator.

Hi,

If you type Cetinbal with small c like cetinbal in the above link, then it works...   8)

just like this: http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/faradaydisk.htm

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 10, 2012, 05:53:43 PM
Thanks, Nerzh!  you've given a lot to "chew on".

Thanks also to Neptune for rechecking -- I was quite sure it was not Edison, and not surprised it was Tesla who made the discovery.  Here's that web link you referred to, link that works -- yes, an interesting read --

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/faradaydisk.htm 

@Jouleseeker. My mistake it was not Edison, it was Tesla. I can not find the article again. Regarding the web address I gave in my last post, let me try again.
 www.zamandayolculuk.com/Cetinbal/faradaydisc.htm (http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/Cetinbal/faradaydisc.htm)


 Please note that this is not a link as such, you will have to type it in yourself. I dont know how to create a link . If someone finds it, please create a link. Trust me, this is a must read article for those wishing to build a homopolar generator.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ALVARO_CS on May 10, 2012, 08:59:48 PM
Hi all
As I am also interested in the subject, here my tiny contribution
I apologize if its off topic.
cheers
Alvaro
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: neptune on May 11, 2012, 07:48:18 PM
So it appears that the main advantage of the homopolar generator is the lack of back drag under load. There is not a lot of literature on the internet on the subject apart from the standard faraday disc experiment. But some very interesting stuff emerges if you dig deep enough. It would seem that some very powerful generators have been successfully built for high current purposes, such as rail guns etc. With modern high efficiency DC DC converters, we only need to get the voltage up to a figure between 2 and 12 volts, the higher the better. 
    With the high current produced, it would be good to produce a brushless design. However, I understand that for the machine to work , there has to be relative movement between the disc and the external circuit.So suppose we have a disc machine that will produce 3 volts. We can not just solder a LED or LEDS between the centre of the disc and its circumference, because there will be no light. No relative movement.
    Magluvins ideas look very promising. We need to investigate this because it is the only proven way to generate electricity without back drag.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on May 11, 2012, 08:40:06 PM

Hi OU_Dot_Com persons,

While we are at documentation, should I suggest:

HOMOPOLAR DYNAMOELECTRIC MACHINE
DOWSETT BRIAN O -  US3443134
Attached file.

In Italiano:
Strane anomalie di un motore omopolare
http://asse.altervista.org/Strane%20anomalie%20di%20un%20motore%20omopolare2.pdf (http://asse.altervista.org/Strane%20anomalie%20di%20un%20motore%20omopolare2.pdf)

STUDIO SUI GENERATORI OMOPOLARI BASATI SUL SISTEMA DEL “DISCO DI FARADAY”.
http://asse.altervista.org/Studio%20sui%20Generatori%20Omopolari.pdf (http://asse.altervista.org/Studio%20sui%20Generatori%20Omopolari.pdf)
With some maths.


Very Best
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 12, 2012, 02:29:34 AM
Here in the pic below, is my vision of what would be needed for a module. Lol, When I was naming the picture, I just banged it out. Polar Glider. What eva. ;]

The plate on the right is away from the unit to view the chewy chocolate center.

The grey material(magnetic core) is to give the magnetic field of the like poles of the mag samich a path to go other than out/in around ALL of the edges of the samich. You do know Im saying samich just to add comedy. ;]

I came up with this because I think the coils wound around that edge will have a counter affect on current in the coil. Maybe not equal or more than the wires that run along the large faces of the mags, but Im just anticipating anything, and I think Im right.

So the grey is the path or guide for the norths and souths of the magnets to try and limit the density at the coil wound edge and guide it as you see. Most of the blue N will take the grey path before expanding out of the wire wound edges. It should help a lot.

If I didnt think about this, I might have put it together without the paths and maybe gotten no output. Then what. So This is what Ive come up with so far.  And it will also help to concentrate the fields in the gap where the windings are on the larger surfaces of the mags. Like in a speaker, the way the iron core guides the magnets poles to meet on each side of the voice coil. Very concentrated.

This version shown should generate by moving it upwards or down in the position it is in. So just orient it for that motion direction, left or right, on a wheel, etc. 

My first test will be quite simple, not exactly as in the example pic. Im using laminates from ta transformer core, the straight pieces. They bend nice also. Im using just a few for the initial test so as to have more fresh ones for a more developed version after.

Ill try it on my bike wheel while it is upside down with a counter weight to balance it a bit.

I feel that on the outer rim of a 26in rim will provide good travel distance in time, speed, compared to a pulse motor wheel. If we want to operate at lower speeds, we will need a big basket of samiches all in series/parallel. Polar Glide stacks. lol  am I nuts er what.  :o

Gitter dun!   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtAUsVXB9OU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtAUsVXB9OU)   ;]

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 12, 2012, 05:41:17 PM
In the video that shows the disk with 2 mags on the drive motor shaft we saw earlier, the diameter of the disk is extending out beyond the mag samich. Now imagine this...

The portion of the disk that is within the same diameter of the mags, there is current generated between the inner dia of the disk to the outer edge.  Well knowing the pole polarities of the mags inner facing poles and the direction of rotation of the elements.

But if the disk is larger in diameter than the mags, the portion of the disk that is outside of the magnets outer diameter, will be experiencing opposite polarity fields causing a countering current to what is in the samich.

So in that video, the outputs would be greater if the diameter of the disk is slightly less than the mags.  It is even stated by tesla that the disk should be completely within the area of the magnet surfaces. Also the info given earlier shows just that also.

This is the purpose of grey core in my illustration. It helps to avoid the situation described above.  ;]

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 12, 2012, 06:09:42 PM
Something else to think about...

Lets say we have 2 ring mags  1in inner dia   10 in outer dia.  And the disk is the same or just slightly inside those parameters. 

There is a big difference in the speeds of the spinning material between the inner dia and the outer.  The outer will be generating more than the inner. 

So if a 10in outer dia is what we would want to work with, then the inner dia should not be far off from that.

Like using a 26 in. spoked bike wheel and the rings, mags and disk, are inner dia 26in and the outer say no more than 29 in, giving 3 inches of difference between the inner and outer diameter of our generator components.  Now we are making good use of all of the surface areas involved as they are all producing nearly the same current driving force.  And all that large diameter surface area is combined, and thats a lot of current availability.

I love the idea of a wheel like this. Its attractive.   OOoo Snap, 26's on that Benz.  ;]

But it doesnt have to be that way with so little voltage potential. If we stacked those 26 in. bike wheel gens to series their voltage, how many would we need to get the voltage we want?

This is why I came up with the polar glider. It can be small, and as many "turns" of wire needed to raise the voltage needed,  If we stacked disks on a rotating shaft, its gunna get pretty big to step up them voltages.

Just more thoughts.

Mags


Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 12, 2012, 06:27:37 PM
One more then off to work...

It would be cheaper to use smaller mags, in modules that can be series or parallel than it would be to buy huge ring mags and copper disks.   Imagine the cost of ring mags the size of the outer dia of the 26 in bike wheel and the copper ring. And how many volts do we get? How many more do we need to get 3v out?   

Ok  I gota git. 

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 12, 2012, 06:35:55 PM
Lol   If there is drag with the mags rotating with the disk, does that mean that Polar Glider could work as a magnetic brake in thin air?  And can we use it, alter it, to also accelerate an object, magnetically? Levitation???(Apply input to the coil of the polar glider, and hold on tight????)

Like this.  polar glider in an airplane. Short the coil connections and Polar glider will have resistance to to moving through the you know what.  ;]  lol  gota gota gota git

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: neptune on May 12, 2012, 11:14:58 PM
@Jouleseeker. You asked earlier how the discs were arranged in Tesla`s machine . Basically he had two machines like Faraday`s .  The magnets were arranged so the the two machines would have opposite polarities. The machines were stood close together with their shafts parallel. A conductive belt was arranged so that the disc of one machine drove the disc of the other . Output was taken from the disc centres via a single brush on each machine. The arrangement was patented, and the patent is on the internet. This eliminates the need for brushes on disc edges.
      In the early 20th century, there was a device based on the homopolar generator called the Forbes dynamo, which was in commercial use . Still looking for more info on this.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: neptune on May 13, 2012, 03:35:57 PM
More info on Tesla homopolar.
 www.andrijar.com/teslahom/index.html (http://www.andrijar.com/teslahom/index.html)
 This is not a link and you will need to type it.
    Another area of research is the Forbes Dynamo, invented by George Forbes in Scotland.Apparently, it was commercially available around the year 1900. One of its applications was at power stations, in the days of DC mains. That means that it was probably capable of at least 100 volts , because distribution costs are inversely proportional to voltage, and you can not use transformers on DC. More conventional dynamos were available at that time. So why choose the Forbes? Because it was cheaper to make? Or because its reduced or absent back drag gave it a greater output for a given input? A bigger bang for your buck. Info is scarce, more questions than answers...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 15, 2012, 07:51:29 AM
While messing around with the laminate strips, I came up with a better way of going about this. With the strips, the fields were not as controled as I would like, at least for what i have. I did a series of vids on this with cores and mags.

So I came up with an E core design that is much easier and the one I have for this controls the mag field much better. I have a few sizes smaller also. Hopefully Baby Gliders. ;]

In the pics, one shows a fig 8 looking thing. That is my simulated view of the magnets field loops, just on the left side. Both mags are same pole in. Here we will say N.
This config should envelop the coil with mostly N polarity field that crosses through the coil to the center E post, which is S polarized through the outer core legs from the S pole of the mags.

My theory is that if indeed this config does simulate the coil as always having mostly N field directed through from the outer side of the coil to the inside S. then we are emulating the disk between the ring mags. So we have the same sitting result as an advanced Faraday Dyno.

So again, if the paradox is true, and the ring mags being attached to the copper(or other) disk and when they are spun as one, that current is still generated, then what is it that the disk IS (aether, etc.) going through that causes the current to be generated? ;]

Well, what ever THAT is, the sugar glider, um no,  super slider, emm, nuh uh, Oh yea, the Polar Glider, should produce those currents also, moving in a straight line and not just a circle. Like imagine just a small piece of the Faraday Dyno pie and attaching it to a spinning wheel. It should generate voltage. And voltage should increase with more series conductors in the field of operation, like in the PG. ;] Should.

Heck, come to think of it, replace the disks and ring mags with just layers of copper strips between slightly larger area thin bar mags and stack them. The more I think about it, the more configurations I come up with.  Say a 1in by 6in strip of copper with mags 1.25in by 6.25in. so the copper plate is completely enveloped in the crossing field. Attach it to a wheel, from center to the circumference length wise and when the wheel spins, we should see current from the inner dia to the outer, like Faraday.

So the PG should work like a piece of pie.  ;)


Now, if it does generate current(Faraday, PG) and has no drag, this is a good thing.
If it does have drag, this is a good thing also, for different reasons...

If it has drag, what are we dragging against?  And if we can drag against it, maybe we can use it also to pull or push, or even lift by using the device backwards and applying current to the coil, and be able to propel through the, well, you know.  ;)

Mags


Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 15, 2012, 07:53:50 AM
Again, in this position in the pics, up and/or down would be the direction of movement to generate current in the coil.

Mags
Title: You have it Doc !
Post by: Jules Tresor on May 15, 2012, 08:45:40 AM
Hello Dr Steven Jones,
I am a layman with no material to experiment, but in the past I did a bit.
More important IMHO I have spent thousands of hours reading these OU forums and watched hundreds of video, and made hundreds of webpages about these OU devices. That's for my introduction.

I know Professors like their "students" to find by themselves instead of giving them the solutions in hands.
I think you are doing the same, see below why.

I would rather give a small finished circuit, and find someone to manufacture it in small quantities, and send the device all over the world to researchers, NGOs, Universities, etc... And sell these basic OU circuit through internet to collect funds to develop bigger ones and to finance a large communication campaign. But that's just my experience that gives me such opinion.

So, coming to the OU device, I watched carefully your video from Sterling Allan interview Physicist Steven E. Jones shows 8x overunity circuit and measurements (1 of 2) - YouTube
At one point you mention your test with a Pin of 4 mW and a Pout of 920mW.
That's 230 more out than in ...
By the way I don't understand why Sterling nor anyone else ever mentioned this x230, but instead talked about x8 and x20 ???

But we don't need x230 to prove OU, or ambient energy harnessing ...

With your very simple circuit (a Joule Ringer as LaserSaber calls it), at 4mW Pin, is it possible to light 1 or a few LEDs on the output side ?

If you can light 1 white LED at full brightness, factory rated at 3V 15mA, you would get 45mW output. That's just about x11 Efficiency. Not much compared to some of your results.

If this is possible, could you just put this LED in front of a tiny solar cell, even a low efficient one, let say a 10% efficient one.

Then you could just connect this solar cell back to the battery, and disconnect the battery, having an Pin superior to what you need.
10% of 45mW is 4.5mW, while your circuit uses only 4mW.
Of course if the solar cell is 15% efficient, then you'll get even more Pin.

This self lighting/powering circuit would be better proof of OU than any measurement, isn't it ?

Options :
1- If you can't light LEDs with the secondary, you could just replace the variable resistor on the secondary with an incandescent bulb, and collect electricity the same way with the solar cell.

2- May be the battery is important for this circuit, and it couldn't run from the solar cell only ... then you could try to replace this battery with a capacitor.

3- If you can't do without cap or battery, the a voltage reading after many days of working would prove the OU of your circuit.

Did you do that already but want "us" to find it out ?
The money from your beloved father could be used to manufacture samples of this self-powering-light, to send to Universities, NGOs, governments, ...

The cost of your circuit being so small, we could build dozens of them with only 1,000 USD.

By the way I would be glad to contribute financially too, to the production and spreading of your OU circuit.
I could be of help to manufacture and distribute them in poor countries, and to sell them through internet to customers from developed countries.

Working that way we could open the eyes of thousands people in just a few months.

Why looking for big power generators first, while we can start with a small proof of OU concept. We shall do according to our small means.

Sincerely,
Jules
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 17, 2012, 05:28:56 AM
Here is a pic of the first one I put together in pretty short order. No sweat. ;]

Will try it tomorrow on my bike at the shop. I gotta make a counter weight also to balance the wheel.  Im just going to put 2 red leds across the coil leads, each biased the opposite of the other. If one lights at all, then it works. If not, I will try more windings of thinner wire or back to the drawing board.  ;D

Will try several methods of load and some variations to see if we get anything from it.

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 18, 2012, 12:45:16 AM
Will be testing the PG in a few hours, gotta do laundry first. ;]

Was thinking today.  Was thinking that if it works, that maybe if I attached 2 to my bike wheel, that it could be a way of having visual lights without having a power source.

If the leds were connected directly to the coil, no other parts involved, then the led would not light when the device, on the perimeter, furthest out next to the rim, is below center of the axle and even worse when near being close to the ground.

We have seen these vids or pics of say put a colored dot near the outer edge of the wheel and plot the dot while the wheel rides across the ground. There is this area in the plot, when the plot line is close to the ground while the wheel rolls, that the cot doesnt have much or any forward nor backward motion in relation to how the PG needs to be oriented while in motion to generate.

The highest speed would be at the very top of the wheel, as that part of the wheel is moving faster than the bike itself.  but if the wheel is up off of the ground, like with the bike upside down, the device attached to the wheel would light up in any and all positions, because the wheel as a whole is not going anywhere. ;]

So this device would not really be good mounted in wheels of vehicles. Even if there were many individual PG's only the ones that are near or within the upper half of the wheel would be putting out maximum or any power at all.

Unless, each wheel had another wheel built into it, that was geared in a way so that when the main wheel rolls, the gen wheel spins faster.

Oh well, just some thoughts for the day.  Brought my bike home to do the tests after laundry is done.

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 18, 2012, 07:40:22 AM
Wow, very interesting work, Mags! 
Pls let us know how it turns out.

I've been reading about homopolar motors in a book by Jovan Marjanovic -- interesting stuff.  More on that later.

Jules --
 we seem to share many of the same interests.
Thanks for your post:

Quote from: Jules Tresor
Hello Dr Jones,
I know Professors like their "students" to find by themselves instead of giving them the solutions in hands.
I think you are doing the same, see below why.

I would rather give a small finished circuit, and find someone to manufacture it in small quantities, and send the device all over the world to researchers, NGOs, Universities, etc... And sell these basic OU circuit through internet to collect funds to develop bigger ones and to finance a large communication campaign. But that's just my experience that gives me such opinion

So, coming to the OU device, I watched carefully your video from Sterling Allan interview Physicist Steven E. Jones shows 8x overunity circuit and measurements (1 of 2) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7tj5VT_lw)
At one point you mention your test with a Pin of 4 mW and a Pout of 920mW.
That's 230 more out than in ...
By the way I don't understand why Sterling nor anyone else ever mentioned this x230, but instead talked about x8 and x20

Because I was not able to reproduce that high-yield result... unfortunately, I must say.


Quote
But we don't need x230 to prove OU, or ambient energy harnessing ...

With your very simple circuit (a Joule Ringer as LaserSaber calls it), at 4mW Pin, is it possible to light 1 or a few LEDs on the output side ?

If you can light 1 white LED at full brightness, factory rated at 3V 15mA, you would get 45mW output. ...


Let me stop you right there -- it is the "full brightness" part that is very difficult to achieve in the first place, and to PROVE that it is full brightness by eye.  I have developed the "light box" to quantitatively measure Lumens output (not just Lux) as explained on the "Joule Lamp" thread.

Certainly, having a self-running device would be awesome, and convincing!  I'm certainly not there yet.

I share the goal of achieving maximum light out per watt in, for the poor of the earth especially!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 22, 2012, 06:55:18 AM
Well so far, the bike wheel test didnt light leds.  Will try more windings and thinner wire.

I dont know if it will help. but gota try. Other than the leds, maybe I can use a meter(spin with wheel also) to measure any peaks of voltage and or current in min max mode.

If it doesnt work, then there must be something a miss.

After the fine wire, more turns try, Im going to try adding JB weld with iron powder added to encase the coil in hopes of covering all angles.  I also wonder if the metallic coating( i think nickle) on the neos could be sapping from the coils induction, if any. 

Got a few more ideas if this dont work out

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 22, 2012, 03:58:51 PM
JB Weld already has iron powder in it, I think. It's weird to watch it creep in a magnetic field before it sets, like a very thick ferrofluid.  I love that stuff, I've even used it to repair an aircraft engine crankcase.

I hope you don't mind if I suggest: Arrange your geometry so that you have the maximum number of "flux lines" moving across your conductors at as close to a right angle as possible, and make sure you don't inadvertently build in any "cancelling" magnetic flux paths moving through the conductors.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 23, 2012, 12:44:36 AM
JB Weld already has iron powder in it, I think. It's weird to watch it creep in a magnetic field before it sets, like a very thick ferrofluid.  I love that stuff, I've even used it to repair an aircraft engine crankcase.

I hope you don't mind if I suggest: Arrange your geometry so that you have the maximum number of "flux lines" moving across your conductors at as close to a right angle as possible, and make sure you don't inadvertently build in any "cancelling" magnetic flux paths moving through the conductors.
Hey Tk
Yea, the JB has iron, but doesnt seem like much when you put a magnet to it. I run a speaker magnet through the old bead from our bead blaster at work and the iron, iron oxide collects quite well. Separating the dust and sand from it, as it holds quite a bit until stirred, is easy with a bit of compressed air.

So Ill add that to the mix for more iron content. JB 2 part clay form seems to have a bit more iron as it pulls on a mag a bit stronger. Also both parts of the clay 2 part has iron in it, but the fluid, only the Metal(black/grey) has magnetic attraction. So once you add the hardener, the total iron content is less.


I dont know if you have seen my version of what Im trying to do yet.

http://www.overunity.com/10773/physicsprof-steven-e-jones-circuit-shows-8x-overunity/msg322749/#msg322749

Then a couple post after I show a pic of the real thing. The mags are N facing in.
The JB mix will be used to surround the coil to give the N poles a spread over the coil, well hopefully help. I think you can imagine where im going with this. My description in those posts should be fairly clear. ;]

Also considering the flux density of magnets today compared to back then, I think that the neos should provide good flux density to provide some sort of output.

Im worried about the nickle coating though. It may be causing unseen inductive losses, maybe.

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 25, 2012, 02:25:02 AM
Came up with possibly a better plan.

Its funny how ideas come together, as I was just posting with Luc a couple weeks ago, about his idea of increasing the strength of permanent mags in motor devices increases output. And what he was showing is very similar to a voice coil and speaker magnet.

Thinking about it today, having the voice coil in the concentrated flux magnetic gap, is just what Im looking for. My ecore idea might work if I go further, but the use of a speaker is much better and has more consistent field crossing all of the coil, where in the ecore really only has small portions of the coil right close to the face of the magnets, so there is inconsistency there.

I have had this 15in Soundstream Tarantula woofer(not working) layin around in my stuff and decided to pull it apart and see what we can use.

The woofer is like 40lb, most of the weight in the mag and pole sections. Mags, double stacked, about 10in dia and about 1.25in thick each. 4 in voice coil, dual coil, 4ohm each.
I forget the rated wattage but we ran 2 900w amps to them each back then no problem.
This one was from a system that the amp had issues and dumped DC. Pics below of the coil. Ill get pics of the mag tomorrow as it is at my shop in prep to remove the frame from the mag structure.

I dont think this coil will work here as the length of the magnetic gap is shorter than the voice coil. They call it overhang. Tweeters and some mid drivers generally are under hung, which is what we want so all of the coil is in the magnetic gap. So this sub, im more leaning toward soaking the mag structure to separate the mags for a more typical homopolar build. I need to verify for myself that with the mags rotating with the disk does produce currents to strengthen my drive to go further into the devices Im trying to develop.

But, I do have some nice tweeters that I have to dig out as Im super interested to try it.

Some tweeters use ferro fluid in the gap to conduct heat from the coil to the magnet structure to increase power handling. I will remove the diaphragm and coil, carefully, and cut away the diaphragm to just leave the coil and former. Then try to get rid of the ferro fluid from the mag gap and use the JB weld with Extra Iron!!  ;]  to mount the coil in the gap permanently. Then connect the led/s and test run it. My first ecore coil was only 14 turns of 26ga, so the fine voice coil of the tweeter should be many more turns, 4ohms of resistance, and more possible voltage out.  ;]

One pic shows that the lead coming to the coil was rubbed on the mag frame and current actually cut a n opening around half of the coil former. It was an old earthquake 2kw sub amp that killed it. ;]

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ALVARO_CS on May 25, 2012, 07:27:30 PM
Hi Mag
I see you´r an expert in loudspeakers, so need your advice,pls.
Have you any trick or method to separate the magnet from the iron disk in which it  is glued ?
I did it once heating it over the kitchen burner (gas), but I think the magnet lost a bit of its power.
thanks
cheers
Alvaro

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on May 26, 2012, 01:14:21 AM
Hey Alvaro

Some speaker companies use different glues. I use either lacquer thinner or acetone in a closeable container and soak the assembly for anywhere from 6 hours up to 2 days for tough ones. Larger mag assemblies could take longer for the solvents to get into the larger surface areas before being able to separate. It is better to wait till things get loose. If you dont and try to break it apart you could damage you mags.  For larger mags, there are dangers of prying things apart, as when they surprisingly release, you may not have a good hold of the parts and the mags could fall to the floor and break, or even hurt yourself or somebody. Just things to think about as you go, just in case. ;]

Ive done it many times and made some of the mistakes and learned from it. ;]

Speaker repair shops use the correct solvents for each brand of speakers they deal with.

You would be amazed at what just a swab of the right stuff, how fast a rubber suspension surround can be removed and replaced. And to remove the dust cap from the cone to insert thin spacer sticks to align the coil in the mag gap so when they glue the new surround, all is centered.

If the lacquer or acetone doesnt work after waiting up to 2 days, if you make a jig that allows the iron back plate to set in, then you can try to knock the mag loose from the side with a hammer and a block of wood( pine is soft enough not to chip the mag). Just lay a folded towel on the landing strip if you have to hit it hard,  ;) just in case. ;]

If the solvents do loosen the parts well, most of the time you might hear it. lol.  The back plate with the center pole, when loose, will be attracted to the top plate where the gap is and you will usually hear it when they make contact, because it happens hard most times. ;]

Got my tweeters.  Older Focals, Soundstream, Pioneers and Kenwoods.  The Focals are the largest, then the SS, then the Pioneers and the Kenwoods are teeny. All are neo mags.

Im going to try them as they are at first. The only thing to do is connect the leds and mount to the wheel. Just to see, why not. ;]

The worst I could imagine is that if current is generated, that the tweeter cones/diaphragms may magnetically position themselves out of the mag gap, as if it had DC connected to it. But other than that, I think it will be interesting. ;]

It would be crazy if it does anything. Will speakers be banned?  :o ;) Funny thought.

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ALVARO_CS on May 27, 2012, 10:52:19 AM
Hey mag
thanks a lot I´ll try with acetone first as I´ve got already a bottle of it I use to clean hands when working with epoxi.
cheers
Alvaro

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Hope on August 27, 2012, 08:31:35 AM
Steve,  did this apparent OU Pout ever get proved or disproved?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 29, 2012, 03:15:49 AM
Sorry for the delay, Hope -- just saw your posting on a random visit.

As I've noted previously, there was EVIDENCE for an ou effect seen with the DSO's, but not what I would call "proof."
Further, small signals and low power (less than 0.1 watt typically) and so I've moved on.  However, it happens that I'm working on a joule-thief circuit again tonight.  I'm also pursuing Davey-bell systems WITH electrolysis; pulsed DC; 150-350 Watts typically -- lots of fun. 

More on these efforts later -- but probably on other relevant threads.  I have not given up!  far from it.

Best wishes,
Steven J
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 26, 2012, 12:18:07 AM
I totally agree!  thanks hyiq:

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.
...
All the Best

  Chris

 Fun day!  Traveling in Missouri, just yesterday I asked if I could meet with Prof John Gaul, an active "cold fusion/LENR" researcher.  He said yes, and invited others to a 1.3 hour meeting that took place this morning on campus, University of Missouri at Columbia.

The talk went very well!  Six people attended on one-day notice.   I hypothesized that anomalous excess heat in "cold fusion" cells is probably not nuclear after all but rather "Tesla-Moray-Davey" energy.  PPT presentation I have worked up.

The talk was well-received, not that they fully believe it yet (they had not heard of Peter Davey cells before, for instance).   But they admitted that they see xs heat but have not seen ANY nuclear products at the same TIME as the xs heat episodes.  They also said they are not able to get their xs heat process with full reproducibility at all.

Also -- there is a meeting at Mizzou next summer on this alt-energy field, and they invited me to submit a paper for presentation! 

I encourage you, top BUILDERS of significant devices, to participate in this conference...   It's time IMHO to join these two fields, or at least increase inter-communications.  FE + LENR , the confluence of two fields.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: forest on October 26, 2012, 05:04:11 PM
What is strange in Davey method ? I don't understand, because it is simple. There is no anomalous heat but anomalous speed of heating water , because 60% of time consumed to boil water is used to break long chains of molecules inside water due to hydrogen bondings. Davey method eliminate this time.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 20, 2012, 05:18:17 PM
Forest, several measurements show evidence that there is anomalous xs heat in these cells, not just "anomalous speed".  I'm still testing to check (and improve) the results.

Related:  see,
http://pesn.com/2012/11/19/9602225_Steven_Jones_replica--Pons_and_Fleischmann_XS_Heat_not_from_fusion/

RE:  JT circuits, Lasersaber (go man!) recently posted this intriguing vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td8v2oc4JFw&feature=em-uploademail


Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on November 21, 2012, 06:08:43 AM
Very nice. Anyone have the spec on the cap that is powering the circuit? On the schematic on his site he shows a battery in there, not a cap.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gyulasun on November 21, 2012, 10:34:27 AM
Very nice. Anyone have the spec on the cap that is powering the circuit? On the schematic on his site he shows a battery in there, not a cap.

Hi TinselKoala,

Here in his forum he has said only this so far: Yes, the capacitor in the video is just acting like a battery.

http://laserhacker.com/forum/index.php?topic=70.0 (http://laserhacker.com/forum/index.php?topic=70.0)

Gyula
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 22, 2012, 07:12:07 PM
Right, that cap was used in lieu of a battery.
Next -- NO battery on this JT-variant...  It gets more and more interesting IMHO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt5zulKQ1XE&feature=em-uploademail


(Thanks for sharing, lasersaber!)
Title: Finally, a self-running JT-type system!
Post by: JouleSeeker on December 13, 2012, 10:08:46 PM
OK, fast forward to the latest JT-type circuit, below.
It charges a battery (NOT just battery recovery chemistry going on)  AND simultaneously runs a load,
thus appears to be a self-runner.  Replicated.  Verified.
Still undergoing tests -- where is the "excess energy" coming from?  we don't know yet, but certainly not claiming a "violation of the laws of physics".

 A novel or a prosaic source of energy ?  we don't know yet; tests are underway.

http://laserhacker.com/forum/index.php?topic=70.255

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on December 13, 2012, 11:16:37 PM
A bridge rectifier wired A.C. between the Earth ground and antenna alone would build a charge in a capacitor or battery wired between the positive and negative D.C. rectifier leads. The question is; Does the crossover circuit gain more or less charge then this simple radient circuit would collect with the same size antenna?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 18, 2013, 02:39:41 AM
  Work is on-going, Synchro1.

   If anyone is interested in research I'm doing -- please see the "Current Research" thread here:  http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2168.0

A brief history of my work in the cold-fusion area is included on the above thread.

   Attached is a small portion of the schedule of talks for the ICCF-18  (18th International Conference on Cold Fusion) next week.     I will be giving a poster-talk starting Monday morning, 22 July 2013, entitled:  Empirical Evidence for Two Distinct Effects:  Low-level d-d Fusion in Metals and Anomalous Excess Heat


  I just noticed today that DEFKALION has a scheduled presentation of some sort - "DEFKALION reactor start-up" on Tuesday 23 July 13 at 9:00 am.

   Should be exciting!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on July 18, 2013, 03:48:19 AM
It's got a 4-meter antenna and a 1-meter deep earth ground, and you are wondering where its power is coming from?


 ???

(Put a germanium NPN in there instead of the 2n4401 and see if it works any better.)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 18, 2013, 06:25:32 AM
  Oh, I didn't mean the circuit with the 4-m antenna TK.

  "  I just noticed today that DEFKALION has a scheduled presentation of some sort - "DEFKALION reactor start-up" on Tuesday 23 July 13 at 9:00 am."

   What do you think of DEFKALION's approach?  for me, its wait and see on this one, and see what tests they are doing.-- just a few more days until the "start-up" so we MAY have some answers soon. 

Title: Re: Finally, a self-running JT-type system!
Post by: TinselKoala on July 18, 2013, 11:54:54 AM
You didn't?  When you said, " novel or a prosaic source of energy ?  we don't know yet; tests are underway" and then you attached a schematic of a circuit with a 4 meter antenna?

Sorry, my bad.



OK, fast forward to the latest JT-type circuit, below.
It charges a battery (NOT just battery recovery chemistry going on)  AND simultaneously runs a load,
thus appears to be a self-runner.  Replicated.  Verified.
Still undergoing tests -- where is the "excess energy" coming from?  we don't know yet, but certainly not claiming a "violation of the laws of physics".

 A novel or a prosaic source of energy ?  we don't know yet; tests are underway.

http://laserhacker.com/forum/index.php?topic=70.255 (http://laserhacker.com/forum/index.php?topic=70.255)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on July 18, 2013, 02:54:06 PM
"What do you think of DEFKALION's approach?  for me, its wait and see on this one, and see what tests they are doing.-- just a few more days until the "start-up" so we MAY have some answers soon.  "

Are you really asking mewhat I think about Defkalion? I think they made a lot of claims early on that they could not support with evidence, and since have backed off from those claims. I know that they lied about several matters in the early days of their original forum. I know that I don't believe that they actually have what they say they have. I think that there is zero chance that they will be demonstrating an actual working LENR/CF or any other excess energy device in Missouri. I would be very happy to be proven wrong on this point... after all, if they did that, everybody else in the conference would be pretty embarrassed with their reports of tiny power excesses and unreliable lab experiments, when Defkalion already has a product in commercial development, and that would be a sight to see. Right? An international conference thrown into complete disarray by Fire 2.0. I can hardly wait.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on July 18, 2013, 10:22:15 PM
@jouleseeker,hi im still deliberating on your cash prize thats why ive been so quiet,many thanks.which circuit are you refering to @tk sir? Does it involve induction?any luck thus far?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 19, 2013, 04:54:12 PM
@jouleseeker,hi im still deliberating on your cash prize thats why ive been so quiet,many thanks.which circuit are you refering to @tk sir? Does it involve induction?any luck thus far?

Yes, the TWO gold-Eagle coins are still unclaimed and available, to the FIRST to conclusively demonstrate to me anomalous excess energy.    But there are people getting close...  I have given a number of the silver-Eagle coins to those solidly on the path and several cash-outlays to encourage freedom-energy research, in keeping with my promise. 


 Earlier this week, I wrote
Quote
"Work is on-going, Synchro1.
   If anyone is interested in research I'm doing -- please see the "Current Research" thread here:  http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2168.0 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2168.0)"

  I was referring to my recent work, not the posting from over seven months ago (Dec. 13, 2012) on the cross-over circuit.  Perhaps that was not clear enough; hope that is clear now.

  As for my current research, it focusses again on light-water electrolysis experiments, with sodium bicarbonate added, particularly the Davey-bell approach and the plasma-electrolysis approach. 

Since these interesting effects occur in LIGHT water H2O, I do not think these should be called "cold fusion" experiments;  light-water is generally used as a CONTROL in Pons-Fleischmann experiments, where heavy water D2O is employed.

Thanks for the question, Profitis.  And good luck in your research!!!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on July 19, 2013, 08:50:04 PM
@jouleseeker excellent sir.i agree with you that the pd/D2 energy release mechanism has to be different from the Ni/h2 system,however,i strongly suspect that the triggering mechanism may be similar.its my theory that (much like aherns theory) some sort of 2nd law violation precedes resultant coulombic overriding(if there is any).it would explain where the focused hammer and chisell energy comes from to trigger such events,just my theory though.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 23, 2013, 06:09:30 AM
    I attended ICCF-18 today - and enjoyed it immensely!   Everyone that I knew from before and that I talked to was very pleasant and happy to see me again, just as I was very pleased to see them.   It was a great experience for me.   

I talked to smiling Francesco Celani, who was mentioned by several speakers as having inspired them to try his idea of constantan wire in H2 or D2, seeking anomalous heat. 

Jean Paul Biberian, who said he agrees with me that the heat may not be nuclear in origin;
Yeong Kim said that was quite possible also. 

As did David Nagel  - I was pleasantly surprised how pleased he seemed to see me at ICCF-18; ditto for Tom Passel.  The last ICCF I attended was TEN years ago, in 2003.

Peter Hagelstein, who didn't say much though; seemed kind of sad, and I hope he's OK.

Xing Zhong Li - who sees charged particles from cold fusion experiments.

George Miley -- whose autobiography I'm reading.  I meant to bring it so he could sign it -- he said he'd do a note on a paper for me and I could simply put it into my copy of his book!

Tom Claytor is looking a bit older (aren't we all?) but doing well.

Graham Hubler is a friend from way back also, and was also a co-author with me on a paper years ago.  Great to see Graham also.

Mike McKubre said hi, and introduced me to his lovely companion attending the conference.
Likewise Michael Melich -- great to see him again.

Srinivasan was overjoyed to see me, that was fun.  He's a good friend from way back.

Even Mitchel Swartz and Jed Rothwell said they were happy to see me.  OK, we did not necessarily get along very well ten years ago; but they welcomed me back today.

Dr. Mark Prelas of Univ of Missouri has done experiments with D2 loading into titanium -- basically a replication of our old experiments from about 25 years ago -- and he and team see bursts of neutrons!  Fun to see this work continuing on...

I was glad to personally meet Prof. Robert Duncan, to whom I'd before spoken by phone.  Very nice fellow and the conference organizer.

Iwamura - whose data on Cs + d --> Pr transmutation is by now quite compelling.  Great to talk to him again and to hear from him.

OK, a few sparks flew (not from me) between Ed Storms and Takahashi over theory matters and between David Kidwell and Iwamura over Cs + d --> Pr transmutation.  I noted that several commented that the THEORY regarding "cold fusion" is in disarray, with very little agreement or consensus on theory.  I spoke to several -- and in my POSTER talk -- about the idea that the anomalous heat is real but is probably NOT NUCLEAR at all!

More talks tomorrow... looking forward to it!

-- Dr. Steven Jones
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: woopy on July 23, 2013, 11:19:25 AM
Hi Steven

Wooooww, lot of "magisters " at the conférence.

I am looking forward to your next report.

Thank's a lot for sharing

Laurent
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 23, 2013, 01:57:54 PM
  Good to hear from you Laurent!  I have a lot of respect for your work on plasma electrolysis. 
Dr. Biberian spoke on this very subject yesterday.  I'd like to ask if he is aware of your work...  sorry to ask, could you tell me your last name so I can ask him?  he's very approachable - and il est Francais, like yourself!!

Gotta run - Defkalion promises a DEMONSTRATION today!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: woopy on July 23, 2013, 06:31:15 PM
Hi Steven

Thank's for kind words, I have PM you for some info.

I would of course be interested in the speach of Dr Biberian about the plasma electrolysis.

Do you know if there will be a CD or internet report after the conférence ?

What about Defkalion demo?

Many thank's

Laurent


Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 24, 2013, 04:13:22 AM
OK - I received your message, Laurent, thank you. 
And I will talk to Dr. Biberian more tomorrow.  Today we had our picture taken together, as we share many interests -- as I share interests with you also.

   So today Defkalion DID begin their demonstration on schedule, starting with a background run using argon, then a run with the fuel, hydrogen.  They permitted questions, and I asked a question which the spokesperson was happy to answer.  I took some video, which I shall endeavor to upload soon (about the
Defkalion demo).

  I thought the demo went quite well, and I look forward to the further talk about Defkalion from Prof. Yeong Kim on 'thursday.

Ciao.
Steve
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 24, 2013, 03:23:18 PM
I did take some video from the Defkalion demonstration and uploaded it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lPnUt4cNzM&feature=youtu.be

Published on Jul 24, 2013
During this Q&A, the Defkalion spokesperson discloses that they have observed a huge "magnetic anomaly," which does not surprise me. I expect it.

Hello. I'm attending the 18th International Conference on Cold Fusion - ICCF-18 at the University of Missouri this week. Yesterday, a European company called Defkalion gave a live demonstration of their "anomalous excess heat" device via internet. They are using light-hydrogen (H2) and nickel in their apparatus, so this is NOT d-d cold fusion, but something else.

But as I have said repeatedly (including during my poster talk at this very conference), the anomalous heat can indeed be a REAL effect, but that does not mean that the source of the energy is necessarily nuclear. We were permitted to ask questions of the Defkalion staff. I asked what products and emanations had been looked for/observed, along with the anomalous excess heat. My question and their response begins at about the 3m 45s mark.
From my observations, this is a project well worth paying attention to - interesting work and the team is showing admirable courage to open the project to scientific scrutiny in this manner.

-- Steven Jones
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: woopy on July 24, 2013, 11:39:32 PM
Hi Steven

Thank's for info very appreciated

I just got  the info that Mr Mizuno has released a paper of his recent experiment and this paper seems to be intended for the 18th conférence.
Here the link but you are probably informed about it.

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTmethodofco.pdf

The theory of Mizuno seems comprehensible to me, but the reactor seems very sofisticated and of high technical grade.

I would very appreciate if you can ask Mr Biberian and eventually Mr Mizuno, if the low level of facility as mine have a chance to replicate those expériment. with for instance tap water . baking soda, TIG welding tungstene/lanthane cathode , and standard inox Anode.

Because my simple idea is that all these "Magisters" have  the obligation  to get  good results  (after so long time of denial) , to prove to the scientific community that the LENR is a reality, so they put all the best chance with them , and used very sofisticated apparatus. Which of course is very good and i congratulate them all.

But as now, they seems to be right on the track, is it eventually possible to go down a little bit in the material quality , so lower level experimenter (as me ) can get a chance to to get success , and of course this would be a way to open source the technology.

I know i am a dreamer, but in this world and along all the human history, only dreamers have improved the way of life , by working hard to transfer the dream to a lot of people and by doing this , slowly the  dream can achieve the state of  full reality .

thanks a lot for sharing

laurent
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 25, 2013, 06:51:37 AM
  Laurent -- I think we should be dreamers like you!  Yes, I will ask Jean-Paul Biberian about your question.

   Join the tour of  the "anomalous heat" (aka "cold fusion")
     SKINR laboratory at the University of Missouri. Constantan Ni-Cu wire (based on Dr. Celani's research) and glow-discharge-plasma experiments are underway, parts 1 and 2.   These experiments use hydrogen (not deuterium) loaded into metals and look for anomalous heat effects.  Lots of people taking photos...  Part 3 shows electrolytic cells being tested, and results.  Someone quipped that Pons and Fleischmann would not allow photos like these!

Part 1:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhoH1_mLGAU

Part 2:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt9_2c9CdyY

Part 3:  http://youtu.be/-v5K1FXSvGg

Tour during ICCF-18 in Missouri this week...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on July 25, 2013, 03:25:12 PM
You gotta wonder why they are bothering with all that, since Defkalion just demonstrated the Holy Grail and made all that UofM work obsolete. They are probably dismantling the SKINR lab right now and retooling for Hyperions and Rossi HotCats in an effort not to fall too far behind. Imagine... a university lab running a fullscale LENR/CF research program gets trumped, the veritable rug pulled out from under them, by a commercial enterprise Defkalion and a garage tinkerer with a prison record Rossi.
I guess the "show-me" state got shown, good and proper, by Defkalion. Didn't they?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: woopy on July 25, 2013, 11:46:17 PM
Hi Steven

thank's a lot for infos

I have seen that Mr Biberian have also made a resumee of each day main lectures  on his blog ( in french= lot easier for me ), very interesting, to get in touch ( at distance) of  this conference. Thanks very much to him.

Concerning the Defkalion demo he ( Biberian ) just noticed that the output water used to measure the efficiency, was in state of  vapor and he would prefer that the  measuring water should stay to liquid water state , in order to avoid measuring error between dry and humid vapor . He stated also that Defkalion is working on that problem.

Thank's to all for going on the good work

laurent





Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 26, 2013, 05:14:08 AM
  Thanks to you, Laurent!  I personally find your experimental progress inspiring and I wish to encourage you.

  Can you tell us where Dr Biberian has his blog?  would like to read.  (I can read French fairly well; but I think you would laugh to hear me parlez Francais.)

  From the conference today:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKgUinHLvuo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKgUinHLvuo)

"Tough questions on Defkalion demo by Dr Kidwell at ICCF-18".   

Occurs to me that Dr Kidwell asked the tough questions as you might do, TK!  I assure you, there is scientific scrutiny going on -- as one might see from the vid.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: tagor on July 26, 2013, 08:18:36 AM


  Can you tell us where Dr Biberian has his blog?  would like to read.  (I can read French fairly well; but I think you would laugh to hear me parlez Francais.)



Hi !

here it is :

http://blogde-jeanpaulbiberian.blogspot.fr/
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 26, 2013, 01:27:27 PM
Merci, Tagor.  Prof. Biberian dit:
Quote

 La Conférence ICCF18: mardi 23 juillet, deuxième jour. (http://blogde-jeanpaulbiberian.blogspot.fr/2013/07/la-conference-iccf18-mardi-23-juillet.html)    La conférence a commencé par une table ronde sur l'entrepreneuriat et l'innovation. Elle était animée par Matt Trevithick qui dans son introduction  a indiqué que des financements pouvaient maintenant entrer dans le domaine de la fusion froide. Marc Johnson de ARPA-E a expliqué comment faire pour mettre en place un dossier auprès des investisseurs potentiels. Il a cité une phrase d'Ernest Rutherford qui m'a beaucoup plu: "Nous n'avons plus d'argent, il est temps de commencer à réfléchir". Doug Moorehead de Earl Energy a fait part de son expérience dans l'accompagnement des entreprises.
 
 Nous avons pu voir en direct par internet la démonstration du réacteur de Defkalion depuis Milan. C'est Alex Xanthoulis qui a présenté le réacteur.  La démonstration a duré toute la journée, et nous avons eu trois connexions, l'une le matin, l'autre l'après midi et la troisième le soir. Le réacteur comporte une partie centrale contenant 60 grammes de matériau actif dont 5 grammes de nickel. La différence est le support. Le poids total de la cellule est de 8,54 kg. Un circuit d'eau refroidit la cellule. Le débit d'eau était d'environ 0,2 litre/minute. L'eau provient directement du robinet après passage dans des filtres. L'eau ressort sous forme de vapeur à haute température. Le système est calibré avec de l'argon à la place de l'hydrogène. Le réacteur fonctionne avec à la fois trois résistances placées à l'intérieur de la cellule et des bougies permettant de produire un plasma. A la fin de la journée, nous avons appris que le réacteur avait fourni 5,2 kW avec une puissance d'entrée de 2,0 kW. Je me suis posé la question de savoir pourquoi le débit d'eau était si faible, ce qui faisait que l'eau ressortait sous forme de vapeur. En augmentant le débit, l'eau ressortirait sous forme liquide et le calcul de la puissance thermique serait plus simple. Avec la vapeur d'eau on est obligé d'utiliser la chaleur de vaporisation de l'eau, ce qui est risqué, car la vapeur peut être humide. Si c'était le cas, les résultats seraient surestimés. J'espère que Defkalion pourra corriger cela.

Oui, tres important.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: tagor on July 26, 2013, 05:52:24 PM
Merci, Tagor.  Prof. Biberian dit:
Oui, tres important.

yes , very important

Hi , prof do you know utopia tech and jean marc moreau ?

http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/2013News/Nouv230713ICCF18et%20Hydrogene.htm

http://www.utopiatechlab.com/

and his book

http://www.utopiatechlab.com/data/documents/ENCODAGE-de-la-MATIERE_Ebook-de-Soutien.pdf

there is several thread ( in french ) on this ... mirabella , the boat "mig675" and so on
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: woopy on July 26, 2013, 11:31:02 PM
Hi all

the infos are flying at light speed, ( eventually more HiHi ) ;)

very good info, merci  Tagor

And now , i hope that some practical reproductible experiment will be afforadable ?????

For me, i  have learned that the Defkalion produces strong magnetic fields, I will try to install magnets arround my reactors to see if any difference can be detected in input or output power. '

Let's try everything

Thanks to all for sharing

Laurent

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on July 27, 2013, 02:19:02 PM
@woopy magnetic fields are and were occuring all over these reactors all the time.chemo-magnetic,oscillo-magnetic,piezo-magnetic,plasmo-magnetic etc..etc..opens up light on brian ahern,s theory of a 2nd law infarction in the nickel crystalites themselves.wether its nuclear events or not a 2nd law infarction is going to happen here either to trigger or sustain our overunity heat.its interesting to note that in rossi,s earlier reactors the temperature was maintained at around the curie point of nickel.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 27, 2013, 05:32:45 PM
yes , very important

Hi , prof do you know utopia tech and jean marc moreau ?

http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/2013News/Nouv230713ICCF18et%20Hydrogene.htm (http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/2013News/Nouv230713ICCF18et%20Hydrogene.htm)

http://www.utopiatechlab.com/ (http://www.utopiatechlab.com/)

and his book

http://www.utopiatechlab.com/data/documents/ENCODAGE-de-la-MATIERE_Ebook-de-Soutien.pdf (http://www.utopiatechlab.com/data/documents/ENCODAGE-de-la-MATIERE_Ebook-de-Soutien.pdf)

there is several thread ( in french ) on this ... mirabella , the boat "mig675" and so on

Intriguing!  thanks for the links which I did visit.  Can you explain -- how is Moreau using hydrogen?  does his engine run on hydrogen?

  Woopy -- yes, I agree that adding B fields to your experiments is a good idea.  These may need to be strong CHANGING magnetic fields however, and that is not so easy to do IMO...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 27, 2013, 05:35:58 PM


More notes from the conference -
1.  Celani showed his constantan wire + hydrogen gas (not deuterium) in S. Korea at ICCF-17 last year and several have attempted replications.  From reports, not much has come of replications (unfortunately) but replicators are still trying.  The Celani expt using constantan wire is described here by Celani et al:  http://www.francescocelanienergy.org/iccf-17.html (http://www.francescocelanienergy.org/iccf-17.html)

2.  I heard over and over that the "theory of cold fusion is weak" -- no consensus on how the anomalous heat (of "cold fusion") is achieved.  See for example attached from the concluding panel discussion of experts - both Park of S. Korea and Kitamura of Japan ("yet to be explained") emphasize the lack of theoretical explanation -- and the lack of SUFFICIENT nuclear products to accompany the anomalous heat observed.

3.  My poster paper addressed this problem.  My proposal was that people consider "non-chemical" and "non-NUCLEAR" explanations for the anomalous heat.  That is, get away from LENR notions/fetters and consider "currently unknown/untapped" sources of energy.  When asked, I spoke of dark energy and its unknown coupling to visible matter, and of Casimir forces -- as EXAMPLES of what COULD account for the anomalous energy seen.  I also spoke of "freedom energy" as we discuss on these threads.  Some were receptive to this "broadening of outlook".

4.  I learned that Dr. Mitchell Swartz had received a "security order" on one of his patent applications.  Swartz is a friend, studying hydrogen loading in metals -- and the impact of B fields on anomalous heat.  He works generally in the mW to hundreds of mW with his small NANOR devices (no deuterium), but sees rather dramatic effects, particularly when he CHANGES the strong external magnetic field on his devices. 

Now why would the USPTO place a security order on his patent application?  (He was ordered not to TALK about his device or findings, due to "possible national security issues.")   I find this an intriguing situation, and a concern.  He could not talk about this while the security order was in effect -- but after FOUR months following his complaint about this order to the USPTO, the security order was lifted!

This suggests to me that my friend was on to something, something about changing magnetic fields perhaps...  ;)
  I hope to pursue this further.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: tagor on July 27, 2013, 06:17:27 PM
Intriguing!  thanks for the links which I did visit.  Can you explain -- how is Moreau using hydrogen?  does his engine run on hydrogen?


what he was saying in 2005

http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/2005News/utopiatech.htm (http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/2005News/utopiatech.htm)

and with his new site

http://www.utopiatechlab.com/data/documents/Technologie-H2-Utopiatech-Lab.pdf (http://www.utopiatechlab.com/data/documents/Technologie-H2-Utopiatech-Lab.pdf)


http://www.utopiatechlab.com/data/documents/Recherche-LENR-Utopiatech-Lab.pdf (http://www.utopiatechlab.com/data/documents/Recherche-LENR-Utopiatech-Lab.pdf)


and also the boat mig675 is using H2 from the sea
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: tagor on July 27, 2013, 06:41:02 PM
and this :
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 27, 2013, 08:14:52 PM
Thanks, Tagor.  Next, is QuantHomme claiming COP>1 with his device?

Nice article on the Defkalion work by Jeanne Manning -
http://changingpower.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Defkalion-2-page-JM-Article-100-3.pdf (http://changingpower.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Defkalion-2-page-JM-Article-100-3.pdf)

Thanks to Mike Nunnerley for calling this to my attention.

 From the article:
Quote
"Defkalion's terminology makes sense;
instead of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions
(LENR), the company would prefer to say Heat
Energy from Nuclei Interactions (HENI)
. The
words “nuclear reaction” in LENR could raise
red flags in many countries’ nuclear regulatory
agencies. Representatives of industries in 70
countries have contacted Defkalion about po-
tential licenses to manufacture Hyperion prod-
ucts in their home country."

I would take it a step further and say - anomalous heat from a non-chemical source -- and not pin it to "nuclei interactions" at all.  It may be that the heat is from a non-nuclear source as well! 

It was their insistence that the excess heat was due to "cold fusion" of deuterons that caused P&F such grief and resistance early on.  "Its too large to be chemical so it must be fusion" -- wrong!  And I think most would agree with me now that the heat was not due to d-d FUSION (I've been saying this for decades actually, and talked to Fleischmann about it). 

  Now I'm saying let us broaden our viewpoints even further -- the anomalous heat may be non-nuclear as well as non-chemical in origin!  And P&F join a long list of people who have observed NOT fusion but rather "freedom energy" aka "new energy" aka "unknown source of energy" - as seen by Dr Henry Moray -- and I think Peter Daysh Davey in light-water electrolysis cells in the 1940's -- and many others since then. 

     Now I may be wrong and it really is cold d-d fusion that P&F saw with their "excess heat", in which case they get the credit...  But if non-fusion and non-nuclear, then many others deserve pioneering credit for work in this field.  And there I would include Peter Daysh Davey and our own Michael Nunnerley (and numerous others).

  Why can't we leave it at "anomalous heat" and not try to constrain the field to one theory at this time?  Until we learn more about it?  I found many at the 18th International Conference on Cold Fusion having a hard time understanding what I was saying about this in my poster paper, however...  perhaps they did not want to stray so far from "cold fusion" notions.

  Bottom line:  Set the "theory" to one side for now; and focus on the empirical results and making the effect larger and useful to humankind!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: tagor on July 28, 2013, 07:08:13 AM
Thanks, Tagor.  Next, is QuantHomme claiming COP>1 with his device?



no , quanthomme has a lot of false claim !!


next his :

Quote

Ouverture du Site Commercial :  www.ohpranasystem.com (http://www.utopiatechlab.com/www.ohpranasystem.com) [/b] (Prévision :  Septembre 2013 =>  Technologies OHPRANA et ETERNITY  ... )

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: woopy on July 30, 2013, 12:39:03 AM
Hi steven

I just made some experiments to test if there is some special magnetism arround my small plasma electrolyser

As you can see in the vidéo, i state that there is no noticeable effect with placing strong neo magnets arround the reactor. I mean no increase or decrease in the input/ output , so no difference with or without the permanent magnets arround the reactor.
But as you sugested, i tried to produce a changing magneting field .So  i placed a flat pancake coil (in serie with the rectified DC ) under or sided to  the reactor. I noticed nothing in the reactor efficiency , but than by "walking " a neo mag arround the coil and the reactor, i got the feeling in my finger that the vibration during the normal electrolysis was a "regular " vibration arround 50 Hz, and as soon as as i get the plasma electrolysis, the magnet transfer some brutal chocks in my fingers, no more regular vibrations but more unregular and strong chocks.

So i got the idea to put directly the magnet inside a more winded coil  , and the video shows the result

So i am thinking that the plasma reaction is pumping some energy from somewhere and transform it , not only in Heat and light to warm water,  but  alsp in RF in high voltage (perhaps usable )  spikes.

http://youtu.be/lIgRZCGISCY (http://youtu.be/lIgRZCGISCY)

So my ideas, what do you think

Laurent

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 30, 2013, 09:29:59 PM
Hi steven

I just made some experiments to test if there is some special magnetism arround my small plasma electrolyser

...
But as you sugested, i tried to produce a changing magneting field .So  i placed a flat pancake coil (in serie with the rectified DC ) under or sided to  the reactor. I noticed nothing in the reactor efficiency , but than by "walking " a neo mag arround the coil and the reactor, i got the feeling in my finger that the vibration during the normal electrolysis was a "regular " vibration arround 50 Hz, and as soon as as i get the plasma electrolysis, the magnet transfer some brutal chocks in my fingers, no more regular vibrations but more unregular and strong chocks.

So i got the idea to put directly the magnet inside a more winded coil  , and the video shows the result

So i am thinking that the plasma reaction is pumping some energy from somewhere and transform it , not only in Heat and light to warm water,  but  alsp in RF in high voltage (perhaps usable )  spikes.


http://youtu.be/lIgRZCGISCY (http://youtu.be/lIgRZCGISCY)

So my ideas, what do you think

Laurent

C'est Formidable, Laurent!  tres interessant! 

What a good idea, to add the inductor-coil and then to put a neo inside the coil!  Wow, a strong effect you have observed.  Yes, it might be that one could "tap" this energy...  Another good idea.

Having been to ICCF-18, I find that several of the researchers are tired of "LENR" itself, that is, it is probably not JUST a nuclear effect.  Rather tiny nuclear effects are seen, but the "anomalous energy" seems indeed to be something else!  and I think, related to magnetic fields/RF as you are also finding in your pioneering experiments.

Note that one major lab, Naval Research Lab, is now using the terms "anomalous heat" and "UNKNOWN source of energy", and that is what I'm doing also, rather than saying "nuclear" or LENR, which terms may probably NOT apply  au fond.

Please carry on your researches, mon ami.

Voici ma photo avec Francesco Celani a la conference ICCF-18 -- we are good friends.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: woopy on July 31, 2013, 07:26:15 PM
Hi Steven

Nice photo with Mr Celani

Thank's for encouraging

Here another video with a bifilar Tesla pancake coil, to better grasp what happen.

Hope this helps

Laurent

http://youtu.be/Lre05U1Bpso
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 05, 2013, 10:53:22 PM
@woopy - I'm following your  progress on Youtube -- c'est formidable!

  At the ICCF-18 conference I attended, Prof Yeong Kim gave his theory behind the Defkalion Ni - hydrogen claims, as demonstrated during ICCF-18.  He was strongly challenged (as were others) by Dave Kidwell of NRL, who got up and asked the tough questions.

I have found that Prof Kim's power point slides are available to all, here:  https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36783/TheoreticalAnalysisReactionMechanisms.pdf?sequence=1

Others have their slides available at the same Univ of Missouri site now.  great stuff. 

Below are summary slides from Prof Kim's Defkalion talk -- note his strong enthusiasm:

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 05, 2013, 11:15:51 PM
    In his talk, Prof Kim claims or suggests that p+d and d+d FUSION reactions are the primary reactions for the anomalous HEAT seen by Defkalion (see above post).  Some people think the proton-Nickel reactions are most important in the Defkalion "reactor", but Prof. Kim says these may be "much weaker secondary reactions" (see below).

  (My guess - he is wrong on both points, but we will see.)

  He does have some theoretical explanation related to the Ni-61 lack of reactive heat, when that isotope was tried.

  With all due respect, I don't put too much stock in his theory at this time, but I congratulate Prof. Kim for his efforts to understand these phenomena.

  Other presentations and abstracts for the International Conference on Cold Fusion (including mine) are available for download, at this link:  https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/35424/browse?type=author   

-- Steven E Jones
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 11, 2013, 12:05:22 AM
  Here's one I've puzzled over for awhile.  Now I share with you...

  Consider a toroid, that is a solenoid bent in the shape of a doughnut, wound tightly with wire.
Textbooks point out that with a DC current, the magnetic field B outside the toroid is ZERO.  For example, one can do a vector sum of B fields from individual wires, and these add to zero.  Or use Ampere's law to get the same result.

  Now apply an alternating current of high frequency to the wound-toroid.   Is the B field outside the toroid everywhere zero?  I think the answer is still yes (by Ampere's law).

  Next, add a loop of wire threaded through the center of the toroid and then circling around it, and put in a light bulb to form a complete loop (loop perpendicular to the plane of the toroid).  The light bulb lights up showing (AC) current in this external loop. 

  Yet all along the wire loop, the B field is zero.  So how do the electrons in the external loop "know" that there is a changing flux down INSIDE the toroid?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on September 11, 2013, 02:11:24 AM


  Here's one I've puzzled over for awhile.  Now I share with you...

  Consider a toroid, that is a solenoid bent in the shape of a doughnut, wound tightly with wire.
Textbooks point out that with a DC current, the magnetic field B outside the toroid is ZERO.  For example, one can do a vector sum of B fields from individual wires, and these add to zero.  Or use Ampere's law to get the same result.

  Now apply an alternating current of high frequency to the wound-toroid.   Is the B field outside the toroid everywhere zero?  I think the answer is still yes (by Ampere's law).

  Next, add a loop of wire threaded through the center of the toroid and then circling around it, and put in a light bulb to form a complete loop (loop perpendicular to the plane of the toroid).  The light bulb lights up showing (AC) current in this external loop. 

  Yet all along the wire loop, the B field is zero.  So how do the electrons in the external loop "know" that there is a changing flux down INSIDE the toroid?

Hey Steven

With a toroid transformer, all the action is in the doughnut hole. ;D   You need only have the wire pass through the hole and you will get the same output without looping around any of the outer sides. Without looping around tightly anyways, as if you connect a load to the wire, there will be a loop.

In the Utkin pdf, it shows a wound toroid, just wound on 2 parts of the core, say far left and far right, then wind around the outside of the toroid where your outside winding covers the first 2 windings but not through the hole. Supposedly this allows the outer winding(primary) to induce the inner windings(secondary) without the inner windings affecting the outer winding. Meant for pulsed mode I believe.

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on September 12, 2013, 01:07:43 AM
This PDF explains it quite clearly as to how the fields propagate through a toroid core and coils. I believe it is correct.   ;) Its only 18 pages.  Read carefully, and you will get the picture.  ;D

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on September 16, 2013, 04:05:09 AM
This PDF explains it quite clearly as to how the fields propagate through a toroid core and coils. I believe it is correct.   ;) Its only 18 pages.  Read carefully, and you will get the picture.  ;D

Mags

I found that PDF intriguing, Mags.   He points out logical errors in the notion that all the field in a wire-wound toroid (with high-permeability core) is contained inside the toroid when AC is applied.  I think many textbooks give this (misleading) impression of containment of the B field inside the toroid...
 Very interesting indeed.

Has this guy looked into "new energy" possibilities?  (apparently not, but would be interested if he has.  I like the way he shows things.)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Magluvin on September 16, 2013, 05:13:48 AM
I found that PDF intriguing, Mags.   He points out logical errors in the notion that all the field in a wire-wound toroid (with high-permeability core) is contained inside the toroid when AC is applied.  I think many textbooks give this (misleading) impression of containment of the B field inside the toroid...
 Very interesting indeed.

Has this guy looked into "new energy" possibilities?  (apparently not, but would be interested if he has.  I like the way he shows things.)

Hey Steve

I got this pdf last year that came to me with another that supposedly one needs to read the first in order to compliment the other. The second one is below.

Im glad you took a good look at it. I have some linear hall sensors coming in this week hopefully, and Ill put them to good use in this and other areas.

Like you said about text books misleading, why would that be?  ??? Is there a 'good' reason not to show how the fields interact with the windings?  If it is the E-field that causes mutual induction and not the magnetic field, then how does a moving magnet induce current in a wire??  ;) Some will say oh, that is different but no clear explanation of what and why. The problem I have with that is, I can replace a magnet with a coil in a generator and I can get the same output from the pickup coil.  Is that to say that the magnet has an e-field? ::)   

Anyways, Im glad you took the time to really get a grip on the pdfs ideas, and say that it makes sense. ;D ;)

As for the next pdf, I have put together a 5 core setup, that I had some good results from what I could see, but only recently have the tools to be sure. I have a lot of things set aside because of lack of tools to go further with better data.

Mags
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 08, 2013, 08:40:41 PM
  A significant paper on fusion was published today in Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n10/abs/nphys742.html

Particularly important to me because Prof. Johann Rafelski (Univ of Arizona) is a good friend, and is one of the co-authors of the paper.

A decent write-up is given here:
http://www.livescience.com/40246-new-boron-method-nuclear-fusion.html

Quoting from the article:
Quote
“Here we propose and implement a means to drive fusion reactions between protons and boron-11 nuclei, by colliding a laser-accelerated proton beam with a laser-generated boron plasma. We report proton-boron reaction rates that are orders of magnitude higher than those reported previously. Beyond fusion, our approach demonstrates a new means for exploring low-energy nuclear reactions...”

Note particularly the reference to "a new means for exploring low-energy nuclear reactions".
 That's what we call LENR.

Exciting stuff.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 09, 2013, 05:33:43 PM
Thanks to Dr. Francesco Celani for catching an error in the first link above.

The correct references in the journal Nature are here:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3506/full/ncomms3506.html
And also:
http://www.nature.com/news/two-laser-boron-fusion-lights-the-way-to-radiation-free-energy-1.13914

Thanks.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: telecom on October 09, 2013, 05:46:25 PM
I think there is a guy in Ontario , Canada who already have done something like this:
http://www.xylenepower.com/Micro%20Fusion%20Introduction.htm
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 09, 2013, 07:44:27 PM
I think there is a guy in Ontario , Canada who already have done something like this:
http://www.xylenepower.com/Micro%20Fusion%20Introduction.htm (http://www.xylenepower.com/Micro%20Fusion%20Introduction.htm)

Thanks for the link, telecom; but the link states:
Quote
Technical details relating to the Micro Fusion process and the detailed design of Micro Fusion equipment are  presently proprietary.

Do you have any inside information, that this guy used lasers to accelerate protons (as in the French experiment I referenced)?

Anyway, thanks for the link.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: telecom on October 09, 2013, 08:03:05 PM
@JouleSeeker,

as far as I remember, it was based on some Italian patent which was on his page (not there now).
I don't think you really need to use lasers, high=voltage linear acceleration in the deep vaccuum should do the trick.
I think he answers phone calls ( I was able to speak to him few years back).
Most of these "news"  is just another attempt to grab hard-earned taxpayers money for the "research", IMHO
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on November 21, 2013, 12:40:09 PM
It was fun to have a journalist come to our home in Albany, Missouri, from St. Joseph to interview me.  And today he published an article -- see what you think...  IMO, not bad.

http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_3c2ae1c1-423d-576e-9d54-10ef13b6c131.html

Yes, I'm still actively researching alternative energy and enjoying it - as the article indicates.

Thanks for your support and efforts for humankind.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: markdansie on November 21, 2013, 01:17:28 PM
I admire and applaud your efforts, I just question some of the measurements and claims from time to time.
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie


Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on November 21, 2013, 08:30:24 PM
I admire and applaud your efforts, I just question some of the measurements and claims from time to time.
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie

Hi Mark
Please check your PMs, thanks... (nothing to do with this thread topic)
--TK
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on December 13, 2013, 07:49:25 PM
Brazil is one of the principal BRICS nations, which have already indicated they are leaving the "petrodollar" scheme, and thus less "under the thumb".

A new energy device MIGHT have a chance in Brazil!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcrqODpDY4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcrqODpDY4)

After watching the vid, all I can say is ''WOW!  and best wishes to these inventors!"

(I remain a curious but skeptical until I see the numbers of course.)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on December 14, 2013, 11:06:27 AM
Reply 1149/1150 related, Pinch-tube/channel :
Pinch effect ( electrodynamics)
 Jump to: navigation, search

As a pinch effect (English: to pinch = squeeze ) is a phenomenon from electrodynamics called , which is in plasma physics and welding technology of meaning.
Contents [hide ]
1 Plasma Physics
1.1 Bennett 's equation
2 Welding
3 See also


Plasma Physics [ Edit]

In plasma physics , the term refers to the contraction of a carrying of a sufficiently large electric current plasma into a thin , compressed plasma tube or filament due to the interaction of the plasma current with the magnetic field generated by it . The pinch effect is used to limit a plasma to heat and extremely high temperatures ( for example in the nuclear fusion , see also the Z- machine ) used .

The life of pinch plasmas is only fractions of seconds. For the development of a fusion reactor, the pinch- effects are therefore relegated to the background .
Bennett equation [ Edit]

Bennett equation indicates the compression of the plasma column in the Z-pinch ( the pinch , in which the current flows axially through the plasma column ) required current . It is named after Willard Harrison Bennett. Of the discharge current applies:


with : discharge current : magnetic field constant , : carrier density per unit length : Boltzmann constant and : plasma temperature
Welding technology [ Edit]

In welding technology, the detachment of the drop at the end of the wire through the effect of the constriction is called the pinch effect (due to the Lorentz force) .
See also [edit ]
Reversed field pinch





Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on January 15, 2014, 05:13:26 AM
I wish to share this development with you.

A claim of a self-running device - for sale - arises from a small town in Kansas, not too far from where I now live in Missouri.
  MidTech claims a 2.5kW device, for $6500.  Lending credence -- they've been selling solar and wind devices for many years, have a real going company.

 I listened to the entire interviews (over an hour) of Sterling with co-inventor Doug Myers -- found it intriguing.

  From PESWiki:  http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2014:01:14#Video_of_my_2_interviews_with_MidTech (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2014:01:14#Video_of_my_2_interviews_with_MidTech)

          From the video, I gather the device involves a motor and a generator, with mechanical device (in a closed box) in between -- which is the "secret" part.  No HHO.  Probably a QMoGen.
A battery to get it started.  Then it self runs...? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJeyknWQoQI&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJeyknWQoQI&feature=youtu.be)

Mr Myers said it includes a Marathon electric motor and he gave the part number.  4 foot tall x 18" x18" "black box".  2.5 KW continuous.
 I live 4.5 hours by car from there -- may take a look...

Caveat -- they've applied for a patent...   Perhaps unwise, we'll see...

I was impressed that this company is doing well in wind and solar energy already.  They know their stuff.
Their website:  http://midtechenergysolutions.com/ 
Evidently their announcement of the new device was given at their facebook page on 11 January 2014.
(Look at their Hummer! - from screen-shots I acquired from the vid)   The pictured motor is in their new device.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 05:34:56 AM
JouleSeeker many people have claimed to be readying boxes that supply endless energy for free.  And then we wait.

I listened to the first interview.  These people have been running a small solar and wind installation business and dabbled with HHO on the side.  I believe the total number of solar panels they said they have sold is about 250.  Yet, they offer the preposterous boast that they are: "The #1 Renewable Energy Company in the US".   They also say that the box processes three different types of energy source.

I see generally three possibilities here:

1. Their box is a chassis that houses batteries and power conversion equipment that is supplied externally by various combinations of off-grid power sources such as:  solar PV, wind turbines, and/or back-up gas or diesel generators.

2. These guys who have a small solar and wind power installation business have discovered three miracle energy sources.  And, for some reason one miracle is not good enough even in multiples, so they have packaged all three miracles into the one box.

3. It is just an out and out fraud like so many others that have come and gone.

Given their business history and their location on the plains, I think that the first possibility is by far the most likely.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: markdansie on January 15, 2014, 08:06:00 AM
JouleSeeker many people have claimed to be readying boxes that supply endless energy for free.  And then we wait.

I listened to the first interview.  These people have been running a small solar and wind installation business and dabbled with HHO on the side.  I believe the total number of solar panels they said they have sold is about 250.  Yet, they offer the preposterous boast that they are: "The #1 Renewable Energy Company in the US".   They also say that the box processes three different types of energy source.

I see generally three possibilities here:

1. Their box is a chassis that houses batteries and power conversion equipment that is supplied externally by various combinations of off-grid power sources such as:  solar PV, wind turbines, and/or back-up gas or diesel generators.

2. These guys who have a small solar and wind power installation business have discovered three miracle energy sources.  And, for some reason one miracle is not good enough even in multiples, so they have packaged all three miracles into the one box.

3. It is just an out and out fraud like so many others that have come and gone.

Given their business history and their location on the plains, I think that the first possibility is by far the most likely.


I actually believe number 1 is most likely as they have now had a set back regarding the longevity of their device. Their batteries most likely ran flat or they stuffed a new battery up in a very short time.


I also found it amusing their claims regarding the solar trailer. Many companies manufacture these and I have evaluated one first hand (was filmed doing so) in California that was used for film sites and back up for cell phone towers. The addition of a wind  turbine is not new either


There behavior from now on will determine if they are scam artist or not. Unlike Sterling who is already fund raising to purchase one himself. last time he did that he raised $6500 for a device that never worked or he even took delivery of and pocketed the money. That to me is not exactly ethical.


Kind Regards
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ramset on January 15, 2014, 01:36:29 PM
Jouleseeker
Don't they call your new home state of Missouri the "show me state".
those fellows in Kansas should have no problems when you ask them to "show you" ?[its to be expected]
 
seems like a little trip would be nice?
 
thanks for sharing this.
 
Chet
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on January 15, 2014, 04:01:55 PM
  Thanks for comments.
 
Its true that MidTech is waiting for a component in order to fix something on their working prototype.  Apparently there was an overheating problem.  (This seems an understandable glitch, given the nature of prototypes.)

I may be able to see the prototype working, by the end of the month.  What tests should I do?  I'm open for suggestions.  A few thoughts:

1.  Ideally I would be allowed to look inside, to see what batteries and large capacitors are in there.  Presumably just one battery to get it started -- how many Amp-hours is it?  Deep cycle or not?  What type of battery, lead-acid?

2.  I'd like to see it run drawing at 2 kW on the load -- I have a couple of small space heaters and can measure the power they are drawing during the test.  How long will it run 2,000 watts?
Consider (from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A0oG7mEsm9ZSch4AvBhXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzZDBlYWc1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1NNRTI2Ml8x?qid=20090202214711AAvg3WF )

If the actual load is just 100W, we have this quick analysis:
Quote
Your actual load is 100W...
 With no losses the current is 100W/12V = 8.33A
 This means you need 8.33Ah capacity for each hour of running, with provisos as below.
 
 WIth a 7Ah battery that implies 8.33A/7Ah = 0.84 hours
 The nominal voltage of a 12V battery is 12.6V, but you will be lucky to have 12V at the inverter terminals.
 
 Battery ratings..
 The battery will be rated at the 10 or even 20 hour rate, so that is a current of 0.7A or 0.35A for a 7Ah battery. The current you are drawing is 10 times that, in reality too much for this battery. The battery capacity is derated considerably, so the implied 100W running time of 50 minutes becomes maybe less than half an hour.
 
 In practice the losses due to the inverter must be added as part of the load. As this is a low load for an 800W inverter it would just be a stab in the dark to say what its losses are, unless you can measure the actual current drawn from the battery when running under that load. My feeling anything from a few watts to 150W losses. It could more than double the load. You could be down to 10 minutes if the battery doesn't get overheated. Batteries are also less capable in cold conditions. A 7Ah battery is more suitable for loads about 10W.
 
 Get the drift? You need a larger battery. The load is more consistent with an 80Ah size deep cycle battery. This would run more like expected, up to 9h, perhaps somewhat less due to inverter losses.

So with a 1,000 W load, this is a real drain on a battery, but an 80Ah battery should theoretically last for about 9/10 = 0.9 h (less given inverter-type losses).  For 2000W, less than 1/2 hour running,  and this requires an 12V amazing battery to put out so much current!  Roughly speaking, the current draw would be at least 2000W/12V = 167 Amps.  Wow!  quite the battery...   Do you see my point?

So these basic tests -
A.  Can it run a 2kW load?
B.  For how long?

I think I can quickly rule out batteries as the source of power -- several hours of running at 2kW for example. 
But perhaps I've overlooked something?  amazing batteries?  you tell me. 
Remember, the box is just 4-feet tall x 18" x18"  (how many batteries can you cram in there anyway?) 

3. They may allow me to look inside the "mechanical black box", to see the mechanism that connects the motor to the generator.
No doubt proprietary, and I will honor that.

4.  I would like to get a look at the output waveform using my oscilloscope with no load and with a 2kW load.

What other tests would your recommend?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on January 15, 2014, 04:06:58 PM
Here is a photo of the device (outside).  I'd want to make sure there are no wires leading into it, e.g. up from the floor.

Test 5:  I will ask that they run the 2kW-load test with the door of the device opened, so that I can take temperature measurements of the various components as a function of time. I have a few IR probes.  I would like to see (for instance) how hot the battery gets...

Test 6:  Also, how noisy is it?  where does the noise come from?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on January 15, 2014, 05:48:37 PM
For any testing, I would insist that the device first be tested in one location and then moved to another location at least ten feet away.  A cart or portable table for your equipment and of course a suitably long extension cord for any AC powered gear you might use will be very useful.

In order to avoid any stalemates, I would ask them to tell you well in advance:

1) What loads can the device comfortably handle?
2) How long can the device run on those loads before some form of service is expected?
3) How much does the unit weigh?

Use the weight to calculate the maximum energy storage using Lithium batteries.  If the run down test greatly exceeds that energy then the box is at least interesting.

Be sure to characterize your test loads in advance.  If your heaters are inductive, then I would fit them with capacitors to bring the form factor close to 1.0.  Make sure that you have a scope set-up that can easily measure voltage and current, both reliably and safely.  You might have to build cables or other fixturing to make that convenient.  A line cord to 4mm female bananas will make it easy to connect from an outlet to the input of an isolated differential probe. The voltage measurement should be made through an isolated differential probe.  Low bandwidth units can be purchased on eBay for $300 new.  The Pintek's are serviceable.  A name brand like Fluke or Tek will cost you $650. new.  The current measurement should be made through a Hall effect + inductor loop non-contact probe that can do DC to at least 1kHz.  A cheapy USB scope like the Hantek 20MHz affair might be a better bet than lugging around a real scope, and they are amenable to use as data loggers.

The last thing that you should get is a Pelican roller bag for camera equipment.  These look like ordinary soft side luggage roller bags, but they are very tough and have lots of moveable velcro padding for gear.  I find that the gorillas who work for TSA and the airline baggage handlers leave gear alone in these bags whereas they perform all kinds of abuse on hard sided plastic or aluminum equipment cases.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ramset on January 15, 2014, 06:16:40 PM
Physics Prof
 
If you like I will assist you on this trip [grunt work etc]?
Perhaps if the contacts and info work out for Gilman [gravity soybean plant] we could do that in the same trip  ?
 
?
Chet K
 
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on January 15, 2014, 11:45:00 PM
  That would be fun, Chet!  I'm not sure how many "observers" they are letting in, but for sure I'll let you know!

  Would like to add that I hope we all learn a greater sense of working together.  Once ONE BRIGHT idea gets out, the genie is out of the bottle and OTHER IDEAS that are close to fruition will likely also spring forth.  So our sense should be one of comraderie (like Chet promotes IMO).

Thanks for comments!

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on January 16, 2014, 07:16:32 AM
  Thanks for comments.
 
Its true that MidTech is waiting for a component in order to fix something on their working prototype.  Apparently there was an overheating problem.  (This seems an understandable glitch, given the nature of prototypes.)

I may be able to see the prototype working, by the end of the month.  What tests should I do?  I'm open for suggestions.  A few thoughts:

1.  Ideally I would be allowed to look inside, to see what batteries and large capacitors are in there.  Presumably just one battery to get it started -- how many Amp-hours is it?  Deep cycle or not?  What type of battery, lead-acid?

2.  I'd like to see it run drawing at 2 kW on the load -- I have a couple of small space heaters and can measure the power they are drawing during the test.  How long will it run 2,000 watts?
Consider (from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A0oG7mEsm9ZSch4AvBhXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzZDBlYWc1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1NNRTI2Ml8x?qid=20090202214711AAvg3WF (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A0oG7mEsm9ZSch4AvBhXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzZDBlYWc1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1NNRTI2Ml8x?qid=20090202214711AAvg3WF) )

If the actual load is just 100W, we have this quick analysis:
So with a 1,000 W load, this is a real drain on a battery, but an 80Ah battery should theoretically last for about 9/10 = 0.9 h (less given inverter-type losses).  For 2000W, less than 1/2 hour running,  and this requires an 12V amazing battery to put out so much current!  Roughly speaking, the current draw would be at least 2000W/12V = 167 Amps.  Wow!  quite the battery...   Do you see my point?

So these basic tests -
A.  Can it run a 2kW load?
B.  For how long?

I think I can quickly rule out batteries as the source of power -- several hours of running at 2kW for example. 
But perhaps I've overlooked something?  amazing batteries?  you tell me. 
Remember, the box is just 4-feet tall x 18" x18"  (how many batteries can you cram in there anyway?) 

3. They may allow me to look inside the "mechanical black box", to see the mechanism that connects the motor to the generator.
No doubt proprietary, and I will honor that.

4.  I would like to get a look at the output waveform using my oscilloscope with no load and with a 2kW load.

What other tests would your recommend?

I don't believe you will actually get to see it do anything, much less the tests you have already outlined.

Thus far, the claimants are following the standard script exactly, so why do you expect them to deviate? Something else will break, or they will have it torn down during your visit, or one of them will fall ill... and it won't be fixed until after your return flight has taken you home.

But...

2000 Watts for two hours represents 14,400,000 Joules:

2000 Joules/second x 120 minutes x 60 seconds/minute == 14,400,000 Joules.

4 each, 12 volt nominal, 80 Amp-hour batteries contain 14,515,200 usable Joules.

4 x 12.6 Volts x 80 Amp-hour x 60 minutes/hour x 60 seconds/minute == 14,515,200 Joules.

So I believe that seeing a big black box like that, running 2 kW of lights or even inductive loads for two hours is perfectly feasible... and there's room for a lot more than 4 car batteries in that box. Please check my math.

ETA: by the way.... it seems Doug Myers has a bit of history.
http://freeenergyscams.com/sterling-d-allan-is-doug-bad-boy-myers-scamming-sterling/
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Farmhand on January 16, 2014, 07:52:49 AM
I still cannot see how if it does work that the NSA of FBI or whatever agency would not shut them down and commit them to silence with the old reason I've heard before that the device would bring about social and financial crisis. Which it would, I'm all for hoping it being real and if it is I want one. But if they keep their info to themselves they would be easy to shut down. Would be the same reason they classify secret a lot of patents regarding energy as a matter of National security. But for what Nation and why is it the same the world over ?

If people buy the device and put the working schematic open to all by some way or another how could they stop people building them ? And for the inventors to hold such a thing from mankind for money is almost a crime against humanity if it is real.

Something that actually does what it is claimed to do would be irrepressible once it got out. And if people found out the Tech was hidden from them by the government agencies they would likely riot and destroy a lot of stuff. Understandably so.

I say they are mistaken, not telling the entire story or faking it. If it is real and simple, they won't make much money from it. The people will take it from them. Better they offer it free and not risk the wrath of the people from both sides. Make some money from consulting or something.

Inventors should realize at some point a significant enough discovery actually belongs to the people by right of force. Tis the way of the world.

Cheers

Anyway it won't plough the paddock or harvest the crops or butcher the animals, we will still need to work and the crafty dodgers will think of another way to strangle us, what we need to do is rid society of "crafty dodgers" "Banksters" "controllers" or whatever we like to call the folks that live off our work, and/or decide what we are allowed to know.

..

Look even this 12 year old girl understands it and can explain it. What is our excuse for allowing it to continue ?

12 Year old Victoria Grant on the real problem in the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx5Sc3vWefE

..
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: infringer on January 17, 2014, 02:41:31 AM
@farmhand

I would agree it is verification not vilification, that is what the public really seeks deep down we all want that one thing to work and not to be consumed by private interests. Well said.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Farmhand on January 17, 2014, 09:44:31 AM
Yes the poor girl, Imagine at that age understanding the gravity of the deception, in one interview with a Journalist he tries to play on her ego and make out she is something special and an internet celebrity, but she is just a smart kid and she replied by saying it's good in the way it makes it possible for her to spread the word to more people so that maybe a solution might be implemented sometime soon. She only wants the exposure for the cause not her ego, but the shallow Journalist had trouble accepting that. Rather than look at the real issues they want everything to be about fame and notoriety ect. she put him back on track.

At 3:40 or so onwards he begins to test her ego. She passed. (It's not about her, it's about the message).
http://rt.com/news/canada-banking-child-economist-811/

Now I must say she seems not to be angry at us because she understands it is a long term issue, like the frog being boiled, but if she gets to be 21 years old and nothing has changed she would have every right to despise every one of us for our apathy and cowardice. Pass on the video send it to everyone who will watch it. Everyone, we all, need to lose the fear and talk about it out loud and in public. Especially to those we think do not understand. Shame them by saying a 12 year old girl can understand it.

..
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: gmeast on February 21, 2014, 10:55:55 PM
Energy must come from somewhere ! so unless the energy is coming from outside the 3 dimensional universe it is not over unity ! All this about over-unity is a very big mistake in real terms of the law of physics . SO IF A SYSTEM IS IN A LOOP AND ATTRACTS  UNIVERSAL RADIATION TO GIVE EXTRA DRIVE ON THE ELECTRONS IS IT OVER UNITY !!!!!!!!! NO !!!!!!!!!! Its just a simple efficient form of currant that has other properties inducting upon it . Also with the world now in a cloud of micro waves from mobile phones and that the core of the earth is kicking up abundant alpha particles and the fact that charged electrons are attracted to Earth one can see the facts as normal energy production .
...............................................................................................
.................................................................................................

Its that simple let the planet generate the power no dodgy radiation or particles or high voltage or static fields or stupid over unity mythology just simple old fashion physics something that took 10 000 years to confirm and pays full respect to them that gave there lives to work out . Truth is simple quantifiable easy to except and so solid it made all that is !


Please let go of the runaway train in your mind its not real and will crash at the end of the track don't be on it !


Yours truly

Atommix


@Atommix,


YES! You are so right. It is the essence of 'discovery' when it can be seen that a system might be 'fueled' by sources other than (or in addition to) what has been traditional. Example: if someone builds an electric motor that, in addition to running nice and efficiently from its battery, wall socket or whatever, happens to (also) generate a TRAP that can capture other energy that's ALREADY flying by, and then use it in a complimentary fashion, then  that's simply a motor that operates on multiple fuels simultaneously ... and NOT as an Overunity device. Examined from the standpoint of the primary fuel ... again battery, wall socket or whatever ... the motor appears to operate more efficiently than it can, or should be able to. Whether or not the TRAP was an intentional element of the design from the onset is irrelevant. If it works, then it works and should not be dismissed out of hand.  And then you set out to address the WHY and HOW. It may take decades to figure out that a TRAP was even generated in the first place leave alone 'what' it was trapping ... energy, particle, other?


The term "OVERUNITY" does the act of DISCOVERY a disservice. Thanks for your post,


Regards,


gmeast
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on February 21, 2014, 11:09:39 PM
Sure, if there is an unrecognized energy source it could create the appearance that more comes out of a process than goes in.  For practice and purpose until such an energy source is located the device under observation will seem to be over unity.  So:  Come up with something that appears to produce a surplus and then go reconcile that thee is a surplus compared to recognized energy sources.  If the surplus persists then go looking for an energy source that has not been recognized.

With respect to the temperature rise using the switching circuit versus DC you are at the middle step.  At face value, you have generated some evidence that suggests 58% excess heat energy using a switching circuit versus DC.  If you dog that down to where the apparent excess heat  based on proxy can be established on the basis of actual work done, IE by specific temperature rise of a known thermal mass, then the excess will be strongly evidenced, and then we will be off to the races to identify if not the unrecognized source, a repeatable and predictable way to exploit the phenomenon.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 01, 2014, 05:00:10 PM
Two days ago, Lasersaber provided a video showing significant advancement with the joule-ringer-type circuit we've been discussing (for a few years at least!):

http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=5o7go8DlYbY&u=/watch%3Fv%3DXk35CpCFg1w%26feature%3Dem-uploademail (http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=5o7go8DlYbY&u=/watch%3Fv%3DXk35CpCFg1w%26feature%3Dem-uploademail)

He notes:
Quote
Quote"Testing energy recycling with the SJR circuit combined with an Akula type transformer"

So, perhaps the key to energy-recycling/self-running is in the Akula-type transformer -- as he notes, more work is needed.

  1 May 2014 update - lasersaber posts a video with new developments on his end, still with the Joule Ringer type circuit + Akula-type transformer.  Very interesting:

  http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=s-CuARDjNiE&u=/watch%3Fv%3D8dq9NQhzdw0%26feature%3Dem-uploademail (http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=s-CuARDjNiE&u=/watch%3Fv%3D8dq9NQhzdw0%26feature%3Dem-uploademail)

  Real time progress!  Two days ago I ordered the cores he recommends, coming by fast mail...


The updated Joule-thief type ckt is given here:  http://laserhacker.com/?p=401 (http://laserhacker.com/?p=401)

with screen copy of his latest open-sourced ckt below. 
 
From his video of 1 May, I get that the system with the LED bulb runs from 4:18 to 15:32, that is, for 11min14sec  on a 10,000uF electrolytic cap.  My experience is that the cap itself leaks...
Colleagues -- note the presence of THREE coils on his Akula-type transformer.
Let's build!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 01, 2014, 05:23:53 PM
Here are some variations I'd like to test, some suggested also by LS:

1.  Different types and sizes of run-capacitors.  I'd like to try a high-quality (minimal leaky) cap in particular.

2.  Grounding or not grounding the blue coil

3.  Different turns/windings on the cores

4.  Different Akula-type "transformers".

5.  My "old" Joule-thief circuit with Akula xformers.

6.  Record frequency for each variation; and run-time with a smaller cap (for comparisons)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 01, 2014, 09:56:22 PM
Do we know the part number of the FWB that he is using?

Once you have the exact LS circuit built and working, then put it in a grounded metal garbage can with a tight lid. Does it still run?

Would it not be a reasonable thing to try?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 02, 2014, 06:15:35 AM
Do we know the part number of the FWB that he is using?

That has not been provided yet.
He has specified the core he is using:
                 
Quote
Ferrite: Pot Core - (ICH) B65943A-X22 Pic 47 mm 29.8 mm
http://www.surplussales.com/Inductors/FerPotC/FerPotC-1.html (http://www.surplussales.com/Inductors/FerPotC/FerPotC-1.html)

Quote
TK:
Once you have the exact LS circuit built and working, then put it in a grounded metal garbage can with a tight lid. Does it still run?

Would it not be a reasonable thing to try?


In this video or the previous one, LS stated that he took the device out in his car far from houses - and it worked fine.  But yes, putting in a Faraday cage is a very reasonable test.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 02, 2014, 09:38:25 PM
That has not been provided yet.
He has specified the core he is using:
                 

In this video or the previous one, LS stated that he took the device out in his car far from houses - and it worked fine.  But yes, putting in a Faraday cage is a very reasonable test.

Six dollars each! This Free Energy stuff sure is getting expensive.

My crystal set radio also works fine when I take it out in my car far from houses.... better, in fact. But it does not work inside a grounded metal garbage can. This is because the pink invisible pixies that power my crystal set by flapping their wings cannot get into a grounded metal garbage can.

Does it not also seem reasonable that a bridge made from 1n34a germanium diodes might work differently, perhaps better perhaps worse, than a COTS bridge made no doubt from Si rectifier diodes? Again.... would it not be a reasonable thing to try? After all, pixies love the texture of a nice germanium sandwich.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 08, 2014, 06:50:37 AM
  Good points, TK.

   Shown below are (SJR + Akula 3-coil transformer) circuits by Groundloop and TROS (latter from video); some differences observed.

  Mark V (Slider) is also working on this, I spoke to him today and he is building, learning, making progress.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on May 08, 2014, 09:00:07 AM
A 2N3055 takes a good deal of energy to switch between highly conducting and non conducting states.  They were the work horses of open frame linear power supplies where they were great as they are rugged and cheap.  The power gain from a 2N3055 in a circuit operating at low voltages like this is very limited.  A low threshold voltage, low gate capacitance FET solution would yield better power gain, faster switching, and better efficiency.  I would use something like a DMG1012.

http://www.diodes.com/datasheets/ds31783.pdf
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 09, 2014, 05:39:30 PM
MarkE -- I agree that a 2N3055 is not the best choice for this circuit.

Slider reports on different transistors he has tried with this particular Joule-thief-like circuit:
Quote
Transistors tried include C1815, MPSA14 (Darlington), C2236, but the '1P' SMD version of the 2N2222A that arrived in the mail today works best by a long way. 40 seconds was the record with a MPSA14, now it's up to 3 minutes.

He shows videos and discusses anomalies he is seeing; here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2436.msg38412#msg38412
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on May 10, 2014, 03:34:14 AM
MarkE -- I agree that a 2N3055 is not the best choice for this circuit.

Slider reports on different transistors he has tried with this particular Joule-thief-like circuit:
He shows videos and discusses anomalies he is seeing; here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2436.msg38412#msg38412
A superficial review suggests that the circuit relies on interwinding capacitance to close the return path from the red winding through the LED and the FWB to the base of the transistor during transistor on times.  Interwinding capacitance would also be necessary to close a path between the red winding through the diode to C1 in order to clamp the windings.  Absent such capacitance, there would be nothing to drive current through the transistor base and nothing to clamp the transformer flyback.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 11, 2014, 02:34:18 PM
 LaserSaber is excited in this latest video (this morning, Mother's Day in the US) and for good reason:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B79UJGoNJE&feature=em-uploademail (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B79UJGoNJE&feature=em-uploademail)

Note that it runs long, and operates just fine inside an unplugged microwave oven (as a Faraday cage).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on May 11, 2014, 03:49:49 PM
His circuit's endurance is impressive.  Now comes the task of measuring / calculating the energy delivered to the LEDs.  If he gets very clean voltage measurements across the LEDs and separately characterizes their I-V curves then he can determine energy delivered each cycle.  He'll need to keep track of that as the capacitor discharges.  Given his long run times things shouldn't be moving so fast as to make that very difficult.  The trick will be getting very accurate with the I-V curves over the voltage range that he measures actually applied to the LEDs.  The flatter the curve the larger the calculated error bars will be.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: xee2 on May 11, 2014, 07:27:31 PM

Another long running circuit:


This circuit uses a transformer that is much easier to make and runs for about 1.5 hours from a 10,000 uF capacitor charged to 1.36 volts 
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9HQkDnIuU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9HQkDnIuU).
When the difference in battery voltage (1.36 volts vs 9 volts) is considered this circuit seems to be much more efficient.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 11, 2014, 08:01:42 PM
Another long running circuit:


This circuit uses a transformer that is much easier to make and runs for about 1.5 hours from a 10,000 uF capacitor charged to 1.36 volts 
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9HQkDnIuU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9HQkDnIuU).
When the difference in battery voltage (1.36 volts vs 9 volts) is considered this circuit seems to be much more efficient.

XEE2:

I totally agree with you.  Very nice circuit.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MileHigh on May 11, 2014, 08:49:00 PM
I can imagine a home lighting project.  A solution for the post-apocalypse.  lol

You have a solar panel and you look around for the best possible bang for your buck for supercapacitors.  You fill a big 40-gallon plastic storage bin with supercapacitors and wire it up to your solar panel.  You run a small mirocontroller and associated circuitry to keep the supercapacior bank topped off.  Then you have a "charging station" which is a 555 with a transistor/inductor/diode to pulse current into a device to charge.  You could charge your cell phone with it as an example.

The key thing here is that the microcontroller and the 555 themselves run off of low-leakage coke-can-sized capacitors also.  Assume the "power supply" caps only have to be topped up once every two weeks.  That way you are not dependent on batteries at all.

So now that you have your big capacitor bank and your charging station, you can make gadgets to charge.  The first two that come to mind are a big JT design with a coke-can sized cap and big LEDs to make a true reading lamp that lasts at least an hour between fill-ups.  The other would be a gutted real LED light bulb with a big cap as a table lamp.

You could even run the charging station with a microcontroller or use an op-amp to give the 555 simple brains.  You select the charging voltage with a rotary switch and then connect up your capacitor-based device. The microcontroller controls the inductive pulsing charging to stop at the selected voltage.

The implicit suggestion is to think big with your JTs and make them into "capacitor appliances" that are simple, modular, and functional.

MileHigh
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on May 11, 2014, 09:35:55 PM
Another long running circuit:


This circuit uses a transformer that is much easier to make and runs for about 1.5 hours from a 10,000 uF capacitor charged to 1.36 volts 
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9HQkDnIuU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9HQkDnIuU).
When the difference in battery voltage (1.36 volts vs 9 volts) is considered this circuit seems to be much more efficient.
That's a great run time.  84 min ~5000S @ 18Hz ~90,000 cycles.   The base speedup capacitor loses 0.1uF * 2 * Vsupply - Vce - 2 * Vbe each cycle.  If the transistor is saturating, as it should, then roughly 2*(Vsupply - Vbe) or almost 1V * 0.1uF * 18Hz = 1.8uA is going into the base drive when you start.  That's most of the measured power. You might t try reducing the size of the 0.1uF capacitor to the point that it just saturates the MPSA06 when the supply is close to 0.6V.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Farmhand on May 11, 2014, 10:36:37 PM
Yeah sounds good MileHigh, problem is post apocalypse if other people see a set of solar panels on your roof it could mean death for you, without law people will revert to survival of the fittest, the coldest of heart and the smartest. Anything that you have that will improve the lot of others is fair game to stand over merchants and just plain psychopaths. If the wrong people found out that certain individuals had knowledge to produce electric power and so forth then they could force them to build things with the threat of violence to them or family.

When the law disappears then people would be better served not to display what they have that others don't. Brag and get raided.

I have no wish to enter a fire fight over solar panels or a wind turbine for that matter, but many would, even if just to control them. It is the way of people.

Post apocalypse if it happens I'll be using darkness as a friend. Wear a patch on one eye for some time and then use it to see in the dark.  ;D

Post apocalypse if chaos reigns the biggest problem long term will be all the nuclear reactors and associated equipment being abandoned, not to mention all the other dangerous and polluting stuff that will be just walked away from if it becomes too dangerous to travel an leave the family. If that happened I foresee real problems for almost everyone on the planet. With little to lose killing other people will become necessary to continued survival.

First is food/water then is shelter in a safe place, then is health medicine, when all that is in order then people can think about luxuries like electric lights.  :)

The LED's and even the light globes will only last so long. How can the average camper produce an LED or a light globe at home, even if the use a very simple form of wind or water wheel generator, how to produce cheap light with no lamps LED's or anything.

Our small town was completely isolated due to flooding a couple of years back and the supermarket was practically empty in 24 hours once the situation was known. The com lines were broken and the phone towers out of action, we even ran out of money and the ability to access our banked money. Luckily the situation did not last long. If the supply lines are cut for long term then people have to be responsible for everything. Without outside assistance flying in bread and milk and police the crime rate would have went through the roof.

Cheers
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 11, 2014, 11:35:54 PM
Yeah sounds good MileHigh, problem is post apocalypse if other people see a set of solar panels on your roof it could mean death for you, without law people will revert to survival of the fittest, the coldest of heart and the smartest. Anything that you have that will improve the lot of others is fair game to stand over merchants and just plain psychopaths. If the wrong people found out that certain individuals had knowledge to produce electric power and so forth then they could force them to build things with the threat of violence to them or family.

When the law disappears then people would be better served not to display what they have that others don't. Brag and get raided.

I have no wish to enter a fire fight over solar panels or a wind turbine for that matter, but many would, even if just to control them. It is the way of people.

Post apocalypse if it happens I'll be using darkness as a friend. Wear a patch on one eye for some time and then use it to see in the dark.  ;D

Post apocalypse if chaos reigns the biggest problem long term will be all the nuclear reactors and associated equipment being abandoned, not to mention all the other dangerous and polluting stuff that will be just walked away from if it becomes too dangerous to travel an leave the family. If that happened I foresee real problems for almost everyone on the planet. With little to lose killing other people will become necessary to continued survival.

First is food/water then is shelter in a safe place, then is health medicine, when all that is in order then people can think about luxuries like electric lights.  :)

The LED's and even the light globes will only last so long. How can the average camper produce an LED or a light globe at home, even if the use a very simple form of wind or water wheel generator, how to produce cheap light with no lamps LED's or anything.

Our small town was completely isolated due to flooding a couple of years back and the supermarket was practically empty in 24 hours once the situation was known. The com lines were broken and the phone towers out of action, we even ran out of money and the ability to access our banked money. Luckily the situation did not last long. If the supply lines are cut for long term then people have to be responsible for everything. Without outside assistance flying in bread and milk and police the crime rate would have went through the roof.

Cheers

This is exactly why we have guns.  It makes for a much more polite society.  I do not wish for it to be this way, but that is how it is.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Farmhand on May 12, 2014, 06:54:29 AM
This is exactly why we have guns.  It makes for a much more polite society.  I do not wish for it to be this way, but that is how it is.

Bill

I did mention I had no wish for a gun battle over solar panels. In Australia not many people have firearms, but in the U.S. lot's do, guns shoot any way you point them and they work for whoever picks it up that knows how to use it.

Fire arrows were invented to burn out troublesome folks who won't give over stuff and shoot from their house. Then there is ambush, better not to advertise you have what others don't.

..
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 13, 2014, 02:18:17 AM
I did mention I had no wish for a gun battle over solar panels. In Australia not many people have firearms, but in the U.S. lot's do, guns shoot any way you point them and they work for whoever picks it up that knows how to use it.

Fire arrows were invented to burn out troublesome folks who won't give over stuff and shoot from their house. Then there is ambush, better not to advertise you have what others don't.

..

A good policy for sure.  This is also why I keep a gassed up and fully loaded F-16 in a hanger behind my house. (Not really but, it does not hurt if folks think it is there:)

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: FixedSys on May 13, 2014, 03:15:10 PM
That's a great run time.  84 min ~5000S @ 18Hz ~90,000 cycles.   The base speedup capacitor loses 0.1uF * 2 * Vsupply - Vce - 2 * Vbe each cycle.  If the transistor is saturating, as it should, then roughly 2*(Vsupply - Vbe) or almost 1V * 0.1uF * 18Hz = 1.8uA is going into the base drive when you start.  That's most of the measured power. You might t try reducing the size of the 0.1uF capacitor to the point that it just saturates the MPSA06 when the supply is close to 0.6V.

So it's approaching COP of 1.0, or what?

I wish these folks putting up these vids would post more numbers about power in / out. Just timed charging via a DMM measuring current would be a good start, right?

This OU stuff is like ufology where no-one ever seems to have a tripod or can focus their cameras.  ::)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on May 13, 2014, 03:26:59 PM
So it's approaching COP of 1.0, or what?

I wish these folks putting up these vids would post more numbers about power in / out. Just timed charging via a DMM measuring current would be a good start, right?

This OU stuff is like ufology where no-one ever seems to have a tripod or can focus their cameras.  ::)
I think it is about 50% efficient.  It's hard to be super efficient running at very low power levels.  Although I think that maybe with some clever coding I can beat that using a very low power uC.  There are parts out there that will run from 0.7V and internally boost to 3.3V very efficiently.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on May 17, 2014, 11:54:52 AM
hi Steven - long time! - apologies for absence - as our mutual friend Nerzh Dishual can report, i spend a lot of time off-planet these days  :-)

most of the little 'free energy' time which i have these days is spent on my 'water' battery interests, but i do still dabble with pulse circuits from time to time (solid-state and motor)

checking in at OU.com again very recently, i was interested to see your report of LaserSaber's Looper circuits

so i thought i'd see if i could incorporate some of the things which i've been learning from my previous experiments...

at first sight the LaserSaber Looper test on 'Mothers' Day looks like quite a radical development, but in fact it is still very much a Joule Thief

it appears that the Transistor base circuit is incomplete (ie.  having just one terminal), but in fact it has all the usual connectivity - its just hidden in other components

 - the secondary of the transformer (ie. base winding) is only connected directly to the base at one end, but the other end is coupled by 'stray capacitance' to the primary winding just as surely as if we had used a small value capacitor

 - the 'missing' base bias resistor is provided by a 'leaky' junction impedance in the transistor itself

(i believe that LS mentions he had to use a Germanium device to get the circuit to work - i used a low-leakage NPN device (BC547) and had to supply a path for the base bias current, in my case i used a reverse diode, which in a sense was like externalising a base-collector PN junction)

LS chose to drive his LEDs across the base winding which was efficient in terms of the circuit layout, but the effect of LED current is entirely dissipated in the LEDs - i've chosen to drive the LED from the collapsing coil field current, which enables me to direct the current back into the supply battery

i confirmed that the circuit operated ok inside my (unenergised!) microwave oven

i tested the capacitor run times for a few circuit variations - using a 2200uF electrolytic (low ESR), charged from a 9V battery, all the circuits lit the LED for just under 30 minutes (very very dim at the end of run) - this time reduced to approx 28 minutes if i left my datalogger probe connected to observe the discharge profile

the LED was lit while the cap voltage discharged from 9V  down to approx 0.43V

i also checked the capacitor discharge caused by the probe and self-discharge - the voltage decreased from 9V to approx 7V in 30 minutes

since LS only used 2 of the 3 windings in the 'Akula-type' transformer, the primary is only driving its energy into the LED load on the secondary

moving on to battery operation,  i've used 3 windings in a multi-toroid transformer i made a couple of years back (trying for a Jensen type transformer action), which frees up the secondary to drive only the transistor base, and now i can use a 3rd winding to 'pump' electrons back across the supply battery connections in recharge mode

...details to follow...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on May 17, 2014, 12:08:28 PM
...hmmm - not sure that images used to appear so large when i last posted a couple years back!  apologies!!


for my first battery-supplied run i monitored the battery just with the probe for about 5-10 minutes and then connected the circuit

after that point the circuit started to exhibit the ability to vary between periods of discharging, maintaining and increasing the on-load battery voltage (see graph for 1st 36 hours of runtime) - battery 'at-rest' voltage, before connection to circuit was 7.583V, this morning, a day-and-a-half later,  the voltage is at 7.586V


are these 1000mAh NiMH AAA cells really being 'trickled-charged' by this pulse circuit?

my capacitor discharge curves indicate that the circuit is drawing approx 27uA - ie. it is equivalent to a load of approx 285K ohms
 
i connected the same LED type across a 9V battery with a suitable resistor to produce approx 27uA and the LED appears to be lit at a similar level

the graph (shown below) of the battery terminal voltage for 36 hours of circuit operation certainly gives no indication of a discharge trend - BUT - each cell is currently in the 'flat' region of it's discharge profile - if say, the cells are approx 50% charged, the circuit is only drawing 27uA from a battery with approx 500mAh of charge capacity remaining

[EDIT - the voltage axis on the graph is generated via a x10 probe - so read the voltages as 7.XXX volts and not 0.7XXX volts! )

it would take approx 500 / 0.027 ~= 18520 hours = 771 days = 2.1 years for this  load level to discharge this battery (ignoring cell self-discharge!) - so any discharge trend probably wouldn't show until the logging had run for several months

i've now swapped out the pulse circuit from the supply and re-connected the battery across an LED in series with a 220K ohm resistor to produce a comparable passive load - i've also left the 2200uF capacitor and large inductor across the battery for this test, as they are contributing buffer storage across the battery in the case of the circuit also - my next test will be to remove the capacitor/inductor and just log the battery loaded by the LED and resistor

we will now be able to see if our pulse circuits are adding any special behaviour to a rechargeable battery-powered setup, compared with a straight passive load

...watch this space!!

all the best
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: NerzhDishual on May 17, 2014, 11:51:31 PM

Hello Nul-Points,

So you are back! With very very interesting stuffs as a bonus.
Great...

Since a big couple of months, I keep on saying that "hidden" capacitors are a big clue.
I keep on experimenting with strange (air) capacitors embedded in coils (CapCoils).
The idea is from Vladimir Utkin, not me.

Very simple: one plate of the capacitor is the coil windings itself,
the other part is a (non-shorted) metallic foil.

Apparently, almost nobody seems interested in my results.
No 'OU' claimed here, but an apparent NoDrawBack effect.


- the secondary of the transformer (ie. base winding) is only connected directly to
the base at one end, but the other end is coupled by 'stray capacitance' to the primary
winding just as surely as if we had used a small value capacitor

IMO, you got the (not null) point here....
3 attached pictures

All the best,
Jean



Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on May 18, 2014, 12:35:43 AM
heeeey - Mr Dishual!

great to meet you here

your reps of these 'Indacitors' look very interesting

have you ever read about the transmitting aerial which is like a  hybrid coil-capacitor?

i think a student heard about them and implemented one on the roof of a radio station in his homeland, in the Middle East somewhere - i believe they worked amazingly well

have you been able to get any test results yet?  what sort of circuit is suggested?

i seem to remember reading about a coil split midway down by a disc capacitor - was that Utkin?

there's so much info - so little time left for me to look into it


my spring pendulum powered by water batteries has been bouncing away since Feb - the cells should have polarised by now, but it's still flashing its LED & pulsing the magnet - i must be doing*something* right!  ;)

i'll try and keep in better contact

all the best to Brest
np
 
 
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 22, 2014, 02:39:53 AM
Hello,nul-points!!!
 
Quote
hi Steven - long time! - apologies for absence - as our mutual friend Nerzh Dishual can report, i spend a lot of time off-planet these days  :-)

most of the little 'free energy' time which i have these days is spent on my 'water' battery interests, but i do still dabble with pulse circuits from time to time (solid-state and motor)

checking in at OU.com again very recently, i was interested to see your report of LaserSaber's Looper circuits

It has been a long time, NP!  great to hear from you again.
My turn for apologies as I've been helping my son in town with some home-problems (plus fighting a cold...).  So I just came to OU and saw you posts minutes ago!

Welcome back, my clever friend!

I will need some help starting Saturday morning on a build that I will be testing, so if you're around, I seek your help.  (Hope Nerzh and others will jump in, too.)
I'll show photos that day.
If you (and all readers) get the opportunity, please review the circuit and short video by LS here:
http://laserhacker.com/?p=410

The design will be the latest by LS, below on the right, compared with your 17 May ckt above.  I like what you've done for tickling the transistor base.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on May 23, 2014, 03:10:11 AM
hello Steven - good to hear from you!  i hope that you manage to get those RL issues sorted in short order

unfortunately i'm 'on the road' for a while and not sure where and when my next net connection will become available, so it's very likely that i'll have to be an observer after the fact wrt your upcoming tests

i can concur with some of the developments added by LS recently - the reverse diode(s) needed for biassing an NPN transistor are operating mostly just as a high resistance path from supply to base - more diodes in parallel act like more high resistances in parallel - can be used to 'tune' the pulse frequency somewhat - and also the base drive, setting the overall current draw of the circuit

i also found that when i first tried placing the LEDs across the base winding, then i their optimum direction (what LS called 'flipping' the LEDs) was related to the end of the winding which was best for driving the base and maintaining a long runtime

extending the runtime was always definitely at the expense of the optical output intensity of the LEDs


as a result of Nerzh Dishual's 'heads up', i've now read a few of the papers outlining V Utkin's essays on Free Energy techniques and i believe that he has correctly identified two absolutely vital aspects of 'tapping' Free Energy
 - firstly, a method has to be found which 'breaks' the symmetry of the energy/work interaction(s), so that Conservation rules no longer apply
 - secondly, the system has to draw on/pump a source of energy which is independent from that used to operate the circuit doing the 'pumping'

i believe that Tesla's ideas for a 'Fuel-less Generator' provided both Utkin's required elements
 - Tesla anticipated the device drawing in a working medium (eg. air or water) which would then be transformed to another state
 - Tesla regarded atmospheric or water pressure as the source of energy to drive the system, possibly starting the process using his advanced designs for a homopolar-type generator

i'd very much like to join ND in trying out some of Utkin's ideas, and hopefully seeing how we could possibly incorporate them into the pulse generator circuits which we've all been refining - of course, i'm also happy to be involved in investigations with these other designs such as the Looper-type circuits, when i'm free to do so

i'll probably be able to read posts on my phone, while i'm travelling, but i may not always be able to post replies

keep up the good work all
np






Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 23, 2014, 07:38:33 AM
hello Steven - good to hear from you! [snip for brevity sake]


i'd very much like to join ND in trying out some of Utkin's ideas, and hopefully seeing how we could possibly incorporate them into the pulse generator circuits which we've all been refining...

keep up the good work all
np

Thanks, NP -- plse count me in with ND and this path.  As you know, I love to do experimenting.

What I was expecting later came today -- it is LaserSaber's "5-hour" device, which he is letting me look at while he's on vacation.  The LEDs were still glowing upon arrival, 48h40min after he charged the 10000 uF cap!

I've acquired some data and made a short vid which may be helpful:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mJX5qW4ghk&feature=youtu.be .  Note my comments there.

(I will be traveling also, especially Friday, away from Wifi.  Cheers then!)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on May 24, 2014, 04:07:32 PM
LaserSaber pointed out to me a very interesting article published in the peer-reviewed journal, Physical Review Letters, one of the premier journals of physics.  Note that an LED efficiency of 230% is observed.

Below is a summary published by PhysOrg.  More here: http://phys.org/news/2012-03-efficiency.html
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on May 24, 2014, 04:13:49 PM
LaserSaber points out a very interesting article published in the peer-reviewed journal, Physical Review Letters, one of the premier journals of physics.  Note that an LED efficiency of 230% is observed.
Below is a summary published by PhysOrg.
The article does a really poor job of explaining what those researchers actually reported.  The device is a very novel heat pump.  The 230% efficiency number was optical versus electrical power that they reported.  But the total output optical versus input power they reported was less than 100%. 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on May 24, 2014, 04:22:52 PM
Take any LED, power it up so it's glowing well, then immerse it in LN2. You might be surprised!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 24, 2014, 04:27:23 PM
Take any LED, power it up so it's glowing well, then immerse it in LN2. You might be surprised!


What happens?

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on May 24, 2014, 04:29:12 PM

What happens?

Bill
Imagine the entire universe imploding at the speed of light!
Seriously: They get much brighter.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 24, 2014, 04:31:51 PM
Imagine the entire universe imploding at the speed of light!
Seriously: They get much brighter.

Does any amount of cooling improve the light output?  (Think home freezer) Or, do they have to be supercooled to see any effect?

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on May 24, 2014, 05:27:15 PM
Does any amount of cooling improve the light output?  (Think home freezer) Or, do they have to be supercooled to see any effect?

Bill
You won't see a lot of difference from room temperature to freezing.  Dry ice would be much better.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 11, 2014, 07:12:09 PM
    I've uploaded two videos on recent experiments involving magnetic coupling and Ed Leedskalnin's PMH. 
Not sure I understand everything here; two questions for YOU at the end of this post.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ze2tMt8G0Y&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ze2tMt8G0Y&feature=youtu.be)   

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utdrWqrEQyw&list=UUgY1w73JtptzOlzD9X7VTaQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utdrWqrEQyw&list=UUgY1w73JtptzOlzD9X7VTaQ)
 (I get a hefty electrical shock, but decide to show the vid anyway. That's how we learn sometimes!)

 I've added another video with TWO QUESTIONS awaiting answers.
3.   
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwp4M7bapmc&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwp4M7bapmc&feature=youtu.be)

From the caption:
Quote
Please provide your explanations for:

1.  Two steel balls attracted by ferrite-magnets, I pull on the outer ball. 
Why does the inner ball go with the outer ball rather than staying with the magnet? 
 (Isn't the magnetic field strongest at the face of the permanent magnet?)

2.  What lights the LED?  Researcher Russ Gries tests an Ed Leedskalnin device,
two years AFTER an electric current flowed in his two coils.
Notable experiment by Russ, pulling the "magnetically clampled" bar off the U and seeing an LED light brightly. 
Afterwards, there is no magnetic "sticking" of the bar to the U (not magnetized).
So -- what lights the LED? 


PS -- good work, Russ! I'm not totally sure about your "magnetic current in both directions" explanation,
but I really like the experiment and I'm trying to understand it.
And I've taught physics for many years, first with the Univ of Idaho, then at BYU for over 21 years, and I'm still learning!

I hope you all enjoy the videos.  To me, this is fun stuff...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: hartiberlin on July 11, 2014, 07:44:55 PM
Hi Dr. Jones,
great questions.

Well the first question is really hard to answer, you are right normally one should think
that the connection should break between ball1 and ball 2...

BUT I guess the flux is concentrated like in a lens from ball 1 into ball 2 and thus
at the contact point is a much higher flux density than at the magnet <-> ball conection...

Could also depend on the different material properties between ferrite and steel...

2nd question is easy to answer:
The LED flash comes from Russ putting in mechanical energy by his hand removing the bar
and thus causing a dphi/dt flux change in the core from the remanence field...

So surely the LED lights up from this flux change via induction then...
As energizing the coil produces a remanence Flux density Br in the core this
remanence field is easily able to stay for several years, if it is not broken
or heated or disturbed...
So this does not have anything to do with Perpetual motion... it is just the normal
remanence fields in steel that was generated by shortly energizing  the coils and then the domains in the steel flipped and aligned to generate this remanence field which attracts each other steel parts and as it is a closed magnet path it remains attracted.

There is nothing mysterial about it and it could be easily explained by normal magnet theory...


Regards, Stefan.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: d3x0r on July 11, 2014, 08:13:42 PM
   
Please provide your explanations for:

1.  Two steel balls attracted by ferrite-magnets, I pull on the outer ball. 
Why does the inner ball go with the outer ball rather than staying with the magnet? 
 (Isn't the magnetic field strongest at the face of the permanent magnet?)
Depends on the strength of the magnet.  I have an Alnico magnet and with 2 steel balls, the inner ball stays on the magnet.  I have some of the hematite magnets and the balls stick together, also ferrite speaker magnets the balls stick together (without a gap).  It has to do with the magnetic properties of the material.. similarly a neodymium magnet holds the inner ball.  (I tried quite a few sizes from 1"x1" cylinder, 3/8"x3/8" cylinder, and finally 1/8"x1/4" cylinder... in the case of the last one, the outside ball is barely even stuck to the inner ball... like the field doesn't even go through the 3/8" steel ball).... has something to do with flux density of the material I'd imagine.


2.  What lights the LED?  Researcher Russ Gries tests an Ed Leedskalnin device,
two years AFTER an electric current flowed in his two coils.
Notable experiment by Russ, pulling the "magnetically clampled" bar off the U and seeing an LED light brightly. 
Afterwards, there is no magnetic "sticking" of the bar to the U (not magnetized).
So -- what lights the LED? 

Breaking flux lines... much like solar flares, when the field lines snap... before there are stable structures that exist, but eventually the content of the plasma within the tubes exceeds the tube's strength and breaks the lines...(?)  How this relates to the actual structure of field lines I do not know; but hav e played with PMH's and they do last forever... and until the flux loop is broken it will hold firmly.


The PMH doesn't have to be a U and I, it can be 2 blocks, and a single wire through it... (image attached)  Not sure if the wire was left in-place (and if you could separate it) if it would light from the broken flux potential turned into kinetic...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJSDYYaF3LA&list=PLD98D8E671F5DDD8E&index=12 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJSDYYaF3LA&list=PLD98D8E671F5DDD8E&index=12)


This is a more interesting magnetic flux effect... these videos would indicate that flux lines when bound can even be thread-like and wrap around objects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1IDc9NWwRo&list=PLD98D8E671F5DDD8E&index=3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1IDc9NWwRo&list=PLD98D8E671F5DDD8E&index=3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaiZRTSOKzc&list=PLD98D8E671F5DDD8E&index=4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaiZRTSOKzc&list=PLD98D8E671F5DDD8E&index=4)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 11, 2014, 08:24:28 PM
F follows B2.  An air gap, ie the cardboard pieces make a reluctance gap that drops B big time, whereas the two balls do not have a gap.  If someone conducts an experiment where they can actually measure something violating established understanding rather than cursory intuition, then that would be remarkable.

Second video:  E = L*di/dt.  He has a big inductor capable of storing a lot of voltage, and energy.  A good sized flyback spike is completely ordinary and expected.

Third video same problem as the first:  Bad assumptions lead to bad answers.  It is not shown anywhere that the product of B2 and area is higher for the ball that is in contact with the magnet than between the two balls.

As Stefan said:  Russ supplies the work.  The remnant field lines were broken and there was a fully expected voltage pulse as a result.  That the magnet remnant field largely demagnetized preventing a repeat on the same scale doesn't matter.  Neither does Russ's two fs, two s, two day or two year wait.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 12, 2014, 12:22:41 AM
d3xor:
Quote
The PMH doesn't have to be a U and I, it can be 2 blocks, and a single wire through it... (image attached)  Not sure if the wire was left in-place (and if you could separate it) if it would light from the broken flux potential turned into kinetic...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJSDYYaF3LA&list=PLD98D8E671F5DDD8E&index=12 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJSDYYaF3LA&list=PLD98D8E671F5DDD8E&index=12)


This is a more interesting magnetic flux effect... these videos would indicate that flux lines when bound can even be thread-like and wrap around objects.

Very interesting vids.  I wonder about the effects observed; more experiments needed.  That flux twisting is a surprise, with small permanent magnets.

...
As Stefan said:  Russ supplies the work.  The remnant field lines were broken and there was a fully expected voltage pulse as a result.  That the magnet remnant field largely demagnetized preventing a repeat on the same scale doesn't matter....


Wait -- this is really the crux of the matter, how could the U and I be "largely demagnetized" as observed?
 
Others measuring show essentially NO magnetization remaining after the keeper is pulled off the U as shown.
Have you ever pulled a keep off a bar magnet and had both become "largely demagnetized"?   (I think not!)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 12, 2014, 02:30:34 AM
d3xor:
Very interesting vids.  I wonder about the effects observed; more experiments needed.  That flux twisting is a surprise, with small permanent magnets.


Wait -- this is really the crux of the matter, how could the U and I be "largely demagnetized" as observed?
 
Others measuring show essentially NO magnetization remaining after the keeper is pulled off the U as shown.
Have you ever pulled a keep off a bar magnet and had both become "largely demagnetized"?   (I think not!)
With soft iron this is easy to do:  Magnetize with the loop closed, IE no gap.  The remnant magnetization will be quite good and remain so until a reluctance gap is opened.  Once the gap is opened the remnant magnetization collapses.  If you want to investigate this use a pair of windings as a transformer to determine the bias.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 12, 2014, 04:29:58 PM
MarkE:
Quote
With soft iron this is easy to do:  Magnetize with the loop closed, IE no gap.  The remnant magnetization will be quite good and remain so until a reluctance gap is opened.  Once the gap is opened the remnant magnetization collapses.

Please explain this: "Once the gap is opened the remnant magnetization collapses."
Basically, this is what we observe -- but why does the "remnant magnetization collapse"?   Truly, COLLAPSES - gone entirely (or almost entirely).

 This does not happen when I remove the keeper from a horseshoe magnet, for example.  So why does demagnetization occur when the iron has been magnetized with an electromagnet (coil)?

(I don't think you've given me a straight answer yet.  I'm not sure anyone KNOWS the answer.)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 12, 2014, 04:31:39 PM

MarkE:
Quote
With soft iron this is easy to do:  Magnetize with the loop closed, IE no gap.  The remnant magnetization will be quite good and remain so until a reluctance gap is opened.  Once the gap is opened the remnant magnetization collapses.

Please explain this: "Once the gap is opened the remnant magnetization collapses."
Basically, this is what we observe -- but why does the "remnant magnetization collapse"?   Truly, COLLAPSES - gone entirely (or almost entirely).

 This does not happen when I remove the keeper from a horseshoe magnet, for example.  So why does demagnetization occur when the iron (or ferrite, in my experiments/video)  has been magnetized with an electromagnet (coil)?

(I don't think you've given me a straight answer yet.  I'm not sure anyone KNOWS the answer.)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 12, 2014, 10:12:07 PM
MarkE:
Please explain this: "Once the gap is opened the remnant magnetization collapses."
Basically, this is what we observe -- but why does the "remnant magnetization collapse"?   Truly, COLLAPSES - gone entirely (or almost entirely).

 This does not happen when I remove the keeper from a horseshoe magnet, for example.  So why does demagnetization occur when the iron (or ferrite, in my experiments/video)  has been magnetized with an electromagnet (coil)?

(I don't think you've given me a straight answer yet.  I'm not sure anyone KNOWS the answer.)
In two words:  coercive force.  You are observing the difference between hard and soft magnetic materials.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 12, 2014, 10:28:49 PM
Core permeability! The frequency that the ferrite can completely charge and discharge determines it's "Permeability Rating". A thousand like lasersaber's Joule Ringer type, or up to ten thousand for Metglass.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Farmhand on July 12, 2014, 10:29:49 PM
It's no big secret, the remnant magnetism is a magnetic current created by an electric current (not a permanent magnet) so
when the keeper is removed the remnant magnetism collapses just like the magnetism in a coil collapses when the electric current
is stopped. My guess is that the energy that is contained within the magnetic current is released through the coils when the
keeper is removed.

What do you think should happen ? Should the magnetic current just disappear. Or do you think the energy should be released
some other way ?

....

General statements below, not directed at anyone in particular.

I'm going to go ahead and say that the energy required for the keeper to remain locked is so small that a reduction in the energy
within the magnetism would not be noticed in a short period of time. There is no output from a PMH whatsoever
(except the discharge from the coil when the keeper is removed by force) so the only outlet for the energy is through losses in the
connections between the keeper and the main body of the PMH. If one was to make a PMH with a bad connection between the
keeper and the main body of the PMH then the keeper might fall off on it's own in a relatively short time.

Some say the PMH is free energy or perpetual motion and people can call it whatever they want but a PMH has no output until the
keeper is removed by force. Then only part of the original energy can be recovered.

..
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 12, 2014, 10:32:39 PM
Core permeability! The frequency that the ferrite can completely charge and discharge determines it's "Permeability Rating". A thousand like lasersaber's Joule Ringer type, or up to ten thousand for Metglass.
Permeability is the slope of the BH curve.  What we are talking about is what happens when:  H is small after having been large, H is really small after having been large, and H goes negative.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 13, 2014, 12:23:14 AM
It's no big secret, the remnant magnetism is a magnetic current created by an electric current (not a permanent magnet) so
when the keeper is removed the remnant magnetism collapses just like the magnetism in a coil collapses when the electric current
is stopped. My guess is that the energy that is contained within the magnetic current is released through the coils when the
keeper is removed.

What do you think should happen ? Should the magnetic current just disappear. Or do you think the energy should be released
some other way ?

....

General statements below, not directed at anyone in particular.

I'm going to go ahead and say that the energy required for the keeper to remain locked is so small that a reduction in the energy
within the magnetism would not be noticed in a short period of time. There is no output from a PMH whatsoever
(except the discharge from the coil when the keeper is removed by force) so the only outlet for the energy is through losses in the
connections between the keeper and the main body of the PMH. If one was to make a PMH with a bad connection between the
keeper and the main body of the PMH then the keeper might fall off on it's own in a relatively short time.

Some say the PMH is free energy or perpetual motion and people can call it whatever they want but a PMH has no output until the
keeper is removed by force. Then only part of the original energy can be recovered.

..


Dr. Jones clearly demonstrates that running a reverse current through the coil and snapping it off, collapses the magnetic field returning flyback power along with removing the keeper by force as an additional approach..
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 13, 2014, 12:27:38 AM
Nothing described or demonstrated so far appears in the least way unusual to me.  What is it that you think is unusual and why?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 13, 2014, 05:11:56 PM
The important difference is that it requires many many times the power to decouple the keeper by physical force then it does with a tiny jolt of a few mlli-watts. The flyback may even be greater with the small backwards jolt, because the magnetic field collapse is more sudden.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 13, 2014, 08:54:55 PM
The important difference is that it requires many many times the power to decouple the keeper by physical force then it does with a tiny jolt of a few mlli-watts. The flyback may even be greater with the small backwards jolt, because the magnetic field collapse is more sudden.
Do not confuse: force, energy, and power.  Careful measurement invariably show that the energy required is the same independent of the method.  Mechanically high force is required but only over a very tiny distance on the order of 0.001".  Anyone who doubts this can set-up the experiments properly and conduct them.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on July 13, 2014, 09:23:27 PM
Coming close to steorn orbo secrets here.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 13, 2014, 11:18:12 PM
Coming close to steorn orbo secrets here.
LOL!  Do you mean that Steorn were consummate liars and incompetent at science?  Sean McCarthy's appearance and sound drubbing at UCD is a classic.  But what s a bit of terminal embarrassment when you get to spend your way through 20 million euros or so of investor money producing nothing?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on July 14, 2014, 11:13:12 PM

Meanwhile my experiments with magnetic clamping continue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV9WsZmJ7w8&feature=youtu.be

Video taped today (July 14 not 16 oops), a few more interesting experiments.

From my caption:
Quote
Published on Jul 14, 2014

Continuation of my magnetic-clamping experiments. As before, I use the ferrite C + I core, with a coil of 18 AWG speaker wire (50 feet long) on the C portion.

Power input from a 1000uF capacitor (this is new). We calculate the input energy using Ein = 1/2 C V^2. The input voltage is about 5 volts, so available in the cap is Eavail = 1/2 (1000 uF) (5V)^2 = 12.5 mJ.

This is the power delivered if Vfinal = 0 on the cap; but this is generally not the case as I quickly tap the yellow lead from the coil to the (+) leg of the cap.

Test 1: Cap goes from 5V to 2.7V, and clamping does occur.
Energy input from the cap: 1/2 1000uF (5^2 - 2.7^2) = 8.9mJ
(Not 2 mJ, but as I noted I had seen clamping with 2mJ input before with earlier testing.)

Test 2: Cap goes from 5V to NEG 0.7V. Negative voltages on cap are often seen with testing as shown, quick tap to the coil from the cap leg. The negative voltage on the cap presumably stems from flyback from the coil.

In Test 2, the input energy from the cap is 1/2 1000uF (5^2 - (-0.6)^2) = 0.5mF (24.6) = 12.3 mJ.
By applying a negative voltage on the coil (that is, current in the opposite direction), de-clamping may occur.

PS -- if I hold the yellow lead on the (+) leg of the cap at 5V, instead of quick-tapping, the cap quickly drains to 0V, but clamping does not occur. The quick-tapping is important for some reason - and often results in a negative voltage on the cap (due to flyback from the coil no doubt).

With a negative voltage of about -1V or so, I get de-clamping (when the coil is energized with a quick tap from the cap, as shown).
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 15, 2014, 12:35:59 AM
Why don't you use a pair of diodes?  Charge the capacitor, disconnect the supply, then connect the coil to the capacitor through a series diode with a flyback diode across the coil?  No flicking will be necessary.

I am not sure what it is that you find unusual about any of this.  People have made keepers with lapped surfaces for many years.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 15, 2014, 12:46:24 AM
@Jouleseeker,


The de-clamping from negative voltage in your video is awesome! I've been waiting for impulse magnetization tests from the biflar. I succeeded in replicating the bifilar nail experiment that "Tesla-Coil-builder" designed  and I'm completely impressed by your measurements . This adds up to overunity, if the two thousand joules stored in the magnetic field can be recovered  as flyback when the field collapses.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 15, 2014, 12:51:00 AM
Synchro1 it is all very normal very under unity behavior.  Energy transfers from the capacitor to the coil, and if he is not fast enough back to the capacitor from the coil in an ordinary ringing tank.  The stored energy is ultimately dissipated primarily in the circuit resistance.  A small fraction of the energy ends up stored in the turned domains of the soft magnetic material.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 15, 2014, 12:57:32 AM
Synchro1 it is all very normal underunity behavior.


Says you! If the keeper were on a rotor arm, the rotor inertia added to the pulse and fly back recovery equilibrium would put it way over the top as a pulse motor, and pehaps be turned into a self runner.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: d3x0r on July 15, 2014, 01:18:28 AM
Why don't you use a pair of diodes?  Charge the capacitor, disconnect the supply, then connect the coil to the capacitor through a series diode with a flyback diode across the coil?  No flicking will be necessary.

I am not sure what it is that you find unusual about any of this.  People have made keepers with lapped surfaces for many years.
was thinking that; if the diodes were kept in the circuit as a constant load, should be able to attach a second, discharged cap and measure how much energy comes back out when separated... minus the losses in the diodes of course... but needs the diodes otherwise it will just dump back out into the coil...


The other thing that wasn't really addressed the the resulting negative voltage in the cap; this is because the coil is sort of like a body with momentum; moreso on a ferrite core... that is once the current starts, it continues until it is exhausted/builds opposite charge... so starting a current from a positive voltage will continue until an equal negative voltage is built up in the source... (minus losses in the wire, which is the ring-down effect of a resonant circuit)...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 15, 2014, 01:35:11 AM
Beyond the intended circuit function, there is the matter of protecting the capacitor.  Electrolytic capacitors get very unhappy if reverse biased.  More than a volt or two can cause them to fail.  The two diode arrangement allows the stored energy in the inductor to safely recirculate without reverse biasing the capacitor.  The capacitor will discharge down to the forward bias cut  off of the horizontal diode and then the inductor voltage will drop by Vfw latching the vertical diode on until the energy in the magnetic field dissipates, or the capacitor is charged up and connected again.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 15, 2014, 01:40:32 AM

Says you! If the keeper were on a rotor arm, the rotor inertia added to the pulse and fly back recovery equilibrium would put it way over the top as a pulse motor, and pehaps be turned into a self runner.
Synchro1 you can fantasize about such things.  If you believe such fantasies, then you should build a test vehicle and try it out.  Or if you prefer to cut to the chase you may observe that the capacitor gets charged up with real energy.  The energy gets dissipated.  A tiny amount of the energy remains in the iron.  In the case of the soft ferrite "U" and "I" pieces that Steven Jones is using that amount is extremely small.  Negligible mechanical work is performed each cycle.  Aside from a very minute amount of radiation, no external electrical work is done either.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: d3x0r on July 15, 2014, 01:45:35 AM
Synchro1 you can fantasize about such things.  If you believe such fantasies, then you should build a test vehicle and try it out.  Or if you prefer to cut to the chase you may observe that the capacitor gets charged up with real energy.  The energy gets dissipated.  A tiny amount of the energy remains in the iron.  In the case of the soft ferrite "U" and "I" pieces that Steven Jones is using that amount is extremely small.  Negligible mechanical work is performed each cycle.  Aside from a very minute amount of radiation, no external electrical work is done either.
That's not really true; with LEDs attached when disconnected, they will flash for a moment; I agree it's a small amount, but it is measuable and can do 'work' even if small.
http://youtu.be/832qz3s1M-s?t=5m22s
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 15, 2014, 02:19:50 AM
That's not really true; with LEDs attached when disconnected, they will flash for a moment; I agree it's a small amount, but it is measuable and can do 'work' even if small.
http://youtu.be/832qz3s1M-s?t=5m22s
What Russ Griese demonstrated is completely normal and expected.  He performed the work that went into lighting the LEDs.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on July 15, 2014, 03:19:31 AM
Mr. Hand is in action again, not unlike turning the handle of a crank generator for a second or two.  External energy input must be accounted for in the calculations.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: d3x0r on July 15, 2014, 03:28:27 AM
What Russ Griese demonstrated is completely normal and expected.  He performed the work that went into lighting the LEDs.
... by breaking the flux path and allowing it to collapse and produce a changing magnetic field through the coils... without the magnetic flux stored, there is no work... it's not just the hand.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 15, 2014, 04:57:09 AM
Actually, it really is Russ Doing all the work.  Despite the high initial force, there is only a very tiny amount of energy stored in the domain rotation within the iron parts.  Russ applies energy that works against that force and in the course of opening the reluctance gap, generates and EMF that ultimately lights the LED.  The primary difference between this device and an ordinary generator is that the iron be a soft magnetic material, once the reluctance gap is opened the flux collapses and unlike a PM will not restore when the gap is closed again.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 15, 2014, 07:45:31 PM
Quote from Wikipedia:

"The faster a magnetic field collapses, the greater the induced voltage".

Dr. Jones's backwards charge snap is at the speed of light, unlike the physical force you allude to. The more rapid field collapse and induced voltage are higher with Dr. Jones's back snap then Russ achieved with his decoupling approach.

You're making the mistake of assuming there's only one fixed amount of fly back energy available for recovery. Proper discharge timing can potentially yield many times more than the initial input pulse power from the demagnetization cycle. All you've managed to do is trivialize Dr. Jones' contribution as usual.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Farmhand on July 15, 2014, 08:37:58 PM
Quote from Wikipedia:

"The faster a magnetic field collapses, the greater the induced voltage".

Dr. Jones's backwards charge snap is at the speed of light, unlike the physical force you allude to. The more rapid field collapse and induced voltage are higher with Dr. Jones's back snap then Russ achieved with his decoupling approach.

You're making the mistake of assuming there's only one fixed amount of fly back energy available for recovery. Proper discharge timing can potentially yield many times more than the initial input pulse power from the demagnetization cycle. All you've managed to do is trivialize Dr. Jones' contribution as usual.

There you go again Synchro confusing voltage and energy as the same thing. You should not be making that mistake at this point.

The produced voltage has nothing to do with the amount of energy, nothing.

..
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 15, 2014, 09:24:21 PM
Quote from Wikipedia:

"The faster a magnetic field collapses, the greater the induced voltage".
Yes, this is Faraday's Law in action.
Quote

Dr. Jones's backwards charge snap is at the speed of light, unlike the physical force you allude to. The more rapid field collapse and induced voltage are higher with Dr. Jones's back snap then Russ achieved with his decoupling approach.
No, the dv/dt is based on the derivative of the change in flux with respect to time.  That change in voltage is not motion so speed of any kind is not in play.  The power and energy to execute the physical movement are all supplied by Russ.  Higher power from Russ yields a faster movement of the pieces, a higher voltage and higher power out into the LED.
Quote

You're making the mistake of assuming there's only one fixed amount of fly back energy available for recovery. Proper discharge timing can potentially yield many times more than the initial input pulse power from the demagnetization cycle. All you've managed to do is trivialize Dr. Jones' contribution as usual.
I have applied proven physics.  You are asserting misconceptions.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 15, 2014, 10:55:31 PM

Quote from Science dictionary:

"The voltage induced in a coil of wire is directly proportional to the rate of change[/i] over time of magnetic flux (Faraday's Law: e = NdΦ/dt), this rapid collapse of magnetism around the coil produces a high voltage “spike”.


Quote
Quote from Wikipedia:

"The faster a magnetic field collapses, the greater the induced voltage".

Yes, this is Faraday's Law in action.

Faraday's law applies to voltage induced in a coil of wire! Nothing to do with the PMH and impulse locking." Impulse magnetizing ferrite and producing a magnetic field in a coil of wire where Faraday's law applies are pretty far afield from each other. There's a quantum effect inside the PMH that requires more then Faraday's rule for coils to explain. Transmutation of ferrite into a higher isotope from hi voltage impulse, and domain flipping have been tested to generate anomalous energy that the linear coil exchange can't. 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 16, 2014, 02:06:01 AM
Quote from Science dictionary:

"The voltage induced in a coil of wire is directly proportional to the rate of change[/i] over time of magnetic flux (Faraday's Law: e = NdΦ/dt), this rapid collapse of magnetism around the coil produces a high voltage “spike”.


Faraday's law applies to voltage induced in a coil of wire! Nothing to do with the PMH and impulse locking." Impulse magnetizing ferrite and producing a magnetic field in a coil of wire where Faraday's law applies are pretty far afield from each other. There's a quantum effect inside the PMH that requires more then Faraday's rule for coils to explain. Transmutation of ferrite into a higher isotope from hi voltage impulse, and domain flipping have been tested to generate anomalous energy that the linear coil exchange can't.
Synchro1, Faraday's Law absolutely applies to this case. 

If you think that there is extra energy, then where are the measurements?
If you think that there is transmutation going on, then where is your evidence?  Where are assays of the materials?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 16, 2014, 02:48:03 AM
Synchro1, Faraday's Law absolutely applies to this case. 

If you think that there is extra energy, then where are the measurements?
If you think that there is transmutation going on, then where is your evidence?  Where are assays of the materials?


The process of free energy generation from magnetization/demagnetization of a ferromagnetic core has been fully explained in the Nikolay E. Zaev paper "Ferrites and Ferromagnetics Free Energy Generation (http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/images/demag.pdf)" published in New Energy Technologies Issue #5 Sept-Oct 2002.


S2Gen Episode 7: Measuring the difference between the Demagnetization energy and the Magnetization energy.

Comment from youtube:


Uploaded on Mar 2, 2010


Here a new very interesting experiment withe the 2SGen which demonstrates that the output energy collected from demagnetization of the ferromagnetic core is greater than the input energy required to magnetize the core according to the N. Zaev paper. This is a good way to get free energy... More info at: www.jlnlab.com (http://www.jlnlab.com)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WEXbR9TBMM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WEXbR9TBMM)



JLN's Lambda is 13.7. That means he's measured over thirteen times the power returned from the demagnetization of the ferrite then it took to magnetize it. Caso cerrado!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MileHigh on July 16, 2014, 03:56:54 AM
Synchro1:

A few years back I looked at some JL Naudin clips, I remember his Steorn clips.  I recall several times he had to make retractions and/or redo some clips.  So he has never been someone I have had much faith in.

And I don't like to be negative, but what does measuring a few milliseconds worth of two DC voltages have to do with measuring magnetization and demagnetization energy?  It's farking retarded.

Honestly, just that, even though that clip was four years ago, is enough to destroy his credibility.  I am telling you in all seriousness that it's shocking.  It's like going to a car mechanic and saying that you have a brake problem and he tells you that he has to put bananas in the transmission to fix it.

MileHigh
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 16, 2014, 04:06:16 AM
@Milehigh,

Do yourself a favor pal; Phone an ambulance and ask them to drop you off at the local Psych Ward please! You're the one with a bunch of misplaced Bananas!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MileHigh on July 16, 2014, 04:14:18 AM
Bullcrap, Synchro1.  What I am saying is absolutely true.

Don't agree with me?  Okay, the ball is in your court.

Explain to us why JLN's clip where he measures two voltages across a resistor and concludes the discharging energy is greater than the charging energy is valid.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 16, 2014, 05:21:38 AM
The only problem being that his measurements do not show what he claims that they show.

In order to measure a gain, the output power which is the sum of the two phase outputs: one forward and one flyback,  must be compared to the input power that he does not measure, that is the product of the 4V power supply against its input current.  All that Naudin did was show that the forward and flyback sides indicate that the forward side conducted discontinuously.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 16, 2014, 05:28:25 AM
@Milehigh,

Do yourself a favor pal; Phone an ambulance and ask them to drop you off at the local Psych Ward please! You're the one with a bunch of misplaced Bananas!
Synchro1 Naudin's conclusions are a joke for the reasons that I just stated.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MileHigh on July 16, 2014, 01:14:20 PM
Thanks Mark for explaining what JLN really did in that experiment.  It was so retarded that I could not even bother to invest the time in digging that deep.  And it's still shocking to me.

This is Synchro1's cue to run away.  For some people it's almost impossible to admit that they were wrong and I don't want to single Synchro1 out from the pack.  A classic "rebuttal" from some believers (that typically have very little technical knowledge) is to throw an insult at the person, never discuss the technical merits (or lack of technical merits) of the proposition, and then run away without having the character to admit that they were wrong or the reference that they were citing was wrong.  You quickly get used to it.

It's like a funny scene in that Peter Seller's classic comedy "The Party."  He is fiddling with some electronics stuff in the host's apartment and breaks it.  Ten seconds later the host discovers the problem and the camera slowly pans up and the Peter Sellers character is seen far away on the other side of the apartment.

MileHigh
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 16, 2014, 01:33:34 PM
Maybe you have more history with synchro1 than I do.  While he is mistaken, he pulled up a reference that if one did not know better, one might have thought reliably supported the idea.  Of course it did not, or JLN would have been off the grid four years ago.  I have not gone back to read the paper that JLN supposedly referenced for his experiments.

Insert an inductor and a catch diode into the forward path and the layout is a classic isolated forward converter with and RCD flux reset, ala a circa 1980 International Rectifier application note.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: d3x0r on July 16, 2014, 03:00:52 PM
I would have pursued my argument that it's not just Russ's action that causes the work; the two are inevitably inseparable.
magnetic remanence was used in core memory, so it can be detected and thereby do useful work.  There is a storage of energy, and breaking the loop physically is another way to release that energy.  It may contain additional energy from the physical work done... like charged capacitor plates manually separated; I would have suspected that the physical work was a total loss.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/magperm.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/magperm.html)
" Once the magnetic domains are reoriented, it takes some energy to turn them back again. This property of ferrromagnetic materials is useful as a magnetic "memory""
but those are closed systems.

http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Workshop/advice/coils/gap/ (http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Workshop/advice/coils/gap/)
"Also, you should not be surprised to learn, there is, for every core type, a limit to the amount of energy that may be stored. In the next section you will discover that there is an optimum air gap length, lO, which will deliver that energy. Table AGT shows lO for a range of core types, under the following conditions -"

There's so few applications of PMH like-things that I assume it's sold as non-issue(not worth computing of classifying) and is dismissed as 'physical work produces energy' and there's so often easier means to that end(making energy).  I'm not saying it's extra, but given that there was additional physical work applied, it probably is, but not more than the total applied (work to align the domains and then the physical work to cause an airgap).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_circuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_circuit)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_UHixEy7xU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_UHixEy7xU)  Switching Permantent Magnet Field
Tom Bearden on Radus Magnetic boots http://www.cheniere.org/misc/astroboots.htm (http://www.cheniere.org/misc/astroboots.htm)
http://www-tc.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/static/media/transcripts/2011-05-22/801_spaceboot.pdf (http://www-tc.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/static/media/transcripts/2011-05-22/801_spaceboot.pdf) (interview with Chris Radus, son of William Radus)

Certainly the magnetic flux path has a strength, and therefore a force itself, because, again, without magnetic domains aligned, removing the keeper does nothing, so it's not just a physical action.

Wikipedia says 'magnetic boots were never used by astronauts, because of potential interference with electrical systems'

--------
Practical implementation of flux switching : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_switching_alternator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux_switching_alternator) (actually looks like a QEG)
http://www.fleadh.co.uk/srm.htm (http://www.fleadh.co.uk/srm.htm)  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_reluctance_motor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_reluctance_motor))

I tried to avoid obvious 'free energy' references; but I'll throw this paper in too http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/magtrans.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/magtrans.htm) 
http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/energy21/magnetictechnology.htm (http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/energy21/magnetictechnology.htm)  (jeo flynn parallel-path magnetic stuff)
-------
more for others to pursue the idea a google search for 'magnetic flux switch' might be of interest
------
http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/flux-switching/text/overefficient-permanent-magnetic-holding-device/ (http://magnetmotor.go-here.nl/flux-switching/text/overefficient-permanent-magnetic-holding-device/)  ; this looks more like the programmed magnets from http://www.correlatedmagnetics.com/ (http://www.correlatedmagnetics.com/)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBHWUUtJH6U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBHWUUtJH6U)  ; Various combinations of N/S sub-poles within a larger magnetic material causes repel until close enough to attach, and attract until close enough to repel; also used for twist-orientation latch/delatch configurations...  I guess I'm starting to diverge from the topic at hand)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 16, 2014, 04:19:24 PM
d3, I believe that I have stated several times that there is a very small amount of energy in the iron.  But it is really quite a tiny fraction of the work that is done lighting the LED.  As you have researched, switched reluctance machines have been around for a long time.  None of them have ever been found by careful measurements to be over unity.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: d3x0r on July 16, 2014, 04:38:19 PM
d3,
There's several 'leet translator's searchable, some have varying degrees of 'leetness'

http://www.jayssite.com/stuff/l33t/l33t_translator.html (http://www.jayssite.com/stuff/l33t/l33t_translator.html)
http://www.robertecker.com/hp/research/leet-converter.php?lang=en (http://www.robertecker.com/hp/research/leet-converter.php?lang=en)


Decker = d3x0r; much like hacker = hax0r or h4x0r
D3<|<3R
|)3(|<3|2


Dex, or d3x is better :) 
I just have to complain every once in a while; lots of people choose 'd3' as an abbreviation... and that's more like d33Z /\/utZ..  n00b :) :) :) j/k
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 16, 2014, 11:57:38 PM
OK.  I didn't mean to offend.  I was just being lazy.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 17, 2014, 12:32:42 PM

Ever read Dr Dragone's work?

http://tesla3.com/free_websites/zpe_dragone.html (http://tesla3.com/free_websites/zpe_dragone.html)


Zaev and Dragone come down to adiabatics. I'll try and simplify it; Magnetization raises the heat capacity in the ferrite. Demagnetization causes a cooling!


Dragone places a magnet inside a coil core wound to deliver equal masking strength. When he energizes the coil, the PM field vanishes. Dr. Dragone begins by asking where did it go? WHERE DID THE PERMANENT MAGNET FIELD GO? Why does the magnet grow cold?


Think about this: We shock the magnet cold. The magnet warms back up by itself.  Total heat gain is more then the  joules of shock power can deliver!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 17, 2014, 01:00:58 PM
Ever read Dr Dragone's work?

http://tesla3.com/free_websites/zpe_dragone.html (http://tesla3.com/free_websites/zpe_dragone.html)


Zaev and Dragone come down to adiabatics. I'll try and simplify it; Magnetization raises the heat capacity in the ferrite. Demagnetization causes a cooling!


Dragone places a magnet inside a coil core wound to deliver equal masking strength. When he energizes the coil, the PM field vanishes. Dr. Dragone begins by asking where did it go? WHERE DID THE PERMANENT MAGNET FIELD GO? Why does the magnet grow cold?


Think about this: We shock the magnet cold. The magnet warms back up by itself.  Hotter then the shock power can heat!
I don't know what he claims to be a doctor of, but he is way off the mark.  Opposing flux means that the net flux sums to a smaller value.  Neither field has gone anywhere.  There are many similar experiments using bifilar coils.  There are many useful mechanical devices that have capitalized on flux cancellation.  None have yielded any excess energy.  None have destroyed energy.  There are magento-caloric materials out there.  Whether these guys are using them in their experiments or not, there is again no net energy gain or loss in their application.

He goes on to make a series of assertions and then draw conclusions from those untested assertions.  Like many, he takes the solution of the integral for energy in a linear inductor from I = 0 to Ix:  E = 0.5*LIx2 and then tries to apply that solution to one where the integral does not start at zero.  Fail to measure the right values, like JLN did, and/or apply the wrong equations and get silly results.  If any of these guys could get excess energy, then you should be asking yourself where their working free energy machines are.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 17, 2014, 02:22:11 PM
People also pose that question to Thane Hines who has demonstrated OU in his Bitoroid Transformer. It's impractical to apply the tiny power unts, gains in milliwatts, to running a household appliance.


Experimenters have determined conclusively that there's a non linear relationship between magnetization and demagnetization events. This implies a quantum involvement that involves relativistic analysis to understand.


The permenent magnet material has to do more work to reestablish it's neutralized field then it takes to suppress it.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 17, 2014, 03:13:47 PM
People also pose that question to Thane Hines who has demonstrated OU in his Bitoroid Transformer. It's impractical to apply the tiny power unts, gains in milliwatts, to running a household appliance.


Experimenters have determined conclusively that there's a non linear relationship between magnetization and demagnetization events. This implies a quantum involvement that involves relativistic analysis to understand.


The permenent magnet material has to do more work to reestablish it's neutralized field then it takes to suppress it.
I have not seen any experiments by Thane Heins, or anyone reproducing any of Thane Heins' apparatus that show OU. 

I don't know what basis you use to assert that magnetization / demagnetization involves relativistic velocities.  Real scientists performing carefully controlled experiments have been able to reliably account for all of the energy consumed magnetizing and demagnetizing a myriad of materials.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 17, 2014, 03:19:59 PM
Look, you must be online. Why not search youtube and view Thane's bitoroid videos. I'm flabergasted by your assertion. I'm not posting hyper links for you. You impress me as being somewhat purblind. Do your homework!

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 17, 2014, 03:35:03 PM
I have looked at a number of Thane Heins experiments and subjected to careful analysis none of them came up OU.  Thane Heins "discovered" what people who designed and built magnetic amplifiers knew decades before he was born.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Dave45 on July 18, 2014, 03:21:53 AM
Troll
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on July 18, 2014, 09:12:15 AM
Troll
Quote
troll (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll&defid=283884)   One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
If the shoe fits, Dave... wear it.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 18, 2014, 10:31:00 AM
"Ferromagnetic materials, for example, are known to heat up when magnetized and to cool down when the magnetic field is removed."

"The presence of a magnetic field makes ferromagnetic materials become more ordered. This is accompanied by disorder within the atomic lattice, which causes an increase in the material's temperature," Balli said. "Inversely, the absence of a magnetic field means that the atomic lattice is more ordered and results in a temperature decrease. Magnetic refrigeration essentially works by recapturing produced cooling energy via a heat transfer fluid, such as water."
The researchers originally set out to measure the standard magnetocaloric effect in the multiferroic compound HoMn2O5, because this material possesses an insulating behavior that prevents energy losses associated with electric currents passing through it when altering its magnetic field.
But, much to their surprise, they discovered that a giant magnetocaloric effect can be obtained by simply rotating a crystal of HoMn2O5 within a constant magnetic field – without requiring moving it in and out of the magnetic field zone (which is the case for materials exhibiting standard magnetocaloric effects).

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-magnetic-cooling-enables-efficient-green.html#jCp (http://phys.org/news/2014-06-magnetic-cooling-enables-efficient-green.html#jCp)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 18, 2014, 11:40:59 AM
Synchro1 what are you trying to suggest?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 18, 2014, 12:29:44 PM
Faraday's law does not apply to increased heat capacity from restructuring the atomic lattice of ferrite by exposing it to a magnetic field.


The magnet cooling effect is way overunity in the device pictured below: Rotating the ferrite alloy core 90 degrees causes a dramatic cooling effect, far in excess of any miniscule amount of power it took to reorient the core!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 18, 2014, 01:30:01 PM
Faraday's law does not apply to increased heat capacity from restructuring the atomic lattice of ferrite by exposing it to a magnetic field.


The magnet cooling effect is way overunity in the device pictured below: Rotating the ferrite alloy core 90 degrees causes a dramatic cooling effect, far in excess of any miniscule amount of power it took to reorient the core!
Synchro1, I am afraid that your declaration makes no logical sense.  Faraday's Law of induction tells us how a changing magnetic field affects a perpendicular conductor.  It is quite independent of how a magnetic field affects the material properties of some specimen.

Your second statement doesn't make any better sense and is not supported by evidence.  You seem to be conflating Joule heating with the action of a heat pump.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 18, 2014, 01:44:02 PM
Barium Titinate Crystals: We can heat and cool water simply by rotating these kinds of crystals 90 degrees in a strong PM field; between disk magnets. We need to run the water around the crystal.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 18, 2014, 02:28:48 PM
A "Sterling Motor" could be Magnocaloricly powered  in perpetuity by two disk shaped Barium Titinate Crystals, turned inside a strong PM field so that one side was cold and the side hot to drive the motor with the temperature differential.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 18, 2014, 08:42:23 PM
A "Sterling Motor" could be Magnocaloricly powered  in perpetuity by two disk shaped Barium Titinate Crystals, turned inside a strong PM field so that one side was cold and the side hot to drive the motor with the temperature differential.
Such a device would require:  An external energy source such as the sun,  a hot reservoir such as a heated area from a lens pointed at the sun, a cold reservoir for the exhaust, such as ambient. 

If you are thinking that the device itself is a net energy generator, then you are mistaken.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 18, 2014, 10:58:06 PM
The power's supplied internally from the excited atomic lattice when the crystal's magnetized. The cooling along with the heating are both below and above ambient. The research team  on the new ferro-electric compound called the temperature gain "Giant"!


Positioning a bar magnet horizontally between two external field magnets, and another upright between the magnets, or in a large ring magnet,
creates a caloric differential between the two magnets. The Ferro-Electric ceramics show greater heat gain and loss from the external magnetic field. The crystals are magnetic too.


Coefficient of magneto-elasticity.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 19, 2014, 12:46:13 AM
The power's supplied internally from the excited atomic lattice when the crystal's magnetized. The cooling along with the heating are both below and above ambient. The research team  on the new ferro-electric compound called the temperature gain "Giant"!


Positioning a bar magnet horizontally between two external field magnets, and another upright between the magnets, or in a large ring magnet,
creates a caloric differential between the two magnets. The Ferro-Electric ceramics show greater heat gain and loss from the external magnetic field. The crystals are magnetic too.


Coefficient of magneto-elasticity.
It is a mistake to confuse a heat pump for a free energy machine.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 19, 2014, 04:30:31 PM
This patented generator of Nicoli Zaev proves the principle that the discharge always exceeds the input power when tested from a non-linear capacitor:
The non linear capacitor has off set egg shaped condenser plates. The capacitor may produce a magnetic field that's unique to it's particular design. Woopy has several videos of him snapping up a charge in a regular capacitor.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 20, 2014, 02:17:45 AM
This patented generator of Nicoli Zaev proves the principle that the discharge always exceeds the input power when tested from a non-linear capacitor:
The non linear capacitor has off set egg shaped condenser plates. The capacitor may produce a magnetic field that's unique to it's particular design. Woopy has several videos of him snapping up a charge in a regular capacitor.
First:  do not confuse power for energy.  Do you mean to say that the output energy exceeds the input energy?  The plots that you show demonstrate faster discharge than charge which is obviously higher power, but for a shorter time.  There isn't anything in those plots that suggests excess energy.

A non-linear capacitor is one where E does not change at a constant rate with Q.  Non-linearity is a property of the dielectric, not the shape of the plates per-se.  Ceramic capacitors using Type III dielectrics are very non-linear, film capacitors that use polyester or even better polypropylene are extremely linear.  In a high voltage capacitor the shape of the plates: particularly the shape near the edges, affects the lowest voltage where the capacitor begins to leak significantly due to dielectric breakdown.




Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 20, 2014, 09:18:19 PM

Quote from Zaev:

"It was indicated the direct generation of energy by a nonlinear condenser with capacity C and dC/dV>0, with the efficiency (COP) up to 1.35 due to conversion of the internal thermal energy of the used dielectrics".
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 21, 2014, 12:20:45 AM
Synchro1, it is all fine and well that Zaev asserts those claims.  What matters is what actual evidence he did or did not provide to support them.  Did he measure energy in and out?  How did he go about that if he did?  Did he establish that his method was valid and that his instruments were up to the task?  Ditto for his claim of extracting heat from the the device.

It is all fine and well that someone asserts an extraordinary claim.  Once in a great while some unusual claims turn out to be true.  What matters is the quality of any evidence that supports their claim.  In this case you have posted a circuit simulation by JLN.  Circuit simulators are all built upon an assumption of CoE.  Any OU result from a circuit simulation is therefore an error due to things like finite quantization in time and amplitude.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 23, 2014, 02:55:02 PM
 View this video on "Smart" Magnocaloric materials:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVhAvp17xJ8


A schematic for a solid state PM field changer:
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 23, 2014, 03:00:26 PM

Look at these GGG "Smart" adiabatic demagnetization crystals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYmiv8GZoA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYmiv8GZoA)



Positioning these kinds of Crystals where the iron core is in the above schematic, would power a Sterling motor with the temperature differential. A gas filled diaphragm would expand and contract if placed over the Crystals! It should run at around one Hertz. Propane would work very well.


We can eliminate the Mu metal if we simply reverse the current through the switch coils.


A Lever arm from the diaphragm might be enough to spin the crystals in the PM field to heat and cool the diaphragm. Voila, perpetual motion!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 23, 2014, 03:34:45 PM
View this video on "Smart" Magnocaloric materials:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVhAvp17xJ8


A schematic for a solid state PM field changer:
Magnetocaloric materials are useful for making heat pumps.  If you want to move heat energy from a colder reservoir to a hotter one as do air conditioners, and refrigerators, then you need something that you can get into a lower temperature state than the cold reservoir so as to absorb heat from that reservoir, and without adding a lot of energy get to a hotter temperature than your hot reservoir so that you can reject the absorbed and added heat into the hot reservoir.

BTW: There is an error in the schematic.  The N channel MOSFET is drawn with the drain on the negative side of the battery.  The source terminal needs to attach to the negative terminal of the battery and the drain to the coil.  The coil should also have a flyback diode around it, anode to the MOSFET drain, and cathode to the battery positive side of the coil.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 23, 2014, 04:06:34 PM

Here's a contender:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO_I-C9CokQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO_I-C9CokQ)




This amounts to only a five week old discovery:  Pivoting those GGG Barium Titinate crystals 90 degrees in the external magnetic field activates the full temperature shift.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 23, 2014, 06:37:11 PM
Look at these GGG "Smart" adiabatic demagnetization crystals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYmiv8GZoA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYmiv8GZoA)



Positioning these kinds of Crystals where the iron core is in the above schematic, would power a Sterling motor with the temperature differential. A gas filled diaphragm would expand and contract if placed over the Crystals! It should run at around one Hertz. Propane would work very well.


We can eliminate the Mu metal if we simply reverse the current through the switch coils.


A Lever arm from the diaphragm might be enough to spin the crystals in the PM field to heat and cool the diaphragm. Voila, perpetual motion!
This would not work any better than driving a Stirling engine with the difference between the hot and cold exhausts of a conventional heat pump.  The Carnot limit is going to be a big problem in both cases.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 23, 2014, 06:42:51 PM
The temperature differential tests out at 35 degrees Kelvin per 40 thousand Orsteads of magnetic field force for those GGG crystals. Two of them in high pressure gas chambers, with a reciprocating piston, one on each end magnetically pivoted, would expand and contract the gas, and turn a Scottish Yoke, perhaps at low RPM with lots of torque. A 12 cylinder Radial would probably work well.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 23, 2014, 07:13:02 PM
What you end up with is a complicated and inefficient electric motor.  It takes real energy to turn and relax the domains in the magnetocaloric material.  That work is directly analagous to the work that is required to compress the refrigerant in a heat pump.  In both cases, were the COP>1: more heat is moved from the cold to the hot reservoir than energy is expended effecting the move.  That may sound good until one figures out that the Carnot limit on the Stirling engine is:  (THOT - TCOLD)/THOT), and that  QMOVED_STIRLING < QMOVED_HEAT_PUMP and that (THOT - TCOLD)/THOT*QMOVED_HEAT_PUMP < EINPUT_HEAT_PUMP.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on July 23, 2014, 09:04:00 PM
Take a lump of gadolinium on a cool day (19 deg c),shove it under a magnet..the gadolinium jumps up,collides with the magnet and heats up a bit over 19 degrees c,its curie point,what happens now?what happens now?what happens now?wooooooooo...spoooky
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 23, 2014, 11:42:36 PM
"This new approach confirmed that the relationship between the maximum adiabatic temperature change ( ΔT peak) and the applied magnetic field is perfectly linear".
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 23, 2014, 11:53:38 PM
Aeronautics Corporation has now demonstrated the first room temperature, permanent-magnet based rotary magnetic refrigerator. The rotary design consists of a wheel containing gadolinium and a strong permanent magnet. The wheel passes through a gap in the magnet where the magnetic field is concentrated, and the gadolinium heats up. While still in the field, water is circulated to draw the heat out of the material and reject the heat through the hot heat exchanger. As the material leaves the magnetic field, it cools further. While the material is out of the field, a stream of water is cooled by the material and circulated through the refrigerator's cold heat exchanger, removing heat from the object to be cooled.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: d3x0r on July 23, 2014, 11:55:02 PM
@jouleseeker


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


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


And some flux gate switching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9HyyGdnmb0
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 24, 2014, 12:35:07 AM
Adding the magnets to the C core, as in the flux gate switching video, would double the adiabatic heating and cooling of the lower core, for the same latching and demagnetization cost! The graph above shows that doubling the magnetic force, doubles the temperature differential!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on July 24, 2014, 02:20:43 AM
And here's some more http://www.whale.to/b/magneto_thermodynamics1.html second law violation in electromagnets
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 27, 2014, 06:32:02 PM

Notice in the latching video, there's a paper spacer between the magnet and keeper. A gadolinmium keeper would yield not only fly back and Piezo power, but maximum adiabatic differential as well.

Coating one of Dr. Jone's steel blocks with a film of Piezo transducer compound like nano powder Barium Titanate in alcohol solution may generate and store enough power in a capacitor to latch and unlatch the magnetic bond. Reversing the spark polarity unlocks the bond. The steel blocks would act as the Piezo transducer electrodes. The charge rate would determine the latch frequency. Thinner plates might bond just as good. The Piezo electric layer spikes power upon release as well as when presurized. The capacitor may store sufficient power to do extra work. A DPDT switch and zener diode would help. Thinner plates could work into a sandwich stack, with one magnet wire threaded between the multiple thin finely machined playing card size plates. Finely machined prefabricated steel spacers or fat steel washers are available off the shelf. 100 grams of Barium Titinate nano powder is available for $41. from this supplier:


http://www.advancedmaterials.us/5622ON-01.htm (http://www.advancedmaterials.us/5622ON-01.htm)

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on July 27, 2014, 08:27:58 PM
Hildenbrand switch:
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on July 27, 2014, 08:49:28 PM
Notice in the latching video, there's a paper spacer between the magnet and keeper. A gadolinmium keeper would yield not only fly back and Piezo power, but maximum adiabatic differential as well.

Coating one of Dr. Jone's steel blocks with a film of Piezo transducer compound like nano powder Barium Titanate in alcohol solution may generate and store enough power in a capacitor to latch and unlatch the magnetic bond. Reversing the spark polarity unlocks the bond. The steel blocks would act as the Piezo transducer electrodes. The charge rate would determine the latch frequency. Thinner plates might bond just as good. The Piezo electric layer spikes power upon release as well as when presurized. The capacitor may store sufficient power to do extra work. A DPDT switch and zener diode would help. Thinner plates could work into a sandwich stack, with one magnet wire threaded between the multiple thin finely machined playing card size plates. Finely machined prefabricated steel spacers or fat steel washers are available off the shelf. 100 grams of Barium Titinate nano powder is available for $41. from this supplier:


http://www.advancedmaterials.us/5622ON-01.htm (http://www.advancedmaterials.us/5622ON-01.htm)
Synchro1 since you're interested, the best thing for you to do is to build up an experiment and see if it adheres to your hopes or conventional physics.  A common mistake that people make with biased magnetics is that they miscalculate the input magnetization energy going from BBIAS to BBIAS_PLUS_ENERGIZED.  For perfectly linear magnetics, which is the case you are trying to approach, the incremental input energy required to magnetize from:  BBIAS to 2*BBIAS is 3X the energy required to magnetize from 0 to BBIAS.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 05, 2014, 10:11:44 PM
hello Steven and NerzhDishual

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


interesting?

all the best
np


[edited to clarify direction of entropy change]
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on August 05, 2014, 11:46:09 PM
Very interesting @nul.so despite the current being pulsed in a classic heat-cool magneto-thermodynamic cycle this shows net heat influx from ambient at the core
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on August 05, 2014, 11:59:11 PM
hello Steven and NerzhDishual

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


interesting?

all the best
np


[edited to clarify direction of entropy change]
If you publish your test set-up and raw measurement data then others can replicate your experiments and discuss the possibilities. 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 06, 2014, 12:21:29 AM

@ profitis:  yes, the data does appear to support some endothermic behaviour


MarkE>>> "If you publish your test set-up and raw measurement data then others can replicate your experiments and discuss the possibilities. "

..sadly that hasn't been my general experience on this site - hence the addressing of my post to specific members who have a shared experience of these tests
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on August 06, 2014, 10:55:54 AM
 try this with different core para-materials to check for greatest temperature disparity @nul.try air core too.try ainslie's nichrome-air core at a current that doesn't heat the coil too much, wow.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on August 06, 2014, 11:13:45 AM
Magnetic cooling is an old technology and is how liquid helium samples are cooled to temperatures just above absolute zero, using a process exactly analogous to the "room temperature refrigerator" cycle using gadolinium detailed above.

@nul-points:
The recent data set showing the cyclic temperature variations is interesting. But the total span of the data + noise appears to be about four tenths of a Centigrade degree, and there is at least one direct fluctuation in the data of three or four tenths of a degree. This data is too noisy to be interpretable, really. You are operating in a realm where statistical techniques applied to data from multiple, identical, trials is going to be needed to tease out any effect signature unambiguously. The last time I saw fluctuations like that in temperature data they were eventually  tracked down to two causes: the building's AC cycling on and off, and cleaning staff opening and closing the door into the laboratory.

But at least you are doing better than Bill Alek: His claimed temperature anomaly was perhaps half as large as yours, measured with a non-contact IR thermometer under poorly controlled conditions. That's good enough for him to proclaim "proof of cooling". That's fine, he doesn't really need to convince ME with better data because I don't matter. But maybe the people who DO matter, will eventually read and understand that extraordinary claims require a bit more rigor in the evidence put forth in support.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on August 06, 2014, 12:23:25 PM
Its a throbbing hot-cold cycle in this case @tinselkoala you should not be able to detect a net coldspot if the probe is shoved in the middle of the thing.you should be able to detect heat going OUT(friction,battery losses) not heat going IN. I think nul is just pointing something out as opposed to attempting proof of anything.I suggest an oil bath for the entire core here,just the 2 wires emerging.current musnt be too much otherwise frictional heating will overtake ambient inlet
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 06, 2014, 06:41:50 PM

@ profitis:  thanks for the suggestions re. alternative core material(s) - not quite so easy for me on this setup as the toroid is providing transformer action in pumping charge back to source (in addition to  reclaiming coil-field collapse energy and cross-feeding that from each circuit to the other's battery.

i may have a sintered-iron toroidal core somewhere, on which i could wind a transformer - i'll try & locate that

a nichrome air-cored toroid coil *may* be feasible if i drop the forward-pulse aspect of the circuit - i'm reluctant to vary the circuit config. too much at this stage, but i may try this later


TK>>> "The last time I saw fluctuations like that in temperature data they were eventually tracked down to two causes: the building's AC cycling on and off, and cleaning staff opening and closing the door into the laboratory"


lol - this is lil' ol' england - no AC here!

maybe you missed the section where i referred to the ambient temperature profile?

(and also how i normalised the probe data against the ambient readings)


profitis>>>"Its a throbbing hot-cold cycle in this case @tinselkoala you should not be able to detect a net coldspot if the probe is shoved in the middle of the thing.you should be able to detect heat going OUT(friction,battery losses) not heat going IN. I think nul is just pointing something out as opposed to attempting proof of anything.I suggest an oil bath for the entire core here,just the 2 wires emerging.current musnt be too much otherwise frictional heating will overtake ambient inlet"

spot-on, profitis - in any previous temperature logging of my coils i've always measured a rise in temperature - the interesting results here, for me, are the temperature drop (small, but measurable) and the cyclic element of the data - perhaps particularly the frequency modulation seen with change in probe location

i'm also thinking now about possibilities for isolating/containing any interesting effect

thanks all
np

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 07, 2014, 05:42:34 PM
@ profitis:

as a quick comparison with another inductor type, i made a new transformer with a couple of windings on a tubular ferrite core (approx 25mm - or 1" - long, by approx 12mm - or 0.5" - ext diam.,  inner hole diam approx 6mm)

i replaced the toroid transformer used for the previous data readings with this new tubular cored transformer (with solenoidal windings) and repeated the test

this latest data represents temperature readings away from the core, then inside the core tube, then finally away from the core again - each period being approximately 15 minutes, samples logged at 5 second intervals

i've filtered the probe temperature readings with a rolling 7-point window (as opposed to a 5-point filter in the previous data) to try and focus on the average/trend of the temperature more

the data from this test, using a tubular ferrite core with solenoidal windings, shows a more consistent temperature inside and outside the ferrite core (after the settling-in slope)

i've thought of another test to try with the original toroidal transformer, so i'll get some data from that & post  when ready

cheers
np
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on August 07, 2014, 06:17:14 PM
Well... now your measurements are better and the temperature fluctuation range is about 0.2 degree C. It's really too bad your effect size isn't larger, seriously. And with your sampling system it's hard for me to see how to combine data from multiple runs to average out the noise and improve S/N. I'm thinking about it though. What might be a bit more convincing would be if you could show a change in overall slope while under power and while not. Presumably the thing should cool down below ambient when running and warm toward ambient when not, with some slight delay or hysteresis in both directions, right? So an hour on, an hour off, or maybe two hour periods off and on for a long day, then careful examination of the average slopes, fit by some curve fitting function, comparing the two conditions looking for a change in slope and also just where it changes. If it changes instantly when the power is applied, that's probably  not good. If there's a delay, then an increasingly negative slope when power turns on, that's better. 
Am I making sense?  The issue now is the "chunkiness" of the data, like what is the vertical resolution when you are down in that tenth-of-a-degree range? Is it fine enough to detect the kinds of slope effects I'm talking about? From the looks of your graphs it might not be. So there may be some way to improve the vertical resolution of the temperature data.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on August 07, 2014, 08:18:23 PM
I wonder what the noise floor is with the sensors shorted.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on August 07, 2014, 11:43:53 PM
Exellent @nul.this line of research is the line that could really lead to success.this goes straight to the heart of the whole friggin continuum of electromagneto overunity hunting,the core,,,,the core.it is here where a second law discrepency must take place in order for any such circuits to be successful.I want to suggest you focus on the simplest of circuits,the coiled bar electromagnet with 2 wires emerging and dc pulsed.play with as much variation of this as you can until you get to the greatest disparities in temp.when you've got your list of greatest disparities its time for the oil bath. 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on August 07, 2014, 11:51:46 PM
Play with number of coil turns,core material(nickel,iron,ferrite,gadolinium,chromium dioxide,manganese dioxide etc etc),indeed I would love to see what the classic gadolinium's result will be.play with thick wire,thin wire,nichrome,constitan,iron wire etc. Play with lots of turns instead of few turns.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 09, 2014, 09:20:27 PM
 
I ought to mention that these temperature readings above are riding on the back of other ongoing long-term tests – the other temperature test I mentioned above that I have in mind involves transitioning between the power-on and power-off state of the circuits, and I won't be in a position to do that for some while now, having just swapped out one toroid-cored transformer for a solenoidal-cored one and restarted my main test
 
obviously the observed temperature-drop effect is taking the measurement values down towards the noise-floor of the datalogging system, but changes in the temperature trends can still be discerned
 
whilst waiting for my main test to complete, i've been able to use a digital thermometer/probe with a Fahrenheit scale to compare the temperature inside the central gap of the solenoidal-cored transformer with the temperature outside and away from the transformer (approx 15cms, or 6”)

my first impressions from the 2nd graph data above (for the solenoidal-cored transformer) were that there was likely no temperature-drop effect with this particular core

using the Fahrenheit thermometer/probe, however, it appears that the effect is also occurring with this core too, although at a smaller level – more than a dozen comparisons have reliably produced a 0.2 degF change in the temperature readout within approx 30s of changing the probe location between internal and external to the core (ie. the temperature reading, internal to the core, is consistently 0.2 degF lower than the external reading)

when I get to a convenient break in my main testing, i'll focus on the temperature drop effect and try  out a few ideas to improve indications and start to try and identify the key conditions

cheers
np
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on August 10, 2014, 12:13:45 AM
 
I ought to mention that these temperature readings above are riding on the back of other ongoing long-term tests – the other temperature test I mentioned above that I have in mind involves transitioning between the power-on and power-off state of the circuits, and I won't be in a position to do that for some while now, having just swapped out one toroid-cored transformer for a solenoidal-cored one and restarted my main test
 
obviously the observed temperature-drop effect is taking the measurement values down towards the noise-floor of the datalogging system, but changes in the temperature trends can still be discerned
 
whilst waiting for my main test to complete, i've been able to use a digital thermometer/probe with a Fahrenheit scale to compare the temperature inside the central gap of the solenoidal-cored transformer with the temperature outside and away from the transformer (approx 15cms, or 6”)

my first impressions from the 2nd graph data above (for the solenoidal-cored transformer) were that there was likely no temperature-drop effect with this particular core

using the Fahrenheit thermometer/probe, however, it appears that the effect is also occurring with this core too, although at a smaller level – more than a dozen comparisons have reliably produced a 0.2 degF change in the temperature readout within approx 30s of changing the probe location between internal and external to the core (ie. the temperature reading, internal to the core, is consistently 0.2 degF lower than the external reading)

when I get to a convenient break in my main testing, i'll focus on the temperature drop effect and try  out a few ideas to improve indications and start to try and identify the key conditions

cheers
np
If you have stable and accurate current and voltage sensing, then you can use the coil wires themselves as a resistance thermometer.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 10, 2014, 02:31:52 AM

genius!!   ...why didn't i think of that?!?    :'(
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on August 10, 2014, 09:51:21 AM
Ah... if your data is dealing with deltas of 0.2 degrees F... that kind of difference can be caused by tiny air currents or even ambient illumination from room lighting. I don't know the precise physical details of your setup, obviously, but we are down in the realm where experimental controls to rule out thermal artifacts become very difficult to implement properly. Would it be too much to suggest that you buy a couple of nesting styrofoam ice chests and make a nice "calorimetry qualified" enclosure for your future thermal measurements?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 10, 2014, 11:53:46 AM
 
lol - you'll have to come up with something more exotic than 'tiny air currents', TK!!

as i mentioned in a post above, the 0.2 degF temperature drop only relates to the new core (solenoidal) - the original toroidal core has produced approx 0.7 degF drop

when taking spot readings at night, i'm either using a flashlight in the unlit room - or only switching on light (low-wattage, cold-cathode fl. tube) for a few seconds whilst making next reading/change probe location -  - probe temperature allowed to settle for between 10-30 mins - i vacate room asap, to avoid adding body heat

device-under-test is in an enclosed region within a reasonably well-sealed, unheated room

the temperature deltas seem reasonably consistent regardless of day/night/ambient conditions

i will undoubtedly take more account of thermal isolation when i finish my other tests and start to focus instead on this temperature issue, but i will be leaving any more thorough treatment to those who are better equipped, with equipment, time, money and experience

no scientists are queing up to do my job for me, and i don't presume to do theirs - but we can all help in the process in a small way by calling out when we find something interesting

unless we get our kicks in some other way!

cheers
np

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on August 11, 2014, 03:01:21 AM
One thing that would be nice would be if you would publish a null run measurement just to establish your noise baseline.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: TinselKoala on August 11, 2014, 05:18:22 AM
While you may have eliminated the tiny air currents by your setup... good job so far by the way, usually I do not see or expect such care taken... there are still many other sources of artifact that might account for your near-noise-level data fluctuations.
One that has me very concerned with my own temperature measurements is the issue of thermocouple/instrumentation amp response sensitivity to ambient EM RF or even static magnetic or electric fields. It is a pain in the butt and is hard to track down. Readings may seem stable but are subtly off accuracy, or precision suffers, or total garbage comes from the probes. The fact that this can happen even when the source of the disturbing field is "off" or powered down is an incredibly frustrating feature of this kind of artifact in sensitive instrumentation operating near the noise floor.
It is in these situations especially that our own observer biases start having profound effects. We see fluctuating readings or we realize that some trials are garbage so we discard them. But we are more likely to discard trials or noisy data that don't support our hypotheses and keep trials that do, and this is completely unconscious on our part.
Paraphrasing Richard Feynman, the easiest person to fool is ourselves.
Or was that Pogo...
 ;)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 11, 2014, 06:18:38 AM

i'm planning to check at work this week if i have a suitable value, hi-precision, low-noise resistor which i can substitute for the probe on the data-logger

i don't have any info about the input circuitry of the temperature channel and i'm not about to assume that i can safely short its input terminals just so that i can profile the noise-floor component of the datalogger for these informal observations

gentlemen - your interest is appreciated - your comments and suggestions are appropriate and relevant if and when any effect which i may be observing now is taken to the next level of serious inspection and measurement

any such more-controlled level of investigation won't be undertaken by someone with my level of resources - i shall be somewhere else, playing bass, accompanied by Dick (Feynman, RIP) on bongos - or is that on Pogos?

cheers
np



Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on August 11, 2014, 08:52:01 AM
I believe you said that you are using thermocouples.  A thermocouple presents a short circuit (milliOhms) to the data logger input.  The thermocouple signal voltage is on the order of 10uV/C.  If I am mistaken and you are using a thermistor then the sensor could present typically 2K - 10K Ohms at room temperature, and you can substitute an 1/8 W resistor of similar value to get your noise floor.

If you are no convinced then as an alternate:  Feed the the thermocouple lead through the side of a styrofoam cup about 1/4 the way up from the bottom so that the sensor is suspended in air inside the cup. Cover the opening with tape.   Put a couple of steel 1/4" or 1/2" nuts in the bottom of the cup as weights.  You can use a paper cup in a pinch. Stack another cup inverted on top of the first cup and seal the edge with tape.  Hook up the sensor to your data acquisition system and wait half an hour.  Then capture 10s - 30s of readings.  That will be your noise floor, sensor included.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 11, 2014, 08:52:55 PM
 
no problem - i don't believe that i referred to the probe type in my previous posts


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

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

sampling-rate period is 5s, duration of data is approx 35 mins (Y-axis scale has been selected to give a similar range to previous graph)
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on August 11, 2014, 09:43:07 PM
Great, so the noise floor of the electronics is about +/-0.025 oC, +/-0.045 oF.  I think the next step is to perform the styrofoam (or paper) cup test so that all the noise contributions are captured.  If it is a good thermistor, then you should not be able to see any increase in noise from the test that you just ran.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 12, 2014, 01:54:32 AM
Great, so the noise floor of the electronics is about +/-0.025 oC

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


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

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

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

 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2014, 02:27:48 AM
No - not quite - we don't yet know the relative noise contributions of the electronics and the external resistor, separately


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

what are some of your own personal goals, investigating novel energy sources, and what sort of challenges were you able to overcome in your last experiment in this area?
A thermistor bridge detector operates with a swing > 1mV/C.  the Johnson noise of the resistor is in the uV.

My goals are to see clean experiments.  I try to help in that direction where I can.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 12, 2014, 01:04:40 PM
A thermistor bridge detector operates with a swing > 1mV/C.  the Johnson noise of the resistor is in the uV.

assumptions based on typical values have their place

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



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

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

i'm sure that everyone here is as grateful for your dedication and integrity as i am
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2014, 05:47:41 PM
assumptions based on typical values have their place

i believe that the exercise in which we have just been engaged, however, was to justify confidence in actual data by additional measurements (of the measuring tools themselves)
The tool in this case is the combination of the sensor and the signal conditioner / DAQ.  So far things look reasonably good with respect to measured 0.2F excursions being actual temperatures and not artifacts of the probe + DAQ.
Quote



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

i'm sure that everyone here is as grateful for your dedication and integrity as i am
Some are.  Others express suspicions of ulterior motives.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on August 12, 2014, 06:53:01 PM

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

i'm not sure how much more i'll be able to do now for a few days - i have a run of social commitments into the weekend
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on August 12, 2014, 11:03:38 PM
interesting - paranoia just the other side of the coin from being realistic?

i'm not sure how much more i'll be able to do now for a few days - i have a run of social commitments into the weekend
Lots of people have strange ideas.
There is no rush on my account.  I encourage you to perform the still air test using the pair of cups if you are willing.  I don't expect to see much if any difference from the fixed 5K resistor test.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 14, 2014, 07:45:54 PM
hello Steven and NerzhDishual

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


interesting?

all the best
np


[edited to clarify direction of entropy change]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to earlier posts re: magnetic clamping, folks - lots of fun stuff there too.
--Steve
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on August 14, 2014, 07:56:35 PM
@jouleseeker


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


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


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

Thanks dx30r! 

Also profitis and synchro1 - I'm catching up as we've been traveling a lot last several weeks.
--Steve
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 09, 2014, 07:00:16 AM
Independent testing results are now available from a 2014 testing of an E-cat device.

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

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

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

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

To perform a replication - but I would use standard WATER CALORIMETRY to measure the output energy -- one needs to know just what is in the test cylinder.  For example, specifically what chemical species of Lithium and nickel, and what else is in there?  Is this a "proprietary secret" at this time?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2014, 12:56:17 PM
Posibly some fission plus fusion mix going on in there.from a entropy standpoint I would imagine that the element isotopes that are most vulnerable to disintergration or co-hesion will go first.obviously in tiny amounts
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 09, 2014, 09:09:48 PM
  Yes, its quite a mystery as to what is going on here.  Presumably proton + nickel => copper, but then one would hope they would look for copper isotopes in the ash and I don't see that they did this.  But I'm still reading the long paper... very interesting.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on October 09, 2014, 09:29:16 PM
Independent testing results are now available from a 2014 testing of an E-cat device.

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

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

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

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

To perform a replication - but I would use standard WATER CALORIMETRY to measure the output energy -- one needs to know just what is in the test cylinder.  For example, specifically what chemical species of Lithium and nickel, and what else is in there?  Is this a "proprietary secret" at this time?
Horrifically bad test protocols with inadequate verification often lead to bizarre claims.  Their calculations show radiation scaling with supposed heat flux at a very different rate than convection.  In order to  believe their radiated power one has to believe both that convection efficiency dropped off massively and suddenly in a way that just happened to complement the increase in heat generation and that there was an anomalous jump in heat generation.  It is an embarrassingly silly position for scientists to adopt without evidence.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on October 09, 2014, 10:30:47 PM
Christ.I think I made a mistake when I said 'tiny amounts'.Look at the differences in ratios of measured percents isotopes.am I reading correct?you say this is a faked document mark E?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on October 09, 2014, 11:11:22 PM
I thought I expressed myself very clearly:  The output power calculations contain major discrepancies that are unaddressed, probably because they were unrecognized, by the authors.  That means that the output power calculations cannot be trusted.  That means that the conclusions drawn from those calculations cannot be trusted.

The authors' claims of transmutation without either high energy or neutron radiation are extraordinary.  As they have demonstrated their willingness to publish unreliable calculations for simple heat output trusting them with assaying isotopes would be very dubious.  Those who can't get simple things right cannot be trusted on more complex issues.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on October 10, 2014, 01:20:14 AM
If that's true then why is the company called elforsk now pressing for intensified lenr research @mark E? You would think that they would be damn sure about what rossi got before such an announcement.according to lewan,rossi got the idea for lithium addition from a japanese researcher who was getting interesting results:  http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/26/lithium-the-case-for-an-e-cat-catalyst-guest-post-/#comments .I also remember many papers on electrolysis involving excess heat which contained lithium sulfate as electrolyte.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on October 10, 2014, 04:13:44 AM
...according to lewan,rossi got the idea for lithium addition from a japanese researcher who was getting interesting results:  http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/26/lithium-the-case-for-an-e-cat-catalyst-guest-post-/#comments (http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/26/lithium-the-case-for-an-e-cat-catalyst-guest-post-/#comments) .I also remember many papers on electrolysis involving excess heat which contained lithium sulfate as electrolyte.

Very informative, profitis - thanks for the link!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on October 10, 2014, 07:28:15 AM
If that's true then why is the company called elforsk now pressing for intensified lenr research @mark E? You would think that they would be damn sure about what rossi got before such an announcement.according to lewan,rossi got the idea for lithium addition from a japanese researcher who was getting interesting results:  http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/04/26/lithium-the-case-for-an-e-cat-catalyst-guest-post-/#comments .I also remember many papers on electrolysis involving excess heat which contained lithium sulfate as electrolyte.
It is always a bad mistake to try and read tea leaves or other secondary data in place of primary data.  The contradictions in the calculated convection versus radiated heat are fatal to the report. 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on October 10, 2014, 09:37:56 AM
Yes jouleseeker.its time to whip out some lithium salts from the lab store and see if we can get something similar to verify via electrolysis.comparison of heats with sodium salts solutions might do the trick?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on October 10, 2014, 09:43:58 AM
I don't know mark E but I think the corporates will make a well informed decision before making it.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on October 10, 2014, 08:21:54 PM
I don't know mark E but I think the corporates will make a well informed decision before making it.
Nearly four years downstream and no company is marketing Rossi's product.  Rossi claimed 1 million unit per year production would start before the end of 2012.  The hold-up is obviously not mechanical complexity.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on October 10, 2014, 11:31:20 PM
The holdup is a)political b)r&d.you can't just throw a new miracle fuel onto the market mr E.its very disruptive,especially a fuel that doesn't behave the way its expected to behave.you gota ease it into the market.its also pointless to throw a fuel into the market today when 3 days later some other guy throws a better variety into the market.everyone has to do their research thoroughly,to the hilt
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on October 10, 2014, 11:47:05 PM
The holdup is a)political
That's total BS.  Try again. 
Quote

b)r&d.you can't just throw a new miracle fuel onto the market mr E.
That's especially true when you don't have a new miracle fuel.  In nearly four years of making claims Rossi has failed at every turn to establish his claims.
Quote
its very disruptive,especially a fuel that doesn't behave the way its expected to behave.you gota ease it into the market.its also pointless to throw a fuel into the market today when 3 days later some other guy throws a better variety into the market.everyone has to do their research thoroughly,to the hilt
You are a funny guy.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ramset on October 11, 2014, 09:07:05 AM

Mark E

Lab /scientific grade thermal imaging has been around for quite some time ,and is evolving all the time.

Your ignorance of the science or procedure does not constitute a fraud on the part of the test laboratory.

Chet
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on October 11, 2014, 09:17:23 AM
Lol so what would you do with a new miracle fuel if you had one then mark E.let's hear it
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on October 11, 2014, 09:46:58 AM
Mark E

Lab /scientific grade thermal imaging has been around for quite some time ,and is evolving all the time.

Your ignorance of the science or procedure does not constitute a fraud on the part of the test laboratory.

Chet
I am quite familiar with thermal imaging and reliable procedures for obtaining surface temperatures.    I am also familiar with the pitfalls of trying to use thermal imaging to determine heat flux.  Unless I missed something in the report, the authors did not calibrate their method of calculating heat flux.  Their calculation of heat flux from convection is seriously discrepant with their calculation of heat flux from radiation.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on October 11, 2014, 09:50:20 AM
Lol so what would you do with a new miracle fuel if you had one then mark E.let's hear it
First I would run reliable tests to determine that I had such a thing.  After four years the fraud Rossi hasn't done that.  And it would have been so simple.  But just as his thermoelectric factory burned down at an inopportune time, the factory that he said his miracle fuel heated for years went out of business and the magic heater somehow cannot be accessed.  In the meantime, during thoiose cold Bologna winters, Andrea Rossi can be seen shivering in his long coat next to a propane space heater while just a few meters away his giant heaters sit dormant.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on October 11, 2014, 10:37:13 AM
Your dodging my question mr E.the question was: what would you do with a genuine miracle fuel in your hands.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on October 11, 2014, 11:55:56 AM
Your dodging my question mr E.the question was: what would you do with a genuine miracle fuel in your hands.
LOL, maybe you aren't wearing your reading glasses.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on October 12, 2014, 12:54:49 AM
Yes I am have a look at this http://www.google.com/patents/us20130019855.this man patented something almost identical to rossi's lithium reactor.it means rossi is not alone with such research.it means others have also noticed the lithium effect.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: MarkE on October 12, 2014, 04:21:25 AM
Yes I am have a look at this http://www.google.com/patents/us20130019855.this man patented something almost identical to rossi's lithium reactor.it means rossi is not alone with such research.it means others have also noticed the lithium effect.
How psychedelic for you.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on October 12, 2014, 10:42:10 AM
It gets more psychedelic look here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/patterson_power_cell (click on 'search for patterson power cell in wikipedia').another guy who messed around with lithium too much.notice the layered metals on the beads
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: profitis on October 12, 2014, 11:09:32 AM
Patterson bead upclose.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on February 20, 2015, 04:00:40 PM
Slider, aka Mark Vaughan, has been BUILDING and inventing devices for years.  A strong open-source proponent, he presents his results on the forums and in videos.  No salary, just a service to mankind.

Chet Kremens and I feel its time we help him out just a bit with some test equipment -- here goes.  Please consider a donation today -- I will chip in $50.  Who will join us?

See:  http://www.youcaring.com/project-fundraiser/let-s-get-mark-vaughan-slider-a-fine-4ch-dso-w-v-t-i-t-/309899 (http://www.youcaring.com/project-fundraiser/let-s-get-mark-vaughan-slider-a-fine-4ch-dso-w-v-t-i-t-/309899)

QUOTEFor a mere $399, we can buy our friend/researcher a nice Rigol DS1054Z 50 MHz Digital Oscilloscope with 4 channels plus 12 Mpt memory, 1 GS/s sampling - with Math Functions!By measuring voltage and current in separate channels, he will be able to multiply to get the power waveforms =P(t) = V(t)*I(t) .  Analyzing power in and power out is critical in this alternative-energy research.

 Mark is well known for his alt-energy projects and videos and for frequent contributions on overunityresearch.com (http://overunityresearch.com), overunity.com (http://overunity.com) and EnergeticForum.com . 

Here's a brief message from Mark:

Quote
"Hi, my name is Mark, you probably know me as Slider2732 around the web and especially on YouTube.
The Playlist called 'Sliders Ideas' forms a good introduction to the low energy project builds that have formed an intense research study over the past 5 years -https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-VrIx_FsZCIPf_vxqKww6g5tAo7FRGmI
My intentions, are to further concepts that bring forward harvested energy and ultra low power usage devices for use in practical ways.One thing you may have wondered about within those projects and have never seen are scope shots !
There's a good reason for that and why my good friends Steve and Chet have set up this funding challenge.
With your help and perhaps to answer your own future questions or curiosities about the waveforms of devices shown on YouTube, this fundraiser is for a Rigol DS1054Z Digital Oscilloscope.http://www.tequipment.net/Rigol/DS1054Z/Digital-Oscilloscopes/ (http://www.tequipment.net/Rigol/DS1054Z/Digital-Oscilloscopes/)

It is also my intention, that if funding surpasses the sum needed, Steve and Chet can place that money toward equipment needed by other researchers.Thank you for your support in advance, for considering a donation toward this goal"

Note that there is a charge of about 3% for credit-card use, for donations direct to this site.  (This is common for credit cards, they charge a fee.)  If you use check or PayPal (specify "gift"), then there is no charge.  Contributions by check pls to: Steven E. Jones, 201 E. Clay St., Albany, MO 64402; OR PayPal to email Profsjones@gmail.com

100% of such "off-line" donations will be recorded at the YouCaring site so you can look and be assured that your donation "made it" to the intended goal of getting the 4ch DSO for our colleague Mark.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on February 20, 2015, 05:06:15 PM
 Another donation - $50 via PayPal arrived from Europe -- so PayPal works internationally just fine!  We're quickly up to $125 for Slider's scope.

   If you wish to have your name ANONYMOUS, please state that with your PayPal message, or email me at ProfSJones@gmail.com  (PayPal donations can use that email address also.)  Otherwise, I'll go ahead and list your name at the YouCaring site.

   (If you donate directly at the YouCaring site, there is an option to keep your name anonymous if you so choose.)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on February 21, 2015, 05:53:09 AM
  Wow!  the donations stand now at $375, out of $399 needed to purchase the 4-channel scope for Slider!  (All contributed in about 13 hours!)

There is still a window of opportunity to contribute, if you wish to do so.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: JouleSeeker on February 21, 2015, 07:00:23 AM
 Nice!  a donor who wishes to remain Anonymous donates $50 for Slider's scope!
Over the top - as donations reach $425, exceeding the goal actually.

Its still Friday here, so goal reached in one day, in about 14 hours.
Thanks, everyone!
Shows what we can do as a community of friends and fellow researchers!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Pirate88179 on February 21, 2015, 07:46:08 AM
Nice!  a donor who wishes to remain Anonymous donates $50 for Slider's scope!
Over the top - as donations reach $425, exceeding the goal actually.

Its still Friday here, so goal reached in one day, in about 14 hours.
Thanks, everyone!
Shows what we can do as a community of friends and fellow researchers!

Excellent Job Steven.  Very well done.

Bill
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: nul-points on January 10, 2016, 09:04:54 PM
New Year's greetings, Steven and Mr Dishual !

Apologies for absence!

I was inspired by your intervening discussions, relating to lanterns and special (non) coils, to do a liitle experimenting with our favourite cct

Further details at:
  http://overunity.com/16326/thats-not-a-knife-this-is-a-knife-er-ou-flashlight/new/#new

I hope that you gentlemen are well, and in good spirit!

Keep up the good work
np
 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Bat1Robin2 on March 11, 2017, 05:32:44 AM
Steven Jones circuit: There are measurement errors its pretty obvious. milli watts and spiked wave forms will not allow an accurate  measurement so easily. Resistors have inductance: any computerized scope has delays. State of the art is not good enough for this kind of proof.  Use a capacitor instead of a battery and loop the output to input and watch it show you its not even 99% within a few milliseconds. When that coil charges it is taking more energy than is apparent. Faster than the scope can see. All digital inputs have a input read rate. Is this guy in his first year of electronics college does anyone know why he is bread boarding like a student?

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ramset on March 11, 2017, 10:45:29 AM
Yes the errors were pointed out many years ago ,I thought this was old news ?
maybe if this thread tittle is Misleading people ??
  An update or summary should be posted here so as to outline the errors [which were found early in the thread I believe [first few pages I think ??

I will have to ask for more details as it has been a very long time and Dr.Jones and his wife have been away from home for almost One year doing service in a needy community .

I believe this one year commitment will be up the end of this month?

respectfully
Chet K
PS
I see above the last discussion from Dr.Jones ,the community here showing gratitude for
open source research and people who try and help the researchers.... anyway they can.

very good to read that again ,we need more of that in this world , 
people who can't do experiments helping people who can with funds for equipment and bits and pieces
Open source ...
its a good path towards success and a good example for the kids to read.

and perhaps a summary at the end of an old thread would be a good idea too, in ALL cases ?
however experimenting with very efficient circuits at the hobbyist level and also the possibilities
which can arise in such well tuned circuits.............

you never know ?

maybe someday there really will be an 8 time over unity Joule thief ???



Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: pomodoro on March 11, 2017, 01:18:10 PM
I might have  wrong the chap  but I think he has the same name as the scientist who discovered cold fusion.  Fleishmann and Pons  essentially ripped him off as Jones was being careful not to publish prematurely just incase there were errors. The other two broke their promise and published. The rest is history.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ramset on March 11, 2017, 03:13:37 PM
You have the right name and person , just more to it ..
and no I don't believe there were any thefts ,it is a passion which lingers with Dr.Jones and many others to this day.
however a good repeatable "simple" experiment is quite elusive ,and the example of a good joule thief to play with [starting point] for induction experiments ?[bench mark for progress

a similar format needs to be brought into LENR experiments

perhaps in the way Alexander Parkhomov is doing ...
a very simple starting point .?
----------------------------

open source experiments are hard to come by in this area ,people see anomalies and run
to the "investor" and big dreams ...Patents and such.

You are a great contributor here ,it is my hope that such simple experiments will be happening
here in the near future , exploring and defining Anomalies ,
sonoluminescence is on the menu ATM and where can that take us ...to LENR ??

it will be a very simple format ,or starting point ...so many can experiment.

who knows..?...nothing ventured nothing gained.
 

and all open source

respectfully
Chet K

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Zephir on March 11, 2017, 06:08:24 PM
Quote
Steven Jones circuit: There are measurement errors its pretty obvious.
Prof. Jones himself admitted, (http://pesn.com/2011/05/27/9501835_Steven_E_Jones_demonstrates_overunity_circuit/) than his circuit doesn't generate any overunity. And I don't think, that this particular circuit really generates some - the simple self-looped demo would demonstrate it already.

But there is really something  (http://overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/)about these Joule-Thief circuits and they periodically show up at YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gtpl7sMWQT0&t=0s), again and again. A FLEET (Forever Lead-Out Electromagnetic Energy Transformer) has secondary coils (http://overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg353409/#msg353409) on top of the Joule Thief tuned to some resonance condition so that COP >1, once the secondary coil gets bifilar. I presume it's because the bifilar coil enables to drain energy from oscillating electromagnetic circuit without introducing the counter-electromotive force  into it.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ramset on March 11, 2017, 07:13:55 PM
Zephir
your example here
http://overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg353409/#msg353409
---------------
I believe Larry's [ Itseung]circuit has been looked at and similar issues were found [measurement error]
however if you feel something was missed or have other ideas which may yield results ?

please feel free to present a circuit for consideration ?

with respect
Chet K
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: ARMCORTEX on March 11, 2017, 07:21:57 PM
Zephir,

Your video link is now unavailable, did you have the presence of mind to save the MP4 via free service YouTube to MP4.

Anyways...Probably not.

He puts his email, try to contact him.

But beware of those mysterious Russians, they sometimes try to scam privately.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Qwert on March 12, 2017, 03:05:33 AM
Hi. I had not visited this site pretty long time. In fact, I don't believe anymore in the concept of overunity presented in this forum, other than a nuclear origin. However, I still believe there is possible a concept of a more efficient battery or similar device. Recently I found this link where a girl (yes, a girl) says she invented such one. Since this presentation was published several months ago, I want to ask guys who more often visit this site, if they maybe spot some more info about this device:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULtGWCalIYg
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: pomodoro on March 12, 2017, 06:17:38 AM
Hi. I had not visited this site pretty long time. In fact, I don't believe anymore in the concept of overunity presented in this forum, other than a nuclear origin. However, I still believe there is possible a concept of a more efficient battery or similar device. Recently I found this link where a girl (yes, a girl) says she invented such one. Since this presentation was published several months ago, I want to ask guys who more often visit this site, if they maybe spot some more info about this device:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULtGWCalIYg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULtGWCalIYg)


Looks like a cell based in concentration gradients, with no details given its hard to tell. The girls probably invented nothing as they would have been under supervision and you will find that the real players will show their faces soon. It would be nice to know the full chemistry behind it, especially on how its recharged. As usual they are asking for $$$$ with no details given out.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: sm0ky2 on March 12, 2017, 06:46:35 AM
Zephir
your example here
http://overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg353409/#msg353409 (http://overunity.com/12686/is-joule-thief-circuit-gets-overunity/msg353409/#msg353409)
---------------
I believe Larry's [ Itseung]circuit has been looked at and similar issues were found [measurement error]
however if you feel something was missed or have other ideas which may yield results ?

please feel free to present a circuit for consideration ?

with respect
Chet K


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h9RgjAgSQOg (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h9RgjAgSQOg)


Secondary winding on this joule thief fed a bi-filar primary
On a 7-inch steel toroid, through a second transistor
To light a another series of led's.
When switching out of phase, there were specific frequencies
at which led brightness increased and current draw from the
(mostly dead) battery decreased.


A single joule thief made from the 7-inch toroid, one transistor
and the same battery - did not function. There simply wasn't enough
power to saturate the large steel ring and light any led.



Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: sm0ky2 on March 12, 2017, 07:03:35 AM
... I still believe there is possible a concept of a more efficient battery or similar device. Recently I found this link where a girl (yes, a girl) says she invented such one. Since this presentation was published several months ago, I want to ask guys who more often visit this site, if they maybe spot some more info about this device:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULtGWCalIYg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULtGWCalIYg)


It is a 4-tank salt battery.  Reduced to a small scale.
Sodium Chloride and Sodium Sulfate
With (purified) water the 4 tanks take on four distinct
Ionic solution states.
A membrane (or in this case a stack of membranes)
Controls a one-way flow of ions and cations that maintain
a charge separation with immense current carrying capacity.
Large scale salt batteries are already in commercial production
and use. What these girls have done is shrunk it down and
given it a portability never before seen in this type of battery.
Currently existing units are the size of a small building.


They can be charged by conventional means and store power for
an indefinite period of time. Some tens of decades (estimated).



Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Qwert on March 13, 2017, 03:55:53 PM
Thanks guys.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on September 28, 2023, 05:42:48 PM
Dr. Jones circuit puts out a 2.8 megahertz signal. The DVD audio signal is at a matching freqency. Most of us have seen digital frequency generators illuminate bulbs. It may be possible to illuminate LEDS through the USB port at this frequecy which is carried by a WiFi signal, not a bench model. The factory specifications on frequency and efficiency show the diode generates power with increased frequency.
Replicating this signal on a frequency generator and measuring its effect on an LED may show an overunity effect in the diode.


Phtovoltaic efficiency of 40% would yield over 3x the input from a sphere of bulbs and a shell of Photo Voltaic Collectors.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on September 30, 2023, 12:31:17 PM
The Joule thief would only need to add 4 percent to run free at that frequency. This is inside the flyback boost capacity of the circuit. Running free of charge would accrue an OU factor reflecting multiples of the source power over time. Collecting power from a unity device would equal the efficiency of the voltaic cell. The LED generates nearly all its own power at that frequency. Simple math will prove the output minus the 60 percent collector loss makes an OU photonic reactor feasible.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on September 30, 2023, 03:51:25 PM
The LED low voltage DC efficiency is 50%. Dr. Jones apparently compares the max efficency of the 2.8 mhz at 96% and computes the total energy saved as 8 times overnight. This k7nd of math is nothing more than voodoo.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on September 30, 2023, 10:13:21 PM
How would the cost per watt of output to generate power with a photonic reactor compare to Solar Panels? The reactor gets a one half discount right off the bat. A flower of dialating collector petals that open for sunlight then enclosed LED's after dark has potential. Storage of. Excess power would be less costly than pumping water.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 01, 2023, 03:29:08 PM
An input frequency of 2.8 Mhz will illuminate an LED nearly twice as bright as the same D.C. current. The Joule thief circuit may reach that freqency with greater efficiency, but gain is minimal compared to the power generated by the diode.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 01, 2023, 03:42:56 PM
Dr. Jones circuit puts out a 2.8 megahertz signal. The DVD audio signal is at a matching freqency. Most of us have seen digital frequency generators illuminate bulbs. It may be possible to illuminate LEDS through the USB port at this frequecy which is carried by a WiFi signal, not a bench model. The factory specifications on frequency and efficiency show the diode generates power with increased frequency.
Replicating this signal on a frequency generator and measuring its effect on an LED may show an overunity effect in the diode.


Phtovoltaic efficiency of 40% would yield over 3x the input from a sphere of bulbs and a shell of Photo Voltaic Collectors.
1 Hertz = 1 half positive phase and 1 half negative  phase CYCLE/CIRCUIT/'CRISIS'/Schwungkreis,by each cycle 2 EMP signals !
2,8 MHz = 2 800 KHz = 2 800 000 Hz   a 2 signals  = 5 600 000 signals PER SECOND

The above ,now red,written is in the ' per second' contexte,or not ,synchro1 ?!


How is here ≥ 100% efficiency or ' overunity' defined ?

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/230-percent-efficient-leds (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/230-percent-efficient-leds)


The industrial light source measurement STANDART  :  lumen/Watt IN ONE METRE DISTANCE
In 10 cm,in 1 cm distance measured  : applying a. inverse/square root law

http://www.huevaluechroma.com/106.php (http://www.huevaluechroma.com/106.php)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law



b. inverse /cube root law ?
light source in a silvern( mirror/reflector ) coated round tube
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 01, 2023, 05:22:34 PM
                                                                                                          230% OU                                                                                       


                                                                   Ultra-efficient LED puts out more power than is pumped in[

MIT physicists have been testing (https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.097403) a light-emitting diode that has an electrical efficiency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy) of more than 100 percent. You may ask, "Wouldn't that mean it breaks the first law of thermodynamics?" The answer, happily, is no.
The LED produces 69 picowatts of light (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/the-lightbulb-moment) using 30 picowatts of power, giving it an efficiency of 230 percent. That means it operates above "unity efficiency" -- putting it into a category normally occupied by perpetual motion machines.

However, while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead. When it gets more than 100 percent
electrically[/i]-efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing energy from its environment to convert into more photons.

The LED's are turned practically all the way down for the highest level of efficiency. Not much advantage for a Photonic Reactor.


Thanks to LancaIV again!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 01, 2023, 06:19:56 PM
                                                                                                          230% OU                                                                                       


                                                                   Ultra-efficient LED puts out more power than is pumped in[

MIT physicists have been testing (https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.097403) a light-emitting diode that has an electrical efficiency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy) of more than 100 percent. You may ask, "Wouldn't that mean it breaks the first law of thermodynamics?" The answer, happily, is no.
The LED produces 69 picowatts of light (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/the-lightbulb-moment) using 30 picowatts of power, giving it an efficiency of 230 percent. That means it operates above "unity efficiency" -- putting it into a category normally occupied by perpetual motion machines.

However, while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead. When it gets more than 100 percent
electrically[/i]-efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing energy from its environment to convert into more photons.

The LED's are turned practically all the way down for the highest level of efficiency. Not much advantage for a Photonic Reactor.

Thanks to LancaIV again!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 02, 2023, 07:19:21 PM
The Overunity LED's generating pico watts of light are no good for a Photonic Reactor, but they act as a Zero Point cooling element and could generate power on the cold side of a Peltier Module. The conversion is small around 7% but backing hot photo voltaic collectors would pay extra dividends in efficiency gain by cooling the Photonic  Reactor.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 02, 2023, 08:15:38 PM
Max efficiency;
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 03, 2023, 01:51:18 AM
synchro1,here to read about reaction time velocity,the recombination time window :

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/revolutionary-solar-cells-double-as-lasers (https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/revolutionary-solar-cells-double-as-lasers)
Maximal efficiency :

http://www.novasolix.com/ (http://www.novasolix.com/)
https://www.eejournal.com/article/sunshine-changing-the-world/ (https://www.eejournal.com/article/sunshine-changing-the-world/)
45-90% efficiencies preview

1¢/Wp ! The production costs target !
 ' ....
The exciting part begins with their plans for higher-volume roll-to-roll manufacturing, however. NovaSolix intends to move to a rolled-glass base and to replace the masking steps with drum presses and etching. Using these materials and process changes, the company thinks they can get material costs down to under 1 cent per watt, significantly reduce manufacturing costs, and increase production volumes. The finished panel cost could drop to as low as 3 cents per watt – resulting in a panel that’s 2x the power at 1/5 the cost of a silicon PV cell, a net 90% reduction in cost-per-watt from today’s ~32 cents for silicon PV.
... '





From photo- to phono-voltaic spectrum converter :

https://www.powershow.com/view1/8b4e9-ZDc1Z/Fellows_Research_Group_Inc_powerpoint_ppt_presentation (https://www.powershow.com/view1/8b4e9-ZDc1Z/Fellows_Research_Group_Inc_powerpoint_ppt_presentation)
45% the target ,cooled up to 10Wp per sqcm = 100 KWp/sqm
( then concentrated x-sun potential radiation ) the theoretical claim




The output improvement option :

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19910423&CC=US&NR=5009243A&KC=A# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19910423&CC=US&NR=5009243A&KC=A#)
Notwithstanding the formidable prior art, there is no teaching which shows or renders obvious the present invention solar harness which  utilizes magnets in alternating series with solar cells to create a conductive magnetic field to simultaneously support the solar cells in a solderless fashion and to enhance the influx of energy to the solar cells to create a high voltage series of cells. Further, many of the other features of the present invention described herein are not suggested or taught in the prior art.

Inorganic to organic magnets/-film :

https://www.google.com/search?q=organic+magnets&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m (https://www.google.com/search?q=organic+magnets&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m)
https://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+magnets&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m

wmbr
OCWL
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 04, 2023, 12:21:57 PM
Novasolix promises 90% with nano antennas collecting 100% of the solar
Radiation.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 04, 2023, 12:35:55 PM
A photonic reactor is feasible simply by doubling the light and halving the OU factor to 115% with the MIT. LED's and collecting with 90% effecient Novasolix nano antenna voltaic cells for an OU factor of 5%!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 04, 2023, 01:15:26 PM
Photonic Reactor :

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=129&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19900201&CC=DE&NR=3817730A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=129&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19900201&CC=DE&NR=3817730A1&KC=A1#)
assumption,1985-1989 comercial efficiencies

fluorescent lamp 38 lumen/Watt
solar/photovoltaic cell radiation conversion 5%

Pure nominal : 35 Watt electric light input (photons) x 5% = 1,75 VA output expected

Claim : 35 Watt electric light input and 70 VA output !


lumen and lux,technical definition ! lumen/Watt by - fixed-1 Metre distance measurement

Solar light radiation 1333 W/sqm, on Earth surface 1000 (- 1050 W) W/sqm




https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight)


The solar illuminance constant (Esc), is equal to 128×103 lux (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux). The direct normal illuminance (Edn), corrected for the attenuating effects of the atmosphere is given by:
      E   d n    =  E   e x t      e  − c m   ,   {\displaystyle E_{\rm {dn}}=E_{\rm {ext}}\,e^{-cm},} (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8c5285dcb4506b8cd0acf38ed1e15915faaaffaf)where (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8c5285dcb4506b8cd0acf38ed1e15915faaaffaf)where) c is the atmospheric extinction (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_extinction) and m is the relative optical airmass (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airmass). The atmospheric extinction brings the number of lux down to around 100,000 lux.
The total amount of energy received at ground level from the Sun at the zenith depends on the distance to the Sun and thus on the time of year. It is about 3.3% higher than average in January and 3.3% lower in July (see below). If the extraterrestrial solar radiation is 1,367 watts per square meter (the value when the Earth–Sun distance is 1 astronomical unit (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit)), then the direct sunlight at Earth's surface when the Sun is at the zenith (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenith) is about 1,050 W/m2, but the total amount (direct and indirect from the atmosphere) hitting the ground is around 1,120 W/m2.[6] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#cite_note-Solar_constant_at_ground_level-6) In terms of energy, sunlight at Earth's surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanometre)), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).[7] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#cite_note-7) At the top of the atmosphere, sunlight is about 30% more intense, having about 8% ultraviolet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet) (UV),[8] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#cite_note-8) with most of the extra UV consisting of biologically damaging short-wave ultraviolet.[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#cite_note-Solar_radiation-9)


https://kogalla.com/blogs/tech-trail/how-many-lumens-is-the-sun (https://kogalla.com/blogs/tech-trail/how-many-lumens-is-the-sun)
sun to ' artificial sun',observation a.   lux per sqm         and         b.lumen per sqm


fluorescent lamp 38 lumen/Watt = 1330 lumen/ 35 Watt

Can by square root law distance apply 35 lumen/Watt becoming 35 lumen/35 Watt density !?



1 metre distance radiation stream  compressed to 10 centimetres compressed radiation stream to 1 centimetre ?
http://www.huevaluechroma.com/106.php (http://www.huevaluechroma.com/106.php)

Distance/light energy ratio !


lamp/solar cell/-film distance , lamp coated solar dots physical distance ~ ≤ 1, 0,1 mm ?



1330 lumen,38x35, now 1:1 like Watt treating : 1330 Watt x 0,05( for 5%) = 66,5 W
Near the claimed input/output doubling efficiency claim !
2023 : with comercial 15,20,25 and more percentage conversion efficiency ?

Photonic Reactor,with concentrating/reflecting focus/mirror integrated ?



Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 05, 2023, 04:37:53 PM
                                     
                                                                                       lamp/solar cell/-film distance , lamp coated [/size]solar dots physical distance ~ ≤ 1, 0,1 mm ?


Nano antenna coating applied directly to the surface of the light bulb.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 05, 2023, 04:59:54 PM
A coaxial photo-(DC output)/phono(AC output)electric converter !?
Yes,phonon- .... possible,as pure IR-spectrum transformer ,therm-/phononionic !
photo(n)ionic/phono(n)ionic = thermal noise = thermal voltage


lamp lumen/Watt improvement

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19901120&CC=US&NR=4972094A&KC=A# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19901120&CC=US&NR=4972094A&KC=A#)

  ' ..... It comprises a plurality of submicron metal- insulator-metal tunnel junctions in metal strips deposited on glass  forming arrays of antenna diodes .....'

Nano antenna coating applied directly to the surface of the light bulb.

Is it not the same/similar thought process ?!


Here : Prof. Ikeda Naoshi iron oxide R&D research results

https://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/20/okayama-solar-absorbers-use-%E2%80%9Cgreen-ferrite%E2%80%9D-to-generate-super-cheap-electricity-from-heat/ (https://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/20/okayama-solar-absorbers-use-%E2%80%9Cgreen-ferrite%E2%80%9D-to-generate-super-cheap-electricity-from-heat/)
The team’s goal is to create a battery capable of generating 1KW of energy for 1/1000th of the cost of a traditional silicon solar cell (http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/25/screen-printed-solar-cell-sets-new-efficiency-record-%e2%80%93-20-2/), which comes out to about 1000 yen ($12 American) per GF cell.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 06, 2023, 02:12:20 AM

Lasersaber souped up his Super Joule Ringer. The pot core and 4 coil bobbin. The pot configuration provides more core material for the multi lawyer coil then Dr. Jones hi perm toroid core.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCc-5ksv8Ic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCc-5ksv8Ic)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 06, 2023, 10:17:31 AM
' lasersaber' made much related experiments ,yes !
When one ' Photonic Reactor' functional works,the next step will be to construct a ' Photonic Reactor '-battery :

http://www.rexresearch.com/imris/imris.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/imris/imris.htm)
Each lamp in that concept transforming to ' Photonic Reactor' .



By priority date year ,without 2023 improvement options :

1974
http://www.rexresearch.com/imris/imris.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/imris/imris.htm)
1988 each lamp
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=129&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19900201&CC=DE&NR=3817730A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=129&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19900201&CC=DE&NR=3817730A1&KC=A1#)
as basic concept

wmbr
OCWL
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 06, 2023, 11:54:44 AM
While interesting, the Optical Capacitor of Pavel Imris was patented along side a gravity wheel which can not possibly work. lasersaber supplies working models.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 06, 2023, 12:32:32 PM
https://m.youtube.com/@lasersaber (https://m.youtube.com/@lasersaber)
SOLN1 : each bulb to lamp,each lamp to ' Photonic Reactor' .
One long fluorescent lamp : lumen/Watt output

One long fluorescent lamp with driver :

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19920714&CC=US&NR=5130608A&KC=A# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19920714&CC=US&NR=5130608A&KC=A#)
lumen/net Watt

Savings in energy/savings ? looses in lumen ?!  savings/looses ratio ? :      1:1 ,1:0,5 ,....

The photon (and partial phonon ) light source for the  ' Photonic Reactor ' !?
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 06, 2023, 01:49:26 PM
Lasersaber's circuit is infernaly simple. Battery coil transistor and bulb.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 06, 2023, 01:56:36 PM
Ideas and concepts which make our search and life easier ever wellcomed !
Less barrier,physical/psychological,faster and savier success !
Time to approve offered solutions,theoretical/practical showed, for own use !



Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 07, 2023, 04:27:09 PM
Lasersaber runs the LED a thousand times longer off the tiny capacitor through his Quadfilar pot core coil. The power dosen't come from the source or the pot quadfilar, but is generated inside the crystal lattice of the LED. The coil starts to ring; All the capacitor does is sustain the oscillation. The exchange is thousands of times overunity. Once the coil begins to ring it can no longer accept any input but the resonant frequency causes the LED to generate suffcient power to illuminate itself. A nano antenna coating would generate free power from this circuit.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 07, 2023, 06:51:13 PM
Related fluorescent lamps :
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KAakZTR_4LE (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KAakZTR_4LE)
230 V bulb,also fluorescent lamp ?   https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vDnDgYPLyLA (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vDnDgYPLyLA)

mono-/poly-chromatic light source !
LED,colour,light spectrum
Fluorescent lamp,light spectrum
conventional solar/photovoltaic cell light spectrum conversion optimum

Nantenna light spectrum optimum : IR also called ' heat wave' ,the radiation itself temperature-free
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 07, 2023, 08:35:24 PM
It is impossible for current to pass from the source to the collecter of the transister through Lasersaber's ringing coil. Zero power passes through the transistor from the capacitor to the LED. That kind of efficiency is hard to beat. The Overunity factor is close to infinity.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 07, 2023, 09:06:39 PM
https://ledlightinginfo.com/can-led-lights-power-solar-panels (https://ledlightinginfo.com/can-led-lights-power-solar-panels)
LEDs per sqm panel area ?
Possibility/economy !
https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/can-grow-lights-power-solar-panels.php (https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/can-grow-lights-power-solar-panels.php)

https://blog.powerfilmsolar.com/education/the-horizon-blog/2018/8/10/outdoor-vs-indoor-solar-the-key-differences (https://blog.powerfilmsolar.com/education/the-horizon-blog/2018/8/10/outdoor-vs-indoor-solar-the-key-differences)
Attention : uW and uA ! Square-cm !
Without square root law distance effect,well selected light source and well selected photovoltaic converter   as common solution not appropriate !
2002 !
https://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-full-spectrum-solar-cell.html (https://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-full-spectrum-solar-cell.html)

The process for this bulb/lamp coating,dots-style, process similar the ' NanoBoxx' :

https://patents.justia.com/inventor/joseph-g-birmingham
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 08, 2023, 04:00:34 PM
                                                                                Final Words


To summarise, LED lights can power solar panels, and they will do so more effectively than traditional types of bulbs.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 08, 2023, 06:12:57 PM
to be or not to be

https://www.google.com/search?q=high+efficient+incandescent+bulb&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m (https://www.google.com/search?q=high+efficient+incandescent+bulb&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m)

An other M.I.T. R&D device ,2016 :

Conventional incandescent lights have a luminous efficiency of between two and three per cent. Fluorescents come in between seven and 15 per cent,
while most commercial LEDs are between 5 and 20 per cent.The team believes its new incandescents could reach values as high as 40 per cent,

but the first proof-of-concept units achieved about 6.6 per cent efficiency.
 This is still three times better than the current incandescent bulbs.



Which light device in application is the most efficiently we will see !
Being open for new discoveries ,use-and afford-able !

For ' artificial solar light'-circuits here are some mysterious claims to find :

3.   to   9.
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=Heinrich+marzahn+&IN=&CPC=&IC= (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=Heinrich+marzahn+&IN=&CPC=&IC=)

a 13 Watt cf lamp radiated by a cristal device,after 'treatment' only +- 1 Watt consuming !?

The reality is that the dots nd coating process technology is earliest in 10 years comercial to find !
Before we can experiment with ' simple comercial ware' and each light / energy source or conversion improving device :


https://patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=11044 (https://patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=11044)
6.    We can build a new type of infrared heater by multiplying the heat many times and with very low cost or by multiplying the heat that comes in the building from outside. We can heat the whole building with no costs.

 infrared heater  as artificial solar radiator  : ' heat-electric conversion foam box '

More info about this OSMA-TECH paint-addition :

https://contactout.com/company/Adams-Painting-Inc-6815 (https://contactout.com/company/Adams-Painting-Inc-6815)
but :
https://www.galzeranofuneralhome.com/obituary/adnan-erkol (https://www.galzeranofuneralhome.com/obituary/adnan-erkol)


I hope that nobody means that a solar/photo(thermo-)voltaic cell circuit does not be an improvement related

https://overunity.com/10773/physicsprof-steven-e-jones-circuit-shows-8x-overunity/ (https://overunity.com/10773/physicsprof-steven-e-jones-circuit-shows-8x-overunity/)

 trans(res)istor circuit with Pin 10 mW and Pout 79 mW !
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 08, 2023, 07:31:37 PM
A maze of mirrors and lenses that are used to focus and amplify the bulb light may indeed work.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 09, 2023, 04:22:34 PM
  "If I heard you correctly you are using about 2.5 Watts to power what appears to be the equivalent of at least 200W of usable light.' Zero power passes from the source to the load. The input power merely sustains the coil resonance. The OU factor approachs infinity.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: skywatcher on October 09, 2023, 06:27:04 PM
  "If I heard you correctly you are using about 2.5 Watts to power what appears to be the equivalent of at least 200W of usable light.' Zero power passes from the source to the load. The input power merely sustains the coil resonance. The OU factor approachs infinity.

If the OU factor is so high, it should be no problem to run it without any power source. Only a small capacitor which is charged to start it, and then it should run forever. But apparently this is not working. Which means that there is no significant OU.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 09, 2023, 07:46:40 PM
We see demonstrated an electro-optical conversion ,skywatcher,1/2 from the total conversion circuit/cycle,closing : the next stage is the inversion :  opto-/phono-electric conversion !

wmbr
OCWL
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 10, 2023, 09:49:46 AM
Without doubt is lasersabers experiment showing us an energy efficient light radiation solution !A first success !
The driver only applyable in LED their specific condition or also useable for incandescent,fluorescent lightning devices ?
LED related :
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8059946B1/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US8059946B1/en)
In patentauction.com this application was offered ,with the below written claim :

400 Watt electric consume for a 185 sqm or 2000 sqft house per hour( Cleary : FIG. 1 The thermal radiation producing  6 in this embodiment is a SteFan-Boltzman lamp.   NOT a LED !)

https://www.pasco.com/products/lab-apparatus/thermodynamics/radiation/td-8555 (https://www.pasco.com/products/lab-apparatus/thermodynamics/radiation/td-8555)
ApplicationsRadiation from a hot object (˜ 3,000 K)
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law (R = sT4) at high temperatures
The Inverse Square Law for thermal radiation


Alternatively : LED as heat generation device ? Ambient,water ?!

                         cited/similar  documents ! LED as radiant heat source.

With/-out lasersaber his drive ?

LED as light and heat source ?!

Even after disclose from closed surplus power cycle generating circuits efficient light and heat sources are in daily life appreciated !

Later it is to experiment to get the natural on outer house surface light source in-house by conduction
https://www.buildinggreen.com/blog/fiber-optics-daylighting (https://www.buildinggreen.com/blog/fiber-optics-daylighting)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1a9TYfYPg7E

and concentrated light-electric conversion !

wmbr
OCWL
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 11, 2023, 12:35:15 AM
If the OU factor is so high, it should be no problem to run it without any power source. Only a small capacitor which is charged to start it, and then it should run forever. But apparently this is not working. Which means that there is no significant OU.


Lasersaber is not collecting any power with photo voltaic cells. He should be able to return enough at 20% to run it.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 11, 2023, 07:19:50 PM

Jorge disconnects and reconnects 10 bulbs to his Bitoroid ringer and registers zero change in input. The power that illuminates the bulbs was generated from within the bulbs themselves! The source is blind to the load. We could cover a gymnasium floor with hundreds of bulbs all lighted to the same intensity with the same input.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H64mWylOT_s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H64mWylOT_s)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 12, 2023, 11:41:01 AM
In german ' displacement current' is called ' Blind-Strom' ! ;)
Wattless power : an electro-magnetic source only emitting,near field : the electro-static part
or is it ,Prof. Ehrenhaft magnetic current research : magneto-static ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetostatics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetostatics)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_magneton (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_magneton)

The BIT-toroid experiment shows 4 left side bulbs and 4 right side bulbs ,4 + 4 = ?
What means the flickering  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroboscope (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroboscope) , related duty cycle/duty factor !?
Pulsed magneto-static current !?

Open results,open questions !


wmbr
OCWL
p.s.:

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20041118&CC=WO&NR=2004100349A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20041118&CC=WO&NR=2004100349A1&KC=A1#)

1 bulb,lumen/Watt ,calori/Watt      !?

10th bulb,lumen/Watt,calori/Watt !?

20th,
30th,
...........
1rd to 10th,1rd to 20th,1rd to 30th,1rd to ....  : total lumen/Watt ,total calori/Watt

In high frequency devices ,millli-seconds/micro-seconds/nano-seconds :
is the inrush voltage/inrush current phase active or passive input part ?
https://adlt.com.sg/%EF%BB%BFled-driver-inrush-currents/

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 12, 2023, 04:20:30 PM
Lasersaber's SJR3 circuit is simply a coil and transister between the source and load. the source is blind to the load like Skycollection's Bitoroid. The LED's act like crystal radios that generate power from broadcast radiation directed throgh a conductor. The upward number of reciver bulbs is practically unlimited!
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 13, 2023, 02:41:42 PM
Lasersaber's 12 bulb toroid ringer could light hundreds or even thousands of bulbs to the same intensity with no change in input.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: skywatcher on October 13, 2023, 09:09:19 PM
Lasersaber's 12 bulb toroid ringer could light hundreds or even thousands of bulbs to the same intensity with no change in input.

If this would be true, why is nobody using it ?  It would save lots of money.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 13, 2023, 10:29:25 PM
If this would be true, why is nobody using it ?  It would save lots of money.


All the flourescent light drivers are designed to avoid the ring frequency so that they draw power. This is because the lighting sector is controlled by the power company.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: skywatcher on October 13, 2023, 10:43:27 PM

All the flourescent light drivers are designed to avoid the ring frequency so that they draw power. This is because the lighting sector is controlled by the power company.
Nobody could stop you from building and using it.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 13, 2023, 11:20:19 PM
Nobody could stop you from building and using it.

No,  but you would encounter supply problems like Lasersaber ran into with his hi-perm ferrite cores when he tried to commercialize his product.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 14, 2023, 10:38:50 AM
But are all FE(thermodynamic potential)-technology demonstrating foren like overunity.com,energeticforum,aboveunity,...NOT there to show the non-comercial way,the DIY-alternative ?

Public net-grid frequency interference by such driver ? Smart battery-or capacitor or both:hibrid source micro-home grid,public grid independent  !

Some physiological concerns about using such a drive ? Known studies about  human/animals metabolism
related used resonance frequency ?

For solely buyer to get the specific parts difficult/not possible( f.e. minimum quantity )  ?
Interestants DIY-group buy,fob factory  !?

Working together or working against !?
Legal,safe,healthy !

Looking now up to 2 decades back : no forum has had an organized A-Z successfull DIY-FE-device group project product to demonstrate !
Only by individuals,often with hidden details,comerce at first ( patent pending,obulus,.... ) !


Sincerely
OCWL
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 14, 2023, 11:53:26 AM
Bing Videos (https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=lasersaber&mid=81EFDEB0D1C92D378FCD81EFDEB0D1C92D378FCD&ajaxhist=0)


Ten to two hundred pot core wind ratio. This transistorless circuit would run a string of lights with no change in input.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 14, 2023, 04:43:20 PM
Marconi spark gap transmitter coil and interrupter. The SJR circuit is basically identical to the first Marconi broadcasting radio. Lasersaber is lighting his bulbs with radio waves. That's why the source is blind to the load and the bulbs are comparable to radio receivers, any number of which has no effect on the source signal.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: skywatcher on October 14, 2023, 06:45:25 PM
Looking now up to 2 decades back : no forum has had an organized A-Z successfull DIY-FE-device group project product to demonstrate !
Only by individuals,often with hidden details,comerce at first ( patent pending,obulus,.... ) !

You are right. I'm also following the developments in the last 20 years, and i did not see ANY project which had been proven to work, and could be successfully reproduced by others. The most plausible explanation is: there isn't anything which really works. There are only fakes, lies, and (self-)deception.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: Goat on October 14, 2023, 07:55:49 PM
Lasersaber's 12 bulb toroid ringer could light hundreds or even thousands of bulbs to the same intensity with no change in input.
@ Synchro1
I'm not sure what you say is correct, Lasersaber mentions that the joule ringer has to be tuned to the load for maximum efficiency so adding more bulbs than the max would de-tune the circuit.
See this video "Super Joule Ringer 3.0 Tips for Success" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVXzGcyzu6o at around the 5 minute mark he talks about tuning the joule ringer.

Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 15, 2023, 06:40:33 AM

Lidmotor lights a bank of LED's wirelessly off radiation from his ringer towards the end of the video.

Joule Ringer close to a replication Video from Lidmotor - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARCdKfH_Kbg)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 15, 2023, 07:34:57 AM
@ Synchro1
I'm not sure what you say is correct, Lasersaber mentions that the joule ringer has to be tuned to the load for maximum efficiency so adding more bulbs than the max would de-tune the circuit.
See this video "Super Joule Ringer 3.0 Tips for Success" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVXzGcyzu6o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVXzGcyzu6o) at around the 5 minute mark he talks about tuning the joule ringer.


Good point. The point I am trying to stress is that Lidmotor's LED's do not draw any additional current. Tuning to ring is critical.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 15, 2023, 01:04:57 PM
synchro1,such statement/-s ' stress' us to find the right answer :
https://vabira.com/light-saturation-point-and-light-compensation-point/ (https://vabira.com/light-saturation-point-and-light-compensation-point/)
When is voltage/tension hight ,when current hight and/or frequency and duty ...  more important/uefull for the wished application/function !?

Sincerely

OCWL
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 15, 2023, 01:42:46 PM
You are right. I'm also following the developments in the last 20 years, and i did not see ANY project which had been proven to work, and could be successfully reproduced by others. The most plausible explanation is: there isn't anything which really works. There are only fakes, lies, and (self-)deception.
There are showed/shown some before/after energetic efficiency improvement solutions !
This are success steps !

' fakes,lies,and ( self-)deception '  !?
We all are re-/searcher,some by only theories comparison others by workbench experimental !
Mis-measurements often happens,by animated newbies as by decades experienced professional academicians !

1x,10x,100x input/output trial/work process  repeat and results comparison !

Simulator(FEMM) and physical reality ,theory : near/same 1:1 ,physically 1: ?  !

Digital simulator as 3d modeller are often  ' apparent 3d',real 2-2,5d'  !
Software-industry fixed error source !
Being critical :

conventional heatpump with propagated optimum C.O.P. 3 ,ambiental medium average C.O.P.2-2,5 ,
by electric drive effective electric energy ' nominal factor :1' ,by '  Primary Energy'-mix real factor : 0,4

~ circuit efficiency ≤ 1, energetic ( thermic and e-grid input ) C.O.P.  ≤ 1

To close the above low heat temperature ' net C.O.P. ≤ 1' cycle by heatelectric conversion ,
 feedback cycle ,physically/technically as ' Carnot process' , 
 energy= anergy+exergy , 

not as continuum process possible ,C.O.P. under 1,by standart industrial ware use/application  !

With improved system parts clearly possible !
Or as ' artificial light/heat source' and ' photo-/phono-electric converter' coupling like here analyzed  !


wmbr
OCWL




Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: skywatcher on October 15, 2023, 02:01:20 PM
There are showed/shown some before/after energetic efficiency improvement solutions !
This are success steps !
' fakes,lies,and ( self-)deception '  !?
We all are re-/searcher,some by only theories comparison others by workbench experimental !
Mis-measurements often happens,by animated newbies as by decades experienced professional academicians !

1x,10x,100x input/output trial/work process  repeat and results comparison !

Simulator(FEMM) and physical real !

Digital simulator as 3d modeller are often  ' apparent 3d',real 2-2,5d'  !Software-industry fixed error source !

Being critical :

conventional heatpump with propagated optimum C.O.P. 3 ,ambiental medium average C.O.P.2-2,5 ,
by electric drive effective electric energy ' nominal factor :1' ,by '  Primary Energy'-mix real factor : 0,4

~ circuit efficiency ≤ 1, energetic ( thermic and e-grid input ) C.O.P.  ≤ 1

To close the above low heat temperature ' net C.O.P. ≤ 1' cycle by heatelectric conversion ,
 feedback cycle ,physically/technically as ' Carnot process' , 
 energy= anergy+exergy , 

not as continuum process possible ,C.O.P. under 1,by standart industrial ware use/application  !

With improved system parts clearly possible !
Or as ' artificial light/heat source' and ' photo-/phono-electric converter' coupling like here analyzed  !


wmbr
OCWL

I'm not talking about heat pumps, where i put electrical energy in and get heat energy out.
These are 'conventional technology' with a limited useability and i think they are not really the topic of this forum.
What i'm talking about are all the other 'magical' things like magnet motors, or other devices which output energy without any input (in the form of electricity, fuel, etc). Devices which work at any place at any time. I think you know what i mean...
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 15, 2023, 02:16:01 PM
Look at the wireless "Exciter" effect emenating from Lidmotor's Joule Ringer! The LEDs generate the power to illuminate themselves from within their crystal lattice excited by the broadcast ring frequency and there is zero rise in power consumption from the source. Skywatcher notes worthily that tuning frequency needs to match the load.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 15, 2023, 03:42:32 PM
Skywatcher,formerly this site and forum had as topic ' simple machine'-re-/search !
heat pump process,beside electric drive also with alternative drive by air-/gas-/water-/wind-motor  is a simple machine process,also in reversible function :
giving to a space a temperature increase or taking = decreasing temperature from a space !

Today such as MEMS-devices,incorporateable in human body ! Pace-maker e-source !               
 
https://www.techtarget.com/iotagenda/definition/micro-electromechanical-systems-MEMS (https://www.techtarget.com/iotagenda/definition/micro-electromechanical-systems-MEMS)


Why searching for really ' mystical/exotic/esoterical  devices'  when hyper-/physics,included quanta/quantum dimension,gives us solution !?

Output from ' nothing'  does not exist,there has to be an un-/detectable activity,an actio/ a motive current , which can become the medium to harvest and being converted ,24/365 !
With fixed or variable output,source its cycle ,hourly/daily/seasonal intensity dependent !

By heat pumps the ' endless/24-365 current potential' :
 the ' closed' (not thermally )thermodynamic cycle medium/fluidum ,f.e. Butanol = Butan-gas as liquid,with - ( negative degree) 78°Celsius temperature

as medium in relation to outer/ambiental temperature !

The Carnot process is also for electro-magnetic devices their process valid and work efficiency determining !



20 years back,a common net-wide in/formation lab R&prototype/proof-of-concept research :

open ideas and questions,first answer and explaination trial

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/ (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/)
http://jnaudin.free.fr/ (http://jnaudin.free.fr/)

f.e.:  http://jlnlabs.online.fr/hep/index.htm (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/hep/index.htm)
         http://jnaudin.free.fr/rvproject/index.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/rvproject/index.htm)

to lasersabers,skycollection  and Lidmotors et al. workbench youtube-listed vids


Bulb ( incandescent,halogen,sodium,...) array as heater ,Joule ringer apply ?
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=16&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19821029&CC=FR&NR=2504768A2&KC=A2#
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=17&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19811218&CC=FR&NR=2484700A1&KC=A1#


wmbr
OCWL
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: skywatcher on October 15, 2023, 04:59:05 PM
Skywatcher,formerly this site and forum had as topic ' simple machine'-re-/search !
heat pump process,beside electric drive also with alternative drive by air-/gas-/water-/wind-motor  is a simple machine process,also in reversible function :
giving to a space a temperature increase or taking = decreasing temperature from a space !

[...]

A heatpump doesn't give me electricity to power my devices. There is no heatpump-based device which i can carry around, and it produces a significant amount of electrical energy by extracting heat from the air. At least i'm not aware of any such device. I can use a heatpump to heat my house, but i don't have a house.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 15, 2023, 05:13:52 PM
A heatpump doesn't give me electricity to power my devices. There is no heatpump-based device which i can carry around, and it produces a significant amount of electrical energy by extracting heat from the air. At least i'm not aware of any such device. I can use a heatpump to heat my house, but i don't have a house.
The heat pump in reverse function we call : refrigerator ,commonly as household appliance in 80% private households in the western !

Is the refrigerator as ' reverted heat pump' not convertable to an heatelectric engine ?

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=Jack+Dowdy+&IN=&CPC=&IC= (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=Jack+Dowdy+&IN=&CPC=&IC=)

100 e- units compressor-motor  in ,45 e- units( not optimized proof-of-concept)  heat stream conversion gain

Yes,the refrigerator is also as heatelectric engine useable, total work C.O.P. 0,55

With optimized compressor-motor !? 50 in/45 out ,total work C.O.P. 0,95

With conventional cw or ccw generator now as ccw and cw generator !? 50 in/ 75 out ,total work C.O.P. 1,25

With work C.O.P. 1,25 the cooling heat pump function in hot zones will become surplus electric energy generating work !
Global temperature increase living space appropriate solution  !
Same process for Atmospherical Water Generator and Vertical Farming ambiental temperature conditioningimportant !



With optimized Haeberle process !?
With optimized compressor !?
With compressor-motor stand-by on/off switch !?
Industry does not offer ' optimal standart' !
Do-It-Yourself !

Sincerely
OCWL
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: skywatcher on October 15, 2023, 05:52:21 PM
With optimized Haeberle process !?
With optimized compressor !?
With compressor-motor stand-by on/off switch !?
Industry does not offer ' optimal standart' !
Do-It-Yourself !

Sincerely
OCWL

I can not, and i don't want to build a heat pump. It's useless for me. And BTW it's off-topic.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 15, 2023, 06:04:38 PM
Not off-topic,when it is about the thermodynamic potential explanation ,like :
circuit shows
Pin ~ 10 mW ,          Pout ~ 79 mW    (8)x overunity ?


Nobody demands to build an heat pump  !
Are You having a refrigerator,self-constructed ?  ;)

As cooling process in AWG two gains : surplus electricity and drinkwater.

Shoes with heat pump ( clearly in this case not heatelectric version ) :
also invented and publicated (Jacques Bernier,  https://fr.linkedin.com/pulse/hommage-%C3%A0-jacques-bernier-un-inventeur-du-g%C3%A9nie-thierry-jahier

for the first time I saw from this french inventor 1995 one of his invention,Axergy-thermodynamic panel heat collector) :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=&IN=Jacques+bernier+&CPC=&IC= (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=&IN=Jacques+bernier+&CPC=&IC=)

https://metal-flash.fr/tendances/187/Le-serial-inventeur-Jacques-Bernier-dbarque--la-Foire-de-Paris-arm-dun-panneau-solaire-hybride-dun-nouveau-genre?amp (https://metal-flash.fr/tendances/187/Le-serial-inventeur-Jacques-Bernier-dbarque--la-Foire-de-Paris-arm-dun-panneau-solaire-hybride-dun-nouveau-genre?amp)

wmbr
OCWL
p.s.:   
http://jnaudin.free.fr/rvproject/index.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/rvproject/index.htm)
to

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vVXzGcyzu6o (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vVXzGcyzu6o)     minute 3:00 + : the primaries or secondaries ' flip'ping

similar ' flip'ping

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=&CC=BE&NR=438189A&KC=A# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=&CC=BE&NR=438189A&KC=A#)
Je dois aussi attirer votre attention sur la façon que l'accumulateur est raccordé. 

 Celui-ci est raccordé du positif de la dynamos au positif de l'accumulateur et de la au moteur et le même raccord pour le négatif, comme il est marqué sur le dessin, il ne sagit pas de confondre, car si ont mais le positif de la dynamos au négatif de l'accumulateur, et le négatif de la dynamos au positif de l'accumulateur, ont doublerait le voltage et on brulerait le moteur. 
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 17, 2023, 06:58:42 PM
J. L. Nadine's test : The power to illuminate the bulbs is generated within the LED's.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 17, 2023, 08:38:09 PM
https://tesla3.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/zpe_hilden_brand_valve.gif (https://tesla3.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/zpe_hilden_brand_valve.gif)
Amplifying : Double the flux line 4 times the force

Counter-effect !

http://www.rexresearch.com/flynn/flynn.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/flynn/flynn.htm)
The effect of dividing a given amount of magnetic flux along two like flux paths instead of along one flux path can be seen by examining the holding force on armature 54 as compared to the holding force on armature 26 of FIG. 1.

As already noted the magnetic flux density along path 56 will be one-half that along flux path 32 and thus the total holding force F.sub.T54 can be determined as: F.sub.T54 =(B/2)2A/,.mu..sub.0 =B.sup.2 A/4.mu..sub.0 =F.sub.T26 /4.


It is therefore seen that dividing the same amount of magnetic flux along two flux paths rather than along one flux path reduces the magnetic holding or coupling force on an armature by one-fourth rather than one-half as might have been expected.
This unexpected magnetic holding or coupling force differential, resulting from multiple flux paths, can provide advantageous properties in linear, reciprocating, and rotary motion devices.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Both effects,pm use specific or also by electro-magnet use instead permanent magnet ,confirmed  ?

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19831209&CC=FR&NR=2528257A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19831209&CC=FR&NR=2528257A1&KC=A1#)
The esitation of the coil can be done by another power source and will be controlled by an electronic time relay, as there can be a coil on each pole of the magnet, or the field magnet is replaced by a electro magnet.


https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19910423&CC=US&NR=5009243A&KC=A# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=3&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19910423&CC=US&NR=5009243A&KC=A#)
The solar harness includes a plurality of magnets with at least one magnet being located between each adjacent solar cell in the plurality of solar cells so as to hold the cells in the stacked arrangement without any further support and so as to create solderless contacts therewith.

Means is connected to the stack for drawing electric current therefrom.
Preferably, the magnets are at least partially wrapped or wound in electrically conductive material so that the conductivity in series is enhanced.

Further, the solar harness apparatus may be employed in conjunction with a parabolic reflector so as to work with concentrated solar energy, it may be used in conjunction with means for converting electrical energy to transmittable wave energy and deployed extraterrestrially.
 Alternatively, the present invention solar harness apparatus may be reversed with power being put into it so as to create a wave energy transmission device.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 23, 2023, 12:55:52 PM

Nanotech posted the technical specification of their panels - actually stating that the cell efficiency is 96.9% and the module efficiency is 94.7%. These results are from the company's own testing, and it has signed up for a third-party test by Intertek which will inspect the panels and provide its own results. The Intertek results are expected within a few months. Towards the end of 2017 Nanotech received its first panel samples, and posted the video you can see below.

Nanopanel TM - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRDXxz_6Zc0)


A Bank of solar spectrum Joule ringer LEDs would power itself with this nanotech solar recovery panel.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: lancaIV on October 23, 2023, 01:17:45 PM
Nanotech posted the technical specification of their panels - actually stating that the cell efficiency is 96.9% and the module efficiency is 94.7%. These results are from the company's own testing, and it has signed up for a third-party test by Intertek which will inspect the panels and provide its own results. The Intertek results are expected within a few months. Towards the end of 2017 Nanotech received its first panel samples, and posted the video you can see below.

Nanopanel TM - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRDXxz_6Zc0)


A Bank of solar spectrum Joule ringer LEDs would power itself with this nanotech solar recovery panel.
https://www.graphene-info.com/nanotech-engineerings-graphene-enhanced-solar-panel-gains-mits-approval

Question : What has been really tested ?
 :-X
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/irvine-man-sentenced-6-years-prison-nanotechnology-investment-fraud-duped-victims-out (https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/irvine-man-sentenced-6-years-prison-nanotechnology-investment-fraud-duped-victims-out)
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 23, 2023, 01:24:26 PM
      During the scheme, Sweaney instructed his nephew – who was in charge of Nanotech’s Colorado facility – to create a prop to make it appear that there were functioning Nanopanels, to make a video with a hired actor showing the product outperforming a traditional solar panel, and to make it appear the Loveland facility was manufacturing Nanopanels, the court documents state.

Obvious hoax.

Nevertheless MIT confirmed the efficiency?

Our article received many responses - most of them declaring this news as a hoax: 92% is a theoretically impossible feat and that the MIT professor quoted in the company's PR says he has no connection to this tech.


Whole thing is a proven hoax.
Title: Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
Post by: synchro1 on October 23, 2023, 02:20:35 PM
Covering LED surfaces directly with the carbon nano antennas instead of an inert substrate would result in a sympathetic combination.