Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83391
  • *Latest: JaneRyan

  • *Total Posts: 509716
  • *Total Topics: 15193
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 16
  • *Total: 21

Author Topic: A matimatical aproach to overunity  (Read 11299 times)

Offline beno

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
A matimatical aproach to overunity
« on: July 13, 2011, 08:28:20 PM »
Hi,

The reason for this thread was that I posted this in another thread, but it is more appropriate here. So here goes.

Repost below:

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.

Added commment: The circuit is a battery powered circuit, which generate a square-form voltage into some coils - the output is a load resistor. The actual circuit is only partially in my mind. So I can not post it, as I currently does not have it.



Math:
If the input is a squareform, the output would most likely 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

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: A matimatical aproach to overunity
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2011, 09:00:04 PM »
 
[...]
Added commment: The circuit is a battery powered circuit, which generate a square-form voltage into some coils - the output is a load resistor. The actual circuit is only partially in my mind. So I can not post it, as I currently does not have it.

[...]
 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.
[...]
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


hi beno

thanks for doing all this work looking at the possibility that math may show us what we need to focus on to achieve OU

i realise that you don't have an actual circuit or scope to provide some real data, but it may be helpful to folks if they could visualise the waveform(s) you mention in your equations

is there any possibility that you could draw a simple sketch of the relevant waveforms and post a photo of it?

thanks in advance
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com
 

Offline beno

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: A matimatical aproach to overunity
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2011, 10:24:24 PM »
Hi nul-points,

I can give it a try. Now I'm no artist, so it would not be pretty. But you asked for it  ;)

Best regards

beno

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A matimatical aproach to overunity
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2011, 10:24:24 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: A matimatical aproach to overunity
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2011, 11:38:44 PM »
 
Hi nul-points,

I can give it a try. Now I'm no artist, so it would not be pretty. But you asked for it  ;)

Best regards

beno

that's fine, that will help people to relate to your description, thanks

are the 2 coils wound on the same core like a transformer?

your waveform looks to me more like a Capacitor-Resistor network (series C into parallel R) waveform, ie. two pulses with opposite polarity, each caused by a transition, or edge, of the square wave input signal

is this a waveform you've seen somewhere before? maybe you could give us some more detail about it?

thanks

Offline onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1336
Re: A matimatical aproach to overunity
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2011, 03:41:14 AM »
a slave will do no work unless it is 'forced' to do work.

the electron is a slave.

this philosophy will be your burden in finding O.U, the electron is a beast of burden that has to be driven to do anything for you.

electron's are inherently lazy(Static) and will remain lazy until 'it' is forced to do some work.

when you try to get an electron to do something you become the slave driver but in the end you will find the slave driver has done more work to get the slave to do something in the electron's world.

the electron refuses to do work unless it is forced to do so.

in the end, you will find this to be true.

Jerry 8)

« Last Edit: July 14, 2011, 07:03:45 AM by onthecuttingedge2005 »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A matimatical aproach to overunity
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2011, 03:41:14 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline beno

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: A matimatical aproach to overunity
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2011, 08:00:11 AM »
Hi,

@nul-points: Yes it is a wave form I have seen before... That is currently all I can say to you right now. Regarding the coils, yes in my head they are on the same core. But do please keep in mind - this is currently 'only' an image in my head. Howevere the spike is the key, the driving of the current.  That spike is most easyly achived by using either square-forms or switches. But this is 'soly' based upon some image in my head of how some of Teslas circuits could have been made.


@onthecuttingedge2005: I know that this might be the case with the slave driver doing more work than the slave (the electron). Convetional knowledge says so. You know... Power normally do not comes from nothing, unless you are on the quantum level, and that level will normaly be closed to conventional circuits.

But if so, then why are we here in this forum then, if we all just accept the conventional knowledge?

Now, I do know that currently, I have only a theory based upon the theoretically wave form of a coil. The rest of the circuit is 'missing' - and perhaps you are right that the power-consumption here is greather than the gain in the coils (I do not think so). But if it is so, then I will be tempted to say that all the talk about overunity, is talking about a dream that will never come to reality. Other than in circuits than in some way is drawing its power from the sun (like wind,solar and so on) or the magnetic core in the earth itself.

The spike is the overlord hammering fear into the minds of the electrons, so they are driven by themself (or perhaps persuaded to do the work). Without the need of a 'slave driver'


Best regards

beno

Offline quantumtangles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: A matimatical aproach to overunity
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2012, 01:29:09 PM »

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



This is creative and interesting jazz maths. It is nice to see it here.


As I understand it, this boils down to dv/dt = I


By changing voltage rapidly per unit time, you increase current. Examples of discrete devices capable of changing voltage rapidly over time might include certain 555 timers and certain transistors (depending upon their specifications). I like your idea not least because I thought of this myself in or about February 2012 (long after you thought of it). However I realised that continuous power is required, which is to say that one cannot (I respectfully suggest) fragment the power output into discrete packages because in that event, the Sine wave would not be a Sine wave. It would not be a wave at all


So I like your line of thinking, but how does one generate continuous output by pimping dv/dt with discrete components such as transistors or 555 timers? In passing, half a sine wave (DC) would still work if we used a bridge rectifier to convert AC by doubling the hertz above the flat line (for positive voltage values. Accordingly, manipulation of the wave is always possible, provided we can get continuous output in the first place (provided there is a wave to manipulate).


By way of practical example, suppose we have a simple circuit with a 9v DC battery power source, and we connect this to a voltage regulator and a 555 timer chip. In theory, we may think we can change the voltage so rapidly that current will increase enormously. But I have tried this and it did not work. One always needs approximately 2v more (2v more going into the voltage regulator) than the regulated output voltage. I think it does not work both for this reason and also because one is essentially trying to create discrete pulses incapable of constituting a wave. I iterate I have not yet obtained an oscilloscope so I have been running blind in terms of wave generation thus far and this may be worthy of further examination.






If ignorance was a criminal offence, I would be serving a life sentence

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A matimatical aproach to overunity
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2012, 01:29:09 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline beno

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: A matimatical aproach to overunity
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2012, 06:28:53 PM »
Hi quantumtangles,

Now I have not had the time to build the circuit in my mind, which perhaps could do the trick. But yes, your are right.. one could use a 555. Actually the circuit in my mind will use a 555.

However the waveform should not be Sinus-formed. As I see it must be a squareform (with a biased DC voltage), perhaps 12 volt +/- 5 V (now this might not be the correct values, perhaps the more correct values is 7 +/- 5 V).

I also think there must be at least one coils/core's involved. Perhaps two coils on the same core, or two cores with one or more coils.


As I think:

If one would take the energy from the earth's/sun energy-field, par example from the Schumann cavity, one should use sine-waves. And I would think it would be of critical importance, that one use n-times the schumann cavity frequency (or perhaps with some minor error - to prevent perfect aligned standing waves in the circuit)

If however you'll want to draw from other sources - then you should other waveforms. From my current point of view, a squareform should most likely be preferred.

But let me point out, that in my current point of view, we are not likely to make a overunity device from a universal perspective, just a device which draws power from other sources than the battery ;)  And therefore from a local point of view, seems to be an overunity-device [Actually a solar-cell is also from a local point of view .. an overunity device].

Which other sources you might ask? Well it could be the Barkhausen effect or other sources.

Best regards

beno

Offline quantumtangles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: A mathematical aproach to overunity
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2012, 11:48:51 AM »
Interesting Beno.


In February 2012, I contacted a friend with a PhD in Electrical Engineering and asked various questions about amplifying current per I=dv/dt. I sent him the email when I first thought of your idea (in February 2012), a considerable time after you first came up with it.


I do not have permission to reproduce the email in full, but in expurgated terms the responses were as follows:

When I pointed out that the 555 timer could switch on and off perhaps ten times a second, (leading me to think current could be amplified significantly in consequence of rapid voltage changes, the academic responded as follows:


"I am not sure what you mean by this. Current and voltage are continuous variables and switching on/off would result in discrete variables which are not useful. If you consider a Sine wave then the instantaneous value (dv/dt) is the latest value of Sine with respect to time in a very short time span or you can divide the time axis into very small pieces and the value within a particular piece is dv/dt or di/dt."

In passing, it seems to me it is not necessary to switch the voltage completely off. In other words, the 555 timer could be used to vary the voltage (between 0.001 volts and 9 volts for example) rather than turn it off completely, thus ensuring a continuous (wave) function.


Second Question:
 
Using the example of a 9 volt battery connected to a 555 timer capable of changing the voltage in 0.1 seconds (ten times a second), I asked whether dt would really be 0.1 (seconds) and whether this would necessarily involve a total voltage change of 18 volts or 9 volts (I initially thought voltage would swing from -9v to +9v in 0.1 seconds and accordingly that there would be a dv of 18v. This was my question to him:

Dt would be 0.1 seconds (voltage would swing from -9v to +9v in 0.1 seconds). Is dv = 18v (-9v to +9v) or is dv = 9v?

If dv = 18

I = 18/0.1
I = 180 amps

But even if dv = 9

I = 9/0.1
I = 90 amps.

He responded as follows:
 
"18V is your range not the instantaneous value; everywhere you see 'dv' or 'di' It means that the value of voltage or current at a very short span is desired, and depending on the shape of your current or voltage it can take any value between -9 and 9. Therefore, dv cannot be 18. Also, you can not use the above expression where you only have resistors."


In summary, the academic did not object to the general idea that rapid changes in voltage would lead to significantly increased current. His practical objection was that doing so would lead to non-continuous output incapable of constituting a wave function. I do not understand why this should necessarily be the case in all circumstances, so I am going to test it. For example, as I said before, the 555 timer could be used to vary voltage between pre-set parameters of say 0.001 volts and 9 volts, thus ensuring continuity of the wave function.


However we do need to pay particular attention to his comment about resistors for reasons I am coming to. Equivalent series resistance is actually quite important but I will get back to it momentarily.

Going back to what I was saying before, I plan to try the 555 timer again but this time use an oscilloscope to observe the shape of the resulting wave. The objective is to obtain a continuous sine or square-wave using a 555 timer chip to change the voltage as rapidly as possible and then measure output current.


A potential practical hurdle which I think the academic was referring to (in terms of resistance), and that may be of interest to you, is as follows:


A power source of some sort will be required to carry out the experiments. Let us say we decide to use AA duracell batteries connected in series (one on top of the other as one would find in a battery powered torch). See Afrotechmods on Youtube.


Conventional AA duracell batteries contain vast amounts of energy. Two 1.5v AA batteries in series = 3v x 2.5Ah = 7.5Wh = 27 kJ of energy


Note that 1Wh = 3.6kJ


This is a huge capacity, but there is a non-ideal property called equivalent series resistance which means that AA batteries have some sort of internal resistance, otherwise known as equivalent series resistance or series impedance.


Batteries, capacitors and other electronic components almost all have this small internal resistance, which limits the amount of current that can flow. For a typical AA battery, the Equivalent Series Resistance is 120 milli-ohms. Not very much, and it seems fairly irrelevant. But when we do the maths, it starts to get relevant when we put a load on the battery.


For Conventional/Normal use of an AA battery (in a Hi-fi remote control for example)


V = IR


Vdrop = 0.02A x 0.12 ohms = 2.4mV (This is the voltage drop).


Vunderload = 1.5v - 2.4mv = 1.4976 volts


Power = I(squared)R
P= 0.02A x 0.12 ohms = 48uW of heat

So what. Who cares. This is a tiny amount of heat generated under normal operating conditions for a AA battery.


But when we pimp the load, a completely different picture emerges. Suppose we manage to get our 555 timer to churn out 10amps from a AA battery without melting, watch what happens to the battery.


V = IR


Vdrop = 10A x 0.12 ohms = 1.2 volts


Vunderload = 1.5v - 1.2v = 0.3 volts


Power = I(squared)R


P= 10A(squared) x 0.12 ohms = 12 Watts of heat


So the typical AA battery is going to light up like a bulb filament if we try to draw 10 amps from it (which is to say, even if we manage to get our 555 timer to increase current using rapid changes in voltage per unit time (I= dv/dt) without turning into a crisp, we are still going to need a bigger boat. We are going to need an ultra-capacitor. This is because instead of there being a 2.4mv drop across the resistive element of the AA battery, there would be a 1.2v drop across the resistive element, and the AA battery will essentially melt.


For the above reasons, we may start leaning in the direction of a 555 timer combined with an ultra-capacitor supplied by a 12v car battery (or a bench power supply, though it would probably take half an hour or so to charge an ultra-capacitor even with a bench power supply).


Then we have to ask whether the 555 timer will melt due to high current or whether we can somehow keep it away from the current amplifying element of the circuit (which it is itself a part of). So what we are looking for here, if we use conventional thinking, are some fairly exotic components to test your hypothesis. There may be a way of performing the experiments with less exotic components but I have not figured out how to do that yet.


What we are really trying to achieve here is to use sophisticated components (such as 555 chips and transistors), designed for completely different purposes, to cause rapid changes in voltage and accordingly to generate large current amperages. It is a counter-intuitive idea (to use such components to enhance current).


Ultimately it may be possible, using this technique, to power heavy duty devices for short periods with rechargeable battery arrays, perhaps even with there being sufficient time between battery connection and discharge to recharge other batteries in the array (using solar panels etc). But for sure it would not be OU (which personally I consider to be impossible). Some external energy source is always needed imo.

Please let me know if you suggest alternative components for the experiments.


Kind regards,
« Last Edit: March 21, 2012, 01:28:53 PM by quantumtangles »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A mathematical aproach to overunity
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2012, 11:48:51 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline beno

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: A matimatical aproach to overunity
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2012, 06:56:10 PM »
Hi quantumtangles,

In my comming experiments, I would start with using square-forms (I think it would be needed to have a DC-bias). You know: Vhigh = 12 volt , Vlow=7 volt (the actual values must be determined by experiments, but I'll start with a low voltage, perhaps even down to a couple of volts). The reason for using square-forms, is I do not belive we'll get high enough dI/dt using sine-waveforms. But I might be wrong on this !  The key-question is how does the current/voltage look in the coils? But this can be determined with our oscilloscopes ;)  After all, the ultimate proof is in the circuit, not in the mind, or in some calculations.

I also consider either using one or more batteries/capacitors as the supply, I have also thought about using a car-battery. But I will not start with a car-battery, just to play it safe so I don't fry to many components ;).  But we are having the same thoughts ;)

And yes the 555 is perhaps not the ideal switching component, and perhaps should only be used as a timer-component. I'll start with using it as a switching component, but perhaps I'll continue with FET's. Like in a switch-mode power-supply.

And we also agree that energy will always come from somewhere, the only question is from where.  However I do belive that this could obtain a COP around 1, and even above 1 [as seen from a local perspective - not a universal perspective], but I don't expect that this is going to be a high-power circuit, perhaps 5-30 watt [however if we succeed, someone might build a high-power circuit].
So yes, this is only for fun ;)

But to answer your question: No, I do not think that I have any alternative components to add to your experiments (because it seems that we are already thinking on simliar circuits). The only difference is the input waveforms, but the 555 can be used for both waveforms.

Kind regards

beno

Offline quantumtangles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: A mathematical approach to overunity
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2012, 10:48:47 AM »
Best of luck at your end. I will let you know if I manage to build any interesting circuits based on your ideas.

Please be extremely careful with any type of capacitor. Even the relatively low rated capacitors we use for simple circuits can deliver fatal electric shocks depending upon the charge they carry (voltage and charge in microfarads will be marked on the walls of the capacitor). Always assume that capacitors are charged and that they are dangerous. Exceeding the maximum voltage tolerance of any capacitor will cause it to rupture, which is also dangerous.


But Super-capacitors and Ultra-capacitors are phenomenally dangerous. They should never be handled without wearing thick rubber gloves and safety glasses. These things can easily vaporise steel, and sparks can cause eye damage or permanent blindness.


You might think that you have a one in 100,000 chance of surviving a super-capacitor shock. I disagree. These things will kill you every time if they come into contact with you.


Accordingly, I urge you not to build a circuit with these devices at all. If however you are an experienced qualified Electronic Engineer, and have taken a safety course concerning the dangers of supercaps and ultracaps, then and only then, if you insist upon using them at your own risk, should you consider doing so.


Even then, please be extremely careful. Avoid areas where liquid spills are even remotely possible. Avoid unstable surfaces and slippery floors because the caps may fall over and come into contact with you, and always but always wear safety gloves and safety glasses.

No-one without a relevant qualification in electronic engineering should EVER handle capacitors of any sort, especially not supercapacitors or ultracapacitors.


These things are extremely dangerous.


Kind regards,
« Last Edit: March 22, 2012, 02:31:47 PM by quantumtangles »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A mathematical approach to overunity
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2012, 10:48:47 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline beno

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: A matimatical aproach to overunity
« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2012, 06:15:18 PM »
Hi quantumtangles,

Thanks for your warning.

But for your information: I have knowledge in handling capacitors ;)

Best regards

beno

Offline quantumtangles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: A matimatical aproach to overunity
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2012, 08:10:24 AM »
Hi Beno,


The thread (including my reference to super-capacitors) is obviously in the public domain. Accordingly, the safety warning was not directed specifically at you (you obviously have experience of all sorts of components). It was really directed towards other people who might be tempted to use potentially unsafe components. I felt some responsibility (having mentioned supercaps) to provide a warning to younger and generally less experienced experimenters because electronics is a wonderful hobby provided you take proper safety precautions.


Kind regards,

 

OneLink