verpies and Khwartz,   I know both of you are good people just trying to get to the truth of free energy.   Please don't let yourselves get stuck in a self running loop of misunderstandings and worse     I think much of the problems are from language (and sometimes the associated differences in general expression).   Lets don't let this thread turn in to a flame war.   It's some very good info and work going on here.   I bought some components in hopes of trying some things with this myself.   I just need to go back to understand how to make the U shaped coil and I'll be ready for some experiments.    Cheers

Expéditeur: zgreudz
Destinataire: Khwartz
Envoyé en copie à: bluedragon
--------

Quote

Salut zgreudz

{Hi zgreudz}

Je sais grâce à BlueDragon que tu t'y connais en terme de mesures, or je voudrais te demander de bien vouloir jeter un oeil à la liste de points de méthodologie de mesure de puissance pour laquelle je souhaiterais que tu m'indiques lesquels dont tu tiens compte déjà et lesquels tu envisages déjà de mettre en place dans tes propres expérimentations.

{I know thanks to BlueDragon that you know about measurements, while I would like to ask you agree to have a look at the list of items of methodology measurements of power about which I wish you could indicate me which ones you actually take in account and which ones you project to set  in your own experiments. }

C'est sur le fil de proximité informative avec overunity.com.

{This on the mirror like thread with  overunity.com.

http://www.conspirovniscience.com/forum/in...=60&#entry43927

Je sais que c'est en anglais (le but du fil étant d'intéresser justement les non-francophones) et il y a des points je ne sais même pas ce que c'est. Par contre, si tu as vraiment besoin d'aide pour que je te traduire tout ou partie, je suis quand même là pour ça, donc juste demande moi en cas vraiment de besoin

{I know it is in English (the purpose of the thread is indeed to interest the non French tongue) and there are items I even don't know what's that could be. But if you truly need help from me to translate all or a part of, I am here in this purpose, so just ask me in case you need }

Bien amicalement,

{Best regards, }
K.

Bonjour Khwartz

You mean this ?

Quote

(The objection was that working by intragation time after time the data of an oscilloscope, RMS amps and RMS voltage, is not enough to certify a power reading, and that we need to take care too of:)

1) Waveform shapes
2) Crest factors
3) any DC components
4) Quantization errors of ADCs (two such errors get multiplied in power calculations before integration !).
5) The maximum frequency rating of the RMS or U*I multiplier.
6) The relationship between the sampling rate and the maximum frequency content of the measured signal.
7) Resistance and inductance of current sensing resistors or the frequency response of magnetic current probes,
icon_cool.gif The position of the voltage probe in relation to the current sensing element (before/after).
9) Stray capacitances
10) EMI

Yes these are classical precautions that I adressed when I have done measurements on the U I built. First I have to precise I am a skeptical one (openminded but still for me extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence) and at this very moment I found no evidence of overunity on the U and on the GEGENE....But still I am working actively on the subject. So in my opinion it is a bit premature to spread the word when no massive overunity has been demonstrated or ruled out.

1 & 2 are related to devices where there are a lot of harmonics like the tesla coil on a induction plate (GEGENE). For this I built specific measurement devices (electronics wide band current transformer probes). Actually I built 2 matched sensors to compare input and outpout which "identical" devices (in measurement world, identical means having the same mean value within a given tolerance range icon_smile.gif. But this does not apply strongly on the U because the harmonics are limited (except with some bad oscillators)

3 and 4: I adressed by using long term data acquisition (many periodes see below) and fitting a sinus signal on the curves (because here, as Pascuser said, in that case, all signals are nice and sinusoidal). The model is : V[t]= A Cos[omega.t]+B.Sin[omega.t]+C, I estimate A, B, C linearly (linear regression in analytic form) and omega by minimization of the residual error. Then I can calculate the power, impedances, etc. See on my thread that Blue indicated.

5) & 6) all measurement are done with a 4 channels TDS3034 Tektro scope 2.5Gs/s, which can store about 10000 samples per sweep (mean 20 periods max @5MHz), so having enough bandwidth + time and spatial quantization for a precision better than 2% at 5MHz. For quick and dirty evaluation when installing the measurement I use the internal measure functions of the scope, after I check that they are compatible with the results I get from raw samples.

7) & icon_cool.gif For this I built a specific probe (called "Sonde de Zgreudz" on the forum) which is simply an aselfic, ohmic probe of low value resistance. I qualified the probe with reference impedances that I linked to a calibrated measurement bridge HP4784A. So in a way my probe is (remotely) tied to a measurement standard. The position of the probe is taken into account in this (see also my early tests in my thread about the U).

9) Stray capacitances are mesured on the U ( by using my aselfic probe actually) as well as inductance and ohmic losses. From this I built an electrical distributed model of my U. This model, fed by this parameters show the exact measured resonance on my U...meaning my U does not exhibit Vialle effect. I made the tests at low power (only with the signal generator, no amplifier).

My opinion is still there is no proof of evidence of overunity on MY device. I still think also that measuring the currrent and voltage with a floating scope connected at the junction between U and current shunt is a flawed method, especially on high impedances shunts , because in my understanding the return impedance on the scope common is not negligible (this impedance is essentially capacitive). And this is the method that gave overunity results on many experiments.

Voili voilou

{That's all buddy}


PS: je bosse actuellement et activement avec Promtecno sur un ampli plus adapté à faire démarrer le bousin, ainsi que sur un systeme "tout Arduino" mais je ne suis toujours pas dans le camp des convaincus.

{I am presently working hard with Promtecno on an more adapted amplifier to start the raw beast, and on a system "full Arduino" but I am still not on the side the convinced guys.}

A+

{See you}

Z.


Please have a look on my thread, all slide are in french but you can link them.

Dear tim, you remember you asked me about the pigtail ("Queue De Cochon", or "QDC" in French).

BlueDragon told me that it had evrething with the Richard's Autogenerator! 

Indeed, it was in the purpose to economise place that the "RAG" has been made spiralling by PascUser.

Then it has been fond that the space around the QDC was physically affected by the QDC, and when placed on an Robertval balance, strange phenomenons were registered and measured. The frequency for the QDC to influence space was 175 MHz.

Blue confirms too that Keelies ideas are what could be the closest of Richard's theories. Nevertheless, I have to  indicate that hugely enough, the first looks to be "eatheroman" while Richard used the very classical physics and its tools at the very base of his work.

Hope this clarifies a few the question

Dear tim, I am since long enough in the communities to note when someone just tries to attack me or just share one's informations. There are specific traits and words used and the behaviour has nothing to have with a true friendly approach. (Note that has nothing to have with the relevant aspects of the objections.)

I know he has nothing against you, so it is not the same and study well his posts they were not exactly presented and not with the same emotion or attitude than the one he started to use at the very beginning when he addressed to me, and I can tell you, I saw it immediately and fully clearly, same way anyway he used in an other thread I had created he borred me so much I left him alone. ..

But tim, be sure I have no problem with positive, honest and RESPECTUL criticism, but don't ask me to be nice with the guy who still walk on my foot and intends to stay on!

What I won't never accept is his way to presuppose wrongness when he still not have the data and think he is "the only one" to know something in electronics and physics.

When he will grant more credit to our work and the honesty we invest in it in France, been able to recognise the positive aspects too, could be I will change my mind about him, but I have no reason to be nice with someone who has actively tried to insidiously denigrate my work here. Sorry for that.

Now, as you can see on my previous report, I have no problem to be contradicted and even could ask for!  and indeed, verpies's objections helped me to find other very relevant data for the community here (even if these are not what I would expect ).

Expressing objections is one thing, the way to do is an orher...

Best regards,
K.

Nice to know they are easy but I have to ask if you have previous programming skills...