I read his reply, but I have an impression that I have been misunderstood.

Quantization error is created by any ADC. 
It is a vertical error - not a horizontal one (such as clock jitter or undersampling and aliasing).

With two channels (one for current, one for voltage) these quantization errors get multiplied during power calculation.
See the graph attached below how that appears in an extremely bad case or read this thread where someone else makes a bad power measurement because ignoring these vertical quantization errors.

Note that I never wrote that a 2-ch scope is incapable of measuring power accurately.
Also, I never wrote that power measurement by 2-ch scope is good only for pure sine waves. 

P_MEAN = MEAN(U_I *I_I)         , where the subscript "_I" denotes "instantaneous".
is a universal method of power measurement if done with due diligence* and it will correctly measure any waveform, regardless of waveform shape and I-V phase offset.*

However this:
P_MEAN = U_RMS * I_RMS * cos(Φ)
is not a universal method of power measurement.  It is good only for pure sine waves.  Even if the waveform is pure, then it is still subject to the frequency limitation of the multiplier inside the RMS converter. 
BTW: you cannot determine if a sine wave is pure just by looking at it on the scope's screen in time domain. 
See this video for what I mean.
When I see an anomaly then I do.


*  In this case "due diligence" means ensuring simultaneous sampling of the voltage and current channels (non interleaved sampling), ensuring that ENOBs of ADCs are fully utilized (thus quantization errors are minimized), ensuring that the current sensing resistor is really non-inductive with HF spectral measurements,  not undersampling any of the channels - preventing aliasing, arithmetically averaging the instantaneous U_I * I_I multiplication results to obtain average power (not performing any RMS operations on them!).

Thanks too for your very detailed explainations which looks to meet the zgreudz's procudures in COS.

May I ask you to answer point by point to the answers zgreudz made to your own objections, to see if both of you could come on a an agreement on what would be a "Fully Accurate Procedure" for measurements which could be practiced here?

Here again his own answers:

(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).

A post made in COS:

Hi All!

Realising that the procedures to check the overunity could be not yet completly sure at 100 %, and "extraordinary claims needs extraordinary proves", I will no more report any results from here to ou.com (I said results, not necessarely to no more give data and adives according to what I can study here), until having measurements fully valid. For the calculations, I will let the ou.com community to check for itself.

I was here to report and create interest for your work here, and yes, 6 persons have expressed already their interest in replicating, but I have made the mistake to report could be too fast; I apologise for the readers of ou.com.

I still "believe" the overunity has been produced and in great amount, the success of selfrun of the exponsors engineers tends to tell me that, but it was about to give true accurate data so that new replicators could really know the state of the art of the knowledge about Richard's Autogenerator, and like someone said before me: "To know or to believe, that's the choice!"

Best regards,
K.

Here few advises from Biganos, one the most experimented, working on the Autogenerator presently to get more power, because for him the results in enough replications have already been largely successful and it is needed to go further now:

Il me semble important pour qui souhaite toucher du doigt le principe de reproduire simplement ce genre de manip afin de constater par soi-même l'effet Vialle.

"It seems to me important for whom wishes to start to have some reality on the principle, to simply reproduce this kind of experience, to notice by oneself the Vialle effect."

Toutes les mesures que les gens veulent entreprendre sont certes intéressantes et pourraient permettre d'avancer, mais jusqu'à présent la majorité de ceux qui partent de but en blanc vers des choses trop complexes passent à côté de l'essentiel.

"All the measurements people want to perform are certainly interesting and could help to go forward, but until now, those who start right away towards too much complexities, miss the essential."

En résumé, le meilleur conseil à donner c'est de répliquer quelque chose de simple en se basant sur des montages éprouvés.

"To summarise, the best advise to give is to replicate only something simple based on already well mastered set-ups."

Et pour cela les paramètres ne sont pas critiques. Peu importe si le barreau fait 1m ou 98,6cm. Peu importe si on fait une coupure de 4mm ou 8mm pourvu qu'elle soit isolante. Peu importe si on bobine avec du fil émaillé ou du fil gainé... On pourra toujours obtenir un résultat en jouant un peu sur la fréquence et l'accord de sortie.

"And for this the parameters are not very important. Who cares if the bar is 98.6 cm! Who cares to have 4 mm or 8 mm of separation, if is at least insulated. Who cares to wrap with enameled or sheathed wire!... one will be always able to obtain the results while playing a few with the frequency and the output tuning."

-----

Hope this will clarify the order of magnitude of the importances of the parameters in your first level if experiment:

- lighting a bulb despite the separation between the tow halves.

Best regards,
K.

I'm sorry to hear about this Khwartz, it's always a shame when egos get in the way of science...

Hi tim

Thanks for your support and I understand your feeling about science and ego, but as you have seen, I have an ego too

Just hope this won't discourage you all too much from the core of our quest here.

I don't care of the legal threat of the guy who communicate under the nickname of Pascuser. As I have just told him by mail, I prefer to die than to let someone cheating on an other one in his back. Why? Because it is by this kind of rumors one can destroy lives by ruining the reputation of someone without he even knows (many cases in history, and in France we had few very examples of that about specifics communities like Jews, Protestants and now Muslims).

At least I could met in disagreement with verpies here, but it did restrain me to support his own objections in COS, and to recognise and thanking him for his positive contibutions.

Anyway, let's Pascuser does anything he wants, let's just focusing here on our purpose: to see how to make this device "spits out" the kW

Best regards,
K.

PS: sorry to not have the skills to help you in anything about the Arduino :/

Hi Pascuser and Khwartz,

please calm down and stop to fight here.

Well, sounds funny to me, but I am not a member of any secret service or
party.
I just run this website just as my hobby, but in this moment I just don´t have so
much time to read all the threads, cause I need to work and also am working on
my own projects...

So please calm down and just be friendly to each other...

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

Hi Pascuser and Khwartz,

please calm down and stop to fight here.

Well, sounds funny to me, but I am not a member of any secret service or
party.
I just run this website just as my hobby, but in this moment I just don´t have so
much time to read all the threads, cause I need to work and also am working on
my own projects...

So please calm down and just be friendly to each other...

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

Lol, nice to see you take it so cool, while you were the one who was difamed! Indeed.

Well, I have reported what I had to report (as my job any way in this thread is to report, it doesn't change ); so very nice if we can go further now

Best regards to you, and thanks again for this forum you run,
K.

Lol, looks someone can't restrain him to do exactly what he exactly complained about the community here: to give altered and misleading informations

Just only one example: he says I had issues with justice, well, it is an easything in France to know that if it true or not, as we can ask the paper to the State. I will send my empty one to you, Stefan, if the previous contradictor sends to you his own, and you will be able to attest who is a liar (or not so bright IQ)

Just one note more, cause I sense like a strategy to engage me in an unlimited discussion to ruin my time and disgusting people here of this thread:

It is true I have very insisted that the community there anwers the questions asked here. This is not a secret cause, contrary to Pascuser statement ("contrary" would it mean a "lie" here too? ), I did have written in English in a thread the Community there has indeed created in this purpose, it is even name "[Special] Khwartz - proxy informatif avec Overunit". Lol! According to his previous words, I was nor encouraged to publish here nor supported by the Community there?

For the "kWs", I remember you one of my previous "technical report" here, where I specified that Biganos is working on the purpose to obtain more power, and I have never written here the kW had been produced, only a "theoretical possibility" and even saying that the theory itself needs to be bettered cause it doesn't predict with full accuracy the experimental results; my words can be checked very easily here anyway. So, up to you to conclude yourself on is willness to respect the truth here

Many words, indeed, imho, just to try to make us forgotten HE was THE ONE who difamed (he difamed Stefan and The Community here), and that I had the courage to strictly report them (even with the original words in French! if you noticed) DESPITE his very very verulent threats in legal issues (copies of his mails still available, and of his injures too! ).


Sadly enough, Pascuser "needs" to justify his infamous words to the Community here I've testified, not allows me to report the materials of his "private" website (didn't he write something like that in his post?  ) Conspirovniscience.com, but I should still be able to report from

http://richard-vialle.info/

I have already up-load the most useful materials anyway and we have some materials too in JLN's website.

You may copy paste here any extract for purpose of more accurate translation than the automatics available on web.

Don't know if BlueDragon will continue to update the "proxi/mirror thread" there, but he was engaged in a nice job of harvesting the data spread in the French community so I could publish it here with translations and explanatory comments.

I hope he will continue to do so in the thread he indeed created for me, I've just mentioned before:

"[Special] Khwartz - proxy informatif avec Overunit"

so that he could keep you all update (like that our friend Pascuser will be satisfied to drain more traffic ).

I would invite you all anyway to follow BlueDragon own thread of replication (but don't be hurry, he could take his time I mean months the time to have a good equipment for), cause he was very engaged to produce the best quality procedures for measurements (under zgreudz checking if he agrees), and knowing him a little bit, I know it will be done with the maximum of rigour and honesty ("kiss" to you Blue ).

I remember you too that it is "zgreudz" there who is skills in measurements: the very skills of the specialist engineer in measurements he is indeed ("Zgreudz" here, but looks he not used to post in ou.com).

BTW, you know what? It is very at the moment I have proposed to run a laboratory like procedure of certifying the resluts obtained by the different replicators there, so yes I could report here only valid results, that things screwed up; do you realise that?!

It was a proposition consisting to use the very skills of each one of the most experienced in the Autogenetator, to reach a good enough level of certification of the resuls (see, a very ugly proposal, right? ).

For example, as Pascuser is obviously skill in physics and maths, I have proposed him to check the calculations, while of course zgreudz would have checked the procedures of measurements. All this very unlogical as you can see, but all to ensure YOU here, to get true valid data once I would have reported them.

Looks the true problem has been that I have proposed a work they hardly felt able to do (of course I sent copies of my PMs while several persons needed to agree - here too, a very "unlogical" behaviour from me! ), while they are for most, already on tasks taken them already too much of their time: following all the possible replications there, or to recheck the existing, and yes, would be a very huge work indeed.

I think the opposition in the two interests: their actual tasks and my proposal, made them screwed up; or would it be for few of them they apprehended the risk to demonstrate too much errors in the previous procedures?

I would very doubt about BlueDragon cause I think I have well perceived is integrity (and very nice behaviour ), nor from zgreudz, cause he looks very very professional in his way and didn't be afraid to publish his own "no results" on overunity tries (the why I came to insist having a system of "certification" of the measurement procedures, and for the device itself, because I saw it could still have few - indeed rather few - boubts on several results published and that I have reported).

I don't say there was not overunity but just that as you know, but I repeat on purpose: "extraordinary claims needs extraordinary proof" (yes, but note that is doesn't means necessarily any "professional tools": if you self run something, you selfrun it! you don't need any instrument for this, except could be a clock! ).

Okay, this post is long enough! ^^ I hope next one will be for a new "TR" ("Technical Report"), and the first Q&A of the site about Richard's work translation. (To not distract of the true purpose of this thread ).

B.R.
K.