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.
 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

Custom Search

### Author Topic: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity  (Read 192630 times)

#### verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3480
##### Re: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity
« Reply #195 on: February 09, 2014, 04:29:02 PM »
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 to an agreement on what would be a "Fully Accurate Procedure" for measurements which could be practiced here?
Sure

Quote from: Zgreudz
(The objection was that working by integration 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:)
In some cases yes, but it can be a good method, especially if the RMS values refer to pure sine current and voltage waveforms and the phase offset is constant.

Also, multiplying URMS * IRMS * cos(Φ) is not the only method for measuring power with a scope.
The other method is quickly sampling and multiplying instantaneous values of current and voltage instead of calculating the RMS values of each component and multiplying them.  This method is immune to variable phase offsets and non-sinusoidal waveforms.

Quote from: Zgreudz
>> 1) Waveform shapes
>> 2) Crest factors
...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 output 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)
If the spectral purity of current and voltage waveforms has been verified by some kind of spectrum analyzer than it is acceptable proof that  that they indeed are pure.
Eyeballing sine waves on a time-domain display does not ensure their purity above 4-bits of ENOB.  e.g. see this video.

Quote from: Zgreudz
>> 3) any DC components
>> 4) Quantization errors of ADCs (two such errors get multiplied in power calculations before integration !).
...addressed 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.
Curve fitting assumes a certain form of the signal - it does not verify that form.
If the spectral purity has been verified in pt.1 & 2 then analytic sine curve fitting is appropriate.  If not - then it is not.

A more universal method of power measurement (independent of the waveform shape and phase shift) is to sample the current and voltage SIMULTANEOUSLY (at maximum ENOB of those ADCs) at high rate and multiply the instantaneous values for each sample pair.  Finally sum and divide the results of these multiplications to calculate the arithmetic mean.

Quote from: Zgreudz
>> The relationship between the sampling rate and the maximum frequency content of the measured signal.
...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.
At these sampling rates, I have no doubt that the horizontal resolution is sufficient for a signal having no more than 5MHz of harmonic content.  However, this information provides no data about the vertical quantization errors during these measurements.

Quote from: Verpies
5) The maximum frequency rating of the RMS or U*I multiplier.
Just because the scope samples at 2.5Gs/s does not mean that its internal RMS calculators run at this frequency and they make their internal calculations with ENOB2 precision (and that all of the ADC bits are even used) .  Do they, are they?

For example, take a look at this guy - his was using a scope with 8-bit ADCs but was using only 2-bits of them, in one extreme case !!!  If his internal RMS calculator had calculated an RMS value based on this data, then the result would be worthless even if he fed his scope with pure sine waves.

Also, if sampling and multiplying instantaneous values of current and voltage was implemented instead of calculating the RMS values of each component, would this scope sample both channels simultaneously and multiply each sample pair at 2.5G multiplications per second in order to create the values for its "Math Channel" ?  (a.k.a. the instantaneous power channel).
Finally how does this scope calculate the arithmetical mean of this Math Channel?  Does it sum all the samples and divide them? With what internal precision and over how many samples?

Quote from: Zgreudz
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.
I have a difficulty comprehending this statement.
Are those"raw samples' , numerical samples downloaded from the ADCs to a computer and then an RMS calculation is being performed on them there?

Quote from: Zgreudz
>> 7 )  Resistance and inductance of current sensing resistors or the frequency response of magnetic current probes,
...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.
Does "aselfic" = non-inductive ?
So what is the measured resistance and inductance of this non-inductive current sensing resistor (CSR)?  At what frequency did the HP4784A measure the inductance of this resistor?

Quote from: Zgreudz
>> 8 )  The position of the voltage probe in relation to the current sensing element (before/after).
...The position of the probe is taken into account in this (see also my early tests in my thread about the U).
I did not read about these early tests if they were described in French.
Is the current probe inserted before or after the voltage measuring point (relative to the power source) ?

Quote from: Zgreudz
9) Stray capacitances are measured 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.
The power transmission by stray capacitances and unexpected mutual inductances as well as EM really worries me.
Were those stray energy transfer paths measured at the operating frequency or much lower?
Where can I see the "distributed model" together with the values of these stray capacitances and mutual inductances?
I know the JL Naudin has made similar measurements of those stray paths, but I lost the link to his article about it.

#### Khwartz

• Hero Member
• Posts: 601
##### Re: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity
« Reply #196 on: February 09, 2014, 04:38:54 PM »
As promised, the translation of the

1rst Q&A of the present FAQ of the website on the work of Richard

http://richard-vialle.info/

(In agreement to the licence terms of the website, already published and taking no liability for any error of translation or modifications in between of the original terms of licence or of the original terms I translate here. These warnings will apply for any further written by me on this website. )

-----

> Une expérience scientifique est une expérience qui contredit l'expérience commune. Gaston Bachelard
. A scientific experiment is an experience which contradicts the common experience.
Gaston Bachelard

> Auto-générateur de Richard Vialle, première génération
. Richard Vialle Auto-generator, first generation

> Articles Expérimentations
. Experimental publications

> Autogénérateurs - Questions fréquemment posées
. Autogenerator - Frequently asked questions

> Note : Nous essayons autant que faire se peu de répondre aux questions fréquentes de la manière la plus pédagogique possible, et suivant les expériences terrains que nous avons eu avec les autogénérateurs, aussi cette FAQ peut évoluer dans le temps grâce aux retours des différentes équipes de recherche.
. Note: We try as much as we can to answer to the frequently asked questions with most educational way possible, and regards to the field experiments we had with the autogenerators, though this FAQ may evolve through time thanks to the return results of our different researching teams.

> Q : Dans certaines vidéos et sur le forum vous indiquez qu'un générateur a été construit avec l'aide de sponsors et la surunité pouvait recharger les batteries qui alimentaient le système, pouvez-vous détailler ?
. Q: In certain videos and on the forum you indicate that a generator was built by means of sponsors and the overunity could recharge batteries which fed the system, may you detail?

> R : Il s'agissait d'un auto-générateur complètement autonome fonctionnant sur batteries, et disposant de circuits fait-maison pour la partie oscillation et amplification.
. R: It was about a completely autonomous auto-generator working on batteries, and having home-made circuits for the oscillation and amplification parts.

----

B.R.
K.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2014, 12:27:19 AM by Khwartz »

#### verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3480
##### Re: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity
« Reply #197 on: February 09, 2014, 04:57:59 PM »
May one of you calculate the resonance modes of copper bars, based on the speed of the electronic phase wave?
P.S.
If you assume that electrons are responsible for the electric current in a solid conductor, then their speed calculates to be very slow (on the order of cm/h).  Though, it is only an assumption, based on the prevalent inability to form an alternate explanation for current conduction in solid conductors.
While he even doesn't know of what I was talking about and presupposes here too the unworthiness of the ideas of who he is addressing?
I did not assume unworthiness.  You just mentioned speed of electrons in a solid conductor and I analyzed their speed because they move so slow.

The legacy science states that electric current in solids is due to the motion of electrons.  My Post Scriptum was aimed at classifying this belief as a mere assumption.  If the "current is only electrons" assumption is rejected then faster standing waves inside solids become possible....and worthy.

Putting words in my mouth to then state they are erroneous? ^^
In English this is called a Strawman debating technique.
It is dishonest and I did not use it on you.

#### Khwartz

• Hero Member
• Posts: 601
##### Re: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity
« Reply #198 on: February 09, 2014, 05:16:56 PM »
@ verpies

Dear verpies.

Very thanks for having taking time to answer completely and precisely to the last degree of list of answers.

I will try to contact Zgreudz by PM here, as my connection with COS has been broken, to ask him if he could agree to answer your present new questions. I would dream that because if would the beginning of a true scientific team work which could benefit to any of us. (But to be true, I am not sure to be able to reach him.)

I could answer to few of your questions if I had still access to COS, but for now, I haven't the means and time to create an other nickname using an other web available i.d. to do so. But for "aselfic" = non-inductive, indeed, you're right: "self" = "coil" or "inductance".

Thanks again for your work

@ tim

(Warning: THIS IS JUST A SUGGESTION; say that cause looks making proposals are taken by few, as orders ... )

Dear tim, would it be possible for you to copy paste the verpies's previous post in "my" ex-proxithread with here, in COS, and ask if "someone" will have the kindness to invest too the time needed to specify each point on a futher level, so that we could stabilise each item up to a possible and wishfully standard procedure for each item, that then each of us could follow with good confidence?

B.R.
K.

#### Khwartz

• Hero Member
• Posts: 601
##### Re: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity
« Reply #199 on: February 09, 2014, 05:29:57 PM »

I did not assume unworthiness.  You just mentioned speed of electrons in a solid conductor and I analyzed their speed because they move so slow.

The legacy science states that electric current in solids is due to the motion of electrons.  My Post Scriptum was aimed at classifying this belief as a mere assumption.  If the "current is only electrons" assumption is rejected then faster standing waves inside solids become possible....and worthy.
Thanks for the clarification

Indeed, I was talking about "phase waves", the speed of the phase waves, so not indeed of the speed of electrons, I know very slow.

Looks I had not well understood your words if you in fact, was reinforcing the idea. Sorry for that! Still need to work my English

Quote
In English this is called a Strawman debating technique.
It is dishonest and I did not use it on you.
Thanks for the information

#### zgreudz

• Newbie
• Posts: 1
##### Re: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity
« Reply #200 on: February 09, 2014, 06:21:26 PM »
Hi Verpies,

since you took the time to answer directly to the info I provided to Khwartz, I will answer to you directly. But as I told Khwartz by PM I have no time to spend in discussions on this forum, by lack of time, not by lack of interest. Furthermore, I have no will to argue for or against the subjects that are raised by Khwartz (not me) or by any other members, about the reality of the effects of RV theory. My own personnal belief is that the most probable overunity measurement comes from measurement errors. This does not prevent a rigorous study of the phenomena, there is always an occasion to learn something

For Khwartz: please do not put me anymore in such situation, where I am kind of forced (by sheer politeness) to answer on your behalf. Thanks for your understanding.

By the way, my speciality is metrology at LOW frequency at very high precision (FemtoFarads, nanometers) , but not RF measurement. So by using some methods I am familliar whith, I may miss some big issue an RF engineer could see immediately.

This will be my last replie for a long time I guess.

So now back to the technical points:

Sure
In some cases yes, but it can be a good method, especially if the RMS values refer to pure sine current and voltage waveforms and the phase offset is constant.

Also, multiplying URMS * IRMS * cos(Φ) is not the only method for measuring power with a scope.
The other method is quickly sampling and multiplying instantaneous values of current and voltage instead of calculating the RMS values of each component and multiplying them.  This method is immune to variable phase offsets and non-sinusoidal waveforms.
If the spectral purity of current and voltage waveforms has been verified by some kind of spectrum analyzer than it is acceptable proof that  that they indeed are pure.
Eyeballing sine waves on a time-domain display does not ensure their purity above 4-bits of ENOB.  e.g. see this video.
Curve fitting assumes a certain form of the signal - it does not verify that form.
If the spectral purity has been verified in pt.1 & 2 then analytic sine curve fitting is appropriate.  If not - then it is not.

A more universal method of power measurement (independent of the waveform shape and phase shift) is to sample the current and voltage SIMULTANEOUSLY (at maximum ENOB of those ADCs) at high rate and multiply the instantaneous values for each sample pair.  Finally sum and divide the results of these multiplications to calculate the arithmetic mean.
At these sampling rates, I have no doubt that the horizontal resolution is sufficient for a signal having no more than 5MHz of harmonic content.  However, this information provides no data about the vertical quantization errors during these measurements.
Just because the scope samples at 2.5Gs/s does not mean that its internal RMS calculators run at this frequency and they make their internal calculations with ENOB2 precision (and that all of the ADC bits are even used) .  Do they, are they?

For example, take a look at this guy - his was using a scope with 8-bit ADCs but was using only 2-bits of them, in one extreme case !!!  If his internal RMS calculator had calculated an RMS value based on this data, then the result would be worthless even if he fed his scope with pure sine waves.

Also, if sampling and multiplying instantaneous values of current and voltage was implemented instead of calculating the RMS values of each component, would this scope sample both channels simultaneously and multiply each sample pair at 2.5G multiplications per second in order to create the values for its "Math Channel" ?  (a.k.a. the instantaneous power channel).
Finally how does this scope calculate the arithmetical mean of this Math Channel?  Does it sum all the samples and divide them? With what internal precision and over how many samples?

Actually, I tried everything: I don't thrust too much scope's calculations so I used it as a data sampler. I did some FFT on the sampled data (via LTSpice by replaying the data), mostly for the GEGENE project because here the signal where really shitty. For the  RV U I calculated the data with an Excel spreadsheet and analysed the residues (difference beteween model and data). I think you make a point by suggesting that the sampling might be not simultaneous on the scope I have. I had the same doubt and I checked the data logging by using two different channels to test the same signal. I have not documented everything though. You can have a look (pardon my French ) at http://www.conspirovniscience.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=961&view=findpost&p=24626 and here for the GEGENE: http://www.conspirovniscience.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1040&view=findpost&p=27533

Quote from: verpies
I have a difficulty comprehending this statement.
Are those"raw samples' , numerical samples downloaded from the ADCs to a computer and then an RMS calculation is being performed on them there?

Yes,as I sait I prefer to work on numerical data ('"raw sample"), directly downloaded from scope and then do my own cooking. But sometimes it is handy to have an eye on the scopes measurements on screen, so I just checked them agains the raw data.

Quote
Does "aselfic" = non-inductive ?

Yep, sorry for the french garbled jargon. ;-)

Quote
So what is the measured resistance and inductance of this non-inductive current sensing resistor (CSR)?  At what frequency did the HP4784A measure the inductance of this resistor?
I did not read about these early tests if they were described in French.
Is the current probe inserted before or after the voltage measuring point (relative to the power source) ?

Indeed HP4784A is a low frequency device, limited to 1MHz, and I made the tests on components at 100kHz whith this device and compared the results on the measured components with the probe at 5MHz and 100kHz without significant dispersion. So yet it qualifies exactly the probe at 100kHz not 5MHz, but the component I used (R+L+C) are rather calm between 100k and 10MHz, resonnant frequencies are more in the 250MHz domain....  If you don'y mind reading some French, I think I put it on the link: http://www.conspirovniscience.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=961&view=findpost&p=24655 and mostly here:http://www.conspirovniscience.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=961&view=findpost&p=24860

Quote
The power transmission by stray capacitances and unexpected mutual inductances as well as EM really worries me.
Were those stray energy transfer paths measured at the operating frequency or much lower?
Where can I see the "distributed model" together with the values of these stray capacitances and mutual inductances?
I know the JL Naudin has made similar measurements of those stray paths, but I lost the link to his article about it.

I put the model here (essentially it is only the library component for LTSpice and how to use it): http://www.conspirovniscience.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=974&view=findpost&p=24914 The data measurement are here: http://www.conspirovniscience.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=961&view=findpost&p=24923. I think I made all measurement at 100k but here we are dealing with 1nF...
I analyzed JLN data and they were bizarre (Capacitance values he measured were non physical, like association of 3 caps in triangle/star configuaration that needs a negative capacitance to give the measured results, this kind of stuff. I think his LCR meter was probably the cause)

#### verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3480
##### Re: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity
« Reply #201 on: February 09, 2014, 06:46:47 PM »
and it's not a pure wave either.
Whaddaya mean it's not pure?
Did you follow the guidelines outlined in the datasheet for using this comparator?
This comparator is used to convert a filtered sine wave into a square wave (...in effect: analog to digital).

- It has 2 pins that output a sine-wave at 2.5v Pk
If you need to amplify this analog sine wave output then use a strong op-amp or another type of analog amplifier.

- It has 2 pins (from the comparator) that output a 4.5v square wave
If obtaining a rectangular waveform is your goal, then you can use this digital output directly or to drive a digital amplifier.

Can anyone tell me how I should connect the DDS to the transistor?
You can connect this output resistively/directly to a JFET or BJT parts ...but not to most MOSFETs

...and I'd like to use that to drive my MOSFET.
Some logic-level MOSFET's gates can be driven by only 4V, but not many.
For most Power MOSFETs you need a strong digital gate driver like the UCC27511.

Remember to set the right goals for your design:
Do you want an analog amplification or a digital amplification?
Do you want to amplify the output current or voltage or both (power) ?

P.S.
Most optocouplers cannot handle >1MHz signals and analog signals.
Transformers cannot handle DC nor low frequencies and high frequencies at the same time.

#### tim123

• Hero Member
• Posts: 509
##### Re: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity
« Reply #202 on: February 09, 2014, 07:37:18 PM »
Whaddaya mean it's not pure?
Did you follow the guidelines outlined in the datasheet for using this comparator?
Hi Verpies,
It's not pure if I connect it up wrong - at least - that's how it looks on my DSO scope - it may be a sampling artifact...

Thanks for the info. a 'Gate Driver' is exactly what i need. I just didn't know it.

What I'm trying to do is drive an IRF450 mosfet from a sig-gen. The IRF450 really wants a 10v square wave.

I figured out that a differential amp might do it... And I got some cheap optos which do 10MBs - but only 5.5v...

The UCC27511 only seems to be available as SMD - not DIP... I can get a UCC27524P though...

Thanks again
Regards, Tim

#### tim123

• Hero Member
• Posts: 509
##### Re: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity
« Reply #203 on: February 09, 2014, 08:19:34 PM »
Dear tim, would it be possible for you to copy paste the verpies's previous post in "my" ex-proxithread with here, in COS, and ask if "someone" will have the kindness to invest too the time needed to specify each point on a futher level, so that we could stabilise each item up to a possible and wishfully standard procedure for each item, that then each of us could follow with good confidence?

Hi Khwartz,
while I am somewhat in awe of Verpies understanding of, and his clear enumeration of the issues involved in these measurements, I'm not sure that presenting them to COS is the right thing to do...

If they were my questions, I would, of course. But Verpies is not doing a replication as far as I'm aware, and his questions - I believe - were rhetorical. He is not seeking answers to thse questions, and nor am I - at least - not today.

At the moment, I'm not at the stage where I need to know the answers the verpies questions, but if i get to that stage, and i think that it would help - i will ask the COS guys...

Pascal seems to be very frustrated with the whole project. It seems that despite his hard work he has been unable to replicate the effect. Perhaps he has given up on it. I think there is no 'right' way for the replication. If there was, Pascal would be happy...

I do think that there *is* something to be discovered in the general arrangement of: feeding signals into masses... Keely acheived OU & antigrav & more - all using sound, and for some reason, M. Vialle's generator reminds me of Keely's work... John Hutchison's HF anti-grav too...

I think it's remarkable that the speed of sound in 1m copper (3.6Km/s) is *exactly about* (It's a scientific term ) 1000 times less than the Vialle resonance... That is spooky.

So, what I'm saying is: as the right way to build or drive the device has not yet been found, we can't expect to follow a formula... We have to use our imagination and knowledge, and just try stuff out...

Tim

#### verpies

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3480
##### Re: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity
« Reply #204 on: February 09, 2014, 09:58:01 PM »
The UCC27511 only seems to be available as SMD - not DIP... I can get a UCC27524P though...
UCC27524P does not have differential inputs nor independent source/sink outputs and is weaker than the UCC27511.
You do not need a DIP anyway, the SMD driver can be glued to the Power MOSFET because it needs to be very close to the MOSFET's gate terminal.
See how closely Itsu had mounted his SMD driver to the transistor in this video.

#### hartiberlin

• Hero Member
• Posts: 8054
##### Re: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity
« Reply #205 on: February 10, 2014, 01:44:41 AM »

2) Khwartz went in the french forum and asked the autorisation to spread informations about RV in the englishe world. This has been granted with the mention not to spread it on overunity, because only critics were here.

There you are really wrong.
We already have over 70.000 members over here and there are certainly many very brilliant researchers
who DON`T are sceptics...

Surely some prefer just to read and not take part in the discussion....

If the Vialle´s work can not stand a few sceptics over here, which might point out measurement errors,
then what ?
If he is valid and genuine it will progress , also over here !

P.S: Please ALL stop posting private email messages and private names here, due to the Terms of Service and privacy policies
I must delete these messages.

Thanks for your understanding.

Regards, Stefan.

#### Khwartz

• Hero Member
• Posts: 601
##### Re: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity
« Reply #206 on: February 10, 2014, 01:54:53 AM »
Hi Khwartz,
Hi tim

Quote
while I am somewhat in awe of Verpies understanding of, and his clear enumeration of the issues involved in these measurements, I'm not sure that presenting them to COS is the right thing to do...
Okay, I can understand that

Quote
If they were my questions, I would, of course. But Verpies is not doing a replication as far as I'm aware, and his questions - I believe - were rhetorical. He is not seeking answers to thse questions, and nor am I - at least - not today.
Understand too

Quote
At the moment, I'm not at the stage where I need to know the answers the verpies questions, but if i get to that stage, and i think that it would help - i will ask the COS guys...
I get your logic but I am not necessarily agree with the result of your logic because of a difference of reality (data), I think.

If we need to know which procedure is good to follow to get an overunity, we need to know which procedures have indeed produced o.u. in the former experiments, but if we are not sure of the results because of doubts about the measurements so we are in doubt too about which procedure to follow. So for me the question is still mostly relevant. Without good data, many time is lost each time.

Quote
Pascal seems to be very frustrated with the whole project. It seems that despite his hard work he has been unable to replicate the effect.
As I could remember he did replicate "the effect", if it is the "Vialle effect": producing a little avalanche of power from 2 halves insulated and separated pipes, by means of a coil and specifiques frequencies.
(This effect is mostly easy to obtain if having good range of frequencies. See Biganos's adives I've reported here.)

If I remember well too, he obtained the phenomenon called "negative power" (drop of the power consumption as the interpretations read by the measurements, and he get similar results than JLN and even worked like a mirror with him, positively critiquing each other).

Still if I remember well, it was about to  fail to reproduce the laboratory selfrun of the sponsors, and to get true power, so the famous "kW" (6 kW for 1 meter bar) Richards has calculated, nor the "very avalanche of power" (long arch of Richard (?) and of 1 or tow experimenters since).

As I have understood him, is very deception is not getting the true power, the power which could be used to power a house.

Quote
Perhaps he has given up on it. I think there is no 'right' way for the replication. If there was, Pascal would be happy...
I am not agree with you, dear tim, there are "rights ways", in my opinion. Like Colas07 does or the PROMTECNO team does too.

For them, overunity is very easy to obtain; all the problem is that it is based on their interpretation of their measurements. So still the same: to really be sure they do indeed the right way, we need to be sure of what they do about the measurements;  we just come back at my first point

BUT, as JNL, as Pascusier, as Colas, as Biganos, they all have achieved very very interesting results which could be indeed overunity.

So the logical thing for me would be to do at least as good as they have been able to do and then to go further with more rigour in anything.

But I know it is not really the way you feel you have to do

Quote
I do think that there *is* something to be discovered in the general arrangement of: feeding signals into masses... Keely acheived OU & antigrav & more - all using sound, and for some reason, M. Vialle's generator reminds me of Keely's work... John Hutchison's HF anti-grav too...
Yeap, if Keely achieved all this

Quote
I think it's remarkable that the speed of sound in 1m copper (3.6Km/s) is *exactly about* (It's a scientific term ) 1000 times less than the Vialle resonance... That is spooky.

Quote
So, what I'm saying is: as the right way to build or drive the device has not yet been found,
I not necessarily agree as I said just before. If the COPs 2.6, 35, and even negative are accurate, indeed there are already existing "right ways to build".

For me, the most important thing is not to replicate but to check if the different levels of effects do exist, but to check if the very promising and interesting results already obtained are valid or not, to check the already done and published replications cause then it would tell us which were "the right ways". And any way, as to the "building", I don't see truly variation, there is NO difficulty, as I have seen, it is in having enough powerful amplifiers, learning how to tune the input and the output (all this looks to me rather mastered), AND HAVE ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS so that we could give VALID results which could guide us accurately too and economise our time by avoiding misleading results.

The previous have been shown as enough to obtain the first levels of effect up the negative power and high COP (still of course if the measurements were indeed accurated...).

Quote
we can't expect to follow a formula...
Following the way of Colas and soon of BlueDragon, and I am pretty sure you will registre intersting things, or of course, demonstrate the non accuracy of their procedures. But for now, still need to be checked.

It have been made already a whole bunch of replications, it is not like if nothing had been done with no results!

Quote
We have to use our imagination and knowledge, and just try stuff out...

Tim
Follow your own intuition, but please, just remembered my words and the warnings of Biganos (and Blue) dear tim

#### Khwartz

• Hero Member
• Posts: 601
##### Re: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity
« Reply #207 on: February 10, 2014, 02:33:45 AM »

@ Zgreudz & verpies

Just have seen your post, dear Zgreudz

My eyes indeed get near wet when I discovered it while I didn't expect so fast but so so wished it!

Sorry if some time I so want things could go in the right direction, that my suggestions are near taken like obligations!

I knew your level of skills and I knew those of verpies. It is MOSTLY valuable for everyone that you I took time to answer once again to the technical points about measurements procedures.

I hope you and verpies you have well understood it had nothing with a kind of competition but just to benefit and add your both knowledges and experiences about measurements, with the advantage you have, dear Zgreudz, of having praticed the RV U (even with a skeptical point of view).

So now I would just ask if you, dear verpies, you would be okay to comment Zgreudz last answers, not in the purpose to have then new answers from Zgreudz, but just to complete the clarification of each item so that the replicators or the researchers could use these data as a data base to run accurate procedures.

I remember you, you have NO obligation!  I just try to put some organisation in the whole thing. My time is precious and I suppose the time of many others here too. So if I could help to win so time to everybody here while having more accurate and efficient procedures, I would be very satified of what I do here and now (aside the translations and compilation work).

VERY THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST AND GENEROSITY (for the time granted),

B.R.
K.

#### tim123

• Hero Member
• Posts: 509
##### Re: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity
« Reply #208 on: February 10, 2014, 11:34:09 AM »
UCC27524P does not have differential inputs nor independent source/sink outputs and is weaker than the UCC27511.
You do not need a DIP anyway, the SMD driver can be glued to the Power MOSFET because it needs to be very close to the MOSFET's gate terminal.
See how closely Itsu had mounted his SMD driver to the transistor in this video.

Hi Verpies,
Itsu's driver was mounted in an adapter socket... Is this the right thing?

Do you just superglue the chip to the board?

#### itsu

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1845
##### Re: Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity
« Reply #209 on: February 10, 2014, 11:49:26 AM »
Hi Verpies,
Itsu's driver was mounted in an adapter socket... Is this the right thing?

Do you just superglue the chip to the board?

Hi Tim,

that looks like the correct adapter for the ucc27511, yes.

You need to solder it on the adapter, for a nice video about SMD soldering, see:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NN7UGWYmBY

The flux is a must in my opinion, and at my age the maginifier as well

Regards Itsu