My enhanced  PWM version for arduino (see previous Plaxius post)

A0 and A1 pots for Duty cycles 1 and 2
A3 pot for fine frequency
A2 pot for coarse frequency
A4 and A5  3 positions rotary switch for 3 frequency ranges
-----------------------------------------


//Pgm Timing vars
unsigned long previousMillis = 0; // will store last time valuse measured
unsigned long interval = 20; // interval at which to Measure values (milliseconds)
unsigned long currentMillis = 0;
long Fine, Frequency ;

//pwm vars
unsigned pwm1; // Value read from A0 to give PWM duty cycle output in terms of 0-5V
unsigned pwm2;// Value read from A1 to give PWM duty cycle output in terms of 0-5V

void setup()
{
//Set up PWM
  pinMode(9, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(10, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(A0, INPUT);
  pinMode(A1, INPUT);
  pinMode(A2, INPUT);
  pinMode(A3, INPUT);
  pinMode(A4, INPUT_PULLUP);
  pinMode(A5, INPUT_PULLUP);

// clock 1/1
  CLKPR = 128;
  CLKPR = 0;

//phase/frequency correct mode. SELECT THIS FOR INVERTED OUTPUTS.
  TCCR1A = _BV(COM1A1) | _BV(COM1B1) | _BV(COM1B0) ;
}

void loop()
{
 unsigned long currentMillis = millis();
 if (currentMillis - previousMillis >= interval)
  {
   previousMillis = currentMillis;

   Fine = analogRead(A2);
   Frequency = analogRead(A3);

   if (bitRead(PINC,4) == 0) // switch RANGE closed ?
    {
     TCCR1B = _BV(WGM13) | _BV(CS10) ;  /// clock 1 = high range
     ICR1 = Frequency + Fine / 10 ;
    }

   if (bitRead(PINC,5) == 0)
    {
    TCCR1B = _BV(WGM13) | _BV(CS10) | _BV(CS11); // clock 1/64 = mid range
     ICR1 = Frequency + Fine / 10 ;
    }

   if (bitRead(PINC,4) == 1 && (bitRead(PINC,5) == 1))
    {
     TCCR1B = _BV(WGM13) | _BV(CS10) | _BV(CS12);  // clock 1/1024 = low range
     ICR1 = Frequency * 10 + Fine ;
    }

   if (ICR1<= 1)
    {
     ICR1= 2;
    }
 
   pwm1 = analogRead(A0); // read duty from A0 for PWM 1
   pwm2 = analogRead(A1); // read duty from A2 for PWM 2

   OCR1A  = map(pwm1,0,1023,0,ICR1); // map the duty cycle to the available steps
   OCR1B  = map(pwm2,0,1023,0,ICR1); //map the duty cycle to the available steps

  }
}

Hi peper10. There is a very big difference between speculating and being able to actually
demonstrate something that is really out of the ordinary (i.e., something which really appears to possibly be OU).
I asked you directly previously if you have built a circuit which you think shows anything unusual
going on, and you ignored my question. Everyone has ideas and opinions, but it is quite another
thing to put those ideas to the test and be able to demonstrate something that really appears to
possibly be COP > 1.

You have been jumping all over people here complaining that they won't blindly accept that you
know how to achieve OU based on one of Nelson's circuit designs, but it appears that you have not
even made a test setup yet to put your ideas to the actual test. These forums often get people who
claim to have it all figured out, but the reality is the vast majority of them can't demonstrate a circuit or
device or anything else which in any way backs up what they are claiming.

Peper10, frankly, your random capitalization of words in several of your comments here, your claims of
being persecuted here, and your insistence that you have it all figured out when in reality it appears you
haven't built any test setups which can demonstrate anything out of the ordinary does not bode well.   

If you have a test setup  that you think demonstrates something out of the ordinary in regards to OU
then show it, otherwise all reasonable people here will know you are just speculating without actually
having put anything to the test. Please stop all the bizarre and unfounded accusations and either
demonstrate a circuit that shows something unusual going on, or admit you you are just talking
though your hat. Do I expect that to actually happen? It seems highly unlikely given how you have been
acting here, but I think it never hurts to give the benefit of the doubt and to ask nicely ...


BTW Nick, a 'joule thief' and 'SEC exciter' are variations of blocking oscillators, and the circuit diagram
of Nelson's posted here is definitely a type of blocking oscillator, very similar to 'joule thief' and
'SEC exciter' circuits. How power may be taken off such a circuit or how a load is connected doesn't change
the fact that it is a blocking oscillator circuit at its core.

All the best...

Hi VOID!!  I dont point fingers at anyone but find funny that I respond to Hoppy and you take the lead and put the BURDEN on me to prouve...
That being said, for a miner like me and jump in a discussion that has NO VENUE for at least consider the idea, it is troubling somehow because all the great minds on here DONT EVEN TRY to give solid explanation of WHY NOT>>> or invalidate the idea...   My skills are limited as a miner by trade, but now I envisage to exchange with people CONSIDERING of just listening and thinking if my claim can be possible...  I perfectly know that the best way to prouve it is TO MYSELF...  I guess I took the wrong road to get to this goal in sharing before any validations were made but if I look at Nelson experiment, it seems like even prouved to yourself will not made the cut here...
No hard feeling, just my taught..  HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY!

Hi peper10. There is a very big difference between speculating and being able to actually
demonstrate something that is really out of the ordinary (i.e., something which really appears to possibly be OU).

If you have a test setup  that you think demonstrates something out of the ordinary in regards to OU
then show it, otherwise all reasonable people here will know you are just speculating without actually
having put anything to the test. Please stop all the bizarre and unfounded accusations and either
demonstrate a circuit that shows something unusual going on, or admit you you are just talking
though your hat. Do I expect that to actually happen? It seems highly unlikely given how you have been
acting here, but I think it never hurts to give the benefit of the doubt and to ask nicely ...


BTW Nick, a 'joule thief' and 'SEC exciter' are variations of blocking oscillators, and the circuit diagram
of Nelson's posted here is definitely a type of blocking oscillator, very similar to 'joule thief' and
'SEC exciter' circuits. How power may be taken off such a circuit or how a load is connected doesn't change
the fact that it is a blocking oscillator circuit at its core.

All the best...

To my defence,you could say that it is hard for me to be listened at ,if the counter part at the other end of the discussion, is not even understanding the basic function of the system...  Not to be hard on anyone but make sure my point of view is not distorted...

did any one notice TK's comment on his post ?


By the way, it is a myth that Nelson has any kind of self-running overunity device. He does not.

Oh shock horror 

Does this mean the energy is made up of mixing energy of current with high voltage modulation ?

I you read Thomas Henry Morays publication he describes using large battery's to start the device.

If you look into some of Nelsons early devices you might notice some of these techniques used.

Allen

  Hoppy, Void, and all.
  Talk about waisting time and effort.  i' m done with this guy.
   I called his bluff, he ignores me.
   So, I'll ignore him too.
  Sorry, but... Well, you know... Tried to be nice.

Is nelsons devices fake maybe/maybe not its a 50/50,the one using the torrid device
and powering a load,with feedback could be real.Nelson will not answer questions but
says there all wrong(basic electronic  theory) even simple questions he won't answer,of course its hes bread and butter,he is not going to give anyone the answer.He does give enough information on two torrid video's to get an idea
how to replicate it,we know it operates at 5khz.How it generates additional current for
self run is unknown.A more basic question is if he has created a self running device with an output of at least 500 watts,why is it not for sale right now.Is it too simple that people will simply reverse engineer it and steal it or is it fake.

Very good point!!  Let`s us put in Nelson`s shoes for a minute and the outcome is obvious...  He was not the only one to mislead the replicators..
Let`s collect the huge potential of this forum to ELUDE the mistery surrounding the feedback and then figure a way to TAP the high voltage side to do work...CHEERS

...
of course its hes bread and butter,he is not going to give anyone the answer.

Hi cheappower2012. I think the reality is that, despite what anyone may say here, many people
would probably just stop posting here or at least not provide any further details the moment they think
they have achieved a real COP > 1 setup.   It wouldn't be the first time this has happened anyway.
I am not passing judgement on this at all, as it does take a lot of work and time and expense doing all this sort
of experimentation, and many people will not likely want to just hand over to others the results of many hours and years
of hard work and personal expense without some sort of compensation. Many people probably
would not even be satisfied with some sort of basic compensation for all their time and expenses, but would
want to try to get very rich off it, even if the device they have come up with is based closely on other people's
work or inventions. That is I think the reality of the situation. Right or wrong, I think it is human nature.  
We all have to put bread on the table.

All the best...