hi alan

thanks for the interest

@your previous comment re: the heat tests - my plan is to measure the heat output from the Rload & compare with heat output from same Rload with equivalent DC supply


> Which digital osc. are you using?

i'm using a PC to drive 2 optos which get shaped via 4093B Schmitt NAND gates & then feed the MOSFET gates

the optos are powered by the PC; the 4093 is powered from the input cap, so my Efficiencies are actually slightly greater than i show


>> "you can see that, at the point that the pulses switch off, the current through the RLC branch was still rising, so the coil field was still being 'charged'"

> I don't see this 
> Do you mean the red damped waveform on the right?

the current through the RLC branch is proportional to the voltage across the 10 ohm load res (Blue trace) - just divide a particular voltage on the Blue trace by 10 to get the current

the applied pulses are shown on the Red traces - you can see where a pulse ends - if you look at a blue trace you'll see it increasing from 0V at the start of a pulse up to some voltage at the end of a pulse

the current through the coil (& load & into the cap) is increasing all thro' both pulses shown, hence the coil still being charged when the pulse ends

the pulse start edges are slightly obscured by the first of each pair of time markers

the time markers are set at +/- 77us wrt end of each pulse to show that the energy thro' the load due to the pulse is less than the energy thro' the load due to the flyback action


>> "the left-hand side of the triangle waveform (representing energy input pulse) is smaller than the right-hand side of the triangle waveform (representing additional energy gained from the flyback)"

> You mean the area beneath the blue curve?

well, both the left- and right-hand sides of each blue triangle waveform have the same height, so they both cover the same voltage range and their average voltage is the same - hence the average current is the same - and therefore the average power is the same

but because they have different periods the energy of each side will differ - the load energy from the flyback, relating to the right-hand side of each triangle is greater than the load energy from the pulse, relating to the left-hand side of each triangle

so, the area isn't directly proportional to energy on that trace but you can see that one side represents a greater energy than the other

i've calculated the energy for each side of both triangle waveforms using Excel on the trace data files - the results are shown in my post above

 
> What does simulation show

i haven't been able to get simulation to give results which look very much like reality - the simulator in CircuitMaker seems to like making circuits greatly overunity!

since these are such simple circuits, i'm finding it quicker just to connect a real circuit and test it


> maybe I ask obvious stuff, but I am trying to understand

me too ! 

but i think these overunity flyback energy gain results have started to provide an answer


all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site  http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc

hi alan

> With digital osc., I meant oscilloscope connected to the pc

apologies, i thought your 'osc.' meant oscillator

i'm using PicoScope 6 software supplied with PicoScope 2203 2-channel PC scope


> If I understand correctly, the charge and discharge period should be the same, hence RLC constant is the same.

my understanding is that the energy recovered from coil field-collapse (aka 'flyback' energy) 'should be' equal to the energy used to establish the field

also, that the energy stored by the coil field is proportional to the current squared - if the av. input current = av. returned current (as noted earlier) then equal energies should require the same periods (all else being equal)

the input & returned periods shown in each trace are different - my interpretation of this is that more energy is being returned than was stored


> Are you familiar with applying Laplace Tansform and feeding it a stepresponse?
   Maybe that could be a good basis to show that experiment doesnt comply to theory.

i think i could only just manage to spell Laplace Transform now - it is many decades since i saw one swimming across a 'whiteboard' at college!

if you feel you have the time, capability & interest to carry out such a procedure... go for it! 
 

all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site  http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc

g'day AbbaRue

diode D1 is a 1A Schottky barrier rectifier 1N5817

the diagram is a generic Schottky device - the line has folded-back ends to denote an 'S'

a Zener has slanting ends to denote a 'Z', as shown below

hope this helps

all the best
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site  http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc

hi Min

thanks for your interest

i looked for a new thread by MinEth3r a while back but couldn't see anything, so i hope it's because you've been partying hard! 

yes, i feel progress is being made here, slowly - an alternative method of confirming similar levels of overunity results and a possible ID of the source of the charge/energy imbalance (at a macro level) are very encouraging developments for me

now that the scope traces confirm energy efficiency levels > 100% actually at the resistive load (not just on the circuit as a whole) i'm encouraged to move on to comparative heat measurements on the load resistor when powered first by the circuit and then by equivalent direct DC drive


all the best with the research
sandy
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site     http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc

Found some interesting articles, didn't know where else to post

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9708394
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0307126v1

Looking forward to your new tests, Sandy.

These results bring me to my same old saying.

     "Don't try to build a self running unit, instead try building 2 or 3 identical units
      and use the output from one to run the other."

This will solve the technical issues of running one unit off another,
as well as proving the results are reproducible.

This is a very cheap and easy to build device.
Try building 5 of them and use the output from one to run the other.
At the output of the 5th one you should have so much more output then input
that all doubt of over unity will be gone.
My calculations show that the 5th unit should be putting out over 750% of the input.
That's 7.5 times the input, now if you get that, there will be no more doubt of over unity.
And with that much output it would be very easy to feed it back into the 1st unit to run it,
and have a self running system. plus power to spare for other uses.
One can measure a device to death and post miles of graphs, but herein lies the real proof.

If this works then it's just a matter of connecting multiple units to get as much output as one wants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cUS03yNl40
Maybe this is a bit way off from your experiments, but it supposedly also show a charge anomaly. Pretty impressive, even though no real (quantitative) measurements have been done.

What Tesla circuit do you mean? Or is the circuit in the video a Tesla circuit?

I think a relay switch can work well to get the shorting effect.
Instead of using a battery as 'the dipole', I'd simulate the battery by recharging (high C, low V) caps, so it is known exactly how much energy is put in the circuit, using standard formula's (1/2CV^2), exactly the same way as Sandy did.
If OU is confirmed, we'd consider putting it in cascade to amplify the energy.
It's time for real results, seen too much special effects and almost no numbers, except for here and drstiffler