a) how do you measure input current ?
b) whats mysterious about an oscillator with inductive coupled load and lc tank ?
rgds. !!!???!!!
b) The mystery comes about due to the polarity of the windings. Look for the black dot on the coils, it tells which terminals have the same polarity when the flux is changing through the core. In normal oscillators (like Armstrong, Blocking, etc..), the trigger winding should be reversed from what I show, so that when the Base is (+) and current flows, the Collector can pump the resonant tank. Also, notice the collector voltage waveform, notice it's NEGATIVE when the NPN is on, I sure haven't seen that before and I'm not too sure what the transistor is doing. I'm sure it's internal parasitic capacitance playes a part. Maybe even negative resistance is at work here, not too sure at this point.
...
POWER OUT = ( 17.5 Volts AC) ^2 / ( 150 ohms) / 2 = 1.02 watts
...
scale it up a bit...........to qualify for prize must be one watt of usable power.
a) I measure the current with an ampmeter in series with the battery. Reading is 0.1 amps (Voltage measured across the battery is 8.2 volts, both are DC measurements)
If the load resistor was 190 ohms instead of 150 ohms due to heating, then you would no longer be over unity:Just make sure resistance does not drop :) It may drop with higher temperature as well, depending on resistor's material.
I see my Voltage is a bit smaller more like 7 volts.Looks like 6.25V, to be more exact. :)
....
@willitwork, yes I've been thinking and planning to do this ultimate test to prove OU without a shadow of doubt. However, it's a bit trick, and the reason is that the oscillator and the output power depends on the load resistor. I tried different resistors and I get different performance. This is not uncommon, most stages in an electronic system need matching between stages. So, I am researching and thinking how I can do this effectively. OU engineering is not as easy as it looks.
EM
@grumpy, the battery does not heat up. I understand those battery charts, its the mAh, a measure of energy, so if you drain more you depleate faster, that's all. But you can draw two amps if you really wanted.
EM
something's not adding up here:
EM measured the load res at 148.7R right? shorting the load res direct across the 9V battery reads 0.4A on his meter
9v / 148.7R = .0605mA
time to start checking components and meter again, very carefully
all the best
sandy
{snip}
I've found an excellent way to smooth battery RF voltage fluctuations to where they are below 0.4 volts, and the following modified circuit illustrates the modification. (series L + C, when tuned have inpedance = 0 )
Also, I now have an almost perfect sinewave at the output, of 17.5 Volts Amplitude across the 150 ohm load resistor.
Here's the power calculations:
POWER IN = ( 8.2 Volts DC ) x ( 0.1 Amp DC) = 0.82 watts
POWER OUT = ( 17.5 Volts AC) ^2 / ( 150 ohms) / 2 = 1.02 watts
EXCESS POWER = (1.02 - 0.82) / 0.82 = 0.24 = 24 % extra energy
COP = 1.02 / 0.82 = 1.24
{snip}
Is your peak to peak voltage really 34 volts?
@all, I'll report more after I try to close the loop. I will stop by Radioshack and try and buy a rectifyer bridge. Hopefully it doesn't eat up to much power.
This way you could probably scale the effect up into the 10 Watts range hopefully.
If what I consider is correct....... (that possibly SM's driving unit was the actual source of OU, and the TPU itself merely amplified the effect...)... that would explain much.
Use three of these, somehow triggered in sequence around the periphery, and the available power should increase dramatically.Why not just try to connect one into another after rectifier bridge? I wonder what happens on the "output" end of the existing unit if you use two or more batteries with higher overall input voltage.
Why not just try to connect one into another after rectifier bridge? I wonder what happens on the "output" end of the existing unit if you use two or more batteries with higher overall input voltage.
Definitely an option. I was just trying to tie in the various clues on rotation and gyroscopic action...maybe the FTPU operated the way that you suggest?Three or more toroids on a single chassis may create a really "pronounced" gyroscopic effect, especially if relatively high power is running around the cores (not just 1W). Beside that an open TPU may "house" 4 of such stages in those boxes, all connected via lamp wires in a "funky" fasion like openTPU is a big core while it's just an "artistic" way to interconnect parts of the device. And of course, considering geometric relation of these boxes, this may create a "rotating" magnetic field simply because units are "powered" in sequence and the non-rectified output is sinusoidal.
transistor: 2N4401, (from Radio Shack, box of 15)
Base Capacitor: 0.01J (not sure what that means)
Top capacitor for setting resonance: 47J
Capacitor in LC reactive branch, 220J
I guess there is a naming convention for these, I saw it somewhere once.
EM
Base capacitor: 0.01uF
Top capacitor: 47pF
LC reactive capacitor: 22pF
Tolerance: +/-5%
EMDevices, do you live near a AM, FM, TV, etc. transmitting tower? Also, I think your scope was set to 20ns--implying a frequency of 12.5MHz--is this correct?
Interesting to note that the 2N4401 is only rated for 600mA of current...
Thanks!
Eldarion
i would say it might be 220p, not 22p
Also, why do you put the 2 LC lowpassfilters filters in parallel with the battery, but not in front of the battery ?
I think you will find he is using the coil and cap to get rid of the nasty noise which is across the battery, i am having the same problem, i have about 2 volts of crap across my battery, and it doesnt go by putting different cap across, he is trying to get a smooth dc across his battery because he can then be confident of the power consumption.
My rendition is running at about 22Mhz, but have not had much chance to refine cap values yet.
P.S. I have found an article that might be the single best theory to describe the SM tpu. It talks about rotating magnetic fields, magnetostriciton, rotation, NMR, and even LEVITATION in an Iron Nickel (FeNi) wire. They even talk about frequencies in the low kHz. It's from IEEE, and it's about 190 kB file, so I can't uploaded. [edit:] Ok I just figured out how to upload: see the file here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=item102Cool, thanks for the paper.. If they had 528 Hz, it would fit into Solfeggio's "transformation and miracles" frequency. But probably it's still the same thing (10 Hz is a small deviation). I wonder if Solfeggio's original frequencies shifted now. Earth grows, frequencies shift. Maybe current MI frequency should be as in this paper - around 538 Hz? :) Well, it's just a speculation.
Ok i have taken all the scope shots of my setup, can someone explain how i post 4 scope shots and a picture of my setup
Thanks
Peter
Ok i have taken all the scope shots of my setup, can someone explain how i post 4 scope shots and a picture of my setup
Thanks
Peter
Scope shot 4 is taken across the battery unfortunatley it was 1.72V PK-Pk so i need to do some work on this.So, after filtering it out it will turn into something like 1V DC? In that case you have even better COP than EM.
your input power is 12.6V x 0.118A = 1.4868WThe draw voltage is yet to be determined.
Thanks guys, still early days yet. Plenty to play with.
It's nice to be able to back up EM anyway
your output power across the 149.3 Ohm load is (16.72 x 16.72) / 149.3 = 1.8724W (I took 16.72 by dividing your peak to peak voltage of 47V by 2.82 to get its true RMS value, your scope give a bit better value for this as 17.55V)Note the RMS figure is worse - 15.55V, but this still gives COP>1. I wonder about connected battery plot whose PK-PK is 1.72V. If it's true, the COP is probably close to 10 here.
Note the RMS figure is worse - 15.55V, but this still gives COP>1. I wonder about connected battery plot whose PK-PK is 1.72V. If it's true, the COP is probably close to 10 here.
Peter,
Your measurements give also a COP of about 1.25 so CONGRATULATIONS to you too!!!
your input power is 12.6V x 0.118A = 1.4868W
your output power across the 149.3 Ohm load is (16.72 x 16.72) / 149.3 = 1.8724W (I took 16.72 by dividing your peak to peak voltage of 47V by 2.82 to get its true RMS value, your scope give a bit better value for this as 17.55V)
your COP is 1.8724 / 1.4868 = 1.25
Of course you need further "cleaning" across the battery like EMdevices just showed on his modified schematics.
Also, try to connect the battery lead to members of your battery bank lower in voltage to be able to reduce supply voltage to find 'sweeter working point' .
rgds, Gyula
Hi Aleks,Well, when EMdevices measured across connected battery, of course meter shunts it as well, but the reading is still 6V DC (was before double LC filter installed - around 30Vpp AC). Peterae's current unfiltered reading is 1.72Vpp AC (compare it to 30Vpp). I doubt Peterae's meter is wrong, so it must be draw that is really that low. In that case it means COP is way above 1.0. I do not see a problem with my logic, but there can be some problem with measurements? But how it's possible to make a measurement mistake in such a simple circuit? I can only think about amerage which is not 118mA, but around 1A.
I understand that in case Peter's present AC voltage drop of 1.72 Vpp is shunted and then it can add to the useful output this it is still far from a COP of 8-10. How do you mean this I wonder?
Just a reminder that the RMS shortcut Vpk x 0.707 can only be applied to a pure sinewave.Yes, of course, and in fact there is no need to make speculation as Peterae gave exact cycle RMS values.
Take it for what is worth..... not implying anything here...just something to think about...It may mean you are on a right track. ;) Even electrons have to go through a lot of resistance before current starts flowing in a closed circuit.
If we assume coil A is 0 phase, then coil B seemed to be 90 phase, and C was 180.It's a good sign since having "cancelled out flux" (0 deg & 180 deg signals) produces "radiant electricity field" or aether vortex. Whereas in acoustics, destructive interference produces a lowered pressure, in electricity it likewise produces a "relaxed" aether. I think :) (well, it may be a bit different, not completely comparable to acoustics). But what always bothered me is WHAT happens to energy that goes side-by-side, in anti-phase. Something should happen. In acoustics, it's probably a statistical "zero" while in aether it may mean more than that: such interference may change state of the aether. It's what I wanted to say.
@all, I have more scope shots comparing the voltage at the 3 coils, and it's very interesting that they are out of phase with each other.
Oh, I almost forgot an important occurance, but before I tell you I want to be clear that I'm not the paranoid type and I even jokingly dismissed Bob Boyces stories about lightning strikes, etc.. Well, last evening I came home and there was light rain, and boom........ I was in the living room and I saw orange light reflecting on the outside building and droped to the ground by instinct, I was shaken to say the least. My wife thought I got hit but I didn't. I figured two houses down the road got hit since they have a high roofline and lighting rods on the roof. Well a few minutes later fire trucks pull in the drive way, and block our road and I come to find out it's my neighbor on the other side of my house, he had a 7" hole in the top of his roof and smoke filed their house but they were ok, they put a tarp up there. However, I tried to get on my computer and realized the circut breaker snaped for only that room, so I must of had some of the energy couple to my house. Anyway, here's the crazy thing, that room is where I experiment with the torids, right by the window, and this room is the closes to where the lightning hit my neighbor. Spacing between houses is about 12 feet or so and figure another 12 feet slope distance up to the corner of the roof, and that's how close it was. My neighbor has been in lightning storms before and said in 15 years or so never had this happen anywhere in the neighborhood. So, not sure what to think, the circuit was not on at the time, last time it was on was about 24 hours before, but I'm thinking could there be a coincidence? could a "paterning" of the "eather" somehow develop and make a low "resistive" path in the sky? It would be nice to do a long term statistical study on certain circuits and their probabilistic effects on lighning patterns. Anyway, I hope there is not corelation between a small 1 inch ferrite toroid and lighning strikes. Take it for what is worth..... not implying anything here...just something to think about...
EM
I have more scope shots comparing the voltage at the 3 coils, and it's very interesting that they are out of phase with each other. If we assume coil A is 0 phase, then coil B seemed to be 90 phase, and C was 180. This tells me that voltage is not determined entirely by the FLUX changeing in the core, as in V = N d phi/dt, or else they should all be in phase, wouldn't they?
@EMDevices,
I think you know this, but just in case. The phase that is measured across the coil windings will depend on the component attached to the coil winding. To compare the phase coming out of the windings it would be necessary to measure the phase of each winding with only a resistor attached to the winding.
Excellent!!! I was wondering ever since I saw this circuit if that was the case--you have something that now matches SM's first clues and the Boyce device as you mention. Remember SM's comments on interesting things when transformers get slightly out of phase with each other? ;D
My replication is in progress, and I have a few ideas for increasing the output power...
Eldarion
I do not think dissecting it and "proving" that with resistors it's all in-phase, is a worthless affair.I meant it's not a "worthy affair".
Thus far does not show cop>1 for me.You also need a right toroidal winding - yours does not look right. (white wire is roughly wound, spaced far apart, and it is not synced to 3 base windings)
I need to get the right tranny.
@ Yucca
Your documentation is good but I am still confused. Your scope shot seems to show 32 MHz across the power supply resistor. Is your DVM rated for reading AC current at 32 MHz? If not that could be why the DVM reading was bad. EMdevices was filtering out the AC and just reading the DC current.
You also need a right toroidal winding - yours does not look right. (white wire is roughly wound, spaced far apart, and it is not synced to 3 base windings)
@ Yucca
Your documentation is good but I am still confused. Your scope shot seems to show 32 MHz across the power supply resistor. Is your DVM rated for reading AC current at 32 MHz? If not that could be why the DVM reading was bad. EMdevices was filtering out the AC and just reading the DC current.
Hi Everyone,
OK, I got round to building and testing the circuit, however I have used a 2N3904 transistor, so this isn't a replication per-se. Also my supply is a not a semi-depleted 9V battery but it's a bench supply set at 9V. Also I have 100 ohm over output instead of 150 ohm.
Thus far does not show cop>1 for me.
I need to get the right tranny.
Fraser.
I second what Peterae said, the transistor is critical. I think it's that high hfe constant, which for me it's 200.Sounds like "arm" effect. The higher the HFE the higher will be the current on collector given base's current. Probably can be replaced by more turns on base's winding. I.e. for HFE=50 use 4*8=32 turns instead of 8. Just a speculation. Well, I'm probably mistaken here - this should be 8/4=2 turns (i.e. lower voltage at base -> higher current at base -> higher current at collector). Or maybe I'm completely off here. ;) Sorry for confusion - just posting an idea.
@Yucca,
Your waveforms are very close to what I got, as is your amperage. Get rid of that iron powder core! :D
@ duff
I think EM was using a 0.01 uF capacitor for C1 whereas you seem to be using a 20 pF capacitor. That might make a difference.
@xee,Your toroid looks different to say the least. Why are you not trying to have the same toroidal winding as EMdevices had? Inductances are also different as you wrote them - they should be equal, except the transistor's base inductor.
I tried a 0.01uF in the circuit before swapping to a 20pF and it produced similar results.
Thanks for noticing
-Duff
Your toroid looks different to say the least. Why are you not trying to have the same toroidal winding as EMdevices had? Inductances are also different as you wrote them - they should be equal, except the transistor's base inductor.
duff, the toroid has 3 sets of windings, each 15 turns. My added coil for driving the transistor base has 8 turns. Not sure what core type it is.
What I find interesting about the waveforms is the pulsing action along with the resonance in the envelopes OR is this modulation? I don't think I've ever seen the rectangular waveforms before coming from a oscillator....
Sorry to be a naysayer... But what should be checked for sure is resistance of resistor at that high frequency (it may rise or may fall in comparison to DC I believe).
Sorry to be a naysayer...- all measurable, but they won't be doing WORK. Hence, until you attach MOTOR instead of transistor, the motor that rises a piece of weight up and down, you can't be sure your schematic produces more work than it takes energy from the battery. Better to show layman's proof than EE's "magical" formulas.
@aleks
I'm sure you understand that actual work being done is not limited to things as tangible as a weight being lifted. Conversion of an energy to heat or another energy is a valid form of work. Similar to what Eldarion stated... in a carbon resistor little will change until heat extremes are met or the frequency applied is so high that the inductance of that resistor and the leads must be considered.
I dislike having to deal with the complexities of pulsing and alternating signals but it is a simple fact of life with electronics. Accuracy with these signals causes problems for more than the layman.
Hi Duff,
EMDevices wrote about his coils number of turns in the 1st page of this thread for you:
So eventually you have used the same because Peter also used EMDevices's turns numbers as he wrote.
Regarding your waveforms shown in the previous page I think you have two oscillations of different frequencies in the same oscillator circuit. This is not unusual in HF oscillators where there are at least two frequency selective networks or pair of components.
The first is I think the R2C1, this gives the lower frequency oscillations (this is about the 20us time (4 * 5us)). (Notice the value of C1 is modified by the base-emitter input capacitance which from the 2N4401 data sheet can be max 30pF, for a Philips made such transistor, http://www.nxp.com/acrobat_download/datasheets/2N4401_4.pdf ).
The second is your 8.2uH base feeding coil L1 together with C1 + also the base-emitter input cap value, I think this constitutes the higher frequency operation of around 16 MHz as your digital meter in the oscilloscope shows.
Because the waveforms from EMDevices or Peter do not show a two frequency operation I think the lower frequency operation cannot occur in their circuits due to smaller loopgain or feedback for that lower frequency but in your circuit it can.
Mannix reports he has not used ferrite cores (if I understood it right) so this explains why his wire lengths affect so much the frequency (without ferrite core the coils has much less inductances). He has not reported on the double frequency oscillations but he can see this with a scope only.
Regards,
Gyula
I, and many other engineers, have used these carbon film resistors in VHF radio equipment--they do not change value by any significant amount, even at 144Mhz. If the measurements of resistor voltage were taken with the scope probe and scope ground attached close to the resistor body, then the results are definitely valid.any metal film or carbon resistor is inductive IF there surface is not
Eldarion
@ duff
You were not asking me, so I hope I am not cutting in. But I suspect the 0.01 uF capacitor acts like an RF short-DC block. The reactance of the 0.01 uF capacitor will be very low so when added in series with the higher reactance from the transistor it will have little affect on the resonant frequency. I hope that explanation makes sense.
@xee
Not a problem -
Actually you guys have helped a lot - Thanks!
-Duff
As is well known, and documented, there is such a thing as "Cold"How do you know the device is producing "cold electricity" if it cannot be measured?
electricty.
Since heat rise is a good relative indication of power level, I have run some temperature rise tests on a 1/2 watt 150 Ohm (approximate) carbon resistor using two tiny thermocouples, one taped to the resistor, the other sensing ambient 77 F (which did not move during the test)Nice test, but DC is known for high thermic losses. Do you think at 20 MHz losses will be similar? After all, we have 50/60 Hz in a wall outlet because previously at DC losses were unbearable. For even better test you could attach a function generator.
After all, we have 50/60 Hz in a wall outlet because previously at DC losses were unbearable.
The RMS value of an AC waveform is defined as "the heating effect of an AC waveform when applied to a non-inductive resistor", in other words, the DC equivalent.Well, no argue here, but heating effect does always depend on current's frequency and characteristics of the medium. Does it mean that "non-inductive resistor" heats equally well on any frequency, and that resistor basically works as a heater? I always assumed that resistor is more of a "current blocker" than direct current to heat converter (otherwise energy coming from the wall outlet could not be limited). Your Power/temperature graph does not tell much since average surface temperature depends on the thermal capacity and thermal conductance. I mean, from temperature measurement you can't tell how much energy is dissipated into surrounding air. OK, I may be wrong, but then it's good since it means I need to rework my understanding.
This is another "Tesla" type urban legends that annoy me. Actually DC is not practical because of corrosion effects at dissimilar metal junctions. It is actually more efficient since it does not radiate, hence is used for the newest high voltage transmission in parts of the US grid. DC is still used throughout your automobile with few negative effects except at the battery terminals.You probably wanted to say DC does not "inductively couple". DC is not always used in automobiles, and DC motor driver circuit is subject to heavy overheating due to excessive quantity of transients. More advanced autos use 3phase AC motor/generator. Please if you can, give me an URL that compares transmission efficiency of DC and AC power. From what I've read, AC always won. In fact, for more advanced power lines a much higher frequency (in kilohertz range) was suggested.
You probably wanted to say DC does not "inductively couple". DC is not always used in automobiles, and DC motor driver circuit is subject to heavy overheating due to excessive quantity of transients. More advanced autos use 3phase AC motor/generator. Please if you can, give me an URL that compares transmission efficiency of DC and AC power. From what I've read, AC always won. In fact, for more advanced power lines a much higher frequency (in kilohertz range) was suggested.
they radiate better the higher you go in frequency.Talking about an ideal world, eh? Radiating at 60 Hz, or even at 5kHz is pretty much problematic. I agree that in ideal conditions, highest quality line DC can potentially come out as a winner (if you are sure skin effect of higher frequencies won't make you any good).
I know I am. (In the Thicket) "Only" reason? Yeah Right. Ignore me. ;D
i'd stick to bench work art.
i did this sim just for fun, probably not worth more than a quick glimpse.