The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: a circuit that produces overunity results.  (Read 99046 times)

lyner

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #225 on: 09/06/2009 22:30:49 »
witsend:
You don't comment on the meat of my post - which includes a mention of the lack of information in the paper about the frequency / frequencies at which it self oscillates. Do you have that information?
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #226 on: 09/06/2009 22:54:20 »
Soph:  I keep taking further looks at the circuit and thinking about it.
Correct me if I am wrong g38, please.
When the Mosfet turns off, the emf induced in the RL inductance will appear across its terminals will take the voltage on the Drain of the Mosfet more positive than it was (Lenz's law says the sign of the emf is such as to maintain the current flow).

JG: The junction of D1 & Q1 will try to become twice the battery voltage until Q1 conducts and D1 conducts.


Soph:  The energy in the magnetic field of the load Inductance will then (less inefficiencies) be returned to the battery.

JG: The energy of the magnetic field will not return to the battery. It will keep sucking energy out of the battery until the diode D1 starts to conduct and the Mosfet turns off fully. The only way you can get any energy back from that circuit is to place another diode D3 at the junction of D1 and Q1 and connect it to another lower voltage battery. Thus instead of the magnetic field discharging through diode D1 and around RL, the energy could go to another battery. Under no circumstances will the energy return to the driving batterry



Soph:  I reckon this will be less than the energy which was dissipated in the load Resistance during the 0.02(?)ms of switch on time.

The energy dissipated in the resistor during each On period would be Power times time (assume 2A steady current)
E = I2R t
= about 2X2X10X2^-5 = 8^-4J

Energy stored in the Inductor
E = I2L/2
= 2X2X 8.64^-6/2 = 3.2^-5J

If you saved all the energy stored in the magnetic field of the inductor, you would only be getting back about 4% of the energy dissipated in the resistor each cycle.
As there is no information about even the order of magnitude of the frequency of the parasitic oscillations, I can't go any further than that, BUT, if the duty cycle is greater than the 3.7%, there would be more power dissipated, proportionally, in the resistor. The Q of any resonant circuit involving the wire wound resistor would be low, so I can't even see a mechanism for producing significantly more current in the inductor than the 2A in my calculation.
Whatever measurements are claimed, I don't see how those figures can take you anywhere but where one would expect to be - doubting the measurements.

JG: I haven’t even bothered to do any exact calculations because  no matter what resistor or inductance you chose, the circuit will always lose energy.

SOPH: I suppose it would be ridiculous to suggest that the switching oscillator is providing some energy to the system. I wonder what value of source impedance it has.

JG:The switching oscillator cannot provide any energy. If it did, it would have been taught in schools 50 years ago. It is a fun circuit. The question I have is if batteries can produce more energy when you use current spikes to shake up the chemistry? I do not know. All I know is that I have built and tested variations of these circuits over the years. So has Analog devices, Data Device Corp, Perkin Elmer, etc.

  None of these companies have every produced a specification for these circuits and devices that indicated a strange and unusual behavior occurred.

  If you have never built circuits like this, then it may be possible to be confused by such claims.

  The fascinating thing to me is what errors were made by several people which made them believe this circuit produced miracles.

   I no longer have any test equipment. I no longer build circuits. Yet there must be some mistakes the various people made. The only thing I can think of is that spiking currents cause batteries to be able to drain more current. Then they have to be recharged more.



Soph:I see that your comments on the patents world have been misconstrued!

JG: You cannot take me seriously on all my comments. It depends upon my mood at the time. Sometimes I am in a funny mood. Sometimes sad. Therefore I reserve the right to reject yesterdays comments. Sometimes my wife takes me too seriously. Just because I was upset over something yesterday does not mean that today it still bothers me. And whatever we argued over yesterday, I cannot remember today.




 

lyner

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #227 on: 09/06/2009 23:51:35 »
I was assuming that the 555 timer / oscillator could have been fed from elsewhere.
I don't subscribe to Magic, any more than you, jg38!

I think I made the suggestion way back that, suitable ways of drawing current from a battery could make it function as a primary cell, delivering more energy than it was originally charged with. That could only be ascertained after thousands of hours of operation and a completely flat battery.

However, I think, as you do, that it is far more likely that there is some measurement  flaw which might be glaringly obvious if we actually played with the system. But I couldn't be naffed to go to all that effort to try to reproduce a fault on a circuit which is of very little interest in the first place.

There is a big snag that witsend's descriptions and the use of some terms are so non standard that it is difficult to determine exactly what to think. Some necessary information seems to be jealously guarded and without it it's even harder to spot the flaw. I really don't think she actually wants anyone to find a flaw. I must say that, If I were her, I would be incredibly relieved when someone found it.
I have been, in the past, when I've seen 'Magical' results in my own experiments.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #228 on: 10/06/2009 00:13:10 »
Sophiecentaur - I did not answer the meat of your post becasue I could not understand it.  The frequency, from memory was 156Khz - but, what I have not included in any of these posts but will do so now.  There are two academics involved with this test.  Both have SPECIFICALLY required that I do not mention their association with this application.  The one kindly edited the paper prior to submission and suggested changes. My co-author attended to those requirments.  I will look up the first publication again.  I should have it somewhere.  It does give the frequency.  There was some reason it was omitted. Possibly the non-periodic nature of the waveform?  I just don't know.  It may even have been an oversight.  But, within the week, I should be able to get back to you on this point.

I wlll say it again.  This paper, or this experiment needs to be submitted for reveiw.  That way it can, at least, get to the academic forum.  I can't get it to review.  But, while I've mentioned two academics I actually know of at least one other who has tested.  He was particularly antagonistic so am personally surprised that I have not yet received a 'I told you so' communique.  Possibly it was so self-evident it doesn't deserve such.  If he's a 'trawler' then let this be a challenge.

EDIT - sorry, I should have mentioned.  I am not JELOUSLY guarding any secret.  On the contrary.  As I said, I have never understood how really clever people cannot see that a gain is inevitable.  From a purely measurements point of view - take the DC voltage measurements across the shunt and simultaneously compare it to the ACrms.  The DC is the difference between above and below zero.  The ACrms is the product.  Then argue those numbers. 

 
« Last Edit: 10/06/2009 00:22:02 by witsend »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #229 on: 10/06/2009 00:20:20 »
I was assuming that the 555 timer / oscillator could have been fed from elsewhere.
I don't subscribe to Magic, any more than you, jg38!

I think I made the suggestion way back that, suitable ways of drawing current from a battery could make it function as a primary cell, delivering more energy than it was originally charged with. That could only be ascertained after thousands of hours of operation and a completely flat battery.

However, I think, as you do, that it is far more likely that there is some measurement  flaw which might be glaringly obvious if we actually played with the system. But I couldn't be naffed to go to all that effort to try to reproduce a fault on a circuit which is of very little interest in the first place.

There is a big snag that witsend's descriptions and the use of some terms are so non standard that it is difficult to determine exactly what to think. Some necessary information seems to be jealously guarded and without it it's even harder to spot the flaw. I really don't think she actually wants anyone to find a flaw. I must say that, If I were her, I would be incredibly relieved when someone found it.
I have been, in the past, when I've seen 'Magical' results in my own experiments.

  There is many different ways to look at the problem. Basically the energy delivered to the load is a half square wave. Depending on the time constant  the voltage and current of one half cycle is a half square wave. The second part of the cycle is basically zero. the energy delivered to the load resistor is the root mean square of all the fourier components.

  Energy = (DC^2 +f1^2 + f3^2 + f5^2)^0.5

  So we have a fourier series for the energy to the load

  The energy problem then gets more complicated. All the energy must come from the battery but measuring just DC values will not give us the correct answers. We may need a spectrum analyzer to do the correct analysis.
  In any event the calculations can get complicated by the circuit is just an old fashioned R/L circuit.
  I would like to see W's engineering friends justify their conclusions.
I do not blame her for believing it. I just wonder how this circuit got started in the first place. Who thought of it and why?
  Why did people make a fuss over an electricity 101 circuit? Where did this idea come from?  
Why did so many people sign on to it?

We could say the same thing about many other theories.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #230 on: 10/06/2009 00:45:23 »
  I would like to see W's engineering friends justify their conclusions.
I do not blame her for believing it. I just wonder how this circuit got started in the first place. Who thought of it and why?
  Why did people make a fuss over an electricity 101 circuit? Where did this idea come from? 
Why did so many people sign on to it?  JerryGG39

No-one has justified their conclusions.  No-one involved in these tests have concluded anything at all - except for me and the co-author.  And our conclusions appear to be entirely irrelevant.  Jerry, if you'd seen these numbers, and then seen them, and then - nothing seems to 'TAKE THEM AWAY' then maybe you'd also want the experts to come in and comment.  That's all that any accreditors have suggested.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2009 01:22:06 by witsend »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #231 on: 10/06/2009 01:50:43 »
Sorry JerryGG38 - I should have said. Classical assumption is that current flow comprises electrons. The model suggests that it is in fact magnetic dipolar tachyons with a velocity of 2c.  Which is right? I'm proposing that my model may be right because the evidence, at its very least, defies classical constraints.

That's why I put this circuit together.

So many people signed up to it not because of my explanation but because, like me, they are appealing to experts to explain this, or alternatively to advance this - not I believe, my model, but the technology itself.

The problem, as written, is that no-one can explain it within a classical context.  So the next best thing is to disprove it.  If it can't be disproved, then there's an outside chance that the model may be a sufficient explanation.

But that has HUGE problems.  It relates to the proposal that anything can exceed light speed.  I have always been given to understand that this is the one thing that cannot be seriously considered.  I saw it as the overriding flaw in my field model.  If, however, light speed is not too critical to classical theory - then maybe it CAN be accepted.
 

lyner

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #232 on: 10/06/2009 09:32:54 »
witsend:
To measure electrical energy rigorously you correctly make the point that you need to measure both the voltage and the current, continuously, and then sum the products of I and V over the time interval. This is the only way you can be sure of how much energy your battery (a non-linear source) has delivered to a non linear load. As gg38 says, it is a help if the battery has capacitors added across it to keep its PD constant and this should allow the RMS Current to give you the right answer. But, of course, the sample rate for your calculation must be high enough.
"Power Factor" is a term which can only be applied to a sinusoid and is a convenient quantity to use in AC Power Engineering.
If your waveform has a period of about 5 microseconds then you need to be sampling and calculating at a minimum of 400kHZ.  But you need to be looking at twice the ringing frequency of any inductances. This ringing could be at several hundred MHz and your Fluke 123 may well have ignored it. You don't mention the sample rate but it can't have been more than 80MHz - from the Fluke spec. A copy of the Scope trace would have helped.

Here's a mystery
Quote
That's why I put this circuit together.
You claim to know no serious electronics and to be a "layman" and yet you selected this circuit to show the effect. You said that it was a natural choice. It wouldn't be a natural choice for 'the man in the street'. In fact, an electronic solution would not seem to be the obvious choice for anyone who is not 'mainstream'. Your model would have ramifications all over Science, surely. What about the Maths involved? You say you don't do Maths. I find this fascinating.

 Where does this circuit come from? You seemed not to pick up on my comment when I mentioned a Capacitor, way back in the thread, but you selected a Mosfet for your switching. Why not have started with a simple transistor circuit? Is there a history to the circuit development? When did it start to reveal this anomaly?
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #233 on: 10/06/2009 09:52:05 »
Sophiecentaur.  I'm going to answer your second question first.  I still have to absorb the point of your first.  Can't you see it?  Inductive laws are - a changing magnetic field induces and electric field.  A changing electric field induces a magnetic field.  Well.  If there's an induced magnetic field on a resistor as a result of an electric field - then the solution is simple.  Interrupt the flow - induce a changing electric field - and we're back with a changing magnetic field.  And that changing magnetic field will again induce an electric field. 

You would have laughed at my first circuit.  Certainly the Professors were amused. I literally drew a battery because that's how Dyson illustrates it.  Then I drew a winding - literally - and then, by sheer chance I drew an arrow in parallel going back to the battery.  Then - I had no idea how to draw a switch - so I simply left a gap and then took the wire back to the terminal.  It was positively comical. Claymans immediately said - 'well we can test that'.  I had no idea that there were circuit devices to enable it. Simply no idea.  Claymans suggested they build the circuit in the lab.  But the lab technician refused - saying he was not prepared to get involved with overunity circuitry.  That was the FIRST time that I had an objection.  Right at kick off. 

Then - I spent ages trying to find someone to put the circuit together.

That is the entire account.  I was looking to find a way to interrupt a curren flow but get the energy back.  The diode and the MOSFET were the enabling 'things'.  Everyone in the world seemed to know about them except me.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2009 10:59:53 by witsend »
 

lyner

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #234 on: 10/06/2009 10:01:26 »
witsend
Your first para is just a qualitative statement of Maxwell's equations. The simple logic of that is that you might just as soon expect that reflected light or radio waves would be bigger than the incident waves, on occasions. I don't think anyone has ever seen this. That would be a real shocker.

But, without numbers, the argument means nothing. Look in any e/m theory textbook and all of that stuff has been dealt with back to front and sideways. As I have said before, you hypothesis needs to explain everything else too, if it is correct.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #235 on: 10/06/2009 10:13:02 »
Look in any e/m theory textbook and all of that stuff has been dealt with back to front and sideways. Sophiecentaur

Had I done this I would never have tried that circuit.  It strikes me that people go to extraordinary lengths to refute those very Laws that are irrefutable.  I think the idea is to try and keep the efficiency at less than 1.  I can think of no other reason.  But that's science for you.

EDIT - The difference being that I did not need to 'lose energy' as a result of the induced current flow.  I only needed to lose charge.  And there again, I could not understand why the boffins could not see that benefit.  Fortunately, also at the start, I had only read Zukov and Dyson and they both stated that current flow does not comprise a flow of electrons.  But I had no idea that ACTUALLY electrical engineers, to a man, seem insist that it does.

EDIT yet again.  My model was pretty well developed by the time I proposed current flow was magnetic fields.  But I actually thought that no-one knew what it was.  That's why I felt brave enough to come forward with my explanation.  The first time I tried to wrap my mind around how you guys thought of it was this year.  Before that the question never came up.  If it did it certainly wasn't in discussion with me. 
« Last Edit: 10/06/2009 10:43:27 by witsend »
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #236 on: 10/06/2009 10:49:17 »
As I have said before, you hypothesis needs to explain everything else too, if it is correct. Sophiecentaur

At the risk of attack.  I believe it does.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2009 10:53:18 by witsend »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #237 on: 10/06/2009 14:13:12 »
                              Additional Analysis of Over Unity Circuit

   Although I pointed out that the transient spikes would produce additional current drain and damage the efficiency, the problem seems more fundamental than that.

   In general if the circuit worked perfectly, the battery would deliver current for one half cycle of the square wave 555 input (assuming a perfect square wave). During the second half cycle, the inductive resistor would discharge through diode D1 and come around the inductor until the energy was dissipated. Thus the inductive resistor would always be carrying current.

   The spiking can be minimized with a very fast diode D1, Long before problems with Mosfets and similar circuits, the speeds of the diodes were not that important. However ion order to make circuits work near perfectly high-speed diodes were developed.

  So higher speed diodes can reduce the current flow from the battery during the spikes. Still all the ender merely dissipates in the inductive resistor.

  This morning I returned to the days when I build my first oscilloscope. They used to sell kits. They did not have DC oscilloscopes. The probes were always AC coupled.

   It was only after I went to work at Sperry that I got to work with DC Hewlett Packet oscilloscopes.

  I mention this because Witsend specifies in her report that she subtracts the positive current flow across the shunt resistor from the negative current flow across the shunt resistor. Except for a ringing condition due to an undamped total circuit, the voltage across the shunt resistor is always positive.

   If they put the scope on AC, then the waveshape across the shunt resistor would show a positive value for half cycle and a negative value for the other half cycle. This is wrong. The same problem would happen in my old oscilloscope. The AC coupling would bring the zero current half of the cycle to a negative value.

  I will repeat the incorrect statement on page 6

  Therefore it is determined that the current delivered by the battery would be the product of the instantaneous voltage measured across the shunt divided by the resistance of the shunt above zero. Correspondingly any current delivered back to the battery would be determined from the instantaneous voltage across the shunt divided by the shunts resistance measured below zero. The actual flow of current from the battery would be the difference between these two values.

  Although the words are not in exact proper order, they indicate that one voltage level was chosen as positive and the other as negative. However a standard DC probe would not have had any voltage below zero. (Except for ringing caused by wiring inductance and Mosfet internal capacitance which cause the inductor to discharge through the mosfet capacitance) (This should be a small effect)

  Let us now make a simple diagram of a square wave.

A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
....................................>
....................................>
................................... >
....................................>
B…………………………...............>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  In the ideal case A = B and the result is zero. The solid line represents the ground level.

  Depending upon the duty cycle of the 555, you will get various waveshapes depending upon the circuits. For the ideal case above, it will be almost equal and the difference measure by an AC scope probe will be zero. Thus the circuit works perfectly with no energy by your measurement technique error.

  The true DC scope will look as follows

A >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
..................................>
..................................>
B---------------------…>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  Notice that for the true DC scope readings, there is no negative voltage across the shunt. (Except ringing and some spiking)

  Therefor the error appears to be simpler than the complex analysis I used before.

  Witsend does not show the positive and negative readings in the report. She merely states that the summation of these readings was 1.3 watts on page 7.

  I would like her to show the data. Then we can bring the positive voltage level upward by bringing the minus voltage upward to zero. In this way we can produce the correct readings.

  Any EE or test Engineer should have known to use a DC probe and a DC scope.
  If they did the job with an AC probe and or an AC scope, then they made a serious mistake.

  Anyway Witsend please provide all the data used during the measurements so we can correct the data to produce the right results.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #238 on: 10/06/2009 14:23:20 »
I would like her to show the data. Then we can bring the positive voltage level upward by bringing the minus voltage upward to zero. In this way we can produce the correct readings.  JerryGG38  I'm here.  Why do you refer to 'her' and talk over my head? 
 

lyner

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #239 on: 10/06/2009 15:04:48 »
As I have said before, you hypothesis needs to explain everything else too, if it is correct. Sophiecentaur

At the risk of attack.  I believe it does.
If your belief can stretch so far as to show the expected wavelengths of  the Hydrogen lines (the simplest bit of Modern Physics, you might say) I shall be very impressed.  Or will you say that you don't like to get involved in figures? I don't have to attack; I just need to ask a question which you ought to be able to answer. If you don't think I'd understand your personal notation - try me. I just need a starting scenario and some figures at the end which correspond, say, to the Lyman series.

btw Current is not "A flow of Electrons". It is a flow of charge. In metals, that charge happens to be carried by electrons. Do you deny that Cathode rays carry the charge through the vacuum of a TV tube? Do you deny Albert's Photoelectric effect? There is sooooo much evidence for this. Do you have any which shows the contrary, irrefutably?

Also: If you "lose charge" from an object or system then, very soon, the potential will become very high - Q=CV is a well known and tested formula.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2009 15:08:35 by sophiecentaur »
 

lyner

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #240 on: 10/06/2009 15:07:07 »
jg38, what you are saying is probably somewhere near what actually happened. By your reasonable reasoning, the measurements show that the AC component of average power is a small fraction of the total power delivered to the load. That was interpreted as over unity.
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #241 on: 10/06/2009 15:14:05 »
I would like her to show the data. Then we can bring the positive voltage level upward by bringing the minus voltage upward to zero. In this way we can produce the correct readings.  JerryGG38  I'm here.  Why do you refer to 'her' and talk over my head? 


  Sorry. I guess I was speaking to the general audience. Do you have the data?
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #242 on: 10/06/2009 15:37:42 »
jg38, what you are saying is probably somewhere near what actually happened. By your reasonable reasoning, the measurements show that the AC component of average power is a small fraction of the total power delivered to the load. That was interpreted as over unity.

Unfortunately all my electrical textbooks were thrown out long ago. I only have the physics books and Calculus by Thomas.
  The fourier series for a square wave where the bottom pusle is at zero and the top pulse is at Vb has a general DC component of
  DC = Vb/2
 Then it has a fundamental at the 555 frequency. I will have to look up the series on the internet but the fundamental AC component is almost as large as the DC. Then comes the third harmonic which is reasonable large.

  Yes. Your words are very good. The probe is seeing the AC and Witsend and company modified the AC component and turned it into a DC component. The probe blocked the DC. Without the data and assuming that the AC component was approximately 80 percent of the DC component, we get from Witsends data

67.6 kilojoules for AC component
81.12 kilojoules for DC component

148.7 kilojoules delivered by battery

 The load dissipated by Witsends numbers

122 kilojoules (note Witsend states 1.22 megajoules)

  The efficiency of the circuit is

122/148  = 82%

  The duty cycle was on 3.7 percent but that merely changes the problem from a symettrical square wave to a pulse. The results will be basically the same. The error as we pointed out that they used the AC probe which eliminated the DC term.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #243 on: 10/06/2009 15:50:37 »
Sophiecentaur.  Could you please define your definition of charge.  Otherwise we will be missing each other forever.  When I have got this I will then I hope to be able to explain what I mean.  Clearly my use of the term is not conventional.  I apologise.

And JerryGG38 - please could you read my earlier post.  You are arguing the same thing that I tried to cover.  I have NO authority to say that it is wrong to average the two cycles.  But I do have the authority of those academics who have been associated with this exercise.  While I am very happy to acknowledge your understanding in the field, I will not do so at the expense of their's.

The post is dated 08.06.2009. 
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #244 on: 10/06/2009 15:53:03 »
Look in any e/m theory textbook and all of that stuff has been dealt with back to front and sideways. Sophiecentaur

Had I done this I would never have tried that circuit.  It strikes me that people go to extraordinary lengths to refute those very Laws that are irrefutable.  I think the idea is to try and keep the efficiency at less than 1.  I can think of no other reason.  But that's science for you.

EDIT - The difference being that I did not need to 'lose energy' as a result of the induced current flow.  I only needed to lose charge.  And there again, I could not understand why the boffins could not see that benefit.  Fortunately, also at the start, I had only read Zukov and Dyson and they both stated that current flow does not comprise a flow of electrons.  But I had no idea that ACTUALLY electrical engineers, to a man, seem insist that it does.

EDIT yet again.  My model was pretty well developed by the time I proposed current flow was magnetic fields.  But I actually thought that no-one knew what it was.  That's why I felt brave enough to come forward with my explanation.  The first time I tried to wrap my mind around how you guys thought of it was this year.  Before that the question never came up.  If it did it certainly wasn't in discussion with me. 

No one is trying to deny the overunity circuit due to some prior understandings. This circuit has been built billions of times in telephone circuits and military circuits. It is just a common circuit and poor test techniques produced an error in thinking.Therefore this whole discussion of the circuit is meaningless. Interest but meaningless.

  Now your ideas of magnetic fields producing current flows is a worthy discussion. I suggest you drop the overcurrent circuit and specify your ideas concerning current flows.

   The flow of an electron through a vacuum tube is a current flow where the quanta of charge is 1.602E-19 coulombs. It is certain that the current flow is exactly the number of electrons per second. There is no reason to believe it is subdivided any finer.

   Now we take the current flow in a wire. Conventional theory specifies that an electron flows from one atom to another and pushes each atom along. That always seemed okay to me but it is possible that the quanta could be smaller than the electron.

  In my Dot-wave theory my smallest high energy dot wave has an energy and wavelength equal to the standard AM radio band.
  To me a moving dot-wave is a magnetic field. A stationary dot-wave is a stationary electric field. The minute the dot-wave moves it is part of the magnetic field.

  Therefore you may very well be correct that an electric current is the flow of a magnetic field. So I suggest you start a new topic and discuss your ideas which have a degree of merit.

  
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #245 on: 10/06/2009 15:55:12 »
Sophiecentaur.  Could you please define your definition of charge.  Otherwise we will be missing each other forever.  When I have got this I will then I hope to be able to explain what I mean.  Clearly my use of the term is not conventional.  I apologise.

And JerryGG38 - please could you read my earlier post.  You are arguing the same thing that I tried to cover.  I have NO authority to say that it is wrong to average the two cycles.  But I do have the authority of those academics who have been associated with this exercise.  While I am very happy to acknowledge your understanding in the field, I will not do so at the expense of their's.

The post is dated 08.06.2009. 
I suggest you copy our comments and return them to your friends. Then they will see their errors.
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #246 on: 10/06/2009 16:04:42 »
jerryGG38 - Are you saying, in simple terms that we must average the voltage during both periods of the duty cycle?  Please just say yes or no.  If it's No, then explain what you mean, if you don't mind.  Thanks.

Edit:Jerry, I'm holding my breath here.  Have I got this right.  Do you mean us to average the voltage measured across the resistive load?  If this is not what you mean then may I ask you to explain what you mean? 

Edit again - sorry, I mean over the shunt resistor.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2009 16:20:01 by witsend »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #247 on: 10/06/2009 16:21:53 »
jerryGG38 - Are you saying, in simple terms that we must average the voltage during both periods of the duty cycle?  Please just say yes or no.  If it's No, then explain what you mean, if you don't mind.  Thanks.

I just cannot say yes because it could be misinterpreted. There are two ways of solving the problem.

Solution 1 requires you to raise the lowest level of the waveshape to zero. This will raise up the highest level. For example if the waveshape has a low level of -1 volts and a high level of 4 volts, we must bring the -1 level to zero volts and the 4 volt level to 5 volts.

   Then you can calculate the data correctly. You will have nothing to subtract.

 The second method is by turning the waveshape into DC and AC components. The DC component is the average level. The AC components are what you see on the scope. The problem is you need to produce a fourier series solution for the waveshape.
  Alternatively there are devices called spectrum analyzers. These instruments (they are expensive) will tell you all the AC components. The most important will be the first, third, and fifth harmonic.
  It is easier to calculate the series if it is a reasonable pulse or square wave type.

 The solution is the square root of the sum of the squares of all the components. This is a tough way to go without a spectrum analyzer.

  Since you used the first method, it is only necessary for you to move the bottom voltage up and then recalculate the problem. Never subtract anything!!!!!!!!!!
 

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #248 on: 10/06/2009 16:25:46 »
So.  Is it reasonable to assume that the voltage measured above zero comes from the battery?  And, in the same way is it also for some reason unreasonable to assume that the Negative voltage comes from the inductance on the load resistor?

EDIT - what I'm actually asking is this.  Do you know of any lead acid battery that is able to deliver a negative current flow?
« Last Edit: 10/06/2009 16:32:03 by witsend »
 

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
  • Thanked: 27 times
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #249 on: 10/06/2009 16:40:50 »
So.  Is it reasonable to assume that the voltage measured above zero comes from the battery?  And, in the same way is it also for some reason unreasonable to assume that the Negative voltage comes from the inductance on the load resistor?

If you had used a DC probe on the oscilloscope, the shunt resistor voltage would go from zero in the off cycle to a positive value in the on cycle.

  It is very unreasonable to assume that the negative voltage (flat level) comes from the inductor.

  The only thing the inductor could do is produce a positive spike. However if the circuit is  underdamped due to extraneous capacitance, you could get a secondary negative spike.

  The big problem is the inductor produces spikes and not a flat negative level. That negative level comes from the oscilloscope probe.
Check to see if they used an AC probe. The probe itself produces the negative level.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #249 on: 10/06/2009 16:40:50 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums