a circuit that produces overunity results.

  • 372 Replies
  • 99619 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #200 on: 08/06/2009 21:52:05 »
And if I'm asking people to get involved - while it may be 'half fledged' it would be a shame to let it just die.  I haven't the interest or the abilities to progress it.  But surely there are others out there who could?  It's not a frivolous claim.  It's not difficult to disprove. And as Jerry pointed out - it's got impressive accreditors.

 

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #201 on: 08/06/2009 22:06:45 »
Sorry to post so many consecutive posts - but JerryGG38 - we do use V^2/r analysis.  We measure the voltage across the shunt.  I gave up on using that analysis on the load resistor as everyone immediately said it was wrong.  They couldn't argue wattage related to temperature.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #202 on: 08/06/2009 22:35:06 »
And if I'm asking people to get involved - while it may be 'half fledged' it would be a shame to let it just die.  I haven't the interest or the abilities to progress it.  But surely there are others out there who could?  It's not a frivolous claim.  It's not difficult to disprove. And as Jerry pointed out - it's got impressive accreditors.

 

 My question on that is who is making money off this idea. Patent lawyers will patent anything as long as they make money on it. Who paid the various labs to sign off on this? Evidently a lot of this is going around. The question is why?

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #203 on: 08/06/2009 22:39:57 »
Sorry to post so many consecutive posts - but JerryGG38 - we do use V^2/r analysis.  We measure the voltage across the shunt.  I gave up on using that analysis on the load resistor as everyone immediately said it was wrong.  They couldn't argue wattage related to temperature.

Where is this being done? Do you have a current probe so you can check the battery current and battery voltage simultaneously. Also get rid of the battery spikes. Put a large capacitor across the battery. Also put some high frequency capacitors across the capacitor. This will stabilize the battery voltage and it has nothing to do with energy. It will just keep the battery voltage as a perfect source.

  Did any EE's help with the circuit? I suggest you study simple circuit equations.

  I will study the circuit more. I am trying to understand where the mistake was made.

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #204 on: 08/06/2009 23:05:03 »
Jerrygg38 - I patented it and then allowed it to lapse - to ensure that no-one could get royalties, including me.  That means, apparently, that it's been put in the public domain and precludes anyone from patenting.  I did this deliberately because I thought that would encourage people to apply it.  But I think I shot myself in the foot because it actually just makes people sceptical.  But to your question - NO ONE is making money out of this.

The tests were exhaustive.  They were done over a 4 year period ending about 6 years ago.  Then I just gave up.  Can you believe it that academics wont even attend a demonstration?  But it nagged at me - the more so as energy is now such a critical issue.  And then, I love my physics and I couldn't entirely give that up - any more I'm sure than you could.

That's when I decided to try and publish.  I sort of thought reviewers would help me polish up the paper to make it acceptable.  But the IET wouldn't even forward the paper for review.  I thought that was the pits. 

So then my daughter in law found me this forum.  And - yet again - I'm going through the same process.  But anyone who wants can do anything they want with this technology.  It's available.  My contribution to the global energy crisis.  And with my love.  I have absolutely no interest in progressing this.  I'm only interested in the field model.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #205 on: 08/06/2009 23:20:43 »
Jerrygg38 - I patented it and then allowed it to lapse - to ensure that no-one could get royalties, including me.  That means, apparently, that it's been put in the public domain and precludes anyone from patenting.  I did this deliberately because I thought that would encourage people to apply it.  But I think I shot myself in the foot because it actually just makes people sceptical.  But to your question - NO ONE is making money out of this.

The tests were exhaustive.  They were done over a 4 year period ending about 6 years ago.  Then I just gave up.  Can you believe it that academics wont even attend a demonstration?  But it nagged at me - the more so as energy is now such a critical issue.  And then, I love my physics and I couldn't entirely give that up - any more I'm sure than you could.

That's when I decided to try and publish.  I sort of thought reviewers would help me polish up the paper to make it acceptable.  But the IET wouldn't even forward the paper for review.  I thought that was the pits. 

So then my daughter in law found me this forum.  And - yet again - I'm going through the same process.  But anyone who wants can do anything they want with this technology.  It's available.  My contribution to the global energy crisis.  And with my love.  I have absolutely no interest in progressing this.  I'm only interested in the field model.

I did not mean to imply that you are making any money off it. I have patented several things on my own as well. Although I made interesting working models, I never could make any money off them. One I manufactured myself and many people bought it. However it cost more money to advertize it than to sell it. Then I turned into handyman business as part time money.
  I am going back into handyman tomorrow. My first ad will come out then. It gives me  a little extra money and I like to fix things. I am 70 but I don't understand what  it means physically. I am just a little less able than when I was 40.
  In any event I will continue to study your circuit. Can you still make any tests? Where is your circuit?
   Did you pay these labs to do the work? Did your lawyer ask for the additional payment? I am afraid that people are willing to mislead you for their financial benefit. Did a friend help you?
   Some of the people here are rough. I do not think any want to hurt you. Vern is especially a kind person. I pride myself being a good handyman and helping people who cannot afford a plumber or electrician. Sometimes I do the work for no pay. Other times as little as $5 per hour for a poor person. It is a hobby business.

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #206 on: 08/06/2009 23:38:47 »
The circuits in the garden shed - at the back of the house.  I only retested to check the numbers.  Donovan needed to confirm them before he put his name to the paper. I needed him to overview the presentation and submit to the IET.

Glad you keep your hand in with work. Was so amused at the comedy of errors with the posts this morning.  But, it's late.  And to the point.  Don't waste your time trying to find the error - unless you're up for it.  The truth is that the circuit is never going to be progressed until someone can understand the model.  If you can wrap your mind around that - then indeed - it will be a good thing.  The main reason I'm so bored with the circuit is that the actual potential of this field is just so much bigger than this little application.  I know you don't believe the results.  You're in good company.  Seeing it is, unfortunately, the only way to believing it.

Thanks for the interest and good luck with your work tomorrow.
 
EDIT Incidentally, the patent attorney was a retired friend.  He did the work for free.
« Last Edit: 08/06/2009 23:42:22 by witsend »

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #207 on: 09/06/2009 02:28:38 »
            Circuit Analysis of Over Unity Circuit

  It has been over 20 years since I worked part-time for the circuit analysis dept of Sperry Gyro. It was a very smart group who worked there. The boss was very smart as well.

  So now lets say the Government came up with this circuit and asked for an analysis. Preliminary results by Government technicians indicated a possibility of over unity results.

  Let us look at the report. First one asks why a current probe was not used.

1. Using a series resistor to measure the current flow from the battery may be okay for a simple DC circuit. However for a transient circuit it is no good.
2. The wire leading from the Rshunt resistor in Figure 1 will have inductance. How long was that wire. For a transient impulse it will cause error terms.

The report specifies on page 6 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 measured above zero.
3. Why above zero. The wire leading to the battery causes errors.

   Furthermore it states that 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.

4. This statement makes no sense. It will never get below zero unless the wire leading to the battery has high inductance. Somehow the test setup is not producing very good results.

  The report goes on to say that the actual current flow from the battery would be the difference between these two values.

5. How horrible to subtract current flows which for this circuit is always flowing from the plus terminal of the battery to the negative terminal.

Note: A current probe would have eliminated that problem.

  Let us now understand the circuit.

    When the mosfet tries to open up the current flowing through the inductive resistor RL causes a positive voltage to be generated opposite the battery voltage. The electrical laws say that a current through an inductor tries to maintain its flow. The magnetic field starts to collapse and the current continues to flow. The mosfet tries to open up. There are very fast mosfet and much slower mosfets.

  The slow ones will take time to open up. The zener diode Q1 protects the mosfet. It will prevent excessive voltage spiking which will destroy the mosfet.

   For our Sperry mosfet circuits we needed speed and near infinite resistance very fast in order to sample a voltage source. Years ago when they first came out they were slow.

So for awhile the mosfet keep closed and the spiking current flows through the circuit and back into the negative side of the battery. Therefore the battery is still delivering current while the mosfet is attempting to open up. Even after it opens up the current still flows through Q1 until the zener voltage is reduced. Even after it is reduced, there is a speed involved.

  Now we look at diode D1. Diode D1 must be as fast as possible to prevent harm to the mosfet. Many diodes are slow. At Sperry we used the fastest military grade diodes. Some diodes are very slow and therefore when the mosfet tries to open up the diode is still closed.

   There is nothing instantaneous about diodes. The net result is that the battery keeps current flow during the spiking period. In general the spike current can be huge compared to the regular DC current flow.

   There are smaller effects as well. The sharp pulse from the battery current will radiate electrical energy.
The coil will radiate as well. Thus we have a transmitter. The error from this will be small but it will contribute to the battery energy loss.

   It is very difficult to determine how much energy came from the battery. The heat measurements are not very good. A good current probe would help.

   An alternative would be to take a very good capacitor and charge it up to 12 volts. Then run the circuit and see how long it takes for the capacitor to discharge. Maybe for only a few milliseconds.

  Then we can take a regular resistor and see how long it takes to discharge. The results will be that this circuit gains no energy.

   This is a standard simple circuit. If anything strange ever occurred in all the applications, it would have destroyed the use of the mosfet as an analog to digital sampling device. We needed mosfet, which opened up to millions of ohms. And when they closed we needed close to zero impedance. Any strange variation of this circuit or circuits like it would have been sent to circuit analysis.

  In a similar vein we had a problem where the resistance of a circuit like this had to be about 10 million ohms when open and it was coming out of spec at around 1 million ohms. Suddenly one of our great missile systems was in trouble. I was asked to solve the problem.

  I studied it for awhile and then told the boss, the problem is that the assemblers are touching the cordwood amplifiers. (These were individual resistors and fets, etc).  The tiny amount of salt in their hands was destroying the amplifiers.
  The solution was that the amplifiers were dipped in alcohol before being encased in their protective coating. End of problem.

   You can imagine how crazy things would have been if they produced over unity results.

  Sorry to have to destroy this great effort. I do not understand how people with knowledge could have permitted this to be patented.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #208 on: 09/06/2009 02:49:07 »
jerrygg38; if you read the patent you will see that it did not mention anything about over-unity. It was simply a design patent. There was no new or useful product claimed. So, it is an interesting thing; maybe fun to play with, but we all knew from the beginning that there was no possible way to generate any useful benefit from it. Still, I do not want to discourage thinking into alternative areas of science. I know that the breakthrough out of our current doldrums will come from such thinking. And, who knows, it may come from someone illiterate to the established norms. That is one of the reasons I have such a keen interest in alternative notions about the nature of the natural laws.

*

lyner

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #209 on: 09/06/2009 10:24:34 »
I don't think that the patent issue is at all relevant. To have a patent granted, all you need to do is produce some appropriate legal words which define an invention in a way which would identify an infringement and then pay someone some money. The granting of a patent doesn't depend upon exhaustive tests at the patent office.

Whether or not the patent mentions over-unity is not relevant. What jerrygg38 and I have objected to is the notion that overunity results have been claimed. I objected in principle and jerrygg38 has objected in detail to that claim. His objections need to be dealt with in detail. If the circuit doesn't exhibit over unity then it is totally irrelevant. witsend claims that it has gained some sort of approval from a number of  bodies. In fact, the only sort of approval that counts is if someone actually tries to reproduce the experiment - polite words are cheap. The easiest way to deal with such approaches is with polite, arms-length non-disagreement and some good wishes. This is all that the papers have actually produced. No one has tried to reproduce the experiment because there is no reason to.

I am all in favour of enthusiasm for real Science but there is a lot of time wasted on non-Science. Exponents of 'fringe' Science seem to get so upset when it's rejected by rational argument and when proper evidence is called for.

Vern, your romantic idea of new Science being discovered by a 'primitive' (in the artistic sense) is not supported by evidence in history. Monkeys and typewriters never get past the occasional intelligent looking word - never a whole sentencewrihfoennnnnf!

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #210 on: 09/06/2009 12:26:03 »
Quote from: sophiecentaur
Vern, your romantic idea of new Science being discovered by a 'primitive' (in the artistic sense) is not supported by evidence in history. Monkeys and typewriters never get past the occasional intelligent looking word - never a whole sentencewrihfoennnnnf!
And then there was this guy that insisted upon spending long hours making wheels when everyone knew it was much more simple just to drag a stick. [:)]

Quote from: Vern
And, who knows, it may come from someone illiterate to the established norms.
I did not mean to preclude literacy outside the established norms.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2009 12:43:50 by Vern »

*

Offline Make it Lady

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4050
  • Hands-on fun for everyone!
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #211 on: 09/06/2009 13:19:45 »
If you look through the history of science it is difficult to say sometimes who came up with what or where did that originate from. People have always looked at ideas from the past and progressed them. Was it Galvani or Volta that invented the battery (cell?) Certainly Galvani made the discovery but his expertise did not allow him to reach the correct conclusion. Ideas from "primatives" will have been improved gradually to the understanding of the world we have now and our ideas will seem primative in the future. Basically, I'm with you Vern. 
Give a man a fire and he is warm for a day, set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #212 on: 09/06/2009 13:33:35 »
jerrygg38; if you read the patent you will see that it did not mention anything about over-unity. It was simply a design patent. There was no new or useful product claimed. So, it is an interesting thing; maybe fun to play with, but we all knew from the beginning that there was no possible way to generate any useful benefit from it. Still, I do not want to discourage thinking into alternative areas of science. I know that the breakthrough out of our current doldrums will come from such thinking. And, who knows, it may come from someone illiterate to the established norms. That is one of the reasons I have such a keen interest in alternative notions about the nature of the natural laws.

What I read was the Abstract which specifies
"Counter Electromotive force enables overunity results in electric systems."

   As far as the patent is concerned that is questionable since the manufacturer of mosfets usually produces technical application designs. Since the circuit is basically a miniature relay switching circuit, it must have been built by many people  over 20 years ago.
   I built many similar circuits myself. Usually a resistor was connected to the battery then the mosfet and finally a capacitor. The resistors were made as non-inductive as possible. In this way we could
sample the voltage source and then convert the voltage across the capacitor to digital form.
   In any event, a design patent should be unique and there is nothing unique in this standard type circuit.
   The only thing that bothers me is that the people who processed this should have known better.
   I made two patents on my own and I should have known better. The were regular patents and they worked but they were worthless because they were not marketable. Live and learn!

*

lyner

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #213 on: 09/06/2009 13:40:36 »
I have to agree with what you say, MiL. However, in the same way that it requires a good photographer to recognise whether a picture is worth taking and then to produce it at high quality, it requires someone who knows their stuff to knock a germ of a scientific idea into something worth passing on to the rest of the World. Conservatism (small c) is essential or Science would be dissipating itself up blind alleys all the time.

*

lyner

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #214 on: 09/06/2009 13:47:12 »
j38
The best way to get involved with patents is to work for a large organisation which wants a serious financial stake in an invention. They will get the best advice and the patent will be well written. It will only be taken up by the organisation if they recognise its worth i.e if it has commercial worth.
In a decent firm you will get some recognition and your name on the patent.
Doing it on your own is a big risk but, of course, there are sometimes, huge rewards.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #215 on: 09/06/2009 14:04:19 »
j38
The best way to get involved with patents is to work for a large organisation which wants a serious financial stake in an invention. They will get the best advice and the patent will be well written. It will only be taken up by the organisation if they recognise its worth i.e if it has commercial worth.
In a decent firm you will get some recognition and your name on the patent.
Doing it on your own is a big risk but, of course, there are sometimes, huge rewards.

Working for Sperry there was a patent department. I worked on some. It was usually a team effort. However most of the things I designed for Sperry were never patented. Some were classified and not for public consumption. Many were not patented because in Defense work, the Government mostly pays for research and development and owns the patents.
Therefore we could come up with a great invention and the government could chose another contractor to build it. We were paid for research and development but they owned everything.
  Some work is confidential. Some work was Top Secret. I only had secret clearance. But one Boss had Top Secret. He would give me things to design and only a limited knowledge of certain information which I was not supposed to repeat anywhere. So the designs and discoveries had to be kept secret. My memory is not great so the secret codes and information faded from my mind after the project.
  As I mentioned before two patent attorneys in Washington DC patent office said:
   "Most of the Patents here are not worth the paper they are printed on". Each of my two private patents cost me $5000 each. I should have listened to the two lawyers.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #216 on: 09/06/2009 14:29:04 »
Quote from: sophiecentaur
Conservatism (small c) is essential or Science would be dissipating itself up blind alleys all the time.
I agree; I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Quote from: Make It Lady
Basically, I'm with you Vern.
Gosh; finally I wrote something that someone else can agree with. [;D]

Quote from: jerrygg38
What I read was the Abstract which specifies
"Counter Electromotive force enables overunity results in electric systems."
I didn't see the over-unity mention in the abstract; I scanned over that and went straight to the claims. Your analysis was great!

« Last Edit: 09/06/2009 14:36:29 by Vern »

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #217 on: 09/06/2009 14:52:28 »
Hi Jerrygg38.  You've certainly been busy.  I'll try and plough through your points but not necessarity in the correct order.

To start with - The battery delivers energy during the ON period of each switching cycle.  It CANNOT deliver any current/energy call it what you like - during the OFF period.  That's not me.  That's known.  I have spoken about this with many academics - with many electrical engineers and with many electrical technicians.  Unless you know something that they do not know - then, again.  The fact is that the battery does not deliver during the off period of the switching device.

The question is this.  How much energy does it deliver during the ON period?  As I understand it, because it's an inductive load these numbers are subject to power factor correction to allow for phase shift.  So we ignored the amount of measured voltage - it created too many arguements and left too much to debate. Rather did we simply measure the rate of temperature rise.  I think you will agree that this is a fair measure of the actual wattage dissipated at the load. Our actual measure of the rate of temperature rise was crude - as referenced in the paper.  But if you allow 10% as a margin for error - then that's probably enough - especially as we run the controls concurrently.  But exceed this - make it 20% or 30%, anything  Over over unity measurement was 1600%.

When it came to measuring the energy delivered by the battery - we had similar problems. How can one reasonably ascertain the amount of energy delivered by the battery?  There were two ways.  We could measure the voltage across a carbon shunt.  Not too shabby because at least it's not inductive.  Or we could measure the rate at which the battery depleted its energy?  In fact we did both.  And we found that the rate that the battery discharged its energy was consistent with the measured rate of current flow from the battery determined by V^2/R analysis (edit) and as detailed in the paper.  BP called for the battery draw down rate as an additional 'proof' of the current flow.  Now, not all batteries are the same.  Some deplete more quickly than others.  Very few exactly match their rated capacities.  So.  For added proof we tested different sizes, different ampere hours and those tests took forever.  We literally had to run either the control or the experiment until one or other or both were flat. (edit) The benefit was measured and unequivocal and matched the analaysis of current flow. 

Then objectors found a new objection.  You cannot - under any test circumstances rely on battery discharge rates as proof of the claim.  So - when it came to designing the paper we left out battery draw down rates except as it applied to the test - to show that this was consistent with the previously measured current draw down rate.

To say that there are potential distortions due to inductance in the wiring - this is unarguable.  But all circuitry have wires - or most do.  Are all circuit measurements thereby discounted?  If they must somehow be factored in to discount that gain, then again, what's reasonable?  10%, 20% - anything you want.  The over unity measurment is HUGE.

To get back to the methods of this exercise.  It delivers energy during the ON period.  This results in a measurable increase of voltage across the resistor. But when the switch 'turns off', or when the battery is disconnected so that it can no longer deliver current, then this voltage across the resistor collapses. It changes its polarity from plus to zero.  Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields.  This cycle then, in turn, generates the next phase as a reverse voltage which is seen as a spike then then dips below zero. I have had many arguments against this test.  But you are the first person to propose that the battery is actually responsible for this negative voltage.  But I'm no expert Jerry.  I may be wrong.  I have asked a friend of mind to join this forum so that he can argue this point.  As I understand it, it may be argued that the battery was responsible for 'storing' that voltage in the first instance.  But I don't think it can be argued that the battery is delivering energy during this phase of the circuit's cycle.

Now the next question is what is the advantage of that 'spike'.  Does it, in fact, return energy to the battery?  Well there's a quick check.  Run the circuit from one battery and put the diode to the positive terminal of a second battery.  And then link the circuit battery and this second battery only with a common rail on the negative terminals.  Then you will see an immediate recharge to that second battery.  So.  One can conclude that this 'spike' is indeed returning energy to that battery to enable it to recharge. And, notwithstanding this 'recharge' the 'spike' voltage is still evident across the load resistor.  So.  Both the battery and the resistor are getting the benefit of that spike which came from those collapsing fields across the resistor itself.  The battery recharges and the load resistor dissipates more energy.

Now.  To the best of my knowledge, there is no current probe that is able to distinguish between these two cycles.  In other words, it measures the product of all the current on the circuit.  In other words it would take the ON cycle when the battery is discharging and the OFF cycle when the battery is recharging and would then correctly indicate that that is the is the amount of current.  It would not tell me which came from where?  That is why a current probe would be inappropriate.  But I'll say it again.  The rate at which the battery discharges its energy is consistent with the rate at which current is measured to be delivered by the battery as the difference between the voltage during both the on and off cycle.  

Now - to the accreditors.  I really do know that you know 'whereof you speak'.  I have gone to some lengths to stress this in previous posts.  But I would ask you to consider that those that have tested it are not entirely without training.  Surely you, of all people, appreciate the authority of those accreditors. And I only referenced those companies that are listed. edit ( I mean listed public companies).  There have been many, many engineers associated with this.  No-one who has replicated (there are at least 6) a test or attended a demo (there are at least 30) has been able to argue the results.  We have had some demonstrations lasting late into the night with no less than 11 engineers trying to crack the problem - find the fault.  But I think you would also appreciate their quandary. While accreditation goes some way to advancing the technology they cannot invest public funds into research that is not also sanctioned by academics.  As mentioned in the paper, oOne of the accreditors actually offered a bursay award to take the study further.  It was politely declined.  So it is left to me and my poor efforts to try and advance this.  That I'm an unlikely marketer is unfortuante.  But you must surely appreciate that I am not perpetrating a hoax.  I certainly am not making money on this.  But nor has it cost me any.  Just an awful lot of time.

But you must all draw whatever conclusions you want.  I was so hoping to convince you Jerry on the need to understand the circuit because you, of all people would be able to understand my field model.

EDIT - I can assure you that no-one who has been involved in these tests has been enriched.  No-one has any surruptitious motive.  I, and those that have added their name to the paper are simply anxious to get this exercise to an academic forum.  Meanwhile I realise that I must do what I can to try and, at least, convince any readers of this thread.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2009 17:41:28 by witsend »

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #218 on: 09/06/2009 16:20:10 »
And Jerrygg38 the whole patent exercise.  You've entirely missed my point.  I do not want to make money from any patent rights.  Mike is a highly qualified patent attorney - I'll go so far as to say he is one of 5 best in the country. If there are prior claims to the circuitry I dont think that there are any that apply a specific application as does ours.  And I don't think it's fair to 'cast aspersions' at the people who have tried to advance this.  That you do not agree with it is fair.  But that does not, by the same token, diminish the qualification and stature of those few that do. In fact I think it is considerably more responsible to 'try and find' the explanation than it is to dismiss it out of hand.  As I keep saying.  It's not a frivolous matter.

 
« Last Edit: 09/06/2009 17:45:34 by witsend »

*

lyner

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #219 on: 09/06/2009 16:57:13 »
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). The energy in the magnetic field of the load Inductance will then (less inefficiencies) be returned to the battery. 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.

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.

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

*

Offline witsend

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 418
    • View Profile
    • Magnetic field model that enables overunity of electric systems
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #220 on: 09/06/2009 19:08:02 »
I see that  your comments on the patents world have been misconstrued!
   Did you pay these labs to do the work? Did your lawyer ask for the additional payment? I am afraid that people are willing to mislead you for their financial benefit. Did a friend help you?
   Some of the people here are rough. I do not think any want to hurt you. Vern is especially a kind person.

Sophiecentaur - your comments regarding the misconstruction of JerryGG38's reference to patents.  I was specifically referencing this.  I don't think it's ambiguous.  He was clearly concerned that attorneys were co-operating on something they did not take seriously simply to enrich themselves at my expense.  He doesn't clarify who it is that he thinks is rough.

*

lyner

  • Guest
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #221 on: 09/06/2009 22:13:48 »
His comments are quite correct. It is a business and they will take your money if they think there is the remotest chance of producing a valid patent. They're not interested in whether the invention can make you money - it's not their job. Are they likely to turn away good business?

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #222 on: 09/06/2009 22:19:57 »
Hi Jerrygg38. You've certainly been busy. I'll try and plough through your points but not necessarity in the correct order.

W: To start with - The battery delivers energy during the ON period of each switching cycle. It CANNOT deliver any current/energy call it what you like - during the OFF period. That's not me. That's known. I have spoken about this with many academics - with many electrical engineers and with many electrical technicians. Unless you know something that they do not know - then, again. The fact is that the battery does not deliver during the off period of the switching device.

JG:

I am sorry but at Sperry we had 1500 engineers. 1400 of them were relegated to simple ordinary work. Glorified clerks. There were only about 100 top design engineers. I was one of them. BSEE (Summa Cum Laude).
  The Mosfet circuit has many complications. In our accurate circuits we had to be concerned with errors due to switch capacitance as the  driving switch toggled and put error tems into the load. This is small but when you must have errors less than 1 part in 1000, it becomes significant.

  When you look at the mosfet switch specifications you will also find turn on times and turn off times. If you want to turn off fast you need something better than the 555. The 555 is great for home experiments. I no longer have my spec books but the 555 is not good for military accuracy.

   The inductor will tend to change polarity and drive current right throught the mosfet as it is trying to turn off.. Some mosfets will do better. Most worse.

  All the action is happening as the mosfet is trying to turn off. The current spike is large. It will drive the inductor current right through the battery. The inductor is also helped by the wiring from the battery to the circuit and the circuit back to the battery.




W: The question is this. How much energy does it deliver during the ON period? As I understand it, because it's an inductive load these numbers are subject to power factor correction to allow for phase shift. So we ignored the amount of measured voltage - it created too many arguements and left too much to debate. Rather did we simply measure the rate of temperature rise. I think you will agree that this is a fair measure of the actual wattage dissipated at the load. Our actual measure of the rate of temperature rise was crude - as referenced in the paper. But if you allow 10% as a margin for error - then that's probably enough - especially as we run the controls concurrently. But exceed this - make it 20% or 30%, anything Over over unity measurement was 1600%.

When it came to measuring the energy delivered by the battery - we had similar problems. How can one reasonably ascertain the amount of energy delivered by the battery? There were two ways. We could measure the voltage across a carbon shunt. Not too shabby because at least it's not inductive. Or we could measure the rate at which the battery depleted its energy? In fact we did both. And we found that the rate that the battery discharged its energy was consistent with the measured rate of current flow from the battery determined by V^2/R analysis (edit) and as detailed in the paper. BP called for the battery draw down rate as an additional 'proof' of the current flow. Now, not all batteries are the same. Some deplete more quickly than others. Very few exactly match their rated capacities. So. For added proof we tested different sizes, different ampere hours and those tests took forever. We literally had to run either the control or the experiment until one or other or both were flat. (edit) The benefit was measured and unequivocal and matched the analaysis of current flow.

JG: Unfortunately you did not place capacitors across the batteries. This would have stabilized the current spikes better. The experiment then became apples and oranges. On the one hand you had a transient circuit with large current spikes verses a simple resistor load.

  There may be many possible explanations. It may be possible that the current spikes caused the battery to be able to discharge more energy than under ordinary conditions. The current spikes may have shook up the chemistry and caused more capacity to be produced. If you had put high frequency capacitors across the battery, this would have protected the battery from the current spikes. Therefore for a fair test you must deplete a battery using current spikes and deplete a battery using ordinary resistors.

  The best solution would have been to charge up a large capacitor in parallel with several high frequency capacitors. Then let the circuit discharge it. At least that would be a fair test. The  test you used is not a fair test.

W: Then objectors found a new objection. You cannot - under any test circumstances rely on battery discharge rates as proof of the claim. So - when it came to designing the paper we left out battery draw down rates except as it applied to the test - to show that this was consistent with the previously measured current draw down rate.

JG: Due to the unknown effect of transient currents on a battery verses simple steady state currents, the battery draw down test is no good unless you protect it by capacitors.

W: To say that there are potential distortions due to inductance in the wiring - this is unarguable. But all circuitry have wires - or most do. Are all circuit measurements thereby discounted? If they must somehow be factored in to discount that gain, then again, what's reasonable? 10%, 20% - anything you want. The over unity measurment is HUGE.

JG: For our highly accurate measurement circuits wiring had to be taken into account. Often special shielded wiring was necessary. There is an art to proper wiring. In your case, it is most likely a small effect. However your over unity was not huge. It was non-existant.



W: To get back to the methods of this exercise. It delivers energy during the ON period. This results in a measurable increase of voltage across the resistor. But when the switch 'turns off', or when the battery is disconnected so that it can no longer deliver current, then this voltage across the resistor collapses. It changes its polarity from plus to zero.

JG: Firstly it does not turn off fast and current keeps flowing into the battery negative terminal and out the positive terminal. You say the voltage across the resistor goes to zero. Which resistor.? The lower resistor  has the current spike current flow in it until the mosfet slowly turns off. The resistor RL produces a voltage basically equal to the battery voltage but in the reverse direction. Thus at the start of the current spike the voltage at the mosfet, the junction of Q1 and D1 goes to twice the battery voltage for the current spike. The zener diode tries to clamp this voltage to prevent the mosfet from being destroyed. At the same time the diode D1 starts to turn on.
   We had to use very fast diodes. Hopefully your EE friends that a  positive voltage across diode D1 means nothing for a split second until the diode starts to work.

   Where did you get the components to do your experiment? Radio shack diodes? Some of the military grade diodes could cost $100. Super fast diodes cost money.


W: Changing magnetic fields induce electric fields. This cycle then, in turn, generates the next phase as a reverse voltage which is seen as a spike then then dips below zero. I have had many arguments against this test. But you are the first person to propose that the battery is actually responsible for this negative voltage.

I will have to see the context of what I said. For a damped circuit, the spike across the lower shunt resistor should try to go twice the battery voltage but it will be clamped by the diodes and various capacitances within the mosfet. If the circuit is ringing, you could get some negative voltage across the lower resistor.

W: But I'm no expert Jerry. I may be wrong. I have asked a friend of mind to join this forum so that he can argue this point. As I understand it, it may be argued that the battery was responsible for 'storing' that voltage in the first instance. But I don't think it can be argued that the battery is delivering energy during this phase of the circuit's cycle.

JG: The spike energy must come through the battery.  The ringing or oscillation of the spike is a small error term.

W: Now the next question is what is the advantage of that 'spike'. Does it, in fact, return energy to the battery?

JG: The spike sucks up battery power. It reduces your efficiency from over unity to less than 100 percent.

W: Well there's a quick check. Run the circuit from one battery and put the diode to the positive terminal of a second battery. And then link the circuit battery and this second battery only with a common rail on the negative terminals. Then you will see an immediate recharge to that second battery. So. One can conclude that this 'spike' is indeed returning energy to that battery to enable it to recharge. And, notwithstanding this 'recharge' the 'spike' voltage is still evident across the load resistor. So. Both the battery and the resistor are getting the benefit of that spike which came from those collapsing fields across the resistor itself. The battery recharges and the load resistor dissipates more energy.

JG: The spike is the whole ball of wax. When the resistor/inductor RL reverses voltage, this discharges the battery more. However as I noted, it is unknown if spiking current causes batteries to have more power available.

W: Now. To the best of my knowledge, there is no current probe that is able to distinguish between these two cycles. In other words, it measures the product of all the current on the circuit. In other words it would take the ON cycle when the battery is discharging and the OFF cycle when the battery is recharging and would then correctly indicate that that is the is the amount of current. It would not tell me which came from where? That is why a current probe would be inappropriate. But I'll say it again. The rate at which the battery discharges its energy is consistent with the rate at which current is measured to be delivered by the battery as the difference between the voltage during both the on and off cycle.

JG: A good current probe will show a positive discharge current from the battery and from most of the current spike. It will also show when some negative current flows back into the battery. If you used a rechargeable battery, the negative current would recharge it. The ordinary carbon batteries may merely appear as a resistor to backward current flow. They might recharge very slightly but in most cases people are warned not to try to recharge them. The lead acid battery will accept discharging currents and charging currents. However current spikes may have complex chemical effects on these batteries. That is why you need some good high frequency capacitors across the batteries.

W: Now - to the accreditors. I really do know that you know 'whereof you speak'. I have gone to some lengths to stress this in previous posts. But I would ask you to consider that those that have tested it are not entirely without training. Surely you, of all people, appreciate the authority of those accreditors. And I only referenced those companies that are listed. edit ( I mean listed public companies). There have been many, many engineers associated with this. No-one who has replicated (there are at least 6) a test or attended a demo (there are at least 30) has been able to argue the results. We have had some demonstrations lasting late into the night with no less than 11 engineers trying to crack the problem - find the fault. But I think you would also appreciate their quandary. While accreditation goes some way to advancing the technology they cannot invest public funds into research that is not also sanctioned by academics. As mentioned in the paper, oOne of the accreditors actually offered a bursay award to take the study further. It was politely declined. So it is left to me and my poor efforts to try and advance this. That I'm an unlikely marketer is unfortuante. But you must surely appreciate that I am not perpetrating a hoax. I certainly am not making money on this. But nor has it cost me any. Just an awful lot of time.

JG: I believe you to be a very honest sincere person. I cannot understand how the people who have helped you could take a simple standard circuit which has been around in many different forms since world war 2 or before and turn it into a miracle.  If such a miracle occurred, the thousands of electrical engineers in the business would have spotted this amazing result.

  It may be possible that you discovered that spiking currents through batteries produce more power than simple resistors. Perhaps if this is true, then the circuit can suck out more power from batteries. Therefore you can charge the battery and get more power between recharging. However you will have to add more energy during the recharge.
That is the only possibility I can see for getting more juice from the battery. The circuit is an energy expender not an energy producer.

   W: But you must all draw whatever conclusions you want. I was so hoping to convince you Jerry on the need to understand the circuit because you, of all people would be able to understand my field model.

JG: The field model is a different issue. Your pictures of the higher light speed energy is quite lovely. Yet this circuit is merely a typical relay switching circuit that appears a billion times in different forms from the time of Mr. Bell.

 

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #223 on: 09/06/2009 22:23:13 »
I see that  your comments on the patents world have been misconstrued!
   Did you pay these labs to do the work? Did your lawyer ask for the additional payment? I am afraid that people are willing to mislead you for their financial benefit. Did a friend help you?
   Some of the people here are rough. I do not think any want to hurt you. Vern is especially a kind person.

Sophiecentaur - your comments regarding the misconstruction of JerryGG38's reference to patents.  I was specifically referencing this.  I don't think it's ambiguous.  He was clearly concerned that attorneys were co-operating on something they did not take seriously simply to enrich themselves at my expense.  He doesn't clarify who it is that he thinks is rough.

I am not referring to anyone in particular as being rough. In general many forums have harsh people. Some are just rough. It is like a doctor. Some have great bedside manners. Some are rough.
   I grew up in Brooklyn so I am used to rough people.

*

Offline jerrygg38

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 781
    • View Profile
a circuit that produces overunity results.
« Reply #224 on: 09/06/2009 22:26:09 »
His comments are quite correct. It is a business and they will take your money if they think there is the remotest chance of producing a valid patent. They're not interested in whether the invention can make you money - it's not their job. Are they likely to turn away good business?

Often the patent lawyers are born con men. They have a lot of sad and angry customers. Very few warn people that the chance of success for their patent is basically zero.

*

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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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
  • ****
  • 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
  • *****
  • 781
    • 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.