[witsend]

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.

 

[witsend]

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.

[jerrygg38]

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?

[jerrygg38]

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.

[witsend]

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.

[jerrygg38]

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.

[witsend]

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.

[jerrygg38]

            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.

[Vern]

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]

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!

[Vern]

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. []

And, who knows, it may come from someone illiterate to the established norms.

I did not mean to preclude literacy outside the established norms.

[Make it Lady]

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. 

[jerrygg38]

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]

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]

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.

[jerrygg38]

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.

[Vern]

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.

Basically, I'm with you Vern.

Gosh; finally I wrote something that someone else can agree with. []

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!

[witsend]

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.

[witsend]

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.

 

[lyner]

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!