[witsend]

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]

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?

[jerrygg38]

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.

 

[jerrygg38]

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.

[jerrygg38]

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]

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?

[jerrygg38]

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]

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.

[witsend]

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. 

 

[jerrygg38]

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.

[witsend]

  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.

[witsend]

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]

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

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?

[witsend]

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.

[lyner]

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.

[witsend]

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. 

[witsend]

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.

[jerrygg38]

                              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.

[witsend]

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]

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.