[witsend]

If there are any readers who are interested in this effect and would like to understand my model - I am attempting to explain it in the thread 'The universe as a 10 dimensional binary system'.  My model actually requires an over unity result on a flyback circuit.  And from what I see in other forums it appears to be a phenomenon that is becoming ever more apparent.

The object of this thread was to afford interested parties an opportunity to evaluate and replicate a circuit that gives unequivocal results of overunity.  It may, however be due to some incorrect measurement or incorrect analysis of those measurements.  But we have been entirely unable to find that error.  If - in replication - this can be demonstrated to be wrong then this would be welcome.  Discussion on this subject appears to generate nothing but exasperation from parties at both sides of this claim.  And discussion is entirely irrelevant as the proof can only be evaluated through measurements on the circuit itself.

[lyner]

So I'll take that as a No, then?
But, here's another question. What is your strict definition of 'over unity'?
(In your own words, if possible).

[witsend]

Everybody who's followed this thread - you'll see reference in it to Overunity Dot Com - as the forum discussing our circuit.  In point of fact I've joined another forum called Energetic forum.  They've been studying our little circuit with some interest and there are some who have already duplicated.  Not precise - but close.  Here's the link.  You may be interested in following it.

Kindest regards,


http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-8.html

[witsend]

Hi everyone.  I rescued this thread from page 4.

Check out this link.  My circuit experiment has finally been replicated. Eat your heart out SophieCentaur.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4314-cop-17-heater-rosemary-ainslie-98.html

Oh the difference between the enquiring mind and the closed mind.

EDIT  We've also been invited to resubmit a paper on this.  What fun.  Vern.  I hope you get to read this. 

[Bored chemist]

Do you remember the first reply you got.
It was from me and it said "The final test is to remove the battery and have the system run itself.
Until you have done that you have not shown that you have an "over unity" system."

I'm still waiting.

[witsend]

Hi Bored chemist.  I also am not sure that we've got OU.  But we definitely have a really high co-efficiency of performance.  And that's also useable.  Also it defies classical prediction so may be of some intest.

But my object here isn't to gloat.  Truth is that without the talents of the experimenter - FuzzyTomCat - I would also be doubting that original claim.  It was a fraught few months.  But I'm sure that even the likes of you would not deny the potential value of this. Add to that the fact that it's open source - unpatentable and relatively easily applied - then I think it may indeed be a really good thing.   

[witsend]

Guys just a quick word.  We've submitted a paper to the IEEE

have fun here Sophiecentaur,

Kindest R
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

[witsend]

I've copied this from a new thread I started - WHEN SCIENCE LOSES ITS AUTHITY  Just so badly need to reference this because I'm more than a little angered - in retrospect - at the reception of this thread.  It's what I think of mainstream scientists and I sincerely believe it needs saying.  So.  Vern, Rosie, Bored Chemist - what kind of an example do you guys give to the reception of new ideas? 

Guys - not sure what the readership will be to this thread.  But I just want to detail a few things.  I had a demo that developed anomalous heat signatures on a resistive load.  Crashed through the unity barrier and exprimentally evident.  Couldn't get a single academic to attend a demonstration of the circuit.  So I took it to industry.  5 public companies accredited the results.  One of the 5 offered our local university a bursary award to take the study further.  Offer was declined and the claim to have exceeded unity - continued to be ignored by our learned and revered.  MTN Sciencentre asked for the demo to show it to an international group of scientists at a conference.  Not one person from the conference attended that 5 day demo.  Tried to get it published in a reviewed magazine.  Could only get it into a technical journal.  Tried again 6 years later and was rejected without review by IET.  Accepted for review at the IEEE but rejected by reviewers on consensus with the added comment that it may not be represented.

I posted on the naked science forum and was hounded by several contributors who went to some trouble to describe my delusions.  I was invited and joined a second forum whose contributors tried to replicate the experiment.  Couple were successful.  We went to the trouble to write a paper and I posted a link on the previous thread in this forum to advise the thread contributors.  Not one person has commented on the submitted paper, the evidence of the full replicated experiment, the significance of the result, nor the possible outcome of the submission.  This, notwithstanding the extraordinary outcry that any such claim could ever be taken seriously or even be half way correct.

So here we have a forum and a thread, apparently designated to 'new theories' where - having posted a new theory I'm hounded out of the house, and when the results or replication are positive - not one comment for or against that open source replication effort.  Extraordinary.  It speaks to the kind of contributor here who is only, apparently, inclined to victimise any contributor who dare, in good faith, present a seminally new idea.  Not good, guys.  Not good at all.  Plenty to say before replication.  Now nothing?  Is it only required that initiating contributors acknowledge that they were wrong?  Are the attackers appropriate in ignoring the evidence?  And why is no-one that interested.  These tests turn classical physics on its head?  Why this extraordinary lack of interest?  I'm intrigued.  It seems that 'new ideas' thread is a misnomer - designed to subject the unsuspecting to a full on attack from mainstream bigots who reflect academic bigotry with the added flair for discouraging original thought.    [] []

[Bored chemist]

OK, I can't be bothered to look through all that. It's not very clearly written
However I note that you make reference to the "true RMS" reading Fluke 87 meter.
It's only specified as true RMS for crest factors up to 6 and I think, from looking at the waveforms in the screenshots, that you are exceding that by a considerable margin.
Please ask the people who did the work to confirm that the equipment was suitable for the measurements; in particular please calculate the crest factors (at least roughly) for the quantities measured with that meter.

[witsend]

OK, I can't be bothered to look through all that. It's not very clearly written
However I note that you make reference to the "true RMS" reading Fluke 87 meter.
It's only specified as true RMS for crest factors up to 6 and I think, from looking at the waveforms in the screenshots, that you are exceding that by a considerable margin.
Please ask the people who did the work to confirm that the equipment was suitable for the measurements; in particular please calculate the crest factors (at least roughly) for the quantities measured with that meter.

Golly Bored chemist.  I have no idea what you're talking about?  What is not clearly written? If you're referring to the paper KINDLY ADVISE WHERE IT IS NOT CLEAR?  NOWHERE do we calculate crest factors with a multimeter.  We use the data dumps from a Tektronix 3054C Oscilloscope - sample range of 10 000 per screen shot.  What are you reading?  Clearly it's not the paper that you access through that link.  The only thing we used the Fluke for was to measure the battery voltage - to get an independent reading.  What is wrong with you?

[Bored chemist]

Why make the fuss about a true RMS reading meter if you are just using it to measure a battery voltage?

[witsend]

Hi Bored chemist.  What fuss?

[witsend]

Hi guys, Because this is apposite am psoting this same draft report to this thread.


TECHNOLOGICAL EXPLANATION

It is impossible to determine the actual properties of electric current flow.  Some experts attribute this to the flow of electrons that move against each other in a kind of cascading domino reaction.  Yet others simply refer to the flow of ‘charge’.  But neither school has been able to categorically state what ‘moves’ and electric current is invisible in normal circuit conditions.  Science is a field that deals in precise measurements.  And, while the properties of a current may not be known, it’s effects are measurable.  So, light a light and we can measure both the light intensity and the amount of energy delivered to generate that light intensity.  In broad terms this is known as an energy equivalence.  And in terms of this example – it means that if you have delivered 100 watts of energy – then you cannot, under any circumstances, get more than 100 watts of ‘brightness’ from that light.  This equivalence is generally referred to as ‘unity’ and the mathematical understanding is that unity cannot be exceeded.

This ‘equivalence’ is required and defined in the Laws of Thermodynamics.  These have been modified through the centuries since Newton first proposed them – but the single theme that dominates all interpretations is that you can never get back more than you put in.  Under no circumstances can you get a brighter brightness in any lamp – than the units of energy delivered to light that lamp.  No element on any stove can give off more heat than the amount of energy delivered to generate that heat.  And so it goes. 

So how then does one explain a circuit where a battery supply source barely loses its energy while it cooks a load resistor or an element that is placed in series with that supply?  This, in effect is what was claimed in a widely accredited experiment published in Quantum Magazine in October 2002.  And this is also what has now been replicated by Glen Lettenmaier in 2009 – the details of which experiment are available on Scribd – an internet publication for open source contributors.  It is also widely replicated by numerous experimenters and posted throughout the internet.  In effect, these experimentalists are proving, demonstrably and repeatably, that it is possible to deliver a great deal more energy than was ever first supplied.  That light can shine at least four times brighter.  That stove can get four times hotter – than the energy that was applied to light the light – heat the stove.  In effect there may be a requirement to include a new particle into  Thermodynamic Laws.  And this evidence  is spreading like a heat rash across the globe.    All those academics trained by each other throughout all those centuries –  appear to have simply got it wrong.

But that is only true if the measurements stand up to scrutiny.  Fortunately Tektronix availed some of these experimentalists with the use of really sophisticated measuring equipment.  As mentioned by contributors to the energetic forum blog on alternate energy, ‘argue these numbers and you must take up your quarrel with God’.  To add to the required measurements’ proof and proficiency, photographs were taken of the equipment – films were made concurrently and careful attention was paid to all possible sources of ‘distortion’ of measurement.  These factors were systematically eliminated in a series of 13 tests – culminating with empirical and absolute proof of concept.  Indeed it is possible to exceed the constraints determined by our learned and revered.  In fact there seems to be some real potential to access this energy with a zero loss of energy to the supply source.

Open source has now done what open source does best.  It first argued the evidence in a series of postings on two dominating blogs including overunity.com and energeticforum.com.  Then it prepared a paper for review and has now submitted this to the IEEE – the world’s leading professional association for the advancement of technology.  It has again taken the evidence to the experts to judge it for themselves.  And all this brings the 2002 publication to full circle.  And where that first publication was ignored by our academia – a second was rejected out of hand, a third was rejected after review, the hope now is that this last application will be more seriously considered for publication.  But there is a persistent concern that the publication will yet again be refused on the grounds of  its apparent contradiction of the almost ‘holy’ laws of  Thermodynamics. 

So it is that, for the first time, Open Source are also looking to the media to make the knowledge of the invention available to the public and to engage the public in that review process.  This is not intended to antagonise the reviewers but is proposed as a means whereby our academics can be reminded of the need for accountability.  A refusal to accept a paper based on ‘improbability’ is not a valid basis of rejection.    This time, perhaps the public themselves can require our academics to explain where these experimentalists have got it wrong –  or if they’ve got it wrong.  Frankly Open Source have lost confidence in the impartiality of academics when considering experiments that also breach Thermodynamic Laws.  The argument proposed by academics themselves is that science is only ever progressed on experimental evidence.  Therefore is it required that the paper detailing these experiments be properly evaluated and that the public be fully advised of these findings. 

The actual question is how does this circuit breach these barriers?  It was configured deliberately and predicted to crash through those unity barriers.  But how?  Here an unlikely series of events were brought into play that led RA to the conclusion that circuits could be configured to deliver far greater efficiency than classically proposed.  RA read Garry Zukov’s book ‘The Dancing Wu Li Masters.  She was fascinated by the subject but had never been trained in physics and, more to the point was also not trained in math.  Some physicists are on record as saying that God Himself is a mathematician.  But the actual requirement in a study of physics is not only the math but the symmetries that are a kind of short cut to a description of particles and particle interactions.  And through a series of patterns RA was able to establish a reasonable approximation of the actual properties of stable particles.  These patterns were then more fully developed into a magnetic field model that concluded, broadly, that all matter was made up of composites of a single fundamental bipolar particle that she proposed could be called a zipon.

Of interest is that, in a field, these particles are seen to be a kind of controlling force – fundamental to all the forces, that then organise matter into four distinct divisions each measured as a gravitational, electromagnetic or nuclear force.  Also in terms of that model this particle’s universal pervasiveness is closely akin to dark matter that is seen to bind our galaxies.  In this same way it also binds amalgams of matter to create our visible planet.   In essence, the atoms that are bound into identifiable objects are actually bound by these invisible fields of particles.  The fields are plastic in nature and can move through space, and in time.  And they do this.   They organise themselves around matter in any way required to promote their intrinsic need to find a balance, or a condition of net zero charge. 

As these concepts relate to the transfer of electric energy, the model required a slight departure from conventional understanding of current flow.   She proposed that current flow comprises the movement of these magnetic fields as strings through closed circuits.  When a source was not able to find a state of balance then that imbalance is measured as potential difference.  In other words, a measurable voltage imbalance was the measure of the imbalance in the fields of zipons.   And this potential difference could be diminished if those zipons could also find a path through an electric circuit which would then alter their spin and reduce that source imbalance.  The flow of those strings of zipons comprises electric current flow.  But the zipons that come from that source will also return to that source, subject to the availability of a path through the circuitry.

And when they flow, or while they forge this path through electric circuitry, they also induce a corresponding imbalance in the inductive components of that circuit.   This is widely known.  It is seen as ‘stored’ energy.   But the difference to convention and this model is subtle.  This stored energy establishes an imbalance in the circuit material – in that resistor or that element.  Being imbalanced these fields also require an established state of balance.  And given a chance to re-establish this balance, a chance to reduce this experienced and measurable potential difference, then they, in turn induce a second flow of current, in anti-phase to the first flow of current.  So, provided that there is a path available in the circuit, it too can return its extruded fields back to it’s own supply source being the resistor or the element itself.  In other words there are two sources of energy in every one cycle of current flow through a closed circuit.  The one is induced from the supply source, the other is induced from the resistor in series with that supply.  Both have independent supply or energy sources and both are able to reduce their potential difference provided that some circuit path is made available to do this.

The availability of the path is in the circuit design itself.  Here the source battery induces the first current path cycle, clockwise.  Then that flow is interrupted by opening the switch and ‘taking away’ the required closed path.  But simultaneously there is a new path opened for the second cycle where the resistor transfers its energy onto a second path - anticlockwise.   At speed, or at fast frequencies, the two cycles are able to resonate against each other, like a swing that is first pushed in one direction and then in the other.  And the net result is that the energy that is applied from the source is then returned to the source.  The energy that is applied from the circuit is returned to the circuit.  But in both cases that energy is simply strings of zipons that are trying to get back to their respective sources in order to diminish their experienced imbalance or their measured potential differences.  So under these special circuit conditions there is not only a conservation of energy, being the zipons themselves which return to their respective sources, but there is also a conservation of charge in the supply which is then continually recharged during the second cycle of the switched circuit.

But what then explains the ‘heat’ that is measured to be dissipated at the source. Here, again in line with observation but possibly not in line with classical thought, it is proposed that the zipons that are not extruded from the material of the circuit components, remain in the material, in the inductive wire itself.  But the essential symmetry of their fields has been broken through the extrusion of some of its fields.  This break results in a state of chaos that excites these fields into a cascade of zipons that recongregate within that material – in their attempt to regain that state of balance. 

It is further proposed that the size of the zipons relates to its velocity.  In a field they are cold and fast and small and entirely undetectable.  But break those symmetries, and in a precise and inverse proportionate ratio the zipons become hot and slow and manifest.  This, in turn results in some of those zipons decaying into photons and then radiating away from the resistive material itself.  This results in the systematic degradation of the bound state of the resistor which is seen as material fatigue. 

[nixietube]

This, in turn results in some of those zipons decaying into photons and then radiating away from the resistive material itself.  This results in the systematic degradation of the bound state of the resistor which is seen as material fatigue


Your resistor fails?

[witsend]

Hi nixietube

Yes the resistor fails. But you get the point?  I'm proposing that the conductive useable electric energy is not in the atoms but in the bound state of the atoms or molecules in an amalgam.  Those atoms are substantially unchanged.  Just the bound state gets altered.  Enough imbalance, enough strength in induced current flow and the bound condition can actually entirely decay.  Then the resistor fails. 

It can possibly be imagined as a 'fire' in resistor itself.  The model acually suggets that flames - let us say on your average wood fire - are also the result of these zipons.  Symmetries broken by applied friction and the manifest flame is simply zipons that lose their 'field symmetry' and congregate into a slow hot massive state from their previous cold fast small and invisible state.  Then they peel off.  Some combine carbon atoms with oxygen.  Others peel off as photons.  Others decay back into the background field - which on our planet is the Earth's magnetic fields.  What's changed is the bound state of the burnt wood. We're left with carbon ash in it's least energised form.  So conversely the proposal is that bound amalgams are energised to the extent of their binding.  That's where the energy is accessed in electric energy.   

It conforms to observation.  The source is just redefined. In any event - that's my take.  And experimental evidence seems to - at its least - suggest that there's an alternate source of energy on that average electric circuit.  I'm proposing that it's the glue that holds that material together.  And that glue is fields of zipons.

[nixietube]

So to sum up ...


1) You strongly believe that your circuit is able to tap into one or more undefined energy sources.
2) You and many others have spent years on this and have not been able to harness the energy for useful work.


Are those statements correct?


I see plenty of supposition for (1)
I see nothing for (2)

[witsend]

Hi again, nixietube.

Definitely tapping into a 'heretofore' unidentified energy source.

Have spent many years trying to get academic accreditation.  Have also experimented on more significant wattages using utiltiy supply sources through bridge rectifiers.  But have never developed it for my own home uses as it's beyond my competence.  Have only just got replication now evident by experimentalists in Canada - Oregon USA - and Spain.  The USA experimentalist is developing it with private funding for commercial use - as we speak.  I believe the other two are also looking to commercialise.  Research funding required for instutional studies will only probably be available when and if our paper gets reviewed and published.  Until then there is not likely to be serious mainstream involvement unless, possibly, if the media bring this technology to our public's attention.

When and if this paper gets reviewed there will be the distinct possibility that the technology will get the required research funding.  Until this is published all applications run the danger of being considered fraudulent and there are real litigation risks in the offing. This would certainly prevent public funding - which is required to get the research completed for the technology to get it to a an expoitable condition.  That is the real difficulty that is being experienced.

My own interest in this technology is theoretical.  I think the proposed circuit is a good means to expose the energy potential - but the model itsef points to far more efficient means of harnessing this energy potential.

[nixietube]

Can you tell me how you arrived at the circuit to test your model?

[witsend]

It's convoluted - but I wanted to prove that current flow comprised magnetic fields - strings of zipons - and that they were the material that bound matter.  The circuit was intended to show that field existed and that it had its own inherent energy qotient related to the bound state of that material.  It only needed conductive material to enable that second cycle of current flow.  Actually it seemed patently obvious to me.  What is evident in the waveforms is a possible breach of Kirchhoff's Laws or some accordance with meshed currents.  Either way there appears to be some anomalous events that point to different values of current on the source and drain rail that may deserve closer analysis.  If you really are interested you may want to check out energetic forum on renewable energies.  There's a thread there that details the experimentalists' findings and some detailed waveforms that may also be of interest. 

[nixietube]

  If you really are interested you may want to check out energetic forum on renewable energies.  There's a thread there that details the experimentalists' findings and some detailed waveforms that may also be of interest. 

To believe unknown/undefined energy sources do not exist is arrogant. Just as it is arrogant to assume one is correct in a (questionable) position.

To run my colours up the mast here, at this point I have only a passing interest in your ideas. The challenge, if I can call it that, is to identify your error(s) and get you to accept them. Sadly I do not believe you have discovered an over unity / free energy device, whatever you want to call it, the name is not important.

Spend more time on (2) in my earlier post, and a little less time on the new theory. Start again, this time assuming all your prior work is flawed. Question everything. If you still arrive at the same conclusions, then cut down on the supposition, educate yourself, and approach people for help with the question.. "What is going on here?" followed by: " I do not understand what is going on in my circuit. "