PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

[ltseung888]

Hello Professor, 

I hardly know where to start in the face of all this enthusiasm. 
…If I could impose on you to look at my earlier post here.  He's proposing that the CORRECT analysis is to ASSUME that the battery - under closed circuit conditions - actually delivers a 'negative wattage'?  Which is extraordinary.  …  Convention requires that the wattage would be positive.  Would you concur?

Unless we iron this out - then we're at an impassable impasse - so speak
Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Dear Rose,

I do not know why you are so frustrated with Negative Power.  Even with AC delivery systems, we have Negative Power.  The standard explanation is that Positive Power represents Power Supplied from the Source to light lamps, drive motors etc.  Negative Power represents Power fed back to Source.

For perfect resistance environment, the AC Voltage and Current will be in phase.  There is only positive power.  However, if the load has inductive elements, the AC Voltage and Current will NOT be in phase and the Power Waveform as seen on any good oscilloscope will show negative Power.

In particular, the Joule Thief and FLEET prototypes can be tuned to such conditions that the net average Input or Output Power becomes negative.  This implies “recharging Circuits”.  More energy is fed back to source â€" my explanation is that external energy from the environment is led-out or brought-in.

If you examine a sample Output and Input Power waveform comparison of a FLEET prototype, you can see that the Output Power Curve is much larger than the Input.  The area under the Power Curve represents energy.  The Output Waveform contains much more energy than the Input.  Once we have such prototypes, we can do the many wonderful things described in the long Joule Thief Thread in overunity.com.  We can light up many LEDs, recharge batteries, heat up water etc.

I do not need or want to claim any prizes.  I do not believe that I am the Inventor.  I just used two oscilloscopes to show the Power waveforms.  Now I use EXCEL to analyze the csv files to be more scientific.  In particular, a Taiwan LED manufacturer is already improving their LED hat product.  Their laboratory results are confirmation of the many claims in the long Joule Thief Thread.  I treat the overunity FLEETs as Divine Revelations.  The water has turned into Wine.  I am just a server of this Divine Wine. 

If you have any questions related to the Power Waveform Comparisons or Negative Power (Recharging circuits), you can go to my workbench at overunityresearch.com (ltseung888).  The best thread to follow there is the Two Oscilloscope Tests.  Continue your excellent work.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Itseung,

I am absolutely not talking about the power analysis on switching circuits.  What Poynt has proposed is that power delivered by a battery during closed circuit conditions delivers what he requires to be a negative wattage.  This is quite simply wrong.  And he relies on this distortion to then apply that same skewed logic to our own circuit analysis.  I'm obliged to CONFRONT it else everyone will be left with the ERRONEOUS impression that our experimental evidence DOES NOT EXCEED UNITY.  IT DOES.  Not only that.  But with this new 'convention' he will be able to deny over unity in just about every switched circuit - extant.  I'm not going to 'sit quiet' in the face of this abuse.

I have no idea whether you're interested in the prize that's on offer.  But you should be.  Not for the prize but for promoting the evidence of over unity.  That's what these forum are here for.  They've been dominated by an agenda to deny evidence.  And that has now escalated to the poynt where Poynty is proposing to UP END standard protocols rather than concede this evidence.  And I am personally rather irritated that I have never seen an analysis of your own test results that makes any kind of scientific sense.  It's all been SNARLED in undefined acronyms.  We need some clear analysis.

Regards,
Rosemary

[JouleSeeker]

  I certainly agree with this, Rose:
OK, so we're focussing for now on the Input power of your device; that's fine.

I certainly agree with you here, Rose:

We need some clear analysis.

Regards,
Rosemary

  On the previous page, you refer to this "debate" with poynty, but I could not see the link to the debate.  In order to understand WHAT you are talking about, this "negative wattage" business, I should like to see the debate details -- Please provide the link. 
(Sorry to ask if you already provided it and I've missed it.)  Perhaps this discussion will enlighten Lawrence too -- all of us!

[Magluvin]

Replaced, your in the wrong place.

If you think saying stuff like that is going to discourage, well your wrong.

Mags

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Dear Professor,

Regarding this question - so that we're on the same page so to speak, where you asked...

On the previous page, you refer to this "debate" with poynty, but I could not see the link to the debate.  In order to understand WHAT you are talking about, this "negative wattage" business, I should like to see the debate details -- Please provide the link.

And this in answer to my own question where I asked...

...And we would, all of us, like to know if you are endorsing Poynty Point's evaluation of the following circuit that the CORRECT MEASURE OF ENERGY IS AS HE CLAIMS 250 POSITIVE watts DISSIPATED BY THE LOAD and 250 NEGATIVE watts delivered by the battery supply?  SURELY NOT? 

Which in turn was detailed by Poynty Point in this post on my own thread...

You are getting close, however you're still struggling with the polarity.  Your own clue was that something is in anti-phase when comparing the battery and load, TRUE.  Explained in words, the power dissipated or supplied by any component (resistor OR battery) is the product of the voltage across it and the current through it.

Now, have a close look again at the diagram. The current is clockwise. Convention is that voltage "drops" across a load in the direction of the current (i.e. + to -).

Therefore both the current and voltage are "in-phase" when considering the load resistor. So we have:

P_RLOAD = +V x +I = W (a POSITIVE polarity)

The battery however is a different story. By observation, one can see that the current and voltage are NOT "in-phase", therefore ONE of them MUST have a negative sign associated with it. Since the current has not changed direction, the negative sign must be assigned to the battery voltage, therefore:

P_VBAT = -V x +I = -W (a NEGATIVE polarity)

So the answers to the question are:

a) Battery Power = -250W
b) R_LOAD Power = 250W

Understood? Agreed?

THERE IT IS.  IN BLACK AND WHITE.  Actually.  I've taken the trouble to 'highlight' his argument in red. 

Now here's the thing.  Here's where we find ourselves between the Devil and the deep blue sea - as they say.  Where we're skewered.  On the horns of a dilemma.  Trapped between a rock and a hard place.  You get the drift?  It's because your prize is 'hooked' somehow to Poynty's prize at OUR.com.  And Poynty Point has insisted that unless I and my collaborators FIRST commit the unpardonable HERESY of CONCEDING THAT THE BATTERY IN THE FOLLOWING SCHEMATIC IS DELIVERING A NEGATIVE WATTAGE?  ?  ?  ?     then he WON'T EVEN TALK TO US - LET ALONE CONSIDER OUR CLAIM FOR A PRIZE? 

NOT ONLY THAT - but he also reserves the right to USE that method as an alternate convention in analysing our tests.     And you see for yourself?  It's a parody of logic.  An abuse of science as taught by our esteemed and revered.  A rebuttal of the logic forged by our Greats.  A challenge to and a criticism of the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC FRATERNITY who require that convention determines the wattage delivered by the battery is POSITIVE. 

NOW.  IF indeed, he is allowed this rather, as I've described it 'QUIXOTIC' measurement's convention - then we will NEVER be able to argue that our results are OVER UNITY.  You see why I trust?  Because where we would NORMALLY compute a negative wattage, where even our little LeCroy Oscilloscope computes a negative wattage in measuring our test results - then - IN THE FLICK OF AN EYE - at the WAVE OF A WAND - Poynty Point will change our NEGATIVE WATTAGE MEASUREMENTS in our own experimental results TO POSITIVE.    Which means we'll have no gain at all.  Which is somewhat troubling.  And if you ENDORSE this 'convention' then you too would be able to deny us.  Which is not actually playing 'fair'.

Again.  Please comment.  I'll try and download that schematic again - lest we lose sight of where he's applying this utterly INSANE protocol.  And lest you think that my own delusions are that rampant that I've misconstrued his argument.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary