PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

[JouleSeeker]

You were getting changes in input power for different LEDs in your copy of my circuit.

Nope, I don't think I said that.  Reduction of Pinput was evidently caused by the addition of (quoting from my earlier post):

Two 10 nF caps in parallel, connected to the MPSA06 base
   (this lowers the frequency to about 24 Hz, visible flicker seen)

and LED in series with a 21-ohm resistor

  These lower Pinput.  Hope this helps.

It is true that changing the LED alone changed the "transition effect" as I've previously noted; the green LED goes completely out for several seconds in the set-up I described, whereas the red LED get dim but does not go completely out -- then both get brighter again.  I don't know if you've seen this interesting effect, but it can be quite dramatic when the conditions are right, as I've explained I think.

[JouleSeeker]

   @ JS:
    You have some great results, but, if the led is barely lit, what purpose does it serve? With Koolers devices the leds are bright, even three of them for months.
   I do have one BwJt that if I turn the pot down all the way the led is about 1/2 brightness and after two days still shows almost the same voltage, but the current has dropped to half of what it started at.  Still this show that I'm getting closer to your results, even without using the Goldmine toroids, which I think are the key to your success. 
  The point is that you are getting there by sacrificing the brightness of the led light.  Now maybe try to maintain the brightness from getting dim, and still maintain the same voltage and current. That is where using or tuning to the sweet spot will help. 
   Thanks again for doing your AA test.  I do think that it shows more than your cap test, as the cap test only show discharging of the cap, where as the AA show no sign of loss, or hardly any.
   

OK, thanks.  I'm hoping this decrease in power consumption Pinput while the LED brightens at a critical voltage will be important in our quest for OU.  Don't know yet, but I suspect you would agree with that goal.

@np -- thanks very much, and your interest int he critical point is much appreciated.

i'm following your investigation of the 'critical' point with interest - when you first mentioned it, i thought you were referring to the slight 'burst' of light which sometimes occurs immediately before a capacitor supplied LED circuit finally extinguishes - which i put down to some non-linearity in the transistor transfer function around a volt or so (a more 'active' region which suddenly 'consumed' the remaining usable energy - and where there is a slight current surge associated)

but obviously, the effect which you've noticed is indeed related to different levels of efficiency, apparently within the LEDs themselves - a good catch!

greetings
np

I don't know where the different levels of efficiency reside... interesting question.

I will feel more confident when someone else observes the same effect, which I have seen now with BOTH the sj1-circuit and Xee2's JT.  It appears to help to add a small R in series with the LED -- 5 ohms has worked well for me.  The color of the LED does also seem to play a significant role in how the "transition effect" plays out. 

[nul-points]

 

[...]
I will feel more confident when someone else observes the same effect, which I have seen now with BOTH the sj1-circuit and Xee2's JT.  It appears to help to add a small R in series with the LED -- 5 ohms has worked well for me.  The color of the LED does also seem to play a significant role in how the "transition effect" plays out.

hmm - such a low resistance involved - that IS interesting!

first thoughts - some of these resistors are manufactured as a resistive spiral (around the length of the central body)  - aka an inductor!

so, with low ohms (less damping) you could get a nice tuned circuit at some high (> 1MHz?) frequency

i believe that an LED works by introducing light energy into a 'reflective well' to achieve a type of optical standing wave to help cohere the light some? (in fact, i heard a reference somewhere to LEDs being 'failed' lasers)

anyway, with some possible 'negative resistance' behaviour in the LED mechanism (as in tunnel diodes) and a reactive component, sounds like you've cooked up a good recipe for a compact little 'burst' oscillator?

just my 2c

...i must get some sleep - 6am here now, woke up at 1am & got started on the tech stuff!

all the best
np


PS will try to look for the effect - when i free up a test board! 


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com

[JouleSeeker]

Thanks for the comments and for you enthusiasm to look and do experiments, NP. 
Hope you get (or by now, got) some good rest.

Over at the Muller/Romero thread, I noticed something, but they don't like jabber -- so I'll mention it here if y'all don't mind.

Earlier today (here) Romero said several things, including:

I would love to clarify many things and shut off all this questions but I am not in the position to do it.
I have made a big mistake without any intention and that turned back to me, but this is life, we all do mistakes, now is done and must move on.
At the begining I had no ideea what is happening and I was scared to dead, cannot explain that, many are brave and laughing, I am not. Since then I had more understanding, talked to some people and understood what is all about.
[snip]
There are so many patents that have full details..."

OK, seems logical that Romero was approached by suits who represent a company trying to protect their patents.  They threatened him with lawsuits I expect.  He made the mistake of talking about "Muller devices" in some detail, and using the name "Muller" in his discussions --  He also said that he is not going to work on "Muller" devices any more, but rather a device of his own design...  You can guess which company approached him...  but I don't have enough clues to be sure about that.  He is hesitant to say anything really helpful now about his "Muller device"/video, but he can talk about his non-Muller device, which he feels does not step over the line re: this threat from a company holding what they think is a big patent. 

Make sense?

[JouleSeeker]

  Can't sleep just now... wheels turning.

OK -- next deduction re:company M that "visited" RUK -- what did they REALLY want from Romero? 
A:  his device.  R-UK said it was confiscated, did not say by whom (probably under threat again).
Q:  why did they want his device?
A:  because they believe RUK found a way to get it operate better, or perhaps even a "secret" that inventor Muller (now dead, we know) did not reveal prior to his demise.
They needed the actual Romero device to back-engineer, to make their patent useful to them!

If this line of reasoning is correct, they are now feverishly trying to get their machine on the market, incorporating Romero's "secrets"... and they may be willing to silence others until they get the device into production.  They are almost certainly following the discussion here at OU to glean more information useful to them...

Is this a good thing?  No, certainly not good what they did to RUK, "scared to death" he said.  And his device was confiscated.  You gotta admit, that was bold of whoever seized it.

If company M is seeking to monopolize this invention and "protect their patents", they may try to squelch the discussion here.  Or they may just follow it from a distance...
They may go after other "successful replications."   Of course, this line of reasoning suggests a way to find out about these guys and their intent... one just claims a self-running build of a Muller device, and...
You can figure it out from there.  A good novel if nothing else!
But seriously..... I gotta get some sleep.  zzzzzzzz.......
Cheers!