PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

[TEKTRON]

use of ferroelectrics in condensers used by tesla is interesting possibility:

It is likely that Tesla was aware of the properties of ferroelectrics
in particular rochelle salt a likely canadate for condenser material.
http://www.ieee-uffc.org/ferroelectrics/teaching/articles/e003/e0030291.pdf

a contemporary application given
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080246366

http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=20080246366&num=10

[JouleSeeker]

Thanks for the good discussion.

Steven

i wanted to thank you for raising our interest in your oscillator circuit and its associated investigations

i have to admit, when i saw your thread start i didn't follow it up at first because i thought the subject would have been exhausted in the various JT threads already in existence (not that i have anything against them!)

however, i'm hooked!

even in this seemingly simple circuit, all sorts of basic issues have been raised; it's certainly been a worthy test-vehicle so far - and we've only just got out onto the freeway 


what prompted me to write this now, is that i've been doing some of my own experiments since the end of last year, with DIY cells using thin sheet & foils of dissimilar metals & unusual hydrocarbon-rich 'electrolytes'
(as noted at my blog linked below)

i'm attempting to achieve a self-sustaining combination of cell & LED flasher circuit (ie. the system will need to obtain energy from the ambient environment)

i appear to have succeeded with one combination which has maintained an average 2 cell voltage of 1.2V since the beginning of March (all other attempts have discharged the cells within a couple of months) [snip, for brevity]

Congratulations are in order!  Let us know if this continues.  Lots of exciting developments around here.

@Nick -- thanks for pointing out the URL; three coils, a diode and a cap -- to light an LED.  Very interesting.  What is the source of the energy?  Does he know?
I had something similar a while back (well, maybe similar) -- no battery, but req'd a ground connection -- but when I measured the frequency it was 60 Hz, so I had grid pick-up I'm quite sure.  Lit up an LED though...

@Frankly, if you start another thread, you might find folks who are more interested in the theoretical side of things -- also, diagrams/drawings help a lot.

[e2matrix]

Well, I am not sure what happened. I thought someone asked how energy could "come into" a circuit. In the describing of what "energy" is, I showed the thought process that led to (in a small way), understanding what forms energy, or amperage.

The amplification of this, is what I thought everyone was looking for. Small energy in, 10^13 times out, or something.

So, I spoke freely. To everyone here.

It seems I have either been ignored or shut out. No feedback, no thoughts, no expressions of consideration whatsoever in days....what gives, people??

All sorts of terse words for my continued musings, when I was trying to encourage discussion and thought among what I thought were like minded people, yet, after the point was made, nothing.....

The "wheelwork of nature" revealed in words, and not even a blip.....

Would a video be better?

Or, some drawings???

Would that help convey the thoughts?

Been there, done that. It doesn't make a difference.

If you look up "Watt meter design" you will find that modern science is already well educated in the inertia of eddy currents.

Place this mechanism, (which is supported by the background energy of the universe, just as the domains in a permanent magnet are), into a transformer core, and you have energy amplification. Simple really. But, has anyone realised this? Or are willing to discuss the implications? It would seem not.

Either I am being ignored, or everyone is feeling a little abashed that they have missed something so simple for so long.

Let me know which it is please, so I may move on.

I spend hours composing messages every time I try to get the message across. My time would be better spent enjoying my children, not ensuring their future. After all, why shift the status quo?

I for one was very interested and trying to be interactive as I can with my current knowledge but this IS Dr. Jones thread and he did suggest we try to stay on topic a bit more (not the exact words but I'm sure it was the intent) and so I suggested with such an interesting and extensive discussion possible on this subject that you might start your own thread.  This thread after all is about a modified Joule thief and how to get verification and replications of the possible OU.  I'd be happy to start a thread for you if needed (I don't know if new posters here need a certain post count to start a thread).   I think you will find I and some others here are quite humble and eager to learn.  But some here have had their share of 'carrot danglers' who seem to never be able to fully open up about knowledge they claim to have.  This is the only reason I think some may seem less than cordial.   
    So how about a thread title like "The missing (5th) Element in OU" ?  Or we can leave out the 5th but sure like that Bruce Willis movie  

[TEKTRON]

Well, although I have not received any enlightenment from .99 regarding the questions I posed to HIS/HER statements, only the idea that I misunderstood HIS/HER statements somehow, (and if so, would like explanation please), I will answer this somewhat crossed message question.

Firstly, please be specific.....are we looking at a solenoid, or a torroid? Secondly, There is no Bloch wall formed on an electromagnet with present energisation, so a different set of phenomena are used to establish the rules of interaction than are used with magnets alone. Thirdly, with a torroid, or closed core transformer, as you rightly point out, all the magnetic energy for "induction" is within the core, therefore, how can this be "transferred" to the adjoining coil and provide useable energy via the collapsing or building magnetic lines of force.....and do it so well? The only answer is that the wire is being energised in some way that is not immediately apparent, and is occuring within the bounds of the primary coils' geometry, as it cannot be "sensed" untill the secondarie's winds are lower to the face of the torroid than the primary, so energy is lost. In the same manner, by placing wraps further out, there is loss. I wonder, has anyone used flat strap to wind a transformer? Probably not in nearly a hundred years. Interestingly, this is what was used for transformers with the AC electricity in it's early form...wire ribbon. Why? What did they know that seems to have been forgotten, or missed?

Previously I asked why amperage and magnetic strength of the B field were related. I wait for an answer.

As to "just conveying my thoughts" on what the form of the wheelwork of nature really is?? That thing that is the water in our pond? If I did that, what would you learn? No. How about you reflect on what I have said. The answer is there. Right before you. Only one person thus far has even attempted to think and imagine a solution, then, (hopefully) test that idea with apparatus. Oops, sorry. Did I just suggest that someone do science?

I wonder, did anyone measure the mass of the plates in the battery that is charging and measure the capacitance of the entire circuit and find the resonant frequency.....to see if there is a correlation with the running frequency?

What of these reported "sweet spots" with the present design?

Where are the joyous words extolling the solution has been found, for it is these that prove the thoughts. The basis of the harmonic scale of matter.

Have any mass measurements been done?

Why does the mass of the primary and secondary have to be so similar in transformers? What does "harmonic resonance" lock onto?

We hear the standing wave in our well tuned musical instruments all the time. Pianos are a prime example. Why is it that no-one has applied that thinking to energy amplification.

I recently learned that an "amplifier" in electrical engineering is not "amplifying" anything. To amplify means to increase in strength. So, the end result must be that energy is greater out than in via some sort of fulcrum or pulley. Like a gearbox, amplifying the mechanical energy to push the car faster with less engine speed. Utilising inertia to relieve torque. This was the reason for heavy flywheels in old engine designs. The storage of inertia so the energy from it could be amplified via pulleys and such.

However, nowadays it seems that to amplify a signal means to hold back on the original strength of the current, or working force, and control it. This means that the highest amplification of the signal possible is the same as having no amplifier present. The control of the signal DOWNWARDS in strength is referred to as amplification. It is this type of thinking that prevents discovery of the truth.

How, in what manner, can we amplify energy when we are not taught that energy spins and has inertia, just like a flywheel??

This motion is called reactance, reluctance and resistance and is the source of all of the original though forms and quaternion equations that once described, in perfect detail, the overall manner in which electricity operates based upon circles not lines.

How can vectors describe rotation of subatomic particles? It cannot. So, "science" invents quantum math to blur the edges of their straight lines, and gets further and further away from the truth.

Anyway, I am now ranting.

Back to the issue at hand.

What is affected by the energy from a source of electricity to form a magnetic field around the energised current carrying medium?

Ohh, and also, if you take out the core of a transformer and leave the coils adjacent, does it still work? Why? What must be done to prevent them interacting and transferring energy one to the other with the changing magnetic field?

This type of science is what must be done, all over again, to find the truth. I cannot just blurt it out, for I will not be believed. I tried that once before.

I have no credentials, only experimental experience. And, without the math skills to back me up, all I have is these words.

I can point the way, but you must walk.

I can show you pictures, and videos 'till the cows come home. These would only be the source of more conjecture.

I tried asking for expert assistance, none came. So, I now ask the questions of you that I asked myself, in order that you may also do the same thinking. This is what a teacher does, so the student may learn for themselves. Only in that manner will the result, once realised, be believed.

Do the investigations I suggested, think on the real reasons behind the simple processes, and the truth will be revealed.

Or, you can simply do nothing but continue along, blundering in the dark. Frankly, I don't give a damn.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_magnetic_domain

[TEKTRON]

Very interesting results reported by Dr. Jones for the electronic circuit.

Does anyone have a suggestion on how to measure the input-output power ratio - without using a state of the art oscilloscope?  For example, a diode bridge with a capacitor - or perhaps a way to make the circuit self-running etc?

I am not a fan of testing alternative energy devices for light output with the human eye, or a battery that does not run down etc.  We want to do 'real science' with real repeatable measurements.

Comments anyone?

-Nils

Sorry, off topic...
Nice site Nils, I'll be back to check it out soon

ElectroGravityPhysics.com