Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

Started by JouleSeeker, May 19, 2011, 11:21:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 46 Guests are viewing this topic.

JouleSeeker

Now with my replication, more results:

1.   I take the output of L1 and connect it to point 6 (instead of to point 4), so that the return path is through the 220ohm Rout.  Rout/LED back in the circuit.
Now the LED is dim, but clearly visible.   t= 54s, Pin = 0.82mW.  (repeat from above)

2.  Connect L1 direct back to point 4.   t= 50.8s, Pin = 0.87mW.   I observed that with this condition, the LED is growing dimmer as the voltage from the caps drops -- until about 1.2Vin, then the LED suddenly gets brighter -- unexpected.  I repeated this experiment and observation.

3.  Place a 220-ohm R in series with L1, then to point 4.   t= 59.8s, Pin = 0.74mW.

JouleSeeker

Quote from: NickZ on June 13, 2011, 10:59:52 AM
  I am continuing to try different Hartley Oscillators trying to build one that will work with the cement cells small output.  Although I'm getting closer I'm still not there yet, as these hartley circuits seam to draw more than the 50 or 60 mA. that my cells can provide, to light just one led.  I can light a single white led direct off of two of the cement cells, but not through the BWJt, at least not for long.....

NickZ -- If you can build my little sj1 circuit diagrammed above, you should be able to draw much less than 50mA. 
My results, stated above, show about 1 mW at approx 2V, IOW, ~ 0.5mA -- a factor of 100 less than your 50mA.

Also, does the electrode degrade over time on your cement battery?

NickZ

   JouleSeeker:
In answer to your question:  if the cement cells electrodes show signs of erosion? Just the normal oxide coating on the copper and no deterioration anywhere else that I can see.  The picture is of a three month old cement cell that had dried out and showed no voltage or current. It was soaked for a week in tap water, and just now showed 1.2 volts, and 25 mA, each can.  They measure 1.5" by 1/2" in size, and can light the red led that I just tried on it. Electrode is fine on them.
   
    I realize that many are getting very low microamp draws and readings from their Hartley circuits, but so far all the Hartley type Jt circuits have been real joule hogs when connected to these cells. When I connect my various BWJT circuits to an AA battery they light up great.
  How long will your current circuit run on a regular new 600 mA AA battery???  A day? Weeks?
   The only test that is valid for me is that the device self runs, other that that,  all the test data obtained can be very questionable.
  Kooler claims to have run a couple of his BWJT for 5 months.  I'd be happy with 5 days.
 

JouleSeeker

  I can play with the circuit until Pin is quite small, and the LED lights up for longer and longer on the two caps...but I need to get  Pout measured in the best way possible, without an oscilloscope preferably.  I want to check the scope results and develop a reliable method I can do in my home lab.  The goal is maximum Pout/Pin.   Working on that.

Meanwhile, this weekend I have been puzzling over a relativity puzzle.  Also a lot of fun, and a mental challenge.  At a conference a week ago, a fellow posed a question and I've modified it so that now it looks like a real puzzle, in that momentum conservation appears to be violated...  which "cannot happen".
OK, so show me what's wrong.  I like to pose puzzles like this to other scientists, and if any of you have answers, pls let me know.  I admit haven't found an answer yet... and somehow, it MIGHT relate to what we're doing here.  Of course, at present its a thought-experiment, not done physically yet...

Consider two loops of wire facing each other, A and B, 3 cm apart as shown in the attached.  We're going to use the fact that magnetic fields  propagate at the speed of light so that it takes time for the field generated in A to reach B, and vice versa,
t = 3cm/3X10**10cm/s = 0.1 nanosecond (ns) for a field generated at A by a current pulse to reach B. 

Sure, edge effects, etc. -- I'm not worrying about those, yet.

We send a pulsed current through A and (with time delay as shown) through B.  A "positive current pulse" is such that a North pole points to the right, a negative current pulse generates a North pole pointing left.  When the first + pulse goes through A, B is off.  But as the field from A arrives, B switches on with a negative pulse and thus is REPELLED, pushed to the right.  We can end the thought experiment there, with A turned off now and so feels no effects, while loop B (free to move) travels to the right.  There is motion to the right only, which does not conserve momentum... Can you find an error?

But we can go on and get loop A to move also.  The field from B travels back towards A and when it arrives 0.1 ns later, A has a negative pulse and so is pulled to the right and begins to move right.  THAT field from A propagates at the speed of light towards B... which is pushed to the right when it arrives, and so on.
Thus, the whole "system" moves to the right (one can connect the loops on a platform, or a space-ship ;) , with an apparent violation of conservation of momentum...

I haven't found the error if there is one...  let me know why this won't work.  Thanks.   :)

JouleSeeker

Quote from: NickZ on June 13, 2011, 02:32:19 PM
   JouleSeeker:
In answer to your question:  if the cement cells electrodes show signs of erosion? Just the normal oxide coating on the copper and no deterioration anywhere else that I can see.  The picture is of a three month old cement cell that had dried out and showed no voltage or current. It was soaked for a week in tap water, and just now showed 1.2 volts, and 25 mA, each can.  They measure 1.5" by 1/2" in size, and can light the red led that I just tried on it. Electrode is fine on them.
   
    I realize that many are getting very low microamp draws and readings from their Hartley circuits, but so far all the Hartley type Jt circuits have been real joule hogs when connected to these cells. When I connect my various BWJT circuits to an AA battery they light up great.
  How long will your current circuit run on a regular new 600 mA AA battery???  A day? Weeks?
   The only test that is valid for me is that the device self runs, other that that,  all the test data obtained can be very questionable.
  Kooler claims to have run a couple of his BWJT for 5 months.  I'd be happy with 5 days.


We seem to be posting about the same times, Nick... 
OK -- but when the cement cell is delivering a current, then do the electrodes show deterioration?  you're not saying the cell puts out power "forever", are you?


"Kooler claims to have run a couple of his BWJT for 5 months. " -- do you have a link for that, or do you have the circuit diagram?  that is remarkable all right.

I agree that the final test is a device that self-runs...  and puts out power to boot.  We're all working on it.. ;)