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 60 Guests are viewing this topic.

JouleSeeker

Quote from: DrStiffler on June 24, 2011, 01:42:29 PM
Scale it down?
Interesting, at the beginning of your project it was about scaling it up to be useful. I would think 45-120 White LED's or 6W FL's from a few mills has greater potential than a dim LED that one must view in the dark.

Not trying to put what is going on here down, yet the folks using variations of SEC, Tesla and Slayer/Tesla are years ahead here, even doing (Power) transmission wireless. IMHO its not scale down, its scale up. So for a dim LED at a few uW what is wrong with tens to hundreds of watts with a few watts in, the CEC is still >1.

I'm impressed by this other work, and nothing wrong with what totoalas has done. 

If you read back several pages, you will see that there is a contest going on here -- working on the input power side, and using the cap/time method for measuring Pinput, and trying to minimize Pinput while continuing to light an LED visibly in a lighted room (not in the dark).  In the process of this effort, it has been observed that at a critical voltage, the LED goes very dim/off -- then re-lights, with the input power consumption going down two orders of magnitude.  Thus, we are learning new things by means of this little contest.

Admittedly a small contest, and the great goal remains -- DEMONSTRATING a self-running device, or electrical Pout/Pin > 1.
 
I'm still very interested, as I said early on, in scaling to higher power once OU has been definitively demonstrated.

Thanks for your comment Dr. Stiffler -- and sincere best wishes on your efforts to demonstrate CEC > 1.

DrStiffler

Quote from: JouleSeeker on June 24, 2011, 01:51:02 PM
I'm impressed by this other work, and nothing wrong with what totoalas has done. 

If you read back several pages, you will see that there is a contest going on here -- working on the input power side, and using the cap/time method for measuring Pinput, and trying to minimize Pinput while continuing to light an LED visibly in a lighted room (not in the dark).  In the process of this effort, it has been observed that at a critical voltage, the LED goes very dim/off -- then re-lights, with the input power consumption going down two orders of magnitude.  Thus, we are learning new things by means of this little contest.

Admittedly a small contest, and the great goal remains -- DEMONSTRATING a self-running device, or electrical Pout/Pin > 1.
I'm still very interested, as I said early on, in scaling to higher power once OU has been demonstrated.

Thanks for your comment Dr. Stiffler -- and sincere best wishes on your efforts to demonstrate CEC > 1.

I'm fully aware of the 'Contest' and wonder how the thinking is going. So is it that a device that will give you OU has no energy consumption? Is it in essence just a passive energy receiver? Isn't this so called OU determined by Pin/Pout? So if you reduce a circuit to margin of error input readings have you not removed the Pin term from the equation and we now have only Pout?

I also question how measuring the heat on a load resistor has any bearing at all on the overall gain in the circuit. Unless the entire circuit was indeed passive, except at the load, there are indeed other losses and (all) of these losses must be summed in order to see the magical OU.

I have indeed demonstrated a CEC>1, using calorimetry and this has been replicated by reputable third parties and has no bearing on what I have addressed about you direction. Condescending rebuttal does not elicit any help from someone that has already walked the same path.

Good Luck Sir!   
All things are possible but some are impractical.

JouleSeeker

Quote from: DrStiffler on June 24, 2011, 02:06:34 PM
I'm fully aware of the 'Contest' and wonder how the thinking is going. So is it that a device that will give you OU has no energy consumption? Is it in essence just a passive energy receiver? Isn't this so called OU determined by Pin/Pout? So if you reduce a circuit to margin of error input readings have you not removed the Pin term from the equation and we now have only Pout?

Rather, OU is determined by Pout/Pin > 1; I suppose this is what you meant.  We are not reducing a circuit to "margin of error" readings -- the cap/time method is capable of some accuracy in the microwatt range.

QuoteI also question how measuring the heat on a load resistor has any bearing at all on the overall gain in the circuit. Unless the entire circuit was indeed passive, except at the load, there are indeed other losses and (all) of these losses must be summed in order to see the magical OU.

I have indeed demonstrated a CEC>1, using calorimetry and this has been replicated by reputable third parties and has no bearing on what I have addressed about you direction. Condescending rebuttal does not elicit any help from someone that has already walked the same path.

Good Luck Sir!

If the gain is sufficient, the temperature rise in a load resistor (output leg of the circuit) may suffice to demonstrate Pout/Pin >1.

  And calorimetric methods are certainly in order, carefully done -- as I've said above also, early on. 

You state, "I have indeed demonstrated a CEC>1, using calorimetry " -- that's truly wonderful, are the results available that I and others might see them?

DrStiffler

Quote from: JouleSeeker on June 24, 2011, 02:13:42 PM
Rather, OU is determined by Pout/Pin > 1; I suppose this is what you meant.  We are not reducing a circuit to "margin of error" readings -- the cap/time method is capable of some accuracy in the microwatt range.

  And calorimetric methods are certainly in order, carefully done -- as I've said above also, early on. 

You state, "I have indeed demonstrated a CEC>1, using calorimetry " -- that's truly wonderful, are the results available that I and others might see them?

A Non-Disclosure and Proprietary Rights Agreement signed in part by any reputable institution is currently all that is required. Private individuals are not included as it is impossible to determine who they are and what interests they represent.
All things are possible but some are impractical.

JouleSeeker

Quote from: DrStiffler on June 24, 2011, 02:20:11 PM
A Non-Disclosure and Proprietary Rights Agreement signed in part by any reputable institution is currently all that is required. Private individuals are not included as it is impossible to determine who they are and what interests they represent.

  Makes some sense, yes.  Does the individual at a reputable institution sign, is that sufficient, or does a representative of the institution need to sign also?

  I'm very interested in seeing that developments such as yours reach the people, as opposed to enriching the elitists/big corporations.  Is that your approach also?  or do you seek to sell to a corporation?

  To me, this is an over-riding consideration.