PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

[ElectroGravityPhysics.com]

I finished my replication last night, and have the following results:

1)  The Dr. Jones circuit is easy to construct and get into oscillation mode - even with a ground plane breadboard, a decoupled power input (with an electrolytic capacitor) and using as short wires as possible.

2)  I noticed huge differences in current and voltage reading when inserting oscilloscope probes at various points around the circuit - most likely due to lots of stray inductance or capacitance between wires. This is  the RF (high frequency) nature of the circuit. 

Also, breadboards are not supposed to be used over 10 MHZ, depending on the nature of the circuit.  A wire length of only 10 mm can introduce some serious inductance at frequencies about 10 MHz
   
3)  The frequency of oscillation of this circuit is very high (around 2-5 MHz) with lots of overtones up to 50 MHz or higher, as seen with FFT on the scope.  I suggest using RF design methods and shielding the circuit in a grounded box and using BNC connectors to feed to the scope for reliable testing results of the input/output voltage readings.

4)  I found there are different modes of operation of the oscillations with this circuit, depending on battery input voltage and values of components.

5)  After tuning the different component values and measuring the output power (CSR RMS voltage divided by current sensing resistor value times load RMS voltage) - on a high frequency scope, I found the efficiency of the circuit was anywhere between 25-75%.  It was never greater than 100%

I wish I had better results to report, but I have to tell it like it is.  Good luck to others that are still working on replications. 

I strongly suggest to double check your measurement methods and using RF shielding/design techniques for testing.  Here is a basic link for basic understanding the different methods of bread boarding â€" including “dead-bug” or “ugly-board” method that is often used for high frequency building:

http://www.qrp.pops.net/ugly.asp

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sullivan/prototyping.pdf

Thank you all guys.  I am interested in your results.

-Nils

(Founder of electroGravityPhysics.com)

[ElectroGravityPhysics.com]

I do not believe the energy was coming from the antenna. Unfortunately no one thought to disconnect the antenna and see if the device still delivered power. With this much power coming down the antenna wire it would have been very dangerous and produce sparks when connected and disconnected.

This is a little bit off topic in this thread, but actually Dr. Morray did disconnect the wire antenna while running the device for several witnesses, with large sparks showing from the wire - yet he did not appear to be electrocuted. 

This clearly shows his circuit and antenna was producing a high frequency voltage, very similar to a Tesla coil where you can touch the Tesla coil and show sparks flying off your fingers, without being damaged.

Dr. Murray also said he came up with the idea for his device while hearing the humming from high voltage power lines when bush fires where burning below the power lines.

My guess is his transistor valve and transformer circuit is amplifying the back noise of all electronic circuit [perhaps due to unproven electrogravity effects all around], and feeding this back to the input antenna for positive feeback and decoupling from atomic resonances in the earth ground below.

This is of course pure speculations, and I really have no idea how the Dr. Morray device was designed.  (smile)

-Nils

[Hoppy]

The use of 'Ugly Board' for constructing high frequency Joule Thiefs is excellent advice from Electro gravity physics. Breadboard just does not cut it and will lead to measuring errors.

Hoppy

[JouleSeeker]

[snip]

5)  After tuning the different component values and measuring the output power (CSR RMS voltage divided by current sensing resistor value times load RMS voltage) - on a high frequency scope, I found the efficiency of the circuit was anywhere between 25-75%.  It was never greater than 100%

[snip]

Thank you all guys.  I am interested in your results.

-Nils

(Founder of electroGravityPhysics.com)

Traveling, now in Michigan where I have wifi access today...

Nils --

1.    As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I do not trust this method:  "the output power (CSR RMS voltage divided by current sensing resistor value times load RMS voltage)". 
   For example, suppose the output has a strong AC component with current out-of-phase with the voltage waveform...  will your method give the correct output power?  Suppose the RMS current (over the CSR) is close to zero -- does that mean the output power is really zero?
 
1b.  Do you agree that using the calorimetric method I've proposed above will provide a more accurate measurement of Poutput than your RMS-method?

2.  How did you measure the input power? 

3.  What value of Pinput did you determine? 

4.  Did you use the capacitor/time method for measuring Pinput with your method, to check it?

Thanks.

[poynt99]

I finished my replication last night, and have the following results:

5)  After tuning the different component values and measuring the output power (CSR RMS voltage divided by current sensing resistor value times load RMS voltage) - on a high frequency scope, I found the efficiency of the circuit was anywhere between 25-75%.  It was never greater than 100%

-Nils

(Founder of electroGravityPhysics.com)

It's not possible to obtain a correct Pout this way UNLESS the load is a pure resistance.

If the load is inductive or dynamic (such as the case with a diode or LED), then you must use either a calorimetric or sampled MEAN[v(t) x i(t)] method to obtain an accurate Pout.

.99