PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

[JouleSeeker]

The short essay below is based on a post in another forum back in March, and I invite comments.
I realize that my own little device is far from producing tens of watts...

  I have been active in novel-energy research since the early 1980's beginning with my research in muon-catalyzed fusion.  See, for example, my paper in Nature 1986:
S.E. Jones, "Muon-Catalysed Fusion Revisited," (Invited article) Nature 321: 127-133 (1986).

   I share with many of you an overall goal of seeking for and promoting novel energy sources -- with scientific RIGOR including careful measurements -- without RANCOR or mocking.  I have found  this forum to provide a decent venue to promote rigor while -- for the most part-- avoiding mocking and rancor.  That's why I'm here.

I have at my home electronics bench an ATTEN 1062C digital storage oscilloscope, a DC power supply and a self-ranging multimeter, and a decent supply of transistors, resistors, inductors, capacitors, LED's, wire, etc.   At the University from which I retired after a career of physics research and teaching for over twenty years, I have access to more expensive scopes such as a Tektronix 3032 ( which will calculate MEAN power) as well as function generators, gaussmeters, etc.  I now live in the country, but I drive up to the university from time to time.   IOW, I have some pretty decent test equipment available -- and I would be glad to use to it to test YOUR novel-energy device, if you claim it meets the criteria below.

I would define a "novel energy"  device that has merit for science and for society as follows -- here are my criteria at this time:

1.  Energy from a non-conventional source.  This excludes:  fossil fuels and biomass burning, solar (including wind and wave power), geothermal, nuclear fission or fusion (although I should not exclude cold fusion -- but see point 3).  It does not exclude:  earth's gravitational or magnetic fields, galactic magnetic fields.  Even currently unknown sources are allowable -- and sought.

2.  More power out than in (that is, efficiency n = Pout/Pin > 1), also known as "overunity" (OU).  This does not mean that principles of physics such as conservation of energy are (necessarily) violated.  It does imply a novel energy source.  Multiple methods of measurement are preferable, but the experimental method and the measurements must bear scrutiny (e.g., a peer-reviewed paper would be great!)

3.  The observation of OU must be repeatable.  A device must work every time specified conditions are met.  Successful replication must be demonstrated also.

4.  The power output must be capable of scaling up.  (Unlike extracting tiny currents from a magnet or iron pyrite, for example.) To be more than a curiosity, a scaled-up working device should produce at least tens of watts.

5.  I would prefer that results and inventions be freely available worldwide -- certainly not controlled by some big corporation or government entity.  A benefit to humanity is sought, not beaucoup-bucks for an elite few.

6.  If a theoretical model is claimed, the basis of that model needs to be empirically demonstrated. 

I welcome comments on the stated criteria, which I may amend as time goes on.

[kooler]

so
i messed around with the core tonight and they are great.. but there not good for low current circuits.. but that might be me.. i stated with 6 turns bifiliar.. and went to 12 turns bifilar which lowered my draw 5 ma in my circuit.. so i might need to try more turns on the primany windings.. the bemf of this with the jt circuit is real good.. right now i got 80 turns of 24 awg and it lites a neon really good.. 113 dc in a capacitor with a 7.4 ma draw.. i was hoping better results from a 80000 perm core..
oh.. i was using a 1.2 volt AA battery to test this core..
so i will look around for a better core for all us to use later..
i know this core would work 200 % better without this thick plastic cover on it.. cause the core is a 1/16 away from my wires..
but if you do buy one of these.. don't touch the tape wound core inside the cover it is very thin and sharp.. it makes a razor blade feel dull..
but if you discharge a cap thru one of these with 80 turn secondary it will get you about 4000 volts at 14 hz..
oh and it makes no noises at 2 khz - 27 khz..
the toroid core i have that i get smoking results from has a aluminum band on the outside and inside of the toroid.. and has 32 turns bifilar on it.. it is purple..

robbie

[DreamThinkBuild]

Hi Prof. Jones,

Has your circuit been scaled up with higher power levels?

If this has 8x cop just imagine using a 230 watt solar panel as the driving input. (230w*8cop)-230win= 1.61Kw spikes out. Buffer the spikes in a ultra-cap bank, dump to charge controller to maintain the battery and run a water heater on the dump load.

[Pirate88179]

Robbie:

I have always read that Metglass has the highest perm.  We used to make the ceramic nozzles for the production of Metglass.  Google it and check the numbers to see if I am correct.

Bill

[ElectroGravityPhysics.com]

I would define a "novel energy"  device that has merit for science and for society as follows -- here are my criteria at this time:

1.  Energy from a non-conventional source.  This excludes:  fossil fuels and biomass burning, solar (including wind and wave power), geothermal, nuclear fission or fusion (although I should not exclude cold fusion -- but see point 3).  It does not exclude:  earth's gravitational or magnetic fields, galactic magnetic fields.  Even currently unknown sources are allowable -- and sought.

2.  More power out than in (that is, efficiency n = Pout/Pin > 1), also known as "overunity" (OU).  This does not mean that principles of physics such as conservation of energy are (necessarily) violated.  It does imply a novel energy source.  Multiple methods of measurement are preferable, but the experimental method and the measurements must bear scrutiny (e.g., a peer-reviewed paper would be great!)

3.  The observation of OU must be repeatable.  A device must work every time specified conditions are met.  Successful replication must be demonstrated also.

4.  The power output must be capable of scaling up.  (Unlike extracting tiny currents from a magnet or iron pyrite, for example.) To be more than a curiosity, a scaled-up working device should produce at least tens of watts.

5.  I would prefer that results and inventions be freely available worldwide -- certainly not controlled by some big corporation or government entity.  A benefit to humanity is sought, not beaucoup-bucks for an elite few.

6.  If a theoretical model is claimed, the basis of that model needs to be empirically demonstrated. 

I think this make good sense, and I fully support this as marching orders going forward.

-Nils