Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity

[verpies]

Fuck-up to  you, verpies! Your are so nuts that you even don' t understand what "~" means 

I understand the approximation sign "~" but a 33% error qualifies more as a discrepancy than an approximation.
I strive for more precision than ¹/₃ and that's why I pointed out this discrepancy.  Also, I quoted 3 references to justify it.

[Khwartz]

I've had quite a few problems measuring resonant frequencies... So, the last set of results are only useful as a relative guide.
- Capacitance in scope probes. (Solution - Input signal probe left off)
- Capacitance in signal generator. (Solution- an extra earth wire to the coil)
- Too much inductance in exciter coil(?) (5 turns replaced with 2)

OK.

For questions about probes and specific use of the instruments, BlueDragon, Colas07 and zgreudz in cos.com will better help you than me

I've measured resonances for the 2 copper cores at a range of frequencies from 3.5MHz up to 25MHz - depending on the method chosen. So the results are somewhat inconclusive - and suggest the circuit as a whole is resonating, rather than the bars alone at some specific freq.

Lol,  it is very conclusive indeed, dear tim, cause it has been found by Biganos that making a common point between the bar and the coil, setting them in series, boots the outpower 

Colas who told me that he has used this way in his very successful advanced replication but he tunes separatly the coil and the two halves pipe to maximise the power transfer between the power supply in input and between the two halves and the load, for the output. NOT to make or use it AS an antenna but just because the tuning LIKE in antenna tuning, helps to transfer all the power and so increases the whole potential power of the device.

When not accurately tuned, input and output will "reflect" a part of the power they try to transfert which get lost while making standing waves.

Note that we are not here, until now, looking for standing waves but all the contrary, trying to get and SWR near equal to zero so a "impedance match" betwen the "source" (the amplifier, in the case of the imput) and the "receiver" (the coil, still in case of the input) will be satisfied; same principle applies for the output between the cores and the load.

Note too that then, when all is tuned, while looking for Richard's frequency (what ever value it takes in pratical), the device will indeed produce power which will act LIKE a reflective power regards to the input.

It is this power, which is called "negative power".It comes when we increase the power of the load and the consumption weakens very dramatically at the input (giving COP around 35, like 7 W at output and 0.2 W at input - phases, cos phi, been checked, output load been compare with DC resistance when powered with same voltage and hot filament temperature -these are true fully checked REAL POWER consumptions), even becoming null (giving an INFINITE COP) to go COMPLETELY NEGATIVE (THE AMPLIFIER NO MORE DELIVERING POWER BUT RECEIVING IT!).

So, for me your observation looks very far to be "unconclusive", dear tim; what do you think?

My current best estimate for the Vialle resonant freq of the bars is 7.9MHz - which is considerably higher than the predicted 6.5MHz...

The experimental margin error is +/- 2 MHz. Could comes from the fact as I noticed it in a previous post, that the calculation are based on the lengh or the core while the wiring of the load circuit could act like leakings for the waves on the bar, like a near closed toroid bar through the filament of the load an varing in impedance with the temperature of this same filament while we increase the output power. But it is just an idea, I can very mistake 

But I do insist the fact that Richard is very humble man who knows his theory needs to be brought futher with better models of calculation or corrections in the very basics of his theory.

BUT, many replications, like those of JNL, have verified the theoretical Richard's frequency, proved as giving overunity AS PREDICTED. In a first sight, looks to me only since, we can see that we have a shift of +/- 2 MHz, could be indeed since we create a common point between the coil and the bar; to be checked...

I think I'll have to try it with more power - using the amp - and see how it behaves then. That'll have to wait for the heatsink glue.

Indeed, you are very true, tim, this device needs to go above a threshold of amps in the output, so first in the input, to run o.u.

Even more: it is the creation of a huge short-circuit current in the shunt that will induce the negative power in the coil and reduce the input power consumption, nulling it and then feeding the input. So yes, amps looks to be very important.

Nice to see you again having your heatsink glue!

[Khwartz]

I understand the approximation sign "~" but a 33% error qualifies more as a discrepancy than an approximation.
I strive for more precision than 1/3 and that's why I pointed out this discrepancy.  Also, I quoted 3 references to justify it.

I said I will no more comment your posts. Troll an other thread!

[Khwartz]

Khwartz,
  I read the comments about 'standard resonance' vs. Vialle resonance on , and i think I'm only seeing the standard version ATM. The amp should help...

Indeed, it has been seen already that the phenomenon of overunity appears only when amps are enough.

BTW, did you test it with the shunt? Because if you have not shunt across the load and the cores, you won't get any overunity (but could be you understood it too ).

I'm re-reading some Keely stuff. This one's interesting - and it could be related...
"Sound and Gravity" - http://www.keelynet.com/davidson/sound1.htm

Why not! Could give some good parallels

Best regards,
K.

[Khwartz]

This was the first results from Colas07:

COP 2.6 ACHIEVED.

http://www.conspirovniscience.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=941&st=120

Translation in order of the sentences and labels

Simple asset of the calculations:

Generator 10 Vpp - 4.213 MHz.

DC power supply 24 V.

Jean-Louis Naudin's V6 amplifier, consuming 1.35 A.

Input connection.

Output of the "U".

Canal 1: measuring voltage on the light bulb.

Canal 2: measuring current with zgreudz's current probe.

The wires between the light bulb and the measurements are as short as possible.

The scope is not grounded.


------------


Frequency: 4.213 MHz.

Chanel 1 RMS: 6.52 V.

Chanel 2 RMS: 753 mV.

Wattmeter placed between the amplifier and the coil of the "U" with two coax wires. Set on 5 W caliber. Not enough power to calibrate the SWR (ROS [French for "SWR"]).

Direct power = 2.7 W

Reflective power = 0.7 W

Useful power in the coil of the "U" = 2 W (2.7 - 0.7 = 2 W).


Calculation of the power on the light bulb:

P = U * I * Cos(phase)

P = 6.52 * (753 mV / 1000) * Cos(6°)

["750 mV" is an "abusive", but known, way to say "750 mA" while these amps are measured by the drop of voltage on a "zgreudz's probe" of 1 Ohm - composed of 18 resistors of 18 Ohms each in parallel. So that we have directly the reading of the milliamps while reading the millivolts on the oscilloscope. ]

Power at the connections of the light bulb = 4.88 W

******** COP = P.out / P.in = 4.88 / 2 = 2.441 ********

------------


Frequency: 4.075 MHz.

Chanel 1 RMS: 6.75 V.

Chanel 2 RMS: 777 mV.


Direct power = 2.5 W

Reflective power = 0.5 W

Useful power in the coil of the "U" = 2 W (2.6 - 0.5 = 2 W).


Calculation of the power on the light bulb:

P = U * I * Cos(phase)

P = 6.75 * (777 mV / 1000) * Cos(5°)

Power at the connections of the light bulb = 5.22 W

******** COP = P.out / P.in = 5.22 / 2 = 2.612 ********