Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity

[Khwartz]

Then why did you list the extension sound velocity instead of the longitudinal?

Sorry,  in my speed to answer to verpies I have mixed the both: in solid, as I can know, longitudes waves not applies, they are extentional and transversal.

The value I have taken is only a Wiki one and I do not claim to be specialist of, that why I have used "~" the value, so the intelligent enough persons who need more accurate value could make their own search, while I had not the time for nor the present necessity to.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speeds_of_sound_of_the_elements_(data_page)


It is not that verpies didn't give accurate nor useful data, it is just he is  on this thread to try to discredit my efforts to make Richard Vialle work known and try to distabilise me while I think he did not appreciate I left him alone on the other thread I had created where he continuously criticised me without even taking time to read my posts well and their interety.

Verpies then came here and started trying to spread false data on Richard work and the replications of the Autogenerator, and try to spread the idea that we don't know what we do in France and that we don't know anything in physics, while the skills in physics in Condpirovnisciences.com goes up to Master and Doctorate.

So verpies here only fakes to help, imo, he just tries to destabilise the creator of the thread, while only caring about anything which would be wrong (or taken as) but without a obvious common sense because at the very base his intentions is only to discuss his previous (missing) opponent from an other thread.

Been years I follow threads in different community, it came easy to differenciate someone who brings a correction for The General Interest, from one who just tries to put an other at wrong to discredit him/her.

Sorry if you didn't bother, but like this I will have fully clarified my position.

[verpies]

It is not that Verpies didn't give accurate nor useful data, it is just he is on this thread to try to discredit my efforts to make Richard Vialle work known and try to destabilise me

Khwartz cannot know that.  It's pure speculation on his part.
See for yourself - my first message in this thread is here.
Note that I had made only technical questions and statements in this thread, without any personal remarks.

As a matter of principle, opposition and criticism of technical ideas is not wrong scientifically and is in accordance with the scientific nature of this forum,
...but wait, I have not even criticized Khwartz or his ideas in this thread - I just pointed out a numerical inaccuracy and asked him some apparently inconvenient questions, to which he did not reply.

If I wanted to get rid of Khwartz, I could have him banned from this forum for misconduct with one PM to Stefan (see forum's rules).

...but I am not going to go that tattletale route.  Instead I am going to point out that the equation:
P_AVERAGE = U_RMS * I_RMS * cos(Φ)

is valid only for pure sine waves.

If the continuous Out/In power ratio is really >2 then it should be possible to loop that power and achieve a self-runner within a month.

If that does not happen soon, then the methodology of power measurements will have to be reavaluated, e.g. because:
1) Waveform shapes
2) Crest factors
3) any DC components
4) Quantization errors of ADCs
5) The maximum frequency rating of the RMS or U*I multiplier.
6) The relationship between the sampling rate and the maximum frequency content of the measured signal.
7) Resistance and inductance of current sensing resistors or the frequency response of magnetic current probes,
8) The position of the voltage probe in relation to the current sensing element (before/after).
9) Stray capacitances
10) EMI
...etc.

[wistiti]

@Khwartz
Does it exist a more effecient version than the "U" shape one?
Do you know what happen with JLN? His site have no update since a while... .  ?

[Khwartz]

@ tim

Correction:

[Quote from: tim123 on February 02, 2014, 10:55:13 AM
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 ).

Dear tim, in fact the output tuning circuit of the more recent experiments than initial Ricard's experiments no more use the shunt wire but only the coil and capa tunning.

I don't know if it is a so good thing because it won't allow so much amps in short circuit but Colas's beginning 2013 results were indeed without pure shunt wire.

[Khwartz]

Correction:

Quote
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...

"Could comes from the fact as I noticed it in a previous post, that the calculation are based on the lengh or the core" ->. Could comes from the fact as I noticed it in a previous post, that the calculation are based on the  length of the core