Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity

[verpies]

May I ask you to answer point by point to the answers Zgreudz made to your own objections, to see if both of you could come to an agreement on what would be a "Fully Accurate Procedure" for measurements which could be practiced here?

Sure

(The objection was that working by integration time after time the data of an oscilloscope, RMS amps and RMS voltage, is not enough to certify a power reading, and that we need to take care too of:)

In some cases yes, but it can be a good method, especially if the RMS values refer to pure sine current and voltage waveforms and the phase offset is constant.

Also, multiplying U_RMS * I_RMS * cos(Φ) is not the only method for measuring power with a scope.
The other method is quickly sampling and multiplying instantaneous values of current and voltage instead of calculating the RMS values of each component and multiplying them.  This method is immune to variable phase offsets and non-sinusoidal waveforms.

>> 1) Waveform shapes
>> 2) Crest factors
...are related to devices where there are a lot of harmonics like the tesla coil on a induction plate (GEGENE). For this I built specific measurement devices (electronics wide band current transformer probes). Actually I built 2 matched sensors to compare input and output which "identical" devices (in measurement world, identical means having the same mean value within a given tolerance range icon_smile.gif. But this does not apply strongly on the U because the harmonics are limited (except with some bad oscillators)

If the spectral purity of current and voltage waveforms has been verified by some kind of spectrum analyzer than it is acceptable proof that  that they indeed are pure. 
Eyeballing sine waves on a time-domain display does not ensure their purity above 4-bits of ENOB.  e.g. see this video.

>> 3) any DC components
>> 4) Quantization errors of ADCs (two such errors get multiplied in power calculations before integration !).
...addressed by using long term data acquisition (many periodes see below) and fitting a sinus signal on the curves (because here, as Pascuser said, in that case, all signals are nice and sinusoidal). The model is : V[t]= A Cos[omega.t]+B.Sin[omega.t]+C, I estimate A, B, C linearly (linear regression in analytic form) and omega by minimization of the residual error. Then I can calculate the power, impedances, etc. See on my thread that Blue indicated.

Curve fitting assumes a certain form of the signal - it does not verify that form.
If the spectral purity has been verified in pt.1 & 2 then analytic sine curve fitting is appropriate.  If not - then it is not.

A more universal method of power measurement (independent of the waveform shape and phase shift) is to sample the current and voltage SIMULTANEOUSLY (at maximum ENOB of those ADCs) at high rate and multiply the instantaneous values for each sample pair.  Finally sum and divide the results of these multiplications to calculate the arithmetic mean.

>> The relationship between the sampling rate and the maximum frequency content of the measured signal.
...all measurement are done with a 4 channels TDS3034 Tektro scope 2.5Gs/s, which can store about 10000 samples per sweep (mean 20 periods max @5MHz), so having enough bandwidth + time and spatial quantization for a precision better than 2% at 5MHz.

At these sampling rates, I have no doubt that the horizontal resolution is sufficient for a signal having no more than 5MHz of harmonic content.  However, this information provides no data about the vertical quantization errors during these measurements.

5) The maximum frequency rating of the RMS or U*I multiplier.

Just because the scope samples at 2.5Gs/s does not mean that its internal RMS calculators run at this frequency and they make their internal calculations with ENOB² precision (and that all of the ADC bits are even used) .  Do they, are they? 

For example, take a look at this guy - his was using a scope with 8-bit ADCs but was using only 2-bits of them, in one extreme case !!!  If his internal RMS calculator had calculated an RMS value based on this data, then the result would be worthless even if he fed his scope with pure sine waves.

Also, if sampling and multiplying instantaneous values of current and voltage was implemented instead of calculating the RMS values of each component, would this scope sample both channels simultaneously and multiply each sample pair at 2.5G multiplications per second in order to create the values for its "Math Channel" ?  (a.k.a. the instantaneous power channel).
Finally how does this scope calculate the arithmetical mean of this Math Channel?  Does it sum all the samples and divide them? With what internal precision and over how many samples?

For quick and dirty evaluation when installing the measurement I use the internal measure functions of the scope, after I check that they are compatible with the results I get from raw samples.

I have a difficulty comprehending this statement. 
Are those"raw samples' , numerical samples downloaded from the ADCs to a computer and then an RMS calculation is being performed on them there?

>> 7 )  Resistance and inductance of current sensing resistors or the frequency response of magnetic current probes,
...For this I built a specific probe (called "Sonde de Zgreudz" on the forum) which is simply an aselfic, ohmic probe of low value resistance. I qualified the probe with reference impedances that I linked to a calibrated measurement bridge HP4784A. So in a way my probe is (remotely) tied to a measurement standard.

Does "aselfic" = non-inductive ?
So what is the measured resistance and inductance of this non-inductive current sensing resistor (CSR)?  At what frequency did the HP4784A measure the inductance of this resistor?

>> 8 )  The position of the voltage probe in relation to the current sensing element (before/after).
...The position of the probe is taken into account in this (see also my early tests in my thread about the U).

I did not read about these early tests if they were described in French.
Is the current probe inserted before or after the voltage measuring point (relative to the power source) ?

9) Stray capacitances are measured on the U ( by using my aselfic probe actually) as well as inductance and ohmic losses. From this I built an electrical distributed model of my U.

The power transmission by stray capacitances and unexpected mutual inductances as well as EM really worries me.
Were those stray energy transfer paths measured at the operating frequency or much lower?
Where can I see the "distributed model" together with the values of these stray capacitances and mutual inductances? 
I know the JL Naudin has made similar measurements of those stray paths, but I lost the link to his article about it.

[Khwartz]

As promised, the translation of the

1rst Q&A of the present FAQ of the website on the work of Richard

http://richard-vialle.info/

(In agreement to the licence terms of the website, already published and taking no liability for any error of translation or modifications in between of the original terms of licence or of the original terms I translate here. These warnings will apply for any further written by me on this website. )

-----

> Une expérience scientifique est une expérience qui contredit l'expérience commune. Gaston Bachelard
. A scientific experiment is an experience which contradicts the common experience.
Gaston Bachelard



> Auto-générateur de Richard Vialle, première génération
. Richard Vialle Auto-generator, first generation



> Articles Expérimentations
. Experimental publications



> Autogénérateurs - Questions fréquemment posées
. Autogenerator - Frequently asked questions



> Note : Nous essayons autant que faire se peu de répondre aux questions fréquentes de la manière la plus pédagogique possible, et suivant les expériences terrains que nous avons eu avec les autogénérateurs, aussi cette FAQ peut évoluer dans le temps grâce aux retours des différentes équipes de recherche.
. Note: We try as much as we can to answer to the frequently asked questions with most educational way possible, and regards to the field experiments we had with the autogenerators, though this FAQ may evolve through time thanks to the return results of our different researching teams.



> Q : Dans certaines vidéos et sur le forum vous indiquez qu'un générateur a été construit avec l'aide de sponsors et la surunité pouvait recharger les batteries qui alimentaient le système, pouvez-vous détailler ?
. Q: In certain videos and on the forum you indicate that a generator was built by means of sponsors and the overunity could recharge batteries which fed the system, may you detail?

> R : Il s'agissait d'un auto-générateur complètement autonome fonctionnant sur batteries, et disposant de circuits fait-maison pour la partie oscillation et amplification.
. R: It was about a completely autonomous auto-generator working on batteries, and having home-made circuits for the oscillation and amplification parts.

----

B.R.
K.

[verpies]

May one of you calculate the resonance modes of copper bars, based on the speed of the electronic phase wave?

P.S.
If you assume that electrons are responsible for the electric current in a solid conductor, then their speed calculates to be very slow (on the order of cm/h).  Though, it is only an assumption, based on the prevalent inability to form an alternate explanation for current conduction in solid conductors.

While he even doesn't know of what I was talking about and presupposes here too the unworthiness of the ideas of who he is addressing?

I did not assume unworthiness.  You just mentioned speed of electrons in a solid conductor and I analyzed their speed because they move so slow.

The legacy science states that electric current in solids is due to the motion of electrons.  My Post Scriptum was aimed at classifying this belief as a mere assumption.  If the "current is only electrons" assumption is rejected then faster standing waves inside solids become possible....and worthy.

Putting words in my mouth to then state they are erroneous? ^^

In English this is called a Strawman debating technique.
It is dishonest and I did not use it on you.

[Khwartz]

@ verpies

Dear verpies.

Very thanks for having taking time to answer completely and precisely to the last degree of list of answers.

I will try to contact Zgreudz by PM here, as my connection with COS has been broken, to ask him if he could agree to answer your present new questions. I would dream that because if would the beginning of a true scientific team work which could benefit to any of us. (But to be true, I am not sure to be able to reach him.)

I could answer to few of your questions if I had still access to COS, but for now, I haven't the means and time to create an other nickname using an other web available i.d. to do so. But for "aselfic" = non-inductive, indeed, you're right: "self" = "coil" or "inductance".

Thanks again for your work


@ tim

(Warning: THIS IS JUST A SUGGESTION; say that cause looks making proposals are taken by few, as orders ... )

Dear tim, would it be possible for you to copy paste the verpies's previous post in "my" ex-proxithread with here, in COS, and ask if "someone" will have the kindness to invest too the time needed to specify each point on a futher level, so that we could stabilise each item up to a possible and wishfully standard procedure for each item, that then each of us could follow with good confidence?

B.R.
K.

[Khwartz]

I did not assume unworthiness.  You just mentioned speed of electrons in a solid conductor and I analyzed their speed because they move so slow.

The legacy science states that electric current in solids is due to the motion of electrons.  My Post Scriptum was aimed at classifying this belief as a mere assumption.  If the "current is only electrons" assumption is rejected then faster standing waves inside solids become possible....and worthy.

Thanks for the clarification

Indeed, I was talking about "phase waves", the speed of the phase waves, so not indeed of the speed of electrons, I know very slow.

Looks I had not well understood your words if you in fact, was reinforcing the idea. Sorry for that! Still need to work my English 

In English this is called a Strawman debating technique.
It is dishonest and I did not use it on you.

Thanks for the information