Akula0083 30 Watt Self Running Generator.

[Hoppy]

   Hoppy:
   Agreed, I'm coming to the same conclusion, after numerous months (and years) of effort. But, I can't just sit on my hands, either. So...
   However, I'm still closing following what Igor has been doing and showing lately. As it saves me the time, trouble and expence to go through the same steps towards finding that illusive feed back path. And, at least Igor may not be pulling our leg, or spinning out of control.
  I've gotten my Mazilli/yoke circuit to partially light 660 to 700 watts worth of incandescent bulbs, now. Still working on the feed back circuit. This lights my small house quite nicely, but not for long, on the small battery which is being charged by solar means.
I've made a video to show these results, but have not posted it yet, as I can't find my camera to Pc connection cable.  I'll do so in a day or two, and will post it on the Dally thread, instead.

Nick,

Thanks for your update. I have concentrated my efforts in the past by harnessing solar energy to keep my battery bank charged for emergency lighting use. LED lamps or compact flouro's are the obvious choice for solar based lighting systems in terms of electrical efficiency. However, I use an incandescent lamp as the first lamp in circuit when using a modified square wave inverter to power compact flouro's, as this type of inverter does not like a total CFL load.

I will look out for your video on the Dally thread.

[Ed morbus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zg3txfwU9o&feature

[wattsup]

@ wattsup,

I read your post at OUR and noted your post asking about the scope issue. Please check your menu (if this is a DSO) as you set the multiplier there too to compensate for the probe setting.

@starcruiser

Thanks for your reply. No the probe X setting are OK at 10X since both probes have that small autodetect pin so the scope sees them OK.

When I connect both probes and grounds to the same frequency generator output, under 10KHz both show almost the same waveform with Channel B slightly off square wave and Channel A is showing a good square wave.

But as I go up in frequency ChA will show 100vpp while ChB is showing maybe 15vpp. But both are on the same signal. When I switch the probes, the same ChB does the same problem so it is not my probes. I checked everything I can but nothing.

My scope is a HP 54645D.

It's kind of starting to piss me off royally since I cannot count on the ChB to make true comparisons. This does not however hinder my experimenting, but just a major main in the but. Especially when I want to make a youtube video to show you guys but the scope is not giving a reliable ChA/Chb comparisons.

wattsup

[MileHigh]

Wattsup:

Even just being a passive observer I find this to be torture.  You all start off with high hopes and everything appears to be clear and straightforward.  You even order PCBs.  Then before you know it you have one curve ball to deal with.  Then two, then three.  Then the thread becomes a bunch of wild speculations about components and circuit diagrams and resonance and before you know it you have 7 different schematics from Akula where half of them don't even match what he is showing in his own clips.  Them you have variations on the schematic and component values suggested by the people in the threads.  Before you know it you are in a mish-mash of uncertainty.  I don't know how you can stand it.

And the backdrop to all of this is that there is no possible combination of passive and active electronic circuit components that can produce over unity.  If you want to find over unity, MOSFETs and transistors and coils are not the answer.  I only state that once in a while, but it's true.

I was involved in this thread only at the beginning and I crunched what the original circuit would do and a few days later some good person (I forget who, but they deserve the credit, you can look them up) simulated the circuit and I got it right.

If I was actively involved in this thread as a hopeful experimenter I would be ready to scream.

MileHigh

[Vortex1]

Wattsup:

Even just being a passive observer I find this to be torture.  You all start off with high hopes and everything appears to be clear and straightforward.  You even order PCBs.  Then before you know it you have one curve ball to deal with.  Then two, then three.  Then the thread becomes a bunch of wild speculations about components and circuit diagrams and resonance and before you know it you have 7 different schematics from Akula where half of them don't even match what he is showing in his own clips.  Them you have variations on the schematic and component values suggested by the people in the threads.  Before you know it you are in a mish-mash of uncertainty.  I don't know how you can stand it.

And the backdrop to all of this is that there is no possible combination of passive and active electronic circuit components that can produce over unity.  If you want to find over unity, MOSFETs and transistors and coils are not the answer.  I only state that once in a while, but it's true.

I was involved in this thread only at the beginning and I crunched what the original circuit would do and a few days later some good person (I forget who, but they deserve the credit, you can look them up) simulated the circuit and I got it right.

If I was actively involved in this thread as a hopeful experimenter I would be ready to scream.

MileHigh

I am in total agreement with the statement by Milehigh that I put in bold above. Radio engineers and switching power supply designers have examined very carefully their  circuits and if there was any type of anomaly with standard components it would have been stumbled upon long ago,  recognized and exploited.

The only hope that I see for OU is an intelligent approach to somehow getting the atom to shed some mass by stimulating them to produce isotopes or "k" capture. LENR may also be an answer. What method we will use for this is yet unknown. Some speculate that NAR or NMR may be a key to this.

I like to play futurist sometimes and would like to imagine there will come a time where burning fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear approaches to generating energy will become barbaric and as outdated as buggy whips. But this might be far in the future.

For now hats off to the folks that know intuitively that there will be a better way someday. The best minds that see and point out the folly of devices that clearly can't work are often tarred and feathered and driven out of town, no matter how gentle or patient they are in their approach.

Too bad we can't gather the best minds here in a project to vet the possibilities, probabilities and pick a path to explore rather than being wagged by youtube posers.

regards, ION