Graham Gunderson's Energy conference presentation Most impressive and mysterious

[TinselKoala]

@Spokane1: Thanks for posting that clear photo of the breadboard. And good luck on drawing out the schematic!

However, if it turns out that the "overunity" is a result of improper and/or imprecise measurements... what then is the point? I should think that the priority would be to address the measurement issues on GG's actual device first, to confirm (or disconfirm) the validity of the measurements. Of course this would require his cooperation, which I realize we are unlikely to get.  What would be the point in "replicating" a complex device if it turns out that there is nothing really unusual about it except that it is a measurement nightmare? Especially if one can obtain the same kind of measurement results using much simpler and cheaper circuitry...

[TinselKoala]

Dear TinselKoala,

Graham was referring to one of the Synchronous Diode FET's that he pointed out and put his fingers on when commenting on the impact of placing that a pF capacitor at that location.

Spokane1

OK, thanks. And what are the implications of that? How and why does placing a small capacitance across one of the SD FETs kill the overunity effect? This is on the _output_ side of the transformer, right? If the transformer is the OU component, how could something downstream of it make the OU go away?

[forest]

OK, thanks. And what are the implications of that? How and why does placing a small capacitance across one of the SD FETs kill the overunity effect? This is on the _output_ side of the transformer, right? If the transformer is the OU component, how could something downstream of it make the OU go away?

Something of very high frequency going to ground by capacitor which is short in hf

[Spokane1]

@Spokane1: Thanks for posting that clear photo of the breadboard. And good luck on drawing out the schematic!

However, if it turns out that the "overunity" is a result of improper and/or imprecise measurements... what then is the point? I should think that the priority would be to address the measurement issues on GG's actual device first, to confirm (or disconfirm) the validity of the measurements. Of course this would require his cooperation, which I realize we are unlikely to get.  What would be the point in "replicating" a complex device if it turns out that there is nothing really unusual about it except that it is a measurement nightmare? Especially if one can obtain the same kind of measurement results using much simpler and cheaper circuitry...

Dear TinselKoala,

We may be facing a gross instrument error as you have pointed out.  However, as I have said before the approach employed by Graham is so darn close to the same excitation protocol use in the Gray Technology that I can't help but take notice. I don't know if you are a  betting man, but setting all the instrumentation issues aside for the moment, what are the chances that inventors 50 years apart would claim and tentatively measure significant OU properties using the same fundamental approach? To me (and I only speak for myself) it is well worth at least a year and $3k to dig into this mystery.

It would be helpful to me if you describe what your recommended testing protocol would be for this kind of device. It will be several weeks before I get to that point, but think about it now and then. I can make provisions in the power supply layout that will help account for the power to the FET drivers and any other leakage points you have observed.

The fundamental operating frequency will be around 50 kHz. The Gray system ran at 46 KHz. This does not include all the harmonics created by those weird discontinuous wave forms.

I don't see how the H-Bridge is going to get much closer to the conversion transformer without getting in the way. So, there is going to be 8" - 10" between the H-Bridge/Tank and the transformer primary. The capacitor array can be consolidated. Actually it could probably be moved to the top of the transformer if it doesn't get in the way of the bias PM's.

From scanning your posts I believe you are concerned by phase shift differences for the traveling RF. How much of a phase shift are we looking at over a 10" distance at 50 kHz? This would be handy information going forward. I'm sure there is some way to measure or calculate it. Perhaps standard wave length calculations don't count in the measurement business when dealing with real circuits and all the parasitic parameters.

How about taking all the input energy (including the driver and logic power) from a 220 VDC battery array then measure the DC energy in and the DC energy out. Would this approach eliminate these RF phase delay questions?  This is doable I suppose a well regulated power supply would work just as well. If this technology is viable then we might need an extra 25% more input power. That would raise the measured input power from 1.53 watts to 1.91 watts . That would lower the COP from 6.12 to 5.07 and address all your measurement concerns (I think). This assumes that the output power can remain at 10 watts.

Anyway, how good are you at TTL? I have one IC on the logic board that I can't identify (yet). Do you have enough experience to know what chip it should be by looking at the connected components? I don't.

Also, I notice that you quote Dr. Feynman at the bottom of your posts. I thought you might be interested in a book that Graham's uses as his EM Bible. It is written by a close colleague of Dr. Feynman. In the preface Carver Mead recounts how Dr. Feynman was the inspiration and support for this book.

Back to decoding photos. I've had lost of experience doing this with the E.V. Gray materials.

Spokane1

[Spokane1]

Let the Junk Box Replication Experiments Begin!