Graham Gunderson's Energy conference presentation Most impressive and mysterious

[Spokane1]

All right, Spokane1, that is an answer.

Now that you are someone who seems to be familiar enough with Gunderson's work to talk about it, maybe you can also answer the question I asked earlier.

How is it that a system that draws "0.000 Watts" input, and produces some high COP value -- "infinity, but let's say around 50", still needs to be connected to its power supply in order to work?

Do you believe these measurements and claims are accurate? If so, why can't the system simply be disconnected from the power supply?

Dear TinselKoala,

Again some good points to consider.

First off when this technology was presented at the conference it was only 3 weeks old. Graham has a full time day job and was in a last minute rush to consolidate his work for the presentation. There wasn't time to close the loop and risk messing up the whole process.  However, this is where he is heading now in order to greatly reduce the in-out instrument hassle.

This is going to take some time and engineering. Consider that the output is about 12 VDC while the input is 200 - 230 VDC.  He is going to have to construct a 12 to 230 volt DC to DC converter, most likely a design that has the highest efficiency possible. He is then going to have to develop a feedback regulation system that will input just the right amount of power to the input while sending the resulting to some storage device. Try doing that in a weekend. Custom switch mode power supplies require custom wound transformers. He is going to have to wait for next months pay check (or maybe a couple of months) before he has the money to send away for the parts.

How does the machine draw 0.000 Watts yet still need to be connected to the power supply?  Well, that is what the instrument reported and that is how the equipment was working at the moment - it was not a continuous condition. A few seconds later it probably needed a few more mill watts. If that bit of energy wasn't there I suppose the process would quickly die.

It took an hour for the machine to get to that point. I watched it during the presentation. It started at 1.53 watts in and slowly dropped to zero. This was probably the critical measurement since the output was a resistive incandescent lamp that maintained it brightness throughout the discussion. What the machine would do over a 24 hour period would be interesting to analyze.

Graham has no idea why his machine is doing what it is doing. He was planning on a COP of 1.05 maybe 1.06. He got 5  to 50 after some tuning. That response kind of changes the thought paradigm.

Graham is not 100% convinced that he has a genuine OU device. There still maybe some parasitic fluke that would cause two different instrument systems to report the same numbers continuously for an hour. - I don't think so... or at least enough to want to dig into this further.

Instrument Error:

How are you going to measure the performance of your devices? (assuming you are exploring actual construction). Graham had about $10,000 worth of instrumentation (eBay used prices) that were originally bought for around $50,000. He has maintained and calibrated these instruments since 2000. These are the kind of tools that one needs to observe COP's in the 1.02 range. I don't know about you but this class of accuracy is beyond my pocket book.

If Graham were to take his machine to a standards lab or university they would use the same kinds of equipment - maybe newer, depending upon how well the department was funded. If and when some serious customer comes along they will probably bring the same kinds of tools. or they will use Grahams instruments and be right back where things were at the conference.  How accurate is a used $1,000 power analyzer? A heck of a lot more accurate than my $5.00 Harbor Freight DVM or even my Fluke 87. Was that Power Analyzer working properly at the time. Well, if it wasn't the $3,000 (used price) Tektronix scope would have reported the difference - and the numbers agreed to two places of accuracy.

I'm convinced and I'm probably biased due to my long time association with Graham. I can only report what I witnessed. You are most welcome to take my testimony and use it how you may.

Spokane1

[minnie]

   From what I see Tinsel's point is that if there is zero input
   IT WOULD NOT NEED TO BE LOOPED!
   If it stops when input power is pulled it was obviously
   DRAWING POWER.
         JOHN.

[Spokane1]

   From what I see Tinsel's point is that if there is zero input
   IT WOULD NOT NEED TO BE LOOPED!
   If it stops when input power is pulled it was obviously
   DRAWING POWER.
         JOHN.

Dear John,

Yes that would appear to be so, however this was for a short moment not a continuous process. This process drifts. In the time frame observed it was drifting down. IF the stability of the system were rugged enough you probably could shut off the 220 VDC power supply and get 10 Watts continuous. But you are still are going to need some amount of initial excitation energy and some time to get it into that condition. IF the power requirements were drifting down I suppose that in time they would drift back up again and need a little extra juice to continue the process.

This is why closing the loop looks promising.

I don't know if Graham had the time to explore this possibility prior to the convention, probably not.

Spokane1

[Spokane1]

Someone mentioned that not only has Gunderson measured 0W input, but at times the input power went negative. What immediately pops into my mind is that if he was measuring the input power properly to begin with with all probe polarities correct, the input power measurement should be negative anyway.

Would someone in-the-know be so kind as to draw out a simple block diagram of the input source, device, and output load, along with the measurement probe positions? If no one knows, perhaps Graham himself would be open to providing such a diagram (it wouldn't give away any secrets so why not?)?

Dear poynt99,

Yes, an updated block diagram would be nice to pass around. I shall see if I can come up with something this week end. Until then the attached photo should help with your initial questions.

The input power analyzer is on the right and the output power analyzer is on the left. The Tektronix scope is the box that Graham has his hand on.

You can see where the input scope current probe connects to the input to the conversion transformer (white wire). You can also see the red voltage probe. This is a floating differential probe with a CMR up to 1300 volts.

The input power analyzer is connected via the red and violet conductors. I'm not exactly sure where they connect.

You can probably see where the output analyzer is connected.

The last photo shows the scope output connections.

I hope this helps.

Spokane1

[poynt99]

Thank you, but it doesn't really help me much. I'd rather not speculate.

The pictures almost raise more questions than they answer; for example, why are there two scope probes on the output circuit side? Is he doing a differential voltage measurement and using A-B math on the scope?

I would suggest if you do come up with a diagram, post it here and also send it to Graham for his review and approval. If he gives it a thumbs up, then at least we have a starting point.

At the moment, I have no idea what the input source is even.