RANT CAFFE ASYLUM

[v8karlo]

picowatt
I think you get it, in fact the frequency was over of 987kHZ in the video near 1 MHZ. The maximum resolution of the DSO is 100 MHZ which means the resolution of the data is 100 to 1 at best with respect to which part of the signal it was triggered by or locked on to. Obviously it's a very complex signal with a great deal of hash so did it average part or the whole of the higher frequencies present?.

Here's a hint, whenever any value of the DSO, in all the values displayed starts reading null values the computer doesn't like what your doing like in the video. It does not compute, more so when a given period of one frequency rapidly changes to another frequency which not only introduces phase angles but interference as frequencies riding on other frequencies. Another hint, having programmed computers since they were invented I know computers are not smart but stupid. The logic and reasoning are only as good as the person who programmed them and we are far from perfect. Thus every computer is just waiting for an instance which we could not foresee that it cannot compute.

So wishful thinking is wonderful, I do it all the time, however reality is very hard and we should make the effort to understand what it is we think we are doing or seeing. As I said, this video is a joke and I would be embarrassed to show it to anyone I consider rational or a professional. They would tear it apart asking questions of the person who made it look stupid and has no answers for. Thus if your going to do it... do it right.

Regards

Good point,


My signals were always clean, more or less, so I have not this kind of problems.


What you suggest to him to measure it right?
If you know, help him with advice.

[partzman]

CaptainLoz,

As I understand it at this point in time, you do have a device that appears to be AU/OU.  Are you willing to share the scope shots of this device for our scrutiny? This would possibly solve a lot of questions both here and there.

There are several key good engineering points that are being ignored by Chris and some of his followers and I would like to discuss some of those.  Some here have already pointed these out but I think it is good to refresh for everybody's well being.

1)  Scope resolution.  Enough has been stated on this but it is not being applied by Chris and group up to this point in time.

2)  Sense resistor value and type.  Caddock for one makes 1% precision film resistors designed especially for high frequency current sensing up to 100's of ohms in value and above.  Very low "L".

3)  The apparent lack of knowledge for the correct use of avg and rms.  For any waveform combination where current and voltage are involved and one wishes to know the resultant power, instantaneous samples are taken over time and multiplied at that instant and stored in memory.  These resultant products at the end of the measurement cycle, are then summed and averaged to get what is termed the true average power.

If however we wish to know the power dissipated in a resistor or resistive load, we can use the rms voltage and current for this calculation.  Why?  Because the rms of any shape waveform across a resistor produces the same amount of heat in the resistor as DC would.  Using avg for this would result in a lower value than the true value.

4)  Less than ideal circuit layout.  With the AM broadcast band starting at 535kHz, you can't expect accurate readings on any surrounding instruments used for measurement when many wire leads of considerable length are strewn all over.  You have many inductances creating various parasitic oscillations which broadcast into the equipment.  I mean it is futile to use a non-inductive sense resistor of any value when long lead lengths are all over the place even at several hundred kHz.

I would hope that someone from Chris's team or Chris himself would allow their circuit to be analyzed by those on this forum who are capable and there are many here.  It's time to end all the BS and get down to the job of achieving OU.  And Chris, if you say one more time that you have it, then PROVE IT!

Pm

[EMJunkie]

...






Partzman, I believe you missed CaptainLoz's post. Worth looking up and reading. CaptainLoz's Thread: Captainloz's Asymmetrical Re-gauging Experiment

CaptainLoz is still in very early stages, we have seen a few problems, which we have resolved. As time progresses, CaptainLoz will make improvements to his work, and the Output will go up dramatically. The Input will go down dramatically. You have seen this sort of thing working for mark Goldes back in the Day. I believe Graham Gunderson referrers to some of this in his video.

I find is very interesting, some here, dismiss a reading of Potential on the Scope, on the Output, that is not on the Input, as Noise, or harmonics, and dismisses this as a spurious effect. Any and All Readings of Potential, where V and I are in Phase, is Power, no matter what the Source! I think you need to correct your friends so they don't look like Numpty's in front of the entire community.

I have real trouble understanding how some manage to get themselves out of Bed in the Mornings? Why so much Silly Here? Why cant some here investigate this Seriously?

I would not blame CaptainLoz for making the thread private, so none here can see it, and not share any more with anyone! Behavior here is terrible!

CaptainLoz, is one of many, that has successfully replicated My Work! Many at different stages! There is nothing Hard Here! There are No Secrets! You all can do this! You only have to follow a few simple Rules, already laid out Here!

EMJ

[onepower]

V8karlo
I use two supercap banks I made rated at 5 Farads /24 working volts, 30 volt max. So I know the exact input versus output with a simple calculation U=1/2CV^2. It's also easy to loop the output cap back to the input cap with a high efficiency buck converter.

So it's actually very easy to loop a circuit and I gave up on trying to use my DSO to measure complex HF waveforms years ago. It's basically a waste of time in my opinion.

Think of it this way, you could spend weeks using all kinds of expensive equipment trying to analyze input vs output. Or use two cap banks or a loop and know in minutes. So why dork around when we can know for sure in a matter of minutes?.

Regards

[picowatt]

Why you all adressing to Emj like that video is his work?

V8karlo,

What started this mess was a simple comment about two incandescent lamps.

Someone (EMJ or Ramset) posted a link to CaptainLoz's video #5 on the POC thread.  Having watched the video, I posted a comment on the non-moderated POC thread suggesting it was very unlikely that the two incandescent lamps being used as a load in video 5 at around 7:30 were dissipating what the scope was reading or even what the power supply readouts indicated.

I suggested connecting the lamps directly to the supply and driving them to similar brightness to see what the lamps draw, as a way to confirm measurements.

EMJ, as usual, became very defensive and argumentative and after several of posts back and forth riddled with his typical insults and trying to convince me the lamps were indeed somehow dissipating the indicated wattage, he deleted my posts. (I thought that thread was not moderated, what gives?)

In any case, shortly thereafter there was some admission of error regarding a bad probe used during that video.

So, from a simple suggestion that the lamps be connected directly to the DC supply to see what they draw at similar brightness, we have had page after page of argumentative discussion trying to bolster overunity claims with all manner of assumptions regarding the incandescent lamps, the LED bulb, the scope readings, and of course, insults and deletions. 

All that from suggesting the lamps were not dissipating the indicated wattage and that they should be connected directly to the supply for verification.

Perhaps were it CaptainLoz's thread he would have responded differently to the suggestion.  Perhaps CaptainLoz as well might have wondered if it were even possible for the lamps to dissipate that much power and connected the lamps to the supply to see what they draw.

But, it was EMJ's thread and EMJ's POC "technology", and it is EMJ that gets all defensive and insulting when anyone questions his claims of "overunity". 

I believe the advent of low cost digital scopes has led some OU researchers to inadvertently focus on connecting and tuning their circuits to cause the scope to erroneously indicate OU, which is relatively easy, and not focus on alternative measurement methods to confirm the power going to the load. 

Building a differential thermal or optical wattmeter is not that terribly difficult and could be given consideration, but there are even simpler methods within the reach of most. 

In the past we have seen lamps used as loads and low cost lux meters used to verify a circuit's output by driving the lamps to similar brightness with a DC supply as indicated by the lux meter.  If the lamp and lux meter are housed and located under fixed conditions when driven by either the circuit under test or the DC supply, a fair degree of accuracy should be achievable.  Something similar could be achieved using thermometry as well.

PW