STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM

[blueplanet]

@Omnibus

If you are sure about this OU effect, I think it is a time to build something that makes use of this effect. It does not have to be a self-running device. It could be just a simple transmission system involving several devices, like this one, connected in series. By doing so you lose nothing.

Whether the OU is real or not, the behaviour of the bifilar coil is not something that can  be explained by textbook physics.

[Omega_0]

This thread is:
"STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin", not "OU from simple RC circuit".

So I speak about Steorn.
If you don't, you should open a new topic.

Then you are talking to yourself. People are discussing another anomaly at this time under the same topic. If you don't like to talk about it, go elsewhere there are many other threads on steorn.

[exnihiloest]

Then you are talking to yourself. People are discussing another anomaly at this time under the same topic. If you don't like to talk about it, go elsewhere there are many other threads on steorn.

You are discussing about what you want about this topic. Me too.
If you don't see the relationship between what you are talking about and my reply, it is your problem, not mine.

[Omega_0]

The integration formula is shown below. The 'Averaging over one period T of the sinusoidal function' means 1/2 cycle. Same as RMS and the only way to integrate correctly.

Vm or Im is not the peak values. Hyperphysics would specify V of Pk or I of Pk. The graph used that point just to make it easy to understand. But, I'm not at all amazed that the Omniworld geniuses didn't understand.

Regards, Larry

Vm and Im are indeed peak values, see the diagram and the dotted line drawn from the peak. 'm' here means max, peak and max are the same thing. V and I (without subscripts) are here used for rms values. Don't confuse yourself.
That integration equation gives "average power" from Vm and Im or Vrms and Irms. Omnibus is not using any of these values in his calculation, there is no Vm, Im  or rms values, neither he uses "average power". These are not there anywhere in his data, neither he measured them (it requires true rms meter or peak meters, the old way), so the standard equations were not applied.

Let me repeat once again, he is using sampled data, delta-V, delta-I and delta-t, area under the plotted product of samples gives the power precisely, no equations needed.

This must be new thing for you, as this is not taught in schools or text books but experimentalists and pros are familiar with numerical integration techniques. This is my last attempt to justify the calculations, and I'm doing so only to clear the confusion of anyone else reading this thread, not necessarily to prove you wrong or prove omnibus right.

@All
So lets focus on the problem here. I guess the self-resonant circuit proposed above is a good practical application. If there is excess energy, the oscillations in such circuit will never die down. However if the excess energy is only in the form of pure heat, then there is no way to completely convert the heat back into oscillations of tank circuit.

So a good application (and test) will be to immerse the resistor in a oil/water jar and check the temperature. You will need to use higher V or I values say upto 12V, 1 Amp, to make a OU heater. A control experiment with only the resistor without the cap connected can be set up to compare the results.

[teslaalset]

@teslaalset,

Must be something else. Tried changing the add-ins to no avail.

Complex numbers are not the problem. That's trivial. The problem might be the way power is calculated. First thing that has to be checked is that the question does not contain the answer (petitio principii). I've noticed that logical inconsistency is widely spread in those circles.

@Omnibus,
It's really a pity you can't alter the input values, since this would able us to understand were exactly our differences in outcome occur.
Like I mentioned, the model I posted shows calculations like they are taught on universities, it's not meant to show how I personal think you should calculate this circuit.
I am open to discuss where exactly in calculations we differ.
Next step would be to compare your calculations step by step with same components and input, starting with the current phase.
As you can probably already see, in all cases of my simulation current leads the input voltage phase.

I'll look into the excel problem further.
[Update]
Attached my Excel2002 setting w.r.t. default numbers. Maybe this helps.

@ all,
Does anyone else have problems with altering the numbers in the excel file I posted earlier?