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

[broli]

@All,

I'd like to run this by you and hear what you think. It seems that settles the capacitance problem:

It has been suggested that parasitic capacitance in the coil might be the reason for the apparent OU reported here. The conjecture put forth is that when the device is powered at high frequencies the inherent capacitance C (which is inherent but is unintended, that is, parasitic for an inductive coil) starts to play a role, giving rise to non-dissipative capacitance current according to Ic = C dE/dt. If unaccounted for it may misleadingly be taken as part of the current which passes through the dissipative (Ohmic) resistance R of the coil. Thus, it was proposed that if one fails to recognize that the current I one measures, in fact consists of two components I = Ic + Ir of which only Ir; that is, the one passing through the active (dissipative, Ohmic) resistance, is responsible for the losses, then the output power I^2R will be overestimated.

The above hypothesis must be tested experimentally. For this reason, a capacitance of 100pF was connected parallel to the coil before the current probe measurement, as seen in the figure below.

This 100pF capacitance models a capacitance shunt mentioned above, increasing the current I measured by the current probe. For the purposes of this model that measured current I is taken to be entirely the dissipative current passing through the active resistance R of the coil and therefore the Joule heat produced is calculated as I^2R.

By falsely assuming, for the sake of argument, that the entire current I in the figure below thus measured causes Ohmic heating, one obtains the Pout = I^2R values, respectively Pout/Pin values for various frequencies, which are then plotted as a function of these frequencies (See below: Curve 1---OU effect measured in the absence of 100pF capacitance. Curve 2---Apparent OU effect with 100pF added and current probe measures current I consisting of Ir and Ic). As seen from that figure in order for the current in I^2R, constituting Pout, to cause almost doubling of the OU effect at the maximum, that current must be caused by increase of the parasitic capacitance of the coil by at least 100pF. Therefore, if that additional 100pF capacitance shown in the schematic diagram is removed the coil itself should still have a capacitance of at least 100pF in order to consider that the I in I^2R, used to obtain curve 1 in the figure below is overestimated.

However, measurement of the coil capacitance using a RadioShack digital multimeter cat.22-168A shows that is not the case---the capacitance of the coil, if any, is below the measurement limits of the instrument, that is, it is way below 100pF.

Maybe it should be mentioned again that the capacitance of an element is an intrinsic property of that element. It is a constant, denoted by C. Therefore, the change with frequency connected with capacitance C of that element is only reflected in the change of current I = C dE/dt which is due to dE/dt.

Another observation which one might think is connected with capacitance is the observed reversal of the current-voltage phase shift. While at frequencies below 90kHz the voltage trace is observed to lead the current trace, as is expected with an inductive coil, at frequencies above 90kHz the current trace starts to lead the voltage trace. This may be attributed to capacitance and the frequency around 90kHz, where no current-voltage phase shift is observed. Capacitance and inductance become equal, which is the condition for resonance.

It is seen from the presented figure, however, that introduction of 100pF into the circuit curve 2) has practically no effect on the current-voltage phase shift. This means that the observed phase shift has some other nature, other than being due to capacitance alone.

The parasitic capacitance is a lousy excuse if you measure voltage across, and current from the source. Even if it was there it shouldn't be a problem since it's behind the current probe. In classical terms everything behind the current probe is some impedance beast denoted by some phase shift. As long as you measure in front of this beast all is fine. I don't know why it's being discussed.

For instance in the below diagram there's a big mess after the probes. But it does not matter at all if you measure correctly. Their net result is some impedance with some phase shift. By multipluing instantaneous current and voltage and averaging power we get more information about this load. In your case it seems to be acting as an energy source.

[happyfunball]

How about Goddard. Did he go to the Moon with his rocket invention? No. Why? That's unfair.

Lol. A trip to The Moon requires a bit more than a rocket. Steorn claims to have fully functional OU technology, on Earth. Why can't they power their office with an Orbo 7 years later? They can't do that but they can lease the data for a fee? Come on.

[Omega_0]

Omnibus,

I have posted some update on my built and data from the new setup, which I'd like you to "peer review" for any mistakes. I'm a bit confused about when to take absolute values for power and when not to. I'm getting a trace similar to steorn when I keep the minus sign. Thread is here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9156.0

On the matter of air coil, the doubts about parasitic capacitance or eddy currents or any such things sucking up the current are now almost gone. I can't think of any reason why you are getting OU. Good job on reverse engineering the transformer, I guess the winding style is special for this one.

I see that for the air coil, the OU frequency has dropped to some Hz instead of MHz, so now I'm thinking of experimenting with PC based waveform generator, that's what I have at this time and it goes to max 25 kHz, and is ok for a try. 

[Omnibus]

@Omega_0,

I will definitely take a look at the link but I'd like to say at once: don't mess with the signs of voltage and current, leave them as they are. Otherwise you'll start getting dissipation when there is none (say, from inductance).

[LarryC]

Since the beginning I and others have tried to tell you that your basic formula's and methodology were wrong. But you had the mistaken belief that since no one complained about Stearn's use of these formula's, that you were right.

Stearn had a pulsed DC circuit which he insisted that the pulse had to be flat. Yes, it is okay to use those formula's for DC, pulsed DC, or AC resistive only circuits.

The page listed below is from electricity one-seven revised second edition page 4-35. It shows the formula's used to calculate the true power actually consumed in a series RL circuit, which is what you are testing. 

Now, I and others don't want to hear one of your usual misleading statements and don't even bother trying to trash the book. Show the Page and list the book, showing that your formula's can be used for any circuit other then DC or AC resistive only. 

Regards, Larry