Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



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

Started by PaulLowrance, December 04, 2009, 09:13:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 27 Guests are viewing this topic.

Omnibus

Probably, also because we have Z = R + (1/(2PifCi)) = R - (1/(2PifC))i it should be with a minus sign.

broli

Quote from: Omnibus on June 30, 2010, 08:42:44 AM
Stupid me. Of course.

Now, did you convert it in the I formula when doing the calculations? It won't be bad if you can show the plot of V and I.

No need to convert it because the sine function also requires radians input values. I attached the U and I plot below.

Omnibus

Quote from: broli on June 30, 2010, 09:12:09 AM
No need to convert it because the sine function also requires radians input values. I attached the U and I plot below.

Thanks. That looks nice and I think we're getting there.

Now, makes me wonder if conversion won't make a difference. See, sin(87.48) = -0.465849409 while sin(1.52761051) = 0.999067638. Of course, if it's in radians everywhere probably it won't matter. If I were you I'd convert it, though. Somehow, to me it's more tangible if I think in degrees. Maybe Mathematica requires radians for its trig functions, however.

broli

Quote from: Omnibus on June 30, 2010, 09:29:10 AM
Thanks. That looks nice and I think we're getting there.

Now, makes me wonder if conversion won't make a difference. See, sin(87.48) = -0.465849409 while sin(1.52761051) = 0.999067638. Of course, if it's in radians everywhere probably it won't matter. If I were you I'd convert it, though. Somehow, to me it's more tangible if I think in degrees. Maybe Mathematica requires radians for its trig functions, however.

In a standard handheld calculator the trigonometric functions work with degrees but in most coding language everything is in radians, degrees is only used as an interface to the user for clarity. It's easier to input 30 degrees as some rotational value than 0.5235 radians.

What I'm curious about is phase shift in your experiments. We are indeed closing in on the possible options. We already have the same current amplitude as theory, so what's there left for OU to arise. I would like to get the average power across the resistor from your data and compare it to theory, then compare phase shift.

Omnibus

Quote from: broli on June 30, 2010, 09:43:56 AM
In a standard handheld calculator the trigonometric functions work with degrees but in most coding language everything is in radians, degrees is only used as an interface to the user for clarity. It's easier to input 30 degrees as some rotational value than 0.5235 radians.

What I'm curious about is phase shift in your experiments. We are indeed closing in on the possible options. We already have the same current amplitude as theory, so what's there left for OU to arise. I would like to get the average power across the resistor from your data and compare it to theory, then compare phase shift.

Yes, that and the offset is outstanding. Let's work some more on the equations, though. I'm getting approx 0.76 with my Excel data. Not even unity, as in your integration. Take a look: