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

Omnibus · July 09, 2010, 05:45:10 PM

@All,

I'm back with the theoretical ruminations on the natural asymmetries existing in the core of the theory of electricity. Recall, several posts back I posted some considerations and experimental data pointing to the fact that an offset in the voltage does not cause an offset in the current. That happens by the very nature of the RC circuit. This gave me assurance that there must be a way for this asymmetry to show itself as a disbalance in the power balance, which would be a natural violation of CoE, existing in the very theory of electricity both when Pout/Pin is less as well as greater than unity. Here I'm presenting a theoretical calculation which demonstrates a case more interesting for the participants in this discussion -- theoretical Pout/Pin > 1. Here's the link for the Excel file to be downloaded: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=401 . This file shows that purely theoretically an offset of -10V should lead to approx. 1.3 OU. You may notice that for physical reasons there is an offset only in the equation for V and not for I. Also, I checked it experimentally, the Vm which one would use in the calculation of I when V has no offset remains the same also when there is an offset in V. The OU observed theoretically here confirms in principle the experimentally found OU. Seems to me this already is getting to be the real thing. What do you guys think?

Omnibus · July 09, 2010, 06:10:06 PM

You may notice I'm calculating Pin and Pout the way @teslaalset suggested which appears to be the correct way. I'll have to calculate it even more thoroughly by finding the average slope. Also, the theoretical criterion for OU I posted several days ago has to be reworked to include this latest (offset) finding.

teslaalset · July 10, 2010, 10:05:01 AM

Quote from: Omnibus on July 09, 2010, 05:45:10 PM
@All,

I'm back with the theoretical ruminations on the natural asymmetries existing in the core of the theory of electricity. Recall, several posts back I posted some considerations and experimental data pointing to the fact that an offset in the voltage does not cause an offset in the current. That happens by the very nature of the RC circuit. This gave me assurance that there must be a way for this asymmetry to show itself as a disbalance in the power balance, which would be a natural violation of CoE, existing in the very theory of electricity both when Pout/Pin is less as well as greater than unity. Here I'm presenting a theoretical calculation which demonstrates a case more interesting for the participants in this discussion -- theoretical Pout/Pin > 1. Here's the link for the Excel file to be downloaded: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=401 . This file shows that purely theoretically an offset of -10V should lead to approx. 1.3 OU. You may notice that for physical reasons there is an offset only in the equation for V and not for I. Also, I checked it experimentally, the Vm which one would use in the calculation of I when V has no offset remains the same also when there is an offset in V. The OU observed theoretically here confirms in principle the experimentally found OU. Seems to me this already is getting to be the real thing. What do you guys think?

@Omnibus,
Each row represents 1/1000 of a sinus.
Then the slopes should be calculated from row 4 to row 2004 I am afraid (not to 2006).
In that case OU = 1.00000000 $:-\$

Omnibus · July 10, 2010, 10:23:32 AM

Quote from: teslaalset on July 10, 2010, 10:05:01 AM
@Omnibus,
Each row represents 1/1000 of a sinus.
Then the slopes should be calculated from row 4 to row 2004 I am afraid (not to 2006).
In that case OU = 1.00000000 $:-\$

I agree, you're exactly right. Will have to think more about it. Seems that if there's no theoretical discrepancy the effect that was seen in the experiment is most probably in error. Unless there's some really crucial evidence to prove that the data taken with the 1X probe are the correct ones compared to the data taken with the 10X probe. If so then the theory (yielding 1) is wanting and something has to be added to it. I wonder if I would be able to determine definitively the reality of what I've got experimentally with the level of equipment I have, despite some clues that maybe the 1X probe is the more accurate one (recall the recovery of the known R when using 1X and 10X probes). Unless some additional, very clever definitive experiment is proposed which my instruments can tackle.

teslaalset · July 10, 2010, 10:42:05 AM

@Omnibus,
I admire your persistence.
If I stay on the theoretical path, the only way to get some sort of OU is to do it like I indicated in page 244 of this thread (posting #3650), with some extra explanation in #3653.
This requires smart switching. It reminds me of what @Winsonali showed, claiming OU by switching capacitors (thread: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7987.0 )