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

[Omnibus]

@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 )

Yeah, I remember that explanation. There's something to it. But now bear with me 'cause I'll try to send you a theoretical argument based on your suggestion (which I think is correct) that Pin and Pout should be calculated only based on the initial (zero, that is) and final Ein and Eout and the time (one period) needed to get Ein and Eout. Will have to write it in LaTeX so it'll take me some time to prepare the pdf.

[teslaalset]

Yeah, I remember that explanation. There's something to it. But now bear with me 'cause I'll try to send you a theoretical argument based on your suggestion (which I think is correct) that Pin and Pout should be calculated only based on the initial (zero, that is) and final Ein and Eout and the time (one period) needed to get Ein and Eout. Will have to write it in LaTeX so it'll take me some time to prepare the pdf.

Sure, would be good to outline it in LaTeX.
I certainly will have a careful look at that one. Take your time.

[skcusitrah]

[Omnibus]

Sure, would be good to outline it in LaTeX.
I certainly will have a careful look at that one. Take your time.

No, that didn't come out right either so there's no use to post it. Will have to do some more thinking. At this point it's obvious that a different kind of discrepancy (asymmetry) has to exist than just the phase shift or the offset in order for theoretical OU to exist. Something like, the input "seeing" the reactive element as being of a different value than what the output is "seeing" it to be (the active element being an even less likely candidate for such discrepancy). That cannot be. Now, it's true I'm seeing reproducibly the ostensible OU effect when using the 1X probe but with the 10X probe OU disappears big time. So, it is possible that the 1X probe is giving error in one direction while the error with the 10X probe is in the opposite direction. Besides, remember, the DPO 2014 I'm using is only 8 bit so for the 30 volts I'm measuring the accuracy cannot exceed 0.1V while the effect requires much higher accuracy to claim it firmly. So, like I said, I've reached the experimental limit I can afford.

The problem with all this is that experimentally there are ends hanging. As much as I like what I've done (not unusual for someone involved in such studies, right?) there's no definitive experiment I can produce to pinpoint a well-meaning critic. Neither does a well-meaning critic have an experiment to pinpoint experimentally the potential error in what's being measured. All such critics can do now is just suppose that there are too many sources of errors to justify spending time to do the experiment. That's a no good criticism but that's the way the matters are in science -- the old holds on to itself firmly, violating even its own requirements for definitive proof. So, we're facing an impasse.

The only way that could've changed is if there were some internal discrepancy in the theory, something like that recent case with the 'memristor'. Wonder whether you've heard about it? Otherwise, this will join everything else we've experienced -- no definitive answer either way, every party holding on forever to its own beliefs.

[Omnibus]

Someone may say make it self-sustaining to prove it's real. That's out of the question either -- the losses are exceedingly high and this makes turning it into a self-sustainer a daunting engineering task even if the effect is real. So, that avenue of proving the effect is no good either.