"Tiny Orbo Replication" over 100% efficiency

[skywatcher]

Calculations on got us to moon. Calculations put & keep satellites in orbit. Calculations create nanoscopic technology such as your CPU's. Calculations predict the nuclear energy for Nuclear power plants. Calculations predicted blackholes before they were discovered. Calculations predicted the exact amount that light would bend around the Sun for Einsteins monumental Solar eclipse experiment. Calculations are used for everything in the modern world, including the amount of energy your home uses.

That's right... but physical calculations are based on models, which are based on the physical laws as we know them. These physical laws say that things like 'overunity' are not possible. This does not mean that they are really impossible, but they are impossible within the boundaries set by the physical laws. But this means also that any calculation based on these laws, which results in overunity, must be wrong. It's logically impossible.

So the only proof for overunity can be experimental proof.

I have often seen calculations or even input/output measurements which showed 300% or more overunity for some devices. But they all failed to close the loop, which should be absolutely no problem when you have 300% OU.

[exnihiloest]

....
So that's why I used the inductance equation of E = 1/2 * L * I^2 because the cores permeability at that current level and cores saturation level was appreciably linear far above 1.26 amps. Furthermore, my COP 1.7 measurement did not even consider how much of that energy could have been recaptured.
...

Thank you for the detailed explanations. It is exactly the kind of reply I was waiting for. I see no more flaw.
Now we all know that a COP>1 is extraordinary and we have to exclude any possible doubt. The coil is powered by a signal of 0.36v*1.26A=453mW. You calculated the part of this power not dissipated in the resistance and found 2.52mW. Thus the usefull power is only 0.55% of the power provided by the battery. We see that an even very small error could have a huge consequence onto the calculated COP.
Would it not be possible the replace the calculation of the usefull power by a measurement?
We know U, I of the pulse and R of the coil. L is not constant but R is. Then by substracting R*I² from the power U*I provided by the battery, the exact power not dissipated in the resistance can be measured instead of being calculated from assumptions on L. I know it is difficult because accurate measurements of instantaneous U/I values during the pulse are required, but if it confirmed the same power than that calculated, it would put the result beyond any doubt.

[exnihiloest]

...
These physical laws say that things like 'overunity' are not possible. This does not mean that they are really impossible, but they are impossible within the boundaries set by the physical laws.
...

Biased assertion, it is right only for machines of the first kind.
Even the second law of thermodynamics is regularly challenged by "official" physicists because they know that it is a statistical law not true at nano-scales.
And there is always the third kind machine, using a possible hidden energy source.
Type 2 and 3 would be compatible with fundamental physics laws.

[skywatcher]

I agree, but for example you can not make calculations if your machine uses an hidden/unknown energy source, because this energy source is not contained in the formulas.

It is not possible to prove OU by using textbook calculations.

[PaulLowrance]

The coil is powered by a signal of 0.36v*1.26A=453mW.

The 1.26A is pulse *peak*, no DC. The duty cycle is ~ 12.5%, so the losses in electrical resistance was 57mW, not 453mW. Again, that is electrical resistance losses.

You calculated the part of this power not dissipated in the resistance and found 2.52mW. Thus the usefull power is only 0.55% of the power provided by the battery.

If we included wire losses as the input, and *excluded* heating as output, then it would 7.3% efficient, but a good scientist would *first* focus on detecting *excess* energy, and then focus on trying to get a self-runner. If we include the heat produced by electrical wires losses, then the efficiency is 103%. If we're trying to focus on detecting excess energy, then the best way is to exclude the electrical wire resistance, which then comes to 170% efficiency.

Remember, the toroid was using hardly none of the maximum wire that could fit in the toroid, so the electrical resistance would be considerably lower. Also, if the circuit was smarter, it would require magnitudes less voltage to maintain that 1.26 amps. Those are design issues I have already solved in LTspice, and will implement in the "Tiny Orbo Replication 2," where the electrical wire losses will be considerably lower than the input.

We see that an even very small error could have a huge consequence onto the calculated COP.

Only if the equations contain the 57mW wire losses. That is why I spent considerably time verifying that the core permeability was appreciably constant even above 1.26A, which greatly simplified the input equation to E = 1/2 * L * I^2. So the way I did the calculations there is no small error to make a huge difference. Although I'm not saying there's a 100% guarantee there's no errors.

Would it not be possible the replace the calculation of the usefull power by a measurement?
We know U, I of the pulse and R of the coil. L is not constant but R is.

In a recent post I went over how L is appreciably constant above 1.26A.

Then by substracting R*I² from the power U*I provided by the battery, the exact power not dissipated in the resistance can be measured instead of being calculated from assumptions on L.

Sure, there are a lot of ways of calculating it, but that method would require far more accurate measurements since the electrical wire losses are ~ 20 times higher than the inductance losses.

I know it is difficult because accurate measurements of instantaneous U/I values during the pulse are required, but if it confirmed the same power than that calculated, it would put the result beyond any doubt.

Well, after spending days doing scope measurements, I've already satisfied myself that the calculations are correct and accurate enough. Although of course there could be errors, but I'm past that, to the point of now working on making a self-runner that will operate from a relatively small capacitor. Batteries not allowed!