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



Pulsed DC Transformer with Embedded Magnets

Started by ltseung888, February 24, 2010, 03:55:56 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 21 Guests are viewing this topic.

spinn_MP

Quote from: Omnibus on January 01, 2011, 06:00:39 PM
"he took it to some other forum"

Please give link to that forum.
Ask Lawrence... He's your brother, no?

Omnibus


ltseung888

This is an open message to the China Side

中方å,,人仕:祝新年快æ¨,,萬事å¦,æ,,ã€,æˆ'æ­£å'Œç¾Žæ–¹åˆä½œï¼Œä½œå¼•å‡ºèƒ½é‡æ©Ÿçš,,測試ã€,æˆ'會利ç"¨é€™è«–壇å'Œå...¶ä»–論壇,介紹技è¡",做福å...¨äººé¡žã€,

Translated:
Dear Fellow Chinese Compatriots,
Wishing you the best in the New Year and hope that you will achieve the noble goals you set.  I am cooperating with the USA side to verify the FLEET prototypes and confirm the Lead-out Energy Theory.  I shall use this and other forums to explain the technology and benefit the Human Race.

*** 
The persons from the China side who will be monitoring these Conclusive Experiments will include:
Wang Shen He â€" hopefully, his generator will be mass produced.
Lee Cheung Kin â€" He would like to justify his nickname â€" the number one genius in this World.
Dr. Raymond Ting â€" He verifies new inventions on behalf of China.
Tong Po Chi â€" He built the Tong Wheel that first demonstrated COP > 1 in Inno Tech Design Expo 2009
Dr. James Wong â€" He is the Chairman of Institute of Energy and received funding.
Prof. Dennis Leung â€" Verifying technology at Hong Kong University
Aaron Quant â€" He built the Christmas Tree Prorotype shown at Inno Tech Design Expo 2010
Forever Yuen and her student friends.
The many teams already working on FLEET prototypes.
The Energy Officials at various levels.
***
Compressible Fluids are Mechanical Energy Carriers. Air is not a fuel but is an energy carrier. (See reply 1097)
Gravitational or Electron Motion Energy can be Lead Out via oscillation, vibration, rotation or flux change systems.  We need to apply pulse force (Lee-Tseung Pulls) at the right time. (See reply 1106 and 2621)
1150 describes the Flying Saucer.  This will provide incredible prosperity.  Beware of the potential destructive powers.

PhysicsProfessor

Dear Lawrence,


My colleague and I spent about five hours studying Prototype A on Saturday 1/1/11.  We had previously spent some time studying it after we received it from you.  (Thank you!)  Certainly if one calculates the COP using either PP or RMS values, one derives COP > 1, as you said.

But the large discrepancy between the PP and RMS values gives rise to concern, as to whether either approach is truly a valid measure of the COP.  The fact that the output signal is far from sinusoidal also gives us reason to question the use of V*I (from PP and RMS values) to determine power. 

So we replaced your two resistors on the output with one resistor and then performed tests based  the heat generated in this output-circuit resistor.  We had one thermocouple + meter system available and so we did a balance a piece at a time.  We found that we could match the heating of the output resistor from the DUT with 0.04 Watts of power over the same resistor from our battery+variable resistor (which substituted for our power supply).  The thermocouple was taped to the resistor for these tests.  It took some time for us to home in on the matching input power... but we feel the calibration of the resistor is believable.  However, this method is still very approximate as it does not account for heat generated in the diode/LED.  It is a first-order check on the method of measuring COP from PP and rms values as you have described. 

  It is interesting that this value for the output power, using the thermocouple-balance measurement, is BETWEEN the simple V*I calculations (PP and RMS) I derived from Prototype A, which gives about 0.39W (using PP values) and 0.027W (using RMS values for input and output). 

So a firm conclusion is that we need something better than just simple oscilloscope values and V*I...  as we all apparently suspected.  You also noted that it would be important to integrate the oscilloscope traces (input and output) to get a more reliable value for the COP -- that is yet another method.  Have you done this yet?

So I feel that our studies here are just beginning on Prototype A (and variations), but our studies are certainly encouraging.

Best wishes,
PhysicsProfessor

Omnibus

Quote from: PhysicsProfessor on January 03, 2011, 09:08:41 AM
Dear Lawrence,


My colleague and I spent about five hours studying Prototype A on Saturday 1/1/11.  We had previously spent some time studying it after we received it from you.  (Thank you!)  Certainly if one calculates the COP using either PP or RMS values, one derives COP > 1, as you said.

But the large discrepancy between the PP and RMS values gives rise to concern, as to whether either approach is truly a valid measure of the COP.  The fact that the output signal is far from sinusoidal also gives us reason to question the use of V*I (from PP and RMS values) to determine power. 

So we replaced your two resistors on the output with one resistor and then performed tests based  the heat generated in this output-circuit resistor.  We had one thermocouple + meter system available and so we did a balance a piece at a time.  We found that we could match the heating of the output resistor from the DUT with 0.04 Watts of power over the same resistor from our battery+variable resistor (which substituted for our power supply).  The thermocouple was taped to the resistor for these tests.  It took some time for us to home in on the matching input power... but we feel the calibration of the resistor is believable.  However, this method is still very approximate as it does not account for heat generated in the diode/LED.  It is a first-order check on the method of measuring COP from PP and rms values as you have described. 

  It is interesting that this value for the output power, using the thermocouple-balance measurement, is BETWEEN the simple V*I calculations (PP and RMS) I derived from Prototype A, which gives about 0.39W (using PP values) and 0.027W (using RMS values for input and output). 

So a firm conclusion is that we need something better than just simple oscilloscope values and V*I...  as we all apparently suspected.  You also noted that it would be important to integrate the oscilloscope traces (input and output) to get a more reliable value for the COP -- that is yet another method.  Have you done this yet?

So I feel that our studies here are just beginning on Prototype A (and variations), but our studies are certainly encouraging.

Best wishes,
PhysicsProfessor

How about measuring the momentary I and V values at, say, 1ns, then multiplying each momentary I by the corresponding Momentary V and then finding the average of these products. Thic you can do for the input I and V and compare it with the output I and V? You probably still have the traces in your DSO's. If so, that calculation won't take you long and you may report it here.