Now, I feel we are at a turning point in convincing the world about the reality of OU. It is real, many of us know it but to turn around the public opinion we need to have one crucial thing, available for thousands to readily reproduce it -- a self-sustaining device. Without such device the pursuit of the OU researchers will remain in the fringes of science and that's bad because even if someone manages to find private money (even tons of it) this private can never compete with the infrastructure Academia has to offer for successful research.
With that in mind I'd like first to consult with the OU brotherhood with regard to the equipment I was using last summer. Should I keep it or should I dispose of it and use the money in directions closer to the goal. What I have so far is a Tektronix DPO 2024 with a Hall effect current probe. HP pulse generator and a Keithley DM. What was outstanding was to get an active voltage probe so that I can confirm the OU results I obtained for the RC filter in the summer. The problem I left that project with was that the 110pF input capacitance of the voltage probe may have contributed to the phase shift leading to false impression that there is OU. Thus, a probe with much lower input capacitance (about 6pF was found to be the one with the lowest input capacitance) came up as a need.
Here's the problem, however. My analysis led me to the conclusion that no matter what accuracy the equipment has, no matter how high-end the oscilloscope and so on, there will always be questions regarding the data processing and rigor of measurement save the instance whereby one can show a self-sustaining device. No experimental results of any kind would convince the mainstream science community in the reality of OU other than self-sustaining device, let alone that in this way (with a self-sustaining device) no experiment is needed whatsoever -- let the device run in a self-sustaining mode and it will speak for itself.
Having no self-sustaining device at hand, one possible way was to analyze the situation purely theoretically and see what the outcome will be, saved from all the 'if's' and menace of an experiment. So I did, and lo and behold it turned out that OU is contained in the very essence of the standard theory of electricity. Below you'll find an attached text with the outcome of that study, a text I've already attached here previously and which is still a big, big puzzle and probably the crucial solution to the OU conundrum in electrical devices. Now, after this study, summarized in that text, I really don't see the need for keeping the equipment. The conclusions in the text don't depend in any way on any equipment neither does, as I already said, the next step -- building of a self-sustaining device. As a matter of fact, building of such device isn't even necessary if the analysis in the text I am presenting is viable which so far hasn't proven to be otherwise.
I will continue with the strategies for getting OU across to society, especially as it concerns the more important gravity or gravity-assisted self-sustaining motors but first I would like to hear what you guys think with regard to the current equipment I have -- shall I keep it and supplement it with an active voltage probe or should I get rid of it and focus on acquiring equipment (CNC type of a machine, for instance) to further the gravity and magnetic self-sustaining rigs?
Sadly, up until now there is no proposal for a rel OU device other than the definitive proof of OU in the magnetic propulsor, the electrolysis of water in an undivided electrolysis cell and the above-mentioned analysis. To a certain extent Steorn's studies and their replication by @Omega_0 are worth considering as well. The proposal of the guys with the Anton cell is to be looked into more carefully but they have to have it investigated in detail by a well-equipped independent lab.
Like I said previously, however, if we want to come out of obscurity, we have to focus on gravity or gravity-assisted self-sustaining devices. The principles these devices are based on are well-known and there's nothing new that can be found about these principles to be patentable. So, that's one big relief -- the secrecy isn't worth the while regarding these devices should someone be skillful enough to engineer a working one. There are several good candidates and they should hold our attention the most.
By the way, does anyone know who the concrete guys who designed Excel within Microsoft are and how one can get in touch with them?
Hi.
Your subject title is interesting as I have already made that decision regarding the influence I have over what I do with my mind.
My strategy is obvious if you read my work. I shared it with you, warts and all.
My thinking behind this was that I have skills unique to me. I have dedicated them to a subject I felt I could enhance. This entire process was negotiation of perspective. I am hoping that when my technologies are peer reviewed new information will come to light that will allow other people to advance as well as myself.
The way I see it the only option we have is to cooperate for mutual benefit. No more my castle is bigger than yours bullshit. We are talking about individual and species survival here people.
So spill the beans, share what you got, and we all benefit. Hoard your treasure and we all perish.
The industries and jobs they create alone will provide an energetic rebirth to the Human Race.
Exponential Energy Growth means Freedom. Its almost an equation :)
Any of you had thoughts on improving my designs ? Perhaps by adding passive Radiator's or a Condenser ?
As for equipment my only advice is be clear on your goal. What project you want to achieve with it and your capabilities. After that the money will be wisely spent, and new skills learned.
Best Wishes,
RM :)
Like I said, the ultimate goal is the creation of a self-sustaining machine. Probably, this could very well be the only goal. Nothing can substitute it. There is undeniable proof already for the violation of CoE but that is only by producing portions of excess energy which, paractical as it is, doesn't come across to society at large. Continuous production of excess energy is what is needed without any input of external energy, that's what's needed. Unfortunately, no one that I know of at present has one working (it's possible that such machines have existed in the past but they have been suppressed). If you have a self-sustaining machine to present and help others replicate it, be my guest. Otherwise, it's prudent to go on investigating privately until you manage to create such a machine. I like to have a look at devices producing more energ yout than in but the claims have to be backed by very solid evidence. So far, such evidence in the field of electromagnetism I have only seen shown by Steorn.
Hi,
I agree with you that the ultimate goal should be a publicly demonstrable self-sustaining device that is OU. It should also be replicated easily and numerously with full theory and plans available.
Once OU is achieved at a suitable ratio of 1+ EEG will follow in short order and everything changes.
I cannot agree with you that we should work individually utilising only our own skill sets. The greatest ability of the human race in my opinion is to cooperate on a common goal. This is what has been denied to us over many years through control mechanisms, but the Internet blew those mechanisms apart. These days it seems to be fear, ego and greed that are preventing sharing of information.
I remember years ago when I started looking into OU the minefield I encountered when trying to work out what field I was going to pursue. There is just so much misinformation and fraudsters around that it can be a daunting prospect for a newbie to decipher.
My own personal view was that the best route for me to personally follow was HHO and Turbine technology. I felt this was where I could add potential to the movement.
I rejected Magnet motors for one simple reason. No Torque to speak of that could be utilised. Steorn has this very problem, what good is a motor that stalls every time you add the load ? Its just a pretty spinning toy. Magnet motors have potential but IMO only when we have an OU device supplying the electrical prime mover impulse at no cost.
HHO on the other hand has a violent reaction that produces lots of useable Torque and is ideal for running a powerfull motor and doing work.
My point is that to keep your information to yourself hinders the development for everyone. It also is counter productive in the sense that the young newbies, struggling through the dis-info, have to wade through the same shit we all did.
Why not have a coming together of minds and knowledge and draw a line in the sand of where we are at this moment in all the different branches of OU. Maybe this would inspire someone to have an insight that would seriously advance a particular field for everyone.
I remember reading about a lecture Tesla gave once regarding his discovery of an electrically induced violent reaction with the Aether. This is probably very similar to a voice coil event, like the Kundel Motor, but the energy supplying the reaction coming from an infinite Aether and not a finite magnet. This would be an interesting route to explore with huge potential.
RM :)
I, of course, am not advocating working for yourself and hiding things. However, all the ideas about these machines are usually trivial and there is no need to exchange trivialities. We've seen too much of that. It clutters the discussions and the grains of useful advances remain hidden in the piles of useless talk. It is better to come out when there is really some experimental achievement worthwhile to share. Peer-reviewed literature cuts out a lot of the useless clutter but it many times hinders advances so it isn't the best alternative. Better yet is to develop some sense of self-restraint and reign the tendencies to post anything that comes to your mind. I know that's utopian to require in a free forum such as this but at least we can try.
Hi,
I am glad we agree that working for personal gain and hiding information is not in the collective interest :)
I would be interested in your opinion on my decision to post all my work as theory without having built the devices. When I had the money to build them I did not have the designs, when I had the designs I did not have the money.
Miracles do happen. I had one happen today. The financial burden I was in that was about to bury me was lifted today by outside intervention. So I am a much happier chap today than I was yesterday :)
Are you saying that in your opinion I was wrong in principle to post all my work when in a situation where I was unable to verify it experimentally ?
The fact that my position has changed dramatically in the last few hours means I may now be able to build and test my designs next year. This is wonderfull news to me :)
It also means I am months behind the people who have already started and probably finishing the prototypes. All of us working together to verify if my designs have potential are a surer and quicker route to those answers.
I can understand what you are saying about 'trivial' comments. I myself have never posted any information in 10 years simply because I was not sure what I would add would be of value.
I chose to finally publish all my work when it appeared that I would be unable to continue. Would holding onto it until my situation improved, then the years it would take me to build it all and experimentally test it, be of benefit to the rest of the human race ?
RM :)
See, aside from the self-sustaining device which is the main focus of my interest, I would be interested to read theoretical analysis showing that OU is inherent in the very theory of electrcity or any other branch of physics for that matter. I have shown that in several texts ( including the text I attached above) but I'm sure there's more. Such studies have been deliberately ignored by the mainstream and all the attention is desperately drawn away from instances where CoE is violated. Most other ideas, if not implemented in experimental devices with with good data analysis, such as Steorn's, for instance, I would largely ignore or will just give it a cursory view. That's my approach. Others may differ and that's OK. We live in a free world.
@All,
Those of you who have been following my studies know that I've come up with a theoretical analysis (I cited that text in my initial post) which shows that the possibility to produce excess energy (to violate CoE) is inherently present in the theory of electricity. The OU effect shows under some special, yet physically viable, conditions (seen in the excel sheet, voltage offset being one significant condition) while under other conditions missing, as expected. I'm attaching that text again here, because of some typos that had to be corrected.
As I've mentioned earlier, to find a hitherto unknown inherent discrepancy in the existing theory, especially such violation CoE, is second best in our battle to get the OU idea across to society, to demonstrating a self-sustaining device.
A theoretical analysis is also a check against which we would know as to whether or not our measuring procedures are correct. This would help us understand the Steorn, Bedini, Lawrence, TPU etc. experimental results and the results of their critics -- how much we can rely on the claims for experimental excess energy and how accurate is the criticism. Many here in this forum know that I went out of my way in the Summer to achieve an accurate methodology for these experiments. I ended up getting an expensive Hall effect current probe alongside with the Tektronix DPO 2014. Unfortunately, the voltage probes I used were passive voltage probes and that posed the question as to the effect of their input impedance on the results. So, after a discussion with some good members of the forum such as @gyulasun, it was established that I should get an active voltage probe. So I did. I got Tektronix P6243 active voltage probe.
As seen from the attached spreadsheets, as already established, under the studied conditions OU effect is missing even theoretically. What makes an impression, however, is that the experimental input power value does not reproduce the theoretically found one by about an order of magnitude. So, before going any further in trying to reproduce the theoretical result (as seen from example.csv, I cannot study with the available apparatus I have the 1.14V amplitude condition because both I and V then are below its detection limits) that discrepancy has to be explained away.
Thus, before going any further one should answer the question why is it that while the experimental output power (based on the readings of the current probe) do reproduce the theoretical output power, the experimental input power (based also on the voltage probe measurement data) are off by about an order of magnitude compared to the theoretical input power? Supposedly, this is the best voltage probe one can use for such studies. Why the discrepancy, then?
Trying to upload the new data ...
Here are the experimental data:
And, this is the spreadsheet with the corresponding theoretical data:
Here's another experiment which I carried out today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnqXJbwpNRo
This experiment is the basis for my confidence that pure magnet motors, not even assisted by gravity, should be real. As I've said many times, making a working PMM is only a matter of skilful engineering.
You may notice in the video that different amount of work is done along different paths from the far-field (where the magnetic force is practically zero) to the point where the magnetic potential energy is at its minimum. This fully agrees with the fact which I noted on several occasions in this forum that the integrals of force over distance from infinity to the minimum of the potential energy may differ when these functions have a different form. Thus, the integral over a closed loop may not be zero as is usually considered. This is a most significant fact because it demonstrates the inherent possibility for OU to exist in the standard theory itself. The discrepancy demonstrated can find a practical application at once. However, as I have said many times, the usual perception is that a self-sustaining machine has to be demonstrated in order for society to believe there can be OU. Thus, the goal is to clothe this phenomenon as well the one demonstrated with the magnetic propulsor (where there's assistance by gravity of the magnetic field and vice versa) in a proper engineering form of a perpetuum mobile.
Here is a screen shot to give you an idea of the subtle differences between the voltage traces taken with the 10X(purple), active(blue) and 1X(green) voltage probes. Blue trace is current. All probes are attached after the current probe. Attaching the active probe before the current probe (measuring the voltage directly across the capacitance and active resistance in series) makes no difference. And, again, the absolute value of the input power measured by using all three probes is an order of magnitude higher than the theoretical while the output power, using the same current measured by the current probe, practically coincides with the theoretically calculated.
Makes you wonder how can anybody claim anything regarding experimental measurement of power one way or another. This applies not only both to OU researchers and their critics but to any mainstream power measurement as well.
One thing is certain, OU is present in the standard theory of electricity but has been overlooked. The experimental claims are wanting and that's the problem.
Quote
One thing is certain, OU is present in the standard theory of electricity but has been overlooked.
The Retard strikes again....
Of course, we're not going to forget about theory no matter how much some who claim they know science would surmise.
The distance of displacement of a body of mass M from a position of rest when struck by another body of mass m is a measure of the work done by the striking body. This is well known (known even before 1900).
it is equally well-known scientifically that the potential energy of a body of mass m attracted by another body converts into equivalent amount of other energies (kinetic energy will suffice) when that body of mass m is allowed to approach freely the attracting body from a point of displacement. The maximum potential energy can be converted into its equivalent maximum kinetic energy when the body of mass m is let go from a point where the force of attraction is zero to the point of maximum attraction force. This is also well-known since even before 1900.
This maximum kinetic energy is a potential to do work. In this case we choose the work done by the body of mass m to be the displacement of a body of mass M when struck by the body of mass m when it possesses the maximum kinetic energy.
The common understanding, known since even before 1900, is that a magnet of mass m will always exhibit the same amount of maximum kinetic energy when attracted by another magnet, independent of the point from which it starts, provided the force at this starting point is zero.
The validity of this common understanding can be checked. Use the same billiard ball of mass M, always place it at a point where the attraction between the two magnets is maximum (where the minimum of the potential energy of the two magnets is), remove one of the magnets away from the other to a piont where the force of attraction is practically zero and let it go. If aligned properly, the billiard ball will be struck by the approaching magnet and will be displaced. Move the magnet to another position of zero force and repeat the above. Compare the distances traveled by the billiard ball.
Use different magnets for the experiment explained above and you will find that in many instances you will confirm what has already been know since even before the nineteen hundreds -- the work done by the magnet being attracted done on the billiard ball will be the same (the distance traveled by the billiard ball will always be the same) independent of where you release it from as long as the starting point is where the force of attraction is practically zero.
However, there will be instances, such as the one shown in my vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnqXJbwpNRo where the energies produced from two different points of release are different. In this case the experiment shows that the integral of force over distance is different in the two cases. This means that the integral of the force over distance in a closed loop (the two magnets attracted, one of the magnets removed to a point where the force of attraction is zero, same magnet moved to another point where the force of attraction is zero and then let go) is not zero. Even though the fact that magnets are attracted and that the work to remove two attracted magnets away from each other equals the work done when they spontaneously go back to their initial state has been known since even before 1900 the fact of the non-zero integral value of the closed-loop integral has not been known. This is new to science.
Hehe...
OmniBot is loosing his grounds?
What A FARCE.....
I removed all additional wires and left it bare bones -- resistor and capacitor. Same thing. Input power comes out experimentally about an order of magnitude greater than the input power. Like I said, theoretically, at these conditions input power equals the output power (the theoretical discrepancy between these two powers is at different conditions).
I'm glad you're posting real results with good equipment.
I am just guessing here, but the difficulties you are reporting MAY be due to the following.
The discrepancy between the several probes that you show on the same signal in the scopeshot above is a classic illustration of "probe skew", which is a result of slightly different time constants of the probes themselves. Active probes, as you can see, suffer from this. Many modern DSOs have a "de-skew" option whereby this error can be removed. Also important with Hall-effect and transformer-type current probes is degaussing. Generally, the current probe should be degaussed and zeroed (using the scope's built-in functions if possible) before each measurement hookup.
This skew, as you can see, will result in incorrect calculations down the line.
The order-of-magnitude discrepancy sounds like the scope may not be auto-detecting the probe attenuation at some point-- or perhaps it's somehow being set incorrectly manually. I would suggest that you attempt to verify the probe's reading by setting up the situation where the probe is indicating what you think is the wrong reading, and then check it with the calibrator or other known voltage source.
There are two issues actually. The instant values of the voltage and the phase shift.
Now, of course I'm degaussing the current probe in absence of current, setting it to zero, with a deskew value 0.00s. Then, after applying current I'm waiting until 512 traces are averaged. The voltage probes (both the passive and the active) are also first zeroed, deskewed etc. in absence of current. So, that part I think is good.
Now, mind you, the current measurements should be OK since the output power, based only on the current measurements (and the resistance), come out practically coinciding with the theoretical output power.
As for the independent checking of the instantaneous voltage values I independently measure the source I use (the HP pulse generator) with a Keithley 2000 DMM and judging from the rms it also seems to be good. That is, there doesn't seem to be a problem with the voltage values. Besides, all three different ways of voltage measurement give coinciding results in terms of values of the voltage.
One other thing. It seems to me that the phase shift problem may be due to a slight delay in the attenuated probes due to the need the voltage to be recalculated. Probably the phase shift of the 1X probe is the correct one because the value does not need to be recalculated and therefore it appears in pair with the right time label, as it were. What do you think?
Also, don't forget the theoretical analysis. It's a problem in itself, independent of any experiments. As is seen from the data I posted above OU is inherent in the very standard theory of electricity. That deserves a separate discussion.
OK, I see Tektronix has a special add-on for precise deskewing probes used in power measurements: http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/tektronix/pdf/tekdpg.pdf So, now what? Spending more and more money for things they should've provided for to begin with? There should be some simple way to precisely deskew these probes. Otherwise, how can you ever be sure that your power data are accurate?
Now, I'm playing with the deskew of the active voltage probe, trying to adjust it so that the outcome will fit the theoretical power in. And, indeed, if instead of 0.00s I set -8ns the experimental power in becomes of the same order of magnitude as the theoretical. However, that's incorrect methodology because I'm presuming that these two values (experimental and theoretical) should coincide. No wonder why Tektronix is selling a special deskew "calibrator" for over a thousand bucks. Having that, however, is crucial.A couple of ns skew along the time axis makes all the difference in the world.
EDIT: I should keep adding to this post for some time, probably.
So, here's what I did. I adjusted the deskew value to a number which yields an experimental result (of the power input) practically coinciding (of the same order) with the theoretical at 0V offset. That deskew value is -8ns. Then I studied the power balance at a positive (1 and 2V) and negative (-1 and -2V) voltage offset and and I now see a huge difference between the input and output power. Thus, while the Tek calibration gadget would give an absolute value of the necessary deskew figure this relative method also seems to indicate that the also the experimental power balance is not according to the CoE (we already know that at certain conditions the theoretical balance itself doesn't obey CoE).
Unfortunately, I'm unable to go beyond 16ppV with my active probe (which leads to very low current voltages, at the limit of detection of my current probe) but maybe I should redo the whole thing with the 1X and especially the 10X passive probe and will report the outcome.
2nd EDIT: After checking the 1X and the 10X passive probes I found that the the 10X probe requires the application of an even lower deskew (-17ns) while the 1X probe asks for no deskew -- the deskew for the 1X probe should be at 0.00s. Like I said, the amplitude and the momentary voltage values are practically the same for all probes.
Probably I should just return the active voltage probe and save one and a half grand. I don't see what use I may have for it in this study.
Here is an example of the offset voltage effect on overunity found experimentally in the RC circuit under study here. The voltage is measured by the 1X passive probe set at 0.00ns deskew value. The voltage amplitude is 4V. The main point here is to demonstrate that the OU found theoretically to be a function of the voltage offset is observed experimentally as well. It should be noted that the input and output power found by integration of the experimental data over one period practically coincides with the input and output power values found through averaging the instantaneous IV products over a period. That expected result is in contrast to what was calculated theoretically (cf. the theoretical data sheet uploaded earlier). The reason for the discrepancy in the theoretical calculation is still unclear. I'd put forth, however, that it is more likely that the processing of the experimental data yields the correct result in view of the fewer number of operations involved. There is also a discrepancy between the theoretical and the experimental intercept of the line shown in the figure which is due to the lack of proper equipment to set the exact deskew value. Nevertheless, the very fact that also the experiment shows voltage offset dependence of the OU as well as a negative value of the OU (facts found theoretically to be inherent in the very standard theory of electricity itself) furthers the conclusion that OU exists trivially but has been missed.
I'm sending back the active voltage probe since I see no use for it in the present studies. The 1X passive probe seems to be just fine for these specific studies. What is urgently needed now is to have independent parties repeat these elementary measurements and see if they can reproduce the results I got, indicating that production of excess energy is inherent in the basics of common electric circuits. So far this is the only finding which seems to confirm OU in electrical systems. No offense to anybody else doing research in other kinds of electrical circuits but so far I have seen no conclusive results from other studies proving OU.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 22, 2011, 11:41:57 AM
What is urgently needed now is to have independent parties repeat these elementary measurements and see if they can reproduce the results I got, indicating that production of excess energy is inherent in the basics of common electric circuits. So far this is the only finding which seems to confirm OU in electrical systems. No offense to anybody else doing research in other kinds of electrical circuits but so far I have seen no conclusive results from other studies proving OU.
hi Omni
how did you get on with the Borromeo research paper i uploaded for you - did you see any tie-ins with your RC network findings?
@nul-points,
Thanks for uploading the paper. Unfortunately, I still haven't had the chance to study it yet. Will post post here as soon as I can. Also, like I said, I'm following with interest your reports of the experiment you're doing although I may not respond every time you post.
@nul-points,
The article you uploaded is a very interesting model study of a complex situation involving the stochastic behavior of a massless Brownian particle under the action of random noise as the driving signal and the effect of the resultant noise fed back into the system. Among other things, an unexpected asymmetry in the probablility of finding the particle in the 1D space is reported when these two noise signals act in concert and that may be thought of as a simulation of Maxwell automaton. Asymmetries such as this one are always fascinating and deserve special attention provided the details of the model and especially the numerical procedures correctly reflect the physicality of the situation. Of course, at present I have no way to check that in view of the complexity of the proposal. On the face of it seems intriguing to say the least.
Now, regarding the connection of the above model with the studies I posted, it isn't clear to me now exactly where there may be such. Notice, in the case I'm observing I'm bound by some strictly defined parameters, determined by the non-probabilistic nature of the theory of electricity laws I'm applying. Also, there is no recycled signal applied to the system in my case. Everything is quite straightforward in this respect and the outcome seems to be much simpler to interpret. In my case all seems to boil down to an unnoticed so far effect of the voltage offset, current in this case having naturally no such offset (comprising what I call a natural asymmetry), inducing an apparent additional phase shift causing in some cases energy to be returned to the source. As it happens, in most cases not only a power balance of an RC circuit is not considered but such circuit is observed in most cases at zero voltage offset. That may be the reason why the effect I report might have been missed or maybe, in view of it being in violation of CoE, has simply been ignored as some kind of error the roots of which need not be explored further. Ubiquity of CoE is so firmly established in the mainstream that any sign of violating it is promptly dismissed as a sure error. There is no open mindedness in this respect at all even among scientist who claim to be open minded. I'm sure you know that's the biggest no-no in science no matter how strong the evidence. Not so with the second law, the generality of which has been doubted at one time or another even by the founders of thermodynamics.
Undoubtedly, the attitude towards the first law has to change as well if science is to maintain its integrity. Not only the second but also the first law has an experimental basis and, despite the claimed lack of experimental evidence against it thus far, it should not continue to be considered inviolable should firm evidence against it is found. In other words, the non-scientific practice to check the validity of the experimental results against the first law dogma (unjustifiably based only on so far approved experiments) should be abandoned and the true scientific method should be applied with respect to the experimental evidence.
a strong strategy,
is to tell society,
that the device is using an "alternative" power source.
such as gravity,
the earths magnetic field,
ambient energy that is everywhere in a galaxy,
or whatever power source that allows atoms to function.
they don't have to understand the device.
they just have to be told enough of an explantion,
that they tolerate the devices existance.
so they go back to peacefully grazing on grass.
instead of sinking into a glandular temper tantrum,
and verbally throwing their psychological defications.
No way. To talk about using "alternative" energy source, let alone pronouncing gravity and such as energy source is as wrong a strategy as there can be. Remember, gravity is not an energy source and also remember, the claim that your device is tapping in some unknown energy source (zpe, energy from the vacuum etc.) has no scientific basis. Anything scientifically concerning OU, proven beyond a doubt so far, is obtaining of excess energy through saving from the input or by proper assistance by other conservative fields.
In a theoretical sense the greatest obtacle which stands in the way of progress in science let alone reason and integrity is summarized by the wacko statement made by Dirac in Scientific American, 208, 45-53 (1963): "... it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit the experiment".
The situation is completely hopeless. Because of understanding such as the one promoted by Dirac now anything goes in physics and it is overwhelmed by complete insanity of a particular kind, epitome of which are the string theories, cosmology and the like. That very particular insanity is promoted to the heavens jealously cutting out quality research in areas such as OU that can bring real progress to science and society.
Fighting that is extremely difficult, as mandatory as it is, and, like I said, that fight can only meet with success by demonstrating a self-sustaining mechanical device (not even electrical). Nothing short of that. This is a war and there's no mercy.
Omnibus, A bit off topic but having seen you are not overly big on string theory (sarcastic) could you possibly state a brief summary of what's wrong with string theory or what theory is a better replacement for it? I have no attachment to string theory but just curious what is wrong with it or what is better in your opinion.
The problem with the string theory is that it is based on the theory of relativity (don't confuse theory of relativity with Einstein's "theory" of relativity which is a complete nonsense worthy of no mention whatsoever). The theory of relativity is based on Lorentz transformations which, although mathematically consistent, unfortunately have no physical meaning whatsoever. Remove Lorentz transformations, there will be no string theories and no cosmology. Leave them in, you'll get beautiful equations which physics has no use for. In addition, the "physical" conclusions which one reaches by using these non-physical equations are astoundingly ridiculous, such as the claim for many universes (maybe that makes string theories and such so attractive to crackpots who filled to the brim Barnes and Noble the other day in NYC and will spend their hard earned money on such crap as the book that was plugged in there). This whole mess theoretical physics is in these days (as a result of the systematic confusion for over a century) is due to the damage of good students of Einstein, with thinking messed up by him, such as Dirac, as I cited earlier. That culture of institutionalized nonsense has to be fought vehemently no matter how hoeless such battle may appear today.
Quote from: Omnibus on February 20, 2011, 05:57:47 PM
No way. To talk about using "alternative" energy source, let alone pronouncing gravity and such as energy source is as wrong a strategy as there can be. Remember, gravity is not an energy source and also remember, the claim that your device is tapping in some unknown energy source (zpe, energy from the vacuum etc.) has no scientific basis. Anything scientifically concerning OU, proven beyond a doubt so far, is obtaining of excess energy through saving from the input or by proper assistance by other conservative fields.
In a theoretical sense the greatest obtacle which stands in the way of progress in science let alone reason and integrity is summarized by the wacko statement made by Dirac in Scientific American, 208, 45-53 (1963): "... it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit the experiment".
The situation is completely hopeless. Because of understanding such as the one promoted by Dirac now anything goes in physics and it is overwhelmed by complete insanity of a particular kind, epitome of which are the string theories, cosmology and the like. That very particular insanity is promoted to the heavens jealously cutting out quality research in areas such as OU that can bring real progress to science and society.
Fighting that is extremely difficult, as mandatory as it is, and, like I said, that fight can only meet with success by demonstrating a self-sustaining mechanical device (not even electrical). Nothing short of that. This is a war and there's no mercy.
i can point out many things,
that are "wrong",
with your above post.
1:
you have the wrong attitude,
if you want to accomplish something gainful.
you have the right attitude,
if you want to stew in the vile juice of defeat.
the right attitude,
is the single most important thing,
that a person can.
the second most important thing,
is not even half as large,
as the right attitude.
yet the right attitude,
is also the thing,
which a person has the most control over.
2:
you need to be less unconstructively argumentative,
if you wish to avoid needlessly alienating people.
(i do not care if i alienate you, as you have already alienated me.
so i am scott free to talk.)
3:
calling it an "alternative energy source",
is a concept,
this is as close to the truth,
as the average grass grazing excrement-thrower,
is going to understand or accept.
the concept is usually at least 2/3 of the truth, anyway.
where 100% of the relevant details,
are usually no greater than 1/3.
that is right.
a complete idiot,
who has a strong understanding of general concepts,
usually comes much closer to the truth,
than a a common-sense-free fool,
who has a strong understanding of the truth.
that is why the idiot population has come to rule the society.
because the idiot population is usually poor on details, but strong on general concepts.
they were able to generalize the truth well enough to survive, more often than the detail-strong fools were able to survive.
but not well enough,
to avoid 7 cartloads,
of moronic dramatic problems,
that are mostly preventable.
the gravity of this planet,
CAN be used by a device,
to reduce a devices electrical requirements.
so the device produces greater than 100% electrical output.
if that is not "directly" an "energy source",
than it is the effective equivalent,
of an "energy source".
remember that the important part,
is not to accurately describe the process.
but to present the process,
in a way that people,
who have little free time,
little interest,
and little attention span,
can hear about,
without rejecting.
4:
Dirac pointed out an unconstructive,
less than practical behavior,
that he observed in other people
a large number of other people,
had already chosen to enact the behavior.
dirac was just declaring that their **** stinks.
dirac just pointed out what they decided to do.
he didn't "make" it popular.
because their behavior,
had already been popular folly,
for centuries.
there has never been a time in recorded history,
where a majority of humans,
prefered the ugly yet complete truth,
over what they felt to be beautiful or pleasant.
partly because the average wage slave,
doesn't love to think often enough or hard enough,
to become more than 25% familiar,
with the whole truth.
and havn't developed the problem solving skills,
to be capable of doing more,
than sweeping a problem under the rug,
a majority of the time.
someone either needs to increase the number,
of intellectually responsible humans in the population....
or they need to make important discoveries,
understandable enough to idiots,
to increase awareness of the inventions.
there is a far better chance in hell of the second happening,
than of the first happening.
because the first would likely require genetic engineering to accomplish.
but the second could mostly be done,
using a combination of understanding,
knowledge,
low-depreciation idea-simplification,
and social charm.
5:
my interest in communicating,
in your general direction,
has been exceeded.
good-bye.
Many of you have been following my studies last summer on power balances in transformers, coils and what not and finally of a simple RC circuit. I don't remember what the link to these studies was (maybe someone can help) but the gist was that both theoretically and experimentally it was determined that under certain circumstances (certain voltage offsets) the studies devices are OU. Aside from difficulties some have with the theory itself reproducing these findings experimentally meets with insurmountable difficulties among the members of the forum mainly because of the super expenses needed to get the equipment needed. The expenses are way beyond what almost everybody here can afford.
Now, a great way to reproduce the claims I put forth turned out to be a widely used simulation program called PSpice. Its student version (enough for the studies at hand) is free, anybody can download it and see for himself the validity of the OU claim. There shouldn't be an excuse any more that conditions, expense, infrastructure etc. don't allow for this OU effect to be reproduced independently. Note, this is the only instance so far whereby OU is conclusively proven in a solid-state electric device and, as seen, OU is inherent in the very essence of theory of electricity. I am preparing more texts demonstrating OU inherent in theory other than theory of electricity and will post these texts separately when the time comes.
I've discussed privately the findings I'm presenting here with friends and I'm contemplating to post them also on @poynt99's overunityresearch.com as well as Sean's(CLaNZeR's) overunity.org.uk but haven't decided yet mainly to have the discussions focused in one place. I've traditionally posted here in this forum, the earlier results are posted here (although somewhere in another thread) so I'll start here and then we'll see how it goes.
The main goal is to make these studies mainstream because, as I've said more than once, there is no private money or support that can compete with the finances, infrastructure, societal impact etc. of the Academia which nowadays is usurped by forces promoting sheer nonsense instead of supporting studies that would benefit humanity.
I'm attaching here three files of data obtained by PSpice of a schematic shown below. You may see that the analysis of Pout/Pin is not based on what PSpice uses for the purpose but is very clearly specified and presented outside of PSpice -- in Excel. This is extremely important because, as I've demonstrated earlier, integration and all kinds of additional approximation procedures do nothing else but obscure the effect. Thus, the fewer arithmetic operations the fewer the errors induced by using digital machines will be. In the case at hand the instantaneous Ii and Vi values are calculated exactly and once we have them it's a matter of simple multiplication of Ii*Vi and averaging the obtained products over all members that will bring about the needed value of Pin (same for Ii*Ii*R regarding Pout). Note, Ii*Vi is the instantaneous slope of the energy-time curve and the average slope (averaged over all instantaneous slopes) provides Pin at once. No additional arithmetic involving small numbers -- the fiend of digital machines.
You can see from the spreadsheets I'm attaching that, at negative voltage offset there is not only OU but all the power is returned to the source -- super OU, as it were. On the other hand, positive offsets yield severe underunity. The zero offset gives what's expected -- unity. It may only be guessed why such an important effect has been missed so far -- wrong procedures, voltage offset is never considered and, most likely, pure suppression. It very well may be that someone has seen it but has dismissed it following the brainwashing that OU cannot be in science. People are afraid to lose their jobs and positions at universities for lesser controversies let alone claiming violation of CoE. Recall also what I told you in the Summer -- then I found with astonishment that in most prestigious universities here on the East Coast EE departments don't even consider measuring currents in the student labs let lone in research. Anyway, a lot can be said about this but for now we should focus, I think, on the issue and, of course, ruminate on the strategies to make it known by the mainstream and how to make it become mainstream.
@All,
I know you'll f$&@ing love this. I posted the above results in a forum dedicated to discussing problems of electrical engineering: http://eng-tips.com/threadminder.cfm?pid=238 . Not only was I banned immediately from the forum but the thread and any trace of what I posted was deleted mercilessly.
Before the ban someone, I guess the moderator, posted a reply to the effect that I must have made an error and it's for me and for nobody else to find the error. I replied that I have not made an error in my analysais and if he thinks otherwise he should, kndly, show where the error is. The response was a total ban and deletion of the whole thread.
I thought you might wanna know of this development.
Now, while I'm banned and the thread is deleted, I got this link in my e- mail : http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=293851 . My reply that I have made no errors in my analysis and if he thinks otherwise he should show where that error is, is missing from the exchange.
Watch this. There's a new development -- I'm still banned but the thread is back with a couple new comments.: http://eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=293851&page=1 .
Saga continues. Aside from the ban which persists (I wrote an e-mail to the administrator, as is required by that forum; no response so far) the thread is again deleted. While it was alive someone warned me that I underestimate the power of the adversaries and I may not only be banned but my internet access may be curtailed. And all that for posting some little inauspicious set of data ... Pathetic ... Must be very important to ban posting that particular set of data. Thank god we have forums such as this one and a couple of others. It has been infested by trolls and zealous activists lately which made most good participants leave but nevertheless, it's good that we at least have that. Of course, it's not the point to preach to the converted so I'll have to see what further steps I may undertake. The problem is, especially here in the US, any attempt to approach colleagues with this is perceived as a provocation and a personal attack. People are profoundly afraid to lose their jobs. It's really cold outside. Banning in virtual world for something that may seem innocuous tells you in no uncertain terms what will happen to you in the real world where the pain could be really tangible.
@Omnibus,
What are those green and red 'switches' in you circuit diagram?
b.t.w. the earlier discussions were started by you here, if I am correct:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.3045
@teslaalset,
Thanks a lot for the link.
These are not switches but are the probes measuring the current I and the voltage V at the points they are placed at. When you run the simulation another screen opens up showing the time transients and you have to have set the probes of what is to be displayed in these graphs.
The program is a killer. It is used by all major research universities as a teaching and research tool. I was really amazed that noone has ever mentioned it so far in our discussions (I, for one, first heard of it a couple of weeks ago due to @poynt99). With this program it becomes really easy to demonstrate what I'm claiming without the need of expensive equipment and obviously that fact scared the hell out of those who are in charge of the eng-tips forum. Evidently, that forum is influential and they don't want to have undergrad and grad students, who are required to use PSpice to suddenly find out something they are not supposed to.
@Omnibus,
You have triggered my curiousity. I will try that program as well as soon as time allows.
But a simple question: if the circuitry is that simple, why not try it in practice?
@teslaalset,
I was wrong PSpice hasn't been mentioned in our discussions. It has, at that, in that very thread you mentioned above. Check out this: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8411.msg247396#msg247396 . The amazing thing is that if you do the simulation right you'll get a different answer from what that fellow demonstrates. One should not rely on the analysis of the data made by PSpice but should do his own transparent analysis of his own of the data generated by PSpice. So, get the I and V data and process it outside of PSpice, in Excel, say. In a digital machine such as the computer we're using for the calculations one should be careful to reduce the arithmetic to the lowest possible number of operations. Otherwise, inevitable calculation errors are piled up which obscure the effect.
Also, I found PSpice mentioned in other threads of our forum with OU claims (the current RC and LRC claim is the simplest and the most straightforward, as far as I can see. I don't know what the merits of these other claims are). Now that may explain why those controlling eng-tips forum were so prompt is banning me (literally within minutes of posting my reply). They've probably had "bad" experience with others using PSpice and posting resukts they don't like. This is a scandal to no end.
Here is an example of a LRC sim. In this particular case the Pout/Pin = 2. Notice, without voltage offset. If, however, the inductance and voltage offset are tweaked little bit one can get the most intriguing negative value of Pout/Pin. Negative value of Pout/Pin means that in addition to obtaining the dissipative heat in the R, all the rest of the energy is returned to the energy source. As I noted more than once, the excess energy in this case is due to the saving from the input. That is the only case of excess energy in solid state devices that I know of that can be demonstrated so categorically.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 07, 2011, 09:06:51 PM
Saga continues. Aside from the ban which persists (I wrote an e-mail to the administrator, as is required by that forum; no response so far) the thread is again deleted. While it was alive someone warned me that I underestimate the power of the adversaries and I may not only be banned but my internet access may be curtailed.
I read that post. The guy was making fun of the situation. You can tell this because his post ended in mid-sentence, as if the MiBs had carried him off right in the middle of the post.
Quote from: utilitarian on March 08, 2011, 10:48:13 AM
I read that post. The guy was making fun of the situation. You can tell this because his post ended in mid-sentence, as if the MiBs had carried him off right in the middle of the post.
I know. The other too were also probably trying to be funny. The fact remains, however, that there must be more than meets the eye. To be banned for just posting data obtained with PSpice means that there must be something that scares them (the keepers of the faith) out of their wits.
Although now commercialized, the project that started PSpice had been paid for by the government. That's why, because of the public money spent, I learn, it's required that its basic version should be distributed free to the public. I doubt that the government would've paid if they knew what they're really getting into. I also didn't appreciate its power last year when I was trying to replicate all these claims by Steorn and the like. Turns out, you don't need to raise $20 million private dollars to demonstrate that electrical systems contain inherently OU properties. As seen OU can be achieved with the simplest electrical designs as long as you can ensure the needed assymmetries and that can be demonstrated straight out by methods that have been installed in universities with public money.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 08, 2011, 11:24:16 AM
I know. The other too were also probably trying to be funny. The fact remains, however, that there must be more than meets the eye. To be banned for just posting data obtained with PSpice means that there must be something that scares them (the keepers of the faith) out of their wits.
I don't really think that you posted something that scares them. They probably deleted it as it was an irrelevant post and does not belong on their forum.
It would be interesting to have a schematic built that would produce the needed forms of the input I and V from a battery and feed the proper RC or LRC schematic yielding negative Pout/Pin. Then we'll have Joule heat produced in addition to recharging the battery. It could very well be that that's what's causing the effect reported here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10174.0 . @nul-points thinks it's violation of the second law but in fact it's actually violation of the first law (violation of the conservation of energy (CoE)).
It scares those who control forums such as eng-tips.com to have such an outright demonstration of CoE violation in electric circuits, a demonstration they cannot defeat. No doubt about that. There could be nothing more irrelevant to them than such claim let alone when it is true and cannot be defeated. That is their defeat and they are scared to death of such an outcome.
By the way, if anyone has any suggestions for electrical engineering forums similar to eng-tips let me know. I'll gladly observe what their reaction would be when I post these data there.
@teslaalset,
How is your experience with PSpice progressing?
I wish other friends like @Omega_0 or @gyulasun could join the PSpice discussion. @Tinsel Koala's take would also be interesting.
that is a really simple circuit. why have you not constructed it in reality yet????
I have.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 09, 2011, 06:38:53 AM
I have.
you have what? a device that 'produces joule heating in addition to recharging the battery'?
A device that in addition to Joule heating returns energy to the source.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 09, 2011, 07:37:56 AM
A device that in addition to Joule heating returns energy to the source.
shiny! will you post build list and schematic?
It's right in front of your eyes -- PSpice. Take a look at a couple of postings back.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 09, 2011, 07:48:29 AM
It's right in front of your eyes -- PSpice. Take a look at a couple of postings back.
i said reality - it's right in front of your eyes. take a look a couple of postings back. simulations are incomplete... and there's that whole garbage in garbage out thing.
What I'm presenting is reality.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 09, 2011, 07:54:19 AM
What I'm presenting is reality.
i didn't ask that. i asked why you had not constructed it in reality yet. ::)
then i asked you if you had a
device. which apparently you do not. in reality all you have is a simulation.
What I'm presenting has been analyzed theoretically, has been tested experimentally and can be demonstrated at once using PSpice. This is the only electrical solid-state device that I know of that is conclusively proven to be OU.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 09, 2011, 08:00:39 AM
What I'm presenting has been analyzed theoretically, has been tested experimentally and can be demonstrated at once using PSpice. This is the only electrical solid-state device that I know of that is conclusively proven to be OU.
is the data on this "experimental test" available? or is this just a reference to this simulation again?
The experimental data are available. @teslaalset gave a link to one such set of data which I've posted here during my studies last summer. Anyone with a decent scope can check it out at any time. Doesn't take much (except for having the adequate equipment, of course).
The simulation with PSpice confirms what was found experimentally. That's to be expected, otherwise none of the major universities using PSpice would ever consider it as a teaching and research tool.
posted here in this thread?
*face palm*
you're a member over @ overunityresearch.com, go run it up the flagpole over there... see how few salutes you get. several members there are very proficient with p-spice and have the same great faith in it you do.
The effect I've found has been missed (or, perhaps, deliberately suppressed), although it's inherent in the very essence of the theory of electricity. Like I said, there are other area of physics, other than the theory of electricity, with similar omissions which I'll discuss in due time.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 09, 2011, 08:11:10 AM
The effect I've found has been missed (or, perhaps, deliberately suppressed), although it's inherent in the very essence of the theory of electricity. Like I said, there are other area of physics, other than theory of electricity, with similar omissions which I'll discuss in due time.
yes i have heard you say this numerous times. i have yet to see you provide a working device.
Like I said, I'm posting it here because this is a place where I traditionally do the posting. Other than that I don't see at this point the reason to preach to the converted by going to other OU forums. What I'm doing, though, is to go outside of the OU community into the mainstream. The response so far is either outright ban or lack of words. I'll be reporting further down the line what's happening with these efforts of mine. Just pay attention.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 09, 2011, 08:16:32 AM
Like I said, I'm posting it here because this is a place where I traditionally do the posting. Other than that I don't see at this point the reason to preach to the converted by going to other OU forums. What I'm doing, though, is to go outside of the OU community into the mainstream. The response so far is either outright ban or lack of words. I'll be reporting further down the line what's happening with these efforts of mine. Just pay attention.
riiight... ok avoid peer review at all costs. ;) regarding further on down the line, are you going to be posting a link to this "experimental test" you referred to?
Did I say that or I said exactly the opposite? I'm approaching the mainstream which is the real peer-review. Preaching to the converted is not peer-review. Basking in the warmth of approval by like souls is easy. Go fight the enemy, that's the real thing. That's what I'm doing.
As for posting the experimental data, I already said I've done that and @teslaalset gave a link to it. Probably, now that I'm saying it the second time you'll manage somehow to hear it.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 09, 2011, 08:27:36 AM
Did I say that or I said exactly the opposite? I'm approaching the mainstream which is the real peer-review. Preaching to the converted is not peer-review. Basking in the warmth of approval by like souls is easy. Go fight the enemy, that's the real thing. That's what I'm doing.
As for posting the experimental data, I already said I've done that and @teslaalset gave a link to it. Probably, now that I'm saying it the second time you'll manage somehow to hear it.
then post it @ overunityresearch.com and see who salutes. or are they 'the converted' of which you speak? i can almost assure you that poynt99, humbugger, etc. are
not among those converted by steorn... ::)
no, i saw it. that is what the *face palm* was for...
My finding has to become mainstream. That's the goal. I like all these fellows and I may post something there eventually but that won't help for the mainstream to accept it. Other avenues are to be sought and that's what I'm trying to figure out now.
@Omnibus . A couple of observations from a self confessed numbskull . First , the circuit diagram in your reply number44 .Is that not the circuit of Prof Turturs Zero point machine ? In his set up the power source is a simple permanent magnet alternator , that can absorb energy sent back to it by speeding up . In post 49 , you talk about a circuit that produces heat from a resistor , whilst recharging its own battery . Isn't that what Rosemary Ainsley is demonstrating on the 14th day of this month ?
Quote from: neptune on March 09, 2011, 09:23:51 AM
@Omnibus . A couple of observations from a self confessed numbskull . First , the circuit diagram in your reply number44 .Is that not the circuit of Prof Turturs Zero point machine ? In his set up the power source is a simple permanent magnet alternator , that can absorb energy sent back to it by speeding up . In post 49 , you talk about a circuit that produces heat from a resistor , whilst recharging its own battery . Isn't that what Rosemary Ainsley is demonstrating on the 14th day of this month ?
No, not at all. You have to understand what I've done first. I'm studying the power balance of the simplest known, well-studied circuits -- RC and LRC. What I'm discovering is that the standard theory of electricity has hidden sides which have been overlooked (or maybe suppressed). There's nothing esoteric, fantastic or non-standard in my studies. They are standard electric theory in every possible respect, properly analyzed. The Joule heating across a dissipative (active) resistor is well known. Returning power to the source by reactive elements is also well known.What has been missed is that there are intrinsic asymmetries in these standard circuits, especially due to the presence of capacitance, which allow for the asymmetric return of power to the source together with the release of Joule heat. As a matter of fact, I have discovered similar production of excess energy due to saving from the input many years ago during electrolysis of water in an undivided electrolysis cell. I have published in peer-reviewed journals and even used to have a patent on that (the institution that I worked for at that time made me file for a patent despite my very well known dislike of patents). As a matter of fact exactly that production of excess energy due to saving from the input is the major effect in the so-called 'cold fusion' (in addition, probably,to some minor nuclear effects). I did not continue with these studies because I found out that not only the public at large but even self-proclaimed experts such as those at MIT and Caltech are just not up to the task. It's a difficult matter which even the so-called experts don not understand well, it turned out. I met with such incompetence in some ostensibly prestigious institutions that it was just appaling. As a matter of fact, I also published in peer-reviewed journals analysis of their own data which was showing positive effect despite their conclusion to the contrary due to incorrect assessment of their own data as well as outright fraud.
Anyway, I can tell you a lot about this but what I really wanted to tell you is that Istarted looking for some simpler and more comprehensive analogs of the 'cold fusion' effect and that is when I found the a simple device such as a magnetic propulsor isalso an OU device. I went further in my studies and after visiting Steorn in Dublin I decided to replicate what they were doing because I was veryimpressed by what I saw there. So, step by step (you can see it in thelink @teslaalset provided) I started finding out that there is OU effect in transformers, then in coils with cores, air coils and so on and so forth until I stumbled onto the simplest of the simple circuits -- RC and LRC. I found with astonishment that the power balance studies, if there had been such at all (mind you, friends at MIT and elsewhere told me that the professors there won't touch measuring power balance of a transformer with a ten foot pole; student are never given hands on assignments to that effect and are only taught generalities and models), were all flawed. Across the board. Hard to believe but that's the sad truth. Obviously, such studies are strongly discouraged and now we know why.
In addition to the studies I mentioned I found a whole set of problems in the fundamentals of physics which, as I said, I will discuss in due time.
To finish this rant, let me mention again that so far there hasn't been any convincing demonstration of OU other than the studies in question and many claimants are incurring more damage than good to the cause of OU research putting a bad name on it with their aggressive incompetence. As for zpe, there is no such real effect. I've said it more than once, zpe is just a defficiency in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics (unlike the so-called Einstein's "theory" of relativity which an ugly nonsense) has vary progressive sides to it although there are many aspects which are non-physical. One of these aspects is zpe. I can pinpoint some other problems in qm and all these stem from the uncritical acceptance of the complete physicality of the Hilbert space. So, one thing for future study is to delineate the boundaries within which Hilbert space is physica. Now, that, of course, is a subject of a separate conversation. For now I think to end here and if you have more questions you're welcome to present them here.
@All,
Check this out: http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/showthread.php?t=51118 . After it was discovered what it's about it was moved from the appropriate section of the forum to the off-topic section. You can see that someone was trying to come up with counter arguments but quite unsuccessfully. The whole thing ended by the moderator closing the thread after giving me tons of links which I cannot not agree contain sheer nonsense. That's what I've been telling you -- aggressive incompetence stands in the way of genuine research and gives a bad name to OU. If that's not done deliberately by the zealous activists to destroy the OU field then our fellow enthusiasts are the biggest enemies. Actually we (the ones interested in furthering OU research and bringing it into the mainstream) don't need enemies with such fellow enthusiasts.
looks like they've seen your kind before... ;)
Looks like they haven't. Looks like it's your kind that they have seen before.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 09, 2011, 12:53:56 PM
Looks like they haven't. Looks like it's your kind that they have seen before.
what kind would that be?
Aggressive incompetent capable of only uttering trivialities without even understanding what they really mean. I've told you that already and I've complained that such kind of aggressive incompetents are putting bad name to the OU research and many colleagues don't even want to hear about it. Part of that image is created deliberately by zealous activists who are determined to destroy the area of OU studies but the aggressive incompetents pushing themselves where they don't belong are not better. I already talked about all that but I had to repeat it because you somehow cannot comprehend it when it is said just once.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 09, 2011, 01:07:28 PM
Aggressive incompetent capable of uttering trivialities without even understanding what they really mean. I've told you that already and I've complained that such kind of aggressive incompetents are putting bad name to the OU research and many colleagues don't even want to hear about it. Part of that image is created deliberately by zealous activists who are determined to destroy the area of OU studies but the aggressive incompetents pushing themselves where they don't belong are not better. I already said all that but I had to repeat it because you somehow cannot comprehend it when it is said once.
yeah... ::) and guys like you that make endless claims, in every and any forum they can join, with no real word device to back up their endless bloviations do the area of ou studies a world of good... ::)
did you even bother to read the user agreement and check the sticky threads on what is allowed to be posted at allaboutcircuits.com or did you just charge on into their house and proceed to do exactly what was requested that you don't do?
Where are your arguments? What have you done in the field of OU? Where are your contributions? What nerve.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 09, 2011, 01:14:15 PM
Where are your arguments? What have you done in the field of OU? Where are your contributions? What nerve.
my argument is "where is your real world device? the one operating off the principle(s) you bloviate."
responding by asking what i have done in the field of ou is a logical fallacy, a red herring specifically. what i have done is irrelevant to your claim. where my contributions are is also a logical fallacy, another red herring. where my contributions are is irrelevant to your bloviations... ::)
what nerve indeed.
You don't know what you're talking about and that's why you think you have an argument. You'd do better to curtail your aggressive incompetent intrusion into the discussions and apply more efforts to reading rather than writing inconsequential blabber.
Incompetent people such as you have absolutely no right to demand whatsoever regarding science. You should know your place and if you don't know it you have to be shown where it is. Like I said, you should limit your activity here to just reading what others have to say and at times, when appropriate, should ask for clarification, if the folks have the time to educate you.
You are a disruptive element, destroying the discussions and if you continue I'll ask the moderator to take appropriate measures towards you. You should know your place.
Hi Omnibus,
I have a question... I've made the RC circuit, exactly as you have shown (PSpice), but I can't get the voltage and the current readings in the output file. Where are the settings for the log file?
In 'Simulation settings' -> 'Analysis' -> Output file options I am able to change the output speed, but this doesn't help.
Thank you.
Quote from: someother on March 09, 2011, 06:01:51 PM
Hi Omnibus,
I have a question... I've made the RC circuit, exactly as you have shown (PSpice), but I can't get the voltage and the current readings in the output file. Where are the settings for the log file?
In 'Simulation settings' -> 'Analysis' -> Output file options I am able to change the output speed, but this doesn't help.
Thank you.
OK, when the new screen with the graphs appears go to Edit->Select All then again Edit->Copy and then open notepad to paste the data. Save the data as, say, a.txt and then invoke it in Excel for processing.
@Omnibus
would the order of R1 and C1 make any difference to your cct.?
fritznien
Quote from: fritznien on March 09, 2011, 09:42:39 PM
@Omnibus
would the order of R1 and C1 make any difference to your cct.?
fritznien
I don't think so, as long as you measure the total current and the voltage across both R and C. Also, be careful about the proper sense of the current -- the current has to lead the voltage. Take a look at the graphs I've posted earlier in this thread.
i did not think either the currant or phase angle or the power on the resister would change just checking.
if i understand what your saying the cop is above 1 for one offset polarity but below 1 for the other.
but if the order of the components makes no change then what happens if i designate the ground reference to the other side
of the source? the offset would reverse and the cop would change, all with no change to the cct.
did i miss something?
fritznien
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 09, 2011, 01:21:59 PM
my argument is "where is your real world device? the one operating off the principle(s) you bloviate."
responding by asking what i have done in the field of ou is a logical fallacy, a red herring specifically. what i have done is irrelevant to your claim. where my contributions are is also a logical fallacy, another red herring. where my contributions are is irrelevant to your bloviations... ::)
what nerve indeed.
I don't agree with all of Omnibus's theories, but you're just being an ass. He is not being paid to make his prototypes, and you're not paying to see them. So if you don't like what you are seeing from him, you are free to shut up and ignore his work.
"The great Wilby is not satisfied!" Nobody owes you diddly.
Quote from: utilitarian on March 09, 2011, 10:48:40 PM
I don't agree with all of Omnibus's theories, but you're just being an ass. He is not being paid to make his prototypes, and you're not paying to see them. So if you don't like what you are seeing from him, you are free to shut up and ignore his work.
"The great Wilby is not satisfied!" Nobody owes you diddly.
i'm being an ass for asking omni to simply construct his simple circuit??? LMFAO. he's making a claim of overunity... for years running now, like your buddy larry... his evidence is steorn. ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 10, 2011, 02:15:38 AM
i'm being an ass for asking omni to simply construct his simple circuit??? LMFAO. he's making a claim of overunity... for years running now, like your buddy larry... his evidence is steorn. ::)
You're in no position to ask for anything. Omnibus does not work for you, yet you act like he owes you a circuit. He works at his own pace. If you don't like it, don't follow his work.
I totally agree here with Utilitarian.
Disagreeing doesn't mean it should always be done in provocative ways.
Pitty this forum is not moderated properly to clean up the mess some members make here.
Be contructive or leave, please.
Hello,
I've done several simulations - without offset, with positive and negative voltage offset. My circuit is the same as the Omnibus's one, except that I put my current probe at the positive terminal of the power supply, not the negative. This way you get voltage and current in phase.
xls data (10 mb zip): http://www.2shared.com/file/e8FeYiFm/sim1.html
@someother,
That's incorrect. I and V should not be in phase. The current I is leading the voltage V in a RC circuit. What you're doing is you're measuring the R current as if C is absent. You have to consider the effect of C on the current too so place the I probe where I've placed it (to keep the proper sense of the current too).
Also, study just one period -- 1.25us to 2.5us with a 1.25ns increment.
Okay, here is the new data.
However, I don't understand the phase difference before and after the capacitor. It seems that is is out of phase after the capacitor, and before the capacitor (across the resistor) it is in phase with the voltage? This is what I see from the simulation.
I am not sure about my calculations, I think I miss something. If this is true, it will be interesting to test it in the kW range.
Correct. That's a quirk of the program. When the probe is between the resistor and the cap it ignores the cap and measures as if the cap isn't there. That's why you have to place it the way you've done it now.
@someother,
Something isn't right with the data. First, like I said, do the sim for just one period -- from 1.25us to 2.5us at 1.25ns increments. Then, Pout is Ii*Ii*R and not just Ii*R, as you have it. Also, after you've calculated the momentary Pin and Pout calculate the AVERAGE, not the SUM as you've done. Also, inspect the I and V data and see if it's correct. Again, the important thing is to do it for one period and to start from 1.25ns to avoid some initial ripples due to the program.
Quote from: utilitarian on March 10, 2011, 04:55:53 AM
You're in no position to ask for anything. Omnibus does not work for you, yet you act like he owes you a circuit. He works at his own pace. If you don't like it, don't follow his work.
strange... you the one who always claimed "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"... or is that only where you deem it applies?
i'm not acting like he owes me anything... i asked him if he had
constructed the simple circuit in reality. he then decided to play lawyer games with his words. go cry to your mommie utilitarian, i don't care what you think. a simulation
is not a device. ::) a simulator is... the simulation is not. ::) even a 5 year old knows this...
Quote from: teslaalset on March 10, 2011, 05:19:11 AM
I totally agree here with Utilitarian.
Disagreeing doesn't mean it should always be done in provocative ways.
Pitty this forum is not moderated properly to clean up the mess some members make here.
Be contructive or leave, please.
provocative is subjective. i can argue that omni is being provocative with his endless claims over overunity inherent in everything... ::) teslaalset, why don't you "provoke" us all with a real world example of omni's "proof"? you know, a working device
that in reality does what omni is claiming?
indeed. a moderator should clean up omni's mess... ::)
does your last sentence apply to yourself as well? or just me? are you going to "construct" something? and finally, how do you say the thing you just said when a half a dozen posts ago you were the guy saying "i vote we send ismael back to highschool"... ::) hypocrite much?
edit:
Quote from: teslaalset on March 03, 2011, 11:04:42 AM
I vote to send Ismael back to High School.
I agree. A simulator may be a good device to simulate a circuit, but you shouldn't be making any claims until a real world device is built.
It's very important to understand the nature of scientific pursuit, to not mix it up with technology and especially to not allow people who have no clue to set the tone of a scientific discussion let alone enable them to destroy the discussion. Science is about understanding nature of things. By it's very essence it is not about building practical defices to be used and marketed. This is a point that cannot be emphasized too strongly. There's nothing practical or marketable about Compton effect or Davisson-Germer's effect. Neither is Cherenkov radiation of any practical and marketable use. What is the use of Rutherford's findings or the marketability and cutting home utility bills of, say, J.J.Thompson's discoveries. None whatsoever. Uneducated people don't know these subtleties but they are aggressively infesting forums such as this and are impudently imposing their incompetence on everyone around here. That's why their inadequate behavior should be curbed and they should be put in their place. Otherwise, those genuinely interested in OU research will not only suffer from the real zealous activist enemies but also by the dictatorship of the uneducated which a nuissance but is destructive nevertheless.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 10, 2011, 02:47:49 PM
It's very important to understand the nature of scientific pursuit, to not mix it up with technology and especially to not allow people who have no clue to set the tone of a scientific discussion let alone enable them to destroy the discussion. Science is about understanding nature of things. By it's very essence it is not about building practical defices to be used and marketed. This is a point that cannot be emphasized too strongly. There's nothing practical or marketable about Compton effect or Davisson-Germer's effect. Neither is Cherenkov radiation of any practical and marketable use. What is the use of Rutherford's findings or the marketability and cutting home utility bills of, say, J.J.Thompson's discoveries. None whatsoever. Uneducated people don't know these subtleties but they are aggressively infesting forums such as this and are impudently imposing their incompetence on everyone around here. That's why their inadequate behavior should be curbed and they should be put in their place. Otherwise, those genuinely interested in OU research will not only suffer from the real zealous activist enemies but also by the dictatorship of the uneducated which a nuissance but is destructive nevertheless.
what's the use of rutherford's findings... let us see... he was the first to 'split an atom'. yeah, and omni argues there is no use for that.
"None whatsoever." you're such a visionary omni... ::)
I don’t have a clue what you are talking about, but I would like to ask a question.
If you build this machine and make it as big as a house what is the maximum amount of energy you will get out of it?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 10, 2011, 02:47:49 PM
It's very important to understand the nature of scientific pursuit, to not mix it up with technology and especially to not allow people who have no clue to set the tone of a scientific discussion let alone enable them to destroy the discussion. Science is about understanding nature of things. By it's very essence it is not about building practical defices to be used and marketed. This is a point that cannot be emphasized too strongly. There's nothing practical or marketable about Compton effect or Davisson-Germer's effect. Neither is Cherenkov radiation of any practical and marketable use. What is the use of Rutherford's findings or the marketability and cutting home utility bills of, say, J.J.Thompson's discoveries. None whatsoever. Uneducated people don't know these subtleties but they are aggressively infesting forums such as this and are impudently imposing their incompetence on everyone around here. That's why their inadequate behavior should be curbed and they should be put in their place. Otherwise, those genuinely interested in OU research will not only suffer from the real zealous activist enemies but also by the dictatorship of the uneducated which a nuissance but is destructive nevertheless.
Then maybe you should post this type of stuff on a scientific forum. This is a free energy forum, we like to discuss reality here. If your device is not practical, why bother us of it's trivialities.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 10, 2011, 05:23:01 PM
what's the use of rutherford's findings... let us see... he was the first to 'split an atom'. yeah, and omni argues there is no use for that. "None whatsoever." you're such a visionary omni... ::)
This is an example of what I was warning everybody -- a person who has no clue allowing himself to teach who split the atom and who is a visionary thus overwhelming the forum with nonsense.
Also, what I'm discussing here is reality and is not trivial.
I don’t have a clue what you are talking about, but I would like to ask a question.
If you build this machine and make it as big as a house what is the maximum amount of energy you will get out of it?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 10, 2011, 06:58:16 PM
Also, what I'm discussing here is reality and is not trivial.
How can it be a reality if it's only been simulated on a computer?
The effect I'm reporting has been first found experimentally. It is not true that it's only been simulated on a computer.
Hey, for those of you spamming the thread - go in the top of it and read carefully, you can read, right?
Ok, I completely messed up the things. I don't know where my head was when I made the excel's formulas.
No I have corrected what you told me. The input power is
U*I (voltage probe at the + of the power source; current probe at the - of the power source).
The output power is
I^2*R
I got 1000 results, from the 1010 row, to 2009; This is 1,25 uS, I think.
Ok, now... I've tried to calculate the energies, instead of the power. So I calculated the energy for every value of U and I multiplied by the time (for the input). And I^2*R multiplied by the time for the output.
The results for the power ratio are opposite to the energies ratio.
Quote from: someother on March 11, 2011, 03:16:41 AM
No I have corrected what you told me. The input power is
U*I (voltage probe at the + of the power source; current probe at the - of the power source).
The output power is
I^2*R
I got 1000 results, from the 1010 row, to 2009; This is 1,25 uS, I think.
Ok, now... I've tried to calculate the energies, instead of the power. So I calculated the energy for every value of U and I multiplied by the time (for the input). And I^2*R multiplied by the time for the output.
The results for the power ratio are opposite to the energies ratio.
@Someother,
Can you repost the excel file? It seems corrupt in previous post unfortunately.
@teslaalset,
http://www.2shared.com/document/3TKchPUr/sim2-new.html
Please comment it, because I am still unsure for the calculations.
Quote from: someother on March 11, 2011, 08:29:45 AM
@teslaalset,
http://www.2shared.com/document/3TKchPUr/sim2-new.html (http://www.2shared.com/document/3TKchPUr/sim2-new.html)
Please comment it, because I am still unsure for the calculations.
In my view you made a possible typo in Cell F2 and H2
Your formula's:F2: =AVERAGE(E1010:E2009)
H2: =AVERAGE(G1010:G2009)
In my view this should be:F2: =AVERAGE(E
2:E2009)
H2: =AVERAGE(G
2:G2009)
The energy ratio can be simply calculated as =SUM(G2:G2009)/SUM(E2:E2009), since the time parameter is eleminated by the ratio formula, since:
E
in=P
in*t
E
out=P
out*t
Ratio = E
out/E
in= (P
out*t) / (P
in*t) , where t is equalized
@someother,
I'm away from my laptop right now and I can't have PSpice on the iPad so this is only from memory. Go to the upper left corner of your initial PSpice screen and click on the small icon serving to change the parameters of the simulation. There you'll see the initial and final time as well as the time increment. Set the initial time to 1.25us and the final time to 2.5us. Set the time increment to 1.25ns. Now, when that's done and you carry out the simulation the data should be contained in 1004 cells (from cell 2 to cell1005). It is very important to study just one period because due to smallness of the current values averaging over larger arrays will incur greater error and the outcomes won't be comparable. Remember we're talking about data processing with a digital machine and the errors when handling small numbers can be huge. Now, there will be an error when processing 1004 points as well but it will stay the same for all different voltage offsets that you'll be studying and therefore you would be able to compare the various outcomes. Notice, the effect is real, as seen from the theoretical argument, but because of the digital errors it's absolute value would be somewhat skewed, as would be any time we do measurements with digital scopes. Fortunately, at this instance we're not so much interested in the absolute value of the effect but as to whetheror not there's an effect al all. That's the big deal here. In addition, I guess the skewedness due to the errors incurred by the digital machine won't be that substantial to merit any notice at this point.
@teslaalset,
You don't need to multiply by the time t. Comparison of the powers is enough. So, just calculate the Ii*Vi and Ii*Ii*R in all 1004 cells and then average them from cell 2 through cell 1005. Finally, find the ratio of the averaged data and you're done.
Quote from: poynt99 on March 11, 2011, 09:59:13 AM
Omnibus,
I've looked at and simulated Sandy's circuits quite some time ago, and there is no OU to report in the simulations.
.99
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2011, 10:38:38 AM
@teslaalset,
You don't need to multiply by the time t. Comparison of the powers is enough. So, just calculate the Ii*Vi and Ii*Ii*R in all 1004 cells and then average them from cell 2 through cell 1005. Finally, find the ratio of the averaged data and you're done.
You may have missed my latest edits.
That's exactly what I also suggested
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 11, 2011, 10:48:18 AM
On the contrary, there is OU and I've proved it, as is seen. You, on the other hand, are incompetent and therefore should stay out of this discussion.
Quote from: teslaalset on March 11, 2011, 10:48:51 AM
You may have missed my latest edits.
That's exactly what I also suggested
Sorry about that.
@poynt99 is using the analysis tools within PSpice which, as I already explained, should be ignored as iappropriate. The analysis of the data must be done in a transparent manner by using spreadsheet editor such as Excel. That's mandatory if the obtained results are to be trusted.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 10, 2011, 10:22:07 AM
Correct. That's a quirk of the program. When the probe is between the resistor and the cap it ignores the cap and measures as if the cap isn't there. That's why you have to place it the way you've done it now.
It's not a quirk of the program, and it is not ignoring anything. The current marker indicates precisely what is occurring in terms of current at that terminal of the device.
I already explained to you the difference between placing the current marker at each end of a component; the current marker shows the current
entering the pin. So with a two-pin device, one current will be positive, and the other negative. That is why the two are out of phase.
.99
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2011, 10:55:44 AM
@poynt99 is using the analysis tools within PSpice which, as I already explained, should be ignored as iappropriate. The analysis of the data must be done in a transparent manner by using spreadsheet editor such as Excel. That's mandatory if the obtained results are to be trusted.
I disagree. The specs for PSpice are respectable in my opinion:
· voltages and currents in PSpice are limited to +/-1e10 volts and amps,
· derivatives in PSpice are limited to 1e14, and
· the arithmetic used in PSpice is double precision and has 15 digits of accuracy.
Using Excel to process the data from PSpice is potentially a faulty process in itself, because PSpice does not use a constant sample rate, therefore there will be time displacement in the samples. The best way to evaluate PSpice data, is within PSpice itself, and I have shown you two ways to do that. Each method clearly indicates that Pin = Pout, and Ein = Eout.
.99
@poynt99,
First of all you should realize that the effect is proven theoretically (cf. http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=8&page=1#Item_2 ). Therefore, any caluclation which doesn't show Pout/Pin as a function of voltage offset F is faulty.
Further, it is immaterial what the accuracies of PSpice are as long as the algorithms are sloppy, as they are in PSpice. The algorithms in PSpice are faulty because they use many more arithmetic steps than the minimum necessary for these data to be processed and because they use approximations such as moving averages. Like I said, in view of the smallness of the numbers, especially of currents in this case, algorithms with integrations and running averages are outright wrong and should be avoided if one needs to trust the results obtained. Same applies to the integrating oscilloscopes and the like. In order to be sure in the true outcome concerning such a controversial subect as the one at hand one must necessarily apply not only transparent procedures and algorithms but these should be based on minimum arithmetic operations and should use no approximations.
The procedure I'm proposing is impeccable in this respect and has no competition in clarity, accuracy and precision. Unless there's anything subtle offered as a counter argument (which hasn't been done so far) the proof for OU as it stands now is conclusive and this is the only case in solid-state electrical device definitively showing OU.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2011, 11:39:12 AM
@poynt99,
First of all you should realize that the effect is proven theoretically (cf. http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=8&page=1#Item_2 ). Therefore, any caluclation which doesn't show Pout/Pin as a function of voltage offset F is faulty.
Further, it is immaterial what the accuracies of PSpice are as long as the algorithms are sloppy, as they are in PSpice. The algorithms in PSpice are faulty because they use many more arithmetic steps than the minimum necessary for these data to be processed and because they use approximations such as moving averages. Like I said, in view of the smallness of the numbers, especially of currents in this case, algorithms with integrations and running averages are outright wrong and should be avoided if one needs to trust the results obtained. Same applies to the integrating oscilloscopes and the like. In order to be sure in the true outcome concerning such a controversial subect as the one at hand one must necessarily apply not only transparent procedures and algorithms but these should be based on minimum arithmetic operations and should use no approximations.
The procedure I'm proposing is impeccable in this respect and has no competition in clarity, accuracy and precision. Unless there's anything subtle offered as a counter argument (which hasn't been done so far) the proof for OU as it stands now is conclusive and this is the only case in solid-state electrical device definitively showing OU.
PSpice uses faulty processing or produces faulty results? On what proof are you basing this on?
I propose a test to prove this out one way or another. Someone suggest a simple circuit that can be "run" in Excel, i.e. is native to excel, and perform the post-processing necessary to obtain some end result, say the average of a large number of V and I products, just as would happen in real life.
Omnibus, propose any circuit you wish that can be run within Excel itself. Produce your results, and I will produce mine, and we will compare.
One other simple suggestion might be to produce a sine wave with an offset, then calculate the average of that sine wave. This way all your samples will be with a constant time increment, and you can choose as high a resolution that you wish, both in time and amplitude.
Are you up for it?
.99
@poynt99,
Like I said, start here: http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=8&page=1#Item_2 . Before you could abolish this argument no further calculations matter. For now this argument stands and if any calculation, including such using PSpice, shows that Pou/Pin is independent of the voltage offset F then it is an incorrect calculation. Only simulation which demonstrates that Pout/Pin is a function of F is a valid simulation. That's the criterion as to whether or not a simulation is valid.
@All,
Another update. See what I wrote in http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=8&page=1#Item_10
@All,
You may wanna follow this thread: http://www.thescienceforum.com/Power-Balance-of-a-Simple-RC-Circuit-29566t.php . The moderator just moved it to pseudoscience and he will prove it is pseudoscience whenever he gets some free time. "Maybe later", he says. OK, let's see. If he really proves it's pseudoscience, I think we should be very grateful because it will remove this burden from our shoulders and we will be able to move on with more productive stuff. What are we going to do if he can't prove it is pseudoscience? Then what? Let me guess -- total ban from that forum. That would be an old chestnut, though, and I don't think we'll be impressed.
I thought it works the other way -- first prove it's pseudoscience and then move it to pseudoscience section, not the other way round.
P.S. Probably I should put as a signature: Anyone who wants to discuss scientific matters unobstructed, welcome to actascientiae.org/v/ . Let anyone try to ban me there.
I could be completely wrong, but after reading all of the posts in this thread, it is my opinion that hooking a harness onto a ant would produce more energy than whatever the poster is talking about.
Quote from: brian334 on March 11, 2011, 03:42:30 PM
I could be completely wrong, but after reading all of the posts in this thread, it is my opinion that hooking a harness onto a ant would produce more energy than whatever the poster is talking about.
And why dou you think anyone should pay any attention to your incompetent opinion?
Joule thief with possible COP>1 operation
voltage/current phase anomaly
http://feynmanslab.com/images/post4/PhysicsProf_comparison1_png.png
Quote from: Feynman on March 11, 2011, 04:36:07 PM
Joule thief with possible COP>1 operation
voltage/current phase anomaly
http://feynmanslab.com/images/post4/PhysicsProf_comparison1_png.png
That is interesting. Can you simulate it with PSpice?
P.S. And, please don't call it COP if the output power is greater than the input power. COP is not a scientific term.
Omnibot, your a joke. You think you are some kind of intelligent scientist, but your not. People have run your info on PSpice and told you that it doesn't work out to what you claim. But no, they are wrong. You can't do it that way. Spice doesn't calculate it properly. Yet you believe the data you get from it for your own purposes. Oh yeah, and don't take all the data, only this little section of it. The rest is not quite right.
You really look like a fool here you know. Trying to post your Noble winning information in all types of forums only to get deleted. Why do you think that is? Whenever anyone disagrees with you or questions you they are either wrong, incompetent, or spam.
I feel sorry for you. People are trying to put you straight but you are too ignorant and arrogant to see it. And you try to come across as a scientist.
QuoteOh yeah, and don't take all the data, only this little section of it. The rest is not quite right.
Speaking of incompetent trolls.
Anybody, ask @poynt99 if I'm taking only this little section of the data or I'm considering all the data.
I will start again my appeal to the moderator to curb the impudent trolls such as @MrMag and a couple of others that have infested our forum recently.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2011, 05:56:20 PM
Speaking of incompetent trolls.
Anybody, ask @poynt99 if I'm taking only this little section of the data or I'm considering all the data.
I will start again my appeal to the moderator to curb the impudent trolls such as @MrMag and a couple of others that have infested our forum recently.
Using one complete cycle is normally acceptable, however there is a problem in this case.
Over 99% of the energy is returned to the source within every cycle, and only about 7mVp is present across the resistor. This 7mVp does not change, regardless of offset value.
You will notice that when you had an offset of 0V, that your Pi was very close to the Po of 2.28uW. As you went up and down with an offset voltage in the source, the Pi value deviated away from that 2.28uW value, and Po remained 2.28uW, as it should.
You may keep adding larger and larger offset voltages and you will find your Pi deviates farther and farther away from the theoretical value of 2.28uW. As you add offset voltage, the average value of the source
voltage increases (either above or below zero), but in theory the average power delivered by the source should remain at 2.28uW. The fact that this is not the case would seem to indicate that there is some type of computation error involved.
As offset is introduced, the peak to peak power from the source increases, while the tiny amount of net power delivered to the resistor is constant and is swamped out by the peak powers going through the computations. With an offset of -3.356V the peak real power in the resistor is about 500 times lower than the peak apparent power in the source and capacitor. Try -100V offset and you will see this spread increase even more, and the Pi error will increase as well.
I think you are running into the very problem you have been trying to avoid. ::)
.99
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2011, 05:56:20 PM
Speaking of incompetent trolls.
Anybody, ask @poynt99 if I'm taking only this little section of the data or I'm considering all the data.
I will start again my appeal to the moderator to curb the impudent trolls such as @MrMag and a couple of others that have infested our forum recently.
Oh sorry I forgot. Questioning the almighty Omnibutt classifies you as a troll. If you would just listen to people once in a while instead of trying to come across as a know it all, maybe there would be no need for people to point things out to you. Maybe I should report you to for calling me names. I'm telling my Mom on you :D
Quote from: MrMag on March 11, 2011, 10:43:10 PM
Oh sorry I forgot. Questioning the almighty Omnibutt classifies you as a troll. If you would just listen to people once in a while instead of trying to come across as a know it all, maybe there would be no need for people to point things out to you. Maybe I should report you to for calling me names. I'm telling my Mom on you :D
You're continuing to be trolling. See what @poynt99 is doing. He is wrong but at least he's trying to come up with something. The likes of you (several lately) are just blabbering gibberish, cluttering jthe threads and disrupting the discussions. The forum has no use for you and your activity should be curbed.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 11, 2011, 11:06:55 PM
You're continuing to be trolling. See what @poynt99 is doing. He is wrong but at least he's trying to come up with something. The likes of you (several lately) are just blabbering gibberish, cluttering jthe threads and disrupting the discussions. The forum has no use for you and your activity should be curbed.
His results are not what you want so of course he is wrong. What gives you the right to say what is posted in this forum? You act like a child and call everyone incompetent just because you don't like what they have to say or report them. You need to grow up and act your age. Not everyone HAS to agree with you.
@poynt99,
QuoteUsing one complete cycle is normally acceptable, however there is a problem in this case.
Of course. It is not only normally acceptable but, as I explained, using one complete cycle is to be preferred to minimize the inevitable errors of using a digital machie.
QuoteYou will notice that when you had an offset of 0V, that your Pi was very close to the Po of 2.28uW. As you went up and down with an offset voltage in the source, the Pi value deviated away from that 2.28uW value, and Po remained 2.28uW, as it should.
Of course. That goes without saying.
QuoteYou may keep adding larger and larger offset voltages and you will find your Pi deviates farther and farther away from the theoretical value of 2.28uW. As you add offset voltage, the average value of the source voltage increases (either above or below zero), but in theory the average power delivered by the source should remain at 2.28uW. The fact that this is not the case would seem to indicate that there is some type of computation error involved.
That's incorrect. Apply the correct method of calculating Pin (cf. http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=8&page=1#Item_2 ) and you will convince yourself that that's exactly what is observed -- upon changing the offset Pout stays the same while Pin changes. That fact shows that whatever theory you have in mind (requiring Pout to stay the same as Pin, independent of the voltage offset) is in error.
QuoteAs offset is introduced, the peak to peak power from the source increases, while the tiny amount of net power delivered to the resistor is constant and is swamped out by the peak powers going through the computations. With an offset of -3.356V the peak real power in the resistor is about 500 times lower than the peak apparent power in the source and capacitor. Try -100V offset and you will see this spread increase even more, and the Pi error will increase as well.
Correct. That's what the correct theory requires, as seen in the above link, and that's what the experiment shows -- Pin should depend on the offset while Pout should not.
QuoteI think you are running into the very problem you have been trying to avoid.
What problem am I trying to avoid? You are the one who is trying to avoid the problem with the experiment and theory I'm showing because it doesn't fit into what you're used to think. In other words, if you disagree you should not bring about whatever bogus theory you have in mind to overthrow experimental facts confirming the theoretical prediction shown here \: http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=8&page=1#Item_2 but you should address these predictions and the experimental results in agreement with them. There is no way, however, to deny that the average power within a period is equal to the average of the instantaneous powers therein. Denying such an obvious thing will get you nowhere. So, the only rational thing is to accept (in the face of facts) the OU character of the RC circuit I'm presenting and move on.
Here are some more updates:
Here's the response to @Harold14370's arguments: http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=8&page=1#Item_11
and
here's the response to @Harold14370's last posting: http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=281732#281732
"As a result, as of today, I do require to be given credit for this major discovery unless you can come up with a really solid scientific (not sociological, political or any other argument involving the number of physicists and electrical engineers of the last couple of hundred years) argument that can shoot it down. Until then, be humble and recognize the facts in your face."
Yes Omnibus, I will start a collection to get a bronze statue of you that will be placed in front of the library. What would you like to have placed on the nameplate.
Would you also like the link to the Noble Peace Prize website.
@All,
Read what I actually said and compare it with what the impudent troll above cited:
QuoteYes it was I who did the moving. To me, a claim of free energy or perpetual motion is close to the very definition of pseudoscience.
There is a way that questions like this can be raised and discussed in the electronics forum. However, someone who thinks they have made some major discovery, which has been overlooked by all of the physicists and electrical engineers of the last couple of hundred years, should probably take a more humble and cautious approach.
I never intended to but since you want my claims to be put that way then, yes, I think I have made a major discovery, which has been overlooked by all of the physicists and electrical engineers of the last couple of hundred years. You have given no evidence to the contrary, despite your attempt, which doesn't cut the mustard, as seen here: http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=8&page=1#Item_11 . As a result, as of today, I do require to be given credit for this major discovery unless you can come up with a really solid scientific (not sociological, political or any other argument involving the number of physicists and electrical engineers of the last couple of hundred years) argument that can shoot it down. Until then, be humble and recognize the facts in your face.
The moderator should take actions towards these trolls. This is getting to be a badly infested place.
I did post what you actually said. I just posted the last two sentences. And if you want to be technical, YOU did not post the first section of the post you just put up. Stop being incompetent and post the proper information. The reason I only posted the last two sentences was that I thought that everyone would have tears in their eyes from laughing so hard that they would be unable to read the best part.
Oh, and I did ask what you wanted written on the plate. I see you mentioned "Impudent Troll". Are you really sure you want that placed on the nameplate?
Where is the moderator to take care of the nasty troll @MrMag?
Come on Omnibus, doesn't this statement "I do require to be given credit for this major discovery" sound a little childish. I honestly had a good laugh at that. They move your thread to the half baked section and you argue with them. Your only recourse is to point them to your forum and your posts as proof. That's hilarious. You are dealing with very intelligent people there. Come to think of it, Maybe Stephan should also move your thread to the half baked area. Formulas and simulations are not what this OU forum are about. I think everyone here is looking for actual working devices. I think you should just drop this and move on to something a little more relevant to OU.
I'm calling again for the moderator to curb the nasty troll @MrMag.
@All,
Check this out. What we have here is something on the order of 1.9kW Pout as a result of 29W Pin, that is OU about 65. Try it. Seems a little better in terms of power outcome than the results in the simple RC circuit (which are more interesting as a new finding). There are all kinds of exotic forms of I leading to various outcomes as you play with the elements and parameters. I guess, the main reason this effect has been missed so far is because of approximating the exact data obtained instead of processing these data in their raw state. Like I said, if there's OU in electric circuits this is the only way that it can occur, that is, through the saving from the input. Any other claim is unsustained as far as I can tell.
What I'm really interested is to have negative Pin not only with voltage offset but also the current skewed, despite the low power levels. This is an exploration of the reality of the effect. Once it's established that the effect is real scaling it up is only a matter of engineering. So, here we have Pout/Pin of about -0.52 and the current has an obvious negative bias.
Here it's even better -- the zener diode is cutting off the entire half of the I period and now we have Pout/Pin = -3.6. Of, course, as I said, one can get better and better results by playing with the parameters within reasonable limits withe aim to optimize the outcome.
It's amazing how much OU is inherent in the standard theory electricity as long as one can find and maintain the intrinsic natural asymmetries in the circuits and elements. The beauty of this finding is that it deals away with all kinds of esoteric suggestions such as energy from the vacuum, zero-point energy and what not and brings the whole business of OU in electrical circuits down to Earth, down to well-known phenomena but revealing their hitherto unknown characteristics.
@poynt99,
I'm waiting for your response, regarding the above results. Will be nice if @gyulasun also gives his input. Also, @teslaalset, @Omega_0 and even @Tinsel Koala and many of the competent people on the this board. Findings such these need competent analysis and discussion, especially in view of the adversity they meet in the mainstream.
@teslaalset,
Please check this out: http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=9&page=1#Item_3 .
@All,
I urge the whole community to turn to using PSpice as the tool to rigorously simulate all the electrical devices claiming OU. Theory of electricity is straightforward (no complications such as the ones electrochemistry poses, to give an example) and PSpice seems pretty sophisticated to handle it. The beauty of using PSpice is that it cuts off the need to spend tons of money for expensive equipment (PSpice is freely downloadable from the net) while reaching the same quality of results. This would allow almost everybody to look into these claims and avoid being held hostage to people with ulterior motives. So far, the top expert in PSpice I've seen on this board is @poynt99. There may be others that I'm not aware of. It would be very noble of him if he could find some time to help in this important endeavor. Too bad many of us here didn't know about PSpice. It could've spared tons of effort.
I guess if your talking about a minuscule amount of energy gain or OU, this may be the only way to actually see it. If you close the loop or show obvious signs of OU, it isn't necessary at all.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 17, 2011, 10:55:03 PM
So far, the top expert in PSpice I've seen on this board is @poynt99. .... It would be very noble of him if he could find some time to help in this important endeavor.
expert in PSpice or not, he appears to have a problem with detail... ;)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10179.msg277565#msg277565
all the best
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/ (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/)
Quote from: nul-points on March 18, 2011, 01:36:21 AM
expert in PSpice or not, he appears to have a problem with detail... ;)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10179.msg277565#msg277565
all the best
np
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/ (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/)
Well, that's why more people have to look into that. It's like independent veryfication, without the expensive equipment part. The best thing would be, anyone who has made the sim to post it so that others can promptly check it out. I've been doing this with my experimental data as well as with the sim of the RC-Zener diode circuit.
Quote from: MrMag on March 18, 2011, 01:21:17 AM
I guess if your talking about a minuscule amount of energy gain or OU, this may be the only way to actually see it. If you close the loop or show obvious signs of OU, it isn't necessary at all.
Closing the loop is unnecessary if one can prove OU this way. Proving it this way guarantees there's OU which cannot be undone by most probable engineering failure, due to lack of funds and infrastructure, to close th loop.
Of course, there are two sides in using PSpice, which I've been emphasizing in my latest posts -- constructing the schematic and acquisition of data on the one hand and on the other analysis of the acqured data. Analysis of the acquired data should be done transparently outside PSpice by exporting it from there into a spreadsheet program such as Excel. Otherwise, no one, except for the makers of PSPice, knows what's exactly being done with the data. Just getting a number from a simulation is not enough. How this number is obtained and what it means is the goal of the exercise, not just crunching numbers with a sim program.
@poynt99,
Could you please check this out, applying the PSpice internal analysis tools. I just checked it by integration (not by just averaging the momentary powers) and it confirms the negative Pou/Pin I found otherwise.
Now, as I said earlier, this is the only circuit I've found to be OU. There may be others but I have no indication for that (other than Steorn's eOrbo perhaps; this one, however, is immediately verifiable).
Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2011, 10:05:10 AM
Now, as I said earlier, this is the only circuit I've found to be OU. There may be others but I have no indication for that (other than Steorn's eOrbo perhaps; this one, however, is immediately verifiable).
@Omnibus:
Unfortunately I can not read any of the files in RC_Zener_Diode.zip (because I have not installed PSpice). I would like to ask you to post a JPG or PDF version of the circuit diagram, so that everybody can see which circuit shows overunity. You might have published the circuit somewhere else before, but please be so kind to do it again here.
Your claim "this is the only circuit I've found to be OU" is extraordinary strong. I do not want to question it. I just would like to know, whether you came to this conclusion by "thinking" or by doing an actual experiment, like having built the circuit and having measured input and output?
In case you have built it, a photo of the actual implementation would be helpful. First of all, it would be encouraging. Because if one sees a possible physical layout, one has an obstacle less to overcome. Specially coils are much easier to replicate if one sees an example.
If the circuit is not too complicated and has no unobtainable exotic components, I would like to replicate it. In case you have built it, I would appreciate advice and hints (like where to buy components in case they are difficult to obtain). In case Farnell sells the components, I can get them within three days (or I might even have them ready).
May be others have built it. If so, please come forward and state the results. In case the results show overunity, I think it is important that many people replicate it. All efforts should be made to make replication easier.
It sounds like I am too lazy to do all the hard work myself. But claiming overunity is not a trivial matter and demands proof. The simplest proof is helping people to replicate it. The most important help is clear and comprehensible information, which so far has never been provided for circuits or machines which allegedly show overunity, otherwise the world would be full of replications. In this forum there are many talented electronics enthusiasts who can build pretty complicated circuits and contraptions. So, it should be worth while to give them and me an other chance.
Greetings, Conrad
@conradelectro,
I've already posted the schematic and the I and V traces somewhere here in this thread but don't remember what page they're on. So, please follow this link: http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=9&page=1#Item_4 . I have studied the RC circuit extensively using Tektronix DPO 2014 and a Hall effect current probe and, like I said, I've found consistently OU in this circuit. To preempt questions that may be asked I have included a Zener diode in the circuit. I have found OU in transformers, coils with or without cores etc. but I heve never seen anything else so conclusively proving OU in electrical devices. The experiment I'm presenting shows that OU is inherent in the very theory of electricity but hasn't been noticed so far.
Please find as an attachment an Excel spreadsheet with the data from the above schematic.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2011, 06:25:19 PM
@conradelectro,
I've already posted the schematic and the I and V traces somewhere here in this thread but don't remember what page they're on. So, please follow this link: http://actascientiae.org/v/comments.php?DiscussionID=9&page=1#Item_4 . I have studied the RC circuit extensively using Tektronix DPO 2014 and a Hall effect current probe and, like I said, I've found consistently OU in this circuit. To preempt questions that may be asked I have included a Zener diode in the circuit. I have found OU in transformers, coils with or without cores etc. but I heve never seen anything else so conclusively proving OU in electrical devices. The experiment I'm presenting shows that OU is inherent in the very theory of electricity but hasn't been noticed so far.
@Omnibus: thank you for the reply. Overunity will have to wait a bit longer as far as I am concerned. Well, it would have been too simple anyway: I person tells you what to build, and then you have overunity.
I guess I have to be a little less naive. Obviously there are many meanings in the simple statement "this proves overunity". The most important meaning seems to be in the area of mental health problems.
Greetings, Conrad
@conradelectro,
You probably have some concrete points to share? Do you?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2011, 06:47:13 PM
@conradelectro,
You probably have some concrete points to share? Do you?
@Omnibus: Sorry, I am still disappointed every time, although I should be more hardened after many attempts to get something tangible out of this forum.
My concrete point: I always try to get comprehensible and applicable information form the many threads. And whenever I try, it just trickles away into obscurity. Well, it is not a point, it is more a complaint, a lamentation.
I just wish that people would not be so liberal with their "overunity claims". But of course, everybody is entitled to whatever he thinks is right. It is my fault to demand my standards.
My standard: just show me a device that works and tell me how to build it. Well, it never happens. There are millions of words, but no overunity device.
Greetings, Conrad
It's funny when people who don't have a clue try to participate in these discussions. They perceive it here as some kind of place to relieve their mental problems, I guess, projecting them onto others. These are in addition to the trolls that have been infesting this board periodically.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 18, 2011, 07:09:31 PM
It's funny when people who don't have a clue try to participate in these discussions. They perceive it here as some kind of place to relieve their mental problems, I guess, projecting them onto others. These are in addition to the trolls that have been infesting this board periodically.
like you asking poynt for pspice files for rosemary's circuit?? did you even bother to search the threads (hint: click search and type pspice in the query box...) on this site and know what you were talking about before asking... obviously not. ::)
No, I havent't. Could you post a link?
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 04:34:25 AM
No, I havent't. Could you post a link?
no. it is not possible with this forum to post a link. get a clue and follow the hint in my previous post... ::)
What clue? It is possible to post a link in this forum. I'm posting links all the time.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 04:50:59 AM
What clue? It is possible to post a link in this forum. I'm posting links all the time.
are you blind or just mental? i'll bold it for you. get your reading glasses...
(hint: click search and type pspice in the query box...)note: that is the search button in the main navigation menu of
this site.
now mr. 'i can't do my own due diligence', why don't you try that... and then why don't you try to post a link of your search results and see what happens... you can't post a link to the results of your search query because of the way the forum software works. the query string you 'search' on is not included in the link. ::)
ie: here is a link to the results of a search using the query 'pspice': http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=search2
you're about as thick as they come. and ironically you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Give a link to @poynt99's PSpice simulation of Rosemary's circuit. I've given and can give at once link to my studies.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 05:41:07 AM
Give a link to @poynt99's PSpice simulation of Rosemary's circuit. I've given and can give at once link to my studies.
no. do your own due diligence.
Whoever claims something gives links otherwise he's blabbering just to pass the time.
Any of these solid state device claims can be resolved at once using PSpice. So, anyone claiming OU in a solid state device should come up with a PSpice sim proving it. Otherwise it should be dismissed out of hand. People are not going to spend tens of thousand of dollars for something that can be resolved so easily with a free software from the net. Claims for OU difficult to demonstrate are those with moving parts such as the Steorn eOrbo claims in the area of electrical machines or the magnet and gravity machines, although there are software packages that can give some clue. Here, in the area of solid state device demonstrating OU is a piece of cake as long as it is really there. So far, like I said, the only OU electrical circuit that I can vow for is the one I showed above consisting of a capacitor and resistor in series and a diode to take care of possible trivial objections.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 05:55:46 AM
Whoever claims something gives links otherwise he's blabbering just to pass the time.
denied. speculation. i refuse to do for you the due diligence you should doing yourself.
Well, dny it all you wish. That's how it's done.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 06:18:07 AM
Well, dny it all you wish. That's how it's done.
regardless of
your opinion on 'how it's done', i refuse to do for you the due diligence you should doing yourself. if you were less pompous i might have considered it...
On the contrary, your opinion should be disregarded because you're not a scientist, you've proven your incompetence and are only a nuissance in this forum. Take a look at the other theme what a real researcher is doing (@teslaalset posting his sims).
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 06:26:11 AM
On the contrary, your opinion should be disregarded because you're not a scientist, you've proven your incompetence and are only a nuissance in this forum. Take a look at the other theme what a real researcher is doing (@teslaalset posting his sims).
your response is denied. another logical fallacy, this time it is an appeal to authority... ::) furthermore we are
not currently talking about a 'scientific opinion'... we are currently talking about your opinion that others should do your due diligence for you... remember? ::) posts like your last one are the exact reason i refuse to.
Yes, we're talking here about a scientific opinion and you, being anything else but a scientist should stay away from uttering opinions on this matter.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 06:36:07 AM
Yes, we're talking here about a scientific opinion and you, being anything else but a scientist should stay away from uttering opinions on this matter.
no. we're talking about your opinion on "how it's done". it being me doing your due diligence for you, as evidenced by your previous posts. here, i included your post since you can't seem to remember what is being talked about from one post to the next... ::)
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 05:55:46 AM
Whoever claims something gives links otherwise he's blabbering just to pass the time.
now, everyone but you can see that there is
nothing scientific about this
opinion of yours... and everyone who understand logic can see that your post is a logical fallacy... ::)
and the funniest thing is, i didn't claim anything! i simply asked if you had bothered to use the site's search function and actually research what it was you were talking about. had you simply done that (performed a search) you would have known that poynt sim'd rosemary's circuit long, long ago... ::)
Never mind. You don't even know what this discussion is all about.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 06:46:23 AM
Never mind. You don't even know what this discussion is all about.
oh do tell what this discussion is all about then... ::)
If you don't know by now, forget it.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 07:21:40 AM
If you don't know by now, forget it.
oh i know what it is, i just wanted to see your response... ::)
just to refresh your memory, which is obviously lacking, here is the post that started this current "discussion":
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on March 19, 2011, 02:55:25 AM
like you asking poynt for pspice files for rosemary's circuit?? did you even bother to search the threads (hint: click search and type pspice in the query box...) on this site and know what you were talking about before asking... obviously not. ::)
that is what this discussion is about... your pompous hypocrisy regarding "It's funny when people who don't have a clue try to participate in these discussions." when all the while you didn't have a clue about who has done what with rosemary's circuit because you didn't even bother to do 'due diligence'. how scientific of you... i didn't know you to be the type to go to such trouble. ::)
The above is not the topic of this discussion. You don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 07:28:17 AM
The above is not the topic of this discussion. You don't know what you're talking about.
it is the topic of the discussion you and i are having right now... ::) one simply needs to look at the last page of posts to see that. it may not be the topic of this thread, but it most certainly is the topic of this current discussion presently occurring between you and i. ::)
That's your topic, not mine. Like I said, it has to be ignored as irrelevant.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 07:37:26 AM
That's your topic, not mine. Like I said, it has to be ignored as irrelevant.
LMFAO... and your endless hypocrisy rages on.
As Rosemary's advocate you'd better show proof. Otherwise it's just laughable.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 07:53:09 AM
As Rosemary's advocate you'd better show proof. Otherwise it's just laughable.
your response is a logical fallacy (red herring) but i'll be your huckleberry... where did you get the idea i'm rosemary's advocate? more assumption and speculation from omnibus... typical.
Show evidence. Otherwise it's your usual useless blabber.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 07:58:10 AM
Show evidence. Otherwise it's your usual useless blabber.
i already showed evidence of your hypocrisy...
No, you haven't. Let alone it isn't the evidence one is looking for here. The only evidence you've shown is your uselessness.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 08:02:50 AM
No, you haven't. Let alone it isn't the evidence one is looking for here. The only evidence you've shown is your uselessness.
yes, i have shown evidence of your hypocrisy, but i'll bite... what evidence is it that you think i should show?
Like I said, useless rant from someone who is nothing but nuisance on this board.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 08:07:38 AM
Like I said, useless rant from someone who is nothing but nuisance on this board.
i'll repeat the question: show evidence of
what?
Oh, what a nuisance.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 08:16:16 AM
Oh, what a nuisance.
you said, and i quote:
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 07:58:10 AM
Show evidence. Otherwise it's your usual useless blabber.
show evidence of what?
i decided i was being too harsh on you omni... here is the link you asked for earlier: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=help;page=searching
;)
I believe my simulation posts (also quite a number of sim posts at EF) began here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg189605#msg189605
Note that I pointed out the discrepancy about the flyback diode, not TK ;)
.99
After the above post/page, you may jump here to the next sim post:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg191351#msg191351
.99
@poynt99,
Thanks a lot. It would be very useful if you could post the PSpice sim files to see what exactly the claims are and what is being measured. This thing has to be finalized once and for all and it seems PSpice is capable of giving a definitive answer. It's been dragging for too long.
Quote from: Omnibus on March 19, 2011, 11:17:32 AM
@poynt99,
Thanks a lot. It would be very useful if you could post the PSpice sim files to see what exactly the claims are and what is being measured. This thing has to be finalized once and for all and it seems PSpice is capable of giving a definitive answer. It's been dragging for too long.
It is of no use posting the sim files because I am using a newer version of PSpice that uses a different file structure. You can copy the circuit I posted there in the thread. Use a pulse generator to drive it. Also, it should be noted that although the circuit may be fun and educational to play with in SPICE, it shows no OU.
What Rose needs to do is to perform some serious measuring. Hopefully the video on Monday will tell a lot about the physical layout and components used, and why the measurements are so wacky.
.99
Probably I should get the latest version of PSpice. I was intending to but then got onto something else let alone that version 9.1 seemed enough for my purposes. Where is it found? Is it free or it costs an arm and a leg? I think it's so important to have it that some sacrifices should be made. Also, it's important to reproduce each others' data, as we're doing now with @teslaalset. PSpice is a very sophisticated program and that will help in tying ends that have been hanging for years for lack of proper infrastructure.
Download Demo DVD's at http://www.cadence.com/products/orcad/pages/downloads.aspx
Fully functioning. Limitations are complexity and size, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Prices, however, are not good. Follow Cadence links at http://www.ema-eda.com/store/
Quote from: Staffman on March 19, 2011, 04:41:15 PM
Download Demo DVD's at http://www.cadence.com/products/orcad/pages/downloads.aspx
Fully functioning. Limitations are complexity and size, so that shouldn't be a problem.
Prices, however, are not good. Follow Cadence links at http://www.ema-eda.com/store/
@omnibus,
That's the version you now use for the simulation of the model in this thread now: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10480.0