PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

[TinselKoala]

No, Rosemary, that does not "more or less cover" your math and conceptual errors. In fact it dodges the issue altogether. Let's try again.

Here's what you calculated, unedited by me, a direct quote from your post:

I've now FINALLY checked their rated capacities.  They're 40 ampere hours each.  We've used 6 of them continually since that time.  According to this rating they are each able, theoretically to dissipate 12 volts x 40 amps x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 1 hour x 6 batteries.  That gives a work potential - a total potential output of 10 368 000 JOULES. 

According to what has been carefully established it takes 4.18 Joules to raise 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade.  We've taken a little under 900 grams of water to 82 degrees centigrade.  We ran that test for 90 minutes.  Then we upped the frequency and took that water up a further 20 degrees to 104.  We ran that part of the test for 10 minutes.  Ambient was at 16.  Joules = 1 watt per second.  So.  Do the math.  4.18 x 900 grams x (82 - 16) 66 degrees C = 248 292 joules per second x 90 minutes of the test period = 22 342 280 joules.  Then ADD the last 10 minutes where the water was taken to boil and now you have 4.18 x 900 grams x (104 - 16) 88 degrees C = 331 156 joules per second x 10 minutes = 3 310 560 Joules.  Then add those two values 22 342 280 + 3 310 560 = 25.6 Million Joules.

Now, YES or NO: Is this RIGHT, or WRONG?

If it's an ERROR, please CORRECT IT.

And here's what you concluded, also directly quoted without editing:

All 5 batteries maximum potential output - available for work - is 10.3 Million Joules. In that test alone the battery outperformed its watt hour rating.  And that was just one test.  Now.  Over the 10 month period that those batteries have been running at various outputs - which, when added to the output on just this one test - then I think its safe to say that the evidence is conclusive.  Those batteries have outperformed. They are still at OVER 12 volts EACH.  They are all of them still FULLY CHARGED.

Now, YES or NO: Is this RIGHT, or WRONG?

If it's WRONG..... then you MUST RETRACT YOUR CLAIM and post a CORRECT CALCULATION AND CONCLUSION.

(It's actually no surprise that your batteries could be "fully charged" after a few of these tests, since they only use about 1/50 the energy you have claimed in the calculations.)


Otherwise... you are simply lying. Again.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Tk - this is goodbye.  I won't be answering any more of your posts as you're trying to get me banned.  Or you're also trying to get THIS thread locked.  Either way you are OFF TOPIC.  If you want to discuss my errors - then start a thread.  And that way you can transpose the rubbish from the hate blog to this forum.  And then you'll get some exposure.  That should help your propagandising.

Rosemary

[TinselKoala]

"Rubbish? That hate blog?"

How do you figure that? You have the only hate blog I know about.

I'm trying to get you to tell the truth. Are you afraid to tell the truth? How is it "off topic" to demonstrate that you don't know how to do proper energy calculations, where you are claiming Jones's prize concerning energy?

Correct your math and retract your claims which are based on your math and conceptual errors.


Ironically, the post where you repeated the above sillyness is post # 666 in that thread.

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/666/

[TinselKoala]

In my opinion, Rosemary, this takes the cake. Nobody should believe you about ANYTHING, not even the time of day, until you CORRECT YOUR CALCULATIONS and the CLAIMS BASED ON THEM. You can dodge the issue, run from thread to thread, from forum to forum, but the simple fact remains: your entire set of claims about overunity, battery charging, and so forth are based on those errors, and you've been good enough to illustrate them right out in the open for all to see. Your behaviour to others and your responses to me show that you are not interested in the truth or in accuracy, not in learning, not in correcting your errors. You are only interested in pushing your own agenda, and it is to the detriment of all who encounter you.

I don't want you to get banned. I want you to admit your errors, correct your mistakes, and FFS, GROW UP.

[poynt99]

Sorry to interject with some on-topic subject matter, but I thought it might be worthwhile seeing that the GL/SJ Joule Thief runs perfectly fine without a diode or LED in series with the load. I've made this simulation with a 100 Ohm resistive load.

I also have this running with your component tweaks, where Rload is 9.8k, Rb is 2k, V2 is 3V, and the series battery resistor (R6) is 3.1 Ohms.

Steve, I would encourage you to try this and see if:

a) it still runs,
b) it still gives you a COP>1 measurement.

Regards,
.99