PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

[DrStiffler]

  For the Cal'r test, I'd much rather have your device to test, NP!  so glad that you are building a version that will fit into the tight space. 
The test will not be until the week of July 11th, and that if Prof H agrees...  I have a family trip planned starting July 18th, so I hope the cal'r tests can be done the week of July 11-16... that's my goal. 
Post:  PO Box 325, Spring City, UT 84662
UPS or other shipping:  265 East 200 North Street, Spring City, UT 84662

Thanks so much for working with me on this, NP!  I hope we succeed.
It may take a few iterations I suppose.

  @Xee2 -- correct, one could just put the "load" alone inside the calorimeter, and I'll do that for you if you request that be done.... Just define what goes INTO the cal'r and what stays outside. 

This makes some sense, but note that by putting the entire device inside, we measure the TOTAL heat output, and have a check on things -- for if the cal'r is working properly, the "efficiency" should be UNITY theoretically for each device, that is, the cal'r should capture the energy initially stored in the cap -- now  in the form of heat, integrating from all elements of the DUT.

If  "excess energy" for some reason is dumped in the toroid (for example), then we will still see this IF we place the entire circuit into the calorimeter.

@JouleSeeker
Yes you are looking at it correctly. If you first test for excess heat and find that you indeed have a gain or a mysterious lack of expected heat, then one can begin to find where the anomalous energy is coming from. In other words is it in the transistor, the core, the load? I don't think anyone would believe that a carbon resistor would in any way be at the root of the excess energy, rather a radiator thereof. The excess must come into the circuit (not generated in the circuit), otherwise Physics has a big problem. What would be found is that a diode, transistor or a special core might be the source if present. Coils themselves will interact with the lattice, provided the capacities are low. The capacity of the lattice is so low that one has a job to achieve something that will grab some of the energy. Now if it is something like the diodes, LED's or core, them it will require the minds to explore and fit a theory to it.

Sound like this is a comparative chamber (balanced) unit used for bio work, is this correct?

[xee2]

removed by author. Was not correct.

[JouleSeeker]

  I was about to respond to you, Xee, when I saw that you had found error in your post and removed it.  Thanks.  (Note: the circuit in the cal'r will not have a battery in it at all; planning to use a cap.)

@JouleSeeker
Yes you are looking at it correctly. If you first test for excess heat and find that you indeed have a gain or a mysterious lack of expected heat, then one can begin to find where the anomalous energy is coming from. In other words is it in the transistor, the core, the load?

I don't think anyone would believe that a carbon resistor would in any way be at the root of the excess energy, rather a radiator thereof. The excess must come into the circuit (not generated in the circuit), otherwise Physics has a big problem. What would be found is that a diode, transistor or a special core might be the source if present. Coils themselves will interact with the lattice, provided the capacities are low. The capacity of the lattice is so low that one has a job to achieve something that will grab some of the energy. Now if it is something like the diodes, LED's or core, them it will require the minds to explore and fit a theory to it.

Right, agreed.

Sound like this is a comparative chamber (balanced) unit used for bio work, is this correct?

Sounds like it to me, too, but Prof H is still over in Europe.  When I sit down with him, I'll find out the details.

[DrStiffler]

  I was about to respond to you, Xee, when I saw that you had found error in your post and removed it.  Thanks.  (Note: the circuit in the cal'r will not have a battery in it at all; planning to use a cap.)

Right, agreed.


Sounds like it to me, too, but Prof H is still over in Europe.  When I sit down with him, I'll find out the details.

@JouleSeeker
Sounds very good and I am sure your Prof H will full understand his own device (not saying you do not).

Here is the results of a hurried test a few nights ago when I was suffering from a Cold? (first in 20+years) that I would be interested in how it all compares to what you will find in a few weeks. The text is from a running blog I have.

***********
Unless of course one does a heat analysis, then the measurement equipment will resolve only to a calorimeter. This is what I spent my time with last night and the results were as expected. The test was set up rapidly and fine-tuning is required, although the result is well within +/-15% where I am able under ideal conditions to resolve to +/-0.005%.

No CEC>1 is evident. In fact the test resulted in an over all heat production (entire circuit) of 93.255% of input. The circuit is not running cold; the missing heat is a result of the setup procedures and the fact that time allowed for only one test to be run. I am although fully comfortable that this circuit (the one I replicated) does not have a CEC>1
***********

[nul-points]

 

@nul-points: thank you for providing the details.

Concerning the transistor: I understood you are using a PNP-type transistor (in the discussed circuit 2), which would be the BC549?

Greetings, Conrad

LOL it's getting confusing with all the variants which have been/are being tried! 

if you haven't seen all the earlier posts which record the progression of different variants, then i'm basing all my circuit variants round Steven's original SJ1 configuration (a Common Collector oscillator) as opposed to the JT type circuit (which is usually a Common Emitter oscillator, eg, like Xee2's)

in order to try different methods of looping, sometimes i use a PNP variant and sometimes an NPN variant

the circuit i'm constructing to send to Steven for calorimeter testing is the NPN variant, and that's why i mentioned the BC547 to him

the circuit i re-posted for you was a simplification (ie., removing the tertiary winding) of the schematic in post #345:
  link-->http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg291492#msg291492

which contains all the parts - i see that the transistor i used then was a 2N3906

i've also used a C560B successfully (hFE slightly greater than the 2N3906)


the second schematic i re-posted for you came from post #394:
  link-->http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10773.msg291904#msg291904

no extra components, just removed the tertiary winding and achieved slightly lower Pin


i'm sure you can use other PNP types (higher gain is probably better) in this variant - or you could invert the oscillator section and use an NPN transistor - both work

hope this helps

greetings
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com