PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?

[JouleSeeker]

Is there any way around this?  ANY way to get the new EM device out to the public WITHOUT selling out to a Big Corp OR being stomped by Big Gov't?

Possible solutions from my ponderings on this question:

1.  Form a small company, or work with an existing company with a keen public-interest, and seek the necessary UL-testing and approval -- or equivalent in some country.  Perhaps bill the device as a safe lighting device for an RV (or some "small" application to avoid drawing too much attention while it is being developed and then built in quantities).

Or
2.  Build and distribute in a country without the regulatory-hoops of the US or UK etc, and get it going and popular.   THEN get it into newspapers, get the public to DEMAND that the new device be made available to them.

[NickZ]

  By the time we figure out how to make a true self running device, China will already be making them cheaper than we can even buy the parts to make it ourselves.  So, I think that it's only a matter of time, no matter what we do or don't do.  An example is their solar Christmas lights, that can light over 100 leds all night, off of a single rechargeable AA battery, and can be bought for $10, plus shipping.

   The self running technology has probably been around for many many years already, but has been kept secret and is still being kept secret
  Just look at what happened to Tariel Kapanadze. His device can output 150 watts, with a 5 watt input.  Sooner or later his device will be replicated. That time may have finally come. Although he is still sick and in the hospital from the poison that he was given on the plane.

   I'll bet that within a year you'll be able to buy a self running device through Ebay, and soon afterwards they'll be sold in all the outlet stores as well.  But who is going to compete with the price of products from China, they work for 22 cent per hour? 
  So, if you can't beat them... may as well buy it from them.   

[JouleSeeker]

  By the time we figure out how to make a true self running device, China will already be making them cheaper than we can even buy the parts to make it ourselves.  So, I think that it's only a matter of time, no matter what we do or don't do.  An example is their solar Christmas lights, that can light over 100 leds all night, off of a single rechargeable AA battery, and can be bought for $10, plus shipping.

   The self running technology has probably been around for many many years already, but has been kept secret and is still being kept secret
  Just look at what happened to Tariel Kapanadze. His device can output 150 watts, with a 5 watt input.  Sooner or later his device will be replicated. That time may have finally come. Although he is still sick and in the hospital from the poison that he was given on the plane.

   I'll bet that within a year you'll be able to buy a self running device through Ebay, and soon afterwards they'll be sold in all the outlet stores as well.  But who is going to compete with the price of products from China, they work for 22 cent per hour? 
  So, if you can't beat them... may as well buy it from them.

You raise a good point, Nick, but the Chinese need SOMETHING WORKING to COPY 

At OUR.com,

Quote from: WaveWatcher on Today at 11:20:38


Trying to propagate information about a free energy device may work better if a high fee is charged. That way the reputation of the device isn't likely to be destroyed by failed replications of those not able to follow instructions.

  Good point, warning about failed replications.  Hmmm... better to have a build from readily available parts and "level 1" easy to build IMO  -- so as be able to spread the technology quickly.  If it works

Look at the Romero/Muller motor-gnerator and even the Gabriel device -- guys have been working on these for about SIX MONTHS, with little in the way of successes.  Especially the RM device, which is complicated VERY hard to replicate evidently.  The Gabriel device (nested transformer) seems to be meeting with more success but is still difficult, expensive with the high-permeability inner toroidal core.

  Again, I'd like to see -- a device that works -- with readily available parts and "level 1" easy to build, with clear instructions.  THAT guy is going to do a service to humanity, if he keeps it open source!

Side note:  my invention of a solar funnel cooker, nearly twenty years ago, is now in Haiti, Bolivia, Kenya, Phillipines -- all over the world!  Totally open source.  Needed components (e.g. windshield reflector and oven-safe bag) are readily available.

google "Dr BYU" , top listing.

[nul-points]

Steven

i'n now back from leave, pleased to see you're feeling better!


here's an update on my version of the '2 Serial NiMHs charge 2 Parallel' SJ1 variant:

the average cell voltage (considering 4 cells) is now approaching approx 1.258V , having started out around approx 1.263V - this represents a drop of 5mV (see 'supply vs charging' voltage graphs below) over the duration of this test

the test has now run continuously for 1245 - (1121-903.25) = 1027.25 hours (ie., 42.8 days)

i just re-configured the setup briefly to get a 'ballpark' value for the current draw with only ONE NiMH as supply, no NiMH charging:  average DC current approx 25uA

the current draw is approx the same when the supply is TWO NiMHs in series, but this will need to be confirmed more rigourously, eventually, using the 'Capacitor Discharge' method for both configs

So, when using double the energy input (ie, from 2 NiMHs) then half that total energy is getting used to charge the 2 parallel NiMHs - ie. it appears that the step of adding a second NiMH in series into the supply is energy-balanced by adding the 2 parallel NiMHs to get charged

the other half of the energy input is shared between driving the LED and heating the transformer

if this 2nd energy value is approx constant, regardless of whether we're just using ONE NiMH as supply (no charging) or TWO NiMHs charging TWO OTHER NiMHs AND driving the LED plus heating the transformer, then here's the question:
   Have we extended the energy supplied to drive the LED and heat the transformer just by adding an extra supply/charge section to the circuit?

i believe that we can answer this question by charging the cell which started at 1.263V back to that voltage and then using it to run a single supply (no charging cells) config continuously and measuring how long it takes for the supply voltage to reach 1.258V and compare with the graph below

such a test should clearly indicate whether there is any likely merit in the Tesla Switch arrangement (when using a long-term switching strategy)


the initial '1.263V' cell' is presently getting charged, so i'll run the circuit until that cell has reached say, 1 mV greater than that voltage and then let it rest for a few days to settle - then i'll reconfig the circuit with that as the only cell and start the new test run


please let me know if you see any issues with this plan

thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com

[JouleSeeker]

Steven

i'n now back from leave, pleased to see you're feeling better!


here's an update on my version of the '2 Serial NiMHs charge 2 Parallel' SJ1 variant:

the average cell voltage (considering 4 cells) is now approaching approx 1.258V , having started out around approx 1.263V - this represents a drop of 5mV (see 'supply vs charging' voltage graphs below) over the duration of this test

the test has now run continuously for 1245 - (1121-903.25) = 1027.25 hours (ie., 42.8 days)

A 0.005V drop in 1027 hours -- that is impressive, NP!

i just re-configured the setup briefly to get a 'ballpark' value for the current draw with only ONE NiMH as supply, no NiMH charging:  average DC current approx 25uA

the current draw is approx the same when the supply is TWO NiMHs in series, but this will need to be confirmed more rigourously, eventually, using the 'Capacitor Discharge' method for both configs

So, when using double the energy input (ie, from 2 NiMHs) then half that total energy is getting used to charge the 2 parallel NiMHs - ie. it appears that the step of adding a second NiMH in series into the supply is energy-balanced by adding the 2 parallel NiMHs to get charged

the other half of the energy input is shared between driving the LED and heating the transformer

if this 2nd energy value is approx constant, regardless of whether we're just using ONE NiMH as supply (no charging) or TWO NiMHs charging TWO OTHER NiMHs AND driving the LED plus heating the transformer, then here's the question:
   Have we extended the energy supplied to drive the LED and heat the transformer just by adding an extra supply/charge section to the circuit?

i believe that we can answer this question by charging the cell which started at 1.263V back to that voltage and then using it to run a single supply (no charging cells) config continuously and measuring how long it takes for the supply voltage to reach 1.258V and compare with the graph below

such a test should clearly indicate whether there is any likely merit in the Tesla Switch arrangement (when using a long-term switching strategy)


the initial '1.263V' cell' is presently getting charged, so i'll run the circuit until that cell has reached say, 1 mV greater than that voltage and then let it rest for a few days to settle - then i'll reconfig the circuit with that as the only cell and start the new test run


please let me know if you see any issues with this plan

thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com

I applaud your plan, NP and look forward to results.

I have better results when using rechargeable batteries for input -- and charging two in parallel on the output leg -- much better than when using capacitors for input and output-catching.  It's interesting and I'm not quite sure what to make of it.   For instance, from one recent run,
Input V (2 AA's in series), 1.9447V at 8h00  to 1.9441V at 18h21 (10hours 20 min later).
Meanwhile,
Output V(2 AA's in parallel), 1.03460 V at 8h00 to 1.03618 V at 18h21.
LED fairly bright -- easily visible -- throughout the run (although I did not watch it every minute LOL).

It is interesting, but some battery relaxation may be going on?? even though I allowed the batteries to sit ("rest") for some time.  The other problem is that the runs are very LONG...

So I tried capacitors.  With a 60,000 uF (hereafter 60 mF) cap on the input and a 10 mF cap on the output, simply charging the zero-V 10mF with the 60mF @1.97V by connecting in parallel, I get a final energy of close to 90% of the initial energy, as expected (conservation of charge, q = CV, same V-final = 1.78V). 

OK, then I use the 60 mF as input to the circuit and 10 mF on the output leg, charging up.  Each run just takes a few seconds, and the LED is brightly lit throughout.   But now the Efinal/Einitial comes in at about 20-40% as I vary conditions.  Hmmm...  not great.

Is there a difference in OPERATION with batteries instead of capacitors? 

I'm giving a talk at Snow College in Ephraim, Utah, this afternoon-- in less than an hour, so gotta run again.  Glad my health is back up.  Thanks, NP.
Steve