Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity

[Khwartz]

I read his reply, but I have an impression that I have been misunderstood.

Quantization error is created by any ADC. 
It is a vertical error - not a horizontal one (such as clock jitter or undersampling and aliasing).

With two channels (one for current, one for voltage) these quantization errors get multiplied during power calculation.
See the graph attached below how that appears in an extremely bad case or read this thread where someone else makes a bad power measurement because ignoring these vertical quantization errors.

Note that I never wrote that a 2-ch scope is incapable of measuring power accurately.
Also, I never wrote that power measurement by 2-ch scope is good only for pure sine waves. 

P_MEAN = MEAN(U_I *I_I)         , where the subscript "_I" denotes "instantaneous".
is a universal method of power measurement if done with due diligence* and it will correctly measure any waveform, regardless of waveform shape and I-V phase offset.*

However this:
P_MEAN = U_RMS * I_RMS * cos(Φ)
is not a universal method of power measurement.  It is good only for pure sine waves.  Even if the waveform is pure, then it is still subject to the frequency limitation of the multiplier inside the RMS converter. 
BTW: you cannot determine if a sine wave is pure just by looking at it on the scope's screen in time domain. 
See this video for what I mean.
When I see an anomaly then I do.


*  In this case "due diligence" means ensuring simultaneous sampling of the voltage and current channels (non interleaved sampling), ensuring that ENOBs of ADCs are fully utilized (thus quantization errors are minimized), ensuring that the current sensing resistor is really non-inductive with HF spectral measurements,  not undersampling any of the channels - preventing aliasing, arithmetically averaging the instantaneous U_I * I_I multiplication results to obtain average power (not performing any RMS operations on them!).

Thanks too for your very detailed explainations which looks to meet the zgreudz's procudures in COS.

May I ask you to answer point by point to the answers zgreudz made to your own objections, to see if both of you could come on a an agreement on what would be a "Fully Accurate Procedure" for measurements which could be practiced here?

Here again his own answers:

(The objection was that working by intragation time after time the data of an oscilloscope, RMS amps and RMS voltage, is not enough to certify a power reading, and that we need to take care too of:)

1) Waveform shapes
2) Crest factors
3) any DC components
4) Quantization errors of ADCs (two such errors get multiplied in power calculations before integration !).
5) The maximum frequency rating of the RMS or U*I multiplier.
6) The relationship between the sampling rate and the maximum frequency content of the measured signal.
7) Resistance and inductance of current sensing resistors or the frequency response of magnetic current probes,
icon_cool.gif The position of the voltage probe in relation to the current sensing element (before/after).
9) Stray capacitances
10) EMI

Yes these are classical precautions that I adressed when I have done measurements on the U I built. First I have to precise I am a skeptical one (openminded but still for me extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence) and at this very moment I found no evidence of overunity on the U and on the GEGENE....But still I am working actively on the subject. So in my opinion it is a bit premature to spread the word when no massive overunity has been demonstrated or ruled out.

1 & 2 are related to devices where there are a lot of harmonics like the tesla coil on a induction plate (GEGENE). For this I built specific measurement devices (electronics wide band current transformer probes). Actually I built 2 matched sensors to compare input and outpout which "identical" devices (in measurement world, identical means having the same mean value within a given tolerance range icon_smile.gif. But this does not apply strongly on the U because the harmonics are limited (except with some bad oscillators)

3 and 4: I adressed by using long term data acquisition (many periodes see below) and fitting a sinus signal on the curves (because here, as Pascuser said, in that case, all signals are nice and sinusoidal). The model is : V[t]= A Cos[omega.t]+B.Sin[omega.t]+C, I estimate A, B, C linearly (linear regression in analytic form) and omega by minimization of the residual error. Then I can calculate the power, impedances, etc. See on my thread that Blue indicated.

5) & 6) all measurement are done with a 4 channels TDS3034 Tektro scope 2.5Gs/s, which can store about 10000 samples per sweep (mean 20 periods max @5MHz), so having enough bandwidth + time and spatial quantization for a precision better than 2% at 5MHz. For quick and dirty evaluation when installing the measurement I use the internal measure functions of the scope, after I check that they are compatible with the results I get from raw samples.

7) & icon_cool.gif For this I built a specific probe (called "Sonde de Zgreudz" on the forum) which is simply an aselfic, ohmic probe of low value resistance. I qualified the probe with reference impedances that I linked to a calibrated measurement bridge HP4784A. So in a way my probe is (remotely) tied to a measurement standard. The position of the probe is taken into account in this (see also my early tests in my thread about the U).

9) Stray capacitances are mesured on the U ( by using my aselfic probe actually) as well as inductance and ohmic losses. From this I built an electrical distributed model of my U. This model, fed by this parameters show the exact measured resonance on my U...meaning my U does not exhibit Vialle effect. I made the tests at low power (only with the signal generator, no amplifier).

[Khwartz]

I'll just inject one more thought here.   Having been on the Internet since the times before they even had web browsers I learned early on that it is often a big difference between talking to someone face to face and getting cues from their tone of voice versus writing text on the Internet where you cannot really tell a person's tone of voice easily.   Maybe things would be different if you were talking in person to verpies.   This is one reason smilies were created to assist in understanding a person's tone but not everyone is keen on using them.  I also do not see verpies as being trollish here - just wants to know that all has been done correctly as most people want to know this for the purpose of determining if it is worth investing their time and money in doing a replication.  Thanks for your understanding and continued sharing of info here.

I here you well, dear e2matrix, all this is true, but what about:

How is that different from a ¼-wavelength EM antenna ?
What is the direction of propagation that you envison?

P.S.
If you assume that electrons are responsible for the electric current in a solid conductor, then their speed calculates to be very slow (on the order of cm/h).  Though, it is only an assumption, based on the prevalent inability to form an alternate explanation for current conduction in solid conductors.

While he even doesn't know of what I was talking about and presupposes here too the unworthyness of the ideas of who he is adressing?

Putting words in my mouth to then state they are erroneous? ^^

[Khwartz]

A post made in COS:

Hi All!

Realising that the procedures to check the overunity could be not yet completly sure at 100 %, and "extraordinary claims needs extraordinary proves", I will no more report any results from here to ou.com (I said results, not necessarely to no more give data and adives according to what I can study here), until having measurements fully valid. For the calculations, I will let the ou.com community to check for itself.

I was here to report and create interest for your work here, and yes, 6 persons have expressed already their interest in replicating, but I have made the mistake to report could be too fast; I apologise for the readers of ou.com.

I still "believe" the overunity has been produced and in great amount, the success of selfrun of the exponsors engineers tends to tell me that, but it was about to give true accurate data so that new replicators could really know the state of the art of the knowledge about Richard's Autogenerator, and like someone said before me: "To know or to believe, that's the choice!"

Best regards,
K.

[Khwartz]

These attachments are the only documents having been saved from the ex Richard's sponsors.

They make NO proof while anyone could say there is a fake (the seflrecharge log of the battery).

The schematic DIDN'T WORK!  It was the V6 version while it would at the V10 they started to succeed in selfrunning (but it is not a "loop" indeed). They are reported having gone until a V12.

These schematics would be all about to let the negative power feeding back the batteries, while in the last versions, there was apparently an alternate system between 2 batteries, one feeding and the other receiving the negative power alternatively.

Best regards,
K.

[Khwartz]

Here few advises from Biganos, one the most experimented, working on the Autogenerator presently to get more power, because for him the results in enough replications have already been largely successful and it is needed to go further now:

Il me semble important pour qui souhaite toucher du doigt le principe de reproduire simplement ce genre de manip afin de constater par soi-même l'effet Vialle.

"It seems to me important for whom wishes to start to have some reality on the principle, to simply reproduce this kind of experience, to notice by oneself the Vialle effect."

Toutes les mesures que les gens veulent entreprendre sont certes intéressantes et pourraient permettre d'avancer, mais jusqu'à présent la majorité de ceux qui partent de but en blanc vers des choses trop complexes passent à côté de l'essentiel.

"All the measurements people want to perform are certainly interesting and could help to go forward, but until now, those who start right away towards too much complexities, miss the essential."

En résumé, le meilleur conseil à donner c'est de répliquer quelque chose de simple en se basant sur des montages éprouvés.

"To summarise, the best advise to give is to replicate only something simple based on already well mastered set-ups."

Et pour cela les paramètres ne sont pas critiques. Peu importe si le barreau fait 1m ou 98,6cm. Peu importe si on fait une coupure de 4mm ou 8mm pourvu qu'elle soit isolante. Peu importe si on bobine avec du fil émaillé ou du fil gainé... On pourra toujours obtenir un résultat en jouant un peu sur la fréquence et l'accord de sortie.

"And for this the parameters are not very important. Who cares if the bar is 98.6 cm! Who cares to have 4 mm or 8 mm of separation, if is at least insulated. Who cares to wrap with enameled or sheathed wire!... one will be always able to obtain the results while playing a few with the frequency and the output tuning."

-----

Hope this will clarify the order of magnitude of the importances of the parameters in your first level if experiment:

- lighting a bulb despite the separation between the tow halves.

Best regards,
K.