Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY

[Void]

Thanks for that peper. However, I dont understand why the two outputs are in some way special. Please give more detail.

Hi Hoppy. At this point it seems very unlikely peper10 will be able to actually demonstrate anything
out of the ordinary or even provide anything new that isn't already quite obvious from Nelson's schematic.
Nelson may possibly have had some unusual effect going on with that circuit setup, but all indications are peper10
has just been talking through his hat and pointing out things that are already obvious from the schematic. 

All the best...

[cheors]

My enhanced  PWM version for arduino (see previous Plaxius post)

A0 and A1 pots for Duty cycles 1 and 2
A3 pot for fine frequency
A2 pot for coarse frequency
A4 and A5  3 positions rotary switch for 3 frequency ranges
-----------------------------------------


//Pgm Timing vars
unsigned long previousMillis = 0; // will store last time valuse measured
unsigned long interval = 20; // interval at which to Measure values (milliseconds)
unsigned long currentMillis = 0;
long Fine, Frequency ;

//pwm vars
unsigned pwm1; // Value read from A0 to give PWM duty cycle output in terms of 0-5V
unsigned pwm2;// Value read from A1 to give PWM duty cycle output in terms of 0-5V

void setup()
{
//Set up PWM
  pinMode(9, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(10, OUTPUT);
  pinMode(A0, INPUT);
  pinMode(A1, INPUT);
  pinMode(A2, INPUT);
  pinMode(A3, INPUT);
  pinMode(A4, INPUT_PULLUP);
  pinMode(A5, INPUT_PULLUP);

// clock 1/1
  CLKPR = 128;
  CLKPR = 0;

//phase/frequency correct mode. SELECT THIS FOR INVERTED OUTPUTS.
  TCCR1A = _BV(COM1A1) | _BV(COM1B1) | _BV(COM1B0) ;
}

void loop()
{
unsigned long currentMillis = millis();
if (currentMillis - previousMillis >= interval)
  {
   previousMillis = currentMillis;

   Fine = analogRead(A2);
   Frequency = analogRead(A3);

   if (bitRead(PINC,4) == 0) // switch RANGE closed ?
    {
     TCCR1B = _BV(WGM13) | _BV(CS10) ;  /// clock 1 = high range
     ICR1 = Frequency + Fine / 10 ;
    }

   if (bitRead(PINC,5) == 0)
    {
    TCCR1B = _BV(WGM13) | _BV(CS10) | _BV(CS11); // clock 1/64 = mid range
     ICR1 = Frequency + Fine / 10 ;
    }

   if (bitRead(PINC,4) == 1 && (bitRead(PINC,5) == 1))
    {
     TCCR1B = _BV(WGM13) | _BV(CS10) | _BV(CS12);  // clock 1/1024 = low range
     ICR1 = Frequency * 10 + Fine ;
    }

   if (ICR1<= 1)
    {
     ICR1= 2;
    }

   pwm1 = analogRead(A0); // read duty from A0 for PWM 1
   pwm2 = analogRead(A1); // read duty from A2 for PWM 2

   OCR1A  = map(pwm1,0,1023,0,ICR1); // map the duty cycle to the available steps
   OCR1B  = map(pwm2,0,1023,0,ICR1); //map the duty cycle to the available steps

  }
}

[Hoppy]

Hi Hoppy. At this point it seems very unlikely peper10 will be able to actually demonstrate anything
out of the ordinary or even provide anything new that isn't already quite obvious from Nelson's schematic.
Nelson may possibly have had some unusual effect going on with that circuit setup, but all indications are peper10
has just been talking through his hat and pointing out things that are already obvious from the schematic. 

All the best...

Hi Void,

I'm hoping that that pepper can at least give us a technical explanation of why he thinks the modified JT circuit is special, rather than just an unconventional JT design.

[peper10]

Hi peper10. There is a very big difference between speculating and being able to actually
demonstrate something that is really out of the ordinary (i.e., something which really appears to possibly be OU).
I asked you directly previously if you have built a circuit which you think shows anything unusual
going on, and you ignored my question. Everyone has ideas and opinions, but it is quite another
thing to put those ideas to the test and be able to demonstrate something that really appears to
possibly be COP > 1.

You have been jumping all over people here complaining that they won't blindly accept that you
know how to achieve OU based on one of Nelson's circuit designs, but it appears that you have not
even made a test setup yet to put your ideas to the actual test. These forums often get people who
claim to have it all figured out, but the reality is the vast majority of them can't demonstrate a circuit or
device or anything else which in any way backs up what they are claiming.

Peper10, frankly, your random capitalization of words in several of your comments here, your claims of
being persecuted here, and your insistence that you have it all figured out when in reality it appears you
haven't built any test setups which can demonstrate anything out of the ordinary does not bode well.   

If you have a test setup  that you think demonstrates something out of the ordinary in regards to OU
then show it, otherwise all reasonable people here will know you are just speculating without actually
having put anything to the test. Please stop all the bizarre and unfounded accusations and either
demonstrate a circuit that shows something unusual going on, or admit you you are just talking
though your hat. Do I expect that to actually happen? It seems highly unlikely given how you have been
acting here, but I think it never hurts to give the benefit of the doubt and to ask nicely ...


BTW Nick, a 'joule thief' and 'SEC exciter' are variations of blocking oscillators, and the circuit diagram
of Nelson's posted here is definitely a type of blocking oscillator, very similar to 'joule thief' and
'SEC exciter' circuits. How power may be taken off such a circuit or how a load is connected doesn't change
the fact that it is a blocking oscillator circuit at its core.

All the best...

Hi VOID!!  I dont point fingers at anyone but find funny that I respond to Hoppy and you take the lead and put the BURDEN on me to prouve...
That being said, for a miner like me and jump in a discussion that has NO VENUE for at least consider the idea, it is troubling somehow because all the great minds on here DONT EVEN TRY to give solid explanation of WHY NOT>>> or invalidate the idea...   My skills are limited as a miner by trade, but now I envisage to exchange with people CONSIDERING of just listening and thinking if my claim can be possible...  I perfectly know that the best way to prouve it is TO MYSELF...  I guess I took the wrong road to get to this goal in sharing before any validations were made but if I look at Nelson experiment, it seems like even prouved to yourself will not made the cut here...
No hard feeling, just my taught..  HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY!

[Void]

Hi peper10, the problem is not at all that you were sharing some ideas, but the
problem is that you are making claims and getting upset because people were asking
for some clarification and that sort of thing, and insisting that you know much more than people here
even though it seems you haven't even put these things to the actual test.

Some people here including myself have put long hours in on the test bench over the last many years
putting many things to the test, and therefore are aware that it is not so easy at all to achieve a true COP > 1
that can really hold up to the test. That is not to say that achieving a COP > 1 would have to be
a complicated setup, as for example Kapanadze's setup doesn't seem too complicated if it is genuine,
but if it were relatively easy to achieve COP > 1 then many people would have achieved it by now,
as many people are trying. People talk about thinking outside of the box, but it is not really so easy
to do in practice I think. Some people may possibly have had true OU occurring on the test bench right in
front of them, but because of their preconceptions and mental filters, etc.  they were not able to recognize it.
IMO, 'OU' is not such an easy thing to achieve, or even be able to get a handle on even if it may be occurring right in
front of you when you are actually sitting at the bench doing testing.

All the best...