Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Exploring the Inductive Resistor Heater

Started by gmeast, April 25, 2013, 11:43:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

picowatt

Quote from: gmeast on April 30, 2013, 02:50:30 PM

This is where you have gone wrong. You cannot use REAL-TIME measures of Power to determine EFFICIENCIES of these things. You MUST use 'Energy'. The energy consumed from the batteries is 25.28 Watt-Hours heating RL (3.16W X 8-Hours). That heating over 8-hours drew the battery down .4V and at 8-hours the battery voltage was 27.44V.  For the 1st draw-down, the same Starting Voltage after battery re-charge and stabilization, the Rheostat load drew the batteries down to the SAME 27.44V in 6.38 hours. The Rheostat load was 3.1Watts for ONLY 6.38 Hours for an Energy of only 19.78 Watt-Hours. The 5.6mV SH3 was simply a reference for adjusting the  load rheostats. I could have used anything. I could have used 10mV and the batteries would have drawn down quicker, but the energy would still have been around 19.78 Watt-Hours. I could have used 3mV and the draw-down would have lasted longer than 8-hours, but still would have been around 19.78 Watt-Hours ... at the point where the batteries hit 27.44V.


The 2nd Rheostat load test simply used the ratio of the Energies from the first two tests to adjust the rheostats such that the starting and ending voltages were the same as the 1st test (the circuit test) ... 27.84V to 27.44V.  19.78Wh / 25.28Wh = 0.78  So 5.6mV (SH3) X 0.78 = 4.4mV for the new SH3 voltage drop and I adjusted the rheostats to produce that load. The 2nd draw-down test at 4.56mV(avg) (SH3) resulted in identical starting and ending battery voltages as the circuit test ... 27.84V to 27.445V. Then I measured the load rheostat resistance and calculated the power which was 2.52Watts .... THIS IS THE INPUT POWER.  I then applied 2.52Watts DIRECTLY to RL and it produced a significantly lower Delta-T, and this simply proved everything out.


You are like everyone else that has assumed you can simply use poynty-head's PIN POUT nonsense crap for determining efficiency. YOU CANNOT USE REAL-TIME MEASURES OF POWER FOR THIS STUFF. YOU MUST USE MEASURES OF ENERGY!


The reason I know you haven't done any more than skim my presentation is that ALL OF WHAT I SAID ABOVE IS IN THAT SLIDE SHOW.


Take off your BLINDERS you guys.


Regards,


Greg

Greg,  I understand what you are saying with regard to your watt hour calculations, which was the next step beyond those I covered in my previous post.

But, what I was asking, to make sure I understood your methods, was, up to the points discussed in my previous post, did I follow your methods correctly and the measurements you made? (understanding, of course, that you did not use them for any in/out comparisons at that point)

PW

gmeast

Using CSRs to measure power in certain types of pulsing circuits returns inaccurate and unreliable results.  It's fine for sine waves, nicely packaged square waves, saw-tooth waves, triangle waves, but not the types observed here.

gmeast

Quote from: picowatt on April 30, 2013, 03:01:45 PM
Greg,  I understand what you are saying with regard to your watt hour calculations, which was the next step beyond those I covered in my previous post.

But, what I was asking, to make sure I understood your methods, was, up to the points discussed in my previous post, did I follow your methods correctly and the measurements you made? (understanding, of course, that you did not use them for any in/out comparisons at that point)

PW


Good ... then we're done.

picowatt

Quote from: gmeast on April 30, 2013, 03:20:23 PM
Using CSRs to measure power in certain types of pulsing circuits returns inaccurate and unreliable results.  It's fine for sine waves, nicely packaged square waves, saw-tooth waves, triangle waves, but not the types observed here.

Greg,

Please just answer yes or no as to whether I was following along correctly up to the points in my previous post.

You say "I don't get it", so I am trying.  Did I follow along correctly up to that point?



As to using CSR's with complex waveforms, it seems you relied on the voltage measured at SH3 to determine input power, if I have followed along correctly up to the point in my previous post.

PW

gmeast

Quote from: picowatt on April 30, 2013, 03:25:16 PM
Greg,

Please just answer yes or no as to whether I was following along correctly up to the points in my previous post.

You say "I don't get it", so I am trying.  Did I follow along correctly up to that point?



As to using CSR's with complex waveforms, it seems you relied on the voltage measured at SH3 to determine input power, if I have followed along correctly up to the point in my previous post.

PW
Generally "yes" up until your last statements (3).  I said the draw-down test will give you 'some but not all' of the information you need to determine the input 'power' of the circuit. I did not say that this 1st draw-down test would give you THE input power.  Also you sited the 3.09, 3.099 values. Those only relate to the DC draw-down in which case the SH3 values are extremely accurate and reliable. So you were only correct in your understanding up until (3).


It's clear that you are still hung up on using real-time power values to determine efficiencies ... and you are wrong to assume that's correct with these types of circuits.


So, 'no', I'm afraid you still don't 'get it' and I've answered the "why" since that posting and posted jpegs from the slide show.


gme