Selfrunning cold electricity circuit from Dr.Stiffler

[xee]

from page 47:

After the Avramenkp plug there is pure DC at the LEDs and the cap, so it is easy to measure there the DC power in the LEDs. No optocoupler circuit needed, you can measure pure DC electrical power.

I do indeed dispute that you have true DC. If another of the group that has worked with me wants to add to this, great, but, you can not on a properly running SEC circuit just throw a big electrolytic across the AV Plug and get DC.

Even with very elaborate low pass filters consisting of canceling inductors, followed by a 10uf + 0.1uf + 0.01uf followed by two 8mm ferrite beads, you can still hold a neon on the end with one lead in your fingers and get it to light. A true SEC circuit is at such high impedance that the mere addition of a couple inches of wire is enough to change the frequency.

EDIT: page numbers in this post and my previous post refer to pages in this thread.

[hoptoad]

As a self declared skeptic of OU, I have followed this thread from the very beginning. I have built many varying incarnations of the Thomas oscillating circuits (blocking oscillators) to explore the "effects" myself. Why do I maintain an interest when most of the effects appear to be nothing more than RF.??

Throughout the thread there have been statements about a very strong field emanating from the circuit which appears to end abruptly within a metre or so of the circuit. The next time you turn on one of these little circuits, if you have a television, then turn it on too. Roam through the TV channels and see what sort of interference patterns you may or may not have.

I've been experimenting with my setup on the kitchen table, while I watch the TV in the corner of the room. It's a large room and the television is at about 4 metres away. When I watch ABC (channel 2 Australian national TV) on the UHF spectrum, the patterns of interference almost blur out the picture entirely. When I add various Flourescent tubes as loads and point them at the TV, I can "draw" an interference pattern on the screen that looks like a fireworks "sparkler".

Clearly this is interference from an RF output of the circuit, and it is emanating in all directions at a much greater distance than 1 meter. Even when connecting LEDS and Fluoros, they do not contain the total RF output, they only trap some of it for re-emission as photonic radiation. But it appears they are not simply passive/reactive components. They do indeed change the operating frequency of the circuit and themselves become an extension of the RF antenna system.

This is why you may be able to successfully measure your source consumption, but you'll never find a singular way of measuring total output, because the entire circuit is an active antenna. The circuit signals are rich in high order harmonics, and measuring the output by any method is almost impossible. What intrigues me is the amount of heat that is generated so quickly in the transistor, when the circuit is slightly de-tuned by prodding around with your finger or a piece of wire. Yet the LED and Fluoro output often remains the same, and apparent
current consumption remains unchanged. 

With so much energy leaving the circuit as RF, the transistors still manage to fry themselves regularly with excessive heat which is not reflective of the apparent current they are switching. 

Hmmmmm...........KneeDeep, so many questions still......
Cheers from the Toad who Hops

[xee]

My opinion:

As pointed out by Dr. Stiffler and others in this thread, there is a strong RF electric field around this circuit. This is demonstrated in my test on page 76 of this thread where I was able to light a fluorescent bulb several feet from the circuit with only one wire to the bulb. This RF field induces RF currents in the circuit wires and the test equipment wires. In my tests using resistors, the currents induced in the test leads were equal and thus canceled out. However, when making measurements where there were LEDs in the circuit, the LEDs rectified these induced RF currents producing rectified RF currents that added to, or subtracted from, the DC current. Thus it was impossible to make any accurate measurements when using LEDs without extensive shielding of the voltmeter test leads.

In Dr. Stiffler's test results on page 55 of this thread, he computed the output power using the current through a resistor in the LED chain. In his calculations he assumed that the voltage he measured across this resistor was 100% DC. Even though he had some filtering, I believe that the voltage he was measuring had a considerable amount of rectified RF picked up by the leads in the LED chain. Thus I suspect his output power calculations are not correct and the circuit probably was not producing more power out than was coming in.

I guess I have gone from open minded (but skeptical) to just plain skeptical.

EDIT: The significance of the measured voltage not being DC is that then power can not be computed as voltage times current. Instead the phase angle between the voltage and current must be measured and the effective RMS voltage has to be determined before power can be computed.

[DrStiffler]

@All

Measurement withing 'any' SEC circuit is 'magic' at best. Why, because you are working with an interface that is at HIGH impedance and does not like to be connected back to large capacitive mass, like antenna's (long wires, test leads) or Earth or Power Grid. The observation of SEC amplification takes care, extreme care, until the beast is better understood and tamed. It is not as simple as garbing your DVM and measuring the voltage across a battery.

It's not impossible and indeed once learned, is somewhat straight forward, yet not simple. The main reason replicators are fearful of posting results is not only the feedback (negative) that may result, but many are up and down on what they are seeing. One minute it's for real, we have it, the next minute, where did it go, can't obtain the same readings. In an effort to tame and control this problem, many of us have turned to design of working measurement disciplines. Figuring out 'HOW' to do the measurements so they are accurate and acceptable to the public. So far this has turned into its own challenge.

As it turns out, most all experimenters are not in a position or have the equipment required to obtain an accurate set of readings from a properly working SEC circuit (without stopping it).

Here is a great example; A quality Lab, fully voltage and current regulated power supply all of a sudden during SEC tuning shows 'No Current' and the voltage indication drops by two or more volts. Does this mean that the circuit is putting power back into the supply or does it mean the RF is messing with the electronics in the supply? Either one can be true. So switch to a battery, now you see a large return pulse into the battery greater than the current drawn, is the SEC charging the battery or is this a meaningless artifact? It's both.....

I so much want to post a final circuit that can be build with moderately simple procedures, yet it also requires a measurement method that can prove that the circuit is doing what it should. This is what the hold up is at this time. It is proving more difficult to prove it than to produce it, at least in the general public area. If everyone have a sophisticated lab, no problem if you have a few hours, but for the general public, it's a real problem.

Hang in there with me. There are people working on this and unless we are all nuts or delusional it will come.

I have added another measurement circuit that many help some of you working on this, it can be found at www.drstiffler.com/buildup.asp at the bottom of the page.

[Pirate88179]

@ Dr. Stiffler:

I don't think you are nuts.  I truly believe that you are on to something very, very interesting and you are attacking it in a very methodical, scientific manner.  This takes time.  Anything worthwhile done correctly usually does.  I appreciate your honesty in your discussion of measurements.  It sounds to me like that is what is happening to some of the experimenters. Getting a handle on that is a big part of this I believe.  Please continue your great efforts.

Bill