Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[polarbreeze]

...because the designers of such softwares simply used conventional way of approaches/calculations that is taught in universities for ages,  unless the circuit to be simulated does readily operate as an overunity device...

Yes, I agree, Gyula, that's very astute. That's the line of reasoning that I'm following. If we create a simulation of the circuit using conventional principles and we find that it does predict the results Thane & co are measuring, then we've fully explained the phenomenon, end of story. If, however, we find the conventional model is NOT able to predict these results, then we'll have an extremely good case for proposing something outside the conventional. So this is a huge opportunity - but we do need the data in order to pursue it. I really hope that Thane's team will be able to provide this information.

[innovation_station]

 

hello all

for those that dont know or havent seen.......

i started a thred called TELL THE TRUTH......

early in the new year

i highly recomend you all read it and study it hard....

as your answers lie there .....

here is the link    http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3852.0.html

it is time to wave the caution flag.....


as this is a verry thin red line we all walk ......   

ist

[polarbreeze]

Test # 4  -  1 K ohm LOAD

Primary I/P   
1.75 volts
1.88 amps
PF = 1
Input Power = 3.29 watts (17.8 % decrease)
Output Power = 1.05 watts @ 32.4 v (1887.7 % increase)

OK, here's the thing: you can't just multiply the volts by the amps to get the power because that's only true if the voltage and the current are exactly in phase. They can't be exactly in phase because your source (the variac) has a large reactive component to its output impedance and your monster toroid also surely has a large reactive component. We can model that if you provide the parameters I was asking for before but meanwhile, I think if you look on an oscilloscope you'll find this to be the case. The phase difference between the voltage and current will change when you bring different secondaries into and out of circuit, which is probably a major contributor to the differences you are seeing between the tests.

I know you're saying that your power factor is 1 but with all that reactance around, that's extremely hard to justify - so I suggest you revisit your method of measuring power factor. There is an alternative explanation though: Gyula has pointed out that your core may be thoroughly saturated, in which case it would appear to the variac mostly like a big fat resistor. If that's the case, your power factor would, of course, appear to be (approximately) unity but then all you're doing is making a heater. I would postulate that, if the core is heavily saturated:

1. Tests 2 and 3 aren't able to extract any (much) electrical power out from the secondary because it's pretty much all going off as heat due to saturation;

2. Test 4 relieves a small part of the saturation so that some power is now able to be extracted from the secondary instead of being wasted as heat.

Key questions:

Is the core saturated?
Is saturation essential to the effect?

[gyulasun]

Well,  I wish this were such simple as that...  But if there is a device that is claimed to give more output than input power, and you happen to have all the models/data in your decent simulator software, yet your simulator would not give any extra output results, then what is your conclusion? 
Such a case could be for instance core saturation, piezo effects, radiant energy inputs and who knows what effects for a device but you simply are not able to input these sources into your software:  then you declare such device is not overunity just because you modeled it and it gave underunity...  see the problem?

So all I mean is I would not make any conlusion on any alleged overunity device just by getting underunity results from a simulator. It well may happen: the extra input energy of any kind from which the extra output is coming is not taken into consideration by the software (especially if the extra source is not known by the inventor).

rgds,  Gyula

Yes, I agree, Gyula, that's very astute. That's the line of reasoning that I'm following. If we create a simulation of the circuit using conventional principles and we find that it does predict the results Thane & co are measuring, then we've fully explained the phenomenon, end of story. If, however, we find the conventional model is NOT able to predict these results, then we'll have an extremely good case for proposing something outside the conventional. So this is a huge opportunity - but we do need the data in order to pursue it. I really hope that Thane's team will be able to provide this information.

[polarbreeze]

Well,  I wish this were such simple as that...  But if there is a device that is claimed to give more output than input power, and you happen to have all the models/data in your decent simulator software, yet your simulator would not give any extra output results, then what is your conclusion? 

My conclusion would depend on whether the effect (more output power than input power) had been actually measured or not. If it had been actually measured, then I would have to revise my simulation to explain it. If it had not actually been measured but only postulated, then I would expect those postulating it to be able to come up with a simulation for it.