Real OU-Effect to Share with everyone!!!

[PaulLowrance]

There's nothing misleading in his calculations. The math *clearly* shows "free energy."  So, either it's -->

A. "Free energy"
B. Something wrong with his cap. Perhaps slightly damaged and less than 7500uF.
C. The caps dielectric absorption is high enough to explain the results.

Here's the clear cut math on one of his measurements shown in his video -->

Hi Stefan,

That's definitely worth investigating!!  Another example is 1 minute and 50 seconds into the first video at -->

1:50 to 1:54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RGgrkMocCo

Blue cap: (0.5*22.07^2*7500e-6 - 0.5*20.23^2*7500e-6) = 0.29187 J
Gray cap: 0.5*155^2*30e-6 = 0.360375 J
Efficiency: 0.360375 J / 0.29187 J = 123%

That's over 100% efficiency!

PL

[nievesoliveras]

@all

I posted this circuit a long ago. I stumbled today with this thread. The odd thing is that I was trying to do something similar.
Maybe this circuit can help you and me on our quest for free energy.
It is the same principle used here but using a transistor to connect the coil and the battery.

The question is: Does anybody knows what needs to be changed on it in order to make it work?

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5924.msg134972#msg134972

Jesus

[PaulLowrance]

That brings up a good point. A lot of people seem to think that sparks are what makes "free energy."  I totally disagree. I'd bet anything that if this guy put in a mosfet to remove the spark stuff that it would be even more efficient. Marcus Wagner has also has a bifilar iron core coil that looks almost exactly like this guys. Marcus Wagner claims to have at least one time made his solid-state design self-running! And with no sparks!!

If you look at my magnetic research you'll see two coils that meet in the middle canceling each other other. The bifilar core coil could have the same type of effect, which is to first slowly magnetize the core in this low effective permeability state, and then let one of the coils to rapidly flip.

There's a lot more to it though. I already have the detailed FEMM files that clearly shows "free energy," and it's backed up with conventional magnetic theory. So both conventional magnetic theory and mathematics show "free energy."  There's nothing wrong with well-established conventional mathematics. The problems is in the scientists that limit it. For example, the said genius that wrote LTspice has said that conventional mathematics shows that diodes should rectify Johnson noise, and I've proven that. It's clear cut, no two ways about it. And a few weeks ago I proved with conventional mathematics that my magnetic theory *must* work according to conventional physics.

It's only a matter of time now. It's difficult to make a design that will overcome the great losses in transistors and wire resistance, but it's doable. If you people want to succeed in "free energy," then take the path of concrete logic. Intuition is great, but it's only going to get you to the approximate area, and from there it's up to concrete logic to find the details-- mathematics and detailed concepts. The mathematics of conventional has not failed us. It works all the time. It got us into space. It's the scientists that use such math that have failed us in regards to "free energy." They simply *refuse* to entertain such thoughts because of one of the greatest crimes in history --> the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. My diode research proved that 2LoT is *not* a law, but a tendency.

It's a guarantee. Global Free Energy in 2009!

PL

[nievesoliveras]

That brings up a good point. A lot of people seem to think that sparks are what makes "free energy."  I totally disagree. I'd bet anything that if this guy put in a mosfet to remove the spark stuff that it would be even more efficient.
....
PL

I post this circuit hoping that you can point out how to add the mosfet to it.
I am new to electronics, even though I can draw a schematic from several others.

Jesus

[EMdevices]

guys,  once again the phenomena shown in the videos is because of the electrolitic capacitor's properties,  they are not constant and the simplistic equation does not hold.

A more appropriate equation is of the form:

C = A  +  B/(1 + w^2 t)

see this paper here:

http://www.millersville.edu/~physics/exp.of.the.month/104/index.html

EM