LTspice IV Computes That Over Unity AC Circuit Works!

[TinselKoala]

Your work is interesting, but there's a lot to get through. So that we are on the same page, can you confirm that we mean the same things when we are talking about certain concepts?
Joule = the fundamental unit of ENERGY, and is equal to Watt-second.
Watt = the fundamental unit of POWER, and is equal to Joules per Second, that is , (Watt-Seconds)/Seconds.
And the term "per", as is your phrase "Joules per second" is normally to be interpreted as the division operator, as in Joules per second = (Joules)/(Seconds), which of course equals Watts.

Am I with you so far?

I am asking this, because it sounds to me like you are still trying to compare Watts (that is, instantaneous power) in and out, when you should be comparing Joules (total energy) in and out. When waveforms are considered, the proper computation of energy goes like this: You do an instantaneous multiplication of your current and your voltage waveforms. This gives you an instantaneous power waveform. Then you integrate that waveform over the time of the measurement period. This integral of the instantaneous power will be the Energy in Joules, and is the appropriate measurement for Coefficient of Power (CoP) or whatever overunity / underunity ratio you might want.
At least, that's the way I understand it. Of course I could be revealing my hide-bound ignorance here for the world to see. But it's not really my field, after all.
Anyway, when you say "Joules per second", why don't you just say "Watts" if that's what you mean?

[WilbyInebriated]

tk, it's my understanding that 'watts' is used more often in high school level books/discussions on the subject and 'joules per second' is used more often in more advanced books/discussions. i have no idea why. personally i think 'watts' should be done away with, but that's just me.

[TinselKoala]

tk, it's my understanding that 'watts' is used more often in high school level books/discussions on the subject and 'joules per second' is used more often in more advanced books/discussions. i have no idea why. personally i think 'watts' should be done away with, but that's just me.

It's because "Watts" doesn't capture the whole story. It's easy to conceptualize, using the hydraulic analogy and DC currents, that Watts is Volts times Amps (pressure times flow) and represents some total ability to do work over a period of time. But with more complex AC waveforms or duty cycles, the situation is more, well, complex.
The (joules) = watt seconds, and (joules/second) = watts, these are Definitions and are part of the standard system (SI) of physics notation.
See http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html Table 3

[WilbyInebriated]

It's because "Watts" doesn't capture the whole story. It's easy to conceptualize, using the hydraulic analogy and DC currents, that Watts is Volts times Amps (pressure times flow) and represents some total ability to do work over a period of time. But with more complex AC waveforms or duty cycles, the situation is more, well, complex.
The (joules) = watt seconds, and (joules/second) = watts, these are Definitions and are part of the standard system (SI) of physics notation.
See http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html Table 3

sorry, i said that wrong. i have no idea why they choose to use a term that, as you eloquently stated, doesn't tell the whole story to jr. and high schoolers. i think they should start with 'joules per second' and 'watts' shouldn't even be brought into the discussion until it is at a more advanced level.

[D.R.Jackson]

Well the sonic resonator is perfected now, and you can download the final model below to verify the statements and the wattage plot of this post.  Despite some of the comments made in reply to me, check all of this out for yourself.

Consider the following based upon a DC power input of 5.29 Watts pure steady state DC.

First of all the DC signal output has been worked on and perfected into a DC signal square wave output.  The amplitude of the DC signal is 8.23 Watts.  The rms, average and peak of a square wave are the same.  And please note that the output at this point across the 120 ohm load resistor is a DC Peak signal output of 8.23 Watts.  This has not been converted to peak to peak AC in the model but I have a model I have done this with.

Also, extra energy is stored in the half wave cycle by it being extend past the 180 degree half cycle point by +50 degrees to the 230 degree point in the wave cycle.  So energy has been stored in the half wave by extension of the half cycle of 0.5 wave cycles to 0.64 wave cycles.  As can be seen in the below plot.  And you can download the model to run and verify that this is the case below also.  You can easily see that the half wave in proportion to the entire wave cycle, is reaching over into the negative half cycle and so, has its half cycle period extended.

Since this is a DC output signal, the positive half cycle is the On state, and the negative half cycle is the Off state.  And so, can be viewed the same way as a digital signal.  The Period of the On state then is extended +50 degrees to the 230 degree position of the wave cycle.  So the the period of the On state of the power cycle is thus now 64% (230 degrees) of the wave cycle rather than 50% (180 degrees) of the wave cycle.  So more energy is added into the power cycle this way, and not just only in the unusual peak power output amplitude that the model demonstrates in software simulations.  The power then is stored in the wave cycle both by amplitude ~ as well as by extension of the period of the half cycle to 230 degrees.

Now there is no way with ordinary circuit concepts you are going to get a square wave output of 8.23 Watts output with only 5.29 Watts DC input from a DC power supply.  If you do the math on a purely lossless system model (theoretically 100% efficient system) you will not get a  8.23 Watts square wave calculated out of an input of 5.29 Watts DC input ~ unless there is more to the circuits concepts and principles than meets the eye.  Such as conservation of losses and restoration of those losses back into the circuit to do useful work.  And the use of electromechanical resonance.

If you convert 5.29 Watts DC to a DC Signal Peak of 5.29W*1.414 = 7.48006W in a lossless  model (and this is based upon a sine wave peak rather than a square wave).  So the rms value of the sine wave peak will be 5.29 Watts, and our rms value of our square wave is the same as its average and peak which equals 8.23 Watts.  Understand?  See?  Thats over unity.

Ok now imagine that you upscale this device into the hundreds of watts range or the kilowatts range.

Example:  Input power is 529 Watts, the output square wave power then equals 823 Watts.  And so, for lighting and heating we have a unique scenario for cost saving.

Or lets upscale this to look like this:

5290 Watt steady DC In ~ 8230 Watts DC square wave signal Out.

(By adding a capacitor in series with the output and a light bulb or heater you have a simple method of converting the DC to AC for such loads.)

So, the idea seems to hold some interesting potential especially for industrial lighting and heating cost savings.  But would be something nice to use out here in the private residential sector for our lighting and heating needs.

For industrial manufacturing facilities that use a few thousands watts per day merely for lighting, and then in the winter uses infra red space heating for large open areas.  I am sure that a good amount of cost savings can be accomplished by use of these circuits to enhance the power.  And so, I would classify these devices as "electrical power enhancement circuits".

Summed Up:

Here is how it all adds up.  After the software simulation runs the circuit's simulation the DC power input starts to become steady after 3 seconds.  So the initial charge up of the circuit is complete and the current and voltage of the power supply become steady at around 5.29 Watts steady state DC.  Now since there is no periodic wave cycle power in the power supply at this point.  The rms, average and peak power input of the power supply are all one and the same, 5.29 Watts pure DC steady state.  And so, the square wave output is likewise to the DC power input, the rms, average and peak power of the square wave are one and the same, 8.23 Watts.  So we have a power enhancement of: 2.94 Watts.

Extended Half Cycle Period:

Now its hard to tell how the extended period of the half cycle will average out in terms of the power that is placed in the extended +50 degrees past the 180 degree half cycle. 

It just so happens that 5.29 Watts / 8.23 Watts = 0.6427

When rounded off, this equals 0.64 or our extended half cycle period.

Since there appears to be a direct relationship between the square wave amplitude and the extended period of the half cycle.  I can not say that we can extend the period of the half cycle anymore.  And so, there is a limit. 

If it can be extended I do not believe that it can be extend so that the angle of the period is 270 degrees, which would reach the negative peak.  But, if it is possible to extend it more, then I suspect that it will not go past 0.7 wave cycles at most.  Perhaps 0.68 might be the limit if that amount of periodic extension can be accomplished?

It would perhaps take a super computer able to analyze and also make design changes and tweaks, to come up with some sort of improvement.  Given a standard model to begin with, the software then would analyze the circuit, change a parts unit value and analyze the results of the various changes made and tabulate the data ~ and then formulate the most efficient model from its data.  So thats what we need to happen somewheres, someday.  Its kind of hard for one person to keep track of all of the various changes and their effect and data.

Innovation:

I guess all we are going to get is baby steps here, and so, the rest is up to a whole army of researchers and university students to improve and make something out of the math of it all.

I am hoping though that someone with some Spice library models for vacuum tubes might make this into a higher powered device model.  And maybe realize a greater ratio of input to output power for use in such things as industrial electric lighting and heating.  My tube suggestion for this is the 4-65 A beam power tube.  And if anyone comes up with a LTspice library model for this particular vacuum tube, then I would like to have a copy of that to model circuits with.

I would have to say that with all of the circuit components, that would normally result in allot of losses in such a circuit.  And with a DC power input that in no way under conventional thinking can equate to a square wave output as this model demonstrates, that this model best demonstrates what some refer to as over unity.  Which in some engineering circles is a taboo and hence forbidden term.

You can download the model here and run it and who knows, somewheres, sometime ~ someone else may advance it even more.

Loading The Circuit:

As for the ways I have found to load the circuit to take power off, you can use a capacitor, a resistor or a coil or transformer.  However when you add a diode or two to rectify the output and then a filter capacitor you have immediate losses.  I believe that one of the things that happens is that the diodes pulse the half cycles and so, these pulses feed back into the transistor collector circuit of L1 and L2, etc, as a reflected wave and upset the circuits timings.  And the filter capacitor draws allot of charge current.  This does not mean that in time a remedy will not be found.  However if no remedy is ever found, then the application of the circuit is such that it will work with resistive loads such as electric lights and heaters.  But these things account for allot of our power use.  Electric heating is used in manufacturing on a daily basis and not just in the winter.

Applications:

Given enough output voltage, the circuit I believe could change the way we light our buildings particularly when using fluorescent lights that respond to higher frequencies better than they do to 60 Hz.  Some fluorescent lights can be fired up without filament heaters in each end.  Tesla did this using H.F. frequencies.

Also, in some of my models I have been able to effect high instantaneous power peaks.  Such peaks I believe would be useful with fluorescent lights and with quartz (infra red) heaters as well as with oil filled heaters that store heat in the thermal mass of the oil.  The idea of the oil heater is to use the regular 120V AC line to bring the oil up to hot, then this device can replenish heat losses with instantaneous high wattage peaks.  And so, sort of stroke the heat, and stoke it up.  While resulting in a cost savings.

However the square wave output when used in a higher voltage and higher powered model is able to flat out run a quartz or oil filled heater and bring it up to hot, and then can be switched, manually or in a self automated manner to provide instantaneous power peaks which is more applicable with oil filled heaters than with quartz types (the instantaneous peak mode I mean).

And well, the device can be used with incandescent light bulbs also.

Since the device works on a DC power supply input, in an emergency the device can be powered by a few automotive batteries and so, provide light and heat.

Since the device can be used with batteries it then would make a great addition to solar electric systems since the device can run straight off of the storage battery bank.  And so, enhance the lighting and heating capability of solar electric systems making them more efficient.

The margin of efficiency that my low powered simulation model under discussion here demonstrates is equal to:

8.23 Watts / 5.29 Watts = 1.55:1 

Now to calculate the improvement:

5.29 Watts / 8.23 Watts = 0.6427 ~ equal to the extended period of the half cycle

0.64 wave cycle - 0.5 wave cycle = 0.14

0.14*100 =14%

14% then equals the power enhancement improvement that this model would provide to a solar electric system.

More Software Analysis:

I have seen applications written for LTspice by hobbyist that run in the program.  My thoughts is that someone might become familiar with these circuits.  Or a team of researchers, may write an application for use in LTspice, or an whole new Spice software, that can analyze this circuit (and this circuit only)  and self adjust and tweak around the parts values so that the software can come up with a design with the best figures of Input versus Output.  And such things as transistor or vacuum tube max voltage and current ratings not be exceeded.

Conclusion:

I believe in sharing things that are important with others.  And I know allot of us study and try hard to accomplish things with regards to potential over unity or alternative energy innovations.  And so, more minds working on somethings leads to something in the world sooner.  And who knows, someone may be working on something that we can not conceive of at the moment that will achieve something even more for us when combined with these ideas.

Then again, we may not ever find anything else that seems for the moment to be feasible at least in software analysis.  And I know I don't have any 1 Henry to 0.5 Henry transformers at the moment to prototype a test bench model with, but someone out there may.

I of course do hope that something else will come along somewheres to help round out the world of alternative energy concepts.  And whether or not their ideas can be combined with mine for a more complete and effective concept.  Well, is not the point, if someone else has something that is working or at least can be modeled in software, then I hope that their innovations also will add to the world of things that we need.

More than anything, we need people to become focused on something that appears to be feasible in software analysis.  And so, allow as many as can and want to, to do those analysis themselves and so, pool together.  And then as a world wide team of interest, we can make test and if all goes well, we will have something that I hope will work on the test bench.  An who knows who will be the first to get all of the parts together to test it all?  Sure wished today that I had the parts to test it all.

If I could have a transformer to test these circuits with, I would like one of those new toroid core power supply and audio transformer types  with a 1 Henry primary and a 0.5 Henry secondary.  And there is a new core material that is used with audio transformers that consist of powdered ferrite with piezio electric crystal powder impregnated into the powdered ferrite core.  It is said that this core enhances the audio quality and so, I wonder what it might do in this circuit?  I wonder if the piezio electric crystal might be capable of adding its electrical energy to the sum of energies?

Ok, when I saw that my concepts worked in software simulations, I thought then that I had accomplished it.  But I had to work at it all to get something substantial out of it.  And so, days it looked all good and then days it did not.

And so, I concluded early in my testing that if all I could get out of this is enhancements for electric lighting and heating then thats perhaps what we need the most at this time.  And so, though the device fails when I attempt to convert the output to DC for obtaining an energy efficient power supply it does shine with potential for use with lighting and heating. 

So, when I realized that my square wave output held up to the idea of a notable and demonstrable energy enhancement.  I was satisfied with that.  I did realize in the end what I was looking for.  And its hard to argue with the results when it comes to us in a square wave output in watts where the rms, average and peak power of the square wave are all one and the same.

LTspice IV analysis then demonstrates that the over unity device concept works in software, and is feasible in software analysis.  And anyone can run the simulation for themselves and analyze the DC input versus the square wave output power ratio.  And you can download those files here at in this post.