STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM

[Omega_0]

Apart from the sign issue, please note that the pure reactive element returns the energy back only because the source reverses its polarity. In nature there is no such source, the polarity must be reversed artificially (using a motor or transistor). So in reality , if you see the complete system, a pure reactor will also consume energy.

If you connect a only a cap on the right of the yellow box in above diagram, the net energy circulated on the right will be zero, but the battery on the left will still drain. That's why I gave the roller coaster example and stressed the need for taking complete system in account.

So I see two issues here, sign and isolated system, and I leave you with my opinion here, hope it was useful. Lets see what others say about this.

[Omnibus]

Oh, certainly. I'll let you know immediately if there's any problem in this respect during my further discussions on the subject. So far, like I said, no expert I've talked to had a second thought about using the data with signs (early on I had similar concerns regarding the signs too but they were dispelled and I mentioned some of the arguments). Anyway, you know I value your opinion a lot and I thank you for sharing those thoughts on the subject.

[Omnibus]

This is for everybody but I'd like to hear especially @gyulasun's take because he's been very helpful on the technical side.

As many here already know I already proved conclusively that overunity is inherent in the electrical phenomena under certain circumstances. It turned out that even in a simple RC circuit OU can be observed at certain values of the voltage offset. The overunity in question is due to saving from the input and in this it very much resembles the excess energy produced in an un-divided electrochemical cell during the electrolysis of water. This electrochemical effect I discovered many years ago and that is the most important effect causing the excess heat in the so called 'cold fusion', in addition to what may be an effect from nuclear fusion. So far all is conclusive and can be demonstrated at once. OU in electrical systems is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Now, as many of you remember I found out that in the experiments, where the current measured with a current probe based on Hall effect and the resistance measured with a Keithley 2000 DMM and both of these parameters are quite accurately determined, the culprit appeared to be the measurement of voltage. At that, not so much the magnitude of the voltage as the phase shift of voltage with respect to current. Indeed, as can also be seen from the modeling in Excel, a variation (inaccuracy) in voltage on the order of the error limits only leads to percent discrepancy in the determining OU while even slight inaccuracies in determining the I-V phase shift lead to enormous discrepancies in what appears to be OU.

Now, it is easily conceivable that in addition to the offset as an intrinsic cause for real OU (a fact already confirmed definitively) real OU can also be produced by having the core, the way the coil is wound (recall the double-wound coil experiment) etc. force the I-V phase shift to be different than the phase shift which corresponds to, say, the resistance R and the capacitance C in the studied circuit. I think most of my experimental data, and most likely that of Steorn or others examining electrical circuits, showing OU express this kind of OU production (as opposed to producing OU via offset).

When the above (inducing of a different phase shift due to, say, core, than the phase shift expected from, say, R and C components of the circuit) is to be proved experimentally there may be some questions which will dilute the discussion and will give unnecessary room for activists to attack the findings and divert attention from the firmly established fact for obtainment of OU, inherent in electric systems under certain conditions. Therefore, I decided to postpone publishing of the five experimental papers I wrote (the paper analyzing the role of the offset is, of course, active) until this point is clarified and more accurate measurements are carried out.

What do I have in mind? Aside from the fact that I'm using an 8-bit oscilloscope (Tektronix DPO 2024) which may affect the accuracy in measuring the V amplitude which isn't that important, as I said, the voltage in my experiments is being measured with an 1MOhm, 110pF passive voltage probe. It very well may be that due to the low input impedance of the probe causing to have current flow in the circuit of the probe (aside from the current flowing in the main circuit) the measured phase shift by the probe is the phase shift in that circuit and not in the main circuit. Attributing the phase shift measured in the circuit of the probe to the studied circuit may lead to seeming OU which isn't there. Conversely, a phase shift in the circuit of the probe attributed to the studied circuit may lead to observing no OU while there may be OU if the real phase shift in the studied circuit is actually measured. What are your proposals? How are we to measure the real values of the voltage and especially its phase shift with regard to current? It appears ascertaining that what is measured is the real thing is almost agnostic. Any experiment can be attacked on these grounds and it seems one can't win. I'm willing to trade in my scope and upgrade as well as get an appropriate voltage probe. However, anything I see around will pose the same problems, even the 14-bit oscilloscope cards and the probes, no matter how expensive. It very well may be that Steorn's equipment as high end as it is also yields to such critique at that not only from the zealous activists.


P.S I'm continuing here in this thread to keep everything in one place.

[gyulasun]

Hi Omnibus,

I cannot recall exact capacitor value you use in the RC circuit, maybe between 47 and 90pF? but more or less about that range, so by using the 1:1 probe with its 110pF self capacitance is not good because the moment you clip the probe on the circuit you add the 110pf to 47-90pF you use in the RC and this quasi doubles the C member.  This can change phase shift of course and you can only test how much phase shift this extra, unwanted capacitor creates, if you use either the 1:10 setting or -even better- use an active probe. Active probes usually have 4-5pF or less input capacitance.

(So to test the extra phase shift the 1:1 probe causes, you use the low capacitance probe and you simply connect a 110pF capacitor in parallel with the C member in the circuit and see its effect, you would have to see the same phase shift now than it have been earlier with the 1:1 probe.)

Maybe I answered your question...

rgds,  Gyula

[Omnibus]

@gyulasun,

The C value in my RC circuit was 115pF. The 1:1 probe, like I said, was 110pF. So, you consider these two capacitances to be connected in parallel, correct? And, so what I measure isn't the phase shift caused by the 115pF of the capacitance in the measured circuit but is the phase shift caused by 110 + 115 = 225pF capacitance, right? Now, if I use an active probe I'll measure 115 + 5 = 120pF? Isn't there a way to eliminate the capacitance of the voltage probe altogether? Also, I see these low capacitance probes have even lower impedance than 1MOhm and that will cause even higher current flowing through the circuit of the probe. Somehow, a sticky wicked situation. Wish there could be probes working like electrometers, with practically infinite input impedance, having no capacitance. Do you think such probes exist?

Another question -- suppose one finds the right probe, do you think an 8-bit scope (having somewhere around +-100mV accuracy) has enough accuracy for these studies or I should look for a higher end?