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

[teslaalset]

@Omnibus
From what I understand is that you want a variable offset in the input current in addition to the existing simulation?

[Omnibus]

@Omega_0,

Be assured I will do anything in my power to bring these new ideas and findings to the attention of any influential, competent people that I am able to come in contact with. You may realize that this is a difficult task and must be done in a strategic way so that it will not be squashed. The first I'm planning on at this point is to convince reputable labs to reproduce it independently. I will let you know how this develops. In the meantime I'm again strongly encouraging you to submit a manuscript describing your results as a preliminary note to a scientific journal as prestigious as possible.

Also, I would be willing to give a joint presentation with you on all of these findings. I'm planning to be in Europe by the end of the Summer and we may try to arrange such seminars. You may want to suggest universities for that matter and I will contact them and try to arrange colloquia at the appropriate departments to discuss all these findings. 

[Omnibus]

@Omnibus
From what I understand is that you want a variable offset in the input current in addition to the existing simulation?

Of course, it would be nice to explore also the offset question but my main idea was to make a graph where we will see the criss crossing of the two best-fitting lines. It may require hundreds of thousands of points, maybe millions. I still don't have Excel 2010 and for now won't be able to open any such file. At present, like I said, I can hardly handle 32000 data points with some rudimentary Excel 97.

[Omega_0]

You may observe that at the beginning the input energy at the end of each half-cycle is farther away from the line of the output energy. As the end of the studied period (of ~30000 points) that distance becomes much shorter, indicating that eventually the input energy will fall below the output energy.

Like I said, there is a chance of floating point errors here. The change is just about 0.5*10^-12, this is unimaginably small. There is no way to tell, unless someone derives it from first principles. 

I guess I'm missing something here, too many posts to read, so I read them in hurry, and the question is, why is broli getting a positive slope ? Is he using a different formula ?

About Excel, it can plot only 32k points, even Excel2007 has this limit. But you can always reduce the points by increasing the time step, so you arrive at a full cycle early. And you can remove the markers from the plot to get a nice clean thin line. (right click on the line and select format data series)

[Omnibus]

I forgot to mention @broli, @teslaalset and several others who may join the colloquia as speakers, if they want to.