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

[Omnibus]

Please, have a look at these data. Isn't it amazing that only the series with the offset F show discrepancy at his partition P = 1000? All the integrals (both with F =/= 0 and with F = 0)  as well as the series with F = 0 give constant Pout/Pin. Only the series with F =/= 0 show dependence on F. Look what OU we got at this particular F used in the spreadsheet. This is the threshold. Make F slightly more negative and the slope of the Pin becomes negative, that is, the source only consumes energy. Can you believe it? And that's directly from the standard theory. No, instrumentation problems, no experimental sources of error. Pure theory. Standard theory.

[Omega_0]

Please, have a look at these data. Isn't it amazing that only the series with the offset F show discrepancy at his partition P = 1000? All the integrals (both with F =/= 0 and with F = 0)  as well as the series with F = 0 give constant Pout/Pin. Only the series with F =/= 0 show dependence on F. Look what OU we got at this particular F used in the spreadsheet. This is the threshold. Make F slightly more negative and the slope of the Pin becomes negative, that is, the source only consumes energy. Can you believe it? And that's directly from the standard theory. No, instrumentation problems, no experimental sources of error. Pure theory. Standard theory.

If I'm reading it right, you are saying that you can get about 10 million Watts for every 1 W spent, just by biasing the Vin by -3 V.

Since this has not been observed in reality so far, and an RC circuit operates happily at such biases without causing a nuclear explosion, one must say that there is some mistake in calculations. Something is missing here.

You can see that there is no change in output, it remains almost same. But the input drops, and drops below zero. It can mean only one thing, that the cap is acting as a source at certain times, and starts supplying the power. This is actually true, the cap charges and discharges when connected to AC source, and while discharging, it acts as a source. When biased, it will act as a source of higher potential. So you need to consider the energy supplied by the cap to the resistor.

At this time I can't see how to take this into account, but the energy of cap is important, as I've said earlier also.
Hopefully I'm wrong here, and you will prove me wrong by an experiment which does not use Excel to show OU.

[Omnibus]

You know, the thing is, the power levels are quite insignificant in this example, let alone that I can't think of everyday circuits working under these conditions. So, the blasting hasn't actually been observed because of these low levels. You'll have million times OU if the input is practically zero but the output is microwatts. How are you going to measure microwatts, though?

The OU effect in this case, and this may be in all cases we're considering when observing electric devices, is due to saving from the input. Not by obtaining additional energy -- the output current is still there while due to the offset the input not only vanishes but becomes negative. That's really shocking and it comes about purely from theory (recall that I also observed it experimentally prior to even think about looking into the theory more carefully). Now, as for the capacitor being the source which would allow saving from the input, I don't see how this can happen since the only source we have is the pulse generator. The capacitor can only help in saving energy, it cannot create energy in addition to what the pulse generator supplies.

[Omega_0]

It appears she or her associates (can't figure out yet who did what) have carried out careful experiments but not only journals refuse to publish her work but she's been banned from forums, as I understand. Did you read, someone in her thread claiming that instruments capable of verifying her claims have not yet been invented?

Yes, I'm following that thread curiously. Her claim is very similar to yours (and of TPU), which says that she got 17 times excess energy simply by pulsing a wire-wound resistor at certain frequencies. I've read the debate in past, and as is usual in OU arena, it caused more heat than light. (Is there a pun here )

But I disagree about her opinion that there is no instrument to measure the effect, IMO , there is, and its called a calorimeter. Fortunately, from the pictures posted there, she has a really fine calorimeter. If I'm reading it correct, she and her buddies at the campus are going to do the experiment, open source it with results, and thats the sole purpose of creating that thread. Interesting indeed.

You have reported similar OU figures, and as I've always said in this thread, please get hold of a calorimeter, such as hers, it will be a great confirmation if both of you come out with solid proof of OU.

[Omnibus]

I think calorimetry should be excluded. Recall, I've said that in the past and I'm convinced in that now more than ever. This question can and should be resolved by purely electrical measurements. Calorimetry, for instance, will be of no use if we have violation of the second thermodynamic law let alone that calorimetric measurements are prone to too much error. Fortunately, also, we have now a purely theoretical argument. So, calorimetry is only just unnecessary distraction and a tool by the zealous activists to squander the research in this area. Calorimetry should be categorically rejected, I think.