E-Orbo replications

[Omega_0]

Some shots from the demo for comparison.

[Omega_0]

Data for the third plot above is here....
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=397

This one is most interesting, the input curve shows no slope at all, which means no energy is being transferred to the rotor.

[Omega_0]

Now the main issue I'm facing, which can spoil all these pretty curves and render them meaningless. Below are some variations of the plots obtained by varying the value of Rin (=the resistance of the 4 coils + sense resistor) by a tiny bit each time. (Note that the actual value remains what it is, it was changed only in Excel intentionally to see the effect it has)

Assuming Rin=1.465 ohms, Ein gains an upper hand and we have CoE as usual.
Increasing the Rin just by 0.01 ohm, makes both slopes equal. Increasing it a bit further make Ein negative (a gain, instead of a loss, which could be very interesting if true). So the results are above the noise floor but measurement needs strict tolerances.

An error of +/- 0.01 ohm can make results invalid. If you see the steorn's plot, it is a lot neater and would need even higher error margin. One wonders how they measured Rin, and whether any error in Rin measurement was responsible for their claim of OU and they don't know this.

More experiments are needed.

[gravityblock]

Now the main issue I'm facing, which can spoil all these pretty curves and render them meaningless. Below are some variations of the plots obtained by varying the value of Rin (=the resistance of the 4 coils + sense resistor) by a tiny bit each time. (Note that the actual value remains what it is, it was changed only in Excel intentionally to see the effect it has)

Assuming Rin=1.465 ohms, Ein gains an upper hand and we have CoE as usual.
Increasing the Rin just by 0.01 ohm, makes both slopes equal. Increasing it a bit further make Ein negative (a gain, instead of a loss, which could be very interesting if true). So the results are above the noise floor but measurement needs strict tolerances.

An error of +/- 0.01 ohm can make results invalid. If you see the steorn's plot, it is a lot neater and would need even higher error margin. One wonders how they measured Rin, and whether any error in Rin measurement was responsible for their claim of OU and they don't know this.

More experiments are needed.

Excellent work!  If you could measure the instantaneous value of the resistor during the experiment, with an additional channel, then we would know if the OU is real or not.  This would allow us to use the instantaneous resistance value instead of a fixed value for the resistor.  As we can see with your data, a very small change in the resistance can make the results invalid.  Do you have a 4 channel scope?

Thanks,


GB

[Omega_0]

Excellent work!  If you could measure the instantaneous value of the resistor during the experiment, with an additional channel, then we would know if the OU is real or not.  This would allow us to use the instantaneous resistance value instead of a fixed value for the resistor.  As we can see with your data, a very small change in the resistance can make the results invalid.  Do you have a 4 channel scope?

Thanks,


GB

No I have a two channel USB scope with ordinary probes. But you must have noticed that I'm using scope already to measure the Rin. I'm using the steady state part of the pulse to get values of voltage divided by current and then average many hundreds of these values. This ensures that the Rin is measured at runtime and at operating temperatures.

Here only problem is that the current value again depends on the sense resistor which I must assume to be exactly 1 ohm. I'm anyway investing in a good milliohm meter which should resolve the accuracy issue.