OverUnity Research
  
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
+  OverUnity Research
|-+  General
| |-+  Miscellaneous Discussions
| | |-+  Naudin's Gegene
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Topic: Naudin's Gegene  (Read 44648 times) Print
EMdevices
Position: Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1056
« Reply #50 on: 2013-01-27, 06:46:49 »
ah, good point ION, safety first!  I hadn't thought of that.  It could also play the role of filtering like WW says, or perhaps it is intended for supressing transients when it is connected, that cap can ring with the inductance.

Anyway, regardless of its role, this resistor would have to have quite a high resistance so it does not burn unnecessary power during normal operation.  At 220 V RMS, burning 1 watt in that resistor would imply a resistor value of 48.4 k ohms, so maybe its a 100 k ohm resistor to burn maybe 1/2 watt,  so what's 1/2 watt when it comes to safety!  Besides, cooking  would be draining 1000 watts or more.   

EM
 IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
Group: Read Only
*****
Posts: 1371
« Reply #51 on: 2013-01-27, 14:17:25 »
I agree also with Ion, the capacitor is surely for a security reason, because otherwise when you disconnect the device, it could possibly remained charged.

 IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
Group: Read Only
*****
Posts: 1371
« Reply #52 on: 2013-02-01, 11:18:07 »
JL Naudin made a new test wednesday, using a heater for the load. Still not closed loop. So I just send the following message to the JLN forum. I don't know if it will be published, the forum is moderated.

Here it is:
"Proof of Gegene overunity beyond any doubt

In matter of overunity, a measurement is not enough to prove anything. Ockham's razor says that a measurement mistake is the most likely reason when energy seems not to be conserved.
Therefore a functioning in closed loop is required, because the strength of the proof must be at the same high level as the extraordinarity of the claim.
So the attempt shown here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene13en.htm is the right way. Nevertheless it failed due to an insufficient power of the GTI and/or the not enough efficiency of the method for power conversion.

A much efficient method would be to simply rectify the output current with a bridge of fast diodes, and then to roughly filter the rectified current to remove the 25 Khz and keep the 50Hz that can be fed back to the input. Possibly a resonant 50 Hz filter could be added in series in order to more or less lock the frequency around this value when the device is disconnected from the grid but must be still powered with a current at this working frequency which the device is built for.

This test should have the highest priority as it would prove overunity beyond any doubt. So I wonder why it is not yet attempted while useless tests are made instead (such using the output signal to produce HHO gas)."


 IP: [ Logged ]
Paul-R
Position: Full Member
***
Posts: 246
« Reply #53 on: 2013-02-01, 11:55:29 »
JL Naudin made a new test wednesday

So I just send the following message to the JLN forum. I don't know if it will be published


The test No. 18? His new coil has thew two windings side by side instead of the usual
one on top of the other. I would have thought that the winding closer to the primary
coil would shiled the magnetic field from the other winding.

Did you posted on Yahoo's JLNLABS? Donj't hold your breath. I posted a "lets get
going" type post and it nver got on the list. I think he has abandoned it.

wrtner. 
 IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
Group: Read Only
*****
Posts: 1371
« Reply #54 on: 2013-02-01, 12:15:38 »
The test No. 18?

Yes, http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene22en.htm
(the number in the url doesn't match the test number)

Quote
His new coil has thew two windings side by side instead of the usual
one on top of the other. I would have thought that the winding closer to the primary
coil would shiled the magnetic field from the other winding.

For me the way the winding is made doesn't matter, providing that it has about the same number of turns as the primary. The weak increase of the parallel capacitance due to the double-wire winding is surely irrelevant for a functioning around 25 Khz. A single wire coil should work in the same manner.

Quote
Did you posted on Yahoo's JLNLABS? Donj't hold your breath. I posted a "lets get
going" type post and it nver got on the list. I think he has abandoned it.

wrtner. 

I did send it to the Yahoo forum. Sure, the activity is very reduced.
I think that JLN is the moderator, so at least JL himself will see my post.   Smiley

 IP: [ Logged ]
tinman
Group: Guest
« Reply #55 on: 2013-02-07, 14:08:18 »
I find this setup most interesting,infact my induction cook top is on it's way.
I have some thoughts about the setup,that im supprised JLN hasnt thought of himself.

It seems to me that things are reverse to what would work best-in the way of the coil arrangement.
Some testing would be needed,but i believe that a BPC produces a stronger magnetic field than a flat pancake coil for the same watt input of power.

Dose anyone here know how the induction cooker's are tuned(if they are)?
Do they tune the circuit so as it runs at the resonant frequency of the coil inside?
If so,will there be tuning pot's as such as we can retune the circuit if we install another coil?

The reason i think the setup is backward's is shown here in TK's video.
The induction cooker has a flat pancake coil(single wind),and nauden uses a BPC as the collector-should it not be the other way around?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvb39SwTXBE

So my next few days will be testing a flat pancake coil,and a BPC of the same amount of wire-useing the same amount of watts to drive them.
It would seem that TK is pumping the same amount of energy into each coil.
This can mean only one of 3 thing's
1-the BPC is indeed a better transmitter for the same amount of power.
2-The single wound pancake coil is a much better reciever than a BPC.
3-Or it maybe a combination of both.

So lets see if a BPC has a much higher magnetic field strength than a flat pancake coil-for the same amount of watts.
 IP: [ Logged ]
ION
Group: Elite
******
Posts: 2086

It's turtles all the way down

« Reply #56 on: 2013-02-07, 15:57:46 »
JL Naudin made a new test wednesday, using a heater for the load. Still not closed loop. So I just send the following message to the JLN forum. I don't know if it will be published, the forum is moderated.

Here it is:
"Proof of Gegene overunity beyond any doubt

In matter of overunity, a measurement is not enough to prove anything. Ockham's razor says that a measurement mistake is the most likely reason when energy seems not to be conserved.
Therefore a functioning in closed loop is required, because the strength of the proof must be at the same high level as the extraordinarity of the claim.
So the attempt shown here: http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene13en.htm is the right way. Nevertheless it failed due to an insufficient power of the GTI and/or the not enough efficiency of the method for power conversion.

A much efficient method would be to simply rectify the output current with a bridge of fast diodes, and then to roughly filter the rectified current to remove the 25 Khz and keep the 50Hz that can be fed back to the input. Possibly a resonant 50 Hz filter could be added in series in order to more or less lock the frequency around this value when the device is disconnected from the grid but must be still powered with a current at this working frequency which the device is built for.

This test should have the highest priority as it would prove overunity beyond any doubt. So I wonder why it is not yet attempted while useless tests are made instead (such using the output signal to produce HHO gas)."

You and I, and perhaps a handful of others know the answer to the last statement in bold, and why it will not be performed.
It would be "game over" and perhaps he intuitively knows this. Better towards diversion and complexification.
 IP: [ Logged ]
Paul-R
Position: Full Member
***
Posts: 246
« Reply #57 on: 2013-02-07, 16:48:28 »
You and I, and perhaps a handful of others know the answer to the last statement in bold, and why it will not be performed.
Possibly because it is complicated and beyond the ken of many.

Remember Occam's Razor:
Whatever was wrong with the kettle method?
 IP: [ Logged ]
tinman
Group: Guest
« Reply #58 on: 2013-02-08, 11:16:19 »
I think there is a much easer way to loop the system.
HD FWBR made from fast diode's charging a 12 or 24 volt battery bank.
Battery bank running a 2500 watt inverter.
And inverter running the induction cook plate.
 IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
Group: Read Only
*****
Posts: 1371
« Reply #59 on: 2013-02-08, 12:24:47 »
@tinman link=topic=1610.msg28595#msg28595 date=1360318579]
I think there is a much easer way to loop the system.
...
[/quote]

I agree.
My post to the JLN group mentioned above in my reply #53 and proposing a better way of looping, is not yet published. So while it is not published, I must consider that JLN prefers to foster the illusion of overunity in his device rather than to challenge it and the conclusion is that he knows that his device is not OU and why.

 IP: [ Logged ]
Paul-R
Position: Full Member
***
Posts: 246
« Reply #60 on: 2013-02-08, 16:03:26 »
@tinman link=topic=1610.msg28595#msg28595 date=1360318579]
I think there is a much easer way to loop the system.
...


My post to the JLN group mentioned above in my reply #53 and proposing a better way of looping,
You shouldn't hold your breath. I think that list is dead, except that a couple of people
appear to have unmoderated access which he may have forgotten about.

What we need is good COP data (without trying to estimate the area under scope shots) and the
looping, however elegant, can come later.

The kettle does this:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene07en.htm
Last Edit: 2013-02-08, 16:42:58 by Paul-R
 IP: [ Logged ]
ION
Group: Elite
******
Posts: 2086

It's turtles all the way down

« Reply #61 on: 2013-02-08, 16:04:44 »
@tinman link=topic=1610.msg28595#msg28595 date=1360318579]
I think there is a much easer way to loop the system.
...


I agree.
My post to the JLN group mentioned above in my reply #53 and proposing a better way of looping, is not yet published. So while it is not published, I must consider that JLN prefers to foster the illusion of overunity in his device rather than to challenge it and the conclusion is that he knows that his device is not OU and why.

Agreed

Only the very highest minded of scientific experimenters have the courage to challenge their own findings, and they will challenge their own work from many different angles to find truth.

We often see the opposite attitude here, where the same test method routinely produces similar (and often flawed) results, but other test methods that could double check or challenge those results are not considered.
 IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
Group: Read Only
*****
Posts: 1371
« Reply #62 on: 2013-02-08, 17:10:12 »
You shouldn't hold your breath. I think that list is dead, except that a couple of people appear to have unmoderated access which he may have forgotten about.

I don't think so.
Is it a simple hypothesis or do you hold a real information that people would have unmoderated access?

 IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
Group: Read Only
*****
Posts: 1371
« Reply #63 on: 2013-02-08, 17:18:03 »
...
What we need is good COP data (without trying to estimate the area under scope shots) and the looping, however elegant, can come later.
...

We have already the data. It's clearly OU.
"Later", it's now. But no loop. Why? Likely experimental mistakes.

JLN did the same with the Kapagen. One day, step 1, he measured OU. The next day, step 2, he measured no more OU. He has never confessed why he was mistaken. With the gegene, my impression is that he has only skipped the step 2, maybe to avoid to be ridiculous a second time.


 IP: [ Logged ]
tinman
Group: Guest
« Reply #64 on: 2013-02-08, 17:41:34 »
I forsee a problem with my way of looping the system.
If i use my 2500 watt inverter to run the induction cook top at 1800 watt's, i will need to be pulling in excess of 150 amp,s from the 12 volt batterys.
That in itself isnt a problem,but where to get ultra fast diode's that will handle 150 amp's?,so as i can charge the battery's?
 IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
Group: Read Only
*****
Posts: 1371
« Reply #65 on: 2013-02-08, 17:46:48 »
...
Only the very highest minded of scientific experimenters have the courage to challenge their own findings, and they will challenge their own work from many different angles to find truth.
...

I share this view. It's really the only method to prove that something is real: to remove all possible flaws and holes of the measurement and the protocol by testing, and then to publish the results and let the others analyse, duplicate and confirm it's really OU.

In matter of over-unity, we see under-exprimenters claiming OU first, then they try to confirm, but are never able to do it nor to give technical informations for the others to duplicate. When you have no doubts because you believe, why would you challenge your faith?
Finally they never confess that they were wrong, cultivating the rumor for the benefit of their status of great prophet of the free energy, and we see even some of these guys always claiming new OU devices 10 or 20 years later! (Bedin i). The worst is that they have followers  Grin.

The truth can come only from skeptics. Most of those who make the real science are skeptics, they have to convince themselves, removing their own doubts one by one, then to succeed in convincing the other skeptics and that is why the final result is real science with practical applications.

 IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
Group: Read Only
*****
Posts: 1371
« Reply #66 on: 2013-02-08, 17:59:59 »
I forsee a problem with my way of looping the system.
If i use my 2500 watt inverter to run the induction cook top at 1800 watt's, i will need to be pulling in excess of 150 amp,s from the 12 volt batterys.
That in itself isnt a problem,but where to get ultra fast diode's that will handle 150 amp's?,so as i can charge the battery's?

I have proposed another method using a higher voltage, the voltage of the output. In this case 10A diodes should be enough (see reply #53).

And if you really want an inverter, you may build one for operating under a much higher voltage than 12v and so with a weaker current.

Last Edit: 2013-02-08, 18:51:27 by exnihiloest
 IP: [ Logged ]
Paul-R
Position: Full Member
***
Posts: 246
« Reply #67 on: 2013-02-08, 21:38:01 »
I don't think so.
Is it a simple hypothesis or do you hold a real information that people would have unmoderated access?


Look and see for yourself.

Your message is not up. Neither did mine get published. What does is pretty
strange arcane stuff which relates to nothing that Naudin is doing.
 IP: [ Logged ]
tinman
Group: Guest
« Reply #68 on: 2013-02-09, 16:26:27 »
We have already the data. It's clearly OU.
"Later", it's now. But no loop. Why? Likely experimental mistakes.

JLN did the same with the Kapagen. One day, step 1, he measured OU. The next day, step 2, he measured no more OU. He has never confessed why he was mistaken. With the gegene, my impression is that he has only skipped the step 2, maybe to avoid to be ridiculous a second time.



Is it your belief exnihiloest that it is indeed OU?
If so,are you going to replicate this setup?
 IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
Group: Read Only
*****
Posts: 1371
« Reply #69 on: 2013-02-09, 21:41:55 »
Is it your belief exnihiloest that it is indeed OU?
If so,are you going to replicate this setup?

The data show OU. It's only what I say.
Why should I replicate this setup? The data show a COP near 200%. It follows that it is extremely easy to loop the device, even with an inefficient method. We all know that it would be the definite proof of OU and it's the final goal of every experimenter in the field. But JLN doesn't try it or perhaps he tried and failed but doesn't say it. I conclude that he has good reasons for that. The main reason is: he is wrong with the data and he knows it. This is perfectly in agreement with the results from other experimenters who don't measure OU.
And thus, an easy reasoning has avoided a useless work...     Wink



 IP: [ Logged ]
EMdevices
Position: Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1056
« Reply #70 on: 2013-02-10, 07:22:08 »
I just looked at the JNL test with the heater,  and his numbers are:

Input Power:  1733 watts  (measured by watt meter)
Output Power:  1599 watts  (calculated from V and I)



His power difference is about 130 watts, which is about 7.6% of the input power.  The question is, how accurate are his calculations?  (I don't have time to download his software and data file, but he makes them available)


If the calculations are correct, than I think I know why JNL and others (like Lawrence Tesung) measure overunity from pulse systems, and I encountered this as well, and it deceived me.


Quite simply, the problem is the probes.   If the probes are not perfectly adjusted and calibrated, a pulsed or rapidly rising waveform can OVERSHOOT the actual amplitude, because of slight inductance that is not canceled.  This needs to be checked, and I think it affects Tesung more than JNL.

EM


 IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
Group: Read Only
*****
Posts: 1371
« Reply #71 on: 2013-02-10, 11:04:52 »
In the test http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene16.htm:
Input power : 1165 W
Output power : 2061W

At http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene18.htm:
Input power : 1155 W
Output power : 1946W

At http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/gegene19.htm
Input power : 1148 W
Output power : 2408W !

With so much available output over-power, only an idiot would be unable to loop the device.

Between the two last mentionned tests, only the way he was measuring changed. He got a 450W bonus simply by changing his method of measurement!  Grin
To handle properly high frequencies, high voltages and high currents is beyond the reach of a hobbyist. This guy should learn electronics.

 IP: [ Logged ]
EMdevices
Position: Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1056
« Reply #72 on: 2013-02-11, 02:16:35 »
I copied a portion of the script that JNL used to calculate the power,  and it is so obvious he does not know the basics.   (copied from the first link posted above by EX)

Look at the bold line, he apparently does not care about phase angle!   This simple mistake is all too common.




% compute the Average Power
%
pp=u1.*u2/r;
Pavg = VTG_rms * CUR_rms;
pmoy=trapz(t,pp)/(t(l)-t(1));
pwravg = zeros(l,1);
pwravg = pwravg + Pavg;
figure(3); clf;
plot(t,pp,'-g',t,pwravg,'-r');
xlabel('Time t (s)');
ylabel('Power (W)');
title('P = f(t) - GEGENE OUTPUT POWER');
axis([t(1) t(l) min(pp) max(pp)]);
disp(['---> OUTPUT AVG Power (VTG_rms * CUR_rms): ',sprintf('%0.1f',Pavg),' Watt ']);
disp(['---> OUTPUT AVG Power (Trapeze method) : ',sprintf('%0.1f',pmoy),' Watts']);
grid on
legend('U(t)',['AVG PWR =',sprintf('%0.1f',Pavg),' W ']);
 IP: [ Logged ]
exnihiloest
Group: Read Only
*****
Posts: 1371
« Reply #73 on: 2013-02-11, 10:43:12 »

To be honnest, he has shown that the current and the voltage are in phase. See the bottom views, the yellow and blue traces fit one another. So it is legitimate to do the product of the average values:



I'm convinced that there is a flaw but it must be more subtle (integration step width?...).

 IP: [ Logged ]
tinman
Group: Guest
« Reply #74 on: 2013-02-11, 11:43:56 »
Could you not just plug the light's into the main;s, and get the wattage usage along with a temp reading of each globe.
Then plug them into the system,get a wattage usage from the mains for the system-then measure temp on the globe's again.
If the temp on the globe's is higher than that of them running straight off the main;s,and the unit is useing less wattage than was consumed by the globe's pluged into the main;s-would that not indicate a higher output than input?

We could also do the same useing a light box and a solar pannel with a pure resistive load on it.
 IP: [ Logged ]
« previous next »
Print
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Forum and Banner by OUR Team