Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments?

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Theory and Learning Center > Joule Thief Circuits > Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments?

2024-05-05, 16:16:35
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 22

« previous next »

Author Topic: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? (Read 330388 times)

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #50 on: 2011-01-03, 18:59:05 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3208 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	When we measure power or energy (power x time), we are effectively measuring heat dissipation. In electrical devices, a calorimetric measurement is king, if possible to perform. This involves measuring the temperature rise of the DUT and a control, as explained in ION's posts. The method described there utilizes a rudimentary calorimeter. ION has also decribed methods more true to the form of calorimeteric measurements. Most of what "the maker says" is irrelevant to obtaining an objective assessment of the device. The only thing that need be acquired before-hand from the inventor, is what the required source of input energy is, and what form of energy (electrical, heat, mechanical etc.) the "output" takes, so both can be properly measured and compared. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

MileHigh	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #51 on: 2011-01-03, 19:12:30 »
Group: Guest	Poynt: You have a valid argument about looking at the whole DUT. You may have noticed that I specifically asked what the "output" from the device was. I was basically getting confirmation that there was a reasonable assumption that there was indeed an "output" that was separate and distinct from the rest of the hardware. The rest of the Joule Thief hardware can be viewed as the "overhead," if you will, where the possible "over unity generation process" takes place. So my intention was to simplify the test process in a reasonable fashion. Of course in the strictest sense you are correct and looking at the entire DUT is the way to go. Wattsup: The premise for the thermal testing is that any electrical power output from the device is, by virtue of the design of the testing process, converted into heat power. So when you measure the heat power output you are also measuring the electrical power output. You greatly simplify the Joule Thief testing by looking at its heat power output and comparing it to the electrical power input. MileHigh « Last Edit: 2011-01-03, 19:41:03 by MileHigh »

ion	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #52 on: 2011-01-03, 19:22:34 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-03, 17:46:40 As no one has yet taken a stab at this, I'll explain where I was attempting to go with it. ION, you mentioned this: I understand your points, however imho there are some assumptions being made there that could be throwing the baby out with the bath water. First and foremost, when we are vetting any "black box", we should not make any assumptions regarding whether or not the DUT is OU, nor what degree of OU it may exhibit, no matter what prior tests on similar devices may have shown. We are simply making a purely objective measurement and assessment on the device based on the outcome. From the purely scientific standpoint, we can not make any assumptions or pre-judgments on the device we are about to test with the black box method. My example of 10W input and 10W output should be considered a possibility. Judging it as "unique" and "unrealistic" is irrelevant to the test, if we are using the scientific method and we are being objective and unbiased. This is also an assumption, which by its nature, eliminates another possibility. In the similar example I gave at the top of this post, I asked what the conclusion of these results would be. Did most conclude that the DUT was under-unity in this case? If so, that would be an erroneous conclusion. We did not measure the DUT as a whole, therefore we can not assume that we obtained the "whole" picture regarding what the total output power is for the DUT. Black box testing assumes all possibilities, therefore we can not exclude the possibility of an "OU device" before we commence testing any DUT. In my example where 15W was measured as a DUT input power and 10W at the DUT resistor, we are tempted to conclude that 5W is lost in the DUT circuitry, but we have not yet captured the whole picture. It is entirely possible that there is significantly more than 5W of power being dissipated in the DUT circuitry, such as 20W, 50W, or even 100W for example. This of course would represent poor power transfer to the resistor (especially if the goal was to heat that resistor as much as possible), however that is irrelevant. The point being this: In order to obtain a true representation of the DUT's output power and in keeping with the scientific method and objective black box testing, the entire DUT as a whole must be measured, not just the output element itself. In the case of the device in this topic, and with reference to ION's test setup, this would involve either encasing the DUT circuitry and placing a second series DUT thermal couple on the enclosure, or placing all the DUT components inside a single enclosure, including the output resistor, and measuring this enclosure with a single thermal-couple. And that, in essence, was the reason for my original post suggesting the requirement of a second thermal-couple on the DUT switch. Respectfully, .99 Your points are well stated. I agree there are holes in the method unless the whole picture is considered. The best method is considering all power in / power dissipated. I was merely trying to give some pointers in methods I have used over the years. Yes you can lump the load output resistor as part of the DUT, and get a total output power measurement. I thought this was common sense and took for granted that it would be obvious the method could also be adapted to do this. I have used the thermal method and it's variations for 30 or so years as part of my professional laboratory practice. It is not that difficult and one can be very creative on a budget. I apologize if I have not offered every single possible configuration of the thermal method and left a lot to the hoped for imagination and enthusiasm of the audience to which it was presented. Ultimately anyone who does not like the method can always use a DSO and bias the testing anyway they like by hiding behind wrong filter settings or cherry picking from hours and hours of data logging with questionable outcome and much argument, as we have seen before. At this point I'm out and tired of trying to explain. Use whatever method you all like. Administrators: I respectfully request permission to move all that I have written on the subject of thermal test methods to my bench as a method of preservation for those who can appreciate it. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

MileHigh	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #53 on: 2011-01-03, 19:27:59 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: ION on 2011-01-03, 19:22:34 At this point I'm out and tired of trying to explain. Use whatever method you all like. Sometimes it's more fun to watch than to participate!

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #54 on: 2011-01-03, 19:36:31 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3208 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	ION, I fear you've taken the spirit of my post in a way not intended. I fully support the method you have espoused. I am cautious however to assume that everyone in the audience will apply the technique properly by including the entire DUT, based on the essence of the method as described and illustrated. Clearly in the illustration the DUT circuitry heat is not being accounted for, and my goal was to respectfully and constructively point this out to ensure that those entertaining the idea of implementing this method, ought to be aware of this. In my opinion, it was not obvious, and I suspect the Professor is or was not going to take this into account, should he decide to use this method. His last post seems to indicate that he did not take the DUT circuitry heat dissipation into account. Apologies if I offended. Your inputs are always highly appreciated. Respectfully, .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

PhysicsProf	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #55 on: 2011-01-04, 14:05:20 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2994	I have read the comments and appreciate them. I would hope that ION will copy his excellent remarks to his bench, while keeping them in this thread also. IMO: 1. A proof of "overunity" as we have defined it is so important that multiple complementary methods of measurement are needed. 2. The DSO method, where the instantaneous power in and power out are monitored and then integrated and compared is one method. For the reasons stated above, I do not trust the method of simply using peak-to-peak measurements of V and I and simply multiplying these together. This is the type of "filter" that ION warned about, and I agree. 3. The thermal method described in some detail by ION is another method, and I think the more important of the two. 4. In order to derive convincing results, it is important that the device be well "over unity". Otherwise, one is forever trying to pull a small signal out of the noise. 5. A real effect must be repeatable, which also implies scalable. One should be able to scale up a repeatable effect to the point of power production, finally, where the reality of the effect is no longer in question.

ion	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #56 on: 2011-01-04, 16:56:21 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-01-04, 14:05:20 I have read the comments and appreciate them. I would hope that ION will copy his excellent remarks to his bench, while keeping them in this thread also. IMO: 1. A proof of "overunity" as we have defined it is so important that multiple complementary methods of measurement are needed. 2. The DSO method, where the instantaneous power in and power out are monitored and then integrated and compared is one method. For the reasons stated above, I do not trust the method of simply using peak-to-peak measurements of V and I and simply multiplying these together. This is the type of "filter" that ION warned about, and I agree. 3. The thermal method described in some detail by ION is another method, and I think the more important of the two. 4. In order to derive convincing results, it is important that the device be well "over unity". Otherwise, one is forever trying to pull a small signal out of the noise. 5. A real effect must be repeatable, which also implies scalable. One should be able to scale up a repeatable effect to the point of power production, finally, where the reality of the effect is no longer in question. I agree, especially point 5 All simple test methods have holes or Achilles Heels whereby energy may not all be accounted for. As an example even the thermal method will not account for radiated RF, efficient particle production and radiation etc. unless special radio absorptive enclosures are defined as part of the test protocol. As we know, the blocking oscillator emits a tiny amount of RF since it is a switching circuit with high frequency transients. In this case the radiated RF energy will not be accounted for by many methods of normal testing, and granted, it will be extremely small. Audible emissions are also a form of energy release that may be difficult to account for, and ferrite cores will "sing" at certain frequencies. So when does a test become "reasonable" as a first cut attempt to determine usable, practical energy production into a known load? We will have to use common sense to arrive at this, and common sense is often not so common. « Last Edit: 2011-01-04, 17:47:12 by ION » --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

Grumpy	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #57 on: 2011-01-04, 18:18:43 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-01-04, 14:05:20 4. In order to derive convincing results, it is important that the device be well "over unity". Otherwise, one is forever trying to pull a small signal out of the noise. This is an important guideline that seems to get overlooked in the effort to find "something" that might be scaled up.

aetherevarising	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #58 on: 2011-01-04, 20:53:29 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-01-04, 14:05:20 I have read the comments and appreciate them. I would hope that ION will copy his excellent remarks to his bench, while keeping them in this thread also. IMO: 1. A proof of "overunity" as we have defined it is so important that multiple complementary methods of measurement are needed. 2. The DSO method, where the instantaneous power in and power out are monitored and then integrated and compared is one method. For the reasons stated above, I do not trust the method of simply using peak-to-peak measurements of V and I and simply multiplying these together. This is the type of "filter" that ION warned about, and I agree. 3. The thermal method described in some detail by ION is another method, and I think the more important of the two. 4. In order to derive convincing results, it is important that the device be well "over unity". Otherwise, one is forever trying to pull a small signal out of the noise. 5. A real effect must be repeatable, which also implies scalable. One should be able to scale up a repeatable effect to the point of power production, finally, where the reality of the effect is no longer in question. Hello Professor. I've been watching this thread with interest - precisely to see if there would be some defined protocols to get to proof. If, as you record here - this is sufficient proof - in other words if there is reasonable evidence of the amount of energy delivered by a supply determined by some integrated analysis of the power measured by DSO - if dissipated energies can be determined by the thermal method - if the device is well 'over unity' and if the results are both scaleable and repeatable - then that would be nice. What actually happens is that when push comes to shove - a million other criteria are brought into the picture and all is justified under the requirement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Frankly I've lost all confidence in Open Source. I think that there's actually a jealous requirement of all players here to be produce that 'first'. And to serve this interest they ignore competing claims. You see we've reached all those standards that you stipulated - and more. I've advised Poynty about this when I asked if I could used his forum to publish our new report. But now, as a for instance - Poynty won't regard any claim as valid unless we first use a differential probe. Others require our system is to operate perpetually. Others require that we disconnect from the battery. Others require that the effect is only proven from a utility supply source. Others require ONLY a capacitor. And so it goes. No-one takes such simple criteria as sufficient - albeit that they won't say this here and to you. It's an ego thing. No level of 'proof of concept' will ever be allowed on these forums. I know that now. There'll always be insufficient evidence. What's worse - Poynty won't even allow the publication of a report on our latest tests on this forum unless he's first approved it. And his first requirement is that we use that differential probe which we simply can neither access nor afford. Tough going here Professor. But I've learned to my cost that if you want your technology entirely discredited and suppressed - then publish it on these forums. They do a remarkably good job of this. They'll either ban you or allow your threads to be flamed or they'll diminish you somehow. It's very interesting to me that Ion has been testing this and claims all that noise - or incorrect readings due to ringing? Something like that. If there's no noise? What then? Do we simply pretend that there is noise to satisfy his requirement. Because he'll deny our claim based on his own experience of this. That's the way it works. They entirely overlook any experimental evidence as if it's never even been offered. And then they complain that OU has never been achieved. What they really mean is that they personally have never managed it. Therefore nor can anyone else. If I thought for one moment that you could successfully promote our own test then I'd also send you a prototype. But it'll never happen. Your colleagues will also just scratch their heads and walk away. It's the way it works. An entire planet crying out for need of some cheap and clean energy - and a whole lot of egotists insisting that if they can't do it no-one can. Rosemary edited

wattsup	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #59 on: 2011-01-05, 00:41:57 »
Hero Member Posts: 520	@aetherevarising Sorry but you should take a little walk outside and cool down and try to not exaggerate things here. None of what you are saying is the case, especially nothing has to do with ego. The ego race you are having is in that Ether thread. Specifically there is a device that works at a low voltage range and trying to see if it is OU or not is not an easy task. Whatever you add to it to probe may effect it. Also, seeing OU of .01 mV would not be easy to separate from the actual energy consumed. Imagine should the guys at OUR clearly stipulate that this device is in fact OU, do you think they will not be asked to look at it from a more critical angle. You bet. So trying to think out and work out the OU testing now will just save all a great deal of aggravation if in fact it turns out to be OU. No one will be able to attack us on the method because it has already been looked at. @all Every type of device will have its OU measurement challenges for sure unless or course if the device is so above the OU mark that just watching it operate is convincing enough. I would go for the scalable method if the device is so small, but again you will have problems with finding the exact ratio in scalability and match that to the right type of toroid and wind lengths, etc, etc. You would actually have to take the original coil apart to count turns, measure lengths, etc., and in many cases that is not a viable option unless the maker provides a precise build spec when he supplies a test device. Maybe, just maybe if for smaller devices, like I tried to explain previously, you can take the battery out and replace it with a comparable capacitor of generous mF range charged to 1.5vdc and run the device off of that feed capacitor. Then you send the output to another dioded capacitor (selenium diode consumes the least) to see how much can be put back into the output capacitor. There may also be a possibility to then add a small zener diode off the output capacitor leading back to the feed capacitor to see if the device can run in a loop. This would remove the battery from the equation but still provide a means of throughput where you do not have to wait hours to see if something is normal or not. About the RF, I doubt it at 1.5vdc feed on that toroid that you will have any RF to be concerned about even at higher frequencies. wattsup --------------------------- http://etherimpress.com

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #60 on: 2011-01-05, 01:09:46 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3208 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Rose. We have discussed at length how claims of overunity will be vetted at OUR. Differential and current probes are not always required, nor is it stated so in the OUR guidelines. I have let you know in advance that the chances of your reported results making it past the vetting stage will be greatly improved if your tests are performed with the required probes. Your circuit requires particular attention to this requirement, and denying this fact has no benefit to furthering your case. I have never denied your intention to submit your report to OUR for vetting. You are welcome to do so. However, know that if through the vetting process it is determined that the claim is not fully substantiated with credible and accurate evidence, it won't likely be posted. I trust that you understand why these measures are in place and respect the fact that they exist here. There are always other options if an open source forum does not suit you. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

aetherevarising	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #61 on: 2011-01-05, 03:01:27 »
Group: Guest	I've decided to delete that post. It's hardly going to make an ounce of difference in the general attitudes. It's nice, at least - that Professor is sorting out some acceptable test parameters. Hopefully you'll all see these as reasonable. And I think it's long over due that these be established. Not one rule for one person and another for another. Just a general guideline that you all stick to. What a welcome change would that be. Rosemary « Last Edit: 2011-01-05, 04:04:40 by aetherevarising »

Grumpy	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #62 on: 2011-01-05, 03:50:47 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	and the signal is lost in the noise...

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #63 on: 2011-01-05, 04:21:35 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3208 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011-01-05, 03:01:27 Well Poynty. We, unlike the Lawrence Tseung prototype have got our resistor cooking at 120 degrees centigrade and we can't measure any energy delivered by the battery... That is precisely the reason why your measurements are not adequate. Quote We're also in the happy position of having Le Croy guarantee the results within certain margins which are well exceeded - provided only we do integral analaysis. Which we do. And with this analysis we get even better results than with the simple mean averaging. I can assure you, LeCroy will never guarantee that the measurements you are taking with those passive probes to produce power and energy traces are accurate. Quote We have expert advices endorsing the instrument. There is nothing wrong or inadequate with the oscilloscope. Quote Expert advices endorsing the test results. Whom may that be? If you are referring to the LeCroy guys, that's pure bullshit. Quote Expert advices endorsing the protocols. Whom may that be? From what I could gather through your responses on this, your "protocols" are either non-existent, mis-applied, or haphazardly pulled from a hat. Quote Now you seem to require a differential probe for reasons which I absolutely do not know. I just know that you require this. Perhaps, if it's not an imposition, you could explain this. Either your memory serves you extremely poorly, or you are attempting to stoke the fire. It has been explained to you several times, and you have in your possession a document which I produced that outlines the problems associated with measuring the voltage and current in these circuits using an oscilloscope, and it provides a graduated process for improving the accuracy of these said measurements. Quote I'm reasonably satisfied that the Lawrence Tseung Prototype circuit is not that much different to our own. My guess is that it's claiming the use of some kind of back emf principle. Why do they not need differential probes? Yes there are similarities, but then you should know that. Who said that it doesn't require the same precision and care as yours does IF it was to be measured with an oscilloscope? (currently, the Professor has chosen to use the thermal-couple technique espoused by ION, and I fully support that method, if performed correctly.) Quote Because their numbers are too marginal in the first instance? Which surely means that if they were good enough then that probe would have been required? Which actually means that any circuit must first be tested with differential probes. Which, by my reckoning - puts every possible OU claim out of reach of the pockets of the most of your contributors here. Because the circuit exhibits a similar pattern of transients which are troublesome to acquiring accurate measurements. You can not go wrong using the proper tools for the job. If the circuit operates at a low enough frequency (including rise/fall times) and power, then it may be possible to acquire usable measurements with a good set of passive probes, depending on the characteristics and dynamics of the circuit. Quote You see - what's intriguing to me is that Stefan also will not allow us to publish that report. Without first analyzing the data, results, and conclusions, yes he would be wise not to. Quote I'm of the opinion that our report ~~would first need to~~ should be vetted by acknowledged experts and then published by them. Hopefully we'll manage this. Or some variation of this. Finally, some sensible mentation! I've advised this several times. But "variations" are not advised. Get a real expert. Quote Certainly, as I said, to publish on any of these open forums is a certain recipe for failure. And it's not as if everyone's objections here are reasonable. It's only required that they're voiced. And why not? It's a forum. That's it's beauty. It does not need to actively advance anything. It just needs to be representative of the interests of the controlling members. Rosemary Sounds hopelessly despondent. We're not here to satisfy the "controlling members". Part of what needs to be represented here is truth, integrity, and objectivity. A tiny dash of humility on your part wouldn't hurt. If you're dissatisfied with this forum to the degree which emanates from your posts, I would encourage you to find more suitable ground. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

muDped	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #64 on: 2011-01-05, 05:25:59 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Is it not possible to "publish" a "report" with "caveats?" Is there some need to "endorse" a report before it is "published" for general perusal and evaluation? If any "report" should prove to be faulty who would tend to suffer harm? The "Originator?" The "Forum?" Is it feared that there may be some loss of "credibility?" Hoops... --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

aetherevarising	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #65 on: 2011-01-05, 07:31:50 »
Group: Guest	I must admit I deleted my post precisely to stay out of this argument. It seems that I was too late. In any event. Here's my reply. Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-05, 04:21:35 That is precisely the reason why your measurements are not adequate. Really? Because the measurements show a negative delivery they must be wrong? It conforms to prediction - yet it is wrong? That's a new take Poynty. Ignore the evidence because it doesn't satisfy mainstream prediction? Proof of inadequacy vested in the fact that the numbers are 'going the wrong way?' They must therefore be inadquate? What does one do then - if one cannot get the numbers to conform to mainstream prediction. Just ignore them? Or assume error? Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-05, 04:21:35 I can assure you, LeCroy will never guarantee that the measurements you are taking with those passive probes to produce power and energy traces are accurate. Then I must be imagining the correspondence that I have from them stipulating what's needed. Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-05, 04:21:35 Whom may that be? If you are referring to the LeCroy guys, that's pure bullshit. It IS the LeCroy experts and it's academic experts and it's experts that I don't even know. It's been vetted by other parties overseas. Thus far NO-ONE has faulted the measurements - and NO-ONE has faulted the use of those 'passive probes'. Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-05, 04:21:35 Whom may that be? From what I could gather through your responses on this, your "protocols" are either non-existent, mis-applied, or haphazardly pulled from a hat. That's the kind of comment that is designed to cast the 'odd aspersion' on my general competence. I assure YOU that from the time of our very first tests there were two acknowledged experts in power engineering who stipulated the required protocols to measure this circuit. We have NEVER deviated from their advices until now. And now the only difference is that we're using that intregrated number instead of the mean average. I think what's actually required here is that you point out where our methods are NOT in line with established protocols. That, after all, would be fair. Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-05, 04:21:35 Either your memory serves you extremely poorly, or you are attempting to stoke the fire. It has been explained to you several times, and you have in your possession a document which I produced that outlines the problems associated with measuring the voltage and current in these circuits using an oscilloscope, and it provides a graduated process for improving the accuracy of these said measurements. Please resend that document. Better still, post it here on this thread. I have indeed lost the document and any reference to it. Shit happens. Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-05, 04:21:35 Finally, some sensible mentation! I've advised this several times. But "variations" are not advised. Get a real expert. This is the kind of statement that carries with it actionable slurs on the characters involved in this technology of ours - and yet you are entirely unaccountable because your full name does not come with that comment. Nor do you even bother to suggest that 'in your opinion' we need to get hold of a real expert. You don't need to. No-one can take action. They can only take umbrage. Which means that you have the license and the right to slur those who are asociated - with impunity - any way you want and certainly by inferring that they are NOT real experts. Not sure that it's being that professional Poynty. You can indeed get away with it. But it's not professional. Not at all. What exactly do you consider a 'real expert'? Do academia not cut it? And if not - why not? Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-05, 04:21:35 Sounds hopelessly despondent. We're not here to satisfy the "controlling members". Part of what needs to be represented here is truth, integrity, and objectivity. Truth? That the facts don't be put to the table because you require the use of differential probes? Without the use of such probes which are ONLY your requirement - then the public must, forever be separated from the facts of this carefully measured claim - this claim that is endorsed by 'experts' whom you deny are expert. With respect - is that not somewhat an arbitrary reach at exclusive rights to comment - lest the facts corrupt our poor unthinking public? Really bizarre and absurd claims are put forward everywhere on this forum. But mine may not be? Is that not somewhat questionable? Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-05, 04:21:35 A tiny dash of humility on your part wouldn't hurt. What exactly must I be humble about? These results? The thesis that predicted these results? My appeals to this and all forum members has, heretofore - been exceptionally modest. I now withdraw that appeal - is the only difference. So? Must I be humble as I do so? May I impose a reminder here. The reason I'm withdrawing that appeal is precisely because there is no actual interest in establishing the facts of these claims. The interest is only in denying them - on any spurious pretext available. And that does not apply to your own requirement for differential probes. It applies to the whole gamut. And it is absolutely understandable. There's a lasting and frightening legacy resulting from sundry replicators who denied the evidence and then withdrew the data. Unfortunately no-one has realised the motive behind this. Except that is for a handful of us. This was the actual warning that assured me that Open Source is dangerous. It is not what you all seem to think it's cut out to be. There is the real menace of theft of concept. And that's not acceptable. Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-05, 04:21:35 If you're dissatisfied with this forum to the degree which emanates from your posts, I would encourage you to find more suitable ground. Poynty. There is nothing lonlier than the afflication of an idea without an audience. I have that idea. I lack the audience. But there is a systematic increase in the understandings that I've been promoting. That makes my life a little less lonely. I use the forum - or any that I can still access to avoid that isolation. There are 'gaps' in the general topics - where I can, at its least, share some burning questions. And they have everything to do with that rather lonely idea that I'm afflicted with. That's why I keep on keeping on - here. But it's not so much a pleasure as it's a compulsion. And in as much as it is tolerated - but barely - then it's appreciated. And where it isn't tolerated - then I also know that the calibre of that forum simply does not deserve those questions. But when it comes to experimenal evidence. I'm on record. I'm bored with the whole thing. To tears. The evidence is overwhelming. The acknowledgement somewhat underwhelming. Therefore I now think that the evidence belongs to another type of forum. Hopefully it'll be an academic forum. But time will tell. Rosemary

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #66 on: 2011-01-05, 12:25:57 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3208 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: Dumped on 2011-01-05, 05:25:59 Is it not possible to "publish" a "report" with "caveats?" Is there some need to "endorse" a report before it is "published" for general perusal and evaluation? If any "report" should prove to be faulty who would tend to suffer harm? The "Originator?" The "Forum?" Is it feared that there may be some loss of "credibility?" Hoops... Other forums are replete with countless numbers of false, unsubstantiated, bogus, time and money-wasting claims of overunity. This will not be one of them. If and when a claim of overunity is posted at OUR, it will be because the claim has successfully passed the vetting process outlined here, which means the evidence put forward to substantiate the said claim has been deemed to be credible and accurately obtained. Anyone coming to OUR expecting to peruse a whole slew of various 'empty' overunity claims will be sorely disappointed. Rose, I will not again post that document for you. The fact that you have apparently "lost" it several times is inexcusable, especially since I have sent it to your personal email at least twice (once most recently), and the fact that it is posted in 2 or 3 places at OUR, including your very own thread. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

muDped	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #67 on: 2011-01-05, 21:36:51 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-05, 12:25:57 Other forums are replete with countless numbers of false, unsubstantiated, bogus, time and money-wasting claims of overunity. This will not be one of them. If and when a claim of overunity is posted at OUR, it will be because the claim has successfully passed the vetting process outlined here, which means the evidence put forward to substantiate the said claim has been deemed to be credible and accurately obtained. Anyone coming to OUR expecting to peruse a whole slew of various 'empty' overunity claims will be sorely disappointed. Rose, I will not again post that document for you. The fact that you have apparently "lost" it several times is inexcusable, especially since I have sent it to your personal email at least twice (once most recently), and the fact that it is posted in 2 or 3 places at OUR, including your very own thread. .99 I do understand your concerns and agree that there is a great deal of disinformation circulating at various other forums. And a flock of unscrupulous "builders" who promote certain "works of art" with a near fanatical fervor while realizing monetary gain; clearly taking advantage of those who are "beginners" yet lacking full understanding. Perhaps you could direct any interested prospective evaluators to the location of the prior postings of the document/data in question? One additional question: Is there something "personal" at work in this dialog with Rosemary? Feelings? « Last Edit: 2011-01-05, 22:36:07 by Dumped » --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

poynt99	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #68 on: 2011-01-06, 00:39:43 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3208 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: Dumped on 2011-01-05, 21:36:51 Perhaps you could direct any interested prospective evaluators to the location of the prior postings of the document/data in question? If anyone is interested, try a Google search or search at OU and EF. Plus look at the paper submission, it includes some data. There are many many posts just in those two forums alone. Quote One additional question: Is there something "personal" at work in this dialog with Rosemary? Feelings? When it comes to technical matters, feelings are irrelevant. However, as a byproduct of most of our exchanges, quite often I am abundantly frustrated, and in particular, amazed at the overwhelming lack of honest effort and desire to heed the much needed, sensible advice I and a few others have unselfishly offered. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

PhysicsProf	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #69 on: 2011-01-06, 01:11:36 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2994	Hmmm... I think I understand some of your frustration, Rosemary, but at the same time I believe it is possible to demonstrate/verify a new effect -- not just refute claims. I listed several criterion that I would require as a scientist, including repeatability, scalability and a signal that is well out of the noise. Prizes are nice and indicative of progress. But I suggest that one knows when progress is scientifically solid when the results are published in an established, peer-reviewed journal. Then watch for follow-up papers (also peer-reviewed) which either support or refute the initial paper. [/color] Unfortunately, this process can be very tedious and slow. I have published over fifty such peer-reviewed articles and have reviewed many as well. It is not a perfect process. Indeed, while I recommend this "standard procedure" for the scientific community, I welcome comments on whether peer-reviewed papers is the appropriate path for "free-for-mankind energy"... I have been having second thoughts about this lately. But would like to hear what others think.

aetherevarising	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #70 on: 2011-01-06, 01:39:31 »
Group: Guest	Hello again Professor. I agree. Your parameters are sensible - reasonable and adequate. I've actually forwarded this to those in England who are looking into this. I actully wanted to forward Poynty's requirments for evaluation. But I can't find them. I have very bad eyesight and my searches have 'failed'. Nor is Poynty about to repeat them. More's the pity. Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-01-06, 01:11:36 Hmmm... I think I understand some of your frustration, Rosemary, but at the same time I believe it is possible to demonstrate/verify a new effect -- not just refute claims. I listed several criterion that I would require as a scientist, including repeatability, scalability and a signal that is well out of the noise. Prizes are nice and indicative of progress. But I suggest that one knows when progress is scientifically solid when the results are published in an established, peer-reviewed journal. Then watch for follow-up papers (also peer-reviewed) which either support or refute the initial paper. [/color] Regarding publication. This is absolutely not as 'easy' as you mentioned. I've personally tried submission to EIT - TIE and IEEE. First submission at EIT was rejected out of hand as the 'thesis' was deemed to be nonsense. I re-submitted the test as an anomaly and was advised that 'anomalies' are not considered. I then submitted to IEEE and first submission was encouraged - but then rejected after review - based on the assumption that the energy may have been the result of energy added to the system from the 555 switch - or the result of 'grounding' problems. The first problem would have been ironed out if they simply asked us to add the information related to the this analysis. And regarding their second rejection excuse - since we were using a portable battery operated Fluke oscilloscope then that was hardly fair comment. This was followed by our paper based on a replication of that test. Now we had enough data to 'drown out' protests - and the paper was then rejected on the basis of the thesis needing consideration. I saw history repeating itself. If we submitted as an anomaly - the rejection would be based on the fact that anomalies are not considered. And so it goes. The actual point is this. My own little thesis - unbeknownst to me at the time of first writing it - actually has everything to do with dark energy. What will eventually be disclosed is precisely this fact. And the thesis locates that energy - is all. Not only that but discusses the material property of that field. This is the beauty of all concepts. They're either right or they're wrong. And if it takes a while for the concepts to be incorporated into mainstream - then that's fine. What I know is that the complexities of 'field theory' have not been fully explored. Ever. And I'm satisfied that - in due course - my work here will be duly appreciated - and, more the point, used. That's all that I care about. Because these 'resonating' conditions and these overunity results - albeit contended and argued to death - are simply a very small part of what and where that thesis points. This electrical application of that dark energy component is clumsy - at best. It will be superceded by far more dramatic applications. It will get to the heart of the matter - far more elegantly than these rank and overt attempts at harnessing its electric potential. Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-01-06, 01:11:36 Unfortunately, this process can be very tedious and slow. I have published over fifty such peer-reviewed articles and have reviewed many as well. It is not a perfect process. Indeed, while I recommend this "standard procedure" for the scientific community, I welcome comments on whether peer-reviewed papers is the appropriate path for "free-for-mankind energy"... I have been having second thoughts about this lately. But would like to hear what others think. What we're now considering is demonstrating this to the 'reviewers'. The hope is that if the 'evidence' conforms to the claim then there must be an early acknowledgement of proof of concept - that it can be advanced to review and publication - in the normal way. Unfortunately Poynty's comments will need to be incorporated and, right now, I can't find them. Poynty? If you feel they deserve consideration - please oblige. I am a clutz. I cannot find that work - inexcusable or otherwise. Rosemary EDITED

the_big_m_in_ok	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #71 on: 2011-01-06, 03:40:53 »
Group: Guest	I'd would like to say that according to... http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.1530 (Reply #1538, pg. 103) The quoted/cited prototype is shown running and lighting one at least LED in the circuit. But, I've never seen a wiring diagram to go with the photographed circuit. The inventor of the circuit would be most familiar with it; if he would provide a schematic for other Members to attempt a replication? --Lee

aetherevarising	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #72 on: 2011-01-06, 04:40:11 »
Group: Guest	Poynty - I found those email references. Here's where we're missing each other. You're referencing Tektronix stipulation that the differential probe is required for accurate measurement. No question it's valid. But by the same token it does not discount the use of a standard probe. The thing is this. The differential probe will simply iron out further margins of error. But we all work within acceptable margins. In other words - discount results by a cool 5 or even 10% and the effect persists. If only the differential probe had relevance - then all sale of any other kind of probe could be construed as 'misleading' or even 'fraudulent'. Of course they're subject to error. But it's an established margin of error. Never entirely erroneous. Our own margins of error can be discounted by 10% and more and yet.... No losses. And that's by loading the POUT exclusively with a cool 10% extra voltage - and not PIN not at all. I think what you and all may want to consider is 'reasonable margin for error'. That would be required for all results. Presumably this is what Professor means when he requires that the results be better than marginal. Regards, Rosemary

PhysicsProf	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #73 on: 2011-01-06, 22:12:36 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2994	Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011-01-06, 03:40:53 I'd would like to say that according to... http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.1530 (Reply #1538, pg. 103) The quoted/cited prototype is shown running and lighting one at least LED in the circuit. But, I've never seen a wiring diagram to go with the photographed circuit. The inventor of the circuit would be most familiar with it; if he would provide a schematic for other Members to attempt a replication? --Lee There is a circuit diagram for the Joule Thief circuit here: http://www.evilmadscientist.com/article.php/joulethief/print Add a secondary winding on the toroid per the instructions of Lawrence Tseung -- see his reply #1540 in addition to #1538 you listed above, and his subsequent posts at OU. The inventor does not provide a circuit diagram for the REST of the circuit, but his photograph is very clear IMO -- especially for Prototype A (labels, discussion etc). Have fun with it! PS -- I suggest printing out his photo for prototype A and labeling the components that he did not label. I found that very useful in our efforts to replicate, which we have done (see next post). The resistor between his c&d is 10 ohms, next is a 100 ohm resistor, then the 3-volt LED on the output circuit.

PhysicsProf	Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #74 on: 2011-01-06, 22:17:37 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2994	PS -- my colleague and I have built a complete replication from scratch, using all of our own components and instructions above, and found that the FINALLY-achieved parameters are much like Lawrence has advertised at OU for prototype A... That does not mean that I'm claiming overunity yet -- that will require many more tests as discussed above. But given some trial and error on the winding of the toroid (which Lawrence admits is more of an art at present than a science) -- given that, his design is first-order reproducible (based on RMS values). And not too difficult to build. Much easier than a Bedini motor, for example.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 22

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-05-05, 16:16:35

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2