OverUnity Research

The Do-It-Yourself (DIY) FLEET device is in pre-production.

Included in the Kit are:
(1) A working overunity FLEET at tseung resonance allowing the device to run with no battery for up to 90 minutes.  We guarantee that the supplied sample will run more than 2 minutes with 38 LEDs.
(2) Two complete sets of components and a breadboard with full instructions so that the buyer can build his own overunity FLEET.
(3) Entry form for International Competion on a number of topics.  Some example topics include the longest time without battery; the largest number of LEDs, the automatic recharging of batteries, the highest output power as determined by the calorimeter test; the largest motor power or torque from one or more 2n2222 transistor configurations.
(4) For those who want to own a piece of this technology, we also supply an entry form to buy ONE share of the "Lead-Out Energy Company" at a fixed price (e.g. USD20) when the "Lead-Out Energy Company goes public.
(5) Videos from the Demonstration Centers.  Some videos include actual examples of cutting electricity bill by over 90%; air pumps that last for at least 30 minutes with a few hand crank motions; LEDs lamps that last for at least 10 hours generating 1KW with a 12V battery - the battery can be recharged with solar panels; Oscilloscope shots confirming the resonance effects; one special situation that a dimming LED board got back to full brightness due to Lead-Out energy when it drifted pass a Tseung resonance peak.  Many new and exciting resonance matching cases where the household electrical appliances "suddenly" use much less electricity.

The planned retail price of the DIY Kit is USD20.  For developing countries, we shall help the people to produce some key parts at home and earn decent wages.  Soon, they will master the technology.

God Bless.

tesung,

I wish you sucess, but you should know that I built a joule ringer a while ago that ran for almost a day off a small capacitor (10 uF) and lit up an LED.   My advice is not to claim overunity, since you have not proved it, and somebody will ask for a refund when they discover that it's not overunity after testing it PROPERLY, which you have not done.    So just call it a joule ringer kit for experimenting.

just my advice,

EM

Agreed.

And Lawrence, you may want to refresh your memory (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=11.msg32#msg32) about the posting terms and conditions regarding claims of overunity.

The exploration of all that may be possible with the kit certainly
has merit.  The cost seems to be quite reasonable, particularly
when one considers the costs of other kits from certain well
known providers.

For purposes of claiming the "prize" O.U.R. has indeed defined
what "overunity" must be as per the link (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=11.msg32#msg32) referenced by poynt99.

It may be possible that other kinds of "overunity" may exist
within other contexts. If, for example, a way is devised which
causes "household electrical appliances [to] "suddenly"
use much less electricity" then it might be argued that that is
another kind of "overunity."  Enhancing the efficiency of a device to
such a level does result in obtaining something for nothing.

"Joule Thief" and "Joule Ringer" are much overused.  We truly
are in need of a much more imaginitive descriptor.  As an old
sailor I find the term "FLEET" to hold special significance.  It is
original and good.

We should not get too caught up with counting LEDs as a load device. Their current
draw is variable and almost nothing. Possibly the answer is to scale up and use a
resistor with a heat sink which will heat up, and measure the temperature gain if
this load is immersed in oil.

QuoteA working overunity FLEET at tseung resonance allowing the device to run with no battery for up to 90 minutes.  We guarantee that the supplied sample will run more than 2 minutes with 38 LEDs.

I'm totally baffled. How can you claim overunity, but in the very next breath state that the unit will only run for up to 90 minutes?  

It's no different from winding up a 90-day longcase clock (or any other wind-up clock) and telling people that it is an overunity device because it will run for 90 days (or whatever) without any further input.

All we have here is the electronic equivalent of a mechanical wind up clock - eventually it winds down!

Lawrence you might get some divine revelation  C.C, but you certainly won't get the Nobel prize!

I think Lasersaber's simple cct will give you a run for your money:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoEXCweMxhk&feature=channel&list=UL

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2012.08.10, 15:07:31

All we have here is the electronic equivalent of a mechanical wind up clock - eventually it winds down!

The electronic equivalent is a charged capacitor.

Are you saying that Lawrence ships a charged cap when the customers send in their $20?

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2012.08.10, 15:07:31
I'm totally baffled. How can you claim overunity, but in the very next breath state that the unit will only run for up to 90 minutes?  


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoEXCweMxhk&feature=channel&list=UL

Claim overunity, play safe with a contradictory statement, then sit back and watch and let the dosh roll in!

Hoppy

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2012.08.10, 15:07:31
How can you claim overunity, but in the very next breath state that the unit will only run for up to 90 minutes? 

Its called frictional and other losses. An OU system faced with heavy such losses would run down.

These discussions are great.

The DIY kit will ensure that every buyer will have the right ferrite cores, the right capacitors, the right resistors, the right transistors, the right LEDs that can match and resonate.  The actual working sample that comes will guarantee the lighting up of 38 LEDs for 2 minutes.  Every person in the World will theoretically be able to reproduce the result in a few days(or hours).

Lighting up LEDs is not a big deal as many have achieved the same with Joule Thief and Joule Ringer equivalent.  

How about using the DIY kit to pump air for your fish tank?  I can use the DIY kit to pump air for my live baits for fishing.  Just a few hand cranks and the air pump continues to work for over 30 minutes - enough to last the bus ride to the fishing place.  If the ride is long, just crank a few more times half way.

This will be one of the many competitions.  See whose FLEET pump last longest.

You can see this air pump in operation in the Demonstration Center in Hong Kong now and later in all parts of the World.

Is the DIY kit worth the money?

God bless.

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.10, 21:32:50

Is the DIY kit worth the money?

Yes, it is. What about postage & packing?

Videos are all very fine but I think it needs a printed manual. Nothing huge, but it
needs to contain a parts list, various circuit diags and theory of operation along
with recommended internet discussion groups, a list of useful posts, and pointers
on how to scale up the project. (You could even highlight a few participants who
are donkeys).

When people have posted their input output results and have achieved a certain
standard, then you could invite them to an advanced discusssion group,
a technique used by the Bedini Yahoo group.

Paul-R.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.08.10, 19:59:14
Its called frictional and other losses. An OU system faced with heavy such losses would run down.

Der... yes... and that is what every system faces isn't it?   C.C

It's these very loses that need to be overcome in order for something to run continually. If something runs down after 90 minutes it obviously can't overcome the losses, so clearly cannot be putting out more energy than went in. It's really not that hard to grasp.

I fail even to see any argument for OU here.

Seems to me it's just a variation of the same old chestnut. And speaking of nuts, the thing that surprises me most about all this, is that Ramset has not turned up to champion the cause.  :)

No where's that wall for me to bang my head on!

What can one do with the DIY kit (A)?

(1)   Reproduce the basic Joule Thief circuit lighting one LED.  This usually is the first exercise.  The user will be able to use the breadboard and change the configuration.
(2)   Add more LEDs and arrange them in different forms.  Instead of the letter BSI, the user can show his initial or any simple message such as LOVE.  The user learns how to arrange LEDs in series and in parallel.
(3)   Add the capacitor to produce a LCR circuit for tuning.  When the battery is taken off, the LEDs should remain ON.  The passing grade is 2 minutes or more.  Some will pass first time.  The majority will take a few more times.  This is the start of the tuning process.
(4)   The first step in the tuning process is likely to increase the number of turns in winding the toroid.  The user will find that the tightness of winding is as important as increasing the number of turns.  Since he may not have the multimeters or oscilloscopes, he will rely on the no-battery time to compare the efficiency of his prototypes.
(5)   The second step in the tuning process is likely to be the adding of the Secondary Winding.  The Secondary Winding will allow the user to fine-tune the device.  Changing the number of turns in the Secondary will affect the brightness of the LEDs, the number of LEDs lighted and the duration of the no-battery time.
(6)   When the user feels confident, he will use two transistors, two toroids or two capacitors in his prototypes.  He will find that he can prolong the no-battery time to more than 30 minutes with some configurations.  He will try to get more information from the Internet.  He will find some interesting configurations and results.  He will start to think about entering the International Competition.

***The breadboard is great in the initial stages of learning and changing configurations.  However, it is not suitable for shipping to enter International Competitions.  The connection wires are bound to get loose and the result is likely to be totally different.  The user is advised to learn and master soldering.  The local DIY kit distributor and/or retailer will be eager to help and sell extra tools.

May God guide us to help the World.

  I appreciate that Lawrence continues to persevere with this effort.  The price is very reasonable and I'm happy to sign up, and to test the device.

Quote
"Videos from the Demonstration Centers.  Some videos include actual examples of cutting electricity bill by over 90%; air pumps that last for at least 30 minutes with a few hand crank motions; LEDs lamps that last for at least 10 hours generating 1KW with a 12V battery - the battery can be recharged with solar panels; Oscilloscope shots confirming the resonance effects; one special situation that a dimming LED board got back to full brightness due to Lead-Out energy when it drifted pass a Tseung resonance peak.  Many new and exciting resonance matching cases where the household electrical appliances "suddenly" use much less electricity.

The planned retail price of the DIY Kit is USD20.  For developing countries, we shall help the people to produce some key parts at home and earn decent wages.  Soon, they will master the technology."

I'd like to give it a chance.

You know, I have nothing at all against improving efficiency of systems by tuning them to resonance, that makes good sense.

However, what does not make sense is claiming overunity - if a system can't ultimately overcome its own losses then it is not showing overunity. Time is only a measure of efficiency, not overunity.

High performance, low-loss, yes - overunity, NO!

I think we could do without all the god-speak too, that adds nothing to anyones credibility in this day and age. In fact I'm inclined to think that religious people don't have any real grasp of science, and why should they when 2 loaves of bread and a few fishfingers can be made to feed 5000 hungry people!

We no longer need gods to fill the gaps in our lack of understanding of science anymore, so what are all the religious references about - this is the 21st century 'for Christ's sake!'  ;)

Quote from: Farrah Day
However, what does not make sense is claiming overunity - if a system
can't ultimately overcome its own losses then it is not showing overunity.
Time is only a measure of efficiency, not overunity.

High performance, low-loss, yes - overunity, NO!

I suppose it depends upon the "unity" that the performance of the device
is "over."  And how the additional "work" that would normally be a loss is
accounted for.

The problem with the definition which requires more power out than goes
in is that it is, for all practical purposes, unattainable.  The "overunity"
devices which have come along that have demonstrated this possibilty
are impossible to comprehend; let alone replicate.

When only certain persons have the "touch" to make it work what is the
conclusion that must be arrived at? 

Energy source that drives the DIY kit

In general, there can be three sources:
(1)   An external power source such as the Mains Power.  This Mains Power is supplied by the Electricity Companies.  This Mains Power can be used to drive a DC Power Generator as INPUT to the FLEET DIY Kit.  The advantage of this set up over the battery is that the DC voltage can be tuned to any reasonable value.  There will be no power run down as in a battery system.  In addition, the DC Power Generator also shows the DC current in Amps.  The INPUT DC Power can thus be calculated easily – Power = Voltage * Current.

(2)   A stored Power Source such as a battery or a super capacitor.  The battery uses stored chemical energy.  When such chemicals are converted from one compound to another, chemical energy can be converted into electrical energy.  More scientifically, there is a difference in the Electron Cloud Distribution around different Compounds.  This difference is the useful chemical energy that we can use in a standard batter system.  Rechargeable batteries use reversible chemical reactions.  The technology of super capacitors has made rapid progress.  They can store many Farrads and release them gradually.  The FLEET DIY kit can use batteries and super capacitors but these are NOT the primary source of energy of the device.

(3)   The real energy driving the DIY Kit is the lead-out electron motion energy from the electrical circuit and the surrounding.  In order for this to happen, we need to have special resonance conditions.  A professor friend objected to my using the term resonance.  His advice is to use the term "Tseung Resonance" to differentiate the new understanding.  (Just like some people objected to my use of the term overunity.  I shall use the term lead-out energy from now on.)  With the DIY Kit, we have two oscillating systems.  The first is the LCR circuit (toroid, capacitor and resistor).  The second is the Pulse Switching Circuit from the 2n2222 transistor.  We can simply put these two together and we can light up a LED as in the standard Joule Thief.  However, if we tune them properly with the help of oscilloscopes, we can observe vastly different efficiencies.  One circuit can only light up 38 LEDs for 10 seconds with the battery removed.  Another circuit with the same components can light up 38 LEDs for over 30 minutes. This phenomenon occurs in many resonance situations.  The trick is get the various parameters correctly matched. The new term "Tseung Resonance" will now be used to describe this matching.  In general, the tuning parameters include:

a.   The Battery or Power Supply Voltage
b.   The type of transistors used
c.   The toroid (type of ferrite, diameter, number of windings, winding techniques)
d.   The capacitor (voltage rating, Farad value, type)
e.   The resistors (in form of actual resistors, variable resistors or LEDs)
f.   The breadboard and the connecting wires (This is best shown on the oscilloscope.  The Input and Output waveforms (voltage, current and power) for two FLEET devices built by two different persons using the same components and following same instructions can be vastly different.)
g.   The external surrounding.  This can be demonstrated by the simple act of putting the hand over the circuit and the brightness of the LEDs changed.  A more dramatic effect is to move a permanent magnet over the board (but not touching).

I shall list the many experiments that conclusively demonstrated the lead-out energy at Tseung Resonance in the future posts.  All these can be seen at the Demonstration Centers.  They can be replicated at all top universities and research organizations with the right equipment and resources.

May the Almighty continue to guide us on the correct path to benefit the World.

Your explanations are very helpful.

"Lead-Out Energy" and "Tseung Resonance" are excellent choices
for the phenomena you've discovered and perfected.

Differentiation from the Joule Thief/Joule Ringer is helpful too.

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2012.08.11, 19:39:36
...

I think we could do without all the god-speak too, that adds nothing to anyones credibility in this day and age. In fact I'm inclined to think that religious people don't have any real grasp of science, and why should they when 2 loaves of bread and a few fishfingers can be made to feed 5000 hungry people!

We no longer need gods to fill the gaps in our lack of understanding of science anymore, so what are all the religious references about - this is the 21st century 'for Christ's sake!'  ;)

 Sir Isaac Newton was and is well known for the depth of his religious beliefs.  He was a Christian like Lawrence and myself.  

Albert Einstein alluded to a belief in Deity:  "God does not play dice with the universe".

Michael Faraday.    Benjamin Franklin.

My experience is that many notable scientists believe in God, and many are devout Christians as well.  Harvey Fletcher comes to mind.

I do not believe in a "god of the gaps" (nice try).

I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion (first amendment, bill of RIGHTS), don't you?

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.08.12, 12:20:36
 I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion (first amendment, bill of RIGHTS), don't you?

Yes I do...

Whatever floats your boat. But religion and one's faith have no place here on a science forum and should be kept private. Religion has no logical bearing on anything here (other than perhaps in Tseung's mind), and given that religion has been the root cause for untold deaths and horror in the past (and present), I see his constant religious rantings and biblical references as almost offensive.

QuoteSir Isaac Newton was and is well known for the depth of his religious beliefs.  He was a Christian like Lawrence and myself.  

Albert Einstein alluded to a belief in Deity:  "God does not play dice with the universe".

Michael Faraday.    Benjamin Franklin.

My experience is that many notable scientists believe in God, and many are devout Christians as well.  Harvey Fletcher comes to mind.

Hey, nobody's perfect!

QuoteWas Einstein religious?
Some of the most famous quotes attributed to him suggest he was - namely, "God does not play dice with the universe."

But a handwritten letter that the great physicist wrote to the philosopher Eric Gutkind in 1954, a year before his death at age 76, suggests he had serious problems with organised religion. "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends, which are nevertheless pretty childish," he wrote.

There is an easier form of religion in science call psychology, study of the soul.  There are many similarities between science and religion. 

People who dedicated themselves to religion wish to find a solution to human negative emotions in order to be happy.  People who dedicated themselves to science wish to find a solution to human physical hardship in order to be happy.

Both science and religion concepts before becoming official, must be tested and shown that it works. 

Religion, when being used wrongly, are just as bad if not worse than a weapon of mass destruction.

To me, science is religion for dummy.  It almost like physics concept that is too abstract that needs to be broken down to simple equations for engineers to use.  Of course everyone should stick to the level and style they comfortable.  One time I show my brother the calculus method to find slope for his algebra class... I was corrected and realized how wrong I was. 

Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.08.12, 16:10:59
To me, science is religion for dummy.  

Hi Gibbs, I take it that English is not your first language, but that aside, here you seem to be saying that religious people are by virtue of being religious, very clever, whilst science-minded folk and scientists are 'dummies'.

Just curious, but what worldly wisdom brought you that inane conclusion?

In the past I have had 'interesting' discussions with so-called God-fearing folk and Christians regarding aliens. Aliens... you ask? Yes, ETs (extraterrestrials) - life not of Earth origin - and whether or not they too would be God's creation. Most religious people suddenly become less vocal, some don't understand the question, others avoid answering by providing alternative but irrational counter-arguments, while others dismiss alien life altogether (just as they dismiss the evidence of evolution and dinosaur fossils). But not one of them seems to understand that if God exists, he indeed is an alien!

Quote from: Farrah Day
...- life not of Earth origin - and whether or not they too would be God's creation.

Interesting question.  The answer, of course, is found within The Book.

Our Creator may not have created certain species of "aliens" directly
since certain levels of the family too have the ability to "create."  There
are sentient beings with far greater abilities and powers than we have.

Just as we humans have the ability to produce various living hybrids
and genetically engineered beings they too have the ability, but even
more complex than our own, to produce genetic hybrids and cross-species.

Our Creator (our Father) does assume responsibility for the actions of
all members of His family, no matter how they came into existence,
and will in due time make all things right as we progress in our development.

Quote from: Dumped on 2012.08.12, 02:31:22
Your explanations are very helpful.

"Lead-Out Energy" and "Tseung Resonance" are excellent choices
for the phenomena you've discovered and perfected.

Differentiation from the Joule Thief/Joule Ringer is helpful too.

Since the main concept is to use Tseung resonance to lead-out energy, the focus is on tuning.  In order to achieve tuning, the use of the oscilloscopes (two preferred) is essential.  If the Joule Thief/Joule Ringer researchers use the oscilloscope to measure the instantaneous voltage and instantaneous current and then use the computer to work out the instantaneous power, they will discover many interesting phenomena.
They can then vary the many parameters to get to a Tseung resonance condition - the amount of lead-out energy will be higher at such conditions.
The trick is to keep the device at such a Tseung resonance condition as long as possible.  This is the difference between the FLEET researchers and the Joule Thief/Joule Ringer researchers as of today.

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2012.08.12, 22:14:57
Hi Gibbs, I take it that English is not your first language, but that aside, here you seem to be saying that religious people are by virtue of being religious, very clever, whilst science-minded folk and scientists are 'dummies'.

Just curious, but what worldly wisdom brought you that inane conclusion?

In the past I have had 'interesting' discussions with so-called God-fearing folk and Christians regarding aliens. Aliens... you ask? Yes, ETs (extraterrestrials) - life not of Earth origin - and whether or not they too would be God's creation. Most religious people suddenly become less vocal, some don't understand the question, others avoid answering by providing alternative but irrational counter-arguments, while others dismiss alien life altogether (just as they dismiss the evidence of evolution and dinosaur fossils). But not one of them seems to understand that if God exists, he indeed is an alien!

Hi Farrah Day,

First I hope it's OK with Mr. Tseung here.  Second, I hope we're not hitting the sensitive subject about religion.  I think these are fun discussions and we shouldn't be too uptight talking about it.

I just think that science derived from religion.  If I must guess, I say religion has been around before science.  Now the concept of energy conservation is not something new in my opinion.  Monks used to go around asking for food, and in return, share their knowledge as a service.  Later on, they evolved to the concept of self working to provide their own.  That shown they never believed something comes from nothing.  They have a passion for calligraphy, chess, exercise, building..etc.  Those are arts and arts are science.  They are... scientists. 

It's simple to think that I have a father and my father has a father and so on.  It's natural to think there are higher beings than us just as there are... many lower beings than us we step on in the yard.  If someone ask me how many level of being above me, I would say infinite.  I don't think anyone knows how high it goes.  All of my thinking is based on the thing I see everyday and experience through life.  Ants walk by me everyday, flowers fractal pattern, hate, love, hope, despair...etc...

I do not mind your mixing religion in this thread.

I never thought that I could solve the energy crisis of the World with any human effort.  Even though I et al can now lead-out 6KW with the improved FLEET.  I have a FLEET leading out enough watts to light up 300 LEDs in my bedroom.  The test for 1,000 LEDs at the Demonstration Center today was successful.  The next test will be 3,000 LEDs at the Demonstration Center.

The DC Power Supply in my bedroom showed that the DC power was less than 1 watt.  This can be sustained forever (at least for 6 days and nights  continuous running).  The rating for the LEDs was 0.2 watt per LED.  300 will require 60 watts.  I can use 1 watt to get full brightness. Energy must have been lead-out since the Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created.

I know that tuning is an important factor.  At present there is no automatic program to do this tuning.  It is still trial and error but the error part is diminishing.  

I firmly believe that there is a Divine Hand guiding me and my team.  Otherwise we would have given up long ago with all the jeers and the failures.  Logic tells the average person that an old, retired person with two strokes and not much financial backing - solving the energy crisis of the World in a bedroom laboratory is impossible.

It has to be a miracle.

I forgot to mention that the sample that comes with every DIY kit could also light up 300 LEDs with a DC Power Supply.  The AA battery could sometimes do it.  But tuning with different DC voltages appeared to do the trick every time.  The maximum voltage set at the DC Power Supply was 6 volts but usually less than 3 volts will do the magic.

(The strip of 12 LEDs normally would require 12V DC to light.  Each LED should draw 0.2 watts.  The power consumed should be around 2.4 watts)

One of the Competition is to light the largest number of LEDs for the longest time with the battery removed.  The entry must exceed 38 LEDs for 30 minutes to qualified.  A prototype exceeding this qualifying time for all to see is available at all Demonstration Centers.

Is the DIY kit worth the money?

Do you have any video of the 1,000 led demonstration?

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.13, 15:03:55
I forgot to mention that the sample that comes with every DIY kit could also light up 300 LEDs with a DC Power Supply.

Honestly, Lawrence, what is the cost of buying 300 LEDs?

We need a resistor in a tank of oil and to measure the temperature increase
in that tank. Then we will know the power out.

The photos from the USA Company G-LED in Tustin, California were available since April 2012.

I shall take the pictures of the 1,000 LEDs in Hong Kong and if achieved, the 3,000 LEDs later this week.  The Company in Hong Kong, BSI Energy Holdings Limited would like to have professionals doing videos.  The DIY KIT is in pre-production.  They want to have the professional image.

God Bless.

In Hong Kong, the retail price of the white LEDs used in our experiment costed USD60 for 300 LEDs.  It is rated at 0.2 watts per LED.  You can check the USA retail price at Radioshack or similar.

The FLEET relies on Tseung Resonance.  When you immerse the electronics in water or oil, the Resonance condition would change.  I have raised this issue with Physics Prof more than once.  This change can be observed on the oscilloscope.

On the other hand, the power generated from our FLEET is so huge that we could boil water.  At present, the current was so large that it burnt our electronics.  Trying to cool the electronics with standard air fans and heat sinks could not solve the problem.  We do not worry too much about the INPUT.  We can generate 1KW with less than 40 watts.  For the best tuned FLEET, we could generate 1KW with NO input power for over 2 minutes!

The battery or DC power supply was used to maintain Tseung Resonance Condition and NOT as primary source of power.

One of the International Competition is likely to be - how much water (e.g. 1 liter) and how fast can you boil?  This is equivalent to the most powerful calorimeter experiments.

Amen.

ok....so no video.

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.13, 21:43:39
It (the LED) is rated at 0.2 watts per LED.

Yes, but at what voltage?

There is a voltage range over which the LED will work. Is the output a steady DC voltage?

Lawrence said:

On the other hand, the power generated from our FLEET is so huge that we could boil water.  At present, the current was so large that it burnt our electronics.  
Trying to cool the electronics with standard air fans and heat sinks could not solve the problem.  We do not worry too much about the INPUT.  We can generate 1KW with less than 40 watts.
For the best tuned FLEET, we could generate 1KW with NO input power for over 2 minutes!

======================================

Lawrence, Can we BUY a copy of the plans & schematic for the above mentioned 1 KW unit?  If yes, how can we order & pay you for it?
Or are you saying the DIY Kit is capable of 1 KW? Please clarify.

Thank you.

Quote from: AllPhase on 2012.08.13, 23:36:38
Lawrence said:

On the other hand, the power generated from our FLEET is so huge that we could boil water.  At present, the current was so large that it burnt our electronics. 
Trying to cool the electronics with standard air fans and heat sinks could not solve the problem.  We do not worry too much about the INPUT.  We can generate 1KW with less than 40 watts.
For the best tuned FLEET, we could generate 1KW with NO input power for over 2 minutes!

======================================

Lawrence, Can we BUY a copy of the plans & schematic for the above mentioned 1 KW unit?  If yes, how can we order & pay you for it?  *** Sorry, not for sale at present.***

Or are you saying the DIY Kit is capable of 1 KW? Please clarify.  *** Theoretically yes.   The trick is NOT to burn the electronics. ***

Thank you.

The person who first developed the 1KW unit is Mr. Apache Ong at G-LED USA Inc.  He and his team learned the basic FLEET technology from me.  They are well versed in Lead-out Energy and Tseung Resonance.  Their Company, G-LED USA Inc., already sells LED street lamps.  (See their website at www.go4gled.com.)

One of their Street LED lamp products uses solar panels to charge batteries to be used at night.  The required power was 1KW or 1,000 one watt LEDs at 24 Volts DC.  Mr. Ong decided to use the FLEET technology.  He was able to light up the 1,000 LEDs to full brightness with an INPUT of less than 80 watts.  This means a saving of 92 % (1000-80/1000).  He called me in April 2012 and invited me to examine and check the prototype.  It was a specially configured and tuned FLEET.  He covered it with a box and called it LARRS in honor of the five persons involved in the project (Lawrence, Apache, Robert, Raymond and Steven-Ruth). 

G-LED then incorporated this technology in their Street LED Lamp Products.  They marketed it as a super efficient solar power system.

They are all Christians.  They promised to God at the beginning of the project that if they can get USD2 million for their retirement, they will be satisfied.  They are willing to donate the excess to charitable causes.  It appears that their modest goal is met.  The orders for their products are likely to bring in profits well over this target.

They are willing to help others.  One of the Companies they are helping is BSI Energy Holdings Limited of Hong Kong.  BSI is in the process of producing the Lead-out energy DIY KIT.

The Demonstration Center at G-LED initially shows 1,000 one watt LEDs powered by less than 80 watts.  They backed it with an actual product that customers can buy.  The manufacturing is done in Taiwan as Dr. Raymond Wang is a major shareholder in both Companies.

Dr. Wang set up a similar Demonstration Center in Taiwan.  A wealthy investor from Hong Kong paid for my trip to see the demonstration with him.  All information related to G-LED became confidential.

Since I taught them the basic FLEET technology, I set up a similar demonstration in my Bedroom.  That lighted 300 LEDs at 0.2 watt each with INPUT less than 1 watt.  I ran it continuously for 6 days and 6 nights.  When the BSI Demonstration Center was set up a few weeks ago, I moved the equipment there.  We increased the number of LEDs to 1,000 and that demonstration was successful.  We plan to increase the number of LEDs to 3,000 in the next few days. 

I turned off the power supply totally and the 300 LEDs continued to light in my bedroom.  The passing grade is two minutes.  The best time was approximately 45 minutes. 

We are less ambitious with the DIY KIT, the competition is for 38 LEDs.  The qualifying time to enter the competition is 30 minutes.  The trick is to get to Tseung Resonance condition and remain in that condition for as long as possible.  The lead-out energy will light up the LEDs.

May the Almighty open the eyes of the Blind.  Let them see the Divine Revelation.

Lawrence,  I was surfing around & found this quote from you.  It is soooo GOOD I thought I would post it here.
You are trying to help the world, but hardly anybody appreciates your work.

==================================================

Boss: "I paid you to discredit all overunity researchers. How come they are getting stronger?"

Debunker1: "It is difficult to debunk the simple tuning fork. The sound is louder and lasts longer."

Boss: "Who cares? Just tell them it is a measurement error. Sound Energy cannot be measured accurately. Tell them not to believe their ears."

Debunker2: "I tried but the sound did last much longer."

Boss: "Tell them it is nonsense to have energy coming into the system. Tseung is a mad man. Attack his credibility. Attack his FLEET prototypes. His handiwork is terrible. His prototypes all fell apart in shipping."

Debunker1: "We have Polynt99 and team proving his prototype had COP < 1. But there was a PhysicsProf showing slight changes could affect the result. Tseung attributed that to resonance. Resoldering a joint changed the resonance condition."

Debunker2: "There are other LCR circuits showing COP>1 effects. The Joule Ringer, the Kananadze and the Armagdn03 resonance circuits are examples. We cannot murder them like Stan Meyer."

Boss: "Try the super troll technique of pretending to help and then do character smearing. Tseung is an easy target as he quotes religion all the time."

Debunger1: "Can we feed him to the lions? His physics and mathematics are rock solid. We successfully destroyed his two threads at overunity.com. But he built up a large number of followers."


.

  Thank you for your posts and your work, Lawrence.  I'm not sure where this will lead, but I'm sincerely hoping that your "lead-out" process works INDEED and I'm willing to help where I can.

  It is true that heating or boiling water is a solid calorimetric method.  I have done measurements this way (not with your latest device) and there is also the photo-calorimetric approach which I have working in my little lab at this time.

If heating water (or oil) changes the resonance condition adversely, we can go with LEDs and a photocalorimetric approach to make output-power measurements.

I went to the link you suggested, and found that Apache and his team do indeed sell fine-looking LED products; for example, http://www.go4gled.com/product.html .

BEST wishes,
Steve

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.13, 21:43:39
In Hong Kong, the retail price of the white LEDs used in our experiment costed USD60 for 300 LEDs.  It is rated at 0.2 watts per LED.  You can check the USA retail price at Radioshack or similar.

The FLEET relies on Tseung Resonance.  When you immerse the electronics in water or oil, the Resonance condition would change.  I have raised this issue with Physics Prof more than once.  This change can be observed on the oscilloscope.

On the other hand, the power generated from our FLEET is so huge that we could boil water.  At present, the current was so large that it burnt our electronics.  Trying to cool the electronics with standard air fans and heat sinks could not solve the problem.  We do not worry too much about the INPUT.  We can generate 1KW with less than 40 watts.  For the best tuned FLEET, we could generate 1KW with NO input power for over 2 minutes!

The battery or DC power supply was used to maintain Tseung Resonance Condition and NOT as primary source of power.

One of the International Competition is likely to be - how much water (e.g. 1 liter) and how fast can you boil?  This is equivalent to the most powerful calorimeter experiments.

Amen.

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.08.14, 13:18:19
  Thank you for your posts and your work, Lawrence.  I'm not sure where this will lead, but I'm sincerely hoping that your "lead-out" process works INDEED and I'm willing to help where I can.

  It is true that heating or boiling water is a solid calorimetric method.  I have done measurements this way (not with your latest device) and there is also the photo-calorimetric approach which I have working in my little lab at this time.

If heating water (or oil) changes the resonance condition adversely, we can go with LEDs and a photocalorimetric approach to make output-power measurements.

I went to the link you suggested, and found that Apache and his team do indeed sell fine-looking LED products; for example, http://www.go4gled.com/product.html .

BEST wishes,
Steve

Dear PhysicsProf,

I believe that Apache Ong and team are working with a non-engineering professor at Dartmouth College.  Apache gave the professor a working FLEET that can run for many minutes with the battery removed.  The initial reaction from the technical guys was – it must be the capacitor.

The professor went to G-LED and saw the 1KW prototype (I believe it was leading out 2KW at his visit).  This professor would like to check this lead-out energy technology thoroughly throughout the academic world.  He believed that a paradigm shift might occur if this technology is confirmed.

You can help the cause in spreading the information to the academic world.  We plan to send some DIY KITs to some Universities and invite some Professors as Judges for the Competitions.  Would you be interested?  We also would like some of these Universities set up Demonstration Centers and show the technology to their students (and the public).  As Demonstration Centers, they will have the 1KW units powered by less than 80 watts.  They may also be able to help to develop and confirm the "forever lights" that may last for months, years or centuries.  Electron Motion Energy never runs out.  It is a matter of maintaining the system at Tseung Resonance Conditions.

May the World be more peaceful now that humans do not need to fight over oil?

[/quote]

Quote from: AllPhase on 2012.08.13, 23:36:38

Lawrence, Can we BUY a copy of the plans & schematic for the above mentioned 1 KW unit?  

Dear AllPhase,

I just talked to Apache.  He said that you or anyone can buy the LED Street Lamp from G-LED now.  You will get the production version of the Lead-Out Energy Technology.  After you received the unit, you can take it apart and play with the 1KW unit.

You can also wait.  G-LED will sell the 1KW building blocks when ready.  They plan to show that 5-10 of these units put together can power almost all standard home appliances.  There may also be a standard home generator with these building blocks already connected and tuned.

So for those who cannot wait, a lead-out energy product is already on the market.  Buy it and confirm the technology today.  You do not need to wait for the reports from MIT, Beijing or any of the top Universities. 


God Bless

deleted as irrelevant.

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.14, 17:19:30
Dear PhysicsProf,

I believe that Apache Ong and team are working with a non-engineering professor at Dartmouth College.  Apache gave the professor a working FLEET that can run for many minutes with the battery removed.  The initial reaction from the technical guys was – it must be the capacitor.

The professor went to G-LED and saw the 1KW prototype (I believe it was leading out 2KW at his visit).  This professor would like to check this lead-out energy technology thoroughly throughout the academic world.  He believed that a paradigm shift might occur if this technology is confirmed.

You can help the cause in spreading the information to the academic world.  We plan to send some DIY KITs to some Universities and invite some Professors as Judges for the Competitions.  Would you be interested? 

Yes, Lawrence, I would be very interested.  I would recommend in this case that we involve EMERITUS professors first:
1.  I know several Emeritus Professors (like myself) who would be qualified to judge and who probably would have the time and interest. 
2.  Active professors, I have found, are often very worried about keeping their JOBS and worried about media attention or colleague ridicule, whereas Emeritus Profs. have a reliable pension and are relatively free from such constraints.

Please let me know when you are ready to proceed with the testing.

QuoteWe also would like some of these Universities set up Demonstration Centers and show the technology to their students (and the public).  As Demonstration Centers, they will have the 1KW units powered by less than 80 watts.  They may also be able to help to develop and confirm the "forever lights" that may last for months, years or centuries.  Electron Motion Energy never runs out.  It is a matter of maintaining the system at Tseung Resonance Conditions.

May the World be more peaceful now that humans do not need to fight over oil?

It is quite possible that "lead-out" energy may result in a new Renaissance...  I share your hope.

The basic demonstrations in the Demonstration Center

(1)   Sound Resonance – Kinetic Energy of air molecules can be lead-out or brought-in.
(2)   Videos of the Milkovic 2-stage pendulum, the blind Peru Scientist's Force Multiplier and the Tong wheel showing the leading-out of gravitational energy.
(3)   A LED rated at 3V cannot be lighted by a single AA battery directly.
(4)   The same LED can be lighted by a single AA battery with the Joule Thief Circuit.
(5)   Build  your own FLEET on the breadboard when the components are available and the toroid correctly wound.
(6)   Thirty-eight LEDs in the form of BSI can be lighted with the FLEET Circuit even if the battery is removed for over 2 minutes (The standard DIY Kit sample).
(7)   The deliberately mistuned FLEET circuit drifted from one Tseung Resonance peak to another.  At the second Tseung Resonance peak, the 38 LEDs got much brighter.
(8 )   The use of timer to cut electricity bill by over 90%.  The first two minutes of a 30 LEDs FLEET showed non-diminishing brightness.  The timer was set to allow 15 seconds ON and 2 minutes OFF.  The ON period is mainly to bring the FLEET back to initial Tseung Resonance condition.
(9)   Picture and Video of the 1KW unit at G-LED USA.
(10)    Picture and Video of the 1KW unit at G-LED Taiwan.
(11)    Picture and Video of the 1,000 to 3,000 LEDs system (200 to 600 watts) in Hong Kong.
(12)    The equivalent of the 1KW system at the local Demonstration Center.

The planned ones include:

(a)   Driving an air pump with the hand crank via a FLEET.  The air pump continues to function for 30 minutes or more with no batteries in the system at all.
(b)   Driving an electric fan with a specially tuned FLEET.
(c)   Recharging batteries (AA to 12 lead-acid)
(d)   The "forever lighted" Lamp.  Battery A maintains the lighting of 38 LEDs and recharges another Battery B at the same time.  From time to time, Battery A and Battery B are swapped either manually or automatically.
(e)   Boiling or warming water with a special FLEET that can sustain large amount of current.
(f)   The 1KW building block from G-LED that can be used to build a 5-10 KW home generator.
(g)   Pictures, Videos or actual prototype of the winning competition entries.
(h)   Actual Lead-out Energy Products including those from Competitors.

The general technique is to get the device to a Tseung Resonance condition and keep it in that condition for as long as possible.  Lead-out electron motion energy will be used to power the load.  The Input or supplied energy is mainly for getting to and maintaining the Tseung Resonance condition.

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.08.15, 12:57:15
Yes, Lawrence, I would be very interested.  I would recommend in this case that we involve EMERITUS professors first:
1.  I know several Emeritus Professors (like myself) who would be qualified to judge and who probably would have the time and interest.  
2.  Active professors, I have found, are often very worried about keeping their JOBS and worried about media attention or colleague ridicule, whereas Emeritus Profs. have a reliable pension and are relatively free from such constraints.

Please let me know when you are ready to proceed with the testing.

Dear PhysicsProf,

We should have 30 pre-production Lead-out Energy DIY Kits from BSI Energy Holdings Limited (Hong Kong) within the next few weeks.  I shall mail you one as soon as possible.  

After you have played with the DIY Kit, you may want to suggest improvements.  Please send us the information on the Emeritus Professors you recommend then and we shall send them the PRODUCTION copies of the DIY KIT and invited them as judges.

Thank you in advance.




It is quite possible that "lead-out" energy may result in a new Renaissance...  I share your hope.

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.15, 13:18:24
Dear PhysicsProf,

We should have 30 pre-production Lead-out Energy DIY Kits from BSI Energy Holdings Limited (Hong Kong) within the next few weeks.

To save postage costs, it might be useful to send a dozen packs to trusted people in different countries
and incur cheaper local postage costs.

In the UK, we have a strange system which depends more on the size of the packet than its weight.
What is the weight of the kit? Presumably, it could be packaged to suit these weird rules.

Paul-R

Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.08.15, 14:26:31
To save postage costs, it might be useful to send a dozen packs to trusted people in different countries
and incur cheaper local postage costs.

In the UK, we have a strange system which depends more on the size of the packet than its weight.
What is the weight of the kit? Presumably, it could be packaged to suit these weird rules.

Paul-R

Dear Paul-R,

Your suggestion is great.  BSI Energy Holdings Limited is more ambitious.  They plan to establish distribution channels Worldwide.  They already established a distribution relationship with a group in Canada.

The plan is to have Demonstration Centers established by the Distributors or Retailers worldwide.  BSI is polishing the Demonstration Center in Tsuen Wan, Hong Kong.  That can act as a model.  Some screened visitors will come and provide comments.  These visitors will also try out the Lead-out Energy DIY kits.

The major promotion will be done by G-LED USA.  They will release the 1KW building blocks that can be put together to provide 5-10 KW Home Generator Units when ready.  That is expected to make headline news in all Countries.  Most probably, there will be regulatory delays such as safety issues etc.  They may not be able to sell the product immediately.  The publicity is likely to get many interested to buy some type of Lead-out energy products to try.  Hopefully, the Lead-out energy DIY kit will be ready and able to fill that need.

Meanwhile some Universities, Research Organizations or similar may have tested the DIY kit.  They may also have visited or even set up their own Demonstration Centers.  They might have bought the LED Street Lamp and taken it apart.  Some may even dare to publish reports confirming the existence of lead-out energy.   Other inventions such as Joule Ringer, Joule Lamp etc. may have also gained recognition.  Some Governments may have already funded their own research and found that there is indeed lead-out energy that can be harnessed.

Another possible path is for BSI or G-LED to win all the overunity competitions around the World.  Other possible channels include participation at Invention shows and conferences.  One of the most powerful may be providing the technology via religious groups to the many developing nations.  BSI may train their people to wind the toroids and buy the passing pieces from them.  These nations will have jobs and technology at the same time.  A totally unexpected nation may rise to the top as the leader in Lead-out Energy technology.

G-LED USA founders appear to have their desire of having USD2m each for their retirement fulfilled.  The lead-out energy DIY kit is likely to shoot BSI Energy Holdings Limited into International Limelight.  They are already very happy with their heir – Geoffrey Sun – mastering the technology.  Geoffrey did and tested the configurations for the DIY Kit.  He also discovered the drift – passing through a Tseung Resonance Peak with the LEDs suddenly getting brighter.  He is a co-inventor in the patent being examined.  With the help of the Almighty, the Sun family will find themselves in an enviable position similar to the G-LED founders soon.  They also promised that after HKD50m, the majority of the profits will go to charitable causes.

The World can have the first Lead-out Energy LED Street Lamp from G-LED now.  They will get the DIY kit teaching them how to build FLEET devices leading out electron motion energy via Tseung Resonance in the near future.  Other products may come from different Companies using similar technologies.  The World Energy Crisis is effectively over.  It can be compared with the time – Thomas Edison demonstrated his first light bulb.  Once scientists know that a battery, some connecting wires, an on/off switch and a right filament can be connect to change night into day, there will be no stopping.

The moment the scientists realized electron motion energy can be lead-out via matching of some electronic components and have access to working samples, there will be no stopping.

May the Almighty guide us to benefit the World.  Amen.

Lawrence,

Can you tell us where we can see your FLEET schematic so we can tinker around with the circuit?
I tried to find it on Overunity.com but no luck.  If you can't post a schematic here, maybe you can
give us a web site where we can find it.

Thank you sir.

.

Lawrence,
I agree with the order of steps that you suggested:

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.15, 13:18:24
Dear PhysicsProf,

1---  We should have 30 pre-production Lead-out Energy DIY Kits from BSI Energy Holdings Limited (Hong Kong) within the next few weeks.  I shall mail you one as soon as possible.  

2----After you have played with the DIY Kit, you may want to suggest improvements.  

3-----Please send us the information on the Emeritus Professors you recommend then and we shall send them the PRODUCTION copies of the DIY KIT and invited them as judges.

Thank you in advance.

Very good plan!  Meanwhile, I will begin making contacts with suitable "judges".  I am thinking also of a couple of very reliable electronics people who could serve as judges with your approval.

Quote from: AllPhase on 2012.08.15, 21:36:21
Lawrence,

Can you tell us where we can see your FLEET schematic so we can tinker around with the circuit?
I tried to find it on Overunity.com but no luck.  If you can't post a schematic here, maybe you can
give us a web site where we can find it.

Thank you sir.

.

Go to Patrick Kelly's ebook - Chapter 5.   His explanation is better than mine!

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.08.16, 04:52:15
Lawrence,
I agree with the order of steps that you suggested:

Very good plan!  Meanwhile, I will begin making contacts with suitable "judges".  I am thinking also of a couple of very reliable electronics people who could serve as judges with your approval.

Dear PhysicsProf,

Please go ahead with your plan.  I shall get enough production Lead-Out Energy DIY kits to back you up.

The owner of a LED store suggested the following:

(1) Have two identical DC Power Supplies.

(2) Use one to power a set of LEDs directly.  The result should be close to the rating such as 0.2w per LED for full brightness.

(3) Use the other to power a similar set of LEDs via the FLEET circuit.  Place the two sets of LEDs side-by-side and compare their brightness.

(4) If needed, increase or decrease the Voltage of the DC power supplies until the two sets of LEDs appear to have the same brightness.

(5) Then compare the DC Power values from the two DC Power Supplies.

This sounds like a simple experiment to do.  The DC Power Supplies are not that expensive.  If this can conclusively show that the FLEET circuit (or other Joule Thief, Joule Ringer etc.) uses much less energy to achieve the same brightness, it will be worth the expense and effort.

What do you think?

God is sending more angels to help.  Amen.

Lawrence,

Could you send me one of your kits?

This circuit should be tested properly. Judging LED intensity is NOT a reliable means to determine if the device is OU or not. It's not even reliable to get a rough idea because the LEDS require next to no power to light them.

This has been explained ad nauseam.

It's time to put this to bed.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.08.16, 12:21:40
Lawrence,

Could you send me one of your kits?

This circuit should be tested properly. Judging LED intensity is NOT a reliable means to determine if the device is OU or not. It's not even reliable to get a rough idea because the LEDS require next to no power to light them.

This has been explained ad nauseam.

It's time to put this to bed.

There are other methods, Poynt, but I don't know why you say this so vehemently.  I tend to disagree, because I have been using photo-calorimetry for months now and I find it gives reliable results. 

I have been using LED bulbs, also incandescent and CFL bulbs and LEDs in the light box which I have previously described.   

Assuming I use the same light box and the same LED's in the light box, what is wrong then with the comparative PHOTO-CALORIMETRIC method Lawrence describes?

Quote(1) Have two identical DC Power Supplies.

(2) Use one to power a set of LEDs directly.  The result should be close to the rating such as 0.2w per LED for full brightness.

(3) Use the other to power a similar set of LEDs via the FLEET circuit.  Place the two sets of LEDs side-by-side and compare their brightness.

(4) If needed, increase or decrease the Voltage of the DC power supplies until the two sets of LEDs appear to have the same brightness.

(5) Then compare the DC Power values from the two DC Power Supplies.

HOWEVER, I do agree that other methods should ALSO be applied.

Using LEDs and a photometric measurement is not very definitive. This has been explained several times, yet people keep using the method.

What most people don't understand is that LED's are very non-linear loads. You would have more reliable results using a pure load resistor and placing a thermistor on the load. Then use this load for the DUT and control, and compare.

However, properly using the appropriate oscilloscope and associated probes is the best way to get a definitive answer. I am going to do this measurement and the issue will be put to bed.

Frankly, many members here (including myself) are getting quite tired of seeing unsubstantiated claims being made based on blocking oscillator circuits. It's time for this to stop.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.08.16, 14:15:18
Using LEDs and a photometric measurement is not very definitive. This has been explained several times, yet people keep using the method.

What most people don't understand is that LED's are very non-linear loads. You would have more reliable results using a pure load resistor and placing a thermistor on the load. Then use this load for the DUT and control, and compare.

However, properly using the appropriate oscilloscope and associated probes is the best way to get a definitive answer. I am going to do this measurement and the issue will be put to bed.

Frankly, many members here (including myself) are getting quite tired of seeing unsubstantiated claims being made based on blocking oscillator circuits. It's time for this to stop.

I will be interested in seeing your results.  However, it does appear that even without measurements you have already reached a conclusion.  (Hopefully this is not the case.)

When an organization using LED lighting managed to cut its electricity bill by 90%, it does not care about the debate.

Here is the experimental picture from the Demonstration Center.  Poynt99 can tell the various parties not to believe their eyes and the DC voltage and current readings.  It is up to them to believe Poynt99 or their electricity bills.

Once a scientist has played with and developed the skills in tuning, he will appreciate the lead-out energy at Tseung Resonance.  He will believe his eyes, his ears, the multimeter readings and the oscilloscope data and analysis.  He will ignore the repeated "advice" and the "experience" of the "know it all" experts.

May the Almighty open the eyes of the Blind.

Lawrence

You are very close to being banned at OUR and here's why

You quote your device as being Overunity, it clearly is not, it may well drive LED's more efficiently but it does not drive them for free.
You keep quoting company names, this is in effect promoting companies and make money from such devices, we work open source here for free.
You seem to have taken the Jule Thief and all of the open source work that has gone with it and labelled it as your own and then placed a trade name on top of it IE Fleet this goes against open source work.

I am sure Poynt would put things totally different to me but this is all wrong for OUR and your existence here.

Your first erroneous assumption Lawrence is that you are actually driving the LEDs at their rated 0.2W each. From the picture,it sure does not appear they are being driven to full power.

Send me your circuit and I'll show you that there is little difference between driving the LEDS with straight DC and your circuit.

I still have your little unit you sent me some time ago, the test could be done with that also.

And regarding your oscilloscope measurements? I've yet to see you use or interpret your scope properly.

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.16, 15:24:43
When an organization using LED lighting managed to cut its electricity bill by 90%, it does not care about the debate.

Here is the experimental picture from the Demonstration Center.  Poynt99 can tell the various parties not to believe their eyes and the DC voltage and current readings.  It is up to them to believe Poynt99 or their electricity bills.

Once a scientist has played with and developed the skills in tuning, he will appreciate the lead-out energy at Tseung Resonance.  He will believe his eyes, his ears, the multimeter readings and the oscilloscope data and analysis.  He will ignore the repeated "advice" and the "experience" of the "know it all" experts.

May the Almighty open the eyes of the Blind.

Point #1 It is a well established fact that using LED lighting can cut electric bills as opposed to using incandescent lamps, This was known before L came on the scene and put his name on items invented by others. Nothing new here.

Point #2 The experimental pictures demonstrate NOTHING. and one should use caution in posting such dribble. It is not science.

Point #3 The resonance that is referred to is well known to those skilled in the art, and appears new to the uninitiated.

Point #4 Should read "Once a scientist has played with and developed the skills in tuning, he will appreciate the  amount of smoke blown around by the unskilled that are misinterpreting their results".

May the fairy tales one may believe in be a soft pillow for ones head until  awakened by truth.  Amen

This heavy dose of vitriol is difficult to comprehend.

What good effect would "banning" have?  Would it
clarify in any way what is truly taking place?

Why the threatening posture?  The strong display of
power?

Why not just let the process run its course?

Truth will always in the end rise to the surface.

There is entirely too much fear in the air at this
moment...

Another demonstrated way of saving power by close to 90%.

This demonstration is done with a sample board to be supplied with the Lead-out energy DIY kit.

The sample board is tuned so that the battery can be taken off.  The LEDs will remain on for a guaranteed time of 2 minutes.  The average is actually 20 minutes.  One of the competition is to get the longest no-battery time.

If there is no battery and no DC Power supply, what is keeping the LEDs ON?

Can the capacitor store enough energy to light the 38 LEDs for that duration?

Is the Lead-out Energy a scientifically sound possibility?

More amazing demonstrations are available in the Demonstration Center.

Do I worry about banned from this forum?  Did the early Christians fear about being sent to the lions???

Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.08.16, 16:30:32
Your first erroneous assumption Lawrence is that you are actually driving the LEDs at their rated 0.2W each. From the picture,it sure does not appear they are being driven to full power.  *** wait for the professional video.

Send me your circuit and I'll show you that there is little difference between driving the LEDS with straight DC and your circuit. *** you can do the actual experiment with the Lead-out Energy DIY Kit. I shall send one to you as Christmas Gift.  You deserve it as this bench has been very useful as a brain dump for me.

I still have your little unit you sent me some time ago, the test could be done with that also.  *** ignore that as it is no longer tuned.  The DIY Kit sample is done in established factories with worldclass quality control.  The sample demo unit will not break up in shipping.  (You can get a new replacement unit if that ever happens.)And regarding your oscilloscope measurements? I've yet to see you use or interpret your scope properly.
*** Use your oscilloscope on your DIY Kit Sample and compare that with the published ones on the CD or website.

I shall use lead-out energy at Tseung Resonance from now on.  The casual experimenter may never find the commercial resonance condition.  It took me and team 12 years!  We can now claim that we can use less than 80 watts to light up what used to need 1KW.  It is available to purchase as a product now.  (Can I mention the name of the Company???)

As most of you will know I'm not one to sit on the fence, so let's call a spade a spade, eh.

Two of my personal dislikes are, 1) people claiming overunity when clearly they have not demonstrated this... and, 2) bringing gods and religion into the equation.

From a personal point of view Tseung does not act or post like any scientist I would care to associate with for both of the above reasons. I ask you all, what scientist (in his right mind) would claim overunity without first providing unequivocal proof. I'm also rather baffled as to why Physics Prof is so easily led by what Tseung posts, and indeed this has me questioning his qualifications - particularly the 'Physics' part... Oh, and the 'Prof' part. Why are there so many gullible people prepared to blindly put there faith in anyone, anything and everything that turns up?

We all know what simple Joule Thief ccts can do, we all know that resonance will improve efficiency and we all know that LEDs will light up if you look at them lovingly.:-*   Why does everyone always use LEDs?? For crying out loud, you can stick an LED on an Avramenko plug and it will light up in the vicinity of an RF field! As has been pointed out, lighting LEDs is far from conclusive test of power output. The light ouput is deceptive, we cannot tell by looking, our eyes are not sensitive enough and our brains do not respond quick enough.

Tsueng if you can create a 1KW output from 80W input, stop farting about with LEDs and stick a proper load such as a hotplate or a kettle on the output and see how long it takes to boil a given amount of water - that will sort the men from the boys.  Because until you do, this is all just Alice-in-Wonderland. That said, perhaps this is just the way you want it to be!

And what is this Tseung Resonance all about? You claim a 'frequency'... and name it after yourself? C.C  What frequency is this exactly, I wouldn't want to use it accidentally and infringe any copyright laws  :'(

You talk about a god, and the end to the energy crisis because you've seen the light (excuse the pun) and lit up a few LEDs, and I have to wonder about your mental state of mind.  It all sounds very much like the half-crazed and delusion rantings of the infamous Fast Freddy of my-truck-runs-on-water fame - apparently some god also told him to post a lot of bullshit - and fleece the gullible whilst you're at it!

Is it just me again, or is this the Sonic Boiler all over again?  ???

I hope I've not been too cryptic for some of you.  ;)

QuoteDid the early Christians fear about being sent to the lions???

They might have bigged it up with their mates in the pub, but I bet they were shitting themselves in the pit faced with a hungry lion!

This has got to be a wind-up! Are you for real Tseung... or are you doing all this for a laugh?

Dear Farrah Day:

Thanks for reminding me.

The next two impressive demonstrations are no longer LEDs.

One is the hand crank air pump for fish tank or live fish bait containers.  A few cranks through a specially tuned FLEET, the air pump continue to operate for over 30 minutes. 

The other is the fan.  I am using a duckie fan for now.  The tuning is totally different from the LEDs.  The toroid needs to have FEWER turns.  I assume that the fan itself has inductive coils.

As far as boiling water is concerned, the FLEET electronics do not like high current.  They burn up easily.  It is not a matter of not having the power.  It is a matter of controlling such power.  The USA Company I am discouraged to name is working on it.  I do not want my student team in Hong Kong to be exposed to such high currents.  But with God's blessing, the technical hurdles will be overcome.

One more impressive demo is the "forever lighted lamp".  This one has two rechargeable batteries.  Battery A helps to maintain 38 LEDs in the Tseung Resonance position and recharges Battery B at the same time.  From time to time, Battery A and Battery B are swapped.  This was documented in Patrick Kelly's ebook chapter 5 for a few years.  The problem we and others have is - the Batteries do not like such pulse charging and die pretty soon.  With God's Blessing and Guidance, we now have a solution that will also revive the totally dead rechargeable batteries.

This technique of reviving dead batteries is being patented.  You will know the details when you read the patents when they are released to the public.

I shall compare the lead-out technology with the light bulb once more.  After Thomas Edison demonstrated the light bulb, the scientists found the technology elementary – a battery, a few connecting wires, an on/off switch and a filament.  After the scientists have the Lead-out Energy DIY kit, they will say – it is elementary.  Just resonance-tune a couple of parameters (voltage, transistor, inductor, capacitor, resistor, load etc.) and electron motion energy will come in.  In the past scientists thought resonance tuning will just make things more efficient.  They will soon find that they can lead-out or bring-in electron motion energy.  Credit to all those working on Joule Thief, Joule Ringer, Bedini, Milkovic and all similar researches.

Quote from: Farrah Day
Is it just me again, or is this the Sonic Boiler all over again?  ???

Aye, it is "just you" and we're neither troubled, offended, dismayed
nor discouraged.  Frankly, it is these qualities of yours which make you such
a valued member of the forum.  We truly have a need for what you bring to the
discussion.  Mostly...   :P

In a fairly short time we shall know for certain.  The anomalous resonance which
Lawrence has discovered is atypical.  It is not resonance as we normally think of
it; as a coherent condition.  It is somewhat more akin to the complex chaotic
resonances that certain mechanical devices are prone to exhibit just before they
shake themselves to pieces.

It is exceedingly difficult for many to visualize the workings of the anomaly which
is yet little understood in electrical/electronic applications.

Quote from: ltseung888
The problem we and others have is - the Batteries do not like such pulse charging
and die pretty soon.

Now this is puzzling.  Rechargeable cells/batteries have been shown to benefit
greatly from pulse charging.  What could it be about these pulses which seems to
cause this?

QuoteDear Farrah Day:

Thanks for reminding me.

The next two impressive demonstrations are no longer LEDs.

Well, credit where credit is due Tseung, you certainly stick to your guns... and don't easily rise to the bait.

I look forward to seeing your cct do some real work.

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.17, 02:20:27
...In the past scientists thought resonance tuning will just make things more efficient.

The scientists know that a resonance is just storing energy provided step by step by small amounts at each oscillation.
It's "more efficient" only if we want use in a short time an energy accumulated in a long time.
The gain is in power, not in energy.

Quote
They will soon find that they can lead-out or bring-in electron motion energy.

Wishful thinking.

Quote
Credit to all those working on Joule Thief, Joule Ringer, ######, Milkovic and all similar researches.

None of these researches show extra-energy certified by credible third party.

Quote from: Peterae on 2012.08.16, 16:02:36
Lawrence

You are very close to being banned at OUR and here's why

You quote your device as being Overunity, it clearly is not, it may well drive LED's more efficiently but it does not drive them for free.

Who says the device has to "drive them for free"?  The OUR prize specification requires more power OUT than Power IN -- which is what Lawrence is inviting us to test and see for ourselves.  
I'm not saying this is the case, or not, until I have tested it -- but I am willing to do the testing.

QuotePeterae:
You keep quoting company names, this is in effect promoting companies and make money from such devices, we work open source here for free....

I am sure Poynt would put things totally different to me but this is all wrong for OUR and your existence here.

I don't see any thing wrong with promoting companies that are freely selling the device -- I don't see how this violates OPEN SOURCE, unless the company prevents others from making and selling the device also.  Are you saying that making money on an open-source invention is wrong?

I have a close friend who is doing just this -- working on Open Source software while customizing it for use by a particular business.  Of course, they pay him for doing the customizing.  
Likewise, I am willing to pay $20 for Tseung's DIY kit, certainly a decent price -- so that I can test the device.

Please explain the above, Peterae.  Seems you are threatening an inventor here, with little basis for doing so IMO.

Quote from: Dumped on 2012.08.17, 03:45:06
...
The anomalous resonance which
Lawrence has discovered is atypical.  It is not resonance as we normally think of
it; as a coherent condition.
...

About this rumor, I saw only gibberish. Could you express and synthetize the phenomenon in technical terms instead of a credo, in order to duplicate the setup?
(shematics, observation conditions, quantified measurement results...)

I agree with Dumped here:

Quote from: Dumped on 2012.08.16, 20:24:09
This heavy dose of vitriol is difficult to comprehend.

What good effect would "banning" have?  Would it
clarify in any way what is truly taking place?

Why the threatening posture?  The strong display of
power?

Why not just let the process run its course?

Truth will always in the end rise to the surface...

Exactly!  Let us do the testing without the threats and taunts.  Since when are ad hominem taunts and threats part of the scientific method of actual testing?

Quote from: Farrah Day on 2012.08.17, 08:58:46
Well, credit where credit is due Tseung, you certainly stick to your guns... and don't easily rise to the bait.

I look forward to seeing your cct do some real work.

Yes, thanks for admitting that you are providing "BAIT" and seeing if people will rise to it.  Tsk tsk -- certainly not the scientific method there, is it FD?

Here is an example of your bait, FD:

Quote
I'm also rather baffled as to why Physics Prof is so easily led by what Tseung posts, and indeed this has me questioning his qualifications - particularly the 'Physics' part... Oh, and the 'Prof' part. Why are there so many gullible people prepared to blindly put there faith in anyone, anything and everything that turns up?

Ad hominem = to the man, as opposed to "to the science".  Baiting me, are you FD?

Note that I have repeatedly said that I am willing to test an actual device which Lawrence has promised to provide, to his credit.  
I have NOT said that it produces more output power than input power -- until it is actually tested and subjected to scrutiny and careful measurements.  That is the scientific method.

L has deleted my post because I pointed out something technical that may have been a problem to him.

I also made a remark that he may not have appreciated.

Why delete the whole post, the technical part was correct?

See my remarks in the Rant Room where his censorship will not apply.

Quote from: DeepCut on 2012.08.17, 12:02:06
I have terrible visions of a scientist tending his live bait and performing all sorts of terrible experiments upon them !

In all seriousness though, this is a bit '######', isn't it ? Though i don't remember JB ever claiming overunity ...

Why not just sell the plans/parts list/supporting docs for $5 and send via e-mail ?

Then there is no postage/packing and no wait time for delivery.

edit add /So b.e.d.i.n.i is a swear word now ? LOL !/


DC.

Several months ago, we were advised that one cannot utter the name  of "b.e.d.i.n.i." on this forum.   I still find this amusing.
Nevertheless, so it is.  
Other forbidden words in this Orwellian nightmare include "overunity" and "resonance" (in certain contexts).

On the list of nearly excluded now are:  "names of companies", if I understand correctly.

Quote from: DeepCut on 2012.08.17, 12:12:10
Since there were scientists ;+}

Nevertheless we see the results: the men went to the moon, a PC and Internet allow us to communicate all over the world, and the nuclear plants provide us energy.
When they worked on propulsion or electromagnetism, the scientists didn't announce the marvels that their work will enable later. In the free energy and overunity field, it's the absolute contrary, the announces of miracles come first, followed by strictly nothing.

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.08.17, 12:13:36
...
Note that I have repeatedly said that I am willing to test an actual device which Lawrence has promised to provide, to his credit.  
I have NOT said that it produces more output power than input power
...

It is a very reasonable attitude. But you said also "I am willing to pay $20 for Tseung's DIY kit, certainly a decent price". This price is decent only in case of real abnormal effects.
Is there a refund if the kit shows only conventional effects?

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.08.17, 12:13:36
Yes, thanks for admitting that you are providing "BAIT" and seeing if people will rise to it.  Tsk tsk -- certainly not the scientific method there, is it FD?

Just looking for the true colours to show themselves.  ;)

This mentality is easy to overcome in what I see.

If you are offended by the word "overunity", then I suggest adjust your thinking.  Now invent a thinking of "capacitor self loop".  If someone claims OU, see him as claiming more OUT than IN.  It just means that we need to help him verify and loop it.  If someone claims cap loop, we brings the pop corn and the prize. 

Here is the picture of the no-battery air pump.

Instead of the specially tuned FLEET, I used the demo sample from a DIY kit.  It shows the effect of tuning.  With the specially tuned FLEET, a few cranks allowed the air pump to continue functioning for 30 minutes.  With this demo sample, it barely lasted 2 minutes.

I am using the words - tuning for Tseung Resonance.  The tuning exercise involved selecting the right toroid from our dozens of prepared toroids with different diameters and windings; using different capacitors to match; varying the resistors and varying the number and speed of cranking.  The use of the oscilloscope was a great help.

Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.08.17, 13:34:33
...
If someone claims OU, see him as claiming more OUT than IN.  It just means that we need to help him verify and loop it.
...

If he claims OU, he doesn't ask for help. He affirms. So we just have to require the proofs.
If he want help, he should present his matter as the paper from the CERN scientists having measured a speed of neutrino >c, something like:
"here is what we experimented, here is our measurement method and instruments, here are our surprising results, what do you think?", with all details so that anyone can analyse or duplicate the experiment.
Any OU claim, not certified by third party, is prematured.

Quote from: exnihiloest
About this rumor, I saw only gibberish. Could you express and synthetize the
phenomenon in technical terms instead of a credo, in order to duplicate the
setup?
(shematics, observation conditions, quantified measurement results...)

Probably not to your satisfaction as the anomaly is not well understood.

As with certain other phenomena, a requisite amount of "hands on"
tinkering is necessitated in order to produce the desired effect.  It is
very helpful to observe critical waveshapes on the oscilloscope as the
several adjustments are "tweaked" successively while observing changes
in output level.  Then the "signature" of the phenomenon can be established
for future reference as it may be applied to other replications.

Quote from: Farrah Day
Just looking for the true colours to show themselves.   ;)

This is a valid technique which can sometimes reveal surprising traits
in the "target."  Must be used with great skill and caution.

Quote from: PhysicsProf
Several months ago, we were advised that one cannot utter the name
of "b.e.d.i.n.i." on this forum.

When one has a carefully cultivated "image" which is salable then one
may find need, from time to time, to threaten legal action in order to
preserve/protect the salability of said "image."

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.08.17, 15:09:42
If he claims OU, he doesn't ask for help. He affirms. So we just have to require the proofs.
If he want help, he should present his matter as the paper from the CERN scientists having measured a speed of neutrino >c, something like:
"here is what we experimented, here is our measurement method and instruments, here are our surprising results, what do you think?", with all details so that anyone can analyse or duplicate the experiment.
Any OU claim, not certified by third party, is prematured.

People in here think claiming OU means it's a proof.  I just ask them to think claiming OU as evident and cap loop as proof.   Evident needs help do verify, I hope you agree.

Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.08.18, 00:19:06
People in here think claiming OU means it's a proof.  I just ask them to think claiming OU as evident and cap loop as proof.   Evident needs help do verify, I hope you agree.

Yes I agree!

Quote from: Dumped on 2012.08.17, 19:51:50
Probably not to your satisfaction as the anomaly is not well understood.

As with certain other phenomena, a requisite amount of "hands on"
tinkering is necessitated in order to produce the desired effect.
...

The question I asked is not that of the understanding but of the reality of the alleged phenomenon, or of the reality of the anomaly because a trivial effect is often presented as an anomaly.
If the phenomenon is single-observer dependent with impossibility for the observer to express the necessary set of observation conditions, then we are in the field of the paranormal, or in that of psychology where the only objective phenomenon is an abnormal process in the brain of the observer (presuming he is honnest, what is not always the case).
We can accept a reasonable time delay for an OU claimer to clarify his matter in order that others can duplicate his setup, but in practice, from all examples that we have for tens of years, we see that there is not one single example where an OU claim becomes accepted and reproducible by everybody.
So imho, either the claim is accompanied by a solid description and it can be duplicated in a short time (max some month), or it is a scam, a mistake or an absurdity.

Quote from: exnihiloest
If the phenomenon is single-observer dependent with impossibility for
the observer to express the necessary set of observation conditions,
then we are in the field of the paranormal...

Precisely.  Often the effects are very real but only certain operators
are capable of making them manifest.

On many occasions the effects have been witnessed by many observers
who have verified what they saw.  The scientific explanation, on the
other hand, has never materialized.

Paranormal.  Supernatural.  Very elusive in any case...

Will we ever have the answers we seek?

Quote from: Dumped on 2012.08.18, 19:36:42
Often the effects are very real but only certain operators
are capable of making them manifest.

On many occasions the effects have been witnessed by many observers
who have verified what they saw.  The scientific explanation, on the
other hand, has never materialized.

For centuries, Magicians the world over have entertained and at the same time mystified audiences with their performances. What you have described here falls well within the scope of any competent illusionist.

Quote from: Dumped on 2012.08.18, 19:36:42
Precisely.  Often the effects are very real but only certain operators are capable of making them manifest.
On many occasions the effects have been witnessed by many observers who have verified what they saw.

The reality of the effects is not proved. A witness doesn't prove the reality of a phenomenon. It proves that something occured in the mind of the witnesses.

Quote
The scientific explanation, on the other hand, has never materialized.
...

Perfectly logic. A scientific explanation applies only to observations. Observations are the result of detectable and measurable phenomena, they are not related to mind processes only.
We must not forget the meaning of our underlying field, physics: physical objects are required. They are physical if they are able to interact with other physical objects, as measuring instruments.

Quote
Will we ever have the answers we seek?

Possible, provided that we don't seek answers to erroneous questions. Erroneous questions are often questions that imply underlying phenomena that are not ascertained, or that have a formulation either fallacious or incompatible with the possible answers.
Example of questions of the 1st kind: "why the pink unicorn is pink?", "how a ghost can pass through a wall?".
Example of question of the 2nd kind: "we know that a slight change of any physics constant would prevent our universe and ourselves to exist. How our universe parameters have been adjusted?" (inversion of causes and effects).

Quote from: Dumped on 2012.08.18, 19:36:42
Precisely.  Often the effects are very real but only certain operators
are capable of making them manifest.

On many occasions the effects have been witnessed by many observers
who have verified what they saw.  The scientific explanation, on the
other hand, has never materialized.

Paranormal.  Supernatural.  Very elusive in any case...

Will we ever have the answers we seek?

An example of this would be ION able to detect the spike while others struggling. 

He has magic hand?  His mind manifested the effect? Scientific explanation materialized yet? 

@Exn

QuotePerfectly logic. A scientific explanation applies only to observations. Observations are the result of detectable and measurable phenomena, they are not related to mind processes only.
We must not forget the meaning of our underlying field, physics: physical objects are required. They are physical if they are able to interact with other physical objects, as measuring instruments.

One note of interest that relates to most of these low power inductive discharge circuits aka (joule thief/blocking oscillator) running at higher frequencies and why they work for some people and not others is often misleading. While it may appear as magic to some I decided to test this theory in reality, low and behold the phenomena is actually very simple.
Here are some real examples:
1) I have an oscillator running in my hand then give it to you and it stops, why?.
2)I have an oscillator stopped on my bench and then when you get near it starts, why?.
3)I move from one room to another and it either stops or starts, why?.
4)some days it works fine others it will not start at all, why?.

Is it magic?, well no it's the Relative Humidity and the state of surface charge on a persons body which actually relates more to the clothes they are wearing and the floor material as well as nearby objects. The phenomena is more pronounced in dry weather and when the trigger bias is finely tuned very close to the turn on/off threshold. I have built devices so sensitive that a person can simply move their arm within four or five feet and turn the device on or off, it can also modulate the frequency.
I found all of this fairly easy because my primary area of research and expertise is in electrostatics and field interactions, the two least understood fields of electrodynamics.
You see first a person has to know "What" to measure then "How" to measure it however if a person has no prior knowledge of "what" is present due to a faulty premise or false assumptions then how can a person measure something they do not know exists?.

QuotePossible, provided that we don't seek answers to erroneous questions. Erroneous questions are often questions that imply underlying phenomena that are not ascertained, or that have a formulation either fallacious or incompatible with the possible answers.

I would disagree, I have found most often the answers we seek are elusive because we are asking all the wrong questions, we are asking the same questions as everyone else which is a form of bias. Now we can simply deny whatever we don't understand but this is not science it is delusion, denial is not a solution nor an answer to anything.
"how a ghost can pass through a wall?" --- This is a good example because if you believe ghosts are real you are illogical as there is no conclusive proof they exist, as well if you believe ghosts are not real you are illogical as there is no conclusive proof they exist or not. You see it is the "belief" which is illogical not the questions nor the answers.

Regards

Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.08.19, 15:13:22
...
1) I have an oscillator running in my hand then give it to you and it stops, why?.
2)I have an oscillator stopped on my bench and then when you get near it starts, why?.
...

Is it magic?, well no it's the Relative Humidity and the state of surface charge on a persons body...

I agree, there are physical parameters, no magic. Even if they come from people, these parameters are dependent on measurable and observable properties of matter, they are not "mind processes only".

Quote
I would disagree...
"how a ghost can pass through a wall?" --- This is a good example because if you believe ghosts are real you are illogical as there is no conclusive proof they exist, as well if you believe ghosts are not real you are illogical as there is no conclusive proof they exist or not. You see it is the "belief" which is illogical not the questions nor the answers.
...

I agree about your analysis of the illogicality of the two cases, but I disagree about your conclusion.
We have no access to the brain process of "believing". The neurology is not yet powerful enough to characterize the underlying physical process of a belief in the brain, in order to say that it is not logically related to objective input data (the informations that have made someone believing in ghosts).
Consequently even if a belief is illogical, we can't affirm it is, for the same reason that someone can't say that the ghosts exist: a belief is like a ghost, it has no physical evidence that a third party can access, at least today.
But we can say that questions are erroneous, when they imply the reality of underlying phenomena that have not been demonstrated and so, are not facts.

I assume all Christians believe in ghosts - the 'Holy Ghost' comes to mind. But then all religion relies simply on faith rather than logic or scientific evidence.

If a person does not believe in science, then nothing you do can convince them.  You can show them buildings, cars, train, airplanes... and they simply say "It was given by God".  You can say science does not need believing and cast them out, but you have done no justice to them just as they put you on the guillotine a while back.  If you want the facts from religion, you have to be one.

I got screamed at by the Marketing People. They gave me the following analysis:

The DIY kit Component costs at retail in USA are:

Breadboard USD14.99 from RadioShack   Subtotal: 14.99
Capacitor USD6.99 each from Panasonic (3)              20.97
Toroid USD2.26 each (order on-line)  (3)                      9.78
LED USD0.81 from TruOpto    (50)                                40.5
2n2222 USD0.612 from Multicomp (3)                           1.83
                                                         Total                    52.8

I have not included the magnet wire, the battery holder and the packaging.
The minimum package cost to USA from Hong Kong is USD10 (1 Kg)
The minimum package cost to UK from Hong Kong is USD20 (1 Kg)
There is still the cost of making the demo sample with 38 LEDs.

How can we sell the DIY kit at USD20???

The only excuse I had was - technical guys do not know marketing.


God Bless.

I suspect that you need to source the items from China. I reckon these prices
are silly. What is the precise description of the capacitors? The breadboard
is nice but not essential. Vero board could be offered as an alternative

You could market two or more products.
1. As above, at whatever price it comes out at.
2. a cut down version allowing people to get some products locally.

It is important that you are REALLY CLEAR about what claims you are making.
It could be described as a prototyping kit to explore the boundaries of
over unity performance which has been predicted/suggested/experienced by
some researchers.

Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.08.20, 14:15:33
I suspect that you need to source the items from China. I reckon these prices
are silly. ***I was told that those are not common, large quantity items.  As such, the markup will have to be high as most of the time, they just sit on the shelf.  What is the precise description of the capacitors? *** Wait for the DIY kit product.  We can be sure after the final tuning.  The breadboard is nice but not essential. Vero board could be offered as an alternative.  *** Vero board needs soldering.  The DIY kit is designed for the user to keep changing configurations for tuning.  Vero boards will be used when they are ready for International Competitions.

You could market two or more products.
1. As above, at whatever price it comes out at.
2. a cut down version allowing people to get some products locally.
*** One suggestion by a Christian Group is to sell at full price in wealthy Countries.  Have a barebone version for developing nations.  (Many years ago, Coke sold in Hong Kong was at a much lower price than at USA).  In this way, all Nations benefit.


It is important that you are REALLY CLEAR about what claims you are making.  *** The kit is likely to be named "Lead-out Energy Research DIY kit".
It could be described as a prototyping kit to explore the boundaries of
over unity performance which has been predicted/suggested/experienced by
some researchers.  *** I am avoiding the term overunity altogether.

We are guaranteeing that the provided sample will light up 38 LEDs for at least 2 minutes with the battery removed.  We are challenging the buyer to beat that in the International Competition.  That requires resonance tuning.  The buyer will hear the ringing tone and his different versions of the FLEET prototype will show different no-battery times.

*** We already have prototypes that can last 90 minutes with no batteries.  We fully expect some bright buyers will beat that.  It is a matter of getting into Tseung Resonance Condition and keeping it there.  We expect some brilliant buyer will use the recharging battery and swap method to light up the 38 LEDs "forever".   We do not need to make those claims.  We let the competition winners demonstrate to the World such facts.

Lawrence,

I am sure I could design a circuit that will power your 38 LED's for 2 days or so on a capacitor.

What exactly are the criteria for this competition?

For example, what size and voltage of battery can be used, and how long can the battery be connected before it is disconnected?

Is there a limit to the size of capacitor used?

Quote from: Farrah Day
I assume all Christians believe in ghosts - the 'Holy Ghost' comes
to mind. But then all religion relies simply on faith rather than logic
or scientific evidence.

Those of us who are confined to the Physical Realm find it very
difficult to comprehend the Spiritual Realm.  There are many
things which our "science" within this physical realm is incapable
of explaining.  We have ample evidence of the existence of the
supernatural or spiritual but we have been effectively "programmed"
or propagandized to dismiss it as Evolution or Natural Selection.
Our ability to think and process logically (scientifically) has been
impaired by those who do not want us to acknowledge or understand.

Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz
If a person does not believe in science, then nothing you do can
convince them.  You can show them buildings, cars, train, airplanes...
and they simply say "It was given by God".  You can say science does
not need believing and cast them out, but you have done no justice to
them just as they put you on the guillotine a while back.  If you want
the facts from religion, you have to be one.

Aye, "Religion" has been corrupted and much knowledge has been
hidden by the Occult Societies.  Religion in the world today is largely
controlled deception.  Fortunately, this deception is beginning to crumble.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2012.08.20, 16:07:17
Lawrence,

I am sure I could design a circuit that will power your 38 LED's for 2 days or so on a capacitor.  *** We already have a prototype lasting 4 days.  Once you master Tseung Resonance tuning, you can do amazing things.

What exactly are the criteria for this competition?

For example, what size and voltage of battery can be used, and how long can the battery be connected before it is disconnected?

Is there a limit to the size of capacitor used?  

Dear poynt99,

There are a number of Competitions.

The first one that is most applicable is to use one of the supplied capacitors and use different windings on the toroid to get the longest no-battery time for the 38 LEDs.  The toroid may have primary and secondary windings and may have different turns.  The many competition entries will have different no-battery times.  The qualifying time is 30 minutes.  The battery connection time is 30 seconds from a fully charged AA battery.  (To be fair to all competitors, the details of the electronics of the DIY kit will NOT be published until the DIY kit product is available).  This competition may have many monthly Local Winners and ONE final International Winner.  (We expect the vero board and soldering to be used for transport in the International Competition.)

The second one is to use more electronic components.  The competitor may use one or two of the toroids, capacitors and 2n2222s supplied with the DIY kit.  The battery is still one fully charged AA.  The battery connection time is also 30 seconds.  We have to warn the Competitors to use caution.  The electronics may burn out and a mild electric shock may be experienced.  The 2n2222 was selected because it will burn out if the current exceed 800mA.  Do NOT change to a more powerful transistor.  

The third one allows the use of two rechargeable AA batteries.  The competitor may use one or two of the toroids, capacitors and 2n2222s.  The Competitor may add timers such as the 555 and additional control electronics.  The batteries can be connected all the time.  The determining criterion in this case is the voltage reading on the two rechargeable AA batteries after 30 days.  The actual lighting time with 38 LEDs can be months or years or "forever".   The winning entry or entries may be put into the Headquarters of BSI Energy Holdings Limited.  It will be the show case of "Forever Lead-out Electromagnetic Energy Transformer" FLEET.

The forth one is for professionals who know how to handle high voltage and power only.  It focuses on the largest amount of lead-out power.  The Input may be two AA batteries or a DC power supply up to 3V.  The competitor may use one toroid, one capacitor and one transistor of his choice.  The competitor must use extreme caution if he uses a more powerful transistor than the 2n2222.  (The Star in the Demonstration Center at present is the 1KW output unit with no capacitors.  It uses a more powerful transistor than the 2n2222.)  The determination of the lead-out power is via the average output power as determined by an Atten Oscilloscope.  The setting of the Atten Oscilloscope will be published on the BSI Energy Holdings Limited website.  It is possible that the lead-out energy may be higher than what the Atten oscilloscope can handle.  In that case, the Judges may select and post a more appropriate method.  One possible method is the calorimeter test – bring 1 liter of water from one specified temperature to another specified temperature.

There are other competitions.  Please check the website from BSI Energy Holdings Limited when ready.

May God guide the Competitors to benefit the World.

Quote from: Dumped on 2012.08.20, 20:49:27
... We have ample evidence of the existence of the
supernatural or spiritual but we have been effectively "programmed"
or propagandized to dismiss it as Evolution or Natural Selection.
Our ability to think and process logically (scientifically) has been
impaired by those who do not want us to acknowledge or understand.

'We have ample evidence of supernatural or spiritual...' Do we... who is 'we'? I can't say I do?

I would argue to the contrary of what you write here, in that many religious people have been programmed from birth to believe in god's and deities and in many cases to dismiss the scientific evidence of evolution.  Religion is passed down by parents to children just as their genes are - and why would a child question his or her elders? Many children are very clearly effectively brain-washed from day one.

I've known people who think that the world is only 10,000 years old and whom can look at a 70 million year old fossil and see only a rock with a pattern on it! Needless to say conversation is never very pretty.

To me it beggars belief that in this day and age some people can so casually, with the wave of a hand, simply dismiss all the scientific evidence that exists and still go with the 'Adam and Eve' version of events!! ???  I struggle to understand how any intelligent mind can be so irrational when it comes to religion and superstition, but I guess common sense is a gift not all of us possess and many people never acquire.  :)

QuoteOne is the hand crank air pump for fish tank or live fish bait containers.  A few cranks through a specially tuned FLEET, the air pump continue to operate for over 30 minutes.

Lawrence,

I'm trying to understand your claim above, and want to roughly calculate the input and output energy.



INPUT

1) what capacitor are you using?  how many farads?   

2 )  and what is the voltage that it gets charged to from the hand crank?



OUTPUT

1)  can you provide the motor/pump type?  or
2)  can you scope the voltage waveform to the motor, and the voltage across a 1 ohm resistor in series with the motor?   (so I can understand the current flowing to the motor?)


30 minutes runtime for an air pump might be significant, but it all depends on how much energy that hand crank delivers and how efficiently the pump is.

EM

Quote from: Farrah Day
'We have ample evidence of supernatural or spiritual...'
Do we... who is 'we'? I can't say I do?

Your questions are good and your commentary both poignant
and on the mark in several respects.  "We" in this case would
apply to those who have opened their eyes and minds enough
to be able to "see."  Not many are yet able to do that at this
time.   

Quote from: Farrah Day
I would argue to the contrary of what you write here, in that
many religious people have been programmed from birth to
believe in god's and deities and in many cases to dismiss the
scientific evidence of evolution.  Religion is passed down by
parents to children just as their genes are - and why would a
child question his or her elders? Many children are very clearly
effectively brain-washed from day one.

There is truth in what you've said.  Corruption and deception
have entered into both the business we call "Religion" and the
business we call "Science."  Both "businesses" are controlled
and manipulated in order to deviate from truth on many fronts
and both have their ardent, brain-washed followers.

Quote from: Farrah Day
I've known people who think that the world is only 10,000 years old
and whom can look at a 70 million year old fossil and see only a rock
with a pattern on it! Needless to say conversation is never very pretty.

Aye, it is frustrating that many believe what has been falsely translated
from the original languages.  Others believe Earth to be 5,000 to 7,000
years of age and that the Creative Day was a literal 24 hour earth day.
This fallacy will in due time give way to the truth.

Quote from: Farrah Day
To me it beggars belief that in this day and age some people can so
casually, with the wave of a hand, simply dismiss all the scientific
evidence that exists and still go with the 'Adam and Eve' version of
events!! ???  I struggle to understand how any intelligent mind can be
so irrational when it comes to religion and superstition, but I guess
common sense is a gift not all of us possess and many people never
acquire.  :)

Aye, we've all been reared within an environment of deception and
"agenda" perpetuated by those who've been deceived before us.  Is
it any wonder that Common Sense is such a rare commodity in the
minds of men?  That corruption and deception are everywhere; have
permeated virtually every nook and cranny of our present world?

Truth is everywhere to be found if we persist in searching for it.
Unfortunately, our "programming" and our pre-conceived conclusions
make our searches very lopsided.

[edit:  ]

This post has devolved!   It's not Evolution,  it's DEVILution!    >:-)   ;D  :D

EM

Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.08.20, 22:46:46




Lawrence,

I'm trying to understand your claim above, and want to roughly calculate the input and output energy.



INPUT

1) what capacitor are you using?  how many farads?   

2 )  and what is the voltage that it gets charged to from the hand crank?



OUTPUT

1)  can you provide the motor/pump type?  or
2)  can you scope the voltage waveform to the motor, and the voltage across a 1 ohm resistor in series with the motor?   (so I can understand the current flowing to the motor?)


30 minutes runtime for an air pump might be significant, but it all depends on how much energy that hand crank delivers and how efficiently the pump is.

EM

Dear EM,

Please wait to see the video or the actual device working in a Demonstration Center.  We do not need to make any claims.  This is a Competition Item.  The Competitors will demonstrate and exceed this fact to the World.  To be fair to the Competitors, no information will be released until the DIY kit product is out.

God Bless,

Lawrence

There is speculation that the Tseung Resonance effect is due to the use of super capacitors.

For those who have purchased the LED street lamp from G-LED and taken it apart, they will tell you that there are NO super capacitors.

If G-LED gives me the permission, I shall show the "soul"of the system.  I repeat:

There are three ways to power a device:
(1) Mains Power
(2) Stored Power in batteries or super capacitors
(3) Lead-out energy

The "lead-out energy research DIY kit"focuses on the third method.

There is no known way of calculating the third method yet.  Resonance is not linear.  We do not even known exactly when the peaks appear.  That is why we sell the "lead-out energy research DIY kit"to the World - so that all may learn and benefit together.

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.21, 04:22:38
...
There are three ways to power a device:
(1) Mains Power
(2) Stored Power in batteries or super capacitors
(3) Lead-out energy
...

I can confirm an important point, which will be helpful if you want to power your house: methods #1 and #2 work!

For those interested in the oscilloscope analysis, I am reproducing Divine Revelation 3 here.

Please study the Output and Input Power Comparison waveforms.

The Output power is greater than the Input Power because of the Lead-out Energy.  Amen.

With the Divine Revelation 3 example, we use the oscilloscope to capture the Input instantaneous Voltage and the Input instantaneous Current (voltage across a 1 ohm resistor).

We capture the data in CSV files.  We then use Excel to calculate the average Input Power.  We do the same for Output.
 
In this way, we can compare the average Output Power with the average Input Power.  The result is as follows:
Average Input Power         0.011311   
Average Output Power             0.110754   
                  
COP=average Output/Input Power   9.79   

Should we believe the Experimental Results and the Excel Calculations???

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.20, 21:53:25

One possible method [...to determine power out...]  is the calorimeter test – bring 1 liter of water from one specified temperature to another specified temperature.

This is a very sound method. Nobody can argue with this. I would like to see it adopted universally.

On the subject of electric shocks, some back emf spikes can be pretty meaty. People should know that

In order to understand the oscilloscope results, we need to understand the following:
(1)   Standing waves.  Standing waves are characteristics of resonance.  In a standing wave, there is positive power (waveform contains area above the zero axis) and there is negative power (waveform contains area below the zero axis).
(2)   For a perfect standing wave, the positive power will be identical to the negative power.  This is sometimes interpreted as – standing waves require no energy to sustain.
(3)   In the case of FLEET prototypes, we should look at both the Input Power Waveform and the Output Power waveform.
(4)   In most of the experiments, we find that the Input Power Waveform has both positive and negative areas.  If the average is positive, we can interpret that as some energy is supplied by the Input Energy Source to power the load.  In some cases, the average is negative.  We can interpret that as more energy is fed back than supplied!
(5)   We can do the same for Output.  Sometimes, we get both the Input and Output power having negative values.  We can interpret that as both Input and Output are feedback circuits.  The Lead-out Energy is sufficient to sustain the load and giving some extra back to the source battery or DC Power supply.
(6)   If both the average Input Power and the Output Power are positive, we can compare their values.  This is usually interpreted as the COP (Coefficient of Performance or Output Power divided by Input Power).  When this value is greater than one, we call this overunity.

In the particular case of Divine Revelation 3 example, we have case 6.  The COP is greater than 1.  The actual value is 9.79.  This is considered a very low value in the case of FLEET prototypes.  Values exceeding 50 are common. 

This value sometimes is worthless.  The battery can be taken off.  In this case, the Input Power is zero.  Anything over zero is infinity.  The only sensible way to interpret this phenomenon is to assume all the energy supplied to the load (e.g. lighting LEDs) is lead-out energy.

May the Almighty guide us on the correct path to interpreting Physics.

Wow, EM!

If I'd read your post without knowing whom had posted it, you would have been quite far from the top of my list.

QuoteI'm a man of science and a believer in the Bible, so I'm at odds with a lot of things that are brought forth by the "scientists" that call themselves evolutionists, but I keep an open mind now and than.

This is what I cannot for the life of me fathom.  Are you not in constant conflict with yourself - like a man with two heads? I don't even understand how you can function in the world!

QuoteIT TAKES MORE FAITH TO BELIVE IN EVOLUTION THAN IN A CREATOR GOD!    

EM, how can you possibly rationalise this statement? The evidence of evolution is all around us, it takes no faith at all. On the other hand, an unseen supreme omnipresent being responsible for every action and inaction of every living thing (past and present) is, in my book (...not the Bible) one bloody enormous leap of faith!

I'm always puzzled, not only by why people trust the writings in a book that is centuries old and has been re-written so many times as to have little relationship to the original, but also why people actually feel the need to believe in a supreme being - particularly one that seems quite happy to let so many unspeakably bad things happen to good people! What is wrong with putting your faith in yourself, your family and your friends?

Incidentally, I'm finding the religious debates here far more interesting than the talk of Free Energy. And no offense Tseung, but I daresay that there is more chance of me finding religion than you proving you have produced free energy.  ;)

Warning.  I shall start deleting religious posts in this thread from now on.

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.21, 13:24:52
Warning.  I shall start deleting religious posts in this thread from now on.

Does that include your own Lawrence?

1.  If money was no object, let's put 10 scientists, 10 electrical engineers, 10 pharmacists, 10 doctors,
10 surgeons, 10 pysicists, 10 biologists, 10 nuclear physicists, & 10 chemists in a giant laboratory.

2.  This giant lab is stocked with every drug in the world, every piece of medical equipment in the
world, every piece of electronic equipment in the world, etc, etc, etc.

3.  Their objective is to prove atheism is true by creating a live worm or living fly, strickly from scratch, using non-living drugs, minerals, & equipment.  Nothing hard like creating a
living dog or a cow from scratch.  We will keep it simple.  LOL.  Atheists claim life originated when lightning struck in a soupy swamp millions of years ago.  So SURELY they can
create something living with their Electron Microscopes, Modern State of the Art Equipment, "SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE", expertise, & MASSIVE amount of drugs, equipment, etc, etc.

4.  Hmmmmmmm.  I think any reasonable person with half a brain will know how they would utterly fail.  How about your stance Farrah?  LOL
They would FAIL because 1 of the Laws of Biology says that Life can ONLY come from pre existing Life.

So maybe we should pay more attention to what Lawrence is saying?
.

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.21, 13:24:52
Warning.  I shall start deleting religious posts in this thread from now on.

oooooooo I'm afraid, very afraid. Talk about a double standard!

The first feedback was:

"You need scientific evidence to convince the Scientists and the World.  The best scientific instrument is the oscilloscope.  Publish the pictures, videos, oscilloscope set ups, the detailed analysis etc.  Do that for multiple prototypes.  Do all the possible combinations.  The most impressive is the 1KW unit.  Scientists will demand to see the oscilloscope analysis.  Layman will be happy with the brightness comparisons.

Once the scientific world accepts the results, you do not need to worry about the debunkers on the Internet.  They will try to distract and jeer.  Just have faith and scientific evidence."

Be parepared for massive and detailed oscilloscope analysis results and photos.

*** There will be a delay as requested by the patent lawyer.   

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.21, 13:24:52
Warning.  I shall start deleting religious posts in this thread from now on.

Sorry Lawrence, we'll comment on your circuit only.  

good points Farrah,  I don't know how I do it sometimes, I've evolved into a monster!     :D


Ok,  the circuit Lawrence posted does indeed show more OUTPUT energy than INPUT, if we are to trust the waveforms.   Anybody see what the problem is?

EM

Well, I see the fun has now gone out of this thread... and the kit price has nearly trebled, and I missed it in the sale... bugger!

I guess we now simply have the long wait for Tseung to prove himself... think I'll go and watch some paint dry. 

Tesung, 

you made a calculation mistake in your excell file, on the Output Tab.

Channel 2 of the Output, is measured across a 10 ohm resistor, so you have to divide that column by 10, to get the correct current magnitude.  As it stands,  your Output power is larger by a factor of 10.



When the correction is made,  your powers become:

Input   =  0.011311   
Output = 0.0110754   

COP = Output/Input = 97.92% ,    so very efficient, but not overunity!


Something else you should be aware, the quantazation error is quite large on the small signals gathered from the resistors, both Oscilloscope 1 and 2.  You might want to amplify these probe voltages before they are sent to the oscilloscope, and then scale back in the calculations.    It will be more accurate that way.

EM

Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.08.22, 01:06:38
Tseung, 

you made a calculation mistake in your excell file, on the Output Tab.

Channel 2 of the Output, is measured across a 10 ohm resistor, so you have to divide that column by 10, to get the correct current magnitude.  As it stands,  your Output power is larger by a factor of 10.



When the correction is made,  your powers become:

Input   =  0.011311   
Output = 0.0110754   

COP = Output/Input = 97.92% ,    so very efficient, but not overunity!


Something else you should be aware, the quantazation error is quite large on the small signals gathered from the resistors, both Oscilloscope 1 and 2.  You might want to amplify these probe voltages before they are sent to the oscilloscope, and then scale back in the calculations.    It will be more accurate that way.

EM

Dear Em,

I am glad that you actually read through the excel file.  In this particular case, I used 1 ohm for both input and output.  Please refer to my comments just before the circuit diagram.

There is no error in the waveform picture and there is NO error in the COP result.

Thank you for bringing it up though.
*** I do not mind good academic challenges.  It will prepare our team to face MIT, Stanford or the like.
*** According to the Patent Lawyer, I should not publish new results.  But I can comment on the already posted results.  There are over a dozen already at my bench.  I shall refer to them and explain every individual case.  I believe these already cover the different cases – including negative average power.
***

Very interesting ! Any comeback to that EM ?

My own personal yardstick for absolute proof of OU is to start with a capacitor with a certain voltage across it
and end with either the same or more voltage across that cap or the same or more voltage in an identical cap.
If a load is powered then equal voltage in the cap is sufficient is no load then more voltage at the end is required
to show an external input.
This would show more potential energy stored after a "run" than there was before it, I think that would be indisputable proof.

Fact is when batteries and wave forms and complex calculations are concerned there can be error and argument.

Why not show more real stored potential energy after a run than before ? All it takes is a voltmeter.

Lawrence, can your system be configured to do that ? run from one cap and charge an identical cap ? With or without load ?

Using that method I can see that my solar panels are 100% OU, I start with a capacitor with 0 volts and in very short time I have 20 volts
across the capacitor without inputting anything into the system myself. Hard to beat that.

Cheers

Lawrence,  May I ask a question?

When that professor got 1 KW from your FLEET circuit, was that using
a small core toroid, like in your DIY kit?

Or was that using a much larger toroid core?

Thank you.

.

Quote from: Farmhand on 2012.08.22, 04:46:05
...for absolute proof of OU is to start with a capacitor with a certain voltage across it
and end with either the same or more voltage across that cap or the same or more
voltage in an identical cap.

Yes. The using of a load resistor plunged into a tank of oil and measuring the increase
in temperature is sound, but laborious. Your method is easier.

What does not work is looking at scope shots and trying to measure the area under
the curve of the spikes which may well be impossibly high. Also, energy acquired is
only useful in certain forms. It should be measured in those forms.

Another method would be to use a generator as a load and measure its electrical output.
But are there any gennies that would survive weird input voltage wave forms?

If I wanted to measure the energy supplied by a battery, I would measure the voltage across the battery and the current through it.  Why are you measuring the combined transistor/LED current instead?

The absolute proof of OU must be much more indisputable. The extra-energy must be able to run a machine despite its losses, while providing a part of usable energy.

It must be a delimited and self-running system providing to the outside a significant and measurable quantity of energy, while not consuming energy from the outside.
After a certain time of functionning, chosen at will by the supervisor, the system is stopped and checked: if its state is strictly identical to its start state, meaning that no product was consumed, no potential, kinetic or thermal internal energy was extracted...  here we have over unity (presumably energy coming from an unknown source quasi-unextinguishable).

@tesung

QuoteIn this particular case, I used 1 ohm for both input and output.  Please refer to my comments just before the circuit diagram

Do you refer to this sentence right above the diagram?

(The 10 and 100 ohm resistor combination can be replaced by a ONE ohm resistor at the 10 ohm resistor position)

I see that you used the word 'can',  so you might want to make sure you used a 1 ohm and not a 10 ohm resistor as shown on the diagram.   I think you used a 10 ohm resistor but got confused or forgot, since you ran so many tests at so many different times.  Very easy to get confused, I get confused all the time if I don't write things down.

My suggestion is to redo the test and make sure you improve the quantaization error, by amplifying the voltages taken across the resistors by a know amplification factor, than when you calculate the power, divide by that amplification factor.

@Farmhand,   if Tesung says it's a 1 ohm, and that's the case, he definitely is showing overunity, because the calculations seem sound to me, aside from my suggestion for improvement.

EM

Quote from: forcefield on 2012.08.22, 16:26:16
If I wanted to measure the energy supplied by a battery, I would measure the voltage across the battery and the current through it.

That is the energy in. No problem.

The problem is measuring the energy out because it is a series of spikes of uncertain voltage.

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.21, 13:24:52
Warning.  I shall start deleting religious posts in this thread from now on.

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.21, 06:39:41
... I am reproducing Divine Revelation 3 here.

Either there is a logical problem between the two posts or "divine" has not a religious signification while the dictionary says us it has.
Pardon my perplexity, but what do you mean by "divine" and why is Revelation 3 divine?

Lawrence hasn't been here in a few days.

I hope nobody insulted him.

Quote from: AllPhase on 2012.08.26, 00:42:59
Lawrence hasn't been here in a few days.

I hope nobody insulted him.

Why this question?!!!   C.C
I'm just impatient that he comes back and explains who made the "revelations" and why they are "divine".
If you have the answer right now, AllPhase, don't hesitate to post it. Thanks in advance.

exnihiloest, I think I can answer your question because I have followed Lawrence's posts on Overunity.com for about 2 or 3 years now.  

From my long observations, my answer is because he is just a nice, God fearing Christian, that wants to help the world with some Free Energy Ideas.
From my perspective, it just looks like he just wants to be humble & give God credit for his ideas that he is working on.
I am sure he doesn't mean to offend anybody.  He is just trying to be meek & non arrogant by giving God credit where he thinks it is appropriate.

Historically, he has been extremely willing to share a LOT of VALUABLE knowledge concerning O/U ideas if we are polite & don't criticize him.
Let's (all of us as a group) give him honest encouragement & not be so demanding & insulting.

Plus, let's consider the VERY EXPENSIVE TRIPS he has made to China to consult with his professor friends.  Then he shares that new information with us when he returns, free of charge.
It sure looks to me like his units are getting VERY CLOSE to SM's TPUs. Why?  Because of the periodic SURGES of high energy he has disclosed from his professor friends (1 KW, 5KW, 10KW, SURGES).

Quote from: AllPhase on 2012.08.26, 21:46:01
...
From my long observations, my answer is because he is just a nice, God fearing Christian,

"nice God fearing Christian" who said: "I shall start deleting religious posts in this thread from now on", except... his own posts! Very nice attitude...

Quote
...that wants to help the world with some Free Energy Ideas.
From my perspective, it just looks like he just wants to be humble & give God credit for his ideas that he is working on.
I am sure he doesn't mean to offend anybody.  He is just trying to be meek & non arrogant by giving God credit where he thinks it is appropriate.
...

From my perspective, his humility is justified: there is not one idea that works but only a flow of assertions without foundation however awaited and required by every experimenter. The sincerity never guarantees its content. He should be informed that this forum is not dedicated to miracles.

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2012.08.13, 14:25:30
I do not mind your mixing religion in this thread.

I never thought that I could solve the energy crisis of the World with any human effort.  Even though I et al can now lead-out 6KW with the improved FLEET.  I have a FLEET leading out enough watts to light up 300 LEDs in my bedroom.  The test for 1,000 LEDs at the Demonstration Center today was successful.  The next test will be 3,000 LEDs at the Demonstration Center.

The DC Power Supply in my bedroom showed that the DC power was less than 1 watt.  This can be sustained forever (at least for 6 days and nights  continuous running).  The rating for the LEDs was 0.2 watt per LED.  300 will require 60 watts.  I can use 1 watt to get full brightness. Energy must have been lead-out since the Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created.

I know that tuning is an important factor.  At present there is no automatic program to do this tuning.  It is still trial and error but the error part is diminishing.  

I firmly believe that there is a Divine Hand guiding me and my team.  Otherwise we would have given up long ago with all the jeers and the failures.  Logic tells the average person that an old, retired person with two strokes and not much financial backing - solving the energy crisis of the World in a bedroom laboratory is impossible.

It has to be a miracle.

This was post #25 on page 2.

Then post #111 on page 5

QuoteWarning.  I shall start deleting religious posts in this thread from now on.

The bottom line for this whole tread is that he made a calculation error in his spreadsheets, so there is no "Tesung" resonance, and no free energy from this device,  and we should leave it at that.


Tesung, why don't you lock this thread?


EM

Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.08.27, 19:42:10
The bottom line for this whole tread is that he made a calculation error in his spreadsheets, so there is no "Tesung" resonance, and no free energy from this device,  and we should leave it at that.


Tesung, why don't you lock this thread?


EM

Please see the recent oscilloscope-test-ready files in
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1516.0

The Output Power is greater than the Input Power.

God Bless.

But power is not equal to energy, to get over unity the output energy dissipated needs to be more than the input energy dissipated.

ie. ,  If over a given period, "x" number of Joules were expended at the input, then for the same given period "x" number of Joules plus some amount more in Joules needs to be dissipated in output.

Power is only the rate at which the energy is expended or dissipated. Not an amount of energy. High C.O.P. is one thing on paper but if there is no extra energy there is no extra energy.

Is there extra energy ?

When negative power is figured things get hazy. In my opinion power applied to the circuit at the input should be negative it is "draining type" power draining from the supply,
and power output at the output should be positive it is "adding type" power adding to the load power, power back to the input should be positive it is "adding type " adding to the input..
So more average negative power at the input would represent energy going from the supply to the load, applied energy. More average negative power at the output would represent energy going from the load to the supply a gain.
More average positive power at the supply would represent energy going to the supply, a gain. More average positive power at the load would represent energy going to the load from the supply "output".

No power is applied to the system from outside the system via the output.

If power is applied to the circuit from outside the system then where is it applied ?

Try this, put a diode in the positive line of the input. Then measure the input and output power.

There should then be only negative power applied to the supply and positive power applied to the load, or power applied by the supply and power applied to the load.

Cheers
   

Quote from: Farmhand on 2012.11.13, 08:16:42
But power is not equal to energy, to get over unity the output energy dissipated needs to be more than the input energy dissipated.

ie. ,  If over a given period, "x" number of Joules were expended at the input, then for the same given period "x" number of Joules plus some amount more in Joules needs to be dissipated in output.

Power is only the rate at which the energy is expended or dissipated. Not an amount of energy. High C.O.P. is one thing on paper but if there is no extra energy there is no extra energy.
   

As long as power is measured over a reasonable amount of time, what the heck difference does it make?

(BTW, I am not happy with the practice of trying to measure the area under curves on an oscilloscope.
It convinces nobody.  Far better to consider the amount of energy in batteries before compared to the
after conditions).

Quote from: Farmhand on 2012.11.13, 08:16:42
...
If power is applied to the circuit from outside the system then where is it applied ?
...  

There are many possible ways. Only the imagination limits the number.
There is also another possible flow in your analysis: a source of energy, hidden in a component of the setup. This possibility remains until the verification of each one (or until duplications but we know that until now, none claim of overunity has been confirmed by independent teams of experimenters).