Lead-out/Bring-in Energy - Flux Change Systems

[ltseung888]

In this set of experiments, I focused on the Power waveforms.

Both the Input and Secondary Power waveform showed negative values.

The negative values represent feedback to source.  Since there is feedback to the battery, the energy drained from the battery would be less.  The measured voltage across the battery will also be affected.   That is a possible explanation why that the value is not 1.5V DC.

In order to compare the actual Input Power and the Secondary Power, we need to get the mean power over the same period.  I still have not found a way to directly display or calculate such mean power from the Atten Oscilloscope yet.  Will need more playing with the software?

From previous experiments in Hong Kong in 2011, the prototype could be improved to get closer to resonance.  One way is to vary the value of the capacitor by inserting different ones.  (Hong Kong method)  Another way is to use the signal generator and forget the Joule Thief circuit.

More work and more fun.

God helps those who help themselves.

[ltseung888]

The best prototype brought from Hong Kong by Lawrence Tseung had a Tseung FLEET index of over 200.

The prototype was taken out from storage without tuning and tested.

The resulting figures were less but still impressive.  Tuning will improve the results.

The output waveforms are closer to sine waves.

[ltseung888]

The original Tseung best prototype was broken after bending or stretching the wires too many times.  The soldered joints could not take the torture!  The decision was to use a breadboard.  The peak-to-peak Tseung FLEET comparison Index was about the same.

The Input and Output Power waveforms were compared.  The Output showed much more activity.  The areas under the curve (representing energy) for both positive and negative values are much higher for Output.  This confirms that the Tseung best prototype is an overunity device.

It appears that The Tseung best prototype as shown is not tuned to the best value yet.  More tuning should improve the result. (The result measured in Hong Kong was closer to 200 whereas the USA reading was only 89).

This prototype will no longer be modified.  It may make its way to the science museum as one of the devices confirming overunity.

Having an oscilloscope to measure and confirm results is fun and boosts confidence.

[ltseung888]

The electronic components were unplugged and moved to different locations for ease of tuning.

The wires were spread as far apart as possible.  The Output Power waveform is much more active than the Input.

With the oscilloscope to measure instantaneous power (Ch1*Ch2), I can definitely confirm that overunity has been achieved.  With a better scope (or knowing how to use the available software functions), I should be able to get the mean Input and the mean Output Power.  That will be a better indication of COP.

Another identical Atten Oscilloscope has been ordered.  After its arrival, I shall be able to repeat the tuning done in Hong Kong in 2010.

Thank you for the Hong Kong Government for the HK$6000 tax free dollars.

[ltseung888]

Michael helped to solder this prototype.

The Tseung FLEET Comparison Index has over 400 (RMS value compared).  This was the highest so far.

Please see that the Output Power Waveform is off the screen.

I can now repeat the experiments in Hong Kong and confirm with 100% certainty that overunity has been achieved with FLEET.

[ltseung888]

The zip file contains the Summary PowerPoint presentation for the month of Aug, 2011.

[ltseung888]

I have tried the save picture function so far.

There is a software program Easyscope 3.0 that can help to display the saved results in different ways.  I am still experimenting with the save waveform function.

Hopefully, I can figurre out the mean power function.  (Save thousands of $$$)

[ltseung888]

It looks like I can get the mean power or any other data from the saved csv files.

Example:

Source               CH1   CH2
Second               Volt   Volt
-0.009000001   0   -0.00048
-0.008998001   0   -0.00064
-0.008996001   0.0008   -0.00072
-0.008994001   0.0008   -0.0008
-0.008992001   0.0008   -0.00096
-0.008990001   0.0024   -0.00128
-0.008988001   0.0008   -0.0008
-0.008986001   0.0008   -0.00072
-0.008984001   0.0008   -0.00056
-0.008982001   0.0008   -0.00128
-0.008980001   0.0008   -0.00048
-0.008978001   0.0008   -0.00072
-0.008976001   0.0016   -0.00056

With the saved "instantaneous CH1 and CH2" values, I can use Excel to provide the CH1*CH2 values.  I can have the positive power, the negative power and the mean power over the captured period. 

Reasonably accurate Input Energy and Output Energy comparison can be done.  There will be no more disputes on COP and the use of Tseung FLEET Comparison Index is no longer necessary.

The EasyScope software may already have such functionality.  However, with the Excel compatible csv files, I can do much without too much hard work.

If I can figure this out, the Hong Kong and China teams must have figured this out long ago.  They have the two oscilloscopes and software to play with for over 1 year. 

More work and more fun.

[ltseung888]

With the CSV files that can be analyzed by EXCEL, I can do Mean Power Calculations easily.  It is just the CH1*CH2 sample values added together divided by the number of sample points.

The Tseung Prototype was rechecked and the COP obtained from the Mean Output Power over mean Input Power method was 1.76.  It was overunity without tuning.

When I did the tuning by varying the wire spacing, toroid positioning, etc while watching the output waveforms on the oscilloscope, I managed to get the waveform as shown in Diagram 3.

Diagram 3 is interesting as the current (Voltage across a 10 ohm resistor) showed large negative values.  This gave high negative instantaneous power values.  The CSV file confirmed it.  The mean output power was negative (-0.00966 watts).

This experiment confirmed our observations in Hong Kong – changing the physical layout of the circuits without changing the component values could have big differences in observed results.  Staring at the circuit diagram may not be that useful.  (This also means simulation programs for circuits have severe limitations in our environment.)

I also managed to get the secondary LED to light after taking out the battery.  When I used a multimeter to measure the 10 ohm resistor, the LED was ON.  I should have taken pictures at that point.  It was ON as long as the multimeter was connected.  After I did something else, I could not reproduce the effect again.

This also taught or re-taught us the lesson – in resonance experiments, have the camera ready.  Strange or unexplainable effects often occur and might not be re-produced easily as we do not understand all the parameters yet.

More fun and work.

[ltseung888]

With tuning - changes in wire spacing and shape, the COP as calculated from the mean power jumped to over 15.

This is a characteristic behavor of resonance.

The believer who continues to "fish" will catch the big one.  (I visited Newport Pier.  Learned the phrase from a fisherman who catch a big one.)

There will be impatient onlookers - ignore their jeers.

[ltseung888]

God help those who help themselves.

I went back to the air-core prototype.  It had the strange effect of:
  LED on the Joule Thief OFF
  LEDs on the Secondary A and Secondary B ON
  Strong negative Power characteristics

I learned the lesson of taking pictures and doing the analysis first.  To my greatest surprise and delight, both the Input and the Output mean power were negative.  This implied possible power generation.

I then checked the connections and found that the LED on the Joule Thief was wrongly connected in the reverse direction.  When I made the "right" connection, the LED on the Joule Thief was ON brightly and the LEDs on the Secondary A and Secondary B were OFF.

Now I shall focus on this "wrongly" connected Joule Thief or FLEET circuit.  You are welcome to speculate or comment on such behavior.  My speculation at this point is that the circuit is highly pulsed and the reversely connected LED prevented current consumption at the JT side.  The rapid flux change brought-in electron motion energy and induced higher voltage and current at the Secondary.

Those who do not experiment will not have such "luck".  Amen.

[ltseung888]

I managed to tune the air-core prototype until the output power waveform showed standing wave.

I then took out the battery and checked whether there was significant activity on the circuit.

To my delight, the circuit showed considerable activity compared with the pure background no connection case.

This is worth further investigation.

[ltseung888]

This diagram compares the three cases:

1.   Background – the oscilloscopes were not connected to the prototype at all.

2.   Battery removed with the oscilloscope probes connected to Secondary A

3.   Battery removed with the oscilloscope probes connected to Secondary B

It was evident that only case 2 showed significant activity.  The system is not yet tuned for resonance.  More tuning needed.

[ltseung888]

The Secondary B was tuned until a standing wave was observed.

The battery was then removed.  A travelling wave was seen travelling across the screen.  The run and Stop button was tried many times until part of the travelling wave was captured.

This lasted for hours when I did not disturb the prototype.  With no battery, there should be no activity.  Some may argue that the oscilloscope itself provided some power to the prototype.  But another possible explanation is that some energy is brought-in from the surrounding.

One undeniable fact from the experiment is that the circuit can be tuned via wire spacing and plugging onto different holes on the breadboard.  With a second oscilloscope, the wavesforms on both Secondary A and B Circuits could be observed.  Can we tune it so that both sides are in resonance???

Waiting patiently for the arrival of the second oscilloscope.

More fun and more work

[ltseung888]

With more tuning, the travelling wave on no battery disappeared.

The no battery case showed significant activity.

Tuning is not easy.  One must have faith and know what to look for.

Researchers with no oscilloscopes are at great disadvantage.  The Hong Kong and China teams with 2 will have more "luck".

[ltseung888]

Discussion with Prof. J

Prof. J: "Let us discuss the work you have done so far and see what is the best approach to take in the near future."

Tseung: "Let us start from the experiments on the prototypes.  I do not want to discuss the sound resonance any more."

Prof. J: "I believe you have shown that you can:
1.   Tune the prototype by moving the wires closer or further or using different holes on the breadboard.  If I assume that different capacitance is associated with such action, your action is scientific.
2.   Achieve some type of resonance when the Output Power Waveform became standing waves.  I know that standing waves are characteristics of resonance.  The energy used to maintain a perfect standing wave is zero.
3.   From the Excel analysis of the Instantaneous Power curves, you can get the mean power.  COP is best calculated from the ratio of the mean Output Power over mean Input Power.  That analysis showed that many of your prototypes have (or can be tuned to) COP > 1.  You saved lots of money by not buying the expensive oscilloscopes with that as a built-in function.
4.   The waveforms with no battery when the oscilloscope probes were connected to the Secondary A or B of the prototype showed activities compared with probes connected to nothing (or non-resonant circuits).  Please do more investigation on this.

Have I missed anything significant?"

Tseung: "I prefer to work on the air toroid.  I know that the inductance or even capacitance can be changed with the number of turns, the tightness of the turns and the angle of the turns.  I now firmly believe that the Steven Mark Prototype with multiple coils do have scientific basis.  I shall work more on the existing prototype and then move to a larger air-core toroid."

Prof. J: "You are speculating that the resonant set up could lead-out or bringing-in energy from the environment.  I treat that as speculation at this point.  Your experimental evidence so far has not confirmed it but does not rule it out either.  You have some indirect support from the Steven Mark videos."

Tseung: "From the previous work in Hong Kong, I could get high output voltages with actual capacitors on the secondary.  Some results from Dr, Ting exceeded 450V – from a 1.5 AA battery."

Prof. J: "One interesting element in your prototype is the 'wrong' plugging in of the LED in the Joule Thief Circuit.  In the normal JT, researchers use the lighting of that LED to claim success.  Your not lighting the LED forced more flux changes to light up the LEDs on the secondary.  That is a lucky break.  Please investigate that further."

Tseung: "I shall.  Now I know that the use of a second oscilloscope will be invaluable.  I believe few researchers on the Internet have such facilities.  Many do not have one.  How can they function?"

Prof. J: "Let us focus on your efforts.  You have much more work to do but what you have done so far made scientific sense.  Ignore the armchair quarterbacks."

May the Almighty continue to guide and protect us.  Amen.

[ltseung888]

The LED on the Joule THief Circuit was removed completely.

Secondary B power wave form showed negative power.  CSV file analysis confirmed that.

Does that mean the air core prototype is now a "power generator"

If so, should the focus be on making a larger model with more "power" leading-in or bringing-out more electron motion energy???

[ltseung888]

Since I do not know any hardware store owner to cut me rings from large PVC pipes in USA, I looked for alternatives.

One possibility is from the craft store – Michaels.  I used two inside rings of their knitting device to form the air core.  Such a core can be easily reproduced.  It can be stacked to form a thicker ring.  The inside diameter is 7" and the outer diameter is 8" approximately.  The height is ½ inches.

The spacer is from rolled A4 paper strips.  Innovation???

[ltseung888]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=G_RCyDdt2rM

The above demo is interesting as the value of the capacitors are low.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBzHfPAorwE&NR=1

The above demo is interesting in that a standing wave was formed.

These two videos hinted that I may be able to get multiple LCR circuits in resonance on a toroid by varying the windings on the secondary coil at the toroid.  This may be the magic of the Steven Mark TPU.  The lead-out or bring-in electromagnetic energy theory supports it.

More work and more fun.

[ltseung888]

With God's Blessing, I believe I may have completed the conclusive experiment on sound resonance.

The question is - when the resonance sound is louder, where does the extra energy come from?
A. One traditional answer is that there is only one sound source; all energy must come from such a source.
B. The Divine Revelation is that the kinetic energy of air molecules can be led-out or brought-in.

In the experiment, we have a constant sound source.  The sounds produced by 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 resonance boxes placed with their closed end at ¼ wavelength were compared both by listening and by the displays on the computer.  Finally, one of the resonance boxes was replaced by a beer glass with a slight funnel shape.  That final configuration sounded loudest.

The results showed that the sounds become louder with 1, 2, 3, 4 resonance boxes arranged as shown in the diagram.  The frequency was set at 630 Hz.  This experiment can be reproduced easily.  Another team in Canada is planning to replicate the results with their own setup.

I believe the experimental results clearly confirm that assumption B is more reasonable.  Resonance boxes are passive devices that cannot generate energy.  The extra sound energy must come from the environment – in this case, the already available kinetic energy of the moving air molecules.

Amen.

[ltseung888]

Since the slightly funneled shape appeared better, regular glasses were used.

The frequency was adjusted at the signal generator.  It was evident that the loudness of the resulting sound in descending order of glasses was 3,2,1,0.

One unexpected result was that the resulting sound with 3 glasses can be less.  The third glass may increase or decrease the loudness depending on its position.  This is not surprising with resonance.

This may be an important point to remember with multiple LCR resonance.

Praise the Lord.  Onward we march.

[ltseung888]

See the diagram for details.

We can increase the loudest of the sound with passive components.  This indicates that the extra sound energy must come from the environment.

The First Divine Revelation cannot be wrong.

Amen.