Rigor without Rancor in the Search for Novel Energy Sources

[PhysicsProf]

I joined OUR in December 2010 with an overall goal of seeking for and promoting novel energy sources -- with scientific RIGOR including careful measurements -- without RANCOR or mocking.  I have found  this forum to provide a decent venue to promote rigor while -- for the most part-- avoiding mocking and rancor.  That's why I'm here.

I have at my home electronics bench an ATTEN 1062C digital storage oscilloscope, a DC power supply and a self-ranging multimeter, and a decent supply of transistors, resistors, inductors, capacitors, LED's, wire, etc.   At the University from which I retired after a career of physics research and teaching for over twenty years, I have access to more expensive scopes such as a Tektronix 3032 ( which will calculate MEAN power) as well as function generators, etc.  I now live in the country, but I drive up to the university from time to time.   IOW, I have some pretty decent test equipment available -- and I would be glad to use to it to test YOUR novel-energy device, if you claim it meets at least the first three criteria below.

I would define a "novel energy" (NE) device that has merit for science and for society as follows -- here are my criteria at this time:

1.  Energy from a non-conventional source.  This excludes:  fossil fuels and biomass burning, solar (including wind and wave power), geothermal, nuclear fission or fusion (although I should not exclude cold fusion -- but see point 3).  It does not exclude:  earth's gravitational or magnetic fields, galactic magnetic fields.  Even currently unknown sources are allowable -- and sought.

2.  More power out than in (that is, COP = Pout/Pin > 1), also known as "overunity" (OU).  This does not mean that principles of physics such as conservation of energy are (necessarily) violated.  It does imply a novel energy source.  Multiple methods of measurement are preferable, but the experimental method and the measurements must bear scrutiny (e.g., a peer-reviewed paper would be great!) 

3.  The observation of OU must be repeatable.  A device must work every time specified conditions are met.  Successful replication must be demonstrated also.

4.  The power output must be capable of scaling up.  (Unlike extracting tiny currents from a magnet or iron pyrite, for example.)  To be more than a curiosity, a scaled-up working device should produce at least tens of watts.

5.  I would prefer that results and inventions be freely available worldwide, and not controlled by some big corporation or government entity.  A benefit to humanity is sought, not beaucoup-bucks for an elite few.

6.  If a theoretical model is claimed, the basis of that model needs to be empirically demonstrated.   For example, if a proton-nickel --> radioactive copper isotope production is claimed (as in a recent Bologna, Italy claim), then demonstration of copper isotope production is required.  This could be done by detecting the decay products of the produced radioisotopes, which should not be difficult to measure quantitatively.

I welcome comments on the stated criteria, which I may amend as time goes on.


I am currently exploring, with others in this community of researchers the following classes of devices:

1.  The Joule Thief, which is a self-resonator and typically produces higher output voltage through an LED than the supplied input voltage...  hence I may call this a "Boost Resonator" (BR).  I have posted numerous times on my studies of the JT or BR, and I will start a thread here on my Bench regarding this fun little circuit.  I realized that the primary and feedback inductors are amenable to forming LC circuits also -- with interesting recent results....  

2.  Bedini motor -- a colleague who lives nearby has built one of these and finished it this week.  I provided some assistance.   In tests, it is not (yet) overunity...  If it shows promise, I'll start a thread here on that.

3.  Coupled LC circuits, including claims of "scalar waves".    I have order parts for prototypes...  If I see anything interesting, will let you know as these tests get underway.

4.  Would like to learn more about HHO and Steven Mark's TPU and Naudin's 2SGen...  

I would like to see SOMETHING work definitively.  The prizes for OU have been sitting there for too long!

I appreciate the input I have received so far at this forum, including from feynman, .99, Gibbshelmholtz, lanenal, and others, and I invite comments on my "bench" here which follow "rigor without rancor".  Thanks.

[feynman]

Nice post prof.

In terms of parts, in my own experience, there are a couple parts that I've always found to be useful that I suggest you purchase.

1) High-speed buffers / optoisolators
Very useful for decoupling circuits to prevent expensive things from getting burned up

2) High-speed MOSFETs and drivers.
Good MOSFETs and drivers are really crucial, especially when 'scaling up'.  The best types are integrated MOSFET/driver chips because they eliminate stray inductance/capacitance, but tend to be more expensive.

The best I've found is this:  DRF1200 MOSFET
http://www.microsemi.com/datasheets/DRF1200_A.pdf

but unfortunately it's $200.   I'm looking into an alternative setup that's cheaper.  I know some on overunity.com have had success driving several slower MOSFETs in parallel with high current from a good driver, which gets the gates to open and close very fast.   This is important for square waves or pwm waves, but not so important for sine waves.  Anyways , good luck!

[PhysicsProf]

   Good points, feynman.   I need to learn more about some of these.   I studied E&M at the graduate level, but taught it only at the undergraduate level at the university, and I've a lot to learn.  Glad to work with you and several others.

[marksnoswell]

@PhysicsProf ...
good attitude.

We have repeatable proven results in house of extraordinary phenomenon associated with simple current loops - they will be published in the not to distant future. The only reason I mention this here is that I can attest from first hand experience just how difficult it can be to postulate, test for, validate, reproduce, analyze and finally prove the existence of an extraordinary behavior. In the case I am referring to the difficulty is not in detection or equipment, it's in coming to terms with a behavior that lies totally outside the current accepted doctrine - or what I like to refer to as the "fashionable envelope" that mainstream academia must remain within or risk being ostracized.

Now having teased you with that (for which I apologize) I will comment on something that you should follow up on -- "Cold current" -- but before I give some references I believe (as an ex  Physics professor) you will be able to well appreciate:

Considering that attempts to extract novel energy sources from ZPE are indeed novel then shouldn't we consider that the forms of energy extracted may also be novel? For example -- Blacklight power have led the world in publishing papers that support the concept that fractional hydrogen (f/H) that can be created on demand, releasing very considerable thermal energy in the process. Blacklight power calls this f/H a Hydrino (I wont use that term as it a registered trademark of Blacklight power and belittles the generality of f/H that was theorized long before Randal Mills and Blacklight power).
f/H is the result of dropping the electron in a Hydrogen atom below what was previously believed to be the ground level -- thus the atom has a fractional (of the classical zero energy state) energy level. The formation and existence of f/H is beyond reasonable contention and is something you should look into -- Dr Rossi has recently demonstrated a small reactor (at the university of Bolonga in Italy) that produced a continuous 12Kw for 15 hours from just a few grammes of Hydrogen -- exactly the amount of energy expected the be released from dropping the Hydrogen to the first fractional energy level. This is all very exciting, however consider this...

If you were able to get this new low energy form of the electron away from a f/H atom and into a conductor how would you expect it to behave? It carries essentially the same charge as an ordinary electron, but it can't directly exchange energy with ordinary electrons due to the forbidden energy jump between them. Lets call these low energy electrons "cold electrons" for now. In a circuit they will flow without appreciable interaction with ordinary electrons -- appearing to represent a superconducting behavior. A cold current of these cold electrons would behave essentially the same as an ordinary current in capacitive and inductive elements -- but would not see resistances. They will flow (just as a superconducting current does) almost entirely on the surface of conductors. So far this is interesting but mostly predictable -- but what behavior would these cold electrons have in semiconductor devices? in an oscilloscope? etc ...

I will stop there. I think you see the point. If efforts to extract energy from novel new sources leads to novel forms of energy, such as novel charge carriers, then the behavior of this novel energy will be new -- even if it co-exists and overlaps with the behavior of normal electrical circuits. In the case of the postulated cold current then many sophisticated test methods and equipment such as oscilloscopes will not work as expected, if at all.

You should read up on Ken Shoulders EVO (exotic vacuum object) work and patents. Ken is a good friend and perhaps the most rigorous scientist I have met. His experimental results are sound and have been replicated. This is distinct from his speculations on applications and theories - please don't confuse the two. This web page is a good reference into Ken's work -- there are links to his web archive at the bottom of the page http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/10/ken_shoulders_evos_exotic_vacu.html  As you will see, EVO's are an apparent single vacuum object that is the result of a vast number of electrons coalescing. I believe that Ken's EVO's are just one expression of a continuum of spin objects, which includes the single electron and low energy electrons in f/H at the bottom end of the scale. In recent unpublished work Ken has found indications that there may be no upper bound to the size of EVO's.

I have selected just two peoples work to make a point -- it's as difficult to think in a new way as it is to make truly new discoveries. The arguments I put forward for the essence and behaviors of cold current are just a speculation -- although a speculation that is testable and based on a plausible hypothesis.

ah -- enough for now.

cheers
Dr Mark Snoswell. CTO Chava Energy (and other non-executive, and not relevant, roles if you do a search.)

[marksnoswell]

2) High-speed MOSFETs and drivers.
Good MOSFETs and drivers are really crucial, especially when 'scaling up'.  The best types are integrated MOSFET/driver chips because they eliminate stray inductance/capacitance, but tend to be more expensive.

The best I've found is this:  DRF1200 MOSFET
http://www.microsemi.com/datasheets/DRF1200_A.pdf

but unfortunately it's $200.   I'm looking into an alternative setup that's cheaper.  I know some on overunity.com have had success driving several slower MOSFETs in parallel with high current from a good driver, which gets the gates to open and close very fast.   This is important for square waves or pwm waves, but not so important for sine waves.  Anyways , good luck!

eeek! ... we have measured 600pS (yes - pico seconds) switching times when slewing >400V into real circuits using only cheap (<$1) IRF820 mosfet driven with a reasonably ($4.5) cheap driver IXYX414. 600pS is at the limit of our scope so the actual switching times may have been faster. We have also measured wavefronts propagating through space, over the surface of coils and dielectrics with much slower (1-20ns) switching times. you don't need expensive parts to achieve these sorts of switching times and measurments - you just need to pay attention to every aspect of your circuit as a transmission line. Physical layout, decoupling, line impedances and terminations all become important -- this includes matching impedances into your oscilloscope for any chance of accurately reading fast signals.

[feynman]

@mark

I looked up your IXYS414 driver, but only this thread and an overunity.com thread come up in google.  Adding in a space to make "IXYS 414", I get this datasheet:
http://ixdev.ixys.com/DataSheet/99061.pdf

But this datasheet discusses a risetime/falltime of 20ns and propegation delay of 30ns.

Anyway, so first question is , "is this the correct datasheet",  and second is, can you comment on what you wrote at overunity.com

1. 12 - 24 V gate drive -- faster at the higher voltage.
2. use IRF 820 or other mosfet with low gate capacitance and gate charge -- you want voltage not current.
3. Use ceramic bypass cap on the HV supply -- I use 0.1u 630V cermaic + 0.15 pulse capacitor. THese caps should be right on the mosfets.
4. Fastest driver you will get (at resonable price) is IXYX 414  use the TO 220 package if you want to drive at over 700K repetition rate.I looked up

3) What do you mean about ceramic bypass cap?  Do you have schematics?
4) When you are using these TO 220 packages, I assume you are soldering this with SMT rather than using DIP adapters back into solderless breadboard, correct?

Lastly, I want to drive the high side -- does this make any different for your recommendations?  Do you have schematics / pictures posted anywhere? Thanks.

[ltseung888]

I joined OUR in December 2010 with an overall goal of seeking for and promoting novel energy sources -- with scientific RIGOR including careful measurements -- without RANCOR or mocking. ......

Dear PhysicsProf,

Glad that you have set up your bench.  You can do much with the moderator privilege.  I look forward to seeing your information.

Lawrence

[PhysicsProf]

@PhysicsProf ...
good attitude.

We have repeatable proven results in house of extraordinary phenomenon associated with simple current loops - they will be published in the not to distant future. The only reason I mention this here is that I can attest from first hand experience just how difficult it can be to postulate, test for, validate, reproduce, analyze and finally prove the existence of an extraordinary behavior. In the case I am referring to the difficulty is not in detection or equipment, it's in coming to terms with a behavior that lies totally outside the current accepted doctrine - or what I like to refer to as the "fashionable envelope" that mainstream academia must remain within or risk being ostracized.

I'm not worried about being fashionable nor with remaining within "mainstream academia" -- I was offered early retirement from the university despite significant awards for teaching, because my research was deemed outlandish and iconoclastic.  So you see, I actually go for the non-fashionable -- as long as the potential is high for service to humanity.  (I invented a solar device that is being used world-wide...)

Now having teased you with that (for which I apologize) I will comment on something that you should follow up on -- "Cold current" -- but before I give some references I believe (as an ex  Physics professor) you will be able to well appreciate:

Considering that attempts to extract novel energy sources from ZPE are indeed novel then shouldn't we consider that the forms of energy extracted may also be novel? For example -- Blacklight power have led the world in publishing papers that support the concept that fractional hydrogen (f/H) that can be created on demand, releasing very considerable thermal energy in the process. Blacklight power calls this f/H a Hydrino (I wont use that term as it a registered trademark of Blacklight power and belittles the generality of f/H that was theorized long before Randal Mills and Blacklight power).
f/H is the result of dropping the electron in a Hydrogen atom below what was previously believed to be the ground level -- thus the atom has a fractional (of the classical zero energy state) energy level. The formation and existence of f/H is beyond reasonable contention and is something you should look into -- Dr Rossi has recently demonstrated a small reactor (at the university of Bolonga in Italy) that produced a continuous 12Kw for 15 hours from just a few grammes of Hydrogen -- exactly the amount of energy expected the be released from dropping the Hydrogen to the first fractional energy level. This is all very exciting, however consider this...

If you were able to get this new low energy form of the electron away from a f/H atom and into a conductor how would you expect it to behave? It carries essentially the same charge as an ordinary electron, but it can't directly exchange energy with ordinary electrons due to the forbidden energy jump between them. Lets call these low energy electrons "cold electrons" for now. In a circuit they will flow without appreciable interaction with ordinary electrons -- appearing to represent a superconducting behavior. A cold current of these cold electrons would behave essentially the same as an ordinary current in capacitive and inductive elements -- but would not see resistances. They will flow (just as a superconducting current does) almost entirely on the surface of conductors. So far this is interesting but mostly predictable -- but what behavior would these cold electrons have in semiconductor devices? in an oscilloscope? etc ...

I will stop there. I think you see the point. If efforts to extract energy from novel new sources leads to novel forms of energy, such as novel charge carriers, then the behavior of this novel energy will be new -- even if it co-exists and overlaps with the behavior of normal electrical circuits. In the case of the postulated cold current then many sophisticated test methods and equipment such as oscilloscopes will not work as expected, if at all.

You should read up on Ken Shoulders EVO (exotic vacuum object) work and patents. Ken is a good friend and perhaps the most rigorous scientist I have met. His experimental results are sound and have been replicated. This is distinct from his speculations on applications and theories - please don't confuse the two. This web page is a good reference into Ken's work -- there are links to his web archive at the bottom of the page http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/10/ken_shoulders_evos_exotic_vacu.html  As you will see, EVO's are an apparent single vacuum object that is the result of a vast number of electrons coalescing. I believe that Ken's EVO's are just one expression of a continuum of spin objects, which includes the single electron and low energy electrons in f/H at the bottom end of the scale. In recent unpublished work Ken has found indications that there may be no upper bound to the size of EVO's.

I have selected just two peoples work to make a point -- it's as difficult to think in a new way as it is to make truly new discoveries. The arguments I put forward for the essence and behaviors of cold current are just a speculation -- although a speculation that is testable and based on a plausible hypothesis.

ah -- enough for now.

cheers
Dr Mark Snoswell. CTO Chava Energy (and other non-executive, and not relevant, roles if you do a search.)

Good to hear from you, Mark -- thanks for the "tantalizing tidbits" and I look forward to your publications/posts of results.  More power to you!
 You will note that I provide EXPERIMENTAL results, not much theory at this stage (see, for example, my posts starting with #153 in this thread:  http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=717.150  )  


Important first to establish the effect using experimental data.  Data trumps theory every time (paraphrasing Einstein, and observing the history of science).

 Now I think the claims from Italy are interesting and I have looked at their published paper.  They are claiming a nuclear [proton, nickel-nucleus] reaction, producing copper including radioactive copper isotopes.  Whew! quite a claim... BUT, they have not shown - please correct me if I'm wrong -- ANY experimental data showing that they produced radioactive copper isotopes.  Which should not be at all difficult to do with readily available instruments, to detect decay products of the radioactive copper isotopes produced.    The next step would be to show QUANTITATIVE production of radioisotopes, commensurate with the "excess heat" they claim.

Where are the confirmatory experimental data?  That's what's needed.

I tried to emphasize that in my first post on this bench, but will go back and re-emphasize.

-- PS - I have added this point to my criteria in post #1


6.  If a theoretical model is claimed, the basis of that model needs to be empirically demonstrated.   For example, if a proton-nickel --> radioactive copper isotope production is claimed (as in a recent Bologna, Italy claim), then demonstration of copper isotope production is required.  This could be done by detecting the decay products of the produced radioisotopes, which should not be difficult to measure quantitatively.

[acmefixer]

The circuit is described as a self resonator in the text. This concerns me because it implies that the circuit is tuned to a single resonant frequency. But the circuit's pulses are made up of a series of sine waves, as are other complex waveforms such as square waves.  The circuit has a pulse repetition rate of so many pulses per second. But there is no capacitor to tune the inductance to a single resonant frequency, so I think using the term self resonant is missing the point.

[exnihiloest]

...
you don't need expensive parts to achieve these sorts of switching times and measurments - you just need to pay attention to every aspect of your circuit as a transmission line. Physical layout, decoupling, line impedances and terminations all become important -- this includes matching impedances into your oscilloscope for any chance of accurately reading fast signals.

I agree, this is a usual practice in electronics engineering from which we should not deviate regardless of the challenges. I'm afraid that it is a professional deformation in education to believe that circuits and measurement equipments work according to simplified and idealized schematics for students where essential parameters of "electronics real life" are missing.

[exnihiloest]

...
The circuit has a pulse repetition rate of so many pulses per second. But there is no capacitor to tune the inductance to a single resonant frequency, so I think using the term self resonant is missing the point.

For capacitances in circuits, capacitors are not needed, especially concerning HF signals.
Coils have their own capacitances on the order of pF to tens pF due to their conductor surface electrically coupled with the environment (other near components, or ground), or inter-turns capacitances.
As well, any length of conductor wire, not only coils, present a self-inductance, resulting in creating with the hidden capacitances, resonant effects at some frequencies sometimes very high and very far from what is expected.

[exnihiloest]

...
2.  More power out than in (that is, COP = Pout/Pin > 1), also known as "overunity" (OU).  This does not mean that principles of physics such as conservation of energy are (necessarily) violated.  It does imply a novel energy source.  Multiple methods of measurement are preferable, but the experimental method and the measurements must bear scrutiny (e.g., a peer-reviewed paper would be great!)  

3.  The observation of OU must be repeatable.  A device must work every time specified conditions are met.  Successful replication must be demonstrated also.
...

I welcome comments on the stated criteria, which I may amend as time goes on.
...

I don't agree your points 2-3. they are by far not enough. More power out than in can be proved only by a self-sustaining device. Extraordinary announcements need indubitable proofs. Measurements showing OU are not a proof, they can be only an incentive for the searcher to go further and to try to loop the device.

Point 2:
Overunity must not be claimed until the demonstration of a self-sustaining device and its duplication by several credible and independent third parties.

Point 3:
Premature or unfounded announcements (i.e. point 2 not respected) prove only a lack of ethics: fraudulent business schemes, empty self-satisfaction or egocentrism. They must be rejected for this mere fact without further formality.

[acmefixer]

For capacitances in circuits, capacitors are not needed, especially concerning HF signals.
Coils have their own capacitances on the order of pF to tens pF due to their conductor surface electrically coupled with the environment (other near components, or ground), or inter-turns capacitances.
As well, any length of conductor wire, not only coils, present a self-inductance, resulting in creating with the hidden capacitances, resonant effects at some frequencies sometimes very high and very far from what is expected.

The JT operates at a rate much, much lower than HF; 30 - 300kHz as opposed to 3 or more MHz.

The distributed or self inductances and capacitances of the circuit give it its characteristic impedance. The JT and any other circuit can't escape the effects of these. But the JT does not have a series or parallel resonant circuit and that is why its output consists of pulses, not the sine wave characteristic of a tuned circuit that is parallel or series resonant.

If the experimenter is going to be open and give an accurate description of the experiment, he/she must avoid using terminology that is not relevant and appropriate to the experiment, or possibly inaccurate, misleading.

[exnihiloest]

The JT operates at a rate much, much lower than HF; 30 - 300kHz as opposed to 3 or more MHz.
...
But the JT does not have a series or parallel resonant circuit and that is why its output consists of pulses, not the sine wave characteristic of a tuned circuit
...

I agree. This means that the signal has harmonics and that its spectrum is much wider than the main frequency. Even a 50 or 60hz square signal can have a spectrum spanning on several Mhz. The frequency of a signal should not be confused with the higher component of its spectrum, this point is often not viewed by unskilled experimenters.
It follows that a weak capacitance can induce a resonant circuits on harmonic frequencies, and harmonics at Mhz frequency can "pollute" measurements if proper equipments are not used.