Web000x's over 1000% efficient Mag Amp ?

[Farmhand]

Hi all, A claim of a high C.O.P. has been made, any thoughts on this one ?
I think he is not measuring the energy transferred, only the losses.

http://www.energeticforum.com/209103-post152.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/209178-post158.html

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11855-eric-dollard-6.html

Another claim and no measurements. Brave claim, if he is wrong it reflects on Eric Dollard in my opinion.
Same thing if he is correct, it will reflect on Eric Dollard, so fair is fair, it is either a fair claim or it is bogus.

Cheers

P.S. I dare not to question the claim there in case I get abused by deviants, I'm tired of that. 

[Farmhand]

From what I can gather, he claims the extra energy is "synthesized", but synthesized from what ?
I don't see how a setup can be observed to be synthesizing energy without the observer knowing
what the energy is being synthesized from. Synthesizing the way I understand it is simply making something
artificially by creating one thing/s from other things.

Just a transformation by combining of things to get energy ? I'm confused as to what exactly is claimed.

It's a vague claim to say the least, I just wish people would be more specific, and attempt to explain things in layman's terms,
rather than be vague and not "really" make any specific claim at all.

I'm unimpressed by the substance of the claim more than anything. As are others going by the lack of responses.

Cheers  

P.S. I think with any claim of extra energy where losses are calculated there should be included an evaluation of
the percentage of input energy to the input energy which become "losses". The losses are already calculated all
that is needed is the figure for input energy. Then any discrepancies can be seen as output gains or not.

If the losses can be calculated then surely he can calculate if there is energy taken from the supply or returned/added energy to the supply,
the output, as well as the losses. All information is then given.

1. Energy taken from the supply and not returned.
2. Losses
3. Output energy.

If 1 and 2 equal 3 then no extra energy is seen, if 3 exceeds 1 and 2  then there is another source of input energy or
part of the device is transformed into energy as fuel, if 1 and 2 exceed 3 then there are losses not accounted for.


..

[ion]

From what I have read, he seems to be very confused as to what constitutes a "current source".

A charged capacitor is not a "current source", although it may be a source of instantaneous current, it is load sensitive.

A true "current source" will "source" the same set current whether the load be one ohm or one megohm.

I suspect his "wall plug derived current source"  is the source of his extra energy.

I would need much more info to be impressed.

[Farmhand]

I don't see why the losses need be considered for an over 100% claim, unless it is necessary because it's too close to call.
All that is needed for those big figures is the input energy figure and the output energy figure.

..

[exnihiloest]

Very suspicious claim. Someone who claims overunity before providing the measurement protocol and the numerical results is not credible. Moreover he says "my constant current consists of 120V 60 Hz", so we deduce that he is unskilled in electronics, and consequently that he can easily make measurement mistakes (forgetting the cos(φ), ignoring that a higher frequency signal injected back to the mains disturbs a powermeter, multiplying Urms by Irms while expecting to get the power, and so on...).

[Farmhand]

And so the claim is withdrawn. Who would have thunk it.

http://www.energeticforum.com/209417-post181.html

Going by the test results it kinda looks like he was determining the power factor in reverse,
as the power increased the losses he was measuring as "gains" was declining. He was actually
determining the losses he didn't account for. It was unnecessary all he needed to do was measure the input
which is not returned to the supply and the energy dissipated at the output, all the fancy measurements and
calculations are totally unnecessary. I actually thought he was taking about higher power levels, those low levels of power
don't really indicate much at all. Truth is we ought to be trying to use reasonable power levels, not LED power.

Anything less than 5 watts output is within the idle power of an efficient transformer.   

Cheers

[PhysicsProf]

Thanks for the update, Farmhand.
Here's what Dave said at EF:

Web000x
Senior Member
        
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 404
Hey All,

I hate to be to be the boy who cried wolf AGAIN , but I think that I made a flaw in my measurements. For what I thought at the time was a good idea for the sake of simplicity was to measure the modulation winding losses by using i^2*R. i^2*R is for heat losses in the wire and does not reflect hysteresis losses. More investigation shows that there is a proportional energy loss in the hysteresis of the magamp material as there is a 'power gain' in the constant current circuit. I hadn't really taken this into account because the power windings are magnetically opposing the control winding which would cancel out any conventional energy transfer from the modulation winding to the control winding. I normally would have really investigated the circuit before I said anything, especially since the last incident, but this was the circuit that Eric told me to try so I had a bit more confidence in believing what I thought I was seeing. I just wanted to see others try to replicate it to see if the same results would be attained.

My apologies to all.

I'll keep trying.

Dave
__________________
Please donate to Eric Dollard via PayPal at Dollard Donations

I appreciate his honesty.

[exnihiloest]

Web000x
Senior Member
       
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 404
Hey All,

I hate to be to be the boy who cried wolf AGAIN , but I think that I made a flaw in my measurements. For what I thought at the time was a good idea for the sake of simplicity was to measure the modulation winding losses by using i^2*R. i^2*R is for heat losses in the wire and does not reflect hysteresis losses. More investigation shows that there is a proportional energy loss in the hysteresis of the magamp material as there is a 'power gain' in the constant current circuit. I hadn't really taken this into account because the power windings are magnetically opposing the control winding which would cancel out any conventional energy transfer from the modulation winding to the control winding. I normally would have really investigated the circuit before I said anything, especially since the last incident, but this was the circuit that Eric told me to try so I had a bit more confidence in believing what I thought I was seeing. I just wanted to see others try to replicate it to see if the same results would be attained.

My apologies to all.

I'll keep trying.

Dave

Thanks for the update, Farmhand.
Here's what Dave said at EF:

I appreciate his honesty.

In addition to being honest, we see that Web000x is smart. His analysis of the situation is lucid and complete. Not only he perfectly understood the flaw (which is similar to this in Orbo from Steorn) but also the reason of his own error: the bias of his mind, conditioned by his confidence in the guy who told him to try the setup. His case is examplary of the danger of the preconceived ideas and of the beliefs in advance.
I concede that this honesty that I also appreciate and that is unusual for overunity claimants, is much better than nothing. Nevertheless once again, we see the faulty method consisting in affirming anything before carefully measuring and verifying. It is rather excusable for inexperienced and young people, less for seniors.

[Farmhand]

Yes I also appreciate his honesty, that is all we can ask for. He has shown he has high morals.
Very commendable.

Cheers