Graham Gunderson Energy conference High COP demonstration

[Grumage]

It was on this forum, in post #57:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3319.msg56251#msg56251

At the time I was there he had his conversion transformer taken apart with only one set of PM's attached................................


Itsu

Thanks Itsu.

To my mind that meant Graham had only removed the BaFe magnets only. Let's hope that was the case?

Cheers Grum.

[Reiyuki]

Thanks Itsu.

To my mind that meant Graham had only removed the BaFe magnets only. Let's hope that was the case?

Cheers Grum.

I think he means that he removed the 'biasing magnets' that were sitting above the transformer

[Farmhand]

Well it seems like another claim that reinforces the reputations of those involved as the sellers of books and video's which they promise lead to OU when they really do not.
It is my contention that they know what is going on and have engineered the setup to show the same or similar type of OU that the Inductive resistor showed. Sneaking power through the switches/ic's maybe and big claims made with mediocre measurement.

Hows this for a novel approach ? Measure the input power as all the power consumed by the entire setup, in other words measure all the input power. duh all the power consumed needs to be considered.

This seems like a common and well worn trick. Any serious experimenter should be aware of this issue.

Is the input AC ? if so why ?

Just use a DC power supply and measure the input at the output of that.

I honestly am a bit confused as to why a setup promoted by those people is being discussed as legit by anyone.

Has the Ainsley affair been forgotten by some people. Gee wizz.

..

[TinselKoala]

Also, Gram said that by adding a 100 pf Silver-Mica capacitor between the Source and Drain of one of the Back End FETS would completely destroy the OU effect.

By "Back End FETS" are you referring to the H-bridge FETs or the ones in the "Synchronous Diode" ?

Friends, there is a major clue contained here in this statement of "Gram's".

[TinselKoala]

Well it seems like another claim that reinforces the reputations of those involved as the sellers of books and video's which they promise lead to OU when they really do not.
It is my contention that they know what is going on and have engineered the setup to show the same or similar type of OU that the Inductive resistor showed. Sneaking power through the switches/ic's maybe and big claims made with mediocre measurement.

Hows this for a novel approach ? Measure the input power as all the power consumed by the entire setup, in other words measure all the input power. duh all the power consumed needs to be considered.

This seems like a common and well worn trick. Any serious experimenter should be aware of this issue.

Is the input AC ? if so why ?

Just use a DC power supply and measure the input at the output of that.

I honestly am a bit confused as to why a setup promoted by those people is being discussed as legit by anyone.

Has the Ainsley affair been forgotten by some people. Gee wizz.

..

Mainly, I agree with you, especially about measuring all the input power to whatever parts are necessary for the device to function.  But we might as well give the claimants the "benefit of the doubt" at the moment. I think there are enough inconsistencies in the information we have to cause us seriously to question the validity of the claims, and it is here we should focus, not on the past reputations or behaviours of the "principals" involved. Yet.

But we also have the information that Gunderson will not be cooperating with us in delving into the matter. No more demonstrations, no "advanced" information, nothing. I think someone who was really doing "open source" research would be more than happy to address issues such as providing a full working schematic, doing proper placement of Hall probe so as not to be influenced by external magnetic fields, proper probe timing deskewing, proper measurement of all input power, addressing questions like "0.000 Watts input" but can't be disconnected from the _real_ input power source, etc. etc.

I'd like to know a lot more "advanced" technical details, but we have been told that we aren't going to get them. For example, how does a mosfet H-bridge manage to put out such a nice sinusoidal voltage waveshape when it is being driven by a rectangular pulse train? Of course all I have to go on is Spokane1's block diagram, Reiuki's photo of the "pwm pulses" sketch and one very poorly presented scopeshot from Gunderson's demonstration. (One great thing about DSOs is that they have the ability to produce really nice screenshots that have almost all information of interest displayed on them in very clear graphics. So why do we need to have an oblique, poorly focussed, color-shifted photograph of the scope, instead of a proper screenshot, to work with? Why, it is almost as though the presenter doesn't really want us to see things clearly....)

[muDped]

Interesting comments all.

So the show goes on.

The financial rewards are sufficient to keep some of the
purveyors in business while living a good life.

The personnel who make up the Deep Space Program
(U.S. Navy) and numerous other Black Projects know
well the true source of Over-unity or Free Energy.
They also are prepared to "pay the price" and meet other
imposed conditions in order to access the energy for their
less than noble (i.e. making war) purposes.  They have
discovered that the Other Worldly energy they so crave to
implement their Star Wars plans does not come free at all
but with burdensome "strings attached."

As with all things in today's World;  nothing is as it seems.
We are being played.

The Players will make their appearance upon Planet Earth in
the not too distant future.

Daniel Pomerleau is one who has been given limited access
to this kind of energy for purposes of demonstration.  It is
real.

[TinselKoala]

@Smudge:

In your pdf analysis of the waveforms in that scopeshot, you do a rough estimation of the input power by eyeballing and multiplying the input Voltage and input Current. Then you state,

It is seen by the symmetry of the power waveform that the average input power is near zero, which is what was demonstrated.

What does this tell us about the nature of the power measured at this point? Is this consistent with the output of an H-bridge?

[muDped]

The "H Bridge" is quite a switching circuit which, when properly driven
with appropriate pulse frequency and width, can produce an output either
as a Modified Sine Wave or a Pure Sine Wave.

Is Graham driving his special H Bridge in such a manner to achieve the
latter output; the Pure Sine Wave?

[TinselKoala]

.99 says that it is legitimate to measure the "input power" at the input to the transformer. As Smudge has shown, the _ average power_ at this point is indeed very close to zero. This is because the voltage and current waveforms are 90 degrees out of phase! We have a name for this kind of power.

So, if I apply this same reasoning to several of my own devices, such as the Micro QEG or my wireless power transmission systems, and count as "input power" only the voltage and current waveforms measured at the input to the _coil_ which forms the primary of an air-core transformer, I will also get an "average power" of quite near zero at that point. And it is clear that I can extract useful real power from the secondary of that transformer, to light up a light bulb, charge capacitors to high voltage, or even power a motor. Hence, by the same reasoning that Gunderson apparently is using, I am also producing an overunity COP, and a large, consistent one at that. And from a much simpler, cheaper circuit that anyone can build, that doesn't use any unobtanium parts and for which I have published complete details.


I can haz 2 million cheezburgers now?

[TinselKoala]

The "H Bridge" is quite a switching circuit which, when properly driven
with appropriate pulse frequency and width, can produce an output either
as a Modified Sine Wave or a Pure Sine Wave.

Is Graham driving his special H Bridge in such a manner to achieve the
latter output; the Pure Sine Wave?

The key being "appropriately driven". Radically different PWM signals must be applied to each side of the H-bridge. This is quite a complicated means of producing a sine wave output. And in Gunderson's implementation yet another PWM signal must be applied to get the 33 percent dead time between each full cycle of the sine wave output.  The H-bridge's output is a critical part of the functioning of the device and its input power should be counted as part of the input for the overall device. But if not... then I can claim "OU" too for my devices, since as I have explained, the input to the primary of the air-core transformer in my devices also can be measured as "zero average power".

My devices use a much simpler Royer oscillator feeding a tuned tank circuit to achieve the pure sine wave output at a given frequency. Producing the gated output would involve a slight amount of further complexity, easily enough accomplished with a 555 circuit and an additional mosfet.  However this is not necessary for my devices, because the pure, continuous sine wave is very effective in producing the "zero input power" measurement at the primary coil input, which can be effectively transformed into real power at the secondary's output.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyVZWkYAvkk

When I was making these videos I had no idea that I only needed to count the average input power to the primary coil as "input", so I showed the actual DC power input to the oscillator as my input!

[forest]

I'm in the exact same requirement for other device : a pure sine wave output with quite high voltage and a variable frequency.
Can it be made with a op-amp based sinewave generator and a power amplifier on transistors ? An inverter charging HV capacitor and a transistor amplifier driven by sinewave signal connected to that capacitor generating power sine output ?
Is that possible ?

[poynt99]

Given this scenario, can we get real power at the load?

[partzman]

.99 says that it is legitimate to measure the "input power" at the input to the transformer. As Smudge has shown, the _ average power_ at this point is indeed very close to zero. This is because the voltage and current waveforms are 90 degrees out of phase! We have a name for this kind of power.

So, if I apply this same reasoning to several of my own devices, such as the Micro QEG or my wireless power transmission systems, and count as "input power" only the voltage and current waveforms measured at the input to the _coil_ which forms the primary of an air-core transformer, I will also get an "average power" of quite near zero at that point. And it is clear that I can extract useful real power from the secondary of that transformer, to light up a light bulb, charge capacitors to high voltage, or even power a motor. Hence, by the same reasoning that Gunderson apparently is using, I am also producing an overunity COP, and a large, consistent one at that. And from a much simpler, cheaper circuit that anyone can build, that doesn't use any unobtanium parts and for which I have published complete details.


I can haz 2 million cheezburgers now?

Yes you may, but first let's reason thru this together for a moment.  As I posted earlier, Graham's device is exactly as you say and that is, it utilizes a reactive input that produces a real resistive power output thru a circuit that we will assume is unique in function with our limited information. Forget for a moment how or what develops the sine wave input (see below) and focus on the fact that the input power averages near zero or below in reference to the sine wave and not in reference to any sine generating means. This is the same as your Micro QEG. So my point is, in this context using these "references", Graham's device as well as your own Micro QEG produce OU as indicated by the measurements taken.

Maybe at this point we should examine what possibly could be done to utilize this situation! What type of circuit design would allow us to generate a sine wave from a DC source and take advantage of the reactive input power? Impossible one might say, but actually it is done at 50/60Hz in high quality DC to pure sine wave AC inverters that handle both inductive and capacitive loads. If one investigates these inverter types, the efficiency of returning the negative energy to the DC supply (this is actually what they do) is around 50% or so. The typical reactive to resistive power devices I've designed exhibit a high reactive power (VARs) to resistive power ratio in the order of 5-15:1 which would be problematic with such a low efficiency return to the DC supply even at low frequencies.

So we have defined the problem. Is it solvable?

BTW, the switching H bridge produces the sine wave with the parallel resonant network by virtue of the "swinging choke" connected to the DC supply that provides a near constant current to the zero voltage controlled switches. This is basically a variation of the common current fed parallel resonant inverter design that was used for years in the early solid state ballasts for fluorescent lighting using two switching devices and was extremely efficient and simple. 

IMO because of the input choke, Graham's device as demonstrated would not produce OU when measuring even just the H bridge inputs at the DC source and would not self-power with the output connected to the input. I would love to be proved wrong!

pm   

[ion]

Given this scenario, can we get real power at the load?

Theory and practice tells us that we cannot get real power at the load if the voltage and current are exactly 90 degrees out at the input.

If the input power factor is "near zero", then the difference will be sufficient to produce some real power at the load, and this small difference fools many into believing they have achieved OU, however it all comes out in the wash when a careful tally is made using very careful measurement.

There is, however,  the possibility (in e.g. an OU device) that the zero power factor in a pure (ideal) reactive circuit can act as a stimulus to some other heretofore unknown process that releases real power to a load.

High circulating amps and high voltage of e.g. a very high Q tank circuit may act as such a stimulus to the right materials under the right conditions to release real power to the load. The important thing is not to kill the Q by trying to extract power directly.

So, to me the answer is no and then yes.


edit: sorry partzman, I was typing this while you had posted and did not see your post.

[poynt99]

Theory and practice tells us that we cannot get real power at the load if the voltage and current are exactly 90 degrees out at the input.

Agreed.

And as TK's devices are not OU, there are two possible reasons why real power is delivered to his loads;

1) The phase relationship isn't exactly 90º.
2) The measurement isn't correct (i.e. there is phase skew).

I suspect it is a combination of the two, and I also suspect this is what Gunderson will find if he digs deep enough.

[ion]

Agreed.

And as TK's devices are not OU, there are two possible reasons why real power is delivered to his loads;

1) The phase relationship isn't exactly 90º.
2) The measurement isn't correct (i.e. there is phase skew).

I suspect it is a combination of the two, and I also suspect this is what Gunderson will find if he digs deep enough.

Also agreed, and more times than we can count it is 1) or 2), however we must be willing to also consider the third possibility i.e  in an supposed OU device that the zero power factor in a pure (ideal) or near pure reactive circuit can act as a stimulus to some other heretofore unknown process that releases real power to a load.

In the Sweet VTA, the SM devices and others, we often see input and output coils at right angles to each other, such that an output power cannot be directly related to the input by normal Faraday induction.

Smudge has a few papers that offer some promise of possible explanations for OU effects based on stimulating the right materials in the correct way. These papers also show coils, magnets and ferrite materials or a liquid being stimulated at right angles. Now whether the stimulation can act as a release agent is TBD. NMR and NAR seem to be viable areas to explore.

It might be noted that in a very high Q tank circuit power will be lost either through imperfect materials (dielecric or resistive) or radiation loss. The imperfect materials we will have to live with, however there are non-radiative structures that might be interesting to look at. Due to their low radiative loss, they my require very little real power input, yet produce many thousands of amperes of circulating currents at near zero power factor. Such fields would almost have to be noticed by e.g. nearby protons or magnetic dipoles.

[Smudge]

@Smudge:

In your pdf analysis of the waveforms in that scopeshot, you do a rough estimation of the input power by eyeballing and multiplying the input Voltage and input Current. Then you state,

What does this tell us about the nature of the power measured at this point? Is this consistent with the output of an H-bridge?

Don't know enough about the inner workings of the H bridge to answer that.  I was just trying to make sense of what little information we had been given so that I could take things further in my mind.  Posted it to help others understand things better.  It could all be wrong because I didn't know where the zero current line was on the scope shot, I assumed it was in the center of the screen.

Can I say that I have known Graham for many years, although we have never met in person.  First came across him on Dave Squire's OU Builders forum, then we both worked for MPI, followed by Chava Energy.  Have been involved with conference calls with him.  I have great respect for his abilities and know he fully understands the limitations of the measurements he takes.  I think he truly believes he has hit on something good, after many years of achieving only marginal overunity COP's.  Perhaps it was a bit naive for him to go public, since it was bound to create the enormous amount of interest, criticism, demand for information and general harassment that it clearly has.  I think I would be overwhelmed and want to disappear into the woodwork.

As regards TK's observations on measurements, if you use a scope to take measurements do you include the AC input power to the scope on the basis that some of that power might inadvertently get directed into your power measurement?  I think not.  Clearly the whole thing on display by Graham is not OU, but I think it quite legitimate to attempt to measure power flows somewhere inside the device then draw conclusions.  And knowing Graham I think he will have taken into account things like measurement accuracy, phase or time delays in the probes, yes even the effect of external magnetic fields on the hall probes etc.. 

As regards his $2M offer he knows no one will take him up.  Muammer Yildiz demonstrated his magnetic motor numerous times, and made the same offer (I witnessed it at Delft University).  Without some credible route to get from a demonstration of a device that no-one know how it works, that has been got to work by a lot of tinkering with components, to something that will produce a profit for the investor, then just forget it.

For my part I am prepared to believe that his device could be doing something remarkable, and I would like to know why that could be.  So I will continue my deliberations and post my thoughts here.  If Graham ultimately finds he has been misled then I am sure we will know soon enough.

Smudge     

[giantkiller]

High circulating amps and high voltage of e.g. a very high Q tank circuit may act as such a stimulus to the right materials under the right conditions to release real power to the load. The important thing is not to kill the Q by trying to extract power directly.

There has to be a reception device of equal q before the load. Tesla showed this in his coupling patents.

[TinselKoala]

Don't know enough about the inner workings of the H bridge to answer that.  I was just trying to make sense of what little information we had been given so that I could take things further in my mind.  Posted it to help others understand things better.  It could all be wrong because I didn't know where the zero current line was on the scope shot, I assumed it was in the center of the screen.

That's not the only or even the primary reason it could be all wrong. But on the photo of the scopeshot you can see (barely) the positions of the baseline indicators on the left side of the trace display area.

Can I say that I have known Graham for many years, although we have never met in person.  First came across him on Dave Squire's OU Builders forum, then we both worked for MPI, followed by Chava Energy. 

I am truly sorry and even shocked to read that. I'm sure our old friend MarkE would be rolling (or perhaps even LOLing) in his grave over that disclosure.  I've read much of what you have written on this forum and I'm impressed by your level of knowledge and your willingness to engage, but I have to admit that knowing you worked for MPI and Chava has resulted in a certain hike in my level of skepticism.

Have been involved with conference calls with him.  I have great respect for his abilities and know he fully understands the limitations of the measurements he takes.  I think he truly believes he has hit on something good, after many years of achieving only marginal overunity COP's.  Perhaps it was a bit naive for him to go public, since it was bound to create the enormous amount of interest, criticism, demand for information and general harassment that it clearly has.  I think I would be overwhelmed and want to disappear into the woodwork.

Yes, perhaps that is the wisest choice for him at this point. Achieving "only marginal overunity COPs"? It never happened, not even marginally. And it certainly isn't happening with this apparatus.

As regards TK's observations on measurements, if you use a scope to take measurements do you include the AC input power to the scope on the basis that some of that power might inadvertently get directed into your power measurement?  I think not. 

Well, you certainly must take into account the effect of the scope and other instruments on the claims of OU, although not in the silly way you suggest. After all, the _only_ place that "Overunity" or excess COP shows up in any of these devices (here I include Gunderson's other work, the patents assigned to MPI and later Chava, etc.) is in the instrumental measurements. But you cannot run any useful loads using the pretty squiggly lines on an oscilloscope or the numbers spit out by a mis-used power analyzer. Too bad.

Clearly the whole thing on display by Graham is not OU, but I think it quite legitimate to attempt to measure power flows somewhere inside the device then draw conclusions. 

Then it appears to me that you are forced to conclude that my devices are also OU. Are you ready for that? Somehow I don't think so.

And knowing Graham I think he will have taken into account things like measurement accuracy, phase or time delays in the probes, yes even the effect of external magnetic fields on the hall probes etc.. 

I am prepared to believe that Graham knows something about what he is doing, and this means to me that he is perilously close to running a deliberate deception in order to stir up interest and obtain funding. The more charitable interpretation is that he is indeed fooling himself. Experimenter bias can be very difficult to overcome, especially when there is money and fame involved. The association with Mark Goldes, MPI, Chava, etc. runs more than one big red flag up the pole. However, until we hear credible information about, for example, the probe skew correction, the probe position wrt both stray inductances and external magnetic fields, we are just guessing. Tell me, did _you_ know about or consider the effect of probe skew, and the ability of the scope to correct for it, before I mentioned it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgvFHejoQEk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWDfrzBIxoQ

As regards his $2M offer he knows no one will take him up.  Muammer Yildiz demonstrated his magnetic motor numerous times, and made the same offer (I witnessed it at Delft University).  Without some credible route to get from a demonstration of a device that no-one know how it works, that has been got to work by a lot of tinkering with components, to something that will produce a profit for the investor, then just forget it.

Through my own network of associations I could provide just such a credible route -- if only the major issues could be overcome first. Demonstrate true, reproducible OU to me, so that I can demonstrate it to my contacts, and the veritable Gates of Heaven would open unto the inventor, and maybe even a tiny bit of that largesse would wind up falling on me.  But this present claim, coming from associates of MPI and Chava ... well, let's just say there are some high hurdles to overcome before credibility can be attained. The first one would be to account properly for all the power input to all parts of the system that are necessary for it to light up that little bulb.

Demonstrate true OU from a device with electrical inputs and outputs, with COP greater than 1.3 to ME and I will show you how to self-loop the system so as not to need any external power supply for continued operation once it is started. That's my big claim, which nobody has challenged yet-- because nobody actually has such a device.

And please don't tell me that you actually believe Yildiz's claims are true. A great deal of analysis occurred after SA's visit to one of Yildiz's demonstrations that absolutely demolished any hint of credibility there.

For my part I am prepared to believe that his device could be doing something remarkable, and I would like to know why that could be.  So I will continue my deliberations and post my thoughts here.  If Graham ultimately finds he has been misled then I am sure we will know soon enough.

Smudge     

The "remarkable" thing that this device is doing is that it is producing measurements that are fooling instrumentation which is not being used or interpreted properly. Clean up the act, measure properly, perform true experiments with correct controls, invite independent and competent outside investigators to work with the actual apparatus that produces the "OU" measurements in Gunderson's hands... then you might have something to write home about. "IF" Gunderson is being misled, it is he himself doing the misleading, with great help from a few other people. He is doing nothing to clear up the issues and has even stated outright, apparently, that he will not be doing so in the future.


All of that being said... sure, go ahead, all you experimenters, try to replicate Gunderson's device. It will at least keep you busy and off the streets! Maybe we will all learn something about metrology from your efforts.

[TinselKoala]

Agreed.

And as TK's devices are not OU, there are two possible reasons why real power is delivered to his loads;

1) The phase relationship isn't exactly 90º.
2) The measurement isn't correct (i.e. there is phase skew).

I suspect it is a combination of the two, and I also suspect this is what Gunderson will find if he digs deep enough.

Bingo.

Here's an example scopeshot of the "input power" to the primary coil of my microQEG. Is the instrument reliable and accurate enough? (There is a slight, non-adjustable DC offset on the scope's CH1 which affects both phase and amplitude measurements of that signal). Is my measurement technique good enough? (I have passive scope probes attached quite near the oscillator "coil power supply" output, I'm using a noninductive current sense resistor, etc.etc.) Are the probes properly compensated? Is it legit to think that equal length ground connections will equate to equal phase delays for both probes? Is the scope's "average power" computation accurate? Have I programmed the scope correctly? The output of the air-core loose-coupled secondary is driving a small light bulb (and keeping two capacitors charged) at around 800 mW (7.2 VDC @ 110 mA). Have I measured this output power properly? Does my measurement concur with other techniques of measurement of the output power, like bulb illumination? Am I simply lying about the whole thing?  If I were to present this device at an "Overunity Conference" I'm quite sure I could stir people up and get them to believe it was indeed exhibiting OU performance. And who would speak out to challenge that claim? Why, I'd have to set up a new alias and debunk my own device!   

[partzman]

Given this scenario, can we get real power at the load?

A little late in responding but YES!

pm

[partzman]

After taking a close look at G's scope shot, it appears that the input power approaches ~500W reactive. This is a really high reactive to resistive power ratio which would make any looping attempts next to impossible IMO.

pm

[poynt99]

A little late in responding but YES!

pm

Really?

How is that possible if the source is supplying an average power (real) of 0W?

[ion]

Really?

How is that possible if the source is supplying an average power (real) of 0W?

I would also like to know how it is possible or where does the real power come from?

If there are 500 VA at near zero power factor, you don't have to be off by much to get 5 to 10 Watts of real power hidden by some small non-zero portion of the power factor, enough to light a small lamp.

BTW, does anyone know the type of lamp and how bright or dimly it was lit? This would allow an approximate back calculation of the actual power factor.

[TinMan]

Agreed.

And as TK's devices are not OU, there are two possible reasons why real power is delivered to his loads;

1) The phase relationship isn't exactly 90º.
2) The measurement isn't correct (i.e. there is phase skew).

I suspect it is a combination of the two, and I also suspect this is what Gunderson will find if he digs deep enough.

OK,i must have missed something some where here,as i see nothing special about being able to produce usable power on the output,when the input phases are 90* out.
Using my hybrid toroid transformer,i can sweep from 85* through to 95* with regard to the voltage/current phase relationship,and can produce usable power on the secondary side of the transformer.

In the scope shot below,i have an AC 24 volt LED (LED with built in rectifier)on the output of the transformer,and it will remain brightly lit throughout the 85 to 95* phase swing. The scope shot below is very close to(if not ,exact) showing a 90* phase shift between voltage and current,and the LED is lit brightly--so what am i missing here?


Brad