Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments?

the_big_m_in_ok · 2011.01.06, 22:45:42

Professor,
With respect to your Reply #73: Very good, thank you.

I looked at the diagram you cited, and it looks like a straightforward Joule Thief to me. Adding another coil as a power-drawing take off point would seem to me to be just as straightforward.
Was the Joule Thief ever proven to exhibit OU in verifiable tests at all? If not, there may be contention as to precise test results. If not, I see no need for contention?

I may move from this address, so my electronics parts/supplies/wire/components/etc. are in storage until I have more time to unpack them and reorganize their contents. I'll have to revisit this thread later.

Thanks again for the info.

--Lee

muDped · 2011.01.06, 23:08:17

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.06, 22:17:37
PS -- my colleague and I have built a complete replication from scratch, using all of our own components and instructions above, and found that the FINALLY-achieved parameters are much like Lawrence has advertised at OU for prototype A... That does not mean that I'm claiming overunity yet -- that will require many more tests as discussed above. But given some trial and error on the winding of the toroid (which Lawrence admits is more of an art at present than a science) -- given that, his design is first-order reproducible (based on RMS values). And not too difficult to build. Much easier than a Bedini motor, for example.

Thanks Prof for providing the LINK to the article and
the circuit diagram.

By the way, the efficiency of the circuit can be
improved by placing a small capacitor across
the 1,000 Ohm (1.0 K) base resistor. I've used
various sizes from 0.001 uF to 0.1 uF. Experimenting
with various sizes will reveal which is best for
optimum performance. It doesn't seem to be hyper
critical.

It is also possible to "tune" the circuit by varying
the resistance in the base circuit for enhanced
efficiency. Each transistor used in the circuit will
have a different "sweet spot" in accordance with
its Beta (current gain.) Using a 10 Kohm (10,000
Ohm) variable resistance to be adjusted for maximum
performance will enable this "tuning." Once found,
the value can then be installed as a fixed resistance.

PhysicsProf · 2011.01.09, 18:20:48

Quote from: Dumped on 2011.01.06, 23:08:17
Thanks Prof for providing the LINK to the article and
the circuit diagram.

By the way, the efficiency of the circuit can be
improved by placing a small capacitor across
the 1,000 Ohm (1.0 K) base resistor. I've used
various sizes from 0.001 uF to 0.1 uF. Experimenting
with various sizes will reveal which is best for
optimum performance. It doesn't seem to be hyper
critical.

It is also possible to "tune" the circuit by varying
the resistance in the base circuit for enhanced
efficiency. Each transistor used in the circuit will
have a different "sweet spot" in accordance with
its Beta (current gain.) Using a 10 Kohm (10,000
Ohm) variable resistance to be adjusted for maximum
performance will enable this "tuning." Once found,
the value can then be installed as a fixed resistance.

Dumped -- thank you for your insights.
Evidently you understand this Joule Thief circuit better than I do. Can you explain how you determine when the circuit has the optimum (or at least better) efficiency? what measurement do you use?

Also I would like to know whether this circuit has a "natural" frequency (some sort of resonance)?

Anyone?

gyula · 2011.01.09, 23:32:30

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.01.09, 18:20:48

Also I would like to know whether this circuit has a "natural" frequency (some sort of resonance)?

Anyone?

Hi PhysicsProf,

Years ago I also "played" with Joulethief circuits to drive white LEDs. I found the most sensitive part for detuning the frequency was the base electrode of the transistor, even a finger approach or light touching to it changed frequencyso I believe the base-emitter transistor capacitance influences frequency maybe the most. This circuit seems to be an RLC oscillator, R is mainly the 1kOhm plus the dynamic base resistance, L is the feedback coil in series with the 1kOhm, I mentioned C already. If you place say a 10pF ceramic capacitor in parallel with base-emitter you can change (lower in this case) the frequency.

To increase efficiency, I agree with Dumped and other possibility is using very low saturation switching transistor like the ones used in photo flash circuits. These have well under 0.1V collector-emitter saturation voltage when conduct so that dissipation in the transistor is at a minimum possible. These transistors have also have high current gain (over several hundred) so that the base drive current can be low. These are my two cents...

Gyula

PhysicsProf · 2011.01.10, 00:30:51

Thank you, Gyula. Your comments are very helpful.
I will try some of these ideas out this week... hopefully tomorrow.

ltseung888 · 2011.01.10, 18:40:35

PhysicsProf · 2011.01.10, 18:59:55

Lawrence,
I guess I'm the first to welcome you to posting here. Welcome.

Thank you for providing details of your experimental device here, in your first post -- a very useful summary with photographs to help the willing.

I have built, based on your instructions, two of the toroidal devices and testing is proceeding. I find them very interesting, as posted previously, with more results to follow.

poynt99 · 2011.01.11, 00:28:12

Quote from: ltseung888 on 2011.01.10, 18:40:35
I am reproducing the Workshop information on how to produce a high COP FLEET prototype from overunity.com here:

Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited (Hong Kong)

Hi Lawrence.

Are you aware of the OUR posting guidelines regarding claims of OU and COP>1 ?

Please see this:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=11.msg32#msg32

If you are not able to provide credible proof as per the guidelines at the link provided, I will ask you to please edit your post regarding the "high COP" statement. Such statements should not be taken nor posted without due diligence. Thus far I have not seen credible proof from you or the Professor to support any claim of OU or COP>1 with your circuit.

.99

ltseung888 · 2011.01.11, 01:40:30

Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.11, 00:28:12
Hi Lawrence.

Are you aware of the OUR posting guidelines regarding claims of OU and COP>1 ?

Please see this:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=11.msg32#msg32

If you are not able to provide credible proof as per the guidelines at the link provided, I will ask you to posted without due diligence. Thus far I have not seen credible proof from you or the Professor to support any claim of OU or COP>1 with your circuit.

.99

Dear poynt99,

Thank you for your information. The PhysicsProfessor will have some of the best oscilloscopes in USA to do the full verification now. It may take him sometime to properly master the various features.

I am claiming now and you can all wait for the authoritative reports later:
1. The PhysicsProfessor has received Prototype A.

I understand that the peak-to-peak measurements do not represent the correct COP value. The correct COP value can be obtained by the integration of the Instantaneous Power waveform over a given time. The Output Energy can then be accurately compared with the Input Energy over the same interval.

The good oscilloscopes to be used for the verification will have such functionality. That is why the PhysicsProfessor is involved in the verification. He is also looking at other ways of confirming the COP > 1 claim.

My understanding is that he and his colleagues have already produced a FLEET prototype with COP peak-to-peak much higher than Prototype A. They also did not have the good oscilloscopes in their preliminary tests.

Please give him and his colleague time to do the proper experiments.

Lawrence

poynt99 · 2011.01.11, 01:54:28

Lawrence,

Do you understand what I am asking, and what is allowed in terms of making claims here?

I have edited both your posts above to be in accordance with the OUR posting guidelines.

Peak to peak measurements of COP, however you are acquiring them, are not meaningful, and therefore are pointless to mention. I have deleted your references to them.

Please refrain from posting here any further claims of OU or COP>1 with reference to peak to peak or any other form, unless you can clearly demonstrate credible proof supporting that claim.

If I must edit another post to make it compliant with the guidelines I have directed you to read, I may be forced to place you on "read-only" status.

.99

wattsup · 2011.01.11, 02:11:14

Or add the word "potential" before the "COP".

muDped · 2011.01.11, 02:17:48

Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.11, 01:54:28
Lawrence,

Do you understand what I am asking, and what is allowed in terms of making claims here?

I have edited both your posts above to be in accordance with the OUR posting guidelines.

Peak to peak measurements of COP, however you are acquiring them, are not meaningful, and therefore are pointless to mention. I have deleted your references to them.

Please refrain from posting here any further claims of OU or COP>1 with reference to peak to peak or any other form, unless you can clearly demonstrate credible proof supporting that claim.

If I must edit another post to make it compliant with the guidelines I have directed you to read, I may be forced to place you on "read-only" status.

.99

In the interests of "instructive" guidance and to provide
a good example of proper presentation by the experimenter,
would it not be better to AMEND the "offensive" postings
rather than DELETING those portions?

It may be possible that numerous members are wondering
what would be the preferred and acceptable terminology
to get past any possible censorship.

I for one would be very pleased to see an example of how
you would prefer to see the "offenses" corrected.

If you please...

Strong Arm Tactics seem a bit out of place.

aetherevarising · 2011.01.11, 02:27:13

Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.11, 01:54:28
Lawrence,

Do you understand what I am asking, and what is allowed in terms of making claims here?

I have edited both your posts above to be in accordance with the OUR posting guidelines.

Peak to peak measurements of COP, however you are acquiring them, are not meaningful, and therefore are pointless to mention. I have deleted your references to them.

Please refrain from posting here any further claims of OU or COP>1 with reference to peak to peak or any other form, unless you can clearly demonstrate credible proof supporting that claim.

Hi Poynty Point.

I have a few questions.

- Where is your requirement for a differential probe? If it is not required in this test then can you explain why?
- Are questions of scalability not relevant? In other words - is the effect only available at 'small' values?
- You deleted a link to Lawrence's own 'list of criteria' for measurement. Can't we see that link to evaluate it?

Meanwhile Lawrence - may I congratulate you on taking the bull by the horns as you have done in sending a prototype to Professor. And I see some real justice in the Jule Thief circuit variant becoming a 'first contender' for that OUR prize as it is such an elegant solution. I shall add my own prayers to yours. Not sure that mine are that effective.

Kindest regards
Rosemary
edited

SORRY - Yet another question. Is this a contender for OUR prize? If not how does one post a 'contender'. Presumably what's meant is that the claim first has to pass your own scrutiny Poynty? In which case? Would you really be inclined to question Professor's own evaluations here? I think he's openly requested your comments for evaluation - presumably to incorporate them. Perhaps you could oblige us by listing them. That would be pro-active and would generally assist in this drive to OU. Personally I find nothing offensive in Lawrence's post. His criteria for measurement seems reasonable. Please let us have your comments Poynty. If there are other criteria then it would be as well to advise us all.

aetherevarising · 2011.01.11, 03:04:28

Hi again Poynty.

I think that what's at issue here is that Professor opened this link to evaluate Lawrence's prototype. That's surely acceptable - the more as as your permission was solicited?

Then Lawrence joined the forum and effectively disclosed his own criteria for evaluation. Still acceptable as there is no official requirement to be considered for that OU-R prize. You see - there are many tests done by replicators on this forum. The most of them relate to some kind of OU claim. The replications often include variations to the original prototypes. Some of them require reverse engineering. But that principle holds. All are looking to prove or disprove OU claims.

Now. If Professor is able to conclusively prove that claim - then? He's not a prize contender. He, himself is therefore allowed to confirm that measurement - presumably? But as and when he does so - are you, Poynty, even obliged to comment? Surely not until Lawrence himself requires that it be acknowledged by more than Professor. Not until he puts his prototype up for consideration for that prize. And that's not happened. That not his demand. Then surely? Technically, nor is he barred from posting his claim or his own preferred method of analysing that claim.

I would have thought than an appropriate means of 'checking' any wild allegations, which is presumably your object here, would only 'kick in' if Lawrence needs full on confirmation by a wider audience than Professor. And I'm not sure that this has been stipulated anywhere by Lawrence. As I see it he's making a full disclosure of the experimental apparatus and method of measurements that others can replicate. And that's surely a good thing?

Kindest again
Rosie

MileHigh · 2011.01.11, 03:07:06

Quote from: Dumped on 2011.01.11, 02:17:48
In the interests of "instructive" guidance and to provide
a good example of proper presentation by the experimenter,
would it not be better to AMEND the "offensive" postings
rather than DELETING those portions?

It may be possible that numerous members are wondering
what would be the preferred and acceptable terminology
to get past any possible censorship.

I for one would be very pleased to see an example of how
you would prefer to see the "offenses" corrected.

If you please...

Strong Arm Tactics seem a bit out of place.

You seem to be asking for some form of hand-holding here and I disagree that there should be any form of hand-holding done with respect to the actual presentation of the claim by the claimant.

In my opinion the burden of making a proper presentation about any potential over unity claim should rest firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. There is no "censorship" going on here, just a reasonable demand that the data be presented properly and unambiguously.

For example, in the case of this particular project the terms "peak-to-peak COP" and "RMS COP" have been mentioned multiple times. These are false and erroneous concepts, there is no such thing as "peak-to-peak COP" or "RMS COP."

If you are going to talk the talk then it's incumbent upon you to be able to walk the walk. This is a reasonable expectation for anyone that wants to make an over unity claim. They have to be able to clearly articulate their proposition and present their data in a clear and unambiguous fashion and demonstrate competency with respect to the overall concepts.

MileHigh

aetherevarising · 2011.01.11, 03:38:17

Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.11, 03:04:28
Hi again Poynty.

I think that what's at issue here is that Professor opened this link to evaluate Lawrence's prototype. That's surely acceptable - the more as as your permission was solicited?

Then Lawrence joined the forum and effectively disclosed his own criteria for evaluation. Still acceptable as there is no official requirement to be considered for that OU-R prize. You see - there are many tests done by replicators on this forum. The most of them relate to some kind of OU claim. The replications often include variations to the original prototypes. Some of them require reverse engineering. But that principle holds. All are looking to prove or disprove OU claims.

Now. If Professor is able to conclusively prove that claim - then? He's not a prize contender. He, himself is therefore allowed to confirm that measurement - presumably? But as and when he does so - are you, Poynty, even obliged to comment? Surely not until Lawrence himself requires that it be acknowledged by more than Professor. Not until he puts his prototype up for consideration for that prize. And that's not happened. That not his demand. Then surely? Technically, nor is he barred from posting his claim or his own preferred method of analysing that claim.

I would have thought than an appropriate means of 'checking' any wild allegations, which is presumably your object here, would only 'kick in' if Lawrence needs full on confirmation by a wider audience than Professor. And I'm not sure that this has been stipulated anywhere by Lawrence. As I see it he's making a full disclosure of the experimental apparatus and method of measurements that others can replicate. And that's surely a good thing?

Kindest again
Rosie

If Lawrence was advancing any demands to recognise his own claims of OU - then these 'criteria of competence' as you list them - may possibly be considered valid. As it is he is recommending replications - even to the extent of posting any interested party his own experimental apparatus. The only person who is doing this replication is Professor - and I'm not sure that you or anyone here can quesion his level of competence.

Also. I do not see that the Lawrence's own competence level is at issue. The only thing at issue is the test apparatus and some listed criteria of measurement that he has applied himself - and this done publicly - very publicly - and all in accord with the criteria that Professor himself has already suggested. He, Lawrence, has already conceded the preferred requirement of integrated analysis.

And with respect - since when has competence in any field limited your own right to comment? I know of some glaring presumptions related to physics concepts that rather disqualify you. Yet you have never refrained from commenting on physics principles.

poynt99 · 2011.01.11, 04:26:31

Folks, the concept is extremely simple. Please read and contemplate the following very carefully:

No one shall be permitted to make claims of OU or COP>1 at OUR, unless that claim is accompanied by substantiating evidence deemed by OUR to be sufficient in quantity, accurate, credible, and properly obtained, and which directly supports the said claim.

I trust that should remove any remaining ambiguity in the minds of those pondering this.

Cheers,
.99

aetherevarising · 2011.01.11, 04:55:31

Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.11, 04:26:31
Folks, the concept is extremely simple. Please read and contemplate the following very carefully:

No one shall be permitted to make claims of OU or COP>1 at OUR, unless that claim is accompanied by substantiating evidence deemed by OUR to be sufficient in quantity, accurate, credible, and properly obtained, and which directly supports the said claim.

I trust that should remove any remaining ambiguity in the minds of those pondering this.

Cheers,
.99

Poynty - thanks for the clarification. But I've still got a question. You require differential probes to be applied to our own test experiment. Why is this required when its use is anyway only required to measure the wattage dissipated at a load? We quantify that wattage in terms of the heat dissipated so technically no further qualification is required. In fact, on our latest tests we don't even bother to do a voltage measurement across the load resistor which entirely obviates the need for that differential number.

With respect, this needs clarification. Reference to blurb by a differential probe manufacturer will never constitute justifying it's use. Then. Those other questions related to 'scalability'? Is this required?

I think what we're actually asking is that you define the test parameters required for acceptance. Failing which we may all go to an awful lot of trouble to comply to what we 'imagine' is sufficient - only to find that you, personally consider it insufficient. And that would be enough for you to DEMAND that we retract that claim. I think we'd all like to see some 'open cards' here before we risk evaluation of work that's taken, in my case, over 10 years to bring to full fruition.

Kindest again
Rose

ltseung888 · 2011.01.11, 05:01:55

Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.01.11, 03:07:06

For example, in the case of this particular project the terms "peak-to-peak COP" and "RMS COP" have been mentioned multiple times. These are false and erroneous concepts, there is no such thing as "peak-to-peak COP" or "RMS COP."

MileHigh

I have mentioned many times that the peak-to-peak values are NOT the true scientific measurements. However, I use them to rate my many prototypes (over 50 so far). The ones having low COP peak-to-peak or COP rms are automatically disqualified. With the Instantaneous Power Waveforms captured on my China-made oscilloscopes, I could import the screen shots into my computer. Then it was a labor intensive task of reproducing the graph into excel format or do an area comparison with the Output and Input waveform screen shots.

We did two labor intensive area comparisons. Those FLEET prototypes with "meaningless high COP peak-to-peak values" did show COP values greater than one. I can provide the screen shots again for those interested to repeat that exercise.

However, as good scientists, we know that the good oscilloscopes already have such functionality. The price however is US$12,500 verse US$350. That is why I requested that the PhysicsProfessor should use the best oscilloscopes with the required functionality to do the verification.

So, please treat the "meaningless peak-to-peak" values as Lawrence Tseung's way of classifying his many prototypes. The ones with low peak-to-peak values are discarded or modified. (By the way, the really cheap scope that can display voltage waveform and thus peak-to-peak voltage values from China is less than US$80.)

Please give PhysicsProfessor the needed time to do a good job with the high functionality oscilloscopes which he does not use on a day-to-day basis.

aetherevarising · 2011.01.11, 05:11:53

In the hopes that the question does not get removed from the table here it is again.

Please Poynty - give us a list of required parameters that will be applied to authenticate an OU claim.

Rosemary

muDped · 2011.01.11, 05:14:08

Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.11, 04:26:31
Folks, the concept is extremely simple. Please read and contemplate the following very carefully:

No one shall be permitted to make claims of OU or COP>1 at OUR, unless that claim is accompanied by substantiating evidence deemed by OUR to be sufficient in quantity, accurate, credible, and properly obtained, and which directly supports the said claim.

I trust that should remove any remaining ambiguity in the minds of those pondering this.

Cheers,
.99

May I quote, with EMPHASIS added, the above stipulation
for potential clarity for all who may be non-native English
language proficient (ESL) or others who may have missed
the salient point?

Quote"No one shall be permitted to make CLAIMS of OU or COP>1 at OUR, unless that CLAIM is accompanied by substantiating evidence deemed by OUR to be sufficient in quantity, accurate, credible, and properly obtained, and which directly supports the said CLAIM.."

What you seem to be saying is that constructive discussion
of any potential energetic anomaly would not be offensive
providing no CLAIM is advanced which would suggest
OverUnity has actually been attained.

Your real objection is to the making of CLAIMS which
are not adequately supported by the conditions/procedures/
criteria/data deemed necessary and substantial?

If so, then it is a simple concept indeed.

Make no CLAIMS!

You're welcome...

aetherevarising · 2011.01.11, 05:22:17

Quote from: Dumped on 2011.01.11, 05:14:08
May I quote, with EMPHASIS added, the above stipulation
for potential clarity for all who may be non-native English
language proficient (ESL) or others who may have missed
the salient point?

What you seem to be saying is that constructive discussion
of any potential energetic anomaly would not be offensive
providing no CLAIM is advanced which would suggest
OverUnity has actually been attained.

Your real objection is to the making of CLAIMS which
are not adequately supported by the conditions/procedures/
criteria/data deemed necessary and substantial?

If so, then it is a simple concept indeed.

Make no CLAIMS!

Nice point Dumped. But what does one do with all those references to tests that are made all over this and all OU forums where the members reference OU claims? And not only that but then proceed to replicate or attempt replication. Is that allowed? Is the actual criteria here that no individual can try and make his/her OWN claim. But your point is good. If one can simply reference the result without an actual claim to OU - then presumably that's admissable. That gives me hope.

Rosemary

muDped · 2011.01.11, 05:47:27

Quote from: aetherevarising on 2011.01.11, 05:22:17
Nice point Dumped. But what does one do with all those references to tests that are made all over this and all OU forums where the members reference OU claims? And not only that but then proceed to replicate or attempt replication. Is that allowed? Is the actual criteria here that no individual can try and make his/her OWN claim. But your point is good. If one can simply reference the result without an actual claim to OU - then presumably that's admissable. That gives me hope.

Rosemary

Then we must determine what constitutes a CLAIM.

Is any conversational "claim" which is put forth within a
technical discussion expected to meet those rigorous
standards?

Or, is it a CLAIM such as is made formally in order
to receive compensation? As for the prize?

What is the reasonable and sane interpretation?

Allcanadian · 2011.01.11, 06:09:40

@aetherevarising

QuoteI think what we're actually asking is that you define the test parameters required for acceptance. Failing which we may all go to an awful lot of trouble to comply to what we 'imagine' is sufficient - only to find that you, personally consider it insufficient. And that would be enough for you to DEMAND that we retract that claim. I think we'd all like to see some 'open cards' here before we risk evaluation of work that's taken, in my case, over 10 years to bring to full fruition.

I think it's important to consider the context here, who in their right mind would bother to post or claim anything in the first place knowing that it may be censored and their posting privileges revoked?. From what I have seen on other forums this is usually the beginning of the end and people simply make the choice to leave. I think the key word here is "moderation" and if persons are going to make outright claims of free energy then they should give justification as to why they believe this but censorship is and always has been a losing proposition for everyone involved.

@Poynt99
If I remember correctly this "OUR" forum was started because of censorship and the revoking of privileges or outright banning in the other forums and now it would seem you are doing the very thing you criticized the others for. I was wondering why the change of heart on this issue of censorship?

Regards
AC

PhysicsProf · 2011.01.11, 06:17:38

I think I understand what Lawrence is saying... a preliminary-COP-ratio in an attempt to determine which toroid-systems are the better ones.

Lawrence, you may wish to say something like "preliminary-COP-ratio" or "evaluative output/input ratio" (which you may define as
(Vout,rms*Iout,rms/Vin,rms*Iin,rms),
for example) rather than using the term "COP" which has a defined meaning really. I agree one must be careful when claiming COP > 1 publicly.

As I await the better oscilloscopes (and tests may take a while), I have a question for all:

Consider a long solenoid with tight winding such that there is no detectable B [magnetic] field outside of the solenoid near the middle (spot "A" call it), when a steady current is flowing in the wire. Please-- correct me if this cannot be done.

There will be an axial B-field, a B-field inside the solenoid itself.

Some seem to not like the term, "field" -- but I refer to that which is measurable using a Hall probe. What else would you like to call it, if not "magnetic field B"?

Now place a test charge, an electron will do, at spot A -- and steadily increase the current in the winding. This will generate a changing axial-B-field which will in turn generate an electric field.
Will B remain essentially zero at spot A?
Will said electron at spot A experience a force? If so, why?

Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments?

the_big_m_in_ok

ltseung888

ltseung888

aetherevarising

aetherevarising

MileHigh

aetherevarising

aetherevarising

ltseung888

aetherevarising

aetherevarising