Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2018 ENERGY CONFERENCE - ALL SEATS SOLD OUT!

2018 Energy Science & Technology Conference
Sponsored by Teslacoin Foundation

Teslacoin Foundation

https://www.teslastarter.org


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 06-26-2017, 08:06 PM
dR-Green's Avatar
dR-Green dR-Green is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wales, UK
Posts: 1,556
A Valuable Lesson? Debunking a non-"free energy" device with engineering

Greetings all. I came across this video a couple of days ago, wherein a claim was made that a Joule thief type circuit was producing free energy. So an investigation was made in order to find out...

EEVblog #708 - Free Energy Overunity BULL****! - YouTube

Before the haters start hating without even watching it, it's not about being anti-free energy, it's about being pro-science and engineering. Ignore established facts at your own peril.
__________________
http://www.teslascientific.com/

"Knowledge is cosmic. It does not evolve or unfold in man. Man unfolds to an awareness of it. He gradually discovers it." - Walter Russell

"Once men died for Truth, but now Truth dies at the hands of men." - Manly P. Hall
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #2  
Old 06-26-2017, 10:46 PM
j dove j dove is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dR-Green View Post
Greetings all. I came across this video a couple of days ago, wherein a claim was made that a Joule thief type circuit was producing free energy. So an investigation was made in order to find out...

EEVblog #708 - Free Energy Overunity BULL****! - YouTube

Before the haters start hating without even watching it, it's not about being anti-free energy, it's about being pro-science and engineering. Ignore established facts at your own peril.
Dr green

Please take a look at my friend Nelson Rocha and his work before you dismiss them all as BS.

What of the claims of Charles Proteus Steinmetz , Gabriel Kron, Eric Dollard? Are they also nuts or fruitcakes as claimed in your presented video? Anyone in science and engineering should know that not all is known. Gabriel Kron's work with the negative resistors and network anyalizer using Schrodinger's wave equations seems to suggest contrary to the videos claims. Mr Kron was a well know scientist of his time and expert in Math and electricity.
I would surly take his word to be worthy of consideration. Also the work C. P. Steinmetz would suggest also that there is more to be understood on this subject. And least we forget the work of Eric Dollard? Does he not suggest the very same thing. As he directly claims energy can be created and destroyed . If we look at each of them in the math they are all claiming the very same thing. So as to dismiss free energy and say that they are all crackpots and idiots seems to be that you are ignoring some very intelligent people with some valid proof. The established facts of science as you call them are only established until we find out something else. One need only look at the past to see the established facts then that were shown to be false. If they are false now they were false then . So we can see through time mankind is on a learning curve and you may very well discover something tomorrow that completely changes your outlook from today.

In short, you don't know everything and neither do I.

Jeff
__________________
 

Last edited by j dove; 06-26-2017 at 11:20 PM. Reason: just some thoughts on the subject
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:29 PM
dR-Green's Avatar
dR-Green dR-Green is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wales, UK
Posts: 1,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by j dove View Post
Dr green

Please take a look at my friend Nelson Rocha and his work before you dismiss them all as BS.

What of the claims of Charles Proteus Steinmetz , Gabriel Kron, Eric Dollard? Are they also nuts or fruitcakes as claimed in your presented video? Anyone in science and engineering should know that not all is known. Gabriel Kron's work with the negative resistors and network anyalizer using Schrodinger's wave equations seems to suggest contrary to the videos claims. Mr Kron was a well know scientist of his time and expert in Math and electricity.
I would surly take his word to be worthy of consideration. Also the work C. P. Steinmetz would suggest also that there is more to be understood on this subject. And least we forget the work of Eric Dollard? Does he not suggest the very same thing. As he directly claims energy can be created and destroyed . If we look at each of them in the math they are all claiming the very same thing. So as to dismiss free energy and say that they are all crackpots and idiots seems to be that you are ignoring some very intelligent people with some valid proof. The established facts of science as you call them are only established until we find out something else. One need only look at the past to see the established facts then that were shown to be false. If they are false now they were false then . So we can see through time mankind is on a learning curve and you may very well discover something tomorrow that completely changes your outlook from today.

In short, you don't know everything and neither do I.

Jeff
Did you watch the video?

People are considered crackpots and idiots mainly because of all the things that are illustrated in the video. Due to a lack of basic understanding of, if not blank refusal to acknowledge, conventional theories and practices, they are unable to analyse, measure and identify basic effects, and instead jump to the conclusion that it's due to some cosmic quantum energy source. But since no measurements have been done and it's easily disproven through doing said measurements, then of course the whole thing gets dismissed as lunacy because it would seem that most of the people making the claims haven't got any idea what they're talking about. Hence as the title says, an important lesson? It is if any "free energy" device is supposed to be taken seriously. If everyone did the basic engineering then this guy in the video would have nothing to laugh about, and there would be less false claims to waste your time and effort.
__________________
http://www.teslascientific.com/

"Knowledge is cosmic. It does not evolve or unfold in man. Man unfolds to an awareness of it. He gradually discovers it." - Walter Russell

"Once men died for Truth, but now Truth dies at the hands of men." - Manly P. Hall

Last edited by dR-Green; 06-26-2017 at 11:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:36 PM
j dove j dove is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dR-Green View Post
Did you watch the video?

People are considered crackpots and idiots mainly because of all the things that are illustrated in the video. Due to a lack of basic understanding of, if not blank refusal to acknowledge, conventional theories and practices, they are unable to analyse, measure and identify basic effects, and instead jump to the conclusion that it's due to some cosmic quantum energy source. But since no measurements have been done and it's easily disproven through doing said measurements, then of course the whole thing gets dismissed as lunacy because it would seem that most of the people making the claims haven't got any idea what they're talking about. Hence as the title says, an important lesson? It is if any "free energy" device is supposed to be taken seriously. If everyone did the basic engineering then this guy in the video would have nothing to laugh about.
Did you read, Steinmetz, Kron, Dollard? Did you look at Nelson Rocha?

Maybe he should read Stiemetz , Kron, Dollard also before posting such a video. As he directly states that free energy is full of fruitcakes.
All is not as he claims.


Jeff
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:40 PM
dR-Green's Avatar
dR-Green dR-Green is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wales, UK
Posts: 1,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by j dove View Post
Did you read, Steinmetz, Kron, Dollard? Did you look at Nelson Rocha?

Maybe he should read Stiemetz , Kron, Dollard also before posting such a video. As he directly states that free energy is full of fruitcakes.
All is not as he claims.


Jeff
I suggest that you watch the video before judging it.
__________________
http://www.teslascientific.com/

"Knowledge is cosmic. It does not evolve or unfold in man. Man unfolds to an awareness of it. He gradually discovers it." - Walter Russell

"Once men died for Truth, but now Truth dies at the hands of men." - Manly P. Hall
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:57 PM
j dove j dove is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dR-Green View Post
I suggest that you watch the video before judging it.
I did watch it and as I said he directly states free energy is BS. Sorry I don't agree with that statement. It is as he showed for that particular circuit but to lump all together everything involved in free energy and say it BS. Well that's not even being scientific as he states.

You can not dismiss the work of those that I stated above as BS, if you do then it is you that are not being scientific. Such statements were not made by them with no measurements and they did not come by it with little or no experience. As I said you need only look at there work, did you?

I do not believe it just because someone said so or because I want to believe. All of nature shows itself to the ones that look. Does not the scientific community look for just the same thing with nuclear fusion?
Your free to believe what ever you wish and is the same with all others , belief does not make it true but then unbelief doesn't make any less true. Nature is what it is no matter what it is that mankind has established as laws . The laws of nature will always prevail.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-27-2017, 12:14 AM
dR-Green's Avatar
dR-Green dR-Green is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wales, UK
Posts: 1,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by j dove View Post
I did watch it and as I said he directly states free energy is BS. Sorry I don't agree with that statement. It is as he showed for that particular circuit but to lump all together everything involved in free energy and say it BS. Well that's not even being scientific as he states.

You can not dismiss the work of those that I stated above as BS, if you do then it is you that are not being scientific. Such statements were not made by them with no measurements and they did not come by it with little or no experience. As I said you need only look at there work, did you?

I do not believe it just because someone said so or because I want to believe. All of nature shows itself to the ones that look. Does not the scientific community look for just the same thing with nuclear fusion?
Your free to believe what ever you wish and is the same with all others , belief does not make it true but then unbelief doesn't make any less true. Nature is what it is no matter what it is that mankind has established as laws . The laws of nature will always prevail.
The point he's making is how people come to the conclusion that their device produces "free energy" through not understanding the basics, when in reality it's not, and all the energy can be accounted for through doing basic engineering. I.E. the circuit/video he's debunking was presented on youtube as "bending the laws of physics", when that has clearly been shown not to be the case with very little effort, and if the guy who made the video had done the measurements then he needn't have made such an error to begin with. No doubt there are still people who believe that the said circuit is in fact producing free energy because they had watched that false video or others like it. One's belief in something can blind them from the truth, not least when they actively reject all common knowledge on the subject. Of course people don't know everything, but what they do know, works. That's the whole point of engineering, that's why Steinmetz did his studies and wrote the books, not so it could be rejected by "free energy researchers" on the grounds that it's conventional theory therefore must be useless. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water.
__________________
http://www.teslascientific.com/

"Knowledge is cosmic. It does not evolve or unfold in man. Man unfolds to an awareness of it. He gradually discovers it." - Walter Russell

"Once men died for Truth, but now Truth dies at the hands of men." - Manly P. Hall

Last edited by dR-Green; 06-27-2017 at 12:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-27-2017, 12:39 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,817
debunking video

j dove, I think you misunderstood the reason dR_green posted that video. He is showing that the debunking video is full of ignorance - not the other way around.

dR_green is one of the most prolific replicators of Eric Dollard's technology - so you and he appear to believe the same thing.

He isn't saying he agrees with the video, quite the opposite.

----------------------------------------------

As a side note, Energy always is and only is created and destroyed on the fly anytime a potential is reduced by a resistance. Energy is work, which means there is no such thing as energy, the thing is potential (polarized aether), which gets unpolarized by getting dissipated by resistances. So anytime work is demonstrated, that is the creation of energy, which is the action the potential experiences as it moves towards equilibrium. I'm not saying you disagree or agree with this, just wanted to comment on the energy creation/destruction or synthesis/desynthesis.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-27-2017, 12:53 AM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by dR-Green View Post
Greetings all. I came across this video a couple of days ago, wherein a claim was made that a Joule thief type circuit was producing free energy. So an investigation was made in order to find out...

EEVblog #708 - Free Energy Overunity BULL****! - YouTube

Before the haters start hating without even watching it, it's not about being anti-free energy, it's about being pro-science and engineering. Ignore established facts at your own peril.
There is one thing that may not be obvious.
People send prototypes to Sydney for evaluation before gearing up
production in order to find quality issues and technical opinion.
Lately there has been a lot of pacific rim design headed to major instrumentation corporations.
So I do thank him for his past years of scrutiny on the instrumentation designers.

The documentation for the ( joule thief ? ) did have a few erroneous details.
Dave Jones is a man on a mission. He knows it is his job to beat up engineers over
claims and details and check perfomance.

I recall having to clean up his board for DIY frequency generator in 1995
because it had too much distortion at the top end. It was maxim's data sheet on the
max038 that helped me correct his layout. He did grind out a board for the hobby magazine.
and it was very congested. I give it a C- and it contributed negatively to
electronic hobby advancement but he had good attitude but the board size
and parts layout ? (sorry mate needs improvement)

http://alternatezone.com/electronics...s/hsfglc20.gif
I give this other guy a B-
https://www.radioelec.com/images/Ima...1371538733.jpg
give this guy a B+
Function generator with MAX038

There are newer and better function generator boards now.

ha ha he says those free energy circle jerkers.
__________________
 

Last edited by mikrovolt; 06-27-2017 at 01:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-27-2017, 01:16 AM
dR-Green's Avatar
dR-Green dR-Green is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wales, UK
Posts: 1,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
j dove, I think you misunderstood the reason dR_green posted that video. He is showing that the debunking video is full of ignorance - not the other way around.

dR_green is one of the most prolific replicators of Eric Dollard's technology - so you and he appear to believe the same thing.
Thanks Aaron! This is a different video though. This one's an example of debunking done right - in an educational way through explaining and demonstrating the process both on paper and through measuring the joule thief type circuit to show exactly how through applying basic engineering it's not bending the laws of physics as the builder claimed, and that false conclusion could have been avoided.

To everyone else, the video Aaron is referring to is this one, which is completely based on ignorance. He's right in that it's just receiving various radio signals, but he somehow tries to use that fact to debunk Eric Dollard when it obviously has nothing to do with Eric beyond name-dropping.

13 year old Invents Free Energy Device for 14 bucks DEBUNKED!! - YouTube
__________________
http://www.teslascientific.com/

"Knowledge is cosmic. It does not evolve or unfold in man. Man unfolds to an awareness of it. He gradually discovers it." - Walter Russell

"Once men died for Truth, but now Truth dies at the hands of men." - Manly P. Hall

Last edited by dR-Green; 06-27-2017 at 01:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-27-2017, 03:30 AM
dR-Green's Avatar
dR-Green dR-Green is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wales, UK
Posts: 1,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikrovolt View Post
There is one thing that may not be obvious.
People send prototypes to Sydney for evaluation before gearing up
production in order to find quality issues and technical opinion.
Lately there has been a lot of pacific rim design headed to major instrumentation corporations.
So I do thank him for his past years of scrutiny on the instrumentation designers.

The documentation for the ( joule thief ? ) did have a few erroneous details.
Dave Jones is a man on a mission. He knows it is his job to beat up engineers over
claims and details and check perfomance.

I recall having to clean up his board for DIY frequency generator in 1995
because it had too much distortion at the top end. It was maxim's data sheet on the
max038 that helped me correct his layout. He did grind out a board for the hobby magazine.
and it was very congested. I give it a C- and it contributed negatively to
electronic hobby advancement but he had good attitude but the board size
and parts layout ? (sorry mate needs improvement)

http://alternatezone.com/electronics...s/hsfglc20.gif
I give this other guy a B-
https://www.radioelec.com/images/Ima...1371538733.jpg
give this guy a B+
Function generator with MAX038

There are newer and better function generator boards now.

ha ha he says those free energy circle jerkers.
Very nice!
__________________
http://www.teslascientific.com/

"Knowledge is cosmic. It does not evolve or unfold in man. Man unfolds to an awareness of it. He gradually discovers it." - Walter Russell

"Once men died for Truth, but now Truth dies at the hands of men." - Manly P. Hall
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12  
Old 06-27-2017, 11:24 AM
med.3012's Avatar
med.3012 med.3012 is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Algeria
Posts: 1,033
hello everyone ,

i watched that video a long time ago but i think he have to deal with a pure electric phenomena not an electronic phenomena , electronic circuit is good to drive the circuit but over unity isn't involved in it .. for example konstantin meyl experimental kit where over unity is measured and proved , scalar waves is what we need .
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-27-2017, 12:18 PM
Cadman Cadman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 162
dR-Green,

Let's see him debunk this one

Ultra-efficient LED puts out more power than is pumped in | WIRED UK

Cadman
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-27-2017, 02:57 PM
dragon dragon is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 938
It seems, to me, there is a lot of confusion about unity and over unity. What is unity? If we have a 100 watt input with a 100 watt output is this unity? Is this considered 100 % efficient?

I have a difficult time making sense of this... I see this as a 100% loss. Your converting all the energy into another form loosing everything you've put into it.
Unity, in my mind, is the point where you are running a load while the input required is zero, you may still need a battery to maintain a dipole but you won't need the "energy" from the battery. Over Unity should theoretically drive a load while charging the source. I'm not sure I believe that these conditions can be met within a circuit. We can find ways to "recycle" some of the energy lost to offset the overall efficiency but never recover all the losses.

However, "Free energy" or the energy that can be harvested from natural sources can assist the circuit regardless of it's losses. Still this is not "unity" and certainly not "over unity".

Am I setting the standard to high to make claims of "unity" or "over unity" in some of my projects?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-27-2017, 03:11 PM
bistander bistander is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,339
Efficiency

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragon View Post
... If we have a 100 watt input with a 100 watt output is this unity? Is this considered 100 % efficient? ...
Yes. Because that is how "efficiency" is defined.

What you go on to talk about is something different and therefore should not be called efficiency in my opinion.

Regards,

bi

Electric Power Efficiency ()
__________________
 

Last edited by bistander; 06-27-2017 at 03:22 PM. Reason: Added link
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-27-2017, 03:42 PM
dragon dragon is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Yes. Because that is how "efficiency" is defined.

What you go on to talk about is something different and therefore should not be called efficiency in my opinion.

Regards,

bi

Electric Power Efficiency ()
If we plug in a 100 watt light bulb which requires a 100 watt input then this is 100% "efficient" ? Then the standard for efficiency should be defined as our losses. In reality the efficiency should be (neg) -100% and we should strive to work it back from there to achieve something closer to unity. Efficient makes it sound good - it's good when its "energy efficient" because we're loosing less. If a unit is 80% "efficient" this means we are loosing 80% effectively and another 20% that is lost inefficiently.

This is where my confusion exists... if we drive a 100 watt bulb with 50 watts it's considered 200% efficient. ( or to use a "fancy" term - a COP of 2 ) This would lead one to believe that it's over unity when it's not even close to unity. So then what is the COP of unity? What is the efficiency of unity? ( COP of infinity ) or ( zero % efficient )?
__________________
 

Last edited by dragon; 06-27-2017 at 03:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-27-2017, 04:23 PM
ricards ricards is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragon View Post
If we plug in a 100 watt light bulb which requires a 100 watt input then this is 100% "efficient" ? Then the standard for efficiency should be defined as our losses. In reality the efficiency should be (neg) -100% and we should strive to work it back from there to achieve something closer to unity. Efficient makes it sound good - it's good when its "energy efficient" because we're loosing less. If a unit is 80% "efficient" this means we are loosing 80% effectively and another 20% that is lost inefficiently.

This is where my confusion exists... if we drive a 100 watt bulb with 50 watts it's considered 200% efficient. ( or to use a "fancy" term - a COP of 2 ) This would lead one to believe that it's over unity when it's not even close to unity. So then what is the COP of unity? What is the efficiency of unity? ( COP of infinity ) or ( zero % efficient )?
I think Efficiency is defined by how the Energy is Transformed into another form. as the Law of Energy conservation states, Energy can neither be created or destroyed only transformed, in your example a 100 Watt bulb (rated by some means) that you would have lit using only 50 watts of electrical input, and you can compare its lumination to a 100 watt bulb lit using 100 watts of electrical input, then your efficiency is right 200% as you have transformed 100 watts worth of lumens (rated by some means) using only 50 watts of electricity. so basically its somewhat measured using a "Standardized" conversion of different forms of energy (that could have been wrong).

I think the same, If you cannot self loop it, Its not unity. If it cannot power another load while self looped, its not Over unity. watts in to watts out is like measuring mechanical output of lifting something by hand and by lever and/or pulley, without considering the Lever/Pulley,
If you lift it by hand, low COP.
if you lift is by Lever/Pulley, High COP.
as you are spending less energy.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-27-2017, 04:33 PM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 785
Bistander that is very Very true about how you define something
can lead to disappointment within the context of the title and topic
sentence.

What dR-Green is pointing to is not really debunking.
In this case the video shows technique and methods of evaluation
that an electrically trained person might use.

At the end of the video David Jones demonstrates the use of
a good regulated power supply with readout and limiting.

Take a look at this patent on current limiting, figure 4
The patent claim explains the various flux paths and how the
flux is being controlled. Notice the winding between the cores is wound backwards.
Looking down subtitle Figure 4. you will see the word
superimposed flux and Bias flux.

https://www.google.com/patents/US8120457

My point is that David Jones is being informative
with regard to over unity but does not give merit to the nature of
new and useful ideas being examined but instead replaces a key part
in the circuit with a standard inductor. Is it valuable lesson to ask
someone with a T-shirt that reads " I only give negative feedback" ?

It is embarrasing and frustrating to ask however the scope of
evaluating the circuit is narrowed to the merits of the exotic
inductor. The strange inductor should be isolated and tested separately.
The engineer will only replace with standard and quantum vacuum ignored.

Showing the leds in a video can light more brightly needs to compare to a standard.
The lesson is that established methods remain established methods.
__________________
 

Last edited by mikrovolt; 06-27-2017 at 05:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-27-2017, 05:15 PM
med.3012's Avatar
med.3012 med.3012 is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Algeria
Posts: 1,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragon View Post
It seems, to me, there is a lot of confusion about unity and over unity. What is unity? If we have a 100 watt input with a 100 watt output is this unity? Is this considered 100 % efficient?

I have a difficult time making sense of this... I see this as a 100% loss. Your converting all the energy into another form loosing everything you've put into it.
Unity, in my mind, is the point where you are running a load while the input required is zero,
i don't see this as 100% loss ! you still have it ! if you converting the electric power into light for example and there's no heat in the bulb we imagine all the electricity is transformed into light in this case there's no loss ,the same case in a transformer if it give exactly all the power you put in ,
running a load while the input required is zero can be done when a part from the output can drive the system but in this case we need much higher output than the input .
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-27-2017, 05:19 PM
dragon dragon is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 938
Your both right, bistander and ricards, in how the standard definition of efficiency is determined but it's misleading in terms of what people are trying to accomplish here. Knowing the difference changes your perspective in what your trying to accomplish.

A COP of 1 definitely isn't unity, a COP of 10 billion still isn't quite unity. Maybe it's not so much the measuring of input vs output, the input measurement pretty much tells the whole story... The focus then changes to how to maintain current in the circuit while reducing current drawn from the battery.

I'd say that just about everything you see on the web and youtube is far less than unity. The only real difference is the methods used to "recycle" or "harvest" wasted energy and/or utilize natural sources.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-27-2017, 06:29 PM
bistander bistander is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,339
Cop

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricards View Post
... watts in to watts out is like measuring mechanical output of lifting something by hand and by lever and/or pulley, without considering the Lever/Pulley,
If you lift it by hand, low COP.
if you lift is by Lever/Pulley, High COP.
as you are spending less energy.
You exerted less force but over a greater distance so the energy would be same. COP is typically used for heat moving systems.

Quote:
What is the difference between efficiency and COP?
14 ANSWERS

Manikandan Sundar, Research Scholar
Answered Aug 22, 2014
Originally Answered: What is the difference between cop and efficiency?
There are two type of devices, energy converters and energy transfering devices. The efficiency of a heat (energy) transfering devices is called the coefficient of performance (COP) unlike the energy conversion devices. COP is also the ratio of Energy Output to the Energy Input like the energy efficiency.
In an energy converter, the output will be a portion of the energy input and it may be less than the energy input. Therefore, the efficiency will be less than 100% by the laws of thermodynamics. In an energy transfer device, the energy output is the amount of heat extracted from the heat source (Space to be cooled-in case of refrigeration). The extracted energy is not a portion of the input energy. The extracted energy can exceed the input energy. Therefore, the efficiency of an energy transfering devices can be higher than 100% without violating the first law of thermodynamics. Therefore, the name coefficient of performance.
From: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-di...ciency-and-COP

I like that fellow's explanation.

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22  
Old 06-27-2017, 07:04 PM
dR-Green's Avatar
dR-Green dR-Green is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wales, UK
Posts: 1,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikrovolt View Post
Is it valuable lesson to ask
someone with a T-shirt that reads " I only give negative feedback" ?
That t-shirt is awesome

What does negative feedback do in an amplifier or oscillator circuit? What is its benefit?

In contrast, what does positive feedback do?

I think the principle works just as well in the circuit as it does as an analogy in conversation and evaluation.

--

The video simply shows that a claim was made on youtube of "bending the laws of physics". Well, it's put to the test through standard engineering evaluation and debugging. It's found that the battery can supply more than enough power to run the circuit, thus not requiring any claims of free energy or bending the laws of physics to begin with. Simply, there never was any free energy, the circuit builder just failed to recognise what he was looking at, and falsely labelled it as free energy. So the question is, how many more claimed "free energy" devices are out there that are simply due to a lack of basic understanding? Wouldn't it be nice if 90% of the fake videos on youtube didn't get in the way of your finding useful information?
__________________
http://www.teslascientific.com/

"Knowledge is cosmic. It does not evolve or unfold in man. Man unfolds to an awareness of it. He gradually discovers it." - Walter Russell

"Once men died for Truth, but now Truth dies at the hands of men." - Manly P. Hall
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-27-2017, 08:08 PM
bistander bistander is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,339
Inductor

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikrovolt View Post
Bistander that is very Very true about how you define something
can lead to disappointment within the context of the title and topic
sentence.

What dR-Green is pointing to is not really debunking.
In this case the video shows technique and methods of evaluation
that an electrically trained person might use.

At the end of the video David Jones demonstrates the use of
a good regulated power supply with readout and limiting.

Take a look at this patent on current limiting, figure 4
The patent claim explains the various flux paths and how the
flux is being controlled. Notice the winding between the cores is wound backwards.
Looking down subtitle Figure 4. you will see the word
superimposed flux and Bias flux.

https://www.google.com/patents/US8120457

My point is that David Jones is being informative
with regard to over unity but does not give merit to the nature of
new and useful ideas being examined but instead replaces a key part
in the circuit with a standard inductor. Is it valuable lesson to ask
someone with a T-shirt that reads " I only give negative feedback" ?

It is embarrasing and frustrating to ask however the scope of
evaluating the circuit is narrowed to the merits of the exotic
inductor. The strange inductor should be isolated and tested separately.
The engineer will only replace with standard and quantum vacuum ignored.

Showing the leds in a video can light more brightly needs to compare to a standard.
The lesson is that established methods remain established methods.
Sorry mikrovolt,

I see no novel or exotic device. It sounded like the circuit builder did not even recognize a wire through a toroid as an inductor. The presenter did an adequate job explaining that it was indeed an inductor and even calculated its inductance. So what if he then used an equivalent device?

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-28-2017, 12:24 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,817
efficiency and cop

Efficiency is a subjective measurement depending on your desired work - not total work so it changes based on what you want it to be.

If your intended work is heat and a heating element dissipates 100% of the supplied potential, which manifests as heat, then the heating element is 100% efficient. If you have a car and the intended work is moving from point A to B, then the efficiency will be 20-30% as 70% is wasted in heat, etc... If you have an electric motor and the intended work is mechanical rotary motion, then you might have 90% efficiency if 90% rotary work is done and 10% is heat, but if you want 10% heat and 90% rotary motion, then you can claim it is 100% efficient.

COP isn't a "fancy" term, it is a ratio between desired work and what we have to supply not including free potential supplied by the environment.

Free energy or overunity machines are 100% efficient or less but have a COP of 1.0 or more. These are very well established concepts with no ambiguity.

However, many people don't know the difference between efficiency and COP and claim they have something over 100% efficient if it is "overunity" so they simply don't know the distinctions.

" if we drive a 100 watt bulb with 50 watts it's considered 200% efficient. ( or to use a "fancy" term - a COP of 2 )" - Dragon

If you are able to fully light a 100 watt bulb with 50 watts, it's not 200% efficient. Efficiency will be 100% of less because there are always losses. The COP would be 2.0 and is different from the efficiency. It means you are getting twice as much work compared to what you put in - not including free potential from the environment. There will be environmental potential coming into the circuit because there has to be a source for the extra work that is above what you are supplying.

Here is 50 watts of bulbs lit to the max with a NET draw of a little over 1 watt.



It does not mean 1 watt lit 50 watts of bulbs. 50 watts lit the bulbs on 1/4 cycle of the AC wave and in the return direction on the falling wave 1/4 cycle, it is about 49 watts. That means it is about 98% efficient.

Since the only loss is about 1 watt, that means there is almost 5000% gain in total work or a COP of almost 50.0
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami


Last edited by Aaron; 06-28-2017 at 12:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-28-2017, 12:58 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Efficiency is a subjective measurement depending on your desired work - not total work so it changes based on what you want it to be.

If your intended work is heat and a heating element dissipates 100% of the supplied potential, which manifests as heat, then the heating element is 100% efficient. If you have a car and the intended work is moving from point A to B, then the efficiency will be 20-30% as 70% is wasted in heat, etc... If you have an electric motor and the intended work is mechanical rotary motion, then you might have 90% efficiency if 90% rotary work is done and 10% is heat, but if you want 10% heat and 90% rotary motion, then you can claim it is 100% efficient.

COP isn't a "fancy" term, it is a ratio between desired work and what we have to supply not including free potential supplied by the environment.

Free energy or overunity machines are 100% efficient or less but have a COP of 1.0 or more. These are very well established concepts with no ambiguity.

However, many people don't know the difference between efficiency and COP and claim they have something over 100% efficient if it is "overunity" so they simply don't know the distinctions.

" if we drive a 100 watt bulb with 50 watts it's considered 200% efficient. ( or to use a "fancy" term - a COP of 2 )" - Dragon

If you are able to fully light a 100 watt bulb with 50 watts, it's not 200% efficient. Efficiency will be 100% of less because there are always losses. The COP would be 2.0 and is different from the efficiency. It means you are getting twice as much work compared to what you put in - not including free potential from the environment. There will be environmental potential coming into the circuit because there has to be a source for the extra work that is above what you are supplying.

Here is 50 watts of bulbs lit to the max with a NET draw of a little over 1 watt.


It does not mean 1 watt lit 50 watts of bulbs. 50 watts lit the bulbs on 1/4 cycle of the AC wave and in the return direction on the falling wave 1/4 cycle, it is about 49 watts. That means it is about 98% efficient.

Since the only loss is about 1 watt, that means there is almost 5000% gain in total work or a COP of almost 50.0
Thanks for clearing this all up once again. I think probably we all lose
sight of these very ideas at times as we brain lock on the old school
teaching that matter can not be created. The thoughts of re-using the
same recirculated power is quite separate from the circuit losses.

And like you say, it is a matter of opinion, for instance a person running
a machine in Siberia needing the heat coming off his process would
be rejected by others using an air conditioner to keep the heat extracted
and would consider it a double loss.

__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-28-2017, 04:15 AM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Sorry mikrovolt,

I see no novel or exotic device. It sounded like the circuit builder did not even recognize a wire through a toroid as an inductor. The presenter did an adequate job explaining that it was indeed an inductor and even calculated its inductance. So what if he then used an equivalent device?

Regards,

bi
The term I used to describe the part was exotic inductor
synonyms: foreign, nonnative, introduced, imported faraway, far-flung, distant, out of the normal.

Then to make that very clear I went on to describe it as strange.
In order to avoid being misunderstood or getting into a fight over
what it could be. So we introduce strange things carefully so they can
be understood in case it might just be a non-standard part.
Finally we test them separately in order to convey the concept
and provide those attributes that qualify them as not being standard parts.
That is why data sheets avoid confusion.

In this particular case we must assume without better description that
the part is standard. However it can be visually identified as the strange inductor.
It is also very possible that I edited it after it was read.
__________________
 

Last edited by mikrovolt; 06-28-2017 at 04:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-28-2017, 04:41 PM
bistander bistander is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,339
Inductor

That exotic or strange inductor in fact is very common. You might have one on the cable from your power adapter to computer. Sometimes called ferrite beads, chokes, filters, inductors; they're the same thing, used on both multi and single conductor cables.

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-29-2017, 10:14 AM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 785
There is a conflict of interest in assuming a single turn inductor
let's say 10 pico henries having large stack of ferrite would
benefit the brightness of a string of leds.

reviewing ferrite is time spent better
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81C4IfONt3o

the nature of it being a (suppressor in the family of inductance)
a common filter found on cables that by nature removes
EMI from small signal oscillator needing help suggests
replacing it with a contrary many turn 10 mH inductor
is really just a very long conversation about Jones sarcasm rant.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-29-2017, 03:53 PM
bistander bistander is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,339
Help

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikrovolt View Post
...

My point is that David Jones is being informative
with regard to over unity but does not give merit to the nature of
new and useful ideas being examined but instead replaces a key part
in the circuit with a standard inductor...
Mikrovolt,

Let's go back to here. What do you see as "new and useful" about an inductor consisting of a wire running thru a toroid core compared to a "standard" (as you call it) inductor of equivalent inductance?

Second question: What possible difference do you think the substitution of an equivalent inductor makes in the function of the circuit?

Third question: What do you mean by "conflict of interest"?

Three easy answers can help me understand what you're talking about. Thanks in advance.

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-29-2017, 05:55 PM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 785
I gave reference to a patent on how to document new and useful. The intention of educating in case someone does need to introduce
something strange. (short answer: not much merit without documentation)

We say "replace with standard component"
this is an electrical engineer colloquial regarding his procedure.
I am also being sarcastic in saying that is an appropriate replacement.

Conflict of interest is insertion loss impedance again not an appropriate
replacement because the equivalence in no way is close.

What else could Jones do ? I feel his rant but out there somewhere
is someone with a need to show merit. So data sheet and document.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
energy, made, engineering, haters, start, order, peril, find, hating, anti-free, facts, pro-science, ignore, watching, established, video, lesson, valuable, debunking, non-free, device, couple, circuit, type, producing

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers