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=IgvFHejoQEkhttp://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.
Author
Topic: Graham Gunderson Energy conference High COP demonstration (Read 235733 times)
