PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Theory and Learning Center > Joule Thief Circuits > Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments?
2024-11-26, 17:19:58
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Author Topic: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments?  (Read 342708 times)
Topic Options img
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #125 on: 2011-01-12, 16:18:57 »
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
PS -- I should also reiterate that the DSO is a way to characterize the "better" devices, to compare them.  For a demonstration of OU, if indeed it occurs, there are other tests that I would insist on doing, as previously discussed in this thread.
   
img  AllPhase
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #126 on: 2011-01-12, 16:34:01 »
Group: Guest
Sorry Lawrence, but regardless of the waveshape, the V & Current are IN PHASE going through a pure carbon resistor.  Please check these web links to verify that.

http://www.ibiblio.org/kuphaldt/electricCircuits/AC/AC_3.html

Here is a sample from that site:

Because the resistor simply and directly resists the flow of electrons at all periods of time, the waveform for the voltage drop across the resistor is EXACTLY IN PHASE with the waveform for the current through it. We can look at any point in time along the horizontal axis of the plot and compare those values of current and voltage with each other (any “snapshot” look at the values of a wave are referred to as instantaneous values, meaning the values at that instant in time). When the instantaneous value for current is zero, the instantaneous voltage across the resistor is also zero. Likewise, at the moment in time where the current through the resistor is at its positive peak, the voltage across the resistor is also at its positive peak, and so on. At any given point in time along the waves, Ohm's Law holds true for the instantaneous values of voltage and current.

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py106/ACcircuits.html



« Last Edit: 2011-01-13, 14:00:56 by AllPhase »
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #127 on: 2011-01-12, 16:59:06 »
Group: Guest
The Cheap China-made oscilloscope used in Hong Kong

The maker is ATTEN model number is ADS1062CA 60MHz.  The price is less than US$350.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyGcJxdxGw8

It has two channels and have the multiply function.  The two channels have a common ground.  It has a USB connection.  That connection can be used to capture individual screen shots to a USB disk.  With the right software, that connection can also be used to continuously send screen information to a computer.  We had no difficulty in capturing individual screen shots.  However, we had difficulty with the right software and we did not manage to use the integration function at that time.

The attached picture showed the two DSO that was in my bedroom for many weeks.  It also showed the result of a successful experiment.  A Tseung FLEET Comparison Index of 7 was achieved.   Both Input and Output used a 1 ohm resistor.

I am now in USA visiting my daughter and have no access to good DSOs.  I am looking for potential verifiers with the proper equipment and they can receive a free FLEET prototype plus components to build another two themselves.  The only condition is that they are willing to disclose the test results in public – with pictures, video and computer printouts etc.

Major Todd Hathaway sent me a check of US$600 to start the ball rolling.  We hope to turn this into a US-China cooperation event.  I should be able to produce many hand-built FLEET prototypes with high Tseung FLEET Comparison Index that are likely to prove COP > 1.  You are welcome to state your intention to verify directly on this forum or email ltseung@hotmail.com.

Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited (Hong Kong)
« Last Edit: 2011-01-12, 19:23:56 by ltseung888 »
   
img  Grumpy
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #128 on: 2011-01-12, 18:36:54 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-01-12, 16:10:47
Do you mean the deBroglie wave-length?  Or perhaps you mean the Zitterbewegung effect?  also very interesting.

What I wish to emphasize/speculate on -- is that there are certainly large, changing magnetic fields in local galactic space that will generate electric fields that we might tap into, extracting power.


I was referring to the De Broglie Matter Wave (non-EM), but deleted that since the electrons move so slow in the wire.

How do you propose to induce current from these large magnetic fields in space?

As an alternative to finding a source of "power" to be extracted, why not look at what makes electrons move in a conductor and see if you can find another way that requires less work?
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #129 on: 2011-01-12, 20:22:49 »
Group: Guest

Quote from: AllPhase on 2011-01-12, 16:34:01
Sorry Lawrence, but regardless of the waveshape, the V & Current are IN PHASE going through a pure carbon resistor.  Please check these web links to verify that.

[/size]

Dear AllPhase,

Your assumption is correct if the circuit is purely resistive.  The FLEET circuits, however, definitely have Inductance L (the toroid) and Capacitance C (Wires, breadboard etc.)  In particular, it is a pseudo resonance circuit.  By that, I mean that it has resonance system characteristics.  Even if you place your hand near it, the frequency and waveform displayed on the oscilloscopes will change significantly.

Most former researchers failed to notice that the Joule Thief and its variations could be pseudo resonance circuits.  Their circuits sometimes showed high power gains or even burnt out.  When they modified or rebuild the circuit, they might have moved further from the resonance position.  Thus their results were not reproducible.  They just ignored the happenings.

When I play with the FLEET prototypes, I deliberately look for the pseudo resonance condition.  In Hong Kong, when I had the two China-made oscilloscopes in my bedroom, I sometimes took hours or days to get a prototype to exhibit high Tseung FLEET Comparison Index.  Most researchers did not do that.  They rely on luck to hit on a pseudo resonance condition.

I am sure that if they realize their mistake, they will now spend time to get to the pseudo resonance condition.  More high Tseung FLEET Comparison Index devices will come out in the very near future.

Try it yourself.  You will experience the inventor’s joy in exploring the unknown.
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #130 on: 2011-01-12, 23:31:21 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-11, 21:47:00
Lawrence,

One can not with confidence draw any sort of conclusion from the very low resolution time-compressed scope pictures you posted. It is primitive indeed, and unfortunately, does not tell us very much about the real input and output power levels.

Can you please draw a diagram of the test setup (including the current sense resistor), and where the oscilloscope probes are placed?

What is the make and model of the scope(s) you are using? Do they not have the capability to perform integration on the power traces?

.99


The oscilloscopes used in Hong Kong were shown on reply 127.
The exact positions of the probes were shown in reply 467 in the overunity.com forum:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8825.msg248891#msg248891

The picture is reproduced here.  In the 1-inch toroid prototypes, we were lucky to find that we could take away the variable capacitor and still get high Tseung FLEET Comparison Index values.  We just changed the holes in the breadboard or change length of wires after we built the basic prototype.  Tuning is still an art – not a science yet.
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #131 on: 2011-01-12, 23:48:01 »
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
  Thanks for comments.

I now also have available a Tektronix 3032 (DPO) with 300 MHz bandwidth.  We can do the digitized trace multiplication and integration as needed with Matlab.
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #132 on: 2011-01-13, 01:45:52 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-01-12, 23:48:01
  Thanks for comments.

I now also have available a Tektronix 3032 (DPO) with 300 MHz bandwidth.  We can do the digitized trace multiplication and integration as needed with Matlab.

Dear PhysicsProf,

This is great news.  Call me at home or my mobile if needed.  Try all prototypes including the ones you built.  We can do this first and do other tests later.

May God bless you.  Amen.
   
img  poynt99
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #133 on: 2011-01-13, 01:57:12 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Lawrence, Prof, I am working on a short document that may help with this testing. Below is a preview:

Lawrence, your scopes do not have the integral function, but for obtaining the circuit COP, that is not a necessity actually. What matters most is the ability for the scope to perform "multiplication" and "mean" averaging, which your model does do.

The fact that you have two scopes at your disposal makes the COP calculation a little easier.

While I fully advocate and strongly encourage the use of differential and current probes for obtaining these type of power measurements, it may be viable to examine the potential of using the much less favorable method employing passive scope probes.

The first objective then when using the oscilloscope method is to ensure that your scope and passive probe combination can obtain an accurate measurement at the frequencies and rise/fall times present with your device. The following is a step-by-step process which should determine if your scope and passive probes are up to the task.

In essence, the process involves testing with a square generator and resistive load. Current and voltage is measured, multiplied together, then a "mean average" applied to the wave form in the scope. This will allow you to read off directly the real power into the load resistor. Then you compare this with the theoretical computation (very easy to perform) of the real power. If they match well, it may be possible to apply a similar technique (which I will outline in the document) to measure both the input and output powers in question, and a simple division of the two produces the COP value for the circuit.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
img  aetherevarising
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #134 on: 2011-01-13, 05:37:17 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011-01-13, 01:57:12
Lawrence, Prof, I am working on a short document that may help with this testing. Below is a preview:

Lawrence, your scopes do not have the integral function, but for obtaining the circuit COP, that is not a necessity actually. What matters most is the ability for the scope to perform "multiplication" and "mean" averaging, which your model does do.

The fact that you have two scopes at your disposal makes the COP calculation a little easier.

While I fully advocate and strongly encourage the use of differential and current probes for obtaining these type of power measurements, it may be viable to examine the potential of using the much less favorable method employing passive scope probes.

The first objective then when using the oscilloscope method is to ensure that your scope and passive probe combination can obtain an accurate measurement at the frequencies and rise/fall times present with your device. The following is a step-by-step process which should determine if your scope and passive probes are up to the task.

In essence, the process involves testing with a square generator and resistive load. Current and voltage is measured, multiplied together, then a "mean average" applied to the wave form in the scope. This will allow you to read off directly the real power into the load resistor. Then you compare this with the theoretical computation (very easy to perform) of the real power. If they match well, it may be possible to apply a similar technique (which I will outline in the document) to measure both the input and output powers in question, and a simple division of the two produces the COP value for the circuit.

.99

I would recommend two further criteria.  The power dissipated at the load be related to its heat or work output as the measured output wattage will exceed this and that work done may not then show a greater co-efficient.

Also.  The analysis of the data dumps to evaluate instantaneous current flow and applied voltage from the battery should NOT be established as a mean average.  The mean average does not fully integrate that value.  You pointed this out Poynty.  And you're right.  What's needed is to relate the voltage across the shunt and the battery to a fully time integrated value.  It's an easy exercise.  You simply establish the above zero voltages across the shunt divided by the Ohms value and multiplied by the instantaneous battery voltage.  Then divide it by the number of above zero samples.  Then you apply the same protocol to the below zero voltages.  You will then have a fully integrated value of the wattage output/input by the system.

it's relatively easy to do this on exel even with sample ranges of up to a million samples.  But you may need an upgrade on your exel software.  

Rosemary


added

It's my experience that the integrated value is more modest than the 'cycle mean average' and I suspect it's more reliable.  Also.  You effectively need to position your probes that you read both the battery voltage and the shunt voltage simultaneously.  Any measure of the voltage across the load resistor is immaterial unless it can be shown to relate to the work done.  And it never does.  There is always more energy measured to be dissipated than can be measured as heat. 
   
img  PhysicsProf
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #135 on: 2011-01-13, 06:42:42 »
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
 Rosemary adds: 

Quote
Any measure of the voltage across the load resistor is immaterial unless it can be shown to relate to the work done.  And it never does.  There is always more energy measured to be dissipated than can be measured as heat.

This is interesting, and I would like to understand it.  Are you saying that our means of measuring integrated power, from the trace provided by the product of voltage and current traces (appropriately measured) will ALWAYS be less than what can be measure as heat?   

 It seems to me that the thermal method is a very important check on the integrated-electrical-power method, but that these should agree within experimental error bars -- as long as both are measured properly.

Am I missing something?
   
img  aetherevarising
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #136 on: 2011-01-13, 07:00:27 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011-01-13, 06:42:42
Rosemary adds: 

This is interesting, and I would like to understand it.  Are you saying that our means of measuring integrated power, from the trace provided by the product of voltage and current traces (appropriately measured) will ALWAYS be less than what can be measure as heat?   

 It seems to me that the thermal method is a very important check on the integrated-electrical-power method, but that these should agree within experimental error bars -- as long as both are measured properly.

Am I missing something?

Yes - is the short answer.  All measure of energy returned by the resistor is still confused with 'stored energy'.  And with the utmost respect, Professor, you are all still somehow trying to relate and reconcile the observed measured phenomena to the standard model - when there is no foundational basis for that reconciliation.  The standard model does not allow for this result.  Therefore you need to eschew standard model explanations.  But there is nothing wrong with the measurements.  They can be fully accounted for even when the value of energy dissipated exceeds what is evident as heat.  It is just not directly usable energy and I think that is what's required.  Frankly - we don't even bother to measure the voltage across the resistor - except in as much as it's of interest.  It certainly is not relevant to the heat that we're extrapolating from that resistor.

You have indeed got close to the answer in proposing that we're using inductive laws to generate that second cycle.  It is, in truth, regenerated energy.  That should point you to the extent of this 'non standard' event.  The question is how a passive element can itself become an energy supply source.  The answer is in that the fields are first imbalanced.  That interrupts the binding condition of those fields.  And it's those binding fields that produce our required energy output - and then, only when their orbital condition is interrupted.  Why is this point so elusive?  It seems clear - and yet it is never understood.  I clearly am not being clear.  LOL.

Kindest regards, and delighted to see the work that your doing here Professor.  And more to the point - really delighted to see that someone's actually asking the right questions.

Rosemary
   
img  MileHigh
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #137 on: 2011-01-13, 07:26:29 »
Group: Guest
I am trying to stay out of this thread but sometimes I get tempted to jump in.

PhysicsProf:  You are going to fall victim to the "too many cooks" syndrome if this continues.  My advice to you is to keep it simple.  There are reliable and accepted means of verifying your power measurements, whether that be done with a digitizing oscilloscope or with some sort of thermal method.

Rosemary:  You are clouding up and confusing this discussion with your theories.  You should not be unloading your unsubstantiated theories that come from your project on PhysicsProf and relating them to his measurement technique on his project.  I read your last two postings and I want to curl up into a ball because it's all so vague and confusing.  You are throwing a monkey wrench into a running car engine.

Here is what's happening right now:  There is an opportunity for PhysicsProf to evaluate and do measurements on the devices provided by Lawrence.  There has been a big debate about the meaning of what COP is, then there has been all of this soul searching about defining the test parameters and criteria, and now we are into bizarre and esoteric and unsubstantiated interpretations of what power measurement is.  If this continues on this will kill this thread and the job will never get done, it will just fizzle out.

I am hoping and praying that the proper measurements can be made on the samples provided by Lawrence.  The whole process is at risk of being derailed if it continues on like this.

I apologize for the tough sounding talk, but that's how I feel.  There is no reason that this investigation can't be performed successfully but that goal will be prevented from happening if things continue on this way.  I have seen so many threads like this sputter out and fail and I am hoping so much to see a successful outcome in this thread.

MileHigh
   
img  aetherevarising
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #138 on: 2011-01-13, 07:38:56 »
Group: Guest
MileHigh - there is no way that this test or any similar can exclude the integrated analysis requirement.  And results certainly cannot depend on the measure of wattage output at the load if this is not related to work - is the first point.

The second point is this.  If one entirely assumes that because the amount of wattage measured from the laod does NOT relate to it's heat output - then should one simply assume a measurements' error? I would hope not.  All I am doing here is pointing out that the measurements will not conform to a standard model prediction.  I am actually working to salvage what I suspect will be or has already been noticed by Professor.  I am NOT punting my thesis.  I am simply pointing out that there is NO EXTANT THESIS that can account for this result.

And until I am advised by the members generally that they'd prefer me not to post here I will continue to do so.  I am probably more anxious than you are that Professor accredit these results.  I then intend to point to the validity of our own results.  It all serves the technology.  Also.  We are dissipating considerably more heat.  Therefore our own technology is somewhat more significant than small wattages.  But that will never diminish the importance of what is being explored here.  Frankly I'm delighted to see that Poynty's preparing that schedule of criteria required for proof.

And MileHigh - get off my back.  I'm proactively concerned with the advancement of clean green.  I'm just doing my bit.  And my contributions are as warranted as anyone's while this is my sole object.
   
img  MileHigh
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #139 on: 2011-01-13, 08:57:17 »
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

This sentence, for example, is incomprehensible:

Quote
The power dissipated at the load be related to its heat or work output as the measured output wattage will exceed this and that work done may not then show a greater co-efficient.

This sentence is incomprehensible:

Quote
What's needed is to relate the voltage across the shunt and the battery to a fully time integrated value.

This is nonsense:

Quote
The standard model does not allow for this result.  Therefore you need to eschew standard model explanations.

This is nonsense that comes directly from your unsubstantiated theories:

Quote
It is, in truth, regenerated energy.

Keep this up and you will totally ruin this thread.  I suggest that you keep your hands in your pockets and watch the blinking lights.

This comment about your own project is premature and should be ignored.  We are still waiting for your new data from the South African university.  Your last attempt at publishing a paper based on Glen's DSO waveforms showed no evidence of over unity at all, there was no data in the paper indicating this.  Good luck on the next document and I hope to see real data demonstrating over unity.

Quote
We are dissipating considerably more heat.

MileHigh
   
img  muDped
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #140 on: 2011-01-13, 10:20:42 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
Whatever "Integrity" the Forum may have enjoyed is
rapidly being dissipated.

One would hope that the Premier Forum for the
discussion of potential OverUnity Research would
somehow be able to rise to a higher, more mature
ground.

Are certain members fearful of loss of "status"
within the Intellectual Hierarchy and therefore
find cause to resort to unpleasantries?

While the tenor of the discussion may stir some
to an "adrenaline rush" it seems that certain esteemed
members are deriving too much pleasure from their
verbal fisticuffs.

Way too much Drama...

Are Men becoming Boys before our very eyes?


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
img  MileHigh
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #141 on: 2011-01-13, 10:41:24 »
Group: Guest
Dumped:

It's all about preventing this thread from being hijacked.  Sometimes I just tell it like it is.  Before too long it will evolve into another unsubstantiated aether theory applied to Lawrence's device.  Sometimes you just have to speak up and try to cut the crap.

PhysicsProf is here to test the device, why don't we let him do that instead of wandering off on all sorts of tangents?

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2011-01-13, 11:34:02 by MileHigh »
   
img  aetherevarising
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #142 on: 2011-01-13, 11:43:12 »
Group: Guest
I would propose that it would be more to the point that MileHigh clarify exactly what is incomprehensible in my response and then I could perhaps address it.  Meanwhile I'm satisfied that Professor understood my point.  And since Professor and Grumpy and all others are entitled to consider concepts that are not within mainstream thinking then I may be entitled to the same license.  

To get back on topic.  I would strongly recommend that Poynty draft that required schedule.  It's an excellent solution.  And this is, after all, his particular skill.  And I would only ask that he take note of my comments regarding integrated values that include time.  They were, in any event, always his own requirements here.  The cycle mean average absolutely does not give an accurate reflection of power in and power out.  What it does do is give a fair 'average' that is 'close but no cigar'.  And those experts in measurement require it.  Across the board.  And that integrated analysis - however anyone sees it - is simpy based on the inclusion of 'time' which is factored out in an averaging of all samples in a sample dump.  Frankly I think our own results on all previous experiments that were based on that average, are acceptable but only within certain margins of error.  One needs to compare the time or duration of input current to output current, the current coming from the battery and the current then returning to the battery.  Both.  In real time.  

Also and again.  There is always indication on our own tests that there is far more energy measured from a voltage analysis across the resistor than is evident from the energy dissipated as heat - or as it relates to its evident rate of temperature rise.  But since an analysis of wattage over a resistor with high inductance and fast frequencies is fraught - at the best of times - then calorimetric values will always or may always be preferred.  That, after all, is the 'gold standard' to the wattage output.

MileHigh if there is still something that I have written that you do not understand then PM me.  I'll explain it more fully - as required.   The last thing I want to see happen here is that you hijack this thread by an undeserved running commentary on my lack of abilities.  We all know what you think of them.  Fortunately they are not shared by experts.   And when I detour the objects of this thread to an entire focus on my thesis then indeed - you can accuse me of dominating the intentions of this very excellent thread.  

Rosemary
   
img  MileHigh
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #143 on: 2011-01-13, 13:07:49 »
Group: Guest
I agree that Poynt99's information will be extremely helpful.

Rosemary I don't mean to pick on you but I have seen so many threads fail to reach a conclusion and I have noticed you derailing threads in the past.  The best thing for this thread would be to keep it lean and mean.

Quote
The cycle mean average absolutely does not give an accurate reflection of power in and power out.  What it does do is give a fair 'average' that is 'close but no cigar'.  And those experts in measurement require it.  Across the board.  And that integrated analysis - however anyone sees it - is simpy based on the inclusion of 'time' which is factored out in an averaging of all samples in a sample dump.  Frankly I think our own results on all previous experiments that were based on that average, are acceptable but only within certain margins of error.

Averaging and integration are essentially the same thing.  [averaging] = [integration]/[time period].  Time is not factored out in the averaging of all samples in a sample dump.  By definition you are averaging your data over a certain span of time.  You are filling up the thread with gobbledygook.

Quote
One needs to compare the time or duration of input current to output current, the current coming from the battery and the current then returning to the battery.  Both.  In real time.

You don't need to look at both the current coming from the battery and the current returning from the battery, one measurement is sufficient.  More gobbledygook.

Okay I am done.  I apologize for this "diversion of a diversion."  I just want to see this thread succeed and I have made my point and I will not say any more.  I am simply suffering from thread-going-nowhere syndrome.

MileHigh
   
img  gridbias
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #144 on: 2011-01-13, 13:14:29 »
Group: Guest
You guys are having a great discussion on measuring methods, digital sampletimes and power that is only  calculated.
All very interesting and a great , challenging puzzle.

Surely the real test is simple .


The circuit only needs to run itself (caged)without any battery and produce more energy than any caps used in the circuit can possibly hold.
Time is your friend

Smaller caps rather than big ones would be all that would be required to make the sums easy so that a simple 30 buck   analouge meter would be all you would need.

Other wise you will find youself with digital measurement errors
Whats the difference between 1 and zero?  Answer ..1 or zero depending on the time .
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #145 on: 2011-01-13, 14:18:07 »
Group: Guest
Rosemary:  "There is always more energy measured to be dissipated than can be measured as heat. "
Professor:  "Are you saying that our means of measuring integrated power, from the trace provided by the product of voltage and current traces (appropriately measured) will ALWAYS be less than what can be measure as heat? "
Rosemary:  "There is always indication on our own tests that there is far more energy measured from a voltage analysis across the resistor than is evident from the energy dissipated as heat"

I think the professor understands it the other way around.
   
img  ltseung888
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #146 on: 2011-01-13, 14:33:40 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011-01-13, 10:41:24
Dumped:

It's all about preventing this thread from being hijacked.  Sometimes I just tell it like it is.  Before too long it will evolve into another unsubstantiated aether theory applied to Lawrence's device.  Sometimes you just have to speak up and try to cut the crap.

PhysicsProf is here to test the device, why don't we let him do that instead of wandering off on all sorts of tangents?

MileHigh

Dear MileHigh,

Thank you for your trying to keep this thread on track.  PhysicsProf now has at least four FLEET prototypes with Tseung FLEET Comparison Index of various values.  He also has two 1 inch toroid cores to do more prototypes.

He now has an oscilloscope that can do the multiply function directly.  He also has the software to do the integration.  Thus he is fully equipped to do the “energy = integration of the Instantaneous Power Curve over time”.  The Instantaneous Power is given by the product of the Instantaneous Voltage across the source and the Instantaneous Voltage across a 1 ohm resistor.

Please let him do this test first.  He will be able to provide the screen shots, displayed and calculated values.  His COP values will be the ratio of Output Energy over Input Energy over the same period to the best ability of his equipment.

Other cooks, please wait until the meal is cooked.  If you want, I can provide you with the raw meat (FLEET prototypes).  Thank you.

Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited
   
img  aetherevarising
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #147 on: 2011-01-13, 14:43:48 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011-01-13, 14:18:07
Rosemary:  "There is always more energy measured to be dissipated than can be measured as heat. "
Professor:  "Are you saying that our means of measuring integrated power, from the trace provided by the product of voltage and current traces (appropriately measured) will ALWAYS be less than what can be measure as heat? "
Rosemary:  "There is always indication on our own tests that there is far more energy measured from a voltage analysis across the resistor than is evident from the energy dissipated as heat"

I think the professor understands it the other way around.

Not sure of your point here.  You've put some quotes together out of context and are saying what?  Sorry GibbsHelmholtz.  I'd need you to clarify this.  We're talking about two separate measurements.  The one relates to the power in/out analysis that invariably - in our experience is less than the energy dissipated at the load and is measured as heat.  And the other relates to the analysis of power dissipated by the resistor which is fraught.  One cannot apply a standardised Ohm's value as this varies with the high frequencies that we switch at.  Quite apart from which there is evidence of ringing and RF that I have no idea how to quantify.  Where - on the face of it there is way more power than measured - this number is fraught with potential error.  I know of no expert who will hang his hat on this number.  But it's not required.  One can use calorimetric values that are entirely dependable.

Rosemary
   
img  aetherevarising
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #148 on: 2011-01-13, 14:58:04 »
Group: Guest
And MileHigh.  Please do not tell me that a cycle mean average is the same as an integrated power value.  it is not.  String an arbitrary list of plus minus numbers together and sum that total and then divide it by that sample number and you'll get a mean average value.  Then separate those numbers plus to plus/ minus to minus.  Then do a count.  If there are more incidents of plus to minus - or vice versa - then over a given time period that frequency will need to be factored in.  Say the minus represents 45% of the time and the plus represents 55% of that same time period - then that difference needs to be factored in.  It is lost in a straight forward mean averaging.  That's its integrated value.  This was pointed out to me by Le Croy experts.  And it was endorsed by Poynty in discussion.  The difference is this.  The integrated value which is used in the Le Croy is displayed as a voltage.  In other words the Le Croy software does that voltage sum for us across a given sample range.  This value is invariably different to the cycle mean average.  I can display both values.  These values are never the same.  Nor are they the same when you transpose that analysis directly onto the data dumps. 

It is one thing to be accused of being wrong.  But it gets me down when I have to justify myself knowing full well that it actually is not ME who is wrong.  When do you actually stop pointing out my stupidity MileHigh and when will you at least do so against appropriate criticisms.  This is really getting me down. 

 
   
img  GibbsHelmholtz
Re: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? « Reply #149 on: 2011-01-13, 15:02:10 »
Group: Guest
I am just talking about the output part.  The output scope reading will not show correct power.  The heat will be less than what is read on the output scope.  
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-26, 17:19:58