|
Where the energy is coming from is not important at this stage? How much energy in and out is what is needed to confirm. What is the operating frequency of the DUT. Since all components are fixed values that were "supposedly matched to achieve a form of resonance with the complete circuit as is, meaning proper feed supply, unhindered device operation, normalized output, then ANY form of additional side pick up coils or probes will change this resonance. So maybe such questions should not be asked on small DUTs.
I have been trying to explain that same thing in my last few post, about using capacitors. @Milehigh "seems" to agree with this also.
With low energy DUTs, it would be best to simply use a high enough mF cap as feed, another dioded (germanium diode) capacitor as output and just let it run. The feed capacitor will have the same flyback throughput as a battery, it will eliminate the time factor you would have to equate if run by a battery, then dealing with depleted batteries, you will not have to poke and prod or apply near field pick-up coils to the DUT causing any unknown adverse effects or causing or being a potential additional energy source. The output capacitor will stabilize the final energy count regardless of running frequencies, etc. Just put your volt meter probes on the feed cap, measure and remove the probes quickly, then do the same to the output cap never leaving the meter on the cap while running the DUT.
This would provide at least a quick enough method of qualifying a "potential" small OU device for further scrutiny, based solely on how the first method results are. If the results of this first method are so obviously OU or so obviously not OU, then you can just stop there and provide the results. Only if the result of the first method is too close to call, would you then consider doing some more precise analysis.
Also, if such a capacitor run method can be standardized, then potential inventors of small potential overunity devices will have an easy method of doing this test themselves before they even consider sending it in for confirmation.
Now I clearly understand that a high level measurement of any "purported" OU device is desirable including caloric accouting but in many instances, the inventor claims OU without the inclusion of such values. If an easy method was available for all to do, without having to invest in rather expensive equipment and know-how and credibility, then maybe, just maybe that would be a good way to start. The inventor makes his device, tests it with this simple and "accepted" method, reports the results quickly, sends a few sample devices out, testers quickly corroborate those results and that gives you a solid basis to move forward or not to more advanced methods.
What could be devised is a simple table where based on the devices required feed, test duration and anticipated output levels would be replaced with set capacitors of predefined values, set diode values or model numbers, etc.
So if you have a feed cap of 10,000mf 6 volts, charged to 1.500 volts and you have another identical cap on your output at 0 volts, but now, after you run the test you have 4 volts stored in output cap and 0 volts stored in the input cap, then you know it's OU. Simple and sweet. But if your output shows 1.501 volts, then the inventor may decide to tweak the device further to improve on those results before considering declaring it as OU.
wattsup
PS: Keep it simple.
That's what we need.
Question: Is there a formal build spec on this device that one can use to make a unit and test it ourselves? Not just a picture. Maybe this should always be provided when the inventor supplies his device.
---------------------------
|
feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
Author
Topic: Lawrence Tseung sent a Prototype to test... any comments? (Read 342854 times)
