Physicist Steven E. Jones shows 8x overunity circuit and measurements (1 of 2)

[batsali99]

hook the output to the input of the same circuit, if it really has an efficiency of more than 8 as you state, then you wouldn't need an energy source (battery). My guess is that the measurements are being done wrong.

[conspiracyfactist]

Why don't you take the output power and use that to power 7 or 8 more of these circuits, effectively multiplying your total available output power. Something like this would make it easy for a non-engineer to understand the reality of this.

[allowambeBOWWAMB]

I'll pay 10 000$ for a small plant to power my house + cover airplane fees etc. I will pay when it's set up and actually is proven to power my house in a stable fashion for a week. Ya dig?

[quantumparanoia]

@bloggulator That would still throw the 2nd law of thermodynamics into danger. Coz room heat cannot be utilized without doing any equivalent work and the work must be done by the circuit itself...if it is true the input will always have to be greater than the output.

[quantumparanoia]

@Xero555000 : In deriving Maxwell's original equations Maxwell never heard of entropy function popularized by Clausius, in fact he derived it using the concept of fields as strains in ether. Neither mathematical form of Kelvin-Planck's statement existed in 1864. Picking up energy from the vacuum background won't affect the 2nd law if it is assumed that vacuum energy distribution is non-uniform in space. Over unity may be possible...the above experiment shows this. Isn't it?

[bloggulator]

All components and connections in a circuit have a degree of resistance, which causes dissipation of energy in the form of (primarily) heat. If the output energy exceeds the input, then to balance the equations and avoid violating the laws of nature, it would imply that the excess energy is being pulled from "somewhere else". Maybe: place the circuit in an insulated container, and carefully measure the air temperature as the circuit is running. If the air gets colder, that would provide a clue?

[crudip]

My guess is his shunt resistor calculations are off (how he's reading his current). If you had 0.92 watts across that little resistor it would get hot and burn out in a matter of minutes. DC power in a resistor manifests itself as heat, so feel your output load and see if it gets warm. Take my advice "professor", trust your fingers more than those oscilloscopes.

[rtom09]

I believe that the input power measurements are not reflecting the actual load of the battery, but as mentioned, if he can disconnect the battery and run the circuit on a self-charging capacitor, that runs indefinitely, then that would indicate overunity.. (can't find the followup capacitor test though)

[RubertaLang]

Hahahaha FAIL on how to properly use an oscilloscope.

[quantumparanoia]

what I feel is: over unity is possible..as it is evident from the classical ED that maxwell eqn are complete without 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics, but energy conservation and entropy increment are also true, I think the vacuum energy is being picked up by the ckts in resonance.

[Xero555000]

@quantumparanoia but the fact that energy is just being concentrated from the vacuum violates the second law... maxwell's equations were derived with energy and entropy well in mind... over unity is not possible

[dmitrybrant]

As with all electrical circuits that claim to produce more power than they consume, I pose the following question: why does it require a battery? Why can't you feed the output back onto itself, and take the battery out of the circuit? (the question is, of course, rhetorical)

[LiamXaoh]

@dmitrybrant - you shouldn't ask those sorts of questions...

I did once and the inventor said although his device put out more power than it consumed there were problems with "harmonics" when he connected the output to the input. LOL

Until they repeal those stupid laws of physics none of these devices will ever produce over-unity.

[FineHawaiianArt]

input ( Volts1 X Amps1 / Time1) = or less than Output (Volts 2 X Amps2 / Time2 )

At best his circuit gathers energy from space via the either?, At worst it collects small amounts of energy from the source through the circuit and into a energy storage unit "capacitor" then releases it at one instance faster than the measurement parameters the scope is set at, giving the appearance of more power. but great experimenting keep it up

[FineHawaiianArt]

The above example may be the electrical equivalent of a high tech bank heist. Lets say hypothetically you have $10 in your bank account and you happen to be Flash Gordon, but you need to show someone you have $100 in your account, The bank security camera has a frame rate of 1 frame / 10 seconds so being that your super fast you withdraw and deposit your money 10 times in 10 seconds saving the receipt stubs which total $100 just in time to stand in front of the camera and prove you have the $.

[stevensrd1]

There are a great many ways to end up with more energy out then in, when its all said and done that is. Do check out some of my videos to understand.

[1HayesEng]

Now, How can we get the composite energy output to feed the input with 700% left over to run the computer? That is the trillion dollar Question... I also build one or two of these units. The waveform on the output was short duty cycle pulses less than 50% making the LED light.

That requires very energy.

I must say, it would have been sooo cool to see additional energy claimed from the Aeither.

Lets not give up working on it.

[meltenbcn]

Short of your conspiracy theories, if it made even a spec of energy more than what was put in, no matter HOW small, any retard could just connect its output again to its input, creating more energy from nothing, disconnect it from the original source of power, put some sort of huge capacitor-like device and save it over time to make the biggest battery this word has ever seen, even if it was to take a long time.

If they CANT do that, then their contraption was false to begin with

[meltenbcn]

this over unity stuff is bogus beyond repair, any time it is mentioned there is always some stupid 'basement' looking device, (probably with a few magnets because the general public think they're magic) supposedly giving a fraction of energy out that can only be measured by some high res device. Can you honestly not see the irony in that?

[psychotickable]

@meltenbcn Are you saying that it is impossible to achieve more output than input? lol You seriously need to research before making silly comments about things you don't understand. Peace

[TheJG1947]

Hello Dr. Steven E. Jones,

I tried to replicate your circuit with no success. The light doesn't come on. That said; I I used whatever parts I had. However, I seem to have stumbled on something very unusual and that is: I made up two circuits, one 48 hours ago and one this morning.

The first one gained 50 M-V and hasn't lost any voltage, the second one at 12:15 today the battery reading was 1.126 and whilst I write it has climbed up to 1.248 and still climbing. Have you experienced it?

Regards.

[dustyoldbook]

great work. i have played with similar circuits in the past. you can see one on my channel, dustyoldbook. i have a circuit with a light bulb in series with a battery not lighting, and a bulb connected to my circuit burning well. i don't have the schematic online yet, or scope shots. i have found that i can read input power easily, but the output reads 0v 0a on several of my meters. i actually fried one of my first scopes trying to get an output reading of one of my earlier designs.

[knet99]

If overunity, connect it to an accumulator as power source. Let the circuit charge the accumulator and also drive a load like a light bulb, and disconnect any external power. If the light bulb will continue to light forever, it is overunity. If not, then it is not.

All videos I have seen of claimed overunity makes room for measurement errors. If disconnected from the external power and power itself, it is real proof.

[batsali99]

@knet99 exactly

[FlavoredCoffeeGuy]

Well, if you use multiple parallel resonant circuits that are transformer coupled, you'll always get more energy on the final stage. But, it's only good for constant loads, like light bulbs and heating elements. The best results can be found only when each resonant stage is actually tuned to the same exact frequency. If you're using toroids, you get ample power but, you'll need doorknob capacitors and high watt tuning capacitors. Inductive coupled Plasma lighting.

[gr8mikeY]

Look at the size of that huge capacitor on the table. At the miniscule wattages he he operating at, I'll bet that capacitor if fully charged up, could keep up the output power for quite a time, regardless of what the input power is.. Why does his setup require such a gargantuan capacitor for the very low sub 1 watt input that he is using. Looks very suspect to me.

[lapmarty]

how can a physisist not see what is doing is absurd, remind me of kurt weis, look it up, a geologist from hardward beleiving the earth was 10 000 years old because of his fundamentalist upbringing, he had to give up science,

what does he think its 2 cent schematic does, build a car, and then youll meet the second law of thermodynamic so sad, anyone knows the backgrond on this guys does he have a reall diploma?

[itsadeadmansparty]

First Be more scientific then ever you are in this video, also Prove it by making this into a usable object, like lawn mower or car, Then we can verify its full potential k

[TheAlbertouno]

Steve:

Really, appreciate what you are trying to do! Have an engineering background myself. I replicated your circuit, and got it to work OK.. Made some changes to the front-end to reduce RF coupling in the breadboard. Got some indication of overunity, but the difficulty is measuring the energy in the waveforms, as you indicated. Would like to keep up with your future work in this area. Best of luck, " TheAlbertouno"

[brantc]

Aether science at Aetherometry

[johnnyaum3]

Yeah, the schematic is the same of my movie Overunity Charger from youtube. Good job Stevie :)

[RoosterLionCrab]

He personally tanked Cold Fusion in the 80s, I seriously believe this is why he did so much work for 9/11 Truth, as a karmic justice. Now he has his own over unity solution, I'd say don't be surprised when they have someone else treat you like you did Fleischmann and Pons. Look it up, honestly Cold Fusion and Hot can transmute elements, literally performing alchemy, so both have their places in super science.

[briddle2]

I don't know how to read this type of diagram yet. You have some jagged lined connect to various things like "O" and other things. But what to they mean? A picture (with references) is worth a thousand words to me.

[electrodacus]

If you get more power out than you put in you do not know to use the oscilloscope or you do not know what you put in.

[AlienEntity1]

Is Dr Jones and electrical engineer? I'd love to hear a critique of this concept from someone properly trained.

When Jones was working on his nanothermite theory, there wasn't a single nanothermite expert in his team, which is kind of weird. It's like designing a high-rise without hiring an SE - even if you're smart, you don't have the expertise to understand fields you're not trained in.

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 Are you trained as an EE? From what I heard Kevin Ryan has done a lot of research into nano thermite and has even made some of it and from what I have heard NIST has quite a few nanothermite experts. Jones certainly worked with thermite before though he even had balls that he clicked together to show his classes faulting him and his colleagues simply for not being experts in nanothermite is unfair because its such a specific field.

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 No, I've read thru a few criticisms from EE's regarding this circuit though. I'm a skeptic - usually if something sounds too good to be true, it isn't true. That's my initial stance regarding anything from this to'save the world' hydrogen fuel-cell cars to 'we'll switch to wind and solar and replace fossil fuels' claims.

Jones is not and has never been a chemist, so regardless what he has farted around with (commercial thermite, for example) it doesn't make him a nanothermite pro.

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 Again, put on your skeptics hat: Not a single author of the 'Active thermitic materials' paper is a nanothermite expert. Not one.

But they do exist, for sure. A group of Scandinavian nanotech experts has taken Harrit to task over a number of problems they see with the analysis, for example. And Dr. Tillotson of Lawrence Livermore is a notable American expert - his published work shows that real nanothermite has a much lower energy density than the material combusted in the DSC ofJones

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 So then the material Jones has is more than nano thermite which would go right along with Mark Basile's opinion. I think more research needs to be done into the substance and you side stepped my question what in you opinion was the method by which the twin towers came down?

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 Continued: lower ED is a big deal - chemically, nanothermite cannot produce as much energy per gram as ordinary organics such as paper etc. It has to do with the oxidized layer that coats fine AL particles - the finer you grind them, the greater the surface area per gram and the more oxidation - hence less pure AL available for combustion.

A little counter-intuitive but that's exactly what real nanothermite exhibits - an ED of closer to 1.5 J/KG. But Jones' stuff is far higher.

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 Despite what you are saying about the ED of nano thermite I have seen a demonstration on video at New Mexico tech of nanothermite and just one layer paint on went right through a steel beam. If nano thermite is so useless as you claim why make it at all? Why research into it?

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 Sorry, you're wrong. It isn't nanothermite you're referring to. It's regular thermite, which is an incendiary, not an explosive that you've seen in the videos, and FYI not a single CD in history has ever used thermite or nanothermite.

Just check the literature if you doubt. It hasn't happened.

In fiction, Hogwart's teaches young wizards and unicorns have horns. This is fiction, not reality dude.

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 If its not nanothermite then why would Van Romero say it was? Well new technology is employed everyday there's is no reason to discount a theory solely on that basis to do so would be self limiting and close minded. Why don't you try to obtain some dust samples and do some tests? You don't think my idea of having a known debunker and truther team do tests would solve the issue?

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 Oh, is VAn Romero an expert on nanothermite? No, of course not. And to top it off he retracted his initial comments 'he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero'

So he revised his assessment about CD.

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 I never said Romero was an expert you just claimed in the beginning of our discussion that in the video where he gives a demonstration that the material was not nano thermite but you are obviously wrong because he explicitly says it was. So this just goes to show one thin layer of this stuff was enough to go right through a steel beam and casts serious doubt on your claim of it being "less energy dense". Your claim of him retracting his statement is irrelevant to this argument.

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 Anyway, Jones et al. should have known this stuff and either were

a) ignorant

b) deceptive

c) a combination of both (oops, we missed that, better pretend it isn't important)

Ordinary folk will get fooled by Jones and Harrit, but high-level scientists trained in those fields will not. That's the critical difference. Same here with the Holy Grail of 'free energy' or 'overunity' circuits. Jones is again dabbling in areas where he lacks expertise, hence he is liable to make errors.

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 So why haven't ANY debunkers tried to do dust studies? I think a known debunker and a known truther should travel together on video tape the whole time to go get a dust sample from an independent source then travel to a lab together to test it in a DSC with inert gas then it will be settled. Are you game?

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 The burden of proof is on 9/11 Truth to prove that there were explosives used. So far they've failed to meet that burden of proof.

If they have proof, then they can take the next step and start criminal proceedings against......... (who knows?)

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 Many claims haven't been made just theories but more than anything there are just questions. The real burden of proof is on the government but I have asked you two times already and you haven't responded: What triggered the sudden onset of collapse in the twin towers? If you don't answer I will not continue our debate.

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 What triggered the collapses? Have you been living under a rock? There's a 10,000 page report which goes into the details, I suggest you read it.

There's a handful of peer-reviewed engineering papers on the subject, there are FEM studies by Purdue University.

Get going dude, your questions have already been answered a long time ago. You're more than a little knowledge-challenged.

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 So you KNOW absolutely that explosives were not used for a fact 100% and you can't see at all how someone might think that? I am not asking for you to direct me to any one study or another and since I am the one who is knowledge challenged and you have read all 10k pages of the NIST report and all other papers you should be able to at least give me a brief summary of them especially the most important part of what initiated the collapses in your own words.

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 Nobody can prove a negative. There is no evidence of controlled demolition, that's all. Evidence would be direct marks of cutter charges on the steel, blasting caps, det cord etc, none of which were found anywhere. The wild speculation of untrained amateurs is not evidence.

Why is it so important 4 u that I tell you how I think the towers fell? You already have your mind made up, and you can read the papers which I referred you to. It doesn't matter what I think about it.

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 Hardly anyone in the truth movement believes that wtc was a conventional CD so putting things out there like cutter charges and det cord is just more strawmen on your part btw you wouldn't need det cord b/c you could just use wireless detonators. If its not important what you think than why do you engage in debate with me and others here and else where? Why even make videos at all if its not matter what you think?

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 Right.... they believe in fantastic tales of super-sekrit exotic explosives never before seen let alone used in any CD in history. But from watching lots of movies, they know it can be done. Sure, wireless detonators, just like in a Die-Hard plot. Trouble is this reality isn't a Hollywood movie, sport. You can't just make stuff up and have it come true, it doesn't work that way.

To cut a column, you still need a cutter charge. There's never been any evidence that these were used nada

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 So sure, the Hollywood version you truthers propose leaves no evidence, and relies on teams of Ninja installers who somehow completely escape any detection as they cut thru people's office walls to plant their super-sekrit explosives. Further, they somehow manage to make it so that, just as the building falls, none of the sekrit explosives can be heard or caught on video. Not one. Back in real life demolitions are freakin' noisy, 130db at 1/2 mile.

Wow.... you've figured it all out!!

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 The truth is, you're exactly like a hardcore Obama Birther - you can wave a birth certificate in your face, you'll just shout 'fake' and keep believing a lie.

You're no different from a truther 'no-planer' who refuses to believe any real jets hit the WTC towers - that's right, it was just holograms and people lying, paid to say they saw a plane hit. It's all a big lie, you see.

Evidence is meaningless in your world. You don't recognize what it is.

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 All of this is off-topic to this video, which is about an overunity circuit, anyway. This discussion about 9/11 should take place somewhere else. It's just gonna hijack this video comment section otherwise.

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 Also to my knowledge Steven Jones has not sent or shared samples with any 'debunkers' (ie skeptics), but has chosen to keep it within the truther fold. Ask him why....

A truther named Tracy Blevins is taking her dust to FH Couannier in France this summer, but he's a hardcore truther, I wish she'd take it to an independent, impartial lab and order the tests. But she won't do that - I guess she's afraid of an impartial assessment, as she's writing a book and wants to sell it.

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 Why should it be necessary to share samples can't any debunker get some dust samples if he/she goes out and obtains some the same way Jones did? But that would require some effort on their part b/c debunkers just want to sit back and criticize without having to do any real work. Case in point if you are a critic of this circuit why don't you build it yourself? I myself have been trying to get professors interested in the dust.

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 These little debates aren't going to well for you are they my friend I guess that's because you spend too much time on the jref forum where everyone thinks alike and agrees with you. Doesn't help hone critical thinking skills that jrefers are so fond of having does it? I will ask my question again for the umpteenth time probably in vain what was the method by which the twin towers came down? If you do not answer I will just assume that I have won and you admit I am the better man.

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 Apply your remark to yourself dude. First, you're completely off-topic to this video, which is about a possible overunity circuit.

I'm not interested in jumping down the truther rabbit-hole with you partly for that reason. But so far you've come up with a bunch of unsupported and incorrect claims, one of which was 'If its not nanothermite then why would Van Romero say it was' - Van Romero didn't say anything about nanothermite. Read his statements and correct yourself.

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 I am not referring to the articles on Van Romero but the demonstration he gave HIMSELF on Jesse Ventura's show of nano thermite where one little layer goes right through a steel beam so I think the "evidence" of it being less energy dense is quite speculative if not just outright false. So please correct YOURSELF.

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 And the FACT that nanothermite has lower energy density is due to basic physics, which is not speculation, sport. It's established truth, scientific fact. Got it? You're being a moron by denying this - you might as well be arguing for a flat earth.

I gave you the references, you still haven't learned or understood.

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 You don't understand the subjects well enough to debate them intelligently, I'm afraid.

Go ahead and declare 'victory', if it inflates your ego to do so. And do try to stay on topic - overunity circuit, remember? No, I guess you don't. LOL

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 But YOU do understand the subjects well enough I suppose and what would be your credentials pray tell in explosives, demolition, or electronics. Doesn't really matter though b/c you could just make up any that you feel like b/c after all this is the internet and any questioning of my understanding is just a hollow appeal to authority on your part. Let's just stick to the strength of arguments and what can be known from our statements here.

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 Based on the arguments you're floundering in a sea of ignorance. You don't even have a basic grasp of the physics, the various studies, or anything of value.

Just stop acting like you know what you're talking about. It's embarrassing for you.

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 How am I floundering in a sea of ignorance when you cherry pick certain questions of mine you would like to answer and IGNORE certain other questions you would not like to answer? As to how much fireproofing was stripped and how many core columns were severed is also pure speculation since no one really can know since the core was not visible. You said "Nobody can prove a negative" but in making these claims NIST is trying to do just that aren't they?

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 You don't understand what proving a negative means. Add that to your list of ignorance. I'm not going to bother teaching you, you can look it up for yourself. Sheesh.

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 ps do you even know the difference between regular thermite and nanothermite? It doesn't appear you do. I don't know how to make this any more plain to you, I can't simplify it any further.

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 I think you don't want to take a stance on how you think the towers came down b/c you know NIST's story is indefensible. So far I have owned you systematically. You said Romero didn't test nano thermite that it was just thermite I disproved that. You said that NT in the vid didn't cut the steel IT DID. You said it was necessary for Jones to give people samples it isn't. I asked why no debunkers have done dust studies no answer from you. Sad thing is you know that you are wrong.

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 Again, you are demonstrating your sheer ignorance about the Jesse Ventura show. Please, link me to a video which shows it cutting thru steel on Ventura's show! LOL

You're right, there was a test where he 'painted on' some superthermite. My mistake. But did it burn thru? No.

So there is no proof that the proposed method would work. I'm done wasting my time with you. You're like a trained parrot, reciting everything you're told without understanding it.

goodbye.

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 If I do show you evidence that nano paint can cut steel will you admit you were wrong on that? Please do not insult me every post alright try to be a bit more civil would James Randi do that? Why don't you answer why no debunkers have done dust studies? What evidence does NIST have that the core columns were severed and the fireproofing was knocked off?

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 I'm done with you dude. You're hijacking this comment section, which is about an overunity circuit, not 9/11.

Take these comments to another video. I've got plenty of videos about 9/11 on my channel.

[josephortizgarcia]

Why is he talking about this?

[chicoarraes]

can you put a single capacitor on the input and use it to charge several capacitors of equal capacity on the output? that would be strong evidence of surplus energy.

[anewlow23]

@feynman1234 I believe his 911 research is still credible but I think at this point after being fired from his job he may just be a broken man still trying to do research in some area while not having all of the really advanced equipment at his disposal. If you think truthers are nut why not in your own words explain how the towers came down?

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 I found a critic (this video has only been around a couple of weeks) who complained that Jones doesn't know how to design a proper analog circuit.. 'The first rule of breadboarding an analog circuit is to reduce all stray inductance and capacitance to a minimum, which is not possible--and is in fact maximized--using a digital patch board.'

It's troubling that Jones himself can't explain where the 'extra energy' is coming from!?! He needs to explain it, to eliminate measurement errors

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 What theory do you subscribe to about how the towers came down? Building 7?

[AlienEntity1]

@anewlow23 And Jones' research into thermite, thermate and nanothermite has been fraught with technical incompetence, confirmation bias etc.... Neither he nor his collaborators has the necessary expertise to encompass all the areas they are addressing.

It's hardly a coincidence that he's jumped from making over-the-top claims about secret explosives to over-the-top claims about so-called 'free energy'. I sense a strong pattern here..

[anewlow23]

@AlienEntity1 What incompetence are you referring to in his work and the work of all the other researchers and an independant confirmation from Mark Basile? The material is energetic no matter what it is and if debunkers really were serious they would do a dust study themselves they just want to sit back and criticize.

[T1000LTU]

Cool, at last someone from conventional physicists came over JT circuit ;)

Now, the only simple thing left - charge output capacitor and LOOP back to the input. And that is tricky part because battery "-" is actually "+" on charging capacitor! Solve this puzzle and you can replace input battery to self charging capacitor...

[matttafakt]

You're trying to prove a theory without fully understanding what you've got.. and that's o.k. Build a device you can use for a typical 200 amp residential home and prove you can reduce power consumption by 8x using AC rather than DC for the time being. That's what the majority wants.

[erkq]

A Joule Thief will run an LED for over 250 hours on a single AA cell. It's no wonder he doesn't see a voltage drop from running it overnight! This is a snow job. Nothing he talks about has anything to do with the issue at hand. Oscillators, resistors, capacitors, oscilloscopes... he tries to make such a complex mystery out of it. There's no mystery at all. There is no "free energy" and whatever he is presenting, it's simply not proof.

[KBendix]

Why laptops camera is closed with plaster?

[kratchouf]

I would like to see your calculations about the integration of the power (to get the total energy), and the sampling rate used?

At the end of your demo you are pointing at the mean value from the tektronik scope wich is a simple arithmetic mean!!!!!!

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE

[DavidAKZ]

@MrEnergyConspiracy let me guess, you are a technician right ?

[overunitydotcom]

Thanks to Sterling to bring us this video with the great new circuit of Professor Jones ! Well done documentation !

Regards, Stefan.

[DavidAKZ]

@4pharaoh well I guess he is assuming the volts and amps are in phase. There is a Tectornix scope shot on the webpage but it's hard to veryify tinyurl . com / 4yuxtac. ps I unspamed your post.

[wopwops0482]

Also, does it work inside a Faraday cage?

[DavidAKZ]

@wopwops0482 brilliant question !

[wopwops0482]

This is extremely exciting! Couldn't he simply run the output straight into the input?

[FlavoredCoffeeGuy]

Use a MOFET

[FlavoredCoffeeGuy]

The higher frequency in GHz, will synchronize to a lower frequency in MHz if the fundamental frequency is imaginary and found by dividing the natural resonant frequency of an element, such as copper the current carrier at operating temperature.

[FlavoredCoffeeGuy]

Cosmic Rays, thermal radiation, natural RF from the elements and the orbit of the electrons around the nucleus. Syncing that energy, requires little, harmonics produce more, even if you're dividing down from a resonant, the effect of sync with resonance is about the same. The fundamental frequency isn't the atom's beat, or natural resonant. Divide down for copper at room temperature based upon Radio Astronomy tables. Always divide by 2 until you reach a usable or practical frequency.

[DavidAKZ]

@FlavoredCoffeeGuy Is this a possible explanation of where the energy is coming from ? Do you have a link thanks ?

[neiallswheel]

smart enough to say he dont know where the energy is coming from.

on that circuit diagram it would be good for a dumbster like me to see where would be the best place to draw power from the circuit. RED dot POSITIVE. BLACK dot NEGATIVE. keep it up . this is good stuff. cheers

[k4zep]

You need some 10 turn pots! Will replicate it when I get back from vacation.

Interesting. Keep the LED out of the circuit or cover it with black tape or

replace with 3 diodes in series for a start. Excellent work Dr. Jones.

Ben K4ZEP

[TomCjr]

How about the link to the article/plans. Can't find it at peswiki.

[PESNetwork]

@TomCjr The video description contains a link to the write-up at PESN. Thanks for your interest.

[Upuauta]

@PESNetwork

Sorry, but I see no link in the description and on your site I can´t find the mentioned article. Could you please give me the link? Thank you very much.

[DavidAKZ]

@Upuauta tinyurl . com / 4yuxtac

[dllabarre]

@PESNetwork hmmm I must be blind because I don't see any URL website link in the description above.

I think i can copy the schematic from the video to get started with my replication but a link to the article would be nice eventually.

[feelalive]

@PESNetwork Actually, there's no link in the video description... :)

[dllabarre]

@TomCjr I tried to post the link and I get and error. Just go to:

peswiki . com/ index. php/ Main_Page and the article is there.

[DavidAKZ]

@dllabarre tinyurl . com / 4yuxtac

[DavidAKZ]

@TomCjr tinyurl . com / 4yuxtac

[MrAbsoluteknowledge]

owsome video Steven E. Jones

rules make a working device upscale it a bit and sell it on ebay:)

[DavidAKZ]

@MrAbsoluteknowledge then the Men in Black will want to talk to you - ha ha ;-)

[MrAbsoluteknowledge]

@DavidAKZ no so sure about that once the genie is out of the bottle

what people like Steven e Jones dont get 1000 people did what he did before him

youtube videos about overunity,

unless u make a device and sell it like andrea rossi ur a dummass

we all know the story of nikola tesla

make the device just replicate it sell in on ebay

if not ur a dummass wasting time for everybody

wasting even mib precious time

[damosapian]

cool, hope this goes somewhere, regardless of whether or not its understood where the power comes from this should be put to practical use asap. looking to follow it on pesn but cant find anything

[koneye]

OU proven , now to world peace :D

[DavidAKZ]

@koneye no (American) blood for oil