Argon Tube Power Source

[Richard Hull]

Without going into to much detail. You basically have a maximized current flowing through the right lamp for larger slices of time.

On the right side, the two capacitors are not needed and a single 1.75ufd capacitor will give the same result. The bridge is attempting to feed the capacitors at a 120hz rate not a 60hz rate. The capacitors attempt to charge as the sine rises. It is well known that the current in such a circuit is maximum. So the lamp is recieving maximum current through it and, as the sine rises, the capacitors charge proportionally. and the lamp lights. At some point in the sine, the argon tube fires and acts as a short. The capacitors now act as a source of low impedance voltage which supplies maximum voltage on discharge keeping the lamp current up. This effectively gives a maximized current at voltage to the right lamp over the bulk of each 120hz input sine. (RC circuit). When the tube stops firing on the bak side of the sine the caps attempt to charge even on the falling voltage and current to the lamp continues to zero and immediately picks up again.

The lamp on the left side is actually a current limiter to the variac you are using and is only attempting to see a maximized current when the argon tube is dishcarging, unfortunately, the inductance of the variac or the pole transformer is in very high and on a short, the current lags the voltage in a sine transient. All the voltage appears across the inductor and not the lamp, robbing the bulb on the left of current it needs to stay lit brightly. (RL circuit)

Basically the thing is charging as an RLC circuit with double the R ..... (Two bulbs in series). But when the argon fires. The bulb on the right is fed by the RC circuit while the bulb on the left is now handled as an RL circuit and starved for current at a critcal period when the argon tube fires. There probably a similar function going on with the dynamic resistance changes of the filaments, too. (they are not 360 ohms when at various temperatures.)

As Dave notes, this would all be made manifest only with a four channel scope or a four channel high speed A-D data logger as you see the time ordered power delivery in this horrible mix of sometimes RL, sometimes RC, sometimes RLC and constant dynamic R changing mish mash of circuitry.

It is important to note that there is no L in the right bulb's discharge path once the argon tube fires. Changing the value of the charging cap will see the circuit dynamics change amazingly.

The whole thing is a function of the dynamic filament resistance and reactive circuitry. The energy apparently GAINED on the right side in a very hot filament is a sign of energy Lost on the Left side in the rectifiers and L which never hit the left bulb.

The thought that a Phd is needed here is not the case. People getting B.S.E.E and even two or three year A.S. E.E. degrees are dragged through the torments of reactive circuitry and temperature coefficients of resistance. So a good EE technician can even see through this one.

The energy that didn't make it to the lamp on the left got lost in the inductance of the variac or pole transfromer (also on the left). It is not a case of more energy appearing in the circuit on the right, but more energy appearing in the LAMP on the right.

Richard Hull

[AbbaRue]

I built 4 vacuum tubes today and have been testing them. I bought some 100 Watt bulbs today, and am using one of them as the output test bulb.
The 100 Watt bulb lights to full brightness and the limiting bulb is still barely lighting up.
The 4 tubes I built are all made from 1 inch piping with an aluminum spike down the center. I made 2 aluminum, 1 galvanized, 1 black steel gas pipe. The galvanized and black steel pipes work well but they get hot and go into glow mode. The aluminum pipes dissipate the heat better so they keep working in discharge mode longer.
You see when the discharge tube goes into glow mode the negative plate gets a purple haze of plasma around it, and almost no AC power is created. I believe this is why this new energy source wasn't discovered earlier, because neon tubes are designed to operate in plasma mode to give off the pretty coloured lighting. When the tube operates in discharge mode it gives off a farely load buzzing sound and there is almost no light given off by the tube, you just see an arcing across the plates. It's this arcing that produces the AC current that I'm taping into. Now I'm not the researcher that is doing the high tech measurements to prove this tube works as a source of free energy. That research has been done by the patent holders, and the research findings are available for your study on there website, they have whole ebooks available on there website for free downloading if any skeptics out there want the scientific proof. I have no reason to doubt there measurements. I'm not interested in proving or disproving this technology, but just like others on this forum that are building fusors, and testing them, I am building these discharge tubes and testing them. I was hoping for others on this forum to maybe join me in this adventure and build some tubes of there own. So we could share our findings, if someone wants to be a skeptic and try to come up with theories about this discovery, I would suggest you email the patent holders, they are the ones who have done the detailed research and taken the detailed high tech measurements. I have done a search on the internet, and I haven't come across any technical rebuttals about this technology yet. In any case here is the link to the Correa website were all the research info can be found. I don't have the money or facilities that this couple has, so I have no intentions on doing indepth measurements in it. I am interested on perfecting my own discharge tubes and utilizing the access energy. Here is the link to there website: http://www.aetherometry.com/

Now, the replies I really look forward in seeing are from others that are considering building there own version of this discharge tube, so we can exchange info, and solve construction problems. I still haven't come up with a good way to seal these vacuum tubes, so I can remove them from the pump, and use them alone. I want to expariment with what happens when I run 2 tubes in parallel with each other, the interaction between them should be interesting. Also what will happen when 2 tubes are connected in series with each other.
There are a lot of interesting expariments to do. I didn't get my diodes and caps yet, so I am still limited. Hope they arrive soon.

One final note: According to your theories on this circuit, we can cheat the utility company, because the way they monitor how much power we consume in our homes is by connecting a small electric motor in series with the power entering our homes, and just like my limiting resistor bulb the electric motor turns according to the current traveling through it. Only instead of producing light it poduces motion.
Just a thought for you skeptics.
Till later Harold.

[DaveC]

Harold -

Suggest you go read up on how a watt-hour meter actually works. It is NOT in series with the voltage... it has two sets of windings, and produces a rotating magnetic field that drags the spinning disk around in direct proportion to the product of volts time current times the cosine of the phase angle between them.

Your system will not "fool" it. Trust me (or not ) on that one.

Not to belabor the point, but your mention that the discharge tubes are actually arcing... not a real glow discharge... means that you will have some seriously noisy currents and voltages to measure.. It will take some very careful setup to get the right answers.

But.. there is no energy being made here.. only energy being consumed.

Dave Cooper

[Starfire]

Dave - utility meters are easy fooled. A 25va transformer with a mains coil and a 6mm 2 turn secondary winding connected antiphase across the live (outside) terminals will run the wheel back - A guy in Belfast was successfully prosecuted for electric theft when a meter inspector visited his home to take a meter reading and recorded a lower reading than the previous one - it could only happen in Ireland. An adjustment to far.

[Alex Aitken]

Harold, if you look at Richards and my explanations, which are essentially the same, you will see exactly why the argon gap must be in 'spark gap' mode, not glow mode for the second lamp to be brighter.

You are not getting out more power than you are 'measuring'. You are just using the tesla coil time compression trick to raise the effective impedence of the second bulb. So it glows brighter. Study the tank circuits of tesla coil designs, they charge a capacitor over half a cycle, and then discharge through a few turns of air coil. Without this trick the high impedence secondary of the EHT transformer would never in a million years be able to drive the ultra low impedence primary of the main air coil.

If you place a 12v 40W bulb in series with a 120v 40W bulb the latter will always be brighter (until it burns out) on any voltage due to its higher impedence. The tank circuit raises the impedence of your second bulb, that is all. If you could measure the RMS voltage over your output bulb accuratly (difficult job with the voltage spikes) and over the input bulb you'd find 2 things. Firstly that the 'output' bulb voltage is larger than the 'input' and secondly that they both add together to the same value (or slightly less due to losses) as the RMS voltage between the input terminals (which as I gather things is the output of your variac).

You have said before that most free energy devices you have looked at turned out to be mistakes in electronics measuring, but I look at it from a different perspective. I see the first error as ignoring the laws of thermodyamics.

[AbbaRue]

There is another interesting observation I have made, I am using 4 diodes hooked up as a bridge rectifier. The diodes are 400 volt 3 amp diodes. After runing the discharge tube for over an hour with a 100 watt lightbulb connected to the output, the diodes are still cool to the touch. I have worked around electronics for many years and without heatsinks diodes will get warm very quickly, especially after putting out 100 watts of power. Also another point, I moved the limiting lightbulb into the DC section so it is now connected directly in series with the discharge tube, and the bulb still barly lights up. I have also noticed that the discharge tube works best with a 100 watt bulb connected to the AC output. The limiting bulb is still just a 40 watt bulb. These are 120 volt bulb by the way not 12 volt bulbs. I'm going to try copper piping now to see how it works, the patent holders stated that copper was the poorest metal to use for the plates, but it's the easyest to work with.
Anyway, still exparimenting, till later Harold.

[Starfire]

A new circuit diagram Harold please?

A full assessment of the operating conditions reported, can not be made with out meaningful measurements on proper instrumentation and clear diagrams. A more methodical approach is called for when analyzising a scientific study so that comparisions can be made to understand if anything unusual is happening with the apparatus in variance to known principles.
There is much wisdom in taking carefull note of the explainations from Richard and Marvin and their analysis of what is happening.

[AbbaRue]

In reading up on Vacuum discharge tubes, I have come to understand were your theory is coming from. It is true and accurate that an Argon tube connected in the fasion I have, does behave as Richard and Marvin have stated. This theory is mentioned by the Correa's, and is refered to as Vacuum Arc Discharge VAD for short. But the Correa's observed another form of discharge taking place under the proper conditions which they refer to as "Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge"
or PAGD for short. It was under PAGD conditions that the eccess power generation was observed and measured. Power that couldn't be explained by the accepted theories of physics.
To produce this eccess power requires the proper tweeking of the apparatus. If not tweeked properly the circuit operates in VAD mode instead of PAGD mode, and will follow the normal laws of thermodyamics.
The explanation can be found at the following website about half way down the page:
http://www.globalserve.net/~lambdac/Pwr ... chor985723

My interest is in maintaining this PAGD, which does produce eccess energy. I needed to make this statement, just to let all know I don't want to take anything away from what Richard and Marvin have stated. There point is understood and accepted. But the Correa's have demonstrated over and over again that there finding does produce a large amount of eccess energy. But the discharge tube must be operating in the proper mode. Thanks for your input.
Till later still exparamenting Harold.

[Starfire]

Ok Harold but interpreting operating conditions scientifically requires calibrated measurement of all the parameters and systematic recording of the measurements and conditions - particularly where over-unit is perceived. Statments like " it looks brighter " or "requires the proper tweeking " are meaningless to a Physicist.

The Physical Thermodynamic laws have never been successfully challanged nor disproved and experiments which challange these must be repeatable to be accepted. The cold fusion fell down on the repeatability aspect but that is not to say that it is impossible. That said, an open mind is always required to accept an abnormal phenomenon possibility in fringe science - but it still has to be science - if not, then it is a faith. The forum is one place you will get a honest hearing ( and many critics

[AbbaRue]

A little off topic, but I have always wished to talk to those involved in the cold fuson experiments. There is one question I have always wanted to ask them. A friend of mine bought an ultrasonic room humidifier. This humidifier used an ultrasonic transducer to vibrate water and turn it into a very fine mist. The transducer only used about 15 watts of electricity but produced as much water vapour as a 1500 watt kettle. Using these cold fuson investigators means of determining energy output. This ultrasonic humidifier was doing 100 X over unity, because they had the chamber near the boiling point of water, and they used the amount of water that boiled off as the means of determining the energy efficency.
If you turn hot water into ultrasonic vapour, it would appear you are getting steam given off, because it would feel hot to the touch.
So I have always wanted to ask them if they checked if the water vapour was actually steam and not ultrasonic vapour. One sure way of checking if the vapour is really steam is to try runing a steam engine with it. Ultrasonic vapour has no pressure to do work.
Anyway just a question I have always wanted to ask because the cold fuson chambers I have witnessed on video give off a lot of noise, so must be a lot of Ultrasonics present too.

Now concerning the tube, I will keep experimenting, and the final test to see if I am getting more energy out then what I am putting in will not depend of measuring instruments, I don't trust any measuring instrument on the face of this earth. The true test will be to use the output from one tube to run a second tube. And then use the second tube's output to run the first tube. Then I will disconnect from the grid and have a self running device. At that point no amount of theories or measurements will be able to convince me that I don't have over unity, because I know the circuitry can only store so much energy to run on it's own.
I have already stated, I don't have the money to buy expensive test equipment, even a simple digital oscilliscope costs hundreds of dollars, and it probably won't do the job. Measurements are nice if you want to fine tune a circuit to get the most out of it. But I prefer to use the brute force method. If it is giving off 5 times over unity as the Correa's claim, it should have no problem runing itself. From my calculations any device that puts out 3 times the energy input should be able to sustain itself. Anything less then 3 times can't, and only serves as a more efficant energy converter.
Anyway, I still await my diode and capacitor shipment so I can build the test circuit I need to see if this baby will run itself. I got a good deal on the components. 1000 volt diodes at 6 amps only 17cents a peice.
470 mfd 400 volt capacitors only $1.90 each. Those are US prices, add $6 S&H. If anyone knows of a better deal please let me know, I may need to order some more caps later.

I finally got some tubes made that keep enough vacuum to sustain the discharge, for hours.
These babies get real hot after a while, so I will be looking at using them as a possible heating source too. Interestingly, no matter how long I run these things, my diodes stay cool, actually cool like touching cold steel, and I'm not using any form of heat sink.
For people interested in measurements. I'm using a Micronta true RMS digital multimeter model 22-174B I bought at Radio Shack.
Average values I get when the tube is runing at a steady rate:

Input DC 360 Volts , Output AC from the tube 116 Volts at 400 Hz. This is with the 40 watt bulb in series with the tube on the DC side, and a 100 Watt bulb connected to the output. I now use only one 3.5 mfd AC cap to keep DC from getting to the 100 watt bulb, I only used 2 caps because I was copying the Correa's circuit, and they used 2, I never thought I needed more then one in the first place (without the cap the two bulbs light to full brightness and the variac starts buzziing like crazy).
The 40 watt limiting bulb still barely lights up or not at all, while the 100 Watt bulb is at full brightness. Here is a new circuit diagram.

Till later Harold.

[Q]

ok, i have to ask, why do you use a 40 watt lamp as a current limiter? why not use a heavy duty resistor? yes you would still have thermal issues with the resistance, but it would be way more stable that a lamp filiment.

also, have you tried any other type of load on the output side of the circuit? how well will it run an inductive load? (motor)

i agree, unless you have the correct test equipment, under good calibration, AND use it properly, any measurments taken are useless. however, i would think that getting a rough idea of the input power would be a necessary first step. (even if you cant afford an oscilloscope, perhaps you could borrow one? most schools will have someone around that would gladly help you test this device out)

just some random thoughts...
Q

[Richard Hull]

That variac buzz could be an approaching resonant point and you can really be fooled there with energy distribution. Make sure your brush isn't dancing around in arc mode as well.

So many unquantified reactive variables here.

Richard Hull

[AbbaRue]

I'm using light bulbs at the moment because its the easyest source of high power resistor I can get. Radio Shack don't carry high power resistors. And bulbs are cheap at Canadian tire. 4 for 89 cents.
Today I have been making some more intensive measurements, still runing a 100 watt bulb.
On the DC end I measured 330 VDC @ 175 milliamps. That works out to 57.75 Watts input. On the AC output end entering the 100 watt bulb, I got 155 VAC @ 520 milliamps. that works out to 80.6 watts.
The frequency was at 200 Hz so my meter don't react fast enough to the pulses, so I suspect the AC readings should be slightly higher.

Still studying this phenomenon, will keep you updated. Harold

[TBenson]

Perpetual motion. Bah.

[AbbaRue]

I have been doing some detailed measurements in the last few days, sure time consuming.
Anyway below are two charts of the detailed measurements taken.
The first one is using 100 watt bulb as output.
The second one is using 2x100 watt bulbs in parallel.
The 2x100 watt bulbs didn't recieve enough current to light to full brightness, but the tube tried it's best. Ran very well.

The measurements are arranged in increasing order according to what the AC output of the tube was. As my tube slowly looses vacuum the AC voltage goes up. So it appears that the higher the vacuum the lower the power output. The output current and voltage goes up at a steady rate until the vacuum is to low to sustain the discharges. If I could build a tube that didn't loose it's vacuum, it could be tweeked to get the best output to input ratio and sealed at that spot. A glass discharge tube should do the trick, but I don't have the glass blowing tech. needed. Anyway below are the measured resaults.


And to the preveous replyer, this isn't perpetual motion, but the conservation of energy, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another. These tubes are collecting some form of energy and converting it to electrical energy. I don't believe in any form or perpetual energy, but I have read that the amount of cosmic energy bombarding this earth 24x7's is enough power to light 1.5 million 100 watt bulbs for each man, woman, and child on this earth. All we need to do is find a way of converting cosmic radiation into usable electricity and all our energy problems would be over. Thanks for the replies and keep experimenting, the answer to endless energy is out there.
Till later Harold.

[Richard Hull]

I'll bet you used a real nice digital multimeter to take these measurements; didn't you?

It lied to you, of course. All of your measured figures are in error! A good engineer or even a technician would know that.
None would have consulted a digital volt and ammeter to read or record data from this circuit. They would realize that the meter would lie through its teeth, based on some silly averaging the factory provided (like for pure, in phase sine waves of voltage and current).

The factory did its best, but they assumed a certain knowledge on behalf of the user, (always dangerous - assuming).

Only a 4 channel high speed data logger system taking about 10,000 samples or more a second for voltage and current in and out of this system and calculating and plotting the wattage 10,000/sec will come close to telling the real story here. You would find the Pin vs. Pout curves so generated to nearly overlap (true conservation of energy.)

This is the real stumbling point with the new energy crowd..........They use electronic meters to record their electronic data in circuits that go buzz, bang, boom, pop, arc and fizz. Somethng the meters were never designed to do.

Note* Some bench top O'scopes in the $3000 class have a single computational trace channel where channel one can be assigned voltage and channel two assigned current and a third channel will compute and display real time power (E x I).

But, why blow the big bucks when a $600.00 "pico scope" hooked to a computer will do all this for you (provided you are not getting microsecond events in your power data.)

For a real insight into real data logging done on supposed overunity systems go to:

http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/index.html


This is the Earthtech site. These are real new energy researchers with a decent budget, plus, they have brains and knowhow. They are looking at only new energy devices and systems. They, unfortanately, are not seeming to find any. Look, especially, at their carefully conducted experiments and data logged Pin/Pout results.

These folks are honest and damned good at what they do. They do only one thing for their paychecks.......the test for the veracity of overunity systems. Their "money source" demands that they do only that.

It is downright amazing how those Pout plot reuslts are always just below the Pin plots.......They move on, in their plodding way, to the next overunity claim and take it from the top, (carefully), yet once again.

Richard Hull

[AbbaRue]

I tested one of my other tubes to see what readings I would get with it, and I got very close to the same type of readings with it.
Because of the higher current output I was getting from the tube with 2x100 Watt bulbs connected, I tried using 600 watts for the output, and the current readings I was getting (with the vacuum set right) were averaging about 1.25 amps at 175 Volts. That's 218.75 Watts output. And my input measurements were about 175 Volts at 225 mA that's 39.375 watts input. This means I am getting 5.5 times the wattage output to the wattage input.
That's 450 % over unity.
I tried hooking up a 1000 watt baseboard heater to the tube and I still got about 1.25 amps, so it appears this is the maximum current the tube can put out. 1.25 amps. But the most interesting thing is the input voltage and current didn't change when I connected and disconnected the higher load, even with the 1000 watt baseboard heater connected.
Even if I'm not using $600 meters or high cost oscillascopes, these differences are to high to account for because of lack of accuracy.
I am starting to wonder about the people on this forum, how much more proof do you need. When I had one 100 watt bulb connected I was typically getting 50 % over unity, when I tried 2x100 watt bulbs I was getting 100 % over unity then when I used 600 watts worth of load I got 450 % over unity, how long will you guys refuse to accept the obvious. Sorry for getting so exited about this, but there is a point were common logic has to kick in. I am using 5 different meters from 4 different manufacturers, I am using both analog and digital meters, and still get the same typical readings.
450 % over unity is just to large a difference to logically dismiss because of poor equipment.
Com'mon man were is your logical common sense gone. I could understand the 50 % over unity as an error but not 450 %.
And I had the tube runing for a good 3 hours taking measurements, this isn't a breif reading this is a steady average reading.
And even with the vacuum not set just right, I almost always get over 2.5 times the output to input, with the 600 watt load connected. So greater then 150% over unity is the norm for this tubes output.

Till later Harold.

[Adam Szendrey]

Harold i appriciate your enthusiasm, but it is obivious that nothing has been prooved, exept for the fact, that you don't have the proper instrumentation and knowledge to verify your own claims. Yes that is harsh, but that is the way i see it. You have been told SEVERAL times in this thread, that you should use a high sampling rate data loggign system, or a good digital o-scope, but you simply ignore it, because you WANT your device to work...it would be great, i would love a portable source of endless energy, but desire and fact are usually not overlapping.
Simple multimeters (digital or not) CAN produce such different readings, they proove nothing at all.

If you'll ever power this device via it's own output (or at least provide reliable data), i will (and i think all of us) accept that it can tap into the ZPE, active vacuum, or whatever we call it.
On the other hand Harold is right about over-unity. There is no such thing, energy is always conserved, BUT where that energy comes from is another matter. In an "OU" device the energy comes from a source we are not familiar with, that's all, the device itself can be thought of as a kind of "transistor".

Oh and science...it IS faith...

Adam

[AbbaRue]

My reason for posting on this forum is because I realized that anyone who is trying to build a fusor, probably already had everything they need to build one of these Argon discharge tubes. But they may not have all the equipment needed to build a fusor yet. So in the mean while as a side project they may want to build and test one of these discharge tubes out. Good way to get your feet wet in working with vacuums and how to get the power to the components in the vacuum.
Maybe someone who has a good 4 input scope can build and test one of these and give us pictures of the scope waveforms. I have my own scope but the power supply transformer for it burned out and I haven't been able to find a schematic for it to get the transformer specs. If I knew what the transformer output voltages are supossed to be I could design another power supply for it. I spent a few hours on google looking for leads but didn't come up with anything. I had the scope given to me by my boss when I worked as an electronic tech. a few years ago. The only model information it has on it is Samick 505, which is printed on the front of the scope above the display. No other model info found anywhere. If anyone has one of these of there own let me know.
I'm sorry I can't satisfy the skeptics on this forum with high quality measurements that satisfy there requirements, at this time. I am trying my best, with what I have. Maybe I picked the wrong forum to join, I found no one else that's interested in this project, I only got skeptisism. I hoped to find some pioneer spirit from someone on this forum, but even after my measurements got 5.5 times the power out, no one is willing to give this even a little more consideration.
They just pushed it off as poor measurements.
I think Adam Szendrey said it best. " Oh and science...it IS faith..." so like any other religeous fanatic, if someone comes up with something that violates your faith you just brush it off as a falsehood, without giving it a second thought.

Sorry for waisting your time and forum space, I will look for a more receptive group on another forum.

Bye for now Harold

[Starfire]

Harold - many folk on the forum are deeply involved in the persuite of Fusion and commit there time and efforts toward this. All have their own opinions but respect any ideas from whatever source. I have equipment to test your project but would find it a diversion from my own direction. This is not from disrespect of your ideas but my own agenda priority. BTW you can obtain ready made glass plasma tubes. - try contacting the seller of a tube I had bought -- ebay 7551176344 - he will supply others. { you will notice from the date of the win - it was before your original post. Many of us try many things }

[DaveC]

Harold - take your device to the nearest college or University that has an electronics lab. If you invest a little time ingetting your measurements done correctly, you will see, that this part of "Science" is not really faith, but careful, cautious, methodical testing. One forms a theory or premise partly in the belief that the evidence leads that direction. He then (if he is a good scientist) carefully tests his theory and tries every possible wasy to disprove it. Only when he fails to prove it wrong or explain by prior concepts, does he tentatively offer the results for others to consider.

Do the scope measurements as we have suggested, and you will see what we are talking about. Digital and Analog meters can be very misleading in what they present. Comparing peak derived average or RMS data with DC average data in even a simple 1/2 wave diode rectifier circuit feeding a load, will produce similar results to yours. And those numbers are wrong. I have taught electronics for years, at Jr. College level and this is one of the pitfalls of instrumentation that we train the students to avoid.

Dave Cooper

[Alex Aitken]

The answer is very very simple. If you are getting 450% over unity, then power your input from your output.

[Richard Hull]

Marvin, you know they will never do this! It would be far to telling! It would burst a bubble so important to the needful. The needful of hope, of a brighter future, of a faith in man's power over his environment and ultimately over even the laws of nature.

We are, indeed, the smallest of mighty things.

Richard Hull

[Starfire]

or in Irish - ' Mighty Small '

[Alex Aitken]

Richard,

I'm sure youve seen the pattern before, from the tentative "I think Ive discovered a new power source, I can generate small excess power according to my calculations from these measurements" which gets a cynical response and quickly changes to "My calculations show massive amounts of excess power from these brand new measurements" and which quickly deterriorates to paranoia and conspiricy theory psychosis "You are all trying to supress these results to protect your precious science/Oil profits", go away angry that noone will help them make the one bit of kit they can't design themselves - the 'trivial' part that converts the output power produced into a form compatable with the input. In this case thats not really hard. Any EE could make a convertor efficiant enough to fufil the given voltage/current specs, trouble is his criteria for a working convertor is that it produces perpetual energy when combined with his circuit not that it actually converts the voltages he says he needs efficiantly. Hows about that, you build an arc circuit that magically creates excess power, violating the first rule of thermodyanics, and in the same attempt you manage to make a convertor that destroys more energy than you can make also violating the first law!

I love the way that creating 50% excess energy might be seen as weak proof that his system is overunity, but that he can show us numbers that produce 450% excess energy which he thinks makes his case stronger. I also love the way that a system that makes energy out of nothing seems less plausable than a system that boosts a primary input power. Ive also seen people do the math for running heaters based on the input coming from mains, completely oblivious to the concept that if the output really is more then you can run the input from the output and the power is therefore 100% free.

175V step up is pretty easy, not like the homopolar generator crowd. They have maybe half a volt (Its been a long time since I argued with one of these types and I can't say I miss it much) at thousands of amps and they cant figure out how to use that to run the high power mains motor. Stepping up half a volt at that sort of current must give EE's screaming nightmares.

Maybe there's a moral in all of this. People that expect something for nothing deserve everything they get.