O/U in a DC compound motor

Dear Graham,

Unfortunately there's no way I could guess what they did that made the difference.

Best thing to do is get with them (at least the ones who actually did the physical wiring and connecting) and do it again and again (making slight variations as necessary, hopefully clued from what they remember).

As a pure speculation, it sounds as if they did a connection which somehow bypassed some of the back emf current in a shunt parallel to the source input dipolarity. If they used semiconductors, find out exactly what kind, brand name, etc. The point contact transistor, e.g., sometimes exhibited overunity.

As a simple way of seeing it, you are looking for pure regauging (simply changing the potential, as changing the voltage). Voltage amplification alone is not work, and so does not cost anything (except, in the real world, some little something for efficient switching).

So if some part of the hookup and switching components acted as a shunt but also a negative resistor effect (bypass current moving AGAINST the back emf), that could do it.

It is also very important to look for sharp gradients (in the switching, etc.). Leading thermodynamicists already know that strong gradients are one area that does violate thermodynamics and its second law. E.g., see Kondepudi and Prigogine, Wyley, Modern Thermodynamics, corrected copy 1999, p. 459.

For your further information, I attach a copy of a fact paper (please keep it a bit close just yet) that I recently completed on overunity EM systems, where I address the nature of that "gradient violation" a bit, by addressing negative energy, and also giving the exact mechanism by which completely disordered virtual photon energy of the vacuum is coherently integrated into real observable photons and re-emitted as real EM energy. That is perhaps the first actual mechanism -- accomplished by every charge in the universe -- that exhibits the continuous production of negative energy, as theoretically predicted by Evans and Rondoni. They were so shocked at the theoretical results that they expressed doubt that any physical system could do that.

We have nominated the source charge as the first known system that does indeed produce continuous negative entropy.

The Evans and Rondoni reference is: D. J. Evans and Lamberto Rondoni, "Comments on the Entropy of Nonequilibrium Steady States," J. Stat. Phys., 109(3-4), Nov. 2002, p. 895-920.

Good luck in your efforts to reproduce the phenomenology again!

Cheers,

Tom Bearden

Mr. Bearden,

I have been reading about your theories for some time.  I wish to report an unusual occurrence during a lab experiment conducted by my students.  They were to connect a compound motor experiment using Labvolt equipment.  When I checked their results, the current they obtained was only 40% of what it should have been.  Output mechanical power was 170 watts and input power was 120 watts for an efficiency of 142%!  The normal efficiency of this setup is about 60%.  In another part of the experiment, they were to place a maximum load on the motor and gradually increase the input voltage until they obtained 3 A.  Normally, this would happen at about 40 VDC.  They could only reach 2 A even though they increased the input voltage to 130 VDC!  The torque produced by the motor went to >27 ftlb.in or off the scale of the electrodynameter!

Being conditioned by years of being told that the above results were impossible, I assumed that something was wrong with the equipment.  I removed their wiring and reconnected the experiment according to the instructions. Nothing was wrong with the equipment.  Now I am kicking myself for not finding out the error that they made in wiring.  I am hoping that they can remember what they did and that the experiment can be duplicated.  I do know that they had an extra wire in their hookup.  Perhaps they had a connection between the series winding and the shunt winding.  There was a rheostat to control the shunt winding.  I know that this was working because they were able to adjust the speed of the motor to 1800 rpm under no load as directed.  Do you have any suggestions about what they did?

Thanks,

Graham W.