Bill Alek's  device does not work as he claims.  It is nothing more than a transformer with lots of leakage inductance.  Bad measurements lead out dumb conclusions.  If Bill Alek wants to reach a conclusion he need only rent or buy a pair of power analyzers.  He can then configure as he does in his demonstrations where he thinks that the load drives the source and reconcile that with the fact that he hasn't been able to make any device generate net surplus power.

MarkE - I have noted your Opinion!

@ALL - Again I ask:

"Electricity is not made by the generator, it is merely captured or pumped."

Why? How? Ask Questions!!!

Kind Regards

   Chris Sykes - hyiq.org
   To Reach New Horizons!

"The generators that now furnish our electric power do not create or originate any power or electricity; they merely direct "pump" the existing energy or electricity."

They convert brute force mechanical power into brute force electrical power.  They are simply transformers.  If you take the water analogy, the electric field generated in the output coil could be viewed as a pressure pump.  As you travel along the length of the coil you are going up in potential (pressure) due to the 'pushing' electric field inside the coil.  In other words, as you walk along the electric field inside the wire you go up in potential.

For the bucking coils clip, someone could do that test without too much difficulty.  You could measure the AC power going though the primary and secondary quite easily.  A signal generator and an audio amp and a few multimeters and a big fat 8-ohm resistor and a variable load resistor and some odds and ends and you would be able to see what was going on.  The results will be as expected.

MileHigh

How about you post some timing diagrams for your transformer circuit?  Show us where the alleged over unity manifests itself.

Hi Chris,

Very interesting material...could you post some timing diagrams for your transformer circuit...showing where the over unity manifests itself ?


That is how I would respond to Chris...that is, unless I was just here to antagonize and demean people for their efforts.

Regards...


 

I read the first few pages of the pdf and skimmed through the rest.  I noticed the Bloch wall gets a lot of discussion, hence the big debate.

From the first pages:

I encourage experiments with the Bloch Wall. I have a small iron lamination with a hole in one end
and I have cut it in half and made it into an arrow shape on the end, it’s tied to a small piece of wire
and I wave the Iron Lamination over the Bloch Wall. The Lamination will Jump over the Bloch Wall
with extreme reluctance. It’s as if there is an invisible wall of force that the Iron Lamination can only
reluctantly pass.

The reason your iron lamination jumps over what you think is the Bloch wall is because on either side there is much stronger magnetic attraction.  So there is no jumping, it's essentially the opposite of what you are suggesting.  I remember seeing it in your video clip.

Here in lies a very serious problem! It’s not bought up anywhere as far as I can tell. This definition
does NOT explain how Mechanical Rotational Energy is converted into Electrical Energy on the
Output Terminals. Energy in the form of Mechanical Rotation simply is not the actual causality of the
Energy on the Output Terminals!

Yes it is.

Put simply, a combination of the Conductors and the Electromagnetic Fields in “Electric Generators”
separate Charge Carriers, positive one way, and Negative the other way, making one Terminal
become Positively Charged and the other Negatively Charged. This will change depending on the
polarity of the Induction Cycle inside the “Electric Generator”. This is simply a Sine Wave output.

This idea of one terminal of a coil becoming negatively charged and the other positively charged is completely wrong and I would even go so far as to call that a totally naive view.  There is no build up of charge on the terminals under normal operation driving a load.  There is simply current flow.  There is an electric field inside the wires creating potential but that is not to be confused with any charge differential.

Ideally, these devices work with a Step Up configuration. 1:3 is a common Ratio. That’s one turn on
the input to 3 turns on the output. Current, as you may think, is not stepped down as a result of the
Voltage being stepped up.

Current is stepped down as a result of voltage being stepped up.  Of course anybody familiar with transformers knows that you are making an incorrect claim here.  Suspension of disbelief is not an option.

My take from this is that you, Chris, would have to do convincing and properly executed bench experiments because the pdf doc is not convincing or credible at all.  So there is no point to debate the doc as far as I am personally concerned.

There is a kind of Catch 22 though.  I am not convinced that you have the knowledge and skill set to do the experiments properly.  If you could find someone to work with that was real, that truly knew their stuff, that would be a far preferable option.

In a nutshell and to quote Mark Dansie, show me the data.

MileHigh

That wasn't a shit fest yesterday, it was a vigorous debate and some people might find it important.  You can't bluff your way through electronics or make up your own rules for electronics.

What would you like to discuss? 

Would you like to discuss the curious idea that a 1:3 step up transformer can step up the voltage, and the current does not step down 3:1?

P_IN = V_IN*I_IN
P_OUT = V_OUT*I_OUT

So if V_OUT = 3*V_IN and I_OUT>I_IN/3 the output power is greater than the input.  If that sustains, then we get free (or at least apparently free) energy.

How about the thread topic, or have we moved onto transformers?
You have been that busy with EMJ, and trying to correct everything he states, you missed 3questions I posted related to the thread title-about 9 pages back.

But anyway, do carry on.