Regardless of the result, it is still a result, good work Conrad for testing this stuff and providing an open source example of the measurements the pitfalls and so forth.

.....

To whoever wants to answer with a solid yes or no and why.

I have a question in the diagram below would it not be acceptable to ground the top of the secondary H2 to the function generator ground and make that end of H2 the neutral of the output then measure the secondary output that way ?
Basically flip his scope connections on the output . But use a thick short wire to make the connection. No good.

..

Tinsel- regarding to your scematic, I would recomend to use seriall capacitor to make it resonance motor,which suppose to be much efficient (some say even OU) and to use the feedback to comparator and increase signal by opamp to maintain the resonance?

Conrad: have you tried to run your scope from battery via inverter- proper isolation from main?

Guys,am still playing with the kunel patent. How is it with the patenting process. Do they have to present functional model to get patent?
Any how, I made the shielding coil from Tesla's bifilar and it seems to be stronger electromagnet.  Now- just wondering how it would looks like to have bucket teslas bifillar coils

TK,

I don't understand this post.

The (differential voltage/100) does indeed give the current in the entire primary circuit.

The error was in also using that same differential voltage, Vr, as the voltage across the primary, which it is not.  The voltage across the primary is Vh.

PW

Ah, ok, I just had my eyeballs crossed, sorry. Somehow I thought he had used Vr/100 x Vh correctly but now I see the error, he used Vr/100 x Vr.  Thanks for catching that one.

Watt through the primary H1 (input) = 0.0024 (Vr/100)  * 0.24 (Vr)  * cos(17°) = 0.55 mW

Error!
Ok, it's time for Synchro to change his mind again!

 

@Conrad: I got confused because you have the equation algebra correct... but I missed the fact that you had plugged in the wrong actual value into the algebra.
Keep up the good work, I've never changed _my_ mind about you!
 

I have a question in the diagram below would it not be acceptable to ground the top of the secondary H2 to the function generator ground and make that end of H2 the neutral of the output then measure the secondary output that way ?
Basically flip his scope connections on the output . But use a thick short wire to make the connection. No good.

..

Yes, one can do that and I flipped the scope connections on the secondary (when measuring the "normal transformer situation" with only H2 or H3 for out put and when measuring the "paired bucking situation" with H2 and H3 in series).

This flipping of the scope probe on the secondary showed me that I initially had the shunt R1 in the wrong place, see here
http://overunity.com/15395/partnered-output-coils-free-energy/msg436026/#msg436026

But still, there is an issue which I have not resolved:

The secondary in the "paired bucking situation" with H2 and H3 in series has a strange "potential". I have to do more tests and measurements to clarify that. At the moment I am just confused. One has to compare the "normal transformer situation" with the "paired bucking situation" in order to understand what is going on. And keep in mind, it was MileHigh who drew our attention to that approach.

Greetings, Conrad

Don't I get any credit for the "Secret of DPDT" which allows changing from "bucking" to normal transformer "aiding" configuration with the flip of a switch?

Awww. I'm crushed.   

And don't forget that reversing a probe connection will also flip the measured phase by 180 degrees...

Guys,am still playing with the kunel patent. How is it with the patenting process. Do they have to present functional model to get patent?

The patenting procedure (in all countries of the world) is a "written procedure", no physical models or parts can be submitted. And the patent offices (in all countries) never request any physical models or parts.

But the applicant can submit an expertise (from an accepted expert in the pertinent field of knowledge) to support his claims.

It will sound strange to most, but a patent does not prove that an "invention" really does what is claimed. The patent office does not test or examine the functionality of an invention per se.

What is examined?

- Whether the invention can be exploited commercially (is usually the case, unless it is prohibited by law)
- Whether the invention is new (nobody else has published a very similar thing)
- Whether the invention has a surprising technical effect (means, it is an invention and not something commonly known)
- Whether the invention contradicts commonly known laws of physics (perpetuum mobile is not accepted)

No proof of proper functioning is required.

If you file a "perpetuum mobile" and a patent is denied you could file an expertise about its functioning (e.g. from an accepted test laboratory), but you can not bring a model to the patent office. They do not want to do tests, the only want to push paper.

If you want a patent, best go to a patent attorney and he will file one for you. And yes, it costs a lot of money. A patent in your home country will cost you at least 3000.-- Euros and you will probably never need it. Patents are for enterprises who manufacture something and have means to sell it. Every now and then a lone inventor can make money with a patent, but it is very rare and usually the lone inventor already has ties to a commercial enterprise.

A patent is totally useless for an OU invention, it will not even be accepted by the patent office because it obviously contradicts commonly known physics. The US patent office was liberal in the past with strange patent claims, but that has changed. Usually the OU inventors do not claim any unknown effect in their patents, they just claim ordinary constructional details which nobody questions. But this is useless, the patent is not worth its paper. It is mostly done to attract investors (better said, to fool investors).

Greetings, Conrad

Gentlemen,

Some good progress is being made and thank you Picowatt for catching the wrong voltage being used in the input power calculation.  For Conrad, you deserve all the credit for doing your test and faithfully reporting your results.  You made a "typo" more than a big error because all of your data was made available.

I think a very important thing is that Conrad did two tests and reported power input and power output measurements for both tests.  That is a "huge hurdle" that many experimenters never manage to cross.  You can't always get bogged down in discussions all the time, you have to actually replicate the actual circuit (not a funky variation on the circuit) and make the measurements and share your data.

I know that Conrad is busy, and will move on to new tests.  But one thing that is interesting is that for the normal setup you have 6 milliwatts in and 1.4 milliwatts out.  Anybody that is a real keener that wants to understand the secondary-level details should be trying to understand where all the "missing" power went.  I am pretty sure that earlier on Conrad reported his coil resistances.  So a keener could crunch the power dissipated in the coils, add the power in the 100-ohm in-line signal generator resistor, etc.  If you could account for say 90% of the input power that would be "satisfying."

The lesson in making a "regular transformer" test and a "bucking coils tranformer" test is now at least you have some kind of baseline and frame of reference.  The regular transformer outperforms the bucking transformer, surprise surprise - on the same hardware platoform.  I am the type that can dream up an endless series of experiments if I want to.  In terms of where my curiosity would lead me is the following:  Put a very high value of load resistor on the regular transformer so that the output power is about the same as when the bucking power transformer is driving a 100-ohm load and then poke around and compare.  Just out of curiosity.

The elephant in the room that Chris is avoiding and everyone on OUR is avoiding is that a perfectly symmetrical bucking coils transformer has a zero output.  I think Chris even talks about making the transformer as perfectly matched on the bucking side as possible as if that is a good thing.  This is just a hard fact of life and when Chris reads here I wonder what he says to himself.

MileHigh