Author Topic: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy (Read 3538950 times)

Void · « **Reply #720 on:** February 01, 2015, 05:09:05 PM »

MileHigh, MarkE: From what I understood, you both previously made some comments to me that when I measure phase shift the standard way
in the primary circuit of a transformer setup, that the phase shift I measure may not be correct under certain conditions. I assume
that you are talking about something other than just the phase shift that can be introduced by a CSR that contains some inductance,
as that is a given. Can you please explain what you mean? I am reattaching my drawing which shows the way I am measuring the input power,
which is the standard way to make such measurements in an AC circuit.

All the best...

MileHigh · « **Reply #721 on:** February 01, 2015, 05:11:50 PM »

Chris:

Quote

Seems OU.com have come scavenging for data! Hahaha gotta laugh

It also seems that a good 99% of them have not read the Data I have provided or Watched the Videos I have provided! They have it all wrong!

E.G: Not all power is consumed as heat, more is returned to the source, thus the term "Choke", reducing Current, than is consumed as heat especially with Inductors. Power can be, and is recycled! For Example: LC Resonance, the Capacitor and or the Inductor do not Consume all of the Power and convert it to heat as much as they recycle it! This is Resonance! This way of thinking is Non-Sense and is just out right wrong. An inductor is a Passive component and "Some" heat is radiated.

Their Fantastic Measurement Hero's over there, are, well "confused" at the figures. Picowatt is the only one on the ball, but he's not experimenting! Maybe they should think about removing some of the Human Error Issues and simplify it a bit? Or just admit defeat, they just cant do it without me!

Maybe I should hold back for a while and let them sweat?

We are on track here and some reps here are way beyond the guys over at ou.com!

I am honestly not sure what you are talking about. So if you have something to say... then just say it.

No Batman riddles, no secret decoder rings, just say it plain and simple. You can even post it here, I am sure you still have your account.

Quote

Yes, you're right, because I feel sorry for them! Circuits I have already shown here are solutions to some of Conrads problems!

You are welcome to say anything you want to say to Conrad to help or clarify things. I don't mean to speak for Conrad, but I am sure that he would not disagree with me.

As far as resonance goes, you state this:

Quote

Page: 24 of v2.4 - "I seem to get a better result if the Input is resonated for example, LC Tank.

In 2.5 you say this:

Quote

I seem to get a better result if the Input is resonated for example, LC Tank. I believe this is due to
feed-back and or feed-forward in the coils. There seems to be a time constant in the Magnetic Fields
of the Partnered Secondary Coils that appear to play a factor in the Operating Frequency.

I honestly don't get it. What circuit and configuration is this supposed to apply to? What is supposed to resonate? Where is the tank circuit? What should you see on the input, voltage, current, and power? What should you see on the output, voltage, load resistor, and the associated power?

MileHigh

MileHigh · « **Reply #722 on:** February 01, 2015, 05:28:24 PM »

Quote from: Void on February 01, 2015, 05:09:05 PM

MileHigh, MarkE: From what I understood, you both previously made some comments to me that when I measure phase shift the standard way
in the primary circuit of a transformer setup, that the phase shift I measure may not be correct under certain conditions. I assume
that you are talking about something other than just the phase shift that can be introduced by a CSR that contains some inductance,
as that is a given. Can you please explain what you mean? I am reattaching my drawing which shows the way I am measuring the input power,
which is the standard way to make such measurements in an AC circuit.

All the best...

Void:

I will be honest with you that my comment was very very generic. Something like if you accidentally touch part of your circuit and you notice that the signal on your scope shifts in phase, stuff like that.

But let me revisit something I think I said before. I am quite sure that you are aware that the LEDs draw a lot of current when the voltage increases. I think that you see that on the waveforms for the secondary. I think your frequency is very high, I can't remember exactly. I thought that the current waveform on the primary was strange looking. So my main suggestion is to slow everything down a lot. Do you still get the OU measurement at lower frequencies? Does the primary current waveform look more like you would expect at lower frequencies?

I also seem to recall that on your secondary waveforms, there was a big phase shift between the voltage and the current. Why is that the case? It doesn't seem to make sense. Again, what about at lower frequencies?

As a general statement, when the frequencies get very high, you have to do some pretty exotic tricks with your scope probes and you need to build your circuit on top of a copper ground plane and stuff like that. I don't think that you are that high in frequency, I am just mentioning it as a point of information.

MileHigh

Void · « **Reply #723 on:** February 01, 2015, 05:50:31 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on February 01, 2015, 05:28:24 PM

Void:

I will be honest with you that my comment was very very generic. Something like if you accidentally touch part of your circuit and you notice that the signal on your scope shifts in phase, stuff like that.

But let me revisit something I think I said before. I am quite sure that you are aware that the LEDs draw a lot of current when the voltage increases. I think that you see that on the waveforms for the secondary. I think your frequency is very high, I can't remember exactly. I thought that the current waveform on the primary was strange looking. So my main suggestion is to slow everything down a lot. Do you still get the OU measurement at lower frequencies? Does the primary current waveform look more like you would expect at lower frequencies?

I also seem to recall that on your secondary waveforms, there was a big phase shift between the voltage and the current. Why is that the case? It doesn't seem to make sense. Again, what about at lower frequencies?

As a general statement, when the frequencies get very high, you have to do some pretty exotic tricks with your scope probes and you need to build your circuit on top of a copper ground plane and stuff like that. I don't think that you are that high in frequency, I am just mentioning it as a point of information.

MileHigh

Hi MileHigh. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I am aware that at higher frequencies the fields from wires and
coils and transformer windings can feed into the scope probe and scope probe leads and alter phase measurements.
I test for this by moving the scope probe leads around to see if the phase shift displayed on the scope shifts around
at all as I change the scope probe leads positions. I also try to connect the scope probes in such a way that the probe leads
are away from the circuit coils and transformers and wires as much as possible.

I ran my test at 280 kHz. That odd effect I was measuring is frequency dependent however, which shouldn't be surprising as impedances
and phase shift are all frequency dependent. Yes, there are usually quite noticeable current pulses in a primary when driving
LED loads, but the way I have connected in the transformer windings seems to cause these current pulses to be cancelled out quite
a bit. That's the intent of the transformer winding arrangement however.

This approach doesn't appear to be too practical however
as the power available to drive a load is only very small. I will be running further tests to see if I can find a way to scale up the
performance to more practical levels.

The reason the output LEDs are showing such a large phase shift may well be due to the type of LEDs I am using. They probably contain
a fairly significant amount of internal capacitance, which at 280 kHz is causing the leading phase shift in the current going into the LEDs.
I was just using LEDs as a load because they provide immediate visual feedback on how much power they are consuming while
I am making tuning adjustments.

All the best...

conradelektro · « **Reply #724 on:** February 01, 2015, 06:13:54 PM »

MileHigh,

good that you corrected my RMS calculation. I again made an error and confused Vm "peak Voltage value" with Vpp "peak to peak Voltage value", therefore I did not divide Vpp by 2. As you mentioned the correct calculation is Vrms = Vm / sqrt(2) or Vrms = Vpp / 2 * SQRT(2). I hope I learned it now for sure.

And also, yes, I should be more careful with terminology (like "power dissipation" and "power transferred into the primary coil").

Quote from: MileHigh on February 01, 2015, 12:29:35 PM

.................................................

If your scope does not have the banana jack for the ground, then you connect one or both of your ground clips for your signal probes to the bottom of H1 and you get the same results.

Either way, doing it like this means you don't have to think about moving the ground clips of your scope around every time you want to make a measurement.

MileHigh

I will remember this way of effecting a GND connection to a scope when I do measurements. Thank you for explaining it.

Quote from: MileHigh on February 01, 2015, 04:20:15 PM

Conrad:

Okay, we are going to review the business about moving the resistor from the ground line to the AC-output line of the function generator. You posting is quoted below and I also attached your marked-up graphic.

I did not discuss this earlier because it was not that important at the time and I did not want to interrupt your process. Now is the time to talk about it and the reason goes back to the fundamental principles of getting a proper understanding of what is going on and also not to lead ourselves down a garden path. These are very important principles.

.............................

Here is the issue: If there is a "AC wobble" on the bottom of the primary coil because the resistor is on the ground line, this in theory will not directly affect the potential difference you can measure across the secondary coil. The secondary is completely floating and separate from the primary. For example, there is no real potential difference that you can measure between the bottom of the primary and the bottom of H3 because there is no electrical connection between the two entities. When I say this I am intentionally ignoring any possible capacitive coupling effects.

................................

But, to bring it all back home. From what I see at least on paper, there was nothing wrong with having the R1 resistor on the bottom on the ground line. In theory all of the measurements can be made with no problems with ground loops, etc.

MileHigh

Thank you for explaining the "AC wobble".

In theory, as I understand now, the position of the shunt R1 in front or after the primary H1 should not have mattered. But in my set up it did cause strange effects. I only got consistent measurements after I change to having the primary H1 on the bottom on the ground line.

Initially I thought it should be like you say, but because I got such strange results (also in the "normal transformer situation", when only one of the partnered output coil was used) I changed the position of the shunt R1 and the measurements became consistent.

I can not say what caused this. Capacitive coupling effects are unlikely at 2 kHz. I have to redo this measurement with your explanations in mind. It could be an effect linked to my function generator, may be it better supports an "AC wobble" at the signal side than on the GND side of its output (but this would also be strange).

I think that a function generator should not be used as a "coil driver", just as a "signal provider" and the signal should be amplified with a transistor (and a power supply) when driving a coil. The precise signal from the function generator can be easily distorted when driving a load.

Greetings, Conrad

MarkE · « **Reply #725 on:** February 01, 2015, 06:35:51 PM »

Quote from: Void on February 01, 2015, 05:09:05 PM

MileHigh, MarkE: From what I understood, you both previously made some comments to me that when I measure phase shift the standard way
in the primary circuit of a transformer setup, that the phase shift I measure may not be correct under certain conditions. I assume
that you are talking about something other than just the phase shift that can be introduced by a CSR that contains some inductance,
as that is a given. Can you please explain what you mean? I am reattaching my drawing which shows the way I am measuring the input power,
which is the standard way to make such measurements in an AC circuit.

All the best...

Void please see the picture below. Let me know if you have any questions.

Grumage · « **Reply #726 on:** February 01, 2015, 06:36:09 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on February 01, 2015, 04:44:45 PM

Grumage:

This one's for you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T500ecHP3pE

Dear MileHigh.

Why, thank you. I wondered if you had been delving into my distant past ??

I got involved for a time with the UK version, Robot Wars, far too expensive !!

Grins I like, but no need for anger, life's too short for that, believe me, I had a reprieve !! Be

Best wishes,

Cheers Grum.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #727 on:** February 01, 2015, 06:57:40 PM »

Quote from: EMJunkie

Seems OU.com have come scavenging for data! Hahaha gotta laugh (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)

It also seems that a good 99% of them have not read the Data I have provided or Watched the Videos I have provided! They have it all wrong!

E.G: Not all power is consumed as heat, more is returned to the source, thus the term "Choke", reducing Current, than is consumed as heat especially with Inductors. Power can be, and is recycled! For Example: LC Resonance, the Capacitor and or the Inductor do not Consume all of the Power and convert it to heat as much as they recycle it! This is Resonance! This way of thinking is Non-Sense and is just out right wrong. An inductor is a Passive component and "Some" heat is radiated.

Their Fantastic Measurement Hero's over there, are, well "confused" at the figures. Picowatt is the only one on the ball, but he's not experimenting! Maybe they should think about removing some of the Human Error Issues and simplify it a bit? Or just admit defeat, they just cant do it without me!

Maybe I should hold back for a while and let them sweat? (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/grin.gif)

We are on track here and some reps here are way beyond the guys over at ou.com!

Sour grapes!

What is going on here is real analysis and cooperation. What is going on at OUR in EMJ's thread is another Ufopolitics type thread, with the real workers treading lightly so as to humor the Great Teacher in his folly.

"can't do it without (emj)"... that's a real laugh, since he himself _still_ has not presented any measurements that could be interpreted as OU... so it's not possible to track down his errors or even repeat his measurement setups. HE can't do it at all, with or without help! And look at the history: Get an OU result, and EMJ is all over himself congratulating and praising. Correct that result to show it's wrong... and EMJ posts the wrong schematic strawman, finds all kinds of made-up reasons for the failure.... for the SAME TEST that he praised earlier. This is a classic illustration of "Experimenter (aka confirmation) Bias", happening right in front of your eyes. Accept any results that agree with your beliefs and reject any that do not... even if they are from the same test with math errors corrected. Don't criticise "positive" results...in fact, don't even publish them, because they are so fragile they can't stand up under scrutiny. Way to go, Chris!

picowatt · « **Reply #728 on:** February 01, 2015, 07:19:37 PM »

@All,

I find this entire thread rather bizarre (and at OUR as well).

The OP made a claim regarding a free energy device, but can't be bothered with providing or discussing any of the measurements, or methods used, that led him to make that claim. He provided a video of his simple three coil on a ferrite core setup wherein he does not provide any output measurements and it seems we are to be more so impressed by the fact that shorting the output reflects little change in the DC supply feeding the circuit (which is not unusual or unique and means very little with respect to the device's efficiency or COP).

The OP apparently wants experimenters to replicate his device by "starting at the start" so they will become familiar with the basics of the technology he presents. Apparently that refers to replicating the device in the above mentioned video for which I believe he claimed a COP of 1.7.

Just as measurements are not to be provided or discussed, the OP himself cannot be bothered to replicate his own device. He stated that he has disassembled his device and tossed the parts aside somewhere. If he did not throw those parts out (don't know any experimenters that would...) it would be a trivial task for the OP to reassemble his device and demonstrate whatever it was that made him conclude his device produced a COP of 1.7.

Instead, the OP has replicators attempting and failing to replicate his results and then replies with the coils are not wound correctly, the core might be of the wrong type, or that the replicator must understand the technology before it can be made to work. The OP has even stated that it is likely only one out of ten replications will perform as desired.

The three coils in his device appear to be three identical commercially available speaker crossover inductors. If the OP wants a true replication, it would seem wise to provide a link to where those identical crossover coils can be purchased (the coils do appear to have a part number on them, which I was unable to locate via an online search).

The OP states that his core was salvaged from an old monitor or TV, but did provide a link to a similar core on Ebay. However, it is uncertain if the OP has tested that particular core, and if not, it would be wise for the OP to reassemble his device using that core (and with readily available coils) to verify that a device constructed with those parts will indeed provide the results that led to his free energy claim. As well, the OP should specify, and verify, a readily available drive method such as an FG producing a specific waveform/frequency driving an audio amplifier outputting a given amplitude, etc.

If the OP really wants to teach his technology, it would seem most wise and expeditious if all replicators were using three identical and readily available coils with a readily available core to assemble a device which when driven as specified produces results that the OP has confirmed will work as desired with the parts and methods specified.

As well, how are replicators to know when their replication is performing as desired if the OP does not indicate the measurements he achieved and the methods he used to make those measurements so that replicators will recognize similar measurements or effects when a successful replication has indeed been achieved?

But again, I find this all rather bizarre, as the OP himself does not feel compelled to replicate his own device or present any measurements that would support his claims. Supposedly replicators are to just keep playing with the device using all manner of coil, core, and drive setting combinations until they achieve an OU result.

PW

Void · « **Reply #729 on:** February 01, 2015, 07:41:15 PM »

Quote from: MarkE on February 01, 2015, 06:35:51 PM

Void please see the picture below. Let me know if you have any questions.

Hi MarkE. Thanks for the reply. Nice drawing! You didn't have to go to all that trouble, but I appreciate the effort.
Yes, OK, I understand that the inductive reactance of the CSR's has to be very small compared to
the resistance of the CSR's to get accurate phase measurements. The CSR's I am using are carbon film type,
I believe, so their inductance should not be too significant. Regarding CSR's, can anyone recommend good
low inductance and high precision 1 ohm resistors (preferably from DigiKey) which I can use as CSR's?

All the best...

conradelektro · « **Reply #730 on:** February 01, 2015, 08:18:25 PM »

Quote from: picowatt on February 01, 2015, 07:19:37 PM

............

But again, I find this all rather bizarre, as the OP himself does not feel compelled to replicate his own device or present any measurements that would support his claims. Supposedly replicators are to just keep playing with the device with all manner of coil, core, and drive setting combinations until they achieve an OU result.

@Picowatt and @All:

I had this core, some wire and my instruments. So it was just some time and little effort to wind such a "coupled output coil". Doing the measurements was then not that easy, but that could be my clumsiness.

I then bought a little mono audio amplifier because I never played with one before. So, I will hook up my "transformer" to that mono audio amp and we will see.

It is all just play. I like tinkering with electronics and it is less boring to try "strange things" than building electronics which you can by from China cheaply. Building radios is pretty pointless once you have the Internet. And building a Mobile Phone or a LapTop at home is close to madness.

It was obvious after a few posts from our "inventor" that it will be pretty hopeless.

What is interesting from a Freudian point of view are the reactions of some people in this thread. What is exciting some people so much, that they resort to name calling? May be that is the real experiment going on here?

It is a PSYOP or MISO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_%28United_States%29 .

Run, hide, look around, there might be a recording device installed in your living room and drugs are administered through the groceries you buy at your local super market!

I might have received sublime messages via my PC-screen, which caused me to start replicating. The "partnered output coils" leak brain waves which mess you up, you will join some strange army.

Well, may be I am wrong.

Greetings, Conrad

picowatt · « **Reply #731 on:** February 01, 2015, 08:36:42 PM »

Quote from: conradelektro on February 01, 2015, 08:18:25 PM

@Picowatt and @All:

I had this core, some wire and my instruments. So it was just some time and little effort to wind such a "coupled output coil". Doing the measurements was then not that easy, but that could be my clumsiness.

I then bought a little mono audio amplifier because I never played with one before. So, I will hook up my "transformer" to that mono audio amp and we will see.

It is all just play. I like tinkering with electronics and it is less boring to try "strange things" than building electronics which you can by from China cheaply. Building radios is pretty pointless once you have the Internet. And building a Mobile Phone or a LapTop at home is close to madness.

It was obvious after a few posts from our "inventor" that it will be pretty hopeless.

What is interesting from a Freudian point of view are the reactions of some people in this thread. What is exciting some people so much, that they resort to name calling? May be that is the real experiment going on here?

It is a PSYOP or MISO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_%28United_States%29 .

Run, hide, look around, there might be a recording device installed in your living room and drugs are administered through the groceries you buy at your local super market!

I might have received sublime messages via my PC-screen, which caused me to start replicating. The "partnered output coils" leak brain waves which mess you up, you will join some strange army.

Well, may be I am wrong.

Greetings, Conrad

Conrad,

I agree with everything you comment on. Particularly the part about just having fun and a possible learning experience. I would encourage anyone to experiment and become more familiar with their equipment.

I thought you did rather well in performing your recent tests and making your measurements. The error I pointed out I knew at the time was just you inadvertently grabbing a wrong number out of the pack, because you had it right in your prior test. No biggie...

It is a shame that EMJ is not more forthcoming regarding his measurements and methods. He could make it very easy for replicators to duplicate his results if he truly desired to do so.

And yes, I too could easily live without a lot of the "attitude" expressed on this forum...

PW

MileHigh · « **Reply #732 on:** February 01, 2015, 08:52:44 PM »

I think I tried asking a lot of those sensible questions at the beginning but got nowhere and then that's just one slip of the banana peel away from being a "bad guy" or a "government agent."

So yes, it's just about turning it into fun and a learning experience. If you are a newbie to the whole scene though, it's shocking how many of these projects are just bad designs getting bad results. Look at the QEG as an example. And no doubt, you do have a bunch of grown adults, people with houses and children, in a reality distortion zone. That part is almost scary sometimes and it's like you are becoming the very thing that you rail about.

So bring on the replications and look for convergence, even if that convergence means that they are all 5% efficient in terms of power out vs. power in.

MileHigh

ramset · « **Reply #733 on:** February 01, 2015, 10:11:29 PM »

Conrad
I am absolutely loving your presentation ,and the help from MH and the community.
So are many others.
I believe with a little more cooperation here and some organization
we can work thru All the ideas presented by EMJ and do a better job defining
these claims and their Merit towards the goal...Cop 1.7 ??

half a job will never do,as long as it is not too time consuming the whole community will learn
and we can use these exercises and experiments for reference to future claims.

this magnet wobble thing should be experimented with and explained here,
I know Marco always remarked at how he felt folks placed too much emphasis
into his dancing magnets....maybe he will participate and correct me on this ?

respectfully
Chet
PS

working together like this is amazing ,as long as it can remain respectful
like Most of the last day.....
it will completely change this forum,and we can do some really cool experiments here.

Or of course we could keep things the way they were..

TinselKoala · « **Reply #734 on:** February 02, 2015, 12:52:53 AM »

Quote from: Void on February 01, 2015, 07:41:15 PM

Hi MarkE. Thanks for the reply. Nice drawing! You didn't have to go to all that trouble, but I appreciate the effort.
Yes, OK, I understand that the inductive reactance of the CSR's has to be very small compared to
the resistance of the CSR's to get accurate phase measurements. The CSR's I am using are carbon film type,
I believe, so their inductance should not be too significant. Regarding CSR's, can anyone recommend good
low inductance and high precision 1 ohm resistors (preferably from DigiKey) which I can use as CSR's?

All the best...

Please see the datasheet attached below. I have a few of these that were donated to me during the Ainslie testing. They are pretty inexpensive:

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy (Read 3538950 times)

Void

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

MileHigh

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

MileHigh

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

Void

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

conradelektro

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

MarkE

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

Grumage

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

TinselKoala

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

picowatt

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

Void

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

conradelektro

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

picowatt

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

MileHigh

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

ramset

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

TinselKoala

Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy