Yes I read it.  i will just assume you don't under stand the English language so  i'm not going to argue with stupidity,

 You said it comes from nothing,nothing is nothing so it doesn't com from nothing like you say.
So it can't come from nothing as you say, in order for it to materialise it has to come from some thing or some where  in order to harvest it.

I understand the English language very well, although it's not my native language.

In the first post (and in the PDF) a Bedini machine is described, and measurements to prove that it's 'overunity'.

I said: measurements are always problematic, especially if high frequency pulses and batteries are involved.
The only real proof for 'overunity' is to loop the output back to the input, and look if it runs without any external power.
Or in this case: switch input and output battery and let it run long enough.

Now, what is wrong with my argumentation, in your opinion ?

My original link is being ‘neutralised’ by the system so I will attach the doc directly here as it’s under 15MB.

I should have my ‘suggestions’ doc ready today (uk time).

A quick comment about ‘looping’. Yes looping the output back to the input is a good way of seeing if a device is indeed harvesting energy (from wherever). Using the two battery system this is actually what is being done in my system but with a delay equal to the swap time. This is all explained in the other doc ‘Load Testing’ where I layout my methodology for doing power tests, guided by the CoP results so far.

For those who haven’t read from the beginning, using the cap dump circuit I was getting CoPs in the 0.8-1.5 range whereas using direct HV pulsing I was getting much better in the 5-15 range (more recent readings). I need to confirm these with the forthcoming power tests and with an appropriate ’level of confidence’.

I repeat that my overall aim is to confirm or refute a phenomenon and not to identify any particular energy pathway.

Anyway here are the two main docs I’m sharing at this time. Another will come later today.

J

My original link is being ‘neutralised’ by the system so I will attach the doc directly here as it’s under 15MB.

I should have my ‘suggestions’ doc ready today (uk time).

A quick comment about ‘looping’. Yes looping the output back to the input is a good way of seeing if a device is indeed harvesting energy (from wherever). Using the two battery system this is actually what is being done in my system but with a delay equal to the swap time. This is all explained in the other doc ‘Load Testing’ where I layout my methodology for doing power tests, guided by the CoP results so far.

For those who haven’t read from the beginning, using the cap dump circuit I was getting CoPs in the 0.8-1.5 range whereas using direct HV pulsing I was getting much better in the 5-15 range (more recent readings). I need to confirm these with the forthcoming power tests and with an appropriate ’level of confidence’.

I repeat that my overall aim is to confirm or refute a phenomenon and not to identify any particular energy pathway.

Anyway here are the two main docs I’m sharing at this time. Another will come later today.

J

I like your systematic approach. Also you have a very 'clean' build. 

I'm looking forward to further results. If they look promising, i also will try it. In the past, i saw nothing which could convince me that a Bedini machine really can have a COP > 1. Only measuring battery voltage is not an indicator of energy content of the battery. They have to be swapped several times to see some significant results. I'm happy to see that you are going to do this.

For me, the final goal would be to get rid of batteries and use capacitors. And after this, to get rid of moving parts. I think everything can also work 'solid state'.

 

I was getting much better in the 5-15 range

I find that very difficult to believe. A COP of 5, you would have energy to burn and should have little problem convincing anyone with the amount of excess power available. For me, any COP over 1 is an achievement, anything close to 2 would be Nobel Prize material.

thx a lot mr JulianP sir

i will try to build this, fast as i can   
your work and your papers on the flyback generator are amazing !!
but what really inspires me is your openness and willingness to share your knowledge with the world
If I'm successful I'll handle it the same way!!

thx a lot
Greetings from Austria
Moritz

Closed-system analysis of momentum imparted onto a charged-mass,
and the field that imparted said momentum, can be difficult.
Because the systems involved are affected by factors not present in the other system.


From analysis of the first system, cop > 1 may be apparent, but not actual.
Due to the energies of the second system not included in the analysis.


An example of this is the particle accelerator:
Energy A is used to accelerate the particle, where the energy B contained in the momentum of the particle is greater than energy A. (this is only true in certain types of accelerators)


Though this devices allows is to investigate high-energy particle physics, it is rarely addressed how it is possible for the particle to have such high energies from the low energy electric field.


The answer to this is simple in principal, but a near impossibility to differentiate the two energies.
We look to the difference between the laws of electric charge force and Newton’s 3rd law.
Newton’s law defines a mass-based acceleration, while the electric force is dominated by the charge quotient.


In the latter, using the time derivative of acceleration, we see the energy imparted onto the particle, from the field, in a much shorter period of time than the charge that built up (and sustained) the driving field. By use of the Einsteinian mass-equivalency, we now see that all energies can in fact be accounted for. (calculated or measured using initial and final energies)


A similar occurrence can be realized in electric motors.
Where we see that, even at the macro scale, the electric force is imparted at a much faster rate than the force applied to the physical mass.
Conservation of momentum tells us that the momentum of the field interactions must translate to the momentum of the mass.


So now let’s take this knowledge to the bendini
We have the physical force, but only for a short duration.
We have the electric force (acting much faster) for a longer duration.
This was assessed by analysis of the field strength and timing cycle of multiple machines.
The effective field strength extends to a size greater than the physical force, which leads to longer interactions as the coil assembly passes.
We can view the moment of inertia of a pulse motor as being predominantly an electric field force interaction, rather than as an electromagnetic (physical mass) interaction.
While the second is still present, it is a short lived interaction, and follows field conservation.
Field conservation breaks down in the pure electric domain. (0 value tangents, 0 value magnetic flux)
Maxwell’s solution must then become our default equation.
Therefore, to asses the energy value contained in the field, E-field theory cannot be used.
E-field approach looks only at the force applied to the charge, with no respect to changes in the field itself. Maxwell proves this theory to be incomplete.


We in fact should expect a scalar quotient variant in field strength between the particle (vector and velocity included) and the extremities of the effective field. (‘effective’ value is used here to truncate the equation to a countable infinity with respect to a minimum charge value constraint)


The effect of these changes on the driving circuit are to the magnitude of E(0). Permeability of free space.
The field exists in the space outside of the coil.
So where does the energy then come from?
Short answer - the energy that was running through the circuit at a prior moment in time.
More explicitly, the energy that created the field in the first place:
This energy is lost to space, even if we do not make use of it.
[physical analogy - remove the rotor and operate the device]
Measurements can be taken in this state
Then again with the rotor replaced.


Now, we want to observe what’s happening in real time:
So we scope the input and output simultaneously,
And put them both side by side in the time domain.


We see the output has a higher magnitude and a shorter duration
This is the manifestation of the momentum we imparted on it from the field.
The input is performing ‘work’ for a longer duration, but with less force.
The difference in energy in/out (loss or gain)
should now be evident on the scope traces.


In the case of loss, it becomes clear that the energy exchange takes place in the shorter-lived physical force magnetic interactions. So why then is the energy exchange in the pure electric vector not manifest as a loss in the circuit? For this we look at Maxwell’s interpretation of Ohm’s Law.
Which points us right back to the time domain. The electric field already ‘happened’, this is the Voltage potential. Where as the magnetic force is derived from the Current, at THIS moment in time. The ‘now’


So the energy loss in the electric domain comes from energy already emitted into the field.
[size=78%]Motors like the Corona Motor are able to achieve greater torque using less energy than their magnetic counterparts.[/size]
[size=78%]The laws of physics are not violated by this approach, when all energies are accounted for from their perspective.[/size]
[size=78%] [/size]

Hello JuleP


there is a coil twisted. But not in all pictures. Do you have to have them?


Greeting
Lota

let's examine a standard transformer (of as high efficiency as current industrial manufacturing allows for)


Now, while in operation, let us place an outside inductance close enough to the transformer to effectively 'tap into' the field.
if the inductance of our 3rd coil is significant enough, harnessing this energy results in a decrease in the efficiency of the transformer.
this is standard knowledge, we use 3-coil transformers in many electronics. (transformers with more than one output)
if the coils and connected circuitry are identical (ideal case): output current will be approximately equal through both secondaries.


However, we know field currents to follow Ohm's Law!
Therefore, if the inductance of the 3rd coil is comparatively insignificant: efficiency of the transformer is NOT AFFECTED!
It is important to understand this.


almost the entirety of the excess field volume can be harnessed.
https://oconnell.fas.harvard.edu/files/sct/files/evaluation_of_the_shielding_effects_on_printed_circuit-board_transformers_using_ferrite_plates_and_copper_sheets.pdf


this study from Harvard examines the process from the perspective of shielding in circuits, however, scientifically the same applies to currents induced in usable form.