@All,

I did change my circuit to the attached circuit. The idea was to get a better impedance
match between the output coil and the battery. I also lowered the oscillator frequency
down to approx. 2 Hz at minimum. I did try out different configurations on the coil. With
and without magnets. More magnets and less magnets on the coil. I could not see any
difference in the performance with or without magnets on the coil. My lead acid battery
is loosing charge over time.

Groundloop.

I just looked at gap power I am sorry to say the guy with the monotonous voice doesn't have a clue.

At least a dozen times he states Ohms Law is a law of physics it cannot change.
Yeah Ok I get that. But then he applies ohms law to an inductor (the coil).

You cannot apply ohms law to calculate the power of an inductor. You must use the inductance in (milli)henries to calculate power you must also factor in the frequency as well as the voltage. And don't forget the inductance changes should any metal come into the field, er like his entire contraption moving in and out. Inductance is easily influenced by the environment its in. that's why when tuning a radio's receiver coil you use plastic tools (and take your metal watch off).
 
Because of the method he uses to switch the coil, this is a very complex calculation. The frequency is shall I say erratic. Now I cant recall all the math involved it's been many years since my electronics course. basically you have to calculate the resistance of the coil based on the frequency AND the inductance of the coil. Once you have that then ohms law applies. but you also need the RMS value of the voltage which is to say the 'average' value of the voltage. given his "weird" (his words) voltages that would be hard to determine.

Its also a simple matter to explain his confusion over "more input power when not under load" he totally fails to take into account the fact the motor is running faster when not under load. it throws his already totally incorrect readings even further out the window. The frequency is higher therefore the inductive resistance of the coil is also higher so the real current is lower.

Its a sad fact that many of the people purporting to create OU devices only fool themselves by not learning some basic information.

If you are going to play with electronics don't you think you owe it to yourself to get an education?

The most common mistake I see is people using moving armature meters or even digital multimeters, measuring the peak voltage and multiplying that against the average current and thinking they have a valid power measurement. They don't and are just fooling themselves. Or trying too fool others.

If you are going to do OU learn about electronics and engineering. it will save you some costly mistakes.

Now I might take the time to review all his videos. It would have been nicer if he presented his figures in a spreadsheet for validation. but going on what I have seen so far I only expect more of the same stupid mistakes.

By the way one of my own OU devices which I am working on uses "magnetic cancellation". You cannot get OU directly from canceling a magnetic field.

It must be patently obvious to any one with a glimmer of intelligence that to cancel a magnetic field with an electromagnetic field requires at least as much energy as the magnetic field contains. its a 1 to 1 relationship, to cancel one Gauss of magnetic field strength you need 1 Gauss of electromagnetic field strength. In other words ignoring all sorts of losses in the "switching coil" you must put in exactly the same amount of energy as you hope to get out of it. (This ignores light switching and high frequency low current switching which I have yet to see any proof of.)

Factoring in losses means you must put a lot more in than you can possibly hope to retrieve.

Its little wonder with people like the people at gap power pushing OU that the mainstream science community will have nothing to do with us. and I don't blame them one iota.

There is some damn good stuff out there but the science community will shy away from it because of the laughable claims put forward by some peddlers.

CC

2 CuriousChris
You are absolutely right about measuring power. But they are at the right way selecting direct weight/height estimation of productivity. They should try some more clear way to show input power, though, it would be hard). Regard to OU of their setup I'd say it would be completely possible if they used so called "peaks" at turning off the solenoid so that increase original field of solenoid's PM. But there's more efficient ways to utilize "peaks", MEG for instance. m?

Hi,
GAP-power again has a new video out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvkUIr8dv_k

Well done again in documenting,
but
Unfortunately he again makes the error, that he measures the voltage at the
coil and not uses the voltage from the battery.

He need to use the 45 Volts from the battery x average input current x 0.43.

This is the real input power.

Then compare this to his output power.

Probably the input power is greater then.

YOu can avoid this by using back iron cores from the magnet to the
end of the piston where the piston is the most away from the coil.
Compare this to RomeroUK device.

Regards, Stefan.