Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[tinman]

Okay Tinman, you got me all fired up so I decided to look into this and look at the clip again.  I know that I am being bitchy and perhaps too sensitive, but it is because of a history of poor presentations from you in the past with sloppiness, no schematics or poor schematics and and your seeming lack of awareness that people need to do lots of mental gymnastics to compensate for your shortcomings in your presentations.  It's a real pain in the ass sometimes.

All that being said, let's move on.

Just to be bitchy, you quote Woopy but he makes a mistake and you don't notice.  It's your data and you should take ownership of it.

We don't have to worry about the no-load condition for the analysis.

I see the draw of the motor under load is about 12.8 volts x 0.74 amps = about 9.5 watts.   Woopy used the peak voltage and not the RMS voltage and you didn't notice.

I see the output to the bulb as about 10.4 volts x 1.64 amps = about 17 watts.  Either you or Woopy screwed up the multiplication but you didn't notice.

Do you see what I mean?   If you just posted your link to your clip and posted your own bloody data and your own number crunching this kind of bullshit would not happen.  The real question is not about a little word game that "I can't multiply" - it's about not being sloppy and making a proper presentation and taking ownership of your presentation from start to finish.  There are two mistakes that you didn't even notice.  They are not major mistakes, but it's the principle.

Okay, moving on:

Apparent motor draw under load: 9.5 watts
Apparent power to bulb:  17 watts

Mark already talked about more filtering to make sure the the ammeter for the bulb load was not thrown off.   Let's just focus on that.

Now, it's very difficult to judge bulb brightness and wattage.  Just for the sake of argument let's assume the issue is right there with the bulb power measurement.

Are we really looking at 17 watts?   What's the rated wattage for the bulb?   If you cup the bulb in your hand can you make a rough guestimate for the amount of heat power you feel in your hand?

But here is the real test.  I am assuming that you have another bulb and another bench power supply.  Just put a pure 17 watts of DC power through the second bulb and compare the brightnesses of the two bulbs.  Are they approximately the same or not?  Then swap the bulbs and repeat the test.

Now, if the bulb with 17 watts of DC going through is much brighter and you can feel much more heat from that bulb then you are busted.  Did you think of doing this before you made this presentation?

If the power measurement going to the bulb is the problem, then here is a possible scenario:

Total system power draw:  9.5 watts.
Power burnt off in spinning rotor:  3 watts
Power burnt of in bulb:  6.5 watts.

What if you put about 6.5 watts of DC power though the bulb, how bright does it look?   Is it comparable to what you see in your test under load?

Now what I just said is a process of thinking that you should be doing yourself.  I am under the impression that you don't think like that.

I have no clue if I am on the right track, but at least it stirs the pot for you.  If you did not think about doing a pure DC equivalent brightness test yourself then that was a fail because you should know by now.

Some things that you do know are that voltage and/or current spikes can throw off meters.  You also know that whatever coil shorting business you do will almost certainly generate voltage/current spikes.

One thing that you may not know is that your big fat electrolytic smoothing capacitor may not be filtering out some high frequency voltage or current spikes because big fat electrolytic caps do a very poor job of filtering out high frequencies.

The DC-equivalent A-B brightness test is something that I strongly advise you to do.

MileHigh

You really need to watch the last video i posted MH-->you really do. Then your above post would have been much shorter,and such questions wouldnt have been asked.

[MileHigh]

You really need to watch the last video i posted MH-->you really do. Then your above post would have been much shorter,and such questions wouldnt have been asked.

How about you also give your readers a short and skinny summation in text about your 20-minute clip because that's a very long clip to sit through?

[tinman]

MileHigh

In fact MH,it's now my turn to post my thoughts about your thoughts.

this is one of the very reasons i was not going to show diddly squat here-->your continual jumping in to soon,and making false assumptions and conclusions.
Example-

Quote: Mark already talked about more filtering to make sure the the ammeter for the bulb load was not thrown off.   Let's just focus on that.
One thing that you may not know is that your big fat electrolytic smoothing capacitor may not be filtering out some high frequency voltage or current spikes because big fat electrolytic caps do a very poor job of filtering out high frequencies.

This is the difference between bench work and paper MH.
When you watch the last video,you will see that the high current electrolytic cap dose a very good job at filtering the current spikes,and you will also see that the frequency of these spikes is quite low. The problem comes when people use low current cap's when trying to smooth high current pulses-->then the cap wont do the job. This is why i use high current caps to do the smoothing.

Just to be bitchy, you quote Woopy but he makes a mistake and you don't notice.  It's your data and you should take ownership of it.

We don't have to worry about the no-load condition for the analysis.

I see the draw of the motor under load is about 12.8 volts x 0.74 amps = about 9.5 watts.   Woopy used the peak voltage and not the RMS voltage and you didn't notice.

I see the output to the bulb as about 10.4 volts x 1.64 amps = about 17 watts.  Either you or Woopy screwed up the multiplication but you didn't notice.

Woopy gave an !about! figure in his quote-->go read it. If you watched the video carefully,you will also notice that i do indeed use the RMS value,and not the peak value. I used woppy's post just to show that it is possible to get a good idea of the P/in P/out.

Do you see what I mean?   If you just posted your link to your clip and posted your own bloody data and your own number crunching this kind of bullshit would not happen.  The real question is not about a little word game that "I can't multiply" - it's about not being sloppy and making a proper presentation and taking ownership of your presentation from start to finish.

The presentation has enough information for the non lazy to calculate power being used and power being dissipated 

There are two mistakes that you didn't even notice.  They are not major mistakes, but it's the principle

I made no mistakes,and the numbers calculated were !abouts!-as stated in comment.

But here is the real test.  I am assuming that you have another bulb and another bench power supply.  Just put a pure 17 watts of DC power through the second bulb and compare the brightnesses of the two bulbs.  Are they approximately the same or not?  Then swap the bulbs and repeat the test.

All this was done in the second video,and i also mentioned in the first video that i had done this test,and the meter was reading correct.

If the power measurement going to the bulb is the problem, then here is a possible scenario:
Total system power draw:  9.5 watts.
Power burnt off in spinning rotor:  3 watts
Power burnt of in bulb:  6.5 watts.

And this happens how from the schematic i posted?.

What if you put about 6.5 watts of DC power though the bulb, how bright does it look?   Is it comparable to what you see in your test under load?
Now what I just said is a process of thinking that you should be doing yourself.  I am under the impression that you don't think like that.

Once again,you have it all wrong. Everything you think i havnt done,i have done-->before posting the video,and during the second video-which i dont think you watched before you made all the above comments.

I have no clue if I am on the right track, but at least it stirs the pot for you.  If you did not think about doing a pure DC equivalent brightness test yourself then that was a fail because you should know by now.

There was no fail on my behalf MH,it was on your behalf,because i did everything you seem to think i would fail to do.

The DC-equivalent A-B brightness test is something that I strongly advise you to do.

Done,done,and done again.

WTF MH
Why are you so hard to please ?.
I posted what others asked for,but thats not good enough for you-->and i knew all to well that this was coming.
Here is your problem,and it is the problem of many others-->your stuck in the past,and you think that all that has been done is all that there is to do and know.
You insist that people answer your question's,but you fail to answer the one simple question i asked-->do you think the speed of light is unbeatable? --is there anything that travels faster than the speed of light.
I can answer this in a split second-can you?.

[MileHigh]

Tinman:

I slogged through your 20-minute video.  You could have easily summarized it with 10 lines of text if you wanted to up your game.

I am giving you what I think and you have to live with assumptions and conclusions, that's the way the cookie crumbles.  Especially with your style of presenting data.

Nope on the even bigger electrolytic cap.  It would appear you fell into the trap yourself of making assumptions.  What you are supposed to do is put some smaller ceramic caps in parallel with the electrolytic cap, something like a 0.1 uF and a 0.01 uF.  It really depends on the nature and amount of energy in the spikes.  So this part of your test is a fail and we assume that it's still possible that your ammeter for the bulb is being thrown off by pulses from the motor.

You say "the frequency of the spikes is quite low."  It has very little to do with the repetition frequency of the spikes.  It's all about the frequency content in the spikes.  Above a certain frequency content range, the electrolytic cap will do no filtering at all.

Woopy gave an !about! figure in his quote-->go read it.

Honestly, I don't care what Woopy said.  You made two mistakes and you can't hide behind "about."  You are not the bloody pope.  If you make a clip and make measurements, you should task yourself as a bare minimum to present your measurements in text in your posting, and your power calculations.  Do you think people really want to be doing multiplications in their head as they watch your clip?

The presentation has enough information for the non lazy to calculate power being used and power being dissipated

Honestly, lazy is a two-way street.  You are making the clip.  The burden is on your shoulders to not be lazy.  You did a good old verbal walk-through of your circuit in the first four or five minutes of your clip.  That's five minutes of wasted time.  I can guarantee you that the for the majority of people that goes in one ear and out the other ear.  You can just flash your schematic for 10 seconds at the beginning of the clip.  Then people like me open up two copes of your clip, and we keep one copy frozen on the schematic and we watch the live video on the other clip.

You talk about a bulb test in previous clips,  Why should you assume I watched your previous clips?  In this clip you did a bogus bulb test, another fail.  The only true way for you to compare brightnesses is to have both bulbs lit at the same.  It is truly the only way and it's not something that is negotiable.  So no bulb test was done.

So, I don't sense much progress being made with your new clip.   The filtering was not improved for the bulb ammeter and there was no A-B brightness test done.

Here is your problem,and it is the problem of many others-->your stuck in the past,and you think that all that has been done is all that there is to do and know.

This above is just a nonsense cliche Tinman.  You are not "in the future" because you are hacking a bloody appliance motor, get real.  Nor am I in the past.

you fail to answer the one simple question i asked-->do you think the speed of light is unbeatable? --is there anything that travels faster than the speed of light.

Have you read something or looked something up on Google that you want to spring on me?   I can tell you something that I learned in an electromagnetics class about 34 years ago, I am not going to do a search to try to one-up you.  What I can remember is that the wave velocity is limited to the speed of light.  But group velocity can actually be faster than the speed of light.  That means that you can't pass EM energy faster than the speed of light, but in theory you can pass an information signal faster than the speed of light.  That's all that I can remember about that so I am not able to provide any details.  I am assuming that Mark or PW can rattle off all of the details no problem.

So, sorry, but not much progress was made and my previous posting pretty much still stands.

It's a pain in the ass, eh?  I am being a pain in the ass.  But what I am saying to you is just the straight goods.  I really dislike your verbal walk-throughs of your schematics.  It's not the way to go.

I have good news for you.  I am bowing out, it's too frustrating for me.  You got your cage rattled a bit.  It's up to you to take my real feedback to heart or just keep doing things the same old frustrating ways for your audience.  Mark or PW will find the error and we will all be back at square one.

Sorry, but the reality is that you are not at the cutting edge of anything.  You have to be very very conservative when doing this stuff.  Extraordinary claims require two things, 1) extraordinary proof, and 2) working your ass off and leaving no stone unturned to try to find possible mistakes or to disprove yourself.

MileHigh

[woopy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IQT5xTJrAY


Very interesting and specially when the turbine is on and the impressive acceleration when the bulb is also on.

I am now playing with  the stator coils (parallelling and serialing ) and try to see how i can organize the shorting circuit.

Thank's for sharing

Laurent