Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[MileHigh]

Schematic? Hello! The image has been viewed over a _hundred times_ since I posted it and only two people have replied to my question about the very real and legitimate issues concerning it.  And they have no answers but reinforce the questions.

Is anyone actually serious about anything in this whole thread, except bashing the skeptics? Did anyone besides me actually _read_ the pdf?

TK:

Let's just tie the mysterious lower MOSFET source pin at 0 volts to ground.  Seems reasonable.  So that would mean that the lower MOSFET Q2 does nothing, nada.  It may as well not even be in the circuit.  Let's call that problem #1.

When Q1 is OFF, not much is going on and the scope probe will snow 0 volts across R1.

Then when Q1 switches on, you start to energize L1 and L2 and you will see the rising current waveform across R1.

Then when Q1 switches off, you have problem #2.  The energy stored in L1 and L2 is all dressed up with no place to go.  The source pin of Q1 is going to get yanked to an extremely low negative voltage.  Another way of putting it is that there is going to be a high-voltage energy burn across the Q1 source-drain as L1 and L2 push current through the open switch of the Q1 MOSFET.  So there is a chance that you will blow Q1 under these circumstances.

MileHigh

[propellanttech]

James,
          I feel that at the sort of level we're dealing with here experimentation has got
to be fairly low on the list.
    There is just so much valuable information out there at the touch of a keypad coupled
with calculators and simulators that makes practical work the final stage.
    By all means spend your dollars and hours at experimentation, you'll learn a lot.
Don't belittle the paper and pencil guys, good design is the key to success.
            John.

John,

Paper and pencil only works with tested designs. Transformer theory (not law) is based on the way every transformer in use on the grid is built. I know of none that use a bucking coil design within them.

Believing the simulators and calculations is a statement that we know everything about magnetism, and magnetic fields. Will you state we totally understand magnetic fields and magnetism, and we have nothing left to learn about them?

So how are we to use the knowledge of the testing of conventional transformers in a situation that is not conventional? Or anything else non-conventional.

That is like comparing a canard aircraft with a conventional aircraft. They both fly. That is about the only similarity. The testing and design, now must be done to find what differences are there. They are not the same with respect to efficiencies or flight characteristics, so they are not broadly thrown into the same envelope.

That is why real world testing must be done. When you assume your calculations are correct, then you may overlook the one thing that could get you where you want to go.

That is why, only building the "transformer" will prove the point. Hence why only "testers" have the right to question someones claim. Do the work, then you understand how to question someone correctly.

James

[MileHigh]

Regards...

The false troll accuser becomes the main troll on the forum.  Can you say self-flagellation?  Count down from 200, it's going to feel really good towards the end.  lol

[minnie]

   Geez Cap'n,
               everyone (almost) cites the Wright brothers. Very few seem to realise that
it was the wretched petrol engine that enabled powered flight to take off. If the Wrights
hadn't succeeded very soon someone else would have.
   Evolution is unstoppable, just like an OU. device would be. I think there's far more
likelyhood of murders being committed to get hold of an OU. device rather than of the
oil company trying to block one.
                 John.

[propellanttech]

Schematic? Hello! The image has been viewed over a _hundred times_ since I posted it and only two people have replied to my question about the very real and legitimate issues concerning it.  And they have no answers but reinforce the questions.

Is anyone actually serious about anything in this whole thread, except bashing the skeptics? Did anyone besides me actually _read_ the pdf?

TK,

Unfortunately the original poster has moved on. I plan to join him when I get approved.

The 0v may be just a mislabel, I don't know. I do know it looks suspicious.

Sorry, but this thread has fell into a cluster, but many threads here seem to be pointing in that same direction.

James