Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[MileHigh]

It dosnt matter where you go,or how many threads you start,the same shit always happens-->this i found out today in a place that i thought was free from turning a simple question into a mud slinging match.
Did you get my PM?

It's honestly not as simple as that, it's the "bad guy" game one more time - blame the other guy, and I am going to give you a recent example.

You have been doing this stuff for quite a few years now.  You are not a baby and you don't have to be coddled.

You changed the cap for a much larger cap and you were so damn sure of yourself that you were right, correct?  So you show a picture of your scope display with a perfectly flat line as "proof."

You said this:

Tell me again how the large cap is not smoothing out the pulses and ripples?

You don't provide any information beyond a photo of a straight line on your display and you make your statement above as if you are done and the testing for this issue is completed.  This is bloody electronics you are playing with, information is everything.

I listed a whole bunch of problems with that and said that I can't comment because there was not enough information.  The simple truth is you presented junk useless data, just a lousy picture of a flat line.   You presented junk Tinman, and you should know better.

Now is that "slinging mud?"  No way, just the truth.

Then you go into BS mode where you can't even acknowledge the problems and failings with your "proof."  You ignore everything I say and go mute.   Like really, you can't admit that you made a mistake?   Is your whole world going to come crashing down if you admit that you made a mistake?

You highlighted just one half of one of the six points I raised with you about the problems with your presentation of your findings:

6.  My impression is that you are looking at a flat line and so you are "satisfied" and you are not trying to turn over every stone to find possible shortcomings.

In your answer you changed the subject about the "shortcomings."   I was talking about the shortcomings in you checking to see if there were any possible spikes on the signal with only the single large electrolytic cap being used for the decoupling.  You provided zero information about that.

I was not talking about any shortcomings for the measurements in general, you changed the subject.  Look, you are working with a DSO and not an analog scope.  DSOs are in many cases not as good as an analog scope for trying to find tiny glitches.  I have to assume that you know that.  You have to "coax" the DSO to do what you want it to do.  I don't think you did that at all, I think you just saw a flat line without worrying about the time base or the triggering and that was it, you were "sure" of yourself.

What you were supposed to do was try different time bases while you move the trigger level to just slightly above the DC level of the signal.  If there were any little very short "wispy" pulses or spikes that the capacitor is not filtering then you are supposed to try to "catch" them like that.  If you see what appears to be small spikes then you can put your DSO into one-shot mode and then capture them.  You are supposed to spend ten minutes or more hunting for the spikes by playing with the time base, the trigger level, and using the continuous sweep and the one-shot capture capability of your DSO.  Also, for all I know your DSO may even have a special glitch capture function.

So you presumably did not do that, then you mess up by providing junk data, and when you were told about all of these problems, like usual you can't own up to making a mistake.

There might be some mud there but it's "tough mud" to push you to do better.  And for Christ's sake if you screw up have the guts to admit it, it's not going to kill you.   I have screwed up and supposedly because I am an "expert" (which I am not) I have seen people go ape-shit and dance around like crazy and remind me 10 times that I screwed up.  I don't give a rat's ass about admitting that I made a mistake, it's being honest.  Going mute when you make a mistake just makes you look evasive, shifty, and dishonest.

If you want to open up your eyes to see something it's this:  Your junk presentation of your single scope shot with a flat line and no supporting data is symptomatic of your main issue, your lack of desire to properly document yourself.  Your picture was so sloppy you couldn't even see the time base setting or the trigger level.  You make clips and can't be bothered to "add value" by summarizing them.

So if it's mud you got from me, it's because you yourself are a big part of the problem.  You don't have to be babied, you can roll with the punches just like anybody else.  It doesn't mean that I am a "bad guy."  If you do an experiment at school then you write up a lab report.  Then six months later if you want to see what some power measurements were, you look at the report instead of having to slog through a bunch of 20-minute video clips.

If what I am saying to you just bounces off a rubber wall, so be it.  But what I am telling you is real.

MileHigh

[MarkE]

Tinman, I watched the video.  I am satisfied that the decoupling to the bulb is good and that the bulb measurements are accurate.  The bench power supply test backs that up.  The motor has yet to be decoupled.  I look forward to seeing test results when you have that decoupling in place.

Mark.

[picowatt]

Tinman,

I too am looking forward to seeing the decoupled motor test results.

Again, thanks for sharing...

PW

[woopy]

Hi AC

Thank's for input

Yes i have seen the multiple shorting coil of Ossie some time ago, very impressive. But as i see on this particuliar experiment, the generative wave of the coils induced by the iron attraction motor (in my case, i don't know if it is general) , it is not a nice sine wave, but a wave with a spike, and what i try to do is to short the coil at the top of that spike in order to push the voltage much higher  by one  single shorting . But thank's for reminding Ossie's great work, which can probably be usefull for the future. But right now i have to digest the first step of this expériment and expect to understand better the subject

Good luck at all

laurent

[MarkE]

Isnt that interesting woopy. Now what do you think would provide a greater magnetic field?--> a shorted coil with a 50 volt potential across it,or a shorted coil with a 250 volt potential across it?. If you use your scope with a CVR to view current,and the other trace to view voltage,you will see that they are very near in phase,and thus by increasing the voltage across the coil-(even if the current remains the same) the produced magnetic field during that short is far greater than if there was no short. An open coil produces nothing. but a shorted coil at the right time produces a very strong magnetic field. Now all you do is add a second field that apposes that produced field to gain mechanical rotation torque increase. When the torque is increased,then RPM increases when the motor has a load on it,and as the RPM's are increasing,the current draw is decreasing.Also,as the RPM's increase,the generated power output also increases.

Two things to remember woopy.
1-a transistor or mosfet can be switched on two ways.
2- When an inductor becomes open circuit,the current flow remains in the same direction,but the voltage polarity switches.

Correct.

Everyone is looking only at the electrical output of my device,and seem to be ignoring the mechanical output that is also there.
They also dismiss EMJ's shorted coil theory,and although he hasnt shown a working device yet,and he messed up the scope measurements,his theory is sound.

EMJ's ideas are not supported by any reliable data.  There is a good reason that he does not show data that he contends supports his ideas:  He doesn't actually have any.

But back to your rig:  The output appears well decoupled as confirmed by the apparent brightness and DMM current reading using the DC supply at 10.4V as the 10.4V rms indicated by the apparently flat scope trace.  What we have not gotten to yet is confidence that the input current reading is accurate.  If we remove the AC from the measurement using decoupling as was done on the output then we should have good confidence in the input current and voltage readings as well.  They both should be taken with a DMM.  At a minimum we want the capacitors on the motor side of the current measurement.  Ideally they will be as close to the motor as possible.  Measurements made on steady DC voltages and currents are tough to dispute.

A thing that would be useful to add to your measurement kit in general for future projects would be some good low inductance current sense resistors.  Aryton-Perry wound resistors can be had for about $1. each and will let you look at pulse currents accurately with your oscilloscope.  But in lieu of those, if we circulate 99% plus of the AC current through decoupling capacitors, then ordinary DMMs will give us good, usable data.

If we suppose for a moment that after placing decoupling capacitors on the motor side that the input still reads ~9W while the output reads ~17W then it is a simple matter to build or buy a DC-DC converter to self-loop the thing once it is started.  Let's take one step at a time.