Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[MileHigh]

I see a standard secondary coil that has a slightly different configuration.  It's split into two halves with EMFs that add together.  It is not a so-called "partnered output coils" configuration.

From the text describing experiments in adding a variable air gap to the magnetic circuit of transformer, "This evidences a clear and direct breach of the law of energy conservation unless we can embrace the concept that the ferromagnetic core has a way of borrowing energy from a source not contemplated by our textbook teachings."

Not a chance in hell, the claimed results in the described experiment are pseudoscience nonsense.  The claimed over unity results would be refuted by any researcher with a reasonable amount of bench skills and experience that replicated the experiment.

So that puts Harold Aspden in the category of pseudoscience practitioner.  Once you become suspicious of someone that is supposedly a researcher or professor with the gleam of credibility, the next logical step is to do a "tough" Google search on them.

So, doing a search on "Harold Aspden pseudoscience" will give you a bunch of links indicating that Harold Aspden is not credible.  But perhaps more importantly, doing the bench test yourself and refuting the claims made in the link will give you the satisfaction of being a "doer" and an experimenter that finds out the truth for yourself.

[tinman]

When the Secondary Coil carry's Current, the Polarity is Equal and Opposite!!!

Yes and no, As the Intensity of the Opposition increases there will be a increase of the Core's Reluctance. Harder for the Flux to Link through the Secondary. The higher the reluctance of the Core, the less emf in the secondary. There will be a lot of loss in a Transformer with this configuration and as you correctly point out, the best way is to have the Secondary Coil wound on top of the Primary. This is part of the reason, to increase efficiency.

I imagine this simply as two fire Fighters, each turns facing toward each other, both with fire hoses on full and pointing them directly at each other... The force of opposition would be relative to the force on each hose...

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

P.S: Apply the Right Hand Rule to the picture: "Transformer Theory 1" - You will see each Field Oppose when the Secondary is carrying Current...

The Currents are Equal and Opposite: (See: Primary vs Secondary Current in a Transformer) So, the Secondary Current is always opposing the Primary's Current.

No-not when you include motion of the core that carries those magnetic fields. Both the primary and secondary form opposite field's,and thus there is no CEMF(no back torque) from the secondary field,as the secondaries current flow is not apposing that of the primaries current flow(hint).

Many here pride them selves in knowing so much about magnetic fields,but no one to date has been able to explain how the torque in the basic RT doubles when the stator coil has a load placed across it.Nor can any of these people tell you what the magnetic force is. The RT is both a generator that shows the opposite to that of any other generator,and it is also an extremely efficient electric motor. I have carried out careful measurement tests between the RT and !off the shelf! electric motors,and the RT has shown an efficiency of over 60% of that of any other motor i have tested against it driving the same load.

People are lazy. What they want is all your years of hard work and experimenting handed to them so as they can replicate your device. They are not interested in working out how it works,or why it's doing what it's doing,they just want a device that works in front of them,on the bench,where all the hard work was done by some one else. Many have replicated the effect of the basic RT,but none of them can explain as to how it is doing it,or what it is doing.

Here is a little project for any one interested-->more of a challenge really. An if you succeed, you will start to understand how wrong we have been doing thing's,and how induction must take place as presented to us for the last 200 years in order to create current flow through a conductor.

You are to build two identical inductors.Lets say they use an iron,laminated steel,or a ferrite core of size 10 to 20mm diameter x 30 to 50mm in length. On this core you wind say 300 turns of .55 or .61mm wire(enameled copper wire). You hang these two inductors from strings,so as they have a gap of say 5mm between them,and they can swing toward or away from each other(core coil face to face). You now use one as a primary,and the other as a secondary.

Your mission now is to send a current through the primary so as you can induce a current in the secondary. The secondary will have say a 10ohm resistor as a load across it. The aim is to get those two inductors to attract each other in stead of repelling each other when current is flowing through both coils without the use of PM's. So,in stead of producing a field in the secondary that apposes that of the primary,you must produce a field in the secondary that attracts the field produced by the primary. You must also show no increase in P/in to the primary when the load is placed on the secondary.

Who here can do that?.


P.S-that should be reflection-not reflecton in the schematic.

[MileHigh]

People are lazy. What they want is all your years of hard work and experimenting handed to them so as they can replicate your device. They are not interested in working out how it works,or why it's doing what it's doing,they just want a device that works in front of them,on the bench,where all the hard work was done by some one else. Many have replicated the effect of the basic RT,but none of them can explain as to how it is doing it,or what it is doing.

Honestly, Brad, you are also talking about yourself.  As TinselKoala has stated many times, the vast majority of the "experiments" you see around here are not in fact experiments, they are just observations.  Things like "Oh look!  I added a load resistor and the torque increased."

I have said this before.  On top of TK's comments about what an experiment really is, when you analyze a motor or a circuit under say two different sets of conditions, then you have to record complete and thorough timing diagrams for the two conditions and then analyze them and explain them.  Just observing an effect is bullshit if you are going to make a claim.  You have to explain it from A to Z and explain why the effect is manifesting itself.

And around here that is clearly not going to happen.

[centraflow]

I see a standard secondary coil that has a slightly different configuration.  It's split into two halves with EMFs that add together.  It is not a so-called "partnered output coils" configuration.

From the text describing experiments in adding a variable air gap to the magnetic circuit of transformer, "This evidences a clear and direct breach of the law of energy conservation unless we can embrace the concept that the ferromagnetic core has a way of borrowing energy from a source not contemplated by our textbook teachings."

Not a chance in hell, the claimed results in the described experiment are pseudoscience nonsense.  The claimed over unity results would be refuted by any researcher with a reasonable amount of bench skills and experience that replicated the experiment.

MH, then why don't you do as you preach, don't you have a reasonable amount of bench skills? a simple video of this simple experiment I'm sure even you could do, and might give you some extra credibility   if you find the results are as you say I don't think you have a problem, hmmm, or maybe you would!!


regards


Mike

[MileHigh]

I have been around long enough and I have made the right call on so many experiments and "pro" free energy propositions that I already have credibility.  I openly state with no problem that I don't experiment and I don't have any equipment.  I once estimated that I have about 4500 hours of bench experience and I have done hundreds of electronics bench experiments.

But most importantly, I am not making a claim about a supposedly over unity transformer.  I don't have to prove a negative.

Since you are challenging me, and suggesting that the Harold Aspden claims might be credible, then that suggests that the onus is on you to do the bench experiment and share your results and demonstrate positive results.

So, why don't you do as you preach?  A video only will not cut it.  You would have to show all of your data and precisely how you made your measurements.  If you were real you would include your error tolerances in your measurements.  It might give you some extra credibility.