Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[tinman]

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.

Once again MH,you are wrong. I am the one who has carried out many test in regards to the RT.
I know exactly what happens
I know exactly why it happens
And i know exactly how it happens.

The test or project i posted above with getting the two inductors to attract one another when a current is passed through the primary,and a load is placed on the secondary-i have done many times with great success.
I know why it happens
I know how it happens
And i know what is happening.

Can you carry out the experiment i posted MH,and get the results i did?.

[poynt99]

Yes.  Just like the U shape core example, if we gradually increase current, the fields will expand outward toward the opening of the U. So the same should be for the toroid core or any closed core.

Makes a lot of sense.

Run a single wire through the hole of the core, exactly in the middle of the hole and it will be induced by the primary.

Mags

So it would strictly be that "wave" of flux moving across the toroid from left to right that would cause an induced emf in the secondary?

[centraflow]

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.

Where do we start? well I'm not preaching anything, that's a good start to being with. Second I did not say I agree with Harold Aspden, only you disagree with him and so I stated that you should quantify this by doing the experiment.


I'm nearly 65yrs old, a bit long in the tooth, and by your statement of  4500hrs on a bench, I'm sure I could beat that just on my work with Marconi in Chelmsford. But that is not important, the thing that is important is you put things down without you proving otherwise, so the onus is on you, not me as you try to switch it, very clever.


A video will cut it as you put it, and of course ALL the data, I'm sure you don't think I'm stupid, or do you? data is everything, without it you can prove nothing, even you.

I will watch this thread with interest, but I will not enter into the realms of bad maners which seems the norm on this site


I'm going to say sorry to you because I have had a bad day, and you were the first to make my blood boil and you just had to have a little of my anger. I do not know who you are and really I could not care less, just don't be too quick to put people down, it just might back fire on you one of these days.


I'm gone, and oh, I will not be doing that experiment, been there, done that and have the tee shirt as they say


with regards


Mike

[minnie]

   centraflow,
            well I'm older than you. Don't get worked up - not worth it.
  I'm researching this in my own little way at a particle level.
  There's not a huge mileage in building arbitrary circuits as far as I
  can see.
       I like to read everyone's point of view. So stop the argumentation,
  don't put people off, just skip any post you don't like.
       Farmer John.

[gotoluc]

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?

I can do that for all the lazy people here

But somehow I would think the primary core would attract to the secondary core even if it has a load on it?

Luc