Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[MileHigh]

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?.

I made generic comments, I made no specific reference to your RT.  What I do know is that in the past I have asked you for more information or to summarize your information and you balk.  I think most of the time you don't give your viewers a schematic and you tend to balk when asked for one.  I can't recall ever seeing a serious timing analysis done for a setup of yours, but I don't watch many clips these days.  I have seen lots of clips with a running monologue instead.

The big bugaboo in many of these experiments is to see some king of "improvement" in the setup when adding a load (as an example) but without measuring and factoring in the change in the amount of waste heat power that occurs when the "improvement" is observed.

The lack of serious experimentation and proper analysis is an issue.  It all depends on the experimenter.  If you are doing basically the same kind of thing at about the same level that you were doing five years ago and don't try to do a proper timing analysis and proper measurements then there is only so far that you can go.  The classic example is Doug Konzen.  I asked him where in the timing of his motor the alleged extra energy came from and all that he could do was blow his smokestack and shoot steam out of his ears.

I just posted as plain as day that I don't do experiments and I don't have any equipment.  So why are you asking me if I can carry out your experiment?

[tinman]

At Luc

Sorry ,i should have made my test parameters a bit more clear(MH will have a field day with this). A frequency of 50htz or higher should be used,so as to represent common day generator effects. The idea is to reverse the CEMF(backtorque) that a generator encounters,and create the opposite,so as you have no CEMF(backtorque),but a forward torque if you like. So now when you load your generators output,it shows a motoring effect in stead of a braking effect.

[MileHigh]

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.

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.

For starters you need to chill out.  I commented about falsehoods in a book.  I didn't go after any person on this forum, but you decided to go after me.  There is no way that you can take an E-core transformer, and slip a few layers of cardboard between the "E" and the flux buss bar and measure over unity - not a chance in hell.

Simple logic puts the burden of proof on the claimant.  In this case there is no living claimant.  That's why I suggested that any one interested try to carry that burden of proof and prove it true.  It was just a rhetorical example to make people think.

So you decide to go after me and I took what you said and justifiably gave you a taste of your own "wink-wink nudge-nudge" attitude right back at you.  Repeat:  The burden of proof is on the claimant of over unity and you were the one suggesting that it might be true.

I am not putting people down - I stated that the claims in a book by a deceased author were false.  If your blood is boiling it's your problem not mine.  I said back to you what you said to me and my blood is not boiling.  So why is yours?  That should make you do some introspection and think about your own motivations and behaviour.

[tinman]

Brad, only one or two Plonkers question your RT, most here are in awe of your work and would like you to share more about it. Its always one or two that ruin it for the rest, always! Yes you know who you are!!!

"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" - Remembering that the RT is your invention, none here are familiar with your RT other than a few videos that were posted. None here are qualified to make judgement on your RT at all. But some will try... Yes you know who you are!!!

There is some differences between Textbook Magnetism and what can be seen on the bench. This is undisputable. Generally, Textbook Magnetism is correct, it's just incomplete in my opinion.

Don't let a few dufus's get at you! Most here are with you, on a very enjoyable ride into the future! If we have to leave a few behind, then so be it!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

As science and physics dose not know what the magnetic force is,they are having a !best guess! based around known effects. So there basically saying water is wet without knowing what water is.

If a DC current flowing through a conductor produces a stationary magnetic field,then why cant a stationary magnetic field produce a DC current?--> oh wait,it can when we apply motion,even if both the magnetic field and the conductor move together within that motion,so as the magnetic field is stationary in regards to the conductor.

[synchro1]

As science and physics dose not know what the magnetic force is,they are having a !best guess! based around known effects. So there basically saying water is wet without knowing what water is.

If a DC current flowing through a conductor produces a stationary magnetic field,then why cant a stationary magnetic field produce a DC current?--> oh wait,it can when we apply motion,even if both the magnetic field and the conductor move together within that motion,so as the magnetic field is stationary in regards to the conductor.

@Tinman,

Does anyone really think that the magnetic field of a permanent magnet can remain completely stationary along with the solid metal while inside the Earth's atmosphere and surrounding magnetic field with Schumann resonance and other tectonic and celestial perturbations?