Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[MileHigh]

The _current_ component of the reactive power circulating in the TBF primary coil of the uQEG does create an oscillating EM field around the coil, even though no or very little power is actually being dissipated _in the coil_. This current is 40 to 60 amps or even higher, even though the power supply input to the uQEG is only a few hundred mA. By coupling to this oscillating EM field with the TKTransverters (tuned resonant receiver) one can indeed extract usable power to drive real loads (incandescent bulbs, neons, HV spark gaps, DC motor, etc).

Careful TK, because I think that you could throw some people off the track here.

If you want to call the uQEG's LC tank circuit "reactive power" in a sense, I suppose that you can.  I prefer to look at it as an energy store.  You pumped real power into the LC tank and now it is being stored as "circulating reactive power" or something like that.  It's important to state that it represents a finite amount of real electrical energy that just happens to be oscillating back and forth.

When you "extract usable power" from the LC tank, you are extracting the real energy that is stored in the tank.  The real energy that is stored in the LC tank decreases as you continue to draw power from it.

So, in the strictest sense, you are not converting "reactive power" into real power.  You are taking real energy out of the LC tank, and outputting real power into a load.

I just don't want people to freak out thinking that you have discovered the "secret" for converting "reactive power" into real power.

MileHigh

[SoManyWires]

I was answering that guy's question on reactive power topics here on this forum and not speaking of magnetics so, I have no idea what you are getting at here?  Perhaps I missed something?  Yes, I played around with that fellows idea a bit here at Pirate Labs and found it interesting.  I just do not see the connection to that fellow's topic and reactive power?

Bill

i apologise for being misunderstood, it happens.
when milehigh used a example of iron contacting a magnet, well it sounded like there was no consideration for a magnet that was not setup to actually contact the iron. and this is what motivated my interjection on the matter.
because there would be not the same results in reactive power using those chosen elements differently for the given example he suggested. that is all.

[EMJunkie]

MH,

With all due respect, you need to perhaps peer outside the box you have confined yourself to.  If you haven't already, I would invite you to take a look at the pdf I attached to post #5982. It addresses two taboo's and they are 1), excess power produced with passive components and 2), energy supplied back to the source (negative resistance) during the production of real power to a resistive load.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have regarding this circuit and would encourage any dialog on the subject.  I have at present three topologies that produce OU using the same principles as shown here and was willing to show this limited example in order to "shake the tree" so to speak.  Only PW responded on this forum while ION made a comment on OUR.com.

partzman

Partzman, This is good work.

Its a shame things like this get missed. Noise in the form of a Tantrum just might be needed to get noticed?

Looking at your data, if you don't mind, I will detail:

M = (1 - 3) x (1 - 3) / 958

It appears as the in might be: 4.462 (Teal Trace) and the out might be: 4.874 (Pink Trace) - 4.874 / 4.462 = COP = 1.09

Maybe you can further detail your Scope Shots? Something is not clear to me here.

For others I have re-attached the pdf you have shared.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[Pirate88179]

i apologise for being misunderstood, it happens.
when milehigh used a example of iron contacting a magnet, well it sounded like there was no consideration for a magnet that was not setup to actually contact the iron. and this is what motivated my interjection on the matter.
because there would be not the same results in reactive power using those chosen elements differently for the given example he suggested. that is all.

Ah, OK, I get it.

Thanks,

Bill

[MileHigh]

i apologise for being misunderstood, it happens.
when milehigh used a example of iron contacting a magnet, well it sounded like there was no consideration for a magnet that was not setup to actually contact the iron. and this is what motivated my interjection on the matter.
because there would be not the same results in reactive power using those chosen elements differently for the given example he suggested. that is all.

Sorry, but I can't really address every single issue raised.  But the fundamental point relating to Tinman's question is this:  When you approach a magnet with a piece of iron, there is push-back while the magnetic domains are being flipped in the iron.  You just can't feel it because what you are feeling is the magnetic attraction between the iron and the magnet.  Just because you can't feel it doesn't mean that it's not there.

Magnet contacting the iron vs. magnet not contacting the iron is not relevant and doesn't change anything.  Just like trying all sorts of exotic configurations for "all-magnet motors" is not relevant and doesn't change anything.

Related to this is that you have to be able to understand the concept of magnetic potential energy.  Why does a magnet stick to a refrigerator door?  When you let go of your shoes, why do they fall flat to the floor?  The answer to both questions is fundamentally the same.