Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[partzman]

I would like to correct a statement I made in an earlier post regarding "excess" energy in passive circuits.  That term is incorrect, should not have been used, and I apologize for any confusion.

There is no excess or mysterious outside source of energy in the circuit I've disclosed. It is simply the manipulation and use of existing energy within the confines of that circuit as supplied and returned to the source. During this process, one finds the ability to produce real power with the near cancellation of input power from the source. That is my whole point and I've not done a good job in my attempts to explain it as such.

partzman

 

 

[Drak]

The method you are trying to understand is in fact radio physics. It is hidden in plain sigh. Please understand that, you would not have to understand how radio works for just using it, right ? So, if somebody who know create attractive and complete but false theory describing and computing all you need to build radio, yet without a single bit of true principle, then you are in situation we are in today. In other words, they let you use a candle but not a laser.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying the only way to do anything with reactive "power" is to transmit it through the air?

[partzman]

Partzman:

Just giving your description and your schematic and your waveforms a preliminary look I can suggest some potential issues.

The frequency is fairly high, and C1 and C2 are minuscule 4.7 nF caps.  How do you know that your (Ch3 - Ch1) measurement is good?  You are loading down what may be one high impedance signal path (Ch 3), and the frequency is fairly high, and that could potentially throw everything out of whack.

Just a basic simplistic check here ignoring the transformer and just looking at the series LC component:  The current is leading the voltage for the entire circuit, and the phase is nearly 90 degrees.  So it looks like a capacitive load.  Each capacitor is 65 ohms impedance at 520 kHz.  Each inductor is 509 ohms impedance at 520 kHz.  The series resonant frequency would be 186 kHz.  So for a basic series LC circuit with your component values, at 520 kHz it should look like an inductive load.  But it appears to be a capacitive load.  Why is that and is that suggesting that something is amiss?

When the signal generator voltage is zero, the load current gets pinched off.  Do you know why?  I realize that there is a transformer and another current loop in play.  I think the reason for the pinching off of the current should be investigated, just so you know the circuit better.  The more you know the circuit the more you are able to recognize any possible instrumentation errors.

A basic question:  How does the circuit respond as you sweep the frequency?  Perhaps you will detect something that looks strange possibly hinting that your probes are disturbing the circuit too much at higher frequencies.

However, the biggest issue remains:  You observed a COP of 35 and apparently didn't question it.

MileHigh

MH,

The probes used are Tek TPP0500B rated at 500Mhz with 10M impedance and 3.9pfd capacitance. Hardly significant loads for the circuit at the CH1 and CH3 nodes.  Also it is CH1-Ch3 not vice-versa.

One key item you have failed to take note of is the distributed capacitance between L1 and L2 of 7.25nfd. This is the reason for the current lead so nothing amiss here.

The "pinching off" you describe is current reversal due to the complex phasing within the circuit due primarily to the fact we are operating off resonance at 520khz.

When the circuit frequency is raised and approaches the circuit's fo (which is different than your calculations BTW), the real resistive power output increases and the input power goes negative for infinite COP.

I am used to producing apparent COPs on the bench ranging from <1 to infinity so a COP=35 is not that shocking. Only if one has conducted the experiments themselves would they understand the difficulties to produce a stand alone device from this point forward. IMO, as Tinman's device progresses he will begin to see this as well.

partzman

[MileHigh]

Partzman:

I am used to producing apparent COPs on the bench ranging from <1 to infinity so a COP=35 is not that shocking.

Unfortunately, what you've got going is a unfortunate mix of decent knowledge and self-delusion and hubris.  All that you have to do is apply yourself and get more serious and your magic over unity COPs will evaporate into nothingness.

I am not up to walking you through a circuit analysis and discovering your errors, but I can assure you that they are there.  It's just like the negative resistance conclusion for Tinman's circuit, it's just another failure to look at everything with a critical eye and double check and triple check everything.

Even though I am not up to doing this kind of circuit analysis anymore, I do know electronics and I know when someone is deluding themselves.  You should take my advice and put all of your conclusions in check.  For example, if you simulate your circuits with pSpice and drop power monitoring probes in the circuit, you are not going to find over unity.   Then you can use the pSpice simulation to help you find out where you went wrong.

MileHigh

[EMJunkie]

Chris,
Thank you for your comment.  I will explain the scope shots. 

The first scope pix shows the Math measurement of the voltage across Rl using CH1-CH3 as the differential means. This quantity is then squared, divided by 958, and the instantaneous value displayed by the red Math trace over time. The Math calculation is then integrated between the vertical cursors and displayed as the mean or average that is seen as 105.3mvv or 105.3mw.  To roughly confirm this by analyzing the traces, one can simply subtract the peak of CH2 (~8) from the peak of CH1 (~22), and even though they are slightly out of phase with some distortion, take the difference (14) and convert to rms (9.9) to arrive at ~ 102mw (9.9^2/958).

The second scope shot uses the Math channel to perform the product of CH1 (input source voltage) times CH2 (voltage across Rs representing the current taken from the source voltage). The red Math trace displays the instantaneous value over time of this product and then this result is integrated over the time interval between the vertical cursors and displayed as a mean value of 2.946mvv or 2.946mw.

The resulting COP = 105.3/2.946 = 35.74.

The reason the math results are in mvv is due to mv measurements being used in the calculations.

partzman

Thanks Partzman! I thought I was reading it wrong, not enough reading in your pdf on my part.

Well, a COP = 35.74 surely is something that should warrant detailed study here as well as Tinman's work!

Again I have attached your pdf and also your Schematic for others.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

P.S: Most here ignore MileHigh's drivel - Its too painful to keep correcting him all the time.