Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[TinselKoala]

We have basically two different circuits that are being compared because one uses a deflection transistor driven from a function generator, the other (Itsu's) uses a FET and a FET driver chip buffering the FG.

Note that the transistor version will hit a limit of maximum inductor current when driven from the FG because of the limited current gain of the deflection transistor. (8 to 10). BTW this is a very low gain power transistor with built in damper diode.

For a proper replication by all Chris needs to find the current output and note the voltage setting that he used on his FG and the output impedance of his FG. He admits that he is driving the transistor base directly from the FG.
This accounts for the current limit of the transistor, not a total shut off but holding the inductor at a certain current level due to restricted base drive and low gain of the transistor and the high saturation voltage (5V). see attached annotated scope shot

Besides proper power measurement there are some interesting aspects to the circuit configuration that I will expand on in a later post.

For now it is important that Chris's original scope shot is fully understood, and that his circuit is replicated as closely as possible. This means using the exact 2sD1555 deflection transistor with built in damper diode or the closest possible equivalent.


Use of a FET will give very different scope shots versus the low gain, high saturation voltage deflection transistor. These differences must be fully grasped before a full understanding of the circuit operation is had.

Well, it certainly would be nice if someone posting a schematic diagram claiming to be the circuit used, would actually _use the correct symbols_ and _provide part numbers_ when they post their diagrams, don't you think? 

If someone posts a schematic using a mosfet, and then many people build and test that circuit using mosfets, and then someone else comes along and says no, you are using a mosfet instead of a bipolar transistor ..... that tends to be a little irritating to those people who may have put a substantial amount of effort into their builds and tests. ESPECIALLY when the transistor "actually" used is not likely to be instantly available in someone's parts stash.

Furthermore, using the FG to drive a bipolar transistor directly has its own problems. In the first place most FGs may not be able to provide the base current necessary to do the job properly... so we are in a situation where the transistor may be under-driven to produce the claimed "OU" effects. Then there is the issue of the injection of power into the circuit by the FG or base driver. And even further more, there is the Elephant in the Room: The claimed "OU" effects are based on improper combinations of a voltage measurement and a current measurement taken from different circuit branches.

So here's what I say. Let the claimant repeat the tests with whatever transistor he likes, but with making _proper_ input and output power measurements, not forgetting to include the input power from the FG in the mix. Then let him specify _exactly_ the correct circuit, with correct schematic symbols and all part numbers listed, along with the FG or other base drive circuit parameters as you have noted.

This is one of the most astounding "Moving the goalposts" issues I have encountered. A schematic is presented as having been used to make the traces.... and then _after_ considerable work is performed by multiple "replicators" using that schematic.... we are told that the key part shown in the schematic wasn't even _the same type of transistor_ as the actual part used in the claimant's circuit, and not only that, it is not even likely that the "correct" part is being driven according to the "usual" methods for driving such a part!

I am flabbergasted.

Horizontal deflection transistors in my stash:
Philips: BU2520ax, BU2520af, BU2527ax, m9237
generic: 2sd1877, 2sc5440, 2sd1878, 2sd2634, 2sc5297, 2sd2539
ST: 2001HI

So tell me which one of these is "close enough" so that I won't be _wasting my time_ following WRONG SCHEMATICS trying to replicate BAD MEASUREMENTS.

(including bolding because... well, because YOU DID.)

[MarkE]

Excuse me. I don't understand one thing.Can you explain ? How is that possible that output of unloaded ( I mean a not complete circuit , without output diode and capacitor) of   flyback or boost converter are spikes of high voltage, in fact voltage that should damage output capacitor, yet when diode and capacitor is connected it immediately summarize to the output voltage much less then without capacitor ?

It is really quite simple:  In an ordinary flyback or boost converter, we use a fast rectifier that provides a path for the current to the output capacitor.  When the transistor turns off, the inductor current redirects through the rectifier, active or passive, into the output capacitor.  The resulting voltage is the sum:  Prior voltage on the capacitor, plus di/dt * ESL_CAPACITOR, plus (I_INDUCTOR-I_LOAD)*ESR_CAPACITOR.  The inductor current ramps down over time as the inductor charges the capacitor/supplies the load.

[MarkE]

Well, it certainly would be nice if someone posting a schematic diagram claiming to be the circuit used, would actually _use the correct symbols_ and _provide part numbers_ when they post their diagrams, don't you think? 

If someone posts a schematic using a mosfet, and then many people build and test that circuit using mosfets, and then someone else comes along and says no, you are using a mosfet instead of a bipolar transistor ..... that tends to be a little irritating to those people who may have put a substantial amount of effort into their builds and tests. ESPECIALLY when the transistor "actually" used is not likely to be instantly available in someone's parts stash.

Furthermore, using the FG to drive a bipolar transistor directly has its own problems. In the first place most FGs may not be able to provide the base current necessary to do the job properly... so we are in a situation where the transistor may be under-driven to produce the claimed "OU" effects. Then there is the issue of the injection of power into the circuit by the FG or base driver. And even further more, there is the Elephant in the Room: The claimed "OU" effects are based on improper combinations of a voltage measurement and a current measurement taken from different circuit branches.

So here's what I say. Let the claimant repeat the tests with whatever transistor he likes, but with making _proper_ input and output power measurements, not forgetting to include the input power from the FG in the mix. Then let him specify _exactly_ the correct circuit, with correct schematic symbols and all part numbers listed, along with the FG or other base drive circuit parameters as you have noted.

This is one of the most astounding "Moving the goalposts" issues I have encountered. A schematic is presented as having been used to make the traces.... and then _after_ considerable work is performed by multiple "replicators" using that schematic.... we are told that the key part shown in the schematic wasn't even _the same type of transistor_ as the actual part used in the claimant's circuit, and not only that, it is not even likely that the "correct" part is being driven according to the "usual" methods for driving such a part!

I am flabbergasted.

Horizontal deflection transistors in my stash:
Philips: BU2520ax, BU2520af, BU2527ax, m9237
generic: 2sd1877, 2sc5440, 2sd1878, 2sd2634, 2sc5297, 2sd2539
ST: 2001HI

So tell me which one of these is "close enough" so that I won't be _wasting my time_ following WRONG SCHEMATICS trying to replicate BAD MEASUREMENTS.

(including bolding because... well, because YOU DID.)

This whole thing is very Ainslie-like.

[poynt99]

This whole thing is very Ainslie-like.

Indeed, it does seem that way.

I am flabbergasted that this whole thing has come down to the incorrect placement of a probe ground lead (i.e. measurement error).

btw TK, you seem a little upset at Vortex1, but I'm sure he was not coming down on you. If anything his post is a nudge to the claimant (and all claimants) to provide better up-front info.

[MarkE]

We have basically two different circuits that are being compared because one uses a deflection transistor driven from a function generator, the other (Itsu's) uses a FET and a FET driver chip buffering the FG.

Note that the transistor version will hit a limit of maximum inductor current when driven from the FG because of the limited current gain of the deflection transistor. (8 to 10). BTW this is a very low gain power transistor with built in damper diode.

For a proper replication by all Chris needs to find the current output and note the voltage setting that he used on his FG and the output impedance of his FG. He admits that he is driving the transistor base directly from the FG.
This accounts for the current limit of the transistor, not a total shut off but holding the inductor at a certain current level due to restricted base drive and low gain of the transistor and the high saturation voltage (5V). see attached annotated scope shot

Besides proper power measurement there are some interesting aspects to the circuit configuration that I will expand on in a later post.

For now it is important that Chris's original scope shot is fully understood, and that his circuit is replicated as closely as possible. This means using the exact 2sD1555 deflection transistor with built in damper diode or the closest possible equivalent.


Use of a FET will give very different scope shots versus the low gain, high saturation voltage deflection transistor. These differences must be fully grasped before a full understanding of the circuit operation is had.

EMJ posted this schematic as his set-up back in post #907.
Note that it shows an N Channel MOSFET connected to a function generator.  It is unsurprising that in this running farce EMJ published a bogus schematic.  If EMJ were actually looking for investigation into claimed performance of a circuit, then he would publish the actual circuit he wanted investigated.  You say that he did not.  He would enumerate all significant construction details, and components.  We know that he has not done so.   Does he have to come out and say the words:  "I've been screwing with you to see how far I could lead you down a rabbit hole." before you see his actions for what they are?