Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[TinselKoala]

I found, that at 4.3 MHz there is a maximum output of 3.1 mW


Input analysis at 4.3 MHz Hz (10 V peak to peak sine wave or AC from the Function Generator):

V1eff = 0.9 V , I1eff = V1eff / R1 = 0.9 / 100 = 9 mA , V2eff = 0.9 V, ϴ= 0°

Watt1 = V2eff * I1eff = 8.1 mW

Watt2 = V1eff * I1eff = 8.1 mW

Watt3 = (V2eff - V1eff) * I1eff * cos(ϴ) is ~0 mW (output from H2 + H3 through R2 is ~3.1 mW, measurement not shown)

See the circuit diagram at http://overunity.com/15395/partnered-output-coils-free-energy/msg435839/#msg435839

There is not inductance at this frequency, it seems to be a 4.3 MHz radio wave transmission from coil H1 to the coils H2 + H3. The core is only rated up to 25 kHz, therefore 4.3 MHz can not excite it.

Greetings

Well, congratulations! This is the first measurement I've seen that could even plausibly be interpreted as an "OU" measurement! (even though it isn't really).  But see my concern about the Watt1 calculation mentioned above.

Is this what EMJ is talking about when he says that the M cancels but the E-field is still there?

(Unfortunately my FG tops out at 3MHz, so I would have to use some trickery to get up to that frequency range, plus my inductance is likely a bit lower than Conrad's.)

Good luck reaching these frequencies with an audio amplifier!

[conradelektro]

Conrad's setup looks good for measuring the input power to the primary coil. But I'm not sure about the "Watt1" (total from FG)  computation since it includes the inductance of the primary coil, not just the purely resistive component across the current-sense resistor. Is there some phase difference to be accounted for there?

I think one has to calculate the total resistance (R1 + impedance of H1) with SQRT(R1*R1 + X*X), but I do know how to calculate the impedance X of H1.

The total power in the coil itself, "Watt3", I think is calculated correctly.

Let's hope so. A mix of resistance (R1) and impedance (H1) is always tricky to calculate.

Let's please hear MileHigh's analysis of this.  And please STOP dissing MH! He is a strong contributor of constructive criticism and it doesn't matter if he's not actually experimenting at the moment. His knowledge, experience and opinions are very valuable in this discussion.

I think that MileHigh shrugs off idiots. One should just forget the psychos. I stopped answering the strange posts.

When Conrad measures the output of the partner coils, does he disconnect the probes completely from the primary side? I'm not sure if this matters, but remember the probe reference leads are likely to be connected together in the scope itself. It would also be good to know if the FG's "black" or ground lead is connected internally and through the mains to the scope probe references. Measuring the input as he has shown, it won't matter if the FG is fully isolated or not, but when measuring the output it might matter.

Yes, the probes are completely disconnected from the input while measuring output and vice versa.

On the input I make sure that the GND of the function generator corresponds with GND of the scope probes.

On the output side it would not matter if one leg of coil (H2 + H3) is connected to GND of the function generator (as long as no scope probe is on the input side).

My own testbed is using a 4.7 ohm precision non-inductive resistor in the place of Conrad's R1, and a 0.47 ohm carbon resistor in series with the R2 100 ohm carbon load resistor for monitoring current on the load (output) side.  I also have the bipolar push-pull current amplifier between the FG and the primary coil. Other than that I'm doing the same thing as Conrad (except I only have 40 turns on the primary, and of course I have the Secret of DPDT so that I can flip the connection polarity of the partnered coil that does not have the primary overwound on it.)

Looking forward to your results. I will switch to the audio amplifier once I am sure about the measurement method. Knowledge about a good measurement method can help all serious experimenters.

Greetings, Conrad

[conradelektro]

Well, congratulations! This is the first measurement I've seen that could even plausibly be interpreted as an "OU" measurement! (even though it isn't really).  But see my concern about the Watt1 calculation mentioned above.

Is this what EMJ is talking about when he says that the M cancels but the E-field is still there?

(Unfortunately my FG tops out at 3MHz, so I would have to use some trickery to get up to that frequency range, plus my inductance is likely a bit lower than Conrad's.)

Good luck reaching these frequencies with an audio amplifier!

I checked up to 20 MHz (the limit of my FG). The square wave signal limit is 5 MHz. And I could measure with a 4.3 MHz square wave. The output is about 10% higher.

My audio amplifier will only do 40 - 20 000 Hz:
http://www.conrad.at/ce/de/product/117560/Kemo-Verstaerker-Modul-M032N-Baustein-6-16-VDC-Ausgangsleistung-12-W (speaker = Lautsprecheranschluss 4 - 16 Ω, frequency range = Frequenzgang ca. 40 - 20 000 Hz)

So, I will have to use that MOSFET-Driver for higher frequencies.

Greetings, Conrad

[MileHigh]

Conrad:

Great documentation, showing a circuit, your probe positions, your measurements.  I will get into all of that in another posting.

First thing I want to discuss is to revisit the 'ghost' replicators from the earlier part of the thread that have all seemingly run away.  They never showed schematics, pictures, probe placements, or measurements.  They played this nonsensical game of "experiment by five sentences."  You guys have got to get it through your heads that you simply can't 'experiment' and exchange notes and change configurations purely in text.  You are just doing a dance of the deaf and blind when you do that.  You are talking back and forth to each other and pretending that you are exchanging useful information but in fact you are not.  You are just playing a silly game.  Look at Conrad's presentation as a model to follow for how you should present your own data.  If you are going to do a replication, then don't slightly change your own circuit and pretend it's a replication.  Do a real replication, show real data and stop playing your silly 'text games.'

Okay, I got that off my chest.  Sorry, but I have always hated 'fake experiment talk' and fake replications.  That doesn't advance anything at all.

Itsu did a power-out vs. power-in measurement clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INS_SxpJ-XI

My comments on the clip:

<<<
Itsu, thank you for making the measurement.  I can see how the bucking coil power output is so low that the primary ends up looking more like an inductance instead of the load reflecting back to the primary such that the primary voltage and current would be in phase.

I think it is fair to say that for a normal transformer once the power output to the resistive load attached to the secondary goes above a certain low level threshold, then you will see the primary voltage and current nearly perfectly in phase.  But below that threshold and the transformer primary starts to look mostly like an ordinary inductor.  So the very low power output of the secondary in the bucking configuration is ultimately counter productive.   There is no "COP 1.7 'magic'" in sight.
>>>

To be continued....

[MileHigh]

What did I learn from Itsu's power measurement clip?

So to me that means that when you have the bucking secondary setup, the more closely matched the two bucking coils are, the less voltage you get across the pair of bucking coils.  This obviously hampers your ability to output power into a load resistor and I discussed that in more detail in an earlier posting.

What I did not realize was that the power output in certain setups can be so low, that it is barely "noticed" by the transformer primary, and by the driving signal source, which in Itsu's case is a signal generator.  The result of that is the transformer primary is effectively not really loaded and therefore to the driving signal source the transformer looks mostly like an inductor.  If it looked like a pure inductor the phase shift between the voltage and the current would be 90 degrees.  In Itsu's case the phase shift is something like 87 degrees.

Do you realize what that means?  It means that the bucking coil transformer is acting like a blocking device not letting any power go to the load resistor.  The more matched the two separate bucking coils are the more there is blocking of the power flow from the power source to the load.  When the bucking coils are perfectly matched then the bucking coil transformer will block 100% of the power from going into the load resistor.

In other words, welcome to Monty Python's Flying Circus.

I suppose if you intentionally mismatch your two bucking coils enough, then you can get some real power flow going, and then the voltage and current on the primary will be in phase, which is what you would expect if you were driving a purely resistive load on the secondary.

How could Chris possibly claim COP 1.7 for this stuff?  It's beyond me.

What are we really doing here?  The answer is that we are intentionally doing a very bad design as per normal design practices, in the hope that we strike some kind of magic pay dirt and and can flash an over unity victory sign.

Sometimes I am just aghast, and this is one of those moments.  I am shaking my head.

I am not suggesting anybody stop their experimentation with this setup.  But please, dear God, when all is said and done, at least be able to state clearly what you learned here.  To be politically incorrect, you will have learned that foolish designs give you miserable results.  No matter what kind of verbage EMJunkie wants to throw at this setup, the truth is the truth.

MileHigh