Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[conradelektro]

TK,

Here are Conrad's Pin calculations:

Vt is the FG output.
Vh is the voltage at the top of the primary.
Vr is the voltage across the resistor (which is equal to Vt-Vh).

I (input current) is Vt divided by the 100R of the series CSR.

Phase angle not withstanding, Pin to the primary is simply Pin=(Vh*I).

Conrad used Vr instead of Vh.

However, that is (Vr*I), which is the power dissipated in the series resistor, not the primary.

So, if Pin=Vh*I*cos() =3.04*0.0024*cos(17) =6.98mw

PW

Picowatt is right, I made a stupid error and used the wrong Voltage for calculating power dissipation in the primary coil H1.

Here is the correct calculation:

Vh = 3.04 V
Vt = 3.28 V
Vr = Vt - Vh = 3.28 - 3.04 = 0.24 V
I = Vr / R1 = 0.24 / 100 = 0.0024
Ɵ = 17°

Watt through the primary H1 (input) = I * Vh * cos(Ɵ) = 0.0024 * 3.04 * cos(17°) = 6.9 mW  (which of course shows that there is no OU, because the output is 1.4 mW)

An other clarification: the Voltages Vh, Vr and Vo are indeed true RMS as calculated by my scope. (I did not do the calculation Vpp * 0.7)

Why did I connect the probes and the resistors R1 and R2 as depicted in the diagram?

Because that resolves the "GND connection" issue between function generator and scope! Remember that my function generator and my scope have a ground connection via the "mains GND" (220 V wall socket). Both scope probes and the output of the function generator have the same GND as indicated by the blue line in the drawing,
as shown here:

http://overunity.com/15395/partnered-output-coils-free-energy/msg436056/#msg436056 (which does not show OU, because I confused Vh wit Vr in the "power in" calculation, Vh and Vr are shown correctly in the drawing).

Thank you all for thinking about my measurement and my calculations. Together we can find the truth. Unfortunately I do not have much spare tim in the coming days, but I intend to do more tests.

My error shows again how important it is to make all measurements and calculations openly available. Only in this way a review by others possible. An error is quickly made when tired and after many measurements numbers are easily confused. And measurements are often much more involved than anticipated (e.g. the ground connection problem). In general, one can easily use a scope in the wrong way. The GND of a scope probe can not be put everywhere in a circuit, its placement has to be carefully chosen, and especially if two scope probes are used (their GND is the same).

Greetings, Conrad

[TinselKoala]

TK,

I don't understand this post.

The (differential voltage/100) does indeed give the current in the entire primary circuit.

The error was in also using that same differential voltage, Vr, as the voltage across the primary, which it is not.  The voltage across the primary is Vh.

PW

Ah, ok, I just had my eyeballs crossed, sorry. Somehow I thought he had used Vr/100 x Vh correctly but now I see the error, he used Vr/100 x Vr.  Thanks for catching that one.

Watt through the primary H1 (input) = 0.0024 (Vr/100)  * 0.24 (Vr)  * cos(17°) = 0.55 mW

Error!
Ok, it's time for Synchro to change his mind again!



@Conrad: I got confused because you have the equation algebra correct... but I missed the fact that you had plugged in the wrong actual value into the algebra.
Keep up the good work, I've never changed _my_ mind about you!

[TinselKoala]

Tinsel- regarding to your scematic, I would recomend to use seriall capacitor to make it resonance motor,which suppose to be much efficient (some say even OU) and to use the feedback to comparator and increase signal by opamp to maintain the resonance?

Well, you do understand that the "M" in the schematic is now replaced by the primary coil, right? Adding a capacitor to make a resonant tank circuit did occur to me but that is different from the situation we are exploring, I think. Using a self-resonant Royer type oscillator with a capacitor chosen to produce the correct "magic" frequency with the coil's inductance is a possibility... once we have some idea what the "magic" frequency actually is. 
That being said, under certain conditions my circuit does oscillate spontaneously (and lights the output LED loads brightly) when the thing is turned on without sufficient Signal  Input to the op-amp Pin3 non-inverting input from the FG. But this is a flaw, not a feature, I think, and could probably be stopped with some tiny bypass caps sprinkled around the 741 in the usual places. But I don't think I'll do that because the self-oscillation is kind of interesting and now I know how to control it.

Conrad: have you tried to run your scope from battery via inverter- proper isolation from main?

It would probably be better to isolate the Function Generator rather than the scope.

[conradelektro]

I have a question in the diagram below would it not be acceptable to ground the top of the secondary H2 to the function generator ground and make that end of H2 the neutral of the output then measure the secondary output that way ?
Basically flip his scope connections on the output . But use a thick short wire to make the connection. No good.

..

Yes, one can do that and I flipped the scope connections on the secondary (when measuring the "normal transformer situation" with only H2 or H3 for out put and when measuring the "paired bucking situation" with H2 and H3 in series).

This flipping of the scope probe on the secondary showed me that I initially had the shunt R1 in the wrong place, see here
http://overunity.com/15395/partnered-output-coils-free-energy/msg436026/#msg436026

But still, there is an issue which I have not resolved:

The secondary in the "paired bucking situation" with H2 and H3 in series has a strange "potential". I have to do more tests and measurements to clarify that. At the moment I am just confused. One has to compare the "normal transformer situation" with the "paired bucking situation" in order to understand what is going on. And keep in mind, it was MileHigh who drew our attention to that approach.

Greetings, Conrad

[conradelektro]

Conrad: have you tried to run your scope from battery via inverter- proper isolation from main?

It would probably be better to isolate the Function Generator rather than the scope.

I am thinking about a cheap battery operated scope from China. They cost around 60.-- EUR. But they are very small and have tiny knobs and buttons. Good ones from Fluke cost a fortune (several thousand Euros).

I do not have an inverter. They have become quite reasonably priced lately.

Greetings, Conrad