Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[TinselKoala]

Don't I get any credit for the "Secret of DPDT" which allows changing from "bucking" to normal transformer "aiding" configuration with the flip of a switch?

Awww. I'm crushed.   

And don't forget that reversing a probe connection will also flip the measured phase by 180 degrees...

[TinselKoala]

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

Oh, please don't spend money on cheap tools! They are no bargain in the long run.

You could probably just "hack" your FG and bypass its AC supply and run it directly from some batteries. Do you have a schematic for the FG? What's its make and model number, let me see if I can find out any information.

Or simply use a "ground lift" adapter, which essentially just cuts off the Ground prong of the mains cord, eliminating the connection from chassis to the mains Ground, solving the groundloop issue. Don't use this all the time though, just for specific projects like this one.

[conradelektro]

Guys,am still playing with the kunel patent. How is it with the patenting process. Do they have to present functional model to get patent?

The patenting procedure (in all countries of the world) is a "written procedure", no physical models or parts can be submitted. And the patent offices (in all countries) never request any physical models or parts.

But the applicant can submit an expertise (from an accepted expert in the pertinent field of knowledge) to support his claims.

It will sound strange to most, but a patent does not prove that an "invention" really does what is claimed. The patent office does not test or examine the functionality of an invention per se.

What is examined?

- Whether the invention can be exploited commercially (is usually the case, unless it is prohibited by law)
- Whether the invention is new (nobody else has published a very similar thing)
- Whether the invention has a surprising technical effect (means, it is an invention and not something commonly known)
- Whether the invention contradicts commonly known laws of physics (perpetuum mobile is not accepted)

No proof of proper functioning is required.

If you file a "perpetuum mobile" and a patent is denied you could file an expertise about its functioning (e.g. from an accepted test laboratory), but you can not bring a model to the patent office. They do not want to do tests, the only want to push paper.

If you want a patent, best go to a patent attorney and he will file one for you. And yes, it costs a lot of money. A patent in your home country will cost you at least 3000.-- Euros and you will probably never need it. Patents are for enterprises who manufacture something and have means to sell it. Every now and then a lone inventor can make money with a patent, but it is very rare and usually the lone inventor already has ties to a commercial enterprise.

A patent is totally useless for an OU invention, it will not even be accepted by the patent office because it obviously contradicts commonly known physics. The US patent office was liberal in the past with strange patent claims, but that has changed. Usually the OU inventors do not claim any unknown effect in their patents, they just claim ordinary constructional details which nobody questions. But this is useless, the patent is not worth its paper. It is mostly done to attract investors (better said, to fool investors).

Greetings, Conrad

[conradelektro]

Don't I get any credit for the "Secret of DPDT" which allows changing from "bucking" to normal transformer "aiding" configuration with the flip of a switch?

Awww. I'm crushed.   

And don't forget that reversing a probe connection will also flip the measured phase by 180 degrees...

Sorry I forgot your contribution. All good ideas have many fathers and if there are problems, nobody has wanted it.

Yes, the phase was flipped when I reversed the scope probe at the output (over R2).

My function generator is a Peak Tech 4060
http://www.peaktech.de/productdetail/kategorie/dds-multifunktionsgeneratoren/produkt/peaktech-4060.871.html

(I did not quickly find a manual in English, but it must be out there on the wild net.)

Disconnecting the mains GND is simple, but I am worried about charges building up in the instrument. Battery plus inverter sounds good. But I think if one knows about the "GND connection problem" one can work around it by carefully choosing the measuring set up (and a little mathematics, but with the right numbers plugged into the formulas).

Greetings, Conrad

[MileHigh]

Gentlemen,

Some good progress is being made and thank you Picowatt for catching the wrong voltage being used in the input power calculation.  For Conrad, you deserve all the credit for doing your test and faithfully reporting your results.  You made a "typo" more than a big error because all of your data was made available.

I think a very important thing is that Conrad did two tests and reported power input and power output measurements for both tests.  That is a "huge hurdle" that many experimenters never manage to cross.  You can't always get bogged down in discussions all the time, you have to actually replicate the actual circuit (not a funky variation on the circuit) and make the measurements and share your data.

I know that Conrad is busy, and will move on to new tests.  But one thing that is interesting is that for the normal setup you have 6 milliwatts in and 1.4 milliwatts out.  Anybody that is a real keener that wants to understand the secondary-level details should be trying to understand where all the "missing" power went.  I am pretty sure that earlier on Conrad reported his coil resistances.  So a keener could crunch the power dissipated in the coils, add the power in the 100-ohm in-line signal generator resistor, etc.  If you could account for say 90% of the input power that would be "satisfying."

The lesson in making a "regular transformer" test and a "bucking coils tranformer" test is now at least you have some kind of baseline and frame of reference.  The regular transformer outperforms the bucking transformer, surprise surprise - on the same hardware platoform.  I am the type that can dream up an endless series of experiments if I want to.  In terms of where my curiosity would lead me is the following:  Put a very high value of load resistor on the regular transformer so that the output power is about the same as when the bucking power transformer is driving a 100-ohm load and then poke around and compare.  Just out of curiosity.

The elephant in the room that Chris is avoiding and everyone on OUR is avoiding is that a perfectly symmetrical bucking coils transformer has a zero output.  I think Chris even talks about making the transformer as perfectly matched on the bucking side as possible as if that is a good thing.  This is just a hard fact of life and when Chris reads here I wonder what he says to himself.

MileHigh