Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[MarkE]

MileHigh, MarkE:  From what I understood, you both previously made some comments to me that when I measure phase shift the standard way
in the primary circuit of a transformer setup, that the phase shift I measure may not be correct under certain conditions. I assume
that you are talking about something other than just the phase shift that can be introduced by a CSR that contains some inductance,
as that is a given. Can you please explain what you mean? I am reattaching my drawing which shows the way I am measuring the input power,
which is the standard way to make such measurements in an AC circuit.

All the best...

Void please see the picture below.  Let me know if you have any questions.

[Grumage]

Grumage:

This one's for you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T500ecHP3pE

Dear MileHigh.

Why, thank you. I wondered if you had been delving into my distant past ??

I got involved for a time with the UK version, Robot Wars, far too expensive !!

Grins I like, but no need for anger, life's too short for that, believe me, I had a reprieve !!  Be 

Best wishes,

Cheers Grum.

[TinselKoala]

Seems OU.com have come scavenging for data! Hahaha gotta laugh 

It also seems that a good 99% of them have not read the Data I have provided or Watched the Videos I have provided! They have it all wrong!

E.G: Not all power is consumed as heat, more is returned to the source, thus the term "Choke", reducing Current, than is consumed as heat especially with Inductors. Power can be, and is recycled! For Example: LC Resonance, the Capacitor and or the Inductor do not Consume all of the Power and convert it to heat as much as they recycle it! This is Resonance! This way of thinking is Non-Sense and is just out right wrong. An inductor is a Passive component and "Some" heat is radiated.

Their Fantastic Measurement Hero's over there, are, well "confused" at the figures. Picowatt is the only one on the ball, but he's not experimenting! Maybe they should think about removing some of the Human Error Issues and simplify it a bit? Or just admit defeat, they just cant do it without me!

Maybe I should hold back for a while and let them sweat?   

We are on track here and some reps here are way beyond the guys over at ou.com!

Sour grapes!

What is going on here is real analysis and cooperation. What is going on at OUR in EMJ's thread is another Ufopolitics type thread, with the real workers treading lightly so as to humor the Great Teacher in his folly. 

"can't do it without (emj)"... that's a real laugh, since he himself _still_ has not presented any measurements that could be interpreted as OU... so it's not possible to track down his errors or even repeat his measurement setups. HE can't do it at all, with or without help!  And look at the history: Get an OU result, and EMJ is all over himself congratulating and praising. Correct that result to show it's wrong... and EMJ posts the wrong schematic strawman, finds all kinds of made-up reasons for the failure.... for the SAME TEST that he praised earlier. This is a classic illustration of "Experimenter (aka confirmation) Bias", happening right in front of your eyes. Accept any results that agree with your beliefs and reject any that do not... even if they are from the same test with math errors corrected. Don't criticise "positive" results...in fact, don't even publish them, because they are so fragile they can't stand up under scrutiny.  Way to go, Chris!

[picowatt]

@All,

I find this entire thread rather bizarre (and at OUR as well).

The OP made a claim regarding a free energy device, but can't be bothered with providing or discussing any of the measurements, or methods used, that led him to make that claim.  He provided a video of his simple three coil on a ferrite core setup wherein he does not provide any output measurements and it seems we are to be more so impressed by the fact that shorting the output reflects little change in the DC supply feeding the circuit (which is not unusual or unique and means very little with respect to the device's efficiency or COP).

The OP apparently wants experimenters to replicate his device by "starting at the start" so they will become familiar with the basics of the technology he presents.  Apparently that refers to replicating the device in the above mentioned video for which I believe he claimed a COP of 1.7. 

Just as measurements are not to be provided or discussed, the OP himself cannot be bothered to replicate his own device.  He stated that he has disassembled his device and tossed the parts aside somewhere.  If he did not throw those parts out (don't know any experimenters that would...) it would be a trivial task for the OP to reassemble his device and demonstrate whatever it was that made him conclude his device produced a COP of 1.7.

Instead, the OP has replicators attempting and failing to replicate his results and then replies with the coils are not wound correctly, the core might be of the wrong type, or that the replicator must understand the technology before it can be made to work.  The OP has even stated that it is likely only one out of ten replications will perform as desired.

The three coils in his device appear to be three identical commercially available speaker crossover inductors.  If the OP wants a true replication, it would seem wise to provide a link to where those identical crossover coils can be purchased (the coils do appear to have a part number on them, which I was unable to locate via an online search).

The OP states that his core was salvaged from an old monitor or TV, but did provide a link to a similar core on Ebay.  However, it is uncertain if the OP has tested that particular core, and if not, it would be wise for the OP to reassemble his device using that core (and with readily available coils) to verify that a device constructed with those parts will indeed provide the results that led to his free energy claim.  As well, the OP should specify, and verify, a readily available drive method such as an FG producing a specific waveform/frequency driving an audio amplifier outputting a given amplitude, etc.

If the OP really wants to teach his technology, it would seem most wise and expeditious if all replicators were using three identical and readily available coils with a readily available core to assemble a device which when driven as specified produces results that the OP has confirmed will work as desired with the parts and methods specified.

As well, how are replicators to know when their replication is performing as desired if the OP does not indicate the measurements he achieved and the methods he used to make those measurements so that replicators will recognize similar measurements or effects when a successful replication has indeed been achieved? 

But again, I find this all rather bizarre, as the OP himself does not feel compelled to replicate his own device or present any measurements that would support his claims.  Supposedly replicators are to just keep playing with the device using all manner of coil, core, and drive setting combinations until they achieve an OU result.

PW

[Void]

Void please see the picture below.  Let me know if you have any questions.

Hi MarkE. Thanks for the reply. Nice drawing! You didn't have to go to all that trouble, but I appreciate the effort.
Yes, OK, I understand that the inductive reactance of the CSR's has to be very small compared to
the resistance of the CSR's to get accurate phase measurements. The CSR's I am using are carbon film type,
I believe, so their inductance should not be too significant. Regarding CSR's, can anyone recommend good
low inductance and high precision 1 ohm resistors (preferably from DigiKey) which I can use as CSR's?

All the best...