Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[Void]

I think you've got it backwards here, a claimed OU device requires exact support documentation by the claimant and replication, and proper testing by others to be convincing, this is science.
Placing the burden of "finding trickery" on the "audience" is good for magic shows but not for science.
I say "audience" because the video offerings of most claimants is just a "show" for your amusement and most of the presenters use the same gestures as magicians. A video is not to be confused with truth or science.

Hi Vortex1. No, it is not backwards to say that you must have actual evidence to claim that a person is definitely a fraud
or is definitely using tricks. There is of course a clear distinction between evidence and speculation. The only people who really
need to take steps to rule out trickery regarding claimed over unity devices are people who are potentially going to invest
in or purchase any given device. You are confusing the scientific method with an inventor displaying or marketing an invention.
If a person wants to convince scientists or engineers, etc., that they have discovered some previously unknown process or effect,
then, yes, they need to present all details of their experiments/devices along with details of all their measurement methods, etc. However,
if an inventor wants to market a device, they may well keep at least some critical details secret of what makes their device/invention work until
they have signed contracts with any investors or purchasers of their device. There is of course no obligation whatsoever for an inventor
to reveal all or any details of their inventions to the public, and inventors will also often obscure certain key details in patent applications
as well for the same reasons of wanting to keep certain proprietary details about their inventions secret. No inventor is under any
obligation to release any details about their devices if they don't want to, but for certain anyone who is going to invest money
in such an invention would need to take various steps to rule out trickery before investing any money.
All the best...

[Vortex1]

TK

My apologies for the use of bold letters, it was not directed at you, nor was my post #989, just hopeful that the less skilled readers would get the key points I was trying to make as most stuff gets glossed over.

We are on the same page regarding the main parameters of the circuit's operation, and I have simulated the circuit in LTSpice, getting up to 4kV on the driven L1 terminal.

Simple self oscillating circuits that deliver high voltage are commonplace and can be done with one or two transistors, so nothing new here.

Unless convincing measurements of OU performance can be had, my interest wanes.

Kind Regards

Vortex1 (ION@ OU)

[conradelektro]

When you are driving through the 10-ohm resistor with say a 1 kHz sine wave, you just look at the voltage drop across the 10-ohm resistor and compare it to the voltage drop across the primary coil.  If for the sake of argument the voltage drop across the 10-ohm resistor is equal to the voltage drop across the primary coil, then the impedance of the primary when driving the circuit is 10 ohms.  That suggests that you will be able to drive the primary directly with your amplifier.


MileHigh

@MileHigh:

You posted your explanation at exactly the right time, thank you very much, that was telepathy.

What you explained (see above quote) just happened to me in the last hour and I did not know what to do. Now, I know and will shortly post some measurement results.

I did measurements with each of the "coupled output coils" alone (normal transformer situation) and a 10 Ohm resistor at the input and at the output. The result was about 0.15 Watt input (through the primary) and 0.043 Watt output (from each of the output coil). So, it is a bad ordinary transformer. Details later.

And when I started with the "bucking output coil situation" it happened what you wrote (voltage drop across the 10-ohm resistor is equal to the voltage drop across the primary coil) and I am experimenting with that just now. Will write details later.

Greetings, Conrad

[Void]

But since you are in the mood to discuss this issue, perhaps you could tell me why my device, which makes _exactly_ the same scope traces as the one Akula demonstrated, does not "run itself" when the power is disconnected,  but runs along for a while on the charged supercap, and would run for hours on a couple of small batteries stuffed into a capacitor can. How can a device make the same scope traces as a "self runner" but not run itself too? The only explanation I can think of that covers all the actual _facts_ is that that device was faked, either by batteries in cap can or even perhaps by thin wires invisible on the dark video he presented.

Hi TK. I don't know, but one possibility is that Akula's released schematics are not complete or are deliberately misleading
to throw people off track. You may have replicated part of Akula's device, but Akula may have left out something critical.
Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am not claiming that I think Akula's devices are definitely real, I am just saying
that no one has presented any convincing evidence of trickery so far. Sure, there are suspicious things about the way
Akula has behaved, such as him releasing schematics, but others not being able to replicate the devices based on those schematics,
but that in itself is not evidence of trickery in his devices. He may be using tricks, he may not. Ruslan claims to have replicated
Akula's second self running device, so at least one person is claiming they have replicated an Akula device.
I have seen no evidence that Ruslan and Akula are connected in any way other than Ruslan showing videos of replications
of an Akula device. You say you believe they are connected. What evidence do you have that Ruslan and Akula are
working together other than speculation? Anything is possible, but usually people will want to have some actual
evidence before making an assertion. It is one thing to say that you suspect they might be working together, but
quite another to imply that they are all in cahoots together, as if this is somehow established already.
All the best...

[TinselKoala]

Re NTE replacement transistors....

Hmmm... interesting. The 2sd1555 crosses to NTE 2331, and the 2sd2539 that I am using crosses to NTE 2353.

The electrical parameters are _identical_ with the exception of continuous and peak collector currents and power dissipation.

The NTE2331 is rated 6 amps continuous, 20 amps peak, 60 Watts dissipation.
The NTE2353 is rated 10 amps continuous, 30 amps peak and 70 Watts dissipation.

Every other electrical characteristic shown in the data sheets is identical.

Data sheets attached below.