Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[MarkE]

Back on topic:

I have just checked the Input Current waveform to the EMJ-Meyer testboard. I have been citing "raw" inline DMM readings for input current. But the actual Vdrop across an inline Current Viewing Resistor has a waveshape that is, as one might expect, actually a "sharkfin" sawtooth kind of affair. So I have asked the old Link DSO to compute the "average" of this waveform. And lo and behold... the result agrees with the inline ammeter's reading, with an error of less than 10 percent. The ammeter actually reads a few percentage points less than the value from the DSO's computed average reading. So once again I think it is safe to conclude that DMMs do a pretty good job of returning a fairly accurate "average" reading on even pulse or sawtooth waveforms at relatively high frequencies.

So there is no major under- or over- estimation of input current by using the DMM inline in this case.

I've seen data taken from multiple meters: from very budget to very expensive that show that they average within a few percent or better out to 100's of MHz.

[MarkE]

TK - merely pointing out that there has been a output measurement neglection.

LOL, you have not shown any useful measurements.  Yet you make your boisterous claims refuted by the measurements of replicators.

You're on your way, you've noticed what I have already said and no one else could see.

Ah more suggestion that there is something behind the curtain while the emperor's naked blue corpse remains in plain view.

You've not given any definitive figures on in/out I find this very interesting! Only rough guesses, 1/6th.... 1/3rd....

He has provided the raw data.  I performed the piecewise integrations.  You have not challenged either his waveforms or the integrations performed on them.  You are welcome to do so and show what you get from his data.

Anyway, this stand up comedian is sitting down waiting for a punch line, none I have seen yet, except more confirmations of what I have already said all along.

What has been confirmed is ordinary physics.  What has been refuted are your outrageous claims of COPs of 1.7 and 2.5.

   Chris

[EMJunkie]

LOL, you have not shown any useful measurements.  Yet you make your boisterous claims refuted by the measurements of replicators.Ah more suggestion that there is something behind the curtain while the emperor's naked blue corpse remains in plain view.He has provided the raw data.  I performed the piecewise integrations.  You have not challenged either his waveforms or the integrations performed on them.  You are welcome to do so and show what you get from his data.What has been confirmed is ordinary physics.  What has been refuted are your outrageous claims of COPs of 1.7 and 2.5.

MarkE Hollande Duell - First, you do not have all the data, second, your estimation is only based on one output, third, you don't know what youre talking about... Three strikes and you, MarkE Holland Duell are Out!

TK himself has not done a full analysis and not released all data, so how could you possibly come to conclusions?

Oh that's right, MarkE Hollande Duell is the Assumption King!!!

[MarkE]

MarkE Hollande Duell - First, you do not have all the data, second, your estimation is only based on one output, third, you don't know what youre talking about... Three strikes and you, MarkE Holland Duell are Out!

LOL, you're in full carnival barker form now.  You have not objected that against TK's fixture as a faithful replication.  We all have TK's data which includes his input and output measurements.  I showed my work which conforms to well established principles.  You have not shown any error in either the data used or the methods used to obtain power and efficiency values from that data.

TK himself has not done a full analysis and not released all data, so how could you possibly come to conclusions?

LOL, In a further testament to your carnival barker act, you object that I took TK's actual data and reduced it, when  you took his data, misrepresented it, and then used that misrepresentation to claim over unity.  TK has already called you on your misrepresentation.  You are just making yourself look sillier and sillier.

TK has published his raw data.  Anyone with appropriate skills is free to take that data and reduce it to power and efficiency values as I have.

Oh that's right, MarkE Hollande Duell is the Assumption King!!!

LOL, it's quite comical that you keep associating me with the esteemed Mr. Charles Holland Duell as though it is some sort of slur.  Be my guest and do anything you can to try and establish that I have made a false assumption.  Do whatever you can to try and find a credible source that attributes the quote you falsely pin on CHD.  Or just keep up your current carnival barker routine of false exclamations and suggestions of wonders behind your missing curtain.  Do whatever  you can to try and distract form the fact that you have nothing to support your COP 1.7 and 2.5 claims, that replications have refuted.

[EMJunkie]

LOL, you're in full carnival barker form now.  You have not objected that against TK's fixture as a faithful replication.  We all have TK's data which includes his input and output measurements.  I showed my work which conforms to well established principles.  You have not shown any error in either the data used or the methods used to obtain power and efficiency values from that data.LOL, In a further testament to your carnival barker act, you object that I took TK's actual data and reduced it, when  you took his data, misrepresented it, and then used that misrepresentation to claim over unity.  TK has already called you on your misrepresentation.  You are just making yourself look sillier and sillier.

TK has published his raw data.  Anyone with appropriate skills is free to take that data and reduce it to power and efficiency values as I have.LOL, it's quite comical that you keep associating me with the esteemed Mr. Charles Holland Duell as though it is some sort of slur.  Be my guest and do anything you can to try and establish that I have made a false assumption.  Do whatever you can to try and find a credible source that attributes the quote you falsely pin on CHD.  Or just keep up your current carnival barker routine of false exclamations and suggestions of wonders behind your missing curtain.  Do whatever  you can to try and distract form the fact that you have nothing to support your COP 1.7 and 2.5 claims, that replications have refuted.

My previous Post speaks for its self MarkE Holland Duell. Nothing extra is needed from me on this matter.