Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[MarkE]

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

It does:  Your pattern of making false claims is in full view in that post.  Your claims of COPs of 1.7 and 2.5 for your junky flyback circuit are complete nonsense, refuted by replications.  Your claims that bucking coils offer some magical path to overunity are refuted BS.

[minnie]

   No use bleating on about Poyntt, Mark and TK.  EM you've got to pull a
rabbit out your hat!
    Otherwise it'll be like me and my wife Minnie, when I have yet another
abject failure she tells me in her Danish accent "You're done".
           John.

[EMJunkie]

   No use bleating on about Poyntt, Mark and TK.  EM you've got to pull a
rabbit out your hat!
    Otherwise it'll be like me and my wife Minnie, when I have yet another
abject failure she tells me in her Danish accent "You're done".
           John.

John, I wonder if you have seen this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJsVSMQqCOM

Can you see the Implications here?

Can you see what really is going on here?

Do you know what this means to be able to achieve results like these?

My rabbits are running all around the Smart People here, its just that the Holland Duell's are blind to these Electrified Rabbits 

When I do show the next step, it will show the extreme simplicity, and what's more the Holland Duell's will still dispute it, ah its well known, just a noisy environment!! Hahaha it works best with a sine wave on the input, so Noisy environment is not even in it.

Again, my posts will only show whats been shown before, just not explained before. It is so extremely simple that all will kick themselves!

I already have given it all, its just no one has put it together yet.   

  Chris

[poynt99]

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.

And a power measurement/computation is valid as long as either the voltage or current is a relatively steady value, i.e. in this case the voltage would be fairly constant, while the current fluctuates.

Thanks for yet another demonstration of this fact which I first put forward back in 2009 and was included in my lengthy "paper" on the measurements of Ainslie's device.

An interesting flashback to 2009 when I was able to post on EF. My responses are in []. LOL.

Critical comments made regarding the use of a DC ammeter or voltmeter across the shunt to determine net battery current, i.e. why the video demonstration was made:

My responses are in [ ].

Rosemary

- Also - bending my mind is you requirement to introduce an ammeter to measure current here. Not only will it probably interfere with the extraordinary resonance that is evident from the loads but it will NEVER give an accurate number.
[Watch the video. Two meters that had a very slight loading effect were the Fluke 73 and the Fluke 179. The other 3 had no loading effect at all]

- I want to know how a DC voltmeter measurement can be considered more accurate than the Tektronix?
[As demonstrated in the video, a DC voltmeter can be as accurate as a high quality scope such as the Tek. If the Tek is not SPC calibrated with every few degrees variation in ambient teperature, its measurements will not be as accurate as the DC voltmeter. These voltmeters use a "dual-slope integrating A/D converter" which zeros out its own errors for each measurement cycle, so they are not subject to temperature drift errors as many oscilloscopes are. This has been varified in my own tests.]

- I will never be happy about using an ammeter in series...
[You might be happy now ]


Aaron

- THERE IS NO VOLTMETER THAT WILL GIVE AS CLEAN OF RESULTS AS THE TEKTRONIX 3054C PERIOD END OF STORY.
[Watch the video. If the scope is off calibration even slighty, the meters will be more accurate. For why, read above]

- You [meaning me] would accept a multimeter volt reading across the shunt but not what the scope shows. That is so totally amateurish and shows how much of a wannabe debunker you really are with no qualifications to know anything about this circuit operation.
[Watch the video]

- Again, you [meaning me] are on the fast track to becoming the laughing stock of the free energy world - especially by suggesting the use of a volt meter across a shunt! lol Go tell that to any professional that actually knows what they're talking about and they will simply laugh in your face.
[Watch the video. That is incorrect; voltmeters are placed across shunts all the time.]

- Do the video, I want to see it.
[Watch the video]


jibbguy

- This is the problem: DMM's, and even bench multi-meters, are known to not accurately measure such fast non-sinusoidal and non-repetitive waveforms... Even if they have "True RMS" written on them.
[You are referring to "AC Volts" setting I believe, I am referring to a "DC volts" setting.]

- This is why they [oscilloscopes] are the MOST reliable and accurate method in these situations.
[Watch the video. The scope must be calibrated to be as accurate as the meter. The meter will always be accurate]

- That goal of a second source may be "worthy", but your suggested methods of accomplishing it certainly are not. Only another scope or sufficiently fast data acquisition system could perform this check. That's not opinion, that is fact. Whether you like it or accept it or not.
[Watch the video, then you may want to re-assess your "facts"]

- YOU [meaning me] do the test yourself, and see the obvious (i don't have to, as 17 years in the test and measurement industry provided me 16.9 years of experience enough to know it would be a worthless proposition):
[Watch the video. Even old Engineers can learn something new ]

- Trying to read high F pulses with the "DC" setting will provide a meaningless jumble that changes every single time the display updates... If the DC bias offset was significantly above or below ground (it is not) it might serve as a very rough check.. But there are so many error factors involved that such subjective data from trying to compare how many "plus" and "minus" readings would be instantly discountable... By people like YOURSELF; if they weren't trying to beat a dead horse.

- If you want a better determinant of the "dominant" polarity of the signal, the best method is to Average the raw sample data. This IS THE ESTABLISHED METHOD, and whether you "like" it or not, it is still the proper way it is done in these cases. So it always comes back to the calibration of the Scope...
[Averaging the raw data IS EXACTLY what the meter is doing]

- And i can tell you right now, that Tek's accuracy will defeat anything you could throw at it.
[Not necessarily true, watch the video]

- But i gotta say Poynt, that DMM horse is decomposing; you can stop flogging it now. Please step back a minute and consider how useless it is to do a measurement that is beyond the capability of the device to perform.
[Not beyond the meter's capability at all, watch the video]

- I, and anyone else with half of my background, could give you AT LEAST FIVE reasons off the bat why such readings could be false and completely untrustworthy; and therefor not wise to pursue.
[Watch the video, numbers don't lie.]


FuzzyTomCat

- I'm in total agreement with your [jibbguy's] statement and I think you would agree that one of the best DMM on the market the Fluke 87 cannot in any way capture fast non-sinusoidal and non-repetitive waveforms, this is the one I'm using and this is no "CHUMP" Digital Multi Meter bought from some hardware store. The proposed testing method using the 200ma DC mili-ammeter in the circuit ( mine is 400ma) is nothing but a waste of time and effort.
[Watch the video]


Harvey

- Enjoyed Jibbguy's post regarding the internal multimeter functions and have to agree with him there.
[Watch the video]

Sorry for the OT post.

.99

[MarkE]

And a power measurement/computation is valid as long as either the voltage or current is a relatively steady value, i.e. in this case the voltage would be fairly constant, while the current fluctuates.

Thanks for yet another demonstration of this fact which I first put forward back in 2009 and was included in my lengthy "paper" on the measurements of Ainslie's device.

An interesting flashback to 2009 when I was able to post on EF. My responses are in []. LOL.

Sorry for the OT post.

.99

It is pertinent, because knowing what an instrument can and cannot measure accurately and under what conditions determines the utility of any test that uses that instrument.  The Ainslie crew put great faith in high quality instruments from reputable manufacturers that they used completely inappropriately.  A number of people including you with incredible patience attempted to counsel Ms. Ainslie with the limited success in August 2013 where she acknowledged for a few fleeting weeks that her revised measurement set-up showed just what you had been telling her.

So, now we have EMJ making specific perfromance claims, finding that replicators following his instructions get very different results, and like Ainslie, EMJ protests that his claimed results must be right.  The likelihood that EMJ will ever actually attempt to show a measurement that indicates the COP values of 1.7 or 2.5 that he has reported is extremely low.  In that, Rosemary Ainslie who admitted misrepresenting her test circuits, is a step-up from EMJ.  She eventually did try to demonstrate her claims, failed, and admitted (at least for a while) that failure.