Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[TinselKoala]

@Vortex1 and all:
I made a post at OUR in response to yours, and for the sake of completeness I'll repost it here:

All of that looks good to me, BUT... we have several times encountered the statement or advice that the Primary (L1) coil can be wound over the top of the L2 Coil, and in the same winding "direction" or sense. This is the way my test coil set is constructed at the moment.

I've been planning to make another set with each coil wound on its own segment of bobbin, for better HV isolation. My first set wound up shorting from the L1 primary to the L2 coil from the high voltage produced, and I had to take it apart and rewind it with better insulation, then even resorted to potting the whole thing in corona dope. This seems to have cured my HV shorting problem, which also showed up internally in the L3 coil, with ozone production and visible sparklies inside the coil until I potted it. Now I am producing the nearly 4 kV spikes without shorting problems.
But I still plan to make another bobbin set with separate segments for all three coils, to see if there is some substantial difference from what I'm presently using. Making the bobbin is a bit of a pain but after that everything is easy.

As I've shown a few times, I can produce the same features on the voltage trace that is shown in the scopeshot above, by underdriving the transistor. The horizontal position of the "Transistor On Hard" portion of the trace is sensitive to the drive level from the FG or 555 oscillator. It is doubtful that most modern FGs will be able to drive the transistor adequately to make this blip disappear and keep the transistor ON for the full cycle, but the 555 system can do it easily, hence the need for the "volume control" series variable resistor in the Pin3 output from the 555 to the transistor Base. I'm using a 200 ohm trimpot or 400 ohm potentiometer at present. Since I'm using an inline current-viewing resistor instead of the lower bandwidth CC-65 clamp that EMJ used, I'm resolving more features in the current trace. But it is important to note that in that scopeshot from EMJ, the voltage and the current are apparently from different branches of the circuit, so they cannot be used for a power computation. 

I want to especially thank ION for being able to pull the details out of EMJ. The originally posted schematic with the mosfet symbol instead of the correct bipolar symbol threw me off for a bit. It is instructive to try a mosfet in the circuit, it uses a _lot_ less drive power to produce essentially the same effect, but it also will not light up a whole string of neons like the bipolar transistor will.

One last point: the power used to drive the transistor Base, whether it comes from the FG or from the 555 oscillator circuit, _must_ be considered as part of the input power to the circuit! This is not adequately addressed in any of EMJunkie's statements or posts and I believe that this part of the total input power isn't accounted for in his computations and measurements (which we still haven't seen.) In my setup using the 555 oscillator I am powering the 555 system in parallel with the power to the main board, so its power is automatically included in the total input to the system.

(And then I added another post when I remembered this little fact: )

I would also like to point out that the Scopeshot in ION's post uses the following Test Point for the voltage trace as indicted on EMJ's originally posted schematic. Referring to ION's re-draw, the Voltage trace is, I believe, taken from Test Point 3, with Test Point 1 as the "ground reference". I am not sure where the lower trace in the scopeshot comes from, but in EMJ's original schematic he is clamping the CC-65 Hantek current probe around the wire at the top of the load resistor. Hence he is apparently measuring current in a different branch from the voltage measurement.

[minnie]

A suggestive 'could' is a 'should' in the land of semantics tho....one of my frequent vacation destinations.

Regards...
       
                 

Captain, you win!!!

[Cap-Z-ro]

         Captain, you win!!!

You should have PM'd me that John...now you've gone and done chipped some of the tarnish off my hard earned my reputation.

Regards

[Brian516]

Yeah, like how to absorb insults from trolls and shills who's aim it is to choke of open dialogue, in case someone stumbles on to a meaningful discovery during that process.


Yeah, you characterize him so, after all the baiting and insults...the process is well known.


Its his decision to accept or decline, not yours or mine...its called respect.


Careful, you are contradicting yourself.

Regards...

Cap - It seems that you are now the one that is choking off open dialogue.   After my comment, it seemed that most of this crap that you are perpetuating faded away, and the open dialogue and sharing of experimentation and ideas began flowing freely again, but then you jumped right back in to put in your half cent and shut it all down again. 

So who is the troll/shill at this moment???
YOU.

So why don't you quietly sit back and observe, and keep your comments to yourself now that things have STARTED to go back to progress??  Unless of course you fully screwed that up.

Regards,

Brian

[Brian516]

TK-

This seems to have cured my HV shorting problem, which also showed up internally in the L3 coil, with ozone production and visible sparklies inside the coil until I potted it.

1


Ahh now I know why my device has 'sparklies' inside of the hot glue!  They are especially on the primary coil and where the primary coil meets the secondary. I am not driving with a FG and don't have an O-scope yet, so I am not actively contributing, along with the fact that I am still quite new to all of this. 
I have thus far learned a lot from your participation. I will surely be looking in on other projects you have been involved with in the past, and watching your videos.

One thing that I would like to toss into all this is my observations with my device. If you don't mind taking a few minutes to do so, please correct me where I have bungled my interpretation.  All of my info is in the Energetic thread (unfortunately - I know I should be abandoning ship) and will copy and paste the main part, that I would like your input on the most:

the URL to the video:  https://www(DOT)youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=QCgBWKnKXYM

It is actually going from 155mA to 185mA now that I got a closer look at the meter.  I've also noticed that by taking two of my 20x6x1mm neo magnets and placing one in between each side of the core and sticking them together, the draw goes down another 5mA. Of course they have to be placed in the proper orientation or the draw goes up 5mA or more.

So these couple experiments have proved to me that:
1- there is actually something to the whole partnered secondary thing
2- the Current draw and Voltage consumption is reduced by having the partnered secondaries
3- Even though this configuration is supposed to be nearly eliminating the magnetic flux in the core, there is still magnetic flux, but it can be used to our advantage

the whole statement of having magnetic fields cancel and E fields adding (or doubling) doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. In order to have electrification, both magnetism and dielectricity must be present. Electrification happens at the points where the dielectric and magnetic fields intersect, so if we were to completely cancel out the magnetic field, we would have only dielectricity, which is pure voltage.
In order to have real electricity, we must have Voltage (dielectricity) and Current (magnetism)
However, this is the interesting thing: A current can be induced into an inductor in 2 different ways:
1) a changing magnetic flux ( A passing magnet)
1)When magnetic flux induces a current into an inductor, the resultant collapse of said magnetic field results in a spike of dielectricity (voltage spike)
2) Voltage (dielectric field) being applied to an inductor
2)When a voltage is directed into an inductor, a magnetic field builds up and current is induced, and the resultant collapse of said magnetic field produces a spike of dielectricity.

Capacitors are holders of dielectricity
Inductors are holders of magnetic fields
So one holds Voltage, one holds Current. That is why I added capacitors to my device - to see if I could create some sort of system of mutual partnership between capacitor and inductor, which it seems I did do.