Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[picowatt]

So here is where im at with V3 of the rotary transformer. Adding the bucking coil setup did indeed increase the overall output of the system-both mechanical and electrical. When i say bucking coil,i mean a coil that acts as a magnet that can be switched on and off at the right time. As it is a coil that is being shorted,and thus becomes an electromagnet that pushes against the rotors collapsing field just at the right time. This field also travels around the stator core,and boost the field within the secondary(generating)coil that provides the power for the globe.
So we do have a coil that is bucking both against the rotor's field and also the field of the generating coil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai7rqm9lAlk

Tinman,

Very interesting!  Why don't you start a thread on this gizmo?  Even if you don't want to reveal the innards, measurements could be discussed.

I have a question regarding the video.  At 3:30 or so, you appear to be running the motor with the gen switched off (no load...) and show a motor current draw of 2.07 amps.  Then later on in the video, at 6:27, it appears your are again running the motor with the gen switched off (no load...) but now the motor appears to only be drawing .222 amps.

Am I seeing this correctly or have I missed something?

PW

 

[picowatt]

PW, honestly I read your post and see the same old things...

I have one point I want to make: When you say:

I have NOT asked you, or anyone for anything! Period. I have given you my findings! You, and for that matter, everyone is free to do what they want with those findings!

I certainly have not asked you to "Believe me"! This is A PW Assumption. Ever heard of Free Will?

I have now made my point! A conversation between Adults, requires two! It sounds like you're getting MarkE to proof read your posts before submitting them? What's going on here?

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

EMJ,

After the 245 pages that is this thread, I can recall only three "findings" presented by you.  The first is the claim and subsequent discussion both here and at OUR regarding your COP=1.7 circuit using the audio chokes and the flyback core.  Although I did not follow the thread over at OUR fully, I do recall that in the end, it was determined that you were making some measurement errors.  Please correct me if this recollection is not accurate.

The other "findings" that you presented were the two videos demonstrating two different versions of your device lighting a light bulb and showing how the secondary can be shorted with little or no change in output current.  In those two videos, the bulbs appear to be dimly lit and, based on the circuit's indicated input power, driven inefficiently overall.  As the ability to inefficiently light a lamp is no big deal, I can only assume that it must be the ability to short the secondaries with little or no change in input power that is the main point being demonstrated in the two videos (and yes, I have to assume this, because I have in the past asked you to clarify this to no avail).  With regard to shorting the secondary with little change of the input power, I do not see that as evidence of free energy or anything necessarily extraordinary. 

Those are the only three "findings" I can recall that you have presented.

PW

[picowatt]

@picowattI would agree however I have a small circuit on my bench which injects a low voltage current into a high voltage current but it does not use an inductor to boost the voltage nor does it use capacitive doubler/triplers etc... . It works but has not been confirmed by a qualified third party or made available commercially, does that mean it does not exist despite the fact it's sitting on my bench working right now as we speak?. I should note it is not free energy or overunity it's just a simple circuit using a few components which injects a low voltage current into a higher voltage AC or DC current and energy is conserved.

The thing to remember here is that just because you did not think of it or understand how it works does not mean it cannot work or cannot exist, it means you do not have all the facts to prove the matter for yourself. The other option is to believe anything we personally cannot understand cannot exist and I think we all know where that leads and this was the same kind of mentality used in the dark ages. The fact remains that there is infinitely more that we do not know than we know and judging anything based on a lack of real facts is generally a losing proposition.
Do the circuits proposed here in this thread work?.... I don't know, that is the correct answer generally given by intelligent open minded people... I do not know because I do not have all the facts one way or the other.

AC

AC,

Surely you see some difference between a circuit such as you describe and someone claiming to have free energy devices.

I have always believed and adhered to the idea that having a truly open mind actually means always being cognizant of the fact that anything you "know" may be wrong.  However, one cannot go thru life without some convictions regarding what is the reality being dealt with at any given point in time, so probabilities must be assigned to everything based upon perceptions or any data presented, both real time and historical.

EMJ claims to have free energy devices.  Based solely upon what he has presented as his "findings", the assigned probability is very low. 

PW

[MileHigh]

I am going to run with Chris' "assumptions" theme.

Chris runs his test where he shorts out the secondary.  He assumes that the input power is supposed to go up.  This is a classic mistake that I have seen over and over.  So the input power doesn't really change and he incorrectly assumes that he is observing something special.

Tinman:

I looked at your clip and you are in very similar territory.  You add the light bulb load and the power draw goes down.  All that you have done is change the impedance of the circuit from the vantage point of the battery.  You added the light bulb load, the impedance of the circuit went up, and the current consumption went down.  Under no load your motor was drawing about 23 watts.  That's a lot of watts that are being turned into heat.  When you change the impedance of the circuit there are more than enough watts available to run the motor and light the light bulb.  The exercise to do when you add the light bulb load is to measure the power draw from the battery, and them measure the power dissipation in the various components of the circuit.  Everything will add up and balance so that the power draw from the battery equals the total power dissipated in the various components of the circuit.

Your big "flaw" when you experiment is to almost always jump to the conclusion that your setup is somehow different and "normal rules don't apply."  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In your bearing motor thread you say that somewhere.  It simply does not work like that.  Your setups always act perfectly normally.  The challenge for you is to simply measure properly and understand what is going on.  You can't invent "conventional rules don't apply to my circuit" short-cuts in logic to arrive at what you believe is a satisfactory conclusion.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

AC:

There are major problems with this statement of yours, "I have a small circuit on my bench which injects a low voltage current into a high voltage current."

I am sure that you have a circuit that does something.  But whatever it does is not being described properly by your prose because it's a juxtaposition of terms that doesn't make sense.  It's almost like saying, "Please draw a circular square for me on paper."  So if you can get a better description going that would help.  I note that you are not claiming free energy.

MileHigh