Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[TinselKoala]

I just couldn't stop laughing when I came across the Koala's brilliant
plan for self looping, it's absolutely bulletproof!!!!
Well done Koala.
          John.

Thanks, and I am completely serious. It's not exactly "self looping" but it's a valid way of testing devices that produce electrical outputs from electrical inputs yet whose circuitry or arrangements don't permit directly hooking up the out to the in.

During the "outage" I made this post on OUR:

It appears that the device is putting out more power than it takes to run it... but it cannot simply be self-looped due to the configuration of the supply and output.

The solution is very simple. Here is what you do. You make a _second, identical_ device and run it on the output of the first one. Say the device uses 10 watts and produces 12 watts output. (I'm just using those numbers for illustration.) SO you take the first one, connect its output to the input of the second device along with a 2-watt resistive load. The first device taking in 10 watts should be able to run the second device AND the 2-watt additional load, and the second device should put out its full 12 watts.

Daisy-chain a few identical devices this way, each one running the next one in line PLUS an additional load.... And if the device incorporates a motor, then each extra device in the chain should have its motor running at the same speed or torque as the first one. IF, that is, the devices are really putting out more power than it takes to run them.

You should be able to chain an indefinite number of devices plus their extra loads, all operating only on the original 10 watts input to the first device.

Or ... you should be able to come up with some coherent explanation of why this cannot be done, in spite of the "overunity" performance _measurements_ of each individual device.

[EMJunkie]

I just couldn't stop laughing when I came across the Koala's brilliant
plan for self looping, it's absolutely bulletproof!!!!
Well done Koala.
          John.

Thanks, and I am completely serious. It's not exactly "self looping" but it's a valid way of testing devices that produce electrical outputs from electrical inputs yet whose circuitry or arrangements don't permit directly hooking up the out to the in.

During the "outage" I made this post on OUR:

It appears that the device is putting out more power than it takes to run it... but it cannot simply be self-looped due to the configuration of the supply and output.

The solution is very simple. Here is what you do. You make a _second, identical_ device and run it on the output of the first one. Say the device uses 10 watts and produces 12 watts output. (I'm just using those numbers for illustration.) SO you take the first one, connect its output to the input of the second device along with a 2-watt resistive load. The first device taking in 10 watts should be able to run the second device AND the 2-watt additional load, and the second device should put out its full 12 watts.

Daisy-chain a few identical devices this way, each one running the next one in line PLUS an additional load.... And if the device incorporates a motor, then each extra device in the chain should have its motor running at the same speed or torque as the first one. IF, that is, the devices are really putting out more power than it takes to run them.

You should be able to chain an indefinite number of devices plus their extra loads, all operating only on the original 10 watts input to the first device.

Or ... you should be able to come up with some coherent explanation of why this cannot be done, in spite of the "overunity" performance _measurements_ of each individual device.

Yes I agree this is a Good Idea! It is, however, not new:

•   Clemente Figuera - 1914

Ref: http://www.alpoma.com/figuera/Bf_1.pdf

If you want even greater production you can place the inducers and the induced one after the other forming a single series in the next way: you place first an electromagnet N, for example, next another electromagnet S, and between their poles and properly placed you put the corresponding induced, with this we will have formed a group of battery as explained before, but now (instead of forming as many identical groups to the first one as number of induced coils needed) you can place, following the last electromagnet S, another induced and, after this last induced you can place an inducer N, following this inducer by another induced, and then by another S, and so on until having placed all the inducers which form the series of electromagnet N and S.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[minnie]

  From what I've seen of the Tinman I would have no doubt in
saying that he's 100% honest.
   Every angle must be considered when a profound result is
put forward and I believe poynt was just covering every possibility
   Tinman you have nothing to fear.
              John.

[EMJunkie]

  From what I've seen of the Tinman I would have no doubt in
saying that he's 100% honest.
   Every angle must be considered when a profound result is
put forward and I believe poynt was just covering every possibility
   Tinman you have nothing to fear.
              John.

@John - Of course Tinman is Honest!

Why on this beautiful Earth would this have been bought up in the first place? Jealousy? Greed? Tinman has done the hard work and made a Device work! Why is this so hard to believe? Because Numb-Skull Moron's cant do it because they have been told it cant be done in their Textbooks!

This is SUCH Bullshit! There, said it!

A few people here should be Utterly Ashamed of themselves!!! Like Flies, when a Fresh Tird has been excreted, they rush in, infest the area, then make an absolute nuisance of themselves!!!



Just because they are Too Damn DUMB to be able to think for themselves, about how they might achieve a goal, they sit and Criticise, de-value others Excellent, hard work!!!

Poor Tinman! Some people have hounded Him then one in particular has crapped on his hard work. Its the same deal, Time and Time again! Its always from the same people!

MarkE this time is not in with the guilty crowd, I am impressed MarkE, Thank You!

I hope Tinman comes back! He is a real asset to the whole movement that the good people are trying to advance!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[MileHigh]

There are literally a zillion DC to DC converters and this link is just an an example not necessarily tuned to this application:

http://www.digikey.ca/en/product-highlight/m/murata-power-solutions/spm1525-series-singleoutput-potted-isolated-dcdc-converters?WT.srch=1&mkwid=sWhX1e14b&pcrid=71384157545&pkw=_cat:converters&pmt=b&pdv=c

I am sure the experts could give good guidance on this.

Something like:

Input range:   8 to 15 volts
Isolated from input to output  (may as well get one that is input-to-output isolated because it is much more versatile.)
Output voltage:  12 volts
Output max wattage:  20 watts
Package:  Just go for a bare board because that's the cheapest
Price:  I am going to guess $20 to $25 USD.   You just have to buy a very commonly used and cheap one.  Exactly which one that is I am not sure.

What's inside the guts:  It's something like a "smart Joule Thief" that pulses an inductor at perhaps 30 KHz.   The output of the inductor goes to an output capacitor.  There is an electronic control system that controls the pulsing to keep the output cap charged to the desired voltage.

They can be bucking converters, boosting converters, or Cadillac buck-boost converters.  The efficiency is typically 90% or higher.  Very high efficiency ones cost more.  All that they really do is make sure that the coil is pulsed for a very very short time to avoid all of the i^2R losses.

Note you have all of the buzz for Joule Thieves that has been going on for years.  However, in the electronics industry they have been using "smart Joule Thieves" for years in quantities of several billion per year or more.

MileHigh