Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[Vortex1]

Yes.
Delivering maximum power at maximum efficiency from one device to the next would be a difficult feat,and may show a result of COP<,when there may have been a COP>. This could result in something great being missed. This could also happen when trying to loop a device as well.

The only true and sure way of calculating COP is P/in and P/out<--all of P/out,-electrical,mechanical,and heat.

Agreed, and this can be done without too much difficulty by fitting the DUT motor with a friction break to create heat, and loading the electrical output of the DUT with a resistor to create heat. Then the device is put in a loosely insulated box so that there is a controlled loss to ambient.

This is to be compared with the temperature rise of a lone resistor in the box drawing the identical power (as the DUT) from a power supply.

The temperature rise of each test should, after a reasonable time, yield a stable temperature at the inside top of the box. These temperatures and power inputs are  then recorded.

Any temperature increase of the DUT over the "control" resistor teat would indicate a cop >1.

Exactly how much extra energy can now be calculated by running the control resistor power to an amount that provides the same (matching) temperature as the DUT and noting the increase power draw. The difference between the first control resistor test power input and second control resistor test power input when matching temperature is the excess energy created.

This method can be used to evaluate many devices that claim COP>1. It does not however scavenge radiated EM energy, but this is generally very small. There are methods to scavenge this tiny energy also and keep it in the box, turning it into heat, but that is for another writing.

Hope this helps.

[tinman]

Agreed, and this can be done without too much difficulty by fitting the DUT motor with a friction break to create heat, and loading the electrical output of the DUT with a resistor to create heat. Then the device is put in a loosely insulated box so that there is a controlled loss to ambient.

This is to be compared with the temperature rise of a lone resistor in the box drawing the identical power (as the DUT) from a power supply.

The temperature rise of each test should, after a reasonable time, yield a stable temperature at the inside top of the box. These temperatures and power inputs are  then recorded.

Any temperature increase of the DUT over the "control" resistor teat would indicate a cop >1.

Exactly how much extra energy can now be calculated by running the control resistor power to an amount that provides the same (matching) temperature as the DUT and noting the increase power draw. The difference between the first control resistor test power input and second control resistor test power input when matching temperature is the excess energy created.

This method can be used to evaluate many devices that claim COP>1. It does not however scavenge radiated EM energy, but this is generally very small. There are methods to scavenge this tiny energy also and keep it in the box, turning it into heat, but that is for another writing.

Hope this helps.

I agree Vortex,a controlled thermal test setup would be a good idea. But im wondering if heating a liquid would be more accurate and easier to control and measure?.

[Vortex1]

I agree Vortex,a controlled thermal test setup would be a good idea. But im wondering if heating a liquid would be more accurate and easier to control and measure?.

The method I have outlined can be very accurate. I have used it to high degrees of precision. I speak from experience having designed and tested the method over a lifetime of employment in the thermal measurement field and applied techniques.

Consider that the difference of input power between the two control tests with the control resistor exactly equals the excess power of the DUT, within the limits of error of the measuring equipment. It is a comparative method, but accurate nevertheless.

The liquid calorimetry method can also be equally accurate but very messy to implement. Either method will yield sufficient resolution to quantify a COP. To each his level of comfort.

Liquid calorimery, while the most basic is kind of "old school" while the more advanced differential calorimetry methods have supplanted it for many applications.

[EMJunkie]

What if MPTT rears its ugly head between them and 1.3 is not enough?

Yes.
Delivering maximum power at maximum efficiency from one device to the next would be a difficult feat,and may show a result of COP<,when there may have been a COP>. This could result in something great being missed. This could also happen when trying to loop a device as well.

The only true and sure way of calculating COP is P/in and P/out<--all of P/out,-electrical,mechanical,and heat.

Agreed, and this can be done without too much difficulty by fitting the DUT motor with a friction break to create heat, and loading the electrical output of the DUT with a resistor to create heat. Then the device is put in a loosely insulated box so that there is a controlled loss to ambient.

This is to be compared with the temperature rise of a lone resistor in the box drawing the identical power (as the DUT) from a power supply.

The temperature rise of each test should, after a reasonable time, yield a stable temperature at the inside top of the box. These temperatures and power inputs are  then recorded.

Any temperature increase of the DUT over the "control" resistor teat would indicate a cop >1.

Exactly how much extra energy can now be calculated by running the control resistor power to an amount that provides the same (matching) temperature as the DUT and noting the increase power draw. The difference between the first control resistor test power input and second control resistor test power input when matching temperature is the excess energy created.

This method can be used to evaluate many devices that claim COP>1. It does not however scavenge radiated EM energy, but this is generally very small. There are methods to scavenge this tiny energy also and keep it in the box, turning it into heat, but that is for another writing.

Hope this helps.

I agree Vortex,a controlled thermal test setup would be a good idea. But im wondering if heating a liquid would be more accurate and easier to control and measure?.

The method I have outlined can be very accurate. I have used it to high degrees of precision. I speak from experience having designed and tested the method over a lifetime of employment in the thermal measurement field and applied techniques.

Consider that the difference of input power between the two control tests with the control resistor exactly equals the excess power of the DUT, within the limits of error of the measuring equipment. It is a comparative method, but accurate nevertheless.

The liquid calorimetry method can also be equally accurate but very messy to implement. Either method will yield sufficient resolution to quantify a COP. To each his level of comfort.

Liquid calorimery, while the most basic is kind of "old school" while the more advanced differential calorimetry methods have supplanted it for many applications.

@TinselKoala - Are you learning anything from these men? I hope you take this opportunity to progress your knowledge!!!

Everyone here should pay attention to these posts! These two men know what they are talking about!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[Bob Smith]

Bump!!!

For those that do not comprehend, have not been following, but wish to comprehend and follow, to learn something and to achieve a common Goal:

Action: - (Primary Coil) - Your Input. A Magnetic Field, a result of Current Flow in your Primary Coil, that will likely have a Reactive Component. Considered as the Prime Mover.

Reaction: - (Secondary Coil) - Typically considered as a Negative result on the Action. Lenz's Law (the -), a negative result of the Secondary Coil on the Primary Coil.

Counter-Reaction: - (Secondary Coil) - Another Negative result, but this time assisting the Action, the primary, or the Action, but at the same time Countering the Reaction. Lenz's Law (the -).

The two Secondary's are what I call Partnered Output Coils!

These principals can be arranged in many configurations that may result in a working device, and the opposite is also true.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Nicele put, Chris.
Bob