Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[tinman]

Hey Brad, you already know how it works, I don't need to do any homework or thinking for you.

Like I said, three Coils, one input, two output, go for best result...

Persistence and common-sense as you already know is the key to getting a result.

If you were to break down your RT we see the same thing, three Coils, you had a Velocity component, on the Rotor, that is not directly evident in the Transformers I build, but its still there, Graham Gunderson shows it. Which I will admit I did not notice until recently.

If you visit: Click Here - You will see what I mean.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Chris
My time is short,so rather than bumble around for days,weeks,month's trying to prove you correct,it would make much more sense that my time be spent building your actual device,and post my results here-->so as we can muzzle those that disbelieve.

If i build what i think is correct,and get negative result's,then that dose not look so good for you,or it then puts me in a position where as you can say i have built it wrong.

As much as i have tried,i cannot get a solid state version of the RT to work,so you must know something i do not?.

I have today and tomorrow to donate to your cause-should i spend that time researching your design,or should i spend it building your design?.
Just a schematic of your best performer is all i need to get started.

Brad

[EMJunkie]

Brad:

See?  This way, when you build it and it does not work, (which it won't) he can say "You did not build it right.  Everyone else is getting overunity except you."

I know a trap when I see one...just a heads up as I know you are a decent guy.

Bill

I could reply with all sorts of rebuttals to you Bill...

Problem is, I would be better off to talk to a Bag of Hammers... I would get more Common-Sense!!!

How many times have you been asked to leave? You keep returning?

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

Chris
My time is short,so rather than bumble around for days,weeks,month's trying to prove you correct,it would make much more sense that my time be spent building your actual device,and post my results here-->so as we can muzzle those that disbelieve.
If i build what i think is correct,and get negative result's,then that dose not look so good for you,or it then puts me in a position where as you can say i have built it wrong.

As much as i have tried,i cannot get a solid state version of the RT to work,so you must know something i do not?.

I have today and tomorrow to donate to your cause-should i spend that time researching your design,or should i spend it building your design?.
Just a schematic of your best performer is all i need to get started.

Brad

@Tinman, I respect you! You do great work! I was reading away and it all changed...

So, I respectfully decline to divulge, here all my work. The same as you have a right to respectfully decline to divulge all your information:

Tinman seems to be holding this quite close to his chest,

You bet your ass i am-->for reasons i have explained.

There is a lot of ways that work, also lots of ways that don't work, you already know this!

Why some might ask?

Well just look at the Circuit I shared from Stanley Meyer!!! 2 People spent five minutes on it and both failed, one threw their hands up in the air screaming - "It doesn't work". At least one of them did try! The other one did not share a single measurement at all!!!

Itsu did an excellent job, his measurements did show more energy across two test points than was coming out of the current source. Just not directly across the load, which is the reason everyone dismissed the circuit.

It is so much more important that people use their brains and put the links together so they have something to aim for. I cant stress this enough!!! You, the experimenter must know what to aim for.... This is critical!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org


P.S: I certainly do not wish to "muzzle those that disbelieve", I rather want to share as much as I can with those that do!!! I have sent you a private message with some information that I can not share here.

[EMJunkie]

This is incorrect,and EMJ is correct in that there were flasher units that used resistor capacitor time constants to switch a relay on and off. The speed of this switching could be changed either by changing the value of the capacitor or the resistor. In fact,the unit that used this principle of operation were not only more reliable but safer also. The thermo mechanical flasher unit will also not work with todays LED bulb's,as the current required to heat the spring loaded flip flop switchs element is to low,where as the unit that used the RC time constant to switch will work just as well with LED bulbs as it will with incandescent bulbs. The early adjustable intermittent wiper circuit uses this very same RC relay,where the fixed resistor is change out for a variable resistor to change the time off period between each cycle.

Vortex
Your comments of late are most out of caricature,and i would have thought that some one of your nature and history would have many of these RC type flasher units lying around.The fact is that there were both types,but you insist that there was only one that used the thermo mechanical operation,and that any one that argues against this has pretzel logic .

Below is a pic of a relay that works on the RC time constant.You will see no heating element in there.

@Tinman - Thank You!!!

We must be the only ones that pay any attention. Seems we are the only ones that don't use Pretzel Logic?

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[TinselKoala]

I could reply with all sorts of rebuttals to you Bill...

Problem is, I would be better off to talk to a Bag of Hammers... I would get more Common-Sense!!!

How many times have you been asked to leave? You keep returning?

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

How many times have you been asked to provide proof of your claims? You keep bloviating and still refuse to provide any valid measurements in support of your claims.

How many times have you said "good bye"? You keep returning?

@Tinman, I respect you! You do great work! I was reading away and it all changed...

So, I respectfully decline to divulge, here all my work. The same as you have a right to respectfully decline to divulge all your information:

See what you started, Brad? So much for the "Open Source" philosophy. Now any and all false claimants, when challenged for details, can just say "I decline to divulge, just like TinMan did, so long ago."


The title to this thread is a lie. There is NO FREE ENERGY coming from anything that Chris Sykes has made, can make, or will make. He is a _false claimant_ and simply thrives on the attention he gets here. And he can't even PROVE ME WRONG !!!