Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[partzman]

In view of all the discussion regarding transformer induction, may I suggest a paper by Robert Distinti titled "Classic Flux Anomaly" that is located at the link below.

http://www.distinti.com/docs/classfluxan.pdf

partzman

[poynt99]

Thanks Poynt.

Now-what induces an EMF and current flow in the generating coils of a permanent magnet alternator?

I understand where you're going with this and I know what your answer is.

Present theory dictates two "different" mechanisms to induce an emf; one is the non-motional (electrical) transformer type induction we've been discussing thus far, and the other is motional (mechanical) via the Lorentz force on charge carriers in a magnetic field. However, for some time I have not been convinced that the so-called two mechanisms are actually different. All agree however that the results are identical.

The most common answer to your question is the "magnetic field", but theoretically it depends on your frame of reference according to Einstein and his "Special Relativity". If the magnets move and the coils are stationary, the emf is induced via the E field. If the magnets are stationary and the coils move, then the emf is induced by the B field (via Lorentz force).

It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics – as usually understood at the present time – when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighborhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighborhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise – assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed – to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.

From Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

My answer is the E field, the one and same as for transformer induction. Why? Because it is the relative movement (change) of flux between the magnet and wire that matters, not which one is moving and which one is stationary.

Why the E field, and not the B field? Because an induced E field is analogous to a conventional source of emf (such as a signal generator) applied to the terminals of the coil or wire, which produces a current in that coil or wire.

[minnie]

   What about Rohrlich?

[EMJunkie]

I looked at the TK clip and I see that in 2014 he replicated the PWM sine wave waveforms in an Akula replication.  So that means my guess that it was a resonant wireless charging system responsible for showing the sine wave waveforms and lighting the LEDs is almost certainly wrong.

Nonetheless, TK's circuit corresponds to real life, and it needs a power source to run continuously.  There are still many ways to do the trickery, including using incredibly fine wires to power the device, wires that are too fine to be picked up by the camera.  Plus you can always wash your video clip through an image softening filter before you upload it to YouTube if you want to.

Also, just because the circuit in the Akula clip does show the PWM sine wave waveforms, and apparently they are indeed true waveforms produced by the device, it is still entirely possible that the setup is powered by a wireless resonant charging system like I described in my previous positing.

There are many ways to skin a cat.

At least you're decent enough to admit when you're wrong!

Youre still forgetting that others have replicated this device and made it work!

Just because TK could not make it run indefinitely, or to be correct, I should say, gave up, just before he got to the finish line, does not at all discredit the other devices. In fact it actually gives credit to these other devices, simply because the other devices are all so very close to what TK was able to achieve!

I am not asking you to believe! I am not asking you to change the ideas and concepts on how you power your imaginary experiments, all I am doing is giving the people some hard data with hard references...

Everyone can make their own minds up...

One thing is true, some 200 years of the Age of Electricity and many thousands of reports of devices that self-run while powering a load... Demonstrations that can not be explained by any means other than "it must be real"... and written and verbal statements by Highly Qualified, Highly Credible people, to say that there was no trickery and the device was real... and here we are, still stuck in the stone age...

Not a single person has ever tried to get the ball rolling in the right direction...

So many are off looking for Mystery and Magic, Not a shred of Science behind it... Its all there, start at the start...

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[MileHigh]

If one really worked at it, all that one has to do is follow the signal paths through the simple circuit.  You record multiple waveforms and then line them up in a master timing diagram.  You explain what is going on and how one signal affects another signal.

You follow the energy trail in the master timing diagram and you show derived energy waveforms and show exactly where the pulse is that is supposedly manifesting the extra pulse of energy.  You show how, when, and where energy is going from point A to point B in the circuit.  You do the work and you do a full audit of the energy trail and you show exactly where and when the alleged extra energy is manifesting itself.

Now, this should not be too hard to do for a circuit that consists of 10 components or less.

However, this is never done and instead some people are content to see a LED illuminated and two unexplained waveforms as "proof" that the Akula circuit is allegedly doing what they say it is doing.

Nobody will ever offer proof for a simple Akula circuit that meets the standard that I outline above.  Meeting that standard would result in "self-busting."