Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[Vortex1]

From MH

I am pretty sure Vortex1 could share much more insight than me on this matter.

No actually I think you've done a fine job at nailing down most of the requirements for good measurement technique. (partzman included)

If it is believed that one is at the limit of measurement accuracy and still believe it is showing excess power, I would probably scale the device up to the Watt level, to try to get the measurements off the noise floor.

I might also try a nulling approach or a looping regenerative approach, all in fun of experiment.

Might be nice to make some power factor measurements on the input by looking at the phase shift between input current and voltage with the scope. Maybe this was already done and I missed it.

Regards Vortex1

[Pirate88179]

Not being a measurement expert at all, or even a little bit...I always favor looping a device that "shows" O.U.  I think it was TK that said you need 1.3% O.U. to do this but, I might be wrong.  If a circuit puts out anything over what is put in,  all measurement errors and what have you can be laid to rest by either looping it, or chaining several devices together to get up to a good level of O.U. output.

Nothing against the electronics guys here that really know their stuff but, if a device can be made to run itself then, instruments, error factors, etc. are eliminated from the equation.  IF a device can not do this then, it would pay to go back and look at what the possible measurement errors might be.

Just like TK telling someone that "claims" 300% O.U. that should be enough to self loop right?  Brad's measurements are not too far above the 100% mark, which to me, would be a great thing in and of itself.  100% is pretty efficient, ha ha.

In other words, I am in favor of chaining together devices and/or self-looping them which will tell the story one way or the other.

Bill

[tinman]

Tinman,


I've attached your schematic with an analysis of just the secondary circuit using your measurements and values.  Note the three differing values of pout depending on the circuit values and measurements used. This error approaches 9% and will affect your COP calculations.

The output power measurements would best be taken without any current sense resistor but using an accurate known load resistance along with the output voltage for the calcs.

It is difficult to speculate on the source of your error but I will suggest several possibilities.  One, your DMM uses a constant current source to determine the resistance value and could provide a source of error depending on the linearity of the current source and/or the voltage measuring circuitry.  Two, your scope may have an accuracy problem particularly at the lower level measurements.

partzman

In analyzing your Test2 video and your results, I would agree with MH that you need to find the source of error that exists when cross checking your results. Your work and math is correct but there does seem to be a problem with the measurements.

I think it is more an assumed error,as the results go against what most believe to be true. I should also think that the following should be taken into account.
1-As MH stated,there is a slight phase shift between current and voltage on the input,and so the P/in i provided is a maximum value,and due to the phase shift,the actual value will be less.
2-In regards to P/out,i have only thus far measured the dissipated power of the two resistors,and as yet are to include power dissipated by both the primary and secondary coils them self. So not only is the P/in at the maximum value,the P/out total is yet to be measured.

In regards to the resistor's values. As all were measured with the same meter,then if there is an error being made with the DMM measuring that value,that error is the same for the input resistor value. If i cannot use my DMM to measure the resistance of a resistor,then how do i find that resistance value?.

So what would be a good resistive load on the output if not a non inductive resistor as i am using.These resistors we use in circuits every day that run at much higher frequencies than i am using,and there is never an inductive problem with them.

I am all for accurate measurement's,and i believed that that was exactly what i was doing here-following the correct procedures. If you would like to put together a test procedure with circuit schematic partzman,then i am more than happy to carry out that test. If we are going to go to the extreem here,then we should also include the reduction of P/in due to phase shift,and add the dissipated power of the two coils on the P/out measurements

Brad

[Jimboot]

Brad I just want to thank you for sharing the mountain of work you have shared on this. Very educational for a lot of us I'm sure on the rigour you apply to testing.

[Vortex1]

One test that would end all doubt would be to connect the output in phase back to the input using a potentiometer to adjust the positive feedback. We can treat the device as a transfer function with unknown gain.

Now  just hitting the primary with a pulse, i.e a brief connect and disconnect from a small battery should cause the transformer to briefly ring at it's "sweet spot" frequency. This is called "shock excitation" or "step excitation" like hitting a bell with a hammer. Normally in a system with gain <1 you will see an exponentially damped ringing oscillation at the "sweet spot" frequency. You can capture and observe this on your scope.

You can then observe the decay rate of the primary ringing frequency on your scope as you adjust the amount of positive feedback with the potentiometer.

If there were truly gain >1 in the system, the decayed oscillation should at some point turn into either steady state or exponential growth of the waveform when the proper amount of feedback is applied, as is true of most systems that amplify.

This is the litmus test for a system with gain >1. Since the windings are 1:1, and it is an AC system, it should not be difficult to perform this test.

Regards, Vorex1