Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[Vortex1]

Good question.

If I were to attempt to loop this device (and I will be), I would use a simple sine wave generator (have one on a single chip), pump that into a small audio amplifier (have one of those too) into the primary, then out the secondary through a full wave bridge rectifier into some filter caps and back around to power the oscillator and amplifier.  That last step I would insert a voltage regulator just in case of the possible runaway condition.  Then all that is needed is a bump start at regulator voltage.  If the gain is more than the losses, she should purr like a kitten.  If not, one should still see a fade down until either the oscillator or amplifier drops below its running voltage.  The fade down can be compared to the no loopback condition to get a feel for how much more gain is really needed.

Based on the numbers Brad has posted, if this Hybrid Toroid will function in the power range needed by the electronics, its gain should exceed the losses of the electronics by a small margin.

Hi dog one

Yes that would be a good method provided the gain of the system can overcome the losses in all the peripheral devices.

A simple method would be to turn the transformer into an oscillator with a single transistor, and use the feedback to sustain oscillation and also pump up the supply voltage.

If there truly is gain in the system a momentary bump start from an external source should keep it running.

Since Brad has three windings available, he could use this circuit attached

Regards
Vorte1

[partzman]

[snip]

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

I would be happy to make suggestions to help you in your testing.  Your test procedure has been fine but it is the error you are experiencing with your test equipment that is creating the measurement problem IMO.

Firstly, there is nothing wrong with you using carbon carbon film resistors at your test frequencies. They are essentially non-inductive and are 5% in tolerance as you well know.  After further analysis of your numbers from test2, it is impossible to get the numbers to justify by adjusting the resistance values by +/- 5%.  IMO, the major source of error is in your scope accuracy which agrees with PW's observation.

A simple test for this would be to set your sig gen at say 1khz with a sine output with a level of 5v rms across a 1k resistor.  Then check this output level as indicated by your sig gen with your DMM(s) and scope for comparison.  Repeat this at 10khz and then repeat the whole process using an output level of 100mv rms. This might be revealing.

To test the transformer itself, I would suggest using an audio power amp if you have one available. This will allow you to raise the input voltage and current to higher levels that should allow for more accurate measurements IMO.  You must be sure not to drive the core into saturation even slightly as this will really lower the efficiency.  Use the 10.3 ohm cf for the sense resistor in the primary as you have been and what ever value of cf load resistance necessary in the secondary without any sense resistor. 

Yes, to really be accurate in our COP measurements, we should include everything like copper and core losses, phase shift, etc. 

I would like to compliment you on your effort in this transformer design you have created and encourage you to continue. I would also like to say that only if one has done experiments, then and only then can one know what it is like to have thought you have achieved OU only to find out later thru the examination by yourself and/or others that you were wrong. The disappointment one feels can not be known unless experienced. Been there many times!

Your design is intriguing for it demonstrates an anomaly in voltage multiplication and has asymmetry which is usually a hallmark for OU devices.

partzman 

[tinman]

Tinman,
   



Keep in mind that two wire resistance measurements include lead and contact resistance errors.  More precision is attained with four wire resistance measurements by separating the current source from the Vdrop measurement.   



PW

That's pretty harsh.  Did you follow what Partzman was indicating in his post by way of his various calculations of Pout using your measurements?  Your resistance and/or voltage measurements have significant accuracy issues that need to be addressed.  The various math cross checks of Pout that Partzman provided are not in any way an "assumed error".

I can only provide you with what my equipment provides me. What you see is what i see.
That's pretty harsh.
Really?
Why is every one worried that there may !may! be an error on the output measurements while totally ignoring the P/in measurements. As MH stated(unwittingly i think),the P/in will actually be lower due to the phase shift,but i dont see anyone here going-hey,wait a minute Brad,you actually have a larger COP due to the fact that the P/in you have calculated is actually higher than it really is. What we do get though is-there is something wrong with your P/out measurements. So while most are happy for me to use a higher value P/in than the actual value,and not !knowingly! say that the P/in is incorrect-it should be lower,they are happy to say that (even though great care was taken)the P/out is high due to measurement error.

So i stand by what i say,in that these measurement !errors! always seem to favour COP 1<-only because of the firm belief that COP 1> is not possible. So how about we work out the actual value of the P/in due to the phase shift instead of the higher value i calculated,then we go on the low side of the output error value,and see where we end up

Keep in mind that purpose built and utilized transformers with an efficiency as high as 99.75% are not unheard of.With that kind of efficiency possible, consider the required measurement accuracy.

Dose my transformer look like a precision built high end transformer? Looks more like a quick throw together job,with a roughly cast core out of lower grade materials,and wire that looks like it was wound by my 3yo grandson-the inner winding is not much better.

You can use it to measure to the accuracy provided by the DMM.  What is the accuracy spec of your DMM when measuring 10 ohms (or 100 ohms)?  Typically this spec is stated as a percentage error plus a given number of least significant digits.

The accuracy is +/- .8%
https://www.toolmart.com.au/measuring-tools/qm1548.html

Possibly I am not remembering correctly, but in previous videos I have noted that when your scope is connected to your FG, the FG's output level display and your scope's measured value seem to have a significant spread between them.  Have you ever looked into this?

Not sure what you mean here.
The scope reads the very same frequency my SG is set at.
They read the same voltage values when the SG's limits are not exceeded.
The only time they read different values is when the loads power requirements exceed that of which the SG can deliver. E.G-the SG's displayed RMS value go's off the selected amplitude on the SG,not the actual delivered value as the scope reads across the load. So in many cases you will see the scope reading a lower value than that which you see on the SG,as the SG is displaying selected value,not delivered value.

[tinman]

I would be happy to make suggestions to help you in your testing.  Your test procedure has been fine but it is the error you are experiencing with your test equipment that is creating the measurement problem IMO.

Firstly, there is nothing wrong with you using carbon carbon film resistors at your test frequencies. They are essentially non-inductive and are 5% in tolerance as you well know.  After further analysis of your numbers from test2, it is impossible to get the numbers to justify by adjusting the resistance values by +/- 5%.  IMO, the major source of error is in your scope accuracy which agrees with PW's observation.

A simple test for this would be to set your sig gen at say 1khz with a sine output with a level of 5v rms across a 1k resistor.  Then check this output level as indicated by your sig gen with your DMM(s) and scope for comparison.  Repeat this at 10khz and then repeat the whole process using an output level of 100mv rms. This might be revealing.

To test the transformer itself, I would suggest using an audio power amp if you have one available. This will allow you to raise the input voltage and current to higher levels that should allow for more accurate measurements IMO.  You must be sure not to drive the core into saturation even slightly as this will really lower the efficiency.  Use the 10.3 ohm cf for the sense resistor in the primary as you have been and what ever value of cf load resistance necessary in the secondary without any sense resistor. 

Yes, to really be accurate in our COP measurements, we should include everything like copper and core losses, phase shift, etc. 

I would like to compliment you on your effort in this transformer design you have created and encourage you to continue. I would also like to say that only if one has done experiments, then and only then can one know what it is like to have thought you have achieved OU only to find out later thru the examination by yourself and/or others that you were wrong. The disappointment one feels can not be known unless experienced. Been there many times!

Your design is intriguing for it demonstrates an anomaly in voltage multiplication and has asymmetry which is usually a hallmark for OU devices.

partzman

I wouldnt be too disappointed partzman,as i to have been through it many times before.

In video 3 i purposely made a measurement error for reason to see who actually takes notice of what im doing,or just comments on my work through thoughts of others,and never took much notice of what was going on in the video. No one has picked up on it yet.

Video !test 5! was done due to MH saying that i could use a DMM to carry out the measurements if the wave forms were good.

I calibrate my scope daily to avoid measurement errors from the scope,but  i can check it against my SG,as i think that is a good idea. I will also make a video showing the asymmetry of the transformer.

[picowatt]

Why is every one worried that there may !may! be an error on the output measurements while totally ignoring the P/in measurements.

Tinman,

Would the use of "dismissive" rather than "harsh" have been more appropriate?  I was not trying to rile you.

The 3KHz test appears to have an efficiency of somewhere between 89% and 99% depending on what assumptions one makes regarding the discrepancies in the measured values you provided.  Can you at least acknowledge that you understand that these discrepancies exist as Partzman pointed out? 

If you are claiming an OU of only 5-10%, your measurement accuracy will need to be significantly better than that, which again, as per Partzman's post, it is not.

As for the scope versus FG, possibly I am remembering incorrectly.  I thought there was a disagreement between your scope's measured value and the FG's indicated value in a video you made a while back unrelated to these tests.

As often as this comes up, I am surprised you have not acquired some precision resistors.  A few 1R, 10R and 100R low inductance Caddock TO-220 resistors in 1% or 0.1% precision would prove very useful to you. 

And yes, of course, there is a bias towards always assuming measurement error first when something unusual is encountered.  I wouldn't have it any other way.  (As more often than not, that is indeed the case)

PW