Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[picowatt]

Tinman,

Consider performing similar tests on any "normal" coils/inductors you have laying about...

PW

Added:  If your FG does "N-cycle bursts", consider exciting the coil being tested with just one cycle at the resonant frequency and with your scope and triggering adjusted so you can see what happens during and after the N-cycle burst.  Repeat the test with N=2,3...10, etc.

[digitalindustry]

If some one can tell me exactly what the magnetic force actually is,then i will take what you have to say as gospel,


Brad
.

ha ha i can tell you that closer to people that study 'human science' (but still don't take all i say as Gospel of course)

'magnetic force' is just 'gravity frequency'

everything else gets weirder for a human after that statement, the 3D plane is as a result of a resonate freq , that is why 'spooky entangled particles' (pretend) confused 'Science' for so many years.

when the observer observes the entangled properties the Mverse splits to a new 3D freq the lets say the 'observed Mverse'

sound crazy? wait for this:

Why and how you know you are now existing inside a plane as a result of resonate frequency FROM somewhere else?

When X observes the entangled particle does the 'universe' collapse? think about this deeply, why doesn't the universe collapse?
how can you shift though Mverse ?

because silly you are representing yourself here in this resonate freq.* hint

back to the point:

Magnetic energy is just gravity at freq, everything is "magnetic', just freq of ''matter' is the key, it's that simple.

but more important than that can anyone (i bet you can't) tell me the importance of understanding why the 'universe' doesn't collapse when you take a free will decision like observing an entangled Q particle?

it has profound and 'biblical' consequences for you to understand. 

I think Everything TimMan is doing is great here - and don't worry about the MIB ha ha we have some tall white guys that noticed you when you created that supercap ha ha, that was my fault and i fixed it, so now you have a free pass (from them) on this planet, (and unless you are really unlucky or like to get into bar and knife fights i don't think anyone else can or woudl have the inclination to bother you : D) and i will follow that up. (as far as i can)

i hope you share everything you learn, i'm just like you a learner.

[partzman]

Partzman,

I took a look at your pdf and frankly, I am a bit confused.

You seem to be comparing the power dissipated by R1 in the first scope capture to something more closely resembling the total power input from the signal generator in the second capture.

Can you explain your reasoning for the measurement points and the math used?

I must be missing something...

Thanks,
PW

PW,

OK. You are correct that the first scope pix is the measurement of the power dissipated in the 958 ohm Rl. Due to the position of Rl in the circuit, a differential measurement is required to determine the magnitude of voltage across Rl. Ch1 and CH3 are used for this measurement. The difference is then squared and divided by the resistance of Rl as would usually be done to determine the power. The Math channel displays the mean of this differential measurement which is the most accurate IMO but is probably conservative.

The second scope pix does display the measurement of the power from the sine wave input. Here we have the current drawn by the closed loop circuit measured across the 1 ohm Rs and represented in volts measured by CH2, multiplied by the input sine wave voltage seen on CH1. The Math trace displays the magnitude of this product over time and the Math mean shows the integration of this product over time.

These measurements are taken between the vertical CH1 cursors over three cycles.  The resulting analysis IMO shows that in this closed loop circuit, we produce a valid power across a resistive load while power is both drawn from, and supplied to the input voltage source resulting in a COP>1.

There is nothing mysterious here like violation of any conservation laws, etc, but rather careful design of the use of passive components to achieve the results you see.  The coil coupling coefficient, distributed capacitance of the coil, coil inductance, external component values, and operating frequency are carefully chosen for these results 

I do have to credit the influence of inventor Arie DeGues with his patent NL1030697 which inspired the circuit design used here.

partzman   

[partzman]

I did a five-minute skim through the paper.  So I still can't comment on it in any kind of definitive way.  I would have to refresh all my EM and other theory and then read the paper very slowly and carefully to honestly comment on it and that's too much work for me.  It appears to me that they are looking at H propagating at the speed of light around an electromagnet and the the related B field.  I can't say if it makes sense or not without doing a ton of work that I am not prepared to do.  All that I can say is that if extraordinary claims are being made then they don't smell right at all to me.

It's impossible to put a stepped current source into a coil, but you can approximate one.  The flipping of the magnetic domains is a mechanical process that requires the overcoming of inertia, which is just a mechanical inductance.  I honestly don't believe that you will find anything remarkable or unusual when you analyze a coil around a core that can't be explained by conventional EM theory.

If you are trying to suggest it's me when you say "without the best intentions" then say it right now, no B.S.  Are you talking about me or not?

If you are indeed suggesting it's me then stop the nonsense right now.  I am arguing solid real-world tech with Tinman.  I am not casting spells and incantations.  Stop playing the Boogeyman card about me, it's ridiculous.  If you want to find a Boogeyman then go out trick or treating on Halloween.

MH,

Rest assured I had no one particular person in mind on of off this list with my comments above. It was a general statement based on my own practical experience in life as I have had patents infringed and ideas stolen and profited nothing as a result.

Regarding Edwards and Saha and their paper(s), I don't feel the need to defend their research nor am I qualified to do so. I will do their experiment in the future and will post the results but for now, I have a full plate.

partzman

[picowatt]

PW,

OK. You are correct that the first scope pix is the measurement of the power dissipated in the 958 ohm Rl. Due to the position of Rl in the circuit, a differential measurement is required to determine the magnitude of voltage across Rl. Ch1 and CH3 are used for this measurement. The difference is then squared and divided by the resistance of Rl as would usually be done to determine the power. The Math channel displays the mean of this differential measurement which is the most accurate IMO but is probably conservative.

The second scope pix does display the measurement of the power from the sine wave input. Here we have the current drawn by the closed loop circuit measured across the 1 ohm Rs and represented in volts measured by CH2, multiplied by the input sine wave voltage seen on CH1. The Math trace displays the magnitude of this product over time and the Math mean shows the integration of this product over time.

These measurements are taken between the vertical CH1 cursors over three cycles.  The resulting analysis IMO shows that in this closed loop circuit, we produce a valid power across a resistive load while power is both drawn from, and supplied to the input voltage source resulting in a COP>1.

There is nothing mysterious here like violation of any conservation laws, etc, but rather careful design of the use of passive components to achieve the results you see.  The coil coupling coefficient, distributed capacitance of the coil, coil inductance, external component values, and operating frequency are carefully chosen for these results 

I do have to credit the influence of inventor Arie DeGues with his patent NL1030697 which inspired the circuit design used here.

partzman

Partzman,

Have you considered moving, or adding another, Rs between the sine out and the CH1 test point and using that Rs position to determine input power? (using the CH2 probe to measure the sine out level)

PW