Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[partzman]

I asked you this before and I did not get an answer. How does one allow the "reactive power" return to the source? Mosfets and diodes block the reactive power from returning. I mean having a device that returns the reactive power back to the grid through your meter to me is not really an alternative energy source it only dumps the reactive power back to the power company and lets them deal with it. If its not power then why is it called "power". If one were to have a device that runs at say 10khz and has a phase angle of 90 degrees on the input then essentially the device would use no power? At 10khz how would you "return" the reactive power? Is there a way to switch mosfets at certain times throughout the cycles and dump the reactive power back to the source?
I agree that anyone who asks for money because they claim they can turn lead into gold etc I don't trust. I never paid any attention to the whole qeg/hopegirl thing. I'f you are saying that using reactive power is the main thing in those threads I will have a look, but what percentage is actual research and what percentage is biased  towards the "impossible". Or arguing over nonrelated stuff?


I mean look at this thread, its no longer about partnered output coils. How many people here actually did exactly what Chris asked? Only two that I can think of and it wasn't exact. Any way, thanks I'll have a look.



To both: I'm no expert in any of this, this is why I'm asking. I just refuse to be stuck in the 5% reality box that everyone has invested most of their lives believing in. (5% depending on which article you read, I've seen anywhere from .001% to 10%) This 95% dark matter/energy that science agrees exists is there, waiting to be touched. Take a mouse and raise it inside a box its whole life, never let it see the outside of the box. Then a few months before its about to die from old age, cut a hole in the side of the box. What will the mouse do?

Drak,

Actually mosfets with their substrate or body diodes (as well as other devices using the same concept) are quite capable of returning energy to a properly configured circuit. For example, this is done in various ways in the high quality pure sine wave DC-AC inverters that are capable of returning reactive current in an inductive or capacitive load back to the supply battery.  They are not as efficient in the return direction as they are in the forward direction, but it works none the less.

By utilizing creative design techniques, there are ways to achieve reduction of input power by manipulating the phase between input voltage and current while at the same time producing real power in resistive loads with the result of COP>1. There are still problems to overcome before production devices will be seen, but it is only a matter of time.

partzman

[MileHigh]

I asked you this before and I did not get an answer. How does one allow the "reactive power" return to the source? Mosfets and diodes block the reactive power from returning. I mean having a device that returns the reactive power back to the grid through your meter to me is not really an alternative energy source it only dumps the reactive power back to the power company and lets them deal with it. If its not power then why is it called "power". If one were to have a device that runs at say 10khz and has a phase angle of 90 degrees on the input then essentially the device would use no power? At 10khz how would you "return" the reactive power? Is there a way to switch mosfets at certain times throughout the cycles and dump the reactive power back to the source?

You can search on "reactive power" and "apparent power" and "power factor" and "inductive reactance" and "capacitive reactance" and "electrical impedance" and find tons of information about all of this stuff and have a good read.

"Reactive power" is just a term, it does not literally mean power.  Just like "north" and "south" for magnetic fields are just terms, in reality there is no such thing as a "north" or "south" magnetic field.

There are no MOSFETS involved by definition.  The only way to get a power factor of zero is to drive a perfectly inductive or capacitive load.  The inductor or capacitor will store some energy and then return it to the AC power source.  They will not dissipate any energy.

[TinselKoala]

OK, can of worms time.

Converting reactive power to real usable power:

(playlist)
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLml9VdOeqKa-k7J7vO_I22fVc-h8wcdLf

(single video from list)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyVZWkYAvkk

And yet, MileHigh is not wrong, either.
The _current_ component of the reactive power circulating in the TBF primary coil of the uQEG does create an oscillating EM field around the coil, even though no or very little power is actually being dissipated _in the coil_. This current is 40 to 60 amps or even higher, even though the power supply input to the uQEG is only a few hundred mA. By coupling to this oscillating EM field with the TKTransverters (tuned resonant receiver) one can indeed extract usable power to drive real loads (incandescent bulbs, neons, HV spark gaps, DC motor, etc).

A dramatic illustration of what happens when that high current in the primary's reactive power circulation is improperly interrupted is that the drive mosfets will actually _blow up_, sending fragments all over the place. I'm not going to demonstrate that, though... those damned things cost money.

[Pirate88179]

there he is! thats the same exact bill right there.
he noticed the same effect that bikelight did for the iron and magnet ramp, though not venturing into constructing a following 2nd ramp.
bill found the magnet did suddenly move towards the greater iron surface area from the smallest area.

someone else i think is dreamthinkbuild in the same thread mentioned to try placing the iron ramps on a slight angle, and using a dielectric such as a sheet of glass kept between the magnet and the iron.

in other experiments without iron, magnets have been shown to be able to make it past a 2nd ramp, it appears to be due to being able to maintain the correct angle of approach.

i think this involves further studies.

this concludes a non discussion about partnered output coils, and shall now return back to its subject(ive) topic. haha


at any rate, milehigh said if the iron and magnets were contacting rather than a different example such as what i mentioned in the previous posting.

I was answering that guy's question on reactive power topics here on this forum and not speaking of magnetics so, I have no idea what you are getting at here?  Perhaps I missed something?  Yes, I played around with that fellows idea a bit here at Pirate Labs and found it interesting.  I just do not see the connection to that fellow's topic and reactive power?

Bill

[MileHigh]

MH,

With all due respect, you need to perhaps peer outside the box you have confined yourself to.  If you haven't already, I would invite you to take a look at the pdf I attached to post #5982. It addresses two taboo's and they are 1), excess power produced with passive components and 2), energy supplied back to the source (negative resistance) during the production of real power to a resistive load.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have regarding this circuit and would encourage any dialog on the subject.  I have at present three topologies that produce OU using the same principles as shown here and was willing to show this limited example in order to "shake the tree" so to speak.  Only PW responded on this forum while ION made a comment on OUR.com.

partzman

Well, I hate to tell you this but the "taboo" is absolutely real.  You have a circuit filled with passive components and therefore by definition you cannot get excess energy from the circuit.  I can see in the pdf that the data is presented quite professionally and it all looks credible.  However, the proof is in the pudding.  If you built that circuit and then presented your findings, then people like Poynt99 and others might take an interest in it and help you investigate the circuit for a second time.  Invariably, working together you will find where there was an oversight or some kind of error that resulted in you arriving at the incorrect conclusion.  I have seen it happen literally dozens and dozens of times.  There is a science and an "art" to building a circuit and getting the measurements right and there are several people around here that are well versed in the process.

You claim that you have three topologies that produce over unity.  Perhaps the experts will engage with you if you want to have a second look at one of the circuits.

I am really not trying to be argumentative or combative.  It's just a question of looking at a circuit again with help and guidance from the people that really know what they are doing.  Nor am I questioning your abilities at all.  Rather, when several minds look at a circuit together then you can expect to get new insight into what is going on.  It seems to be so easy to get an apparent over unity measurement.  When you see that you have to double-check and review and triple-check and review.  Just accepting your fist round of measurements (I am not saying you did that) is not a wise thing to do.

So that's my two cents for you.  It's not a question of me being "in a box."  It more of a question of double checking and triple checking and inviting outside expert opinion when you think that you have observed an anomaly.

MileHigh