Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[partzman]

Partzman, This is good work.

Its a shame things like this get missed. Noise in the form of a Tantrum just might be needed to get noticed?

Looking at your data, if you don't mind, I will detail:

M = (1 - 3) x (1 - 3) / 958

It appears as the in might be: 4.462 (Teal Trace) and the out might be: 4.874 (Pink Trace) - 4.874 / 4.462 = COP = 1.09

Maybe you can further detail your Scope Shots? Something is not clear to me here.

For others I have re-attached the pdf you have shared.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Chris,
Thank you for your comment.  I will explain the scope shots. 

The first scope pix shows the Math measurement of the voltage across Rl using CH1-CH3 as the differential means. This quantity is then squared, divided by 958, and the instantaneous value displayed by the red Math trace over time. The Math calculation is then integrated between the vertical cursors and displayed as the mean or average that is seen as 105.3mvv or 105.3mw.  To roughly confirm this by analyzing the traces, one can simply subtract the peak of CH2 (~8) from the peak of CH1 (~22), and even though they are slightly out of phase with some distortion, take the difference (14) and convert to rms (9.9) to arrive at ~ 102mw (9.9^2/958).

The second scope shot uses the Math channel to perform the product of CH1 (input source voltage) times CH2 (voltage across Rs representing the current taken from the source voltage). The red Math trace displays the instantaneous value over time of this product and then this result is integrated over the time interval between the vertical cursors and displayed as a mean value of 2.946mvv or 2.946mw.

The resulting COP = 105.3/2.946 = 35.74.

The reason the math results are in mvv is due to mv measurements being used in the calculations.

partzman   

[MileHigh]

Partzman:

Just giving your description and your schematic and your waveforms a preliminary look I can suggest some potential issues.

The frequency is fairly high, and C1 and C2 are minuscule 4.7 nF caps.  How do you know that your (Ch3 - Ch1) measurement is good?  You are loading down what may be one high impedance signal path (Ch 3), and the frequency is fairly high, and that could potentially throw everything out of whack.

Just a basic simplistic check here ignoring the transformer and just looking at the series LC component:  The current is leading the voltage for the entire circuit, and the phase is nearly 90 degrees.  So it looks like a capacitive load.  Each capacitor is 65 ohms impedance at 520 kHz.  Each inductor is 509 ohms impedance at 520 kHz.  The series resonant frequency would be 186 kHz.  So for a basic series LC circuit with your component values, at 520 kHz it should look like an inductive load.  But it appears to be a capacitive load.  Why is that and is that suggesting that something is amiss?

When the signal generator voltage is zero, the load current gets pinched off.  Do you know why?  I realize that there is a transformer and another current loop in play.  I think the reason for the pinching off of the current should be investigated, just so you know the circuit better.  The more you know the circuit the more you are able to recognize any possible instrumentation errors.

A basic question:  How does the circuit respond as you sweep the frequency?  Perhaps you will detect something that looks strange possibly hinting that your probes are disturbing the circuit too much at higher frequencies.

However, the biggest issue remains:  You observed a COP of 35 and apparently didn't question it.

MileHigh

[Drak]

So, gathering from everyones response, I'm guessing the holy grail is being able to convert reactive "power" into usable power or at least return it to the source very efficiently. I'm guessing that has not been done publicly. (except in scams) So is that what everyone is working on? Converting this energy? Testing out circuits and trying to extract it? Or is it a pointless thing? (I'm curious as to see who says its pointless.) Pointless meaning refusing to acknowledge that 95% of the universe exists.

Lets say HYPOTHETICLY, that I was able to build a device that gave back a phase angle of more then 90 degrees and it was proven beyond a doubt. HYPOTHETICLY, how would the experts go about "attempting" to do something with that extra degrees of shift? Meaning not stamp on it with a boot to get rid of it, I mean to try and use it.

TK, I loved your videos, I have watched a few others of yours, I like the way you explain stuff, its down to earth and easy to understand. Thank you. I watched your videos you linked above and from what I gathered from the list you basically prove the QEG is a scam, and thats fine. What I'm trying to say is there is more then one way to skin a cat, according to quantum physics there are an infinite ways to skin it. The QEG, (which I never did look into) if your circuits are exact according to them, then all I seen was you just transferring energy through the air. Been there done that with Don Smith. If that is what they are saying as to how to grab that reactive power, then I don't believe it. It looks like basic radio physics.

I just wish the experts here would come together and at least "try". There is not much time left.

[forest]

So, gathering from everyones response, I'm guessing the holy grail is being able to convert reactive "power" into usable power or at least return it to the source very efficiently. I'm guessing that has not been done publicly. (except in scams) So is that what everyone is working on? Converting this energy? Testing out circuits and trying to extract it? Or is it a pointless thing? (I'm curious as to see who says its pointless.) Pointless meaning refusing to acknowledge that 95% of the universe exists.

Lets say HYPOTHETICLY, that I was able to build a device that gave back a phase angle of more then 90 degrees and it was proven beyond a doubt. HYPOTHETICLY, how would the experts go about "attempting" to do something with that extra degrees of shift? Meaning not stamp on it with a boot to get rid of it, I mean to try and use it.

TK, I loved your videos, I have watched a few others of yours, I like the way you explain stuff, its down to earth and easy to understand. Thank you. I watched your videos you linked above and from what I gathered from the list you basically prove the QEG is a scam, and thats fine. What I'm trying to say is there is more then one way to skin a cat, according to quantum physics there are an infinite ways to skin it. The QEG, (which I never did look into) if your circuits are exact according to them, then all I seen was you just transferring energy through the air. Been there done that with Don Smith. If that is what they are saying as to how to grab that reactive power, then I don't believe it. It looks like basic radio physics.

I just wish the experts here would come together and at least "try". There is not much time left.

The method you are trying to understand is in fact radio physics. It is hidden in plain sigh. Please understand that, you would not have to understand how radio works for just using it, right ? So, if somebody who know create attractive and complete but false theory describing and computing all you need to build radio, yet without a single bit of true principle, then you are in situation we are in today. In other words, they let you use a candle but not a laser.

[Smudge]

Geez, you don't look for a few days and when you do there are a crazy number of posts.  Here is an analysis of some Tinman's measurements showing the input to exhibit negative resistance.

Smudge