Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[picowatt]

And how would any cable inductance or capacitance play a roll in the results shown,as we are measuring at the CVR with both scope probes. We are looking at what the HTT is receiving from the FG at the HTT,and what is coming back out of the HTT at the HTT.  What the lead's are doing from the FG or what the FG it self is doing,has nothing to do with what the HTT is doing.

The scope is showing us the voltage and waveform on either side of the CVR. We dont want to include any losses there may be withing the FG's cables,as that is not looking at what the HTT is doing. You dont see the power companies trying to meter your home's power consumption from the power station -do you ?.

Second-- most of you may think that the 1 ohm 10 watt cement resistor i was using is inductive,well turns out it is not-->it is actually slightly capacitive,not inductive. When i tested it by putting it in series with a 10 ohm carbon resistor with my FG across the two,and use it as my CVR,the current actually leads the voltage,which means it's actually capacitive,not inductive. This is through a sweep right up to 20MHz.

Tinman,

The purpose of this test was to get an accurate picture of the FG's power contribution while your circuit was producing "negative resistance".  I would trust the FG's 50R as being relatively low inductance.

Also, as suggested, I would perform some single cycle burst testing.  I suspect that such a test you will allow you to see a lightly damped waveform that rings down over time.   

PW

[picowatt]

Gyula,

OK, I must explain that I am located in Kansas, USA and that I am a Royals baseball fan so, in my haste to watch last nights game (in which they won the World Series BTW), I inadvertently attached the data for a variant of my original post that contained additional info. If you look at the scope shots one will notice the pout = 1.292w and the pin = 123mw for a COP = 10.5. Also notice the value change for C1 and C2 along with the additional components you pointed out.

I've attached a pix of the simple bifilar coil. 

L3 is not coupled to L1 or L2 and I used a ceramic cored and coated rf inductor for L3 but any reasonable quality inductor will work. I used a mica for C3 but I'm sure a good quality metalized film would work as well. L3 and C3 form a series resonant circuit that is ~2x the normal fo (420Khz) of the network itself. One can experiment with the L/C ratio and see the effects so you can use what you have on hand as long as the resonance is ~840Khz to replicate what is shown.

I would like to note that I used a decoupling cap (.1mfd mono not shown) between the pulse generator and L3.

I used 50% for the duty cycle and tried variations but the optimum performance was with 50%.  I am currently however experimenting with series and parallel self resonant circuits for the network source that are driven or pumped with extremely short duty cycles but that is a subject for later.

partzman

EDIT: Note that C1 and C2 did not change!

Partzman,

What wattage rating did you use for the 958R resistor?  If its watt rating was low enough, did you note a temperature rise commensurate with the ca 1.3 watts being measured across it?

PW

[Smudge]

Brad,

Here are the phase vectors for your latest set of runs done for MH.  The phase you are getting at the higher frequencies is to be expected, you can see that channel 2 leads channel 1 (all vectors rotate CCW with time).  So everything fits the negative resistance hypothesis.

Smudge

[MileHigh]

Brad:

My proposed test was all based around the scope capture in Smudge's report for the "negative resistance."   See the attached picture.  I make specific reference to it in my posting.

The intention was to run the setup at 3.62 MHz as per the attached scope capture where it appears that power is always flowing back to the function generator as per the math trace.

Like PW stated, ideally the one-ohm resistor would be in series with the function generator output and physically located as close as possible to the panel output itself.  If you wanted to make a useful jig you could use a male and female BNC with the one-ohm resistor between them.  A thick ground bridge between the two connectors and a test point and some hot glue built up around the device and you would have a nice current viewing jig that you could use anywhere inline in a BNC cable setup.

The intention is simple:  The scope shot in Smudge's report is showing power almost always being returned to the function generator for a "negative resistance."   Will the current viewing resistor always show power being returned to the function generator or not?

When I talk about current direction I am using shorthand.  If you drive a resistive load at low frquencins then it's taken for granted that the current is changing direction and there is always going to be a voltage drop across the one-ohm resistor showing that everything is normal.  Even though the polarity of the voltage across the one-ohm resistor changes, in either direction it is still a voltage drop.  Even though the current is changing direction through the AC cycle, that is a "normal change of current direction."  But if you look at the cases of driving an inductive or a capacitive load, then the current changes direction at a 90 degree phase angle relative to when you are driving a resistive load.  So using shorthand, that's what I meant by "current changing direction each cycle."

The gist of the test is this:  Smudge shows a scope capture at 3.62 MHz showing "negative resistance" with power almost always being returned to the function generator.   So, if you do the one-ohm test inline with your function generator output, will the detected current direction validate that measurement or not?

MileHigh

[partzman]

Partzman,

What wattage rating did you use for the 958R resistor?  If its watt rating was low enough, did you note a temperature rise commensurate with the ca 1.3 watts being measured across it?

PW

PW,

The 958 ohm Rs is a carbon film series combo of an 820 ohm 1/4w and a 150 ohm 1/4w which measure 811 ohms and 147 ohms respectively.  Running a test for say 10 seconds or so produces heat in the resistors (811 primarily) that is painful to touch. Any longer test time produces the familiar "somethings hot" smell! I haven't done a temp measurement with an IR probe so don't have any more to give you at the moment but the power out does appear to be real.

partzman