Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[EMJunkie]

Chris
Its My turn to rest

will you guide me thru an OU replication /Demonstration of your claim tomorrow ??

Chet,

I say this with all honesty and sincerity:

If you had read, and absorbed, what I have been saying for so long now, you would see, that I already have!


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[picowatt]

This is called Back Peadling:

This is not back pedaling at all.  I never said the things about which you claim i am wrong.

Apparently you are hung up on the semantics of the word "predicts", and/or probably are just upset because you chose the wrong scope capture.  When I originally read your answer I just rolled my eyes and moved on (due to your past "episodes", I rarely pay any attention to your posts).  Remember it was you, and your less than pleasant people skills, that goaded me into commenting on the your answer to Tinman's question in the first place, when in actuality, I had no intention of doing so.

TK and Tinman's use of Faraday's law in the most general sense as a way to choose, confirm or, indeed, "predict" which waveform was correct was both elegant and quite simple.

Surely you will agree that with the secondary open circuit, the current measured in the primary very closely represents the magnetic flux produced by the primary (particularly at Tinman's relatively low frequency).  Surely you will also agree that, in general, Faraday states that the induced voltage will be at a maximum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is also at a maximum.  Conversely, the induced voltage will be at a minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is also at a minimum.

Given the information contained in Tinman's schematic, and using only the information in the above paragraph, it is possible to choose, that is, "predict", which of the two scope captures Tinman presented depicts the correct waveform.  As per Faraday, the correct waveform would indicate a minimum of induced voltage at the same period in time when the rate of change of the magnetic flux was also at a minimum (as observed by proxy via the primary current)

TK (and later Tinman) clearly stated this is how they invoked the use of Faraday's law to "predict" which scope capture was correct and even included an annotated capture to further demonstrate this. 

Instead of appreciating the elegance and simplicity of their use of Faraday's law, you went off on TK, called him a liar and proceeded to do another one of your multi-page copy paste episodes.  TK is one of the few remaining here willing to perform replications and accurate measurements.  A little appreciation and respect is very little to ask in exchange.

So yeah, I stand by my earlier statement, you are your own worst enemy.

PW

[MileHigh]

I was luky enough to be whitness to Another Independant Replication Today!!!

Actually it was by someone you will know - I will not name any names however.

The chances of that passing the scrutiny of someone like PW are about zero.

[MagnaProp]

Hey Mags,

yes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWzZqw8eLDU

Just so you know, I have been posting quotes with the references shown in the red box. Its easier.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Thanks for the info. I will pay more attention to where you are posting the references.

I am getting more interested in these coils and what they can do. There appears to be something interesting happening here.

[EMJunkie]

This is not back pedaling at all.  I never said the things about which you claim i am wrong.

Apparently you are hung up on the semantics of the word "predicts", and/or probably are just upset because you chose the wrong scope capture.  When I originally read your answer I just rolled my eyes and moved on (due to your past "episodes", I rarely pay any attention to your posts).  Remember it was you, and your less than pleasant people skills, that goaded me into commenting in the first place, when in actuality I had no intention of doing so.

TK and Tinman's use of Faraday's law in the most general sense as a way to choose, confirm or, indeed, "predict" which waveform was correct was both elegant and quite simple.

Surely you will agree that with the secondary open circuit, the current measured in the primary very closely represents the magnetic flux produced by the primary (particularly at Tinman's relatively low frequency).  Surely you will also agree that, in general, Faraday states that the induced voltage will be at a maximum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is also at a maximum.  Conversely, the induced voltage will be at a minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is also at a minimum.

Given the information contained in Tinman's schematic, and using only the information in the above paragraph, it is possible to choose, that is, "predict", which of the two scope captures Tinman presented depicts the correct waveform.  As per Faraday, the correct waveform would indicate a minimum of induced voltage at the period in time when the rate of change of the magnetic flux was also at a minimum (as observed by proxy via the primary current)

TK (and later Tinman) clearly stated this is how they invoked the use of Faraday's law to "predict" which scope capture was correct and even included an annotated capture to further demonstrate this. 

Instead of appreciating the elegance and simplicity of their use of Faraday's law, you went off on TK, called him a liar and proceeded to do another one of your multi-page copy paste episodes.  TK is one of the few remaining here willing to perform replications and accurate measurements.  A little appreciation and respect is very little to ask in exchange.

So yeah, I stand by my earlier statement, you are your own worst enemy.

PW

And now, from Back Peddling to Denial?

and as the mind races, we have to see this for what it really is: "It wasnt me, it wasnt me, with a big knife in his hand and blood dripping off you"...

Denial!

I am right, you are wrong!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org