Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[picowatt]

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
     

I suspect you are but one of just a very few, if any, reading here that cannot appreciate the simple elegance of TK and Tinman's use of Faraday's Law. 

As for your false claims regarding my statements, from you little else is expected...

[EMJunkie]

I suspect you are but one of just a very few, if any, reading here that cannot appreciate the simple elegance of TK and Tinman's use of Faraday's Law. 

A very Elegant way to say it PW!

   1: Tinman has nothing to do with the debate.
   2: TK is still wrong in his statement:

Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law

   3: You are still very wrong!

EMJ,

You are your own worst enemy...

Perhaps you should go back and read the RT thread again.  I think you will find that my discussions with Tinman were only with regard to ensuring that his measurements were accurate.

Admittedly, once Tinman "pulled the plug" for mostly secretive reasons, a certain amount of "blind faith" or "belief" became necessary to accept those measurements. 

Speaking for myself, I prefer measurements...

PW

PW - You are still wrong.

Faradays Law does not PREDICT an angle of 90 Degrees, nor does it PREDICT Voltage to Current Phase Angles of any kind!!!

Brad, your scope shot shows the expected 90 degree phase difference as predicted by Faraday's Law

Faraday's Law is entirely dependant on, and would not be valid without, the relationship of Electric to Magnetic Fields. You are so wrong!!! and will not admit it!

Electromagnetic waves are actually made up of two types of wave oscillating at 90 degrees to each and both of these also oscillate at 90 degrees to the propagation direction of the wave.

This is a fundamental REQUIREMENT for Electromagnetic Waves to exist!!! Still you will not admit it!!!






Faradays Law does not PREDICT an angle of 90 Degrees, nor does it PREDICT Voltage to Current Phase Angles of any kind!!!

PW, I know youre smarter than this! I can only hope you accept Science and not dogmatic protocol followed by the few here. Fundamental Physical Laws for the Electromagnetic Spectrum can exist without Farady's Law, Farady's Law can not exist with out the Fundamental Physical Laws for the Electromagnetic Spectrum.

I would like to quote again:

Faradays Law does not PREDICT an angle of 90 Degrees, nor does it PREDICT Voltage to Current Phase Angles of any kind!!!

no matter how you put it:

I suspect you are but one of just a very few, if any, reading here that cannot appreciate the simple elegance of TK and Tinman's use of Faraday's Law. 

no matter how much you would like it to, it does not make the statement in question anymore correct than I have already proven it not to be - I am sorry PW, its wrong and you are wrong! This will never change.

By the way, I did apologise to TK, for the simple reason, he was the only one reading my posts properly. PW and a few others were not. I did get a little carried away, and the Posts were mostly deleted by Bill (Moderator). I apologised for my perhaps aggressive approach. TK was and PW is still Wrong,


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

Faradays Law does PREDICT the Sign of 180 Degrees, Anti-Phase, of the E.M.F and the E.M.F itself!!!


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[picowatt]

By the way, I did apologise to TK, for the simple reason, he was the only one reading my posts properly. PW and a few others were not. I did get a little carried away, and the Posts were mostly deleted by Bill (Moderator). I apologised for my perhaps aggressive approach. TK was and PW is still Wrong,

   Chris Sykes

As I said, I rarely pay any attention to your posts.  I don't care for how you interact with people and the tantrums you throw.  That you showed up on Tinman's thread and goaded me was the only reason I responded.  I never bother reading your threads.  That's my personal choice and I certainly feel no need to apologize for that...     

Also, I full well understand what it is you have been saying all along regarding Faraday...

I also do not believe that you originally understood that it was primary current, not voltage, that was being discussed, or you would not have chosen the 180 degree capture.

However, regardless of how many times it has been explained to you, you do not seem to be able to understand how both TK and Tinman used Faraday's law (i.e., induced voltage proportional to rate of change) as they did to predict which of the scope captures was correct.  Both TK and Tinman even annotated a scope capture to show the point of minimum rate of change of the magnetic flux, and how the minimum induced voltage coincided with that point.

Perhaps if you go back to both TK and Tinman's posts and study the annotated scope captures they posted you might finally understand it as well.

Its just very odd how some can read TK's response and think "wow, that was a rather clever and elegant use of Faraday's law" while at the same time someone such as yourself goes off calling TK a liar and states he is wrong. 

Human nature I guess...

PW

[ramset]

Chris
treating people with respect would go a very long way around here.

screaming Liar in a crowded movie theatre may get attention ....
but there are surely better ways to make a point.

especially when you are completely unaware of the circumstances surrounding the Plot.[exactly what happened here].

Yeesh.

as far as our friend Yuri
I hear Buzzing in the Movie ..
and Buzzing in my experiments made the measurements useless when using a KW meter.

if you want to change the world

Be that change

if you just want attention ?
Keep opening random doors at Movie theaters and scream FIRE or walking into groups of men having conversations [which you are unaware of the discussion]
and scream LIAR


you'll definitely get attention ...
---------------------------------------------------

PW post below
PW quote
As I said, I rarely pay any attention to your posts.  I don't care for how you interact with people and the tantrums you throw.  That you showed up on Tinman's thread and goaded me was the only reason I responded.  I never bother reading your threads.  That's my personal choice and I certainly feel no need to apologize for that...     

Also, I full well understand what it is you have been saying all along regarding Faraday...

I also do not believe that you originally understood that it was primary current, not voltage, that was being discussed, or you would not have chosen the 180 degree capture.

However, regardless of how many times it has been explained to you, you do not seem to be able to understand how both TK and Tinman used Faraday's law (i.e., induced voltage proportional to rate of change) as they did to predict which of the scope captures was correct.  Both TK and Tinman even annotated a scope capture to show the point of minimum rate of change of the magnetic flux, and how the minimum induced voltage coincided with that point.

Perhaps if you go back to both TK and Tinman's posts and study the annotated scope captures they posted you might finally understand it as well.

Its just very odd how some can read TK's response and think "wow, that was a rather clever and elegant use of Faraday's law" while at the same time someone such as yourself goes off calling TK a liar and states he is wrong. 

Human nature I guess...

PW