Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[tinman]

It can be demonstrated by simulation and bench tests that a normally operating transformer constructed of a primary 'A' and connected bucking secondaries 'C' and 'D' will exhibit no output across the bucking secondaries with input to the primary under the following conditions:  The secondaries are identical in all their parameters ie turns, dcr, wire size, height and width, and have identical coupling factors and capacitances to the primary.

If output is obtained from two bucking secondaries on a transformer with the primary driven, then one or more of the above parameters is no longer equal and balanced.  The higher the unbalance between parameters, the higher the output. 

Scramble winding secondaries over already somewhat scramble wound primaries on a toroid will produce unbalanced parameters in the bucking secondaries and therefore output.  Winding a pair of bifilar secondaries over a layer wound bobbin style core or precisely placed windings on a toroid will result in reasonably well balanced buck windings that will produce little to no output.

pm

   

I agree PM,and proven via experimentation with my setup.

If we wire the two coils together one way ,we get an output,-but if wired together in the other way,we get no output at all-well in my case anyway,as both secondaries have the exact same amount of turns.
BUT-why no short when wired together to give no output(in series) ?.

I get the same result as Luc showed-in that the same output is had with using just one secondary--no difference in output is seen by joining the 2nd secondary to the first.

But again-why no short when the two secondaries are hooked in series?
If we hook batteries in series on them self,we get a big short-and the same for all other transformers that have two secondaries hooked in series.
There is also no increase in P/in,when the two secondaries are hooked in series 


Brad

[Dog-One]

But again-why no short when the two secondaries are hooked in series?
If we hook batteries in series on them self,we get a big short-and the same for all other transformers that have two secondaries hooked in series.
There is also no increase in P/in,when the two secondaries are hooked in series 

Try that again with two oppositely phased AC sources that DO NOT have a common transformer core and see what happens.  Big short!
The two primaries become completely resistive and start aggressively dissipating power.

That's what I meant by synergy when you have a common core.  Something happens magnetically.  It's like the single core says, "Fine,
you don't want to use this electricity, I'll just send it all back to the source."  When connected this way, the primary becomes completely
reactive as though there are no secondaries wound on it at all.  It's one of those things that leaves you going,  "Hmmmm...."  If we think
for a moment though, we just wound 120 turns on the core in one direction, then wound 120 turns again in the opposite direction; that's
a net zero of turns, so we shouldn't be too surprised the primary sees nothing.  We just stepped down from X number of turns on the
primary to zero turns on the secondary.  So effectively there is no secondary.  Or we could say we have zero voltage with infinite current.
Short that out and we have zero watts.

I have to think these two examples should give us a lot of insight as to what electricity actually is as well as how we define resistance
and inductance, or should I say impedance.


Now having stated all that, suppose we make a slight variation.  We use a pair of C-Cores and we wrap the primary directly over one
of the gaps, then place one secondary on one of the core legs and the other secondary on the other core leg.  If we carefully adjust
the primary placement and the gap width we can have somewhat of a compromise between the two scenarios I just spoke about above.
We're looking for a situation where electrically we have a common core but magnetically we do not.  We want to see the big short but
we want the primary to remain as reactive as possible.  I just stated above we can say there is infinite current.  We want some of that,
mixed with a little in-phase voltage, to get real watts.  We want to do that in a way where there is no possibility of the primary keeping
up due to its resistance (lots of turns of small gauge wire), so that P_out exceeds P_in.

Yes, no, maybe so?

I'm sure Chris has tried hundreds of similar variations like this.  What works and what does not?

[partzman]

I agree PM,and proven via experimentation with my setup.

If we wire the two coils together one way ,we get an output,-but if wired together in the other way,we get no output at all-well in my case anyway,as both secondaries have the exact same amount of turns.
BUT-why no short when wired together to give no output(in series) ?.

I get the same result as Luc showed-in that the same output is had with using just one secondary--no difference in output is seen by joining the 2nd secondary to the first.

But again-why no short when the two secondaries are hooked in series?
If we hook batteries in series on them self,we get a big short-and the same for all other transformers that have two secondaries hooked in series.
There is also no increase in P/in,when the two secondaries are hooked in series 


Brad

Brad,

The easiest way to answer your question is with the circuits attached that show the options for series and parallel connections.  These ideal secondaries are located on a core material with a primary winding (not shown) driven by an AC voltage source.

"A" and "C" are series and parallel connections that need no further explanation. 

"B" is a series buck configuration which has no voltage across RL and no current flow in L1 or L2.

"D" is a parallel buck arrangement which exhibits no voltage across RL but has equal circulating currents in L1 and L2.

IMO, the circuits shown by Wistiti, Luc, and yourself are of the "C" type and will normally always be conservative without the addition of parametric, magneto-dielectric, etc, functions.

The Preva device is type "D" with loads in series with each secondary.  Again, this device is conservative without the above exceptions as I demonstrated in my post #7763.

In review of that post I see that I missed answering posts from Chris and yourself so I'll do so here.  Chris, yes the currents shown in the scope pix are confirmed as they are seen.  Brad, the energy lost in the dcr of the inductors, etc is very small (<1%) compared to the overall output.  As I stated in my correction post #7767, the accurate efficiency of my test ended up at ~92%.

pm

[dieter]

Did anyone ever tried to use the bucking coils as input only and put a third, output coil between them, and then use a cap on one of the two bucking coils to bring it out of phase by 90deg. Maybe the reactive field of the coil to that 90deg out of phase primary would be a further 90 deg off and therefor add to the other primary field of the uncapped bucking coil. Just a thought.

[hyiq]

Try that again with two oppositely phased AC sources that DO NOT have a common transformer core and see what happens.  Big short!
The two primaries become completely resistive and start aggressively dissipating power.

That's what I meant by synergy when you have a common core.  Something happens magnetically.  It's like the single core says, "Fine,
you don't want to use this electricity, I'll just send it all back to the source."  When connected this way, the primary becomes completely
reactive as though there are no secondaries wound on it at all.  It's one of those things that leaves you going,  "Hmmmm...."  If we think
for a moment though, we just wound 120 turns on the core in one direction, then wound 120 turns again in the opposite direction; that's
a net zero of turns, so we shouldn't be too surprised the primary sees nothing.  We just stepped down from X number of turns on the
primary to zero turns on the secondary.  So effectively there is no secondary.  Or we could say we have zero voltage with infinite current.
Short that out and we have zero watts.

I have to think these two examples should give us a lot of insight as to what electricity actually is as well as how we define resistance
and inductance, or should I say impedance.


Now having stated all that, suppose we make a slight variation.  We use a pair of C-Cores and we wrap the primary directly over one
of the gaps, then place one secondary on one of the core legs and the other secondary on the other core leg.  If we carefully adjust
the primary placement and the gap width we can have somewhat of a compromise between the two scenarios I just spoke about above.
We're looking for a situation where electrically we have a common core but magnetically we do not.  We want to see the big short but
we want the primary to remain as reactive as possible.  I just stated above we can say there is infinite current.  We want some of that,
mixed with a little in-phase voltage, to get real watts.  We want to do that in a way where there is no possibility of the primary keeping
up due to its resistance (lots of turns of small gauge wire), so that P_out exceeds P_in.

Yes, no, maybe so?

I'm sure Chris has tried hundreds of similar variations like this.  What works and what does not?

Hey Dog-One,

I have been exactly where your thought processes are right now. I was sitting, studying, and it was afternoon, and the sun was shinning in on me... I had a Flash of insight...

Imagine the Core that contains the Flux (B) inside the Core, and Outside the Core we have the Magnetic A Vector Potential, but only if the Magnetic Field is changing in Time, now a single Coil on the Core see's no Action/Reaction if the Magnetic Field is not changing in Time, thus we have no Magnetic A Vector Potential, this is Zero State.

Note: The Magnetic A Vector Potential have a Curl, or a Spin to it.

Now if the Magnetic A Vector Potential is moved forward the Curl or Spin has a net positive Force on the Singular Coil, creating a movement of Electrons in the opposite direction if Loaded, but that's not all!!!

There is a Polarisation, where the Aligning Magnetic Moments of the Atoms and all charged particles inside the Copper wire are all moving into alignment with the applied Fields. Much like a Spinning Top aligns itself with the Axis of Rotation, Charged Particles Align with the Applied Field. This is super important and will be the basis for all Gravity Manipulation devices in the Future - The Lens Thirring or the Protational Field. More than a Singular Polarisation will be needed however!

The opposite is also true, if the Magnetic A Vector Potential is moved Backward, then the Atoms Align in the Opposite direction, Electrons move in the other direction, opposing the Change. This is the BH Curve, or Hysteresis.

By Introducing Two Coils, Partnered Output Coils, each wound in opposing directions (CW and CCW respectively), we see the phasing of the Coils is the same, but all the effects mentioned above are, Polarisation, and the effects of this polarisation are forced out. They are not Zero, or Null, they, the very movement of Mass, creates its own Field!!!


Do you know what this Field is called?

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org