I was working with LaserHacker circuit as most have for at the moment it is the closest we have been but a side issue. I wound a bi-filler bode coil and found a new way to drive it with a 300% reduction in power use. It is wound just like his but over steel welding rods instead of ferrite cores. http://xenophed.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/free-energy/ (http://xenophed.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/free-energy/) this describes the set up and after it is reviewed I will release more but here is a video http://youtu.be/ukuMi6JjWa0 (http://youtu.be/ukuMi6JjWa0) on youtube. All I will say is there is a lot more to come but I welcome all to try this simple circuit and reply
Here is a correct schematic
I think this one blew right by everyone. xenophed has a circuit here that is likely getting MORE POWER OUT THAN INPUT by the battery. He didn't claim this here but on his blog and on laserhacker's site it is more clear how BIG this may actually be. I plan on giving this a try and think others would also if they had seen his write up on his blog and laserhacker.com.
This is a very unique bifilar or trifilar setup with info gleaned from Tesla as well as lasersaber.
Hello again,
I often sit back and watch people and events play out as it is the best way to learn,play the sponge so to speak. My initial results blew my mind and it was at that point I knew I had to investigate this. What I have found is that by driving the bifilar coils out of sync so to speak it levels the current in the two coils (primary and secondary. It does achieve over unity in a since that the output voltage is NOT important so if we say apply 12 volts @ 1 amp. on the input and make the secondary 10X then we go from 12 watts to about 110 giving that it still leaves about .07% loss instead of the .87% we currently have. I will help everyone out a little more by saying that ANY BIFILAR COIL will work on the primary side.as long as we drive them out of phase with each other. Also I do have another circuit that the emitters of the transistors are tied to the respected power inputs, It starts up easier. Please understand people that I broke my neck a few years ago and have very bad tremors and no income so I have accomplish all of this using part out of old discarded electronics. I know with my personal readings that it produces about a good gain at higher voltages say 120 ~ 1K volts. Remember the core or the coil is not the real secret but the coil driver circuit is. Hope this helps everyone and I will reply to all emails.
Sounds amazing. I guess somebody soon's gonna say naay... I like the simple and elegant design. Would be nice to get details. tetrafilar coils, all in parallel? How about a parts list hehe.
I wonder what happens here. Seems like the current and voltage is wiped up to a max, two standing waves. Normally such resonance is used in RF, not in Transformers. What if the stress of alternating resonance releases energy "out of space"?
I take it you're not kidding us, so if your measurement is correct then this is the breaktrough everybody is waiting for.
300% , did you test this with a real load? What is the output anyway, an upfold sawthooth?
Did you think about to self-supply it.
Thanks for sharing.
PS. What is L1 and L 2, Both seperate coils with 2x bifilar wire and their own core, or are they the 2x Bifilars of one coil??
Unfortunately there is nothing here. E2matrix you amaze me because you must have been "here" 50 times or more and you keep on believing without really taking a realistic appraisal of the overall situation. Xenophed you seem like a nice guy but you are also clearly a beginner. You are not observing a one-wire power transfer to light up the LEDs. There is stray "invisible" capacitance in the air and between the stray capacitance in the air and the ground underneath your breadboard a high-frequency AC signal can propagate through the main physical wire and an "invisible second wire." So between your single wire and an "invisible" second wire you can transfer power into your circuit and light up the LEDs. It is all 100% normal and expected.
Likewise, your circuit using the tri-filar transformer and the transistors is not an over unity circuit. Careful measurements would clearly show that. Do you have an oscilloscope?
So no breakthrough. If you are wise, in cases like this you take a step back and the first thing you should be thinking about is a way to take a second and different measurement to see if you can corroborate your first measurement. If you work hard at this and undertake to learn more about electronics eventually it will all start to make sense.
MileHigh
No scope and I have been studying electronics since the 1960 and yes I have attached a 45 watt incandescent light bulb to the output coil with the laserhacker joule thief circuit it pulled 2.74 amps and with the new driver about .7 ~ .8 amps both time a 105 v ac reading on the meter. I would note those current readings are the input current not output current. I would also note that I tuned the resonance of the dual input coils by placing capacitors accost them at about .047uf. In a final note I will have a new video in a few and the discussion will be over at that point. You guys need to understand that the russians in all their videos or anyone it is about resonance and phase shift on the input. But when I hit the lotto I will make sure that I buy a lecroy Oscope to seed nice pictures to all not that it will prove any other than I*E=watts.You would note the part about me being severally disabled and can not hardly hold a pencil. In a couple of weeks when I get some components in I will post the proof of concept video. Peace and love to all
Quote from: xenophed on December 19, 2013, 03:55:09 PM
Here is a correct schematic
Hey Xen
The coil and transistor below the battery. What is happening there? It looks like more circuitry than Lasersaber used.
Interesting ;)
Mags
Think of it this way dual laserhacker coils drivers only we use different transistors so that when one turns off the other turns on the other coil. To get the lowest current draw apply .1~.01 uf capacitors across each coil.
xenophed, thanks for your replies. Don't worry about MileHigh since he just automatically assumes everything is a measurement error or that everyone is too dumb to build anything that works. He may have some points about the LED's but I believe you are on to something very good here. When I looked at the circuit with the LED's I assumed it was a sort of Avramenko plug that was getting power to them from fairly high frequency input. That in itself would not be too big of a thing and one wire power has been shown by others. But lighting an incandescent is very impressive so I'm rooting for you to show MileHigh a thing or two ;) I don't have any ready access to welding rods but next time I get near town I'll pick some up to try this. I am also working on an idea with some other metal that I might put together something similar to give this a try in the mean time.
Even an air core would produce good results ( not great ) but good OU provable with a stock meter. I built one with a loopstick ferit for a core really small used 2n4401 and 2n4403 for the drivers and again tuned with capacitors across the primary coils ( wound side by side on primary #24 solid bell wire and single wound # 30 or so magnet wire on secondary). If one person build it and agrees I will show the last part of the circuit.
xenophed, e2matrix...
What exactly are your definitions of "OU" or overunity, in an electrical circuit? How is it manifested, what kind of measurements are needed to show it unequivocally?
OU is a very loosely used term and I don't believe there is such a thing as real overunity. BUT there are situations where one gets more power out of a device than one puts into it with the extra power coming from unseen or lesser understood sources. If something is truly getting more power out than one puts in from a known source then it can be readily proven by some method of looping the device to power itself as long as it's getting 2 or 3 times more power out than you put in. That would be the ultimate best proof. I will admit measurement methods can get complicated but if something is really tapping unseen power than it will become obvious after a point with even average measurement methods. Best situation though of course is looping and IMO a high efficiency DC to DC converter (which can be had cheap) running off an output feeding back to a battery or cap bank will nail down the proof. If it doesn't have enough to loop than it is more of a novelty than real world usable.
As far as how the extra power is manifested I could care less as long as it can do work. But as xenophed said and as it seems to be a big part of most 'free energy' work RESONANCE is key as well as phase relationships of voltage to current. But unlike some people here I'm not here for the sake of discussion. If I think something is of interest I'll build it and if nothing comes of it other than a bit of learning that's okay. What I will NOT do though is ASS-U-ME something cannot work based on any traditional brainwashing - OOPs I mean text book theory or 'laws'. I find the way his coil is built to be unique enough to build this just to check out how that acts.
Have you looked at how this coil is built on his blog? Similar but I don't believe identical to a coil Lasersaber made that was getting some very long running effects with very little power input. I need to refresh my memory on that .... back in a few
Xenophed:
Looking forward to see the results of your next test but without a scope you are unfortunately severely hampered. This whole thing could be due to the waveform being spiky and throwing off your multimeter.
E2matrix:
I suppose I wish the collective group of experimenters as a whole would put certain ideas and preconceptions in the "no good" basket. Of course new people come along all the time which makes that ideal impossible to achieve. In the final analysis I am all for people investigating their own circuits. But how many times can you play with a transformer circuit looking for over unity and come up empty handed before you decide that you can put the while concept in a generic sense in the "no good" basket? That's the "gap" that doesn't seem to get closed very often.
MileHigh
Thanks for your concern MileHigh but I think there are probably a nearly infinite amount of variations on just a 'transformer concept' alone so I'm all for trying some new things. I'm still amazed by the simple setup where I can power an LED by putting a wire on each end of a screwdriver which is put through a copper tube with a single cut along the side and that tube surrounded by some ferrite. Small amount of AC power applied on opposite sides of the split in the copper tube (but it is still all one piece). When you get the right frequency it really lights up. There is nothing I need to buy to try xenophed's setup except welding rods (if my other idea doesn't work) so no big loss here.
I agree and apologize I know that the world has spent 100+ years looking for what someone else already done that whole relearning thing is old. Dr. Tesla did leave bread crumbs and they all pointed to Tariel Kapanadze where he achieved OU and others but they all have one thing in common driving the coil out of phase at resonance. That is all I have done but without the spark gaps. To tell you the truth I did nothing new just relearned what was already been done.
That's great that you have done this without spark gaps as I think spark gaps tend to generate some harmful stuff unless they are very well shielded. BTW xenophed do you know if those welding rods have Thorium in them? For the time being I'm looking at winding some unknown and rather strange metal (I have some idea or hope that it may be high perm material like what is used for Metglas cores) around some copper tubing for a start on this (until I get some welding rods if this doesn't work). I don't know where this metal sort of tape came from or how I came about it but it is shiny on one side and dull on the other side, about 1" wide and very sharp (easy to cut yourself on the edges), very strong and is strongly attracted by a magnet. It does not have any stickiness to it so it's not something that was used as a tape. If anyone has any ideas what it is please let me know. Pics below (one with camera flash and one without) :
Quote from: e2matrix on February 10, 2014, 11:44:42 PM
Thanks for your concern MileHigh but I think there are probably a nearly infinite amount of variations on just a 'transformer concept' alone so I'm all for trying some new things. I'm still amazed by the simple setup where I can power an LED by putting a wire on each end of a screwdriver which is put through a copper tube with a single cut along the side and that tube surrounded by some ferrite. Small amount of AC power applied on opposite sides of the split in the copper tube (but it is still all one piece). When you get the right frequency it really lights up. There is nothing I need to buy to try xenophed's setup except welding rods (if my other idea doesn't work) so no big loss here.
That's a transformer, a primary is one piece and a secondary is one piece. The spit copper tube is the primary and the screwdriver the secondary.
.
Quote from: xenophed on February 10, 2014, 11:45:11 PM
I agree and apologize I know that the world has spent 100+ years looking for what someone else already done that whole relearning thing is old. Dr. Tesla did leave bread crumbs and they all pointed to Tariel Kapanadze where he achieved OU and others but they all have one thing in common driving the coil out of phase at resonance. That is all I have done but without the spark gaps. To tell you the truth I did nothing new just relearned what was already been done.
So you are saying for sure you know Tariel is not a faker and he has achieved OU. And yet not one successful replication that has not been shown to be faked, not that I know of anyway.
On wire power transmission with a natural medium return is nothing special. Nor is it OU. But if you can show it to be OU I may well believe it.
Two Receivers and Armstrong Oscillator Transmitter. Easy as eating pie. Notice the continuous sine wave output. No spikes. THe scope is not directly connected to the device the waveform is picked up by the probe remotely so the voltage shown means nothing , only the wave form is what I needed to see to tune it well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJd8TNC75AI
Up to 150 volts in the primary tank and a whole bunch of current there as well. Many watts in the tank. At 3:00 mins in and near the end of the video I scope the primary coil of the transmitter.
..
P.S. If I was to build one 15 meters across the secondary, the oscillating power would be enormous.
..
Why I think this circuit has merit.
We are starting to see what these circuits have in common.
I would be curious to see if placing a diode here would help, or hinder. There may be more here than meets the eye.
He is using bipolar transistors, right.
It wasn't about one wire transmission being something special, just the lack of a 2nd pole of the output.
What you (naysayers) quickly seem to miss is, that we have certain conditions here that are far from conventional thinking: a flipflop that utilizes the bemf to be added to an alternating resonance, causing high stresses when the standing waves collapse and recombine mirrored in a speed that's forced by an easy driver induction, resulting in pseudo AC that is forced into that one wire (where some capacity must exist, most likely in C 1 and C2).
Interesting that other people had similar things experienced, with resonant coils at electrical power levels
Please give some specific details, I believe many people would immediately help you to verify this by replication.
Again the coils, one of you, please specify, I read in the blog they are trifilar, later it says 8 wireends... wtf.
I also don't see how the 6 or 8 ends are connected in the cirquit since on the diagram each coil has only 2 ends.
Size of the coils, wire diameter, number of turns, diameter of core. Capacity of C, just roughly the dimension, and what L3 exactly is.
I had some time to test and confirm this, but I won't start without specfic details.
I have no pair of pnp and npns around (and had to drive 2 hours to buy some), but I've got a pair of lm741 op amps, silly question, could I use them instead?
And is there a link to that sparkgap version? I have a 3vdc>1500vdc stepup element from a mosquito killer, so I could do some tests without the transistors.
How would such a sparkgap flipflop look?
Anyhow, back to the topic.
Im sorry xenophed for altering your schematic Im just wondering if Q2 is even needed with the diode in the circuit.
Gonna have to build it to find out I guess.
Thank you
dave
Not the same the secondary coil you attach the two inside wires together bifilar coil 50X greater potential. leaves 4 wires on two primary coils when we charge first coil it induces a opposite field in second (by means of induction) the transistor is then switched off and the other tuned on I do not fight the collapse BUT amplify it the hookup on this coil MUST BE OPPOSITE the first this can be checked by applying power one way you will drop 100~150% power use no load maybe this print will make it easier to understand
Im sorry I do not understand, your saying bifilar but I see no bifilar in your schematic, do you mean like this?
I note that people are expressing the same old themes about resonance and attributing something special to it. It's a mistake and that mistake has been proven over and over right on this forum. Then you have the belief that somehow this circuit is "unconventional" when again, this is not true. Nor are there any standing waves, that's just another buzz word that people throw around. Thinking that the core material makes a difference and is part of the "recipe" for over unity is also a mistake.
In looking at this circuit it appears that Q1 and Q2 and the L and C components around them form an oscillator that is powered by the battery. L3 simply taps into the output of that oscillator and drives a load.
That's all there is to it. If you measure properly you will not find any over unity.
Beyond that, what people really should do in cases like this is probe the circuit with an oscilloscope and construct a timing diagram that shows all of the voltages and currents in the circuit. Then you undertake to understand how each and every signal interacts such that you understand exactly how the oscillator works.
I put it in bold because nobody ever does it but it must be done if you truly want to understand what is going in. You just need a pencil and some graph paper and do it by hand if need be. You do that and all the old cliches and buzz words will fall by the wayside and you will truly understand how the oscillator is working. If nobody does that you can end up spinning your wheels for months and months and get nowhere fast. That's what has been going on on the various Tariel threads for years.
MileHigh
Think of it this way if I take two buckets and fill one with water and raise it above the other then the results would be that the water would drain into the other bucket. Now let us say that before the source bucket is empty we raise the other it would reverse and become the source bucket. The work performed is the raising of the bucket the result would be the constant flow of water. We can do the same with the coils by charging one we build a field in both but once we stop charging it the field reverses and we do not fight this we amplify it we let the other collapsing coil do the work of building the field in the second with a little help from the transistor BUT this only works at resonance of the primary coils hence why they must use larger gauge wire( lower resonance frequency ) it really is that simple to understand the field will be about 80%~90% greater thus greater induction into the secondary windings. I induce more current from the primaries to the secondary by phase shifting by 180 degrees the two primary coils where the one collapses the collapse is the charge direction of the other primary coil (as a side note the two coils have a capacitance that can be read with a lcr meter)
Quote from: MileHigh on February 11, 2014, 08:12:12 AM
I note that people are expressing the same old themes about resonance and attributing something special to it. It's a mistake and that mistake has been proven over and over right on this forum. Then you have the belief that somehow this circuit is "unconventional" when again, this is not true. Nor are there any standing waves, that's just another buzz word that people throw around. Thinking that the core material makes a difference and is part of the "recipe" for over unity is also a mistake.
In looking at this circuit it appears that Q1 and Q2 and the L and C components around them form an oscillator that is powered by the battery. L3 simply taps into the output of that oscillator and drives a load.
That's all there is to it. If you measure properly you will not find any over unity.
Beyond that, what people really should do in cases like this is probe the circuit with an oscilloscope and construct a timing diagram that shows all of the voltages and currents in the circuit. Then you undertake to understand how each and every signal interacts such that you understand exactly how the oscillator works.
I put it in bold because nobody ever does it but it must be done if you truly want to understand what is going in. You just need a pencil and some graph paper and do it by hand if need be. You do that and all the old cliches and buzz words will fall by the wayside and you will truly understand how the oscillator is working. If nobody does that you can end up spinning your wheels for months and months and get nowhere fast. That's what has been going on on the various Tariel threads for years.
MileHigh
Maybe if you build it you can show us Pin and Pout, if not your just blowin smoke.
Someone who has not built the circuit and tested it for himself is not anymore believable than the one that has built the circuit and says there's more out than in.
If two or more build the circuit then we have confirmation one way or the other, but just going from thread to thread knocking every circuit they see and not building anything in my opinion is trolling.
Xenophed:
QuoteThink of it this way if I take two buckets and fill one with water and raise it above the other then the results would be that the water would drain into the other bucket. Now let us say that before the source bucket is empty we raise the other it would reverse and become the source bucket. The work performed is the raising of the bucket the result would be the constant flow of water. We can do the same with the coils by charging one we build a field in both but once we stop charging it the field reverses and we do not fight this we amplify it we let the other collapsing coil do the work of building the field in the second with a little help from the transistor BUT this only works at resonance of the primary coils hence why they must use larger gauge wire( lower resonance frequency ) it really is that simple to understand the field will be about 80%~90% greater thus greater induction into the secondary windings. I induce more current from the primaries to the secondary by phase shifting by 180 degrees the two primary coils where the one collapses the collapse is the charge direction of the other primary coil (as a side note the two coils have a capacitance that can be read with a lcr meter)
If you believe that you have a handle on what's going on in the circuit then please draw out a timing diagram for it and post it for people to have a look at. Please show how the phase shift works. Add traces for the amount of energy in each coil or whatever you want to do to explain how your circuit works.
Dave45:
It's not up to me to show Pin and Pout, the burden of proof for those things rests with Xenophed. All that you have to do is look at the track record for previous circuits that are quite similar on this very forum to see a pattern. They always end up not working as claimed even through the person making the claim can be totally sincere.
What is unfortunate is that people refuse to stand back and take a "meta view" for cases like this. That view is that no matter what your circuit is based on any combination of resistors, transistors, coils, capacitors and transformers, you will never get more energy out than in because each individual component cannot give you more energy out than in and combining them together is not going to extract some "unknown energy source." It might be a bitter pill to swallow but that doesn't necessarily mean that you can't look elsewhere for over unity or you can't play with circuits just for the fun of it.
These kinds of circuits are a dead end. Please don't shoot the messenger. If you believe otherwise, then go for it. Constructing a timing diagram for these types of circuits is of paramount importance. The verbal descriptions simply don't cut it and are ultimately form a kind of "communication fog" where people talk past each other in vague generalizations and both parties agree that they are saying something valid when it's not the case. If you believe that you understand how a circuit works then draw out the timing diagram on paper for real, and then see if you can verify it with your scope.
MileHigh
maybe this will help
Quote from: xenophed on February 11, 2014, 07:34:50 AM
Not the same the secondary coil you attach the two inside wires together bifilar coil 50X greater potential. leaves 4 wires on two primary coils when we charge first coil it induces a opposite field in second (by means of induction) the transistor is then switched off and the other tuned on I do not fight the collapse BUT amplify it the hookup on this coil MUST BE OPPOSITE the first this can be checked by applying power one way you will drop 100~150% power use no load maybe this print will make it easier to understand
Sounds like a simple inverter to me, switch one primary one way then switch the other primary the other way, the output is AC from the other winding/s. That is old hat.
As Milehigh said. Can you show us a wave form diagram please ? If it is different to how I described. And some in out figures, the out figures should be easy if you have a DMM that can handle the frequency or a two channel scope.
Cheers
Quote from: dieter on February 11, 2014, 06:03:08 AM
It wasn't about one wire transmission being something special, just the lack of a 2nd pole of the output.
What you (naysayers) quickly seem to miss is, that we have certain conditions here that are far from conventional thinking: a flipflop that utilizes the bemf to be added to an alternating resonance, causing high stresses when the standing waves collapse and recombine mirrored in a speed that's forced by an easy driver induction, resulting in pseudo AC that is forced into that one wire (where some capacity must exist, most likely in C 1 and C2).
Interesting that other people had similar things experienced, with resonant coils at electrical power levels
Please give some specific details, I believe many people would immediately help you to verify this by replication.
Again the coils, one of you, please specify, I read in the blog they are trifilar, later it says 8 wireends... wtf.
I also don't see how the 6 or 8 ends are connected in the cirquit since on the diagram each coil has only 2 ends.
Size of the coils, wire diameter, number of turns, diameter of core. Capacity of C, just roughly the dimension, and what L3 exactly is.
I had some time to test and confirm this, but I won't start without specfic details.
I have no pair of pnp and npns around (and had to drive 2 hours to buy some), but I've got a pair of lm741 op amps, silly question, could I use them instead?
And is there a link to that sparkgap version? I have a 3vdc>1500vdc stepup element from a mosquito killer, so I could do some tests without the transistors.
How would such a sparkgap flipflop look?
Anyhow, back to the topic.
Oh well in that case have a look at these. The output voltage of that transformer can be as high as 860 volts at resonance with all the secondaries in series. The way it was wired in the video it was producing about 400 volts or so with only half of the secondaries in use. About 24 kHz or so. That transformer has a total of 12 windings on it. The transformer has two primaries consisting of four windings in each, so eight windings for the primaries and the two opposite secondaries are in series which is half the secondaries, there is a second output the same..
At about 3:50 into the video I switch to 24 Khz for the one wire "natural medium return" lighting effects.
I also get a shock from the active line output, so if you want to see an opinion sayer get a shock and have a laugh at me it's there. Lucky it was 24 kHz, When it's at 50/60 Hz I would be much more careful. Or I would be seriously injured or dead.
One wire lighting effects from regular transformer-converter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uGj7uQOOMA
One wire power draw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXE7z6UAYSw
Cheers
P.S. With all the secondaries in parallel the transformer can output several hundred Watts AC, it is powered by a 12 volt battery.
By the way the naysayer stuff is factually incorrect. More like opinion sayers. Most of the time it is "correct opinion sayers".
Edited to correct the voltage of the outputs. And applied frequency. THe experiment was some time ago and I had to watch the video myself to get the voltage and frequency correct.
..
And is there a link to that sparkgap version? I have a 3vdc>1500vdc stepup element from a mosquito killer, so I could do some tests without the transistors.
How would such a sparkgap flipflop look?
Anyhow, back to the topic.
My flyswatter on a flyback via spark gap lights 40 w of 8 5pcs led lamps in parallel with 6 250 v ac mylar caps :)
Xenophed:
Sorry, but what you attached was not a timing diagram. You have to identify the nodes or current branches in your circuit and show the voltages and/or currents and make it real. I have attached some simple timing diagrams that I found online. If you had a scope you could investigate your circuit and do the same.
In my opinion your description of how your circuit runs is just a guess. It's an oscillator with a feedback mechanism to sustain the oscillation. There is no resonance at play, rather it has an operating frequency that is determined by the component values. There is a huge difference between an operating frequency and resonance. For example, a joule thief circuit does not exhibit resonance, nor does a 555 timer circuit exhibit resonance. Also, like I stated before, there is no magic associated with resonance. Your description of how your circuit runs is vague at best and it is not credible. You need a scope to figure out how it actually works and to make a real-world timing diagram. Then you have to understand what the timing diagram is showing you so that you can understand the mechanism for the oscillation.
In the end, you still have what I said before: You have a two-transistor oscillator that will cause an AC flux to flow in the transformer core. The third winding drives a load. The value of the load resistance will determine how much AC power you extract from the changing flux in the transformer core. The more AC power that you extract from the changing flux in the transformer core, the more of a drain you put on the oscillator circuit. That increased drain on the oscillator circuit will result in the oscillator circuit drawing more power from the battery.
If you can make good measurements you will be able to determine how much power is drawn from the battery and how much power is transferred into the load resistor. The power burnt off in the load resistor will be less than the power that is drawn from the battery. The difference between the two is the measurement for how much power is burnt off in the oscillator circuit itself as waste heat.
MileHigh
In stumbling around some other ideas today I came across this info which Floyd "Sparky" Sweet (well known for his Vacuum Triode Amplifier) was studying and was likely a part of his fascinating creation. The statement ""An alternate explanation for the current gain in the UDT is to consider each secondary winding as acting as the primary winding for the other secondary winding when an output current is drawn because the two secondary windings generate geometrically opposing fields." The UDT as describe here: http://www.hyiq.org/Research/Details?Name=A%20Free-Energy%20Device provides more power out than is consumed at input. Perhaps something similar is happening here with xenophed's coil and circuit.
Also of interest is that today the news update from HyIQ is he believes he has cracked the riddle of Floyd Sweet's VTA. See www.hyiq.org
From HyIQ's video showing this effect: ""On rare occasions, Sweet saw this effect, called self-oscillation, occur in electric transformers"
and
"Sweet was also a transformer designer and expert, and he remarked that he had also observed specialized self-oscillation in certain transformers. "
I show the importance of knowing and understanding the A Vector Potential and how simple it is to create a self assisted oscillation. This set of shorted Self Assisted Oscillating Coils. This can be improved hugely and is possible to be made to self run with this technology. Nikola Tesla, Floyd Sweet, Lester Hendershot, Edd Leedskalnin and Daniel McFarland Cook all knew about this technology. They all used it in various ways to improve their devices...."
xenophed - thanks a lot for the details. That new diagram makes sense. Have to improvise on the wire, copper became really expensive.
So, I'm AFK for some tests...
It is "capacitive flame". It is tethered to ether itself, but still reqire power to glow. One wire glow is shown on neon lamp in upper post. I decided to use blitz lamp from disposable camera, so effect cann be beter seen trough clear glass.
http://youtu.be/Kvr2mgCJX_8
Other end is not connected and no glow(flame) there.
Source of ac is zvs driver
Quote from: e2matrix on February 11, 2014, 04:55:18 PM
In stumbling around some other ideas today I came across this info which Floyd "Sparky" Sweet (well known for his Vacuum Triode Amplifier) was studying and was likely a part of his fascinating creation. The statement ""An alternate explanation for the current gain in the UDT is to consider each secondary winding as acting as the primary winding for the other secondary winding when an output current is drawn because the two secondary windings generate geometrically opposing fields." The UDT as describe here: http://www.hyiq.org/Research/Details?Name=A%20Free-Energy%20Device provides more power out than is consumed at input. Perhaps something similar is happening here with xenophed's coil and circuit.
Also of interest is that today the news update from HyIQ is he believes he has cracked the riddle of Floyd Sweet's VTA. See www.hyiq.org
Video below demonstrating the device shows different to the statement I made bold text above.
Input is 1.2 Amperes at 12.6 volts = 15.12 Watts input, output = maybe 2 watts (not fully lit 2 Watt bulb). Which is about 13% efficient. How does anyone come to the conclusion it is even efficient not to mention say it gives more out than in ? UDT device video test from 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJsVSMQqCOM
Please explain.
For the 15 Watts input it should be able to light up at least 4 of those globes to full brightness (3 Watt each x 4) with 12 Watts output, but it cannot even light up one to full brightness less than 3 Watts, looks like less than 3 Watts.
..
Farmhand, Chris (the person that has the hyiq.org web site) seems like a very sharp guy to me. He states on his web page : " I think it is important to note that this type of device is more than real, I have shown that it can work. Click Here to see my video. "
Floyd Sweet describes this same action as is described above: "If the directions of the two signals are such that opposite H-fields cancel and E-fields add, an apparently steady E-field will be created" "I watched his video too but I am not sure how to interpret it - I was taking his word for it. So who am I to believe? I'll watch it again later or maybe ask him for an explanation. From what I've seen the past couple years Chris does very good and thorough research. I think he will be better to ask for an explanation.
I took another quick look at the video. Firstly we don't know the efficiency of the big amplifier. It looks like a car audio amp so if we are lucky maybe 50% efficient. Secondly it does not seem he is trying to show efficiency whatsoever in that video but rather is simply demonstrating that the shorted coil setup causes a self oscillation which results in the light getting brighter. It appears he is not showing the UDT but rather just one basic concept involved in how the UDT works.
xenophed - I did some experimenting, although I am not an expert and my equipment is even more limited than yours. It seems like I'm doing something wrong...
I built the driver as shown in the newer diagram, used BD242C and BD241C as the Qs, they handle up to 40 Watts under ideal cooling conditions. I tried various caps from 1 to 200 pF. Source is a 12vdc supply for up to 15 Watts, for 250vac@50Hz. The supply delivers 20Vac witbout any load. What is weird is, my Wattmeter, similar like those killawatt thingies, says the supply consumes 9.04W, without a load! Fishy...
Anyway, when I connect the 20vdc to the driver cirquit, it reads 30 Watts and gets hot quickly, starts to smell. At the secondary coil I get about 2.6 vac at 0.33 A, about 0.9 Watt. When I swap the ends of one of the primaries, voltage on 2nd drops to near zero, so it was ok before.
The Coil is (metric here, sorry) made of a 2.5 mm welding rods bundle about10mm diameter, one layer bifilar enameled copperwire as the primary pair, probably 1.2mm, and ontop of that in series 3 times the lenght of one primary is the secoandary, about 0.3mm wire. This goes over almost the full lenght of the 350mm welding rods.
Windings are a lil imperfect due to the recycled wire and impatience. The Coil is straight, where yours seem to be torroid/donut shaped in the video. Did you bend the welding rods ? Didn't they crumble? Also, i didn't use a copper pipe as the heart of the core, nor did i use a pvc pipe between core and coil, as somebody said the core can be anything.
Attaching the leg of C2 to the secondary didn't make a diffrence. Using a headphone as the load revealed a hum of maybe 100 to 200 hz. Using diffrent Cs does not alter the freq. but rather the presence of subtile harmonics of it.
Disconnecting one of the primaries did not weaken the hum! Disconnecting both did. Reversing ones polarity also did.
It seems to me, my cirquit doesn't work as it's supposed to be. Most headscratching: swapping the npn vs pnp had no impact eighter, same hum as before.
Have to say, because of the supply, being almost shortened and getting hot, I added a 10 Watt 15 Ohm resistor between + and the cirquit. This gave me 2 vdc for the driver, although maybe not enough to run the Qs, the cirquit worked like before, just with a lesser loud hum. This way, consumption went from 9.04 to 11.3. Funny thing, when I added a LED between + and the 10w R, consumption remained at 9.04W, even with the same 2 Watt cirquit active and the Resistor remained cold. There's definitely something wrong with these Wattmeters, when I connected only a series of 3 Leds (each 100mA) and the Resistor, the meter remained at 9.04W, as if there was nothing at all, except the wasteful supply.
On the diagram it looks so simple, but in fact, there are still many questions, like eg. where exactly is the oscillation freq. caused, probably by the mains grids 50 hz???
I will probably try to run this with a sparkgap, since that allows to tune it in a much easier way. I however have yet to find the cause for this driver being able to run "one-handed". There doesn't seem to be such wiping resonance, as it was described. Any thoughts?
Slightly off topic, do you think this would work as the driver? Phase shift not yet added tho:
(EDIT: BTW. when powered by a single source, then 4 Diodes are required, to the caps. Also: 2 additional Diodes may be needed between opposing electrodes of the two Cs, in the same direction as the other two)
WARNING ... This device can kill you even when it is no more connected to the power source!
You have to shorten both Caps before you touch it!
Xenothep, would be nice to get some feedback. I see when you use a sparkgap between two steel discs, the lights get real bright, was that still at 12 Watt, as v*a at the source indicated? may the sparks add "something" to it?
Due to the simplicity, I've made some tests with that sparkgap idea. Results are rather chaotic, but it works. normal diodes may be fried even although supply voltage is below 1kW, backEmf may be high spikes, maybe 2 to 4 kV . Use HV Diodes, eg. made of series of 1kV Diodes. Or, since this is stoneages tech, use a glass of water with an oxidized alu stripe as Diode 8) ...
Test was ok, 900 Vdc from a 1.5V battery, nice flipfllop sparking, then I reversed one of the bifilars, one strong spark an that was it for the diode.
Have to say, stereo sparkplug timing is hard to adjust, specially in the 500 V range. Thinking about a one gap solution, but not just an on-off sawthooth.
Will build this more precisely, meanwhile trying to find out what's wrong with my implementation of the transistor driver...
dieter, sounds like you've changed a couple possibly important facets of this device. It might be best if you could use the same transistors that zenophed suggested. Also I believe you said you don't have a copper pipe in the middle. A 1/2" copper pipe can be purchased for very little from a plumbing supply if they will cut you a one or two foot chunk ... they might even give it to you if you explain what it's being used for (free energy research). Thanks for continuing this work and posting your results. I'm still planning on getting to this but have a hard time getting to winding coils (coilaphobia ? :D ).
I agree, whenever possible we should stick to the plan. Here I had to improvise. I didn't see any Transistors mentioned, but these are pretty standard npn and pnp ones. I definitely connected them as seen in the 2nd diagram, based on their datasheets, I also had no specs on the Caps. The copper core seems just like a holder for a ring of steel rods that are coated noncontuctively, to reduce eddy currents and yet obtain high impendance. A 2" coil with no copper pipe might be too much iron to saturate, hence the pipe. My problem was, I had just a few meters of wire, and by guessimation I chose a rather smal diameter about 1/2 inch. Actually I still can remove some rods and put some sort of pipe into its center. That might be an optimation.
But the Problem is, I don't see the cirquit doing what is it supposed to do. Basicly it should output an alternating squarewave to the bifilar primary. The bifilars are connected in opposition, so the "stereo" signal creates AC on the secondary. As the signal stops on a primary, it will throw back the back electromagnetic pulse bemf, that has a voltage that mainly depends on the ability of the coil to quickly unload. This spike may be several times the voltage of the original signal. It will run in parallel with the next original signal on the other primary and increase the voltage on the secondary, while still maintainige the current of the original signal.
Bifilar rocks. Ordinary Transformers don't do that afaik.
I also think about to add a ring of welding rods on the outside of the coil, this should double the impendance and inductivity, I guess.
Little update. In this thread 3 circuits are presented, I tested them all, they differ. First one didn't do anything, 2nd worked partially, also the third. lately I realized how lossy caps are, so I start thinking of substitutes. A Coil for instance has little losses, other than inductivity.
And 90 deg ahead is just like 270 deg behind, at least from my unskilled point of view.
Note this thread has gone nowhere, just like I said it would. There is an important principle at play. You simply can't take a transformer, a few passive components like resistors, capacitors, and coils, and a few active components like transistors and connect them together and make a free energy machine. If that was hypothetically true you would be able to take your scope and show a signal or signals that were larger in energy than they would be for a "normal" circuit. You would be able to show the "entry point" for the over unity.
The reality is that every small circuit that you see people playing with _is_ a normal circuit. Take the example of UFOPolitics and when he changes the windings in an electric motor. He and his followers may believe that they are doing something out of the ordinary, but in fact the rewired motor is still a normal motor, just like the unmodified motor was a normal motor. What the motor and it's associated circuit do are normal. A related issue is that people believe that they are looking at something that is not normal when it actually is normal. They don't have enough experience or understanding to realize that what they are looking at is all normal.
I am not sure if Xenophed will be back, but please everyone, especially E2matrix, try to turn this into a learning experience. Don't just assume that every time someone posts that they have allegedly got over unity or unusual behaviour from a small circuit that it's true. Because in fact it will not be true. This self-garden-path phenomenon happens over and over again. The smart thing to do is assume that the experimenter is making a mistake. Until you see at least three replications with credible measurements backing up the claim assume that the claim is not valid.
MileHigh
So I think we agree again MileHigh, :) The device we considered here was a feedback oscillator which turned DC into AC, or an "inverter" ;) (at least the device considered in our discourse with the posters)
The coil arrangements are irrelevant if the effect is the same as any other similar arrangement.
A side note is that an oscillator that works the flux both ways out of phase (like a DC to AC inverter/converter) can deliver power better than a DC oscillator because the "input power on" time is doubled. For a system that gets some actual loading that is desirous as compared to a unidirectional excitation which can be more efficient when used at resonance for "radio effect's" or for just getting an inductive field to play with or even when not used at resonance for the spiky stuff.
Also a transformer excited by AC can be "idled" properly because the core flux can be maintained in ......."flux" ... ;D
Cheers
Quote from: MileHigh on February 16, 2014, 09:27:33 AM
Note this thread has gone nowhere, just like I said it would. There is an important principle at play. You simply can't take a transformer, a few passive components like resistors, capacitors, and coils, and a few active components like transistors and connect them together and make a free energy machine. If that was hypothetically true you would be able to take your scope and show a signal or signals that were larger in energy than they would be for a "normal" circuit. You would be able to show the "entry point" for the over unity.
The reality is that every small circuit that you see people playing with _is_ a normal circuit. Take the example of UFOPolitics and when he changes the windings in an electric motor. He and his followers may believe that they are doing something out of the ordinary, but in fact the rewired motor is still a normal motor, just like the unmodified motor was a normal motor. What the motor and it's associated circuit do are normal. A related issue is that people believe that they are looking at something that is not normal when it actually is normal. They don't have enough experience or understanding to realize that what they are looking at is all normal.
I am not sure if Xenophed will be back, but please everyone, especially E2matrix, try to turn this into a learning experience. Don't just assume that every time someone posts that they have allegedly got over unity or unusual behaviour from a small circuit that it's true. Because in fact it will not be true. This self-garden-path phenomenon happens over and over again. The smart thing to do is assume that the experimenter is making a mistake. Until you see at least three replications with credible measurements backing up the claim assume that the claim is not valid.
MileHigh
Bolding is mine. Therein lies the problem with assuming nothing will work or telling everyone not to bother with trying a circuit because you think it can't be COP >1 . If everyone assumes that then there will be no replication attempts and some unnoticed variable will be missed that could have brought about free energy. I haven't tried this yet due to being busy with other non-energy related things but I intend to do so soon.
E2matrix:
QuoteBolding is mine. Therein lies the problem with assuming nothing will work or telling everyone not to bother with trying a circuit because you think it can't be COP >1 . If everyone assumes that then there will be no replication attempts and some unnoticed variable will be missed that could have brought about free energy. I haven't tried this yet due to being busy with other non-energy related things but I intend to do so soon.
When you say that you insult 100+ years worth of science and electronics and engineering. You are putting your head in the sand, which is your choice. It's not a question of assuming, it's a question of applying knowledge. You are in denial of that knowledge. Yet, how many times have you been through this loop, 50 or more? That is the true essence of the problem.
I am all for doing some research, but ideally it would be something new. Playing with batteries, transformers, resistors, capacitors, inductors and transistors is OLD. It's just a variation on people playing with tube circuits at the beginning of the 20th century.
So when someone presents yet another combination of batteries, transformers, and the other pieces, it is absolutely correct and makes perfect sense to assume that they are wrong. Then instead of being a cheerleader, one can ask the presenter for more data to back up their claims. It's just proper due diligence even if you want to believe.
MileHigh
Thanks for agreeing for me, but... ehrm :o . Not so fast.
You say you want to see at least 3 working replications, but you do not only not offer to build one, you're even moral-preaching over the heads of the unskilled, not to try such things. No surprise none is trying to do a copy.
I do, and I was also the sceptical who said, when voltage and current are out of phase, then they may pass by the first light one by one and fail to light it up. But that still doesn't explain the Watt Meter. I did a lot of Back EMF experiments in the past and I know the accepted theory about it, basicly that the back-EMF cannot be stronger than the Pulse itself. This is just 1o1 school stuff. But then there's the more special stuff, like you can hit your head on a sonic wall, that was accidently caused by a singing tapwater pipe and none ever noticed any loss in water pressure.
When you say that this is just an ordinary inverter then you didnt watch the diagram . Inverters do not short circuit a coil with its inductor to obtain recursive harmony, nor are they tuned to standing waves.
It is not about standing waves to be used as a source of energy, but to create high stresses, that may contain possibilities bejond "accepted theories". Because resonance for electronics is not equal standing waves at electrical levels. I don't say this device will certainly be OU, but I am still replicating it because it is interesting and doesn't require much hardware.
Milehigh and other Sceptics:
If you can assist us and explain in simple terms where exactly something wrong is, eg. in the diagram, this will be very useful. Although you make the impression of somebody who understood the diagrams, you didn't correct them, why? Instead you utilize this thread for your clerical general teaching ambitions. Your unconditional belief in accepted science seems almost religious to me. That's ok, and what you belief may define your dimension. If you just let the kids keep on playing.
I would really like to go on discussing with xenophed about the device, or with somebody else.
Today I made some more test with the sparkgap device. 5 diodes in series as the HV Diodes. The relative unsteady rate is not useful for resonance etc. Will now revisit the transistor driver.
Dieter:
I don't know the exact mechanism for the oscillation, I would have to scope the circuit and figure it out. When you see transistors and capacitors and inductors in an oscillating circuit, that means there is some kind of active RLC-style oscillation mechanism. The fact that just by eye I can't tell you the exact specifics of the oscillation mechanism doesn't matter, everything I state in my previous postings applies.
Since you are a beginner, I have some advice for you: Try to avoid using the free energy forum buzz words just because other people use them. Your language is showing that you are absorbing all of the buzz words and catch phrases. Most of them are meaningless or used inappropriately. For example, there are no standing waves waves in this circuit and in fact it's ridiculous to even use the term in the context of this circuit. Another example, you stated, "basicly that the back-EMF cannot be stronger than the Pulse itself." That is not Electronics 101, and the statement doesn't really make sense. You are just using catch phrases that don't really have a meaning. You talk about "high stresses." High stresses give you nothing with respect to somehow getting extra energy. It's nothing more than a false belief that you read and you yourself are now prepared to believe.
Is there any rule that says that I have have to build a replication? People can try whatever they want, and also get comments from people with differing views.
If you want to discuss this circuit more with Xenophed that would be great. The first thing to do would be to figure out how the oscillator works. Once you understand that you can start to try to make proper energy measurements on it. That will require a scope and some applied knowledge, and perhaps some contributors to the thread can help. But for sure with 100% certitude, the input power from the battery source will be split into waste heat power dissipated in the oscillator circuit itself, and the balance of the power will be burnt off in the load resistor. i.e.; input_power = heat_power_in_oscillator + heat_power_in_load. You will not find one nanowatt of excess power if you were capable of measuring to that level of precision. As was stated before, there will be a very very tiny amount of RF radiated power but you will not be able to measure it.
MileHigh
The oscillator works just like the one in lasserhacker except which ever direction the output coil goes it turns on one transistor. I will note that where I live we deal with 90-100% humidity daily. And also it works like a class c amp hence the tank circuit to tune to natural resonance of coil
p.s. the reason for the reversed led's is to know when you have oscillation. Sometimes a thump of q1 or q2 will start and you will only have about 15-25 mA current draw there is an option I am currently working with to feed a single to the two bases also I have really bad headaches from broken neck so I do not get on the computer everyday I will have a how to video in a few when I feel up to it
Thanks for the reply, Xenophed. I still got problems with those Qs, as they are connected in a way that is a lil contradicting, compared to the teachings...
As a quick test I decided to half rectify a AC 12 V output from a Supply (50hz mains) twice, one time reversed, then added 2 zener diodes to reduce the pulsewidth, too bad I had no infos on their specs, so they gave a lil smoke when I pushed 15 Watts trough them and went byebye. But basicly that would be a way to create a squarewaveish signal without Transistors, although fixed at 50 or 60 Hz. And this was of course without to be out of phase, which could be added with a C of the right capacitance.
How important is the shape of the pulse anyway, do you think a squarewave would be best to get a max. back emf? Or is it uncritical and even sinusoids could be used?
I also did some 555 >Transistor drivers in the past, as well as schmitt triggers, but it all seemed fuzzy to me, and in fact I am not a huge fan of transistors due to their obvious tendency of heat dissipation.
Looking forward to read/see more from you.
Quote from: MileHigh on February 16, 2014, 03:28:21 PM
E2matrix:
When you say that you insult 100+ years worth of science and electronics and engineering. You are putting your head in the sand, which is your choice. It's not a question of assuming, it's a question of applying knowledge. You are in denial of that knowledge. Yet, how many times have you been through this loop, 50 or more? That is the true essence of the problem.
I am all for doing some research, but ideally it would be something new. Playing with batteries, transformers, resistors, capacitors, inductors and transistors is OLD. It's just a variation on people playing with tube circuits at the beginning of the 20th century.
So when someone presents yet another combination of batteries, transformers, and the other pieces, it is absolutely correct and makes perfect sense to assume that they are wrong. Then instead of being a cheerleader, one can ask the presenter for more data to back up their claims. It's just proper due diligence even if you want to believe.
MileHigh
Well thank you! I'm glad that I've insulted the last 100 years of science, electronics and engineering.... especially since there is a great deal of evidence I've read that says they have had their heads buried in the sand the last 100 years by a campaign of dis-information by the likes of J.P. Morgan and others who want to maintain their control over energy enslaving the populous with their expensive gas, oil and other energy generation. Note there are a few serious scientists and engineers who ARE working on free energy and who do have a high level of education but have managed pull their heads out of the sand.
The fastest current rise and fall times of the stimulating signal will give you the most "back emf" from the stimulated coil.
Yeah, thought so. And I guess the "idle time" between pulses should not be too long. In fact, afaik the duration of the bemf spike depends on the coil, so the pulse should he of this duration too, I guess.
Btw, interesting collection : www.free-energy-info.co.uk/VladimirUtkin.pdf
May contain explanation about this phenomen.
E2matrix:
At least know that in mainstream engineering and academia there is no notion of "burying heads in the sand." People that do very basic science research are not in my realm of experience. But I have been schooled and have worked in tech for the past 35 years and that's my realm of experience. People that design and manufacture electronics products, stuff like that. They don't worry about this stuff.
In that sense the "issue" is not nearly as critical as you seem to believe. The reality is that there is no issue. Nowadays people try to design products that are more electrically efficient for sure, but it stops there. The "Tesla free electricity in the air/JP Morgan/energy enslavement conspiracy" is just a tall tale, I assure you. It's ridiculous to think that the power broadcasting story ever was real. It's just a story that forms part of the narrative that forms the "implicitly accepted world view" for some of the people on this forum. Not to mention that that story is exploited by people all the time to advance their own self interests. Did you hear that Bedini had to detune his solar charger because the MIB might go after him?
Certainly research into energy production, transmission, storage, and so on is ongoing. We absolutely have to do it. How many scientists are doing the exotic research that you are discussing? I don't know the answer to that. However, I think that you can split those scientists into legitimate scientists and feigned legitimate "scientists" that are just posers that operate in the free energy cottage industry. I doubt that you would be able to differentiate the real guys from the posers. And, some of the "legitimate scientists" that I have seen around here are pretty shockingly lacking in reason and insight and basic skills also.
The bottom line about my statement remains true: A circuit that consists of basic components is in fact under unity, or it is unity when you factor in the heat and tiny amount of EM generation. There is simply no escaping this fact so you may as well move onto Plan B, whatever that is. I am not going to say this every time somebody comes up with another circuit. It's worth it to state it once in a while and leave it at that.
In a generic sense it's an important principle to think about. Do you use your rational mind and the scientific method to learn and understand how Nature works, or, do you always challenge Nature every time you see a variation on the same theme? Where do you direct your energies? What is in your best interest? Those are issues for each individual to consider for themselves.
So I will keep quiet now. People are free to ignore my advice. There is an entire world infrastructure of science and engineering out there that takes heed of my advice so I am fundamentally okay! lol
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on February 17, 2014, 09:38:19 PM
E2matrix:
At least know that in mainstream engineering and academia there is no notion of "burying heads in the sand." People that do very basic science research are not in my realm of experience. But I have been schooled and have worked in tech for the past 35 years and that's my realm of experience. People that design and manufacture electronics products, stuff like that. They don't worry about this stuff.
In that sense the "issue" is not nearly as critical as you seem to believe. The reality is that there is no issue. Nowadays people try to design products that are more electrically efficient for sure, but it stops there. The "Tesla free electricity in the air/JP Morgan/energy enslavement conspiracy" is just a tall tale, I assure you. It's ridiculous to think that the power broadcasting story ever was real. It's just a story that forms part of the narrative that forms the "implicitly accepted world view" for some of the people on this forum. Not to mention that that story is exploited by people all the time to advance their own self interests. Did you hear that Bedini had to detune his solar charger because the MIB might go after him?
Certainly research into energy production, transmission, storage, and so on is ongoing. We absolutely have to do it. How many scientists are doing the exotic research that you are discussing? I don't know the answer to that. However, I think that you can split those scientists into legitimate scientists and feigned legitimate "scientists" that are just posers that operate in the free energy cottage industry. I doubt that you would be able to differentiate the real guys from the posers. And, some of the "legitimate scientists" that I have seen around here are pretty shockingly lacking in reason and insight and basic skills also.
The bottom line about my statement remains true: A circuit that consists of basic components is in fact under unity, or it is unity when you factor in the heat and tiny amount of EM generation. There is simply no escaping this fact so you may as well move onto Plan B, whatever that is. I am not going to say this every time somebody comes up with another circuit. It's worth it to state it once in a while and leave it at that.
In a generic sense it's an important principle to think about. Do you use your rational mind and the scientific method to learn and understand how Nature works, or, do you always challenge Nature every time you see a variation on the same theme? Where do you direct your energies? What is in your best interest? Those are issues for each individual to consider for themselves.
So I will keep quiet now. People are free to ignore my advice. There is an entire world infrastructure of science and engineering out there that takes heed of my advice so I am fundamentally okay! lol
MileHigh
Well said MileHigh, I too agree and have been saying on these forums for some time that Over Unity is a contentious term used in differing ways. The bottom line is exactly as you say. The same goes for power generation as for power use. If all losses are considered there is Unity and must be. All losses considered, everything is unity. We can go under unity only if we dissipate energy out of the system. Or we can go Over Unity only if we accumulate energy from outside the system into the system. Like a solar panel or wind turbine. All losses considered they are Unity, with solar and wind power the energy is free, the device is what we must pay for. Solar and wind are unique in that the energy comes to us, unlike a coal fired power station the coal must be dug up and taken to the power plant. That cost money so the fuel costs money and labor as well as the device (power plant).
Free energy is when you build a device and flick the switch and it harnesses the energy from the environment for us to use. Free energy has nothing to do with Over Unity, it has a lot to do with Unity though and Under Unity, because we want to get as close to unity for the harnessed free energy as we can get.
Any new source of energy will have an efficiency of "capture" for want of a better word and will be Under Unity, same as solar and wind are under unity, but the energy is free.
The efficiency has nothing to do with the cost. The cost does not dictate efficiency. We can use free energy inefficiently the same as we can use paid for energy inefficiently.
Cheers