Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[MarkE]

Taking the numbers as cited, let's do a little math, shall we.

This is indeed laughable.

The "mirror image symmetry" is running at 5 VDC and 2.45 amps, for an input power of 12.25 Watts. This means it is taking about 0.101 Watts per Gauss of field produced, and is producing 1 gram of force for each 0.036 Watts of input power.
12.25 W / 121.2 gauss = 0.101 Watts per Gauss
12.25 W / 340 gm f = 0.036 Watts per Gram-force

The Standard Winding is running at 5 VDC and 0.68 amps, for an input power of 3.4 Watts. This means it is taking about 0.0581 Watts per Gauss of field produced, and is producing 1 gram of force for each 0.02 Watts of input power. 
3.4 W / 58.5 gauss = 0.0581 Watts per Gauss
3.4 W / 169 gm f = 0.0201 Watts per Gram-force

The power dissipated as heat in the "mirror image symmetry" winding is I²R = 2.45A x 2.45A x 2.0 ohms = 12 Watts.
The power dissipated as heat in the standard winding is I²R = 0.68A x 0.68A x 7.3 ohms = 3.4 Watts.

For the output measures shown, Gauss and Grams of Force and wasted heat .... the Standard Winding is FAR MORE EFFICIENT than the "mirror image" symmetry winding.
The "mirror symmetry winding" wastes 12/3.4 = about 3.53 TIMES as much power as heat as the Standard Winding.
The Standard winding makes 0.101/ 0.0581 = about 1.74 TIMES MORE magnetic field per unit of input power than the "mirror symmetry" winding.
The Standard winding makes 0.036/0.0201 = about 1.79 TIMES MORE Force per unit of input power than the "mirror symmetry" winding.

Please check my math, I just woke up and haven't even finished my coffee yet.

Of course it is idiocy.  The author failed to realize that he could have gotten similar results by either turning up the voltage on his power supply from 5V to 10V with the original winding, or simply bought wire with twice the cross-section, IE three AWG steps down and rewound.  He did not as he claimed reduce the amount of wire needed to achieve an end result from the solenoid.  The author claims 4X current even though the winding resistance ratio was 3.5:1 and supposedly the supply voltage was the same.  So, the author even has problems with Ohm's Law.  Most likely his Ohm meter was not very accurate and the author was not up to reconciling the conflicts in his data.

The author used the original winding so cutting that in half and connecting the two R/2 windings in parallel yields R/4, which for constant V yields I*4.  But since the number of turns was then N/2, the total force was:  4I*N/2 = 2X, which his measurements confirmed within a percent or so.  This is Homer Simpson kind of duhhhh territory.  Had the author driven the new lower voltage coil at the appropriate voltage of 2.5V (at the winding), then the current would have been 2X, N 1/2X and he would have obtained the original power dissipation and force.  TANSTAAFL.

[MarkE]

@Mark E
I think we could sum up your little spiel by simply saying, I do not believe him therefore it cannot be true. Does that about cover it Mark?.

We can sum it up as:  We have huge amounts of evidence that contradict EMJ's claims while EMJ offers no reliable evidence that support his extraordinary claims.  Therefore EMJ's extraordinary claims are false. 

[allcanadian]

@Mark E
Nice spiel again, you know I once had a neighbor who was about as smart as a bag full of hammers however he had a huge new house and many new expensive vehicles out front. As it turns out he was worth more than your whole family tree Mark simply because he had a simple idea of how to drill wells faster with a new coil tubing rig. It seems all those professionals just like you claim to be had never thought of his idea or even considered it. Life is funny that way and there are people who like to talk just to hear their own voice and others who change the world.
AC

[TinselKoala]

@Mark E
Nice spiel again, you know I once had a neighbor who was about as smart as a bag full of hammers however he had a huge new house and many new expensive vehicles out front. As it turns out he was worth more than your whole family tree Mark simply because he had a simple idea of how to drill wells faster with a new coil tubing rig. It seems all those professionals just like you claim to be had never thought of his idea or even considered it. Life is funny that way and there are people who like to talk just to hear their own voice and others who change the world.
AC

Let's distill your argument down to basics: Somebody else had a good idea that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion, and made lots of money off if it, therefore MarkE is wrong in his statements.

That gets you a ROFL, today's first.

[MarkE]

@Mark E
Nice spiel again, you know I once had a neighbor who was about as smart as a bag full of hammers however he had a huge new house and many new expensive vehicles out front. As it turns out he was worth more than your whole family tree Mark simply because he had a simple idea of how to drill wells faster with a new coil tubing rig. It seems all those professionals just like you claim to be had never thought of his idea or even considered it. Life is funny that way and there are people who like to talk just to hear their own voice and others who change the world.
AC

So I take it you are no longer arguing in support of EMJ's refuted ideas but wish to make an ad hom attack on me.  Nice. 

EMJ's claims have collapsed for their own lack of merit.  EMJ has most recently offered as support for his ideas:  1) A paper by a person who clearly did not understand the basics of the subject matter their paper concerned, 2) Which did not utilize the method that EMJ is promoting, and 3) EMJ apparently tid not uderstand only reinforced established evidence against his claims.