Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[Void]

When replications of the supposed circuits used fail to reproduce the miracle, it's a pretty safe
bet that the miracle isn't what it is represented to be.  The burden of proof is always on the claimant.

HI MileHigh. Like others here, you seem to be confused with what inventors do to market their inventions,
and what scientists do.  For certain an inventor had better be prepared to be able to prove their claims
to potential investors or people who may want to purchase the rights to their technology, but there is absolutely
no obligation for inventors to prove their inventions to the general public. Inventors do have to market their
stuff to find investors, such as releasing videos, for example. Who an inventor reveals specific details of their invention
to is totally up to the inventor however. Suggesting that the burden of proof is somehow on an inventor is only true
in their dealings with potential investors, and is usually done privately.
All the best...

[MarkE]

or a replication was't a REAL replication at all...

That is always possible.  It is also irrelevant.  The person making the extraordinary claim bears the burden of proof.  EMJ made his extraordinary claim of a COP of 1.7 at the outset.  He has done nothing to show that claim is true.

[conradelektro]

I also tested the transformer with only one of the partnered output coils use (the other remained open, see the attached circuit diagram). One could call this the "normal transformer situation".

Input:

200 mVpp 600 Hz sine from function generator
10 V ~30 mA idle, ~120 mA with load from power supply:

Va = 2.8
Vp = 0.74
R1 = 10 Ohm
I = (Va - Vp) / R1 = (2.8 - 0.74) / 10 = 0.206 A

Watt through primary = I * Vp = 0.206 * 0.74 = 150 mW

Output:

Vo = 0.66
R2 = 10 Ohm
Io = Vo / R2 = 0.66  / 10 = 0.066

Watt through secondary or R2 = Io * Vo = 0.66 * 0.066 = 43 mW


There was little phase shift in the primary and in the secondary.

Watt through R1 was about 420 mW (R1 became hot after some time)

The measurements were similar when H3 was used as output coil (instead of H2).

Greetings, Conrad

[Vortex1]

Yes, that's right and it is clearly happening in the scopeshot you analyzed and also in the ones I have presented using the HD transistor where I compare the underdriven and fully driven conditions. I won't post them again, but you'll find them if you look back in the thread.

Both NTE transistors have the same gain and C-E saturation voltage. The only difference is that the max gain for the higher current transistor is rated at a higher collector current, ditto for the forward voltage rating of the internal diode.

So do we conclude that the circuit should be underdriven, to produce the type of trace with the spike cluster in the middle of the HI portion of the drive duty cycle, in order to get the "ou" measurements? This will pretty much eliminate the major HV spike amplitude of course. On my system, now using the 555 oscillator with its "volume control" turned down to produce waveforms like EMJ's, the major spike only reaches 400 V (load in place) or 1000 V (load loop open).

I'll be posting a video of scope traces showing how the voltage develops as the drive signal increases, in a few minutes. (If all goes well....)

Regarding your question, I only state that the circuit should be underdriven to produce the same waveform that EMJ has posted, and that I later annotated. I make no statements supporting claimed OU operation.

There are speculations one could make regarding why such a circuit might have some slight merit when one considers the juxtaposition of a magnetic bias field in the core (due to the underdriven transistor in current source mode) working with a bucking field in the core produced by the bucking coils, and how this might (though farfetched) contribute to some type of NMR or other activity in the ferrite, resulting in an exaggerated output. Just a WAG though, still need the proof of COP>1 before such speculation could have any merit or be considered as a hypothesis.

This is the only reason I give the thread any of my time, as all other effects of such a circuit (HV generation, large HV spikes) are fairly commonplace and well known in the art.

Kind Regards
Vortex1

[Void]

Well.... except for some of the alt.snakeoil spoofs there is no trickery in any of my videos, and I can do anything you like in order to prove it to you. Even sending you the actual apparatus if you really need that to happen to be convinced. Contrast that with what you get from Akula or Ruslan. Does this really need to be pointed out? Apparently it does.

Do you believe cheeseburgers can be pulled out of walls too? Because that is, to me, just as believable as what Akula ............... and Ruslan..................and Stivep.................. have shown in the videos.  There, did I separate them enough in my speculation for you?


And I don't accept your "explanation" of the waveform issue. I have faith that if I build a device according to a posted schematic and it produces identical waveforms as someone else's device, it should also perform the same in every respect that really matters. To accept your explanation, one would have to accept that he has pulled a "bait and switch" deception, demonstrating a different device "self running" than the one that made the waveforms and was built according to the schematic. If you accept this kind of deception as being possible, why do you not also accept that he could simply be faking the whole thing? Don't forget about Occam's Razor. And also.... 50 volts per division! When it clearly isn't!

Hi TK. You have (conveniently) ignored that someone who may invent something or reproduce some
effect is under no obligation whatsoever to reveal what they have learned to others. If they are interested in
marketing their device/invention, they actually have strong motivation to not release all details of their device.
Suggesting that such a person must reveal all details and send out their device to others for testing or they are probably
a fake is just plain silly. They can do what they want, and obviously have motivation to not reveal all details.

Your question of why don't I accept that Akula could simply be faking the whole thing makes no sense whatsoever, since
I have already pointed out several times that I think it is quite reasonable to suspect that any over unity claim could
possibly be false, whether from Akula or anyone else. I have just pointed out that any claims that Akula and Ruslan
are using trickery has not been backed up with any convincing evidence, that I have personally seen anyway. It is therefore
not established at all that they are using trickery. All such claims of trickery, to date anyway, appear to be just pure speculation
along the lines of 'I believe strongly that all claims of over unity are false, therefore I feel justified in asserting that
Akula and Ruslan are frauds who are working together', or whatever else... Such is just an assertion of blind faith,
and nothing more. I admire your blind faith, but I personally prefer some actual evidence before attempting to
draw any conclusions in regards to most anything. Blind faith alone doesn't work for me.

By the way, of the two, Ruslan has given me more reason to suspect that he may be using tricks than Akula has.
Ruslan's behavior towards his claimed replications appears odd for someone who supposedly has replicated a
self running device, while Akula's behavior seems more consistent with someone who supposedly has some self
running devices. Akula has demonstrated his devices to various people and is apparently working with some business
people in Germany to market/sell his claimed technology. Ruslan has me baffled since he acts like his claimed
OU replication is just some minor curiosity. Very odd. Ruslan has also said some conflicting things from time to
time that also make me wonder what he is really up to. I have no actual evidence that Ruslan is using tricks however.
Both Akula's devices and Ruslan's replications could well be fakes, but Akula at least seems to be going through the 
motions of someone who really may have invented something novel, and is trying to market his devices.

I still wonder if Akula could be using something like a radioactive substance or possibly something along those lines on his ferrites
in his devices, as apparently that is what Alfred Hubbard may have used, according to some sources anyway, and I think others such as
T. Henry Moray may have possibly used a radioactive substance to dope a special 'rectifier' he made as well. I can't recall if anyone has
suggested anything similar with the Hendershot device.

All the best...