Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[Groundloop]

To the people that did make comments about my Figure-8 circuit.

Thanks for the comments. It is a very simple circuit to build and test.
The L3 center coil is difficult to "tune". You will need the right number
of turns to get the maximum light output in your load. Also, the circuit
only works on a narrow input voltage range from approx. 2,5 to 4,3 Volt.

Other than that, I have nothing more to say about this circuit.

GL.

[TinselKoala]

Of course i can talk and post as i wish-there was no gag order,or threats of any kind. I was simply asked to abide by some rules !nicely! ,and as long as i do,then i may post what i like. There is really no need to carry out this piggyback experiment of yours TK,it's nothing more than a waste of time,money and equipment. So many people think that everything has to be difficult,when in fact it is much simpler than that. A solid state version would be good too-no noise to put up with. If only Tom had shown how he really had the PM's and coils arranged,then i think many more people would have been much happier with the outcome. If only they had tried shearing the magnetic field in stead of pushing against it.

I once seen a video on here or on OUR(i think it was either Luc or Steve Jones that posted it) that showed just how little power it takes to neutralize a PM's magnetic field. Then there was FarmHand that on this very thread stated just how a small amount of power could be added to the field windings of this type of motor to reduce the needed power by a factor of nearly 10x,and yet gain torque from the output. It really is not my fault that you guys cannot piece together all these things,and make a working device.

TK
If you spent less time trying to debunk everything,and more time putting all the pieces together,then you would be one of a few who would succeed.

The "piggyback" experiment is more than just an experiment. You could be running your home and workshop on it, for nothing, using only a few junk vacuum cleaner motors and your "secret circuit sauce", instead of just lighting up a light bulb and making numbers on meters and pretty colored squiggles on an oscilloscope. If, that is, the thing really does put out even a little bit more power than it takes in.

It's nice of Farmhand to demonstrate the proper use of one of these motors, by energizing the field coils properly. Is that such a surprise though? And the idea of using some current to neutralize the field of a PM is exactly the technique used in the best of the commercially available magnetic levitation systems. Saving much power over systems that simply use electromagnets to attract or repel a PM.


Want to win Hal Puthoff's "one watt challenge"? I sure would. It would mean a lot more than just the money.
http://www.zpower.com/ch/documents/Paper_OneWattChallenge.pdf

[DreamThinkBuild]

Hi Verpies,

You may also be interested in these patents.

These are in relation to Tinman's previous comment: "If only they had tried shearing the magnetic field instead of pushing against it."

CN102761297A: Electromagnetic device employing homo-polar opposite magnetic set
https://www.google.com/patents/CN102761297A

US3089064: Combined permanent magnet and electromagnet (esp Fig 11. & 12)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3089064

[TinselKoala]

No, you are confusing blind faith with actual knowledge. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
We are not talking about claims of flying pink unicorns here. We are talking about actual measurements
that were shown in a video. I am not suggesting that such a video is proof of anything either, but
if there were no tricks then the measurements shown in the video are certainly interesting. There could possibly
be some simple explanation, and since we don't know all the circuit details I would say it is inconclusive,
but for someone to say they know it is not COP > 1, then a person would have to have a good reason for that.
This is why I asked for the reason. Your blind faith is not a good reason.

]
No, you're the one who is apparently confused. My faith isn't blind, it is the result of literally hundreds of years of experimentation by literally many thousands of scientists all over the world. I think many people just don't have a feel for how much real evidence there really is.  There is no "absence of evidence" here! We have one set of measurements performed by remote-control of a device whose precise details remain unknown. Contrast this against the many, many thousands of measurements of all different kinds of devices all over the world... measurements that have allowed us to derive relationships amongst quantities. These relationships -- like Ohm's Law, to name just one of many -- actually allow calculation and simulation of all kinds of devices that actually work. The real evidence _against_ there being any excess power in TinMan's circuit, in spite of the remote-control measurements of the black box, is utterly overwhelming. There are many other ways to test the actual performance of TinMan's device. Apply them, including some that actually try to _use_ the supposed excess power, like the Koala Daisy Chain, and see what happens. Remember -- a theory isn't generally considered "proven" unless it can withstand _all_ challenges put to it. Fail one... and the theory is disproven. Pass many, and it's still not proven...

[TinselKoala]

MarkE, I did not say TK was taking anything on blind faith. TK has not replied yet, (unless I missed it) in regards
to what his reason is for saying he knows that Tinman's setup can't be supplying more power out than is being input.
I said you are expressing blind faith when you said words to the effect that you know we can't ever get more power output
to a load than is being supplied from the power source because of the principle of conservation of energy.
For all we know here at this point, if Tinman's setup is really supplying more power to the load than is being drawn from the
battery, then Tinman's setup may possibly be drawing in the exces energy from somewhere else in some form or way that
we don't understand. That is at least a possibility. There would be no violation of conservation of energy in such a case, so
going on about the violation of the conservation of energy would just not be relevant in such a case. Since you have continued
on with your distortions and insults, etc., I will not respond further to you on this. I'm not really interested in having a discussion
with someone who carries on in such a way over someone simply asking someone else what their reason is for concluding something.

In all fairness, that is a good point. If a device is drawing energy from some other source than its main power supply, and produces more output than is provided by the main supply, then CofE need not be violated. However, that outside energy source should be capable of being identified somehow. For example, there could be another battery hidden in the switchbox. There could be some fortuitous pickup of radiated power from a very nearby commercial radio transmitter. Or any of several other things I can think of. We are assuming, I suppose, that the battery or PSU is the _only_ source of power to TinMan's device. But my statement still stands true: The output of the device is not greater than its input, in spite of the measurements _that have been made so far_. If the external source of power isn't being included in the input measurements... whose responsibility/fault is that? We have been told, I think, that the visible power input measurements are measuring the input power to the device. If this is not true... then clearly more and better measurements need to be made.