PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-04-18, 03:18:55
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Author Topic: Partnered Output Coils  (Read 362734 times)
Group: Guest
Lenz's Law is a Reflected Magnetic Field. Directly the result of Current Flow.

It is Lenz's Law that confines one to a reduced Output, and it is "Partnered Output Coils" aka "Bucking" Coils that are the key to reducing Lenz Law.

2: Draw by use of Reduced Lenz's Law Effects - Don't kill the source!!!
3: The end result can be OU if Lenz's Law is reduced enough.

I probably shouldn't care anymore at this point, but I'm going to say this again for the tenth time:

Lenz Law is a good thing, but you need to incorporate it TWICE!

Two mirrors.  Let the CEMF reflect back once as normal from the load, then reflect it again back towards the load.  Do this BEFORE it has a chance to significantly influence the source.

I'm not going to tell you how to do this, I have my own ideas and experiments.  Just use a tiny bit of your imagination and think of it as your own idea.  It's really not that hard.  Your results may vary as you get a handle on manipulating reluctance, but I would expect a few of you guys to make significant progress quickly.
   
Group: Guest
I probably shouldn't care anymore at this point, but I'm going to say this again for the tenth time:

Lenz Law is a good thing, but you need to incorporate it TWICE!

Two mirrors.  Let the CEMF reflect back once as normal from the load, then reflect it again back towards the load.  Do this BEFORE it has a chance to significantly influence the source.

I'm not going to tell you how to do this, I have my own ideas and experiments.  Just use a tiny bit of your imagination and think of it as your own idea.  It's really not that hard.  Your results may vary as you get a handle on manipulating reluctance, but I would expect a few of you guys to make significant progress quickly.

@Matt,


That's exactly Right, its localised between the Coils!!!


Very well done!!!




P.S: I don't like being threatened so this thread will be closed soon. Copy all data. Save it somewhere safe  :)


Poynty99y is gonna cop an ear full!

   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 71
Quote
Quote from: Matt Watts on Today at 03:12:52

I probably shouldn't care anymore at this point, but I'm going to say this again for the tenth time:

Lenz Law is a good thing, but you need to incorporate it TWICE!

Two mirrors.  Let the CEMF reflect back once as normal from the load, then reflect it again back towards the load.  Do this BEFORE it has a chance to significantly influence the source.

I'm not going to tell you how to do this, I have my own ideas and experiments.  Just use a tiny bit of your imagination and think of it as your own idea.  It's really not that hard.  Your results may vary as you get a handle on manipulating reluctance, but I would expect a few of you guys to make significant progress quickly.

Quote
@Matt,

That's exactly Right, its localised between the Coils!!!


Very well done!!!

P.S: I don't like being threatened so this thread will be closed soon. Copy all data. Save it somewhere safe  Smiley
In other words, if we learn how to take advantage of Lenz' law, our COP is going to rise significantly. Isn't this something everyone would want to learn about?  
Why would anyone want to close this thread with the possibility of advancement that it offers?

If we can understand where CEMF comes from, the possibility of increased COP with its proper redirection becomes a foregone, logical conclusion if it can be harnessed.  
Is it really necessary to shut down the possibility of that kind of progress, even if one doesn't believe in it? We're all grownups here and no one is forced to believe anything.
Bob

   
Group: Guest
.....................
Two mirrors.  Let the CEMF reflect back once as normal from the load, then reflect it again back towards the load.  Do this BEFORE it has a chance to significantly influence the source.
................
Claus W. Turtur?
   
Group: Guest

Salve guys,

.............................
It is easy to see such effects, once one Loads the Secondary, the primary current will either not change, or reduce.
............................
Yes I can see this effect: no change or even a (slight) reduction of primary current  (DC source) with some of my circuits when loaded VS unloaded. I even have made - a non You-Tubed vid about that:
http://freenrg.info/VIDS/Sup_Joule_R-Exp.wmv

But, did not some sly-looking individuals stated that, this effect appears just because the said circuit is very inefficient? Or, I'm I inventing some allegations from some person out of some forums?
If I'm not mistaken, is this a new version of Lenz Law?
---------------------
An example of a NerzhDishual You Tube vid is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W2wJptk6TY
Just about music.
---------------------
BTW#1, in the vid, the led bulb is a one watt 22OV AC.
No 'OU' claimed here, of coarse!
Claiming 'OU' can lead you to Dire Straits. No?
BTW#2, music again:
Dire Straits - Money For Nothing Live in Nimes 1992
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KOpepmI7r8
A lot of against the beat stuffs here. No? Sounds like Breton music.

Gwella soñjou,
Jean,
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1567
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
I post this as a past reference. This coil when wired in bucking mode will light up lights in space or fry equipment and fingers. It is an open face microwave oven of sorts.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=856.msg14191#msg14191


---------------------------
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4600


Buy me some coffee
@Matt,


That's exactly Right, its localised between the Coils!!!


Very well done!!!




P.S: I don't like being threatened so this thread will be closed soon. Copy all data. Save it somewhere safe  :)


Poynty99y is gonna cop an ear full!


Like I said at the start of the thread EMJ-we have been through this time and time again-money and time spent on some ones claims of an OU device. But time and time again, it never amounts to anything. That same ring is sounding here on this thread. It is time for you to show the claimed OU device-just so as those that have spent many days at it already , know the garden path if full of nice smelling roses.

I recomend not pushing poynt to far, as you wont fare to well. He will go out of his way to help you, but simply put, he dosnt like unfounded claims being peddled here on OUR--》that kind of rubbish can be found on energetic forum, you can even sell books over there that are chocko full of OU devices.


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3205
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
As the status of substantial proof for COP>1 has not changed (and the claimant has chosen NOT to provide it), this thread will be under review until further notice.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3205
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Meanwhile, on a senior member's suggestion, the following is from the "Power and Creed" document posted in the thread of the same name. This is a must read for Free Energy researchers, particularly for newer members to OUR.



The Free Energy Researcher’s:
POWER & CREED
- A must read for those on the quest for Free Energy at OUR.
Prepared by: Darren Kozey (poynt99)
Document Date: 2009/12/13
Revision: V2.0
The Free Energy Researcher’s: POWER & CREED

Preface
The world needs an alternative to conventional energy sources; dare we call this
alternative source “free energy”?

Free Energy research is alive and well on a number of public and private forums.
There are many people actively researching in this area; the vast majority of
which are younger and less experienced folks. This is fantastic and will hopefully
secure a better future for all. However, with youth and/or inexperience, often
comes over-enthusiasm and haste. Many times indeed, it is the experienced and
technically-trained researchers that fall into the all-too-familiar trap of letting
their excitement, hope, enthusiasm, or lack of know-how, get in the way of
better judgment.

To declare something extraordinary and make claims of “overunity” without solid
substantiating evidence or proof to back it up, does a great disservice to all on
the FE quest, especially when the claim turns out to be a false alarm or a
deception.

The aim of this document is to serve as a guide to help all FE researchers avoid
the pitfalls of making an unsubstantiated claim.
To follow is a creed by which I strongly encourage all to study it, understand it,
and above all…apply it!

Dedication
This document is dedicated to all the brilliant and determined minds working in
Free Energy research…all those in the present, the past, and the future.
Thank you for your tenacity and your commitment to the FE quest.

INTRODUCTION
Most claims of overunity turn out to be the result of erroneous assumptions,
measurement errors, nonexistent measurements, suspicious measurements, or
equipment limitations. As such, a short guide is needed that all FE researchers
can refer to and apply while conducting their research and publishing their
results. The following CREED, MAKING CLAIMS AND DISCLOSING RESPONSIBLY,
and MAKING PROPER POWER MEASUREMENTS (for electronics devices) sections
make up this guide.

It is by no means perfect or complete, but a starting point at least, and one that
would surely go a long way in avoiding much frenzy, anxiety, wasted time, effort
and money, embarrassment, flaming, loss of respect and integrity, and arguing
etc., for all interested parties involved. If only it can be followed.

THE FE RESEARCHER’S CREED
“As a Free Energy Researcher, I dedicate my knowledge and skill to the advancement
and betterment of human welfare. I strive for integrity, accuracy, and completeness in
my work and my releases to the public.
I pledge in conducting my FE research:
- To give the utmost of performance;
- To make no assumptions, no matter how “obvious” things may appear to me;
- To never jump to conclusions when apparent anomalies are observed;
- To investigate and strive to eliminate ALL possible sources of error BEFORE
making conclusions about any observed anomalies;
- To exercise due diligence in regards to fully understanding what I am doing,
and how I am doing it;
- To conduct my experiments, tests, and measurements in a scientific manner
and with the correct and most appropriate equipment;
- To strive for and take steps towards making COP measurements that are
flawless and accurate, while understanding and accounting for the
limitations and idiosyncrasies of my test equipment;
- To place integrity before ego;
- To post claims of overunity only when backed up with solid proof and
evidence in the form of fully documented, and accurate measurements and
test setup diagrams;
- To do my best in explaining and illustrating my disclosures, and be well-prepared
to answer any questions on things I may have overlooked;
- To seek advice, guidance, and review from my un-biased peers and those
with more technical know-how BEFORE I post any extraordinary claims of
overunity;
- To do my homework (all of the above).
In humility and with need for Collective/Higher Guidance, I make this pledge.”

MAKING CLAIMS AND DISCLOSING RESPONSIBLY
For anyone planning on disclosing something or making a claim, please use the
following as a guide to do so:
1) Decide and state what exactly you are about to claim:
Options here include:
a) 100% certainty you have achieved overunity.
b) You are not 100% sure and asking for help to determine if it is so.
c) You are only observing strange effects and you would like other users to
provide helpful feedback.
2) Regardless of which option fits your case, please provide in your post the
following minimum parts:
a) A complete drawing or schematic of your prototype or test setup.
b) A clear description of what the device or circuit is, what you think the
circuit is doing, or what you wanted it to do.
c) A list of references to any other devices or documentation you based your
device on.
d) A list of proper power measurements (see Power Measurements at OUR).
e) A photo of your setup is optional, but may be helpful.
3) For those with limited Free Energy Research experience, and/or electronics
experience, please post a request for someone to review your steps 1) and 2)
above BEFORE making your post and claim.
4) Refine all the above listed elements with the feedback received from the
more technically-experienced forum users.
5) Make your claims / disclosure post.

MAKING PROPER POWER MEASUREMENTS
Accurate power measurements are probably the most difficult and least
understood, yet the most meaningful measurements to perform, especially in the
Free Energy circles. If one makes a claim of overunity and their measurement of
input power vs. output power is either not supplied, or is questionable in its
accuracy, no one will be interested in delving further into or inquiring about their
work…and rightly so.

Far too often researchers are fooled by assuming that their test equipment or
method is yielding true and accurate measurements, when more often than not,
this is probably not the case. In fact, most researchers probably don’t
understand the basics of how meters work and what separates a truly TRUE RMS
measurement from an “average” one. The following is a quote from Bob
Paddock’s “POWER MEASUREMENT” article linked at the end of this document:

"I had a need to make a power measurement of an unusual high-frequency wave form for an
application I was working on. Because of the esoteric nature the application had, I wanted to be
sure I would not be hearing the words "Measurement Errors".

Far too often I've seen others try to do high-frequency power measurements by looking at the
signal on their oscilloscope, or by using their bench multimeter without understanding its
specifications. Looking at a complex high-frequency wave form with a multimeter designed for
60-Hz sine waves simply does not give meaningful results."
[pony99: unless one is looking for the average value of a signal, then DC meters perform well in this task]

A great deal of FE research involves the use of non-sinusoidal, spikey, and noisy
inputs and outputs. As such there are some “precautions” one must take to
ensure that any measurements performed on such devices under test (DUT’s)
will yield true and meaningful results. Devices utilizing or creating high frequency
components are especially susceptible to measurement errors and it is imperative
that this is understood. Special care and considerations are required in these
cases in order that good measurements can be obtained.
Please refer to the Power Measurements and High Frequency Measurements
threads for detailed information on performing accurate and obtaining
meaningful power measurements.

Following are some relevant terms that require definition and clarification:

OPEN AND CLOSED SYSTEMS
An Open System is one in which power or energy from outside the device’s
immediate domain, may be added to the system for free. This outside energy or
power is not the energy or power supplied by you the user to make the system
operate, but is energy or power supplied by the environment, universe, aether or
ZPF etc. This “outside” energy supplement is what makes “overunity” possible.
A Closed System is one in which no energy from outside the immediate domain
of the device can or will enter the system. The device sees only the energy or
power that you the user supply to it. Closed systems are therefore inherently
under, or at unity, but never overunity.

EFFICIENCY (η)
The efficiency of a DUT in a closed system, is simply the ratio between the
power converted by the device, namely “the output power”, to the power
supplied to the device by the user, namely “the input power”. Devices that
operate strictly in a closed system will always have an efficiency of 100% or less.
The efficiency of a DUT in an open system, is a little more complicated, but as I’ll
explain, not necessarily relevant to FE research.

Strictly speaking, the efficiency of a DUT in an open system is computed the
same way as that for a closed system. However, it may be difficult if not
impossible to calculate, depending on the device and its overunity mechanism.
If for example your DUT requires 10 Watts of input power to operate, wastes 9
Watts of power in heat (as measured with a calorimeter with no load), but puts
out 100 Watts, the efficiency of the device is only a meager 10% ! In this case,
at least 99 Watts of power is freely entering the system from the “outside” and
being converted and output by the device, but the efficiency is still only 10%.
To say that this device has an efficiency of 1000% is simply not correct ! Even in
open systems, the efficiency can not and must not be higher than 100%.
So by all means, strive to make your energy device as efficient as possible, but
the real and meaningful FE quest is to obtain more output power than is required
as input power for the device to operate.

COEFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE (COP)
Again we must examine this parameter in the context of open and closed
systems.

In a closed system, the COP will be equal to the efficiency in a sense, but is
expressed as a ratio as follows: 1:1 (η=100%), 0.8:1 (η=80%), etc. So one
should conclude from the discussion so far, that the COP in a closed system will
never be higher than 1:1.

In an open system, the COP could be anywhere from 0.1:1 to 106:1. It all
depends on the efficiency of the device (with low COP’s), and how much energy
or power is freely added to the system from the “outside” with a given input
power.

COP in open systems is computed by taking the ratio between the freely added
“outside” power (POopen), PLUS the output power (if any) supplied by the closed
system (POclosed), to the user-supplied input power (PI).
In equation form:

COP = (POopen + POclosed)/PI   OR  = POtotal/PI

Do we care if we are measuring collected open-system power PLUS closed system
power on the output? No. What we care about is obtaining more total
power on the output of the DUT, than we are supplying for device operation.

OVERUNITY
As already discussed, overunity is not possible in closed systems, and therefore
can only exist in open systems. Overunity then is achieved any time a device or
system exhibits a COP>1.
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 71
Poynt99
I respect your opinions, and while I agree with much of what is in your statement above, I do not share your assessment of what constitutes efficiency (and therefore overunity) in open systems. I do not wish to argue about your statement, but simply to draw your attention to the fact that there might be others whose perspective differs from yours on the issue of overunity in this and other threads. Perhaps this is where things are getting hung up.

Can we find new parameters for framing further discussion and research which will allow this thread to progress fruitfully? 
Can we at the grass roots come up with a way of proceeding and collaborating, leaving freedom to researchers to express opinions and follow threads as they see fit?

Perhaps there needs to be a "credo" for this that enables us to navigate this current situation, which is an opportunity for furthering knowledge, research and understanding.
I would hope that censorship would be a very last, and hopefully never needed resort.
Bob

Quote
OPEN AND CLOSED SYSTEMS
An Open System is one in which power or energy from outside the device’s
immediate domain, may be added to the system for free. This outside energy or
power is not the energy or power supplied by you the user to make the system
operate, but is energy or power supplied by the environment, universe, aether or
ZPF etc. This “outside” energy supplement is what makes “overunity” possible.
A Closed System is one in which no energy from outside the immediate domain
of the device can or will enter the system. The device sees only the energy or
power that you the user supply to it. Closed systems are therefore inherently
under, or at unity, but never overunity.

EFFICIENCY (η)
The efficiency of a DUT in a closed system, is simply the ratio between the
power converted by the device, namely “the output power”, to the power
supplied to the device by the user, namely “the input power”. Devices that
operate strictly in a closed system will always have an efficiency of 100% or less.
The efficiency of a DUT in an open system, is a little more complicated, but as I’ll
explain, not necessarily relevant to FE research.

Strictly speaking, the efficiency of a DUT in an open system is computed the
same way as that for a closed system. However, it may be difficult if not
impossible to calculate, depending on the device and its overunity mechanism.
If for example your DUT requires 10 Watts of input power to operate, wastes 9
Watts of power in heat (as measured with a calorimeter with no load), but puts
out 100 Watts, the efficiency of the device is only a meager 10% ! In this case,
at least 99 Watts of power is freely entering the system from the “outside” and
being converted and output by the device, but the efficiency is still only 10%.
To say that this device has an efficiency of 1000% is simply not correct ! Even in
open systems, the efficiency can not and must not be higher than 100%.
So by all means, strive to make your energy device as efficient as possible, but
the real and meaningful FE quest is to obtain more output power than is required
as input power for the device to operate.
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2993
Quote
I would hope that censorship would be a very last, and hopefully never needed resort.
Bob

Agreed.
Bob, I don't think censorship is at all common on this forum.  Seems pretty open, for the past several years anyway.  We are encouraged to avoid ad hominems, personalized attacks, that sort of thing.  Claims of ou would need to be backed up by careful measurements of course; and probably challenged by others on the forum (at least at first);  but I don't think they'd be "censored".
   
Group: Guest


@ALL


I don't have time or the patience to be dealing with Childish Villainy. I have a business a Family, a several website's to keep running, happy and up to date and maintain.

A good 60% of the people in the Public Forums are just here to do nothing but ruin it for all.

So, I will try one last thing to see if we can filter out the Childish Villainy and see if we can get somewhere.

E-Mail me @: PrivateOUR@hyiq.org

If I get enough interest I will put together a Private Research Team.

Important: To filter the Childish Villains I need your Full Name and your Screen Name that you typically would use.

As long as we can get rid of the fore mentioned Childish Villains I will proceed. Else this will not come of anything.

I am very tired of personal credibility attacks and all the rest of the carry on's that have happened. I have been here right from day one. I put my name and website to this to show credibility. I am not putting up with antics of Childish Villains!

If you wish to join my Private research Team, and you have not already upset me please feel free to enquire about this.

Yes this also is free but you must do your part.



   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3205
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I've not been able to find any claims made in this thread of COP>1 (although it may be in the linked videos and document), and since the title has had the words "free energy" removed from it, unless there is some objection we'll leave this thread as is and you all may continue to use it if you wish.

If you object, you may say so in this thread or via PM.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
I've not been able to find any claims made in this thread of COP>1 (although it may be in the linked videos and document), and since the title has had the words "free energy" removed from it, unless there is some objection we'll leave this thread as is and you all may continue to use it if you wish.

If you object, you may say so in this thread or via PM.

There may have been some editing of threads at one point.

A few claims are in the pdf document.

Page 23 of "Guide to Bucking Coils v2.3.pdf"

Also title page of same document: Guideline to Bucking Coils- Lenz's Law Free Power Extraction

A referenced video was titled: Solid State Generator - How to Build and tune a Solid State Electrical Generator!!! - Low Level OU

Leaving the thread as is sounds fine.

I will be replicating a version and report in as time permits.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
Hi all,

I tend to think that Clemente Figuera used whether some kind of bucking coils in his 1902 generator,or maybe some movement of the inducer field to cut yhe induced wires. If not, whatelse could he have used in his patent? Please Read it and comment if you think of any possibilities. All suggestions are welcome. In 1902 there were many witnesses  of his generator, and he even lit his house and sourrounding streets with his device.

Regards
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
I have taken the liberty to summarize the thread in a "benchmark" post:

Key points for those attempting a replication of the partnered coil device of EMJunkie (Chris Sykes)

Note: this is my interpretation after having followed the thread carefully and pressed Chris for the parts list etc.
==============================================================================

Use a deflection transistor such as 2SD1555 or equivalent for Q1, not a FET. The transistor has a built in damper diode.

Use an N3K FSF10A40 diode or equivalent for the catch diode D1.

Use the core from a flyback transformer, with a small gap in the leg where the cores are placed. (Chris says any flyback core will work)

Use 0.39mH spool wound coils (layer wound) that fit snugly onto the ferrite core legs. The 0.39mH is measured without the core, in free air.

Inductance will be much higher when slipped onto the core. (Chris used speaker crossover inductors for all three)

The center core is L1. The outer cores are L2, L3 which are wired out of phase.

The power supply for the circuit will be around 6.7 volts

The output resistor is a 10 ohm wire wound, as such it will have some inductance.

Use a Function Generator to drive the transistor at 1.732 kHz, 50% duty cycle. The drive voltage from the FG must be carefully adjusted so that the transistor comes out of saturation early in the drive cycle, at about 10 to 15% as seen in the scope shots.

This adjustment of drive voltage holds a DC current on the core for the remainder of the drive cycle. (this may be needed or will just waste power...my opinion)

Full flyback effect occurs when the zero level drive signal shuts off the transistor (at the end of the positive drive period.)

A 555 timer may be used for drive in place of a Function Generator, but current to the base of the transistor must be limited with a potentiometer to properly set up the low drive current.

With proper adjustment of the FG drive level, you will observe large ringing spikes during the full turnoff of the transistor, at the end of the positive drive period, as measured at the collector of the transistor.

A full assessment of power input vs power dissipated by all components including the load resistor would be required to verify a COP=1.7 as claimed by EMJunkie

I encourage Chris to comment or correct any errors in this post, so that replications may be closer to his device.

This is a rudimentary demonstration of what a post that makes a claim should look like at the outset. Also power measurements should be shown using the test points on the schematic for reference. Scope shots should also be referenced to test points, and a scope ground reference for each scope shot.

« Last Edit: 2015-02-12, 17:00:49 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
All of that looks good to me, BUT... we have several times encountered the statement or advice that the Primary (L1) coil can be wound over the top of the L2 Coil, and in the same winding "direction" or sense. This is the way my test coil set is constructed at the moment.

I've been planning to make another set with each coil wound on its own segment of bobbin, for better HV isolation. My first set wound up shorting from the L1 primary to the L2 coil from the high voltage produced, and I had to take it apart and rewind it with better insulation, then even resorted to potting the whole thing in corona dope. This seems to have cured my HV shorting problem, which also showed up internally in the L3 coil, with ozone production and visible sparklies inside the coil until I potted it. Now I am producing the nearly 4 kV spikes without shorting problems.
But I still plan to make another bobbin set with separate segments for all three coils, to see if there is some substantial difference from what I'm presently using. Making the bobbin is a bit of a pain but after that everything is easy.

As I've shown a few times, I can produce the same features on the voltage trace that is shown in the scopeshot above, by underdriving the transistor. The horizontal position of the "Transistor On Hard" portion of the trace is sensitive to the drive level from the FG or 555 oscillator. It is doubtful that most modern FGs will be able to drive the transistor adequately to make this blip disappear and keep the transistor ON for the full cycle, but the 555 system can do it easily, hence the need for the "volume control" series variable resistor in the Pin3 output from the 555 to the transistor Base. I'm using a 200 ohm trimpot or 400 ohm potentiometer at present. Since I'm using an inline current-viewing resistor instead of the lower bandwidth CC-65 clamp that EMJ used, I'm resolving more features in the current trace. But it is important to note that in that scopeshot from EMJ, the voltage and the current are apparently from different branches of the circuit, so they cannot be used for a power computation. 

I want to especially thank ION for being able to pull the details out of EMJ. The originally posted schematic with the mosfet symbol instead of the correct bipolar symbol threw me off for a bit. It is instructive to try a mosfet in the circuit, it uses a _lot_ less drive power to produce essentially the same effect, but it also will not light up a whole string of neons like the bipolar transistor will.

One last point: the power used to drive the transistor Base, whether it comes from the FG or from the 555 oscillator circuit, _must_ be considered as part of the input power to the circuit! This is not adequately addressed in any of EMJunkie's statements or posts and I believe that this part of the total input power isn't accounted for in his computations and measurements (which we still haven't seen.) In my setup using the 555 oscillator I am powering the 555 system in parallel with the power to the main board, so its power is automatically included in the total input to the system.
   
Group: Guest
One more thing:

I would also like to point out that the Scopeshot in ION's post uses the following Test Point for the voltage trace as indicted on EMJ's originally posted schematic. Referring to ION's re-draw, the Voltage trace is, I believe, taken from Test Point 3, with Test Point 1 as the "ground reference". I am not sure where the lower trace in the scopeshot comes from, but in EMJ's original schematic he is clamping the CC-65 Hantek current probe around the wire at the top of the load resistor. Hence he is apparently measuring current in a different branch from the voltage measurement.

I'm reposting EMJ's original schematic below so these test points can be seen as he reported using them. Don't be confused by the mosfet symbol.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
Hi TK

And thanks for your excellent work in helping to decipher all of this. I agree the test points that you have described are probably the correct ones, I was only guessing that it might have been taken at the collector, not having any other info at the time.

The "benchmark" post was only a starting point and may have some errors which we can weed out as well as missing info we can add later. It was more or less meant to be a demonstration of what is expected on this forum if a post regarding anomalous behavior of a circuit is to be studied by all.

A single reference document with rev numbers would be even better.

The effect of drive current on the flyback spikes, ringing and effect on power output should probably be studied in a bit more detail. You have shed some light on this with one of your videos.

I will give a bench test a shot as soon as I get the triple coil assembly wound. Need to find a three section bobbin in the stock room.

Thanks for your input and comments

Regards
ION
 


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
No problem, you're welcome and thanks back to you!

I just now finished winding my 3-section coil set. Approx. 145 turns of #27, outer coils wound opposite directions just as "partnered" renderings have shown. They are a little low in inductance, coming in at around 345  microHenry each. I "tuned" or equalized them as best as possible by taking off a couple turns or one turn at a time to get them all matched.  The bobbin is made from some phenolic tube and rounds cut from some very thin, unclad circuitboard material, superglued together. I haven't yet attached the heavier wire leads that I like to use, I'm taking a break for a while now.

ETA: I also attached the most recent "revision" of the circuit I have been using to light up the neons, just for completion. The diode I am using is similar in recovery time to the one specified in EMJ's schematic but is a little lower max voltage rating.  The coil turn count is for my old coilset, the new one has all three at about 145 turns, 345 microHenry. I don't expect the new coilset to work quite the same as far as HV spikes go, but we'll see.

   
Group: Guest
@ION:
Here's a question for you. With the three-coil set, which one is considered the "primary" or L1 coil? When assembled onto the ferrite core, if one of the end coils is "L1" then the L2 coil is over the gap in the core and the L3 coil isn't, so this creates an asymmetry. Should the center coil be considered and wired as the primary L1 then, since that arrangement would be more symmetrical?

   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 336
TK,

Look at this picture:



Right coil is the input coil. Middle and left is connected together.

GL.
   
Group: Guest
Yes, I finally figured that out! And going by the labels, assuming the manufacturer is consistent, the L1 "primary" is in the same winding direction "electrically" as the L2 middle coil and opposite to the L3 end coil. Right?
 

Where's the "head banging" smiley when you need it...
 :'(

Could you take a look at my annotated image and answer my questions, please?

I'm concerned about the connections of the probes, their reference leads, and the Black FG output lead. All connected together by common instrument grounding?
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down
@ION:
Here's a question for you. With the three-coil set, which one is considered the "primary" or L1 coil? When assembled onto the ferrite core, if one of the end coils is "L1" then the L2 coil is over the gap in the core and the L3 coil isn't, so this creates an asymmetry. Should the center coil be considered and wired as the primary L1 then, since that arrangement would be more symmetrical?

I would think a symmetrical layout (L1 center) should give a more equalized coupling to L2, L3,and a closer "null" (why I drew my schematic to reflect this). Apparently the 1.7 claim picture does not agree. We are on our own here, just have to try both ways and note the difference.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2502
Everyman decries immorality
Poynt99
I respect your opinions, and while I agree with much of what is in your statement above, I do not share your assessment of what constitutes efficiency (and therefore overunity) in open systems. I do not wish to argue about your statement, but simply to draw your attention to the fact that there might be others whose perspective differs from yours on the issue of overunity in this and other threads. Perhaps this is where things are getting hung up.

If you disagree with any part of Poynt99's statement please state clearly and concisely what you disagree with and offer a correction. The correction will be peer reviewed and if found relevant the original statement will be amended. If your correction is not found to be relevant the statement will remain as is. Science is not a matter of popular opinion, although many of today's scientists would have you believe so for their own personal benefit, this also applies to the many exploiting the gullibility of the general public in the free energy research field for their own personal gain.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features are frequently shared in common between them. The overall process of the scientific method involves making conjectures ( hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions.[4][5] An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question. The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments. Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis.[6] Experiments can take place in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars, and so on. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[7] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (or to the same degree), and are not always in the same order.


Can we find new parameters for framing further discussion and research which will allow this thread to progress fruitfully?  
Can we at the grass roots come up with a way of proceeding and collaborating, leaving freedom to researchers to express opinions and follow threads as they see fit?

Sure no problem with that Bob as long as it is backed up by evidence in support of the conjecture. Without evidential backup it is nothing more than pseudo-scientific conjecture and should be treated as such, if this field of research is to maintain any credibility at all.

Perhaps there needs to be a "credo" for this that enables us to navigate this current situation, which is an opportunity for furthering knowledge, research and understanding.
I would hope that censorship would be a very last, and hopefully never needed resort.
Bob

Furthering knowledge, research and understanding in this field demands hard study, lot's of it, no way around that. It demands correct terminology which comes naturally with hard study. It requires formulating a test plan, making prior predictions and then performing the experiment to observe the results. It requires high levels of professional integrity and data to accurately support your reported results. All of these things do not come for free Bob, you can either play at it and gain 15 minutes of illusory fame (and maybe a fat bank account) or do it properly and allow your developed technology to stand the test of time on it's own merit's.

Yeah I love this design too, it has thousands of hours of love devoted to it so far and the progress is pleasing. The experimental data has held to theory well and led to the structure, with many smaller proofs along the way providing the mini successes that keep you going. I have discovered some new possible integrations that I have had zero time to attend to, but they are interesting!

An example Bob, of correct procedure, and the real joy that can come from that. Do it right the first time, is my advice.
« Last Edit: 2015-02-13, 13:48:38 by evolvingape »


---------------------------
Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
   
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-04-18, 03:18:55