Partnered Output Coils

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Devices > Solid-State Generators > Partnered Output Coils

2024-05-01, 01:53:55
News: A

feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 ... 3 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 »

Author Topic: Partnered Output Coils (Read 363757 times)

ion	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #425 on: 2015-02-08, 14:50:46 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	From JEG Quote Nice work ION! May i ask what is your sim program? I use NI multisim. What is your opinion on this? About your question, isn't it that because you have a diode inside the measured brunch? I use LTSpice and in the past have used PSpice, never tried NI multism so no opinion. All further questions directed to me can go to EMJ, as I have grown weary of this thread. « Last Edit: 2015-02-09, 02:15:37 by ION » --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

poynt99	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #426 on: 2015-02-08, 17:48:25 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3207 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Is anyone still actively working on this? Are there still readers here that believe there is is something to the claim? --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

Chet K	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #427 on: 2015-02-08, 19:11:38 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 4012	Poynt This thread was a catalyst for some ongoing investigations By several members here,although The MO is much more defined in Those experiments.

Wistiti	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #428 on: 2015-02-08, 22:22:24 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Jeg on 2015-02-08, 09:13:52 My new setup consists of two coils in a bucking configuration again but... each coil weights 6.9Kg (just the wire and the pvc tube). 300m of awg15 per coil, and core weights approximately 35kg!!! Core is a bunch of soft rusty iron rods forming a core of 1 meter with total diameter of 10cm. Yes it is a huge toy but it is according to Cook's specifications for a self oscillation system. I wanted to use a 2m core but it takes too much space in my living room, something that my wife didn't like. I can't understand why!!! Ha! Ha! You surely have a nice wife! Make sure to take some photo of your "Godzilla" device and show us! Am really curious about the result you will have with it... Ciao!

Aking.21	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #429 on: 2015-02-08, 23:58:18 »
Sr. Member Posts: 370	Quote from: Jeg on 2015-02-08, 09:13:52 Nice work ION! May i ask what is your sim program? I use NI multisim. What is your opinion on this? About your question, isn't it that because you have a diode inside the measured brunch? EMJunkie I was looking your "not working" images in your pdf file. At the attached picture, if you reverse L1 or L4 then it will work isn't it? I ask because i made a new setup and i am thinking to wind two trigger coils upon each of the partnered coils. This is because if i wind just one trigger coil close or over of one partnered coil, then the balance between the partnered coils becomes off and leakage becomes greater. What is your opinion on this? My new setup consists of two coils in a bucking configuration again but... each coil weights 6.9Kg (just the wire and the pvc tube). 300m of awg15 per coil, and core weights approximately 35kg!!! Core is a bunch of soft rusty iron rods forming a core of 1 meter with total diameter of 10cm. Yes it is a huge toy but it is according to Cook's specifications for a self oscillation system. I wanted to use a 2m core but it takes too much space in my living room, something that my wife didn't like. I can't understand why!!! Daniel Macfarland Cook clearly states that his coils have to be organised in magnetic field aiding mode. The magnetic fields then reinforce each other until they heat up considerably. He recommends a rheostat to control the overheating. Your wire length is in the right ball park though. I am not sure about your core. How close are you to testing the monster? --------------------------- Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

TinselKoala	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #430 on: 2015-02-09, 07:35:07 »
Group: Guest	Thank you to the members who have invited me to join and post. I don't have a lot of time so I'll probably not be commenting much unless I am specifically asked to do so. There are far more competent and knowledgeable people than I, already posting pretty much the same things I'd be posting, anyway. But I do have to respond to this topic. Quote from: poynt99 on 2015-02-08, 17:48:25 Is anyone still actively working on this? I am. It's an exercise in measurement, and I've found already that there is a lot more power being dissipated in the transistor itself than there is in the "load" 10R wirewound cement resistor in the EMJ-Meyer circuit driven at 1.73 kHz. Of course I'm not using an NTE2331 (2sd1555 substitution) but rather a genuine, higher-power rated 2sd2539 (The NTE sub for this one is NTE2353, if anyone cares.) I'm also not using a FG or audio amp but rather a dedicated 555 oscillator as suggested here by Slider2732. I've also demonstrated, with measurements taken last night, that the "HV" branch of the circuit, essentially branch where EMJ has taken his "Vout" measurement, is able to put a fair amount of power into a NE-2 load string. This branch is separate from the "load resistor" branch since it is referred to the system's 0 volt power supply rail rather than truly across the load resistor. The ratio of input power (total, including the power to the 555 oscillator) to output power in the HV branch is about 6:1 or so. A lot of power is wasted in heating the transistor, in "singing" of the core and windings, etc. Since I have such rudimentary equipment, in order to get actual power measurements of the "load" branch by itself, I'll have to do spreadsheet analyses and at the moment I'm feeling too lazy to do that... since the load resistor doesn't even get warm, I know that there is less power being dissipated in it than in the transistor, so I'm not greatly motivated. Quote Are there still readers here that believe there is is something to the claim? Since the claim was not supported in the first place by solid data, exact schematics, drive parameters or the rest of the information that should have accompanied the claim... and since we now know that the claim was apparently based on a faulty or rather invalid measurement of the Vout in the EMJ-Meyer circuit as shown by him.... and since EMJ isn't being forthcoming with valid measurements of his own to support the claim.... I'm wondering what all the fuss was about in the first place. "Congratulations, you've invented the flyback transformer" is the way I'd sum up this experience so far. I have asked EMJ to provide the proper information in support of his OU claim and he seems to be saying that he's already done so. If he means the EMJ-Meyer circuit with his measurement points as shown in his schematic... then I think it's safe to conclude that it's a case of invalid measurements and interpretations of those measurements, rather than a case of a true OU circuit. I've invited him to prove me wrong by posting valid measurements of his own in support of his claim. Attached below is the voltage and current in the HV branch, with a load bank of 10 NE-2 neons in series. The current is the Vdrop across a 4.7 ohm 1% precision non-inductive resistor in a TO-220 style package. This shot was taken at the full drive available from the 555, so the Vout peak is clipped at the top. It actually goes to around 3kV or more. EMJ's FG cannot, I think, provide this level of drive so in the scopeshots I've seen from his version of the circuit, his transistor is underdriven, which is the cause of the "double ringdown" with the smaller ring in the approx. middle of the HI portion of the base drive signal from the FG. It also accounts for the much less amplitude of the main HV spike in those shots. I have also confirmed the presence of a large electric field around the device when operating, using my trusty old Tri-Field Meter. It shows a reading of about 10 kV/meter at a distance of 20 cm on the axis of my coilset. This is distinct from the magnetic field; the E-field can be mostly blocked by placing my hand between the coilset and the meter, but the magnetic field isn't affected. ------------------------ Partnered Output Coils TKsEMJMeyer555HV10neon4r7cvrOutexp2.png (38.03 kB, 1024x766 - viewed 1943 times.) Partnered Output Coils TKsEMJMeyerBuildSchematicHVOutMeas1.png (68.39 kB, 954x620 - viewed 2550 times.) Partnered Output Coils EFmeasureTriField1.JPG (395.87 kB, 800x682 - viewed 1975 times.)

EMJunkie	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #431 on: 2015-02-09, 08:31:09 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015-02-09, 07:35:07 I've also demonstrated, with measurements taken last night, that the "HV" branch of the circuit, essentially branch where EMJ has taken his "Vout" measurement, is able to put a fair amount of power into a NE-2 load string. This branch is separate from the "load resistor" branch since it is referred to the system's 0 volt power supply rail rather than truly across the load resistor. I have stated all along, exactly this! Quote from: EMJunkie on 2015-02-04, 20:53:10 Nice Work Itsu again! I wonder, All the spikes are missing from your Scope Shots of the output. Do you know why these are missing? Power in Watts = Voltage Squared / Resistance - Current = Voltage / Resistance The 400+ Volt Spikes I am getting are directly across the 10 Ohm resistor. I don't see any of it in your scope shots? Can you explain why please? You can see from my Schematic that the Resistor will see all of the E=½LI² so All of the Primary, less the voltage drop across the Diode will be present across the Resistor. I see none of this in your Scope Shots? All output measurements have not included this HV Output! Itsu showed 0.68 - What's the HV Power? TK said: "a fair amount of power into a NE-2 load string" Again no one is listing... 0.68 + 0.32 is Unity!!!! TK has said exactly what I have been waiting for - Thanks TK Welcome to OUR also! « Last Edit: 2015-02-09, 09:40:55 by EMJunkie »

Jeg	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #432 on: 2015-02-09, 08:40:25 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Wistiti on 2015-02-08, 22:22:24 Ha! Ha! You surely have a nice wife! Make sure to take some photo of your "Godzilla" device and show us! Am really curious about the result you will have with it... Ciao! HaHa wistiti! I will post some today when i return home. Finally the core weights 55Kg by itself! I managed to put the complete setup on a work bench with much difficulty! It is my second attempt on Cook's coils. My previous coils were 400m each but after a complete disappointment i used the wire in other experiments. Hi A.king. This patent is one of the most exotic claimed one. Just to know, Cook doesn't say anywhere about aiding mode. He just mentions that in compound hellices the winding direction is the same for both coils on each core but if you see the explanation they work as to make a tension in the center of the iron core. So the mode for simple hellices also is not an aiding one. He uses a Rheostat to limit the developed current. It supposed that once you start it working, then you put your loads in parallel with the rheostat so to bypass it. I will report if anything is interesting! Have a nice day folks ps. Just show you Tinsel! You are the voice of logic as always! Will you ever let us spend some dollars to any experiments? hahaha Ok serious now, you are so many years in the field. Have you ever met any overunity effect during your testings? I always had this question! Take care

Grumage	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #433 on: 2015-02-09, 11:32:40 »
Group: Renaissance Man Hero Member Posts: 2738	Quote from: Jeg on 2015-02-09, 08:40:25 Hi A.king. This patent is one of the most exotic claimed one. Just to know, Cook doesn't say anywhere about aiding mode. He just mentions that in compound hellices the winding direction is the same for both coils on each core but if you see the explanation they work as to make a tension in the center of the iron core. So the mode for simple hellices also is not an aiding one. Dear Jeg. A.king21 has written, many times, on the interpretation of 19 th century electrical speak. I would also hazard a gues that " compound hellices " Is suggesting aiding. Compound steam engines have cylinders that are put together ( compounded ) to aid the overall output. I have more than just a passing interest in this device and I am looking forward to reading about your findings. BTW, there is a dedicated thread here at OUR, perhaps you should consider posting there so as not to create a " tangent " here. Cheers Grum. --------------------------- Nanny state ? Left at the gate !!

Jeg	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #434 on: 2015-02-09, 13:04:00 »
Group: Guest	Thanks Grum! I will post any results on the other thread. About aiding or subtracting, Cook mentions about "magnetic action upon the iron bar in the center''. This can be happen only if fields are in an opposite direction. But, i will read patent again having A.king's proposal in mind in case i missed something. Thanks again guys

TinselKoala	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #435 on: 2015-02-10, 04:20:41 »
Group: Guest	Jeg asked, Quote Ok serious now, you are so many years in the field. Have you ever met any overunity effect during your testings? I always had this question! Take care... I've seen several cases where very competent people honestly thought they had OU results and spent years and many many dollars of funding on trying to develop the effects. Unfortunately they have always turned out to be errors of one kind or another. The case that comes to mind right away is that of Peter Graneau. If you google his name you'll find out lots and lots of information about his OU claims. I had the good fortune to work for the principal laboratory supporting him and researching his claims, for several years. Finally we were able to show that his OU claims were based on an incorrect model of the actual events happening in the water arc experiments and so the efforts to extract the "OU" in usable form were doomed to fail from the beginning. Some papers in scientific journals were even retracted by one of the authors because of these corrected findings from new and properly performed experiments. I have also encountered a few cases of outright fraud, hidden wires and such. I don't put these into the same class as the above. Some other cases, like that of Roznyay's antigravity, and also Podkletnov's antigravity, which I have worked on during my employment at the various laboratories, are less clear. Are they deliberate frauds, or just honest mistakes? I have my opinion about these, but all I can say factually is that the claims are incorrect and are impossible to replicate under well-controlled conditions, no matter how much money and expertise is thrown at them. So I guess that would be a "no", then. The closest would be the Graneau work, since it came from someone with great credentials, had a seemingly solid theoretical basis and produced experimental results that, at first, appeared to support the claims. After years of misguided research, finally the proper experiments were performed and a proper theoretical understanding was developed of the underwater arc events, and the "OU" went away, and the experimental results were well accounted for by the new model used for analysis. PG died recently and I'm sure he still believed that he was correct. But he wasn't. That doesn't prevent the labs I was with in those days from continuing to seek what we are all seeking. I personally think that it's important to have an extremely skeptical view, while still searching, because I know how easy it is to be fooled in various ways. Especially by one's own theory and experiments! Richard Feynman said, "The easiest person to fool is yourself".

EMJunkie	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #436 on: 2015-02-10, 06:34:54 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015-02-10, 04:20:41 Jeg asked, I've seen several cases where very competent people honestly thought they had OU results and spent years and many many dollars of funding on trying to develop the effects. Unfortunately they have always turned out to be errors of one kind or another. The case that comes to mind right away is that of Peter Graneau. If you google his name you'll find out lots and lots of information about his OU claims. I had the good fortune to work for the principal laboratory supporting him and researching his claims, for several years. Finally we were able to show that his OU claims were based on an incorrect model of the actual events happening in the water arc experiments and so the efforts to extract the "OU" in usable form were doomed to fail from the beginning. Some papers in scientific journals were even retracted by one of the authors because of these corrected findings from new and properly performed experiments. I have also encountered a few cases of outright fraud, hidden wires and such. I don't put these into the same class as the above. Some other cases, like that of Roznyay's antigravity, and also Podkletnov's antigravity, which I have worked on during my employment at the various laboratories, are less clear. Are they deliberate frauds, or just honest mistakes? I have my opinion about these, but all I can say factually is that the claims are incorrect and are impossible to replicate under well-controlled conditions, no matter how much money and expertise is thrown at them. So I guess that would be a "no", then. The closest would be the Graneau work, since it came from someone with great credentials, had a seemingly solid theoretical basis and produced experimental results that, at first, appeared to support the claims. After years of misguided research, finally the proper experiments were performed and a proper theoretical understanding was developed of the underwater arc events, and the "OU" went away, and the experimental results were well accounted for by the new model used for analysis. PG died recently and I'm sure he still believed that he was correct. But he wasn't. That doesn't prevent the labs I was with in those days from continuing to seek what we are all seeking. I personally think that it's important to have an extremely skeptical view, while still searching, because I know how easy it is to be fooled in various ways. Especially by one's own theory and experiments! Richard Feynman said, "The easiest person to fool is yourself". Jeg, TK and all, Frauds, Hoaxes, valid attempts and serious people have all entered and tried. Some are still in the arena and still trying. Watch out for people that need money!!! They are always the worst. I have spent many years searching. I have found the best and most accurate statement about Energy Production to be from Nikola Tesla: "Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. This idea is not novel. Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason; it has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new. We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who derives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic! If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic — and this we know it is, for certain — then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature. " This statement is the most important of all. Know what Kinetic Energy is, know where we already employ it to "Generate" Electrical Energy!!! Stick to the most basic and simple principals of all! Know how an Electrical "Generator" Works!!! Know where Energy comes from!! One can not go wrong if one knows and can employ the most basic of these principals! Its not hard, the standard Electrical "Generator" uses a Rotary Motion, this motion is Kinetic! The Movement of Magnetic Flux is also Kinetic! The Cutting of a Conductor is also Kinetic!! The Force of two Coils Bucking each other is also Kinetic! Know the basics, follow your feet, take little steps and your instincts will take you the rest of the way. TK is right, many have paraded and mislead others, but again, if its Electrical Energy you are after, start from the start, don't recreate a new world that is unknown! If you want a Cup of Water, you don't go to the Desert!!! All the Best Chris P.S: My early experiments in the Flux Gate Magnetometer were not OU but incorporating a Self Assisting Oscillation will show an amazing path forward: URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjEcmMT-GSs URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_kB6GQK9BE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJsVSMQqCOM Really, its very important, don't over complicate this! It is so simple.

Jeg	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #437 on: 2015-02-10, 09:37:46 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015-02-10, 04:20:41 That doesn't prevent the labs I was with in those days from continuing to seek what we are all seeking. I personally think that it's important to have an extremely skeptical view, while still searching, because I know how easy it is to be fooled in various ways. Especially by one's own theory and experiments! Richard Feynman said, "The easiest person to fool is yourself". Thanks for sharing your experience Tinsel! I wish we can learn more from you, and finally one day to meet what we are searching for. You reminded me all these sleepless nights where i thought that i was at the overunity side, hopping dreaming and smiling with joy. But at the end the landing to reality is always a big disappointment. Anyway...as Churchill said.. "we shall never surrender"

Jeg	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #438 on: 2015-02-10, 10:04:54 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: EMJunkie on 2015-02-10, 06:34:54 Stick to the most basic and simple principals of all! Know how an Electrical "Generator" Works!!! Know where Energy comes from!! Know the basics, follow your feet, take little steps and your instincts will take you the rest of the way. If you want a Cup of Water, you don't go to the Desert!!! All the Best Thanks for your pushing Chris! Nothing is finished yet on this matter for me. Bucking coils are in many patents and devices so something happens here. Even if it can't bring overunity by it self, it can be used as a base for many experiments to this direction. For example, i use my yoke core with Meyer setup to charge a 11nF cap at 1200V, and discharge it with a satisfied rate through a second transformer. I am really impressed from the fact that what ever i do to the output, my input current consumption needle is as steady as hell to about 300-400mA at 24V. I feel that by cascading this process, eventually it will end up with something decent that perhaps could self run the whole system. Will see! Hope is never dying!!!

forest	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #439 on: 2015-02-10, 10:15:13 »
Sr. Member Posts: 462	I think you will find this video interesting .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHYz2igDkA&feature=em-uploademail Someone posted today....

Peterae	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #440 on: 2015-02-10, 19:01:59 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3867	Guys is the title of this thread correct, A free energy device should clearly show free energy results having been tested and replicated and only then should a device or thread be tagged as a Free Energy Device, so far although not fully been following it looks to me that the device has been labbelled Free Energy without any proof or successful replication, if that is the case i suggest a change of title until proof exists.

poynt99	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #441 on: 2015-02-10, 19:28:38 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3207 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Peter, It's my fault for letting this thread go unabated, but I did advise of the policies at OUR. I would suggest EMJ be given one last opportunity to demonstrate substantiating proof of his claim, otherwise this thread will be closed or deleted. The floor is yours EMJ... --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

Jeg	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #442 on: 2015-02-10, 19:50:15 »
Group: Guest	Hi point99 It is your responsibility but I think it is not democratic to delete or lock a thread where many opinions has been told from several people. It would be better if you let it roll as any other thread. People can learn even after failed attempts to build something. Not only from successful experiments! But as I mentioned it is your responsibility and sorry for intervening.

Peterae	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #443 on: 2015-02-10, 20:19:07 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3867	For starters i have removed the Words - 'Free Energy' from the title, it can be put back if the claims come true

NerzhDishual	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #444 on: 2015-02-10, 22:00:40 »
Group: Guest	Delete this thread, gee! For my part EMJunkie gave me a lot of information and food for thought. Guess watt? This day, I 'rediscovered' this document: "Andrei_Melnichenko_Inventions.pdf" that have been on my computer disk for some time. I did not know where it came from. Google told me that it came from a certain website: "hyiq.org". http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Andrei_Melnichenko_Inventions.pdf IMO, this document is worth to a glance even if it is a not so good translation from Russian... Just one quote: "So, for example, when adding three vectors Pointing, Pointing vector increases the total to nine times, not three, as it seems at first glance." I have rewritten the schematic included in the said document: Thanks for reporting any error(s). IMO, the "Feedback" box should include an inductor. Also "Parametric" stuffs, here. No? Le bonsoir vous sied, Jean

EMJunkie	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #445 on: 2015-02-10, 22:22:59 »
Group: Guest	Thanks Jean, It seems some are a bit under the weather. Frustration from greed maybe? Forest over at ou.com kindly shared these; [youtube]WRZBO-LILlA#t=32[/youtube] [youtube]lhHYz2igDkA[/youtube] [youtube]I6LRshJwht4[/youtube] I wonder why it is that some people can grasp this but so many others cant? I am happy for you to change the name, delete the thread, do what ever you like, but doing such things will not make this go away. If only people read and followed the data trail instead they expect to be given everything. All the Best Chris ------------------------ Partnered Output Coils Economy Transformer.jpg (55.56 kB, 577x399 - viewed 2618 times.)

NerzhDishual	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #446 on: 2015-02-11, 00:13:02 »
Group: Guest	Hi EMJunkie, Thanks for the vids. About this one: "Secret economy transformer" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHYz2igDkA I have also rewritten the schematic: Any error(s)? ------------- Actually my few neurons do not understand what I call "twisted" schematics. To me, the source, the coils, the transistors, the capacitors and the loads, should be vertical. When I pass a "space visualisation" test I get the IQ of a slug. Fortunately, computer programming is not 'spatial'. ---------------------------- I should ave taken Russian instead German as a second language when I was in school (veryyyy loonng time ago)... I do not understand Russian. I try to heal me, but I'm a little bit lazy. I got one Russian lesson CD. But it is almost useless technically speaking wise. Yet, to just understand a great part of the (technical) Russian explanations 'OU' vids should not take too much pain. Speaking Russian is another job. Too many declensions.. ---------------------- A little story: A couple of years ago, I was in touch with a French guy who claimed to get "OU" with of the shelf trafos sometimes mixed with especially wound ones and sometimes with some diodes! He kept on phoning and snail mailing me (he is not Internet connected) his clair as mud circuits. My guts(intuition) was, nevertheless, telling me that this guy should be into something. Unfortunately he was, IMO, kinda 'schizophrenic' and no usefull exchange was possible. So I gave up. But I have not forgotten him and his twisted circuits.... Finally, while seeing all these Russian vids, I now figure out that my intuition was right! ------------ Beware the Russian people! They are very clever and scientifically sharp and open minded. In addition, they are held (as the Frenches from Brittany) in high repute for boozing. Bien le bonsoir à nouveau, Jean

EMJunkie	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #447 on: 2015-02-11, 01:43:40 »
Group: Guest	Hi Jean! Hahaha I also do some Programming, takes some clever thinking to achieve goals when Programming. Schematic's are open to interpretation when looking at coils like these. Very hard to draw and get the idea across. It will either work or not work. Approximately 99% of all Electro Motive Force is Countered by Lenz's Law. If we were to reduce Lenz's Law by 10% this may give us Unity. 20% 110 OU...... Lenz's Law is a Reflected Magnetic Field. Directly the result of Current Flow. Working with the Magnetic, as long as one can show Charge Separation at the same time, will led to possibilities where the Magnetic Field Component can be localised, and yet not reflect back on the primary. It is easy to see such effects, once one Loads the Secondary, the primary current will either not change, or reduce. All devices have losses, this is unavoidable. The idea is to recoup these losses and some for a useful output. I have found and shown 2 Coil Configurations that can be beneficial. It just so happens that I stumbled onto these configurations, before realising the History behind them. Electrical Energy all comes from the same place. No new Science is needed! Energy is Matter, Charge Separation via Magnetic Force, the Lorentz Force is how Energy is brought forth to terminals. 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. 1: Separate your Charge Carriers (Ion's and Electrons) 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. Plain, Simple, right smack in the face of all. So many can not think simply anymore, their brains seem over complicate things. Nice Work Jean One example of such use: ------------------------ US4806834.pdf (443.89 kB - downloaded 426 times.)

Wistiti	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #448 on: 2015-02-11, 01:48:26 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Jeg on 2015-02-10, 19:50:15 Hi point99 It is your responsibility but I think it is not democratic to delete or lock a thread where many opinions has been told from several people. It would be better if you let it roll as any other thread. People can learn even after failed attempts to build something. Not only from successful experiments! But as I mentioned it is your responsibility and sorry for intervening. that exactly the way i think too! merci!!!

EMJunkie	Re: Partnered Output Coils « Reply #449 on: 2015-02-11, 02:11:32 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: poynt99 on 2015-02-10, 19:28:38 Peter, It's my fault for letting this thread go unabated, but I did advise of the policies at OUR. I would suggest EMJ be given one last opportunity to demonstrate substantiating proof of his claim, otherwise this thread will be closed or deleted. The floor is yours EMJ... Poynty99 I first tried to ignore this post. Your threats and demands for full disclosure will be ignored. You will not gain anything, other than a self satisfaction of being the one, that is in total control of this thread. I don't care, I will go elsewhere! I might even go and start my own OURBeta @Peter, If you feel that this thread be best deleted, Please do so.

Pages: 1 ... 3 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

2024-05-01, 01:53:55

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2