Bifilar pancake coil made of coaxial cable.

Input power was 5.277 uW
Output power was 7.500 uW

https://overunity.com/17861/bifilar-pancake-coil-overunity-experiment

https://archive.org/details/bpcoe

Any feedback is welcomed.

It's here now.  I'll have to look at it carefully and understand fully what you have going on before I can comment.

First look troubles me a bit with those waveforms--very difficult to get accurate power measurements.

Thanks a lot.

Yes the way i calculated, drawing the graphs with a vector graphics editor, is not the most accurate, though it may be accurate enough. I have an analog scope, so the picture of the oscilloscope screen is all i get. But if one has a digital oscilloscope, then i think it's possible to get the waveform data from it in some format, and then do the calculations with a python script in a similar way than i did. This python script will likely be as simple, no matter whether the data is in the vector form or sample form.

I once thought to try to replicate it using a $13 dso138 scope, so that everyone can replicate that experiment, this may be possible though i'm not certain, this thing certainly distorts a lot. But now it seems that it may be rather replicated using some rigol scopes.

I have an old hitachi 20 mhz scope, i thoroughly calibrated it and all, and it is a good and precise instrument, but it also has places burned in on the screen, so i cannot even always move the trace to the grid line.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 13th, 2018, 10:05 AM

First look troubles me a bit with those waveforms--very difficult to get accurate power measurements.

Waveforms are complicated right, this needs a very high precision. Indeed anything less than a digital oscilloscope might not be precise enough. Reading a waveform data, and do calculations from this. But doing it with a digital oscilloscope like that will certainly be precise enough.

Rigol should give waveform data for every channel, is it 600 samples for the screen, each sample one byte. It's quite easy to modify the python script for that, 3 lists are necessary, and gety() should just return y.

Then the error range might be calculated. Say like the oscilloscope could make a mistake one pixel up or down, then calculate with the worst and best values, and see whether the possible overunity is still in that range. Enough i think, voltage on R2 and R3 during the input part greater by one pixel, is there still overunity.

Sorry, i use it here more like my blog. I did it with gschem. I think this should be done with Inkscape, when a copy of the oscilloscope screen needs to be drawn. Precision is everything there. I tried to draw it with Inkscape, but had some trouble, the ends of the lines on the picture of the oscilloscope screen are blurry, where they supposed to begin and end? Python script can be written to read data from svg file, there, input, output and channel 2 are all 3 separate paths. But i have not done it yet. So by now there is only a script for gschem. And all that trouble is for using analog scope, from digital scope waveform data can be obtained, and the python script needs only a slight change to calculate based on the waveform data instead. Is anything bout digital scope accurate enough for this thing? Never had to think about it, but i have no digital scope.

If someone happens to replicate this experiment with a digital scope, send the waveform data to me, then i will modify the python scipt, so it can calculate from that. Better to measure, measure everything.

I now wrote a Python screen for extracting data from an Inkscape file in my overunity forum thread above, and tried using it with Inkscape, using Inkscape for that is absolutely the best and sufficiently accurate. All the rest, like the picture of the oscilloscope matters, but as i said the accuracy can be estimated.

So what is in the overunity com, only false replications, two so far, but a hundred such is no better.

Quote from ayeaye on September 22nd, 2018, 02:06 PM

So what is in the overunity com, only false replications.

What do you mean?

Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2018, 02:07 PM

What do you mean?

By false i mean false. One showed like there were no coil at all, other measured the overunity in the circuit again, not in the coil what the experiment was about. The rest, his results are so tiny that there is no accuracy. In addition he used mosfet that leaked back and forth, making all results not valid, positive or negative. There seems to be nothing useful to get for anything from neither of these.

And then how can i explain to people that  P = V * I , one and other comes, and says that it's not true, right for everything else, but not for coils. This really freaks out.

Quote from ayeaye on September 22nd, 2018, 02:14 PM

By false i mean false. One showed like there were no coil at all, other measured the overunity in the circuit again, not in the coil what the experiment was about. The rest, his results are so tiny that there is no accuracy. In addition he used mosfet that leaked back and forth, making all results not valid, positive or negative. There seems to be nothing useful to get for anything from neither of these.

And then how can i explain to people that  P = V * I , one and other comes, and says that it's not true, right for everything else, but not for coils. This really freaks out.

Well, for what it's worth, when it comes to calculating electric power you must also take reactive components into consideration, leaving the formula P = V * I * Cos(phi) where the Cos(phi) bit of it all contains (summarizes) the reactive parts of the circuit in question.
As for coils the (inductive) reactive component makes for the main reactive part of it, with it's impedance increasing with the frequency of the current running through it, all according to Xl = wl = 2 * pi * f * l, with l being the coil's reactance in Henry's and f being the current frequency running through it.
More about this here, https://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/inductor/ac-inductors.html

Quote from Lynx on September 22nd, 2018, 02:40 PM

Well, for what it's worth, when it comes to calculating electric power you must also take reactive components into consideration, leaving the formula P = V * I * Cos(phi) where the Cos(phi) bit of it all contains (summarizes) the reactive parts of the circuit in question.

Again, cos(phi) is for whole waveforms, i calculate power at any moment of time.

Yes, instantaneous power.  And if your delta-t is very, very small, you will be quite accurate, but still not perfect.  It is still possible to have dips or spikes between samples that you cannot account for.  So a rule of thumb is to make sure you can get at least three to four good samples over the rise or fall time of any abrupt change in measurement.  Your sampling rate must exceed any predicable slew rate.

For instance with evostar's disruptive discharges, to calculate power with your method, you would need to be able to take three or four samples within 10 to 20 nanoseconds.  This is pretty hard to do, so the next best method then is to determine a cycle time and average the power across this entire cycle (at least), or multiple cycles, say 100--easiest if you can reduce both the input and output to filtered/damped DC.

And as I stated before, the gold standard is to loop the device, so that it runs itself and produces some quantity of additional output beyond what it sends back as input to drive the device.  When building any such device, the looping mechanism should be worked out in advance, then build your solution around it.  Power measurements can then be tossed out the window because the proof becomes self-evident.

Quote from Matt Watts on September 22nd, 2018, 03:45 PM

And as I stated before, the gold standard is to loop the device, so that it runs itself and produces some quantity of additional output beyond what it sends back as input to drive the device.  When building any such device, the looping mechanism should be worked out in advance, then build your solution around it.  Power measurements can then be tossed out the window because the proof becomes self-evident.

No i don't agree with that, i think what is important is research, and for that whether the overunity can power all circuit is not important at all. As i said i did my experiment only to measure overunity in the coil, only in the coil and nowhere else. I to the opposite think that power measurements are the only thing important, these are important for research, and theory. Everything else is not important, everything else is engineering, and this doesn't really matter, this rather hinders research.

I think that important is research, like Faraday did, he wanted to find out how nature works.

To each their own.

In my opinion and mine only, I think if I handed someone like Russ Gries two fully functional self-running devices, he would in a short time be able to explain things about nature none of us even imagined were true.  It would accelerate the learning and understanding by orders of magnitude.

I thought for years maybe if we could get at the root of nature and walk our way up the tree, we would fully know how it all works, but I see now, I was mistaken.  This is the course science has taken where it went up the tree, went out on one single branch and made it to a leaf and now firmly believes it knows everything it needs to know.  There is a whole "rest of the tree" that has never been and will not be explored.  Unless...

Someone or something hands us a flower, a flower we have never seen before.  When or if that happens, all the rules have to be looked at again because obviously they are incomplete or likely in error.

It's different strokes for different folks, but in the end, we need a new perspective that opens a door to our knowledge and understanding.  Again, that's how I currently look at things, right or wrong.  I am always willing to try something new, but I'm very hesitant to try something the same way that I've tried in the past, when it didn't lead to anything significant.

As far as "Free Energy", "Over Unity", or "Self Running" devices go, there only needs to be one of them out there that is real.  If we are able to look inside that device and see how it operates, especially if it does something we are told is impossible, it's game on.  There's a new sheriff in town.  That's where progress can flourish.

The induction, i see it as swinging of atoms in the core. The electron orbiting, this rotates the electric field. but it pushes electrons in one direction only when it turns towards the wire or away from the wire. It's like you stand facing a house, and someone aims a stream of water at you from the roof of the house. When the water hits you from behind your back, then it moves you forward, but when it goes over you and hits you from front, then it moves you backwards more than it moved you forward, because the water stream is shorter then.

Now moving the electrons forward, what is involved in it is the electron orbiting the nucleus of the atom. And the electron doesn't fall to the nucleus when it does work, so this may be a source of overunity. Where it comes from, well in general, doing work makes things move in some orderly way, and this should decrease the chaos and thus energy at the zero point. And working against the field should increase the chaos, and thus the energy at the zero point.

But overunity is not really anything extraordinary. When you hold an object and then drop it, it falls to the ground and gets energy, means the field does work, this is overunity. But the earth's gravitational field is symmetric, that is spherical, means to rise it to the same height again, one has to do the same amount of work. This is because the field is symmetric, not because of the conservation of energy. Some other fields like magnetic field are not symmetric, as it has two poles. And every asymmetric field can do work, that is, there is a way to go through that field, by increasing the speed.

The induction is very symmetric, but when like it works to create charge in a capacitance which is near so that electrons don't have to much move, then there may not be much Lenz effect back. Like there is such capacitance in a bifilar coil. And this may be one thing that may make it asymmetric, which should appear as the coil's back-emf becoming wider. As this may depend on self-oscillation, then it may appear more near the resonant frequency.

I don't know about this real device, the only thing i can say is that when there is overunity in a coil, then my experiment in that overunity com thread should show that.