Partnered Output Coils

  • Last Post 25 May 2019
  • Topic Is Solved
Chris posted this 05 August 2017

Many times I have talked about Partnered Output Coils. People call them Bucking Coils. I prefer not to use this terminology. Its a bit confusing. I use a Sudo Diagram:

I have been through the "Common Mode Choke" and why Partnered Output Coils are different in the Timing Thread.

People in general seem to have a largely misunderstood inception of Partnered Output Coils, or Bucking Coils in general.

Andrey Melnichenko also shows a Bucking Component to his Coils. But the Coils were not Bucking as we think of Bucking.

Here is an example of how it is a misunderstood area of Science. Itsu is an excellent Experimenter, this is not intended as a dig, just an observation:



Studding this video, it is obvious there has been a lot of effort gone into this. A lot of work! But Itsu is missing something, something that is the most important of all! Can you spot what it is?

His Grenade Coil is wrong! This also pointed out in the comments.

The Grenade Coil must have, what would normally be thought of as a "Non-Inductive" Component, a Bucking Component! Actually, we will find, as time goes on, this is Highly, extremely Inductive!

Turns 1 and 2 are Counter Clockwise, turns 3, 4, 5 and 6 are Clockwise. 

Ask yourself the question, how is it that a huge amount of Electrical Power can be extracted from a NON-Inductive Coil?

Also from Ruslan Kulabuhov

It is actually this Extremely Inductive Component that makes a Common-Mode Choke work as it does!

Floyd Sweet also shows this exact same Bucking of Magnetic Fields:


The VTA Description is as follows:

 Consider for a moment the construction of the triode which includes the bifilar coils located within the fields of the two magnets.

When the current in one half of the conductors in the coils (i.e., one of the bifilar elements in each coil) of the device is moving up, both the current and the magnetic field follow the right-hand rule.

The resultant motional E-field would be vertical to both and inwardly directed.

At the same time the current in the other half of the conductors in the coils is moving down and both the current and magnetic field follow the right-hand rule.

The resulting motional E-field is again vertical to both and inwardly directed.

Thus, the resultant field intensity is double the intensity attributable to either one of the set of coil conductors taken singularly.

Now, a Right Hand Rule both facing Inwards, it is the same as:

Why? Why must we have Opposing Magnetic Fields?

If the directions of the two signals are such that opposite H-fields cancel and E-fields add, an apparently steady E-field will be created. The energy density of the fields remain as calculated above, but the value of the E-field will double from E/2 to E.

By Opposing the Magnetic Fields in a Dynamic System, the Electrical Field doubles! The Mr Preva Experiment proved this to be true!

Floyd Sweet also said:

Current is deemed as a quantity or number of charged particles moving from P1 to P2 in time t, or as the charge transferred in one second by a current of one ampere. The coulomb is the charge on 6.24 x 1018 electrons. Electric fields are due to the presence of charges. Magnetic field effects are due to the motion of charges. Current is the net rate of flow of positive charges. This is a scalar quantity.

In the specific case of positive charges moving to the right and negative charges to the left, the effect of both actions is positive charge moving to the right. Current to the right is: I = da+/dt + da-/dt. Negative electrons flowing to the left contribute to the current flowing to the right.

The Mr Preva Experiment also proved this to be true!

We see a Standing Wave of Magnetic Fields! 

 This thread is for those with questions, thank you Vasile for the following question.


  • Liked by
  • cd_sharp
Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Chris posted this 05 August 2017

Hi Vasile,

1: No, one Coil, if applying the Right Hand Grip Rule, is wrong.

2: Conventional Thinking, this is how Bucking would work. Yes.

As pointed out above, we are looking for an Energy Gain, this is a "Generating" concept that we need to think about. "Generating" Joules per-second, or Watts, this means we need to make Charge Flow inside the Insulated Copper Conductor.

To achieve this, we must know, already, how an Electric Generator works. A Magnetic Field moves with Velocity into a "Generating" Coil separating this Charge... A Dynamic System, with variables that Change over Time.

This is not how Bucking Coils work, Bucking Coils are Rigid, Non Dynamic Systems. They do not Change over Time like a "Generator" does.

In the recent Parametric Oscillator information I posted, we saw that the Frequency of the System must have another excitation twice that of the System Frequency. This fact introduces a Dynamic Component to a normally Rigid System, it introduces Non-Linearity.

I hope this gives some answers to your questions?


  • Liked by
  • cd_sharp
Chris posted this 11 August 2017

I would like to point out a very interesting fact. Floyd Sweet said: "No Vibrations" @17:01 in the below video:



For your convenience, the initial release of this video is below for comparison:



Also, another important thing is, we know from images and the above video, that Floyd Sweet had problems with Vibrations:

Check out that huge sponge!

When the Coils Oppose, of course as you can imagine, they throw out a lot of Vibration! I guess, like a Bucking Bronco, trying the best he can to Buck Off the Rider, the Magnetic Fields under high Stress, want to separate!

 Its a hard one truth, but the early Floyd Sweet work is just too easy to pass by, but, when replicated, and replicated properly, this works:


In my opinion, its the smallest things that lead to the greatest successes. This work is the same as The MEG, only used in a slightly different way.



Don't forget the Magnets! Floyd Sweet gave us the reason to use Magnets:

An approximate analogy, not by any means perfect, is as follows:

Picture a side-wheel paddle steam boat making its way down stream in the same direction as a fairly strong tidal flow. Assume the steam engine to be highly efficient, say 80%. Now assume the engine to be working at this efficiency and that the tidal energy integrates with that of the engine in propelling the ship. The acceleration increases to a point where the horsepower increases beyond that equivalent energy consumed by the engine. If one were not aware of the tidal flow energy integrated with that of the consumed energy, one would conclude the engine efficiency was greater than unity. This is hypothetical. As the momentum of the tide relates only to the mass of the steamboat’s displacement of the medium, water. Actually if the forward momentum of the tide was able to relate only to the paddle wheel the forward or positive force would tend to force the wheel to turn in the opposite or negative direction.

Then in the hypothetical case, the force of the tide on the mass of the ship would equal the force acting on the paddle wheel and the ship would be motionless. In order to move in the forward direction, the engine would need to overcome the negative force of the tide on the wheel. Little engine hp would be needed, as it would integrate with the positive flow of the tide, acting on the displacement mass of the ship. The above is not achievable in practice, as the only way the tide could relate to the paddle wheel in such a manner, the mass of the ship would have to be completely out of the water and only the wheel within the flow of the tide would turn, as the momentum of the flow of the tide would not be in effect. This is reactive power – no work is done. The wheel turns but the ship is motionless. Conversely, if this were a possibility, then a ship moving against a strong tide, would be able to traverse a river without either engine of sail, by means of the force of a moving mass of water against the wheel paddles. As stated, the force of the mass of water flowing against the displacement mass of the ship predominantly opposes the positive motion of the ship. The analogy though far from perfect, suggests that if one were not aware of the visible force acting on the movement of the ship, at times, assuming all parameters were measurable, the indication might be that the engine was capable of greater than unity efficiency.

When read enough times, you can see that in a certain System, the Magnetic Field from the Magnets gets integrated, added to the System, with the System's operation! Because it is moving in Time, it is now an Electric Field, this we know already, it is the Magnetic A Vector Potential.

I pointed out some work I did in the Resonance Thread:

Some years back: 29.11.2015 I did an experiment. It was very interesting. The layout:

Very simple, but also very effective. With no Earth lead I could not make this work, with an Earth lead, I found a resonance at a very unusual frequency! in my setup I found at around 1208Hz, my Input went nearly to Zero.

Yet the device was shaking as if it had a few dozen watts through it.

Input Voltage becomes nearly Sawtooth, Triangle Wave - but is in-fact Square, H-Bridge Switched DC

I have a sensing Coil on one leg - Voltage on the Coil goes up showing higher Voltage at resonance as one would expect

An example of Resonance. I had posted this to the net, none were interested!




  • Liked by
  • Wistiti
  • cd_sharp
Zanzal posted this 11 August 2017

I don't think its not that people aren't interested, but those transformer cores are not easy or cheap to obtain.

It might be better if people start here:

This one is the experiment I'll be working on next. Pay close attention to what he says at the end. He couldn't get it to work at first and he had to play with it a lot to get it to work.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Wistiti
Chris posted this 11 August 2017

Hahaha - Hey Zanzal, yes, this is a good example also!

Mark is a legend

Simple, cheap, and another proof of concept. Scaling is, as Mark says, important, also Magnets can add energy.

Another experiment I shared years ago: Here



  • Liked by
  • Wistiti
Wistiti posted this 12 August 2017

That also the reason why im here with you guys!

I am really not the guys with the great technical skills but im an happy hobby builder too!

Thank's again Chris for opening my eyes on it!

Chris posted this 12 August 2017

Wistiti, you're a legend also!

This is natural for you, thus your successes!

There is a period of adjustment after success, where there seems to be gaps that need to be filled... It is easy to get stuck in a circle, where nothing makes sense. But my advice is follow your gut feeling.

Thank you my friend!



Chris posted this 12 August 2017

The historical record presents some interesting interconnects.

Tom Bearden did state on many occasions: "Sweet used a center tapped coil, but never mentioned what he did with that center tap"

Anyway, now I think we may have finally hit the overall outline of the total process which "activation" accomplished. Fortunately, Walter Rosenthal (who built Sweet's actual synchronized discharge unit and process which Sweet used to get that coordination established) knows the rest of it from the bench implementation status. One will still have to experiment (Sweet used a center tapped coil, but never mentioned what he did with that center tap) to see if Sweet was using fields of unitary direction, or using deliberately "equal and opposite" (i.e., symmetrically regauged energy so he could then just directly oscillate the "internal stress energy" of the barium nucleus and the nucleons themselves, reaching the quark flipping fields in that manner).

The Tom Bearden Website

We know, Floyd Sweets early work had this fore mentioned "center tapped coil":


 I have verified this diagram and its authenticity, it has come originally from people that worked with Floyd Sweet in the early days. Originally, I received this diagram in this form:

Marked as Page: 25 - I do not know of how many pages in total. I do not know from which document this page comes from either.

What is interesting, it the correlation to Tom Bearden's above statement and what has been written in the following article published here: New Energy News Letter March 1995 - Floyd Sweet Page. 8

 Clearly, Tom Bearden was trying to give clues, this also correct and true:

to see if Sweet was using fields of unitary direction, or using deliberately "equal and opposite" (i.e., symmetrically regauged energy so he could then just directly oscillate the "internal stress energy"

All the other information on "activation" and magnets, barium and so on is complete rubbish! A Red Herring


  • Liked by
  • Wistiti
Fighter posted this 13 May 2019

I found this, I think it belongs to this thread.

He is using AMCC core meaning that is a Metglas core with special characteristics, not sure if this works the same with ferrite cores.

What I found interesting is the guy is saying when using pulsed DC there is no over-unity but when using real AC there is over-unity.

Zanzal posted this 13 May 2019

Hey Fighter,

What I found interesting is the guy is saying when using pulsed DC there is not over-unity but when using real AC there is over-unity.

I do think there is something interesting about amorphous alloy cores. I noticed a strange behavior with square waves when using these cores. A square wave on the input primary, often results in a square wave on the output secondary. This was common to observe, but not observed in every circuit. This seemed a little strange when I first saw it, because I have never seen this in non-amorphous cores it was a little puzzling. I didn't pay much attention too it, but I read a comment in Patrick Kelly's book that I thought was interesting, suggesting these cores have enough bandwidth to pass multiple frequencies. As the square wave can be thought of as a summation of multiple sine waves at different frequencies and amplitudes this made some sense to me. I've put no time into researching it, but it might be a relevant to support investigating the claim above.

Chris posted this 13 May 2019

Hi Fighter,

I do believe Debunkified is a member here on this forum, thus where the idea came from, but under a different username. I can not remember the username that was used but I remember passing some private message's with him.


See the Video Description.

@Zanzal, good to see you back! You're right about the bandwidth, but there is no magic in these cores. Many cores work all the same way.

You will see it everywhere, there must be two Output Coils, Partnered Output Coils for this to work. The Driving, on a single Input Coil, is a Single Pulse for each Cycle.


  • Liked by
  • Wistiti
  • Fighter
fer123 posted this 25 May 2019

Hello Chris and all, this something I want to share magnets induce in bucking coils and producing electricity with a gap between both coils. Good luck.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Vidura
Marathonman posted this 25 May 2019

"What I found interesting is the guy is saying when using pulsed DC there is no over-unity but when using real AC there is over-unity."

Very Doubtful, the use of dc can not be denied. AC is completely wasteful having to reverse all the domains when zero is hit then the process begins all over of flipping the domain. Dc given frequency is the way to go not AC.

people need to think in these lines because the power and time to flip all the domains is not only wasteful  but takes way to much time to flip them for any kind of reasonable output.

I cry wolf, sorry but that is just my two cents worth with my tests of AC with the Figuera device. what i found is that having to flip the domains is very, very time consuming and takes a lot of power to do so so i will leave it to you to do the test and decide for yourselves.

the most disturbing fact is you liked trashbook, aka facebook to this site. my heart literally skipped a beat.

good luck.



  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • Vidura
Chris posted this 25 May 2019

Hi Fer123,

I try not to ever make judgment on others work. I try to allows the benefit of the doubt. Simply because of the vastness of this technology. I like to think we Humans can have a Racial Trust in each other, even if this may not always be true.

Thanks for sharing! I have not seen this before.


  • Liked by
  • Vidura
Members Online:
Since Nov 27 2018
Your Support:

More than anything else, your contributions to this forum are most important! We are trying to actively get all visitors involved, but we do only have a few main contributors, which are very much appreciated! If you would like to see more pages with more detailed experiments and answers, perhaps a contribution of another type maybe possible:

Donate (PayPal)

The content I am sharing is not only unique, but is changing the world as we know it! Please Support Us!

Donate (Patreon)

Thank You So Much!

Weeks High Earners:
The great 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 go 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 drives 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.

Experiments With Alternate Currents Of High Potential And High Frequency (February 1892).