Romanian ZPM (Zero Point Module)

@Wistiti: No worries about asking. No, I didn't explored that configuration but in the future I intend to try ZPMs with different coil ratios including 1:1.

For what we know for now coils asymmetry is the key for over-unity devices but honestly I would be curious about testing a 1:1 configuration of ZPM, nobody knows until it's built and tested.

Another step would be to explore other coils configurations. That could significantly increase the COP as I'm sure I didn't matched from the beginning the optimal coils configuration of this device, I just used 1:2 ratio but there could be other ratios which could have great impact on COP as you can see from these posts:

Hello everyone.

I think I know how it is possible to extract energy from the vacuum.
It turns out that the magnetic permeability behavior
It has a region in which it is negative!
As if it were a tunnel diode, it also has it.
Only in this, we draw the current from the source and its
behavior as an amplifier is real.
Because the negative region in ferromagnetic materials
It is expressed by permeability, it interacts with the vacuum.
Here the graph of their behavior.

This image is just a sample of how permeability changes
depending on the current through the inductor that makes up the system,
It is merely illustrative.
That is why there are two operating points, one is static and depends on the
load, and other dynamic and depends on the frequency.
I continue with the experiments that prove that the OU is possible, it is still a
Hypothesis not a theory.
It would not violate any thermodynamic law because it extracts the energy of an entity
We still don't understand.

@Fighter.
I still do tests to understand your experiment, but everything has to do
with magnetic permeability and standing waves.
The turns ratios must be quadratic because the inductance is.
This means that the turns ratios will be the root of 0.75, 0.5 or 0.25 of lambda for
one of your inductors N2 = SQR (n) N1, where n is one of the previous numbers.

Thank you all in advance.
YoElMiCrO.

@YoElMiCrO: In my current setup "L" coil has approx. 150 turns and "R" coil approx. 300 turns.

N2 = 150 turns, N1 = 300 turns.

So N2 = 0.5 * N1 = SQR(0.25) * N1, it matches the case where n = 0.25.

Other configurations would be:

1. N2 = SQR(0.5) * N1 = 0.70 * 300 = 210 turns for coil L where n = 0.5; Lturns / Rturns = 210/300;

2. N2 = SQR(0.75) * N1 = 0.86 * 300 = 258 turns for coil L where n = 0.75; Lturns / Rturns = 258/300.

Of course N1 can be increased or decreased too, I just calculated for N1 = 300 turns where I want to keep "R" coil as it is now and just modify "L1" coil.

Interesting, very interesting... If your hypothesis is confirmed we may have a formula to design any configuration for this device. I wonder which case is better in terms of efficiency.