Are you speaking from first hand information to this effect? If so any hands on help would be greatly appreciated to all of us that are attempting replication.
A working set of standards for proof of concept would be really helpful.
I verified the claims of
McFreey as soon as the papers were published in the PJK Book. I am a (mainstream) physicist and "alternative energy" is my hobby. I liked the NMR ideas in the previous papers by McFreey, but could not reproduce them. As it turns out, even McFreey himself changed his mind. I know, some of his current claims may seem controversial now, but in time they will become obvious.
I had some coils built for my previous attempts (not as nice looking as Itsu's), so I did not have to make everything from scratch. However, my attention was peeled to Fig. 6 in particular, as I immediately noticed SM device there. There was full schematic and sufficient comments. On the other hand, Fig 7 came with fewer details.
The most important part in McFreey's devices is the gain medium, the ring in Fig.6 (and Fig. 7 as well). The construction of the ring and it's mounting must be well thought of.
1. The ring cannot touch anything except the supporting dielectric (it has to vibrate freely).
2. The ring has to be characterized. Characterization can be conducted
in situ (within the coil) but it is better done when the coil during characterization is biased DC not AC.
I am characterizing the ring
ex situ, using a speaker (or neodymium) magnet placed under the ring as shown in the attached figure. The excitation pulses are delivered by a dual power transistor (transistors in parallel) emitter follower (achievable max pulse curent up to 40 A). Transformers may be useful here, but they introduce frequency dependence. There will also be some other problems with transformers when applied in the actual device (details later).
3. The characterization of the ring is done (believe or not) by listening to the acoustical response of the ring under pulsed excitation, while sweeping the frequency. I also tried the electret microphone, as the one shown in the bottom of the figure, placed above the centre of the ring, with equal or better results. Microphone tuning is better because it also senses resonances which are not audible. Nothing should be attached to the ring, as this would shift the resonance frequencies. The resonant frequencies (quite a few of them) are then written down. The device tuning is accomplished around these frequencies starting from the highest. This avoids time consuming wide band tuning. The tuning requires plenty of precautions!
4. The ring is bent out of ~1.5 mm diameter copper wire. Thicker wire or slices of tubes are also acceptable, but the bulkier things are, the more current is required to vibrate them.
Thinner wire means shorter working time. For the ring shown in the figure ~1A is plenty.
McFreey is a gem. It really works.
More to come. (Thank's Itsu)
Author
Topic: Comments on the McFreey paper (Read 113027 times)
