OverUnity Research

exnihiloest recently pointed to a paper by a William J. McFreey that contains a somewhat plausible explanation of the possible operation of TK's and SM's devices. This appears to be a new paper dated Aug 2012.

It is a rather interesting read, but ex has cited errors.

Let's discuss it here and see where it goes.

The motors TK has demonstrated in early videos are certainly odd in construction.

β- decay is always an attractive way to directly generate current from LENR. Pr René-Louis Vallée has proposed a way to do it with his synergetic theory in the 70's (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/synergetic.htm). Replications were tempted according to this schematic (which is not from Vallée) http://www.rexresearch.com/vallee/vallee.htm but failed.
Unlike the TK's device, the frequency was low, and so, no skin effect should have occured. This point may be important if we want to concentrate the current in a thin section of conductor, in order to get a high current density that could produces the desired effect.
In any case with β decay that doesn't come naturally from a unstable buclear material, but that we want produce, we have to fight the Coulomb repulsion and this is the critical point for the choice of the conductor material and for the design of the setup in matter of engineering the magnetic and electric fields to do it.
The Coulomb barrier may be very high and need more energy than this we can recover after the β emission, nevertheless the energy for crossing the barrier being recoverable, it could count for almost nothing. Some thing like that:
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1526.0;attach=8504;image)

There could be a process that resembles beta decay at work in these devices.

Has any work been done on the β- decay of a Leedskalnin PMH? I have seen a break done 3 weeks later and the LED still lights. The [magnetic current circulates forever] is the mantra. That being said then an iron ring is a permanent cyclotron of sorts. Does saturation of a metal loop equate to the amount of energy stored that is circulating? Or is the saturation a bias that the circulating current is traveling through? Like a different level of energy similar to skin effect but internal.

I have always tried to find the basic process across all the devices and the Freey paper states it beautifully. Although he only attempts descriptions of devices with magnets in them. My thought is replace the magnet with a lc resonant circuit and use that field. Hutchison states he uses the resonant field between 2 Tesla coils and look at the effects he attains. The QuantumPulse coil disperses the radiant streams into discrete diffusion channels of isolated gases. This works like shining light through a prism. It splits up the wide bandwidth of energy separating into the channels of least resistance per bands. This fits nicely with Walter Russel's redefined periodic table of elements.

The magnetic based devices are not overunity due to the extracting of energy from the flux. Decay is evident. Similar in fashion to a very slow break of a PMH. But if the magnets are a fuel source then the COP is a permissible entry into an energy saving ratio that surpasses what we have achieved currently.

Quote from: ION on 2012.09.08, 15:43:13
...
It is a rather interesting read, but ex has cited errors.
...

I read McFreey's articles several times and could not find there a claim that accumulation of charge is due to beta decay or that the reactions are charge non conservative. He only states that there may be charge accumulation due to transmutation reactions. These may include radiation of charged particles to the environment, which leads to charging (see for instance Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A 88, 471 (1913)). In fact,  McFreey's analysis considers beta decay only as a means of initiating the transmutation reactions.
Also, the processes that McFreey describes have nothing to do with slow moving conduction electrons. The current in the disk material, as described in the articles, consists of fast moving charged particles, near the speed of light, capable of  exciting transmutation reactions. Thus, a claim that "he is confusing the electron speed which is of order of mm/s in a conductor, and the electric wave (near the speed of light)" is artificial. The alleged flaws are nonexistent. If anything, he simply avoids discussing certain nonessential details.

Does anyone have a simple benchtop experiment that can prove the existence of these transmutations and radiation that can be simply measured?

What would be a barebones NMR experiment that can prove some of these claims. Let's try it.

yfree and PhysicsProf: any comments? This seems to be in your area of expertise.

Quote from: yfree on 2012.09.23, 15:22:13
...
In fact,  McFreey's analysis considers beta decay only as a means of initiating the transmutation reactions.
...

A β^- decay is the reaction: n -> p+ + e- (+ ν^__e, but we don't care the antineutrino, of very low energy).

When there is β decay, of course there is always transmutations. But the proton being kept in the nucleus, the energy is carried away by the electron. The kinetic energy of the electron is the only useful energy from the reaction. It can be considerable due to relativistic speeds. It comes from the mass default between neutron and proton.
As already said, we see that the charge is conserved. The proton remaining static, McFreey supposes that the expelled electrons induce current in the output coil. The β^- decay is the only way invoked by McFreey to produce energy. The transmutation is the necessary byproduct.

Quote from: ION on 2012.10.01, 16:20:42
Does anyone have a simple benchtop experiment that can prove the existence of these transmutations and radiation that can be simply measured?

How about something that appears to be the radiation?  No transmutation required.

Not all that simple, but you could get it running in a few days if you have the supplies and a high impedance ohmmeter.

@Grumpy

Remember that McFreey's paper is a possible explanation of the "Kapanadze's process" (and others). Presuming that it is not a scam, the "Kapanadze's process" produces energy from apparently nowhere.
Providing that we don't believe in a perpetual motion of the first kind, a nuclear reaction is the less exotic explanation and so, it must be hypothesized in the first place.
As nobody succeeded in duplicating the Kapanadze's device, nobody is today able to test the least hypothesis. The hypothesis should rather be considered as a help to duplicate the Kapanadze's device, because it is easier to build a machine when we have an idea about how it works.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.10.03, 07:12:24
@Grumpy

Remember that McFreey's paper is a possible explanation of the "Kapanadze's process" (and others). Presuming that it is not a scam, the "Kapanadze's process" produces energy from apparently nowhere.
Providing that we don't believe in a perpetual motion of the first kind, a nuclear reaction is the less exotic explanation and so, it must be hypothesized in the first place.
As nobody succeeded in duplicating the Kapanadze's device, nobody is today able to test the least hypothesis. The hypothesis should rather be considered as a help to duplicate the Kapanadze's device, because it is easier to build a machine when we have an idea about how it works.

I know what is says.  Since you deny the possibility of "energy creation", anything that suggests this is immediately false.

@Grumpy
That's the thing isn't it .... ask your mechanic to double your horsepower and any fool can do it in a matter of days now ask any mechanic to double your mileage and you will get nothing but silence. It would seem we have an endless supply of ways in which to dissipate energy but very few sustainable ways to generate it. It would suggest to me that most people are not nearly as smart as they believe and we still have a lot to learn concerning the concept of energy.
Why is it we understand so much about Radiation but almost nothing about Gravitation?

It is also interesting to note that science has never came even remotely close to "creating" life in even the simplest form and it is the process of life which is known to concentrate energy. Living things also have the capacity to grow, they concentrate energy producing growth which allows them to concentrate even more energy. We have no process that even remotely resembles even the simplest forms of life which to be honest really does not surprise me, like I said we have a lot to learn.

To quote a verse from the "Smokey and the Bandit" sound track ... We have a long way to go and a short time to get there.

Regards
AC

Quote from: Grumpy on 2012.10.03, 13:32:35
I know what is says.  Since you deny the possibility of "energy creation", anything that suggests this is immediately false.

What don't you understand in the difference between "to begin a study with the most likely hypothesis" and "to deny energy creation"?
What don't you understand in the difference between "to discard perpetual motion of type 1" and "to deny energy creation"?
Your speech and interpretations are very simplistic and confused.

Quote from: ION on 2012.10.01, 16:20:42
Does anyone have a simple benchtop experiment that can prove the existence of these transmutations and radiation that can be simply measured?

What would be a barebones NMR experiment that can prove some of these claims. Let's try it.

yfree and PhysicsProf: any comments? This seems to be in your area of expertise.

McFreey writes:

QuoteThe energy comes from transmutation of the disk material and manifests itself as a pulse of very high current in the disk or disks.

I would start with a challenge to find the NUMBERS associated with this claim:  HOW MANY transmutations per second are required to give the effects seen?  I think you will find it is a VERY large number.  Next is to check whether the NUMBER of transmutations agrees QUANTITATIVELY with the observed output energy.

I should note that by doing this exercise -- being QUANTITATIVE -- we can better make progress in sorting out reasonable/evidence-based hypotheses from hand-waving.

I gave a similar challenge years ago to Pons & Fleischman -- and my conclusion as I did the numbers and compared with observations was:  the excess heat (if real) was NOT due to d-d fusion.   Note that I'm not saying there was no xs heat -- just that it was not due to d-d cold fusion as P&F claimed.   

I think most researchers in the "cold fusion" field now belatedly agree with me -- the xs heat was not due to cold d-d fusion!

It seems many have claimed "excess heat" even before P&F without insisting that it is nuclear in origin, including Peter Davey.  (His two-bell system involved two electrodes in water, etc.)



I will let someone else due the numbers for the McFreey claims re: transmutation -- he really should do the numbers himself, right?

Note:  I will be away from town today and tomorrow, but expect to be back for responses on Saturday.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.10.04, 08:06:07
What don't you understand in the difference between "to begin a study with the most likely hypothesis" and "to deny energy creation"?
What don't you understand in the difference between "to discard perpetual motion of type 1" and "to deny energy creation"?
Your speech and interpretations are very simplistic and confused.

I am just suggesting that you look at "energy creation" rather than transmutation, though "energy creation"  is against your "religion". 

I also suggest a look at other possible ways to induce current. 

Those are the only two ways a real anomalous electrical device may work, and only one of these is correct.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2012.10.04, 12:35:30
I am just suggesting that you look at "energy creation" rather than transmutation, though "energy creation"  is against your "religion".

Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable. This is the sign of your total lack of rational arguments.
I have no religion. Present me a creation of energy from nothing, and it will be my religion!   :D.

Quote
I also suggest a look at other possible ways to induce current. 
Those are the only two ways a real anomalous electrical device may work, and only one of these is correct.

What ways? You can suggest anything. If you don't provide facts and logical reasoning supporting your suggestions, they are useless. This is not my method. Permit me to have one different from yours or is it a too strong requirement? In any case, when you said "you deny...", it was not a suggestion but an affirmation (moreover false).

Quote
Those are the only two ways a real anomalous electrical device may work, and only one of these is correct.

My mind is not limited to these two possibilities only. You should keep your beliefs for yourself, or provide intellectual matter with them, otherwise from an operational viewpoint, they are just noise.

Note that according to its title, this thread concerns "comments on the McFreey's paper" which proposes nuclear reactions as source of energy. The question here is not the enumeration of fuzzy alternatives according to preconceived ideas about energy, but a discussion on the merits of this paper. It would be nice to stay on the subject.

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.10.04, 12:10:43
...
I think most researchers in the "cold fusion" field now belatedly agree with me -- the xs heat was not due to cold d-d fusion!

It seems many have claimed "excess heat" even before P&F without insisting that it is nuclear in origin, including Peter Davey.  (His two-bell system involved two electrodes in water, etc.)

In any case there is not only excess heat but also transmutations. Many papers about LENR present results from mass spectrometry, showing atoms that were not present at the start of the process.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.10.04, 16:26:47
In any case there is not only excess heat but also transmutations. Many papers about LENR present results from mass spectrometry, showing atoms that were not present at the start of the process.

Yes, and there are a few neutrons, too!  BUT -- can anyone be QUANTITATIVE?  Are the NUMBERS commensurate with the xs heat?

Answer me that.

PS -- perhaps there are TWO separate effects here, small LENR -- and xs heat.  I'm getting tired of repeating myself!  but hope you guys can understand.

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.10.04, 16:38:33
Yes, and there are a few neutrons, too!  BUT -- can anyone be QUANTITATIVE?  Are the NUMBERS commensurate with the xs heat?

Answer me that.

PS -- perhaps there are TWO separate effects here, small LENR -- and xs heat.  I'm getting tired of repeating myself!  but hope you guys can understand.

If there is LENR, there is excess heat according to the mass default from E=M*C² (providing that the nuclear energy is mainly transformed into heat). I agree that quantified measurements are required to know if there are two effects or only one. Imho it's very difficult because there are never an enormous quantity of heat and consequently not many transmutations should be needed if the heat comes from transmutations.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.10.04, 16:13:52
Ad homonem attacks are not acceptable. This is the sign of your total lack of rational arguments.
I have no religion. Present me a creation of energy from nothing, and it will be my religion!   :D.

What ways? You can suggest anything. If you don't provide facts and logical reasoning supporting your suggestions, they are useless. This is not my method. Permit me to have one different from yours or is it a too strong requirement? In any case, when you said "you deny...", it was not a suggestion but an affirmation (moreover false).

My mind is not limited to these two possibilities only. You should keep your beliefs for yourself, or provide intellectual matter with them, otherwise from an operational viewpoint, they are just noise.

Note that according to its title, this thread concerns "comments on the McFreey's paper" which proposes nuclear reactions as source of energy. The question here is not the enumeration of fuzzy alternatives according to preconceived ideas about energy, but a discussion on the merits of this paper. It would be nice to stay on the subject.

You should have figured out by now, that I say many things to you, and others, just to see how you will reply.

In the interest of staying on topic:

http://www.humanresonance.org/transmutation.html

Quote100 pounds of copper was placed in a single phonon resonance device and produced 800 troy ounces of gold and platinum. Several ounces of gold and platinum have been refined and tested by independent facilities. This is the world's largest demonstration of a low energy nuclear event. This was accomplished using standard household electrical power within 30 days.

EDIT:
http://www.rexresearch.com/champion/champion.htm

Frequency equals matter...

Quote from: Grumpy on 2012.10.04, 19:11:24
You should have figured out by now, that I say many things to you, and others, just to see how you will reply.

I have contempt for this kind of vain speech. No interest.

Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.10.05, 12:11:34
I have contempt for this kind of vain speech. No interest.

Yet, you always reply, like a puppet when I pull the string.

This is not a wrestling match for the amusement of onlookers.

Let's get on with the important work!!

~

Back to energy from nothing...

A minstrel guts a cat and stretches the dried gut across a wooden bowl. Lo and behold the sound can be heard for tens of yards. Without resonance there would not be one less cat. Instead a crowd gathers to wonder at the transmission.

interesting story of the discovery of beta decay:

Here is the latest paper by William McFreey dated July 2013. He presents some interesting ideas for NMR and NAR, the latter of which I have always suspected may be the basis for the SM devices. (see my paper on Acoustic Resonator Theory posted elsewhere).

He poses simple bench experiments that are not beyond the reach of the average person with some skill in electronics.

This is an excerpt from the PJKBook.

Quote from: ION on 2013.07.19, 18:32:02
Here is the latest paper by William McFreey dated July 2013. He presents some interesting ideas for NMR and NAR, the latter of which I have always suspected may be the basis for the SM devices. (see my paper on Acoustic Resonator Theory posted elsewhere).

He poses simple bench experiments that are not beyond the reach of the average person with some skill in electronics.

This is an excerpt from the PJKBook.

I sure would like to see just one of the claim'd OU devices work ,that are stated in that PDF ION.
One would think that if any of them actualy worked as stated,then at least one of the many people would have been able to replicate it,and confirm the claims.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.07.20, 01:09:40
I sure would like to see just one of the claim'd OU devices work ,that are stated in that PDF ION.
One would think that if any of them actualy worked as stated,then at least one of the many people would have been able to replicate it,and confirm the claims.

I totally agree, the complete PJK book is full of proposed devices, most of which IMHO have no chance of working (probably 98 to 99%).

I often wonder why PJK bothers to put out such a lengthy PDF (the complete PJKBOOK.pdf 40 MB), most of which is bogus, some I use for reference only.

When extracting the pages by McFreey, I was not able to edit out the list of experimenters from the prior page, which is PJK's opinion, not McFreey's.

Every once in a while a gem sneaks into the fray, probably by accident.

I think the McFreey paper is one such gem that could offer viable hypothesis for tapping NMR or NAR and may offer ideas regarding how a few devices of the past may have functioned. (TPU, Hendershot, Moray, Coler etc.)

Be careful not to throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater.

This does explain the exaggerated comp wave output of the dual pulse protocol.

Since all heavenly bodies had precession what is keeping this going?

QuoteEvery once in a while a gem sneaks into the fray, probably by accident.

These very things pay off with patience. I have seen enough of these slips to know that these things happen on purpose.
Talk to any black ops cryptologist and you will see they have something very grave to fear.

What Bearden was talking about is now well understood.

But something strange is afoot. Bearden has shut up, Hutchison and Dollard have gone off the deep end. Jay Be Dini has requested lack of exposure.

And any one who gets exposure due to their accomplishments will be scared off, chased down, closed out. Nuff sed?

Quote from: ION on 2013.07.20, 02:50:22
I totally agree, the complete PJK book is full of proposed devices, most of which IMHO have no chance of working (probably 98 to 99%).

I often wonder why PJK bothers to put out such a lengthy PDF (the complete PJKBOOK.pdf 40 MB), most of which is bogus, some I use for reference only.

When extracting the pages by McFreey, I was not able to edit out the list of experimenters from the prior page, which is PJK's opinion, not McFreey's.

Every once in a while a gem sneaks into the fray, probably by accident.

I think the McFreey paper is one such gem that could offer viable hypothesis for tapping NMR or NAR and may offer ideas regarding how a few devices of the past may have functioned. (TPU, Hendershot, Moray, Coler etc.)

Be careful not to throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater.

I couldnt agree more ION-there has to be one that works,hiden in there some where.

Quote from: ION on 2013.07.19, 18:32:02
Here is the latest paper by William McFreey dated July 2013. He presents some interesting ideas for NMR and NAR, the latter of which I have always suspected may be the basis for the SM devices. (see my paper on Acoustic Resonator Theory posted elsewhere).

He poses simple bench experiments that are not beyond the reach of the average person with some skill in electronics.

This is an excerpt from the PJKBook.

Very nice find, ION. I was waiting for these new papers, as the old ones were getting a bit outdated.
The only correction that I would have is that this time, contrary to the preamble,  McFreey does not say that NMR or NAR are necessary in the devices of interest:
"This paper clarifies the fact that nuclear magnetic resonance "NMR", which is understood to be resonant energy
absorption by precessing nuclei, from either electromagnetic or acoustic sources, is not a necessary ingredient in
the task of energy extraction from matter."
Where can I find your paper on Acoustic Resonator Theory?
Thank you.

Quote from: tinman on 2013.07.22, 15:53:07
I couldnt agree more ION-there has to be one that works,hiden in there some where.

If not one that works, some ideas that may bear fruit when properly tweaked.

yfree said:

QuoteWhere can I find your paper on Acoustic Resonator Theory?
Thank you.

Knowing what I do now, I would revise that paper and not call it a theory, as it is more like a "WAG" written when I was trying to use some form of reasoning to connect the dots of the SM TPU mystery. As such it is not very well written and inconclusive.

there is a thread for it here: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1092.0

Attached is the NEW McFreey paper.

Hi ION,

thanks for pointing to this new McFreey info.
I agree, this should be doable.

I went for the Fig. 7 configuration, but run into problems with the La/Lb coil.
It seems my inverter is seeing it as a short and shuts off.
Guess i need much more inductance there.

Also the copper ring has some secrets, like this "hard insulation" in the slit.
How wide can/must it be, and of what material.

I remember verpies saying the slit should be "paperthin", so perhaps isolation tape could work allthough that's not hard.

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRS5SLpjBw&feature=youtu.be

Comments are welcome,    regards Itsu

@ Itsu, ION,

Thank you for your video. I think I can answer some of your questions and provide you with some guidance. I also think, you may be the right person to replicate this device.
As far as I know, this schematic should be viewed only as a general idea. In fact, I've heard that Bill McFreey is preparing a better description of this device. I also understand that these are actually working devices. My answers and guidance will be based on my understanding of the physics of these devices.
For instance, the device in Fig. 6 is the nut-shell of the technology of Steven Mark.

In my view, the schematic on Fig.7 is very much related to the 2004 Kapanadze device and/or SR193 device :

1. The transformer in Fig 7 is not the transformer you see in the video, though. This is an isolation transformer (possibly step-down) to be used in conjunction with the variac, to better control the current through the coils La/Lb. In the 2004 video, the coils La/Lb are powered directly (through coil L1) from the inverter and must have much higher inductance.

2. Coil L1 is the visible coil in the 2004 video, it is a choke, actually. Coils La/Lb are hidden in the tin can.

3. As the schematic in Fig.7 suggests, this device is better suited for the ring, rather than a tube. Therefore, I would suggest winding the coils on ferrite cores, as can be seen in SR193 videos. The ring has to be placed between the cores, not the inner opening of the cores. Thus, the diameter of the ring should be comparable (actually slightly smaller) than the  outer diameter of the core. If no core is used, the tube/ring diameter has to be comparable to the inner opening of the coil.

4. The slit/opening in the tube/ring does not have to be paper thin. The slit/opening is there so that the ring/tube can become a turn, to pass the current through. The hard dielectric (e.g. a fiber glass double-sided PCB), which the ring or a short piece of tube is soldered to, also serves as a mechanical support of the ring/tube. The point of soldering has to be the only support point for the ring/tube, as this is a mechanical resonator.

5. The most difficult part in tuning this device is finding the appropriate mechanical resonance of the ring, as it has many resonances and most of these resonances are non-working. The smaller the diameter of the ring, the higher is the resonance frequency of the ring.

6. The current pulses for exciting vibrations of the ring have to be very strong (at least initially).

7. The surge protector might be of too low a voltage.

I hope this helps.

Regards, yfree

Hi Itsu, yfree

I agree with yfree's comments above. It would be much better to drive the transformer designated "T" with a variac rather than an inverter.

If I were doing the experiment, I would use the low frequency from a signal generator driving a hefty amplifier, preferably vacuum tube type only because they are fairly robust, although solid state would work if properly protected.

In this manner one could adjust the amplitude and frequency of the driving coils La, Lb.

I might also try a closed copper ring suspended in the field of La, Lb. Then by induction and step up of current, rather large current will flow in the ring producing greater amplitude of acoustic vibration with less power input. The HF RF could still be applied with another RF induction coil.

Backing up a bit, I might also be more interested in a proof of concept such as the earlier example of Figure 4, and I may start with this before moving on to more complex methods.

For your present setup, I believe you will need a lot more inductance in coil L1 such that it will not trip the inverter when the gap fires. Those inverters can be finicky when there are HF transients on the line.

More to come.

p.s. looks like verpies and I both posted the July 2013 paper from McFreey. Maybe Chet can talk McFreey into guiding us here on OUR.

Quotep.s. looks like verpies and I both posted the July 2013 paper from McFreey. Maybe Chet can talk McFreey into guiding us here on OUR.

Shweet!

Quote from: yfree on 2013.07.24, 22:38:46
1. The transformer in Fig 7 is not the transformer you see in the video, though. This is an isolation transformer (possibly step-down) to be used in conjunction with the variac, to better control the current through the coils La/Lb.

I agree.  The transformer's (T) main function is isolation and impedance matching to the LaLb coil (which is below 1Ω at 50Hz).
As such, it should be a step-down transformer, e.g. 230VAC to 5VAC and the secondary should be wound with very thick wire to support very high currents (think something along the line of a welding transformer when using it with an air-core LaLb).
Its primary winding should be powered by a Variac for ease of amplitude control.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.07.24, 22:38:46
3. As the schematic in Fig.7 suggests, this device is better suited for the ring, rather than a tube. Therefore, I would suggest winding the coils on ferrite cores, as can be seen in SR193 videos. The ring has to be placed between the cores, not the inner opening of the cores. Thus, the diameter of the ring should be comparable (actually slightly smaller) than the  outer diameter of the core. If no core is used, the tube/ring diameter has to be comparable to the inner opening of the coil.

I agree. Using ferrite cores will increase the inductance of the LaLb coil and increase its impedance (lowering the average current flowing through it dramatically). This will make the system more similar to Fig.4 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1526.0;attach=10801). 
Also the copper/brass ring should be large like Yfree is suggesting.

However ferrite cores introduce several additional variables, namely:
- an additional acoustic vibration due to magnetostriction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetostriction),
- hysteresis losses
- variable permeability, saturation.

Take a look at this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uar62T9GLXI) or rather listen to the sounds made by the coils and the core.
Also, listen to the sound of the Yoke device in this video (http://youtu.be/gbeseiPPCeM?t=6m6s).
Both of these videos illustrate the acoustic vibration of a ferrite core predominantly due to magnetostriction.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.07.24, 22:38:46
4. The slit/opening in the tube/ring does not have to be paper thin. The slit/opening is there so that the ring/tube can become a turn, to pass the current through.

I still think that the slit must be thin, because an excessive air-gap width will attenuate beta current which is the fundamental operating principle for converting matter of the pipe to electric energy, in those types of devices.
Fast electrons have a limited range in air and they cannot cause secondary decay events in the gap which stops the "multiplication" of the beta current.  Fortunately, thin double-sided printed circuit boards are readily available.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.07.24, 22:38:46
The hard dielectric (e.g. a fiber glass double-sided PCB), which the ring or a short piece of tube is soldered to, also serves as a mechanical support of the ring/tube. The point of soldering has to be the only support point for the ring/tube, as this is a mechanical resonator.

Yes, that's very important.  Think about making a bell when you are suspending the pipe/ring.  When struck, the longer it rings acoustically, the better.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.07.24, 22:38:46
5. The most difficult part in tuning this device is finding the appropriate mechanical resonance of the ring, as it has many resonances and most of these resonances are non-working.

It certainly is the FIRST thing to do.

Coreless devices (such as Itsu's) vibrate the slotted pipe/ring due to time-varying Ampere forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere#Definition) (in this case magnetostriction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetostriction) is absent). 
These Ampere forces exist:
a) within the LaLb coil itself
b) between the LaLb coil and the pipe/ring
c) within the pipe/ring itself

In practice, evoking acoustic vibrations by those forces requires 10s of Amps (or 100s A). Think - stick welding.

In this case, it would be useful to be able to see the acoustical vibrations of the slotted pipe/ring on a scope. 
To be able to do that I'd make it ring like a bell by hitting it with a hammer or a screwdriver and sensing its acoustic vibrations with:
1) a high frequency air microphone connected to a scope, or...
2) a piezoelectric disk from a Xmas postcard glued to the pipe directly and a massive counterpoise, effectively making a piezo microphone out of the pipe/ring, or...
3) a microphone coil (a thin-wire multi-turn small solenoidal air core coil with low inter-winding capacitance) that senses minute movements of a small shard of a permanent magnet glued to the pipe/ring, or...
4) a piece of reflective kitchen aluminum foil glued to the pipe/ring, that reflects a laser beam from a laser pointer.  This reflection should be sensed far away with a photodiode or phototransistor connected to a TIA and the scope. See how it is done in this video (https://youtu.be/MUdro-6u2Zg?t=30).

Take your pick.

Warning: The acoustic vibrations will form a standing wave inside a long pipe (see here (http://www.physics.smu.edu/~olness/www/05fall1320/applet/pipe-waves.html)) and if you are an unlucky fellow, then you will try to measure these vibrations at the antinode and see nothing.
Thus, move your measuring point a little, if you see nothing.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.07.24, 22:38:46
6. The current pulses for exciting vibrations of the ring have to be very strong (at least initially).

I think this will be the most difficult part. The pipe/ring is a dead short and its impedance is several milliOhms (event at kHz).  It will require a helluva driver/amplifier to vibrate it by Ampere forces. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere#Definition)
Perhaps Eddy Currents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current) are a solution to this problem.

I'd appreciate suggestions how to attack this last point.

Quote from: ION on 2013.07.25, 00:16:57
If I were doing the experiment, I would use the low frequency from a signal generator driving a hefty amplifier, preferably vacuum tube type only because they are fairly robust, although solid state would work if properly protected.

That's a very bad idea.
Vacuum tubes intrinsically have a very high output impedance (around 1kΩ) and in this experiment we are trying to drive sub-1Ω loads.
A significant step-down transformer would be needed to match the output impedance of a vacuum tube to a sub-1Ω load.  Unfortunately ferro cored transformers have frequency and saturation issues.

Thanks all for this great info.

When looking at this McFreey paper, i was thinking it was an elegant form (NMR) of creating energy,
but after the above info ("welding transformer", "a hefty amplifier", "requires 10s of Amps (or 100s A)")
the term "brute force" pops into my mind  :o

Anyway, when sticking to Fig. 7,:

loose the inverter, employ a variac driven (welding) step-down transformer (perhaps driven by my battery/inverter for future looping attempt).
 
For La/Lb, use high inductance coils with cores, which means ferrite rings with od of 10cm as somewhere McFreey mentions a copper ring diameter of 10 cm.

Concerning the "hard insulator" in the ring/tube slit, does this suppose to be fixed (glued/soldered) to both sides, meaning that the ring/tube is a solid ring/tube again?
(this will inhibit any free ringing i guess).

Many thanks,  regards Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.07.25, 10:41:13
the term "brute force" pops into my mind  :o

Well, normal ferro-cored transformers vibrate easily due to magnetostriction and ferromagnetic attraction.

Air-core transformers have to rely only on Ampere forces or Eddy current interactions for their acoustic vibration.  

Ampere forces are weak at low currents.
Look at the old definition of the Ampere: "A current that will produce an attractive force of 2 × 10^-4 N per 1m of two long, straight, parallel conductors spaced 1mm apart..."
2 × 10^-4 Newtons is the weight of 0.02 Grams on Earth.  A small grain of kitchen salt has an approximate mass of 0.06g.

Don't fret though - high current does not mean high power. I mentioned welding transformers because they are readily available.
Also, according to McFreey the beta current will generate kiloAmps of current in the tube/ring/disk. So sustained input of high current is not needed (only momentary is).  It justs needs a small nudge to start growing...

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.07.25, 10:41:13
Concerning the "hard insulator" in the ring/tube slit, does this suppose to be fixed (glued/soldered) to both sides, meaning that the ring/tube is a solid ring/tube again?
(this will inhibit any free ringing i guess).

Closing the gap mechanically with a double-sided PCB will not inhibit the free ringing but it will change the vibration mode significantly, compared to suspending the ring/tube at a point opposite to the gap (180º away on its circumference), which would allow the gap to expand and shrink.
IMO both suspension methods should be compared for Q (manifested as the time of free ringing).

Did you decide which method you are going to use to measure the mechanical vibrations?
Do you have access to an old pickup system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_player#Pickup_systems) from an old Phonograph?

I  can't believe that any layman experimenter could ever stumble upon this method and get it to work.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.07.25, 14:11:37
I  can't believe that any layman experimenter could ever stumble upon this method and get it to work.

Why not?  A loose / buzzing transformer and there you go.
Also, who's to say that somebody more educated did not show him the principle.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.25, 07:47:55
That's a very bad idea.
Vacuum tubes intrinsically have a very high output impedance (around 1kΩ) and in this experiment we are trying to drive sub-1Ω loads.
A significant step-down transformer would be needed to match the output impedance of a vacuum tube to a sub-1Ω load.  Unfortunately ferro cored transformers have frequency and saturation issues.

I have developed thousands of amps into milli ohms using tube amplifiers and the appropriate impedance matching transformer, usually consisting of a large toroidal core of a hundred or more turns primary with a single turn through the center as secondary.

The frequency range is limited to the audio range, and the outboard impedance matching transformer is connected to the normal 4 or 8 Ohm output of the tube amp.

I mentioned using tube amplifiers because they can take a beating without self destruction. Solid state amps would work well if appropriately  protected and also using an impedance matching transformer.

Since I have lots of high power tube amps and solid state amps at my disposal for lab equipment, I don't have to start from scratch.

I also have some large RF amps available.

Just my preference, although I am capable of building an exotic drive system using high power FETs or BJT's.

Quote from: ION on 2013.07.25, 14:48:33
I have developed thousands of amps into milli ohms using tube amplifiers and the appropriate impedance matching transformer, usually consisting of a large toroidal core of a hundred or more turns primary with a single turn through the center as secondary.

Of course this is doable with an addition of a suitable impedance matching transformer.

Quote from: ION on 2013.07.25, 14:48:33
The frequency range is limited to the audio range,

Was the frequency limitation of this amplifier due to the vacuum tubes or due to this transformer?
I was able to get up to 90kHz with my vacuum-tube amplifier and steel tape toroidal transformers. (it sucked below 20Hz though). You can see it here (http://www.overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/msg337619/#msg337619).

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.25, 14:41:05
Why not?  A loose transformer and there you go.
Also, who's is to say that somebody more educated did not show him the principle.

I once posited that SM's 5U4 rectifier anomaly was due to loose windings in the power transformer, which had some acoustic range of motion that created the strange effect he witnessed and reported in his early dialogue with Lindsay Mannix.

QuoteI originally got the idea from electron circuits which use vacuum rectifiers like the 5U4 GB or 5AR4 etc. The plate has a high voltage potential with lots of useable power available. You cant get to it or use it for anything without applying a heating voltage to the cathode or what is the cathode potential of the tube. So, you put in a small voltage of 5 volts AC 60 Hz which heats up the cathode and welcomes the electron stream from the plate. Or actually the other way around, but not important for this example of my thoughts. Now the high voltage power goes through the cathode and travels through the coils of the 5 volt transformer along with the 5 volt AC. If the plate voltage is not rectified then it is AC with a potential 60 Hz frequency. That combines with the 5 volt 60 Hz in the coil of the htr transformer and generally amounts to nothing. In fact the power of the 5 volt transformer amounts to nothing. It is an insignificant power supply except when the two transformers get slightly out of phase with each other, or when they are connected in reverse of one another. Then you can measure all kinds of things going on. You can generate all kinds of hash and multiple frequencies, and I do mean all kinds. What I measured during this process was very interesting. All these frequencies occasionally met at the same time with a much larger kick at the output.
Anyway, I have taken a high voltage power supply as follows: 500 v-0-500 v 300 mV plate transformer run it through a full wave silicon circuit then run it through a 5U4 electron tube rectifier. Now you know that the 5U4 requires 5 volts AC at 3 amps for its heater to gather the electrons and complete the circuit. Well, I measured the output from the tube and the result is 500 volts DC at 250 mV. The loss is due to the high impedance of the tube and its limited ability to dissipate more than 250 mA.. The point I wish to make here is that also along with the 500 volt DC is, yes, you guessed it, the 5 volts three amp AC current! They are both completely independent of each other except for some very interesting things I will mention to you some other time.. First of all, obviously you can have several different output components in the power output signal. You can have DC and AC together without any problem.
I was working at a laboratory at the time with much more sophisticated equipment then is available to even most manufacturing companies. I was able to analyses everything coming out of this simple two transformer AC high voltage circuit. In most power supplies there is lots of hash coming out and designers use a .05 or so to short out as much as possible before it gets to the smoothing capacitors. This hash comes from the mains supply and especially from the transformers themselves. Then the smoothing capacitors take out the rest of the multiple frequency hash along with the gigantic 60 Hz ac left in the B+. I became interested in the interaction between the two AC transformers. The interaction can be very reveling, trust me. Also, there is another interesting analogy. We seem to overlook so many things in our society. They are right in our faces but we just look around them without interest at all. When I began to study the effects of multiple frequencies combined together I found out that when you deliberately strive to create the worst case scenario of frequencies you start to get some very measurable kicks. In themselves they are not much. But if you make enough of them fast sendoff, you get a collectible power spike that is more then the power available to begin with. The destructive heating caused by the eddy currents become the problem we face when we make a really large powerful coil. Now you understand more about the heating problem and why using a fan does not work.

This sounds to me like an NMR induced spiking, but I have been wrong before.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.25, 14:57:32
Of course this is doable with an addition of a suitable impedance matching transformer.
Was the frequency limitation of this am due to the vacuum tubes or due to this transformer?
I was able to get up to 90kHz with my vacuum-tube amplifier and steel tape toroidal transformers. (it sucked below 20Hz though). You can see it here (http://www.overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/msg337619/#msg337619).

The limitation was the bandwith of the amplifier circuitry which was "tamed" to prevent spurious effects outside the phase shift of the transformer. (Dynaco MKIII).

As far as your steel tape transformers, I suspect they were not large enough (inductance) to support the power bandwidth below 20 Hz. (judging from the photo) Nice build though!

If the McFreey paper does in fact point us to the secret of the Kapanadze 2004 and Green Box devices, then TK's use of very heavy duty wire  (and high current reading on the clamp meter - assuming accurate) does perhaps suggest that he is using a remote heavy duty welding type transformer to supply the necessary power to initially 'trigger' the device into operation. Although I agree with Grumpy, Verpies also makes a valid point that TK could have been shown how to build his devices by somebody. If this is the case, then it is encouraging to think that given the poor quality of TK's build, the actual construction may not be overly critical and success could come purely by luck once the correct principle of operation is established.

Hoppy

Quote from: ION on 2013.07.25, 15:44:12
As far as your steel tape transformers, I suspect they were not large enough (inductance) to support the power bandwidth below 20 Hz. (judging from the photo) Nice build though!

Yes, the inductance of the impedance matching transformers was not large enough for LF.

This amp is built around the 6N13S (6H13C) double triodes rated at 500V but running at 380V.  It also uses the ECC83S double triodes and the EM84 (6DH7) "magic eyes" for audio level output indicators.  The biggest central transformer is for the power supply and the thick winding you see on top of it provides the low voltage for the tube heaters.  The other two smaller toroidal transformers are step-down units for the final output stages. Their cores are tapewound (they came from a halogen-lighting shelf in a supermarket ;) )  and their pri/sec windings are litzed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litz_wire) and multilayered and sandwiched.  The amp does not use any semiconductors except for silicon rectifiers in the power supply section.   
The photo you've seen shows a 90kHz sinewave test signal at input and an unattenuated undistorted sinewave at output. (at 130kHz it attenuated by 6dB) with speakers still connected.

Quote from: ION on 2013.07.25, 15:15:02
This sounds to me like an NMR induced spiking,

...or NAR induced spiking.

Quote from: Hoppy on 2013.07.25, 15:47:19
If the McFreey paper does in fact point us to the secret of the Kapanadze 2004 and Green Box devices, then TK's use of very heavy duty wire  (and high current reading on the clamp meter - assuming accurate) does perhaps suggest that he is using a remote heavy duty welding type transformer to supply the necessary power to initially 'trigger' the device into operation. Although I agree with Grumpy, Verpies also makes a valid point that TK could have been shown how to build his devices by somebody. If this is the case, then it is encouraging to think that given the poor quality of TK's build, the actual construction may not be overly critical and success could come purely by luck once the correct principle of operation is established.

Hoppy

A remote welding transformer is not necessary. What is necessary is the ability to develop ten to 100 of amps at very low voltage i.e. millivolts.

This can be accomplished with a rather small transformer and the appropriate turns ratio. e.g a handheld Weller soldering pistol has a single turn secondary and develops rather large current at low voltage.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.25, 15:58:45
...or NAR induced spiking.

Yes, NAR would be a better guess since there would be vibration. Few folks play with loose coils in acoustic resonance. It is said that SM further noticed effects when trying to optimize dual voice coil speakers for 3D sound by phase shifting one of the coils.

Quote from: ION on 2013.07.25, 16:05:52
A remote welding transformer is not necessary. What is necessary is the ability to develop ten to 100 of amps at very low voltage i.e. millivolts.

This can be accomplished with a rather small transformer and the appropriate turns ratio. e.g a handheld Weller soldering pistol has a single turn secondary and develops rather large current at low voltage.

Thanks, that means my MOT based spot welder can be pressed into service  :)

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.25, 14:10:30

Did you decide which method you are going to use to measure the mechanical vibrations?
Do you have access to an old pickup system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_player#Pickup_systems) from an old Phonograph?

No, no old pickup system from an old Phonograph available.

So i went for option 2:

Quote2) a piezoelectric disk from a Xmas postcard glued to the pipe directly, effectively making a piezo microphone out of the pipe/ring, or..

But it was not really successful as the (mechanical?) frequency is not solidly repeatable.
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjMJ3F6WRRU&feature=youtu.be

I will try the laser / photo diode method next.


Furthermore i got rid of the inverter, and put up a welding transformer/variac combo for input.
This seems to work better as i measure about 2 amps running through the La/Lb coil now.

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayCoS7Ut5WM&feature=youtu.be


Regards Itsu

Itsu,

Thank you for the videos.
I hope, my comments below will be useful.

Knowing the resonance frequency of the ring might be useful, but it is not necessary.
There are other approaches. All can be done in situ. At a given magnetization current through coils La/Lb, one can simply sweep the frequency of the current pulses exciting the ring, looking for maximum output power on the load. The procedure can be repeated at various values of magnetization current. The ring creates a short, so inductance issues are virtually not present while tuning. A simple analog,  widely tuned pulse generator with power transistor output is beneficial for the task.

The main problem is that the coil you have will produce too low a magnetic field. The coil does not have to be long and  it  may have several layers of winding. Look at the coil used by SR193.

Also, the choke, L1,  should be air-cored and it should be high voltage capable. Winding it with the speaker wire is acceptable.

Vibration of the ferrite cores, if they are used, has nothing to do with the frequency of ring vibration in the embodiment of Fig.7. Although, the cores strengthen the magnetic field that permeates the ring. The cores are magnetized at low frequency. The ring vibration is at much higher frequency and they are not touching each other. The ring is slotted for electrical purposes; to be able to pass slow electron current though it and invoke Ampere's forces. On the other hand, it still has to be a full ring mechanically and be supported only at one point. We want to vibrate the ring as a whole, the "O", and not to modulate the width of the gap/slot, as in "C". In the latter case the connections to the ring would be damping the ring vibrations, and, in addition, the resonant frequency of the "C" arrangement would be too low. I would stick to what McFreey is suggesting. Remember, high value of acceleration is needed here and it is much higher at higher vibration frequencies. Your copper tube has definitely too small a diameter and is too long. This would require a lot of power to make it vibrate.

We are vibrating the ring resonantly, so no welder current is necessary for the ring/tube.  SR193 used pulses generated by the spark-gap to excite resonant mechanical vibrations in his resonator. Kapanadze uses two high power transistors for the same purpose (see the green box). It all depends on how large the gain material is. Attaching anything to the ring/tube changes the resonant frequency of the ring/tube.

The gap/slot size has nothing to do with the pulsed current created by fast electrons. In general, the trajectories of fast electrons do not even coincide with the radius of the ring/tube. These electrons do not circulate in the ring as whole.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.07.26, 02:06:22
On the other hand, it still has to be a full ring mechanically and be supported only at one point.

Yes, it should be supported at one point.  If you want to use a string to suspend the tube/ring, then inspire yourself with Wind Chimes construction. (see this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqrsNYLofCo))
Itsu's string suspension muffles the acoustic vibration severly.  A tube suspended like that, would not make a good Wind Chime.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.07.26, 02:06:22
In general, the trajectories of fast electrons do not even coincide with the radius of the ring/tube. These electrons do not circulate in the ring as whole.

If the confining magnetic field is excessively strong, then the fast electrons will circulate at smaller radii than the radius of the pipe/ring. In the worst case, fast electrons will leave a thin ring radially.
Any electrons leaving the gain medium temporarily or permanently, will decrease the chance for secondary decay events (that includes leaving due to insufficient or excessive curvature of electric trajectories and excessive gap).
IMO the most efficient confinement happens when the fast electrons stay as long as possible inside the pipe/ring.
This happens at a certain minimal confining field, when the electrons circulate at the same radius as the pipe's/ring's radius.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.26, 03:22:18
...
Any electrons leaving the gain medium temporarily or permanently, will decrease the chance for secondary decay events (that includes leaving due to insufficient or excessive curvature of electric trajectories and excessive gap).
IMO the most efficient confinement happens when the fast electrons stay as long as possible inside the pipe/ring.
This happens at a certain minimal confining field, when the electrons circulate at the same radius as the pipe's/ring's radius.

This is the old McFreey. The new papers by McFreey do not endorse secondary decay events nor the fact that the electrons circulate at the same radius as the pipe's/ring's radius.
In the new paper he also explicitly states:
"This paper clarifies the fact that nuclear magnetic resonance "NMR", which is understood to be resonant energy absorption by precessing nuclei, from either electromagnetic or acoustic sources, is not a necessary ingredient in the task of energy extraction from matter."
So, no NMR or NAR are necessary. What is necessary, is vigorous precession and "shaking" of the nuclei, to create the "intra-atomic grinding effect". Thus, according to McFreey, the resonant transitions are of secondary importance.

Thanks yfree.

QuoteThe main problem is that the coil you have will produce too low a magnetic field. The coil does not have to be long and  it  may have several layers of winding. Look at the coil used by SR193.

Also, the choke, L1,  should be air-cored and it should be high voltage capable. Winding it with the speaker wire is acceptable.

OK, by SR193 coil you mean the one as in the picture below?

I will make an air choke for L1 and use a 1000V GDT as overload protector.

QuoteYour copper tube has definitely too small a diameter and is too long. This would require a lot of power to make it vibrate.

Would a ring (say 10 cm od) made out of copper tubing (5 a 6 mm od) do, or does it need to be a solid ring (like these copper gaskets i see on Ebay)?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Oxygen-Free-Electronic-Grade-Copper-gasket-for-6-CF-conflat-flange-Lot-of-9-/200946251678?pt=BI_Pumps&hash=item2ec954779e

Regards Itsu

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.26, 03:22:18

Itsu's string suspension muffles the acoustic vibration severly.  A tube suspended like that, would not make a good Wind Chime.

Thanks verpies,  i see the point, great video, thanks.

Regards Itsu

Quote from: yfree on 2013.07.26, 04:12:03
This is the old McFreey. The new papers by McFreey do not endorse secondary decay events nor the fact that the electrons circulate at the same radius as the pipe's/ring's radius.
In the new paper he also explicitly states:
"This paper clarifies the fact that nuclear magnetic resonance "NMR", which is understood to be resonant energy absorption by precessing nuclei, from either electromagnetic or acoustic sources, is not a necessary ingredient in the task of energy extraction from matter."
So, no NMR or NAR are necessary. What is necessary, is vigorous precession and "shaking" of the nuclei, to create the "intra-atomic grinding effect". Thus, according to McFreey, the resonant transitions are of secondary importance.

That makes no sense.
Firstly, causing shaking and vigorous precession requires inelastic collisions or energy absorption from EM or acoustic sources (why else would the nuclei want to shake & precess ?). Vigorous precession can only be caused by application of Larmor frequency components, so it is a form of nuclear resonance, despite different phrasing.
Secondly, spin polarization and magnetic confinement of fast particles are still an issue, without it the beta current would be isotropic and could not be coupled inductively.
Thirdly, even if I believed in the reality of atomic orbitals and grinding, then causing K-electron capture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture) would require some absorption/input of energy and the subsequently released energy would have to be greater than energy absorbed to cause the precession... and this energy would have to be released coherently and anisotropically (confinement and polarization issue again) and in the same mode, e.g. from acoustic to acoustic or from EM to EM, or the gain medium would just sink energy in one mode.
Finally, electron capture, does not cause emission of charged particles from the nucleus (neutrinos at best).  Auger electron yield is low for heavy elements and most importantly - secondary.  Without copious charged particles, there is no beta current (anisotropic or not) for inductive coupling.

Itsu,

Yes, this is the coil.
The resonator is placed in the gap between the upper and lower sub-coils.

To cause precession, all you need is two orthogonal forces, and motion/translation of one of these forces.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.07.26, 13:51:31
To cause precession, all you need is two orthogonal forces, and motion/translation of one of these forces.

Please rephrase that.
There is no such thing as motion/translation of forces.   Forces cause motion, they are not in motion.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.26, 15:29:53
Please rephrase that.
There is no such thing as motion/translation of forces in this case.

There is also no evidence of this scenario actually working.  McFreey isn't even a real person and that sirname is fictitious.  It all smacks of disinformation to me.  Someone took a mention of NMR by "spherics" regarding the TPU, applied to every device they could think of, then loosely connected a bunch of facts and assumptions into a plausible theory.  Good people with good intentions will waste countless hours proving to themselves that this whole thing is a waste of time.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.26, 10:10:13
That makes no sense.

It does make a lot of sense to me and it is basic physics.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.26, 10:10:13
Firstly, causing shaking and vigorous precession requires inelastic collisions or energy absorption from EM or acoustic sources (why else would the nuclei want to shake & precess ?).

1. Shaking of nuclei can be invoked by vibration, phonons in general. No external magnetic field is necessary here.

2. It is not true that precession requires inelastic collisions or energy absorption from EM or acoustic sources. Precession of nuclei can also be invoked by inserting a body in a magnetic field. This is what McFreey is writing about, and this is the beauty of this approach.
Namely, when a magnetic moment  u is placed in a magnetic field B, it experiences a torque which can be expressed in the form of a vector product t=u x B. But in the case of some nuclei, in which the magnetic moment is the result of their spin property, the torque exerted then produces a change in angular momentum which has a component perpendicular to that angular momentum, causing the magnetic moment to precess around the direction of the magnetic field rather than settle down in the direction of the magnetic field. This is called Larmor precession. The angular frequency is then given by w = gB.
Thus here, precession is caused not by resonant absorption of EM or acoustic field it is caused by energy of the rising magnetic field.

The difference is that, for instance, the resonant EM method is virtually not capable of causing nuclear precession in bulk metals. The (relatively slowly) rising magnetic field is capable.
All this is nicely described here.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/larmor.html

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.26, 10:10:13
Vigorous precession can only be caused by application of Larmor frequency components, so it is a form of nuclear resonance, despite different phrasing.

Larmor precession is very much related to NMR and NAR, but it is not NMR or NAR in itself.
Yes, Larmor precession can be induced by NMR or NAR, but as shown above these are not the only methods. The difference may be subtle, but the consequences are far reaching.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.26, 10:10:13
Secondly, spin polarization and magnetic confinement of fast particles are still an issue, without it the beta current would be isotropic and could not be coupled inductively.

Magnetic field is present in everything that McFreey describes, so, there is no problem with spin polarization and particle confinement.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.26, 10:10:13
Thirdly, even if I believed in the reality of atomic orbitals and grinding, then causing K-electron capture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture) would require some absorption/input of energy and the subsequently released energy would have to be greater than energy absorbed to cause the precession...
...

McFreey writes about "grinding" not grinding and energy from the nucleus. However, both "grinding" and grinding involve interaction between waves of matter. Thus, no believing in the reality of atomic orbitals is necessary here.

Working on a new La/Lb coil.

La is finished, and its data is:
Former:           pvc 7.5cm od / 6.8cm id
wire:               95m of 1.5mm2 (awg 15/16)
turns:              300 (9 layers of 34 turns)
inductance:      5.2mH  (@ 240Hz)
resistance:       1.1 Ohm
self resonance: 228Khz

I could fill up the coils with ferrite rings if needed/wanted.

For the copper ring, i plan to use both a single turn of this 5mm od copper tubing (see picture) and a single ring of 6mm2 copper wire.

Regards Itsu

You do nice builds, Itsu. You must have a well equipped shop to fabricate these coils.

I think this may be more in line with what is required in the paper.

With careful excitation and measurement the NMR absorption should be noticeable.

Hopefully, some anomaly can also appear for our study.

Chet is trying to locate McFreey and bring him to this forum, hopefully to lend further info.

Best of luck in your research.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.07.26, 16:25:24
It does make a lot of sense to me and it is basic physics.

McFreey's engineering detail make sense to me too, but I take exception to some of his theoretical justifications.
The major discrepancy being that the electron capture by a proton does not cause an emission of any charged particles out of the nucleus (only neutrino).

Quote from: yfree on 2013.07.26, 16:25:24
1. Shaking of nuclei can be invoked by vibration, phonons in general. No external magnetic field is necessary here.

Shaking yes, but not precession.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.07.26, 16:25:24
2. It is not true that precession requires inelastic collisions or energy absorption from EM or acoustic sources. Precession of nuclei can also be invoked by inserting a body in a magnetic field.
...
Thus here, precession is caused not by resonant absorption of EM or acoustic field it is caused by energy of the rising magnetic field.

That is a tricky statement, because a static magnetic field is incapable of causing precession by itself.  However, the act of inserting a a body in a magnetic field is capable of invoking precession.  The difference between these two cases is the increase/change of the magnetic field permeating the body (inserting a body causes the change). A changing magnetic field constitutes an EM field and represents EM energy that becomes absorbed and converted to precession.  Of course most of the absorption occurs at a certain frequency, as with a mechanical gyro (and produces NAR spectra).
We can discuss the frequency spectrum of a step function (the act of inserting a body) but I'm sure you understand what I'm driving at even without it.

The point is that this energy (EM or acoustic) is not given back in the same mode, it is absorbed and converted to precession.  That this precession upsets the nucleus and later causes beta decay or electron capture - is secondary.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.07.26, 16:25:24
The difference is that, for instance, the resonant EM method is virtually not capable of causing nuclear precession in bulk metals. The (relatively slowly) rising magnetic field is capable.

The difference is not conceptual. It is in phraseology only. A slowly rising magnetic field still represents a change, containing many frequency components, one of which matches the nuclear precession frequency.  It takes energy to change the field, and this energy is absorbed and not given back in the same mode (as magnetic field) - hence absorption. Once the spin axes align parallel or antiparallell to a static magnetic field no more precession will be induced without changing the direction of the field or allowing it to decrease to zero and the spins to randomize up to a thermal equilibrium.  It is an error to consider a static magnetic field without considering how it got to this level and direction.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.07.26, 16:25:24
Magnetic field is present in everything that McFreey describes, so, there is no problem with spin polarization and particle confinement.

Not just any field and gain medium geometry (including the gap) creates ideal conditions for particle confinement.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.29, 21:01:45
McFreey's engineering detail make sense to me too, but I take exception to some of his theoretical justifications.
The major discrepancy being that the electron capture by a proton does not cause an emission of any charged particles out of the nucleus (only neutrino).

The only problem is that McFreey does not say anything about electron capture by a proton.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.29, 21:01:45
Shaking yes, but not precession.

For shaking a body, no precession is needed.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.29, 21:01:45
That is a tricky statement, because a static magnetic field is incapable of causing precession by itself.  However, the act of inserting a a body in a magnetic field is capable of invoking precession.  The difference between these two cases is the increase/change of the magnetic field permeating the body (inserting a body causes the change). A changing magnetic field constitutes an EM field and represents EM energy that becomes absorbed and converted to precession.  Of course most of the absorption occurs at a certain frequency, as with a mechanical gyro (and produces NAR spectra).
We can discuss the frequency spectrum of a step function (the act of inserting a body) but I'm sure you understand what I'm driving at even without it.
The puenta is that this energy (EM or acoustic) is not given back in the same mode, it is absorbed and converted to precession.  That this precession upsets the nucleus and later causes beta decay or electron capture - is secondary.

This is not about a static magnetic field, and the insertion is never immediate. The sticky point is that the field change can be harmonic, say at 100 Hz, so there is no higher harmonic or spectrum of a step function. Everything else is described in the paper.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.29, 21:01:45
The difference is not conceptual. It is in phraseology only. A slowly rising magnetic field still represents a change, containing many frequency components, one of which matches the nuclear precession frequency.  It takes energy to change the field, and this energy is absorbed and not given back in the same mode (as magnetic field) - hence absorption. Once the spin axes align parallel or antiparallell to a static magnetic field no more precession will be induced without changing the direction of the field or allowing it to decrease to zero and the spins to randomize up to a thermal equilibrium.  It is an error to consider a static magnetic field without considering how it got to this level and direction.

No, it is not phraseology only. Slowly changing magnetic field can be harmonic, see above. Read the definitions of appropriate phenomena. You will never find a definition stating that precession on its own is NMR or NAR.  McFreey is not talking about a static magnetic field, quite the contrary. Please read carefully.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.29, 21:01:45
Not just any field and gain medium geometry (including the gap) creates ideal conditions for particle confinement.

The talk is not about any field and gain medium, but about a magnetic field and moving charged particles.

If there is still a difference in opinion, I will leave it that way.
Thank you.

This might come in handy:

                    Speed of       Speed of       Loss factor         Loss factor
                  Longitudinal      Shear         Longitudinal          Shear
Material          waves          waves            waves               waves
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum     6374m/s        3111m/s     0.00003-0.0001     0.0001
Brass           4372m/s        2100m/s     0.0002-0.001       <0.001
Copper        4759m/s        2325m/s     0.002                      0.002
Gold             3240m/s       1200m/s      0.0003
Iron             5957m/s        3224m/s     0.0001-0.0004        0.0002-0.0006
Lead            2160m/s         700m/s      0.05 - 0.3                0.02
Steel            5960m/s       3235m/s      0.00002-0.0003
Diamond     12000m/s   

Steven Mark stated that the first two TPU's would cease working when flipped over. 

Steven Mark also said that there is a "rotating field" produced in the TPU's and that this is a necessary part of the devices.   

TPU's are never grounded.

Perhaps McFreey didn't know about these features of the TPU.

Quote from: ION on 2013.07.29, 14:08:47
You do nice builds, Itsu. You must have a well equipped shop to fabricate these coils.

Thanks ION,

i have just some basic tools (saws, dremel, workmate), but with some patience it gets the job done.

Here the progress, both La and Lb are done, working on the copper ring (6mm od tube):

Regards Itsu

You are doing some beautiful work there Itsu good luck  O0

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.07.31, 09:40:25
Here the progress, both La and Lb are done, working on the copper ring (6mm od tube):

Hollow tube :(

Itsu,

These are very nice coils.
For experimentation, it is always a good idea to have a ferrite core handy. The core should fit snugly into the opening of the coil. What kind of ferrite cores do you have?
As for the spiral, or even ring, I would not recommend tubing material. Bulk wire might be a better choice. I simply have no experience with tubing wires.
More than one turn is acceptable for systems similar to the one in Fig.6. For the system in Fig.7 a single turn (a ring) and a ferrite core in the coils is better, in my humble opinion.
Then, there is the choice of the material for the ring. Copper is only one possibility and it may not always work. The other choices are brass, zinc, aluminium and even alloys of iron. Remember, Leedskalnin apparently made a lot more electricity from iron than from copper.
The frequency of the magnetization field is also an important parameter. The precession once induced does not last forever. The T1 parameter, the spin-lattice relaxation time, is important and for copper it is very short. A quarter of the period of magnetization current has to be less than T1.

Isotope    Spin    T1 (s)      Abundance (%)
Cu65       3/2,    0.0004      70
Cu63       3/2,    0.0004      30
Zn67       5/2,    0.015        4
Fe57       1/2,    3               2
Ni61        3/2     0.05          1
Al27        5/2     0.03          100

QuoteHollow tube :(

QuoteAs for the spiral, or even ring, I would not recommend tubing material.

Now you tell me   :(

Ok,  hunting for a solid copper/brass ring

I have some 65x40x9 mm ferrite rings on order from Russia, those should fit snugly into the 68mm id of the coils.

Thanks for the info's

Regards itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.08.01, 14:51:27
I have some 65x40x9 mm ferrite rings on order from Russia, those should fit snugly into the 68mm id of the coils.

Soft ferrite or hard ferrite (permanent magnet material) ?

Quote from: verpies on 2013.08.02, 00:26:02
Soft ferrite or hard ferrite (permanent magnet material) ?

I don't know, it did not say, only: permeability 2000.
When i got them i can compare the material with a similar sized ceramic ring magnet (loudspeaker) which would be hard ferrite i guess.
What do i need in my case (hard or soft)?

Regards Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.08.02, 09:17:39
I don't know, it did not say, only: permeability 2000.

Relative permeability of 2000 is associated with low coercivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercivity) (a.k.a. "soft").
Permanent magnets (e.g. hard ferrites, NdFeB, SmCo)) have high coercivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercivity) (10000s of Oersteds) and low relative permeability (around 1 like air)

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.08.02, 09:17:39
What do i need in my case (hard or soft)?

Mostly soft, but for optional magnetic "DC biasing" you might need some ring/puck ceramic magnets (made out of hard ferrite) having the same diameter.

P.S.
Ceramic hard ferrite magnets are weaker but they have an advantage, in that they do not conduct electric current like e.g. NdFeB.  ...thus - no eddy currents, either.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.08.02, 10:13:38
Relative permeability of 2000 is associated with low coercivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercivity) (a.k.a. "soft").
Permanent magnets (e.g. hard ferrites, NdFeB, SmCo)) have high coercivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercivity) (10000s of Oersteds) and low relative permeability (around 1 like air)
Mostly soft, but for optional magnetic "DC biasing" you might need some ring/puck ceramic magnets (made out of hard ferrite) having the same diameter.

P.S.
Ceramic hard ferrite magnets are weaker but they have an advantage, in that they do not conduct electric current like e.g. NdFeB.  ...thus - no eddy currents, either.

So my Russian ferrite rings should be usefull for this device.

While waiting for them, and for a suitable brass/copper ring (they are hard to find), i continue working on my copper tube inner ring.
I made 2 and soldered them to a piece of double sided PCB making a solid ring again.

Finding the mechanicall resonance using a piezo microphone now worked much better.
It turns out to mechanical resonate at 3.071KHz (EM resonance at 63MHz).

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVMuVZFdAi4&feature=youtu.be

Next i will fire up the La/Lb coil using the variac controlled welding transformer with this copper tube ring inside and make some measurements.

Thanks for the info/comments,  regards Itsu


 

Very elegant setup Itsu.
Making the LaLb coils as two separate halves will allow you to easily turn one of them around, in order to experiment with the aiding and opposing flux modes in the core or ring placed between the two halves (see here (http://www.overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/dlattach/attach/124686/)).

I am surprised that you cannot find a large brass ring easily.
In my neighborhood there are a lot of hardware plumbing stores, that have large brass pipes, valves, tees, elbows, etc...  just waiting to be sliced up into nice rings with a hack-saw, etc...

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.07.29, 08:52:23
turns:              300 (9 layers of 34 turns)

You should always strive to wind an even number of "back and forth" layers, in order to nullify the longitudinal current and longitudinal magnetic field in toroidal and solenoidal coils. (see here (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1526.0;attach=10845))

That patent applies to inductors without ferromagnetic cores.

The patent only illustrates nullification of longitudinal currents and resulting magnetic fields in toroidal coils. However, this concept is applicable to cored coils and solenoidal coils, too.
Even number of back-and forth layers nullifies these currents and fields better than odd number of layers and that is my main point.

Here some first test while waiting on the ferrite cores and a proper brass/copper ring.
(i did visit my local DIY shop, but could not find the proper sized ring i need, they all (plumbing stuff) are to small in diameter).

So i used my copper tube ring for now.

At 12V RMS across the 12V/21W load bulb and the La/Lb coil, i have 2.6A RMS running through the coil (0.1 CSR).
Total input is 83W divided over:

variac 4W
welding TR 18W
12/21 BULP 21W
rest (La/Lb coil / choke) 40W

No accurate voltage across the single turn was being induced, a noisy signal of about 10mV RMS was seen.

When cranking up the variac/welding tr. to its max., (using a 220V/60W bulb as load), i noted the following
values:

total input 470W
voltage across the bulb/coil 38V AC
current through the coil 8A RMS
induced voltage in the single turn coil 25mV RMS

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfMc4mQu5qg&feature=youtu.be

Question: how to put in enough power into the single turn coil (like a short)?


Regards Itsu

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.25, 14:41:05
Why not?  A loose / buzzing transformer and there you go.
Also, who's is to say that somebody more educated did not show him the principle.

Have you?

Quote from: verpies on 2013.07.26, 15:29:53
Please rephrase that.
There is no such thing as motion/translation of forces.   Forces cause motion, they are not in motion.

Move the point where the force is applied.

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.08.04, 23:23:49
Question: how to put in enough power into the single turn coil (like a short)?

Match the impedance of the secondary to the impedance of the the single turn coil (because of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem) principle).

In practice that means winding a 1-3 turn secondary winding with a very thick wire/strap (or several wires in parallel for the ease of wire bending and avoiding the skin-effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect) at HF).  
Take a look and study the construction of the secondary winding inside the type of a soldering iron that is illustrated below (the heating element in this type of soldering iron is like the low-impedance single turn coil)... and duplicate the same construction of the secondary winding around the ferrite core of a transformer used to power the single turn coil/ring.

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.08.05, 03:14:18
Have you?

No, I don't even speak Kapanadze's language.  I cannot communicate with him.

Itsu,

Of course you should not drive the primary winding of the Impedance Matching Transformer (IMT), that powers the low-impedance single-turn coil/ring  (mentioned in my previous message), with your signal generator directly.

You can use this method (http://youtu.be/RU15rQEV-Rg) to drive the primary winding of this IMT.
...but instead of using the TL494, you can use the your signal generator complementarly connected to two UCC27511 chips, driving two 600V Power Nch-MOSFETs.

The gapped TV yoke ferrite core might not be the most efficient core for the IMT (ferrite cores can handle high frequencies better than steel cores, though).

NOTE:  Two UCC27511 chips driving two 600V Power Nch-MOSFETs constitute a digital amplifier, used to boost the power of your signal generator (and to protect it as well).  
In this application, an analog amplifier would be more ideal, because it would be capable of applying an analog sine wave (a single frequency) to the primary of the IMT and eventually to the single-turn ring,  but such an analog amplifier would be much more difficult to construct (and much more expensive).  
Let's hope that the odd harmonics of the rectangular wave introduced by a digital amplifier, will not throw a monkey wrench in the whole scheme.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.08.05, 11:32:53
No, I don't even speak Kapanadze's language.  I cannot communicate with him.

You stated:

"Why not?  A loose / buzzing transformer and there you go."

If it is so easy, where is your version?

In my drawer.  I've decided to go with two pairs of 300x12mm brass and steel disks for the electromechanical spool motor.
I wrote that this acoustic principle is easy to stumble upon by an uneducated person, not that it's easy to build purposely.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.08.05, 13:16:55

You can use this method (http://youtu.be/RU15rQEV-Rg) to drive the primary winding of this IMT.

Nice, where have i seen that thing before  :)

I did by the way improve on it like you mentioned then, and now it has more symmetrical primary windings, each primary covering the whole circumference forth and back of the yoke.

I will give it a try.

Regards Itsu  

Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.08.05, 13:20:05
"Why not?  A loose / buzzing transformer and there you go."

You are absolutely right, Grumpy.
This is suggested in Fig. 4.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.08.05, 13:16:55
...  
In this application, an analog amplifier would be more ideal, because it would be capable of applying an analog sine wave (a single frequency) to the primary of the IMT and eventually to the single-turn ring,  but such an analog amplifier would be much more difficult to construct (and much more expensive).  
Let's hope that the odd harmonics of the rectangular wave introduced by a digital amplifier, will not throw a monkey wrench in the whole scheme.

This is an important remark.

In order not to dissipate the energy of these drain spikes as heat in voltage clamps (a.k.a. snubbers) you can use lossless clamps instead. 
These clamps recycle the drain spikes' energy back into the power supply, instead of wasting it in RC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snubber#RC_snubbers) or Zener (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zener_diode) or Transorb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transorb) "heaters".

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1526.0;attach=10871)
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1526.0;attach=10873)

DESCRIPTION:
1) Primary windings of T2 are wound bifilarly (e.g. with double-wire speaker cable or two parallel Litz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litz_wire) wires - better).
2) Q1 and Q2 are N-ch power MOSFETs rated for blocking voltages of at least 2*V_2A.
3) Two fast rectifier diodes (e.g. Shottky) are needed for an effective operation of lossless clamps. These diodes (D3 and D4) must be capable of handling the pulsed currents occurring in the primaries (T2,W1_AB) and must be rated for at least 2*V_2A.
4) Two capacitors (C3 & C4) in the μF range (the more μF the better) are used as a floating DC sources (=V_2A) for the lossless clamps. They can be ceramic or electrolytic capacitors (or both types connected in parallel), but must have low-ESR and be rated for at least V_2A.
5) Pins #6 of the UCC27511 drivers (U1 and U2) are used to ensure that two power MOSFETs (Q1 and Q2) are not conducting both at the same time. The voltage on pin #6 must be above 2.4V in order for the driver to be enabled (this happens only when the opposite MOSFET stops conducting. This is sensed by R6 and R8).
6) R11 and R12 are optional Current Sensing Resistors (CSRs) used for troubleshooting (they must be of non-wirewound type and non-inductive!).  The waveform across these resistors should have a sawtooth shape. If this waveform is rectangular, then it is an indication of insufficient number of turns in primary windings (too low inductance of T2,W1_ABCD) or an input frequency that is too low.  These resistors can also serve as current limiters/fuses that protect Q1 and Q2 from excessive current damage.
7) If the U0 Hex Inverter (http://www.nxp.com/documents/data_sheet/74ABT04.pdf) is used, then all of its unused inputs (pins #3,5,7,9,11,13) must be grounded and its power supply pin #14 must be connected to +5V DC and bypassed with a suitable capacitor to pin #7 (this is not shown on the schematic!).  If the U0 inverter is unavailable, instead of it, it might be possible to use an improvised inverter composed of a small BJT (or MOSFET) and additional resistors.
8) Diodes D6 and D9 are used with a low-power isolation transformer (T1) in order to protect the inputs of U1 and U2 from negative voltages (they can tolerate only -0.3V).  These diodes can be low current/power but they must have a reverse recovery time (t_rr) that is sufficiently fast to support the maximum input frequency applied to T1.
9) An absence of a varying input signal during the presence of V1_A and W2_A supply voltages will result in damage to T2,W1_AB windings or Q1,Q2 transistors because T2 is incapable of handling DC applied to its primaries.
10) The rules of connections layout for U1 and U2, described in the UCC27511 Datasheet (http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/ucc27511.pdf) in section "PCB Layout" on page 22, should be followed strictly.

P.S.
To maximize the efficiency of lossless clamps, the T2 primary winding W1_A should have the same length, turns and placement as the winding W1_C and should be interleaved with it. By the same token, the winding W1_B should have the same length, turns and placement as the winding W1_D and should be interleaved with it (all of this is automatically ensured when those windings are wound bifilarly with e.g. a speaker cable consisting of two parallel wires).  The only permitted difference between the windings is the wire thickness - because windings W1_C and W1_D conduct less average current than W1_A and W1_B, they can be wound with a thinner wire.

Of course, for best results the windings of all toroidal transformers should be wound in 2 layers (or a higher even number) where each layer uniformly covers one full outer circumference of the the core (see this diagram (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1526.0;attach=10875) for what happens if it does not).
Each layer should be advanced in the opposite direction to the next layer (also along the full outer circumference of the core), while keeping the turn direction constant (e.g. CCW) for all layers.
If more layers are needed then use an even number of layers (e.g. 2, 4, 6, 8, etc...) alternating the direction of winding advancement along the circumference of the core, for each successive layer. 

On schematics below, the beginning of each wire in the 2-wire bifilar cable, that constitutes the primary windings, is marked with a full dot of a different color.

Verpies

Nice job on the schematics and text presented. Looks like you are an experienced switchmode designer. Good to have you here. I appreciate your careful work.

I used my old "Dally replication" transformer driver (yoke transformer driven by a TL494) equiped with an extra heavy gauge 2 turn wire to drive my single turn (made of solid copper wire now) coil.

This single turn coil gets lukewarm when operating.

Frequency range of the TL494 is from 1.5KHz to 94KHz.

The used yoke is a solid ring, so no gaps, and the both primaries are speaker wire wound forth and back (so 2 layers each) covering the whole circumference of the yoke.

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvDu83s-JzU&feature=youtu.be

I will try various single turn coils / tubes to see if any abnormalities can be observed while sweeping through the TL494 frequency range.

Regards Itsu

Itsu,

If the copper/brass single turn ring gets warm then it's a good sign.  It means that some power is being transferred to it.
Ideally, the 2-turn secondary should be distributed around the full circumference of the core, but since this is impossible to do with 2 turns, you can simulate it with four such 2-turn windings connected in parallel, spaced 90deg apart along core's circumference.  
We are trying to prevent this (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1526.0;attach=10875) from happening (yes, it applies to secondaries, too).

The frequency adjustment by pot is imprecise and NAR requires a precision down to single Hz.  
For minimal circuit alterations, you can disconnect the capacitor from pin #5 of the TL494 and apply a sawtooth signal to this pin #5 from your signal generator in order to obtain more tuning precision ( measure the amplitude of the signal at pin #5 BEFORE you disconnect the capacitor connected to it, so you can duplicate the amplitude well with your signal generator).
Note: My warning in pt.9 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1526.msg33035#msg33035) might also apply in this case, so remember: Apply input signal before applying the power supply to your big switching transistors!

P.S.
In the video you said that the 25turn bifilar winding is used for "driving". Are you sure?
Reversing the polarity of one of the halves of the LaLb coil might be a good try if you get stuck.

QuoteThe frequency adjustment by pot is imprecise and NAR requires a precision down to single Hz. 

Great, that makes sweeping through the frequency range a boring long task, luckily my DG4102 has good sweep capability, so using it for driving the TL494 seems a good idea.

QuoteIn the video you said that the 25turn bifilar winding is used for "driving". Are you sure?

Well,  yes, but i mean to drive another coil like in the Akula replications which i was looking at and planning to use this TL494 setup for.

QuoteReversing the polarity of one of the halves of the LaLb coil might be a good try if you get stuck.

Right, to get that opposing flux you mentioned earlier.

Thanks,   Itsu

Itsu,

I appreciate your posts and videos very much.
I can provide you with some hands-on advice, if you need it.
McFreey stuff really works. It is not just a theory.

yfree said:

QuoteMcFreey stuff really works. It is not just a theory.

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.

Yfree,

QuoteI can provide you with some hands-on advice, if you need it.

Great, thanks, i will show you here my progress (and when/where i get stuck), so i will let you know, but please don't hesitate to post your knowledge here for all to see like mentioned by ION.

For now i have some things i can do, and am still waiting for my 16 toroid's which i could use.

Checking the temperature yesterday on the single ring shows that it rises till 50 degrees Celsius depending on the used frequency (the lower the freq. (1.5KHz), the higher the temp. (50 C)).


verpies,

QuoteHe set the frequency sweep period to 12h and had gone home to sleep.......

Nice one, next time he probably put a video camera in his lab, but then probably nothing happened   :)

Found that my DG4102 only sweeps for 300 seconds,  Hmmmm.

Regards Itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.08.09, 19:35:52
Great, that makes sweeping through the frequency range a boring long task, luckily my DG4102 has good sweep capability, so using it for driving the TL494 seems a good idea.

On the light side, such long frequency sweeps remind me of an urban legend of some guy that was resonating a column of water in a glass cylinder with two frequencies.  He set one frequency's sweep period to 12h and had gone home to sleep.  When he came back to the lab, the all the water was gone and there was a nice round hole in the concrete ceiling above the intact container.  
You can probably find more details about this event on the Internet.

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.08.09, 19:35:52
Right, to get that opposing flux you mentioned earlier.

Yes.
Also, I think it would be interesting to have alternating configurations of magnetic flux between L_A and L_B: opposing / aiding / opposing / aiding / etc... e.g. changing 50 times per second like between Diag.1a (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1541.msg32176#msg32176) and Diag.2b (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1541.msg32176#msg32176).
I'll leave it to your creativity to invent how to accomplish such changes of flux direction, without switching windings using transistors (or other switches).

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.08.09, 19:35:52
Found that my DG4102 only sweeps for 300 seconds,  Hmmmm.

It can sweep longer if you control it via your computer.

P.S.
I suggest that you take Yfree up on his offer of assistance.  He seems to be a decent, experienced and knowledgeable guy.

Quote from: ION on 2013.08.10, 05:37:39
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)

Quote from: verpies on 2013.08.10, 10:18:11
Also, I think it would be interesting to have alternating configurations of magnetic flux between L_A and L_B: opposing / aiding / opposing / aiding / etc... e.g. changing 50 times per second like between Diag.1a (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1541.msg32176#msg32176) and Diag.2b (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1541.msg32176#msg32176).

What happens in Diag.2b when the polarity changes, meaning - (minus) on the left, and + (plus) on the right?
The flux is neither opposing nor aiding, right?

You get the same situation when connecting those coils anti parallel.

Regards Itsu

Quote from: yfree on 2013.08.10, 18:12:29
I verified the claims of(//) McFreey as soon as the papers were published in the PJK Book.

I verified only that macroscopic acoustic vibration has a very similar effect on nuclei as alternating magnetic fields in NMR, essentially confirming the NAR effect as described by Bolef and Sundfors.  I write "only" because I did not take my experiments further than NAR.

Hi yfree,

I recall a formula for estimating the mechanical resonant frequency of ferrite rings, it was issued by Philips, now Ferroxube.

See the formula in Page 3 of this PDF file http://www.ferroxcube.com/prod/assets/3r1.pdf (http://www.ferroxcube.com/prod/assets/3r1.pdf)  

It is possible that for some ferrite material types the probably empirical number 5700 in the nominator may change a little (I do not know for sure) so the calculated frequency from the mechanical OD and ID sizes may differ from the measured one. Still this formula may give a good approach where to fine-tune.

Greetings,
Gyula

Thanks yfree for the picture and explanation.
I like the way you fixed the ring to the PCB, this way it can be inserted in between the both coil from the side.

Not sure if i understand what you are doing with the magnet ring.
This is a substitute for the (in my case changing) magnetic field generated by the La/Lb coil?
How do you pick up / step up any resonance by the single ring without any external coil?
Or is this single ring / magnet ring combo suppose to be inserted inside your La/Lb coils?


Yesterday evening i was running resonance tests on my single turn driven by the TL494/yoke transformer which in turn was driven by my FG like verpies mentioned (pin 5 of the TL494).

I used sweep ranges from 1KHz each time, starting from 2KHz to 3KHz (in 5 minutes), then from 3KHz to 4KHz, etc. all the way up till 13KHZ.

Nothing special was noticed/heard.

Lateron i removed the 50Hz welding transformer drive and used a permanent ceramic ring magnet closely (but not touching) the single ring inside the La/Lb coil creating a permanent magnetic field around the single coil.

Again a swepped across the 2KHz - 13KHz range in 1KHZ steps, but again nothing special noticed/heard.

I will repeat those tests today.


Regards Itsu

Itsu,

The magnet under the ring in the picture is just for finding acoustic (mechanical) resonances of the ring.
After finding the resonance frequencies, you have to mount the ring either within the coils or in the gap between the coils (in the gap between the ferrite cores of the coils, in my case). Yes, I am using ferrite cores: three pieces of DigiKey 240-2244-ND (see below) in each coil glued together.
The frequency must be swept in a very narrow band (~5 Hz) around these frequencies in an analog way (not digital) because the resonances are extremely "sharp".
If you insist on digital sweeping, the frequency step must be 0.001 Hz. More on this in  ~3 hours.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.08.11, 13:40:40
The frequency must be swept in a very narrow band (~5 Hz) around these frequencies in an analog way (not digital) because the resonances are extremely "sharp".
If you insist on digital sweeping, the frequency step must be 0.001 Hz. More on this in  ~3 hours.

@Itsu

I am sure Yfree warns you about your digital power amplifier that produces a rectangular waveform.  I am sure he does not object to your digital signal generator that can produce clean "analog" sine waves (with 14-bit resolution).

Also, regarding your "invention" - when one half of the LaLb coil is supplied with DC (or is substituted/supplemented with a permanent magnet) then the flux configuration will change from opposing to aiding, just as we were writing in previous messages.  If the second half of the LaLb coil is supplied with 50Hz AC then this directional flux change will happen 50 times per second (like between Diag.1a and Diag2.b)

@yfree,

Have you reached a stage yet through experimentation where you can say your setup runs overunity?

Hoppy

Quote from: Hoppy on 2013.08.11, 16:13:29
Have you reached a stage yet through experimentation where you can say your setup runs overunity?

@Hoppy,

The short answer is no, the system will never be overunity.
If you mean "overunity", where there is no visible supply of energy (energy comes from within the system), then yes. If you look at Fig.6, there is no external supply of energy. However, it is not that you construct the system according to the schematic in Fig. 6 and it will work. The system of Fig. 6 has to be tuned first. Then the system has to be started externally. After a successful start it will oscillate on its own, for some time, and it is possible to load it. There are, however, many details which we will have to go through (McFreey assumes too much/does not provide details - let's tease him, although his ideas are great).

As for the system in Fig.7 (which in my opinion is much more difficult to implement; it only looks simple), I just saw the effect and did not bother to loop it, I do not have the means at the moment. There are quite a few differences between Itsu's setup and what I was using (the coils are similar, except my coils are fitted with ferrite cores, see my previous post). I used the same coils in verification of Fig.6 and Fig.7.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.08.11, 15:56:37
I am sure Yfree warns you about your digital power amplifier that produces a rectangular waveform.  

Indeed, I was using something closer to a rectified sinewave.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.08.11, 15:56:37
I am sure he does not object to your digital signal generator that can produce clean "analog" sine waves (with 14-bit resolution).

Indeed, there is no objection to digital signal generator when finding the resonance frequency of the ring, it is rather the frequency step.  In the procedure of finding the resonance frequency of the ring 1 Hz or even 10 Hz step is acceptable.

It is the frequency modulation (synchronized with current through the coils) during fine tuning and then during operation of the device that has to be fine. The tuning step in this case has to be very small; analog sweeping is best.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.08.11, 17:24:39
@Hoppy,

The short answer is no, the system will never be overunity.
If you mean "overunity", where there is no visible supply of energy (energy comes from within the system), then yes. If you look at Fig.6, there is no external supply of energy. However, it is not that you construct the system according to the schematic in Fig. 6 and it will work. The system of Fig. 6 has to be tuned first. Then the system has to be started externally. After a successful start it will oscillate on its own, for some time, and it is possible to load it. There are, however, many details which we will have to go through (McFreey assumes too much/does not provide details - let's tease him, although his ideas are great).

As for the system in Fig.7 (which in my opinion is much more difficult to implement; it only looks simple), I just saw the effect and did not bother to loop it, I do not have the means at the moment. There are quite a few differences between Itsu's setup and what I was using (the coils are similar, except my coils are fitted with ferrite cores, see my previous post). I used the same coils in verification of Fig.6 and Fig.7.

Thanks for your detailed reply.

Hoppy

Itsu,

Just to clarify one very important detail (which may have been missed).
For the system of Fig.7. the frequency of the ring excitation has to swept during every half cycle of magnetization current. This is because the resonance, at which the energy release phenomenon occurs, is extremely narrow. Without sweeping, it is rather unlikely to notice the effect. This is clarified in the figure below.

Yfree, now you have lost me.


Do you mean that for every half cycle of the magnetization current, which is 100 times a second (50Hz) in my case, the excitation pulse for the ring needs to sweep up and down 5Hz the rings resonance frequency (which for one of my rings is 4.664KHz)?

If so, then an elaborate control circuitry needs to be installed, right?


Regards itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.08.11, 20:11:22
Do you mean that for every half cycle of the magnetization current, which is 100 times a second (50Hz) in my case, the excitation pulse for the ring needs to sweep up and down 5Hz the rings resonance frequency (which for one of my rings is 4.664KHz)?

Exactly, the resonance frequency of your ring, fr,  must be within the frequency sweeping range. This is because, you are not able to maintain the fr with sufficient accuracy or even hit it to see the effect. This is why I said, the system in Fig. 7 is more difficult than the one in Fig.6. However, with all the details that come in addition to Fig. 6 (initial tuning system), it may not be so. This is a matter of taste.

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.08.11, 20:11:22
If so, then an elaborate control circuitry needs to be installed, right?

Actually, the needed circuitry is rather simple. There can be many approaches, as always.
The frequency sweep does not have to be exactly linear, the graph was only an example.
I will offer my circuit, as soon as I draw it.
P.S. I found the working resonant frequency of my ring to be ~9502 Hz.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.08.11, 22:01:06
Exactly, the resonance frequency of your ring, fr,  must be within the frequency sweeping range. This is because, you are not able to maintain the fr with sufficient accuracy or even hit it to see the effect. This is why I said, the system in Fig. 7 is more difficult than the one in Fig.6. However, with all the details that come in addition to Fig. 6 (initial tuning system), it may not be so. This is a matter of taste.

Actually, the needed circuitry is rather simple. There can be many approaches, as always.
The frequency sweep does not have to be exactly linear, the graph was only an example.
I will offer my circuit, as soon as I draw it.
P.S. I found the working resonant frequency of my ring to be ~9502 Hz.

Ok, yes, i am curious how your circuit looks like, thanks
I made a new ring (like your setup) of 1.5mm copper wire and a loop diameter of 6.5cm, and i am pretty sure this one resonates around 4985 Hz.
When i receive my toroid's, i can always switch to the fig. 6 circuit.

Regards Itsu

Itsu,

I will do it ASAP, but during the week I am not that fast.
I was using XR-2206 which is no longer available, XR-2209 still is.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.08.12, 14:07:41
I was using XR-2206

Itsu's signal generator outputs sine waves of better quality than the XR-2206.
...but his digital amplifier does not output sine waves, at all.

Quote from: verpies on 2013.08.12, 15:47:18
Itsu's signal generator outputs sine waves of better quality than the XR-2206.
...but his digital amplifier does not output sine waves, at all.

It is not about the sine wave quality, it is about analog versus step-wise frequency modulation.
It seems that it can do both:
"Functions include Function Generation, Arbitrary Waveform Generation, Pulse Generation, Harmonic Generation, and Analog/Digital Modulation and Counting. The DG4000 utilizes Direct Digital Synthesizer (DDS) technology, which delivers stable, precise, low distortion signals."
It also says: frequency resolution 1 uHz.
If this is the case, than it should be fine.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.08.12, 14:07:41
Itsu,

I will do it ASAP, but during the week I am not that fast.

That's ok, i am working all week too and have enough things to try out, so take your time.

Regards Itsu

In the mean time, I have a simple question:
How can one solder aluminium, without specialized tools?

I've not tried it yfree but i understand it is possible to soft solder aluminium using a special flux, the thickness to be soldered will dictate the heat source as the alu will dissipate a lot of heat fast, so the thinner the easier.

Ideally you might be able to find someone with an ultrasonic welder  8)

Maybe find a metal fabrication shop and ask nicely.

I found a post somewhere else on another forum

QuoteI would recommend a tin-zinc solder. In my garage I was able to bond aluminum pretty easily, but I have been doing it for years. The 91% Tin one is the one I use

I guess a bit of experimentation is needed to see what works, but it does look possible

Also found a video here using a propane torch and special solder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiThO-UQIWE

and a video using engine oil and a soldering iron
http://www.edaboard.com/thread184719.html

Thank you for the links, Peterae. I also found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COaK_mQfipU

I finally found some time to draw the circuit.
The INP1 is a sine-wave synchronous with the magnetization current, e.g. an output of a transformer, 5 - 50V in amplitude. TP1 should show a rounded square-wave, while at TP2 there should be a proper square-wave. The HC86 forms an edge detector, both rising and falling, so TP3 should show very nice sharp pulses, corresponding to the rising and falling edges of the LM393. These pulses are turning on transistor Q which discharges capacitor C3. At TP4 should then be a saw-tooth signal. This signal modulates the frequency of the XR-2209. The modulation range is adjusted by the value of R8*. R10 tunes the centre frequency of the output square-wave (OUT1) and the triangle(OUT2) of the XR-2209. Both outputs are frequency modulated.
I also used a version where TP4 was not connected to C3,  but to the output of a full wave bridge rectifier that rectifies the INP1 signal. Then the modulation was not (almost) linear, as here, but followed the shape of a rectified sine-wave. 5V and 12 V, are stabilized.
I will revisit some of this, possibly this weekend.
P.S. The circuit comes without warranty or responsibility of any kind.

yfree

Thanks for taking the time to supply the circuit. Looks like you are an experienced circuit designer.  I have a lot of older frequency generators / synthesizers, some are adjustable to millihertz, and some have VCO input. I may try to sync a few up for modulation and wide range adjustability, in addition to your discrete circuit approach.

A few years back I suggested that the odd results SM mentioned from his 5U4 power supply testing may have in part been due to loose transformer windings in one of the transformers, allowing for a small degree of acoustic vibration.

When I get to the bench, I will be trying something along the effect of a long solenoid coil with a spring like secondary coil suspended somewhat loosely within the main solenoid, along with some of the suggestions of McFreey and yourself.

I wish to thank you, verpies, and Itsu among others for keeping this topic alive and contributing such excellent material.

ION, Itsu, All,

I have to ascertain some basic facts that I have mentioned before, although not explicitly enough. This may have created some confusion. These basic facts were mentioned in my reply #76.  What I am going to say now, which stems directly from these basic facts, has to be taken very seriously.
The magnetization frequency range for the device in Fig.7  given by McFreey, 50 - 4000 Hz, is very wide. This does not mean that every gain material will work at the lower frequency range. In fact, according to the information presented in reply #76, the device in Fig.7 will not work at all, at 50 or 60 Hz, if the gain material is copper or even aluminium. The lowest frequency for copper will be close to 1000 Hz, it will be slightly lower for aluminium. The device in Fig. 7 becomes quite difficult to implement at these frequencies. The device only looks simple when presented as in Fig.7. As I mentioned before, device in Fig.6 is much easier to replicate (Fig. 6 is the essence of Mark's technology). I can guide you through this as well. My offer of guidance was, in fact, related mostly to the device in Fig.6. Itsu's coils can be used in this implementation. Long coils are not needed.
I also have an idea how to simplify the approach in Fig. 7, but  will not present it until I verify it. I hope this helps.

Yfree,

thanks for the circuit and for your latest update.
I have no problems to switch to Fig. 6 as most of the parts i have build can be used there too, however in the Fig. 7 circuit i can see where the (input) power comes from (LF  generator / RF generator), but Fig. 6 seems to operate without input which can not be true.

So how does one start the process there?
And what are the values for L4, L2, Lc and Ld?

Thanks, regards Itsu.

Here's someones translation attempt from French to English regarding the Meyer paper
http://www.hyiq.org/Library/Downloads/Michel%20Meyer%20-%20NMR%20Generator%20-%20English%20Version.pdf

There's some amazingly cheap dds generators available, maybe they could be of some use here also.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NEW-DDS-Function-Signal-generator-Module-Sine-Wave-1HZ-6MHZ-DC9V-12V-ciz-/360617421116?pt=UK_BOI_Electrical_Test_Measurement_Equipment_ET&hash=item53f679293c

and another with built in freq counter and 0.01hz res
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/5MHz-SG1005-Function-Signal-Generator-Source-Frequency-Counter-DDS-Module-Wave-/200712532383?pt=UK_BOI_Electrical_Test_Measurement_Equipment_ET&hash=item2ebb66319f

and another dual output with sweep function 0.01hz res and counter
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/UDB1300-1305S-Dual-TTL-DDS-Source-Signal-Generator-60MHz-Sweep-Frequency-Counter-/161058895848?pt=UK_BOI_Electrical_Test_Measurement_Equipment_ET&hash=item257fdbb7e8

Very nice selections of DDSs. The one Jason designed is 40mhz. It can reproduce Spherics protocol to produce the companion wave. As I watch the postings I see everyone getting closer and closer to the specifications. The ringing will appear at the correct strike whether it be by selection of transducer materials or target configuration, or drive parameters. In the yt that Jason posted the audience can see the only parameter he had to change was the potential level and then the process started effecting itself. This is exactly what TTBrown found when striking aluminum. Just raise the potential at the business end of a Telsa coil.

SM stated that there were no cores in the windings of his coils, only copper coils of wire.

Also, he stated that they were wound as three single-loop coils stacked flat, then control windings around each (toroidal windings) and then more toroidal windings over all three.

I doubt that this method is what SM used.

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.08.15, 19:33:21
but Fig. 6 seems to operate without input which can not be true.

This was our goal, wasn't it?
When in operation, there is no external energy input. All the energy comes from the ring/tube as described in the initial part of McFreey's article.
This is possible because this device has an inherent feedback loop.
It has to be borne in mind that we are attempting to replicate something that so many tried to replicate over all these years, but failed.

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.08.15, 19:33:21
So how does one start the process there?

When the device is already tuned, to start it, one has to connect coil L4 briefly to an oscillator, as described by McFreey. Tuning will be described in a separate post.

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.08.15, 19:33:21
And what are the values for L4, L2, Lc and Ld?

This is more difficult to answer, because this depends on the built of the coils, La/Lb.
Lc is wound on two ferrite toroids, see Fig.6, and the inductance change of this coil has to be able to tune the frequency of oscillation of the L-C circuit, (La+Lb+Lc)-C, at least a few Hz. The inductance change of Lc is controlled by the current flowing through Ld (and the number of turns of Ld), which is also wound on the two toroids. The required inductance change has to occur approximately within 0 - 1A of current through coil Ld. The size of the toroids depends on the maximum current level circulating in the L-C circuit.
Coils L2 and L4 are wound around La/Lb.
More is coming soon.

I am amazed how simple the original Meyer device is, he even gives a circuit diagram, all low voltage, low current stuff, course the crystal is the show stopper unless one can be made up to the exacting frequency, It must be worth a replication i am sure, just a copper rod, a highly accurately adjustable oscillator set to a frequency of 172.753867 KHz
I wonder what it costs to get crystals cut these days.

If SM based the TPU on this principle then he must have first built the device in Meyers Patent

The easiest way to experiment is to put a function generator to a coil and have at it.

The tuning must be done in extremely small steps, so as not to miss the sharp resonance (high Q)

When the metal rod vibrates in synchronized step with the magnetic fields, that's when a DC voltage builds up.  [edit:  well maybe not, the article says AC frequency between 100 and 1000 Hz]

Quote from: Peterae on 2013.08.17, 13:01:31
I am amazed how simple the original Meyer device is, he even gives a circuit diagram, all low voltage, low current stuff, course the crystal is the show stopper unless one can be made up to the exacting frequency, It must be worth a replication i am sure, just a copper rod, a highly accurately adjustable oscillator set to a frequency of 172.753867 KHz
I wonder what it costs to get crystals cut these days.

If SM based the TPU on this principle then he must have first built the device in Meyers Patent

@Peterae,

You do not need to cut crystals for this.
Actually, the schematic in the Science et Vie article does not make any sense, only the caption does. McFreey translated it like this: "To shake the atoms and make them release the energy which they contain, you need to send a wave, with a high frequency oscillator (of the order of 172 kHz), that resonates with the vibration of the copper electrodes. This (is achieved) by an intermediary magnetic field that oscillates due to a coil surrounding the copper and connected to the oscillator" (translation by William McFreey; The frequency of 172 kHz is the mechanical resonance frequency of a particular copper rod that Meyer was using at the time.).

SM did not have to build Meyer's device. All this is based on Mandelstam and Papalexi device of 1935 and they used an LC circuit.

I am a bit late with the description of the tuning procedure (it is easier done that written), but I can assure you that the device in Fig.6 of McFreey paper is a working device, and that this is the technology of SM.
In short, one has to build an oscillator out of the coil with the ring resonator. It is best to use a vacuum tube for the purpose, as suggested by SM, because when the frequencies are hit, the voltages can go sky-high. The tubes can handle this, transistors not, unless precaution are taken. A Meissner oscillator can be used, see below, LB would be the combined coils La/Lb in Fig. 6. I did not use tubes, I used a high voltage  MOSFET. I will post the schematic and description as soon as it is drawn.

QuoteTaking copper as the metal and its orbital conduction for , there is a convenient for the harmonic resonance frequency 172,753.867 Hz.In practice, it is applied to a coil to provide a magnetic field of the same frequency.
The selected copper metal in this case, is dipped in this alternating field and induction, resonance; the metal atoms are converted to electron emitters.

He gives a formula and infers the frequency is calculated from that formula, there is no parameter for the copper dimensions and therefore is related to the copper regardless of physical resonance.

Very misleading in that case.

Anyway i get your message Fig 6  O0
Sorry for the side track, and thank you yfree for prodding us in the right direction.

In schematic 6 there is a spark gap. He labels it a high voltage suppressor. Really? This sends an EMP back against the coils which then causes more ringing. Doesn't this make the jumper cables jump?

He describes using an SG to discharge lethal build up of potential as the device works, that's Fig 7 in my doc  ???

Well i can start a build also, i will need to order the brass rod, so will this setup be OK to head towards.

Fig 6.

4mm Brass rod coiled maybe 1 to 4 Turns not decided yet.

Core, was it said a ceramic magnet was OK, i have some large magnets from some microwave oven magnetrons, if not i will need to order large cores.

I am in the process of changing from Fig. 7 to Fig. 6.

I fixed the copper ring coil in between La/Lb.
Diameter ring is 6.35cm, making a calculated mechanical resonance freq. of 8.085KHz.
Trying to find/confirm this mechanical resonance point by exciting the La/Lb coil with a helper coil driven by my FG at half the above calculated freq. (4.042KHz), sweeping up and down in 100KHz ranges while maintaining resonance of the La/Lb coil by adding/removing fixed/variable capacitance.

No abnormalities found up till now.

Video here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAfIw0plWxw&feature=youtu.be

Need some more info on the Lc/Ld toroid's (size, nbr of turns, wire used etc), same for the L2/L4 coil.

Regards Itsu

@Peterae

Fig.6  presents a bare bone device, perfectly tuned, ready to be started.
It does not need any magnets. Magnets may be needed for tuning, as shown by SM.
The device is easier implemented with toroidal cores , when the diameter of the device is small (a few centimeters). In this case, only "one turn" ring is preferred.

Well that makes life a bit easier, a few cm is much easier to do,  O0

Itsu,

Tuning has to be done in the circuit similar to the one in my post #138.
In short, one has to build an oscillator out of the coil with the ring resonator. It is best to use a vacuum tube for the purpose, as suggested by SM, because when the frequencies match perfectly, the voltages can go sky-high. The tubes can handle this, transistors not, unless precaution are taken. A Meissner oscillator can be used, see post #138, coil LB is the combined coils La/Lb in Fig. 6. Coil  LA in post #138 is an excitation coil (50-70 turns) placed above coil La, coil LC is the feedback coil (50 - 60 turns) placed below coil Lb. This is needed for tuning and starting the device. The capacitors constituting C have to be high voltage.  I did not use tubes, I used a high voltage  MOSFET. I will post the schematic and description as soon as it is drawn.
Without the negative feedback loop, you will not see continuous operation of the device.

Itsu,

fr = VL/(pi*d ) =  4000/(3.14 * 0.0635) = 20051 Hz.
This is only a crude estimate. One can find VL for copper to be between 4000 to almost 5000 m/s. The best is to scan around frequencies estimated experimentally. This was described in post  #107. The amplitude of oscillations on C during scanning should be at least 50 V, more is better.
Are you connecting the output of your generator directly to the coil?
You should use a coupling coil for the purpose (~60-80 turns of 0.25 mm wire on ~10 cm diameter ring).

Dan Davidson makes NAR sound so much easier in his patent.   (attached)

Some may remember Dan was the man that claimed to replicate the Hazelton device back in 1998.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.08.18, 16:45:00
Itsu,

fr = VL/(pi*d ) =  4000/(3.14 * 0.0635) = 20051 Hz.  

Thanks, i forgot the brackets, now sweeping around 10.025KHz......

QuoteThe amplitude of oscillations on C during scanning should be at least 50 V, more is better.

Are you connecting the output of your generator directly to the coil?
You should use a coupling coil for the purpose (~60-80 turns of 0.25 mm wire on ~10 cm diameter ring).

I use a exciter coil inside the La/Lb coil with those spec's only the former is much smaller, 12mm (you can see it in the video).
The La/Lb coil presently resonates on 10.025KHz with 52V pp.


In post #146 what do you mean by:  ABOVE  and BELOW,   Above = on the outside of La, and Below = underneath/inside of Lb?

Quote#138 is an excitation coil (50-70 turns) placed above coil La, coil LC is the feedback coil (50 - 60 turns) placed below coil Lb.

looking into this Meisner (MOSFET) oscillator..................Thanks


Regards   Itsu

I meant amplitude 50 V, which means 100 Vpp.

Try also VL=4700 m/s. The best are measured frequencies, not calculated.
Can you measure the inductance of you coil?

Yes, these two coils should be separated. In the Meissner oscillator, there should be as little direct coupling between the upper excitation coil and the lower coupling coil as possible.

Quote from: yfree on 2013.08.18, 20:37:45
I meant amplitude 50 V, which means 100 Vpp.

Try also VL=4700 m/s. The best are measured frequencies, not calculated.
Can you measure the inductance of you coil?

Yes, these two coils should be separated. In the Meissner oscillator, there should be as little direct coupling between the upper excitation coil and the lower coupling coil as possible.

Ok, so for 100V pp i  need an (audio) amplifier behind my FG.
I will try the whole range VL 4000 - 5000, takes a while, but i should see something.
I had no luck in measuring the mechanical resonance frequency of the single turn coils, so went for the calculated value.
Inductance of my La/Lb coil is 30.8 mH, the exciter coil measures 73uH.

regards Itsu

Itsu,

Your inductance is too high. I started with 8 mH and had to go down to ~3 mH.
The maximum current through the coil, in your case, is only ~13 mA, it has to be ~1A.
You may try it without ferrites, or otherwise you will have to unwind quite a few turns.
Imax = sqrt(C*V*V/L).

Yfree,

ok,  good to know.
Even without the ferrite cores it measures 11mH.
I have 2 coils on a similar pvc former (7.5cm OD) which i can add some wire to so it will be 3mH with the ferrite cores.

Also i will be building this meissner MOSFET oscillator, thanks.


Regards itsu

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.08.19, 19:48:09
Also i will be building this Meissner MOSFET oscillator, thanks.

A Meissner oscillator will not allow for a fine frequency control, like your signal generator.

Quote from: Itsu on 2013.08.18, 20:52:05
I had no luck in measuring the mechanical resonance frequency of the single turn coils,

Not even with the reflective optical method ?

Quote from: yfree on 2013.08.19, 02:18:36
The maximum current through the coil, in your case, is only ~13 mA, it has to be ~1A.
You may try it without ferrites, or otherwise you will have to unwind quite a few turns.

...or increase the voltage amplitude of the waveform driving the coil.

Giving this subject a bump to the top since there is some renewed interest in it.

Beta decay should be high on our list of potential methods.

Quote from: ION on 2016.06.17, 00:04:06
Giving this subject a bump to the top since there is some renewed interest in it.

Beta decay should be high on our list of potential methods.

Did Yfree come back?

I for one have expressed interest in the McFreey papers and any Yfree docs to ION.

partzman

Yes yfree said there is a problem with the device.

Beta Decay is an interesting subject though, it can be studied with low sodium salt, ie Potassium Chloride.

Also some work needs to be done on Nitrogen, a car bulb blows black, yet the atmosphere is Nitrogen, at the point of destruction when the filament blows, you have all the ingredients for fusion, if the black stuff turns out to be carbon then we have proof, i have been thinking about building a light spectrograph to look at the atmosphere of the bulb before and after blowing the bulb.

where theres an electrical discharge you can have a plasma, air has a large percentage of Nitrogen, makes you wonder what caused this girls cloths to be black when she was struck by lightening because they certainly did not catch fire.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/06/19/article-1194120-05671D9D000005DC-368_468x718.jpg
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/06/19/article-1194120-05671D9D000005DC-368_468x718.jpg)

yfree seemed to indicate that he witnessed the device working on several occasions and said the effect is definitely attainable. I asked him directly if this was true and he answered in the affirmative. He seemed to imply there are difficulties, but they are not insurmountable.

Since he worked for a National Research lab in Canada, he may have witnessed it working there, then tried to duplicate it himself at home, and with a little help by seeding this forum. The circuits he supplied were well thought out, but may have been incomplete or lacking sufficient knowledge of exactly how to stimulate the gain material.

Peterae, your ideas about the bulb and gas transmutation definitely deserves a closer look. Have you pursued this any further?

Regards, ION

Hi ION
Good to see you still around and active, no i have not yet followed up from the bulb blackening, but i have built a vacuum chamber that i can inject nitrogen and have a vacuum pump now, some time ago i had to step back from some projects, i had too many going on that were not getting completed, i had a hard long think while still doing work around the house constantly, and decided first to finish my 3D printer over the last 2 months i completed that, it's only taken 2 years to build it from scratch on and off, so it was really nice to finish that and off course this now puts me in a position that i can print coil bobbins and any other device.

The Meyer device has been a priority but i realized it was taking up loads of time with very little return and the problems i was facing were beyond easily sorted by me, ie 1kw power at 45MHz. it was this that triggered my rethinking.

So next i will be completing the Nitrogen chamber and follow with that, i still have another project on the go though, since the 3D printer was finished i stupidly decided to build a coil winder see pictures below, so have also been writing software in some evenings to get this up and running while waiting for parts from China.

Image 1 Prusa Reprap I2 3d printer
Image2 Coil Winder structure has been printed, waiting for bearings from china, the light grey thing in the middle is the carriage, include guide wheels with bearings, 2 felt spring tensioners and an in and out guide.
Image3 close up of carriage.

EDIT the coil winder is not my design, the guy finished all the mechanics but did not publish any electronics, as i can do the microelectronics myself and the mechanics are brilliant i could not resist it, i made my machine bigger, it's capable of 40cm long coils at upto 20cm diameter.

Design is here.
My thanks go out to Nico Verduin, i will publish my computer files when finished and running.
http://www.verelec.nl/?page_id=90

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.06.23, 17:48:09
... so have also been writing software in some evenings

In what language?

Quote from: verpies on 2016.06.30, 09:36:14
In what language?

Peterae, nice job on the 3D printer, I wish I had your patience in building such an item. I was offered a coil winder for free once upon a time and woefully turned it down as it was a large pro unit and I didn't have the space.

Best of luck with all the projects .that you are working on. I also hope to get back to some LENR research soon.

Hi verpies

I'm using the Arduino Due and a 2.3 inch TFT with a version 2 CNC shield for motor drive & Stepsticks, i am Writing in C++

Hi ION
Dam isn't that always the way, my workshop has been a blessing, a 6 meter long work bench :) and plenty of storage has allowed me to accelerate my collection of bits & pieces  :-[

Not only are there not enough hours i am shocked that it is now July, i do not know where this year has gone so far, i am hoping you are keeping well.  O0

I will be buying a Geiger counter soon, had a bet on the Brexit and won :)