Hey Milehigh,
You might have some fun with this one... (http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=CA&NR=2594905A1&KC=A1&FT=D&date=20090118&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP)
.99
As P99 put the Thane Heins thread in at my request, I just wanted to nudge this thread back up. I'm quite surprised that some of you TPU boys are not looking at this a little closer.
The following link is a rexresearch equivalent tp P99s link above.
http://www.rexresearch.com/heins/heins.htm
This bi-toroid looks like it has possibilities.
Farrah, If you look at diagram 3 of the Bi-toroid none of the math makes any sense to me. By his own numbers he has 16.9 VA or watts going in the primary and 11.51 watts coming out both secondary's combined? But even aside from that the calculations don't make sense, assuming a 1:1:1 ratio of the windings he has 49.8 volts and .24 amps going into the primary with a 2.5 ohm winding. That tells me he should have about 20 amps peak going into the primary not .24 amps. OK is the primary current limited that is still 49.8 X .24=11.9 watts going in the primary and if you say it is at a higher frequency then we are not talking 2.5 ohms DC resistance but a higher inductive impedance number. Still doesn't make sense, now look at the load on the first secondary coil 180 ohms which he is claiming is dropping 11.43 watts, but 49.8 volts divided by 180 ohms is .276 amps X 49.8 volts is 13.77 watts? And the second secondary coil has a 1 ohm load on it this is a whopping 49.8 divided by 1 =49.8 amps X 49.8 volts which = 2480 watts??? He is saying it is only .02 watts? It just doesn't look to me like anything other then another transformer and only about 60% efficient at that by his numbers. But I could be wrong.
Got to say Room, this isn't my main field of interest and I've never looked too closely at it. I think it was just the fact that the idea of the secondary flux path seemed to make good sense to me.
You seem to have looked a little closer into it than myself, perhaps I'll find time to take a better look. It would not be too hard to knock one of these up to test, so perhaps that's what I need to do, as if it's anything like electrolysers fitted to vehicles, the theory doesn't always seem to concur with the practical results.
Well Poynt,
I am really late to the party and thanks for the link to that doc from several months back. I noticed that the latest Thane C. Heins clip was echoed on the other two forums so I thought that I would link it here also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVYiT4zK9Kc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVYiT4zK9Kc)
A preliminary comment relates to measurement errors associated with digital multimeters when they are at the extreme limit of their range. For example, the current he measures going into his primary is 0.003 amperes. It flickers to 0.002 sometimes. You are super inaccurate here.
The 0.003 ampere reading might be somewhere between 0.0035 and 0.0025 amperes. It's hard to be sure where the cutoffs are because you don't know the inner workings of the multimeter. No matter what there is a huge amount of uncertainty in the measurement relative to the absolute measurement of the current as being "0.003" amperes. This could have a major impact on any potential over unity measurement.
Thane discusses power factor and I will just state a general comment. If any transformer is unloaded, then the primary current waveform will be 90 degrees out of phase with the voltage waveform for power factor of zero. In other words the unloaded transformer acts like an inductor. As you start to add a load to the transformer secondary the phase relationship changes and the power factor starts to move away from 90 degrees.
Thane says his power factor is stated as 0.34 or 70 degrees in the text annotation. Verbally he says it's 75 degrees. The inverse cosine of 0.34 is 70.12 degrees. I'm wondering how he measured the phase difference. It's something that is hard to eyeball, and chances are the waveform does not line up with the graticule on his scope. I am assuming that he measured this with a ruler??? I am not sure here, are there better ways to do this? It's a critical measurement because it affects his input power calculation.
Note also that this is all sine-wave based, so there are no back-EMF spikes to worry about in this setup.
MileHigh
I just realized in my last posting I was linking to a junk pirate clip collector.
Here are the most recent three Thane C. Heins clips on his real YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQq1-J8SOtc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQq1-J8SOtc)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eiu-dCe8bnA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eiu-dCe8bnA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AeWkNYjUNQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AeWkNYjUNQ)
I am going to make a few generic comments on the architecture of Thaine's setup. I couldn't find a diagram but I assume those following the developments are familiar with the latest configuration.
I am going to call the inner flux path the "Figure8" and the outer flux path the "OuterO." Lets assume that the Figure8 orientation is horizontal. Therefore the primary coil will be vertically oriented. This is how you see it in most of his clips.
To keep things simple we will just talk about flux flowing in one direction, even though the whole system is AC-based and the flux is bidirectional.
When he energizes the primary coil we know that the flux will circulate through the Figure8. Assume the flux flows bottom to top through the primary coil. Therefore flux circulates counter-clockwise in the left half of the Fgure8 and clockwise in the right half of the Figure8.
Assume the two secondary coils have the same number of turns and they have the identical value of load resistor connected to them.
The two secondary coils will also induce flux to flow through the OuterO. Here is where we run into a problem.
Let's look at the right half of the Figure8. On the right side the flux is flowing downwards. The right secondary coil gets current induced into it to drive the right load. This induced current creates flux in the opposite direction of the source flux. The source flux is flowing downwards, therefore the induced current creates flux that is flowing upwards. This induced-current-generated flux also induces flux in the OuterO that flows upwards. Upwards flow in the right side OuterO corresponds to counter-clockwise flux flow.
Exactly the opposite reaction happens on the left half of the Figure8:
Let's look at the left half of the Figure8. On the left side the flux is flowing downwards. The left secondary coil gets current induced into it to drive the left load. This induced current creates flux in the opposite direction of the source flux. The source flux is flowing downwards, therefore the induced current creates flux that is flowing upwards. This induced-current-generated flux also induces flux in the OuterO that flows upwards. Upwards flow in the left side of OuterO corresponds to clockwise flux flow.
So the OuterO is getting conflicting induced flux that cancels itself out. In other words, if the number of turns in the two secondary coils and the load resistors are perfectly balanced, then the OuterO does nothing because of the flux cancellation.
Therefore as a general statement, the OuterO flux ring is not serving any useful purpose. The setup would work just as well if you only had the Figure8 flux path with the three coils.
In the next posting I can propose a test to see if my analysis is correct or not. It's quite hard to visualize this stuff so the test is absolutely necessary.
MileHigh
Okay, so now a test to see if my theory is correct or not.
The test is quite simple. You do the configuration described in the previous posting, with the same number of turns in the two secondary coils and matching load resistors.
I am not comfortable with the very low power levels that Thane works with. If that could be improved upon it would be good. As a suggestion if you had a big 12-volt transformer then you could drive the whole setup with 12 volts AC. If your turns ratio was 1:1 between the primary and the two secondaries then you should see 12 volts AC on the two secondaries. Then you could add some fairly low load resistors so that each resistor dissipates about two watts. So if you could get two 2-watt 60 or 70 ohm load resistors you would be in very good shape. Then you have real measurable power flowing through the setup and you are staying away from the dangerous mains power.
So all that you have to do now is wrap between 20 and 100 turns of fine wire around the OuterO that's away from the Figure8 setup. This is simply your "flux sensor" coil. Just connect your multimeter or scope probe to it and you should see a very feeble output voltage. This would be telling you that almost no magnetic flux is flowing through the OuterO because of the flux cancellation problem as indicated in the previous posting.
If you see a very low-level AC voltage, you should be able to tweak the self-cancellation to make it disappear almost completely. The easiest way to do this would be to add or subtract one or two turns to one of the secondary coils. You should be able to tweak the flux self-cancellation so that the AC voltage almost completely disappears. No AC voltage on the flux sensor coil means no flux.
So what does this mean for any over unity with Thane's new configuration? Well, if you prove that the OuterO does not do anything of value, then what are you left with? You are left with the Figure8 transformer setup. That's an ordinary vanilla transformer, and vanilla transformers are not over unity devices, they are under unity devices.
MileHigh
@milehigh
QuoteSo what does this mean for any over unity with Thane's new configuration? Well, if you prove that the OuterO does not do anything of value, then what are you left with? You are left with the Figure8 transformer setup. That's an ordinary vanilla transformer, and vanilla transformers are not over unity devices, they are under unity devices.
All the experienced and very credible engineers who have actually tested this technology would probably disagree with your theory and I do as well ---- next theory please.
Regards
AC
When you drive a transformer hard into saturation, you waste a lot of power heating the core and the primary rather than transferring power to the load.
Thane admits burning up a hefty transformer overdriving that primary coil that he wound with fine wire in an effort to raise the impedance. Where did all that power go? Certainly not into the light bulb. His output is ridiculously low for the amount of power he is pumping into the primary.
He claims it is all reactive. I doubt that or he would not have burned up the driving transformer.
Current input rises rapidly when you approach saturation, loading on the secondary backs you off this part of the BH curve.
He sees input power drop a bit when he connects the load. This is normal for a saturated transformer, as the load takes the transformer out of saturation a bit.
Most transformers that must handle a wide range of loading are designed with enough magnetic headroom so the idle current is low enough to keep the transformer out of saturation during light loads. This is a variable duty transformer.
Not so for specially designed transformers that are not meant to run unloaded. This type of transformer has lower magnetic headroom but typically never sees a "no load" or "light load" condition. Therefore it can use a bit less copper and iron for the same kVA transfer. This is a fixed duty transformer, designed that way for economy of manufacture.
Yes I actually do the tests, have hundreds of transformers all sizes from milliwatt to high kVA. worked also as an engineering consultant to a transformer manufacturer.
Sorry, IMHO no FE here, just misinterpretation of data and effects.
Send Thane a donation if you really believe in his work. He seems like an honest fellow.
Next Theory?....I don't have a theory, just lots of years working around transformers and power devices, driving them in and out of saturation, measuring DC unbalance effects on cores, driving inductive loads with solid state power control devices etc. etc. When you do this for your livelihood as part of a small company, you can't afford to make this kind of error because no one is "funding" you.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.10.22, 16:51:55
@milehigh
All the experienced and very credible engineers who have actually tested this technology would probably disagree with your theory and I do as well ---- next theory please.
Regards
AC
I am not really following the replications but I probably will for a while starting now. I am curious to see if anybody will do the test. I won't be holding my breath.
I am under the impression that this is a brand new configuration that Thaine has developed so I doubt any of the engineers at the University of Ottawa have had a chance to look at it.
You're being dismissive of my theory and I am rusty with this stuff but I think what I said is sound. Thaine seems to think that the outer flux ring will prevent the load from being seen by the power source driving the primary coil. To me that doesn't jive.
You disagree with me, so what are your reasons? Do you have a theory for how it operates?
Going back to Thaine's overall proposition which I believe is that he claims that he can turn purely reactive power (power factor = 0) into real power going into a load. The power companies don't want that. They don't want their big customers storing and then pushing energy back into the grid. I am guessing it causes their distribution transformers to get hot circulating current for no reason, which reduces their real capacity to output power. Large industrial companies that are running lots of big motors and stuff like that have to install devices that correct their power factor and bring it much closer to 1. That's why big transformers are rated in volt-amperes output and not in watts.
A little factoid is that standard computer switching power supplies are also problematic for the power companies. They also have a weird power factor because they typically only draw power at the peaks of the AC sine wave.
MileHigh
ion
Have you looked at the most recent independent test data?
I would have to be very ignorant not to respect your Knowledge,I just want to know that you are up to speed on Thanes latest INDEPENDENT test Data.
This "Burning up " issue is this recently??
Nobody is really looking to waste time here.
Thank you
Chet
poynt
Can you post the latest data here?
I sent it to broli to post at OU down load section.
Can you just transfer that to here?
Chet
@Ion
QuoteNext Theory?....I don't have a theory, just lots of years working around transformers and power devices, driving them in and out of saturation, measuring DC unbalance effects on cores, driving inductive loads with solid state power control devices etc. etc. When you do this for your livelihood as part of a small company, you can't afford to make this kind of error because no one is "funding" you.
I know a great deal of people in the field of electrical engineering, power engineering, instrumentation etc ... but not one of them can tell me what a magnetic or electric field are fundamentally, not one. Personally I find this very odd that persons with a combined experience of a few hunderd years or more cannot tell me "what" it is exactly that they have been working with all these years --- Do you find this odd?. I do not mean to judge you or anyone but at some point I personally came to the understanding that I will never be an expert at anything, in any sense of the word, until I know what I am dealing with. Once I came to this understanding I can honestly say everything became much easier, I had many options I never would have considered, I understand many new technologies almost immediately.
The real proof of understand also has to do with your paycheck, people do pay anyone tens of millions of dollars or more because they understand conventional technology, they get paid that much because of what they understand that everyone else does not. They get paid because they have "improved" technology in a way nobody had ever considered and this improvement has a great deal of value and hopefully it will make peoples lives better.
Regards
AC
For reference, here is Thane's July 28, 2010 instructional video explaining how the Bi-Toroid Transformer works with diagrams:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcAYhM0LX9A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcAYhM0LX9A)
To repeat my point, he is failing to note the flux cancellation problem that I described a couple of postings ago.
The YouTube user besibes18 came to the same conclusion as me. This is a quote from a comment on Thane's clip that Thane did not respond to:
QuoteIT'S WRONG ANALISE IN VIDEO. 1/ WHEN USE BOTH SECONDARY COIL THEY CANCAL EACH OTHER SO THE ONLY WAY THAT FLUX GO IS IN PRIMER COLI LIKE A STANDART TTRANSFORMER. NO ENERGY WIN 2/ WHEN USE ONE SECONDARY COIL ON LOAD THERE IS NO CANCAL FLUX BUT PRIMERY COIL FLUX HAS E EASY TO GO THE SECONDAR COIL UNLOAD SO THE VOLTAGE ON SENDARY DROP MUCH. AND SO DON'T HAVE WIN ENERGY. REPLY ME12:56 12/09/2010
Note that he also makes a very relevant point that I didn't think of. If you put a load on only one of the two secondary coils, then the flux from the primary coil takes a "free ride" through the clear path of the unloaded secondary coil. Therefore very little flux will pass through the path of the loaded secondary coil and it's voltage output will drop a lot under load.
Well at least I have another person that agrees with me.
I am not concerned with saturation issues, and in this clip Thane does not discuss the saturation of the core. A transformer under normal operation is never saturated. I know that Thane has made more recent clips discussing saturation but I have not watched enough to know where he is going with that.
I will repeat a suggestion for any replicators, and that is to use load resistors where the power dissipation is at least a few watts. If you are operating in the milliwatt range then your measurements will be more difficult and possibly inaccurate. Also, if you get a hefty 12-volt transformer, say at least the size of your fist, then you can drive the whole setup with 12 volts AC and be much safer. When you are directly hooked up to 120 volt AC mains power there are three dangers. The first is the high voltage. The second danger is accidentally burning up your coils. The third danger is if you accidentally make a short-circuit, some metal may vaporize and spray into your face before the circuit breaker blows.
MileHigh
What I have noticed from Thanes work is one major thing lacking. There is no pulsing, no creative use of capacitors, no looping. Most always everything is connected to the mains and is straight run. He has the greatest drive to produce these great mechanical ideas, rotational schemes, but what is lacking is the pulsing. I can't remember seeing any make/break scheme. Just linear works. Too bad cause I think he is playing with some damn nice ideas, damn nice toys.
Wattsup:
To me it sounds like you have a bias towards pulsing, perhaps because most of the experiments you see use pulsing? Thane mentions somewhere that he envisions an application where the Bi-toroid transformer is used for improving power line transmission. I think he envisions this as a better transformer that is also an over unity device. I would guess that he is not going to go in the direction of pulsing anything.
For all of the fun people can have with pulsing, there is a down side that some might not be aware of. The pulsing produces radio interference. Even the famous Imhotep conversion of a computer fan into a miniature Bedini motor would not be acceptable. You would never be able to sell one.
In my "bad guy" role I have tried sometimes to demystify pulsing. In the Bedini threads I discuss it in detail, and it's quite technical at times. I admit I also talk tough on those threads. I discuss how an inductor discharges from multiple angles and completely deconstruct Bedini motors. On OU you started discussing coils and the spark when you disconnect them in a new thread. If you read the Bedini threads on this site you will learn how discharging coils work, but unfortunately you won't find it all laid out in a single clear posting.
I think CuriousChris said that when the coil disconnects the current stops flowing for an instant and then the collapsing magnetic field builds up voltage and then you get the spark and plasma conducting through the air and the current flow resumes. He's wrong. The current doesn't stop flowing for an instant. What really happens is the moment the the coil goes open-circuit the plasma is instantly created so that the current keeps flowing without interruption. Even if you don't see or hear a spark for a small coil, the same thing happens. I am not about to get into the whole deal with you though. If you really want to learn about how a coil works, then check the Bedini threads on this site.
MileHigh
Quote from: ramset on 2010.10.22, 20:53:04
ion
Have you looked at the most recent independent test data?
I would have to be very ignorant not to respect your Knowledge,I just want to know that you are up to speed on Thanes latest INDEPENDENT test Data.
This "Burning up " issue is this recently??
Nobody is really looking to waste time here.
Thank you
Chet
Hi Chet
In the last video (Dilbert's Dilemma) of the group of three posted earlier earlier by MH, at 4.0 minutes Thane points to the transformer on the left (roughly 150 VA capacity) and says he already burned this one up trying to drive the primary of his BITT .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AeWkNYjUNQ
He says he had to hook the system up to a larger transformer because he needed 220 volts to drive the finer wound primary into saturation.
At 5.5 minutes in the video, he says he has to discontinue the test because he can already smell the larger transformer burning.
His load on the secondary ranges from 1.09 Watts to 1.65 Watts based on the meter readings shown into a resistive lamp.
So a transformer rated around 150 Watts was burned up and a larger one started to burn with a load down the line of less than 2 Watts.
What kind of energy saving device do we have here?
Draw your own conclusions.
I admire Thane's craftsmanship regarding the devices he has built and tested. I applaud his dogged tenacity in searching for ways to improve energy usage.
I hope that he dreams on and has a breakthrough perhaps as an offspring to his present work.
I wish him the very best of luck in his work.
But I smell a measurement error here.
Ion:
I just watched the Dilbert's Dilemma clip again. I agree with you and I am going to try to add to your comments.
It looks like the problem is the asymmetrical flux paths as pointed out by the YouTube user besibes18 that I quoted in posting #13. When he goes high voltage he has set the secondary coil S1 to be either open-circuited or short-circuited. S2 is always connected to the light bulb load.
Case 1: With the S1 secondary coil open-circuited and the primary voltage at 222 VAC he gets (2.43 V x 0.45 A) = 1.09 watts across the light bulb load.
In this case almost all of the flux generated by the primary coil flows through the left (S1) flux path because it offers no resistance to the flux flow. This looks like a big inductor.
Only a tiny amount of flux flows through the right (S2) flux path and this puts 1.09 watts through the light bulb load.
From the perspective of the mains power, the load looks like a big inductor (the primary coil with the left flux path) and small separate resistive load. Thane thinks the power factor shows a 90 degree phase shift on his scope, but I would assume it's not quite 90 degrees but he can't see it. This accounts for the 1.09 watts of power going into the light bulb load and the power dissipated in the wires themselves.
Case 2: With the S1 secondary coil short-circuited and the primary voltage at 222 VAC he gets (3.30 V x 0.50 A) = 1.65 watts across the light bulb load.
In this case almost all of the flux generated by the primary coil flows through the left (S1) flux path because it offers very little resistance to the flux flow. I say "very little resistance" in this case as opposed to "no resistance" in Case 1. The fact that the secondary coil is short-circuited means that it looks like another inductor driving a small resistance, which is the resistance of the wire itself. That accounts for the "very little resistance" in the left flux path. In this case there are two coils (the primary and the S1 coil) so this ends up looking like a giant inductor that's driving a very small load.
So compared to Case 1, for Case2 a bit more flux can flow through the right (S2) flux path because of the very small resistance on the left (S1) flux path. That's why a bit more power flows through the light bulb, 1.65 watts.
From the perspective of the mains power, the load looks like a huge inductor (the primary coil plus the S1 coil with the left flux path) and a slightly larger separate resistive load as compared to Case1. Again, Thane thinks the power factor shows a 90 degree phase shift on his scope, but I suspect it's not quite 90 degrees but he can't see it. This accounts for the 1.65 watts going into the light bulb load and the power dissipated in the wires themselves.
In summary, for this clip his setup in both cases looks like a giant inductive load plus a tiny resistive load. That's why his power factor is almost zero. The reactive part of the load is dissipating considerable power through the wire resistance. The fact that he is lighting up a light bulb is almost incidental. The problems associated with the asymmetrical flux paths for this particular experiment mean that the setup fails to efficiently transfer the mains power to the light bulb load. Instead the setup is acting more like a pure inductance through the left (S1) path than anything else.
I think Thane should explore this asymmetrical flux path issue in more depth, as well as exploring the issue relating to the canceling fluxes mentioned in post #13.
MileHigh
Referring again to the Dilbert's Dilemma video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AeWkNYjUNQ
Thane attempts to convince viewers that the phase shift between voltage and current on the primary is exactly 90 degrees out of phase therefore zero power factor.
He shows the traces with low vertical gain when he is driving the primary at very low input voltage, and the traces appear not to be close to 90 degrees out of phase.
He then shows the scope in an extremely expanded scale when he overdrives the primary forcing it into saturation. We then see three sharp vertical traces on the scope, the two outer green being current and the center violet being voltage, and since they are equally spaced, we are led to believe the current and voltage are exactly 90 degrees out of phase within the resolution of our eye.
As anyone who has used a scope knows, you can position the current waveform exactly between the voltage traces by adjusting the vertical position for that channel. This would fool the viewer into thinking the zero power factor 90 degree phase difference is maintained. You could also add some delay to one channel so that when the PF appears to be approaching 90 degrees out, it is actually moving closer to unity.
No one has commented on how a 150 VA driving transformer can be overheated and burned up by driving his supposedly zero power factor primary and a lamp with less than 2 Watts.
I would recommend that Thane purchase a $25 "Kill-O-Watt" meter and put this to rest.
Quote from: ION on 2010.10.23, 13:20:52
Referring again to the Dilbert's Dilemma video:
I would recommend that Thane purchase a $25 "Kill-O-Watt" meter and put this to rest.
ION, If Thane did that, he'd then have to get a REAL job :P
Right now it's all gravy, and he appears to be enjoying it.
.99
@MH
The conversation with @CuriousChris continues. Seems throwing around "qualifications" or "credentials" is where it's at so I will just stay out of it from now on. No sweat. lol
Regarding the BITT video of Thanes, I stand by my comment. Such multi path flux builds could only be controlled and improved with precision pulsing at various levels. A straight run device in my view is only possible once such a multi-path transformer was better understood via what you would learn with pulsing. For me a straight run device can only be built once all the parameters are known in advance. Regarding radio interference of pulsed devices, ultimately, if a totally free energy device was devised that could change the face of how energy is produced, believe me, radio interference would be the last of the worlds problems or counter arguments. It's like saying if you want to catch some fish in this lake, only stay in the 3 foot and 1000 foot depths so that's about 10% of the lake.
Again, in my view what Thane has built is a very nice toy, but the game played with that toy is going by the wrong rules. He should be pulsing that primary and not wasting straight juice. But we can only do what we are comfortable with. If you look at OU.Com there is a thread on a new EV Grey video. There you can see a total mastery of build and thought and control. Not just plug it in and see what happens.
Quote from: ION on 2010.10.23, 13:20:52
No one has commented on how a 150 VA driving transformer can be overheated and burned up by driving his supposedly zero power factor primary and a lamp with less than 2 Watts.
Ion:
It's great that you are a transformer expert!
You could hear the humming getting louder as he cranked the voltage up to 220 volts. I am assuming that humming was from the Bi-toroid transformer and not the variac, but I can't be sure. My guess is that the fine wire in his primary coil could not take the reactive AC current going through it considering the amount of resistance in the wire. Especially when the wire is tightly wound, you can produce more heat than can be readily dissipated, and the coil has to get damn hot before it reaches thermal equilibrium.
I have an interesting question for you. What about all of the little low-power wall transformers that are used to power small electronics devices. If they are not connected to anything, they are unloaded transformers and reactive loads also.
My train of thought has always been that for a much larger unloaded transformer, the inductance is much larger, and therefore the AC impedance is very high at 60 Hz. The inductance is high enough that the reactive current is insignificant, and there is nothing to worry about.
But for a little unloaded "wall wart" transformer, the inductance is much lower and I always had the feeling that they should fry at 60 Hz. Is there a series resistor or something to keep the reactive current low when they are unloaded?
Thanks,
MileHigh
Wattsup:
For sure the current in a discharging inductor does not stop momentarily when you first make the disconnect. I read CuriousChris' latest posting and it looks like he knows what he is talking about except for that fine detail. The moment you open-circuit an inductor that has current flowing through it, it starts to discharge through the air which is turned into plasma due to the high voltage. While the plasma is in existence the current flow will decrease from the initial level until it stops at zero. But to be absolutely precise, there is never a "hiccup" in the current flow like CuriousChris is suggesting. If you really really want to split hairs, there may not be plasma for a few microseconds because the current flowing through the coil has to charge the stray capacitance in the coil before the plasma ignites, but I really doubt that's what CuriousChris is implying. Even if you were charging the stray capacitance, the current would still be flowing in the coil. If you read through my Bedini stuff you will learn that a discharging inductor is a current source, and that explains the high voltage right there, it's a no-brainer.
As far as the pulsing and transformers goes, I saw a posting by you recently discussing inductive spikes and the amount of energy they contain. You, and many people believe that there may be a stress induced on the aether or something to that effect that taps into some extra energy. The real truth is that inductors are just as boring as capacitors. They only discharge as much energy as you put into them in the first place. This is an absolute carved-in-stone fact. It can be proven quite easily on the bench. Inductors have a mystique because of the high voltage they can produce. Many people find this fascinating and almost mystical and something takes on a life of its own around that property of inductors. They call it "radiant energy." If I said to you that capacitors can produce super-high spikes of current, you might not even take notice. Inductors and capacitors are very similar. So I am not sure if you think pulsing some sort of transformer configuration will bring out some extra effects, but I just wanted to give you the low-down on coils and by extension transformers. There is never excess energy in the output voltage spike from a coil. To be even more precise, the output spike is a current and a voltage spike, where the current is determining what the voltage is. In that sense, it would be more appropriate to call it a current spike. Again, that's all explained in the Bedini threads.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.23, 14:31:48
Ion:
It's great that you are a transformer expert!
You could hear the humming getting louder as he cranked the voltage up to 220 volts. I am assuming that humming was from the Bi-toroid transformer and not the variac, but I can't be sure. My guess is that the fine wire in his primary coil could not take the reactive AC current going through it considering the amount of resistance in the wire. Especially when the wire is tightly wound, you can produce more heat than can be readily dissipated, and the coil has to get damn hot before it reaches thermal equilibrium.
I have an interesting question for you. What about all of the little low-power wall transformers that are used to power small electronics devices. If they are not connected to anything, they are unloaded transformers and reactive loads also.
My train of thought has always been that for a much larger unloaded transformer, the inductance is much larger, and therefore the AC impedance is very high at 60 Hz. The inductance is high enough that the reactive current is insignificant, and there is nothing to worry about.
But for a little unloaded "wall wart" transformer, the inductance is much lower and I always had the feeling that they should fry at 60 Hz. Is there a series resistor or something to keep the reactive current low when they are unloaded?
Thanks,
MileHigh
I am by no means a transformer expert, just a practical experimenter.
Typically a transformer will emit a loud buzzing or humming when driven into saturation. Also the current waveform will be tall thin slightly rounded spikes 2-3 milliseconds wide with nothing on either side of the zero crossing. This is the pulse sharpening effect of a saturated inductor.
A typical 120 volt wall wart such as a Uniden 7 Watt telephone supply is rated at 9 volts 300 mA. output.
Note that it has a primary DC resistance of about 310 Ohms. There' your series resistor, the primary is wound with very fine copper wire, probably #32 or #36.
Unloaded the power factor is 0.16 to 0.17, and the current at the primary 0.03 Amps
Loaded with a 20 Ohm resistor the secondary yields 9.45 Volts or 4.46 Watts
The power factor is then 0.84
The high primary resistance helps to limit excess current from an unloaded device, still it is mostly reactive from the 0.16 power factor.
BTW, size of a transformer does not necessarily mean high inductance. A much smaller device with lots of primary turns can have more inductance. Ampere turns. Size is related to power handling capability, and you can use a bathroom scale to get a rough idea of this (for a given frequency say 60 Hz.)
@milehigh
QuoteThe real truth is that inductors are just as boring as capacitors. They only discharge as much energy as you put into them in the first place. This is an absolute carved-in-stone fact. It can be proven quite easily on the bench. Inductors have a mystique because of the high voltage they can produce. Many people find this fascinating and almost mystical and something takes on a life of its own around that property of inductors. They call it "radiant energy."
I would agree to some extent but it should be understood that what many call absolute carved-in-stone facts sometimes have limitations to the rule or exceptions. A few years ago I did some experiments to first define what constitutes "normal" operation of an inducance and then the limitations of the popular understanding of normal operation. I built a solid state electrometer to measure both magnitude and phase differential in electric fields, hall effect circuits for measuring magnetic fields as well as the standard equipment. Now let's consider "normal operation", we close a switch to charge an inductance with current, we see a voltage rise on our oscilloscope connected across the inductance which then levels off indicating the current has stabilized, we open the switch and see a voltage spike (an inductive discharge) proportional to the resistance to the discharge. This is normal operation which is equivalent in a mechanical sense to a water ram pump, we have increased voltage at the expense of current and the energy remains constant.
Now let's consider abnormal operation that is what you do not know, if we consider that the current input to the inductance is solely responsible for the inductive discharge or voltage spike then they must always be proportional to one another and there can be no exceptions but this is not the case. I built many circuits to specifically test one exception to the rule whereby I could produce an inductive discharge, a voltage spike, on both the "make" and "break" of the circuit switch. Both inductive discharges (two) would induced a voltage in nearby coils and would also be indicated on all measuring devices. Now if the inductive discharge is solely a product of the disruption of a current already established in an inductance then how can I produce another inductive discharge before any current whatsoever has started to flow in the same inductance? It should be noted that both inductive discharges were in fact equal in every sense of the word which still leaves us with this nagging question of how an inductive discharge can occur "before" a current has been established, in fact before any current of any sort is flowing in the inductance? Now if as many believe, the input must be equal to the output then why do I get two equal outputs from only one input?
It would seem to me that what I have proven as a fact in reality through actual experiments would seem to be in direct conflict with what you have stated. It should also be noted that my experiments are based on the research of Nikola Tesla over 100 years ago and that he had documented these facts on more than a few occasions.
Now consider your statement:
QuoteThey only discharge as much energy as you put into them in the first place. This is an absolute carved-in-stone fact.
If this is true then how can I produce a "discharge" well documented by Nikola Tesla before I have "put" any energy into it in the first place? Common sense would suggest one of us is wrong.
Regards
AC
Gents
The show is just getting started,the latest and greatest BTT show,either Thane is MAD, NUTSO etc........
OR you fella's are missing something??
Seriously,If you fellows were looking for investors etc.
Would you do a public experiment/presentation/build of your tech,open to the scrutiny of ANYONE if you were not a zillion percent positive that nothing could possibly go wrong?
Roll the dice on your entire lifes work??
I perceive this man to be an AMAZING humanitarian ,with practically NO peers in the "over unity philanthropy" department!
[well ,I do know you have a few here that are contenders]
Should be VERY easy to build and test [well ,not so sure about the test part]
Once the "CHASSIS" is decided on,and a little more info on "material'[chassis]
I am most definitely going to build.
Chet
AC,
I believe I speak for a few of us...please post your schematic for obtaining these pre and post inductive discharges. Also, it would be great if you could post any scope shots of the effects.
Thanks,
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.10.23, 19:55:35
AC,
I believe I speak for a few of us...please post your schematic for obtaining these pre and post inductive discharges. Also, it would be great if you could post any scope shots of the effects.
Thanks,
.99
I agree, I would also like to know the type of inductor used, ferrite or laminated steel or air core, type of switch used etc.
I think I have an explanation for the double pulse but need more details.
A spark at make does not mean it is from the coil you are pulsing.
What sort of power supply were you using?
Regarding the BITT, I ran a test which demonstrates that Thane is telling a partial story and leaving out some critical information that would show the real story.
Test Setup: A Kill-A-Watt meter monitored Amps, Watts, and Power Factor. A Variac drove the toroidal core. The toroidal core had an 8 turn secondary and a 1 Ohm resistor was used as a load on the secondary.
No Load on Secondary: I drove the toroidal transformer gently into saturation using a variac. Saturation current was set at exactly 1.0 Amp. The power factor read 0.08. Open circuit secondary voltage was 3.08 Volts (0 Watts...no load)
Overall power drain was 12 Watts, all core loss and primary resistance loss.
Loaded Secondary: I then connected the 1 Ohm load to the secondary of the toroidal transformer. Now the current input dropped to 0.93 Amps, but the power factor rose to 0.15, and the overall power rose to 20 Watts.
Voltage across the resistor was 2.94 Volts (8.64 Watts)
Note that adding the load transfers some of the saturation losses into real load power. Applying the load has the same effect as driving the transformer into a less saturated condition
The main point of this test was to show that for a saturated core, attaching a load actually causes the driving amps to decrease, but what Thane is not telling you is that the power input increases along with a nearly doubling of power factor.
Because he is asking you to trust your eyes when he does these tests and does not supply to you the actual power input data, only amps and volts, he is obfuscating what is really happening.
He tells you to just believe that the power factor is zero.
The burning of drive transformers was the dead giveaway.
As usual with forums this definitive test will get past over, buried and the BITT will live on because people prefer cool videos over boring text and data.
Anyone can run this test and see for themselves.
Ion,
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your taking the time to explain this "Measurement" situation .[yes MH I acknowledge your pointing this out as well [and many others ]]
There MUST be a reason for testing with the clamp meter?,besides Deception ? ,Which I do not believe is the reason here!
Can you outline a test ,using the Mary -Jo set up,that will put this to rest to your satisfaction ?
A test where Input is established and undeniable?
OR??
Perhaps you can make some addendum's to this test protocol?
BITT COMPUTER MODELLING TEST ITEMS:
1. Make the Primary and (net) Secondary with the same wire gauge and the same number of turns so it will be a 1:1 transformer,
i.e. Primary = 100 turns, S1 = 50 turns, S2 = 50 turns.
2. TEST: S1 + S2 (net)NO LOAD voltage = primary INPUT voltage.
3. Primary flux should be evenly distributed through NO LOAD S1 and S2.
4. Note and record Primary Current and Power Factor NO LOAD baseline.
5. Place S1 and S2 ON 100 ohm LOAD and note if Primary Current or Power Factor changes.
6. SOFTWARE TEST:
Remove S2 from load and note S1 load voltage which must = 0 volts because S2's flux path route now represents a lower reluctance route than S1's ON LOAD high impedance route.
7. S2's NO LOAD voltage must = Primary INPUT voltage because S2 is getting all the Primary flux.
8. REPEAT with 50 ohm, 25 ohm, 10 ohm, 1 ohm and shorted Secondaries.
9. If Baseline NO LOAD Current or PF change when placed ON LOAD increase Secondary Outer Core Area to reduce reluctance until there is NO CHANGE from NO LOAD Baseline to ON LOAD shorted Seconaries.
10. Replace Secondary Outer Core with HIGH PERFORMANCE Low Reluctance Permalloy of Superpermalloy etc. And note performance advantage (if any).
TEST NOTES: Test Date: __________________
1. Number of Turns: Primary = _________ turns, S1 = __________, S2 =__________ turns.
2. Primary Input Voltage: Primary = ______ Volts, S1 = ______, S2 = ______ Volts.
3. S1 NO LOAD Voltage = _____ V, S1 NO LOAD Voltage = _____ V,
Flux Distribution: ________________ (even - uneven).
4. NO LOAD Baseline: Primary Current = ______ Amps, Primary Power Factor = ______.
5. S1 & S2 ON LOAD (100 ohms):
Primary Current = ______ Amps, Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______,
PF change % = ______%.
6. S2 NO LOAD: S1 ON LOAD Voltage = ______ Volts. (Must = 0 Volts).
7. S2 NO LOAD Voltage: S2 = ______ Volts. (Should = Primary Input Voltage).
8. S1, S2 50 ohm load:
Primary Current = ______ Amps, Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______,
PF change % = ______%.
S1, S2 25 ohm load:
Primary Current = ______ Amps, Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______,
PF change % = ______%.
S1, S2 10 ohm load:
Primary Current = ______ Amps, Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______,
PF change % = ______%.
S1, S2 1 ohm load:
Primary Current = ______ Amps, Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______,
PF change % = ______%.
S1, S2 (shorted) load:
Primary Current = ______ Amps, Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______,
PF change % = ______%.
9. New Secondary Core Area Increase: _______ %.
S1, S2 (shorted) load:
Primary Current = ______ Amps, Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______,
PF change % = ______%. (NOTE; if primary current and PF do NOT change with a short-circuit load they won't change with lesser loads either).
10. New Secondary Core Material: ___________. Primary Current = ______ Amps,
Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______, PF change % = ______%.
Chet
ION, Based on the setup you built for a test do you not think that if you haven't duplicated all details of Thane's setup that any test you make will not be valid? Based on another persons work I saw that was similar to Thane's I don't believe an 8 turn secondary is going to work at all. I'm quite sure you and ramset understand all this much better than I do but I'm just saying from the standpoint of using the scientific method you can't conclude much from an experiment where there are large differences between 2 setups. I have seen some of the documents and email Thane has had with a number of people including NASA and Air Force people. He's not going to fool anyone in those places with games or tricks. There is no reason I see to assume he is trying to fool anyone. And he certainly seems smart enough to not be fooling himself on any of this.
Quote from: e2matrix on 2010.10.24, 19:08:16
ION, Based on the setup you built for a test do you not think that if you haven't duplicated all details of Thane's setup that any test you make will not be valid? Based on another persons work I saw that was similar to Thane's I don't believe an 8 turn secondary is going to work at all. I'm quite sure you and ramset understand all this much better than I do but I'm just saying from the standpoint of using the scientific method you can't conclude much from an experiment where there are large differences between 2 setups. I have seen some of the documents and email Thane has had with a number of people including NASA and Air Force people. He's not going to fool anyone in those places with games or tricks. There is no reason I see to assume he is trying to fool anyone. And he certainly seems smart enough to not be fooling himself on any of this.
No one can duplicate all details of Thanes setup. People will cry that you are not using the exact # of strands in your wire to get the effect or some other excuse. Exact duplication of Thanes setup was never the point.
The test I posted is inductors/transformers 101.
Anyone who sees their input current drop when connecting a load to a saturated transformer, and claiming that this is something special about their core arrangement is not discovering anything new. The current drop is normal.I have seen some of the documents and correspondence Joe Newman had with many prestigious persons in government agencies. I bought this large hardbound official looking gold trimmed volume for $35 and studied it back in '85 when it first came out. It is full of correspondence. This is not proof of anything. There are many "professors" of electrical engineering out there and government agency officials that have not a foot in the real world, probably never touched or recognized a transformer when they saw it. I keep that volume in plain view on my shelf as a constant reminder to do the "due diligence".
Thane needs to connect a Watt meter to the input of his driving transformer. Then you will see that he is drawing 150 Watts to get 1.6 Watts into his light bulb. After all he did burn up that 150 VA transformer and was well on the way to burning up the larger transformer he uses to drive his primary.
Thane claims the power factor is zero. Anyone skilled in the art knows that as long as there is resistance in the primary, the power factor can never be zero.
I don't believe Thane is trying to fool anyone, perhaps cherry picking parameters to show what would seem to support his theory maybe in an effort to maintain use of the lab or support of benefactors.
Watts input vs. Watts output is the proof of the pudding.
Doesn't it strike anyone odd that such a huge transformer arrangement has difficulty lighting a tiny lamp with a maximum of less than two watts of power?
Watch the Dilbert's Dilemma video again and listen carefully. What he shows in this video is positively truthful, what he doesn't show is vital and begging to be seen.
As I said, send him a donation if you believe in him. I have nothing against folks supporting the lonely inventor. Be sure to exercise due diligence, a fool and his money are soon parted.
I wish him the best of luck, he will need it.
Chet: I have taken a good look at the Mary-Jo setup and will soon comment on it.
:D
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.10.24, 20:16:18
:D
I can't interpret a happy face, the bandwidth is too narrow.
The Mary-Jo
Quote from: ION on 2010.10.24, 20:20:31
I can't interpret a happy face, the bandwidth is too narrow.
Good work ION, I am "happy" that this type of posting can exist unhindered. It's such a refreshing change from the usual blast one receives at other forums. I'm quite open-minded, as are most of the folks here, but when someone makes a claim and the evidence to back it up is either absent or shaky, then I become frustrated and disappointed.
In my view, those that are given ample opportunity to substantiate their claims and choose not to (Thane for instance), get no sympathy from me in regards to others that question them and drag them through the coals as you have done with your simple clear experiment.
Too bad Thane does not read/post here. But I doubt he would stick around long if he did. I am amazed at the length of time he has retained funding. Good luck to him, but I'm afraid he's in the same boat as Steorn...one that won't float forever.
.99
ION
Quote:
inductors/transformers 101
Watts input vs. Watts output is the proof of the pudding.
Doesn't it strike anyone odd that such a huge transformer arrangement has difficulty lighting a tiny lamp with a maximum of less than two watts of power?
Thane needs to connect a Watt meter to the input of his driving transformer. Then you will see that he is drawing 150 Watts to get 1.6 Watts into his light bulb. After all he did burn up that 150 VA transformer and was well on the way to burning up the larger transformer he uses to drive his primary. Thane claims the power factor is zero. Anyone skilled in the art knows that as long as there is resistance in the primary, the power factor can never be zero.
---------------------------------------------------
Makes sense!! Its to simple to believe that Thane is unaware of these facts,there must be an explination!
When he's sitting there firing up the Beast, he has to hear the load come on, he must be aware of theses facts!
Its almost Nuts to think that he wouldn't know this??
There has to be more to this!!
@poynt
who says Thane won't see this??
Thats just a "Click" away!
This just needs some more time,Its in the fast lane right now!!
The real fast lane!!
Chet
Chet,
The sad part of all this, is that it seems no one at OU has what it takes to pose the questions to Thane directly. Are you going to call him out?
You are right, Thane must know what's really going on. What does that say about Thane?
.99
Quote from: ramset on 2010.10.24, 16:50:44
Can you outline a test ,using the Mary -Jo set up,that will put this to rest to your satisfaction ?
A test where Input is established and undeniable?
Chet
Yes Chet
Thane has a few expensive meters lying around the lab that include a "Watts" computation. I have seen him use these on his motor tests. He should place one of these on the input to his driving transformer and show us Watts input.
It is ok to use amps times volts on the output if the load is purely resistive.
In the first part of the test you formerly posted, he never mentions Watts input. Just power factor and amps ??? In the second part, he records volts input but never shows a Watts input computation.
Three things are needed to compute power input: Volts, Amps, and power factor.
If Thane does not have anything left in his lab that can display real Watts and power factor, he can buy a Kill-A-Watt meter for under $30. These meters have 0.2% accuracy which is more than enough to show the "truth".
All FE researchers on a budget should have one of these in their toolkit.
At the end of the day one must face reality and compute power input vs. power output. If a transformer must be ten or 100 times larger to get a tiny increase in efficiency, it may not be worth all the copper and iron expense. Engineers trade off many factors in designing transformers for everyday use. Yes, transformers can be made a little more efficient very easily but who is willing pay for the front end costs? Hint: The utility companies design very efficient transformers because they reap the benefit of every Watt saved many times over. On the consumer end this is not the case.
You are welcome to post anything I have written here on this subject at the "Overunity" site as long as it is kept in context.
Thanks for your efforts Men,
I think there must be a missunderstanding here??
Perhaps the application for Thanes Tech has Merit somewhere that is not so obvious ?
Perhaps the Point is in the pudding {effect],not how he gets there?
I would be remiss in my commitment to this community If I did not ask Thane to address this here!
Thank you once again,
Chet
Gentlemen,
Now you have the Boss working late!
He'll be extra Cranky!
To be Answered 1 by 1
here
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7833.new#new
Chet
On going responce post,
----------------------------------------------------
HERE ARE SOME OF THE EDITS. GOING TO THAT WEBSITE FOR EDUCATION IS NOT WISE SINCE IT'S "THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND" THERE, AS IS GETTING INTO A DEBATE.
CHEERS
T
Quote1] It's something that is hard to eyeball, and chances are the waveform does
not line up with the graticule on his scope. I am assuming that he measured this with a ruler??? I am not sure here, are there better ways to do this? It's a critical measurement because it affects his input power calculation.
EXPAND THE X AXIS SCOPE WINDOW UNTIL 1/2 SINE WAVE IS SHOWN EVENLY OVER 40 X AXIS CROSS HATCHES. IN MY CASE 42. DIVIDE 180 DEGREES / 42 = 4.3 DEGREES PER CROSS HATCH. POSITION EITHER THE CURRENT OR VOLTAGE SINE WAVE EVENLY AND THEN COUNT THE NUMBER OF HATCHES (ON LOAD) THAT THE MIDDLE SINE WAVE DEVIATES.
I.E.
IF THE PURPLE LINE IS SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO GREEN LINES THE PHASE ANGLE DIFFERENTIAL IS 90 DEGREES, WHICH REPRESENTS A POWER FACTOR OF 0.0 IF THE PURPLE LINE IS 5 HATCHES AWAY FROM THE CENTRE THEN THE PHASE ANGLE WOULD BE 90 - 5 = 85, COS 85 = 0.087 PF.
IN OUR CASE ON THE VIDEOS THE PHASE ANGLE IS ABOUT 1 DEGREE, WHICH REPRESENTS A PF OF 0.017.
RED FLAG: ANYONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO USE OR READ PF ON A SCOPE SHOULD LEARN - SINCE IT IS THE FOUNDATION OF POWER ENGINEERING 101.
2] So the OuterO is getting conflicting induced flux that cancels itself out. In other words, if the number of turns in the two secondary coils and the load resistors are perfectly balanced, then the OuterO does nothing because of the flux cancellation.
WRONG
YOU CANNOT USE ONE MAGNETIC FIELD TO CANCEL OUT ANOTHER! THIS IS TRANSFORMER 101 AS WELL. IF THIS WERE SO EVEN A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER WOULD NOT WORK BECAUSE BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FLUXES ARE MOVING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS INSIDE THE PRIMARY CORE.
RED FLAG: A FORUM IS ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS ABILITY TO PROVIDE CORRECT INFORMATION TO THE READERS AND TO "SELF CORRECT" ITSELF WHEN A MISTAKE IS PRESENTED. SINCE NO ONE PICKED UP ON THIS AND CORRECTED IT - EVERYTHING ELSE THAT FOLLOWS IS ALSO IN ERROR.
Quote3] Therefore as a general statement, the OuterO flux ring is not serving any useful purpose. The setup would work just as well if you only had the Figure8 flux path with the three coils.
WRONG NOT TRUE AT ALL.
Quote4] This would be telling you that almost no magnetic flux is flowing through the OuterO because of the flux cancellation problem as indicated in the previous posting. If you see a very low-level AC voltage, you should be able to tweak the self-cancellation to make it disappear almost completely. The easiest way to do this would be to add or subtract one or two turns to one of the secondary coils. You should be able to tweak the flux self-cancellation so that the AC voltage almost completely disappears. No AC voltage on the flux sensor coil means no flux. So what does this mean for any over unity with Thane's new configuration? Well, if you prove that the OuterO does not do anything of value,
WRONG A VOLT METER READS NET FLUX VARIATIONS / TIME. A VOLTMETER IN THIS SCENARIO CAN ONLY READ FLUX FLOWING IN ONE DIRECTION. IF TWO IDENTICAL FLUX MAGNITUDES ARE FLOWING THROUGH A SENSOR COIL ON ONE CORE SECTION THE VOLTAGE WOULD BE 0 VOLTS EVEN THOUGH NET FLUX INSIDE THE COIL WOULD BE AT MAXIMUM.
RED FLAG: KNOWING HOW A VOLTMETER WORKS AND HOW TO READ A VOLTMETER IS ELECTRICITY 101. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO DO THIS SHOULD LEARN.
Quote5] When you drive a transformer hard into saturation, you waste a lot of power heating the core and the primary rather than transferring power to the load.
WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HARD SATURATION? THE LATEST VIDEO WAS OBVIOUS TO ANYONE OF PERCEPTION THAT THE PRIMARY RELUCTANCE ONLY HAS TO BE INCREASED ENOUGH (BY INCREASING PRIMARY FLUX LEVELS) TO HAVE A HIGHER RELUCTANCE THAN THE SECONDARY FLUX PATH.
Quote6] He claims it is all reactive. I doubt that or he would not have burned up the driving transformer. Current input rises rapidly when you approach saturation, loading on the secondary backs you off this part of the BH curve. He sees input power drop a bit when he connects the load. This is normal for a saturated transformer, as the load takes the transformer out of saturation a bit.
THE PRIMARY IS NOT SATURATED - IT IS IN THE INITIAL STAGES OF SATURATION.
Quote from: ramset on 2010.10.26, 01:34:27
Gentlemen,
Now you have the Boss working late!
He'll be extra Cranky!
To be Answered 1 by 1
here
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7833.new#new
Chet
Chet;
Thank you for your hard work at an attempt to bring this issue to a clearer understanding.
It appears that my questions were cut from the original postings, therefore taken out of context and mixed with the MH postings. I cannot speak for MH. I hope this doesn't muddy the waters.
Thane's initial comments seem to be "reactive" excuse the pun.
I can assure Thane that I have been using and know how to use voltmeters and scopes, probably way before he was materialized on the planet. No need for a pissing contest. I'm 64 and have spent at least 45 years in power electronics, working hands on with these kinds of problems.
Here is a further question:
If a normal transformer (his driving transformer) is driving a purely reactive (PF=0) load namely the BITT primary, why does the driving transformer burn up?
It should be just an intermediary, reflecting nearly all reactive power back to the line, absorbing only a very tiny amount due to resistive copper and eddy current core loss.I will comment further when Thane has rebutted my key points.
Thanks
Quote from: ramset on 2010.10.26, 12:23:51
YOU CANNOT USE ONE MAGNETIC FIELD TO CANCEL OUT ANOTHER! THIS IS TRANSFORMER 101 AS WELL. IF THIS WERE SO EVEN A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER WOULD NOT WORK BECAUSE BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FLUXES ARE MOVING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS INSIDE THE PRIMARY CORE.
RED FLAG: A FORUM IS ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS ABILITY TO PROVIDE CORRECT INFORMATION TO THE READERS AND TO "SELF CORRECT" ITSELF WHEN A MISTAKE IS PRESENTED. SINCE NO ONE PICKED UP ON THIS AND CORRECTED IT - EVERYTHING ELSE THAT FOLLOWS IS ALSO IN ERROR.
----------------------------
WRONG A VOLT METER READS NET FLUX VARIATIONS / TIME. A VOLTMETER IN THIS SCENARIO CAN ONLY READ FLUX FLOWING IN ONE DIRECTION. IF TWO IDENTICAL FLUX MAGNITUDES ARE FLOWING THROUGH A SENSOR COIL ON ONE CORE SECTION THE VOLTAGE WOULD BE 0 VOLTS EVEN THOUGH NET FLUX INSIDE THE COIL WOULD BE AT MAXIMUM.
RED FLAG: KNOWING HOW A VOLTMETER WORKS AND HOW TO READ A VOLTMETER IS ELECTRICITY 101. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO DO THIS SHOULD LEARN.
Am I misreading these statements by Thane? He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
1. If the magnetic flux vectors oppose, they cancel. In a transformer, they all go the same direction. This is also why the polarity of the secondary is reversed compared to the primary.
2. A volt meter reads electrical potential difference. If a changing magnetic field induces EMF in a conductor, then the volt meter can indicate the potential difference. This is not necessarily a true indication of the flux variation. Again, opposing flux magnetic vectors must cancel, then there is no magnetic flux. The energy may covnert to some other form but it wil no longer be a magnetic field.
Here's A quote from Thane:
QuoteGOING TO THAT WEBSITE FOR EDUCATION IS NOT WISE SINCE IT "THE BLIND 8) LEADING THE BLIND" THERE, AS IS GETTING INTO A DEBATE.
CHEERS
T
Reminds me of the Catholic Church warning it's members not to read any books not on the "approved" list as that might jeopardize their faith.
I recall a post made by "The Buzz" who built a Thane replication of the half-an-E-core arrangement. The coil on the middle legs of the core was shorted. Buzz thought that capacitance was added to the outer coil and that this made it impossible to go OU. Not sure what he meant, but I can look up that post.
I've always been puzzled by what exactly Thane's goal is.
In the first BITT Tutorial 101 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcAYhM0LX9A) Thane seems to allude to getting real output power for virtually zero input power. OK, the theory sounds interesting. Now, prove the theory.
In the BITT 2.0 and 3.0, unless I missed it, Thane does no input nor output power measurements. Whether this device merits further investigation begs to have these measurements performed, yet they are avoided.
Thane seems to allude that the output power is only a few Watts, correct? From what I saw of Thane's input/phase/PF measurement with the scope, I am not nearly convinced that the input power is zero.
As I assume the input source is AC through a variac perhaps, I would strongly suggest (as does ION) that Thane pick up a Killawatt meter (http://www.p3international.com/products/special/P4400/P4400-CE.html) to properly and simply measure the input power being consumed. I'll send him one if he promises to do the test.
.99
Thane is just another prick that gives alternative energy research a bad reputation.
Good people are working hard to find an energy solution and you have pricks purpetuating their BS for whatever reason.
He recently proved one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: He doesn't know squat about magnetic fields.
Case in point:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7833.msg262041#msg262041
HHMMmmmm................
There are very few people that can discuss this with a scientist here!
Something is Twisted here? Data supporting OU 100-2700 %,and an inability to explain this without Scientists?
PLEASE, one of you fellows Email Thane
Chet
His "bitoroid" looks a lot like this device: (first and second outputs are the two coils numbered III)
Indeed, looks very similar.
Hey, he might actually have something, but until I see a reliable Pi and Po measurement, I'm not convinced.
btw Grumps, I think you might have misinterpreted his $1M challenge. I think he means that there IS a field in a bucking pair of magnets. But who knows, maybe I misinterpreted both of you :P
.99
Well
I made my living dealing with testing labs
If Thane has an independant Test from an accredited Testing facility stating this device is 100-2700 % efficient
END OF STORY!!
NO LAB NOWHERE Is going to put out a report on their letter head signed by their engineer
stating they did these tests and varified these claims as described,unless they where willing to bet their reputation on it.
PERIOD!!
If you guys think for ONE minute They wouldn't need to varify INPUT over OUTPUT to establish efficiency
YOUR SMOKING SOMETHING!!
Chet
No Problem Chet, let's see the report and letterhead.
Also, I would expect a detailed diagram and description of how the tests were performed.
No one is infallible, even the DND. I have some experience with their Engineers btw.
Why does it make Thane nervous to test with the Killawatt meter ??? That meter was designed to work with 60 Hz AC. This is a trivial measurement for an A/D converter, microcontroller, and appropriate firmware, and it is application specific, which only the top top oscilloscopes incorporate, and Thane's scope does not I'm afraid.
I can assure you, the measurements obtained from the Killawatt meter will be far more accurate than anything Thane can pull off with his $1500 scope and under-powered meters.
.99
99
The test Data will make all Thanes techniques MOOT.
Yes get the test protocol and data!
WE [this community]would be SOOOOO gratefull !
Chet
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.10.27, 00:31:01
Indeed, looks very similar.
Hey, he might actually have something, but until I see a reliable Pi and Po measurement, I'm not convinced.
btw Grumps, I think you might have misinterpreted his $1M challenge. I think he means that there IS a field in a bucking pair of magnets. But who knows, maybe I misinterpreted both of you :P
.99
My point is that it appears that Thane may be trying to modify "variant 6" that I posted above.
If that is the case, I urge all to consult the source document. I know of two overunity generators based on this document - one is the Gunderson Device. Since the design is very close, I urge all to consult it anyway.
The closest thing to an answer, to one of ION's questions
Some Poynt posts in between.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Today at 02:37:00 AMdear Sir Mr. Thane Heins
First let me say that I admire your workmanship and your finely crafted and spun coils and theories.
There is just one thing that has been nagging me. It is this:
Why are you burning up drive transformers as you mentioned in Dilbert's Dilemma BITT3.0.mov.
If a normal transformer (your driving transformer) is driving a purely reactive (PF=0) load namely the BITT primary, why does the driving transformer burn up? It looks to be rated at least 150VA.
It should be just an intermediary, reflecting nearly all reactive power back to the line, absorbing only a very tiny amount due to resistive copper and eddy current core loss.
You also mention towards the end of the video of having to end the test because the second larger transformer was beginning to burn up. Why is all this power being burned from the mains? Are these not real Watts being burned in the driving transformer?
These things are just puzzling to me, of course I don't have the insight that you have into the operation of the devices and your theories.
Thank you for your kind reply in advance.
Vortex1
AND I ADMIRE YOUR ABILITY TO PRESENT A GOOD QUESTION WITH RESPECT.
I WILL RESPOND IN KIND... I HOPE IT HELPS?
I AM USING A 120 V - 48 V STEP DOWN TRANSFORMER IN REVERSE AS A STEP UP TRANSFORMER AND DRIVING IT WITH 160 V FROM MY VARIC WHICH IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO DO - HENCE THE SMOKING RESULTS. THIS WAS ALL I HAD TO WORK WITH AT THE TIME AND WE ALL DO "IT" FROM TIME TO TIME BECAUSE MOST OF US ARE TOO IMPATIENT TO WAIT FOR THE RIGHT ITEM TO COME IN THE MAIL.
NOW I AM USING A 120 - 10,000 V MICROWAVE TRANSFORMER WITH NO ILL EFFECTS DUE TO OVERHEATING.
IN ADDITION THE POWER GOING TO THE BITT IS THE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE PRIMARY TIMES THE CURRENT THROUGH THE PRIMARY TIMES THE POWER FACTOR. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POWER GOING INTO THE STEP UP TRANSFORMER (AND ITS EFFICIENCY %) - PRETTY SOON THEY WILL HAVE ME MEASURING POWER GOING TO THE BITT FROM OUTSIDE MY HOUSE TO BAFFLE THE LESS INFORMED READER.
BE AWARE AND TRUST YOUR OWN INSTINCT.
CHEERS
T
If a normal transformer (your driving transformer) is driving a purely reactive (PF=0) load namely the BITT primary, why does the driving transformer burn up?
PS THIS IS VERY WRONG - HERE IS WHY...
THE STEP UP TRANSFORER IS FEEDING INTO A PURELY RESISTIVE SHUNT RESISTOR OF 0.5 OHMS WHICH REPRESENTS A PF OF 1 TO THE TRANSFORMER AND A VIRTUAL SHORT CIRCUIT ALSO. YOU CANNOT CREATE A WORSE SCENARIO FOR A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER PRIMARY.
Logged Free EnergyRe: Thane Heins BI-TOROID TRANSFORMER
« Reply #189 on: Today at 03:52:52 AM »QuoteSponsored links:
poynt99
TPU-Elite
Hero Member
Posts: 1098
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Re: Thane Heins BI-TOROID TRANSFORMER
« Reply #190 on: Today at 04:06:16 AM »QuoteIndeed I made an error with the cycle.
It's about 360º, not 180º across the 10 divisions.
Probably closer to 12 divisions, 2 of which are "off-screen" so we have to imagine this to be about correct. Therefore, with 2.5 divisions, @30º/DIV, yields 75º, which is what you state in the video.
PF is then about 0.259
Try the Killawatt meter for input power. It will give you far more accurate results than what you will be able to obtain with that scope and your meters.
.99 Logged Free EnergyRe: Thane Heins BI-TOROID TRANSFORMER
« Reply #190 on: Today at 04:06:16 AM »QuoteCRANKYpants
elite_member
Hero Member
Posts: 953
Re: Thane Heins BI-TOROID TRANSFORMER
« Reply #191 on: Today at 04:20:26 AM »QuoteQuotePS THIS IS VERY WRONG - HERE IS WHY...
THE STEP UP TRANSFORER IS FEEDING INTO A PURELY RESISTIVE SHUNT RESISTOR OF 0.5 OHMS WHICH REPRESENTS A PF OF 1 TO THE TRANSFORMER AND A VIRTUAL SHORT CIRCUIT ALSO - DEPENDING ON THE PRIMARY COIL USED. YOU CANNOT CREATE A WORSE SCENARIO FOR A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER PRIMARY.
I WILL ADD ONE OR TWO MORE THINGS HERE...
IN THE EARLY VIDEO OF 2009 WE WERE USING A HIGH IMPEDANCE PRIMARY WITH A RELATIVELY LOW INPUT VOLTAGE AND A POWER FACTOR OF 0.34 OR SO.
NOW WE ARE USING A HIGHER INPUT VOLTAGE TO INCREASE THE PRIMARY CORE FLUX MAGNITUDE WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS A SHIFTING OF THE PRIMARY SINE WAVE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins#p/u/2/sQq1-J8SOtc
THIS "DELIBERATE" PF SHIFTING IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT UNDER TESTING - THAT IS WHY THESE LATEST VIDEOS FOCUS ON PHASE ANGLE (AND PHASE ANGLE SHIFTING) AND NOT INPUT vs OUTPUT AS DONE PREVIOUSLY. TO DO THESE INPUT vs OUTPUT TESTS CORRECTLY WE WOULD NEED TO CLAMP AND TACK WELD THE PRIMARY IN PLACE (TO REDUCE PRIMARY CURRENT) WHICH IS PREMATURE AT THIS TIME BECAUSE WE ARE STILL CHANGING PRIMARY WIRE GAUGE AND TURNS RATIOS TO GET THE EFFECT BUT NOT HAVE TO RELY ON CORE SATURATION TOO MUCH WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE LONG RUN.
T
So, are the small coils on the large core for phase shifting the flux so that the two output coil are in-phase (or more in phase than out of phase)?
Regarding this reply:
My Question:
QuoteIf a normal transformer (your driving transformer) is driving a purely reactive (PF=0) load namely the BITT primary, why does the driving transformer burn up?
Thane's reply:
"PS THIS IS VERY WRONG - HERE IS WHY...
THE STEP UP TRANSFORER IS FEEDING INTO A PURELY RESISTIVE SHUNT RESISTOR OF 0.5 OHMS WHICH REPRESENTS A PF OF 1 TO THE TRANSFORMER AND A VIRTUAL SHORT CIRCUIT ALSO. YOU CANNOT CREATE A WORSE SCENARIO FOR A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER PRIMARY."
Anyone see a problem here? Thane is implying that the "shunt" resistor is a "virtual short circuit" across (in parallel with) the output of the step up transformer. No mention is made of the inductance of the BITT primary. What are we to assume from this? Is the BITT primary also in shunt (parallel) with the 0.5 ohm resistor?
In that test 220 volts were measured across the driving transformer secondary, hence at the input to the BITT primary.
This is confusing and contradictory. If the "shunt" resistor is used for measuring current on the input to the BITT, it should be in series with the BITT primary, not a "virtual short circuit" directly across the driving transformer output.
Since no recording of input current is shown in the first portion of the Dilbert's Dilemma we can only assume that Thane is using the "shunt" resistor as a input to the scope and a series measurement of current into the BITT primary.
We will have to assume that the "shunt" resistor is used for current measurement in series with the BITT primary, hence cannot be a virtual short, and must include the BITT primary impedance.
A simple schematic to go along with each video would certainly clarify things.
Thane's explanation of the burning transformers is in no way is satisfying, to me at least.
In his explanation, he is equating the primary of the BITT to a resistor that is across the "secondary" and effectively shorts it, and burns up the primary of the step-up transformer.
So, the load (BITT Primary) is not "purely reactive", and he just stated this with the resistor explanation (he says "purely resistive").
I recall he said he was using a 220v to 48v transformer reversed (or something like that), or was that a different transformer?
Quote from: ION on 2010.10.27, 16:15:53
Regarding this reply:
My Question:
Thane's reply:
"PS THIS IS VERY WRONG - HERE IS WHY...
THE STEP UP TRANSFORER IS FEEDING INTO A PURELY RESISTIVE SHUNT RESISTOR OF 0.5 OHMS WHICH REPRESENTS A PF OF 1 TO THE TRANSFORMER AND A VIRTUAL SHORT CIRCUIT ALSO. YOU CANNOT CREATE A WORSE SCENARIO FOR A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER PRIMARY."
Anyone see a problem here? Thane is implying that the "shunt" resistor is a "virtual short circuit" across (in parallel with) the output of the step up transformer. No mention is made of the inductance of the BITT primary. What are we to assume from this? Is the BITT primary also in shunt (parallel) with the 0.5 ohm resistor?
In that test 15.25 volts were measured across the driving transformer secondary, hence at the input to the BITT primary.
This is confusing and contradictory. If the "shunt" resistor is used for measuring current on the input to the BITT, it should be in series with the BITT primary, not a "virtual short circuit" directly across the driving transformer output.
I think thane meant that the primary of the BITT is "like a resistor of 0.5 Ohms".
So, does anyone think that there is something to this BITT?
I believe there may be something to it, but I have little confidence in the measurements performed by Thane thus far.
When Thane produces proper test documentation with diagrams and clear measurements, then we can know for sure. Alternatively, perhaps if someone as well-equipped as ION is willing to try the setup, then too we can finally know the truth.
.99
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.10.27, 19:37:32
So, does anyone think that there is something to this BITT?
I believe Thane always leaves out or fudges one critical piece of test data.
If this device was real, with the kind of efficiencies predicted (up to 2700%), it would be no problem whatsoever to close the loop, feed some back to the input and have a free runner.
Even if he had to use a battery charger on the output, feed a battery, then an inverter back to the input he would have more than enough for an OU event.
But this is not the case. This has been going on since 2007 with no video in the open of a self runner, the next logical step rather than talk of more efficient mains transformers.
I reviewed the patent application and it is laughable. If you haven't read it in entirety, it is here.
Question for ION
Looking at the Mary-Jo,I can make that with Square bar stock, Two 1/2[or whatever] inch pieces placed one on top of the other [lengthwise]
and offset 1/2 inch at the ends for a structural "Box" ,to allow for machine screw attachment/assembly and dissassembly
Also figure a way to put the "Bridge'
in so it can also be removable.
The idea of dissassembly being to change out coils!
Would this be a fair way to test this??Or does it need to be Monolythic?
If so I will build a few and send them to someone to get to the others for testing No charge
Chet
Has everyone had a look at the excel file of test data?
Notice the power we are dealing with is very low?
Quote
Data from Thane Heins Lab, transformer set-up, 24 October 2009, 10:40 am
V_in, I_in, V_load measured off multimeters
f measured off oscilloscope
Calculated values: P_in = V_in*I_in*cos(f) ; P_load = (V_load)**2/R_load
V_in I_in f V_Load R_load P_in P_load P_load/P_in
(V) (mA) (degrees) (V) (ohms) (mW) (mW)
30 4.44 89.5 0.566 10 1.162378078 32.0356 27.5603959
50 7.27 89 0.929 10 6.34395937 86.3041 13.6041382
60.4 8.77 87 1.121 10 27.72278841 125.6641 4.532880969
79.5 11.5 87 1.474 10 47.84817164 217.2676 4.540771205
91 13.12 87 1.683 10 62.48497576 283.2489 4.533072095
108.9 15.71 87 2.014 10 89.53739258 405.6196 4.530169891
131 18.83 89.5 2.412 10 21.52607264 581.7744 27.0264999
144.3 20.72 89 2.655 10 52.18095941 704.9025 13.50880681
Yes, I saw this.
Cherry picking data out of noise is an easy thing to do, but would you "light the rocket" based on that data?
.99
Quote from: ramset on 2010.10.27, 20:36:22
Question for ION
Looking at the Mary-Jo,I can make that with Square bar stock, Two 1/2[or whatever] inch pieces placed one on top of the other [lengthwise]
and offset 1/2 inch at the ends for a structural "Box" ,to allow for machine screw attachment/assembly and dissassembly
Also figure a way to put the "Bridge' in so it can also be removable.
The idea of dissassembly being to change out coils!
Would this be a fair way to test this??Or does it need to be Monolythic?
If so I will build a few and send them to someone to get to the others for testing No charge
Chet
sorry Chet, square bar stock will have large eddy current losses. Use transformer grade silicon grain oriented steel. Should be built up in thin layers, interleaved where low reluctance is required, and butt joint in high reluctance areas.
Can also be tape wound with sheet core transformer steel.
This has been my holdup in replicating, along with rather poor available documentation and a large disbelief in the theory to boot.
But perhaps if the efficiency is as high as claimed (2700%) you should have OU out of the chute with old rusty metal roofing.
best of luck in your work
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.10.27, 21:01:29
Has everyone had a look at the excel file of test data?
Notice the power we are dealing with is very low?
Good Catch, guys just a thought:
It may be that the 60 Hz input is triggering Barkhausen jumps in the transformer outer core , visible at very low power levels but gets swamped and lost at higher power levels. Not necessarily visible in a normal tightly coupled transformer because the line will absorb the jumps.
In a very loosely coupled transformer, such as the BITT, the line impedance, which is very low is sufficiently decoupled.
This should be visible in any large very loosely coupled transformer when operated at very low levels.
Perhaps sufficient mass of transformer steel is required to capitalize on the very small Barkhausen effect.
If this is what is happening, upward scaling may not be economically feasible, as it is a very low level effect. It could be the operating mechanism of other stand alone devices such as the Cook coil, Sweet , and the device of Hans Coler.
I will run some tests as time permits.
thanks the other part of the ""have you noticed" is the size of the core compared to the power.
The 2700% is based on the above data taken for 30v and 131v input. It appears that between this the efficiency is much lower.
Output voltage is also very low.
The data seems to have a rythm to it. The highs and lows appear related to input voltage and not linear.
(If I going to light the rocket, it better be for kW's and SM showed the kW's.)
The Barkhausen Effect experiment by J.L. Naudin:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/barkhausen.htm
QuoteThe most interesting in the Barkhausen effect is that there are no magnetic links between the source (the 2Hz flat excitation coil) and the EM induction produced by the Barkhausen jumps inside ferrite toroid core. So, this can be a path to explore for building Free Energy generators due to this non reciprocal effect (see the Bakhausen scalar detector from Bob Shannon)...
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.10.28, 00:03:39
The Barkhausen Effect experiment by J.L. Naudin:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/barkhausen.htm
G.....you must be telepathic, I was modifying my above post with that very link and statement. When I posted it, I saw you had just done it, so I deleted my edit. LOL
Well I am back I was having some problems with my ISP and I have family in town.
I read this thread and saw some heated debate so afterward I am going to try to see what's going on on OU, perhaps some fireworks? lol
In other postings I mentioned the "no combination of active and passive components..." line that some experimenters probably don't like to hear. It would apply here also. Think about it, a coil energizes and magnetic flux flows through a magnetic core, and that changing flux is picked up by another coil. You pump AC power into the first coil and extract AC power from the second coil. The magnetic core is the medium for the power transfer. When you look at that simple setup, it is physically impossible for the power output from the second coil to be greater that the power supplied to the first coil. COE will always apply in this case.
You can then extrapolate that into a more complex magnetic plumbing network like Thane's, and you still are bound by the limitations of the coils and the flux paths and the losses and inefficiencies in the system. I realize that some people are not comfortable with that "top level" description of the system under test.
Now, we are assuming that Thane is proposing a setup that produces over unity. For a system based on magnetic flux paths and coils, you should be able to make definitive power-in and power-out measurements to demonstrate this. I agree with the comments saying that this has not been done. Then, you should be able to produce a timing diagram that shows the energy flow and precisely where the extra energy comes from. You can put little flux sensing coils on all of the magnetic flux paths and document it.
Any possible Barkhausen effects are also by definition COE events. It takes some energy to align a magnetic domain, and then if that magnetic domain snaps back to its previous orientation that energy is given back.
I still believe that the outer flux ring, the "OuterO" has conflicting flux paths. This is basic magnetic induction and could be verified on the bench with simple voltage step functions applied to the main center coil. I believe that the net result from the conflicting flux paths is a cancellation of the flux going through the outer ring. I think that Thane suggests that the iron flux path is split in cross-section, and that the opposite-direction flux components race past each other like two subway trains in a tunnel. Even if this was true, you still have a net flux of zero. If this reduces the reluctance of the OuterO flux path, then I don't take if for granted that this magically gives you more output power than input power. Prove this with good measurements and a well documented timing diagram.
In thinking more about the flux cancellation, I think that the majority of the flux is self-canceled. I think that there might be a small vestigial amount of conflicting flux. In effect the "OuterO" gets split into two halves, "[" and "]" and each half acts like a very weak vestigial independent bar magnet. Where the two halves meet there is a set of Bloch walls.
Finally for AC, I also would like to see your info about the inductor test.
MileHigh
P.S.: I think that I was given a hard time by Thane for suggesting that you monitor the voltage across a sensing coil to measure the flux. The integral of the voltage waveform is the flux, so looking at the voltage waveform effectively is telling you what the flux is. You just do a "mental integral." :)
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.28, 01:53:42
MileHigh
P.S.: I think that I was given a hard time by Thane for suggesting that you monitor the voltage across a sensing coil to measure the flux. The integral of the voltage waveform is the flux, so looking at the voltage waveform effectively is telling you want the flux is. You just do a "mental integral." :)
Indeed?
Funny, I think he is using that method now. There are "extra" coils wound on his core, and these may be the flux sensor coils.
How is Thane measuring current at the load?
Looking at the "data", he shows a voltage out and power out, but no current.
Then there is the fact that the secondary voltage is very much lower than the primary, normal transformer function would expect the current to be higher (but it isn't shown).
Hmmm
P_load is "calculated": P_load = (V_load)**2/R_load
It would not hurt to do a sanity check with P=VI or P=I^2R
Also, should the power factor by included in this calculation? He says the load is a 10 ohm resistor, is it inductive?
EDIT:
Also, how is he saturating that core (any part of it) with that measly input?
oct 27 2010
Some how I knew the Boss was making a new movie!
http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins?feature=mhum#p/u/0/IPdq_jxmPSM
Chet
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.28, 01:53:42
Any possible Barkhausen effects are also by definition COE events. It takes some energy to align a magnetic domain, and then if that magnetic domain snaps back to its previous orientation that energy is given back.
MileHigh
I have to agree with this, intuitively, I understand that it takes energy input to flip a domain, and it gives that energy back on the other half of the hysteresis curve. This is a classic over-center mechanism that theoretically cannot produce "free" energy, despite the claim by JLN that there is no effect on the driving coil, hence non-reciprocal.
The point I did not mention is that the domain flipping in the Barkhausen noise is of a
much higher frequency than the slow driving waveform, and may cause some errors in the measuring meter, especially when the meter is at the lower limit of it's range setting.
Regarding Thane's latest video: Should have been more appropriately titled
"Squeezing the Flux Balloon"Still waiting for those power in / power out video's with appropriate instrumentation. Or the self runner.
We see in some of Thane's other video's a Lutron DW-6090 Power Analyzer for some of his motor tests.
Why will he not connect one of these up to the input of his BITT. Instead we are asked to believe an overloaded and clipped scope vertical preamplifier and eyeball measurements on the scope horizontal display.
The deeper I dig, the more this is looking like a PR con job to get investor money.
I had a first-go-round look at Thane's latest clip with the flux sensor coils:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins#p/u/0/IPdq_jxmPSM (http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins#p/u/0/IPdq_jxmPSM)
This clip seems to confirm the flux cancellation in the outer ring. I thought about it some more and his notion of the outer ring being saturated with two moving subway trains of flux going in opposite directions through a ferrite core tunnel does not make any sense at all. What's going on is pure flux cancellation.
Imagine a toroidal core with coils of wire on opposite ends. If you excite the two coils with AC so the flux is flowing in the same direction then each coil looks like an inductor. Now move one of the coils around so that the two coils are next to each other. Everything will remain the same. If you wanted, you could connect the two coils together with a center tap, and it would still behave the same way.
What if the two coils are producing opposing flux? It's identical to two coils wound in opposite directions connected together with a center tap. That's an example of pure flux cancellation, and there is no inductance and no flux is flowing through the core. There are no subway trains of flux traveling in opposite directions inside the core tunnel. For all practical intents and purposes each coil looks like an electrical short circuit, and if you connect them together with a center tap, then the larger "coil" also looks like an electrical short circuit.
In Thane's setup, you have the outer "OuterO" ring with the inner "Figure8" core. The loops of the Figure8 core are also cut by the two secondary coils. That nullifies the short-circuit/flux-cancellation effect when the two secondaries are driving equivalent loads and the setup is in balance. The two loops of the Figure8 do produce a complimentary flux flow and that overrides the short-circuit/flux-cancellation effects due to the OuterO ring. When the left and right halves are in balance and driving equivalent loads, you end up with the Figure8 transformer configuration and the OuterO core is as dead as a doornail. I think that the "two subway trains of flux" notion might be Thane impressing his own vision on what he thinks is supposed to be happening in his experiment, as opposed to the actual reality.
Thane should make another clip where he has flux sensor coils on both the left and right rings of the Figure8. That would show what happens when the left and right halves of the Figure8 are not in balance. Here is where the differing reluctance of the two paths of the Figure8 should come into play. The path that is driving a load on it's secondary will have a higher reluctance. Therefore most of the flux should flow through the other path where the secondary coil is open-circuit and the core offers no resistance (a.k.a. very low reluctance) to the flux flow. Since most of the flux flows through the path that has the lower reluctance, that's why you get an anemic output from the secondary coil that is trying to drive the light bulb load.
I should also mention that in the case where the setup is not in balance with one secondary open-circuited and the other secondary driving a light bulb load, the OuterO core will have no real affect on the circuit. Flux will be induced in the core from the secondary coil driving the load. The flux will flow back and forth in the OuterO without coupling to anything else. This will make the inductance of the secondary coil measurably higher without doing much else.
MileHigh
@Ion
QuoteI have to agree with this, intuitively, I understand that it takes energy input to flip a domain, and it gives that energy back on the other half of the hysteresis curve. This is a classic over-center mechanism that theoretically cannot produce "free" energy, despite the claim by JLN that there is no effect on the driving coil, hence non-reciprocal.
I am not sure I would agree, and we could use a smple analogy here, I have a 100 gal tank full of water which is full of metal balls having a neutral boyancy within the water. Now if I apply a force to the tank and it moves a little bit I could "hear" metallic noises from within the tank on a hyrophone from the balls randomly hitting each other. Do you think the noise from the balls would "slow" the motion of the tank? Intuitively, we would think the sound is energy so energy has been lost but we should remember the sound is a result of completely random collisions "within" the object and that random motions within objects can have no net effect external to the object itself.
If you believe that the internal random sounds generated in the core can have external effects then you must also believe the process is reversable in which case I could create random sounds inside the boundary condition of what constitutes an "object" and produce net external forces. LOL, I believe that physics states catagorically that there is no motion one could produce internal to an object that will result in a net external force. So the question remains, Do you think random internal oscillations as "noise" in the core can have an external net effect on the coil or the magnet?
Regards
AC
Well at least I am happy Thane tried to answer my post at OU.
Show me the bacon. lol
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7833.msg262130#msg262130
In the video there is a bit of mix up in the numbers but this is very understandable given he is switching on and off two secs and showing readings , etc. It can get confusing.
I am still convinced that a major part of that secondary output is air to air and will try and push a little more for him to try an overhead pickup coil. I am also convinced that he will get more performance with pulsing either the primary or even just pulsing one of the secondaries to just turn on and off at a certain frequency. That would pulse the flux since he indicates that the second secondary acts like a flux blocker.
Quote from: ION on 2010.10.28, 12:30:47
We see in some of Thane's other video's a Lutron DW-6090 Power Analyzer for some of his motor tests.
Hey! That Power Analyzer is not rated for use in the mW range.
Quote from: ION on 2010.10.28, 12:30:47
Still waiting for those power in / power out video's with appropriate instrumentation. Or the self runner.
The deeper I dig, the more this is looking like a PR con job to get investor money.
Power out vs. power in is king. Many a time an experimenter sees his or her current consumption drop when they add a load to their circuit and they think that this is an indication of an over unity effect. They always seem to overlook the fact that their circuit is still losing energy when they check the watts in vs. the watts out. It's not even a hollow victory to find out that your circuit is less inefficient under load. It makes me think off all of the Bedini enthusiasts charging their batteries and overlooking the fact that the Bedini motor itself is only about 25% efficient in transferring the source battery energy into the target battery.
I noticed that Thane's attitude was very harsh, almost venturing into Joe Newman territory. In my opinion, he shot himself in the foot when he trashed Poynt99's comments because everybody knows that Poynt99 really knows his stuff. The worst thing that can happen on a forum is to have a master/sycophant relationship set up between a high-profile poster and the regular contributors. It's a regular phenomenon where you see blatant errors or omissions made by a poster on a video clip and nobody says anything. I think the gang here at OUR stirred up some dust on the OU forum for Thane's project and that's healthy. The last thing you want to do is become one of the "sheeple" on these forums. That term is often used to mock the masses by some of the contributors to the various forums. The place to buck the "sheeple" trend is right here. Have a healthy debate and respect people and at the same time don't be afraid to question them.
MileHigh
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.10.28, 15:45:30
@Ion
I am not sure I would agree, and we could use a smple analogy here, I have a 100 gal tank full of water which is full of metal balls having a neutral boyancy within the water. Now if I apply a force to the tank and it moves a little bit I could "hear" metallic noises from within the tank on a hyrophone from the balls randomly hitting each other. Do you think the noise from the balls would "slow" the motion of the tank? Intuitively, we would think the sound is energy so energy has been lost but we should remember the sound is a result of completely random collisions "within" the object and that motions within objects can have no net effect external to the object itself.
If you believe that the internal random sounds generated in the core can have external effects then you must also believe the process is reversable in which case I could create random sounds inside the boundary condition of what constitutes an "object" and produce net external forces. LOL, I believe that physics states catagorically that there is no motion one could produce internal to an object that will result in a net external force. So the question remains, Do you think random internal oscillations as "noise" in the core can have an external net effect on the coil or the magnet?
Regards
AC
Unfortunately, I will have to respectfully disagree as IMHO this makes a few assumptions and analogies which don't ring true to me.
Firstly
QuoteNow if I apply a force to the tank and it moves a little bit I could "hear" metallic noises from within the tank on a hyrophone from the balls randomly hitting each other. Do you think the noise from the balls would "slow" the motion of the tank?
Initially, the balls will not be randomly hitting each other, the balls will try to remain stationary, since they have mass, only to bunch up at the wall of the tank that the initial force was imparted to. They have not given up their mass just because they are buoyant.
At some point they may decay into a chaotic condition, but at that point most of their energy will have been given up into heating the liquid from frictional losses. This would be measurable as an electromagnetic wave in the far infrared region.
The a large portion of the sound of the balls hitting each other will also be converted to heat in the liquid. The hydrophone will pick up the feeble echoes of all this sound activity.
Second:
QuoteI believe that physics states catagorically that there is no motion one could produce internal to an object that will result in a net external force.
Yes this is the action-reaction principle, and holds true for objects with mass in motion and their attendant forces. Applying this to electromagnetics is a bit of a stretch. How would radio transmitters work?
QuoteDo you think random internal oscillations as "noise" in the core can have an external net effect on the coil or the magnet?
These so called "random" oscillations do not arise spontaneously, but are induced and are a reaction to the energy input. Yes, they will have an effect or you would not be able to observe them as an induction in the coil. This represents the energy stored in the domains as they snap into place after having been stretched out of their rest position. It just occurs randomly.
There is more, but all for now
BTW..Some of us would like to comment on your double pulse circuit, can you post it?
@Ion
QuoteInitially, the balls will not be randomly hitting each other, the balls will try to remain stationary, since they have mass, only to bunch up at the wall of the tank that the initial force was imparted to. They have not given up their mass just because they are buoyant.
The problem will my analogy is that it is a bit of a trick question, if the balls have "neutral boyancy" then they have mass but "weigh" nothing with respect to the water surrounding them, there relative density is equal. As such they have little reason to move anywhere when a force on the exterior of the tank results in a small motion of the tank as a whole. The most obvious reason the balls may actually hit each other would be due to internal water currents of some sort. However a change in density of the water due to acceleration of the tank as a whole would cause some of the balls to move in the same direction as the tank which is forwards not backwards.
QuoteThese so called "random" oscillations do not arise spontaneously, but are induced and are a reaction to the energy input. Yes, they will have an effect or you would not be able to observe them as an induction in the coil. This represents the energy stored in the domains as they snap into place after having been stretched out of their rest position. It just occurs randomly.
The only distinction I would make is that the oscillations are not a reaction to the energy input, the influence of the field on the core is the action or input force and the stress on the domains is the reaction. The flipping is a reaction to the reaction (stress) due to the influence of the magnetic field. For the same reason my balls in the water tank cannot react to the motion of the tank itself but only an effect of the motion. Also for the same reasons Thanes bi-toroid does not produce an "output" due to the action of the changing flux and induction it's reaction but due to an effect or reaction to the induction.
Regards
AC
This is from the Thane Heins BITT patent application, namely Mr. Bilaniuk tests. Let me know what you think. Hint: unloaded, the voltage led the current by 1.2 mS. !
What was the load, his so-called "pure" resistor?
Could you upload the patent Application if it's not too big ION?
Thanks,
.99
There was no load applied in Bilaniuk's phase measurement test and he said it was "somewhat inductive, as one would expect". Note that 1.2 mS is "mostly resistive"
Here's the patent. I also did a spreadsheet of all the data Bilaniuk recorded. He never seemed to re-check phase shift with load.
Thane computes Power Factor by using the DC resistance of the primary and primary amps to get primary power. He then ratios this against apparent power to determine Power Factor. Seems to me that DC resistance does not change with or without load.
I have posted a snapshot of the spreadsheet (forum won't take .xls) if anyone is interested, but I used the 1.2 mS per Bilaniuk to compute cosPhi, and that gives totally different power input, and around 80% efficiency or much less depending on the load.
Edit: corrected small error in spreadsheet
Thanks ION.
Forum will now take .xls attachments.
.99
Was the load a wire-wound resistor?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.10.30, 02:24:51
Was the load a wire-wound resistor?
G:
At 60 Hz, it matters not if there are a few microhenries in the load resistors, that is not what concerns me as there are far greater sources of error (3% or more) in the measuring meters.
I'm surprised no one scrutinized the patent application as there are some real problems with Bilaniuk getting 1.2 ms lagging current (leading voltage). This demonstrates the PF cannot be 0 but is more like 0.90 with no load, and the PF can only increase when a resistive load is connected to the secondaries.
That's why i put it all together in an excel file. Using his data, around 80 % to 9% efficiency is shown.
Note that Bilaniuk, a Ph.D and PE does not endorse the device, he just presents his measurements with no further comments at the end of the test in the patent app.
Chet: any comments?
This whole thing reminds me of devices like the MRA, also not OU after accurate measurements were finally taken.
Has Chava shown any interest in Thane's work? They went to Turkey for Kapanadze. Surely a flight to Canada is no problem.
So Chava has nothing and is sending out scouts? Sounds typical.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.10.30, 14:57:04
This whole thing reminds me of devices like the MRA, also not OU after accurate measurements were finally taken.
Has Chava shown any interest in Thane's work? They went to Turkey for Kapanadze. Surely a flight to Canada is no problem.
Considering the beating that I took from Thane on OU, I am going to make a few frank comments.
The flux sensor coils are picking up the changing magnetic flux going through the cores. The sensor coils output a sine wave as long as the core does not get saturated. That means that the actual flux is a cosine wave. The two will be directly proportional to each other so the voltage readings on the multimeters will show legit data. How Thane could twist that into, "RED FLAG: KNOWING HOW A VOLTMETER WORKS AND HOW TO READ A VOLTMETER IS ELECTRICITY 101. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO DO THIS SHOULD LEARN." is absolutely ridiculous.
Then after I mentioned using flux sensor coils like magic Thane made a clip using flux sensor coils. In that clip when both of the secondaries are loaded evenly the voltage reading for the "OuterO" a.k.a. "S0" flux sensor coil is 0.008 volts. I am going to assume that all three flux sensor coils had the same number of turns where the primary flux sensor coil was 0.693 volts and the "S1" flux sensor coil was 0.330 volts. Those much higher voltages indicate that some flux is indeed flowing through those pathways.
Note that when both coils are evenly loaded the "S0" voltage is 0.008 volts, and when both coils are unloaded the "S0" voltage is also 0.008 volts. That's proof right there that nothing is happening in the "OuterO" core. The 0.008 volts AC is pretty much background noise and not much more than that.
I said I was going to be frank, this whole experiment is a waste of time. Thane set up an outer flux ring that does nothing. All that you had to do was look at what is going on in the outer flux ring with standard magnetic induction principles. You could confirm the self-cancellation without even having to energize the setup with AC.
You can do a simple experiment by briefly connecting a 12-volt battery to the primary coil and scoping the flux sensor coil output of the "OuterO ring, (the "S0" coil). You should see something like the following:
If the left secondary coil was driving a load and the right secondary coil was open circuit you would see a brief positive spike in the S0 sensor coil when you make the contact.
If the right secondary coil was driving a load and the left secondary coil was open circuit you would see a brief negative spike in the S0 sensor coil when you make the contact
When both both secondary coils were driving a load you wouldn't see a spike on the S0 sensor coil because the positive and negative spikes would cancel each other out.
The painful truth is that I don't get a sense that Thane really and truly knows what he is doing. Just looking at his last few clips you can feel that he is hesitant, and not confident. I am fully aware that when you make a video clip it is very hard to manage making the clip, pointing the camera in the right place, and talking and also thinking of what you are going to say next and so on. Factoring all of that in, I still don't get the sense that Thane is on top of his game. He is chasing after a pipe dream, it's a mirage.
The notion that you can make a load look purely reactive and yet like magic still extract real power from the AC mains power source is crazy. You can't fool around with magnetic core configurations and pipe flux around from point A to point B and expect to have a net gain in energy, it's ridiculous. If you disagree with me then show me something on paper. Any person that is skilled in magnetic induction should be able to produce a timing diagram that explains how their magic transformer works before they build it. Then they could build it and make measurements to confirm their paper design.
So I suppose we can expect an ongoing series of clips will be done investigating this architecture further. I also noticed that there are some replicators on OU. None of it is going to amount to anything.
MileHigh
I can't resist commenting on this:
QuoteWHEN THE SCIENTIFIC COMUNITY FINALLY GETS THEIR HEADS OUT OF THEIR BUTTS THEY WILL REALIZE THAT EVERY SINGLE WIRE THAT CONDUCTS ELECTRICITY IS VIOLATING THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY BY "CREATING" NEW ENERGY IN THE FORM OF A MAGNETIC FIELD AROUND THE WIRE.
THE ENERGY CONTAINED IN THE ELECTRICITY FLOWING IN A WIRE HAS TWO COMPONENTS, 1) THE ELECTRIC POTENTIAL ENERGY AND 2) THE MAGNETIC POTENTIAL ENERGY. BRAIN WASHED CONVENTIONAL SCIENTISTS ONLY ACCOUNT FOR THE ELECTRICAL ENERGY AND DON'T EVEN CONSIDER THE MAGNETIC POTENTIAL ENERGY OR HOW IT IS MAGICALLY CREATED!
THIS MAGNETIC FIELD AS WE ALL KNOW IS THE BASIS FOR LENZ'S LAW OR HOW NEWTON'S THIRD LAW IS MANIFESTED IN AN ELECTRICAL ENERGY SYSTEM WHICH SATISFIES THE BRAIN BLIND CONVENTIONAL SCIENTIST'S EXCUSE FOR NOT THINKING UNLESS THE ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC ENERGY POTENTIALS ARE LOOKED AT FROM A PURELY NON-DIRECTIONAL VIEW - JUST AS PURE ENERGY POTENTIAL.
IF WE DID WE WOULD SEE THAT A MAGIC MAGNET FIELD ENERGY IS "CREATED" WHEN ELECTRICAL ENERGY FLOWS IN A CONDUCTOR AND THE MAGNETIC POTENTIAL ENERGY IS EQUAL TO THE ELECTRIC POTENTIAL ENERGY (WHICH IS THE ONLY ENERGY WE "DARE TO" MEASURE).
THE SENSOR COILS ON THE BiTT PROVE THE ABOVE HERE IS WHY.
- The magnetic field around a wire is not magically "created" and this certainly does not violate the conservation of energy. The wire has inductance and you have to expend energy to create the magnetic field.
- To say "THE ENERGY CONTAINED IN THE ELECTRICITY FLOWING IN A WIRE" is really awkward and obtuse and doesn't really make any sense. Scientists fully account for the electrical and magnetic energy and again, the magnetic potential energy is NOT "magically created."
- I am not sure what "pure energy potential" really means and I will leave it at that.
- In the fourth paragraph Thane again discusses current flowing through a conductor and magnetic and electrical potential energy of the wire? I am not really sure.
Anyway, I am going to withdraw from this thread also, it's too crazy. Thane is in a "leadership" position and as a result is subject to some increased scrutiny. I have seen enough. My impression is that Thane is not very knowledgeable in the fields of electronics and electromagnetics and is just winging it as he goes along.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.30, 16:54:44
Anyway, I am going to withdraw from this thread also, it's too crazy. Thane is in a "leadership" position and as a result is subject to some increased scrutiny. I have seen enough. My impression is that Thane is not very knowledgeable in the fields of electronics and electromagnetics and is just winging it as he goes along.
MileHigh
I agree with your take on Thane's expertise. Where is his transformer model? This is the language of engineering, and he should have put together more than just a sketch by now. I also am kind of disappointed that no one made a reasonable comment on the excel file I put together based on the patent application. I raised a number of interesting points that I thought would be worthy of comment, but I guess not. Too much work, too little feedback. Guess it's back to the batcave for a bit, I'll leave this alone.
haven't had time to look at the Excel file - comments later:
just finished welding a fireplace heater (pipes in the fireplace connected to a manifold with fans in it) - firescreen with doors to finish it off.
still got to bend four of the pipe section (sch 40, 1 inch - little heat and a cheater pipe slipped over the end. The back of my fireplace angels-in (it's "80 years old style" - tall so you get a lot of fame).
Had a fireplace insert since I moved in, but it didn't get the job done at about 30k btu's. This baby will get me about twice that. lost a lot of space with the insert too, and can now use regular length firewood without cutting the ends off.
Arthur C. Clarke's three "laws" of prediction:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.10.31, 05:00:00
Arthur C. Clarke's three "laws" of prediction:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
We also have the following observations which put his claims into question. To date:
1) Thane has not shown any reliable measurements
2) Thane has not demonstrated a closed-loop self-runner
3) Thane has not diagrammed his
test setups (i.e. probe locations, shunts, input sources etc.)
4) Thane is working only with milliwatts of input and output power (and is "in the noise" and limits of his test equipment)
5) Thane's test equipment and it's use is questionable
6) Thane rejects suggestions to verify his measurements with other methods and test equipment
7) Thane has not pointed to a single third-party replication of his results
8] Thane has not been able to provide third-party verification and endorsement of his own results
and I am most certain others could add a number of additional points to the above.
.99
Have any of you "AC Men" looked at the spreadsheet Ion posted of the data from the patent application?
Perhaps someone could also look at pages 11 and 12 of the app where Thane calculates output power is more than input power.
Geez I feel like this thread is becoming something like in StarTrek when those aliens would bet Qualuds on which warrior is going to win the fight. All bets are against Thane because he did not do this or that. What one seems to forget is that his current build, the BITT is relatively new to the scene and of course at this initial stage, there can be many theories flying around on its function, its usefulness and how the effects inter-relate.
The only way we will be able to find out more about it is if we stick with Thane and encourage him to look deeper. No point in throwing stones at the guy. He in fact did one hell of a build with the BITT. I don't have one in hand. Do you? I can't even fathom being able to build one myself. Can any of you? So please, please, understand that this is an evolutionary process and in time, the true observations will be discovered one at a time and the end results will also take their own shape. You have to look at the long term.
The patented device is just that. A patent. Big deal. Anyone can get a patent on anything seemingly new in design. It does not mean it is fully understand at the time of patenting. When he patented the first transformer he put forth what he had at that time. What more could he have done at that point?
But being able to move flux around a core and understanding the movements, (OK I call it movement to keep the process simple but I have other ideas on what it actually is but it is not important now) is the main thing for me. Seeing this in his device will help me see it in any of my own future devices because there is a way of seeing the core effects.
My real interest now is to find out how he came up with those percentages in his second to last post. Yes, taking his four test results I tabled, one can calculate percentage increases but is that really the point. Maybe just to show those increases relative to the previous condition.
Still, lighting that bulb the way he did is rather incredible given the way the primary core is only lying on the inner core and not aligned with it from center core to center core. So I can only image the output potential once (or if ever) that core is aligned, but then again, with an aligned core, will the primary then consume more input juice since the primary coil will be ale to move more of the flux hence not reach a fast saturation point. Don't know. But Thane has all the elements in place to do some really nice further investigations.
So give the guy some credit.
First point: Thane uses parts of Bilaniuk's test results (voltage and current measurements) and labels them into his drawings.
Then he ignores Bilaniuk's Power Factor measurements and inserts his own. Bilaniuk's Power Factor measurement was 0.9 based on 1.2 mS voltage leading current or 25.9 degrees. This makes it 28.8% inductive and 71.2% resistive.
BTW, Thane's power power factor calculations are almost unintelligible on the left side of the page.
The spreadsheet I posted take Bilaniuk's measurements
in their entirety as they were referenced in the patent application. That was the point of the spreadsheet, which was missed.
It shows that the power transfer efficiency is less than 100% in all cases based on his authority (Bilaniuk) that did the testing.
author=wattsup link=topic=261.msg6194#msg6194 date=1288540095]
QuoteThe patented device is just that. A patent. Big deal. Anyone can get a patent on anything seemingly new in design.
As far as I know, this is a patent application, and a rather poor one at that. Except for the initial statement that the transformer can deliver in excess of 100% power transfer efficiency, there are few other claims.
author=wattsup link=topic=261.msg6194#msg6194 date=1288540095]
QuoteStill, lighting that bulb the way he did is rather incredible given the way the primary core is only lying on the inner core and not aligned with it from center core to center core. So I can only image the output potential once (or if ever) that core is aligned, but then again, with an aligned core, will the primary then consume more input juice since the primary coil will be ale to move more of the flux hence not reach a fast saturation point. Don't know. But Thane has all the elements in place to do some really nice further investigations.
Sorry that you are impressed with lighting a small bulb without knowing or even questioning how much input power is required to light that bulb.
This transformer has a very poor coupling coefficient, that speaks volumes.
@Poynt99
I would agree completely but the great part about all of this is that what we think has absolutely no bearing on what Thane is doing in reality in fact we could think anything we want about anything but this is not fact it is opinion. As well I think most have assumed this is like a conventional transformer but that is not what it is, this is a continuation of the work he has done with his motor system and if you did not understand what he was trying to do there you will definately not understand this. Personally I find the dynamics here really neat and perspective plays a large role where we have many people doing actual work in the field while others speculate about what must be happening. It is almost impossible to explain because most everyone here are like spectators at a football game, you are up in the bleachers and see the players and the "game" below but have no idea "why" the players do what they do and in many cases how they do it. Now consider the other perspective, I am on the field and know the other players and I know their game as we are in it together and have the same goals. We also see each other on the field and sometimes wonder what everyone in the bleachers could be thinking just as they wonder about us but there is a complete disconnect between us as they are spectators, they are not and never were in the game. Now do you think the football players on the field care what the spectators think of their game? I do not think so as the players goal is not to wonder what others think of them or their game, they have a single minded ambition and that is to win and the battle is as much with themselves as the game itself.
Personally I love this game, this field of technology, because it is an absolute rush when I get to do something that is tangible that I and most everyone else thought was impossible a week ago,lol. As well it was never the fact that I found success in anything, that is not the point, it is the fact that taking one step forward will put me in a better position to take another step forward and the faster I step the more I evolve my understanding of things. In this game it is not how many rules you know or understand it is your ability to bend the rules and seek there limitations to find success and understanding that matters. If I had to give any advice to anyone I would say, forget the rules and do your own thing in your own time, do what makes sense to you personally, be determined and follow through because most often success is found in that brief moment just before your about to give up, focus on the fundamental problem and not other effects created by other problems, love what you do.
Regards
AC
The "fact" that Thane's work is "questionable" is a "fact" and not "opinion".
Reconfiguration of a core does not "negate" transformer theory or principles of operation. Magnetic fields do not suddenly start to flow in both directions (barring eddy currents) and "add". Cycles do not become suddenly become cumulative.
Wattsup:
QuoteI have other ideas on what it actually is but it is not important now
Why don't you try "going classical?" There is no need for magnetism to have an aura of mysticism surrounding it.
I think of when I recently checked out the Bedini stuff online. Rick Friedrich claims that "a Bedini motor is outside of conventional electronics understanding" and it's possible that he actually believes what he is saying. The truth is that he barely knows what his is doing, and he doesn't understand how a Bedini motor works. So you are looking at a case of the blind leading the blind. In an indirect way, I find that very frustrating.
I am getting the same feeling about Thane. I know that's harsh but I have a rhetorical question for you to think about. I'll use myself as an example. I read about cars and automotive maintenance in the 1970s, but I have almost no experience as a mechanic. So here we are in 2010. Supposing someone put a 2010 high-end 600 HP Mercedes-Benz sedan in front of me and asked me to overhaul the engine. Just because I know how to use some tools and I know what a torque wrench is, doesn't mean I could overhaul that engine. I would open the hood and see a motor covered with a huge network of hoses and devices. If I was lucky, I would be able to identify a few of the hoses and devices under the hood, but that's it. There is no way that I would be able to overhaul that engine and I would freely admit that fact.
The same thing applies to the electronics field and everything that encompasses. I don't know why people like Rick or Thane think that they can just plunge into working with electronics circuits when their level of knowledge and experience is a parallel to my knowledge of overhauling a 2010 Mercedes-Benz engine.
If you were a professional mechanic you would know in about three minutes that I had no clue what to do with that engine. You would easily see that I didn't even know how to properly express myself as a mechanic after listening to my first 10 sentences. If you saw me plunge into the engine overhaul anyways, you would know that I wouldn't stand a chance of doing the job.
Now just shift perspectives and now you understand how I view Rick and Thane.
Sorry, but that's how I see it.
Going back to his strange transformer setup. There is nothing to guess about with respect to how it works and what it does. It could be put on the bench and analyzed inside-out, just like a Bedini motor could be analyzed inside-out. If you came across something that you weren't expecting, then further analysis would explain it, and the explanation would be conventional. To merge the two analogies, Thane is just spinning his wheels.
MileHigh
AC:
Quotedo what makes sense to you personally, be determined and follow through because most often success is found in that brief moment just before your about to give up
This is the fourth request to see your inductor circuit that does the double-pulses. Can you post it and show us your data?
MileHigh
@MH
I don't know why you keep insisting that @AC put something up. I think as a grown adult, he will know if this is appropriate or not. Asking guys to pull out stuff from their boondocks is rather unsavory. We may as well all shut up and go home if everything we stipulate has to be then supported with some old build (or whatever is left of it) that has to be dusted off and re-deployed, and for the person doing it may think it is another waste of time and energy.
As for your statement ""Why don't you try "going classical?" There is no need for magnetism to have an aura of mysticism surrounding it.""
Man, there is a whole load of mysticism already surrounding the classical method. I don't need to add to that. Question: You see all the skepticism deployed to OU devices. So why not use that same level of skepticism to the classical. After all, even the classical is discussing effects and giving explanations with rather arrogant certitude. You just have to got to EE 101 and it smacks you in the face right away. Seems like EE preaching with students asked to just "believe it - have faith", look the measurement cannot lie, ha, ha, but does it show what you think it shows?
@ION
If Thane realized that his patent method was the way to go, he would not have built his BITT. I suggest you just put that aside for now. A patent is only a patent and means nothing until a device is made and working. His patent shows some general principles of what he is doing today at a more extended level. People move on. This may be a good thing to do also. I would rather dwell on the present with the guy being alive and here, then to waste this present time on past works. There is no point to that. Let's just deal with what is at the present in front of us and try to learn from that.
Quote from: wattsup on 2010.10.31, 15:48:15
So give the guy some credit.
He does deserve some credit. To his credit he doesn't seem to give up, has been at this for a long time, reportedly gave up quite a bit to do the work, and more?
The best way I can add to his work is to limit my opinions of what I've seen.
ION,
Yes, your spreadsheet points are obvious to me - after 4 hours of sleep in the last three days due to work and waiting hours in an emergency room (more than once).
Life kind of continues past you regardless of your problems. Doesn't it?
Wattsup:
I asked for a second and last time and others have asked also. AC's claim is that classical electronics theory is full of holes and exceptions. He claims that he did a simple experiment that demonstrates a non-standard inductor behaviour. So the desire is to investigate this to try to get to the truth of the matter. That would be a worthwhile exercise.
QuoteSeems like EE preaching with students asked to just "believe it - have faith", look the measurement cannot lie, ha, ha, but does it show what you think it shows?
You are completely wrong here. Just about everything that you learn is taught from scratch, there is a logical basis for everything. Simpler things build up upon each other so that the advanced topics sit on top of the simpler building blocks.
If I say to you an inductor is like a spring and a transformer is like a transmission does that analogy make sense to you? I don't want to put words in your mouth but for the sake of argument, let's say that it doesn't make any sense to you. You look at a spring and you know intuitively that a spring is not a source of energy. Then you look at an inductor and perhaps you think that there is a possibility that it can be a source of free energy or harvest existing energy from some unknown source. Well, then let's suppose that you do come to see how an inductor is exactly like a spring. If you know a spring is not a source of free energy then it can become clearer how an inductor is not a source of free energy.
Anyway, there is room for healthy debate around here. I don't ascribe to the thought process that says let every idea be proposed and give the author of that idea free reign and a wide latitude. If you have an idea, great, but you have to be prepared to debate that idea and be challenged. The desire is to separate the seed from the chaff.
MileHigh
AC is not responding to the requests to see his setup and waveforms for his inductive discharge test. Let's review what he said:
QuoteNow let's consider "normal operation", we close a switch to charge an inductance with current, we see a voltage rise on our oscilloscope connected across the inductance which then levels off indicating the current has stabilized, we open the switch and see a voltage spike (an inductive discharge) proportional to the resistance to the discharge. This is normal operation which is equivalent in a mechanical sense to a water ram pump, we have increased voltage at the expense of current and the energy remains constant.
Now let's consider abnormal operation that is what you do not know, if we consider that the current input to the inductance is solely responsible for the inductive discharge or voltage spike then they must always be proportional to one another and there can be no exceptions but this is not the case. I built many circuits to specifically test one exception to the rule whereby I could produce an inductive discharge, a voltage spike, on both the "make" and "break" of the circuit switch.
Both inductive discharges (two) would induced a voltage in nearby coils and would also be indicated on all measuring devices. Now if the inductive discharge is solely a product of the disruption of a current already established in an inductance then how can I produce another inductive discharge before any current whatsoever has started to flow in the same inductance? It should be noted that both inductive discharges were in fact equal in every sense of the word which still leaves us with this nagging question of how an inductive discharge can occur "before" a current has been established, in fact before any current of any sort is flowing in the inductance? Now if as many believe, the input must be equal to the output then why do I get two equal outputs from only one input?
I cannot comment directly on AC's experiment. However, let me just outline a possible scenario for how you could observe what appears to be two inductive discharges.
Most people have probably seen standard bench power supplies that have a 10-turn knob for the voltage and a 10-turn knob for the current. They typically have voltage and current meter displays also. It's somewhat mysterious to see the two knobs on these types of power supplies. The reason for this is that you can operate these power supplies as a voltage source (current turned up to max and variable voltage adjustment - low output impedance) or as a current source (voltage turned up to the max and variable current adjustment - high output impedance).
Now if you loose track of where the current and voltage adjustment knobs are then the bench power supply might fall somewhere between a current source and a voltage source. In other words it's output impedance will be somewhere between low and high.
Under these conditions when you connect the bench power supply to an inductor you will see a voltage spike when you connect up the coil and a voltage spike when you disconnect the coil. The first voltage spike would be associated with the inductor energizing and the second voltage spike would be associated with the inductor de-energizing.
This is what AC described seeing in his test. This would be normal behaviour for the inductor.
MileHigh
@milehigh
QuoteUnder these conditions when you connect the bench power supply to an inductor you will see a voltage spike when you connect up the coil and a voltage spike when you disconnect the coil. The first voltage spike would be associated with the inductor energizing and the second voltage spike would be associated with the inductor de-energizing.
This is what AC described seeing in his test. This would be normal behaviour for the inductor.
That is a good example of why I do not use power supplies, I have made a few mind you but I would never trust one as far as I could throw it. As well they are unreliable, I remember when running one circuit at relatively low voltages and I could hear loud and quite sharp cracking noises eminating from within my oscilloscope but my scope leads were not connected to anything and were about two feet away from the circuit, now imagine what this would do to a power supply connected to the circuit. If you want to run conventional circuits at low power levels I imagine they would be fine but I never found these kinds of circuits all that interesting, my research is mainly Tesla disruptive circuits.
Regards
AC
HHMMmmm.........
If this was a game of Chess,
That would be CHECK!!
Chet
Chet:
It's not a game of chess. The question of AC's reported experiment remains unresolved and that how it will likely remain. AC's comments had nothing to do with his experiment.
AC:
I am mystified by your tangential comments. Going back to your inductor experiment, in all likelihood your reported anomaly was due to a simple oversight or some misunderstanding.
You and Grumpy have commented many times on all of the irregularities associated with EM theory. It's my firm belief that if they could be examined on a case by case basis they could all be explained with conventional EM theory. EM theory is very solid and it's what makes the world go round.
Keep in mind that we are all still looking for free energy. Every now and again the question is posed on the forums in a straight and direct manner. For all of the talk and the playing and doodling with electronics and motors, when push comes to shove not a single person on all three forums has even come close to the point where they could make an LED light up for a fraction of a second with a free energy device.
Not a single joule of free energy has ever been created yet despite the hundreds of man-years of experimentation that has been done by all of the forum participants.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.03, 03:26:45
Chet:
Not a single joule of free energy has ever been created yet despite the hundreds of man-years of experimentation that has been done by all of the forum participants.
MileHigh
I have to totally agree, despite all the rhetoric and religious faith on forums.
I have voiced this same observation in the past, only to be tarred and feathered for this viewpoint.
But this point of view came with a price of 30 years intensively researching the field, and retiring early from a rather lucrative engineering position to further pursue the tale of the elusive "Holy Grail" of physics, so I have paid some dues in this regard.
I am further annoyed by those who are so ready to trash the foundations and whole body of electrical engineering and all the work done by all the brilliant scientist that have made the physics breakthroughs over the last 100 years or so.
Yet they type their trash remarks on computers and wireless networks not possible without these breakthroughs.
All the while glorifying Tesla as the only true god of electrical energy. Nevermind a thousand others that could be named....Stienmetz, Farnsworth, Blumlein, DuMont, Faraday, Josephson, Osaki, Zener, Oersted, Ohm, and on and on.....
Alternate energy sources will probably be built upon the body of existing engineering and scientific knowledge, coupled with a few new insights into the workings of matter and energy.
The views of those who would trash existing engineering is most likely a knee jerk psychological reaction, based upon a real lack of understanding of said subject. The "Lone wolf" or "Lone Inventor" syndrome, typified by a person who is going to "Save the world" with his little coil and flashing LED, coupled with very little practical engineering education. That's what I observe in a nutshell on forums.
Then there are the sideline cheerleaders, all too ready with bucket of tar and brush ready to pick apart any really grounded engineering facts with obtuse argument.
I am interested in AC's inductor claims because I did a lot of research in this area and can explain what may be happening in simple engineering principles, no mystique. But since AC has not been forthcoming with simple schematic , test procedure or explanation, this subject will fade away, and AC and others will be able to drop more non-provable rhetoric onto the forum.
End of Rant
Stop!!
You Know we don't know everything about everything!
Being here at this time in our planets history, specifically when the bonds of language are being lifted[the internet]
I would have to say You fellows [and one Gal] are some very intuitive Peeps!!
And when you see it!! you Guys will know!!
Not wasted life Bud!!
You Just Know!!
Its only the begining!!
We don't know it all.
I hope we never do!!
You guys are just Great people!!
Chet
I have not trashed the "foundation" of electromagnetics or electrodynamics or physics. I happen to dissagree with particular portions of each.
Tesla was a great man, but I never put him on the pedastal of a GOD. I also have never agreed with his approach to electrical transmission. Why send it from palce to place when it is already there? there are many other scientist that were equally or more important to modern technology than Tesla. For example, Roentgen is only remembered for "X-rays", but he did far more important work. Henry is almost forgotten. Eichenwald, Wilson, Rowland, and Nipher are mostly forgotten.
EM anomolies:
1. Peter has documented his "explosion" sounds from his coil. Explain this if you can. This is documented on his bench.
2. Joseph Henry performed an experiment that showed that electrical energy flows equally from each side fo the circuit to the middle of the circuit. I'll find this and post it. I would appreciate an explanation of why this occurs.
3. The TPU remains unexplained and I have not heard a good argument concerning how it could have been faked.
more later...
Chet:
It would be nice if we found free energy but it hasn't been done yet. In all likelihood it will never happen. At the same time legitimate and conventional renewable and alternative energy systems will become more and more important as time goes on. Perhaps one day parts of the US Midwest will become a giant solar array that supplies power to the rest of the country.
We might not know it all but we know much more than the typical free energy experimenter knows or can possibly conceive of. For all of the Tesla worship that you read about, I am willing to bet that the average free energy experimenter does not realize that everything that Tesla did was 100% conventional. All of his work with coils and radio transmission is fully explainable with conventional EM theory and he did nothing out of the ordinary.
One can always hope for a breakthrough, you never know.
MileHigh
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.03, 13:55:10
Tesla was a great man, but I never put him on the pedastal of a GOD. I also have never agreed with his approach to electrical transmission. Why send it from palce to place when it is already there?
EM anomolies:
1. Peter has documented his "explosion" sounds from his coil. Explain this if you can. This is documented on his bench.
2. Joseph Henry performed an experiment that showed that electrical energy flows equally from each side fo the circuit to the middle of the circuit. I'll find this and post it. I would appreciate an explanation of why this occurs.
3. The TPU remains unexplained and I have not heard a good argument concerning how it could have been faked.
more later...
Grumpy:
What do you mean when you say "it is already there?" Electrical transmission is needed to move power from point A where it is produced to point B where it is needed. You don't agree with Tesla's approach to electrical transmission using alternating current? Why is that?
For your EM anomalies:
1. I didn't follow that thread. What I can say is that two wires carrying current will experience a mechanical force between them. Was everyone in the thread aware of that? That's why transformers hum. So hearing sounds emanating from an excited coil doesn't surprise me.
2. Looking forward to your posting.
3. I don't really follow any TPU threads. I can only speculate that it's based on some sort of a misunderstanding. I have said it before, there is no way that you can get excess energy from any kind of transformer configuration. The request was put out to Thane to make a timing diagram for his device and the same request could apply to any TPU device. Either develop a design on paper including a timing diagram or make measurements on your device to produce a timing diagram that shows precisely when and how excess energy is produced. You never see this kind of information and it's frustrating.
MileHigh
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.03, 13:55:10
I have not trashed the "foundation" of electromagnetics or electrodynamics or physics. I happen to dissagree with particular portions of each.
Tesla was a great man, but I never put him on the pedastal of a GOD. I also have never agreed with his approach to electrical transmission. Why send it from palce to place when it is already there? there are many other scientist that were equally or more important to modern technology than Tesla. For example, Roentgen is only remembered for "X-rays", but he did far more important work. Henry is almost forgotten. Eichenwald, Wilson, Rowland, and Nipher are mostly forgotten.
EM anomolies:
1. Peter has documented his "explosion" sounds from his coil. Explain this if you can. This is documented on his bench.
2. Joseph Henry performed an experiment that showed that electrical energy flows equally from each side fo the circuit to the middle of the circuit. I'll find this and post it. I would appreciate an explanation of why this occurs.
3. The TPU remains unexplained and I have not heard a good argument concerning how it could have been faked.
more later...
Grumpy:
I hope you did not take my rant personally, it was not aimed at you, rather a generalization of the FE archetypes.
Of the three points you mentioned, they are certainly worthy of further exploration.
Of all the devices I have studied, the TPU remains the largest enigma. To date, no one has been able to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the LTPU (SM17) could be faked (at least to my satisfaction. Faking the smaller devices was dead simple if it occurred at all.
The TPU was the singular device that jarred my questioning mind which had gone to a state of apathy from the endless stream of nonsense issuing from the FE community.
I agree with MH, that no arrangement of transformers or coils alone can produce an overunity condition, with one exception, namely if that arrangement can pull energy from "somewhere else".
But this is not the claim of the BITT, rather Thane claims that it "will force us to rewrite the laws of electromagnetics as we know them". I rather doubt that claim, as I have heard that exact rhetoric regarding Joe Newman and his device 25 years ago. Where is it today?
We have been given a possible clue as to the "somewhere else" regarding energy input of the TPU, but seem to forget it. Hint: A device which if tuned too closely to optimum would result in a possible lightning discharge.
Consider the amount of charge in the earth / ionosphere "capacitor". This is
constantly replenished by the sun and represents
half a million coulombs.
MH:
I am in nearly complete agreement with most of your observations and comments. I am disappointed that you will not consider a discussion of one singular enigmatic device, namely the LTPU (SM17)
I would be grateful for you to review the videos and to entertain a gentlemans debate as to how the LTPU might have been faked in the videos. Not the smaller devices, which could easily have been faked. Possibly in another thread.
Ion:
If you can give me some links for the LTPU (SM17) I will try to look. Sorry I don't mean to be lazy but I get the feeling that there are many TPU variations, so I am not sure where to look.
Thanks,
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.03, 15:17:03
Ion:
If you can give me some links for the LTPU (SM17) I will try to look. Sorry I don't mean to be lazy but I get the feeling that there are many TPU variations, so I am not sure where to look.
Thanks,
MileHigh
Thank you for agreeing to take a look. I will post a few of the better clips here, but they are by no means the best. Anyone who can help out, feel free. There are some better quality clips out there, but do not confuse a lot of the TPU nonsense stuff on Youtube as it is not related.
for starters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq1lhuBFmDI
Also look into the life of Dr. Roland Schinzinger and the tests he ran at his lab at UCI. I will try to supply them.
This video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHswoNpc0Tk&feature=related demonstrates no OU effects in that no power output is shown, only 25 watts claimed so it is proof of nothing. It is however an early device worthy of note. From the inventor's demeanor, one cannot detect any hint of "hucksterism".
Thanks again MH
POYNT: perhaps all this should be moved to a new thread e.g LTPU: Was It Real
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.03, 14:20:29
Grumpy:
What do you mean when you say "it is already there?" Electrical transmission is needed to move power from point A where it is produced to point B where it is needed. You don't agree with Tesla's approach to electrical transmission using alternating current? Why is that?
For your EM anomalies:
1. I didn't follow that thread. What I can say is that two wires carrying current will experience a mechanical force between them. Was everyone in the thread aware of that? That's why transformers hum. So hearing sounds emanating from an excited coil doesn't surprise me.
2. Looking forward to your posting.
3. I don't really follow any TPU threads. I can only speculate that it's based on some sort of a misunderstanding. I have said it before, there is no way that you can get excess energy from any kind of transformer configuration. The request was put out to Thane to make a timing diagram for his device and the same request could apply to any TPU device. Either develop a design on paper including a timing diagram or make measurements on your device to produce a timing diagram that shows precisely when and how excess energy is produced. You never see this kind of information and it's frustrating.
MileHigh
(Sorry for the long reply.)I agree with the AC approach, but no the "transmission throught natural media" using a transmitter and reciever approach.
The "energy" can be viewed as being in the space around us as well as within the conductor we wish to induce EMF in. In the case of the conductor, the "energy" is already there: the ions/electrons and other constiuents that make up the mass of the conductor. However, this is "potential" energy and not "kinetic". If we could find a way to make the ions/electrons move, then we have electricity in the conductor.
If you are familiar with Physicist Paul Dirac, then you know he postulated the existence of a sea of virtual particles which makes up the vacuum, or space throughout the universe. These are not all that interesting since they pop in and back out of existence and it takes a lot of energy to convert them into physical pairs (see pair production). They were termed to be "virtual" so as not to violate energy conservation. However, virtual or not, these particles "spin" and have spin angular momentum.
If you could find a way to couple the "spin" of the virtual particles to the ions/electrons, you may be able to get them to move in an orderly fashion. Harold Aspden proposed a way to do this that involved impulse charging a concentric capacitor. It had to be concentric or the aether would not rotate as an aggregate. His analysis showed that 100kW could potentially be obtained from a capacitor of a few pF. This is similar to the Roentgen Current experiments, is the basis of my next Kapanadze replication attempt, and I believe involved in the operation of the TPU.
1. This isn't an ordinary sound from a coil. Listen to Peter's videos. I had much louder explosion, but have not been able to reproduce the effect.
2. Correction. It was Wheatstone not Henry. See attached: Wheatstone_3-gap_Experiment.PNG
3. The TPU is not a transformer of any form. This was expressed explicitly by the inventer, Steven Mark. He said it is a "conversion device". "Spherics" came forward and presented an explanation of how the TPU works and offered other designs.
Ion:
In the first clip with the long table, I don't think that you ever see under the table. Perhaps some small-gauge high-voltage wires are routed to the table that can't be picked up by the camera. Underneath the table there is a step-down transformer. Then power is routed to the device and the light bulbs with flat wires passing through the seams between the leaves of the table. Alternatively, a few 12-volt lead-acid batteries and a simple buck-boost transformer could have been hidden underneath the table, and the power routed to the light bulbs like that. Note the video quality is VHS and I think the Steven Mark clips are from the early Nineties.
For me a big clue that it is fake is when he mentions that it's hard to get very high voltage batteries to light the light bulbs. You simply don't need high voltage batteries.
For the second clip, you can't help but notice that the device is sitting on top of a big piece of equipment. There could be a coil hidden inside that piece of equipment to create an AC magnetic field that is picked up by the device. The magnet trick could be done by someone flipping a switch off-camera to switch the hidden coil on and off.
For each clip I could easily rattle off a list of a dozen or more points illustrating how they can be faked. I just don't believe in anything associated with Steven Mark from what I have seen.
I haven't had a chance to look at the documents yet.
MileHigh
Grumpy:
The Tesla bit about broadcasting power throughout the world so people could hang antennas on the roofs of their houses is pure mythology that has taken on a life of its own. So I fully agree with you there.
There are three questions that you can ask any rabid Tesla fanatic about that: 1) Where do you get all of the power to pump into the tower? Do you have 500 oil and coal and nuke electrical generating super-plants in the vicinity to supply power to the tower in the first place? 2) What about the fact that the vast majority of the power will not be picked up by the antennas? What about efficiency? 3) What about the environmental effects and do you think that people will want to live their lives permanently bathed in some form of strong EM radiation from the tower?
The whole idea is completely and utterly ridiculous. From what I gather Tesla wanted to use the tower for telecommunications purposes, not to power the world.
For the sound coming from the coil, I can't say much more. You are subjectively saying that the sound is "not ordinary." What makes a sound "ordinary" vs. "not ordinary?" I will keep assuming that you are getting speaker-like effects from the coil just like the Rodin coil enthusiasts point out.
You talk about the Dirac sea of particles. I haven't read about it in detail myself, but over the years I have picked up on the concept while watching PBS documentaries on experimental physics and stuff like that. I don't know anything about Harold Aspen except to ask the perennial question about his device and why isn't it being used to produce free energy right now as we speak. You don't have to answer!
When you and others talk aether I don't get it. I am under the impression that it can't be measured but rather only speculated about. When the day comes that someone can point to something tangible about aether I will be listening.
I have heard the term "spherics" a few times before but have never heard the term used outside of the free energy realm.
For the Henry experiment, it's not too clear for me from the description. You have to remember that the document is from the 19th century, before they understood characteristic impedance and transmission lines.
Anyway Grumpy I am not looking for a fight here, I am just telling you what I feel.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.03, 17:43:57
For the sound coming from the coil, I can't say much more. You are subjectively saying that the sound is "not ordinary." What makes a sound "ordinary" vs. "not ordinary?" I will keep assuming that you are getting speaker-like effects from the coil just like the Rodin coil enthusiasts point out.
You talk about the Dirac sea of particles. I haven't read about it in detail myself, but over the years I have picked up on the concept while watching PBS documentaries on experimental physics and stuff like that. I don't know anything about Harold Aspen except to ask the perennial question about his device and why isn't it being used to produce free energy right now as we speak. You don't have to answer!
When you and others talk aether I don't get it. I am under the impression that it can't be measured but rather only speculated about. When the day comes that someone can point to something tangible about aether I will be listening.
I used a 10kv pulser when I had my "explosion sounds". They were deafening. Like a rifle crack. No flash and nothing moved - weird....
Aspden's device was conceptual, may have been incomplete, he had a stroke. As far as I know, no one has actually tried to build it. The basic design is a tube within a tube, and you apply a pulse of a set voltage, then see if you get more voltage out than you applied. His analysis says you will and he explains why. I have encountered some strange overcharging effects with coax delay lines on my pulsers, but I had not explored them as they are just a curiosity. Charging a capacitor with double the energy that you supply would be nice, but we need a lot more gain than that to replace oil. 2 x 0 is still 0.
Aether has been detected and measured. I'll find the reference.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.03, 17:05:23
Ion:
In the first clip with the long table, I don't think that you ever see under the table. Perhaps some small-gauge high-voltage wires are routed to the table that can't be picked up by the camera. Underneath the table there is a step-down transformer. Then power is routed to the device and the light bulbs with flat wires passing through the seams between the leaves of the table. Alternatively, a few 12-volt lead-acid batteries and a simple buck-boost transformer could have been hidden underneath the table, and the power routed to the light bulbs like that. Note the video quality is VHS and I think the Steven Mark clips are from the early Nineties.
For me a big clue that it is fake is when he mentions that it's hard to get very high voltage batteries to light the light bulbs. You simply don't need high voltage batteries.
For the second clip, you can't help but notice that the device is sitting on top of a big piece of equipment. There could be a coil hidden inside that piece of equipment to create an AC magnetic field that is picked up by the device. The magnet trick could be done by someone flipping a switch off-camera to switch the hidden coil on and off.
For each clip I could easily rattle off a list of a dozen or more points illustrating how they can be faked. I just don't believe in anything associated with Steven Mark from what I have seen.
I haven't had a chance to look at the documents yet.
MileHigh
Your first critique is very typical and to be expected from having seen that one video. There is another video I am trying to find that shows quite a number of people standing around that very same table including Prof. Schinzinger with some magnetic field measuring instruments.
Dr. Schinzinger is no dummy when it comes to electrical engineering and I don't think he would have been easily fooled by some thin wires leading to the unit in question. Besides that, the unit was moved around quite a bit and in another video is seen atop some table leaves so that people could see under the device and could move the device as far as they liked to experience the "washboard effect" of moving it through the air.
Dr. Schinzinger wrote this letter to Steven Mark after first witnessing the test with 5 or 6 others around that table, which by the way had a solid glass top.
Here is a letter:
QuoteRoland Schinzinger
Ph.D.
29 Gilman St. Irvine, CA 92715-2703, Phone & FAX: (714) 786-7691
Dear Steven,
Thank you for your kind words of sympathy regarding my loss. We both share similar feelings.
In your letter you asked my opinion: I think it is a miracle that your device works. Exactly how it converts energy is elusive to both of us at this time. That does not mean we shouldn't apply ourselves to know for sure. My offer to work with you still stands. I understand your difficulties with the gentlemen you work for and I will not take your decision personally. I will be glad to talk to you and help you all I can. My offer to work on the project was made with the greatest respect and not as some kind of justification to the Foremost Corporation. I told them that from what I could see of your units they did supply substantial amounts of both voltage and current. I told them I could not give any indication of the value of the discovery without knowing more about it. I did recommend that they invest necessary funds to continue working on the discovery and that I was interested in working with you. That is about all I said to them on the subject. Anything you may have heard to the contrary is not true.
To further our discussion, the reason you can not use small transformers within or at close proximity to your unit is because of the leakage fields of magnetic flux. They induce currents into nearby circuitry and most likely cause frequency changes in the operating point of the control unit. Remember when you inject even a small frequency component into sensitive frequency dependant equipment you can have a disaster. That is exactly what I believe is occurring when you try to use a transformer close to your units. There will be all kinds of harmonics present within this field extending past the radio frequency range. If I were to compare the two I would say that toroidal transformers would be more susceptible. This may be contrary to common thought. Toroidal transformers have all their flux aligned with the grain of the steel used in them. This is the reason for their reduced size as compared with E I cores. When operated at higher flux density you can permit a smaller core. Toroids will always saturate quickly, however, E I transformers ramp up to saturation levels slowly. If anything, I would suggest you work with E I rather then Toroids. In either case I believe you will find that you will have to place the inverter well outside the collector coils.
You may also leave a message for me at my office at the University of California Irvine.
Sincerely,
Roland
In the beginning, I was much like yourself, questioning and bringing up all kinds of arguments of how it might have been faked, and believe me we got very deeply into this whole subject, with me playing devils advocate. I did this to lend some due diligence to the matter without diving in head first.
Forget the second clip, it is for curiosity only. That large piece of equipment is a Sony high end VCR, and yes that same argument has been brought up many times, as well as trick photography etc.
Sorry that you are bowing out so quickly, without even considering that others of us that are also fairly intelligent have fashioned similar arguments, yet not succeeded connecting all the dots in this case.
Believe me when I say we have just scratched the surface.
@milehigh
QuoteThere are three questions that you can ask any rabid Tesla fanatic about that: 1) Where do you get all of the power to pump into the tower? Do you have 500 oil and coal and nuke electrical generating super-plants in the vicinity to supply power to the tower in the first place? 2) What about the fact that the vast majority of the power will not be picked up by the antennas? What about efficiency? 3) What about the environmental effects and do you think that people will want to live their lives permanently bathed in some form of strong EM radiation from the tower?
1) Hydro and wind power, do you know the average losses for modern transmission line systems, 50%, what a joke.
2) Why does a capacitive or inductive reactive system not dissipate all it's energy? What is the theoretical efficiency of a transformer which has no load on it's secondary antenna? if the earth is like a giant capacitor and energy is alternately stored there then where is the waste? You cannot say one capacitive reactive system cannot dissipate all its energy but another must, it is absurd, only the size of the system has changed. Quote:"Thus the discovery of these new properties of the atmosphere not only opened up the possibility of transmitting, without wires, energy in large amounts, but, what was still more significant, it afforded the certitude that energy could be transmitted in this manner economically. In this new system it matters little—in fact, almost nothing—whether the transmission is effected at a distance of a few miles or of a few thousand miles. "
3) What are the effects of living under high voltage power lines? The scientific community and utility companies tell us there are no dangers whatsoever so why would there be with Tesla's system? or do you believe there is some kind of conspiracy going on,lol.
QuoteThe whole idea is completely and utterly ridiculous. From what I gather Tesla wanted to use the tower for telecommunications purposes, not to power the world.
QuoteTRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY TO ANY DISTANCE WITHOUT WIRES—NOW PRACTICABLE—THE BEST MEANS OF INCREASING THE FORCE ACCELERATING THE HUMAN MASS.
The most valuable observation made in the course of these investigations was the extraordinary behavior of the atmosphere toward electric impulses of excessive electromotive force. The experiments showed that the air at the ordinary pressure became distinctly conducting, and this opened up the wonderful prospect of transmitting large amounts of electrical energy for industrial purposes to great distances without wires, a possibility which, up to that time, was thought of only as a scientific dream. Further investigation revealed the important fact that the conductivity imparted to the air by these electrical impulses of many millions of volts increased very rapidly with the degree of rarefaction, so that air strata at very moderate altitudes, which are easily accessible, offer, to all experimental evidence, a perfect conducting path, better than a copper wire, for currents of this character.
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1900-06-00.htm
Tesla stated that this would be a very efficient means to power boats, cars and----- airplanes, now what would be the consequences of an aiplane not having to carry any fuel? Just as NASA is now experimenting with powering rockets and aiplanes with infrared lasers from the ground, funny how the old becomes new and a good idea is a still good idea no matter what day and age we happen to live in. As usual Tesla was thinking decades ahead to the future where we would seem to be stuck in the past, Nikola Tesla --- " The present is theirs but the future is mine",LOL. As well I have to wonder what the boys from MIT are getting paid for their impracticle if not impossible wireless energy transfer technology? Where do you think the technology will be 50 years from now?, I will take a wild guess and say right where Tesla was 100 years ago, LOL.
Regards
AC
Grumpy:
QuoteI used a 10kv pulser when I had my "explosion sounds". They were deafening. Like a rifle crack. No flash and nothing moved - weird....
To me that sounds like the answer right there. The high inrush of current caused the wires to move so quickly that they broke the sound barrier just like a whip cracking. The wires moved but you couldn't see them, it was below your threshold of perception.
Ion:
For the Steven mark demos, I almost hate to ask but are we in the "same old boat?" i.e.; Old video clips from the early Nineties, no one can make a working copy of the device, nobody has accurate schematics or specifications, etc, etc? If there is nothing tangible to work on except for old video clips then it is certainly going to be hard to connect the dots. I am indeed lukewarm on this subject area. But between yourself and Poynt you should be able to go far if the desired information is available.
AC:
Quote1) Hydro and wind power, do you know the average losses for modern transmission line systems, 50%, what a joke.
I really can't answer that question because you are not posing it properly. High tension transmission lines do loose some energy and I have to assume that it is proportional to distance and other factors. I seriously doubt it typically gets as high as 50% but I have never looked it up.
Quote2) Why does a capacitive or inductive reactive system not dissipate all it's energy? What is the theoretical efficiency of a transformer which has no load on it's secondary antenna? if the earth is like a giant capacitor and energy is alternately stored there then where is the waste? You cannot say one capacitive reactive system cannot dissipate all its energy but another must, it is absurd, only the size of the system has changed. Quote:"Thus the discovery of these new properties of the atmosphere not only opened up the possibility of transmitting, without wires, energy in large amounts, but, what was still more significant, it afforded the certitude that energy could be transmitted in this manner economically. In this new system it matters little—in fact, almost nothing—whether the transmission is effected at a distance of a few miles or of a few thousand miles. "
I can't really comment on your questions, some of them seem to be rhetorical. As far as the Tesla quote goes, I will have to say that he is dead wrong. Tesla is not a God and he can make mistakes. Also, like I mentioned in the past, in the late 19th century and early 20th century grandiose lies and distortions to promote something were normal. Use your common sense. When you broadcast power with an antenna that power is typically spread out in all directions and the power density falls of proportional to the cube of the distance. There is no way that you can transmit power efficiently or economically this way. If you want to believe that Tesla his some "special secret" then go ahead. Plan B would be for you to take three Electromagnets courses and three Microwave courses and then see what you think of Tesla's grand scheme to broadcast power around the world. Plus you are seemingly forgetting that that power has to come from somewhere first, like 500 power plants.
Quote3) What are the effects of living under high voltage power lines? The scientific community and utility companies tell us there are no dangers whatsoever so why would there be with Tesla's system? or do you believe there is some kind of conspiracy going on,lol.
Power lines are given clearance for residential housing. I am sure that you have seen this and I am sure you have heard your AM radio reception fail when you drove under a power line.
You quote a piece by Tesla written in 1900 about using the atmosphere to conduct electricity. It's nonsense and unworkable AC.
QuoteWhere do you think the technology will be 50 years from now?, I will take a wild guess and say right where Tesla was 100 years ago, LOL.
Ha ha ha... I think that Tesla's work will be buried deeper and even more forgotten in 50 years than it is right now. Tesla did some interesting and innovative stuff 100 years ago but technology has advanced and moved on AC. The reason that so much of what Tesla was all about is nonexistent is that better technologies have come along to replace them. A 486DX266 computer is a piece of junk. You can't buy a tube TV anymore, nor can you buy a typewriter. Nobody has an antenna on top of their roof to pick up power.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.03, 22:44:52
Grumpy:
To me that sounds like the answer right there. The high inrush of current caused the wires to move so quickly that they broke the sound barrier just like a whip cracking. The wires moved but you couldn't see them, it was below your threshold of perception.
Perhaps, but I don't think that a wire moving, even so fast is breaks the sound barrier, could make a noise as loud as the one I heard. the sound seemed to come from the trminals of the ignition transformer (spiral wire terminals, Franceformer). The explosion sound was periodic but seemed to be at set intervals of several seconds. I put a thick plate of polyethylene between the terminals and it stopped.
The transformer output was rectified through a bridge and powered a dual series spark gap, free-running. I can't recall what the load was.
references to "proof" of an Aether are attached:
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.03, 22:44:52
Ion:
For the Steven mark demos, I almost hate to ask but are we in the "same old boat?" i.e.; Old video clips from the early Nineties, no one can make a working copy of the device, nobody has accurate schematics or specifications, etc, etc? If there is nothing tangible to work on except for old video clips then it is certainly going to be hard to connect the dots. I am indeed lukewarm on this subject area. But between yourself and Poynt you should be able to go far if the desired information is available.
Yes MH, it does seem to be the same old boat, the videos are from the nineties, no one can make a working copy, we have tried to reverse engineer a schematic, it is very hard to connect the dots.
The curious thing that makes it a bit different is that the video's were never posted by Steven Mark, nor did he ever attempt to post them anywhere. In 1996 they were made by an amateur with a camera for documentation purposes only, possibly at Stevens request. They were never meant to be posted anywhere. Somehow in 2006, they were posted by a "Jeremy Gaul".
Only Lindsay Mannix and a handful of others ever knew of the videos in the late 90's.
The video's apparently made it to the internet for no known purpose in early 2006. The inventor was unavailable and whereabouts unknown. No one was building or selling plans etc. no money was to be made at this time, unlike Bedini.
There is a great deal of mystery surrounding this device. It is not possible know the extent of it all unless you are willing to spend an enormous amount of time doing extensive research. I don't think anyone except perhaps myself and less than a half dozen others have gone very deeply into this.
I can only say it is not the "same old story", but on the surface it may appear that way.
Considering your initial response am not inclined to engage in further debate.
So consider the issue dropped. If you want to consider that a "win", so be it.
Best Regards
Early on, when SM was talking quite a bit to Lindsay, SM stated that he could only discuss the device indirectly. He also said that everything in the videos is absolutely true.
Hmm he clearly states the term "pulsed DC conversion"...attached is a compilation of letters between Lindsay and SM. SM is quite genuine.
Funny how looking at the references to the "kick", it now sounds like the same thing Harold Aspden was talking about in his concentric capacitor, a little tiny rotation of the aether.
@milehigh
QuoteI really can't answer that question because you are not posing it properly. High tension transmission lines do loose some energy and I have to assume that it is proportional to distance and other factors. I seriously doubt it typically gets as high as 50% but I have never looked it up.
The best Cogeneration plants(gas turbines and waste heat boilers) typically run at near 50% efficiency in the real world, now let's see we lost 50% to generate it, we lost 50% when we moved it, and we probably lost another 40% at the consumer end, now tell me about this wonderfully advanced world of technology you live in because as an engineer I can tell you there is little truely advanced about it.
QuoteHa ha ha... I think that Tesla's work will be buried deeper and even more forgotten in 50 years than it is right now. Tesla did some interesting and innovative stuff 100 years ago but technology has advanced and moved on AC. The reason that so much of what Tesla was all about is nonexistent is that better technologies have come along to replace them. A 486DX266 computer is a piece of junk. You can't buy a tube TV anymore, nor can you buy a typewriter. Nobody has an antenna on top of their roof to pick up power.
Unfortunately technology has not advanced and moved on milehigh and Tesla's work could hardly be forgotten, what would we forget? would it be AC power generation, AC polyphase motors, teleautomation(remote control), florescent lighting, ignition coils etc...,lol, I do not think so. From my employment in the power generation sector I can tell you as fact that there has been very little advacement since Nikola Tesla's day, we are using the same AC motors and generators Telsa invented. As well if you knew anything of the wireless transmission of power you would know the MIT boys are going to be very rich because everyone hates being tied down by cords to recharge or power our devices and Tesla understood this a very long time ago. This is not MIT technology this is Tesla technology and it's going to be an absolutely massive market, I wonder before the MIT anouncement did you think this was impossible? did you tell everyone that there was no way it could be done? It's funny how some people are always saying everything is impossible while others are actually doing the impossible and I applaud the boys at MIT for their effort regardless of who invented this technology first.
As well you are always trying to bash Tesla which is odd considering what he accomplished within his lifetime, he was a great engineer. This is why I stand up for Tesla, because he was a great engineer and he had a vision of the future in which technology would make our lives easier and sustainable, the key word here is "sustainable". What is your vision of the future and what have you done about it? Ah, that is a question nobody likes to hear is it? We can talk all we want but it was engineers like Tesla and many others who built the foundation for the technology which dominates our lives. If you ever want to understand which technologies are really important just ask yourself -- which would effect my life the most? What would happen if someone turned that big old AC power switch off? well we would all be in the dark wouldn't we. Personally I find your attitude towards Tesla offensive, every engineer who has ever accomplished anything of value should find it offensive in my opinion.
Regards
AC
Hi,
Regarding losses in HV overhead power lines, the only one that stands out is in Russia. The length of one feed was so long that the frequency had to be reduced to 30HZ. The rest still get power where its needed and until the ou code is cracked this will probably remain so. Agreed there is more than Tesla deserving merit but its the press at best reporting these things. The best thing is to agree that ALL pioneers need a praise no matter what.
Steve.
Unfortunately I have to make another special posting for AC because of his ad hominem attacks against me.
AC said:
QuoteAs well if you knew anything of the wireless transmission of power.
AC, I have told you repeatedly to stop this. These are ad hominem attacks where you do your best just to skate just below the line before the administrators will take notice and discipline you.
You have even admitted publicly that you want to go after me. You have no clue if I do or I don't know about the wireless transmission of power. You are bullshitting in your prejudgment of me and it's time for this nonsense to stop. I have already asked you to stop this both privately and publicly.
Are you hearing me loud and clear? If I wanted to go after you, in your postings there has been more than enough low-hanging fruit that if I wanted to I could have made mincemeat out of you, but I didn't.
You had better get this message loud and clear AC. I will not tolerate ad hominem attacks from you because you have a chip on your shoulder about me. Grow up.
I may as well cover a related issue in this posting. The issue is that people don't have the right to claim that they are engineers if they aren't any more than they can claim that they are medical doctors if they aren't.
AC said:
Quotenow tell me about this wonderfully advanced world of technology you live in because as an engineer I can tell you there is little truely advanced about it.
QuoteFrom my employment in the power generation sector
Quotedo you know the average losses for modern transmission line systems, 50%, what a joke.
This is from the fourth link from the Google search "high voltage transmission line efficiency", an Asea Brown Boveri document:
QuoteThe transmission and distribution or "T&D" system, then, includes everything between a generation plant
and an end-use site. Along the way, some of the energy supplied by the generator is lost due to the
resistance of the wires and equipment that the electricity passes through. Most of this energy is converted
to heat. Just how much energy is taken up as losses in the T&D system depends greatly on the physical
characteristics of the system in question as well as how it is operated. Generally speaking, T&D losses
between 6% and 8% are considered normal.
It is possible to calculate what this means in dollar terms by looking at the difference between the amount of
electric energy generated and the amount actually sold at the retail level. According to data from the Energy
Information Administration, net generation in the US came to over 3.9 billion megawatt hours (MWh) in 2005
while retail power sales during that year were about 3.6 billion MWh. T&D losses amounted to 239 million
MWh, or 6.1% of net generation. Multiplying
that number by the national average retail price
of electricity for 2005, we can estimate those
losses came at a cost to the US economy of
just under $19.5 billion.
AC, based on reading the technical points in your postings over several months on this forum in my opinion you are not an engineer. You claim that you are an engineer in the power generation sector and yet you don't even know what typical transmission line losses are. You claimed that an inductor has very little relationship to a capacitor when no electrical engineer would ever state that. You nearly had a heart attack the time we discussed negative resistance and it was obvious you were completely out of your realm. I have challenged you to back up at least a dozen of your strange and unusual technical statements and you have never come back to back up your claims. You simply remained mute. When you stated that there were many flaws in EE theory I listed about 20 electrical engineering concepts to see if you would comment and you remained mute. I have to assume that the S-plane means nothing to you and you have never worked with differential and integral equations, which are the mathematical backbone for understanding how electrical circuits work. You are no engineer and don't try to claim that you are an engineer.
MileHigh
Well, back to the regular thread...
Grumpy:
Perhaps the explosions had something to do with the ionization of the air by the high voltages you were working with? A very rapid ionization of the tube of air around the wire caused it to heat up and expand and thus create a sound pressure wave? Just a guess I can't speculate more than that.
Thanks for the aether docs I will try to read them soon.
Ion:
Thanks for outlining the Steven Mark story. Thanks also for not pursuing this with me. I took a peek but quickly realized that it's not something for me, which I had previously stated. There is always the distinct possibility that this is all a half-baked hoax or half-baked scam that was never intended to be followed through on. Then somehow the tapes got onto the Internet and the whole thing has taken on a life of its own. Good luck in trying to find the real answer.
AC:
As far as Tesla goes, it was Michael Faraday that discovered magnetic induction, and AC power generation is simply the application of the principles of magnetic induction. Certainly Tesla deserves full credit for developing the systems to apply what Faraday discovered and turn it into a real world application.
The simple truth is that Tesla is now just a footnote in the history of technology. When you study electromagnetics and power systems his name never gets mentioned. You have to step outside of the bubble of the free energy forums and look at how Tesla is viewed and where he finds his place in the realm of electrical engineering. In that real world he is forgotten. Faraday and Maxwell and others laid the foundations for modern electrical engineering. People that developed theorems like Fourier and Laplace are much better known than Tesla because they developed intellectual concepts of their own. From what I gather Tesla was a great at applying and developing systems based on existing concepts but he did not produce his own intellectual ideas. There is no "Tesla theorem" or "Tesla law" that we refer to. He may have been great at visualizing "disruptive discharges" in his mind but I don't think that he could have put the differential equations that govern those "disruptive discharges" down on paper. It's somewhat akin to Edison being one of the greatest inventors of all time but at the same time he could not understand why AC power distribution was superior to DC power distribution. Edison had his limits just like Tesla has his limits. I believe that both worked in a trial and error fashion most of the time.
You say that Tesla developed "teleautomation" and to a typical free energy experimenter it sounds magical and wondrous. Chances are that was just a form of pulse-width modulation. Tesla's name is not attached to PWM and it's the simplest and most basic way to encode and decode an analog signal.
For the MIT resonant energy transmission system, Tesla's name may be attached to it but so what? Tesla played with resonance, but it doesn't mean that he "invented" resonance, it was always there. You can't credit Tesla for the existence of LC resonant oscillators. The MIT project owes nothing to Tesla and the technology has been around for 150 years. It has been used in the modern world way before the MIT project came along. They are simply trying to standardize the system so everybody uses it. The link I saw was from 2007 and it's three years later and I haven't heard about any mainstream laptops using this charging system.
I am not a Tesla fanboy and in the real world he is relatively unknown. A lot of the esoteric stuff that he worked on were mere curiosities with no practical applications. Tesla coils are used to wow people in outdoor concerts where they can look at the electric discharges and listen to the musical notes they can produce. None of the esoteric stuff will ever have a practical application.
MileHigh
MH
Why are you hanging out on the OU sites if your mind is already made up that OU is not possible?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.04, 17:12:15
MH
Why are you hanging out on the OU sites if your mind is already made up that OU is not possible?
Grumpy:
About three years ago I typed "free energy" into the YouTube search engine and to my surprise discovered the world of free energy, from amateur experimenter right through to sophisticated con artist. It's fun to see what's going on and poke around. Sometimes I challenge con artists and that's satisfying. It can be fun to try to educate people also, which I have had limited success with because of my not-so-great teaching skills and an audience that sometimes is not too receptive.
The most fun is when something gets high-profile and creates a lot of buzz. It's been a while since that's happened for me.
It's also healthy to have a countering viewpoint on a free energy web site. It's also healthy to have voices that remind experimenters what they are looking for even if it sometimes amounts to hand-holding. Probably 80% of the YouTube clips that claim free energy don't even measure power out vs. power in. Almost nobody states that so I do. Sometimes you pick up some interesting links on the forums also.
If someone demonstrates an actual free energy device the world would change. Common sense and the laws of thermodynamics say that is not possible. If I ever see a clip that looks like the real thing I will say so.
MileHigh
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.04, 17:12:15
MH
Why are you hanging out on the OU sites if your mind is already made up that OU is not possible?
In reality MH is right Grumpy, Overunity implied that the energy is from nowhere , a closed loop that don't take anything from the outside as energy source and its not at all what people are trying to do . Name it Vaccuum, Aether , Orgone , etc its only words to describe a source, if i say "My device use Aether energy to run" people usually associate that with "OU" but if you only replace 1 words , there no OU anymore like "My device use Sun energy to run". If you put thing in perspective you clearly see there always a source, whatever the name you put on it.If we go further , can be a special magnet who provide all the energy in a special way or a extraction of the magnetic field of the earth or a special Quantum State Transition or whatever.
Moray device use a antenna, bedini device use magnet, Beardon device use magnet , Magnacoaster device use magnet, Ed device used magnet, etc etc. all this people who made claim use something who can generate electricity from a source, maybe in a weird way and not fully understood but the key point is all have a energy source, how the energy source is tapped , that's what is not fully understood but don't forget that the science is in constant evolution , what is true today will maybe be wrong in 50 years , thing is often more complex that what they appear at first even if the math can apply correctly in the current and the past science the mechanic can be different.
The goal still remain , the goal is to produce unlimited amount of clean and cheap energy.
Best Regards,
IceStorm
@milehigh
I am really not sure how to respond to that last post in reference to myself as in my opinion it would seem to imply serious psychological issues you may want to consider addressing in the near future.
QuoteAs far as Tesla goes, it was Michael Faraday that discovered magnetic induction, and AC power generation is simply the application of the principles of magnetic induction. Certainly Tesla deserves full credit for developing the systems to apply what Faraday discovered and turn it into a real world application.
In my opinion the real world application of technology which actually helps people in a measurable way is much more important than any other consideration.
QuoteIt's somewhat akin to Edison being one of the greatest inventors of all time but at the same time he could not understand why AC power distribution was superior to DC power distribution. Edison had his limits just like Tesla has his limits. I believe that both worked in a trial and error fashion most of the time.
In my opinion Edison was what he was, an american businessman who stole more technology than he every created and popularized it to make a profit, such is the american way. If you study Edisons history from non-american sources you would find he was considered little more than a showman that was hyped by the american media.
QuoteYou say that Tesla developed "teleautomation" and to a typical free energy experimenter it sounds magical and wondrous. Chances are that was just a form of pulse-width modulation. Tesla's name is not attached to PWM and it's the simplest and most basic way to encode and decode an analog signal.
No, teleautomation is what tesla called it in his patent and I noted it for reference, please stop slandering free energy experimenters I find it offensive.
QuoteFor the MIT resonant energy transmission system, Tesla's name may be attached to it but so what?
It is called prior art as Tesla has numerous patents on "wireless power transfer" technology and if the MIT technology infringes on these patents then any claims should be denied, that is why.
QuoteI am not a Tesla fanboy and in the real world he is relatively unknown. A lot of the esoteric stuff that he worked on were mere curiosities with no practical applications. Tesla coils are used to wow people in outdoor concerts where they can look at the electric discharges and listen to the musical notes they can produce. None of the esoteric stuff will ever have a practical application.
That is your opinion however I find your continual marginalizing of Teslas work as well as that of others, your personal attacks on persons who mention FE inventors and your condescending attitude towards the FE community offensive.
I hope you understand this message load and clear milehigh.
Regards
AC
99.99% of all the Overunity devices on the internet forums and youtube, googlevideo etc, such as: (names removed because someone found it offensive) etc etc are bogus non working devices used with intent to separate the uninitiated from their money by selling plans kits DVD's etc or to attract investor money
Once again, some of these people are part of the FREE ENERGY CIRCUS, they hawk their wares at "symposiums" where you can buy their books DVD's etc. Nowhere can you purchase from them a legitimate device that will power your home, just a promise that if you would build it right it MIGHT give you some energy output, (but usually not more than the energy input). If you had not had the chance to attend one of these I urge you to go to one, in order to get the "big picture"
The smart persons and their hard earned cash will stay far away from such pseudoscience hucksters.
And the wise will be very careful not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater"
I have nothing against the true garage tinkerer, researcher, or whatever you would call someone who has an idea, pursues it and who earnestly reports his data and makes careful measurements and does not delude himself in an effort to get his moment in the youtube spotlight.
Which will be the subject of my next rant: The Psychology of the Free Energy Movement
@Ion
Quote99.99% of all the Overunity devices on the internet forums and youtube, googlevideo etc, such as: Heinz, Bearden, Bedini, Stiffler, Magnacoaster, Ainslie, Lindemann etc etc are bogus non working devices used with intent to separate the uninitiated from their money by selling plans kits DVD's etc or to attract investor money
If you could kindly show me your proof of your claims in regards to each individual case of the inventor and/or technology I would be glad to review it, as well as proof or justification as to the accuracy of this figure -- 99.99%.
Personally I find this slanderous unjustified attitude towards the FE community offensive and if you have real proof of any sort please post it.
Regards
AC
"Get ready for major remodel, fellas!
We're back in hardware mode."
@IS,
Well put.
@all,
Regardless of the name or source the devices do not run down either. Ed stated the flux is always flowing. We can use that stream whether we cut it with a wire or break the connection of the field and let it collapse on a wire. Whoa! Different motions, same effect. Now what is even more TPU specific is let the field reconnect on many wires or don't move the wires but move the field.
Pretty simple...
Another example is Hutchison moves the field and the eclipse points over matter. He also changes the angle of the eclipse plane inside of matter. When these align you get a steel fork in a block of aluminum. And when the alignment disperses we are left with a melding/welding. Hmmm.
If the viewer does not take into account the field interaction then it all looks like magic or bullshit. Special smoke, probably...
Plz splain me dis? I have noticed that many arguments never take into account field / matter alignment. Y dis? Is this the key point not taught in status quo box? I refer the reader to the picture of the nuclear detonation deivice on the first page of the Spherics document. Phased and angular. It is the Hutchison type process but the tramsnitters are specially placed and driven. Hmmmm, again. Well if this process doesn't work then why all the brewhaha over detonation? What if the detoantion can be controlled from an event to a process.
AC:
If you had some class you would apologize and say that you were going to refrain from attacking me. That takes character AC, and you should show some.
Quoteplease stop slandering free energy experimenters I find it offensive.
That's a joke. I sometimes make a generic comments not aimed at anyone specific. You are using that as an excuse to attack me. I am telling you to stop right now. If you want to argue the specific point I am making, then bring it on AC.
QuoteI find your continual marginalizing of Teslas work as well as that of others, your personal attacks on persons who mention FE inventors and your condescending attitude towards the FE community offensive.
Tough shit for you and I don't make personal attacks towards people in this forum. If I make tough statements about people outside of this forum it's because in my opinion they are true. If you want to debate the veracity of the statements then go ahead. I will express myself without you chasing after me.
Sorry that your feelings about Tesla are hurt but that's the way it is.
MileHigh
@milehigh
Milehigh please stop your personal attacks against myself and your slanderous unjustified comments in regards to FE technologies and their inventors. It is one thing to state an opinion and quite another to maliciously attack persons and their credibility without facts of any kind, again do you understand me loud and clear milehigh.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.11.04, 21:32:27
@IonIf you could kindly show me your proof of your claims in regards to each individual case of the inventor and/or technology I would be glad to review it, as well as proof or justification as to the accuracy of this figure -- 99.99%.
Personally I find this slanderous unjustified attitude towards the FE community offensive and if you have real proof of any sort please post it.
Regards
AC
Show me your double pulse inductor circuit first LOL......no just kidding I'm not really that interested in anything you have.
The proof is that everyone is still searching or the game would be over and we would all be off the mains. The fact that you are here at this site is proof enough. There it is, posted per your request, end of story.
No need for further research if it has been accomplished, just manufacturing perfection. Tool up the machines boys!
MH, AC.
Look fellas, let's focus on the facts. Debate but refrain from putting each other down.
MH, I would ask that you refrain from telling AC he is not an engineer (unless you know for a fact), and AC I would ask that you refrain from putting MH down. If you don't agree, ok, you don't agree. Accept that and move on. Just be respectable and focus on the technical.
You guys are hardly what I would call "attacking" each other. I think it's more a case of folks becoming sensitive and/or taking things personally. Take a step back, and even take a break from the forum for a few days. This can lead to a fresh perspective on things, otherwise it is so easy to get caught up in the fray and let things get out of control (I know, I've been there). If things continue out of control, a short "break" can be arranged ;)
.99
@Poynt99
QuoteYou guys are hardly what I would call "attacking" each other. I think it's more a case of folks becoming sensitive and/or taking things personally. Take a step back, and even take a break from the forum for a few days. This can lead to a fresh perspective on things, otherwise it is so easy to get caught up in the fray and let things get out of control (I know, I've been there). If things continue out of control, a short "break" can be arranged
I agree, I was instigating this and I have no problem admitting this to anyone but I honestly do find it offensive when I hear people claim something is a hoax or cannot work as a fact when they have no real proof. We speak of proof in many cases but we never apply this proof to our own opinions as such my issue is not always between right or wrong but how we present our opinions. If we speak of others with the same respect we would expect from others then I am sure we can all get along, this works both ways.
Regards
AC
AC,
I know MH can be adamant at times that FE research is futile, but by the same token, for every MH out there, there are hundreds making grandiose claims, and most often without credible proof. To boot, these folks rarely have a vague clue about what they are working with.
I have a good understanding of electronics and electrical circuits, and what I find offensive, is when I am told by one of these folks that ostensibly, I have no clue what I am talking about.
I don't always agree with MH, and sometimes he may come across in a manner that offends some (I probably do too :-[), but I am pretty sure that MH means no harm to anyone, and that he means well, as I do.
It's a two-way road. Yes, perhaps MH jumps the gun at times claiming that something is bogus, but the same goes for most folks making these grandiose claims. They too usually show no credible proof of their claim.
I agree, the presentation carries at least 50% of the weight. Presentation is an art, and I am often lacking in this area myself, but I am trying to improve. Just know beforehand (presentation score good OR bad), and I think I speak for MH here also, that all intentions are good.
Cheers,
.99
As long as anyone wants to debate the issues with me I am fine. But when things are slipped into sentences like "never accomplished anything in your life" or an implicit "you are clueless about subject 'X'" it's not acceptable to me and it should never be acceptable to anyone on this forum.
With respect to video clips or postings promoting an alleged free energy device, we can't forget that the burden of proof falls with the person making the proposition. Both the presenter and the viewers should be cognizant of this. I normally assume that they don't have what they claim and on the other hand there are others that are accepting of nearly all claims on pure faith without any evidence. So if a debate ensues on the technical merits or lack thereof for the claim that's all good.
I have helped countless people to understand what they are doing because this used to be my profession and it can be fun to do that. We all know that there are also con artists that are out there looking to steal people's money. Calling them out with logical arguments is a service to everyone. There are also people out there that are deluded and/or their understanding and education is lacking. Trying to help them understand is a good thing to do. How many times have we all seen people state that magnets in and of themselves are a source of energy? Again, you are free to debate this with me if you disagree.
MileHigh
MH
Is there anything that you believe in that can not be proven?
God? Big Bang? Creation? Conspiracies? Aliens? Bigfoot?
Quote from: giantkiller on 2010.11.04, 21:38:12
@all,
Regardless of the name or source the devices do not run down either. Ed stated the flux is always flowing. We can use that stream whether we cut it with a wire or break the connection of the field and let it collapse on a wire. Whoa! Different motions, same effect. Now what is even more TPU specific is let the field reconnect on many wires or don't move the wires but move the field.
Pretty simple...
Another example is Hutchison moves the field and the eclipse points over matter. He also changes the angle of the eclipse plane inside of matter. When these align you get a steel fork in a block of aluminum. And when the alignment disperses we are left with a melding/welding. Hmmm.
If the viewer does not take into account the field interaction then it all looks like magic or bullshit. Special smoke, probably...
Plz splain me dis? I have noticed that many arguments never take into account field / matter alignment. Y dis? Is this the key point not taught in status quo box? I refer the reader to the picture of the nuclear detonation deivice on the first page of the Spherics document. Phased and angular. It is the Hutchison type process but the tramsnitters are specially placed and driven. Hmmmm, again. Well if this process doesn't work then why all the brewhaha over detonation? What if the detoantion can be controlled from an event to a process.
Giantkiller:
I am going to rebut some of your points for two reasons. One is to argue the technical merits of what you are saying and the other is to use this as an example of civilized debate.
For your comments about the TPU: It is pretty simple, you are describing basic magnetic induction principles. A transformer is a classic example of this. So I am going to suggest to you that the challenge for any TPU builder is twofold. They need to make measurements on power out vs. power in and demonstrate over unity. Then they should try to reverse-engineer the device with timing diagrams and various measurements and explanations to explain how the device works. This will be a tall challenge because everything we know about magnetic induction says that it is an under unity process obeying the law of conservation of energy.
For the alleged Hutcheson effect, be aware that many people believe that the fork inside a block of aluminum is just a prop that he made and that he manufactured a story about how it was created. I have read several accounts where he admitted that his anti-gravity effects where just fake clips filmed upside-down in 1979. Personally, I think Hutcheson is a con artist. I have looked at his clips. I don't know what you mean by "ellipse points" and "ellipse plane" I have never heard those terms before. I am also not sure of what you mean by alignment between the field (what field?) and the ellipse plane inside of matter. What I can tell you is almost any form of matter consists of atoms or molecules that are in a random alignment. A block of aluminum would have molecules in random alignments and they would also be vibrating randomly. Because of this I can't see any kind of regular alignment being achievable between some kind of external field and randomly oriented atoms or molecules. If you are talking about a static electric field for example, then it's impossible for there to be any static electric field inside a block of aluminum.
You pose the question, "I have noticed that many arguments never take into account field / matter alignment." Like I said above, since all matter is almost always randomly aligned the proposition is questionable in a generic sense. What kind of field are you discussing? I haven't read the Spherics document so I will end my comments here.
Giantkiller, I am not really asking you to answer these questions. The stuff you are talking about doesn't fall into my area of interest. This is more of an example of a civilized debate going over technical issues. Certainly you notice that I can challenge you on almost every single point that you make with logical arguments and questions. This can be a real turn-off but what I am saying is valid, I am not intentionally trying to be a "bad guy" or to be condescending. I am not giving you a wide leeway, I am looking for real answers to things that either don't make sense to me or to things that I don't understand.
The above is an example of what this forum or any other free energy forum needs. It needs people to propose ideas and it needs people to question those ideas without either side of the debate resorting to personal attacks. At the same time, we can't live in PC straight-jackets and sometimes the comments about the merits or lack thereof for the proposition (not the forum individuals) can get colourful. For example, almost nobody would argue with the statement, "Lutec in Australia are con artists that have been pitching their fake free energy machine for a decade." This is an accepted fact in free energy circles.
MileHigh
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.05, 04:16:54
MH
Is there anything that you believe in that can not be proven?
God? Big Bang? Creation? Conspiracies? Aliens? Bigfoot?
Grumpy:
I am almost afraid to say yes to any of the concepts that you are proposing because that will give people an opportunity to jump all over me and make a connection with free energy and "trap" me in a "logical fallacy."
Let's just say that I consider myself a secular humanist. The red-shift on all of the stars and galaxies is evidence to back up the Big Bang theory. I know that a lot of free energy enthusiasts like to jump all over that one, including Mr. "Logical Fallacy" himself. I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job nor were there charges placed in the towers and I have no problem with the WTC 7 collapse. Big "maybe" on the aliens visiting us, big "yes" on life in the Universe, no on Bigfoot, big "yes" on evolution, big "no" on Biblical creation.
Big "no" on debating any of this stuff here.
MileHigh
@Grumpy
I think that what we believe and what we call proof can be funny things which can contradict one another sometimes, I imagine if I told someone on the street that a person can grow back a thumb or finger which has been cut half way off nail and all they would get quite a chuckle. However it is a scientifically documented fact that this has happened more than a few times and there is no explanation for it. They figure it relates to neutral cells related to stem cells which can take on the characteristics of any cell in the human body and most of the experts in this field admit it is only a matter of time before we can simply grow new parts from technology related to stem cell research. Yet the question remains, why would almost all intelligent people completely refuse to believe it is possible? I would imagine just about every single person other than the actual experts in this field or the doctors who documented this fact would tell us outright, no ---- no it is impossible, but it is.
This also relates to my ufo incident, an object I could not identify travelling at impossible speeds across the sky and into space on a clear cloudless night with no rocket plume, no sound and other people present to verify what was seen. Now how does a person rationalize something like that when the impossible is staring you in the face? when there is simply no way any sane person could possibly continue to believe that the technology does not exist. This is the one point I would like to drive home, I think it is great that we have so many experts here who have a great deal of experience in a vast number of fields but being an expert does not guarantee anything when it comes to the unknown, that is why we call it the unknown.
As well I have seen too many new technologies in the science journals which seem beyond belief at first glance, one is nantenna technology where two nanowires nanometers apart extract energy from what we call heat directly. The peak and trough of waves in the near infrared region of the EM spectrum which we call "radiant heat" or "radiant energy" intersects on the nanowires inducing a potential difference across them. Now what do you think most any expert would have said to this claim five or ten years ago? Heat is not energy, heat is a form of energy and the oscillitory motion of matter is the real energy, this motion can produce EM waves which radiate from the source (radiant energy) and induce a potential directly in conductors. It can do this because the nanowire conductor spacing is the same physical width as the 1/2 wavelength of the EM waves thus one conductor falls on a peak and another on a trough of the EM wave. This technology alone should throw what many experts thought they believed into doubt, that simple wires can extract useful amounts of energy from the ambient environment --- free energy from what would appear to almost everyone as coming from nothing but we know better than that. The question which is just begging to be asked here is if Em waves related to heat can produce useful amounts of energy through nanotechnology then what other wavelengths from "natural" sources could be extracted? Now what was that statement by Arthur.C.Clark --- "Any technology sufficiently advanced would appear to be magic"?
Regards
AC
There has been some heated debate about some of Thane's comments so let's look at them:
I am factoring in the fact that Thane is in somewhat of a leadership position, and that he has been doing research in electronics and magnetism and motors for several years now.
QuoteWHEN THE SCIENTIFIC COMUNITY FINALLY GETS THEIR HEADS OUT OF THEIR BUTTS THEY WILL REALIZE THAT EVERY SINGLE WIRE THAT CONDUCTS ELECTRICITY IS VIOLATING THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY BY "CREATING" NEW ENERGY IN THE FORM OF A MAGNETIC FIELD AROUND THE WIRE.
This is the "litmus test" statement that Thane failed. You have to expend electrical energy to create the magnetic field around a wire and it obeys the law of conservation of energy. This is so fundamental to the understanding of electricity that you can't just ignore this statement or give Thane some leeway. It's simply dead wrong and that's all you can say about it.
Moving on.
QuoteTHE ENERGY CONTAINED IN THE ELECTRICITY FLOWING IN A WIRE HAS TWO COMPONENTS, 1) THE ELECTRIC POTENTIAL ENERGY AND 2) THE MAGNETIC POTENTIAL ENERGY. BRAIN WASHED CONVENTIONAL SCIENTISTS ONLY ACCOUNT FOR THE ELECTRICAL ENERGY AND DON'T EVEN CONSIDER THE MAGNETIC POTENTIAL ENERGY OR HOW IT IS MAGICALLY CREATED!
Thane is mocking science here. To say the "energy contained in the electricity flowing in a wire" is a very awkward choice of words that would normally never be heard. There is no "electric potential energy" in a wire, it's a nonsensical statement. We can give Thane some leeway and interpret "magnetic potential energy" as the inductance and current flow associated with a wire. It's still an awkward choice of words because "magnetic potential energy" is normally associated with the positional energy of magnets or electromagnets relative to each other like in a motor. The last sentence is also also wrong, and we will leave it at that.
QuoteTHIS MAGNETIC FIELD AS WE ALL KNOW IS THE BASIS FOR LENZ'S LAW OR HOW NEWTON'S THIRD LAW IS MANIFESTED IN AN ELECTRICAL ENERGY SYSTEM WHICH SATISFIES THE BRAIN BLIND CONVENTIONAL SCIENTIST'S EXCUSE FOR NOT THINKING UNLESS THE ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC ENERGY POTENTIALS ARE LOOKED AT FROM A PURELY NON-DIRECTIONAL VIEW - JUST AS PURE ENERGY POTENTIAL.
I honestly don't even know what Thane is trying to say here.
QuoteIF WE DID WE WOULD SEE THAT A MAGIC MAGNET FIELD ENERGY IS "CREATED" WHEN ELECTRICAL ENERGY FLOWS IN A CONDUCTOR AND THE MAGNETIC POTENTIAL ENERGY IS EQUAL TO THE ELECTRIC POTENTIAL ENERGY (WHICH IS THE ONLY ENERGY WE "DARE TO" MEASURE).
Science understands perfectly how a magnetic field is created around a conductor. When he says the "magnetic potential energy is equal to the electric potential energy" I don't even know what he means.
So based on the above, my conclusion is that Thane has no credibility and his project is going to go nowhere. I know that's harsh but that's how I feel. His two coils that couple the "Figure8" magnetic path with the "OuterO" magnetic path create magnetic fluxes in the "OuterO" that perform self-cancellation on each other. That makes no sense at all. Thane argues that within the "OuterO" flux path that two separate fluxes pass by each other in the same magnetic circuit and I say that's false. The rationale for his design, something about diverting the load-induced flux away from the primary coil also makes no sense in my opinion but I am not going to debate that here.
I don't consider Thane to be a beginner, he has been around for several years. If anybody wants to debate the technical points be my guest.
MileHigh
Nothing to debate, as you've nailed it., however we could debate the level of Thanes's progressive megalomania.
When a inventor / researcher that really has little education in science and scientific method goes on to trash all of conventional electromagnetic scientists of the last two hundred years, one has to wonder what he's been smoking.
QuoteWHEN THE SCIENTIFIC COMUNITY FINALLY GETS THEIR HEADS OUT OF THEIR BUTTS
QuoteBRAIN WASHED CONVENTIONAL SCIENTISTS
QuoteBRAIN BLIND CONVENTIONAL SCIENTIST'S EXCUSE FOR NOT THINKING
I take offense to him trashing the likes of Michael Faraday, Charles P. Steinmetz, Oerstead, Maxwell and others.
Why does he not express some humility and state that he stands on the shoulders of "giants" , and that because of these people's earlier discoveries he was able to advance the field.
Well probably because he has made no advancement, his BITT is painfully inefficient as transformers go or he would not have to burn up 1500 Watt primary driving transformers to light a 3 Watt bulb. He glossed over that one quickly. (pay no attention to that transformer burning up behind the curtain)
I see Thane's work as a giant leap backwards in electromagnetics born of delusional thinking.
But that's just my opinion.
Ion:
Thanks for your comments. I took a lot of heat for looking at what Thane said with a critical eye. Wattsup, if you want to rebut the technical points that I made be my guest.
We have spoken recently about various issues on the free energy forums. Another issue is that outrageous claims can be posted by people that make no sense and sometimes nobody will try to correct them or challenge them. Thane's comments were posted on OU on October 30th and I checked and not a single contributor to that forum responded to what Thane said challenging him. I am sure that there must have been some people there that read his statements and balked just like I did, yet nobody posted any comments.
This is a generic issue that ties directly into the intellectual honesty of a forum and the the need for healthy debate. I don't want to be in a place that resembles North Korea. It's like there is an unwritten code where you are not supposed to challenge other people's ideas, especially if they are outside of conventional understanding. People need to be able to speak their minds from multiple perspectives, it's as simple as that. It's totally unhealthy and the antithesis of open mindedness to have a forum where there is an implicit pressure to not speak if it goes against the grain.
MileHigh
Quote from: ION on 2010.11.13, 13:22:59
I see Thane's work as a giant leap backwards in electromagnetics born of delusional thinking.
But that's just my opinion.
And that is exactly my litmus test, when standard EE says stuff like "he is delusional" this means he is on the right track and one reason more that Thane should continue his works.
@MH
If you read the thread, then you read my own posts there that are self-explanatory. Why should I have to repeat them here just to please one member. The way I go about it is the way I have seen it can work with inventors. You ask questions, you point out the discrepancies, you ask for their understanding of those points and hopefully you get your point across without burning down the bridge. Thanes' present silence is simply a statement that what I did was the right way and has caused him to reflect deeper in what he is doing and how to better explain it. Hopefully again because again, we never know.
You again do not understand what we are trying to do here. You maybe think it is a good thing to have the EE inquisition jump up at every turn, but we here already know about that. Nothing new. You are not teaching us anything we do not already know. Actually in a way, this repetitive massage that you are posting from thread to thread is simply showing us a certain level of self-indulgence that can scrape on the sides of a rather looped way of thinking. Closed in on itself and not capable of seeing anything beyond what is "acceptable". And there I think lies your own personal challenge to surpass that. We never say this is it, we always say this could be it because there is a level of humility that we already know that with endless possibilities, there are endless ways to be right and wrong. You just have to be open to both sides in good measure.
Not answering Thanes' outburst is the best way to pass it because IT IS NOT IMPORTANT to the device. if you are waiting to meet the next Jesus-Christ OU-EEstar, then you guys are the ones that are delusional. We just deal with the reality of people and their own quirks and how they actually are and try to make the best of it to better understand the device. There is nothing in the way you go about your comments that spells constructive criticism. So you see, you have much to learn after all.
wattsup
Wattsup:
In a generic sense let's say that there are two things to consider for a free energy proposition, the device and the person promoting the device. Whether you like it or not, the two things are linked. We are looking for the truth.
In Thane's case, unfortunately the device does not appear to work. This is the truth based on what we have seen so far. And unfortunately, Thane has demonstrated a lack of competence with respect to electromagnetics by his statements. That's also the truth.
I am interested in the truth. You seem to be so open minded that the truth doesn't seem to matter sometimes. You never know, somebody might find something, right? So you can spend enormous amounts of time and energy chasing after things that are impossible because you prefer to ignore what we have learned so far. I am not stopping you, but I will comment, you don't have to take my advice.
You are not making any rebuts to the technical points about Thane's statements. Do you have a proposition to explain how Thane's device could work? It's Thane's deal so nobody is forcing you to answer. By the same token yesterday you took issue with what I had to say. So it's all laid out a few postings back if you want to argue your points. If you can't argue any technical points then I will assume that you were just mad at my pointing out what I pointed out.
You may not think it's constructive criticism, but that's your opinion. The flux cancellation issue is constructive criticism. We saw on one of Thane's later clips that there was no voltage in the "OuterO" ring clearly showing the flux cancellation was taking place. I put in real time and made a real effort by making multiple technical posts to try and figure out the the truth behind Thane's device. That's constructive criticism. You can't ignore it because you don't like it. It's my attempt to find the truth, not to be an "EE Star."
I did not answer Thane's outburst, I ignored it for the most part. I answered to his technical points and rebutted them. Again, it's simply about trying to get to the truth.
QuoteYou are not teaching us anything we do not already know.
You have got to be kidding. Did you see the postings by Hoppy and Farrah about the woeful lack of technical knowledge on the free energy forums? That is probably the most prevalent issue around.
On your side, in my opinion when you read between the lines, you want suppress speech that you don't like. It's an urge that you have to try to fight. We both know that on OU you could complain to Stefan and you could get me booted off the site. I am arguing the technical points and taking a critical look at the statements of the inventor himself and that might upset you so one possible solution is to simply eliminate me. It's not right and that's another failing on the forums. There is a time and place to eliminate posters, but it should never be done for the simple expression of their ideas.
MileHigh
@MH
I will just answer in bold your post copied below.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.13, 19:33:00
Wattsup:
In a generic sense let's say that there are two things to consider for a free energy proposition, the device and the person promoting the device. Whether you like it or not, the two things are linked. We are looking for the truth.
One day the person will no longer be there. You will be left with the device only. Try and have a conversation with the device. Won't work. So while the person is here, it is your responsibility to maintain a form of communication that not only calls for dishing out the technical but also in using some level of psychology to keep the person engaged. Otherwise, while the person is still alive, you blew it and again are left with the device. Looking for the truth can only happen when all the details are known. With a work in progress, trying to pin it down to a few classical knowns is not right because the work is not finished. Thane never said his device was finished. And seeing his device and seeing how he explained it, it was evident he was talking about two things. Just putting that in front of him is enough to push him in the right direction to look deeper. The "truth" in that case is not even ready to be considered. In a way, you are putting the cart before the horse.
In Thane's case, unfortunately the device does not appear to work. This is the truth based on what we have seen so far. And unfortunately, Thane has demonstrated a lack of competence with respect to electromagnetics by his statements. That's also the truth.
I am interested in the truth. You seem to be so open minded that the truth doesn't seem to matter sometimes. You never know, somebody might find something, right? So you can spend enormous amounts of time and energy chasing after things that are impossible because you prefer to ignore what we have learned so far. I am not stopping you, but I will comment, you don't have to take my advice.
Again, his statement about the field around a wire is not false and it is not truth. You just decided that the classical way of looking at a field around a wire is the right way, but not even the classical way can prove it. This I will cover when I am ready to post my thread on my bench so I don't want to get into it to heavily here. Suffice to say that what you consider truth is just in reality one side of the coin that has never been proven.
You are not making any rebuts to the technical points about Thane's statements. Do you have a proposition to explain how Thane's device could work? It's Thane's deal so nobody is forcing you to answer. By the same token yesterday you took issue with what I had to say. So it's all laid out a few postings back if you want to argue your points. If you can't argue any technical points then I will assume that you were just mad at my pointing out what I pointed out.
Again this is not the time to try and make a rebuttal when you do not understand yourself the device fully. You just decided on your own that this was the time to understand so you actually try to force an issue that is not ready to be fully understood yet. It's like asking a doctor what the prognosis is before all the results are in.
You may not think it's constructive criticism, but that's your opinion. The flux cancellation issue is constructive criticism. We saw on one of Thane's later clips that there was no voltage in the "OuterO" ring clearly showing the flux cancellation was taking place. I put in real time and made a real effort by making multiple technical posts to try and figure out the the truth behind Thane's device. That's constructive criticism. You can't ignore it because you don't like it. It's my attempt to find the truth, not to be an "EE Star."
Thane tried to explain about the flux cancellation saying, there s no such thing as flux cancellation in the core itself and I concurred with him on that point. That's my prerogative to agree or disagree but I did continue on to explain what I think he meant about that rather extensively. The cancellation may occur in the coils but not in the core. The coils see two paths and translates the cancellation as being a normal event. The flux itself cannot see it needs to cancel. Actually I did learn something that day. I learned his way of looking at this. Now try to do a rebuttal on that. What can you say but hey, nothing in normal EE can dispel it.
I did not answer Thane's outburst, I ignored it for the most part. I answered to his technical points and rebutted them. Again, it's simply about trying to get to the truth.
You did not do it on his thread but you did do it on this forum.
You have got to be kidding. Did you see the postings by Hoppy and Farrah about the woeful lack of technical knowledge on the free energy forums? That is probably the most prevalent issue around.
Regarding Farah Day, she took a good hit at me the other day. I had prepared a rebuttal to it but what is the point. I just did not post it. I sometimes will write the post for me. In her explanation there were many mistakes so I finally decided to just let it go. Too much to cover and too much to do. Unfortunately she does not know how well versed I am in water treatment methods, including reverse electro-deionisation, electrostatic humidification, electro-coagulation nor does she know the trails I have done with hydrogen production. HHO just scares the lights out of me. Each bang just cries out "Watch out man I'm gonna burn you". So I never really pursued it.
On your side, in my opinion when you read between the lines, you want suppress speech that you don't like. It's an urge that you have to try to fight. We both know that on OU you could complain to Stefan and you could get me booted off the site. I am arguing the technical points and taking a critical look at the statements of the inventor himself and that might upset you so one possible solution is to simply eliminate me. It's not right and that's another failing on the forums. There is a time and place to eliminate posters, but it should never be done for the simple expression of their ideas.
Wow you give me too much influence at OU when I am just another fart in the windstorm. We have been at this for some years now and have seen a myriad of persons, inventors, fakers, but mostly honest guys giving it their best try, etc. You name it we have seen it. When we do not understand an effect, we have guys like @guyulsan that join a thread to give us a more pragmatic perspective with the conventional point of view. No fighting required. Just guys that are working together to understand something. But he will never do anything in an arrogant manner trying to demean anyone and hence, he is a trusted person that you can always go to for some clarification in the classical EE viewpoints. Look there is a time and a way to say things. You have the choice about that. In my experience, the best way is the one that can get the most information out of the person or the device. For me, nothing is more important. Putting someone on the spot or deciding for them that today is a day for truth will not do it. The only thing I am trying to fight is my own ignorance while trying to stay open to all possibilities.
MileHigh
Sorry for delay in responding but there were many points to cover and as usually I re-read my post at least five times to make sure I was saying "exactly" what I wanted to get across.
Edited November 17th, 2010 - Questions removed by wattsup
EDIT: Corrected BOLD code.
Wattsup:
QuoteIn a way, you are putting the cart before the horse.
Thane did a few clips and myself and others commented on then. If I recall, in those clips he was already implying that his device was an over unity device. If you post some clips on YouTube you have to deal with people commenting on your clips. You seem to want to give me a hard time while giving Thane such a wide latitude for his really ugly comments about people. That's a double standard.
QuoteAgain, his statement about the field around a wire is not false and it is not truth. You just decided that the classical way of looking at a field around a wire is the right way, but not even the classical way can prove it.
If you compress a spring with your hand you would not deny that it takes energy to do this. If you push a shopping cart in a food store you would not deny that it takes energy to do this. You would think that somebody was crazy if they tried to claim otherwise. Now switch over to an inductor, and you seemingly can't make the intellectual connection between an inductor and the spring and the shopping cart. You want to live in a world where "everything that is classical is questionable." You
can prove it, just like you can prove that it takes energy to compress a spring or move a shopping cart. You can try combinations of coils and circuits for the rest of your life, and you will never be able to energize an inductor without expending electrical energy to make this happen. That's the way it is no matter what belief system you ascribe to.
QuoteSuffice to say that what you consider truth is just in reality one side of the coin that has never been proven.
No, there is only one reality for coils and capacitors, just like there is only one reality for springs and shopping carts. It has all been proven and I have to assume that you are just making a bold statement without having opened up a physics book or sat in a classroom to go through the proof step by step. You are trying to sound enlightened and open-minded but in fact you are closed-minded.
QuoteYou just decided on your own that this was the time to understand
I gave my opinion based on what Thane showed. You want to put constraints on me to satiate your own wish list. You can't impose your views on anyone else. I have 0% confidence that Thane will be successful with his ongoing developments with the Bi-toroid project. I have no idea what his time frame is but let's say we see where he is one year from now. I will guess by November 2011 that Thane will have dropped the project because it went nowhere.
QuoteThe cancellation may occur in the coils but not in the core.
I am not going to debate the flux cancellation but I will use this opportunity to repeat a request and suggest that you pass it along to Thane: Thane should make a timing diagram for his device showing exactly how it works. This is standard practice and it will take the guesswork out of what he is doing.
As far as my comments go sometimes they can be harsh and I admit it but I am not intentionally trying to be nasty. Part of that is because it can sometimes be absolutely shocking to see the claims that people make and then you contrast that with their knowledge and skill set. In my Bedini thread I reviewed Rick Friedrich's "Bedini self-runner" clip on Google video. That clip is shocking, absolutely shocking and I virtually puke when I think about it. So sometimes I can be frank when I talk. When I look at Thane's clips I see a man who appears to not really know what he is doing. That's my opinion, like it or not. I will dream up another analogy. Electronics is like flying a fighter jet and some people that have seen fighter jets on TV seem to think that they can just jump into the cockpit of one and start flying it just like that. It takes education and training to be able to fly a fighter jet.
MileHigh
@milehigh
QuoteIf you compress a spring with your hand you would not deny that it takes energy to do this. If you push a shopping cart in a food store you would not deny that it takes energy to do this. You would think that somebody was crazy if they tried to claim otherwise. Now switch over to an inductor, and you seemingly can't make the intellectual connection between an inductor and the spring and the shopping cart.
I think we can all agree that an inductor is not a shopping cart nor a spring in reality, it is a basic analogy and nothing more.
QuoteYou can try combinations of coils and circuits for the rest of your life, and you will never be able to energize an inductor without expending electrical energy to make this happen. That's the way it is no matter what belief system you ascribe to.
This is nothing more than an opinion based on the fact that all properties and conditions must remain within the confines of what everyone considers normal operation, I can tell you as fact that this is not the way it is in every case.
QuoteNo, there is only one reality for coils and capacitors, just like there is only one reality for springs and shopping carts. It has all been proven and I have to assume that you are just making a bold statement without having opened up a physics book or sat in a classroom to go through the proof step by step. You are trying to sound enlightened and open-minded but in fact you are closed-minded.
Again this is blatant speculation, science is not a religion my friend and we can prove this by the fact that science is always changing, in fact what we call coils and capacitors change drastically on the nanoscale so of course your opinion is false. If you are going to bother stating something as fact you had better do your homework, you should also take a good hard look in the mirror before accusing anyone else of being closed minded.
QuoteI gave my opinion based on what Thane showed. You want to put constraints on me to satiate your own wish list. You can't impose your views on anyone else.
So why are you continually imposing your opinions and views as irrefutable "fact" and "truth" on everyone else, grow up.
QuoteAs far as my comments go sometimes they can be harsh and I admit it but I am not intentionally trying to be nasty.
I would suggest you review your posts where you basically call all FE researchers incompetent delusional crackpots, lol.
Regards
AC
AC:
QuoteI think we can all agree that an inductor is not a shopping cart nor a spring in reality, it is a basic analogy and nothing more.
Here is where I am not getting an engineering vibe from you
at all because they are essentially identical things. I mean this literally and that's why my example applies.
QuoteThis is nothing more than an opinion based on the fact that all properties and conditions must remain within the confines of what everyone considers normal operation, I can tell you as fact that this is not the way it is in every case.
In my opinion based on reading your posts, your references to the anomalies that you often state you have observed are due to either measurement errors and/or misunderstanding what you are doing and seeing. Why don't you give us all of the data on your double-pulsing inductor experiment and we can see what's up?
Quotescience is not a religion
I agree. Science is always evolving and in most cases new knowledge sits on top of existing knowledge.
Quotein fact what we call coils and capacitors change drastically on the nanoscale so of course your opinion is false.
It's not an opinion AC it's fact. All of the experiments around here are done on a macro scale. I have never heard that coils and capacitors change drastically on a nanoscale. Can you cite some links to support that statement?
QuoteSo why are you continually imposing your opinions and views as irrefutable "fact" and "truth" on everyone else, grow up.
I am expressing my opinion, not telling anyone what to do. That's not imposing. If I say something is a fact and someone disagrees with that, they are welcome to debate it and they can try to prove it's not a fact. Typically I am just referencing the facts that are part of the scientific infrastructure that we have developed over the past 150 years. If you or anyone wants to claim those facts aren't true the burden of proof lies with the claimant.
QuoteI would suggest you review your posts where you basically call all FE researchers incompetent delusional crackpots, lol.
If you have an issue with this or any future posting, then bring it on AC and let's debate it. We can start the clock right now. If in a future posting I state an experimenter is incompetent then respond to that posting in the thread itself, and we can debate the facts.
And I don't call all experimenters incompetent delusional crackpots. That's just you trying to do a negative spin on me. I will repeat, if you have an issue with what I say, then post in the actual thread itself and we can have a debate in "forum real time." Is that fair and acceptable to you?
MileHigh
@MH's question on shout out at November 14th, 2010
(20:33:39) MileHigh: let me describe a small setup for you
(20:33:58) MileHigh: ok, no prob, are you with me for the fun question?
(20:34:09) wattsup: Go man go
(20:34:49) MileHigh: okay you have an ideal power supply, 10 volts. Just to be sure, do you know what \"ideal\" means?
(20:35:03) wattsup: Yes no loss
(20:35:34) MileHigh: not quite, it means it can supply infinite current and still hold 10 volts. got it?
(20:35:54) wattsup: I need oneof those
(20:36:08) MileHigh: okay, now do you know what an ideal inductor is?
(20:36:56) wattsup: Again yes no loss
(20:37:26) MileHigh: yes, but the better way to say it is zeroohms DC resistance
(20:37:37) MileHigh: okay so here we go
(20:38:16) MileHigh: you connect the ideal inductor across the ideal power supply, so the question is what happens?
(20:38:33) MileHigh: that\'s it, what happens?
(20:39:34) MileHigh: any takers?
(20:41:05) MileHigh: still thinking????
(20:41:38) wattsup: Just got back from answering the front door
(20:41:48) MileHigh: ciool
(20:41:52) MileHigh: oop cool
(20:42:28) wattsup: Well since both are ideal, I woudl imagine you get infinite voltage output
(20:43:41) MileHigh: back too
(20:44:09) MileHigh: that\'s wrong, try again?
(20:44:23) MileHigh: anybody else?
(20:44:37) wattsup: Either that or you just shorted out the power supply
(20:44:47) MileHigh: nope
(20:45:10) MileHigh: the power supply can\'t be shorted out, it\'s an ideal power supply
(20:45:30) wattsup: Then the coil just burns out
(20:45:37) MileHigh: any attempt to short it out would cause the metal to explode
(20:45:52) MileHigh: no, ideal coil, can\'t burn out
(20:46:31) wattsup: Then the coil will do nothing
(20:46:34) MileHigh: nobidy else wants to chime in?
(20:46:59) MileHigh: not an answer, something happens, what about the current
(20:48:40) MileHigh: okay we\'re done, ask AC if you want, maybe he knows
Re. the question:
The current in the inductor (and hence the magnetic field around it) begins to build.
The current and field continue to grow larger and larger (linearly) for ever and ever, until the 10V supply is turned off.
Did I win a prize? :P
.99
Re. the question,
I would say the magnetic field would grow to the point of core saturation and pretty much stop as the current continues to grow. The center of any coil by it's nature is finite and can only hold so much magnetic field even an air core.
But this is kind of a trick question as any coil is going to have some resistance to limit current even if the resistance is a micro-ohm. It's very difficult to make a zero ohm inductor.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2010.11.15, 05:46:47
Re. the question,
I would say the magnetic field would grow to the point of core saturation and pretty much stop as the current continues to grow. The center of any coil by it's nature is finite and can only hold so much magnetic field even an air core.
But this is kind of a trick question as any coil is going to have some resistance to limit current even if the resistance is a micro-ohm. It's very difficult to make a zero ohm inductor.
Hi Room3327.
You've missed an important part of the question: both the 10V source and the inductor are
ideal, therefore there are no limits, no saturation, and no losses. Of course these do not exist in reality, but that was the question as stated.
.99
The current in the inductor would approach infinity.
There would be no saturation or ohmic loss because it is an ideal inductor.
the magnetic field would also go towards infinity
the ideal power supply would have no problem delivering infinite current as it also is ideal.
at Time 0, (moment of connection to the supply) there would be zero current drawn from the power supply. (since an ideal inductor has no stray capacitance to cause a small current spike as a real world inductor would)
If the inductor were one Henry, some time later x amperes would be drawn from the supply, since the applied voltage is 10 volts.
anyone guess what x is after one time constant? After one second?
Ion:
Quoteanyone guess what x is after one time constant?
There is no time constant because it's a "trick" question! :D
MileHigh
IMO there is a problem with the spring analogy of an inductor.
The 'spring' effect is not with the inductor. This is confusing because adding energy to a spring, in a simple sense, is either stretching or compressing the spring. Since they have visual similarities some would think you are saying the inductor is stretched or compressed like the spring.
The 'spring' effect is between the magnetic force being produced due to current flow in the conductor and the counter force, or CEMF being produced due to that rising magnetic force created by the inductor current flow.
In the ideal world, the current rise in this inductor would be forever delayed as compared to the same current rise in an ideal resistor of zero Ohms.
The spring analogy describes the tension between the generated magnetic field of the inductor and the magnetic field countering that field of the inductor, not the inductor itself.
You could go on and say the inductor will move like a spring if you hit it with enough current and talk about the fields between the turns but it is all due to the same effect.
In reality, it is all plumbing. The stuff all runs downhill and payday is on Friday.
In the plumber's world the current flow of an inductor is much like the hydraulic current flow of a pipe due to an attached bladder tank. Anyone have an 'ideal' bladder tank?
Choose your own analogy.
Wavewatcher:
An inductor and a spring are identical and I will explain why.
Imagine you hook an inductor up to a scope where one terminal is fixed at ground and you have scope probes that measure the voltage and the current going into the other terminal. You could try different circuit configurations like this. You could connect up a voltage source to the inductor with a series resistor and observe the time constant as the inductor energizes, or you could put a square wave into the inductor, etc. For whatever circuit you try, you can observe the voltage and current waveforms on your scope display.
Now imagine you take a spring and fix one end to the floor. On the other end of the spring you have probes that can measure the velocity of the free end of the spring and the force going through the spring. These two probes output analog voltages that you can connect to a scope display, basically the same setup as for the inductor.
So, you can look at the two scope displays, one for the inductor (voltage and current) and one for the spring (velocity and force). Now let's imagine for the sake of argument both setups run at the same frequencies.
You do all of this and you won't be able to say which scope display is for the inductor and which scope display is for the the spring. The waveforms from both setups will be identical no matter which electrical or mechanical equivalent circuit you set up for making your observations. The easiest example would be if you make an LC resonator for the inductor circuit. You put a charged capacitor in parallel with the inductor and watch the ring-down of the electrical tank circuit. You attach a moving mass to the spring and watch the ring-down of the mechanical tank circuit. The waveforms generated by the two setups will be identical.
Both setups are just showing Mother Nature in action. Everybody with common sense knows that it takes mechanical energy to compress a spring. You can extend that common sense to an inductor, and it takes electrical energy to energize an inductor also. A simple form of inductor is a straight piece of wire, and it takes electrical energy to generate the magnetic field around that piece of wire.
MileHigh
Now let's take it one step further:
The differential equations:For an inductor: voltage = L di/dt
In plain English that means that the voltage across an inductor is proportional to the rate of change or current with respect to time. If you put pure DC current through an inductor then the voltage across the inductor is zero.
Now let's look at a spring:
For a spring: velocity = K dforce/dt
(K is the spring constant that defines how strong the spring is)
In plain English that means that the velocity of the end of a spring (other end affixed to the floor) is proportional to the change in force you apply to the spring with respect to time. If you are pushing with a constant force, then the free end of the spring is fixed and does not move and the velocity is zero. It's only when you chance the force that you are pushing on the spring will the end of the spring start to move with a certain velocity.
If you read the two examples above over a few times, one for an inductor and the other for a spring, and really think about it you will see that they are
identical.
Now for the integral equations:For an inductor: i = (1/L) integral (voltage) dt
For a spring: force = (1/K) integral (velocity) dt
For an inductor, the current flowing through the inductor is proportional to the integral of the voltage across the inductor with respect to time.
For a spring, the force flowing through the spring is proportional to the integral of the velocity of the spring with respect to time.
Same thing here, think about the two examples and if you can visualize them you will see that they are
identical.
Finally, for the energy stored in an inductor and a spring:Inductor energy = 1/2 L i-squared
Spring energy = 1/2 K force-squared
They are
identical.
To quote AC:QuoteI think we can all agree that an inductor is not a shopping cart nor a spring in reality, it is a basic analogy and nothing more.
AC, I suggest that you study this posting and the previous posting in detail.
MileHigh
MH,
I always appreciate your staunch adherence to the well worn books. I won't go into where I have found them lacking as that would be a pointless battle with you, as any battle with you would be ;)
Go ahead and post the math. I don't need the refresher but others may.
The fact is when you charge a spring you are storing energy in the spring. When you charge an inductor you are storing energy in magnetic fields. (yes, you can go deeper and say the energy is stored in the same forces, either way)
The spring analogy is well understood by me and any other propeller head. It cannot be understood or associated well by those using real springs in everyday work and life because they have a 'real' not 'ideal' experience with springs.
The same goes for the difference between 'proof' and 'a proof'. There is no real difference in the book definitions but the real people know the difference. 'A proof' is a solution to a model. 'Proof' is a solution to the reality you can sense with your senses.
I have no argument with you on the maths for the model. When I have an argument it is with the application of the model or the construction of that model.
When was the word 'Theory' removed from 'theory of electricity' and 'theory of magnetism'?
When I watch you try to teach someone basic physics concepts I am pleased.
The problem is you don't walk away gracefully.
My next impressions are like watching the local religious zealot try to force my neighbor to believe 'The Word' with that neighbor having no starting point for such a belief.
Why should he?
To the zealot it is all fact.
Others want to know where is the basis for that fact.
The offering are 'proofs' for models?
To you and I models of reality represent reality. (I hope you agree about models of reality simple representing reality and not actually being reality?)
For most things this is good enough for me, not for the majority of folks.
You can argue the spring analogy as much as you wish. It doesn't change anything. Physics books are full of such 'close-enough for the masses' analogies.
Sorry for busting in on this. I'd rather just continue watching the flurry.
Wavewatcher:
I am not really sure what your main point is but I can make a comment or two.
QuoteThe fact is when you charge a spring you are storing energy in the spring. When you charge an inductor you are storing energy in magnetic fields. (yes, you can go deeper and say the energy is stored in the same forces, either way)
The current through an inductor and the magnetic fields are basically one in the same. To make life simple you can ignore the magnetic fields and just focus on the current itself. The moment you say "magnetic fields" a lot of enthusiast's eyes light up in fascination because of some sort of "mysticism" associated with magnetic fields. It doesn't have to be the case.
QuoteWhen I have an argument it is with the application of the model or the construction of that model.
You can split hairs on models forever if you want to. There are the perennial questions, "Does anybody really know what electricity really is" or "What is current?" Then there are the people that don't believe that current flows. Whatever the case, in my opinion these are really distractions to the real goal of looking at an experiment and trying to figure out what is really and truly going on in the real world.
The importance of the spring analogy is to demystify inductors and what they are and how they work. Inductors are just electrical springs. They are as dead as a doornail just like springs are as dead as a doornail. That relates back to the eternal quest to find the "right" or "magic" inductor/capacitor/whatever combination for your experiment that will produce free energy. If some people can get over the intellectual hump, they will realize that sometimes it's a fruitless quest to try different combinations of components because you can see a "generic solution" for your experiment. You don't have to try changing coil sizes because you realize that any size coil will not change anything.
I can think of two examples. In the Mylow fiasco dozens and dozens of people moved magnets around on rotating platters in a fruitless quest to make a permanent magnet motor. They agonized over the spacings and groupings of magnets. When you look at the Rodin coil or the Rodin "star-ship" coil, it's just a funky coil with some property of inductance, that's it. In one clip Marko Rodin casually says that his coil is a solution to the world's energy problems. That's a complete farce.
MileHigh
MH,
I'll agree with almost everything in your last post. I'll disagree with variations in LRC combinations not providing anything new or interesting. I have no reason to believe these would provide excess energy.
Maybe you didn't get my point but you made it very well ;D
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.11.15, 18:47:44
The fact is when you charge a spring you are storing energy in the spring. When you charge an inductor you are storing energy in magnetic fields. (yes, you can go deeper and say the energy is stored in the same forces, either way)
This is a very important point. Just because two things can be calculated with the same form of equation, does not make them "identical".
Is current a force?
(electrons per second sounds more like velocity i.e. meters per second)Is voltage a velocity?
(Voltage is measure of electromotive force, EMF)(EDITS in bold)
Grumpy:
Current and force are equivalent because they are the "through" variables. Current travels through an inductor while force travels through a spring.
Voltage and velocity are equivalent because they are the "across" variables. Voltage is measured across the inductor, and velocity is also measured across the two end points of the spring.
Power is the product of the through and across variables.
In Nature there are different types of through and across variable pairs. We know that energy can be transformed from one form to another. Different forms of energy have different through and across variable pairs associated with them.
If you understand this way of looking at the world and seeing how Nature works, then you can understand where inductors fit into the scheme of things.
A long pipe filled with water has the same properties of an inductor or a spring and the waveforms are the same. What do you think the through and across variables are in this case?
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.15, 22:23:11
Grumpy:
Current and force are equivalent because they are the "through" variables. Current travels through an inductor while force travels through a spring.
Voltage and velocity are equivalent because they are the "across" variables. Voltage is measured across the inductor, and velocity is also measured across the two end points of the spring.
Power is the product of the through and across variables.
In Nature there are different types of through and across variable pairs. We know that energy can be transformed from one form to another. Different forms of energy have different through and across variable pairs associated with them.
If you understand this way of looking at the world and seeing how Nature works, then you can understand where inductors fit into the scheme of things.
A long pipe filled with water has the same properties of an inductor or a spring and the waveforms are the same. What do you think the through and across variables are in this case?
MileHigh
Voltage is defined as a force (EMF) and current is defined as charge crossing a measured point per unit time.
You say that voltage is a velocity and current is the force.
Then why are the units different? Looks like current is the "across" and voltage is the "through".
QuoteThen why are the units different?
The units are different because you are looking at different physical systems. The truth is you can turn things around if you want to and swap the interpretations of the variables but that will make things too confusing.
Quotecurrent is defined as charge crossing a measured point per unit time
That sounds like a through variable, correct?
QuoteVoltage is defined as a force (EMF)
I know, but it also measures the difference in potential across two distinct and separate points, and that is what you need to focus on.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.15, 22:54:46
The units are different because you are looking at different physical systems. The truth is you can turn things around if you want to and swap the interpretations of the variables but that will make things too confusing.
I think that has already been accomplished.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.15, 23:04:02
I think that has already been accomplished.
Sorry for that but I am giving you the straight goods! You should contemplate this a lot and you may have a eureka moment.
In a water pipe the flow of water is the through variable and the difference in pressure from one end of the pipe to the other end is the across variable. If the water flowed without any friction in the pipe, then for a constant flow rate the pressure difference between the two ends of the pipe would be zero. This is identical to how an electrical inductor works. The total weight of the water moving in the pipe is proportional to the hydraulic inductance of the pipe system. So indeed, water moving through a pipe looks almost exactly like and behaves like an energized inductor.
It's a way to see how energy systems really work and this can be applied to any project that is worked on around here.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.15, 23:19:48
Sorry for that but I am giving you the straight goods! You should contemplate this a lot and you may have a eureka moment.
In a water pipe the flow of water is the through variable and the difference in pressure from one end of the pipe to the other end is the across variable. If the water flowed without any friction in the pipe, then for a constant flow rate the pressure difference between the two ends of the pipe would be zero. This is identical to how an electrical inductor works. The total weight of the water moving in the pipe is proportional to the hydraulic inductance of the pipe system. So indeed, water moving through a pipe looks almost exactly like and behaves like an energized inductor.
It's a way to see how energy systems really work and this can be applied to any project that is worked on around here.
MileHigh
I have a book that shows you how to model mechanical systems with electrical components. You can do this because the math works out. The analogy between the two works for most cases and is quite useful.
A mechanical model can not predict an unknown effect in an electrical model if the effect does not have a mechanical counterpart.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.15, 23:36:40
I have a book that shows you how to model mechanical systems with electrical components. You can do this because the math works out. The analogy between the two works for most cases and is quite useful.
A mechanical model can not predict an unknown effect in an electrical model if the effect does not have a mechanical counterpart.
I agree with you. I think the point I am trying to make is that when you look at mechanical and electrical systems on their own, in most cases the there is 100% coverage in one system modeling the other system and vice-versa.
You talk about a coil distorting space or cutting through ether (just paraphrasing) and I talk about a dead doornail coil with voltage, current, and the differential equations that govern it's behaviour.
Then you do an experiment with some coils. So, are the coils just dead doornail electrical springs going through the motions? Or, are some unknown effects happening? The big variable here is the person doing the experiment. Is this person educated and trained enough to recognize that he or she is looking at dead doornail electrical springs or not? Perhaps more interestingly, is this person educated and trained enough to recognize that he or she is looking an an unknown effect or not?
Thane is playing with dead doornail electrical springs and related things and nothing out of the ordinary is happening.
MileHigh
@milehigh
QuoteThe importance of the spring analogy is to demystify inductors and what they are and how they work. Inductors are just electrical springs. They are as dead as a doornail just like springs are as dead as a doornail. That relates back to the eternal quest to find the "right" or "magic" inductor/capacitor/whatever combination for your experiment that will produce free energy. If some people can get over the intellectual hump, they will realize that sometimes it's a fruitless quest to try different combinations of components because you can see a "generic solution" for your experiment. You don't have to try changing coil sizes because you realize that any size coil will not change anything.
I understand your analogy perfectly well, you are simply speaking of the basic ratios in regards to tangible Force,Velocity and Inertia and little more. However here are a few specific examples where your analogy completely falls apart ;)
1) We take a ten turn coil and apply a HV/HF AC source tuned to the 1/2 wavelength not of the total length of the wire in the coil as a whole but to the length of one single turn. In this case one coil turn must have an electrical potential opposite of the one next to it thus a great potential difference is present and the evolution of an electrical force. This electrical force per turn does in fact produce "oscillations" in the coil as a whole and is also the reason why lumped sum capacitance and inductance calculations are completely meaningless as they do not apply nor does Kirchhoff's laws as charge density could have any value almost anywhere.
2) Next we will take the ten turn coil mentioned above which we know has been set in oscillation due to interwinding electrical forces(capacitive)which are obviously independent of the coil as a whole because if the ends of the coil are fixed in place this has no effect on the oscillations occurring per turn. We can then consider the following ratios, the natural resonant frequency of the coil as a whole in regards to the resonant frequency per turn, the capacitance or electrical energy stored per turn in relation to the coil turn spacing as a function of force and inductance or to be more specific "self-inductance" on a per turn basis. It should be perfectly obvious that in fact a coil can be compressed and set in oscillation in a mechanical sense not by something as simple as an applied external force but independent forces which may evolve from "within". We could then ask the simple question, we know external forces are always opposed but does this rule apply to forces which evolve from within, the answer is no not in every case.
QuoteYou don't have to try changing coil sizes because you realize that any size coil will not change anything
I hope you can now see that in fact everything matters, I do not design circuits based on springs and shopping carts I design circuits based on properties extending to the quantum level. It should be obvious that things such as the work function of the material, the texture of the materials as a function of surface area or capacitance, the geometry as wire diameter and spacing and the coil length per turn as well as coil total length all matter more than most could possibly imagine. Basic analogies and generalizations are fine for beginners who want to learn the basics but the level of understanding required to do what many consider impossible is another matter entirely which is why so few have found success. You have to think in three dimensions not two and regard all interactions of every kind from the atomic scales up, Im sorry springs and shopping carts just do not cut it, not even close.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.11.16, 01:45:30
Basic analogies and generalizations are fine for beginners who want to learn the basics but the level of understanding required to do what many consider impossible is another matter entirely which is why so few have found success.
Regards
AC
I think that could be extended beyond "beginners" to cover 99.99% of the engineering that goes on in the world today.
I know of no publicly-accountable organization that is doing research on technology that is generally regarded as "impossible". As I see it, the nuts and bolts research going on in most forums by FE enthusiasts is covered under that 99.99% umbrella, although many of those researchers would argue that their research isn't.
No doubt esoteric research exists, but very few get to that level. I commend you AC if you have achieved this level, but I'll also state that imho, most of the claims being made in this community we love to hang around in are erroneous and can be explained by conventional theory, even though several observations may in fact be the result of some complex interactions, as in the Rosemary Ainslie circuit and tests.
.99
AC:
QuoteI understand your analogy perfectly well, you are simply speaking of the basic ratios in regards to tangible Force,Velocity and Inertia and little more. However here are a few specific examples where your analogy completely falls apart
1) We take a ten turn coil and apply a HV/HF AC source tuned to the 1/2 wavelength not of the total length of the wire in the coil as a whole but to the length of one single turn. In this case one coil turn must have an electrical potential opposite of the one next to it thus a great potential difference is present and the evolution of an electrical force. This electrical force per turn does in fact produce "oscillations" in the coil as a whole and is also the reason why lumped sum capacitance and inductance calculations are completely meaningless as they do not apply nor does Kirchhoff's laws as charge density could have any value almost anywhere.
You are discussing very high frequency excitation of the coil into areas where microwave type analysis applies. I am not talking about that, they are two separate issues. So my analogy does not "fall completely apart," you are discussing a different thing altogether. It's the same thing where you tried to make the argument about capacitors and inductors on a nano scale. So you are making some interesting points but at least understand the context that I am discussing. If you want to change contexts that's fine make it clear that you are doing so. It would be even better if you tried starting a completely new thread. Please try to avoid changing the context and then trying to imply that there is a connection between the two different contexts when in fact there is no real connection. This type of argument from you can go on ad infinitum and does not add to the discussion. We are clearly not discussing exciting coils at microwave frequencies no more than we were discussing nano capacitors and nano inductors the other day.
QuoteI hope you can now see that in fact everything matters, I do not design circuits based on springs and shopping carts I design circuits based on properties extending to the quantum level. It should be obvious that things such as the work function of the material, the texture of the materials as a function of surface area or capacitance, the geometry as wire diameter and spacing and the coil length per turn as well as coil total length all matter more than most could possibly imagine. Basic analogies and generalizations are fine for beginners who want to learn the basics but the level of understanding required to do what many consider impossible is another matter entirely which is why so few have found success. You have to think in three dimensions not two and regard all interactions of every kind from the atomic scales up, Im sorry springs and shopping carts just do not cut it, not even close.
If you want to work with microwave frequencies or with nano technology then more power to you. But saying this, "Im sorry springs and shopping carts just do not cut it, not even close." is out of context. Whatever work you do exciting coils at very very high frequencies is still all 100% conventional "classical" technology that's well understood and all of the mathematical modeling still applies, except it is now at the microwave scale.
I think all of us would appreciate it if you tried to refrain from the "context switch" to "disprove" statements made by other people. If you have some interesting subjects to raise then the best thing would be to start a new thread or threads.
MileHigh
What about the last 0.01% ?
I see entirely too much discussion on these forums about how things cannot work. Most of this is valid and necessary, but that last 0.01% remains open.
Rather than present diatribes on how we can not collect excess energy from the wheel work of nature, how about discussing how we "might"?
Getting back to inductors and springs:
A spring is not inductive.
@milehigh
QuoteThen you do an experiment with some coils. So, are the coils just dead doornail electrical springs going through the motions? Or, are some unknown effects happening?
Maybe I misunderstood your posts, I thought you were stating that a coil is just a "dead doornail electrical spring" and I stated reasons why this is simply not the case. I can just as easily send a single DC impulse into a coil and make it "ring" as if it were excited at very high frequencies so what does this tell us. It should be perfectly clear that it is not and never was what many call "high frequency" that excited the interwinding capacitance of the coil it was the rate of change specifically. To be more precise, a single impulse having a slope or rate of change equal to the slope of an equivalent high frequency has exactly the same effect. So now you know, it is not and never was high frequency that produces these effects as you suggest it can also be a single DC impulse.
If your going to state a coil is just a simple electrical spring then state the context, this is "ONLY" the case with uninterrupted low voltage Direct Current or uninterrupted low frequency low voltage AC and in any other case this spring analogy will have severe limitations and in some cases fail completely. I should also mention that I didn't learn this from a school or a textbook I learned this from research and experiments to prove the matter for myself which is the hard way to do things but sometimes it is the best way.
Regards
AC
I was under the impression that a DC impulse was comprised (or could be constructed of) a summation of frequencies the range of which are influenced by the rise time, hold time and fall time of the impulse. For repetitive pulses, the pulse repetition rate and duty cycle is a contributor to the overall harmonic content.
In other words a DC step or impulse excitation contains high frequency components.
@Ion
QuoteI was under the impression that a DC impulse was comprised (or could be constructed of) a summation of frequencies the range of which are influenced by the rise time, hold time and fall time of the impulse. For repetitive pulses, the pulse repetition rate and duty cycle is a contributor to the overall harmonic content.
In other words a DC step or impulse excitation contains high frequency components.
Let's think simple, how do we ring a bell? Some might say just hit the damn thing but that is not my interest my interest is the best or most efficient way. If we repeatedly hit the bell then what of the harmonics? there are very few because we keep hitting the bell and the driving force overrides all other forces as a function of magnitude. If we want to "ring" a bell correctly we must strike it and move back with a rate of change of position which is greater than the natural resonant motion of the bell itself. To be more precise, the striker material and mass must be tuned to the bell material and mass, the striker must deflect or displace the material of the bell but not the bell itself and rebound off it at a rate of change greater than the resonant action of the bell itself. In fact most of the work to ring a bell in a normal way is completely wasted, it takes a great deal of work to set the mass of a bell in motion but this back and forth motion has literally nothing to do with the production of sound --- the ringing. This is what we do, lol, we push the damn bell back and forth in all our devices and this requires a great deal of work and involves a great deal of losses but very seldom do we actually ring the bell efficiently to produce the proper quality of oscillations. If we did things correctly then the bell itself would never actually move it would only vibrate in itself and produce oscillations at its natural resonant frequency.
I have found that like the bell analogy an impulsive force will produce high frequency components but these high frequencies are not a component of the impulse itself but a reaction to it. The trick is to build instrumentation which can show us the difference between action and reaction otherwise we would never know the difference. What are we actually seeing on our oscilloscopes? An oscilloscope is little more than like using a stick in a pond of water to measure the apparent motion of a few of the waves. It is a crude instrument at best, in our real three dimensional world where fields reign supreme it amounts to little more than groping in the dark but their fun to play with.
Regards
AC
Grumpy:
QuoteA spring is not inductive.
You are referring to inductive coupling between coils and indeed a mechanical spring has no such trait. If you talk about an electrical transformer for example, some mechanical equivalents could be a set of meshed gears or a simple lever with a fulcrum.
AC:
QuoteMaybe I misunderstood your posts, I thought you were stating that a coil is just a "dead doornail electrical spring" and I stated reasons why this is simply not the case. I can just as easily send a single DC impulse into a coil and make it "ring" as if it were excited at very high frequencies so what does this tell us. It should be perfectly clear that it is not and never was what many call "high frequency" that excited the interwinding capacitance of the coil it was the rate of change specifically. To be more precise, a single impulse having a slope or rate of change equal to the slope of an equivalent high frequency has exactly the same effect. So now you know, it is not and never was high frequency that produces these effects as you suggest it can also be a single DC impulse.
Like I said your reasons for stating a coil is not an electrical spring are are completely out of context. Ion said, "I was under the impression that a DC impulse was comprised (or could be constructed of) a summation of frequencies the range of which are influenced by the rise time, hold time and fall time of the impulse." He is absolutely correct. You on the other hand state, "It should be perfectly clear that it is not and never was what many call "high frequency" that excited the interwinding capacitance of the coil it was the rate of change specifically." You are apparently unaware that a single pulse or a pulse train can be viewed in the frequency domain by the use of a Fourier transform and this explains the coil ringing.
QuoteSo now you know, it is not and never was high frequency that produces these effects as you suggest it can also be a single DC impulse
Unfortunately your statement is totally wrong because you apparently are not aware that that a DC impulse contains high frequency components. This material would be covered in any engineering school curriculum.
QuoteIf your going to state a coil is just a simple electrical spring then state the context, this is "ONLY" the case with uninterrupted low voltage Direct Current or uninterrupted low frequency low voltage AC and in any other case this spring analogy will have severe limitations and in some cases fail completely.
Sorry, you are parroting me and trying to turn the tables back on me because of my statements about your context switching but it's not going to fly. The context is the typical experimenter fair we see on the forums. We are all looking to have a reasonable debate without unnecessary distractions.
MileHigh
An impulse, being composed of so many harmonics (see Dirac's Delta Function) could resonably excite just about any coil imaginable.
Which brings up a curious statement made by Nikola Tesla:
QuoteYes, but with another kind of circuit I could, of course. The advantage of this apparatus was the delivering of energy at short intervals whereby one could increase activity, and with this scheme I was able to perform all of those wonderful experiments which have been reprinted from time to time in the technical papers. I would take energy out of a circuit at rates of hundreds or thousands of horsepower. In Colorado, I reached 18 million horsepower activities, but that was always by this device: Energy stored in the condenser and discharged in an inconceivably small interval of time. You could not produce that activity with an undamped wave. The damped wave is of advantage because it gives you, with a generator of 1 kilowatt, an activity of 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 kilowatts; whereas, if you have a continuous or undamped wave, 1 kilowatt gives you only wave energy at the rate of 1 kilowatt and nothing more. That is the reason why the system with a quenched gap has become popular.
I have refined this so that I have been able to take energy out of engines by drawing on their momentum. For instance, if the engine is of 200 horsepower, I take the energy out for a minute interval of time, at a rate of 5,000 or 6,000 horsepower, then I store [it] in a condenser and discharge the same at the rate of several millions of horsepower. That is how these wonderful effects are produced. The condenser is the most wonderful instrument, as I have stated in my writings, because it enables us to attain greater activities than are practical with explosives. There is no limit to the energy which you can develop with a condenser. There is a limit to the energy which you can develop with an explosive.
It sounds like Tesla is stating that with impulse excitation, you get a gain of 2000 or more.
Anyone care to elaborate on this?
@milehigh
You can change the context and "insinuate" whatever you like, the fact remains the present science journals are absolutely littered with research into what you imply is no more difficult to understand that a spring or a shopping cart. Now if the best and the brightest researchers, much smarter than anyone here I can assure you, believe there is much more to learn about a supposedly simple inductance and are investing billions to study it then I am much more inclined to believe them than anyone here.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.16, 14:38:12
An impulse, being composed of so many harmonics (see Dirac's Delta Function) could resonably excite just about any coil imaginable.
Which brings up a curious statement made by Nikola Tesla:
QuoteYes, but with another kind of circuit I could, of course. The advantage of this apparatus was the delivering of energy at short intervals whereby one could increase activity, and with this scheme I was able to perform all of those wonderful experiments which have been reprinted from time to time in the technical papers. I would take energy out of a circuit at rates of hundreds or thousands of horsepower. In Colorado, I reached 18 million horsepower activities, but that was always by this device: Energy stored in the condenser and discharged in an inconceivably small interval of time. You could not produce that activity with an undamped wave. The damped wave is of advantage because it gives you, with a generator of 1 kilowatt, an activity of 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, or 5,000 kilowatts; whereas, if you have a continuous or undamped wave, 1 kilowatt gives you only wave energy at the rate of 1 kilowatt and nothing more. That is the reason why the system with a quenched gap has become popular.
I have refined this so that I have been able to take energy out of engines by drawing on their momentum. For instance, if the engine is of 200 horsepower, I take the energy out for a minute interval of time, at a rate of 5,000 or 6,000 horsepower, then I store [it] in a condenser and discharge the same at the rate of several millions of horsepower. That is how these wonderful effects are produced. The condenser is the most wonderful instrument, as I have stated in my writings, because it enables us to attain greater activities than are practical with explosives. There is no limit to the energy which you can develop with a condenser. There is a limit to the energy which you can develop with an explosive.
It sounds like Tesla is stating that with impulse excitation, you get a gain of 2000 or more.
Anyone care to elaborate on this?
I am thinking in the back of my mind that this is like an impact wrench or rivet hammer, where several sharp blows does what one large blow can't do because of the way that the enrgy is delivered and absorbed. With the sharp blows the energy is localized to a small area and not wasted, the effect is an accumulation of energy delivered by the sharp blows.
AC:
Why don't you go ahead and start a thread about what researchers are doing with inductance? Just understanding the standard electrical spring properties of an inductor is enough of a challenge for experimenters on the forums.
Grumpy:
I think Tesla is just talking about the very high power levels that you can get with capacitor discharges and things along those lines. If a diesel engine is driving a generator you can extract very high power levels from the diesel engine for short amounts of time simply by drawing on the rotational inertia of the running engine. He might be charging a big high voltage cap when he is doing this. The higher the cap voltage the harder it is to charge hence he has to draw energy from the rotational inertia of his motor itself to push the cap to very high voltages. Then he can discharge that big high voltage cap at super-high power levels, millions of horsepower.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.16, 16:27:56
Grumpy:
I think Tesla is just talking about the very high power levels that you can get with capacitor discharges and things along those lines. If a diesel engine is driving a generator you can extract very high power levels from the diesel engine for short amounts of time simply by drawing on the rotational inertia of the running engine. He might be charging a big high voltage cap when he is doing this. The higher the cap voltage the harder it is to charge hence he has to draw energy from the rotational inertia of his motor itself to push the cap to very high voltages. Then he can discharge that big high voltage cap at super-high power levels, millions of horsepower.
MileHigh
the rotational inertia of the engine...
What is the equivalent of rotational inertia in an electrical circuit?
@Milehigh,
It's been my understanding that the water flowing in a pipe analogy is not a good one. It may come close but is not exactly the same thing as current in a wire. For one thing I do not know of any water flowing through a pipe situation where a field, of any kind, is built up around the water pipe by water flowing inside. Current in a wire builds a magnetic field around it, what field is created by water flowing through a pipe?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.16, 17:27:10
the rotational inertia of the engine...
What is the equivalent of rotational inertia in an electrical circuit?
Tesla, in response to a similar question by his Consel:
http://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art07.html (near the bottom)
QuoteThis coil, which I have subsequently shown in my patents Nos. 645,576 and 649,621, in the form of a spiral, was, as you see, [earlier] in the form of a cone. The idea was to put the coil, with reference to the primary, in an inductive connection which was not close -- we call it now a loose coupling -- but free to permit a great resonant rise. That was the first single step, as I say, toward the evolution of an invention which I have called my "magnifying transmitter." That means, a circuit connected to ground and to the antenna, of a tremendous electromagnetic momentum and small damping factor, with all the conditions so determined that an immense accumulation of electrical energy can take place.
It was along this line that I finally arrived at the results described in my article in the Century Magazine of June 1900. [Fig. 43] shows an alternator; not the alternator that was furnished for my laboratory on Houston Street -- that was another one, [but] at 35 South Fifth Avenue [and] operated on the same principle. Here [lower left] are the condensers, primary, and all the rest. The discharge there was 5 or 6 feet, comparatively small to what I subsequently obtained. I have produced discharges of 100 feet, and could produce some of 1,000 feet if necessary, with the greatest facility.
Counsel
Mr. Tesla, at that point, what did you mean by electro-magnetic momentum?
Tesla
I mean that you have to have in the circuit, inertia. You have to have a large self-inductance in order that you may accomplish two things: First, a comparatively low frequency, which will reduce the radiation of the electromagnetic waves to a comparatively small value, and second, a great resonant effect. That is not possible in an antenna, for instance, of large capacity and small self-inductance. A large capacity and small self-inductance is the poorest kind of circuit which can be constructed; it gives a very small resonant effect. That was the reason why in my experiments in Colorado the energies were 1,000 times greater than in the present antennae.
Counsel
You say the energy was 1,000 times greater. Do you mean that the voltage was increased, or the current, or both?
Tesla
Yes [both]. To be more explicit, I take a very large self-inductance and a comparatively small capacity, which I have constructed in a certain way so that the electricity cannot leak out. I thus obtain a low frequency; but, as you know, the electromagnetic radiation is proportionate to the square root of the capacity divided by the self-induction. I do not permit the energy to go out; I accumulate in that circuit a tremendous energy. When the high potential is attained, if I want to give off electromagnetic waves, I do so, but I prefer to reduce those waves in quantity and pass a current into the earth, because electromagnetic wave energy is not recoverable while that [earth] current is entirely recoverable, being the energy stored in an elastic system.
Counsel
What elastic system do you refer to?
Tesla
I mean this: If you pass a current into a circuit with large self-induction, and no radiation takes place, and you have a low resistance, there is no possibility of this energy getting out into space; therefore, the impressed impulses accumulate.
Counsel
Let's see if I understand this correctly. If you have radiation or electromagnetic waves going from your system, the energy is wasted?
Tesla
Absolutely wasted. From my circuit you can get either electromagnetic waves, 90 percent of electromagnetic waves if you like, and 10 percent in the current energy that passes through the earth. Or, you can reverse the process and get 10 percent of the energy in electromagnetic waves and 90 percent in energy of the current that passes through the earth.
It sounds like Tesla used the self-inductance to magnify the energy in the magnfier coil.
@milehigh
QuoteThe context is the typical experimenter fair we see on the forums. We are all looking to have a reasonable debate without unnecessary distractions.
Do you think a reasonable debate includes one person stating an inductance can only be the equivalent to an electrical spring and little more? does this sound reasonable considering that this is a "FREE ENERGY" forum? I would submit it is anything but reasonable and is misleading people into believing free energy is impossible by casting doubt through representing opinions as facts.
Here is a little fact for you, I have read literally hundreds of free energy patents in regards to pure magnetic motors, magnetic field amplifiers, power amplifiers, energy amplifiers which state energy is gained-- period. Now these patents are not granted to some backwater inventor as you might theorize they are granted to corporations such as GE, Sanyo, Mitsubichi, Toyota, Hitachi, etc... ---- that is some of the biggest corporations on the planet. Now why would every single one of these very intelligent and very large corporations be actively researching something you say is impossible? Do you believe you must know something these industrial giants do not know? Why would they hire the best and the brightest and spend billions on something you tell everyone here is impossible? I will not even answer this question because everyone seems to know the answer but you. When you stop misrepresenting opinion as fact is when I will no longer need to correct you.
Regards
AC
Room3327:
QuoteFor one thing I do not know of any water flowing through a pipe situation where a field, of any kind, is built up around the water pipe by water flowing inside.
A mechanical spring doesn't have a field around it either. You have to look at the pipe in terms of how the two variables react and how it stores energy, that's what counts. You can look at an inductor the same way and just look at the current flow and the voltage. In that sense an inductor and a water pipe look the same.
AC:
QuoteWhen you stop misrepresenting opinion as fact is when I will no longer need to correct you.
The energy dynamics for an inductor and a spring being identical are not opinion, they are fact. That's leading people, not misleading people. Like I said, if you want to discuss esoterica about inductors and capacitors and advanced research, start a new thread and put up some links.
MileHigh
Grumppy:
QuoteWhat is the equivalent of rotational inertia in an electrical circuit?
Using the same mathematical analogies between mechanical and electrical systems as previously discussed then charged capacitors or energized inductors can be considered equivalent to rotational inertia.
The rotational energy stored in a spinning disk is 1/2 M v-squared, where "M" is the moment of inertia and "v" is the angular velocity.
Look at the equivalent formulas for capacitors and inductors: 1/2 C v-squared and 1/2 L i-squared.
Both capacitors and inductors are capable of outputting extremely high levels of power for a short amount of time. For a cap, you connect it to a low resistance, for a coil you connect it to a high resistance.
MileHigh
Either something is missing, or Tesla's Magnifier did not magnify energy. His Counsel asks if voltage, current, or both are increased and he replies "Yes".
How did he magnify "energy"?
Is there something in or around the coil that we are not aware of, that is increased when a coil is impulsed?
Is there some way to cause self-induction to reverse and become additive?
What mechanism of gain is at play here?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.16, 21:23:39
Either something is missing, or Tesla's Magnifier did not magnify energy. His Counsel asks if voltage, current, or both are increased and he replies "Yes".
How did he magnify "energy"?
I did read the interview that you posted and it's pretty clear to me Tesla was simply talking about an LC resonant system. So the key thing to realize is that the term "magnify" was being loosely interpreted. The more appropriate term would have been "accumulate" energy. You somehow pulse energy into a giant LC resonator with a timed spark gap or something like that and voltage and current levels keep on increasing.
So in all likelihood there was no "energy magnification" going on at all in that particular experiment.
I can easily envision Tesla enthusiasts without a strong background in electronics reading that material and being utterly convinced that Tesla was talking about a free energy system that magnified energy in a literal sense. That's really unfortunate.
MileHigh
QuoteWhat mechanism of gain is at play here?
I'm batting for 'Negative Induction' ;D
What if there was a true magnification? How might this be accomplished?
(Are familair with the events along a wire "before" electrons start to drift?)
Look, all of the phrases hi-lighted telling you that Tesla is talking about working with a very large LC resonator that he is pulsing energy into. It operates at a relatively low frequency and has very little internal resistance so that the voltages and currents can get very high as the energy gets accumulated:
QuoteThis coil, which I have subsequently shown in my patents Nos. 645,576 and 649,621, in the form of a spiral, was, as you see, [earlier] in the form of a cone. The idea was to put the coil, with reference to the primary, in an inductive connection which was not close -- we call it now a loose coupling -- but free to permit a great resonant rise. That was the first single step, as I say, toward the evolution of an invention which I have called my "magnifying transmitter." That means, a circuit connected to ground and to the antenna, of a tremendous electromagnetic momentum and small damping factor, with all the conditions so determined that an immense accumulation of electrical energy can take place.
Counsel
Mr. Tesla, at that point, what did you mean by electro-magnetic momentum?
Tesla
I mean that you have to have in the circuit, inertia. You have to have a large self-inductance in order that you may accomplish two things: First, a comparatively low frequency, which will reduce the radiation of the electromagnetic waves to a comparatively small value, and second, a great resonant effect. That is not possible in an antenna, for instance, of large capacity and small self-inductance. A large capacity and small self-inductance is the poorest kind of circuit which can be constructed; it gives a very small resonant effect. That was the reason why in my experiments in Colorado the energies were 1,000 times greater than in the present antennae.
Counsel
You say the energy was 1,000 times greater. Do you mean that the voltage was increased, or the current, or both?
Tesla
Yes [both]. To be more explicit, I take a very large self-inductance and a comparatively small capacity, which I have constructed in a certain way so that the electricity cannot leak out. I thus obtain a low frequency; but, as you know, the electromagnetic radiation is proportionate to the square root of the capacity divided by the self-induction. I do not permit the energy to go out; I accumulate in that circuit a tremendous energy. When the high potential is attained, if I want to give off electromagnetic waves, I do so, but I prefer to reduce those waves in quantity and pass a current into the earth, because electromagnetic wave energy is not recoverable while that [earth] current is entirely recoverable, being the energy stored in an elastic system.
Counsel
What elastic system do you refer to?
Tesla
I mean this: If you pass a current into a circuit with large self-induction, and no radiation takes place, and you have a low resistance, there is no possibility of this energy getting out into space; therefore, the impressed impulses accumulate.
Peterae:
QuoteI'm batting for 'Negative Induction'
I am not sure if you are serious or not and I am not a Tesla expert. Did he play with tubes a lot? Negative induction is a theoretical concept that exists on paper. It can only be done in real life with an active circuit that consumes power and uses that power to create what looks like a negative inductance across two nodes in a circuit.
MileHigh
MH
I know from pulsing my own coils with HV impulses of a few ns that very little conduction current in delivered to the coil and the capacitance of the coil is extremely low. Granted Tesla used a ground plate and raised terminal to form a capacitor, the capacitance is not that high with so great a distance with a dielectric that is mostly air. Also, Tesla talks of using [earth] currents and not electromagnetic waves and speaks of specifically not using EM waves as all the energy is lost with them. Tesla is not charging a battery or capacitor that would hold the charge. The energy is only present while the system is operating, like some sort of kinetic energy.
Sorry, I do not buy the LC resonance explanation.
Grumpy:
We will agree to disagree about the LC resonator. Since Tesla states it works at a low frequency you need a significantly-sized cap and coil to get low frequencies.
When the LC resonator is at it's peak voltage, you can short out the cap and get massive power output with super-high currents. Alternatively when the LC resonator is at it's peak current, you can open-circuit the inductor and get massive power output with super-high voltages.
I can only guess that that's the kind of experimenting that Tesla was doing with his large LC resonator, assuming it was indeed a large LC resonator.
MileHigh
Here is a paper that I ran across a long time ago that discusses how "current" diffuses slowly into conductors and that transmission via copper could not occur without displacement current.
http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv/UQ:9792/saha-edwards-aup.pdf
I agree about inductors and caps, but Tesla was getting a magnification of 1000 or more.
The following is tounge in cheak and may be wrong:
What I'm getting at is that there is an aether flow along a conductor when it is first connected to a power supply. This aether flow is what causes electrons to flow, by dragging them along, per se. Tesla was working with this aether flow and found he could build it up to high levels. Aether flows through everything, and by altering this flow of aether, Tesla increased the energy in his magnifying coil.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.05, 04:39:33
For your comments about the TPU: It is pretty simple, you are describing basic magnetic induction principles. A transformer is a classic example of this. So I am going to suggest to you that the challenge for any TPU builder is twofold. They need to make measurements on power out vs. power in and demonstrate over unity. Then they should try to reverse-engineer the device with timing diagrams and various measurements and explanations to explain how the device works. This will be a tall challenge because everything we know about magnetic induction says that it is an under unity process obeying the law of conservation of energy.
MileHigh
Sorry for bringing this into the fray at this time, but the first point you make in bold above is simply not possible as no one has a device
And as you might expect the second point is also not possible as no one has even the faintest clue how such a device could work.
So we are left with an enigma. Because of your last statement, we are left with just a few choices.
1) agree that the unit was a fake, powered by hidden batteries (end of story)
2) agree that we have already discovered all the possible means of enticing a current to flow in a conductor, we need look no further. (end of story)
3) agree that standard induction will never yield OU so give up on that method (end of that story)
4) try to come up with a different approach of enticing a current to flow in a conductor
5) try to engage the very best minds to discuss how a different method might be possible, research some possibilities of methods that do not use standard induction principles.
Those who understand that it will not be done by standard induction have a greater chance of discovering something unique as opposed to the Thane's of the world that get deeply lost in the "standard induction forest" because of their lack of understanding of those principles.
In other words, it is incumbent upon those well versed in standard magnetic principles to make the required leap into the world of undiscovered possibilities.
I totally disagree with others on the forum that express a disdain for the educated electromagnetic engineer. Their belief is that someone traditionally educated will never find something new.
I watch some of these folks totally lost in the world of standard induction, only deluding themselves that they have something new, because they lacked the experience that would show them otherwise.
So unfortunately, we don't have a TPU to work on or make those measurements, we are all mostly lost in the forest of standard induction. Your twofold challenge cannot be taken at this time.
We do have an enigma, worthy of study even if from a distance. There is much to learn. I encourage you to read the DR. Schinzingers tests reports and find how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.11.17, 00:30:59
The following is tounge in cheak and may be wrong:
What I'm getting at is that there is an aether flow along a conductor when it is first connected to a power supply. This aether flow is what causes electrons to flow, by dragging them along, per se. Tesla was working with this aether flow and found he could build it up to high levels. Aether flows through everything, and by altering this flow of aether, Tesla increased the energy in his magnifying coil.
That would be the electric field flowing along inside the conductor. That causes the electrons to flow. The gradient of the electric field is the electric field intensity. So in a wire with moderate current flow the electric field is very weak and there is almost no voltage drop. So the voltage drop and the electric field intensity are related. Then the current flows through a resistor and the electric field is very strong and is doing the work of pushing the electrons through the resistance. Inside the resistance is where the main voltage drop happens.
MileHigh
Ion:
I can't disagree with you that you have to somehow both think outside of the box and be outside of the box, and also produce results.
You never know, there may be someone out there that has all of their ducks lined up in a row!
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.17, 01:05:41
That would be the electric field flowing along inside the conductor. That causes the electrons to flow. The gradient of the electric field is the electric field intensity. So in a wire with moderate current flow the electric field is very weak and there is almost no voltage drop. So the voltage drop and the electric field intensity are related. Then the current flows through a resistor and the electric field is very strong and is doing the work of pushing the electrons through the resistance. Inside the resistance is where the main voltage drop happens.
MileHigh
An electric field is just a divergence of the aether currents.
I am referring the instant in time before the universe knows this is an electrical circuit. First there is the aether flow from each end of the circuit. Note that these are not opposing flows but opposite direction of propagation. So, they do not cancel but meet and then conduction current flows in the opposite direction of the aether flow. This aether flow is a circulating flow that is perpendicular to the conductor, it rolls into and back out of the side of the conductor, like a homogeneous set of rolling gears along the conductor.
Quote from: ION on 2010.11.17, 00:59:10
4) try to come up with a different approach of enticing a current to flow in a conductor
5) try to engage the very best minds to discuss how a different method might be possible, research some possibilities of methods that do not use standard induction principles.
Those who understand that it will not be done by standard induction have a greater chance of discovering something unique as opposed to the Thane's of the world that get deeply lost in the "standard induction forest" because of their lack of understanding of those principles.
In other words, it is incumbent upon those well versed in standard magnetic principles to make the required leap into the world of undiscovered possibilities.
SM stated toward the end of the UEC video that the TPU utilizes another form of induction, another way to make electrons flow to produce electrical current.
The TPU is based on complex interactions of the fields not conduction or induction. The TPU is a 3 layer (virtual) Tesla coil that produces controlled interactions in the fields and on the conductors. A good example is Hutchison using 2 Tesla coils and a transducer. The TPU is a device that produces a minor Hutchison effect. The matter is not altered but the field is. That action is then read by the conductors. The process is like looking at a Teseract. This explanation includes many layers that are never taken as a group or inclusive. The reason why no one has a TPU is because no ones sees farther out than than their limits. No derogation intended. I have yet to hear any explanations to the level of Aspden, who in my opinion has the deep view to the process. Bib De Has has this view also. All the OU devices have sparkgaps or high speed eclipsing of fields. To this day I have seen no other type of process. Why do you think Spherics put the atom bomb detonation picture and a detailed field arrangement in his document? Why do you think he mentioned the GK4 test explicitly? My tests revealed the uncontrolled complexity, like the randomnous of Hutchison. Spherics pointed this out because he wanted all of us to take it up a notch into field control or bending. I could go deeper with with this but I will suffice to say that once the coils are wound and driven then in order to get the OU return ones seeks the next tests are very dangerous, as SM mentioned. And that is where my bigger tests stopped and I went into smaller tests to chop this process up as small as possible to try to garner the insight to a harmonic process and not play with noise. Why do you think I am getting the metal extracted from my body? BS? Think what you want. I choose not to curse the darkness. My experiences have taken me past the standard into the next order of business of this configuration. We all know enough to make the next step and we have seen all the pieces it takes. I am talking about the last configuration. How else can you take a pound of copper and make it vibrate with a 9volt battery?
Giantkiller:
I mentioned once that some people speak in a language that I can't understand and you are one of them. Please don't take offense. The only way to find common ground is to look at results. If you have results to report perhaps you can share them with us or make some YouTube clips one day.
Keep in mind that if for example you make a clip that claims over unity, that you can expect some scrutiny from people including myself. Your measurement techniques will be questioned and people will want to see your data and so on.
I also stated that I think Hutchison is a con artist and I will assume that you disagree. He has no credibility as far as I am concerned and if you do enough digging online about him you will find references to him faking some of his clips. I know that you can attribute that to the "MIB" if you choose to.
MileHigh
@MH
First of all please do not send me any more PM's of the nature you sent me. It is insulting. You think OU research just relies on EE. You are wrong. You can play with your ideal coil and spring all year long, it will not teach you anything. In the shout out I asked you a few questions but you could not answer them and quickly changed subjects. Good move. But stories of ideal coils are supposed to support some concrete idea, then you are riding a double standard here. You can analogize of ideal coils and we are supposed to take it to the bank, while nothing in OU can be considered half seriously. Just write it all off as standard EE. Sorry but I do not buy it. Now instead of demeaning me in PM's, just write what you want in the open threads.
Now, if you are really serious of bringing this discussion forward, then answer my six simple questions and then I will ask you some more. Better still forget it. I will remove them from here and ask them on OU.com. I know some EEers extremely forthcoming and are not all bent up on sounding like a broken record. Sorry, but your PM really ticked me off and I realize now that talking with you is totally useless. You do not want to hear what makes us tick here. You just want to hear yourself talk and talk about the same old same old. Bravo, chock one up for progress.
Wattsup:
I suggested that you try to learn the basics about electronics so that you could get more out of what you are doing as a private message. Why would you state this publicly? You shouldn't be insulted when someone tries to give you sound advice privately and your posting about my PM is inappropriate.
I can't remember your shout-out questions. Post them if you want.
MileHigh
@wattsup
I too recieved a PM calling me just about every foul name under the sun, maybe we are asking the wrong questions. In my personal opinion if the discussion is not related to obtaining free energy then it is pointless and has no place in this forum, that however is just my opinion.
Regards
AC
@Grumpy
QuoteHow did he magnify "energy"?
Is there something in or around the coil that we are not aware of, that is increased when a coil is impulsed?
Is there some way to cause self-induction to reverse and become additive?
What mechanism of gain is at play here?
I think these are the right questions everyone should be asking, as well where is the dicussion of the Bi-toroid? This is the Bi-toroid thread in a Free Energy forum but I have heard no discussion whatsoever on the Bi-Toroid nor how to obtain free energy, I personally find this very odd.
QuoteHow did he magnify the Energy?
We know LC resonance is what it is, we know an induced current will produce a magnetic field which will oppose the magnetic field which induced it so why induce a current?
QuoteIs there something in or around the coil that we are not aware of, that is increased when a coil is impulsed?
I have found that any amount of electrical energy can be induced and stored in a radial electric field between coil windings just as if the wires were plates of a capacitor. The radial electric field gradient then evolves at 90 degrees to the conductor and does not "flow" in the conductor thus no current evolves, which means no induced magnetic field and no opposition to the source which induced it. In this respect we can store energy for a given time and release it as an electric current to oppose the source at a later time. Thane has stated this is exactly what he has been doing all along and he learned this trick from the works of one Nikola Tesla as I have.
QuoteIs there some way to cause self-induction to reverse and become additive?
I will have to think about this question a little more, that is a very good question ;)
QuoteWhat mechanism of gain is at play here?
If we can induce a great amount of electric energy in an "electric field" and store it without opposing the source which induced it then no work is required by the source. If we discharge this electric energy stored in the electric field at a later point in time as an electric current then this current can oppose the source which initially induced it. An approaching magnetic field will see no opposition while inducing an electric field but will be repelled when the electric field is discharged as a current, this is what Thane is doing. No induced current flow or opposition on approach of a magnetic field and a discharging current to repel the magnetic field as it leaves --- a gain, now Thane is trying to apply this process to a motionless generator ---- The Bi-Toroid.
This will be my last post for a while, Im going to take a break and concentrate on some major builds I have in mind, to be honest the forums just do not have the same appeal they once had. I think they have strayed from there purpose, not to endlessly debate points but to also make tangible progress which just is not happening in my opinion, you guys have a good one.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.11.17, 15:29:32
@wattsup
I too recieved a PM calling me just about every foul name under the sun, maybe we are asking the wrong questions. In my personal opinion if the discussion is not related to obtaining free energy then it is pointless and has no place in this forum, that however is just my opinion.
Regards
AC
Indeed you did. That's because for the past three months you have been harassing me. First it was with the use of passive English in almost every reply made to me implying that I was stupid. Then you switched tactics to making rebuttals to my technical postings that were completely out of context and made no sense. When you posted that you were going to continually pursue and harass me in this way you got a piece of my mind. Subsequent to that you stated that you were going to ignore my postings and that's how I would like it to be. Please keep your word and don't reply to my postings.
MileHigh
Agree to disagree.
These kinds of diatribes make the human race look like waring ants. No wonder we still pound ground, pound fists, pound knowledge yet produce nothing!
Go ahead and waste precious time gripping your unworthy possession of self righteousness.
It is obvious who can't grasp the boundary leap it takes to see what SM has done. Same group of minds that couldn't understand Tesla.
When you have a huge magnetic field from resonance you can store energy in it at differing rates. This variable pressure can be used in ways status quo can not understand let alone can learn.
Tesla stated 'With the correct frequency I can split the planet'. All else is cake.
If you were to take the tests I showed on youtube and raised the mass and/or power, you too could break your house. That is what Hutchison shows. And what about fraud? Plz splain me dis crazy metal he has? He wretched solid matter. Has anyone felt that warm fuzzy wave go through their head when powering certain combinations? Many OU oldheads testified to me how close I am. How about in it?
I give story:
I have 'Mighty little' hanging from my mirror in my truck. Fellow employees have asked what it does. I explain. They all say 'Hmmm'. Then next question is how so then?'. I state 'Your reality is based on moving electrons. It is called current. But the TPU commits kinetic action through resonance.' They reply 'When will we see this used in every day places? I say 'fluorescence lighting, nuclear detonation, rogue waves, ultrasound dental cleaning'. The power is awesome. And from what?
Imagine what Keely saw when he was pumping the pipes in that huge resonant chamber called the church.
Giantkiller:
What's your YouTube channel? Just curious, are you working on an over unity demo for sometime in the future?
For Hutchison pieces that show two solid objects merged together, they could simply be props. I have seen the pictures and clips and they look convincing. However, if you go to Hollywood you can find people that work in the film industry that specialize in this kind of thing. For the right price, they will make any kind of sci-fi-looking prop you want.
As far as the TPU and related devices go, if they do one day make the transition from mysterious video clips that you see on YouTube to real tangible devices that can be manufactured, then the world will change and it will be the dawn of the Age of Aquarius like I just said in another posting. In that vein I sometimes check in on MagnaCoaster and Steorn with their SS Orbo. There is still nothing tangible from those two groups.
Believe me, I will be ecstatic if free energy becomes a reality. In short order there will no longer be any need to fight wars and famine could be wiped out and the deserts made green.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.18, 04:28:53
Giantkiller:
As far as the TPU and related devices go, if they do one day make the transition from mysterious video clips that you see on YouTube to real tangible devices that can be manufactured, then the world will change and it will be the dawn of the Age of Aquarius like I just said in another posting. In that vein I sometimes check in on MagnaCoaster and Steorn with their SS Orbo. There is still nothing tangible from those two groups.
Believe me, I will be ecstatic if free energy becomes a reality. In short order there will no longer be any need to fight wars and famine could be wiped out and the deserts made green.
MileHigh
I will reiterate that the TPU is in a class of it's own, there are no related devices. Forget Steorn, Orbo, Magnacoaster.
Problem is the well has been so poisoned, it is extremely difficult to separate the truth nuggets from all the hoax video's that have been posted claiming to be working TPU's or works in progress by other builders.
Your keen detective and analytical skills would be much appreciated in dissecting the original SM offerings. I am somewhat disappointed that you will not go there or will only give an offhand cursory analysis, somewhat lacking the depth of study you have given to present day scammers, which are far more unworthy of your efforts.
I have to somewhat disagree with your last statement. It is my belief that if FE becomes a reality, it will lead to an even more wasteful society than what we now have. Perhaps if it is already known and kept secret, it is because we have not evolved enough to use it wisely, as well as economic reasons and for control of the "beehive"
But for the most part, we agree.
http://www.youtube.com/user/giantkilleroverunity?feature=mhum
Giantkiller:
Thanks for the link. You have a really beautiful digital scope.
Two thoughts for your consideration. The first is when you use an LED connected to a small sensing coil you may want to try connecting two LEDs instead, in opposite directions. That way you have more symmetry in the setup. The pick-up coil sees a more "even" load and by extension the pick-up coil puts a more "even" load on whatever other circuit it is affecting. For high power sensing applications, going to a single incandescent light bulb with an optional sensing resistor is also interesting. This is a linear load, as opposed to diodes which are a non-linear load.
The more I think of it I can offer an even better suggestion for a "pure" sensing coil. The pure sensing coil would be designed to sniff out changing magnetic flux without imposing any significant load on your real circuit. You could wind a new small bobbin of wire with a slight difference. When you are half-way through the winding (counting number of turns) you strip the insulation and solder a center-tap ground wire. Then you finish off winding the bobbin. Then you put a diode on each end of the coil pointing away from the center tap. You solder the two diode outputs together. Let's call this junction between the two diodes the "Sense+" connection point. Let's call the center-tap ground wire the "Sense-" connection point.
Now we just need to connect a small parallel RC network between the Sense+ and Sense- connection points to complete the sensing device. Since you are working with fairly high frequencies we can use a time constant for the RC network that is quite short, let's say 0.1 seconds. Let's say that the resistor we will use is going to be 100K ohm. Therefore the capacitor can be (0.1/100,000) = 1 microfarad.
So, you solder a 100Kohm resistor in parallel with a 1 microfarad capacitor, and then you solder this across the Sense+ and Sense- connections. You do this all right on your little bobbin sense coil itself, and you make two terminal points for the Sense+ and Sense- connections. Then you just buy a cheap digital multimeter for $20 and you set it on DC voltage and connect it up to the Sense+ and Sense- points. The whole thing is so cheap you can even solder the multimeter wires directly to the sensing coil setup and have a dedicated flux sensor coil with a digital display.
You end up with a neat little sensing coil that puts a microscopic load on any circuit you are trying to sniff out and it has a digital display to boot!
My second suggestion is just a generic suggestion for all of your coil experiments. Many experimenters put square waves into their coils and if you have digital driver chips there is not much you can do about that. However, you would be much better off using a function generator set to sine wave output and using optional analog op-amp chips if you need to buffer the function generator output and create multiple versions of the signal. That way you can sweep sine wave frequencies through the coils and observe resonance points, etc. In a general sense, you always are interested in looking at how a coil-based circuit responds to a sine wave as you sweep through a frequency range and don't want to sweep a square wave through a frequency range. The reason is simple. When you sweep a sine wave through a frequency range you are just sweeping a single frequency and you can see how the coil circuit responds to a single frequency. In contrast when you sweep a square wave, you are feeding hundreds of different frequencies into the coil circuit at the same time and therefore the output from the circuit is a mixture of responses to hundreds of separate frequencies all blended together. It's "foggy" as opposed to sine wave excitation which is "clear."
MileHigh
I thrive on camaraderie!
Tnx for the scope comps. I got that portable for 400 less than the 800usd price.
I will make the sense coil. I have a mag field reader already but always like more tools.
In regards to :
It's "foggy" as opposed to sine wave excitation which is "clear."
Jason is supposed to send out his sine sweeper board he made. I bought one to go along with the HV square wave he designed previously.
And yes the foggy noise causes interference with the properties of pumping resonance with 1st 3rd 5th and 7th harmonics. Keely stressed this many times over. With squares waves the noise shunts the purity. This truth you let out gains trust. The pumping of the magnetic field is better controlled with chords than lightning storms. The truth will come out if there is peace amongst us. Contention shuts me off.
Jason's board only puts out 2 freqs. I pressed him to be able to add more channels out. We succeeded in finding a way. I need 6 channels to produce Keely's 2 chords. Keely pumps air into whistles(church pipes) to produce the chords necessary. Oops big secret fell out of my mouth... And with 6 channels(2 chords) the TPU looks like a very, very small accomplishment. This is an exact way to reproduce what Hutchison has purported as a mystery. Apply the correct frequencies Keely and Russell have matched up against the respective target/matter. It is all so very simple. An HV magnetic field against an aluminum plate is the first clue. Just lower the power as you correct the frequencies and wave type towards your target composition. Can you say 'Stan Meyer'?
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.11.19, 00:10:19
Giantkiller:
Thanks for the link. You have a really beautiful digital scope.
Two thoughts for your consideration. The first is when you use an LED connected to a small sensing coil you may want to try connecting two LEDs instead, in opposite directions. That way you have more symmetry in the setup. The pick-up coil sees a more "even" load and by extension the pick-up coil puts a more "even" load on whatever other circuit it is affecting. For high power sensing applications, going to a single incandescent light bulb with an optional sensing resistor is also interesting. This is a linear load, as opposed to diodes which are a non-linear load.
The more I think of it I can offer an even better suggestion for a "pure" sensing coil. The pure sensing coil would be designed to sniff out changing magnetic flux without imposing any significant load on your real circuit. You could wind a new small bobbin of wire with a slight difference. When you are half-way through the winding (counting number of turns) you strip the insulation and solder a center-tap ground wire. Then you finish off winding the bobbin. Then you put a diode on each end of the coil pointing away from the center tap. You solder the two diode outputs together. Let's call this junction between the two diodes the "Sense+" connection point. Let's call the center-tap ground wire the "Sense-" connection point.
Now we just need to connect a small parallel RC network between the Sense+ and Sense- connection points to complete the sensing device. Since you are working with fairly high frequencies we can use a time constant for the RC network that is quite short, let's say 0.1 seconds. Let's say that the resistor we will use is going to be 100K ohm. Therefore the capacitor can be (0.1/100,000) = 1 microfarad.
So, you solder a 100Kohm resistor in parallel with a 1 microfarad capacitor, and then you solder this across the Sense+ and Sense- connections. You do this all right on your little bobbin sense coil itself, and you make two terminal points for the Sense+ and Sense- connections. Then you just buy a cheap digital multimeter for $20 and you set it on DC voltage and connect it up to the Sense+ and Sense- points. The whole thing is so cheap you can even solder the multimeter wires directly to the sensing coil setup and have a dedicated flux sensor coil with a digital display.
You end up with a neat little sensing coil that puts a microscopic load on any circuit you are trying to sniff out and it has a digital display to boot!
My second suggestion is just a generic suggestion for all of your coil experiments. Many experimenters put square waves into their coils and if you have digital driver chips there is not much you can do about that. However, you would be much better off using a function generator set to sine wave output and using optional analog op-amp chips if you need to buffer the function generator output and create multiple versions of the signal. That way you can sweep sine wave frequencies through the coils and observe resonance points, etc. In a general sense, you always are interested in looking at how a coil-based circuit responds to a sine wave as you sweep through a frequency range and don't want to sweep a square wave through a frequency range. The reason is simple. When you sweep a sine wave through a frequency range you are just sweeping a single frequency and you can see how the coil circuit responds to a single frequency. In contrast when you sweep a square wave, you are feeding hundreds of different frequencies into the coil circuit at the same time and therefore the output from the circuit is a mixture of responses to hundreds of separate frequencies all blended together. It's "foggy" as opposed to sine wave excitation which is "clear."
MileHigh
Giantkiller:
A square wave can be viewed as a fundamental sine wave with a series of sine wave harmonics added to it with different amplitudes. Here is a fun clip that I stumbled upon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6crWlxKB_E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6crWlxKB_E)
If you are brave you can try searching on "fourier transform of a square wave" and "fourier transform of a sine wave."
MileHigh
Alienscientist on youtube shows an interesting application of sine waves against matter to control the distance and alignment of atoms in matter(aka 'The Lattice').
The zero crossing transitions always are 'Close' to the midpoint point between the atoms. He contends that this place is the focal point of the activity of what the application is trying to achieve whether its temperature change or stressing the matter. It is simply applying control to the pressure gradiant of the lattice. Much like hitting a nail or pulling a nail with a hammer. Same idea. We can look at lower and lower levels of manipulation which inturn control more and more of what the target is to do under our control.
With sine waves we have the control to push at the right point to achieve harmonic movement/pressure. Else noise just gives noise.
Currently at the frequencies we are talking about to drive the current coil configurations like 1k, 3k, 4k a magamp could be used to give sine output with an input of square waves. I'll check with Jason to see the status of the PC based sine sweepers. Or I'll have to build up some rig to gain some time back.
A new movie from Thane
http://www.magistrala.cz/freeenergy/2010/12/09/zero-power-factor-transformer-for-christmas-mov/
Any body know what he's claiming here ? [Still sound problems with My PC]
Chet
I don't know what he is claiming, but that's been the case for me since the beginning anyway.
However, it appears his input power is about 130W, and output power about 15W. :o
He doesn't speak in this video, so you haven't missed anything.
.99
It's a strange clip. You can see at the end of clip, at 3:49, that he is way over-saturating the primary core. The supply current to the core becomes a triangle wave, and the moment the core gets saturated you see the voltage output from the variac shoot up because the core doesn't appear as a real load anymore. So the voltage waveform across the light bulb load would be a square wave and not a sine wave.
He is using clamp-on current meters. I don't know too much about them, but I would suspect that the vast a majority of them are "dumb" and only work with sine-wave current waveforms. I think clamp-on current meters are used mainly by electricians, and they don't normally concern themselves with true-RMS readings (at least from what I can remember, before there were PCs everywhere with switching power supplies).
It looks like he is cranking up his source voltage to saturate the primary core even sooner to "fake" a 90-degree power factor. His power factor formula doesn't even apply anymore because he is not working with voltage and current waveforms that are sinusoidal in form.
As Poynt previously stated, here is where a simple Kill-a-Watt meter would come in handy. You assume that the Kill-a-Watt meter has a microcontroller inside it that can sample the voltage and current waveforms several thousand times per 60 Hz cycle and do a true wattage and non-standard power factor calculation. In other words, it's almost like a dedicated DSO with built-in math processing.
The Kill-a-Watt meter would show real power being consumed as he changes the light bulb load configuration.
I will also restate that the power companies do not want to drive reactive loads. The real current that flows through the mains supply transformer and the Thane-style transformer still burns off power in both transformer windings, so nothing is "free" at all. That problem also gets reflected back to the high-tension lines and burns off power there also.
MileHigh
Thanks for that ION.
I would expect the choke would also mitigate HF noise getting back into the meter, even though the variac would facilitate this function to a degree as well.
:D
.99
Just a comment that I forgot to mention about Thane's last clip. At the very end he turns the variac way down and the voltage and current wave forms return back to being normal sine waves. When that happens you can clearly see that the voltage and current waveforms are not 90 degrees out of phase, showing that real power is being consumed. Thane doesn't say anything during this portion of the clip.
MileHigh
Feynman posted this question on Thanes thread at OU
I'm interested if there were any successful replications of Thane's anomalous phenomenon; I saw pictures of tests with non-standard flux return paths in transformers on the other thread.
------------------------
I told Feynman I knew of one Fellow that was working on this and I would PM him for info!
Reply to PM
Teslaalset
Quote:
Hi Chet,
I noticed the recent postings of you and Feynman here at OU.
Indeed, I am (still) involved in Thanes work much of my spare time.
I have established a cooperation with Thane under NDA, so I can't speak too openly about our progress.
All I can say is, his findings are real and confirmed by himself and another evaluator (not me). I have confirmed his bi-toroid principle by FEMM modeling (also under NDA, so I can't share the model).
The principle has some critical issues, Power Factor = 1 can occur however under specific conditions.
This message may be freely distributed.
He also added this "Note"
"To avoid confusion, I may be a bit unclear in my message to Chet:
Under specific conditions:
Input: PF = 0
Output: PF = 1 (real power is delivered)
I am sure you understand what this means.
I definitely believe Thane's phenomenon is real.
I am not a free energy skeptic by any stretch... non-textbook electromagnetic/electrogravitic technology has been actively suppressed for many years, certainly at least since WWII.
The question regarding Thane for me, since he doesn't want to open-source (and I have other ways I KNOW will work, for example HHO gas is inherently over-unity), is more of an academic interest, rather than a replication attempt:
(1) Is he using partial-flux saturation of the core to change the hysterisis to get useable energy out during the AC cycle?
(2) Is he using a design which eliminates (or at least modifies , the back-emf flux return path)
(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post3/thane.png)
Again, it could be individual, or a combination of (1) and (2). My 2c anyways.
For more info, see Thane's patent, Canadian patent CA2594905
http://www.rexresearch.com/heins/heins.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/heins/heins.htm)
(http://www.rexresearch.com/heins/ca259-1.jpg)
(http://www.rexresearch.com/heins/ca259-2.jpg)
(http://www.rexresearch.com/heins/ca259-3.jpg)
(http://www.rexresearch.com/heins/ca259-4.jpg)
(http://www.rexresearch.com/heins/ca259-5.jpg)
(http://www.rexresearch.com/heins/2594905a.gif)
(http://www.rexresearch.com/heins/2594905b.gif)
(http://www.rexresearch.com/heins/2594905c.gif)
(http://www.rexresearch.com/heins/2594905d.gif)
Feynman:
Welcome to the site. I'm curious as to why you would say that HHO gas is inherently over-unity.
Thanks,
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.03.02, 20:15:21
Feynman:
Welcome to the site. I'm curious as to why you would say that HHO gas is inherently over-unity.
Thanks,
MileHigh
Me too!
This is off topic, but I'll post soemthing brief:
There's a youtube video on PesWiki of showing some guy in Texas running his car on a standard HHO setup. Just water, no gasoline. He injects the HHO directly into the fuel line or something like that, bypassing the air intake manifold.
There's also a second video on there of some guys in Germany closed-looping a generator and alternator (genset) with HHO gas fed into it. Just look on the PESwiki energy 2011 article for these two videos.
Anyway , Both setups (the genset and the water-car) -- assuming both are legit, which I think they are -- are NOT using Stanley Meyer HV-type water splitting, nor Bob Boyce type resonant water splitting... yet still are producing 2-3L/min of high quality HHO. (This is from measurements). If 3L-6L / min can run an engine under certain circumstances, we need to rethink our assumptions . There are possibilities to why.... perhaps HHO is in a slightly different molecular configuration after splitting and recombination (perhaps it is some sort of linear, complex, or resonant ionic or hydrogen bonding of H2 and O2, rather than the standard SP3 hybridized orbitals in source unsplit water, or the 2:1 molar ratio of diatomic gasses in the official knowledge) . It doesn't matter why if it works, assuming it does (as I have not tested personally, but am in contact with people who have).
For the electrolysis, the distance between plates should be 3mm. Current density should be <30-40mA per cm^2 of the plates. Voltage per cell should not exceed 2V.
A small 2.5HP genset can run on 3L/min hydroxy when of high quality and diluted with 99% air , 1% HHO. The power consumption should be around 500-600W to split the water, but off a 2.5HP generator i think the output is more like 1kW.
More info to come over the weekend, this is just a quick overview. I haven't tested this method personally, but I will.
PS
That 3L-6L/min is from a 60cell /120cell series electroliser (fed from the 120VAC/240VAC mains through full-wave rectifier) is more than sufficient to run a small generator to close the loop. HHO is burns 1000 times faster than gasoline -- it actually detonates.
All that needs to be done apparently, to replicate these closed loop HHO setups, is to make modifications to cause the ignition spark to fire somewhere between -40% TDC and +40% TDC and remove the firing of the waste spark. Thank you .
I see.
The guy that runs his car on 100% HHO is not by any chance the now, notorious, Fast Freddy is he? If so you can scratch that straight away.
QuoteA small 2.5HP genset can run on 3L/min hydroxy when of high quality and diluted with 99% air , 1% HHO.
Is that loaded or unloaded? Will 3 litre/min provide enough gas to meet a 99/1 air/gas ratio?
What do you mean by 'quality' of hydroxy gas? That is, what in your view would be the fundamental difference between high and low quality hydroxy?
Feynman
I would like to introduce you to Farah Day,
She knows an awful lot about HHO,And sometimes she has an Opinion!
Chet
PS This could go long [HHO}
Farrah has a few threads for this ??
PPS
She's a Hugh asset to this community!
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2011.03.03, 17:50:38
I see.
The guy that runs his car on 100% HHO is not by any chance the now, notorious, Fast Freddy is he? If so you can scratch that straight away.
Yes, that's the guy I used as an example. At least one of them. Why should we scratch him off?
The person I am talking to is not Fast Freedy btw.
Quote
Is that loaded or unloaded? Will 3 litre/min provide enough gas to meet a 99/1 air/gas ratio?
Unloaded , at idle, 3L/min on 2.5HP generator into intake manifold , of 'high-quality' (no definition exists yet of what this term means) HHO. Apparently that 3L per min is on the low side of the gas requirement, and won't power a load ; you'd probably need to double it to 6L/min to do this 'for reals' with the same generator (this has also been done by some German guys)
Quote
What do you mean by 'quality' of hydroxy gas? That is, what in your view would be the fundamental difference between high and low quality hydroxy?
I don't know. First step , for me, is to build a 60-cell electrolysis unit run off 120VAC mains run through full-wave rectifier with no capacitor smoothing into my series cell, such that I get around 2V potential per cell. Then I'll measure displacement.
In terms of the actual 'quality' of the gas, I assume this has something to do with quantum effects during gas production, but I really have no idea. It could be something as simple as gas purity or as complex as quantum electrodynamics.
I'll start a new thread to discuss this . I'm not making any 'claim' here -- rather I'm relaying very credible information from a new associate who has provided all this information for free. I will not be making any claims on this phenomenon until I conduct my own experiments. But this is at the top of my short list of things I will be building.
Here is the link to the HHO thread I started to discuss the HHO Overunity, since we are getting off topic here from Thane's bi-toroid...
HHO Overunity Discussion
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=746.msg11583#msg11583
Hey Feynman,
Where'd yah go?
Well the Gabriel Device is Makin Bacon [according to the inventor]
Here
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10518.msg282755#new
Apparently it works along the lines of Thane's "Mary Joe" device.
Thane offered the inventor assistance with patents ,the inventor declined a patent assist and decided to open source!
This should get interesting..................
Chet
1200% Overunity and climbing.............
A question from aaron 5120 to Mavendex [gabriel inventer]
aaron5120 on Today at 06:58:43 AMHi,
@Mavendex,
I have been reading quietly this thread so far, and did not post anything here. But I am very interested to try replicate your latest resuts of the Gabriel Device Version2.0
I have some crucial questions to ask before I proceed to buy the components for the replication, which are not cheap. If you don't mind, here they are:
1) The primary should be tin plated copper wire, insulated in plastic, AWG #24, one layer, wounded counter clockwise( from right to left, in opposite direction of the clock hands), right?
2) The primary core shoud be soft iron toroida halves, those used in the exhaust tubing( donuts) ?
3) These halves shoud be insulated one from the other i order to prevent arcing from the secondaries windings, right?
4) The secondary windings will be 300 turns of AWG24 magnet wire wounded clockwise( from left to right, in the direction of the clock hands), right?
5) How to calculate the proportion of wires used both in the primary and the secondary? How many turns in the primary for how many turns to the secondary?
6)The device operates basically in the 50Hz/60Hz frequency of the public grid, right?
7) The toaster's purpose is to limit current flow in the primary, as a resistive current limiting component, right?
The secondary loading should be strictly resistive, such as common light bulbs, right?
9) There is no need for impedance matching for the secondary loading, right?
For the benefit of all the replicators in the thread, it would very nice if you can answer these questions openly in a public post in the Gabrial device thread.
Thanks a lot, and please keep on experimenting, and we appreciate you very much for open sourcing this discovery.
aaron5120
Mavendex
Answer
Quote:
Hello I will answer as best as I can,
This version with the new shell needs to be recalibrated for wire and what not I did change more than one variable and have to compensate for these changes, be assured for every 1 watt in we get 12 out thus far.
1)the primary I have found, should no longer be tin plated copper and normal magnet wire will work better in this instance of the new shell, optimal sizing of wire is still being experimented with I have wound it counter clockwise and towards myself it does make a difference if you are winding away or towards your self, the toroidal halves
2) I am useing are mild steel or cold rolled steel, feel free to experiment with other metals as this is a cage.
3)yes the halves should insulate from each other other wise the effect is no longer present
4)The direction of the primary is the same as the secondary as far as winding, conventional winding ratios are out the window, how ever much is on the secondary has a ceiling applied and will always be present. currently I have 3.1 ohms of resistance 16 awg wire on the secondary which is yielding a ceiling of 180 volts
5)on this current size and still needs to be calculated and restructured as far as the math goes but as is with current setup 97 turns of the primary will get you to the sweet spot, again winding ratios calculations for conventional transformers are null
6)yes that is how I made it although I do plan to experiment with other frequencies for other projects
7)yes the toaster is my limiter, I will be changing that soon
8)yes to measure your output I would use light bulbs, wear sunglasses and have a meter (be advised if you turn off the secondary before the primary you will get a backspike)
9)impedance matching as far as I know there is no need, again the device is being recalibrated
I am posting these questions in good faith and hope everyone's replications can match or exceed what I have done.
Be aware patent application is being filed on this device for commercial benefit and to get the ball rolling a bit quicker I am doing this with Thane Heins, also be aware I believe everyone has the right to free energy, and if you replicate/duplicate for your own self and supply power for your own self and build it your own self without making money and saving money doesn't equal making money, that is quite alright with me more power to ya. If you so choose that you would like to make money with these devices I would contact either myself or Thane to setup licensing which he has a well thought out agreement that is mutually beneficial for all parties involved.
Dave
Mavendex