OverUnity Research

Hi EMDevices, Slider,


As mentioned in Groundloop's "Adiabatic Oscillator" forum, I've moved the discussion of near field interactions to this new thread. We should be able to come up with something interesting in this area.

EMDevices,  I'd very much like to see any info you can share about your experiments with detuning coils. If you give me the name of this particular project or experiment, I can probably find a lot of it on the net.

I'm intensely interested in field interactions between coils, especially where some of the coils are linked by wires as well, because of Cook, Hubbard, and other concepts where magnetic solenoids induce on each other at close range. I just noted in the Cook forum that the induction coils are in each other's near field, where magnetic interactions are almost simultaneous, but the circuit interactions are in a different time frame.

Any time two coils generating the same wave are put in the same space, the principle of linear superposition comes into play, and the energy contained in that volume is based on the square term of the magnetic flux in that volume (this is grossly oversimplified).

When you read accounts of positive and negative superposition, they always imply that the regions of space where the energy is in excess of the the sources, is canceled by the regions where it is less. But when the sources are put less than 1/4 w away from each other, and held to the same frequency, then there is indeed more positive superposition in the space around than there is negative, and there is excess energy through the whole field. As a result, two coils will try to detune in order to grab that energy back. (You can also explain the same phenomena by the reciprocity of the antennas, in this case coils). 

The positive superposition of closely tied resonant sources has been proven in optical experiments where sending light through a plate containing small holes less than 1/4 w apart resulted in an increase in the overall intensity of the light. Yes, the light going out of the (passive) plate was more intense than the light coming in! This is due to the interaction of the tiny beams each emanating from its hole. The situation is complicated by the screen being made of metal, but basically, the tiny beams all add together in positive superposition, and there is more energy in the outflowing beam than in the infllowing one. I don't have that paper in hand, but I'll post it on my bench when I find it again.

orthofield

Hi all,

Here is some background on the phenomena of "only constructive interference". The Wikipedia article on Extraordinary Optical Transmission shows that light sent through regularly spaced holes less than 1/4 w apart, are subject to increased intensity over what is expected. with much of the light blocked by the screen. I overstated the case in my last letter, saying that the light had a higher intensity overall... instead, it is just higher relative to what would be expected with apertures that size. Still, the article mentions the role that positive superposition plays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_optical_transmission

The Subwavelength article is more blunt, and ascribes the basic phenomena to a local violation of conservation of energy.

The article Extraordinary Transmission is an actual optical test showing that light intensity is quadrupled when two light sources are added together along the same axis. This quote is particularly revealing for our research:

Further it may be noted that in the case of subwavelength
slits the phases of the boundary diffracted waves from the apertures have nearly
the same phase and thus adds constructively resulting an enhancement in the peak
value of transmitted light that depends on the phases and amplitudes of the interfering
beams where intensity scales as the number of light sources squared, i.e., IN ~ N2 I1
(I1 is the intensity from a single slit) regardless of periodicity, which is a requirement
for enhancement using equivalent circuit theory [26] and excitation of surface
plasmons [1–5].

Now, I'm not intending to make this an Optics list, and no need to read these papers in dense Optics detail, but the basic physics carries over equally well to coils with near fields, or for that matter oscillating electric fields.

I believe that these studies imply that a set of coils, all held to the same frequency in a small area will have a greatly enhanced field energy as a result. Then, some means of picking up this energy from the field, that does not have a reciprocal antenna effect can be used..there are several options...

orthofield

Hi All,

Here is an example of "only constructive interference" from acoustics:

http://users.hal-pc.org/~rcanup/anomaly.html

"As the sources are brought closer together fewer regions of constructive and destructive interference exist, and those that do exist are larger. The interference anomaly occurs when the distance separating the two emitters is less than 1/4 of a wave length. At this distance only one type of interference region completely surrounds the speakers. If the speakers are wired in phase the interference of the two wave fronts is everywhere constructive. Conversely if the speakers are wired out of phase the interference region surrounding the speakers is everywhere destructive.

Thus the algorithm for calculating energy which was earlier pointed out is maintained: energy missing in the case of destructive interference shows up in the case of constructive interference. If each speaker is emitting one watt, the power in the surrounding field in the case of destructive interference is approximately 0 watts, while in the case of constructive interference the surrounding field contains approximately 4 watts.

The problem is that energy is apparently not being conserved in either case: either there is energy missing in the case of total destructive interference, or there is too much energy in the case of total constructive interference."

Also:

"Q. If the interference anomaly you have described existed wouldn't it also show up if you hooked two transmitting nodes onto an Ethernet cable, since these nodes launch waves into the cable much like speakers launch waves into the air?

A. There is a crucial difference between speakers in free air and transmitters tied to a cable. The difference is that a transmitter tied to a cable 'sees' the entire signal produced produced by another transmitter - this other signal effects the transmitter in the same way that the signal it is producing effects it. The effective reflected impedance of the cable is altered so that the total energy in the cable is the sum of the two transmitters output energy.

However, in the case of two speakers radiating into free air, the couple between the two speakers is not 100% as it is in the case of transmitters on a cable. If the two speakers are physically small compared to the distance between them the energy coupling between them is poor. "

This last part is the key to tapping the "only constructive interference" condition. The sources that are being combined together cannot react on each other.

orthofield

Fascinating topic.

I've often wondered about "evanescent waves", that extend into classically forbidden regions - but allowed in quantum mechanics.  We don't talk about these much; perhaps we should re-visit...

Quotebasically, the tiny beams all add together in positive superposition, and there is more energy in the outflowing beam than in the infllowing one. I don't have that paper in hand, but I'll post it on my bench when I find it again

Please do!

Hi Physics Prof,

The articles I just sent were the ones I had in mind. I will send more.
On looking at a few more articles on these waves, it appears they have several different definitions. They carry energy.. they don't carry energy. They are quantum and nano phenomena.. they are macro. They travel at the speed of light.. they travel faster than light. The area is particularly murky, which makes me interested :-)

orthofield

Fascinating indeed, partly because of accepted situations with common daily household wire ups.
Everyone wires speakers based on the red and black tabs, moves speakers apart in a room, faces them for room reflections. What you don't see, is someone moving a speaker cabinet to face another at different distances, or turned 180 degrees away from the other. There's normally no point, presumably those nulls and maximas are in full effect and, so it goes with coils and expected outputs.

Here's a thought (only loosely related), what happens to sound output, if you run a small speaker at the focal point of a retired satellite dish ?
Can we shape electrical wave propagation in the air, as sound can be routed with absorbing or reflective designs ?
Can an enclosure be made, that houses 2 coils at 1/4 wave distance, which itself reflects back at that same compounding frequency ?
A sort of annoying squealing microphone feedback loop, for electrical energy.

Hi EMDevices,

Yes, standing waves are a perfect illustration of the effects of negative and positive superposition. There truly is no energy in the null, all of it has been transferred to the maxima. From my reading this appears to be a macro tunneling effect, even in simple situations like a coil or a speaker.

The most interesting case is where the whole field is at the maxima. This can happen in practice if the sources are within 1/4 wave of each other, the 'near' or 'evanescent' field area. The analogy in lumped electrical circuits is a resonant circuit where energy is transferred only for the first 1/4 wave.

Slider, you are thinking more of sonic applications of the 'interference anomaly' and I agree with you there, there are a couple that come immediately to mind, that have not been patented as far as I know. For instance, if ultrasonics are used, the wavelength is shorter and the pz buzzers could be lined up in an acoustic waveguide one after the other. Since the intensity of the ultrasound rises by the square, the ultrasound could be extremely high intensity by the time it left the guide, even with a relatively small expenditure of energy.

That's a tiny bit off topic for an electrical device, but your suggestion about coils at 1/4 distances is right on point. A feedback loop is indeed what we are looking for. That's exactly what I was thinking. The witricity coils for maximum energy transfer are coaxial just like the speakers, so set up three coaxial RF air solenoid coils where 2 coils are primaries and the third is a secondary. In this way the coupling distance can be varied while positive interference can searched for.

I think the third coil would need to be bigger or off to the side of the first two coils, otherwise its own field will induce on to the primaries. Perhaps if the third coil has a much bigger diameter, with the coaxial primary coils centered on each side of it at 1/4 distance, the primaries won't induce into each other, but the third coil's near field surrounds both of theirs.

The problem is not in really getting the extra energy, as the speaker experiment shows, but in tapping it effectively so that it does not have the reciprocal effect back down the line. In the speaker experiment, the microphone that detects sound levels is indeed a speaker, but a very poor one, so reciprocity is weakened at the expense of output from the microphone, but in the case of coils interacting in space we have to violate reciprocity in the third coil while still getting a good output. I see the study of nonreciprocal coil interactions to be the most important thing, taking for granted the increase of energy in positive superposition.

In the Cook thread I've talked about Henry's discovery that solenoids coupled along their axes will show a reversal of their of their induction current as the coils are moved further away from each other. Nearby, the current is the same in secondary and primary, as in any transformer, but moved further away, this current goes in the opposite direction. This phenomena is probably the second coil picking up on standing waves from the sparks used to induce in the primary, but it is still interesting that the induction current reverses direction when the coil is moved further away. 

orthofield

Thanks ortho for the detailed explanations again, makes great learning reading every time :)
I'll have to catch up with the Cook thread, but it seems that positioning coils (solenoids) at exact measured points can allow a situation where controlled field energies switch such phenomena on and off...to flip when required ?
If controlled, instead of flipping themselves in a possibly pseudo random way by being at such a point, then they could produce the electrical analogy of the mic feedback build up ?
That's my very basic understanding so far.

If you'll allow a slight tangent, as this thread seems slower than your other more recent one.
The Otis Carr story seems ridiculous, yet entertaining. There was something said on the RexResearch report which got me thinking some while back though.
From here: http://www.rexresearch.com/carr/1carr.htm

Quote
OTC: To me there's no such thing as a completed curve; you only go half way, just like you only go half way into the woods, then you're coming out. This is the same. A bisection of a total sphere is its exact curve and one half of it is primarily U-shaped. Because in magnets there are always two poles and one normal way to show them is in a U-shape, but if it's in a bar magnet, there are still two poles and the shape is still the same. We can only put a rope one half way around the tree and it's coming back the other way, and this is true in all wave motion. Now, if you extend this into velocity, this is the pattern in the sine wave and definitely the electromagnetic wave.

Keeping that thinking - the charging and collapsing of a coil could be thought of similarly. The energy can't go any further than the point of coil saturation and is always released to complete the cycle. The collapse is always far faster than the charge time.
It seems to me, that the collapse should form the circuit pulse 'on' time. Instead of hunting for the fastest nanosecond MOSFET, use what is already there...always powerful, always fast and the reverse of how we normally operate coils. There are also no limits on transistor power handling or such in that stage and, indeed, most real world circuits snub the collapse energy out of existence.
So, not to charge and then see about what we can do with the collapse, but to collapse and see how we go about charging the coil again for the next cycle.
Using Carr's thinking (no matter how flawed the whole UFO thing may be), the rope can also go around the tree from the other direction and we could walk into a forest from the opposite side - perhaps that opposite side has no brambles in the way :)
Most circuits that we design or see within research are not current limited, free to use whatever they 'need'. Spikes of coil energy are predominantly a voltage situation, with very little current. What if we charge another primary with high voltage and low current ?   
In an adiabatic system, can a coil be flipped to use the collapse and not the induction energy ?
Does that flip occur at the quarter wave, relating to the Henry discovery ?
And, is that the better way of designing wireless electricity circuits ?

Apologies if the thinking seems a bit simplistic. Kind of writing as i'm thinking.

Hi Slider,

That's a handful of different ideas... let me focus on the ones that I see as most valid and "physically realizable".

The positioning of solenoids in parallel is a common feature of many successful designs, like Cook and Hubbard. Both devices were definitely working at the near field as determined by their approximate diameters, and probable frequency ranges.

The reversal of the induction at a certain distance that Henry shows is probably due to a time delay in the inductive waves radiating from the coil. The spark that Henry used to induce in the coils and tin strips probably had very high frequency components whose wavelength was in the range of of his coil distances. So as the magnetic wave moves away from the coil or strip there is a reasonably close location which shows a reverse induction. At this time I think this is an interesting curiosity and not something significant.

The idea of using only the collapse phase to tap excess energy is an old one and has been tried many times. The energy of the source is transferred to the collapsing waveform, and then this energy is tapped for power, so there is just a hand off of energy down the line.

There are plenty of conventional circuits that trap this energy rather than snubbing it. Snubbing is a bad option for energy efficient circuits, and the snubbing of the bulk capacitor in the CMOS logic circuits is what led to adiabatic logic in the first place. Not snubbing is sort of the starting point of energy recycling, but it doesn't deal with the thermal losses that exist in both the charge and collapse phase, that shaping of the input and output waveforms can eliminate.

I've dug deeper in to the wireless circuits, and there are a number of factors that lead me to think that excess energy can be derived from a combination of field coils.

First, the resonant operation of such coils is seen as adiabatic in the sense that the energy is either dissipated in the receiver coil's load, like a handheld device, or is completely returned to the primary to be recycled. A high Q in the primary circuit is the main requirement for this to happen, and without the high Q the efficiency drops off just as with the coupling. With a resonant transmitter, coils a m. apart might be have a coupling of .2 but the efficiency of power transfer can be near 90%. Without the high Q and resonance, the efficiency at that distance would be less than 10% at best. 

This is something of an aside, but in my opinion the local power transfer can be raised to closer to 99% by using a pulsed quarter sine waveform in the transmitter, and not letting the field resonate, so all the energy is absorbed in the load-- a technology that was developed for pulse code modulation systems through wires, but will work here as well as anywhere. In this case you are not creating an evanescent field, but delivering an evanescent pulse with no transverse component. (Of course, the energy that is not used for power will be returned to the primary as always).

Second, induction from the tunneling effect has a inverse cube distance dependence, while standard induction has an inverse square dependence. Further the dimensions of the solenoid determine how much of the evanescent field is generated on any particular orientation A large, flat transmitter coil will generate a larger evanescent field, which is why experimenters tend to use this config. On the other hand, a smaller diameter and longer solenoid for the receiver coil will generate a smaller evanescent field in the direction of the transmitter.

Because of the relatively sharp evanescent cutoff, and the difference in field structure with changing coil structures, it should be possible to create a situation where the resonant power transfer goes from primary to secondary, but the secondary's reactive power doesn't go from secondary to primary, but is returned to the secondary for reuse. I feel this may well be what is happening in some devices with different diameter solenoids in parallel, like Hubbard. I'll draw up a basic design once I've looked at the equations for the coil dimensions some more.

As far as Otis Carr is concerned... for what little it's worth, I have it on good authority that for a while Carr had possession of a lost notebook from Tesla describing new aspects of power transmission. The person who told me this had worked with Carr for quite a while on his flying saucer, and had held this small brown notebook in his hand. This associate told me that in this notebook Tesla referred to his article about the Moon's rotation as the key to this 'secret':

http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-article-the-moons-rotation

Many of these moon rotation concepts seem to have been incorporated into mechanical designs using motors and pulleys by a couple of followers who have patents. This gets more into tapping centrifugal force and the like, and is pretty far away from what we are talking about here...

orthofield

Hi Matt,

This gets into deep water pretty fast. If there is an absolute reference frame, so that all matter can be viewed from one 'motionless' perspective, the motion of each of our molecules would be incredibly complex, since it would hold all physical motions up to the event horizon.

The moon's rotation reminds me for some reason of a device I saw a very long time ago in a magazine-- I don't remember who invented it, but it was in the PACE newsletter in the 90s.

This gadget had a 'lazy Susan' like spinner made of wood, run by a torque motor intended to just compensate for friction losses and keep the table in constant motion. On each side of the table-like spinner were two little motors each run by a dry cell battery, that rotated smaller spinners. On the second-level spinners there were also small devices containing PZ transducers pressed against small heavy masses like lead weights and connected to a small lamp on the second-level spinners. If the small mass undergoes discontinuous acceleration, the pz unit is squeezed and the light goes on momentarily.

When both motors were rotating the platform, the lights do actually lamp during some parts of the double rotation cycle, indicating a net pulsed discontinuous acceleration. This is a bit of an anomaly, because there is not really much chance of the pz buzzers of some small movement of the mass from putting countertorque on either spinner motior.
Almost all the mechanical loading of the motors comes from friction, and not from a back rotational torque.

This is a tidy demonstration of energy derived from discontinuous 'jerk' force, second derivative of acceleration, that allows for inertial drives and such to really work, as they have been demonstrated many times to do. Each rotating wheel has a continuous centripetal acceleration, caused by the mechanical constraint of the platform, in combination with inertial forces.

What's odd for me is that we don't continuously feel the 'jerk' force of the universe rotating in many different frames around us! This gets into the great physics mystery of the existence of inertial forces-- whether they are created from some very local property of the 'aether', from large masses in the vicinity, or from the mass, or some other property of the entire cosmos.

orthofield

Tesla was wrong about the moon's rotation.  Anyone who has studied mechanics will understand that translatory motion and rotary motion are two separate things.  The pedals of a bicycle translate in a circular motion but because they are attached to your feet they do not have any rotation.  If you are pedalling and look down on them you see the same side facing you always.  They do not rotate, they simply translate.  An orbital sander plate has the same motion, it translates in a circular orbit but does not rotate.  Each particle within the body endures identical circular translation.

Going back to the bicycle pedal, if you could move your viewpoint to the rotation axis of the crank and look outward along the crank you would see the pedal rotating, you would see alternating sides facing you.  If the pedal was the moon and the crank axle the earth, the crank would be Tesla's "spoke" holding the moon and earth together.  Clearly the pedal does not act like the moon because we always see the same face of the moon.  The moon has both a translatory circular motion and a synchronised rotation.  If you examine the orbit of each individual moon particle, because the moon has physical size you get the "outer" particles most distant from the earth orbiting at a greater radius than the "inner" particles closest to the earth.  That difference signifies the fact that the moon does rotate. 

Smudge

In my view, the moon mental exercise makes for an interesting link to the topic at hand.
I've also enjoyed the opinions that have followed.

That many things are taken for granted, self evident, rules and yet via the reading in that link of Tesla's explanation, it can be seen that debate is easily forthcoming.
Actually, one may wonder what Tesla was working on at the time and whether he entered into the discussions by choice lol
"spin him this one fellas, it'll keep him occupied for a while".


Quite what the approx 3000 miles distant from the Earth is derived from is a logic fail, there are no such quibbles about the spoke analogy though, personally.
The school imparted thinking being that the Earths mass creates gravity and the moon is held in equilibrium to the inertia forces which would have it fly off into space. If the Earth suddenly lost mass (when they flick the wrong switch at the LHC perhaps) it wouldn't rotate as it moved away and it wouldn't move away at speed. The effect would be a gradually expanding arc, describing the direction it has always travelled when in our orbit and at the velocity at which it orbits now. The Sun would impart some governing forces, small though they may be for such a size of body, but would stabilise that arc into a new solar orbit. That orbit would be highly dependent upon the position around the Earth when Earth orbit was lost.

An intrigue and, perhaps a link to studies of proximity field interactions, is something that has often caused pause for thought. The moon is 1/4 the size of the Earth..the largest moon in our solar system, but that 1/4 sizing raises an eyebrow. Does the Sun have 1/4 influence upon the moon or 1/16th or somehow none ?
Y'see, if the Earth is orbiting the Sun and the moon is orbiting the Earth, don't we have a situation just like magnetic interactions, where the Sun ought to be imparting forces on the moon ? Shouldn't the moon show visible pushes and pulls of Sun interaction ? to be pulled all over the place at perihelion and aphelion.
Following that logic, the moon would have been stopped in space millenia ago, exactly at solar eclipse...so something is wrong somewhere ! and i've probably just straw manned myself !
For tides to move equally around the globe, the Sun must have no perceptible effect on the moon and then, how can it not with being a chunky 1/4 size of the Earth ?
Other planets have much smaller bodies in orbits that remain constant and with very little perceptible change. Many are moving away or decreasing distance at tiny amounts per year, as is our moon - random thought, can we not work out when such bodies began their orbits by calculating backwards in time to points of initial orbit attainment ? at some point an orbit would not be possible that would give the positions seen today.
Our moon would appear to be translating a force to tidal movements all the time. Is such a mechanism not related and too simplistic for inclusion in the positioning of electrical field energy...paths of flow and ebb that inherently balance, yet the forces which enable that equlibrium have within them energies which may be extracted. The thought being similar to tidal wave energy running a sea bobbing generator.

Well, i'm no astrophysicist, a hobbyist electronics experimenter instead. So perhaps the thinking did come around full circle like an orbit, into how we can apply planetary field energy interactions to workbench devices :)
 

Hi Smudge,

I agree with you about Tesla being wrong about the moon's rotation.
If I'm not mistaken this sort of motion is called a "Berry's Phase" or parallel transport. It wasn't discovered until 1956, so Tesla was so far ahead of his time his language (and math) was inadequate to describe it.

http://www.mi.infm.it/manini/berryphase.html

http://www.princeton.edu/~npo/SurveyTopics/Berry_examples_files/Berryphase.html

This sort of change is considered 'adiabatic' in that no energy is exchanged in the moving member-- it is simply materially constrained to move along a parallel path. I can't say I understand it well myself, but it does show up in some mechanical overunity designs.

orthofield

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.03.09, 01:05:45
Hi Smudge,

I agree with you about Tesla being wrong about the moon's rotation.
If I'm not mistaken this sort of motion is called a "Berry's Phase" or parallel transport. It wasn't discovered until 1956, so Tesla was so far ahead of his time his language (and math) was inadequate to describe it.

http://www.mi.infm.it/manini/berryphase.html

http://www.princeton.edu/~npo/SurveyTopics/Berry_examples_files/Berryphase.html

This sort of change is considered 'adiabatic' in that no energy is exchanged in the moving member-- it is simply materially constrained to move along a parallel path. I can't say I understand it well myself, but it does show up in some mechanical overunity designs.

orthofield

That is not my understanding of Berry Phase.  The best example of Berry Phase is in the experiment you can carry out yourself.  Extend both arms forward with the palms facing downwards and no bend at the elbows.  This is the starting position.  Now move one arm through a right angle at the shoulder, move it in a horizontal plane so that it now extends out sideways.  That is a simple 90 degree movement of the extended arm, there is no wrist rotation, the palm is still facing downwards.  Now move the arm through another 90 degrees, this time in a vertical plane that bisects your body from side to side, the arm now ends up by your side with the palm facing your body.  That is another simple 90 degree movement of the extended arm, there is no wrist rotation.  Finally move the arm through another 90 degrees, this time through a vertical plane at right angles to the previous one so that your arm rises to its original forward position alongside the other arm.  That is a third simple 90 degree movement of the extended arm, there is no wrist rotation.  But somehow you end up with the palm now no longer facing downwards, it faces the other hand.  Those three simple 90 degree movements have created a change of phase of your palm relative to your arm, it has created a 90 degree wrist rotation.  This is the Berry phase.  I am grateful to Mark Snoswell for showing me this simple example of Berry phase.

Smudge

I'm really interested in estimating how fast could be the collapse of magentic field in coil.I think this is very important. Can you explain on what the speed of collapse depends ?

Thanks to you (and Mark) for the better explanation-- I had a very simple article from Sci Am in front of me, but I still needed to do the experiment, before I could get the principle. OK, so the Moon's rotation is not related to the Geometric Phase as it's also called.

This odd phenomena is worthy of attention in itself. On reading from some lecture notes from Berry, to me he is really talking about the odd nature of physicality. He says the phenomena is adiabatic-- no energy is needed to make the change-- and that it is on the border between statics and dynamics.
I've attached a nice set of lecture notes from Berry, that is actually clearer and make some subtle points.
According to him, Dynamic phase is "how long did your trip take?", and Geometric phase is "Where have you been?" A good example he gives, is linearly polarized light through a fiber. The spin of light is oriented along the propagation axis, so physically looping the fiber can make the polarization at one end of the fiber different from the other.

In my speculation, we might be presented with two circularly polarized beams of opposite polarization but we can't know whether the oppositely polarized beams came about by doing work-- for instance by simply twisting one nearby wrist instead of following Mark's instructions-- or by a work free process, as you will experience in your wrist if you hold it still.

These experiments suggest to me that an apparent energy change (transition) can come about in a system where some large scale parameter around the system is slowly (adiabatically) varied. The region where work is performed is outside the local region and too slow to be seen inside the region.

For instance, we know that spins of non neutral particles are associated with a magnetic field. In a solid block of matter there are many types of spins of non neutral particles. All of these spins should be equally affected by any large scale, relatively slow magnetic or electric field changes around the block.
The block will be altered due to the slowly changing magnetic or electric field environment even though no energetic changes have happened in the block, just as the wrist has changed orientation without locally rotating. 
I wonder if this accounts for the many anomalous diurnal variations in electrical resistance in a wire held at the same temperature, the speed of chemical reactions, motions of a delicate torsion pendulum, the charge on capacitors, etc, etc. Some large scale change in the EM or gravitational environment in the solar system may be changing the spin orientation of all material in the region, even though there is no local change in energy.
There are also experiments where quasi static magnetic fields have transmuted gases into other elements, and experiments where slowly rotating magnetic fields superimposed over a large region alter space and time in ways that can be felt by people in the room.
These latter wild thoughts should not be associated with poor Prof. Berry :-)

orthofield

Quote from: forest on 2015.03.09, 16:28:55
I'm really interested in estimating how fast could be the collapse of magnetic field in coil.I think this is very important. Can you explain on what the speed of collapse depends ?

It depends on the ratio of coil's inductance to the interrupting resistance of the entire coil's circuit, also known as the L/R time constant, which is the time needed for the current in the coil (and its magnetic flux) to decrease to 37% of its original level.  In twice that time it decreases to 14% and in 5 times that time it decreases to less than 1%.

If the coil's current is interrupted not by a pure resistance but also by a capacitance, then the smaller this capacitance is, the faster this coil's current (and magnetic flux) will fall.  The interrupting capacitance will become charged to a voltage which is inversely proportional to the square root of this capacitance's magnitude.

Hi All,

The basic thesis of this thread is that excess energy can be found in the superimposed near fields of two AC synchronous non radiating coils which are less than 1/4 wavelength apart. Usually this energy is not observed because any coils we put nearby are also transmitters, and tend to cancel the excess energy that exists.
I talked about some ways of preventing this unwanted effect in the Cook forum but it is better discussed here.

I pointed out there that in the Witricity system of two flat or solenoid air coils in resonance, the coils could be shaped differently to create an asymmetrical effect. The receiver coil can be within the near field of the transmitter coil, but not the reverse. Another way of putting this is that the power coupling of transmitter to receiver is more than 80%, but the power coupling of receiver to transmitter is only 20% (or so). 
What are the consequences of this? Is there the possibility that energy can be gained? Or is all this really just a fancy way of saying that one coil is loosely coupled to the other, so some energy in the receiver is taken from the transmitter, but not much?

orthofield

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.03.16, 13:26:21
Hi All,

The basic thesis of this thread is that excess energy can be found in the superimposed near fields of two AC synchronous non radiating coils which are less than 1/4 wavelength apart. Usually this energy is not observed because any coils we put nearby are also transmitters, and tend to cancel the excess energy that exists.
I talked about some ways of preventing this unwanted effect in the Cook forum but it is better discussed here.

When you introduce two signals on same wire the magnetic field around it either get disruptive collapse or amplification which is leading to some cases where the energy is transferred by induction. In those case you have greater change of magnetic field which is resulting  amplified induction (such as with introducing HF HV electric field near transformer) or propagation of standing waves with much greater magnitude than from single signal...
Here is example of such case in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufYa80wU6zg


The Tesla coil resonant pulse is chopped by low frequency square wave pulses which introduce secondary signal into transmission. The 15cm streamers with 24V under 1A is the resulting indicator. When there is only resonant Tesla coil frequency from single generator for same result it takes much more power...

Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.03.16, 18:44:08
Or...

You have two separate windings as in the case of Ruslan's previous work with the Akula/Kapanadze device.

So which way do you suspect is the most efficient and most controllable?  Combined signals in a single inductor winding or separate signals in separate inductor windings?

I am not an expert in this case just I've seen both depending on configuration. Kapanadze style replicas are on single wire and my Lithuanian experiment Yoke had 2 primary windings...

Cheers!

There is my reply in overunity forum and seems that is related to this topic as well - http://www.overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/msg442691/#msg442691

The videos(in Russian) what got my interest:

https://yadi.sk/i/BbzDwBhxfGxgj

https://yadi.sk/i/fGeje8FzfGxgm

https://yadi.sk/i/tAW1jRzofGxiH

Quote from: T-1000 on 2015.03.16, 17:06:31
When you introduce two signals on same wire the magnetic field around it either get disruptive collapse or amplification which is leading to some cases where the energy is transferred by induction. In those case you have greater change of magnetic field which is resulting  amplified induction (such as with introducing HF HV electric field near transformer) or propagation of standing waves with much greater magnitude than from single signal...
Here is example of such case in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufYa80wU6zg

The Tesla coil resonant pulse is chopped by low frequency square wave pulses which introduce secondary signal into transmission. The 15cm streamers with 24V under 1A is the resulting indicator. When there is only resonant Tesla coil frequency from single generator for same result it takes much more power...

Good day T-1000

So it seems this switching topology is directly related to the Tesla's coilers 'interrupt circuit' and S.M. 'gated' pulse scheme.

I have noticed that when 'tuning' on the fly my SSTC using a low frequency square wave as the 'interrupt' signal ( similar to what I *believe* is being described in the video) the  SSTC will develop or fall into *grooves* (for lack of better wording) where a type of Beat modulation of the principle resonant frequency is had.  At this frequency many different unique effects will happen with the sound, shape, form and generation of the Spark.

I suspect that the *effect* that I see has to do with the timing of the start of the resonant signal in relation to the phase angle of the AC power source it is switching, (because the interrupt controller used does not enforce ZVS).

I am going to design a ZVS interrupt controller to make the comparison.


take care, peace
lost_bro

Hi T-1000,

Thanks for reiterating my point about constructive and destructive interference when two signals are introduced on the same wire.  There are some commercial devices in use when you need to rapidly change the magnetic field in a coil, for instance in a fast acting solenoid, you put a current source on both ends of the coil wire, and rapidly switch the current back and forth in a time much less than the TC.
(I think you might have referred to this earlier). 

In this case the current already present in the wire, is destroyed, along with the energy within it-- ?? This destruction can then appear as creation in the field..

This is an analog to the example of two capacitors with full charge switched to cancel their charges. Where does the energy go? Convention says Heat, but I bet this is not really what is observed, because there is no current flow to cause heat. It's easy to imagine a device that could consume kW of power in a small box without generating any heat, by using principles of switched capacitive converters to dump opposed capacitors into each other.

Hi lost_bro,

I have a paper somewhere in my files that show that you can switch a resonant circuit and get subharmonics. Ah, here's this one...

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=5266679

I'll send it to the list after transferring it to this computer.

The generation of energy by switching (interruptions) is a major subject of my parametrics/switching thread. My basic hypothesis is that under some conditions you can parametrically amplify a signal by switching alone. This seems to be taken as a commonplace by Smudge and others but was originally critiqued by Mandleshtam and Papaleksi, the para. generator pioneers, as a violation of conservation of energy. they said switching under conditions of zero open resistance and infinite closed resistance takes no energy to do in theory, and can be done in reality for very little energy-- so energy generation by only switching is impossible. Later parametric researchers studied the phase angle of the switching relative to the amount of para. amplification of the signal being switched, and I'll send that too, if I can find it.
Even though the quasi-parametric energy gain is small in usual circumstances, it contributes to many other processes.  In some cases like your test, the tendency for this effect to create oscillations will pop up.

The device(s) in the video(s) like many that came from long research by a team, seems to have multiple coordinated mechanisms of overunity, so it would not surprise me if both constructive and destructive interference and quasi-parametric amplification are involved (not to mention the nonreciprocality of dipole and solenoidal antennas, and probably more stuff  :-)

orthofield

Further to your discussions on constructive and destructive interference, take a magnetized ring of NdBFe magnetic material (or any material where the magnetization remains constant in the second quadrant).  The magnetization is all circumferential within the ring, so it is not much good as a magnet!  Wind a toroidal coil onto it, then energise this coil to take the material to its negative Hc position.  You have to put energy into that toroid to do that, but in doing so you have eliminated the magnetic field inside the material, you have effectively turned the magnet off.  There is then no field energy there, so where has that energy (plus what you put in) gone?  Some will argue that it is like a compressed spring, you have forced the dipoles into an unnatural orientation and they will spring back into position when you remove the coil current.  But you haven't done that.  The magnetization is still there, the dipoles are stll aligned in their original positions.  All you have done is negate their field.  So where has the energy really gone?

I argue that it has disappeared into the quantum domain.  During the application of the coil energy, while the current is building up in the core, each dipole is within an electric field vortex (the same vortex that would induce eddy currents were the material conductive) and the direction of that vortex is such as to try to speed up the electon spin or orbital velocity, whichever is the dipole under consideration.  You are feeding energy back to the quantum dynamos.  While you remove the coil current the vortex is in the opposite direction and the quantum dynamos supply energy to reinstate the field.

Taking the opposite case, if you use that same value of coil current in the reverse direction you add energy to the field, the field itself doubles in value and you get four times the original field energy (as Aspden noted in his infamous reluctance motor).  But you only supplied one quarter of that new field energy, so where has the additional energy come from?  The same argument applies, you have extracted energy from the quantum dynamos via the electric vortex during current build up.  Unfortunately this toing and froing of energy goes unnoticed since it rarely appears in external circuits (and that also applies to Aspden's reluctance motor, his analysis failed to take account of the reluctance of the magnet).

But here we have just considered a PM with fixed dipoles, the same quantum dynamo arguments apply to soft ferromagnetic material where we have some ability to manipulate the dipoles.  So is it possible to align some dipoles in soft material (like take it to saturation), extract some energy from the quantum domain (like take it beyond saturation) and hold that energy in something (maybe some other ferromagnetic material) then suddenly turn the dipoles off while still retaining that quantum derived energy?  That is something to think about.

Smudge

From Smudge.. above post

Quotehold that energy in something (maybe some other ferromagnetic material) then suddenly turn the dipoles off while still retaining that quantum derived energy?  That is something to think about.

A lofty goal no doubt, and certainly something to ponder. Thank you!

Orthofield: Your post about switching echoes the debate over switched mode power supplies.
Apparently some researchers are of the opinion that their increased use is causing havoc in some parts of the power supply
industry. I have not looked in detail at the technical aspects, but it is in the back of my mind to analyse the situation
in detail. I wonder if we already  have a ready made device or family of devices that can be re-engineered to suit our quest?
I have also noted unexplained rises in my 4 x heavy duty battery pack by simply applying a hv spark. Sometimes up by as much as 3 to 4  hundredths of a volt in just
one spark. (Input power negligible.)

There should be a way put the little dynamos to work for you.

@Aking21
You know they say switch mode power supplies are safe but my solid state  electrometer goes off like a three alarm fire whenever I get near a switch mode power supplies, florescent lights or those capacitive touch lamps. By near I mean three to four feet, hell I could probably detect my Tesla coil from a block away. Speaking of Tesla coils I doubled the output on my TC this morning simply by taking care of some leakage issues which I knew were happening but we never actually see the losses until the corona appears. Damn thing was leaking like a sieve, lol.

AC

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.03.18, 17:13:03
So is it possible to align some dipoles in soft material (like take it to saturation), extract some energy from the quantum domain (like take it beyond saturation) and hold that energy in something (maybe some other ferromagnetic material) then suddenly turn the dipoles off while still retaining that quantum derived energy?  

...but that is the very principle of the CARA experiment (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2751.msg45265#msg45265), where a piece of soft ferrite is magnetized and that magnetization is held and allowed to do work attracting some mass and after that mass accelerates the magnetization energy is recovered into a capacitor, while retaining the kinetic energy of the accelerated mass.

Hi Aking,

I don't know all that much about SM converters. I had to study them when I was involved in a solar project and it seemed to me right away that they had a source of loss which was somehow not showing up in their very high efficiency. As Wiki says:

"The current drawn from the mains supply by this rectifier circuit occurs in short pulses around the AC voltage peaks."

At least in the solar converters I saw, during the short interval the mains current is NOT going to the converter, this portion was dumped through a cap to ground. This process is known to emit half the energy going into the cap as heat or EM radiation.
I suggested simply putting an inductor in line with this cap to reduce the EMI. This energy could further be dumped into a second load like a battery charge circuit.
The energy gain was not enough to pursue the idea but in the present context it occurs to me that the immense noise they generate IS a bit anomalous considering their extremely high efficiency. If every (nonresonant) switch in a SM converter is emitting half of its energy in heat and light, as adiabatic studies show, then the overall efficiency should be much lower than it is!
It may well be that most high efficiency ones are at some form of resonance throughout their topology-- I don't know these converters well enough to say.

I haven't been able to get that article on creating harmonics yet-- I will have to look around for some other material on that subject. 

Hi Verpies, Smudge, I certainly agree that several seemingly workable devices come from this idea of magnetizing a ferrite and then allowing it to demagnetize itself after it attracts some mass. I'm just not sure that using a motional form is a good way to tap that energy, due to the tendency for inefficiencies in the moving parts.

We might need to examine ways to do this that don't require movement, or a very different sort of movement-- possibly an oscillating structure with hard springs, like I've seen several times, which can take advantage of a sort of neutral line phenomena that happens when soft materials are magnetized and demagnetized.

orthofield

 

Quote from: verpies on 2015.03.20, 12:14:07
...but that is the very principle of the CARA experiment (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2751.msg45265#msg45265), where a piece of soft ferrite is magnetized and that magnetization is held and allowed to do work attracting some mass and after that mass accelerates the magnetization energy is recovered into a capacitor, while retaining the kinetic energy of the accelerated mass.

The problem there is that as the mass moves towards the ferrite the field through the ferrite increases and that change puts voltage across the current source hence drawing more energy.  And the extra energy drawn equates to the kinetic energy supplied to the mass.  This happens even though the ferrite is saturated and has a mu = 1.  I have done many FEMM simulations and this is always the result.  I think it needs something extra to get OU, like using magnetostriction to manipulate the dipoles.  I am convinced the Bearden MEG uses magnetostriction and I have some papers on that somewhere.

Smudge

Quote from: orthofield on 2015.03.20, 16:29:59

We might need to examine ways to do this that don't require movement, or a very different sort of movement-- possibly an oscillating structure with hard springs, like I've seen several times, which can take advantage of a sort of neutral line phenomena that happens when soft materials are magnetized and demagnetized.

If you look at the MEG output waveforms it is clear that there is a resonant effect there.  The input is switched but the output is almost sine wave.  The resonance can't be explained electrically so IMO it must me an acoustic resonance in the cores.  And metglas is magnetostrictive.  I found a resonance on a smaller metglas C core so i know it exists.  And when you consider that possibility it opens the door to obtaining OU via that route, ignoring Bearden's waffle about A fields etc.  I wrote a paper on this, I'll see if I can find it.  It uses the fact that the static magnetic field from the magnet is not uniform across the core cross section, the inner laminations are in saturation while the outer laminations are not.  Thus when driven at the acoustic resonant frequency the AC flux flows in the outer laminations thus exciting the resonance via magnetostriction, and the inner magnetized laminations get stressed so as to develop anomalous coil voltage via the Villari effect.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.03.20, 16:47:41
The resonance can't be explained electrically so IMO it must me an acoustic resonance in the cores.  

Like in Graham's device and in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qauZ4WBwAOM) ?

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2808.0;attach=17680)
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2808.0;attach=17682)

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.03.20, 16:31:26
The problem there is that as the mass moves towards the ferrite the field through the ferrite increases and that change puts voltage across the current source hence drawing more energy.

In this experiment the ferrite is also that mass gaining the kinetic energy and no additional electric energy is drawn from the source when S2 is closed and the mass is being attracted.

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2751.0;attach=16710)

Quote from: verpies on 2015.03.20, 23:37:07
Like in Graham's device and in this video
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qauZ4WBwAOM)

Yes but at a fundamental resonant frequency where the length of the C core is perhaps a quarter wavelength.  Then you can imagine the end faces of the core moving just like the end face moves in that animated image.  Interestingly that end face movement opens up another possibility.  The full transformer core (two C cores) has an inevitable air gap (or rather two air gaps), and in the MEG that gap is considerable for two reasons, (a) the presence of the magnet induces like poles into the adjacent end faces of the cores thus forcing them apart and (b) the construction prevents the use of the usual C core banding straps so the thing holding the C cores together is a flimsy affair (in Bearden's MEG it is a plastic strap around the whole thing). Now if you have a variable air gap you also have variable inductance, so the end face movements brought about by magnetostriction will induce some parametric pumping.  That is another possible route to OU.

Smudge

Quote from: verpies on 2015.03.20, 23:53:31
In this experiment the ferrite is also that mass gaining the kinetic energy and no additional electric energy is drawn from the source when S2 is closed and the mass is being attracted.

The shorted coil tries to hold the flux constant (for a reasonable time shorter than the time constant), it does not hold the current constant.  So as the ferrite moves towards the coil the current decreases rapidly.  When the ferrite is symmetrically within the coil you have an instantaneous energy balance of (a) energy within the (now increased) inductance of the coil at a much smaller current than the original starting point and (b) the KE of the moving ferrite.  I think you will find that the sum of those two energies is equal to the original energy stored in the coil at the starting point.  I don't see any OU there.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.03.21, 09:41:46
Yes but at a fundamental resonant frequency where the length of the C core is perhaps a quarter wavelength.  

...because over an integer number of wavelengths the Villari permeability variations integrate to zero and the reluctance stays constant ?

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.03.21, 09:41:46
Then you can imagine the end faces of the core moving just like the end face moves in that animated image.  Interestingly that end face movement opens up another possibility.  The full transformer core (two C cores) has an inevitable air gap (or rather two air gaps), and in the MEG that gap is considerable for two reasons, (a) the presence of the magnet induces like poles into the adjacent end faces of the cores thus forcing them apart and (b) the construction prevents the use of the usual C core banding straps so the thing holding the C cores together is a flimsy affair (in Bearden's MEG it is a plastic strap around the whole thing). Now if you have a variable air gap you also have variable inductance, so the end face movements brought about by magnetostriction will induce some parametric pumping.  That is another possible route to OU.

That's what the STAAAR Yoke device (http://youtu.be/gbeseiPPCeM?t=6m6s) was doing.  It is one of the few successful OU devices, that was reasonably well documented (even with scopeshots and spectrograms).  The end faces of the two C-sections can be clearly heard clapping against each other.

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.03.21, 10:36:55
The shorted coil tries to hold the flux constant (for a reasonable time shorter than the time constant),

No, the coil does not try to hold the current constant.  It tries to hold the magnetic flux constant.

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.03.21, 10:36:55
,it does not hold the current constant.  

Indeed it does not.  This is clearly stated in pt.4 of this analysis (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2684.msg43698#msg43698).

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.03.21, 10:36:55
So as the ferrite moves towards the coil the current decreases rapidly.  

...but the inductance increases rapidly, too.

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.03.21, 10:36:55
When the ferrite is symmetrically within the coil you have an instantaneous energy balance of
(a) energy within the (now increased) inductance of the coil at a much smaller current than the original starting point

Smaller current in higher inductance does not have to amount to lower energy.

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.03.21, 10:36:55
I think you will find that the sum of those two energies is equal to the original energy stored in the coil at the starting point.  

Perhaps, but that expectation is dictated only by the conservation of energy law, which workaround is the purpose of this forum.
Perhaps the the Li² product stays constant while the ferrite is being attracted and not the sum of EM energy and Kinetic energy.
This is what the CARA experiment is designed to check.

P.S.
Aren't there ways to increase the inductance/permeance without increasing KE, eg.: the Villari effect or magnetocaloric stuff or the ferroelectric methods described in that IEEE article by Konrad & Brudny ? 
In such systems the coil will also try to hold the flux constant and the current will decrease as the inductance/permeance increases.

Akula has demonstrated a device in a video that is translated by Wesley in the link below.  IMO, it shows the use of magnetostriction as the core resonance can be heard in the audio track and is pointed out by Wesley.  Akula breaks down the transformer and the electrolytic caps to show there are no hidden batteries. 

The core is from a typical HV flyback transformer which includes a spring clip and Akula has placed what appears to be round paper spacers in the gaps.  This has all the ingredients for a high frequency, small movement CARA device.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BNgo09N0yM

partzman

     

Quote from: verpies on 2015.03.21, 11:08:32
Perhaps the the Li² product stays constant while the ferrite is being attracted and not the sum of EM energy and Kinetic energy.
This is what the CARA experiment is designed to check.

I did not base my comments on a strict adherence to conservation of energy, it is based on math analysis of the whole dynamic situation, and that shows your "perhaps" to not be true.  I accept that the math uses classical EM theories and those might not be quite true of all situations, so I don't want to discourage any experimentation.  I merely offer my comments to perhaps steer those experiments along more productive lines.

Quote
P.S.
Aren't there ways to increase the inductance/permeance without increasing KE, eg.: the Villari effect or magnetocaloric stuff or the ferroelectric methods described in that IEEE article by Konrad & Brudny ?  In such systems the coil will also try to hold the flux constant and the current will decrease as the inductance/permeance increases.

There are known magneto-mechanical and magneto-electric effects and perhaps some unknown ones, and I think experiments are more likely to succeed if such exotic effects are deliberately introduced.  As an example, I have a bee in my bonnet about conduction electrons within ferromagnets, they obtain spin polarization from the fixed atomic or molecular spins and therefore contribute to the overall magnetization.  But unlike the fixed dipoles the conduction electrons can be moved, perhaps to one side or one end of the magnet, and that lopsided magnetization does not appear in any of our text books on magnetism.  Movement can come from electric effects, after all they are electrons with charge as well as spin.  Eddy currents induced into the magnet will move them, and if the magnet is within a metal block, perhaps held in with some non-conductive glue, or mounted in a non-conductive block, the E field vortex that would drive eddy currents across the magnet will move spin-polarized charge to one side.  Movement can also come from the presence of a magnetic gradient pulling them along.  Perhaps these considerations are why magnetic motors like the Yildiz one works.  And perhaps the CARA experiment would benefit from not using ferrite, but instead using laminated metal core material.

Smudge

Quote from: partzman on 2015.03.21, 13:14:52
Akula has demonstrated a device in a video that is translated by Wesley in the link below.  IMO, it shows the use of magnetostriction as the core resonance can be heard in the audio track and is pointed out by Wesley.  Akula breaks down the transformer and the electrolytic caps to show there are no hidden batteries. 

The core is from a typical HV flyback transformer which includes a spring clip and Akula has placed what appears to be round paper spacers in the gaps.  This has all the ingredients for a high frequency, small movement CARA device.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BNgo09N0yM

partzman 

Well if the  STAAAR Yoke device and Akula's circuit are real examples of OU using magnetostriction shouldn't there be a thread actively devoted to this line of research?  Or perhaps there is :-\

Incidentally, going back to the MEG, there were various sites showing the PM magnetism being totally switched from one side of the core to the other.  That was utter nonsense.  You only have to do the math on the output voltage, frequency and number of turns to discover that the actual AC flux is tiny compared to the DC flux from the magnet.  Such small flux change can easily be accounted for by magnetostriction effects.

Smudge

Matt,

There is often another resonant "circuit" that is not electrical but is nevertheless connected to the electric circuit.  This is a mechanical resonance of the core.  It is excited by magnetostriction and you will find reference to it as something to avoid when using ferrite toroidal ring cores because of the possibility of core fracture due to the stresses.  When there is significant reverse coupling the core resonance will show up as an apparent tank circuit resonance.  So yes you can see two resonances.  And of course you can drive a resonance not only using the fundamental frequency but also a harmonic or a sub-harmonic.  So maybe you have your actual tank circuit at the drive frequency while the core resonates at a different frequency.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.03.22, 17:08:04
Matt,

There is often another resonant "circuit" that is not electrical but is nevertheless connected to the electric circuit.  This is a mechanical resonance of the core.  It is excited by magnetostriction and you will find reference to it as something to avoid when using ferrite toroidal ring cores because of the possibility of core fracture due to the stresses.  When there is significant reverse coupling the core resonance will show up as an apparent tank circuit resonance.  So yes you can see two resonances.  And of course you can drive a resonance not only using the fundamental frequency but also a harmonic or a sub-harmonic.  So maybe you have your actual tank circuit at the drive frequency while the core resonates at a different frequency.

Smudge

Good day All:

Exactly, I posted some information on one of the threads here (or at OU.com?) last year in relation to the Akula 30 watt device during a replication attempt.
I don't have the post handy as reference now, but it documented information from a Russian forum where an experimenter discussed disintegration of ferrite cores in his replications of an Akula device.  Something about it would only run for a week or so before the ferrite falling apart.
Seem to remember that Akula himself commented about the ferrite self-destruction mode in one of his devices also, apparently related to Ferro-resonance...

take care, peace
lost_bro

Quote from: lost_bro on 2015.03.23, 02:10:57
Good day All:

Exactly, I posted some information on one of the threads here (or at OU.com?) last year in relation to the Akula 30 watt device during a replication attempt.
I don't have the post handy as reference now, but it documented information from a Russian forum where an experimenter discussed disintegration of ferrite cores in his replications of an Akula device.  Something about it would only run for a week or so before the ferrite falling apart.
Seem to remember that Akula himself commented about the ferrite self-destruction mode in one of his devices also, apparently related to Ferro-resonance...

take care, peace
lost_bro

Meglas is also magnetostrictive and less likely to fracture under stress.  Perhaps Akula could be persuaded to try using metglas C cores instead of ferrite ones.

Smudge

@ all.

How about this ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvn7r2Nm-b4

??E

Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.03.22, 16:23:54
After many hours studying the Akula and Ruslan devices, I came across a phenomena I can only theorize about; maybe you guys can add some meat to it.

These devices appear to use fixed frequency oscillators that drive resonant tank circuits.  What I noticed from watching them move scope probes around is that the tank circuit does not oscillate at the same frequency as the driver circuit.  In one of the videos Ruslan mentions creating a "tension" in the coils.  I had originally assumed he meant a voltage, but now I'm not sure the translation from Russian to English properly describes what he is talking about.  So I did some thinking...

It is about NMR spin conditions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OrPCNVSA4o

Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.03.22, 16:23:54
How could you drive a tank circuit with one frequency and have the tank circuit itself running at a different frequency?  On the surface this seems impossible.  Take for example you are pushing a child on a swing and while the child is swinging, someone climbs up on the top of the swing and lengthens the chains.  If you continue to push at exactly the same frequency prior to this adjustment, in short time your pushes will become completely out of phase and the swinging will stop.  So why do we not see this same effect in the electrical example?

My theory is at some point, the tank circuit jumps.  Much like a soldier marching in formation--for those that understand taking a half step to get back in cadence.  What would be nice is to record a long stream with a DSO and observe if the tank circuit does in fact "jump" to get back in sync with the driving oscillator.

I don't know if this is an artifact of an OU-like device or if this is the fundamental mechanism to obtain an OU-like device.

Probably best if you take a peek at this video and see if what I'm describing is non-sense or has some merit:
Как это работает !     (How does this work!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bBp13svDbM

Each material have own physical resonance and this is why it is possible to have tank circuit which is doing free oscillation on material NMR frequency. The electrical to magnetic transformation make kinetic force in magnetic domains which either stimulate that condition or is going against it...

Also when you accumulate enough energy in this phenomena the LENR can occur which give you either heat and destruction or strong oscillating magnetic field when there is not enough force to break material down for transmutation. The source of energy is down to subatomic level there.

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.03.22, 15:13:30
I did not base my comments on a strict adherence to conservation of energy, it is based on math analysis of the whole dynamic situation,

I am interested what analytical tools you used besides CoE?  I am well versed in the classical EM techniques, so you don't have to dumb it down for me.

For example, my line of thinking revolves around the magnetization energy (domain alignment energy) of a soft ferro/ferrimagnetic and its natural tendency to dissipate by directional  randomization in the absence of external MMF ...down to the spins of constituent atoms, if need be.

Quote from: Enigma on 2015.03.23, 13:13:43
How about this ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvn7r2Nm-b4

Wonderful!
I wonder how frequency dependent that breakage is and if this would also happen if high-k dielectric was used instead of the wire.

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.03.22, 15:25:10
Well if the  STAAAR Yoke device and Akula's circuit are real examples of OU using magnetostriction shouldn't there be a thread actively devoted to this line of research?  Or perhaps there is :-\

There are such threads at overunity.com but they rarely mention magnetostriction.
Curiously the STAAAR team abandoned the Yoke device not due to non-performance but due to health-concerns  :o

Gentlemen the future looks bright, live long and prosper.
http://www.snotr.com/video/3506

AC

Quote from: verpies on 2015.03.23, 15:37:38
I am interested what analytical tools you used besides CoE?  I am well versed in the classical EM techniques, so you don't have to dumb it down for me.

For example, my line of thinking revolves around the magnetization energy (domain alignment energy) of a soft ferro/ferrimagnetic and its natural tendency to dissipate by directional  randomization in the absence of external MMF ...down to the spins of constituent atoms, if need be.

I use FEMM a lot on the basis that though it is only a 2D tool if you can get OU in 2D you must surely also get it in 3D.  FEMM only gives a snapshot but you can use data from it to predict dynamic situations, and you can run a series of snapshots to get the full dynamics.   Of course this requires some math external to FEMM.  As an example FEMM gives flux linkage and by doing a series of runs with different current inputs you can construct a flux v current graph from which you can obtain inductive input energy even though it may be-non linear.  With a colleague who is a FEMM wizard we developed something called sim-dynamic where you perform two FEMM runs at a given geometry to get the data needed for input on the next run where something has moved or changed.  This works well both for devices with moving parts as in motors and generators and also for solid state devices like transformers.  This is all done under LUA script including the math.  I am aware of the limitations of any finite element model so I am always looking for COP that significantly exceeds the math uncertainty.

I do a lot of modelling using classical EM theory, on spreadsheets which I find quicker and easier to do than the old Fortran and Algol that I was brought up on.  Having a lifetime experience of electromagnetic theory helps here.  I also developed my own methods for doing dynamic analysis in the magnetic domain, something that I find lacking in any EM works although I note now that other people are beginning to do the same.  I am not an expert in magnetic materials science which is perhaps something lacking for the work we do.  Since retiring in 1999 I have taken to OU forums as a means to keep my brain active, and I did do some of my own experimental work but with very limited capability as all my equipment was cast offs.  I envy Peter his new scope.

Smudge

Quote from: verpies on 2015.03.20, 23:37:07
Like in Graham's device and in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qauZ4WBwAOM) ?

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2808.0;attach=17680)
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2808.0;attach=17682)

This reminded me of some earlier experiments i (we) did with this setup, see this thread:

http://www.overunity.com/14307/acoustic-magnetic-generator/msg388905/#msg388905

I rebuild the setup (see picture) and made some measurements.
But the resonance seen in the video (192KHz) matches almost the self resonance of the used pickup coil with rod inserted (216KHz), so no special effects were noted up till now.
Data on the pickup coil:   L=503uH / 3.6 Ohm

Perhaps a higher value pickup coil will be needed?
I will be changing the amount of magnets to see if it need some specific value of magnetic flux.
I think also that it would be better to glue the rod to the pot core half.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTjnvI9ZRj8&feature=youtu.be


Regards itsu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYjPLRQunGk - new twin tesla self runner from Ruslan (in second part of video).
Enjoy!

There is new vid from Ruslan - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTpTytGIMBg



He could not get twin tesla coil device self running in beginning and shows some live tuning before it self runs again..

P.S. I added some posts about that matter for discussion in http://www.overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/msg444472/#msg444472

It sure looks to me like there is a power supply under the workbench that he connects with some clipleads in order to get "self running". You can briefly see the pilot light on this PSU at certain parts of the video and it's clear that he's connecting something down there.

One thing is certain: There is no genuine highvoltage Tesla coil operating in that mess.

Is this the lab that is in the transmitter building of his FM radio station, I wonder?

Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.04.01, 16:18:26
It sure looks to me like there is a power supply under the workbench that he connects with some clipleads in order to get "self running". You can briefly see the pilot light on this PSU at certain parts of the video and it's clear that he's connecting something down there.

People see batteries all around as well ;) If Ruslan would do in that in middle of nowhere, I am sure most of people would be still looking for hidden power source... :)

Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.04.01, 16:18:26
It sure looks to me like there is a power supply under the workbench that he connects with some clipleads in order to get "self running". You can briefly see the pilot light on this PSU at certain parts of the video and it's clear that he's connecting something down there.

It is drill battery charger in place .. :)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfjEsRVO_og



By the way, the first video is removed and if you had no chance to save it offline, here is the copy of previous videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgEecYI5ZQU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXzmoY5mBh4


Cheers!

@T1000

QuotePeople see batteries all around as well. If Ruslan would do in that in middle of nowhere, I am sure most of people would be still looking for hidden power source.

We cannot prove anything to anyone who cannot prove the matter for themselves. -- T.H.moray

AC

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.03.20, 16:47:41
If you look at the MEG output waveforms it is clear that there is a resonant effect there.  The input is switched but the output is almost sine wave.  The resonance can't be explained electrically so IMO it must me an acoustic resonance in the cores.  And metglas is magnetostrictive.  I found a resonance on a smaller metglas C core so i know it exists.  And when you consider that possibility it opens the door to obtaining OU via that route, ignoring Bearden's waffle about A fields etc.  I wrote a paper on this, I'll see if I can find it.  It uses the fact that the static magnetic field from the magnet is not uniform across the core cross section, the inner laminations are in saturation while the outer laminations are not.  Thus when driven at the acoustic resonant frequency the AC flux flows in the outer laminations thus exciting the resonance via magnetostriction, and the inner magnetized laminations get stressed so as to develop anomalous coil voltage via the Villari effect.

Smudge

Are you sure there is no electrical resonance in the MEG ?

Quote from: bfulmind23 on 2025.03.02, 14:23:43
Are you sure there is no electrical resonance in the MEG ?

Gosh, a lot has happened in the 10 years since I posted that.  As I see it there was no deliberate electrical LC resonance.  The output coils of many turns on the high mu metglas core would give a high inductance, but the only capacitance there is the self-capacitance of the coil and my intuition is this would not yield a resonance at the operating frequency.  An electrical resonance does not offer a route to OU, but the hitherto ignored mechanical resonance in conjuction with the (also ignored or not even considered) uneven saturation of the core does offer such a route.

Smudge 

Indeed. The fact that the input is switched but the output is almost sinusoidal may only be due to a low-pass filter effect, not resonance. 

On the other hand, I can't see any logical reason why two different effects, each of which doesn't give OU, should give it when combined.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.03, 10:32:19
Indeed. The fact that the input is switched but the output is almost sinusoidal may only be due to a low-pass filter effect, not resonance. 

Could you please elaborate ?

Quote from: bfulmind23 on 2025.03.03, 18:04:57
Could you please elaborate ?

In the MEG context, we have a control circuit fed by a square-wave signal which is supposed to influence a section of magnetic circuit to allow or not the passage of a magnetic flux from permanent magnets.

Of course, magnetic fluxes - that's Bearden's delusion - don't switch each other, which would mean multiplicative mixing, but they do add up, possibly by modifying the permeability of the medium, which in no way changes their additivity at a given moment and for a given permeability.

So, in the magnetic circuit, the only variable flux we have is that of the control coils, superimposed on the continuous flux of the magnets, without the slightest interaction between them, except indirectly through a concomitant effect on each when the permeability changes (in which case it's a simple parametric device).

What we're left with is an inductor, the control coil and output coil which are coupled like a transformer, with a magnetic circuit, part of which may be saturable. An inductor is an element with an impedance that increases with frequency. If it's followed by a load, a capacitor, or if there are losses or a non negligible capacity between turns, the device becomes a low-pass filter, the current decreases with frequency. Since a square-wave signal is the sum of the signal at the fundamental frequency and the odd-numbered harmonics, the harmonics will be attenuated, and if the attenuation is strong enough, only the fundamental frequency from the control signal, i.e. the sine, will remain significant.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.03, 20:35:37
In the MEG context, we have a control circuit fed by a square-wave signal which is supposed to influence a section of magnetic circuit to allow or not the passage of a magnetic flux from permanent magnets.

Of course, magnetic fluxes - that's Bearden's delusion - don't switch each other, which would mean multiplicative mixing, but they do add up, possibly by modifying the permeability of the medium, which in no way changes their additivity at a given moment and for a given permeability.

So, in the magnetic circuit, the only variable flux we have is that of the control coils, superimposed on the continuous flux of the magnets, without the slightest interaction between them, except indirectly through a concomitant effect on each when the permeability changes (in which case it's a simple parametric device).

I find it interesting that the Bearden Meg and the Coler Strömerzeuger have two things in common.
(a) There is evidence of both devices being measured to be OU.
(b) Both have a PM connected to soft ferromagnetic material.

In my opinion the various effects occuring within the ferromagnetic materials do not offer simple parametric devices, but rather very complex devices using a number of different parameters.

For the Meg we have time-changing saturated domains, magnetostriction driving mechanical resonance, variable air gap between the C cores, the Villari effect.

For the Strömerzeuger we also have time-changing saturated domains, the Hall effect, cylindrical Corbino currents.

Has anyone seriously looked into these to find why that particular mixture of parameters gave anomalous results?

Smudge

While for Coler's device, we can still make the assumption that energy of unknown origin has appeared, for Bearden, there is no experimental evidence that the MEG would have worked. If it did, the device would be easy to reproduce, given its simplicity and the information we have on it.
JL Naudin said he had seen OU in his MEG, but this was unconvincing given the margin of uncertainty in his measurements, and since he didn't insist, it's clear that he screwed up (without saying it, as usual, we had the same case with the "Kapagen").
Not only does nobody have a working MEG, but Bearden's alleged principle makes no sense and is expressed without any scientific method. Coler, on the other hand, has never claimed to give a scientific explanation, nor has he produced the tons of gibberish we've seen from Bearden.
You can't put the two devices on an equal footing in terms of credibility, nor link them in terms of operation just because they have some similarities in appearance, taken from a cherry picking. They have no more similarities to each other than any magnetic device has to any other. In fact, the MEG looks much more like an ordinary transformer, which it really is, with the permanent magnets serving no other purpose than to change the permeability, which is of no interest.

It's impossible to "switch" a magnetic flux, because a magnetic flux has no displacement of anything along its field lines. It is nothing like an electric current, whose electrons can be interrupted in a circuit.
A magnetic flux is a loop around a charge as seen by an observer who sees it moving. The loop itself doesn't even exist as an intrinsic reality; the magnetic field does not exist in the charge's own frame of reference, since the charge velocity relative to itself is zero. Nothing rotates in the loop, so there's nothing to switch, it's just a relativistic effect on the coulombic field that nobody has ever "switched". I don't understand why we're still rehashing the tall tales of this crackpot Bearden.

Well, not quite. Switching the fields of a permanent magnet, using elegant but deceptive theoretical idea and set-up, is seductive. And in the field of FE, people always want to believe what seems beautiful, easy but false, over the harsh reality. They indulge in a utopian artificial paradise and settle for it like a drug. Which is why, unlike scientists, they have always failed to produce anything useful.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.04, 12:17:14
It's impossible to "switch" a magnetic flux, because a magnetic flux has no displacement of anything along its field lines. It is nothing like an electric current, whose electrons can be interrupted in a circuit.
A magnetic flux is a loop around a charge as seen by an observer who sees it moving. The loop itself doesn't even exist as an intrinsic reality; the magnetic field does not exist in the charge's own frame of reference, since the charge velocity relative to itself is zero. Nothing rotates in the loop, so there's nothing to switch, it's just a relativistic effect on the coulombic field that nobody has ever "switched". I don't understand why we're still rehashing the tall tales of this crackpot Bearden.

Well, not quite. Switching the fields of a permanent magnet, using elegant but deceptive theoretical idea and set-up, is seductive. And in the field of FE, people always want to believe what seems beautiful, easy but false, over the harsh reality. They indulge in a utopian artificial paradise and settle for it like a drug. Which is why, unlike scientists, they have always failed to produce anything useful.

How then does Joe Flynn's parallel path technology work?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.04, 12:17:14

Switching the fields of a permanent magnet, using elegant but deceptive theoretical idea and set-up, is seductive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNxob3yY4LE&t=158s&pp=ygURc3RpdmVwMSB0ZWQgYW5uaXM%3D (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNxob3yY4LE&t=158s&pp=ygURc3RpdmVwMSB0ZWQgYW5uaXM%3D)
Is this also a lie ?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2025.03.04, 11:49:09
While for Coler's device, we can still make the assumption that energy of unknown origin has appeared, for Bearden, there is no experimental evidence that the MEG would have worked. If it did, the device would be easy to reproduce, given its simplicity and the information we have on it.

Do we have all the information?  Does the device require perfectly matched C cores (matched for acoustic resonance) for it to work?  Does the method of clamping the C cores require special tension (the presence of the magnet is pushing the C cores apart)?  Had the magnet in Bearden's working model been used and had its characteristics changed?  Has anyone since explored the effects of altering things like the clamping tension and the magnet.  I suspect not because you can't strip down a build without destroying it, removing the magnet strips off laminations.  Many of the so-called replication attempts don't use the exact items that Bearden used (like using ferrite cores and not metglas!).

QuoteYou can't put the two devices on an equal footing in terms of credibility, nor link them in terms of operation just because they have some similarities in appearance, taken from a cherry picking. They have no more similarities to each other than any magnetic device has to any other. In fact, the MEG looks much more like an ordinary transformer, which it really is, with the permanent magnets serving no other purpose than to change the permeability, which is of no interest.

This "change of permeability" may be of no interest to you, but it is not a simple change over the entire core as can be seen by performing simulations.  That means it is not an "ordinary" transformer.  You now have moving saturation fronts, not moving along the core but across the core.  That is movement at right angles to the transmission of energy along the core.  There are two parallel transmission paths from primary to secondary, one saturated and the other non-saturated, with the boundary between them moving in synch with the transmission.  Add into that mix magnetostriction and Villari effects and it is anything but "ordinary".

Smudge

Quote from: bfulmind23 on 2025.03.04, 15:32:10
How then does Joe Flynn's parallel path technology work?

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.03.04, 15:44:04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNxob3yY4LE&t=158s&pp=ygURc3RpdmVwMSB0ZWQgYW5uaXM%3D (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNxob3yY4LE&t=158s&pp=ygURc3RpdmVwMSB0ZWQgYW5uaXM%3D)
Is this also a lie ?

Lies or mistakes or whatever, not even refutable.
"How then does Joe Flynn's parallel path technology work?" is a premature question, and therefore useless.
The question should be first "does Joe Flynn's parallel path technology work?".
Before explaining, the facts to be explained must be demonstrated, and in science and technology, a fact is reproducible.

Asking questions about hypothetical facts or Youtube chatter is irrelevant.
Sorry guys, but I'm interested in science and technology. In this field, if there's nothing to observe, there's nothing to discuss. Bring proof of abnormal facts and the exact way to reproduce them, and I'd be more than happy to test them and discuss them with you.

@Smudge

Contrary to what you say, I'm interested in the change in permeability, but it's classic technology and nobody has succeeded in producing a reproducible device that would show abnormal effects. Until proven otherwise, parametric devices are conventional science with no OU. The fact that the permeability is only changed on one part of the magnetic circuit doesn't allow us to assume anything, and besides, it's nothing new.

Not only do we have no credible evidence that an MEG has produced OU, but it is associated with a complete theoretical delusion from Bearden, unsurprisingly, since it is supposed to explain effects that only occur in his head and those of his followers. There is nothing to observe in MEG but conventional functioning, and a theory is designed to explain observations, not illusions.

As for Coler's device, we know nothing specific about it. We only have serious indications that it may have been the source of unknown effects, and it is the reproduction of these alleged facts that is of interest. Unlike the MEG, which we're sure doesn't work, we can still assume that there's a real effect at Coler. MEG can be thrown out. For Coler's device, it's still too early to tell.