In the FTPU video, SM places the device on top of a piece of equipment with a heavy metallic enclosure, in particular the top lid.
Apparently a large conductive plate in close proximity has no effect on the TPU's operation.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.06.12, 03:56:10
In the FTPU video, SM places the device on top of a piece of equipment with a heavy metallic enclosure, in particular the top lid.
Apparently a large conductive plate in close proximity has no effect on the TPU's operation.
.99
or a large conductive plate has no effect on the FTPU
Also, this does not infer that the TPU does not have an effect on the metal plate
the later tpu's or on wood or glass
Wish i knew if it was plugged in and or grounded
One question this raises is:
What kind of field is rotating?
and another:
If the FTPU heats up slightly while operating, does the equipment lid also ?
- This might imply an interaction with the lid and affect TPU operation, so perhaps not?. However, it was once revealed that the TPU does not function if totally enclosed in a metallic box.
.99
A strange place to conduct such a demonstration.
Generally in video players the metal top plates would be connected to the chassis using a spring clip, so when it's pushed home and screwed in place it shields the internal electronics.
The machine would not be directly be connected to earth as the mains lead only carries live and neutral connections.
Haha when you watch the video you can see he places the magnet on the metal top and when he goes to pick it up he needs 2 tries to pick it up as it has stuck to the lid ;D
http://www.videolife.tk/video/sHswoNpc0Tk/Steven-Marks-TPU-video-by-Jack-Durban-DVD-reliz-Hi8-kassete-DL-version-1.html
Quote from: Peterae on 2010.06.12, 14:59:47
The machine would not be directly be connected to earth as the mains lead only carries live and neutral connections.
This depends on the "quality" of the equipment. Being that this is most likely a professional line of equipment, they might be using a 3-prong instrument cord and connector, and the chassis would be earth-grounded in this case, if it was plugged in.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.06.12, 14:47:07
One question this raises is:
What kind of field is rotating?
and another:
If the FTPU heats up slightly while operating, does the equipment lid also ?
- This might imply an interaction with the lid and affect TPU operation, so perhaps not?. However, it was once revealed that the TPU does not function if totally enclosed in a metallic box.
.99
Who said it would not work in a totally enclosed metallic box?
(SM did mention that it worked in an airplane at 15k feet.)
2006-11-16, ctglabs asked the question:
"Has the device been tried in a magnetically sheilded box to confirm the earths field does indeed provide energy?"
to which SM (via lesterhendershot, i.e. Mannix) replied:
"wont work in a small metal box, any metal"
So, presumably if the "box" is large enough (such as in an aircraft) the device will still operate.
.99
you have a good point that SM said that metal object near the device effected the tuning - maybe the effect was detrimental to large units.
I thought we were told metal within 2 feet was detrimental, unless SM implemented an auto tunning system to account for it or unless the energy capture was from the top of the device and we were conned by the turn it upside down no power effect because when it was upside down the capture couldn't happen because of the metal plate.
EDIT oh crap imagine if that metal plate was hooked to one side of a giant oscillator.
In any case, these things should tell us something about the operation.
Not sure what but it should.
In my recent research and experimentation it has occurred to me that SM's TPU and my Closed-Loop Electrolyser may actually be working on similar principles.
This realisation has given me a whole different perspective of the TPU - particularly its likely mode of operation.
We know the TPU was a very simple device in that it did not seem to employ many components, however, what has never been established with any great certainty is whether or not there was a small battery powering it. I think there would be... powering the primary cct. A tiny button cell might be enough.
These are the lines I'm thinking along: The primary cct consists of a simple blocking oscillator incorporating a pulse transformer, powered by a small battery, while the secondary cct consists of an open-ended coil with an Avramenko plug at one end.
Basically Tesla's Single-Wire Electric Power Transmission.
Because the secondary cct coil is open-ended, it does not affect the current drawn through the primary cct. However, this secondary coil can be of great potential. Stick an Avramenko plug on the high potential end of the secondary coil and, 'bingo', we can power a load.
I'm not saying this idly either, as this has been achieved by many people who have experimented with Joule Thief ccts, and of course Dr. Stiffler himself with his SECs.
The Avramenko plug in effect creates its own closed circuit and as such the current flowing through it is independent of the primary cct. This is the very basis for my Closed-Loop Electrolyser concept, and I feel may well also be the principle of operation of the TPU.
The higher the primary pulsing frequency the better, the higher the secondary voltage the better.
Just a little food for thought.
Farrah
Quote from: Peterae on 2010.06.12, 20:39:28
I thought we were told metal within 2 feet was detrimental, unless SM implemented an auto tunning system to account for it or unless the energy capture was from the top of the device and we were conned by the turn it upside down no power effect because when it was upside down the capture couldn't happen because of the metal plate.
EDIT oh crap imagine if that metal plate was hooked to one side of a giant oscillator.
SM specifically stated that the energy came from "within" the device. Exorcise "capture" from your mind as it is not an antenna.
FD
I have been recently thinking upon the same lines for the TPU operation only with multiple
AV plugs to capture energy in small capacitors and then fed into a bigger one that can power a load.
Extra caps can be used to feed back into the citcuit/or recharge a button cell battery of the primary circuit.
I will be testing this idea soon and will post my results. I have several setups for this to try out but I'm excited
to start testing as I have had a dry spell lately.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.06.13, 14:52:24
SM specifically stated that the energy came from "within" the device. Exorcise "capture" from your mind as it is not an antenna.
Agreed.
My best understanding is, it is a 'conversion' device. While 'frequencies' are required and must be tuned, similar to a radio receiver, I don't see it receiving energy.
It has taken me quite a while to reach that point of understanding.
SM found a way to make electrons move and create a current that doesn't require a lot of energy to accomplish. No magic. Just a lot of luck an persistence.
Review particle drifts and you will be one step closer. You can nail it a few months after that.
Originally my main interest was in electrolysers and electrolysis, but the more I've researched so-called free energy devices, the more I've become fascinated by the electronics, with views to implementing such on electrolysers.
One thing I've learned to do, is take anything I've read in terms of how something works and claims made by the inventor, with a pinch of salt. The fact that the inventor himself may not have known exactly what was happening and so speculated has to be considered. If the inventor has speculated incorrectly then this could prove immensely confusing, not to say misleading, for those of us trying to decipher the workings and taking the inventors words as gospel. It also has to be realistically considered that some inventors, if not total frauds, may well have been deliberately leading us the wrong way down the garden path. I just feel that people may be unknowingly, tirelessly pursuing dead ends, thanks to information provided by the inventor.
Clearly there are some interesting things that can occur and that we may not be taught at school. Clearly we live in an ocean of energy that is there, waiting to be efficiently tapped into, and clearly there is more than one way of achieving this, so it's best not to become too single-minded.
Sometimes taking a break from one area and researching another can provide possible insights into the first... well it often works for me.
Quote from: stprue on 2010.06.14, 00:38:17
FD
I have been recently thinking upon the same lines for the TPU operation only with multiple
AV plugs to capture energy in small capacitors and then fed into a bigger one that can power a load.
Extra caps can be used to feed back into the citcuit/or recharge a button cell battery of the primary circuit.
I will be testing this idea soon and will post my results. I have several setups for this to try out but I'm excited
to start testing as I have had a dry spell lately.
Sometimes I have to give myself a few months break from it all, and I don't think it hurts to give your brain a break as I often come back into it refreshed and with new perspectives.
I had a long spell playing with TPUs, but all to no avail. I then realised that I was trying too hard to replicate something from all I'd read. I was in fact a prime candidate for being misguided by misinfo and lead on a fruitless merry dance. Now I tend to look for ways to achieve the goal myself, with what I understand, rather than relying on unsubstantiated claims and uncertain details.
I'm finding the work being done by the Joule Thief guys and Doc Stiffler to be quite exciting, and I'm now wondering whether I'll be making my way back to the TPU at some stage, but via the backdoor, so as to speak.
Farrah
Any thoughts on why the TPU field rotates CCW in the northern hemisphere and CW in the southern?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.06.14, 21:49:24
Any thoughts on why the TPU field rotates CCW in the northern hemisphere and CW in the southern?
Hi Grumps, does it? I mean is there actually any real evidence to support this apparent phenomenon?
Farrah
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2010.06.14, 21:51:49
Hi Grumps, does it? I mean is there actually any real evidence to support this apparent phenomenon?
Farrah
That is what SM stated and I think on of the vids shows a compass rotating inside the ring.
Just reading over these old posts and since things are so dead around here, thought I'd reply
From Grumpy:
QuoteThat is what SM stated and I think on of the vids shows a compass rotating inside the ring.
Actually I think what SM said was "did you see the video of the compass rotating inside the ring?"
or something to that effect. SM biblical scholars can correct this (I'm mobile and don't have my bible at hand).
My point is, no one to my knowledge has seen such a video from the SM collection.
Although this is a rather easy thing to do, and there have been many that have replicated this.
It is nothing more than a PM motor.
But SM may have been referring to a different effect i.e. a capturing and swirling of the earth magnetic flux lines into a vortex or coriolis which would entrain the compass.
This would be quite different than a PM motor.
Correct. I don't think the rotating compass is on any of the videos that we have.
I showed a long time ago that a compass will also align radially to coil pulsed with HV DC, and it aligns to the direction of current flow if you run your arc through the compass (spark gap).
What if the field that is rotating is not a "magnetic field"?
I am going under that theory, as of "Right Now". This, being a TPU thread, seems a better place to comment.
I would draw a picture, but my artwork stinks, so I will verbalize it and see who says what. Figure four coils, around a torrid design, with the actual torrid core being "Wire". (Leave it there for now.) Two of the coils wound one way, two wound opposite, so as to help eliminate some of the inevitable conduction current in them. (This may not be necessary, or possible, but....) If coil one input gets the hv pulse, and the output lead is placed under, or "Internal" to the next coil, and the coil is driven as a Tesla MT Extra coil, then this wire should have a continuously increasing dV/dt on it. Then this output needs to have "Something" done with it. (Not quite there, yet..)
If this concept is functional, then a large "Electrical Field" could be made to rotate around the exterior of the torrid, without much draw as to conventional conduction current. Does this sound reasonable? (I'm throwing one together, either way, but what does anyone think?)
Any suggestions as to how to terminate this HV pulse would be appreciated, as I don't want Capacitive effects reflecting the HV back through the coil, but I can't just load the thing down as that could kill the "Extra" coil function. Any Ideas???? A Spark gap to the next, same direction wound coil is going to be my first attempt, but I have no clue as to how effective this will be. Sure would be easy to hide such a thing, as the spark might not even be visable, at the low conduction current involved. I doubt it would be audible, either? These are all just "Guesses", but I need to build something "FUN" to get out of my existing rut.
The AVEC seems to be a mature design that can also be used to explore the fields. The coils can be wound and oriented the same way. The six coils are similar to Tesla MT's and are impulse excited. If the impedance is really high, it will not reflect back. You will find that a spark gap is very good at reflecting back, so I don't use them now.
First of all you need to pick a path: bifilar method or AVEC method
Bifilar requires precise timing of the two signals, AVEC requires fast switching of HV, sequentially for three or six coils. Bifilar is not as "documented" as the AVEC method, and I don't see SM coming here to explain everything.
Next is to find that damn moving electric field via it's effects. Once you have that, you can follow the two paths above or make your own path.
That's what we "know", whether we choose to discuss it or not, and build it or not. All of my discussion has just been trying to ascertain how it works at the micro level.
By AVEC, I assume that you mean the completed Spherics-type unit. I"m slow and haven't re-read the data yet, as My copy is VERY dated. (I promise to read that thread, and update my knowledge...)
Here's my problem, and the "Opinion" I am looking for. The "Extra" coil concept has the "Electric Field" going off the "End" of the coil. If I want this to go around in a circle, then pointing the coils inward has no function. Were I to be attempting to use the other types of fields, and operate like a motor per se, that would be correct, but I am not. I wish to take the "Electric Field" that would normally travel up an MT Tower, and get that very same field to propagate around the torrid shape. I realize the danger involved, as the voltage could easily go VERY high, Very fast, but this concept goes against what many have said, so feels interesting.
As I mentioned, very simple design, and very simple concept. I'm gonna try as the assembly will take minutes to rig up, once I re-wind my wire spool with the trailing ends under the coils. May get nothing but it seems like a fun experiment. I just still need a way to terminate, and if a gap reflects, that won't do. I certainly won't wind a BIG coil, as that slides out of "Original" TPU designs. I don't want to "re-invent" the wheel before I see one turn, if you get my meaning. I Will find a way.
Thanks.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.08, 05:42:29
By AVEC, I assume that you mean the completed Spherics-type unit. I"m slow and haven't re-read the data yet, as My copy is VERY dated. (I promise to read that thread, and update my knowledge...)
Here's my problem, and the "Opinion" I am looking for. The "Extra" coil concept has the "Electric Field" going off the "End" of the coil. If I want this to go around in a circle, then pointing the coils inward has no function. Were I to be attempting to use the other types of fields, and operate like a motor per se, that would be correct, but I am not. I wish to take the "Electric Field" that would normally travel up an MT Tower, and get that very same field to propagate around the torrid shape. I realize the danger involved, as the voltage could easily go VERY high, Very fast, but this concept goes against what many have said, so feels interesting.
As I mentioned, very simple design, and very simple concept. I'm gonna try as the assembly will take minutes to rig up, once I re-wind my wire spool with the trailing ends under the coils. May get nothing but it seems like a fun experiment. I just still need a way to terminate, and if a gap reflects, that won't do. I certainly won't wind a BIG coil, as that slides out of "Original" TPU designs. I don't want to "re-invent" the wheel before I see one turn, if you get my meaning. I Will find a way.
Thanks.
When you first close the switch, an electric field propagates from EACH END of the circuit, from the source. Many will say this is incorrect, but what do they know? So, the electric field does not go off the end of the coil, it comes off the coil in all directions from both ends at the same time. In Tesla's MT, the coil is grounded and terminated with a large metallic surface, so this is different. You want a portable device with no ground connection, not an MT. Although, a grounded device may work well for home power.
With the AVEC method, the Em Field is produced sequentially to produce rotation. The bifilar method produces the necessary field when the pulses interact and one pulse is delayed. I would think that you could adjust one or both of them to the coil you are using and get the pulse to rotate. Keep in mind that if you tune the pulses to rotate with the ambient gravitation field, it will revere when flipped - see Coriolis Effect. If it is sitting still you can detect it and see the oscillation or see some traveling waves on the collector output, but you get no DC output. So, did anyone that failed the AVEC produce a rotating E-field? Probably not. Oh, and by rotating E-field I mean the actual carriers of the field are actually moving, call it tubes of force, call it aether, call it virtual protons, or call it magic, but it's moving. Also, keep in mind that the rotating field by itself should produce an output since gravity is ever-present on Earth.
The "flow from both ends" issue makes using a toroid a little difficult with only an impact excitation. You may be able to make a toroidal MT coil, gronded and terminated at the other end with a large plate. Then the ends of highest potential are close together which will not work. This approach does not look promising, so I recommend either of the other two.
I know some will disagree with the statement that electrical energy flows from both ends of the circuit.
The following article is an interesting read on this subject:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=79.msg7497#msg7497
To ION
The spark is caused by the start up circuit not by the tpu running,the first switch turns off the tpu.The start switch sets conditions for the tpu to start up when the first switch is turned on.Sm may have damaged the insulation on the wire in the toroid.More coming on the start circuits when i get some free time.
Quote from: Loner on 2010.12.08, 01:41:31
I am going under that theory, as of "Right Now". This, being a TPU thread, seems a better place to comment.
I would draw a picture, but my artwork stinks, so I will verbalize it and see who says what. Figure four coils, around a torrid design, with the actual torrid core being "Wire". (Leave it there for now.) Two of the coils wound one way, two wound opposite, so as to help eliminate some of the inevitable conduction current in them. (This may not be necessary, or possible, but....) If coil one input gets the hv pulse, and the output lead is placed under, or "Internal" to the next coil, and the coil is driven as a Tesla MT Extra coil, then this wire should have a continuously increasing dV/dt on it. Then this output needs to have "Something" done with it. (Not quite there, yet..)
If this concept is functional, then a large "Electrical Field" could be made to rotate around the exterior of the torrid, without much draw as to conventional conduction current. Does this sound reasonable? (I'm throwing one together, either way, but what does anyone think?)
Any suggestions as to how to terminate this HV pulse would be appreciated, as I don't want Capacitive effects reflecting the HV back through the coil, but I can't just load the thing down as that could kill the "Extra" coil function. Any Ideas???? A Spark gap to the next, same direction wound coil is going to be my first attempt, but I have no clue as to how effective this will be. Sure would be easy to hide such a thing, as the spark might not even be visable, at the low conduction current involved. I doubt it would be audible, either? These are all just "Guesses", but I need to build something "FUN" to get out of my existing rut.
Loner check out my schematics and coil design in my bench under the Large Signal Reciever thread.
Quote from: cheappower2012 on 2010.12.08, 17:47:58
To ION
The spark is caused by the start up circuit not by the tpu running, the first switch turns off the tpu.The start switch sets conditions for the tpu to start up when the first switch is turned on. Sm may have damaged the insulation on the wire in the toroid. More coming on the start circuits when i get some free time.
So your guessing that SM's talk of "first frequency, second frequency" was a ruse.
Any small nick in the formvar coating would allow breakover if the instantaneous voltage was high enough.
Great, and thanks again for the info thus far....every clue is important.
To ION
The two frequencies is a ruse,it would require solid state oscillators,althu if your asking
how can you know for sure.I'm going to have to think on that one,there is a bunch of things
that make the two frequencies theory a fake,one your mixing waves and producing dc from the waves.
Still a good question because it has been the thinking of the overunity people from the word go
that SM doesn't lie and he wanted them to be able to build a tpu.We don't know the level of abilities that SM has
first he knows only tube theory,then he doesn't know solid state electronics,then he does.In building start up circuits
first I put a condition I can only use very limited soild state parts, what radio shack had in 1996,very hard to do.Jack Durban said SM was a tinkerer
he did get nasty to lure SM out but hes assessment still is,SM had limited electronic knowledge and was a tinkerer
,add to it,very creative with what he knows.I'm going have to think on this,and how to present it.
Does anyone really think that SM was not smart enough to figure out how to use transistors to build oscillators or multvibrators?
Nice smackdown, Grumpy!
The harmonics generated by the 2 frequencies would definately attach the earth resonant and tpu resonant magnetic fields causing a dual tuning fork ringing. With feedback and magnification you could get COP >1. Match up the circumference, the frequencies, the harmonics and the ring(feedback) so the toroid matches the earth field. Instead of having oil in water we have complete synchronization.
Notice how the explanation includes frequencies?
'Frequency equals matter' is my mantra. Maybe the rest of reality will see some day. Otherwise Tesla, Leedskalnin, Hutchison, Keely, Einstein, Russell all look like idiots too.
I would hope that anybody having the Hutzpah to post has read the works by these men and not just spewing collegiate diatribe. :(
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.09, 16:18:36
Does anyone really think that SM was not smart enough to figure out how to use transistors to build oscillators or multvibrators?
QuoteWed, 15 Feb 2006 20:13:59 EST
Subject: Re: In reply . . .
To: lindsay@xxx.com
CC: lindsay@xxx
Dear Lindsay,
That brings up some more information I want to convey.
Some of the units in the demo videos did in fact have one or two 9V batteries to provide a separate controllable DC source for the solid state control circuit.
We eventually learned how to make the power converters start with only the flick of a permanent magnet across the coils.
You may find it humorous that we had to find a way to make the things work without any batteries purely because UEC needed us to honestly answer the question >Does it have any batteries inside of it?< They wanted us to be able to truthfully answer NO, to anyone who asked that question.
You would be surprised how difficult it can be to explained to a lay person how impossible it is to convert a 9V battery into the juice needed to light a single 100 watt 120 volt light bulb, let alone make toast with an electric toaster!!!
Sincerely,
SM
QuoteDate: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:21:19 EST
Subject: Re: INFO
To:
My Dear Friend,
I hope this finds you well.
First of all.
I need to be very careful in what I say.... You know.
You can do much with those frequencies.
Higher frequencies are actually the real catalyst...
He is using Transistors and a signal generator...I wish people could use vacuum tubes. There is a difference. remember i told you that it was easer to experiment with tubes, but, what took a LONG time was designing a small solid state control device? Do you remember that, lindsay? Everything I say has a meaning and a reason usually. Not to say that everything I say is really significant, i just mean that usually technical details are relevant in some way.
I have noticed that people all over the world appear to be certain that solid state and direct electron flow devices achieve the same results. This is absolutely not so. Vacuum tubes have EXTREAMLY FAST TRANSIT TIMES. Solid state devices are like molasses! They also use about a million percent of feed-back to get a clean signal output. vacuum tube devices are fast, accurate and only require a few db of feedback to achieve better result.
Lets just look at simple power amplifier as an example: A 100 watt solid state amplifier will consist on average with a compliment of 30 or so transistors. lots of amplifying and control devices all based on high current low voltage. Low voltage means SLOW. also, all those transistors in the amplifying stages slow down the signal process.
Now look at a basic electron tube device. You have one stage of amplification, one stage of signal phase splitting and driving and one stage of power output, all at high voltage low current. This means FAST! it also means that the feedback for frequency output correction is FAST also.
Now you see why I i have always said that tubes are much better for experimentation.
Solid state devices are too slow to find the three major intersecting you know whats...
I have to go now.
Please keep the site going for now
Sincerely,
S Ü
QuoteFrom: Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:48:15 EST
Subject: Re: Stock report
To:
My Dear Friend,
It is good to hear from you. I am OK.
Do not worry about feeling strange about my promise. I feel it is the least I can do for you and myself. I must pass on the legacy...
By the way. I have really THOUGHT about how to help you and the others. I can not tell you too much about the design of the technology because the company who still owns the technology is reading my every word, as you know and just waiting to cut off my pension if I tell you too much.
BUT!
I want you to start and think of the generator principles the exact same way that passing the sound barrier was accomplished. Read how the engineers in this country finally developed the proper wing design to accomplish super sonic speed in aircraft. I hope it will give you a picture of what is going on inside the generator and especially the collector.
I can only talk to you guys metaphorically because the company is threatening me constantly and my attorneys have warned me several times this month to STOP writing to the web site or I must face the consequences. I wonder if any of the folks realize just what I am risking when I give them information that they just take for granted and then demand more.
The people who say that tubes are exactly the same as transistors are very, very naive. And now I will tell you something very important. You remember I mentioned fast electron transit time vs molasses?
Let us examine a simple audio amplifier. When you design an amplifier you try to isolate noise, or hash from the mains power supply from getting into the B+ and contaminating the output signal, etc. You can measure all kinds of noise from the mains in your B+ not to mention all the noisy spikes from the solid state rectifiers giving the direct current to the power capacitors. All of this is easily measured, or seen on a scope of most solid state audio amplifiers. NOW design and make a good tube amplifier and you will immediately find a dramatic difference in the B+ supply measurements and what you can see on the scope. No more spikes from the solid state rectifiers, almost no hash from the mains power coming in! REMEMBER, all of that noise and hash in your solid state amplifier is in the output signal ! Now tell me? What do you think is happening inside the extremely sensitive torrid generator when you use solid state devices to attempt to create the required precise control frequencies to make catalyst and produce power???
By the way, your Solid State amplifier generates so much noise that if you measure the mains wiring you can see noise from YOUR amplifier actually getting back through the transformer and into the mains input wiring!!!
It is obvious that most of the people reading the web site and experimenting know nothing about reading a scope and understanding what perfect frequency is. They also have no concept of how important the control frequencies are in order to make power from the collector.
It is obvious that most of the people trying to duplicate my experiment are not of the intellectual caliper necessary to develop my technology or at the very least they need to invest in some laboratory grade instruments in order to develop any progress.
I assumed that anyone working on technology this sophisticated would have a superior knowledge of electronics and an understanding of PURE frequency output being a Necessity to control the reactions going on inside the collector.
Please place this on the web site and let them know that if they do not have a more then average understanding of electron flow then they should not endeavor to try and duplicate my device because they do not stand a chance. I am tired of reading their disappointments because they do not have the education or the knowledge necessary to duplicate my technology.
Sincerely,
SM Ü
Quote from: giantkiller on 2010.12.09, 17:37:29
Nice smackdown, Grumpy!
The harmonics generated by the 2 frequencies would definately attach the earth resonant and tpu resonant magnetic fields causing a dual tuning fork ringing. With feedback and magnification you could get COP >1. Match up the circumference, the frequencies, the harmonics and the ring(feedback) so the toroid matches the earth field. Instead of having oil in water we have complete synchronization.
Notice how the explanation includes frequencies? 'Frequency equals matter' is my mantra. Maybe the rest of reality will see some day. Otherwise Tesla, Leedskalnin, Hutchison, Keely, Einstein, Russell all look like idiots too.
I would hope that anybody having the Hutzpah to post has read the works by these men and not just spewing collegiate diatribe. Sad
Have we entered the realm of tag team wrestling?
Perhaps, the forces at work play on a very deep level to lead everyone away from the goal and know quite well how to "wag the dog"
A careful read of the info posted by G above could lead to many conclusions, one of which is that SM or whoever was writing to Lindsay had an agenda.
That agenda could have been to lead people further from the goal with misinfo and the attempt was to make it more believable by adding the "lawyers warnings" and "pension cutoffs" etc. Maybe that is what SM got paid for.
So it's all just information, part of a complicated picture. Not to be taken at face value, as there are many layers of sheepdip at play.
Still no one has a TPU despite all the attempts with tubes etc. and
despite all the braggadocio by those that make bold claims and continually act as if they already know how to do it.
Good points ION, and CP is doing some fine dissection of the videos.
Here is an interesting quote from SM to Lindsay:
QuoteThe energy released from the speed of multiple projectiles increases the energy available to be dissipated upon impact many fold!
The faster the speed of ANYTHING the more energy will be available for conversion.
A long time ago, i said, if you take a bullet and throw it at the side of an automobile;e it will bounce off. However, if you place the bullet into a gun and fire it at the automobile it, with sufficient velocity, go through the metal door and through the other side because of the inertia energy available for conversion.
Speed is energy if you can convert the mass into energy quickly enough!
Anything no matter how small can store enough energy to convert into huge amounts of energy.
Even electrons.....................................
Now, electrons can travel only so fast along the surface of the wire because of magnetic flux. what if you disable the effects of the flux?
Now the electrons float freely without anything holding them back. electrons at the sped of light are now a possibility! How much energy can be converted from a stream of electrons traveling close to the speed of light? Remember the bullet story.
Think of this:
Energy conversion is different when you consider speed. 12 volts at 100 amps is slow and the energy can not dissipate quickly enough to kill you by discharge. But, it is a lot of energy especially if converted to speed. Reduce that 100 amps to 100 mA but increase the voltage (speed) to 100,000 volts and you can electrocute someone!
"My unit operates on these principles"!!!!!. Think about all those frequencies traveling inside the collector coil and how they interact.....
Sincerely,
Ü
If SM moves the rotating field fast enough, the field will not curl at the surface of the collector and no magnetic field will be formed to slow the electrons.
hi
Simple ? What do you mean ? do you have a picture of it or schematic ?
what about pushing electrons like water inside hose ? may it be that internally it is a big copper wire in circle with light speed electrons speeded up by external coil(s) ? like cyclotron ?
Grumpy
Your post #35 is probably one of the most important pieces of information in all of TPU data base.
At times, SM probably couldn't help himself and would have to spurt out a truth now and then. I believe this to be one of those times.
Quote"what if you disable the effects of the flux?"
Getting past the drift velocity may be key. Disable the flux and corioles and a few kicks does the rest.
Quotewhat about pushing electrons like water inside hose ?
Interesting question. Are you familiar with the Traveling Wave Tube?
The TWT and the Beam Klystron operate on similar principles and
both make use of high velocity electrons.
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.09, 21:36:39
Grumpy
Your post #35 is probably one of the most important pieces of information in all of TPU data base.
At times, SM probably couldn't help himself and would have to spurt out a truth now and then. I believe this to be one of those times.
Getting past the drift velocity may be key. Disable the flux and corioles and a few kicks does the rest.
I came to this in a round-about-sort-of-way after looking at the moving electric field that is the actual transfer of energy and trying to figure out how this moving electric field produces the magnetic field associated with a current. Well, I figured that out and saw that if the field is moving fast enough, no magnetic field will manifest. This has nothing to do with cancelling the flux, but rather avoiding it's formation entirely. There is also the possibility that the magnetic field will not form if the electric field is applied only on one side, but I felt the former theory to be more valid. Unfortunately, literature on eletricity at the "micro" level is hard to find.
So, the jist is that the magnetic field that slows the electrons never forms so they travel with the speed of the inducing field minus losses in the conductor such as collisions and whatver else is occuring. I would expect normal heating from the current to not be present, but this is still a lot of speculation.
From reading a lot of articles on movein electric fields, the most popular conclusion is that the moving elecric field produces a magnetic field.
At the micro level, how (physically) does a moving electric field curl into a magnetic field that is perpendicular to the electric field?
My own conclusion, at the moment (subject to change at any time), is that whenever a region of the moving electric field moves faster than an adjascent region, then the field curls like an eddy and forms a magnetic field. So, if you can stop the eddy or the curl, you prevent the magnetic field from forming. I suspect that at very high velocities, the curl does not form and is more of a slip or skew or sliding. An electric field shockwave for example, probably slips.
To ION
Tag team wrestling,good one,
anyway if your thinking
that the current is entering a region where the drift speed of the electrons is being changed.
Thats not whats happening you require energy to move the electrons.Heres a picture (top picture) a pulse is applied
to a superconducting transformers primary, thats in liquid nitrogen.Electrons in a superconductor travel at
a very high rate,way beyond the drift speed in copper.The current flow exits going into the wire
at room temperature the electrons slow
down and go through the load,the pulse decays to nothing.Bottom picture secondary is tied to together this time
the current continues to flow forever as long as the temperature is at the superconducting
temperature of the wire,if it go's above this,the drift speed increases and the current stops.
Drift speed change does not explain the tpu's operation.The tpu picture shows a speeding up of electrons
in the collector with a slowing down of electrons at the load,without energy applied it must come to a stop.
Electron drift, which many consider to be a "current", is a secondary effect, a by-product of the true process of energy transfer. Some clever experiments have been performed to show that electrons drift too slowly to be the true energy carriers in an electric circuit. :D
The true energy carrier is outside the conductor. Electrons drifting along are an indication of energy flow, like ball bearings in a water pipe. If you increase the flow of energy along the wire by "artificial means", either more electrons are moving or they are moving faster. ;D
Of course you accomplish the same thing if you move them with very little expenditure of energy by tricking nature into doing the work for you. O0
Ion,
I wanted to mention that if the magnetic field in the collector depends on the opposing flows of positive and negative electric fields, then applying only a positive field would also prevent the magnetic field from forming and slowing down the electrons.
This discussion and the ideas posted is why I believe tubes (valves) were part of the saga.
I have never thought the mention of tubes was an analogy. More like, the only commonly known example at the time.
No drift velocity slowness there. The manifested magnetic field is minimal and not the same orientation as current through a wire. The transit time was faster than most current solid state or any other conductor but still slow enough to move at sonic/supersonic speeds. This would keep the CEMF to a minimum.
The difficulty with this idea is a TPU would have to be a TWT or some kind of plasma chamber. Hard to imagine.
velocity of electrons in a vacuum tube:
http://www.vias.org/basicradio/basic_radio_02_03.html
Thanks CP2012 and G
More info here: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/teslatutorial/index.htm
The whole site is a good read, but go to CHUCKS Large Hadron Colliider powerpoint presentation at the top of the page(also at very bottom of page). There is some good info here regarding electron velocities in a vacuum.
Regarding electron velocity in a copper wire (from Wikipedia)
Electricity is most commonly conducted in a copper wire. Copper has a density of 8.94 g/cm³, and an atomic number of 63.546 g/mol, so there are 140685.5 mol/m³. In 1 mole of Copper there are 6.02×10^23 atoms(Avagadros constant). Therefore in 1m³ of copper there are about 8.5×1028 atoms (6.02×1023 x 140685.5 mol/m³. Copper has one free electron per atom, so n is equal to 8.5×1028 electrons per m³.
Assuming a current I=3 amperes, and a wire of 1 mm diameter (radius in meters = 0.0005m). This wire has a cross section area of 7.85×10-7' m2 ('A= π 0.00052 ). The charge of 1 electron is q=1.6×10−19 Coulombs. The drift velocity therefore can be calculated:
V= I/nAq V = 3 / (8.5×1028 x 7.85×10-7 x 1.6×10−19 ) V = 0.00028 m/s
[V] = [Amps] / [electron/m3] x [m2] x [Coulombs/electron] = [coulombs] / [seconds] x [electron/m3] x [m2] x [Coulombs/electron] = [meters] / [second]
Therefore in this wire the electrons are flowing at the rate of 0.00028 m/s, or very nearly 1.0 m/hour. This is quite slow, however in 1 hour 6,75x1022 electrons will flow through the wire. If the wire was 1 meter long, (assuming 18 Gauge copper wire) and 3 amps was flowing through it, it would consume as much energy as a 150mWatt light bulb. (Very rough calculation)
What about changing the velocity of the electrons, making them flow faster or more of them flow?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.10, 15:23:40
What about changing the velocity of the electrons, making them flow faster or more of them flow?
I guess that's where we have been going with this discussion, although CP2012 has a different take on this, it will be interesting to see his viewpoint when he presents it.
also a good read on "electron mobility"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mobility
The energy transmitted is close to the speed of light in a conductor
the drift speed is fixed,unless a conductor,becomes super conducting.
The intensity of a magnetic field
is determined by a given number of electrons passing a point per second
and also there speed.In the tpu coil it shows a strong magnetic field
you can not alter drift speed very much to account for this so it must a short burst
of high current this is possible as long as you don't exceed the current
capabilities of the wire.Experiments with high current short duration will make a coil warm.
Now this is assuming that the coil is an air core I have not done high current short duration
tests using the meter,will have to do.
Quote from: cheappower2012 on 2010.12.10, 16:27:53
The energy transmitted is close to the speed of light in a conductor
the drift speed is fixed,unless a conductor,becomes super conducting.
The intensity of a magnetic field
is determined by a given number of electrons passing a point per second
and also there speed.In the tpu coil it shows a strong magnetic field
you can not alter drift speed very much to account for this so it must a short burst
of high current this is possible as long as you don't exceed the current
capabilities of the wire.Experiments with high current short duration will make a coil warm.
Now this is assuming that the coil is an air core I have not done high current short duration
tests using the meter,will have to do.
You have a lot of misconceptions about electricity.
No one can tell from the videos of the TPU, what the source of the magnetic field is. It could be a solenoid coil fed with a portion of the DC TPU output. You can not tell if that magnetic field is part of the output or the generating process.
Sure you can,SM's error was he used the meter in the video,the meter hasn't changed since he used it in 1997.had he used a regular current meter that would not be the case.Also the videos clearly show a coil,there maybe another coil inside the bigger coil.There are all kinds of ways to get information from the videos.
Quote from: cheappower2012 on 2010.12.11, 00:47:37
Sure you can,SM's error was he used the meter in the video,the meter hasn't changed since he used it in 1997.had he used a regular current meter that would not be the case.Also the videos clearly show a coil,there maybe another coil inside the bigger coil.There are all kinds of ways to get information from the videos.
The videos do not show the principle of operation.
That information will come with time,the world needs a cheap ,clean powerful source of electric power,people are eating fried dirt,sooner or later it will effect us here in the US.Judas sold out christ for gold coins,SM sold out all of humanity for money,love of money is the root of all evil.
Quote from: cheappower2012 on 2010.12.11, 01:40:06
That information will come with time,the world needs a cheap ,clean powerful source of electric power,people are eating fried dirt,sooner or later it will effect us here in the US.Judas sold out christ for gold coins,SM sold out all of humanity for money,love of money is the root of all evil.
There are many that would like us to believe that SM "sold out". What choice did he have? I'm sure the NSA keeps his balls in a vice! For all we know, SM lives off social security, a fixed income, dangled like a carrot by the NSA, lest he get any ideas...
SM clearly stated that his devices operated via a different means of induction, of making electrons flow.
See anything pertaining to this in the videos?
The two toroidal transformer things, one of them sparked, what are they for?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.11, 01:57:49
The two toroidal transformer things, one of them sparked, what are they for?
Although I cannot tell you what they are for, we have some idea of how they are wired, thanks to Wattsup's diligent effort of tracing the wires, I was able to create a schematic.
There are a few common sense guesses in the schematic, but it appears the toroids are at the opposite ends of four wires which are wound all around the SM17, (see reverse engineering thread)
It is incompete to date.
I'm not sure that the NSA would let SM live and not simply off him,or imprison him.
If the tpu is very powerful it would be a gigantic threat to all energy interests.
I believe that people can sense future events to a point the vast interest of a free energy device
indicates that one is coming and neither the nsa,nor any government on earth will be able to stop it
when that time arrives.The toroid is, I think to sense current flow thru the main wire a step up transformer maybe for timing something, he had laying around
only one is working the other is a dummy.Nothing on how it works is seen in the video
i have no theory on the operation of it not enough information right now to make a good guess.
We can figure it out by the end of 2012. O0
New bloke here ...Hi all
Interesting about the tubes
I wonder if a few tubes ,rectifiers in series or triodes would accelerate the already accelerated electrons to a higher speed than just one tube ?
perhaps in circle of some sort.
The circuit to test this might be worth tossing about some.
Harry
Hi Harry and welcome to OUR forum
Your idea is worth a try, but I think the accelerated electrons decelerate rapidly when they smack into the plate....if the voltage hence acceleration is high enough, x-rays are produced. Otherwise a dull red glow on the plate is where the energy can be witnessed as it is absorbed. Still, a shockwave might be produced that is carried forward to the next stage, who knows.
Give it a shot...wear a lead vest...if you value your future offspring.
Thoughts on this guys.
I found a picture of a choke and it looked exactly like this metal form on top, the penny only dropped 2 days afterwards and have been trying to find the dam picture again ever since.
It's a magnet DOH
Looks like something mounted to a plate - see fastener top and bottom like for a rheostat, but don't see a shaft.
Well, I have to blurt this out. In one of the Spherics posts, the idea that the "Torrids" were saturable magnetic switches was put forth. I have never really agreed with that, as with the visible windings on them, there both weren't enough separate coils, nor enough turns to saturate them without quite a bit of current. Making the assumption that these were used as suggested, they would have been powered from small batteries, to initiate the process, then from the TPU, but whatever. The initial startup would have required enough current to make these work, as wound, to require at least 500mA or more to saturate the amps. That is what drove me away of that explanation as it just seemed impossible. (I never have seen a bias wind, either, but it could be under a tape layer, under the large wind. Then even less current would be required, but I can't see it, so I can't say it.)
NOW, with the comment that a major magnet may be involved, the saturation point could be dropped dramatically, which would bring that concept back into the realm of possibility, if ANY coil were wound under the visible turns. Any guesses as to this? I still think the "Response" of the ferro mat'l in the small torrid would make for "too slow", but then again, if driven by a "Clean" freq, this could be a benefit. Just tossing out possibilities, as all of this is different than where I am currently looking. The single layer units had 1 torrid, where the "Three" layer unit has two. Possible two drives, and an extra pickup? I still have no clue as to theory of op. I can say this. IF the single wind units worked, then no mixing of freq. is needed, as the ckt on the little open one was too simple for such a thing, and tuning components were not in evidence. This should offer as many clues as anything else, if taken into account as "1 Loop really works, all else is for better operation". Therefore, anything "Requiring" more than 1 loop IS NOT part of the theory of operation. While that seems logical, it certainly hasn't helped me any.
Did you know that an electrostatic compass will show the Poynting vector of your circuit? All compasses are ES at high voltages.
A rotating compass in a TPU is indicative of a rotating HV electric field - remember those curves field lines that Sauron posted...he he he
Hell, we might beat the 2012 date...
Anyone ever wonder why that little 3 inch TPU on the glass table is so heavily covered (just on the top) with hot melt adhesive? This may seem like nothing, but I believe it is a major clue.
That adhesive would not be required for a traditional solenoid winding, as electrical tape would have sufficed. I covered this in
loopback windings.
Anyone remember the work of William J. Hooper?
Quote"The motional electric field is projected into the space surrounding our generator when the DC current therein is 30 amperes, equivalent to that which would be associated with the uncancelled magnetic flux around a single conductor carrying a current of over 120,000 amperes (4020 x 30 = 120,600 ampere turns)."
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.11, 20:26:31
If your pulse generates enough cooper pairs it will polarize the ether (sub-atomic particle universe).
:)
Nice!
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.11, 17:32:53
Anyone ever wonder why that little 3 inch TPU on the glass table is so heavily covered (just on the top) with hot melt adhesive? This may seem like nothing, but I believe it is a major clue.
That adhesive would not be required for a traditional solenoid winding, as electrical tape would have sufficed. I covered this in loopback windings.
Anyone remember the work of William J. Hooper?
Quote"The motional electric field is projected into the space surrounding our generator when the DC current therein is 30 amperes, equivalent to that which would be associated with the uncancelled magnetic flux around a single conductor carrying a current of over 120,000 amperes (4020 x 30 = 120,600 ampere turns)."
I am surprised that MH has not produced the NASA test results refuting Hooper's device. Never-the-less, I think Hooper was onto something even if his method of producing it was not the best. The fact that the properties of his Em field and Tesla's RE are pretty much identical is uncanny.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.11, 01:57:49
There are many that would like us to believe that SM "sold out". What choice did he have? I'm sure the NSA keeps his balls in a vice! For all we know, SM lives off social security, a fixed income, dangled like a carrot by the NSA, lest he get any ideas...
SM clearly stated that his devices operated via a different means of induction, of making electrons flow.
See anything pertaining to this in the videos?
The two toroidal transformer things, one of them sparked, what are they for?
Where and when was this spark seen?
Thanks.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.12, 18:12:53
Where and when was this spark seen?
Thanks.
Reply #104 in the "TPU: Was It Real" thread. It was posted by cheappower21012.
Use the DVD 000059 0.avi supplied by CP2012 and step the frames as he turns off the switch.
It can also be seen when just played. Sometimes frame stepping will skip it.
Here are the 3 frames, before, during, and after spark. Captured with KMplayer, but not sure if KM skips some frames when stepping.
Thanks ION.
I haven't played the AVI. It won't play in the apps I have.
If that is a spark (not a reflection off the white porcelain of the small toroid) then it follows my theory of operation for the small toroid and the overall TPU.
Here's some ideas to spark some renewed interest in the TPU discussions:
Steven Mark spent years trying to figure out how to capitalize on the magnetic frequencies he stumbled on. 10 years perhaps.
I believe the challenge was to figure out how to phase the two coils so the energy could build up through possitive feedback.
He talked about what happens when transformers GET SLIGHTLY OUT OF PHASE.
That is such a huge statement. "Slightly out of phase" realy means Over Unity and FREE ENERGY in the right configuration.
The "turbine" phenomena he mentions is key to this phasing issue, actualy the ANSWER, I'll explain later. It basically allows looping back the power in the correct PHASE to AMPLIFY itself and thus "grab" more power from the external magnetic fluctuations.
Ok, here's the basic process:
1) A magnetic frequency induces a voltage in a loop, and by connecting a tunning capacitor to the loop the induced voltage can be magnified perhaps 80 or even 100 time the open loop voltage through resonance, assuming a high Q construction. Ok, this is all fine and dandy.
2) Now, what if we want to take some of this energy out (lightly loading the tank circuit) and place it in a second coil colinear with the first, in order to add to the external magnetic field and thus boost the received signal. That is, we want to create a magentic field that is IN PHASE with the external magnetic field.
3) If this is achived, the signal or magnetic frequency will only get stronger, and the feedback stronger still, and so on increasing to break down or other limitations.
This task seems simple but if you have to do it with no electronics it's even more daunting, and I've spend lots of time analyzing different configurations. Basicaly a component needs to be utilized to phase shift by 90 degrees, and we know that inductors and capacitors can serve this purpose, but trying to loop the system back with inductors and capacitors and still keep it tuned, will quickly reveal that any proposed design configuration will reduces back to the simple loop and capacitor tuned circuit. Basicaly a tuned tank circuit is already the simplest positive feedback configuration utilizing inductors and capacitors, so it doesn't get any simpler than this. This was realy frustrating to me, because intuitively I know that I can load that tank circuit down and take some power from it and obviously I can do what ever I want with this power, even feeding it back to the input, so I kept brainstorming.
I've strugled with these phasing issues for months and I finaly came to realize the value of the toroid and it's unique geometry that can support rotational magnetic fields per the TESLA AC motor design. I now fully belive there is a rotational magnetic field inside the toroids, meaning in the air space encomapsed by the torroid, that enables a unique 90 phase shift for feeding power back to the input, thereby eliminating the need for active devices.
Now one of the conceptual problems with this regeneration approach is that as the signal gets too strong, the frequency will drift. The amount of power that can be received will depend on the stability of the frequency. However, the rotational magnetic field is very STABLE as it was built up at the right frequency so when I realized this I got so excited.
Anyway, I won't go into details of impedance matching and all that, but I've worked out most of this passive regenerative TPU design utilizing the torroid geometry as the 90 phase shifter due to rotational magnetic fields and coils placecd in quadrature, and it's quite exciting. Now as the core saturates in cycles, a rectification of sorts begins to set in that gives rise to DC. I already observed that in other experiments.
Disclaimer: this is just theory at this point. Magneto acoustic resonance and other stuff could easily play a part, but we've discussed that in depth before. This is a new approach, more logical perhaps and starting from basic engineering principles that SM would have been familiar with.
EM
P.S. In this diagram I posted, one can see that the induced voltage is 90 deg out of phase with the external magnetic flux into a loop, and if the loop is tuned with a capacitor forming a tuned tank circuit, the impedance is real, or resistive, and the current induced will be in phase with the induced voltage, and obviously this current sets up a magnetic flux that is also in phase with it, therby showing that the created magnetic flux is 90 deg out of phase with the inducing external magnetic flux. the challenge is to phase shift by 90 deg like I explained, and the toroid geometry which can sustain a rotational magnetic field can achieve this. A practical schematic might follow.
This fits the current configuration I have.
Lets finish this before the trolls start to feed. 8)
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.03.01, 04:29:40
This fits the current configuration I have.
Lets finish this before the trolls start to feed. 8)
Don't worry about me...this is far beyond my "trolling" capacity or even any desire to do so. :D
Just a toss-out idea...a tuned transmission line is a real easy way to add 90 degrees of phase shift. Sort of a distributed-constant LC network with pretty low losses and real good stability.
Humbugger
Hum, are you aware that these TPUs operate at around 5kHz? A transmission line can be used of course, but it would be a bit too long. We've spent years trying to guess what the TPUs are, and we've covered every phenomena just about, but we're open for suggestions.
The crazy thing about the TPUs is that they are not free energy devices according to the inventor, yet we obsess over them as if they are, why? Because just watching the videos is enough to see the possibilities.
EM
EMdevices
Thank you for this interesting theory of TPU operation. I have a few questions and hope you will expand on your theory and back it up with some practical experiments that we can attempt to replicate.
Question one: You said:
QuoteNow as the core saturates in cycles, a rectification of sorts begins to set in that gives rise to DC. I already observed that in other experiments.
In this statement, I assume you are referring to the small device that looks like a CM Choke, as I can not understand how an air core can saturate. Is this correct?
Question two: Why would it be necessary to have a saturating device to produce DC. Why not use the AC directly? Or why not use fast diodes for rectification, 5kHz is slow compared to todays switching power supplies, and Schottky and fast recovery rectifiers were readily available in the 90's. I agree there may have been other unknown issues requiring this, I'm just raising the questions, as I believe the DC was produced directly somehow, without rectification as a new method (not flux variation) of inducing electrons to flow in a wire.
Thank you for spending so much time on this, as you stated. Certainly the enigma of the TPU continues to haunt many of us, as those who dig beyond the surface information know. We welcome any new cohesive theories of operation. I value your work in this area.
The TPU definitely still haunts me, years later. I think EMDevices suggested circuit is actually a pretty decent hypothesis; I may attempt it during my research.
One thing to keep in mind is that according to what I read, SM got all the parts at Radio Shack. To me, this basically means the oscillators were:
(A) resonant RLC circuits
(B) 555-timer based
or
(C) some combination of (A) and (B)
Quote from: feynman on 2011.03.01, 15:15:31
The TPU definitely still haunts me, years later. I think EMDevices suggested circuit is actually a pretty decent hypothesis; I may attempt it during my research.
One thing to keep in mind is that according to what I read, SM got all the parts at Radio Shack. To me, this basically means the oscillators were:
(A) resonant RLC circuits
(B) 555-timer based
or
(C) some combination of (A) and (B)
I recall that someone cleared up the Radio Shack claim (it might have been Jack Durban) and stated that SM got his components at a local electronics supply store. This would expand the possibilities quite a bit.
I post the stun gun circuit again. SM changed the output stage.
I mention this for many reasons but the eye opener was the transformer in the circuit is the same one as the little audio transformer that Radio Shack sells. Instead of the transistor one could use a 555. But why? Probably just mentioned as an alternative to bring in more potential tpu builders.
Something I read in this thread brought to mind the explanation I saw one time for the two small toroid coils in the middle of the large TPU. For me it sounded like a significant find. I believe 'bolt' on OU brought it up or may have at least explained it. Magnetic Amplifier. Seems to fit. Has this idea been thrown out?
Ion, let me answer your questions:
1) Yes, I'm talking about magnetic saturation of the core material in the CM Chokes.
2) I believe the same, DC production is an inherent property of the TPU design and any theory should address this phenomena. We can of course obtain DC easily with rectifying diodes, but the question is can there be another unknown DC producing mechanism? This DC business has some importance because SM kept mentioning that these are DC devices, with a slight frequency of around 5 kHz. If the device were to produce AC voltage only that would be OK too because we know how to use that just the same. I have two theories of DC production that do not involve semiconductors, just coils and magnetic materials.
I'll post more stuff today
EM
P.S. e2matrix, I like the mag amp concepts, but here is the thing, some of the TPUs do not have two toroids, just one. It's true, saturation also playes a part in the mag-amps. what's great about the TPUs is that we have a lot of them of different construction, and this can help us "curve-fit" if you will, and deduce what mechanism might be responsible. A theory should be able to fit all of the TPU devices not just one, and I keep that in mind all the time so that I don't fall in love with one theory only.
I think the TPU is more along the lines of a nuclear battery without the need for a radioactive isotope.
This matches some of the statements by SM:
1. He refers to the output conductor as a "collector".
2. He said a scinetist from the Atomic Energy Comission met with him (along with representatives from the FBI).
3. He said that the US Navy had a similar device since the 1950's (several patents for nuclear batteries appeared in the 1950's).
4. He made several refereces to tubes. (Electron emission, doped components, etc.)
5. Reference to RCA Engineers:
QuoteMany people know that the solar cell was invented at Bell Labs, helped along by the men who created the silicon semiconductors that underpin electronics. But a far less well-known story today is the nearly simultaneous creation of what were known as "atomic batteries" by Bell Labs' arch-rival, RCA, in 1954. As described in John Perlin's From Space to Earth, the battery was made from silicon like a solar cell but, "it used photons emitted from strontium-90, one of hte deadliest residues of radioactive waste, to force the flow of electrons and positive charges" that drove the electricity.
this just goes to show how frustrated we all are with this TPU and how we need to make sense of it in our own ways.
speaking of nuclear stuff, there was a picture posted showing some coils and a light bulb lit up, and in the center of the coils there was a rod, maybe welding rod? That was quite interesting stuff if real. Anybody have that picture?
EM
I was told it made a good field indicator if balanced.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.03.01, 20:22:13
this just goes to show how frustrated we all are with this TPU and how we need to make sense of it in our own ways.
speaking of nuclear stuff, there was a picture posted showing some coils and a light bulb lit up, and in the center of the coils there was a rod, maybe welding rod? That was quite interesting stuff if real. Anybody have that picture?
EM
The concept is well-rooted in under-developed science:
Polarize the vacuum with a strong electric field
The vacuum decays and particle pairs are produced.
Separate the particle pairs and collect them.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.03.01, 15:53:11
I recall that someone cleared up the Radio Shack claim (it might have been Jack Durban) and stated that SM got his components at a local electronics supply store. This would expand the possibilities quite a bit.
Ah okay, I stand corrected. Regardless, I think we can probably agree the components are likely simple (ie. no nanobots) ;) Even with an electronics supply house, we are probably dealing with commercially available stuff which breaks into two broad, yet overlapping categories.
(A) Digital Pulsed DC (555 timers, transistors/MOSFETs, flip-flops, dividers, comparators, etc).
(B) Analog Resonant RLC AC/DC (coils, chokes, inductors, capacitors, self-resonance, PLL, etc).
In category (A) we are dealing mainly with square waves, and (B) with sine waves, with perhaps overlap between the two (like the goofy sharp gradient spikes in Joule Thief).
Forgive my digression here... I'm back after a few years away, and I've got built-up inspiration. Here are the phenomenon upon which I am drawing inspiration for investigating TPU-like energy:
Joule ThiefThere is argument about whether this circuit is COP>1 or not. Regardless, it's really really efficient. Personally , I don't care if Joule Thief is COP>1 or not -- we can integrate toroid hash until we run out of beer -- Joule Thief important and fascinating. It's highly efficient, self-resonating, and involves high-voltage DC spikes. Plus , we have new areas to experiment with via Joule Ringer, which runs purely on caps.
(http://static.electro-tech-online.com/imgcache/8926-1828270262_b76c867954.jpg)
Example schematic of one of many Joule Thief variations.(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/probed_scaled.jpg)
An example Joule Thief(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/scope_scaled.jpg)
A Joule Thief oscilloscope shot shows the voltage across the LED on the top trace and the transistor base voltage on the bottom trace.Joule Thief example link
http://jormungand.net/projects/devices/joule/ (http://jormungand.net/projects/devices/joule/)
Joule Ringer:
LaserSaber, from overunity.com, is to my knowledge the first to run a Joule Thief off purely a capacitor without a battery. He uses the resonance to light CFLs for 5mins at a time and up. From my understanding, he is also using some extra coils /transformer pulled out of a disposable camera flashbulp power supply. This modified circuit (and it's derivatives) are known as 'Joule Ringers'.
Joule Ringer Thread
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10179.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10179.0)
(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10179.0;attach=51074;image)
Joule Ringer Schematic.Joule Ringer Powers 5 CFLs + 80 LEDs off electrolytic capacitor
Similar to EMdevices micro-TPU...
(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10179.0;attach=51116;image)
Joule Ringer is similar to a micro-TPU circuit previously constructed by EMDevicesNaudin 2SGenThis circuit is fascinating, though no one has claimed COP>1 yet. In terms of TPU research, the circuit demonstrates several important principles, namely , 1) Magnet Dependence: if and only if a neo magnet partially saturates flux in toroid do we get useful current output in the collector 2) Sharp DC: we are dealing with sharp-gradient DC spikes at 200hz - 5khz 3) OU Potential: I suspect the device has potential for OU operation (as does Naudin apparently). 4) Digital Components: We are using 555 timers or function generator with square waves driving a MOSFET. 5) Regardless of received load, input current appears the same.
(http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/images/2Sgen1.jpg)
This circuit only works with the permanent magnet. Whether the 2SGen powers the High Power Leds lamp or not, the measured current through the toroïdal stator coil remains the same.(http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/images/2sgenv3pulse.gif)
The other big discovery here is the importance of
partial magnetic saturation of the toroid which changes the hysteresis curve significantly, similar to what Thane Heins is claiming in his devices (he is
partially saturating the core flux for operation).
(http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/images/2SGenv6hys.gif)
Above, the hysteresis curves of the toroïdal core at 200 Hz sine wave.(http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/images/2SGenv6hys3.gif)
Above, the hysteresis curves of the toroïdal Nanoperm M-074 core at 200 Hz sine wave. The downside to the 2SGen is that the input current is rather high.
Bob Boyce Resonant ToroidRegardless of anyone's opinion of Bob Boyce (and yes I have my complaints), he has given a decent amount of publicly available information on TPU-related (scalar) theory. While I wish he would disclose the details about his HEXFET controller , and how to induce scalar potential into a toroid, he has disclosed information regarding resonant electrolysis of water in order to exceed Faraday's 'law'.
(http://tesla3.com/free_websites/wf_bob_boyce_transformer_primary.jpg)
Bob Boyce Frequency Heterodyning via a ToroidBoyce suggests we can electrolyze water very efficiently (multiples of Faraday yield) via resonance at F, F/2, and F/4, with the frequency heterodyning occuring via pulsed DC into an iron-powder core toroid. (As a side not, I'll mention this is different from Steven Meyer's HV method.) Anyways, in Bob's main publicly available controllers designs for this, he does not include the ability to self-tune the frequencies (so they are exact multiples) , nor does he include the ability for phase control (frequencies at specific phase offsets).
(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/boyce_electrolyzer.png)
Bob Boyce ElectrolyzerBut apparently down this path Bob Boyce took towards TPU-like scalar energy , of precise frequency control and heterodyning, lies the ability to induce scalar waves in the toroid, possibly with some sort of rotating magnetic or scalar component. This is the part Bob does not want to share, apparently because it's too 'dangerous' or whatever. Pardon me, but last time I checked this world was completely f*cked , and a few EM scalar runaways, lightning strikes, and/or localized spacetime curvatures are a small price to pay to liberate mankind.
(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/boyce_heterodyning.png)
Bob Boyce Heterodyning(http://tesla3.com/free_websites/wf_bob_boyce_transformer_primary.jpg)
Official Boyce Transformer Primary for Electrolysis(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/boyce_coils_secondary_official.png)
Bob Boyce Electrolysis secondaryFrom what I've read, Bob Boycegot mad at people at overunity.org.uk for attempting replication of phenomenon related to his HEX controller (also for electrolysis), specifically with those related to anamalous overunity battery charging phenomenon.
Here are Bob's quotes regarding why he revoked his research, consent, and help:
QuoteThe investor that was going to finance the manufacture and sales of those production units was made aware of this site by another party, and he has withdrawn. He was the one that sent me here to see what has transpired. I want to thank you for ruining all that I have worked so hard to achieve.
Quote
Bottom line is, no international patents means no products and no disclosures. Everyone loses. I will take the intimate details of this design to the grave with me if I must.
Bob Boyce
Bob Boyce gets mad at overunity replicators because of his pending patents
http://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?496-Bob-Boyce-Hex-Controller-Edited-02-01-2011/page5 (http://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?496-Bob-Boyce-Hex-Controller-Edited-02-01-2011/page5)
In my opinion, this is really really selfish. But what do I know. I'd be pissed too if I got implanted with a carcinogenic microchip at someone else's lab. Anyway, so the gist of it is, Bob may have replicated the TPU or TPU-like energy , but he's not willing to share. I , on the other hand, am willing to share what I know and what I've discovered and researched.
Bob Boyce Scalar ToroidThere is a document floating around describing how Bob Boyce enhancing his water-splitting heterodyning setup further, which basically involved creating a TPU-like toroid overunity device. I have no proof it works, nor do I have any proof that the information is legit and not disinformation, other than the fact Bob has said it won't work (which, ironically, lends it credibility in my eyes). But it's a place to start.
The Bob Boyce Toroidal Power Unit
http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/Bob_Boyce_TPU.pdf
--^ everyone needs to read this , experiment, and decide for themselves if it's legit TPU-like behavior and information.
The document describing Bob Boyce's scalar toroid is linked above, some of which I know he posted personally on the internet. I know Boyce does not want this info out it seems. Here are some images from that document for TPU replicators.
Notice it involves a biasing B-field on the toroid as well as Tesla-like longitudinal windings. (remember Tesla's scalar energy bifilar collectors?) (http://tesla3.com/free_websites/wf_bob_boyce_transformer_primary.jpg)
Official Boyce Transformer Primary for Electrolysis(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/boyce_coils_scalar1.png)
TPU-like Scalar winding and/or Biasing B-Field !(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/boyce_coils_scalar2.png)
TPU-like Scalar winding and/or Biasing B-Field(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/boyce_coils_scalar3.png)
TPU-like Scalar winding and/or Biasing B-Field(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/boyce_coils_scalar4.png)
TPU-like Scalar winding and/or Biasing B-Field(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/boyce_coils_scalar5.png)
TPU-like Transverse windings(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/boyce_coils_clockwise.png)
TPU-like dependence upon EARTH HEMISPHERE(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/boyce_coils_scalarbias.png)
Bob Boyce TPU toroid biasing B-field for operation (fits with Naudin experiments)(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/boyce_coils_scalarphasetiming.png)
Bob Boyce TPU Phase Timing. This is probably why TPU phase control is so important.(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/boyce_coils_scalar_schematic.png)
Bob Boyce TPU supposed schematic(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/boyce_scalarsecondary.png)
Bob Boyce TPU secondaryOkay well that's all for now. Make sure you check out the Bob Boyce TPU PDF! I'm not sure how much (if any) is legit TPU research, but it needs to be evaluated and discussed, and may make a useful point of departure. My personal opinion is that at least 60-70% of the information in the PDF is legit -- especially the stuff not related to the hypothetical 3D diagrams (which might be incorrect).
I'd follow the words Bob is saying very carefully.
The Bob Boyce Toroidal Power Unit
http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/Bob_Boyce_TPU.pdf
-Feynman
I remember the BB ring, and I take all of that with a grain of salt now.
Bob's quote on the TPU PDF I posted for you guys:
Quote"That [Bob Boyce TPU] document was compiled from outdated information that was posted by me many years ago. It was someones attempt to take information from some of my posts in a private section of that forum, and apply some of their own interpretations to it to fill in missing details. They did not differentiate between what was from me, and what was not. They provided a list of incorrect specifications, and even some wrong ingredients, that were not taken from my posts. The toroid shown being wound was for an early generation hydroxy gas toroidal power system. They are no longer wound with underlying magnet wire, or 6 primaries. It would be a pretty good document if you were able to tell which parts were copied from posts written by me, and which parts were added by the author of that pdf. I'm not sure of the intent of the added content, but it surely is not very accurate."
-Bob Boyce
http://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?496-Bob-Boyce-Hex-Controller-Edited-02-01-2011/page5
(http://www.overunity.org.uk/showthread.php?496-Bob-Boyce-Hex-Controller-Edited-02-01-2011/page5)
Bob Boyce TPU file
http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/Bob_Boyce_TPU.pdf (http://feynmanslab.com/images/post1/Bob_Boyce_TPU.pdf)
Feynmen, thanks for that nice long picturesque post. I'm more motivated now!
EM
Battery Charging with the Hex Controller (4/4)
PESWiki: Bob Boyce Hex Controller
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Bob_Boyce_Hex_Controller (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Bob_Boyce_Hex_Controller)
It was the attempted replication by overunity.org.uk of the above linked Hex Controller circuit that prompted Bob to take his ball and go home. I definitely think there is something to this, but the effect will require a high-powered PWM circuit with a common F type clock, with harmonics such as F/2 and F/4 acquired via pulse division or shift registers or whatever.
Basically a digital PLL-type circuit with tunable phase, perhaps under microcontroller supervision. The three frequencies should have a mathematically derived relationship with precise a clock divider. If nothing else such a circuit can be used to split water or do harmonics and TPU-related research.
A graphic to put things in perspective.
Thanks for the summary, Mr. Feynman. I have spent some time looking at LaserSaber's work which I find interesting, but apparently somewhat hard to replicate as I read on other forums (fora?).
Can you tell us, has Lasersaber provided the additional details that he promised in his first youtube on this JouleRinger?
I'm not sure about any details on Joule Ringer, as I have not replicated it. You can contact lasersaber on overunity.com or youtube. I'll probably try a replication soon; I need to move my oscilloscope out of storage, organize my components, etc, so it will be a couple of weeks. I'm sure there are probably some tuning issues with the circuit , unlike Joule Thief which is more or less "EZ mode".
Back to TPU research... I just wrote up some wave heterodyning modeling software in Pure Data... this lets you model PLL (phase-locked) square waves of even and odd multiples, with separate phase control and PWM on each wave! With built-in software scope and audio output! This shows us how a phase locked HEXFET output might look (without the magnetics)!
(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post2/screenshot1_cropped2.png)
To use, download and install PureData Extended from http://puredata.info/community/projects/software/pd-extended . Then just download and open the PD file I have provided, and you can experiment with heterodyning square waves before you wire the MOSFETs.
FeynDyne v1.0 D1 - Wave HeteroDyning Modellng Software in PureData , for experimental physics
http://www.feynmanslab.com/docs/
http://www.feynmanslab.com/docs/feynman_osc_tpu2_multi_D1.pd
Cheers,
Feynman
RE:
Quote"Joule Thief
There is argument about whether this circuit is COP>1 or not. Regardless, it's really really efficient. Personally , I don't care if Joule Thief is COP>1 or not -- we can integrate toroid hash until we run out of beer -- Joule Thief important and fascinating. It's highly efficient, self-resonating, and involves high-voltage DC spikes."
The efficiency of a typical JT is 40 to 60 percent.
If it were "self-resonating" (sounds like a bogus term to me) or more like just resonating, it would have sine waves, not pulses.
If the voltage got to any higher than 4V, it would burn out the LED. No high voltage spikes.
Gee, that's the best I've done in weeks. Three out of three! All three duds!
After designing and building hundreds, I can say for certain those are the facts.
Quote from: acmefixer on 2011.03.04, 15:25:15
RE:
The efficiency of a typical JT is 40 to 60 percent.
If it were "self-resonating" (sounds like a bogus term to me) or more like just resonating, it would have sine waves, not pulses.
If the voltage got to any higher than 4V, it would burn out the LED. No high voltage spikes.
Gee, that's the best I've done in weeks. Three out of three! All three duds!
After designing and building hundreds, I can say for certain those are the facts.
I agree, from all my recent bench tests using RC filtering and one ohm shunt resistors, I rarely saw more than 60% efficiency. Some years ago one of my assignments was to research the design and construction of very small efficient switchmode power supplies. I never saw anything close to overunity in those devices then or now. I don't know what everyone is measuring, but I like the tried and true methods of a good DVM and passive filter over DSO's.
Carry on guys, but I'm out on this one.
Super Good Posts.
Remember that SM complained a lot that his TPUs would only work for about 20 minutes, due to EXCESSIVE HEAT.
Therefore, I would "surmise" that was due to HIGH CURRENT FLIP FLOPPING back & forth between his Ferrite Core & the Outer TPU.
Since Electrical Heat requires High Current, Can we further "surmise" that PUNY LITTLE Circuit Chips operating in Milliamps are NOT THE SOLUTION.
In hindsight, the field is littered with NON WORKING TPUs that have been tried over the past 4 or 5 years.
Notice the Ferrite Core on SM's 8 inch TPU. The ARROW points right to it.
Here's the deal. If we cannot figure out the wiring configuration between the Ferrite Core & main TPU, we don't have a chance folks. Sorry.
.
PS: Why do so many still IGNORE the photos of SM's TPUs? For example, NONE of his TPUs have circular, concentric wiring. Yet almost
everyone still insists on doing it. Strange.
.
Quote from: acmefixer on 2011.03.04, 15:25:15
The efficiency of a typical JT is 40 to 60 percent.
How did you measure "efficiency"? What specific parameters, and at what specific points in the circuit? What do you have to say about this:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=717.msg11577#msg11577
QuoteIf it were "self-resonating" (sounds like a bogus term to me) or more like just resonating, it would have sine waves, not pulses.
I disagree. If it were a self-resonating RLC tank would have sine waves, but this is not an RLC tank. This circuit is a typical. Let me quote the skeptics Bible wikipedia here (the source for said 'bogus' self-resonating term)
"The circuit uses the
self-resonating properties of the blocking oscillator, combined with a flyback converter circuit, to form an unregulated boost-mode switching power supply."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_thief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule_thief)
QuoteIf the voltage got to any higher than 4V, it would burn out the LED. No high voltage spikes.
Nonsense! You've obviously never build a proper Joule thief and measured the voltage with an analog scope. The voltage pulses are well in excess of 4 volts. Can you show me your Joule thief scope traces?
QuoteGee, that's the best I've done in weeks. Three out of three! All three duds!
What on earth are you talking about. I really hope you have something useful to contribute.
QuoteAfter designing and building hundreds, I can say for certain those are the facts.
Then by all means, link your schematics, photographs, scope traces, and power measurements. Please enclose all the details and 'facts' in context of experimental results.
Let's try to be scientists and technicians here, and not have this devolve into all too common know-it-all discussions found elsewhere.
@acmefixer
QuoteThe efficiency of a typical JT is 40 to 60 percent.
typically mine run at 95+% conversion efficiency --- "typical" can be a relative term.
QuoteIf it were "self-resonating" (sounds like a bogus term to me) or more like just resonating, it would have sine waves, not pulses.
You seem to have just answered your own question as to what many are obviously doing wrong, could a person bias the output so that a sine wave never evolves? what are the consequences?
QuoteIf the voltage got to any higher than 4V, it would burn out the LED. No high voltage spikes.
I have sent 100v fast transient impulses into an LED with no harm so we should be specific, 4v DC will burn out an LED but a pulsed voltage can be substantially higher.
QuoteGee, that's the best I've done in weeks. Three out of three! All three duds!
If your best involves confusing the issue then yes you have done well.
QuoteAfter designing and building hundreds, I can say for certain those are the facts.
"Facts" is a relative term, your facts are not my facts and I seem to have no problem producing circuits which do what you say cannot be done.
wow, Feynman I just saw your post--- we are a pretty tough crowd concerning the critics ;D
Regards
AC
Quote from: AllPhase on 2011.03.04, 16:45:40
If we cannot figure out the wiring configuration between the Ferrite Core & main TPU, we don't have a chance folks. Sorry.
This is only important if you think the TPU had such a core or ferrous material in some other part.
A TPU may have had iron wire in coils but I seriously doubt there is a ferrous core in any of them.
@Allphase
QuoteHere's the deal. If we cannot figure out the wiring configuration between the Ferrite Core & main TPU, we don't have a chance folks. Sorry.
Im not sure I would agree, when I look at any given device the first thing I do is look past what my eyes see, I look past what my mind tells me should ordinarily happen and I look for the fundamental process. The components and wiring are unimportant in respect to the process which determines the component properties, these properties initiate cause and this action leads to specific effects. As such I do not think any amount of wiring diagrams or explanations will help until the primary process, the mechanism for gain, is disclosed or fully understood. At this point anyone could build devices wired in almost any way with various materials and the technology would evolve rapidly.
I think the real issue follows this phrase--- "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach him to fish and he will never go hungry", but once I have taught you how to fish then what good am I?. I think SM disclosed information to help himself and his cause to make more money and become famous not to help people persay, if he really wanted to help everyone then he would have disclosed the primary process at which point he would no longer be needed, a selfless act.
Maybe we should start asking the right questions:
1)Considering the TPU what mechanism or cause and effect do we know of that can produce a gain in energy?
2)If there is a mechanism which can produce a gain in energy then what is the source of this energy?
I think that when these questions can be answered then there will be very little we cannot do with this technology.
Regards
AC
I submit this as one of a kind as a configurable ring. Don Smith's PVC was a tunable tube.
I labeled the document as such because of the global and galactic model that we sit in. Things are lining up on an unprecended scale.
I feel the pain of 'So many' configuration previously built that 'Have to work'. Well my advice is 'Expand your horizons'. Spend your time experiencing and not arguing. The JT is sooooo easy to set up. The small size leads one to believe that it does or doesn't work. Examples abound.
I'll post here because most if not all of you have the respect not to promote in the personal benches.
If I don't have the language correct to appease the highest of highs then I apologize. My quest has been to present ideas to solutional models and not the finality. I built the curent setup based on everything thing I could put into a build. And guess what? It does not escape into anything we don't know or haven't seen or experienced.
So I present an insight with this current build as a 'New observation'. Simply put: 'I think I have done my homework'.
What kind of core GK?
Are they all Air Core, Ferrite Core, Powdered Iron Core, or ???
Thank you for sharing.
.
Stranded silver coated copper of two horizontal layers. Go to my thread to see the build steps.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=33.msg11616#msg11616 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=33.msg11616#msg11616)
Why copper? Because I want to affect the magnetic field for my purpose and the storage has no losses in the core. There is no latency or dimunation like ferrous type materials. My current build in the diagram is 2 tesla coils side by side. The multipactor is 2 multipactors side by side.
In other words instead of manipulating a force or a set of parameters in a ferrous material I can affect with a different set of parameters by sliding the yellow primaries to different postions. Why? This has not been in the OU camp that I have seen and I see this as another tool to try to pry the logic from the mystery. It can be done and this will then hopefully get me or us past the extraction point to play with the next or higher set of parameters. To actually affect physical parameters of objects in this physical reality. Not too big of a request I hope. I want to reproduce the Hutchison effect with exacting processes.
Wattsup has been kind enough to add configurations to this build. I welcome any suggestions to further this cause.
@GK
Nice setup GK. I remember several years ago you were always on the cutting edge of this research. Are you still using tubes for amplification? I'll have to check out your build thread and get back to you, so I don't ask redundant questions. Interesting diagram.... have you tried three or four control coils instead of two? Or is the idea to simplify and search for anomalies?
Maybe the PureDate heterodyning program I wrote the other night can help you...
(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post2/screenshot1_cropped2.png)
I got the idea for square wave heterodyning off you from a few years ago, y'know...
http://feynmanslab.com/docs/ (//http://#039;know...%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://feynmanslab.com/docs/)
@AllPhase
QuoteRemember that SM complained a lot that his TPUs would only work for about 20 minutes, due to EXCESSIVE HEAT.
Exactly. I re-read the full documents again the other night, which I have uploaded here:
http://feynmanslab.com/docs/tpu/
QuoteTherefore, I would "surmise" that was due to HIGH CURRENT FLIP FLOPPING back & forth between his Ferrite Core & the Outer TPU.
Where forms the basis for your evidence of a ferrite core? Or is this an operating assumption? Anyway I'm not sure what you mean by 'flip-flopping' , but I think the heating could have been caused by induction of large amounts of current into the collector coils. See Appendix A
Quote
Since Electrical Heat requires High Current, Can we further "surmise" that PUNY LITTLE Circuit Chips operating in Milliamps are NOT THE SOLUTION.
The heat was likely generated by the collector coils, not the control coils. "Puny chips" are not a problem if we protect them with optoisolators and shielding. I agree in the sense that we should consider doing amplifications with tube (12AX7, 6L6, etc) circuits and RLCs rather than MOSFETs and semiconductors, but both technologies have their merits. I would not exclude or discard either one.
We are seeking an anomolous electromagnetic phenomenon -- somehow related to magnetic and/or scalar energy -- an undeniably a phenomenon with a rotational component . I am sure there are multiple paths to the same result.
Quote
In hindsight, the field is littered with NON WORKING TPUs that have been tried over the past 4 or 5 years.
This is true, besides Bob Boyce's TPU -- if you believe his claims which have leaked, and I have posted earlier.
Before the Wright brothers flew at Kitty Hawk, the man-attempting-flight field was littered with NON WORKING PLANES that had been tried over the past 4000 years prior. It doesn't mean it's impossible or that we should give up.
QuoteNotice the Ferrite Core on SM's 8 inch TPU. The ARROW points right to it.
This video is really grainy. For me, it could go either way. Do we even know what the beige thing is? Furthermore, this reminds me: Does anyone have the high-quality copies of the SM TPU videos? I will host them on my server http://feynmanslab.com if someone gives me a copy. I want the original ones that Mannix posted that were over a GB.
Quote
Here's the deal. If we cannot figure out the wiring configuration between the Ferrite Core & main TPU, we don't have a chance folks. Sorry.
This is a really defeatist attitude. First of all, we can't even be sure there is a ferrite core until we examine the video more closely. Second, we don't need to try to 'copy' the TPU exactly... there are plenty of ways to experiment with rotating scalar and/or rotating electromagnetic energy.
There is more than one way to skin a Tesla. If we got the wiring correct, we could easily just investigate the connections via brute force, or with the assistence of a computer, relays, and a microcontroller.
Series
[without coil polarity]
-*-C1--- -*-C2--- -*-C3---
-*-C1--- -*-C3--- -*-C2---
-*-C2--- -*-C3--- -*-C1---
-*-C2--- -*-C1--- -*-C3---
-*-C3--- -*-C1--- -*-C2---
-*-C3--- -*-C2--- -*-C1---
C = number of coils
n = C ! (C Factorial) , for 3 coils in series with no polarity
n = 6 coil wiring paths
Now I'm going to attempt to calculate how many 3 coils in series with polarity we could have, I know this is wrong, but I think it's an upper bound on the number of possibilities,
[with coil polarity]
n_p = 3 * 2 * 1
n_p = (3*2) * (2*2) * (1*2)
n_p = 6 * 4 * 2
n_p = 24 * 2
n_p = 48 wiring max, for 3 coils in series with polarity
Anyway, we can probably automate the wiring possibilities if we need to. No doubt we could automate the testing of frequencies, harmonics, phase, and so forth.
Heating Appendix A:
Anyway Consider this: IF the heating was due to conventional physics, it might have been because of current induction in the collector coils. From Wikipedia :
Quote
"The total amount of heat energy released over a period of time can be determined from the integral of the power over that period of time:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/b/c/2bc8263c239d4791c12fdf73e9fc9e51.png)
Okay , simple enough. I think this means the any power induced into the collector coils which is not consumed by the load ends up as heat. This probably happens regardless of the 'source' of the energy (quantum effects, earth magnetic field, higgs boson, gravitrons, whatever), and probably just depends on the energy type.
Consider 1 meter of 6AWG wire. If i remember, some of the collector coils in SM video look pretty thick, so I'm going to go with 6AWG as a ball-park guess, since 6AWG is about 4.75mm in diameter. One meter of 6AWG wire has a resistance of 0.0013 Ohms (R).
Wire Resistance Calculator
http://www.stealth316.com/2-wire-resistance.htm (http://www.stealth316.com/2-wire-resistance.htm)
(http://www.madxj.com/MADXJ/technical/technicalfiles/ARbattRelocation/images/large/BattWire03_lg.jpg)
Example of 6AWG wire , black on the right
Let's pretend for a minute that the TPU collector coil is in a closed loop , with only itself as a load (R = 0.0013 in collector coil). Yes I know that means the wires are connected end to end. Who knows maybe , this is how it was configured.
We know one of Steven Mark's TPU puts out 62V of potential on the collectors, which often was used to run a load.
We know:
V= 62V
R = 0.0013 Ohms on copper wire in closed loop configuration
Scenario #1: TPU collector R=0.0013V=IR
I = V / R , so
I = 62V / 0.0013Ohms
I = 47,692 Amps!
Using P = VI , then we find:
P = 62V * 47,692 Amps
P = 2.9 million watts
Lol. Okay so I just want to make a point here about theoretical maximum in closed-loop TPU collector coils, assuming we are tapping a nearly infinite supply of energy, whatever the underlying phenomenon. This is probably why both Bob Boyce and Steven Mark talk about burning up their devices, exploding wires, etc. If you are talking about generating a reasonable potential voltage (62V) through a small resistance (0.0013 Ohms), the circuit will 'suck up' huge amounts of energy.
This is the same reason a battery heats up burning hot to the touch if you short the leads, or lamp wires spark and melt if you short-circuit the 120VAC through copper wire. The 'source' tries to keep up with Ohms Law , and in the process, generates lots and lots of heat.
Now that was just considering the collector coil is a closed loop of 6AWG copper wire. Let's pretend we did the same thing, but with a 1 Ohm power resistor.
Scenario #2: TPU collector R=1.0013 OhmsTPU Collector , with 1 Ohm power resistor in series:
V=IR
I = V / R , so
I = 62V / 1.0013 Ohms
I = 61.9 AmpsThis well exceeds the number of amps for power transmission for 6 AWG wire (37 Amps max according to this link):
http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm (http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm)
So it's possible , depending on the required wiring, for a TPU to generate lots of heat using conventional physics assuming we are tapping a nearly infinite source of current.
Of course, it's always possible the heat was being produced by a new physics effect, since the TPU is not known to conventional physics.
I had to absorb alot more information in order to output.
The heterodyning square waves showed the fast transition and the high speed harmonics. Basically a virtual spark gap as far as coils are concerned. The coils become the actual spark gap emission point. I saw the speed could drive the fet gates at max speed.
Take notice of my thread for the build. The current coil is quad sectional.
Never used tubes. My sound system is the Bose L1 acoustic radiator.
I did see your PureDate system. Interesting. I was thinking of downloading it.
Each side of the build is a Tesla coil with movable primaries. The next addition is to place the secondary windings neater and varnish them so the primaries will move without restriction and not alter the secondary spacings.
The mechanical core is thin wall 4" diameter PVC.
Quote from: feynman on 2011.03.04, 23:45:21
@GK
Nice setup GK. I remember several years ago you were always on the cutting edge of this research. Are you still using tubes for amplification? I'll have to check out your build thread and get back to you, so I don't ask redundant questions. Interesting diagram.... have you tried three or four control coils instead of two? Or is the idea to simplify and search for anomalies?
Maybe the PureDate heterodyning program I wrote the other night can help you...
(http://feynmanslab.com/images/post2/screenshot1_cropped2.png)
I got the idea for square wave heterodyning off you from a few years ago, y'know...
http://feynmanslab.com/docs/ (//http://#039;know...%3Cbr%20/%3Ehttp://feynmanslab.com/docs/)
Come on guys don't give up!
The TPUs are so close to our reach!
I was watching the SM videos again the other day, and i couldn't help but notice how closely the FTPU and STPU are to each other. They seem to be in the same category, distinct somewhat from the other TPU designs.
Both are activated with magnets.
Both turn off when inverted.
Both have the ferrite torroid cores and the magnet activation upon them.
The difference seems to be the size of the outer loops which capture the external magnetic flux. The STPU has these coils collapsed onto the torroid itself, perhaps only one instead of two. It can be seen on top of the ferrite.
This just blows me away.
These early devices are so freeking simple !
EM
P.S. The only other component that has to be included would be a capacitor, for tunning, and obviously we also have to figure out how the coils are wound and connected to each other. That's how simple this device seems to me. Of course, SM talked about a magnetic frequency that he was tunning into, and if you don't have that at your LOCATION you might be out of luck. I know he said he took it up into an airplane so if you live in a big city with lots of "magnetic frequencies" around in the 5 kHz range you might be in luck, it all depends. What good is a radio receiver without a radio station !
EM,
For the life of me I still don't see the possibility of a core containing iron.
Certainly, none are visible.
WW,
I'm with you, I don't see that as a solid iron ring, it's a ferrite toroid, clearly visible in the LTPU, FTPU, and the STPU. If it were solid iron the hysterisis losses and eddy current loses would be too great, at those current levels and 5kHz frequency he talks about, that thing should be glowing red hot! The only thing that might be iron would be the collector wire, I just can't get over his statements that he put it together with some "baling wire". However, the material of the wire might not be the critical element here because I think he said "bailing wire" just to get us to relize that he just used some scap wire laying around the house, making it sound easy and simple, something you can put together with ordinary wires laying around the house.
EM
P.S. the LTPU, has those vertical toroidal coils in the main loop of wire, but it also has the ferrite torroids in the center of the device (the two we see) so the organization of the coils is still something that supports the "squizing of the house" sort of mechanism that he expounded. I'm just focused on the FTPU and the STPU here, I think these are the first devices and they hold the clues. Once we replicate these and study the phenomena, we can engineer larger more exotic devices like his LTPU which I think culminates his design series.
EM,
Ah. I see your point of view.
However, I'll keep mine. I have not seen any evidence there are any iron-containing cores, ferrite or otherwise. Especially not in the two small toroids inside the larger TPUs or the TPU designated as 'first'.
I like the ideas relating to saturation. Hopefully, you are correct. When trying to work with magnetic force saturation of anything non-ferrous or just an area of space, it really becomes difficult..
Folks relate saturation to things containing iron. It is best to just not discuss it. If you do, you're asking for it when it is already very difficult to conceive.
Surely, without ferrous cores or wires velocity and heat would be much less of a problem. Perhaps the first tries contained some form of iron wire. If so, I can imagine heating problems. It could also explain the wind-up and wind-down actions.
From Wikipedia:
QuoteBaling wire, otherwise known as "farm wire" or "soft wire," is used in an agricultural setting and industrial setting for everything from mending fences to manually binding square bales of hay, straw, or cut grass. It is also used to band together condensed Cardboard, Textiles, Aluminum and other materials that are processed in the Recycling Industry. See the How to Link Below.
Baling wire is commonly used in many non-agricultural applications, usually in an informal, make-do manner. It is frequently referred to as one of the basic repair materials. Typical uses range from supporting loose mufflers to patching chain-link fences. Common phrases often include baling wire as an ad hoc, fix-anything material, alongside chewing gum, duct tape, and the cable tie. It is also known as "Haywire".
Its closest industrial (proper name) is Mechanic's Wire (Soft Annealed Mechanic's Wire, 18 AWG)
It is an old saying..."I threw it together with some baling wire" and not to be taken literally. It just means it was thrown together with whatever was lying around.
I think he also mentioned the rusty wire seemed to work better :)
A little specific for a general phrase.
thanks for that confirmation, Ion, very interresting.
WW, are you saying the two small toroidal looking "objects" located at the center of the large TPU (LTPU) are not ferrite toroids? I find that hard to believe, they look very obviously to me to be ferrite toroids. If they are not, what do you think they are, just currious.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.03.31, 23:21:28
thanks for that confirmation, Ion, very interresting.
WW, are you saying the two small toroidal looking "objects" inside the ring of the large TPU, (LTPU) are not ferrite toroids? I find that hard to believe, they look very obviously to me to be ferrite toroids. If they are not, what do you think they are, just currious.
EM
Have a look under my bench on this forum. I can say I am very familiar with common (and quite a few odd) toroidal cores. These are not ferrite cores or common-mode-chokes. I'm certain of it.
ok WW, I'll look there then.
Here's some calculations for the FTPU.
Main outer loop inductance:
(for one of the large loops , assume 4 turns, R=0.1 m, a=1.5mm, u = 1and this calculator: http://www.technick.net/public/code/cp_dpage.php?aiocp_dp=util_inductance_circle)
L_outer = 4.0e-6 H
Center toroid Inductor Inductance:
(assume: N30 core material with dimensions R63x38x25, which has Al = 10800, and assume N=40 turns (20 on each side) from here: http://www.epcos.com/web/generator/Web/Sections/Publications/PDF/Ferrite_20Toroids_20for_20LAN_20and_20EMI_20Applications,property=Data__en.pdf;/Ferrite_Toroids_for_LAN_and_EMI_Applications.pdf page 6)
L = 1.7e-2 H
So if these coils are connected in series the inductance of the ferrite toroid is the the main contributor, and rightly so as we will need to tune to around 5kHz, and the outer two loops by themselves just don't have enought inductance, and we would need huge capacitors to compensate.
So what capacitance do we need to tune to 5kHz:
C = 1 / [ (2*pi*f)^2 L ] = 1 / [ (2*pi*5000)^2 * 1.7e-2 ] = 60 pF
If we assume 20 turns for the ferrite torroid, giving L = 4e-3 H, then C = 240 pF as an example,
so we can see that we don't need so much capacitance for such a low frequency of operation by having the large inductance given by the ferrite toroid.
So the ferrite toroids are required to get the inductance values that make the TPU capable of tuning to around 5 kHz, without overly large capacitors.
The loops, at least in the FTPU have the large loop areas to pick up the AC magnetic flux that he is tuning to, but he got wise with the STPU design and realized the loops can actualy be made small and placed right on the ferrite torroid.
EM
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.03.31, 23:21:12
I think he also mentioned the rusty wire seemed to work better :)
A little specific for a general phrase.
Can you pinpoint a reference for that?
My research into this indicates mention of "rusty material" and "something that rusts", both by Lindsay, not SM.
Also, on 2006-02-11, Lindsay asks SM directly if iron wire is required for the collector coil. 2006-02-13, SM responds but mentions nothing regarding iron wire, nor what type of wire is required in any of the coils.
.99
I don't know if this is related being that SM stated the tpu was tested from an airplane.
Below show magnetic anomaly at the mansion which was located at:
7435 Hummingbird Lane. Anaheim Hills, CA
(dark blue area)
http://ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/Google_Maps/EMAG2/index.html (http://ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/data/Google_Maps/EMAG2/index.html)
Here is the beginning portion of the exact quote from SM to Lindsay regarding wire:
QuoteDate: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:03:10 EST
Subject: Re: Great new year deals!
To:
Thank you my friend. Thank you so much.
By the way, something strange is that, once I made a unit with some old corroded wire for the collector and it worked very well for it's size. I made another identical collector with shiny new wire and it did not work quite as well. I never found out why, but there was a difference. I did not spend too much time on the curiosity because I had unlimited funding and a whole room full of every kind of wire there was.
From Wikipedia:
QuoteCorrosion is the disintegration of an engineered material into its constituent atoms due to chemical reactions with its surroundings. In the most common use of the word, this means electrochemical oxidation of metals in reaction with an oxidant such as oxygen. Formation of an oxide of iron due to oxidation of the iron atoms in solid solution is a well-known example of electrochemical corrosion, commonly known as rusting. This type of damage typically produces oxide(s) and/or salt(s) of the original metal. Corrosion can also refer to other materials than metals, such as ceramics or polymers, although in this context, the term degradation is more common.
While one could argue that rust is a form of corrosion, in the common language and the trades, iron oxidation is generally referred to as rust, and corrosion is generally used to describe oxides of copper, aluminum, brass, silver etc.
Consider also "Tarnish"
QuoteTarnish is a thin layer of corrosion that forms over copper, brass, silver, aluminum, and other similar metals as their outermost layer undergoes a chemical reaction. Tarnish does not always result from the sole effects of oxygen in the air. For example, silver needs hydrogen sulfide to tarnish; it does not tarnish with only oxygen. It often appears as a dull, gray or black film or coating over metal. Tarnish is a surface phenomenon, that is self-limiting unlike rust. Only the top few layers of the metal react, and the layer of tarnish seals and protects the underlying layers from reacting.
Tarnish actually preserves the underlying metal in outdoor use and is called patina. The formation of patina is necessary in applications such as copper roofing, and outdoor copper, bronze, and brass statues and fittings.
Now take another look at the Barbat patent and consider the action that surface tarnish or corrosion could have.
Thanks ION.
Another fine example of why we must constantly re-check the facts and available evidence. Memories tend to muddle. Mine, very much so :)
So the best analysis from this is the coils were made of a wire which may corrode - copper, aluminum, silver, etc.
I still think some of those experiments contained annealed iron wire. On one of the 6" TPU's the load connection points were very dark and stiff heavy wire. This wire appeared to be the *vertically wound section. Both ends exiting from the same side (inside or outside.....indicates to me that these wire ends must be from coils wound with opposite handedness), like the closeups of the fused connecting points for the larger TPUs.
*Just for clarity's sake... I call these poloidially-wound meaning the wrapping action was toward one pole of the toroid axis then to the other and repeated -or- wrapped around the toroidal axis.
cuprous oxide is photovoltaic
Corroded copper and a particle source = a generator.
EDIT:
Output is DC
Quote from: ION on 2011.03.31, 22:28:47
From Wikipedia:
It is an old saying..."I threw it together with some baling wire" and not to be taken literally. It just means it was thrown together with whatever was lying around.
hi folks..
i was just catching up on some reading .. saw this about bailing wire and got to thinking..
i know by definition this doesn't sound right but i grew up on a farm and we called the bailing wire the soft aluminum wire that you repair electric fences with..
we rig stuff all the time with this wire..
and the soft iron wire .. we called .. tie wire.. we used it for tying rebar and repairing wooding fence posts with and even rig a few rear fenders on tractors..
i doubt this will help you any but i thought i throw it out there.. cause not all folks define things the same..
robbie
Quote from: kooler on 2011.06.08, 04:42:24
cause not all folks define things the same..
Yea. Sometimes definition depends upon your age. I don't recall seeing aluminum wire on the farm. Of course, that was around 40 years ago.
The only 'bailing wire' we had was the black annealed iron wire. It was fairly soft and was the wire used in the bailer.
I took that lesson well and kept a coil of it, along with plenty of PBR cans, in my car for emergency fixes and leaking mufflers ^-^
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.06.08, 04:57:24
Yea. Sometimes definition depends upon your age. I don't recall seeing aluminum wire on the farm. Of course, that was around 40 years ago.
The only 'bailing wire' we had was the black annealed iron wire. It was fairly soft and was the wire used in the bailer.
I took that lesson well and kept a coil of it, along with plenty of PBR cans, in my car for emergency fixes and leaking mufflers ^-^
omg, how old are you.. annealed iron for balers went out on the turn of the 19th century ..
when my family took over the farm in the 30's they used baling twine.. so you might want to add 20 yrs to your so called 40 year ago.. but maybe things got done different back in the caveman era..
and who the hell drinks pbr.. i could starve my pigs for a week and they wouldn't drink that crap.. but they will sure drink my home made white.. you ever seen a drunk pig.. that some funny shit right there..
well i tired of posting to old ppl so i might never be back..
later.. no bad feelings i hope...lol
robbie
Quote from: kooler on 2011.06.08, 05:41:16
well i tired of posting to old ppl so i might never be back..
Better than just being tired ;D
Quote from: DeepCut on 2011.06.08, 22:01:10
I hope he doesn't come back he *EDITED FOR POLITENESS' SAKE* sounds a bit rude.
i was just joking with wavewatcher.. i like to mess with ppl sometimes..
i thought he might come back with some sarcasm ..
but he is to nice of a person for that..
you guys can ban me if you want.. i don't care.. i won't take in a bad way..
later
robbie
When I posted "Better than just being tired" I was talking about myself being tired.
I have no bad feelings for either of you.
Kooler,
I know you were joking :)
I only become upset when I see people bashing others for no good reason or they are trying to take the fun out of my hobbies. Every possible insult has been applied to me, so nothing new there.
As far as being old.... my grandchildren accuse me of farting dust ;D
What you said about wire is very true. While researching an old patent I found the many references to 'magnet wire' meant something completely different than today. The patent was issued about 20 years before 'magnet wire' was invented. It turned out that the inventor was referring to soft-drawn copper wire with a coating of silk and shellac.
As far as bailing wire... I have a bale of straw in the shed. I just checked and it was bailed with black iron wire. Since it was from last season I don't think age has anything to do with it.
Quote from: feynman on 2011.03.04, 23:45:21
...
Using P = VI , then we find:
P = 62V * 47,692 Amps
P = 2.9 million watts
...
Is the spirit of Richard Feynman, the hidden multiplier by thousand? :)
hi all
way you are thing that the resist of the out coil loop is has something whit out energy of his resisthing HERE IN THIS SMALL TPU is not that principe THERE is diferent principe steven has says that is new type of generator .no primary coil no secundary your thing about resist of coil whit watt s is vrong beacouse is not transformer and is not clasical generator . he says fild like a jet engine slowing down that is the one explanation who is main for everthing and principe and secund steven says dc out voltage and sumary what is going insad this device what is cousing this effkct whill whill thiing is magnet fild who is rotating in one direction and give as all provets of stevens words and when he is turn up said down is makes interacktion whit earth magnet fild and this interacktion id direckt provet that there is realy some of kind of spin fild beacouse earth like to push this fild to spin in reverse and when this fild is traed to spin this fild in reverse then the voltage is droping down beacous is slowing his fild rotation ..
ad we all ask and we dontk knowing how is posible to make a fild to rotate in one direction we traed many times to make a coils but nothing .. for now. now this conversation for this resist in ohms in loop coil is waste of time . sory .
Guys,
I believe the one wire power transfer demonstration by the elderly Serbian, discussed in the following thread, is quite related to the TPU technology and the use of "BAILING WIRE"
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11029.90
EM
I was reading a book the other day about the scientists and the experiments that lead to the discovery of radioactivity. I happen to notice the mention of an early magnetic detector that Rutherford used, and later Marconi perfected and I did a search for it today.
So, reading about Marconi's detector, I noticed that a DC current is produced by the reversal of magnetic domains inside a coil, as the magnetic wire moves through the center of the coil (ignore the RF action for now). This is quite interesting and could be related to the TPU operations, even though we don't have large scale motion, but only vibration. In the article notice that the wire moves very slow, imagine if it moved very fast, the DC voltage could be quite large. I plan on exploring this type of DC induction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_detector
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.07.13, 23:01:00
I was reading a book the other day about the scientists and the experiments that lead to the discovery of radioactivity. I happen to notice the mention of an early magnetic detector that Rutherford used, and later Marconi perfected and I did a search for it today.
So, reading about Marconi's detector, I noticed that a DC current is produced by the reversal of magnetic domains inside a coil, as the magnetic wire moves through the center of the coil (ignore the RF action for now). This is quite interesting and could be related to the TPU operations, even though we don't have large scale motion, but only vibration. In the article notice that the wire moves very slow, imagine if it moved very fast, the DC voltage could be quite large. I plan on exploring this type of DC induction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_detector
EM
interesting effect
http://markpadfield.com/marconicalling/museum/html/objects/photographs/large_image/large_image-type_d__t00128.html
http://www.sparkmuseum.com/MAGGIE.HTM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61686932@N00/3655210874/sizes/l/in/photostream/
patents
http://www.google.com/patents?id=i5tDAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA2&dq=magnetic+detector+marconi&hl=en&ei=oYweTq7gN4zfsgbl95S0Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=0kNIAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
The maggie was more amplifier than detector. There was never an accurate description of how it functioned that I found published.
All the best descriptions fail to add that the additional energy obtained from the output signal comes from the energy added by turning the crank or vibrating the iron wire.
Some of these 'detectors' used visibility of the spark rather than headphones. Yes, this means the only energy added at the receiver end was using a handcrank and it was said the spark illuminated the room.
This was also said to be the first true example of digital electronics ;D It recorded signals by flipping magnetic domains. The only thing you could hear from it were kicks :o
Added thought....
I wonder what the public response would be today if these were presented as new inventions...
Demo on YouTube.... the typical group of lemmings attach themselves to the invention without a basis to understand it or no understanding of how it works.... individuals and splinter groups either try to understand how it may work or not work.... a few sit back and do nothing except to insult those trying to answer unanswered questions....
I don't remember what the name was but there was one detector that used columns of water and gravity to amplify the received signal. That would be a good one to claim on YouTube ;)
Interactive action on a bias field.
caos energy recovery from barkhausen signal using secondary coil and fast rectifier?
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Other%20Methods/AE/AE_BarkhausenTechniques.htm
http://www.ndt.net/article/wcndt00/papers/idn337/idn337.htm
.....
interesting patents about Barkhausen jump from John R. Wiegand
http://www.google.com/patents?id=2IkuAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false
etc...
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&tbo=1&hl=en&q=John+R.+Wiegand&btnG=Search+Patents
update:
http://www.epanorama.net/sff/Power%20Electronics/Transformers_and_Magnetics/Magnetics%20-%20Wiegand%20Wire.pdf
The domains of everything react in discrete steps. Other than that, none of this appears related.
This Marconi principle of DC voltage generation could be a mechanism for OU and has interesting theoretical implications.
Take a look at my drawing. Instead of an iron strip with small magnetic domains, let's build a strip with discrete magnets on it that can swivel. As the strip is moving through the center of the coil, the small magnets flip, and thus induce a voltage in the coil. The external magnet that influences these flips does not move relative to the coil so we would expect it's contribution to the induced voltage to be zero.
The question I have is, does the strip experience a retarding horizontal force (opposite of direction of motion) to account for this energy generated? If not, than it appears it is an OU principle.
this is very interesting and worth an experiment.
EM
PS. If we load the coils and draw a current, than the coils produce an axial magnetic field. This field will distort the static field of the magnet and perhaps will cause a retarding force on the strip, but that's ok, because this implies we can than build a MOTOR without brushes, and I can always replace coils with a cylindrical magnet, and than I have an ALL PERMANENT MAGNET MOTOR, so either way, we can have FREE ENERGY. So now I'm wondering, does this device realy induce a DC voltage as the strip moves through?
Here is a very nice article on hoax OU devices and why they can't work:
http://members.tele2.nl/kovavla/hoaxes.html
The cold hard truth: you can not extract extra energy from a magnetic field
G, that's a very biased and ignorant article.
I thought a few devices he mentions as "hoaxes" worked as claimed, like the Hans Koller device and the Muammer Yildiz motor, witnessed by university profesors and students. :-\
EM
EM,
The maggie includes the function of those flipped domains retaining their 'flip' for a short period after exiting the area doing the 'flipping'. If it was turned too fast, it wouldn't work.
I doubt anyone looked for drag on the rotation.
If there is any extra power it should be obtained from the effect called a 'Barkhausen Jump'. This is the smallest known example of magnetic reconnection.
I agree that there is no free energy contained in a magnetic field. However, I know our understanding of a magnetic field and flux is flawed and we are just starting to see some clarification. There is acknowledged unaccounted for power released during magnetic reconnection. This recent discovery falls in-line with the closed-door intelligence teachings that a magnetic flux is analogous to a porous sponge. When expanded it contains high charge. When compressed it contains less charge. In a static state there is no absorption or expulsion of charge.
When magnetic flux density changes there is movement of charge....
It goes on but explains Faraday and non-Faraday induction far better than conventional wisdom, along with the real difference between static and non-static flux.
The punchline is 'there is only one flux and that is of potential' all the rest are results of changes in that potential.
The problem I see with using a maggie-like device for OU is it must move relatively slowly because magnetic domains in iron is at the heart of operation.
From http://mrx.pppl.gov/
"Experimental Test of the Sweet-Parker Model of Magnetic Reconnection
We report a quantitative experimental test of the Sweet-Parker model of magnetic reconnection in a controlled laboratory plasma. It is found that the observed reconnection rate can be explained by a generalized Sweet-Parker model which incorporates compressibility, downstream pressure, and the effective resistivity. The latter is significantly enhanced over its classical values in the collisionless limit."
slowly changing domains
Romero's output trace had a slow modulation...
This Marconi "Maggie" setup definitely operates on the Barkhausen effect, and the RF actualy facilitates faster, or rather more numerous "snappings" or flips of the magnetic domains in the iron.
So, a very simple experiment is to just drag an iron rod or cable through the center of a coil with a magnet near by, like in his set up. Now, all the flips that occur generate pulses of one polarity only. But what if we TUNE the coil with a capacitor, and find that optimal frequency where the flips can occur even more easily, after all that's what the RF frequency does in the first place.
With this tuned method, we can have a good size output of AC and DC power!
I'm building this setup, it's too easy to ignore.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.07.14, 19:40:38
G, that's a very biased and ignorant article.
I thought a few devices he mentions as "hoaxes" worked as claimed, like the Hans Koller device and the Muammer Yildiz motor, witnessed by university profesors and students. :-\
EM
On another page he list several valid devices.
He has a good point that a magnetic field is a conservative field and not an energy source.
Abstract from IEEE paper
Notice the effects of tension and compression and orientation.
Surface Barkhausen noise (SBN) generation has been monitored for two different sweep-field orientations in a pipeline half-section that was subjected to circumferential tensile and compressive stresses. When the sweep field was oriented in the circumferential direction, the SBN increased with applied tension and decreased with compression. The SBN signal was more sensitive to tension than to compression. This is explained in terms of a preferred axial domain orientation. Unlike the case of a circumferential magnetic sweep field, neither tension nor comparison had a significant effect on the SBN signal when the field was oriented axially
Also, look at this presentation, very informative.
http://www.airlines.org/SafetyOps/EM/Documents/2010%20NDT%2011%20Practical%20Aspects%20of%20NDT%20of%20BNA.pdf
EM
I was reading DePalma's philosophy on audio design, when this popped up:
QuoteIn a vacuum tube amplifier there is essentially zero time delay between the signal grid drive and a current response at the plate. This not the case with transistors where the flow of charge carriers through solid semi-conductors is much slower than electrons moving through a vacuum.
Seems to support what SM was telling us. ;)
DePalma also said this:
QuoteThere is probably no inherent musical superiority of tubes vs transistors. All known gain - transconductance devices have separate and individual characteristics. The design problem is to interface the active elements with the circuit topology in the most harmonious manner.
Regarding this:
Quotethere is essentially zero time delay between the signal grid drive and a current response at the plate
Actually, there is always a transport delay in tubes, as electrons do not travel instantly from cathode to anode but can approach the speed of light if the anode voltage is high enough. Still it takes time, it is not instantaneous, especially at low plate voltages.
ION,
Perhaps what DePalma really meant was that transport time in tubes relative to silicone is much much faster.
And I do like his design philosophy, as well as his insight about different gain devices.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.12.26, 19:43:35
ION,
Perhaps what DePalma really meant was that transport time in tubes relative to silicone is much much faster.
And I do like his design philosophy, as well as his insight about different gain devices.
Yes, he probably should have said the transport delay in vacuum tubes is significantly less than in transistors by ("x") orders of magnitude. But again this has to be qualified e.g. are we comparing audio grade transistors to audio grade tubes or UHF transistors to UHF tubes.
At any rate transport delay in itself is not evil, but may become noxious when negative feedback is used, unless the negative feedback is in the form of local stage degeneration. If it is global NFB, too much of it can produce bad results. This is a complicated issue, both phase, transient and frequency dependent.
Having read his historical background, he was very blessed to have the acquaintanceship with the early pioneers of HiFi and tube amp design that he did. Being just a few years younger, I also grew up in that era but did not have the associations except by reading and absorbing the literature of that era and building some of the period designs. His heroes in the field were also mine.
I was lucky enough to score the very nice Dynaco A440 output transformer at a surplus store which formed the basis of many of my trial designs back then, but my tube amp construction projects go back to the mid 50's with 4 pin triodes.
I also enjoy his philosophy.
http://www.free-energy.ws/bruce-depalma.html
"Bruce DePalma's primary contribution to Science is the discovery that "Inertia is not a property of Mass. Inertia is a property of Space, and Space confers its Inertia on the Masses that occupy it". He further discovered that the Inertial Field of Space can be polarized simply by rotating an object. Conventionally, this situation creates the appearance of Centrifugal Force at the perimeter of a rotating object, but DePalma discovered that it also produces a corresponding reduction of Inertial forces at the center of the rotating object. Neither Classical Mechanics, nor Quantum Mechanics, nor General Relativity predict or account for this phenomena, rendering them all obsolete."
Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.12.26, 22:37:14
http://www.free-energy.ws/bruce-depalma.html
"Bruce DePalma's primary contribution to Science is the discovery that "Inertia is not a property of Mass. Inertia is a property of Space, and Space confers its Inertia on the Masses that occupy it". He further discovered that the Inertial Field of Space can be polarized simply by rotating an object. Conventionally, this situation creates the appearance of Centrifugal Force at the perimeter of a rotating object, but DePalma discovered that it also produces a corresponding reduction of Inertial forces at the center of the rotating object. Neither Classical Mechanics, nor Quantum Mechanics, nor General Relativity predict or account for this phenomena, rendering them all obsolete."
Dear Grumpy.
With the above quote I think you have answered Duncan's question in the "Jig's up" thread !! ;)
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2013.12.26, 23:00:29
Dear Grumpy.
With the above quote I think you have answered Duncan's question in the "Jig's up" thread !! ;)
Cheers Grum.
Which question was that?
Harold Aspden found an effect that appears to be related - "virtual inertia": http://www.aetherscience.org/www-aspden-org/papers/bib/1995f.htm
The question he asked him self I'll warrent , (I know I did) because he looking mechanically I'm more interested in the history and the lies but of course I've had to have a very hard look at A,E here then is the passage out of the maze .. Bertie told some porkies (pork pies = lies) or shall we say half truths?
He was supposed to, tptb wanted free energy buried so E=MC2 = porkie or at least it does when the Mass is spinning as discovered by Bruce de-palma who your discussing and he proved it with a simple experiment as shown in this early paper by P,L
http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/spinning_ball.pdf (http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/spinning_ball.pdf)
having got the gist of that we of course need to poke the Lorentz/ Einstein force laws with a sharp pointed stick to try and get to an answer as your no doubt aware Lorentz was also a major part of the conspiracy and the work of both was plagiarised from the earlier work of
Physicist Ludvig Lorenz (no t) a similar name was needed to add obfuscation of course. (IMHO)
Just to refresh the memories of you physics scribbling types here is a page on the Lorentz/Einstein force law. And whilst your on that page I'd be grateful if you'd use the link at the top to flick over to amperes force law and just refresh your memories as to its constitution, The reason being I am about to show a substitution one for the other so that you may see what is occurring and where the deseption may be
.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node33.html (http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node33.html)
Having got that sorted a little in your minds now consider this work .. It is the work of prof Pappas and physicist Leon Dragone edited a little by yours truly (Its still a bit minced) but you'll get the gist I'm sure
The electromagnetic force widely accepted in physics, is described by the Lorentz force law F=e(E+Bxu/c2) where it is composed of an electrostatic E part and one pure magnetic part B exterior product with the the velocity u. Due to the magnetic part.
action and reaction is not equal and opposite. This is the strangest part it is well known and accepted in conventional physics by most, but not all because of this exception what is not so well known is that B is due to a closed circuit and only that. (ergo open circuit = 0 lenz Duncan)
Many techniques are incorporated to overcome this, One of the best known is that of exchanged virtual photons in microscopic physics.
However no attempt has been made to transfer the effect to macroscopic physics. For this reasons I suggest instead of Lorentz force law substitute the equivalent but relitivly unknown Amperes force law
(http://dnp.s3.amazonaws.com/b/b5/Pappas.jpg)
That should read when not arcing of course! Now I'm sure the reason for spark gaps in the TK and DS machines and all the clones becomes clear.
The original work by Prof Pappas and the reseach material can be found here
http://papimi.gr/university.htm (http://papimi.gr/university.htm)
Quote from: Duncan on 2013.12.27, 06:48:26
That should read when not arcing of course! Now I'm sure the reason for spark gaps in the TK and DS machines and all the clones becomes clear.
TK said that the gap bled off excess charge and he immediately stopped the device when the gap stopped working during a demonstration.
make what you will grumpy I haven't done this experiment .. I could well be 90 deg adrift .. it didn't matter with the way I look at things all that I required to move on .. was a difference .. the hows and whys are a never mind to me! the scribblers can fill their boots as far as I'm concerned, If it does that and there's a difference (and it does) I'll engineer it. why it does I don't care , I'm not interested in what he's doing here only in the fact the laws busted and there is a difference. (having got that there is a big tangle here) I moved on, If some scribbler wants to muck about here .. he can have all my share I didnt need it, I just canceled one horror from the other and moved on
It rather depends what your doing it for grumpy .. all I wanted to do was go in one side and come out the other with something workable if you want to try and unravel Bertie be my quest, that its cobblers and I now know how to use the difference is good enough for me!
@Grumpy
QuoteHere is a very nice article on hoax OU devices and why they can't work:
http://members.tele2.nl/kovavla/hoaxes.html
The cold hard truth: you can not extract extra energy from a magnetic field
Another cold hard truth is that no expert or any of the skeptics can tell us what a magnetic field is fundamentally. Now if none can tell us what it is in reality then how can they claim we cannot extract energy from it?. Why that would be like saying you cannot lift that box because it is impossible because nobody else has been able to lift it in the past despite the fact we do not even know what's in it which is quite absurd. I have to laugh at these people because the premise of their argument is ridiculous to the scientific mind.
This is why I generally lump the pseudo-skeptics into the same group as the completely ignorant because both are simply speculating about something they have no understanding of. The cold hard fact is none can tell me what the three primary fields are fundamentally, Magnetic, Electric and Gravic, thus none can claim they know what it will do in every case. The correct answer is " I do not know", this is the answer most intelligent people give and obviously by definition it is the right one.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2013.12.27, 16:08:52
@Grumpy
Another cold hard truth is that no expert or any of the skeptics can tell us what a magnetic field is fundamentally. Now if none can tell us what it is in reality then how can they claim we cannot extract energy from it?. Why that would be like saying you cannot lift that box because it is impossible because nobody else has been able to lift it in the past despite the fact we do not even know what's in it which is quite absurd. I have to laugh at these people because the premise of their argument is ridiculous to the scientific mind.
This is why I generally lump the pseudo-skeptics into the same group as the completely ignorant because both are simply speculating about something they have no understanding of. The cold hard fact is none can tell me what the three primary fields are fundamentally, Magnetic, Electric and Gravic, thus none can claim they know what it will do in every case. The correct answer is " I do not know", this is the answer most intelligent people give and obviously by definition it is the right one.
AC
By all means, prove them wrong, oh great one!
@Grumpy
QuoteBy all means, prove them wrong, oh great one!
I don't generally feel compelled to prove much of anything to anyone however I do apply the same rules to them as they apply to others, they are not exempt. I just find it odd that so many seem to have no issue with getting up on their soap box and telling everyone how it is and then I ask them a few simple questions and they fall flat on their face.
A better question may be why are so few people willing ask the hard questions?, why is there such a lack of interest in the primary forces which supposedly dictate everything in the known universe?, has everyone just given up?.
AC
Quote from: AllCanadian
A better question may be why are so few people willing ask the hard questions?, why is there such a lack of interest in the primary forces which supposedly dictate everything in the known universe?, has everyone just given up?.
Very good questions. It may have something to do with the
sorry state of "education" in most "developed" countries
where the populace is heavily indoctrinated and brain-washed
to worship authority and not question anything. There are
often heavy penalties assigned to those who show too much
interest in finding TRUTH.
Welcome to the New World Order...
Quote from: allcanadian on 2013.12.27, 17:48:37
@Grumpy
I don't generally feel compelled to prove much of anything to anyone however I do apply the same rules to them as they apply to others, they are not exempt. I just find it odd that so many seem to have no issue with getting up on their soap box and telling everyone how it is and then I ask them a few simple questions and they fall flat on their face.
A better question may be why are so few people willing ask the hard questions?, why is there such a lack of interest in the primary forces which supposedly dictate everything in the known universe?, has everyone just given up?.
AC
But you're the only one on a soapbox!
You eagerly point out that I didn't answer your question, when you don't know the answer yourself.
All I need to know about a magnetic field is that charged particles rotate in a magnetic field.
Rephrased for the mindsets of the current times:
QuoteEnlightenment is the crumbling away of truth.
QuoteAll I need to know about a magnetic field is that charged particles rotate in a magnetic field.
Yup...
Quote from: Grumpy
All I need to know about a magnetic field is that charged particles rotate in a magnetic field.
Quote from: GiantKiller
Yup...
Mustn't the charged particles be moving and in
so doing generate a...?
Quote from: Dumped on 2013.12.27, 21:58:20
Mustn't the charged particles be moving and in
so doing generate a...?
Simply rotating electrons won't create a current.
...generate a magnetic field as they move?
Quote from: GiantKiller
Rephrased for the mindsets of the current times:
Quote
Enlightenment is the crumbling away of truth.
Bingo! C.C ^-^ O0 :D ;)
Quote from: Dumped on 2013.12.27, 23:47:28
...generate a magnetic field as they move?
Bingo! C.C ^-^ O0 :D ;)
Yes, but that's not a lot of help when trying to produce more than you put in.
I suggest taking a hard look at 'why' electrons move in a conductor when a magnetic field moves across it, or when a battery or capacitor is discharged through it.
Are you familiar with the modifications that Heaviside made to Maxwell's equations, stripping away the scalar part and condensing the 20 equations down to 4? Well, the "energy" is on the scalar part, not the vectors. Heaviside achieved his goal of making the equations simpler and more useful for engineers, and should be remembered for this. It is up to to others to go back and get the scalar part and see what that can do.
Resonance grumpy ... series resonance
Quote from: Duncan on 2013.12.28, 05:53:04
Resonance grumpy ... series resonance
...has nothing to do with it.
I'm not sure where the idea of series resonance came from, but it's a dead end. Maybe it is a misinterpretation of longitudinal resonance.
longtidudanal resonance is the result of series resonance in electrical circuits ... start here and watch each of these six short EPD video's, This then is where the extra energy enters the system .. the longtiduanal wave whose technology is hidden and buried and exsistance is denied ...at resonance that energy floods into the machines rather like a radio wave .. except of course Its not the eletro/magnetic wave .. Its the elecrostatic/magnetic wave you will EPD say SWR of infinity and that sir is series resonance pure and simple!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhuSn6sc7sc&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhuSn6sc7sc&feature=player_embedded)
Quote from: Duncan on 2013.12.28, 10:56:47
longtidudanal resonance is the result of series resonance in electrical circuits ... start here and watch each of these six short EPD video's, This then is where the extra energy enters the system .. the longtiduanal wave whose technology is hidden and buried and exsistance is denied ...at resonance that energy floods into the machines rather like a radio wave .. except of course Its not the eletro/magnetic wave .. Its the elecrostatic/magnetic wave you will EPD say SWR of infinity and that sir is series resonance pure and simple!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhuSn6sc7sc&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhuSn6sc7sc&feature=player_embedded)
In my book:
1. series resonance is just series resonance, as described in any text on the subject. No magic there.
2. The longitudinal wave is produced by the scalar part of electricity, be it in a wire or a wave. The scalar component is "the energy". The other components are just vectors for magnitude in a direction. The scalar part is accessible before the current starts to flow in the conductor. The speed of the switch and other factors determine where the scalar field builds up at.
3. Oliver Heaviside is credited with removing the scalar part, making the vectors more useful to engineers. It wasn't hidden at all. The scalar part is right there should anyone wish to take a look at it.
3. Eric Dollard had very good results reproducing Tesla's transmitters. His interpretation of these results led him in another direction, and it seems he never came back.
4. Resonance of the scalar field, which is a longitudinal undulation, is different. Switch timing, orientation geometry, and space come into play.
well you'll excuse me if I don't read your book it doesn't seem to grasp the concept and as for EPD he's with out doubt the greatest living exponent of tesla in the world as for 'taking it further' everything I have written here is a pale poor imitation of what he says in this video , which I ask you to digest ..its just rather long I'm afraid and many don't grasp what he's saying as he moves a'pace
Quote from: Duncan on 2013.12.28, 16:58:28
well you'll excuse me if I don't read your book it doesn't seem to grasp the concept and as for EPD he's with out doubt the greatest living exponent of tesla in the world as for 'taking it further' everything I have written here is a pale poor imitation of what he says in this video , which I ask you to digest ..its just rather long I'm afraid and many don't grasp what he's saying as he moves a'pace
EPD, the greatest living exponent of Tesla? Really? Well, I don't see EPD unplugging himself from the grid!
Eric gives a great history lesson, I just don't agree with his interpretation. He seems hung up on the magnifying transmitter as a free energy device. Glad to see his is still alive.
It has taken several years to sort out the good information from all of the misinterpretations and falsifications. If a person selling books and videos, or speaking publicly, has the real truth, he would not be doing so for very long. That's just one way to sort it all out.
EDIT:This account of Tesla's discovery of radiant electricity by Gerry Vassilatos is factual as far as I have been able to determine. The references to effects witnessed by Henry and Thomson did occur and I was able to find the actual articles that reported these effects.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nwoo.org%2Ffreeenergy%2FFree%2520Energy%2520Secrets%2520with%2520Tesla%2520patents.pdf&ei=LSC_UrLDG4L8oATczIGwCw&usg=AFQjCNH6eiqP6kfoiXLqpeH9CPtmo2FbWw&bvm=bv.58187178,d.cGU
@Grumpy
QuoteEPD, the greatest living exponent of Tesla? Really? Well, I don't see EPD unplugging himself from the grid!
And therein lies the problem, it's bad enough I can't understand a damn word he's saying but the fact he has no proof he has ever built a successful machine makes it that much worse. Let's face reality, if he's an expert on this subject but can't build a working device within the last few decades or so then were hooped.
QuoteIt has taken several years to sort out the good information from all of the misinterpretations and falsifications. If a person selling books and videos, or speaking publicly, has the real truth, he would not be doing so for very long. That's just one way to sort it all out.
Maybe Im' just getting old and cranky but I think it is the opposite from what I have seen. The truth shall set you free and if there ever was a real technology that did work and the inventor had the integrity to open source it globally then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The problem here is the same old problem throughout our history whereby people speak of integrity until money is involved at which point it becomes a mute point. As EPD himself said... "it is the American dream", ie..to sell your soul for profit then revel in this fact, priceless.
As such I have come up with a new premise I call "KMA.. Kiss My Ass", if I build it and it works then it goes viral globally overnight and if someone has a problem with that well then KMA.
AC
Quote from: Grumpy :-\
EPD, the greatest living exponent of Tesla? Really? Well, I don't see EPD unplugging himself from the grid!
Eric gives a great history lesson, I just don't agree with his interpretation. He seems hung up on the magnifying transmitter as a free energy device. Glad to see his is still alive.
It seems that Tesla and his accomplishments have become
enormously inflated since his departure from the world of
the living. His
name has been a reliable source of revenue
for many an entrepreneur for a good many years. :o
Dollard seems to be stuck on old technology for similar reasons:
thar's gold in them thar hills! C.C
Beware the salesman of an OU device who is still plugged into the grid!
Quote from: Dumped on 2013.12.28, 21:22:56
It seems that Tesla and his accomplishments have become
enormously inflated since his departure from the world of
the living. His name has been a reliable source of revenue
for many an entrepreneur for a good many years. :o
Dollard seems to be stuck on old technology for similar reasons:
thar's gold in them thar hills! C.C
Amen!
Dumped, you are right on!
QuoteBeware the salesman of an OU device who is still plugged into the grid!
Grumpy also.
girls and boys please keep in mind I am researching for a book and its historical intrigue and events I am primarily interested in, I point at these things only as very strong possibilities, of course I try to check the events with practical experiments because although I allow myself some poetic licence I don't want to write a work of total fiction, anyway in the light of that let me answer some of you, if only for the conversation . First series resonance and the linear wave going nowhere ... really how do you know? Its never been mathematically resolved in the modern era, so you wouldn't have a clue one way or the other. I on the other hand know its true because I did it practically. You certainly haven't had time to do that. I also unearthed evidence that the composition of linear wave resonance (series resonance) was mathematically resolved here in England some 400 years ago. and hidden,
The infallible Tesla ? Hardly that's not what my book says anyway , but just in brief , after the war of the currents huge investment was thrown at the first grid ... Tesla's ,Niagara falls to Buffalo 'The wonder of the age'
It was a total disaster, on its knees It could not be made reliable, let me remind of the factions involved in the ''war of the currents basically Westinghouse & Tesla Vs GEC & Edison obviously there was no love lost betwixt those groups In fact Tesla would not stay in the same room as Edison. So who built the generator's and the short Grid line to Buffalo ? And very much more importantly who made the worthless load of crap work ?It wasn't Tesla I assure you, do you really think he would have let his hated rivals crawl all over his prized project unless he had absolutely no choice ?
with the resolves Steinmetz had to discover Tesla became aware that his power system and grid were already redundant and that the huge amounts of power entering and damaging the system
were nothing at all to do with the generators. From this point on Tesla worked on the real source of where all energy comes from and you can easily see the path tptb took.
As for this ' they're still plugged into the grid nonsense this is the spew of the opposition the last time I looked at EPD he was living in the desert miles away from any grid, as for any of the others if they were on or off the grid do you really think they are obliged to tell you about it? Again you seem happy to state things you can't possibly know as facts. This they're still plugged into the grid is classic opposition diatribe .. like a dog returning to its vomit.
The dielectric stress you see EPD demonstrating as a physical force is easily verifiable however it doesn't appear in the Lorentz force formula does it?
I have progressed these two forces forward from where Dr Prof Pappas and Prof Dollard leave the subject at least as a practical progression and IMHO what you see as lenz effect resolves into two musical progressions, of course I'm no scientist and only a mediocre mathematician, I'll happily cut through pages of maths and theory with a simple experiment but then my goals are different I only want to confirm the truth of a statement. Or at least the extremely strong likelihood of it being true.
Its a different matter for professors and scientists and mathematicians of course they must dot the Is and cross the Ts
I don't need to prove the availability of free power I know Its there .. all nay Sayer's opposition and other morons who don't think so should try this... form a (Hopefully) very long queue all firmly holding hands whilst standing on a thick rubber mat each man with Wellington boots on. Except for the last man .. he should be naked and buried up to his waist in rich damp loam soil , the (hopefully) very long line of sceptic morons should be chanting 'no free power' 'no free power' to the tune of 'we all live in a yellow submarine' all except the first numpty (perhaps Farrah day?) he'll be busy with his mouth , he's got an important job to do with it .. hold the bare copper wire. that's attached to the kite which is flying amongst the thunder and lightening. also wrapping that big flapping tongue around the wire a few times for extra security.is a good idea !
In the Interests of scientific rigour it all should be filmed in high quality for inclusion on the forum . Of course the singers will disagree with me here as there is no 'free energy'
but I think it might prove politic to film with a zoom lens from quite a distance as the case of 'no free' energy' is finally proved. Of course what I envisage here is being done in an almost perfect situation ... and the weathers a bit of a help also, but if the impossible does occur and our numpties experience a little tingle of 'free energy' it should be kept in mind that the conditions exist to a greater or lesser degree always ... it is a case of being able to tune to , transform and then "use the force Luke" use the force
Thanks for the link to the General Electric produced
video about Charles Steinmetz. Very surprisingly, it
contains no mention at all of Nikola Tesla.
Or, perhaps, it isn't so surprising... Corporate decisions,
even back then, were all about money, power and
self-promotion. GE benefited enormously from Tesla's
induction motor. Dog Eat Dog goes way back.
@Dumped
QuoteOr, perhaps, it isn't so surprising... Corporate decisions,
even back then, were all about money, power and
self-promotion. GE benefited enormously from Tesla's
induction motor. Dog Eat Dog goes way back.
Dog eat dog then and now and the old becomes new with a slightly different flavor. It wasn't one man it was many each playing their part watching each other with little consideration as to who discovered what and when. I think Tesla knew what was what however sometimes intelligence is not determined by what we say but knowing when to speak, such is life. Make no mistake they were all bought and paid for and if they said anything of substance it was latent in there works and the literature. Read Faraday and Maxwell, not the textbook nonsense their original work. Maxwell and his demon, Faraday on the origin of Gravity... it would be a miracle if such men were truly ignorant to the facts.
So we are left connecting random dots which cohere every now and then not from something new but from something very old, lol, if one cannot laugh at the irony of it then we have missed the point all together. It is not ours... we have to earn it and what we do from that point on determines what kind of man we really are.
AC
Why should you be surprised dumped the films about right . I guess its because your following the hype and the free energy circus whilst I'm digging about in the history and the movement of money and the skulduggery >:-) which is really interesting , Don't get me wrong Tesla was a phenomenal force but the fates conspired to bring him low. You see Lord Kelvin pops up here and there , He also played a big part in the exhibition at the Chicago Trade fair .. His job really was to put the bone Idle rich of Europe "on the money" with some insider trading and knowledge, and the Chicago fair convinced Kelvin there was rich pickings to be had. O0
Of course it goes much deeper than that the idle rich invested in everything to do with the new wonder of the age. The thing is there was no grid at the Chicago fair ... just a very small demonstration 'proof of concept' one to convince Kelvin it would work.
The fair itself was powered by multiple independent machines. It didn't require a grid ! Why should it ? Remember Tesla is a practical hands on physicist perhaps the best there's ever been but he had failings . He didn't know about reactive current and power factor , It caught him totally off guard , That transmission line turned out to be a huge nightmare of a thing ... the financial rumpus is quite easy to see even looking back from the present day, :-[
It was a huge white elephant, It was killing people at an alarming rate and huge amounts of power were erupting out all over the bloody thing ... It was quite worthless, on its knees and unable to get up. The biggest financial disaster of the era. Now I'll tell you this dumped.. the bone idle rich do not like their wallets being tapped. They Hushed the disaster up and sent the fire brigade in (just as they would today) Lord Kelvin was ordered straight back . Tesla obviously through no real fault of his own became a pariah. In due course Steinmetz made a workable system out of a "pigs ear" that Tesla produced but in so doing had to resolve Magnetic current,resonance , and Standing waves .
Tesla in turn obviously grasped what Steinmetz was doing .
However It also demonstrated that the power station Itself was an unnecessary part of the equation
Tesla was obviously caught by a cleft stick what could possibly be said to the Bankster's .. Oh great news Mr Morgan you don't need all those coal mines, oil wells and steam engines any more ?
Every one can have it free, yeah right what a spiffing Idea! However Tesla now knew what to study, the real source of all energy. J.P Morgan obviously went out of his way to ensure that was a doomed money draining waste of time. So ultimately dumped the film is right ... Steinmetz played by far the biggest part in the Niagara falls – Buffalo fiasco he at least made a half decent fist of a dogs dinner and got the thing going.
Duncan
You are quite right about magnetic current. Lately I made a shocking discovery for me that the voltage is the only source of power. Easy cake if you take a water analogy : only pressure can do work, not water amount, and the pressure is what is diminished when work is done and energy is converted into other form (mechanically).
Sure, we need water amount to let pressure work, but that amount can be returned to prime source. You can even have a closed ring of water and do work by momentarily apply pressure in one place.... So, current returned to prima source is Exactly what we see according to Ohm law when current in all circuit is determind only by resistance (in purely resistive circuit). It was always a big problem fo me to understand why current after the load is the same as current before load.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. Electrons are like little bullets , just that, they return to the source but has no "energy left" = no momentum = voltage drop ;D
What is going on show that were are slaves. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/spain-energy-idUSL6N0GE1WR20130814
Quote from: forest on 2013.12.29, 12:03:06
What is going on show that were are slaves. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/spain-energy-idUSL6N0GE1WR20130814
Yes you are right, this type of thing is going on in many walks of life here in Spain. How about the fine by the Guardia civil on a driver of a car for
talking to his passenger. When interviewed, the Guardia civil said we are under great pressure to be
profitable, if not we could be out of work. The parking ticket people are paid a % of the ticket fine as their wage, of course the more they can fine the more they earn,
bastards all of them.
I was given a ticket for parking at the end of a no through road because one wheel was just on the pavement, which nobody uses anyway, I did not pay so they took it from the money they owed me for 11/2 years and on top of that charged me interest of 20%, I did not recieve interst for the money they owed me. As I said before, they are all bastards and should be put in front of a wall and shot.
Mike
@Forest
QuoteWhat is going on show that were are slaves. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/14/spain-energy-idUSL6N0GE1WR20130814
Lol, what is going on shows everyone involved has lost their mind. How can they or anyone else be slaves if they are stupid enough to vote for people who are psychotic half-wits?. It's kind of like the crack addict blaming the drug dealer for selling them drugs which are making them sick. Forget the fact the buyer is the addict, forget the fact they asked for it and that they knew it would make them sick ... people are always looking to blame someone else for their own incompetence.
I can't speak for anyone else but I am no slave nor will I ever be a slave to anyone, I make my own choices and accept the concequences of my actions as every responsible adult should. It's called complicity when doing nothing is understood as a sign of agreement and if we do nothing then we should accept the consequences of our actions.
Do you find it odd that when things are going well people do very little however when things go wrong they always wonder why they did so little when things were going well, lol.
AC
Mm mm That's not quite how it works is it AC if someones flying over and spraying you with chemicals which affect your resolve .. not much you can do about that is there for all the noise and are you man or a mouse rubbish
@Duncan
I guess we come from different worlds, in my world we deal with extremes of -60 C to 45 C. The people I know do not sit at a desk nor do most watch television for more than a few minutes at a time. They get the job done when most everyone else would have given up or simply had no idea what to do.
It is not so much me but the people I know who influence me the most and make no mistake in any sense of the word they have a resolve which few can comprehend. It's actually kind of comical from my perspective, for instance not long ago we plowed the 4x4 into a 5 foot snow drift in the middle of a white out miles from the nearest farm. There was no wondering what to do, no fear, no hoping that someone might come and hold our hand and tell us everything will be ok. We geared up and dug out and it really does not matter how much snow there is, how cold it is or any other circumstances... we get the job done.
So you see this is why I find it hard to understand why so many people are afraid of their own shadow. Why they crater at the first sign of trouble. My god we seem to be in a constant state of disaster and if something isn't screwing up or not working right or about to be torn apart then something really has gone wrong, lol. Two nights ago I was working outside and it was -27C with winds at 70 Km/h gusting to 90+ Km/h, last night I drove home in a white out again and today I have a snow drift 3 feet deep bigger than your house I need to remove if I can get the tractor started... so please don't lecture me on resolve.
As I said we must come from different worlds and your powers that be had better hope a Canadian doesn't invent the next FE device because we don't have much respect for people sitting at a desk, we don't take to authority very well at all.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2013.12.30, 18:14:14
@Duncan
I guess we come from different worlds, in my world we deal with extremes of -60 C to 45 C. The people I know do not sit at a desk nor do most watch television for more than a few minutes at a time. They get the job done when most everyone else would have given up or simply had no idea what to do.
It is not so much me but the people I know who influence me the most and make no mistake in any sense of the word they have a resolve which few can comprehend. It's actually kind of comical from my perspective, for instance not long ago we plowed the 4x4 into a 5 foot snow drift in the middle of a white out miles from the nearest farm. There was no wondering what to do, no fear, no hoping that someone might come and hold our hand and tell us everything will be ok. We geared up and dug out and it really does not matter how much snow there is, how cold it is or any other circumstances... we get the job done.
So you see this is why I find it hard to understand why so many people are afraid of their own shadow. Why they crater at the first sign of trouble. My god we seem to be in a constant state of disaster and if something isn't screwing up or not working right or about to be torn apart then something really has gone wrong, lol. Two nights ago I was working outside and it was -27C with winds at 70 Km/h gusting to 90+ Km/h, last night I drove home in a white out again and today I have a snow drift 3 feet deep bigger than your house I need to remove if I can get the tractor started... so please don't lecture me on resolve.
As I said we must come from different worlds and your powers that be had better hope a Canadian doesn't invent the next FE device because we don't have much respect for people sitting at a desk, we don't take to authority very well at all.
AC
Dang AC! Canadians have my respect. I used to see 20 below (F) on occasion where I used to live. Be well up there.
Hey E2matrix
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm tooting my own horn too much but I have a great interest in psychology and for the longest time it was completely baffling to me what "Canadian" meant. I mean we seem just as confused about it as everyone else,lol.
I found a few key points I would like to share, we are neither patriotic or overly religious and it is almost completely lacking in our society. I found it odd that Americans always state with authority that they are "American" where Canadians say we are Canadian as if it is just the place we live like a street address and it is simply a choice. Which explains the mass exodus of Canadians to other places in the world. As if this is simply a place to hang our hat for the time being until we decide to go somewhere else... very strange.
I found this kind of odd that we tend to see everyone else as individuals on an individual level where in other places they tend to judge a person as part of a group. For instance if you are not one of "us" then you must be one of "them"--- If you are not with us you are against us. This train of thought is almost non-existent here and it is not "us" and "them" but "we" on an individual level.
As well the Government is not seen as "them" as in America or other countries as if they are different from us -- the supposed powers that be. They are simply people just like us who we elected to be in charge of running our country. Hell I was BSing with the MLA while he was cutting the grass in a park not long ago, a nice down to earth man. There is no great respect for them other than the fact they have a shitty thankless job nobody else wants, lol. We do not bow to them or actually listen to them all that much because as I said everyone tends to have issues with authority on every level including the supposed authorities.
I remember when I was younger I found a new job as a heavy equipment operator after the last job as a pipefitter/backhoe operator ended. So I go into the reception area and lay my gloves on the counter to find out who I need to talk to. At which point some Ahole says in a commanding voice, "don't put your gloves there who are you?". Well I picked up my gloves and started walking towards the door when he said -- "where are you going?" and I replied -- "I don't need this bullshit", and left. Hell I was fired before I even started, lol. This explains part of the mentality here in Canada, we would help anyone in trouble out without a second thought but if you piss us off all hell is going to break loose. There is little tolerance or respect for anyone who is intolerant or inconsiderate towards others, it is completely unacceptable. We still open and hold the door for those behind us if that is any indication of the almost bizarre amount of manners still present in society.
Those are the highlights and I have yet to fully understand it but I have read many articles by respected journalists and they don't understand it either so I'm in good company.
We are in limbo, lol.
AC
I'm trying to figure out what all the "hubris of late" in this thread has to do with new observations of Steve Mark's TPU.
Derailed or did I miss something?
Quote from: AllCanadian
...I am no slave nor will I ever be a slave to anyone
The unabashed words of a devout bachelor. ;)
Quote from: Ion
...in this thread has to do with new observations of Steve Mark's TPU
Whatever insights we can come upon regarding the man and his
methods will go a long way in ultimately understanding the TPU.
It is either a wondrous thing or it is a sophisticated deception. 8)
Has it been established that the man was a straight shooter?
Dumped quote:
QuoteWhatever insights we can come upon regarding the man and his
methods will go a long way in ultimately understanding the TPU.
It is either a wondrous thing or it is a sophisticated deception. Cool
Has it been established that the man was a straight shooter?
This has been covered extensively in "The TPU Was It Real?" thread.
I'll repeat one thing i.e
around 1997 and after the US government and AEC smackdown SM went deep underground and never talked of the TPU again.Before that he had made a few crude videos of his devices
for documentation purposes only. They are
by no means slick productions and as such
could never attract investor money. He never posted anything on youtube, someone unconnected with him did this in 2006, but he was nowhere to be found by then, nor was he scamming for money at any time post 1997.
The scammer was Brian Collins who saw an opportunity back in the 1990's and jumped on it, bringing potential investors to SM's home to witness the devices.
But all of this stopped after 1997.At this point in time, there is so much misinfo, we can't say anything real about the TPU's.
We only have the videos to go on. The rest is hearsay.But a good detective can piece together the mystery in order to determine if it was real or not.
The rabbit hole is very deep, and many never ever go that deep.It takes thousands of hours of investigative work and many hours of bench time to cover all the possible deceptive methods in order to determine if a fake could have been built. Anyone can lash up an inverter and some batteries to pull off a
short time illusion.No one has yet to duplicate the
long run time and loading that SM did with his larger devices.
When Mannix established contact with SM, and SM was actually posting on the OU forum, he never asked for any money. He implied he did not have much money, but he never asked for any financial help at all.
SM also repeatedly stated that the videos were real, with no tricks, and that the devices worked as shown.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.12.31, 00:18:58
When Mannix established contact with SM, and SM was actually posting on the OU forum, he never asked for any money. He implied he did not have much money, but he never asked for any financial help at all.
SM also repeatedly stated that the videos were real, with no tricks, and that the devices worked as shown.
We have no proof that it was actually SM in contact with Mannix, it could have been a disinfo agent. As far as I remember, SM never posted on OU, but Mannix posted stuff that he claimed was from SM, also many imposters did post e.g. one person on this forum has admitted posting using SM's name, "to get interest stirred up again".
Since none of the info posted on OU ever resulted in
one plausible hypothesis of operation or
one working device, despite hundreds of builds, the only assumption left is that
SM was a very poor teacher, and/or
SM had very incompetent followers or that
it was the work of a disinfo agent.
Despite the admission by himself that he has "special never to be unrevealed info" from SM, Mannix has never built a working unit and still is searching for clues on this and other forums. What does that tell you?
Grumps,
Please indicate the username of the so-called SM poster at OU, and point out a post if you wouldn't mind.
I thought all were aware of the fake "SM" that posted for a bit at OU. It wasn't SM, it was EM, Marco and a few others who had login access to the username.
And yeah, how the hell did this thread drift off into never-never land?
Quote from: ION on 2013.12.31, 00:52:43
We have no proof that it was actually SM in contact with Mannix, it could have been a disinfo agent. As far as I remember, SM never posted on OU, but imposters did e.g. one person on this forum has admitted posting using SM's name.
Since none of the info posted on OU ever resulted in one plausible hypothesis of operation or one working device, despite hundreds of builds, the only assumption left is that SM was a very poor teacher, or he had very incompetent followers or that it was the work of a disinfo agent.
SM stated from the start that he could not give actual working details, and that he could only use analogies. He also said that TAO had the secret with his post on energy in circuits before the current started to flow. SM also repeatedly stated that there was more energy in a circuit when it was first turned on than when it had stabilized.
I found the secret when I read in some books about electron tubes. I was a TV repair man as well. Back in the days of electron tubes. The good old days I think.
In one of the RCA engineering manuals I read that it has been measured in a wire that there exists a slight increase in current when first electrons are caused to flow in it. This was explained because the earth's magnetic field exerted some influence on the wire and the electron flow inside it. Or rather the electrons on the surface of the wire.
Even today you can find examples of discussion of this fact even in non scientific journals.
If you look in Morgan Jones book, Valve Amplifiers, 3rd edition, on page 262 he says, The inrush of current through the filament interacts with the earth's magnetic field to produce a small kick.
SMALL KICK. Those words mean a great deal. It PROVES that there is an interaction between the magnetic field of the earth and simple electrons running through wires. It may be a small influence but it is actual OVER UNITY. I have spent several years of my life thinking about that.
Scientists tell us that over unity is impossible. They say that you cannot get more out of something then you put into it.
Then I think about that wire with the small kick when first turned on. . .
There in lies the secret my friend.I want to mention about something I read on the site.
A person named TAO wrote this to you a while back:
>As a gesture of good faith towards you and the rest I'll throw out some insights...
Lets talk about the 'kick.' When the old Edison DC generators were turned on, back in the day, they released this 'kick' and killed many workers in the process. A man by the name of Tesla had seen this. He wondered how and why this 'kick' would occur. So he experimented with wire and disruptive discharges from capacitors. It was found by him that this kick could be made so powerful that it could explode wires instantly. This kick came out of the wires perpendicularly. He discharged capacitors into stout wire and through a spark gap. The key to the kick's strength and appearance was in how fast Tesla discharged the capacitors into the spark gap AND how fast Tesla STOPPED the flow of current AT the spark gap. Tesla used all types of devices to stop this flow of current, magnets, a flame, counter-rotating engines. His goals were to get the time in which the discharge is STOPPED to be much quicker. As Tesla did this he found that the perpendicular radiations, the ones from the wires, caused electrical effects to appear in wires and other copper/metal materials near the STOPPED current/discharge. These electrical effects could be made to create electrons on other wires and copper around his STOPPED current/discharge wire.
So, based on those things, lets look at the Mark device. Lets say Steven put one big stout cable around or in the rings,and all around these he had many many windings. Now, if Steven put into that stout cable a current and before the current could get to the end of the wire, he stopped it's flow abruptly, then perpendicular radiations (the KICKS), the same Tesla observed, would appear and spread from this stout cable, this would cause Tesla'a copper charging effect, which would hit all the other wires in Steven's coils. Now, if Steven wired the coils right and stopped the discharge of the current through the coils he would be able to extract a lot of extra energy from the tap points on the coils. This is basically how Tesla's magnifying transmitter works.
Capacitors discharged ABRUPTLY into a wire, then the current flow is stopped ABRUPTLY before the current makes it to the end of the wire, and this KICK comes out of the wires perpendicularly. This KICK would then charge copper with electrons(hot electricity) or their opposites(cold electricity). It just depends on how you setup the device.
So, I would say that Steven's KICKS have a direct relationship to Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter, its REAL operation.<
So Lindsay, this guy definitely has the secret. I do not know if he will be able to duplicate power generation, but he does have the secret.
Do you think he knows it?
The only part he doesn't have any idea about is that by starting the oscillation you cause the current to flow in the collector which causes the magnification of the process within the collector which will ultimately produce the greater voltage and power in usable amounts during operation.
Lindsay, it is so VERY hard to describe things with words!
Sincerely,
SM
Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.12.31, 01:01:53
Grumps,
Please indicate the username of the so-called SM poster at OU, and point out a post if you wouldn't mind.
I thought all were aware of the fake "SM" that posted for a bit at OU. It wasn't SM, it was EM, Marco and a few others who had login access to the username.
And yeah, how the hell did this thread drift off into never-never land?
That was many years ago. I'll see if I still have those posts.
EDIT
Also when people left they could choose to delete all posts back then.
From G:
QuoteSM stated from the start that he could not give actual working details, and that he could only use analogies.
But then this someone goes on to give to Mannix fairly detailed information, only trouble is, none of it pans out, it is thus far a wild goose chase.
True that this someone (?) did not solicit money from anyone on the forums through Mannix.
The only information that was not analogy are the two excerpts from letters from SM to Mannix.
Those two messages point to the exact same thing and that is that there is anomalous energy when a circuit is first turned on, and this is exactly what Tesla was reported to have noticed and experimented with, terming it radiant electricity.
Here is my hand-sketched circuits for seeing it yourselves: (disconnect wall ground)
Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.12.31, 01:01:53
Grumps,
Please indicate the username of the so-called SM poster at OU, and point out a post if you wouldn't mind.
I thought all were aware of the fake "SM" that posted for a bit at OU. It wasn't SM, it was EM, Marco and a few others who had login access to the username.
And yeah, how the hell did this thread drift off into never-never land?
This is one of the large original threads:
http://www.overunity.com/712/the-master-of-magnetics-steven-mark/#.UsIi1vvW57o
quite a lot to read through again.
Quote from: ION on 2013.12.31, 00:02:30
Dumped quote:
This has been covered extensively in "The TPU Was It Real?" thread.
I'll repeat one thing i.e around 1997 and after the US government and AEC smackdown SM went deep underground and never talked of the TPU again.
Before that he had made a few crude videos of his devices for documentation purposes only.
They are by no means slick productions and as such could never attract investor money. He never posted anything on youtube, someone unconnected with him did this in 2006, but he was nowhere to be found by then, nor was he scamming for money at any time post 1997.
The scammer was Brian Collins who saw an opportunity back in the 1990's and jumped on it, bringing potential investors to SM's home to witness the devices. But all of this stopped after 1997.
At this point in time, there is so much misinfo, we can't say anything real about the TPU's. We only have the videos to go on. The rest is hearsay.
But a good detective can piece together the mystery in order to determine if it was real or not. The rabbit hole is very deep, and many never ever go that deep.
It takes thousands of hours of investigative work and many hours of bench time to cover all the possible deceptive methods in order to determine if a fake could have been built. Anyone can lash up an inverter and some batteries to pull off a short time illusion.
No one has yet to duplicate the long run time and loading that SM did with his larger devices.
It stopped in May of 1999, not 1997. This per a letter from SM to Stefan Hartmann. It was Dr. Schinzinger's report that got TPTB interested.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.12.31, 01:58:57
This is one of the large original threads:
http://www.overunity.com/712/the-master-of-magnetics-steven-mark/#.UsIi1vvW57o
quite a lot to read through again.
This thread has been hacked and information deleted or rearranged e.g. it is supposed to be the original historical thread yet in post #4 Hartmann is already talking about the 5u4/5ar4 circuit which is not mentioned at all in the prior three posts?? The 5u4 anomaly is first mentioned by Mannix in post #30, info from someone calling themselves SM.
QuoteIt stopped in May of 1999, not 1997. This per a letter from SM to Stefan Hartmann.
How do we know for certain it was SM talking to Hartmann? too many assumptions that would not stand to closer inspection.
I was witness those pages all 183 eating it up like a wide eyed kid in a candy store. My second read was more like a detective, looking for things that don't fit, do fit, and puzzling over the rest.
Grumpy,
Thanks for re-posting (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=302.msg35661#msg35661)what some may consider to be the
"secrets" to the TPU.
Frankly, what is described there as "effects" which demonstrate
some sort of "Kick" are dubious at best.
The current surge associated with vacuum tube filaments is well
known and it occurs in any circuit which contains some sort of
resistive heating element whose resistance is minimal when it is
cold. Interaction with the "earth's magnetic field" would be very
difficult to make sense of. Where is there any sort of "kick" which
releases some sort of energy which could be harvested and made
use of? If it is there as the author declares it should be relatively
easy to reproduce and verify.
Whenever a DC source of substantial current capability at a high
voltage is connected to any transmission line there is indeed a
momentary "surge" until the line is "charged." I've not been
able to find any reputable account of "men being killed" by such
an event in any of Edison's systems. One can only wonder if this
is simply some of the strange propaganda which was bandied back
when Tesla's AC system and Edison's DC system were being disputed
with outrageous claims from both camps.
Quote from: ION on 2013.12.31, 02:31:03
This thread has been hacked and information deleted or rearranged e.g. it is supposed to be the original thread yet in post #4 Hartmann is talking about the 5u4/5ar4 circuit which is not mentioned at all in the prior three posts??
How do we know for certain it was SM talking to Hartmann? too many assumptions that would not stand to closer inspection.
Yes, it does appear hacked. The original was well over 200 pages, I still have it (it may not be original either). This was not the earliest thread either. I came into the forum just before everyone got pissed off and started deleting their accounts and posts.
Maybe I am mistaken that SM actually had an account on the forum and posted directly. That was a long time ago. Almost 10 years.
We have to make assumptions in absence of facts. The devices appear real and the good Dr. agreed with this assumption.
Quote from: Dumped on 2013.12.31, 02:46:17
Grumpy,
Thanks for re-posting (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=302.msg35661#msg35661)what some may consider to be the
"secrets" to the TPU.
Frankly, what is described there as "effects" which demonstrate
some sort of "Kick" are dubious at best.
The current surge associated with vacuum tube filaments is well
known and it occurs in any circuit which contains some sort of
resistive heating element whose resistance is minimal when it is
cold. Interaction with the "earth's magnetic field" would be very
difficult to make sense of. Where is there any sort of "kick" which
releases some sort of energy which could be harvested and made
use of? If it is there as the author declares it should be relatively
easy to reproduce and verify.
Whenever a DC source of substantial current capability at a high
voltage is connected to any transmission line there is indeed a
momentary "surge" until the line is "charged." I've not been
able to find any reputable account of "men being killed" by such
an event in any of Edison's systems. One can only wonder if this
is simply some of the strange propaganda which was bandied back
when Tesla's AC system and Edison's DC system were being disputed
with outrageous claims from both camps.
"Darkspeed" was able to find a reference of this effect for DC power plants eons ago. He left a long time ago.
I was able to find actual published articles for the references to Henry and Thomson and the related effects they experienced.
I posted my test circuits. They are very simple.
From G:
QuoteWe have to make assumptions in absence of facts. 1)The devices appear real and 2) the good Dr. agreed with this assumption.
The first is a reasonable assumptions from the video evidence. The second assumption is based on hearsay from witnesses that cannot be found or are unwilling to testify or have passed. Although the lab report reads true and the timeline checks, we don't have a scanned document with signature from Dr. Schinzinger and his lab witness Sanchez.
If we make too many assumptions we can lose our way. This happened to Bruce_TPU. Watch all his videos on youtube "How to build a TPU" by TPUBruce all 9 parts to see how really lost he gets with his assumptions. After years, he never succeeded, got very lost in his own musings, assumptions piled sky high one upon the other. Now he has a paid following and "pretends to know how". He is the latest guru crumb dropper to the peeps.
Bruce_TPU pulled a lot of people away from OU.com onto a private paypal subscribed membership site just before the big finale, the operation of his TPU. When it did not work he returned to OU.com to lead the peeps once again, free of charge this time. Read that thread on OU.com if you have the time and patience to watch how it all unfolded.
Quote from: ION on 2013.12.31, 03:07:29
The second assumption is based on hearsay from witnesses that cannot be found or are unwilling to testify or have passed. Although the lab report reads true and the timeline checks, we don't have a scanned document with signature from Dr. Schinzinger and his lab witness Sanchez.
What of Dave Doleshal's comments?
http://www.overunity.com/1668/eye-wittness-accounts-from-people-who-have-seen-the-tpus/msg17271/#msg17271
> What I did see when the unit was in operation was that it DID appear to operate as Mark says it does - yielding an output of
several hundred watts, with no wires leading in to. The possibility of it containing some kind of hidden batteries within it was
often raised by skeptics, but every consultation with battery experts or battery salesman to explain how such a thing might be faked
using the smallest state of the art batteries came up empty handed. Mark did demonstrations in which engineers measured the
surrounding area to see if he might somehow secretly have been sending it energy via a radio waves or magnetic fields,or something,
but none of them ever detected anything of the sort, despite heroic efforts to do so. Potential investors hired all manner of
high-powered experts to debunk it or detect some fraud or trickery, but none were ever able to do so.Much more from Dave in that thread.
Dave Doleshal may be a good witness provided there was no financial collusion to be supported or to require such remarks. Since we can never dig deep enough to determine this, I will accept it as true, but with a grain of salt.
Regardless of this the Doleshal testimony is some of the best and most convincing.
G:
I'm not at all saying the TPU is fake, I'm just trying to pare the information to my own standards of belief. Everyone is free to believe whatever they like.
The videos tell the truth, they are not slick sales tools choreographed to lure anyone apart from their money like most FE sales videos, with allusions to a greener world and people skipping through the parks with smiles.
The videos are very clumsy (no offense to the videographer Paul Stemm?) technical presentations to document something technically very interesting but they reveal much more than that.
I believe from the videos that SM is sincere and somewhat amazed himself that it actually works. I detect a certain candor and beguilement that is difficult to put on for a camera.
The videos themselves are the most convincing provided one can observe beyond the technical points of the "show and tell" into the deeper aspects of the presentations and mannerisms of SM himself.
@Dumped
QuoteThe unabashed words of a devout bachelor
Happily married with two kids, we have a normal relationship and I agree with everything she says then do whatever I want and she puts up with it.
@All
Concerning SM
I have found there are generally three distinct phenomena which occur with any given technology.
1) the device plays on multiple effects to harness ambient energy in whatever form it may take. This may include thermal Energy as a heat pump effect, it may include an electron pump and antenna such as the plauson converter. They will always include large surface area components such as antenna or large ground conductors.
2) The device bends the rules which we generally always apply in the same way which is the reason we never see such effects. For instance where we always use closed paths they may use open ones such that the boundary condition of the open path produces oscillations within itself. As we know Energy always involves change which we conceive as work, a force acting over a distance, over a period of time. However if the oscillations are due to a transformation and not dissipation as is generally the case then Energy is conserved. If energy is conserved and the oscillations represent Energy in themselves then this is not the same Energy which was conserved. The one constant here is that every inventor was obssessed with efficiency as this is the starting point, near 100% efficiency.
3) The inventor may start with good intentions and make information available however this quickly changes once investors and money are involved. The technology is never truly disclosed because there is hope of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow however the pot of gold always ends up in the investors pockets. Thus not only has the inventor forsaken mankind due to their own greed but they have ended up no better off than before hence the high rate of suicide. If only they had done the research they would have found almost every inventor who had sold their soul got exactly what they deserved...nothing.
AC
Quote from: ION on 2013.12.31, 04:06:21
The videos themselves are the most convincing provided one can observe beyond the technical points of the "show and tell" into the deeper aspects of the presentations and mannerisms of SM himself.
In the one video with the letters UEC, several audio parts are deleted where SM is explaining the working of the devices. Someone deleted these parts of the audio for a reason.
All we can determine from the videos is that it can be done, if we take them at face value. No patents, no public devices, and SM's silence lends credence to the story about our government declaring the device an asset under national security protocols.
Moving forward, information from Spherics is partially determined valid, based on work by Peter with the delayed pulse.
My own experience with flashless discharges and such have not been reproduced, save to say they appear to be larger versions of the pops Peter experienced.
We're going in circles...
Ok, I will put a little light on topic. Instead of sitting and thinking just ask the correct questions and try to find answers !
First :
Edison DC generators case . Here is bunch of questions you should ask :
1. If they were killed then what part of lectricity could kill them ?
2. If Tesla was related and fixed the issue then how he did that and CAN I TRACE his work ?
3. Were the improvements patented ? By Tesla ???
Again read the page 262 of mentioned book about valves. There are two cases : cold filament and the first current applied. Two SEPARATE ones.
If you wish to understand it more you should knew why magnets keep their field....
I maybe way wrong here but i believe this is what happens
when you throw a switch to a high voltage line, high voltage starts propagating down the wire line and because of the inductance and surrounding air capacitance you end up with a pulse shaping network which sharpens the noise bursts during the closing of the switch and associated noise and harmonics, so you start off with a high voltage series of sparks and bursts that travel down the line and get narrower and higher in voltage until the line can no longer contain the high voltage which then arcs to ground killing the nearest person.
tesla cured this problem by using capacitors across the main throw switch, which would stop the arcing when the switch was first closed thus stopping theses pulses from propagating.
The filament in the valve was a clue, when you first throw current into a valve filament, the cold low resistance causes a very large current to flow very fast, this causes a tug against the earths magnetic field and the filament moves eventually causing mechanical fracture and failure of the filament.
The importance here is that the mechanical tug can be used to create mechanical resonance of a wire that's the clue.
In the McFreey device we use this mechanical tug to resonate the ring fuel at it's acoustic mechanical fr and use a LC magnetic field to allow the ring to tug against thus lowering the requirement of large inrush currents for acoustic vibration.
To characterize the ring's mechanical acoustic frequency we use a static magnetic field just as the valve uses the earths field.
It was a clue from SM to let us know he uses acoustic vibrations of metal to induce Beta Decay.
During my tests i used copper for my fuel ring and pulsed with about 3 amps near a magnet and then listened using a microphone for resonance, but the valve uses tungsten, this responds much better and requires a much small magnetic field to acoustically resonate, i tried iron in my ring and instead of needing the microphone next to the ring to hear the ring resonate, with iron i could place the microphone across the other side of the room and still hear the acoustic vibrations.
It's because Iron & Tungsten only need a very weak magnetic field to couple during a current pulse to induce acoustic resonance this was a good clue from SM
Peter
I agree with your above post, that the TPU is a electro acoustic conversion device. I have come to this conclusion as early as 2007 when I first wrote The "Acoustic Resonator Theory" which was mostly based on the acoustic and gyroscopic artifacts.
I did not at that time tie it in with beta decay, I was looking more closely at the "anomalous emf produced by the phonon drag of electrons" effect.
We know a lot more today than our early days when we were just guessing at the operation, and probably have been pointed in a good direction by McFreey.
Hoping the New Year will bear fruit for our experiments and best of luck in our research.
Happy New Year to All.
Deepest gratitude to you Peter for hosting this site.
Indeed ION we owe a lot to McFreey and yfree also.
It's been a real eye opener to how these devices operate by knowing where the free energy actually comes from.
Strange thing is most still don't get it.
I think verpies did some calcs over at OU which showed something like 1kg of copper can be converted from Cu65 to Cu63 releasing the equivalent of 196,000 liters of gasoline or 165 Tons of TNT.
Wake up people the energy is real and understood we only need to work on releasing it.
There's so many things that the TPU points to this.
Avoid the exact conversion frequency because 165 Tons of TNT will put a hole in your lab and vaporize the metal.
The frequency ofconversion is governed by the circumferential diameter.
Heating and eddy currents cause problems and melt downs if run too long or at the very least alter the conversion frequency.
SM was shut down by the Atomic commission, this is a great excuse to bury the device on grounds of danger due to radiation Beta decay.
SM stated it was a conversion device.
there's probably loads more.
Then we have Tesla inserting 2 iron rods 12 inches long into a box to run a pierce arrow truck, guess what the fuel was for conversion Fe ;)
Floyd Sweet and his rock from Sweden which so happens to be a great place for finding radium bearing rocks.
then we have the patent from Meyer that also used iron and copper for induced Beta Decay.
Graham Gunderson uses acoustic resonance in the Chava patents.
Any device that has a pulsed coil can potentially cause Beta Decay that covers 90% of the free energy devices.
Even mechanical motors and devices can produce resonance of metals, i wonder if Tesla mechanical resonant vibrator that shattered building was actually Beta Powered.
Don smith explained the Beta Decay method of energy capture beautifully, he ran his coils at resonance, he said the field would expand around the device and extra electrons were then captured and added to the system, shame he did not realize (or maybe he did) that the extra electrons were the result of Beta decay, His briefcase device is virtually an identical circuit of the McFreey Device in Fig6. but without the fuel ring in place, off course we all know Don Smith never really wanted us to get it going ^-^
He had other devices that used high Mu cores, if one video he showed how to build a free energy device, it consisted of 1 transistor a coil and a core, so where did the free energy come from? off course the core ;)
He even built a device that had rotating veins, this is fits how Beta induced decay was produced by Mandelstam and Papalexi device of 1935
Thanks for that gentlemen.
Here's something to think about, I'm not a Nuclear scientist but
If you create a 100 unstable atoms with a decay half life of 1 year, then you would expect them to all decay on day 365 as they were all created at the same time, but guess what this is not so, they decay in random order and half life is only a statistical number, is something else causing their decay to occur then, surely the answer has to be yes,
Quotefind the method of induced decay and you will have all the energy you can dream about.
Quote by Peterae >:-)
These poor welders discovered free energy before us and died.
god rest their souls, maybe they will save the world and be heroes.
http://www.human-resonance.org/lungs.html
Wow someone took that link down since i last looked at it, basically 4 welders died of Carbon Monoxide poising which no one could understand.
but here
QuoteNL1031962
Energy generating process for producing electricity, comprises electron discharge in flow of nitrogen or air in order to cause nuclear transmutation of nitrogen into carbon monoxide Inventor: GEUS ARIE MELIS DE
Abstract -- A flow of nitrogen or air, or a plasma thereof, through a reactor (1) is exposed to an electron discharge, resulting in the nuclear transmutation of gaseous nitrogen into carbon monoxide, followed by oxidation of the carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. A method for generating energy comprises passing a continuous flow of nitrogen or air, or a plasma thereof, through an optionally enclosed reactor in which electron discharge takes place, resulting in the nuclear transmutation of gaseous nitrogen into carbon monoxide, followed by oxidation of the carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. An INDEPENDENT CLAIM is also included for the process apparatus, comprising a reactor with a pressure reducing means (6) and an inlet (7) for providing an intermittent supply of nitrogen or air; at least one cathode and at least one anode on the inner side of the reactor space ends; a means connected to the cathode (4) and anode (5), used for generating high voltage pulses with a predetermined waveform and frequency between the cathode and anode; a casing around the reactor, through which air flows in order to be heated by the process heat from the reactor; and optional conduits for recirculating the heat-laden air back to the casing.
Thanks, but I'll stick with the approach to a new method of induction.
Quote from: Peterae on 2013.12.31, 15:28:48
Graham Gunderson uses acoustic resonance in the Chava patents.
Here is the wonderfully illustrious patent of Gunderson/Chava:
http://www.google.com/patents/US8093869
Like those before it, investors will throw away their money, and Chava will run its course until it has to recreate itself just like MPI did.
The fact that it is patented should be enough to forewarn anyone interested in this approach that it is not viable, else there would be no patent.
Joe Misiolek's group (TVQ?) suspected that the Floyd Sweet device was faked, that says alot if you know who he/they are.
Don Smith - the legend continues...
I'm pretty sure SM would have detected beta decay if his devices produced it, but maybe not if inside the coils/wrappings. He got a visit from the Atomic Energy Commission and around 1997 there was some law passed that allowed the DOE to classify articles under national security. SM stated that he received a letter informing him of this action in 1999.
NAR might actually work since a force is a force, and you just need the necessary forces applied in the right way to induce a current just like moving a battery across a coil. I don't think it will be easy or work that well.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2013.12.31, 01:01:53
Grumps,
Please indicate the username of the so-called SM poster at OU, and point out a post if you wouldn't mind.
I thought all were aware of the fake "SM" that posted for a bit at OU. It wasn't SM, it was EM, Marco and a few others who had login access to the username.
And yeah, how the hell did this thread drift off into never-never land?
Here:
http://www.overunity.com/profile/stevendmark.20601/area/showposts/#.UsRR4_vW57o
That was probably not the real SDM, hard to say.
another is listed but never posted:
http://www.overunity.com/profile/stevemarks.16610/#.UsRSevvW57o
What is his real name after all?
G:
In the post you mentioned, Dr. Schinzinger's name is misspelled as Swinzinger.
In the LM SM communications it is spelled correctly 36 times and never misspelled as Swinzinger.
If you read the OU posts you reference above carefully you will see the imposters (EM and others) have an agenda and are twisting the fake character to agree with their beliefs.
These were fakes later admitted to by EM and others. Thanks to all the hoaxers everywhere for wasting peoples time.
So as we know, SM stated the following:
QuoteI told you that the simplest form of over unity is a piece of wire and a voltage source. Anyone can actually connect it and measure. See for yourself the kick. NO coil no transformers, just a kick. That should tell you learned gentleman that there exists a form of energy convertible and useable which is directly related to a simple piece of wire and instantaneous electron flow.
Now to me it is obvious SM is describing a physical movement of a wire when describing a "kick". However, he also tells us that this simple phenomenon (resulting from interaction with the earth's mag field) is somehow OU. The only way I can think of this as OU is if he is implying that the power used to create the kick, plus the power induced in the moving wire (due to earth's field) is OU.
Is it really?
And if he is in fact using the earth's field as a magnet for his generator, why not just use a powerful magnet instead?
I don't expect any real answers, just thinking out loud. ;)
If we think about the valve filament movement which was mentioned also by SM, then how is that even possible for the filament to tug against the earths magnetic field, i have even seen that tug myself many years ago.
It's not as if we have 100's of amps flowing in that filament and the earths magnetic field is so weak, so therefore surely there is something that is happening that we don't understand, something that allows that filament to move with enough force, now if we then think about his mention of a nuclear explosion, this also involves a huge change in the magnetic field around the blast area, I read a detailed report by the military again some years ago, i think it was near Hawaii that during a test explosion some distance away various damage was done to electrical equipment by a resultant power surge, the report said something like that at detonation the earths field collapses at high speed and shortly after re establishes itself again at high speed thus inducing currents in nearby wires.
If you can create an area devoid of a magnetic field and then very fast reestablish that field maybe theres enough energy to tug at that current carrying wire.
If there is a way to create a free EMP it's just about placing larger numbers of wires in the area, which may fit with his analogy about lots of wires in series or parallel.
QuoteTypes of military EMP include:
Nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NEMP), as a result of a nuclear explosion. A variant of this is the high altitude nuclear EMP (HEMP), which produces a pulse of a much larger amplitude and different characteristics due to interactions with the Earth's magnetic field.
Peterae ,Good thoughts :) I had similiar in 2008 :P O0 It must work but the problem is to find circuit potential, or in other words where the exces energy should be tapped :-[ If that was so easy then we would have free energy long time ago... All I know is that scientist do not investigate important topics. They ignore something which later seems obvious, like ebola outbreak. They did not found vaccine for almost 40 years.... :o
On the subject of EMP and Electromagnetic Weapons.
Many advances have been made since the paper was
originally published.
Notice that SM says voltage source and not current source.
The valve filament problem is a well known phenomenon. It even happens with incandescent bulbs. But the question is; how does he construe this as OU? Where is the extra energy he speaks of? Is it the movement of the wire that he is calling OU? i.e. the magnetic field of the earth being converted to movement of the wire? But this costs energy to perform.
@ Grumpy, he says voltage source, but obviously it takes a large current spike to kick that filament. "Electron flow" means current.
QuoteSMALL KICK. Those words mean a great deal. It PROVES that there is an interaction between the magnetic field of the earth and simple electrons running through wires. It may be a small influence but it is actual OVER UNITY.
Really? ??? How does he figure that?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2014.10.09, 04:50:58
The valve filament problem is a well known phenomenon. It even happens with incandescent bulbs. But the question is; how does he construe this as OU? Where is the extra energy he speaks of? Is it the movement of the wire that he is calling OU? i.e. the magnetic field of the earth being converted to movement of the wire? But this costs energy to perform.
@ Grumpy, he says voltage source, but obviously it takes a large current spike to kick that filament. "Electron flow" means current.
Here is the entire email message from SM to Lindsay, minus the header, that talks about instantaneous current flow in a wire:
Dearest Lindsay,
I am amazed at your ability to understand and guess at many important things that your on line colleagues appear to be missing. They appear to be more and more helpless as time goes on.
I must tell you that I am disappointed in the folks on the web site.
I have given everyone some serious secrets and they have just missed the whole point of everything I have given up. Some of the stuff I told them is positively golden and they are just sitting on there asses doing nothing but asking for someone to give then demonstrations they can easily recreate.
You seem to be the only one who is more then capable and way out in front of the pack.
I have been here reflecting on all the responses I have read and I am just amazed at all the important things they are missing. Some of the important ideas are so unbelievably obvious it makes me cry to think that they could be so easily misinterpreted.
The very FIRST example I gave you was that; It is common scientific knowledge that if you have a piece of wire and first run electricity through it you will have a small kick when first energized. The kick is universally attributed to the earth's magnetic field.
OK the point is; YOU CAN GET SOME ENERGY OUT OF THE EARTH!
Next point; YOU CAN DO SOMETHING VERY SIMPLE WITH A WIRE TO SHOW THIS.
Next point; YOU CAN SEE THAT YOU CAN GET MORE OUT OF A PIECE OF WIRE THEN YOU PUT IN TO IT.
WE are not talking about a coil or a transformer or anything developing a primary to secondary flux. We are just talking about a straight piece of wire, some electrons and a method of measuring what comes out of it.
I even gave you some easy to obtain references to this phenomenon in a few technical journals.
Did anyone look for these journals? Did anyone look in basic scientific publications to see any of this information? Did anyone get some sensitive measuring equipment and do this experiment? Must be too simple and beneath the dignity of those on the web. Some people just sit back and say, well that isn't very much power, we want to make much more.
In order to run you must walk first.
I told you that the simplest form of over unity is a piece of wire and a voltage source. Anyone can actually connect it and measure. See for yourself the kick. NO coil no xmrs, just a kick. That should tell you learned gentleman that there exists a form of energy convertible and useable which is directly related to a simple piece of wire and instantaneous electron flow..
No one appears to be willing to get off their asses and do anything except ask and demand more information before they will start to experiment.
Yes I am disappointed.
You know it is common knowledge in the electron tube world that aside from the fact that a cold filament conducts more electricity then when hot, one of the things that destroys the filament in electron tubes for that matter is this kick when you first turn on the juice. The kick is there wether the filament is hot or cold.The kick helps destroy the filament and cathodes integrity.
So everyone knows about the kick and accepts that it somehow comes from the earth's magnetic field.
So do something with this information! Don't sit on your asses waiting for someone to explain what this means. Not even Edison explained what this means! In his memoirs he said that it was a fact that we all had to contend with, but that he did not understand why it happened.
If you call yourself experimenters then start to experiment. I had only this to go on when I started and little by little I figured out how to make many several thousands of kicks per second. . . AND YOU KNOW WHAT, IT ISN"T DIFICULT AT ALL.
No, I take that statement back. Actually it is difficult if you refuse to start thinking.
Some of the information I have given to you is golden. I have certainly given you enough information to move in the right direction. I will continue to give you more information but I am so disappointed with the complete lack of ability I see in most everyone so far.
Sincerely,
SM.So, it sounds like he is saying that there is additional energy liberated or otherwise available when a power supply is initially applied to a conductor.
What are typical values for voltage and current applied to said cathode filament?
I can make conductors jump all over with HV and almost no current. Magnets will respond violently. All with pulsed hv and only a couple of milliamps.
It is my belief SM is referring to a mechanical kick, in other words a very small, measurable, but high speed displacement or movement of the wire from it's rest position.
I believe he was not referring to any form of BEMF or discharge of inductance of the wire.
SM calls it "resonating", it may not be an actual resonant frequency in the conventional sense:
The multiple frequencies traveling around the coils are of too high a frequency to provide for any motive effort. They are only a means to achieve an end. The multiple frequencies begin to feed themselves and the multiple kicks become a combined big kick.
I call it resonating. That is why if you notice in the video tapes that it takes just a few seconds for the coil to begin to function at maximum effort. You see, one little kick amounts to nothing. However imagine if you had hundreds of thousands of little kicks combining into one big current kick . . .
He refers several times to making thousands of individual kicks, and that these combine into one big kick.
@Grumpy
QuoteThe very FIRST example I gave you was that; It is common scientific knowledge that if you have a piece of wire and first run electricity through it you will have a small kick when first energized. The kick is universally attributed to the earth's magnetic field.
OK the point is; YOU CAN GET SOME ENERGY OUT OF THE EARTH!
Next point; YOU CAN DO SOMETHING VERY SIMPLE WITH A WIRE TO SHOW THIS.
Next point; YOU CAN SEE THAT YOU CAN GET MORE OUT OF A PIECE OF WIRE THEN YOU PUT IN TO IT.
Thanks for the reminder grumpy.
AC
Peter,
If you have your delay device available that you used to see the compressed pulse, can you apply this to a bifilar coil around a magnet? Spherics claimed that SM discovered the effect this way.
Quote from: ION on 2014.10.09, 15:01:43
It is my belief SM is referring to a mechanical kick, in other words a very small, measurable, but high speed displacement or movement of the wire from it's rest position.
I believe he was not referring to any form of BEMF or discharge of inductance of the wire.
I agree, however he muddies the waters by also saying this:
QuoteIn one of the RCA engineering manuals I read that it has been measured in a wire that there exists a slight increase in current when first electrons are caused to flow in it. This was explained because the earth's magnetic field exerted some influence on the wire and the electron flow inside it.
So to me he is saying that the kick is the physical movement of the wire due to the applied voltage and ever-present earth's magnetic field, AND that the current is 1.000001A at the instant of electron flow, vs. 1.000000A if the earth's field was not present (for eg.).
Doesn't the extra current still come from the applied voltage source? ???
Don't you think you are too "deep" instead of trying to be clear and simple :P
Let's make it simpler for you : what is that "thing" that break vacuum tube filament after many "restarts" ? Is that heat ? Is that current ? Is that air ? What is that ? C.C :o O0
P.S. A little more helpful tip : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GITb6rzpTWM ;D ;D ;D
As I told you everybody , including renown scientists ,with many academic degrees before their names are simply foaming at the mouth with their projects, instead to focus on important topics.
I think the repeated references to "starting current and stopping in the space of a magnetic field" were largely misinterpreted. As I have said several times, pulse HV into a conductor near a magnet and see for yourself.
Comments by SM on TAO's references to Tesla's Magnifier:
TAO:
So, based on those things, lets look at the Mark device. Lets say Steven put one big stout cable around or in the rings,and all around these he had many many windings. Now, if Steven put into that stout cable a current and before the current could get to the end of the wire, he stopped it's flow abruptly, then perpendicular radiations (the KICKS), the same Tesla observed, would appear and spread from this stout cable, this would cause Tesla'a copper charging effect, which would hit all the other wires in Steven's coils. Now, if Steven wired the coils right and stopped the discharge of the current through the coils he would be able to extract a lot of extra energy from the tap points on the coils. This is basically how Tesla's magnifying transmitter works.
Capacitors discharged ABRUPTLY into a wire, then the current flow is stopped ABRUPTLY before the current makes it to the end of the wire, and this KICK comes out of the wires perpendicularly. This KICK would then charge copper with electrons(hot electricity) or their opposites(cold electricity). It just depends on how you setup the device.
So, I would say that Steven's KICKS have a direct relationship to Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter, its REAL operation.<
SM's remarks:
So Lindsay, this guy definitely has the secret. I do not know if he will be able to duplicate power generation, but he does have the secret.
Do you think he knows it?
The only part he doesn't have any idea about is that by starting the oscillation you cause the current to flow in the collector which causes the magnification of the process within the collector which will ultimately produce the greater voltage and power in usable amounts during operation.
QuoteWe are just talking about a straight piece of wire, some electrons and a method of measuring what comes out of it.
QuoteI even gave you some easy to obtain references to this phenomenon in a few technical journals.
Did anyone look for these journals? Did anyone look in basic scientific publications to see any of this information? Did anyone get some sensitive measuring equipment and do this experiment? Must be too simple and beneath the dignity of those on the web. Some people just sit back and say,
Do we have these references to look up?
QuoteYou know it is common knowledge in the electron tube world that aside from the fact that a cold filament conducts more electricity then when hot, one of the things that destroys the filament in electron tubes for that matter is this kick when you first turn on the juice. The kick is there wether the filament is hot or cold.The kick helps destroy the filament and cathodes integrity.
The kick is there hot or cold, in other words it's not related to the current that flows in the filament.
The tug on the filament is not a direct result of the electron flow in the filament, it's a consequence of the earths magnetic field, in other words the energy that tugs the filament does not come from the electron flow in the filament, and therefore we did something to the filament that caused the earths magnetic field to tug at it, obviously for this to be OU we used less energy in doing so.
Guys what we need to do is find the maths to work out how much current needs to flow in the filament to get a certain amount of force that could tug the filament against the weak earths mag field, i am guessing it will be way too much than our current flowing in the filament, this will prove we have OU and this should be easy to do O0F=IxLxB
F = 6Ampsx6mm x 65uT
F = 0.00000234 N
Quote from: Peterae on 2014.10.09, 21:51:04
The kick is there hot or cold, in other words it's not related to the current that flows in the filament.
The tug on the filament is not a direct result of the electron flow in the filament, it's a consequence of the earths magnetic field, in other words the energy that tugs the filament does not come from the electron flow in the filament, and therefore we did something to the filament that caused the earths magnetic field to tug at it, obviously for this to be OU we used less energy in doing so.
Guys, the kick can
only be associated with and resulting from current in the filament.
I think we need to try to understand how large a current needs to be flowing in that filament to create such a tug against the earths mag field, surely this should not be happening with such a small filament and a lowish current of 3 amps.
I managed to get very thin wires flapping around a ceramic magnet, by double pulsing current in the wire, but the magnets were large and 1000's of times stronger than the earths field, and even then the wire movement was small, i did a video of the Agentgates coil somewhere.
It's about two things;
1) the intensity of the current, and
2) how quickly the current builds in the wire
You can have a very small current that builds very quickly, resulting in the same physical excursion as a much larger but slower building current.
So it's not just about how much current there is, it's equally about how quickly the current is building.
yes i thought that would be the case regarding how quickly the current builds in the wire, but this is all calculable is it not.
If that would be about the current then it would be hopeless. It's about the amount of electrons in some very rare situation O0 Earth magnetic field is not weak, don't dare to think such way - re-read SM posts.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2014.10.10, 00:50:47
It's about two things;
1) the intensity of the current, and
2) how quickly the current builds in the wire
You can have a very small current that builds very quickly, resulting in the same physical excursion as a much larger but slower building current.
So it's not just about how much current there is, it's equally about how quickly the current is building.
I would say the fastest way to build a current in a wire is via a spark gap setup. I have built a couple of lifters in my time using a flyback transformer from old CRT's. You could clearly see the thin wire above the foil skirt vibrate from side to side,but not up and down?.Looking side on to the wire,it looked just like a thin wire,but looking from top down,it looked about 6mm wide. As the craft was a triangle shape,it could have been the magnetic field around the wire that was interacting with itself(the two wires 120* adjacent).
Quote from: forest on 2014.10.10, 07:09:42
If that would be about the current then it would be hopeless. It's about the amount of electrons in some very rare situation O0 Earth magnetic field is not weak, don't dare to think such way - re-read SM posts.
The Earth's magnetic field can be visualized as coming from a magnetic dipole somewhere near the center of the earth. Its dipole moment m is 8.24x10^22 amp meters squared. That is a huge dipole. The scalar potential at the surface, taking the radius r to be 6.37x10^6 meters is given by m*cos(theta)/(4*pi*r^2) where theta is measured from the geomagnetic S pole. Thus at the geomagnetic N and S poles the scalar potential magnitude is approx 6x10^8 amps, reducing to zero at the equator. So although the magnetic H field (the gradient of the scalar potential) is quite weak, the actual scalar potentials away from the equator can be huge.
The vector potential A is given by munought*m*sin(theta)/(4*pi*r^2) and is 200 Weber/meter at the equator, reducing to zero at the poles. The A field runs east-west forming circles of constant latitude. 200 Weber/meter is a huge value, something you might get on the surface of a huge 1 Tesla bar magnet that is 800m in diameter.
So there must be two possibilities that SM used in his device, one is making use of the scalar potential, something I have already proposed. That theory says that magnetic poles, if they are moving within a scalar magnetic potential, will exhibit an inertia effect where their acceleration can summon up forces from that scalar potential. This fits well with SM's device if he uses ferromagnetic wires in the form of hoops, and his drive coils induce magnetic poles moving around those hoops. Then the flexible hoops will endure mechanical vibration.
The alternative explanation uses the Earth's vector magnetic A field, and involves electrons accelerating within that field. There is the possibility that such electrons will endure a force due to acceleration in the A field, and that fits well with his observations on inrush of current in filaments when they are switched on.
Smudge
yeah, except it runs with gain..
QuoteSo there must be two possibilities that SM used in his device, one is making use of the scalar potential, something I have already proposed.
Smudge
What is causing the valve filament to jerk, have you ever seen it, and would the inrush current be enough to explain the jerk.
Quote from: Peterae on 2014.10.11, 08:29:18
Smudge
What is causing the valve filament to jerk, have you ever seen it, and would the inrush current be enough to explain the jerk.
Although I was brought up on valve (vacuum tube) technology (can't get to grips with these new-fangled transistor thingies ;) ) I have never witnessed the filament jerk. But there are many different types of filament. Some of the early tubes did not use cathodes, they used the direct electron emission from the hot filament and that could have many forms from a straight wire to a zig-zag formation. Most people seem to believe the jerk is simply current flow in the earth's magnetic field creating a sideways force, but SM says that is not so. If there is any credence to the possibility that electron acceleration within the earth's magnetic vector potential field can create a force, it would be longitudinal along the acceleration direction, i.e. along the wire during the inrush of current. That could create a tension along the wire so maybe the kick is a combination of the two effects, (a) the increasing value of sideways force from the increasing current flow in the earth's B field and (b) the tension created by the same inrush of current (involving electron acceleration) in the earth's A field. And perhaps those two effects would break the filament. Just speculation on my part.
I can believe that SM started out with the intention of using that known kick to extract energy from the physical movement, and by a series of experiments found he could get more and more under the belief that he was still using that same basic effect. But I can also see the possibility that he unwittingly brought in other effects and the final version does not use that original phenomenon. I am very taken with the possibility that magnetic poles moving around a circle at enormous RPM (which his geometry could produce) might endure inertial forces due to their movement in the earth's scalar magnetic field, and that creates the mechanical movement, but in SM's mind it was still linked to the old kick phenomenon.
Smudge
Most of the time you are not going to see filaments move, but the physical tug generated on them is there every time power is applied.
The evidence of this failure mode is clear when they finally do break.
The directly-heated cathode type tubes don't have this issue. btw, all tubes have cathodes, even the early ones. The early tubes didn't have separate filaments because the cathode was directly heated.
Here's something related to filament failure in a datasheet for the popular KT66 beam tetrode (audio amplifier tube). The manufacturer conveys that the life expectancy of the tube is dependent on how many times the tube is switched on in a day.
Since vacuum tubes came into the discussion here, this is quite interesting (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/185027-the-vacuum-tube-strikes-back-nasas-tiny-460ghz-vacuum-transistor-that-could-one-day-replace-silicon-fets). I'm looking forward to these going commercial. ;D ;D
Quote from: poynt99 on 2014.10.11, 14:10:37
btw, all tubes have cathodes, even the early ones. The early tubes didn't have separate filaments because the cathode was directly heated.
I think maybe I go back much further than you do (I am 80 years young) and as a child I played with crystal sets and old radios that my dad used to get from junk shops. And I do remember early tubes having no cathode. Wikipedia says "Vacuum tubes mostly rely on thermionic emission of electrons from a hot filament or a cathode heated by the filament". So I stand by my statement. But maybe this is just semantics on the word "cathode" since the hot filament
is the cathode.
Smudge
I think it is important to remember how SM pointed to radiant effect, Electrons forced to go outside of wire by some force O0 and that force can act only before current is established. Come on, you have to find it interesting.... ^-^ I think there is some huge impact effect hidden here from our point of view.
Quote from: Smudge on 2014.10.11, 15:10:50
I think maybe I go back much further than you do (I am 80 years young) and as a child I played with crystal sets and old radios that my dad used to get from junk shops. And I do remember early tubes having no cathode. Wikipedia says "Vacuum tubes mostly rely on thermionic emission of electrons from a hot filament or a cathode heated by the filament". So I stand by my statement. But maybe this is just semantics on the word "cathode" since the hot filament is the cathode.
Smudge
It comes down to semantics I suppose, but technically speaking, all tubes have cathodes. It just comes down to whether the cathode is directly or indirectly heated.
Here is the spec sheet for a 2A3 from the RC-12 tube manual (1934).
It is a directly heated cathode type and referred to as a "cathode which is composed of a large number of filaments". ;)
The very first valve rectifiers were just an anode plate in the envelope of a incandescent lamp to collect the electrons that boiled off the hot filaments. Later a grid was introduced to control the flow. All of the early 4 pin triodes (45, 26, 2A3 etc) used the filament itself as the cathode. With the introduction of the fifth pin, separately heated cathodes were introduced, although this was also possible by sharing one of the filament pins with the cathode plate in the 4 pin models.
Newer filament construction was via a folded ceramic coated wire or spiralled wire. This heated a bismuth coated plate or tubular structure as the cathode.
In a folded wire filament, the repulsive forces between the individual strands can be large. This formed a non-inductive filament structure, and as such, the inrush current was substantial, but probably swamped by the PTC of the filament wire itself.
I doubt that SM was talking about this effect, however he did make the analogy of the jumper cables.
It should not be difficult to suspend a wire on a silk thread horizontally, and allow a spark such as a high voltage capacitor discharge to complete itself through the wire. Such an experiment would have to be set up very carefully to avoid magnetic artifacts, ion wind etc. Also set up perhaps on a turntable so it could be easily positioned in the earth field bias.
(sorry, written while poynt was posting)
I am wondering if this can all be tied to radiant energy.
Tesla discovered radiant energy, when he was called in to find out why people were being killed the moment high voltage lines were switched on, at the moment of switch on large sparks would jump out and kill Innocent bystanders from the pylons, he cured this by suppression across the switch.
I believe that it is quiet easy to produce radiant energy and it maybe just as simple as reaching a point where your switch on time is fast enough.
I believe i have detected radiant energy, simply by using a 100K resistor wound round the tip of a scope probe and across it's earth so as to put the 100K load across a floating scope lead, when this is placed near some of my pulsing experiments i detected very strange waveforms.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=272.0;attach=3913)
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=272.0;attach=3950)
Posts start here
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=272.msg11035#msg11035
And then we have modern EMC design where ground planes are used to soak up EM noise on PCBs, well metal plates are used to collect Radiant energy, so can that mean that some EM noise is actually radiant in nature and can induce a voltage on a plate as per Tesla's description of a radiant burst, if so then the radiant burst emenates from the source in all directions as if a ripple in a pond ripples outwards, how many places can we collect that radiant pulse and it's energy.
You'll need high voltage.
Henry disharged a cap into a coil - magnetizing iron nails in the basement of the building.
Elihu Thomson used a Ruhmkorff coil connected to a water pipe and a large metal table.
Tesla took it from there.
Dollard used spiral coils but drove them with a 20kv supply.
Don't collect it, create it.
http://overunity.com/14640/tpu-successfull-replicaction-cop10-1kw-torroid/dlattach/attach/144761/
This was recently posted at OU.com by a first time poster Odumy
Feel free to remove if it's just noise.....
Thx
Chet K
That patent is the Molina-Martinez device and he later said publicly that the device was not OU, but he thought it was at the time.
Thanks Grump
I'm told that this site is connected to the inventor ?
http://the-molina-institute.org/ [as you have stated]
thx
Chet
Could be. Same name.
Again I found this old paper of mine and thought it might trigger some interest.
Smudge
Quote from: EMdevices on 2015.07.23, 04:14:26
I was playing around with an audio tube amplifier, and my boy comes over and hits the box (2 yr old). Suddenly a very strange sound came over the speakers and it lasted for quite a few seconds. It sounded metallic in nature, something I heard before on some power lines.
Anyway, I'm going to try making some experiments on the TPU theories. Got my coils out!
EM
I have worked on tube amps for a very long time. Most likely it was a tube that had become "microphonic". There are other possibilities, e.g. noisy resistor or capacitor, bad connection to a tube socket, or even the magnetic field from the voice coil or output transformer affecting the tube elements, but without knowing more about the amp, this is just guessing.
Supply a picture and model number and we can go further.
Regards, ION
Does it have a reverb? Maybe it was the reverb tank resonating.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.07.23, 13:15:28
Does it have a reverb? Maybe it was the reverb tank resonating.
Yes, agreed, the reverb tank makes a hell of a noise, especially the unfolded lines. I have many times been severely chastised by the audience when I nudged my amp a bit while performing. This is the most obvious cause, I just wasn't thinking it was a guitar amp as that was not mentioned.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2015.07.23, 04:14:26
I was playing around with an audio tube amplifier, and my boy comes over and hits the box (2 yr old). Suddenly a very strange sound came over the speakers and it lasted for quite a few seconds. It sounded metallic in nature, something I heard before on some power lines.
Anyway, I'm going to try making some experiments on the TPU theories. Got my coils out!
EM
From everything I've read, I've come to believe the secret to the TPU was feedback. If you have a pulsing core coil primary, what kind of secondary allows you to collect the kicks and send them back to the primary? One might need a resonant coil (to resonate with the primary); then, what kind of coil config will enable one to draw from the resonant coil without affecting its oscillation? ;)
Bob
Quote from: Bob Smith on 2015.07.23, 18:13:48
From everything I've read, I've come to believe the secret to the TPU was feedback. If you have a pulsing core coil primary, what kind of secondary allows you to collect the kicks and send them back to the primary? One might need a resonant coil (to resonate with the primary); then, what kind of coil config will enable one to draw from the resonant coil without affecting its oscillation? ;)
Bob
This is on my slate for further experimentation.
The kick was just a compressed HV pulse.
Poynt modeled the compressed pulse in Spice, but I've never seen that method in any literature.
How the pulse is applied is what matters.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2015.07.25, 06:28:03
The kick was just a compressed HV pulse.
Poynt modeled the compressed pulse in Spice, but I've never seen that method in any literature.
How the pulse is applied is what matters.
The kick imo is the result of the HV/HC pulse applied to a coil or coils. The end result being a slight movement of the coil apparatus in relation to its position in space. It's simply the sharp/abrupt magnetic field produced in the TPU pushing/pulling against the earth's steady magnetic field.
Contrary to what SM seems to espouse, I don't believe this kick or movement is responsible for the power generation, it is simply an effect of the process, and this effect is what gives the device its "gyroscopic feel".
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.07.25, 13:04:06
The kick imo is the result of the HV/HC pulse applied to a coil or coils. The end result being a slight movement of the coil apparatus in relation to its position in space. It's simply the sharp/abrupt magnetic field produced in the TPU pushing/pulling against the earth's steady magnetic field.
Contrary to what SM seems to espouse, I don't believe this kick or movement is responsible for the power generation, it is simply an effect of the process, and this effect is what gives the device its "gyroscopic feel".
The pulsed coil doesn't move, everything around it does if free to move, even space - this is easy to see with a coil and hv pulser and based on actual experience. More mass = more movement, and all materials that I tested were affected.
It is NOT a magnetic pulse at all. You will detect no EM field from this pulse.
The kick is what exposes the force, so it is responsible.
Very easy to test, like I said.
Do any of you have a pulser of at least 1.5kv, in the low ns range? Pulse rate doesn't matter much to just see an effect.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2015.07.26, 17:52:36
The pulsed coil doesn't move, everything around it does if free to move, even space - this is easy to see with a coil and hv pulser and based on actual experience. More mass = more movement, and all materials that I tested were affected.
It is NOT a magnetic pulse at all. You will detect no EM field from this pulse.
The kick is what exposes the force, so it is responsible.
Very easy to test, like I said.
Do any of you have a pulser of at least 1.5kv, in the low ns range? Pulse rate doesn't matter much to just see an effect.
Grumpy,
Even though I've been pretty quiet There have been a few occasions where I've tried an idea or two. Some of that time has been playing with extremely short duration HV (600V - 20kV). The durations I've worked with have ranged from single digit ms to single digit ns. Even with my 1 gig scope there was nothing unusual seen in pulse experiments involving inductance and capacitance.
The most unusual seen was DC pulse ringing - I've seen some folks call them solitons. But, these also have classical explanations.
What should I look for?
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2015.07.26, 22:11:45
Grumpy,
Even though I've been pretty quiet There have been a few occasions where I've tried an idea or two. Some of that time has been playing with extremely short duration HV (600V - 20kV). The durations I've worked with have ranged from single digit ms to single digit ns. Even with my 1 gig scope there was nothing unusual seen in pulse experiments involving inductance and capacitance.
The most unusual seen was DC pulse ringing - I've seen some folks call them solitons. But, these also have classical explanations.
What should I look for?
I used an avalanche stack at 2kv. Brooks wound coil of 1300 feet #28 hi-temp insulation mag wire. I can get the actual former that I used and measure it if you want, but ID is around 1 inch and OD of 3 inches, 1 inch wide. Pulse this coil and hold a magnet near it. I free- ran my pulser at around 1 MHz with my first try and that magnet is all over the place. Then you will think to try other objects and they are all affected. Ponderomotive force? Gravity field? ??? I could make pieces of plastic crawl across the bench, and pencil lead, magnets act freaky.
Brooks 1931
http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Workshop/advice/coils/air_coils.html
There is probably a correlation between inductance and coupling to space.
It would make sense that ferromagnetic materials would dampen it then. In my eyes anyway.
Hi EM
Getting a DC current to flow with an AC input without electrical rectification is one of the keys to TPU operation.
This area alone is overdue for serious experimentation. I might add that one should look into parallel wires carrying AC current, as a mechanical "rectification" of motion does occur, IOW, you get a push-push or pull-pull between the wires with AC current, depending on how they are phased. Same is true for coils of wire e.g. electromagnets. Very basic, but I think this mechanical motion rectification was somehow used to create DC. Another area for investigation, perhaps.
Regarding your drawing, some form of "pole shading" or magnetic bias should probably be used to allow the electrons to prefer a given direction rather than just go back and forth thus producing only an AC output.
In one of the videos where the sound was blanked momentarily, SM said it was well known , or something like that.
Regards, ION
a motionless homopolar generator
I used this term back in 2009...time goes by so fast
http://overunity.com/5662/faradays-paradox-experiment/msg206471/#msg206471
If I were to try an arrangement of coils like that:
1. use heavy copper for the core wire
2. wind six sections of coils over the core, so that they can be pulsed sequentially
3. wind a coil over the entire arrangement for static DC (magnetic bias)
You can wind over a straight wire core and then bend it into a loop.
The idea being to "push" the electrons along the wire core.
Notice that the bias coil field is parallel to the core wire. Applying a perpendicular force to the core, rotated from one end to the other, might induce a current in the core.
Consider two large horizontal loops that are fed an AC signal of the same frequency. Depending on the phase of the signals sent into the loops, there will be either an attractive or a repulsive force for each half cycle of the AC waveform between the loops.
Put another way, there will be a push apart due to the positive half cycle and a push apart due to the negative half cycle of the AC waveform. Reverse the phase to one of the loops and instead of a push apart, the loops are in attraction.
This mechanical rectification of motion has always interested me, and is what allows Universal motors able to run in one direction despite the constantly reversing direction of current and voltage on AC mains.
Now vary the frequency of one loop just slightly off from the other and the effect will rotate the mechanical attraction or repulsion at the difference frequency around the loop.
Conversely one loop could be trimmed in length to change the standing wave into a rotating wave of attractions (or repulsions, depending on phasing) around the loop. This is a mechanical force that rotates around the loop if I am correct in visualizing all this.
Then all that may be needed is a way to have that mechanical motion translate into the motion of the electrons in the wire. Perhaps here enters SM's garden hose analogy,lifting the hose to produce a "hill" in the hose, which forces the water out one end. So we need not really a wave, but a hill (lifting the hose, and moving the lifted area along the hose). The mechanical rectification creates the "hill". Ordinary wave motion will not do the job as it will just force the electrons into the hills and valleys, but not move them along the wire. Pure wave motion would require a third frequency to modulate the wave to move electrons around the loop.
The loops could also be coiled up into multi turn electromagnets, but not rigidly fixed solenoids. The multi turn wire loops must be free to flex around the circumference in order to create relative mechanical motion between the loops and the circulating physical hill or valley in the wire.
Just thinking out loud, have not tried this, but it seems to explain the use of the very floppy wires seen in the early video showing the core being cut apart. Also this idea seems to explain the thickness of the smaller units when the loops are multi turn and coiled within that structure, but free to move relative each other, perhaps suspended in a foam rubber surrounding.
I don't believe we will see the effect if our windings are tightly wound on rigid formers, which prevent the relative mechanical motion of the loops.
It would also explain the mechanical vibration felt by observers, and the slight gyroscopic force. Study ring resonators and it will become clearer.
This effect was probably noted in SM's dual voice coil research, where one of the voice coils came loose off the former allowing a degree of freedom against the other voice coil.
It also occurs to me that if the excitation AC signal is capacitively or inductively coupled, the DC might be free to appear on the loops themselves, or possibly even between the loops if they remain electrically iisolated from each other.
Remember, SM was an acoustics guy, experimenting with dual voice coil speakers in an attempt to get a spatial sound field out of a single speaker. This would require phase information differences between the coils as well as another degree of freedom of motion (besides linear) in the piston of the loudspeaker
I wrote some of this up in the "Acoustic Resonator Hypothesis" a good while back but it was forgotten.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2015.08.02, 17:32:52
ION, thanks for the reminder, I'll add another horizontal loop. Mechanical rectification is high up on my list, glad to see you mention it.
Results update.
So I bought a number of tape wound toroids, albeit, a bit smaller than Steven used in the TPU. I placed one of these on one lead of the TPU coil I had, loosely winding about 4 turns, and the whole think seems to come alive, when I hit certain frequencies. The small toroids saturate so quickly, I can see it on the scope.
The TPU is about 15 to 20 cm in diameter, with the inner core made of a steel band coiled up to make a toroid, then over it I placed lamp cord. I tell you that thing "sings" at lots of frequencies as I tune the Signal Generator connected to it. Last night I said, before I wind another one, let me probe the vibrating core, and put it on the scope, and I did. I took two push pins and poked in between the windings, one on the outside and one on the inside of the TPU, and made contact with the steel band inside the TPU.
When you "come in contact" with the core it's amazing. All sorts of hash, and noise, but no DC yet, but it sure got me thinking now.
EM
EM,
Could you illustrate what you were doing?
Thanks.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.08.03, 18:29:10
EM,
Could you illustrate what you were doing?
Thanks.
That would be very helpful. A simple pictorial schematic is worth thousands of words.
That's a nice experiment EM, and somewhat reminiscent of experiments we were doing a while back with loops of various materials freely suspended and with currents induced. I don't know where the thread is now to direct you there, but when you hit the major resonance it can be heard throughout the house. We used piezo pickups embedded in the loop, or an electret microphone nearby to determine the resonant peaks...there were many!
Quote from: ION on 2015.08.03, 13:27:42
Consider two large horizontal loops that are fed an AC signal of the same frequency. Depending on the phase of the signals sent into the loops, there will be either an attractive or a repulsive force for each half cycle of the AC waveform between the loops.
Put another way, there will be a push apart due to the positive half cycle and a push apart due to the negative half cycle of the AC waveform. Reverse the phase to one of the loops and instead of a push apart, the loops are in attraction.
The maximum push or pull occurs when the currents in the loop are in phase or in antiphase. At other phases the force is less and at 90 degree phase the rectification effect is zero, you get cyclic force.
QuoteThis mechanical rectification of motion has always interested me, and is what allows Universal motors able to run in one direction despite the constantly reversing direction of current and voltage on AC mains.
Now vary the frequency of one loop just slightly off from the other and the effect will rotate the mechanical attraction or repulsion at the difference frequency around the loop.
No it won't, you will get cyclic force at the difference frequency. The force does not move around the loop except at very high frequencies when there is significant phase delay along the conductor, i.e. when the conductor length per turn is a significant part of a wavelength or multiple wavelengths. At low frequencies you have to look for other means to get phase delay along the conductor such as mechanical features like acoustic delay. Then you can get different parts of the loop moving differently.
QuoteConversely one loop could be trimmed in length to change the standing wave into a rotating wave of attractions (or repulsions, depending on phasing) around the loop. This is a mechanical force that rotates around the loop if I am correct in visualizing all this.
Yes this is possible either at very high frequencies or using the acoustic type resonance.
QuoteThen all that may be needed is a way to have that mechanical motion translate into the motion of the electrons in the wire. Perhaps here enters SM's garden hose analogy,lifting the hose to produce a "hill" in the hose, which forces the water out one end. So we need not really a wave, but a hill (lifting the hose, and moving the lifted area along the hose). The mechanical rectification creates the "hill". Ordinary wave motion will not do the job as it will just force the electrons into the hills and valleys, but not move them along the wire. Pure wave motion would require a third frequency to modulate the wave to move electrons around the loop.
One thing you can do with ferromagnetic wire is create rotating magnetic fields within the wire. Now you are not using acoustic or any other phase delay in the wire, you simply have say MHz rotation rates. An interesting feature of a section of such wire that is magnetized along the section, but then the field leaves the wire at each end of the section, is that spin-polarized conduction electrons are pulled into the middle where the field is greatest. I.e. you can create an electron bunch. Now if that magnetization is rotating around the loop the electron bunch also rotates. It looks like cars on a motorway travelling in groups. Maybe this is a way to get DC since all the cars would be travelling the same way.
QuoteThe loops could also be coiled up into multi turn electromagnets, but not rigidly fixed solenoids. The multi turn wire loops must be free to flex around the circumference in order to create relative mechanical motion between the loops and the circulating physical hill or valley in the wire.
Not if the hill or valley is a magnetic one, only the magnetic valley actually moves along the wire.
QuoteJust thinking out loud, have not tried this, but it seems to explain the use of the very floppy wires seen in the early video showing the core being cut apart. Also this idea seems to explain the thickness of the smaller units when the loops are multi turn and coiled within that structure, but free to move relative each other, perhaps suspended in a foam rubber surrounding.
I don't believe we will see the effect if our windings are tightly wound on rigid formers, which prevent the relative mechanical motion of the loops.
It would also explain the mechanical vibration felt by observers, and the slight gyroscopic force. Study ring resonators and it will become clearer.
This effect was probably noted in SM's dual voice coil research, where one of the voice coils came loose off the former allowing a degree of freedom against the other voice coil.
It also occurs to me that if the excitation AC signal is capacitively or inductively coupled, the DC might be free to appear on the loops themselves, or possibly even between the loops if they remain electrically iisolated from each other.
Remember, SM was an acoustics guy, experimenting with dual voice coil speakers in an attempt to get a spatial sound field out of a single speaker. This would require phase information differences between the coils as well as another degree of freedom of motion (besides linear) in the piston of the loudspeaker
I wrote some of this up in the "Acoustic Resonator Hypothesis" a good while back but it was forgotten.
I published a paper on a separate TPU theme here suggesting how movement might obtain energy from the Earth's scalar magnetic potential. I am in the process of producing another one that deals with the Earth's vector magnetic potential.
Smudge
Smudge
Thank you for taking the time to read, respond and correct my errors in conceptualization.
Will look forward to your new paper, as always.
Regards, ION
P.S. I would be interested to see an expansion of what you think might work regarding acoustic or vibrational effects or strictly magnetic with vibrational side effects, as I believe that working towards a hypothesis that conforms to the known effects (weakly gyroscopic, slight vibration, a washboard effect when pushed through the air, DC output without electronic rectifiers, magnet sticking on iron wire, high power density) are major clues to reverse engineering the device.
From EM
QuoteThe vibratory rectification to me is simply a wire vibrating in the magnetic field of an electromagnet. When it moves one way, the B field has one polarity, and when the wire moves the other way, the magnetic field has a reverse polarity.
The question is what moves the wire, and is it an OU phenomena?
Not sure what you mean by rectification in this sense as it seems to me the wire will produce AC as it vibrates in the magnetic field. The vibratory motion of the wire itself will trace out an alternating mechanical pattern, unless there is an adjacent wire carrying an equal but opposite AC current, then the motion of the wire can be considered "full wave rectified", 2 attractions per cycle or two repulsions per cycle depending on the phasing of the wires. Note that the wires here described are immersed in each others AC pulsating field.
Could you expand on your definition of rectification in regards to the explanation above?
The Lorentz Force moves the wire. Tension on the wire moves it back, so it vibrates back and forth.
It would be nice if you could keep it moving in one direction, then you'd have DC. Like a solenoid coil rolled into a loop, with a magnet rotating inside it. Since this is impractical, you need to replace the magnet with other forces. You need two perpendicular forces, and precession. One of the force sources must rotate. A magnetic field causes precession inherently, so it has this advantage over other forces that apply in a single direction.
You should be able to combine magnetic fields, but I'm not sure how to apply them at the moment.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2015.08.11, 15:57:53
The Lorentz Force moves the wire. Tension on the wire moves it back, so it vibrates back and forth.
It would be nice if you could keep it moving in one direction, then you'd have DC. Like a solenoid coil rolled into a loop, with a magnet rotating inside it. Since this is impractical, you need to replace the magnet with other forces. You need two perpendicular forces, and precession. One of the force sources must rotate. A magnetic field causes precession inherently, so it has this advantage over other forces that apply in a single direction.
You should be able to combine magnetic fields, but I'm not sure how to apply them at the moment.
Regarding your first two sentences, yes that is a known. I'm trying to understand EM's definition of "rectification" as he used it in the post he made that I referenced, because I see no rectification.
As far as moving the wire in one direction, the wire could also be stationary and the field is moving in one direction and continually cuts it, then you will get DC from the wire, but this is not rectification in the electronic sense, where the negative half cycles are inverted into the space between the positive half cycles (full wave rectification), or where alternate cycles of an AC waveform are blocked, allowing only the positive or negative half cycles of an AC waveform through (half wave rectification).
Earlier, I was referring to the mechanical analogue of electrical full wave rectification as it applies to currents flowing between wires, and the motion of those wires depending on the phasing.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2015.08.12, 03:47:36
So if the wire vibrates in a static B field, the voltage induced in the wire is AC, however, if the wire vibrates in a B field produced by an electromagnet, now we can control it and reverse it in polarity. By reversing it at the same frequency as the vibration of the wire, and with the correct phase, the induced voltage on the wire will resemble a rectified waveform, of one polarity only.
It can be easily understood by analyzing the eq. V=(v X B)*L, where lowecase 'v' is the velocity of the wire and 'L' the length. So for example, if 'v' is sinusoidal, and we also drive 'B' with the same frequency and phase, then their product will always be of one polarity. Thats what I envision as vibratory "rectification".
So in the TPU, if the vibrating winding and the transverse winding are driven by the same signal, this could be a potential explanation for how DC voltage gets produced.
Yes and this is the same as what I have been saying about two parallel wires driven at the same frequency. Now if we only drive one wire, and the second wire were shorted, there will be an induced current in the second wire at the same frequency. However we can effectively short it by putting a large value capacitor across it which will act as a near short yet collect the DC induced by the vibration. This does not occur in normal transformer action, because the windings are tight and cannot vibrate, so only AC will be produced on the second wire.
SM said "you have to create the worst case scenario". A transformer with a shorted secondary is the worst case scenario, as anyone who has shorted the secondary of a transformer knows, there are large mechanical forces placed upon the wires in such a condition. They would like to vibrate but are severely limited in their range of motion. What vibration is possible is usually heard as a very loud hum emanating from the transformer. But what if we design our transformer such that the secondary wires are free to vibrate?
A while back I speculated on the 5U4 setup that SM referred to, that under certain conditions the windings of a transformer could become loose. This would happen if the transformer was used beyond it's capacity for a long time where enough heat was generated to degrade the paper between the windings by charring it and cooking off the varnish. In this situation the windings would become loose and have more of a tendency to vibrate.
To test all this, large currents are needed in the wires, but fortunately a low voltage will suffice. The wires will indeed get warm or even hot due to the high currents, perhaps a necessary part of the operation of the device, as SM said.
SM asked us to demonstrate this with the jumping battery cables to get the idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXKihkHjYes
http://www.resonantfractals.org/Magnetism/GyroEffects.htm
Quote from: wings on 2015.08.12, 22:02:31
http://www.resonantfractals.org/Magnetism/GyroEffects.htm
Interesting read, thanks wings.
Quote from: GyroEffects on 2015.08.12, 22:02:31
The Ringing sine waves produced during rapid rise time pulsing of a copper loop of wire
can not be associated with either wire resonant length or NMR resonance. It is my belief
these near 5 Mhz waves are of a torsional nature and are a reflection of gravity waves or
tempic field waves having to do with light velocity in copper. The distance of 44.5
feet as found in Lyle Lathems coils, is 1/4 wavelength of this natural frequency showing
up in copper wire that is receiving a torsion shock. Lyles coils produce a strong torsion
field because a 1/4 wave length is a canceling stub and creates a scalar canceling of the
gravity waves.
Tempic field waves... Where have I heard that before?
Oh yes, W.B. Smith. It's the field we always assume is constant and throw out of our
equations, referring only to the electric and magnetic fields as being important.
Quote from: wings on 2015.08.12, 22:02:31
http://www.resonantfractals.org/Magnetism/GyroEffects.htm
Was it verified by experiments? There are too many theories just floating around... ;)
Quote from: EMdevices on 2015.08.16, 06:45:36
so I have some interesting results from a very simple circuit, shown below, which is a saturable reactor tuned with a capacitor. With this circuit I was able to get a maximum frequency multiplication of 10x.
As the applied voltage and current increase (sinewave 400Hz or so), the core saturates and its inductance plummets rapidly to a low value. This drop occurs faster then the largest voltage change (dV/dt) at the 10x frequency, making it possible for the capacitor to oscillate with the coil (4kHz or so). Think of it as a magnetic switch that just slammed closed (or low inductance). The tape wound cores are just phenomenal!
Another observation I made is with a permanent magnet. While the circuit was in operation, i brought a magnet close to the saturable reactor, and a loud sound started emanating from the core. The shape of the waveform on the oscilloscope did not change at all when the sound appeared. This sound is probably around the 10x frequency based on its pitch. It's very interesting that the sound is not audible except with the magnet present. Other cores I tried made the sound without the external magnet.
Yes, when the core saturates the inductance drops significantly so the frequency will go up. Be interesting to see your wave forms.
If you could post the inductance of the core and type, and approximate capacitance, I will try to duplicate the results. Were you driving directly from a signal generator or through an amplifier. Was there any series impedance or a resistor to the gen.?
Thanks ION
EM
A quick and dirty sketch, even on the back of a napkin would help us to replicate.
Thanks
Thought this might interest one or two after being asked, this exact circuit has not been built with the iron coil, a similar circuit with a ferrite core has been built and is very efficient but not OU.
This is a take on what might work using an iron wound coil as the core, which also generates the charge back without affecting the main circuit, which has always proved a problem with ferrite.
Here the frequencies can be kept low, the circuit is all passive components and easy to build.
A magnet is needed to bias the reed switch to get it going "rings a bell?"
regards
Mike 8)
Mike
As far as we have been able to determine, all of the TPU's produced a DC output without the use of rectifiers.
I see your design has an output transformer??
Quote from: ION on 2015.09.23, 16:18:04
Mike
As far as we have been able to determine, all of the TPU's produced a DC output without the use of rectifiers.
I see your design has an output transformer??
Yes I did hear this also, but that makes it even stranger. Maybe it was rectified because of the AC frequency being much higher or
lower than 50 or 60Hz required for the items he plugged into the TPU, apart from lights, or even lights if it was say an 8Hz frequency :-\
regards
Mike 8)
PS I have run a similar design with ferrite cores and a frequency in the lower 1KHz with a different feedback. Feedback is the big problem, just thought this might solve the problem using this iron coil core as the return energy to keep the cap charged. Also I have problems with my keyboard blocking when it is running as it runs with multiple frequencies all mixed together.
A homopolar generator also has a DC output.
I've always viewed the TPU as a "motionless homopolar generator" based on the rotating compass claim from SM, the intertial effect in the videos, and the DC output with hash.
Coincidentally, a compass, being a conductive needle, will also rotate in response to an electric field.
SM's clamp meter inside the TPU ring showed "something" was moving around or changing to effect the meter.
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.09.23, 11:08:33
Thought this might interest one or two after being asked, this exact circuit has not been built with the iron coil, a similar circuit with a ferrite core has been built and is very efficient but not OU.
This is a take on what might work using an iron wound coil as the core, which also generates the charge back without affecting the main circuit, which has always proved a problem with ferrite.
Here the frequencies can be kept low, the circuit is all passive components and easy to build.
A magnet is needed to bias the reed switch to get it going "rings a bell?"
regards
Mike 8)
Thank you for posting this Mike,
I find this to be a very interesting circuit, It self oscillates? No transistors and efficient very nice!
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.09.23, 18:07:40
Thank you for posting this Mike,
I find this to be a very interesting circuit, It self oscillates? No transistors and efficient very nice!
Yes self oscillates
Here is a scope shot of the output of the switch (green trace) and the primary of the output transformer (yellow trace).
Note the very high voltages on the input and also the primary of the transformer.
Battery used for this 12.56v running, voltage across 0.1 ohm ohmite = 37mv,
No return charge, but 92.9v on secondary into 3w 240v supper bright led bulb (the led bulb has to be tested for output at this voltage of 92.9v) problem for testing is the frequency it is running at.
This output is very low power, it is not OU but very efficient. This was only a test bed for a proof of concept of creating what might be called escalating noise.
Anyway it is a good entry into how a TPU might work
regards
Mike 8)
Congratulations! You've invented the Mag-Amp with Feedback! :D
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.09.23, 18:07:40
Thank you for posting this Mike,
I find this to be a very interesting circuit, It self oscillates? No transistors and efficient very nice!
Hi Room3327
On the other thread you stated that you found the TPU interesting for some of the same reasons I did.
I wonder if you could expand on that, as there was some info that was never made public that a lot of the scoffers don't have access to, so I understand their position.
Mike:
I find your circuit interesting but very hard to read in it's present format. Any way to improve the contrast, and make the format more readable? What program do you use to draw it. I recommend TinyCad, free download and good contrast.
Edit: It's a bit easier to read if downloaded then viewed. So the reed switch is acting as an interrupter placed as it is in the output transformer. So this is a relay oscillator circuit with trimmings?
Quote from: ION on 2015.09.23, 19:35:10
Hi Room3327
On the other thread you stated that you found the TPU interesting for some of the same reasons I did.
I wonder if you could expand on that, as there was some info that was never made public that a lot of the scoffers don't have access to, so I understand their position.
Hi ION,
You were wondering where I'm coming from, I'll tell you right now some recent posts you have made could have been written by me. It wasn't some of the same reasons it was all of them. I highly agree with most of what you say, as far as secret info I have never been privy to such, I only know what is public info but I have studied that quite thoroughly.
One additional point that keeps my interest in the TPU is the weight factor, power to weight ratio, if the TPU was faked there is no known batteries (or energy supply I know of) that could have provided the amount of power demonstrated for the length of time it was shown. Most of the toroid's I have wound in what I would suspect is a very similar manner to SM have weighed almost exactly the same as his and no batteries, so that tells me something.
Room
Quote from: ION on 2015.09.23, 19:35:10
Mike:
I find your circuit interesting but very hard to read in it's present format. Any way to improve the contrast, and make the format more readable? What program do you use to draw it. I recommend TinyCad, free download and good contrast.
Edit: It's a bit easier to read if downloaded then viewed. So the reed switch is acting as an interrupter placed as it is in the output transformer. So this is a relay oscillator circuit with trimmings?
LT spice, I can post the file if you want, please let me know O0
The original used a mosfet driven by an SG, this is self aligning as far as frequency is concerned, and of course no other possible input.
As I have stated before, some years ago I had it running on a depleted LAB for days until the battery failed internally from the feed back :'(
The trick is in the frequency/power addition.
regards
Mike 8)
I'm curious about the physical layout of your coils and the iron wire placement. I see that pairs of coils are in buck mode, from the + sign on them. Does the iron wire go through the center of the coils then double back as in your schematic?
Could you explain why the pairs of coils are in buck mode?
Quote from: ION on 2015.09.24, 13:58:51
I'm curious about the physical layout of your coils and the iron wire placement. I see that pairs of coils are in buck mode, from the + sign on them. Does the iron wire go through the center of the coils then double back as in your schematic?
Could you explain why the pairs of coils are in buck mode?
The iron wire is a
toroid a coil of insulated iron wire which serves as the magnetic core and a generating coil for recharge of the input (no direct output to input), this is an unusual twist to looping
The L1 to L4 are 4 coils in bucking mode to one another. Not shown on the sch: because it is difficult to draw, is that L1 is opposite to L2 and L3 is opposite to L4 on the toroid. As explained by a member here, this will give the flux a circular rotation around the iron core. The cap C1 (400v) creates a parametric oscillation by powering the coils in the switch off time, so inducing multiple frequencies by heterodyning. C2 and C3 supply the biasing and need to be HV of around 400v or C2 will blow, as I have found one day when that happened using only 100v caps, even at 400v C2 can get warm.
It is very important that the diodes D1 and D2 are ultra fast for the frequency band that we are working in, they have to be able to block the return path so as the system pumps itself up,
so to say, by the adding of
same frequencies generated within the system.
This toroid when running will vibrate if the frequency band is low, it will also in time heat up if the iron coil is loosly wound.
The output ferrite toroid is to isolate the output, as the primary of that toroid is part of the parametric oscillator and important that it should be within the magnetic field of the main iron toroid (that I can't explain why, but I presume it is the interaction of the magnetic fields).
I have re-posted below the spectrum shot, it is important to note the power levels due to same frequency addition, it is like two power supplies of 12v @ 10amps in parallel will give you 12v @ 20amps as an example.
Regards
Mike 8)
Thank you for the explanation, Mike
You certainly seem to have put some thought into this.
Worth a try when I find the time.
Regards
ION
Quote from: ION on 2015.09.24, 21:23:41
Thank you for the explanation, Mike
You certainly seem to have put some thought into this.
Worth a try when I find the time.
Regards
ION
Your welcome, it really is worth a try, cost is very little and the possibilities to play around with it are huge ;)
regards
Mike 8)
Some food for thought:
What happends when you have to opposite magnets each next to other and then suddenly change one of magnets magnetic field strength by shorting it out with the coil? Isn't that the "kick" from the next magnet like Otto was describing in his own TPU version?
By default both magnets would neutralize summary magnetic field but if one of magnets become not a magnet for the moment, the magnetic field will appear from the second magnet. And would be free for induction..
Quote from: T-1000 on 2015.09.25, 10:51:17
What happends when you have to opposite magnets each next to other and then suddenly change one of magnets magnetic field strength by shorting it out with the coil?
Nothing if the magnets are not moving relative to each other. The flux or flux density will not be affected.
...and if they are moving relative to each other then placing a shorted coil around one magnet serves to
maintain any magnetic flux penetrating the coil before the coil was shorted - that would be the flux of the magnet placed inside that coil. This effectively "hardens" that magnet to any change of flux that the other magnet might attempt to make.
I can ftry to rephrase a bit:
the |N---S||N/\/\S| arrangament where the secondary magnet is the core for a coil. When coil get activated with |S\/\/\N| arrangement with same magnetic field strength of the poles of secondary magnet would interlock with the poles of the coil. What will happen on the joint point between two magnets? There can be flat coil placed or the just crossing wire of the coil (like in one of TPU patents - http://pesn.com/2006/07/28/9500292_Magnetic_Power_Inc_Patent_Application/MagneticPowerInc-patentapplication_US_2006_0163971.pdf ).
Quote from: T-1000 on 2015.09.25, 16:18:34
I can ftry to rephrase a bit:
the |N---S||N/\/\S| arrangament where the secondary magnet is the core for a coil. When coil get activated with |S\/\/\N| arrangement with same magnetic field strength of the poles of secondary magnet would interlock with the poles of the coil. What will happen on the joint point between two magnets? There can be flat coil placed or the just crossing wire of the coil (like in one of TPU patents - http://pesn.com/2006/07/28/9500292_Magnetic_Power_Inc_Patent_Application/MagneticPowerInc-patentapplication_US_2006_0163971.pdf ).
That
patent application by Gunderson is certainly novel, but unfortunately does not work as claimed, nor does it have anything to do with the TPU of Steven Mark. This has been circulating around forums for a long time but "no cigar".
Several folks built it and got negative results including myself. I built three different devices, trying various core materials. Magnetic Power Inc however likes it because it is good for their PR. and getting investors to cough up.
The question that needs to be asked is : Why would Graham Gunderson abandon a device that claimed high COP and now be giving conferences on a device that barely, on occasion produces COP 1.003 and that still not verified by independent testing.
I like Graham Gunderson, he has a lot of spunk and charm' but his affiliation with the "Free Energy Circus" and Aaron M...... makes me doubt his integrity.
I personally would be ashamed to apply for a patent for a non-working idea, but that's just me.
And if it somehow was accepted and I found out later it didn't work, I would withdraw it for sure. My stupidity in the business world or just integrity?
More info on Magnetic Power Inc, now Chava group:
http://overunity.com/1907/magnetic-power-inc-seems-to-have-died/#.VgaEEn1HB7M
Smudge may be able to enlighten us about this device.
Quote from: T-1000 on 2015.09.25, 16:18:34
the |N---S||N/\/\S| arrangament where the secondary magnet is the core for a coil. When coil get activated with |S\/\/\N| arrangement with same magnetic field strength of the poles of secondary magnet would interlock with the poles of the coil. What will happen on the joint point between two magnets? There can be flat coil placed or the just crossing wire of the coil (like in one of TPU patents - http://pesn.com/2006/07/28/9500292_Magnetic_Power_Inc_Patent_Application/MagneticPowerInc-patentapplication_US_2006_0163971.pdf ).
You lost me.
I understand that two magnets are attracting and one magnet is inside a coil and the other is not, but how do they move relative to each other?
An explanation of how the TPU works is given here:
http://overunity.com/16030/tinmans-coil-shorting-circuit/msg461601/#msg461601
Quote from: ION on 2015.09.25, 18:34:06
Smudge may be able to enlighten us about this device.
Can't add much to the background here. My experience, and I guess Graham's too, is that when you are paid to do research and invent things the company has some hold over you. When the management demand that you apply for a patent you have to go along with it even though the "invention" is not fully proven. (In my case, well before I got into the OU world, the invention was not even developed beyond the theoretical paper stage!) He had some sophisticated equipment at his disposal and I have no doubt that he did obtain the results he claimed. But whether the patent would allow others to get those results I couldn't say. Often it's what is not written in the patent that is the key. Although I worked with Graham on some things this was mainly using him to do measurements on my ideas, I had no dealings with his own ideas other than providing theoretical back-up. And I have never met him in person as he lives in Spokane in Washington State and I live in the UK.
I do know that Graham worked for MPI's successor Chava but that employment ended and he went through some bad times. He is still around though, only recently I got an email from him.
Smudge
Thank you for that background Smudge.
Here is what Mr Graham Gunderson says in the patent (last line in 0015):
"Because of the novel magnetic interaction, the solid state generator of the present invention is a robust generator, requiring only a small electric force to operate."
In patent talk that seems to say a little power input and a lot of power output.
Perhaps Mr. Gunderson himself could respond here regarding why he nor Mr Goldes is marketing this device, but rather somehow Graham has forgotten how to make it and is struggling with a (maybe) COP> 1.00x device.
At any rate, believers should build it for themselves and prepare to perhaps be disappointed.
The upshot: You might stumble on something new by trying.
Quote from: ION on 2015.09.26, 17:35:36
Perhaps Mr. Gunderson himself could respond here regarding why he nor Mr Goldes is marketing this device, but rather somehow Graham has forgotten how to make it and is struggling with a (maybe) COP> 1.00x device.
haha! ;D
Quote from: ION on 2015.09.26, 13:09:21
An explanation of how the TPU works is given here:
http://overunity.com/16030/tinmans-coil-shorting-circuit/msg461601/#msg461601
implying the use of forces without back-torque?
I liked spherics' explanation better.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2015.09.27, 03:50:05
implying the use of forces without back-torque?
I liked spherics' explanation better.
Exactly
And this is how the RT works-no back torque when power is drawn from the stator coil.
many have replicated this effect,but !! no one!! has been able to explain as to why.
Am i the only one that can explain the effect taking place here?
Will the guru's step up to the plate,and have a stab at it?.
Quote from: verpies on 2015.09.25, 19:14:03
You lost me.
I understand that two magnets are attracting and one magnet is inside a coil and the other is not, but how do they move relative to each other?
They won't move but the magnetic field will move due changed magnetic field density on the magnet with a coil. And the wire between the magnets will get induction from that.
In the patent application I wanted to point onto picture as possible arrangement as it seem to me very similar to the situation described.
Quote from: ION on 2015.09.26, 17:35:36
Thank you for that background Smudge.
Here is what Mr Graham Gunderson says in the patent (last line in 0015):
"Because of the novel magnetic interaction, the solid state generator of the present invention is a robust generator, requiring only a small electric force to operate."
In patent talk that seems to say a little power input and a lot of power output.
Perhaps Mr. Gunderson himself could respond here regarding why he nor Mr Goldes is marketing this device, but rather somehow Graham has forgotten how to make it and is struggling with a (maybe) COP> 1.00x device.
At any rate, believers should build it for themselves and prepare to perhaps be disappointed.
The upshot: You might stumble on something new by trying.
Just for interest I have been doing some FEMM modelling on this arrangement. First off I used linear materials with no saturation (because they solve faster in FEMM) and found that all the various fields simply add linearly and there is no coupling between the drive coil and the meandering wire passing through the core. However when I used practical materials that saturate then there is coupling, so the device is using saturation effects. The presence of the magnets stuck to the core is creating regions just below each magnet that is near saturation and that causes the axial flux to meander as it finds the least reluctance path. And the meandering flux couples well to the meandering wire. So my guess is that Graham was unwittingly using this effect, and his explanation for moving magnetic lines doing flux cutting is incorrect. Whether or not the scheme is OU is a much bigger job to answer in FEMM as it requires many (snap-shot) solutions and each solution uses many iterations to get to an answer (because of the non-linear material). I would have to leave my computer running for days.
It may be noted that with the wire surrounded by core material the field from any induced current will create circular flux around the hole, and the thing will then act like a transformer with a magnetically screened secondary. There have been attempts at creating this type of transformer where the A field that drives current in the secondary penetrates the screen, so you get secondary voltage, but the magnetic field from the secondary current can't get back to the primary because of the magnetic screen. Effectively the secondary is buried within its own core material separate from the primary core. AFAIK these have not been successful, but that may be due to the high secondary inductance due to the screen. I would think that could be countered by using a series capacitor in the secondary to resonate with that high inductance, but whether anyone has tried that I don't know.
As regards getting Graham to respond here I can invite him to join OUR, but I would not like to see him getting the stick aimed at Mr Goldes. The ownership of the patent is with MPI and its successor, you should be asking them why it has not been proceeded with.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.09.28, 16:34:14
As regards getting Graham to respond here I can invite him to join OUR, but I would not like to see him getting the stick aimed at Mr Goldes. The ownership of the patent is with MPI and its successor, you should be asking them why it has not been proceeded with.
Show him this embodiment of his device enclosed in a potcore.
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.09.28, 16:34:14
Just for interest I have been doing some FEMM modelling on this arrangement. First off I used linear materials with no saturation (because they solve faster in FEMM) and found that all the various fields simply add linearly and there is no coupling between the drive coil and the meandering wire passing through the core.
Doesn't the flux cut the meandering wire?
Quote from: verpies on 2015.09.28, 17:41:41
Doesn't the flux cut the meandering wire?
This is the problem I found with the Gunderson generator, the flux stays inside the core and bypasses the meandering wire, it does not flow through the holes (air) and induce the meandering wire. A magnetic flux prefers iron 7000 to 1 over air, I thought maybe doing this with an air core may work some what, but haven't had time to try it yet.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.09.28, 18:09:42
This is the problem I found with the Gunderson generator, the flux stays inside the core and bypasses the meandering wire, it does not flow through the holes (air)
That the flux stays in the core and avoids the air hole is obvious ...but does it stay only on one side of the hole ?
Quote from: verpies on 2015.09.28, 20:38:16
That the flux stays in the core and avoids the air hole is obvious ...but does it stay only on one side of the hole ?
I think what you are saying is, 'is there a flux free zone around the hole somewhere, like a flux shadow'. No not that I could find, the flux seems to spread around the hole and comeback together on the opposite side from what I could tell. It seems to just avoid the hole, which is just what you don't want happening, in this device.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.09.28, 22:19:23
I think what you are saying is, 'is there a flux free zone around the hole somewhere, like a flux shadow'. No not that I could find, the flux seems to spread around the hole and comeback together on the opposite side from what I could tell. It seems to just avoid the hole, which is just what you don't want happening, in this device.
If you have meandering flux that passes between the meandering wires then you get classical transformer induction that doesn't involve flux cutting. So the lack of flux within the holes is of no consequence. It is the changing vector potential in the holes that then drives the electrons in the wire. My FEMM simulations show that you do get meandering axial flux but it can't be observed from the flux plots because they show total flux. It can be inferred using the flux linkage parameter that FEMM obtains. That flux linkage includes the fixed magnet fluxes so you have to apply two values of drive current then take the difference in flux linkage to get the coupling effect.
I have also plotted the flux transverse to the center line (without the holes present) for two different values of drive current, like plus 10 and minus 10. These show a complex cyclic pattern for the flux across the core from the series of magnets but you can clearly see the changes occuring for the two drive currents. And those changes couple to the meandering wire if it is in the right place. Move the whole sequence of holes and the coupling disappears. In the superimposed images below, the black and grey lines indicate the two values of drive current. The hole positions would be as indicated by the red lines and you can clearly see the alternating change of transverse field synchronized with the hole spacing.
The coupling only occurs with non-linear material, so if your magnets were not strong enough you would get no effect. Also there could be an optimum magnet separation related to the core thickness (thickness dimension from upper magnet to lower magnet).
Smudge
@Smudge
I would agree and there are many variables to consider. One is symmetry and if a current carrying wire produces a magnetic field circling the wire then a circling magnetic field may induce a current in a wire without supposedly "cutting" the conductor.. Another is field interaction and it may be that the PM's are simply to hold the core near saturation and the saturation and geometry prevent the output field from translating back to the input.
The thing to remember here is that we know "normal" does not work therefore if it does work it must be something else. Find that "something else" and you have your solution. Again... we know normal does not work so stop doing it... try something else.
AC
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.09.29, 09:44:33
If you have meandering flux that passes between the meandering wires then you get classical transformer induction that doesn't involve flux cutting. So the lack of flux within the holes is of no consequence. It is the changing vector potential in the holes that then drives the electrons in the wire. My FEMM simulations show that you do get meandering axial flux but it can't be observed from the flux plots because they show total flux. It can be inferred using the flux linkage parameter that FEMM obtains. That flux linkage includes the fixed magnet fluxes so you have to apply two values of drive current then take the difference in flux linkage to get the coupling effect.
I have also plotted the flux transverse to the center line (without the holes present) for two different values of drive current, like plus 10 and minus 10. These show a complex cyclic pattern for the flux across the core from the series of magnets but you can clearly see the changes occurring for the two drive currents. And those changes couple to the meandering wire if it is in the right place. Move the whole sequence of holes and the coupling disappears. In the superimposed images below, the black and grey lines indicate the two values of drive current. The hole positions would be as indicated by the red lines and you can clearly see the alternating change of transverse field synchronized with the hole spacing.
The coupling only occurs with nonlinear material, so if your magnets were not strong enough you would get no effect. Also there could be an optimum magnet separation related to the core thickness (thickness dimension from upper magnet to lower magnet).
Smudge
Hi Smudge,
Good post, I obviously am not in your league with the Femm analysis and all, I just built this from the patent and tried it. I used neo magnets (very strong) on a five inch powdered iron core, three quarters of an inch thick, I drilled 8 evenly spaced quarter inch holes through the center of the thickness for the meandering wire. I never saw any kind of output from that winding no matter what I tried, although I'm sure I didn't try everything that I could of, after figuring out there was no flux action in the holes I gave up. The meandering wire is at a 90 degree angle to the coils which makes transformer coupling to it very low, and I never saw much on the oscilloscope. The meandering winding was 20 ga. 16 turns, the input winding was 22 ga. about 130 turns which I later added another 100 turns to. I really wanted it to work and was unable to make it happen, maybe we can still do it?
Room
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.09.29, 18:42:56
Hi Smudge,
Good post, I obviously am not in your league with the Femm analysis and all, I just built this from the patent and tried it. I used neo magnets (very strong) on a five inch powdered iron core, three quarters of an inch thick, I drilled 8 evenly spaced quarter inch holes through the center of the thickness for the meandering wire. I never saw any kind of output from that winding no matter what I tried, although I'm sure I didn't try everything that I could of, after figuring out there was no flux action in the holes I gave up. The meandering wire is at a 90 degree angle to the coils which makes transformer coupling to it very low, and I never saw much on the oscilloscope. The meandering winding was 20 ga. 16 turns, the input winding was 22 ga. about 130 turns which I later added another 100 turns to. I really wanted it to work and was unable to make it happen, maybe we can still do it?
Room
IMO you won't get powdered iron cores to saturate even with strong neo's. So no surprise that you got a null result. The patent mentions every possible type of core, but that is not Graham speaking, that is the patent attorney making the patent as wide as possible. I don't know what core Graham used, but I do know he had some uncut metglas cores. (The C cores are made by tape winding a toroidal core, then cutting it in half. He managed to get large uncut cores for his experiments.) He also had a collection of ferrite cores. If you go the metglas route they are really tough things to drill holes in, you kneed a diamond tipped drill bit.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.09.29, 19:11:33
IMO you won't get powdered iron cores to saturate even with strong neo's. So no surprise that you got a null result. The patent mentions every possible type of core, but that is not Graham speaking, that is the patent attorney making the patent as wide as possible. I don't know what core Graham used, but I do know he had some uncut metglas cores. (The C cores are made by tape winding a toroidal core, then cutting it in half. He managed to get large uncut cores for his experiments.) He also had a collection of ferrite cores. If you go the metglas route they are really tough things to drill holes in, you kneed a diamond tipped drill bit.
Smudge
Thanks Smudge, that could have been the problem, drilling cores is not easy that's why I went with the powdered iron. I tried drilling a ferrite core and needed diamond bits like you said, I have a couple diamond saws so cutting in half is no problem if I need to. I thought metglass would be harder to saturate then powdered iron, I know it is a lot harder to drill?
@Room3327
QuoteI never saw any kind of output from that winding no matter what I tried, although I'm sure I didn't try everything that I could of, after figuring out there was no flux action in the holes I gave up.
There in lies the problem and I have been in that position more times than I would care to mention. Were sitting there staring at this thing and we see no way out, no possibilities and no way it could conceivably work. At which point I generally translate from replication to inspiration. That is to say okay this isn't working for me but if I wanted this to work from another perspective what should I do?. Try it then consider the opposite, if what I think does not work then what is the opposite to what I think I should do then try it.
Here is the logic I would use based only on what you have told me--
-the input generates no output...why?, I know, I do not know?
-is it the input or the output, add a DC source across the output, does the input effect the output now...yes-no?
-is it a a translation force, add an AC source to the output, vary the input AC/intermittent AC/DC/pulsed DC vs the AC/intermittent AC/DC/pulsed DC source at the output, what happens?, yes, no, is there a change?.
-is it the PM saturation, stronger magnets, weaker magnets, what happens?
-is it a material property, copper wire on input/output, copper on input iron on output, vice versa... what happens?, more wire, less wire what happens?.
Draw a truth table for every instance, better, worse, more, less, no change then start connecting the dots. This is what science is all about, we explore every avenue then we try to draw some conclusions based on what we have observed without preconceived notions or bias. It is never what we know that get's us it is what we have failed to consider that does.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.09.29, 22:22:31
@Room3327
There in lies the problem and I have been in that position more times than I would care to mention. Were sitting there staring at this thing and we see no way out, no possibilities and no way it could conceivably work. At which point I generally translate from replication to inspiration. That is to say okay this isn't working for me but if I wanted this to work from another perspective what should I do?. Try it then consider the opposite, if what I think does not work then what is the opposite to what I think I should do then try it.
Here is the logic I would use based only on what you have told me--
-the input generates no output...why?, I know, I do not know?
-is it the input or the output, add a DC source across the output, does the input effect the output now...yes-no?
-is it a a translation force, add an AC source to the output, vary the input AC/intermittent AC/DC/pulsed DC vs the AC/intermittent AC/DC/pulsed DC source at the output, what happens?, yes, no, is there a change?.
-is it the PM saturation, stronger magnets, weaker magnets, what happens?
-is it a material property, copper wire on input/output, copper on input iron on output, vice versa... what happens?, more wire, less wire what happens?.
Draw a truth table for every instance, better, worse, more, less, no change then start connecting the dots. This is what science is all about, we explore every avenue then we try to draw some conclusions based on what we have observed without preconceived notions or bias. It is never what we know that get's us it is what we have failed to consider that does.
AC
Hi AC,
Yes good information there, I did try most of what you mention, but in my mind when I found no magnetic flux sweeping through the holes it looked hopeless to me as it seemed from the patent that was the 'modus operandi' of this device. The flux from the PM's sweeping back and forth across the meandering wire is supposed to produce the output and the input is AC (not you), I certainly could have tried many other things but no sweep, no power, IMO. AC (you) I have far fewer preconceived notions and biases then you seem to think I have, I am very used to thinking outside the box and spent most of my industrial career in R&D.
O0
Cheers
Room
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.09.29, 19:11:33
If you go the Metglas route they are really tough things to drill holes in, you kneed a diamond tipped drill bit.
I have a good way to cut and drill magnets, ferrites and Metglas cores - namely:
water jet cutting.
I have an undertaker near me that cuts granite slabs for tombstones using this method and he is always happy to cut or drill hard materials for me.
Quote from: verpies on 2015.10.01, 13:52:16
I have a good way to cut and drill magnets, ferrites and Metglas cores - namely: water jet cutting.
I have an undertaker near me that cuts granite slabs for tombstones using this method and he is always happy to cut or drill hard materials for me.
Dear Verpies.
I have to agree, water jet cutting is amazing.
Unfortunately our local guy won't even throw the switch until £100.00 has crossed palms. Then there's a running fee on top. I suppose it's understandable, his kit cost in excess of quarter of a million to buy!!
I've successfully used Diamond tipped tooling for many materials, plenty of water flowing is the key to a good job. ;)
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.09.29, 19:45:41
Thanks Smudge, that could have been the problem, drilling cores is not easy that's why I went with the powdered iron. I tried drilling a ferrite core and needed diamond bits like you said, I have a couple diamond saws so cutting in half is no problem if I need to. I thought metglass would be harder to saturate then powdered iron, I know it is a lot harder to drill?
If the Bsat of the material is greater than the Brem of the magnet you can always use tapered sections as flux concentrators to get the desired saturation.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.10.01, 15:36:07
If the Bsat of the material is greater than the Brem of the magnet you can always use tapered sections as flux concentrators to get the desired saturation.
Smudge
Hi Smudge,
I don't quite get what you mean using tapered sections to concentrate the flux, could you explain what you mean? :(
Thanks
Room
@Room
My image software has gone defunct so it will have to be a pdf, see below
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.10.01, 20:20:19
@Room
My image software has gone defunct so it will have to be a pdf, see below
Smudge
Thank you for that Smudge, I thought that was what you meant but I don't see how it is applicable to the Gunderson generator. How would you implement that in the Gunderson, it would seem to me you would have to decrease the size of the entire toroid, I would think using stronger magnets would accomplish the same thing with the Gunderson design.
Room
Quote from: Room3327 on 2015.09.28, 18:09:42
This is the problem I found with the Gunderson generator, the flux stays inside the core and bypasses the meandering wire, it does not flow through the holes (air) and induce the meandering wire. A magnetic flux prefers iron 7000 to 1 over air, I thought maybe doing this with an air core may work some what, but haven't had time to try it yet.
But does it do that?
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=302.0;attach=20120)
Quote from: verpies on 2015.10.07, 01:40:42
But does it do that?
This is something on I had discussion on Skype in another day:
https://www.google.com/patents/US20140091890
There are ways for poles flip:
a) put magnet inside coil and have opposite polarity magnet attached to the first magnet then neutralize magnetic feld if first magnet
b) put magnet on E core and have core middle very close with slit then have coil finishing magnetic loop circuit. When coil is off the magnetic field should reach external E core coil
In first option if you get flat coil between two magnets the induction will happen from the second magnet.
The second option is about shorting magnetic field and redirection. When you leave small air gap betwen two ends of the magnet - it is too big reistance to close loop. With the coil on top you can close it. Until loop is not closed there are magnetic poles, With loop closed the net magnetic B field is 0. Only one issue for induction pickup coils is the geometry which is solvable.
Also there is 3rd option - when there are two magnets and the T form core flips from one magnet to the other.
Quote from: verpies on 2015.10.07, 01:40:42
But does it do that?
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=302.0;attach=20120)
Hi verpies,
It is the conclusion I came to with this device. Am I correct? I don't know, all I do know is my experience and knowledge led me to that conclusion. I think a few hours playing with a hole in a piece of ferrous material and a wire through it, will probably lead you to the same conclusion. I don't profess to be the smartest man on earth, I know what I know and I know how much I don't know, but I try to only talk about things I do know and leave the rest to others.
I wish a speedy recovery for ION and groundloop, I've had my own problems in the last several years so you are both high on my sympathy list!
Room
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.09.24, 18:52:38
The iron wire is a toroid a coil of insulated iron wire which serves as the magnetic core and a generating coil for recharge of the input (no direct output to input), this is an unusual twist to looping
The L1 to L4 are 4 coils in bucking mode to one another. Not shown on the sch: because it is difficult to draw, is that L1 is opposite to L2 and L3 is opposite to L4 on the toroid. As explained by a member here, this will give the flux a circular rotation around the iron core. The cap C1 (400v) creates a parametric oscillation by powering the coils in the switch off time, so inducing multiple frequencies by heterodyning. C2 and C3 supply the biasing and need to be HV of around 400v or C2 will blow, as I have found one day when that happened using only 100v caps, even at 400v C2 can get warm.
It is very important that the diodes D1 and D2 are ultra fast for the frequency band that we are working in, they have to be able to block the return path so as the system pumps itself up, so to say, by the adding of same frequencies generated within the system.
This toroid when running will vibrate if the frequency band is low, it will also in time heat up if the iron coil is loosly wound.
The output ferrite toroid is to isolate the output, as the primary of that toroid is part of the parametric oscillator and important that it should be within the magnetic field of the main iron toroid (that I can't explain why, but I presume it is the interaction of the magnetic fields).
I have re-posted below the spectrum shot, it is important to note the power levels due to same frequency addition, it is like two power supplies of 12v @ 10amps in parallel will give you 12v @ 20amps as an example.
Regards
Mike 8)
Great post, Mike! Thank you for your generosity in sharing it (along with the preceding schematic).
Bob
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.09.27, 11:46:28
Exactly
And this is how the RT works-no back torque when power is drawn from the stator coil.
many have replicated this effect,but !! no one!! has been able to explain as to why.
Am i the only one that can explain the effect taking place here?
Will the guru's step up to the plate,and have a stab at it?.
In my opinion, part of the reason why no one can explain to your satisfaction, "why" the effect takes place is because they are preoccupied with your instruction of "replicate the effect". You may have implied that the replicator attempt to come to some conclusion as to why the effect manifests, however, you failed to convey the message to the replicator that his/her explanation of how and or why the effect manifests was just as important to you as a successful reproduction of the effect.
What higher purpose does it serve to tell you what you want to hear? What does it profit myself or the next replicator to tell you something which is not in line with your thinking? Wouldn't it make more since and possibly be more profitable to all if those who choose to participate come to their own conclusion? Whether this, their conclusion, is in line with yours or is supported by the firmly established is immaterial. What matters is that they were able to reproduce the desired effect, and have the ability to study it at their leisure and at a speed which is dictated by their desire to know, and their ability to apply what they know in a "practical" manner. I am of the opinion that we spend way too much time trying to prove things that we aren't justified and or qualified to prove, and at the end of it all, if history has shown us anything, it has shown us that a simple change in perspective generally leads to all previously held notions being superseded.
All that to say this, I have much respect for what you have presented over the years. I think its time we move away from the idea that we need to defend and or prove anything to anyone. How you view the operation of your machine is how you view it, how others view it should be of no interest to you, unless you consider their view superior to your own. We have been talking around this topic for a few years now, and it is very unfortunate that the need to prove ones case and or set records straight has caused the creative energies which brought the innovation to the light of day to stagnate. You inspired many to investigate, it is your responsibility to keep them inspired to investigate along these lines. It is you who should be sharing how you think the effect manifests, and why you think this. It would be nice if you could do so without heavy reference to books containing laws you didn't author. We call ourselves researchers, if the need arises to reference the books, we can be referred to the specific topics, your impressions are what matter.
As I have mentioned before, your research parallels mine, or vice versa. I therefore have an hypothesis as to what is happening, and have machines built which help me to qualify that hypothesis. This however, is your presentation, your disclosure, it is therefore your duty to lead so that others can and more than likely will.......follow.
The ball is in your court Sir. You started this, now if it be your will, lead those who have an interest to its end, or ......allow the topic to fade from memory, and be added to the archives as all topics which have a dramatic beginning eventually do.
Regards
Quote from: Erfinder on 2015.10.10, 12:25:44
In my opinion, part of the reason why no one can explain to your satisfaction, "why" the effect takes place is because they are preoccupied with your instruction of "replicate the effect". You may have implied that the replicator attempt to come to some conclusion as to why the effect manifests, however, you failed to convey the message to the replicator that his/her explanation of how and or why the effect manifests was just as important to you as a successful reproduction of the effect.
What higher purpose does it serve to tell you what you want to hear? What does it profit myself or the next replicator to tell you something which is not in line with your thinking? Wouldn't it make more since and possibly be more profitable to all if those who choose to participate come to their own conclusion? Whether this, their conclusion, is in line with yours or is supported by the firmly established is immaterial. What matters is that they were able to reproduce the desired effect, and have the ability to study it at their leisure and at a speed which is dictated by their desire to know, and their ability to apply what they know in a "practical" manner. I am of the opinion that we spend way too much time trying to prove things that we aren't justified and or qualified to prove, and at the end of it all, if history has shown us anything, it has shown us that a simple change in perspective generally leads to all previously held notions being superseded.
All that to say this, I have much respect for what you have presented over the years. I think its time we move away from the idea that we need to defend and or prove anything to anyone. How you view the operation of your machine is how you view it, how others view it should be of no interest to you, unless you consider their view superior to your own. We have been talking around this topic for a few years now, and it is very unfortunate that the need to prove ones case and or set records straight has caused the creative energies which brought the innovation to the light of day to stagnate. You inspired many to investigate, it is your responsibility to keep them inspired to investigate along these lines. It is you who should be sharing how you think the effect manifests, and why you think this. It would be nice if you could do so without heavy reference to books containing laws you didn't author. We call ourselves researchers, if the need arises to reference the books, we can be referred to the specific topics, your impressions are what matter.
As I have mentioned before, your research parallels mine, or vice versa. I therefore have an hypothesis as to what is happening, and have machines built which help me to qualify that hypothesis. This however, is your presentation, your disclosure, it is therefore your duty to lead so that others can and more than likely will.......follow.
The ball is in your court Sir. You started this, now if it be your will, lead those who have an interest to its end, or ......allow the topic to fade from memory, and be added to the archives as all topics which have a dramatic beginning eventually do.
Regards
There have been many who have replicated the effect,but none that know what that effect actually is.
There is not much point in building something if you dont know how or why it work's. There also comes a time when all the thinking is not done for you,and you have to think for your self.
The fact is,it really is not that hard to work out how or why it is doing what it dose.
Im happy to help those that are willing to help them selves,but that just dose not seem to be the case here. Sure,many are willing to build the device,as long as i provide every working detail. This is much like going to school on the assumption that the teacher will learn for you,and will answer all the questions in the tests that are presented to you.
Maybe you could have a stab at it Erfinder?.
I mean,you seem to have great knowledge in this area,and are able to think for your self.
It will only take one to work it out,then the door will be open for many here.
We have a magnetic field approaching a stator with a generating coil on it,and we have a magnetic field leaving a stator with a generating coil on it. When we load that generator coil,we would normally cause a back torque on the rotor that carries those magnetic field's-normal generator effect. But in this case the opposite happens. In this case when we load the generator coil,we get an increase in speed,an increase in torque,and a reduction in P/in-->all of which is opposite to that of what it should be.
What has become apparent is,there are those that dismiss my latest results as some sort of hoax. But these very same people cannot even explain what the effect is they them self have duplicated,or the test i carried out as per there instructions. It really is not that hard when you think about what is happening when a magnetic field is approaching a generating coil under load,and it is not that hard to work out what happens when a magnetic field is leaving a generating coil under load. When a magnet approaches an inductor with a load arcoss that inductor,the inductor creates a magnetic field that apposes that of the magnet. When the magnet is leaving that loaded inductor,the inductor creates the opposite field that wants to pull that magnet back toward it. So on approach,the inductor sees an increasing field strength,and on departure,the inductor sees a decreasing magnetic field strength.
!!!!SO JUST SWAP IT AROUND!!!! O0 <----Not yelling here,just highlighting :)
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.10.11, 03:55:57
There have been many who have replicated the effect,but none that know what that effect actually is.
There is not much point in building something if you dont know how or why it work's. There also comes a time when all the thinking is not done for you,and you have to think for your self.
The fact is,it really is not that hard to work out how or why it is doing what it dose.
Im happy to help those that are willing to help them selves,but that just dose not seem to be the case here. Sure,many are willing to build the device,as long as i provide every working detail. This is much like going to school on the assumption that the teacher will learn for you,and will answer all the questions in the tests that are presented to you.
Maybe you could have a stab at it Erfinder?.
I mean,you seem to have great knowledge in this area,and are able to think for your self.
It will only take one to work it out,then the door will be open for many here.
We have a magnetic field approaching a stator with a generating coil on it,and we have a magnetic field leaving a stator with a generating coil on it. When we load that generator coil,we would normally cause a back torque on the rotor that carries those magnetic field's-normal generator effect. But in this case the opposite happens. In this case when we load the generator coil,we get an increase in speed,an increase in torque,and a reduction in P/in-->all of which is opposite to that of what it should be.
What has become apparent is,there are those that dismiss my latest results as some sort of hoax. But these very same people cannot even explain what the effect is they them self have duplicated,or the test i carried out as per there instructions. It really is not that hard when you think about what is happening when a magnetic field is approaching a generating coil under load,and it is not that hard to work out what happens when a magnetic field is leaving a generating coil under load. When a magnet approaches an inductor with a load arcoss that inductor,the inductor creates a magnetic field that apposes that of the magnet. When the magnet is leaving that loaded inductor,the inductor creates the opposite field that wants to pull that magnet back toward it. So on approach,the inductor sees an increasing field strength,and on departure,the inductor sees a decreasing magnetic field strength.
!!!!SO JUST SWAP IT AROUND!!!! O0 <----Not yelling here,just highlighting :)
Hello Tinman,
I can appreciate what you are saying regarding folks just copying and pasting and putting little or no thought into the project. The problem is Tinman, in their defense, they aren't being motivated to probe the issue, they aren't asked to formulate their own opinions regarding what may be taking place. If and when they are asked or it is suggested that they do their own thinking, when they share their thoughts, it is found that their thinking is not in line with the thinking of originator of the concepts.....I am sure you can appreciate how this is a conflict generating mechanism. This is your show, you must lead, you cannot ask folks to think for themselves and for those thoughts to be in line with yours. We are not here to learn as we do in school, we are here to "consider" the thoughts and ideas presented by like minded individuals. For you to use the example of the classroom environment, you elevate yourself to the position of instructor, from this altitude you are no longer a peer, it is my hope that you can see the conflict of interest here. From what I gather, the community is slowly but surely throwing in the towel. If that was the desired result then I sincerely congratulate you. If it is not the desired result, then you sir have work to do. The question and answer period can only begin when you've completed your presentation. From what I read, and from my own experience, I conclude that you have not. As you stated and agree with you 100%:
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.10.11, 03:55:57
It will only take one to work it out,then the door will be open for many here.
You have worked it out, now open the door.
As far as my taking a stab at it goes, I have nothing to prove, and find that I am completely satisfied with my understanding of how the effect manifests, and more importantly, I am making strides in my effort to apply the principles constructively. I have my own understanding of whats happening, and have demonstrated a few things to a few individuals. One of my goals was to show that the effect is not limited to apparatus which have been and are being discussed on this platform.
You have made a few demonstrations, none of them disclose what you think is happening and more importantly why you think its happening. Everyone here can read, folks don't need a lesson from textbooks that they can source and study themselves. Folks are here to partake in the creative expression of like minded researchers. You started by providing folks with an image of what you were thinking, this evolved into a working concept, you advanced it to levels that no one had contemplated. You made connections that the majority could not and would not make. As I stated before and am repeating now, this is your show, its not about folks figuring out what you have found its about you sharing it with them because you can.
I appreciate you whether you step up and finish what you started or not.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.10.11, 03:55:57
We have a magnetic field approaching a stator with a generating coil on it,and we have a magnetic field leaving a stator with a generating coil on it. When we load that generator coil,we would normally cause a back torque on the rotor that carries those magnetic field's-normal generator effect. But in this case the opposite happens. In this case when we load the generator coil,we get an increase in speed,an increase in torque,and a reduction in P/in-->all of which is opposite to that of what it should be.
Your description of the interaction between the approaching, and receding magnet and its influence on the generator coil reveals nothing about your understanding of how your system is able to get around the fundamental issue. We are well aware of the laws which govern braking action. We don't need to be reminded of these laws if said reminder isn't accompanied by a solution, or in your case, we dont need to be reminded of what we already know unless you are willing to reveal that which we do not.
Regards
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.10.11, 03:55:57
We have a magnetic field approaching a stator with a generating coil on it,and we have a magnetic field leaving a stator with a generating coil on it. When we load that generator coil,we would normally cause a back torque on the rotor that carries those magnetic field's-normal generator effect. But in this case the opposite happens. In this case when we load the generator coil,we get an increase in speed,an increase in torque,and a reduction in P/in-->all of which is opposite to that of what it should be.
What has become apparent is,there are those that dismiss my latest results as some sort of hoax. But these very same people cannot even explain what the effect is they them self have duplicated,or the test i carried out as per there instructions. It really is not that hard when you think about what is happening when a magnetic field is approaching a generating coil under load,and it is not that hard to work out what happens when a magnetic field is leaving a generating coil under load. When a magnet approaches an inductor with a load arcoss that inductor,the inductor creates a magnetic field that apposes that of the magnet. When the magnet is leaving that loaded inductor,the inductor creates the opposite field that wants to pull that magnet back toward it. So on approach,the inductor sees an increasing field strength,and on departure,the inductor sees a decreasing magnetic field strength.
!!!!SO JUST SWAP IT AROUND!!!! O0 <----Not yelling here,just highlighting :)
Pre-bias the stator coil with the appropriate magnetic field so that the approaching rotor field
decreases the field. The opposite to what would happen if the pre-bias wasn't present.
Quote from: Erfinder on 2015.10.11, 10:13:38
Hello Tinman,
I appreciate you whether you step up and finish what you started or not.
Your description of the interaction between the approaching, and receding magnet and its influence on the generator coil reveals nothing about your understanding of how your system is able to get around the fundamental issue. We are well aware of the laws which govern braking action. We don't need to be reminded of these laws if said reminder isn't accompanied by a solution, or in your case, we dont need to be reminded of what we already know unless you are willing to reveal that which we do not.
Regards
Well i placed the answer in capital letters,and highlighted in red.
You simply decrease the magnetic field strength as that field approaches the stator(generating)coil,and increase the magnetic field strength as the field is leaving the the stator coil. This way ,the stator coil(inductor) thinks the magnetic field is leaving when it is approaching,and approaching when it is leaving. This is the very reason i made it very clear that timing of the brushes is critical.
So far those that have seen the effect,have seen the increasing field strength of the leaving field by using the diode so as the stator coil only conducts when the current flows in the correct direction.The segment of the rotor must be switched on at TDC of the stator core/coil.When it dose,the diode allows the stator coil to produce a current flow,and at the same time it builds a magnetic field that apposes that of the rotors field. This causes the rotor segment that is carrying that field to be pushed away-the motoring effect. We are not changing any laws of physics,we are simply reversing the action of that of a normal generator-decrease the field strength as that field approaches the generating coil,and increase the field strength as that field is leaving the generator coil.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.10.11, 12:47:47
Well i placed the answer in capital letters,and highlighted in red.
You simply decrease the magnetic field strength as that field approaches the stator(generating)coil,and increase the magnetic field strength as the field is leaving the the stator coil. This way ,the stator coil(inductor) thinks the magnetic field is leaving when it is approaching,and approaching when it is leaving. This is the very reason i made it very clear that timing of the brushes is critical.
I understand what you are suggesting, the problem is, you say that one:
"simply decrease the magnetic field strength as that field approaches the stator (generating coil....)"
however, you don't show how you are accomplishing this in your basic demonstrations of the RT, before you started advancing the concept. The only thing folks witnessed was that a short was made on one of the stator coils, without the diode, with the diode in the incorrect direction, and with the diode in the correct direction. The basics are missing. From here we move to the second part of your statement where you say:
"and increase the magnetic field strength as the field is leaving the stator coil."
The majority are left to assume that this latter part has something to do with the diode they were instructed to add. Much was demonstrated, but there is no clear description of what was shown, and why it was shown, simply put....purpose and method are lacking.
Then we are faced with your finial statement:
"This way, the stator coil (inductor) thinks the magnetic field is leaving when it is approaching, and approaching when it is leaving. This is the very reason I Made it very clear that timing of the brushes is critical."
I completely understand whats being suggested here, however, the mechanism through which this is to be accomplished is missing. You mentioned that you made folks aware of the significance of timing, and where this is an important factor, it is not the factor in question which makes that which you suggest a reality. You reference the relation between the inducing and induced fields, but make no reference to the geometry of either and specifically the role of geometry has in generating the effect. In my opinion and experience, it is the geometry which facilities the production of the effect, timing is secondary. Timing is an issue here because of how these motors are designed and operated, here the term operated is a reference to how and when they are switched.
Myself and many others who do follow with an open mind, were/are of the understanding that this device was an advance on the principles demonstrated in the L.A.G. We understood that the RT was a demonstration of how the principles and concepts demonstrated in the aforenamed could be applied to existing technology. So far, it seems all that was promising in the L.A.G. is missing here.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.10.11, 12:47:47
So far those that have seen the effect,have seen the increasing field strength of the leaving field by using the diode so as the stator coil only conducts when the current flows in the correct direction.The segment of the rotor must be switched on at TDC of the stator core/coil.When it dose,the diode allows the stator coil to produce a current flow,and at the same time it builds a magnetic field that apposes that of the rotors field. This causes the rotor segment that is carrying that field to be pushed away-the motoring effect. We are not changing any laws of physics,we are simply reversing the action of that of a normal generator-decrease the field strength as that field approaches the generating coil,and increase the field strength as that field is leaving the generator coil.
As I understand how these motors work, the main reason why the rotor rotates is because of the quadrature relationship shared between the armature and stator fields. In this specific and or particular embodiment, (the RT) it is of little consequence that the stator is not energized, the stator is under the influence of the armature field and as such there will still be a quadrature relationship between the two, thus we experience rotation in the absence of an "energized" stator.
In regards to the generator action, as mentioned before there is a quadrature relation between the armature and stator fields. The armature field is configured and energized in a manner which results in a unidirectional field, this unidirectional field induces a unidirectional field into the stator via the inductive relations between the energized armature and the iron in the stator. Had the RT had been built using a pulse motor instead of a modified universal motor, it would have been as clear as the nose on a face that the induced wave appears as if it is rectified. One would have observed that the wave is asymmetric, it would have been observed that the polarity of the wave was directly related to the direction that the rotor is rotated in. This latter is not applicable to the RT, owing to how it is switched, and other factors, it can only operate in one direction effectively. When one considers the polarity of the wave, and the fact that it is asymmetrical, it becomes self explanatory what happens when a diode properly oriented is added to the already asymmetrical, magnetically rectified waveform.
This is what I wanted to hear from you.....I never heard it. I wasn't looking for you to tell me to look into the books to reexamine the laws, nor was I nor am I interested in numbers. I wanted you to share your view of how you see your machine functioning, nothing more nothing less. Now it doesn't really matter to me whether you do or not. But it does matter to a few here, and you owe it to yourself and to them to finish what you started, and to do so in manner that allows them to be able to sit at the bench with you as you walk them through your thinking. Its not about proving anything, or even about giving anyone anything, its about you sharing your impressions......or not.
Regards
The square cans are inductors, usually tunable by turning screws through the holes on top, moving ferrite cores up and down inside coils. The round cans are electrolytic capacitors, almost certainly bad by now, except for the black round can on the separate chassis, this is probably a rectifier tube or a solid-state replacement for one.
The unbroken tubes may still be good, if you have something that can use them. Nowadays, with something that is in that bad shape, there isn't much point in salvaging components. You may be able to clean up the air-variable capacitor, and the transformer may still be good for something. You could sandblast the rust off of it, repaint it and it might be usable in a power supply or something like that.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2015.11.28, 05:23:58
this is a pretty interesting video, showing voltage induction by just tapping a laminated steel core transformer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLK1VG8h2Wc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLK1VG8h2Wc)
Seems like the remanent magnetism of the keeper and/or of the core.
I bet that tapping it with a non-ferromagnetic piece would not have this effect.
Modulating flux from the remanent magnetization is very different from this Villari effect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qauZ4WBwAOM
Don't assume that a field that can move flowing charge is a magnetic field - and don't assume that moving charges are electrons.
Novel charge carriers may produce electrostatic (capacitive) and magnetic (inductive) effects but they will not behave in any rational manner across a semiconductor junction... in fact you are likely to cause inexplicable failures in digital equipment even at a distance you think is safe- I know this from first hand experience.
Novel charge carriers will produce novel fields in addition to classical fields when they move. Novel fields may extend into other dimensions -- study the mapping of dimensions.
Our experience with valves is good -- deflecting charges around a vacuum is more reliable than using mosfets and you can still get low ns HV pulses if you want.
Not sure why I am offering this ...holiday madness I suppose... and my account got trashed and all the history has been lost :(
While I'm posting -- did anyone else ever work out the mathematical foundation for the ratios of frequencies SM quoted? ... and realize the implications? .. if you did then please contact me privately.
Mark,
What are these Novel charge carriers you are referring to?
In terms of the frequencies he alluded to using, see attached for what I came up with 8 years ago. Probably way off base, but seemed to make sense for me at the time.
Here is another document I was working on at the time.
Probably complete rubbish, but nonetheless could be fruit for thought.
@poynt99
wrong calculations --- look beyond harmonic oscillations. By first principals if there is an energy imbalance/flow then you have a non-linear system... look into multi-component nonlinear systems -- the concept of resonance is one of a stale solution -- in non-linear and semi-chaotic systems the stable solutions are most often called other things. research how multi component systems can mode lock. Research how the maximum energy can be loaded into a system - its not resonance.
Everyone look for Tao/(Jason Kapica)
Hey Mark
Quotelook beyond harmonic oscillations. By first principals if there is an energy imbalance/flow then you have a non-linear system... look into multi-component nonlinear systems -- the concept of resonance is one of a stale solution -- in non-linear and semi-chaotic systems the stable solutions are most often called other things. research how multi component systems can mode lock. Research how the maximum energy can be loaded into a system - its not resonance.
I have found many people like to throw around terms like resonance, harmonic oscillations, reactive current and so forth but I have found very few people can actually explain these terms in a meaningful way. It's like saying I understand my car but know nothing about how an engine works let alone how to fix one.
Since you have thrown out a bone in the spirit of giving so will I. The universe is a very simple place once we learn the fundamentals of the basic building blocks... Energy, Fields and Particles. Energy is change and as Faraday said it does not matter how the change occurs only that it does. Fields are a product of an internal change interacting with a external change producing an interference pattern we call a field.
I like your thoughts on non-linear systems and generally the first thing I do is lose all the absurd terminology, the hocus pocus and concentrate on the facts. The facts tell us Energy is conserved and if energy is conserved then the energy put into a system is equal to the energy dissipated within the system...Sum zero. However by the law of equal and opposite action/reaction the alter ego must be that energy dissipated within an open system must cause an influx of energy to once again hold the status quo...Sum zero. You see the law of the conservation of energy does not act for or against us, it is what it is and anything more or less is a man made artifact bearing little resemblance to reality.
We think we may create only to destroy however the concept in itself always has an alter ego latent beneath the surface. When we destroy our past preconceived notions the void must be filled with new idea's because nature abhors a vacuum. Destruction creates just as creation destroys and the construct on non-linear is a way of saying nature will decide as it always has. Nature is what it is and so are we however how we interact with nature... our ingenuity, our creativity, our knowledge and understanding will decide our fate. I find comfort in this because we are not equals... we are individuals.
Merry Christmas and a meaningful new year to all.
AC
A.C.,That was a good read, I enjoyed that and it made sense to me. Thanks for posting that, I kind of feel the same way. However we do know that we can utilize energy either very cheaply or "free" with old tech like wind turbines and such. It's just one of those things where when the source of the energy is defined there is no O.U.. Nature is simple but also very complex, depending on how we evaluate things. My jackpot would simply be a novel way to utilize energy from some source cheaply without creating other problems. Also greater efficiency in some things is always good too.
Cheers
AC wrote,
QuoteSince you have thrown out a bone in the spirit of giving so will I. The universe is a very simple place once we learn the fundamentals of the basic building blocks... Energy, Fields and Particles. Energy is change and as Faraday said it does not matter how the change occurs only that it does. Fields are a product of an internal change interacting with a external change producing an interference pattern we call a field.
A bit obtuse for me - but I freely admit I do not fully understand Fields. For example, what carries the electric field, and the gravitational field? When a field interacts with a particle, how is momentum (P) conserved (PC)?
Let me pose a couple of examples I've been thinking about along these lines, throwing in the important concept of "delay" due to finite speeds of changes in fields.
Consider the earth going around the sun, attracted by gravity. The earth is eight light-minutes distant from the sun - pls keep that in mind. Thus, as the earth goes around the sun, and both attract each other with equal-strength forces, the sun responds to the earths pull according to where the earth WAS eight minutes prior (and vice versa).
Gotta run - any disagreement with that statement, "Thus, as the earth goes around the sun, and both attract each other with equal-strength forces, the sun responds to the earths pull according to where the earth WAS eight minutes prior (and vice versa)"
?
May I ask a question here? How do we know the sun responds to where the earth was 8 minutes ago? I wasn't aware anyone had been able to measure the speed of gravity. If that is known, how did they arrive at the speed value? I am most definitely not trying to be argumentative here. I am just trying to learn something I am ignorant about.
Good question - actually, we're theorizing that a change in gravity (as for example from the earth moving) travels at the speed of light.
Another example, a high-energy (say 1.1 MeV) gamma ray traveling near a nucleus can produce an electron and its anti-particle, a positron. Suddenly mass appears on the scene.
How soon before the gravity from the "new" particles can be felt at a distance of 1 foot? Answer, 1 nanosecond (light travels 0.98 feet in one ns). We'll use 1 foot per ns, rounding up a little.
Each of these is charged - how soon before the electrical field from the electron can be detected, one foot away? A: 1 ns. Yes, this is an assumption - that the newly-formed E-field travels at the speed of light (I doubt this has actually been measured).
Another example, a positron encounters an electron and they annihilate (to form two photons, back to back). Now mass disappears from the seen. How soon can this loss of mass -and charge- be detected one foot away? A: 1 ns.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.01.03, 20:31:22
Consider the earth going around the sun, attracted by gravity. The earth is eight light-minutes distant from the sun - pls keep that in mind. Thus, as the earth goes around the sun, and both attract each other with equal-strength forces, the sun responds to the earths pull according to where the earth WAS eight minutes prior (and vice versa).
Gotta run - any disagreement with that statement, "Thus, as the earth goes around the sun, and both attract each other with equal-strength forces, the sun responds to the earths pull according to where the earth WAS eight minutes prior (and vice versa)"?
@PhysicsProf
I think your question can be better asked this way.
If you could make the sun disappear with the flick of a finger, so from one second it's there and the next second it's gone without leaving the slightest trace, what happens to the planets? Will they all veer off their orbits immediately and hence show that there is something much faster then light? I personally say yes the planets and everything else in the solar system would stray of their orbits and get lost in space.
wattsup
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.01.03, 22:41:48
Good question - actually, we're theorizing that a change in gravity (as for example from the earth moving) travels at the speed of light.
Another example, a high-energy (say 1.1 MeV) gamma ray traveling near a nucleus can produce an electron and its anti-particle, a positron. Suddenly mass appears on the scene.
How soon before the gravity from the "new" particles can be felt at a distance of 1 foot? Answer, 1 nanosecond (light travels 0.98 feet in one ns). We'll use 1 foot per ns, rounding up a little.
Each of these is charged - how soon before the electrical field from the electron can be detected, one foot away? A: 1 ns. Yes, this is an assumption - that the newly-formed E-field travels at the speed of light (I doubt this has actually been measured).
Another example, a positron encounters an electron and they annihilate (to form two photons, back to back). Now mass disappears from the seen. How soon can this loss of mass -and charge- be detected one foot away? A: 1 ns.
In my professional career I had the use of a time domain spectrometer that had a resolution better than 50pS. So I could measure effects over small distances (like a few cm). Although designed for finding discontinuities in 50 ohm transmission lines, it could also be used for measuring magnetic and electric field propagation speeds. I can verify that magnetic and electric near-fields do travel at the speed of light (that is the fields themselves, not necessarily the transport of power which travels slower in near-field coupling situations. I guess modern TDR's have an even better resolution, my TDR was 1964 vintage! So the sudden presence of electrons on the plate of a capacitor create an influence that travels at the speed of light (or less in a dielectric). Does that answer the question concerning the sudden appearance of an electron?
One of the novel uses of this TDR was to "look" into a small void to establish the conditions inside that void. The void in question was an electrical switch operated by acceleration that was part of a weapon safety system, where a spring loaded mass could move under acceleration to then close some contacts. The TDR was connected to the contacts and the scope picture then related to the placement of the internal components. In effect a tiny electric field radar looking into the void.
Another unofficial use was for demonstrating the principles of radar to Air Cadets where I was for a short time a civilian instructor. I used coaxial cable placed across a table and transmitted a surface wave along the outside of the cable. A small aeroplane model made of aluminum could be placed on the coax whereupon its position showed up on the scope just as in a radar A trace.
Smudge
I watched a show last night called " The Search for Gravitational Waves", at least as much as I could watch of it, and I was appalled, it was mostly drivel. The so called scientists cannot and will not address the issue of where everything came from to begin with. They just say "at such and such point after the moment of creation". Does that mean they believe that the Universe was just created out of nothing ? Which is of course impossible ! Or does it mean they believe a god or something created everything including itself at the beginning of the Universe ? They talk about the Big Bang as if it was just after the "creation" of the Universe.
I don't get why they get paid. They just theorize absolute rubbish. There is only one Logical way to look at the Universe and that is that everything that exists now has always existed in some form or another. And quite probably the Universe goes through cycles as with most other natural things. It expands then contracts to a point repeatedly over an extremely long time. Or as we have no way of knowing how much of the Universe we are actually aware of it could expand in one part while it contracts in another part.
Some talk of dual opposing Universes or Multi-verses but the reality for me is that The actual Universe is everything that exists everywhere at any given point in our existence and that The Known Universe is all that we are aware of so far.
I could not continue to watch the show the speakers were highly trained people, but they were talking like a bunch of kids making stuff up. One of them came up with "inflationary theory" and all he could say was that at some point the Universe was very small, even smaller than the smallest particle, then through inflation it doubled in size every trillionth of a second or something until it eventually slowed down to a more sedate expansion. But no desire to make logic of how the first bit came into existence to begin with. I see those people as not just a waste of time and money but my thinking tells me they are actively convoluting the issue.
The things they were saying were nonsensical and illogical. I was shocked and appalled at the same time. They said that if a Gravity wave passed through the Earth the room would be distorted in dimensions one way then the other and other such drivel.
..
Quote from: wattsup on 2016.01.04, 13:05:14
@PhysicsProf
I think your question can be better asked this way.
If you could make the sun disappear with the flick of a finger, so from one second it's there and the next second it's gone without leaving the slightest trace, what happens to the planets? Will they all veer off their orbits immediately and hence show that there is something much faster then light? I personally say yes the planets and everything else in the solar system would stray of their orbits and get lost in space.
wattsup
Well considering that the Planets and the Sun "orbit" the Galactic center I would say that the planets would continue to orbit the Galactic center just that they would not be influenced by the Sun and would find a new "path" as chaotic as it may be.
..
Quote from: MarkSnoswell on 2016.01.01, 08:28:04
Don't assume that a field that can move flowing charge is a magnetic field - and don't assume that moving charges are electrons.
Novel charge carriers may produce electrostatic (capacitive) and magnetic (inductive) effects but they will not behave in any rational manner across a semiconductor junction... in fact you are likely to cause inexplicable failures in digital equipment even at a distance you think is safe- I know this from first hand experience.
Novel charge carriers will produce novel fields in addition to classical fields when they move. Novel fields may extend into other dimensions -- study the mapping of dimensions.
Our experience with valves is good -- deflecting charges around a vacuum is more reliable than using mosfets and you can still get low ns HV pulses if you want.
Not sure why I am offering this ...holiday madness I suppose... and my account got trashed and all the history has been lost :(
While I'm posting -- did anyone else ever work out the mathematical foundation for the ratios of frequencies SM quoted? ... and realize the implications? .. if you did then please contact me privately.
Very interesting information's. The tubes are the best for this kind of experiments (where HV , inductors,and high frequency used), that's sure.
What caught my eye, you asked about " the ratios of frequencies ", not the ratio between the circumference and the frequencies.
I think the 35705hz input frequency is accelerated in the output coil part of the system, maybe in each 1/4 wave cycle to a higher frequency, which is phi times the first.
Iron catastrophe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_catastrophe
The iron catastrophe was a postulated major event early in the history of Earth. The original accretion of the Earth's material into a spherical mass is thought to have resulted in a relatively uniform composition. While residual heat from the collision of the material that formed the Earth was significant, heating from radioactive materials in this mass gradually increased the temperature until a critical condition was reached. As material became molten enough to allow movement, the denser iron and nickel, evenly distributed throughout the mass, began to migrate to the center of the planet to form the core. The gravitational potential energy released by the sinking of the dense NiFe globules, along with any cooler denser solid material is thought to have been a runaway process, increasing the temperature of the protoplanet above the melting point of most components, resulting in the rapid formation of a molten iron core covered by a deep global silicate magma. This event, an important process of planetary differentiation, occurred at about 500 million years into the formation of the planet.[1]
Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/
At the heart of our planet lies a solid iron ball, about as hot as the surface of the sun. Researchers call it "the inner core." It's really a world within a world. The inner core is 70% as wide as the moon. It spins at its own rate, as much as 0.2° of longitude per year faster than the Earth above it, and it has its own ocean: a very deep layer of liquid iron known as "the outer core."
see captionRight: a schematic diagram of Earth's interior. The outer core is the source of the geomagnetic field.
Earth's magnetic field comes from this ocean of iron, which is an electrically conducting fluid in constant motion. Sitting atop the hot inner core, the liquid outer core seethes and roils like water in a pan on a hot stove. The outer core also has "hurricanes"--whirlpools powered by the Coriolis forces of Earth's rotation. These complex motions generate our planet's magnetism through a process called the dynamo effect.
Using the equations of magnetohydrodynamics, a branch of physics dealing with conducting fluids and magnetic fields, Glatzmaier and colleague Paul Roberts have created a supercomputer model of Earth's interior. Their software heats the inner core, stirs the metallic ocean above it, then calculates the resulting magnetic field. They run their code for hundreds of thousands of simulated years and watch what happens.
What they see mimics the real Earth: The magnetic field waxes and wanes, poles drift and, occasionally, flip. Change is normal, they've learned. And no wonder. The source of the field, the outer core, is itself seething, swirling, turbulent. "It's chaotic down there," notes Glatzmaier. The changes we detect on our planet's surface are a sign of that inner chaos.
They've also learned what happens during a magnetic flip. Reversals take a few thousand years to complete, and during that time--contrary to popular belief--the magnetic field does not vanish. "It just gets more complicated," says Glatzmaier. Magnetic lines of force near Earth's surface become twisted and tangled, and magnetic poles pop up in unaccustomed places. A south magnetic pole might emerge over Africa, for instance, or a north pole over Tahiti. Weird. But it's still a planetary magnetic field, and it still protects us from space radiation and solar storms.
Finally, a Solid Look at Earth's Core
http://www.livescience.com/6980-finally-solid-earth-core.html
Scientists have long thought Earth's core is solid. Now they have some solid evidence.
The core is thought to be a two-part construction. The inner core is solid iron, and that's surrounding by a molten core, theory holds. Around the core is the mantle, and near the planet's surface is a thin crust -- the part that breaks now and then and creates earthquakes.
The core was discovered in 1936 by monitoring the internal rumbles of earthquakes, which send seismic waves rippling through the planet. The waves, which are much like sound waves, are bent when they pass through layers of differing densities, just as light is bent as it enters water. By noting a wave's travel time, much can be inferred about the Earth's insides.
Yet for more than 60 years, the solidity of the core has remained in the realm of theory.
A study announced today involved complex monitoring of seismic waves passing through the planet. The technique is not new, but this is the first time it's been employed so effectively to probe the heart of our world.
First, some jargon:
P is what scientists call the wave
K stands for the outer core
J is the inner core
Path of a PKJKP wave.
? Science
So a wave that rolls through it all is called PKJKP.
An earthquake sends seismic waves in all directions. The surface waves are sometimes frighteningly obvious. Seismic waves passing through the mantle and traversing much of the planet's interior are routinely studied when they reach another continent. But no PKJKP wave has ever been reliably detected until now.
Aimin Cao of the University of California-Berkeley and colleagues studied archived data from about 20 large earthquakes, all monitored by an array of German seismic detectors back in the 1980s and '90s.
The trick to detecting a PKJKP wave is in noting the changes it goes through as it rattles from one side of the planet to the other. What starts out as a compression wave changes to what scientists call a shear wave (explanations and animations of these are here).
"A PKJKP traverses the inner core as a shear wave, so this is the direct evidence that the inner core is solid," Cao told LiveScience, "because only in the solid material the shear wave can exist. In the liquid material, say water, only the compressional wave can travel through."
The arrival time and slowness of the waves agree with theoretical predictions of PKJKP waves, which indicates a solid core. The results were published today online by the journal Science.
Clausius–Clapeyron relation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation
"Clapeyron equation" and "Clapeyron's equation" redirect here. For a state equation, see ideal gas law.
The Clausius–Clapeyron relation, named after Rudolf Clausius[1] and Benoît Paul Émile Clapeyron,[2] is a way of characterizing a discontinuous phase transition between two phases of matter of a single constituent. On a pressure–temperature (P–T) diagram, the line separating the two phases is known as the coexistence curve. The Clausius–Clapeyron relation gives the slope of the tangents to this curve. Mathematically,
\frac{\mathrm{d}P}{\mathrm{d}T} = \frac{L}{T\,\Delta v}=\frac{\Delta s}{\Delta v},
where \mathrm{d}P/\mathrm{d}T is the slope of the tangent to the coexistence curve at any point, L is the specific latent heat, T is the temperature, \Delta v is the specific volume change of the phase transition, and \Delta s is the specific entropy change of the phase transition.
Newton's law of universal gravitation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
Newton's law of universal gravitation states that any two bodies in the Universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[note 1] This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called induction.[1] It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton's work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("the Principia"), first published on 5 July 1687. (When Newton's book was presented in 1686 to the Royal Society, Robert Hooke made a claim that Newton had obtained the inverse square law from him; see the History section below.)
In modern language, the law states: Every point mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.[2] The first test of Newton's theory of gravitation between masses in the laboratory was the Cavendish experiment conducted by the British scientist Henry Cavendish in 1798.[3] It took place 111 years after the publication of Newton's Principia and 71 years after his death.
Newton's law of gravitation resembles Coulomb's law of electrical forces, which is used to calculate the magnitude of electrical force arising between two charged bodies. Both are inverse-square laws, where force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. Coulomb's law has the product of two charges in place of the product of the masses, and the electrostatic constant in place of the gravitational constant.
Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity in most applications. Relativity is required only when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with very strong gravitational fields, such as those found near extremely massive and dense objects, or at very close distances (such as Mercury's orbit around the sun).
So the very central part of the Iron core of the Earth is the hottest but it is solid while the cooler outer part is molten ? How is it so ? The hotter inner part should be more molten than the cooler outer part. Unless the sheer "pressure" can cause Iron to be solid at higher temperatures at the inner core, while the outer core remains molten at lower temperatures. If that is the theory then I could see some logic in that even though I am not a physicist.
Regardless of how complicated things may be, they still need to make some sense when looked at in a simplistic, holistic and logical way.
Quite so..
Look at the top right corner of the diagram (supercritical fluid); we have a pseudo gas, a pseudo liquid or a pseudo solid.. all of which are plasma matter based and property dependent on pressure temperature boundary delta O0
http://www.livescience.com/6980-finally-solid-earth-core.html
The core was discovered in 1936 by monitoring the internal rumbles of earthquakes, which send seismic waves rippling through the planet. The waves, which are much like sound waves, are bent when they pass through layers of differing densities, just as light is bent as it enters water. By noting a wave's travel time, much can be inferred about the Earth's insides.
Define the boundary plane(s), specifically.
Quote from: wattsup on 2016.01.04, 13:05:14
@PhysicsProf
I think your question can be better asked this way.
If you could make the sun disappear with the flick of a finger, so from one second it's there and the next second it's gone without leaving the slightest trace, what happens to the planets? Will they all veer off their orbits immediately and hence show that there is something much faster then light? I personally say yes the planets and everything else in the solar system would stray of their orbits and get lost in space.
wattsup
The key point is whether the planets would veer off their orbits IMMEDIATELY, or after a delay -- 8 minutes delay for the earth ( the time required for the fastest possible signal (assuming light-speed is maximum for anything) -- to reach the earth.
I think the G-field from the sun would still be there at the earth the MOMENT the sun disappeared (a cleaver thought experiment - thanks) - but 8 minutes later, the absence of the G-field from the ABSENT sun would indeed be felt, and THEN the earth would veer off its elliptical orbit.
At that same 8-minute mark, the sun's light would appear on the earth to be GONE, at the same instant as the G-field from the sun disappeared. (imo)
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.01.04, 17:19:41
In my professional career I had the use of a time domain spectrometer that had a resolution better than 50pS. So I could measure effects over small distances (like a few cm). Although designed for finding discontinuities in 50 ohm transmission lines, it could also be used for measuring magnetic and electric field propagation speeds. I can verify that magnetic and electric near-fields do travel at the speed of light (that is the fields themselves, not necessarily the transport of power which travels slower in near-field coupling situations. I guess modern TDR's have an even better resolution, my TDR was 1964 vintage! So the sudden presence of electrons on the plate of a capacitor create an influence that travels at the speed of light (or less in a dielectric). Does that answer the question concerning the sudden appearance of an electron?
...
Smudge
Yes it does! as expected, electric fields (or at least, near-fields) do travel at the speed of light. Thanks!
Now, I would very much like to learn more about the "time domain spectrometer that had a resolution better than 50pS" -- and HOW it could be " used for measuring magnetic and electric field propagation speeds." Is there anything written up on this? I'd love to learn more...
Thanks again.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2016.01.05, 02:22:08
Yes it does! as expected, electric fields (or at least, near-fields) do travel at the speed of light. Thanks!
Now, I would very much like to learn more about the "time domain spectrometer that had a resolution better than 50pS" -- and HOW it could be " used for measuring magnetic and electric field propagation speeds." Is there anything written up on this? I'd love to learn more...
Thanks again.
HP still make TDR's and this link gives you the background to TDR measurements.
http://materias.fi.uba.ar/6209/download/HP-AN1304.pdf
(http://materias.fi.uba.ar/6209/download/HP-AN1304.pdf)
The TDR is simply a step generator plus a sampling scope. If the output connection (that would normally be to the transmission line under test) connects simply to a pair of electrodes, the waveform you get is easily deduced from first principles since you just have a 50 ohm source connected to a capacitor. Now place a conductive object near those electrodes and the capacity takes on a slightly different value. The TDR system can't see that changed value until the electric wavefront has reached the object and been reflected back, so the otherwise exponential curve on the scope now has a kink in it. The position of that kink tells you the distance to the object (classical radar ranging) and the shape of the waveform after the kink gives you some indication of the shape and extent of the object. I am sure that in this digital age someone could write a clever algorithm that analyses the shape of the curve to give more information than that perceived by the eyeball.
The same goes for a magnetic field, the TDR output is connected to a single turn coil. A ferrous or conductive object placed near the coil creates the waveform kink. Clearly the field propagation and reflection characteristics are different from normal far-field radar, so interpreting the seen reflection is more complex, but it is there and readily observable. If you have access to a pulse generator with a sub nS rise time and a sampling scope you can easily perform your own experiments.
Of course this system has limitations. The field drops off rapidly with range (which the clever algorithm would take account of) so it only has limited range capability before the signal gets down to noise. And the waveform you get depends very much on the coil size or electrode configuration.
With my old TDR you could remove the T that connected step generator and oscilloscope to the transmission line under test, and then have separate transmit and receive "antenna" (coil or electrodes). Ideal for just measuring propagation delay between separated antenna.
Transmitting a surface wave along the outside of a length of coax was achieved by having the center conductor connected to a conical electrode that folded back over the coax. This sent the step wavefront as an EM wave back along the outside surface that effectively formed the inner conductor of a coax line with its outer at infinity. The TDR saw this as a line of different impedance to 50 ohms which is simply a flat trace at a different vertical deflection. Any discontinuity on that line showed up in the usual way.
Smudge
Looks like Steven D. Mark now works for NASA, unless it is a different person, but the references to the Journal of Acoustical Society is correct, and association with David Doleshal.
Maybe they are different persons that the stupid Microsoft database thought was the same person.
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/55153239/steven-d-mark
Quote from: ION on 2016.02.16, 18:27:54
Looks like Steven D. Mark now works for NASA, unless it is a different person, but the references to the Journal of Acoustical Society is correct, and association with David Doleshal.
Maybe they are different persons that the stupid Microsoft database thought was the same person.
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/55153239/steven-d-mark
Don't trust the DB associations being automatically made by that system. According to the same system, of my publications in the journals "Metaphilosophy" and "Philosophy of Science" I have been cited only once. I assure you that I've been cited more than once.
BTW... What is Metaphilosophy?
Never mind. If it is on the web and generated by a M$ product it must be true.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2016.02.19, 00:50:06
Don't trust the DB associations being automatically made by that system. According to the same system, of my publications in the journals "Metaphilosophy" and "Philosophy of Science" I have been cited only once. I assure you that I've been cited more than once.
BTW... What is Metaphilosophy?
Never mind. If it is on the web and generated by a M$ product it must be true.
I agree it is a different person
.
I do have a paperweight ton of back issues of the
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America in my garage, will have to dig out SM's contribution to that journal and see if it is different than the patents......just for fun.
There is a patent posted by user PIX at OU.com that seems to be a very good fit for the TPU.
http://overunity.com/17172/a-simple-question-about-tpu-replication-attempts/msg502032/#msg502032
When I first skimmed the patent, I thought well, close, but no cigar, SM did not use gas tubes.
On a more thorough read, I can see that this is a very good find and good fit for the TPU as it shows that the travelling wave can effect (drag) the electrons in a solid metallic conductor or semiconductor (the collector) so a gas tube is not necessarily needed.
It can even drag electrons in free air see figure 7
There are many other statements in the patent that make it a very good TPU fit if it works as claimed.
Thanks to user "PIX"
Patent also attached here. Give it a good read.
Comments appreciated
Regards
ION
Quote from: ION on 2017.03.18, 20:43:28
There is a patent posted by user PIX at OU.com that seems to be a very good fit for the TPU.
http://overunity.com/17172/a-simple-question-about-tpu-replication-attempts/msg502032/#msg502032
Interesting. I think you are right to say that gas tubes are not necessary, ferromagnetic conductors can have their conduction electrons pumped in this way to create DC. I think the Russian Sergy Alexeew device does exactly that. He covers his toroidal coil with Al foil to get the distributed capacitance and that is mentioned in the patent. Here is my paper on that device. Also another one that does a similar thing.
Smudge
Quote from: ION on 2017.03.18, 20:43:28
There is a patent posted by user PIX at OU.com that seems to be a very good fit for the TPU.
http://overunity.com/17172/a-simple-question-about-tpu-replication-attempts/msg502032/#msg502032
When I first skimmed the patent, I thought well, close, but no cigar, SM did not use gas tubes.
On a more thorough read, I can see that this is a very good find and good fit for the TPU as it shows that the travelling wave can effect (drag) the electrons in a solid metallic conductor or semiconductor (the collector) so a gas tube is not necessarily needed.
It can even drag electrons in free air see figure 7
There are many other statements in the patent that make it a very good TPU fit if it works as claimed.
Thanks to user "PIX"
Patent also attached here. Give it a good read.
Comments appreciated
Regards
ION
That reminds me of the Meyer system where the gas is hydrogen and oxygen, HHO. I have seen this first hand along with all the rest, more than one if I recall, did have some pictures that I took.
Regards
Mike 8)
Attached is an additional related patent that was referenced in the citations.
It is a good read full of interesting ideas and applications.
What if explanation is simpler the we think ? What if the rotation of Earth is caused by external electric current flowing into the Earth core and melting iron core ? Basically what if Earth is just a metallic ball and electro-magnet with iron core = Faraday dynamo ?
Quote from: forest on 2017.03.20, 21:34:22
What if explanation is simpler the we think ? What if the rotation of Earth is caused by external electric current flowing into the Earth core and melting iron core ? Basically what if Earth is just a metallic ball and electro-magnet with iron core = Faraday dynamo ?
Forest.
I have no idea, but have always wondered about the consistent spin of the earth over the last two hundred years losing only a few milliseconds.
See here: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1097.0
Could you somehow tie this idea into how it applies to building a working TPU. How could a person standing on the surface of the dynamo you have proposed utilize it to produce electrical current in a portable device?
How would you test the idea as proof of principle?
For those who missed it the patent of interest is on post #386, US3085189
Here is a spreadsheet of some coil data extracted from the Thonemann et al patent.
Also some screenshots of the actual coil calculator used.
Let me know if there are any errors.
It should be easy to build and test this device to see if it stands up to some of the claims in the patent.
Lets keep this discussion of the patent on topic until Peterae can move it all to a new thread.
Thanks also to Smudge for his supportive documents.
Here are some of my thoughts reposted from OU.com
QuoteTo be clear the patent presented by PIX US3085189 Thonemann et al is very much in line with TPU research.
It presents an explanation to some of the factors that have been elusive regarding the SM TPU.
The biggest find within the patent in my opinion is the direct conversion of RF Current (alternating current) into a Direct Current by propelling electrons in one direction in a elemental noble gas or mixture of gases or an electron "gas" in the metal lattice of a conductor or a semiconductor. (the collector)
And this is the very first claim of the patent!. How this is done without discrete semiconductor rectifiers eluded me and others for a very long time. If the patent is real and works as claimed, it is to me at least, a huge revelation.
It is my belief that any serious researcher of TPU devices of SM must address this first major issue.
The other issues fall into place once this is properly addressed. The very slight gyroscopic effect, the slight stiction when pushed can possibly be explained when copious numbers of electrons are accelerated to wave velocity in a circular shaped device.
Also looking at the graphs, there is a current multiplication of at least one order of magnitude.
Two methods are presented for producing the traveling wave and resultant DC current derived from RF input current, one utilizing a transmission line and the other a polyphase drive system.
So, to be sure, the patent US3085189 generously provided by PIX is very relevant to the topic of the thread.
I recommend that the capacitors be matched as closely as possible and that care is exercised in the coil construction.
Dear ION.
Chet spoke to me via Skype yesterday evening about this patent.
I assume a Fluorescent tube could be used in one of the configurations? Being a fish keeper we have a UV steriliser in operation, I wondered if one of those might be better than the phosphor coated lighting tubes?
Just thinking out loud...... :)
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.03.23, 14:24:44
Dear ION.
Chet spoke to me via Skype yesterday evening about this patent.
I assume a Fluorescent tube could be used in one of the configurations? Being a fish keeper we have a UV steriliser in operation, I wondered if one of those might be better than the phosphor coated lighting tubes?
Just thinking out loud...... :)
Cheers Graham.
Dear Graham
Yes, that would be fine as it is probably a mercury vapor lamp. I also have one of those clear tubes. Use care to shield your eyes from the UV rays. Only thing I'm not sure about is the gas pressure in those tubes. According to the patent, the frequency is not critical, but gas pressure has a big effect on DC current output (Fig3).
I would advise anyone interested in this build to do the coil winding on a good stiff former such that other devices can also be slid into the tube, such as copper or iron wire "collector" or partially conductive materials, or just totally open and accelerating free electrons in the air as in Fig7
Note also that the effect is supposedly reversible i.e. running a strong DC current from a wire passed through the coil interior will excite the transmission line to a higher amplitude of oscillation. (Sec 1, Par 40-45)
When winding, bring out a small twist every 12 turns as a terminal to attach the capacitors used for loading the line.
I'm still looking into wire gauge but used 0.4mm (26 AWG) for the calculations. It may be possible to fit heavier wire.
Interestingly, in researching traveling wave tubes, I found the term "collector" refers to the electron beam target in such tubes.
Regards
ION
P.S. Caveat Emptor: Regarding this patent, until proven otherwise my signature at the bottom of the post still applies. We shall see.
Hi ION,
i was looking at the patent and understand from your and Grahams comments that your are primarily looking at the Fig. 5 configuration, Right?
It says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'FIG. 5 shows a sealed glass tube 9,5 cm. diameter and 60 cm. long, containing mercury vapour at about 10-3 mm. Hg pressure and provided at each end with
heavy section sealed-in electrodes one of which is an electron emitting cathode.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This 9,5 cm diameter is rather thick is it not as normal Fluorescent lamps are thinner (the , in this 9,5 means the European indication for a decimal point i think).
Also the pressure (10-3 mm Hg = 0.001mm Hg) ) seems higher as in a normal Fluorescent lamp as according to the below wiki they are at 0.8 Pa (which is 0.006mm Hg
according to the webside below the wiki).
==========================================================================================================
Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp
A Fluorescent lamp tube is filled with a gas containing low pressure mercury vapor and argon, xenon, neon, or krypton.
The pressure inside the lamp is around 0.3% of atmospheric pressure.[23]
[23] Kulshreshtha, Alok K. (2009). Basic Electrical Engineering: Principles and Applications.
India: Tata McGraw-Hill Education. p. 801. ISBN 0-07-014100-2.
The partial pressure of the mercury vapor alone is about 0.8 Pa (8 millionths of atmospheric pressure), in a T12 40-watt lamp. See Kane and Sell, 2001, page 185
================================================================================================
Http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pressure-units-converter-d_569.html
10-3mm Hg = 0.13Pa
0.8Pa = 0.006mm Hg
=================================================================================================
Anyway, if the pressure and diameter are no real show stoppers, i am interested to give it a try.
I understand your advice is to use a (transparent?) stiff former so we can change the Fluorescent lamps for anything else (copper or iron wire "collector" or partially conductive materials).
Transparent because we would like to see the lamp light up, right?
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu.
Indeed, 95 mm is nearly 4" in diameter! The older fluorescent tubes were 25 mm 1" in diameter.
Would the higher negative pressure in the patent specification slow the progress of the electrons ?
More musing. ;)
Cheers Graham.
Guys, the bold
9 is the reference designator pointing to the tube.
The tube is 5 cm or 50 mm diameter as shown in my spreadsheet for the coil data.
See the attached drawing fig 5, upper left with the reference designator
9 pointing to the tube.
All bold numbers in U.S. patents are designators to components of a drawing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section 1 paragraph 45 it is stated that a fixed conductor can be used (in place of the tube) and a current that flows unidirectionally (a DC current) in the fixed conductor will generate a frequency in the transmission line.
So, the device is
reversible in it's operation,
it can produce DC current in a conductor from an oscillator input to the transmission line or it can produce a high frequency in the transmission line from a DC current that is flowing in the tube or in a conductor where the tube could have been located.Thus we do not need to have a gas tube to test the viability of the patent.
The device, if it works as advertised represents a fundamentally novel method of AC (RF) to DC conversion and vice versa. (section 1 paragraph 55 to 60).
Grum and Itsu, you have both been down quite a number of dead ends and I don't want to cheer lead another possible dead end. I just personally find this patent extremely interesting as it stands on its own and incidentally in it's possible ties to the TPU. I do intend to test it myself very soon. Please do not feel obligated to build this.
Hope this helps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Itsu said:
QuoteI understand your advice is to use a (transparent?) stiff former so we can change the Fluorescent lamps for anything else (copper or iron wire "collector" or partially conductive materials).
Transparent because we would like to see the lamp light up, right?
Dear Itsu
I don't recall saying that it should be transparent, but do recall saying be careful if you use a tube and it is visible as the UV light is harmful. I said I have a clear germicidal mercury vapor tube like Grahams. Perhaps that was the source of the confusion. Also, I don't think the pressure and diameter, if a tube is used, is that big a deal, as we are just looking for proof of a concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached is updated chart with mm and inches
Hello!
Do we have any idea about the power level and frequency range required of the oscillator in these patents? I skimmed the patents but that patent-lingo makes my eyeballs cross and sweat comes out of my forehead, so usually I just skip to the Claims and drawings/explanations.
ION,
thanks for the explaination, i did found it strange they used the comma.
But i have a general problem with reading patents, not only because of the language (English here), but also the style.
I was mentioning the transparent former as that would be the only way to see any light coming from the lamp.
Anyway, perhaps if you have a crude setup you can show it so that i better can visualize it.
Regards Itsu
For those that have formed a mental block because I have associated the patent of interest with the TPU of SM, attempt to put that aside and try evaluate the patent on it's own merits as a fundamental energy conversion device.
Understand that this patent is assigned to and wholly owned by the USA as represented by the Atomic Energy Commission, and may not be used in a commercial product without permission or licensing from them. I do not know if the patent has expired or if it is current with all fees paid.
The reason the AEC would be interested is because it is means for a linear accelerator of electrons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first sentence of the patent:
This patent refers to electro-magnetic devices and processes for the transfer, transformation, or conversion of energy.
Second sentence:
This invention is based on the phenomenon that the progressive magnetic field of a traveling wave exerts a unidirectional drag on electrons in the field.
Conversely a unidirectional motion of electrons (in the field) is able to produce or enhance a traveling wave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the two fundamental reciprocal operating statements understood, we can explore further in non- patent talk.
A traveling wave e.g. in the field of a transmission line produces a drag effect on electrons placed in the field. This produces a DC current flow in the device placed in the field be it a gas, a conductor, or a semiconductor.
Work is done on the electrons to accelerate them. This work causes the wave to attenuate as it travels in the transmission line, so energy must be fed into the line.
Conversely, we can put a DC current into the conductor and the flow of electrons in the conductor will produce or enhance the traveling wave.
It is unknown at this time whether there is a direct correlation between the work input and power output since typically the transmission line presents a high power factor to the source i.e. the voltage and current are typically out of phase.
We will have to determine by experiment if there is equivalence between work input and power output, since this is not a normal induction method as in a transformer, or the output would be AC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So for construction and proof of principle what is needed is a coil of approximately twelve turns per section, 12 sections overall 144 total turns for the linear version with taps , loaded at each tap with a capacitor 0.0011uF to a ground return path.
A source to excite the transmission line of approximately 1 MHz and a means to measure and note the power input. A means to tune the oscillator frequency such that a traveling wave is produced.
A conductor, partial conductor or gas tube placed in the field of the coils.
A means to examine and measure the current produced at the ends of the conductor etc. placed within the field.
Conversely, a means of placing a DC current flow in the conductor and note if it produces or enhances the traveling wave.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To make things easier in my own understanding of patents, I put a red box around each complete thought or statement of interest in the patent, so only that block needs to be digested in a given read.
I am attaching a marked up version in this manner. I can only restate that every paragraph of the patent is
important yet easy to understand.
The language of this patent is very clear compared to other patents I have read. Everything is spelled out, step by step.
In my last post I provided a spreadsheet excerpt of construction data from the patent, presented in both inches and millimeters.
I have to say that winding that coil with all those taps is not exactly a trivial exercise.
I also think that 28 uH per section is probably an overestimation of the inductance. I'd estimate 10-15 uH or so per section, based on a measurement of 15 turns of #27 on a 1 5/8 diameter form.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.03.24, 20:36:38
I have to say that winding that coil with all those taps is not exactly a trivial exercise.
I also think that 28 uH per section is probably an overestimation of the inductance. I'd estimate 10-15 uH or so per section, based on a measurement of 15 turns of #27 on a 1 5/8 diameter form.
Indeed 28 uH per section is only a pure division of the total inductance, a number to temporarily put in the spreadsheet, it will be way less due to mutual inductance. I originally headed that column label as "very approximate" since I had not had the chance yet to work the formula and find the actual value. Then I changed it to just "approx". It will probably be closer to the square root of 28.38 uH or around 5.33uH.
I'm sure 10 to 15 uH is closer to reality considering mutual inductance, in fact a rough initial stab at it showed around 5 uH for a stand alone coil, that using a maximum wire size of 3.5mm. (that figure allows some room for insulation or the max wire dia. would be 4.15 mm).
Attached is the calculation for 12 turns stand alone inductor wound on a 50mm by 50mm section using the largest wire that would fit the length of 50mm, 3.5mm wire.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The way I'm going to wind the coil is a straight wind of 144 turns of the heaviest plastic insulated wire that will fit the length of 600mm. Then I will mark every 12th wind with a black marker and carefully cut away the insulation at that point and solder a tab for the capacitor.
Alternately as the coil is wound, a small twist or short hairpin can be formed at every twelfth turn to serve as a tab. This will work better for single strand formvar insulated wire.
Another method if using formvar insulated wire is to insert a small "U" shaped piece of fish paper at every twelfth turn. This will serve as a shield to avoid nicking the adjacent wires when the formvar is scraped off.
It would be nice to use Litz, but it is a bear to work with.
From the patent, the frequency is not critical. If it is in the neighborhood of a megahertz or so it should be ok.
Still looking for the right coil form, the rest I have.
Those methods sound good to me and make perfect sense. It might be a little difficult to solder to the stripped areas of the plastic-insulated coil wire but that's probably not a show-stopper.
Your calculator's 5uH figure now seems a bit low to me. I'd like to use your calculator to calculate a value based on my own parameters, to see how closely it comes to my inductance meter measurement. Could you post a link to the calculator you are using? I've searched a bit and found many other calculators but not that particular one. The one I did try gave a result that was fairly close to what my meter reads for a "mockup" of one section, but it didn't include all the parameters that your calculator uses.
Smudge mentioned something earlier about using a ferromagnetic wire for the straight inner conductor in which the electron acceleration is supposed to happen. Do you think soft iron wire would be good here? Are you going to use copper or iron for this inner conductor? Should this inner conductor be any particular diameter, single or multistrand or something special like Litz construction or coax?
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.03.25, 11:39:37
Those methods sound good to me and make perfect sense. It might be a little difficult to solder to the stripped areas of the plastic-insulated coil wire but that's probably not a show-stopper.
Your calculator's 5uH figure now seems a bit low to me. I'd like to use your calculator to calculate a value based on my own parameters, to see how closely it comes to my inductance meter measurement. Could you post a link to the calculator you are using? I've searched a bit and found many other calculators but not that particular one. The one I did try gave a result that was fairly close to what my meter reads for a "mockup" of one section, but it didn't include all the parameters that your calculator uses.
Smudge mentioned something earlier about using a ferromagnetic wire for the straight inner conductor in which the electron acceleration is supposed to happen. Do you think soft iron wire would be good here? Are you going to use copper or iron for this inner conductor? Should this inner conductor be any particular diameter, single or multistrand or something special like Litz construction or coax?
Dear TK
Here is the link to the electron bunker coil calculator:
http://electronbunker.ca/eb/InductanceCalc.html
Another good one from hamwaves here:
http://hamwaves.com/antennas/inductance.html
Wen calculating inductance from the bunker site, I used their coil former template and so added the 0.4 mm to the length and diameter for a section. This would vary if larger dia. wire were used e.g. 4.0mm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding what will be placed into the linear device, I have not yet decided, but will leave that to experiment. First thing I would do is just fire up the line and try to get some idea of the power factor vs frequency with nothing inserted, as a baseline, then experiment with different items placed in the coil such as iron wire, copper wire, corroded or oxidized copper wire, semi conductors such as carbon rod, conductive rubber etc and of course a gas tube.
It will be interesting to see if a DC current can be obtained across any of the above mentioned.
I imagine the solid metals will rapidly heat up due to eddy losses, unless the eddy losses are lessened when some acceleration is achieved and/or when the current is allowed to flow into a load.
Typically a gas tube will ionize in a high RF field as you know from bringing neons close to HF coils.
As you also know, neons can be used to find the nodes along a line in a non-contact manner so it might be interesting to position neons above each section on a movable stick of wood.
It will also be interesting to note if a DC current flow in a wire placed in the coil enhances the existing traveling wave or can even initiate a standing wave per the patent's claimed reversibility of the conversion effect.
I have a major plumbing problem, a leak in a pipe inside a wall that will delay my progress on this, but gathering parts as time permits. Mundane stuff always getting in the way of progress.
Conjecture:
As a side note it is interesting that some of Kapanadze and others devices use a conductor passed through an odd arrangement of long coils. There was also a video experiment posted by Stephan Hartmann of OU.com where an associate had a large copper bus bar in the center of a coil that developed quite a high current (if memory is correct it was DC). Don't know if it is still available, but it was interesting.
Best of luck if you decide to build.
Regards
ION
Thanks!
The "electron bunker" calculator agrees with my meter measurement of my mockup coil very closely (calc 15.06 uH, meter 16 uH) and I expect my meter is not completely accurate at the bottom end of its most sensitive range. So that's all good.
I've got domestic problems in my walls too -- RATS! But at least they are dry rats. Killed a male the size of a small cat this evening, using a trap baited with a stale marshmallow.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.03.26, 06:19:05
Thanks!
The "electron bunker" calculator agrees with my meter measurement of my mockup coil very closely (calc 15.06 uH, meter 16 uH) and I expect my meter is not completely accurate at the bottom end of its most sensitive range. So that's all good.
I've got domestic problems in my walls too -- RATS! But at least they are dry rats. Killed a male the size of a small cat this evening, using a trap baited with a stale marshmallow.
Although an exact build would eliminate some variables, I believe any good high quality (low loss) loaded transmission line operating around 1 MHz will work.
I think it is more important to understand what happens in a shorted transmission line, how the patterns set up in the line due to reflections can accelerate the electron beam or conductor electrons.
You would think the spacing between sections of the line should be according the expected velocity at given points along the line. The patent does not mention this.
Is it possible the pattern set up in the line already accounts for this and the accelerating nodes are spaced appropriately? Food for more thought.
Other things to think about are the differences between a circular versus linear version. In a circular device, electrons are constantly recirculated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rats in the walls can be a daunting problem. Hope you can rid them. Maybe some piezo's operating at 20kHz or so.
Now I've got to go fix a car that won't start. Progress delayed but I did wind a long coil.
Cheers
I made this a couple of days ago, forgot to post it here. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTPfRMe1Fs0
This is just stimulating the line at the left end with a low-voltage signal from my ElCheepo DDS sweep FG, and monitoring the line with the scope probe across the 6th section.
Sweeping from 1kHz to 1MHz. Blue is stimulus from FG, yellow is line response.
Still to come is a high-energy driver stage and also looking at a set of various center conductor types. No, as yet I have made no measurements of a center conductor.
But I have a roll of nice rusty soft-iron wire out on the porch, if it hasn't "walked off" somewhere.
As you can see I adopted a slightly different technique for winding the coil, I used tiny eyescrews as terminals for each individual section. Also am using
20 turns per section and 0.0022 uF poly film caps. So I'm not sure how "approximately" this can be considered to be.
But it is kind of relaxing or hypnotic to watch the stimulus and response varying, phase shifting, and achieving VRSWR in this simple system. The music track is just something
I found on the YouTube audio library that I thought was a good fit to the display.
Nice work TK, enjoyed the video. Using the tiny screws as connection points is a good idea. BTW, what gauge wire did you use?
Lets hope the patent lives up to some of it's claims. Study the other patent I posted by LLewellyn. It makes some important points.
Partzman has been hard at work on this and may have some interesting things to post when he gets the time.
There is much to be learned about transmission lines used in non-conventional ways where the energy is purposely built up and stored in the line. It can be very different than a normal LC resonator as we shall see.
Looks like I'm the lagger here, but do have about 20 coils wound on separate pvc forms with 18 gauge wire. I decided to use separate forms so I can later put them in a circle.
In discussion, we now think that the coils were more like good quality high Q RF coils that are wound on clear plastic strips with a good deal of spacing between turns, after all 12 turns over nearly 2 inches really
lowers the parasitic capacitance compared to a close wound coil.
These sites were interesting
http://www.seed-solutions.com/gregordy/Amateur%20Radio/Experimentation/HiQCoil.htm
http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/formulae/q-quality-factor/basics-tutorial.php
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QEX_Next_Issue/Jan-Feb_2012/QEX_1_12_Audet.pdf
http://lists.contesting.com/_amps/2002-11/msg00394.html
My intention at some point is to use a 12 CircleLine(TM) fluorescent tube. I know it is not a complete circular vacuum tube, but hoping if I get some acceleration going that I can complete the electron path between the filaments with a jumper or metal bridge.
I'll post some pics later.
Quote from: TinselKoala
...
I've got domestic problems in my walls too -- RATS! But at least they are dry rats. Killed a male the size of a small cat this evening, using a trap baited with a stale marshmallow.
Rats make wonderful pets! Very easy to tame and
they're very clean if given food and water.
Quite
intelligent too. ;)
In some Asian cultures Rats are a delicacy :'(
Those big-uns could make quite a meal. :(
Quote from: muDped on 2017.03.31, 19:41:13
Rats make wonderful pets! (https://www.thespruce.com/pet-rats-1236745) Very easy to tame and
they're very clean if given food and water. Quite
intelligent too. (https://www.lovethatpet.com/small-pets/rats/) ;)
In some Asian cultures Rats are a delicacy :'(
Those big-uns could make quite a meal. (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/559792/Mutant-rats-big-as-cats-found-British-homes-farms) :(
Hi muDped, good to hear from you !
I will keep that in mind, should there be a shortage of food.
Just south of here a few hundred miles there are some really large rodents, but they are not very intelligent.
muDped, being an old Navy Radioman, I'm sure you might have some helpful hints on coil Q etc.
or possibly some other ideas on these transmission lines.
As these lines are not meant for the optimum conveyance of power from point A to point B but rather are being used as reflective energy storage devices.
Smudge is welcome to chime in here too, as I'm sure he could also tell us some interesting things about transmission lines.
Regards
All,
Here is the Tline setup I will be using for testing. The pix below shows the line with an F15 T8 lamp and ballast in place. The line has 13 positions with 24 turns ea in 24gs pvc insulated wound on a 1.32" dia pvc tube for a total L=304uH. The caps are 4700pf polypro for a total C=.0611ufd. This calculates to Td = 4.31us (actual = 4us) and Z = 71 ohms. This is not similar to the patent so will offer a different view and possible results from other close replications.
I've included scope pix of the line in loaded, unloaded, and shorted operating conditions. The shorted requires current limiting which in this case is 500ma so the pulse amplitude from the Ixys driver is reduced as a result.
CH1(yel) is the pulse input to the Tline from the Ixys driver, CH2(blu) is the voltage across a 1 ohm 1% Caddock non-inductive resistor monitoring the Tline current, and CH3(pnk) is the voltage across the output of the line.
CH4(grn) is a current probe measurement on a 60x15ga litz wire collector running thru the center of the Tline.
pm
Yes, the patent referenced by ION (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=302.0;attach=24371) is quite interesting.
The initial discussion of the application and what
it does brings to mind the Traveling Wave Tube. But
since the transmission line structure is "shorted"
in order to "resonate" there is more going on.
The Energy Storage type circuits I'm most familiar
with which resemble Transmission Lines in their
construct are the Pulse Forming Networks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_forming_network) used
in high powered Radar Systems. An entirely different
sort of application with DC in and Pulse Out (http://www.pocketmagic.net/pulse-forming-network/) but
very, very powerful.
High Voltage is fascinating stuff. I've long
wanted to put together a Marx Generator. (http://www.pocketmagic.net/twin-marx-generator/)
The second ship I was aboard (63-64) was a
small Gasoline Tanker (AOG-8) homeported
in Subic Bay, the Philippines. It was like taking
a trip into the past. We had several Radio Transmitters
of the 30s-40s vintage with Motor Generator High
Voltage power supplies (3000 VDC), Low Voltage
Motor Generators to provide filament power (12 VDC)
to the vacuum tubes, and Resonant Line connections to
the various Antennae. Our power system was
110 VDC with limited 60 Hz 120 VAC in the Radio
Shack for several newer receivers and our On-Line
Cryptographic Receiver for decoding the Fleet
Broadcast. The AC power was provided by a
Motor Generator located one deck below. Really
exciting duty with some very capable Radiomen
who were very good at CW communications.
Today's Navy no longer has Radiomen; now
the fellas (and some gals) in what once was the
Radio Shack are known as Mass Communications
Specialists.
I liked it better back in the Old Days. ;)
Many thanks to all that took a look at the patent and also to partzman and TK for building a unit to test.
Special hats off to partzman who I know has been working long and hard on this and has performed numerous tests .
Also thanks to muDped for the interesting links he posted, and stories of the good old days....wish I could have had those experiences.
Attached are a few pic's.
Still short a few caps, need to search a bit more for them. I have the low voltage caps but wanted to use high voltage mica caps because I want to push some power into this thing and see if I can get the gas tube to ionize on it's own without a bias. That may take a few watts of input power and I suspect the voltage on the caps will get a bit high possibly > 1kV. With the tube ionized on it's own, I can then go about seeing if there is any DC produced on the end terminals.
I used a terminal lug approach so that I can also try reversing the phase of every other coil to see what effect that has.
I can also arrange these coils in a circle.
This next thought may not apply to this particular version but from what I have recently read about electron accelerators in some old patents, a single valve pulse generator using a variable saturable core oscillator produces a fast pulse in the loop coils, and it is at the zero crossing of the magnetic field of these coils that a source of electrons to be accelerated is injected into the beam. The timing is important else the electrons don't make it into the circulating beam and are rejected.
Nice builds TK, PM and ION O0
I tried to stay in line with the Fig. 5 setup as close as possible, so i have 144 turns of 0.4mm magnet wire.
Each 12 turns will have a 1nF mica film cap (on order) attached to the return line.
The coil measures 87uH and 3.4 Ohm, the former is a PVC tube with 50mm OD.
It is slightly longer as planned (65cm) :o , so the Fluorescent lamp will be inside the former.
Not sure with what to drive it (OSC) as it needs some heavy power i understand, perhaps a kacher like device?
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.02, 19:51:39
Not sure with what to drive it (OSC) as it needs some heavy power i understand, perhaps a kacher like device?
How about the EL2009 amp box?
Also, since you have 2 channels you can drive it as a 90º phased coil array (without caps), which is also described in this patent, AFAIR
Yes, i was thinking of using the EL2009 amp box, but the patent says:
One end of the line is short-circuited and the other end is fed with RF. power from a 1 mega
cycle oscillator 'OSC capable of delivering 3—4 kw.
The "1 megacycle" will be no problem, but the 3—4 kw is, but i can start with that.
I will look into that "90º phased coil array (without caps)" part, as skimming the patent again does not show it
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.03, 13:02:23
Yes, i was thinking of using the EL2009 amp box, but the patent says:
One end of the line is short-circuited and the other end is fed with RF. power from a 1 mega
cycle oscillator 'OSC capable of delivering 3—4 kw.
The "1 megacycle" will be no problem, but the 3—4 kw is, but i can start with that.
I will look into that "90º phased coil array (without caps)" part, as skimming the patent again does not show it
Itsu
Dear Itsu
Do not be dismayed about the power input. The Tline is mostly reactive so the 3-4 kW should have been expressed as 3-4 kVAR. How much will show up as real resistive power depends on the eddy current coupling to the electrons as it is stated that it is this factor that will produce the resistive component. Otherwise, the TLine voltage and current are mostly out of phase, so very little real power is drawn from the source. However,
do not drive directly with your sig gen or it can be destroyed as the out of phase voltage and current can get quite high. You will need a buffer amplifier that can withstand the input rise.
See section 1 par 55-60 and Section 2 par 15.
It is easy to build up large stored charge in the line from a small input source. You will need to take care that the source can handle the large reactive current and voltage rise as energy builds in the line.
When enough RF voltage is built up in the line, at some point the tube should ionize as it would if it were close to a Tesla coil. Then the end terminals of the tube can be measured. If you work at low RF levels you may need a means to strike an arc in the tube.
A series circuit comprising a DC power source current limited via a resistor applied to the tube ends and an inductor quickly sparked across the tube will usually ignite it.
In sweeping the line at low input levels, I found a few resonant points, but this may be because I was lacking a few capacitors. Will run again when I have the rest of the capacitors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMdevices
Good to see you here as your original idea posted recently seems very related to this. Thanks for your correction drawing. Do you have any further thoughts on this device or your original posting?
Regards
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.03, 13:02:23
I will look into that "90º phased coil array (without caps)" part, as skimming the patent again does not show it
It shows 120º phased coil array in Fig.6.
It might come as a surprise that your FG can generate three signals 120º apart with some simple external summators, but you don't have a 3-ch power amp like the 2009 box.
90º phased coil array is a simpler version of that, that can be realized with just 2-ch FG and RF power amp...which you have both.
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.03, 13:02:23
... the patent says:
One end of the line is short-circuited and the other end is fed with RF. power from a 1 mega
cycle oscillator 'OSC capable of delivering 3—4 kw.
An RF power amplifier of that power would cost you €4k per channel. See
this (http://eb104.ru/internet-magazin-shirokopolosnye-usiliteli-moschnosti-pa1000w/hf-power-amplifier-ldmos-trasistor-1200w-output/full-kit-hf-amplifier-2400w-1-8-54mhz-2xblf578-with-smart-high-c) and note that is without the 50V 50A power supply.
Do you want to invest that kind of money?
Quote from: verpies on 2017.04.03, 14:11:16
It shows 120º phased coil array in Fig.6.
It might come as a surprise that your FG can generate three signals 120º apart with some simple external summators, but you don't have a 3-ch power amp like the 2009 box.
90º phased coil array is a simpler version of that, that can be realized with just 2-ch FG and RF power amp...which you have both.
An RF power amplifier of that power would cost you €4k per channel.
Do you want to invest that kind of money?
I'm guessing it is not necessary to run anywhere near that level to see a small effect, which is what we are after. Also please read my earlier comments regarding the power factor of the line.
What we want to see is a resistive loading effect on the primary due to accelerated electrons. Normally, the line will be mostly reactive until it can actually couple to the electrons in the "collector" be it gas tube, conductor, or partial conductor. Although the word "semi-conductor" is used instead of partial conductor in the patent I have refrained from using that term, lest folks think a rectifier should be put in as a collector.
The basic operation of the device is an AC (RF) to DC converter. The rectification is inherent to the operation of the system
without the use of rectifiers due to the dragging and acceleration of electrons by the action of the traveling wave.
Regards
ION, verpies,
thanks, so i will start testing with my EL2009 buffer amp. inbetween and see what signal levels i am up against.
The caps will arrive later this week i hope, so still some time to install the return copper wire etc.
By the way, my 87uH coil is a very close match to the calculated 90uH of ION's Fig. 5 calculator in post #392.
Itsu
FWIW, here are some results of 32% duty cycle impulse tests run on my Tline with the output shorted.
The trace references are as follows: CH1(yel) is the pulse input to the Tline from the Ixys driver, CH2(blu) is the voltage measured across a 1 ohm 1% non-inductive resistor which represents the Tline current return to ground, CH3(pnk) not used, CH4(grn) is current thru a 1200x34 litz wire collector passing thru the Tline, and Math(red) is the product of CH1 x CH2.
The 1st pix is measurement of the input pulse to the Tline. From this we can derive the impedance of the line is ~74 ohms. Also note that the load to the pulse driver is resistive for both the first and second pulses.
The 2nd pix shows a mean collector current of -7.885ma over the first reflected pulse time of ~8us. The offset current of the probe prior to the input pulse was -42ua (not shown).
The 3rd, 4th, and 5th pix show the collector mean current over the following reflected pulse periods.
The 6th pix shows a mean output current of 243.5 ma thru the Tline output short for the first pulse period. I find this interesting when compared to the input pulse mean current of 32.19 ma over the period of 2.507us!
Edit: The above statement is in error. The input pulse mean current is 119.6ma over the first period and therefore the shorted Tline output current gain during this time is 243.5/119.6 = 2.04.
pm
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.03, 16:28:29
ION, verpies,
thanks, so i will start testing with my EL2009 buffer amp. inbetween and see what signal levels i am up against.
The caps will arrive later this week i hope, so still some time to install the return copper wire etc.
By the way, my 87uH coil is a very close match to the calculated 90uH of ION's Fig. 5 calculator in post #392.
Itsu
Hi Itsu
May be a good idea to a put a power resistor or incandescent lamp as a feed between your power amp and the TLine, at least for initial tests until you can get an idea of the current and voltage reflecting out of the line back into the amp. I would hate to see that amp get blown.
You might find it interesting to put a neon bulb on the end of a stick and move it along the TLine to discover peaks and nodes.
I'm sure muDped will appreciate this: While I'm waiting on some capacitors, I pulled my Heathkit DX-100 out from under the bench and struggled all 100 pounds of it onto the workbench. I plan to use it to drive the TLine, also adding a dummy load of some sort. This beast needs a little work to get it back in shape but has a VFO and crystal selection. If I'm lucky, may be able to drive 140 Watts and even add some modulation just to see what it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
partzman
What conclusions can you draw from your latest round of tests?
Take Care
Quote from: ION on 2017.04.04, 00:23:03
[snip]
partzman
What conclusions can you draw from your latest round of tests?
Take Care
ION,
I'm still working on it but I will say that all my tests so far seemingly show only normal transformer induction in the collector or no effect at all when using a fluorescent lamp collector at ac (40kHz). I plan to raise the operating frequency of the Tline and try operating the fluorescent lamp at dc to see if the results are any different.
pm
Ah, the mighty 6146 beam power tetrode. What a blast from the past. Thanks for posting that!
Aye, blast from the past for sure! O0
Ah, things were so much more enjoyable back
in those days when electrical/electronic
suppliers were numerous and a multitude
of kits were available. Heathkit was top of the
line with many incredible bargains. :)
You guys are reminding me of my age. My first real ham radio was the Heathkit HW101. My wife got it for me for Christmas one year and I think it took me two weeks to get it all built working on it in the evenings. I do like the old tube type gear. Before she got me that kit I was running an old military transmitter. I think it was an aircraft radio. It was an ART-13 if I recall correctly. My children were little and liked to come in the room when I was sending CW and watch the output tubes flash on and off as I transmitted. I think I still have one rig here somewhere that uses the 6146 tubes. If we ever have an EMP like some claim we might have, those old tube type rigs might come in handy.
Take care,
Carroll
Got my caps (1nF silver mica) yesterday, so could complete the Fig. 5 setup, see picture.
First thing to try was to get the characteristic impedance of this "transmision line" by doing a time domain reflection measurment.
But it seems this coil act as a fixed impedance as the signal does not change when opening or closing the far end.
I would expect to see an increase in time between the original and the reflected (positive or negative) pulse when inserting the coil.
Could it be that my pulse is to fast for the capacitance of this setup?
Anyway, i will do some frequency sweeping to see how it behaves.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajFqsh7KJ-E
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.07, 21:04:17
I would expect to see an increase in time between the original and the reflected (positive or negative) pulse when inserting the coil.
Could it be that my pulse is to fast for the capacitance of this setup?
IMO you are looking for the reflections from the end of the helical-cap line too soon and the picopulses are
not too fast.
Your scope is set up to look for reflections from the end of the Helicap line after several ns ...but you should be looking for them many μs later.
This is because the velocity factor in the coax cable is around 0.7c and in the Helicap line it can be as low as 0.0001c.
Of course you are going to get reflections
wherever ANY impedance discontinuity occurs, e.g.:
a) where your 50Ω coax cable joins to the beginning of the Helicap line, and...
b) where the caps connect to the helical line (12 different points!)
*, and...
c) where the Helicap line is shorted (or opened) at its end.
What your scope now shows several ns later must be the reflection from point (a)
You might get multiple reflections from all (b) points, later.
Reflections from the (c) point will be much later....and possibly much weaker.
P.S.
The reflections from the cap junctions (points b) can be minimized by increasing the number of caps so the capacitance is more evenly distributed along the Helicap line. More even capacitance distribution = less impedance discontinuities.
A suggestion for another experiment: Do that TDR measurement on some old coax, that you do not care about, and bash it with a hammer at some point (not so much that the hammer will cut it or short it, though). You will be able to "see" this "bashing point" on the scope mainly because the squeezed portion of the coax will have more capacitance at this "bashing point" (less distance between the inner and outer conductor) than the rest of the coax cable.
Next, bash it in several places (spread apart) and have a party !
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.07, 21:04:17
Got my caps (1nF silver mica) yesterday, so could complete the Fig. 5 setup, see picture.
First thing to try was to get the characteristic impedance of this "transmision line" by doing a time domain reflection measurment.
But it seems this coil act as a fixed impedance as the signal does not change when opening or closing the far end.
I would expect to see an increase in time between the original and the reflected (positive or negative) pulse when inserting the coil.
Could it be that my pulse is to fast for the capacitance of this setup?
Anyway, i will do some frequency sweeping to see how it behaves.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajFqsh7KJ-E
Regards Itsu
Itsu,
I see from a previous post that the total inductance Lt of your tline is 87uH. The total capacitance Ct of your line is 12nfd. Using the formula Td = (Lt*Ct)^1/2 and Z = (Lt/Ct)^1/2, your line should have an output delay Td of 1.02us and the return delay should be 2.04us. The impedance should be ~85 ohms. Verpies is correct in that you need to increase your horizontal sweep to see the delay. Hope this helps.
pm
Nice work as usual Itsu.
I agree with partzman and verpies. Perhaps set your scope to a longer time base so you could see the reflected pulse which is now off scale. Also you might try a resistor at the input transition to "tame" the input. Probably something close to the coax impedance.
Also a little longer pulse would not hurt at all.
I'm busy right now with finishing income taxes and getting the big transmitter working to drive the line, so won't be contributing much for a bit.
While I was waiting for some capacitors to arrive, I tested the resonance of my line by using a 1K resistor from the generator and scoping the input. I found there were a number of very sharp resonant points, but my line was missing a few caps at the end.
I will repeat the test with all capacitors in place when I get them.
Down the road, I'll put on the goggles, flak vest, and fire up the transmitter into the TLine.
Regards
Ok, guys, thanks for the comments.
I was thinking that as the 20cm coax shows as 1.6ns, the 65cm helicap line would show right behind it (within a few ns), but forgetting that the velocity factor could be way different.
Using my Agilent U1733C LCR meter it shows @ 100KHz an R=5.4 Ohm, an L=104uH and a Z=65 Ohm. The C shows minus 24nF, so can not be trusted.
I will take another look later today and also will look at the resonance points the "verpies" way (meaning with FG and scope sweeping across a frequency range).
Regards Itsu
My apologies to partzman, somehow I missed his post #430 while I was typing post #431 so I went back to edit and include his name in the "agreed" preamble of my post. #431.
Ok, found the pulse, its at 1.91us from the originator (roundtrip), see screenshot.
Using a 500 and a 100 Ohm potmeter it zero's out (kind of) around 77 Ohm, so that will be the characteristic impedance.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJsRuMg34gw
next i will sweep for resonance points when shorted at the end.
Itsu
Resonance sweep with FG and scope, FG loosely coupled with 3 turns sweeping a range of 100KHz to 5MHz (no resonance points seen higher then 5MHz) see screenshot 1
A zoomed in sweep (400KHz to 550KHz) shows the first and strongest resonance peak to be at 475KHz, see screenshot 2
No difference seen with a shorted or opened coil at the far end.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVDA3M_7qRc
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.08, 21:46:47
A zoomed in sweep (400KHz to 550KHz) shows the first and strongest resonance peak to be at 475KHz, see screenshot 2
That is about 2.1μs after inversion, which compares nicely with your TDR measurment.
It also gives your Helicap line 0.002c a velocity factor.
This means that the nodes of the standing wave in your Helicap coil are 350 times closer than in your coax cable with VF=0.7c.
At 475kHz you will get 1 standing wave node and at 3.8MHz you will get 8 nodes.
You could use the 4 channels of your scope to visualize the standing wave by measuring the voltage across 4 caps (spaced equally) with a slow timebase.
To get 8 standing wave nodes in your coax cable of the same length as the Helicap line, you'd need to drive it with 1.33Ghz, which illustrates the whole purpose of having the Helicap line with its 0.002c velocity factor.
To put it in perspective, here are two videos to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozeYaikI11g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1PgCOTDjvI
...but, but I think the patent does not want a standing wave. I think it wants a 90º traveling wave. Please read it again to make sure - I am too lazy to do it tonight.
Neat!
Turns out I can do that too, using the Rigol Z-box and the Cheepo-San DDS, only not as pretty as Itsu's pictures. Here's what mine looks like, with the FG making sine waves at 5v-p-p fed directly into the beginning of the line, and sweeping from 1kHz to 2MHz in 12 seconds.
Top trace is at the feed point (beginning) and bottom trace is between segments 9 and 10.
From verpies
Quote...but, but I think the patent does not want a standing wave. I think it wants a 90º traveling wave. Please read it again to make sure - I am too lazy to do it tonight.
That is correct,we want a traveling wave.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.04.09, 00:29:24
Turns out I can do that too,
Excellent!
What is the calculated velocity factor of your Helicap line?
Quote from: ION on 2017.04.09, 03:32:47
That is correct,we want a traveling wave.
It think a FM ramp will create that.
Imperfect termination, too...in a way.
Quote from: verpies on 2017.04.08, 22:44:34
That is about 2.1μs after inversion, which compares nicely with your TDR measurment.
It also gives your Helicap line 0.002c a velocity factor.
This means that the nodes of the standing wave in your Helicap coil are 350 times closer than in your coax cable with VF=0.7c.
At 475kHz you will get 1 standing wave node and at 3.8MHz you will get 8 nodes.
You could use the 4 channels of your scope to visualize the standing wave by measuring the voltage across 4 caps (spaced equally) with a slow timebase.
To get 8 standing wave nodes in your coax cable of the same length as the Helicap line, you'd need to drive it with 1.33Ghz, which illustrates the whole purpose of having the Helicap line with its 0.002c velocity factor.
To put it in perspective, here are two videos to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozeYaikI11g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1PgCOTDjvI
...but, but I think the patent does not want a standing wave. I think it wants a 90º traveling wave. Please read it again to make sure - I am too lazy to do it tonight.
Ok, nice video's.
For my understanding:
475Khz = 2.1us (http://www.calctool.org/CALC/other/converters/freq).
475Khz = 631.5m wavelength (http://www.wavelengthcalculator.com/)
as my coil is 65cm long (so not 60cm), the velocity factor is (0.65 x 2) / 631.5 = 0.002
(so we do not use the length of the magnet wire (144 turns on a 5cm diameter (= circumference 15.7cm) = 22.6m because of the capacitors/inductors forming a transmision line of 65cm).
As we see roughly 10 (or 11) resonance peaks, can we conclude we have 10 (or 11) different standing waves on this helicap line like shown in the below picture?
Itsu
Generally, yes
Hmmm,
this evening i was trying to use my spectrum analyzer to analyze the helicap line, but found different values for resonance as yesterday using the FG/scope, see screenshot 1
First dip is 233Khz (not the 475KHz from yesterday) etc.
When checking again using the FG / Scope like i did yesterday, it confirmed the different resonance points, see screenshot 2.
As far as i can see nothing has changed in, on or near the helicap line.
Any idea why / how this change could have happened?
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.09, 21:17:01
Any idea why / how this change could have happened?
Yes, because you are measuring dips (not peaks) and displaying them in the logarithmic mode. To make a more similar display to your scope, change the spectrum analyzer's vertical axis display to a
linear mode.
The first peak would be between the 1
st and 2
nd dip, so ( 233kHz + 708kHz ) / 2 = 470kHz
I understand what you are saying, but that was not what i meant.
Look at the 2 screenshots in my post above yours, there you see that the SA screenshot shows (dips) at 233, 703 etc. Khz (odds), and the scope too shows (peaks) at
these same frequencies.
These frequencies (SA and scope) are different from the scope screenshots in my earlier post #435 where i see (even) peaks at 475, 950 etc. Khz.
So something has changed overnight between these 2 measurements.
Itsu
No it must be the difference between the S11 or S21 parameters being measured by the scope and SA.
I found the reason for the 2 different resonance points on this helicap line.
It is the difference between a short or an open at the end.
I am sure i tried that the first day to, but did not notice the change probably because of the 10s sweep and the delay in displaying it.
Anyway,
open line we have resonance points like 475, 950, 1425 etc. KHz,
and with a shorted line resonance points like 233, 699, 1165 etc. Khz.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t60gMfWZ-U&feature=youtu.be
Regards Itsu
Quote from: verpies on 2017.04.08, 22:44:34
That is about 2.1μs after inversion, which compares nicely with your TDR measurment.
It also gives your Helicap line 0.002c a velocity factor.
This means that the nodes of the standing wave in your Helicap coil are 350 times closer than in your coax cable with VF=0.7c.
At 475kHz you will get 1 standing wave node and at 3.8MHz you will get 8 nodes.
You could use the 4 channels of your scope to visualize the standing wave by measuring the voltage across 4 caps (spaced equally) with a slow timebase.
To get 8 standing wave nodes in your coax cable of the same length as the Helicap line, you'd need to drive it with 1.33Ghz, which illustrates the whole purpose of having the Helicap line with its 0.002c velocity factor.
To put it in perspective, here are two videos to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozeYaikI11g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1PgCOTDjvI
...but, but I think the patent does not want a standing wave. I think it wants a 90º traveling wave. Please read it again to make sure - I am too lazy to do it tonight.
Not sure why we would need a slow timebase, but i tried this with as result, see screenshot.
FG put to 1st resonance point in an open line (477KHz), the 4 probes equally distributed across the Helicap line.
yellow and green at start and end, blue and purple on the 5th and 9th cap position.
We see a high at de start and end with a 180° phase shift.
The zero crossing is not exact in the middle (of the blue and purple probes), so we see a voltage difference still there.
Something as in the drawing below.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkTdEC5AYH4
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.10, 22:08:32
Not sure why we would need a slow timebase, but i tried this with as result, see screenshot.
To display only the magnitudes. Like a VU meter.
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.10, 22:08:32
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkTdEC5AYH4
That's what I had in mind. Just let's you see what's going on inside.
Do LEDs in series with 10K resistors light up across these caps?
Now that would be neat. An LED-resistor pair across each capacitor, with the resistor value such that the LEDs would only light at the peaks. By varying frequency you'd see the peaks moving along the length of the line. Maybe it would work without killing the line. If it would work with one LED-resistor pair it might be neat to see one made with LEDs in every position.
With big power from the Heathkit transmitter it might be possible to get NE-2 neons to light up that way instead of LEDs.
EDIT: It works!
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.04.11, 06:18:19
Now that would be neat. An LED-resistor pair across each capacitor, with the resistor value such that the LEDs would only light at the peaks. By varying frequency you'd see the peaks moving along the length of the line. Maybe it would work without killing the line. If it would work with one LED-resistor pair it might be neat to see one made with LEDs in every position.
With big power from the Heathkit transmitter it might be possible to get NE-2 neons to light up that way instead of LEDs.
EDIT: It works!
I was going to place neons right on top of the coils, but the resistor / led / neon across the capacitor sounds like a more controlled experiment.
You may not need that much drive with neons if your coil has a high enough Q, as the voltage can build to quite high values in the line.
Now we need to figure out how to get either a traveling wave or a series of singular pulses to travel down the line, so that in the process of transferring velocity to electrons, thus dragging electrons in a conductor placed within the line, it develops a DC current flow in the conductor.(or gas tube per the patent). The energy needs to be used up in this process before it reaches the end of the line such that there is no reflected pulse, which would just push the electrons backwards undoing the forward velocity, and no net DC in the target.
A proper termination would prevent reflections possibly at the expense of wasted power if the wave should get to the termination. See section 2 par 5, thru 15.
Another possibility: the line is formed into a ring with output tied to input and a directional coupler injects the signal. Possibly diode blocking would be enough to keep the pulse going in one preferred direction.
It will be a while before I get back on this but doing things as I am able, (tax filing, 70 1/2 RMD's. complicated!).
Thanks ION, just take your time to do things properly.
I was still playing around with this coil, like striking with a probe across the coil length with a very slow time base setting to see the trace "write" the amplitude
of the nodes/anti-nodes when using different resonance frequency settings.
No idea how to get "either a traveling wave or a series of singular pulses to travel down the line" so i will be waiting for any ideas to pop up.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.04.11, 06:18:19
Now that would be neat. An LED-resistor pair across each capacitor, with the resistor value such that the LEDs would only light at the peaks. By varying frequency you'd see the peaks moving along the length of the line. Maybe it would work without killing the line. If it would work with one LED-resistor pair it might be neat to see one made with LEDs in every position.
With big power from the Heathkit transmitter it might be possible to get NE-2 neons to light up that way instead of LEDs.
EDIT: It works!
Yeah, that is neat...and close to your NE2 avatar.
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.12, 11:57:07
I was still playing around with this coil, like striking with a probe across the coil length with a very slow time base setting to see the trace "write" the amplitude
of the nodes/anti-nodes when using different resonance frequency settings.
That is a good idea, too.
Once, I also used 74HCT4067 16-ch analog switches to make a visualizer of transmission line's standing waves on a scope.
74HCT4067 converts the position along the length of a transmission line to the X-axis on the scope, by quickly scanning the switches sequentially with 74HC4520. The analog switches do the same job as your manual "striking with a probe across the coil length" - just automatically.
That circuit is so obvious that I will not bother looking for its schematic, unless someone wants to play with it.
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.12, 11:57:07
No idea how to get "either a traveling wave or a series of singular pulses to travel down the line" so i will be waiting for any ideas to pop up.
Slow FM sweep will get the nodes moving on an unterminated line
QuoteOnce, I also used 74HCT4067 16-ch analog switches to make a visualizer of transmission line's standing waves on a scope.
I can imagine what kind of display will be the result.
QuoteSlow FM sweep will get the nodes moving on an unterminated line
OK, i will look into this slow FM sweep on an open line.
Thanks, itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.12, 18:21:44
OK, i will look into this slow FM sweep on an open line.
PM sweep too
An calculator for standing waves in long lines which may be of interest.
http://gorchilin.com/calculator/longline?L=0.5&Q=175&g=100&g=0&g=33&g=0&g=0&ph=0&ph=0&ph=0&ph=0&ph=0
Maybe someone could translate the controls.
Quote from: ION on 2017.04.15, 16:30:57
An calculator for standing waves in long lines which may be of interest.
http://gorchilin.com/calculator/longline?L=0.5&Q=175&g=100&g=0&g=33&g=0&g=0&ph=0&ph=0&ph=0&ph=0&ph=0
Maybe someone could translate the controls.
ION,
Click on the American flag in the upper right hand corner of the page for an English translation. The Gorchilin site has some interesting info IMO.
pm
Quote from: partzman on 2017.04.15, 18:41:50
ION,
Click on the American flag in the upper right hand corner of the page for an English translation. The Gorchilin site has some interesting info IMO.
pm
Hi thanks for the tip. Agreed, I saw the link and patent on OU.com and gave it a read. The patent and his work probably needs close scrutiny and in a topic dedicated to it.
Regards
Might be interesting reading for those who interested in TPU replication
Quote
Foreword
I would like to present you one of most interesting and mysterious devices I have seen.
Michael (?) (MiMo) was researching and trying replicate Stiven Mark's TPU.
He used ferrite rings with antialigned fields for creating superstrong electromagnetic fields in local
collector region. These rings have two opposing windings that were "dispersed" in resonance. At
the same time magnetic field was "squized" out from ferrites and form a narrow beam outward.
This beam of very strong field helped run phonon process in the collector. Further acceleration was
performed by coils that were fed from SCRs controlled by PIC MCU.
After experiments with achieving divergent process, his health deteriorated rapidly, so much that he
almost died and was recovering months after the incident. After that he deleted all the posts and
wrote that no one should deal with this topic.
Somewhere in six months people persuaded him to resume this work, and Michael has organized
forum (already located somewhere in Canada). There he organized mainly develop and manufacture
secure test box for TPU with tests on a remote basis using telemetry.
Forum lasted several months and work but stopped supposingly after outbreak of nationalist riots in
Moscow. Michael said that he no longer wants to have anything to do with the Russians. At that his
mission and all work on his TPU version stopped.
In this file collected posts and pictures from different people during replication process which was
coordinated by Michael. Unfortunately the replication was interrupted and we still don't know exact
construction of his device.
Dear Vasik
Back in 2007 I began entertaining the idea that the TPU of SM worked on some type of electro-acoustic anomaly.
I put together some ideas in this document to see what would stick. It is by no means a theory, not even a hypothesis, just a collection of ideas.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1092.0
I think the Mimo document may be on the right path, but unfortunately like Otto and Roberto Notte's ECD paper, the ideas are good but results are inconclusive.
My main criticism is that the devices of both parties are too complicated. We do not see that level of complexity in the original TPU units of several topologies. SM was also not a microcomputer programmer nor was he knowledgeable in digital design. His basic knowledge was audio amplifiers and early b/w and color TV repair.
SM himself said of his first device : "very simple no mass electronics, just knowledge of the coils and how they are wound".
Second point is, I believe the devices of SM used two types of feedback AC and DC to:
a) automatically track the acceleration increase of the electrons so that further kicks resulted in constant acceleration (AC feedback increasing frequency).
b) part of the DC output was fed back to bootstrap power the oscillator, but with limiting to prevent runaway. Small batteries were used for initial startup.
User Wattsup did an extensive redraw with frame by frame video analysis to produce two drawings which identified the important wires of the FTPU and the LTPU. I took the work of Wattsup and converted it into a partial schematic with black box controller.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=360.0
So while magnetostriction and phonon drag may be related to the operating principle, IMO the driving circuit may have been a simple feedback oscillator that automatically tracked the acoustic oscillation as the frequency increased.
I have no work yet to prove these ideas, but it is high on the list of research projects.
I hope the points in my critique can be appreciated, and this is not to say Mimo's device did not work, only that it may have been overkill for a proof of principle.
Are there any known working replications of Mimo's work that can be demonstrated and reproduced? I would hope that if they exist they could also supply 1kW to a resistive load without connection to a power supply or large battery.
Regards
Dear ION,
thank you for detailed comments.
Quote from: ION on 2017.04.29, 17:42:14
My main criticism is that the devices of both parties are too complicated. We do not see that level of complexity in the original TPU units of several topologies. SM was also not a microcomputer programmer nor was he knowledgeable in digital design. His basic knowledge was audio amplifiers and early b/w and color TV repair.
SM himself said of his first device : "very simple no mass electronics, just knowledge of the coils and how they are wound".
I agree, MCU probably overkill here, but it gives possibility easily try different control algorithms...
Assuming device was simple we can try derive a schematic. E.g two audio amplifiers driving two coils wound perpendicularly with 90 degree phase shift to create rotation field, VCO and some feedback circuit to control VCO.
Or even simpler, one amplifier and windings connected like in one phase motor with phase shift capacitor.
However DC part is not clear for me.
And this leads to a question - do you know construction details of that old TV set which exploded ? How windings in deflection system were arranged ? How it different from "modern" (newer models) ?
Quote
Are there any known working replications of Mimo's work that can be demonstrated and reproduced? I would hope that if they exist they could also supply 1kW to a resistive load without connection to a power supply or large battery.
As far as I know there are no replications. MiMo never demonstrated working device. He mentioned that output power of first device was about 100W.
Regards
Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.04.29, 18:48:20
...two audio amplifiers driving two coils wound perpendicularly with 90 degree phase shift to create rotation field,
Such arrangement might create a Lorentz Fan, because unipolar rotating magnetic fields pump charged particles like pumps by the virtue of Lorentz force / deflection.
Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.04.29, 18:48:20
However DC part is not clear for me.
When charges are pumped unidirectionally, their movement constitutes a direct current.
Yes, a single amplifier with phase shift capacitor would somewhat work for a single frequency, but capacitor would have to be changing as frequency increases.
IMO, With a slightly more advanced quadrature circuit, phase shift could be maintained as frequency increases. The important thing is: frequency must be increasing always accelerating particles to reach critical point where the shock wave is created and phonon drag effect of electrons. Much over that point, ultrasonic heating takes place in the wires, a "problem" SM always had with the TPU. He always monitored temperature and was very concerned about it on the larger units.Would not be a problem for me in winter ;)
So feedback is automatically tracking the speed around the loop by either electrical or some type of acoustic feedback. SM always said the diameter, hence circumference was critical to the operating frequency and IMO he was not talking about radio wavelength, rather speed of sound through a metallic ring conductor. ;)
P.S acoustic ring resonators create small gyroscopic effects.
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.12, 18:21:44
OK, i will look into this slow FM sweep on an open line.
Thanks, itsu
I added 12 red leds in series with 10KOhm resistors across each capacitor and tried severall sweeps including PM and FM sweeps.
The visual is nice, but no specific peaks noted.
Feeding the coil from my FG from its beginning and having the end open.
Yellow probe across a middle led, green current probe in the return lead there, purple probe across the open end.
Makes a nice display, see video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5G-OhoocXI&t=6s
Regards Itsu
@Itsu
According to the patent this should work like a peristaltic pump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peristaltic_pump)
Faster sweeps will move nodes/antinodes faster along that pipe and might squeeze along these electrons better, giving you a measurable effect.
P.S.
"Faster" does not mean "wider".
Quote from: ION on 2017.04.29, 20:50:28
Yes, a single amplifier with phase shift capacitor would somewhat work for a single frequency,
Yes. Also different inductance coils will create a phase shift. That's why in that photo of the dust fan, these two coils are wound with different number of turns (and a different size of wire).
Quote from: ION on 2017.04.29, 20:50:28
IMO, With a slightly more advanced quadrature circuit, phase shift could be maintained as frequency increases.
Some of us have 2-ch, phase coherent, function generators that can already do that with a push of a button.
Quote from: verpies on 2017.04.29, 21:13:18
@Itsu
According to the patent this should work like a peristaltic pump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peristaltic_pump)
Faster sweeps will move nodes/antinodes faster along that pipe and might squeeze along these electrons better, giving you a measurable effect.
P.S.
"Faster" does not mean "wider".
Right, lowering the sweep time from 10s all the way to 1ms does not show anything special (well, there are lots of noisy signals)
I used the copper tube and a fluorescent lamp both with sine wave and square wave signals.
I will do some further testing with faster sweep times and different settings tomorrow.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.29, 21:57:01
Right, lowering the sweep time from 10s all the way to 1ms does not show anything special (well, there are lots of noisy signals)
I used the copper tube and a fluorescent lamp both with sine wave and square wave signals.
I will do some further testing with faster sweep times and different settings tomorrow.
Itsu
A suggestion that has been mentioned by ION and I would agree is to terminate the line with a load equal to it's characteristic impedance rather than an open connection. This way no reflections will impede the forward wave movement which then may create a certain amount of DC to be seen in the collector. IIRC, Thoneman stated that when the energy conversion is taking place, it doesn't really matter what the termination is as nearly all the energy in the line is transferred to the collector however, he does state that the line should be properly terminated.
Regards,
Pm
Some considerations which could help (or may be not :))
Speed of sound in copper is 4600m/sec. Somewhere it was mentioned that TPU operates near 5KHz frequency.
5khz equal to 0.2ms period and so length of collector should be 4600 * 0.2ms = 0.92 m (or multiple of that)
If one use different length frequency can be calculated like 4600/length of collector
If we trying create acoustic shock wave we need sweep starting from some frequency (speed) below 5khz and ending with some higher
e.g. starting 4.5khz and ending with 5.5khz
Sweep should not be too slow and not too fast. I think 50-500hz is reasonable (corresponds to 100 - 10 field revolutions)
If we assume that "kick" is mechanical effect caused by strong magnetic field in windings interacting with Earth magnetic field may be step down transformers can be used on the amplifiers outputs. E.g. if amplifier provides 10a peak current with 10:1 transformer we can get 100a in windings
and that might be that two transformers seen in the middle of large TPU (pure speculation)
:)
QuoteSuch arrangement might create a Lorentz Fan
QuoteWhen charges are pumped unidirectionally, their movement constitutes a direct current.
Yes, I understand that but it does not match with TPU coils arrangements... at leas at first sight :-\
Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.04.30, 07:12:40
Speed of sound in copper is 4600m/sec.
...but in a thin copper rod (or pipe) the
extensional speed of sound is around 3800m/sec.
Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.04.30, 08:35:14
... at least at first sight :-\
At first sight - no.
Quote from: partzman on 2017.04.29, 23:13:04
A suggestion that has been mentioned by ION and I would agree is to terminate the line with a load equal to it's characteristic impedance rather than an open connection. This way no reflections will impede the forward wave movement which then may create a certain amount of DC to be seen in the collector. IIRC, Thoneman stated that when the energy conversion is taking place, it doesn't really matter what the termination is as nearly all the energy in the line is transferred to the collector however, he does state that the line should be properly terminated.
Regards,
Pm
i terminated the TL coil with a 77 Ohm (potmeter) resistor which was measured to be the char. impedance and redid the sweepings with a copper tube inside.
A led as load on this copper tube only lights up when there is a scope probe hooked up to the led as well, pointing to some kind of (ground)loop.
Strongest led signal is when sweeping between 21 and 23MHz (with a scope probe across it).
I think i need a stronger signal to input into the TL coil.
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2017.04.30, 20:53:50
i terminated the TL coil with a 77 Ohm (potmeter) resistor which was measured to be the char. impedance and redid the sweepings with a copper tube inside.
A led as load on this copper tube only lights up when there is a scope probe hooked up to the led as well, pointing to some kind of (ground)loop.
Strongest led signal is when sweeping between 21 and 23MHz (with a scope probe across it).
I think i need a stronger signal to input into the TL coil.
Itsu
Itsu,
When I ran my tests with my Tline several weeks ago, for the collector I used a length of litz cable made out of 1200 34AWG wires with tabs soldered to the ends. I then used a length of 12 ga stranded wire with tabs for the outside jumper that bolts to the collector. I then measured the current thru the jumper to check for any current flow and I found that the position of the collector inside the line and the jumper outside varied the results. I also determined that the resistance of the collector and outside jumper had to be as low as possible to get the effect seen in the scope pix below. Also you will see that my line termination is at the input.
I used an Ixys IXDD609PI driver operating at 20 vdc to generate the pulses seen on CH1. I've also attached a schematic below which requires a little study to understand the current flows but basically, with normal induction the current flow would be the opposite than that seen in the test results IMO. Does this mean this test shows results that Thoneman predicts? I dunno!
I would agree that the Tline needs much higher drive levels than what we are applying. How much higher........?
Pm
I know partzman tried this with AC on the tube, and had null results.
Here is the DC version if anyone is interested or has time.
You could probably light the filament with a decent size NiCd battery of 1.2 Volts(see edit) instead of mains step down transformer.
Start with a high value current limit resistor 100k going down in value until you can get ignition in the tube to hold.
You will definitely need some type of spark igniter to strike the arc in the tube.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: Checked this out this morning and the gas tube ignition works very well. I used an F20T12CW lamp with 120 Volts DC on the Anode, current limited by a 12K resistor. I did need about 6 Volts DC to get a visible glow in the filament, but it will work at lower filament voltage once the arc is struck in the tube.
When the arc is struck, the DC voltage across the tube drops to about 70 volts and current is about 3 to 5 mA depending on filament voltage.
When I get time I will work up a table of Anode current vs Anode voltage vs filament voltage, etc. For this particular tube.
I am told that big older flat screen TV's have some very nice long, thin fluorescent tubes.
To strike the arc in the tube, I used a higher voltage power supply 300 to 500VDC with a 0.01 uF 1kV capacitor shunted with a 1 megohm resistor touched briefly to the Anode. The momentary charging current for the capacitor is sufficient to ignite the tube. You could use one of those piezo igniters and that would probably also work.
When I get the big transmitter up and running, I will slip the tube into the TLine and see what gives.
Just be careful, the longer the tube, the higher the Anode voltage and current, the closer you are to producing XRays at the Anode end. I think this is probably only true for highly evacuated tubes,but it would not hurt to put some CRT phosphor at the anode end outside the glass and if it glows you are getting XRay production. Gas tubes will have a lot of ions that will absorb the high speed electrons, so it is questionable how fast the electrons can actually go. Thonemann did use Xenon gas in his patent / experiment.
Be Safe
Regards
An interesting video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32Jg4ooFErE
and here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Bco8KRpmU
Attached is a simpler version of the fluorescent tube drive for use in the Thonemann patent. (see prior post for earlier version)
The good news is I found that a small inductor in the Anode circuit and a switch dispenses with the need for a filament supply. So this is the cold cathode version. Works much like those push to start lamps except requires a much briefer push, so attached is the simplified schematic.
The bad news is I spent some time trying to operate the Thonemann patent "in reverse" i.e. where a current in the tube is supposed to excite the transmission line into resonance.
I found no such happening and am beginning to doubt the patents veracity in it's present form. I ran currents from 3mA to 50mA with nothing happening (no sign of resonance) in the line.
There is one other test I will run when I fire up the RF amplifier and pump high power into the TLine.
So no success on this project thus far.
Regards
OK did not know where to post this, but I think this is about right.
Have not had much time lately as have been very busy with one thing or the other, but have been watching the forum which has been showing some interesting things, well I think this is interesting in my pdf below.
I think this is as close as I have seen to SM's TPU, the basic design is quite solid and works to a level which can be built on, even the possibility of not connecting L3 to L2/C1 (PM thread!) and not tried.
Well enjoy, you will have to play with the frequency, between 3khz and 15khz should find the right spot (5-6khz was SM)
Regards
Mike 8)
Mike
Very interesting circuits, especially the second schematic. I think this is definitely worth building and I have a nice large ferrite for the job that I already put the foils on.
You've got some interesting ideas in these designs.
Thanks much for sharing this good stuff. O0
Regards
Quote from: ION on 2017.05.11, 19:22:02
Mike
Very interesting circuits, especially the second schematic. I think this is definitely worth building and I have a nice large ferrite for the job that I already put the foils on.
You've got some interesting ideas in these designs.
Thanks much for sharing this good stuff. O0
Regards
Thanks ION
Not much time ATM and I have seen just lately a lot being talked about which comes into play with the STEAP way of working. Even the PM thread with a possible OU or not could come into play if one of the coils is open ended (not tested and may not work at such low frequency).
well I leave it with you, I may get it out again if time permits
Regards
Mike 8)
Just seen the EF problem with Chet, who is Allen Burgess?? has he other handles? don't know what he posted as Chet removed it, is he on this forum under another name?
Mike
No he is not, he has been moderated at Stefan's for similar behavior
and now he makes a mess over there.
I am actually trying to understand what he is doing there?
will get it sorted soon
thanks for sharing your work.
Hi Mike
Your device deserves it's own thread possibly in the SM section or on your bench for focused discussion, either way ok lest it get buried here. This thread has gotten a bit cluttered mostly my fault by allowing the Thonemann patent intruding here. I would hate to see your good work get buried.
Regards
I decided to post this info here as it is a "new" observation to me :).
These tests were run on my previously assembled 7" TPU using a 3 turn collector L2 made with 80-15x34 litz wires for a total of 1200 34 ga copper wires in the bundle. I was/am looking for any NMR activity with this collector and any opinions on the test results below are most certainly welcome.
The dc bias for the collector comes from the earth's magnetic field which I believe to be in a vertical orientation at my location. A so called "control" coil L1 with 296 turns is wound completely over the collector and used for both the pulsed drive flux as well as for capturing any relaxation pulse when the spins realign. IMO opinion, this is not the best arrangement for the relaxation recovery but it seems to work. A zip cord winding L3 is wound over this assembly but not used.
The L1 coil is also a transmission line with a delay that is dependent on whether L2 is grounded or not. Grounding L2 increases the effective capacitance of the L1 Tline which increases the Tdelay.
A schematic of the test is attached and shows the orientation of the bias and control coil fluxes. A 7 Mhz single sine pulse shifted 250 degrees and offset from ground is used to provide a smooth positive only going pulse to drive the control coil.
In the scope shots, CH1(yel) is the input pulse, CH4(grn) is the input current, and CHM(red) is the FFT of the CH1 waveform.
PCC1 displays the pulsed waveforms with the FFT cursor A dipped at ~6.1Mhz. During this test no other connections are made to L2 or L3.
PCC2 shows the time between the current peaks to be ~165ns (6.06Mhz) which is the Tline delay of L1 in this test.
PCC3 now displays the waveforms with one end of L2 grounded thus increasing the the capacitance from L1 to ground. The FFT now shows two dips at ~3.3Mhz and ~6.1Mhz.
PCC4 shows the time interval between the 1st and 2nd current peaks to be ~165ns (6.06Mhz and PCC5 indicates the interval between the 1st and 3rd current peaks to be ~312ns (3.2Mhz).
My interpretation of these tests is that the spin relaxation pulse occurs at ~165ns after the applied flux to L1. In the first PCC1,2 test, the natural Tline delay of L1 with the parasitic circuit capacitance is nearly if not exactly equal to the relaxation delay.
In the second PCC3,4,5 test, the increased capacitance of Tline L1 with the grounding of L2 results in an increased delay of ~312ns but the apparent relaxation delay of ~165ns remains unaffected.
Thots?
Pm
My voltage return pulse is at 500ns. Voltage leads the current by 90 degrees and vice versa in a capacitive circuit.
I mention this because I posted voltage response and you have a posted a capacitive response. So your voltage artifact should appear at 220ns.
This points out the variance of the build for any given configuration(stating the obvious here).
Put a low resistor to ground next time to slow things down. Just curious.
But my suspicions are that the Earth field is not sufficient to produce any controlling artifact on the L3 outer winding and that the pulsing of the inner run causes a resistive impact.
Your key note states that all inductive measurements are taken with large current input. This can override any artifact. There might be other hidden parameters to your windings that effect the process. By using Litz we can lower the current requirements. By using FE wire we can control the absorbtive media. By using square wave we can have a greater impact on the collective parameters of the build.
In the latest build I performed found 12 volts across the media creates huge voltages. As you use sine waves you can create a natural resonance that doesnt coincide with the effects of using a switch. The media is dependant on the sine wave whereas with a square wave 'We' get out of the way to see the Earth interact with the media. This latency is what we are experiencing on our current builds.
Let me correct my use of the 'Earth' here. We are talking about the independent atomic structure of the media we are using.
GK,
Thanks for your response. I do have some comments below-
Quote from: giantkiller on 2017.08.26, 23:04:33
My voltage return pulse is at 500ns. Voltage leads the current by 90 degrees and vice versa in a capacitive circuit.
I mention this because I posted voltage response and you have a posted a capacitive response. So your voltage artifact should appear at 220ns.
This points out the variance of the build for any given configuration(stating the obvious here).
Put a low resistor to ground next time to slow things down. Just curious.
I'm not quite understanding you here. I think the tests show a reflected current pulse in L1 (a shorted transmission line) and the corresponding voltage changes to the 50 ohm input impedance of the generator plus, a possible FID or free induction decay from the copper collector but I could be completely off base here!
Quote
But my suspicions are that the Earth field is not sufficient to produce any controlling artifact on the L3 outer winding and that the pulsing of the inner run causes a resistive impact.
I need to measure the ambient earth flux field in my area and correct the NMR resonant frequency for a reality check. L3 was not used in these tests. What I'm looking for are any low level events or artifacts that might support a positive energy feedback with gain.
Quote
Your key note states that all inductive measurements are taken with large current input. This can override any artifact. There might be other hidden parameters to your windings that effect the process. By using Litz we can lower the current requirements. By using FE wire we can control the absorbtive media. By using square wave we can have a greater impact on the collective parameters of the build.
Yes I agree. The large signal measurements were only used to profile the inductive assembly and were not applied during the testing.
Quote
In the latest build I performed found 12 volts across the media creates huge voltages. As you use sine waves you can create a natural resonance that doesnt coincide with the effects of using a switch. The media is dependant on the sine wave whereas with a square wave 'We' get out of the way to see the Earth interact with the media. This latency is what we are experiencing on our current builds.
Let me correct my use of the 'Earth' here. We are talking about the independent atomic structure of the media we are using.
OK, I understand. Yes, I chose to use a sine wave source to eliminate any effects from all the harmonics a square wave would produce as I am primarily looking for evidence of spin decay. I have used a square wave source as it is an easy way to increase the signal amplitude.
I have replicated your tests using a straight length of iron wire with various litz windings. When pulsed from a low voltage supply, I too see a rather high voltage from the field collapse and the delayed hump. Is this from the spin decay of the iron or ....? I need to post my results on that thread to see what you think.
Regards,
Pm
After more consideration, my tests in post #481 do not indicate any spin decay at ~6Mhz as I'd previously thought. With the earth's field bias of ~1e-4T, the FID frequency would be magnitudes lower and I see no evidence of that so, the ~6Mhz frequency is most likely the self resonance of L1.
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2017.08.28, 15:18:20
After more consideration, my tests in post #481 do not indicate any spin decay at ~6Mhz as I'd previously thought. With the earth's field bias of ~1e-4T, the FID frequency would be magnitudes lower and I see no evidence of that so, the ~6Mhz frequency is most likely the self resonance of L1.
Pm
After more testing of the assembly in post #481 using a Rigol spectrum analyzer with higher resolution at the lower frequencies, the attached trace plot does show a small peak at 2.966kHz after averaging. This was created with the generator source running continuous at an arbitrary 7.6MHz and sampling the current in L1. This is more in line with what could be expected with the gyromagnetic ratio for copper at the low bias flux level of the earth's magnetic field IMO. If this is true and the TPU does operate via an NMR means, then hows does one utilize this relatively low energy level to create the high output?
I plan to do testing with high frequency pulses applied with a repetition rate at or near ~3kHz and monitor the effects.
Pm
QuoteIf this is true and the TPU does operate via an NMR means, then hows does one utilize this relatively low energy level to create the high output?
I have always felt that the TPU is nothing more than an iron based Michel Meyer device, there was a rumour in the early days that SM travelled to Europe to speak with the inventor of the original tec the TPU was based on, although i cannot remember the source of this rumour and is just that, Meyer was in France, we already have proven Iron is special with regards to NMR it is the only element we know of that has a stable NMR frequency at different intensities of magnetic field, this alone makes the Meyer device possible because of the AC method of power extraction.
It is also the only method with which we know the energy is huge and exists without violating any principles, we know that if uncontrolled power is fed back into the Meyer device it could suffer critical meltdown, we know that if the iron gets too hot when running that there will be a point where the NMR frequency will change, we know we have to precisely tune to the magic frequency for conversion and this is the hard bit as it needs to be exact, too many things similar to what we know about the TPU, we know that if we run above the curie point that the skin depth is cancelled and therefore allows all of the iron to participate.
I'm talking about the Meyer/Mace device, we know he had problems patenting his work and resorted to Czech to patent his later device.
I started a thread but gave up as my RF knowledge just was not up to scratch to get to a stage that the effect could be verified.
Thread is here.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3107.msg49672#msg49672
Quote from: Peterae on 2017.08.28, 21:08:44
I'm talking about the Meyer/Mace device, we know he had problems patenting his work and resorted to Czech to patent his later device.
I started a thread but gave up as my RF knowledge just was not up to scratch to get to a stage that the effect could be verified.
Thread is here.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3107.msg49672#msg49672
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the heads up as I had followed that thread before but re-read it again for a refresher. I'm not sure if I will continue in this direction as there has been so much effort by so many with seemingly null results :-\
Pm
That is fair enough partzman, there is a lot of noise in that thread i am sorry for the time it must have taken to read it again, i believe the device does not need to be high power as stated in that thread, his first device was low power using a xtal oscillator, i am pretty positive it is the way to go though from my bifilar pulsing experiments that showed an 80Watt anomalous pulse using iron wire as the core in which i used 2 white noise sources to try and stumble on the frequency which it did randomly, this is what lead me to the Meyer device.
Quote from: Vasik041 on 2017.04.29, 05:19:24
Might be interesting reading for those who interested in TPU replication
I am bumping this thread because after reading some of the concepts of Vasik's paper concerning the work of Michael (Mimo) I think it would benefit from some discussion. I am in the process of giving the paper a careful read, picking out some points of interest. Discussion welcome.
paper here: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=302.msg61310#msg61310
I am particularly interested in the point that there does not seem to be any electrical connection to the "collector" and that at least one end of the collector needs to be ground and polished flat.
Also the idea that the toroid cores produce a magnetic beam that exits the cores and enhances the effect in the collector.
To Vasik: apologies for not paying more attention to the paper, at the time many of us were focused on the Thoneman patent.
Has anyone translated the .asm files to English?
Maybe this investigation deserves it's own thread?
P.S. Happy Birthday to Mike :), who might take interest in the hand drawn schematic, as it resembles some of his work!
Quote from: ion on 2019.01.11, 17:11:54
To Vasik: apologies for not paying more attention to the paper, at the time many of us were focused on the Thoneman patent.
Has anyone translated the .asm files to English?
Hi ION,
Please do not worry. No need to apologize. I shared tons of information and it mostly ignored. Probably it just waiting for a better time and person who really interested in the subject.
I will translate comments in .asm files soon.
Regards,
-V.
Edit: I have attached archive with .asm files with translated comments to original message.
Quote from: Vasik041 on 2019.01.11, 19:32:55
Hi ION,
Please do not worry. No need to apologize. I shared tons of information and it mostly ignored. Probably it just waiting for a better time and person who really interested in the subject.
I will translate comments in .asm files soon.
Regards,
-V.
Edit: I have attached archive with .asm files with translated comments to original message.
Dear Vasik
Thank you for translating the .asm files...makes them much easier to decipher. Regarding all the good stuff you post, I always download and try to read it all, but don't always comment right away.
Now for a few questions:
I don't see any electrical connections to the "collector". Specific instruction are to file the ends flat, but no mention of connections. Do you have any idea where the power was to be taken, as the implication is that the "phonons" are racing around the collector and being accelerated by the drive windings. He seems to imply that the collector is merely the catalyst that creates the ultrasonic shock wave.
Also several people seem to have submitted pictures of their builds. Have you had any contact with the other individuals or any further info on the device and how Michael came to his conclusions of how it might work?
Regards
Quote from: ion on 2019.01.11, 23:35:31
Now for a few questions:
I don't see any electrical connections to the "collector". Specific instruction are to file the ends flat, but no mention of connections. Do you have any idea where the power was to be taken, as the implication is that the "phonons" are racing around the collector and being accelerated by the drive windings. He seems to imply that the collector is merely the catalyst that creates the ultrasonic shock wave.
Also several people seem to have submitted pictures of their builds. Have you had any contact with the other individuals or any further info on the device and how Michael came to his conclusions of how it might work?
There are two flat collector coils and load connected to their outer ends, inner ends left not connected (please see attached drawing).
I would say this were a typical FE affair. Michael was doing research for many years. He was showing what he got on forum. Then one day he got some interesting results. As usual there were skeptical people and some paid trolls. They attacked Michael. He removed all original posts.
Then after some time he reconsider his decision and opened new topic and started describing how to replicate what he did step by step.
So this is contents of pdf I shared (with junk posts removed). There were great interest, many people started building device. Again there were very strong opposition, even stronger than first time. Many people said that he should not make device public etc etc. Personal attacks and so on. For one Michael's post there were tens or hundreds junk posts. After some time Michael gave up.
Quote from: ion on 2019.01.11, 17:11:54
I am bumping this thread because after reading some of the concepts of Vasik's paper concerning the work of Michael (Mimo) I think it would benefit from some discussion. I am in the process of giving the paper a careful read, picking out some points of interest. Discussion welcome.
paper here: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=302.msg61310#msg61310
I am particularly interested in the point that there does not seem to be any electrical connection to the "collector" and that at least one end of the collector needs to be ground and polished flat.
Also the idea that the toroid cores produce a magnetic beam that exits the cores and enhances the effect in the collector.
To Vasik: apologies for not paying more attention to the paper, at the time many of us were focused on the Thoneman patent.
Has anyone translated the .asm files to English?
Maybe this investigation deserves it's own thread?
P.S. Happy Birthday to Mike :), who might take interest in the hand drawn schematic, as it resembles some of his work!
Thanks Ion
Yes there are some similarities.
I have been looking at the spectrum of the products of the base, 3rd and 9th harmonics of the 3 frequency drive, and wow is the only word. No power to the mosfets atm, just what are the reactions when they come together (or nearly together).
It is quite something to watch, there is a continual movement of frequencies until they get close and build to a spike, then die away again. Is this the kick? this happens right up into the MHz, my SA goes up to 60MHz.
Ion, can you do skype or a another video link? I would like to show you live.
Regards
Mike 8)
I was just browsing through this thread last night,and woke up this morning with an odd idea.
Probably no good to anyone in regards to how the TPU work's,but i went ahead and built it anyway--just to see what would happen.
So the idea is to take a length of thick copper wire(in this case the core wire is 1mm),and wrap that length of wire with a smaller gauge wire(in this case .55mm)
As there is over 1000 turns to make,i decided to throw together a quick motor driven winder--first pic.
It has a motor at one end,and a bearing head at the other,which allows the core wire to rotate with the motor.
Last pic shows the winding in progress--it worked better than i had hoped O0
Second pic-I then took this wrapped combination,and wrapped it around a toroid core.
The core is one i made myself using DEVCON liquid metal.
The .55mm wire(the wire wrapped around the 1mm core wire)has a 1 ohm CSR on the ground side(ch2 blue chanel). CH1 is across the CSR and .55mm coil.
The inner core wire has a 1 ohm CSR across it,and CH3 is showing the signal across the core winding.
I was not expecting anything to happen,but was surprised at the results.
1st scope shot shows all 3 traces,where the(what we will call)secondary (CH3) shows the RMS value across the 1 ohm load resistor,and the calculated P/in. The P/in value is on the high side,as the voltage trace (CH1) also includes the voltage across the 1 ohm CSR.
The second scope shot shows P/in when the 1 ohm load resistor is removed from the core winding.
Oddly enough,the P/in go's down very little when the load is removed.
Best results are had around 532KHz,which is what the scope shot tests are run at. But the effect starts as low as 50KHz.
Perhaps the poynting vector field plays a part in this?
This was just a quick throw together DUT.
As you can tell,the winding around the toroid is not very neat(it was getting close to 45*C in the work shop at the time),and the toroid core it self is of poor quality.
I also think a longer core wire with more turns of the smaller outer wire around it,and more turns of the combination wires around a good ferrite toroid would result in a far greater efficiency.
I believe this system could produce much better results if more time was taken with it.
I was looking for a way to accelerate the electrons,and this idea just popped up.
Probably not doing as intended,but i am surprised at how efficient the transfer of electrical energy is from primary to secondary in this winding configuration.
It may be of some use,it may not,but this is what i got from the quick build and test.
Brad
Ah ah ah ah Brad, great minds think alike! :) I had the same idea 3 or 4 years ago when I tried to experiment in NMR: I wrapped a thin wire around a large copper conductor to produce a very uniform magnetic field all along (see photo).
This didn't work, but now that I'm better equipped with modern generator and scope, maybe I should start testing again.
Since then, I have found an interesting paper at the IEEE: "Vector Potential Coil and Transformer" (https://tinyurl.com/yby4zmfc) (pdf). See attached image.
There the central wire is only used to return the current of the thin wire, which cancels the magnetic field in the center of the cylinder supporting the large winding. The solenoid wound around the cylinder plays for the vector potential the same role that an ordinary coil plays for the magnetic field:
we have a linear "A" along the axis of the cylinder and by placing a co-linear conductor, we can measure a voltage at its terminals.
By shielding the measuring conductor with a metal thicker than the skin effect, the author further shows that "A" is indeed unmaskable.
But there is a big flaw in their reasoning: there is always a helical magnetic field around the cylinder, created by the thin wire around the thicker.
The measuring loop passing through the inside of the cylinder, its surface cuts the flux of the helical magnetic field at each turn of the solenoid around the large cylinder. We have a measurement loop whose surface cuts a variable flux, hence the measured EMF, so everything can also be explained in a conventional way with the magnetic field instead of the vector potential.
However, we see that this topology allows new ways of manipulating fields and electrons, so I think you have an interesting subject to pursue.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.28, 09:40:17
Ah ah ah ah Brad, great minds think alike! :) I had the same idea 3 or 4 years ago when I tried to experiment in NMR: I wrapped a thin wire around a large copper conductor to produce a very uniform magnetic field all along (see photo).
This didn't work, but now that I'm better equipped with modern generator and scope, maybe I should start testing again.
Since then, I have found an interesting paper at the IEEE: "Vector Potential Coil and Transformer" (https://tinyurl.com/yby4zmfc) (pdf). See attached image.
There the central wire is only used to return the current of the thin wire, which cancels the magnetic field in the center of the cylinder supporting the large winding. The solenoid wound around the cylinder plays for the vector potential the same role that an ordinary coil plays for the magnetic field:
we have a linear "A" along the axis of the cylinder and by placing a co-linear conductor, we can measure a voltage at its terminals.
By shielding the measuring conductor with a metal thicker than the skin effect, the author further shows that "A" is indeed unmaskable.
But there is a big flaw in their reasoning: there is always a helical magnetic field around the cylinder, created by the thin wire around the thicker.
The measuring loop passing through the inside of the cylinder, its surface cuts the flux of the helical magnetic field at each turn of the solenoid around the large cylinder. We have a measurement loop whose surface cuts a variable flux, hence the measured EMF, so everything can also be explained in a conventional way with the magnetic field instead of the vector potential.
However, we see that this topology allows new ways of manipulating fields and electrons, so I think you have an interesting subject to pursue.
Perhaps more suited to your Electromagnetic Archimed's screw thread ?.
OK, I'm going to put this here as it comes under the title of this thread.
The attached is real bench work as some do know, a partly working TPU is on my bench but has some problems that I am trying to sort out, mainly of frequency stability and a form of feeding back.
Please heed the warning at the end as I have been suffering after working on this, I think it is body static buildup.
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2019.01.30, 16:08:37
Please heed the warning at the end as I have been suffering after working on this, I think it is body static buildup.
Regards
Mike 8)
Hi Mike,
I second that, I've encountered episodes of dizziness and sick feelings in my chase of the elusive TPU myself, I didn't want to think it was coming from the TPU's but you confirm that. I always felt better after turning them off, so everyone be aware of this.
Room
@Centraflow
Related to the Nunnerley's paper: I'm not sure that the extra electrons on a capacitor plate can go faster than all the other free electrons. The contrary is even suggested by the fact that we do not know how to distinguish the ones from the others, their role surely changes according to their positions and the obstacles encountered in the metal during their circulation, related to the resistance of the conductor.
So if they do not go faster, then the displacement of the electric field should be made extremely slow to be compatible with the speed of the electrons in a conductor (at most a few mm/s).
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.01.31, 17:32:31
@Centraflow
Related to the Nunnerley's paper: I'm not sure that the extra electrons on a capacitor plate can go faster than all the other free electrons. The contrary is even suggested by the fact that we do not know how to distinguish the ones from the others, their role surely changes according to their positions and the obstacles encountered in the metal during their circulation, related to the resistance of the conductor.
So if they do not go faster, then the displacement of the electric field should be made extremely slow to be compatible with the speed of the electrons in a conductor (at most a few mm/s).
Hi F6FLT
Thanks for your comments, the paper and centraflow are one of the same (G6GVA is my UK call sign).
Well I see it as a sort of race track where each positive plate which is supplying the electrons, is sling shooting around the track at an ever-increasing frequency by the harmonics created by the relation of the inputs. This may also be done by one frequency but with 3 phases 120º out of phase with one another. This can create additive harmonics (triplens) and high current in the negative plate.
But I am not sure atm if the output seen is due to vortex type input of charge from the Earth/Ionosphere electrical charge, or the creation of high current in the neutral along with a voltage boost in the positive. I lean towards the former, at least we know there is a charge between Earth and Ionosphere, and maybe this is how we can draw from it, electrostatically, time will tell.
73's
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2019.01.31, 18:32:46
Hi F6FLT
Thanks for your comments, the paper and centraflow are one of the same (G6GVA is my UK call sign).
Well I see it as a sort of race track where each positive plate which is supplying the electrons, is sling shooting around the track at an ever-increasing frequency by the harmonics created by the relation of the inputs. This may also be done by one frequency but with 3 phases 120º out of phase with one another. This can create additive harmonics (triplens) and high current in the negative plate.
...
Hi mike,
Great! I see that there are many ham radios meeting around exotic experiments on energy. The radio experimentation that surely motivated our vocation must no longer be enough for us! :)
If the principle is to move charges by the quasi-electrostatic influence of a moving field, there should be many ways to do so, like the one you indicated with 3 phases. Two phases could also be used: two crossed electric fields with signals of the same frequency but in quadrature (in the same way as the needle of a compass can be rotated with crossed magnetic fields in quadrature). I had already tried that unsuccessfully but quickly. Your diagram encourages me to go back to it, this kind of setup should work, I don't see anything theoretical that would prevent it.
However, I do not believe at all that the charges of the atmosphere or the ionosphere act here in any way.
73
François
Quote:
Great! I see that there are many ham radios meeting around exotic experiments on energy.
Unquote
Ha Ha, low sunspot activity may be ;)
If not the charge between Earth and Ionosphere, then that leaves the Earth's magnetic field because it is not NMR, and from my results, it seems to be very static active to the point of feeling ill.
I have my test rig running but unstable, one minute running great and then the output drops to near half. Twice I have blown the low-frequency gate driver, I am now going over everything before going on with testing, soldering SMD driver chips is not fun. :'(
Regards
Mike 8)
PS the quadratura idea is interesting for a simpler setup :-\
Both the TPU and several UFO's (sound recordings per Paul Hill) share a 5kHz frequency.
Both the TPU and several singers (sound recordings per Spotify) share a 5kHz frequency.
C.C
I realized that if we move electrons with a moving field influencing excessive charges between capacitor plates, as in the Centraflow scheme, then yes, it should work, but it's not necessarily detectable.
Suppose we have the equivalent of a charge in a capacity of 1nF at 100v, i.e. Q=C.U=10-7 C, and we move this charge with our moving field at a speed of the order of magnitude of the electrons in a conductor, e.g. 1mm/s. That gives us a current of 10-10 A = 0.1 nA!
So in practice, we won't see anything.
This difference compared to a "normal" current in a conductor is considerable, because in a conductor there are as many free electrons as there are atoms, this number is considerable, whereas in a capacitor, the number of charges that can be stored is in comparison extremely low.
A common current of 1 A is 1 Coulomb/s. But to have 1 C in a 1 nF capacitor, you would need a voltage of 1 billion volts!
For the purpose indicated, it is therefore necessary that the conductor allows a considerably higher drift velocity of the electrons, to obtain common currents by compensating the low number of electrons by the speed. I don't see how.
Even if we could think that the drift velocity is larger on the surface of a conductor than in the bulk, this remains to be demonstrated, it is still a factor 109 that is at stake, which seems utopian to me.
We can also think that by moving the field faster, the electrons will go faster. Probably, but to what limit? Is there not a risk of losing them quickly because they will no longer be able to follow the field because of the resistance of the conductor?
Electrons already move at Fermi velocity from thermal noise in a conductor without current flow. With current flow they grind to a near halt at um/sec (e.g. for 1 ampere flow).
Perhaps the trick is to accelerate the electrons in the conductor without trying to close the circuit as this creates a current which puts some braking effect on electrons. Or perhaps accelerate the free charge which could possibly drag the electrons along.
Other possibility is to find a way to null the effect of the current so the electrons can continue to float freely. (per SM)
The idea would be that the high speed electrons are a catalyst, a means to an end but not to be tapped directly, rather collect the effects of high speed electrons engaging in random high speed collisions which can emit charged particles.
Maybe this is why it was called a "collector"
I would like to explore these areas, however misguided, as I have failed at all of my other ideas including all attempts at replicating others OU ideas.
Quote from: ion on 2019.02.02, 03:30:45
Perhaps the trick is to accelerate the electrons in the conductor without trying to close the circuit as this creates a current which puts some braking effect on electrons. Or perhaps accelerate the free charge which could possibly drag the electrons along.
Other possibility is to find a way to null the effect of current so the electrons can continue to float freely.
Charged particles can be accelerated with a changing magnetic field via the Lorentz force. The greater and faster this change, the larger the impact.
If there is also a static magnetic field present, these accelerated particles should then be deflected into spiral orbits around that static B field (this is also Lorentz force but from the POV of the charged particle).
With the right configuration, this might allow charge to be built-up in space faster than it would be naturally dissipated.
That would lead to relativistic effects which should provide several pathways to synthesizing energy.
Or not, I'm still spitballing here.C.C C.C Although like other builders, one of my TPU's did turn out to be a migraine headache generator. ???
The Lorentz force only deflects charges that already have a velocity v. The speed module does not change, only its direction. It is an acceleration in the sense that their speed does not remain constant but only in direction. Lorentz's force does not provide energy. The energy is supplied only by the source that forces the electrons to go at velocity v.
Quote from: ion on 2019.02.02, 03:30:45
...
Perhaps the trick is to accelerate the electrons in the conductor without trying to close the circuit as this creates a current which puts some braking effect on electrons.
This occurs when the voltage at the input of a coil is rapidly increased. The current begins to flow when at the other end it does not yet come out.
But in my opinion even this incoming current is subject to the resistance of the conductor.
If this were not the case, then a current at the input of a coil would produce less thermal energy in a coil if it is square than if it is continuous, for the same rms value. It's doubtful, but maybe it's worth checking out.
There was a similar device made by Rosemary Ainslie, who claimed on the contrary that the thermal energy generated in a resistive coil by a variable current was higher than the energy put at the input. On ou.com TK has demonstrated beyond any doubt her measurement errors but I don't know if we could conclude that the opposite would be true.
QuoteOther possibility is to find a way to null the effect of the current so the electrons can continue to float freely. (per SM)
The idea would be that the high speed electrons are a catalyst, a means to an end but not to be tapped directly, rather collect the effects of high speed electrons engaging in random high speed collisions which can emit charged particles.
...
This way has been already explored with plasma at a low pressure or with an electronic beam in a vacuum tube.
F6FLT said:
QuoteThis way has been already explored with plasma at a low pressure or with an electronic beam in a vacuum tube.
Some of us worked diligently to reproduce the effect described in the Thonemann patent, to no avail.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=302.400
I would be interested in your findings on the subject.
Regards
Quote from: ion on 2019.02.02, 15:15:40
F6FLT said:
Some of us worked diligently to reproduce the effect described in the Thonemann patent, to no avail.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=302.400
I would be interested in your findings on the subject.
Regards
Well ion you just blew my mind on that patent, I had not seen that before or can't remember due to other things on my plate.
Regards
Mike 8)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Linear_accelerator_animation_16frames_1.6sec.gif/550px-Linear_accelerator_animation_16frames_1.6sec.gif
Coils change sign between charge and discharge, and what if the coil is also one plate of a capacitor?
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2019.02.02, 17:01:36
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Linear_accelerator_animation_16frames_1.6sec.gif/550px-Linear_accelerator_animation_16frames_1.6sec.gif
Coils change sign between charge and discharge, and what if the coil is also one plate of a capacitor?
Regards
Mike 8)
That's a very nice illustration, wish I had used it when I started the "Uniderectional acceleration of electrons" thread.
I'm trying to prove on the bench that the capacitor tubes can also be bifilar wire alternately or quadrature switched, ends not connected.
I have tried something like this with an iron wire core, but need to rethink my failed experiment.
Regards
Quote from: Centraflow on 2019.02.02, 17:01:36
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Linear_accelerator_animation_16frames_1.6sec.gif/550px-Linear_accelerator_animation_16frames_1.6sec.gif
You guys always find such cool links ;D O0
I wonder, wouldn't a very fast chirp-wave/ramped wave create this same effect in a long solenoid coil (ie: Tesla coil secondary)?
Quote from: ion on 2019.02.02, 15:15:40
Some of us worked diligently to reproduce the effect described in the Thonemann patent, to no avail.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=302.400
I would be interested in your findings on the subject.
Regards
The overall idea of the Thonemann patent sounds interesting but the implementation seems complicated.
From what I understand, the temporal variation of the magnetic field of each winding creates eddy currents in the plasma, and these ionic current loops are accelerated by the spatial magnetic field gradient from one section to the next.
So we have to make the temporal aspect, the spatial aspect, and the linear velocity work together. It is not a small job!
Do I understand correctly or am I completely missing the question?
Thonemann's method uses a magnetic field:
The invention is based on the phenomenon that the progressive magnetic held of a travelling wave (for example the travelling wave produced in a loaded transmission line or by spaced coils excited in different phases) exerts a unidirectional drag upon electrons in the field and that conversely a unidirectional motion of electrons tends to produce or enhance a travelling wave.
This reminds me of the oscillating ring things I looked at many years ago. They were similar but without the gas tube.
I don't see any way there could be a mechanism for gain.
We can never predict a gain based on common scientific theories. Their internal coherence implies energy conservation.
To find a gain, it is necessary to explore the unknown in new or little used ways.
Thonemann's patent seems to me to meet this criterion. Moreover, it has similarities with this paper from H Ardavan (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0405062) that I have already given, where the magnetic field is replaced by an electric field, and the travelling wave is here a displacement current in a dielectric common to a line of sequentially switched capacitors.
Maxwell's equations refer to a current density. But a current density is not necessarily related to a current in a conductor or in a plasma, it can be related to a displacement current in a dielectric. And a displacement current can be produced in a dielectric without speed limit, so we can hope for new things.
I think Ardavan's experiment is more innovative than Thonemann's patent, but both are close and to be explored.
Remove this comment if off topic or placed from my ignorance of the subject matter.
very recently I was made aware of some experiments which made claims .
the claim being that UV light greatly enhances the flow in a plasma [or spark Gap]
an experiment was proposed to establish a spark gap and then dial back the input until it stops
and then start adding UV light ,it was also claimed the plasma will follow a UV laser path much as flowing along a wire [does this mean bends too?mirrors??]
In my minds eye this is a remarkable claim...and apparently has actual potential applications [explained by a few I've asked about this ...as a Switch mechanism ??
but again could just be my layman's perspective on that field ?
UV LED's were said to also work ??
also very cheap UV lasers
To add this experiment is on the schedule to be done ,will report findings,or the member here who shared this will
once he finds time to do the experiment ,I have connected with a fellow from another forum with a much biigger
gas UV laser ,he has offered to send a laser for tests ?
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.02.03, 15:09:46
Remove this comment if off topic or placed from my ignorance of the subject matter.
very recently I was made aware of some experiments which made claims .
the claim being that UV light greatly enhances the flow in a plasma [or spark Gap]
an experiment was proposed to establish a spark gap and then dial back the input until it stops
and then start adding UV light ,it was also claimed the plasma will follow a UV laser path much as flowing along a wire [does this mean bends too?mirrors??]
In my minds eye this is a remarkable claim...and apparently has actual potential applications [explained by a few I've asked about this ...as a Switch mechanism ??
but again could just be my layman's perspective on that field ?
UV LED's were said to also work ??
also very cheap UV lasers
To add this experiment is on the schedule to be done ,will report findings,or the member here who shared this will
once he finds time to do the experiment ,I have connected with a fellow from another forum with a much biigger
gas UV laser ,he has offered to send a laser for tests ?
Dear Chet
For a spark to jump a gap it must first ionize the space between the electrodes
UV light does ionize the air in the vicinity of the lamp, therefore it is no mystery that it would allow a spark to jump a gap at a lower voltage by pre-ionizing the space.
The same would happen if a lightly radioactive emitter were in the vicinity. I have some neon lamps that are painted with radium to lower the firing voltage. These were used as switching devices in old test equipment from the 50's or 60's
I suspect you could also use RF energy in the gap to cause local ionization.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.02.03, 14:51:56
We can never predict a gain based on common scientific theories. Their internal coherence implies energy conservation.
To find a gain, it is necessary to explore the unknown in new or little used ways.
Thonemann's patent seems to me to meet this criterion. Moreover, it has similarities with this paper from H Ardavan (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0405062) that I have already given, where the magnetic field is replaced by an electric field, and the travelling wave is here a displacement current in a dielectric common to a line of sequentially switched capacitors.
Maxwell's equations refer to a current density. But a current density is not necessarily related to a current in a conductor or in a plasma, it can be related to a displacement current in a dielectric. And a displacement current can be produced in a dielectric without speed limit, so we can hope for new things.
I think Ardavan's experiment is more innovative than Thonemann's patent, but both are close and to be explored.
I agree with your point of view.
Would be interesting if Ardavan's experiment were arranged in a loop and had a detection method that would automatically control frequency of the switching pulses to track the desired speed setpoints.
Let's say, hypothetically, that someone built a device like a TPU, and this person wanted to use output electrical power to power static DC field coils with the intent of increasing the power output by increasing the DC magnetic field. This assumes that the DC magnetic field is a contributing factor to operation, and that increasing the static DC magnetic field WILL increase the device output.
This static DC field coil does not see the output, so there is no direct feedback between these two elements.
Assume that transients and variations in the power from the output to the static DC coil will directly effect the device output.
So you can see the possible scenario: power out increases DC field increases power out increases DC field boom!
How can you limit the energy delivered to the static DC field coil so that the device does not exceed the capacity of the wire elements?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2019.02.03, 16:49:40
Let's say, hypothetically, that someone built a device like a TPU, and this person wanted to use output electrical power to power static DC field coils with the intent of increasing the power output by increasing the DC magnetic field. This assumes that the DC magnetic field is a contributing factor to operation, and that increasing the static DC magnetic field WILL increase the device output.
This static DC field coil does not see the output, so there is no direct feedback between these two elements.
Assume that transients and variations in the power from the output to the static DC coil will directly effect the device output.
So you can see the possible scenario: power out increases DC field increases power out increases DC field boom!
How can you limit the energy delivered to the static DC field coil so that the device does not exceed the capacity of the wire elements?
I have many times now pointed out that there is a technique in compound wound generators that accomplishes this, as well as performing very tight load regulation over a certain range.
This technique has been perfected over one century or more of R&D in generator technology. More so, at a certain level of output with the appropriate tiny circuit, current foldback can be incorporated, keeping everything very safe.
Read up on this and it's variants, because it is a clever yet simple way of getting load regulation, and worked out a very long time ago:
http://www.electrical-engineering-assignment.com/compound-wound-generator
Thanks. I'll add that to my notes.
It has been awhile since this thread was active but I see it is public so I would like to post an observation I have made. I was going thru some of my old files and came upon the attached simulation. I do this from time to time to see if I may have missed something as it seems I did with this particular circuit. The idea here was to take the reflection that returns to the input of a shorted symmetrical transmission line and charge a capacitor to see if the resulting energy levels had a gain. Although the sim uses an ideal delay line, I believe a bench transmission line will result in the same effect but with some additional losses.
The first pix is the schematic.
The second pix is the plot of the entire charge cycle of C1 from 0v to 36.82v. We see from the plot math that the input energy taken from the 20v DC supply V1 is 29.444mJ . We also can see that the energy in C1 at the end of 563us is 27.113mJ . Disregard the label on the math plot calculation for "V(vc)*V(vc)*40e-6/2J" of mOhm/s which should really be mJoules. Never have figured out how to change those labels! Anyway, if the plot math isn't believable to you, simply calculate the energy in C1 yourself. So, we see for the entire charge period to 563us, energy is conserved.
The third pix now shows an abbreviated cycle that starts at 400us and ends at 563us. We now compare energies and see that it takes 5.925mJ to recharge C1 from 17.786mJ to 27.113mJ ! This is a gain of
(.027113-.017786)/.05925 = 1.57 . We now see that in this time period on the charge curve of C1, there is a gain!
With the starting voltage across C1 = 29.821v at 400us and the ending voltage = 36.81 at 563us, we calculate the average to be 33.31v DC over the charge cycle of 163us. If we now connect the proper load to discharge C1 from 36.81v - 29.82v = 6.989v in the same time as the charge time of 163us and assuming relatively constant current for easy calcs at this point, this would require a current of di = dE*C/dt = 1.715A . With an average output voltage of 33.31v over the 163us discharge time, this requires a load of 33.31/1.715 = 19.42 ohms. The output over 163us would be 1.715^2*19.42 = 57.1W but this is 1/2 of the total cycle so the effective power would be 28.5W.
With a total cycle of 326us, the pulsing frequency in the delay line would be 3.067KHz! Sound familiar???
I don't know how I missed this earlier but of course I could be missing something!?!
I've also included the .asc file below.
Edit: Thanks to Gyula, he pointed out my mistake in that the energy levels should be in mJoules and not Joules. Corrections are made in the text above.
Regards,
Pm
Without the front end of the device, regulating the output isn't necessary as you don't have one.
See the corrections to my reply #507 above thanks to Gyula
Regards,
Pm
Please refer to the attached sim plot.
Upon closer examination, the apparent gain initially thought to exist in this delay line over the last part of the cycle, is being supplied by the current build up in the inductive elements of the line. This energy in the inductive elements is created by the first half of operation and when taking energy measurements over the last half is not accounted for as the source of gain. Therefore, the device remains conservative as the measurements over the complete cycle confirm.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: Centraflow on 2025.02.27, 20:50:19
You know what a B and E field is, you know the electric field and the magnetic field are at 90 degrees to one another, you know the magnetic field through a solenoid, you may or not it seems, the magnetic field inside a capacitor when Charging, so just don't try being smarter than anyone on an open thread, you are not as smart as you may think or you would understand what I have drawn and said.
I will leave it to you, I am finished explaining, I have better things to do at my age.
Go on pumping and using gas and oil, I am giving you an opportunity to stop doing that.
Mike,
Who are you addressing with the above?
Regards,
Pm
Wrong thread, I really do not know how that happened.
I have removed it, again sorry about that.
Mike
Mike,
O0
Pm