OverUnity Research

So as this is something i have been personally very interested in for some time, i decided to start heading towards a replication.

It's really a matter of just using stuff we have already worked on.

for anyone who is not familiar the french patent can be downloaded here.
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=FR&NR=2680613A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=19930226&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP

There was a translation on OU.com here
http://overunity.com/4333/meyer-mace-isotopic-nmr-generator/msg317296/#msg317296
Thanks to e2matrix for the translation.

QuoteA rough interprestation of the French patent.  I'll try to clean it up a bit later as this was an OCR of an image of the text which was then translated with Google (and if you know how OCR works on images of text you know it doesn't always get things right - in this case I think some numbers got put in places where it failed to recognize text correctly):
EDIT: Cleaned up as much as I can:
Text from Cover page in patent: (54 - I think this #54 is an irrelevant number not talking about isotope - just a reference number) Activator for isotopic mutation.
(57 - irrelevant number) Power generator by nuclear resonant ferromagnetism consisting of a frame-shaped "U" mild steel containing a cylindrical bar of ferromagnetic fuel acted upon by at least 3 induction coils. The first is an electromagnet coil, the
second activator is a nuclear magnetic resonance, the third induction recovering energy present in the bar.
Device specifically designed to provide a commercially viable electric power and to make changes of isotopes.
FR2680613
page - 1 - DESCRIPTION
The present invention relates to a device for generating energy by nuclear resonant ferromagnetism.
Nuclear power is traditionally produced by fission or 'fusing atoms while the magnetic fluxes are in turn traditionally
obtained by induction caused by the movement of electrons.
The present invention uses a physical phenomenon that we have identified and we will call "Isotopic Mutation".
Description of the physical principle applied to the iron isotope 56:
The iron isotope 56 contains 26 protons, 26 electrons and 30 neutrons,
its total mass is 56.52 MeV, its actual weight being 55.80 MeV. The difference between the total mass and the actual

mass is 0.72 MeV which corresponds to a cohesive energy per nucleon of 0.012857 Mev.
If additional energy is introduced of 105 eV iron core isotope 56, that will have an energy level of cohesion per nucleon

of 0.012962 corresponding to the iron isotope Mev 54. The instability created by this energy input is a specific

radioactivity that will transfer the isotope 56 iron isotope 54 with a release of 2 neutrons which transform in 9 minutes in

Hydrogen by natural radioactivity.
This process will generate a gain of energy of 20,000 ev since the default mass of iron resulting 54 is only 0.70 MeV

instead of 0.72 MeV for iron isotope 56.
To make the iron core isotope 56 energy required to effect the isotopic mutation, we use the principle of reso-nance

nuclear magnetic.
The 26 protons in the iron isotope 56 are at the origin of magnetic moment that nuclear gyroscopic
motion moved by a dependent of the actual mass of the iron core. The loss of mass caused by the phenomenon of

mutation will alter the isotopic gyroscopic moment and the energy return of by increasing the rotation speed.   The

physical phenomenon of isotopic mutation described above is applicable to all
of Mandeleiev body of the table.

page -2

The device of the invention is shown schematically in Figure 1 attached.

It consists of a metal piece of mild steel (1) in the form of "U" and a cylindrical bar (2) iron isotope 56 supporting the

different-5 annuities coils (3,4 and 5).

   The first coil (3) is a magnetic field generator

A power of 0.5 Tesla to the orientation of the nuclear spins of the iron atoms 56.

-        The second coil (4) is traversed by a sine wave of 21 MHz frequency of 10 to the -4 Tesla power which is an

activator of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance observer permitting rotation of 180 ° of the nuclear spins of the iron atoms.

-       The third coil (5) constitutes a transformer primary, which collects the induction energy present in all points of the

bar created  by changing the isotope of iron atoms in iron 56 54.

The recovered energy can then be transformed in a form commercially exploitable (110-220-380 voltage V and

frequency 50 to 400 Hz).

The basic application that results is the creation of autonomous electrical generator. The particularity of this new

generator is that it uses a bar ferromagnetic metal as fuel giving it considerable autonomy and a very low cost of

ownership. This electrical or magnetic energy can also be used in all systems such as inverters, motors and engines.

The second application is the resulting transformation of isotope using the same principle described in figure 1 as with

magnetic core (2) to transform the metal and adjusting the setting values of the various components to match the

mutation achieve.

2680613

page 3 - CLAIM

1) flow generating device magneto-nuclear characterized in that it comprises a metal frame in the form of "U" (1), a

ferromagnetic metal bar (2) representing the magnetic core of the induction coils (3,4 and 5).

2) Device according to claim N ° 1, characterized in that the first coil (3) is an electromagnet, the second coil (4) is an

activator for the sine wave nuclear magnetic resonance of the magnetic core and the third coil (5) is the transducing

element of internal flows of nuclear origin which recovers energy in all points of the bar (2).

3)        Device according to claim # 2 characterized in that internal flows of nuclear origin allow to obtain a magnetic or

electrical energy commercially exploitable.

4)        Device according to claim 1 and N ° 2 characterized in that the change of the adjustment parameters of the coils

and the magnetic core thereof would enable the system to make changes to other isotopes of elements Table of

Mandeleiev.

I've added a google translation of the Czech patent No CZ284333

I've added a google translation of the French patent No FR2680613 / FR9110472

I've scaled a device using sketchup using the patents drawing proportions.

Now although the patent says Mild steel can be used, i am going to electroform my parts from mild steel using moulds and electroplating to purify the iron and shape it to my exact needs, this will be using the Robert Murray Smith electroplating patent he found.

So this is my first step.

To make a 18mm pure iron fuel rod.
I have all the chemicals now and a clear perspex tube with 18mm internal diameter, i will place a piece of copper foil at one and and seal this up, the idea being that iron will slowly deposit inside the tube and make a pure iron rod, leaving the carbon impurities to fall to the bottom, i have a mild steel donor rod as my source of iron.

If this works out then i will make the sides and bottom this way, i reserve the right for this to not work out and plan B is to source some mild steel  ;D

Interestingly one thing that was putting me off was the 21MHz sinewave signal, but it looks like Itsu has solved this problem for me with his RF water splitter circuit.

The first coil that is needed is as per quote

QuoteThe first coil (3) is a magnetic field generator

A power of 0.5 Tesla to the orientation of the nuclear spins of the iron atoms 56.

So i need a DC bias coil on my fuel rod to generate a magnetic flux of 0.5 Tesla's.

So time to look up some design calculations.

EDIT
So according to here Pure iron has a Permeability μ [H/m] of 6.3×10−3 or 0.0063
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_%28electromagnetism%29

plugging the Permeability into this calculator
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/electromagnetism/solenoid

Dividing the fuel rod 90mm internal length for 3 coils i can use 30mm each coil.

So I need a coil
30mm long
20mm radius
51 Turns
and a constant current of 47mA

Gives an inductance of 416.607 mH

Once the core is built it maybe a good idea to experimentally work out the Core Permeability to be sure.

Hi Peter,

Years ago I also came across this Meyer -Mace method at ( http://www.rexresearch.com/meyernmr/meyer.htm  (http://www.rexresearch.com/meyernmr/meyer.htm) ) and also at Naudin site and I wondered about the possible eddy losses in the iron core which is also fed with the 21 MHz RF input power.  And I have not managed to understand why it may not have been an issue? because a solid iron rod with an OD of 1-2cm or so is highly conductive electrically. Maybe it is not so important from this point of view. 
Another issue would be the possible high working temperature of the iron rod (can be as high as some hundred degree C) so the coils should be defended against this somehow.  (for the heat development the eddy loss at 21MHz may surely contribute).

Gyula

Hi Gyula

Thanks, yeah i realize there seem to be problems, maybe wont work but i will try to give it a go and see what happens, lots of things to solve yet.

Where does the 400Hz output come from i wonder.
Cheers
Peter

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.18, 19:30:32
for anyone who is not familiar the french patent can be downloaded here.
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=FR&NR=2680613A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=19930226&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP

There are several sources of information about Meyer's contraption, namely: Patents FR2680613 (http://freenrg.info/Patents/FR2680613%20%28MEYER%29/) and FR9110472 and FR2385255 (https://freenrg.info/Patents/FR2385255%20%28MEYER%29/) and CZ284333 (https://spisy.upv.cz/Patents/FullDocuments/284/284333.pdf) all mentioning an Iron rod,  while the diagram (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2194.0;attach=11534) in the March 1976 article (http://rexresearch.com/meyernmr/meyer.htm) in Science et Vie (nr.700, pages 42-45), depicts a Copper rod (see its translation (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=20566)).
According to some scuttlebutt, the patent FR9110472 contains some key information necessary for replication.

Note that, in his embodiments, Meyer always attempts to saturate the Iron rod, because without saturation, its magnetic permeability is so high, that the evil Skin Effect prevents any significant penetration of high frequency magnetic fields inside it.
Also, at the high magnetic flux density needed to saturate Iron, the Lorentz orbits of charged particles became small enough to fit inside the diameter of the rod.
At these high flux densities, the frequencies also become high since the resonance frequency for Iron-57 nuclei is 138Hz/Gauss or 1.38MHz/Tesla, which calculates to almost 3MHz for saturated iron
( BTW: Copper nuclei resonate at 1132Hz/Gauss or 11.32MHz/Tesla and at the same flux density would resonate at ~24MHz.)

Also, notice that a rod is just a long disk, (only with a small ratio of diameter to length) and a ring is just a short disk with a hole in it ...so those shapes are not that dissimilar.  Anyway IMO: the diameter of the rod (or disk) should be large enough to contain the Lorentz orbits of fast electrons. According to the equation below, 2.7MeV electrons (which is a lot) immersed in a 2.14T magnetic field will have a Lorentz orbit slightly smaller than 10mm in diameter.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2194.0;attach=18895)

P.S.
It is hard to saturate Iron only with permanent magnets, because pure Iron saturates at 2.14T and NdFeB magnets can deliver magnetic flux densities of a little more than 1.2T.    A DC winding with sufficient number of ampturns, can aid a magnet in keeping the iron saturated.  Also note, that only 2.2% of natural unenriched iron is affected by NMR or NAR because only the rare but stable ⁵⁷Fe isotope has spin>0 and is susceptible to it.

Hi verpies
Thanks for your post.
While i am trying to make the fuel rod i am in the background google translating the patents as time permits and will publish them on this thread.

I am currently working on the Czech patent you mention above.
Here's a quote

QuoteWhen treating iron core consisting of Fe 56 isotope , the starting energy of the size of 168.21 x 10-19J , the core is heated to a temperature of 150-1500 ° C.
If then exerts a magnetic core of energy of not less than 460 W and a frequency of 21 MHz while a magnetic induction of at least 0.5 T , the isotope 56 Fe will absorb this energy directly performing turning its nuclear Spin 180 and subsequently releases two neutrons , to form Fe isotope 54. Those two neutrons in its release to release energy .

So the core is also heated to at least 150° C.

also

QuoteThe device may have various alternative embodiments. The minimum number of coils is three. Preferable in terms of the amount of energy and speed of the current transmutation is , if the device has four coils .
They are preferably selected and arranged such that the first coil is an electromagnet generating a magnetic field of at least 0.5 T. The second coil is a coil of high frequency , i.e. at a frequency above 21 MHz , and a source of at least 467 W / gmol .
The third and fourth coil are low frequency , i.e. 45 to 55 Hz . The third and the fourth coil may be combined into a single , possibly due to the required process parameters greater number of coils .

So 4 coils are preferable, and it is now clear where the low Hz comes from on the output coil.

I started with FR2385255 some time ago but stalled when i realized the maths made no sense.
For instance see picture from patent of formula below, makes no sense, seems info was lost in formatting the patent.

I will do what i can though.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.21, 07:09:49
While i am trying to make the fuel rod

I always wondered if the fuel rod needs to have its conductivity minimized.
Electric conductivity, magnetic permeability and frequency, all increase the evil Skin Effect.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.21, 07:09:49
So the core is also heated to at least 150° C.

That will decrease its conductivity and shake the nuclei.  NMR amplitude is strongly related to thermal equilibrium of spin populations.
Also, note that in that Science at Vie article the fuel rod is electrically polarized, so when you put it together, the fuel rod is molested magnetically, thermally and electrically.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.21, 07:09:49
So 4 coils are preferable, and it is now clear where the low Hz comes from on the output coil.

Note that, the low frequency coils will load down the high frequency coils ...unless they have HF chokes connected in series.

Also 0.5T is too low to saturate iron and minimize the skin effect as much as possible. For that over 2T is needed.
At 0.50T the Lorentz orbits of 2.7Mev electrons will have the diameter of slightly under 43mm and NMR frequency is 690kHz.
At 2.14T the Lorentz orbits of 2.7Mev electrons will have the diameter of slightly under 10mm and NMR frequency is almost 3MHz.

Finally, according to legacy science ⁵⁴Fe and ⁵⁶Fe nuclei spins cannot be affected by NMR because the total spin of these nuclei is zero...unless the short lived ^54mFe is considered.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.21, 07:09:49
I started with FR2385255 some time ago but stalled when i realized the maths made no sense.
For instance see picture from patent of formula below, makes no sense, seems info was lost in formatting the patent.

Perhaps we need a Frenchman who will obtain the paper copy of the original patent (or a photo scan of it) with these formulas intact.

Thanks verpies

Lots to consider, so it would sound like the presented patent would not work in it's reported form.

QuotePerhaps we need a Frenchman who will obtain the paper copy of the original patent (or a photo scan of it) with these formulas intact.

Good idea, we had a page missing in the Arie patents so me & separately Itsu contacted the Netherlands patent office, next thing i knew someone rang me and was really willing to help, so maybe an email would also work for the French patents, i need to have a look on the French patent site first to see what they have on Meyer, maybe the original is there.

The Czech patent is the latest and says that it is 3 times more powerfull than the previous patented devices.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.21, 12:06:37
Lots to consider, so it would sound like the presented patent would not work in it's reported form.

I would not go that far.  The theory might be flawed but the practical side of the invention may be sound.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.21, 12:06:37
The Czech patent is the latest and says that it is 3 times more powerful than the previous patented devices.

If the Modus Operandi is even in the right ballpark, then there is still much room for improvement, especially in minimizing the permeability and conductivity of the fuel rod.
Making the diameter of the fuel rod large enough to contain Lorentz orbits of fast electrons is trivial and should improve the performance even further ( smaller rods might still work, albeit with less performance ).

The deliberate heating and electric polarization of the fuel rod are the wildcards.

There's some great info in this Czech patent, it's a 50KW device and he uses a Valve Class A oscillator/amplifier plate voltage of 500V for the 21MHz with a 20 Turn coil on the iron rod.

and

Quoteexhaustion of the isotope Fe 56 takes about 2,400 hours. This procedure yields about 32,040x10^-19 J energy

I wonder if it would be possible to estimate the mass or diameter of the iron iron from the above info. ???

I've added a translation of CZ284333 to the bottom of post 1
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=18913

I have not been able to find a copy of patent FR9110472, anyone got a copy, J Nauding seems to have a copy.
I also found another mentioned patent which i have not yet tracked down FR7421213

Hi Peter,

I think FR9110472 was the patent application number and likewise FR7421213 was also only application number. I base this on the following: if you do a search at http://worldwide.espacenet.com/ (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/) with the numbers only (one by one) by omitting the FR prefix, you get 5 patents for number 9110472 which include FR2680613 and you get 2 patents for number 7421213 which include FR2385255. When you check their application numbers, both include the numbers without the FR prefix (with some other additional numbers), so the references must have meant application numbers and not patent numbers.
(91 surely means 1991 in 9110472 and 74 surely means 1974 in 7421213)

This means that there were no FR9110472 and FR7421213 patents, these were application numbers.

Gyula

thanks Gyula

Ha Ha that makes sense, makes my job easier  O0

Peter

I've uploaded a google translation for patent FR2680613 / FR9110472 very little info in their really.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=18918

Quote from Czech Patent

QuoteThe second coil is a coil of high frequency , i.e. at a frequency above 21 MHz , and a source of at least 467 W / gmol .

Well 1 mole of iron is 55.846g, so for every 55.846g of iron fuel we need 467 Watts of power at 21MHz

Considering my 110mm long 18mm diameter iron rod which if steel would weight 220 grams then i would need 21MHz with a power of  1.84 Kwatts  :o

also

QuoteThis procedure yields about 32,040x10^-19 J energy

It seems to me worrying that Meyer when he refers to the enormous energy released uses the negative power, when surely in fact that would mean an incredibly small amount of energy  :(

Surely the above quote should be

Quote32,040x10¹⁹ J energy

without the minus
This mistake is made 3 or 4 times throughout the patent.
Was this guy even educated??

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.21, 19:28:25
I've added a translation of CZ284333 to the bottom of post 1

I read it. 
Heating the iron fuel rod above 1050ºK seems to be an easy way to minimize the permeability and conductivity of the iron, which effectively gets rid of the evil skin effect.  It also lowers the Larmor frequency.

In the translation, the use of the word "stream" vs. "current" should be corrected.  When I was reading it, I was often wondering whether the word "stream" referred to magnetic flux or electric current?

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.22, 21:43:05
Quote from Czech Patent.  Well 1 mole of iron is 55.846g, so for every 55.846g of iron fuel we need 467 Watts of power at 21MHz

I was wondering about that, too.  If you look at the definition of Molar Mass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_mass) then you quickly notice that its units are g/mol and not g*mol.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.22, 21:43:05
Considering my 110mm long 18mm diameter iron rod which if steel would weight 220 grams then i would need 21MHz with a power of  1.84 Kwatts  :o

...I arrived at the same conclusion but I am wondering why they wrote the murky ratio of 467W per gmol (g*mol), instead of simply writing 467W/55.846g or just 8.4W/g.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.22, 21:43:05
It seems to me worrying that Meyer when he refers to the enormous energy released uses the negative power, when surely in fact that would mean an incredibly small amount of energy  :(  Surely the above quote should be  without the minus
This mistake is made 3 or 4 times throughout the patent.

It must be an energy gain per 1 atom because 32,040x10¹⁹J of energy is equal to burning more than 10¹³ liters of gasoline, that's 10 trillion liters.  Isn't that more than OPECs total output and more than an energy content of a ton of antimatter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_ignoring_external_components) ?   ..and who knows whether that comma in that number is a digit grouping symbol or a decimal point?  Do the French use commas or periods ?

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.22, 21:43:05
Was this guy even educated??

Maybe but it was enough for his Czech counterpart or translator/editor not to be, in order to let mistakes through.

QuoteIt must be an energy gain per 1 atom because 32,040x1019J of energy is equal to burning more than 1013 liters of gasoline

Good point yes this makes more sense.
So we have 6.022 x 10²³ atoms per mole of iron or 55.846g of iron.

So for every mole using his 32,040x10^-19 x 6.022x10²³ = 1.93 Giga watts of energy, we know it releases this amount of energy by running for 2400 hours.
therefore we have energy per hour of 803 KWh, or an output of 223 Watts per mole of fuel used.

So we know it's a 50 KWatt device, so the rod is 223.8 moles of iron or 12KG of iron.

QuoteDistribution best ratio about 1 : 9th The first minor portion of the stream is then led to the controller and connected to the supply circuit

if the device really is a 50KW device as stated in the patent then the device is using 5.5 KWatts to run

It cannot mean 50KWh device because it would only be producing 13.8watts

QuoteWith the above parameters of the operation as the exhaustion of the isotope Fe 56 takes about 2,400 hours . This procedure yields about 32,040x10-19J energy, demonstrating a significantly higher efficiency than with the existing devices to generate electricity .

Just in case he meant to not use -, if we use 32040x10¹⁹ as the total energy over 2400 hours of run time then we get
370x10¹² watts power output, this is way too high so is definitely wrong.

Also it is common in the UK for the old boys to use a comma to indicate thousands and millions.

QuoteHeating the iron fuel rod above 1050ºC seems to be an easy way to minimize the permeability and conductivity of the iron, which effectively gets rid of the evil skin effect.

I would think it would be impossible to operate and build a device to run the iron that high, he uses Teflon so his operating temperature must be below 326 Deg C.

It would surely be better to use thin iron wire bundled up a bit like Litz wire to increase the amount of iron penetration.

QuoteIn the translation, the use of the word "stream" vs. "current" should be corrected.  When I was reading it, I was often wondering whether the word "stream" referred to magnetic flux or electric current?

I spotted a number of other errors as well, yes indeed a few alterations need making to the document.  O0

Personally i think we need to understand the earlier patent with the maths in to make sense of this Czech patent, i think a lot will become clear.
I'm still trying to get an idea of scaling.

Thanks
Peter

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.23, 07:44:11
Also it is common in the UK for the old boys to use a comma to indicate thousands and millions.

If the comma is used as a digit grouping symbol and not a decimal point, then 32,040×10^-19J =  3.204×10^-15J in proper scientific notation

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.23, 07:44:11
So we have 6.022×10²³ atoms per mole of iron

Yes

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.23, 07:44:11
So for every mole using his 32,040×10^-19 * 6.022×10²³ = 1.93 Giga watts of energy,

Watts are not units of energy.  Also,  I do not understand how you go from Joules to Watts. 
3.204×10^-15J *  6.022×10²³ = 1.93×10⁹J  of energy, which is the equivalent of burning almost 60 liters of gasoline, for every mole of iron.
...and since Watt = Joule / second
The power output of one mole device running for 2400h is:
1.93×10⁹J / (2400 * 60 * 60s) = 223.38W

To get up to 50kW we would need 50kW / 223.38W = 223.83 moles of iron, which is almost the same result you got because of this coincidence: 223.6² = 50000

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.23, 07:44:11
I would think it would be impossible to operate and build a device to run the iron that high, he uses Teflon so his operating temperature must be below 326 Deg C.

I agree it would be impossible to do it, if Teflon were subjected to that temperature.
However if Teflon was far away then it would be possible to achieve the Curie temperature of iron using similar arrangement to what ION has used in his E-Cat replication with alumina.

Getting rid of Iron's magnetic permeability would not only get rid of the evil skin effect but also would dramatically decrease the inductance of the MHz coil, resulting in its lower impedance to the high frequency signal.  Also, the Larmor frequency of hot iron is lower than of cold iron.

Have you ever thought that isotropic NMR transmutation was only a fake explanation to deceive people ?

Thanks verpies for clarification.

I am having very little luck plating an iron rod, it is working but i will be old by the time it is long enough.

All things considered, i think you would agree that a pure copper fuel rod would make an easier device to build.

pure copper is easily available and the operating frequency is much lower.

QuoteBTW: Copper nuclei resonate at 1132Hz/Gauss or 11.32MHz/Tesla

So if we run at 0.5 Tesla as per the iron then we get an operating frequency of 5.66 MHz
Trouble is we still have the skin depth problem at this frequency, no wonder he used KHz subharmonic in the first patent.

Zinc seems to be better regarding skin depth and lower frequency.

Zinc NMR i think would be 1.33199MHz at 0.5Telsa, skin depth at this frequency for zinc would be 106.46um

or

Aluminium 5.54697MHz at 0.5Tesla, skin depth at this frequency would be 34.787um

carbon would be amazing if it would work 5.3529MHz at 0.5T, skin depth 806.635um

Quote from: forest on 2015.06.24, 17:03:23
Have you ever thought that isotropic NMR transmutation was only a fake explanation to deceive people ?

Yes, isotropic NMR is a fake phenomenon because the very concept of NMR requires spatial anisotropy of nuclear spin axes.

Quote from: forest on 2015.06.24, 17:03:23
Have you ever thought that isotropic NMR transmutation was only a fake explanation to deceive people ?

No cannot say i have thought of that, So what would be the real explanation?

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.24, 17:41:36
I am having very little luck plating an iron rod, it is working but i will be old by the time it is long enough.

How are you plating it?

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.24, 17:41:36
So if we run at 0.5 Tesla as per the iron then we get an operating frequency of 5.66 MHz

Yes, copper at 0.5T will resonate at 5.66MHz.
However individual separate iron nuclei resonate at 690kHz at 0.5 Tesla but metallic iron at room temperature resonates at 45.5MHz.  Lower if it is hot.  To get it down to 21MHz you'd need to heat it up to 1000°K (that is lower than the Curie temperature, though).

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.24, 17:41:36
Trouble is we still have the skin depth problem at this frequency...

Yes but the evil skin effect can be mitigated by minimizing the differential permeability and/or conductivity.
This can be accomplished by magnetic saturation and/or heating ...or both since even approaching the Curie temperature also decreases the saturation magnetization (see Fig.4 (http://www2.phy.ilstu.edu/~marx/ph355/Kittel_Solid%20State%20Physics/c12.pdf))
It is also possible to completely work around the evil skin effect by using acoustic waves.

Heating iron seems more and more promising.

QuoteHow are you plating it?

Using the method Robert Murray smith found see link, it's a 3 chemical mix for any metal.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2518.0

I can see the advantages of heating the iron but is it practical.

Sometime ago i started a thread about a hot coil electromagnet, the question was if a tungsten coiled wire had a current flowing to heat it to a really high temperature as in a bulb filament then would a magnetic field be produced as if it was an electromagnet.

Now if we wound a solenoid coil using iron wire and fed a High current DC bias to heat the iron coil to 1050 Deg C and superimposed the required MHz frequency, what would be the minimun wire thickness we could use, i would think that if the fuel wire was responsible for producing the bias magnetic field then it should be permeating from every atom because the bias magnetic field is being produced from all atoms of the heated wire, no core would be need and no overwindings to suffer a fate of hot temperature, so the complete device is just a white hot iron filament.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.25, 18:37:03
Sometime ago i started a thread about a hot coil electromagnet, the question was if a tungsten coiled wire had a current flowing to heat it to a really high temperature as in a bulb filament then would a magnetic field be produced as if it was an electromagnet.

Simply, Yes

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.25, 18:37:03
Now if we wound a solenoid coil using iron wire and fed a High current DC bias to heat the iron coil to 1050 Deg C and superimposed the required MHz frequency, what would be the minimum wire thickness we could use, i would think that if the fuel wire was responsible for producing the bias magnetic field then it should be permeating from every atom because the bias magnetic field is being produced from all atoms of the heated wire, no core would be need and no overwindings to suffer a fate of hot temperature, so the complete device is just a white hot iron filament.

There are two problems with this approach. The radii of the Lorentz orbits and the distribution of magnetic flux in a helical winding, which is zero in the center of the wire.

(http://overunity.com/14632/magnetic-question/dlattach/attach/138554/)

The DC coil can be made out of the Nichrome wire and be a heater of the core at the same time...but the core cannot be deleted.
Nichrome melts at 1673ºK while the Curie point of iron is 1043ºK so it will work for this purpose. The heat resistance of insulation is the only problem.

QuoteThere are two problem with this approach. The radii of the Lorentz orbits and the distribution of magnetic flux in a helical winding which is zero inside the wire.

OK.
So we need a hot iron rod, i suppose we could sleeve this with quartz tube then sleeve again with an air gap with something like a ceramic tube and wind coils over this.

QuoteThe radii of the Lorentz orbits

Is it this that is limiting our iron rod diameter?

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.25, 20:36:19
So we need a hot iron rod, i suppose we could sleeve this with quartz tube then sleeve again with an air gap with something like a ceramic tube and wind coils over this.

Fused quartz would work as well as white silica. S2 glass fiber mat would also work and would be the easiest IMO.
Yes, the other coils can be wound over that.  Copper will not melt until 1357ºK but it will oxidize without insulation. For heat-resistant windings of low turns, such as the MHz coil, a copper capillary (e.g. from an old refrigerator) can be used if water is run through it and it is not touching the DC heater winding.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.25, 20:36:19
Is it this that is limiting our iron rod diameter?

Yes, according to that formula in my first post in this thread.  The further you get away from this Lorentz radius the lower the efficiency because a lot fast electrons escape the fuel rod then.
A millimeter diameter wire is not only way below this orbit radius but also the magnetic field in the center of the wire is zero!

Thanks verpies for the explanation.

ION found the solution to our problem, he used large bore ceramic resistors to reach 1000 Deg C, the iron rod can be placed down the center hole which can be quite large, will do some hunting for data sheets tomorrow when i get time to get data on sizes.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2888.msg47411#msg47411

QuoteWith the 150 Ohm resistor, a bit over 900 C is possible, I was able to get to 1000 C

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.25, 21:35:05
ION found the solution to our problem, he used large bore ceramic resistors to reach 1000 Deg C, the iron rod can be placed down the center hole which can be quiet large,

Yes it can be, but remember that the intent is to heat the iron rod to 1000°K which is close to its Curie point at 770ºC (1043ºK) at 0T, so a bore much larger than the diameter of the rod is not advantageous here.
It is the other windings that need protection from the heat - not the iron rod.

Try this instead:

Dear Peterae and Verpies.

I have been doing some work with the RMC induction oscillator recently, what is great is that Richard found out by accident that his particular design can run without the need for a centre tap coil.

A thought?

Could this circuit be used to provide both the heating effect and modulation frequency in one? All that would then be needed is the correct DC bias for the magnetic field.

I also looked into the subject of pure Iron rod, it's readily available in short lengths and many diameters. A quick Google was all it took! http://www.pureiron.co.uk/index.htm

Cheers Grum.

Edit.

http://www.rmcybernetics.com/shop/induction-heater-circuit

Hi Grumage

Thanks for the links indeed i did see the pureiron previously, and maybe i will need to go their, just seemed really expensive, minimun order of £50 and then £20 P&P so to get a 10cm piece of iron will cost £70, but i think it is the only source i have seen so far, so i might need to go there, shame there's not more builders, we could bulk order.

Whats the frequency of the RMC induction oscillator, not seen it before.

EDIT
OK it goes up to 100KHz  O0

Cheers
Peter

verpies

Quote
but remember that the intent is to heat the iron rod up to its Curie point, which is 770ºC (1043ºK) at 0T, so a bore much larger than the diameter of the rod is not advantageous here.

ION uses the resistor packed with nickle, it is the nickle inside the resistor that is heated but yes the heat would dissipate from the outside surface as well unless insulated with something, as for size we can find one that fits our iron rod diameter or pick a rod size that fits the resistor.

QuoteHowever for iron the nuclear resonance at 0.5 Tesla occurs at 690kHz and for saturated cold iron (@ 2.14 Tesla) it occurs at almost 3MHz.

Is there a way to work out how the NMR frequency alters versus temperature.

Quote
At 2.14T the Lorentz orbits of 2.7Mev electrons will have the diameter of slightly under 10mm and NMR frequency is almost 3MHz.

So it looks like we have some base line parameters for a device
Fuel rod 20mm pure iron
Fuel rod Temperature approximately 1000 Deg K
Bias Field 2.14 Tesla.
Main oscillator 3MHz 400 Watts 20 turn coil

Peter
Quote
shame there's not more builders, we could bulk order.
-------------------------------------------

we could share "your" purchase and shipping costs ?

its only fair ??

perhaps a Little Kitty for this should be maintained here ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azMbJWr9Nqg

The circuit for the non-centertapped version is only slightly different, it uses exactly the same components plus one more RF choke.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.26, 21:18:47
Is there a way to work out how the NMR frequency alters versus temperature.

It varies a lot, like this:

(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=51374)

Also, the saturation flux density varies with temperature.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.26, 21:18:47
So it looks like we have some base line parameters for a device
Fuel rod 20mm pure iron
Fuel rod Temperature approximately 1000 Deg K
Bias Field 2.14 Tesla.

Basically yes except the Bias Field necessary to reach the magnetic saturation, will be lowered at 1000ºK.
Also a choke in series with the DC bias and heater Nichrome winding is an important element, as it prevents the necessary loading of the MHz coil.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.26, 21:18:47
Main oscillator 3MHz 400 Watts 20 turn coil

Maybe.
The power level requirement might be relaxed at high temperature as the evil skin effect is minimized and RF penetration maximized. The choke helps, too.
Personally, I would make the frequency tunable from 500kHz to 25MHz.

Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.06.27, 00:42:06
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azMbJWr9Nqg
The circuit for the non-centertapped version is only slightly different, it uses exactly the same components plus one more RF choke.

Neat circuit!
I wish your video better showed the LC frequency as you inserted the the thicker workpiece while its Curie temperature was reached.
The LC frequency should increase upon reaching it, which would be educational.

P.S.
I always wonder with these inductive heaters, what percentage of the heating is caused by hysteresis losses vs. eddy currents.
May I suggest a second fixed local oscillator, a 4-diode mixer and a speaker for bringing the LC frequency into audible range for easy observation "by ear".

Quote from: verpies on 2015.06.27, 04:51:40
Neat circuit!
I wish your video better showed the LC frequency as you inserted the the thicker workpiece while its Curie temperature was reached.
The LC frequency should increase upon reaching it, which would be educational.

P.S.
I always wonder what percentage of the heating is caused by hysteresis losses vs. eddy currents.
May I suggest a second fixed local oscillator, a 4-diode mixer and a speaker for bringing the LC frequency into audible range for observation "by ear".

Hmm... that's an interesting experiment to try. I'll see if I can set something up that would show the "step" in frequency as the Curie point is reached/exceeded.

I might be able to kludge together some kind of BFO system as you suggest, or capture it on the scope. Or, if I can figure out the code, it might be possible to implement that function on the Arduino-- the basic metal detector that I made a few days ago detects frequency change digitally and displays the "error" or change from a reference, as clicking sounds, like a Geiger counter. In fact now that I think of it I may be able to use that entire Arduino metal-detection system practically as-is.

@Grum

What temperature does the "work piece" reach in Tinsel's video above?
You are the perfect person to ask since you melted a lot of metals in your life and you probably can estimate their temperatures just by looking at their colors.

Quote from: verpies on 2015.06.27, 04:51:40
I always wonder with these inductive heaters, what percentage of the heating is caused by hysteresis losses vs. eddy currents.

...because if the hysteresis losses are the major heating cause, then the workpiece will tend to sit at the Curie temperature (due to negative heating feedback) and the LC frequency shift will not be as pronounced as with exceeding the Curie point.

Quote from: verpies on 2015.06.27, 05:04:20
@Grum

What temperature does the "work piece" reach in Tinsel's video above?
You are the perfect person to ask since you melted a lot of metals in your life and you probably can estimate their temperatures just by looking at their colors.

Dear Verpies.

Aye, the induction furnaces were using Kilowatts though!!  ;)

Without knowing the background light in the video, a rough estimate is in the 700°C area. What I found interesting was that the sample didn't carry on increasing in temperature !! My Foundry days are long past and for the life of me I can't remember how the furnaceman controlled things.

But TK's video clearly shows that a sample can be held at a specific temperature, within reason, and at a fixed frequency.

I also remember when Richard was developing his oscillator he wound the Litz wire coils onto a pair of Ferrite "C" cores. Placing a screwdriver blade between the gap he was able to heat the blade rapidly. What was interesting is that when the Curie point was reached the input current dropped. A little observation to ponder on?

Cheers Grum.

Great work fellows, glad to see the interest in this.

So many possibilities for creative work in this area.

I will follow with interest and hope to contribute as my time permits.

Kindest regards,
ION

Quote from: Grumage on 2015.06.27, 10:36:48
What was interesting is that when the Curie point was reached the input current dropped. A little observation to ponder on?

When the Curie point is reached the iron stops being "magnetic".  In nerdspeak: it stops being a ferromagnetic and starts being a paramagnetic.
Paramagnetics do not have a magnetization hysteresis curve, so their heating cannot be caused by hysteresis loss anymore and the temperature drops.
When that happens, the iron can become a ferromagnetic again and can become heated by the hysteresis loss.  Then its temperature rises...and so on, effectively hovering around the Curie point.

The material can also be heated by eddy currents.  That is how eg. aluminum can be heated in induction ovens despite aluminum never being a ferromagnetic.
The eddy current heating depends on resistance of the material being heated, so it has its limit since most materials increase their resistance when heated.
However this eddy current heating limit can be above the melting point, when enough power is used.

It is important to remember that the workpiece is losing heat into the environment all the time by radiation, conduction and convection (the higher the temperature the faster it loses the heat energy) and the inductive heater must make up for these losses if it wants to keep increasing the temperature.  Eventually a thermal equilibrium is reached.


A CURIOSITY:
It is possible to program an induction heater to turn off when its LC frequency rises above the "empty" frequency.  This way the workpiece will always be heated by hysteresis losses and never by eddy currents only, since the heater will turn off as soon at the workpiece reaches its Curie temperature and the LC frequency increases....effectively keeping the temperature there for exact measurement.

Been trying to design our bias coil, but having trouble.

As the temperature of the iron reaches and sits at our curie temperature then the iron relative permeability approaches zero, when i plug 0 relative permeability into the magnetic field calculator i don't get any magnetic field,

http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/electromagnetism/solenoid

Do you think we can accept using mild steel as our fuel rod, it would make life a lot easier for sourcing the iron rod, surely the bulk will still be iron.

Tuning this may be problematic, i understand that it can be 15 minuets for the device to start up and then 15 minuets to stop.

also some questions.

How do we detect the neutrons, and what shielding do we need.


EDIT
Oh just found this

QuoteThe saturation magnetization goes to zero at the Curie temperature.

So it is not possible to magnetically saturate iron when it's at or above the curie point  :D

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.28, 21:16:17
As the temperature of the iron reaches and sits at our curie temperature then the iron relative permeability approaches zero,

Nope, it approaches 1.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.28, 21:16:17
Do you think we can accept using mild steel as our fuel rod, it would make life a lot easier for sourcing the iron rod, surely the bulk will still be iron.

Yes, the bulk would be Fe but the additives will significantly change the crystalline structure.  Who knows how this will affect the viability of this experiment.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.28, 21:16:17
How do we detect the neutrons, and what shielding do we need.

There is a special gel that's easy to use.  
It's pretty hard to shield neutrons.  Light elements (e.g. hydrogen in ordinary water) interact with them most easily but distance is the most practical countermeasure.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.28, 21:16:17
Oh just found this So it is not possible to magnetically saturate iron when it's at or above the curie point  :D

Yup, it already behaves as if it was saturated when above the Curie temperature. Not only the differential permeability falls to one then, but the absolute permeability falls to one, too.

QuoteNope, it approaches 1.

OK makes sense, so we are really operating as if we have no core at all with regards to field calculations.

I found a rough quote of $700 for this gel, need to look at it a bit closer.

So at the curie point we have fuel that is saturated and no longer is effected by skin depth, as you stated earlier.

Now the problem with the NMR bias field being part of the heater is that it will get cycled on and off, or pwm controlled if we went complicated.

I am thinking it maybe better to run an ON/OFF heating control cycle and just run the MHz drive signal when the heater is off and use a separate coil for the bias field, my reasoning on this is we don't need a strong bias field now (or do we still for Lorentz orbit ) and that will lower the NMR frequency, but because we are using an E class amplifier which is more complicated to build tunable then if we stick to one center park frequency, all we need to do to tune this beast is vary the DC voltage/current on the bias coil to shift our NMR up and Down to hit out Class E frequency, so much easier to vary a voltage in mv steps than a frequency and associated amplifer to 0.001Hz

Now we are in a position to just choose a frequency say 1MHz and we can work out the bias field needed and the current and voltage variation to give us a 500KHz to 2 MHz swing for the NMR frequency, then with all the unknowns we should be able to find in this case the magic bias value for isotropic mutation at 1MHz or any other frequency we choose.

So the next thing then is to find our static NMR chosen frequency, are the benefits for a higher frequency say 10MHz as opposed to a 900KHz frequency, apart from the different bias field strength.

How do we control the speed of conversion? maybe by varying the MHz power, or is it done by offtuning as in the McFreey Device, or maybe we can control the amount of atoms being converted by controlling the skin depth.

I think we need to thrash this Lorentz orbit out a bit, we need an orbit small enough to keep the fast electrons inside the core? Why we already have Neutrons flying out, are fast electrons going to matte, and surely anyway if the atom that they come from is on the outside perimeter of the rod then they will surely be outside rod containment anyway.

Presumably it is these fast electrons that are our power out source, if so i can see we want as many contained as possible.
Already answered, my bad memory sorry.

QuoteThe further you get away from this Lorentz radius the lower the efficiency because a lot fast electrons escape the fuel rod then.

QuoteBasically yes except the Bias Field necessary to reach the magnetic saturation, will be lowered at 770ºC.

QuoteYup, it already behaves as if it was saturated when above the Curie temperature. Not only the differential permeability falls to one then, but the absolute permeability falls to one, too.

So our bias field now is only needed purely for the Lorentz orbit diameter.

Then we need to know what needs to be prominent, our DC bias, lets say at the moment we went with 0.5T then how prominent do we want our MHz signal, is there a way of knowing how much magnetic field we need to swing +- 0.25T for instance when coupled with our bias would give a total swing in the rod of +0.25 to +0.75T is that enough, can we calculate how much energy or at what field strength the atom flips 180 Degrees.

So things we need to nail down & choose
Bias Field strength Tesla's
Static NMR Frequency
Static NMR Frequency field strength +/- ?Tesla's or in terms of watts power would do.
50Hz field strength +/- ? Tesla's or power in watts.
Fuel rod length and or diameter i could settle on 20mm diameter, but length is open for debate, but if the Lorentz orbit is larger because of a low mag field strength then we would go to 40mm or greater, but this will make it harder to heat due to thermal mass, maybe this does not matter, the device could be heated and started and as the fuel core heat permeates the rod then things get better as time passes, a sort of slow low start.

Is there any other way of making the orbit much smaller mm or so other than field strength.?

Once these items can be guesstimated i think a device can be assembled.

things i have found to help built it are Car Exhaust putty good for up to 1000 Deg C
Kanthanal wire heating element or ceramic tube resistor.
Foam fire bricks used in gas fires as fake coals as insulation.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
OK makes sense, so we are really operating as if we have no core at all with regards to field calculations.

Above Curie temperature - yes.
Below Curie temperature (e.g. 500C) some H field will still be needed to reach saturation, but less than for a cold iron (the H field is made by the DC coil and is expressed in ampturns/meter where the "meter" refers to the length of the magnetic circuit (rod + U).

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
So at the curie point we have fuel that is saturated and no longer is effected by skin depth, as you stated earlier.

Oh, it is still affected but much much less.  Compare, the 50% attenuation skin depth of:
a) cold unsaturated iron at 1MHz is 1.56µm
b) cold saturated iron at 1MHz is 110µm
c) hot 770C iron at 1MHz is 340µm (at 100kHz is 1080µm)

But that is for iron conducting electric current, not magnetic flux, so it is not directly applicable.
Of course alternating magnetic flux in any conductor will induce electric eddy currents, but the attenuation of AC magnetic flux is very different from the attenuation of AC electric current.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
Now the problem with the NMR bias field being part of the heater is that it will get cycled on and off, or pwm controlled if we went complicated.

Yes, that's why pure DC should be used.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
I am thinking it maybe better to run an ON/OFF heating control cycle and just run the MHz drive signal when the heater is off and use a separate coil for the bias field,

A separate heating and bias coil can be used if the heating coils is wound in bucking bifilar mode so it does not contribute to the DC bias.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
my reasoning on this is we don't need a strong bias field now (or do we still for Lorentz orbit ) and that will lower the NMR frequency,

Yes, the Lorentz confinement is still an issue but I'd suggest keeping the DC bias at 0.5T because that's what the patent recommended and 0.5T is square in the middle of the domain magnetization rotation zone mentioned in that NMR paper from Cyril.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
but because we are using an E class amplifier which is more complicated to build tunable then if we stick to one center park frequency, all we need to do to tune this beast is vary the DC voltage/current on the bias coil to shift our NMR up and Down to hit out Class E frequency, so much easier to vary a voltage in mv steps than a frequency and associated amplifer to 0.001Hz

With other substances that would be very true, but as you can glean from that NMR paper, iron has its own internal magnetic hyperfine field of great density (~33T) that overshadows our weak 0.5T field  and the resonance frequency will stay at 45.5MHz regardless whether we apply that 0.5T biasing field or not.  At 1000°K that frequency falls to 21MHz.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
Now we are in a position to just choose a frequency say 1MHz and we can work out the bias field needed and the current and voltage variation to give us a 500KHz to 2 MHz swing for the NMR frequency, then with all the unknowns we should be able to find in this case the magic bias value for isotropic mutation at 1MHz or any other frequency we choose.

Again, Cyril's paper changes everything because we learn from it that the line width for non annealed iron is ±80kHz and for annealed iron it is ±25kHz.  (impure Iron could be much less sharp though).
That small frequency deviation is well within the range of class E amplifiers.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
So the next thing then is to find our static NMR chosen frequency, are the benefits for a higher frequency say 10MHz as opposed to a 900KHz frequency, apart from the different bias field strength.

Looks like nature made that decision for us and fixed the resonance frequency at 45.5MHz at room temperature.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
How do we control the speed of conversion? maybe by varying the MHz power, or is it done by off tuning as in the McFreey Device, or maybe we can control the amount of atoms being converted by controlling the skin depth.

I think just like in McFreey's device because each pulse is self quenching since the circulating fast electrons generate electric current that generates magnetic field that opposes the 0.5T confinement field.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
I think we need to thrash this Lorentz orbit out a bit, we need an orbit small enough to keep the fast electrons inside the core? Why we already have Neutrons flying out, are fast electrons going to matter,

Yes because only electrons and positrons will generate our output electric current and neutrons will not.  Neutrons are just deadly, if they are emitted at all.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
and surely anyway if the atom that they come from is on the outside perimeter of the rod then they will surely be outside rod containment anyway.

Yes, but if the 0.5T containment field exists outside of the fuel rod (e.g. because the 0.5T DC solenoid is larger than the rod) the the path of such electron will be curved back into the rod.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
Presumably it is these fast electrons that are our power out source, if so i can see we want as many contained as possible.

Fortunately their motion destroys their own confining magnetic field.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
So our bias field now is only needed purely for the Lorentz orbit diameter.

Yes and also maybe to polarize iron in the middle of that domain rotation zone described in Cyril's paper

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
Then we need to know what needs to be prominent, our DC bias, lets say at the moment we went with 0.5T then how prominent do we want our MHz signal,

The frequency shift below 0.6T is proportional to (H_BIAS / 33.02T)² so it is very small

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
can we calculate how much energy or at what field strength the atom flips 180 Degrees.

Usually a burst of specific length is needed for that.  Maybe Smudge has already calculated it.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
So things we need to nail down & choose:
1) Bias Field strength Tesla's
2) Static NMR Frequency
3) Static NMR Frequency field strength +/- ?Tesla's or in terms of watts power would do.
4) 50Hz field strength +/- ? Tesla's or power in watts.
5) Fuel rod length and or diameter i could settle on 20mm diameter, but length is open for debate,

1) 0.5T just like in the patent AFAIR
2) 45.5MHz at room temperature and 21MHz at 1000°K  (a Litz wire winding might be advantageous here).
3) f_RESONANCE =1381564(H_BIAS - H_D - 33.02T) at toom temperature.  I don't know about the RF power and about the demagnetization field (H_D) for the particular dimensions of the fuel rod.
4) I don't know but I guesstimate not more that the DC bias field.
5) 20mm diameter feels fine. I cannot be certain because I do not know the energy of the fast electrons.  If they are 1MeV then 20mm should be enough.
The size and proportions of the fuel rod determine its demagnetization field (H_D). Maybe Smudge can help us calculate it with an elongated ellipsoid formula for that shape.

Iron-57 is stable so it normally does not emit any fast electrons/positrons and thus their energies are not listed in literature, but the whole idea of this contraption is to destabilize iron and make it emit these charged particles.
Its neighbors, e.g. Iron-59 spontaneously emit 1.565MeV electrons, see: http://www.periodictable.com/Isotopes/026.59/index.full.dm.html

The destabilization of nuclei through electrical means has been documented before, so it is not that far out.  For example read up here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates) on Dysprosium ¹⁶³Dy that is also normally stable but can be made unstable using non-nuclear (electronic) methods.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
Is there any other way of making the orbit much smaller mm or so other than field strength.?

For given speed/energy of the electrons it is the only way.
We could be overestimating their speed/energy, though.  For example Iron-55 decays only with 231keV and such small speed/energy of these fast electrons would result in smaller Lorentz orbits.


Isotope  Energy        Lorentz orbit diameter at 0.5T
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fe⁵⁵         231keV     7.2mm
Fe⁶⁰         237keV     7.3mm
              1000keV    19.0mm
Fe⁵⁴       1364keV    24.0mm
Fe⁵⁹       1565keV    26.8mm
Fe⁵³       2721keV    42.6mm

All of the above isotopes decay in Beta modes without any neutron emissions (see here (http://www.periodictable.com/Isotopes/026.59/index.full.dm.html))

Here is a paper showing that for transmission through iron it acts something like a high temperature Bose- Einstein Condensate.  Not sure of this is of any interest but I'll send it anyway.  And while on the subject, here are two other papers I have on Fe57 NMR.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.07.01, 08:32:41
Here is a paper showing that for transmission through iron it acts something like a high temperature Bose- Einstein Condensate.  Not sure of this is of any interest but I'll send it anyway.  And while on the subject, here are two other papers I have on Fe57 NMR.

Those two NMR papers show that the NMR frequency of Iron decreases when the external field increases, which is the opposite to other materials.  A significant difference.
Also, since when Iron saturates at 7.5kG (0.75T) flux density ?

Quote from: verpies on 2015.07.01, 14:58:33
Also, since when Iron saturates at 7.5kG (0.75T) flux density ?

Perhaps because the sample was iron powder having spherical particles in the size range 1-4 um.  Cast iron saturates at around 5kG.

Smudge

Errr surely this has to be significant, Meyer uses 23MHz which just so happens to be 46/2  :o

and

QuoteInterestingly, the change in the entropy of the nuclear spin system in the region
where the NMR and ferromagnetic-resonance frequencies are equal can actually be
used to cause cooling (by analogy with the nuclear-demagnetization method).

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.01, 17:44:09
Errr surely this has to be significant, Meyer uses 23MHz which just so happens to be 46/2  :o

Maybe in his times, 46Mhz excitation was too expensive to achieve technologically and he just compromised at a lower subharmonic.
Also at 990°K that frequency decreases to 23MHz and at 1000°K - to 21MHz.

Anyway, for the nuclei to resonate at 46MHz they have to be subjected to a huge magnetic flux density of 33 Tesla, which happens to be the magnitude of the internal Hyperfine field at the room temperature mentioned in that article.

This fact is very significant because 33T overshadows any field that we could generate in our device, making our DC bias field rather insignificant in comparison. 
Consequently, iron's NMR frequency will stay largely independent from the external biasing DC field ( only 0.03% change up to 0.6T ), which is very different from the behavior of other substances experiencing NMR.

QuoteMaybe in his times, 46MHz excitation was too expensive to achieve technologically and he just compromised at a lower subharmonic.

Exactly what i was thinking  O0
I think we can assume he did this with the 146KHz or whatever the frequency was with the first device and copper rod.

I would like to bring everyones attention to this post
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3107.msg49921#msg49921
verpies has answered a whole bunch of questions and it really paves the way for a prototype device.
Thanks verpies for your time  O0

I have ordered the mild steel for the device frame, still need to get quotes for the pure iron rod.
We now know the NMR frequency of operation and will use this oscillator LTC6905
It's a 17MHZ to 170MHz resistor set oscillator, we then have the ability to have multiturn pots for finer control, and could even feed a current source to control it.
http://www.linear.com/product/LTC6905

I think i will get some PCBs made up with the oscillator, fet driver and Class E amplifier once i have the prototype working.

The first device will have to be a lower temperature version, i am first aiming for 200 Deg C, i have ordered some Kapton tape.

Also really good news verpies looked up the decay method for the various isotopes of iron and they all decay using the beta process, no neutrons are emitted by the looks of things, so we have a relatively safe device to work with as well, this is very important for a viable device.

QuoteThe size and proportions of the fuel rod determine its demagnetization field (HD). Maybe Smudge can help us calculate it with an elongated ellipsoid formula for that shape.

I can do better than that.  It is possible to use Nagaoka's inductance formula for a close wound single layer coil  to deduce the demagnetization factor for a cylindrical rod.  I do this in one of my papers but I am not at home right now so I can't access it.  I'll post it when I get home.

I'll also look into the pulse width and energy required to flip an atomic dipole through 180 degrees but off the top of my head the angular force on a dipole of moment m amp-meters^2 in a field of B Tesla is m*B*sin(theta) where theta is the angle between the dipole axis and the field.  Thus the energy to flip it is given by integrating m*B*sin(theta) from 0 to 180 degrees.  That gives a value of 2*m*B.  And the value for m will be the Bohr magneton.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.07.04, 09:23:09
Thus the energy to flip it is given by integrating m*B*sin(theta) from 0 to 180 degrees.  That gives a value of 2*m*B.  And the value for m will be the Bohr magneton.

Why the Bohr magneton and not the Nuclear magneton, which is 1836x smaller ...or better yet the Fe⁵⁷ magnetic moment which is 20300x smaller ?

Using the last number yields 18mJ of energy to flip 1 mole of Fe⁵⁷ nuclei at ~33T at room temperature.
But how quickly is this energy dissipated and what is the needed RF power level in bulk Iron rod at high temperature?

Just starting to plan the Oscillator & Class E Amp + PCB, any advice on the fet driver stage for 45.6 MHz fet stage.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.04, 21:39:10
Just starting to plan the Oscillator & Class E Amp + PCB, any advice on the fet driver stage for 45.6 MHz fet stage.

Carefully.  Millimeters between the driver and the MOSFET with minimal trace loop area there - just like Itsu.
Litz wire inductors. Air coils on plastic formers.

It is very hard to charge and discharge a huge gate capacitance quickly.  High voltage gate drive (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2578.0;attach=18716) helps a lot but is dangerous to the MOSFET.
At 45.5MHz a 2nF gate capacitance acts as a 1.7Ω resistor to ground to the gate driver. That's over 11A of average current for a gate drive voltage of 20V...and the instantaneous gate currents are even higher.  With special RF transistors, e.g. this one (http://www.nxp.com/documents/data_sheet/BLF578.pdf) and this one (http://www.microsemi.com/document-portal/doc_download/122685-arf475fl-e-pdf) or this one (http://www.mouser.com/ds/2/389/CD00265901-470476.pdf), it is possible to cut that in half or ¼.

Of course it is also possible to buy a ready 1kW LDMOS amplifier covering 2MHz - 54MHz on eBay for $280 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-2-KW-LDMOS-HF-power-amplifier-1-8-54MHz-SSB-CW-1200W-BLF578-analog-BLF188XR-/321783198962) (without a heatsink (http://youtu.be/oe9XCHsutrE))

Dear Peterae.

With regard to our telephone conversation yesterday here is the link to the suggested material for thermal insulation.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Ceramic-Fibre-Paper-1-mm-x-A4-Sheet-/321798556477?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item4aecb04b3d

Cheers Grum.

Hi verpies

Thats a nice amp $380 with heatsink though, not funny if it blows.

The fet drivers that i have seen the data for do not seem to be rated for 45.5MHz ?

Found a mosfet that looks good DE375-102N12A
http://uk.farnell.com/ixys-rf/de375-102n12a/mosfet-n-rf-de375/dp/1347740?MER=baynote-1347740-pr

and one even cheaper DE275-IXZ210N50L
http://uk.farnell.com/ixys-rf/ixz210n50l/mosfet-n-rf-de275/dp/1347732?MER=baynote-1347732-pr

Grumage
Thanks for the link to that insulation, it will make a high temperature device easily workable.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.05, 15:35:38
Thats a nice amp $380 with heatsink though, not funny if it blows.

No typo - if you read the description you will find out that it is $100 cheaper if you make the heatsink yourself.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.05, 15:35:38
The fet drivers that i have seen the data for do not seem to be rated for 45.5MHz ?

But they are!  For example the BLF528 (http://www.nxp.com/documents/data_sheet/BLF578.pdf) transistor that the $280 amp board is based on, is rated up to 500MHz.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.05, 15:35:38
Found a mosfet that looks good DE375-102N12A (http://uk.farnell.com/ixys-rf/de375-102n12a/mosfet-n-rf-de375/dp/1347740)

...but C_ISS=2000pF  :o  ...and C_RS=30pF  :o  ...and V^GS(th)=5V  ...and R_DS(ON)=0.9Ω

Quote from: verpies on 2015.07.04, 11:53:48
Why the Bohr magneton and not the Nuclear magneton, which is 1836x smaller ...or better yet the Fe⁵⁷ magnetic moment which is 20300x smaller ?

Using the last number yields 18mJ of energy to flip 1 mole of Fe⁵⁷ nuclei at ~33T at room temperature.
But how quickly is this energy dissipated and what is the needed RF power level in bulk Iron rod at high temperature?

Ooops, yes, my mind is fixated on flipping ferromagnetic dipoles.  Of course you must use the moment of the dipole you want to flip.  Do you want to flip it 180 degrees?  In NMR it is usual to flip 90 degrees and that gives you the maximum free induction decay.  If you want spin echoes then you use additional 180 degree flips to develop the echoes.  Not sure what you want for this application.

While on the subject of NMR I am not an expert but my guess is that the large hyperfine field that determines the Fe57 frequency is aligned with the ferromagnetic dipole, like being inside the current loop that is the ferromagnetic dipole.  If so then you need the DC bias to get aligned dipoles in order to get the right geometry of the RF coils.  If the DC bias coils are around the rod to magnetize it along its length, then the nuclear dipoles lie along that axis and RF driving coils must provide a crossed field.  You can use pairs of crossed coils to create a rotating RF field to get better drive into the nuclear dipoles.

The effective demagnetization factor for rods can be found in my paper "Energy around Coils and Magnets" attached.  The reluctance of the external field through air acts like an mmf drop (like voltage drop across a resistor) to the flux in the magnetic closed circuit, and this gives the effect of demagnetization.  Nagaoka's k factor allows you to calculate that mmf drop.

As regards the total energy required for flipping I think you need to first establish the RF requirement for your flip (either 90 degrees or 180 degrees).  From what I remember of my work on NQR (which is similar to NMR) you need a certain pulse length of RF, in other words a certain number of RF cycles to pump the dipole into its new position.  If you know that, and the magnitude of the crossed RF magnetic field, then it should be possible to estimate the losses.  But it might be quicker to just measure them.

Smudge

QuoteBut they are!  For example the BLF528 transistor that the $280 amp board is based on, is rated up to 500MHz.

I thought the BLF528 is a power fet not driver, how do you drive this board, directly from the cmos output of the LTC6905.

QuoteNo typo - if you read the description you will find out that it is $100 cheaper if you make the heatsink yourself.

I need to explore other cheaper ways to do this, with vat & import duty it's going to be approaching £240

I cannot use the BLF528 as that is £248 from farnell alone.

EDIT
Maybe we could soup this up a bit.
http://www.qsl.net/va3iul/Homebrew_RF_Circuit_Design_Ideas/50MHz_40W_MOSFET_PA_DJ9FG.gif

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.05, 19:15:35
I thought the BLF528 is a power fet, not driver

It is, but it has a sensitive gate (V_GS(th)=1.7V) with high transconductance, that makes it drivable directly.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.05, 19:15:35
how do you drive this board, directly from the cmos output of the LTC6905.

You apply 46MHz 2Watts sine wave to the input (which is normalized at 50Ω) and get 800W output (also normalized at 50Ω).

Can the LTC6905 output 2Watts ?  If "not", then a preamp is needed, e.g. like this (http://www.ebay.com/itm/AEL-High-Dynamic-Range-Microwave-RF-Amplifier-20-100-MHz-35dBm-20dB-/281326977798) or a plain vanilla 2W MOSFET driver followed by an LC filter, to convert its square wave to a sine wave.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.05, 19:15:35
I need to explore other cheaper ways to do this, with vat & import duty it's going to be approaching £240

Of course, whatever works and costs the least ...but I am afraid that achieving 500W @ 45.5MHz might be more expensive any other way.
Let's observe how Itsu fares with non-RF components at 13.6MHz, which is a frequency much easier to rein-in.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.05, 19:15:35
I cannot use the BLF528 as that is £248 from Farnell alone.

Yup, apparently Farnell is ripping us off, if that Russian seller (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-2-KW-LDMOS-HF-power-amplifier-1-8-54MHz-SSB-CW-1200W-BLF578-analog-BLF188XR-/321783198962) can offer the BLF578 and the pretuned PCB with associated components for $280.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.05, 19:15:35
Maybe we could soup this up a bit.
http://www.qsl.net/va3iul/Homebrew_RF_Circuit_Design_Ideas/50MHz_40W_MOSFET_PA_DJ9FG.gif

Hmm, for 500W you'd need to have 13 of these amps and add phase coherent power combiners (http://www.ebay.com/itm/LDMOS-BLF188-2-PORT-3000-WATT-SPLITTER-COMBINER-/221803274332) to combine their output.  The input power requirement would go up 13x too - I don't think the LTC could handle thirteen of them without a preamp.
How expensive would that be?

...and don't forget the 50V power supply capable of delivering at least 20A of ripple free DC that is needed to power any of these RF amplifiers

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.07.05, 18:41:38
...my guess is that the large hyperfine field that determines the Fe57 frequency is aligned with the ferromagnetic dipole, like being inside the current loop that is the ferromagnetic dipole.

It would seem so but don't forget about the contribution of the total domain wall volume described in that Fe NMR paper.

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.07.05, 18:41:38
If you know that, and the magnitude of the crossed RF magnetic field, then it should be possible to estimate the losses.  But it might be quicker to just measure them.

The problem is the the RF amplifiers need to be sized before the experiment.  
I think Peterae calculated some ~400W/mole but that needs to be verified because these amplifiers are expensive and it is not easy to upgrade their power once the wrong one is chosen.

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.07.05, 18:41:38
If so then you need the DC bias to get aligned dipoles in order to get the right geometry of the RF coils.  If the DC bias coils are around the rod to magnetize it along its length, then the nuclear dipoles lie along that axis and RF driving coils must provide a crossed field.  

I am aware of all that, but I am intrigued by the value of the polarizing field chosen in the Mayer patent (0.5T), which is right in the middle of the "domain rotation zone".
In that "zone" many of the 33T hyperfine field vectors will not be parallel to the external polarizing field along the length of the rod.

Also, all segmented coaxial solenoids operating in the bucking mode will produce between them a component of the magnetic flux that is perpendicular to their axis as depicted in Diag.4a and Diag.4b below.  The Mayer patent suggests such layout of its windings.

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.07.05, 18:41:38
You can use pairs of crossed coils to create a rotating RF field to get better drive into the nuclear dipoles.

Of course that there are more efficient coil arrangements for causing NMR.
I think, that they should be attempted if the coil arrangement stated in the patent does not yield the expected results.

Note, that NMR is not the ultimate goal here - stimulated beta decay is (along the lines of this (http://www.cenbg.in2p3.fr/desir/IMG/pdf/T-Shimoda.pdf) and this (http://bnmr.triumf.ca/?file=default) and this (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/232709837_Precision_Measurement_of_the_Neutron_Beta-Decay_Asymmetry) phenomenon)  ...and Lorentz confinement of the resulting beta decay products by the DC bias field.
The coil arrangement depicted in the Mayer patent might be more optimal for this goal than for the NMR alone.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:53:43
So things we need to nail down & choose:
...
3) Static NMR Frequency field strength +/- ?Tesla's or in terms of watts power would do.

I just noticed that e2matrix's translation of the French Mayer patent contains an approximate answer to this question:

QuoteThe second coil (4) is traversed by a sine wave of 21 MHz frequency of 10^-4 Tesla  which is an activator of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance observer permitting rotation of 180° of the nuclear spins of the iron nuclei.

Hi Verpies

QuoteThe second coil (4) is traversed by a sine wave of 21 MHz frequency of 10-4 Tesla  which is an activator of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance observer permitting rotation of 180° of the nuclear spins of the iron nuclei.

I thought i had seen that somewhere but when i went back could not find it, must be the first patent then i think?

Seems small for pumping 400 watts in at 23MHz

How about this amp £37 MRF151
http://uk.mouser.com/ProductDetail/MACOM/MRF151/?qs=3Wmz%2FrCSAaHwKuWRW8NS6A%3D%3D from mouser

CISS=350pF  and CRS=15pF  and VGS(th)=3V  and RDS(ON)=???

Circuit
http://www.qsl.net/va3iul/Homebrew_RF_Circuit_Design_Ideas/VHF_300W_MRF151G_PA.gif

Just says VHF maybe wideband?

and another with VRF151 same price, sounds a bit like the same device
Circuit
http://www.qsl.net/va3iul/Homebrew_RF_Circuit_Design_Ideas/HF_300W_VRF151_MOSFET_PA.gif

Quote from: verpies on 2015.07.06, 04:44:36
I am aware of all that, but I am intrigued by the value of the polarizing field chosen in the Mayer patent (0.5T), which is right in the middle of the "domain rotation zone".
In that "zone" many of the 33T hyperfine field vectors will not be parallel to the external polarizing field along the length of the rod.

The chart showing that zone shows the magnetization to be between 90% and 100% of saturation value so most of the ferromagnetic dipoles hence also nuclear dipoles are aligned.

QuoteAlso, all segmented coaxial solenoids operating in the bucking mode will produce between them a component of the magnetic flux that is perpendicular to their axis as depicted in Diag.4a and Diag.4b below.  The Mayer patent suggests such layout of its windings.

But the three coils shown in the patents have different requirements and are not connected as depicted in your diagrams.  One is for DC bias, one is for RF drive and the third is for AC output.

I am mystified by the axial RF drive coil.  If my reasoning is correct and the nuclear dipoles are aligned along the magnetization axis then you need cross coupling to drive them.  Note that all the nuclei are already precessing but at random phases so the net effect is zero.  To pump them with RF you need to access their off-axis component that is rotating at their resonant frequency, not their on-axis component which is constant.  They can then absorb energy over a number of cycles that tries to speed up the precession process, creating the torque to ultimately flip them through the desired angle.  The on-axis RF magnetic field does not do this.  Maybe it is the radial component of the RF field at the ends of the drive coil that do the work, which means nuclei flip only over limited regions of the rod.  Also I do wonder whether the patents reflect someone's aspirations rather than an accomplished and verified experiment. 

Smudge

Coils 8 & 9 are indeed connected in bucking mode, I believe the whole device is supplied with 50Hz AC  into point 12 , since the ac current flows through the iron rod feeding coil 9 with 50Hz AC current in antiphase from the exiting AC current in Coil 8, the centre tap seems to feed the DC bias coil, i don't understand how a DC current flows through the Bias coil unless a DC potential is the result o beta decay and the series path of the rod itself.

It looks to me as if the load which has the generated current flowing which governs the 50HZ AC current in the coils 8&9, so if more current is needed the device automatically adjusts the AC current in coils 8&9 and thus drives harder to supply the extra current needed.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.06, 17:37:14
How about this amp £37 MRF151
http://uk.mouser.com/ProductDetail/MACOM/MRF151/?qs=3Wmz%2FrCSAaHwKuWRW8NS6A%3D%3D from mouser

This one will perform exactly as stated in the datasheet.

Note, the power gain @ 50MHz is 19dB, which means that 1.8W of input power will be needed to achieve 150W output power.
For 500W you'd need 4 of these amplifiers + 3 phase coherent power combiners.  The combined input power will be around 7W.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.06, 17:37:14
Just says VHF maybe wideband?

The 150MHz qualifies as VHF.  150MHz is merely the upper frequency limit of this transistor.
I am sure it can perform as advertised in a wideband circuit between 1MHz and 150MHz.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.06, 16:28:07
I thought i had seen that somewhere but when i went back could not find it, must be the first patent then i think?

It is in your first post of this thread  C.C

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.06, 16:28:07
Seems small for pumping 400 watts in at 23MHz

It does indeed.
The energy of magnetic field depends on its volume as well as the flux density - see Smudge's lately attached paper.
Power is a measure how quickly energy changes per second.

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.07.06, 18:42:00
The chart showing that zone shows the magnetization to be between 90% and 100% of saturation value

Yes.

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.07.06, 18:42:00
so most of the ferromagnetic dipoles hence also nuclear dipoles are aligned.

No, take a look at the composite graph below.  I marked the 5kG external field with a red line.
You can see that the red line is almost in the middle of the yellow domain rotation zone.
At 5kG the domain wall volume is at 67% of its maximum, thus not all domain dipoles are aligned with the external field (if they were then the domain wall volume would be zero)

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=19130)

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.07.06, 18:42:00
But the three coils shown in the patents have different requirements and are not connected as depicted in your diagrams.  

These bucking coils produce the same flux pattern between them even when they are not grounded at the midpoint and are completely separated galvanically and having 4 terminals.

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.07.06, 18:42:00
I am mystified by the axial RF drive coil.  If my reasoning is correct and the nuclear dipoles are aligned along the magnetization axis then you need cross coupling to drive them.  

Yes but as we can see from the graph above (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=19130), at 0.5T, not all of the domain dipoles are aligned along the magnetization axis.
Also, any bucking fields from two segmented coaxial coils will tend to produce a radial flux (perpendicular to the fuel rod's major axis).

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.07.06, 18:42:00
Note that all the nuclei are already precessing but at random phases so the net effect is zero.  To pump them with RF you need to access their off-axis component that is rotating at their resonant frequency, not their on-axis component which is constant.  They can then absorb energy over a number of cycles that tries to speed up the precession process, creating the torque to ultimately flip them through the desired angle.  The on-axis RF magnetic field does not do this.  

Yes, the on-axis parallel field cannot pump the nuclei ...but the external field that is parallel to the rod's axis is not parallel to the unaligned domain dipoles.

Ask yourself a question: At what value of the external field, the integral of the product of domain dipole magnitudes * sin θ, occurs?
(where θ denotes the angles between the domain dipoles and the external field).
Don't disregard the results from this Fe NMR paper, that concludes that domains first grow and later they rotate their magnetization vectors, as the external field increases.

Quote from: Smudge on 2015.07.06, 18:42:00Also I do wonder whether the patents reflect someone's aspirations rather than an accomplished and verified experiment.  

I wonder, too.  There is an article by Renaud de la Taille in "Science et Vie" nr.700 March 1976 ( pages 42-45 ), that features an actually built device...allegedly functioning.

Quote from: verpies on 2015.07.07, 00:35:59
No, take a look at the composite graph below.  I marked the 5kG external field with a red line.
You can see that the red line is almost in the middle of the yellow domain rotation zone.
At 5kG the domain wall volume is at 67% of its maximum, thus not all domain dipoles are aligned with the external field (if they were then the domain wall volume would be zero)

IMO domain wall volume is not an indication of domain or dipole alignment, so you can have a significant number of domains (hence also wall volume) whose dipoles are almost aligned.  Magnetization is a direct indication of dipole alignment.  At 0.5T the magnetization is about 97% of its maximum, and that tells me most of the dipoles are aligned.  That chart showing the different regions is common to most ferromagnetic materials.

Smudge

I started machining the mild steel frame today, using mild steel rod at the moment until i source the 18mm diameter pure iron.

In the patent he Chrome plates the mild steel frame, something i cannot do myself, any idea if this might be important as it may cost a bit, will need to get a quote when machined.

I need to start thinking about the wire connections to the iron rod, shall i extent the iron rod by 5mm beyond the mild steel frame, and tap each end for a screw terminal connection.

Also need to start thinking about coil construction/ bobbin sizes, coil turns and wire thickness for the following 5.

We have 5 things to wind

Heater winding somehow insulated electrically but allowing conductive heat to the iron rod, then insulated with Grumages 1000 Deg C insulation, with a thermocouple embedded, and then bobbins on top of this insulated layer.

1) Heater Coil
2) Bias coil
3) 45.5MHz 20 Turn coil
4) 50Hz AC 1
5) 50Hz AC 2

The heater coil i am wondering if this is best done using a non inductive way down the length of the iron rod instead of winding as if a coil axially down the length.

Anyway some calcs

so 90mm length of 20mm diameter iron rod weights 224g

specific heat of iron is 448 joules/kg

so 100 joules will raise our iron 1 Deg C

if our starting temperature is 20 Deg C and we want 700 Deg C then our temperature
difference is 680 Dec C and our energy required 100 * 680 or 68000 joules

if we were to raise this over 240 seconds then we get a power rating of 283 Watts joules/s of power

if we run the heater from 48V then we have a current of 5.9 Amps

The heater needs a resistance of  R = V^2/P or 48^2/283 = 8.15 Ohms

I should now be able to work out my wire length and diameter once it's geometry is chosen.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.07, 19:58:53
I started machining the mild steel frame today, using mild steel rod at the moment until i source the 18mm diameter pure iron.
In the patent he Chrome plates the mild steel frame, something i cannot do myself, any idea if this might be important as it may cost a bit, will need to get a quote when machined.

IMO Chrome does not matter and Iron does
What is your source for pure Iron rods?  ...I'd like to know for myself (powder is not a problem)

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.07, 19:58:53
I need to start thinking about the wire connections to the iron rod, shall i extent the iron rod by 5mm beyond the mild steel frame, and tap each end for a screw terminal connection.

I don't think this would affect anything negatively.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.07, 19:58:53
We have 5 things to wind
Heater winding somehow insulated electrically but allowing conductive heat to the iron rod, then insulated with Grumages 1000 Deg C insulation, with a thermocouple embedded.
The heater coil i am wondering if this is best done using a non inductive way down the length of the iron rod instead of winding as if a coil axially down the length.

IMO the heater winding should be wound in an non-inductive manner like this (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=19139).
...but the heater winding does not have to be wound over the fuel rod at all.  For example it could be wound over the U support structure.
Alternatively, the heater winding can be skipped altogether and the support structure can be heated with gas flame.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.07, 19:58:53
2) Bias coil
3) 45.5MHz 20 Turn coil
4) 50Hz AC 1
5) 50Hz AC 2

2) Should be much larger than the diameter of the fuel rod.  The number of turns and amperage was calculated here (http://overunity.com/4333/meyer-mace-isotopic-nmr-generator/msg318715/#msg318715).
3) Litz wire might have lower losses. Also at 1000°K this frequency will fall to 21MHz.
4 & 5) I'd go for 4Ω at 50Hz which gives the inductance of 4Ω/(6.28*50Hz) = ~13mH wound with thick wire like this (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=19141).
...none of these 4 windings need to touch the fuel rod and they should be far away from the U support structure.

I hope Cyril will throw in some of his calculations and suggestions, too.

Wow thanks verpies for the fast response.
It maybe best and more energy efficient to heat the iron rod from within the rod, if it was a tube, for instance if the 20mm iron rod has a 5mm hole down the centre, then the heater can be inserted inside along with the temp sensor.

Waiting for a quote on the pure iron rod, not on order yet, once i find a viable source i will post the source.

Wow pure iron powder is available i think easier anyway, will research when get home from work  O0

I have plenty to build for the moment.

If you guys can prove to me i need that 500 Watt amplifer using maths i am going to be much more willing to part with money  ;D

My iron internal rod length is 90mm long, see drawing in 2ND post, how far is far away from the iron support frame
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=18829;image)

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.08, 05:35:22
It maybe best and more energy efficient to heat the iron rod from within the rod, if it was a tube, for instance if the 20mm iron rod has a 5mm hole down the centre, then the heater can be inserted inside along with the temp sensor.

It could but it would be too much of a departure from the patent. It would affect the reluctance of the rod and possibly reactions inside it.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.08, 05:35:22
Waiting for a quote on the pure iron rod, not on order yet, once i find a viable source i will post the source.

IMO pure iron begins at 99.5%

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.08, 05:35:22
Wow pure iron powder is available i think easier anyway,

Yes it is easier but is it the same? (density, resistivity, reluctance, saturation...)
Powder can be packed inside a tube to create a make-shift rod.
Melting iron powder without contamination by the atmosphere and the crucible would be hard. Grumage would know better how feasible that is.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.08, 05:35:22
If you guys can prove to me i need that 500 Watt amplifier using maths i am going to be much more willing to part with money  ;D

I can't do that yet but the patent mentions 460W per mole of iron.
Calculating the electric skin effect is easy but the attenuation of AC magnetic flux inside iron - not so much.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.08, 05:35:22
My iron internal rod length is 90mm long, see drawing in 2ND post, how far is far away from the iron support frame

Depends how large the coil diameters are.  90mm length seems a little short for 4 windings.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.08, 05:35:22
I have plenty to build for the moment.

My intuition tells me that for a 20mm rod the U support structure should be thicker than 10mm.
I think the patent drawing shows different proportions, too.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=19155)

Yes the device i am building is a scaled version of the second patent which actually only has 3 coils, but it is scaled to the drawing.

Note that the Czech patent should also work with 3 coils, although i was hoping we could add a fourth to the rod to move closer to the Czech patent.

We only need a glimmer of beta decay, as soon as we see this glimmer, we can refine the device.

Using 45.5MHz should hopefully improve out chances against the patent running at 23MHz and relying on the 2ND harmonic.

One end of the rod has a 1mm Clearance around the 20mm rod, the other end is interference push fitted, the rod is only mild steel at the moment.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.08, 17:09:21
Yes the device i am building is a scaled version of the second patent which actually only has 3 coils, but it is scaled to the drawing.

The Czech patent  mentions that 4 coils work better and I see how that would be because the flux becomes more perpendicular to the rod, between two bucking coils.
Remember Smudge's comments and my diagram (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=19141)?

@Smudge
What would be the ideal size and placing of these bucking coils, in order to yield flux that is maximally perpendicular to the rod ? (I think you called it a "cross field")

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.08, 17:09:21
One end of the rod has a 1mm Clearance around the 20mm rod, the other end is interference push fitted,...

Push fit is good for low reluctance of the magnetic path and in case you decide to heat the rod by heating the U support with a flame.

QuoteThe Czech patent  mentions that 4 coils work better and I see how that would be because the flux becomes more perpendicular to the rod, between two bucking coils.
Remember Smudge's comments and my diagram?

The great thing about improvements is there is room for a version 2.

As i say if we can even get a hint of beta decay then we know there will be many ways to improve performance each time there is a new device.

Having said that if we can fit a bucking 2 coil system on this former then great.

I don't believe the Czech patent is drawn to scale it's more a working principle sketch, where as the 2ND patent drawing was precisely drawn.
I have used the diameter of the rod to scale the sides and bottom from the patent proportionally.

QuoteAlternatively, the heater winding can be skipped altogether and the support structure can be heated with gas flame.

I am not sure that would be a good idea, we need the pure iron rod to be saturated but i would have thought we are relying on the support structure to close the magnetic field, and for that to happen the support structure needs to be a lot less saturated.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.09, 18:49:37
I am not sure that would be a good idea, we need the pure iron rod to be saturated but i would have thought we are relying on the support structure to close the magnetic field, and for that to happen the support structure needs to be a lot less saturated.

You might be right about that

I've ordered my pure iron from  www.pureiron.co.uk

http://pureiron.co.uk/technical_data.htm 99.8% pure  O0

Cost was £14.40 including 2ND class postage for a 30cm length of 20mm diameter.

Although the web site says minimun order of £50 & postage £20 they do samples at a much lower cost

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.07.13, 14:13:43
http://pureiron.co.uk/technical_data.htm 99.8% pure  O0

You can test if this is true by winding some windings on it and measuring its inductance and converting it into its relative permeability.

Natural Iron (99.9% annealed) = 200000
Natural Iron (99.8% annealed) = 6000
Natural Iron (98.5%       rolled) = 2000

Enriched Fe⁵⁷ (99.9%) = I wonder

Sure will do  O0

QuoteEnriched Fe57 (99.9%) = I wonder

Surely not, that would be asking a lot  :o

Thanks

Measuring the permeability of pure Fe⁵⁷ would be a good Ph.D thesis.
The author of such, probably would have to enrich the iron himself because it is not available commercially.

Maybe he could use the fact, that Fe⁵⁷ is the only stable isotope that has non-zero magnetic moment (see here (http://www.periodictable.com/Isotopes/026.57/index.html)) using the MAGIS^* process.

P.S.
I am not suggesting that pure Fe⁵⁷ is necessary for the Mayer contraption.

^* Magnetically Activated Guided Isotope Separation.

I've been constantly thinking about some tests for this as i cannot at the moment justify the cost of the amp.

To pass the some time i am heading towards trying a thin piece of iron wire heated to glowing red with a lower power amp & 45.5MHz sine oscillator.

So to get moving i found this oscillator circuit.
http://www.zl2pd.com/Varicaps.html

I built it last night using a yellow core i found in my box of bits but could only get it up to 43MHz and the bias is all wrong at the moment and i had to add a 6.8pf cap in place of C1 to get it oscillating without a tuning cap/diode connected, i suspect my core is wrong, the circuit requires a core with type 6 iron core, but having checked some manufacturers yellow cores are only good for 40MHz.

I already bought a 5Watt Zener to try as a varicap and although it tuned really well it dropped my frequency down to 8 MHz.

So so far i am in search of a better core and will try some others i already have.
I am using a BF245C which is meant to be equivalent to the MP102

The intention is to use a multiturn pot to adjust between 45 &46 MHz

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.18, 19:30:32
The present invention uses a physical phenomenon that we have identified and we will call "Isotopic Mutation".

Description of the physical principle applied to the iron isotope 56:

The iron isotope 56 contains 26 protons, 26 electrons and 30 neutrons, its total mass is 56.52 MeV, its actual weight being 55.80 MeV. The difference between the total mass and the actual mass is 0.72 MeV which corresponds to a cohesive energy per nucleon of 0.012857 Mev.

Is this correct ?

Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.09.21, 22:01:22
Is this correct ?

I don't think so, only Fe⁵⁷ has non-zero spin and is susceptible to NMR but I'm writing from memory and without actual verification of these numbers.  This guy had to explain it somehow in the patent or he risked rejection by association with F.E.
The theoretical explanation of the effect does not interest me as much as the empirical setup that leads to the effect.

Hi Peter,

The core type T25-6 is an powdered iron toroidal core and indeed was with yellow colour, permeability is 8 only, working frequency is up to 50 MHz, as per written in this link:  http://www.amidoncorp.com/t25-6/ (http://www.amidoncorp.com/t25-6/)

I found this ebay offer if you wish to buy the core type T25-6 (unless it is cheaper at the above amidon USA link with the postage):  http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/5x-T25-6-Micrometal-Torroid-Yellow-0-25-Dia-Ham-Radio-/360318889148?hash=item53e4adecbc (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/5x-T25-6-Micrometal-Torroid-Yellow-0-25-Dia-Ham-Radio-/360318889148?hash=item53e4adecbc)

Because the 12 turns gives 0.4 uH inductance on this core, for 45 MHz frequency the tuning capacitor, C1 should be around 31.3 pF if the LC circuit would be separated from the rest of the circuit (neglecting the tap), see the schematic what I edited to separate the LC tank from the circuit. The jFET BF245C has a typical 4 pF gate-source capacitance and this is reduced to roughly 3 pF by the series 10 pF coupling capacitor, this 3 pF adds to C1 at point B (with respect to ground) when connected.

At point A the additional capacitor value comes from the value of the varicap because the series 100 nF coupling capacitor is a short circuit at 45 MHz. This means that the capacitor value of the varicap must be in the some pF range, say you could make it variable between 5 pF and 6 pF then you would have to reduce C1 to (31.3 - 3 - 6) = 22 pF 

So it all depends on the 0.4 uH what the 12 turn winding would give on the original core and mainly on the varicap type. If you had two varicaps in the max 10-12pF range, then you could replace the 100 nF capacitor with the second varicap I indicated in the schematic and perhaps reduce C1 a little if needed or maybe reduce the total number of turns to 10 (tap may remain at the 3rd turn).
If you do not wish to use a 2nd varicap, then simply replace the 100 nF cap with a say 7 to 30 pF ceramic cap, this gives you a range to trim the effect of your 5 Watt Zener or other diodes biased in reverse.

Gyula

Thanks very much for your time & help gyula

nice find on the ebay core  O0

I did gather some cores that were laying around and i thought i had found a yellow one but what i have only just realized is the turns count changes for a given inductance when the size of the core changes, so as soon as i can get down my workshop i will try a few toroid's i have and if all else fails i will buy the eBay ones.

Thanks
Peter

Quote from: verpies on 2015.09.22, 02:11:50
I don't think so, but I'm writing from memory and without actual verification of these numbers.  This guy had to explain it somehow in the patent or he risked rejection by association with F.E.
The theoretical explanation of the effect does not interest me as much as the empirical setup that leads to the effect.

Thanks for the explanation, and the good job you have done on bringing this potential technology to light. There is something really bugging me about this project and I just cannot figure out what it is.. hate it when that happens! I am watching the OUR team progress on this as my gut feeling is it has potential :)

Well i am certain inducted decay can happen in Nitrogen, hence the blackended bulb in your car transmutes Nitrogen to Carbon and if we could get a metal transmuted we know the energy release is there just a matter of proving it, which with me could take some time

Yes I believe it is possible also, finding the correct empirical setup that leads to the effect as verpies pointed out is going to be critical to success. I find myself nodding along with you fellas as I read this thread, I really think you are onto something!

Good results this afternoon on the oscillator.

I established my yellow core was 20mm diameter and thus a T20-6 despite this i could not get the desired frequency.
I then decided to either order a T25-6 core or try a new approach.

I switched to the Colpitts oscillator.
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Colpitts_oscillator

as i did not have the 2n2222 transistor i tried a BC547C and the circuit would not oscillate so i switched to 20pf caps instead of 100pf and it started oscillating.

I made the 150nH inductor using the calculator here
http://www.pronine.ca/multind.htm

Using a 3mm screwdriver shaft as my winding former i wound 13 turns of 28AWG wire giving about a 1cm length inductor and soldered it in place, my running frequency
was high at about 70MHz, so i then increased the turns on the inductor to 20 turns and increased my 20pf caps to 40pf which got me roughly in the right frequency.

Next i added a 100nF to the collector and started trying diodes, first i tried a 1n4148 and this proved to not give much adjustment, i tried my 5watt 15V zener and that killed the oscillations.
Next i tried a 1n4007 and this worked really well, i found under 2.5V it would alter the amplitude of the oscillation but once 2.5V was reached it was stable amplitude upwards, i adjusted my inductor turns spacing to give me 45Mhz and could wind the tuning voltage from 2.5V up to 14.7V to give me 46Mhz

2.5V = 45.0087MHz
14.7V = 46.0096MHz

It appears pretty stable as well with an amplitude sinewave of 1.44V pk-pk output and the oscillator draws 4mA.

Just need to rebuild it again as this one is a bit messy having tacked dozens of components  and then put it into a screened box and i will be done.

Hi Peter,

You have been well-labouring for sure, congratulations.    O0

When you rebuild it, into a box, and find it will not start up  :-[ I would suggest increasing the DC operating point of the transistor a little by placing a 10 kOhm trim pot in place of R3 10 kOhm upper base resistor and set a little bit higher current than what the 10 kOhm establishes now. I say this because in the box the qualiity factor, Q of the coil will be lowered, hence the AC impedance of the tank the collector sees will also be lower so the transistor should have a higher gain for start up. Make sure to switch on and off several times the supply voltage to have a sure startup.
One more thing: use a separate voltage stabilizer to feed it if you can, this of course depends also on what source you use for the varicap tuning voltage.

Gyula

Thanks gyula, i will try those things  O0

I will look at adding a switchable variable sawtooth feed as well so i can sweep up frequency at different speeds.
Probably will need a buffer amp stage added.

and finally need to try and find an easy 50MHz power stage to build, 50-100watts would be nice, not yet sure about driving a 22 turn coil which will be my load.

Cheers
Peter

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.09.27, 19:47:16
Probably will need a buffer amp stage added.

For Colpitts ...most certainly.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.09.27, 19:47:16
and finally need to try and find an easy 50MHz power stage to build, 50-100watts would be nice, not yet sure about driving a 22 turn coil which will be my load.

Search eBay for keywords "Amplifier MHz" ...but when I did that a month ago, the only amplifier worth mentioning was from that Russian guy for $300.
Pay attention to the input power, that is needed to achieve that 100W.   I have seen some crappy offers that require 25W input in order to get 100W output.
The output impedance matters too...

Indeed i have been looking, about the chepest option i have found so far is this setup

http://circuitdiagram.net/mosfet-linear-amplifier-300w50mhz.html

using this pair of output fets
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/ARF448A-ARF448B-high-frequency-tube/32216229327.html?spm=2114.01020208.3.11.i5OruK&ws_ab_test=201556_6,201527_1_71_72_73_74_75,201409_1

Peter,

The PA circuit  is from an Application Note done at Advanced Power Tech in 1998 or so,  later acquired by Microsemi, the Application Note includes some more details and the circuit.
I noticed the appnote is also included in that link, so I just deleted from my attachment

The Aliexpress offer sounds good in price for the power FETs I think.  

Gyula

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.09.27, 21:23:41
Indeed i have been looking, about the chepest option i have found so far is this setup
http://circuitdiagram.net/mosfet-linear-amplifier-300w50mhz.html

As you probably know, I am experienced with electronics yet I would not attempt to build that circuit to save over some already debugged kit.
Not because there is anything wrong with the design, but the construction traps in it are huge.  The TL1 and TL2 matching lines, magnetics, windings and impedance controlled routing will put hair on your chest. You will blow the FETs if everything is not perfect and in the end it will cost you more than that ready to use board from this Russian guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XqeBjeycTk) or this Sloveni guy (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1kW-1-8-30MHz-700W-50MHz-HF-POWER-AMPLIFIER-BOARD-for-LDMOS-BLF188XR-XRS-/131606173647?hash=item1ea456d7cf) or this Israeli guy (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1KW-LINEAR-AMPLIFIER-BOARD-for-BLF188XR-XRS-new-/161589703719) or this Spanish guy (http://digitaliontechnologies.com/shop/index.php/cPath/132_140).

...even if your time is free.

OK been having good fun with the oscillator.

Could not get the replication to go above 26MHz tried vero (maybe too much capacitance) then FR4 but using sticky copper tape for tracks, eventually i realized my power decoupling was no good, once rectified my frequency came right up.


Current build is per my circuit and is working well, i increased the bias current using 5k6 resistors and also increased the emitter current by using a 1k1.
Not yet tried it in a box or the variable base pot.

I now have a 100ma 12v regulator on board and can adjust between 45 & 46MHz using a tune voltage of 2.2 - 12V

Need to have a play with a sawtooth generator next.

EDIT Ooops C5 is 330nf

Added a sawtooth generator today.

Changed my 1N4002 tuning diode to a MUR160 diode which allows a lower voltage swing, as stable tuning happens about3V i have added D5 a 5.1V Zener so that my sweep is floating at a higher voltage, need to lower the 5.1V to about 3V3 but need to order a diode, the sinewave is 4.5V pk-pk

At the moment i can adjust between 2 Seconds 25 Seconds sweep but will increase this to 60 Seconds, i have a bit of 45MHz superimposed on my sawtooth output so need to add some more lower value decoupling to the sawtooth board.

The sawtooth circuit is Fig d but using 2 1N4148 diodes in place of the LED and without the negative trigger as per Fig c
See here http://www.simplecircuitdiagram.com/2010/10/15/sawtooth-generator-oscillator-with-transistors/

A Couple of scope shots

1ST is the sawtooth

2ND is the sawtooth voltage blue and sinewave yellow

Image of my circuit so far

and finally the build so far.

Still a number of tweeks to do and then place in a diecast box.

I am confident that you will get this circuit to frequency modulate the 45.5MHz center frequency as you intend.
When you do, the next step will be to boost the output power and you will need a hefty RF amplifier as well as the ~50V power supply for it.

Hi verpies

Yeah i know i need a power amp, i can do the psu very cheaply, i have the chance of large power transformers i can buy very cheaply.

The power amp is a problem that i think about a lot, we still don't have any physics showing any idea how much power it will take, we don't therefore know how much of a powerfull amplifier we need, bearing in mind Meyers first setup used a low power crystal oscillator to demo the effect on copper.

Years ago i had a friend who was into CB Radio 27MHz he had a valve burner using a single PL519 TV linestage valve, now i remember there was nothing to it, so maybe someone knows a way to build a 500 watt 50MHz valve stage, there has to be a way to cobble together an amplifier on the cheap, until that day arrives i will plod on.

Once the oscillator is finished i will try a 16Watt preamp.
http://www.qsl.net/va3iul/Homebrew_RF_Circuit_Design_Ideas/50MHZ_16W_MOSFET_PA.gif

I am sure there is a cheap answer to the problem.

Quote from: Peterae on 2015.10.12, 19:49:06
....
Once the oscillator is finished i will try a 16Watt preamp.
http://www.qsl.net/va3iul/Homebrew_RF_Circuit_Design_Ideas/50MHZ_16W_MOSFET_PA.gif

I am sure there is a cheap answer to the problem.

Hi Peter,

If you fancy power tubes, perhaps the type QQE06/40 would be a candidate, the cheapest offer at ebay now comes from Bulgaria for USD 9.99 + 8.50 shipping.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ZAERIX-RS1009-QQE06-40-5894-AX9903-SRS4451-Vintage-Double-Tetrode-NEW-/252119900199?hash=item3ab3846027 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/ZAERIX-RS1009-QQE06-40-5894-AX9903-SRS4451-Vintage-Double-Tetrode-NEW-/252119900199?hash=item3ab3846027)

And here is a description and a schematic for a 350W output 50MHz amplifier with 3 such tubes connected in parallel:

http://www.vk3nx.com/files/50MHzAmp.pdf 

Any other types of power tubes cost much more than the above offer at present, here is a useful page on further tube types, though you may be familiar with them:
http://www.qsl.net/gm3woj/8877amp.htm  (http://www.qsl.net/gm3woj/8877amp.htm)


Regarding power MOSFETs, there is also the possibility for paralleling them, see a circuit in the application note attached, from Microsemi site.

Here is a 250W 50MHz amplifier with IRF510 MOSFETs, 4+4 in parallel push-pull circuit,

http://frenning.dk/OZ1PIF_HOMEPAGE/50MHz_IRF510.htm (http://frenning.dk/OZ1PIF_HOMEPAGE/50MHz_IRF510.htm)

Earlier in your post you gave a link to an aliexpress offer on the ARF448A and B types (and the price is very good wrt say a DigiKey price offer),  these types were designed to have mirror image pin-outs of each other, easing the push pull operation in a common source configuration.
I attached the data sheet for the ARF448 because there is a 40 MHz test circuit in its last page for a single FET with matching components shown, supply voltage is 150 VDC.
The reason I refer to this is that I do think a cheap power MOSFET with more or less similar salient characteristics could be inserted and see how they perform.  A cheap candidate I can think of is
http://eu.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Infineon-Technologies/IPW65R190CFD/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMshyDBzk1%2fWi8PS859SDBCOPdJUWRS6dWM%3d (http://eu.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Infineon-Technologies/IPW65R190CFD/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMshyDBzk1%2fWi8PS859SDBCOPdJUWRS6dWM%3d) 
or
http://eu.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Infineon-Technologies/IPW65R110CFD/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMshyDBzk1%2fWi8PS859SDBCOcNvGwLMn3HE%3d (http://eu.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Infineon-Technologies/IPW65R110CFD/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMshyDBzk1%2fWi8PS859SDBCOcNvGwLMn3HE%3d)

These are just suggestions of course (the latter types are mainly for switch mode operation of course) but if you wish to broaden the number of choices you can consider such 'wild' choices too.  8)

Gyula

Hi gyula

Thanks for the links and info, mulling it over to work out which way to go, i have to say i feel valve feels more robust for what we want to do

Thanks
Peter

Hi Peter,

Yes, this setup represents basically an inductive load for a power amplifier and valves indeed much more forgiving in this respect. And tuning the inductive nature by capacitors involves big changes in the load impedance what semiconductors do not like at all.

A friend of mine suggested to obtain cheaply a defunct power amplifier on a 'flea market' or from a ham radio guy and convert it to 50 MHz PA as your needs dictate, that would be a cheap way to have a functioning PA.  This idea works cheaply only if you have not yet got all the main parts needed anyway for such PA.

Gyula

If you can find a "6 meter" ham amp, that will be real close to what you want and may work with only minor retuning.  The 6 meter amateur band goes from 50 to 54 Mhz.  Good luck on your build.

Carroll

Thanks gyula & CITFA i will keep an eye out on ebay, lots to do mean while and at a snails pace i am afraid.


EDIT
Cannot find anything on Ebay at the moment.

I am wondering if an old radio or electronics magazine has a construction project for such a valve amplifier, will need to do some old mag searching.

This is related to Michel Meyers work, infact the author 'Renaud de la Taille' is the same author of the "Science et Vie" nr.700 March 1976 (pages 42-45 ) "

Below is a translation of an article here it seems Renaud de la taille translates as Mr Renaud of size.
http://jardin.secret.pagesperso-orange.fr/EcritsScientifiques/pseudo-sciences/SynergeticArticleScienceEtVie1.htm

QuoteAuthor: Mr. Renaud of Size (+).

Journal Science and Life, in November 1975.

While the first synergistic generator has been running, official science continues to ignore the work of Pr. Valley.

This is even more serious than the work leading to energy independence.

Also we asking researchers to speak unequivocally about the value of the synergistic theory.

Since a theory is valuable only if the experience comes confirm, Synergy was tested this summer in Belgium. The results are positive. For the first time, a power amplifier operated with only energy intake outside the universe that surrounds and belongs to us all.

The generator built by Eric Mortsel Hoker restored four times the power he had been given, which is in itself only a disconcerting result, and quite inexplicable within the old theories of physics. For nothing is lost, nothing is created, and it was necessary that the extra energy found at the exit to come from somewhere.

Now that extra energy seemingly from nowhere confirms undeniably the synergetic theory of Professor Valley whose basic premise is this:. Inter-atomic spaces, interstellar and intergalactic universe, usually considered void,

are in fact the seat of intense electromagnetic activity, and non-material, in continuous distribution, which results from the superposition of distinct elementary waves propagating in all directions with generally little different speeds therebetween. This hypothesis in a more convenient form by saying that the structure of space is energy can be translated. The material can thus exchange energy with the space, and that is what has just confirmed the experience of Mortsel. Moreover, this energy is boundless, and the device that allows the capture is relatively simple.

For our readers, this information is not new. It is now a year and a half we had briefly outlined the synergetic theory (February 1974 issue). More recently, at the beginning of this year (January 1975 issue) we took the subject on the failures of controlled nuclear fusion in the Tokamak system failures provided and explained by the synergistic.

Before returning to this and the Belgian experience this summer, we need to look at a problem still curious: the absolute silence with which was greeted this new theory. Certainly, it stirs many acquired knowledge and shocked many dogmas; but that none of the fundamental physics of specialists has dared to give an opinion - for or against - is breathtaking. For articles in which we have put into question not only the CEA, but also some famous names of French science, have not elicited any response. Unique in the annals of our review.

If tomorrow we wrote an article explaining that the EDF is wasting his time, energy and money of users to build high voltage lines while an engineer managed to put the bottles running, we would receive a correction immediately We publish

explaining, whether the process is known but unenforceable or it is valid but too expensive, or even that it is a pure fabrication. It would be the same if we wrote that pharmaceutical companies will pay people's heads since seawater heals everything, or it is ridiculous to construct four-wheeled vehicles whereas with two tracks that would go much better .

With nuclear physics, which nevertheless mobilizes time, energy and taxpayers' money, nothing like that. Apparently nobody dares to give the counterpart to Professor Valley. because finally the synergistic theory opens perspectives so vast, in a simple mathematical framework, it deserves to be considered. Or it is true, and it must be said, and modify all nuclear programs accordingly; or it is false, and we must prove it. It is doubtless that the difficulties begin: To prove that a theory is inaccurate or incorrect, you have already given the evil of the study, and, in addition, have the necessary knowledge to this critical study . The silence surrounding this theory therefore explains that in two ways: those responsible for basic research does not even give wrong to study the synergistic and they fail in their mission; or they do not have the required knowledge and this is even more serious.

What makes the thing difficult to accept is that the Professor Valley theory is known in scientific circles high level. of course she met sympathizers. Apparently, she did not encounter any opposition since nobody so far has dared to declare officially that this theory was incorrect, false, marred by contradictions or even quite absurd. It is true that he who would write this we should prove it, so would have to discuss the problem with Pr. Valley.

And we must say that it is a formidable orator, who has already returned some opponents, yet the highest level, that it would do about the paradoxes of general relativity. We understand better why nobody dares to bring him the contradiction, but obviously that tarnish the beautiful image that the official science wants to give of herself. His silence is no longer that of indifference, but of embarrassment and a certain lack of courage: If after all Valley was right, as seems to prove the experience that would be said in hindsight his opponents?

We will begin by recalling the basics of synergistic, before seeing the amazing opportunities it opens to the energy problem. Initially, the consistency principle which states: all natural phenomena could be apprehended experimentally in the universe are consistent; meaning they all depend, more or less close and more or less complex relationships with each other in manifesting, each as a result of the local universal dynamics. They can not therefore, in any case, in space and in time, be in conflict with the state of the universe as it should be at this place and at this moment.

This statement clearly distinguishes a physical phenomenon that any mathematical model can give. One can, in fact, represent the laws that govern physical phenomena known as equivalence mathematical expressions, to the extent permitted by the measures as much as possible trying to reduce them to simple implicit functions which appear only quantitatively defined parameters, actually physically measurable and reproducible. In principle, progress results when the experimental results require, by adding a number of new parameters necessary for a more accurate expression and finer described laws. Science would go more complexity, thesis that opposes the search for unity.

The synergetic theory realizes the synthesis between these two opposing trends by introducing - and this follows from the principle of consistency - quantitatively defined notion of synergy, extending the principle of conservation to open systems. We'll assume this concept fairly short order, because its complete description requires a good knowledge of electromagnetism. This time we can not even send our competent readers to the work of Professor. Valley because it is currently sold out.

Here then restricted statement: Any physical phenomenon can be seen in isolation as a result of the interaction energy of two circles defined: one of these areas located in space and time can quantitatively be expressed by an equivalent mass m, called Maupertuis mass, associated with the limited area where circumscribed manifestation of the phenomenon; the other medium, related to the physical space of reference, which therefore contains the phenomenon itself, may be defined, in its overall interaction with the mass m of the middle, by the synergistic potential c², the square of the speed the light in the reference medium.

S The total energy or synergy (since it takes into account all energy), which can be associated with the phenomenon studied is given by the fundamental relationship of synergetic theory (established in 1905 by Einstein, but unfortunately reduced to a narrow concept of energy equivalence of matter). S = mc². The speed of light thus characterizes the physical reference medium; it can hence be related to a potential for interaction, represent a universal invariant despite very small variations beyond, in most cases, the accuracy of our measuring devices.

Emptiness is Full of energy

To return to more easy to grasp patterns, the synergistic hypothesis leads us to consider the physical space as a substrate consisting of electromagnetic vibrations within the meaning of Maxwell, forming the frame of the non-material world; which means that each wave propagates in a medium consisting of non-material all others and which, by the very logic of things, is eternal. In all these diffuse cosmic waves that make up the environment, must be considerable energy density. By calculating that allows Newtonian approximation, it is possible to determine a difference of 16000 kWh in a volume of 1 m³, empty of material, taken in the surface of the Earth and the same volume belonging to the space interstellar neighbor in our solar system.

Note that this radiation constituting the diffuse energy are of very short wavelength (2 to 3 times 1014 GHz) and the substance originates in the diffuse cosmic environment when the electric field, random statistical fluctuations, reaches the limit value of 38,67.1015 V / m. The material is thus only energy diffuse locally trapped and kept in this form by a resonance phenomenon with diffuse energy free. It can not thus grow indefinitely in any point in space, creating material acting as a power regulator.

The interaction between matter and energy had been known for relativity, but there is a much more satisfactory explanation. First the vacuum, in the geometric sense, does not exist; this is just a convenient concept in mathematics. In reality, all the space is constantly traversed by a radiation rain from all directions and carrying a lot more energy as solar radiation, although basic-ment of the same nature, that is, Electromagnetic say.

It is known that a wave is characterized by two parameters: its amplitude and frequency. For example, sound waves are strong or weak, low or high; the wave energy spreads are still more or less strong, often carrying some more energy than others, and it is interesting to trace the curve indicating the amount of energy transported for each frequency. Just as one might, for example, play together all the notes of a piano, but not all at the same force, and would trace the curve giving the sound power for each note, that is to say each frequency.    And when you draw the energy distribution curve spreads, we obtain a hilly profile, the highest peaks correspond to the frequency of the neutron and proton, the two most massive elementary particles. No wonder that since we have said, the matter remains in this form that resonance with certain frequencies of energy diffuse; the two most energetic frequencies thus ensure the cohesion of the two heavier fundamental particles. The electron and the deuteron (a proton, a neutron forming the core of deuterium) correspond to two other peaks of the curve, including all other vertices ensure the cohesion of the cores of increasingly heavy.

The stability of an atomic nucleus is linked to electromagnetic interactions more or less intense between the natural frequency to the core and that of the corresponding diffuse energy. But the agitation of diffuse medium, during its statistical fluctuations can cause a nucleus to move from a resonance state to another by releasing the passage of energy in electromagnetic form, particle form, or under the two forms at a time. This suggests a possibility of direct use of the diffuse energy of gravitation which the available reserves are very simply inexhaustible.

To pump a little in its reserves, it appears that nuclear reactions involving beta radioactivity seem most suitable. Energy considerations show that during a beta decay, the diffuse medium which provides the work. The key to the energy extraction assembly resides in the reconstruction of a ß radioactive element. According to the Charter of half decay time and energy released by decay of elements and isotopes, carbon-12 appears among the basic elements, one of the most interesting since its isobaric (same weight of the core) boron 12 shows beta energy of 10 MeV in average. In more classical terms, with a coefficient of efficiency of 10-5 (1 atom per 100 000 reacts) and an overall yield of 20%, the boron disintegration 12 provides 8 kW per gram. Twenty grams therefore provide 160 kilowatts or 217 horsepower which is the power of a Porsche Carrera.

So the carbon that was selected for the first generator due to the synergistic Belgian E. Hoker. How to produce boron-12 from carbon? For a simple reaction predicted by theory and confirmed by controlled nuclear fusion testing; we have already dealt with the subject (in January 1975). Normally, the free electrons within the material are attracted to the positive nuclei and tend to orbit around; in classical physics, it is also their only possible behavior.

It is demonstrated by Synergy against that we can succeed in something much more interesting: the electron should return to the core through intense magnetic fields, parallel and opposite to electric fields. This spin of electrons on the carbon core 12 converts the boron 12, radioactive, which belongs to the state of carbon 12 by releasing a portion of the energy withdrawn from the medium diffuse through the ß radioactivity. It remains to be learned in a practical form the beta energy. It is known since the work of Lee and Yang, the beta emission occurs in a preferred direction, that of the magnetic field. The additional current thus created can be used by Joule effect, or even better, by slowing the electrons in a secondary coil that directly provide alternating current.

The experiment conducted in Belgium was to verify this figure; a capacitor charged by a battery was then discharged through a short carbon rod - as graphite. This first circuit constitutes the primary winding of a conventional transformer, whose secondary winding was connected to a ballistic galvanometer. In addition, the graphite was housed in a coil for generating the magnetic field of the same direction as the electric field. In the absence of current in this winding was recovered   secondary energy launched in carbon less the usual losses specific to any processor. By cons, sending more current in the coil surrounding the atoms, thus creating the necessary magnetic field according to the theory, it changes the power received at the secondary of a factor of 4. It therefore receives 4 times more energy is brought into the entrance, the diffuse medium is of course behind this multiplication of watts.

For now, it is only a reduced power laboratory machine; but it contains the whole principle of a pumping power generator diffuses around us. Just take the secondary current required to maintain the reaction in carbon, and there will be an eternal electric generator whose only price will be that of its construction: coal, copper and iron wire; add a simple electronic circuit to control the input current and the field needed for magnetization to obtain the desired frequency; and that's all.    There is even an even simpler experiment, but the professor Valley discourages profane as it might be as random as to toss in a small room mixture of glycerin, nitric acid and sulfuric acid. Here it is: take a carbon stick as there are in any ordinary button cell and connect the two ends in the socket by interposing a light bulb on the circuit for resistance. Make a winding thread around the carbon and also connect the socket by interposing an assembly such that the magnetic field created by the winding is in phase but opposite to the electric field. If we just falls on suitable values ​​of the magnetic torque electric-field field will collect   the modest power of 8 kW per gram of carbon, with a few tens of watts to entry.

So it is a must try with some caution, because if it is in principle exactly similar to the Belgian experience, amplified a hundred times the current of the 220 V sector may create surprises. Let's leave it so for now in small experimental generator, seeing it as the start of the greatest revolution of the century: energy independence. Suffice indeed, at the individual level, possess a modest 100 kW generator to provide lighting and heating an entire house. The same generator sufficient to cause well beyond the 130 km / h any big car. Farewell oil, coal, uranium and waterfalls; Farewell also immense fortunes and huge profits. So ultimately hindering the spread of synergistic?

Renaud SIZE

Republished by Charlie Renegade

By performing this mounting, the Belgian Eric Hoker proved it was possible to draw energy in this unlimited reservoir posed by electromagnetic waves of the universe. It thus opened the way synergistic generators, high real inexhaustible battery power. In the device shown diagrammatically here, the current charge of a battery a condenser, which is then discharged through the graphite in the sealed glass between two iron electrodes. In the absence of current in the coil orientation, one obtains in the secondary the energy sent to the primary, less the usual losses, about ½ CV². If we raise the current in the coil with the rheostat, there from a certain threshold, the current collected by the galvanometer is 4 times stronger, 2 CV². This extra power comes from the diffuse medium on which were collected energy through carbon, as provided by the synergetic theory. The against-experiment by replacing the carbon with other conductor no longer shows any secondary power multiplication.

(+) This text is a transcript of an article published in 1975 in the magazine Science & Vie and written by Renaud De La Size by Mr. Charlie Renegade, on its website (*). The latter, whom we thank here, declining any responsibility for the scientific value of this text ((*) http://photovni.free.fr/Synerg%E9tique2.htm).

Note: In 1971, Professor René-Louis Masson at Valley edited: 'The material and gravitational electromagnetic energy, synergistic model' (reissued in 1978 by SEPED, a company created to promote "new energy source") . Renaud Size of three articles devoted to it in the journal Science and Life, which

o        Renaud of Size, "a wall of silence around the synergetic theory Pr. Valley, "Science et Vie n ° 698, November 1975;

o        Renaud of Size, "A young French built an inexhaustible battery" Science et Vie n ° 700, January 1976.

(It seems that he also wrote "A power plant at home").

Mr. Levy and Mr. GRÉAS-Leblonc, the physics laboratory of Claude Bernard University in Lyon, remade the experience of Eric Hoker, according to Mr. Valley indications and did not obtain the stated results by Eric of hoker. Mr. Vallée refused the verdict of scientists last 2 plot and spoke of the scientific community against his theory.

Myself, I sent to Mr. Valley, photocopying 2 theses 3 cycles, 2 research students, the phenomenon of "electron decoupled" from the tokamak torus, thermonuclear fusion Fontenay-aux-Roses. Theses Mr. Vallée totally ignored.

Benjamin LISAN (in November 2004).

Looks like Nasa was aware of Michel Meyers work, here's a declassified nasa translation of The Science et Vie" nr.700 March 1976 article LOL

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780007618.pdf

So Michel Meyer based his work on René Louis Vallée and his own work.

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%25C3%25A9-Louis_Vall%25C3%25A9e&prev=search (https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%25C3%25A9-Louis_Vall%25C3%25A9e&prev=search)

QuoteIn 1973 he did an experiment where he an electric current of 5 V and 300 kA sent through a plasma. It was found beta radiation to be released with energy levels of more than 6 MeV. Vallée argued that no theory or computational capabilities were to explain this result and postulated that the results had to be nuclear in origin, caused by impurities in the plasma.

loads more here
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%25C3%25A9-Louis_Vall%25C3%25A9e&prev=search (https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%25C3%25A9-Louis_Vall%25C3%25A9e&prev=search)

Dam it looks like J Naudin had this working

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%25C3%25A9-Louis_Vall%25C3%25A9e&prev=search

At one point j naudin was reading over 17000 uSv/h, flying in an aeroplane exposes one to 5uSv/h there seem no doubt this is a free energy device in action producing copious amounts of Beta radiation and there is no fuel used at all  :D Surely this is the ultimate free energy device and is seen working.

Hello Peterae,

you have to go to this url here, there is a full document of Valle at the top of the list

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/ (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/)

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/synergetics.pdf (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/synergetics.pdf)

Explanation of the PROTELF PROCESS

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/protelf.htm (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/protelf.htm)


Test performed with alleged overunity-factor 3.46

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/vsg41.htm (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/vsg/vsg41.htm)

regards

Mike

Indeed Kator

Thanks for posting the links.

I have to question whether the beta is produced by the carbon rod or the spark interface, Arie DeGeus used a spark or hot plasma and tungsten as the catalyst to prduce beta through fusion of atoms, J.Naudin has the plasma and the tungsten catalyst.

I need a Geiger counter

It should be fairly easy to get a working device going, now that we know how to produce a stream of beta radiation, we learnt from McFreey that we can capture the energy in a resonant magnetic system, beta favours capture by the magnetic field, combining Arie, McFreey & Meyer i can see a working a device in a short period of time.

I'm a bit wary of the thorium use and the first thing is to shield with 3mm of aluminium to see how the radiation gets shielded as i dont want to be bombarded with X-rays or worse Gamma.

Mean while i will continue with my Meyer oscillator work over the Xmas holidays as i still favour a clean way to produce Beta instead of the dirty spark gap method of production here.

Peterae,

Once and awhile I restart my research on this subject and found this guy. I do not like to get too many different ideas to be infused here but this guy has made some important discovery and obviously can proove it.

The Snake River Radiadion Lab, Lawrence Dawson is a mathematician. There are four  introducing vids

Here are his two websides. I think its worth to study although I have to confess that the math is way beyon my head.
The main reason why I throw this in here is that he consideres an atom including the electron-shells as a spherical condenser.
By modifiacation of the electrical potential between the electron shell and the nucleus the nucleus becomes instable....

http://www.srnrl.com/ (http://www.srnrl.com/)
http://www.paradigmphysics.com/ (http://www.paradigmphysics.com/)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArLRKvwy4_8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArLRKvwy4_8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXUohP67mzA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXUohP67mzA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLbWaPQbROk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLbWaPQbROk)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ezwSvpX8VY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ezwSvpX8VY)

Mike

Thanks Mike

Will look at it later when out of the Lab  O0

Cheers
Peter

OK back to my NMR oscillator.

Had 1.5 Days so far playing around with this.
I managed to get the oscillator wired into an die cast box, i can switch between sweep(Adjustable up to 5 mins sweep) or 18 turn pot.

The output of the colpitts oscillator was never up to much and i know i needed to build a preamp as i could not even load it with a 50 Ohm resistor without a series feed resistor to stop distortion, it was a few hundred micro watts, now the 16 watt power stage i built needs an input of 300mw.

I built the power stage and it seems to work well see pictures below, based on an IRF610 fet.
Link here https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=50+mhz+irf610+amplifier+16+watt&biw=1280&bih=625&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE0dyUoYTKAhVJvBQKHdYpBpwQ_AUIBygC&dpr=0.8#imgrc=4rpS2uTpcyEmqM%3A (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=50+mhz+irf610+amplifier+16+watt&biw=1280&bih=625&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE0dyUoYTKAhVJvBQKHdYpBpwQ_AUIBygC&dpr=0.8#imgrc=4rpS2uTpcyEmqM%3A)

So i tried this preamp stage here using transistors i had laying around
http://www.next.gr/circuits/ultra-broadband-buffer-amplifier-l39817.html (http://www.next.gr/circuits/ultra-broadband-buffer-amplifier-l39817.html)
It worked but i should have converted 7dbm to watts and as it turns out it's a lot short of 300mw LOL

Anyway i connected the whole lot up to see how well it all performed, see scope shot below DS1Z

Scope shot
Yellow across a 50Ohm Load on power stage output.
Cyan Input to power stage after 2 transistor pre-amplifier.
Purple input to pre-amplifier stage which is the output of the colpitts oscillator.

So in conclusion, i need either a more powerful preamp or need another preamp added after the 1st preamp.

Anyone know how i can turn the gain up of the 2 transistor preamp, i tried dropping the 220 Ohm resistance down to 110 Ohm, not much happened really, i also tried 2 x 82 Ohm resistors in parallel in the emitter of the first transistor, again not much happened.

I have the feeling that my colpitts output is not enough to drive the preamp as i dont seem to get the 7 dbm (5mw) stated in the article, and anyway i still need to get to 300mw for the final stage drive.

I am in need of an easy to built preamp circuit if anyone has one.

Been fun but some what frustrating as well.

Peterae,

I have to look into my files but I think you need a buffer-stage following your colpritts and not feeding directly into the preamp.
Second:  the 100 nF coupling-condenser is too big ..Xc for 50 MHz ist 0.032 Ohm which means the output-signal is fully exposed to the input-impedance of the preamp ( base-emitter-capacitance)  and I do not know the value of the input-impedance.
If your colpritts has - lets say -. an output-impedance von 600 ohm and the preamp is at 50 Ohm then you can imagine what happens.
If you observe or better compare on you scope how the output of your colpritts breaks down from idle-modus to beeing connected to the preamp...what do you see ?
Is the Vpp breaking down more tha 50 % ?
Change you preamp-input-condenser down to 68 pF. Xc fpr 68 pF and 50 MHz is 46 Ohm

may be you use an old fashioned MMIC. They are yused for antenna preamps and simple in design. C_block also 68 and increase in steps to
680 pF for best results.

http://194.75.38.69/pdfs/MAR-6SM+.pdf (http://194.75.38.69/pdfs/MAR-6SM+.pdf)

Mike

Hi Mike
That is a nice monoamp, i will digest what you have said about the decouplers, shame there's not a single package 300mw amp  :) i will look to see what is around, never occurred to me.

OK decided to throw a bit of money into this project.

Just ordered a 300MHz 100MHz DDs system 0.001Hz
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/281773434424

and a 20-500MHz 1.5 Watt preamp
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/331617730370?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.01.10, 21:56:21
Just ordered a 300MHz DDs system 0.001Hz
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/281773434424

That's 300MHz sampling rate at 12bits resolution.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.01.10, 21:56:21
and a 20-500MHz 1.5 Watt preamp
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/331617730370?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

If that DDS module has 0.5W output power just like most commercial SigGens, then this preamp could be a little stronger like this one (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2MHz-80MHz-5W-RF-Wideband-Amplifiers-Frequency-amplifier-power-amplifier-/331656465745?hash=item4d38440d51).

It does say that it has a 0.001Hz resolution or more up to 100MHz.

The datasheet says it can do uHz this obviously depends on the frequency, the higher the lower res.

The great thing here is that it is a 2 channel DDS so i can also generate the lower Hz frequency as well on the 1 board.

Dam thats a nice 5 watt amp and similar price to my 1.5watt Grrr.

I have the DDS & Pre amp now.

The DDS is amazing, the actual DDS is up to 100MHz with atmeg controller board and touch sensitive LCD.
Instructions are lacking so need to track them down on line, the dds i can chirp & fsk and need to see if there is PC software available for it.

Need to check out the pre amp next when i get some time.

OK next thing i need to start thinking about is the coil design.

So i have my pure iron core, i have my 45MHz DDS and preamp and a 16Watt amplifier, so for starters i need to concentrate on the Driving coils.
and to be honest i an not sure how i design a coil to work at 45MHz, presumably i want it's impedance to be 50 Ohms around it's operating frequency.

Meyer says he used 22 Turns but he was operating at 23MHz

Of course i realise i need to get hold of or will probably make some Litz

So any pointers here would be handy

Using XL= 2πfL then it looks like i need an inductance of 159nH to achive an impedance of 50 Ohms

Using an online inductance calculator for 160nH using an iron core k=200 then i need 9.5 turns across a 10cm length with a coil diameter of 3cm  :-\

or
4.25 turns with a diameter of 3cm and a length of 2cm

I wonder if i need to spread the coil over the length of the iron bar or keep it in the middle close turns, i also need to put a 400Hz winding and 2 other bucking coils on the core and also at some point a heater winding and insulation.

Hi Peter,

Would like to understand why you tend to choose coil reactance to be around 50 Ohm at the operating frequency? The power amplifier which is to drive this coil will not be "happy" with such inductive load and I think you know that. 

Perhaps making the 159 nH coil resonant around 45 MHz with say a 74pF capacitor first to see any possible Q the core may provide at such frequency would be a first step to attempt a reasonable matching. Then, after learning the (parallel) resonant impedance of this LC circuit on your core, you could attempt either to split the 74 pF into two series members to form a capacitive divider with its low impedance input side to be around 50 Ohm as a match to the power amplifier output or to make a tap on the coil or to make a coupling coil, also for an approximate mathcing the LC impedance to near 50 Ohm. These can only be done of course when the resonant impedance for the LC at least a few times higher than the inductive reactance of the coil, and this depends mainly on the loss of the core at 45 MHz.

On you question of whether spreading the coil turns or winding the wire turns close next to each other: I think first a normal close spacing between the turns would be preferred to spreading.

I do not think you would need Litz wire at such high frequency, just use thick enameled copper wire. say any OD of 0.9 to 1.2 mm, this would give low enough loss.

I attach an article on practical self supporting air cored coils, just as a guide to get a feel on sizes and number of turns, mainly in the some ten to some hundred nanoHenry range, it is much better than no such info at all.    :)  Of course the presence of the iron core will greatly offset the air cored L values but perhaps with some trial and error you would be within range easier with it.

Gyula

Hi gyula

Thanks for your help here.

QuoteWould like to understand why you tend to choose coil reactance to be around 50 Ohm at the operating frequency? The power amplifier which is to drive this coil will not be "happy" with such inductive load and I think you know that.

No i did not know that the amp will not be happy with 50 Ohm load impedance, if you look at my 16watt amp module it says into 50Ohm Load?
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=20577;image)

So you are saying i will be better driving my load coil as a LC resonant system.?
Although when i connect my load inductor it will be in parallel with the amplifiers last stage capacitor??

I'm confused now.

Also skin depth for copper wire at 45MHz is 9.7um so anything over 20um is wasted copper, hence my thinking on Litz

Quote from: gyula on 2016.01.29, 23:20:06
The power amplifier which is to drive this coil will not be "happy" with such inductive load and I think you know that. 

If the drive coil forms a parallel LC tank with the final capacitor of the RF amp, then the transistor of this amp will be very happy to drive it at its LC resonant frequency.
The additional bonus is that the RF current circulating in the LC tank can be many orders of magnitude greater than the current provided by the RF amp, ...depending on Q, Eddy current and hysteresis losses of the core.

Quote from: gyula on 2016.01.29, 23:20:06
I do not think you would need Litz wire at such high frequency, just use thick enameled copper wire. say any OD of 0.9 to 1.2 mm, this would give low enough loss.

No, fine Litz wire is mandatory in this application.
At 45MHz a solid 1.2mm OD wire would have the same "resistance" as a 0.1mm wire at DC.

OK thanks for clarification verpies.

Am i trying to design my coil at 45Mhz for 50Ohms or as low Ohm as possible to reduce power losses.?

Do you think it is worth spending time building a B-H curve plotter to work out the u of my core.?

Cheers
Peter

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.01.30, 11:12:36
Am i trying to design my coil at 45Mhz for 50Ohms or as low Ohm as possible to reduce power losses.?

MPTT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem#Maximizing_power_transfer_versus_power_efficiency) answers this question.
Note that the impedance of an ideal parallel LC tank is infinite at resonance.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.01.30, 11:12:36
Do you think it is worth spending time building a B-H curve plotter to work out the u of my core.?

No, but it is worth building two mini RF current transformers (CT) that you will be able to  thread the Litz wire through, in order to sense what current is circulating in the LC tank and compare it to the current supplied by the RF amp (that's what the 2^nd CT is for). 
You could use a CSR for the latter, too, but you do not want to introduce any extra resistance in the parallel LC tank.

Okay folks, I accept the use of Litz wire,  thanks for the explanation.

Peter, most RF/HF power amplifier is designed to drive a 50 Ohm load but by default, this load needs to be purely resistive and not capacitive or inductive. Of course exceptions do occur when a load to be matched is a specific one, in those cases the matching network should be designed accordingly.

In your particular power amplifier schematic you surely recognize the Pi filter at the output, consisting of the two preset 100-150 pF capacitors and the 3.5 turn air core coil, the purpose of this filter is to match the drain impedance of TR1 to a pure 50 Ohm resistive load.

What could be the drain impedance you may wonder?  It can be pretty well approached by this formula Z=50V*50V/16W = 156 Ohm and this should be transformered down to 50 Ohm by the Pi filter, such filter network can transform impedance and also serve as a harmonic filter. Impedance transformation depends on the ratio of capacitors (C1 and C2) of such Pi filter, it can step impedance down or up too.

(You may wonder how low efficiency this amplifier may have: 16W/25W=0.64 where the 25 W comes from 50V*0.5A input DC power, i.e. 64% efficiency which is typical for such, nearly linearly biased AB class amplifiers.)

Yes, the amplifier's last stage includes a capacitor what could seemingly be used to tune a 'load' inductor of say 160 nH for a 45 MHz resonance but this then would represent a 50 Ohm pure resistive resonant impedance by a big luck only.

This may answer verpies's suggestion to use a parallel LC tank: matching could be obtained via the Pi filter if and when the final capacitor setting would insure a near 50 Ohm resonant impedance for the tank and this impedance would then be correctly transformed back towards the drain impedance of approximately 156 Ohm.

I think a better approach would be to use an additional capacitor at the output in series with your 160 nH 'load' coil, as I drew it in the schematic attached. This way C2 and C3 would constitute a capacitive (voltage, hence impedance) divider, their series resultant equivalent C value would tune the 160 nH to the 45 MHz resonance. Under such condition the transformed (stepped down) impedance would be pretty close to a resistive-like 50 Ohm what the amplifier transistor would need to see via the Pi filter.

Alternatively, the Pi filter could be omitted and the 160 nH drive coil would be matched by resonating it via C2 and C3 directly, this what I indicated in the second schematic below.

Sorry for confusion I may have caused for you, it was not my intention.

Gyula

Thanks verpies & gyula

QuoteSorry for confusion I may have caused for you, it was not my intention.

That is me not you  :-[ i am easily confused with this stuff, very much out of my depth really,  I thank you very much for your time, expertise and explanations.  O0

Quotebut it is worth building two mini RF current transformers (CT)

Ok i can do that, in fact they can be added later so i can concentrate on the winding.

Need to find a bobbin to wind these coils on, so they can be slipped on the core, and they may have to withstand high temperature as well, i am currently thinking of embedding them in high temp silicon good up to 300 Deg C

OK i like the idea of taking the pi filter out and using the 2 caps to feed the inductor.

What would be the set up procedure for this, how do i adjust the 2 capacitors to find the optimum points for my inductor

EDIT
Also now i am wondering if the output power of the above amplifier circuit can be increased maybe by using one of these LDMOS fets with a much larger heatsink, as this could greatly simplify and cheapen this build by quiet a lot.


Found some litz.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Litz-Wire-High-frequency-Transformer-Wire-High-Current-40A-1000-Strands-0-1mm-/151884136336?hash=item235cffff90:g:AwUAAOSw4UtWRhnQ (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Litz-Wire-High-frequency-Transformer-Wire-High-Current-40A-1000-Strands-0-1mm-/151884136336?hash=item235cffff90:g:AwUAAOSw4UtWRhnQ)

Well, the setup procedure I suggest would be this:

If you have an L meter capable of measuring with say +/-5 % accuracy under 1 uH, then it could be used to check the few number of turns on the iron core which may give the desired 150-180 nH inductance.  Use at least a wire diameter of 0.8-1 mm for this test because with the Litz wire you would get only better Q when it arrives.  BUT in fact an L meter would be needed which measures at 45 MHz in this case because the iron core I assume is unspecified at this frequency and the a low frequency inductance check may be far off at 45 MHz.

So you may wish to build this simple test circuit I attached and this would prove useful to estimate the resonant Q of the 45 MHz LC tank on the iron core.   Of course other test circuit setups could be used for checking the Q of your iron cored coil at 45 MHz.

Suppose you find a voltage ratio of 10 (say the voltage amplitude from your DDS output i.e. across the left hand side of the 1 pF capacitor (TP1) and grnd is say 910 mVpp on one of the scope channels and the voltage across its right hand side (TP2) and grnd i.e. across the coil is say 9.2 Vpp on the other scope channel, (9.2/0.91=10), then this would indicate the resonant impedance to be roughly 10*50=500 Ohm if the DDS output has 50 Ohm (expected) output impedance.  If you use 0.56 pF (or two 1 pF capacitors in series),  the accuracy for the Q value received increases.
The (loaded) Q comes from the 500 Ohm/X_L and if X_L is around 50 Ohm at 45 MHz when the L is around 177 uH, then Q is 10 for the coil on the iron core.  This would be a lossy core at 45 MHz but then you would have to stay with that...

Supposing this check indeed indicates a Q of 10 (or higher), the members of the capacitive voltage divider can be determined. I will continue with that tomorrow.  Their actual value depends on the actual Q value of the coil on the iron core, unfortunately.

By the way I agree to stay with a coil inductance value somewhere in the 140-180 nH range because the tuning/matching capacitors may have a reasonably high value at 45 MHz, much higher above stray capacitance values. 

The output power could be increased by lowering (with a set low limit of course) the transformed impedance of the load the drain circuit "sees".  For the 16 W output power this impedance is about 156 Ohm.   I referred to how the drain impedance can be approached by considering the supply voltage V and the desired output power P with the formula Z=V²/P. 
If you have an IRF610 MOSFET, you could still use it (on a heat sink of course) for some higher input power till you stay within its SOA (Safe Operational Area) which is included in the data sheet.  Or if it is still not enough and you have LDMOS types available you could use them too of course.  Would you give type number(s) if you have.   Will return to this too.

Gyula

Hi gyula
Today i made 1 meter length of 165 strands of 0.125mm Litz wire and wound 4 turns on a former and glued it.

Tomorrow i will attempt to measure the inductance, my LCR meter was quiet expensive and also calculates the Q but only goes to 10Mhz and i have a feeling it may not read such a low inductance value, we will know for sure in the morning.

I don't think i have any capacitors with such low pf value, i think i have some 6.8pf will check and report back in morning, i could always try putting some in series.

I am not sure how i will yet drive the 45MHz, my new dds does not have a powerful output but i do have the preamp i bought 1.5 watt output and i also have the 2 transistor preamp i build for my colpitts oscillator see below diagram.

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=20579)


I dont have any LDMOS fets yet was just mulling it over for higher power.


I think in the morning i will try my 2 transistor preamp connected to the DDS and check that works ok, then hook that to your circuit above.
Once i have some solid data we can decide what or how to proceed.

Many thanks for your help.  O0

EDIT
I also have a grid dip meter i was thinking i could sniff the coil for a Self resonant frequency.

Also i am wondering if i were to put say a 100pf cap across the inductor and grid dip it for the resonant frequency we could then calculate the inductance knowing the capacitance & frequency.

Well, regarding the small value coupling capacitor, you may have heard of  "gimmick" capacitors which are nothing else but a twisted insulated wire pair of a few cm long, open circuit at the far end?  And cutting down the length at the open end you reduce the capacitor value between the two other ends of the wires. See this video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1wWL6TGWOE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1wWL6TGWOE)

For the passive coil test I have suggested you do not need power drive at 45 MHz but a few hundred mV peak to peak amplitude you can see on your scope, the DDS output would be loaded by only the 1 pF capacitor in series with an LC tank, no harm or problem.  Perhaps you wish to check inductance value at higher power levels too, then the MOSFET amplifier could be used at a few Watt output level.

Yes the grid dip meter is also a good way to check for resonance. I have not mentioned the position of the coil on the core, obviously start at one of the very edges of the core and once you found a dip (or voltage maximum in the test circuit I drew), then you can go towards the center of the core and make notes.

Gyula

QuoteWell, regarding the small value coupling capacitor, you may have heard of  "gimmick" capacitors which are nothing else but a twisted insulated wire pair of a few cm long, open circuit at the far end?  And cutting down the length at the open end you reduce the capacitor value between the two other ends of the wires. See this video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1wWL6TGWOE

yes good idea  O0

QuoteFor the passive coil test I have suggested you do not need power drive at 45 MHz but a few hundred mV peak to peak amplitude you can see on your scope, the DDS output would be loaded by only the 1 pF capacitor in series with an LC tank, no harm or problem.  Perhaps you wish to check inductance value at higher power levels too, then the MOSFET amplifier could be used at a few Watt output level.

OK i will try the DDS output  O0

Here's an image of the core as previously posted in thread
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=19159)

For the Bias coil the patent requires 0.5T
I can build this 3cm long with 70 turns and 1 Amp giving me a field of 0.58T 20 SWG

I was not aware of that picture, sorry and thanks for posting it again. It seems to have a closed magnetic path from the coils 'to be placed on the rod' point of view (as per the patent describes) but you will have difficulties when using the grid dip meter. You would need to use a single turn of wire penetrating under the rod and closing also in one turn coupled to the dip meter coil, perhaps the user manual includes this method.

Now the placement of the few turns coil on the rod for the inductance test will probably yield small changes in inductance as you slide the bobbin position on it, I suppose, due to the closed magnetic path.

Gyula

Quote from: gyula on 2016.01.30, 23:03:15
I was not aware of that picture, sorry and thanks for posting it again. It seems to have a closed magnetic path from the coils 'to be placed on the rod' point of view (as per the patent describes)

The solid metal yoke will allow helluva Eddy currents to develop. They will lower the Q and inductance.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.01.30, 21:36:46
I dont have any LDMOS fets yet was just mulling it over for higher power.

Getting more output power with these transistors will involve increasing the supply voltage to them.

While LDMOSFETs have lower gate capacitances, they still require AMPS of RF gate drive current at 45MHz.  Make sure your gate driver circuits are capable of providing it.  Don't be surprised if it turns out that you need a 20W input to get a 100W output.  These gate drive requirements are listed in their datasheets.

QuoteI was not aware of that picture, sorry and thanks for posting it again. It seems to have a closed magnetic path

We do have an air gap of i think it was 1mm around the diameter of the rod at one end where it goes through the plate, the other end is interference and pressed in place, the gap is to break the electrical path and stop a short from one end of the rod to the other.

I will place information in this post as i work it out

My mistake first my LCR meter only goes to 10Khz not 10Mhz

So all tests here are at 10KHz
L=0.58-0.59uH in middle of core and 0.57-0.58 at ends of core (a lot highr than i thought it would be)
R=0.0173R
Z=0.0417R
Q=2.14
--------------
OK  have been having problems

Firstly i dont think this DDS is terminated with a 50 Ohm resistor, it appears to be missing on the pcb, so there's a multiple stage filter on the output of the DDS chip.

Next i used 3 off 3.3pf caps in series to make my 1pf cap, i soldered a 100pf trimmer cap across my coil, but when i scan on my DDS i have a really big amplitude (biggest) up the top end at 75MHz with trimmer cap at lowest cap value where the vanes do not overlap, and when i adjust the trimmer cap to it's highest value when the vanes are fully overlapping then the frequency goes up to 85Mhz where the biggest amplitude is.
Does not make sense, i soldered a 120pf straight across the coil and the biggest amplitude stayed about 85MHz.

So something strange going on.
OK video is here
https://youtu.be/nKcpOm2xNNU

Hi Peter,

You could terminate the output of the DDS with a carbon or metal film resistor where you see the missing one on the PCB, the output of the multiple stage filter should be terminated anyway.
OR for this measurement, temporarily use a 51 Ohm or 56 Ohm or close to this value a resistor across the end of the coax where it meets with the first 3.3 pF capacitor leg.
The strange behaviour you find may come from the unterminated DDS output and the piece of coax cable you use to drive the coil via the 3 series capacitors.   
Will be back later.

Gyula

OK fitting a 51Ohm resistor across the coax output just before the 3.3pf caps has helped, although that strong peak is still there.
Are we expecting a bigger amplitude across the Inductor as we don't it's smaller.

Yellow trace is our LC and cyan trace is across the 51Ohm termination just before the 3off 3.3pf caps

So we are getting 100mV pk-pk across LC & 528mv pk-pk across the 51Ohm termination

These scope probes will have just over 12pf each i think

I assume the trimmer capacitor was still set at its minimum value possible, right?

You could reduce the effect (if any) of the self capacitance of the scope probe which is across the coil by placing a few pF capacitor in series with the hot input of the probe, even a gimmick style capacitor would do. This series capacitor will divide down the voltage across the coil but the strong peak may get shifted away in frequency.

Yes, a bigger amplitude across the coil versus across the terminating resistor would indicate the LC tank impedance would be higher than 51 Ohm, this would be desirable and this would mean the Q of the coil would be higher than 1.

By the way, if your trimmer cap is at its minimum, it may have say 5 pF capacitance and adding to this the 12 pF probe capacitance and adding some further stray capacitance of say 3 pF, these total as 20 pF. And assuming the measured 0.58 uH coil inductance more or less remains the same (maybe unlikely but may be close to that), then the resonant frequency is 45 MHz from the formula if the tuning capacitor is 21.6 pF. Here is an online calculator I used:
http://www.daycounter.com/Calculators/LC-Resonance-Calculator.phtml

From the video sweep it seems this core performs miserably in the MHz range for sure. The coil has a quality factor under 1 it seems.

Gyula

QuoteI assume the trimmer capacitor was still set at its minimum value possible, right?

Each time i try to adjust the trimmer for max amplitude at 45MHz, so the answer is no, i have not bothered to measure the trimmed value though because i would need to unsolder it.

I just tried swapping the 3off 3.3pf in series for a 6.8pf cap and that large top end peak has now gone.
See Video shortly, just uploading
https://youtu.be/ZHM_48rD3yo

Also i just took a snap with the trimmer adjusted for 45Mhz with the 6.8pf and we are just under the driving amplitude now.
LC=468mv pk-pk and 51Ohm termination is 516mv pk-pk

I just disconnected the series C and left just the trimmer cap across the inductor with a scope probe, using my dip meter near the coil i set to 45Mhz and adjusted the trimmer cap for max amplitude using the scope chan, i then unsoldered the trimmer from the Coil and reconnected the scope probe and measured the capacitance using the LCR at 46pf, but i had to disconnect the scope probe from the BNC on the oscilloscope end as it seemed to make the measured cap value unstable.

The LCR measured Inductance was probably wrong as it was at the bottom end of it's ability to measure.

That now gives us a calculated value of 266nH which is much closer.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.01.31, 15:54:39
See Video shortly, just uploading
https://youtu.be/ZHM_48rD3yo

What do the yellow and blue trace represent?
Could you show probe positions on a schematic?

Sure
I've been using the circuit provided by gyula
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=21064)

Cyan is TP1 and Yellow Tp2

PS sorry about fuzzy video, it appears there is no way for me to focus on video but on stills it auto focuses, Samsung Galaxy, nothing in settings and others are complaining as well by the looks of it.

Peter,  when all the possible tests that may come while the coil is on the core are over, and you remove the coil from the core to get an air core, it maybe would be a good step to repeat the test and experience how the tuning would behave.  Just a thought, if you disagree, I understand.

Some notices:
The 6.8 pF capacitor has 520 Ohm reactance at 45 MHz versus the 3536 Ohm of a 1 pF, so its shunting effect in both the input and output directions is higher (thus it can attenuate unwanted resonances) while it allows more input voltage to reach to the LC tank.
Because the 520 Ohm series reactance is still 10 times higher than the 51 Ohm terminating resistor (assuming the latter is still near to 50 Ohm at 45 MHz) this comparable voltage amplitude result shows the LC tank impedance must be higher than 51 Ohm I thought because after a voltage divison only a higher (i.e. resonant) impedance can 'augment' the divided voltage to be nearly equal to the input voltage.

The core characteristics will invariably change when the 0.5 T bias field from the 70 turn 1A coil will be present. 

One more thing while the coil is on the core: Perhaps a 3 dB bandwidth test would reveal the Q of the tank at 45 MHz? to do this, notice the amplitude of the resonant voltage across the coil, say it is 468 mVpp (from the latest scopeshot) and you detune the DDS from the exact 45 MHz down in frequency till the amplitude across the coil will be 0.707 times only of that at 45 MHz and log that frequency, then repeat the detuning upwards till the amplitude again reduces to 0.707 times and log the upper frequency too.  Now if you substract the lower frequency value from the upper one, you get the 3 dB bandwidth, BW.  Then the Q is received by dividing 45 MHz by the BW (BW should be also in MHz of course.)

Gyula

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.01.31, 18:55:09
I've been using the circuit provided by gyula

It is one of the ways to determine the suitable parallel capacitance of the LC tank.  The resonance is not very sharp so your Q is low or you are way off into one of the SG's harmonics.

Don't disregard the phase information between the SG voltage and the voltage across the LC tank, since it indicates the rate of the energy transfer between the SG and the LC tank. You can visualize it better by putting your scope into XY mode.

Thanks for your time on this gyula & verpies also.

It will be very complex to get this system working in a resonant way, because also we should be heating the iron to above 150 Deg C and we will also have a 50Hz bucking 2 coil system operating as well as the bias field.

QuoteOne more thing while the coil is on the core: Perhaps a 3 dB bandwidth test would reveal the Q of the tank at 45 MHz? to do this, notice the amplitude of the resonant voltage across the coil, say it is 468 mVpp (from the latest scopeshot) and you detune the DDS from the exact 45 MHz down in frequency till the amplitude across the coil will be 0.707 times only of that at 45 MHz and log that frequency, then repeat the detuning upwards till the amplitude again reduces to 0.707 times and log the upper frequency too.  Now if you substract the lower frequency value from the upper one, you get the 3 dB bandwidth, BW.  Then the Q is received by dividing 45 MHz by the BW (BW should be also in MHz of course.)

Sounds good i can do that next time i am in the workshop  O0

Just ordered some power modules

2 off for constant current bias drive. and DDS / preamp
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/301737802598?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

and 400 watt 10 amp for power amp board
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181863152703?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

and some ceramic fiber paper for insulation 1mm suggested by Grumage.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181863152703?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

and a SMA male/male coupler for DDS to Preamp

In the Czech patent he says the following

QuoteApplying energy to the strength 168,21x10-13 on the iron
core, formed by 56 Fe isotope , is called instability , which in turn causes
radioactivity , which amends Fe 56 Fe 54 while releasing two neutrons.

Now we previously worked out that the described output power was per atom.

QuoteThis procedure yields about 32,040x10-19 J energy,

So what is the significance of this 168,21x10-13 because this is surely more energy than is released by 32,040x10-19.

Any thoughts

and strangely there are not enough digits after the comma to mean thousands 168,21?

Also from the FR 2nd patent he says

QuoteThe second coil (4) is traversed by a sinusoidal wave of 21 MHz and 10-4 Tesla power which is a nuclear magnetic resonance activator allowing 180 ° rotation of the nuclear spine
iron atoms.

Interestingly he also states in the 3 coil system that the 3rd coil runs the length of the core.

QuoteThe third coil (5) is a transformer primary which collects this induction energy at all points
of the bar established by the isotopic mutation iron atoms 56 in iron 54.

and an explanation of operation

QuoteThe present invention uses a physical phenomenon that we have highlighted and which we call
'Isotopic Mutation ".
Description of the physical principle applied to the isotope iron-56: 56 The isotope iron contains 26
protons, 26 neutrons and 30 electrons, its total mass is 56.52 Mev, its actual mass is 55.80 Mev for.
The difference between the total mass and the real mass is 0.72 Mev, which corresponds to a
binding energy per nucleon of 0.012857 Mev.
If one introduces an additional 105 ev of energy to the iron core isotope 56, this one will have a
cohesion energy level of 0.012962 Mev nucleon corresponding to iron isotope 54. The instability
created by this energy input is determined a radioactivity that will transfer the isotope iron-56
isotope with 54 neutrons release 2 which transform a 9-minute Hydrogen by natural radioactivity.
This process will generate an energy gain of 20,000 ev since the mass defect of the resulting iron 54is only 0.70 Mev instead of 0.72 MeV for the iron isotope 56.
To bring to the iron core isotope 56 the energy necessary to perform the isotopic mutation, we use
the principle of nuclear magnetic resonance.
The 26 protons of the isotope 56 iron are at the origin of the lively nuclear magnetic moment of a
gyroscopic movement depending on the actual weight of the iron core. The weight loss caused by
the isotopic mutation phenomenon will change the moment gyro and release energy by increasing
the speed of rotation.
The physical phenomenon of isotopic mutation described above is applicable to all bodies of the
table Mandeleiev.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.02, 20:29:37
In the Czech patent he says the following:

QuoteApplying energy to the strength 168,21x10-13 on the iron core, formed by 56 Fe isotope , is called instability , which in turn causes
radioactivity , which amends Fe 56 Fe 54 while releasing two neutrons.

Now we previously worked out that the described output power was per atom.
So what is the significance of this 168,21x10-13 because this is surely more energy than is released by 32,040x10-19.
Any thoughts

I think the confusion stems from that piss-poor translation from Czech.
I think the word "core" should be "nucleus" and the word "amends" should be "transmutes" and "strength" could be "force".
If the phrase "applying energy" refers to adding energy to the nuclear binding force, then the 168.21x10^-13 refers to the total nuclear binding energy or force.

IMO the device described in this patent was engineered first and then a slipshod theoretical explanation was added as an afterthought to complete the patent.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.02, 20:29:37
Interestingly he also states in the 3 coil system that the 3rd coil runs the length of the core.

Does he?
I read it that it "collects" only where the transmutation occurs.  But from EM induction theory we know, that spatial localization of induction just does not happen.  A winding reacts to flux changes from the entire flux penetrating the winding, regardless of its position along the path of this flux.  The flux does not even have to touch the winding ...see the A vector potential and all.

QuoteDoes he?
I read it that it "collects" only where the transmutation occurs.  But from EM induction theory we know, that spatial localization of induction just does not happen.  A winding reacts to flux changes from the entire flux penetrating the winding, regardless of its position along the path of this flux.  The flux does not even have to touch the winding ...see the A vector potential and all.

Oh Dam my mistake.
hence the almost closed metal frame for magnetic path, so in fact this coil can be placed anywhere along the core  O0

QuoteI think the confusion stems from that piss-poor translation from Czech.

yes indeed makes a lot of sense

OK with the 6.8pf in series feeding the tuning cap in parralel with my 4 turn Inductor, i have a max pk-pk of 500mv @ about 45.6MHz at the moment, having done a real slow scan it looks like the bottom 353mV is hit around 42.1MHz and the top 353mV hit at around 49.4Mhz

Centre to top difference is 49.4-45.6 = 3.8Mhz
Centre to bottom difference is 45.6-42.1 = 3.5Mhz

So centre is not quiet centre but close enough considering the res of the capture is not perfect at this mv range.

So we have a bandwidth of 49.4-42.1 =  7.3Mhz

and a Q of 45.6/7.3 = 6.24

PS tomorrow i will make my Bias coil and drive with 1 amp to see how things get affected  O0

EDIT
Maybe a different designed coil would be better, more spacing between the 4 turns or try 2 turns and a bigger tuning cap for our purpose here ??

I think i have enough litz left over to try a 2 or 3 turn coil with spacing between turns.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.05, 17:50:52
Maybe a different designed coil would be better, more spacing between the 4 turns or try 2 turns and a bigger tuning cap for our purpose here ??

Study this (http://www.w8ji.com/loading_inductors.htm) for the best coil proportions.

FYI: Below is a graph of different LC frequency responses for different Qs.

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3103.0;attach=19272)


...and one of the ways the Q is calculated:

(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3103.0;attach=19279)

It would appear that litz is not much good at such high frequency,  because of the large amounts of dielectric material that cause low Q, looks like a better option is tube

and if we look at a skin depth chart stainless steel comes out way ahead i think followed by Nickle Silver then Steel & Tin.

Not yet sure how practical or how easy it will be to get hold of and bend.

S.Steel seems to be about 55um @ 45Mhz

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.05, 22:34:21
It would appear that litz is not much good at such high frequency,  because of the large amounts of dielectric material that cause low Q,

No, because the different strands of the Litz cable are at the same potential, so the dielectric does not form a capacitor between the neighboring strands. 
Electric potential differences occur only between turns and layers, so that is where the dielectric loss does the most damage to the Q.

Therefore Litz still rulez.

Current crowding (proximity effect) is still a large factor so turn-to-turn spacing matters.

I am yet to find any calculation tables that go over 2MHz for Litz, below this frequency i can find data.

and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litz_wire

QuoteLitz wire is a type of cable used in electronics to carry alternating current. The wire is designed to reduce the skin effect and proximity effect losses in conductors used at frequencies up to about 1 MHz.

and when you do a search for coils at 50MHz everyone seems to use copper or silver coloured tube

(http://www.qsl.net/zs6bte/Using%20the%20Heath%20SB220%20Linear%20on%2050%20and%2070%20MHz_files/image003.jpg)

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.06, 11:27:46
and when you do a search for coils at 50MHz everyone seems to use copper or silver coloured tube

That's an Argumentum ad Numerum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum). 
The Skin Effect does not stop just because the outside surface of a conductor is a part of a tube.

It is true that a waveguide, such as a coaxial cable, is less lossy than a Litz cable in transporting signals above 2MHz from one point to another.
...and internally silver coated waveguides are good for microwaves.

The purpose of our helical winding is not to transport a signal from one end of the winding to the other.  Instead its purpose is to create a variable magnetic field inside this winding.

Fair enough
I will try making a spaced 4 turn with the litz i have left over and we can then compare  O0

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.06, 11:27:46
I am yet to find any calculation tables that go over 2MHz for Litz, below this frequency i can find data.

and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litz_wire

and when you do a search for coils at 50MHz everyone seems to use copper or silver coloured tube

(http://www.qsl.net/zs6bte/Using%20the%20Heath%20SB220%20Linear%20on%2050%20and%2070%20MHz_files/image003.jpg)

I think one of the reasons most of the time solid copper wire is used for higher frequencies is because the solid copper wire is easier to work with.   To wind a coil for 50 mhz you just take a piece of number 12 or 14 gauge wire and wrap it around a round bar or small pipe of the appropriate size and you have a coil that will hold it's shape when taken off the pipe or bar.  For litz you have to have some way to support the wire to get it to retain the shape you want.  Also at vhf frequencies you can tune the circuit just be spreading or compressing the turns of the solid copper wire coil.

It would be interesting to see what difference in inductance there would be between coils if one had litz and the other solid copper wire.  I haven't seen any charts that show that.

Carroll

A New spaced coil only had enough homemade litz for 3.25 Turns though

49.4-45.9=3.5
45.9-42.5=3.4


bandwidth 6.9MHz
Q = 45.9/6.9=6.65

Not that much change really

Also made a Bias coil 40 Turns of 1mm wire, 22 turns first with 18 turns on top, 2cm wide,
measured inductance is 48uH, now this measured inductance on the core has me worried, there seems to be something amiss .
I am using this calculator to design my coil magnetic field, for iron i should be using a relative permeability of 200 and that's how i arrived at 40 turns for 0.5T field strength but according to the same calculator my measured inductance should be 8mH
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/electromagnetism/solenoid

Now if i put a relative permeability of 1 into the calculator instead of my cores 200 i get roughly the measured inductance, but then my magnetic field strength is only 0.002T which is way too low, so i am currently not sure whats wrong here but it looks like my field strength is way too low and i need to find some other calculator software to check this out.
at 1 Amp should give me

I've increased the winding diameter to 30mm to allow for a heater on top of the core.

Oh boy it gets worse, according to this site

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_%28electromagnetism%29

Iron (99.8% pure)       Permeability µ [H/m]= 6.3×10−3    and relative = 5000

so now in that calculator for 40 turns i have 12T field and an inductance = 201mH

and then if i go here and enter my values to estimate the inductance of an air core
http://www.circuits.dk/calculator_multi_layer_aircore.htm

It agrees with my measured inductance, so this begs the question why is my bias coil behaving as if there's no core present??

In other words why does my core appear to have the same permeability of free space, is it because the coils inner diameter is 1cm bigger than the outer diameter of my core.  :D


EDIT just measured it's inductance off the core at 39uH @10khz & 48.9 on the core @ 10Khz

if i test it at 120 Hz i get 61uH off the core and 155uH on the core @120Hz

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 10:20:12
A New spaced coil only had enough homemade litz for 3.25 Turns though

Was the turn spacing equal to the wire thickness?

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 10:20:12
49.4-45.9=3.5
45.9-42.5=3.4
bandwidth 6.9MHz

Measured like this (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3103.0;attach=19279)?

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 10:20:12
Q = 45.9/6.9=6.65
Not that much change really

The Q might be dominated by other circuit components, e.g. the capacitor or leads.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 10:20:12
Also made a Bias coil 40 Turns of 1mm wire, 22 turns first with 18 turns on top, 2cm wide,
measured inductance is 48uH, now this measured inductance on the core has me worried, there seems to be something amiss .
I am using this calculator to design my coil's magnetic field, for iron I should be using a relative permeability of 200 and that's how i arrived at 40 turns for 0.5T field strength but according to the same calculator my measured inductance should be 8mH

According to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_%28electromagnetism%29#Values_for_some_common_materials), the permeability of 99.8% iron should be around 5000.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 10:20:12
Now if i put a relative permeability of 1 into the calculator instead of my cores 200 i get roughly the measured inductance, but then my magnetic field strength is only 0.002T which is way too low, so i am currently not sure whats wrong here

The Eddy currents in a conductive core can decrease the measured permeability.  Check if the measured permeability changes drastically with the frequency of inductance measurement.  Negative strong frequency dependency suggests, that the Eddy currents in the core are repelling the AC magnetic filed created by the inductance meter.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 11:50:53
It agrees with my measured inductance, so this begs the question why is my bias coil behaving as if there's no core present??

Eddy currents or measurement error is all I can think of.  Eddy currents repel the magnetic field (or freeze it).
Especially the Eddy currents in the steel bracket because it has lager dimensions than the rod.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 11:50:53
In other words why does my core appear to have the same permeability of free space, is it because the coils inner diameter is 1cm bigger than the outer diameter of my core.

No.  Try putting a piece of ferrite inside that coil and see if the inductance shoots up.  Ferrites do not support Eddy currents.  Also Eddy currents do not exist at DC so you can expect that the constant magnetic field developed in the core/rod at DC will be radically different from an AC field.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 10:20:12
I've increased the winding diameter to 30mm to allow for a heater on top of the core.

That's good.  Larger coils immerse the rod in a more homogeneous field towards their center.  See the picture below:

(http://overunity.com/14632/magnetic-question/dlattach/attach/138554/)

QuoteWas the turn spacing equal to the wire thickness?

It's more like 1.5 times gap space between wire, i used plastic coil space strips and only had that size so could not control the gap.

Quote from: Peterae on Today at 10:20:12

Quote49.4-45.9=3.5
    45.9-42.5=3.4
    bandwidth 6.9MHz

Measured like this?
yes

QuoteAccording to this, the permeability of 99.8% iron should be around 5000.

Sorry i added another post and then edited as you were posting this, if you go back you will see i added another post after the one you replied to.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 12:03:40
Sorry i added another post and then edited as you were posting this, if you go back you will see i added another post after the one you replied to.

I edited my previous post, too... ;)

Sorry run out of time today.

I am wondering if i need to carry out some tests on this iron core as suggested here
http://meettechniek.info/passive/magnetic-permeability.html

The Driving dependence permeability test would be interesting at 45MHz although it suggests 100Hz to 1Khz for test.

With my meter set to 120Hz i should be reading mH for that bias coil and i am not, instead i am only reading uH, i could probably hold a UGN3503 at the end of the iron rod if i take one end of the core supports off to measure the flux strength to compare the measured flux.

Does a core not need to be closed for a coil to see the full permeability of the core, maybe the air gap at one end is introducing a series permeability affecting the value.

Personally i would rely on the measured inductance value, and in that case i need to make a coil with the appropriate measured mH value, that way i know i have the 0.5T flux level for the used 1Amp current.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 13:09:28
The Driving dependence permeability test would be interesting at 45MHz although it suggests 100Hz to 1Khz for test.

I think so, too.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 13:09:28
With my meter set to 120Hz i should be reading mH for that bias coil and i am not, instead i am only reading uH, i could probably hold a UGN3503 at the end of the iron rod if i take one end of the core supports off to measure the flux strength to compare the measured flux.

Yes, but the best location for the magnetic flux density sensor is in the air gap.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 13:09:28
Does a core not need to be closed for a coil to see the full permeability of the core,

Yes

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 13:09:28
maybe the air gap at one end is introducing a series permeability affecting the value.

I am sure it is but not enough to bring the combined relative permeability down to 1.
The gap area is a surface of a cylinder in the hole.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 13:09:28
Personally i would rely on the measured inductance value, and in that case i need to make a coil with the appropriate measured mH value, that way i know i have the 0.5T flux level for the used 1Amp current.

The magnetic flux density sensor measurement in the air gap is an ultimate direct measurement of a constant field at DC.

QuoteYes, but the best location for the magnetic flux density sensor is in the air gap.

I dont think the UGN3503 is small enough to fit in the gap, as the gap is slightly under 1mm and is circular in shape, and anyway surely the magnetic field strength will be spread around the circumference of the core and gapped end plate so would only measure a small portion of the field.

maybe the thing to do is carry out the dependence permeability test with and without the end plate to see what difference there is.

I'm away for 4 days as from tomorrow, not that that makes much difference as i only get weekends on this anyway.

QuoteI am sure it is but not enough to bring the combined relative permeability down to 1.

A bit of exaggeration on my part, it is certainly above 1 but does not look much above, i can work on this by looking at my measured inductance versus calculated.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 19:26:08
I dont think the UGN3503 is small enough to fit in the gap,

I was afraid of that.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 19:26:08
and anyway surely the magnetic field strength will be spread around the circumference of the core and gapped end plate so would only measure a small portion of the field.

Flux will be spread this way, not flux density, which is already flux divided by area.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.07, 19:26:08
maybe the thing to do is carry out the dependence permeability test with and without the end plate to see what difference there is.

You could do that.
Did you try inserting a ferrite rod instead of the iron rod to see what difference the absence of eddy current makes?

QuoteDid you try inserting a ferrite rod instead of the iron rod to see what difference the absence of eddy current makes?

Ran out of time, will try this next weekend  O0
I have a ferrite rod aerial, i will try this ferrite rod.

So carrying on from last time.

I know that my bias coil has 40T and it's inner diameter is 30mm and it's 1mm wire, giving a loop diameter of 31mm

on the core i get 147uH and as an air core i get 61uH

Using the calc here http://www.eeweb.com/toolbox/coil-inductance (http://www.eeweb.com/toolbox/coil-inductance)
So running the calcs for air i get 0.0000753 H or 75.3uH (measured 61uH) Looks good for air

with the core i get 147uH which gives me a relative permeability of about 1.4

So next to carry out the tests here, so i wound 150Turns of wire onto the iron core.
I measured the total magnetic path length as 330mm so lc = 330mm
Area of core with diameter of 20mm = 314mm2 so Ac=0.000314

I ran the system at 10KHz to get good amplitude for VL & IL and am using Rms voltages for calcs

IL=VR/R
IL=50.3mV/10
IL=0.00503 Amps

therefore uc (absolute permeability)= VL*lc / IL * Ac * N2 * 2pi * f

uc = (78.2mv * 330mm) / ( 0.00503 * 0.000314 * 150^2 * 2pi * 10000)
uc = 0.025806 / 2232.85242
uc = 1.15574 x 10-5 H·m−1

µr = µc / µ0

µr = 1.15574 x 10-5 / 1.2566370614 ×10−6
ur = 9.197


Here's the experiment and calcs page, i did Fig 1 test circuit.

http://meettechniek.info/passive/magnetic-permeability.html




EDIT
OK i just re did the experiment at 100Hz

IL=VR/R
IL = 52.5mv / 10
IL = 0.00525 Amps

therefore uc (absolute permeability)= VL*lc / IL * Ac * N2 * 2pi * f

uc = 14.9mV * 330mm / 0.00525 * 0.000314 * 150^2 * 2pi * 100
uc = 0.004917 / 23.3051197
uc = 2.1098 x10-4

µr = µc / µ0
ur = 2.1098 x10-4/ 1.2566370614 ×10−6
ur = 167.9


OK worked out my problem Ac wrong, so have amended my results above

Done a whole range of tests on the core today at different frequencies.

Here's the openoffice calc sheet
and a graph

Frequency (Hz)       ur Relative Permeability

1                           85104.2087086032
10                         7009.5528736088
20                         3545.9746457914
40                         1782.2443764725
100                       726.9583944169
200                       373.7802630722
400                       193.9317102927
800                       103.0953956195
1000                     84.8735739967
2000                     46.6126662721
4000                     26.8530030133
8000                     16.0437830316
10000                   14.0047045292
20000                   8.8614478555
50000                   5.1610923318
100000                 3.5894904096
200000                 2.0834773901
500000                 1.485185365
1000000               1.1437175365
2000000               0.9647272589
5000000               0.7221140347
10000000             0.1641680225
15000000             0.0629936064
20000000             0.0866588487
25000000             0.0052553037

Not sure what to make of the below 1 Relative Permeability values, i looked this up and it only happens with Super Conductors, i think it is more likely the losses get so big that the results are swayed off track.

I used Log Axes for X & Y so we could see the data.

Not sure how applicable this is for our calculations but i found this formulae

http://www.micrometals.com/images/curves/SIformulapg29.gif

and considering we were told

QuoteThe second coil (4) is traversed by a sinusoidal wave of 21 MHz and 10-4 Tesla power which is a nuclear magnetic resonance activator allowing 180 ° rotation of the nuclear spine

So using my 4 Turn coil and core cross section i now know that if our coil has a RMS voltage of 30V at 45MHz then we will have a B flux max peak of 0.0001195463 Teslas which matches our required Flux.

I used 4.44 instead of 4 in the formulae this allows me to use Vrms instead of Vavg

I cannot seem to find any of my UGN3503 hall effect sensors so have ordered some for B field tests.

I connected my 1.5 Watt amplifier up to my DDS and connected the 4 Turn coil to the Amplifier output to see what sort of matching issues i might have.

I uses 2 x 1.1 Ohm resistors in parallel to form a 0.55Ohm for current sensing, still 2 high a value really so will order some 0.1 Ohm resistors.

Anyway below are some scope shots with the 4 Turn coil, i get some sinewave distortion at 44.5MHz even after tuning the variable capacitor, but at higher frequencies after retuning the cap this harmonic distortion seems to go away, i can adjust the DDS level to which i drive the pre amplifier and that does not alter the situation.
The scope shots are taken at different frequencies as can been seen on the scope frequency counter in each picture.
Cyan Chan is across the LC, Yellow from ground side of LC to series resistor side of LC, Math subtracts the 2 to give the wave across the current sense 0.55 Ohm resistor.

If i go by the previous post and calculate the Bmax Field i get

QuickPrint7 =  34.5 uT
QuickPrint8 = 32 uT
QuickPrint11 = 46 uT

So i am well under the requirements for the required 100uT but not by much considering i am running at 1.5 Watts

I need to understand the distortion with 44.5MHz, the cyan channel is fine so that's across LC, the yellow is across the R-LC and the distortion can be seen, i have a feeling it's because the 0.55 Ohms CSR is too big, so must get a 0.1 Ohm

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.12, 17:01:40
with the core i get 147uH which gives me a relative permeability of about 1.4

But this is a sum of the positive permeability of iron and negative permeability caused by eddy currents.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.12, 17:01:40
I measured the total magnetic path length as 330mm so lc = 330mm

How did you measure that with a non-closed magnetic path?
You can directly include the width of an air gap only when the air gap is very small and flux fringing does not effect the effective gap area significantly.
However your air gap is huge because you are using a rod for a core!

See the section titled "Gap area correction" in this paper (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=21273).

QuoteBut this is a sum of the positive permeability of iron and negative permeability caused by eddy currents.

I will test the B field strength as soon as i get the UGN3503 Hall effect sensors at DC for the bias coil

QuoteHow did you measure that with a non-closed magnetic path?

There were details on the website on where to use, it is basically a path all the way around the iron rod down the left side along bottom and up the right side back to the iron rod and the centre line is used in each case.

So cannot remember if i built it to this early drawing
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3107.0;attach=18829)
but taking this drawing for example then we would have 100mm for the top iron bar, 100mm for the bottom, 60mm for left and right, for this drawing it would be 320mm so it appears my build was a slightly different size, i also went on to use a 20mm diameter iron rod instead of the drawings 18mm

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.17, 18:25:45
There were details on the website on where to use, it is basically a path all the way around the iron rod down the left side along bottom and up the right side back to the iron rod and the center line is used in each case.

But the yoke walls are pretty thin so there will be a significant leakage flux like on the diagram below:

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.14, 16:43:23
Anyway below are some scope shots with the 4 Turn coil, i get some sinewave distortion at 44.5MHz even after tuning the variable capacitor,

Any indication of something different at this Fe NMR frequency is hopeful.  What is the bandwidth of this distortion?

What I am really missing is the permeability tabulations with an air coil, ferrite rod and even a copper rod.

This would allow me to subtract the response of the coil itself from the response of the rod, to obtain the contribution of the rod.

QuoteWhat I am really missing is the permeability tabulations with an air coil, ferrite rod and even a copper rod.

So what is the closed flux path length for a Rod?
When i know that then i could try it, or do you mean push a copper rod into my iron U shaped frame ?

During the week i ordered some enamelled wire to make some more litz, i also ordered some Bronze ribbon wire, Bronze has 3 times the skin depth and the ribbon maximises the surface area.

I want to try a 10 turn coil, meyer used 22 Turns at 23MHz which i find interesting.

QuoteAny indication of something different at this Fe NMR frequency is hopeful.  What is the bandwidth of this distortion?

No it's not at exactly 45Mhz but appears below around 50Mhz, the current waveform is undistorted but the voltage gets misshapen, probably some sort of impedance mismatch.

EDIT
Dam i have my traces the wrong way around in this post and with the waveforms post 185 (now corrected).
Yellow is the Voltage R-LC, Cyan is across the Voltage across LC.
So my voltage across LC is good, and my Math purple (R-LC - LC) has distortion, so it's the current thats distorted not the LC Voltage.
I will go back to post 185 and change the scope colours to correct them.

Quote from: verpies on 2016.02.20, 03:26:56
Any indication of something different at this Fe NMR frequency is hopeful.  What is the bandwidth of this distortion?

What I am really missing is the permeability tabulations with an air coil, ferrite rod and even a copper rod.

This would allow me to subtract the response of the coil itself from the response of the rod, to obtain the contribution of the rod.

Don't know whether section 1.3 of my paper is of any help.  This allows you to calculate inductance for single layer coils using Nagaoka's geometric factor.  With permeable cores a more accurate calculation would use published demagnetization factors for rods in place of Nagaoka's.  The effect of a copper rod could be modeled by giving it a permeability below 1 but the actual value to use will depend on the frequency.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2016.02.20, 09:30:58
Don't know whether section 1.3 of my paper is of any help.  This allows you to calculate inductance for single layer coils using Nagaoka's geometric factor. 

Of course it will be but not completely because the eddy currents in the solid iron rod and steel yoke are repelling the magnetic flux.
If you look above at Peterae's tabulation of solid iron's permeability at different frequencies, then you will see that above certain frequencies the eddy currents start to dominate the ferromagnetism and yield a relative permeability below 1.

Quote from: Smudge on 2016.02.20, 09:30:58
With permeable cores a more accurate calculation would use published demagnetization factors for rods in place of Nagaoka's. 

...but what about the frequency dependent permeability of theses cores?  How to model that for the shape of the yoke?

Just to clarify my last post.  Nagaoka's formula (1) gives you the inductance of an air cored coil.  That coil has an internal reluctance in series with the return path outside the coil.  This is modeled as two reluctances in series (figure 2) driven by the coil mmf.  Equation (9) is the inductance for those two reluctances and equations (3) and (10) gives you those two reluctances.  With other than air as the core you use the permeability to change the internal reluctance from air to a new value, ending up with equation (12) for the inductance.  For muR=1 (12) reverts back to (1).  To model the effect of a copper coil, at low frequencies the copper reduces the inductance to almost zero.  Putting muR as zero into (12) gives you zero inductance.  The real effect will be somewhere in between zero and the air cored inductance which you get by putting muR between 0 and 1.  Can't tell you what value to use but it could be got by doing some measurements.

Smudge

Smudge

For a picture of my Setup see here
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3107.msg54334#msg54334

I need to design a DC Bias coil to give 0.5T but i dont know what to use for my permeability.

I could just wind some wire and measure the Inductance using my LCR meter and try to work out the B Field from the measure Inductance, but my meter only tests at 100Hz,120Hz & 10KHz

Any pointer here would be good, i am hoping to use 1mm enameled copper at 1 Amp current

I am going to do some sniffing tests using a ratiometric hall sensor but to do this i have to remove one side of my U shaped frame to get the hall near the magnetic path and so this test will not represent my true U frame flux.

@Smudge

What do you think of linearly interpolating this (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3107.msg54582#msg54582)  μ_r vs. f curve, all the way down to DC in order to obtain the permeability, that Peterae can use for his DC bias coil calculations ?

Can you think of a better method ?

OK some DC Bias measurements with a AH350

The Bias coil was driven using 5Amps for this test

The AH350 is ratiometric picture QP1 shows a DC offset of 2.62V at zero flux

I found the maximum Flux on the iron core was at the outer circumference and QP2 shows a voltage of 3.16V

So we have 3.16V-2.62V=540mV

According to the datasheet when driven at 5v the AH350 has a sensitivity of 2.2mv/G so therefore we have 245G

Tesla = Gauss/10000

so we have a flux B of 0.024T

so no where near our required 0.5T

OK built a 10 Turn Bronze wire tape coil see picture

Here's some scope shots as well, i am now using the 1 Ohm series LC Resistor again for current monitoring, it has better a resolution

Each shot was taken at different frequencies to show distortion and how it changes with frequency.

QuickPrint1 was interesting, if i set the DDS to 100Mhz i can then use the variable cap to set the operating frequency with this coil

The flux density measurement would be much more accurate (and larger) if you'd placed the sensor like on the diagram below in the green zone.

Optionally, you could plug the hole in the yoke with a second piece of that iron rod, if you have any left, so the hole is not in the way and the long rod does not have to be skewed like that.

Hi verpies
yes that's a good idea, but i dont have a press to push the pure iron rod along a bit, and i just tried hitting it to move it and it wont budge, must be a good interference fit due to my good engineering skills  :)

I do have mild steel the diameter to plug the hole.
If i can find a way to move it i will give it a go.

Quote from: verpies on 2016.02.20, 15:17:44
The flux density measurement would be much more accurate if you'd placed the sensor like on the diagram below in the green zone.

Optionally, you could plug the hole in the yoke with a second piece of that iron rod, if you have any left, so the hole is not in the way and the long rod does not have to be skewed like that.

Oo oops, the last piece might be on holiday in N Wales!! :)

As an afterthought, do you have any Emery tape Peterae? You could remove a few thou by that means.

Hi Grumage
it is meant to be a interference fit

Hi Peterae.

Indeed. I was suggesting what I would term a " Squeaky " fit. A fine Emery tape will just knock off those high spots so you can rotate the rod into the hole, without lube it would squeak.   ;)

Cheers Grum.

Quote from: verpies on 2016.02.20, 12:32:58
@Smudge

What do you think of linearly interpolating this (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3107.msg54582#msg54582)  μ_r vs. f curve, all the way down to DC in order to obtain the permeability, that Peterae can use for his DC bias coil calculations ?

Can you think of a better method ?

Something seriously wrong with those measurements.  This is showing enormous inductance at low frequencies.  The inductance  L=V/(w*i) is part of the hidden math used in those calcs and it is giving nonsensical values.  What is the DCR of the 150 turn coil used?  If that is any near to the 10 ohms then it could perhaps explain things.

Smudge

QuoteSomething seriously wrong with those measurements.  This is showing enormous inductance at low frequencies.  The inductance  L=V/(w*i) is part of the hidden math used in those calcs and it is giving nonsensical values.  What is the DCR of the 150 turn coil used?  If that is any near to the 10 ohms then it could perhaps explain things.

Strange, i dont think the coil could be 10Ohms, i will check in the morning, could there be a mistake in my maths in the spread sheet, or are you saying that my measured voltages are incorrect.
I posted the spreadsheet and data in that post

Oh hang on the CSR was 10 Ohm that was used to measure current

On thinking about it the formula you used to calculate mu is only accurate where the reactance is much greater than the coil resistance.  Clearly at frequencies down to 1 Hz there is a problem.  The internet site you got the formula from should have a health warning about this, but it doesn't.  The problem is the voltage that is claimed to be across the inductor isn't, it is across the series coil R plus inductance.  So when there is current involved it is not the inductor voltage that you are seeing.  I'll put up a correction in a moment, but first I have to have breakfast.

Smudge

OK here we go.  If you have available the current i into an inductor and the voltage V across it then from V=omega*L*i you can get the inductance as L=V/(omega*i).  Then from L=mu*N^2*Area/length you can derive a formula for absolute mu as mu=V*length/(N^2*Area*omega*i) which is the formula you found on the web.  But if the coil has series R then what you measure as V is actually across the impedance Z=sqrt((omega*L)^2+R^2)=V/i.  So the formula for mu has to be modified to mu=sqrt((V/i)^2-R^2)*length/(N^2*Area*omega).

I thought I could modify your spread sheet with different values for R to get something sensible but that didn't work out too well.  What I can say is that there is no material on earth that has the mu values plotted against frequency that you found.  You mention that your core has an air gap, and it is a fact that in that situation the reluctance of the magnetic circuit is not dependent on the core mu, it gets very close to the reluctance of the air gap itself.  So there can't be that variation of effective mu with frequency that you found.  A drop-off at high frequencies can be explained by eddy currents, but the steady increase at ever lower frequencies is just nonsense.

If I read things correctly you wish to establish the DC bias current necessary to get 0.5 Tesla in your core.  I would be inclined to forget about calculating the mu and concentrate on getting a measure of the flux.  Have two windings, one to carry the bias current and the other as a sense winding.  Use a low frequency as close to DC as you can get and still have sensible results.  Drive known current into the bias coil then measure the open circuit voltage on the sense coil.  That voltage is not affected by coil resistance since no significant current is flowing there.  But the voltage is related to the flux in the core. If you have pure sine waves  then you can easily obtain the flux from V=N*omega*flux.  If not sine waves then you really need to integrate the voltage over a complete cycle, but the answer you get is flux.  Remember flux is B*Area.  Now you have flux against current so you can easily determine the current you need for your 0.5 Tesla.  Use that value for your DC bias.

Smudge

Thanks for your time Smudge

QuoteIf I read things correctly you wish to establish the DC bias current necessary to get 0.5 Tesla in your core.

Yes thats right, i will work on your proposed method, Thank you  O0

Quote from: Smudge on 2016.02.21, 10:52:40
Have two windings, one to carry the bias current and the other as a sense winding.  Use a low frequency as close to DC as you can get and still have sensible results.  Drive known current into the bias coil then measure the open circuit voltage on the sense coil. 

Why wouldn't the open circuit voltage on the sense coil be simply defined by the transformer's turns ratio?

Quote from: verpies on 2016.02.22, 11:32:58
Why wouldn't the open circuit voltage on the sense coil be simply defined by the transformer's turns ratio?

If there is significant voltage drop across the primary coil resistance then the open circuit secondary voltage is not defined by the turns ratio.  And if the core is lossy the primary current is high even with the secondary open circuit.  At 45 MHz the core will be quite lossy because of eddy currents if nothing else.  The secondary voltage will give an accurate representation of the flux whereas the primary voltage won't.

Smudge

Dont forget the whole idea was to use a low frequency as close to DC maybe 1Hz or 10Hz to get a value for my Bias
Coil, so 45MHz does not come into it for this test  O0

QuoteIf there is significant voltage drop across the primary coil resistance then the open circuit secondary voltage is not defined by the turns ratio.

So from this it looks like i need very thin wire and lots of turns for each coil?

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.02.22, 18:15:55
Dont forget the whole idea was to use a low frequency as close to DC maybe 1Hz or 10Hz to get a value for my Bias
Coil, so 45MHz does not come into it for this test  O0
So from this it looks like i need very thin wire and lots of turns for each coil?

Maybe lots of turns for the sense winding.  But the drive coil may need fewer turns so that you are driving it with current and not voltage.  Don't really know.

Smudge

Could i drive with a square wave, that way i would easily know what current flows when in the on state

So what happened?

Time & Money have been short, too many other things been going on, i will pick it up again soon though, i desperately need to get hold of a Geiger Counter next, i need to be able to tell the difference between X-rays & Beta and preferably cheapish, any ideas are well welcome, i have tried building an ION chamber but have been unable to make it sensitive enough so far.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.04.30, 20:53:20
I desperately need to get hold of a Geiger Counter next, i need to be able to tell the difference between X-rays & Beta and preferably cheapish, any ideas are well welcome,

Did you try this source (http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/products.asp?dept=1473) ?
They have kits, too.

Thanks verpies that's a great link.


I just found this on ebay it would plug into my tablet.

QuoteIt detect low levels of hard beta and gamma particles. Running the test for longer than two minutes will yield more accurate results

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Smart-Geiger-Pro-SGP-001-Nuclear-Radiation-Detector-Counter-For-Smartphone-iOS-/172143967386?hash=item2814947c9a:g:iIwAAOSwu1VW7sHf

The biggest problem i will have is RF induced readings and whether they are real readings.

I wonder if this is using pin diodes as the detector, maybe i better try and stick with a tube, data logging would be real handy but i guess it will always come down to cost.

Quote from: Peterae on 2016.05.01, 20:06:06
The biggest problem i will have is RF induced readings and whether they are real readings.

Yes, these things are really susceptible to RF EMI.

Is there no way to shield the circuit under test to
prevent the undesired RF from reaching the high
energy radiation detector?  Perhaps it could be
enclosed in a fairly small metal cage or box?

In studying the link Peterae provided to the Smart
Geiger Pro (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Smart-Geiger-Pro-SGP-001-Nuclear-Radiation-Detector-Counter-For-Smartphone-iOS-/172143967386?hash=item2814947c9a:g:iIwAAOSwu1VW7sHf) it appears that the app is capable of
recording a "History" to memory.  Does anyone know
if it is capable of recording to memory a replica of
the sampling event?  Something that could be "played
back" in order to re-create the sampling?

If so, perhaps the small unit itself could be enclosed in
a shielded box to monitor the circuit under test; recording
the test to memory free from RF interference.

It is no wonder the "Smartphone" has become a nearly
indispensable tool for this modern generation. But, I'm not
ready for one yet.  Probably never will be. ;)

I do marvel at how people are almost constantly fiddling
with their cellphones though. C.C