OverUnity Research

Where does the extra energy come from?

QuoteImprovement in Induction Coils. Patent #119825 Daniel McFarland Cook

"... leaving a sufficient surplus terminal to overcome the resistance of the primary wire and charge the bar A to a degree necessary to reproduce itself in an opposite secondary coil."

QuoteSystem for Generation of Electric Currents. Patent #14311 Carlos Benitez

"... when the circuit is broken by the interrupter, condenser 14 is charged and immediately afterwards discharges ... The direct current that is produced when the discharge of said condenser 14 is finished, passing through pole 18 and entering the primary 15 through pole 16, produces a new charge ... "

These two patents clearly indicate these inventors believed additional emf is produced by the discharge of induction transformer secondaries. Since this discharge is produced in induction coils, it stands to reason the terminal emf is induced during the collapse of the core's magnetic field. Notice in the Cook patent the words "charge the bar A to a degree necessary to reproduce itself". Cook is clearly stating a magnetic field of sufficient strength must be recreated in bar A by it's coil to produce another terminal secondary current so the cycle can repeat.

Supposedly everyone knows the energy of a solenoid coil is stored in the magnetic field of the core. Right?

I don't think so, not in a direct way. Most of us are familiar with Leedskalin's "perpetual motion holder". Think about that for a moment. As long as a keeper is stuck across the end of the bar the magnetic force or field is maintained in the bar, as evidenced by the emf that will be produced in a coil wound around the bar when the keeper is removed. That emf is produced by the collapse of the magnetic field of the bar, which has maintained itself, for years in some cases, without additional electric input from a solenoid coil on the bar.

In a non-magnetized iron core, small areas of iron are naturally magnetically aligned. These individual areas have magnetic fields with vectors pointing every which way from each other, resulting in a non-coherent over all magnetic field.
In my opinion this is the sequence that takes place when DC electricity is applied to a solenoid coil. The electricity in the coil creates a magnetic field around the wires which in turn forces some of the core iron to align along the vector of the coil magnetic field. That is where some of the electrical energy of the coil is expended, not stored, establishing it's own fields and forcing core iron into magnetic alignment. Normally, some of that electrical energy being expended during the coil on period goes to heat radiation and the vast majority of it to destroying the potential difference in the source.

Next, at a later time, a new emf is induced in the coil by the collapse of the iron core magnetic field.

Two events have been presented so far.
   1. The emf expended establishing a magnetic field in the core.
   2. A new emf generated when the core's magnetic field collapses.
Two events that can be separated by time. This supports the statements made in the Cook and Benitez patents regarding additional electricity.

An experiment was performed using a straight core transformer with the secondary configured with a diode  in order to receive only the inductive collapse. This transformer is far from being optimized. Each coil is in series with a cap so each outputs into it's own 3000uF 400V electrolytic cap. 

Results with a 1 ms pulse from 17.4VDC source through a diode. Both caps initially zeroed.
Primary cap. 12.4V   .003 × 12.4 = 0.0372 Coulomb
Secondary cap. 5.7V  .003 × 5.7 = 0.0171 Coulomb
0.0543 Coulomb total, or 1.6 times the primary.
About 47% additional in cap 2, which is pretty good considering that is the inductive collapse only, minus the diode loss.

I am not claiming OU, only showing a source for additional energy. The iron and it's magnetic field.

Cadman

Coulombs is a product of half of the voltage squared, times the capacitance.  No extra energy with this, compared to the primary.

Search this forum for the Energia Celeste patents.

There are also a few posts about high voltage pulses increasing the strength of a magnetic field.


Edit:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=356.msg13579#msg13579

Quote from: Jerry Volland on 2022.06.07, 00:49:51
Coulombs is a product of half of the voltage squared, times the capacitance.  No extra energy with this, compared to the primary.

Hi Jerry,

That formula is for stored energy (Joules). C times V is for charge, Coulombs.
And you're right, no extra energy with this compared to the primary.

Regards
Cadman

Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.06.07, 01:37:51
Search this forum for the Energia Celeste patents.

Thanks Grumpy. I'll have to see if something like that could be applied here, after I study it for a while.

Cheers
Cadman

Another interesting, and related, incident was Elihu Thomson's demonstration of a Ruhmkorff coil and found he could draw a spark from any metallic object in the room. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=BhYBAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=elihu+thomson+demonstration+coil+sparks+doorknob&source=bl&ots=yOeZd73nKI&sig=ACfU3U0xnElvZ9eb5-iOuShV5-f3TIKvng&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwit3oPC2pv4AhWYRzABHT1aA8YQ6AF6BAgZEAM#v=onepage&q=elihu%20thomson%20demonstration%20coil%20sparks%20doorknob&f=false

Tesla studied this and a similar case of Henry where he discharged a capacitor and found that needles?/nails? in the basement of the building became magnetized.  Others noticed that lightning storms magnetized needles.

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Bell-System-Technical-Journal/30s/Bell-1932c.o.pdf

These events led to Tesla's radiant energy discovery and development.

Quote from: Cadman on 2022.06.07, 12:28:03
Hi Jerry,

That formula is for stored energy (Joules). C times V is for charge, Coulombs.
And you're right, no extra energy with this, compared to the primary.

One of the things I intend to determine is, how does the total charge in C1 and C2 compare to the charge expended from the source.

Regards
Cadman

Thanks.  That's some important information, now that I know I don't always have to square the voltage.  I keep trying to figure out how many Coulombs I can have in one Mole of dielectric.  I think the charge will increase significantly at higher potential.  This is off topic, but I need to store around 30 Mega Joules to impart orbital kinetic energy, for each kilo of payload.  I'm using a five gallon bucket with 60 Moles in my example.

Quote from: Cadman on 2022.06.07, 12:57:33
Thanks Grumpy. I'll have to see if something like that could be applied here, after I study it for a while.

Cheers
Cadman

see attached:

Francis Nipher concluded that an influence machine (Wimshurst?) altered the permeability of the air around the magnet that it was attached to.
One might also add that a magnetized metallic needle will also respond to an electric field, not just a magnetic field...

Quote from: Grumpy on 2022.06.07, 18:20:44
see attached:

Francis Nipher concluded that an influence machine (Wimshurst?) altered the permeability of the air around the magnet that it was attached to.
One might also add that a magnetized metallic needle will also respond to an electric field, not just a magnetic field...

Even if we had permalloy with a relative permeability of about 100,000, diluted to a density equivalent to air, it is doubtful that we would see any significant effect.
Permeability comes from atoms and molecules, and so its effect depends on their density. Air has far too low a density for an effect on its molecules to translate into an effect on its permeability (µr = 1.0000004).
Everything seems to point rather to an effect of static electricity of the ionised air.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.06.08, 09:49:21
Even if we had permalloy with a relative permeability of about 100,000, diluted to a density equivalent to air, it is doubtful that we would see any significant effect.
Permeability comes from atoms and molecules, and so its effect depends on their density. Air has far too low a density for an effect on its molecules to translate into an effect on its permeability (µr = 1.0000004).
Everything seems to point rather to an effect of static electricity of the ionised air.

Air weighs 1.2Kg per cubic meter, so there are a lot of molecules there.  Non ionized molecules do not have a magnetic moment so air has virtually no permeability.  But do ionized molecules have a magnetic moment?  Isolated electrons do so I think it quite possible that ions do.  If so the ionized air could have permeability increased from that value you quoted.
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2022.06.17, 14:57:33
Air weighs 1.2Kg per cubic meter, so there are a lot of molecules there. Non ionized molecules do not have a magnetic moment so air has virtually no permeability.  But do ionized molecules have a magnetic moment?  Isolated electrons do so I think it quite possible that ions do.  If so the ionized air could have permeability increased from that value you quoted.
Smudge

1.2 Kg/m³ is a tiny density compared to any ferromagnetic material.
It is only 16 thousandths of the density of iron.

It is doubtful that you could make air molecules as magnetic as iron molecules. And even if you were to change their magnetic state, by ionizing them or otherwise, to the point that these molecules would be equivalent to iron, make a foam including iron at a ratio of only 1.2 Kg/m³, and try to measure magnetic effects, I doubt you would see much.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.06.18, 14:34:33
1.2 Kg/m³ is a tiny density compared to any ferromagnetic material.
It is only 16 thousandths of the density of iron.

But iron can have a huge relative permeability, like 180K.  On that basis ionized air could have a permeability of 10.  Not very high but possibly measurable.
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2022.06.20, 08:40:43
But iron can have a huge relative permeability, like 180K.  On that basis ionized air could have a permeability of 10.  Not very high but possibly measurable.
Smudge

Would permeability increase relative to ionization?

I wonder how far such a concept might be pushed.....

Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.06.20, 13:48:40
Would permeability increase relative to ionization?

Yes on the basis that each ionized atom gaining an extra electron also obtains a dipole moment in the order of the Bohr magneton.  The more atoms ionized the more dipoles that can be flipped hence the greater the permeability.  Don't know how far this can be taken.
Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2022.06.20, 08:40:43
But iron can have a huge relative permeability, like 180K.  On that basis ionized air could have a permeability of 10.  Not very high but possibly measurable.
Smudge

I don't think so.

The collective orientation of spins can only occur if they are close enough to each other to influence each other strongly enough to overcome molecular agitation. The force between magnetic dipoles weakens in 1/r³, so extremely rapidly with distance. Permeability is certainly not linear with density.

I am not aware that there are magnetic gases. The best that has been done required cooling to 150 millionths of a degree above absolute zero, otherwise molecular agitation destroys the alignments.
https://news.mit.edu/2009/magnetic-gas-0918

Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.06.20, 13:48:40
Would permeability increase relative to ionization?
...

Ionization does not concern atoms in crystal lattices, but those in liquids or gases.
If the atoms are not fixed, the spin orientation cannot be stable.

Here is something that is I found very helpful with "where does the energy come from"
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27406358

Cadman

QuoteThese two patents clearly indicate these inventors believed additional emf is produced by the discharge of induction transformer secondaries. Since this discharge is produced in induction coils, it stands to reason the terminal emf is induced during the collapse of the core's magnetic field. Notice in the Cook patent the words "charge the bar A to a degree necessary to reproduce itself". Cook is clearly stating a magnetic field of sufficient strength must be recreated in bar A by it's coil to produce another terminal secondary current so the cycle can repeat.

The key to understanding the Cook setup is in his description of multiple currents. A "terminal current" means a conduction current and an "induced current" means a current induced by a changing magnetic field. In the description we can see Cook is very precise in his language about each individual current, what it's doing and it's qualities.

I built and tested the Cook device and it's a good place to start experimenting. When Cook said a current can reproduce itself it's just as it sounds. For example, we have two solenoid coils A and B, if we charge then discharge coil A it can induce/reproduce a current like itself in coil B. However all the energy from A never transfers to B which produces losses. Cook overcame these losses by adding the terminal/conduction current left in A to the induced current which was induced in B. This is the reason why he separated the currents into terminal and induced currents as there not the same.

QuoteI don't think so, not in a direct way. Most of us are familiar with Leedskalin's "perpetual motion holder". Think about that for a moment. As long as a keeper is stuck across the end of the bar the magnetic force or field is maintained in the bar, as evidenced by the emf that will be produced in a coil wound around the bar when the keeper is removed. That emf is produced by the collapse of the magnetic field of the bar, which has maintained itself, for years in some cases, without additional electric input from a solenoid coil on the bar.

I also built and tested the "perpetual motion holder" PMH which is an interesting device similar to a capacitor in theory. When we generate a magnetic field across the gap on the U magnet and bar it's retained. This is true because the U magnet and bar are now two separate magnets having opposite polarities/poles which attract. Each pole end across the gap cannot dissipate because the other opposite pole won't let it.

This is similar to the reason why we cannot discharge only one terminal/plate of a charged capacitor. For example, we cannot discharge only the electrons on the (-) plate because all the (+) charges across the dielectric on the positive plate are holding them in place through attraction. The force of attraction is inward towards the dielectric center. Just as the magnetic forces on the U magnet and bar are inward towards the gaps.

This PMH is simply a means to store a magnetic field in the same way a capacitor stores an electric field. In fact, the phenomena is not much different than reel to reel and cassette tapes storing information on ferromagnetic tape as very tiny individual magnetic fields. It just goes to show how little the critics actually understand because the PMH is really simple.

Regards
AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.06.22, 15:41:01
Cadman
The key to understanding the Cook setup is in his description of multiple currents. A "terminal current" means a conduction current and an "induced current" means a current induced by a changing magnetic field. In the description we can see Cook is very precise in his language about each individual current, what it's doing and it's qualities.
...

AC,

Cook's description of his induction coils and their currents is what my experiment was designed around. Can they produce more than they consume?

The standard thinking is no induction coil can output more than input, which is true the way transformers are normally configured. What Jerry said in the second post is exactly right, 'No extra energy with this, compared to the primary'.

But Cook didn't use a normal configuration, did he. His coils were not configured as a load and the inducing current is not sent to ground, it's used and then sent to the other induction coil. Plus, his secondary coil output is used with the primary's, the terminal emfs induced in both coils are sent to the other induction coil.

I performed another test. A 4700uF cap was used as the source. A 1 ms pulse sent to the same transformer and circuit in the first post and then the source cap positive line disconnected from the circuit as quickly as possible with a toggle switch.

C1, source cap 4700uF 35V cap
Beginning charge 17.8V×0.00470 = 0.0837 C
Ending 16V×0.0047 = 0.0752 C
Charge used 0.0837− 0.0752 = 0.0085 C

C2 & C3, receiving caps 3000uF 400V
C2, output from primary coil: 14.7V×0.003 = 0.0441 C
C3, output from secondary coil: 6V×0.003 = 0.018 C
Total output C2+C3
0.0441+0.018 = 0.0621 C

COP (C2+C3)÷C1= 0.0621÷0.0085 = 7.3058

Without adding in the output from the primary, C2
COP = 0.018÷0.0085 = 2.117

Unless C1 is receiving extra charge from somewhere before I can take the voltage readings, I think the numbers are correct. But, I'm still skeptical.

Can anyone spot a mistake with my method or figures?

AC, did you see similar results in your Cook coils?

Regards
Cadman

@Cadman,

Charge is not energy, so using COP in relation to input and output charge is wrong.  Energy is charge times voltage, so could you repeat the COP calculations as energy ratio using the voltages of the input and output charges.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2022.06.25, 07:36:00
@Cadman,

Charge is not energy, so using COP in relation to input and output charge is wrong.  Energy is charge times voltage, so could you repeat the COP calculations as energy ratio using the voltages of the input and output charges.

Smudge

This could be confusing to guy's here, most relate this word with a battery (voltage in phase with current), perhaps you could share you're knowledge and explain.

If you look at or can find some of Nelsons Rocha's video's he just used a HVoltage lead and wound a small number of turns around and pulsed it with a current
thus adding volts and current supposedly and called it an electron trap, witch he then showed a gain of power, perhaps you can explain that two.

Sil

Quote from: Cadman on 2022.06.24, 22:53:27
AC,

Cook's description of his induction coils and their currents is what my experiment was designed around. Can they produce more than they consume?

The standard thinking is no induction coil can output more than input, which is true the way transformers are normally configured. What Jerry said in the second post is exactly right, 'No extra energy with this, compared to the primary'.

But Cook didn't use a normal configuration, did he. His coils were not configured as a load and the inducing current is not sent to ground, it's used and then sent to the other induction coil. Plus, his secondary coil output is used with the primary's, the terminal emfs induced in both coils are sent to the other induction coil.

I performed another test. A 4700uF cap was used as the source. A 1 ms pulse sent to the same transformer and circuit in the first post and then the source cap positive line disconnected from the circuit as quickly as possible with a toggle switch.

C1, source cap 4700uF 35V cap
Beginning charge 17.8V×0.00470 = 0.0837 C
Ending 16V×0.0047 = 0.0752 C
Charge used 0.0837− 0.0752 = 0.0085 C

To elaborate on what Smudge stated, Uc1=(17.8^2-16^2)*4700e-6/2 = .143J for input energy .  This assumes that C1 is actually it's rated value.  Most standard 'lytics are +80-20%.

Quote
C2 & C3, receiving caps 3000uF 400V
C2, output from primary coil: 14.7V×0.003 = 0.0441 C
C3, output from secondary coil: 6V×0.003 = 0.018 C
Total output C2+C3
0.0441+0.018 = 0.0621 C

The question here is, does C2 and C3 start the cycle with zero volts prior to the discharge of C1?  If not, then the difference voltages must be used in the overall energy calculations.

If so, then Uc2 = 14.7^2*3000e-6/2 = .324J and UC3 = 6^2*3000e-6/2 = .054J for a total recovered energy of .378J .  This would result in an apparent COP = 2.64 .

Pm

Quote
COP (C2+C3)÷C1= 0.0621÷0.0085 = 7.3058

Without adding in the output from the primary, C2
COP = 0.018÷0.0085 = 2.117

Unless C1 is receiving extra charge from somewhere before I can take the voltage readings, I think the numbers are correct. But, I'm still skeptical.

Can anyone spot a mistake with my method or figures?

AC, did you see similar results in your Cook coils?

Regards
Cadman

Quote from: Smudge on 2022.06.25, 07:36:00
@Cadman,

Charge is not energy, so using COP in relation to input and output charge is wrong.  Energy is charge times voltage, so could you repeat the COP calculations as energy ratio using the voltages of the input and output charges.

Smudge

Smudge,

Ok, point taken. Wrong term for the comparison. Thank you.
So what is the correct term to use for comparison of charge quantities?

That being acknowledged a coulomb is a specific number of electrons.
How can there be 7 times more electrons in C2 + C3 than were taken from C1?

Respectfully
Cadman

PS.  Partzman,

Thank you for the examples. All caps were zeroed before the tests. I have not put a meter to them to check the actual capacitance but I will.

Cadman

For the circuit and caps my only concern is energy.
The formula for energy in a cap is Energy=1/2CV^2. The energy loss/gain is the total energy in the caps before vs after a test run.

QuoteCook's description of his induction coils and their currents is what my experiment was designed around. Can they produce more than they consume?
The standard thinking is no induction coil can output more than input, which is true the way transformers are normally configured. What Jerry said in the second post is exactly right, 'No extra energy with this, compared to the primary'.

I like to work the problem backwards, what is energy?. Energy is motion relating to work (a Force acting over a Distance) ergo any extra energy in the Cook coil must relate to an extra Force/field or extra Distance/motion ie. current. So we can dispense with most of the other nonsense and look for means to produce extra Voltage or Current. As these are the only means to produce extra energy.

Here's a clue, Cook said only one coil is required which ends up acting like a linear/series generator. While two coils shown in the patent acts more like a flip-flop or alternating generator. So we now know the two coil setup has a flip-flop or alternating action which produces an extra force or current on each alternation cycle.

What most people lack is focus and a plan. All the successful FE inventors basically had the same plan or procedure as follows...
1)Build a system which shuttles energy between two or more circuit elements with minimal losses. Find the greatest efficiency.
2)Find ways or means to produce an extra force or an extra motion within the system to extend it's operation. Avoid equilibrium.
3)build on what was learned to produce enough extra force/motion to sustain the system operation.

No FE inventor jumped right into free energy and always built the process up layer by layer learning as they go. Start with efficiency, then extended operation, then self-sustaining operation and finally drawing more energy from the system to power a load. In this respect we should avoid a permanent power source like a battery and use caps and measure how long the system can operate. We input a known amount of energy then work towards extending the operating time until it becomes self-sustaining.

Regards
AC

Hi there you don't really answer the question of where the energy comes from
how about it's already there that's what the masters know, and they all talk about
particle or is it electron acceleration.


Sil

Radio frequencies are the same electromagnetic waves as light.
The energy of a quantum, its depends on the frequency.
Why does ten watts of, for example, 10 MHz RF power and 100 MHz RF power
generate the same amount of heat in a matched load?
Why is there no frequency dependency?  ;)

Quote from: Cadman on 2022.06.25, 14:50:25
That being acknowledged a coulomb is a specific number of electrons.
How can there be 7 times more electrons in C2 + C3 than were taken from C1?

When a capacitor is charged electrons move from one plate to the other, so you get an excess of electrons on one plate and a lack of electrons on the other plate.  So the electron count remains the same.  Electrons were not taken from C1 nor given to C2 + C3.
Smudge

We have a charged capacitor consisting of two flat parallel plates.
When these plates are moved apart, its voltage and energy increase.
But we are doing work against the forces of Coulomb.
If we move one plate from another, similar to how it
happens in the KPI of radio receivers, do we do the same work?

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.06.26, 15:58:24
...
I like to work the problem backwards, what is energy?. Energy is motion relating to work (a Force acting over a Distance) ergo any extra energy in the Cook coil must relate to an extra Force/field or extra Distance/motion ie. current. So we can dispense with most of the other nonsense and look for means to produce extra Voltage or Current. As these are the only means to produce extra energy.

AC,

We're already on the same page here, but see my next post to Smudge. I think it's necessary for me to nail down what is happening with what I have before trying to go any further.

Quote
Here's a clue, Cook said only one coil is required which ends up acting like a linear/series generator. While two coils shown in the patent acts more like a flip-flop or alternating generator. So we now know the two coil setup has a flip-flop or alternating action which produces an extra force or current on each alternation cycle.
...

Yes, Cook made that plain where he detailed the actions and where he wrote about using the alternate changes of the iron cores to produce motion.

I appreciate your comments and posts AC. I do pay attention to them.

Regards
Cadman

Quote from: Smudge on 2022.06.27, 07:46:24
When a capacitor is charged electrons move from one plate to the other, so you get an excess of electrons on one plate and a lack of electrons on the other plate.  So the electron count remains the same.  Electrons were not taken from C1 nor given to C2 + C3.
Smudge

That is what I was taught and believed too, and is why I'm having difficulty understanding what is going on with this little circuit attached here.
Why, or how can there be, such a difference between C1 and C2 when the two caps are basically wired in parallel?

BTW, both coils are wound in the same direction, as Cook specified.

Regards
Cadman

Cadman,

Certain additional info is needed from your circuit in order to possibly determine the source of the energies.  First, what is the inductance and DC resistance of the primary and secondary windings of the transformer?  What is the turns ratio secondary to primary and is the dot notation as shown below?

What type of circuit is used for the pulse source?  For example, the current in the primary has not reached it's full peak judging from the starting and ending voltage on C1.  If a single N-channel FET is used in a common source configuration, when it is turned off the magnitude of primary current will force the drain more than likely into avalanche depending on the FET's BVds.  This would have an effect of continuing the charging of C2 past the pulse turn-off time however, this would still be conservative normally.

We all know that UC=V^2*C/2 and that Q=CV so by simple substitution, UC=VQ/2 .

Regards,
Pm

Edit:  Also measuring the inductance of the 'primary aiding the secondary' and the 'primary bucking the secondary' would allow the k factor to be calculated.     

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.06.26, 15:58:24
What most people lack is focus and a plan. All the successful FE inventors basically had the same plan or procedure as follows...
1)Build a system which shuttles energy between two or more circuit elements with minimal losses. Find the greatest efficiency.
2)Find ways or means to produce an extra force or an extra motion within the system to extend it's operation. Avoid equilibrium.
3)build on what was learned to produce enough extra force/motion to sustain the system operation.

This is a really good guide. Something I will share from experience is that this energy doesnt have to bounce between circuit elements it can also bounce between electrical and mechanical. The extra force doesnt always have to be 'extra' in terms of another force that is unaccounted for and otherwise mysterious but also a force that has acted against our direction if motion being flipped to assist our motion.

Quote from: partzman on 2022.06.27, 18:56:48
Certain additional info is needed from your circuit in order to possibly determine the source of the energies.  First, what is the inductance and DC resistance of the primary and secondary windings of the transformer?  What is the turns ratio secondary to primary and is the dot notation as shown below?

What type of circuit is used for the pulse source?
...
Regards,
Pm

Edit:  Also measuring the inductance of the 'primary aiding the secondary' and the 'primary bucking the secondary' would allow the k factor to be calculated.   

Partzman,

Thanks for responding. A complete schematic is attached and here's the data.

Electrical measurements were taken at a 100 Hz meter setting using a DEREE DE-5000 LCR meter.

Straight rod core: 2.3cm diameter. x 18cm 99% pure iron powder in a 2.5cm OD plastic tube, hand compressed, no binder.

Primary: 20 AWG,  656 turns, 12.69 mH,  2.45 DCR,  199.63 μF
Secondary: 20 AWG, 1048 turns, 34.19 mH, 5.39 DCR, 74.08 μF

The way I understand it, the dot notation you drew for the primary is correct, but I'm unsure which end the dot should be at for the secondary. If you were winding them with the core laid horizontal in front of you, start at the left end and wind the wire going away from you, under the core, up, back toward you over the top of the core then down to complete 1 turn. Continue winding toward the right until the end of the spool then wind toward the left, back and forth as needed. Both coils are wound in the same manner.

The end of the wire you started with on the primary is connected to the positive and the other end connects to C2.

There is about a 2mm gap between the iron and primary wire, and about a 3 mm gap between primary and secondary windings. The gaps are from the PLA coil spools and air space for the 20ga wire primary leads. There are 6 spools for the primary coil, but the 2 center spools are not connected to anything other than terminals. There is a 3 mm space between each primary coil too. The other 4 coils are wired in series to make the 656 turn primary winding.

I don't know how to measure the inductance 'primary aiding the secondary' and the 'primary bucking the secondary', otherwise, I would be happy to furnish that info.

Measured capacities: C1 = 4.38 mF, C2 = 2.63 mF, C3 = 2.63 mF

Regards
Cadman

PS Where should the secondary's dot be placed?

EDIT: The schematic has been replaced. The secondary's diode & cap polarity were wrong. Very sorry for any inconvenience.

Quote from: partzman on 2022.06.27, 18:56:48
Cadman,

What type of circuit is used for the pulse source?  For example, the current in the primary has not reached it's full peak judging from the starting and ending voltage on C1.  If a single N-channel FET is used in a common source configuration, when it is turned off the magnitude of primary current will force the drain more than likely into avalanche depending on the FET's BVds.  This would have an effect of continuing the charging of C2 past the pulse turn-off time however, this would still be conservative normally.

Regards,
Pm

One advantage old time inventors had over present day researchers is that they used mechanical switches for their interrupters.  These switches produce an internal arc when opened.  As the arc fizzeles and the current goes down, the voltage will increase, if the circuit includes a load, such as an Inductor.  (Ed Gray referred to the voltage rise as 'overshoot'.  He found that this could be significant enough to overcharge and damage the capacitor driving the arc in his power tube.  Hence, the inclusion of TVS diode 46 in his circuit.). This could be a source of some 'exyra' energy in the Benitiz circuit, compared to what would appear when using a 'clean' interruption associated with semiconductor switches.

Another factor to consider is that an arc - or a magnetic field, which an arc has - will collapse faster than it expands, due to pressure against, then from, the active vacuum.  This will also increase the circuit's voltage.

Quote from: Cadman on 2022.06.27, 14:38:01
That is what I was taught and believed too, and is why I'm having difficulty understanding what is going on with this little circuit attached here.
Why, or how can there be, such a difference between C1 and C2 when the two caps are basically wired in parallel?

BTW, both coils are wound in the same direction, as Cook specified.

Regards
Cadman

That is an overly simplified circuit.  I think you would gain from knowing the current waveforms at each capacitor.  Since Q is the time integral of that current waveform (over the time period where that Q changes value) it should give you some clue to answer your concerns.  Quite clearly your measurements indicate that the current waveform across C1 is different from that across C2 taken over the whole time period between your voltage measurements.  I think the most outstanding thing here is the apparent OU for energy in and energy out as partzman calculated, and that should be investigated.  I note that in your edited full diagram C3 is being charged up the wrong polarity for an electrolytic.  Is that having an effect?   I note your core is iron powder without any binder, just hand pressed into a tube.  I think that could be quite active as when magnetized there will be internal forces on the iron particles that could give the core some delayed magnetic recovery changes outside the pulse region.

Smudge   

Quote from: Smudge on 2022.06.28, 13:41:41
I think that could be quite active as when magnetized there will be internal forces on the iron particles that could give the core some delayed magnetic recovery changes outside the pulse region.

That sounds akin to a Ferroelectric capacitor which has an oddly flat, nonlinear charge+discharge curve, which results in some pretty crazy hysteresis curves.
https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/direct-observation-negative-capacitance-ferroelectric-materials/

What happens to common AC formulae if real capacitance is negative during part of the cycle? ???

This may be more relevant to the Holcombe threads.  I tried to get to my Smudge's Papers thread but I keep getting error messages.  I prepared this presentation on electron spin in 2013 but never got round to using it.

Smudge

Quote from: Cadman on 2022.06.28, 03:25:13
Partzman,

Thanks for responding. A complete schematic is attached and here's the data.

Electrical measurements were taken at a 100 Hz meter setting using a DEREE DE-5000 LCR meter.

Straight rod core: 2.3cm diameter. x 18cm 99% pure iron powder in a 2.5cm OD plastic tube, hand compressed, no binder.

Primary: 20 AWG,  656 turns, 12.69 mH,  2.45 DCR,  199.63 μF
Secondary: 20 AWG, 1048 turns, 34.19 mH, 5.39 DCR, 74.08 μF

The way I understand it, the dot notation you drew for the primary is correct, but I'm unsure which end the dot should be at for the secondary. If you were winding them with the core laid horizontal in front of you, start at the left end and wind the wire going away from you, under the core, up, back toward you over the top of the core then down to complete 1 turn. Continue winding toward the right until the end of the spool then wind toward the left, back and forth as needed. Both coils are wound in the same manner.

The end of the wire you started with on the primary is connected to the positive and the other end connects to C2.

There is about a 2mm gap between the iron and primary wire, and about a 3 mm gap between primary and secondary windings. The gaps are from the PLA coil spools and air space for the 20ga wire primary leads. There are 6 spools for the primary coil, but the 2 center spools are not connected to anything other than terminals. There is a 3 mm space between each primary coil too. The other 4 coils are wired in series to make the 656 turn primary winding.

I don't know how to measure the inductance 'primary aiding the secondary' and the 'primary bucking the secondary', otherwise, I would be happy to furnish that info.

Measured capacities: C1 = 4.38 mF, C2 = 2.63 mF, C3 = 2.63 mF

Regards
Cadman

PS Where should the secondary's dot be placed?

EDIT: The schematic has been replaced. The secondary's diode & cap polarity were wrong. Very sorry for any inconvenience.

Cadman,

On your schematic shown below, the dot convention would be correct for the case where C3 is charged thru the secondary diode during the collapse of the primary.  OTOH, if the C3 is charged during the time when the primary is also being charged, the secondary dot would be on the other end of the secondary.  The dot ends we will consider to be the start of each winding.  As Smudge pointed out, the polarity of C3 needs to be reversed.

The IRF9Z30 has a typical Vds max of 50v so IMO it will avalanche during the time it is turned off.  This means the source will drop ~50v below the voltage on C1 and the IRF9Z30 will conduct the collapsing current in the primary until S2 is opened or before depending on the transformer coupling, currents, etc.

To do a 'P1 aid S1' measurement, connect the measuring instrument to the dot or start of the primary, then connect the end of the primary to the dot end or start of the secondary with the end of the secondary connected to the measuring instrument.

To do the 'P1 buck S1' measurement, again connect the measuring instrument to the dot or start of the primary but then connect the end of the primary to the end of the secondary.  The dot end or start of the secondary is now the other connection to the measuring instrument.  This buck mode should read a lower value of inductance than the aid mode measured above.

If you have a scope and current probe or CSR [current sense resistor] and could take measurements of the voltages and currents as the circuit operates would really be helpful in calculating the various energy levels.

Edit: Once you have the aid and buck measurements, I can simulate your circuit to see what would conventionally happen in your circuit.

Regards,
Pm

Quote from: Hakasays on 2022.06.28, 14:21:23
That sounds akin to a Ferroelectric capacitor which has an oddly flat, nonlinear charge+discharge curve, which results in some pretty crazy hysteresis curves.
https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/direct-observation-negative-capacitance-ferroelectric-materials/

What happens to common AC formulae if real capacitance is negative during part of the cycle? ???

A transformer core with the secondary loaded by a capacitor and driven by sine waves sees a negative reluctance.  Don't know what that does :-\

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2022.06.28, 13:41:41
That is an overly simplified circuit.  I think you would gain from knowing the current waveforms at each capacitor.  Since Q is the time integral of that current waveform (over the time period where that Q changes value) it should give you some clue to answer your concerns.  Quite clearly your measurements indicate that the current waveform across C1 is different from that across C2 taken over the whole time period between your voltage measurements.  I think the most outstanding thing here is the apparent OU for energy in and energy out as partzman calculated, and that should be investigated.  I note that in your edited full diagram C3 is being charged up the wrong polarity for an electrolytic.  Is that having an effect?   I note your core is iron powder without any binder, just hand pressed into a tube.  I think that could be quite active as when magnetized there will be internal forces on the iron particles that could give the core some delayed magnetic recovery changes outside the pulse region.

Smudge   

Smudge,

I literally got those wires crossed in my hurry to fix what I thought was a mistake in the first circuit diagram. You know how it is sometimes, 'The hurrier I go, the behinder I get'.
When the test was made C3 was charging with the correct polarity. I have to rebuild the circuit anyway so I'll take my time and triple check everything and get it right next time.

I was a bit suprised at the apparent OU numbers, and I still can't really believe them. The whole point of this circuit is just to give the coil 1 pulse and see what ended up in C2 and C3 and this circuit is only used for that 1 pulse.

I was hoping the total of C2&3 would be more than the discharge from C1, actually expected it to be. In my thinking C2 would contain both the charge or energy that was applied to the primary plus any emf produced during discharge, less the resistance loss, and C3 would contain some extra from the secondary coil. Then adding those together should be a little more than C1 expended. If that proved to be true, then building Cooks induction coil battery should be possible.

Regards
Cadman

Quote from: partzman on 2022.06.28, 14:34:04
Cadman,

On your schematic shown below, the dot convention would be correct for the case where C3 is charged thru the secondary diode during the collapse of the primary.  OTOH, if the C3 is charged during the time when the primary is also being charged, the secondary dot would be on the other end of the secondary.  The dot ends we will consider to be the start of each winding.  As Smudge pointed out, the polarity of C3 needs to be reversed.

The IRF9Z30 has a typical Vds max of 50v so IMO it will avalanche during the time it is turned off.  This means the source will drop ~50v below the voltage on C1 and the IRF9Z30 will conduct the collapsing current in the primary until S2 is opened or before depending on the transformer coupling, currents, etc.

To do a 'P1 aid S1' measurement, connect the measuring instrument to the dot or start of the primary, then connect the end of the primary to the dot end or start of the secondary with the end of the secondary connected to the measuring instrument.

To do the 'P1 buck S1' measurement, again connect the measuring instrument to the dot or start of the primary but then connect the end of the primary to the end of the secondary.  The dot end or start of the secondary is now the other connection to the measuring instrument.  This buck mode should read a lower value of inductance than the aid mode measured above.

If you have a scope and current probe or CSR [current sense resistor] and could take measurements of the voltages and currents as the circuit operates would really be helpful in calculating the various energy levels.

Edit: Once you have the aid and buck measurements, I can simulate your circuit to see what would conventionally happen in your circuit.

Regards,
Pm

Partzman,

Thanks for the dot info. So basically the dot goes where the voltage enters the coil when it's active? This has always confused the heck out of me for some reason.

I haven't had a chance to get the aid & buck figures yet, I'll see if I can get some free time this evening for that.

Also I don't have a CSR or current probe, so I'll order a CSR but that will take a while to get.

The IRF9Z30 is the best pmos on hand. Do you, or anyone, have a recommendation for one that would live with this circuit? Quite a few of these have died on me including the one in the circuit now.

Regards
Cadman

For anyone interested, these pics are from an earlier open voltage test with a slightly different setup.
The primary is composed of the first and sixth coil in series. The middle 4 coils are wired in series as an output so together it's similar to Figuera's second patent. The 1048 turn secondary is also on there, and there's a diode at the end of the primary to see what that might do.

It looks like this little DSO-Shell is only good for about 60v. Anything higher gets truncated and the voltage numbers are wrong so it's mainly used to look at the wave forms, but I'd rather risk it than the Rigol. The traces seem to be ok.

Partzman,

P1 aid S1:   014.008 mH

P1 buck S1:  80.040 mH

Thanks for volunteering your time for a simulation. Looking forward to it.

Regards,
Cadman

Quote from: Cadman on 2022.06.30, 00:31:12
Partzman,

P1 aid S1:   014.008 mH

P1 buck S1:  80.040 mH

Thanks for volunteering your time for a simulation. Looking forward to it.

Regards,
Cadman

Cadman,

OK, thanks for those measurements however, the aid measurement should be larger than the buck.  You can picture it this way, when like notations are connected such as dot to dot or no-dot to no-dot, the coils on a common core will be in a bucking mode and the resultant value will be less than the aid mode of dot to no-dot.  Also, the dot notation can be chosen arbitrarily and does mean it is always the start winding.  You can choose to indicate any coil connection with a dot as long as the notation is consistent throughout the schematic.

I have also already run a preliminary sim as the k factor was the only missing variable but the results are far from being what you see.  So, I noticed something in your data some posts back which is repeated here-

Primary: 20 AWG,  656 turns, 12.69 mH,  2.45 DCR,  199.63 μF
Secondary: 20 AWG, 1048 turns, 34.19 mH, 5.39 DCR, 74.08 μF

How did you measure these relatively large capacitance values?  I assume since the primary value is larger than the secondary that we are coil to core measurements but in the uF range?  If so, is the core connected to the circuit ground or left open?  These values are way too high for self capacitance values IMO.

If these large values are truly the primary and secondary coil to core distributed capacitance values, then you have two coupled transmission lines with individual td's of 1.59ms each using Td=(L*C)^1/2 .

I'll wait for your response before proceeding with the sim.

Regards,
Pm

Patzman,

I started getting OL displays when measuring these coils at anything higher than 100 hZ and erratic ones at that freq. Put in a new battery and that took care of it, so every previous measurement other than the cap volts is probably junk.

Using 1 kHz measurement freq.

P1 aid S1:  79.29 mH
P1 buck S1:  14.014 mH

P1:  1.999 uF
S1:  744 nF

P1:  12.65 mH
S1:  34.00 mH

Cadman

Cadman,

Based on your current parameters, below are two sims. 

The first has the secondary L2 connected in the boost mode that is, the secondary L2 is conducting during the primary L1 charging phase.

The second has the secondary L2 connected in the flyback mode that is the secondary L2 conducts during the collapse of the primary L1.

D4 and the zener model the avalanche as the IRF7343P model in LtSpice did not include this parameter.

The voltages across C1 and C2 are measured at ~2ms and can be compared to your results.  The voltage across C3 is close to C2 in both cases but not shown.

The buck and aid inductance measurements of L1 and L2 calculate to a k=.49 .

The results here are not even close to yours so the core material must be playing an important part.

Edit: Note the extremely high surge current at the start which is most likely destroying M1 in your bench device.

Regards,
Pm

Partzman,

Thank you very much! Almost 80A is way more than expected. Now I have an idea what kind of mosfet I have to get.

I don't know what difference it could make but your sims don't have that contact right after C1. When testing, and using both hands, the toggle switch is opened manually as soon as I can after pressing the 1ms pulse button. Even so, I doubt if the delay would be less than 50ms.

Earlier, Smudge mentioned the current waveform across C1 being different from that across C2 taken over the whole time period between the voltage measurements. Astonishingly, C2 takes 220ms to reach full charge after the 1ms impulse. Of course, now that mosfet isn't any good so I can't get the C1 curve right now.

Before we make any conclusions about the core, would you mind repeating the the second sim with C2 volts measured at 220ms and C1 at 2ms and also 50ms to see what that shows?

Regards
Cadman

Cadman,

Here is the flyback sim showing the C1, C2, and C3 voltage measurements at ~50ms.  They have basically not changed since the 2ms point in time due to the fact that there is no energy input after M1 is turned off.  If the  sim is run for a longer period, the voltages don't change.

So, this means that in your bench device, there is some form of additional energy being received by the circuit after M1 is turned off.  The most likely source is the core although the when you turn off the mechanical switch, the resultant switch or contact "bounce" may have some means of inputting extra energy.

Regards,
Pm

Partzman,

I appreciate your assistance. Thank you.

This transformer was built to make it easier to change it's core & winding configuration, but now, since it might be the source of some anomalous energy I don't want to change anything about it. I have all the material on hand to duplicate it so that will be the next step unless someone has a test they would like to have performed with it as is.

If a successful duplicate can be made then I can try different winding methods and core material. I have R45 welding rods and I can try to get some transformer steel too. I'm wondering if the the primary coil construction could have an effect, like continuous wound vs. the multiple segments it has now. Also how does having the secondary on a PLA spool instead of directly on the primary windings change things.

Studying Smudge's paper on electron spin as a source of energy I can see a similarity in the construction, and this passage from page 13 seems similar to the transformer's operation: "If we could have spins present while an applied magnetic field is rising, then not present (or better still reversed) while the applied field is falling, we break the claw-back reciprocity."
If changing core material and winding methods has little effect on the output then I think this would appear to be the most likely explanation for where the energy is coming from.

Regards
Cadman

This thread was accidentally locked
Apologies to Cadman !

Things have been very topsy tervy lately!

Cadman is greatly appreciated open source member !

Respectfully
Chet

Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.22, 19:11:19
Who are they?

Poets.

Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.22, 19:26:40
Attributes: Does not have a smell, can't be seen with the naked eye, or any other way, does not weigh anything, and your scientist know about it, but, are afraid to say so.

Photons?  Neutrinos?
Muons? Electrons ...nah these don't fit because they have mass and so they weigh something on Earth.

Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.22, 19:26:40
...can't be seen with the naked eye, or any other way...

So its existence is unfalsifiable in principle.

Quote from: verpies on 2023.11.22, 19:56:57
Poets.
Photons?  Neutrinos?
Muons? Electrons ...nah these don't fit because they have mass and so they weigh something on Earth.
So its existence is unfalsifiable in principle.

   These mentioned things above are the effects of this unseen cause. They are the material "something" that are created by your "nothing". Funny how you can't get that through your head, and continue spewing nonsense as fact.
Perhaps you'd like to take a picture of electricity and show us what it looks like, and measure it, with out any circuit.
That nothing is the cause and reason of the something. So, unless you change your mind about the nothing, nothing is what will become of your free energy closed system tests and devices. Only distractions and wastes of time will come therefrom.

   So, now we have another denier back, F6, to tell us how well he likes material science. And that all else is heresy.
Planet of the Apes...

   NickZ

Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.23, 13:50:00
These mentioned things above are the effects of this unseen cause.
They are the material "something" that are created by your "nothing".

So there is "something" out of which photons, neutrinos, muons, electrons are composed of.
What about protons and neutrons, are they composed of it, too ?

Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.23, 13:50:00
Funny how you can't get that through your head, and continue spewing nonsense as fact.

Your claws are out - quite unnecessarily. Calm down.
In my last message to you I was not "spewing" anything.  I barely made any statements in that message (the only one was about electrons/muons weighing something on Earth).
The remainder of my post was composed of questions.

Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.23, 13:50:00
Perhaps you'd like to take a picture of electricity and show us what it looks like, and measure it, with out any circuit.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b3/d2/58/b3d25814d62c554c9fa96cc0bf59082c.jpg)

...

Quote from: verpies on 2023.11.22, 19:56:57
Poets.
Photons?  Neutrinos?
Muons? Electrons ...nah these don't fit because they have mass and so they weigh something on Earth.
So its existence is unfalsifiable in principle.

   Ok, not my principal, I don't own it.
   Yes, everything that we can see, and everything that we can't see, has a source and cause.
I look for the cause of causes, not the effects. The cause is the vortex energies creating something material from non material sources, as the aether. Any way, you know about all that but just want to discredit the idea by calling me a pendejo, so be it.

   NickZ

Quote from: verpies on 2023.11.23, 14:43:35
So there is "something" out of which photons, neutrinos, muons, electrons are composed of.
What about protons and neutrons, are they composed of it, too ?
Your claws are out - quite unnecessarily. Calm down.
In my last message to you I was not "spewing" anything.  I barely made any statements in that message (the only one was about electrons/muons weighing something on Earth).
The remainder of my post was composed of questions.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b3/d2/58/b3d25814d62c554c9fa96cc0bf59082c.jpg)

   That picture looks like HV streamers being emmited. Not electricity but sparks or streamers. That is the visible effect, not the cause, only what is visible to the Camera. Or is it the new Apple logo?

   You might ask about what is the cause of lightning, What creates it? Millions of watts of free power.
  What drives the hurricanes, earth quakes, tidal waves and the up and downs of the tides, etc ...
Could it not be these cosmic sources, mentioned, interacting with our Earth?

   NickZ

Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.23, 21:52:27
You might ask about what is the cause of lightning, What creates it? Millions of watts of free power.
What drives the hurricanes, earth quakes, tidal waves and the up and downs of the tides, etc ...
Could it not be these cosmic sources, mentioned, interacting with our Earth?

No, the heat in the atmosphere is mostly caused by the sun and that is the source of energy for the water evaporation, winds, waves, charge separation and thunderstorms. The sun gets its energy from fusing hydrogen. Hydrogen is matter.

Tides are synchronized with the position of the moon and sun by their gravity.  Moon is matter, too.
The tectonic plates are affected by the tidal forces, too ...and by magma convection. Magma heat is the latent heat remaining from planet's formation and also from fission of the heavy elements in Earth's core. Earth is matter, too.

No need to invoke cosmic forces or spirits for the above.

If you want to do that you should be asking how do the 4 fundamental forces arise and what are photons and electrons made of,  ...and protons, neutrons, quarks ...or just matter collectively.

These would be the questions that most scientists will not be able to answer - not winds, thunderstorms, waves and quakes.

 There is a need to connect with cosmic fields, that is, unless you just love paying $300 per month for electricity.
  So, don't just repeat your book learning without questions.
Sun light does not come from the Sun, nor is it a nuclear furnace. It's all as false as your adored Big Bang theories.
The Aether can be tested, by what effect it causes. As the cause is not visible to us, but the effects are.
   Todays scientists have a lot to learn, or actually report, as they already know about these things, and much more.
But, are keeping us in the dark, on purpose.
  Free energy is all about tapping these cosmic fields. In case you don't know, or care. Stubborn is not my trait, but yours.
I am only stubborn about the real truth behind the purposeful lies.
      NickZ

....

If I may ?
Few days ago had a chat with a very active builder researcher.
He had engaged with a few persons ( different persons unconnected in any way) the last decade who had results!

Results Which were terrifying, events which at first manifest plasmas and nonferrous
Materials becoming illuminated , they had feared for their lives .
There were photos of one experiment showing this,
The only thing which was mentioned, you have to figure out how to attract this energy
And then you have to figure out how to control it !

There was No vocabulary to explain any part of it .. scientific verbiage or "who do voodoo" etc etc....
Persons can muse or interpret these things in their own way ( lack of vocabulary)

Until such is found ( tapping into this runaway condition... heretofore unknown..
We just need to muse over how it might be done,...science has already taught us there is enough energy
In a cup of water to boil all the oceans...
As Verpies and others dabble in one assumed method for harvesting ..rerouting or repurposing the elements in materials so as to gain energy for other purposes?( the entire planet is full of such research facilities..

It's really not so cut and dry as some would like to think .
And honestly..
Most here have little interest in words towards no actual experiments..
Verpies ( and others) have charted a course to investigate..or experiment!
This is why we are here .
Offering words towards no method or path to experiment?

Where does that fit here ?
What are we supposed to do Nick ?

Quote from: Chet K on 2023.11.24, 14:19:07
If I may ?
Few days ago had a chat with a very active builder researcher.
He had engaged with a few persons ( different persons unconnected in any way) the last decade who had results!

Results Which were terrifying, events which at first manifest plasmas and nonferrous
Materials becoming illuminated , they had feared for their lives .
There were photos of one experiment showing this,
The only thing which was mentioned, you have to figure out how to attract this energy
And then you have to figure out how to control it !

There was No vocabulary to explain any part of it .. scientific verbiage or "who do voodoo" etc etc....
Persons can muse or interpret these things in their own way ( lack of vocabulary)

Until such is found ( tapping into this runaway condition... heretofore unknown..
We just need to muse over how it might be done,...science has already taught us there is enough energy
In a cup of water to boil all the oceans...
As Verpies and others dabble in one assumed method for harvesting ..rerouting or repurposing the elements in materials so as to gain energy for other purposes?( the entire planet is full of such research facilities..

It's really not so cut and dry as some would like to think .
And honestly..
Most here have little interest in words towards no actual experiments..
Verpies ( and others) have charted a course to investigate..or experiment!
This is why we are here .
Offering words towards no method or path to experiment?

Where does that fit here ?
What are we supposed to do Nick ?

hi Chet,

thank u for ur words.

u r right, we must attract these free charges from the environment. that is the how.
then control dissipation thru work load.

Don Smith showed us how, even Zilano showed, how to draw charges in against gravitational field keeping them equalized.

it really is very simple, its just ppl believe something 'supposedly impossible' must be complicated beyond understanding.

Like the Egg of Columbus!!!

Cheers,
wlw

For me the best demonstration that an aether exists is the gyroscope precessing around its miniature eiffel tower, doing its balancing act without falling off.  We are taught that inertia is a property of a body to resist change of motion, an internal property that has nothing to do with the aether that surrounds it.  So this little spinning flywheel precessing around its tower conjures up (by inertia) a torque that holds it from falling off.  So another internal property creating internal torque.  It is readily explained by its changing angular momentum creating that torque.  Now do an experiment using a precessing chain saw.  OK the mass of the motor won't allow you to do the tower experiment but you can hold the chainsaw with its blade facing away from you and do two angular motions.  You can swivel your body around the vertical axis and you will feel the torque from the precessing blade as a turning force on your wrists.  You can also twist your wrists and feel the saw trying to rotate about the vertical axis.  If you could measure those two different forces you would find there is a difference because in the one case the moving mass along the blade does not change its high velocity direction, it merely translates slowly to a new position.  In the other case that significant quantity of moving mass does change velocity direction.  Your classical gyro formula don't apply, you have to delve further into where the forces apply themselves along the blade.  On thing is obvious to you, you can feel external forces on your body.  Sit yourself on a centrifuge and you will feel external forces.  INERTIA IS AN EXTERNAL FORCE.  And therefore the aether around us (even if it is so-called free space) must have some property that enables it to apply that force.  Why are we so brainwashed into thinking that a body has this "resisting change of motion" property when it's so obvious that it is an external force that we endure?     

Smudge

Are you referring to this (https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Lq_p6QHZDeE?feature=share) Eiffel Tower ?

Quote from: Smudge on 2023.11.24, 17:01:02
For me the best demonstration that an aether exists is the gyroscope precessing around its miniature eiffel tower, doing its balancing act without falling off.  We are taught that inertia is a property of a body to resist change of motion, an internal property that has nothing to do with the aether that surrounds it. 

Yes because if you put that gyro on a speeding jet plane, then that gyro is moving faster than the same gyro on the ground, but the aether is not.
So the speed of one gyro is faster than the other w.r.t. aether, yet they precess exactly the same way.

You'd better explain why aether opposes the acceleration/deceleration of material objects, but does not oppose their constant speed.

Quote from: verpies on 2023.11.24, 17:32:57
Yes because if you put that gyro on a speeding jet plane, then that gyro is moving faster than the same gyro on the ground, but the aether is not.
So the speed of one gyro is faster than the other w.r.t. aether, yet they precess exactly the same way.

You'd better explain why aether opposes the acceleration/deceleration of material objects, but does not oppose their constant speed.

That involves understanding what mass is.  It is a property of the body that is geometric, like collision cross section where we are talking about collision with mass-less particles like neutrinos that travel at light velocity.  Then it is easy to show that within an aether that consists of an enormous density of these particles travelling in all directions inertia comes from the collisions causing the particles to be absorbed but then emitted again a short time later but emitted in the same relative direction they arrived at.  The aether particles have momentum hence there are forces from the momentum rate both at absorption and emission.  For matter moving at constant velocity the two forces are equal and opposite so no resultant force.  But if the matter velocity is changing with time the two forces are not equally and we observe inertia.  So mass is 2 properties of a body (cross section and delay time) multiplied by the aether properties (particle density and arrival direction distribution).

Smudge

Effectively, you write that the absorption and re-emission of the postulated "aether particles" in a mass (e.g. protons, neutrons) happens in the same direction.
But in what reference system is that direction the same?   - the proton's or in some other reference system ?

Is the velocity of the absorbed and re-emitted "aether particles" the same ?
If "yes" then with respect to what is the velocity of the absorbed and re-emitted "aether particles" the same ?  - wrt to the proton or to some other reference system ?
If "no" then with respect to what is the difference in velocity of the absorbed and re-emitted "aether particles" measured ?  - wrt to the proton or to some other reference system ?

 Deleted.

  Aether particles...how about non particles...

   NickZ

Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.25, 01:50:38
Deleted.

So press the blue "Remove" button at the bottom of your message and it will be deleted and will not take up space.

Quote from: NickZ on 2023.11.25, 01:53:50
Aether particles...how about non particles...

I did not propose that.
Personally, I would prefer "units of motion".

Quote from: verpies on 2023.11.23, 23:37:43
...
Hydrogen is matter.
...

If you have a bar of gold that contains 0.0000000000004% lead, would you say that you have a bar made of "gold" or would you say that you have a bar made of "lead"?

PW

Gold

Quote from: verpies on 2023.11.24, 22:49:05
Effectively, you write that the absorption and re-emission of the postulated "aether particles" in a mass (e.g. protons, neutrons) happens in the same direction.
But in what reference system is that direction the same?   - the proton's or in some other reference system ?

Is the velocity of the absorbed and re-emitted "aether particles" the same ?
If "yes" then with respect to what is the velocity of the absorbed and re-emitted "aether particles" the same ?  - wrt to the proton or to some other reference system ?
If "no" then with respect to what is the difference in velocity of the absorbed and re-emitted "aether particles" measured ?  - wrt to the proton or to some other reference system ?

Clearly it has to be in the reference system of the proton, the proton has no access to another reference.  That is why I said relative velocity, it is relative to the frame in which the proton is at rest.  And in that system the velocity of the emitted particle is the same as as the velocity of the absorbed particle.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2023.11.25, 11:49:44
And in that system the velocity of the emitted particle is the same as as the velocity of the absorbed particle.

Does the proton recoil as it re-emits the "aether particle" ?

hi

Sorry there are no protons centering atomic systems.

Erwin Muller photographed atoms under magnification using Field Ion Microscope and pictures clearly show:

PROOF the center of atom is vacuum or pure MIND (which is invisible)

MIND centers all matter just as a fulcrum centers its lever !!! without it no motion can occur !!

so we have no need for strong nuclear or weak nuclear forces to hold two or more 'positively charged' protons together against Coulomb's supposed law of likes repelling!!

Please ALL on here read Walter Russell's NEW concepts of the Universe and upgrade your thinking by 1000 years.  O0

Cheers,
wlw

Even if u all go back and listen to Stan Meyers...

he said the center of atoms is GOD and this is where the energy comes from.

GOD = UNIVERSAL MIND

he is right !!!

this thread has its answer.  O0

wlw

Quote from: verpies on 2023.11.25, 09:37:01
Gold

I too would say you have a bar of gold...

And yet, if we define a volume of "empty space" and insert 0.0000000000004% by volume of contaminants in the form of an electron and proton, we say we have something (hydrogen) called "matter", and not "empty space".

The proton has spin and a magnetic moment.  We are told that the proton is actually made of six "particles", three quarks and three gluons.  We are also told that gluons act like little springs that are attached to and hold the quarks together.  If a gluon were to escape to be on its own, it would very rapidly disappear, that is, evaporate into the "empty space" of the "vacuum".  In the absence of all else, the proton is mathematically predicted to be stable for a lifetime of somewhere on the order of 10³⁴ years (having spin and a magnetic moment for all that time...).  However, it is also mathematically predicted that a proton can decay, but would do so by becoming two quarks (a quark and an anti-quark) and yet another "particle" called a pion.  Isn't it rather amazing how a "particle" of "something" can transform itself into a "particle" of something else?

To switch gears, consider the speed of light.  The speed of light in a vacuum is, well, the speed of light.  If we pass an EM wave, or photon (that pesky particle wave duality thing) through something transparent to that EM wave, something we call "matter" (which is mostly empty space), the speed of that wave becomes slower by an amount related to that "matter's" refractive index.  We use this property everyday and seem to have no problem believing that as an EM wave propagates through "matter", which again is mostly "empty space", the speed of light slows down.

However, if we pass that EM wave/photon through the "vacuum", i.e., supposedly empty space, the speed of light is slowed to, well, the speed of light.  Why?  Why does an EM wave/photon, unencumbered by anything in the "emptiness" of the vacuum not just take off at an infinite speed?  We are told that the speed of light is a constant, a magical thing that just happens to be.   Even though it makes sense for us to know that an EM wave will slow below the speed of light when passing through a cloud of hydrogen (which is 99.9999999999996% "empty space" or "vacuum"), we can't seem to wrap our head around the possibility that an EM wave is also "slowed" to the speed of light when passing through a vacuum because it is actually propagating through "something", not just the supposed emptiness we call "vacuum".

And then there is the "vacuum catastrophe".  Most scientists believe the vacuum contains something we call energy, however, the amount predicted to be there varies by 55 orders of magnitude, and in some predictions, even moreso.  More recently we have predictions of dark energy and dark matter, because we believe all that "matter" we observe and predict to be in the universe, must represent only a small percentage of what the universe is actually made of in order for all that "matter" to behave as it does in our observations.  Add to that the Casimir effect and those "virtual particles" just popping into and out of existence from "nothing", and one might begin to think that perhaps the "vacuum" is not the emptiness we may believe it to be.

A quote:

"Everything is made of nothing, all nothing is almost something...
There are two kinds of nothing, organized nothing and disorganized nothing."

"Nothing" is just a word.  Like "bark" (the outer layer of a tree or the sound a dog makes), or the names assigned to quarks, like up, down, top, bottom, color, and strange, these are just words we assign, sounds we utter or write using an alphabet, to allow us to portray thoughts to others.  The word "aether" has gotten a bad rap.  As long as we use words like "vacuum", "dark energy", or "dark matter", all is well, but label those as being the attributes of the "aether" and all hell breaks loose.   

Just food for thought,
PW

Quote from: verpies on 2023.11.25, 12:06:08
Does the proton recoil as it re-emits the "aether particle" ?

Yes and it also got an impulse when it absorbed the particle, the two force impulse magnitudes cancel out but the time separation causes a small incremental movement of the proton.  The aether background of particles from all directions create jittery movement that we know as Heisenberg uncertainty.  What doesn't cancel out is the rate of absorption v rate of emission when the proton is accelerating or decelerating, leading to a net force opposing the change from uniform velocity.

In the presence of a nearby mass the arrival rate v arrival direction is not uniform because that mass is interrupting things slightly, so we get a net force towards that mass that we know as gravitation.  And if we give the aether particles spin (neutrinos have spin) and define rules of engagement between the proton and the particle whereby the particle's emitted direction is determined by its spin we can explain what electric charge really is (those rules of engagement), electric forces and magnetic forces also appear.  Another aspect of this theory is that the aether at distant parts of the universe can have a different particle density than that within which we live.  This would mean that the "universal" constants that we use in our calculations (electron mass, proton mass, Planck's constant etc. etc.) can have differnt values out there in those distant regions.  So the Hubble constant takes on a different meaning and the universe is not necessarily expanding.     

Smudge

I wrote papers on the aether 20 years ago and trawling through my memory sticks I have found two of them.  This bench may not be the best place for them but here they are.  I never got round to writing the paper on magnetic fields and I am too old (nearly 90) to do it now.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2023.11.25, 16:09:05
Yes and it also got an impulse when it absorbed the particle, the two force impulse magnitudes cancel out but the time separation causes a small incremental movement of the proton. 

Please do calculate the time delay between absorption and re-emission.

Quote from: picowatt on 2023.11.25, 15:56:01
I too would say you have a bar of gold...

And yet, if we define a volume of "empty space" and insert 0.0000000000004% by volume of contaminants in the form of an electron and proton, we say we have something (hydrogen) called "matter", and not "empty space".

That is a very good point.
I have came to the same conclusion decades ago and have developed it further.

I will have a lot to say about that in a different topic but not today.
Please make a new topic here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?board=160.0) and copy your post from here to there to continue the discussion in a more appropriate category.  I would do this myself but I cannot copy posts yet.

...

Perhaps this couple of vids might help explain things i sujestyou watch them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIXN8TMaVUA

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

Sil

...

Quote from: verpies on 2023.11.25, 20:43:08
Please do calculate the time delay between absorption and re-emission.

I can't do this without knowledge of the characteristics of the aether particles such as volume density and the particle's momentum.  Also I need the collision cross section of the matter particle.  Current science says that the size of the matter particle is inversely proportional to its mass, whereas under my theory the opposite is true, greater size means greater collision cross section hence greater mass.  Note that under my theory at the individual collisions creating the positional uncertainty there is no mass value we can use (what we know as mass results from many collisions) so how does the body behave?  It is not unreasonable to posit that it moves at light speed or greater before reaching a position where another collision alters its movement and position again.  Thus a body of small size (hence small mass) will move further within the inter-aether-particle space hence appear to occupy greater volume.  I could take a guess at the aether particles being neutrino-like and use the known neutrino momentum, I could guess at the likely density (in the region of 10^40 per m^3), and I could take a known matter particle (say proton) and make a stab at its collision cross section.  That would lead me to a delay time, but would it have any real value?

Smudge

I don't think most appreciate how electricity or energy works...

Consider that 1 Coulomb of electrons is the quantity of electrons transferred in one second by a steady current of one ampere. One amp seems very small to most people who think they understand electricity. However if we transferred one Coulomb of electrons (1 amp in one second) to a 3" metal sphere the voltage measured on it would be one hundred eighteen billion volts.

For comparison, if we had two metal plates with an area of 1 square meter each, 1 meter apart the force exerted on the plates by a difference in potential of one hundred eighteen billion volts would be one quintillion four hundred twenty quadrillion tons. The numbers quickly become beyond what most can even imagine.

This may be part of the reason why Nikola Tesla implied everyone has everything completely backwards. Matter may be at the lowest energy density and the surrounding space at many magnitudes higher energy density.

As Nikola Tesla implied, the smaller the scales the greater the energy density and forces. For example, if we moved our two metal plates with an area of 1 square meter each from one meter apart to one millimeter the new voltage is one hundred six sextillion six hundred quintillion volts and the force one septillion three hundred thirty sextillion tons. Now imagine the energy/forces present on the sub-nanometer scale.

As we can see, if as Tesla implied the medium was infinitely energy dense and perfectly insulated then no detectable motion would be required to transfer massive amounts of energy. Of course, this doesn't mean we could detect or access any of this energy because of the scales involved. It only explains how energy could travel as a wave in a medium with no apparent motion of said medium. Likewise how measuring the motion of a body through said medium is equally improbable ie. the Michelson–Morley experiment.

The medium would appear "rigid" similar to how a chunk of plutonium appears rigid on observation but can release it's internal kinetic energy measured in mega tonnes of TNT to vaporize a city. We simply take this know concept to the next level supposing there are smaller elements possessing even greater energy and the notion of observable "motion" becomes a mute point. Otherwise were left with the notion of a spooky action action at a distance which seems a primitive way of looking at things.

AC

@ALL

WLW here.

my posts r being removed, but gosh I hope this gets thru:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCo6dTc9JsY

Watch & Learn  O0
NEW atomic structure and destruction of old outdated models.

Cheers,
wlw

Quote from: whitelightningwizard on 2023.11.27, 00:53:52
@ALL

WLW here.

my posts r being removed, but gosh I hope this gets thru:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCo6dTc9JsY

Watch & Learn  O0
NEW atomic structure and destruction of old outdated models.

Cheers,
wlw

Sir
Actually it's much less sinister
Verpies has agreed to help with Forum
And keeping topics "on topic" is a very big part of that,
Something ( one post) you posted was in wrong section
He asked if it could be moved ( as of this moment it can't be without making a mess (_ hopefully _ will be fixed soon ..under construction))
So post was removed with a note sent to you about "all the above "
Giving you the opportunity to post ( un touched ) in proper section!

If you did not receive notification...please PM Verpies
I am still on road and noticed your comment while getting fuel , PLEASE remember
All persons who help here are volunteers ..

Appreciate your patience ,and yes this has happened here with other posters and notes were sent , allowing them to
Repost or remedy issues so as to maintain continuity in topics.
Respectfully
Chet
PS
With closing of OU.com to archive.. things have gotten dicey here ...they are trying to work through that so this forum
Can stay online and open and productive ..that is to say the forum theme of research is top priority followed by builds and empirical testing.
BTW this ( suggestions towards builds) is already starting to happen !

,,

Quote from: stivep on 2023.11.27, 14:26:53
statement: simple facts:
Erwin Muller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Wilhelm_M%C3%BCller
USP called also "university" doesn't have address nor telephone listed https://www.philosophy.org/scholarship.html#/ or I couldn't find it. should this "GOD"
DARREN COLOMB  acting in that video   can't be found by me in wikipedia,- his bio proof of achievement I found "as stated only" as:
"Laboratory Scientist / Inventor / Musician / Metascientist /" 
No evidence of his inventions, lab, commercial activity, registration nor address of the lab was found by me.

_________________________________________________________________________
With all due respect Dear whitelightningwizard  .
Please correct me  :
You are not interacting with me and continuing  projection of
some sort of  magical "university" not registered in US educational system, with unknown  amount of students, never  receiving any degree.
unknown or nonexistent faculty members likely located in some average home or apartment .

No explanation seems to be convincing you, or you are not at the level to interact totally ignoring other people  responding to  your writing.
Revelations of yours and  the video collides with official science. I think you wouldn't like  your own child to attend to such school/ university
You provided no  credible  in science links  and keep going to  post more of  the nonsense.

Conclusion:
This small crowd here wants real help in understanding and building. They are  appreciating very much not obsessed with any "pseudo"  friendly hand.
Can You respond with facts, or you are not at that level yet?

_{legal note:  opinion expressed is entirely mine and it was expressed  according to the constitution of USA}
Wesley

Hi Wes

University of Science & Philosophy: https://www.philosophy.org/museum.html#/
phone & address. u didn't look very hard.



Forget the guy in the video, what is it that he is saying? a new way to look at old theories.

You don't know 'my level' but some on other forums do. I share when I feel inspired to help.  O0

Pretty sure I still have FREEEDOM of SPEECH. as do u.
Take what I say or leave it, but do not berate as this leads nowhere.

I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT I PRESENT HERE IS NOT GOING TO BE FOR EVERYONE, SOME WILL SEE 'GOD' AND RUN FOR THE HILLS AND CALL ME MAD!!!

BUT FOR THOSE WHO HAVE INTUITION AND R GUIDED BY 'NON-PHYSICAL PHENOMENON' AS TESLA CALLED IT WILL FIND GREAT VALUE IN WHAT I POST.

Cheers,
wlw

Edit for terms of service off topic violations

Quote from: Chet K on 2023.11.27, 02:03:05
Sir
Actually it's much less sinister
Verpies has agreed to help with Forum
And keeping topics "on topic" is a very big part of that,
Something ( one post) you posted was in wrong section
He asked if it could be moved ( as of this moment it can't be without making a mess (_ hopefully _ will be fixed soon ..under construction))
So post was removed with a note sent to you about "all the above "
Giving you the opportunity to post ( un touched ) in proper section!

If you did not receive notification...please PM Verpies
I am still on road and noticed your comment while getting fuel , PLEASE remember
All persons who help here are volunteers ..

Appreciate your patience ,and yes this has happened here with other posters and notes were sent , allowing them to
Repost or remedy issues so as to maintain continuity in topics.
Respectfully
Chet
PS
With closing of OU.com to archive.. things have gotten dicey here ...they are trying to work through that so this forum
Can stay online and open and productive ..that is to say the forum theme of research is top priority followed by builds and empirical testing.
BTW this ( suggestions towards builds) is already starting to happen !

Chet thank u for your balance and explication.  O0

We all feel LOVE for our family and friends, but we cannot QUANTIFY or MEASURE this LOVE.

Here then we have example of something NON-PHYSICAL that we cannot QUANTIFY or MEASURE but yet it is felt by humans to be REAL.

So this is proof to scientists that not all things that are in fact REAL are necessarily PHYSICAL.

REALITY exists within the MIND, not the other way around. It will take scientists at least 1000 years to catch up to this truth at the present rate.
But with this vantage point we can solve unlimited energy as we have found the NON-PHYSICAL source of PHYSICAL energy.

Cheers,
wlw

...

Why don't you said that there is a cold nuclear fusion in your drop of water when it electro blow up ?
This is where the extra energy comes from...

...

Quote from: stivep on 2023.11.24, 13:40:50
There is  no such thing as cosmic fields. .  No such terminology is in use. ( google it please)
Your comment about light is nonsense not supported by any link.
The Aether  can't be tested as it doesn't exist nor does it have any fixed documented modern description
and because of it -  it sounds like a bark of a dog to us
intuitively  ignoring it or trying to google it to find what it might mean.

comparison:
Bark is like a sound without specified meaning intuitively understood  as dog happiness or its anger but you'll never be sure.
Barking human doesn't speak in dog language nor it helps understand science and for us is not the language, but a verbal form of dogs emotional response.
Smile is also an emotional response but you don't know if the dog smiles or not before (it/he/she) bites you.
Scientists learn but you refuse to learn.
Verpies is helping you, I'm helping you  but you refuse this help.
Wesley

   Verpies, Wesley:
   Thanks for the "help". But how can either of you help,  when you don't know and have never built what we are here for.
Conventional electronics/physics book learning has gotten you no where, after all these years. What you bring onto this free energy site are distractions, while showing nothing that works concerning free energy. And now you Wesley are here to bore us again, with your long and repetitious conventional knowledge essays, that don't not even believe in free energy. Even  your translations are no longer needed.
Or am I speaking dog...

   NickZ

 

Why can't we combine two forums into one overunity and OUR ?
I don't understand anything about this, maybe I'm talking stupidity.
But it would be nice. :)

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2023.11.29, 14:54:50
Why can't we combine two forums into one overunity and OUR ?
I don't understand anything about this, maybe I'm talking stupidity.
But it would be nice. :)

I think it is already happening as a result of overunity being made read-only. It looks like a lot of the members from there are moving to other forums, this being one of the most popular ones.

...

Stivep
Here patents can fill entire forum ( every day new ones)
If you have a replication request of a successful FE device ?

Forum guidelines explain this process very clearly !( please read them

Or else it is not a claim here ( successful independent replications are required here!
Writing something as fact and pointing to the work of others ( unverified open source)
Not what is done here ( wrong forum).


Please these are early days ..
Trying not to reboot old fights from other forums .
Fights Cannot fill these pages
Wrong forum..,

Struth fellers what's with the calling each other names and greed seekers exployters names doing on this thread
please give it a rest eh!

Sil

AG
This is not how a discussion looks
Looks like a reboot of fights ?

If you understand the value to FE community of your words about Tesla and resonance ?
Make an explanation please...
It you don't understand how it leads to a gain mechanism.. say so

If you do understand how it works! ( successful proof)
Teach !

Wrong forum for fights ..
Respectfully
Chet K

Smudge

QuoteI wrote papers on the aether 20 years ago and trawling through my memory sticks I have found two of them.  This bench may not be the best place for them but here they are.  I never got round to writing the paper on magnetic fields and I am too old (nearly 90) to do it now.

Strange, I was mulling through my files recently and found your papers. I saved them because they were insightful and had value to me, good work.

I think of it this way, we know particles have fields and said fields extend out into the surrounding space. Where do the fields come from, why do they exist?. There must be a valid reason yet some would suppose the field exists for no reason because they do like the answers which come to mind.

For example, if the conservation of energy holds then logically the primary fields E,B,G must be induced ie. an influence from something else. Otherwise we would have to assume the particle/body "acted on itself" for no apparent reason which is absurd. Similar to the notion of Inertia where an object opposes a change in motion with no supposed external interaction. Then they try to explain inertia as the interaction between two bodies. As if two bodies which "act on themselves" somehow explains the phenomena better than one, lol. It would seem to me logic and reason has left the building.

It begs the question, why is there such great opposition to the notion of something like a medium filling all space?. I think the answer is obvious, if there was a medium this not only represents vast quantities of energy but also a means to act on space ie. massless propulsion. Note I did not say "reactionless" which is obviously not the same thing.

AC

Quote from: Chet K on 2023.11.29, 18:35:26
AG
This is not how a discussion looks
Looks like a reboot of fights ?

If you understand the value to FE community of your words about Tesla and resonance ?
Make an explanation please...
It you don't understand how it leads to a gain mechanism.. say so

If you do understand how it works! ( successful proof)
Teach !

Wrong forum for fights ..
Respectfully
Chet K

As far as this thread is concerned it's about where the energy comes from, and it's not from Dr Decorum or his tower
that's some thing else and we are not interested in greed advertising here and it shouldn't be on this thread.

I ask again Wesley man of infinite wisdom explain how resonance formula works with wire length of different wire lengths
while maintaining resonance when maintaining 1/4 wave, if it's not too much trouble.

Sil

AG
Actually,you are incorrect about Stivep's words
He has a theory on where the energy comes from ( topic tittle)
If he wishes to make this claim here he needs to follow forum protocol
And submit for an independent replication.

If not ?
No need to write it here at all ( as fact)
Also not certain why you write this provocative "greed" word on open source research forum regarding
"Where does the energy come from "?

Respectfully
Chet K

Quote from: Chet K on 2023.11.29, 20:21:19
AG
Actually,you are incorrect about Stivep's words
He has a theory on where the energy comes from ( topic tittle)
If he wishes to make this claim here he needs to follow forum protocol
And submit for an independent replication.

If not ?
No need to write it here at all ( as fact)
Also not certain why you write this provocative "greed" word on open source research forum regarding
"Where does the energy come from "?

Respectfully
Chet K

Well if some one patents one of Tesla's inventions from an old white paper then how does that affect us ?
detrimentally i would think.

Ps what's a tittle ?

It's a strange value you seek in your reply you say one thing and place value in a different material value.
where do your true values lie ?

Sil

Quote from: AlienGrey on 2023.11.29, 23:22:47


Ps what a tittle ?

It's a strange value you seek in your reply you say one thing and place value in a different material value.
where do your true values lie ?

Sil

AG
Quote
"A strange value you seek "
End quote

Please define this strange value I seek ?( no idea what this refers to ?

AG
Quote
"And place value in a different material value "
End quote

AG Please define the "different material value " you write about ? No idea what this means

You seem to be talking to someone else ?
I never mentioned a single value of my own ,just forum rules regarding Stiveps claims , his claims from topic tittle "WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM "
And Stivep's reply : writing his FE claims here as facts ( forum rules do not allow this ( require independent replication /verification )

This was always a fight at OU.com (claims without empirical evidence)
Here it's forbidden ( scientific method applies for such claims ( independent replication).

Sorry if there was confusion on Stivep's claims and forum rules .

AG
Could you answer these questions above addressed to me ( about my "values"??)

Quote from: Chet K on 2023.11.30, 00:16:42
AG
Quote
"A strange value you seek "
End quote

Please define this strange value I seek ?( no idea what this refers to ?

AG
Quote
"And place value in a different material value "
End quote

AG Please define the "different material value " you write about ? No idea what this means

You seem to be talking to someone else ?
I never mentioned a single value of my own ,just forum rules regarding Stiveps claims , his claims from topic tittle "WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM "
And Stivep's reply : writing his FE claims here as facts ( forum rules do not allow this ( require independent replication /verification )

This was always a fight at OU.com (claims without empirical evidence)
Here it's forbidden ( scientific method applies for such claims ( independent replication).

Sorry if there was confusion on Stivep's claims and forum rules .

AG
Could you answer these questions above addressed to me ( about my "values"??)

This is all pointless meaning is lost in translation and avoids my original question, asking Wesley to define Tesla's theory of resonance ... full stop.

Suppose i said I had loads of slugs out in my garden over there i think they are called mollusks (snails)  ;D

If you watch this video it will explain where the energy comes from!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0Z5tcy1qXE

However we need to see and understand the relationship how large windings are linked in resonance

I do so hate having to re invent the wheel, due to obstruction meaning who ever it may concern. :)

Sil

Sil

Resonance alone can't get us OU with positive resistance.

We need resonance with negative resistance. Then amplitude is higher out than in.

so "Resonance" itself is a bit of an albatross.

Cheers,
wlw

AG

QuoteIf you watch this video it will explain where the energy comes from!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0Z5tcy1qXE
However we need to see and understand the relationship how large windings are linked in resonance

Of course, and if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bicycle.

Resonance describes how energy can be transferred from one place to another but in no way tells us where the energy to produce a gain might come from. Resonance only relates to a transfer in energy not energy in itself. No more than inertia can explain an opposition to motion when an object has no means to oppose anything because the space which surrounds it is supposed as empty.

Logic and reason seems to have left the building.

AC

Dear Wesley, could you provide information on the wiring diagram for this Soviet device?
https://zapadpribor.org/1gi0301-1-modul (https://zapadpribor.org/1gi0301-1-modul)
Too little information, frequency, characteristic impedance, connection diagram.
Or maybe you know, this was also copied from Western models?

quote from AC
Of course, and if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bicycle. Too much information

Resonance describes how energy can be It's not transferred from one place to another thats some thing else but in no way tells us where the energy to produce a gain might come from.( So where does a fridge magnet get it's energy from same place). It's maintained by it's environment other wise it would fall off.

Resonance only relates to a transfer in energy not energy in itself (does it are you sure about that ?). No more than inertia can explain an opposition to motion when an object has no means to oppose anything because the space which surrounds it is supposed as empty (well it's not)

Logic and reason seems to have left the building sure has  O0

AlienGrey

I your equipment can simulate nature then energy is sucked from nature. You can then have one resonance on input connected to power source and second on output which is purely nature.

...

A good while ago while playing with a Tesla coil with earth ground i got a small amount of corona out the top of the winding
i noticed in a youtube clip they run an earth in side the tube this got me thinking so i used a well insulated
wire from the top of the Tesla coil back in it's bottom and up through the top and fired it up   and it started to smoke!

work that one out!

Sil

Quote from: stivep on 2023.12.02, 01:22:03
Group of:
относится к разделу электровакуумных приборов и ламп различного назначения.
По конструкции состоит из вакуумно-герметичной, жесткой оболочки, внутри которой отсутствует кислород.
application:  .
Модуль СВЧ 1ГИ03/01-1 предназначен для работы на фиксированных частотах в качестве автогенератора импульсного режима с катодной модуляцией в дециметровом диапазоне волн.
Коэффициент стоячей волны - не более 1,7

Yes,but it wonder that they give this parameter. But they do not indicate the characteristic impedance of the connectors. And anyway, why are there two of them ?

isn't this a tad off topic ?
Group of:
refers to the section of electric vacuum devices and lamps for various purposes.
By design, it consists of a vacuum-sealed, rigid shell, inside which there is no oxygen.
application:   .
The microwave module 1GI03/01-1 is designed to operate at fixed frequencies as a pulse-mode self-oscillator with cathode modulation in the decimeter wavelength range.
Standing wave coefficient - no more than 1.7

...

Seems more than a tad off topic ...
Chief perhaps you explain what this path towards " where does the energy come from "
Look like ?
What are you trying to do ?


Besides quality control ...reviews of product manufacturers or countries
Etc etc ( as Stivep wrote)

What does your experiment ( theoretical) look like ?
To be clear ,your research and input have always been
Quite interesting..( outside the box thinking is always good

Respectfully
Chet K
PS
As already stated
Here no political or off topic excuses to write political commentary ( plenty of other places to write such divisive themes on internet for that ( this comment not addressed to "Chief")


Research towards FE is goal here ..please define your experiment towards that goal ?

It's just that my compatriots could not answer anything about this device.
I'm sorry. :-[

Chief
Yes I know it's something you try to do to make money In your life ( fix /repair buy sell etc etc to try and survive day to day .

Here it's important to not give too much political commentary or opinions ( absolutely not addressing you !! )
The other forum was constant concern ( unnecessary words which led to unnecessary conflict ( political philosophy etc )

Here it is simply not allowed , the things which helped to close the other forum ( constant fights etc needing administrative attention)
Cannot happen here ..

Perhaps such off topic questions to Stivep should go through pm ..if responses include unnecessary generalizations which ultimately violate this forum's intent ( FE research ,non political information or opinions which are introductions to flamewars...or ?

Respectfully
Chet

...

Actually
It's your needing to constantly write derogatory references
And insinuations towards specific countries which I refer to .( constant "digs"  which have no use whatsoever except to
Plant seeds for flamewars and battles !( regular almost daily occurrence at now closed OU.com forum !

Please write technical info without all the extras ( which I have never read here at this forum ( especially since it is forbidden by terms of service .

For clarity you are well aware of what I refer to ,as this was constant issue at Stefan's forum .( also forbidden

I am well aware of the content our host wishes for these pages and he has Zero time to deal with terms of service violations or discussions that test the boundaries of these terms.

...

 Here it's just the forum goal which brings people together ... FE research ,testing and sharing open source.
Any other topics or distractions should look for the appropriate venues ( which there are
Probably millions on the internet)
Writing derogatory comments, example:_"This country" _or _"that country" _  Politics, religion, sports ....etc etc ( all good topics for a "dust up"at pubs or parties...
Open source FE research ( example LENR) is a global community not bound by borders or other.

  This is our hosts (Peterae) criteria for participation in his forum , he work's incredibly long hours, has very stressed resources ,
And cannot allow distractions to take up his extremely limited time or consume this forum towards off topic goals.

Poynt is the other Administrator-here and also has zero time for distractions .

Read poynts power and creed ,for proper presentation of claims and guidelines etc

Respectfully
Chet K
Ps
I do luv the Chief and all who toil towards this goal!

...

   Why do you continue to flood these threads with your personal BS.
   Did you not get what Chet told you???
   This forum is NOT for your entertainment...
   
   NickZ

It has  seemed interesting to me.
https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Energy_does_not_Exist&oldid=4195991 (https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Energy_does_not_Exist&oldid=4195991)

That's about energy being a void in a ignorant (unreasonably attached to a belief)'
It's like ET and the big American lie' saying ET doesn't exist now it has to eat it's words ! 
It's a pity idiots like that try to amuse us with such rubbish other wise why so many deaths
over it ?                     

Perhaps access to this site should be made with sorting out the orientation of such negative folk
and it being a safer environment to work in.
Sil

Quote from: whitelightningwizard on 2023.11.30, 20:23:20
Resonance alone can't get us OU with positive resistance.

Resonance is superfluous with negative resistance because negative resistance constitutes a source of energy by itself.

Verpies

Don't know if this helps or not but feel free to delete if you wish.

Resonance and the novice, picked from Don smiths talks.

The winding and 1/4 wave (not 1/4 frequency)  :)

simple formula

number of turns on the cylinder Old Tesla coil
times distance round one wind(turn) round the tube length of original wind (needs to be accurate)

Divide by 4 = .25 of wire length > = length

Here i tried it on an old wind i dug out the junk pile on a 40 mm pipe, I counted the winds in sections of  20
and got 7 with 3 left over.

So 7 x 20 plus 3 =140.75 cm x 14.220775 once round tube = 199.740813 cm / 100 = 19.997408  mtrs

You could try this on the secondary winding and divide this by 2  and test for harmonics and gain in output
in wave amplitude.

Sil

...

Personally i think it's a got at story, America and other petrochemical users burn this stuff and heat up the atmosphere
it's that conversion into the atmosphere we need to suck back and use, nothing to do with sea weed and food slops
or weapons grade plutonium in your fish , take a look at ET you don't see a petrol tanker trailing behind them do you,
so keep your story telling to your self thanks.

Important video unfortunately in Spanish https://www.cuatro.com/cuarto-milenio/20231203/generador-figuera-maquina-cambiar-mundo_18_011136290.html   may explain where does the energy come from - magnetic field

I have known a guy for the last 27 years who builds DEVICES out of pure scrap from the recyclers. He owns no measuring devices or electronic instruments. A tape measure is all he has. He buys literally nothing from stores. People from all over the world send him things like pipe, sheet metal, ring magnets, copper wire etc, He was gifted a dozen Diesel driven generators to make them over unity.  Nothing electronic. In fact he doesnt own a 'cell' phone only a land line. He NEVER uses a keyboard or a computer. His ONLY books are bibles. He hasnt read a book other than the bible. He dropped out of school, not that he went much anyway before 13 yrs old. His nich name was 'toolbox' because he had the ability in the motor bike club that he could fix anything. He has represented himself in 'court' to win the right to have a car on the highway without govt rego papers and made his own license plates by holding up the bible as his right to liberty. Almost every single day for the last 31 years since he built a Cell that levitated a car off the ground and used no visible (NON PHYSICAL PHENOMENA) means of fuel source and MOST all the devices requires a 'car battery' for Ballast for the EXCESS ENERGY TO MANIFEST. Or a car battery to make the components of the final device.

When playing with frequency and resonance to understand this elusive over unity, I see no one here actually understands either. The mere use of a frequency meter changes the frequency of the device. But some how this is ignored.

In those 27 years I have visited him near 100 times and even lived in his house for extended periods to be shown how his inventions work.
In those 27 years I have watched and helped, financed and even repaired many of his inventions.
He doesnt care about lenz or ohm or resonance or where the energy comes from as he knows it's all from God. People come from all over the world to see some real science experiments with real OVER UNITY energy displays doing things you people havent even dreamed of yet.

So when I post on this bench about just ONE of his inventions and how it works, (Edit )


Science is only about questioning everything as in NOT TRUSTING anything. Science has NO facts only demonstrations and possible explanations. There are NO Laws to particle science. NONE.  (mostly because there are no 'particles' in science'.)You dont need these crap explanations to build working devices. Did Tesla use any Laws? The FBI said he was a reincarnated Venusian Soul but (edit) probably thinks we dont have souls inhabiting a magnetic Bio Field of resonating frequencies. He probably thnks he originated from a monkey. There are only 2 laws in the universe for where the energy comes from.... compression and expansion. North and South poles, Positive and Negative. You ALL use this PRINCIPLE the moment you try to make 'electricity' no matter how you make it. Yet you have zero understanding of its origins. Here is why WLW and I are friends. Our inventions and devices even our respective 'theories' prove Walter Russells 'science of Philosophy'.

'Resonance' is a Magnetic Field Pattern of Vibrations regardless of how its 'displayed' or 'made'. We call it MRF pattern. Magnetic Resonant Field patterns. All magnetic Fields have one. All is Magnetic. One Resonant Pattern effects it neighbors Field Pattern. This effect is 'electricity' as a magnetic Field.

Electricity 'production' as is a Magnetic Field, is only an effect between Resonant Field Patterns. The Field Effect around a Wire is Resonating the AIR around the Wire. As the Air is also Magnetic, the WIND displays this Resonant Field Effect as ANOTHER Field surrounding the Wire's Field setting up another resonating pattern. unless of course you have spinning electrons and changing angles of the bonds in the charged marble construct of the atom as proven no doubt by

Energy is ONLY VIBRATIONS. (Edit) particle electrons will see him make another 150 youtube videos proving he's the living expert on all things physical but missed Tesla's Memo about studying NON Physical Phenomena so as to upwise himself more in a decade than his beloved OU.com could do in several centuries.

And here we are. still debating on where the energy comes from.

I have a bench and will begin teaching construction methodology with the NEW Science theories based upon devices I have built, repaired, studied and witnessed.

This will be my last post on any other thread. If you want to understand the Universe and Energy, come to MerLynns Bench to learn about the Frequency and vibrations of Vibrating Light Crystals where you are most welcome to ask intelligent questions.

I thank youse all for the opportunity to add my 6 Godzillion cents worth to this never ending debate of My Science is Higher than Your Science. Where 'science' is the new God of man's belief system and cannot be questioned because muh laws. Its a Particle Cult and it will get you boosted to a higher frequency beyond Life itself.

——//////——-////—///////———————

Edit ( a few words outside of forum etiquette and rules were removed
Content and intent is intact )
note to readers
Here Merlyn's bench experiments are not to be interrupted ,or hindered .

Many curious minds would luv to read uninterrupted or distracted presentation.

Respectfully
Chet K
PS topic is temporarily locked until I receive reply from Merlyn (in PM)