Here's the U.S. Patent of William Barbat for his energy generation / conversion device.
The patent is quite detailed and a good / fun read with lots of references and interesting research.
This may relate to the work of SM in some way. I researched this some years ago and recently Chet brought it up on OUR forum, so we have a new topic to discuss. Thanks Chet!.
William Barbat's company:
http://www.levitronicsenergy.com/science.htm
contact:
Contact Levitronics, Inc.
William Barbat
President
503.697.1690
wbarbat@levitronicsenergy.com
Carolyn Hidy
Project Development Coordinator
406.827.3234
Quote from Scientific Discussionpage of his site:
QuoteA high power-to-weight ratio similar to the 1920 boat demonstration is indicated for LME generators made with a semiconductor having a high Energy Magnification Factor. Such a generator could outcompete petroleum for all forms of transportation including propellor aircraft. A self-generator utilizing Lead Sulfide, with electron mass 0.16 times normal and a calculated inductive energy magnification factor of 39X, could theoretically power the world's one billion autos using less lead than is found in lead-acid batteries. Self-generators employing silicon might power all the world's homes and industries, and offer low-cost desalinization.
A self-generator is relatively simple in design, but it requires special laboratory facilities to make polycrystalline coatings of desired semiconductors. that can conduct large currents of LMEs. Levitronics seeks both laboratories and capital to test a relatively simple self-sustaining generator powered by the common photoconductor, cadmium sulfide, which has a calculated inductive energy magnification factor of 37X.
ah yes let's take some Steven Mark and mix in with some A. Hubbard a pinch of Hans cohler and what's that? Hendershot?.
Seriously ?
Why are we following patents?
:)
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.14, 21:33:07
ah yes let's take some Steven Mark and mix in with some A. Hubbard a pinch of Hans cohler and what's that? Hendershot?.
Seriously ?
Why are we following patents?
:)
All of these devices probably utilize the same underlying principle.
Grumpy,
Can you post the two links the buzz made in the other forum?
I read them before I called him today and they really helped!
I tried to put a link to them here but this pos machine I,m on won't let me!
You should call this guy!
He is most receptive ,and I told him you might call ,as you have more understanding than myself in these things!
Chet
PS
As I said at the other forum
We are just a group of friends with a very big interest in this lost science.
If / when you do call him use my name
Chet Kremens
We got along very well!!
PPS
Does the name Joseph Lamar or larmars mean anything (low mass electron research)
I never ask people to repeat themselves!
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.14, 21:55:08
All of these devices probably utilize the same underlying principle.
Yup it's called BS
Now you're saying either all of these devices work or all of these devices do not work.
I know alot of them do not work so we have a conflict in case you say they all work.
:)
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.14, 22:42:10
Yup it's called BS
Now you're saying either all of these devices work or all of these devices do not work.
I know alot of them do not work so we have a conflict in case you say they all work.
:)
Yes, I should have said "if" they work, then they "probably" utilize the same principle. Hard to say without any useful data or inherent understanding of the "principle". However, Barbat is now saying he needs expensive coatings to get the OU goods.
The more important question:
Which devices actually work?
Better question is "which effect is responsible"
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.14, 23:17:30
Better question is "which effect is responsible"
OK -
which effect is responsible?
I've been interested in this since early 2007 and continue to consider
it a valid pursuit (at least until I see it NOT work). Here's my thread where
you can see me stumbling towards learning, and the contributions of
others that either like or dislike the concept.
Please look it over to see if there's anything that sparks your interest.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2255.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2255.0)
tak
I posted this back in June 2008 back at OU. I was told I "missed the point" by "aether22". I can refute his critique, but will leave the reader to decide.
Several mysteries with this patent:
1. Why does Barbat not put his "sending coil" co-axially inside a magnifying coil made of copper tubing with a treated inside surface (photoconductive) such that all of the photonic induction can impinge on the inside surface of the magnifying coil tube.
A co-axial approach such as this would minimize radiated losses. Alternately a long copper pipe with inside surface treated and co-axial with a wire running from end to end as the sending coil. With suitably spaced insulating washers or beads, this assembly could be wound into a coil and put into a pot core to completely contain stray fields.
2. Barbat has me confused in saying that normal transformer action is the result of photonic induction. If this is true, the photons have no trouble going through opaque insulating paper and wire varnish in a typical transformer. But then his arrangements seem to imply the photonic induction is like visible light and carefully places his devices to optimize direct illumination as if it were light.? Barbat tries to make the case that normal radio waves are the result of photonic induction into and out of antenna structures and then extends this to normal transformer action. Wikipedia seems to agree (def:photon)
3. The magnifying coil in fig.1a, 2a and 3 represent a shorted transformer winding. This would cause extreme absorption of energy and heating of the magnifying coil. All of the energy will go to this winding in the form of heat, and nothing will be left for the output winding. Am I missing something? Now if it works, I don't mind having such a heater, but how does he get useful work into his output winding with a shorted winding absorbing everything?
Edit: After having thought about this it is possible to get some induction, as the magnifying coil will not be 100% absorptive of all flux.
Some ideas:
Does anyone think this will work? Purchase some 1/4 or 3/8 O.D. copper tubing. Clean the inside by circulating a mild acid using a small pump. Rinse with water, then circulate peroxide for as long as necessary.. Rinse again with water. Should have a nice uniform oxide coating on the inside.
Now thread a cotton insulated copper wire (sending coil) through the center of the copper tubing. The entire assembly can be formed onto a bobbin and set into a magnetic structure such as a large ferrite pot core.
Activating the sending coil, all of the photonic induction will impinge on the photoconductor on the inside wall of the tube, as they are co-axial. This should make the assembly highly efficient.
If you like you can add the work coil to the bobbin as an outer winding on top of the magnifying coil., but as is should make a pretty good heater if the kind of gains Barbat is claiming are anywhere near true.
Another method for oxidizing copper tubing interior would be to heat the tubing, while slowly running some pure oxygen through it.
=============================================================
Could this be the missing ingredient in the SM TPU? It satisfies several of the criteria, non-reciprocal induction,
runs with gain, feeds on it self, and generates excess heat in the main coil.
SM used a lot of zip cord in his devices, which is normally unplated copper and subject to oxidation. I've stripped back a lot of old zipcord and it is usually extremely oxidized and must be cleaned before it is able to take solder. Would this make it photoconductive?
If this has any truth, what we have been calling collectors are actually the emitters, and the toroidal winding of zipcord could be the collector.
If you are in the camp that says all electromagnetic forces are carried out by "photons", then all forms of induction are "photonic", so which form of induction is Barbat referring to?
It was G.N. Lewis that first postulated that "photons" carried radiation between atoms (and coined the term "photon"), and this was a very different idea than the light quantum of Planck, Einstein, and Bohr. So, what kind of "photon" are we talking about here?
SM did mention that a TPU made from corroded wire worked very well, but if there is a connection to Barbat's device, is it the cuprous oxide or the photons?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.15, 18:31:46
If you are in the camp that says all electromagnetic forces are carried out by "photons", then all forms of induction are "photonic", so which form of induction is Barbat referring to?
It was G.N. Lewis that first postulated that "photons" carried radiation between atoms (and coined the term "photon"), and this was a very different idea than the light quantum of Planck, Einstein, and Bohr. So, what kind of "photon" are we talking about here?
SM did mention that a TPU made from corroded wire worked very well, but if there is a connection to Barbat's device, is it the cuprous oxide or the photons?
From wikipedia:
"In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction and the
basic unit of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force."
It is both the cuprous oxide (that produces the low mass electrons) and the photons that are radiated from a source (lightbulb, antenna) and impinge on to the photosensitive cuprous oxide coating.
That was one slip by SM that may have given away his secret ingredient......photoconductive oxide on the wire of the "collector"
if so, conductivity may be enhanced by a dual-photon effect initiated by a pulse
EDIT:
Also the semiconductor layer softens the transition between the dielectric and the conductor, which may increase diffusion and thus the number of active electrons in flow.
Hi,
Does Otto's single wire experiment have any relevance? When he used solder the output voltages were higher. I assumed this was an effect of its resistance, bemf etc.
Just a thing I remembered as a
Steve.
I just remembered one other thing that Mr. Barbat said to me yesterday,
The coils were very Fragile because of the angel hair thin wire that he used.
Something that Tony [agentgates} also said was required in his posta at OU ,very thin wire
so as to get an event going with less power and more control [Tony's reasoning]
I got the impression from Tony that the pulse in the thin wire would approach Bursting easier
and get things jumping around for collection!
Have no idea if this is why Williiam was using thin wire in his prototypes?
Chet
Maybe "thin wire" gives you "more wire" in the same space and if you have a weak effect, more wire makes it stronger.
He shows three coils - did all three have thin wire or just one coil?
(I have my own interpretatin and some hot irons in the fire.)
The bifeld brown effect or asymetric capacitor effect, lift is much more pronounced by using very thin wire for one of the elctrodes.
I am not sure i fully understand this Bahbat photo conductive idea, could we not just use a selenium based solar cell as the collector or even a silicon solar cell and just fire sharp pulses at it.
The Cook coil patent if anyone remembers was a simple device but no one could get it working, maybe it's because all our copper wire is annealed and therefore cannot oxize like the good old stuff that was once available.
Quote from: tak22 on 2010.12.14, 23:40:37
I've been interested in this since early 2007 and continue to consider
it a valid pursuit (at least until I see it NOT work). Here's my thread where
you can see me stumbling towards learning, and the contributions of
others that either like or dislike the concept.
Please look it over to see if there's anything that sparks your interest.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2255.0 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2255.0)
tak
I got this to work,
but only after I re-entered the full patent application number on the search line at:
http://www.pat2pdf.org
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat20070007844.pdf
Opinion:
I like patents, since they're easy to access, unclassified and therefore usually no bother to law enforcement organizations and also they can present a basic function of an "underlying principle", as it was put in the thread above.
NOTE:Advanced Patent Search at Google.com says this application doesn't exist:
http://www.google.com/patents?tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1&q=patent%3A20070007844
However, as I said above, going to www.pat2pdf.org and entering the full Application number (20070007844) on the default request line of www.pat2pdf.org will get you the application by Barbat.
Quote from: Peterae on 2010.12.15, 22:10:37
The bifeld brown effect or asymetric capacitor effect, lift is much more pronounced by using very thin wire for one of the elctrodes.
QuoteI am not sure I fully understand this Barbat photo conductive idea, could we not just use a selenium based solar cell as the collector or even a silicon solar cell and just fire sharp pulses at it.
The idea is that the photoconductive layer (Cuprous oxide) is part of the
surface of a good conductor (copper). The low mass electrons released induce strong currents in the copper coil when it is closed into a loop. When coupled to another coil / capacitor, an oscillating energy can be produced extracted. SM may have been satisfied with the DC induction in the absorption loop.
QuoteThe Cook coil patent if anyone remembers was a simple device but no one could get it working, maybe it's because all our copper wire is annealed and therefore cannot oxidize like the good old stuff that was once available.
I remember pondering this very thought when I first read the Barbat patent and wondered how many devices may have been built using this effect that are nowadays difficult to reproduce without this missing ingredient of the Cu oxide layer. Barbat goes into this in his patent. I urge all to read the patent in it's entirety, especially the historical part.
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.15, 22:40:27
I remember pondering this very thought when I first read the Barbat patent and wondered how many devices may have been built using this effect that are nowadays difficult to reproduce without this missing ingredient of the Cu oxide layer. Barbat goes into this in his patent. I urge all to read the patent in it's entirety, especially the historical part.
Barbat considered other photoconductive compounds besides the cupric oxide, in the patent, right? Would it make any difference if it's easier to get more power out with which to prove or disprove OU generation? I admit these other coumponds can be rare and difficult to come by.
--Lee
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2010.12.15, 22:48:23
Barbat considered other photoconductive compounds besides the cupric oxide, in the patent, right? Would it make any difference if it's easier to get more power out with which to prove or disprove OU generation? I admit these other coumponds can be rare and difficult to come by.
--Lee
I would be very happy to see strong currents induced in a heavy copper wire loop (with photoconductive surface) from photon impingement. Efficiency, energy extraction methods and possible OU can be explored later.
First we need proof of concept.
Here's the patent application and the World patent
The patent mentioned in the Barbat patent:
http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4835433.pdf (http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat4835433.pdf)
Tesla wrote of an effect that sounds "related" but without the need for cuprous oxide:
EDIT: with higher voltage and faster rate of change, semiconductor coatings may not be required
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.15, 17:45:29
Several mysteries with this patent:
1. Why does Barbat not put his "sending coil" co-axially inside a magnifying coil made of copper tubing with a treated inside surface (photoconductive) such that all of the photonic induction can impinge on the inside surface of the magnifying coil tube.
A co-axial approach such as this would minimize radiated losses. Alternately a long copper pipe with inside surface treated and co-axial with a wire running from end to end as the sending coil. With suitably spaced insulating washers or beads, this assembly could be wound into a coil and put into a pot core to completely contain stray fields.
Ion,
the sending coil can not be coaxial with the magnifying coil because the electrokinetic effect of the photons hitting the magnifying coil generates a current which is in the
same direction as the current in the sending coil.
Trying to use the self-inductance effect of co-axial coils would generate a current which is in the
opposite direction, thereby cancelleing the desired gain.
Barbat's design and placement of coils is already optimised as much as possible, even if it looks "crude" at first sight.
The only coils that can benefit from co-axial placement are the maginfying coil and the output coil, and their currents are in opposition. Here, close coupling is a benefit. See the arrows in the drawings. See paragraph 0137 in the patent.
This patent is exemplary in all its facets, and deserves study. I printed it so I could underline / highlight the important parts, and there a re LOTS of them. :) Barbat is obviously onto something big. It's like a new branch of physics ! :D
Here are just a few paragraphs of importance: 57, 90, end of 152.
In my opinion, this is the most promising new energy device that doesn't use the aether as its main power source. It rather looks "conventional", much like photocells or photodetectors.
The only info missing in the patent is what is the physical size required for a given output, at what fraquency does this works best (very high, I assume), and how to easily make a satisfactory coating (at home) with semiconductors.
I have been wanting to duplicate this for the last year and a half, what's holding me ?
Altair
His "mode of operation" sounds like "electromagnetic induction", with a little boost from the semiconductor coating:
(my BS meter is in the red zone!)
;D ;D I can't stop! ;D ;D
Thanks to all for your enthusiasm and attention to this Barbat 'thing'.
I've had it central in my OU thoughts for years and have never been able to drum
up this much thinking on it from others.
I have 10 days of vacation coming up over the holidays and ideas be willing I'll spend
as much of it as I can on this. If you have ideas for simple proof of concept testing
I'm open to trying it, provided I have or can get what's needed.
tak
Barbat is basing the gain mechanism on the notion that there is such a thing as "low mass electrons" :-\ vs. "normal mass electrons".
Perhaps I don't understand his description of what they are and how they are produced, but IMHO this is the weak point of his patent application. Without the existence of these "low mass electrons" and the method to conjuring them up (which is also sketchy), there is no device.
I also get the distinct impression from reading the patent, that it is all theoretical based, i.e. he has no device to demonstrate. It all sounds good, and it appears he's done a fair bit of homework there is no doubt about that, but I also get the impression that he wanted a venue to write a paper and make his mark in pseudo-science.
Why doesn't someone contact Barbat and invite him here? I'd like to hear a description of a POC device he has made. ;)
.99
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.16, 00:05:50
His "mode of operation" sounds like "electromagnetic induction", with a little boost from the semiconductor coating:
(my BS meter is in the red zone!)
However he states that the "energy magnification factor" of photoconductive compounds can go from the 30s up to 5100 for indium antimonide. If this factor is even remotely related to the input:output current ratio, this would account for much more than "a little boost" IMHO.
Ramset, if you're in contact with Mr Barbat, could you ask him if this is replicable exactly as is from the patent, or is there anything more we should know. We can get cadmium sulfide powder here: http://www.americanelements.com/ , or many other compounds.
Altair
Altair
I asked him if he had this working ,his responce was yes, but the coils were very fragile
and not dependable.
his next issue was chemical related,he said those issues are resolved now.
I asked him if he ever shared this publicly,he said he has shared with a few but never without an NDA.
I can no doubt make another call,we had a very pleasant conversation,and I did say that a friend of mine might be in contact, because he was also fascinated with this patent and all the lost science that was discussed in it.[I used Grumpy's first name as my friend, which he posted here one time a while back]
I can't tell people my friends are all anonymous!!
He knows My name ,Chet kremens!
I don't want to pester him ,but he did make reference to a study done on Low mass electrons and super conductors by a person that I thought he said was joseph Larmar or Lamar [I never ask a person to repeat themselves,It interupts the flow]
Not sure he wants to open source as the NDA comment and he said he has a company very interested of late.
But I most certainly will call him again if asked to by this group with specific questions.
Chet
PS I told him we were a group of friends that studied these lost sciences ,and were totaly floored by his patent,and what a wonderful read it was!
PPS
Grumpy has the best "inn", as I said he would most likely be calling in the near future.
Also
I asked him if there were any "elements"[isotopes and such] involved,he said no and thats when he rattled off the fellows name and the reference to Low density electrons and semi /super conductor research .
That this was what it was based on,the diference in acceleration making something happen
accelleration being emphasized several times!
Chet
Great, Ramset,
I understand his concern about the NDA.
However, as the patent is so thoroughly explained, it's almost impossible that there won't be any replications.
I wonder if he would consider officially coaching the group here on a few replicas...
But of course, he would soon find out that everybody here is anonymous. ::)
Regarding acceleration, it is interesting that in paragraph 55 he states that inductive photons are continually radiated, when the electric charges move in a curving motion !
Centrifugal force affecting currents, I've seen reference to that somewhere else, but can't find it now. >:(
Altair
that was Joseph Larmor
Barbat talks about all of this in his patent app
From what he says about "low mass electrons" it sounds like he conjured them up to explain an anomalous magnetic field or current.
"Low Mass Electron"
Is that referring to it's effective or real mass?
.99
I would suggest that Barbat is referring to an effective mass when referring to a Low Mass Electron (LME).
Doesn't it make sense that under an applied force (i.e. an electric field), an electron would accelerate easier and travel with a higher drift velocity in a superconductor vs. a "normal" conductor? Its kinetic energy is increased because the energy imparted to the electron is retained vs. given up to heated collisions. So, the behavior is effectively like that of a particle of lower mass. Barring relativistic effects though, me never changes.
Photon excitation is another story. In semiconductors, it can cause electron flow.
I still fail to see the reality of a LME. If there is indeed an effect with Barbat's devices, I doubt it has anything to do with LME's, because they don't really exist.
.99
There is another way that was only explored thoroughly by Tesla and no one since him. This is what Barbat hit on an tried to explain with the low mass electrons. Reading his explanation, he was not aware of Tesla's work with electrostatic induction or even Faraday's. The current induced by electrostatic induction is much faster than drift velocity - several orders of magnitude faster. Stand near a high voltage DC power line when a switching transient moves down the line and you may not survive. ES-Induced current is proportional to the rate of rise, voltage, and is cumulative.
Barbat blows right past it like everyone else.
Come on NSA, let's have a few beers!
There are no high dV/dt's nor necessarily any high frequencies used in Barbat's device.
It works as a resonant tank, and any frequency range can be used, as per the patent.
So I doubt ES induction has much if anything to do with the effect, if indeed there is one.
Barbat gives this clue:, RF transmission and reception.
Regarding the speed of current via ES induction and conduction current; there is little difference in speed. Only difference is in the velocity the electrons travel.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.16, 04:34:57
There are no high dV/dt's nor necessarily any high frequencies used in Barbat's device.
It works as a resonant tank, and any frequency range can be used, as per the patent.
So I doubt ES induction has much if anything to do with the effect, if indeed there is one.
Barbat gives this clue:, RF transmission and reception.
.99
ES induction IS THE EFFECT. Several years of work has culminated on that single fact. TPU, Kapanadze, Hendershot, all of them - ALL ES PRINCIPLES!
Look at Barbat again. That shorted coil has nothing to do with a resonant tank. Look at what Telsa said about shorted coils. Tesla went on to utilize the large current in this shorted coil to develop several devices including motors. He used heavy conductors as the current was quite large. Been there the whole time...
Do not make the same mistake that was made 100 years ago and discard ES induction!
Consider this: ES induction will cause a current to flow to or from an earth ground. What if the conductor is connected to a dipole like a battery or cap? Ah-ha! it charges it!
Remember! You read it hear first!
Thank you all for your contributions to this thread. So many have come out of the woodwork to make interesting posts.
Thanks again to Chet for being OUR intermediary to Mr. Barbat. Maybe if he comes here he will see the energy and enthusiasm all of you have offered, and he will have some willing hands and minds to help.
It should not be too difficult to detect a DC current flow in a shorted pancake loop that has been treated(if it exists). Opposite points can be probed, or a compass will detect a circulating current by the magnetic field produced.
The point is, the flow will be DC. Barbat used an auxiliary LC in the patent to generate an AC current. I don't believe this will work without a semiconductor switch, but who knows, if the electrons are fast enough and can change direction quickly it might.
A light source, RF antenna or electrostatic induction technique such as that of Lewey Gilstrap can be used as an excitation source.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.16, 03:46:32
I still fail to see the reality of a LME. If there is indeed an effect with Barbat's devices, I doubt it has anything to do with LME's, because they don't really exist.
.99
Are you aware of low mass electron/positron pairs?
LMEs do exist but there mass is relative to the observer. The way I understand it... the low mass electrons have a low relative mass as seen by an observer having relative velocity. The LMEs may be unmoving or slow moving. So, Barbat is having a coil with no or drift current within coils acting as observers with higher relative velocity?????
Strange enough but surely a bit above Barbat's head.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.16, 08:34:24
Are you aware of low mass electron/positron pairs?
LMEs do exist but there mass is relative to the observer. The way I understand it... the low mass electrons have a low relative mass as seen by an observer having relative velocity. The LMEs may be unmoving or slow moving. So, Barbat is having a coil with no or drift current within coils acting as observers with higher relative velocity?????
Strange enough but surely a bit above Barbat's head.
Yes, but I did not mention it because I see no relation to what Barbat is calling a LME.
Also, "Low Mass" when stated along with "Electron/Positron pair", is a loosely-used added term. The created pair has the mass of 2m
e, so the total mass is actually greater than a single electron.
There will absolutely be drift current in Barbat's device. All 3 coils in fact, as per the patent.
.99
If Barbat had read up on electrostatic induction, he would not need LME's to explain electrons that move faster than standard drift.
Grumpy,
Quote:
Consider this: ES induction will cause a current to flow to or from an earth ground. What if the conductor is connected to a dipole like a battery or cap? Ah-ha! it charges it!
Remember! You read it hear first!
-------------------
whether or not Barbat is basing his work on LMA [low mass electron] or in reality it is actually
ESI [Electro static induction].
Do you still use the same bait to catch the fish??Or does the realisation of ESI change everything?
Chet
PS
I might add ,To this Pin Head,
Static and Low mass almost sound interchangable.
No one agrees with my conclusion of ES Induction, so there is no need to discuss it further.
Grumpy
To think/ believe that static can make a path for current,seems quite obvious to me after having read your post.
Much the way that a standing puddle of water will start to flow /follow even the smallest trace scraped from it!
I don't think Peeps disagree at all with your statement!
Chet
Shorted coils are also used to convert electrostatically induced current into electromagnetically induced magnetism, or just put a load on the shorted coil and use the current. Then you either shuttle the charge back and forth (AC) or rotate it around (DC).
Ed Gray's motors. Methernitha's Testatika electrostatic generator.
There's an interesting circuit here of an electrostatic speaker esl63
They also short the delay coils.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.16, 13:37:31
There will absolutely be drift current in Barbat's device. All 3 coils in fact, as per the patent.
.99
Maybe very little, in the shorted coil. The short prevents potential buildup. No potential, no current. You can unload a generator by removing the load or shorting the output leads.
While some potential builds across the shorted coil, it must be limited and extremely low. The shorted winding looks like it must act more as a capacitor plate than anything else.
That shorted coil looks more like the inner metal cylinder of a Faraday ice pail experiment.
In other words, I think Grumpy has nailed this one.
Peterae,
That shorted winding on the delays of the electrostatic speakers is actually the core (a conductor) upon which the windings are wound. That 'core' is one plate of the TL capacitance.
I think delay line is also an example of ES induction.
You sure WW i looked at the pcb a few years ago and the short was a pcb track that the coil solders to.
ok looks like you were right ;)
I have also seen an early SR193 build and it also had 5 loops of shorted turns, cant find the picture right now but will keep looking
Peterae,
Yes.
The only toroid shaped delay line I've had a look at the inductor windings were wound around a conductor strip. That strip became one half of a capacitor when the whole things was rolled.
Almost exactly as shown in the attached except the 'core' (here labeled 'inductor strip') was shorted.
Linear delay lines 'must' have the core grounded. Otherwise the core (usually a copper rod) will wind up with a high potential charge.
Dual distributed delay lines can also be linear or circular. The 'dual distributed' part is where the outer winding is actually two, or more, coils wound in a bucking configuration.
The core is one half of a capacitor. If this capacitive element has three layers, the capacitor output will be the same polarity as the capacitor input - just like Faraday's ice pail.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.16, 17:17:05
Maybe very little, in the shorted coil. The short prevents potential buildup. No potential, no current. You can unload a generator by removing the load or shorting the output leads.
While some potential builds across the shorted coil, it must be limited and extremely low. The shorted winding looks like it must act more as a capacitor plate than anything else.
That shorted coil looks more like the inner metal cylinder of a Faraday ice pail experiment.
In other words, I think Grumpy has nailed this one.
In the magnifying coil, the current is not generated from a potential, or a voltage drop. The current is generated within the material of the coil itself, as I see it. The lowest the resistance of the coil, the better the performance. A voltage drop would just be an impediment to the generation of a large current.
In this case here, "no potential" does NOT equal "no current".
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.16, 16:16:56
Could you show me where the shorted coils are in a Methernitha and back that up with some proof? I have looked into that in detail and did not see that.
I do not know that Testatika has shorted coils, but it has an electrostatic generator.
Tesla used shorted coils. See attached:
When you apply an electric field to one side of the shorted coil, the side closest will be charge opposite the inducing field, and the far side of the shorted coil will be charged the same as the inducing field. Barbat and Tesla used AC in these instances, so the elecrostatically induced current moved back and forth through the coil.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.16, 17:17:05
Maybe very little, in the shorted coil. The short prevents potential buildup. No potential, no current. You can unload a generator by removing the load or shorting the output leads.
While some potential builds across the shorted coil, it must be limited and extremely low. The shorted winding looks like it must act more as a capacitor plate than anything else.
That shorted coil looks more like the inner metal cylinder of a Faraday ice pail experiment.
In other words, I think Grumpy has nailed this one.
Unless I'm not understanding what you mean, I'd consider thinking that one through again. :o
The sending coil and magnifying coil make up a loosely-coupled transformer, and shorting the "secondary" will have a degree of loading on the primary. In addition, the shorted secondary sets up a worst-case condition for conduction current, despite there being little "potential" across the coil. The whole point it seems of having the output coil coaxial with the magnifying coil is for the best coupling via mutual induction. In fact, the desired effect
is to
maximize the current in the magnifying coil.
There may be some electrostatics involved, but the amount of ES induction will be quite feeble compared to that of the magnetic induction.
.99
good catch!
Today I thought about it too and Russian forum user nickname Tiger who has the best replication of SR device used a copper tube inside ferrite rings . It has HV connected to it and to the ground via spark gap.I think such tube can be considered poor shorted coil.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.16, 19:31:52
/snip
The whole point it seems of having the output coil coaxial with the magnifying coil is for the best coupling via mutual induction. In fact, the desired effect is to maximize the current in the magnifying coil.
/snip
Exactly !
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.16, 19:31:52
Unless I'm not understanding what you mean, I'd consider thinking that one through again. :o
The sending coil and magnifying coil make up a loosely-coupled transformer, and shorting the "secondary" will have a degree of loading on the primary. In addition, the shorted secondary sets up a worst-case condition for conduction current, despite there being little "potential" across the coil. The whole point it seems of having the output coil coaxial with the magnifying coil is for the best coupling via mutual induction. In fact, the desired effect is to maximize the current in the magnifying coil.
There may be some electrostatics involved, but the amount of ES induction will be quite feeble compared to that of the magnetic induction.
.99
ES induction is a cumulative effect and repeated application will soak the field into the conductor - i.e. more electrons will flow after a ramp-up time. At the right rate, there should be a lot of current in that shorted coil, which is electromagnetically coupled to the load coil.
I can't participate at the high level of knoweldge/experience here, but I can research!
Found this will looking around for ESI references:
Quote
Crank up the voltage over 600kv and wind spiral coils and interrupt the direct current in very short pulses and you too can make a Tesla Magnifying Transmitter. Put away that spherical Tesla coil and enter the world of Longitudinal Vortex Energy via the Tesla Magnifying Transmitter.
Short recap. Tesla built a Pinch Machine that more resembled the physical shape and electric dynamics of the sun and was therefore a Theta Pinch. He discovered Impulse Radiant Longitudinal Electric Energy in the process. This Radiant Electric Longitudinal wave could transmitt DC over space. It generated a pressure wave of neutrinos and its coronal discharge more represented star light. It did not need magnetic induction and it was not restricited to the inverse sqaure of the distance law. The rays neither diminished with the inverse square of the distance nor the inverse of the distance from their source. They seemed to stretch out in a progressive shock-shell to great distances without any apparent loss. Under further test as seen below he described it as a Corona or Whitefire. In effect, Tesla had managed to interrupt a high voltage direct current several thousand times per second. In doing so, he had discovered a way to completely separate electrostatic energy from current impulses. Tesla found it possible to produce millions of electrostatic volts by this method without any current. He discovered that the shape of the conical secondary capacitors to be important so geometry played its role. He discovered electrostatic resonace with his test and experiments.
He found that the transformative abilities of these smooth copper coils were maximum when the coil mass equaled the mass of the impulser's conductive copper strap. It did not matter how thin the coil windings were. The equality of copper masses brought maximum transformative effects. When this equal mass condition was fulfilled, Tesla said that the coil-capacitors were "in resonance". Electrostatic resonance. White discharges from each of these free ends had very different characteristics, indicating the unidirectional flow. Electropositive terminals always appeared brush-like and broad. Electronegative terminals always appeared constricted and dart-like. He began placing these "secondary" coils within his "primary" impulser circuit. The strap, which connected his magnetic arc to the capacitors, formed the "primary". He made necessary distinctions among his Transformer components. Few engineers actually appreciate these distinctions. The "primary" and "secondary" of Tesla Transformers are not magnetic inductors. They are resistive capacitors. Coil-shaped capacitors! Tesla Transformer action is electrostatic induction.
Much more in the full link.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=53#p476
tak
I'm going by actual experience with generators and alternators from 50kW to 4gW.
This experience was had due to tests requiring the demonstration of a 'worst case scenario'.
With the exception of electrostatic induction, as Grumpy describes, shorting the secondary does indeed apply some load to the primary after the initial surge during the short circuit. This load is very minimal because in all cases with conventional devices no potential always equals no current. The only reason there will be some minimal current is because the coil means there is some induction. Since induction is involved, some potential will be allowed to build up between winding turns. This will show as some load on the primary.
The way transformers are designed they will fry if they reach this point because the shorted secondary will cause the primary impedance to drop. This drop causes the primary to cook.
Try it. Short the secondary of a regular transformer. After the smoke clears look at which windings burned. (Not really. Please don't cook a transformer on my account :) ).
In the power, pump and compressor industries it is called 'freewheeling'.
>>> Edit
Too wordy, again. I should have just said: Spin up an MG set (Motor-generator). Short the generator leads and watch the RPM of the motor drop for an instant and then race beyond normal speed before synchronizing with the line frequency again. The motor current will also drop to a near unloaded value.
<<<
Sorry folks but until something beyond conventional is proven, in my mind this cannot be argued.
I really hope this device is using something other than electromagnetic induction. If it is, I would love to see enough info to replicate it. I don't see enough yet.
Quote from: Peterae on 2010.12.16, 16:29:50
There's an interesting circuit here of an electrostatic speaker esl63
They also short the delay coils.
Wow. "Interesting circuit" is understating the point to some extent, I think. I downloaded a copy of the drawing for reference. The round things are physically parts of the speaker, right? And it uses two high voltage Cockroft-Walton voltage bridge multipliers? Never saw a speaker that needed that kind of voltage.
What is the speaker part of? How does it work, as designed? Maybe there's a usable experimental modification of this device that's applicable to Barbat's invention?
--Lee
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.16, 18:51:50
Linear delay lines 'must' have the core grounded. Otherwise the core (usually a copper rod) will wind up with a high potential charge.
Dual distributed delay lines can also be linear or circular. The 'dual distributed' part is where the outer winding is actually two, or more, coils wound in a bucking configuration.
The core is one half of a capacitor. If this capacitive element has three layers, the capacitor output will be the same polarity as the capacitor input - just like Faraday's ice pail.
I speculatively ask (offhand) that possibly the coiled capacitor looks like it might be usable as part of a Testatika setup or else in an Influence Machine from the late 1900's?
Just curious if anyone thought of that.
--Lee
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.16, 20:51:30
Normal transformer 80% efficient with accelerator coil (shorted coils on ends of inductors) squared = 320%
Have a look at Thane Heinz, he figured it out. http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins
Just some comments for you Quarktoo. There is no way that putting loops of wire, a.k.a.; "shorted coils" on the end of an inductor will will increase the energy in a coil. Meanwhile, Thane is having a hard time getting any traction because in his recent round of clips he is not doing a convincing demonstration of anything. Nor is there any such thing as a "damaged" electron.
QuoteTake a Whimhurst for example. The counter rotating disks tear some of the mass between the plates and they take on an imbalance of mass/energy. Normally, electricity will distribute itself evenly though the environment but electrostatic likes to hang out in clumps which classic EM theory can not account for.
Friction between two materials can create static electricity. There is no imbalance of mass/energy happening. Even friction with the ambient air can create static electricity. Electrostatic charge on a conductor will spread itself out, but on an insulating material it can indeed be in uneven clumps.
Anyway, I am just making a few comments because some of your statements are far out, I never participate in these kinds of threads.
One day you might want to do some bench testing to check what happens when you put shorted coils at one or both ends of an inductor. You won't find any excess energy.
Sorry for the thread interruption!
MileHigh
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.16, 21:32:28
Damn Grumpy! I was not even done all calling your bullshit on the previous post and now you go and post this... I don't see a shorted coil in Tesla's paper you posted but then the image is fuzzier than my back. Could you point that shorted coil in Tesla's patent?
So back you the previous post:
Ed Gray used an accelerator coil that was made of silver wire and that is well documented.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCiA7025xq8
EDIT
The the two coils at the end of the motor were shorted together to trap / block the magnetic field that normally follows the shaft out of the motor. (Compression/acceleration) - Thane Heins.
BTW - Norm Wootan shows another way to build an accelerator coil but I wind ALL the wires that go back to the start OVER the top.
EDIT
The centrifigul force of an electron traveling in a straight line across silver, verses spiraling around copper, causes the electron to accelerate. Also, silver is super corrosive and is one reason that it is the most conductive of all metals. Those loose charge carriers, what Barbet calls low mass electrons, move freely and are split easily due to the higher velocity, AB effect and current as a result.
Electrostatic charge is formed from damaged electrons. Take a Whimhurst for example. The counter rotating disks tear some of the mass between the plates and they take on an imbalance of mass/energy. Normally, electricity will distribute itself evenly though the environment but electrostatic likes to hang out in clumps which classic EM theory can not account for.
Incomplete electrons are like incomplete people, they stick together like glue. This could explain Ramset and the other dependtards. All we need to do is shoot Ramset and one other dependtard through a huge copper tube wrapped around a giant horse shoe magnet. Ramset will come out one tube on... say the North pole of the magnet, and the other dependtard will come out the copper tube on the South side - just like the Methernitha magnets are wired. This re-polarization process is a way to recycle damaged electrons into useful energy again and at overunity.
Man... I love the sight of napalm on the web.
Nappy time
PS - While typing this, I was listening to the video and Gray claimed 400% efficiency. Go figure...
Images of Tesla ES induction circuits are from page 335 of "The Inventions, Researches, and Writings of Nikola Tesla". I drew red arrows to point at the shorted secondaries. Notice that in these circuits, the primary is usually "open" as it is driven by AC ES rather than DC pulses.
Also see my last post page 1 of this thread.
I don't believe that Thane actually figured anything out. Kapanadze sure did!
Anyone have a true diagram or very pic of Testatika?
Ed Gray used the term "electrostatic": see third attachment below:
Regardless of the avenue of thought or path of exploration, the end result is the same: freedom
A squirrel doesn't care where a nut or a pinecone comes from as long as they keep coming. O0
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.16, 20:11:23
I'm going by actual experience with generators and alternators from 50kW to 4gW.
This experience was had due to tests requiring the demonstration of a 'worst case scenario'.
With the exception of electrostatic induction, as Grumpy describes, shorting the secondary does indeed apply some load to the primary after the initial surge during the short circuit. This load is very minimal because in all cases with conventional devices no potential always equals no current. The only reason there will be some minimal current is because the coil means there is some induction. Since induction is involved, some potential will be allowed to build up between winding turns. This will show as some load on the primary.
The way transformers are designed they will fry if they reach this point because the shorted secondary will cause the primary impedance to drop. This drop causes the primary to cook.
Try it. Short the secondary of a regular transformer. After the smoke clears look at which windings burned. (Not really. Please don't cook a transformer on my account :) ).
In the power, pump and compressor industries it is called 'freewheeling'.
>>> Edit
Too wordy, again. I should have just said: Spin up an MG set (Motor-generator). Short the generator leads and watch the RPM of the motor drop for an instant and then race beyond normal speed before synchronizing with the line frequency again. The motor current will also drop to a near unloaded value.
<<<
Sorry folks but until something beyond conventional is proven, in my mind this cannot be argued.
I really hope this device is using something other than electromagnetic induction. If it is, I would love to see enough info to replicate it. I don't see enough yet.
:o I'm dumbfounded WW. That's not how the transformers I use work.
Short the secondary, and depending on the turns ratio, coupling factor, and pri/sec wire size differences, there is a corresponding maximal current flowing in it (the secondary). There is no such thing as a "short", and hence there will also be a corresponding voltage across the secondary.
.99
Note also that we are dealing with an air-core transformer, so there are no saturation effects.
Measurement of a secondary voltage, and the current in the secondary is dependent to a degree on the secondary Z value relative to the R of your "short".
.99
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.16, 17:17:05
You can unload a generator by removing the load or shorting the output leads.
You must be talking about some specific generators as this statement does not apply to all generators, specifically not permanent magnet generators. MH made this same statement some time ago.
Are you talking shunt field wound DC machines or AC induction machines? This cannot occur with a series compound wound machine, where part of the field is derived from the current delivered to the load.
I can see where it might occur with a shunt wound machine as the field voltage is also shorted.
In an AC induction generator, the field must be allowed to build before load is applied or output goes to zero.
I routinely show those interested how a fully loaded (short circuited) PM generator will stall the engine.
The load is totally reflected to the prime mover with these machines.
This works whether the stator winding is fixed and the permanent magnets rotate or vice-versa. Lenz's law does not suddenly give up.
In the case of the other machines, what is giving up is the field excitation, so it is no longer a generator.
Quarktoo:
Actually you will find that this is a place that is open to all viewpoints about a discussion and there is no need to be rude.
QuoteTo suggest that static clumps together but the electrons have equal charge would violate coulombs law. So the only way that the mass could or would clump together is if it had different energy levels.
I'm not really sure what you mean here. I think you are misreading my statement because I wasn't suggesting what you are saying. I have no problem with Coulomb's Law and I didn't make any statements about electron energy levels.
Quoteone would assume that part of the energy from the mass has been transferred.
Are you implying E=Mc^2 energy like you did later in the posting also? That's not the case. It's mechanical energy that creates static electricity.
QuoteI have done bench testing on lots of shorted coils. It does produce a pulse compression and that does produce more energy. Many free energy devices have used this technique.
Perhaps one day you can share your data with us. There is no way a coil can produce excess energy. We should just agree to disagree on that one.
QuoteWhy don't you wrap a few hundred turns of #34 around a large choke. Then while you pulse it, short that winding over the top and measure the result. Pulse compression transfers space into less time and that is acceleration. Again, pretty basic stuff. E=MC2 ring a bell?
That's pretty vague and I can be a stickler for details when it comes to this. Your setup sounds like some sort of transformer but you are not being specific enough with respect to the timings and stuff like that. However, no matter what the details are there would be a standard explanation for what's going on using different terminology that you use. Again, there is definitely no fission or fusion going on in a setup like this - no nukes.
I looked at the book and I will have to pass. I don't read that kind of stuff and I can see that it is filled with alternative theories. Just because they are alternative theories doesn't necessarily make them right. Honestly, in my opinion it looks like a junk science pulp book.
MileHigh
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.17, 00:17:07
Ask and ye shall receive.
Note how one wire goes to the magnet? The wire is split off at the top of the magnet to go to the two coils, OR through the blocks. I have seen it done both ways. I used to have a hi res photo where they used a bar magnet. It was real easy to see what was going on in that photo.
Methernitha stated the magnet is sorting out the static based on polarity and then it is recirculated to make the current heavier.
EDIT - I can not account for the validity of the brown schematics. There is a lot of disinfo. out there on this subject.
first pic is the Testatika Clone from Jorge Resines
This thread is starting to hit some gravel on the side of the road. The ride is getting bumpy. Hope we don't wind up in a ditch.
Can we sort of swing it back around to the thread title?
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.17, 01:25:00
I wondered for ten years who built that. Is he talking? The photos are awesome and I have a bunch of them.
As far as I know, he didn't talk about it. I found those pics a few years ago.
Have you seen Potter's web site on Testatika? http://www.linux-host.org/energy/testatika.htm
Getting back to Barbat, I do not agree with the general assessment that energy has to be released to achieve OU, or that "extra energy" somehow has to be created by whatever means.
To induce a current, you only have to make the electrons drift. If you can do this with finesse rather than brute force, I am sure they move quite readily with little effort.
This brings up a very important point worthy or intense discussion:
Is energy lost from the electrons when they are moving as a current and facilitating their functions in electrical circuits? Are electrons just carriers of forces?
Go ahead and swing the thread back, be my guest.
Quarktoo:
You don't have to be such a "bad boy," chill out. There is a decent chance that I have more real-world experience with electronics than you. I normally stay out of these threads because any "TPU" style thread is not to my taste at all because I don't believe any of them work. However you were making such far-out statements that I felt like commenting.
QuoteYou don't seem to understand what you wrote or what I wrote. If wrapping a few turns of #34 around a large choke, shorting it out while pulsing it confuses you,... if you think that is a transformer,... then you clearly have no real world experience.
It's unwise to prejudge people, let's leave it at that.
Perhaps in another thread there will be an opportunity to debate some of your ideas.
MileHigh
(This is very important and I do not want it to get buried.)
This brings up a very important point worthy or intense discussion:
Is energy lost from the electrons when they are moving as a current and facilitating their functions in electrical circuits? Are electrons just carriers of forces?
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.17, 02:50:08
No, electrons can't be just carriers of forces and A-B effect proves that. There would not be excess energy created if they were just carriers and energy can't come from out of nowhere. "A-B effect is a creation event, more energy out than in." - Richard Feynman
Like I stated before, all electricity is the result of mass to atomic energy conversion. The amount of mass converted is so small, you could never measure it. "Not everything that counts is countable" - Einstein.
While thermodynamics are often misapplied when associated with an accelerated device, and second law does not provide for C^2 , call me old fashioned but I still feel it applies at an intuitive level.
I can't emphasize enough how important understanding that base A-B effect experiment has been to me. It is not a difficult experiment to do if you use your imagination. You don't need the reflectors and all that. It has ben ten years and I doubt I could ever find the junk if I still have it. (I have loads of old junk experiments.) Combined with an experimental understanding of longitudinal waves and acceleration, it really helped me find what I am looking for in any free energy device and I always find it - no exceptions thus far.
Look, we all know that the Methernitha is real. You have to be a total wack job to think that was some elaborate hoax. So look at what is there. Here is the magnet from the back. As stated, they had different ways of doing the same thing but here you can see a wire under some black shrink tube that connects the two sides of the magnet and associated capacitor plates. White arrows point to the shadow of the wire underneath.
Oh, and Potter.. I don't think so but I don't know. I don't know what I don't know.
You can wrap a iron coil around a copper core and power the iron wire. The ends of the copper core will now attract organic material because it converted current into static.
Conversely, you can wrap a copper wire around a iron core and convert static into current if electrostatic is sent through the iron core. Here is an examples taken from photos off of Stephan DePew's web site:
http://rimstar.org/sdenergy/testa/grid_coils.htm
Photo 1 = the hidden wire that connects the two sides of the plates together - look for shadow
Photo two = Static to current.
Where can that quote by Feynman be found? I don't see how a little influence from the A-field is "more out than in".
Potter's page has some interesting stuff. Does Testatika have cores in those cans?
http://www.linux-host.org/energy/principles.htm
Go down to the Linden Experiment:
diagram is attached and it claims that Baunmann performed this experiment if front of witnesses.
My point about electrons is that we perform "work" to make them move and keep them moving, but they are not lost like space junk shot into the sun. The relationship between the work required in joules, the amount of charge in coulombs, and the voltage in volts is: V=W/Q This is not the only way to move electrons and if you can find a better way then you can move more with less. I lower the work required, it only looks OU from other perspectives. So, I think the whole show can be reduced to very simple principles. I did a lot of tests before that I did not really understand and misinterpreted, but they make sense now and I was so damn close that I didn't know it.
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.17, 03:25:29
Here is another simple point. Let's say we move a magnet over a inductor at 1 meter per minute (just fast enough to induce voltage that results from A-B effect.)
Now, no matter what we do mechanically, we are not going to go to the next order unless we accelerate magnetically since we are going to double the speed of electron flow on a wire. (Slightly less than 1 metyer per minute.) So we use the shorted coil trick and square the output minus losses. Experimentally, it works and I can't argue with reality.
Go an old tesla coil? I'll bet if you placed a big magnet plate under the coil with a coil of small wire wound around it until you have about 500 turns, that Tesla coil will jump off the table when you power it up. I will also bet you get 325% more output so be careful, a toy could become lethal.
If you get a exponentially stronger current with a stronger magnetic field, then we are talking about the same thing from entirely different perspectives.
I would apply the magnetic perpendicular to the inducing field and the resulting current to increase electron precession and therefore increase the output by orders of magnitude.
You understand your language and I understand mine, but it's all good! LOL!
Does anyone know where the equation V=W/Q came from? I want to see how it was derived.
The electron is just along for the ride and that is not assumption.
What if it only took a fraction of the work to move a charge than it takes now? Wether the charges move faster or easier gives the same result: more for less.
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.17, 04:29:49
Grumpy,
I'll make one last post but am done being trolled by that asshole.
Not more or less, science is a very exact thing and stories, effects or because I said so does not get it for me.
The electron is filling in a space created by mass that was converted to energy. You see the movement of the electron as the energy but that is the effect of the voltage which you conveniently skip past.
You don't see the absurdity of a magnet moving at 1 meter per minute creating a voltage that moves at the speed of light???
Why don't you explain what caused that speed amplification from 1 meter per minute to the speed of light? Let's see, something happened at the speed and pressure of the universe. Hum...
Some people believe dumb ass things like "The photon is the force carrier of the electromotive force" which is just a story and a bullshit story at that. My coils don't glow. That is just a story that stupid people believe because they don't possess reason, logic and critical thinking skills. They don't want you to figure out mass to atomic energy conversion and the key to free energy.
Why don't electrons move the same speed at the magnet?
So answer the simple question in bold.
Good luck with that,
C-ya
Ah-ha the wave front is steep (look at the field when it is moving) and that causes it. O0
Also notice that the potential is not applied at the ends of the circuit - but induced where the magnetic field is.
Also, someone mentioned Coulomb's Law. This law is for static charges and not moving or changing charges. There are a few derivation of time-dependent extension around. I can increase the force between charges by several orders of magnitude with very little work. Work goes way down but the same current flows just by a different method. More for less and it really doesn't matter how.
electron drift is just a result not the cause - I think we agree on that
At the end of UEC TPU video some stuff is deleted and then SM says that the TPU use a different means of induction. I would not be surprised if the word "Electrostatic" was deleted.
Great talking to you , Bro!
I think that I encountered the Free Energy Tasmanian Devil.
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.16, 23:33:00
...
...Why don't you wrap a few hundred turns of #34 around a large choke. Then while you pulse it, short that winding over the top and measure the result. Pulse compression transfers space into less time and that is acceleration. Again, pretty basic stuff. E=MC2 ring a bell?
...
When you say "short that winding" do you mean a very brief "short"
at the time the magnetic field strength has reached its maximum?
In order to observe the "rebound" or "spike" which follows the brief
short?
Quote from: Dumped on 2010.12.17, 05:48:34
When you say "short that winding" do you mean a very brief "short"
at the time the magnetic field strength has reached its maximum?
In order to observe the "rebound" or "spike" which follows the brief
short?
Without a clearly posed description, there is almost no point. He seems to be indicating that he has "run out of town not to return" but hopefully he will be back to clarify it for you.
Sorry Grumpy if I may have ruined your conversation with Quarktoo.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.16, 22:38:44
:o I'm dumbfounded WW. That's not how the transformers I use work.
Short the secondary, and depending on the turns ratio, coupling factor, and pri/sec wire size differences, there is a corresponding maximal current flowing in it (the secondary). There is no such thing as a "short", and hence there will also be a corresponding voltage across the secondary.
.99
Most transformers I've blown showed the damage at the secondary. They blew because of an overload, not because of a short circuit. Watts is what burns the windings, not Amps (I know you know this). It is only Ohm's law again. At almost no Volts you need a hell of a lot of Amps to add up to enough heat to burn the secondary.
I say 'almost no Volts' because a sudden and complete near zero Ohm short on the secondary causes the magnetic fields to collapse causing the primary inductive reactance to drop.
I don't know why even the technically inclined don't understand it. Maybe the same reason I didn't believe it when I was the one performing the act for my first time. It was very educational. Maybe I should say 'reverse educational'.
I have the same problem telling folks about buss work repairs I had to make due to the copper pinching the full length of the buss at very short and even intervals during a short circuit on a massive DC system. All I get is 'nope, it doesn't work that way. You were delusional'.
Delusional or not I was paid for two weeks of work in one week for the repairs.
This was early in my career of 'fixing weird problems'.
And of course, not all transformers are designed the same way. Since I posted that I realized the group wasn't talking about close-coupled devices anyway. Yes, loose coupled induction is another game.
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.16, 23:18:24
You must be talking about some specific generators as this statement does not apply to all generators, specifically not permanent magnet generators. MH made this same statement some time ago.
Are you talking shunt field wound DC machines or AC induction machines? This cannot occur with a series compound wound machine, where part of the field is derived from the current delivered to the load.
Correct.
Quote
I can see where it might occur with a shunt wound machine as the field voltage is also shorted.
In an AC induction generator, the field must be allowed to build before load is applied or output goes to zero.
Again, correct but I'll add 'and the loading of the prime mover goes to zero on certain machine types when a bolted short circuit is applied to the generator output.' I wasn't going to list the different results for all possible machine combinations.
I imagine you are familiar with the old military specs of MIL STD 705C, relating to generator set testing? I performed these and similar test for the military for almost 20 years. Some gen-sets actually spat the connecting rods out the side.
Quote
I routinely show those interested how a fully loaded (short circuited) PM generator will stall the engine.
The load is totally reflected to the prime mover with these machines.
This works whether the stator winding is fixed and the permanent magnets rotate or vice-versa. Lenz's law does not suddenly give up.
You wouldn't believe how many times I was ordered to perform the same tests machines impervious to this. Once, the request was valid. They wanted to see the engine fall completely on its knees.
Quote
In the case of the other machines, what is giving up is the field excitation, so it is no longer a generator.
Even when the excitation is external? This was a requirement for a few memorable jobs. While the prime mover took a much larger hit (dropped to about 900 RPM vs. 1800 normal) it still recovered to over 1700 RPM (AC induction machine with external Basler regulators being powered from the 'house'. The exciter field effectiveness was only dependent upon RPM and the house power. We had to assume the terminal voltage was zero as the phases were shorted with a motor-operated 4000A molded case circuit breaker. (Remote controlled with a toggle switch while hiding behind another 40 thousand pound gen-set by yours truly ;D )
As you may already know... engine/turbine/motor driven generators are almost always designed so the prime mover cannot produce enough HP to cause large physical damage to a generator. Almost always. Sometimes this must be proven.
On a few occasions the results led a young engineer to form the opinion that magnetic flux (the media, not the field) was a property of space, not the magnet.
Tests like these do happen but I would never do it unless I had full access to the design specs for the complete system and I agreed we wouldn't twist a crankshaft or rotor.
Quarktoo
I don't care if you squish me!,When you say things that are this amazing I must say Thank you
Quarktoo
Quote:
You don't see the absurdity of a magnet moving at 1 meter per minute creating a voltage that moves at the speed of light???
Why don't you explain what caused that speed amplification from 1 meter per minute to the speed of light? Let's see, something happened at the speed and pressure of the universe. Hum...
2nd
Quote:
That magnetic "field" is composed of what, magic fairy dust? You can't have action at a distance without a physical connection - more proof of particles smaller than an electron. Does that wave front rise at the speed and tension of the universe? Nope! [insert buzzer sound here]
Chet
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.17, 12:39:27
That magnetic "field" is composed of what, magic fairy dust? You can't have action at a distance without a physical connection - more proof of particles smaller than an electron. Does that wave front rise at the speed and tension of the universe? Nope! [insert buzzer sound here]
See how you use some funky label like "field" that was programmed into you to explain something? It does not explain anything. Hole flow theory at least came close.
You are programmed to think you are educated, but in reality, just a widget on an assembly line that drops down a rabbit hole at the end. MileHigh is the delux model that came with extended battery life, defective roam feature and a WIFI connection.
... and for that Dumped guy, the extra coil is shorted all the time. There were plenty of cites.
I would hardly call Grumpy a "widget on an assembly line".
You're not happy with this forum? That's fine, but I don't think it's necessary to insult folks here.
Please cool off a bit.
.99
WW,
With all due respect, let's do an experiment and "blow" that transformer up!
Provide the air-core transformer specs for me and I'll model it:
Primary and secondary inductance and DCR, coupling factor, sine frequency and amplitude input.
I can't believe that you say a "shorted" secondary will have zero current, so let's see what the model does.
Sorry if this is appears off-topic, but until we can get past how a transformer behaves in a "shorted" secondary condition, there's no point in examining the Barbat patent any further imho.
.99
Quarktoo,
In your last couple of posts, you've put down this forum and you've put down a few members.
I'm not defending Grumpy, I'm making a point that applies to everyone and to this forum. A certain amount of "off-topic" mud slinging is tolerated, but the boundaries are being challenged.
It matters not that you and Grumps are old friends, and certainly most are not aware of this relationship, nor the specifics of what Grumpy does as an occupation.
This isn't overunity.com, and apparently, that has gone over your head.
I think you got the gist of my last message though, and I'm not going to repeat it.
Regards,
.99
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.17, 12:39:27
That magnetic "field" is composed of what, magic fairy dust? You can't have action at a distance without a physical connection - more proof of particles smaller than an electron. Does that wave front rise at the speed and tension of the universe? Nope! [insert buzzer sound here]
See how you use some funky label like "field" that was programmed into you to explain something? It does not explain anything. Hole flow theory at least came close.
You are programmed to think you are educated, but in reality, just a widget on an assembly line that drops down a rabbit hole at the end. MileHigh is the delux model that came with extended battery life, defective roam feature and a WIFI connection.
... and for that Dumped guy, the extra coil is shorted all the time. There were plenty of cites.
I agree that field is a bad term, but add that "particle" is no better.
I regards to a magnet moving near a wire, look at the magnetic field. Is it always across the wire at two ends.
Here is a question for you: how in the hell are the electrons moving in the wire when the magnet move when it takes a long time for the electric field to soak into the wire? Is someone going ot dare to say that it is displacement current? While you are at it, why do the electrons even move in response to the magnet at all?
Quarktoo:
I never "took a swing" at you. I just wanted to discuss some of the statements that you made. Challenging some of your ideas is distinctly different from the kinds of comments you have been making about me and others. The whole point is to try to have a fun debate and not get ugly. Needless to say, your version of "reality" is much different from mine and that could potentially be an interesting debate on another thread.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.17, 13:29:11
Sorry if this is appears off-topic, but until we can get past how a transformer behaves in a "shorted" secondary condition, there's no point in examining the Barbat patent any further imho.
.99
I will comment on this and I think I was incorrect in my previous comments about this issue. I was focused on the fact that for an open or short-circuited secondary, there is no power transfer per se if you ignore the resistances of the two coils. That made me think that the "load goes away" when you short the secondary. I think that was wrong.
Obviously load on the secondary is being reflected back to the primary. Let's assume the source has an output impedance of 50 ohms and the transformer has a 1:1 ratio. Let's assume that the source is an ideal AC voltage source in series with a 50-ohm resistor. We know that beyond a certain excitation voltage you risk saturating the core (let's start off with a conventional power transformer, and let's ignore the losses in the core itself) so let's assume in this case you will not saturate the core.
So if you look at the secondary load starting at an open-circuit and then dropping going all the way to 50 ohms, the transformer should be operating normally, and the primary should see the same load. As you do this of course the power transfer to the load increases and the power losses due to the resistances in the wires of both the primary and secondary coils increase. Also, the power dissipation in the 50-ohm source itself increases during this phase also. The output voltage from the source will have dropped by half as the secondary load trends from open-circuit to 50 ohms.
Then when the secondary load goes from 50 ohms to zero ohms the trend lines change. The primary still has to see the impedance dropping, so the load on the secondary is still being reflected back to the primary. We know that less power is being transferred to the real load on the secondary because the impedance is starting to mismatch. We know that the output voltage from the source will continue to decrease, and end up at near-zero volts. By the same token the current through both the primary and secondary are increasing during this phase.
So in other words, a pure short on the secondary is seen as a pure short on the primary if we ignore the resistive losses in both coils.
When you finally get to a load of zero ohms on the secondary, the currents circulating in the primary and secondary coils are at a maximum. There is zero power transfer to the zero ohm load. At this point you have maximum resistive losses in both coils because the maximum current is flowing through both coils.
Again, since we are assuming that the source impedance is 50 ohms, then we know that the output voltage from the source on the primary coil is almost zero, it is effectively shorted out.
Finally, if your source impedance is very low, like from your AC mains, shorting out the secondary of your transformer will result in very high currents flowing in the primary and the secondary and the transformer will burn up.
For the air core case, everything is very similar with the exception that you can "saturate" that much sooner. There is a limited capacity for the volume of space between the two two coils to store energy. So you run into a "wall" if your excitation voltage and load resistance demand an energy transfer per cycle that is beyond the capacity of the air core and inherent resistance in the wires of both cores to sustain. This will result in the load on the secondary not being reflected back to the primary. The coupling will be too weak and the load on the primary side will appear to be at a much higher resistance than it really is on the secondary side. That could be developed further but I am done for now!
Anyway, thoughts and opinions welcome.
MileHigh
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.17, 14:44:14
The electrons do not move "in" the wire, they move on the surface of the wire and that is why loosely bonded oxides make a wire super conduct. The wire looks smooth to the naked eye but down there in electronville, it is like trying to fly a F-35 through the grand canyon at mach 1. Trust me, some mater is going to get splattered and converted into energy. As long as the F-35 is in slow flight configuration (less that 1 meter per minute for the electron) then the pilot can maneuver through the canyons and no mass is converted into energy.
Protons do not flow through a solid but I think I figured out a way to make a tunnel for that to happen. I'll prove it with an experiment I am building. If true, it could open the door for some hot energy transfer methods. Pun intended.
Concerning the A-B Effect, I see Bearden has hitched his wagon to this wagon-train. I avoid anything Bearden-esque (or overly longwinded - like the posts of a few others in the ether thread) and prefer reality where the A-B Effect doesn't matter and "extra energy" is not required.
I know you are intelligent, no need to prove that.
The electric fields that make the electrons move gradually soak into the wire and more electrons move, unless there is not enough time such as in high frequency or impulse applications. I have several articles of experiments on this subject. So, with electrostatic induction there is a bit of a problem, as the charges seem to move faster than electrons move. Takes you back to what in the hell is a charge?
Regarding Barbat's device, I think the only reason he gets anything is the coatings and the electrons loosely therein. I'm saying that this may not be the end of the story if you repeatedly apply the electrostatic influence to build up the current which takes time to do.
Protons? What about positrons?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.17, 13:29:11
Sorry if this is appears off-topic, but until we can get past how a transformer behaves in a "shorted" secondary condition, there's no point in examining the Barbat patent any further imho.
.99
I was worried initially that the Barbat patent could not work because all the energy would be soaked up in the shorted coil. As I wrote early on, I modified this thought when I realized the short could not be zero ohms, as a result, there would be excessive heating in the coil and flux leakage.
The currents developed in this coil could never transfer to another coil unless they were oscillating, which is where Barbat places an oscillatory LC circuit into the mix. But again, this may not work without a solid state switch interrupting the current in the magnifying coil.
It further occurred to me that the oscillatory loop is unnecessary, as one could pick off voltage from 2 points of the magnifying coil and it would be a DC voltage.
Now for the pitch...ugh!...the infamous dropping curve ball! Swinging in the breeze, swinging in the breeze...
Kapanadze, and Barbat are distantly related devices from the ES perspective. Kap appears to work better though.
The Barbat shorted coil converts the current induced by the changing electrostatic field of the first coil into a strong AC current that is coupled to the third output coil. Like I already pointed out, if you can move those electrons for a microjoule instead of a joule, you score big.
QuoteHere is a question for you: how in the hell are the electrons moving in the wire when the magnet move when it takes a long time for the electric field to soak into the wire? Is someone going ot dare to say that it is displacement current? While you are at it, why do the electrons even move in response to the magnet at all?
The electrons do not move "in" the wire, they move on the surface of the wire and that is why loosely bonded oxides make a wire super conduct. The wire looks smooth to the naked eye but down there in electronville, it is like trying to fly a F-35 through the grand canyon at mach 1. Trust me, some mater is going to get splattered and converted into energy. As long as the F-35 is in slow flight configuration (less that 1 meter per minute for the electron) then the pilot can maneuver through the canyons and no mass is converted into energy.
Grumpy,
Some thoughts for you:
If you have an open-circuit loop of wire in the presence of a changing magnetic field and you connect a voltmeter across the ends of the loop you will be able to measure a varying electromotive force in the wire. That's because the wire is effectively in a "bath" of changing electric fields that are in the air that are created by the changing magnetic fields. I don't think "soak into the wire" is an appropriate term like you state above. Everything is happening at the speed of light. Nor are the electrons moving in the wire when the loop is an open circuit.
Now, I am assuming that this discussion is about relatively low frequencies with respect to the changing magnetic fields. Hence there are low frequency changing electric fields being picked up by the wire. Under those conditions when you connect a load across the two ends of the loop, or if you just short the two ends of the loop, the current will flow though the entire volume of the wire. It's only when the frequencies become very high does the skin effect come into play. I can't be sure because it's been so long, but you probably need to be in the frequency range of several hundred megahertz before the skin effect comes into play. I still don't get what Quarktoo is talking about with the references about "mass being converted into energy."
The skin effect is often misunderstood. I think just the other day for whatever reason I saw a clip with Norman Wootan where he makes the statement that the setup had a high-voltage output and therefore the current was traveling on the surface of the wires. The skin effect is only related to frequency.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.17, 14:50:00
For the air core case, everything is very similar with the exception that you can "saturate" that much sooner. There is a limited capacity for the volume of space between the two two coils to store energy. So you run into a "wall" if your excitation voltage and load resistance demand an energy transfer per cycle that is beyond the capacity of the air core and inherent resistance in the wires of both cores to sustain. This will result in the load on the secondary not being reflected back to the primary. The coupling will be too weak and the load on the primary side will appear to be at a much higher resistance than it really is on the secondary side. That could be developed further but I am done for now!
Anyway, thoughts and opinions welcome.
MileHigh
I was under the impression that an air core inductor or transformer do not "saturate"
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.17, 16:15:03
I was under the impression that an air core inductor or transformer do not "saturate"
Of course it doesn't, that's why I was using quotations. The coupling is much weaker and the bottleneck for the energy transfer would be how much current the wires in the primary and secondary could sustain. It also implies you have to go to much higher voltages to sustain the same amount of energy transfer as compared to an iron core transformer.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.17, 16:22:10
Of course it doesn't, that's why I was using quotations. The coupling is much weaker and the bottleneck for the energy transfer would be how much current the wires in the primary and secondary could sustain. It also implies you have to go to much higher voltages to sustain the same amount of energy transfer as compared to an iron core transformer.
MileHigh
I don't need the EE lesson, but you said "saturate", and put it in quotes. does that mean that you did not imply "saturate" in the normal usage of the term in magnetics by just putting it in quotes?
I also mentioned air core inductor, where coupling is not an issue. I am talking "ideal" not real world.
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.17, 16:21:39
The beast must be fed...
Really? It is known fact that electrons move down a wire at slightly less than 1 meter per minute and not at the speed of light.
Sing along everybody! One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong.
Really? Why don't you shove that coil into a vacuum chamber, remove that "bath" of "air" and see if that changes anything. Try looking up the term field. Trust me, Grumpy knows that one! O0
I can see why you don't understand what I write.
Quarktoo:
QuoteThe beast must be fed...
You are making a complete ass of yourself. I think it's time for you to stop. I have a feeling if you keep on going like this you are going to implode in a few days and disappear.
QuoteReally? It is known fact that electrons move down a wire at slightly less than 1 meter per minute and not at the speed of light.
I am talking about the induction process inducing EMF into the wire and not the electron drift velocity.
QuoteI can see why you don't understand what I write.
You were completely wrong about how current flows in the wire. It doesn't flow on the skin only. So it's time to loose the attitude Quarktoo and to try acting like a civil human being. The fact that I disagree with you, doesn't mean that you have to trash me. In the "outside world" your statements would result in you being considered a crackpot. That is the real reality. I would prefer just to debate the points.
MileHigh
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.17, 16:33:44
I don't need the EE lesson, but you said "saturate", and put it in quotes. does that mean that you did not imply "saturate" in the normal usage of the term in magnetics by just putting it in quotes?
I also mentioned air core inductor, where coupling is not an issue. I am talking "ideal" not real world.
It was a poor choice of words. You know that I know that there is nothing to saturate. It will be interesting to see if Poynt posts some simulations.
MileHigh
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.17, 16:46:13
"outside world"... "Real reality"...
In that "outside world" you live in, free energy devices are impossible in spite of the fact that Barbat had to demonstrate and prove to the patent office that his device works in "real reality".
Yep, it looks just as stupid when I use your terms in my sentences as it does yours.
I don't need your psychological lesson or concern and I am not the one making an ass of myself in "real reality". Save your concern for someone that does not think you are a moron.
Is there a working copy of the Barbat device anywhere today doing useful work? I have to assume that the answer is no. If anything there might be a classic story that is shrouded in mystery about it, like there always is for these types of devices.
Every now and then the soul-searching question comes up on the forums about whether or not anybody actually has a true, real free energy device and the answer is always no. That's the reality.
I don't need your bullshit. You called me a "moron," which is probably about the tenth time you have used a derogatory term about me. Keep it up and you will most likely be booted off of this forum.
And all of the other participants on this forum shouldn't just stand for this type of behaviour and avert your eyes. At some point you should have the guts to speak up and say something about it.
MileHigh
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.17, 16:53:32
One other thing since you have reading and comprehension issues and I don't want you polluting my posts with your functional illiteracy.
I never stated that "current" flows on the surface of the wire. I stated that electrons flow on the surface of the wire. I have in other posts elsewhere stated that half of the AB wave is below the surface of the wire and used AB effect to explain right thumb rule.
If you are going to quote me, use a quote button since you have literacy and other issues. Mis-quoting someone is considered a smear and quite offensive.
All that is clearly over your head.
You are digging your own grave, keep it up.
quarktoo
Quote:
One thing that is interesting is Ramset stated he said it was nothing like the hubbard
-------------------------------------
I asked him if there were any isotopes or unusual elements involved!
the answer was no!
As I said he has it working ,but had issues with the VERY thin wire being fragile!
Please Chill fellas!
we should REALLY try to attempt to understand this AB effect,as well as the electrostatic condition [the precurser to a lightning strike].
Chet
Sometimes, when things get ugly in a bar, the participants agree to "take it outside" out of respect for the establishment.
Perhaps we can set up a thread for this, as long as the rules of the forum are observed. for now, maybe do it by PM.
Meanwhile why not chill out, relax. I'm sure if you fellows met each other in a bar, you would have a fun and lively exchange, maybe even become good friends.
Forums have such narrow bandwidth, this kind of thing often occurs. Try to remember, we are human beings behind those "handles" and we suffer our own life problems.
Quarktoo, just be civil and exercise good behaviour and then I'm cool. I am sure that you have heard of British English vs. American English? This place is open to multiple viewpoints, which is a good thing. Do your thing with Grumpy and company I am going to stay out of this thread from this point on. Try to avoid the temptation to drop another snide derogatory remark, time to be a man.
:) :) :) :) Merry Christmas everyone ??? :) :) :) :)
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.17, 17:22:19
So Grumpy,
Here is my last post on this matter and a thought experiment for you. (the troll is back)
We have an electrolysis circuit driven by a transformer. If electrons are just being pumped around in a circle then why does the water split? Wouldn't the cathode supply just as many electrons as the anode attracted?
And here is the ninja death blow...
Electrons can't jump from the secondary coil to the primary coil because of the insulation on the wire. Now where did all those electrons go?
Checkmate.
- Quarktoo has unsubscribed and left the building.
Flies always try that death blow trick, but the spider always wins...LOL! the "evil eye" doesn't work on me either! hahaha!
Electrolysis is open-circuit.
The electrons don't have to jump from coil to coil. Is this what they do during electromagnetic induction? The only requirement to have a conduction current in the second coil is that you have to make the electrons move. You do not have to add energy to these electrons, but you do have to expend energy to make them move. This is my point: perform less work to move the electrons and you have what would be considered "gain" compared to a less efficient method of induction. Yes, it is this simple.
In regard to the open wire with AC electrostatic action, region, field, or snowflakes:
"charge" goes into the open wire and back out or otherwise reverses + then - then + then -
Each time this charge changes, it induces a change in the shorted coil. According to Tesla, shrting the coil or connecting it to ground increases the induced current (see my Kapanadze diagram for another example). Coulomb's Law applies to static charges, our charge is time-dependent. If you have ever pulsed a coil with HV DC pulses of a few ns, you will quickly find that the ES force is much stronger than a static ES force. So, less work and more output because my time-dependent ES field decreases the amount of work required to move an electron. No fancy terms required, no laws violated, and no hiding from the MIB.
Before anyone says ES induction is "weak", stand beneath a EHV transmission line while a switching transient is flowing along the wire overhead. I'll send flowers. Some may recall that Tesla's ES induction experiments that led to his Magnifying Transmitter start with this effect.
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.17, 17:36:05
We can expand on the images of Tesla's Electrostatic Induction techniques here. Let's start with this rotated image from Grump's post. This particular drawing intrigued me, since it satisfies some of the TPU criteria. Especially note the coupling transformer reflecting energy between the two other galvanically isolated coils.
If Grumpy could supply the patent text for this particular drawing, we can explore this further. Also the legends are not that clear, perhaps a higher resolution picture?
If my guess is right, electrostatic pulses shock excite the coils separated by the capacitor. This induces strong currents to couple into the overwindings and into the coupling transformer.
Usable voltage output is produced across the capacitor or the unterminated ends of the coils. Not sure about this without the patent text for this drawing.
The Tesla images are from page 335 of "The Inventions, Researches, and Writings of Nikola Tesla". I don't think he ever patented it, as was common for him (just too much to do).
Google Books pdf link: (it is a big file)
http://books.google.com/books/download/The_inventions_researches_and_writings_o.pdf?id=bhrreukJiLgC&output=pdf&sig=ACfU3U141VukA2rDYWUEx7VxQmsvnNETlA
Google Books Link to read:
http://books.google.com/books?id=bhrreukJiLgC&printsec=frontcover&dq="The+Inventions,+Researches,+and+Writings+of+Nikola+Tesla"&source=bl&ots=OBR_HlGGOB&sig=FSFrAWZGr4F0i8o5zcwTnYolwJ4&hl=en&ei=wLILTeGwJIK8lQfY3tW7Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Quarktoo
Quote:
How come I unsubscribed and still get notifications?
---------
No No ,Mile High unsubscribed from this thread,with all that unsubscribing it takes time to proccess!
Chet
Q2,
Getting back to the crux of OU, are you saying that additional energy has to be added, released, or otherwise made available to get OU?
EDIT:
I pose this question to everyone on this site. Do you believe that additional energy from any source, leads to OU?
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.17, 16:59:54
...
I don't need your bullshit. You called me a "moron," which is probably about the tenth time you have used a derogatory term about me. Keep it up and you will most likely be booted off of this forum.
And all of the other participants on this forum shouldn't just stand for this type of behaviour and avert your eyes. At some point you should have the guts to speak up and say something about it.
MileHigh
Your assessment is "right on."
Unfortunately, some "brilliant" people exhibit a twisted,
juvenile state of emotionalism and "superiority." I'm
afraid Quarktoo clearly, by his own hand, fits into this
category of dysfunction.
It would be gratifying to see a "turnaround" with a
demonstration of mature behavior but, once again,
by his own hand, that is not gonna happen. Apparently
there is too much pleasure derived from the act of
putting others down.
- - - - - - - - - -
The "shorted secondary" technique is one that is
widely employed in the shaded pole induction motor
for the purpose of producing a phase shifted rotating
magnetic field.
It is very difficult to visualize the production of any
over-unity by this technique.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.17, 21:11:21
Q2,
Getting back to the crux of OU, are you saying that additional energy has to be added, released, or otherwise made available to get OU?
EDIT:
I pose this question to everyone on this site. Do you believe that additional energy from any source, leads to OU?
Ah-ha! Not a single reply to this question...how very interesting.
OK, let's try to balance the theoretical debate (it was/is great!) with a few practical 'let's just try this' ideas.
We must isolate and replicate the core effect, then complete and optimize the system.
So, I'm the squirrel, I got the nuts (I don't care where they came from or how small the particles are) and they're
on the bench, so where do I start if I'm told I'm making a pecan pie? I'm a squirrel and I don't cook!
So, how does one isolate the core effect? Will cuprous oxide give a measurable effect or does one need a more
complex semiconductor? Low or high frequency? Thick or thin wire, copper or iron coated, and for which coil?
So, what are your ideas for taking the first step? Reasoned or crazy, just let it out.
tak
Well
I.ve never seen a certain person do a repost ,
Q2
Quote:
In case anyone missed it - buried under our BS
On the other hand, if that were a iron wire coil with a copper / copper oxide coating, then you would have the best of both worlds.
Why don't you have a look at cable TV coax wire. Iron core wire with a copper coating. Very high velocity wire since the iron keeps that skin effect up toward the top and it adds dimensional stability. The shallow skin effect coupled with the rigid wire would probably make the insulation fragile and easily damaged during winding.
Stan Meyer also used composite wire. Look at fig 10-4 on his notes and notice the word composite describing the stainless steel wire.
--------------------------------
And as far as the occasional Dust ups that go on!
I.m surprised we aren't seperated with steel gages!!
Tak .
Perhaps we make a list of things to ask William?
The above Coax would be one I will ask [appropriate?]
Your coating type would be another.
Questions?
WW said if he had more info he would attempt a replication.
what info??
Chet
open from the perspective of the water is not a piece of wire, but more like a giant cube (tank of water)
Isn't electrolysis just charge separation?
I'm not pissed at all. I just realized that everyone trying to understand OU is looking to convert from existing energy and add it to the process or source additional energy and add it to the process.
It doesn't work that way at all.
Anyone who thinks it does should stick with the Nuclear and Plasma Dudes. Anyone who thinks otherwise should look for a process that "runs with gain".
I started a poll: Additional energy is required for OU or not?
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=461.msg8038#msg8038
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.17, 22:39:26
The question is vague and you tend to speak in riddles and I tend to speak in double entendre.
"Do you believe that additional energy, from any source, is required to achieve OU?" What about to initiate the process? I could never take a poll with such a tricky question.
What produces that "gain". Do you see how you use terms like "field" or "gain" that are hollow if they can't be fully explained down to a particle level?
If you expend 1 joule of energy and get ten joules in return, you are running with gain. As for the particle level, I don't believe in particles. They keep smashing particles and finding new smaller particles, all with no gain in sight.
We now tune back to Barbat...and all that.
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.18, 00:45:26
Grumpy's stock value tanks.
I'm holding aces and faces, not the "dead man's hand".
Which devices do you think are real working OU devices? You mention some names like Thane, that I think are total BS.
My list of devices that I believe are OU:
Steven Mark's TPU
Kapanadze Device demonstrated in the garden
Aspden Concentric Capacitor Generator
Ed Gray Device
Moray Device
Tesla's MAgnifier may be in Tesla's hands
Barbat's Device may be with some adjustments
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.17, 14:50:00
...
For the air core case, everything is very similar with the exception that you can "saturate" that much sooner. There is a limited capacity for the volume of space between the two two coils to store energy. So you run into a "wall" if your excitation voltage and load resistance demand an energy transfer per cycle that is beyond the capacity of the air core and inherent resistance in the wires of both cores to sustain. This will result in the load on the secondary not being reflected back to the primary. The coupling will be too weak and the load on the primary side will appear to be at a much higher resistance than it really is on the secondary side. That could be developed further but I am done for now!
Anyway, thoughts and opinions welcome.
MileHigh
Yes, I believe everything you said is essentially correct ;)
.99
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.18, 01:43:07
You forgot - Hubbard, Stan Meyer, Methernitha, Puharich, ultrasonic water heater, and all things particle! - Just to name a few.
I forgot Methernitha. Hubbard is possible, but iffy as I have seen reports that he had some sort of transmitter on land during that boat run.
Anything to with water to hydrogen or HHO, I do not consider OU. However, when the work required is reduced and it falls under these names, you believe it, but put the same spin on induction and you balk at it.
No shorted coil is Kapanadze either - depends on what you are doing.
Anyone who has talked with me over the years knows that I can not see youtube videos. There was a good researcher here a while ago that went by the username "Darkspeed". He was into Gray very heavy and had all sorts of info on his setup, even the vacuum valves and such, great detailed pictures. He was getting some crazy effects in his experiments, then he just stopped posting.
Anyway, unless you have the actual work of these indivuals or detailed plans, then there is always an element of speculation.
I see you passed over my comments on V=WQ, and my reduction of the work required by anomalously increasing the force with a pulsed coil. The experiment is so simple anyone can do it. I posted a video of it a couple of years ago. Seems that you selectively target your attack, avoiding the strongholds and going for the cannon fodder.
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.18, 02:31:31
...
Edison needed 4000 experiments to come up with a lead acid battery.
...
+=> ?
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.18, 03:01:48
"Target your attack"? Bold type? Liar! You are pissed. Do you need a nappy?
I think you are the one avoiding strongholds with statements like "I don't care about particles". Nobody does a wax-off on particles and walks away unscathed. It's like saying I don't care about God, I just want to get to heaven. (Man... I'm killing him with symilies huh?) O0 (I just love strategically stabbing him in the heart with those Santa smiley things too!)
As for your V=WO.. Do you really expect me to know what you are talking about? Trying to communicate with you is like trying to talk to a deaf mute from Kundfredgredaland in a lost dialect. Sorry I don't know about your video a few years ago or what rights you have over your network.
Let's see how you like it:
Do you know what color socks I am wearing right now? Why not! Are you avoiding my feet?
Tell me Grumpula, how did that make you feel?
I'm not mad, I am drinking Rum and Cherry Pepsi though, keeps things in perspective and takes the edge off.
My post about V=WQ - writing it wrong is deliberate, and shows you are probably unfamiliar with it. I suddenly find it enlightening when someone dishes out he OU smackdown, but doesn't know how work related to electricity. I hear you talkin', but you walk with a limp.
I also see that you blew past the Linden experiment that Baunmann performed.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.17, 03:17:25
Where can that quote by Feynman be found? I don't see how a little influence from the A-field is "more out than in".
Potter's page has some interesting stuff. Does Testatika have cores in those cans?
http://www.linux-host.org/energy/principles.htm
Go down to the Linden Experiment:
diagram is attached and it claims that Baunmann performed this experiment if front of witnesses.
My point about electrons is that we perform "work" to make them move and keep them moving, but they are not lost like space junk shot into the sun. The relationship between the work required in joules, the amount of charge in coulombs, and the voltage in volts is: V=W/Q This is not the only way to move electrons and if you can find a better way then you can move more with less. I lower the work required, it only looks OU from other perspectives. So, I think the whole show can be reduced to very simple principles. I did a lot of tests before that I did not really understand and misinterpreted, but they make sense now and I was so damn close that I didn't know it.
So, based on the simple equation V=W/Q, means that W=VQ.
W = work in joules
V = volts (between two points and considered a force here)
Q = charge
Using arbitrary numbers, if it normally takes 10 joules of work to move 1 Coulomb of charge with a force of 10 volts then:
W=VQ and 10=10*1
So, if I use a different method of moving this charge that requires less work, then I can move more charge with the same amount of work. This is the same result if I increase the "force" (voltage) and the work remains the same.
W=V(10*Q) or W=(10*V)Q
Either way, you get more for less.
Here is a little more background on W=VQ
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elewor.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tq4CTp-PbYcC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=work+charge+voltage+derived&source=bl&ots=G5sOYgpNrm&sig=DzWIsnt3V1oH8RGC9ga_xFP44vo&hl=en&ei=XzgMTcHFEIeglAe-huTJDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=work charge voltage derived&f=false
W stands for "work" which is measured in joules or other units...
Q represents charge measured in Coulomb's - see above links for the Q
Your attempt to troll me is futile. Your credibility is now "less than zero", but Jami Gertz is still hot!
Crow is best fried. Enjoy!
P.S. Hope that limp gets better.
I said I had increased a force not OU. I no longer believe in that term anyway. OU is as bad as "field".
The experiment is simple:
Pulse HV DC of 2kv or more through an avalanche transistor stack with a coax delay line of about 6 feet or so. It can free-run. Apply the pulses to a coil of copper wire that is about 1200 feet or more formed into a coil - like a Brooks coil. Coil dims do not really matter. I use HT insulated, #28 mag wire. Power supply needs to supply enough current to avalanche the transistors, about 5ma.
Pulse this coil and compare the attraction to a conductive object to the attractive force when the coil has steady DC applied. It is readily observed without requiring measurements.
An additional observation is that a compass, being conductive, will align to the electric field around the coil, and also to the field in the wire if you pass the pulses through the compass needle.
As for being an engineer, everyone knows I work in manufacturing, not electronics or physics.
Hyperphysics is from he University of Georgia, I think.
SI units may be a standard, but the equation still holds with arbitrary variables, which I noted. So take that BS elsewhere. You obviously have no counter argument for the work equation.
The hairy thing with a crack in it, sitting on the platter, is your ass. I suggest you re-attach it.
Well ,
That went well!
I see you guys pulled out the steel cage last night?[Thought that went to the dump?]
Will this evenings event be a ladders, tables and chairs show? So while you two are hammering each other with your schmekles,
Rome continues to burn!!
How about some common ground ?
Can we find any besides the blood covered mess you Two are now standing in!!
I have to say it made for some good reading [and giggles].
But you are some very fart smellahs,
surely you can start some where?[common ground]
Or I'll ask the wife to pick up some popcorn!!
Chet
PS
Or maybe talk about whats going on here?
The experiment is simple:
Pulse HV DC of 2kv or more through an avalanche transistor stack with a coax delay line of about 6 feet or so. It can free-run. Apply the pulses to a coil of copper wire that is about 1200 feet or more formed into a coil - like a Brooks coil. Coil dims do not really matter. I use HT insulated, #28 mag wire. Power supply needs to supply enough current to avalanche the transistors, about 5ma.
Pulse this coil and compare the attraction to a conductive object to the attractive force when the coil has steady DC applied. It is readily observed without requiring measurements.
An additional observation is that a compass, being conductive, will align to the electric field around the coil, and also to the field in the wire if you pass the pulses through the compass needle.
-----------------------------
Grumpy:
I am just going to comment on your "off topic" discussion here for the fun of it. You said:
QuoteSo, based on the simple equation V=W/Q, means that W=VQ.
W = work in joules
V = volts (between two points and considered a force here)
Q = charge
Using arbitrary numbers, if it normally takes 10 joules of work to move 1 Coulomb of charge with a force of 10 volts then:
W=VQ and 10=10*1
So, if I use a different method of moving this charge that requires less work, then I can move more charge with the same amount of work. This is the same result if I increase the "force" (voltage) and the work remains the same.
W=V(10*Q) or W=(10*V)Q
Either way, you get more for less.
Let's try to look at this using good old analogies. The equation states that work is equal to voltage times charge.
Now we know that power is the "through variable" times the "across variable." In the past I have stated that the "through variable" is current (which flows through something) and voltage is the "across variable" (you measure voltage across two points).
Also, to get to energy, we know that it is equal to power times time, or, the "through variable" times the "across variable" times time.
It all makes sense, because (current x time) = charge.
Therefore, work = power x time = (voltage x current) x time = voltage x (current x time) = voltage x charge.
So, you can look at that as saying it takes work to take a certain amount of charge and "lift it up" to a higher voltage. (Side note, when you think about it that's exactly what a battery does)
So let's use a simple analogy where electric current is equivalent to the flow of water. Charge is then simply an amount of water, say for example a bucket of water. Let's say that voltage is equivalent to the height. (Note that you always measure height between two points.)
So here is an analogy for W=VQ plugging in your values where 10 = 10*1:
You have a big bucket of water sitting on the floor. You lift the bucket up and put it on a 10-foot high shelf. That's it.
Note that the act of moving the bucket of water up 10 feet could have been done by pumping the water through a hose also. Hence you can envision "current flow" when you lift the bucket up by hand and move it.
So leading into the question: You often speculate that somehow you can do a work-around to "trick" the system and as a result gain energy.
QuoteSo, if I use a different method of moving this charge that requires less work
So the question is how do you raise the bucket of water 10 feet up in the air with a work-around that uses less energy?
MileHigh
PS
quarktoo,
This forum offers Moderator status at the Build benches!
Chet
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.18, 14:03:27
So the question is how do you raise the bucket of water 10 feet up in the air with a work-around that uses less energy?
That's it. I am proposing that time-dependent electrostatic induction can accomplish this feat.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.18, 18:24:13
That's it. I am proposing that time-dependent electrostatic induction can accomplish this feat.
Maybe this will help...not sure.
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.18, 21:40:05
Maybe this will help...not sure.
If K is different between either equation, then will both the equations actually "equate"?
--Lee
I don't see how lifting the bucket fits.
Lifting it is more like offsetting with a bias.
If you aren't going to add energy to the bucket then your only option to placing the bucket on a higher ladder step is to lower the ladder.
What happens now is the bucket and the water are stretched taller & more narrow OR shorter & wider but not both.
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2010.12.19, 03:53:51
If K is different between either equation, then will both the equations actually "equate"?
--Lee
More info on this here: http://www.i-am-a-i.org/free-energy/index.html
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.19, 08:42:07
I don't see how lifting the bucket fits.
Lifting it is more like offsetting with a bias.
If you aren't going to add energy to the bucket then your only option to placing the bucket on a higher ladder step is to lower the ladder.
What happens now is the bucket and the water are stretched taller & more narrow OR shorter & wider but not both.
Lifting is analogous to adding voltage to the charge. However, if we are going to look at this like we are talking about a capacitor, there are some tweaks that need to be done. I was a little bit bothered by "W=VQ" and in Grumpy's link the formula is actually W = V*deltaQ and it applies to a case where the electric field constant. In reality when you charge a capacitor by putting current into it the electric field is changing, and the higher the voltage, the harder it is (i.e.; the more work you have to do) to charge it.
For a capacitor we know W = 1/2 C V^2, and C = Q/V.
So that means W = 1/2 (Q/V) V^2 = 1/2 VQ. So in the capacitor case it's "W=1/2VQ" and not "W=VQ."
The following link shows this for a capacitor where you integrate on the charge you put into the capacitor (i.e.; current flowing into the capacitor irrespective of time) and you get the same formula.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capeng2.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capeng2.html#c1)
Another comment with respect to lifting the bucket up to a higher height and the energy that adds to the system. We know that the energy stored in a capacitor is proportional to the square of the voltage (W = 1/2CV^2). However, we also know that the energy in the bucket of water increases linearly with the height (W=MGh). Therefore to keep the "capacitor analogy" holding true for the bucket of water, you have to lift it proportionally higher to reflect the voltage. Suppose one volt equals one foot of height. Then two volts has to equal four feet of additional height so that the amount of energy in the bucket of water resembles the energy associated with the voltage in a capacitor.
In other words, the height of the bucket of water is actually represents the square root of the amount of energy in the equivalent capacitor. i.e.; lifting the bucket up from one foot high to two feet high only represents 1.414 volts for the equivalent capacitor. You have to lift the bucket from one foot high to four feet high to represent two volts in the equivalent capacitor.
Grumpy:
QuoteThat's it. I am proposing that time-dependent electrostatic induction can accomplish this feat.
Good luck but those are just words. If you actually did experiments on the bench you would find that no matter how you approached the problem, you still end up paying the real energy price to charge the capacitor. There is just no way around it. I am assuming that for both of us this is an academic discussion so let's not fret about it.
This story is analogous to how I showed that an inductor acts exactly like a physical spring, we are just using different "through" and "across" variables to describe the behaviour. Otherwise they are identical. Any person with common sense knows that a spring is not a potential source of energy.
In this case I showed how charging a capacitor is equivalent to lifting up a bucket of water. So the question is can you lift up the bucket of water with less energy than MGh dictates that you have to expend to move it up by "h." Unless you have a source of Upsidasium, the answer is no.
Not that I am stopping anyone from dreaming here... After all Santa is getting ready...
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.19, 18:24:46
This story is analogous to how I showed that an inductor acts exactly like a physical spring, we are just using different "through" and "across" variables to describe the behaviour. Otherwise they are identical. Any person with common sense knows that a spring is not a potential source of energy.
MileHigh
MH...
I'd be delighted if you could expound a little on your spring analogies and compare them to the compression of a gas.
Then I may throw a few questions at you, in a good spirit of course.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.19, 18:24:46
For a capacitor we know W = 1/2 C V^2, and C = Q/V.
So that means W = 1/2 (Q/V) V^2 = 1/2 VQ. So in the capacitor case it's "W=1/2VQ" and not "W=VQ."
Grumpy:
Good luck but those are just words. If you actually did experiments on the bench you would find that no matter how you approached the problem, you still end up paying the real energy price to charge the capacitor. There is just no way around it. I am assuming that for both of us this is an academic discussion so let's not fret about it.
Can you explain why it takes exactly half of the work to charge a capacitor?
If you had paid attention to my posts, I said that an experiment that I performed is what led to consider that a means of performing less work to induce a conduction current may exist.
It is a rather novel idea.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.19, 19:45:59
Can you explain why it takes exactly half of the work to charge a capacitor?
Is this what you meant by the above?
Why is half the energy lost when charging a capacitor through a wire?
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.19, 19:51:30
Is this what you meant by the above?
Why is half the energy lost when charging a capacitor through a wire?
.99
I meant less work is required and asked "why". If half of the work were lost, it would be W=2VQ.
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.19, 20:23:58
Pliarism is the ultimate form of flattery MileHigh - Thank You!
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=457.msg7932#msg7932
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.01.24, 17:37:57
A transformer, or any variation on a transformer, will never be able to produce more energy out than you put in. This can be PROVEN with some understanding of electromagnetics and mathematics. Once you understand this, it becomes no different than looking at a mechanical spring. Nobody in their right mind would look at a spring and say that it is a source of free energy. Their common sense tells them that this is the case. An electrical coil is just an electromagnetic version of a mechanical spring, but people can't see this if they don't have the background knowledge.
Anyway, another "rain on the parade" posting from me. Sorry!
MileHigh
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.19, 20:21:28
I meant less work is required and asked "why". If half of the work were lost, it would be W=2VQ.
Sorry Grumps, I'm still not with you.
Half work, less work....compared to, or with reference to what?
.99
Quarktoo:
I assume that you meant "plagiarism" when you mentioned the ultimate form of flattery. I wasn't plagiarizing you.
Okay, the ball is in your court. Can I ask you to explain why an inductor is like a mechanical spring in a few paragraphs?
Thanks,
MileHigh
P.S.: Thank God my live spell check is working on my computer. I couldn't live without it.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.19, 20:39:08
Sorry Grumps, I'm still not with you.
Half work, less work....compared to, or with reference to what?
.99
To charge a capacitor, you do work to move charge into the capacitor. Apparently it takes exactly twice as much work to move the same amount of charge along a wire. Can anyone explain "why"? I think I know why, but wanted to get other ideas on this.
oh dear.
explain this and explain that.
this forum is a nice thing but it is useless to me.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.19, 21:34:54
To charge a capacitor, you do work to move charge into the capacitor. Apparently it takes exactly twice as much work to move the same amount of charge along a wire. Can anyone explain "why"? I think I know why, but wanted to get other ideas on this.
You passed over this, but it asks the same question. But that's ok.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.19, 19:51:30
Is this what you meant by the above?
Why is half the energy lost when charging a capacitor through a wire?
.99
Have a look at the attached document if you haven't yet. This is a commonly asked question regarding caps charging caps, but it applies equally to all conventional sources charging caps. It may answer your question.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.19, 21:45:40
You passed over this, but it asks the same question. But that's ok.
Have a look at the attached document if you haven't yet. This is a commonly asked question regarding caps charging caps, but it applies equally to all conventional sources charging caps. It may answer your question.
.99
This doesn't answer the question.
To charge a capacitor, you do work to move charge into the capacitor. Apparently it takes exactly twice as much work to move the same amount of charge along a wire. Can anyone explain "why"? I think I know why, but wanted to get other ideas on this.
Maybe MC can explain it. Since this site is basically useless to him, he might know the answer.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.19, 22:46:57
To charge a capacitor, you do work to move charge into the capacitor. Apparently it takes exactly twice as much work to move the same amount of charge along a wire. Can anyone explain "why"? I think I know why, but wanted to get other ideas on this.
Maybe MC can explain it. Since this site is basically useless to him, he might know the answer.
I can
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.19, 22:46:57
This doesn't answer the question.
Nothing does.
No matter what you write it won't answer the question.
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.19, 23:11:59
I can
Please do.
(I'm not in agreement with the explanation that says it takes more work to pack charges closer together, but I do agree that a capacitor hold half of the energy that some may think it should hold.)
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.19, 22:46:57
This doesn't answer the question.
To charge a capacitor, you do work to move charge into the capacitor. Apparently it takes exactly twice as much work to move the same amount of charge along a wire. Can anyone explain "why"? I think I know why, but wanted to get other ideas on this.
Maybe MC can explain it. Since this site is basically useless to him, he might know the answer.
If the answer is wrong, then would you mind stating why?
Where does this "apparently" statement come from, and don't say the equation, because I think that was already explained in the document.
I think I know what you are asking, but you're asking it in the wrong way.
.99
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.19, 21:36:33
oh dear.
explain this and explain that.
this forum is a nice thing but it is useless to me.
Well, what would you like us to do marcocontroller, to make your experience here useful to you?
.99
I think we should stand on our heads, spit wooden nickels and turn this place into a casino to please everyone :D
Doesn't anybody realize this can go on forever?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.20, 01:09:21
Well, what would you like us to do marcocontroller, to make your experience here useful to you?
.99
It's not about making my experience usefull to me.
You have to understand that you need real things not theory.
This place is like theorist heaven.
How come nobody seems to be doing anything exept theorizing? or is it just me seeing things wrongly?
:)
Quote from: Microcontroller on 2010.12.20, 05:51:46
Doesn't anybody realize this can go on forever?
It's not about making my experience usefull to me.
You have to understand that you need real things not theory.
This place is like theorist heaven.
How come nobody seems to be doing anything exept theorizing? or is it just me seeing things wrongly?
:)
I will have to agree with you MrCo....the theorizing does get wearisome after a while. A few of us have well equipped labs and are experimenting in background mode. I, for one do not have a lot to report from my bench tests just yet. I am a builder, tester, experimenter, looking for a few definitive hypothesis that can be proven on the bench.
Meanwhile the forum is a place to kick around some ideas, potential theories etc. Some of us try to add something positive to the forum, in humility, like some of the great gentlemen that have paved the path of science. Perhaps their viewpoints and models were like "Plato's Cave" and they are a victim of lack of better insight, so we will have to pave other, better roads that lead to new horizons in science, better models and ways of visualizing what is really happening.
There are some that come here full of arrogance, haughtiness, ego, that may actually know more and some may even have better models to present. But their method is so abrasive and condescending that it will probably be lost.
This forum was put together and is wholly maintained and funded by a couple of individuals whom I respect. They don't get a dime from those that come here to squat and take a dump on every post and p**s in the face of other forum members. The owners of this site are very patient with some of these types that show up. I would be far less patient.
You won't find useless advertising here. For that I commend this forum.
No we don't have all the answers as some claim to have. We are brothers traveling down an unknown road to a near impossible destination. I hope you can join us in that spirit.
I am interested in your work and your "start of something new" thread.
Quote from: Quarktoo on 2010.12.20, 11:19:38
To: MileHigh
From: The Rabbit Hole
Message:
Quote MileHigh, "Can I ask you to explain why an inductor is like a mechanical spring in a few paragraphs?"
Paragraph 1
When an atom loses energy, it gets colder and smaller since voltage is a vacuum. Next, we have a coaxial coil made of copper tube. It is sitting on a slippery surface and we suction liquid nitrogen through it. We measure a contraction of 1 inch in both axial directions for a total of 2 inches over 1 minute with each end moving at 1 inch per minute in opposite directions.
Paragraph 2
Now we take that same coil and anchor one end with a heavy shorted out coil. We suction liquid nitrogen through the coil and it contracts the same 2 inch distance over all per one minute of time. But! The free end of the coil is moving across the floor at twice the speed. That is acceleration E=MC2 The C2 of the equation is the result of the increase of A=B oscillations resulting from cascade effect.
Summary
Ed Leedscalnin's PMH and your capacitor puzzle are opposite but the same.
You stored the vacuum of voltage in your capacitor and threw the current away. I stored the vacuum of current in Leedscalnin's shorted coil and threw the voltage away. Waste not, want not the two opposite in every way potential energies.
A capacitor is stored time and Leedscalnin's PMH is stored space - "vacuum" packed to keep the energy fresh during the holiday season.
- Merry Christmas Demon'zzzaaa.. ^-^
Well, that reply was "far out" for sure. Your reply is not even remotely close.
I will rephrase the question: Can I ask you to explain why an inductor in an electrical circuit acts like a mechanical spring in a few paragraphs? You can even take a real-world example if you want, like the main coil in a Bedini motor.
Thanks,
MileHigh
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.19, 18:59:27
MH...
I'd be delighted if you could expound a little on your spring analogies and compare them to the compression of a gas.
Then I may throw a few questions at you, in a good spirit of course.
Ion:
Not ignoring your post but I will touch on this later. I promise to not even look anything up, we will see if my thoughts are on track.
MileHigh
I've been researching again, looking for DIY methods for creating cuprous oxide layers.
What I'm finding is that by using electroless chemical deposition method, and by adjusting the PH, you can get either p-type or n-type cuprous oxides.
Any thoughts on whether p-type or n-type might be more desirable?
tak
Quote from: ION on 2010.12.19, 18:59:27
MH...
I'd be delighted if you could expound a little on your spring analogies and compare them to the compression of a gas.
Then I may throw a few questions at you, in a good spirit of course.
Hi Ion,
Okay, I thought about this for a while. To be honest the few times I covered this in school I didn't fully get it, and I hope I what I say is correct.
I think of the volume vs. temperature curve at constant pressure (I think) for a gas and it is almost ideal. Only when you start to approach 0K does the curve start to deviate. What's fascinating is that the slope of that curve is telling you where 0K is.
Of course I remember PV=nRT. At a given temp the pressure times the volume is a constant.
I think where I didn't get it was with respect to the thermodynamics when you compress a gas. You are doing work, and I think that the gas does behave like a spring, if and only if the process is thermally isolated from the gas, which is basically impossible.
To say it in plain English, if you compress a gas in a cylinder with a piston, it does behave like a spring with one caveat. The caveat being that the gas heats up when you do this. That heat will flow into the walls of the cylinder, hence the energy return from the compressed spring will be less than it is "supposed" to be.
I hope that I am close.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.17, 16:37:25
Quarktoo:
You are making a complete ass of yourself. I think it's time for you to stop. I have a feeling if you keep on going like this you are going to implode in a few days and disappear.
MileHigh
What the hell? lol
MileHigh,
"The Amazing Carnac"
Are you a mystic at your day Job?
Do you have any predictions for the Coming year?
;-}
Chet
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.12.22, 23:47:23
Hi Ion,
Okay, I thought about this for a while. To be honest the few times I covered this in school I didn't fully get it, and I hope I what I say is correct.
I think of the volume vs. temperature curve at constant pressure (I think) for a gas and it is almost ideal. Only when you start to approach 0K does the curve start to deviate. What's fascinating is that the slope of that curve is telling you where 0K is.
Of course I remember PV=nRT. At a given temp the pressure times the volume is a constant.
I think where I didn't get it was with respect to the thermodynamics when you compress a gas. You are doing work, and I think that the gas does behave like a spring, if and only if the process is thermally isolated from the gas, which is basically impossible.
To say it in plain English, if you compress a gas in a cylinder with a piston, it does behave like a spring with one caveat. The caveat being that the gas heats up when you do this. That heat will flow into the walls of the cylinder, hence the energy return from the compressed spring will be less than it is "supposed" to be.
I hope that I am close.
MileHigh
Yes, you are correct in all that you have said on this. If the process is truly adiabatic, the gas temperature will remain at the elevated temperature due to the work done on the gas. If the heating of the gas is allowed to dissipate through a non-adiabatic process, the temperature will show a pulse, then return to ambient, as electromagnetic energy in the form of heat is liberated from the compressed molecules.
The interesting thing is that although the pressure will drop slightly as the energy is liberated, the gas molecules at some point become acquiesced to their new highly compressed state and they return to ambient temperature.
I find this process fascinating. It is as if all matter, not just gasses must liberate some electromagnetic energy in the form of heat when they are compressed. They also must absorb electromagnetic energy (become cold) when they are expanded. Even a steel bar in a mult-ton press behaves this way.
And an extremely pressurized tank of air will return to ambient after it's heat pulse is liberated. The gas molecules are still very tightly compressed, but they adjust happily to their new condition.
So what is being liberated in this mechanical to electromagnetic conversion system?
We take modern refrigeration and air conditioning heat pumps for granted, but there is something really interesting going on when we meditate on it.
We seem to understand the process, and have worked out all the equations since Sadi Carnot first advanced his principles of thermodynamic engines at the age of 28.
But do we really understand?
Ion:
It is a fascinating subject. The various air molecules are like billiard balls that never stop bouncing of each other. They undergo "perfectly elastic" collisions where no energy is lost for each bounce. That's what air pressure really is, millions of little basketballs hitting the surface of something at some sustained rate.
MileHigh
Chet, the name is Joseph Larmor. Larmor, J. 1897. "On the Theory of Magnetic Influence of Spectra; and on the Radiation From Moving Ions." Phil. Mag 63:503-512.
Larmor showed that photon energy is radiated from a moving charge in proportion to the square of the charge's acceleration. Thus, a charge of lower mass, e.g. a low-mass electron, accelerates more quickly than one of "normal" mass, and therefore radiates proportionally more energy for the same inductive force.
itworks,
Your a very likable fellow,I like your "handle" and what you have to say!
We have the talent here and the desire to "try" this ,can you shed anymore light ?
Thank you
Chet
Chet, I believe Larmor's equation forms the basis for Barbat's work. The main shifts of paradigm are 1) We have to accept that low "effective" mass electrons actually are lower mass than normal. They have been observed for decades doing things that indicate they have lower mass. But because they tend to look like they are producing more energy out than in, and people are convinced that is impossible, they have made up other "relativistic" explanations for their behavior, and called them low "effective" mass, meaning "it looks like it's lower than normal mass, but we don't believe it."
The second paradigm shift Barbat is responsible for is the rejection of Helmholtz's famous claim that Newton's laws of thermodynamics applied to electrodynamics and magnetic energy. Barbat has gone through Helmholtz's original paper of 1847 that was presented to - and rejected by - the Berlin Society of Physicists. Helmholtz went on to self-publish the paper, with the disingenuous claim that it had been "read before" the Society, and he won all kinds of awards from royalty for it. However, it was based on flawed science, and Barbat has gone through it carefully and shown exactly why it was incorrect. But, as some of Barbat's writings say, Helmholtz did get something right: If forces exist which are not in line with each other, (which now we know induction and magnetic force not to be in-line), then there exists the possibility for infinite gain or loss of energy. TRUE. Helmholtz just assumed that all forces were in-line, so this situation wouldn't exist.
Think about it. An electron continually circles around a proton, without falling to the center or falling off. No one puts energy into it to make it do that; it just goes all the time. Additionally, that electron constantly emits energy and mass in the form of photons (radiation). No one is putting fuel in or material, yet out comes energy and mass, constantly. That fact in itself shows that we're nuts if we don't think there's infinite energy out there.
Barbat's genius lies in his willingness to accept that Hubbard's generator did what the reporters said it did, rather than poo-pooing it because it was unexplainable at the time. If it did work, then there had to be something wrong with our accepted version of the law of conservation of energy. So he went back through about two centuries of original papers, from Newton, Ampere, Gauss, Helmholtz, Maxwell, even Einstein, Bohr, you name it. And it was at Helmholtz where the science went haywire, he shows.
Another breakthrough Barbat made was realizing why Hendershot couldn't make his generator work when he tried again around 1960: Copper wire was now shiny, and lacked the cupric oxide coating of old wire. Knowing that, I believe Barbat could have revived the Hubbard and Hendershot type of generators, except that radium is no longer available in the quantities they worked with in the 1920s. So Barbat started looking into other photoconductors that are mentioned in his patent, as they require wavelengths more easily obtainable.
Quote from: itworks on 2011.01.05, 22:17:30
Chet, I believe Larmor's equation forms the basis for Barbat's work. The main shifts of paradigm are 1) We have to accept that low "effective" mass electrons actually are lower mass than normal. They have been observed for decades doing things that indicate they have lower mass. But because they tend to look like they are producing more energy out than in, and people are convinced that is impossible, they have made up other "relativistic" explanations for their behavior, and called them low "effective" mass, meaning "it looks like it's low mass, but we don't believe it."
The second paradigm shift Barbat is responsible for is the rejection of Helmholtz's famous claim that Newton's laws of thermodynamics applied to electrodynamics and magnetic energy. Barbat has gone through Helmholtz's original paper of 1847 that was presented to - and rejected by - the Berlin Society of Physicists. Helmholtz went on to self-publish the paper, with the disingenuous claim that it had been "read before" the Society, and he won all kinds of awards from royalty for it. However, it was based on flawed science, and Barbat has gone through it carefully and shown exactly why it was incorrect. But, as some of Barbat's writings say, Helmholtz did get something right: If forces exist which are not in line with each other, (which now we know induction and magnetic force not to be in-line), then there exists the possibility for infinite gain or loss of energy. TRUE. Helmholtz just assumed that all forces were in-line, so this situation wouldn't exist.
Think about it. An electron continually circles around a photon, without falling to the center or falling off. No one puts energy into it to make it do that; it just goes all the time. Additionally, that electron constantly emits energy and mass in the form of photons. No one is putting fuel in or material, yet out comes energy and mass, constantly. That fact in itself shows that we're nuts if we don't think there's infinite energy out there.
Barbat's genius lies in his willingness to accept that Hubbard's generator did what the reporters said it did, rather than poo-pooing it because it was unexplainable at the time. If it did work, then there had to be something wrong with our accepted version of the law of conservation of energy. So he went back through about two centuries of original papers, from Newton, Ampere, Gauss, Helmholtz, Maxwell, even Einstein, Bohr, you name it. And it was at Helmholtz where the science went haywire, he shows.
The other breakthrough Barbat made was realizing why Hendershot couldn't make his generator work when he tried again around 1960: Copper wire was now shiny, and lacked the cupric oxide coating of old wire. Knowing that, I believe Barbat could have revived the Hubbard and Hendershot type of generators, except that radium is no longer available in the quantities they worked with in the 1920s. So Barbat started looking into other photoconductors that are mentioned in his patent, as they require wavelengths more easily obtainable.
itworks:
It is encouraging to see that you have indeed read the patent. These were exactly the parts that caused me to take notice, though I think many have missed it.
Regarding Hendershot, he poured wax between the coil stacks and the capacitor, a point missed by many. This may have contained the traces of Radium in suspension.
As I recall, Hubbard's generator put out a fair amount of power (ran the boat motor) and was operated by a HV supply through a distributor. I don't think the two devices, Hubbard and Barbatt, are related.
Regarding the Larmor Formula for calculating the total power radiated by a nonrelativistic point charge as it accelerates:
This is electromagnetic radiation. I think Barbatt misinterpreted the statement "low mass electrons" to mean a different type of electron as opposed to one with a larger mass. "Low mass electrons" is used when discussing electrons as compared to heavier particles such as ions.
Example from: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast822/week7.pdf
Quote
The source of bremsstrahlung from a hot gas is the interactions between electrons and ions; since it's the low-mass electrons that have the greater acceleration, the electrons are the predominant source of radiation.
I suggest looking at "what else" is radiated away from moving particles.
EDIT:
Regarding the Hubbard Coil:
QuoteTo guard against the possibility of ordinary storage batteries concealed
about the boat as a power source, instead of the Hubbard coil, both electric
motor and coil were lifted free from their blocks, but no hidden wiring was
revealed. The coil used as a power unit was eleven inches in diameter and
fourteen inches in length. According to Hubbard, tests of the coil show a
current of 280 amperes and 125 volts, which, he pointed out was equivalent
to approximately forty-five horse power, or sufficient to drive an
automobile. The current is pulsating.
While the device has been patented, the claims for it are so broad that
Hubbard says he does not feel safe in making public his secret. In general,
he says, it is made up of a group of eight electro-magnets, each with
primary and secondary windings of copper wire, which are arranged around a
large steel core. The core likewise has a single winding. A coil thus
constructed, he says, is lifeless until given an initial impulse. This is
done by connecting the ends of its windings for a fraction of a second to an
ordinary[two words unreadable R.L.R.] -ing circuit, he says.
I doubt it was doped with Radium or any other radioactive material. Eight electromagnets and core winding. I bet it got hot from eddie currents in the cores. Hell, look at it. It's like a TPU! Sequentially pulsed ring of coils, HV pulses.
Get rid of those cores and this looks interesting now. Pulsing output - I bet this coincided with the HV pulse. Wow! I had written Hubbard off as having too little info, but it is there.
It wasn't doped at all. Hubbard was apparently working on a hunch after reading a tiny article in Scientific American by a man named Liemer (Leimer? I forget.) who noted the magnification of a radio signal from radium held at only a certain angle to the wire. Hubbard realized that if the signal was magnified, why not feed back some of the extra power and cause it to be self-sustaining? At least this is what Barbat is saying.
Quote from: itworks on 2011.01.06, 04:42:11
It wasn't doped at all. Hubbard was apparently working on a hunch after reading a tiny article in Scientific American by a man named Liemer (Leimer? I forget.) who noted the magnification of a radio signal from radium held at only a certain angle to the wire. Hubbard realized that if the signal was magnified, why not feed back some of the extra power and cause it to be self-sustaining? At least this is what Barbat is saying.
Hubbard also said that the energy came from the air before he said he used radioactive materials.
Think about this for a second, gents, spherics said that pulsing a coil of high impedance with HV DC produces a magnified field effect (Tesla's radiant electricity effect).
Will a magnetized core in a solenoid increase it's impedance?
Hopefully to help out a bit:
You can't say a "coil of high impedance" because the impedance of a coil is a function of it's inductance and the driving sine wave frequency:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/impl.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/impl.html)
When you talk about pulsing a coil with DC then the term impedance is not normally used anymore. That's because if you want to look at the impedance of a coil under these conditions, then you are really talking about the instantaneous impedance of the coil as a function of time and other factors. What you are really talking about now is the transient response of the coil. The transient response of a coil to a DC impulse is a function of the inductance, the voltage of the pulse, the length of time of the pulse, and the output resistance of the pulse driver circuit and the resistance of the coil itself:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indtra.html#c2 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/indtra.html#c2)
You also have to be very careful about precisely what you mean when you say you "pulse a coil." Are you talking about some sort of relay or MOSFET or transistor that applies voltage to the coil? Before the pulse are you connected to the coil or not? What about after the pulse? In more technical terms, what is the pulsing source output resistance before it pulses the coil, while it is pulsing the coil, and after it pulses the coil? The way the coil responds will be directly affected by the output resistance of the pulsing DC signal source through the second and third phases of the pulse waveform.
You can assume that moment the driving pulse source goes back to zero volts, no matter what the output impedance of the pulse source may be, then the coil will start to discharge the energy that the driving pulse just put into it. Therefore the coil switches from storing the pulse energy supplied to it to discharging that stored energy. It literally changes operating modes in mid stream. You can research into the behaviour of the coil during the discharging phase for yourselves if you are interested.
It doesn't matter what kind of coil you are talking about, from the smallest coil you might make with a few loops of wire, to the biggest Tesla coil you want to work with, they all behave essentially the same way.
MileHigh
The question is: does the transient impedance of a coil change if I place a magnetized core inside the coil? Yes or no?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.01.06, 15:10:14
The question is: does the transient impedance of a coil change if I place a magnetized core inside the coil? Yes or no?
Firstly, define what you mean by "transient impedance" and "magnetized core".
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.01.09, 14:57:29
Firstly, define what you mean by "transient impedance" and "magnetized core".
.99
I'll rephrase it:
If you place a bat magnet inside a solenoid coil, does this change the response of the coil when pulsed?
What is a "bat" magnet?
Try to be little more descriptive Grumps....this is somewhat inefficient. :-\
"bar" magnet?
Is the solenoid made with a ferrite core, or is it air-core? What direction is the pulsed field relative to the magnet? What material is the magnet?
.99
Grumpy, I dont know if this helps but ( http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=173.msg1483#msg1483 ) I did some experiments and found it does change the inductance of the coil and the inductance change was relative to the polarity of the magnet in relationship to the polarity of the charge created by the pulse.
Quote from: darkspeed on 2011.01.09, 17:50:20
Grumpy, I dont know if this helps but ( http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=173.msg1483#msg1483 ) I did some experiments and found it does change the inductance of the coil and the inductance change was relative to the polarity of the magnet in relationship to the polarity of the charge created by the pulse.
Thanks. This is what I was asking about. I'm wondering if I can get the pulsed coil force effect with less wire by adding a magnetic field.
Grrr..... ok did not want to say this but I took a waxed 3" tall pvc form and wrapped it with one layer of metglass then a few layers of varnish to hold it s shape.
When i removed the form, I covered the form in one layer of cork, then wax paper, and once again wrapped it with metglass/ varnish.
This gave me two rigid metglass tubes, one would fit inside the other with enough space between for a helical coil of magnet wire.
With a hand full of tiny tiny neo's i stuck them to the inside of the smaller tube all south facing the metglass tube wall
Then with a hand full of tiny tiny neo's i coated the outside of the larger tube with all north facing the metglass tube wall.
This will cause a obstacle to the pulse when the coil is pulsed in one polarity.
When pulsed in the opposite polarity ( where the magnets are simulating a field like the one the wire thought it would need to create ) There were some noticeably stronger currents as measured across a resistor.
Im sure you could do the same thing with iron sheet from mcmaster karr if you do not have any spools of metglass. In fact you may get saturation faster with the iron.
I wonder if a radial force is observable in the that setup.
We follow patents because, lo and behold, someone's over-unity idea might actually WORK! Thus, they may have filed a patent.
Quote from: itworks on 2011.04.04, 13:05:17
We follow patents because, lo and behold, someone's over-unity idea might actually WORK! Thus, they may have filed a patent.
Very good reasoning. Many people would. It's just that the CIA, NSA and others like Homeland Security look at
everything! (they have the legal right), so anything that might upset the "apple cart" might get classified and you'll get nothing, since you can't tell anyone. With the new Patriot act
anyone!! can have
anything!! done to them legally. I've been the Air Force with a medium level security clearance, so I have enough experience to know a little bit whereof I speak.
--Lee
It appears William Barbat's website (Levitronics) is still up and running, but no new posts or info there:
http://www.levitronicsenergy.com/science.htm
I tried to post to their blogspot to no avail. It appears only one person (one of the contacts) has posted there.
http://levitronics.blogspot.com/
Is this turning out to be vaporware?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.01.09, 15:40:45
...
If you place a bat magnet inside a solenoid coil, does this change the response of the coil when pulsed?
There are in fact two questions in your question.
A bar magnet has generally a permeability different from air. Therefore the response of the coil is changed with a bar magnet inside the solenoid.
But:
the fact that the bar magnet is magnetized or not, doesn't change the response of the coil (except if magnetizing the bar would have changed its permeability). The change of the response of the coil is not due to the constant magnetic field but to the bar permeability, as for any core of any material.
When I tested coils with magnet cores, something surprised me: one might expect the permeability of strong magnets to be high but surprisingly it is very low. The relative permeability of neodymium or Co-Sm is only 1.05!
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on 2011.04.29, 20:11:12
..
It's just that the CIA, NSA and others like Homeland Security look at everything! (they have the legal right),
...
;D CIA and NSA control the world!
Not one OU invention in any country can escape from the big conspiracy of the men in black!
I'm very afraid, not because of them, but by the level of childishness of these assertions.
Even US diplomatic emails and classified documents have been published by WikiLeaks, but an inventor couldn't let know his genious invention? C.C
What a wishful thinking to avoid to face the reality: there are not yet OU devices!
Sorry to reply to this old post, I would have missed it in 2011!
Quote from: ION on 2013.02.25, 17:22:11
It appears William Barbat's website (Levitronics) is still up and running, but no new posts or info there:
http://www.levitronicsenergy.com/science.htm
I tried to post to their blogspot to no avail. It appears only one person (one of the contacts) has posted there.
http://levitronics.blogspot.com/
Is this turning out to be vaporware?
Probably. One of the many sites that creates a buzz from mistakes or lies, and the next year, it's over, they found their mistake but don't say it, or they got the money that they were seeking.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.26, 09:53:02
There are in fact two questions in your question.
A bar magnet has generally a permeability different from air. Therefore the response of the coil is changed with a bar magnet inside the solenoid.
But:
the fact that the bar magnet is magnetized or not, doesn't change the response of the coil (except if magnetizing the bar would have changed its permeability). The change of the response of the coil is not due to the constant magnetic field but to the bar permeability, as for any core of any material.
When I tested coils with magnet cores, something surprised me: one might expect the permeability of strong magnets to be high but surprisingly it is very low. The relative permeability of neodymium or Co-Sm is only 1.05!
All common knowledge but without the detail concerning whether or not the applied magnet saturates the core material.
Provided the magnet applied to the ferrous core saturates that core, all of the above is true and the apparent permeability of that core + magnet will be near 1.
If the applied magnet only brings the core to near saturation then you have a solenoid which will appear different to pulses of differing polarity.
This is in line with the fact that the permeability of ferromagnetic materials change with applied magnetic flux, the inductance of a coil with a ferromagnetic core will generally vary with current in the same way it will vary when a magnet is applied to the same core.
Imagine that.... a 1mH coil is only 1mH if the applied frequency and current is just right :D
Back to the meat of the thread: Has anyone had any luck in finding the English translation of this document?
E. Leimer (1915), Uber Radiumantennen, ), Elektrotechnische Zeitschrift, Heft 8, Feb. 25; English translation, (1916a) The Electrician, Apr. 21; (1916b) Scientific American Supplement No. 2127, Oct. 7.
Quote from: ION on 2013.02.26, 14:37:09
Back to the meat of the thread: Has anyone had any luck in finding the English translation of this document?
E. Leimer (1915), Uber Radiumantennen, ), Elektrotechnische Zeitschrift, Heft 8, Feb. 25; English translation, (1916a) The Electrician, Apr. 21; (1916b) Scientific American Supplement No. 2127, Oct. 7.
Parts, if not most of it, are on page 233 of http://books.google.com/books?id=dgA9AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA353&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
Here's the Leimer article from The Electrician, April 21, 1916
tak
Thanks for the info tak22 and WW
Bill seems to be out of contact [still checking other resources]
phone and Email disconnected.
unfortunately has been a few years [ 2015] since we talked ,I hope he is alright ?
here is his Book
https://books.google.com/books?id=7uu4BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=Leimer+radium&source=bl&ots=ipXHkxlXb2&sig=KbIid9Og0YVgtIHH3NDb7WSN1lE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMIxpPby_m_xwIVyaOICh2pyAiC#v=onepage&q=Leimer%20radium&f=false
Trailer for the book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SVLFiFdgMs
QuotePublished on Aug 3, 2015
We live in an age of trusting the "experts". But what happens when the so-called experts are wrong? and their misinformation is allowing us to destroy ourselves? In Science Myths We Tell Ourselves, William Barbat demonstrates the incorrect reasoning behind "facts" we have been taught, including the Big Bang, instant creation, continental drift, and spreading sea floors. Skeptic's assertions that the climate is not changing are dissproven by Barbat's update of his 1973 climate study, which definitively proves that the world's desert belts are expanding pole-ward, like the expansion of the Sahara Desert of North Africa, which ended the Ice Age. The recent drought in the mid continental US, and the pervasive droughts in California and Brazil may be previews of climate disasters brought on by mankind, unless we can halt climate change by rethinking our energy protocols. We've been told that energy cannot be created in nature, or by man, but the stunning central thesis of Science Myths We Tell Ourselves is that the "law" on which this belief is based (Helmholtz's Energy Conservation Law) is completely untrue? in fact, it was rejected as "metaphysics" in 1847 by the Berlin Physics Society. Scientists unwilling to examine the facts continue to propagate this misinformation while ignoring the potential for unlimited, non-polluting energy from low-mass electrons. This enlightening and fascinating book will challenge what you think you know, as well as providing hope and direction for a different future.
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Myths-We-Tell-Ourselves/dp/1478747765
Amazon blurb:
Quote
The author debunks many science concepts like the Big Bang, Instant Creation, Continental Drift, and Spreading Sea Floors, which are shown to be really just myths. A Big Bang explosion would require an escape velocity for galaxies of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the speed of light. But more damaging to mankind is the myth that energy cannot be created in nature or by man. Few people know that Helmholtz's Energy Conservation "Law" was rejected as "metaphysics" in 1847 by the Berlin Physics Society, but that gullible scientists have accepted it anyway. So the extra energy from Low-Mass Electrons is wrongly attributed to mythical "lattice vibrations," yet it had generated electric power a century ago and could be used to avert climate change. The unappreciated creation of energy in nature is shown by Larmor's 1897 formula for photon radiation from moving charges. All orbiting electrons and spinning protons continually create photons, which possess heat and mass, and they can split into electrons and positrons to provide the building blocks of matter in stars. Larmor heat photons replace the myth of fusion energy as the source of all heat in stars, and Larmor heat photons make planets' interiors gaseous. Ultimately, a buildup of non-fusible iron at the core of a mature star cools and shrinks to separate the core from an expanding hydrogen envelope of a red giant star. This leaves a new planet to add to Dark Matter, and its Larmor energy becomes Dark Energy. The myths of Continental Drift and Spreading Sea Floors are replaced with an origin of Earth as a piece torn from Jupiter's Great Red Spot by a planetary collision. Pieces of Jupiter's crust with an ice coating formed continents around a ball of molten rock to form Earth, leaving meltwater to fill the ocean deeps. Ice comets also came from Jupiter's ice coating as shown by their planar surfaces. The myth that a dynamo causes Earth's magnetic field is replaced by a lost formula derived by Gauss for the origin of magnetic force, which also explains the origin of Earth's ionospheric radiation belts. Maxwell had suppressed Gauss's formula as "conflicting with the Energy Conservation "Law." The author updates his 1973 climate study predicting that Global Warming would expand Earth's desert belts poleward, like the Sahara grew with post-Ice Age warming. A CO2 increase accounts for the recent Mid-continent drought and the current droughts in California and Brazil, but a sudden decline in sunspot activity has started a cooling trend. In 1973 Barbat also debunked myths of the cause of the Population Explosion, but experts challenged him despite admitting his 99% statistical correlation of what really brings down high birthrates.
What is his source for this statement?:
"Few people know that Helmholtz's Energy Conservation "Law" was rejected as "metaphysics" in 1847 by the Berlin Physics Society, but that gullible scientists have accepted it anyway."
This reference doesn't agree:
https://books.google.com/books?id=tb5WFYlNbeAC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=1847+berlin+physics+society+energy+conservation&source=bl&ots=fdLA1uUCuv&sig=vBmNUUZeX5xaIvitO7HULQsp76o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi96fz33ezRAhWqv1QKHdBSAXIQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=1847%20berlin%20physics%20society%20energy%20conservation&f=false
Quote from: Chet K on 2017.01.30, 21:37:41
here is his Book
https://books.google.com/books?id=7uu4BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=Leimer+radium&source=bl&ots=ipXHkxlXb2&sig=KbIid9Og0YVgtIHH3NDb7WSN1lE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMIxpPby_m_xwIVyaOICh2pyAiC#v=onepage&q=Leimer%20radium&f=false
Seems simple to verify whether the magnetic flux generated by a coil is also dependent on the material that its windings are composed of.
InSb wire is not unobtanium
Very good news
Just had a nice Chat with one of Bills assistants ,very nice indeed .
I will be speaking with Bill when I get back home in a few days.
seems a new direction / idea is to be sorted.
@Grump
I will ask Bill that question.
@ Verpies
Hopefully we can get Bill here for some clarity and possible direction for experiments .
Thanks
Chet
Regardless whether you buy the radiative nature of electromagnetic induction, that arrangement of 3 (or 4) coils in these geometric proportions should be tested.
I can get the chemicals to coat a cylindrical coil former but I am not equipped to machine a helix in it nor make pressure/spring connections with it.
The question to ask Bill's assistants is "What is the advantage of a semiconductor coil/helix over a semiconductor sheet ?".
I have not called him yet ,recovering from eye surgery[detached retina] and its been a bit ruff
hopefully the next few days will be better
thanks for the suggestions
Quote from: Chet K on 2017.02.14, 11:51:49
I have not called him yet ,recovering from eye surgery [detached retina]
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! That is very serious! I hope you caught it in time...
Is your monitor laying on the floor yet?
Just got back from the surgeon [he operated last Tuesday]
all is good and holding tight ,and yes the monitor has been on the floor.
Sigh
no more MMA or Bull riding .....
for at least a cpl Months
:o
Hi Chet,
Glad to hear your recovery is coming along OK.
Carroll
Godspeed your recovery , Chet
I recently had a message from tac22 asking for my comments on Barbat's patent. Here is my first response.
Having just now browsed through that thread I can not see me adding anything useful, other than to note that the subject matter is not a granted patent, it is a patent application. Poynt made the comment that it appears to be based on theory, and that Barbat may not actually have something working. In view of the 13 years that have passed since that application was made, there is no sign of a patent being granted, and Barbat has not hit the headlines with a demonstration of his system, I think it likely that his low mass electron theory is flawed. In particular I would comment that (a) near-field magnetic coupling is not a photonic effect, you can't use classical photons as the carrier, (b) the time derivative of magnetic vector potential is the driving field on the electrons in the receiving coil which create force by rate-of-change of (hidden or EM) momentum qA, not classical momentum mv. Although conduction electron mobility will determine the resultant electron velocity of any induced current, that value of current is independent of mobility but is determined by the load on the receiving coil. A superconducting coil (highly mobile electron Cooper pairs) would produce the same load current (small number at high velocity) as a normal conductor (large number at low velocity).
On further consideration I realize that my comments relate to classical transformer induction where the induction comes only from a time-changing A field. There is much controversy over another form of induction where the electron is moving through a non-uniform A field and effectively "sees" the A field change with time because of that movement. In that case the induction relates to the electron velocity. Barbat's coupled coils are not coaxial as would be the case for transformer induction, so his receiver coil are within a time-changing circular A field that reduces in magnitude with distance from the primary coil's axis. The A field along the secondary coil conductor is not uniform. Hence his coil obtains classical transformer induction related to the time-changing flux through the coil, then there could be additional induction along the conductor given by the convective derivative (v.del)A. Electron mobility would contribute to that additional induction, so Barbat's ideas could bear fruit if that additional induction could be made to enhance the classical transformer induction. IMO just coating the wire uniformly with semiconductor material will not work as I think that additional induction would be zero around each turn. But having each turn only partially coated could create the wanted effect. This would require coating as indicated in the attached image.
The presence of an electric field can draw conduction electrons to the surface, and IMO those surface electrons will have greater mobility hence will travel faster than those within the bulk material. Such a two-channel form of electron flow is already recognized. So here is another means of obtaining greater drift velocity that could perhaps help enhance the semiconductor coating effect. It requires an insulating coating over the semiconductor material and conductive electrode coating over that, with the electrode held at high positive voltage DC. Also to help eliminate the slower conduction channel skin effect could be employed.
Smudge
Tak is "good people"
Bill did get some sort of Patent years back , I believe I spoke to him the day it arrived
However ...he said it was from China ??
Did try to get him some help with replication .. but apparently it was
felt the effort [big costs ?]would not yield results ?
I had spoken with his daughter a few years Back [Bill is in his 90's ? now and not easy for him to interact at times.
will see if I can find her number first...she is a wonderful person ... don't want to Bother Bill if he is not well.
A quick experiment could use wire thickness to change the drift velocity. If the receiving coil were made of a series of semi-circles with alternating wire gauge connected together as shown in the image, it might show some slight effect. A 10:1 ratio of wire diameter would give a 100:1 ratio of drift velocity. Still quite low velocities though so the effect would be small. Might be worth a try.
Smudge
Thanks Smudge, your perspective on this is very much appreciated, especially in that you've given us a non-exotic experiment to try using a coil with alternating wire gauges. Anyone willing to propose a test circuit (coil specs, physical layout, power input, output/load, measuring procedures, etc) as a starting point?
As I told Smudge, I'm setting up a project list and priorities for my 'hands on' experimenting season, which for me is usually November through April. I always like to revisit the Barbat theory as it seems to never leave my mind.
I'm digging through my old Barbat correspondence and have found a few more tidbits of information which I'll post here in a day or so.
And thanks for the thumbs up Chet!
tak
Bump for ...lfarrand
Please forgive this one comment ( posting without permission ( I might have asked permission in past ..not certain?)
Exnihiloest ( posting in this thread) is now F6FLT.
Respectfully
Chet K
Thanks Chet. I'll have a read through the thread.
I also found this in one of the Mannix / Steven Marks emails:
QuoteBy the way, something strange is that, once I made a unit with some old corroded wire for the collector and it worked very well for it's size. I made another identical collector with shiny new wire and it did not work quite as well. I never found out why, but there was a difference.
Sounds like wire with some sort of surface plating might have played a part in the SM TPU. As I mentioned in another thread, the author of patent US20140159845A1 seems to think that semiconducting coating is important.
QuoteApplicant has further deduced that such low-mass electrons must have originated in a thin-film coating of cupric oxide (CuO) on the antenna wire. CuO is adull-black, polycrystalline, semiconducting compound that develops in situ on copper and bronze wire in the course of annealing the wire in the presence of air. Such CuO coatings have been observed by Applicant on historical laboratory wire at the Science Museum at Oxford University, U.K., and on copper house wire of that era in the U.S., indicating that CuO coatings were commonplace. In later years, annealing has taken place under conditions that prevent most oxidation. This is followed by acid treatment to remove any remaining oxides, leaving shiny wire.
Tin plated copper, copper has 28 electrons and Tin has 50.
Regards
Mike