The available information on the Hubbard Coil as a free energy device invented by a certain young Alfred M. Hubbard makes for quite interesting reading. It appears to share design similarities with both the Barbat device and to a lesser extent Hendershot's device.
I know that it is sugested that radium was the source of power in the Hubbard Coil, but I'm not overly convinced by this, particularly as it appears that Hubbard did not become involved with the Radium Chemical Company until some time after he had invented the initial device. Hubbard never patented his device and it all eventually went quiet when he seems to have effectively called time on his invention. However, there may well be rather underlying reasons for this, and indeed for Hubbard to undermine the importance of his invention by later claiming that he used radium. And let's face it, even if he did use radium it would be a novel and low cost way of extracting useful energy.
So, assuming that radium was not the energy source, could it have something to do with Eccentric Transformer Theory. I've read and re-read the following text numerous times and not only does it make for very good reading, but also seems to make very good sense. However, this is not my particular area of expertise so would be very interested in the thoughts of some of you hardened sparkys.
Here's the link to the following quoted text: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5199-eccentric-transformer-theory.html
Depictions and graphs are missing as they did not copy across, and I don't know how to do this, but they can be seen in the link above. :)
QuoteEccentric Transformer Theory -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transformer process in current light generally refers to a passive electrical component which is designed to take energy at one potential and current state on the input, and output at a differing potential and current state based on well defined and accepted ratios. Generally the transformer is of inductive character defined by two electrically separate conductors wound about the same core. It is expected that the power consumable on the output will be equal and opposite to the power consumed from the input minus losses. This is a feature of design only, and holds true to most modern transformers. In eccentric transformer theory, we will examine various forms of transformer which are geometrically wound about individual centers. We will take note how , The bulk of the transformer process can be described by taking an examination of the laws of induction, but it will be shown also that other phenomenon describe the transformation process, but are hidden to us through conventional design. Both capacitive and inductive transformer coupling will be addressed and calculations presented for each.
Inductive Transformer action
The standard transformer According to Faraday's law (put in this convenient permutation)
Voltage Generated = (-N)(delta (BA))/delta t)
Where we have replaced the unit of inductance with its terms:
-N = number of turns
B = Magnetic field strength in Tesla
A = Area of turns
Assuming the primary and secondary are concentric (about the same center) Lenz law applies in the standard way, giving us an equal and opposite EMF equating to equal and opposite energy states on both primary and secondary minus losses. This essentially describes the bulk of the "transformation" process mechanism for this example. It may not be readily apparent, but the Inverse Squared law of electromagnetic radiation is also in effect, though it is hidden to us in conventional designs.
According to the inverse squared law, as we increase the diameter of the secondary (around the primary, concentrically) the magnitude of the EMF created by the primary will decrease accordingly. As we get one radius away from the primary, the magnitude will be 1/4 of the source. But we have also increased area by a factor of four (area of a circle increases by factor of 4 with a doubling of the radius). Therefore in the equation for Faraday's law, the factors of 1/4 and 4 cancel out for no net effect.
This clearly shows both in practice, and mathematical convenience, that when sharing a common center, Faraday's law creates an Equal and Opposite reaction to any change with respect to time in the current of the primary. However, if the primary and secondary do NOT share centers, a new area of study becomes of interest.
If the secondary is wound about a separate center, sitting adjacent to the primary, Lenz law does not behave in the familiar way. The secondary coil will feel a fraction of the field emitted by the primary according to the inverse square law of electromagnetics. For example:
Primary coil: 16 units Field strength
Secondary coil: 2r away from centre of primary
secondary coil: "Feels": 4 units Field strength
Because of the inverse square law, and our geometric spacing, we can see that the secondary at distance 2r will see only ¼ of the emf as if it had been wound about the same centre as the primary. The secondary will now react per Lenz law to push back on the oscillations of the primary coil. This opposing oscillation must now travel back to the primary across free space, and according to the inverse squared law once again, its magnitude will decrease. If we decrease by a factor of 4 once more, we can see that the primary coil will feel a BEMF of only 1unit. To summarize:
Primary coil:
16 units of field radiating
Secondary coil:
Feels 4 units of field from primary
Creates equal and opposite 4 units per Lenz Law (BEMF)
Primary coil:
Feels 1 unit of BEMF From secondary
So we have expended 16 units, to "create" 4, which pushes back for a total of 1. Hugely inefficient, unless you consider the primary to be a charge conserving resonant structure. In this situation, minus the average reduction due to Q loss, 16 units gets reduced by the BEMF for 1, to create 4 units. The rest of the charge within the primary is conserved and reused in succeeding cycles. Thus we find that the primary consumes 1 unit of energy (minus loss) to create 4 units of energy. Here the "equal and opposite" apparent in all areas of electromagnetics has not been circumvented in any way, simply the geometry has been changed to our advantage.
This same effect can also be calculated using only the capacitive coupling for transformer action.
Capacitors can be arranged in simple geometric ways to act as transformers much the same way inductors can. Such a transformer would appear as a sphere, with a sphere around it concentrically. Because the energy states of both "plates" of our capacitor must be equal, but, the surface area of the inner sphere is less than that of the outer sphere, it will have higher charge density than the outer sphere. The ratio of sizes of the inner sphere to the outer sphere can manipulate the charge density on each to give us transformer action in well known ratios. The mathematics are a direct derivation of
Gauss' law. Because both spheres are about the same center, you will find a situation identical to the transformer described in the previous section. When a change in potential on one sphere occurs, it is mirrored in the second sphere equal and opposite.
One may remove the concentricity aspect of this transformer, and place the spheres on eccentric centers. Here one sphere will be physically next to the other. A simple mental experiment will show that we are left with a similar situation to the transformer action described above. We will assume once again that the primary sphere emits a field of 16 units and both spheres have equal capacitance. The second capacitor sitting 2r away will feel only 4 units of potential with respect to ground, once again due to the inverse squared law of electromagnetics. The secondary capacitor is allowed to charge to this 4 unit potential. In practice the primary sphere will be attached to an inductor which allows for a resonant circuit. Each cycle the sphere discharges its energy back into the inductor and it is recycled. Because our secondary is now charged, and emitting its own field of 4 units, the primary cannot discharge 100% of its energy back into the inductor. The secondary per inverse squared mechanics will have the primary sitting in its field and the primary will feel 1 unit of field. Now where the primary would have discharged all 16 units back into the inductor for re use, it instead only returns 15 units because one unit is held stationary by the charge found on the secondary. Once again we find ourselves expending 1 unit to create 4 total minus loss.
It can be seen in both cases that by simply changing the geometric relations of primary and secondary, energy can be created. In similar fashion, and through creative design energy can also be destroyed.
It can be shown that as one gets further from the source the signal received will decrease as shown in the graph below. The number 1 on the X axis represents concentric arrangement. As the centers depart from one another, the field felt decreases accordingly.
It can also be surmised that what is felt by the secondary, is returned in Lenz like fassion to the primary, constituting a feedback to the source, and equating to work done. The ratio of power induced on the secondary to power returned to source in Lenz like reactions can be considered a multiplicaiton ratio. So for example with our previous calculations, as the secondary feels 4 units, and returns to the source 1unit of detraction, the multiplication ratio is 4.
It can be seen when graphing this in the chart below, that as one moves further and further from the source, the process becomes more and more efficient. At 3r it becomes a multiplication ratio of 9, at 4r, 16 and so on.
It must be realized though that while the process becomes more and more efficient, the average power felt by the secondary decreases. We can see that the graphs have inverse relations in their slopes, and so there will be one point at which they cross. This intersection in the graphs represents the best possible agreement between power felt by the secondary, and the calculated multiplication factor. Mathematically the two equations can be set to one another used to derive the graphs, and find a common solution.
Thanks for viewing
Andrew Manrique
What do you think boys, has Eccentric Transformer Theory got anything going for it in the constant effort to beat Lenz?
.99, you might want to put this topic under it's own 'Hubbard Coil' heading in the 'Pulsed/Radiant Energy' section of the forum.
Once ION pointed out to me that the pics of a Hubbard coil with a car distributor and HV supply were from a replication attempt, I now believe that Hubbard did use radium, and that the unit is somehow looped back on itself. Once started it keeps going forever.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.01.16, 16:13:01
Once ION pointed out to me that the pics of a Hubbard coil with a car distributor and HV supply were from a replication attempt, I now believe that Hubbard did use radium, and that the unit is somehow looped back on itself. Once started it keeps going forever.
Hi Grumps. I have looked into the radium thing, and I'm not entirely happy with this proposal. It just seems too convenient in undermining the invention, and something that, at least to my mind, has been specifically thrown in to diffuse interest in the original device and Hubbard's claims. Besides, even just creating such a transducer would seem to be extraordinary achievement in itself. Furthermore, when looking into the chronological order of events, unless Hubbard had a former connection to the Radium Chemical Company, Hubbards invention would seem to predate their involvement.
Maybe radium does have something to do with it, but it just doesn't feel right to me. I mean, how would you even come by radium... and if you did, how would you not get sick?
What are your thoughts on the Eccentric Transformer Theory as a way of putting one over on Lenz?
As I've requested in the past, folks please include links to quoted material (including posts from OUR) whenever possible. I see that the "Eccentric Transformer Theory" above is from a post at EF, yet no link, and the accompanying pictures are also not included.
.99
Sorry .99, I missed that, must have been a day when I was absent from class. Will get right on it. ;)
regarding the Eccentric Transformer Theory, I think the author may make a mis-step in his logic when he tries to infer that Lenz's law is diminished with distance at a different rate than forward coupling.
I think the coupling coefficient implies a link between primary and secondary that is bi-directional in that the primary acts on the secondary with the same force as the secondary acts on the primary. It is mutual coupling, and while distance may diminish the coupling coefficient, it does not alter the mutuality.
Regarding Alfred Hubbard, he was certainly a colorful character. There is much interesting info on him if you search deep enough. He was considered the Johnny Appleseed of LSD in the 50's turning on thousands so the legend goes. Also possibly a gov't double agent in the bootleg days.
He does have a patent for a Radium tipped spark plug, so he must have been working with the stuff. Radium was dangerously used in a lot of products back then including medicinals.
A lot of folks have spun off ideas and built devices that in some ways resemble the Hubbard transformer. The photos of these devices are passed off as the original Hubbard, but they are not, as the meter styles shown in the photo's were not available in the 20's Now it has all gotten mixed up and you can really only rely on first sources.
The Radium as a source probably is not correct, but as a catalyst...maybe.
I'm not disputing that hubbard worked for the Radium Chemical Company, it's just that the timeline for this appears wrong in relation to his original invention.
Maybe the author of that Eccentric Transformer Theory text does have it wrong. Whether or not this is the case is really what I hope to discover. Because if he hasn't got it wrong, and if what he is saying bears out scientifically, then this might well shed a whole new light on devices such as the Hubbard Coil.
I guess there's an obvious way to find out... building one.
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2011.01.16, 18:43:36
I'm not disputing that hubbard worked for the Radium Chemical Company, it's just that the timeline for this appears wrong in relation to his original invention.
Maybe the author of that Eccentric Transformer Theory text does have it wrong. Whether or not this is the case is really what I hope to discover. Because if he hasn't got it wrong, and if what he is saying bears out scientifically, then this might well shed a whole new light on devices such as the Hubbard Coil.
I guess there's an obvious way to find out... building one.
I think the story is that Hubbard had a professor / benefactor and mentor that gave him a small amount of Radium to play with at the time of the development of the transformer.
As for the Eccentric transformer, you should be able to test his basic theory with a pair of windings and variable coupling without having to go into a full blown Hubbard design for (which we have little to no real construction information from original writings.)
Quote from: ION on 2011.01.16, 19:46:38
I think the story is that Hubbard had a professor / benefactor and mentor that gave him a small amount of Radium to play with at the time of the development of the transformer.
Yes, I can see the possibilities, but even if this was the case, the Hubbard Coil transducer would surely have been an extremely intriguing - not to say remarkable - device.
When I get chance I'll build something along the lines of what we know of the Hubbard Coil geometry, which itself appears to fall exactly in line with the layout required for testing the Eccentric Coil Theory.
I'm hoping to have a dedicated small laboratory built in my back garden this summer, where I'll be able to set up shop and do some real experimenting. I currently have nowhere very suitable to work, just a pokey greenhouse full of garden tools and such, that becomes an ice box in winter. Going to be a busy year.
This is a valuable document; page 50 onwards:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter5.pdf
Quote from: Paul-R on 2011.01.17, 16:55:58
This is a valuable document; page 50 onwards:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter5.pdf
Yes, I'm aware of Patrick Kelly's work. Whilst I'm not always convinced by the arguments, his views or indeed his conclusions, he has to be commended for the work he has put into collating so much relevant information and putting it all in one easy-to-access place.
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2011.01.17, 18:04:20
Yes, I'm aware of Patrick Kelly's work. Whilst I'm not always convinced by the arguments, his views or indeed his conclusions, he has to be commended for the work he has put into collating so much relevant information and putting it all in one easy-to-access place.
Yes. His contribution to the community is colossal.
There is doubt about the material of the tubes. He seems to suggest low carbon steel but others insist on iron
which is, as far as I can see, unobtainable. Someone has proposed one of the granular materials.
Hi All,
I'm interesting in reviving some threads that have gone dormant, since I think there is really something to them.
IMO It's not certain, but very likely that Hubbard used radium in his device, as Paul Brown did, in his patented later version.
But I don't think the operating principle requires radium to get free energy.
The patent attached claims overunity, and is from 1933. It's in French but the basic translation is simple:
1) one primary core made of soft iron in the center, surrounded by a coil, and supplied with AC. The core is proportioned so that the AC keeps the core in saturation most of the time.
2) six satellite secondaries also made of soft iron, arranged in a circle around the primary. (see pg. 3). The secondaries and primary all have the same number of turns.
The resemblance to the Hubbard coil and Paul Brown nuclear battery is clear.
The inventor explains that since each of the secondaries is in transformer relation to the ones on each side, there is a multiplication of power. Although he doesn't elaborate on it, it's clear that the flux from the secondaries has a preferential path through the other secondaries, due to the saturation of the primary core.
In terms of flux paths, the flux of the primary is divided by 1/6 and goes to a secondary. The loaded secondary output flux is split in half, with 1/2 going to the secondaries on each side, and very little going back to the primary.
The absence of flux back through the primary, and the increase of flux that each secondary sees means an increased power and reduced loading, by all standard understanding of transformer operation.
This is similar to the Eccentric Transformer theory regarding the important of geometry.
I have a crude French translation if anyone wants to see it..
orthofield
A very interesting patent, o/f, if in French.
This translation should be reliable
http://freenrg.info/Patents/FR739458_COUTIER/FR739458_COUTIER_TRANS.html
(No mention of radium, radioactive stuff or radioactivity in general).
I got this from Nerzhdishual here: (in #85):
http://www.overunity.com/5144/infinity-coil/85/#.VNYeq3eonTo
On page 1, #8 has interesting links from Pese.
Hi Paul R,
A very interesting patent, o/f, if in French.
--O/f, good :-)
It looks like a case of independent rediscovery of Coutier.
France was an overunity free-for-all from the start, and still is.
Go to Espacenet advanced search, plug in the desired year and enter just FR in the publication number line, and use the IPC code H02n11/00. This is the EU code for all solid-state electrical OU devices, and you will see those sorts of French OU patents for that year. It's interesting to do this year by year, starting with 1920. There are a number of undiscovered and extraordinary machines.
This translation should be reliable
http://freenrg.info/Patents/FR739458_COUTIER/FR739458_COUTIER_TRANS.html
--Yes, it's very accurate and quite a bit better than my machine translation.
(No mention of radium, radioactive stuff or radioactivity in general).
--It's not really too difficult to set up a transformer where two secondaries interact with each other instead of the primary. What usually happens is that 1/2 the secondary flux goes back to the primary, which means that the primary still sees loading, albeit half the usual. Several groups I've been in have seen this in practice.
I think even better is when the primary has a much higher net reluctance than the secondaries, either by being saturated or magnetized, or by using an air core (and resonance to capture the magnetic field energy in that case).
A number of experiments show this effect, for instance the Jensen UDT or Harold Aspden's experiments with an E and I core.
Just today I've found some newspaper articles suggesting the Hubbard central core was premagnetized before the windings were put on, and was permanently magnetized. A search of 'magnet' on the Rex research article on Hubbard, suggests that the satellite cores were "magnetic upon iron", but at the time that would have meant only that some of the iron was magnetized, since there wasn't much beside iron available at the time. It occurs to me that solid junctures between magnetic materials like this could cause reflections or phase lag.
I got this from Nerzhdishual here: (in #85):
http://www.overunity.com/5144/infinity-coil/85/#.VNYeq3eonTo
--Thanks for this! I didn't realize there were any active Hubbard-type projects going on. I have Barbat but haven't looked at it.
I should note that in those Fr patents there are devices that use 'radioactivity' that is created by electrostatic discharges to energize the coils, which is a nice solution to the radium problem. It almost approaches some of Correa's work.
I'm really glad that people are paying attention to this type of device. In my view it has a proven record of creating improvements in power-- at the very least!
orthocoil
On page 1, #8 has interesting links from Pese.
[/quote]
Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.08, 03:36:38
--It's not really too difficult to set up a transformer where two secondaries interact with each other instead of the primary. What usually happens is that 1/2 the secondary flux goes back to the primary, which means that the primary still sees loading, albeit half the usual. Several groups I've been in have seen this in practice.
I think even better is when the primary has a much higher net reluctance than the secondaries, either by being saturated or magnetized, or by using an air core (and resonance to capture the magnetic field energy in that case).
A number of experiments show this effect, for instance the Jensen UDT or Harold Aspden's experiments with an E and I core.
What is very interesting about this orthofield is that I have been working on what I term my Lenz Locker Transformer. The idea here is to use a inner primary winding with high reluctance than another low reluctance core next to the primary that is shunted, typically with a single turn copper pipe. Around both of these is the secondary winding. The concept is very simple, use the effect of Lenz Law TWICE to mirror back to the secondary what would normally get back to the primary. At the moment this concept appears to be sound, still having a little difficulty with the proper geometry and operating conditions. With certain inputs, it almost appears that it is necessary to switch off the output for just a quick moment while the input changes polarity, hence the name Lenz Locker.
There was so much talk about stopping Lenz Law, I decided instead to take advantage of Lenz Law, just do it twice and see what happens. So far, so good.
Hi Matt,
Yes, this effect is totally to be expected from applying standard laws of magnetic circuits. I really see it as two effects:
1) You set up two or more secondaries in close proximity, allowing a low R path through them. This increases the power.
2) You do something to the primary so that it appears as an 'internal high reluctance.' This decreases the loading.
3) You also usually have to compensate for high leakage flux in the primary.
I hadn't thought of doing it your way. When you say the high and low reluctance cores are 'next to' each other, I'm imagining two solenoids sitting next to each other, so there are flux air paths at the ends. Or is the shunted 'coil' a sort of cylindrical sleeve around a solenoid primary? I guess I am unclear on the geometry. I searched for your project but didn't see a drawing or pic.
But the same idea as seen in at least 5 devices, is clearly there-- the changing reaction flux from one sec. can be a real source of power if it can be routed to another secondary.
I'm not sure of the geometry of the Lenz Locker, but do you have the fluxes of primary and reaction coil in opposite directions, as seen by the secondary? This would seem to minimize induction, when you want to maximize it... have you tried putting a secondary around just a portion the shunt coil/core, and not the primary at all?
I tried to maximize these two effects in our experiments with ferrite stick cores attached to the flat surface of a metglas toroid. By putting the sticks as far away as possible on the toroid surface, and driving them together, we could create an AC primary flux in parallel paths through the toroid, with secondaries to pick up these fluxes.
The theory being that the ferrite stick cores with an open air path at the ends could send primary flux through the toroid without getting any secondary flux coming back their way.
Also, the toroid secondaries both generate output power, but their reaction fluxes meet completely inside the toroid, with almost no leakage flux, and 'nullify' so that their reactance on the primary is completely eliminated (and we found this to be true-- no load on primary no matter what R on secondary coils).
Then the problem, never completely solved, was to resonate the whole system to reduce losses from the air path, making it more like a Witricity device in some ways.
orthocoil
What is very interesting about this orthofield is that I have been working on what I term my Lenz Locker Transformer. The idea here is to use a inner primary winding with high reluctance than another low reluctance core next to the primary that is shunted, typically with a single turn copper pipe. Around both of these is the secondary winding. The concept is very simple, use the effect of Lenz Law TWICE to mirror back to the secondary what would normally get back to the primary. At the moment this concept appears to be sound, still having a little difficulty with the proper geometry and operating conditions. With certain inputs, it almost appears that it is necessary to switch off the output for just a quick moment while the input changes polarity, hence the name Lenz Locker.
There was so much talk about stopping Lenz Law, I decided instead to take advantage of Lenz Law, just do it twice and see what happens. So far, so good.
Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.08, 16:14:08
I hadn't thought of doing it your way.
Got your PM orthocoil; thanks for reminding me to get back to the subject. I was a little heads-down trying to make improvements I could share with the gang here. Unfortunately, I'm not there yet, so I'll just have to show what I got and let the winner take the pot. :)
Anyway, attached is my version two LLT.
I put five labels on the image we can use for reference:
A. Small air core primary
B. Heavy gauge shunt winding
C. Secondary winding
D. Pickup winding
E. Laminated silicon steel C-Core
The reason I don't have this device detailed on my workbench is that I'm not at all clear how to properly drive it. At the moment I have a spark gap (impulse) system connected but it has some problems that I need to work out.
The tiny air coil primary (A) seems to need some help. Inserting soft iron welding rods is the easiest means so far. Without some sort of core here, you have to use very high frequencies well outside the range of the of core (E). My thought is to make a C-Core out of ferrite rod--place the rod through the coil and the other half outside the windings. This may lower the operating frequency without lowing the reluctance so much the main core (E) no longer grabs the majority of the CEMF.
The (B) winding is a bit hard to see. I believe it is 4 AWG, just shunted together. I couldn't find a proper size piece of copper pipe that I could form around the bobbin, but as-is, seems to do the job.
The secondary (C) windings are just speaker wire, zip cord. This allows me to gang the two windings in parallel or series (bifilar) and is far easier to wrap than just a single wire. It's 18 AWG and can handle a few watts if I ever get to that point.
(D) is the test or pickup winding. It has a couple of uses. I can inject power into this winding and observe the core is shunted via the (B) winding. I can also use this winding to detect ever slightly ringing within the core. The more I look at it, the more it seems I should have switched positions between (B) and (D). I may try this once I get my drive methodology figured out.
The C-Core (E) is a power core purchased from Bridgeport Magnetics, capable of about 3000 watts. Used here in the LLT, it provides the low reluctance magnetic path for the CEMF
If we walk through this device, starting with (A), we see that only the secondary (C) encloses the primary (A). So there is no possibility of induction into (B) or (D). So if we get any induced EMF, we should see it in the secondary (C). Now with just pure potential in (C), nothing should be observed in (B), (D) or (E). However, if connect any sort of load to the secondary (C), this winding will now create a magnetic field in opposition to that of the primary (A). This magnetic field created inside the windings (C) will funnel itself to wherever the lowest reluctance is; that being the core (E). When it does so, it induces an EMF in both (B) and (D). Lets assume (D) is left unconnected and concentrate on what happens in (B). The (B) winding is now induced and creates another magnetic field that is opposition to the field generated by (C). Fortunately for us, this magnetic field will aid the field created by (A) and the cycle repeats. This is Lenz Law executed twice per initial induction event.
Hopefully this is sound logical thinking and from what I can tell so far, appears to behave as I have suggested. Things get difficult when you consider coupling, frequency response, core saturation and the many other factors power engineers deal with. I haven't progressed beyond the toddler stage thus far and have restricted my testing to simple impulses where I can see a partial effect manifest. I'm mostly stuck at the moment and I think I know why, but haven't a good plan yet for a version three. The speed of impulses I need to get any power transfer from (A) to (C) is so fast that (E) can't even respond. It is way outside of its frequency range.
My thought for future improvement is to use multiple cores (E) and use a similar core for (A). With this, everything should have an equivalent frequency response. What will happen though is some of the CEMF will make it back to the primary, but it will be strictly proportional to the number of cores utilized. So with one primary core and nine locker cores, only 10% of the CEMF will get back. Doing this may however complicate the coupling even more. It's a difficult problem to solve.
This is what I have. It may be something worth pursuing, maybe not. If anyone knows a straightforward way to get nature to cooperate, I'm all ears.
Hi Matt,
Sorry I took a while to get back to you. I've been thinking hard about your design.
I do see some major ways that performance might be improved. Some of these are substantiated by previous tests.
Take a look at my drawing which is sort of an idealized version of what I am thinking about.
It eliminates both the shunt and zip cord secondary as you've conceived it.
It uses your idea of ferrite C cores for the primaries, but places four of these around the silicon core, surmounting four low turn, low-gauge secondaries, each with its own 2-10 ohm load.
It is Lenz Lock because the secondary fluxes are mostly trapped inside the C-C core. The difference between ferrite and silicon mu, as well as the inevitable gap between ferrite and silicon parts will result in almost none of the sec flux going to the primaries. All the primary flux sees a low reluctance path through a portion of the C-C core directly under its respective secondary.
The primaries are driven in series but with alternating polarity. This means that alternating secondaries will have opposite output fluxes. With four secondaries rather than two, most of the output fluxes will encounter each other inside the core, and the net effect will be a drastic reduction in the secondary flux. Some will leak, but all that remains inside the C-C core will be mutually cancelled.
The effect of cancellation of the output fluxes is that the transformer operates as if it had no load no matter what load is connected to it. This is the reason for the low-gauge wire and few turns in the secondaries, and low R values. Without any load effect, the bigger the load the better.
orthocoil
Hi Matt,
The design in the last letter was somewhat based on work done in 2012 with a gadget I called the flux nullification transformer. In my post I tried to combine your test bed and concept of a low reluctance input coil with that 'old' research, because this seemed like the best way forward. I can't send the original docs because they have some other people's info on them, but I can outline what was done, and answer any questions.
See the attached drawings for my initial design and what got tested, and the results in brief.
I see a good fit between this project and Hubbard, which I think uses the same principles, and your LLT input stage in particular.
orthocoil
All good stuff orthocoil; thanks for posting your ideas. O0
I'm hoping to get all my components this week for my high voltage impulse driver. ION mentioned a Skype call with him to have a look and give me a few pointers. I get this part working, then I can test pretty much anything with it. Being able to test a device with a controlled impulse driver should reveal some important facts, such as where the flux goes, what kind of delay it has, ringing effects, phase alteration and other things I haven't even thought of yet.
Based on some of the principals Erfinder is working with, I suspect what an inductor is connected to (the load) is as critical to how the inductor behaves; maybe more so than the inductor itself. If you look at LR circuits, there is a lot going on there; much of it unseen by the test equipment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL_circuit
Verpies turned me on to studying this a little more in depth. Something I hadn't considered at all when first testing my LLT.
I'm actually quite excited to dig in and start working with these techniques and see what they have to offer.
Hi Matt,
I'm glad you found those tests of interest.
Your discussion of spark gaps and pulse generators reminds me that our concepts are not too similar. So taking it back to your original photo, how do you get any appreciable output out of your device using a spark gap?
1) the core is highly lossy for most of the frequencies in the spark impulse.
2) the shunt coil represents a loss as well, regardless of frequency, since the currents through it dissipate as heat and are not useful power.
3) The primary flux actually does have a low reluctance path through the C-C core, and thus through the shunt coil, so there is a direct load on the primary from the shunt. There is also a direct load on the primary from the secondary, for the same reason.
I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, but to help improve your design. You must have seen some anomaly in driving it with a pulse, to merit your enthusiasm for the design. What have you seen that indicates some potential for overunity?
orthocoil
Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.17, 17:49:18
What have you seen that indicates some potential for overunity?
I guess that would be no one has said my concept of using Lenz Law twice is a bad idea, or that it can never work. Where excess power would manifest from... I really have no idea. So I push on... Experimentally.
If you would be so kind, please allow me to prepare a presentation in my workbench area. If there is anything to this concept, hopefully I will be able to clearly show it at power levels where the chances of error are minimized. Initially I used an audio amplifier to drive the device, which is clearly not working as intended. I'm hoping by using high voltage impulses, I can at least determine how the flux is propagating/dispersing. First I have to get my driver system functional. Been a little tricky with sparks jumping resistors and such. Not nearly as straightforward as working with low voltage systems.
Anyway, I'm not at a dead-end, or I may be and just not know it yet. With several design variations on the same theme and some testing, I should know the answer fairly soon.
Hi Matt,
I apologize for the somewhat grouchy tone of my letter this morning...need more coffee before I write :-)
I'm excited by the concept of using Lenz law reaction for power since I've seen it used in quite a number of different gadgets over the years, both transformer and generator type. You can consider the basic concept confirmed by more than a few tests, and not just mine. To me, the real question is how to use it efficiently, not whether it works. I've yet to see it put fully into operation, except perhaps in the Hubbard coil. The Hubbard transformer secondaries are a clear example, since each will get output flux from the ones on either side.
The first place I saw it used was in the Jensen Unidirectional Transformer from 1996, see files attached. You'll note that the primary drives two secondaries that face each other. Although this device is not ideal in several ways, it has been measured OU in two separate tests that I know of. And this with LF AC operation.
orthocoil
Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.18, 01:58:39
I apologize for the somewhat grouchy tone of my letter this morning...need more coffee before I write :-)
Not a problem. After my Pa passed away, I sometimes miss that ol' kick in the butt.
I started at the beginning of this thread and followed some of the links it contained. Came across this:
http://www.rexresearch.com/barbat/barbat.htm
What caught my attention are what look like shunted coils, called "energy magnifying coils". Hmmm... Where have I seen that before?
I read the Jensen UDT paper. While well written, there is always a chance of measurement errors.
One fairly foolproof "proof of concept", especially where a COP>1 is claimed would be to put the entire device including the load resistor in a styrofoam box and after stabilizing, take the temperature (rise above ambient) at the inside top of the box.
Now repeat the same test with an equivalent circuit (one that has the same power factor and draws the same real power) or just use a resistor with the same real power input.
This will allow a thermal tally that includes all losses of the DUT. It is a comparative method that can be used to test just about any claimed OU device, once properly set up.
I call this the "fixed loss to ambient method" and have discussed it further on my bench, including an automated dual chamber test setup.
Hi Ion,
Yes, I am somewhat familiar with calorimetric methods. That researcher did work with me using pretty solid thermal methods to measure eddy current heaters and cold fusion cells. The UDT test would have gone thermal, if funding hadn't run out.
orthofield
Quote from: orthofield on 2015.02.18, 18:16:55
Hi Ion,
Yes, I am somewhat familiar with calorimetric methods. That researcher did work with me using pretty solid thermal methods to measure eddy current heaters and cold fusion cells. The UDT test would have gone thermal, if funding hadn't run out.
orthofield
Good day orthofield
Read the UDT papers.... regarding your experience with the UDT technology, do you speculate that the core material can be substituted for ferrite or powered iron type material? I assume that 60hz was the chosen frequency because of it's use with AC grid power in North America and because the laminated Si steel plates that were modified came from an AC xfrmr.
I ask because it would be quicker to modify some of my ferrites to do tests (not w/ grid power).
I remember seeing something resembling this configuration in one of Patrick Kelly's pdfs.
take care, peace
lost_bro
Good day all:
OK, found an old file that I had on the hard drive for a number of years......
Specifically mentions the Hubbard coil and shows an alternative model with toroids.
Maybe I need to try this.
take care, peace
lost_bro
Hi lost_bro
At the time, I was working with the guy who came up with this toroidal power amplifier, and he wasn't able to get any OU results with it. It does not use the "lenz utilization" principle that Matt talks about, which is key.
He is no longer working on it.
That guy also worked with me on testing the FNT, and he was the one who found COP around 19 when run at resonance, although I think that number is considerably too high.
As to the Jensen UDT, if you go up a couple of letters, I showed two files for a ferrite/metglas version of the UDT I called the flux null transformer. You definitely could do something with ferrite E and I core, but as I recall, Jensen himself said it would work better at higher frequencies. That is because of the gap: magnetic energy stored in the gap can be recovered better at higher frequencies by running at resonance, as I did with the FNT.
If you're interested, let me know what you have in terms of cores, and maybe we can come up with something using what you have.
orthocoil
Quote from: lost_bro on 2015.02.18, 23:57:30
Good day all:
OK, found an old file that I had on the hard drive for a number of years......
Specifically mentions the Hubbard coil and shows an alternative model with toroids.
Maybe I need to try this.
take care, peace
lost_bro
lost_bro,
On page 2 in your posted document, it states that the inductance in winding 1 will increase when you short
winding 2, thus adding more core to winding 1. This is not what I see when I test this setup. I see a drop
in inductance in winding 1 when I short winding 2.
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on 2015.02.19, 05:46:37
lost_bro,
On page 2 in your posted document, it states that the inductance in winding 1 will increase when you short
winding 2, thus adding more core to winding 1. This is not what I see when I test this setup. I see a drop
in inductance in winding 1 when I short winding 2.
GL.
Hello GL
Yes, you are correct.
please see attached photos....
Apparently the inductance is reduced to about 30% of original non-shorted inductance.
Can't win them all......
take care, peace
lost_bro
This thread deserves bumping up to the top. I can't remember why I suddenly dropped it some years ago. I still have its coil cabling.
Quote from: Paul-R on 2011.01.17, 16:55:58
This is a valuable document; page 50 onwards:
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter5.pdf
Patrick added stuff. The reference is from page 57 onwards.
Paul
Many people can't seem to make any real progress because they don't do proper research, they don't listen, cannot learn new concepts and don't do experiments. As the saying goes... we only get out what we put in.
I have built and done experiments on most of the popular FE devices and found they all work basically the same. For example, the Hubbard coil is simply a circular closed loop version of the Cook Coil with a rotary interrupter because it's form is circular. However Clemente Figuera used a multi-coil series version of the Cook Coil so he used a rotary interrupter which alternated because it used series coils. On the other hand Lester Hendershot, who knew Hubbard, found he didn't need multiple coils and decided to wind multiple winding's on one or two coils. Hendershot also used a dual throw interrupter then LC networks to provide the proper phase switching which was kind of unique.
You see, it's not that difficult and almost everyone including the newest members like Mark's, Kapanadze and Ruslan were doing exactly the same thing. As it turns out I may be the first to discover that Viktor Schauberger used an identical process. It took much longer to figure it all out than usual because Viktor was using a charged medium, a plasma in place of the physical conductors. In fact, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around all the extra dynamics involved as the "conductor" is now fluid in a three dimensional space... let that sink in.
The history is really interesting because the majority of inventors actually knew each other. For example Tesla supposedly told Hubbard how FE works, however Tesla got his information from correspondence with Figuera and Hendershot knew Hubbard. I also talk with a few people discretely but nothing of consequence ever happens in a forum or social media... it is the way apparently.
Take care
AC
But according to Patrick, the power supply seems rather straight forward, with no mention of the rotary interrupter that you mention. Do yoou reckon he is wrong? What is intriguing is that the USPTO/DoD slapped an "of security importance" order on it. Someone has a reason to have bothered. It is encouraging.
Paul
QuoteBut according to Patrick, the power supply seems rather straight forward, with no mention of the rotary interrupter that you mention. Do yoou reckon he is wrong? What is intriguing is that the USPTO/DoD slapped an "of security importance" order on it. Someone has a reason to have bothered. It is encouraging.
I suspect Patrick doesn't understand how these devices work and used whatever information is available.
In the literature Hubbard was said to be using an automotive distributor which is a rotary spark gap interrupter. I simply used a brushless RC motor to drive a circular copper clad circuit board with 16 paths cut into it to act as an energy distributor/interrupter.
As well, the "Radium" link is a red herring put out by the radium corporation Hubbard sold his technology to. The fact remains that all the other devices just like Hubbard's device did not use radium because it's not required. The radium company is an enigma and I could find very little information on it leading me to believe it was a front for other interests.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.04.03, 16:38:24
I simply used a brushless RC motor to drive a circular copper clad circuit board with 16 paths cut into it to act as an energy distributor/interrupter.
16 or 8 ?
There should be an easier and more elegant solid state solution.
Paul
Quote16 or 8 ?
It depends on the frequency, a 16 pole rotary interrupter can be operated at 1/2 the rpm of an 8 pole to achieve the same frequency.
QuoteThere should be an easier and more elegant solid state solution.
Not in this application because were talking about operating voltages from 5kV to 30kV which smokes most electronics. There lies the problem and the reason why most inventors found electronics cannot be anywhere near these devices. In the worst case scenario I found a Faraday cage offers no protection and the longitudinal waves pass right through.
Think about that... research how a Faraday cage works then look for reasons how a wave like disturbance could pass through it. In most cases we simply have to be curious about stuff. How could it do that, under what conditions, what would be required?. I saw it first hand on my bench and it took me quite a while before I found a satisfactory answer.
Regards
AC
QuoteThink about that... research how a Faraday cage works then look for reasons how a wave like disturbance could pass through it. In most cases we simply have to be curious about stuff. How could it do that, under what conditions, what would be required?. I saw it first hand on my bench and it took me quite a while before I found a satisfactory answer.
On second thought I will explain how a EM wave can in fact travel through a Faraday cage in the name of progress.
My first clue was when Nikola Tesla claimed his special discharges having a very high voltage and small period were resisted by most conductors. He went so far as to claim a heavy copper bar offered an immense resistance which is completely counterintuitive to what most know. How can this be?, when we know the ohmic resistance of a heavy copper bar is very low... thus logically it cannot be ohmic resistance.
Remove all that cannot work and what is left is probably the most reasonable answer...
If you research a Farday Cage it simply redistributes charges induced from electric fields by conduction however as I mentioned above Tesla's longitudinal waves resisted conduction. Thus, logically, if the cage cannot conduct as we expect and redistribute the charges then it cannot perform it's normal function. We could also throw in a fact most already know but failed to fully understand. What is a longitudinal wave exactly?, well it's similar to a sound wave and sound waves also travel through a copper screen or Faraday cage.
It's simply a matter of producing a wave like disturbance of sufficient quality. As Tesla claimed, the wave must produce the greatest energy within the smallest time period to produce something similar to a solition wave with no reversal. Apparently our nerves also utilize solition waves which may explain why people have weird sensations around these devices such as vertigo. In many respect it's a train wreck for both electronics and people which is why precautions are necessary.
This is the primary reason why so many people failed to reproduce the desired effects so many FE inventors described. It wasn't EM induction or something as simplistic as transformer action, this is entirely a different animal.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.04.04, 01:42:13
On second thought I will explain how a EM wave can in fact travel through a Faraday cage in the name of progress.
My first clue was when Nikola Tesla claimed his special discharges having a very high voltage and small period were resisted by most conductors. He went so far as to claim a heavy copper bar offered an immense resistance which is completely counterintuitive to what most know. How can this be?, when we know the ohmic resistance of a heavy copper bar is very low... thus logically it cannot be ohmic resistance.
No,at high frequencies it becomes the skin effect that creates the resistance.
A hollow copper tube would offer less resistance than a solid copper bar of the same outside diameter,due to the hollow tube having near twice the surface area to that of the solid bar,which is where charges travel when the frequency is high enough for the skin effect to take place.
So there is nothing special in NT claim,as this is normal common place stuff.
Brad
Tinman
QuoteSo there is nothing special in NT claim,as this is normal common place stuff.
Can the skin effect move through a Faraday Cage charging whatever is inside to a high potential?.
Obviously not hence the term "skin effect" meaning the charge always resides on the surface due to well known laws. This phenomena is not something a simple as the skin effect...
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.04.04, 05:57:17
Tinman
Can the skin effect move through a Faraday Cage charging whatever is inside to a high potential?.
Obviously not hence the term "skin effect" meaning the charge always resides on the surface due to well known laws. This phenomena is not something a simple as the skin effect...
If the EM frequency matches or is the square of the faradays resonant frequency,then those EM wave can pass through a faraday cage and charge what ever is inside to a high potential.
Brad
Quote from: AC
What is a longitudinal wave exactly?, well it's similar to a sound wave and sound waves also travel through a copper screen or Faraday cage.
It is true that Sound Waves are able to penetrate the Faraday Cage but not in the same way as an Electromagnetic Wave.
Sound Waves consist of Physical Vibrations which aren't impeded by the structure of the Faraday Cage or by its Grid Dimensions.
Would Very Low Frequency Electromagnetic Waves (at an Audio Frequency) be able to penetrate the Faraday Cage Electrically?
Quote from: AC
As Tesla claimed, the wave must produce the greatest energy within the smallest time period to produce something similar to a solition wave with no reversal.
Is Tesla here describing a DC Pulse of exceedingly High Voltage and Short duration, or is he describing an RF Burst (RF Pulse) of Microwave Frequency with Exceedingly Small Pulsewidth?
Both are very useful in High Powered Electronic Devices and, in a sense, are related functionally.
Both of these Tesla was able to produce with his Disruptive Discharge and Hairpin Resonant Line but with rather low efficiency and without precision control.
We today have the ability to produce both with Electronic Devices and with High Efficiency and High Precision.
Therefore, it would seem that we should be able to "replicate" all that Tesla did in his time much more easily and predictably.
Solid State Tesla Coils are a reasonably good example.
Quote from: AC
Apparently our nerves also utilize solition waves which may explain why people have weird sensations around these devices such as vertigo.
In many respect it's a train wreck for both electronics and people which is why precautions are necessary.
Yes, that is a common complaint of those who have constructed their own High Powered Tesla Coils.
A Soliton Wave Application that can be visualized.
mudped
QuoteTherefore, it would seem that we should be able to "replicate" all that Tesla did in his time much more easily and predictably.
Solid State Tesla Coils are a reasonably good example.
That is a good point, I was once doing a demonstration with my 500kV Tesla coil and unknown to me the 120v outlet I was using had no ground wire. The moment I hit the power the high voltage fed back through the 120v line and arced over blowing out the outlet with a loud pop and puff of smoke, lol. I found little extraordinary about Tesla coils however what I'm talking about is very different.
In my experiments I also found this phenomena can produce "Radiant Matter" which Tesla described at length and relates to the Hubbard Coil. It is in fact highly charged physical material being ejected from the surface. Which makes radiant matter a true "charge carrier" in every respect. It's actually pretty easy to understand once we can wrap our mind around the concept.
The surface of every metal conductor has a crystalline structure and is considered a "charge matrix". So when a high energy unidirectional impulse is forced into the conductor it creates a "charge bunching" effect drastically increasing the charge density. At this point charge repulsion occurs to such an extent that physical material is ejected from the surface. Here is a video relating to the effect...https://demos.smu.ca/index.php/demos/e-n-m/52-pith-balls. Now all we have to do is think of the surface electrons like pith balls and wala... we have a simple explanation for "Radiant Matter".
It's very strange that what so many people consider impossible, like "radiant matter", is in fact very easy to understand and reproduce at the bench. I mean it has a simple scientific explanation and yet many continue to call it impossible. Conceptually it's super easy to understand, we slam extra electrons into a body so hard and fast that massive repulsion forces evolve causing physical material to be ejected... Radiant Matter.
Rather than telling everyone what cannot work perhaps the members could share something of real value which does work... as I have.
Regards
AC
Quote from: AC
Rather than telling everyone what cannot work perhaps the members could share something of real value which does work... as I have.
It is very difficult to predict what can work or what cannot work.
What is generally the primary obstacle to Free Energy Success is insufficient knowledge of the Energy being sought and insufficient knowledge of the means to make it available for our use.
There are Energetic Manifestations which seem to defy Scientific Possibility or which have no reasonable explanation.
Do the Hubbard Coil or even the Tesla Coil show us that they have the means to extract Anomalous Free Energy from some unseen source?
Have you discovered something that does work and which is capable of delivering Anomalous Free Energy which we haven't seen yet?
It would be very nice to see a demonstration of proof to know with certainty that there are things of real value which do work.
Work, that is, in the Out of Ordinary sense. Tapping into Free Energy which is ultimately provided by Solar Activity is well established, but have there actually been replicable instances of Free Energy Exploitation of the more mysterious variety which is difficult to explain?
QuoteIt would be very nice to see a demonstration of proof to know with certainty that there are things of real value which do work.
I believe it was T.H.Moray who said... "We cannot prove anything to anyone who cannot prove the matter for themselves" and he was correct.
As such there is no amount of proof I could offer anyone which could change there mind. I never believed a word about free energy and no video ever convinced me of anything. It was only after I was willing to do all the research and experiments with an open mind that I began to understand.
On the Hubbard device, it was an ingenious setup and pretty obvious the teenage Hubbard didn't invent the technology but got it while working for Nikola Tesla. In 1902 Tesla claimed to have invented the technology and revealed the physical laws underlying it in his lectures when Hubbard was only 5 years old. At best Hubbard was like Edison stealing others idea's and claiming them as his own. So if your wondering what Hubbard was doing look at Tesla's work.
In my opinion the trick is understanding there are no different kinds of energy only one kind relating directly to the motion of something on some level. For example there is no such thing as heat, heat is a "measure of molecular motion". So when we use this molecular motion to move a piston the energy lost by the molecular motion is equivalent to the motion gained by the piston. The same is true of an electrical circuit and a magnet moving past a coil of wire. The motion lost by the magnet is equivalent to the motion gained by the electrons in the conductor. On every level "Energy is Motion" and at best we can only transform this motion which then appears to have different properties or qualities.
Once were able to look past what we were taught, looking at everything in a superficial sense, then we can begin to see everything is already in perpetual motion on every level. So this notion of creating energy is completely absurd and if we want to understand FE then we need to start looking at transformations. Specifically, an exchange of momentum(Mass-Velocity) between two things having different kinds of motion on some level.
Think of it this way, the electrons and protons in all material things are already moving about oscillating and orbiting near the speed of light perpetually. The mass and the motion cannot be created or destroyed only transformed. Free Energy...
Regards
AC
Quote from: AC
As such there is no amount of proof I could offer anyone which could change there mind.
I never believed a word about free energy and no video ever convinced me of anything.
It was only after I was willing to do all the research and experiments with an open mind that I began to understand.
I would agree that most videos which purport to show Free Energy lack credibility and do not reveal any process or procedure that actually accomplishes what is claimed.
However, if a demonstration was conducted by a Credible Experimenter who provided sufficient detail of the process with accurate measurement of each important aspect of the process and further was eager to answer questions any interested observer may have then it could become an entirely different proposition.
That is why the videos that Tinsel Koala produced were so informative and effective. He really showed us all of the important details.
Of course, Tinsel was never able either to show a successful replication of any Free Energy claim but he tried valiantly.
And the videos that Tin Man produces are similarly very detailed and extremely informative as they show some unique effects.
Itsu does a credible job with his videos as well even though the Free Energy Fruit hasn't been found with his work either.
Those are the kinds of video demonstrations which are able to stimulate thought and answer questions.
Are there any credible and replicable processes with the Hubbard Coil that you are aware of or that you have discovered?
QuoteGive a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
We could think of the Hubbard device as being similar to a heat pump.
A Heat (molecular motion) pump, does not create, destroy or produce heat it simply moves it. A heat pump compresses a gas to become a fluid causing it to become excited and radiate energy from the condenser coil. The carrier fluid has now lost molecular motion but gained pressure, it's qualities have changed, the fluid is later expanded through a valve into the evaporator coil. The expanded gas in the evaporator, having a lower molecular motion, now has the capacity to absorb ambient energy increasing it's molecular motion. At which point the heat pump recompresses the gas causing it to become excited and radiate this ambient energy again in a continuous cycle.
What have we learned?...
By changing the qualities or properties of an "energy carrier" we can cause it to absorb ambient energy, move the absorbed energy to a different area then radiate said energy in a continuous cycle. That is, by changing or transforming an energy carrier we can determine it's qualities and whether it absorbs or radiates energy. Some may have noticed all these FE inventors seldom talk of math, equations or electronics and seem preoccupied with the qualities or properties something has.
Think about that... Qualities, Properties, Transformations and Motion.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.04.05, 16:22:57
By changing the qualities or properties of an "energy carrier" we can cause it to absorb ambient energy, move the absorbed energy to a different area then radiate said energy in a continuous cycle. That is, by changing or transforming an energy carrier we can determine it's qualities and whether it absorbs or radiates energy. Some may have noticed all these FE inventors seldom talk of math, equations or electronics and seem preoccupied with the qualities or properties something has.
You have hit it more or less on the head ;)
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: AC
Think about that... Qualities, Properties, Transformations and Motion.
Yes, one must Scientifically agree. We are quite familiar with how Energy can transform or change as it dissipates into the environment.
But with respect to the Hubbard Coil, or other Coils which are reputed to have qualities enabling access to Anomalous Free Energy, have you actually done it?
Are you able to say with certainty that Replication of the Effect is doable and that you have done it?
Are you willing to reveal the successes that you have experienced as a result of your experimentation?
Have you accomplished a replication of the Hubbard principles which has produced Anomalous Free Energy?
mudped
QuoteYes, one must Scientifically agree. We are quite familiar with how Energy can transform or change as it dissipates into the environment.
Dissipation is only one half of the equation and in order for energy to be dissipated it must first have been concentrated. There lies the trick doesn't it?, anyone can explain the dissipation of energy but almost nobody can explain how to concentrate energy like we find in nature. We could call it a lost art...
In many respects science is about reductionism and everyone would examine or test every part of the Hubbard device but nobody could get it working. The problem is that most don't understand nature or how something can be more than the sum of it's parts. Thus the very thing there looking for is never present because the operation is dependent on synchronization of the whole encompassing the sum of every part. This concept is found everywhere in nature but is completely foreign to most people.
We could think of it as not being able to see the forest for all the trees...
Regards
AC
Quote from: AC
...in order for energy to be dissipated it must first have been concentrated.
There lies the trick doesn't it?, anyone can explain the dissipation of energy but almost nobody can explain how to concentrate energy like we find in nature.
We could call it a lost art...
Yes, we are able to concentrate Energy, or more precisely we concentrate the substances which will release the burst of concentrated Energy, then we perform work as a consequence of that Energy dissipating into the environment.
That principle is well understood and commonly exploited.
Are you saying then, as you maneuver around the bush, that you have done that conclusively with the Hubbard Principle?
Would you be willing to perform a demonstration and provide answers to questions posed by interested observers?
mudped
QuoteYes, we are able to concentrate Energy, or more precisely we concentrate the substances which will release the burst of concentrated Energy, then we perform work as a consequence of that Energy dissipating into the environment.
That principle is well understood and commonly exploited.
Concentrating substances and burning things to produce heat is considered the most primitive forms of technology. While nuclear energy harnesses the power of the atom it still produces harmful waste products and is also based on a hunter-gatherer mentality. The next step in evolution was photovoltaics (PV) which has no moving parts or emits waste products and converts solar energy directly to electricity. Free energy devices are similar to PV only they utilize a different energy source which is available 24 hours a day everywhere.
On the Hubbard device, fission/fusion has shown us that all matter is concentrated energy born from stars. Any ordinary material contains all the energy we could ever want as an internal motion near the speed of light, all Energy is Motion on some level. It all comes down to either interacting with the energy within matter or moving the matter as an energy carrier. The main problem is that we cannot see this energy because the scale is too small so we have to imagine what it's doing and how to interact with it. If we cannot imagine how to interact with internal or external energy forms then for all intensive purposes it's impossible. All the successful FE researchers and inventors were extremely creative people with an active imagination who were interested in learning about everything. Thus if we cannot learn new things we cannot move forward.
Think about that... we are literally immersed in a sea of energy in perpetual motion and all we have to do is find a way to interact with it on some level.
Regards
AC
Quote from: AC
On the Hubbard device, fission/fusion has shown us that all matter is concentrated energy born from stars. Any ordinary material contains all the energy we could ever want as an internal motion near the speed of light, all Energy is Motion on some level. It all comes down to either interacting with the energy within matter or moving the matter as an energy carrier. The main problem is that we cannot see this energy because the scale is too small so we have to imagine what it's doing and how to interact with it. If we cannot imagine how to interact with internal or external energy forms then for all intensive purposes it's impossible. All the successful FE researchers and inventors were extremely creative people with an active imagination who were interested in learning about everything. Thus if we cannot learn new things we cannot move forward.
Think about that... we are literally immersed in a sea of energy in perpetual motion and all we have to do is find a way to interact with it on some level.
While you have adroitly avoided answering the "Success" question directly and have advanced the above hypotheses we shall take this to mean that you have not yet attained success with your Hubbard Principle efforts.
Yes, everything which surrounds us is Energetic, including everything about ourselves.
There are limitations on our ability, perhaps for our own benefit, to be able to access this enormous Energetic Potential.
Yes, creative minds have indeed been able to solve the challenges of collecting and utilizing the Energy available to us as a result of Solar Activity and Earth's Irradiation with Solar Produced Radiant Energy.
Now, please tell us candidly, have you actually been able to devise some means to exploit other Energies which are independent of those readily available to us?
In order for the Scientific Method to bear fruit there must be honesty.
Dear muDped,
I have a challenge for you ;)
Could you survive one day without posting here ? >:-)
Vasik
Quote from: muDped on 2021.04.07, 01:21:24
In order for the Scientific Method to bear fruit there must be honesty.
...which is what poynt99 wil probably say if anyone criticises him for freezing threads.
What makes me concerned about AC's theory that Hubbard was about very high voltages is that Patrick was always nervous about listing HV voltage projects because anyone can read and have a go - and be seriously harmed. I think AC may be wrong - this could a regular voltage coil banging arrangement.
Paul
QuoteWhat makes me concerned about AC's theory that Hubbard was about very high voltages is that Patrick was always nervous about listing HV voltage projects because anyone can read and have a go - and be seriously harmed. I think AC may be wrong - this could a regular voltage coil banging arrangement.
Patrick should have been nervous because HV can be harmful if not lethal. HV circuits are exponentially more dangerous, much harder to work with, can generate harmful ozone causing lung damage, leaks from circuits like a sieve, is much harder to control because it destroys most electronics and causes magnitudes more EM interference. It is not twice as hard working with anything over 5000v it is magnitudes harder and more dangerous.
This is the main reason why so few people work with HV or understand it...
Here we could apply a little deductive reasoning, maybe nobody can seem to understand free energy devices because they use a phenomena few have ever seen or understand. Here is another clue, almost nowhere in nature do we find large currents other than lightning. In fact the fair weather global current from ground to the atmosphere is only around 1000 amps. Think about that, nature has evolved over billions of years and utilizes a power structure completely opposite to that of mankind. As Viktor Schauberger implied...""In every case do the opposite to whatever technology does today".
Which begs the question... what do we do today in our electrical devices and what would the opposite be?. We use inefficient low voltage/large currents which always tends to dissipate as heat not unlike our preoccupation with burning stuff to produce heat. Nature doesn't do this because it is un-natural, self-defeating and grossly inefficient. Nature always follows the path of least resistance while mankind seems to be doing the opposite.
Regards
AC
But if we remember that HV like space around them and assume the boat story is correct, would they really have had massive voltages crammed into a small boat cruising around on a lake? It sounds like a recipe for a disaster.
Paul
QuoteBut if we remember that HV like space around them and assume the boat story is correct, would they really have had massive voltages crammed into a small boat cruising around on a lake? It sounds like a recipe for a disaster.
Most FE devices like Hubbard's use a step up-step down configuration because it's not practical to redesign most devices like motors to run at HV. I was thinking about an analogy of why natures processes and FE technology seems completely foreign to most people...
Look at the pictures below of some devices most here like myself remember well. However the younger generation has no knowledge of them and in there cordless connected world it's hard to imagine why anyone would use such primitive technology. What we considered "normal" back then is completely foreign to them however I still remember an outhouse, propane appliances and a crank start diesel generator for electricity. In this respect it's all about our perspective and ability to change.
Thus it would be a mistake to "normalize" what we do, what we know or where were at with respect to technology because normal is always changing and evolves...
It's not as if the Hubbard device didn't work because Tesla gave the technology to Hubbard. What was Tesla doing at that time?, he was doing HV impulse experiments so it's easy to connect the dots. You don't honestly think a teenager like Hubbard just stumbled onto this technology do you?. Much of understanding FE relates to knowing the inventors, what they knew, when they knew it, who they talked to and there time line. The fact is very few inventors who supposedly invented FE devices actually invented anything. Most got there idea's from someone else in the same way we are talking here.
Think about that, how far we have come in only 20 years and where we could be 20 years from now. What is "normal"?... it's whatever we choose to make it at the time but it can evolve.
Regards
AC
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.03.08, 21:41:07
Simpletons see new fields of 'research' easy because they have replaced the red insulation on a conductor with green insulation, so clearly, it's not the same thing at all :) (I'm hardly exaggerating).
Sadly, I have observed this too :(.
For example, recently a newbie that I was talking with, could not see the analogy between two arrangements of these nine cored coils besides their number, circularity and the central one:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55547) Arrangement #1.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55549) Arrangement #2.
On the other hand, another member who considers himself electromagnetically inept, noticed the analogy without even seeing both pictures next to each other ...and before I did.
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.03.09, 03:39:25
Sadly, I have observed this too :(.
For example, recently a newbie that I was talking with, could not see the analogy between two arrangements of these nine cored coils besides their number, circularity and the central one:
On the other hand, another member who considers himself electromagnetically inept, noticed the analogy without even seeing both pictures next to each other ...and before I did.
Careful you don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Your design didn't lend itself to the requirements of this device ... that's why I said it was not analogous to the Hubbard. Also as I explained, I hadn't seen a single faithful replication attempted to uncover what Hubbard was doing (and neither had you), and yet I have been able to put forward a working theory that I am now very actively building... newbie is a pretty dismissive way to describe me, I've been at this for a while now.
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.10, 04:45:12
newbie is a pretty dismissive way to describe me, I've been at this for a while now.
I thought you were "not big on semantics (https://www.mooker.com/thread-308-post-4756.html#pid4756)". Anyway, it was better than the word F6FLT had used. ...and notice that I have not identified you by name - you have done this yourself.
The word "newbie" does not refer only to the time spent but also to the knowledge and experience. Would you prefer a "rookie" ?
You are clearly manifesting the lack of basic knowledge and experience when you put bulk solid steel inside high frequency windings ...unless you are making an inductive furnace.
...and that's only the most egregious manifestation.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55558;image)
That gray material, in the device you are building, is galvanized steel tube, isn't it ?There is nothing wrong with being inexperienced but considering your knowledge and experience to be so complete that you don't accept good advice from others is a different story (study this (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=49512) and this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking)) ...and habitually skipping answers to direct questions is downright rude.
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.10, 04:45:12
Careful you don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Your design didn't lend itself to the requirements of this device
Do you know what the requirements of this device are? If "yes" - what are they ?
Don't conflate requirements with the expected output parameters when you answer...
If you come up with real requirements, make an effort to analyze how they "don't lend themselves" rather than making unsupported assertions.
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.10, 04:45:12
... that's why I said it was not analogous to the Hubbard.
Yes, you stated that and this is one of the ways you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge and experience.
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.10, 04:45:12
I hadn't seen a single faithful replication attempted to uncover what Hubbard was doing (and neither had you),
Yes but that is irrelevant to the analysis of this device on the basis of the body of knowledge and experiments made to date.
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.10, 04:45:12
...and yet I have been able to put forward a working theory that I am now very actively building...
Can the members of this forum learn details about this working theory from you or is it your secret ?
... ok ... first things first. This is an attempt at a replication, as I have stated on the build thread at mooker.com. Hubbard built this, not me, I'm copying what Hubbard did based on a very small amount of information that we were left. If you believe I've made a furnace, then by extension Hubbard made a furnace...
Secondly, the secret to OU is to understand that Howard Johnson was right. There is a second inverted magnetic field operating within a magnet, both inner and outer magnetic fields spin in opposite directions. Get past the native outside N|S field and you get the underlying S|N field (with it's opposite spin) - this is where gravitic properties exist as well. Counterwound coils are the chief differentiators, and feature in almost every design that reportedly yielded OU results... Robert Adams, Floyd Sweet, Don Smith, etc... If you can get past the S|N barrier, the reward is zero point.
Hubbard (I believe) was able to create a square wave by combining resonant wire lengths in the centre, middle and outer coils. This square wave effectively turns on and off a magnetic field in the middle coils over the output tube at a precise moment - some degrees after the centre coil peaks, that results in a growing North field (outer coils) and a shrinking North (South) field (centre coil), which then reverses for a South field and repeats ... the output coil being sandwiched between inner and outer tubes, senses the fields moving in two different directions, and with equilibrium upset, we get access to the underlying S|N field to harvest power - as that underlying South field is implosive, it also explains why successful inventors talk about their systems running cool.
So how does your interpretation of the Hubbard work?
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.13, 03:43:51
... ok ... first things first. This is an attempt at a replication, as I have stated on the build thread at mooker.com.
...and I want your build to succeed. I am contributing to this by pointing out rookie theoretical and engineering mistakes to you based on the
component phenomena that I am familiar with. I don't claim to know all of the phenomena that go on in this device, but I do know some of them.
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.13, 03:43:51
Hubbard built this, not me, I'm copying what Hubbard did based on a very small amount of information that we were left.
Exactly, this device was built 106 years ago in times when clear photographs in newspapers were minor miracles.
These grainy photos show us only the outermost coil.
There is a professionally made sketch from these times that depicts 9 coils inside this device (in addition to the outer coil). The newspaper of the time named it the Hubbard coil (note the singular) because that is what was visible on the outside.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55578)
Since this is a sketch and not a photograph, its subject matter was first processed by a human brain.
Sketches can, by their very nature, depict simplifications and interpretations of their maker.
If the sketcher is not the inventor, the potential for misinterpretations is huge.
For example, the sketch depicts one central object surrounded by a circular pattern of 8 other cylindrical objects.
These objects are assumed to be "electro-magnets" or helical coils wound on some kind of cylindrical formers (or cores) on the basis of the following newspaper quote:
"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.
About the entire group of cells is a secondary winding."Note, that the passage
"each with primary and secondary windings of copper wire" implies that these "electo-magnets" are in fact transformers and practical transformers don't work with DC so the current flowing through these windings must be either PDC or AC.
Also, the phrase "electro-magnets" imply that there is some kind of magnetic field generated by these objects in response to the flow of electric current. This implies magnetic interaction. ...and because the windings are in such proximity - near-field magnetic interaction.
Because the sketch is so grainy, you assume that the coils' formers are steel tubes since the sketcher has drawn circles where their ends would be.
Since DC is practically excluded and PDC or AC is implied, the steel tubes/pipes seem to be only your misguided interpretation. I write 'misguided" because you are not "guiding" your interpretations with physical knowledge, i.e. you are not considering the physical effects of steel tubes inside of windings carrying PDC or AC, such as the eddy currents and hysteresis losses.
Furthermore, the higher the frequency of current flowing in these windings, the smaller the probability that these coils are wound on solid steel tubes because of these losses (these phenomena were all alive and well in 1919).
To mitigate the eddy currents, slots could be cut in the steel tubes but that does nothing to mitigate their hysteresis losses.
So what were the copper coils wound on ?
There are two groups of answers depending whether the inventor wanted to maximize or minimize the magnetic flux generated by these "electro-magnets"/transformers:
1) If he wanted the magnetic flux to be minimized while retaining low losses at high current frequencies, he would have made them air-core coils ...or coils wound on non-conductive paramagnetic or diamagnetic materials such as Bakelite or glass or even cardboard or dry wood.
2) If he wanted to make good transformers, he would aim to maximize the flux and flux amplitude by using highly permeable cores of low electric conductivity.
A boy in 1919 would have only three classes of materials at his disposition that meet the latter requirements: Steel/Iron laminations, wire or powder since contemporary ferrites have not yet been discovered in 1919.
Out of these 3 forms of steel/iron, enameled wires or laminations are the easiest to deal with. Binding and insulating from each other the individual grains of iron powder is a major hassle that is sometimes justified by the isotropicity of the resulting material. Otherwise iron powder yields cores of inferior permeability if high pressure sintering is not used without binders.
Since laminations are hard to form into cores of circular cross sections, this leaves enameled steel/iron wires as the prime candidate for fashioning highly permeable cylindrical cores which are anisotropically non-conductive.
If you look at this grainy sketch again you might be able to see the ends of a bundle of small wires protruding out of the coils ...or just a scanning noise.
Using iron wire bundles for fashioning cylindrical permeable cores does not preclude the existence of thin coil formers made out of non-conductive paramagnetic or diamagnetic materials such as plastic, ceramic or glass.
NOTE: If in your rebuttal of the analysis above you are intending to use the drawings or words from the 1983 replication of this device, don't even start because this replication was subject to the same misinterpretations of the source material.
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.13, 03:43:51
If you believe I've made a furnace, then by extension Hubbard made a furnace...
Not at all because the key ingredients necessary to make an inductive furnace (i.e.: eddy currents and hysteresis losses) would only be created in a build based on your misguided interpretation of that sketch.
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.13, 03:43:51
Secondly, the secret to OU is to understand that Howard Johnson was right.
How do you know ?
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.13, 03:43:51
There is a second inverted magnetic field operating within a magnet, both inner and outer magnetic fields spin in opposite directions.
This is an ambiguous statement because it is not clear from it whether it is the entire magnetic field that spins, like this:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55256)
...or individual flux lines that spin (J.Newman style) like this:
(http://rexresearch.com/newmanpatents/wo8300963b.JPG)
Which one did you mean ?
Anyway, according to mainstream science, magnetic field does not spin by itself but it does influence the spin of material particles, e.g. electrons.
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.13, 03:43:51
Get past the native outside N|S field and you get the underlying S|N field (with it's opposite spin) - this is where gravitic properties exist as well.
I don't know what you mean. I think it's time to make a drawing of the fields in your theory. e.g. like this:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2194.0;attach=11594)
I've been hearing for years now that a coil wound in the following manner has some gravitic properties ...but I have never seen it confirmed.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=53958)
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.13, 03:43:51
Counterwound coils are the chief differentiators, and feature in almost every design that reportedly yielded OU results... Robert Adams, Floyd Sweet, Don Smith, etc...
If you can get past the S|N barrier, the reward is zero point.
This makes no sense - flux lines form closed loops that do not intersect, not a barrier.
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/solenoid-field-magnetic-field-lines-direction-flow-d-render-illustration-isolated-black-background-maco-magnified-view-angled-185806505.jpg)
Anyway, when you write "counterwound", which of the following coils do you mean ?
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=54933)
How do these coil topologies make a difference ? It's time to stop speaking in generalities without explaining them !
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.13, 03:43:51
Hubbard (I believe) was able to create a square wave by combining resonant wire lengths in the centre, middle and outer coils.
Wave of what ?
Wires of any length do not create any square waves by themselves, so how is any wave generated by this device ?
Wires of some lengths interact with some wavelengths of external EM field like this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Dipole_antenna_standing_waves_animation_6_-_5fps.gif)
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.13, 03:43:51
This square wave effectively turns on and off a magnetic field in the middle coils over the output tube at a precise moment
First explain, what generates the magnetic field that is interrupted ?
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.13, 03:43:51
So how does your interpretation of the Hubbard work?
You are not ready for it. First you have to muddle through what you came up with.
This time answer all of my questions directly. It is easy to identify them because they have question marks at their ends.
You forgot some nuances of this period :
- Tesla was experimenting with radio waves transmitting energy
- Hubbard was experimenting with radio transmitters (later he was involved in commercial radio station)
- Amman brothers created similiar device and it was said it worked within the range of kind of activator or transmitter
- Lester Hendershot has device with tuned radio frequency circuits
my thought : it was all tapping energy sent by Tesla device or an unknown effect was used to amplify radio frequency energy (probably from interfacing with Earth magnetic field0.
"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.
About the entire group of cells is a secondary winding."
but in the drawing, I see only 4 wires. Maybe 'he' said some of this to keep the secret of what is reality going on inside.. Maybe....
Im thinking that 2 wires go to the outer coils, from other depictions it looks to be series, and 2 wires go to the middle winding...
for only 4 wires coming out of the device, I fail to see that there is a rotating field of the outer windings.
Mags
Quote from: forest on 2026.03.13, 14:51:57
You forgot some nuances of this period :
- Tesla was experimenting with radio waves transmitting energy
- Hubbard was experimenting with radio transmitters (later he was involved in commercial radio station)
- Amman brothers created similiar device and it was said it worked within the range of kind of activator or transmitter
- Lester Hendershot has device with tuned radio frequency circuits
my thought : it was all tapping energy sent by Tesla device or an unknown effect was used to amplify radio frequency energy (probably from interfacing with Earth magnetic field0.
hey Forest
I havnt seen anything that indicated radio freq, circuitry, related to the hubbard coil. do you know of any?
mags
Quote from: forest on 2026.03.13, 14:51:57
You forgot some nuances of this period :
- Tesla was experimenting with radio waves transmitting energy
- Hubbard was experimenting with radio transmitters (later he was involved in commercial radio station)
- Amman brothers created similiar device and it was said it worked within the range of kind of activator or transmitter
- Lester Hendershot has device with tuned radio frequency circuits
All of that implies that high frequencies were more likely to have been used in this device.
...and the higher the frequency of current flowing in these windings the less likely it is that the windings contain any bulk metal inside them.
Slotted metal tubes might be acceptable at low frequencies but at the stipulated power levels and high frequencies (even kHz) any bulk metal in these "electro-magnets"/transformers = inductive furnace.
I wrote "transformers" because only transformers have primary and secondary windings and that newspaper quote mentioned two windings in one "electro-magnet" and explicitly named them "primary" and "secondary". Such arrangement constitutes a transformer.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.03.13, 14:56:21
but in the drawing, I see only 4 wires. Maybe 'he' said some of this to keep the secret of what is reality going on inside.. Maybe....
...for only 4 wires coming out of the device, I fail to see that there is a rotating field of the outer windings.
from other depictions it looks to be series, and 2 wires go to the middle winding...
You see four cables. Who knows how many wires were in each cable. It all depends on the interpretations made by the author of that sketch.
Also, these wires don't have to be connected
directly to the internal windings - they can be supply wires to some kind of internal circuitry (e.g.: LC phase shifter) that branches out and powers the satellite transformers individually ...or in 2 quads.
Anyway, 2 phases are enough to create a rotating field and only three direct wires are required for that.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.03.13, 14:56:21
I'm thinking that 2 wires go to the outer coils,
Let's get the naming normalized:
a) One inner central coil (one winding).
b) Eight satellite transformers (two windings each, 16 - total)
c) One outer coil (one winding).
ok, i see.
Mags
Hmmm....
A nest of DM Cook coils.
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: unimmortal on 2026.03.13, 03:43:51
... the secret to OU is to understand that Howard Johnson was right. ...
Claiming to know the "secret to OU" without being able to provide even a single example, it's about people becoming too big for his boots. The only secret to know is that Howard Johnson is part of the urban legends — a hoax or a scam. No one was able to produce a working model based on his patent—not even he, most likely. That's why throughout his life he kept paying his electricity bill or had the gullible investors who believed him pay it for him. It's time to move on instead of rehashing these old crazy stories.
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.03.13, 15:00:33
All of that implies that high frequencies were more likely to have been used in this device.
...and the higher the frequency of current flowing in these windings the less likely it is that the windings contain any bulk metal inside them.
Slotted metal tubes might be acceptable at low frequencies but at the stipulated power levels and high frequencies (even kHz) any bulk metal in these "electro-magnets"/transformers = inductive furnace.
I wrote "transformers" because only transformers have primary and secondary windings and that newspaper quote mentioned two windings in one "electro-magnet" and explicitly named them "primary" and "secondary". Such arrangement constitutes a transformer.
Ok, now my theory, or at least a part I can tell you.
Yes, you are completle right . Those groups of 8 electromagnets are self-sustained air core transformers. In other way it has no sense. Like in Tesla notes his receivers were simple coils or transformers. That statement about 8 of them is a trick to hide the principle IMHO. Not group but 8 groups. They produce pulsating magnetic field. In fact it is similiar to TPU. Lots of them. Dig the available documentations. Well, you didn't find the correct article....
Quote from: forest on 2026.03.13, 20:49:53
Those groups of 8 electromagnets are self-sustained air core transformers.
Yes, according to that sketch they could be air-core or Bakelite-core, too ...but not bulk steel pipe cores nor steel rod cores (...unless DC).
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55556)
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55547)
Quote from: forest on 2026.03.13, 20:49:53
Well, you didn't found the correct article....
What is the correct one ?
I was using this one. (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55585)
Quote from: Grumage on 2026.03.13, 19:38:38
A nest of DM Cook coils.
How are they supposed to work ?
Verpies
All those documents from 1956 or 1983 are attempts to replicate Hubbard device. For me they are hoaxes. In those periods there were no Tesla transmitters, and I'm pretty sure Hubbard device (as he had said also) is based on radio principle but using Tesla radio waves with energy. Just find press articles from 20-ties when Hubbard presented his device. All is there to support or decline my theory. His device just amplified energy from Tesla radio waves.
I have seen Tesla notes about his receivers and some of them were tuned circuits but some were just a coil connected to ground in two places. Something I guess about tapping longitudinal waves in Earth.
Quote from: forest on 2026.03.13, 21:48:29
All those documents from 1956 or 1982 are attempts to replicate Hubbard device. For me they are hoaxes.
These are strong words which do not account for replications based on benevolent misinterpretations. They could be no more malevolent than Unimmortal's misguided attempt.
Quote from: forest on 2026.03.13, 21:48:29
Just find press articles from 20-ties when Hubbard presented his device.
What's wrong with the Seattle Post Intelligencer article to which I had posted the link to ?
Quote from: forest on 2026.03.13, 21:48:29
His device just amplified energy from Tesla radio waves.
...I have seen Tesla notes about his receivers and some of them were tuned circuits but some were just a coil connected to ground in two places. Something I guess about tapping longitudinal waves in Earth.
Longitudinal waves of what ?
Amplify how ?
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.03.13, 22:06:05
These are strong words which do not account for benevolent misinterpretations. They could be no more malevolent than Unimmortal's attempt.
What's wrong with the Seattle Post Intelligencer article to which I had posted the link ?
Longitudinal waves of what ?
Amplify how ?
The amplification is the secret behind Hubbard (and other) devices.Those Tesla radio waves are in fact disturbances in Earth magnetic field. That's why "the priests" of free energy movement like Tom Bearden called it longitudinal waves. Again I urge you to find other articles, they prove my theory.Not 8 coils. Lot's of coils, air core.
Quote from: forest on 2026.03.13, 22:17:40
Those Tesla radio waves are in fact disturbances in Earth magnetic field.
Any disturbance in Earth's magnetic field would induce EMF in any loop or helical coil.
I have receivers sensitive down to nV - loops/coils connected to it pick up only radio stations and in urbanized areas - EMI and ENFs.
Quote from: forest on 2026.03.13, 22:17:40
Again I urge you to find other articles, they prove my theory.
There are no other articles from these times to be found besides the one I had posted the link to.
Quote from: Cheappower2012 on 2026.04.01, 00:40:41
Here's a video investigating this guys claims.
I'm not saying a device that looks like a free energy device is not possible,but it would be an energy converter,one form of energy to another
form of energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ham2Q0E8Lk
The first problem is that the video leads with the standard BS that such a device must violate the conservation of energy and be a perpetual motion machine. As expected the conversation then degenerates into the absurd notion the device is stealing RF power and that it takes away from legitimate research. In other words the same old shtick.
On free energy devices, I like to use the black box analogy. Suppose we had a black box with two wires coming out of it which supplies practical amounts of power for long periods of time. Here 99% of people would jump to the absurd conclusion this must violate the conservation of energy. The reason is because they have very little knowledge, understanding or experience not a violation of the COE. In fact I know quite a few electrical engineers and found they have little understanding of energy or advanced electrodynamics. They are glorified electricians from my experience.
For example, I put the black box question to them and everyone failed even though the answer is easy. A betavoltaic nuclear battery can produce practical amounts of power for decades inside a closed black box. Which also gives us some insight into how many FE devices work. You see the majority of FE inventors claimed they do not know where the energy comes from but relates to a different form of electricity and the strange radiation produced from it. Ring a bell?, "a betavoltaic nuclear battery generates electricity directly from particles emitted by a radioactive source". Now we have a known method of conversion from radiation to electricity. The next obvious step would be to focus on what the strange form of electricity/radiation is and where it comes from.
In fact the observation of a strange form of electricity and radiation dates back to the late 1800's. Viktor Schauberger described strange radiations similar to roentgen rays emanating from some devices. Vacuum tubes were lit with a strange red glow, bulbs were illuminated but did not get hot and the radiation had biological effects. These inventors like Schauberger were not weekend warriors or arm chair critics and dedicated most of their life to their work in this field. T.H.Moray spent 30 years working on one device.
Of course, Hubbard was a different story and he was supposedly given this technology by Nikola Tesla who was his friend. He didn't have to work decades for it like most inventors. Which may explain why he sold the technology to the highest bidder and retired early. Most inventors sold out or quit after being confronted with constant hostility and death threats. It also begs the question, if Hubbard's device did not work then why didn't the people who bought it for a large sum of money say something or file a law suit?. My guess is it worked as claimed.
Quote from: Cheappower2012 on 2026.04.02, 05:24:38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXr1IVW3Sqk
It's ironic that a supposed particle physicist would be bashing Free Energy. They have spent hundreds of billions of dollars over decades building particle accelerators with nothing to show for it. Very similar to most free energy scams where justification is always just around the next corner.
I think the greater majority of free energy devices like the Chikumbutso device could be a scam but it's hard to say. There are other people such as Centraflow who seem to have a great deal of credibility, want no money from us and have shared information. There is also the fact that many FE inventors in the past were Engineers and scientists with decades of hands on experience and impeccable credentials. Should we dismiss them as well?.
Here is a good example, Paulo & Alexandra CORREA PAGD (Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharges)
https://rexresearch.com/correa/correa.htm
Note the name, Dr. Paulo Correa, M.Sc., Ph.D
"M.Sc. stands for Master of Science, which is a postgraduate degree focusing on advanced knowledge in scientific or technical fields, while Ph.D. stands for Doctor of Philosophy, which is the highest academic degree involving original research and a dissertation."
Do you honestly think a Master of Science with decades of hands on experience is going to be making amateur mistakes?. I have to wonder if most people are illiterate because Correa basically spells out exactly how this technology works and includes working circuit diagrams. For the record, the Correa's work is based on T.H.Morays work.
It's also a little ironic that the supposed critics always show the worst examples of FE and never the most credible like the Correa's work. Oh look, another youtube video showing it's a scam, LMAO. Give me a break.
I've just read André Coutier's patent in French. I've never seen anything so childish. Coils arranged around a central coil constitute as many transformers as there are satellite coils, so the energy supplied to the primary has been multiplied by N. C.C
Why not simply use transformers with all the primaries in series? As the current is the same in each primary, the energy has also been multiplied by N.
Or even a single transformer with N secondary windings, as already exists... We already had FE and nobody knew it. :)
This is sheer stupidity, the sort of ignorance that fails to grasp the cumulative effects of the coupling between primary and secondary windings.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.04.04, 17:28:08
I've just read André Coutier's patent in French. I've never seen anything so childish. Coils arranged around a central coil constitute as many transformers as there are satellite coils, so the energy supplied to the primary has been multiplied by N. C.C
Why not simply use transformers with all the primaries in series? As the current is the same in each primary, the energy has also been multiplied by N.
Or even a single transformer with N secondary windings, as already exists... We already had FE and nobody knew it. :)
This is sheer stupidity, the sort of ignorance that fails to grasp the cumulative effects of the coupling between primary and secondary windings.
the difference is, compared to a basic transformer, is that the more separate primaries, the higher the sec voltage, of which is not normal or basic.
each outer primary with their own separate cores, induces only a portion of the middle secondary. if we have 6 outer primaries, and just one of them can induce 1v into the inner sec, all 6 of them inducing the inner sec with 1v on each section of the inner windings, then the sec will have a total of 6v induced.
this is not the same as a basic transformer when comparing winding ratios to voltage in/out. each induced section of the secondary add up in series....
pure stupidity? we will see...
mags
My working theory (as posted on mooker), is that the satellite transformer primaries are each counterwound and wired in a closed loop. This is how they decouple from the centre and outer coils. Each of the secondaries are then wired together and act as a step down transformer, becoming the output. There's a lot more to this, but the counterwound primaries and their wire length ratio to the centre coil are key to generating the effect.
You'll notice too that the satellite secondaries sit between inner, outer and primary coils.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.04.04, 17:28:08
I've just read André Coutier's patent in French. I've never seen anything so childish. Coils arranged around a central coil constitute as many transformers as there are satellite coils, so the energy supplied to the primary has been multiplied by N. C.C
Why not simply use transformers with all the primaries in series? As the current is the same in each primary, the energy has also been multiplied by N.
Or even a single transformer with N secondary windings, as already exists... We already had FE and nobody knew it. :)
This is sheer stupidity, the sort of ignorance that fails to grasp the cumulative effects of the coupling between primary and secondary windings.
I don't think your asking the right questions. What your doing is called the argument for normalcy or bandwagon fallacy imo.
I get it, I used to think this way but after seeing so many things others deemed impossible I changed my mind. My theory is that in order for a result to be different the process involved must be fundamentally different on some level. As the saying goes, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Ergo, our first assumption should be that if the result is different then so must be the process which led to the result.
A such the first thing we should do is rule out standard induction because we should know it cannot produce the result we want. Remove standard induction and whatever is left is closer to the answer were looking for imo.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.04.04, 19:34:41
the difference is, compared to a basic transformer, is that the more separate primaries, the higher the sec voltage, of which is not normal or basic.
each outer primary with their own separate cores, induces only a portion of the middle secondary. if we have 6 outer primaries, and just one of them can induce 1v into the inner sec, all 6 of them inducing the inner sec with 1v on each section of the inner windings, then the sec will have a total of 6v induced.
this is not the same as a basic transformer when comparing winding ratios to voltage in/out. each induced section of the secondary add up in series....
pure stupidity? we will see...
mags
Agreed and according to F6FLT's reasoning nuclear energy is stupid and must be a hoax as well.
Who are these nuclear physicists who think they could get excess energy from a chunk of silvery-gray metal called uranium. It's just a chunk of metal and can be no more. It's really no different than supposing we could get extra energy from my tire rim or a tea pot which are also metal. Why are all these nuclear physicists being so childish and ignorant to the facts?. Everyone knows we cannot get extra energy from a chunk of metal. We can do work to lift a chunk of uranium but we get less energy back when it falls. This is proof there is no excess energy in uranium and it must be a hoax. ;D
This is called the strawman fallacy, oversimplifying or reducing a complex argument to a much simpler, weaker version so it can be easily refuted.
Of course, a person of knowledge and understanding could assume the Hubbard device, like nuclear energy, is more than the simple sum of it's parts. The Hubbard device cannot be just a simple transformer using standard induction because we know that cannot work. There must be more to it others have missed. My methodology is very different and the first thing I did was exclude standard induction as the principal of operation. A principle of operation is the fundamental idea or mechanism that explains how something works. This is what we are looking for imo.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.04.05, 15:46:53
The Hubbard device cannot be just a simple transformer using standard induction because we know that cannot work.
The coils in the Hubbard device are so close together compared to any reasonable operating wavelength that they must interact with each other using the well known near-field principles.
One way to get out of the near-field induction paradigm is not to allow the current in different windings to flow at the same time.
Also, mutual induction of closely spaced windings in a transformer-like fashion, does not preclude other effects taking place in that device, ...like AC wrote.
The Hubbard coil is no different than most other FE devices and most operate on the same principal.
We could think of the problem this way...
When we look at the Hubbard coil, if all we see is a transformer then we lack knowledge and understanding and the odds of success are near zero. That is not to say transformer action plays no role only that it cannot be the operating principal because we know that cannot work. Ergo, it must be something else.
This video is a perfect example of the kind of thinking required to solve the Hubbard coil problem. I suggest everyone watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTgrWmOk4q8
Solving Impossible Problems for Fun and Profit | Dan Gelbart
You see people like Dan Gelbart can do the impossible. They do not keep doing the same old crap over and over thinking something cannot be done. They think around the problem exploring every possible alternative. As Gelbart explained, 99% of people do not have the mental capacity to think outside the box but some do.
Gelbert absolutely nails another important aspect at the beginning of the video. "If you don't think about something when you in the shower your in the wrong field". In effect, if your not completely obsessed with solving the problem and thinking about it 24/7 you will fail. Case in point, T.H.Moray worked on one device for 30 years. These were not weekend warriors or do nothing armchair critics, these people devoted most of their life to finding answers. These were very intelligent absolutely determined men who were not willing to take no for an answer.
The nut and tap problem at the beginning of the video is a perfect example. How many people do you know who could solve this problem with no outside influence?. If fact I know zero people who could solve this problem and I had no idea either. It looked like an impossible problem which would defy physics until I saw how easy the solution was. Free energy technology is like that.
A power transformer that is not shellacked will vibrate itself to death.
The TPU vibrated.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2026.04.07, 03:03:42
A power transformer that is not shellacked will vibrate itself to death.
Yes, Ampere forces and magnetostriction are real effects.
How do you propose to use them ?
one thing that came to mind for me about sequential driving of the outer primaries...
if we pulse 1 primary, during that pulse, current will be driven in one direction of the secondary. now, unlike just driving a single winding inductor, the field collapse of the first pulse from the first primary driven, will induce a reverse current in the secondary. if so, will that not counteract on the secondary induction by the 2nd pulse induction of the secondary from the second primary being sequentially driven? and then the 3rd, 4th, etc. im not seeing an advantage..
in this case, every other pulse to a sequential primary would need to be opposite polarity of the previous sequential primary pulse in order to take advantage of the field collapse in time with the next sequential pulse. now there it may have its advantages... also helping to counter cemf of the newly driven primary...... ^-^
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.04.09, 14:48:30
in this case, every other pulse to a sequential primary would need to be opposite polarity of the previous sequential primary pulse
I am surprised Unimmortal has not responded to this with his CW CCW paradigm.
well do you think what i said makes sense?
did some sims on my thoughts.
my 4 core transformer i believe would have a similar issue if the 4 primaries were driven individually in sequence.
the spider core has a difference from Hubbards. the cores are connected, at least to one end. not sure if it works he same one way or the other, or inbetween..
hubbard - all separate open cores
spider - all connected at one end, open on the other
4 core - all separate closed cores. but sec winding shares all cores with a primary on each
im going all primaries driven together. not sure sequence drive has an advantage. wait and see if others try first.
mags
in my case, sequentially driving primaries 1 at a time, i would be driving 3 other inductors in series with each hit as the sec shares 4 cores. not a good induction to the sec. like driving a regular transformer with 3 other inductors in series with the primary. kills it.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.04.10, 23:42:10
hubbard - all separate open cores
spider - all connected at one end, open on the other
That's correct. Hubbard has an annular gap
on both sides.
That is why I drew this (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55549) in Reply #60 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=590.msg118527#msg118527).
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.04.10, 23:42:10
well do you think what i said makes sense?
did some sims on my thoughts.
I can't understand it without a flux diagram.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.04.09, 14:48:30
now, unlike just driving a single winding inductor, the field collapse of the first pulse from the first primary driven, will induce a reverse current in the secondary.
In mutually magnetically coupled inductors, the fall of current in one inductor does
not induce current in the second inductor that flows in the opposite direction (if the current is allowed to flow at all).
The current induced in the second inductor is such as to
maintain the threading magnetic flux which had been generated by the first inductor, hence the current induced in the second inductor is in the same direction as it had been in the first inductor before its fall.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.04.10, 23:42:10
my 4 core transformer i believe would have a similar issue if the 4 primaries were driven individually in sequence.
The difference between 4 satellites/coils (cored or not) and 8 of them is only quantitative.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.04.10, 23:42:10
not sure sequence drive has an advantage.
Consider what happens to the flux when you drive them sequentially.
OK. nice
now, if we pulse one of those outer primaries, what keeps that flux from being simply attracted to the adjacent primary cores and not all to the middle sec core?
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.04.11, 00:12:40
...what keeps that flux from being simply attracted to the adjacent primary cores and not all to the middle sec core?
Reluctance and small reverse DC bias in the second windings which you call "secondary".
The pole arrangement from the bird's view over one annular air-gap, could be as follows:
(
the pole arrangement of the other annular air-gap, would be opposite (N→S and S→N) )
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55738)
The sizes of the N, S letters indicate the
relative strengths of the magnetic poles.With a calibrated small reverse DC bias, the poles denoted by the small N
s can be nulled-out to sink/source zero flux. This way all of the flux flowing out of the central N pole is directed only to the two diametrically opposite S poles (generated by a large pulsed current in the windings which you call "primary").
Consider an animated flux diagram as these 4 pairs of diametrically opposite satellites are energized sequentially in that manner.
oh. didnt know you were using dc biasing till now.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.04.11, 01:37:48
oh. didnt know you were using dc biasing till now.
Without the reverse DC biasing of the current in the unused satellite's windings, the flux from the central N pole will be distributed to all of the satellites. If none of the satellite windings are energized, then the central flux will be distributed equally among them (because the air-gaps are all equal).
If some of the satellites are forward biased (as S poles) then more of the flux from the central N pole will flow to them. If some of the satellites are reverse biased (as N poles) then less of the flux from the central N pole will flow to them.
I think that for the sake of axial symmetry, it makes sense to forward-pulse the satellites as diametrically opposite
pairs (necessitating a 4-phase driver) but the satellites can also be pulsed individually (necessitating an 8-phase driver), however the symmetry is lost then.
Anyway, please draw a flux diagram - it doesn't have to be "pretty".