The user Chrono_Welder_1272 who did not complete the registration sent the following information:

Here is the pure, verified experimental data that completely challenges standard textbook physics:

Subject: Anomalous macro-scale Casimir effect and non-typical field values in multilayer diffraction grids.

Under photon exposure (clear, sunny weather), a specific multidimensional grid structure (8 to 12 layers) induced a stable, localized static magnetic field of up to 2 mT (millitesla) without any external power inputs.
All measurements were taken with a TD8620 handheld digital Tesla/Gauss meter, initially with the protective cap on the sensor (removing the cap doubles the mT readings to ~2 mT). The natural background field on the mirror was stable at 0.08 mT.

Summary of the results:
• Galvanized store-bought grating (8 layers, 1x1 cm cells): Reached 0.16 mT (+200% field increase).
• Galvanized store-bought grating (12 layers, 1x1 cm cells): Reached 0.45 mT (+562.5% field increase).
• Homemade multidimensional grating (8 layers, 1.5x2 cm cells): Reached a stunning 0.98 mT (+1225% field increase).

Technical specifications of the homemade multidimensional grating:
• Material: Copper-plated steel (MIG welding wire, 1.2 mm diameter).
• Cell size: 1.5 cm by 2.0 cm.

Crucial Observation:
The increase in the magnetic field is strictly tied to the weather and is NOT detected in cloudy weather. It requires clear and sunny conditions (direct photon exposure) to trigger the spatial resonance.
I have attached the full English experimental data sheet to this message.




The full 9-minute video proof showing the grid structures, live TD8620 Tesla/Gauss meter readings, and step-by-step testing under clear sun is published here.

Regards,
Chrono_Welder_1272

I did a repair on a commercial "shoebox" fixture the other day and thought I would put up some specs just for comparison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpFKHNX045Q

my new terms:)

Not-Link — a coupling that transmits a reaction force while permitting relative displacement between the coupled members.
Spooky Lost Distance — the relative displacement across that Not-Link:

q=C-R

And together:

W_{Not-Link}=T_q{q}

NOW MODEL UPDATE — THE WORK AUDIT CLOSES

The NOW model itself did not need to be changed. The problem was how I was auditing an internal reaction force.

Define the Case–Rotor slip displacement as:

q = C - R

where:

R = Case/Ring displacement
C = Carrier/Rotor displacement
q = relative Case–Rotor slip displacement

The slip torque Tq is an equal-and-opposite internal reaction pair acting between the Case and Rotor.

Because both sides of that reaction share the common motion, the work associated with their common displacement cancels.

The surviving virtual-work term is therefore only the relative displacement:

dWq = Tq dq

Since:

C = R + q

the same work can be written:

Tq C = Tq R + Tq q

Dividing by the Case displacement R gives:

Tq(C/R) = Tq + Tq(q/R)

Therefore:

Delta T = Tq(q/R)

This gives the three conditions directly:

Dark side:
q < 0
The slip-work contribution subtracts.

Zero slip:
q = 0
The slip-work contribution is zero.

Light side:
q > 0
The slip-work contribution adds.

The earlier conservation problem came from treating the absolute motion of an internal reaction as though it were an independent work port.

Once the equal-and-opposite reaction is evaluated across its actual relative displacement, the work audit closes without adding a correction term and without changing the NOW model.

Nothing exotic was required. The missing bookkeeping quantity was the relative displacement.


NUMERICAL EXAMPLE — DEEP DARK

For the deep-Dark example:

S/R = 1/6
C/R = 0.6875
q/R = -0.3125

Normalize the Case–Rotor slip reaction to:

Tq = 1 N·m

For the 100R/60S planetary, a 1 N·m Carrier reaction gives the ordinary planetary torque split:

Ring = 0.625 N·m
Sun = 0.375 N·m

For one Case revolution, the Sun moves 1/6 revolution.

The ordinary planetary work relationship is therefore:

0.625(1) + 0.375(1/6) = 0.6875

0.625 + 0.0625 = 0.6875

Now use the relative-slip description:

Tq = 1 N·m
q/R = -0.3125

Therefore:

1(1) + 1(-0.3125) = 0.6875

or:

1 - 0.3125 = 0.6875

So the complete comparison is:

0.625 + 0.0625 = 1 - 0.3125 = 0.6875

The left side is the ordinary planetary force/displacement audit.

The middle is the common motion plus the signed relative-slip virtual work.

The right side is the actual Carrier displacement corresponding to the prescribed 1 N·m reaction.

All three descriptions give the same result.


IMPORTANT DISTINCTION

The normalized 1 N·m slip torque is a prescribed internal Case–Rotor reaction. It is NOT a 1 N·m external input torque.

A gear ratio establishes a force/distance relationship, but it does not independently establish how much force exists.

The question being asked by NOW is:

"What external input condition is required to support this specified internal slip reaction under the allowed geometry and displacement?"

It is NOT:

"What happens if I feed 1 N·m into this gearbox?"

Those are different mechanical questions.


CONSERVATION

The previous work-audit mismatch was a legitimate red flag, but it did not require changing conservation, the planetary equations, or the NOW model.

It required accounting for the relative Case–Rotor displacement.

For the equal-and-opposite slip reaction, the common-motion work cancels:

+Tq x - Tq x = 0

Only the relative displacement remains:

Wq = Tq q

Therefore a rigid fixed gear pair does not have this additional slip-work term because it does not have the independent relative displacement q.

If q = 0:

Wq = 0

If Tq = 0:

Wq = 0

Only when both slip displacement and slip force exist does the slip-work term exist:

Tq != 0 AND q != 0

Wq = Tq q

This is ordinary virtual work applied to the actual degrees of freedom of the mechanism.


EXPERIMENTAL SEPARATION

This is an ideal-model closure.

The raw bench measurements remain a separate experimental dataset and were not used to force the model to close.

The relative coordinate q = C - R comes directly from the physical geometry and kinematics. Virtual work then provides the ordinary mechanical accounting for the reaction acting across that relative displacement.

The appropriate conclusion is therefore not:

"Conservation proves the NOW model."

It is:

"The NOW model now passes the conservation/work audit that it previously failed."

Or, more simply:

We were not missing energy.

We were missing a coordinate.

This topic has been moved to HANS COLER.

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4631.0

Quote from: Smudge on 2026.09.28, 06:32:57...as I am having difficulty doing the soldering.

Ask someone with a spot welder to weld the copper wire to the iron core for you.
Spot welder is just a capacitor that discharges a pulse of current into the junction of the two elements being welded.  It creates a spark and locally melts the metals at the point of contact.

   Hi Forest:
   Well yes. But, it is not MY theory, but, it is similar to the way that the Kapanadze solid state devices, work. The other devices, such as the Akula, and the  Ruslan, devices were their versions of the same working process. I am not here to convince anyone, I'm here to find out the truth of it.
As we can't as yet prove how it works, by showing it doing so. Such as self running, we'll have to wait and see what shows up that can self run.
However, the idea is that there are two parts to this device. One is the high voltage Kacher circuit, and the other part is the lower voltage push pull circuit. Any extra energy would come from the surrounding ambient. The how and why this works, is still unknown. But, it is what Tesla called the disruptive discharges. Causing the ambient to respond by a sort of back fire that the coils in the device can take in and tap, as Extra Energy.Than what was provided for from the input source.
These theories are what we need to further study and work on. These are not my theories, they are as I understand as being part of the working process.

   NickZ

Do we have any theory how Kapanadze device works ?

here is a map of the predicted, the bench actuals and the difference-the residual

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UxOvZatzKY
   
    The above video was one of my last videos posted on YouTube about 7 years ago. How time flys...
 Anyway, that was as far a a could take that type of replication. And, at that point, I ran out of steam. Maybe I was "close", back then...
   I had made a bunch of videos at that time, as I started experimenting over 12 years ago. But, I never did build the controlable Kacher circuit, which I had planned on building. Although my regular Kacher was somewhat controlable, to a degree. Anyway, it's all boxed up now, but still intact to some degree. Perhaps Delamorto will get a kick out of this video. As I believe the basic mode of operation may be similar to the original Kapanadze devices. Mine was the Ruslan 7 version, or at least, my take on it
   
   NickZ