Observing emanations of the Sparkus Gappus

[Vasik041]

http://overunity.com/17247/re-inventors-and-replicators-social-aspects-of-overunity-community/msg505344/#msg505344



I would like share here some theory and experiments related to spark gap.
In my opinion this is most promising "low tech" (home brew) approach to get practical FE.

[Vasik041]

Below a few selected quotes of legendary member Ded Ivan (grandpa Ivan) from www.skif.biz forum (translated)

Source: https://www.skif.biz/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=96361#96361
dedivan | Post: 96361 - Date: 13.01.08 (08:27)
«FEME Post: 96357 От 13.Jan.2008 (09:40)
Is it interesting to academics? They're "grown-up children".

Well, yes. And we just adults. And problems we have are more boring.
Therefore, we need to be closer to practice. And in practice, here what we have.
Energy achievable in a spark on a "table installation" - 100 mJ
without the involvement of the special measures for extreme HV installations.
This corresponds to 10 kV and 1 kA.
For real 30 kHz per second discharge gap we get 30,000 sparks or 3000 joules.
This equal to power of 3 kW.
If we recall that Tesla had in his black box 12 tubes (which is usually misunderstood as electronic
tubes) Than the power of such setup will be 36 kilowatts, or 50 horsepower,that closely matches the
power of the engine on Tesla's car.
Perhaps easier to make a high-frequency spark gap? Or more powerful?
Higher frequency gap can not be achieved because of the inertia of the gas properties.
It takes time for the restoration of ionized molecules. The smaller the discharge gap, the faster the
recovery, but less than the rate of multiplication of electrons in the avalanche,and therefore less
power.
But the more powerful is possible. But the overall power gain will not be achieved, since such a gap will have
more inertia, and will decrease the pulse frequency.
Apparently this is the best option since the time of Tesla.
And for the car and for home - average power consumption for heating and all the other needs just
in order of 20-30 kW.
Although when you consider that for providing house electricity is enough power 3-5 kW,
and for an electric vehicle with storage batteries and recovery system also enough 5 kW, version
with 2 spark gaps will be in demand.

[Vasik041]

Source: https://www.skif.biz/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=96341#96341

dedivan | Post: 96341 - Date: 12.01.08 (23:35)
Physicists are now seen avalanche process like this. And recognize that the current is high and that
it is not closed at this time,i.e. power supply does not waste power to make this current, but about
the power they modestly keep quiet. Otherwise you'll have to explain where it come from, but
IMHO without ether there no explanation.
pic14.1 Electron avalanche (see attached)
a – siplified shape and charge distribution in the electron avalanche in two successive points of
time; arrows indicate the direction of the external field E 0 and the movement velocity V m of the
avalanche head.
б – Avalanche photo in a cloud chamber (CO 2 gas, P = 150torr, horizontal strip – electrodes,
spacing L = 3.6sm, voltage pulse duration 250ns )

Translator note: picture from the book "Gas discharge physics" by Yuri Petrovich Raiser, page 420
can be downloaded e.g. from here http://energy.bmstu.ru/e08/bibl.php (language: Russian)

[Vasik041]

Source: https://skif.biz/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=97287#97287

dedivan | Post: 97287 - Date: 20.01.08 (05:43)
The first two drawings - theory, but the third is a picture, it is a fact.
It can be seen here that the avalanche begins from one seed electron, it is only on it power supply
waste energy.
And until such time as the avalanche did not reach the anode current is not closed.
How source spending its energy on avalanche movement?
This is similar to when the grandson sees me on the street and runs to me
with acceleration, yelling - "granpaaa". How I am spending energy on its acceleration?
And in the spark gap we can calculate speed that should be acquired by electron in an electric field.
Only here the measurements show that the speed is several times higher.
And this is how you want to count on any math- additional energy, excess energy to the electric
field source.
And the explanation in the official physics is - reflex positive charge is formed in the metal anode.
So it added accelerates electrons.
But since this is very much in contrary to the interpretation adopted by the law of energy
conservation, physics keeps carefully silent energy side of this phenomenon.
Without the use of ether, and the internal energy of the ether is not possible here explain the
appearance of additional energy. And since there is no such thing like ether, is better not try make
any explanations.
Let's try from the point of view of mathematics. Look again at the picture, let the motion of
electrons from the cathode to the anode source spends its energy, but note avalanche that extended
even across the field, and this movement in all canons of mathematics no longer has to do with the
source of energy, precisely because it is perpendicular to the field vector.
This movement creates a transverse electromagnetic wave, like a drop falling into the water.
That's it, and we catch it with a current transformer. And because of this wave vector is transverse to
the vector of source field,we have the energy independence of the wave energy from the original
electric field.

[Vasik041]

Source: https://www.skif.biz/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=97288#97288

dedivan | Post: 97288 - Date: 20.01.08 (05:57)
Another note to the avalanche photo from the book. Please note that this photo is the discharge in
carbon dioxide. It is electronegative gas, i.e. it captures most of the avalanche of electrons, not
giving them greatly multiply. But there are also other gases that do not trap electrons,
such as nitrogen and helium. But if to take photos in them, there would be no such
beautiful pictures and would be a picture of very wide avalanche.
From the biography of Tesla – he was watching the birth of a snow avalanche
from snowball thrown from the mountain, determined the direction of his thoughts.
This transverse expansion of avalanches are most surprised him.

[Vasik041]

Here a summary about my experiment setup and some results.

While I can see "signs" of non-linearity it is not OU.
I order to achieve better results shorter rise time required and so better HV transformer...  I am still working on it.

A word of warning:
If you decide do something like this please be VERY CAREFUL. There are many ways to hurt yourself and your equipment playing with stuff like this.

[ion]

dear vasik

Thank you for the time and effort you put into researching the possible excess energy from the "sparkus gappus" (glad you found that line from my parable funny enough to use
in you thread title  )

I have always wanted to test this and have decided on a different approach. I will use a non inductive resistor and this technique:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2029.0

This should be able to give a true RMS reading of power regardless of pulse shape, integrating all components of the pulse into heat.

Looking forward to further work along these lines with you in the future.

Attached a couple of documents that may be of interest.

Kind Regards

[Vasik041]

Dear ION,

I would like to add some more details about this experiment.
The idea is quite simple, we have a gas (or mix of gases) and use step-up flyback to create very sharp high voltage pulses (electric field).
Gas ionized and avalanche discharge occurs.
Unlike in conductors (wires) here we get here two different types of charges carriers, light electrons and heavy ions. So charge carriers move in different directions and with significantly different speeds. If we manage make our HV pulse short enough current is not closed in secondary and power source used only to trigger avalanche.
We "collect" electrons into capacitor and slow ions capture electrons from surrounding or from spark gap electrodes and became again neutral.
This is very simplified description of processes here.
We can repeat this process and each time get some charge into capacitor.

Now about power calculations. We know power supply voltage and pulse duration. Current thru primary grows linearly, so measuring maximum current (at the end of pulse) allows us calculate energy spend on one pulse E = U poser supply * T pulse * I max / 2
We also can calculate energy in capacitor observing voltage on it E = C U ^ 2 / 2

Interesting that we spend same amount of energy to start process, so with n pulses spent energy grows linear, but energy stored in capacitor grows quadratically.
in other word it is inevitable that at some point stored energy in capacitor will exceed energy spent to trigger avalanches.

Maximum voltage to which capacitor can be charged with such series of pulses depends on HV pulse rise time.
The sharper pulse the bigger gap can be used and therefor to higher voltage capacitor can be charged.
Ded Ivan says that for air optimal is 50-100ns but I have achieved so far only 150-200ns and maximum COP about 50%.

The last picture from document was posted by some replicator from Ukraine. He spent several years to achieve 100ns rise time and he got COP 400%.
Of course, I understand that this could be just a false claims...but even if it is so, I don't see why this could not work as described

Best Regards

[Vasik041]

just one more thing:

There was another experiment with spark gap proposed by DI where he measured current in secondary.
He use current transformer and non-inductive resistor to perform measuremnt.
It can be seen that current in "anode" and "cathode" are really different and much exceed theoretically calculated (not taking avalanche effect into account)
However it is much more difficult to perform, times are in nanoseconds range...