PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2020-07-07, 19:16:34
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7
Author Topic: Comments on the McFreey paper  (Read 90349 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1655
As far as your steel tape transformers, I suspect they were not large enough (inductance) to support the power bandwidth below 20 Hz. (judging from the photo) Nice build though!
Yes, the inductance of the impedance matching transformers was not large enough for LF.

This amp is built around the 6N13S (6H13C) double triodes rated at 500V but running at 380V.  It also uses the ECC83S double triodes and the EM84 (6DH7) "magic eyes" for audio level output indicators.  The biggest central transformer is for the power supply and the thick winding you see on top of it provides the low voltage for the tube heaters.  The other two smaller toroidal transformers are step-down units for the final output stages. Their cores are tapewound (they came from a halogen-lighting shelf in a supermarket ;) )  and their pri/sec windings are litzed and multilayered and sandwiched.  The amp does not use any semiconductors except for silicon rectifiers in the power supply section.   
The photo you've seen shows a 90kHz sinewave test signal at input and an unattenuated undistorted sinewave at output. (at 130kHz it attenuated by 6dB) with speakers still connected.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1655
This sounds to me like an NMR induced spiking,
...or NAR induced spiking.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3639
It's turtles all the way down
If the McFreey paper does in fact point us to the secret of the Kapanadze 2004 and Green Box devices, then TK's use of very heavy duty wire  (and high current reading on the clamp meter - assuming accurate) does perhaps suggest that he is using a remote heavy duty welding type transformer to supply the necessary power to initially 'trigger' the device into operation. Although I agree with Grumpy, Verpies also makes a valid point that TK could have been shown how to build his devices by somebody. If this is the case, then it is encouraging to think that given the poor quality of TK's build, the actual construction may not be overly critical and success could come purely by luck once the correct principle of operation is established.

Hoppy

A remote welding transformer is not necessary. What is necessary is the ability to develop ten to 100 of amps at very low voltage i.e. millivolts.

This can be accomplished with a rather small transformer and the appropriate turns ratio. e.g a handheld Weller soldering pistol has a single turn secondary and develops rather large current at low voltage.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3639
It's turtles all the way down
...or NAR induced spiking.

Yes, NAR would be a better guess since there would be vibration. Few folks play with loose coils in acoustic resonance. It is said that SM further noticed effects when trying to optimize dual voice coil speakers for 3D sound by phase shifting one of the coils.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Tech
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 291
A remote welding transformer is not necessary. What is necessary is the ability to develop ten to 100 of amps at very low voltage i.e. millivolts.

This can be accomplished with a rather small transformer and the appropriate turns ratio. e.g a handheld Weller soldering pistol has a single turn secondary and develops rather large current at low voltage.

Thanks, that means my MOT based spot welder can be pressed into service  :)
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2215

Did you decide which method you are going to use to measure the mechanical vibrations?
Do you have access to an old pickup system from an old Phonograph?

No, no old pickup system from an old Phonograph available.

So i went for option 2:

Quote
2) a piezoelectric disk from a Xmas postcard glued to the pipe directly, effectively making a piezo microphone out of the pipe/ring, or..

But it was not really successful as the (mechanical?) frequency is not solidly repeatable.
Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjMJ3F6WRRU&feature=youtu.be

I will try the laser / photo diode method next.


Furthermore i got rid of the inverter, and put up a welding transformer/variac combo for input.
This seems to work better as i measure about 2 amps running through the La/Lb coil now.

Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayCoS7Ut5WM&feature=youtu.be


Regards Itsu
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 100
Itsu,

Thank you for the videos.
I hope, my comments below will be useful.

Knowing the resonance frequency of the ring might be useful, but it is not necessary.
There are other approaches. All can be done in situ. At a given magnetization current through coils La/Lb, one can simply sweep the frequency of the current pulses exciting the ring, looking for maximum output power on the load. The procedure can be repeated at various values of magnetization current. The ring creates a short, so inductance issues are virtually not present while tuning. A simple analog,  widely tuned pulse generator with power transistor output is beneficial for the task.

The main problem is that the coil you have will produce too low a magnetic field. The coil does not have to be long and  it  may have several layers of winding. Look at the coil used by SR193.

Also, the choke, L1,  should be air-cored and it should be high voltage capable. Winding it with the speaker wire is acceptable.

Vibration of the ferrite cores, if they are used, has nothing to do with the frequency of ring vibration in the embodiment of Fig.7. Although, the cores strengthen the magnetic field that permeates the ring. The cores are magnetized at low frequency. The ring vibration is at much higher frequency and they are not touching each other. The ring is slotted for electrical purposes; to be able to pass slow electron current though it and invoke Ampere's forces. On the other hand, it still has to be a full ring mechanically and be supported only at one point. We want to vibrate the ring as a whole, the "O", and not to modulate the width of the gap/slot, as in "C". In the latter case the connections to the ring would be damping the ring vibrations, and, in addition, the resonant frequency of the "C" arrangement would be too low. I would stick to what McFreey is suggesting. Remember, high value of acceleration is needed here and it is much higher at higher vibration frequencies. Your copper tube has definitely too small a diameter and is too long. This would require a lot of power to make it vibrate.

We are vibrating the ring resonantly, so no welder current is necessary for the ring/tube.  SR193 used pulses generated by the spark-gap to excite resonant mechanical vibrations in his resonator. Kapanadze uses two high power transistors for the same purpose (see the green box). It all depends on how large the gain material is. Attaching anything to the ring/tube changes the resonant frequency of the ring/tube.

The gap/slot size has nothing to do with the pulsed current created by fast electrons. In general, the trajectories of fast electrons do not even coincide with the radius of the ring/tube. These electrons do not circulate in the ring as whole.
« Last Edit: 2013-07-26, 03:57:06 by yfree »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1655
On the other hand, it still has to be a full ring mechanically and be supported only at one point.
Yes, it should be supported at one point.  If you want to use a string to suspend the tube/ring, then inspire yourself with Wind Chimes construction. (see this video)
Itsu's string suspension muffles the acoustic vibration severly.  A tube suspended like that, would not make a good Wind Chime.

In general, the trajectories of fast electrons do not even coincide with the radius of the ring/tube. These electrons do not circulate in the ring as whole.
If the confining magnetic field is excessively strong, then the fast electrons will circulate at smaller radii than the radius of the pipe/ring. In the worst case, fast electrons will leave a thin ring radially.
Any electrons leaving the gain medium temporarily or permanently, will decrease the chance for secondary decay events (that includes leaving due to insufficient or excessive curvature of electric trajectories and excessive gap).
IMO the most efficient confinement happens when the fast electrons stay as long as possible inside the pipe/ring.
This happens at a certain minimal confining field, when the electrons circulate at the same radius as the pipe's/ring's radius.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 100
...
Any electrons leaving the gain medium temporarily or permanently, will decrease the chance for secondary decay events (that includes leaving due to insufficient or excessive curvature of electric trajectories and excessive gap).
IMO the most efficient confinement happens when the fast electrons stay as long as possible inside the pipe/ring.
This happens at a certain minimal confining field, when the electrons circulate at the same radius as the pipe's/ring's radius.
This is the old McFreey. The new papers by McFreey do not endorse secondary decay events nor the fact that the electrons circulate at the same radius as the pipe's/ring's radius.
In the new paper he also explicitly states:
"This paper clarifies the fact that nuclear magnetic resonance "NMR", which is understood to be resonant energy absorption by precessing nuclei, from either electromagnetic or acoustic sources, is not a necessary ingredient in the task of energy extraction from matter."
So, no NMR or NAR are necessary. What is necessary, is vigorous precession and "shaking" of the nuclei, to create the "intra-atomic grinding effect". Thus, according to McFreey, the resonant transitions are of secondary importance.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2215

Thanks yfree.

Quote
The main problem is that the coil you have will produce too low a magnetic field. The coil does not have to be long and  it  may have several layers of winding. Look at the coil used by SR193.

Also, the choke, L1,  should be air-cored and it should be high voltage capable. Winding it with the speaker wire is acceptable.

OK, by SR193 coil you mean the one as in the picture below?

I will make an air choke for L1 and use a 1000V GDT as overload protector.


Quote
Your copper tube has definitely too small a diameter and is too long. This would require a lot of power to make it vibrate.

Would a ring (say 10 cm od) made out of copper tubing (5 a 6 mm od) do, or does it need to be a solid ring (like these copper gaskets i see on Ebay)?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Oxygen-Free-Electronic-Grade-Copper-gasket-for-6-CF-conflat-flange-Lot-of-9-/200946251678?pt=BI_Pumps&hash=item2ec954779e

Regards Itsu
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2215

Itsu's string suspension muffles the acoustic vibration severly.  A tube suspended like that, would not make a good Wind Chime.


Thanks verpies,  i see the point, great video, thanks.

Regards Itsu

   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1655
This is the old McFreey. The new papers by McFreey do not endorse secondary decay events nor the fact that the electrons circulate at the same radius as the pipe's/ring's radius.
In the new paper he also explicitly states:
"This paper clarifies the fact that nuclear magnetic resonance "NMR", which is understood to be resonant energy absorption by precessing nuclei, from either electromagnetic or acoustic sources, is not a necessary ingredient in the task of energy extraction from matter."
So, no NMR or NAR are necessary. What is necessary, is vigorous precession and "shaking" of the nuclei, to create the "intra-atomic grinding effect". Thus, according to McFreey, the resonant transitions are of secondary importance.
That makes no sense.
Firstly, causing shaking and vigorous precession requires inelastic collisions or energy absorption from EM or acoustic sources (why else would the nuclei want to shake & precess ?). Vigorous precession can only be caused by application of Larmor frequency components, so it is a form of nuclear resonance, despite different phrasing.
Secondly, spin polarization and magnetic confinement of fast particles are still an issue, without it the beta current would be isotropic and could not be coupled inductively.
Thirdly, even if I believed in the reality of atomic orbitals and grinding, then causing K-electron capture would require some absorption/input of energy and the subsequently released energy would have to be greater than energy absorbed to cause the precession... and this energy would have to be released coherently and anisotropically (confinement and polarization issue again) and in the same mode, e.g. from acoustic to acoustic or from EM to EM, or the gain medium would just sink energy in one mode.
Finally, electron capture, does not cause emission of charged particles from the nucleus (neutrinos at best).  Auger electron yield is low for heavy elements and most importantly - secondary.  Without copious charged particles, there is no beta current (anisotropic or not) for inductive coupling.
« Last Edit: 2013-07-26, 14:02:01 by verpies »
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 100
Itsu,

Yes, this is the coil.
The resonator is placed in the gap between the upper and lower sub-coils.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3215
tExB=qr
To cause precession, all you need is two orthogonal forces, and motion/translation of one of these forces.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1655
To cause precession, all you need is two orthogonal forces, and motion/translation of one of these forces.
Please rephrase that.
There is no such thing as motion/translation of forces.   Forces cause motion, they are not in motion.
« Last Edit: 2013-07-26, 17:17:54 by verpies »
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3215
tExB=qr
Please rephrase that.
There is no such thing as motion/translation of forces in this case.

There is also no evidence of this scenario actually working.  McFreey isn't even a real person and that sirname is fictitious.  It all smacks of disinformation to me.  Someone took a mention of NMR by "spherics" regarding the TPU, applied to every device they could think of, then loosely connected a bunch of facts and assumptions into a plausible theory.  Good people with good intentions will waste countless hours proving to themselves that this whole thing is a waste of time.

   
Full Member
***

Posts: 100
That makes no sense.

It does make a lot of sense to me and it is basic physics.

Firstly, causing shaking and vigorous precession requires inelastic collisions or energy absorption from EM or acoustic sources (why else would the nuclei want to shake & precess ?).


1. Shaking of nuclei can be invoked by vibration, phonons in general. No external magnetic field is necessary here.

2. It is not true that precession requires inelastic collisions or energy absorption from EM or acoustic sources. Precession of nuclei can also be invoked by inserting a body in a magnetic field. This is what McFreey is writing about, and this is the beauty of this approach.
Namely, when a magnetic moment  u is placed in a magnetic field B, it experiences a torque which can be expressed in the form of a vector product t=u x B. But in the case of some nuclei, in which the magnetic moment is the result of their spin property, the torque exerted then produces a change in angular momentum which has a component perpendicular to that angular momentum, causing the magnetic moment to precess around the direction of the magnetic field rather than settle down in the direction of the magnetic field. This is called Larmor precession. The angular frequency is then given by w = gB.
Thus here, precession is caused not by resonant absorption of EM or acoustic field it is caused by energy of the rising magnetic field.

The difference is that, for instance, the resonant EM method is virtually not capable of causing nuclear precession in bulk metals. The (relatively slowly) rising magnetic field is capable.
All this is nicely described here.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/larmor.html

Vigorous precession can only be caused by application of Larmor frequency components, so it is a form of nuclear resonance, despite different phrasing.

Larmor precession is very much related to NMR and NAR, but it is not NMR or NAR in itself.
Yes, Larmor precession can be induced by NMR or NAR, but as shown above these are not the only methods. The difference may be subtle, but the consequences are far reaching.

Secondly, spin polarization and magnetic confinement of fast particles are still an issue, without it the beta current would be isotropic and could not be coupled inductively.

Magnetic field is present in everything that McFreey describes, so, there is no problem with spin polarization and particle confinement.

Thirdly, even if I believed in the reality of atomic orbitals and grinding, then causing K-electron capture would require some absorption/input of energy and the subsequently released energy would have to be greater than energy absorbed to cause the precession...
...

McFreey writes about "grinding" not grinding and energy from the nucleus. However, both "grinding" and grinding involve interaction between waves of matter. Thus, no believing in the reality of atomic orbitals is necessary here.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2215
Working on a new La/Lb coil.

La is finished, and its data is:
Former:           pvc 7.5cm od / 6.8cm id
wire:               95m of 1.5mm2 (awg 15/16)
turns:              300 (9 layers of 34 turns)
inductance:      5.2mH  (@ 240Hz)
resistance:       1.1 Ohm
self resonance: 228Khz

I could fill up the coils with ferrite rings if needed/wanted.

For the copper ring, i plan to use both a single turn of this 5mm od copper tubing (see picture) and a single ring of 6mm2 copper wire.

Regards Itsu
« Last Edit: 2013-07-29, 12:14:30 by Itsu »
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3639
It's turtles all the way down
You do nice builds, Itsu. You must have a well equipped shop to fabricate these coils.

I think this may be more in line with what is required in the paper.

With careful excitation and measurement the NMR absorption should be noticeable.

Hopefully, some anomaly can also appear for our study.

Chet is trying to locate McFreey and bring him to this forum, hopefully to lend further info.

Best of luck in your research.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1655
It does make a lot of sense to me and it is basic physics.
McFreey's engineering detail make sense to me too, but I take exception to some of his theoretical justifications.
The major discrepancy being that the electron capture by a proton does not cause an emission of any charged particles out of the nucleus (only neutrino).
 
1. Shaking of nuclei can be invoked by vibration, phonons in general. No external magnetic field is necessary here.
Shaking yes, but not precession.

2. It is not true that precession requires inelastic collisions or energy absorption from EM or acoustic sources. Precession of nuclei can also be invoked by inserting a body in a magnetic field.
...
Thus here, precession is caused not by resonant absorption of EM or acoustic field it is caused by energy of the rising magnetic field.
That is a tricky statement, because a static magnetic field is incapable of causing precession by itself.  However, the act of inserting a a body in a magnetic field is capable of invoking precession.  The difference between these two cases is the increase/change of the magnetic field permeating the body (inserting a body causes the change). A changing magnetic field constitutes an EM field and represents EM energy that becomes absorbed and converted to precession.  Of course most of the absorption occurs at a certain frequency, as with a mechanical gyro (and produces NAR spectra).
We can discuss the frequency spectrum of a step function (the act of inserting a body) but I'm sure you understand what I'm driving at even without it.

The puenta is that this energy (EM or acoustic) is not given back in the same mode, it is absorbed and converted to precession.  That this precession upsets the nucleus and later causes beta decay or electron capture - is secondary.

The difference is that, for instance, the resonant EM method is virtually not capable of causing nuclear precession in bulk metals. The (relatively slowly) rising magnetic field is capable.
The difference is not conceptual. It is in phraseology only. A slowly rising magnetic field still represents a change, containing many frequency components, one of which matches the nuclear precession frequency.  It takes energy to change the field, and this energy is absorbed and not given back in the same mode (as magnetic field) - hence absorption. Once the spin axes align parallel or antiparallell to a static magnetic field no more precession will be induced without changing the direction of the field or allowing it to decrease to zero and the spins to randomize up to a thermal equilibrium.  It is an error to consider a static magnetic field without considering how it got to this level and direction.

Magnetic field is present in everything that McFreey describes, so, there is no problem with spin polarization and particle confinement.
Not just any field and gain medium geometry (including the gap) creates ideal conditions for particle confinement.
« Last Edit: 2013-07-29, 22:58:48 by verpies »
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 100
McFreey's engineering detail make sense to me too, but I take exception to some of his theoretical justifications.
The major discrepancy being that the electron capture by a proton does not cause an emission of any charged particles out of the nucleus (only neutrino).
The only problem is that McFreey does not say anything about electron capture by a proton.

Shaking yes, but not precession.
For shaking a body, no precession is needed.

That is a tricky statement, because a static magnetic field is incapable of causing precession by itself.  However, the act of inserting a a body in a magnetic field is capable of invoking precession.  The difference between these two cases is the increase/change of the magnetic field permeating the body (inserting a body causes the change). A changing magnetic field constitutes an EM field and represents EM energy that becomes absorbed and converted to precession.  Of course most of the absorption occurs at a certain frequency, as with a mechanical gyro (and produces NAR spectra).
We can discuss the frequency spectrum of a step function (the act of inserting a body) but I'm sure you understand what I'm driving at even without it.
The puenta is that this energy (EM or acoustic) is not given back in the same mode, it is absorbed and converted to precession.  That this precession upsets the nucleus and later causes beta decay or electron capture - is secondary.

This is not about a static magnetic field, and the insertion is never immediate. The sticky point is that the field change can be harmonic, say at 100 Hz, so there is no higher harmonic or spectrum of a step function. Everything else is described in the paper.

The difference is not conceptual. It is in phraseology only. A slowly rising magnetic field still represents a change, containing many frequency components, one of which matches the nuclear precession frequency.  It takes energy to change the field, and this energy is absorbed and not given back in the same mode (as magnetic field) - hence absorption. Once the spin axes align parallel or antiparallell to a static magnetic field no more precession will be induced without changing the direction of the field or allowing it to decrease to zero and the spins to randomize up to a thermal equilibrium.  It is an error to consider a static magnetic field without considering how it got to this level and direction.

No, it is not phraseology only. Slowly changing magnetic field can be harmonic, see above. Read the definitions of appropriate phenomena. You will never find a definition stating that precession on its own is NMR or NAR.  McFreey is not talking about a static magnetic field, quite the contrary. Please read carefully.

Not just any field and gain medium geometry (including the gap) creates ideal conditions for particle confinement.
The talk is not about any field and gain medium, but about a magnetic field and moving charged particles.

If there is still a difference in opinion, I will leave it that way.
Thank you.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1655
This might come in handy:

                    Speed of       Speed of       Loss factor         Loss factor
                  Longitudinal      Shear         Longitudinal          Shear
Material          waves          waves            waves               waves
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aluminum     6374m/s        3111m/s     0.00003-0.0001     0.0001
Brass           4372m/s        2100m/s     0.0002-0.001       <0.001
Copper        4759m/s        2325m/s     0.002                      0.002
Gold             3240m/s       1200m/s      0.0003
Iron             5957m/s        3224m/s     0.0001-0.0004        0.0002-0.0006
Lead            2160m/s         700m/s      0.05 - 0.3                0.02
Steel            5960m/s       3235m/s      0.00002-0.0003
Diamond     12000m/s   
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3215
tExB=qr
Steven Mark stated that the first two TPU's would cease working when flipped over. 

Steven Mark also said that there is a "rotating field" produced in the TPU's and that this is a necessary part of the devices.   

TPU's are never grounded.

Perhaps McFreey didn't know about these features of the TPU.





   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2215
You do nice builds, Itsu. You must have a well equipped shop to fabricate these coils.


Thanks ION,

i have just some basic tools (saws, dremel, workmate), but with some patience it gets the job done.

Here the progress, both La and Lb are done, working on the copper ring (6mm od tube):

Regards Itsu
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3743


Buy me some coffee
You are doing some beautiful work there Itsu good luck  O0
   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2020-07-07, 19:16:34