TK Replicates

[ion]

The "effect" I was referring to was the "growth of whiskers" in a gapped gain medium of Zn.

I do already understand the operation of a cyclotron, but thank you anyway for the links.

Perhaps it is buried in the patent you referenced, but I did not find it.

The patent under the heading "other configurations" (page 30, paragraph 40) mention the use of the field of a a "large hollow torus" as a means to induce beta decay.

Transmission lines were mentioned in the prior paragraph.

We can see both of these in the SM devices.

In the picture attached we see SM priming the large torus device with a small round magnet from a speaker.

I now believe that many hundreds of failures of attempted replication of SM's TPU's occurred  because the builders had not a clue to the operational mechanism as beta decay. They did not consider the proper gain medium, nor the key stimulation frequency for that medium.

Many were just building conventional toroidal transformers of low efficiency. These would deliver AC output. SM's devices were DC with a lot of "hash" noise riding on top along with a slight ripple frequency around 5kHz.

In light of the new hypothesis of possible operation, we can now take another look at a successful build for these.

[Verpies]

The "effect" I was referring to was the "growth of whiskers" in a gapped gain medium of Zn.

Oh, the "whiskers" are described here.

[Verpies]

The patent under the heading "other configurations" (page 30, paragraph 40) mention the use of the field of a a "large hollow torus" as a means to induce beta decay.
Transmission lines were mentioned in the prior paragraph.

I believe that many configurations are possible based on these operating principles.
Also it is possible to make some generalizations. For example: devices using magnetic confinement  of speeding charged particles have a circular shape, e.g. a torus, disk, pipe, etc...

We can see both of these in the SM devices.
In the picture attached we see SM priming the large torus device with a small round magnet from a speaker.

Yes, the TPU has many points of coincidence.

I now believe that many hundreds of failures of attempted replication of SM's TPU's occurred  because the builders had not a clue to the operational mechanism as beta decay. They did not consider the proper gain medium, nor the key stimulation frequency for that medium.

I think that there are two ways of building these exotic devices.
1) Blindly replicating everything to the dot from a very exhaustive documentation (without understanding and without ego improvements).
2) Building a custom optimized design with the understanding the operational mechanisms.

Without it there are so many variables to coordinate, that blindly hitting upon their correct combination, borders a miracle.

Many were just building conventional toroidal transformers of low efficiency. These would deliver AC output. SM's devices were DC with a lot of "hash" noise riding on top along with a slight ripple frequency around 5kHz.

The electronic schematic for those devices will look like a schematic of a transformer with multiple windings.  The really important issues like the orientation of the windings, core shape and material, magnetic field geometry, waveforms will be disregarded. For example take a look at the STAAAR Yoke Device schematic, below.



It looks like a transformer with weird windings, but the energy in the secondary most likely originates from the physical processes taking place in the core - not from the Faraday induction from the primary.  I remember somebody came to conclusion that this device was impossible because the secondary to primary voltages did not reflect the primary to secondary turn ratio.  That was a valid critique for a conventional transformer... but the Yoke device only looked as such.

In light of the new hypothesis of possible operation, we can now take another look at a successful build for these.

Even with knowing the M.O. it is hard with some Gain Media.  For example the Full Width Half Maximum (FWHM) of NMR resonance for Zinc is ±0.5Hz for a 100kHz stimulating frequency. Thats 5ppm!  You can't get this kind of accuracy with a 555 Timer.
Without precise signal generators, the kitchen table experimenter is relegated to "less sharp" Gain Media or inefficient "Shotgun Approach" of nanopulsing or slow FM, in order to hit the right frequency.

[BEP]

Even less productive is when almost everyone is shot-gunning at the wrong target.

When I proposed that part of the basic function had to be similar to a betatron but with some rotating function I took shots of all kinds from every angle. People are hell-bent on a TPU working like a conventional transformer or the control circuit being the key.

Those haven't been my views since around 2006.

What could be the result if you could place a charge at one point on a circular track and then squeeze it around a circular path under the control of magnetic and electrostatic confinement?

I would think that the track could be dielectric between two charged rings (ring shaped capacitor)(in the case of the 'small-toroid' it would be a spiral delay line with two added windings each opposing the other).

The trick may be in 'stopping' that charge at a rate that would prevent increasing load from causing a meltdown.

The positioning of the clamp meter when the reading is highest (clamps closed and no conductor going through them) provides the orientation of current flow (no conductor).

Careful, folks. It looks like some may be connecting the same dots I did starting in 2007. You may need to look for a friendly haven of a forum in order to speak your mind  

BTW:

The 'frequencies' would be based upon the charge halt rate and the velocity of charge needed for travel around the ring. That velocity would be controlled magnitudes less that a free charge in motion in a magnetic confinement. One or both could be the difference between or the sum of others but the resulting rotational speed should result in subharmonics propagating well in the dielectric track at audible levels.

Audio analysis indicated all produced multiple frequencies. The larger the diameter the lower the base frequency (base meaning loudest). In all cases, the frequencies seemed to be rooted by multiples of 360 or 1800.

[Grumpy]

SM stated that a rotating field was present in the TPU and a necessary part of the device.

If beta particle emission is the underlying operating principle of the TPU, why is a rotating field required?

[Verpies]

Nuclei that have non-zero spin (eg.: Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, Al, H) can be resonated by:
1) A combination of two magnetic fields
   a) A static magnetic field
   b) A high frequency (HF) alternating magnetic field (perpendicular to 1a)
2) A rotating magnetic field (created by e.g. two-phased HF perpendicular fields that are 90º out of phase, see attachment).

For NMR experiments usually the method from pt.1 is used because it is easier (one HF field is easier to make than two).

[ion]

This excerpt from the patent tells a lot regarding various methods that may be used with transmission lines.

The patent also states that the line must be equal to an integer number of half wavelengths of the resonant frequency to produce the desired effect.

The dielectric in the transmission line then constitutes the "fuel", according to the patent.

It was said that SM carefully trimmed the the wire (probably twin wire lampcord) to the correct length.

TK went to great lengths to procure a special coaxial cable.

Nice work on the vector diagrams, Verpies

[Verpies]

Even less productive is when almost everyone is shot-gunning at the wrong target.

Do you mean wrong frequency or wrong Modus Operandi ?

When I proposed that part of the basic function had to be similar to a betatron but with some rotating function I took shots of all kinds from every angle. People are hell-bent on a TPU working like a conventional transformer or the control circuit being the key.

Betatrons are well established devices that accelerate charged particles.  Conventional transformers and Betatrons do not exhibit O/I ratio greater than one.

What could be the result if you could place a charge at one point on a circular track and then squeeze it around a circular path under the control of magnetic and electrostatic confinement?

A charged particle would orbit the track and radiate cyclotron radiation.  When the velocity of the charged particle decreases due to collisions with matter or radiation, then the particle spirals down.
Fast electrons (>0.5c) can penetrate solid matter up to several millimeters without collision with atoms or free positrons. (see the ICRU report #37).  Slow electrons are captured almost immediately by solid matter of a dielectric.

[Grumpy]

Nuclei that have non-zero spin (eg.: Fe, Ni, Cu, Zn, Al, H) can be resonated by:
1) A combination of two magnetic fields
   a) A static magnetic field
   b) A high frequency (HF) alternating magnetic field (perpendicular to pt.1a)
2) A rotating magnetic field (created by e.g. two HF perpendicular fields that are 90º out of phase, see attachment).

For NMR experiments usually the method from pt.1 is used because it is easier (one HF field are easier to make than two).

What happens when these nuclei are resonated?

A combination of magnetic perpendicular fields and a rotating magnetic field are explained by conventional induction.

Aren't these same nuclei affected by other forces beside magnetic ones?

[BEP]

Do you mean wrong frequency or wrong Modus Operandi ?

I was referring to almost every researcher insisting that transformer theory covered the TPU operation. (Even when they stated otherwise the ideas always fell back on common induction.)

Betatrons are well established devices that accelerate charged particles.  Conventional transformers and Betatrons do not exhibit O/I ratio greater than one.

"Conventional", yes.
There was one specific type that powered its own heater and used in electronic warfare during the cold war on board high flying aircraft. I can only say it was special and part of EMP equipment which I never gained access to details.

To this day I deeply regret not looking into the details. It had an overall toroidal winding with two levels of radial field windings. The visual configuration must have been for some form of rotation.

[Verpies]

This excerpt from the patent tells a lot regarding various methods that may be used with transmission lines.

Please keep in mind, that a single 1-dimensional HF filed (eg. a standing wave in a coax) requires much more power to excite the nuclei than a 2-dimensional field (as described in my post here in pt.1 or pt.2 ).

[BEP]

A combination of magnetic perpendicular fields and a rotating magnetic field are explained by conventional induction.

Only true for simple motor rotation. The field never rotates, even though everyone calls it a rotating magnetic field.

AFAIK, there is only one way to produce a truly rotating magnetic field. This would require the use of two vector summing fields 90 deg out of phase from each other.
The B-field created between them would actually rotate. The problem is that the resultant field would have no inductive effect because there would be no change in magnetic field density for any point around its circumference.

I would think that somehow changing that resultant field from a single magnetic bubble with useless spin to a smaller bubble that included rotation around a point along with spin would be beneficial to containing an causing an orbiting charge. That could be used to provide power.

Anyone know how to make it happen?

[Verpies]

What happens when these nuclei are resonated?

Their spins axes are tilted (see here and here) and this exposes their inner neutrons.
Exposed or free neutrons decay spontaneously in 15min (half-life) ejecting fast electrons (>0.9c).

A combination of magnetic perpendicular fields and a rotating magnetic field are explained by conventional induction.

I theory, perpendicular magnetic fields do not affect each other nor perpendicular conductors.
Crossed fields significantly affect matter, though.

Aren't these same nuclei affected by other forces beside magnetic ones?

Of course. They are affected by all forces - including gravity.
However, their spin-axes are affected only by magnetic fields and other spinning particles.

[Grumpy]

Only true for simple motor rotation. The field never rotates, even though everyone calls it a rotating magnetic field.

AFAIK, there is only one way to produce a truly rotating magnetic field. This would require the use of two vector summing fields 90 deg out of phase from each other.
The B-field created between them would actually rotate. The problem is that the resultant field would have no inductive effect because there would be no change in magnetic field density for any point around its circumference.

I would think that somehow changing that resultant field from a single magnetic bubble with useless spin to a smaller bubble that included rotation around a point along with spin would be beneficial to containing an causing an orbiting charge. That could be used to provide power.

Anyone know how to make it happen?

I was referring to simple motors.

If I rotate a bar magnet, end over end, then is the magnetic field "rotating"?

Anyone familiar with the Marinov MAGVID?  Four coils, 90 degrees apart.  He drove them 90 degrees out of phase to create "something".  This device also had a static dc coil around all of the coils to impart a perpendicular magnetic field.

All I was getting at is that magnetic fields require energy to create, and they don't usually produce more energy.  The "other spinning particles" are affecting the spin-axis of nuclei.

[Grumpy]

How does exciting the nuclei relate to induced current?

[Verpies]

Do you mean a current induced in the secondary winding of the BASER ?

[BEP]

I was referring to simple motors.

If I rotate a bar magnet, end over end, then is the magnetic field "rotating"?

Working with you before, I should have assumed so 
No, the magnetic field isn't rotating but the magnet is.

Anyone familiar with the Marinov MAGVID?  Four coils, 90 degrees apart.  He drove them 90 degrees out of phase to create "something".  This device also had a static dc coil around all of the coils to impart a perpendicular magnetic field.

Yes. The reported result was supposed to be the pulling of ambient charge along the horizontal plane into the device. This ambient charge gained angular and axial momentum as it traveled through the crossed fields. It was said that a column of static sensitive particles in the air appeared above the device several floors above.

All I was getting at is that magnetic fields require energy to create, and they don't usually produce more energy.  Verpies mentions "other spinning particles" in his reply, as affecting the spin-axis of nuclei.

Yes. A magnetic field cannot effect energy levels. That would be true for changing or static magnetic fields. I think the question may be.... can crossed and containing magnetic fields control highly energetic particles in a way that power can be used.

[Grumpy]

Do you mean a current induced in the secondary winding of the BASER ?

yes

[Verpies]

If I rotate a bar magnet, end over end, then is the magnetic field "rotating"?

I'd think yes, if I understand "end over end" correctly.
I'd need an axis diagram to be sure.

Note, that in this topic, we recently discussed progressively complex arrangements of magnetic fields. Namely:
1) A static field + perpendicular high frequency alternating field.
2) Two perpendicular high frequency alternating fields (forming a 2D rotating field when 90º out-of-phase)
3) A static field + perpendicular high frequency rotating field (a 3D structure)

(pt.1 & pt.2 are used in NMR).

Verpies mentions "other spinning particles" in his reply, as affecting the spin-axis of nuclei.

Yes, such spin-oriented particles are used in some spectroscopic techniques such as μSR or βNMR

Static magnetic fields do not create energy by themselves.
It takes energy to establish them and to increase them.  They change the paths and directionalize charged particles, though ...and they also affect nuclear spins.

[Verpies]

How does exciting the nuclei relate to induced current?

Exciting the nuclei doesn't directly cause the induced current in the secondary winding.
It is the pulsed circular beta current (consisting of fast electrons or positrons) that forms a pulsed magnetic field, that is directly coupled by the secondary winding through Faraday's induction.

The function of the HF primary winding is to create the stimulated emission of the energetic beta particles out of the excited nuclei.  After directionalization by nuclear spin-axis polarization and Lorentz deflection in the static magnetic field, those beta particles become circularly confined in the Gain Medium (core) and form the beta current.

[Verpies]

No, the magnetic field isn't rotating but the magnet is.

If this is correct then I misunderstood the phrase "end over end".

Yes. The reported result was supposed to be the pulling of ambient charge along the horizontal plane into the device.

The report also described ionization of the object inside the rotating field by pulling its charges outward.

Yes. A magnetic field cannot effect energy levels. That would be true for changing or static magnetic fields.

I agree that static magnetic field does not affect energy levels of charged particles.
However changing magnetic fields do.
For example: the Betatron accelerates charged particles or the rotating-field blower accelerates charged-dust particles to blow them out of clean-rooms (see my post above).

[Grumpy]

Exciting the nuclei doesn't directly cause the induced current in the secondary winding.
It is the pulsed circular beta current (consisting of fast electrons or positrons) that forms a pulsed magnetic field, that is directly coupled by the secondary winding through Faraday's induction.

The function of the HF primary winding is to create the stimulated emission of the energetic beta particles out of the excited nuclei.  After directionalization by nuclear spin-axis polarization and Lorentz deflection in the static magnetic field, those beta particles become circularly confined in the Gain Medium (core) and form the beta current.

SM said that they put a TPU in a tub of water and that this was a disaster, adding that the tub was emptied very quickly.  I don't see how beta current can explain this.

[Verpies]

It can't.
Beta current is not that different from ordinary current carried by slow charge carriers.  The most significant difference is that it does not require a conductor (speeding electrons just don't care).

[BEP]

If this is correct then I misunderstood the phrase "end over end".

I believe your understanding is correct but I always consider a field to be a property of space, not the object.
As an example: a bowl of firm gelatin.... insert a pencil at the center of the gelatin with pencil pointing down. Inserting the pencil only displaces the gelatin. It doesn't spin the gelatin even when you spin the pencil.
Insert the pencil into the gelatin with the pencil parallel to the gelatin's surface. Rotate the pencil about the pencil's mid-point. The only thing that happens to the gelatin is a different form of displacement.

The report also described ionization of the object inside the rotating field by pulling its charges outward.
I agree that static magnetic field does not affect energy levels of charged particles.
However a changing magnetic fields do.

My words were poorly chosen. I agree but I'm sure it is agreed that a magnetic field, static or changing, doesn't add to or subtract from the energy applied to it.

------

Sorry about the gelatin example

[Verpies]

From my experience, statements below often start an unproductive theoretical flame war, but I have to state it nonetheless.

IMO opinion space is just a reference system created by gravitating matter, that is devoid of any properties besides three-dimensionality of distance and direction.
The consequence of the above is that space cannot be twisted, bent, curved as in GR, except for an illusion of interaction between expected and actual reference systems.
This also means that IMO aether does not exist and neither do black holes as singularities.

I have no desire to defend these statements but I will if I am provoked.
I don't want this thread to deteriorate from a nice engineering discussion, we had so far, into a theoretical debate that will not bring us closer to a working device.