Magnetic field from displacement currents and the TPU

[exnihiloest]

My first idea about circuits with bifilars is that there is a displacement current in the dielectric between the two wires.
A displacement current creates a magnetic field, and a displacement current inside a dielectric encounters virtually no resistance, contrarily to a current in a wire.
The second point is that a displacement current is a shift of the electronic cloud which was centered around the atom nucleus, and so from an electric viewpoint, it consists in rotation of dipoles. These displacements are much more rapid than free electrons in a metal lattice and so could lead to new magnetic phenomena.

From an exprimental point of view, it's difficult to get a magnetic field from displacements currents only, because we need wires, and conductors between the dielectric. Both are also perhaps needed in order a new phenomenon to occur. Their relative topology may be an important point, as well as possible iron wires instead of copper and so on...  I'm thinking to methods to improve the creation of magnetic fields from displacement currents and to enhance the distinguishability with magnetic fields from ordinary currents but I'm not successful.
I propose as track to explore and possible elementary phenomenon at the origin of a TPU, the magnetic field from displacement currents.

[Peterae]

A displacement current creates a magnetic field, and a displacement current inside a dielectric encounters virtually no resistance, contrarily to a current in a wire.

I wonder if that is why Tesla designed his flat pancake bifilar coil.

So Ex are you seeing a free energy device 

[Grumpy]

It is good to see someone thinking about displacement current. 

[ion]

My first idea about circuits with bifilars is that there is a displacement current in the dielectric between the two wires.
A displacement current creates a magnetic field, and a displacement current inside a dielectric encounters virtually no resistance, contrarily to a current in a wire.
The second point is that a displacement current is a shift of the electronic cloud which was centered around the atom nucleus, and so from an electric viewpoint, it consists in rotation of dipoles. These displacements are much more rapid than free electrons in a metal lattice and so could lead to new magnetic phenomena.

From an exprimental point of view, it's difficult to get a magnetic field from displacements currents only, because we need wires, and conductors between the dielectric. Both are also perhaps needed in order a new phenomenon to occur. Their relative topology may be an important point, as well as possible iron wires instead of copper and so on...  I'm thinking to methods to improve the creation of magnetic fields from displacement currents and to enhance the distinguishability with magnetic fields from ordinary currents but I'm not successful.
I propose as track to explore and possible elementary phenomenon at the origin of a TPU, the magnetic field from displacement currents.

We will be looking forward to your work and thoughts on this with great interest.

The points in bold are especially interesting.

[gyula]

Hi Ex,

Interesting idea! 

Maybe you have thought of it, nevertheless I would mention using copper foils to enhance facing areas in the bifiilars, this way displacement currents could also be explored more easily by sandwiching other metal (maybe also copper) foils between the bifiilar copper surfaces. Such copper foils exist with self adhesive coating at one side and you may use kitchen foil or other (poli) foil as an insulator between the metal foils to separate them when you wrap them up.
Some copper foil tape on ebay :  http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=copper+foil+tape   

rgds,  Gyula

[exnihiloest]

@all
Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

I'm not yet at the stage for experimenting. I'm first trying to have a mental image of currents and electric and magnetic fields of a bifilar coil. Not simple.
In a bifilar coil, we have an electric field between the two wires, corresponding to half the voltage at the coil input.
The input current I is used to:

• build the main magnetic field B inside the coil. This is the classical field that loops outside from one end of the coil to the other one.
• build the electric field E between the two wires which is accompanied by a displacement current (= charging the capacitor)
• build the magnetic field B' that encircles this transverse displacement current and so is perpendicular to B, but having a complex topology because the displacement current is wrapped with the coil and so should be also B'. Moreover B' is of opposite direction at the interface between wire 1 and 2 than between wire 2 and 1.

There are also questions of relative phases.
The fact to have iron wires, as it is question in the thread about ION's Bifilar Circuit, should have an important effect on B'. I will try to draw a view soon.

[ion]

I have built a simple air core transformer using 31 turns of iron wire alongside 31 turns of copper wire, wound in bifilar fashion (two wires wound at once) on the 95mm L x 128mm dia. form.

Iron: Inductance : 106.2 uH           DC resistance 2.77 Ohms  Dia 1mm with Teflon insulation:1.5mm
copper: Inductance: 97.05 uH        DC resistance: 0.64 Ohms Dia 1mm with Teflon insulation: 1.42mm
Capacitance between windings:0.816 nF

I say air core because outside of the iron wire winding, there are no other ferrous metals used.

I will be measuring the coupling efficiency at various frequencies and with either winding driven.

The first test, running 0 to 5 amperes AC @ 60 Hz through the iron wire yields a very nasty waveform on the copper wire, which was loaded with a 5.6 ohm resistor. The waveform is very spikey with lots of unusual bumps. No resemblance to the clean sine wave input except for frequency. Extremely distorted.

I will post some pics later. More testing to be done.

[exnihiloest]

@ION

Interesting setup. The idea to use 2 wires of different metals, one being ferromagnetic and not the other, should be a great help to analyse the problem. If you don't get the same result when the current is through the iron wire than the copper wire, then it's probably an effect of the current inside the iron that makes the difference. If you get the same result, it is likely an artefact, the capacitive coupling acting as a high pass filter that amplifies frequencies higher than 60 Hz which are always present in the not very pure signal from the mains, giving the "spikey" waveform.
It should be also interesting to wind the two wires as a single one, while spacing each turn from the previous, in order to have an imbalance of the electric field between wire 1 and 2 (tighly side by side) and between wire 2 and 1 (more spaced). The displacement current would be more important in one direction than the opposite. Possible canceling effects would thus be removed at the price of dividing by near two the capacity between the two wires.

[giantkiller]

It should be also interesting to wind the two wires as a single one, while spacing each turn from the previous, in order to have an imbalance of the electric field between wire 1 and 2 (tighly side by side) and between wire 2 and 1 (more spaced).

This lends credence to the antenna wire wound vertically around the ring of the LTPU/SM17. It is pretty clear in the pictures.

I have rat shack spools of steel and stranded silver coated copper on semi circular iron wire core. This setup self resonated. I put in 43k and the scope shows 12Mhz across the scope. When I tried to get this setup again it would not resonate. I would be willing to set this back up if anybody wanted to mod it. The spools are wound randomly and not like machine wound. One of the builds I have has 3 vertical windings. Two of them are copper and one is vinyl lanyard for the spacing that was mentioned by ION.

[ion]

Regarding post #6 bifilar transformer test:

I have tracked down the source of the very irregular waveform when driven off a 5 Amp variac directly. The distortions of the 60 Hz waveform are due to a heavily loaded variac are amplified and exaggerated by the iron in the coil.

When I repeat the test using a 200 watt solid state audio amplifier driven by a clean sine wave oscillator, normal transformer action is observed, the output waveform closely resembles the input waveform.

I have tested in both directions driving either the copper or the iron winding, and it behaves pretty much the same, with a normal roll off of output at lower frequencies as would be expected from the small amount of iron in this transformer.

I will continue testing to see if anything unusual can be discovered.

[GibbsHelmholtz]

I propose this idea of distinguishing activity between the magnetic or electric field. 

Suppose we have a capacitor.  If we apply constant current either charging or discharging the cap, then there is no induction due to the changing current.  We can then detect any activity coming from the dielectric. 

[ion]

I propose this idea of distinguishing activity between the magnetic or electric field. 

Suppose we have a capacitor.  If we apply constant current either charging or discharging the cap, then there is no induction due to the changing current.  We can then detect any activity coming from the dielectric. 

If you apply a constant current the capacitor will charge eventually to a high voltage where corona effects and leakage become severe and cause heating or breakdown.

Better to set some threshold and switch to discharge at some predetermined voltage. Set another lower limit to switch back to charge mode. You will generate a linear triangle voltage wave.

This is typically how triangle wave generators are made, usually by putting the capacitor in the feedback loop of an op-amp (integrator configuration) and use a comparator to switch voltage on the non-inverting input.

What kind of dielectric activity do you hope to see with constant current charge/discharge?

[Allcanadian]

@Ion

I have tested in both directions driving either the copper or the iron winding, and it behaves pretty much the same, with a normal roll off of output at lower frequencies as would be expected from the small amount of iron in this transformer.

I mean no offense but I had to laugh when I read this because I did exactly the same thing a long time ago and in the end the only conclusion I could come to was that I knew better. Intuitively I knew better before I even started however there was always a slight glimmer of hope that I could be wrong so I did it anyway. I also followed the blocking oscillator/Joule Thief path and spent a great deal of time building and testing and came to the same conclusion. Intuitively we know there is nothing there because we are not really doing anything out of the ordinary yet we just keep doing the same things over and over and over and expecting different results.

As well after years of building, testing and research it became apparent that every credible person who demonstrated devices which seemed to work as claimed 1)stated their device was "simple" ... simple and 2) took their technology to their grave because they could not sell it because it was so damn simple that anybody could reproduce the same effects. Doesn't that just piss a guy off?, lol, that so many people stated the technology was so simple from their perspective yet damn near impossible from ours. I think somewhere along the line we dropped the ball and we made things so complex that nothing makes any sense anymore. Then we started groping about in the dark out of desparation doing things we know cannot work because the last 100 years of research states it cannot work as we are doing it.
My latest great insight is in the fact that realistically we only need to do one thing .... one thing, we need to produce a force on one free electron and move it with less input energy than is normally required. All these fancy BS theories and equations and engineering degrees don't amount to anything if a person cannot move one free electron with a little less input energy than is normally required. That is the answer to the great question ... that and the number 42.

AC

[exnihiloest]

I propose this idea of distinguishing activity between the magnetic or electric field. 
Suppose we have a capacitor.  If we apply constant current either charging or discharging the cap, then there is no induction due to the changing current.  We can then detect any activity coming from the dielectric. 

The direction of the polarization inside the dielectric would be constant, the electric dipoles would not rotate, we would just have a constant magnetic field so I fear that we won't observe anything, providing that the dielectric is linear.
Nevertheless if we detected some induction signal, there is a little chance that this experiment proves clearly anomalies. It could be done by injecting a triangular current signal of low frequency into the capacitor and by monitoring the possible induction with a coil transverse to the current in the dielectric, during the stable time periods between peaks, when the current is constant.
If anomalies existed in ordinary capacitors, they should have been noted for a long time. I think that this experiment could be interesting with the capacitor effect of a bifilar coil, due to the wrapped topology of the magnetic field from the displacement current. Maybe magnetic field lines disconnection/reconnection could happen.

[exnihiloest]

...every credible person who demonstrated devices which seemed to work as claimed 1)stated their device was "simple" ... simple and 2) took their technology to their grave because they could not sell it because it was so damn simple that anybody could reproduce the same effects.

I see the things otherwise. Points 1 and 2 are incompatible with the credibility of the person. Something that "seems to work" is not a fact. The credibility arises from the facts but we have not one supporting the claims of this person.

My latest great insight is in the fact that realistically we only need to do one thing .... one thing, we need to produce a force on one free electron and move it with less input energy than is normally required.
...

I agree. Nevertheless it's just a way to reformulate at an elementary level concerning electrons, the more general sentence: "we need to get more energy from the device than this we put into it". So what?

[forest]

I see the things otherwise. Points 1 and 2 are incompatible with the credibility of the person. Something that "seems to work" is not a fact. The credibility arises from the facts but we have not one supporting the claims of this person.

I agree. Nevertheless it's just a way to reformulate at an elementary level concerning electrons, the more general sentence: "we need to get more energy from the device than this we put into it". So what?

What is the fact anyway ?  Self-suficient device which powers itself and a load from the initial kick from power source running in deep forest far away from any power grid ? isn't that a fact ?

@allcanadian

Why 42 ? why not 369 ?

[GibbsHelmholtz]

If you apply a constant current the capacitor will charge eventually to a high voltage where corona effects and leakage become severe and cause heating or breakdown.

Better to set some threshold and switch to discharge at some predetermined voltage. Set another lower limit to switch back to charge mode. You will generate a linear triangle voltage wave.

This is typically how triangle wave generators are made, usually by putting the capacitor in the feedback loop of an op-amp (integrator configuration) and use a comparator to switch voltage on the non-inverting input.

What kind of dielectric activity do you hope to see with constant current charge/discharge?

Yes, triangle wave would be great for this, but I'm afraid I can't go that far due to limitation.

What we're detecting is induction due to the changing electric field.  In my view:

E= dI/dt
I = dE/dt

If this is true, then induction also occur when the voltage change is the greatest.  This is different (90 degrees out of phase) of magnetic induction.  It would explains free energy in general because this type of induction would not load the source.   Long before I saw leads attracting to capacitor when I discharge it, but it's difficult to sort out electric and magnetic.

[Allcanadian]

@Exn

I see the things otherwise. Points 1 and 2 are incompatible with the credibility of the person. Something that "seems to work" is not a fact. The credibility arises from the facts but we have not one supporting the claims of this person.

I believe you have it right and wrong, the scenario is always the same .... Let's say I am an inventor and I demonstate that my simple free energy device works beyond all shadow of doubt. Then you ask me what my secret is and I tell you that you cannot afford the price. You ask me what is the price then? and my response is .... Everything.
How can a person have credibility when their love of money and power completely overwhelms their love for their fellow man?, I submit that right or wrong they can have none.

I agree. Nevertheless it's just a way to reformulate at an elementary level concerning electrons, the more general sentence: "we need to get more energy from the device than this we put into it". So what?

No, all I need to do is move one free electron with a little less input energy than is normally required and I will be happy and so will you when I tell everyone how I did it.

[forest]

allcanadian

I will reformulate you statement : all we need is to understand why there is difference between electron current  running in vacuum and current running inside a wire . I think Steven Mark would also agree with that....

[gridbias]

This raises the obvious question that all of the tpu's might have been running in vacume ?

cutting them with a loud saw ...no shhhhhh heard

The mind boggles with possibilities . This is just another one for discussion that fits with everyhting.

[exnihiloest]

What is the fact anyway ?  Self-suficient device which powers itself and a load from the initial kick from power source running in deep forest far away from any power grid ? isn't that a fact ?
...

Not a fact but a rumor, an urban legend.
To be a fact it needs to be duplicated by third parties, and widely duplicated considering the weirdness of the alleged affirmation.

[exnihiloest]

...Let's say I am an inventor and I demonstate that my simple free energy device works beyond all shadow of doubt. Then you ask me what my secret is and I tell you that you cannot afford the price.
...

There is not one fact that the device works, not one fact the inventor has a real secret. Your supposition that the inventor try to protect his pecuniary interests being supported by none fact, is to be considered as an invention until proof of the contrary. And so, from an operational viewpoint, the argument is not relevant because it's purely imaginary.

I agree. Nevertheless it's just a way to reformulate at an elementary level concerning electrons, the more general sentence: "we need to get more energy from the device than this we put into it". So what?

No, all I need to do is move one free electron with a little less input energy than is normally required...

That's exactly what I meant, said in another way.

[Grumpy]

I agree. Nevertheless it's just a way to reformulate at an elementary level concerning electrons, the more general sentence: "we need to get more energy from the device than this we put into it". So what?

There may be a way to "borrow" momentum, transfer it to our electrons and move them, then give the momentum back. Repeated over and over, we induce current.

(I use the correlation of throwing a magic ball, hitting an object causing it to move, and then the ball disappears and magically reappears in your hand to throw it again.)

This involves "perturbation theory" - which I know very little about.

[Allcanadian]

@Exn

There is not one fact that the device works, not one fact the inventor has a real secret. Your supposition that the inventor try to protect his pecuniary interests being supported by none fact, is to be considered as an invention until proof of the contrary. And so, from an operational viewpoint, the argument is not relevant because it's purely imaginary.

That is your personal opinion and nothing more which I happen to disagree with on various levels from experience.
1)There is not one fact that the device works
Wrong, you have no facts concerning whether it works

2)not one fact the inventor has a real secret
Wrong, that is unless you know every inventor personally and they told you their secret but that is absurd

3)Your supposition that the inventor try to protect his pecuniary interests being supported by none fact
Wrong, almost every inventor I have ever known or heard of has taken great measures to protect their interests, that is human nature

4)is to be considered as an invention until proof of the contrary
And whom has to prove what to whom? you see the problem is that you deny anything which has not been proven to you personally thus your weird little reality depends on the number of people who must prove something to you personally ... unfortunately I have nothing to prove to you in any way and neither does pretty much anyone else.

5)And so, from an operational viewpoint, the argument is not relevant because it's purely imaginary.
So you have proof it is imaginary then?, Oh sorry that's right you believe that anything not proven to you personally must be imaginary ... my mistake.

[forest]

There is also a possibility to validate device by independent scientific laboratory without uncovering the principle of operation  of device. However I never heard about anybody convinced by such testing procedure....    Look for example at TPU case.