parametric pumping of L's and C's

[Peterae]

Thanks for the English Translation paper Tinman

I have uploaded a copy, this paper was mentioned in the McFreey Paper

[ion]

AFAIK, having read the English translation of the paper by Mandelstam & Papalexi, they were using mechanical input power from a motor to vary an inductance and thus cause an oscillation to grow in amplitude, whereas normally it would remain at a steady state condition.

This was tested with active oscillators using vacuum tubes and with purely passive LC circuits with a motor driven variable inductor.

I think what we are missing here is that it takes some mechanical work to vary the inductance of an L in an LC oscillating circuit.

Even if just a tiny bit of work in the form of mechanical input, an unloaded LC circuit will grow in amplitude of oscillation (if the oscillator circuit is unloaded) leading to high voltage buildup and eventual insulation or capacitor failure.

If the oscillator circuit is loaded as they did with lamps, then considerable mechanical input power was needed to pump the inductance to supply the lamp load.

At one point they reached the limit of their motor's capability as stated in the highlighted excerpt attached. If motor power was not an input why would they come up to the limit of it's rating?

Has anyone seen in the paper where total input power and total output power were compared and produced OU? I have not seen this.

If I am wrong in my interpretation of the paper, I would be happy to yield to a more correct interpretation.  I don't claim to understand the math in the paper, but the real meat for me is in the experiments. I get the concept without the math.

I don't mean to say that it is not interesting to me, as it certainly is. I have always wanted to carry out a few experiments along these lines with a dual parametric setup, pumping L and C in the same unit.

[Peterae]

Thanks for the summary ION.

How bizarre.

I think what we are missing here is that it takes some mechanical work to vary the inductance of an L in an LC oscillating circuit.

Seems to operate the same as those diagrams that were posted in the Russian device thread, the ones where L is switched in series.

[ion]

The link below has a larger paper around 6 meg that goes into greater detail.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tuks.nl%2Fpdf%2FReference_Material%2FMandelstam_Papalexi%2FMandelstam-Papalexi%2520-%2520On%2520the%2520Parametric%2520Excitation%2520of%2520Electric%2520Oscillations%2520-%25201934%2520-%2520NASA%25201968.pdf&ei=SZmGUq2BHfSl4AOn84DACg&usg=AFQjCNGPCdEv1DSzwU1N-EMwALvq9K3pZw&bvm=bv.56643336,d.dmg

Peter quote:

Seems to operate the same as those diagrams that were posted in the Russian device thread, the ones where L is switched in series.

Possibly

[wings]

The link below has a larger paper around 6 meg that goes into greater detail.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tuks.nl%2Fpdf%2FReference_Material%2FMandelstam_Papalexi%2FMandelstam-Papalexi%2520-%2520On%2520the%2520Parametric%2520Excitation%2520of%2520Electric%2520Oscillations%2520-%25201934%2520-%2520NASA%25201968.pdf&ei=SZmGUq2BHfSl4AOn84DACg&usg=AFQjCNGPCdEv1DSzwU1N-EMwALvq9K3pZw&bvm=bv.56643336,d.dmg

Peter quote:


Possibly

russian patent
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http://bd.patent.su/2386000-2386999/pat/servl/servlet92b8.html

[ion]

Here is the image from the patent which we can discuss.

At first glance and without a thorough read of the patent it appears fairly simple.

Looks like a blocking oscillator providing switching gate pulses for the SCR's which then alternately change the capacity in the circuit by switching in either C1 or C2 at precise points. A timing diagram for the switching was not included nor were waveforms.

Zener diodes keep the output from soaring under no load by providing a small load to the system.

Output is shown looped and charges the start up battery as well as supplying a load.

Would it be possible to get a complete English pdf of this patent?

Anyone know of an attempted replication?

Edit: re-upload schematic from patent showing error.

[wings]

the pdf

russian discussion here
http://realstrannik.ru/forum/52-temy-val001/93891-parametricheskij-rezonans-zubkova.html?start=252

[ion]

the pdf

russian discussion here
http://realstrannik.ru/forum/52-temy-val001/93891-parametricheskij-rezonans-zubkova.html?start=252

Many thanks for the find.

[Grumage]

Here is the image from the patent which we can discuss.

At first glance and without a thorough read of the patent it appears fairly simple.

Looks like a blocking oscillator providing switching gate pulses for the SCR's which then alternately change the capacity in the circuit by switching in either C1 or C2 at precise points. A timing diagram for the switching was not included nor were waveforms.

Zener diodes keep the output from soaring under no load by providing a small load to the system.

Output is shown looped and charges the start up battery as well as supplying a load.

Would it be possible to get a complete English pdf of this patent?

Anyone know of an attempted replication?

Dear ION.

I spent about a month tinkering with this circuit. I would first like to point out there is an error down at the bottom RH corner. You will notice that the supply is effectively shorted!!

I tried with both SCR's and Triac's but could not get them to turn on or off properly. Instead I used a pair of 12 V automotive relays driven by a pair of RMC PWM's !!

The upshot was that very occasionally I could get a rise in output!! I used a 300 turn 0.9 mm ECW in a Ferrite half pot core. The low resistance of the wire seemed to be better than 500 turns of thinner wire.

I gave up with it due to my lack of electronic knowledge but IMO it did show some promise!!

Perhaps, if you were to try this you might have more luck?? Than I.

Cheers Grum.

[ion]

Grum:

Thanks for your input on the circuit.

As it is drawn, it seems a bit messy.

I would not have done it that way, but then again it is difficult to understand all constraints and everything the designer may have had in mind, also I haven't done a thorough read of the patent yet, just a fast read over.

[Magluvin]

Here is the image from the patent which we can discuss.

At first glance and without a thorough read of the patent it appears fairly simple.

Looks like a blocking oscillator providing switching gate pulses for the SCR's which then alternately change the capacity in the circuit by switching in either C1 or C2 at precise points. A timing diagram for the switching was not included nor were waveforms.

Zener diodes keep the output from soaring under no load by providing a small load to the system.

Output is shown looped and charges the start up battery as well as supplying a load.

Would it be possible to get a complete English pdf of this patent?

Anyone know of an attempted replication?

In the circuit you show in your post seems to have a grave error.  Look at the far left bottom corner below the bridge rectifier. The output of the bridge is shorted with connections below it.

Mags

[Magluvin]

oops, grumage caught it first.    Good eye.


Mags

[Peterae]

Donald smith showed 2 devices, one had rotating veins, the other he was pumping high Mu rods.
In one of his work shops someone stood up and said can you draw a simple circuit of an OU device, he drew a single transistor pumping a coil which was wound on a high Mu rod.

I think this almost definitely shows that Don smith was well aware of NMR and in fact if you take Don smiths brief case device this is an exact replication of the McFreey device in figure 6 apart from the gain material is missing, ie a 1 or 2  turn ring sandwiched in between both resonant coils La/Lb

Here's my build

[EMdevices]

Nice!   

[ion]

In the circuit you show in your post seems to have a grave error.  Look at the far left bottom corner below the bridge rectifier. The output of the bridge is shorted with connections below it.

Mags

Yes, it is surprising this got by the patent attorney, who, as I remember, go over every trace in a circuit. I guess the patent examiner didn't catch it either.

I re-uploaded showing the error.

Peter: As always, a nice build. What did your final schematic look like and the results?

[Peterae]

Hi ION
This is an old build of Don smith's brief case device, but definitely worth digging out the cupboard and sticking a ring in between the 2 HV resonant coils, maybe it doesn't need a ring for NAR and instead uses NMR

Here's a quote from a post i made in the build thread

So going back to the signal generator and sweeping for max amplitude on my primary i get a frequency of 152.44Khz, but when i do this on my secondary coil with the 47nF i get max amplitude at 148.81kHz, so it looks to me as though my coils are not tuned right now.

Note that i did a calculation on what frequency my primary coil should work at se this quote from the build thread.

Primary Coil

Wire Length 128.3 Cm
Inductance 3.912uH
Calculated Res Freq = 179.993kHz
Wire Diameter= 18AWG 1.02362mm
Number of turns 5

Michel Meyer used 172 kHz but used iron wire, you see how close Don's build is to this, maybe the fuel in Don's device is the primary 5 turn coil and was using NMR instead of NAR.

So i am wondering if the secret to Don's build is just tuning to a sub harmonic of the NMR of the primary metal, because the device uses a spark gap it has rich harmonic content, see a plot i took at the time of the harmonics across the primary coil

[Centraflow]

Hi Peter

Now I am going to explain a very simple thing and you can take it or not, it does not worry me, but it works, and I have demonstrated this to a group of people.

Tesla's 3,6,9 is no joke, it is real when implemented in the right way.

Harmonics will look after themselves, what is needed to start with is mixing Two frequencies, yes hetrodyning, but mixing in the item you want to alter in some way by electro magnetic waves (RF).

The most important is the frequency split, it should be eg.  120khz and X6 this frequency which is 720khz, as long as it is a 6 X difference it does not matter what frequency you start with.

Here is an example in khz:-

120          720
600          840
240          1440
1200        1680
480          2880
2400        3360
960          5760
4800        6720
1920        11520
9600        13440
3840        23040

and so on,  now look if the split was say X4 below

120         480
360          600
240         960
720          1200
480          1920
1440        2400
960          3840

I have blackened the blocking frequencies, the X6 does not have any blocking frequencies, so this split will create a full spectrum of frequencies

With harmonics, as they go up and down, the power of the harmonics is less than the original, with hetrodyning you get a straight line with peaks greater at certain points in the spectrum

As with all RF you need a matching network for the frequency, so as to stop reflective power, so it is not just connecting to a coil. This system combines in "free space",  there is no direct coupling, the item to be irradiated has to be between the two radiating coils, then you can hit what ever frequency the material being irradiated needs for whatever reaction required, be it to break molecular bonds or change atomic state. The latter I have never worked on, but breaking molecular bonds yes.

Hope I have given food for thought, and as I have said, take it or leave it.

Regards

Mike

[Peterae]

Hi Mike

I will listen to any information given to me and bear it in mind, wether i remember it or not is my biggest problem.

Thanks
Peter

[Centraflow]

Hi Mike

I will listen to any information given to me and bear it in mind, wether i remember it or not is my biggest problem.

Thanks
Peter

Tell me about it at my age I have to write everything down and even then I foreget where I put it afterwards

On a serious note, think about what I have said in the previous post, I think it will help a lot. There are various threads here and in other forums that all can be related to RF and tuning in one way or the other, like reactive power is in fact reflective power, standing wave ratio (SWR) if controlled in the right way can produce some amazing effects, blowing your TX final apart

I was lucky to know and was a good friend, the son of the inventor of single side band (SSB) who lived in oakhurst road in Oswestry, shropshire, my home town. Like his father he was a great radio ham, his other passion was flying his own plane of which I spent many an hour with him flying over the Welsh countryside. Alas he is no longer with us, apart from in memory, those were the days.

Regards

Mike

[Orthofield]

Hi Peterae, Ion,

Pretty interesting thread on Mandleshtam and Papaleksi.  I know this hasn't been posted on for a while, but I'd like to start it up again, since I have some bits and pieces to add in this area.
First I've attached an M&P paper that I don't think has been put here before. I especially wanted to attach this to discuss pg. 37 of this doc, where in a footnote, M&P diss another researcher named W.L Barrow.
Ion said,
"I think what we are missing here is that it takes some mechanical work to vary the inductance of an L in an LC oscillating circuit."
and M&P further this in their critique of Barrow when they say that he derives energy from switching alone, which violates conservation of energy. Barrow shunts a capacitor in and out of an oscillator circuit containing a regenerative element to cancel resistance. The circuit behaves as a parametric oscillator, with peak currents at harmonics of the shunt speed, etc. M&P attribute the gains to the tube regen circuit, but I'm not so sure.
I will send the Barrow paper in a separate mail because of file sizes.
As a result of reading this paper and some others on amplification by stochastic noise, I decided that a switched inductor circuit would be worth trying, and JLN tested it in 1997.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tep62par.htm

Later I did private experiments with another guy, using an optoelectronic switch designed for high isolation of switch noise, and repeatedly got measurable cyclic mV in the tank circuit, at high harmonics of the switching frequency.

As a result of these considerations, I think the garnering of even small amounts of energy from a purely switched circuit as in the Russian invention is worth a look. I have a hunch that energy is cohered from heat when the electric circuit is switched to simulate a parametric dl/dt.

orthofield

[Orthofield]

Hi All,
Here is the paper by W.L Barrow that shows a device using only shunted capacitors to generate energy.
The pages to look at are pg. 4, which shows a tank circuit containing two capacitors, one of which is alternately connected and disconnected by a motor. More explanation on pg. 5
Barrow assumes that this is identical to rotating plates or inductors to vary the C or L, which is what M&P attack.

There is a tube regenerative circuit to provide just enough amplification to maintain the net resistance of the loop at zero.

Pg. 6 shows typical waveforms, where the square wave on top is the switch waveform, and the bottom curve is a parametric oscillation at 2F.
Most important is the graph on pg. 8 which plots the switching speed of the shunted cap to the current seen between the caps (black line), the tank circuit current (dashed line), and the plate current of the regen circuit (dotted line). At 2wo when the cap is shunted at twice the tank resonance, the capacitor current is 160 mA, while the plate current is about 18 mA.
The total energy input is the energy is needed to shunt the capacitor plus whatever is supplied to the regen circuit. It's hard to estimate, but since the motor could be replaced by a modern semiconductor switch, one can basically put the input energy from this route at zero, leaving only what is actually consumed by the regen circuit.

I'm unsure whether this is OU, but along with the other tests I mentioned, and the Russian patent, there does seem to be something there...
orthofield

[Orthofield]

Hi All,

I'm starting this parametric devices thread again. This subject deserves more attention. Here I will simply review where I think the best OU possibilities are.

First, a caveat. I haven't found any incontrovertible evidence of OU in any of many tests I've been involved in.

The closest were tests using hyperabrupt varactors that Roberto Notte and I did based on a patent from J. B. Gunn, inventor of the Gunn diode. This test had enough output that it seemed reasonable to use the output to feed the CMOS oscillator driving the circuit, but attempts to do this caused a collapse of the parametric oscillations (which are notably subject to load value). It turns out that we didn't use the patent as it was stated, so this is still an open area of research.

Also, the switched inductor tests that Jean-Louis Naudin and I did based on the Barrow paper uploaded in this thread, had a small, anomalous sine voltage. These tests were later repeated with another experimenter who doesn't wish to be public. He used opto isolated hexfets to eliminate the possibility that the voltage was coming from the switches, and once again we saw these small voltages. Later, we also saw anomalous voltages in switched capacitor circuits, at high harmonics of the switching frequency. As the Barrow paper I posted below shows, switched circuits inherently have losses, since flux or charge may be lost. That there are these small gains in a very lossy situation still intrigues me. And there are ways to eliminate these losses by simply switching the cap or inductor from one tank to another. I'm repeating myself here, but this material bears more review.

Then there are the papers of Howson and Szerlip who showed that by using switching at quadrature to the variation of parameter, that the Rowe relations no longer hold, and the gain can be infinite, and not controlled by the ratio F1/F2.  It looks like I haven't uploaded these yet, but I will if there is interest.

In addition, there are device concepts that use a 'parametric' (saturating) input, and an inductive output, or vice versa. This also seems a fertile area since input and output can be isolated from each other with resonant circuits. I attach a small idea I had a couple of days ago to give you the sense of what I mean. This is perhaps the simplest parametric OU device that could exist.

In the pic you see a toroid made of a square loop material. A drive coil periodically saturates the core at frequency F. A permanent magnet (not shown) can also be used to bias the core to move it into the nonlinear part of the square BH curve. Two independent parametric oscillators, RLC circuits tuned at 2F, are also coupled to the toroid. The inductive output at F is more or less tuned out. If the core is saturated rapidly enough, the frequency is high enough to overcome dissipation in each cycle, and the load resistances are chosen properly, both oscillators will oscillate. However, the Hopf Bifurcation shows that there are two equally likely oscillations that may develop, 180 degrees out of phase with each other. If we can make this happen in the independent oscillators, their fluxes will oppose and 'cancel' in the core, and there will be no saturation of the core by the output coils (the mode in which parametric transformers load their primaries). In addition, each of the output coils also induces on the other one, increasing the output.

I'm not necessarily proposing a build of this device-- not as easy as it looks!-- but just to show that these 'mixed' devices have some possibilities for development.

Well, this is a bit of a ramble through a lot of stuff, but it gives you the idea of what areas I think would be worth looking into:

1) hyperabrupt diodes, repeating the gunn test but applying the technology as he suggests
2) noise coherence (or 'something') resulting from switched inductors and capacitors
3) switching at quadrature to violate Manley-Rowe as in the Howson-Szerlip papers
4) mixing parametric and inductive means together

Regards,
Fred

[muDped]

Orthofield,

Your diagram brings to mind the harmonic problems
which had to be overcome in early tape recorder
development.  Once a magnetic bias was introduced
the harmonics were no longer produced on the
recordings.  Strangely, it was discovered that the
bias could be either steady state magnetic or at
an injection frequency much higher than the desired
audio frequencies to be recorded on tape.

Your discussions and questions are very, very thought
provoking.  Really great stuff to encourage thinking.

[Orthofield]

Hi MuDped,

Thanks, that's very encouraging, MuDped!

I might not be thinking of the right technology, but I remember that superimposing a much higher frequency on the tape is a way of continually shaking up the domains so that the material can be impressed by the harmonics. It basically unsticks the domains. It's not exactly parametric but an interesting way of altering the characteristics of a magnetic material.

Fred

[muDped]

Quite true.  It's not parametric but was a method of overcoming
magnetic non-linearity which distorted the audio signal.

Although there may be some similarity in the approach.