Critical Thinking

[Room3327]

Personally I think all the arguments made here are flawed on almost every level as the rule of law states if you watch one man kill another without justification and do nothing you are just as guilty throught complicity.

Now we have over two million innocent civilians, women and children, dead in Afganistan and Iraq and it is a known fact, who exactly do you think is responsible?.

Personally I think it's ridiculous that everyone in all of these conflicts are running around with blood on their hands as they claim no responsibility or involvement. It is pathetic and while they may look civilized we can be sure they are little more than savages at heart because we are not judged on what we say but what we do.

AC

AC, Your government has been involved in these conflicts, does that make you a savage too, are all Americans savages because of what our government does.  If you really look at unrevised history you will clearly see the provocation in the majority of conflicts over the last 1400 years was expansionism by Islam. When countries are attacked by Islam do we not have a right to defend ourselves, should the Kurds lay down their weapons and refuse to defend themselves, you know what would happen if they did that, yes you do don't you.  We call it genocide Muslims call it ethnic cleansing.   You can say anything you want but when they come for my head I'm going to fight and they are currently doing just that, they are after your head to buddy.  I think we are all appalled by the blood and inhumanity of warfare so stop Islam from provoking these conflicts - oh that's right none of you believe Islam has anything to do with these conflicts (It's the Jews, it's Zionism, It's America, It's Christians, It's Poverty, It's always something other then Islam).  So really take a close hard look at what they DO and then decide who the really bad guys are.  Ask yourself would you rather live in an Islamic country or the one you are currently in?

[Allcanadian]

@room3327

AC, Your government has been involved in these conflicts, does that make you a savage too, are all Americans savages because of what our government does.

It may help to explain my position, when writing my last post I expected you to respond in kind as you have and I had already formulated this response I am writing now and predicted your next response to this post as well as my next response to your future post which I figure might occurr in the next 30 minutes. It's easy to do because as much as we might think our thoughts are unique we are very much creatures of habit and about as predictable as Gravity. Now if we were face to face I might make the comment I did and you might feel threatened by it and point your finger at me as you have and I would point my finger back at you. We would become more aggresive at which point the name calling and personal attacks may start then aggresion which of course might lead to violence... again very predictable. At which point a little critical thinking might be helpful, now if we already know the outcome then why would anyone think they should participate?.

So yes I am complicit as are you and everyone else which was why I stated-- Quote "Personally I think it's ridiculous that everyone in all of these conflicts are running around with blood on their hands as they claim no responsibility or involvement.". Note I specifically used the term "everyone" to include myself because while I may disagree with the actions of my government I am still bound to them because I am Canadian and we as Canadians elected them. The difference is I am willing to admit that yes I am complicit and yes I am in some small way responsible. How could any person call themselves a responsible adult and then deny all responsibility for actions which in some small way they have participated in?. However we see this everywhere don't we, we see everyone pointing fingers at each other but apparently nobody is to blame and nobody is at fault in any way.

I also think it's important to connect the right dots, we are consumers who demand energy, resources , jobs etc... and our government not unlike a corporation is obligated to meet our needs by any means. So our demands force them to act as a matter of cause and effect but then when they do act we claim no responsibility for their actions. Not unlike the share holders who demand profits at any cost by any means from the corporation and then when the corporation goes too far the shareholders deny all responsibility and so does the corporation. It is comical because everyone has their hand in the cookie jar and all are saying it was not me... who then?, apparently nobody.

Your are not stuck in traffic you are the traffic... you just don't realize it, and that big pileup you know is coming is just around the corner.

AC

[Room3327]

@AC,
I don't have a problem with you, I'm not bringing it on, I don't want a fight do you.  For the most part I agree with most of what you say, It's funny how nobody seems to be hearing what I say.  At this point I am tired of the battle, you can all think whatever you want.  I definitely do not enjoy this type of interaction never thought I'd be in this kind of position I'm sorry apparently my critical thinking is not as good as yours. As long as no one has my back here (very few know anything real about Islam) I will make myself scarce around here and you all can have your bash everyone but Islam fest. I used to think England, Canada and America were friends and allies but I can see that is no longer the case the lies of Islam have been believed it's like you all drank the koolaid I can only hope you wake up someday soon.
Bye!

[Allcanadian]

@Room3327

I don't have a problem with you, I'm not bringing it on, I don't want a fight do you.

I know and I do not want a fight either I was just trying to point how easy it is for things to escalate and it is pretty easy to keep things under control once we understand our own thoughts and how we fit into the picture... it takes two to tango.

For the most part I agree with most of what you say, It's funny how nobody seems to be hearing what I say.  At this point I am tired of the battle, you can all think whatever you want.  I definitely do not enjoy this type of interaction never thought I'd be in this kind of position I'm sorry apparently my critical thinking is not as good as yours. As long as no one has my back here (very few know anything real about Islam) I will make myself scarce around here and you all can have your bash everyone but Islam fest. I used to think England, Canada and America were friends and allies but I can see that is no longer the case the lies of Islam have been believed it's like you all drank the koolaid I can only hope you wake up someday soon.

I hope I understand your view point however I'm not sure what the solution is let alone how to approach the problem. I would agree there is a great deal of deception going on in regards to Islam and other religions which conceal their true motivations. Most indicators suggest Islam wants no part in peace and the only acceptable outcome is complete domination which obviously is never going to happen. However in a sense this is a monster of our own creation because the more we try to change them to be like us the more threatened they feel and the more extreme they become... kind of like a teenager.

What I know of teenagers having been one is that it is best to let them figure it out, give them our support and advice but let them make their own mistakes. Believe me I have seen some very bad kids who were worse as teenagers but then somewhere along the way they turned into some pretty awesome and very responsible parents. The real problem I have seen is when the parents will not let it go because they are psychopaths and unfortunately their children usually turn out just like them.

In any case I think many know perfectly well what your saying however there are more than a few religions with extreme views who will not back down and will not negotiate which is unfortunate. As well governments tend to dominate concentrating on re-election versus representation. Religions tend to dominate concrentrating on the number converted rather than the lives improved. People tend to dominate concentrating on taking from others rather than giving. All of us seem to have lost our way and what we say is not what we are doing. Obviously everyone cannot be right and dominate and nobody seems to want to give an inch so we can be almost certain disaster is on the horizon. It is no master plan nor conspiracy it is human nature and we are in big trouble.

AC

[wattsup]

@all

Hmmmmmmm. Looks like this thread has calmed down from the recent topic of War and Peace, so I will use it to continue some CT. hehehe

This other particular thread was started by @Tommy Reed, but has probably been locked after 1 page (or maybe I was banned from posting further on that thread), I don't know. Anyways, further to my post there......
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2674.msg42855#msg42855

You see the drawing I prepared. Well this guy comes close....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gld25H-kHTg
except that he is using cored coils instead of just using a wire stator without a core. But even then, he does not indicated how he placed his magnets, but I see both magnet disks are aligned so the magnets hit each side of the cores at the same time. THAT IS NOT GOOD. You are basically pulling at atoms from each side simultaneously so you will get only the excess of two cancellation conditions showing as output, hehehe. He was better to at least put one magnet disk offset by half a magnet to magnet distance to have each hitting one side in succession, but in order to do that properly he needs to make sure the magnet are the same polarity pointing inwards from each disk. YOU ONLY NEED TO PLAY WITH ONE POLARITY since the other will be automatically set-up inside the coil.

Since all atoms are gravity sensitive to one degree or another, with conductive atoms at the top of the list, and since copper atoms reply or respond to changing magnetic (I am calling it magnetic but it is really a gravitic effect) forces, you are basically playing with the copper atom core just as if it was a small magnet itself inside a gyroscopic shell (degree of gyroscopic ability determines if an element is conductive or not). Same occurs in your energized coil. Basically, when you pulse a primary coil, the secondary sees it as Planet, No Planet, Planet, No Planet, Planet, No Planet, Planet, No Planet, Planet, etc., and the copper atoms respond in kind to put its opposing polarity towards the new planet each time it pops up. 

Some will say that is totally asinine to say atoms have gravitic cores that can do up to 6 different effects that I have identified as Stay, Show, Sway, Swing, Spin and Shoot or what I call the 6S's. The proof of this is very simple. If electricity was a conductive effect that involved "electrons" that flow, electrons that are also on all outside shells of all atoms, then a wire made of calcium should work the same as a wire made of copper, because in the world of the electrons, electrons are electrons no matter what the element, they are always the same electrons so the actual material should make no difference in how the particular atom is conductive. But they do make a difference so there has to be something else at play inside the copper atom that is not in play inside a calcium atom.

In the Spin Conveyance model, the difference between conductive and non-conductive atoms can be defined by using the Periodic Table of Elements (PTE) where, regardless if protons and neutrons exist or not, science has produced some empirical data that suggest some difference in core make-up that the PTE defines in particular numbers of each proton and neutron. We can then surmise that it is the slight variation of total protons and neutrons counts that define if an element will be conductive or not. Copper atoms have 29 protons and 35 neutrons making it slightly off balance and it is this slight imbalance that provides the atom core with the ability to do all 6S's since one half of the core will follow a gravity source more then the other half. The other factor, again regardless if electrons exist or not is the empirical data of the atomic shell that is defined by the PTE as electron counts. The first two layers of the copper atom show data as 2 and 8 and this produces the gyro mechanism that almost all atoms have. The remaining outer shells will define how transparent the core is to the effect of other cores beside it or from the outside, for copper, the 3rd layer is 18 and fourth is 1 so its outer shell after the gyro mechanism is transparent enough for the effect of one copper core to effect the next copper core beside it and this is where Spin Conveyance starts. Spin Conveyance can start anywhere in the line of copper atoms making up the wire hence when a magnet rotor turn inside a copper stator, it is spin conveyance that sends two distinctive spin orientations to the ends of the stator wire and it is those spins that you plug into to run your devices as readily available spin that can be conveyed via any other copper wire to another coil or to a load like a bulb.

The calcium atom has 20 protons and 20 neutrons so its core is well balanced hence there is no particular side of the core that has more gravitic response so the atom Stays impartial thus produces none or very little influence from gravity sources. All atoms have their own story to tell depending on the degree of balance or imbalance of the core make-up, plus the level of shielding around the core.  I am using the words proton/neutron/electron only to discuss this in standard terms without endorsing the existence of either of them, only to state that the empirical data indicates the differences in the PTE.

Yes proof is in the pudding and I am working on a proof of concept for this to show and experiment on our benches, see the various effects that will discount any form of electron travel or field to wire impartation effects and show that all such effects are purely gravity driven. hahaha Very soon.

One of my main present hindrances is to find spherical neo magnets 1/4", 3/8" and 1/2" dia. but they need to have a center hole going through the equator line between the north and south hemispheres. I just can't seem to find a supplier of this type of magnet and wonder why? It should be one of their best sellers since with this, you can make real gyroscopic demonstrations of the atomic core. I wonder why they are so hard to find?

wattsup

[wattsup]

@All

It looks like finding spherical magnets with a hole in the center will be much more difficult then anticipated.

I sent out two email to known magnet providers and got these responses.

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Request for quote

Hello,

I am looking for spherical neo magnets 1/4", 3/8" and 1/2" dia. but they need to have a center hole going through the equator line between north and south hemispheres.

Hopefully you may have access to these but I cannot see them on your web site.

Any remark would be appreciated.

Kindest regards.
Leon Stepanian
=========================

Hello Leon,

We do not have a magnet like that in stock. We have not had very good success in making spheres with holes in them.

Regards,
Sales
Amazing Magnets, LLC

====================================

Leon,

Thank you for contacting us.  We do not have the capability to manufacture sphere magnets with holes.  It isn't possible to accurately align the magnetic field relative to the hole.  Also, the NdFeB material is very brittle, so the edges of the hole would be rough and very prone to chipping.

Best Regards,

Michael Paul
K&J Magnetics, Inc.
www.kjmagnetics.com

=========================================

The advent of not finding such magnets is not good at all. The other option is to make a gryo mechanism with a 3D printer or other method and have the magnets snap into an assembly. What a bummer.

wattsup

[giantkiller]

Make your own iron putty and anneal it under a control field?

[Matt Watts]

wattsup,

How accurate do these need to be?

Can you stack different diameter speaker magnets up to make somewhat of a spherical shape?  Small ones at the poles; large one at the equator...

[wattsup]

@GK

Hmmmmmm. Maybe if I can find some iron balls, drill them out, then magnetize them, but even then, they would never be a strong as neos. My other option is to see if using square neos with a hole will work as well but still would not provide the real spherical look.

@Matt Watts

No that would make them very big and not powerful enough to show the effect.

What I need to do is produce a length of spherical neo magnets that are each on a their own independent gyro structure to show how spin conveyance works at the atomic scale. Let's say you had 10 of these gyro magnets in a row from left to right. By approaching a strong magnet to the left side and turning that magnet, the first neo will start turning and turn the next that will turn the next and so on, like those long flexible drill extensions you use to make holes in hard to reach places. Also, let's say the strong magnet approaches and rotates next to magnets 5 and 6. You will see the other magnets turn from each end as well and this shows how a generator magnet rotor works on copper wire stators.

The gyro structure does two things. Provides spin at any angle as well as providing the binding method between gyros.

wattsup

[giantkiller]

Got it!
Drill the steel ball axis, Slice ball in half perpendicular to the axis, slip a ring magnet between the two. Slip steel collar down in axis. Of course the poles of the ring would be on the planar side and the not circumferal edge.

Way strong!

[Aking.21]

I've come across this old patent and wonder if anyone has any comments on it.
Essentially McFarland Cook claims a self running 4 coil system.
It's from 1871.

[Farmhand]

Personally I think all the arguments made here are flawed on almost every level as the rule of law states if you watch one man kill another without justification and do nothing you are just as guilty throught complicity.

Now we have over two million innocent civilians, women and children, dead in Afganistan and Iraq and it is a known fact, who exactly do you think is responsible?.

Personally I think it's ridiculous that everyone in all of these conflicts are running around with blood on their hands as they claim no responsibility or involvment. It is pathetic and while they may look civilized we can be sure they are little more than savages at heart because we are not judged on what we say but what we do.

AC

Which rule of law is that exactly, can you cite that in a law document or something. Sounds like a "law" made up by people and foisted on other people by force or threat of
force or incarceration. Is that the "good Samaritan" thing you speak of or the "guilt by association" thing. Because it is entirely possible I could see one man walk up to another man and kill him with apparently no justification, when in reality the killed guy could be "wanted dead or alive' by the law and i just don't know it, or the man killed could have done something that he deserved to be killed for.

To be sure I would need to know all the facts. Would I be expected to approach a man who just killed a man and ask if he is justified in his actions.

U.S, Canadian and Australian laws are not all the same, nor are the laws in Afganistan applicable here, the laws of any "country" in my opinion are "man made" and secondary to Natural Law, or Common Law.

..

[wattsup]

This post is in response to @tinman's post at OU located here.....

http://overunity.com/15083/the-new-generator-no-effect-counter-b-emf-part-2-selfrunning/msg427569/#msg427569

Indeed TJ,but there are many here that will disagree. The fact is that not only can it be delayed,it can be completely reversed so as to add torque to the prime mover. The proof is in the fact that an electromagnetic field dose have a speed limit--it dose take some time to develope,as the speed is not infinite. Man has done many test to confirm the speed of light,but what about the speed of a magnetic field?-is it faster than the speed of light,or slower . One little hint is that if we apply a heavy load(low resistance) to the inductive kickback of an inductor when it becomes open circuit,the magnetic field around that inductor will collap's slower than if we applied a lite high resistive load to the inductive kickback.

Now-here is a question.
Dose the magnetic field invert when the inductor becomes open,and a load is applied to the inductive kickback,or dose it remain the same field orientation. Is it the voltage polarity of that inductor that determines the magnetic field orientation,or the direction of current flow through that inductor?.

@tinman

Instead of explaining a possible solution, I made a block diagram to show a possible working of flyback to use as a repulse. The idea is to use an inductive coil after P1 (SIC) that will provide more flyback potential while it leaves the primary on the B+ side for the initial pulse effect. When Mosfet 1 opens, the B+ will reclaim it's position inside P1 and SIC pushing flyback through the diode and to P2.

The idea is to never collect flyback but use it, as it is, on a second primary. Winding directions and all the finer points can be worked out but the general idea is to never use the flyback for storage since the process itself will generate more losses. So you are better off using it in the same system right away since the P2 will be able to use the flyback as it is.

The tricky part is Mosfet 2 that needs to be closed when Mosfet 1 opens and open when Mosfet 1 closes. This will cause a second flyback (optional) that will be of lower value that may be good for battery recharge since it will be of lower voltage, closer to the battery value.

So you can have a pulse motor with two primaries (P1/P2) or a magnet wheel with 8 drive coils (4P1/4P2) or even a standard transformer with two primaries will do the same thing. You can use this strictly as a motive system, or on transformers or toroids or E-cores with a secondary output. It can even be used in a cascading mode where P1 flyback to P2, then P2 flyback to P3, then P3 flyback to P4, etc., and see how far one initial pulse can go by the fourth pulse. There are so many ways to play.

There is some R&D to do to work out the best SIC coil value and I am sure a standard formula could be derived from such research.

As for your question, I no longer believe in magnetic fields, only pulsed coil or magnetic presence as a localized gravity source acting upon the actual atoms of copper and not on any electrons, so I can't say about your question. The field collapse we think is happening before flyback is only a nice story because everything in present EE has to include a field, electron flow and a never ending relation between voltage and current lag.

The other thing I am obliged to say at this point is that I am more then convinced now that wound coils will kill any chance of OU. Let's use the common analogy of a straight piece of wire with "electron flow" as being water flowing in a nice clean garden hose. But when wound in a coil, we always think the same garden hose analogy applies, were the electron flow is in the same unhindered manner. But that never winds up being true. The closest analogy is that the wound coil now becomes a garden hose with scale build-up inside causing a decrease in flow rate at the same applied pressure. It's not because the wire is scaling up but because the wire is wound next to other turns that cannot all react in the same direction and cause countering or cancellation. It's very simple, a 1000 foot straight piece of wire will have very low inductance and when wound in a coil will have much higher inductance. That inductance did not come from the wire itself but the topology of how it is used. Inductance is inter wind cancellation of potential. My use of the SIC is simply to take advantage of that hindrance to produce more flyback, which at Mosfet 1 off, is the immediate realignment of the copper atoms that causes the flyback phenomenon. NOT FIELD COLLAPSE.

But regardless, because the solutions for that are much more involved, the coil usage here should be enough to show the effects. Hmmmm. It is getting to be harder and harder for me to talk about Standard EE without adding Spin Conveyance Logic (SCL). Seems like I am beginning to be a bilingual OUer. hahahahaha

The other attachment is a good guide to wire usage and I could say so much about this relative to SCL, especially when you are using a certain wire size but pulsing at much lower maximum stress levels then the wire can actually handle. What happens to all those copper atoms that are not utilized? If you take a 12 AWG wire and pulse 10 watts, do you think all the copper atoms are being used? A streamer of a spark gap at 15000 volts and 0.001 amps will be very very thin. As you increase the amps and keep the voltage the same, the spark will grow thicker and thicker. The same applies in your wires. Low potential pulses in a 12 AWG wire will create a thin streamer of spin that continuously wiggles around in the wire thickness, just like it moves around in a spark gap (or like they move out from a Tesla Coil). Increase the amps and more of the copper atoms are now part of the streamer. Increase the amps much more and all the atoms will be affected until you get this nice red glow. So the more your wire is matched to its intended purpose, the less copper atoms will remain inactive and when on a core, the stronger the impartation from wire to core. If you don't use it, you lose it. These are logical notions that SCL has enabled me to develop as bases for future experiments. We always need to remember that we are dealing with atoms. The size of the copper atom compared to the thickness of your wire could be analogous to the width of the Grand Canyon in human terms. So those active atoms can be very far away from the core even if the wire is wound right onto it. Proximity has always been the silent basis for energy transfer so you need to think in atomic terms, because we are in fact manipulating atoms to do our bidding.

wattsup

[Allcanadian]

@wattsup

As for your question, I no longer believe in magnetic fields, only pulsed coil or magnetic presence as a localized gravity source acting upon the actual atoms of copper and not on any electrons, so I can't say about your question. The field collapse we think is happening before flyback is only a nice story because everything in present EE has to include a field, electron flow and a never ending relation between voltage and current lag.

That is a good start and it is not so much a matter of right or wrong, to conform to normality or not, but to take a fresh perspective on the subject. If we look closely many say they are reasonable and open minded but then when we hold a view outside the norm we are judged as being illogical at which point it would seem very few are as open minded as they claim. It would seem they are very open minded but only so long as our view should happen to agree with their view in some way. Which is where critical thinking comes into play and understanding many things we take for granted as being known and understood are simply preconceived perceptions.

The other thing I am obliged to say at this point is that I am more then convinced now that wound coils will kill any chance of OU. Let's use the common analogy of a straight piece of wire with "electron flow" as being water flowing in a nice clean garden hose. But when wound in a coil, we always think the same garden hose analogy applies, were the electron flow is in the same unhindered manner. But that never winds up being true. The closest analogy is that the wound coil now becomes a garden hose with scale build-up inside causing a decrease in flow rate at the same applied pressure.

That is an interesting proposition, if we have a straight piece of wire then it is for the most part a singular process however when we add another turn then the current/voltage in each turn produces a magnetic field. Now if the field around one turn couples to the next then we could say they are bound to one another. One turn cannot change without inducing the other, the effect being that each turn couples to the next and all are coupled to each other forming a larger field. So it would seem we are trying to produce change in a device we have designed to hinder or limit change on every level. Then we add an iron core in which a magnetic field is induced and not only is each turn coupled to the next but to each section of the laminated iron core. In regards to change it would seem we have done our best to ensure the level of change in our devices remains within the limitations we have pre-defined. It is no wonder all our devices act the same because we have taken action to ensure they do without even knowing it in many cases.

AC

[Erfinder]

This post is in response to @tinman's post at OU located here.....

http://overunity.com/15083/the-new-generator-no-effect-counter-b-emf-part-2-selfrunning/msg427569/#msg427569


@tinman

Instead of explaining a possible solution, I made a block diagram to show a possible working of flyback to use as a repulse. The idea is to use an inductive coil after P1 (SIC) that will provide more flyback potential while it leaves the primary on the B+ side for the initial pulse effect. When Mosfet 1 opens, the B+ will reclaim it's position inside P1 and SIC pushing flyback through the diode and to P2.

The idea is to never collect flyback but use it, as it is, on a second primary. Winding directions and all the finer points can be worked out but the general idea is to never use the flyback for storage since the process itself will generate more losses. So you are better off using it in the same system right away since the P2 will be able to use the flyback as it is.

The tricky part is Mosfet 2 that needs to be closed when Mosfet 1 opens and open when Mosfet 1 closes. This will cause a second flyback (optional) that will be of lower value that may be good for battery recharge since it will be of lower voltage, closer to the battery value.

So you can have a pulse motor with two primaries (P1/P2) or a magnet wheel with 8 drive coils (4P1/4P2) or even a standard transformer with two primaries will do the same thing. You can use this strictly as a motive system, or on transformers or toroids or E-cores with a secondary output. It can even be used in a cascading mode where P1 flyback to P2, then P2 flyback to P3, then P3 flyback to P4, etc., and see how far one initial pulse can go by the fourth pulse. There are so many ways to play.

There is some R&D to do to work out the best SIC coil value and I am sure a standard formula could be derived from such research.

As for your question, I no longer believe in magnetic fields, only pulsed coil or magnetic presence as a localized gravity source acting upon the actual atoms of copper and not on any electrons, so I can't say about your question. The field collapse we think is happening before flyback is only a nice story because everything in present EE has to include a field, electron flow and a never ending relation between voltage and current lag.

The other thing I am obliged to say at this point is that I am more then convinced now that wound coils will kill any chance of OU. Let's use the common analogy of a straight piece of wire with "electron flow" as being water flowing in a nice clean garden hose. But when wound in a coil, we always think the same garden hose analogy applies, were the electron flow is in the same unhindered manner. But that never winds up being true. The closest analogy is that the wound coil now becomes a garden hose with scale build-up inside causing a decrease in flow rate at the same applied pressure. It's not because the wire is scaling up but because the wire is wound next to other turns that cannot all react in the same direction and cause countering or cancellation. It's very simple, a 1000 foot straight piece of wire will have very low inductance and when wound in a coil will have much higher inductance. That inductance did not come from the wire itself but the topology of how it is used. Inductance is inter wind cancellation of potential. My use of the SIC is simply to take advantage of that hindrance to produce more flyback, which at Mosfet 1 off, is the immediate realignment of the copper atoms that causes the flyback phenomenon. NOT FIELD COLLAPSE.

But regardless, because the solutions for that are much more involved, the coil usage here should be enough to show the effects. Hmmmm. It is getting to be harder and harder for me to talk about Standard EE without adding Spin Conveyance Logic (SCL). Seems like I am beginning to be a bilingual OUer. hahahahaha

The other attachment is a good guide to wire usage and I could say so much about this relative to SCL, especially when you are using a certain wire size but pulsing at much lower maximum stress levels then the wire can actually handle. What happens to all those copper atoms that are not utilized? If you take a 12 AWG wire and pulse 10 watts, do you think all the copper atoms are being used? A streamer of a spark gap at 15000 volts and 0.001 amps will be very very thin. As you increase the amps and keep the voltage the same, the spark will grow thicker and thicker. The same applies in your wires. Low potential pulses in a 12 AWG wire will create a thin streamer of spin that continuously wiggles around in the wire thickness, just like it moves around in a spark gap (or like they move out from a Tesla Coil). Increase the amps and more of the copper atoms are now part of the streamer. Increase the amps much more and all the atoms will be affected until you get this nice red glow. So the more your wire is matched to its intended purpose, the less copper atoms will remain inactive and when on a core, the stronger the impartation from wire to core. If you don't use it, you lose it. These are logical notions that SCL has enabled me to develop as bases for future experiments. We always need to remember that we are dealing with atoms. The size of the copper atom compared to the thickness of your wire could be analogous to the width of the Grand Canyon in human terms. So those active atoms can be very far away from the core even if the wire is wound right onto it. Proximity has always been the silent basis for energy transfer so you need to think in atomic terms, because we are in fact manipulating atoms to do our bidding.

wattsup

Resonance is being limited to after the fact conditions, associated with L and C only.  Its not being applied to geometry of the system.  Careful examination of the circuits in question reveals that geometry is as important as the storage mechanisms (L and C) themselves.  We must see the significance of proper geometry if for no other reason because L and C manifest and predominate at very specific geometric points.  Resonance in the geometry is missing!

When we review our situation from a geometry based resonance standpoint, we observe that the induced potential and its associated current are not coincident with the the inducing flux.  The two manifest out of phase, even in the so-called series and parallel resonant condition!  The so-called resonant condition is not resonant!  

The polarities setup in accordance with the law dictates that we will have magnetic collisions!  A collision between the induced magnetic field and the field which induced it, this collision is scheduled to take place at the zero crossing or TDC however, owing to ignorance, among other things, the collision never takes place at this location!  We find the event(s) taking place just before and just after (in this case) the rotor magnet aligns with the coil.  Contrary to popular opinion, the collision is desired, because through it our generators transition from simple rotary induction machines to compound rotary-linear induction machines.  Two generators in one, the two sharing the fundamental, the latter operating at a frequency which is many orders higher than the prior.

Your mission should you choose to accept is to stop listening to folks like myself and the like, and listen to Nature.  The machines we work on obey no man made laws, this makes them perfect teachers.  Once the idea that these machines follow Nature and not man sunk in deep enough, I realized that what I was looking for was a magnetic configuration which gives you maximum induced potential at the zero crossing, while maintaining maximum coupling and field strength.  

Maximum opposition to change in current describes the behavior found in electromagnetic systems.  Methods based on this concept, dominate on all levels.  

Maximum opposition to change in voltage describes the behavior found in magneto-dielectric systems.  At present, none discuss how these systems could function and lead to methods for harvesting current without opposition.

To each his own.


Regards

[wattsup]

@wattsup
That is a good start and it is not so much a matter of right or wrong, to conform to normality or not, but to take a fresh perspective on the subject. If we look closely many say they are reasonable and open minded but then when we hold a view outside the norm we are judged as being illogical at which point it would seem very few are as open minded as they claim. It would seem they are very open minded but only so long as our view should happen to agree with their view in some way. Which is where critical thinking comes into play and understanding many things we take for granted as being known and understood are simply preconceived perceptions.

That is an interesting proposition, if we have a straight piece of wire then it is for the most part a singular process however when we add another turn then the current/voltage in each turn produces a magnetic field. Now if the field around one turn couples to the next then we could say they are bound to one another. One turn cannot change without inducing the other, the effect being that each turn couples to the next and all are coupled to each other forming a larger field. So it would seem we are trying to produce change in a device we have designed to hinder or limit change on every level. Then we add an iron core in which a magnetic field is induced and not only is each turn coupled to the next but to each section of the laminated iron core. In regards to change it would seem we have done our best to ensure the level of change in our devices remains within the limitations we have pre-defined. It is no wonder all our devices act the same because we have taken action to ensure they do without even knowing it in many cases.
AC

Sorry for delay in responding to your comments, which surround the problem very well. @Erfinder as well and I will respond more precisely in a day or so. I need to make sure these posts are saying what I need to convey without creating any  misunderstandings or as few as possible since there is another main quandary about our coils. Yes, there is much worst.

THE WOUND COILS AND THE CORE DILEMMA FOR OU

Besides the problem of tight inter-winding counter effects, that exist even in every straight piece of wire but is compounded when wire is wound in multi-turns and layers, we have this next problem when primary coils share a core with one or more secondaries.

The core of a transformer being laminated or ferrite type, itself, cannot function like any type of diode that could hold a shift in core potential from the primary side of the core to the secondary side of the core. The core is omni-directional in that you can place a primary anywhere on any type of core and wind a secondary anywhere as well, even at the most unseemly locations on the core and you will always get some level of coupling. Pulse either and the other will show coupling. The core works both ways or more precisely every way. As a central object between primary and secondary the core becomes a pivot point where the strongest force from either side pushes to the adverse side.

So, as soon as you ever arrive at a condition where the secondary is outputting more energy then what is fed in to the primary, the secondary will thereafter become the primary and the primary will become the secondary and in most cases, you start blowing primary driver mosfets and the system stops. The construct we have been running after is faulty from the very start. You cannot pulse a primary and expect OU on the secondary if both are on the same omni-directional coupling medium. Even if the secondary was wound with the most special wire in the world (future oriented copper wire) where outputs could reach many factors above OU, you could not get OU from that set-up simply because both share the same core where only the strongest wins the impress game.

Would this be considered a proper analysis of the problem?

For me, this has nothing to do with any Law of Conservation, it has to do with bench observations that we have been doing since many years. So if you are looking for OU in a primary/core/secondary (PCS) event, it's not that it will never happen, it's more that it cannot happen since that is the nature of the beasts we are designing and playing with if using conventional rules of engagement, which we are. We have been pounding our heads with PCS configurations for years and years now but this one basic PCS premise should have been first and foremost on our list of observations and considerations years ago. But all we were concerned with is Standard EE just saying "The Law of Conversation of Energy says this is impossible". But none have ever really come forward with a logical explanation of why this actually occurs so we can then really hone in on the real problems of OU production.

Instead, it seems a lot of time has been spent on trying to fight this by working to modify voltage to current lag, we try to fight against BEMF, we try to fight against flyback, but these effects are all natural parts of the topologies we choose to deploy and the results are not surprisingly just normal. And for what? Too ultimately arrive at OU levels where the secondary will become the primary and things will still go haywire. I am stunned by what I just wrote here, cause it really hits home and hard.

For me this one realization of this very real constraint in our efforts could be considered a sort of "personal discovery" or a major wake up call to all OUers. This does not, by any means, become a confirmation that OU is impossible. It only means OU is impossible if you play by regular rules. Unless you can invent a lamination or core that incorporates a diode type feature where, let's use the word "flux" for simplicity, only passes one way, PCS is doomed, it cannot go OU. This is not a confirmation of Standard EE Theory or an abdication to the Law of Conservation, although, for the former, all the empirical data is always valid where their interpretations are always open to perspective. hehehe

Based on this specific PCS problem, one option to the basic logic could then change from one of primary/core/secondary, to primary/core/secondary/tertiary where the tertiary means are designed to keep the secondary at its lowest level of charge while the secondary weans out the energy off the primary and core just as it was doing, but in smaller hence faster increments then the actual peak rising frequency of the secondary, so output is accomplished or produced where there is never a chance of the secondary coming close to any real potential rise and reversal.

A few years ago I made an animation of a Voltage Grabber (below) circuit that would show you what could be involved in weaning energy from a source without killing the dipole. This particular Grabber was to work with a small radiant energy feed but the basic idea is still valid for drawing power off of a secondary. There are surely more simpler methods then this animation. I just wanted to show the logic of loading small individual caps, then paralleling them to unload into a bigger set of caps, then when each bigger cap is full, all the bigger caps feed the load away from the input. This could be done mechanically with a wheel and micro contacts. Hmmmmm.  

Basically, energy production is not the problem. The main problem lies in how to draw energy away before it can rise in potential and reverse the effect. I mentioned this some where else but will mention it again here. Let's say your 60 hertz pulsed primary consumes 100 volts at 1 amp so it consumes 100 watts. The pulsing produces a secondary output of 200 volts at 1 amp which is great, sound the trumpets, but as soon as it reaches peak output the primary starts heating up and your primary mosfets blow. So the only way you can get this energy out is to remove the energy produced from the secondary each time the voltage rises to let's say 50 volts, it will still be 1 amp but now the secondary never reaches above the primary stage and can keep producing 50 volts at 1 amp but now at at 240 hertz indefinitely. But that 50 volts 1 amp has to be completely off the secondary before the next 50 volt rise otherwise you develop the same compounding problem.

The other option is to design the primary drive with enough robustness to really fight it out with the secondary as it reaches its full output potential and try to keep the system going. Let's say your aim is to pulse 12 volts at 1 amp (12 watts in) into the primary and the secondary will output 120 volts at .5 amp (60 watts out). Great plan indeed. But what is required is to design the primary pulse components to handle the 60 watts and not the 12 watts because in order to arrive at the final result, the secondary will be hammering the primary and if the primary cannot handle it, zap.

Another way is that you know you have 12 volts for the primary pulse so you place a zener diode of 15 volts coming out between the primary and the mosfet so that any return above 15 volts will discharge via the zener diode and become reusable on a second primary for transformers or second drive coil for motive wheels. This way when the secondary starts acting up, the zener will use that excess and send it to another part of the device to increase the primary push.  

Think of the primary and secondary as two boxers and the core is the impartially observant referee. The boxers can go at it any way they want and the core will let it happen as long as the blows are fair. The P can hit the S and the core will say go go go but the S starts getting mad and in one blow, the core sees this S come the other way and says go go go and the P is knocked out solid. Every Primary to Secondary is like Rocky and the Russian going at it, blow by blow until one or the other gets knocked out.

In general we could then say that all OU devices require at least three stages before the load. But, we usually do what? We usually hit a primary and send the secondary to a load or via a tank capacitor to load (same thing), when, we should be hitting the primary and sending the secondary to a constant accumulator stage that removes all output potential before it backs up into the core. If such a secondary output system could be devised to work at 2 to 10 times the primary pulse speed, even if at this stage it is not OU, that third stage could be used on 1000's of systems presently pounding on the OU barrier and provide us with a better chance of going OU.

The other choice is to stay away from PCS topologies completely to then work with the most far fetched designs you can think of since the PCS will always prove to be non-productive without the checks and balances required, so you are better off spending your time on anything else but that, and, your level of knowledge of effects will grow by leaps and bounds. I can go into that later.

I know this is a long post but there is just one more point to make here. If you consider the above as being even partially valid, where you now know any OU device has to fight between input and output, where if the output rises above the input, the output will attack the input, well, now we have a new perspective on how to look at purported OU devices like TK, Akula and many others and we now know to look for how the inventor has solved this problem. If there is nothing evident that solves the output problem, how is this possible? Seems to me their money model just got slimmer. hahaha

wattsup

[forest]

OU is not possible in closed circuits so I advance a theory of open path ;-) and here we can get as many OU as you wish but "they" ruled the methods because it is simply radio transmitter we need  even if strange 50-400Hz low frequency (but can be any frequency)
there is no OU if energy is only converted but what if our energy is only used to modulate omnipresent field    ? open a valve without consuming much energy and you got a peak input, repeat and you got stream 
really what we need is simple like a "stick" or magic wand  but there is no magic really Tesla said ALL in his interview
and if you state there are other methods I would say , no - it's all the same , you can find it even in rotating generators or magnetic motors
"the place where there should be no electricity but it is there "

[Allcanadian]

@wattsup

So, as soon as you ever arrive at a condition where the secondary is outputting more energy then what is fed in to the primary, the secondary will thereafter become the primary and the primary will become the secondary and in most cases, you start blowing primary driver mosfets and the system stops. The construct we have been running after is faulty from the very start. You cannot pulse a primary and expect OU on the secondary if both are on the same omni-directional coupling medium. Even if the secondary was wound with the most special wire in the world (future oriented copper wire) where outputs could reach many factors above OU, you could not get OU from that set-up simply because both share the same core where only the strongest wins the impress game.
Would this be considered a proper analysis of the problem?

I would agree and to me everything we have ever done now seems backwards. We build things in order to invoke change and yet we seldom give thought to how this change may occur. We build and theorize how to invoke a mechanism for gain and yet we seldom consider where this gain may come from. As such I worked the problem backwards starting with the known universe understanding the how and why then started moving inwards down to our level. It is very hard to accomplish anything thinking at our level and having a more universal mind answers many questions.

For me, this has nothing to do with any Law of Conservation, it has to do with bench observations that we have been doing since many years.

I would agree and those who feel obligated to conform to normalcy if not mediocrity take great strides to support the conservation of energy. I see it differently, if the theory cannot stand on it's own two feet and support itself then maybe we should rethink it. It is a very peculiar thing that so many would start with the conservation of energy as their foundation then work the problem within that framework which practically guarantee's failure. Once again I worked the problem backwards starting with the known universe which is seething with energy on every level then moving inward down to our level of thinking. At which point the conservation becomes a non-issue, it is no longer a question of "if" but a matter of how and why and on what level.

I believe the thing to keep in mind is a statement made by Faraday-- "it does not matter how the change occurs only that it does". Which I believe has universal application, how can we hope to invoke change around us if we refuse to change our thinking?, How can we change our thinking if we refuse to let go of the past and think of our future?. It would seem for every hurdle we jump we create ten more in front of us to take it's place in which case we are not really moving forwards but backwards. So yes I believe you are correct because when we change the rules and our thinking the hurdles we have created in our mind simply cease to exist.

AC

[wattsup]

@AC and @Erfinder

Thanks for your posts which I had read and started preparing responses but both of them just started to get to long and too complicated for me to explaining certain effects, so I will hold off for now in responding. My main problem is my constant wish to say everything in one sentence so guys can get the gist of this new perspective that magnets are basically Localized Gravity Sources (LGS) and our atoms, depending on the element will have more or less affinity for the atomic core to respond to gravity sources other then the Earth and Sun which have been the only ones effecting our atoms on this planet for so long, until we started playing with magnets and coils.

For critical thinking, I have an idea and a question of feasibility.

I think with the use of a stereo audio output AC and a frequency generator software, if the two AC audio outputs were both full bridge rectified, you would have two channels of DC pulse that anyone could play with each left and right frequency and phase offset. Those DC signals could be used to drive two DC to DC SSRs that are battery fed. This will produce the ability to drive two or more sets of coils off phase at any angle and enable guys to do some pretty crazy R&D that would have required two frequency generators that I know have weak phase offset capabilities. The question is would an audio output accept to be full bridge rectified without blowing the audio output stage also understanding that the full rectifier will double the output frequency, or, is it best to use a half bridge to keep the software frequency the same. hehehe

wattsup

[Erfinder]

@AC and @Erfinder

Thanks for your posts which I had read and started preparing responses but both of them just started to get to long and too complicated for me to explaining certain effects, so I will hold off for now in responding. My main problem is my constant wish to say everything in one sentence so guys can get the gist of this new perspective that magnets are basically Localized Gravity Sources (LGS) and our atoms, depending on the element will have more or less affinity for the atomic core to respond to gravity sources other then the Earth and Sun which have been the only ones effecting our atoms on this planet for so long, until we started playing with magnets and coils.

For critical thinking, I have an idea and a question of feasibility.

I think with the use of a stereo audio output AC and a frequency generator software, if the two AC audio outputs were both full bridge rectified, you would have two channels of DC pulse that anyone could play with each left and right frequency and phase offset. Those DC signals could be used to drive two DC to DC SSRs that are battery fed. This will produce the ability to drive two or more sets of coils off phase at any angle and enable guys to do some pretty crazy R&D that would have required two frequency generators that I know have weak phase offset capabilities. The question is would an audio output accept to be full bridge rectified without blowing the audio output stage also understanding that the full rectifier will double the output frequency, or, is it best to use a half bridge to keep the software frequency the same. hehehe

wattsup

DC.....that's a topic that is of real significance isn't it?  The adventures here in wonderland began with a public fight regarding DC, and in the end it wasn't the hero who won, the hero it seems was the antagonist, who later himself became a leader in phenomena associated with direct and impulse based systems. 

2014 was a great year for me, this year I have asked some of the toughest questions I have ever come  up with.  To the well learned, my questions are childish and or misguided, and in many cases delusional, and if I judged myself by these opinions, I would have given up long ago.  However, I digress....what if DC is AC and AC is DC?  I realize this is a strange question but a question that must be asked when you see what I have seen.  Under the proper conditions I have watched the most perfect sine wave I have ever generated instantly change into a square wave?  I have done this on more than one occasion, the most simple requiring only a full wave bridge and a high impedance generator.  I shared this before with this forum if memory serves, unfortunately, as it happens with many of my rants and long winded demonstrations, the presentation wasn't received well.

At any rate, It would seem we, or speaking for myself, I have missed something of extreme significance.  This something is taught by that which is taking  place in the system which facilitates the spontaneous transformation of a sine into a square.  Its funny when you think about all that it could imply, squaring the circle comes to mind over and over, the reasoning behind this eludes me, however the thought keeps me awake contemplating it when I should be sleeping. 

Wattsup, we all have our pet project, our pet idea that we covet and protect like a newborn, protect your ideas at all cost.  Don't let anyone convince you that you are in error, as there is literally no right or wrong in the grand scheme of things (my opinion).  Your ideas are yours, and as such sharing is all we can or should do.  We cannot prove the validity of the ideas, ergo, to each his own.  I think we all have pieces of some grand mosaic, and we need only listen to one another, really listen to one another and maybe we can begin to put this thing together.  That is my plan for the upcoming year, listening to others, better than I have in the past something I recommend.


Regards

[Matt Watts]

Under the proper conditions I have watched the most perfect sine wave I have ever generated instantly change into a square wave?  I have done this on more than one occasion, the most simple requiring only a full wave bridge and a high impedance generator.

Here's another example of that phenomena:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq1ZNlmIsDk

At first I thought is was just clipping a high amplitude signal, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Erfinder]

Here's another example of that phenomena:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq1ZNlmIsDk

At first I thought is was just clipping a high amplitude signal, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Cool.....close but no....the wave demonstrated in that video has absolutely no stability, in addition to this, there are no signs of the breakdown of the wave into the harmonics that make up the square, followed by a transformation of the wave back into a sine wave (sine to square to sine). Also, the square I generate is so clean that it appears as if it were being generated by a signal generator.  The sine wave is also the cleanest that I have ever seen.

Eventually I will shoot  a video....again.....maybe this time around folks will simply review the video and contemplate whats being demonstrated, (all I am interested in) and keep their interpretation of whats going on to themselves.  I haven't posted a video on it primarily because I'm not interested in hearing what I am more than capable of finding myself through researching the subject (research you must assume has been done).  I am looking for deeper insights, deeper impressions I am not satisfied with accepted explanations of the observed phenomena.


Regards

[Erfinder]

Here's another example of that phenomena:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq1ZNlmIsDk

At first I thought is was just clipping a high amplitude signal, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Matt Watt,

Here is a fresh off the press video demonstrating what I am trying to say in my post.  What you see is exactly what I am talking about, this is what I would like to see taking place in the video link you presented.  If the presenter can re-shoot the video and show what I am showing that would be great.  Unfortunately, I am almost positive the presenter will not be able to do this.  At any rate, the purpose of my video is just to demonstrate the wave and its behavior, show the transitioning as I am experiencing it.

https://flic.kr/p/qzivgh


Regards

[wattsup]

@Erfinder

I am posting this here instead of on the intended Flux Gate Interrupter, BEMF Redirector thread to not clutter it and also to keep some flow of posts I make in one location. This thread will do just fine from now on so I will always use this thread even if responding to other threads that I will identify as well.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2678.msg44058#msg44058

Yes, yes and yes. Topology is the most important aspect of any device since it integrates all the present understandings of the builder to arrive at a certain level of simplicity or sophistication, does not matter. Change or add one base understanding and the topology will eventually change as well.

In @gotolucs' present build, some of the realities are;

1) The two C cores that are mounted on the drill chuck are welded together without any isolation materials to prevent crossing or cancellation zones in the armature that again would be very difficult to predict in the way the two cores are joined.

2) The coil has a pretty big neo magnet smack dab inside its belly so you now have a permanent orientation of the four bar armatures that will be very difficult to change any form of polarity shifting just with the passage of the two "shorted" rotating C cores.

3) Regardless of any topology, given the fact that the copper coil has zillions of atoms, in any type of build you will always have some level of output so just because a system produces output, it does not mean it is optimal.

4) The copper coil is tightly wound mag wire so you will always have inter wind cancellation that adds to the reduction of output. You do not need many winds and layers.

Example: You have a coil of 200 turns in 4 layers. The first layer is the closest and will feel the polarity changes in the core and also cloak the 2nd and other layers from the core impress proportionate to the impress the first layer received. After that it's a game of chance and push (sway, swing or spin) in one direction but now that energy has to pass through 3 additional layers and this is where we start to make our own problems.

Coil winding is an elastic sport. Many turns and layers produces higher voltage but lower amperage because amperage can only be the number of atoms in a given length of wire that react to a given impulse. So because you want higher voltage, you wind more turns that create more cancellation that reduces the amperage but increases the voltage.

The mundane task of winding coils is not so mundane in the transformer industry where best performance is a constant give and take of specs. The final objective is what is prime. You look at what you have as input and what you need as output and wind your coil accordingly without any real interest in efficiency because manipulating anything any more then that is not really on our books yet.

The logical method is guys will determine what the coil is required to output then wind a coil for that specific reason while bitting the bullet on amperage for each addition turn of the wire.

If you where to put yourself right inside the copper wire and could see the atoms and how they are arranged, the first thing you will realize is there are many defective atoms in the wire that have oblong forms where the center core cannot spin, but has enough elbow room to sway or with more room, to swing. So not all copper atoms are created equal. This you know when considering isotopes of any given element are slight variations of the main element. But you have so many copper atoms of all types, some almost perfectly round, others not but there is enough of everything for you to sweep your frequency generator and see different reactions and outputs at varying frequencies because at certain frequencies some more of the atoms can spin then others.

According to spin conveyance, super conductivity works in this way. The low temperature is enough to freeze some of the weaker atoms and holds them in check while the more perfect atoms can now spin without having the weaker frozen atoms that create a cancellation, so the freer atoms are left to spin without any hindrance. Super conductivity is the elimination of cancellation and in the freeze method, they are not really canceled but prevented to sway or swing which prevents them from spinning against the main impulse spin that now has free reign over all those atoms that can spin. So our wires work the same way. We have good atoms and bad atoms and in between atoms and all of them will react inside the wire at a given frequency. When I say spin, I always mean sway, swing or spin.

Resonance point is when all those atoms that can spin, do so. If looking at a clock, you have sway where the atomic core sways anywhere between 1 minute to 29 minutes or 31 minutes to 59 minutes, swing goes anywhere from 1 minute to 59 minutes or 31 minutes to 29  minutes, and spin occurs when the pulse timing is such that the swing has enough inertia to pass the 0 minute mark and continues in the same direction. You cannot get swing from 60 hertz. This will be enough to sway or swing the atoms since it is AC so both polarity impresses are fully controlled. Wonder why the army uses 400 hertz? Since the copper wire has less fully spinable atoms, then swing atoms and less swings atoms then sway atoms, when you get up to the resonance frequencies, those less spinable atoms will spin but produce much less amperage and this explains in the physical sense why resonance outputs are more reactive, higher volts (faster spin) low amps (less atoms spinning). It is the wire itself that cannot provide any more available spinable atoms to increase the amperage and that is exactly what we see on our benches everyday since 150 years. This is not a fault in method but materials.

So let's go again to the atoms scale and are able to see through the cross-section of the wire. The atoms at the bottom point where the wire and the core meet are at the closest impress, the atoms on the top curve of the wire are furthest away from the core and already at that small perceived distance for us, in the atomic scale could equal a distance of more then 2 football fields in human terms. So just that first layer of winding already has surpassed the practical distances that a perfect wire needs to become fully impressed. The fact that wire is round provides the builder with an even thinner layer of wire closest to the core so the wire never actually has full contact to the core.

If anyone is interested in seeing what the ramifications of this are, take any core, wind a primary of one layer, then over that another primary of one layer, then over that another primary of one layer. Then on another part of the core wind a secondary of one layer and on top of that another secondary of one layer and on top of that a third layer. So you have three primaries and three secondaries. Now play by pulsing the first layer primary and scope the first layer secondary, then scope only the second layer secondary, then only the third layer secondary and keep a log of results. Then pulse the second layer primary and scope again the secondaries. Then pulse the third layer primary and do the secs. Then pulse the 1st and 2nd layer primaries in series and scope again the secs. Then pulse again the 1st and 2nd layers but in parallel and scope the secs, then pulse the 1st, 2nd and 3rd primaries in series and scope the secs. Then put them in parallel and scope the secs. Then start over again but now put the 1st and 2nd secondaries in series, and scope them with the primary variables again. Then put the secondaries in parallel and do it again. The put the 1st, 2nd and 3rd secondaries in series and scope it again with all the primary variables. Once you have gone through all the possible variables and have tabled all the different data, all based on these same pieces of copper wire, it will start to show a portrait of exactly how each layer will change the dynamics of how energy is pulsed and removed from the system. Just this study would say so much of why and how we should be using our copper wire.

Why is Litz wire found to be the best wire for resonance? Because both that small insulation per wire (doubled with turns) is enough to prevent most of the inter wire cancellation and the very thin wire means a reduction in the less performing copper atoms around those atoms that can actually spin so you have a better super conductive reaction although it is still far from perfect.  

I guess all this boils down to watts. 20 watts can be generated at 100 volts and .2 amps or 10 volts at 2 amps. Both of these can be outputed by changing your wire turns but regardless, you will always get 20 watts. The thing is, does your system need 100 volts at .2 amps or are you trying to loop a 10 volts system, where using the former you will have to step it down and loose more efficiency. If the wire you are using is good till 200 watts, why do you care how it is served. You are always better off with the fewest copper wire turns possible.

Nature does not over build to then tear down. It builds only what is required to meet the task so the design has to start from step one to establish what are the working parameters desired and how can this be achieved using the least amount of wire possible, that will generate the least amount of cancellation potential possible in order to return the maximum amount of power back to the source.

Most of these observations of my own effects on the bench were never realized until I started realizing that Spin Conveyance played a more practical and physical role in how we play with our toys. This was just impossible for me to realize a few years ago when this was only a flicker of thought but today, these effects are becoming more and more "explainable" in the atomic sense for it to make human sense, much more then any current/voltage formulas could ever do. But once you start to equate formulas with actual physical reactions in copper wire the device starts to come alive and the human to machine intuitiveness increases by leaps and bounds.

If you could sort copper atoms and use only the most perfectly round atoms to produce FLAT, thin copper wire, this would be a huge leap forward in the evolution of conductive materials and these wires would produce OU very easily. But right now, it is like OUers are working with one arm tied to the back while fighting very hard for a knock out. So imagine going back a hundred years, what the quality of copper was then while they produced most of the EE laws. Give us better materials and we will rewrite those laws. One guy we all know summed it up very well as "wire is very important". Guess whoooooooooooooo? (Five point question.)

If there was a way to produce copper or any other conductive wire in the same manner as they produce aligned steel laminations, this would be such a plus. I would guess such wire is already available, copper or otherwise, but it is not available to the public. I guess if there was a way to reheat wire red hot and produce a magnetic influence on only one side of the wire as it cools, this will realign the copper atoms to a more favorable singular angle, this will provide more atoms that will react in the same way, hence produce more output as amperage at the same voltage. I'm not there yet. hehehe

Overunity will not be achieved by EE alone. Guys have to have touched on physics, alchemy, metallurgy, chemistry, engineering, astro physics and so many other disciplines in order to understand the vastness and the base simplicity of all the potential effects around us because each is interrelated to the atom itself. If you are stuck in Standard EE alone, it would be practically impossible for anyone to pass the mental OU threshold without major major luck.

Sorry for long post.

wattsup

[Erfinder]

@Erfinder

I am posting this here instead of on the intended Flux Gate Interrupter, BEMF Redirector thread to not clutter it and also to keep some flow of posts I make in one location. This thread will do just fine from now on so I will always use this thread even if responding to other threads that I will identify as well.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2678.msg44058#msg44058

Call me layman, remind me of the fact that I have no idea what I am talking about, just bare in mind that unlike many I won't hold it against myself.  I am interested in what I am interested in, I have no interest in proving anything to anyone.  This gets my posts on the ignore list of many of the "authorities".  Like many I use my own language when discussing certain things.  Mine is what some have called an unhealthy mix of conflicting points of view, everyone is entitled to their opinion.  Often times, things that I say send mixed messages, and I think before I say more about what I feel I have found I should make one or two things clear.

I do not believe in overunity, I do not believe in free energy.  I think those who are seeking such a conditions are in for a rude awakening, we will need an independent energy source one day, maybe sooner than many of us imagine.   The sad truth, from my perspective is that we are collectively searching for something that just isn't there, we acknowledge the existence of that which is there, but are oblivious as to its significance.   Resonance between individuals in my opinion, begins with individual self oscillation.   Belief systems make up part of the mechanism which assists in sustaining the oscillation, it is not the oscillation itself.  In the noise I see you, your choice of word, and style of articulation are in a word.....immaterial.  

That which we have come to call reactive power, that condition where voltage and current are out of phase, where the values when calculated can reach into the thousands of kilowatts, is what I am after.  I have been told on more than one occasion that I am wasting my time, I disagree.  Nature in its infinite wisdom has revealed the store house of infinite power to us, and it is our ignorance which bars us from tapping into this natural resource.
We need to take this all seriously but not so seriously that we get lost and or caught up in the details.  

Yes, yes and yes. Topology is the most important aspect of any device since it integrates all the present understandings of the builder to arrive at a certain level of simplicity or sophistication, does not matter. Change or add one base understanding and the topology will eventually change as well.

Topology is important to me, (let the record reflect that I am speaking from my bench), because of the emphasis placed on geometry.  After reading lots of patents and lectures, both old and new, and not to mention my own time on the bench, I am left with the understanding that knowing exactly when certain events occur in time and in space is paramount.  Once we identify what these specific events are, we find that the geometry of the system will not change much afterwards.  When I look at a motor or a generator, what I look for are the locations, the literal geometric points where maximum opposition to change in flux will take place, this location is easy to identify, it is the point of maximum induced potential (voltage).   The point that I have tried to share is that the point of greatest opposition to change in flux is not coincident with the point of greatest flux density.  The reaction to this statement has been a loud and clear "DUH".  I smile because even though the response is expected, the folks making the response don't really comprehend the significance of the situation when the two become coincident.  This became a serious point of interest for me when I began to consider the system (motor or generator) as a tank circuit.  

This line of thinking was brought on by the idea that capacitance and inductance values aren't constant, this was followed by the realization that parasitic capacitance isn't the system capacitance, system capacitance in my opinion, had to be equal to system opposition to change in current.  I later found a formula which supports this idea, the formula basically shows that capacitance and inductance are one, and they are a function of rate of change, a wonderful thing.
A motor as I see it now is a DC biased AC generator (rotary Mag amp).  In my view there is no motor perse, only a motoring function, and effect, an undesired effect in generators.  The effect was seen for what it was and not for what the observer wanted it to be, in time the effect was isolated and the result is that today we use and identify with the effect as if it were a cause.  We must learn how to engineer system magnetics, both inducing and induced so that the motor function is limited in the generator.  This is not the approach of many in this area of research.  

Present day generators are designed to amplify the motor effect, this increased opposition facilitates greater electrical output, however the downside is that more mechanical has to be provided.  In the future, typologies must be discussed where the motor effect is reduced, it will be observed that the output of such a machine will be lower owing to the reduction of the motor effect, the thing to keep in mind here is that the output of the gen of this design is based on rate of change, and not by the amount of mechanical we put on the shaft.  How the change is made is where the rubber meets the road.  It's clear that there will be induction via interactions between the rotor field and stator, but as its been stated, the output will be less than in a conventional system consisting of the same number of turns and magnet strength for the same rpm.....an alternative induction method which will operate in concert with the conventional has to be contemplated and implemented.

2) The coil has a pretty big neo magnet smack dab inside its belly so you now have a permanent orientation of the four bar armatures that will be very difficult to change any form of polarity shifting just with the passage of the two "shorted" rotating C cores.

This layout must be seen for what it is.  In truth (mine) its identical with what we are all well versed in, the wave as far as I am interpreting it is conventional for the most part.  The significance that I place on it is that the induced wave is predominantly positive, a point which few if any have acknowledged, and this property is given to it by the orientation of the permanent magnet between the laminate stacks.  The layout is special because of the orientation of the magnet in the stator, if the rotor is spun in the opposite direction the wave should be predominantly negative.  This in my opinion, is the most important aspect of the concept being discussed.
I generate similar waves in my machines, mind you I am dealing with air core systems, I don't think we need iron.  In the future I think we may move away from ferromagnetic materials in general because we will learn that we can concentrate the fields better and faster without them.

3) Regardless of any topology, given the fact that the copper coil has zillions of atoms, in any type of build you will always have some level of output so just because a system produces output, it does not mean it is optimal.

Geometry is paramount, knowing the exact location where the greatest opposition to change in flux is a mission I have made my own.  I design around this, and it should be clear why.  As far as atoms go......I have no experience with them.  I haven't had a need to reference and or acknowledge their existence, that being said, an acceptance of their existence or an understanding of their behavior under certain circumstances as these things may relate to what I am after has not been a researched.  

4) The copper coil is tightly wound mag wire so you will always have inter wind cancellation that adds to the reduction of output. You do not need many winds and layers.

That which is being called cancellation is exactly what I find is most desirable.  I find it desirable because I would like to think that in my system this cancellation facilitates the reduction and or reversal of the mechanical output of the machine, mechanical here is the negative torque associated with the electrical output of the machine.  That which we deem bad is a good thing, the sighted cancellation between turns I liken to so called attraction between magnets, I do not differentiate between the two phenomena.  

Coil winding is an elastic sport. Many turns and layers produces higher voltage but lower amperage because amperage can only be the number of atoms in a given length of wire that react to a given impulse. So because you want higher voltage, you wind more turns that create more cancellation that reduces the amperage but increases the voltage.

At present we relate usable current with rate of change and turns experiencing change.  The flux operating in these systems is usually radiative.   I realize that the selected term makes little sense to those versed in such matters, what I am trying to say is I feel magnetism works in two ways, one is explosive, and the other is implosive.  The one we use in our existing technology is explosive, the one I feel I evolve in my device is implosive.  In systems where implosive working magnetism is evolved, the externalization of the force is suppressed, for all intents and purpose, the outward manifestation of the force is lacking.

Resonance point is when all those atoms that can spin, do so. If looking at a clock, you have sway where the atomic core sways anywhere between 1 minute to 29 minutes or 31 minutes to 59 minutes, swing goes anywhere from 1 minute to 59 minutes or 31 minutes to 29  minutes, and spin occurs when the pulse timing is such that the swing has enough inertia to pass the 0 minute mark and continues in the same direction. You cannot get swing from 60 hertz. This will be enough to sway or swing the atoms since it is AC so both polarity impresses are fully controlled. Wonder why the army uses 400 hertz? Since the copper wire has less fully spinable atoms, then swing atoms and less swings atoms then sway atoms, when you get up to the resonance frequencies, those less spinable atoms will spin but produce much less amperage and this explains in the physical sense why resonance outputs are more reactive, higher volts (faster spin) low amps (less atoms spinning). It is the wire itself that cannot provide any more available spinable atoms to increase the amperage and that is exactly what we see on our benches everyday since 150 years. This is not a fault in method but materials.

We see resonance very differently.  I try to approach the concept from that of the layman.  Insodoing, I have found that parallel resonance is a kind of catalyst, one which as far as I can tell requires ridged fixed values, but isn't limited to them.  Series resonance is a condition which can be simulated using parameter variation, but here only when coupled with a system which is operating from, and not necessarily within parallel resonance.  There is much we don't and by we I mean I don't understand about resonance, it is a concept which is much more involved than the textbooks lead us to believe.

Overunity will not be achieved by EE alone. Guys have to have touched on physics, alchemy, metallurgy, chemistry, engineering, astro physics and so many other disciplines in order to understand the vastness and the base simplicity of all the potential effects around us because each is interrelated to the atom itself. If you are stuck in Standard EE alone, it would be practically impossible for anyone to pass the mental OU threshold without major major luck.

Sorry for long post.

wattsup

As I mentioned earlier, I am not looking for overunity, eventually we will come to the realization that all the energy we want is right at our fingertips, its surges around all of our devices, the dimension of the device in question is irrelevant.  Our task is to familiarize ourselves with this thing which is and always has been available to us and yet just out of our reach.  We must establish those conditions in our systems which allows it to manifest in our systems as useable power.  In my opinion it isn't about luck, or about being disciplined in many areas its more about knowing what you want, formulating and asking the right questions, and then moving heaven and earth trying to get those answers.


Lets not do anymore posts of this length.  


Regards