PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-18, 08:44:59
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Parametrics, Noise coherence, and Switching  (Read 10428 times)
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
From Orthofield:

Quote
In general, I find that free energy inventors tend to ignore small, certain gains, in preference for large, possible ones. If one of our principles is to maximize the conventional efficiency as much as possible, so too should it be to utilize any definite gains, no matter how small. Just like static electricity in the 17th century, we have no idea where this will go...

I agree we should explore and develop even small effects, provided we have not already explored and mapped out the absolute practical limits and found them to be unworthy of further pursuit at this time. They may need to await an advance in material technology.


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

Posts: 331
From Orthofield:

I agree we should explore and develop even small effects, provided we have not already explored and mapped out the absolute practical limits and found them to be unworthy of further pursuit at this time. They may need to await an advance in material technology.

Well, to study the topic you can start with bringing power transformer near Tesla coil's inductor or other high voltage capacitor disharge pulses source. Like in following video it shows resulting energy amplification effect and drop of power usage in primary circuit:

[youtube]qmirRN3O6Ko[/youtube]

The second use case is when you recycle reactive power back to circuit and inject it as supporting magnetic field in resonant way:

[youtube]pYjREkw1v-A[/youtube]

These leads can be very exciting when you begin understand fundamental principals behind it... :)

Cheers!
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 220
Hi T-1000,

Interesting tests!

I've seen different versions of the kind of "reactive power" device in the second video a couple of times, and know from my own experiments that it can be done.
 
But the first test is a strange one. It reminds me most of the Correa's more recent work, where they suggest that 'massfree' Tesla longitudinal waves arise from the monopole HV antenna or electrode. At least some part of these waves are not electrical, and this part can modify matter and conventional energy. Here's quote from the difficult to follow US patent US7053576:

"Essentially the first subtype or variant consists of longitudinal massfree waves that deploy electric energy. They could well be called Tesla waves, since Tesla-type transformers can indeed be shown experimentally to radiate massfree electric energy, in the form of longitudinal magnetic and electric waves having properties not reduceable to photon energy or to ‘electromagnetic waves’, and having speeds of displacement that can be much greater than the limit c for all strictly electromagnetic interactions."

But even on 'just' an electrical level, your probe can be seen as one plate of a capacitor, with the wire as the other plate. The subject of electrical fields and charges on the surface of a conductor is not well known, but it's true that the surface charges and fields control the current in a closed circuit. See the interesting article by Jeffimenko attached. It should not then be surprising that additional fields such as provided by your probe into the transformer would change this current.
I think the conventional explanation for the null effect of an outside E field on a current assumes the added E field is a dipole, but I'm not sure that this is the case in your test, where it seems the E field from your probe (or one-wire transmission) into the coil is more of a monopole, with the other end somewhere distant from the coil-- is that right?
In the case of a monopole E field inside the coil, it could have an effect on the surface charges. Hmm, especially if the oscillating single wire E field is 'pumping' current across the whole coil in some way..

A guy named Elouard did some seemingly similar things in France in the 40s, where he fed static electricity from an antenna or Hv generator into a cone shaped assembly and used it to 'accelerate a current'. I can't retrieve that patent at the moment..

Then there is also a patent from Burke for a wire around a radioactive coil that generates has more current going through it. Burke is attached:

"this invention relates to the amplification of electric current by the emissions from radioactive material through which current is caused to flow, and also is that the electric discharge of the radioactive material is enhancedby causing an electric current to flow through the radioactive material. It is not known how this amplification physically occurs, but it is thought most probably that the radioactive material excites or stimulates the input current. In any event, the term amplification is intended to mean merely that the output current from the radioactive material is larger in terms of amperage than the input current as from source 4 in FIGURE 1."

Even though radiation is a bit different from oscillating E fields, both of them do seem they could be carriers for 'mass free fields'.

This is pretty off topic for this list, so I've started a separate thread for discussion of the anomaly shown by T-1000 in his first video. Or perhaps there is already a thread on this, because it looks like an interesting topic...

orthofield

   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 331
More on same thing:

[youtube]7jtjgAwXqGg[/youtube]

It is Tesla coil primary from the left and push-pull inverter from the right in video. With capacitor discharges in the left that coil is making explosive impulses which affect transformer and interrupt "normal" sinus wave flow which is making bulb to be lit much more brightly.. If you will repeat that experiment there will be good starting point to make other attempts with same principle eventually leading to unknowns... ;)

Cheers!
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 220
Hi ION,

>I agree we should explore and develop even small effects, provided we have not already explored and mapped out the absolute practical limits and found them to be unworthy of further pursuit at this time. They may need to await an advance in material technology.

Yes, I realized that my statement before was not a balanced one. When effects are known to be small in magnitude, it may not be worth the man hours to investigate them, relative to other areas that may be lower hanging fruit.
Shanefield itself is not as promising as other things.

So I return to the general subject at hand...

We've discussed a couple of different concepts that can convert noise or thermal energy into usable power. I see several possibilities for a powerful thermal or noise coherence device, but the one that seems most promising to me right now involves transformed feedback loops, as shown in the Black patent.
 
There is the possibility of a variety of regenerative or feedback effects possible, which may result in energy gain. The condition for genuine energy gain in Etotal - Efeedback supply > COP 1, and I consider this even possible for an active device.

This energy gain can exist due to the noise from an amplifier connected to a resistor being amplified and transformed and fed back to the original noise. But I also noticed that even feeding back a part of an transformer's sine AC output to a third coil that opposes the primary and secondary fluxes, improves the transformer performance. This is the principle of the Cobb Energy Conservation circuit:

http://www.affs.org/html/the_energy_trimmer.html

and the attached patent. This device was in commercial use to reduce electric bills in California. (I don't know if it still is..)
Feeding back current to a third coil opposed to the primary increases the primary input impedance, and decreases the secondary output impedance, to the advantage of the output power:

"Since the third winding produces magnetic flux in a direction opposing the magnetic flux of the primary winding, the presence of the third winding increases the impedance in the primary winding. This increased impedance results in a reduced current flow in the primary winding, thereby reducing the current drain from the public utility power supply lines. Since the current flow in the secondary winding is induced by the current flow in the primary winding, the secondary winding acts as a load with respect to the primary winding. The electrical current flow in the primary winding produces a magnetic flux in the core which causes a flow of electrical current in the secondary winding. Since the third winding also acts as a load with respect to the power coming in, the flux induced in the core by the flow of current through the third winding is in a direction opposite to that of the secondary winding. This flux produced by the third winding reduces the impedance in the secondary winding so that the electrical current in the secondary winding is not reduced by the reduction of current in the primary winding that results from the presence of the third winding.
The presence of the third winding on the load isolation transformer produces a magnetic field which decreases the energy input from the primary winding, but keeps the energy output in the secondary winding the same."

Feedback in this sense has possibilities that go well beyond what can come from noise power, even at high BW. The odd part about the above is, taking the patent logic to its conclusion, ALL the primary and secondary fluxes could be cancelled in a transformer, without any expense in the output! In this case, the primary input impedance is infinite, and the secondary output current is the same, since the output impedance is zero! Of course this cannot happen in reality without feeding some energy in, making the system not passive. But how close can this be approached by using feedback windings, perhaps transformed in the ways I see used in the Black patent?

Consider that coil 26 in the Cobb patent is usually directly coupled on the pot core to oppose the secondary and primary fluxes. But I can imagine improving the output characteristics even more, by magnetically uncoupling coil 26 from the pot core, using a new winding with a few turns around 26 and a few turns coupled to the pot core and primary and secondary. This new coil steps down the voltage from 26, getting a higher current which can then be set by turns ratios to to match the primary current. The reverse flux of the third coil can completely cancel the first coil's flux.

Is this possible?? Or have I finally lost my marbles, as many claim? ;-)

In any case, the important thing to note in my wanderings is that the Cobb device is a passive feedback loop. It doesn't require an amplifier in the middle of the transformer chain as does the Black Patent. This implies that there are unexpected possibilities even in passive feedback loops, without noise.  

orthofield
   
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-10-18, 08:44:59