PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-11-29, 03:22:11
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Manelas Device  (Read 1660 times)

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
This bench has been started with the intention of investigation of the Arthur Manelas device that bears some similarities to the Floyd Sweet device.  Both used one inch thick rectangular slabs of ferrite magnet material, either strontium ferrite or barium ferrite.  Both devices had sets of coils wound over the ferrite slab, each coil wound around one of the three principal axes of the ferrite slab.  And both devices were witnessed to be overunity.  Sweet used bifilar coils while Manelas used a special form of twirled pair that is different from the usual twisted pair.  The Sweet device has been discussed elsewhere on this forum, and the Manelas device briefly here https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3862.msg85533#msg85533.  Brian Ahern (Vibronic Energy Technologies Corp) has looked at the latter from the view that the anomalous energy results from Nano-Ferromagnetism where the small grain size in the ferrite (3-12nM) impose collective action of the nuclei to vibrate cooperatively.  Attached is his presentation given some years ago that shows details of the Manelas equipment.

Both Sweet and Ahern demonstrated levitation (repulsion) above a conditioned ferrite magnet, Sweet showed a transformer lamination while Ahern used a steel hat-pin (see image below).  He assumed that this came from oscillations within the magnet where it is known that an alternating ferromagnet will repel conducting objects.  Yet such oscillations have never been detected or measured to date.  That repulsion has been noticed in small regions above magnets with holes through them, and with magnets that have small regions with reversed polarity: it is simply a result of the field pattern.  Most people are conditioned into perceiving magnets as having poles where like poles repel while unlike poles attract.  That simplistic view hides the true reason for the force on a magnet, the non-uniform field in which the magnet sits.  It is quite easy to condition a large ferrite slab by applying to it a smaller NdFeB disc magnet in repulse mode (see image below).  When pressed so as to touch the ferrite the repulsion changes to attraction as the stronger field of the disc magnet causes the local ferrite grains to flip and reverse their magnetization.  This reversed polarity doesn’t penetrate right through the ferrite, only a small depth suffers this reversal.  A FEMM simulation of such a conditioned magnet is shown below, along with the field taken along a vertical line above the ferrite.  This clearly shows a field maximum above the magnet towards which a small ferromagnetic object (such as a hat-pin) will be drawn.  That levitation is not an indication of oscillations within the magnet.

That there is no measurable oscillating field outside a permanent magnet does not mean internal atomic oscillations are absent, it just means that those internal electron movements are incoherent, their long range fields all cancel each other out.  However some of those persistent electron movements can be forced to cohere, as is now well known in the fields of NMR, NQR, ESR, EPR and FMR.  It is hoped that the latest information on the Ahern device will lead to some understanding of how manipulation of the internal movements can lead to power extraction.
 
Smudge   
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
The most significant piece of new information that I have received reveals that the device that was shown to be working in that car has been stripped down.  Hidden beneath the coils wound onto the ferrite billet were five toroidal coils wound onto ring cores, each toroid being placed above a conditioned region of the billet.  Below is (a) an image showing these toroids, (b) an image taken of viewing film placed on the billet showing the conditioned regions and (c) my take on where the ring cores sat relative to those domain walls.

One other feature that I have only now come to recognize is that strontium and barium ferrites are not ferromagnetic, they are ferrimagnetic.  Ferrimagnetic material has some properties that differ from the usual ferromagnetic ones.  From wikipedia:-
Quote
Ferrimagnetic materials have high resistivity and have anisotropic properties. The anisotropy is actually induced by an external applied field. When this applied field aligns with the magnetic dipoles, it causes a net magnetic dipole moment and causes the magnetic dipoles to precess at a frequency controlled by the applied field, called Larmor or precession frequency. As a particular example, a microwave signal circularly polarized in the same direction as this precession strongly interacts with the magnetic dipole moments; when it is polarized in the opposite direction, the interaction is very low. When the interaction is strong, the microwave signal can pass through the material. This directional property is used in the construction of microwave devices like isolators, circulators, and gyrators. Ferrimagnetic materials are also used to produce optical isolators and circulators. Ferrimagnetic minerals in various rock types are used to study ancient geomagnetic properties of Earth and other planets. That field of study is known aspaleomagnetism. Furthermore it has been shown that ferrimagnets such as Magnetite can be used for Thermal energy storage.
That non-reciprocity of reaction to microwave signals is of interest, circular polarization is simply a rotating field, and a rotating magnetic field is easily produced with two coils on perpendicular axes driven with RF but with 90 degree phase difference.  The Manelas and Sweet billets had thee coils on the three axes of the billet, so two of these could do it.  As regards the Larmor frequency, the local field at the center of a domain wall passes through zero so here the Larmor frequency is not microwaves so it is possible that the domain wall dynamics can be advantageously influenced by a much lower frequency.  I hope to expand on this possibility later.  More to come

Smudge
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Here is some more important info.  I have just re-established contact with Graham Gunderson.  He worked with Brian Ahern on the Manelas stuff for a while, and took apart one of Arthur's earlier devices.  Here is his response.
Quote
I did spend a month living with Brian Ahern, when he had several of Manelas's devices in his home. We also reviewed Arthur's labs, still pretty much intact, at Arthur's widow's home. The one machine that appears to have delivered convincing results had been disassembled, and was mostly an empty frame. Still, it yielded some important clues.


WhenI met Arthur he had already had his stroke. He was bedridden and in a care facility. It seemed he could understand me, but he was unable to speak and could not really move. I said I was there to help him and his family get the recognition they deserve for the discovery. And that I would need his help in locating his notes -- which he had claimed to have hidden somewhere in the walls of the family home. Arthur appeared to understand, and looked at me with an expression that read in his eyes like pain or regret. I could not make out why.

I will get through the bad news and move to the good.


For me the worst of it is the early demonstration machine of his I took apart. I saw a photo of Arthur in a house full of visitors, and this machine. It was lighting a small array of LEDs. The visitors were there to see it and meet Arthur. This machine was still intact when I ran across it. It was a transistorized oscillator connected to what appeared to be 6x4x1 billet wrapped with triaxial coils, in the fashion I suppose you've seen before, and probably in other photos of Manelas's work.


The machine did not operate, and when prodded to do so with restoring its loose wiring and adding a DC input I measured efficiency at about 30%. At the time I had concluded it was an unstable and poorly built relaxation oscillator. I say "poorly built" since the single transistor there was a power transistor with a low current gain, requiring substantial base current to trigger it. These currents are provided through resistors, incurring substantial circuit losses. There were other issues which looked on the surface like poor design, and some chance those "bad"  things are what makes the machine actually work. I kept an open mind, at least.

The field pattern on the billet was very strange, in that both of its 6x4 surfaces were polarized North, while the region between those surfaces (the peripheral, 6x4" rectangular surface about 1" high) was the opposing South pole. Magnetizing a block with that pattern would require a giant H field and Arthur's equipment wasn't of that magnitude. With approval from Brian and others I made the decision to unwrap the billet and have a look, since the machine did not have any OU. It was said that the conditioning process would only hold for some time, and after the machine is shut down, it dims away. Floyd Sweet said the same thing.


Once the "billet" was unwrapped, it was actually 2 billets each 1/4" thick, in a sandwich explaining the pole pattern I'd observed; they were oriented repulsively and the space between them was filled with thin Nokia Li-ion batteries removed from old cell phones. These batteries connected to leads which exited the billet structure and powered the device. Of course we talk about Ockham's razor championing the simplest explanation, and in this case I think that points to deception. It is one thing to have batteries visible, quite another to hide them.


After that I saw Arthur's work with a rather more skeptical eye.

The second item of "bad news" relevant here, beyond the tragedy of Arthur's stroke, was the early car he had self-running -- quite convincingly -- and then the second car. A Texas investor had bought Arthur a nicer car, a Chevy Volt, for Arthur to outfit with his invention. Arthur could not deliver, and I heard the relationship between the men had soured to the point the investor had tried repossessing the Chevy Volt. I saw this car in Arthur's garage (among many, including antiques) and it had only minor modifications to its wiring, apparently to insert a power source, but nothing more.


Finally, Brian had 2 large power sources built by Arthur in his home. These used the arrangement of 5 spool shaped coils, each fitted with a relaxation oscillator and transistor circuit on top, connected to a billet and some batteries. I operated both devices across as wide an operating range their silicon would allow. The highest efficiency I measured was in the tower at just over 80%. After a while I concluded I'd covered the operating area and its variables and there wasn't any OU, and it's about that time I returned home.



Arthur used a strange, custom made wire that is bifilar and resembles twisted magnet wire. In Arthur's wire, one conductor helices about the other conductor which is nearly straight. Both conductors are connected in conventional parallel, as the conductors within Litz wire would be when the wire is soldered at its ends. In Arthur's arrangement, fast wavefronts will see different propagation factors in each conductor, since one's a helice and one is straight. Arthur had this wire especially made at New England wire, which makes Litz and other custom formulations.

There was a lot of talk at one point about the inventions using "bifilar" coils, but the ones I saw aren't like the radical ones used in Sweet's VTA (which inductively cancel, but with a distinct "fingerprint" in their interference pattern). Arthur's were a bit more like Litz wire, offering parallel paths and more-or-less conventional induction. Although fast wavefronts would have propagation dispersion as mentioned above, the transistors and diodes he used have slow switching times on the order of 1 uSec. However, the rather dated silicon diodes in his rigs had large junction areas and pronounced reverse recovery current. Many diodes of that kind do create rapid impulses when suddenly reverse biased, as they continue to "conduct" until the PN junction is exhausted of residual charge carriers. The exhaustion ends abruptly, and the equivalent "turn off time" can be sub-nanosecond and electrically "loud" like a slamming door. Early IGBTs behave the same way, and emit a peculiar form of EMI. I didn't observe this in Arthur's machines, but the silicon he used can do it.


OK, now, the "good" news!


Arthur left hand written notes documenting a machine that did not resemble any of the machines I saw,except  the skeleton of the device he had installed in his early self-charging car.

That device had temperature probes and a data logger installed, which documented internal temperatures 3-5'C below ambient in the machine volume, about the size of a shoe box; and coldest at the billet. The output of the machine was monitored and also charted. The absorption of ambient thermal energy correlated to output power, both of which varied over the course of a day -- the more output power, the more heat it appeared to absorb. There were no other regions showing elevated temperature, so the data appears to suggest thermal absorption rather than merely heat being pumped between locations.


The logging showed occasional sudden glitches in the output and the machine would sometimes nearly fail, for a few minutes, but then revive. A young scientist friend of Brian's connected these events with sunspot or solar-flare activity, and found they match, with a delay.


I am encouraged by the distinguishing features of Arthur's "Car" device, although I only saw it in a partial state and read detailed notes that matched its construction. It is not like the others I saw.

1) The notes suggest a single, solid billet, wound with triaxial coils.
2) The billet is magnetized with a gradient, as though a circular coil about the size of a coffee mug is centered in the 6x4" pole face and pulsed, creating a circular region of field reversal in the center of the magnet. One picture showed Arthur levitating a steel needle above this region, and the needle is trapped in a clear plastic tube whose axis is normal to the magnet surface. That constraint is required by Earnshaw's theorem, which this effect does not override, but the needle can and does levitate inside the tube; I've done it too.
3) The power transistor used in the Car invention is a TV horizontal flyback type, not the slow, and low-voltage 2N3055 type used in Arthur's other inventions. Instead, the flyback types have even lower current gain (10-20), high cutoff voltage 1.2 - 1.7kV (VCEo) and fast, abrupt turn off over some 500nSec or less.
4) The 3 coils around the billet are triaxial. Coil "A" wraps around the periphery, forming a 6x4" picture frame shape. Coil "B" wraps around the long 6" axis of the magnet. Coil "C" wraps around the 4" axis of the magnet. The connection of these coils in Arthur's running circuit matches the role of the same coils in Floyd Sweet's conditioning process.


This is what blew me away. I'll share it in some detail.

Coil A: In Sweet's process, this frame coil is excited with low level sine wave AC. The magnetic axis is parallel to the anisotropy axis, "Easy" axis, and crystal alignment axis of the magnet. In Arthur's process, this coil is connected to the base of the flyback transistor, and triggers it. As the transistor has low current gain, a reasonable amount of current must flow in this coil to trigger the transistor. So, although it appears to be a "sense" coil, the current flow is non trivial and its H field along the easy axis is also non trivial. In both Sweet and Manelas machines, this "A" coil gates the field activity on the other axes, and is also weaker than the field activity on the other axes, and is directed along the dimension that the magnet's sensitivity, nonlinearity, and susceptibility is the greatest.


Coil B: In Sweet's process, this coil is pulsed with DC current pulses that are timed to fire at the peak of the AC wave in the A coil. (It isn't recorded whether this is a voltage peak or a current peak; only that there is synchronization). Each pulse has the same polarity of H field, and the pulses are repeated many times. In Arthur's "Car" device, this coil is connected to the Collector of the flyback transistor, the current and EMF in it varies abruptly. A take-off diode conducts the EMF spikes occurring at the transistor turn-off into a battery bank, like a flyback converter. There is no capacitive bypass, meaning that the battery chemistry and internal ions get jolted and kicked; and the impedance of the battery chemistry is reflected into the B coil and the magnet's changing field structure when the take-off diode conducts.

Coil C: In Sweet's conditioning process, this coil is pulsed with alternating DC current pulses, driven by the same source powering B. Whereas the polarity of the pulses (and resulting H field) in B donot reverse, the polarity of current and mmf in the C coil does reverse on each successive pulse. In the early days Sweet accomplished this by flipping the magnet by hand, for each next pulse, and re-installing it in the surrounding coils. In Arthur's machine, the DC input power to the device from its primary battery runs through this C winding in series, providing a fairly static H field along this axis. If I remember right, there was some capacitive bypassing in this circuit, yielding steadier currents (and mmfs) than seen along "B".


In summary, each system has a "tickling" influence along sensitive axis A, and the area and inductance of the A coil are large, and the mmfs here control the timing of the rest of the process.


Each system has different and complementary roles on the B and C coils, which are both transverse to the magnet's sensitive axis, and whose area is thinner and the inductance per turn lower. One of the pair I would call disruptive (the alternating, repeated current pulses in Sweet's C coil and the hard-hitting pulses in Arthur's B coil); while the other in the pair has influence I could call supportive (as the non-reversing, repeated current pulses in Sweet's B coil and the DC-like current flow in Arthur's C coil). Manelas and Sweet used opposite roles for B and C, but the coils' structure is similar and the magnet material sees a hard-axis mmf from both. If the magnet were 4x4" or square, I don't think the claims would change. The 6x4" geometry is only a de facto standard left from early magnetic separators using large inexpensive barium ferrite magnets.

I hope this helps. Much of the above I've never written down, but I share it with you out of my debt of gratitude to you. I certainly encourage sharing these details with anyone you wish.

Note that when Graham wrote that he was not aware of the five toroids on top of the billet.  That information only came to me a few weeks ago.

Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2042
Smudge
Quote
The most significant piece of new information that I have received reveals that the device that was shown to be working in that car has been stripped down.  Hidden beneath the coils wound onto the ferrite billet were five toroidal coils wound onto ring cores, each toroid being placed above a conditioned region of the billet.  Below is (a) an image showing these toroids, (b) an image taken of viewing film placed on the billet showing the conditioned regions and (c) my take on where the ring cores sat relative to those domain walls.

One other feature that I have only now come to recognize is that strontium and barium ferrites are not ferromagnetic, they are ferrimagnetic.  Ferrimagnetic material has some properties that differ from the usual ferromagnetic ones.

I see where they are going with that setup and it's very ingenious.

Many people forget there are many different ways to manipulate a magnetic field other than with another magnetic field. The picture below is a good example and it's important to understand how other processes work in nature. In my work with radiant matter ie. charged particles ejected from a metal object I found that they can influence a magnetic field. I was repeating some of Tesla's experiments with radiant matter and found them to be in line with what he claimed. In this respect we should consider energy density, in whatever form the energy takes and it's possible interactions.

Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1518
Here is some more important info.  I have just re-established contact with Graham Gunderson.  He worked with Brian Ahern on the Manelas stuff for a while, and took apart one of Arthur's earlier devices.  Here is his response.
Note that when Graham wrote that he was not aware of the five toroids on top of the billet.  That information only came to me a few weeks ago.

Smudge
This excellent info thanks for sharing smudge. I have 2 6x4 billets. The biggest object I could levitate was an 8g 32mm screw. I have some more tests to run now
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1518
Anyone have a reference to the tri axial coils no. Of winds or gauges? There’s a lot of noise when I search . Thanks
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Here is my latest paper on magnetic domains in ferrites with a possible explanation for the Sweet and Manelas devices.   It doesn't explain the toroids in the Manelas device, maybe they just help things along and are not the primary feature.

To answer Jim's question Ahern says Manelas used 24 gauge wire with about 200 turns around each axis.  His wire was of a special form, not twisted pair but one straight wire with the other wound as a helix around it at about 7 turns per inch.  According to Gunderson this was not used as bifilar connected, but like having two wires paralleled.  This may have given some resonant advantage, but would not be necessary to explore the principle in my paper here.

I used to have a couple of 6 x 4 ferrite billets but I gave then to Grumage, and I presume he still has them.

Smudge
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
I sent my latest paper to Graham Gunderson.  Here is his reply.

Quote
In the beginning of the paper you mention field orientation during manufacture, and specifically this is done while the ferrite powder is wet and being compacted in the mold. While a hydraulic press is squeezing the billet into shape and expelling the water, a strong H field is provided usually parallel to the axis of applied pressure. The resulting object is the "green" billet, a bit like damp sand holding a shape. In this case the tiny crystals ("sand") are oriented more or less along the axis of pressing and magnetic-axis-to-be. The billet is fired, as far as I know in the absence of any magnetic field at all, and the resulting fired object is the ferrite billet.

In my experience with the magnets as well as whatever exposure I've had to their use by Manelas and Sweet, the frame coil, encircling the easy direction of the magnet and its crystal axis, serves a gating function. In your paper it would be the take-off coil. I did not find this to be the case in my own work, although that work does not change the validity of what you are suggesting in my view. I did note the "magnetic transistor" effect, which I briefly wrote up, and perhaps you have seen before. In that work, a partially demagnetized hard ferrite had the ability to couple B fields along two orthogonal axes, but only in one direction. Specifically, an H field applied along the easy axis would result in a changing B field along a "hard" axis transverse to it. So it had coupling, the easy axis could affect the hard axis flux-wise. However the reverse would not be true, in that an equal H field applied along that transverse hard axis would certainly result in altered flux along that axis, yet would have zero net change in the magnetization or the net flux linkage as seen by the coil encircling the easy axis. For that work I used cube magnets 25mm on each side, so the magnetic path on all 3 axes was identical. In the geometry of the Manelas billets used in your paper, this would be the frame coil is able to induce EMF on one of the transverse coils, but, any mmf on that transverse coil would not produce the reciprocal change in the frame coil. The coupling is only 1 way.

It was a wonderful effect to observe. Conditioning the magnet to do this "trick" was not easy. This was about the time Chava pulled funding anyhow, so I could not follow up on it.

In Manelas and Sweet's work that frame coil acts similarly, in that it is a weak triggering influence to the magnet, it is like an input rather than an output. It seems that the "easy axis" of the magnet offers great leverage over fields expressed along the hard axis, and that fields along that hard axis can't easily reflect back to the "easy"  axis in certain types of conditioning. Both Sweet and Manelas used the transverse coils in connection with the output of their machines.

The last thing I know for certain is that there is a principal difference between barium and strontium ferrites in terms of how they will condition, in their response to transverse magnetic fields directed at right angles to the easy axis.

Strontium ferrite doesn't take to transverse magnetization very well, it does not magnetize much along that hard direction even with extreme H fields applied to do it (up to 100x stronger than the easy axis coercive field). Some magnets form frothy, foam-like bubble structures of flux still oriented along the easy axis, but quite in a state of disorder. Truly the domains cannot hold a "sideways" orientation very well or at all. Bloch walls are small, high energy, and mostly immobile.

Barium ferrite is markedly different, it will magnetize transversely and this magnetization is not very stable. It produces moving fields quite well, which seems to echo Sweet's claims that only Ba-ferrite would work. Many magnets produced in the last 3 decades are a mixture of Ba and Sr ferrites. Billets I have had confirmed as pure Ba-ferrite take the transverse magnetization very smoothly, and will hold it to some extent, and the flux then becomes very mobile when H  fields are directed along the easy axis (now transverse to the magnet's flux). It should be stated the transverse "saturation" is much weaker in all cases, but the magnet will hold it and allow it to move quite easily. Since hard ferrites are so strongly thermally coupled, I expect this field motion to be accompanied by great changes in the magnet's temperature, but I have not specifically investigated this yet.

So it appears that the picture frame coil was not used as the output coil.  Graham does confirm that Strontium ferrite does not readily magnetize along its non-easy axis, so maybe my proposal is still worth looking at.

Smudge
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1518
Here is my latest paper on magnetic domains in ferrites with a possible explanation for the Sweet and Manelas devices.   It doesn't explain the toroids in the Manelas device, maybe they just help things along and are not the primary feature.

To answer Jim's question Ahern says Manelas used 24 gauge wire with about 200 turns around each axis.  His wire was of a special form, not twisted pair but one straight wire with the other wound as a helix around it at about 7 turns per inch.  According to Gunderson this was not used as bifilar connected, but like having two wires paralleled.  This may have given some resonant advantage, but would not be necessary to explore the principle in my paper here.

I used to have a couple of 6 x 4 ferrite billets but I gave then to Grumage, and I presume he still has them.

Smudge
Thanks Smudge. An interesting read. Some of the early Sweet replications had the A coil as the drive and C,B as parallel output. But it's worthy of a winding to test. I was watching this. FWIW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhGQaESKEI&t=1017s A couple Don & Mike Watson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVhGQaESKEI
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Having considered all the information that I have to hand I am still of the belief that the key to the operation of both the Sweet and the Manelas devices lies in the Larmor precessions of the dipoles within the domain walls.  In order to understand this it is necessary to identify each of the three coils wound around the ferrite billet.  Using Gunderson’s ABC designations and Manelas’ XYZ designations, coil A(Z) wraps around the periphery forming a 6x4” picture frame shape.  This creates an H field across the 1” dimension, this is the easy axis along which the permanent magnetization lies.  Coil B(Y) wraps around the 6” axis of the magnet, and coil C(X) wraps around the 4” axis of the magnet.  When fully magnetized and with all the dipoles lying along the 1” dimension, if their persistent Larmor precessions were all in phase there would be a rotating B or H vector inducing voltage into the B(Y) and C(X) coils.  This of course never happens because the individual dipoles have a spread of frequencies and there is no phase coherence.  However the Larmor precessions do give ferrimagnetic material a gyratory characteristic that is exploited in microwave systems.  Here the applied microwaves are circular polarized, i.e a rotating H vector with an accompanying rotating E vector rotating about the same A(Z) axis as the Larmor rotation.  I think both Sweet and Manelas unknowingly contrived to create a rotating H vector that would couple to some of the dipoles within the domain walls.

Sweet applied unidirectional pulses to the B(Y) coil and alternating pulses to the C(X) coil.  It is likely that only the fast transients at pulse switch-off are effective, and it only needs a small time delay between the two pulse trains for the H field so produced to be a rotating vector that occupies a quarter cycle of a Larmor precession. This could be a trigger to cause the targeted dipoles in the domain wall to flip, thus aiding the change in A(Z) axis magnetization in a non-reciprocal or gyratory action.  Manelas had DC current through the B(Y) coil creating a fixed transverse H field, and pulsed current through the C(X) coil.  That pulse would cause the transverse H vector to swing or rotate, again allowing coupling to some targeted dipoles within the domain walls.  This non-reciprocal action is used in different ways in the two devices, in the Sweet device it enhances the alternating magnetization created by AC in the A(Z) coil, while in the Manelas device it provides a positive feedback path for the flyback transistor that then ensures continued oscillation. 

Smudge 
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Brain Ahern has sent me some more data. here is his post.
Quote
I would like to comment based on my limited data. I think my observations will harmonize with Cyril's issues with precession.
the Manelas system in his car responded to the Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) in September 2011
The second device that Graham and I analyzed in July 2013 showed overcharging concomitant with the Nova explosion to within an accuracy of three hours.
There are five toroids connected to the electronics while held against the billet.
There are five oscillators matching the toroids.
The toroids confine B-fields, but they produce vector potentials (A) That are superimposed upon the billet.
 The X Y & Z wires are bifilar
Conditions 1 & 2 & 5 & 6 suggest an interaction with scalar longitudinal waves. The overcharging of the device was from harvesting a high density of radiation from the nova observed by the Japanese.
 Furthermore, the much larger overcharging at Arthur's lab on April 22 2012 was probably due to a super nova being born in an undetected region of the cosmos.

Here is my reply.
Quote
Thank you Brian for that summary.  That there are five oscillators connected to the toroids is new (to me) vital information.  It would be helpful if we had a circuit diagram of the system containing the toroids, since that is the one that clearly exhibited overunity.  The circuit diagram recently sent appears to be for the system that you and Graham analysed, and that one had cell phone batteries secreted between two ferrite billets which is disappointing.  Although the XYZ wires are bifilar, I think it is important to note that they are not connected in the usual non-inductive bifilar fashion, according to Graham the two currents are parallel and not anti-parallel.  In my opinion the special helical wound twisted pair may be a red herring and adds nothing to the workings of the device.

I am still musing on the A fields from the toroids, and I think it's field direction as it enters the ferrite (normal to the surface) is important.  That direction is parallel to the precession's axes and the notional  dipole's (electron orbits) axes.  That the orbiting electrons are moving through a possibly synchronized time-varying A field (i.e. an E field) could well impose forces that aid the precession, hence further advance the dipole flip.  I think the secret for both the Sweet and the Manelas devices is movement around a BH loop that normally is anti-clockwise meaning a loss, but the dipole flips get time-advanced by precession-synched signals applied to the other magnetic axes so that the BH loop is traversed clockwise.

Smudge
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Having given some thought to the conditioned magnet used by Manelas, I have arrived at the conclusion that Manelas first demagnetized his billet (probably by taking it above the Curie temperature) then created magnetized domains on its surface (probably by bringing NdFeB magnets close to its surface).  The attached paper tells how i came to that conclusion.

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1378
Smudge,

After your previous post I decided to dig out some 4"x6" strontium ferrite virgin blocks I had for years.  I placed a 25mm diameter neo on the surface in the center of one, left it there for a couple of seconds and then placed a pin as seen in the pix.  I tried to place the pin on it's point but couldn't get it to stay vertical.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1518
Smudge,

After your previous post I decided to dig out some 4"x6" strontium ferrite virgin blocks I had for years.  I placed a 25mm diameter neo on the surface in the center of one, left it there for a couple of seconds and then placed a pin as seen in the pix.  I tried to place the pin on it's point but couldn't get it to stay vertical.

Regards,
Pm
pm did you try using a a plastic cylinder like this? https://youtu.be/Wf2KDMs-qFk
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Smudge,

After your previous post I decided to dig out some 4"x6" strontium ferrite virgin blocks I had for years.  I placed a 25mm diameter neo on the surface in the center of one, left it there for a couple of seconds and then placed a pin as seen in the pix.  I tried to place the pin on it's point but couldn't get it to stay vertical.
I take it you had to push the neo against the repulsion force.  You should have felt a change from repulsion to attraction when it was near the surface as the ferrite flipped.  The levitation should occur with the pin away from the surface but you need a tube to stop it toppling as Jim said.  Close to the surface the pin will stand on end as you show but that is not levitation.  Do you have magnetic film that will show the flipped domain?

Smudge
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1518
I ran out of 0.4mm for my A coil so I’m ts only 75 turns. My B coil is a 100 turns and the c has same length of wire as B both are 0.5mm. This may still has south in centre.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1378
I take it you had to push the neo against the repulsion force.  You should have felt a change from repulsion to attraction when it was near the surface as the ferrite flipped.  The levitation should occur with the pin away from the surface but you need a tube to stop it toppling as Jim said.  Close to the surface the pin will stand on end as you show but that is not levitation.  Do you have magnetic film that will show the flipped domain?

Smudge

Smudge,

This was a virgin un-magnetized block so there was no domain flipping just polarization.

I need to order some magnetic film to have a look.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Jim,
Below is an image of the Manelas device.  You can see most of the wound ferrite billet at the top, clearly wound with his peculiar twisted pair wire.  Note that the windings cover the whole of the ferrite, not wound over just part of it.  If your billet has a deliberate magnetic pole at its center then your B and C windings are OK, but if like Manelas it has poles at the corners then your windings will not do the job.  Sorry about that.  Did you do any special conditioning of the billet before putting on the coils?

Smudge
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Smudge,

This was a virgin un-magnetized block so there was no domain flipping just polarization.

I need to order some magnetic film to have a look.

Regards,
Pm

OK, in that case it would not exhibit the levitation effect.  I think Manelas did what you have done but he did it five times, inducing poles not just at the center but also at the corners.  Whether he did this on both surfaces I don't know.  I think Jim's B and C coils would cover your central magnetized region and could then induce movement of the domain wall causing the domain to expand and contract, thus inducing voltage into the A (picture frame) coil.  I think the important feature to note is that the anisotropic (fixed axis) magnetization reverses polarity or direction across the domain wall so within the wall the Larmor precessions will be much lower than the usual microwaves so the dipoles there can be switched or flipped by manageable pulses applied to the B and C coils.

Smudge
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1518
Jim,
Below is an image of the Manelas device.  You can see most of the wound ferrite billet at the top, clearly wound with his peculiar twisted pair wire.  Note that the windings cover the whole of the ferrite, not wound over just part of it.  If your billet has a deliberate magnetic pole at its center then your B and C windings are OK, but if like Manelas it has poles at the corners then your windings will not do the job.  Sorry about that.  Did you do any special conditioning of the billet before putting on the coils?

Smudge
hi smudge yep the centre is conditioned with a neo. This the same mag I used in the above demo. I’ve made it so I can easily replace or try different coils.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1512
Having given consideration to why Manelas had those toroidal coils I have written a paper for you all to consider.  There is one reference in that paper so I have included that here as well.  Comments welcome.

Smudge
   
Pages: [1]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-11-29, 03:22:11