PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-07-05, 00:52:51
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Where does the energy come from  (Read 1413 times)
Group: Moderator
Jr. Member
*****

Posts: 93

Where does the extra energy come from?

Quote
Improvement in Induction Coils. Patent #119825 Daniel McFarland Cook

“… leaving a sufficient surplus terminal to overcome the resistance of the primary wire and charge the bar A to a degree necessary to reproduce itself in an opposite secondary coil.”


Quote
System for Generation of Electric Currents. Patent #14311 Carlos Benitez

“… when the circuit is broken by the interrupter, condenser 14 is charged and immediately afterwards discharges … The direct current that is produced when the discharge of said condenser 14 is finished, passing through pole 18 and entering the primary 15 through pole 16, produces a new charge … “
 

These two patents clearly indicate these inventors believed additional emf is produced by the discharge of induction transformer secondaries. Since this discharge is produced in induction coils, it stands to reason the terminal emf is induced during the collapse of the core’s magnetic field. Notice in the Cook patent the words “charge the bar A to a degree necessary to reproduce itself”. Cook is clearly stating a magnetic field of sufficient strength must be recreated in bar A by it’s coil to produce another terminal secondary current so the cycle can repeat.

Supposedly everyone knows the energy of a solenoid coil is stored in the magnetic field of the core. Right?

I don’t think so, not in a direct way. Most of us are familiar with Leedskalin’s “perpetual motion holder”. Think about that for a moment. As long as a keeper is stuck across the end of the bar the magnetic force or field is maintained in the bar, as evidenced by the emf that will be produced in a coil wound around the bar when the keeper is removed. That emf is produced by the collapse of the magnetic field of the bar, which has maintained itself, for years in some cases, without additional electric input from a solenoid coil on the bar.

In a non-magnetized iron core, small areas of iron are naturally magnetically aligned. These individual areas have magnetic fields with vectors pointing every which way from each other, resulting in a non-coherent over all magnetic field.
In my opinion this is the sequence that takes place when DC electricity is applied to a solenoid coil. The electricity in the coil creates a magnetic field around the wires which in turn forces some of the core iron to align along the vector of the coil magnetic field. That is where some of the electrical energy of the coil is expended, not stored, establishing it’s own fields and forcing core iron into magnetic alignment. Normally, some of that electrical energy being expended during the coil on period goes to heat radiation and the vast majority of it to destroying the potential difference in the source.

Next, at a later time, a new emf is induced in the coil by the collapse of the iron core magnetic field.

Two events have been presented so far.
   1. The emf expended establishing a magnetic field in the core.
   2. A new emf generated when the core’s magnetic field collapses.
Two events that can be separated by time. This supports the statements made in the Cook and Benitez patents regarding additional electricity.

An experiment was performed using a straight core transformer with the secondary configured with a diode  in order to receive only the inductive collapse. This transformer is far from being optimized. Each coil is in series with a cap so each outputs into it’s own 3000uF 400V electrolytic cap. 

Results with a 1 ms pulse from 17.4VDC source through a diode. Both caps initially zeroed.
Primary cap. 12.4V   .003 × 12.4 = 0.0372 Coulomb
Secondary cap. 5.7V  .003 × 5.7 = 0.0171 Coulomb
0.0543 Coulomb total, or 1.6 times the primary.
About 47% additional in cap 2, which is pretty good considering that is the inductive collapse only, minus the diode loss.

I am not claiming OU, only showing a source for additional energy. The iron and it’s magnetic field.

Cadman



---------------------------
'Tis better to try and fail than never try at all
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 109
Coulombs is a product of half of the voltage squared, times the capacitance.  No extra energy with this, compared to the primary.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3502
tExB=qr
Search this forum for the Energia Celeste patents.

There are also a few posts about high voltage pulses increasing the strength of a magnetic field.


Edit:
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=356.msg13579#msg13579
   
Group: Moderator
Jr. Member
*****

Posts: 93
Coulombs is a product of half of the voltage squared, times the capacitance.  No extra energy with this, compared to the primary.

Hi Jerry,

That formula is for stored energy (Joules). C times V is for charge, Coulombs.
And you're right, no extra energy with this compared to the primary.

Regards
Cadman
« Last Edit: 2022-06-18, 18:23:38 by Cadman »


---------------------------
'Tis better to try and fail than never try at all
   
Group: Moderator
Jr. Member
*****

Posts: 93
Search this forum for the Energia Celeste patents.

Thanks Grumpy. I'll have to see if something like that could be applied here, after I study it for a while.

Cheers
Cadman


---------------------------
'Tis better to try and fail than never try at all
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3502
tExB=qr
Another interesting, and related, incident was Elihu Thomson's demonstration of a Ruhmkorff coil and found he could draw a spark from any metallic object in the room. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=BhYBAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=elihu+thomson+demonstration+coil+sparks+doorknob&source=bl&ots=yOeZd73nKI&sig=ACfU3U0xnElvZ9eb5-iOuShV5-f3TIKvng&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwit3oPC2pv4AhWYRzABHT1aA8YQ6AF6BAgZEAM#v=onepage&q=elihu%20thomson%20demonstration%20coil%20sparks%20doorknob&f=false

Tesla studied this and a similar case of Henry where he discharged a capacitor and found that needles?/nails? in the basement of the building became magnetized.  Others noticed that lightning storms magnetized needles.

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Bell-System-Technical-Journal/30s/Bell-1932c.o.pdf

These events led to Tesla's radiant energy discovery and development.
« Last Edit: 2022-06-07, 17:08:33 by Grumpy »
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 109
Hi Jerry,

That formula is for stored energy (Joules). C times V is for charge, Coulombs.
And you're right, no extra energy with this, compared to the primary.

One of the things I intend to determine is, how does the total charge in C1 and C2 compare to the charge expended from the source.

Regards
Cadman

Thanks.  That's some important information, now that I know I don't always have to square the voltage.  I keep trying to figure out how many Coulombs I can have in one Mole of dielectric.  I think the charge will increase significantly at higher potential.  This is off topic, but I need to store around 30 Mega Joules to impart orbital kinetic energy, for each kilo of payload.  I'm using a five gallon bucket with 60 Moles in my example.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3502
tExB=qr
Thanks Grumpy. I'll have to see if something like that could be applied here, after I study it for a while.

Cheers
Cadman

see attached:

Francis Nipher concluded that an influence machine (Wimshurst?) altered the permeability of the air around the magnet that it was attached to.
One might also add that a magnetized metallic needle will also respond to an electric field, not just a magnetic field...
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 951
see attached:

Francis Nipher concluded that an influence machine (Wimshurst?) altered the permeability of the air around the magnet that it was attached to.
One might also add that a magnetized metallic needle will also respond to an electric field, not just a magnetic field...

Even if we had permalloy with a relative permeability of about 100,000, diluted to a density equivalent to air, it is doubtful that we would see any significant effect.
Permeability comes from atoms and molecules, and so its effect depends on their density. Air has far too low a density for an effect on its molecules to translate into an effect on its permeability (µr = 1.0000004).
Everything seems to point rather to an effect of static electricity of the ionised air.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1588
Even if we had permalloy with a relative permeability of about 100,000, diluted to a density equivalent to air, it is doubtful that we would see any significant effect.
Permeability comes from atoms and molecules, and so its effect depends on their density. Air has far too low a density for an effect on its molecules to translate into an effect on its permeability (µr = 1.0000004).
Everything seems to point rather to an effect of static electricity of the ionised air.
Air weighs 1.2Kg per cubic meter, so there are a lot of molecules there.  Non ionized molecules do not have a magnetic moment so air has virtually no permeability.  But do ionized molecules have a magnetic moment?  Isolated electrons do so I think it quite possible that ions do.  If so the ionized air could have permeability increased from that value you quoted.
Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 951
Air weighs 1.2Kg per cubic meter, so there are a lot of molecules there. Non ionized molecules do not have a magnetic moment so air has virtually no permeability.  But do ionized molecules have a magnetic moment?  Isolated electrons do so I think it quite possible that ions do.  If so the ionized air could have permeability increased from that value you quoted.
Smudge

1.2 Kg/m³ is a tiny density compared to any ferromagnetic material.
It is only 16 thousandths of the density of iron.

It is doubtful that you could make air molecules as magnetic as iron molecules. And even if you were to change their magnetic state, by ionizing them or otherwise, to the point that these molecules would be equivalent to iron, make a foam including iron at a ratio of only 1.2 Kg/m³, and try to measure magnetic effects, I doubt you would see much.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1588
1.2 Kg/m³ is a tiny density compared to any ferromagnetic material.
It is only 16 thousandths of the density of iron.
But iron can have a huge relative permeability, like 180K.  On that basis ionized air could have a permeability of 10.  Not very high but possibly measurable.
Smudge
   

Newbie
*

Posts: 39
But iron can have a huge relative permeability, like 180K.  On that basis ionized air could have a permeability of 10.  Not very high but possibly measurable.
Smudge

Would permeability increase relative to ionization?

I wonder how far such a concept might be pushed.....
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1588
Would permeability increase relative to ionization?
Yes on the basis that each ionized atom gaining an extra electron also obtains a dipole moment in the order of the Bohr magneton.  The more atoms ionized the more dipoles that can be flipped hence the greater the permeability.  Don't know how far this can be taken.
Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 951
But iron can have a huge relative permeability, like 180K.  On that basis ionized air could have a permeability of 10.  Not very high but possibly measurable.
Smudge

I don't think so.

The collective orientation of spins can only occur if they are close enough to each other to influence each other strongly enough to overcome molecular agitation. The force between magnetic dipoles weakens in 1/r³, so extremely rapidly with distance. Permeability is certainly not linear with density.

I am not aware that there are magnetic gases. The best that has been done required cooling to 150 millionths of a degree above absolute zero, otherwise molecular agitation destroys the alignments.
https://news.mit.edu/2009/magnetic-gas-0918


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 951
Would permeability increase relative to ionization?
...

Ionization does not concern atoms in crystal lattices, but those in liquids or gases.
If the atoms are not fixed, the spin orientation cannot be stable.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 274
Here is something that is I found very helpful with "where does the energy come from"
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27406358

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2198
Cadman
Quote
These two patents clearly indicate these inventors believed additional emf is produced by the discharge of induction transformer secondaries. Since this discharge is produced in induction coils, it stands to reason the terminal emf is induced during the collapse of the core’s magnetic field. Notice in the Cook patent the words “charge the bar A to a degree necessary to reproduce itself”. Cook is clearly stating a magnetic field of sufficient strength must be recreated in bar A by it’s coil to produce another terminal secondary current so the cycle can repeat.

The key to understanding the Cook setup is in his description of multiple currents. A "terminal current" means a conduction current and an "induced current" means a current induced by a changing magnetic field. In the description we can see Cook is very precise in his language about each individual current, what it's doing and it's qualities.

I built and tested the Cook device and it's a good place to start experimenting. When Cook said a current can reproduce itself it's just as it sounds. For example, we have two solenoid coils A and B, if we charge then discharge coil A it can induce/reproduce a current like itself in coil B. However all the energy from A never transfers to B which produces losses. Cook overcame these losses by adding the terminal/conduction current left in A to the induced current which was induced in B. This is the reason why he separated the currents into terminal and induced currents as there not the same.

Quote
I don’t think so, not in a direct way. Most of us are familiar with Leedskalin’s “perpetual motion holder”. Think about that for a moment. As long as a keeper is stuck across the end of the bar the magnetic force or field is maintained in the bar, as evidenced by the emf that will be produced in a coil wound around the bar when the keeper is removed. That emf is produced by the collapse of the magnetic field of the bar, which has maintained itself, for years in some cases, without additional electric input from a solenoid coil on the bar.

I also built and tested the “perpetual motion holder” PMH which is an interesting device similar to a capacitor in theory. When we generate a magnetic field across the gap on the U magnet and bar it's retained. This is true because the U magnet and bar are now two separate magnets having opposite polarities/poles which attract. Each pole end across the gap cannot dissipate because the other opposite pole won't let it.

This is similar to the reason why we cannot discharge only one terminal/plate of a charged capacitor. For example, we cannot discharge only the electrons on the (-) plate because all the (+) charges across the dielectric on the positive plate are holding them in place through attraction. The force of attraction is inward towards the dielectric center. Just as the magnetic forces on the U magnet and bar are inward towards the gaps.

This PMH is simply a means to store a magnetic field in the same way a capacitor stores an electric field. In fact, the phenomena is not much different than reel to reel and cassette tapes storing information on ferromagnetic tape as very tiny individual magnetic fields. It just goes to show how little the critics actually understand because the PMH is really simple.

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: Moderator
Jr. Member
*****

Posts: 93
Cadman
The key to understanding the Cook setup is in his description of multiple currents. A "terminal current" means a conduction current and an "induced current" means a current induced by a changing magnetic field. In the description we can see Cook is very precise in his language about each individual current, what it's doing and it's qualities.
...

AC,

Cook’s description of his induction coils and their currents is what my experiment was designed around. Can they produce more than they consume?

The standard thinking is no induction coil can output more than input, which is true the way transformers are normally configured. What Jerry said in the second post is exactly right, ‘No extra energy with this, compared to the primary’.

But Cook didn’t use a normal configuration, did he. His coils were not configured as a load and the inducing current is not sent to ground, it’s used and then sent to the other induction coil. Plus, his secondary coil output is used with the primary’s, the terminal emfs induced in both coils are sent to the other induction coil.

I performed another test. A 4700uF cap was used as the source. A 1 ms pulse sent to the same transformer and circuit in the first post and then the source cap positive line disconnected from the circuit as quickly as possible with a toggle switch.

C1, source cap 4700uF 35V cap
Beginning charge 17.8V×0.00470 = 0.0837 C
Ending 16V×0.0047 = 0.0752 C
Charge used 0.0837− 0.0752 = 0.0085 C

C2 & C3, receiving caps 3000uF 400V
C2, output from primary coil: 14.7V×0.003 = 0.0441 C
C3, output from secondary coil: 6V×0.003 = 0.018 C
Total output C2+C3
0.0441+0.018 = 0.0621 C

COP (C2+C3)÷C1= 0.0621÷0.0085 = 7.3058

Without adding in the output from the primary, C2
COP = 0.018÷0.0085 = 2.117

Unless C1 is receiving extra charge from somewhere before I can take the voltage readings, I think the numbers are correct. But, I’m still skeptical.

Can anyone spot a mistake with my method or figures?

AC, did you see similar results in your Cook coils?

Regards
Cadman




---------------------------
'Tis better to try and fail than never try at all
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1588
@Cadman,

Charge is not energy, so using COP in relation to input and output charge is wrong.  Energy is charge times voltage, so could you repeat the COP calculations as energy ratio using the voltages of the input and output charges.

Smudge
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 346
Enjoy your trek through life but leave no tracks
@Cadman,

Charge is not energy, so using COP in relation to input and output charge is wrong.  Energy is charge times voltage, so could you repeat the COP calculations as energy ratio using the voltages of the input and output charges.

Smudge
This could be confusing to guy's here, most relate this word with a battery (voltage in phase with current), perhaps you could share you’re knowledge and explain.

If you look at or can find some of Nelsons Rocha's video's he just used a HVoltage lead and wound a small number of turns around and pulsed it with a current
thus adding volts and current supposedly and called it an electron trap, witch he then showed a gain of power, perhaps you can explain that two.

Sil
« Last Edit: 2022-06-26, 15:13:51 by AlienGrey »
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1492
AC,

Cook’s description of his induction coils and their currents is what my experiment was designed around. Can they produce more than they consume?

The standard thinking is no induction coil can output more than input, which is true the way transformers are normally configured. What Jerry said in the second post is exactly right, ‘No extra energy with this, compared to the primary’.

But Cook didn’t use a normal configuration, did he. His coils were not configured as a load and the inducing current is not sent to ground, it’s used and then sent to the other induction coil. Plus, his secondary coil output is used with the primary’s, the terminal emfs induced in both coils are sent to the other induction coil.

I performed another test. A 4700uF cap was used as the source. A 1 ms pulse sent to the same transformer and circuit in the first post and then the source cap positive line disconnected from the circuit as quickly as possible with a toggle switch.

C1, source cap 4700uF 35V cap
Beginning charge 17.8V×0.00470 = 0.0837 C
Ending 16V×0.0047 = 0.0752 C
Charge used 0.0837− 0.0752 = 0.0085 C

To elaborate on what Smudge stated, Uc1=(17.8^2-16^2)*4700e-6/2 = .143J for input energy .  This assumes that C1 is actually it's rated value.  Most standard 'lytics are +80-20%.

Quote
C2 & C3, receiving caps 3000uF 400V
C2, output from primary coil: 14.7V×0.003 = 0.0441 C
C3, output from secondary coil: 6V×0.003 = 0.018 C
Total output C2+C3
0.0441+0.018 = 0.0621 C

The question here is, does C2 and C3 start the cycle with zero volts prior to the discharge of C1?  If not, then the difference voltages must be used in the overall energy calculations.

If so, then Uc2 = 14.7^2*3000e-6/2 = .324J and UC3 = 6^2*3000e-6/2 = .054J for a total recovered energy of .378J .  This would result in an apparent COP = 2.64 .

Pm

Quote
COP (C2+C3)÷C1= 0.0621÷0.0085 = 7.3058

Without adding in the output from the primary, C2
COP = 0.018÷0.0085 = 2.117

Unless C1 is receiving extra charge from somewhere before I can take the voltage readings, I think the numbers are correct. But, I’m still skeptical.

Can anyone spot a mistake with my method or figures?

AC, did you see similar results in your Cook coils?

Regards
Cadman

   
Group: Moderator
Jr. Member
*****

Posts: 93
@Cadman,

Charge is not energy, so using COP in relation to input and output charge is wrong.  Energy is charge times voltage, so could you repeat the COP calculations as energy ratio using the voltages of the input and output charges.

Smudge

Smudge,

Ok, point taken. Wrong term for the comparison. Thank you.
So what is the correct term to use for comparison of charge quantities?

That being acknowledged a coulomb is a specific number of electrons.
How can there be 7 times more electrons in C2 + C3 than were taken from C1?

Respectfully
Cadman

PS.  Partzman,

Thank you for the examples. All caps were zeroed before the tests. I have not put a meter to them to check the actual capacitance but I will.



---------------------------
'Tis better to try and fail than never try at all
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2198
Cadman

For the circuit and caps my only concern is energy.
The formula for energy in a cap is Energy=1/2CV^2. The energy loss/gain is the total energy in the caps before vs after a test run.

Quote
Cook’s description of his induction coils and their currents is what my experiment was designed around. Can they produce more than they consume?
The standard thinking is no induction coil can output more than input, which is true the way transformers are normally configured. What Jerry said in the second post is exactly right, ‘No extra energy with this, compared to the primary’.

I like to work the problem backwards, what is energy?. Energy is motion relating to work (a Force acting over a Distance) ergo any extra energy in the Cook coil must relate to an extra Force/field or extra Distance/motion ie. current. So we can dispense with most of the other nonsense and look for means to produce extra Voltage or Current. As these are the only means to produce extra energy.

Here's a clue, Cook said only one coil is required which ends up acting like a linear/series generator. While two coils shown in the patent acts more like a flip-flop or alternating generator. So we now know the two coil setup has a flip-flop or alternating action which produces an extra force or current on each alternation cycle.

What most people lack is focus and a plan. All the successful FE inventors basically had the same plan or procedure as follows...
1)Build a system which shuttles energy between two or more circuit elements with minimal losses. Find the greatest efficiency.
2)Find ways or means to produce an extra force or an extra motion within the system to extend it's operation. Avoid equilibrium.
3)build on what was learned to produce enough extra force/motion to sustain the system operation.

No FE inventor jumped right into free energy and always built the process up layer by layer learning as they go. Start with efficiency, then extended operation, then self-sustaining operation and finally drawing more energy from the system to power a load. In this respect we should avoid a permanent power source like a battery and use caps and measure how long the system can operate. We input a known amount of energy then work towards extending the operating time until it becomes self-sustaining.

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
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 346
Enjoy your trek through life but leave no tracks
Hi there you don’t really answer the question of where the energy comes from
how about it's already there that’s what the masters know, and they all talk about
particle or is it electron acceleration.


Sil
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-07-05, 00:52:51