PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-12-03, 19:55:30
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 [3] 4 5
Author Topic: Principles of Operation  (Read 11121 times)

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
My theory based on my own experimental observations was that if the magnitude of change of a disturbance is much greater than the ability of a medium/material to conduct it a slightly different form of "conduction" can occur. This based on Nikola Tesla's lectures, experiments and observations.

We could think of it this way, if we could force a massive number of charge carriers into a surface in nanoseconds faster than it could possibly conduct them away a material expansion/ejection could occur. Now we have extra motion not normally considered as the charge carrier/material is no longer static but dynamic, ie motional. You see as an inventor I can easily imagine a "conductor" moving in multiple dimensions.

It's textbook physics isn't it?, the rate at which a charge carrying "conductor" moves determines the magnitude of the inductive effect on other nearby conductors. However now we have a little snag because the supposed surface which was supposedly conducting is now expanding radially outward at a rate faster than the rate of linear conduction were familiar with. Wait... what?, the surface could become variable?. Well, of course it can because in reality the field is always a function of the aggregate of charge carriers and not the objects we think were seeing, it's an illusion. Remember, all material including conductors is only 1% matter and 99% EM fields. In reality it's not material in the sense we imagine it to be it's fluid, apply enough energy to a material and it becomes fluid. 

In any case it's cool, whatever starts your tractor and at this point I'm just happy to wake up each morning. I'm thankful your here to offer another perspective and right or wrong it adds to the debate.

Regards
AC

AC, in your radiant cap-discharge setups,
do you suspect there is a 'critical mass' in terms of voltage or capacity for the effect to clearly manifest?
30/50/80kv,  x number of joules, etc?

I was also wondering if you've tried lower-voltage caps triggered by 'plasma-ignition' style circuit (HV spark to trigger a LV cap discharge).


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Nothing there invalidates the radio effect of a Tesla coil.

Every coil will posses a transverse and longitudinal component.  I dare you to find an S11 VNA chart that doesn't.  The goal in tellurics is minimizing the radiated(herzian) component and maximizing the longitudinal component.  This has been covered many times already, both in transmission line analysis as well as from Tesla himself:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US787412A/en
Quote
Second. It is necessary to employ oscillations in which the rate of radiation of energy into space in the form of hertzian or electromagnetic waves is very small. To give an idea, I would say that the frequency should be smaller than twenty thousand per second, though shorter waves might be practicable. The lowest frequency would appear to be six per second, in which case there will be but one node, at or near the ground-mate. and, paradoxical as it may seem, the effect will increase with the distance and will be greatest in a region diametrically opposite the transmitter. With oscillations still slower the earth, strictly speaking, will not resonate, but simply act as a capacity, and the variation of potential will be more or less uniform over its entire surface.

Every inductor has capacitance and every capacitor has inductance.  This is why I like to use transmission line models, to accurately predict+quantify the properties of both modes.

I even provided the simulation model so you can compare for yourself: https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4344.msg100514#msg100514

I await your results.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Every coil will posses a transverse and longitudinal component.
...
Every inductor has capacitance and every capacitor has inductance.
...

Digression.
No relation with the radio emission of a Tesla coil, which some experimenters brandish as a proof of connection by the longitudinal wave.

Naudin already experimented with your scheme in 1998, and he found a COP of 4: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lmdtem.htm :)
So I don't see what you are looking for, the FE has been available for 25 years! Or maybe the energy by the longitudinal wave is less energetic than the other one, they are not the same joules... any theory on that?  :)

As for the Tesla patent, it works in the near field. Coupled LC circuits are used for decades in electronics, especially RF, it is conventional electromagnetism.

Is this free energy research?! To be satisfied with what does not work, and to say that what works, but without FE, is according to extravagant principles?  This is going in circles.


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

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
F6, have you had a chance to tinker with the transverse + longitudinal network analogues in the simulator yet to compare the different properties between them?  I was hoping that would better explain the potential principle-of-operation of a telluric system.

I've never claimed that longitudinal waves are 'over-unity', only that they have different transmission properties and loss characteristics (as can be seenn+modeled inside a circuit simulator or on the bench).


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
@Hak

A principle is made to explain observations and measurements. You speak of a principle, but the principle of what, we don't know, since no facts demonstrate a longitudinal wave.

In what unit is the amplitude of a longitudinal wave measured? You talk about a longitudinal wave around a Tesla coil, without even saying how its amplitude is measured, nor how you differentiate it from a classical EM wave, nor why Naudin sees in it overunity and not others, even though the setup is the same.

And you never answer when you are asked these kinds of factual questions, you just send back irrelevant links, as if you did not understand the principle yourself and were not able to express it in your own words.

When you tell us about your own tests, when you put your measurement results, the details of how you proceed, the method to distinguish longitudinality from transversality, and express them with your own words and scientific rigor, you will acquire a beginning of credibility.
This will be much more useful than your more or less insulting images, imho the result of a psychological projection, whose repetitive puerility is becoming a bit painful.



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

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Quote from: Hakasays
F6, have you had a chance to tinker with the transverse + longitudinal network analogues in the simulator yet to compare the different properties between them?
A simple 'no' would suffice.  C.C :P

I've already spent days sharing experiments, analogies, and simulations with you (which I still doubt you've even clicked on).  Based on the brick-wall response thus-far, I suspect I'm not going to get any useful insights from you to warrant further discussion here.  So I'll simply leave you to your work as I return to mine. ;)


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr

In what unit is the amplitude of a longitudinal wave measured? You talk about a longitudinal wave around a Tesla coil, without even saying how its amplitude is measured, nor how you differentiate it from a classical EM wave, nor why Naudin sees in it overunity and not others, even though the setup is the same.


Has anyone, other than Naudin, experienced these results?
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Has anyone, other than Naudin, experienced these results?

After 25 years, it would be known.
The problem with Naudin, who as an experimenter did an excellent job and documented it much more seriously than anyone else in the free energy movement, is that when he noticed a mistake, he did not redo his WEB pages or put an erratum.
He is also the only one who found a COP>1 in the MEG and in a version of his Kapagen, while in the following versions there is no more overunity, and Naudin will never give an explanation.



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

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
F6, I'd rather not waste another few hours answering with links+citations that you'll never read.  You still haven't answered any of my questions, so IMO my time today is better spent using VNA to reverse-engineer the bulk properties of telluric transmission media.


Tesla had the profile of an exceptional engineer. Unfortunately he also thought he was a physicist, but his ideas opposed to the science of his time were not successful.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1809
After 25 years, it would be known.
The problem with Naudin, who as an experimenter did an excellent job and documented it much more seriously than anyone else in the free energy movement, is that when he noticed a mistake, he did not redo his WEB pages or put an erratum.
He is also the only one who found a COP>1 in the MEG and in a version of his Kapagen, while in the following versions there is no more overunity, and Naudin will never give an explanation.

Not quite true actually!  I found OU in my version of the MEG which used MOV's as the load.  The secondaries were high voltage and the power in and power out were measured on a 3-phase Voltech PM3000 which is quite capable of taking measurements on highly non-linear and reactive loads.  There may still be mention of my work on JLN's website under Jon F.

I would provide the data but unfortunately that was lost many computer crashes ago.  IIRC, the COP was typically ~1.7 and increased with the addition of the PM assembly placed in the center of the Metglas core.

Regards,
Pm
   
Group: Guest
No analysis on your part expressed here, just irrelevant references to the questions. I don't call that "sharing".
;)
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
...You still haven't answered any of my questions...

Answering a question with a question is like reversing the burden of proof. I am not fooled by this rhetorical method.
I am not the one who proposes the subject. So it is up to you to answer the questions, however simple.


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

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Answering a question with a question is like reversing the burden of proof. I am not fooled by this rhetorical method.
I am not the one who proposes the subject. So it is up to you to answer the questions, however simple.

My question precedes yours.   The question is, are you actually exploring the subject and materials or just wasting my time?


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
After 25 years, it would be known.
The problem with Naudin, who as an experimenter did an excellent job and documented it much more seriously than anyone else in the free energy movement, is that when he noticed a mistake, he did not redo his WEB pages or put an erratum.
He is also the only one who found a COP>1 in the MEG and in a version of his Kapagen, while in the following versions there is no more overunity, and Naudin will never give an explanation.

What was Naudin's mistake?
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
What was Naudin's mistake?

Only he can tell.
Who would be stupid enough to miss a selfrunner from an effect with a COP of 4?
Certainly not Naudin. So he knows where he went wrong.


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

Posts: 1809
I have never yet seen a free energy experimenter able to provide the uncertainty margin on his overunity measurement, nor to have his setup duplicated, nor to be infallible.
In OU, the only acceptable proof is a reproducible selfrunner setup.

Do you have one? If so provide an engineering diagram, your measurement protocol and your measurements, and if it's convincing, there are some competent experimenters here who will reproduce it. That's what we're here for, not to listen to the fairy tales of those who thought they were seeing OU somewhere but still have their power grid subscription.

Well I can say this, I tried to realize a self-runner from the device but soon realized that I could not convert the extra energy seen in the Mov loads back to the power supply.  So, the exercise was one in frustration and I also then realized that one could experience OU but not accomplish feedback to self-run. 

If you or anyone else might have any suggestions, I would love to hear them and if reasonably logical, I would be willing to rebuild the device and give it a try!

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
Any details on why you couldn't feed back to output?
Was the output somehow incompatible?
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
Well I can say this, I tried to realize a self-runner from the device but soon realized that I could not convert the extra energy seen in the Mov loads back to the power supply.  So, the exercise was one in frustration and I also then realized that one could experience OU but not accomplish feedback to self-run. 

If you or anyone else might have any suggestions, I would love to hear them and if reasonably logical, I would be willing to rebuild the device and give it a try!

Regards,
Pm

To an extent it makes sense.  Just because you have a COP 5.0 heat pump doesn't mean you can use the output to directly drive a Tesla Turbine.


---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping-up and analyzing a thousand buckets of seawater that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1809
Any details on why you couldn't feed back to output?
Was the output somehow incompatible?

The Mov is a non-linear resistance and capacitance.  Standing alone as a load it exhibited more output energy than input energy from the PS.  So in my thinking since the output voltage was greater than the input power supply, I tried two different connections that is, load in series with the PS and in parallel with the PS.  Both failed to supply the excess energy in the Mov to the supply, it's that simple.

Pm
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
The Mov is a non-linear resistance and capacitance.  Standing alone as a load it exhibited more output energy than input energy from the PS.  So in my thinking since the output voltage was greater than the input power supply, I tried two different connections that is, load in series with the PS and in parallel with the PS.  Both failed to supply the excess energy in the Mov to the supply, it's that simple.

Pm

Did connecting the output to the PS change the non-linear resistance and capacitance values?
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4045

We have to admit it. It happened to me. And this is one more reason why a selfrunner device must be required for an OU demonstration.
Sir
It would be nice to read some details of your experience?

I often wondered what you find intriguing enuff to ?
Respectfully
Chet
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2982


Buy me a beer
Any OU self runner has to feed from within itself IMO, and not directly from the output to the input which would change the dynamics of the unit in the first place.

Regards

Mike


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1809
Did connecting the output to the PS change the non-linear resistance and capacitance values?

IIRC, the series connection basically left the Mov characteristics the same due to the fact that the power supply voltage was 30-35v dc and the output voltages reached ~800-900 peak.  So, I was feeding the output current thru the Mov back to the supply.

In the parallel mode, I don't really remember how I scaled the output down to the lower supply voltage but I probably rectified the output and then used a 'lytic capacitor divider scheme for the level difference.

Neither one of these schemes utilized what was measured as excess energy in the Mov's.

Pm
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Hakasays
Quote
AC, in your radiant cap-discharge setups,
do you suspect there is a 'critical mass' in terms of voltage or capacity for the effect to clearly manifest?
30/50/80kv,  x number of joules, etc?

For sure and the minimum I used was around 100kV. Initially I was using my 500kV Van De Graaff, 20 plate (6"x12") parallel plate capacitor and quenched SG. Later I found a properly rectified Oudin, Ruhmkorff or Tesla coil setup can also work. It must be a unidirectional HV DC impulse with no return path so that whatever energy enters the load must radiate from the load.

Quote
I was also wondering if you've tried lower-voltage caps triggered by 'plasma-ignition' style circuit (HV spark to trigger a LV cap discharge).

I was experimenting with that circuit around 10+ years ago when it was called the water spark plug circuit. It's a great circuit for lean burn and/or water injection engines. I found it will not produce a true radiant event because the discharge is at the zero point of the circuit. That is, all the negative charge is negating/cancelling itself when it meets the equal and opposite positive charge across the gap. This qualifies as a focal point for the dissipation of energy which is not what we want. Our focal point must be the load surface and the space surrounding our emitter.

I developed my own theory and form of notation based solely on energy/transformations and unfortunately it would take forever to explain. The main consideration is the zero point/plane where two opposite conditions/charges meet forcing the dissipation of energy as a transformation. For example, we short a battery with a resistance and wherever the opposite charges meet, the resistance, the majority of energy is dissipated. Thus by observing and understanding how and where energy generates/dissipates within any given system we can modify and focus said generation/dissipation.

It begs the question, how many people focus only on energy/transformations?. Not a given field of science, not math or equations, not any given phenomena but only on energy/transformations?. As Viktor Schauberger implied, if everyone is doing the same thing and it's not working out as expected we should consider doing the opposite...

Regards
AC




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

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
It must be a unidirectional HV DC impulse with no return path so that whatever energy enters the load must radiate from the load.

There it is. 
   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-12-03, 19:55:30