Hall Effect Energy Generation

[F6FLT]

...
Having said that, actual measurements to test energy conservation are lacking. The same example of a plate capacitor is used in almost all cases, and extended to the inductive case without any change. Simultaneity is always assumed, even though it's rarely true in a magnetic core.

The behavior of a varactor diode whose C changes by a ratio of 20 with a 10 V reverse bias and close to zero current seems to contradict the simplicity of the standard formulation...
...

When none of the thousands of thousands of cases of energy use contradicts its conservation, it is elevated to the level of a principle. This is called reasonable doubt.

An unreasonable doubt would be to say that since we have not tested all the objects that can fall to the ground, it is not sure that some objects would not fall upwards.

Since it only takes one counterexample to invalidate the principle, it is now up to those who put an unreasonable doubt on the principle, to provide a counterexample with of course a proof at the level of the claim.

I often see non-simultaneity evoked, whereas it does not change the problem. For example, a magnetic flux will influence magnetic domains which in turn will influence domains further away. The effects and reactions to effects, including conservation of energy, occur step by step from one end of the chain to the other until you see them at the other end.

Regarding the varactor, I don't see why, apart from counteracting losses, it would take energy to reduce its capacity. It only needs energy if it is charged.

[Hakasays]

Hi Hakasys,

I wouldn't overemphasize the difficulty of such projects. I've been involved in 7-10 parametric projects (depending on how you count them) since 1997 when I first worked with Jean-Louis Naudin on the subject, and we always got oscillation if not OU. Parametric oscillation is actually a pretty robust natural phenomena.
In any case, when you begin your project work, I will have a deluge of suggestions and ideas. Be warned LOL!

Fred

Indeed, and I have already spent many experiments and hundreds of hours of research trying to narrow things down.
The main issue appears to be that since L+C are equal-opposites energetically speaking, that a parameter change does not necessarily add/remove energy but merely transposes it from one domain to the other.
So the parametric variation would have to occur faster than the flow of energy in a given system, and/or the effect has to be done on a signal in-transit.  Energy only exists in the conjugate, not in the individual fields.  Explains why many credible devices employ ions/electrons in their theory.
Also things like switched capacitance are generally out, because the frequency of a wave resulting from it would be infinite/undefined.

More broadly speaking, I think variation of characteristic impedance will prove a more useful concept going forward.

The only project which approached, or was OU (still not sure) was one with varactor diodes. rather than cores.

I remember Mark Snoswell and a couple others using such systems to create sub-nanosecond kilovolt impulses but I did not think it was related to parametrics.   Or am I thinking of something completely different?

[Orthofield]

Hi F6FLT,

When none of the thousands of thousands of cases of energy use contradicts its conservation, it is elevated to the level of a principle. This is called reasonable doubt.

An unreasonable doubt would be to say that since we have not tested all the objects that can fall to the ground, it is not sure that some objects would not fall upwards.

I get your point, and it may have been sophistical for me to say that there was doubt there, simply because not all cases have been tried. But I have seen enough material on the coherence of thermal noise by parametric processes to wonder about whether this is a path to do this. I don't ascribe to the idea that something can come from nothing. I believe in the conservation of energy. I just doubt that all energetic factors are included in this analysis.

And odd things do happen in the sky, as you probably know. There have been well authenticated falls of heavy objects that should never have been up there in the first place. So one can argue that it's only by selective reading of the evidence that you can assert that things always fall down.

Since it only takes one counterexample to invalidate the principle, it is now up to those who put an unreasonable doubt on the principle, to provide a counterexample with of course a proof at the level of the claim.

Of course.

I often see non-simultaneity evoked, whereas it does not change the problem. For example, a magnetic flux will influence magnetic domains which in turn will influence domains further away. The effects and reactions to effects, including conservation of energy, occur step by step from one end of the chain to the other until you see them at the other end.

I can give the example of a short rod of ferrite with a very fast pulse put on a coil on one end-- the energy of the pulse is indeed transferred to the moving domain wave. At the other end, a coil takes the pulse and converts it into current to a load. Now, when it does this, another pulse is sent from that coil back to the first, where it can induce some current into that coil. Isn't this a case where the reactive energy of the second coil has been turned into active energy in the first?

Regarding the varactor, I don't see why, apart from counteracting losses, it would take energy to reduce its capacity. It only needs energy if it is charged.

A varactor in for instance a VCO can control the frequency, with only a voltage bias. Obviously the varactor is charged through this process, but still, there is no need for current from the bias supply, regardless of the charge on the varactor. Or am I wrong on this?

I should add that I have no attachment at all to the 'quest for free energy'. I don't care if it exists or not. I support OU projects because they tend to draw the most unconventional and creative people, the ones who are most likely to come up with the new energy sources for humanity. I also see people obsessed with overunity rejecting excellent solutions just because they draw on a known source of energy. I would be very happy with 90% conversion of thermal or light energy into power, for instance-- and that's what I aim for. However, my experience in trying to convince people on science and engineering sites that there are fully conventional solutions they haven't thought of has led me to believe that those groups are hopelessly close-minded, and that the only hope lies with the credulous, for all their mishaps. People who believe in things that are 'not possible' are necessary for humanity to advance, because from a strictly rational standpoint, we are doomed. So I cast my fate with the dreamers, no matter how unhinged they may be in any particular case.

Fred

[Orthofield]

Hi F6FLT,

Just for clarification, some of what is in the quote box is my reply. I've never gotten the hang of the quote feature here...

Fred

[F6FLT]

Hi F6FLT,


A varactor in for instance a VCO can control the frequency, with only a voltage bias. Obviously the varactor is charged through this process, but still, there is no need for current from the bias supply, regardless of the charge on the varactor. Or am I wrong on this?

Hi Fred,

You have to go back to the principle. The varactor is a capacitor and a capacitor can be "charged".
But the varactor has a variable capacitance whose value is varied by a control signal. Although in practice the two functions are mixed, the control signal is not supposed to charge the capacitor but only to drive its capacitance.
When a capacitor is charged, moving the plates apart requires work against the coulomb force that attracts the two plates.
But when the capacitance is empty, reducing its value requires no work (just move the plates apart, no force is holding them).
This is true regardless of the technology used. This is true even in the varactor driving a VCO, but obviously there the charge is very low, it doesn't make much difference if you change the capacitance at a time when the useful sine signal is at max or zero, especially since the control signal is mixed with the useful signal and of a much higher level than it.

I should add that I have no attachment at all to the 'quest for free energy'. I don't care if it exists or not. I support OU projects because they tend to draw the most unconventional and creative people, the ones who are most likely to come up with the new energy sources for humanity. I also see people obsessed with overunity rejecting excellent solutions just because they draw on a known source of energy. I would be very happy with 90% conversion of thermal or light energy into power, for instance-- and that's what I aim for.

I agree except that it would be the most creative people who would come. They are rather the most inclined to believe in the marvellous. They are rarely creative, as creation requires the passage of ideas to their realisation, and here we see that we don't have any realisation of free energy.

However, my experience in trying to convince people on science and engineering sites that there are fully conventional solutions they haven't thought of has led me to believe that those groups are hopelessly close-minded, and that the only hope lies with the credulous, for all their mishaps. People who believe in things that are 'not possible' are necessary for humanity to advance, because from a strictly rational standpoint, we are doomed. So I cast my fate with the dreamers, no matter how unhinged they may be in any particular case.

Fred

To convince these people, there is only one solution: present them with something real that works and that for them should not work.

Don't think that these people are closed. They are open, most scientists are open, they do research and have useful innovative results, but not free energy because they have seen no trace of it in their observations, and unlike free energy researchers, they stick to what they observe, without looking for their prejudices like the belief in free energy.

For example, we see a lot of work by university researchers on Maxwell's demons or on LENR. Broli has just passed on an interesting topic on the possibility of obtaining free energy from graphene (used precisely as a variable capacitor), and this idea is defended by a PhD, Paul Thibado, University of Pennsylvania.
These people are not closed-minded at all, but much more demanding of proof, much better able to quickly eliminate nonsense and sort out what is promising, without confusion with what is conventional.
So my opinion is that if free energy is eventually found, it will more likely be by these people than by us. But we're taking our chances by having fun playing Tesla, the main thing is not to take ourselves so seriously that we would deny conventional science by pretentiously believing ourselves to be the only open minds. Only the method of working must be serious, as serious as that of the scientists, if we want results.

[Orthofield]

Hi F6FLT,

You said:

"You have to go back to the principle. The varactor is a capacitor and a capacitor can be "charged".
But the varactor has a variable capacitance whose value is varied by a control signal. Although in practice the two functions are mixed, the control signal is not supposed to charge the capacitor but only to drive its capacitance.
When a capacitor is charged, moving the plates apart requires work against the coulomb force that attracts the two plates.
But when the capacitance is empty, reducing its value requires no work (just move the plates apart, no force is holding them).
This is true regardless of the technology used. This is true even in the varactor driving a VCO, but obviously there the charge is very low, it doesn't make much difference if you change the capacitance at a time when the useful sine signal is at max or zero, especially since the control signal is mixed with the useful signal and of a much higher level than it."

I understand that the control signal doesn't charge the varactor. No real current flows from this signal so how could it charge it? A not unusual reverse bias current for a varactor with a C ratio of 20 for 10-12 V. bias is around 20 nA. This is the maximum current when the varactor is in operation in the VCO, that is, when is being repeatedly charged. The signal V is indeed much lower than the bias V but since the forward current is 50 mA or so, there is real power going through the varactor in a cycle-- while the varactor bias isn't supplying any real power to change the C.

To your other points, in general I have not seen many open minds in the scientific community. Sure, there are open minded scientists (just like there are skeptical enthusiasts) but neither minority makes any headway in changing the larger consensus of their particular subcultures. There is a strong psychological identification with theories taught over and over in academia. It's not scientific but it is how the culture of science actually works.

Let's see how much traction Thibido gets from the larger scientific world. I predict none, just as the last three people to invent the same thing experienced. Yater did all this stuff in the 90s (without the graphene) and he is nearly forgotten now, knocked down by a slew of papers saying that what he did was impossible. Shanefield was a full professor at Rutgers when he invented his diode thermal noise gadget, and it was forgotten until I found it again.

Fred

[F6FLT]

Fred, I must have misspoken, I'll rephrase. As the varactor works by the reverse bias that is applied to this type of diode, a current will flow when we change the bias to change the capacitance.
So the control voltage will charge the capacitor, even if the useful sinus voltage is zero.
But this is a consequence of the technology used, which is not perfect: an inverse diode where the control signal and the useful signal are applied to the same two electrodes of the diode.

In principle, an ideal variable capacitor only needs energy to decrease its capacitance if it is charged, since coulombic attraction must then be overcome. No energy is needed if it is empty.
And what happens in the ideal case also happens in the real case, in addition to the defects of the technology used, which may be predominant.

[Orthofield]

Hi F6FLT,

Yes, you are quite correct. I misunderstood. Even if the bias current is zero, this should still happen since obviously charge can't be created in the diode. It must flow in.
The fact that bias and output currents flow through the same wire is the major stumbling block. To test my theory, I'd have to forward charge the varactor first, then bias it to lower C, and increase V, and then while it's still biased dump the varactor charge into a fixed capacitor, ideally through an inductor so that the transfer happens most efficiently.
This seems possible to do but beyond my very limited building skills at present. (I've been a paper pusher for most of my life-- own a bookstore--and only in the last months have decided to do practical work)
But I've drawn up an idea to substitute a varactor for the graphene sheet in the Thibido device. The idea being that noise voltages in the diode must vary the depletion layer, giving a small, random unidirectional current. The additional diodes don't need to be used. I can test the diode at different temperatures.
A more conventional energy harvesting idea is to attach a small E field antenna to the reverse bias end of the varactor. The intensity of the E field is around 100-300 V/m and undoubtedly varies both randomly and cyclically with time-- so plenty of capacitance variation for a harvester...

Fred

[Orthofield]

Indeed, and I have already spent many experiments and hundreds of hours of research trying to narrow things down.
The main issue appears to be that since L+C are equal-opposites energetically speaking, that a parameter change does not necessarily add/remove energy but merely transposes it from one domain to the other.
So the parametric variation would have to occur faster than the flow of energy in a given system, and/or the effect has to be done on a signal in-transit.  Energy only exists in the conjugate, not in the individual fields.  Explains why many credible devices employ ions/electrons in their theory.
Also things like switched capacitance are generally out, because the frequency of a wave resulting from it would be infinite/undefined.

More broadly speaking, I think variation of characteristic impedance will prove a more useful concept going forward.
I remember Mark Snoswell and a couple others using such systems to create sub-nanosecond kilovolt impulses but I did not think it was related to parametrics.   Or am I thinking of something completely different?

I'm perplexed by your statements. I probably just don't understand them. If L is fixed and C is changing, OR if C is fixed and L is changing, energy is generated in both cases. There are obviously issues with Q-- if the frequency is too low for a given Q, the oscillations will not form. And this ties in with the load R as well. Equations for calculating these factors are given in a number of places, including the Mandelshtam and Papaleksi papers here in the forum.
I understand your point about the infinite or indefinite frequency of a perfect switch, but imperfect switches still give results. It's the frequency of switching that's the significant factor. I've tested two switched capacitive devices, both generated a small output voltage at the switching frequency. The first test used a relay and was thus prone to switching noise, although the waveform was perfectly sinusoidal--the second used an optoelectronic switch and showed a variety of high harmonics of the switching frequency. Unfortunately I've lost the details of the second experiment as it was many years, and computers, ago. The issue with switched circuits is that since the switching must be done at maximum current or voltage, half the energy is lost--unless one switches it into a parallel circuit, which seems like the obvious solution. As I mentioned, the paper by Barrow I posted in 2015 here is well worth reading on the subject of switched reactances.  I've attached it here again for your reading pleasure. Further, there is a paper by Howson and Szilip that shows that switching the parametric variation source in and out of the circuit at quadrature to the parametric change removes the restriction of the Manley Rowe relation that limits the gain to F2/F1. That seems pretty important.
I worked for Mark at one point, but I wasn't aware of any experiments like this from him. I was referring to experiments that Roberto Notte did on a parametric patent by J.B Gunn that I recently reposted-- it's in Partzman's forum.

Fred