Hubbard Coil

[muDped]

Think about that... Qualities, Properties, Transformations and Motion.

Yes, one must Scientifically agree.  We are quite familiar with how Energy can transform or change as it dissipates into the environment.

But with respect to the Hubbard Coil, or other Coils which are reputed to have qualities enabling access to Anomalous Free Energy, have you actually done it?

Are you able to say with certainty that Replication of the Effect is doable and that you have done it?

Are you willing to reveal the successes that you have experienced as a result of your experimentation?

Have you accomplished a replication of the Hubbard principles which has produced Anomalous Free Energy?

[Allcanadian]

mudped

Yes, one must Scientifically agree.  We are quite familiar with how Energy can transform or change as it dissipates into the environment.

Dissipation is only one half of the equation and in order for energy to be dissipated it must first have been concentrated. There lies the trick doesn't it?, anyone can explain the dissipation of energy but almost nobody can explain how to concentrate energy like we find in nature. We could call it a lost art...

In many respects science is about reductionism and everyone would examine or test every part of the Hubbard device but nobody could get it working. The problem is that most don't understand nature or how something can be more than the sum of it's parts. Thus the very thing there looking for is never present because the operation is dependent on synchronization of the whole encompassing the sum of every part. This concept is found everywhere in nature but is completely foreign to most people.

We could think of it as not being able to see the forest for all the trees...

Regards
AC

[muDped]

...in order for energy to be dissipated it must first have been concentrated.

There lies the trick doesn't it?, anyone can explain the dissipation of energy but almost nobody can explain how to concentrate energy like we find in nature.

We could call it a lost art...

Yes, we are able to concentrate Energy, or more precisely we concentrate the substances which will release the burst of concentrated Energy, then we perform work as a consequence of that Energy dissipating into the environment.

That principle is well understood and commonly exploited.

Are you saying then, as you maneuver around the bush, that you have done that conclusively with the Hubbard Principle?

Would you be willing to perform a demonstration and provide answers to questions posed by interested observers?

[Allcanadian]

mudped

Yes, we are able to concentrate Energy, or more precisely we concentrate the substances which will release the burst of concentrated Energy, then we perform work as a consequence of that Energy dissipating into the environment.

That principle is well understood and commonly exploited.

Concentrating substances and burning things to produce heat is considered the most primitive forms of technology. While nuclear energy harnesses the power of the atom it still produces harmful waste products and is also based on a hunter-gatherer mentality. The next step in evolution was photovoltaics (PV) which has no moving parts or emits waste products and converts solar energy directly to electricity. Free energy devices are similar to PV only they utilize a different energy source which is available 24 hours a day everywhere.

On the Hubbard device, fission/fusion has shown us that all matter is concentrated energy born from stars. Any ordinary material contains all the energy we could ever want as an internal motion near the speed of light, all Energy is Motion on some level. It all comes down to either interacting with the energy within matter or moving the matter as an energy carrier. The main problem is that we cannot see this energy because the scale is too small so we have to imagine what it's doing and how to interact with it. If we cannot imagine how to interact with internal or external energy forms then for all intensive purposes it's impossible. All the successful FE researchers and inventors were extremely creative people with an active imagination who were interested in learning about everything. Thus if we cannot learn new things we cannot move forward.

Think about that... we are literally immersed in a sea of energy in perpetual motion and all we have to do is find a way to interact with it on some level.

Regards
AC

[muDped]

On the Hubbard device, fission/fusion has shown us that all matter is concentrated energy born from stars. Any ordinary material contains all the energy we could ever want as an internal motion near the speed of light, all Energy is Motion on some level. It all comes down to either interacting with the energy within matter or moving the matter as an energy carrier. The main problem is that we cannot see this energy because the scale is too small so we have to imagine what it's doing and how to interact with it. If we cannot imagine how to interact with internal or external energy forms then for all intensive purposes it's impossible. All the successful FE researchers and inventors were extremely creative people with an active imagination who were interested in learning about everything. Thus if we cannot learn new things we cannot move forward.

Think about that... we are literally immersed in a sea of energy in perpetual motion and all we have to do is find a way to interact with it on some level.

While you have adroitly avoided answering the "Success" question directly and have advanced the above hypotheses we shall take this to mean that you have not yet attained success with your Hubbard Principle efforts.

Yes, everything which surrounds us is Energetic, including everything about ourselves.

There are limitations on our ability, perhaps for our own benefit, to be able to access this enormous Energetic Potential.

Yes, creative minds have indeed been able to solve the challenges of collecting and utilizing the Energy available to us as a result of Solar Activity and Earth's Irradiation with Solar Produced Radiant Energy.

Now, please tell us candidly, have you actually been able to devise some means to exploit other Energies which are independent of those readily available to us?

In order for the Scientific Method to bear fruit there must be honesty.

[Vasik041]

Dear muDped,

I have a challenge for you
Could you survive one day without posting here ? 

Vasik

[Paul-R]

In order for the Scientific Method to bear fruit there must be honesty.

...which is what poynt99 wil probably say if anyone criticises him for freezing threads.

What makes me concerned about AC's theory that Hubbard was about very high voltages is that Patrick was always nervous about listing HV voltage projects because anyone can read and have a go - and be seriously harmed. I think AC may be wrong - this could a regular voltage coil banging arrangement.

[Allcanadian]

Paul

What makes me concerned about AC's theory that Hubbard was about very high voltages is that Patrick was always nervous about listing HV voltage projects because anyone can read and have a go - and be seriously harmed. I think AC may be wrong - this could a regular voltage coil banging arrangement.

Patrick should have been nervous because HV can be harmful if not lethal. HV circuits are exponentially more dangerous, much harder to work with, can generate harmful ozone causing lung damage, leaks from circuits like a sieve, is much harder to control because it destroys most electronics and causes magnitudes more EM interference. It is not twice as hard working with anything over 5000v it is magnitudes harder and more dangerous.

This is the main reason why so few people work with HV or understand it...

Here we could apply a little deductive reasoning, maybe nobody can seem to understand free energy devices because they use a phenomena few have ever seen or understand. Here is another clue, almost nowhere in nature do we find large currents other than lightning. In fact the fair weather global current from ground to the atmosphere is only around 1000 amps. Think about that, nature has evolved over billions of years and utilizes a power structure completely opposite to that of mankind. As Viktor Schauberger implied...""In every case do the opposite to whatever technology does today".

Which begs the question... what do we do today in our electrical devices and what would the opposite be?. We use inefficient low voltage/large currents which always tends to dissipate as heat not unlike our preoccupation with burning stuff to produce heat. Nature doesn't do this because it is un-natural, self-defeating and grossly inefficient. Nature always follows the path of least resistance while mankind seems to be doing the opposite.

Regards
AC

[Paul-R]

But if we remember that HV like space around them and assume the boat story is correct, would they really have had massive voltages crammed into a small boat cruising around on a lake? It sounds like a recipe for a disaster.

[Allcanadian]

Paul

But if we remember that HV like space around them and assume the boat story is correct, would they really have had massive voltages crammed into a small boat cruising around on a lake? It sounds like a recipe for a disaster.

Most FE devices like Hubbard's use a step up-step down configuration because it's not practical to redesign most devices like motors to run at HV. I was thinking about an analogy of why natures processes and FE technology seems completely foreign to most people...

Look at the pictures below of some devices most here like myself remember well. However the younger generation has no knowledge of them and in there cordless connected world it's hard to imagine why anyone would use such primitive technology. What we considered "normal" back then is completely foreign to them however I still remember an outhouse, propane appliances and a crank start diesel generator for electricity. In this respect it's all about our perspective and ability to change.

Thus it would be a mistake to "normalize" what we do, what we know or where were at with respect to technology because normal is always changing and evolves...

It's not as if the Hubbard device didn't work because Tesla gave the technology to Hubbard. What was Tesla doing at that time?, he was doing HV impulse experiments so it's easy to connect the dots. You don't honestly think a teenager like Hubbard just stumbled onto this technology do you?. Much of understanding FE relates to knowing the inventors, what they knew, when they knew it, who they talked to and there time line. The fact is very few inventors who supposedly invented FE devices actually invented anything. Most got there idea's from someone else in the same way we are talking here.

Think about that, how far we have come in only 20 years and where we could be 20 years from now. What is "normal"?... it's whatever we choose to make it at the time but it can evolve.

Regards
AC

[Verpies]

Simpletons see new fields of 'research' easy because they have replaced the red insulation on a conductor with green insulation, so clearly, it's not the same thing at all (I'm hardly exaggerating). 

Sadly, I have observed this too  .

For example, recently a newbie that I was talking with, could not see the analogy between two arrangements of these nine cored coils besides their number, circularity and the central one:

  Arrangement #1.

  Arrangement #2.

On the other hand, another member who considers himself electromagnetically inept, noticed the analogy without even seeing both pictures next to each other ...and before I did.

[unimmortal]

Sadly, I have observed this too  .

For example, recently a newbie that I was talking with, could not see the analogy between two arrangements of these nine cored coils besides their number, circularity and the central one:

On the other hand, another member who considers himself electromagnetically inept, noticed the analogy without even seeing both pictures next to each other ...and before I did.

Careful you don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Your design didn't lend itself to the requirements of this device ... that's why I said it was not analogous to the Hubbard. Also as I explained, I hadn't seen a single faithful replication attempted to uncover what Hubbard was doing (and neither had you), and yet I have been able to put forward a working theory that I am now very actively building... newbie is a pretty dismissive way to describe me, I've been at this for a while now.

[Verpies]

newbie is a pretty dismissive way to describe me, I've been at this for a while now.

I thought you were "not big on semantics".  Anyway, it was better than the word F6FLT had used.  ...and notice that I have not identified you by name - you have done this yourself.

The word "newbie" does not refer only to the time spent but also to the knowledge and experience. Would you prefer a "rookie" ?
You are clearly manifesting the lack of basic knowledge and experience when you put bulk solid steel inside high frequency windings  ...unless you are making an inductive furnace.
...and that's only the most egregious manifestation.

  That gray material, in the device you are building, is galvanized steel tube, isn't it ?

There is nothing wrong with being inexperienced but considering your knowledge and experience to be so complete that you don't accept good advice from others is a different story (study this and this)  ...and habitually skipping answers to direct questions is downright rude.

Careful you don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Your design didn't lend itself to the requirements of this device

Do you know what the requirements of this device are? If "yes" - what are they ?
Don't conflate requirements with the expected output parameters when you answer...
If you come up with real requirements, make an effort to analyze how they "don't lend themselves" rather than making unsupported assertions.

... that's why I said it was not analogous to the Hubbard.

Yes, you stated that and this is one of the ways you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge and experience.

I hadn't seen a single faithful replication attempted to uncover what Hubbard was doing (and neither had you),

Yes but that is irrelevant to the analysis of this device on the basis of the body of knowledge and experiments made to date.

...and yet I have been able to put forward a working theory that I am now very actively building...

Can the members of this forum learn details about this working theory from you or is it your secret ?

[unimmortal]

... ok ... first things first. This is an attempt at a replication, as I have stated on the build thread at mooker.com. Hubbard built this, not me, I'm copying what Hubbard did based on a very small amount of information that we were left. If you believe I've made a furnace, then by extension Hubbard made a furnace...

Secondly, the secret to OU is to understand that Howard Johnson was right. There is a second inverted magnetic field operating within a magnet, both inner and outer magnetic fields spin in opposite directions. Get past the native outside N|S field and you get the underlying S|N field (with it's opposite spin) - this is where gravitic properties exist as well. Counterwound coils are the chief differentiators, and feature in almost every design that reportedly yielded OU results... Robert Adams, Floyd Sweet, Don Smith, etc... If you can get past the S|N barrier, the reward is zero point.

Hubbard (I believe) was able to create a square wave by combining resonant wire lengths in the centre, middle and outer coils. This square wave effectively turns on and off a magnetic field in the middle coils over the output tube at a precise moment - some degrees after the centre coil peaks, that results in a growing North field (outer coils) and a shrinking North (South) field (centre coil), which then reverses for a South field and repeats ... the output coil being sandwiched between inner and outer tubes, senses the fields moving in two different directions, and with equilibrium upset, we get access to the underlying S|N field to harvest power - as that underlying South field is implosive, it also explains why successful inventors talk about their systems running cool.

So how does your interpretation of the Hubbard work?

[Verpies]

... ok ... first things first. This is an attempt at a replication, as I have stated on the build thread at mooker.com.

...and I want your build to succeed. I am contributing to this by pointing out rookie theoretical and engineering mistakes to you based on the component phenomena that I am familiar with. I don't claim to know all of the phenomena that go on in this device, but I do know some of them.

Hubbard built this, not me, I'm copying what Hubbard did based on a very small amount of information that we were left.

Exactly, this device was built 106 years ago in times when clear photographs in newspapers were minor miracles.
These grainy photos show us only the outermost coil.
There is a professionally made sketch from these times that depicts 9 coils inside this device (in addition to the outer coil). The newspaper of the time named it the Hubbard coil (note the singular) because that is what was visible on the outside.


Since this is a sketch and not a photograph, its subject matter was first processed by a human brain.
Sketches can, by their very nature, depict simplifications and interpretations of their maker.
If the sketcher is not the inventor, the potential for misinterpretations is huge.

For example, the sketch depicts one central object surrounded by a circular pattern of 8 other cylindrical objects.
These objects are assumed to be "electro-magnets" or helical coils wound on some kind of cylindrical formers (or cores) on the basis of the following newspaper quote:

"In general, he says, it is made up of a group of eight electro-magnets,
each with primary and secondary windings of copper wire,
which are arranged around a large steel core. 
The core likewise has a single winding.
About the entire group of cells is a secondary winding."

Note, that the passage "each with primary and secondary windings of copper wire" implies that these "electo-magnets" are in fact transformers and practical transformers don't work with DC so the current flowing through these windings must be either PDC or AC.
Also, the phrase "electro-magnets" imply that there is some kind of magnetic field generated by these objects in response to the flow of electric current.  This implies magnetic interaction.  ...and because the windings are in such proximity - near-field magnetic interaction.

Because the sketch is so grainy, you assume that the coils' formers are steel tubes since the sketcher has drawn circles where their ends would be.
Since DC is practically excluded and PDC or AC is implied, the steel tubes/pipes seem to be only your misguided interpretation.  I write 'misguided" because you are not "guiding" your interpretations with physical knowledge, i.e. you are not considering the physical effects of steel tubes inside of windings carrying PDC or AC, such as the eddy currents and hysteresis losses.
Furthermore, the higher the frequency of current flowing in these windings, the smaller the probability that these coils are wound on solid steel tubes because of these losses (these phenomena were all alive and well in 1919).
To mitigate the eddy currents, slots could be cut in the steel tubes but that does nothing to mitigate their hysteresis losses.

So what were the copper coils wound on ? 
There are two groups of answers depending whether the inventor wanted to maximize or minimize the magnetic flux generated by these "electro-magnets"/transformers:
  1) If he wanted the magnetic flux to be minimized while retaining low losses at high current frequencies, he would have made them air-core coils ...or coils wound on non-conductive paramagnetic or diamagnetic materials such as Bakelite or glass or even cardboard or dry wood.
  2) If he wanted to make good transformers, he would aim to maximize the flux and flux amplitude by using highly permeable cores of low electric conductivity.

A boy in 1919 would have only three classes of materials at his disposition that meet the latter requirements: Steel/Iron laminations, wire or powder since contemporary ferrites have not yet been discovered in 1919.

Out of these 3 forms of steel/iron, enameled wires or laminations are the easiest to deal with.  Binding and insulating from each other the individual grains of iron powder is a major hassle that is sometimes justified by the isotropicity of the resulting material.  Otherwise iron powder yields cores of inferior permeability if high pressure sintering is not used without binders.
Since laminations are hard to form into cores of circular cross sections, this leaves enameled steel/iron wires as the prime candidate for fashioning highly permeable cylindrical cores which are anisotropically non-conductive.

If you look at this grainy sketch again you might be able to see the ends of a bundle of small wires protruding out of the coils ...or just a scanning noise.

Using iron wire bundles for fashioning cylindrical permeable cores does not preclude the existence of thin coil formers made out of non-conductive paramagnetic or diamagnetic materials such as plastic, ceramic or glass.

NOTE: If in your rebuttal of the analysis above you are intending to use the drawings or words from the 1983 replication of this device, don't even start because this replication was subject to the same misinterpretations of the source material.

If you believe I've made a furnace, then by extension Hubbard made a furnace...

Not at all because the key ingredients necessary to make an inductive furnace (i.e.: eddy currents and hysteresis losses) would only be created in a build based on your misguided interpretation of that sketch.

Secondly, the secret to OU is to understand that Howard Johnson was right.

How do you know ?

There is a second inverted magnetic field operating within a magnet, both inner and outer magnetic fields spin in opposite directions.

This is an ambiguous statement because it is not clear from it whether it is the entire magnetic field that spins, like this:

...or individual flux lines that spin (J.Newman style) like this:


Which one did you mean ?

Anyway, according to mainstream science, magnetic field does not spin by itself but it does influence the spin of material particles, e.g. electrons.

Get past the native outside N|S field and you get the underlying S|N field (with it's opposite spin) - this is where gravitic properties exist as well.

I don't know what you mean.  I think it's time to make a drawing of the fields in your theory. e.g. like this:


I've been hearing for years now that a coil wound in the following manner has some gravitic properties ...but I have never seen it confirmed.

Counterwound coils are the chief differentiators, and feature in almost every design that reportedly yielded OU results... Robert Adams, Floyd Sweet, Don Smith, etc...
If you can get past the S|N barrier, the reward is zero point.

This makes no sense - flux lines form closed loops that do not intersect, not a barrier.


Anyway, when you write "counterwound", which of the following coils do you mean  ?



How do these coil topologies make a difference ?  It's time to stop speaking in generalities without explaining them !

Hubbard (I believe) was able to create a square wave by combining resonant wire lengths in the centre, middle and outer coils.

Wave of what ?
Wires of any length do not create any square waves by themselves, so how is any wave generated by this device ?
Wires of some lengths interact with some wavelengths of external EM field like this:

This square wave effectively turns on and off a magnetic field in the middle coils over the output tube at a precise moment

First explain, what generates the magnetic field that is interrupted ?

So how does your interpretation of the Hubbard work?

You are not ready for it.  First you have to muddle through what you came up with.


This time answer all of my questions directly.  It is easy to identify them because they have question marks at their ends.

[forest]

You forgot some nuances of this period :
-  Tesla was experimenting with radio waves transmitting energy
-  Hubbard was experimenting with radio transmitters (later he was involved in commercial radio station)
-  Amman brothers created similiar device and it was said it worked within the range of kind of activator or  transmitter
-  Lester Hendershot has device with tuned radio frequency circuits

my thought : it was all tapping energy sent by Tesla device or an unknown effect was used to amplify radio frequency energy (probably from interfacing with Earth magnetic field0.

[Magluvin]

"In general, he says, it is made up of a group of eight electro-magnets,
each with primary and secondary windings of copper wire,
which are arranged around a large steel core.
The core likewise has a single winding.
About the entire group of cells is a secondary winding."


but in the drawing, I see only 4 wires.  Maybe 'he' said some of this to keep the secret of what is reality going on inside..  Maybe....   

Im thinking that 2 wires go to the outer coils, from other depictions it looks to be series, and 2 wires go to the middle winding...

for only 4 wires coming out of the device, I fail to see that there is a rotating field of the outer windings.

Mags

[Magluvin]

You forgot some nuances of this period :
-  Tesla was experimenting with radio waves transmitting energy
-  Hubbard was experimenting with radio transmitters (later he was involved in commercial radio station)
-  Amman brothers created similiar device and it was said it worked within the range of kind of activator or  transmitter
-  Lester Hendershot has device with tuned radio frequency circuits

my thought : it was all tapping energy sent by Tesla device or an unknown effect was used to amplify radio frequency energy (probably from interfacing with Earth magnetic field0.

hey Forest

I havnt seen anything that indicated radio freq, circuitry, related to the hubbard coil.  do you know of any?

mags

[Verpies]

You forgot some nuances of this period :
-  Tesla was experimenting with radio waves transmitting energy
-  Hubbard was experimenting with radio transmitters (later he was involved in commercial radio station)
-  Amman brothers created similiar device and it was said it worked within the range of kind of activator or  transmitter
-  Lester Hendershot has device with tuned radio frequency circuits

All of that implies that high frequencies were more likely to have been used in this device.
...and the higher the frequency of current flowing in these windings the less likely it is that the windings contain any bulk metal inside them.
Slotted metal tubes might be acceptable at low frequencies but at the stipulated power levels and high frequencies (even kHz) any bulk metal in these "electro-magnets"/transformers = inductive furnace.

I wrote "transformers" because only transformers have primary and secondary windings and that newspaper quote mentioned two windings in one "electro-magnet" and explicitly named them "primary" and "secondary".  Such arrangement constitutes a transformer.

[Verpies]

but in the drawing, I see only 4 wires.  Maybe 'he' said some of this to keep the secret of what is reality going on inside..  Maybe....   
...for only 4 wires coming out of the device, I fail to see that there is a rotating field of the outer windings.
from other depictions it looks to be series, and 2 wires go to the middle winding...

You see four cables.  Who knows how many wires were in each cable.  It all depends on the interpretations made by the author of that sketch.
Also, these wires don't have to be connected directly to the internal windings - they can be supply wires to some kind of internal circuitry (e.g.: LC phase shifter) that branches out and powers the satellite transformers individually ...or in 2 quads.
Anyway, 2 phases are enough to create a rotating field and only three direct wires are required for that.

I'm thinking that 2 wires go to the outer coils,

Let's get the naming normalized:
a) One inner central coil (one winding).
b) Eight satellite transformers (two windings each, 16 - total)
c) One outer coil (one winding).

[Magluvin]

ok, i see. 


Mags

[Grumage]

Hmmm....

A nest of DM Cook coils.

Cheers Grum.

[F6FLT]

... the secret to OU is to understand that Howard Johnson was right. ...

Claiming to know the "secret to OU" without being able to provide even a single example, it's about people becoming too big for his boots. The only secret to know is that Howard Johnson is part of the urban legends — a hoax or a scam. No one was able to produce a working model based on his patent—not even he, most likely. That's why throughout his life he kept paying his electricity bill or had the gullible investors who believed him pay it for him. It's time to move on instead of rehashing these old crazy stories.

[forest]

All of that implies that high frequencies were more likely to have been used in this device.
...and the higher the frequency of current flowing in these windings the less likely it is that the windings contain any bulk metal inside them.
Slotted metal tubes might be acceptable at low frequencies but at the stipulated power levels and high frequencies (even kHz) any bulk metal in these "electro-magnets"/transformers = inductive furnace.

I wrote "transformers" because only transformers have primary and secondary windings and that newspaper quote mentioned two windings in one "electro-magnet" and explicitly named them "primary" and "secondary".  Such arrangement constitutes a transformer.

Ok, now my theory, or at least a part I can tell you.
Yes, you are completle right . Those groups of 8 electromagnets are self-sustained air core transformers. In other way it has no sense. Like in Tesla notes his receivers were simple coils or transformers. That statement about 8 of them is a trick to hide the principle IMHO. Not group but 8 groups. They produce pulsating magnetic field. In fact it is similiar to TPU. Lots of them. Dig the available documentations. Well, you didn't find the correct article....

[Verpies]

Those groups of 8 electromagnets are self-sustained air core transformers.

Yes, according to that sketch they could be air-core or Bakelite-core, too ...but not bulk steel pipe cores nor steel rod cores (...unless DC).

Well, you didn't found the correct article....

What is the correct one ?
I was using this one.