Hubbard Coil

Author Topic: Hubbard Coil (Read 86862 times)

Topic Options

forest

Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #75 on: 2026-03-13, 21:48:29 »

Hero Member

Posts: 529

Verpies

All those documents from 1956 or 1983 are attempts to replicate Hubbard device. For me they are hoaxes. In those periods there were no Tesla transmitters, and I'm pretty sure Hubbard device (as he had said also) is based on radio principle but using Tesla radio waves with energy. Just find press articles from 20-ties when Hubbard presented his device. All is there to support or decline my theory. His device just amplified energy from Tesla radio waves.

forest	Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #76 on: 2026-03-13, 21:51:58 »
Hero Member Posts: 529	I have seen Tesla notes about his receivers and some of them were tuned circuits but some were just a coil connected to ground in two places. Something I guess about tapping longitudinal waves in Earth.

Verpies

Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #77 on: 2026-03-13, 22:06:05 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4590

Quote from: forest on 2026-03-13, 21:48:29

All those documents from 1956 or 1982 are attempts to replicate Hubbard device. For me they are hoaxes.

These are strong words which do not account for replications based on benevolent misinterpretations. They could be no more malevolent than Unimmortal's misguided attempt.

Quote from: forest on 2026-03-13, 21:48:29

Just find press articles from 20-ties when Hubbard presented his device.

What's wrong with the Seattle Post Intelligencer article to which I had posted the link ?

Quote from: forest on 2026-03-13, 21:48:29

His device just amplified energy from Tesla radio waves.
...I have seen Tesla notes about his receivers and some of them were tuned circuits but some were just a coil connected to ground in two places. Something I guess about tapping longitudinal waves in Earth.

Longitudinal waves of what ?
Amplify how ?

forest

Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #78 on: 2026-03-13, 22:17:40 »

Hero Member

Posts: 529

Quote from: Verpies on 2026-03-13, 22:06:05

These are strong words which do not account for benevolent misinterpretations. They could be no more malevolent than Unimmortal's attempt.
What's wrong with the Seattle Post Intelligencer article to which I had posted the link ?
Longitudinal waves of what ?
Amplify how ?

The amplification is the secret behind Hubbard (and other) devices.Those Tesla radio waves are in fact disturbances in Earth magnetic field. That's why "the priests" of free energy movement like Tom Bearden called it longitudinal waves. Again I urge you to find other articles, they prove my theory.Not 8 coils. Lot's of coils, air core.

Verpies

Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #79 on: 2026-03-13, 22:31:51 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4590

Quote from: forest on 2026-03-13, 22:17:40

Those Tesla radio waves are in fact disturbances in Earth magnetic field.

Any disturbance in Earth's magnetic field would induce EMF in any loop or helical coil.
I have receivers sensitive down to nV - loops/coils connected to it pick up only radio stations and in urbanized areas - EMI and ENFs.

Quote from: forest on 2026-03-13, 22:17:40

Again I urge you to find other articles, they prove my theory.

There are no other articles from these times to be found besides the one I had posted the link to.

forest	Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #80 on: 2026-03-13, 22:19:13 »
Hero Member Posts: 529	Today I know only one person who recreated Hubbard technology. Zimbabwe inventor.

Verpies	Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #81 on: 2026-03-31, 12:40:03 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 4590	What's his name ? Any links to his work ?

forest	Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #82 on: 2026-03-31, 17:38:22 »
Hero Member Posts: 529	His name is Maxwell Chikumbutso. Of course his invention is secret but he says it's based on radio waves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GRMawjWBcE

Cheappower2012	Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #83 on: 2026-04-01, 01:40:41 »
Group: Tinkerer Full Member Posts: 171	Here's a video investigating this guys claims. I'm not saying a device that looks like a free energy device is not possible,but it would be an energy converter,one form of energy to another form of energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ham2Q0E8Lk

Allcanadian

Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #84 on: 2026-04-01, 16:47:43 »

Hero Member

Posts: 3108

Quote from: Cheappower2012 on 2026-04-01, 01:40:41

Here's a video investigating this guys claims.
I'm not saying a device that looks like a free energy device is not possible,but it would be an energy converter,one form of energy to another
form of energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ham2Q0E8Lk

The first problem is that the video leads with the standard BS that such a device must violate the conservation of energy and be a perpetual motion machine. As expected the conversation then degenerates into the absurd notion the device is stealing RF power and that it takes away from legitimate research. In other words the same old shtick.

On free energy devices, I like to use the black box analogy. Suppose we had a black box with two wires coming out of it which supplies practical amounts of power for long periods of time. Here 99% of people would jump to the absurd conclusion this must violate the conservation of energy. The reason is because they have very little knowledge, understanding or experience not a violation of the COE. In fact I know quite a few electrical engineers and found they have little understanding of energy or advanced electrodynamics. They are glorified electricians from my experience.

For example, I put the black box question to them and everyone failed even though the answer is easy. A betavoltaic nuclear battery can produce practical amounts of power for decades inside a closed black box. Which also gives us some insight into how many FE devices work. You see the majority of FE inventors claimed they do not know where the energy comes from but relates to a different form of electricity and the strange radiation produced from it. Ring a bell?, "a betavoltaic nuclear battery generates electricity directly from particles emitted by a radioactive source". Now we have a known method of conversion from radiation to electricity. The next obvious step would be to focus on what the strange form of electricity/radiation is and where it comes from.

In fact the observation of a strange form of electricity and radiation dates back to the late 1800's. Viktor Schauberger described strange radiations similar to roentgen rays emanating from some devices. Vacuum tubes were lit with a strange red glow, bulbs were illuminated but did not get hot and the radiation had biological effects. These inventors like Schauberger were not weekend warriors or arm chair critics and dedicated most of their life to their work in this field. T.H.Moray spent 30 years working on one device.

Of course, Hubbard was a different story and he was supposedly given this technology by Nikola Tesla who was his friend. He didn't have to work decades for it like most inventors. Which may explain why he sold the technology to the highest bidder and retired early. Most inventors sold out or quit after being confronted with constant hostility and death threats. It also begs the question, if Hubbard's device did not work then why didn't the people who bought it for a large sum of money say something or file a law suit?. My guess is it worked as claimed.

« Last Edit: 2026-04-01, 17:53:30 by Allcanadian »

---------------------------

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

Cheappower2012	Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #85 on: 2026-04-02, 06:24:38 »
Group: Tinkerer Full Member Posts: 171	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXr1IVW3Sqk

Allcanadian

Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #86 on: 2026-04-02, 14:58:11 »

Hero Member

Posts: 3108

Quote from: Cheappower2012 on 2026-04-02, 06:24:38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXr1IVW3Sqk

It's ironic that a supposed particle physicist would be bashing Free Energy. They have spent hundreds of billions of dollars over decades building particle accelerators with nothing to show for it. Very similar to most free energy scams where justification is always just around the next corner.

I think the greater majority of free energy devices like the Chikumbutso device could be a scam but it's hard to say. There are other people such as Centraflow who seem to have a great deal of credibility, want no money from us and have shared information. There is also the fact that many FE inventors in the past were Engineers and scientists with decades of hands on experience and impeccable credentials. Should we dismiss them as well?.

Here is a good example, Paulo & Alexandra CORREA PAGD (Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharges)
https://rexresearch.com/correa/correa.htm

Note the name, Dr. Paulo Correa, M.Sc., Ph.D
"M.Sc. stands for Master of Science, which is a postgraduate degree focusing on advanced knowledge in scientific or technical fields, while Ph.D. stands for Doctor of Philosophy, which is the highest academic degree involving original research and a dissertation."

Do you honestly think a Master of Science with decades of hands on experience is going to be making amateur mistakes?. I have to wonder if most people are illiterate because Correa basically spells out exactly how this technology works and includes working circuit diagrams. For the record, the Correa's work is based on T.H.Morays work.

It's also a little ironic that the supposed critics always show the worst examples of FE and never the most credible like the Correa's work. Oh look, another youtube video showing it's a scam, LMAO. Give me a break.

---------------------------

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

Verpies	Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #87 on: 2026-04-02, 17:03:09 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 4590	What does the construction of the Chikumbutso's device have in common with the construction of the Hubbard's device ?

forest	Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #88 on: 2026-04-02, 17:20:26 »
Hero Member Posts: 529	I think both Hubbard and Chikumbutso devices are based on radio waves . We must remember also that patents show only an idea with schematics of embodiment which has no excess energy.

Verpies	Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #89 on: 2026-04-02, 17:35:34 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 4590	Quote from: forest on 2026-04-02, 17:20:26 I think both Hubbard and Chikumbutso devices are based on radio waves . We must remember also that patents show only an idea with schematics of embodiment which has no excess energy. I was asking about common construction features - not about implausible theoretical explanations of the MO.

forest

Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #90 on: 2026-04-02, 19:26:45 »

Hero Member

Posts: 529

Quote from: Verpies on 2026-04-02, 17:35:34

I was asking about common construction features - not about implausible theoretical explanations of the MO.

You are asking about trade secret I have no access to. All I can tell is based on my intuition. Lots of small energy excess from radio waves or rather radio disturbances in Earth field combined to create huge output. The same IMHO Hubbard used but I can't find the article where I read this, sorry.

Verpies

Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #91 on: 2026-04-02, 19:51:31 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4590

Quote from: forest on 2026-04-02, 19:26:45

Lots of small energy excess from radio waves or rather radio disturbances in Earth field combined to create huge output.

It does not compute.
The energy of ambient radio waves is measurable and minuscule.
Global Earth's magnetic and electric fields fluctuations are measurable and their magnitude is minuscule unless a lightning hits you.

There is no way a 12" device can generate kilowatts continuously from these sources. That would be akin to magic.

Anyway, I was not asking where the energy comes from - I was asking about common construction features of these devices.
If the Chikumbutso's device is not constructed similarly to the Hubbard's device then it does not belong in this thread because it is a different device.

If someone does not point out common construction features between these two devices within a week, I am going to remove all mention of the Chikumbutso's device from this thread.
André Coutier's device and Paul Brown's device can stay because they have common construction features with the Hubbard device.

F6FLT

Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #92 on: 2026-04-04, 18:28:08 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2499

I’ve just read André Coutier’s patent in French. I’ve never seen anything so childish. Coils arranged around a central coil constitute as many transformers as there are satellite coils, so the energy supplied to the primary has been multiplied by N.

Why not simply use transformers with all the primaries in series? As the current is the same in each primary, the energy has also been multiplied by N.
Or even a single transformer with N secondary windings, as already exists... We already had FE and nobody knew it.

This is sheer stupidity, the sort of ignorance that fails to grasp the cumulative effects of the coupling between primary and secondary windings.

---------------------------

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

Magluvin

Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #93 on: 2026-04-04, 20:34:41 »

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member

Posts: 1133

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026-04-04, 18:28:08

I’ve just read André Coutier’s patent in French. I’ve never seen anything so childish. Coils arranged around a central coil constitute as many transformers as there are satellite coils, so the energy supplied to the primary has been multiplied by N.
Why not simply use transformers with all the primaries in series? As the current is the same in each primary, the energy has also been multiplied by N.
Or even a single transformer with N secondary windings, as already exists... We already had FE and nobody knew it.
This is sheer stupidity, the sort of ignorance that fails to grasp the cumulative effects of the coupling between primary and secondary windings.

the difference is, compared to a basic transformer, is that the more separate primaries, the higher the sec voltage, of which is not normal or basic.

each outer primary with their own separate cores, induces only a portion of the middle secondary. if we have 6 outer primaries, and just one of them can induce 1v into the inner sec, all 6 of them inducing the inner sec with 1v on each section of the inner windings, then the sec will have a total of 6v induced.

this is not the same as a basic transformer when comparing winding ratios to voltage in/out. each induced section of the secondary add up in series....

pure stupidity? we will see...

mags

unimmortal

Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #94 on: 2026-04-05, 06:44:57 »

Jr. Member

Posts: 85

My working theory (as posted on mooker), is that the satellite transformer primaries are each counterwound and wired in a closed loop. This is how they decouple from the centre and outer coils. Each of the secondaries are then wired together and act as a step down transformer, becoming the output. There's a lot more to this, but the counterwound primaries and their wire length ratio to the centre coil are key to generating the effect.

You'll notice too that the satellite secondaries sit between inner, outer and primary coils.

Allcanadian

Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #95 on: 2026-04-05, 07:34:28 »

Hero Member

Posts: 3108

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026-04-04, 18:28:08

I’ve just read André Coutier’s patent in French. I’ve never seen anything so childish. Coils arranged around a central coil constitute as many transformers as there are satellite coils, so the energy supplied to the primary has been multiplied by N.
Why not simply use transformers with all the primaries in series? As the current is the same in each primary, the energy has also been multiplied by N.
Or even a single transformer with N secondary windings, as already exists... We already had FE and nobody knew it.
This is sheer stupidity, the sort of ignorance that fails to grasp the cumulative effects of the coupling between primary and secondary windings.

I don't think your asking the right questions. What your doing is called the argument for normalcy or bandwagon fallacy imo.

I get it, I used to think this way but after seeing so many things others deemed impossible I changed my mind. My theory is that in order for a result to be different the process involved must be fundamentally different on some level. As the saying goes, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Ergo, our first assumption should be that if the result is different then so must be the process which led to the result.

A such the first thing we should do is rule out standard induction because we should know it cannot produce the result we want. Remove standard induction and whatever is left is closer to the answer were looking for imo.

---------------------------

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

Allcanadian

Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #96 on: 2026-04-05, 16:46:53 »

Hero Member

Posts: 3108

Quote from: Magluvin on 2026-04-04, 20:34:41

the difference is, compared to a basic transformer, is that the more separate primaries, the higher the sec voltage, of which is not normal or basic.

each outer primary with their own separate cores, induces only a portion of the middle secondary. if we have 6 outer primaries, and just one of them can induce 1v into the inner sec, all 6 of them inducing the inner sec with 1v on each section of the inner windings, then the sec will have a total of 6v induced.

this is not the same as a basic transformer when comparing winding ratios to voltage in/out. each induced section of the secondary add up in series....

pure stupidity? we will see...

mags

Agreed and according to F6FLT's reasoning nuclear energy is stupid and must be a hoax as well.

Who are these nuclear physicists who think they could get excess energy from a chunk of silvery-gray metal called uranium. It's just a chunk of metal and can be no more. It's really no different than supposing we could get extra energy from my tire rim or a tea pot which are also metal. Why are all these nuclear physicists being so childish and ignorant to the facts?. Everyone knows we cannot get extra energy from a chunk of metal. We can do work to lift a chunk of uranium but we get less energy back when it falls. This is proof there is no excess energy in uranium and it must be a hoax.

This is called the strawman fallacy, oversimplifying or reducing a complex argument to a much simpler, weaker version so it can be easily refuted.

Of course, a person of knowledge and understanding could assume the Hubbard device, like nuclear energy, is more than the simple sum of it's parts. The Hubbard device cannot be just a simple transformer using standard induction because we know that cannot work. There must be more to it others have missed. My methodology is very different and the first thing I did was exclude standard induction as the principal of operation. A principle of operation is the fundamental idea or mechanism that explains how something works. This is what we are looking for imo.

---------------------------

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

Verpies

Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #97 on: 2026-04-05, 19:11:38 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4590

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026-04-05, 16:46:53

The Hubbard device cannot be just a simple transformer using standard induction because we know that cannot work.

The coils in the Hubbard device are so close together compared to any reasonable operating wavelength that they must interact with each other using the well known near-field principles.

One way to get out of the near-field induction paradigm is not to allow the current in different windings to flow at the same time.

Also, mutual induction of closely spaced windings in a transformer-like fashion, does not preclude other effects taking place in that device, ...like AC wrote.

Allcanadian

Re: Hubbard Coil « Reply #98 on: Today at 16:29:12 »

Hero Member

Posts: 3108

The Hubbard coil is no different than most other FE devices and most operate on the same principal.

We could think of the problem this way...
When we look at the Hubbard coil, if all we see is a transformer then we lack knowledge and understanding and the odds of success are near zero. That is not to say transformer action plays no role only that it cannot be the operating principal because we know that cannot work. Ergo, it must be something else.

This video is a perfect example of the kind of thinking required to solve the Hubbard coil problem. I suggest everyone watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTgrWmOk4q8
Solving Impossible Problems for Fun and Profit | Dan Gelbart

You see people like Dan Gelbart can do the impossible. They do not keep doing the same old crap over and over thinking something cannot be done. They think around the problem exploring every possible alternative. As Gelbart explained, 99% of people do not have the mental capacity to think outside the box but some do.

Gelbert absolutely nails another important aspect at the beginning of the video. "If you don't think about something when you in the shower your in the wrong field". In effect, if your not completely obsessed with solving the problem and thinking about it 24/7 you will fail. Case in point, T.H.Moray worked on one device for 30 years. These were not weekend warriors or do nothing armchair critics, these people devoted most of their life to finding answers. These were very intelligent absolutely determined men who were not willing to take no for an answer.

The nut and tap problem at the beginning of the video is a perfect example. How many people do you know who could solve this problem with no outside influence?. If fact I know zero people who could solve this problem and I had no idea either. It looked like an impossible problem which would defy physics until I saw how easy the solution was. Free energy technology is like that.

« Last Edit: Today at 16:33:49 by Allcanadian »

---------------------------

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