Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
New theories about free energy systems => Theory of overunity and free energy => Topic started by: Smudge on April 02, 2014, 05:38:25 PM
-
Although I have only just joined this forum I have been concerned with OU science for the past 16 years. Among other things I have researched the Hans Coler devices and being in the UK I have tracked down everything I can find in the UK National Archives about Coler. Actually Coler appears to be Unruh's assistant and the real inventor was Unruh. Unruh demonstrated a Stromerzeuger in public in 1920, but after being arrested as a fraudster he seems to have used Coler as his front man. After Unruh's death Coler continued with the devices but in my opinion he was out of his depth technically which could explain why he was not successful in replicating the devices after the War. I have copies of the 1920 newspaper articles, copies of all the National Archive material, a copy of the British Intelligence report and Coler's death certificate (he died here in the UK).
I am starting this thread in order to put forward my theories on the Stromerzeuger. I am 80 years old, having worked in the UK Defence industry all my working life as an electronic engineer and physicist. I have very limited equipment for doing experiments, so I hope that some readers might take up my ideas and investigate them. Not surprisingly these are all concerned with conduction electrons within ferromagnets where my searches have led to to some little known effects such as (a) The Magneto-Coulomb Effect, (b) The Inverse-Corbino Effect, (c) The Cylindrical Inverse-Corbino Effect, (d) charge pumping from Larmor precession. Attention has been paid to these effects ocurring within Coler's iron rods individually, but more recently has come the realization that there could be a collective effect. Each branch connection between Coler's plates passes through two cores, one each side of the central vertical board, hence there could be some synergetic coupling between these two adjacent cores which makes charge pumping more likely. This opens up a new approach which seems worth exploring.
-
Although I have only just joined this forum I have been concerned with OU science for the past 16 years. Among other things I have researched the Hans Coler devices and being in the UK I have tracked down everything I can find in the UK National Archives about Coler. Actually Coler appears to be Unruh's assistant and the real inventor was Unruh. Unruh demonstrated a Stromerzeuger in public in 1920, but after being arrested as a fraudster he seems to have used Coler as his front man. After Unruh's death Coler continued with the devices but in my opinion he was out of his depth technically which could explain why he was not successful in replicating the devices after the War. I have copies of the 1920 newspaper articles, copies of all the National Archive material, a copy of the British Intelligence report and Coler's death certificate (he died here in the UK).
I am starting this thread in order to put forward my theories on the Stromerzeuger. I am 80 years old, having worked in the UK Defence industry all my working life as an electronic engineer and physicist. I have very limited equipment for doing experiments, so I hope that some readers might take up my ideas and investigate them. Not surprisingly these are all concerned with conduction electrons within ferromagnets where my searches have led to to some little known effects such as (a) The Magneto-Coulomb Effect, (b) The Inverse-Corbino Effect, (c) The Cylindrical Inverse-Corbino Effect, (d) charge pumping from Larmor precession. Attention has been paid to these effects ocurring within Coler's iron rods individually, but more recently has come the realization that there could be a collective effect. Each branch connection between Coler's plates passes through two cores, one each side of the central vertical board, hence there could be some synergetic coupling between these two adjacent cores which makes charge pumping more likely. This opens up a new approach which seems worth exploring.
Setting aside for the moment that you attribute the device to a fraud, and the device has never been shown to work as claimed, what energy source do you propose to harvest?
If one is looking for free energy, that usually means getting energy someone else has paid for. One could always try to work out a resonator with sufficient Q and collecting area to tap the power utility wirelessly in a bit more sophisticated fashion than just looping wires beneath high tension stanchions. BTW, doing that in the USA will get one into legal trouble. A number of enterprising farmers and ranchers have learned that lesson the hard way.
-
MarkE,
I do not attribute the device to a fraud, the mention of fraud comes from the 1920 newspapers that stated Unruh was jailed. When it was later examined by Professors Kloss, Franke and Schumann in 1926 they did not believe it to be fraudulent. I am willing to accept that the device did exhibit the anomalous characteristics seen, and I think it would be useful to understand why it did so.
I take exception to being compared to farmers and ranchers who try to steal power from overhead cables! It is also clear to me that Unruh/Coler's machine did not steal power in that way, but I agree with you the anomalous energy has to come from somewhere. One possibility is that it extracted heat from the iron cores but I do not favour that because at the power levels seen by those Professors that is something they would have noticed.
I think a more likely explanation is that power was extracted from the active aether, and that is not just a throw away naive observation. I have spent my whole working life in the electromagnetic world, with particular emphasis on magnetism. I have also studied gravitational and aether theories of which many abound. I can put forward coherent arguments that link electromagnetic effects to the presence of an active aether, so in my mind the possibility that energy can be extracted via electromagnetic means is not scientific fiction. However I do not intend to bore people with my aether views, I will merely offer the means whereby the particle activity that goes on at atomic levels (driven by the active aether) can create anomalous effects.
-
MarkE,
I do not attribute the device to a fraud, the mention of fraud comes from the 1920 newspapers that stated Unruh was jailed. When it was later examined by Professors Kloss, Franke and Schumann in 1926 they did not believe it to be fraudulent. I am willing to accept that the device did exhibit the anomalous characteristics seen, and I think it would be useful to understand why it did so.
I take exception to being compared to farmers and ranchers who try to steal power from overhead cables! It is also clear to me that Unruh/Coler's machine did not steal power in that way, but I agree with you the anomalous energy has to come from somewhere. One possibility is that it extracted heat from the iron cores but I do not favour that because at the power levels seen by those Professors that is something they would have noticed.
I think a more likely explanation is that power was extracted from the active aether, and that is not just a throw away naive observation. I have spent my whole working life in the electromagnetic world, with particular emphasis on magnetism. I have also studied gravitational and aether theories of which many abound. I can put forward coherent arguments that link electromagnetic effects to the presence of an active aether, so in my mind the possibility that energy can be extracted via electromagnetic means is not scientific fiction. However I do not intend to bore people with my aether views, I will merely offer the means whereby the particle activity that goes on at atomic levels (driven by the active aether) can create anomalous effects.
I know of no reports of anyone, including: Professors Kloss, Franke and Schumann successfully reproducing a device that ever performed as Coler claimed.
I didn't compare you to those who built DIY transformers on their land. I specifically used them as an example for all to avoid.
The Coler assembly has some coils that have parasitic capacitance. The assembly includes magnets. Substitute a modern linear ferrites for the magnets and those coils start to look a lot like AM band antennas. The physical sizes of the components and the wiring is such that nothing interesting can happen above 1GHz. So if you want to theorize some power source it needs to operate below that frequency.
If you have a favored hypothesis, then state it and falsification experiments can be designed.
-
MarkE,
Maybe you haven't looked at the available data on the Unruh/Coler devices where you will find in the British Intelligence (BIOS) Report translations of the reports written by those professors. Or maybe you think those reports are fictional. For my part I am prepared to believe that they did indeed examine and test the Stromerzeuger. The measurements were DC in and DC out so not likely to be wrong. There was even a photometric test where the load lamp brightness when fed from the device was compared with an identical lamp fed directly from DC and adjusted to the same brightness. Admittedly they did not try to replicate the device, they merely examined and measured one using their own instruments.
You may not realize that there are two different devices. The Magnetstromapparat is the one where there have been numerous attempts at replication simply because the BIOS report gives details of its construction, and that does indeed have coils around magnets. There is scant evidence that this actually gave out any significant power, merely an anomalous voltage. And like you I think this could easily be explained by stray EM pick up.
The Stromerzeuger however had no construction details given, but does involve current passing through ferromagnets, not permanent magnets as in the Magnetstromapparat but soft magnets in the form of high-purity iron rods. It is the Stromerzeuger that was examined and tested by those Professors, although many people wrongly assume it was the other machine. And the tests did show significant excess power coming from somewhere unknown at a level that couldn't be explained by stray EM. It has taken a lot of work to track down the actual construction of the Stromerzeuger but it is now thought to be based on the Norrby patent. It is far too complicated to attempt a replication, what is needed is some simpler experiments exploring the possible scenarios for why it worked. Or as you put it, falsification experiments. I will be posting things shortly on that.
-
MarkE,
Maybe you haven't looked at the available data on the Unruh/Coler devices where you will find in the British Intelligence (BIOS) Report translations of the reports written by those professors. Or maybe you think those reports are fictional. For my part I am prepared to believe that they did indeed examine and test the Stromerzeuger. The measurements were DC in and DC out so not likely to be wrong. There was even a photometric test where the load lamp brightness when fed from the device was compared with an identical lamp fed directly from DC and adjusted to the same brightness. Admittedly they did not try to replicate the device, they merely examined and measured one using their own instruments.
You may not realize that there are two different devices. The Magnetstromapparat is the one where there have been numerous attempts at replication simply because the BIOS report gives details of its construction, and that does indeed have coils around magnets. There is scant evidence that this actually gave out any significant power, merely an anomalous voltage. And like you I think this could easily be explained by stray EM pick up.
The Stromerzeuger however had no construction details given, but does involve current passing through ferromagnets, not permanent magnets as in the Magnetstromapparat but soft magnets in the form of high-purity iron rods. It is the Stromerzeuger that was examined and tested by those Professors, although many people wrongly assume it was the other machine. And the tests did show significant excess power coming from somewhere unknown at a level that couldn't be explained by stray EM. It has taken a lot of work to track down the actual construction of the Stromerzeuger but it is now thought to be based on the Norrby patent. It is far too complicated to attempt a replication, what is needed is some simpler experiments exploring the possible scenarios for why it worked. Or as you put it, falsification experiments. I will be posting things shortly on that.
I read the reports. The results were negative. Ingot iron has very high permeability, but it also has poor resistance. That means it is good for low frequency transformers, not even mains frequency transformers.
-
MarkE,
So you consider a DC input power of 1.54 watts and a DC output power of 10.5 watts as being a negative result? And a conclusion from W. O. Schumann that reads “After the present examination, carried through as carefully as the limited possibilities of experimentation permitted, I must surmise that we have to face the exploitation of a new source of energy whose further developments can be of an immense importance” is also a negative result? He also wrote “I do not believe in a deception”. Professor Kloss wrote “The result of the investigation showed an astonishing working of the apparatus, which, without further researches cannot be explained or compared with hitherto known characteristics”. This is all negative?
-
MarkE,
So you consider a DC input power of 1.54 watts and a DC output power of 10.5 watts as being a negative result? And a conclusion from W. O. Schumann that reads “After the present examination, carried through as carefully as the limited possibilities of experimentation permitted, I must surmise that we have to face the exploitation of a new source of energy whose further developments can be of an immense importance” is also a negative result? He also wrote “I do not believe in a deception”. Professor Kloss wrote “The result of the investigation showed an astonishing working of the apparatus, which, without further researches cannot be explained or compared with hitherto known characteristics”. This is all negative?
AFAIK Schumann was not part of the British investigation. The fact that decades later neither Schumann nor Kloss, nor anyone else who saw that particular demonstration ever replicated says that their observations were flawed.
-
Excuse me, did you investigated how ferrite interacts with radio wave ? can you post any links describing details ?
-
Excuse me, did you investigated how ferrite interacts with radio wave ? can you post any links describing details ?
Nearly every AM radio uses a ferrite core antenna.
-
Excuse me, did you investigated how ferrite interacts with radio wave ? can you post any links describing details ?
No, I concentrated on how iron interacts with RF magnetic fields. Since the fields don't penetrate very far into the iron even at the relatively low frequencies purported to apply (skin effect) any activity is concentrated near the surface. You'll get the gist when I post the paper that I am in the process of completing.
-
AFAIK Schumann was not part of the British investigation. The fact that decades later neither Schumann nor Kloss, nor anyone else who saw that particular demonstration ever replicated says that their observations were flawed.
Equally it could say that they did not wish to get involved an an area which could jeopardise their careers, so they quietly forgot all about it. They forbade publication of their reports. Even today we have Professors who have to think about their careers and have to steer clear of such controversial subjects as overunity.
-
Nearly every AM radio uses a ferrite core antenna.
Yes, sure. Does it mean we know everything about the propagation of radio waves inside ferrite ? I'm just curious, don't know where to look some explanations...
-
Here is my paper on the stromerzeuger suggesting that ferromagnetic resonance or electron precession may play its part. Enjoy!
I have also produced a paper on magnetic motors that will appear elsewhere on this forum.
-
Here is another paper that takes a different tack. If you examine transmission-line theory you will find that if the characteristic impedance of the line is reactive and it is terminated with a reactive load it is possible for the input impedance to have a negative value of resistance. And negative resistance is an energy source. My paper looks at the magnetized iron rods as transmission lines and since they are connected to capacitor plates there is the possibility that this could be the means by which some form of self-oscillation takes place.
Enjoy!
-
Ah...no. An energy source may look like a negative resistance, but a negative resistance is NOT necessarily an energy source. Reflected power in a transmission line system is certainly NOT an energy source.... it can be an energy storage mechanism if you set up a standing wave and encourage it by resonant pumping, and certainly this stored energy can be released, smoothly or disruptively. However, all the energy comes from the transmitter's power supply, not from the "negative resistance" of the transmission line.
-
I beg to differ. A negative resistance is an energy source seen from the point where the negative resistance appears. That tells you nothing about where the energy actually comes from, and of course you need to look into the circuit or system that is creating that negative resistance to find the source of energy. You seem to be of the opinion that because we are talking about transmission lines with reflection at the far end, that automatically implies we connect a transmitter to the input, and that then must be the source of the energy. I have a different viewpoint that says a transmission line with a reactive impedance is a rather special device, it is not your usual chain or distribution of passive components. It could be a chain of active components, and then the source is obviously the power supply to those active components. In that case it is not necessary to place a transmitter at the front end, the system can self oscillate quite happily. On the other hand the transmission line could be something special that exhibits the reactive impedance characteristic, in which case the energy source is buried within that special device. As I have argued elsewhere a magnetized ferromagnetic conductive rod has alot of energy stored in the precessions of the conduction electrons, and it is just possible that this array of quantum driven oscillators is the source of energy.
-
I beg to differ. A negative resistance is an energy source seen from the point where the negative resistance appears. That tells you nothing about where the energy actually comes from, and of course you need to look into the circuit or system that is creating that negative resistance to find the source of energy. You seem to be of the opinion that because we are talking about transmission lines with reflection at the far end, that automatically implies we connect a transmitter to the input, and that then must be the source of the energy. I have a different viewpoint that says a transmission line with a reactive impedance is a rather special device, it is not your usual chain or distribution of passive components. It could be a chain of active components, and then the source is obviously the power supply to those active components. In that case it is not necessary to place a transmitter at the front end, the system can self oscillate quite happily. On the other hand the transmission line could be something special that exhibits the reactive impedance characteristic, in which case the energy source is buried within that special device. As I have argued elsewhere a magnetized ferromagnetic conductive rod has alot of energy stored in the precessions of the conduction electrons, and it is just possible that this array of quantum driven oscillators is the source of energy.
Transmission lines are defined as passive structures. The only energy available in a transmission line is energy previously launched into the structure from an external energy source.
-
Transmission lines are defined as passive structures. The only energy available in a transmission line is energy previously launched into the structure from an external energy source.
Transmission lines do not have to be made from passive components. It is possible to create inductive and capacitive "components" from active devices having feedback whereby the value of the inductance or capacitance is controlled by the gain of the active device and the characteristic of the feedback loop. A chain of such devices would perform as a transmission line. Moreover with such active devices it would be possible to give the transmission line a reactive characteristic impedance, something that is not normal in lines made from passive components. Having done that, according to classical line theory, it is possible to achieve a line having negative resistance as its input characteristic. As in all negative resistance devices, thermal noise is all that is necessary to get self oscillation, so IMO we could make such a self-oscillating line using active components. Of course in that case the power in the oscillations comes from the power delivered to the active devices.
A transmission line having reactive Z0 is not generally found or even considered in the field of electromagnetics, so the negative input resistance aspect has not been studied before. But it is there hidden in the math of transmission line theory. Now is that just a math artefact? My reasoning above suggests it is not. So if there does exist such a line in Nature, it will act like my line made from active components, and there will be some power source inherent in that line.
-
Transmission lines do not have to be made from passive components. It is possible to create inductive and capacitive "components" from active devices having feedback whereby the value of the inductance or capacitance is controlled by the gain of the active device and the characteristic of the feedback loop. A chain of such devices would perform as a transmission line. Moreover with such active devices it would be possible to give the transmission line a reactive characteristic impedance, something that is not normal in lines made from passive components. Having done that, according to classical line theory, it is possible to achieve a line having negative resistance as its input characteristic. As in all negative resistance devices, thermal noise is all that is necessary to get self oscillation, so IMO we could make such a self-oscillating line using active components. Of course in that case the power in the oscillations comes from the power delivered to the active devices.
A transmission line having reactive Z0 is not generally found or even considered in the field of electromagnetics, so the negative input resistance aspect has not been studied before. But it is there hidden in the math of transmission line theory. Now is that just a math artefact? My reasoning above suggests it is not. So if there does exist such a line in Nature, it will act like my line made from active components, and there will be some power source inherent in that line.
A passive device does not contribute energy. If one pieces together amplifiers, power sources for the amplifiers and transmission lines, the transmission lines remain passive no matter how many amplifiers and power supplies one attaches.
Transmission lines have been used as phase shift elements in certain oscillator designs for decades and decades.
-
Smudge:
Thank you for showing up on this forum. Have you already seen this paper from Howard Reiss? Pages 24, 25, 26 of the attached document considers using the dielectric of a transmission line as the source fuel in a "nuclear" way.
Kind Regards,
Vortex1
-
Smudge:
Thank you for showing up on this forum. Have you already seen this paper from Howard Reiss? Pages 24, 25, 26 of the attached document considers using the dielectric of a transmission line as the source fuel in a "nuclear" way.
Kind Regards,
Vortex1
Vortex,
That's interesting but input powers in the tens of megawatts is a bit beyond your average experimenter. :)
Smudge
-
Here is another paper this time looking at the Corbino Effect that usually applies to discs. It is shown that this can also apply to cylindrical geometry. Then the Inverse Corbino Effect (where circular currents are induced magnetically) can yield a Hall voltage, in the disc case the voltage appears crom center to edge and in the cylindrical case the voltage appears from end to end. The induced circular currents being at RF the Hall voltage along the cylinder is also RF. Clearly this could apply to the Stromerzeuger Fe rods.
Enjoy
-
Hi Smudge
Read the paper, the 180kHz experiment should not be hard to do, have you or anyone attempted it? Shouldn't take much to give it a whirl.
Regarding the Reiss paper, perhaps megawatts for microseconds is in the range of the experimenter, especially if you pump the transmission line such that extremely narrow pulses are reflected from the ends or use a ring resonator.
I've got a few thousand feet of 14 Ga thermocouple grade iron wire on hand (Hoskins Mfg.). Is this pure enough for experimenting along these lines?
Regards, Vortex1
-
Hi Smudge
Read the paper, the 180kHz experiment should not be hard to do, have you or anyone attempted it? Shouldn't take much to give it a whirl.
Regarding the Reiss paper, perhaps megawatts for microseconds is in the range of the experimenter, especially if you pump the transmission line such that extremely narrow pulses are reflected from the ends or use a ring resonator.
I've got a few thousand feet of 14 Ga thermocouple grade iron wire on hand (Hoskins Mfg.). Is this pure enough for experimenting along these lines?
Regards, Vortex1
Hi Vortex1,
I would think any form of iron could be experimented with, although Coler used a pure form (probably Swedish iron originally then in 1946/47 he used Armco iron). His rods were 3/4 inch diameter so the use of thin wire might not be productive, but worth a try anyway. I think the state of the iron is important, it needs to be annealed so as to give it soft properties. I have some small rods obtained from Goodfellow and they are hard both mechanically and magnetically, and I haven't had any success with these.
Regarding the Reiss paper even megawatt pulses are beyond the reach of your average experimenter, but should be no problem for a decent electronics lab. I have experience in pulsed radar where such power levels are not unusual, but the waveguide/coax has to be able to withstand the high voltages. There are pulse narrowing techniques using saturating ferrite where you start with a wide low-power pulse and end up with a high-power narrow pulse. This simplifies the inital pulse modulator and could bring it into the realm of the home experimenter.
Smudge
-
Here is another paper I wrote some time ago. This concerns electron precession acting as a charge pump. Clearly electrons bound in the lattice but acting like tiny bar magnets precessing at microwave frequencies can create forces on itinerant conduction electrons. So the possibility exists that given the right conditions this could create observable effects, even rectifying the microwaves to create DC.
-
Last paragraph on p. 14 of this article before the conclusion seems to be pointing to what you're proposing, Smudge:
http://www.rexresearch.com/stuff5/ludwigcoler.pdf (http://www.rexresearch.com/stuff5/ludwigcoler.pdf)
Bob
-
Bob,
I have met the author of this article at his laboratory in Kolberg. He has two replications (built by other people) of the Coler Magnetstromapparat at his disposal. He also has some sophisticated test equipment there and as you can see he has studied ferromagnetic acoustic resonance. AFAIK Aspden was the first to suggest that the magnets may have used this resonance. The previous paragraph refers to ferromagnetic resonance which I take to be the classical FMR but that is at microwave frequencies and clearly the M machine does not use those directly. Thorsten has copies of some of my papers.
Smudge
-
@Smudge:
So it seems, you also have the files from the british with the UK story after the BIOS report (AVIA 49/11). Where Coler tried without success in making a working device (including a detailed material list of a Stromerzeuger).
Sure you can say, that von Unruh wasn't there, and Coler therefore wasn't able to do it.
But unfortunately, as it clearly points out to me, von Unruh just misused Coler to get another more clean character in the front to get new investors.
Do you also have the german files from the Reichskanzlei?
It doesn't seem like this is the case to me...
They show a lot...
E.g. in all demonstrations people were not allowed to put their own meters in the circuit, only the meters which were already implemented by them.
Most of the scientists were OK with this. But two scientists weren't which were there to verify the claims for further investments.
And what did they do? They made a very special measuring equipment on the fly to measure currents without probing the circuit directly.
And what did they find out? They discovered that what the installed meters were measuring was wrong, and that in reality, really exactly as much power is at the output as is drawn from the batteris, just within a very slight measuring error tolerance.
So no OU there.
And if you read these files further, it at least gets very clear to me, that the Coler/Unruh apparatus was never OU, and that this was rather a big SCAM set up by von Unruh involving Coler in a way, that probably Coler himself never realized, that he had been tricked by von Unruh...
From the story as I get it, probably Coler really believed the device would work.
And btw someone in a german forum (hcrs) replicated the Magnetstromapperat successfully and finally discovered how it worked.
A description for replication is also there: http://forum.hcrs.at/viewtopic.php?p=16905 (http://forum.hcrs.at/viewtopic.php?p=16905) (including the description how it works electrically, for it is quite a tricky circuit). It was a galvanic effect. But not a galvanic effect as reported by the later UK files, which thought, it was a galvanic reaction at the lamp socket, but it was a galvanic reaction at the coils.
BTW. IMHO by far the best story summation has been given in a german forum with a lot of relations to original docs.
Link: http://www.energiederzukunft.org/forum/5-allgemeines-forum/285-hans-coler (http://www.energiederzukunft.org/forum/5-allgemeines-forum/285-hans-coler)
If you do not speak german, maybe an autotranslate can help.
I really recommend reading it!!!!!!! It is actually a must read for anyone interested in the Coler story.
Edit:
BTW, also in that thread, there is the pic schema of the Stromerzeuger from the Reichskanzlei files (attached it). This pic and also the material list in the UK report clearly show that the Norrby patent is really the Stromerzeuger.
It is also speculated there, that Unruh maybe got knowledge of the english version. As the english version seems to have a translation error. In the french version it is just stated, that the circuit will increase the voltage (like a transformer). But in the english version this has been translated, that the circuit will increase the power.
BTW: It would be very interesting to know, what kind of newspaper articles you could find about the whole story.
-
Hi Shanti,
I was not aware of the german files from the Reichskanzlei. I will certainly look at them. It is satisfying to know that the stromerzeuger was based on the Norrby patent, that is the conclusion I came to after Fred Epps sent me the Norrby patent. The UK application never got granted so the data became available to the public, and maybe that's where Unruh got it (at the cost of one shilling). Here are the articles in the old UK Daily Chronicle.
Smudge
-
Thanks for the articles, didn't know these yet.
Seems like the fraud was quite prominent, that would explain, why von Unruh later needed another frontman to continue, as his previous fraud was too public.
BTW: About the Norrby patent.
If you read the french version, it gets very clear for what this patent was intended. At that time, you needed High voltages for radio transmitters. But you only had basically batteries for powering them.
But how to make High voltages from such low voltages? Well you either took a dc-motor/ac-generator combination and then a normal transformer, or you took a relais which switched the DC, so that it could be transformed.
Both versions were not so good, as both had quite some physical wear. The motor on the brushes, and the relais on the contacts
So Norrby came up with an idea, how to get HV out of LV DC batteries. And the idea was to use transductors as switching elements.
So no more mechanical loss was present. But as it seemed this idea didn't had any success.
And his very special way, of arrangement of his flat coils and plates is just another (surely strange) means, to get higher voltages with this oscillator.
As it seems he uses a magnetic means to change the distance of his plate/coil capacitors to get higher voltages, and the transductors to get the oscillations.
Maybe there was already a patent for the more forward way of transforming to HV, or maybe he thought that this solution would be better...who knows...
And the english translation has, as mentioned, the error, that it states, that the device makes more power on the output, instead of the correct french version, which says, more voltage...
And the Magnetstromapperat is also exactly that. It uses transductors with using the copper coils on the iron themselves at the same time as galvanic elements for powering the circuit.
In the Stromerzeuger he adjusted the working point of the transductors with the help of an additional winding and a battery powering it (like it is usually done), and in the Magnetstromapperat he modified the distance between the magnets to get to the correct working point.
This is all, as it has been described, by the successful replicator "Dodes" in the hcrs-forum. The link I gave above...
Edit: IMHO it is clear, why he constructed the Magnetstromapperat, as nobody anymore believed him, the Stromerzeuger would be OU, as it needed the batteries.
So he probably thought he has to make a device without any (visible) batteries to get new investors.
So he got rid of the battery for the adjusting circuit by the mechanical adjustable magnets and he got rid of the primary batteries, by making the coil themselves in a way, that they are batteries.
Sure these "batteries" deliver only a very small amount of power, but it was probably enough to get other investors interested in investing for a bigger one...
So it seems to me, that von Unruh very well knew, how the circuit is really working, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to come up with such another circuit...still based on the same principle.
It just seems to me Coler didn't get it. But he was also no electrical engineer, as he was engineering planes.
So it seems somewhen after the building of the Magnetstromapperat von Unruh died. And Coler wasn't able to replicate any working Stromerzeuger anymore, as he didn't know its secret.
And if you do not know how it works, a replication is very difficult...
The same with the Magnetstromapperat: If you do not know, that the galvanic action at the coils is the important key ingredient, then your replication will fail.
So anybody wiring his enammelled wire around the core, will automatically fail...
Edit2:
And as "Dodes" in the hrcs forum already pointed out:
Coler himself probably never realized that the coils were galvanic elements, for the way they were made, they are shorted at the output (by connection to the core). It is used as a current source.
-
Lol still reading in the energiederzukunft forum?
BTW: I don't know if you speak german. But if not and if you have some problems understanding certain (short) passages you can ask me here, and I will translate them...
-
I have met the author of this article at his laboratory in Kolberg. He has two replications (built by other people) of the Coler Magnetstromapparat at his disposal.
Hi Smudge,
so have you actually seen working Coler device yourself ?
Regards,
Vasik
-
so have you actually seen working Coler device yourself ?
BTW: As said. In the link I've given is a complete description how to make a working Magnetstromapperat yourself. If you are interested, for the fun of it...
As said, the most important thing for a successful replication is using either a non insulated copper wire and a paper insulation to the core or a fabric insulated copper wire.
-
Hi Shanti,
autotranslation helps but only a little.
So at the end, was it just a magnetic amplifier powered by galvanic elements ?
Thanks.
-
OK, I will shortly translate the the descriptional part of the post from user "Dodes" in the hcrs forum (http://forum.hcrs.at/viewtopic.php?p=16852&sid=f6dae7138b79dda4b176d3f61d5c226e#16852 (http://forum.hcrs.at/viewtopic.php?p=16852&sid=f6dae7138b79dda4b176d3f61d5c226e#16852))
A short experiment:
1) Take an Iron-core/Steel-Core or ... length 100mm /15mm dia
Polish it nicely and make sure it is free from any fat.
2) Make 2-3 layer of paper 60-80g/m'2 around the core and fix it with a bit of glue
Do not use any adhesive tape!!!
3) As you cannot get anymore copper wire with a fabric insulation, use an uninsulated copper wire and wire it together with a wool thread over the paper insulation.
You can remove the wool thread now.
You now haw a secondary coil made of uninsulated copper wire!
4) Now let the iron core rest for 24 hours and then measure with a high impedance voltmeter the voltage between the core and the coil!
[-> You have made a battery]
5) Now do the same a second time, but this time reverse the orientation of the winding (if you did cw, you now do ccw, or vice versa)
6) Now connect the coils on the outside electically with the core.
Leave the other coil connection open.
7) If you now measure the voltage between coil and core, it is 0V.
[it now looks to the layman, as if there's no battery effect anymore present...]
8 ) Now connect both coils electrically with each other, and connect the two open coil connections over a small capacitance.
The capacitance should be chosen in a size, so that the total circuit will have a series resonance frequency of about 120KHz.
9) Now use either an external electromagnetic or a permanent magnetic field to influence the cores to find the right working point for the cores to work as transductors.
10) Check the DC voltage on the capacity. If it isn't 0V, then the DC voltage is still asymmetric and the gain distorted.
It's a bit problematic to tune in, but if the circuit starts to swing, the Heureka-Effect is big ;D
An explanation behind the basic theory of transductors can be found here:
Magnetic Amplifier - another lost technology U.S. Navy 1951 (.pdf-Link) (http://www.themeasuringsystemofthegods.com/magnetic%20amplifiers.pdf)
Usually the bias of magnetic amplifiers is made by a DC-coil, but you can also do it with a field from a permanent magnet, where you just have to adjust the distance...
The power input is over the core circuit and presents just one winding.
The modulated secondary current is created in the outer secondary coil, which is interconnected in pahse with the core circuit.
Thats why we now have here an:
Magnetic push-pull amplifier!!!
On every oscillation back and forth of the current, the amplitude gets amplified a little bit. I guess the gain is here about 1.1 to 1.3.
Due to the losses in the core etc, the ampltiude rises quite slowly.
Similar to the acoustic coupling (microphone in front of loudspeaker): If you adjust the output volume accordingly, then there also the output just rises slowly, but in the end produces a strong noise...
BTW: Be aware that in Coler's time, paper was quite acidic. This helps a lot in getting more power out of your coil battery. You can also just take a bit of lemon juice and drop it one the coils to improve the power output...
-
Shanti,
Thanks a lot for translation!
I just wondering what is significance of 120khz frequency ? Any idea ?
-
It's quite a time ago...and I'm not Dodes from hcrs...
But AFAIR, it was due to the following reasons (no claim of correctness):
1) The higher the frequency the better the gain, but also the losses in the core. So there's kind of optimal range for the best gain.
2) If you have a mechanical vibration in the core (due to magnetostriction), it can help you get a better gain. As due to the mechanical vibrations, the inner resistance of the galvanic coil/core element is changing. And if it does this in phase with the amplification itself, it will increase the gain.
If the 2nd point is really adding some substantial gain, the you would probably best check to get the best frequency with a scope and make the circuit adjustabel, either with an adjustable cap or inductance.
-
Just got back from a short break without internet access. The replications I saw at Thorsten's laboratory did not actually yield any working evidence, they were simply attempted replications built by different people.
Thanks Shanti for all that additional information. The fact that UnRuh/Coler used silk insulated wire over paper insulation in their M machine not only leads to the galvanic explanation, but also might imply that it used the magnetoelectric effect where an electric field can control magnetization. A simple two-plate capacitor, where one plate is a magnetized ferromagnetic conductor while the other plate is a non-magnetic conductor (like Cu), when electrically energized will exhibit on the ferromagnetic plate either an excess or a deficit of spin-polarized electrons. That equates to a small change of overall magnetization on that plate, and that is a magnetoelectric effect. Obviously the use of high permittivity dielectric will increase the surface charge for a given voltage. Additionally if the dielectric is ferroelectric there is an increased effect due to some exchange coupling. I don't know whether anyone has come up with this as a possible explanation for the reported effects, but if it is true then modern replications with enamel insulation will not work. And cellulose, which is a major constituent of paper, is ferroelectric.
It may also be noted that there is another known effect, the Magneto-Coulomb Effect, whereby a ferromagnet exposed to an externally applied magnetic field will attempt to shed or attract electrons, effectively its surface work function changes value. So there are more possibilities than the galvanic one, and it is just possible that all three effects play their part.
As regards the original Norrby patent being a solid-state means for obtaining high DC voltage from batteries, that makes sense and I can quite believe that to be true. However I do note that Unruh/Coler used much larger electromagnets than those shown in the Norrby patent. And whereas Norrby had all his electromagnets with their axes vertical, Unruh/Coler did not use the same configuration, as indicated by the Reichskanzlei sketch that Shanti provided where they are shown in zig-zag fashion. The UK archive material also mentions zig zag. So IMO it is possible that Unruh discovered something interesting about the S machine. I am swayed by the reports of Professors Kloss, Franke and Schumann where they did not measure voltage gain, indeed the output voltage was very similar to the input voltage. But they did measure power gain. And in particular the photometric experiment, where illumination from bulbs lit via the S machine and lit directly from a battery were compared. The electrical measurements were there all DC, so not much room for error. And these guys were not idiots, they would have performed these measurements carefully. So I reach the conclusions that either the S machine did exhibit power gain or the reports were pure fabrication. Maybe I'll revise my opinion when I have read all the Reichskanzlei material.
It is clear to me that Unruh was the brains and Coler was simply his front man. Indeed I have a copy of a letter from the Norwegian archives which states that Coler was Unruh's assistant. So after Unruh's death Coler was out of his depth and simply muddled along.
-
Quoting: The fact that UnRuh/Coler used silk insulated wire over paper insulation in their M machine not only leads to the galvanic explanation, but also might imply that it used the magnetoelectric effect where an electric field can control magnetization. A simple two-plate capacitor, where one plate is a magnetized ferromagnetic conductor while the other plate is a non-magnetic conductor (like Cu), when electrically energized will exhibit on the ferromagnetic plate either an excess or a deficit of spin-polarized electrons. That equates to a small change of overall magnetization on that plate, and that is a magnetoelectric effect. Obviously the use of high permittivity dielectric will increase the surface charge for a given voltage. Additionally if the dielectric is ferroelectric there is an increased effect due to some exchange coupling. I don't know whether anyone has come up with this as a possible explanation for the reported effects, but if it is true then modern replications with enamel insulation will not work. And cellulose, which is a major constituent of paper, is ferroelectric.
Thomas Townsend Brown "empire clothes"
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19281115&CC=GB&NR=300311A&KC=A (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19281115&CC=GB&NR=300311A&KC=A)
cellulose~vinyl and today solution/alternatively: graphene
also valid
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=14&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19910228&CC=DD&NR=287597A5&KC=A5
go to "original document" on the left side and translate it (german description)
-
@Smudge:
Sorry don't want to be rude, but postulating such ideas, way off from experimental state sure is possible, but does IMHO not make too much sense.
IMHO you possibly drifted off way too much into the theoretical speculation world...
So my advise would be, just make ONE simple experiment, based on your ideas, which should yield anything special, for the verification of your ideas...
IMHO you try too hard to see any evidence in known allegedly FE-devices verifying your ideas. Probably you are tinkering about this idea already since a long time, accepting all not so common known effects, and integrating them into your theory to give yourself credibility. I meant this in relation to yourself.
If you do this long enough, you will become quite convinced, that your theory is true.
But did you ever do the exact math? Did you ever do an experiment verifying your theory?
I would bet my left foot, that the asnwer will be "No".
If it isn't then please link you experimental or calculation data, as I would be very interested.
As said, read the thread in the german forum, as he has dug out much more, than jus the Reichskanzeli files, and you will very likely also come to the conclusion, that the Stromerzeuger was never OU. Even more, that it seems they deliberately made the device in a way as to trick people, by letting them measure wrong values.
Otherwise stated: If you can clearly make a copy of a Magnetstromapperat, and it works, as described by Coler, and if your setup clearly runs purely on a galvanic effect, what are the odds, that it actually runs completely different?
I know, sometimes it is hard to accept the truth, especially if it violates or does not contribute one's own truth...
But as said, in science, there's occam's razor: The simplest explanation, is most possibly the correct one. And the simplest explanation explaining the devices is a purely conventional one.
So IMHO making a tie from the Coler apparatus here to some fancy theory is IMHO quite a bit far fetched...
As said, IMHO it would make more sense to discuss this theory on its own and make experiments verifying this theory.
BTW: About the zig-zag formation.
IMHO is is quite obvious why they made it that way. You need a DC current from one battery to adjust the bias point of the transductors. This is wasted energy.
So by arranging them in zig zag and also using permanent magnetic material they could increase the base field in these cores, so that they did not need anymore that much power from the battery to get to the bias point.
That's what I would do too, so that the power from the battery is then really just needed for a tiny adjustment of the bias point. As such an electrical adjustment is way easier than a mechanical adjustment (like in the Magnetstromapperat).
Please do not take this as any personal war/offense against you.
It is just, that I, and also a friend of mine, also once fell into such a theoretical hole. And I know, how difficult it is to get out of it again, as the effects of cognitive dissonance can be quite strong.
-
Shanti,
You must admit that the Magnetstromapparat and the Stromerzeuger are very different beasts. You seem to be of the opinion that the M device is fully explained by the galvanic effect and the S device was definitely a scam. While I can agree with you in regard to the M device I am not convinced about the S. You said previously that files from the Reichskanlei show that in all demonstrations people were not allowed to put their own meters in the circuit. That is at odds with the reports from Kloss and Schumann where they obtained meters from other sources, even going so far as to using different types of meter (e.g. hot-wire as against moving-coil) in order to differentiate between AC and DC effects. So far there has been no evidence that those reports were fabricated, so on the basis that those tests really did happen and they got the OU results quoted I am prepared to believe that the S device might be OU. As Wanninger (the guy on the energiederzukunft.org forum who has done most of the research there and has built a non-working replication of the Norrby device) says, "I want to believe in it".
You also seem to think that both devices act as "transductors" which I take to mean magnetic amplifiers or saturable reactors. I think this is pure speculation since from my knowledge of such devices they require closed magnetic paths without any air gaps. The sharp knee you see on the BH curve for square loop material does not occur when you plot the Flux v current curve if there is an air gap present, and certainly won't occur with coils wound onto rod cores. Also there is no connection between the saturation effects and any current flowing through the cores. So IMO the S device is still a mystery, and I think all possible avenues should be explored. For this reason I am placing my thoughts here on this forum in the hope that they might prompt someone into doing more research. I agree that it requires simple experiments to be devised that prove the theory, trying to replicate something as complicated as the S device and expect it to work is fanciful. The work requires laboratory equipment that I do not have, and also IMO access to annealing processes since I think the condition of the Fe is crucial. Also surface preparation could be important, and as I pointed out the type of insulation between Cu and Fe could play its part.
I am not wedded to any particular theory, I just think people ought to be aware of the somewhat obscure possibilities out there. If I suffered from cognitive dissonance I would not be offering a number of different possibilities :).
-
Coler information is extremely interesting.
Thanks to all very much.
CANGAS 44
-
Shanti,
You must admit that the Magnetstromapparat and the Stromerzeuger are very different beasts.
Only at first sight. At second sight they are way more similiar...
You seem to be of the opinion that the M device is fully explained by the galvanic effect and the S device was definitely a scam.
Well both were scam. But the Stromerzeuger actually was an invention which works and which, if built correctly will really increase the voltage, but it will not output more power.
That was the problem of the patent translation into the english, where they wrongly translated higher power output, instead of higher output voltage,
You said previously that files from the Reichskanlei show that in all demonstrations people were not allowed to put their own meters in the circuit. That is at odds with the reports from Kloss and Schumann where they obtained meters from other sources, even going so far as to using different types of meter (e.g. hot-wire as against moving-coil) in order to differentiate between AC and DC effects. So far there has been no evidence that those reports were fabricated, so on the basis that those tests really did happen and they got the OU results quoted I am prepared to believe that the S device might be OU. As Wanninger (the guy on the energiederzukunft.org forum who has done most of the research there and has built a non-working replication of the Norrby device) says, "I want to believe in it".
Sure you can always want to believe in it. But you can also believe in pink invisible elephants. That doesn't make them real.
I gave a much shortened version of the story here, as the whole story can be read on the thread I indicated.
And yes, later they were allegedly allowed to bring their own instruments. But as has already been said in the thread indicated. I would also do it like that, but then just wire it differently, so that some hidden wires would be introduced. There are so many possibilities to scam there...
Or maybe they simply put their own instruments exactly there, where the original instruments were. But as they obviously were not connected in the circuit as officially described, they also would have measured the same wrong values.
And as it was very obvious a deliberate scam when it was tested by the two guys I mentioned, there is IMHO absolute no ground to believe there was anything to it anytime before or after.
Or why should this setup have had the instruments placed so in the circuit as to show false data, if it actually worked???
I think this is pure speculation since from my knowledge of such devices they require closed magnetic paths without any air gaps.
No they don't. They just have to be saturated to the corresponding working point. And as this is done by an additional coil, there's no need for a closed loop magnetic path.
The sharp knee you see on the BH curve for square loop material does not occur when you plot the Flux v current curve if there is an air gap present, and certainly won't occur with coils wound onto rod cores.
Simply not true. As said, when you wire an additional coil on it, as it is usually done, and has been done in the Stromerzeuger you can very easily get to any point on the saturation curve even on a rod. Just look at the other thread in the hcrs forum. There the user Dodes has done extensive tests relating to such curves on rod cores. And they showed exactly this behaviour.
Sure an open core is not ideal, but the principle still works.
But as an example just take the principle replication example given above for the Magnetstromapperat. There the cores are also just rods, but the principle still works fine anyways...
Also there is no connection between the saturation effects and any current flowing through the cores.
??? No idea, what you mean by this???
So IMO the S device is still a mystery, and I think all possible avenues should be explored. For this reason I am placing my thoughts here on this forum in the hope that they might prompt someone into doing more research. I agree that it requires simple experiments to be devised that prove the theory, trying to replicate something as complicated as the S device and expect it to work is fanciful. The work requires laboratory equipment that I do not have, and also IMO access to annealing processes since I think the condition of the Fe is crucial. Also surface preparation could be important, and as I pointed out the type of insulation between Cu and Fe could play its part.
Sure you can do share your ideas. I do not say anything against that. I just wanted to make you aware of the fact, that maybe your ideas and theoretical constructs already far wandered off from reality as there's not a single experimental verification for it.
In the end I can also always speculate that pink invisible elephants are there bringing in additional energy. But If I do not have any experimental verification of it, which proves to be true in my model, but is not explainable by conventional physics, it remains nothing but a very unlikely hypothesis.
As occams razor should always be considered.
This is why I would encourage you, based on your theories, you should come up with one experiment, as simple as possible, which would show your hypothesis is valid.
If I suffered from cognitive dissonance I would not be offering a number of different possibilities :) .
See that's already the problem: We all suffer from cognitive dissonance!!! And we always must be aware of that. It is just the way the brain functions!!!
And giving different possibilities is only a seemingly way out. As the brain is clever and it always gives you options that either are compatible with ones own truth or is so off, that one can discard it as not valid.
-
hei Guys! I have here some old diagrams and descriptions which should add some light to the Hans Coler topic, especially as they seem to describe later projects done following on from his work! - It was only recently that I was able to dig around in my old paper records and rediscover these very rare reports which focus on a R&D group called ALPHA THETA, and on which you can find absolutely NOTHING on the internet as far as I can tell, and which I am now sharing here for the first time! – Apart from these photocopies, I have NO other information on this, apart from recalling that I first got this as an appendage attached to an infopack regarding the Coler Stromerzeuger etc at least 15 years ago. In case the photocopied reports/comments are hard to read, I may type them out later, time permitting, but you can see that the diagrams show 3 projects that are derived from the original HC device, and are not unrelated to flux-path--switch type techniques that you should be able to recognize! I trust that these will be illuminating to all here who have for so long pursued this thread and special line of research! - especially Smudge :)
Bob,
I have met the author of this article at his laboratory in Kolberg. He has two replications (built by other people) of the Coler Magnetstromapparat at his disposal. He also has some sophisticated test equipment there and as you can see he has studied ferromagnetic acoustic resonance. AFAIK Aspden was the first to suggest that the magnets may have used this resonance. The previous paragraph refers to ferromagnetic resonance which I take to be the classical FMR but that is at microwave frequencies and clearly the M machine does not use those directly. Thorsten has copies of some of my papers.
Smudge
-
Although I have only just joined this forum I have been concerned with OU science for the past 16 years. Among other things I have researched the Hans Coler devices and being in the UK I have tracked down everything I can find in the UK National Archives about Coler. Actually Coler appears to be Unruh's assistant and the real inventor was Unruh. Unruh demonstrated a Stromerzeuger in public in 1920, but after being arrested as a fraudster he seems to have used Coler as his front man. After Unruh's death Coler continued with the devices but in my opinion he was out of his depth technically which could explain why he was not successful in replicating the devices after the War. I have copies of the 1920 newspaper articles, copies of all the National Archive material, a copy of the British Intelligence report and Coler's death certificate (he died here in the UK).
In the corrected Hudson letter, in your article, we can find the following paragraph :
"During the four weeks the apparatus was partly or wholly reconnected several times in an endeavour
to re-discover the correct connections of the polarity of the magnets relative to the flow of current and of
the chirality of the winding to which it was connected, the direction of the magnetic field through the
flat coils and copper plates and the manner in which these circuits were linked through the coils on the
electromagnets, these being the chief variables."
This letter also refers to the B.I.O.S Report 1043, item N°31 in which we can find, in a paragraph giving a short description of the apparratus in the Appendix IV (report by Hans Coler and Dr Heinz Frohlich) , the following sentences :
"Figure 1 shows diagrammatically and in plan these interwound parts (anchor in red, field in
green, directing circuit in blue).
Figure 2 the so called basic diagram, shows the connections between these different
parts. This basic diagram shows the conditions necessary for self-interruption."
These two figures are absent from the unclassified document but one can reasonably assume they were present in the original classified document, because, had they not been, then why having mentionned them in the report?
So, if the informations about the connections between the different parts of the device were available in a detailed diagram in the B.I.O.S. report, why would they have to re-discover them?
This seems to me somewhat incoherent.
Do you have an explanation about this point?
-
Hi Antigrav89,
I have no reason to believe that the original classified B.I.O.S report 1043 did have copies of the figures mentioned in that appendix. I have seen two surviving copies of that B.I.O.S. report, one is at the Imperial War Museum and the other is in the National Archives. They are identical and appear to be as originally published, classified Confidential then later declassified, and they do not contain the two figures to which you refer. I do not know of the existence of any copies of the original German Coler/Frohlich report where you would find those two figures. My guess is the work being done in the UK and reported in the Hudson letter also did not have access to those two figures. And it would appear that the Norrby patent (on which the Stromerzeuger is based) also was not known to them at that time.
Smudge
-
Hi Antigrav89,
I have no reason to believe that the original classified B.I.O.S report 1043 did have copies of the figures mentioned in that appendix. I have seen two surviving copies of that B.I.O.S. report, one is at the Imperial War Museum and the other is in the National Archives. They are identical and appear to be as originally published, classified Confidential then later declassified, and they do not contain the two figures to which you refer. I do not know of the existence of any copies of the original German Coler/Frohlich report where you would find those two figures. My guess is the work being done in the UK and reported in the Hudson letter also did not have access to those two figures. And it would appear that the Norrby patent (on which the Stromerzeuger is based) also was not known to them at that time.
Smudge
Wow,this thread just popped up from years gone by.
Smudge,is this the correct device you are referring to ?
Brad
-
I have no reason to believe that the original classified B.I.O.S report 1043 did have copies of the figures mentioned in that appendix.
Hi Smudge,
Then, how to explain why the appendix refers to these two figures if they were not present in the original B.I.O.S. document?
A mistake from the person (presumably R. Hurst) who wrote the appendix (and the whole report) from parts of the original German Coler/Frohlich report and would have omitted to remove the part of the text referring to these figures?
Perhaps, these two figures, which would have been of prime importance for reproducing the stromerzeuger (which was not protected by a patent), were purposely removed from the final version of the B.I.O.S. report or the original German report by Captain Hans Coler and/or Captain R. Sandberg, to protect their interest in the invention.
Antigrav89
-
Hi Smudge,
Then, how to explain why the appendix refers to these two figures if they were not present in the original B.I.O.S. document?
A mistake from the person (presumably R. Hurst) who wrote the appendix (and the whole report) from parts of the original German Coler/Frohlich report and would have omitted to remove the part of the text referring to these figures?
Perhaps, these two figures, which would have been of prime importance for reproducing the stromerzeuger (which was not protected by a patent), were purposely removed from the final version of the B.I.O.S. report or the original German report by Captain Hans Coler and/or Captain R. Sandberg, to protect their interest in the invention.
Antigrav89
All I can say is that this was the days before we had photocopiers and it is clear that the whole report (except the front page) was reproduced using stencils. (I worked in the UK Ministry of Supply as a young 16 year old lad and I remember those days. ) It is clear to me from the page numbering, and a close inspection of the stapling that holds the pages together, that the reports I've seen haven't been tampered with. Whether the figures were deliberately left out of the original draft I can't say, but my gut feeling is that this was a time when the intelligence teams were writing a large number of reports and the typing pool was under pressure to get them all published and so the figures from the German original never got reproduced because they did not have access to them.
Smudge
-
Wow,this thread just popped up from years gone by.
Smudge,is this the correct device you are referring to ?
Brad
Yes that's the one. If you look back at earlier posts on this thread you will see that another group are convinced that the Stromerzeuger was a scam and the Norrby patent did not claim power amplification, only voltage amplification. But it is clear to me from the descriptions of the Coler/Unruh Stromerzeuger that it was derived from that Norrby device.
Smudge
Smudge
-
[...]the figures from the German original never got reproduced because they did not have access to them.
Hi Smudge,
The diagrams might also have been available in the original B.I.O.S. document, but of little use for reproducing a working
prototype because the 1943 Coler/Frohlich report states :
"Apart from the great number of alternative arrangements and
connections between the different parts, - during the period
covered by this report eight different circuit diagrams were
tested in addition to the experiments above - the following as
far unsolved problems are hindering success in making the
apparatus work [...]"
So, we have to assume that, either the diagrams in the Coler/Frohlich report (drawn by Coler after his breakdown) were possibly erroneous or the procedure to get the stromerzeuger started and/or pre-magnetize the core magnets were only known by Willi von Unruh (who presumably died in 1937 possibly during the bombing which destroyed the working prototypes along with the related documents including the drawings describing the 6 kW machine version).
The engineer team gathered by Hudson in 1947 might have been faced with the same problems for reproducing the stromerzeuger than those encountered by the Frohlich's team in 1943, which reported failure for experiments 1 and 3 and gave inconclusive results for experiments 2 and 4.
In particular, the experiment 3 (successfully reproduced by "the inventor and his assistant Dipl. Ing. Rudolf Hingst" from measurements on the 1937 working machine) which could have validated the current amplification phenomena, could not be reproduced.
Despite these failures, Coler wrote in his statement relating to the Frohlich'experiments :
"In order to prevent any possible objection, that
the iron had any influence on the results, the whole transformer
was out out during the experiments and an iron-free flat coil
arrangement used as the inductor during these experiments.
[...]I can consider my discovery of the energy difference between the opening
and closing impulse as proved on the basis ot Frohlich' s
experiments.
The result obtained with this experimental arrangement,
[...] was the clear proof of a considerably larger energy during opening (intake), compared with closing impulses.
my intuitively derived view, based on my most primitive experiments, of these
processes has proved correct [...] as my development of the "Space energy
receiver" was based on this and was successful."
So, Coler was convinced that his machines worked as space energy receivers and the role played by the magnetic material was not essential for their operation. The "iron-free flat coil arrangement" he refers to for supporting his successful result is unclear because the corresponding figure 4 only schematizes a standard air-core transformer (alike as the sliding air-core coils used for the magnetstromapparat). Most surprising is the association of the words "flat coil" and "iron-free" because the flat coils are usually associated to the flat rectangular coil circuit between the plates (these coils are always air-core coils in the Norrby patent), the transformer coils referring to the coils placed in zigzag formation between the two stacks of plates (called the directing circuit). What did he mean when he said "the whole transformer was out out during the experiments"? Did he refer to the directing circuit? The condenser plates seem also to have been absent during these experiments. So, the energy excess observed would only come from the flat coils arrangement. What is your feeling about this experiment?
Coler proudly claimed that "[his] intuitively derived view based on [his] most primitive experiments [...] has proved correct".
The Hudson letter states:
"Coler has written a note describing his theory of the operation.
This is in our hands and being translated."
It might have been interesting to have this note to have Coler's vision about the principle of operation of his machines.
Antigrav89
-
Where is the Coler's principle of operation theory document ? Is that known ?
-
Where is the Coler's principle of operation theory document ? Is that known ?
I have not seen it but you will find the response from someone who had seen it in the forum that Shanti referred to earlier http://www.energiederzukunft.org/forum/5-allgemeines-forum/285-hans-coler (http://www.energiederzukunft.org/forum/5-allgemeines-forum/285-hans-coler)
Go to page 11 reply 381 where there are images of letters form the UK National Archives. One letter says (with typing errors corrected here) "The report is a rather pathetic personal document showing the picture of a very earnest but entirely untrained observer who has stumbled across discoveries, the explanation of which he is incapable of furnishing. while attempting to do so on a basis of elementary (matriculation standard) physics"
Smudge
-
Hi Smudge,
Thank you for the link to the original Coler German documents.
When comparatively studying the two Coler machines, it appears to me that the stromerzeuger and the magnetstromapparat share two common characteristics:
- the E-field and B-field in each element are parallel to each other
- the E-fields and the B-fields in the circuit formed by the different coupled elements sum up to zero
The first condition is known to occur in the case of resonant cavities producing standing waves.
The second condition fills the requirement for the existence of scalar waves propagating in the system.
In the case of the magnetstromapparat, the E-field is created by the current passing through the core magnet.
This E-field is due to the difference between the electric conductivities in the iron surface layer and the copper wire in the coil:
injected charges from the copper wire accumulate on the magnet surface at one electrode faster than they flow towards the other electrode by passing through the surface magnet layer, thus creating a potential difference.
In the case of the stromerzeuger, the E-field created by the capacitor plates is parallel with the B-Field created by the flat coil between the plates.
In the experiment 3 described in the Coler/Frohlich report, the null result is explained by the fact that the two electric induction currents flowing in opposite directions mutually cancel.
This situation is formally equivalent to two oppositely charged currents that would flow in the same direction, one current carrying negative charges (electrons) and the other one carrying positive charges (positrons) resulting from the charge separation from a vacuum pair fluctuation state.
Here it is interesting that the "charge separation" concept is also the hypothesis made by Coler in the Appendix I of the B.I.O.S. report to explain the principle operation of the Stromerzeuger.
How such a charge separation could be possible from the physics point of view?
The response might come from the Aharonov-Bohm dephasage effect, which, in the special case of scalar waves cancels (the four-potential integrand is a total exact differential that zeroes over a closed integration path), allowing to the electronic and positronic currents to travel in phase without destructively interacting.
If I am correct, we could be in presence of a new form of superconductivity based on electron-positron pairs.
It might be explain why the Frohlich's experiments on separate parts of the machine failed to find the cause of the current amplification in the Stromerzeuger: scalar waves only manifest in special circuit geometrical configurations that allow the total E-fields and B-fields to cancel and the system under study has to be considered as a whole.
What do you think about my analysis?
Antigrav89
-
"What do you think about my analysis?"
Clapclap
-
Hi AG89,
Assuming that it is possible to obtain electron-positron pairs I am not sure how you get them to travel since any form of electro-magnetic induction would create forces in opposite directions.
Having read in that German forum about the Unruh brothers being jailed for fraudently obtaining significant amounts of money for their "inventions" I think it quite likely that the whole Coler thing is a dead end. However that doesn't stop me from looking at possibilities for how it might work as described and witnessed by Professors Kloss and Schumann.
Of all the various possibilities that I have considered my gut feeling is that RF Corbino-like currents around the surface of the iron cores can provide magnetic coupling to the flat coils that hasn't been investigated, and that is the most likely explanation for the anomalous results. This requires the DC magnetic field in the cores to leak out of the cylindrical surface, and the DC excitation coils described in the UK documents from the National Archives, plus the pemanently magnetized wire connection at one end, could achieve just that. The RF longitudinal surface currents would react with that radial static magnetic field field to create the Corbino effect, so the RF current paths then become helical hence creating an anomalous RF magnetic field. It should be possible to perform simple experiments to verify this.
Smudge
-
Further to my previous post I see I hadn't published my paper on the Inverse Corbino effect, so here it is. Enjoy!
Smudge
-
I am not sure how you get them to travel since any form of electro-magnetic induction would create forces in opposite directions.
Smudge
Hi Smudge,
Scalar waves are non electromagnetic waves which are particular solutions of the electromagnetism equations corresponding to the case where E-Field and B-field are simultaneously null.
So, they are not expected to comply with the laws of Electromagnetism.
The B-field null case is associated to the Ahoronov-Bohm magnetic effect; the E-field null case corresponds to the Aharonov-Bohm electric effect.
These waves are longitudinal waves associated to propagating energy that might be created by stressing vacuum medium by application of opposite E-fields and B-Fields.
They are not associated to any E-field or B-field, so they are not submitted to classical induction laws.
An ordinary electric current flowing through a metallic conductor is submitted to resistance effects from the metallic material due to the attraction exerced upon the conduction electrons by the
metal positive ions.
A pure positronic current would be repelled by the lattice metal ions which would cooperate with the current flow, thus creating a negative resistance effect.
A superconducting current carried by electron-positron pairs, travelling in phase, might behave in a special way, the positron-ion repulsion compensating ,partially or totally, the electron-ion attraction, thus reducing the electric resistance. These combined interactions might also have a stabilizing effect on the ions by reducing the atomic nuclei vibrations, thus suppressing the quantum decoherence effects which cause electronic and positronic wave function dephasage to occur with time.
But for obtaining usable electron-positron pairs, the quantum fluctuations have to be stabilized first.
The role played by the pulsed DC current might be essential for this goal.
We now model the dynamical vacuum as an infinite fluid. This fluid must to be compressible in order to allow waves with finite velocity to propagate.
It has also to be inviscid (non viscuous) to avoid thermic dissipation.
In ferromagnetic materials, magnetorestrictive effects allow the atomic nuclei to have large amplitude deplacements.
The pulsed current which causes the atoms to move synchronously in the same direction, might create soliton, spin waves or magnetic structures as skyrmions to cohere and stabilize the vacuum fluctuations, thus reducing system entropy.
The system under study is considered as an open (non conservative) quantum system (conservation laws of energy and momentum only apply to closed systems).
These thermodynamical transitions between chaotic to auto-organized non-equilibrium states have been extensively studied by Ilia Prigogine.
Antigrav89
-
Hi ag89,
Thank you for the lecture on scalar waves. I do have some comments
Scalar waves are non electromagnetic waves which are particular solutions of the electromagnetism equations corresponding to the case where E-Field and B-field are simultaneously null.
So, they are not expected to comply with the laws of Electromagnetism.
I thought the laws of electromagnetism are the equations. So I don't see why particular solutions should be considered as non-electromagnetic, even when the fields "simultaneously" null. The facts that the fields null does not mean that the quanta, the virtual particles of space, are absent, it is just that their measurable effects cancel. And using the term "measurable" brings into focus your use of the word "simultaneously". That infers an instant in time but we know that as we look at smaller and smaller time intervals, although on average the field quanta null, their presence in terms of individual number or amplitude density do not.
The B-field null case is associated to the Ahoronov-Bohm magnetic effect; the E-field null case corresponds to the Aharonov-Bohm electric effect.
In your opinion, others have a different view.
These waves are longitudinal waves associated to propagating energy that might be created by stressing vacuum medium by application of opposite E-fields and B-Fields.
They are not associated to any E-field or B-field, so they are not submitted to classical induction laws.
Now you have wandered into what actually comprises the vacuum medium and whether or not it can be stressed.
An ordinary electric current flowing through a metallic conductor is submitted to resistance effects from the metallic material due to the attraction exerced upon the conduction electrons by the
metal positive ions.
That is an over-simplification.
A pure positronic current would be repelled by the lattice metal ions which would cooperate with the current flow, thus creating a negative resistance effect.
Now you have assumed that there is a current flow, which demands that there be something present to create that flow, indeed your negative resistance effect implies a voltage hence an E field. If there is some directional force on your conduction positrons, then by definition there is an E field present, and that will create the same direction of current as for conduction electrons, so no negative resistance effects.
A superconducting current carried by electron-positron pairs, travelling in phase, might behave in a special way, the positron-ion repulsion compensating ,partially or totally, the electron-ion attraction, thus reducing the electric resistance.
But there will be no electric current, no effective charge movement. So you can't call it a superconducting current.
These combined interactions might also have a stabilizing effect on the ions by reducing the atomic nuclei vibrations, thus suppressing the quantum decoherence effects which cause electronic and positronic wave function dephasage to occur with time.
But for obtaining usable electron-positron pairs, the quantum fluctuations have to be stabilized first.
The role played by the pulsed DC current might be essential for this goal.
No comment.
We now model the dynamical vacuum as an infinite fluid. This fluid must to be compressible in order to allow waves with finite velocity to propagate.
It has also to be inviscid (non viscuous) to avoid thermic dissipation.
Now you have wandered away from the quantum world and IMO opinion that is a mistake. The dynamical vacuum does not behave like a compressible fluid.
In ferromagnetic materials, magnetorestrictive effects allow the atomic nuclei to have large amplitude deplacements.
The pulsed current which causes the atoms to move synchronously in the same direction, might create soliton, spin waves or magnetic structures as skyrmions to cohere and stabilize the vacuum fluctuations, thus reducing system entropy.
The system under study is considered as an open (non conservative) quantum system (conservation laws of energy and momentum only apply to closed systems).
These thermodynamical transitions between chaotic to auto-organized non-equilibrium states have been extensively studied by Ilia Prigogine.
I have no argument with that, but I fail to see the connection with your imaginary vacuum fluid.
Smudge
-
Hi ag89,
Thank you for the lecture on scalar waves. I do have some comments
I thought the laws of electromagnetism are the equations. So I don't see why particular solutions should be considered as non-electromagnetic, even when the fields "simultaneously" null. The facts that the fields null does not mean that the quanta, the virtual particles of space, are absent, it is just that their measurable effects cancel. And using the term "measurable" brings into focus your use of the word "simultaneously". That infers an instant in time but we know that as we look at smaller and smaller time intervals, although on average the field quanta null, their presence in terms of individual number or amplitude density do not.In your opinion, others have a different view.Now you have wandered into what actually comprises the vacuum medium and whether or not it can be stressed.That is an over-simplification.Now you have assumed that there is a current flow, which demands that there be something present to create that flow, indeed your negative resistance effect implies a voltage hence an E field. If there is some directional force on your conduction positrons, then by definition there is an E field present, and that will create the same direction of current as for conduction electrons, so no negative resistance effects.
But there will be no electric current, no effective charge movement. So you can't call it a superconducting current.No comment.Now you have wandered away from the quantum world and IMO opinion that is a mistake. The dynamical vacuum does not behave like a compressible fluid.I have no argument with that, but I fail to see the connection with your imaginary vacuum fluid.
Smudge
Hi Smudge,
Here are my answers to your questions.
The Maxwell equations deal with classical (non relativistic, non quantum) macroscopic E-field and B-Fields.
The measured current and voltage in a circuit are time-averaged values, so noise effects caused by quantum and thermic fluctuations have not to be taken into account.
When E-field and B-field are simultaneously null at a point of space, the electromagnetic density of energy at that point is also null.
So the scalar waves do not involve electromagnetic energy but another form of energy coming from the outer medium.
When dealing matter-radiation interaction from a quantum point of view, E-field and B-Field are of no use, only electrostatic and vector potential matter.
The mainstream physics interpretes the magnetic and electric Aharonov-Bohm effects as quantum-level interactions between the electrons and the electromagnetic potentials.
There is another interpretation that consider that the Aharonov-Bohm magnetic experiment can be explained by the interaction of the electrons moving B-Field with the static solenoid B-Field.
IMO, the magnetic flux lines density increase when passing through a magnet, applies a stress to the vacuum, which is compressed in the process.
I agree, my definition of electric resistance was over-simplified: conduction electrons interact with the lattice metal ions and the topological or chemical defects present in the metallic material, causing radiation resistance losses and Joule effect heating.
We must go beyond the classical electromagnetic vision (voltage, E-Field...) to consider matter and energy transfer from a general point of view: whenever a matter or energy density difference is created between two regions of space (gradient), a current flowing from the higher energy (or matter) density region to the lower energy density (or matter) appears to restore the equilibrium.
We have to abandon the classical electromagnetic view of matter as particles interacting with E-field and B-Field and consider, instead, propagating wave functions interacting with potentials, from the quantum electrodynamical point of view.
The electron-positron super-current must not be considered as the simple superposition of a matter and antimatter flows (that would annihilate instantaneously), but as a mixed entangled quantum state, behaving like a bosonic field (permitting the creation of Bose-Einstein condensates), composed of two correlated wave functions travelling in phase.
A pure positronic current cannot exist because it would immediately annihilate when put in contact with ordinary matter.
Quantum decoherence effects are of prime importance for the propagation of waves over long distances (comparatively with atomic distances) in a material.
If these effects occur, the charge-carrying propagating waves loses their coherence (they are submitted to random dephasages) and the associated current is destroyed.
Why the vacuum could not be modeled as a compressible fluid?
This model has the advantage to only allow waves to propagate with a finite velocity in the vacuum medium (as sound waves in air), thus rejecting "action at a distance" concept which, IMO, is a complete physical non sense.
In 1903, Whittaker has showed that if a particle emits spherical (retarded) waves (time-dependent) in all frequencies, propagating with the same velocity, a coulombian-type potential (independent of time) is created.
If we consider that material particles as continuously coupled with the vacuum and in stationary equilibrium with it, the particle receiving energy from the vacuum
and radiating all this energy, Whittaker's approach takes all its physical sense.
The connection with the vacuum fluid model is of the utmost importance to explain how vacuum fluctuations could cohere and be stabilized to be usable.
Vacuum compression effect is what makes this possible.
The Heisenberg principle of uncertainty permits virtual matter-antimatter particle pairs (vacum fluctuations) to exist only during a very short time but not to interact each other or with particles matter.
Sufficient distance reduction between them, by medium compression action, might allow to these interactions to occur.
For example, below Fermi level electrons might gain kinetic energy by collisions with vacuum fluctuation and be promoted to the metal conduction band.
But such processes imply that system entropy can be reducted, by transitions from chaotic to ordered states.
One could argue that such transitions violate the second law of thermodynamics.
But, it is not the case here, because this law, that states that the entropy of a physical system must always increase with time, only applies to systems at equilibrium state (the systems we study are open quantum out of equilibrium systems).
Antigrav89
-
Hi ag89,
You said whenever a matter or energy density difference is created between two regions of space (gradient), a current flowing from the higher energy (or matter) density region to the lower energy density (or matter) appears to restore the equilibrium
I think the problem lies in your use of the word "current". That automatically implies an electric current or charge transport and I don't think you mean that. The flow can be neutral matter or just some form of energy.
It is quite clear that you and I have completely different views on what constitutes the dynamical vacuum. You sayWe have to abandon the classical electromagnetic view of matter as particles interacting with E-field and B-Field and consider, instead, propagating wave functions interacting with potentials, from the quantum electrodynamical point of view.
I don't see it that way as that implies some medium through which the the wave functions can propagate, it doesn't tell you what that medium is. I also reject "action at a distance", but I take Einstein's view of mass-less particles (or rather particles of zero rest mass) always travelling through space at velocity c. So my space is filled with these virtual particles at enormous density, and the real interactions with our matter particles (like electrons) is with these space things. These "things", although having zero rest mass, do carry momentum and energy and also spin. They are the building block of photons, so they could be called sub-photons, and they are the reason that photons can appear as both wave-like and particle-like. What we consider as propagating waves are simply some sort of pattern superimposed on the enormous quantity of space particles whizzing through our space in all directions, and that pattern comes from interaction (absorption/emission) with our matter particles. In a way this is a theory of everything since it can account for electric, magnetic, gravitation and inertia. Our classical equations are replaced with "rules of engagement" between matter particles and the space particles, with the appearance of force on the matter particle coming automatically from conservation of its momentum vector over the absorption-emission process.
However this is merely of academic interest, it doesn't explain how Coler's Stromerzeuger might have worked. I am much taken with the Inverse Corbino Effect as an explanation as the Corbino effect is known to create negative resistance under the right conditions, see for example the attached patent.
Smudge
-
Hi ag89,
You said
I think the problem lies in your use of the word "current". That automatically implies an electric current or charge transport and I don't think you mean that. The flow can be neutral matter or just some form of energy.
It is quite clear that you and I have completely different views on what constitutes the dynamical vacuum. You sayI don't see it that way as that implies some medium through which the the wave functions can propagate, it doesn't tell you what that medium is. I also reject "action at a distance", but I take Einstein's view of mass-less particles (or rather particles of zero rest mass) always travelling through space at velocity c. So my space is filled with these virtual particles at enormous density, and the real interactions with our matter particles (like electrons) is with these space things. These "things", although having zero rest mass, do carry momentum and energy and also spin. They are the building block of photons, so they could be called sub-photons, and they are the reason that photons can appear as both wave-like and particle-like. What we consider as propagating waves are simply some sort of pattern superimposed on the enormous quantity of space particles whizzing through our space in all directions, and that pattern comes from interaction (absorption/emission) with our matter particles. In a way this is a theory of everything since it can account for electric, magnetic, gravitation and inertia. Our classical equations are replaced with "rules of engagement" between matter particles and the space particles, with the appearance of force on the matter particle coming automatically from conservation of its momentum vector over the absorption-emission process.
However this is merely of academic interest, it doesn't explain how Coler's Stromerzeuger might have worked. I am much taken with the Inverse Corbino Effect as an explanation as the Corbino effect is known to create negative resistance under the right conditions, see for example the attached patent.
Smudge
Hi Smudge,
IMO, vacuum energy structure has two different components : bulk energy and fluctuation energy.
All particles of matter (including electron) have finite size (I refute point particles hypothesis) and so an internal physical structure.
Imagine a static isotropic vacuum at equilibrium with particles. Particles, which can be described as local energy density excess, would appear like perfect rigid spheres at rest, vacuum exerting equals and opposite pressure forces.
In such a vacuum, particle have no mass, no charge and no spin.
But particles are not static objects, they are continuously exchanging energy with the vacuum. They behave like energy emitter-absorber entities and the local energy density they contain continuously pulsate at very high frequencies (according to Bohm's interpretation). These oscillations create perturbations (vacuum fluctuations) into the vacuum energy that becomes turbulent causing the particle to vibrate around its equiibrium position and rotate in order to dissipate the kinetic energy it gained from the "collisions" with the vacuum fluctuations to restore its equilibrium.
Vacuum fluid reacts in order to oppose to these perturbations by increasing its density around the particle creating inertia that manifests as mass and charge.
All charged particle have a mass and a spin. So electromagnetism and gravity (and quantum mechanics) must be linked in a way.
Whittaker's hypothesis, which associates gravitational potential to propagating scalar waves (mirroring electromagnetism waves) give us the missing link between electromagnetism and gravitation.
According to Big Bang model, all the matter in our universe was created from vacuum energy matter-antimatter particle pairs.
To be allowed to exist, matter had to be separated in a very short time from antimatter,if not we should not exist. But where is the antimatter now?
So, if astrophyics' hypothesis about the origin of mattter is correct, Nature has found a way to extract matter from matter-antimatter particle pairs.
Whether this way is reachable to human science is another matter.
Moreover, the experiment that Coler uses in the B.I.O.S. report as a proof to the excess of energy at opening versus closing impulse for validating the principle operation of his machines might have been the same experiment that was carried out by Helmholtz with a du Bois-Reymond's induction coil in 1869.
The Corbino/Hall effect involves that a radial electric current flows from the center of magnet to its periphery.
I have seen elsewhere that the main effect resulting from an electric current flowing through a bulk ferromagnetic material is to produce important heating effects in the magnet due to its high electrical resistance. So, IMO electric current only flows on the surface of the cylindrical magnet. I am not so sure that the wire magnet are fixed directly on the surface of core magnet (on the Norrby patent. there might be no wire magnet, but only a isolated wire running through the core to pre-magnetize it). On the page 24 in the B.I.O.S. report, relating to experiment 2 paragraph, it is said that "the other winding is connected in series with the pre-magnetized steel rod [...] in such a way that the secondary current must pass through the magnet". In the magnetostromapparat, the ends of the secondary are soldered at the surface of the magnet. Electrons arrive at on end, pass through the surface magnet and are collected at the other end. A difference of potential is kept between these two ends because of the electric difference of conductivity between copper coil wire and iron core magnet, thus creating an accumulation of charges at the current injection point that cause these charges to flow towards the other winding end to cancel the charge unbalance.
Antigrav89
-
So IMO the S device is still a mystery, and I think all possible avenues should be explored.
Hi Smudge,
I fully agree with you on that point.
If the magnetic amplification effects were enough for fully explaining how the Coler's devices work, why nobody till now seems to have succeeded at replicating (and possibly improving) the M device?
Like you, I believe things are not so simple and the complete solution might come from the crossing between the promising magnetic energy harvesting methods, which aim to use environmental parasitic magnetic noise arising from the ubiquous electromagnetic pollution to power small electronic devices and wireless network sensors, and the researches carried out in the magnetic material properties area in the exploration of the interactions between electronic and spin currents and magnetic structures as skyrmions.
Vacuum fluctuations might also play a role in this scheme. If the vacuum can be described as a compressible fluid, contraints applied on it might force the vacuum fluctuations to have enough time to interact and stabilize themselves as real coherent intricated correlated quantum electron-positron pairs states. Such electrically neutral entities might transfer kinetic energy to weakly bound electrons by elastic collision and promote them to the Fermi band conduction increasing the electric current flow or behave as Cooper's pairs (accelerated by the unidirectional movement of the active vacuum medium created by the synchronized displacements of the atomic nuclei submitted to DC voltage pulses), but not submitted to any electric resistance from the lattice metal ions, giving birth to a new form of superconductivity (at room temperature!).
Antigrav89
-
My paper looks at the magnetized iron rods as transmission lines and since they are connected to capacitor plates there is the possibility that this could be the means by which some form of self-oscillation takes place.
Hi smudge.
When electric current is passed through a magnetized rod
Something else occurs, that is hard to explain without a whole lot of
other unrelated conversations.
But the basic experiments are laid out in an old scientific journal
By the British Royal society
And later pladgerized by Ed. Leedskalnin as an experiment in
his book “Magnetic Current”.
In short, it can create a magnetic conductive field in free space
(or at least in air)
that acts as a wire, separate from the iron itself.
in fact, once established, the iron can even be removed
without interupting the circuit.
Little is known about the resistance value of these magnetic pathways
-
But the basic experiments are laid out in an old scientific journal
By the British Royal society
Hi sm0ky2,
Do you have the reference of this article?
if my understanding of the phenomena you are talking to is correct, it would mean that a current (associated to a charge density wave or a energy density scalar field?) would flow through the air gaps (and possibly into the vacuum) between the magnet-coils, arranged in a ring in the Coler's M machine geometrical configuration, channeled by the magnetic flux lines to create a current loop. Such transport energy model has also been proposed for explaining Sweet Floyd's VTA operating mode. The role played by the magnetic medium would thus only be to collect and concentrate environmental magnetic energy (like a magnetic antenna) to reach the required threshold necessary to inititiate the transport energy process.
antigrav89
-
Vacuum fluctuations might also play a role in this scheme. If the vacuum can be described as a compressible fluid, constraints applied on it might force the vacuum fluctuations to have enough time to interact and stabilize themselves as real coherent entangled correlated quantum electron-positron pairs states.
Real photons might also been materialized from (stabilized) vacuum fluctuations into the ferromagnetic medium and transfer their energy to valence electrons that could be promoted to the Fermi conduction band and amplify the electric current.
-
@antigrav
sorry, once I uncovered Ed’s fraud I got lost in the Society’s journals
There are literally tens of thousands of anomalous experiments that
never made public attention. One could spend a lifetime on this journey.
This particular effect has been studied in recent times by Intel and IBM,
among others. I’ll try to dig up some data for you.
My experience with it, it is affected by switching or make/break circuit
a minimum current level is required, but can occur at as low as 6-12v
My curiosity here, is that when the circuit is active, and the magnets are
moved out of the original magnetic path,
are these free-space pathways present in this device?
If we had a device that was ‘functioning’ we could test this by probing the space
where the magnet first sat. As the pathways are semi-superconductive
along their length, and generally of substantial radius as to allow their detection.
another way to test would be to disconnect one of the wires to the magnetic
material. You will know if a magnetic pathway is activated because the circuit
will still be closed, though physically ‘open’.