Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 81721
  • *Latest: John1322

  • *Total Posts: 485538
  • *Total Topics: 14274
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 8
  • *Guests: 181
  • *Total: 189

Facebook

Author Topic: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields  (Read 10556 times)

Offline ZL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2017, 01:43:35 PM »
By generating EM waves you mean the way they were generated by Hertz with
a capacitor as  dipole?

EM (electromagnetic) waves can be generated in several different ways. One way is using a dipole antenna which is basically a non-conventional open capacitor. But they can be generated also by monopole antennas, loop antennas, magnetrons, etc. and even by a simple electrostatic dipole if it is mechanically shaken at a high enough frequency.

The discussed FE principle which is based on wave superposition is valid for any type of waves, not only for EM waves. It can be implemented in acoustics in gases, liquids, and solids as well. It can be utilized for surface waves too.

If you are not already proficient in electromagnetics, especially in RF, or in acoustics, there is very little likelihood that you (or anybody else without knowing the basics) can design a practically useful FE generator based on this principle. For laymen it is very difficult to progress in RF and acoustics, because you can not see the waves and how they behave. One must use specialized instruments and have the necessary background knowledge. Waves often behave quite counter intuitively, so this is not as simple as fiddling with mechanical devices, or simple low frequency electronics.

In such case you could chose one of the following options:

1)   Go ahead and learn the necessary background knowledge and become competent to invent and design your own FE generators. It will surely look daunting if you take a look at how much one has to learn, but in small chunks in a year or two one can get up to speed to do something meaningful.
2)   Wait until someone you trust publishes a working design with detailed instruction how to make it. In that case you will not have to really understand how and why it works. If the design is correct and you have built the design without errors, then it should work. In this case you are a technician, and you depend on the designer for knowledge. It is also a big question when (if ever) such detailed design will be published on the internet… You are also a target for hoaxters who will offer fake designs to waste your time, money and hope, and frustrate anybody in this category.
3)   If your aim is only entertainment, and you are happy just visually studying the principle, even if that may not lead to practically useful FE devices, then you can focus on surface waves instead. You still have to learn some basics to know what you are doing, and know what to expect from your devices, but in this field you can get away with much less knowledge than in RF and acoustics. You can also construct relatively low tech and not too expensive models, which let you see what the waves are doing. You can also perform measurements with cheaper equipment.
4)   Conclude that this subject of wave science is too difficult for you, leave it to others, and spend your free time with other more simple activities.

The gist of the message is that if you are serious about this subject, you have to acquire a decent level of background knowledge to achieve anything worthwhile. But if you persevere, the final reward for your studies can get beyond your imagination. The above advices are meant for everybody, not just for you.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2017, 01:43:35 PM »

Offline telecom

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #31 on: February 20, 2017, 06:58:25 PM »
EM (electromagnetic) waves can be generated in several different ways. One way is using a dipole antenna which is basically a non-conventional open capacitor. But they can be generated also by monopole antennas, loop antennas, magnetrons, etc. and even by a simple electrostatic dipole if it is mechanically shaken at a high enough frequency.

The discussed FE principle which is based on wave superposition is valid for any type of waves, not only for EM waves. It can be implemented in acoustics in gases, liquids, and solids as well. It can be utilized for surface waves too.

If you are not already proficient in electromagnetics, especially in RF, or in acoustics, there is very little likelihood that you (or anybody else without knowing the basics) can design a practically useful FE generator based on this principle. For laymen it is very difficult to progress in RF and acoustics, because you can not see the waves and how they behave. One must use specialized instruments and have the necessary background knowledge. Waves often behave quite counter intuitively, so this is not as simple as fiddling with mechanical devices, or simple low frequency electronics.

In such case you could chose one of the following options:

1)   Go ahead and learn the necessary background knowledge and become competent to invent and design your own FE generators. It will surely look daunting if you take a look at how much one has to learn, but in small chunks in a year or two one can get up to speed to do something meaningful.
2)   Wait until someone you trust publishes a working design with detailed instruction how to make it. In that case you will not have to really understand how and why it works. If the design is correct and you have built the design without errors, then it should work. In this case you are a technician, and you depend on the designer for knowledge. It is also a big question when (if ever) such detailed design will be published on the internet… You are also a target for hoaxters who will offer fake designs to waste your time, money and hope, and frustrate anybody in this category.
3)   If your aim is only entertainment, and you are happy just visually studying the principle, even if that may not lead to practically useful FE devices, then you can focus on surface waves instead. You still have to learn some basics to know what you are doing, and know what to expect from your devices, but in this field you can get away with much less knowledge than in RF and acoustics. You can also construct relatively low tech and not too expensive models, which let you see what the waves are doing. You can also perform measurements with cheaper equipment.
4)   Conclude that this subject of wave science is too difficult for you, leave it to others, and spend your free time with other more simple activities.

The gist of the message is that if you are serious about this subject, you have to acquire a decent level of background knowledge to achieve anything worthwhile. But if you persevere, the final reward for your studies can get beyond your imagination. The above advices are meant for everybody, not just for you.
Hi Zoltan, I want to do 1 and 3.
How do you suggest to proceed - which books to read about the waves?
Regards


Offline ZL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2017, 09:52:42 PM »
Hi Zoltan, I want to do 1 and 3.
How do you suggest to proceed - which books to read about the waves?
Regards

It depends on many factors, like your present level of knowledge of key subjects, mathematics, physics, mechanics etc. and what level of knowledge you want to gain how fast? I have asked these questions in my reply to your email enquiry, but you did not respond yet. Did you receive my email?

As a starter and motivator here is a brilliant introduction into wave science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DovunOxlY1k

This is a classic video and I highly recommend you (and everybody interested) to download it and keep it in your archives. It is not so much what he teaches that is so excellent (the same can be found in books as well), but rather the way he does that. His love and respect for the science of waves, his enthusiasm, and pedantic style of presentation will hopefully plant the seed of his spirit in your mind. If you water that seed regularly with daily lectures and problem solving exercises, then finally you will end up with an unshakable big tree of knowledge. I have got some more links, but need your feedback first.

To everybody: learning is more fun and easier in groups, where students can help each other. If there are at least 10 people who would be interested in studying any form of wave science we could set up a special forum just for that purpose (not here). I don’t promise to personally teach everybody, but I could chime in occasionally and suggest resources and solutions. The primary character of such forum would be “students teach and help other students”, or at least motivate each other to make learning fun and not a burdensome chore.

If anybody is interested, drop me a message via the contact form on my site:
https://feprinciples.wordpress.com/contact/

(don’t use the PM system of this forum, because a PM that was sent to me here has disappeared)


Offline telecom

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #33 on: February 20, 2017, 10:47:02 PM »
Hi Zoltan,
I haven't received your pm.
Will gladly look at the video.
Regards


Offline ZL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2017, 03:45:30 PM »
Will gladly look at the video.

Alex, I hope you liked the previous video “Similiarities of Wave Behavior”.

Here is another nice demonstration:
Ripple Tank Diffraction and Interference of Waves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NoLUrcG7J4

You can use the same applet he used in the demonstration to perform simulation experiments here:
http://falstad.com/ripplejs/

Some more nice applets that you may find useful later on:
http://falstad.com/mathphysics.html

And some more useful videos from the same author on different physics topics:
https://www.youtube.com/user/PhysicsLP/videos

If you want to pursue surface waves, then you will need to know all mechanics related material on the list as well and more. Of course the resources suggested so far are only for introduction, and they are only like the letter A in the alphabet. We can talk about the rest via email, tailored to your present level of knowledge and goals.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2017, 03:45:30 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline partzman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #35 on: February 21, 2017, 03:57:35 PM »
............

As a starter and motivator here is a brilliant introduction into wave science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DovunOxlY1k

This is a classic video and I highly recommend you (and everybody interested) to download it and keep it in your archives. It is not so much what he teaches that is so excellent (the same can be found in books as well), but rather the way he does that. His love and respect for the science of waves, his enthusiasm, and pedantic style of presentation will hopefully plant the seed of his spirit in your mind. If you water that seed regularly with daily lectures and problem solving exercises, then finally you will end up with an unshakable big tree of knowledge. I have got some more links, but need your feedback first.

............

ZL,

I have a question regarding the video above.  At the 3:45 minute mark in the video the author states the reflected wave from an open ended transmission line is a "Reflected replica of it's original self".  This is not an entirely correct statement as the reflected wave in an open ideal transmission line is a replica of the original with 2x amplitude. 

This is easily demonstrated as in the attached LtSpice sim.  The half sine input pulse is shown in the plot with a 2v offset for clarity and the 10Meg resistor R1 is needed to allow convergence of the sim.

Is this not correct?

pm

Edit: It might also be noted that the open mechanical transmission line used in the video does not reflect a 2x amplitude wave.

Offline ZL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2017, 06:17:47 PM »
At the 3:45 minute mark in the video the author states the reflected wave from an open ended transmission line is a "Reflected replica of it's original self".  This is not an entirely correct statement as the reflected wave in an open ideal transmission line is a replica of the original with 2x amplitude. 

Are you sure about that? It sounds like you pose as an authority who is competent to debunk Dr. J.N. Shive and his explanation. This also implies that you consider his video and/or wave machine to be a deception, since we can clearly see on the video that the reflected wave’s amplitude is not 2x the amplitude of the incoming wave. This is a wrong attitude if you want to learn, and want people to help you.
If you set up a simulation and you see something that you don’t understand, then the right attitude is to first question yourself. Did you set up the simulation properly? If you did, then are you really measuring what you intended to measure? If yes, then do you really understand what that measured result means, and why it is as you see it?

If you are unable to find the solution, then it is OK to ask people in a humble manner, like: “…Here is what I did, but don’t understand the results. Did I set up the simulation correctly? If yes, then can someone please explain why I measure 2x greater amplitude than what I was expecting based on the video? Etc.”

We supposed to respect those who came before us and know (or knew) more than we do. Not all science is wrong. In fact without the body of knowledge collected about electromagnetics, mechanics, physics etc. we would not be able do design any FE machines either. It is proper to criticize science, and contradict certain rules or laws only if we really have some solid proof against it and an alternative explanation, something like what Mr. Vajda presented in his booklet. Please don’t take this personally, I point this out here only because inappropriate attitude (not specifically yours) is rampant on this forum, and a bit more humble and respectful attitude would do good to everybody.

The solution to your problem is quite simple and I am sure you can discover that yourself with some effort. And that effort will pay back abundantly, because you will discover, and learn a feature of waves, which is indeed quite counterintuitive. If I would tell you the solution right away it would spoil the point. But here are some tips for you, where to look for the solution:

Are you measuring the amplitude at the right point to get the expected amplitude? Are you sure that the Video does not show you exactly the same wave behavior as your simulation does? How about downloading the video, and playing it back frame by frame in VLC player around the critical 3:45 mark?

Ok, now I have almost given away the solution. But do you really understand why did the wave what you have observed? If you can not dispel the "mystery" even after a day or two of studying it, then I will present the explanation.

Otherwise nice LtSpice simulation Partzman! Keep up the good work; you are sailing in the right direction.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2017, 06:17:47 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline partzman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #37 on: February 21, 2017, 09:34:25 PM »
Are you sure about that? It sounds like you pose as an authority who is competent to debunk Dr. J.N. Shive and his explanation. This also implies that you consider his video and/or wave machine to be a deception, since we can clearly see on the video that the reflected wave’s amplitude is not 2x the amplitude of the incoming wave. This is a wrong attitude if you want to learn, and want people to help you.

Firstly, I am not posing as or claiming to be any kind of expert but simply seem to see a contradiction between sources.  If I appear to come across in that manner, I apologize as I simply wish to know which is correct.

Quote
 
If you set up a simulation and you see something that you don’t understand, then the right attitude is to first question yourself. Did you set up the simulation properly? If you did, then are you really measuring what you intended to measure? If yes, then do you really understand what that measured result means, and why it is as you see it?

If you are unable to find the solution, then it is OK to ask people in a humble manner, like: “…Here is what I did, but don’t understand the results. Did I set up the simulation correctly? If yes, then can someone please explain why I measure 2x greater amplitude than what I was expecting based on the video? Etc.”

The sim is extremely simple but does have a fault with the conduction of current thru the capacitance of D1 on the input of the transmission line but the effect from this is negligible.  In regards to the measuring points used in the sim, I could have shown the voltage at the lower output terminal of the Tline and it would have been seen as an inverted 2x version of the input.  OTOH, if the lower output terminal was grounded, then the upper output terminal would have shown a 2x Vin non-inverted waveform.   IMO, the sim shows correct results.   

Quote
We supposed to respect those who came before us and know (or knew) more than we do. Not all science is wrong. In fact without the body of knowledge collected about electromagnetics, mechanics, physics etc. we would not be able do design any FE machines either. It is proper to criticize science, and contradict certain rules or laws only if we really have some solid proof against it and an alternative explanation, something like what Mr. Vajda presented in his booklet. Please don’t take this personally, I point this out here only because inappropriate attitude (not specifically yours) is rampant on this forum, and a bit more humble and respectful attitude would do good to everybody.

I understand and agree.

Quote
The solution to your problem is quite simple and I am sure you can discover that yourself with some effort. And that effort will pay back abundantly, because you will discover, and learn a feature of waves, which is indeed quite counterintuitive. If I would tell you the solution right away it would spoil the point. But here are some tips for you, where to look for the solution:

Are you measuring the amplitude at the right point to get the expected amplitude? Are you sure that the Video does not show you exactly the same wave behavior as your simulation does? How about downloading the video, and playing it back frame by frame in VLC player around the critical 3:45 mark?

OK, I have done that and attached a png below.  It is not the best resolution but the levels can be seen for visual reference.

Quote
Ok, now I have almost given away the solution. But do you really understand why did the wave what you have observed? If you can not dispel the "mystery" even after a day or two of studying it, then I will present the explanation.

Otherwise nice LtSpice simulation Partzman! Keep up the good work; you are sailing in the right direction.

Thank you.

Well, according to conventional TL theory, when the Vin pulse in this case reaches the end of the open Tline it is un-attentuated and therefore adds to the original input voltage via superposition.  This 2x Vin waveform then begins it's reflection back to the start.  This is the 2x amplitude pulse that we see arriving back at the open start terminal at 2x the Tline delay.  Further observation would say that since we now see a 2x voltage at the input that we have 4x the power in our 50 ohm line over what we inserted initially.  Even yet more pondering might produce the question, "How can I utilize this apparent energy gain?".

pm

EDIT:  The leftmost shot of the mechanical Tline is the return wave with the middle being the start and the third is the peak of the returning wave.

Offline shylo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #38 on: February 22, 2017, 01:28:59 AM »
I'm sure you folks know how to read all the scope shots, I don't.
Place them in the right spot, use them at the right time.
Power your initial circuit, now use the reactions of that to run others.
The initial is a given, placing the secondaries is the key, That's what Tesla did, He didn't invent OU, He used every little aspect of the circuit to get the most out of it.
just saying  artv

Offline ZL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #39 on: February 22, 2017, 01:31:40 PM »
In regards to the measuring points used in the sim, I could have shown the voltage at the lower output terminal of the Tline and it would have been seen as an inverted 2x version of the input.  OTOH, if the lower output terminal was grounded, then the upper output terminal would have shown a 2x Vin non-inverted waveform.   IMO, the sim shows correct results.   

Well, it depends on what do you want to achieve. If you just want to fiddle with LtSpice, then that is fine, you can say that it shows the correct results for your setup. But, if you want to build a model that is analogous to the wave machine of the video (which we do want in this case), then your setup is not correct.

How do I know that? Simple clear logic: does the wave impulse ever turn negative on the video around 3:45? Does your circuit behave the same way? Forget about your Vin signal generator. Here we are interested only in the part of the circuit that models wave propagation observed in the video, which is the transmission line, because EM waves exist only in that component in the Spice model. Therefore, the input to the transmission line Vin should be measured where you measure Vr, and the output Vout should be measured at the other end of the transmission line on top terminal of R1. Please, measure these two points and change your circuit to behave the same way as the wave machine does in the video. I will reply to the rest of your last post when we get to that point in this problem solving exercise, and then we can progress and untangle the rest of the “mystery”.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #39 on: February 22, 2017, 01:31:40 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline partzman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #40 on: February 22, 2017, 04:44:06 PM »
Well, it depends on what do you want to achieve. If you just want to fiddle with LtSpice, then that is fine, you can say that it shows the correct results for your setup. But, if you want to build a model that is analogous to the wave machine of the video (which we do want in this case), then your setup is not correct.

What I would like to achieve is to resolve the differences between the mechanical wave machine and the sim with the lossless Tline.  I think I may understand the main difference and will explain below.
 
Quote
How do I know that? Simple clear logic: does the wave impulse ever turn negative on the video around 3:45? Does your circuit behave the same way?

IMO, no to the negative going impulse and yes the sim behaves the same.

Quote
Forget about your Vin signal generator. Here we are interested only in the part of the circuit that models wave propagation observed in the video, which is the transmission line, because EM waves exist only in that component in the Spice model. Therefore, the input to the transmission line Vin should be measured where you measure Vr, and the output Vout should be measured at the other end of the transmission line on top terminal of R1. Please, measure these two points and change your circuit to behave the same way as the wave machine does in the video. I will reply to the rest of your last post when we get to that point in this problem solving exercise, and then we can progress and untangle the rest of the “mystery”.

OK, "Delay Line2" below shows the measurement points as you requested above.  At the 2.5us point in time we see the beginning of wave superposition resulting in a half sine VoHi that is 2x the original pulse input at Vr.

In regards to changing this sim to match the wave machine waveforms, I consider it impossible.  The lossless Tline model used is included in LtSpice, has an infinite number of elements, and the internals are not available to modify as least as far as I can tell.  Therefore, all that can be done is to match the Tline impedance, mis-match the impedance, open load, or shorted load.  IMO, none of these combos will match the wave machine wave forms.  However, I would be most willing to learn how this might be done.

One simulation that does resemble the wave machine more closely is the "Lossy Delay Line" seen below modeled with a limited number of elements.  There is one important key factor missing in this sim and that is the coupling factors between the inductive elements.  The definition list of all K factors needed would be quite lengthy and if they are not accurately representing a real device, the internally generated math matrix will not be correct and the sim will not converge or complete. 

So, what we see is a somewhat closer resemblance to the wave machine but we have ringing with negative transitions due to the missing couplings.  The wave machine rods are coupled with the center wire torsional twist which would be analogous to the K factors of the inductors.

Therefore my current understanding is that the differences lie in the losses between the the sim and the wave machine but I'm certainly open for any criticism and/or correction.

pm

Edit: The lossy sim has an ideal switch replacing the input diode.


Offline ZL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #41 on: February 22, 2017, 08:15:11 PM »
Quote from: ZL
How do I know that? Simple clear logic: does the wave impulse ever turn negative on the video around 3:45? Does your circuit behave the same way?

IMO, no to the negative going impulse and yes the sim behaves the same.

The first part of your answer is correct: the impulse never turns negative on the wave machine.
But your answer to the second question is incorrect, and I wonder how is it possible that you are unable to see this. Let me quote your claims again:

Quote
In regards to the measuring points used in the sim, I could have shown the voltage at the lower output terminal of the Tline and it would have been seen as an inverted 2x version of the input.  OTOH, if the lower output terminal was grounded, then the upper output terminal would have shown a 2x Vin non-inverted waveform. IMO, the sim shows correct results.

Let us go step by step and examine all 3 options you have suggested. The first is your original setup without any modification, but measuring the output voltage (which is apparently zero), see partzman0.png below.

As you can see the output voltage Vout=0V (the blue trace) and it is really 0, not just hidden behind the green trace. If you remove the trace Vin from the diagram you can see this clearly. This setup does not model the behavior of the wave machine correctly, because there we have seen that the output sees a +2Vin when the wave arrives to the end, which in this case supposed to happen at 2.5us mark (but it does not happen in this circuit).

Your second suggestion was to measure Vout at the lower terminal of the transmission line, which produces the following result, see partzman0a.png below.

Here a negative 2xVin is present at the Vout, which again contradicts the wave machine behavior, because in the video there is no negative pulse around 3:45.

Your third suggestion was to ground the lower output terminal, which will look like this, partzman0b.png below.

The output voltage is again zero at all times (not hidden in any way). I hope that by now you can see that none of these suggestions model the behavior of the wave machine accurately.

Your answers: “IMO, the sim shows correct results” and “…yes the sim behaves the same” are wrong. What I would like to figure out is why you were unable to see this? How do you think? What kind of logic do you use to not see such obvious and trivial facts? I am not trying to pick on you here, just want to figure out the cause of faulty thinking and how to fix it. Because, many other people on this forum use similar faulty logic. I will not be around all the time to answer questions and fix errors, and others who know correct answers may not be willing to answer your questions when you need it.

Therefore instead of simply giving the complete answers to your questions right away, it is much more profitable for you if you learn to use simple clear logic, and abandon confused complicated logic. That is the only way you can hope to succeed in this field of research. Knowing the right method of finding solutions and answers is more important and more valuable than being able to regurgitate the correct answer to a specific question that you have heard from someone else. Therefore my primary aim with these posts is to highlight faulty logic and its consequences, and demonstrate simple clear logic that will let you find correct answers to your questions on your own.

Quote
In regards to changing this sim to match the wave machine waveforms, I consider it impossible…

I did not ask for exact match of wave form, but only approximately analogous behavior, which was not achieved by your first 3 circuit suggestions. Your last delay line2.png with the extra switch and additional voltage source does that. But there is no need for over complicating the circuit when it can be achieved with a tiny simple modification, by adding a piece of wire to your original circuit like this, partzman1.png below.

As you can see, now this behaves like the wave machine, there is no negative pulse anywhere, and the output is not constantly zero either, but a 2xVin shows up at the expected time of 2.5us.

Let’s not get into the lossy delay line now, because that unnecessarily complicates things, while we have to explain and understand much simpler phenomena first.

Right, so now we have resolved the first problem, namely to set up a circuit that properly models the behavior of the wave machine. Now let us focus on the next problem, which you have already started to pick apart, but concluded to be impossible. Namely, the primary purpose of the wave machine is to allow us to see into the transmission line and see the wave at different locations as it propagates in space. Only inside the transmission line can we observe the real amplitude and shape of the wave, not at the input and output. We can explain the reason for that later. Let us focus now on the goal to measure the wave amplitude inside the transmission line of your circuit. You have already said something like you think this is impossible.

But, is it really impossible? I say it is possible with some modifications, and you will be able to measure the amplitude and see the shape of the wave inside the transmission line at any point along its length not only at the input and output.

Now please use simple clear logic, and add a bit of “out of box” type of inventive thinking. If you don’t find the solution in a day or two, then I will show you, and then we can proceed further to the next “mystery”.


Offline partzman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #42 on: February 22, 2017, 09:22:47 PM »
ZL,

Rather than go thru your last post in detail (which I will do if necessary) I will try to clear up the confusion with brief answers. 

First in answering your question about the wave machine having negative impulses I answered "no" which you found correct.  Your next question "does your circuit behave the same way?" I answered "yes" because it too has no negative going impulses with no load.  I was not intending to say that the sim performed like the wave machine. 

My point all along is that my efforts of doing a simulation of an ideal Tline does not produce the same basic operation of the wave machine in regards to wave amplitudes.  It's that simple, no more, no less.

I would welcome seeing a sim using an ideal Tline that has the likeness of the captured video frames I previously posted.

pm


Offline ZL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #43 on: February 22, 2017, 11:01:35 PM »
Your next question "does your circuit behave the same way?" I answered "yes" because it too has no negative going impulses with no load. 

This is again a false statement, a sign of confused complicated thinking. Your first suggestion for an alternative point where to measure the impulse was this:

Quote
In regards to the measuring points used in the sim, I could have shown the voltage at the lower output terminal of the Tline and it would have been seen as an inverted 2x version of the input.

If you look at partzman0a.png which shows this setup, you will see that there IS a negative impulse at the output of the T-Line, while there is no negative impulse at the output of the wave machine. This is the fault in the thinking that needs to be corrected, because you are either unable or unwilling to recognize and/or acknowledge such simple and obvious facts. The other 2 versions did not even have any output signal, therefore they are no better than the partzman0a.png.

Quote
I would welcome seeing a sim using an ideal Tline that has the likeness of the captured video frames I previously posted.

You are expecting something impossible from LtSpice. The wave machine makes it possible for you to see the complete inside space within the transmission line at the same time. Which means, that if there were more pulses, then you could see them all at the same time as they propagate in space along the line.

However, Lt spice does not display diagrams where the x axis could be a spatial dimension, like the length x along the transmission line. Now take this claim with a pinch of salt, because I am not an experienced LtSpice user (installed it for the first time few days ago to check out your circuit). It might still turn out, that some expert users can display such a spatial graph in LtSpice, and in that case you could indeed see an exactly analogous image of spatial propagation on your diagram that you see in the video.

For now let's use simple clear thinking and achieve the realistic and easily achievable aim to see the wave amplitude and form at a single point inside the transmission line in time domain (meaning: x axis displays time, and not a spatial coordinate). If you can peek inside the T-line at a single point, then you can do the same at several points as well, either simultaneously, or one after the other. Like, look into the middle of the T-line first, then move your point of peek hole, and watch the signal at say ¼ T-line distance from the input. You can do this, just break the problem down into small parts, and the solution should occur to you.



Offline partzman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #44 on: February 22, 2017, 11:49:58 PM »
This is again a false statement, a sign of confused complicated thinking. Your first suggestion for an alternative point where to measure the impulse was this:

If you look at partzman0a.png which shows this setup, you will see that there IS a negative impulse at the output of the T-Line, while there is no negative impulse at the output of the wave machine. This is the fault in the thinking that needs to be corrected, because you are either unable or unwilling to recognize and/or acknowledge such simple and obvious facts. The other 2 versions did not even have any output signal, therefore they are no better than the partzman0a.png.

You are expecting something impossible from LtSpice. The wave machine makes it possible for you to see the complete inside space within the transmission line at the same time. Which means, that if there were more pulses, then you could see them all at the same time as they propagate in space along the line.

However, Lt spice does not display diagrams where the x axis could be a spatial dimension, like the length x along the transmission line. Now take this claim with a pinch of salt, because I am not an experienced LtSpice user (installed it for the first time few days ago to check out your circuit). It might still turn out, that some expert users can display such a spatial graph in LtSpice, and in that case you could indeed see an exactly analogous image of spatial propagation on your diagram that you see in the video.

For now let's use simple clear thinking and achieve the realistic and easily achievable aim to see the wave amplitude and form at a single point inside the transmission line in time domain (meaning: x axis displays time, and not a spatial coordinate). If you can peek inside the T-line at a single point, then you can do the same at several points as well, either simultaneously, or one after the other. Like, look into the middle of the T-line first, then move your point of peek hole, and watch the signal at say ¼ T-line distance from the input. You can do this, just break the problem down into small parts, and the solution should occur to you.

Respectively ZL, are you serious?  If a measurement is taken at the other end of the grounded input on the Tline, of course you will find a negative going pulse as compared to the applied pulse. But this is like looking at the outside of the rods on the wave machine at the starting pulse and then moving around to the back side of the table to look at the inside of the rods when the output pulse arrives!

We don't need to look "inside" the Tline to analyze the results we see at the ends.  The sims I've provided as well as the ones you have provided utilizing the lossless Tline model do not agree with the wave machine.  There is NO evidence of wave superposition at the output of the un-loaded wave machine as compared to the un-loaded simulation.  If there is, then please point out what I'm missing!

pm

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields
« Reply #44 on: February 22, 2017, 11:49:58 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: