They are voltage amplifiers.

Tubes are voltage modulators, they can't work without external pre-amplified (300-400V) voltage source, DC or biased AC. If you supply biased AC as power you may create a signal multiplier (a * b). Sorry, could not resist

  Feedback is appreciated.

 
(http://www.rutubes.com/images/rare_tubes_new/6N13S.jpg)

@ Jon - Thanks - validation is good.

Interesting, your PDF for testing for the presence of the kick. Otto (I think) posted a video on YouTube awhile back that showed some kicks on his scope before it got damaged, but I don't recall the specifics of how he produced them.

I'm really troubled by the difficulty I'm having measuring the output of my builds with any confidence. My analog meter has mucho trouble, and your digital meter seems to be playing with you also. I won't even try my digital meter, it's so flaky. I trust my scope, but I don't want to fry it. Recall that SM modified a Tripplite inverter to run the drill, TV, etc. I'm wondering if there's not a requirement to somehow bring the high frequencies down or otherwise capture them in order to be to be useful? Possibly the small toroids being discussed in the Jack Durban Video thread? Anyone have any thoughts on this?

@Buzzard

sm had a two layer build.  The lower layer with the kick windings around it  and the iron outside of that  gets a rotating mag field going that is stretched out in the space above the lower torroid.  I believe the copper the kick windings are wound around in the lower layer is fed a dc bias just to saturate the core of the kick windings.  This is not an output winding.
   The upper layer has the collector winding or output winding.  This ring experiences the magfield rotation.  It stores it also like a turbine spinning it up.  Then you can put windings around the upper  ring winding that act as current transformers. 
   This is what I see when I look at the open tpu.

@all

Well.... I have had to switch to the X10 setting on my probe for my collectors..... (5v/div X10 -> 150volts unloaded except for probe.)

Much better, and much closer. Amazingly enough, am able to do it with ONE signal generator. Am about to give dc bias so that the high frequency has a "latch" to amplify.

Sorry I haven't posted more, but between being sick, and spending most of my free time building and at the bench, it hasn't left much time to post.

P.S. I have the schematic almost ready to post.

Paul Andrulis

@art

Just remember a few things.

1. Use TS555CN's (ST Micro) They are cmos and stable to 2.7 Mhz, and I have not tried with others yet.
2. When testing with dual channel on your scope, remember that one WILL appear to have jitter towards the other, due to the phasing. (You will see what I mean. Check both outputs, you see jitter, check one THEN check the other, and you find the output rock solid for both.)
3. Get a small handfull, as I have noticed one out of the three I tried is not very cooperative, but worked fine when changed out for a new one. (you may have to match three or four.)
4. Play around with it, and do not be afraid of experimenting with it! (555's are cheap, even if you burn one up its no prob.
5. On my scope, trace overlay was exact as to pattern match (frequencies precise).
6. Note that on the circuit I built, I left out the .01 caps. I also tried without the timing caps. (gives highest frequency range, but the out voltage and waveform suffered)

I think Jameco carries the TS555CN's. Do a search on Yahoo if necessary.

<500 khz should work with any 555.
>500khz only a handfull, and all cmos not bipolar.

Paul Andrulis

@All

First, for the black hats... I have made this abundantly clear everywhere else, I will here as well in case you missed that memo. I am not going to build weapons for anyone, anywhere, anywhen, ever. period. Get over it. Don't bother with the reports, they have probably been filed A LONG time ago, from various places from back in my physics days.

Concerning one of the few scientists on this earth whom I have much respect for...... Nikola Tesla

Why respect him? He didn't buckle under opposition and criticism. He allowed people to think whatever they wanted concerning his ideas. Concerning harmonics and resonance. Notice I didn't specify electricity? He was about harmonics... in EVERY form. You might say the man loved harmony, and looked at the physical world as a symphony of harmonic interactions of all types.

I have heard much trash BOTH ways concerning this man, but most by those whom idolize him... Yes, Now, just as then, his FANS are his biggest detriment.

His fans have more to do with his popular labelization as a nut than his theories ever could. Take out the mysticism, the half-baked ideas, and  the sheer garbage touted about his "known" concepts, and you have but a handful of truth left over. To give understanding of the man, I am going to have to EXPLAIN resonance, since the sheer multitude do not seem to have a clue.

You have resonance, then you have TRUE resonance. Most of what is labeled as "being resonant", is at best in description harmonic. TRUE RESONANCE IS ALWAYS CUMULATIVE IN EFFECT. For instance, truly resonant frequencies don't necessarily superimpose, they tend to amplify. The same is true of mechanical resonance.

True resonance also tends to destroy. THAT IS WHY THE GOV CLAMPED DOWN ON THE TECH. True resonance will destroy a close but non-resonant receiver. That is why engines at certain RPM's shake themselves to pieces, that is why overunity devices of any description go into runaway mode.

"True resonance" deserves a title separate from mere "resonance". Resonance is merely sympathetic vibration. True resonance is MUTUAL INHERENT resonance. True resonance in any form actually scares me. If uncontrolled or unfocused, it will destroy anything merely resonant within it's sphere of influence.

For instance, if I make a self amplifying truly resonant field of any kind (sound, magnetic, mechanical vibration, etc...) whatever it influences that is resonant in any manner will vibrate. The problem is that it will not vibrate properly, it will not share the EXACT frequency of vibration. This will cause the field (which is by definition self amplifying, therefore continually getting stronger) to superimpose more and more energy into the sympathetic object, which will fight against its own NATURAL INHERENT resonant frequency, which is close, but not exact, in reference to the superimposed field.

This means that the sympathetic object quite literally "shakes itself to pieces" in some manner. Put quite simply, it has no choice but to self destruct, as the impressed field eventually grows stronger than the forces which hold it together...... Now for the crutch of the matter. It is practically impossible to build a device which is truly resonant to a given field. You can only build a device, THEN find it's true resonance frequencies.

WHY?

Good question. Do you know the exact mass, number of free electrons etc.. If you do, can you build the device with tolerances into the ten thousandths of an inch? THIS IS THE KIND OF INFO AND BUILD YOU NEED to design for true resonance. Not impossible, just more difficult than I can achieve. (Unless you have a team of machinists, EE's, and Physicists, it is beyond you too.)

THAT IS WHY OU DEVICES ARE SUCH A PAIN TO REPLICATE. Even if you had blueprints, you would still not achieve a working device without experimentation.

Now, why does tesla gain my respect? He was not a mental failure.

There is only one way to truly fail, and it is the worst type of mentality, and that is not to try. By not trying, you are guaranteed failure. Even a half-a$$ed attemp has a small chance of success.  Most scientists (whether you like it or not) fall into the failure category, as they CAN think outside the box. They just refuse to even try, therefore gain NOTHING truly new, but modify the heck out of ideas they do not even truly understand.

A handful have my respect, whether I agree with them or not, as at least they TRIED.

Those whom sit back and laugh at, or abjectly write off, concepts before attempting to understand them merely demonstrate their own inadequacies and inabilities. To bad they are self-imposed, more the shame.

If some think this last arrogant...it may well be. I don't know. I just know that it is true.

Paul Andrulis