Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) 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:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?  (Read 923666 times)

frankly

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #570 on: July 04, 2011, 07:30:11 PM »
Perhaps I can ask this. What is present in a coil of material to form the B field in the first place? If energy traverses the skin of the wire, what forms the B field? Which part of the material is effected and by how much?

Before you say "the core material", think about an air core coil. Or, even a single wire with no turns.

The B field is caused by the electric component interacting with something. What is that thing and how does this work? What does it mean in regards to "magnetic potential", or in other words, amperage?

Everyone assumes that electricity is the same now as in Tesla's day. It is not.

In fact, it is made now to prevent any possibility of discovering what I am putting forth, which is why it has been so denied. Yes, I can prove that statement. No, I do not have referances, only devices from the early part of the 20'th century in which the circuit elements are different to manage the different energy signature.

There are patents done by Tesla of wiring seguences for generators, and Eric Dollard also did a few drawings of the correct method of energy generation.

But alternators, and rectified energy from these, will not furnish the required energy to establish Tesla's "Rotating magnetic field".

This field is not a motor, nor a winding cage. That is a deception designed to cover the truth.

It is a manufactured state we have now, make no mistake. The trouble is in trying to undo what has been done.

As an example which is easy to do, place two counterwound coils upon a core and energise one with AC energy from the wall. Now, correct me if I am wrong, (as I frequently am), but, a collapsing B field inductiively sends it's energy to the other coil, correct, as they are wound in opposite directions? If the same direction, the building B field would be mirrored in the other coil? So, with counterwound, one should see the opposite B field occur, or a matching polarity. This I built, and, although the second coil delivers 240 volt energy, it has no amperage compared to the input phase. So, in reversing the current, any amperage that was set up in the core, is then removed. All that is left is the reluctance energy. This is a key to understanding where the true energy lies.

Telsa, used oscillating DC and early in the 20'th century, alternators with polyphase energy were used. AC of equal but opposite potentials.

This is far different to today.

This includes batteries and also permanent magnets, (though to a lesser degree).

e2matrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1956
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #571 on: July 04, 2011, 07:44:20 PM »
Hello all. It has been a few years since I entered here but I see the whole game is still afoot, and only now, when someone shows the fact that energy from a battery, when applied to both ends of a core at once, produces a stronger magnetic field, do you begin to question whether you might have missed something really, really important.

Indeed, you have.

The answer to your present quandry lies in the core. At the core.

Tesla used, not only bifilar winds and such, he also used an entirely different energy signature.

This was derived from, first, a homopolar generator and then, from a DC generator based upon the same principles as the operation of the Homopolar.

Also, Tesla utilised condensors. NOT capacitors. They are two very different things.

A condensor can best be described as an element which absorbs and releases amperage. Lots of it. Quickly.

This allowed his devices to ring quite differently than with voltage alone, which you will get with capacitors.

What the present circuit is touching upon is energy amplification. However, without any understanding of exactly what energy is, you will never catch your tail.

I know this sounds abrasive. Coming from my perspective, I mean it. I posted some things here a while back, in another thread and was shouted down. These have been deleted I see.

Now, years later, the thoughts of the many are beginning to come to where I was then.

The "Rotating Magnetic Field" Tesla utilised was not a mechanical device. Rather, it was an area of polarisation in a core.

In doing so, a coil in proximity received the signature and converted the magnetic flux into energy as if a solid magnet passed by.

However, with the present geometry, all you will get is Transient Spike conversion.

I have been trying for years to explain this simple thing to people, to no avail. Perhaps now, there are ears to hear?

I'd also like to know more.  However in doing a Google search and looking at a half dozen pages or so (some from tech sites) they all seemed to say capacitors and condensers are the same thing.  The term condenser was said to just be old terminology for capacitor and more commonly found in automotive terminology.  So maybe you can start with some info on that.  I've got a 650 Farad 2.7 volt ultra 'capacitor' that can quickly release a whole lot of current at low voltage.  Enough to turn a wire red hot.  So is that a condenser?  There are of course a lot of types of capacitors.  Is there a particular type in current production that you would call condensers?  In doing a search on the very large electronics suppler site mouser.com for condensers I get microphone elements (condenser mikes) and only a few small value polyester film capacitors (which are called capacitors in the listing).  So I'm confused and would certainly be grateful to know this little known difference between condensers and capacitors.  All ears :)

e2matrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1956
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #572 on: July 04, 2011, 07:51:43 PM »
frankly,  I guess I was posting while you were writing.   Having read your last post I'm even more 'all ears' :)  I guess the capacitor vs. condensor may not be that significant compared to what you just posted but if you have some info on that I'd like to know for trivia purposes at least. 

e2matrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1956
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #573 on: July 04, 2011, 08:08:24 PM »
In trying to absorb what you last posted can you elaborate on the oscillating DC Tesla was using?  Is that to say it is positive only pulses for example?

frankly

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #574 on: July 05, 2011, 12:40:27 AM »
The main difference between a condensor and a capacitor is one of geometry. I am not sure how the ultra caps are oriented, but, basically, using an element in a resonating circuit to hold and bounce back, the energy, which is specifically designed to clamp resonations, is what you are doing with a capacitor today.

A condenser is either a set of series connected plates, interspaced with either a di-electric medium if negative or a conductor if positive.

A bank of these placed in a circuit was known as a battery. This term was used from it's root meaning which is of course equally applicable to armory. Any collection of like things to deliver force.

Tesla describes in one of his papers the difference between the methods of construction. An end connected, interwound plate of the condensor, seperated by the insulating ,(or conducting, as with electrolytic condensors), set into a Faraday tube, is able to resonate at the specific frequency of the load. Modern elements do not allow this.

As to the oscillating DC. The energy delivered was both positive and negative of equal force. Only with this energy will it be possible to lock onto the wheel-work of nature.

TEKTRON

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #575 on: July 05, 2011, 02:38:18 AM »
The main difference between a condensor and a capacitor is one of geometry. I am not sure how the ultra caps are oriented, but, basically, using an element in a resonating circuit to hold and bounce back, the energy, which is specifically designed to clamp resonations, is what you are doing with a capacitor today.

A condenser is either a set of series connected plates, interspaced with either a di-electric medium if negative or a conductor if positive.

A bank of these placed in a circuit was known as a battery. This term was used from it's root meaning which is of course equally applicable to armory. Any collection of like things to deliver force.

Tesla describes in one of his papers the difference between the methods of construction. An end connected, interwound plate of the condensor, seperated by the insulating ,(or conducting, as with electrolytic condensors), set into a Faraday tube, is able to resonate at the specific frequency of the load. Modern elements do not allow this.

As to the oscillating DC. The energy delivered was both positive and negative of equal force. Only with this energy will it be possible to lock onto the wheel-work of nature.

http://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/ferroelectrics/fabrication.php ? ??? ??? ???

rukiddingme

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
    • Kore
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #576 on: July 05, 2011, 04:03:47 AM »
Condensers vs Capacitors:

"Condenser" still designates the rotating synchronous machine used to supply leading kvars in a power circuit (a function of which capacitors are also capable), because unlike a capacitor, the synchronous condenser cannot store energy electrostatically; it lacks the property of "capacitance." For the non-rotating device, however, capacitor is the proper term.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3726/is_200506/ai_n13643083/


frankly

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #577 on: July 05, 2011, 04:40:38 AM »
And, here we are. Arguing about the internet's description of condensors versus capacitors.

The original post was to ask what formed the B field within a wire? What substance within the wire becomes magnetised, for as we know, copper is non magnetic. I mentioned capacitors as another issue altogether.

Tell you what. Take some apart.

Get an old ignition coil condensor and cut open the casing. Then, do the same for a radio suppressing condensor on an alternator. Then, an electrolytic condensor, and, while you are at it, take apart a capacitor from a microwave oven, and an AC motor, and think about the description I gave earlier.

The evidence shows us the truth, no matter what the theory is.

Look into which speach Tesla gave where he describes the condensor's construction. This will tell you what I have learned. That there is a major difference. A fundamental one in fact, without which, you will never understand the purpose of asking "what is it that forms the B field in the first place"?

I have used referance pages before, to have them changed. So, it is better to simply do the research yourselves. The components are not that hard to find. Get a hack saw and start investigating.

That is what I did.

Look into old stuff. Go to junk yards and garage sales. Get something, anything old, and pull it apart to tease the truth from it, before the "recycling" movement swallows all the history, and all proof is gone.

Even better yet, make a condensor yourself and apply it to a circuit. The components are not hard to assemble. Remember, there are positive condensors, and negative condensors. There are also both, but that is a power source. We are interested in only catching and holding one side of the energisation.

No.

I am getting lost again.

Let us focus on the task at hand. The reason why B fields manifest around a wire when energised.

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #578 on: July 05, 2011, 05:26:56 AM »
Let us focus on the task at hand. The reason why B fields manifest around a wire when energised.

How is it that the movement of charge does not cause the B-field to manifest?

I ask this because I assume you assert that the standard theory does not explain it.

.99

frankly

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #579 on: July 05, 2011, 06:07:48 AM »
No, I am asking what causes the B field to form, when the wire is energised by an electric field. Which specific component in the air or wire is aligned to form the magnetic flux? Why does this phenomena have reluctance,  reactance and capacitance? What FORMS it? For it to exhibit reluctance, it must be influenced by gravity, and therefore have mass. WHAT IS IT?

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #580 on: July 05, 2011, 06:27:09 AM »
The movement of charge creates the formation of the B-field.

xee2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1610
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #581 on: July 05, 2011, 06:30:13 AM »
Deleted by author. Sorry, this was not appropriate for this thread.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 07:31:09 AM by xee2 »

poynt99

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 3582
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #582 on: July 05, 2011, 07:14:19 AM »
A slightly different perspective:

http://www.sinequanonthebook.com/Magnetism2.html

.99

e2matrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1956
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #583 on: July 05, 2011, 07:31:31 AM »
No, I am asking what causes the B field to form, when the wire is energised by an electric field. Which specific component in the air or wire is aligned to form the magnetic flux? Why does this phenomena have reluctance,  reactance and capacitance? What FORMS it? For it to exhibit reluctance, it must be influenced by gravity, and therefore have mass. WHAT IS IT?

Well with my limited knowledge I'd take a guess at electrons in the air molecules OR possibly something to do with (darn I can't remember what I'm trying to recall but I think it was related to natural radon in the air causing electrons to be released). 

   Now for some progressively further out guesses:
-short-lived virtual photons

-positron-electron pairs popping in and out of existence

-the active vacuum/spacetime itself

-black body case radiation energy

-zero-frequency transverse waves that travel in perpendicular to their circulation plane

- nitrogen

- deuterium

- O3

BTW in case it's not obvious I don't have a clue what I just said.  ;)    Well not totally clueless but mostly.

 

e2matrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1956
Re: PhysicsProf Steven E. Jones circuit shows 8x overunity ?
« Reply #584 on: July 05, 2011, 07:57:58 AM »
I like what poynt99 pointed to (oh yes the word play)  as I like any theory relating to vortex's which are everywhere in the nature and the universe: "The following two figures show how the entire wire acts as a sink. The dynamic pressure of the wire causes it to have low static pressure. This low static pressure causes the surrounding aether to flow towards it to equilibrate the density disturbance. Any flow of a fluid to a common center causes it to flow spirally. This is what occurs around wires with a current of electrons passing through it.
The Faraday-Maxwell electromagnetic theory of this “electrically induced magnetic field” only considers the tangential component of the “magnetic field,” and totally neglects the radial flux toward the wire. This neglect is similar to that of the tangential component of gravity."