Author Topic: An interesting phenomenon I found (Read 36628 times)

dieter · « **Reply #45 on:** February 14, 2014, 01:54:33 AM »

I agree, whenever possible we should stick to the plan. Here I had to improvise. I didn't see any Transistors mentioned, but these are pretty standard npn and pnp ones. I definitely connected them as seen in the 2nd diagram, based on their datasheets, I also had no specs on the Caps. The copper core seems just like a holder for a ring of steel rods that are coated noncontuctively, to reduce eddy currents and yet obtain high impendance. A 2" coil with no copper pipe might be too much iron to saturate, hence the pipe. My problem was, I had just a few meters of wire, and by guessimation I chose a rather smal diameter about 1/2 inch. Actually I still can remove some rods and put some sort of pipe into its center. That might be an optimation.

But the Problem is, I don't see the cirquit doing what is it supposed to do. Basicly it should output an alternating squarewave to the bifilar primary. The bifilars are connected in opposition, so the "stereo" signal creates AC on the secondary. As the signal stops on a primary, it will throw back the back electromagnetic pulse bemf, that has a voltage that mainly depends on the ability of the coil to quickly unload. This spike may be several times the voltage of the original signal. It will run in parallel with the next original signal on the other primary and increase the voltage on the secondary, while still maintainige the current of the original signal.

Bifilar rocks. Ordinary Transformers don't do that afaik.

I also think about to add a ring of welding rods on the outside of the coil, this should double the impendance and inductivity, I guess.

dieter · « **Reply #46 on:** February 14, 2014, 08:35:24 PM »

Little update. In this thread 3 circuits are presented, I tested them all, they differ. First one didn't do anything, 2nd worked partially, also the third. lately I realized how lossy caps are, so I start thinking of substitutes. A Coil for instance has little losses, other than inductivity.
And 90 deg ahead is just like 270 deg behind, at least from my unskilled point of view.

MileHigh · « **Reply #47 on:** February 16, 2014, 03:27:33 PM »

Note this thread has gone nowhere, just like I said it would. There is an important principle at play. You simply can't take a transformer, a few passive components like resistors, capacitors, and coils, and a few active components like transistors and connect them together and make a free energy machine. If that was hypothetically true you would be able to take your scope and show a signal or signals that were larger in energy than they would be for a "normal" circuit. You would be able to show the "entry point" for the over unity.

The reality is that every small circuit that you see people playing with _is_ a normal circuit. Take the example of UFOPolitics and when he changes the windings in an electric motor. He and his followers may believe that they are doing something out of the ordinary, but in fact the rewired motor is still a normal motor, just like the unmodified motor was a normal motor. What the motor and it's associated circuit do are normal. A related issue is that people believe that they are looking at something that is not normal when it actually is normal. They don't have enough experience or understanding to realize that what they are looking at is all normal.

I am not sure if Xenophed will be back, but please everyone, especially E2matrix, try to turn this into a learning experience. Don't just assume that every time someone posts that they have allegedly got over unity or unusual behaviour from a small circuit that it's true. Because in fact it will not be true. This self-garden-path phenomenon happens over and over again. The smart thing to do is assume that the experimenter is making a mistake. Until you see at least three replications with credible measurements backing up the claim assume that the claim is not valid.

MileHigh

Farmhand · « **Reply #48 on:** February 16, 2014, 04:38:47 PM »

So I think we agree again MileHigh,

The device we considered here was a feedback oscillator which turned DC into AC, or an "inverter"

(at least the device considered in our discourse with the posters)

The coil arrangements are irrelevant if the effect is the same as any other similar arrangement.

A side note is that an oscillator that works the flux both ways out of phase (like a DC to AC inverter/converter) can deliver power better than a DC oscillator because the "input power on" time is doubled. For a system that gets some actual loading that is desirous as compared to a unidirectional excitation which can be more efficient when used at resonance for "radio effect's" or for just getting an inductive field to play with or even when not used at resonance for the spiky stuff.

Also a transformer excited by AC can be "idled" properly because the core flux can be maintained in ......."flux" ...

Cheers

e2matrix · « **Reply #49 on:** February 16, 2014, 08:38:26 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on February 16, 2014, 03:27:33 PM

Note this thread has gone nowhere, just like I said it would. There is an important principle at play. You simply can't take a transformer, a few passive components like resistors, capacitors, and coils, and a few active components like transistors and connect them together and make a free energy machine. If that was hypothetically true you would be able to take your scope and show a signal or signals that were larger in energy than they would be for a "normal" circuit. You would be able to show the "entry point" for the over unity.

The reality is that every small circuit that you see people playing with _is_ a normal circuit. Take the example of UFOPolitics and when he changes the windings in an electric motor. He and his followers may believe that they are doing something out of the ordinary, but in fact the rewired motor is still a normal motor, just like the unmodified motor was a normal motor. What the motor and it's associated circuit do are normal. A related issue is that people believe that they are looking at something that is not normal when it actually is normal. They don't have enough experience or understanding to realize that what they are looking at is all normal.

I am not sure if Xenophed will be back, but please everyone, especially E2matrix, try to turn this into a learning experience. Don't just assume that every time someone posts that they have allegedly got over unity or unusual behaviour from a small circuit that it's true. Because in fact it will not be true. This self-garden-path phenomenon happens over and over again. The smart thing to do is assume that the experimenter is making a mistake. Until you see at least three replications with credible measurements backing up the claim assume that the claim is not valid.

MileHigh

Bolding is mine. Therein lies the problem with assuming nothing will work or telling everyone not to bother with trying a circuit because you think it can't be COP >1 . If everyone assumes that then there will be no replication attempts and some unnoticed variable will be missed that could have brought about free energy. I haven't tried this yet due to being busy with other non-energy related things but I intend to do so soon.

MileHigh · « **Reply #50 on:** February 16, 2014, 09:28:21 PM »

E2matrix:

Quote

Bolding is mine. Therein lies the problem with assuming nothing will work or telling everyone not to bother with trying a circuit because you think it can't be COP >1 . If everyone assumes that then there will be no replication attempts and some unnoticed variable will be missed that could have brought about free energy. I haven't tried this yet due to being busy with other non-energy related things but I intend to do so soon.

When you say that you insult 100+ years worth of science and electronics and engineering. You are putting your head in the sand, which is your choice. It's not a question of assuming, it's a question of applying knowledge. You are in denial of that knowledge. Yet, how many times have you been through this loop, 50 or more? That is the true essence of the problem.

I am all for doing some research, but ideally it would be something new. Playing with batteries, transformers, resistors, capacitors, inductors and transistors is OLD. It's just a variation on people playing with tube circuits at the beginning of the 20th century.

So when someone presents yet another combination of batteries, transformers, and the other pieces, it is absolutely correct and makes perfect sense to assume that they are wrong. Then instead of being a cheerleader, one can ask the presenter for more data to back up their claims. It's just proper due diligence even if you want to believe.

MileHigh

dieter · « **Reply #51 on:** February 16, 2014, 09:33:44 PM »

Thanks for agreeing for me, but... ehrm

. Not so fast.

You say you want to see at least 3 working replications, but you do not only not offer to build one, you're even moral-preaching over the heads of the unskilled, not to try such things. No surprise none is trying to do a copy.

I do, and I was also the sceptical who said, when voltage and current are out of phase, then they may pass by the first light one by one and fail to light it up. But that still doesn't explain the Watt Meter. I did a lot of Back EMF experiments in the past and I know the accepted theory about it, basicly that the back-EMF cannot be stronger than the Pulse itself. This is just 1o1 school stuff. But then there's the more special stuff, like you can hit your head on a sonic wall, that was accidently caused by a singing tapwater pipe and none ever noticed any loss in water pressure.

When you say that this is just an ordinary inverter then you didnt watch the diagram . Inverters do not short circuit a coil with its inductor to obtain recursive harmony, nor are they tuned to standing waves.

It is not about standing waves to be used as a source of energy, but to create high stresses, that may contain possibilities bejond "accepted theories". Because resonance for electronics is not equal standing waves at electrical levels. I don't say this device will certainly be OU, but I am still replicating it because it is interesting and doesn't require much hardware.
Milehigh and other Sceptics:
If you can assist us and explain in simple terms where exactly something wrong is, eg. in the diagram, this will be very useful. Although you make the impression of somebody who understood the diagrams, you didn't correct them, why? Instead you utilize this thread for your clerical general teaching ambitions. Your unconditional belief in accepted science seems almost religious to me. That's ok, and what you belief may define your dimension. If you just let the kids keep on playing.

I would really like to go on discussing with xenophed about the device, or with somebody else.

Today I made some more test with the sparkgap device. 5 diodes in series as the HV Diodes. The relative unsteady rate is not useful for resonance etc. Will now revisit the transistor driver.

MileHigh · « **Reply #52 on:** February 16, 2014, 10:05:54 PM »

Dieter:

I don't know the exact mechanism for the oscillation, I would have to scope the circuit and figure it out. When you see transistors and capacitors and inductors in an oscillating circuit, that means there is some kind of active RLC-style oscillation mechanism. The fact that just by eye I can't tell you the exact specifics of the oscillation mechanism doesn't matter, everything I state in my previous postings applies.

Since you are a beginner, I have some advice for you: Try to avoid using the free energy forum buzz words just because other people use them. Your language is showing that you are absorbing all of the buzz words and catch phrases. Most of them are meaningless or used inappropriately. For example, there are no standing waves waves in this circuit and in fact it's ridiculous to even use the term in the context of this circuit. Another example, you stated, "basicly that the back-EMF cannot be stronger than the Pulse itself." That is not Electronics 101, and the statement doesn't really make sense. You are just using catch phrases that don't really have a meaning. You talk about "high stresses." High stresses give you nothing with respect to somehow getting extra energy. It's nothing more than a false belief that you read and you yourself are now prepared to believe.

Is there any rule that says that I have have to build a replication? People can try whatever they want, and also get comments from people with differing views.

If you want to discuss this circuit more with Xenophed that would be great. The first thing to do would be to figure out how the oscillator works. Once you understand that you can start to try to make proper energy measurements on it. That will require a scope and some applied knowledge, and perhaps some contributors to the thread can help. But for sure with 100% certitude, the input power from the battery source will be split into waste heat power dissipated in the oscillator circuit itself, and the balance of the power will be burnt off in the load resistor. i.e.; input_power = heat_power_in_oscillator + heat_power_in_load. You will not find one nanowatt of excess power if you were capable of measuring to that level of precision. As was stated before, there will be a very very tiny amount of RF radiated power but you will not be able to measure it.

MileHigh

xenophed · « **Reply #53 on:** February 16, 2014, 11:04:12 PM »

The oscillator works just like the one in lasserhacker except which ever direction the output coil goes it turns on one transistor. I will note that where I live we deal with 90-100% humidity daily. And also it works like a class c amp hence the tank circuit to tune to natural resonance of coil
p.s. the reason for the reversed led's is to know when you have oscillation. Sometimes a thump of q1 or q2 will start and you will only have about 15-25 mA current draw there is an option I am currently working with to feed a single to the two bases also I have really bad headaches from broken neck so I do not get on the computer everyday I will have a how to video in a few when I feel up to it

dieter · « **Reply #54 on:** February 17, 2014, 06:22:22 PM »

Thanks for the reply, Xenophed. I still got problems with those Qs, as they are connected in a way that is a lil contradicting, compared to the teachings...

As a quick test I decided to half rectify a AC 12 V output from a Supply (50hz mains) twice, one time reversed, then added 2 zener diodes to reduce the pulsewidth, too bad I had no infos on their specs, so they gave a lil smoke when I pushed 15 Watts trough them and went byebye. But basicly that would be a way to create a squarewaveish signal without Transistors, although fixed at 50 or 60 Hz. And this was of course without to be out of phase, which could be added with a C of the right capacitance.
How important is the shape of the pulse anyway, do you think a squarewave would be best to get a max. back emf? Or is it uncritical and even sinusoids could be used?

I also did some 555 >Transistor drivers in the past, as well as schmitt triggers, but it all seemed fuzzy to me, and in fact I am not a huge fan of transistors due to their obvious tendency of heat dissipation.

Looking forward to read/see more from you.

e2matrix · « **Reply #55 on:** February 17, 2014, 08:39:57 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on February 16, 2014, 09:28:21 PM

E2matrix:

When you say that you insult 100+ years worth of science and electronics and engineering. You are putting your head in the sand, which is your choice. It's not a question of assuming, it's a question of applying knowledge. You are in denial of that knowledge. Yet, how many times have you been through this loop, 50 or more? That is the true essence of the problem.

I am all for doing some research, but ideally it would be something new. Playing with batteries, transformers, resistors, capacitors, inductors and transistors is OLD. It's just a variation on people playing with tube circuits at the beginning of the 20th century.

So when someone presents yet another combination of batteries, transformers, and the other pieces, it is absolutely correct and makes perfect sense to assume that they are wrong. Then instead of being a cheerleader, one can ask the presenter for more data to back up their claims. It's just proper due diligence even if you want to believe.

MileHigh

Well thank you! I'm glad that I've insulted the last 100 years of science, electronics and engineering.... especially since there is a great deal of evidence I've read that says they have had their heads buried in the sand the last 100 years by a campaign of dis-information by the likes of J.P. Morgan and others who want to maintain their control over energy enslaving the populous with their expensive gas, oil and other energy generation. Note there are a few serious scientists and engineers who ARE working on free energy and who do have a high level of education but have managed pull their heads out of the sand.

TinselKoala · « **Reply #56 on:** February 17, 2014, 10:30:18 PM »

The fastest current rise and fall times of the stimulating signal will give you the most "back emf" from the stimulated coil.

dieter · « **Reply #57 on:** February 18, 2014, 12:36:05 AM »

Yeah, thought so. And I guess the "idle time" between pulses should not be too long. In fact, afaik the duration of the bemf spike depends on the coil, so the pulse should he of this duration too, I guess.
Btw, interesting collection : www.free-energy-info.co.uk/VladimirUtkin.pdf
May contain explanation about this phenomen.

MileHigh · « **Reply #58 on:** February 18, 2014, 03:38:19 AM »

E2matrix:

At least know that in mainstream engineering and academia there is no notion of "burying heads in the sand." People that do very basic science research are not in my realm of experience. But I have been schooled and have worked in tech for the past 35 years and that's my realm of experience. People that design and manufacture electronics products, stuff like that. They don't worry about this stuff.

In that sense the "issue" is not nearly as critical as you seem to believe. The reality is that there is no issue. Nowadays people try to design products that are more electrically efficient for sure, but it stops there. The "Tesla free electricity in the air/JP Morgan/energy enslavement conspiracy" is just a tall tale, I assure you. It's ridiculous to think that the power broadcasting story ever was real. It's just a story that forms part of the narrative that forms the "implicitly accepted world view" for some of the people on this forum. Not to mention that that story is exploited by people all the time to advance their own self interests. Did you hear that Bedini had to detune his solar charger because the MIB might go after him?

Certainly research into energy production, transmission, storage, and so on is ongoing. We absolutely have to do it. How many scientists are doing the exotic research that you are discussing? I don't know the answer to that. However, I think that you can split those scientists into legitimate scientists and feigned legitimate "scientists" that are just posers that operate in the free energy cottage industry. I doubt that you would be able to differentiate the real guys from the posers. And, some of the "legitimate scientists" that I have seen around here are pretty shockingly lacking in reason and insight and basic skills also.

The bottom line about my statement remains true: A circuit that consists of basic components is in fact under unity, or it is unity when you factor in the heat and tiny amount of EM generation. There is simply no escaping this fact so you may as well move onto Plan B, whatever that is. I am not going to say this every time somebody comes up with another circuit. It's worth it to state it once in a while and leave it at that.

In a generic sense it's an important principle to think about. Do you use your rational mind and the scientific method to learn and understand how Nature works, or, do you always challenge Nature every time you see a variation on the same theme? Where do you direct your energies? What is in your best interest? Those are issues for each individual to consider for themselves.

So I will keep quiet now. People are free to ignore my advice. There is an entire world infrastructure of science and engineering out there that takes heed of my advice so I am fundamentally okay! lol

MileHigh

Farmhand · « **Reply #59 on:** February 18, 2014, 04:50:28 AM »

Quote from: MileHigh on February 18, 2014, 03:38:19 AM

E2matrix:

At least know that in mainstream engineering and academia there is no notion of "burying heads in the sand." People that do very basic science research are not in my realm of experience. But I have been schooled and have worked in tech for the past 35 years and that's my realm of experience. People that design and manufacture electronics products, stuff like that. They don't worry about this stuff.

In that sense the "issue" is not nearly as critical as you seem to believe. The reality is that there is no issue. Nowadays people try to design products that are more electrically efficient for sure, but it stops there. The "Tesla free electricity in the air/JP Morgan/energy enslavement conspiracy" is just a tall tale, I assure you. It's ridiculous to think that the power broadcasting story ever was real. It's just a story that forms part of the narrative that forms the "implicitly accepted world view" for some of the people on this forum. Not to mention that that story is exploited by people all the time to advance their own self interests. Did you hear that Bedini had to detune his solar charger because the MIB might go after him?

Certainly research into energy production, transmission, storage, and so on is ongoing. We absolutely have to do it. How many scientists are doing the exotic research that you are discussing? I don't know the answer to that. However, I think that you can split those scientists into legitimate scientists and feigned legitimate "scientists" that are just posers that operate in the free energy cottage industry. I doubt that you would be able to differentiate the real guys from the posers. And, some of the "legitimate scientists" that I have seen around here are pretty shockingly lacking in reason and insight and basic skills also.

The bottom line about my statement remains true: A circuit that consists of basic components is in fact under unity, or it is unity when you factor in the heat and tiny amount of EM generation. There is simply no escaping this fact so you may as well move onto Plan B, whatever that is. I am not going to say this every time somebody comes up with another circuit. It's worth it to state it once in a while and leave it at that.

In a generic sense it's an important principle to think about. Do you use your rational mind and the scientific method to learn and understand how Nature works, or, do you always challenge Nature every time you see a variation on the same theme? Where do you direct your energies? What is in your best interest? Those are issues for each individual to consider for themselves.

So I will keep quiet now. People are free to ignore my advice. There is an entire world infrastructure of science and engineering out there that takes heed of my advice so I am fundamentally okay! lol

MileHigh

Well said MileHigh, I too agree and have been saying on these forums for some time that Over Unity is a contentious term used in differing ways. The bottom line is exactly as you say. The same goes for power generation as for power use. If all losses are considered there is Unity and must be. All losses considered, everything is unity. We can go under unity only if we dissipate energy out of the system. Or we can go Over Unity only if we accumulate energy from outside the system into the system. Like a solar panel or wind turbine. All losses considered they are Unity, with solar and wind power the energy is free, the device is what we must pay for. Solar and wind are unique in that the energy comes to us, unlike a coal fired power station the coal must be dug up and taken to the power plant. That cost money so the fuel costs money and labor as well as the device (power plant).

Free energy is when you build a device and flick the switch and it harnesses the energy from the environment for us to use. Free energy has nothing to do with Over Unity, it has a lot to do with Unity though and Under Unity, because we want to get as close to unity for the harnessed free energy as we can get.

Any new source of energy will have an efficiency of "capture" for want of a better word and will be Under Unity, same as solar and wind are under unity, but the energy is free.

The efficiency has nothing to do with the cost. The cost does not dictate efficiency. We can use free energy inefficiently the same as we can use paid for energy inefficiently.

Cheers

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: An interesting phenomenon I found (Read 36628 times)

dieter

Re: An interesting phenomenon I found

dieter

Re: An interesting phenomenon I found

MileHigh

Re: An interesting phenomenon I found

Farmhand

Re: An interesting phenomenon I found

e2matrix

Re: An interesting phenomenon I found

MileHigh

Re: An interesting phenomenon I found

dieter

Re: An interesting phenomenon I found

MileHigh

Re: An interesting phenomenon I found

xenophed

Re: An interesting phenomenon I found

dieter

Re: An interesting phenomenon I found

e2matrix

Re: An interesting phenomenon I found

TinselKoala

Re: An interesting phenomenon I found

dieter

Re: An interesting phenomenon I found

MileHigh

Re: An interesting phenomenon I found

Farmhand

Re: An interesting phenomenon I found