Author Topic: Acoustic magnetic generator. (Read 133026 times)

magpwr · « **Reply #105 on:** February 24, 2014, 08:45:37 AM »

Quote from: verpies on February 24, 2014, 12:56:06 AM

The majority of the limitation is not low current but high frequency. (even as low as 1kHz). See this and this video.

Your experiment is not measured properly. You cannot multiply AC Volts by AC Amps and expect to obtain average Watts - that calculation works reliably only for DC.

I would appreciate if you measured input voltage and current across a 1Ω current sensing resistor (non-inductive!!!) simultaneously with two channels of your scope.

The output voltage and current can be measured a similar manner ...or with a brightness of an incandescent light bulb with a straight filament (e.g. from auto dome light) and sensed by a PV cell in a dark box (calibrated with DC).
You cannot do that with non-DC !!!
Finally, you cannot draw any COP conclusions from the fact that the power output does not affect the power input - even if these power levels are measured correctly. Relative power levels don't mean much - only absolute levels do.

Dear verpies,

You are absolutely correct.The multimeter gave false 0.5uA reading for the current regardless of frequency to sample-Barium.

Since this is low current i used 1KOhm 1% resistor to accurately measure current.

I have attached 3 photo to show default setup without sample,voltage measured across 1k shunt to bifilar coil,voltage measured across 1k shunt at resonance.
Used math function A-B .

The current measurement without sample was accurate at 1.8mA as compared with multimeter reading.

But once sample is in place and at resonance the oscilloscope reveal there is actually around 3.5mA current drawn.

I'm sorry for wasting everyone time hence i have promptly removed the video swiftly without second thought.

Thanks verpies.

tim123 · « **Reply #106 on:** February 24, 2014, 09:37:08 AM »

Quote from: magpwr on February 24, 2014, 08:45:37 AM

I'm sorry for wasting everyone time hence i have promptly removed the video swiftly without second thought.

You've not wasted anyone's time mate. It's all good fun, and part of the learning process...

The only 'failed experiment' is one in which nothing was learned...

Regards, Tim

tim123 · « **Reply #107 on:** February 24, 2014, 09:42:20 AM »

I'd just like to point out that - as Verpies said - we're talking about 2 different devices on this thread. It's a bit confusing.
Magpwr & I were testing different things.

I'd still like to work on the NAR aspect of this...
1) Cancel out the electrostatic field of the piezos if possible - maybe 2 opposing ones
2) Put piezos in 2 or 3 dimensions on the target coil
3) Try harmonic resonances & beat frequency interactions...

Grumage · « **Reply #108 on:** February 24, 2014, 06:55:09 PM »

Quote from: tim123 on February 22, 2014, 04:33:10 PM

Hi Guys,
- If there are acoustic resonances to be found - the piezo's capacitance / electrostatic field would likely prevent it from being observed.
- A non-electrical means of acoustic excitation would be preferable.

Regards, Tim

Dear Tim.

I have had rather a busy weekend and only just got back to catching up with the posts on this thread.

If you go back to my video below, from 8.15 you will note that we can stimulate an electrical output by mechanical means. I can assure you all there was no apparatus running other than the scope at that point !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql2zfs5vevM

Since then I have also re done the experiment with the cores placed in an earthed faraday cage and can report that although the collected output seen on the scope was much smaller than before. The very same results were recorded.

Cheers Grum.

tim123 · « **Reply #109 on:** February 24, 2014, 10:24:52 PM »

Quote from: Grumage on February 24, 2014, 06:55:09 PM

If you go back to my video below, from 8.15 you will note that we can stimulate an electrical output by mechanical means. I can assure you all there was no apparatus running other than the scope at that point !!

Hi Grum

I'd forgotten that bit of your vid. Thanks - it is very interesting. I'll have to try it.

When you rub the cores by hand - can you focus in with the scope and see what the resonant frequency is? Is it the same as with the piezo?

Quote

Since then I have also re done the experiment with the cores placed in an earthed faraday cage and can report that although the collected output seen on the scope was much smaller than before. The very same results were recorded.

If you replace the piezo with 2 disks of foil or metal of the same size - what happens then? (I do seem to be at the 'capacitive coupling' stage of my education... So forgive me if everything looks like that right now)

Perhaps a good test would be to use a decent sized ceramic insulator between piezo and coil - it'll transmit the sound but not the electric field... I tried two opposing piezos today - but the output was the same as with one. It was a crap experiment though...

Regards, Tim

verpies · « **Reply #110 on:** February 24, 2014, 11:20:46 PM »

Quote from: tim123 on February 24, 2014, 09:37:08 AM

Quote from: magpwr on February 24, 2014, 08:45:37 AM
I'm sorry for wasting everyone time hence i have promptly removed the video swiftly without second thought.
You've not wasted anyone's time mate. It's all good fun, and part of the learning process...

Yes, it was educational and because of that it was not a waste of time.
Now, when you guys see other people make similar error, do point it out to them.

Eliminating error modes gives more chance for real anomalies to stand out.

verpies · « **Reply #111 on:** February 24, 2014, 11:30:28 PM »

Quote from: tim123 on February 24, 2014, 09:42:20 AM

I'd just like to point out that - as Verpies said - we're talking about 2 different devices on this thread. It's a bit confusing.
Magpwr & I were testing different things.

Yes and that means that conclusions about one device do not apply to the second one.

Quote from: tim123 on February 24, 2014, 09:42:20 AM

I'd still like to work on the NAR aspect of this...
1) Cancel out the electrostatic field of the piezos if possible - maybe 2 opposing ones
2) Put piezos in 2 or 3 dimensions on the target coil
3) Try harmonic resonances & beat frequency interactions...

4) Pay attention to the angles between acoustic waves and magnetic fields.
5) Pay attention to spin polarization times (T1).
6) Pay attention to the gyromagnetic ratio of the vibrating medium. e.g.: 1132Hz/Gauss for Copper, 1110Hz/G for Aluminum, 1058Hz/G for Manganese, 267Hz/G for Zinc, 138Hz/G for Iron, etc...

verpies · « **Reply #112 on:** February 25, 2014, 01:30:55 AM »

Quote from: tim123 on February 24, 2014, 10:24:52 PM

If you replace the piezo with 2 disks of foil or metal of the same size - what happens then? (I do seem to be at the 'capacitive coupling' stage of my education... So forgive me if everything looks like that right now)

A bit of warning:
Many plastics have ferroelectric properties and makeshift capacitors formed out of such plastics will form ferroelectric capacitors. Read this.
This news would have a high yawn factor if it was not for the fact, that all capacitors formed with ferroelectric plastics are also piezoelectric by symmetry considerations.

In other words - it is easy to build a ferroelectric/piezoelectric capacitor inadvertently ...and never know about it.

Quote from: tim123 on February 24, 2014, 10:24:52 PM

Perhaps a good test would be to use a decent sized ceramic insulator between piezo and coil - it'll transmit the sound but not the electric field... I tried two opposing piezos today - but the output was the same as with one. It was a crap experiment though...

The way to get rid of capacitive coupling is not to add a high-permittivity dielectric but to decrease the permittivity of the gap and/or to add tight Faraday's shielding composed out of a good conductor (e.g. copper foil).
The latter also works well as a remedy against unwanted EM coupling.

ambadytesla · « **Reply #113 on:** February 25, 2014, 03:04:49 AM »

is it work with 6khz??

synchro1 · « **Reply #114 on:** February 25, 2014, 07:21:58 PM »

@Verpies,

Here's an interesting note on acoustic frequency:

"Hi Norm: I've found a way to "tickle" the barium ferrite magnets... you can get any output freq you want as a result of the "beat" freq between 8KHz and 174.9KHz. A barium ferrite pair resonates audibly loudest at exactly 8KHz. I'm using your spool of magnet wire inside the gap between the halves to turn the magnet into a "speaker", and you can hear it "sing". The coil is connected to 8KHz from a sig gen".

synchro1 · « **Reply #115 on:** February 27, 2014, 06:47:18 PM »

@Tinselkoala,

The 8 khz beat frequency where the barrium ferrite magnet emits an audible ring is exactly a 10 bi-multiple of the 7.83 hrz Shumman constant. Anyone who has seen the Marcos -Dancing Magnets- video can witness the exagerated oscillation at 7.8 hrz. The 174 khz is a 7.83 bi-mutiple of 22. This is a resonant frequency common to all magnets, regardless of the magnetized element. You maintained the increased oscillation in the Marcos video at 7.8 hrz was a coincidence. How do you account for these additional 7.8 hrz correspondences ?

synchro1 · « **Reply #116 on:** February 28, 2014, 08:10:08 PM »

Tinselkoala has apparently chosen to ignore the challenge to explain why 7.8 kHz pulse has an increased oscillation effect on the Marcos dancing magnets and also at times 2 to the 10th power, an audible ring. This amounts to not one coincidence as he falsely maintains , but two!

The evidence of a constant oscillating frequency is magnetisem is more convincing when viewed by the Pergallosi video of Charrier type oscillation and the perpetual pendulum effect demonstrated by Dr. Stiffler.

Tinselkoala has steadfastly maintained that Shumman, Wooten, Marcos, Pergallosi and Stiffler are all demonstrating somekind of bogus effect, not a constant oscillating frequency of magnetisem. Some kind of product from his BS Factory.

MasterPlaster · « **Reply #117 on:** February 28, 2014, 08:25:11 PM »

You all need to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium_titanate

Bruce_TPU · « **Reply #118 on:** March 01, 2014, 03:54:50 PM »

Quote from: synchro1 on February 27, 2014, 06:47:18 PM

@Tinselkoala,

The 8 khz beat frequency where the barrium ferrite magnet emits an audible ring is exactly a 10 bi-multiple of the 7.83 hrz Shumman constant. Anyone who has seen the Marcos -Dancing Magnets- video can witness the exagerated oscillation at 7.8 hrz. The 174 khz is a 7.83 bi-mutiple of 22. This is a resonant frequency common to all magnets, regardless of the magnetized element. You maintained the increased oscillation in the Marcos video at 7.8 hrz was a coincidence. How do you account for these additional 7.8 hrz correspondences ?

Hello Synchro,

You are ABSOLUTELY correct!

The following is what I'd like you to do, and it is further proof of the Schumann's interaction...

Starting with 8000 hz form a geometric progression table. 8000 / 2 is 4000. 4000/ 2 is 2000, etc, all the way to the Schumann's.

Next take 8000 and x2 is 16000 hz, on up, etc.

now, using the FFT function of your scope, look at how many harmonic peaks MATCH your geometric progression table.

I have done so with tpu collector I am working on and you will be amazed.

YES these earth magnetic standing wave CAN have a direct influence.

Good work,

Bruce

Turbo · « **Reply #119 on:** March 01, 2014, 08:40:50 PM »

Quote from: synchro1 on February 28, 2014, 08:10:08 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XghAn9olnsI
Tinselkoala has steadfastly maintained that Shumman, Wooten, Marcos, Pergallosi and Stiffler are all demonstrating somekind of bogus effect, not a constant oscillating frequency of magnetisem. Some kind of product from his BS Factory.

Don't you forget the wonderfull work done by Mr Jerry Bales.
He confirmed the effect in a different setup with rotating disks in stead of using a pulsed field and it exactly shows the same behaviour.
This seems to be important because it rules out false readings due to inductive coil collapse and or switching noise spikes and etc. generating unwanted frequency's that might interferere with final readings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l_O8vfyRu0

I am glad to see that there are still people that do not take other's (pre-historic) words just for granted.
I have had it happen so many times i believed someone for a long time untill the day came experiments showed it all to be entirely different.
So i changed from listening to other to seeing is believing.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Acoustic magnetic generator. (Read 133026 times)

magpwr

Re: Acoustic magnetic generator.

tim123

Re: Acoustic magnetic generator.

tim123

Re: Acoustic magnetic generator.

Grumage

Re: Acoustic magnetic generator.

tim123

Re: Acoustic magnetic generator.

verpies

Re: Acoustic magnetic generator.

verpies

Re: Acoustic magnetic generator.

verpies

Re: Acoustic magnetic generator.

ambadytesla

Re: Acoustic magnetic generator.

synchro1

Re: Acoustic magnetic generator.

synchro1

Re: Acoustic magnetic generator.

synchro1

Re: Acoustic magnetic generator.

MasterPlaster

Re: Acoustic magnetic generator.

Bruce_TPU

Re: Acoustic magnetic generator.

Turbo

Re: Acoustic magnetic generator.