Free Energy  searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: Gothic on May 12, 2016, 12:28:25 AM

Website is gone and this doc is copyright 18 years, so posting shouldn,t be a problem.
If there is a problem i,ll remove or the admin will.
Simply for discussion

Thanks for posting that.
This video appears to be related to the first part of that document.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy2GvLxgSHA

Hi folks, Hi gothic, thanks for sharing.
Hi magnaprop, thanks for sharing that video.
The man in the video makes some very good, simple observations.
Is it possible, to then take those 2 caps. and put them in parallel and then use a dcdc converter to fully charge another single, 2.7 volt350 farad capacitor and start the whole process over again and at least keep it going a few times.
The 2 caps in parallel would equal 700 farads at 1.26 volts or greater.
This needs to be tested i think.
peace love light

I posted this there:
so in the beginning you have 2.52 V and at the end of vid you have 1.40+1.34= 2.74 V. that´s not half voltage in each cap, that is more total voltage than at the start. . . incomprehensible !
Suppose the video goes on until the voltage in caps is same, ¿would it not be 1.37 Volts in each cap ?
I do not see those 1.26 anywhere. ???

verry interesting!
:)
Thanks for sharing!

Well,so he ended up with more than half the energy in the two caps combined to that of what he started with.
So 2.52 volts across 350F=1111.32 joules of energy in one cap,and none in the other.
The end result was
Cap 1 1.468v across 350F= 377.129 joules
Cap 21.273v across 350F= 283.593 joules.
Total =660.722 joules
If we double this,we have 1321.444 joules.
So yes,he lost less than the half expected.
But there is also one other thing to take into account>the little motor was running the whole time,and there for was also dissipating power the whole time current was flowing through it,by way of resistive heat loss.
Dont tell the EE guy's,they will start doing back flips.
Great job guys.
Brad

Well,so he ended up with more than half the energy in the two caps combined to that of what he started with.
So 2.52 volts across 350F=1111.32 joules of energy in one cap,and none in the other.
The end result was
Cap 1 1.468v across 350F= 377.129 joules
Cap 21.273v across 350F= 283.593 joules.
Total =660.722 joules
If we double this,we have 1321.444 joules.
So yes,he lost less than the half expected.
Yes, I get that we would need about 1.782V to be left in each capacitor to equal the same energy (Joules) we started with.
Okay, screw energy for a moment and just focus on charge:
T_{Start}
C_{1}  2.52V  882 Coulombs
C_{2}  0.0V  0 Coulombs
Q_{Total}: 882 Coulombs
T_{Final}
C_{1}  1.468V  513.8 Coulombs
C_{2}  1.273V  445.55 Coulombs
Q_{Total}: 959.35 Coulombs
So how in the heck do we gain charge, but lose energy? Isn't this an entirely "closed loop" system? Charge just jumps in there as energy is split into two chunks? If we had a system that took charge in two clumps and put them into one clump, would we gain energy and lose charge?
I need a better way to interpret these results Brad. What is the correct way to think about this simple system? Apparently you cannot think of energy like water and capacitors like buckets. This is so very fundamental, I'd hate to waste this moment and beat my head against the wall for another ten years.
M@

Yes, I get that we would need about 1.782V to be left in each capacitor to equal the same energy (Joules) we started with.
Okay, screw energy for a moment and just focus on charge:
T_{Start}
C_{1}  2.52V  882 Coulombs
C_{2}  0.0V  0 Coulombs
Q_{Total}: 882 Coulombs
T_{Final}
C_{1}  1.468V  513.8 Coulombs
C_{2}  1.273V  445.55 Coulombs
Q_{Total}: 959.35 Coulombs
So how in the heck do we gain charge, but lose energy? Isn't this an entirely "closed loop" system? Charge just jumps in there as energy is split into two chunks? If we had a system that took charge in two clumps and put them into one clump, would we gain energy and lose charge?
I need a better way to interpret these results Brad. What is the correct way to think about this simple system? Apparently you cannot think of energy like water and capacitors like buckets. This is so very fundamental, I'd hate to waste this moment and beat my head against the wall for another ten years.
M@
Im not even going to pretend i know how that works.
C is I x time,where as Joules is watts per second> 1 joule is 1 watt second.
Looks odd when we look at energy stored in cap's
Example
1 volt over 1 Farad= 1 coulomb of charge,but only 500mJ of energy
2 volts over 1 Farad =2 coulombs of charge,and 2 joules of energy
3 volts over 1 Farad =3 coulombs of charge,but now the energy is higher at 4.5 joules.
As we go on,the charge always is the same as the voltage across the cap. If you double the size of the cap,you double the value of charge and energy.
So if we had 3 volts across a 2 Farad cap,we have 6 coulombs of charge,and 9 joules of energy.
I am not sure why at a low voltage,the charge is a higher value than the joules value,and then they switch places as you raise the voltage,where the joules of energy becomes more than the charge value.
I have never had the need to understand or study this situationJoules V charge,so i can t offer any help there.
Brad

Im not even going to pretend i know how that works.
I have never had the need to understand or study this situationJoules V charge,so i can t offer any help there.
Thank you for giving it a go Brad.
I thought about this all nightcharge being the derivative of energy, mathematically. It kind of seems like energy is stored in a capacitor under pressure, with charge being the medium being compressed. I suppose there is a way to associate this with an inductor too, but I haven't made any attempt yet to try it. I did some plots of energy (and charge) transfer between two capacitors, focusing on the breakeven point and the curves have some interesting characteristicsmuch like transferring air between two scuba tanks.
What seems so strange is the actual term "energy". It's almost as if this is a completely fabricated term, having a very ambiguous meaning, at least in respect to electricity. We don't actually transfer energy at all, we transfer some medium (charge, voltage, whatever) and in doing so, we can say it took energy to accomplish. Then of course if it took some amount of time from start to finish, we can say "power" was involved.
Anyway, to quote ol' Ken Wheeler, it's all a bit of a "mind screw". Hands on the bench is the only way to come to grips with it.

Charge is conserved, as is energy. What may _not_ be conserved is the capacitance value of large capacitors, which may vary somewhat according to all kinds of things, like temperature, pressure, voltage, chargedischarge currents, number of CD cycles, etc.
Think about it.
As far as mentioning Kenny Wheeler goes.... even a broken clock could be right twice a day... unless it's a digital clock.

Charge is conserved, as is energy. What may _not_ be conserved is the capacitance value of large capacitors, which may vary somewhat according to all kinds of things, like temperature, pressure, voltage, chargedischarge currents, number of CD cycles, etc.
Think about it.
I have...
displacement current is a quantity appearing in Maxwell's equations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations) that is defined in terms of the rate of change of electric displacement field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_displacement_field). Displacement current has the units of electric current density (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_density), and it has an associated magnetic field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field) just as actual currents do. However it is not an electric current of moving charges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge), but a timevarying electric field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field).
and as for the term "energy" to quote Tom Beardon "I didn,t axe you what it does i axed you what it was"

Awesome replies, keep it up
This is a work in progress...

Charge is conserved, as is energy. What may _not_ be conserved is the capacitance value of large capacitors, which may vary somewhat according to all kinds of things, like temperature, pressure, voltage, chargedischarge currents, number of CD cycles, etc.
Think about it.
I sure looks like charge is conserved from what I can see in my experiments. Energy on the other hand, looks to be consumed in the process of moving charge.
As far as mentioning Kenny Wheeler goes.... even a broken clock could be right twice a day... unless it's a digital clock.
So true and I'm glad you mentioned it because surely in your many hours of building and testing have come across a few bread crumbs that would really be helpful to some of us. If you ever care to toss a few my way where I can find them, I wouldn't mind following a trail. Getting to a point in my life where working and watching the mountains of BS pileup just isn't all that much fun anymore.
Awesome replies, keep it up
This is a work in progress...
My, isn't that interesting. Looks almost identical to what I have on my bench at the moment.
We can't leave out the Russians, so take a peak at this vid and think about converting it to an electric device.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11r3E4eia0U
Hmmm, a charge pump and the faster you spin it, the more charge it moves. Any chance the capacitors would fill up?
Maybe one of them...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LjmdygDs8

Funny how the mind works, several times I looked over the pdf posted and at the " buzzer"
experiment I always saw 4700 uf capacitors being used, but only c1 and c2 are, c3 is
470... O.K. not as hopeful as I was before, damn.
p.s. I did the experiment with all three caps 400v 2500 uf and did not get the "overvoltage"
on c3 as is claimed in the pdf

Im not even going to pretend i know how that works.
C is I x time,where as Joules is watts per second> 1 joule is 1 watt second.
No, those two statements are not the same thing. "Joules is watts per second" is wrong. 1 joule is one wattsecond is right. "Wattsecond" actually means Watt times second.
Watt=Joule/second, so Joule = Watt x Second.
The word "per" generally indicates a division operation, as in "Kilometers per hour".... you go 300 km PER 5 hours, how do you find your speed in Km per hour... you divide 300/5 = 60 km per hour.
A watt is a Joule per second. One joule of energy passing your measurement point PER second of time. This is a measurement of power. The more joules of energy per second, the more power.
A Joule is NOT a "watt per second". The only way that statement can make sense is describing a rate of change of power, like if you had a circuit that draws one Watt in the first second, two Watts in the second second, three Watts in the third second, and so on... this would be a change in power of one watt per second. Think of turning up a Variac slowly with a light bulb on the output.
You have "C= I x Time" while correct, is kind of misleading. Yes, I (current in Amperes) is equal to Coulombs per second, or rearranging as you have it Coulombs = Amperes x Seconds .... but you are using "C" here to mean Coulombs, where in other places in this discussion "C" is commonly used to represent Capacitance in Farads.
For example we say Q=CV when we mean Coulombs of charge = Capacitance times Voltage.
But then we also use "Q" as a symbol for the "quality" factor of a coil or resonant system, where it has nothing to do with Q= charge in Coulombs.
Looks odd when we look at energy stored in cap's
Example
1 volt over 1 Farad= 1 coulomb of charge,but only 500mJ of energy
2 volts over 1 Farad =2 coulombs of charge,and 2 joules of energy
3 volts over 1 Farad =3 coulombs of charge,but now the energy is higher at 4.5 joules.
As we go on,the charge always is the same as the voltage across the cap. If you double the size of the cap,you double the value of charge and energy.
So if we had 3 volts across a 2 Farad cap,we have 6 coulombs of charge,and 9 joules of energy.
I am not sure why at a low voltage,the charge is a higher value than the joules value,and then they switch places as you raise the voltage,where the joules of energy becomes more than the charge value.
I have never had the need to understand or study this situationJoules V charge,so i can t offer any help there.
Brad
The energy, in Joules, on a capacitor goes linearly with capacitance but goes as the square of the voltage: E=(CV^{2})/2
So if you double the voltage the energy goes up by 2^{2} or 4 times, but if you double the capacitance the energy goes up by 2.
The charge Q in Coulombs on a capacitor goes linearly with voltage and capacitance: Q=CV, or rearranging algebra, C=Q/V or V=Q/C. So of course for a 1 F capacitor, V=C numerically.
Taking both sets of relationships together you can get the full set of numerical values relating E (Joules), C (Farads), V (Volts), and Q (Coulombs).

Funny how the mind works, several times I looked over the pdf posted and at the " buzzer"
experiment I always saw 4700 uf capacitors being used, but only c1 and c2 are, c3 is
470... O.K. not as hopeful as I was before, damn.
p.s. I did the experiment with all three caps 400v 2500 uf and did not get the "overvoltage"
on c3 as is claimed in the pdf
Try turning the diode around. This may work, it may not. But in any case the C3 capacitor should be only 1/10 the capacitance value of the other two capacitors.

Quote from TK
"The energy, in Joules, on a capacitor goes linearly with capacitance but goes as the square of the voltage: E=(CV2)/2
So if you double the voltage the energy goes up by 22 or 4 times, but if you double the capacitance the energy goes up by 2. "
There is a parallel in kinetics which is Ek = 1/2mv^2.... Kinetic energy = 1/2 Mass x velocity^2
.....................
The kinetic energy of a 50 kg mass traveling at 20 meters per second is
Ek = 1/2 • 50kg • (20m/s)^2 ..... 1/2 • (50kg • 400m/s) ..... 1/2 • 20000 = 10000 joules.
.....................
Twice the mass = 2 times the kinetic energy.
The kinetic energy of a 100kg mass traveling at 20 meters per second is
Ek = 1/2 • 100kg • (20m/s)^2 ..... 1/2 • (100kg • 400m/s) ..... 1/2 • = 40000 joules.
.....................
.....................
Twice the speed = 4 times the kinetic energy. (the velocity increase squared or 2 squared)
The kinetic energy of an 50 kg mass traveling at 40 meters per second (twice the velocity) is
Ek = 1/2 • 50kg • (40m/s)2 ..... 1/2 • (50kg • 1600m/s) ..... 1/2 • 80000 = 4000 joules
4000 joules is 4 times 1000 joules.
.....................

Sorry that's
Ek = 1/2 • 100kg • (20m/s)2 ..... 1/2 • (100kg • 400m/s) ..... 1/2 • 40000= 20000 joules.

Hi T.K. thanks for the tip, but there,s no point in doing
the test again. I had originally thought all three caps
were of the same value, so when an overvoltage was shown
in cap 3 that got my nickers in a twist, being that
capacitance is a surface area value, a higher voltage
with the same uf seemed like a done deal. but... not...
Oh well back to reading Stienmetz lectures... here,s an
interesting table from within the pdf.
"Elementary Lectures on Electric Discharges, Waves and
impulses, and other transients"
by Charles Proteus Steinmetz.
Very dry but I hope to gain some insight
@floor are you calculating the contact mass of the solenoid
i,m confused and impressed... i,m FLOORed ;D
p.s. here,s an interesting page http://www.ovaltech.ca/energy/energy2.html

@Gothic
Quote from Gothic
quote "floor are you calculating the contact mass of the solenoid, i,m confused and impressed... i,m FLOORed" end quote.
I'm confused as well what solenoid ? No need to answer that.
My semi botched post was just a note to fellow explorers, that are closer to my level of knowledge.
(not intended to offend the more experienced among us, who are undoubtedly, already aware of such parallels)
Thanks for the link
ground level  not better than  bottom line  sometimes squeaking  yeah sometime decking
best wishes
floor

Finished reading the Steinmetz lectures v1, admittedly skimming through most
of the math... from what I gather is pretty much what tesla has already
wrote about and that is the switching on a circuit when high tension is
present or switching off a circuit at highest peak... essentially the
speed of make or break is what causes higher than source voltage in a
transformer or field windings, the lectures were concerned about this
because of the potential breakdown of wire insulators...
Refer to pictures, The line discharger is a possible remedy to extract
this induced voltage but stop any current "Voltage is cheap"

@ Gothic
Steinmetz aey ? Where did you find the pdf ?
When I was 10 or 12 years old, I used to walk around the neighborhood
with a solenoid strapped to my back, 2 D cells in a card board tube in series
and one wire down each of my sleeves. The solenoid was scrapped from
a washing machine (door lock) Some times I 'd get as many as 6
or 8 kids to hold hands in a circle and shock us all. I asked my uncle who
was a t.v. repairman why it worked with just 1 coil, and he said it was a fly back
coil. wow !
Any ways, one of the things I noticed was, that sometimes the device sparked
a lot stronger than at other times. A second observation was, that you got the shock
when contact was broken. A quick clean break gave the best shock.
A more rapidly collapsing magnetic field = a higher voltage spike ? But I'm still some
what puzzled as to how the speed of contact break can vary so much as it does when
manally strokeing two wires together.
Any ways again, what kinds of exploration / areas are you interested in primarrily ?
Floor

Hello again floor, i,m replying as a courtesy, (i,ve been up for almost two days , caffeine helps :o )
so if this post seems rude it,s unintentional.
.
well to start off i find things like this fascinating https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOsmEjx6MnA (there is a wire)
The goal is portability, scalability... or being able to "bug out" on a whim and not be forced into a survival situation
but live within the bounds of nature that only understanding of it can provide as this quote from tom beardon
"nature will allow you to do anything you are clever enough to figure out, nature has been most kind" That,s not
an exact quote but close...
in other words a home based power system to run things like, a refrigerator, an electric water pump, hydroponic greenhouse,
anything that can be done with labor saving devices. in a E.L.E saving calories is critical.
Or perhaps I just want a breath of fresh air, away from it all. Here is an example from personal experience, Long story short
I used to be an an avid listener to "Alternative news" years when the patriot movement was legitimate, It has morphed into
a pile of false prophets swimming in cesspools... (enough of that crap) since then I quit listening to radio, radio news, television
news etc... and I feel better for it... and if there was a legitimate way to create electricity, I would not be online...
I would like to do this before I,m to damn old to care...
plus i would show neighbors how it is done if they were interested...
I,ve got to go, the lamp oil is just about gone...

... and if there was a legitimate way to create electricity, I would not be online...
I would like to do this before I,m to damn old to care...
plus i would show neighbors how it is done if they were interested...
I,ve got to go, the lamp oil is just about gone...
I 100% agree Gothic. Lets see if we can find a way to go offline together.
This little electromechanical device has my interest at the moment. Supposedly
it shuttles charge backnforth through the stepdown transformer without depleting
the initial charge connected to the rotating shaft with capacitor plates.
I'll try to do some testing with a prototype and let you know what I discover.

I just happen to have some adjustable caps that will work,
I.ll try it out myself, will be gone for a few days so i,ll be
back in a few days, awesome concept...
p.s. still groggy can,t write very well......

Note to self: don,t post while half asleep :[
Hey DogOne that pic you posted inspired me to pick up an old design from a few
years ago, I,ll post it here, it,s not finished yet, it kind of works with lenz law...
(man i,m still freaking tired)

Note to self: don,t post while half asleep :[
Do get some rest and recharge. Attached is another image to dream about.
Hey DogOne that pic you posted inspired me to pick up an old design from a few
years ago, I,ll post it here, it,s not finished yet, it kind of works with lenz law...
(man i,m still freaking tired)
Don't take this image literally because I think it has some errors, especially the caption
at the bottom. Me thinks there is a massless type of current that behaves quite differently
from the typical electron current that has with it the dreaded back EMF issues. The
capacitor looking gizmo in the middle may actually be what Tom Bearden referred to
as a Charge Blocking Device, meaning it stops electron flow, but actual massless charge
can get through it. If this happens to not be all bullshit, then we might just have a
means to power a load without pushing back on the power source. From there, closed
loop operation should be a piece of cake.
Doing lots of experiments at the moment trying to wrap my head around this. My first
tests where interesting. I was getting up to 100+ amp impulses from just a simple
neon sign transformer. Where it got weird is I completely disconnected and shunted
the scope probes and still got 30 amps from the spikes. This was with an isolated power
source and terminators on the scope inputs. So I asked myself how in the hell that
was possible. The only thing I can think of is the 6000 volts I was using moves charge
everywhere. It doesn't care about shielding. It reacts with the components on the
circuit board of my scope from four feet away no problem. Massless displacement
current? Yes, I think there may be something to this mystery.
M@

@DogOne:
That doesn't look too difficult to replicate ~ except for the MetGlas/Cobalt transformer. . . .
truesearch

I was getting up to 100+ amp impulses from just a simple
neon sign transformer.
@DogOne  Just curious.. How and where were you measuring the highcurrent spikes?

Hi folks, i had a thought to try after thinking about this thread topic.
Remember bedinis scalar charger, the one with two caps charged in parallel by a 12 volt battery and then discharged in series across the same battery.
Well, i rigged up a manual switch setup, using regular wall light switches, one single pole and the other a double pole or 3 way switch.
So i tied the two switches together, mechanically and when switches are thrown one way, it charges both 1.5 farad12 volt capacitors with a 12 volt yard light bulb in line with each capacitor.
Then, when switches are thrown the other way, both capacitors are then in series with each other, with one 12 volt bulb in line and the series capacitors charges the battery with 24 volts or so.
So far, i manually switched for an hour and the results seem rather interesting.
The battery im using, is an exide, cutting edge 12 volt235 cca.
Let me just say, so far, after lighting the bulbs dimly one way on switch throw and when caps are in series, one bulb is lighted brightly and the battery voltage is standing above what it was when i started, after 2 hours sitting.
will see what it settles to by morning.
peace love light

@DogOne  Just curious.. How and where were you measuring the highcurrent spikes?
Originally by way of a filament bulb shunt on the output transformer using a high frequency current sense transformer inline. This method has worked accurately for other measurements such as from an audio output amplifier, but is completely useless with this particular experiment. As I mentioned, I can put 50 ohm terminators on the scope probe inputs (with probes completely removed) and still get singleshot impulse readings from four feet away. In conventional terms this would be considered a highly "noisy" electrical environment. I haven't found any way to shield the scope from seeing these impulses.
So you could say I'm getting false readings yes, but the simple fact I'm getting these readings at all tells me this experiment is by no means conventional and cannot be measured and evaluated in a typical fashion. The other obvious approach is to use an analog current meter or light bulb, however the impulses are so sharp, a meter or bulb sees nothing. It's a bit like chasing a ghost at the moment. I know something is there, but how to get a picture of it...? Very elusive.
M@

Hi folks, i had a thought to try after thinking about this thread topic.
Remember bedinis scalar charger, the one with two caps charged in parallel by a 12 volt battery and then discharged in series across the same battery.
Well, i rigged up a manual switch setup, using regular wall light switches, one single pole and the other a double pole or 3 way switch.
So i tied the two switches together, mechanically and when switches are thrown one way, it charges both 1.5 farad12 volt capacitors with a 12 volt yard light bulb in line with each capacitor.
Then, when switches are thrown the other way, both capacitors are then in series with each other, with one 12 volt bulb in line and the series capacitors charges the battery with 24 volts or so.
So far, i manually switched for an hour and the results seem rather interesting.
The battery im using, is an exide, cutting edge 12 volt235 cca.
Let me just say, so far, after lighting the bulbs dimly one way on switch throw and when caps are in series, one bulb is lighted brightly and the battery voltage is standing above what it was when i started, after 2 hours sitting.
will see what it settles to by morning.
peace love light
Hello Skywatcher peruse to page 50 of this pdf where they were charging a capacitor by bringing it in close proximity to a incandescent bulb
and charging it (of course they were using a tesla pancake setup) something to experiment with, for what it,s worth,,,
http://overunity.com/16580/randombuilds/dlattach/attach/157628/
DogOne this guy is doing a "simplified setup" of a don zilano circuit, the noisy spark gap goes silent when he places a resistor on the bridge
(about halfway through the video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1x2b4RXcU0

O.K. having trouble cutting the aluminium rings, can,t get them flat enough to stack (yet), so I,m going
to test this rig using stranded wire, standard power cord. i,m trying to saturate the two coils, which
is then wrapped around the whole device with a negative charge and another separate wire which
is wrapped around the device in a bifilar fashion (Black wire) circ not done yet...
edit... this resembles a helmholtz coil except with a static coil midway

Flux Capacitor Yep a real device to interact with electrically
induced displacement current...
excerpt from article...
"What are we to make of the experimental results presented here?
on their face, they seem to be fairly straightforward, reasonably
complete case for the reality of Mach effect mass fluctuations
and the possibility of producing thrust in flux capacitor systems.
Further work will certainly show whether that is true. It is worth
noting that since the Mach effect scales linearly with the frequency
of the exciting signals when the power is held constant, the 2.5 kW
power in the device used here activating a device operating at, say,
100 MHz (with a comparable inductorcurrent amplitude) should produce
on the order of 30,000 dynes (30 grams) of thrust. This may not seem
very impressive, but it is enough, for example, to do International
Space Station reboostwith a single device without the need for
onetimeuse propellant. So, in addition to shedding light on the
origin of inertia and elementary issues of momentum conservation in
systems of this sort, flux capacitors may have a practical application
too if their operation can be successfully scaled to sufficiently high
frequencies and powers."
link to pdf... https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjbwLfWvZfNAhXF5yYKHWkOAH4QFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftransistorman.com%2Ffiles%2Ffluxcap.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFPEzkMPirTCcKBueTOTDd3tOVZDQ&bvm=bv.124088155,d.dmo
Another interesting theory...
"Vacuum Holes as Cause of Gravitation and Inertia"
excerpt from article...
"According to the theory, the artificial holes could appear in
physical processes where particles disappear very quickly; for example, holes
could appear in nuclear processes, where a particle disappears quickly from
its previous position or leaves it. For example, there is a suspicion that
holes may appear at annihilation of particleantiparticle pairs, decays and
inelastic scattering of the particles."
link to pdf... https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwik1Yytv5fNAhWK6SYKHYCHCiIQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.actaphys.uj.edu.pl%2Ffulltext%3Fseries%3DReg%26vol%3D41%26page%3D2335&usg=AFQjCNHMLTULbfWOwRfcc_smchf1PFh_tQ&bvm=bv.124088155,d.dmo

Another excerpt from vacuum holes as cause of gravitation and inertia
"The hole theory of gravitation requires only a hypothesis about the
existence of holes in quantized spacetime. An intriguing prediction of
various theories of quantum gravity and black hole physics is the
existence of a minimum measurable length. Imagine that space consists of
indivisible space cells or elementary virtual volumes dV which appear
and disappear continually. Let us notice that, if a dV vanishes then instead
a “vacant place” appears that does not possess the properties of spacetime.
What properties such vacant place could have?"
"Since it is a void or absolute vacuum, after appearance a hole must
be filled quickly by surrounding particles (by elementary particles and
space cells dV ). Since the speed of motion of these real particles is
limited by the speed of light, consequently the environment cannot fill
a hole instantaneously. It means that the hole’s lifetime is nonzero
dT > 0. Thus, holes may really exist if spacetime is made of virtual
elementary volumes dV which appear and disappear continually."
"Holes are able to move in spacetime in the same way as holes in electric
current, where electrons move in one direction and the holes move in
opposite direction."
Which is consistent with Beardons theory of a virtual particle flux
"VACUUM/SPACETIME IS PURE VIRTUAL PARTICLE FLUX (ØO )"
link http://www.cheniere.org/books/part4/s29.htm

This is off topic but still relevant. I like to look through manuals of
old (and new) general mechanisms that are proven to function as was
their original intent. Therefore no guesswork or R&D needed (Which is
time consuming and expensive), just "here is the device" and "this is
the working theory".
A couple of items "the syncrotech motor" and a diagram of a d.c.
wattmeter. It,s the working principle that helps to further understand
the mechanics of what is...
syncrotech is found in this pdf along with numerous other devices
http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/2199.pdf
d.c. wattmeter is found in this pdf along with numerous other devices
https://books.google.com/books/about/Electrical_Engineer_s_Pocket_book.html?id=9vQOAAAAYAAJ
the syncrotech is a little bit similiar to this youtube video being that
there is a permanent magnetic field perpendicular to the working field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUDnPQY6yJI

Been looking at DIY electrostatic speakers and how displacement current might play a role.
http://jazzmaneslpage.blogspot.com/2009/12/newestsegmentedesl.html (http://jazzmaneslpage.blogspot.com/2009/12/newestsegmentedesl.html)
Edit: if nothing else, they are worth building simply for the realistic sound production 8)