To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

Storing Cookies (See : ) help us to bring you our services at . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
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: Welcome to Understanding Overunity!!!!!  (Read 79617 times)

Offline wattsup

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Welcome to Understanding Overunity!!!!!
« Reply #75 on: May 17, 2013, 03:46:41 PM »

Thanks for your post, although I am late in responding. Interesting comments indeed.
I noticed that you have your first and only post so I guess I could be talking to a ghost by now.


Here are a few problems with coils.

1) They have pri and sec winds, or they can be simply two coil windings and either can be either. But one gets a pulsing drive and we look to the other for "more" output. But the conundrum is that the primary gets energy at E and we want the sec to output energy at E x 1.01 or more. But consider this...... when or if the sec outputed more energy, it automatically becomes the pri. Yes, you read it right..... if a sec outputs more energy than the pri, it now becomes the primary. We can diode the hell out of both sides to stop this but you cannot put a diode in the transformers laminations or core materials or between the etheric coupling of the windings themselves where all this will occur. At least not as of May 17th, 2013 (as far as I know).

2) When this overunity happens, you wind up getting a hotter and hotter primary side and then, your mosfets blow up. It's as if you need to design the primary drive to the output specs. I mean that if you are designing an OU device that will input 25 watts and (hopefully) output 100 watts, the drive side needs to withstand a minimum of 100 watts if it wants to play in that ball park with that secondary. Otherwise, you are just toasting mosfets.

3) Switching is a bitch. We actually need to stop using mosfets. We need to work on a way to pulse a primary without using mosfets on that primary, either before or after, it does not matter, they will blow if you play the OU game nearing OU. Actually blown mosfets are a good sign and I have had many. hehehe

4) The way I see it is if you have a battery and take one of the leads and put it to a primary coil as lead #1, then on lead #2 of the battery you send it through a choke coil then to the other primary coil side all you will get is heat. But what if you wind a new coil over the choke and pulse that new coil to find a frequency and wattage level that acts like a blockage of energy through the choke that you can pulse, then the primary would be free to grow with the secondary until you can disconnect the battery and run off a parallel cap tank.

5) So R&D is required in possible ways to influence power going to the primary without using mosfets, relays, scrs, or whatever other discrete devices that would be in line with the primary. It does not work because if it did, your drive side would blow, and it does blow. Such a pulsing method could be called Blockage Pulsing or maybe there is already a term for it, because you would have a way to block the input without opening or closing a physical or discrete inline switch.

6) Another pulsing method would be like when you pulse one coil and hold another coil with a parallel LED near the pulsed coil and see the LED lights up, like in my Pulsing Coil youtubes. Why not replace the LED with a primary of an OU device? hehehe

So there is not only coil to coil topology but pulsing strategy that needs to be totally reworked.

7) Then comes the frequency hunting. Right now we have a drive circuit and then we put our FG to the mosfet base and start hunting for the best output that we often call the "resonant" point. But hear again something is very wrong in this method. When I put up my youtube of the diode carousel it was to show that every build has its preferred diode and the output differences are impressive indeed. But the problem goes even deeper then that.  In sweeping this one mosfet base, as I go higher and high in frequency, the actual applied energy goes lower and lower so the actual applied energy is not the same during all the sweep.

 8) I am not an EE in any standard level but here goes a simple example.

If I ask a team of top EEers to design the following circuits that can be driven by my FG and output the watts and frequency ranges as follows;

a) 100 watts, 0-5,000Hz
b) 100 watts, 5,001-25,000Hz
c) 100 watts, 25001-100,000Hz
d) 100 watts, 100,001Hz to 400,000Hz and
e) 100 watts, 400,001Hz to 1,000,000Hz

Chances are they will design 5 almost identical circuits with only the changes required to the individual components. By contrast, what we do now is use one circuit and sweep all the way up to a 1 megahertz (50Mhz in my case), expecting that the circuit will accommodate all the required changes to do the job at the same applied energy state.

So technically speaking, if you or I wanted to sweep up to 1MHz, you would need 5 circuits (or more, or less) that are switched in and out of the main circuit automatically as the frequency rises. So the advent of finding the right drive spec for any given circuit that includes coiling is so remote in the way we would consider our present "advanced" methods (one FG, one drive circuit to coiling), that we are really in the monostate of pioneering times. Once guys can figure this out, sweep pulsing for hunting purposes will have taken a major leap forward. It would be just like my diode carousel where I switch diodes while a test is running to find the best diode, it would require the same for caps, resistors, mosfets or switchers, etc, etc. With that type of flexibility, the hunting skills would be multiples greater and not the shot-in-the-dark methods we use today. This is only for R&D purposes. Once you find the right mixes, you can then work on a fixed system with a finer variability of the mosfet base to really hone in on the effect and chances are that blown mosfets will have dropped by a good 90%. You can't loose all the fizzy fun now can you? hehehe.

I was planning on starting my Primer Fields test but realizing that pulsing is the most deficient part on any experiment, I have decided to work on alternative pulsing methods for now. As far as I can now state that this is the key to OU when you consider all the other variables that experimentation has scrutinized, the only real constant is the usage of mosfets type components that just do not work to OU level. So we need new switching methods that are less intrusive to the mutual pri/sec exchanges.

More soon on alternative switching methods for OU research. I think this is where we need to work really hard.


PS1: Re: Tesla's "COIL FOR ELECTRO-MAGNETS" thread. Keep going. Just know that when Tesla made the pancake coil, pancakes are rarely served one on a plate. A mountain of pancakes makes for a very hefty breakfast. But my question is this. If capacitors discharge at connection and if inductors discharge at disconnection, when does the pancake coil discharge? Would it discharge at both connection and disconnection and how would that show if proven. If Tesla says the pancake coil replaces a capacitor, then the coil has to have the same overall attributes as a capacitor, while being an inductor. hehehe
« Last Edit: May 17, 2013, 09:15:34 PM by wattsup »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Welcome to Understanding Overunity!!!!!
« Reply #76 on: May 17, 2013, 04:44:35 PM »
A tank circuit has capacitance and inductance, and a coil alone also has both. Capacitance and inductance make a coil to have _reactance_ which is a component of the total _impedance_ that a coil or tank presents to an incoming bit of power. The other component is the DC resistance. Power is dissipated in the DC resistance, and the longer the wire the greater the DC resistance.
Capacitive reactance and inductive reactance behave oppositely as frequency is increased. This means for any given combo of inductance and capacitance, there is some frequency that gives the _minimum_ total reactance from these two sources.
If your goal is to reduce power losses, you want the shortest wire length possible (minimum DC resistance). If you want also to reduce the rise and fall times of the power in the coil, you want minimum inductance and capacitance. But if you are Tesla, you also want low frequencies of operation and high power transfer between the resonating coils. If you are looking to get all these things together (minimum DC resistance, and operating at the frequency that produces the minimum total reactance from the inductors and capacitors) you will do what Tesla did: You'll wind up using a big primary coil of few turns, bifilar wound if possible but with external caps if necessary, so that you get minimum power lost to resistance, a low frequency of resonance and minimum total reactance from the inductance and capacitance.

Offline wattsup

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Welcome to Understanding Overunity!!!!!
« Reply #77 on: March 15, 2014, 08:37:43 PM »

Some @members had PM'd me asking where I have been for the last few months so I decided to post this here on my own thread.

For guys that are not aware, I built a garage during last autumn. This was the hardest build (even if not OU related) I ever made. My only regret is I should have tied all the foundation rebars together with some good copper wire and have two leads coming out of the concrete. That would have been a good angle for other tests. Maybe a foundation coil. hahaha

As you can see, I designed and built this garage in not so standard method because I wanted something that would be easy to keep warm in the winter and cool in the summer. I challenged myself that the build would include only one cement pour, something that everyone I talked to that does construction told me is impossible. hehehe. Not so man!

It is actually better built then my home. So the garage is now a great space and will allow me to eventually have a press drill and some other good machining tools for bigger projects plus a space to try out motor to motor works.

Most importantly the garage attic space allowed me to store lots of home effects in order to then increase my office/lab space in the home.

Now that I am all set-up, I will be back on the forum to advance this thread.


Offline wattsup

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: Welcome to Understanding Overunity!!!!!
« Reply #78 on: March 16, 2014, 04:02:10 PM »

@Grummage and @all

This post is relative to your thread entitled Re: Akula0083 30 Watt Self Running Generator located here.....

You look at past works and how they are portrayed and this will give you a basis for present work from Akula. He has always drawn his coils as they are. If that E-core had anything else but one wind left and another wind right, I am so sure Akula would have drawn it in his circuit just to save a million questions from potential replicators, so I am convinced the @T1000 coil wind method is not right. Just follow the diagram as it is shown.

Also, doubling the frequency means nothing . The flux path of the E core will not react in a greater way. You are simply making double the frequency most likely this is cutting the amplitude in half because you are creating cancellation points from both sides of the center core. Doubling the frequency means you have half the time to produce the same voltage rise but if that rise is not twice the intensity your voltage will drop from its original point to half. Pulse frequency and amplitude is everything. The higher the frequency, the less time you have to produce the same spike. That's why if the amplitude does not increase as the frequency increases, the waveform will drop. Also in almost all coils with a core, you will hear a squealing sound anywhere between 150 and 6000 hertz but this does not mean you are at a sweet spot.

What I think is you are mistaking how Akula winds his air core towers and how he winds his transformers. You can wind air cores in a million ways and always expect an effect once you find that sympathetic frequency. But with a core, there is no million ways. The flux, its limitations to augment on pulse and then to try and reset or return to neutral bias on off pulse all come into play. The core needs to be told to swing one way, then it also has to be told to swing the other way. It does not just revert back like a spring. Air cores do not work in the same way at all.

Why do you think Tesla was so happy when he invented AC. At last he had both a positive and a negative signal alternating so his core would not only be pulsing but undergoing a forced rebiasing at the same time. Less heat more action. Unfortunately I am sure Tesla was not 100% happy because like DC, his AC is only active on one side of the coil since the other side always stays neutral and the side receiving the AC swing is happening gradually, sloping up then sloping down. For coils, there is better then AC and DC but that could be discussed on another day. hehehe

No matter what Akulas' device does more special then others, it has to involve alternating a north and a south field in proximity of a secondary. But DC starts at 0, not at any minus voltage. So how can it rebias the core and the atoms in the copper to get them fully ready for the next pulse. That is the Achilles heel of our DC coils is getting the flux in, then out, to have clear path again for the next in. If the out is not complete, then the core cannot create a maximum flux change and your secondary will only feel the lazy changes and not the extreme changes plus the core will heat up.

I think the copper strip is used to do that. You put in a pulse and when it is off, the copper strip may help sink out the flux as fast as possible so the next on pulse has a clear slate to once again re-energize the core.

For the normal EEer designing devices for our normal daily use, yes they have concern of energy consumption but their concerns are not the same as ours. Where they look to destroy havoc, we look to take advantage of it. Where they choke, we want to spike. Where they dampen, we want to increase.

I am including a link, located on my fpt OU web site, of a pdf on cores that I find is one of the best I have read. Lots of math but if you know how to read between the lines, you will understand more about the core. From this pdf, and the descriptions of the materials, I think the #18 will be the best as an overall performer but the top EEers here may have other opinions.

Another point.

Always remember that capacitors discharge when connected and inversely, inductors (coils) also discharge but only when disconnected. This means never disconnect the transformer while it is in operation because this could toast your circuit. Always wait till everything is turned off before disconnecting the main inductor. I have toasted one regular FG (16.5v at mA) plus one big FG (100v at 1 amp), power supplies, big powers supplies that prove this one fact. You get caught up in the moment, pull a wire and zapola, the FG or power supply is toast.

The other point is this. Your output is your only way of judging how well your unit is working. I will always use a capacitor with a diode on the output to let the output load the capacitor. Then if the energy increase is enough you can put an LED (one or more) across the cap with your volt meter as well. Now this is the best way to see how the output is performing and changing as you play with adjustments. But the output diode you will use is the most important part of your system because if you have the wrong one, it could give you 1 volt loading on the cap while the best diode can give you 20 volts loading under the same conditions.

Seems like this has not set into the minds of OU researchers yet, but I am always trying to push this as the most important part of your system. We work our asses off to produce output at which point most neglect the output diode choice. Just a crazy way to work. Just look at my youtube here for the umpteenth time;

If this part of your R&D is just relying on one available diode, then you may as well just stop working in OU because chances are that the best results from your experiments will never be known or manifest. You look at a circuit diagram that has no model numbers. It says diode, so you take any diode, do the test and it does not work so you say "this test shows this circuit does not work". But that is not the case. It only shows that this diode does not work. You need to try a good 10 different diode models to make sure and I don't really care how experienced you are in EE or if you say "I'm using a fast acting diode". Now if you make any further changes on the circuit and redo the test, you will have to hunt again for that best output diode. Even if you find that the same diode is the best with the circuit changes, YOU STILL HAVE TO TRY THEM ALL TO MAKE SURE. That's how you learn and find new things. It is the methodical process of investigation that will help you learn the effects. Sometimes the smallest comparison can offer the greatest insight.

Also, at this stage when just pulsing a coil and checking output, you should not use a ready made bridge rectifier. You need to do as above. Once you find the right single diode, you can always make your own rectifier using four of the same. These ready made bridge rectifiers are good when you are working at 60 hz or when output efficiency is not a concern, but as soon as you start working at higher pulse frequencies, they are simply not worth relying on for true results unless you make a Diode Carousel with 10 different bridge rectifiers to find the best one. Hmmmmm.

I'll repeat. Most of our works involve making a set-up then hunting for the right frequency, but we then neglect to hunt for the right output diode. Once you have identified the right frequency because the scope waveform found a peak setting with any diode, you need to then hunt for the best diode at that point. Then you can work to make it in a stand alone circuit. Neglect the diode hunt and you are again working blind or at best working with a possible major handicap. It's like driving a car with low air in the tires. Well the car will roll but you are not going to win any awards.

If a circuit diagram shows a specific diode model, just know that this model is not identified just for fun and that any other diode may not necessarily work in its place. Diodes are as different in reaction times as there are different women on this planet. hehehe One is more or less finicky then the next and usually only one will be the "right" one for you. I pronounce you Man and diode. You may kiss the output. hahaha

Another point. You have a primary coil wound on a core. You now have two ends to the coil. One end is closest to the core or the first layer or let's now call it the Primary Core Layer (PCL) end and the other end is the farthest away from the core, Primary Outer Layer (POL). So you have this pulse system that produces your make/break. But which side of the primary do you want to make/brake is a very important consideration. Yes, you need to test pulsing from each side and compare results, but, technically, you're best side to produce your make/break at the Primary Core Layer. That will be the coil end that experiences the most change to happen nearest the core because the other side is always connected to the same unchanging signal.

I have come to realize that all coils suffer from what I call Half Coil Syndrome (HCS). (I believe that's why Tesla invented AC as a semi-solution). At best, only half the total wind is in active changing mode while the other half is the support half that just does not change as much. I will start covering these points when I continue my Understanding Overunity thread in the coming days. So consider this........When you have one primary, half is active but if you put two primaries in series, now one complete primary will be active because that complete primary is half of the total series primaries that the pulse will still consider as being one complete primary. So what will happen when your primary is totally active over a core? hehehe

Last last point. Many guys will pulse a coil and put their scope probe at one side of the coil and they see this waveform. Many think that this waveform is homogeneous across the full length of the coil so they think that is what's going on in the coil. Not so man. What you are seeing is the energy and frequency at that specific point and no where else. Put your probe on the other side of the coil and see for yourself. Or include several taps in the coil and put the scope on those points (only use the probe without the ground)) and you will see how the energy decreases as you get further into the coil. So in your mind you have to think that there is a gradual change in the initial impulse. This is very common unless you are working at much higher frequencies in which case most all components will show the frequency.

More to come.


Offline justvolts

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Welcome to Understanding Overunity!!!!!
« Reply #79 on: June 09, 2022, 01:05:16 PM »
Love your work, will be onboard asap,  trying to navigate this site to be able to upload a vid, i have learnt from you guys for years it fascinates me. especially that igniter patent gifted from Tesla.   My vid replaces the hv coil with a center tapped 240/3636. g8results but i need more help on how to discharge the 60 v 16000 uf cap. at what speed?  and into what transformer.  vid coming and many more.  am prob in the wrong topic for this but will soon learn.  am from NZ so plan to succeeeeed.