New theories about free energy systems > Dense aether model and scalar wave physics

Replication of Mini Radiant Exciter circuit of Nelson Rocha

<< < (8/9) > >>

Ed morbus:
Mac link not working

Vortex1:
Dear Icarus

I added the inductor in my redraw of the circuit per the observation of the axial inductor by user Zephir. It is his belief that this added inducter assists the main toroid by helping it to become a paramatric oscillator i.e. the inductance of the main toroid is controlled by the small axial inductor.

It is my belief that there may be too little effect to form a parametric oscillator, but we shall see.

I might add that user partzman and Mr. Fred Epps have performed an exhaustive study and made very exacting measurements of parametric inductor control in an oscillator circuit and have not found there to be any hint of excess power by such a configuration.
Perhaps Mr. NR has some other method that is different and yields results.

I wish to note that in his schematic TK has the  inductor  in a different  position i.e. between the collector and the CW winding of the toroid.

 The extra axial inductor (if it is assumed to be the wire that looks like it is passing through the core on the original NR drawing)  goes from the collector out to the driven devices, i.e. the step up transformer and charger bridge rectifier. This is an important difference. The collector as seen in the original NR drawing connects directly to the CW winding of the toroid.

You can try the inductor in either location, but I doubt that it will have much effect. To have a larger effect it would have to be be positioned such that it is better coupled to the toroid core as in an image posted by Zephir with a half core glued to the toroid.

I might add that it is not unusual to get ozone from the output of the step up transformer, as the peak voltage can get quite high on the secondary of the so called "radiant" output.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In drawing schematics, it would be really good if everyone would try to conform to the industry standard conventions of :

1) inputs are on the left of the drawing, including power connections
2) outputs are on the right of the drawing
3) positive power rail across the top of the drawing
4) negative power rail (or circuit common ground) across the bottom of the drawing*
5) everything else is hung between these connection points or rails.

* if there is a negative bias supply it is to be drawn beneath the circuit common.

This makes it much easier to analyze signal and power flows when studying the circuit.

I have attempted to demonstrate this art in my redraw of NR's original sketch.

It will also make your drawings look more professional as well as easier to communicate to others. With time and practice, you will be able to read any such drawing easily, without having to untangle it in your mind.

As far as possible your breadboard will then be made to conform as far as possible to the layout of the schematic drawing, making for very easy testing and troubleshooting.

Just a suggestion.

Kind Regards
Vortex1

Dog-One:

--- Quote from: Ed morbus ---Mac link not working
--- End quote ---

Try this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhin8Fji_vo

Dog-One:
Dear Vortex1,

Something to think about with the two electrolytic capacitors connected in front of the
base of the TIP122...

Is it written anywhere that the two connections on a capacitor must be charged with
opposite charge?  What would happen if you applied like-charge to each plate?  So
instead of opposite charges attracting within the capacitor, they are repelling.

Just something to ponder...

shylo:
Just create a path for both charges to flow at the same time, but use them at different times.
artv

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version