Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
New theories about free energy systems => Dense aether model and scalar wave physics => Topic started by: Zephir on April 22, 2017, 05:26:19 AM
-
This thread is the backup of thread N.R.M.R.E. An investigation (http://overunity.com/17220/n-r-m-r-e-an-investigation/msg505114/#new), which is locked from posting. Mr. Nelson Rocha (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8Bo71izl8948rCESU6x8Lg) from Portugal is currently building a Radiant collector box (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H3JMMKu-DM) a he is currently the only succesfull designer of free energy device at overunity.com. He kindly provided a scheme (http://overunity.com/17220/n-r-m-r-e-an-investigation/dlattach/attach/163395/image/) and videos (1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjK6OlYO9Aw) 2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfpG9wFw4iI) 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDbEsk89yMQ) 4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ8TX0bPCL8) 5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY3Mr2pAErw) 6 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnpB_gqH6HU) 7 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S4lCUvzn0E)) of his few prototypes of smaller device, so-called Mini Radiant Exciter circuit. He accepts donations for his research's by paypal by PayPal account (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=EZQUY2YY5F52N). This scheme has been redrawn by @itsu (http://overunity.com/17220/n-r-m-r-e-an-investigation/dlattach/attach/163402/image/) and @Dog-One (http://overunity.com/17220/n-r-m-r-e-an-investigation/dlattach/attach/163572/image/) and it has been partially replicated by @Dog-One (http://overunity.com/17220/n-r-m-r-e-an-investigation/dlattach/attach/163425/image/) and @TinselKoala (http://overunity.com/17220/n-r-m-r-e-an-investigation/dlattach/attach/163661/image/) (video (https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNeznBKAtYKPDl4bgwDBPdxm0nsR486UfOYZQPXzIV-R97b_DvH_IGb3yyaf6yiyw?key=ZF9YSUNvc0NiRnhUOFhzdlhpbW1LaGxwVUlFMnZB)).
According Nelson Rocha his effect is managed by a "parametric oscillator that regulate how stronger is the pulses applied to a coil and the frequency used". The parametric oscillators are important part of ferrorezonance and many overunity circuits. The general idea is, the energy stored within coil or transformer is proportional the current and the momentary inductance of coil. At the case of ferrite coil, this inductance can be tuned in wide range with magnetic field, which may or may not come from that coil, i.e. which can be of external origin - so it can change independently like the adjustable parameter of circuit (from this its "parametric" denomination follows).
As you can see at the picture bellow, the toroid core of Mr. Rocha is stuffed with smaller axial coil, the winding of which remains oriented perpendicularly to the winding of toroid transformer. Those who know the theory of coils probably know, that these two coils have very little chance to affect each other with voltage induced: the magnetic field of torus remains closed into itself and the magnetic field of smaller coil remains perpendicular to the toroidal one. Therefore, once the current inside the axial coil changes, then only magnetic saturation of toroidal coil can change - but no back EMF and current can be induced into it and no electric energy can get wasted within the circuit.
If the Mr. Nelson Rocha's device works as I think it works (http://overunity.com/15124/simplest-theory-of-overunity-devices-possible/), then the toroid coil gets energized when the axial coil is switched on. Its current and magnetic field saturates the ferrite within torus in such a way, its inductance remains low. Therefore low energy is actually required for raising current through toroidal coil during this period. Once the current through coil reaches its maximum, then the current inside axial coil gets switched off and the magnetic permeability of ferrite spontaneously increases, because the thermal fluctuations within material have no other option, than to reorient its magnetic domains randomly. This is spontaneous entropic process and it usually wastes energy, but in this sneaky arrangement it raises the energy of coil instead. How?
We shouldn't forget, that the toroid coil is already passed with high current from previous half of cycle, therefore the increasing permeability increases the inductance of coil and energy of magnetic flux under current given and this energy is provided with quantum fluctuations of vacuum "for free". The transformer gets charged into account of thermal fluctuations: the power returned by current back into circuit during its discharge will be higher than the power used for its charging, because its inductance modulated with axial coil will be also lower during charging of transformer than during its discharging.
Note that the current passing through small axial coil must be relatively high for to achieve saturation of both cores. There undoubtedly exist better but more complex arrangements of ferrite cores, which close magnetic circuits of both coils more consequentially. But because the axial coil is small and wound with short thick wire, its energy loses also remain low. Anyway this explains, why the circuit goes into "berserk mode" just above certain level of input power, because the saturation curve of ferrites is not linear. This saturation can be helped with additional magnet embedded into a magnetic circuit - which is the trick, which for example 2SGen of J.L. Naudin or MEG of Thomas Bearden are using.
-
The current situation is, two replicators already posted their replicas here, which is great - but these replicas don't correspond the Nelson Rocha's circuits and they omitted detail (IMO crucial, actually working principle) - which has been also neglected in all previous (equally clueless) posts about Nelson Rocha's device. Both SunDog's, both TinkelKoala's replicas (http://i.imgur.com/qNn7iOl.gif) don't contain wire passing through toroid coil (http://overunity.com/17220/n-r-m-r-e-an-investigation/dlattach/attach/163484/image//) with compare to Nelson Rocha's diagram and/or replicas - so I don't want to repeat the same mistake here again. As a theorist I'd recommend to check first, how the parametric oscillator behaves with respect to overunity.
We should therefore attach some sufficiently large toroidal coil at the board and to torture it with well defined voltage pulses from generator under oscilloscope. This toroid coil should be stuffed with another coil according to Nelson Rocha's prototype, which will be loaded with the same pulses - only delayed by phase for to prove my theorem, that the saturation of ferrite by external magnetic field during main pulse affects the BEMF energy (http://overunity.com/14847/secret-of-back-emf/), returned with main coil into circuit after pulse. I.e. to attempt to isolate and demonstrate the overunity effect, which Nelson Rocha's circuit is POSSIBLY based on. If we would have it done and this principle will be working, then the wiring of the rest of circuit may be relatively easy.
The hard-core builders can indeed still attempt for replication and reviving Nelson's Rocha circuit from scratch - but its difficult to support such an attempts with advices at distance, until we don't know, what the experimenter is actually doing. Such a complex circuit may behave like the black box and we're predestined to find its working point only by trial&error approach. And I can not still guarantee, that the circuit schemes presented in this thread really correspond the Nelson Rocha's originals from his videos. The first approach seems to be a less risky strategy for me.
The generic problem with builders at overunity.com is, they have rather tendency to replicate circuits as a whole and to solve technical details (choice of components and so on). They're explorative and opened to improvisation without strict adherence on some theory of circuit function. And vice-versa: the theorists usually don't bother with practical details and tinkering. They don't want to wait for complete replicas - but to analyze principle of function on parts of circuit first. Now we have a chance to promote cooperation of both types of people - or to continue in existing modus vivendi of this forum, which contains mixture of theoretical proposals and builder threads - both equally clueless and arguably unsuccessful for last twenty years.
The problem of this collaborative mode is, the theorists are essentially expected to tell, what the builders should exactly do - which may or may not be palatable for members, who already gained social credit with their attempts for replication here.
-
The problem of this collaborative mode is, the theorists are essentially expected to tell, what the builders should exactly do - which may or may not be palatable for members, who already gained social credit with their attempts for replication here.
Like I already told many times ;
Most of people are not interested in hard work , but instead want "baby food" in their own mouth ... Myself lose 2 years only study some aspects of that circuit , and see people already give up just because some Illustrious persons, Pout ..... In general i think this is a lost case. When happens such behavior's, i could only say that is a waste of TIME to everyone!
Nelson Rocha
-
The following is respectfully submitted:
Mr Nelson Rocha has priorly stated that his devices work by a parametric oscillator circuit.
This was quoted by Mr. Zephir in the other thread.
Mr. Zephir seems to have identified one possible means of parametric oscillator control via axial inductor within toroidal inductor possibly for use in controlling saturation of the toroidal inductor.
From here out it is simple. Mr Rocha needs to state one of two things:
!) Yes, this parametric oscillator via saturation control of toroidal inductor is one key part of the operation of my device.
2) No, saturation control via axial inductor within toroidal inductor is a visual error and assumption therefore, not part of the operation of my parametric oscillator.
Hopefully, in the interest of good scientific inquiry and procedure, Mr Rocha will answer this simple yes / no question. That would be helpful. If we do not hear from Mr. Rocha, that would be unfortunate but not in any way stopping progress.
Regards
-
Decided to withdraw from this thread !
-
Myself lose 2 years only study some aspects of that circuit , and see people already give up just because some Illustrious persons
I hope it's clear for everyone, that superficial misleading replicas have no chance to success in the same way, like none ones. What worse, bad replicas are source of misinterpretation for future, people are spreading wrong schemes all around the web and they're getting unmotivated by lack of success of their replicators. This in its consequences gets worse, than the complete lack of replicas. The bad replicas therefore serve as an important tool of propaganda for various agents and trolls (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4Hz4MQFzxCSGXcVcKaVsKA), who are driving away people from free energy research, because layman people (quite correctly) tend to believe the experimenters more, than the people who are just speculating (in both positive, both negative way).
The attempts for replications are indeed welcomed, but in this board I would to want to discourage people in asking: "And what did you actually do?" - especially the people, who also never did show any attempts for replication and who are themselves only waiting, what the other people will do for them. Such a posts are off topic, aggressively personal and subjective, they don't contribute to positive atmosphere of forum - and as such they will be deleted soon or later. Thank you for understanding in advance.
-
When happens such behavior's, i could only say that is a waste of TIME to everyone!
What I can see is, your parametric oscillator circuit has many things in common with another free energy devices (like the MEG of Thomas Bearden, Steorn Orbo and others) - so I do consider it as a sorta prototype of these devices. In addition, I like its particular construction composed of ferrite rod inserted into toroidal coil. There are many similar constructions of parametric oscillators on the web, like the MEG mentioned above or this one linked bellow. But these constructions also induce back electromotive force into main magnetic circuit - so I consider your geometry very smart and definitely worth the replication. I'll personally start experiments just with this arrangement.
In addition, the parametric oscillators work with nonlinearity of magnetization curve of ferrite in similar way, like the transistors are based on nonlinear response of base. And similarly to transistors, their working point can be adjusted with DC bias, i.e. with magnetization by attaching of permanent magnet. This magnetization will save the energy for feedback loop and it could improve the efficiency of the circuit in very simple way.
-
Dear Mr. Zephir
The attempts for replications are indeed welcomed, but in this board I would to want to discourage people in asking: "And what did you actually do?" - especially the people, who also never did show any attempts for replication and who are themselves only waiting, what the other people will do for them. Such a posts are off topic, aggressively personal and subjective, they don't contribute to positive atmosphere of forum - and as such they will be deleted soon or later. Thank you for understanding in advance.
In light of this would you like that I remove post #3, which I will do posthaste at your desire.
By the way, I am a builder / theorist, but have chosen not to clutter your or anybody's thread with my builds until I have something significant worth demonstrating. I am not a replicator in the cargo-cult sentimentality, nor do I seek social approval on forums.
I have taken the time to properly draw he schematic according to common engineering practice, so that it's operation is more easily understood to those skilled in the profession, and to include the components internal to the TIP121, which are necessary for proper understanding of the parasitic oscillation tendency of the design. Also included in the schematic is the control axial core as an option for discussion.
I will post the schematic only if it would be a help.
My only reservation with your hypothesis of the saturable core control is that the axial member is having not enough coupling to be very effective to modify the saturation of the toroidal core, as it is very different from the picture you posted in your reply #6 IMG_3331.jpg. Nevertheless, it is the leading hypothesis and worthy of further investigation.
Regards
-
the axial member is having not enough coupling to be very effective to modify the saturation of the toroidal core, as it is very different
Actually in one of his devices Nelson Rocha replaced the tiny ferrite coil with single wire threaded through toroid core. I don't think it's "visual error", as he also drew it explicitly in his diagram and he also utilized it in at least one additional prototype. Without it his remark of "parametric circuit" would also have no meaning.
In general, the overunity phenomena are anomalous and they should also utilize some anomalous configurations, which are nowhere used in classical circuits - or they would be already revealed. The only anomaly in Nelson Rocha's circuit I can see is just the ferrite coil embedded into toroid coil. Such an arrangement has no meaning from classical physics perspective, because these two coils shouldn't affect each other (very much). Many overunity circuits (MEG and others) also reduce coupling of coils by maintaining the air gaps between parts of magnetic circuits, because their purpose is to only affect magnetization - but not to induce back electromotoric force mutually. Some inventors even recommend to carefully adjust the size of air gap for to optimize the balance of these two effects. In classical circuits the air gap is used (http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Workshop/advice/coils/gap/) for to avoid the current runaway during saturation (current breaker safety of transformer in welders) of for storing energy during the primary switch on-time (flyback transformers (https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/77797/why-is-flyback-air-gap-needed-for-energy-storage)).
I also agree with you, that the single wire shouldn't affect the (saturation of) toroid too much, until it will not transfer some very fast spikes of high intensity - but it's the only clue I have in this moment. Nelson Rocha repeatedly denied the overunity function of his Mini Radiant Exciter circuit - so I think, its construction may be suboptimal being a prototype - and in this respect the usage of single wire instead of coil is still understandable. I also noted (http://overunity.com/17220/n-r-m-r-e-an-investigation/msg504360/#msg504360), that the Darlington TR1/Q1 isn't actually protected from negative voltage spikes to base (passing through C4 capacitor and R1 trimmer). The PN junction of base electrode must be very narrow for to enable carriers drift and high amplification and therefore its reverse voltage remains limited to only few volts. The diode D2/D5 protects only electrolyte capacitors but not base.
So it's possible at the end, that the main purpose of coil/wire embedded into main torrid coil is actually just to protect the base of TR1 transistor against negative spikes and it has no meaning in alleged "parametric oscillator" function. Of course it would be much simpler, if Mr. Rocha would confirm it himself - but we have to respect his attitude. I can understand that he wants to enforce people in replications of his circuit rather than borrowing it as it is.
Other than that, your diagram of Nelson Rocha's circuit will be indeed useful for everyone here and as such heartily welcomed.
-
The only anomaly in Nelson Rocha's circuit I can see is just the ferrite coil embedded into toroid coil.
I'm surprised Zephir, I thought you were more observant than that.
So you completely missed the large wire-wound resistor. Do you not think it
odd for a circuit powering a few LEDs that Nelson would have chosen such
a device unless there was a specific purpose?
Certainly you are aware these type of resistors are wound in a bucking coil
configuration. Chris Sykes spent thousands of hours attempting to explain
the significance of such an arrangement.
Or maybe I'm wrong and Nelson just used it because it was the only resistor
he had with the correct value of Ohms...
-
So you completely missed the large wire-wound resistor.. Certainly you are aware these type of resistors are wound in a bucking coil configuration.
You know, you can be ingenious as you want - but there will be always some 4-years old Asian kid at YouTube, which would handle it better.. :-) And these really smart kids have their overunity device in the kitchen already. So that thank you for your remark: I'm fond of bucking coils, but I would need to get familiar with this type of resistors more. I already dismantled/broke few of them, but they always contained just a single coil. Also, these resistors usually have high resistance and energy loses, as they weren't designed to serve as a component of resonance circuits: their resistance would probably beat the effects of their inductance. Could you link the NelsonRocha's resistor from some catalogue? It should have at least three legs, if your theory is correct. Also this resistor should be present in another NelsonRocha's circuits (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjK6OlYO9Aw).
-
The circuit as it stands is a basic blocking oscillator (aka JT) with a high gain Darlington in place of the standard single transistor used in such circuits. Due to the high gain of the TIP122, the circuit may be very prone to several parasitic oscillation points depending on the bias and other factors.
The use of the 4700 pF capacitor on the secondary of the saturating transformer T2 partially rings the secondary making it somewhat resonant.
I have redrawn the original N Rocha circuit that includes the components inside the TIP122 and the possible saturable biasing core of Zephir's hypothesis.
Here is the first draft, drawn with conventional input on left, output on right, rails at top and bottom for ease of reading.
Since the bridge rectifiers were not identified, I left them with "?"
Any errors spotted I will correct in the next release. ?
From the waveforms I've seen thus far in others replications, the circuit can be unstable (depending on bias setting) and will tend to bounce between several operating modes at the slightest external interference or synchronization with ambient externally generated frequencies or static magnetic fields large enough to couple to the core.
Regards
Edit: drawing revised to NR ver 1.01
-
Hi Vortex1 - and thank You very much for your circuit and detailed description of it. 8)
Now I think we have state-of art formulation of the problem and we can start with its analysis.
From your scheme follows clearly, that the primary of T1 transformer is directly connected to +Source of DC circuit.
Which is strange, because such a transformer would suffer with high DC bias current at the case of failure of oscillations (it's primary of Tesla coil with no reactance for DC current). What's worse, it can work only when the power source will get shorted with Q1 Darlington transistor - with consequences for all components in the circuit.
It could explain why @Dog-One's replica stopped work so soon and maybe it could even explain the purpose of 20 W resistor, which @Dog-One pointed above and which isn't actually labeled in yours/Mr. Rocha's diagrams. Constant voltage source cannot be shorted with transistor without some protection or punishment. Anyway, this would be very unusual and ugly design.
-
From your scheme follows clearly, that the primary of T1 transformer is directly connected to +Source of DC circuit.
Maybe take Vortex1's image, draw a red path that shows this short. Or not, because there is no short.
This circuit only draws a few milliamps of power. How would I know that? I built it and tested it.
Certainly not Vortex1 and I's first rodeo. This is why I stressed in Grumage's thread that everyone
should build this very simple circuit--it has basic electronics as well as some more advanced concepts.
I guess we need to twist your arm Zephir. You can't run until you at least learn to walk.
-
I would like to add that T1 is being charged with current just like T2 when Q1 turns on.
In a normal blocking oscillator the current through T2 would reach a point where the core would saturate, therefore base drive of Q1 would go to zero, and Q1 would turn off, then the cycle would repeat.
Because Q1 draws so much current as it is driving essentially two transformers in tandem, it was necessary to use a Darlington TIP122 which has very high current gain. In this way the blocking oscillator could run normally and not run out of base drive current.
Regarding the 15 Ohm 20 Watt resistor. If one were to use such a resistor near it's rating one would have to anticipate a DC or RMS current of 1.155 Amps running through it and expect a Voltage across it of 17.32V. This seems ridiculous to waste so much power to light a tiny LED.
Also regarding Dog-One's comment about bucking windings, all of the ones I have taken apart are straight wound types. I admit there may be special non-inductive types that use a reverse winding, but this resistor does not look like that type.
Usually these cement cased resistors have cement fill on one side (the side facing the PC board). It is easy to hollow out the cement filled portion and there would be ample room to put a long battery or a stack of button cells. I'm not saying this was done however for future reference for anyone dishonest who wants to make youtube money it would be a good hiding place, since there is no apparent engineering purpose for such a resistor in this circuit except by a wild stretch.
http://mhchip.en.alibaba.com/product/1569337369-801402376/20W_15R_5_Ceramic_cement_power_resistor_20W15RJ.html# (http://mhchip.en.alibaba.com/product/1569337369-801402376/20W_15R_5_Ceramic_cement_power_resistor_20W15RJ.html#)!
Regards
-
This circuit only draws a few milliamps of power
Because you had disconnected the load at the charger output. Without load the circuit can oscillate, but after then the T1 cannot generate the output, because its primary circuit will not be closed. Anyway, the T1 primary and L1-T1 coil represents just a short thick wire, connected directly to T1 collector. It will short the source too even without any load. But you missed the L1-T1 coil in your replica too, so you were saved from this scenario. I think, your transistor got ruined with negative spikes instead, which this circuit doesn't prohibit. Finally, you didn't explain, where the power resistor (which you mentioned in your previous post) should be connected.
I stressed in Grumage's thread that everyone should build this very simple circuit
So you did it, the circuit died - what next? Don't play smart and try to cooperate. No ones hands will be twisted here.
-
Zephir said:
Hi Vortex1 - and thank You very much for your circuit and detailed description of it. (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/cool.gif)
Now I think we have state-of art formulation of the problem and we can start with its analysis.
You are very welcome. Unfortunately there is one missing ingredient that will stifle exact replication and that is the exact core material formulation type for T2. Without that there will be widely varying operation of the circuit. Yes it will work to some degree, but it will not be a true replication. T2 will set the basic operating frequency of the device, and various core formulations will give widely varying frequency of operation.
Maybe I missed it somewhere and the core has been positively identified.
Regards
P.S. I edited my prior post while you were typing.
-
various core formulations will give widely varying frequency of operation
They undoubtedly will, especially under parametric circuit wiring. I made way simpler Joule Thief circuits and they still behaved wildly under variable load. So that this feature isn't very surprising for me - it deters me from its replication instead. If you could provide some more specific recommendation regarding the core used in original Mr. Rocha's circuit, we all would appreciate for sure. It looks like the MnZn ferrite core PC40 (Y12000 or Y15000 material) from Micrometals or American Magnetics by its green color. You're right, that Nelson Rocha's operates very smoothly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S4lCUvzn0E). I also noted at his video, the output transformed is shielded with (grounded?) copper foil.
I take your remark about batteries hidden inside the resistor into account, but it's still the last option. I don't think that Mr. Rocha makes fakes. First I want to check the behavior of core under situation, when its saturation during charging will significantly differ from its state during discharging. I just think, that the common Joule Thief circuit isn't the best test bed device for this purpose.
Other than that the multispectral oscillations are traditionally related to scalar waves, Rodin/caduceus coil and overunity circuits. It has also certain physical justification in character of nondispersional solitons - once these solitons will be formed with mixture of many others of multiple wavelengths and amplitudes in a proper fractal ratio, then they will propagate without scattering. So that such a mixture of solitons can propagate at large distance unchanged - for example during tidal bores in Amazonia.
-
Dear Vortex1,
Something I would like for you to consider that crossed my mind a few hours ago.
We do not know with certainty the polarity of the 1:1 toroid. Suppose it was reversed
from our normal understanding of how this device would need to oscillate. Would it be
possible the TIP122 is sensitive enough for it to see the "recovery overshoot" and trigger
on the one-and-one-half cycle instead of the normal one cycle?
If so, could this be the mechanism for parametric oscillation?
-
Dear Vortex1,
Something I would like for you to consider that crossed my mind a few hours ago.
We do not know with certainty the polarity of the 1:1 toroid. Suppose it was reversed
from our normal understanding of how this device would need to oscillate. Would it be
possible the TIP122 is sensitive enough for it to see the "recovery overshoot" and trigger
on the one-and-one-half cycle instead of the normal one cycle?
If so, could this be the mechanism for parametric oscillation?
Dear Dog-One
You bring up an interesting suggestion. In my experience, blocking oscillators (JT's) when wired "correctly" and that have proper base drive tend to work at one predominant frequency and are quite stable. Wired with the opposite phase, they will have a few much higher frequencies of operation and are very "touchy". They are also not very efficient in this mode.
If NR's device is somehow using the abnormal mode for some reason, that will have to be the subject of a lot of intense benchwork. I do suspect the 4700pF cap is doing something different with the circuit on accident or on purpose.
I also respect Zephir's hypothesis regarding the control of the T2 saturation. You asked if it could contribute to a parametric mode of oscillation...perhaps. I'm a bit perplexed by the dual path base drive scheme, though it looks like gross overdrive (current wise) of the base to me. I don't expect the base to survive very long in that circuit. Nothing to limit base current. So don't be surprised if you fry transistors.
I built my first blocking oscillator back in the mid 1950's when the CK722 transistor hit the $0.99 price break for experimenters. It was used for a Halloween prank to light a four foot fluorescent tube (like a light saber) and extort candy door to door from surprised residents. Since then, I've fiddled with JT's from time to time as they call 'em today but being an old timer I still refer to them as blocking oscillators, the generic name most engineers use. I've actually built some blocking oscillators for commercial products back in the day. Funny how everything gets rebranded as something new every couple of decades. So much for my long winded old timer rant. Sorry if off topic, just delete it.
Kind Regards
-
Hi Matt we're also over here. http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3448.0 now.
-
The schematic had two errors which were fixed and re uploaded to the original post as:
NR ver1.01
A good catch by TK
-
Thank You Vortex1 - I'm reposting it here together with TK's version for clarity.
-
Well,it's running :D
Seems to work ok,and quite stable in my case.
Turning the voltage up above 3v,blows out the neon,when the pot is turned all the way down.
Have not toasted a transistor yet-->yet.
I also went with horizontal coil's,instead of the coil through the center of the toroid.
I do notice about a 20mA decrease in current draw,when those horizontal coils are removed from the circuit,but that also results in a duller NE2.
So now that Vortex has re-drawn the circuit,we can see it is just a JT,with a heap of other part's that would dissipate power-->a loss in other words.
Not seeing anything special about this circuit yet,but only just got it up and running.
Going to build a standard JT,with the same step up transformer on it,and do a side by side comparison.
Video 1 up soon.
Brad
-
The video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elVI05A_q_I
Brad
-
Hi everbody ,
I could see by last updates , most are trying lit up neon bulb :) Is there any special reason for this to happen?
I have already said, and I repeat:
The purpose of this circuit is not to ignite neon bulb lol, even because in the original circuit there is no neon connected at the transformer output, but near the input of the circuit near the capacitor C5 maybe people should consider search by negative resistance theme and will find better explanation to i use the neon bulb.
I already describe that hv radiant output when circuit is property tuned is capable to charge a capacitor just by one wire without apparently increase the input , or even be used to transmit electric power by one wire . In the video we could see just one wire connected to one coil and be received by other isolated coil .
https://goo.gl/photos/mXtpKMi9L69WVjVBA
We can see too how different are the wave shot in scope from most of replications until now, and without burned transistors :)
The circuit could do that operation and in same time recharge a battery without impact in input . I just saw one person show that until now
call's MAC and he made one video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iER4K1O7iMc&t=17s
Like i said since first beginning this circuit is just to be study , And is part of a learning process to other nice project, but..... i know "is only a JT" like most pro people say , and in that way i just could answer to "Pro's" replicators :
don't need spend their precious time in something that is so simple and trivial , just ignore ;) and go forward in other projects.
I just say that because already saw some "elite" replicators at end of some days of experiment with this circuit, start complain why are spend their time with something is only a simple JT and they have better alternatives circuits to lit several neon bulbs .
To the people real interested i know they will have moments of fun and learning with that circuit not any doubt .
Nelson Rocha
-
Hi everbody ,
I could see by last updates , most are trying lit up neon bulb :) Is there any special reason for this to happen?
I have already said, and I repeat:
The purpose of this circuit is not to ignite neon bulb lol, even because in the original circuit there is no neon connected at the transformer output, but near the input of the circuit near the capacitor C5 maybe people should consider search by negative resistance theme and will find better explanation to i use the neon bulb.
I already describe that hv radiant output when circuit is property tuned is capable to charge a capacitor just by one wire without apparently increase the input , or even be used to transmit electric power by one wire . In the video we could see just one wire connected to one coil and be received by other isolated coil .
https://goo.gl/photos/mXtpKMi9L69WVjVBA (https://goo.gl/photos/mXtpKMi9L69WVjVBA)
We can see too how different are the wave shot in scope from most of replications until now, and without burned transistors :)
The circuit could do that operation and in same time recharge a battery without impact in input . I just saw one person show that until now
call's MAC and he made one video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iER4K1O7iMc&t=17s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iER4K1O7iMc&t=17s)
Like i said since first beginning this circuit is just to be study , And is part of a learning process to other nice project, but..... i know "is only a JT" like most pro people say , and in that way i just could answer to "Pro's" replicators :
don't need spend their precious time in something that is so simple and trivial , just ignore ;) and go forward in other projects.
I just say that because already saw some "elite" replicators at end of some days of experiment with this circuit, start complain why are spend their time with something is only a simple JT and they have better alternatives circuits to lit several neon bulbs .
To the people real interested i know they will have moments of fun and learning with that circuit not any doubt .
Nelson Rocha
Thanks Nelson, most of the fun I am having with this circuit is when the neon is not lit :) Seeing very curious things.
-
Thanks Nelson, most of the fun I am having with this circuit is when the neon is not lit :) Seeing very curious things.
Hi Jimboot,
My intent since begin when i authorize Grumage to open the thread with my circuit , was exactly stimulate new people to observe what i consider interesting points related with MAIN subject of this forum OU , but i understand to some persons could be trivial what they observed , but not to everyone, and i think this forum is not only made by a "Elitist group" but by lot new people that could have the interest of reproduce that circuit and learn with lower investment about nice points .
I not earn nothing with that , even because i know in detail all points of that circuit and other variations that i did in last years .
I'm not selling any PDF or any promise of OU . Is really free of charge to the interested people .
Thanks by your support and wish you luck
Nelson Rocha
Nelson Rocha
-
We have at least three replications already, but they all behave in unpredictable way and they oscillate more wildly, than the Mini Radiant Exciter at original videos.. For now they all also ignored my recommendation to replicate Nelson Rocha's prototype exactly. If nothing else, then the ferrite rod passing the toroid will block high frequencies propagating into circuit and it will make it more harmonic and less unpredictable.
In addition, Mr. Rocha pointed to interesting behavior, like the recharging of capacitors and another effects, which are visible at his videos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY3Mr2pAErw). Instead of playing with neon lamp these effects can be tested for now.
-
Hi
I've tried MAC's schematic or more precisely part where C5 is in parallel whit C2, initially results were poor,
so i dropped that, although it's in MAC's schematic.
I was trying to rejuvenate an old led battery whit this circuit. In absence of new informations,
but now we have some hints from Nelson about that part of the circuit. So will see to it.
regards
-
Nelson Rocha
What is the value C 5
and thanks for sharing
-
Nelson Rocha
What is the value C 5
and thanks for sharing
Dear Ed morbus.
Here's a link to the schematic.
http://overunity.com/17220/n-r-m-r-e-an-investigation/msg503861/#msg503861
The value is 47 microfarad @50 Volts.
Cheers Grum.
-
Thanks for infomation and link
on test I have one watt led on trafo out 220v side and on second charging 12v battery
with 6v four AA battery
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDNB1pQLQg8&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDNB1pQLQg8&feature=youtu.be)
Acca.. just for you..
[/font]
-
I link a new self-explanatory video of my experiments with Nelson's circuit.
https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=Dhin8Fji_vo
For Padova: You're right there was a mistake in the schematic, which I corrected as you will see at the beginning of the video.
For TK (if still at least you lurk here): I put some scopeshot
As somebody suggested I tried to use some inductances perpendicular to the toroid,
connected as per Vortex1 schematic, obtaining only slight oscillation frequency variations (not in the video).
In total I have built 3 of these circuits with same basic components but different size of toroid and transformer.
Each one behaves in a slightly different way: all oscillate but at different frequencies and with different shapes of waves
and they consume energy is different.
In my experience any NPN transistor like tip31 tip41 tip122 or other are ok: the waveform is the same, the output is the same.
A strange experience I discovered with an open lamellar transformer (not in epoxy resin bath)
is to feel ozone's smell: the copper band around the transformer in one of Nelson's videos
does it possibly capture these lost ions? And then what do we do?
I also tried to charge a condenser with a diode plug like Nelson at minute 1 of this video
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3CjCNeH8rE
and the capacitor charge, slowly but becomes charged.
All this is fine, but I feel like a dead end.
At this point new ideas are needed, the circuit is under our nose maybe we should not focus only on this but we have to
think about what to do with the energy we get.
One last note: I can not understand how anyone can argue in this way. Not even the children ...
Three threads .... Why ?
MAC
-
Mac link not working
-
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
-
Mac link not working
Try this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhin8Fji_vo
-
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...
-
Just create a path for both charges to flow at the same time, but use them at different times.
artv
-
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...
OK I'll ponder that, Matt. My first impression is to create charge you must flow current into the capacitor and have a potential difference between the plates. So how do you apply like charge to each terminal? if Charge implies a potential difference between plates this must be Nelson's top semantic secret. You could try shorting the two ends of the capacitor then they will have the same (0) charge. You could also elevate the capacitor to a few hundred volts with respect to earth ground with the leads tied together and the capacitor will be "like" charged on each plate with respect to ground.....but I know that's not what you are looking for soooo........ask Nelson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding C3, the first capacitor, since it has a diode D2 in series it will charge to some positive value with respect to it's negative terminal and then just sit there with that charge in place since there is no way for the +charge to go back out, it is blocked by the diode. It's internal leakage would cause a very slight drop in charge over time, except for the fact that it is being replenished very slightly on each cycle when the diode is forward biased. The charge just sits in the capacitor with nowhere to go, like it would in a half wave rectifier with no load on it.
At one point I mused that Nelson might be using the diode capacitance as part of a Drift Step Recovery configuration, using the capacitance of the diode to generate fast pulses, but that didn't wash because the pulses would be absorbed by the other capacitor C4.
Regarding the C4 capacitor with the R1 pot across it, this one will charge at the rate of current delivery from the coil and discharge at the RC time constant of the potentiometer setting.
The charging current for this capacitor is a function of supply voltage and duty cycle. This capacitor has an good chance of frying the base of the first transistor in the Darlington pair, since there is nothing to limit the high peak current if the voltage supply input is turned up too far. 120 mA is the max gate current allowed on that base.
The other problem is there is nothing to limit current into the base when the voltage reverses, so the 5 volt reverse limit may be exceeded again taking out the base.
I'm sure Nelson probably had very good reasons for designing it that way, so someone should talk to him and find out why he would stress the parts in such a manner. If only a couple of volts of supply are used, probably not a problem but 12 to 24 volts it probably would fail over time.
Now my question to you if I may ask:
What exactly are the operating specifications for this circuit, power input, voltage input, charger power output and HV power output? Also what type loads is it designed to drive? or is it just to demonstrate that you can charge a capacitor with a wire to the HV or light a neon lamp (400uA).
Kind Regards
P.S. You might wish to ask Nelson to put phasing dots on his schematics besides just being good form it is very helpful for replicators. As you are aware, the operation of the oscillator is quite different with the phase reversed so it is good to know which mode you are shooting for.
-
OK I'll ponder that, Matt. My first impression is to create charge you must flow current into the capacitor and have a potential difference between the plates. So how do you apply like charge to each terminal? if Charge implies a potential difference between plates this must be Nelson's top semantic secret. You could try shorting the two ends of the capacitor then they will have the same (0) charge. You could also elevate the capacitor to a few hundred volts with respect to earth ground with the leads tied together and the capacitor will be "like" charged on each plate with respect to ground.....but I know that's not what you are looking for soooo........
I mentioned it because of Jack's comment in his thread (http://overunity.com/17119/pulling-energy-from-the-ambient-energy-field-using-a-coil-capacitor/). He declares three states of charge: positive, negative and neutral. This is a variation I guess I either took for granted or didn't conceptualize well. When we talk about stray capacitance, stray to what? A neutral charge potential or something else?
I recall all the electrostatic videos with the Leyden Jar & electrometer, but never seemed to think of it in common electronic circuits. Maybe because we rarely have those levels of voltages associated. But when we compress a quantity of energy release into microseconds or shorter, something has to drastically increase.
Regarding C3, the first capacitor, since it has a diode D2 in series it will charge to some positive value with respect to it's negative terminal and then just sit there with that charge in place since there is no way for the +charge to go back out, it is blocked by the diode. It's internal leakage would cause a very slight drop in charge over time, except for the fact that it is being replenished very slightly on each cycle when the diode is forward biased. The charge just sits in the capacitor with nowhere to go, like it would in a half wave rectifier with no load on it.
At one point I mused that Nelson might be using the diode capacitance as part of a Drift Step Recovery configuration, using the capacitance of the diode to generate fast pulses, but that didn't wash because the pulses would be absorbed by the other capacitor C4.
You also have the standard diode voltage drop which may somehow be used for proper biasing. But your DSR thought may be right on track.
Regarding the C4 capacitor with the R1 pot across it, this one will charge at the rate of current delivery from the coil and discharge at the RC time constant of the potentiometer setting.
The charging current for this capacitor is a function of supply voltage and duty cycle. This capacitor has an good chance of frying the base of the first transistor in the Darlington pair, since there is nothing to limit the high peak current if the voltage supply input is turned up too far. 120 mA is the max gate current allowed on that base.
The other problem is there is nothing to limit current into the base when the voltage reverses, so the 5 volt reverse limit may be exceeded again taking out the base.
I'm sure Nelson probably had very good reasons for designing it that way, so someone should talk to him and find out why he would stress the parts in such a manner. If only a couple of volts of supply are used, probably not a problem but 12 to 24 volts it probably would fail over time.
He did mention he has never had any component failures in his tuned version. So I have to suspect for anyone that has wrecked components, something isn't quite right.
Now my question to you if I may ask:
What exactly are the operating specifications for this circuit, power input, voltage input, charger power output and HV power output? Also what type loads is it designed to drive? or is it just to demonstrate that you can charge a capacitor with a wire to the HV or light a neon lamp (400uA).
For power input I set the current limit way down and bring the voltage up slowly from about two volts. As you slowly increase input, adjust the pot in between small voltage steps. At some point below ~9 volts, you will see a characteristic change in behavior. Instead of an oscillator, the circuit becomes a pulse generator. It's this pulse generator I assume Nelson wants us to study and see the effects it is able to manifest. In my testing, I only went a volt or two higher from when I saw the behavior change, so I don't know what might happen beyond that. Maybe that's how people are blowing components.
If you look closely at this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEZSCNHDYJs), you will begin to recognized what Nelson has morphed his pulse generator into. Then if you look at his most recent videos (https://www.youtube.com/user/batraquioo0/videos), you'll see what he is able to do with this concept. Maybe I'm just overly optimistic or clairvoyant, but I see the progression clearly. I see the improved (higher power) pulse generator and his method of harnessing those pulses via his pancake coils, which all goes back to Jack's open ended bifilar coils. Now whether Nelson and Jack are actually doing the same thing or not...? I can't say, but if they are, a lot pieces fall into place.
-
With an open mind I will give the videos another good look per your suggestion.
I do think this would all be a lot easier for the attempts at replication if a good document were put together(like Jack's) rather than all the guesswork, but I'll keep my opinions out of it from here forward.......as Jack Friday would say..."just the facts ma'm".
Kind Regards
-
[size=78%] started working on this again yesterday. Given myself quite a few belts. Need to tie one hand behind my back. Something interesting I found by accident was if I connected a lamp and a spark gap in series between the dc ground of my fwbr and the “ground” of my mot output, I could dimly light my incandescent 12watt lamp and get a neon to partially light with single wire. The mot puts out around 800volts with 7v 200ma input which I’m using instead of the 25/240v transformer. It did make my garage rf remote openers inoperable when running as my wife discovered when returning from the shops. I’ll try and do a video tonight. Need a csr on the output as my meters said it was 12ma at 785volts which is wrong as my lamp should have been a lot brighter if that was correct.[/size]