Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
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: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field  (Read 64122 times)

eldarion

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 326
    • My out-of-date overunity research page
Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2007, 03:20:54 AM »
I'm in on this project! ;D

I have two IRF640-based MOSFET H-bridges rated up to 1MHz.  I also have an extremely strong Neo magnet stack that just happens to fit inside of a large trifilar wound air-core coil I wound a while back.

I am using HIP4081 MOSFET H-bridge drivers that can supposedly create about 60V on the gate pins of the MOSFETs.  It will be interesting to see of my lower-voltage version (maintaining the same voltage ratios, of course) is capable of generating the effect or not.

BTW I find it interesting that, as posted elsewhere, this essentially accelerates an already accelerating field.  Now read http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/powergain.htm

I will report back with results within a day or two.

Motorcoach1

  • elite_member
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 307
Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
« Reply #16 on: May 31, 2007, 08:38:54 AM »
Bob did you evrr resolve the .2 zener diode thing that keepeed the occilator from over driveing in the curret phaze . the thing in the Pc was assembly group was we could ever get in to the rr or h gruup to get the thermal to get it from collaping the current grid  is the pmw3e good to go mmmm . Alister Copper has the battry thing good in a Pc inviroment   

bob.rennips

  • elite_member
  • Full Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 182
Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
« Reply #17 on: May 31, 2007, 09:27:18 AM »
Bob did you evrr resolve the .2 zener diode thing that keepeed the occilator from over driveing in the curret phaze . the thing in the Pc was assembly group was we could ever get in to the rr or h gruup to get the thermal to get it from collaping the current grid  is the pmw3e good to go mmmm . Alister Copper has the battry thing good in a Pc inviroment   

You must be thinking of another Bob (I'm not Bob Boyce). I haven't had a zener diode problem as far as I can recall ?!
« Last Edit: May 31, 2007, 09:51:40 AM by bob.rennips »

starcruiser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 693
    • Starcruiser's Place
Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
« Reply #18 on: May 31, 2007, 05:45:59 PM »
Here is a Blocking Osc circuit that might be applicable. There are several variations out there but this might be a start.

http://www.electronic-circuits-diagrams.com/psimages/powersuppliesckt6.shtml

Notice the feedback coil...

bob.rennips

  • elite_member
  • Full Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 182
Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2007, 07:00:03 PM »
I've used a Circuit Simulator Applet which one of the other posters on another thread  brought to our attention, sorry I don't recall the name.

The circuit is not a particularly good design by me but it works around the components I have around. I have one function/freq generator that produces pulses to exact freq. so I'm going to be using this for a clock. As I only have one of these, the circuit makes use of the one clock, and two counter chips, and a series of dip switches to control the period, number of pulses, and pulse width.

Referring to the set of dip switches at the top. Only one of these to be closed at any one time. If you have more than one switch on, the AND gate will eventually turn on permanently as the back voltage on the diode will add up, which will screw the simulation up for you. You only need one switch on as the switch resets the count. These switches control the period relative to the clock frequency. Use a switch on the left for a short period between pulse sequences. Use a switch to the right for much longer period between pulse sequences. Note this is the period between sequences not between each pulse.

The next set of switches down control how many pulses are going to appear within a period for coil1.

The last set of switches down control how many pulses are going to appear within a period for coil2.

Obviously by appropriate choices of the switches you can have a coil1 pulse followed by coil2, followed by coil2 again, followed by coil1, followed by coil1, followed by coil2, as a for instance.

The example text file, has switches set for four pulses per coil with coil2 pulse appearing at the same time as coil1 pulse is turned off. With ten switches per coil, you have quite a lot of flexibility. As the counters have a carry, if you want more pulses per period you can add more counter chips.

To use the simulator and play with the switches and see the output on the simulated scope you need to:

Go to this website and copy paste the content of the pulser_logic2.txt file, attached to this message, into the text box when you select IMPORT from the FILE MENU in the applet.

http://www.falstad.com/circuit/

The output from each AND gate would go to coil1 and 2 via a mosfet driver and mosfet for each coil.

Rather than the didoes I could have used an OR gate, but this was cumbersome on the applet simulator. Resistors values are approx. guess values.

overlapping_pulse.gif shows using the switches to generated an overlapping pulse between coil1 and coil2 followed by interleaved pulses.

bob.rennips

  • elite_member
  • Full Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 182
Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2007, 07:21:04 PM »
@all

See electricity through a magnetic field in video. Watch 4:57 and 5:07 into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltnlviCqu70

chrisC

Great find Chris. He has another video just showing the effect, repeated 16 times. He is applying 0.8 amps, 800 milliamps, current across the magnets at an AC voltage of 9 volts. Looks at the length of spark and the fact it is emited PERPENDICULAR to the length of the magnet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOagOlH35FU&mode=related&search=
« Last Edit: June 01, 2007, 08:06:44 PM by bob.rennips »

eldarion

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 326
    • My out-of-date overunity research page
Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2007, 08:01:04 PM »
I will report back with results within a day or two.

Bad news.  I finally completed my H-bridge and hooked it up to the coil.  It ran for about 3 seconds at 1KHz before self-destructing! >:(

I am at a loss to explain why it did that.  The MOSFETs and driver chips were stone cold immediately after it stopped working. ???  Maybe diodes are needed to short out the back-EMF, but I am afraid that I might kill the effect that way.

Bottom line, it'll take me about a week to rebuild.  Sorry I couldn't get any actual testing in yet. :(

hartiberlin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8154
    • free energy research OverUnity.com
Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2007, 08:07:16 PM »
@eldarion
Could you please post a circuit diagram so we can help you ?
Many thanks.

bob.rennips

  • elite_member
  • Full Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 182
Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2007, 08:08:40 PM »
I will report back with results within a day or two.

Bad news.  I finally completed my H-bridge and hooked it up to the coil.  It ran for about 3 seconds at 1KHz before self-destructing! >:(

I am at a loss to explain why it did that.  The MOSFETs and driver chips were stone cold immediately after it stopped working. ???  Maybe diodes are needed to short out the back-EMF, but I am afraid that I might kill the effect that way.

Bottom line, it'll take me about a week to rebuild.  Sorry I couldn't get any actual testing in yet. :(
What voltage did you have going to the coils ? Did you a resistor in series with coils to reduce the amps down, if so what value ? (When I get going I'll try larger value !!)

dutchy1966

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2007, 09:11:58 PM »
@ Eldarion,

Hi all,

If the magnetic field really gets as strong as the patent suggests then it doesn't seem surprising that there is an enormous power induced in the pulsing coils too!
I guess blocking diodes can be of help here..... problem being things like these are mostly left out of patent applications....

Regards

Robert

eldarion

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 326
    • My out-of-date overunity research page
Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
« Reply #25 on: June 01, 2007, 09:56:13 PM »
What voltage did you have going to the coils ? Did you a resistor in series with coils to reduce the amps down, if so what value ? (When I get going I'll try larger value !!)
I had 13.8V at about 4 amps max going to the coils.

I had a chunk of time I didn't think I would have, so I was able to rebuild a simple pulser using IRF640s (not the entire H-bridge, that would've taken far, far longer--hopefully I will not have to reverse current direction at all to get this to work.)  This time, I included back-EMF suppression diodes, and it seems to be working when I pulse one winding of the coil.

No, I did not use a resistor.  I would like a rather large magnetic field generated from the coils themselves if at all possible, so that I can cross that non-linear threshold that seems to exist in most free-energy devices.  RN Boyd also makes mention of a threshold.

This coil has over 100 feet of #24 guage manget wire in each winding, so it has a relatively high intrinsic resistance.

I will be putting up a website with full schematics, pictures, and results within a couple of days at http://overunity.pearsoncomputing.net.  The results page may come later, though, depending on if this pulser blows up as well! :)

I am using an FPGA to generate exact synthesized pulses of precise frequency, duration, and "offset".  I am only concerned that my voltages are not high enough.

Sorry for my initial pessimism, this sort of thing happens on a regular basis here. :o

bob.rennips

  • elite_member
  • Full Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 182
Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
« Reply #26 on: June 01, 2007, 10:52:25 PM »
Excellent news, Eldarion. Look forward to hearing how things go.

I've now wound my coil. Got to get hold of a couple of components and a slot of time and I'll let you all know how it goes. I've been particularly motivated having seen the above videos and the anomalous effects when using only 9 and 12volts.

bob.rennips

  • elite_member
  • Full Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 182
Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
« Reply #27 on: June 01, 2007, 11:03:05 PM »
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1872.msg33222.html#msg33222

Check this post out by jason (jdo300) if you have not already. Interesting ideas to do with thresholds...

eldarion

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 326
    • My out-of-date overunity research page
Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
« Reply #28 on: June 02, 2007, 03:35:13 AM »
I got everything hooked up for a quick test, but sadly nothing good to report yet.  So, here is a quick list of phenomena I encountered, all to be expected.

1. The Neo magnets are strongly repelled from the center of the coil when it is in operation.
2. Very strong back-EMF pulses are observed, both with and without the magnet in the core.

I pulsed the apparatus at 0.1Khz and 1KHz with no change.  I used a small piece of ferrous material to "probe" the magnetic field strength, and no difference was noted when the device was engaged.

If you want to see the experiment, I threw some pics up at http://overunity.pearsoncomputing.net

Testing continues...

eldarion

  • TPU-Elite
  • Sr. Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 326
    • My out-of-date overunity research page
Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
« Reply #29 on: June 02, 2007, 08:52:11 AM »
Hmmm...I got to thinking, and I may be going about this the wrong way with respect to the coil.

The patent seems to make a big deal of high voltage.  The only thing that would be altered with the increased voltage would be the risetime of the current in the coil, and therefore the strength of the second derivative of the input function.  I think that Jason is definitely on to at least one of the "secrets" here.

In order to make this work at lower voltages, the inductance of the coil must be reduced as far as possible.  This will allow very fast risetimes, but to maintain the correct shape of the input waveform and not waste power the input voltage must be shut off as soon as the current reaches peak.  This requires the control circuit to work at a much higher frequency than the high-voltage version, hence the preference for the high-voltage version?

Tubes are very good at switching high voltages very quickly... ;)

With the setup I have here, I do not think that I will ever see any effects, as my rise/fall time is too long for the peak voltage that I attain (13.8V).  I'll wind another, smaller, coil and try a pulse frequency closer to 1MHz.  Beyond that frequency, my MOSFET driver chip isn't any good (minimum rise/fall time at the MOSFET gates is 10ns) . :(  However, the IRF640 is good up to 200V, so all may not be lost.  I just wouldn't want to see a MOSFET blow up with 200V at the terminals!

I fear that I would have to have this working at a much higher voltage for a 10ns rise/fall time to be acceptable.  I wonder if this thing can be simultated, so that we can know exactly where the threshold is?  It would seem to be a matter of assigning units to Jason's graphs, but I don't know which units to assign per unit step on the graph. :-\

Onwards...