Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: bob.rennips on May 30, 2007, 06:57:25 PM

Title: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on May 30, 2007, 06:57:25 PM
I'm starting a new thread dedicated to experimenting with perturbing a static magnetic field. The static magnetic field generated from either a permanent magnet or a steady DC current into a coil.

This was all started off by a posting by kames. Thanks kames. I've reproduced the posting below as I don't know how to link off to a post on another thread. I've also re-uploaded the two relevant patents as found by kames.
___________________________________________________

@All
A few pages back (page 168) I have posted a simple and stupid experiment. Doesn?t look like anybody picked it up but sorry. Anyone can reproduce it with ease. There was a purpose to post it as a prelude to something else. I was thinking about opening a separate thread but as long as most of the people are in this thread I decided to post it here. It can be moved to a separate thread at any moment. There were several events that struck me when I performed that experiment. First, nobody could give a reasonable explanation. Second, I have found two patents in my unsorted files. Those two patents were backed up just in case a long time ago, before I even started looking for SM?s tpu. When I first time read those patents I decided ?old news?. When I recently read them again having all the stuff of the tpu in mind there were a lot of things to look over again. There were a lot of things to try to understand what SM was trying to tell from his every single message through Mannix.
I am in the process of testing those two patents. That is not a manual to how to do the things. Those are basic ideas and results.
The first patent (file name) I changed to ?power unit?. The second (file name) I changed to ?control unit?.
In the power unit the text is much more important than the drawings. Read it all. Don?t miss a single line. Drawings are not the same as what text is saying.
In the control unit, the drawing might remind you what you saw in the videos. It is just a nice technical solution.
I have scanned all the attachments from this forum and didn?t find anybody ever posted it before. Maybe I missed something. In this case, just disregard this post.
If you read these patents for the first time, come back and see what I posted on page 168. Any criticism or opinion is okay except for teaching me how to use a scope or probes or asking if I forgot to check my battery charge.

Again, I haven?t tested everything from these two patents. I am in the process. If anybody can get ahead, it is only better.

Regards,

Kames.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: chrisC on May 30, 2007, 07:25:33 PM
@bob.rennips

Thanks for your post. Yes I would agree this new thread should just concentrate on the Kames patent findings which shouldbe interesting to verify, after all the theory and setup seemed like it's long the correct path? Thanks also to Kames for his excellent search.

Interesting that a search on the USPTO Public Pair Info. database yielded nothing on the inventors nor was there any data found for the International PCT numbers. Starnge...

chrisC
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on May 30, 2007, 07:39:34 PM
Looking at the following configuration for the first coil.

Note this is a proof of concept. As such it will have multiple battery power sources. The point of the experiment is to observe anomalous voltage AND current being generated, which substantially differ from the expected. IT IS NOT A REPLICATION OF THE SM TPU.

I believe the SM TPU manipulates the magnetic fields in the way this device is doing. Once I understand what is happening regarding the magnetic fields I hope to translate this to a possible toroidal arrangement of coils.

The experiment is based on an air core solenoid NOT a TOROID.

1. 1st coil using heavy gauge enamelled copper wire of say 2 layers is wrapped first. This is where I hope to meaure some anomalous output voltage and current.
2. This is followed by a couple of rounds of pvc tape for extra insulation between different coil layers.
3. Next is wrapped a bifilar coil of lighter gauge enamelled copper wire. It is into these coils will be pulsed the low voltage followed by the high voltage. (see later for parameters for these pulses).
4. This is followed by a couple of rounds of pvc tape.
5. The next coil is the coil that will generate the static magnetic field. As such it will have a 5-6 layers of enamelled copper wire. This coil will be connected via a manual switch to a 12v battery. Resisters will be added to set the current to approx. 1amp.


To start with I'm going to have have the first pulse set to 12volts and the second pulse set to 24 volts. I'll be using IRF840s to trigger the pulse and a simple logic counter to time the period between the pulses. The pulse width will be approx. 10% of the period between the pulses.

I'm starting off with very low voltages so that I can obtain a baseline of expected waveform shapes on my oscilloscope and voltage ratios for a particular frequency period. I'd be surprised to see anything anomalous with these low voltages but these observations will act as a control for later.

I'll then up the voltages to see at what voltage levels things start to happen.


DIMENSIONS OF SOLENOID

Based on the work of Bruce Cathie I'm going for the following coil dimensions.

Solenoid Inside diameter: 0.5065 inches
Solenoid Length: 3.03906 inches (3 1/32 inches)

This is worked out as follows and will only make sense to those who have read Cathie's books. It's based on geometric harmonics of the earth.

Speed of light harmonic: 144000 which is the harmonic reciprocal of 694.4444444  - the earth magnetic field harmonic. The calcs look like I'm making it up, but it follows a complex line of thought by Cathie which he's simplified into a set of rules for determining lengths that are intune - a harmonic - of key earth harmonics.

So starting with 144000:

/ 10 = 14400
x2 = 28800
Square root = 169.7056274 geofeet harmonic.
x12 = 2036.4675 geoinches harmonic.

x 6076/6000 = 2062.2627 english inches
/6 /6 /6 /6 = 1.59125214 inches circumference (base geometric harmonic for the solenoid)
/ pi = 0.5065 inches diameter for the solenoid

Assuming whole turns this ensures that the length of wire is a harmonic of the speed of light and the earth magnetic field harmonic.

The length should be a multiple of the base geometric harmonic.

Solenoid length = 1.5912 x 2 = 3.0396 inches.


In other word I'm going to get 0.5 inch diameter round piece of wood to wind the coils on with a coil length of 3 1/32 inches. I'll obviously be removing the wood once the coils have been wound so that it's an air coil.

Not sure how long this will take, family commitments etc. but will post further updates as I have them.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: dutchy1966 on May 30, 2007, 07:40:53 PM
Hi Bob


Good idea to start this new thread! As a matter of fact I was thinking about it too.

Also I'm playing with the following idea in my head:

How can we have a simple proof of concept?

My idea is to have,say, 1 meter long pvc pipe that will nicely hold some disc neos. Image the pipe upright and a stack of neos at the bottom end inside the pipe. Our two windings go around there as shown in the patent.
Now to test the strength of the field we drop another few disc neos (so they cant turn) in the top op the pipe. While the two sets of magnets will be opposing the top set will be floating in the pipe depending on the strength of the opposing magnetic fields.

when we now start pulsing our coils the top set of magnets will be pushed upwards in the pipe depending on the increasing magnetic field created at the bottom end.
If the field really increases like the patent states the top neos will probably be shooting out of the top end of the pipe.....lol   (maybe better take an even longer pipe  :D  

What do you all think, might this work well?

Regards

Robert
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on May 30, 2007, 07:55:22 PM
Hi Bob


Good idea to start this new thread! As a matter of fact I was thinking about it too.

Also I'm playing with the following idea in my head:

How can we have a simple proof of concept?

My idea is to have,say, 1 meter long pvc pipe that will nicely hold some disc neos. Image the pipe upright and a stack of neos at the bottom end inside the pipe. Our two windings go around there as shown in the patent.
Now to test the strength of the field we drop another few disc neos (so they cant turn) in the top op the pipe. While the two sets of magnets will be opposing the top set will be floating in the pipe depending on the strength of the opposing magnetic fields.

when we now start pulsing our coils the top set of magnets will be pushed upwards in the pipe depending on the increasing magnetic field created at the bottom end.
If the field really increases like the patent states the top neos will probably be shooting out of the top end of the pipe.....lol   (maybe better take an even longer pipe  :D 

What do you all think, might this work well?

Regards

Robert

Well worth a go. You could perhaps also add another coil layer to your coil for the output and have this going to a 24v car bulb. Ideally the output should be the first coil to be wrapped but for experimental purposes I'm not sure it'll matter that much.

The unknown I have at the moment is what direction the anomalous magnetic field appears. Given SM has coils at right angles to each other, this is one aspect I'll be experimenting with. If the magnetic field is at right angles you won't necessarily see a change in how much your magnets jump.

However you could hang a magnet on a piece of string on the outside of the pipe which will jump what ever direction the magnetic field moves in.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: dutchy1966 on May 30, 2007, 08:09:58 PM
Bob,

I think the field will still pretty much fluctuate in the same direction as the static field.

Why?

Because the patent tells us to put another solenoid inside the magnet to pick up the field. I t is arranged in a way normal induction takes place.....

Robert
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: starcruiser on May 30, 2007, 08:38:00 PM
Robert,

I was thinking along the same lines for the coils form. I just had an idea you could take that PVC pipe and wrap (3) 30 ~34ga coils on it, one for an electromagnet, and the other 2 for the pulse coils, then a 14ga lamp cord over them for the output. With the PVC pipe we can then insert wire at 90 degrees to the coils and test that at the same time.

How about using a neo magnet along the outside of the core? Like I said prior several things to test/try.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: starcruiser on May 30, 2007, 08:40:27 PM
Robert but the motor portion of the patent talks about using a coil at a 90 to the stator magnet which is not used in the generator version. So, supposedly either way may work???
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: dutchy1966 on May 30, 2007, 08:47:44 PM
Carl,

Well first of all I think the generator version is less work to build and personally I'm more after generating electric than mechanical power. so I more or less didn't pay to much attention to the motor bit.

Anyway, as you say there are still several things we want to test. But at the end of the day it all comes down to a way to proof the principle. That has to be done as the first thing and it doesn't matter who does it or with what configuration. Everyone can use whatever ever they get their hands on and complies with the principle outlined.

I mean once the principle is proven we can start thinking about what is the best way to utilize it.

As i can see now the mechanical bit is the easy part in the patent.

Have you given the control circuit some thought already?

Robert
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on May 30, 2007, 09:31:44 PM
...

Have you given the control circuit some thought already?

Robert

I'm going to be using IRF840 for the mosfets because these go up to 500v.
To drive these will be IRS2117PBF (edited from IRS2217 that doesn't exist!). These are high side high voltage mosfet drivers that allow 10v input to switch a mosfet with 600volts. In other words the input is floated up to the nominal output voltage. I particularly like these drivers as they don't use opto isolators and therefore can support very high pulse rate (frequency). The down side is they need 10v for logic 1.

To control the timing I'll use two CD4017 decade counters, which usefully have logic 1 at the voltage supply level. So 12volt supply to the chip gives an output pulse of 12v, which is more than sufficient for the logic pulse voltage required by the IRS2117 (edited from IRS2217 that doesn't exist!) chip.

The counter work by providing a logic one in sequence on one of 10 output pins. Each time you clock the counter the output logic one moves to the next pin. You can choose which pin resets the counter back to 0.

The first counter will determine the period between pulses. If I count from 1 to 8 and have output pins for 1 and 4 in the sequence connected to the above mosfet drivers then I can generate pulses with a certain period depending on the clocking freq. to the counter.

The second counter will determine the pulse width. If set to 10 pulses and I control the on period from only output pin 1 then this is 10% duty cycle of the on period of the first counter.

To be honest there are better ways of controlling pulses but I have a stack of CD4017s, so this is what I'm using.

Another thought I had from way back was to have both ends of the coil connected low. I'd then turn on, at the same time, both ends of the coil using two IRF840 to say 400volts. Although both mosfets would receive the turn on signal at the same time, the difference in turn on time (nanosecond level) would give a very short duration pulse. Similarly when both mosfets are turned off you'd also get a very short pulse. I know this will work as shoot through current when using high and low side mosfet drivers have to be specifically guarded against. Shoot through current being caused by different turn-on times even though the devices are the same spec.

Cheap and nasty - most certain to give you spikes of voltage!

Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: dutchy1966 on May 30, 2007, 09:39:24 PM
Hi Bob,

That sounds good to me. maybe you can post a schematic at some point.
I'm thinking about using a laptop to control switching through lines from the parallel port.
I'm just not sure if it will be fast enough....

Have you got any ideas on that?

Robert
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: gyulasun on May 30, 2007, 11:58:40 PM
....  I'm thinking about using a laptop to control switching through lines from the parallel port.  I'm just not sure if it will be fast enough....

Hi Robert,

You could use ready made power MOSFET driver ICs between your parallel port output and the MOSFETs gates, to make fast rise/fall times from the laptop's output.

Gyula
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on May 31, 2007, 12:25:09 AM
....  I'm thinking about using a laptop to control switching through lines from the parallel port.  I'm just not sure if it will be fast enough....

Hi Robert,

You could use ready made power MOSFET driver ICs between your parallel port output and the MOSFETs gates, to make fast rise/fall times from the laptop's output.

Gyula


The IRF2117 are power mostfet drivers but require 10v for logic 1, so these wont work as I believe parallel ports work on 5v ? There are others that work on 3.3v+ for logic 1, so these would be ok. An ir2106 looks like a candidate for a closer look:

http://www.irf.com/product-info/datasheets/data/ir2106.pdf

But word of warning. I've had a well designed, commercial, stepper motor driver board with optoisolators, fuses etc complete fry-up, when messing around with TPU style coils.
I would almost guarantee that at some point your laptop will become a doorstop if you go this route!

This has also been mentioned on this board before. The Bob Boyce pwm3e circuit is very nicely designed and tested. I think he'll even sell you a pcb board. Buy the components and solder in! He even has step by step picture on how to do this!

http://www.oupower.com/index.php?dir=_Other_Peoples_Projects/Bob%20Boyce/Hydroxy%20Gas%20Projects/Control%20Electronics/PWM3E

Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: starcruiser on May 31, 2007, 01:03:50 AM
Sorry Robert I was at work and .. well you know how it goes.

I am thinking of using a simple blocking oscillator for the signal source. I know this will not allow sync'ing the pulses but I am thinking this might do the trick, I may even try and use the generator coils as part of the circuit to really keep it simple (KISS is my motto). Besides using this Oscillator will allow me to keep the parts count down and I can use higher voltage transistors to allow for the higher voltages down the road.

I also have a few circuits laying around from my TPU experiments and was thinking about using them as well. I want to try a few easy experiments using what I have on hand and already built first then move it up to the next level as I go on.

I am with Bob on this, starting with 12vdc (batteries) and move on from there. This potentially keeps the output in check, but who knows, 12v maybe all we need?
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: chrisC on May 31, 2007, 01:40:48 AM
@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
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: eldarion 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.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Motorcoach1 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   
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips 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 ?!
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: starcruiser 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...
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips 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.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips 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=
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: eldarion 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. :(
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: hartiberlin on June 01, 2007, 08:07:16 PM
@eldarion
Could you please post a circuit diagram so we can help you ?
Many thanks.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips 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 !!)
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: dutchy1966 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
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: eldarion 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
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips 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.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips 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...
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: eldarion 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...
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: eldarion 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...
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: dutchy1966 on June 02, 2007, 10:44:37 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...

Hi Eldarion,

great to see you have done some tests already1  :)

There two things I'd like to comment on:

1. You say the neo get strongly repelled from the coil. This is probably to be expected for the reason that the patent tells us that the windings in their device are put in slits/grooves in the magnets. This will then keep them in place at any time. Also the coil and the magnets shouldn't move away from each other as that probably will lower the output.

2. When I look at your schematic I notice you have something different compared to the patent setup. In the patent the two coil are connected together at the lower end and then connected to ground. in your version you have connected the top ends together connected and tied to the supply voltage. My feeling tells me that this might make some difference.....

For the rest...Keep up the great work!!

regards

Robert
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: eldarion on June 02, 2007, 07:26:15 PM
Robert,

Thanks for your encouragement! :)

I can "lock" the Neos into the core by sliding the stack slightly on an angle so that there is a tight friction fit in the core, and they seem to stay put.

I should really have two separate positive power supplies, one at, say, +60Vdc and one at +150Vdc.  I will be constructing those two supplies for the next round of tests.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: starcruiser on June 02, 2007, 07:44:21 PM
eldarion,

How about using corks to contain the magnets?
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 02, 2007, 09:28:07 PM


1. You say the neo get strongly repelled from the coil. This is probably to be expected for the reason that the patent tells us that the windings in their device are put in slits/grooves in the magnets. This will then keep them in place at any time. Also the coil and the magnets shouldn't move away from each other as that probably will lower the output....


Well pointed out Dutchy. I hadn't twigged the reason for having the windings slotted into the magnet. I'd discounted the slots as just a way of making the patent seem complex and unattainable without engineering facilities.

And thanks to Eldarion. Even an unsuccessul experiment, has yielded some very useful information. As I'm using a coil for the static field I'm wondering whether I need to epoxy each layer to ensure all coils are totally static relative to each other. One to put on the try list.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: kames on June 03, 2007, 04:06:55 AM

Thanks bob.rennips  for creating a separate thread.


That is what I am using as a control unit. C1 and R1 have to be adjusted for the shortest pulse the circuit can handle.  R6 is only for protection. L1 and L2(L3) can be adjusted for a voltage required. The higher voltage the higher slew rate. R4 and R5 are needed to ?kill? ringing. Magnet is used to create a very tiny phase shift. My oscilloscope doesn?t show any difference in phase shift but in anyway it should be there.
I am planning to use this circuit for further testing with one of my tpu.
The rest of the tests are ahead.

Kames.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 03, 2007, 08:24:15 PM
Hey Kames, I like that nand gate pulser. Cheers.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: eldarion on June 05, 2007, 04:31:47 AM
Grrrr....things fell apart here at home again, so it looks like I'll be sitting out the next few weeks. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

I was in the middle of trying to build two switching power supplies; one to produce +60V and another to produce +150V.
I personally think that this is the way to go.  Feed the two voltages to the two coils and generate the correct pulse sequence--some interesting things should happen.

Oh well, this happens a lot.  This isn't like my previous message either, it looks like I am out for quite a while. :( :( :( :(
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 06, 2007, 06:29:17 AM
As time permits I'm slowly moving forward. I have now got my variable pulse sequence hardware logic going that will feed into the mosfet drivers. The circuit schematic used is as per my previous postings on this thread without any changes other than pull down/pull up resistors where required.

I had the circuit driven at 35khz, volts per div are 5v. As you can see I have a well formed 12volt square wave. Note that this is the output from an inverted nand gate BEFORE going into the mosfet driver chip. The mosfet driver requires minimum 10v so this is more than enough.

The first scope shot shows two channels to drive two coils. As you can see the lower trace pulse sequence overlaps the higher trace pulse sequence for the first two pulses, then move to alternate shorter non overlapping pulses.

The second scope shot shows the exact same pulses except the timebase per div has been expanded so that rather than one pulse sequence being shown, 3 pulse sequences are shown. The photo has been cropped to show the bottom trace, trace2, only.

The next stage is to get the high side mosfet driver working with the IRF840. I don't see a problem in doing this, just a matter of getting some time together.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Jdo300 on June 06, 2007, 06:40:15 AM
Hello All,

Valiant efforts I see here! I just wanted to make a quick comment concerning the permanent magnets. I strongly suggest that you NOT use NdFeB or other strong rare earth magnets for the PM of this device. These magnetic fields, though very strong, are very difficult to perturb. I believe that the idea is to use the pulses to couple with and perturb the magnetic field. The best magnets for the job would be the weak ceramic magnets (ceramic 5 or 8 ) that you can pick up at RadioShack. The field may be magnitudes weaker than the Neos but it would be much much easier to disturb with the pulse coils. Remember, it's the changing field we are after, not the strength of the field itself. So if we can kick even a weak field all over the place very quickly, we might get the results we week.

Just my 0.02 cents :).

God Bless,
Jason O
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 06, 2007, 10:14:35 AM
Thanks Jason. I'm planning on using an electromagnet to create the static field - so I can adjust the DC current for different field strengths.

But good point about using a weaker field. I had been planning on generating a large field. So I'll spin this plan on its head and start with a weaker field. Cheers.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: FreeEnergy on June 06, 2007, 11:13:57 AM
Remember, it's the changing field we are after, not the strength of the field itself. So if we can kick even a weak field all over the place very quickly, we might get the results we week.

what you say goes so well with this...

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2390.0.html

:)

Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: karl on June 06, 2007, 01:16:40 PM
Hello Finders,

what you want to do is building a kind of stationary newman machine.
Have a look at the newspage of Stefan.
Someone has attempted a good example again. A working model out of nothing.
The main part of this kind of negative energy collector is a spark (plasma).
No discrete parts are used as diodes, transistors and so on.

Stefan has postet this 1998 at JLN labs site http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/NMac1118.htm
This machine consists basicly of a big coil (the bigger the better), a tuned sparkgap and a blocking device to direct the backward current.
At the right tuned distance the color (frequency=E-Level=tuning) of the spark change from blue (discrete spectrum, maybe a line of oxygen) to white (full (most)spectrum) and is making a hissing sound.
This is the electronic-hit-part of the future and the past.

The Teslas use different discharge tubes filled with H2 or N2.
I've found such tubes some time ago at ebay.
The are used to work in front of wimhurst machines (is a light going on in your head?) to show different colors of discharging gases.

This is the real tuner.
H2 has a continious spectrum!
H2 is receiving a continous spectrum!
The sun is sending out a continous spectrum!
Evey particle is tuned in a continous spectrum.
Every Molecule could be replaced by a frequency (actual science: Using frequency as catalysator).

Thats it.
The cat is out of the house.
The mice are dancing on the table.

So what I mean Stefan and all other finders:
This is a kind of tuner for a special spectrum and a kind of coupler between discrete energy levels (light to electrons and backwards).
You know that plasma is called the fifth (element) state of energy.
Most of the materia of our cosm is in plasma state.
You want to couple in this mass. The best universal and universallegal way to fullfil your wishes.
!This are just suggestions. I'm not a proofer, but think about it!
Please open your minds and start to see: over unity is only possible by thinking on cosmic levels. Oder ist das nicht so?

Every particle in the 3d space is affecting every particle in the 3d space.
Simply by overlapping all influences of all roompoints we get the momentary situation in static and dynamic fields. This is the basic of our common computersimulation programs.

The biggest mass is in plasma state. The biggest content of energy (gequantelt oder nicht) is sending out energy because of the fact, that plasmatic materia has more energy as motion, and therefore heat and preasure and speed, as materia which is resting more in one roompoint.
Is this clear?

We should couple to this mass of frequencys by sending out a em pulse with our coil (creating a vacuum) and receive a modified pulse (filling the vacuum) after a while.

Stefan: is it possible that we change the "Verweilzeit", the time of duration of our pulsed mass in the space and therefore the time of the em-Quant in space by adjusting the sparkgap?

Is the energy quant able to collect energy and mutate to a harmonic em object which is rejected by the coil (blow-suck-effect)?

Yes, I think so.

Best wishes to all.

Kar Funkel

Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: karl on June 06, 2007, 01:23:20 PM
Here are the links to the news:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2492.msg33871/topicseen.html#msg33871
and a verry remarkable work of Stefan 1998:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/NMac1118.htm
Looking forward for you
Karl
Title: IRS2217PBF
Post by: Earl on June 06, 2007, 01:29:38 PM
Bob,
please PM me the datasheet for the IRS2217PBF.
Thanks, Earl
Title: Re: IRS2217PBF
Post by: bob.rennips on June 06, 2007, 03:41:24 PM
Bob,
please PM me the datasheet for the IRS2217PBF.
Thanks, Earl

My mistake in the original message. I incorrectly stated the high side driver as IRS2217pbf. The high side driver is the IRS2117PBF.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: gyulasun on June 06, 2007, 03:52:19 PM
Here is a link to its data sheet:

http://www.irf.com/product-info/datasheets/data/irs2117pbf.pdf

Gyula
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 06, 2007, 05:02:42 PM
The IRS2117pbf high side driver. These are a few notes that I've made concerning this driver.

1. The bootstrap diode across Vcc and Vb (pin 1 and pin8) must be an ultrafast diode. Its reverse voltage time must be less than 100ns. If you get this wrong the bootstrap capacitor will not charge up in time to produce the 10V plus over the supply voltage of the driver. i.e. to turn the mosfet on when switching say 500V you need at least 510V at the gate. The bootstrap capacitor provide the extra 10V over the 500V. The spec sheet mentions 10KF6 but stuffed if I can find out the specs on this diode. An apparent equivalent is 11DF4, reverse voltage time of 30nanoseconds.

2. Although the datasheet doesn't suggest this. I've seen designs where 1 or 2ohm resistor has been put in series with the diode to prevent high current on initial charging of the bootstrap capacitor. Seems to make sense to me.

3. Bootstrap capacitors between Vs and Vb (pin 6 and pin8) needs to be at around/at least 100nF. But if you make it too high, it won't charge up in time to give you required volts, too small and it won't be able to sustain the on charge at the mosfet gate during the required on period. I read on another board that an electrolytic should not be used for the bootstrap capacitor.

4. In other words getting these components right is the black art of electronic design! The high the frequency (or frequency range) the circuit has to cope with, the more arty you have to be!

5. Vin needs at least 10V for logic 1.

6. It has an undervoltage detect. For this reason I'm planning that all logic circuits will be connected to one battary which will happily sit at 12+ volts for many days. The high voltage (if needed) for the pulses will be provided via DC-DC convertor from another battery. This way spikes from the coils, even with diodes, will not make there way back to the battary concerned with keeping the logic going. The last thing I want is interpreting results as being anomalous when what is really happening is the driver is cutting out due to spurious transients.

Once I've got a working set of components and values I'll let you all know what they are. This may take a week or so depending on when I can sit down and do this.

If anyone else gets their first - please holler!

Cheers, Bob.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 12, 2007, 03:32:50 AM
Update on circuit

I got the mosfet driver and mosfet side of the circuit working today. I only had 12 volts switching to the two bifilar wound coils.

In short nothing unusual to report. The addition of a static magnetic field only increased the size of the output pulses by around 10%. There were no additional spikes, ringing or anything to suggest anything unusual happening.

The circuit was a compromise on the components I already had around the house. I'm going to abandon the use of the counter to control the pulse width, not enough fine tuning control. I need to be able to independantly control for each pulse train:

1. Pulse width.
2. Pulse spacing.
2. Pulse frequency.
3. Phase between pulses.

So back to the drawing board. I think my next board will be based on a Bob Boyce design.

Oh yeh, a solderable breadboard is needed for mosfets and the like due to heat and the need to get a good contact.

Image of my breadboard circuit attached.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: hartiberlin on June 12, 2007, 04:49:02 AM
Hi, what frequencies did you use ? With bifilar coils you have to go over 100 Khz to see some effects, but then you will see them...
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 12, 2007, 05:48:48 AM
Hi, what frequencies did you use ? With bifilar coils you have to go over 100 Khz to see some effects, but then you will see them...

The coils were wound bi-filar as per the original patent at the begninning of this thread. The idea was that two sets of pulse sequences could be put through the coils, some overlapping and some interleaved. I tried frequencies up to the 1.5MHz and as low as 500Hz. I know the patent says to use high voltage but I hoped for some smaller effect to be visible even at low voltage.

Since I started this project I've been reading up more on Bob Boyce's experiences and I can see the parallels between the patent, SM and what boyce is doing. As such I now believe that the phase between successive pulse sequences is a lot more important to the extent that one pulse may be appearing only a few 10's of nanoseconds after a pulse in another coil. i.e. You have two pulses in very rapid sequence one pulse into 1 of the bifilar coil and the other into the other part of the bi-filar coil.

I now want to take this project more towards having very fine control of the phase between two identical frequencies.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: karl on June 14, 2007, 02:49:25 PM
Dear Mem bers,

I've studied the patent for some days.
I'm also a patentholder and I wonder about the missing workingprinciple.
What's the influence of the RND shifting of the pulses?
Should it be a matrix correlator which works on cosmic RND influences?
Is the correlated frequencypattern of two RND sequences a new form of super-RND?

My copy is not verry good. Are the lower coil ends crossed or joined at thje point where also the earth (mass) is located? or is the first coil looped back to the generator and the second coil grounded to earth?

There is a important link to the "universal magnetic field" includet in the beginning of the patent. In this case our permanent magnet is the earth's and therefore the sun's magnetic field which is linked but which is never constant. All cosmic influences are coupled and amplified due to this field.

What I mean: The main magnetic field of our solar system is generated in the sun's inner reactive shape. This shape and therefore momentary poles changes every moment. two of this poles are stretched out to the earth poles and communicates in this way with the gravitational center of the earth (Fe+Co+Ni+...who knows).

What we can measure is a superimposed static field. Is it real static? or is it influenced with numerous sub-Informations (E as a stream of bits or trits(extra thread needed)).

How can we link to this gravitational field? How can we extract the information behind this wall of static?

How can we determine the information (data) of a 4 wired blackbox?

For many of you a book with seven locks: taguchi

He uses natural mathematic principles to describe ways to identify systems and find factors to influence them.

Yes empirical science is real and is used to optimize systems due to some interesting ways.
Please feel free to inform yourself about this topic.

An other way is to pulse a system and get the impulse-answer which gives you more than enough information about it's momentary situation which could change also due to the pulse, but this principle works in static electronic design.

You can use this information to perform a second action (x2.5 as stated?) and coupled anyway to extract or tune in.

I know my mails are more intuitive than exact, but maybe thats the key.

But what's the influence of the superimposed RND?

What's the RND generator? A kind of sensor what's comming in next?
It looks like a magic generator, a reviewer?
Or was it again a project to get money from sponsors?

The RND itself is the interesting part of the configuration. I always tried to build pendulums with superpoles, but also the superpoles find their point of lowest energy in the system. Is it possible to move the resting magnet in an RND way so that it uses the energy of the pendulum to move to a random position and therefore changes the resting configuration over the time?

Then high grade mathematics or purely intumatics is possible. Chaotic systems which get's their energy from super-chaotic influences.

My next mail should be about "How to build natural RND generators and how to utilize them to extract useable electric energy from the matrix."

But before my computer get's again a headache i'll send this mail out to the cybersea.

Best wishes to Stefan and all the finders.

KArFunkel
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: karl on June 14, 2007, 03:39:48 PM
Again...
is there a way to "lock in" the em fine structure of our solar system, including our basic planetary situation or multi vibratory influences by a kind of electronic "chopper" system?
Did a defined and sensed RND value include more information and therefore discrete E-levels, as includet in particles as we know?
Are this discrete levels natural numers or do we have to think in relative numers as 1/2?
As known from trit's (similar to bits) some informations or sequences of informations could carry more strutural informations by viewing it's last, momentary and next value, a kind of checksum. In this case we are talking about the checksum-electronics which measures a static M-field of the earth.
Next question is: (hen-or-egg-first-principle) what is the basic energy form of materia and all other manifestations? E or M, expansion, implosion or maybe ether (resting).
All over all it should be a little bit of all, mixed together and stired well.
How to overcome the checksum and make them (E, M, hen and egg) moving to my f...... electronic meter?
The philosophical answer is: it's the  which was first, because it's the beginning and the end of the logical progression.
The  in electronics is the ether and it's resting, but it carries periodically changing informations of what has been and therefore knows always what will come. This is our mastermind. How to convert to usable energy? An endless magnetic tape, carrying the last information, but superimposes the actual situation to know the next step.

So far in the interpretation of the proposed patent: A local R/W data acquisition head with ou properties....
 
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: starcruiser on June 14, 2007, 08:54:34 PM
@Karl

From my take on this patent the control electronics (I assume this is what you are speaking of) indicates an amplifier and a randomizing generator to change the levels of the pulses.

The main theory as I see it is to pulse the magnetic field (either permanet or electrically induced) and gain amplification from it by maybe tapping the ether.

Sharp gradients or pulses are required (sharp rise time, or on/off if you will) to generate the effect. The output is derived from the pulses voltage delta (the difference between the high and low pulse values).

We are looking to determine if this actually does work by performing the build of a similar device but using a control system to deliver the required pulses. The control systems we are thinking of will be synchronous as well as asynchronous, the patent stated either will work, so some are pursuing one path and others are pursuing the other. I myself am pursuing async pulsing using a blocking oscillator design using the control coils as part of the oscillators design.

I say have a go at it and see what you get if you are so inclined.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 18, 2007, 01:21:31 PM
Having duplicated Otto&Jason's driver/mosfet combination I've now got a much better setup. The main difference other that using a low side driver and not the high side driver, is the addition of two decoupling capacitors directly across the power inputs to the driver. This removed much of the rubbish and I was getting much crisper square waves when entering high khz 500K+.

I've also noticed that when applying a larger 24V across the coil to generate the static magnetic field, that the ability of one coil to induce into another coil is cut in half, REGARDLESS of the direction of current applied to generate the static magnetic field. In other words it doesn't matter whether N is top of the coil or bottom of the coil, they both have the effect of reducing the coupling between the two inducing bifilar coils.

I expected this to happen in one direction, but thought that in the other direction there would be an enhancement.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: starcruiser on June 18, 2007, 09:47:32 PM
hummm...
Title: perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Earl on June 20, 2007, 12:27:00 PM
Hi Bob,

yes, you are right several capacitors right at the supply pins of the driver IC are necessary.  I suggest 1nF, 10nF, and 100nF with the smaller capacitors closer to the IC pins than the larger values.  Also a few uF of tantal will not be negative / attention to correct polarity of the tantal capacitor.

I suggest a trifilar winding for the first experiments, two coils for injecting pulses, and one coil for the output.

Remember the polarity of the pulsed magnetic field adds to the field of the permanent magnet.

It is not clear whether some exact sequence must be used or whether a quasi-random sequence generated by linear shift registers will suffice.  I will soon post some information concerning random bit generators.

It is even possible that pulsed magnetic fields can shock the aether even without the pressence of a permanent magnet?

I think the best step forward is to start experimenting and see what happens.

Regards, Earl
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: starcruiser on June 20, 2007, 04:04:42 PM
Well I finally have a day off and I am winding my test rig, so I should have something to report soon.

@Earl,

From what I read in the patent, the voltage/power is derived from the differential of the pulses, i.e. one set at say 500v and the other set at say 350v, this would provide a difference of 150v.

The patent did mention sequential/synchronous and async pulses would work. I am planning on using async pulses to start, leveraging a blocking oscillator designs that uses the control coils as part of the oscillators circuits. I will be using 2 oscillators initially and plan on adjusting the drive voltage to adjust the output pulses voltage.

My initial design will use a 12v battery for testing and a voltage divider to drop the   source on one oscillator to say 9v while the other oscillator uses the straight 12v, this should provide the difference required.

As far as the magnetic field source, I am planning on using both a coil on the test rig for the source then replacing that with a neo magnet to see what results I get between them. I was wondering if the magnet is being used to couple the 2 air coil transformers. This will be another test for the rig as well.

There is some information on blocking oscillators that mentions designs that allow one oscillator to be sync'd to the main one and with careful capacitor selection would allow a frequency divider action to occur between the two. I am wanting to try this out as well. This will be the sync'd option I mentioned.

So first step is to build the test rig using 3 or maybe 4 coils per set on a 1/2" PVC form (pipe) and wrap 2 sets spaced 1" apart to allow for coil separation (reduce field coupling) and allow testing the Neo magnet theory. The use of the PVC pipe will allow insertion of various materials for potential collectors as well and this angle will be tested as well.

All of these ideas will be using as part of the testing a diode and capacitor to capture the radiant energy from the output of the coils for power conversion.

These thoughts are partially based on the SM open TPU design.

Well it is off to the hardware store to pick up a few items to wind the test rigs, I will be making a few of these rigs to test a couple of variations. Will report back later. Lots of variations to test.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: karl on June 23, 2007, 10:35:38 PM
@Karl

From my take on this patent the control electronics (I assume this is what you are speaking of) indicates an amplifier and a randomizing generator to change the levels of the pulses.

The main theory as I see it is to pulse the magnetic field (either permanet or electrically induced) and gain amplification from it by maybe tapping the ether.

Sharp gradients or pulses are required (sharp rise time, or on/off if you will) to generate the effect. The output is derived from the pulses voltage delta (the difference between the high and low pulse values).

We are looking to determine if this actually does work by performing the build of a similar device but using a control system to deliver the required pulses. The control systems we are thinking of will be synchronous as well as asynchronous, the patent stated either will work, so some are pursuing one path and others are pursuing the other. I myself am pursuing async pulsing using a blocking oscillator design using the control coils as part of the oscillators design.

I say have a go at it and see what you get if you are so inclined.
Hi Starcruicer,
here is the fiddle for your concert.
  Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
? Reply #41 on: June 06, 2007, 11:16:40 AM ? Quote Modify 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Finders,

what you want to do is building a kind of stationary newman machine.
Have a look at the newspage of Stefan.
Someone has attempted a good example again. A working model out of nothing.
The main part of this kind of negative energy collector is a spark (plasma).
No discrete parts are used as diodes, transistors and so on.

Stefan has postet this 1998 at JLN labs site http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/NMac1118.htm
This machine consists basicly of a big coil (the bigger the better), a tuned sparkgap and a blocking device to direct the backward current.
At the right tuned distance the color (frequency=E-Level=tuning) of the spark change from blue (discrete spectrum, maybe a line of oxygen) to white (full (most)spectrum) and is making a hissing sound.
This is the electronic-hit-part of the future and the past.

The Teslas use different discharge tubes filled with H2 or N2.
I've found such tubes some time ago at ebay.
The are used to work in front of wimhurst machines (is a light going on in your head?) to show different colors of discharging gases.

This is the real tuner.
H2 has a continious spectrum!
H2 is receiving a continous spectrum!
The sun is sending out a continous spectrum!
Evey particle is tuned in a continous spectrum.
Every Molecule could be replaced by a frequency (actual science: Using frequency as catalysator).

Thats it.
The cat is out of the house.
The mice are dancing on the table.

So what I mean Stefan and all other finders:
This is a kind of tuner for a special spectrum and a kind of coupler between discrete energy levels (light to electrons and backwards).
You know that plasma is called the fifth (element) state of energy.
Most of the materia of our cosm is in plasma state.
You want to couple in this mass. The best universal and universallegal way to fullfil your wishes.
!This are just suggestions. I'm not a proofer, but think about it!
Please open your minds and start to see: over unity is only possible by thinking on cosmic levels. Oder ist das nicht so?

Every particle in the 3d space is affecting every particle in the 3d space.
Simply by overlapping all influences of all roompoints we get the momentary situation in static and dynamic fields. This is the basic of our common computersimulation programs.

The biggest mass is in plasma state. The biggest content of energy (gequantelt oder nicht) is sending out energy because of the fact, that plasmatic materia has more energy as motion, and therefore heat and preasure and speed, as materia which is resting more in one roompoint.
Is this clear?

We should couple to this mass of frequencys by sending out a em pulse with our coil (creating a vacuum) and receive a modified pulse (filling the vacuum) after a while.

Stefan: is it possible that we change the "Verweilzeit", the time of duration of our pulsed mass in the space and therefore the time of the em-Quant in space by adjusting the sparkgap?

Is the energy quant able to collect energy and mutate to a harmonic em object which is rejected by the coil (blow-suck-effect)?

Yes, I think so.

PLEASE READ THE PAGES 37 FF OF THE ATTACHED .PDF

It's the Patent from the most famous Scientist. Thats the Key to all FEdevices.
Thats the way.

The generator consists of two C's and one ore two L's with HF Ferrites, AMCC prefererd.
Meyer, Kunel, Morray, Tesla, ever and ever the same principle.

But the basics are here and search for my last mails, all books about that physics are free to download at the postet sites.

But I'll show you the sites if you can't find them.

Green technology with 100% positive energy respond.

and think about my words again

Best wishes to all.

Kar Funkel
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: karl on June 23, 2007, 10:48:04 PM
Good Morning,

who knows Dr. Aspden?
Here is the theory and practice of all! OU phenomenas.
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB2390941&F=0&OREQ=1&&CY=ep&LG=de

This Patent includes further Information how it works.
Fasten your seatbells...

All Books and papers from Dr. Aspden could be free! downloaded from:
http://www.aspden.org/books/Booklist.html
Please read all..

All Energy Science Reports are here for free! download (sparky or not, there is everything)
http://www.aspden.org/reports/reportlist.htm

His Newest Book could be downloaded free! here or buy it
http://www.aspden.org/books/2edpoc/2edpoccontents.htm

What do you need more to end your discussion.

###Step in FREE NRG###

karLfunkel
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: kames on June 24, 2007, 02:45:12 AM
Good Morning,

who knows Dr. Aspden?
Here is the theory and practice of all! OU phenomenas.
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB2390941&F=0&OREQ=1&&CY=ep&LG=de

This Patent includes further Information how it works.
Fasten your seatbells...

All Books and papers from Dr. Aspden could be free! downloaded from:
http://www.aspden.org/books/Booklist.html
Please read all..

All Energy Science Reports are here for free! download (sparky or not, there is everything)
http://www.aspden.org/reports/reportlist.htm

His Newest Book could be downloaded free! here or buy it
http://www.aspden.org/books/2edpoc/2edpoccontents.htm

What do you need more to end your discussion.

###Step in FREE NRG###

karLfunkel

@Karl.


I tried that patent about 2.5 years ago (right away when it just appeared on the web) with 20000 V setup. It didn?t work. I liked all of the Aspden?s publications and was following him very closely. I also tried to play with it by changing the configuration in some little different ways. The result was zero.
I read almost all Aspden?s articles publicly available.
Sorry, if I disappointed you.

Kames.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: z_p_e on June 24, 2007, 04:39:59 AM
Having duplicated Otto&Jason's driver/mosfet combination I've now got a much better setup. The main difference other that using a low side driver and not the high side driver, is the addition of two decoupling capacitors directly across the power inputs to the driver. This removed much of the rubbish and I was getting much crisper square waves when entering high khz 500K+.

I've also noticed that when applying a larger 24V across the coil to generate the static magnetic field, that the ability of one coil to induce into another coil is cut in half, REGARDLESS of the direction of current applied to generate the static magnetic field. In other words it doesn't matter whether N is top of the coil or bottom of the coil, they both have the effect of reducing the coupling between the two inducing bifilar coils.

I expected this to happen in one direction, but thought that in the other direction there would be an enhancement.

Bob,

If you are using a ferromagnetic core, perhaps it was being saturated with the static field applied, and not without it. This would explain the reduced coupling.

Darren
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: brnbrade on June 24, 2007, 06:14:39 AM
Hello all

This morning I played with resonant frequencies of my walkman in the ring tpu that I built.
I input whit 2 cells 1.5v, and collect 52v 1A in output.
When I decided to put a permanent magnetic ring in turn of the rings collectors and...
Amaze, the readings jumped for more than 250v. with two cell my reader was crazy.

I hope help

Regards
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: chrisC on June 24, 2007, 06:30:58 AM
@brnbrade

Great! Can you tell us a little bit more of your setup, circuit, current measurements and ring structure please? There is not enough information from your post to understand what we are supposed to understand? Thank you.

Regards
chrisC
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: brnbrade on June 24, 2007, 07:06:29 AM
@brnbrade

Great! Can you tell us a little bit more of your setup, circuit, current measurements and ring structure please? There is not enough information from your post to understand what we are supposed to understand? Thank you.

Regards
chrisC

Hi ChrisC
My TPU comprise in 24 turns medium wire  and 1000 turns more fine wire in parallel, mounted in pvc tube and isolated well isolated. I put permanent magneto ring in turn of the tpu and reader  jumped as crazy above the 250v.

TKS
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: chrisC on June 24, 2007, 07:13:43 AM
Hi brnbrade:

Thanks for the reply. What was your input frequency (assuming only one?) into the primary and was there analog ammeters measuring the currents in the primary and secondary? A photo or graphics image of the circuit would really be appreciated if that was not too much trouble for you.

Thanks

chrisC
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Bruce_TPU on June 24, 2007, 07:18:04 AM
 :)  Bingo...

I think brnbrade has found some missing ingredients!
Awesome Job, brnbrade..!  More Erfinder, eh?  LOL

Cheers,
Bruce
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: brnbrade on June 24, 2007, 07:37:38 AM
chrisC

The initial reading was of 50v without the ring magnetic permenente.
But, when I put the ring permenente the things left my understanding.
The frequencies were of an old walkmam. The frequencies were of the sound that run of the station tuned in place.
Yes, a transformer, high speaker, the primary vibrating in magnetic field, secondary as collectors.

Tks
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: brnbrade on June 24, 2007, 07:50:26 AM
Hi

I believe with more amper and faster and broad pulses the thing begins to be interesting.!
In it lives him.!

regards
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: chrisC on June 24, 2007, 07:52:30 AM
brnbrade:

Thanks indeed. So, you have a old walkman which tuned to a specific AM/FM station of a certain frequency and the output of the jack which would have been connected normally to a headset is not driving your primary coil. Both your primary/secondary are wound around this PVC pipe with a magnet shuffled into the hole of the PVC pipe?

That's seemed really simple. Please confirm your AM/FM station freqiuency. Thanks

Chris

Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Bruce_TPU on June 24, 2007, 07:54:03 AM
Hi brnbrade,

So you input the frequency with a wire from the headphone jack, and not connect the ground?  I heard a story similar once, except that person used his headphone and put it right on the input.

And the Walkman was tuned to AM, FM station, or just static noise?

Yep, Chris asked my question! LOL
Cheers,
Bruce
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: brnbrade on June 24, 2007, 08:13:47 AM
Hi

The permanent magnetic ring on the outside of the pvc tube. The station was FM stereo.
More thinks that is relevant.
Mine to think it is, the primary works as electromagnet of the pulses of the sound frequency.
A diode rectifier was put in the outlet of the walkman for not having tension return.

Tks
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: chrisC on June 24, 2007, 08:19:37 AM
brnbrade  :

I don't have a good drawing tool. Is it like this? What is the FM frequency?

chrisC
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Bruce_TPU on June 24, 2007, 08:22:59 AM
Hi guys,

Remember that story I heard not long ago?  It was a FM radio as well.  So I agree also, that FM is important.  A diode, good thing.  Was the magnet near your wires, or setting right on top of them?

Truly amazing to hear two such similar stories.  What is different about those waves than the waves we are now sending into our ECD-TPU's?

Do you mind working with those of us who would like to replicate this, brnbrade?

Good question Chris.  What was the station number?
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: brnbrade on June 24, 2007, 08:37:25 AM
brnbrade  :

I don't have a good drawing tool. Is it like this? What is the FM frequency?

chrisC


chrisC

Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: chrisC on June 24, 2007, 08:39:51 AM
Great. Thank you for clarifying! Looking forward to more results from your experiments.
Thanks

chrisC
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Bruce_TPU on June 24, 2007, 08:56:47 AM
@ Chris
@ Brnbrade

Since the rest of Chris' drawing is correct, I would notice the sound frequency, which is a Long wave I do believe, also going in opposing direction, at the same time, in the same wire, as WaveWatcher shared not long ago.  And then induction into the secondary.  Others can explain it FAR better than I!   ;) 

I see working TPU's in our futures.

Brnbrade you have been a good student of Erfinder!  Otto recieved many clues from him as well!  You can be proud of what you have discovered!  We now need to confirm this.  This is of the utmost importance. 

Fine Wire?  About what mm?
Medium wire?  About What mm?
What size PVC pipe?  1/2 inch   3/4 inch  or 1 inch or larger?

Thank you!
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: BEP on June 24, 2007, 09:15:10 AM
Already covered while I was typing.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 24, 2007, 09:38:24 AM
brnbrade  :

I don't have a good drawing tool. Is it like this? What is the FM frequency?

chrisC


chrisC



Excellent work.

On your ring magnet where are the North - South.

Are they:

1. North Top, South on Bottom. (vertical field)
2. South Top, North on Bottom. (vertical field)
3. South on inside radius, North on outside radius (radial field)
4. North on inside radius, south on outside radius (radial field)

EDIT: Now have it confirmed that brnbrade used a ring magnet was from an old loudspeaker. This means the poles are on the flat face - which is 1 or 2 above.

Thanks, Bob
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 24, 2007, 09:39:42 AM
Having duplicated Otto&Jason's driver/mosfet combination I've now got a much better setup. The main difference other that using a low side driver and not the high side driver, is the addition of two decoupling capacitors directly across the power inputs to the driver. This removed much of the rubbish and I was getting much crisper square waves when entering high khz 500K+.

I've also noticed that when applying a larger 24V across the coil to generate the static magnetic field, that the ability of one coil to induce into another coil is cut in half, REGARDLESS of the direction of current applied to generate the static magnetic field. In other words it doesn't matter whether N is top of the coil or bottom of the coil, they both have the effect of reducing the coupling between the two inducing bifilar coils.

I expected this to happen in one direction, but thought that in the other direction there would be an enhancement.

Bob,

If you are using a ferromagnetic core, perhaps it was being saturated with the static field applied, and not without it. This would explain the reduced coupling.

Darren

Air core only.
Title: brnbrade experiment_test setup
Post by: Earl on June 24, 2007, 12:45:02 PM
Hi brnbrade,

Is this how your setup looked like?
Please confirm or post necessary changes.

73, Earl

brnbrade posted image
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: EMdevices on June 24, 2007, 02:23:54 PM
This setup by brnbrade is amost exact to my tesla coil video I showed.

You have a secondary and you have a few turns for the primary.

The only big difference with my setup was that I used a small blocking oscillator to create a train of spikes  (which contain a number of frequencies in their Fourier decomposition) and can exicte a number of resonances that may exist.

The other small difference was that I used a ferite inserted in the center of the tube.  He seems to be inserting a magnet.  And also he is placing a disk magnet. 

My ferite on the outside of the tube did nothing.  But it looks like a magnet disk will do something.

Now, I'm wondering about his claim of 250 Volts and 1 Amp.   I saw spikes on my scope that were realy high as well, but I doubt the 1 AMP constant flow.   You just can't hook up a regular ampmeter to some RF source and have any relyable reading.

EM
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: z_p_e on June 24, 2007, 02:58:27 PM

Air core only.

Bob.

OK, I went back to your description of how you wound your coil, and I see now why you are getting this reduction.

It should not matter if your static field coil is N-S or S-N in regards to the diminished induction effect it is having with your "transformer". In fact, if you short the two leads of this static coil, it will again have this effect on the induction.

Reason? This static coil is acting as a load on your "transformer".

Might be best to use a permanent magnet for the static field.

Regards,
Darren
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 24, 2007, 03:37:43 PM

Air core only.

Bob.

OK, I went back to your description of how you wound your coil, and I see now why you are getting this reduction.

It should not matter if your static field coil is N-S or S-N in regards to the diminished induction effect it is having with your "transformer". In fact, if you short the two leads of this static coil, it will again have this effect on the induction.

Reason? This static coil is acting as a load on your "transformer".

Might be best to use a permanent magnet for the static field.

Regards,
Darren

Thanks Darren for your explanation. I'd moved onto a permanent magnet setup last week and had some interesting results. I've had on one occasion, a suddenly appearing AC sinewave, on an output coil,  with a fixed amplitude, no decay or ramp up. It appears and disappears. There is no rhyme or reason. Almost impossible to capture on a camara - believe me I've tried!!

More on this in a little while.

Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Bruce_TPU on June 24, 2007, 03:45:17 PM
Good morning guys,  :)

brnbrade had an air core, no magnet inside, only a circular permanent magnet around outside.  Even without that he was getting voltage!

Next, as I told everyone,  I had someone send me a very similar story that happened to them two days ago  (sent to me two days ago).  They also used a FM radio, except they put the earphone right onto the input wires.  Let's just say that output was not the problem..LOL   Control was.

I even wrote Rob and others before all of this asking the difference between this and what we have been doing, as far as the wave input is concerned.  So to me brnbrade is a second confirmation, which jumps the "believability factor" in my mind.

I would suggest to all to immedietly test this!  Theorize later.  Think TPU, Think Magnetic field OVER/AROUND the toroid @ 7.23 Hz as I have been saying all along.  But test this brnbrades way.  Seems easy.  We just have to guess at the size wire and size pipe.  (P.S.  This is why proper documentation of experiments is so important, for replication purposes.  Please document properly!  ;) Thank you!  LOL

Cheers,
Bruce
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Paul-R on June 24, 2007, 03:59:11 PM
So you input the frequency with a wire from the headphone jack, and not connect the ground?
This is odd. Surely, the output from the headphone jack is music, i.e. audio frequency
stuff between 40 hz and 18khz.
Paul.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Bruce_TPU on June 24, 2007, 04:20:31 PM
Frequency odd, yes.  But think three dimensionally.  Think Longitudinal wave sent at the same time opposing each other on a conductor in a magnetic field.  There is much more to it, but that is the short version.

Now we understand the story of the diamond needle from SM...The impossible being made possible.   As soon as EM post's his documentation, we must all confirm.

I have said sound waves a hundred times on my thread.  I even said that was what was meant by the airplane breaking the sound barrier and HOW the engineers achieved this.  They achieved it by placing the test configurations inside of a Transonic (sound) pressure tunnel!  :)

Cheers,
Bruce
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 24, 2007, 04:35:40 PM
Here's a run down of where I'm at with my experiments as setout when I started this thread.

I can tell you what DOESN'T work.

1. Solenoid air core electromagnet to create the static field - DOES NOT WORK. For reasons that have now been explained by ZPE. It paraphrase ZPE it reduces the size of the pulses because it in effect puts a load on the 'transformer'.

2. 5000Volts DC at a few milliamps to create a very weak static field - DOES NOT WORK.

3. Both of the above have been comboed with input pulses into single coils and bifilar coils - parallel, inversed, and alternatly pulsed up to 3MHz.

4. Wrapping coils around a solid cylindrical magnet is not EFFECTIVE. I wrapped one coil around as an input for the pulses, and another for the output. The coupling between the coils was poor. I obtained a very strange transient effect where an AC sinewave appeared on the output coil, just after the input pulse was turned off. The strange effect was their was no ramp up nor ramp down of the sine wave. It just appeared, with a fixed amplitude, for around 3/4 of the off pulse, and then dissappeared. The effect is very transient and I've been unable to capture on camara. Earl can confirm that I PM'd him earlier in the week concerning this result.

My permanent magnet core was made of three,   1 cm diameter, 1 cm long cylindrical neodym magnets. These magnets have seen some abuse so have chips around the edges. I believe the transient result is due to something happening in the limited empty space due to the chips in the center of the coil around the magnets.

If you consider a ring magnet with north-south as per Earl's posting, you have a magnetic flow IN the material of the magnet itself going UPWARDS - let's label this flow 'X'. But on the outside of the ring (flow 'Y') and within the center of the ring (flow 'Z'), both in AIR, you have a magnetic flow going DOWNWARDS.


The Over Unity effect, I believe, occurs when you have both of these flows. Consider SM's larger coil. Thin walled and vertical - designed to bring these two flows as close together as possible. These are then perturbed by pulsing coils or better still rotated by a rotating magnetic field.

Consider what happens if you apply a rotating magnetic field to these two flows (Y and Z). You get a dual magnetic vortex BUT WITH ONE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE YOU HAVE TWO FLOWS MOVING AT TWO DIFFERENT LINEAR SPEEDS. The flow on the outside, flow Y, has a larger diameter than the inside flow, Z. Therefore their linear speeds will be different.

The FM is not what is causing the brnbrade effects. The Frequency Modulation has already been removed by the walkman by the time it gets to the headphone output as part and parcel of demodulating the signal.

What is more relevant is that the main high amplitude output will be in the range of 0-20,000khz, with harmonics I would guess into the 40,000khz.

It is the action of pulsing dual flows.

Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 24, 2007, 04:45:20 PM
Frequency odd, yes.  But think three dimensionally.  Think Longitudinal wave sent at the same time opposing each other on a conductor in a magnetic field.  There is much more to it, but that is the short version.

Now we understand the story of the diamond needle from SM...The impossible being made possible.   As soon as EM post's his documentation, we must all confirm.

I have said sound waves a hundred times on my thread.  I even said that was what was meant by the airplane breaking the sound barrier and HOW the engineers achieved this.  They achieved it by placing the test configurations inside of a Transonic (sound) pressure tunnel!  :)

Cheers,
Bruce

Sorry Bruce. You are way off on this. The important aspect is the RING MAGNET.

I've been experimenting with permanent magnets for the last few weeks, since starting this thread. Earl will no doubt have more to say.

Electrical audio signals are NOT LONGITUDINAL. This is NOT about SOUND WAVES. This is about electrical pulses in the 0-20khz region acting on the dual magnetic flows.

Check back on some of my posts months ago concerning the need for a static magnetic field, and the advancement of the theory that the top and bottom coils of the SM TPU where in effect helm holz coils, powered by DC current, with a feedback of DC from the center output coil back into the top and bottom coils.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 24, 2007, 05:04:10 PM
Frequency odd, yes.  But think three dimensionally.  Think Longitudinal wave sent at the same time opposing each other on a conductor in a magnetic field.  There is much more to it, but that is the short version.

NO. These are transverse electrical waves. There is nothing longitudinal about them in sense you are talking about. Pure voltage may be a longitudinal effect but once current flows we are talking transverse.

Longitudinal sound waves ONLY appears when you have something physically vibrating and then you are talking about air molecules vibrating longitudinally. That is why speakers/headphones have a diaphram that moves in and out to create the longitudinal waves.

SM's quote on breaking the sounds barrier was a metaphor and not meant to be taken literally. What he was saying is that the sound barrier was broken by making incremental increases in performance.

He was trying to suggest that rather than trying to build a TPU straight up with overunity you go for incremental improvements in input power to output power. That you start with getting the few kicks going, which will be under unity and slowly but surely get to the point where you have enough kicks to get overunity.

A point not lost on Otto in his run of incremental experiments.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 24, 2007, 05:10:55 PM
Now moving to what Otto is doing.

I hope everyone sees the parallels between Otto having two different sized (different diameter), 1-turn coils and the concept of dual magnetic flows moving at different linear speeds.

This is the key effect I think we should all be building on.
Title: Questions for brnbrade
Post by: Earl on June 24, 2007, 05:18:09 PM
Hi brnbrade,

please comment on the attached image and the questions in it.

Thanks and 73, Earl
brnbrade messages, sorted newest at top.
06:13 24 June 2007
Hi, The permanent magnetic ring on the outside of the pvc tube. The station was FM stereo.
More thinks that is relevant.
Mine to think it is, the primary works as electromagnet of the pulses of the sound frequency.
A diode rectifier was put in the outlet of the walkman for not having tension return.  Tks
05:50 24 June 2007
Hi, I believe with more amper and faster and broad pulses the thing begins to be interesting!
In it lives him!
regards
05:37 24 June 2007
The initial reading was of 50v without the ring magnetic permenente.  But, when I put the ring permenente the things left my understanding.  The frequencies were of an old walkmam. The frequencies were of the sound that run of the station tuned in place.  Yes, a transformer, high speaker, the primary vibrating in magnetic field, secondary as collectors.  Tks
05:06 24 June 2007
My TPU comprise in 24 turns medium wire  and 1000 turns more fine wire in parallel, mounted in pvc tube and isolated well isolated. I put permanent magneto ring in turn of the tpu and reader  jumped as crazy above the 250v.  TKS
04:14 24 June 2007
Hello all, This morning I played with resonant frequencies of my walkman in the ring tpu that I built.
I input whit 2 cells 1.5v, and collect 52v 1A in output.  When I decided to put a permanent magnetic ring in turn of the rings collectors and...
Amaze, the readings jumped for more than 250v. with two cell my reader was crazy.
I hope help, Regards
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 24, 2007, 05:26:41 PM
http://www.forcefieldmagnets.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23_37&products_id=66

This is the largest ring magnet I can find, poles on the flat face - which I believe is what is required. Still waiting for confirmation from brnbrade on this.


http://www.rare-earth-magnets.com/SearchResult-CategoryID-33.html

Some more here. Seem to be cheaper. Also have different N-S arrangements for the rings.


Microwave magnetron should have two large N-S on flat face, ring magnets.


FROM EARL:

Ring magnets are usually used in loudspeakers.  Should be able to be found in lots of places.

Try:
http://www.engconcepts.net/List_Of_Ceramic_Magnets.asp

http://www.engconcepts.net/List_Of_Cone_Magnets.asp

http://www.supermagnetman.net/index.php?cPath=41

he has everything, lots of N50 material hehehe which will pull in an aether vortex from the next galaxy.

I suggest trying both neo and ceramic materials.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 24, 2007, 05:32:07 PM
More things becoming apparent. BrnBrade mentioned STEREO from his walkman.

Stereo signals work on phase difference to provide the illusion of the sound source coming from different points (sound stage). If he was feeding two signals into his coils, that were stereo, he would have near identical signals, but with subtle phase differences.

This matches with patent. Quick succesion pulses as per the patent would be equivalent to a small phase difference.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: z_p_e on June 24, 2007, 05:46:43 PM
Now moving to what Otto is doing.

I hope everyone sees the parallels between Otto having two different sized (different diameter), 1-turn coils and the concept of dual magnetic flows moving at different linear speeds.

This is the key effect I think we should all be building on.

Bob, these are shorted loops. I wouldn't consider them coils per se. As such, they would act more like antennas then coils.

Darren
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 24, 2007, 06:02:16 PM
Now moving to what Otto is doing.

I hope everyone sees the parallels between Otto having two different sized (different diameter), 1-turn coils and the concept of dual magnetic flows moving at different linear speeds.

This is the key effect I think we should all be building on.

Bob, these are shorted loops. I wouldn't consider them coils per se. As such, they would act more like antennas then coils.

Darren

As shorted loops, acting as antennas, that would mean peak current would flow at resonance ? So when both loops get hit with their respective resonant frequency, you would have some sort of dual magnetic field flows, interacting/cancelling due to the 'mobius' twist ? Antenna theory is not my thing!!

What is the difference in terms of magnetic field flow between a cyliner magnet and a ring magnet. The only thing I can see is the dual magnetic flow aspect.


Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Bruce_TPU on June 24, 2007, 08:19:43 PM
@ Bob.R

The Story told to me WAS of Sound waves, from a earphone placed on a wire input.  It produced massive ammounts of electricity!  The earphone was plugged into an FM radio.  All of this was BEFORE brnbrade posted last night.  he wired direct to his headphone output and did not use the same method to produce the waves.  :)

Cheers,
Bruce
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: brnbrade on June 24, 2007, 09:00:24 PM
 Hi btentzer

I make little moving demonstrate my experiment concept.

Tks
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Thedane on June 24, 2007, 09:19:18 PM
Hi btentzer

I make little moving demonstrate my experiment concept.

Tks

Hi brnbrade,
Your video shows an analogue meter where the needle follows the music - and not much more.
(To me it also looks like you're taking the output from your stereo and channels it through a transformer - something that is NOT even close to unity.)

May I ask which concept it is that you're trying to show?

//TheDane
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: brnbrade on June 24, 2007, 09:54:08 PM
Hi btentzer

I make little moving demonstrate my experiment concept.

Tks

Hi brnbrade,
Your video shows an analogue meter where the needle follows the music - and not much more.
(To me it also looks like you're taking the output from your stereo and channels it through a transformer - something that is NOT even close to unity.)

May I ask which concept it is that you're trying to show?

//TheDane


//TheDane

Yes. Here anything of more for the moment.
The one that I wanted to show as the sound waves balances.
That inside of the one of my device also scale.
And it is known that a magnetic field varying in the time generates energy.
How yes, so fast the primary ones to balance the secondary ones they collect more energy.
It is it that me leaning of that everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6UTQLRW9bs&mode=related&search=

regards
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Bruce_TPU on June 24, 2007, 10:15:11 PM
Hi Brnbrade,

You are right.  The voltage fluctuates with the beat oscillations of the station.  I just finished hooking up stereo wires from a headphone output of an FM radio to a transformer.  WAS NOT looking for OU, before everyone floods me!  LOL 

I noticed some weird things.  At the bottom of the FM dial there was .001 readings, nothing there.  I hit 101 on up and things looked better with readings between .8 mv and 1.2 volts.  I then did a little mobius loop from outputs to inputs with diodes to input the feedback and got it up to between 6 and 7 volts.  So the faster the pulse of this wave I think the more power will be generated in the proper circuit potential, with the correct frequencies.  Also, as I adjusted the gain it had a direct affect on voltage output.

Remember what SM says about the TPU?
"You can begin to collect the current and dissipate it with no need for
amplification because the signal source also becomes the feed for
the power source and has the natural tendency to run with gain.


Brnbrade, what size pvc did you use to wrap your wire?  We would like to try to repeat what you have done.  Have you tried it again today?

Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: brnbrade on June 24, 2007, 10:41:03 PM
btentzer

To begin with high big old speaker's magnet and pvc of 1/4 ".


tks
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Bruce_TPU on June 24, 2007, 10:45:33 PM
btentzer

To begin with high big old speaker's magnet and pvc of 1/2 ".


tks

Okay, I already have both.  1/2" pvc at what length?  Keep going..

Thanks
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Bruce_TPU on June 25, 2007, 02:33:05 AM
Hi brnbrade,

I have my wire, 30 gauge for the "fine" wire and 22 gauge for the "medium" wire.  I had gotten 1/2" pvc, but now I see you have changed it to 1/4".  So I will look for something 1/4" to use for my air core.

I know you said 1000 turns of the fine wire, but how long is your pvc?  4"? 6"?  It will help me when I wind to know this.. :)

Okay, I found 1/4" piece of semi-rigid plastic.  That should work.  I will use a piece 6" in length.

Cheers,
Bruce
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Bruce_TPU on June 25, 2007, 04:25:25 AM
Okay, I ended up making it 3" in length, It probably could have been half of that. 
Next I wrapped the entire coil over with high heat electrical tape.

Now I will take an FM stereo clock radio and plug into the head phone jack.  From there I will measure volts out. 

Next I will hook to the primary and measure. 

Then place a large magnet next to it and measure.

Then place a large magnet around the entire coil and measure.

Cheers,
Bruce

Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 25, 2007, 04:40:22 AM
@ Bob.R

The Story told to me WAS of Sound waves, from a earphone placed on a wire input.  It produced massive ammounts of electricity!  The earphone was plugged into an FM radio.  All of this was BEFORE brnbrade posted last night.  he wired direct to his headphone output and did not use the same method to produce the waves.  :)

Cheers,
Bruce

You're saying the earphone was not electrically connected to device producing this large amount of electricity ?
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: Bruce_TPU on June 25, 2007, 05:29:48 AM
@ Bob.R

In brnbrades case yes.  In another persons case, who had PM'd me, no.  Just the tiny speaker on an input to their coil.  It was not electrically connected.  Sounds wild I know.  But I have seen some small strange things today.

@ brnbrade

I am sure I must have wound your coil wrong.  I first wound 1000 turns of 30 gauge wire around a straight piece of 1/4" pvc for the length of 3.5"  Over the top of this I wound 24 turns of the primary, using 22 gauge wire.  This is why we need exact details, porfavor.  :)  A drawing would also assist.  Including how you connected to your walkman.  Thank you.

Volts: 
Headphone jack stereo wire - unplugged
.005 v

Plugged in - No gain/volume  107.7 FM
.103 - .110 v

Plugged in - full gain/volume 107.7 FM
fluctuates LOW - .165 v        High - .629  <-- VERY interesting, with increased gain is increased voltage, everytime!

Then wired it to primary side of coil:
Secondary No volume
.000 - .002 v

Secondary Full volume
.009 v

Large magnet near it did not change anything.  A large magnet over the entire coil did not change anything.  I unwrapped the electrical tape, thinking it was hindering the vibrations of the primary, but nothing.  Each primary lead was connected to a stereo output lead.  Each secondary lead was connected to the voltmeter.

Either my coil was wrong, wire size?  length?  etc.  Or how it was connected to the radio was wrong.  Or both.

Thank you for your time,
Bruce
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on June 25, 2007, 04:31:59 PM
@Bruce

Try Orchestral music. It has a wide sound stage with specific position for various instruments on the sound stage. If you apply the stereo connection to a bifilar coil, it might be more interesting for you.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: starcruiser on June 25, 2007, 06:26:42 PM
I wonder if he connected it to the headphone jack or the speaker output terminals on his receiver? Just a thought/question...
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: brnbrade on June 25, 2007, 09:59:06 PM
After the test in high school support I post pictures and results.
My work and my time is this short.

Diverting the tests, my friend DJ said that certain sounds types use beats per minutes "bpm".
The more fast the beats, can improve the results. I will try weekend.

I will work in other device that will be definitive for me. I hope he/she works as well as the theory on him.
Will be ready inside of an or two months.  I wait.

Regards
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: karl on June 26, 2007, 11:36:41 AM
Hi, good results,

interesting formula from Hugh H. Skilling, "Electric Network", John Willey & Sons, 1974, regarding a situation of an RLC Resonator (or Network) which once loaded whith internal energy provides enough energy to swing perpetual (continous changing form of energy).

R^2 < 4 * (L/C)

Includung an PM causes an "Assymetric" and therefore "Nonlinear" introduction in the L-factor (loading in parralel mode, pumping in antiparallel mode).
We should engineer an "Factor of Motivation" which describes the property of selfexcitement (neg. damping).

How should we get into this stable sector?
Possible due to:
#Offset statically
#dyn. Offset due to interacting Waveforms
#canceling out R by using the skin effect (HV)

Best wishes
Karl
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: EMdevices on June 28, 2007, 07:16:02 PM
Karl,

Are you refering to a simple  SERIES connection of L, C, and R?

Can you post more info, a schematic perhaps?

EM
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: hartiberlin on June 28, 2007, 07:57:54 PM
Hi, good results,

interesting formula from Hugh H. Skilling, "Electric Network", John Willey & Sons, 1974, regarding a situation of an RLC Resonator (or Network) which once loaded whith internal energy provides enough energy to swing perpetual (continous changing form of energy).

R^2 < 4 * (L/C)

Includung an PM causes an "Assymetric" and therefore "Nonlinear" introduction in the L-factor (loading in parralel mode, pumping in antiparallel mode).
We should engineer an "Factor of Motivation" which describes the property of selfexcitement (neg. damping).

How should we get into this stable sector?
Possible due to:
#Offset statically
#dyn. Offset due to interacting Waveforms
#canceling out R by using the skin effect (HV)

Best wishes
Karl

Hi Karl,
sounds very interesting.
Could you please scan the pages from this book and post over here ?
Or is it available online ?
Maybe there are also a few drawings with it ?

Is there also more mathematical forumulars with it,
so obe could see how he develops this forumula ?

Many thanks.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on July 09, 2007, 01:18:22 PM
Refer to this circuit to see how you can use BEMF to perturb the field of a neo magnet:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2697.0.html
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: karl on July 17, 2007, 12:24:17 AM
Karl,

Are you refering to a simple  SERIES connection of L, C, and R?

Can you post more info, a schematic perhaps?

EM

Stefan and EM,
yes. This formula and reference was used by an farmous thinker which back- and forward engineered at the same time.
He has designed or redesigned or better created a formula for each infinite small or big, thick or thin, long or short way of materia flow.
A piece of iron square shaped with polefaces, a wire of copper with polefaces, a sparkgap with polefaces, a liquid tube with polefaces a magnetohydrodynamic device with polefaces, an amplifier tube with polefaces, aq battery with polefaces a capacitator with polefaces, an inductor with polefaces, an trasistor with polefaces an lightbulb with an abrupt change in media with polefaces, an swinging pendulum with poles, a Franck Hertz Versuch with poles.........
Always an finite element with poles, do you feel, that there is an simple principle behind the creation of electronics?
Atoms with poles , molecules with poles, masses with poles, clusters with poles, earth magnetic field with poles, sun with poles, cosmic influences due to poles,  earth e-field with poles, and last but not least magnets with poles.....

STOP!!!

Polefaces are described as C, turbulators as L and energytransformer as R.

But the problem with the low R was solved by using an conductive gas (eg. air, H2, N2, O2...plasmatic state), please use not a vacuum, because you'll be x-rayed afterwards. But a short comment about E=m*c^2. Where does the radiant energy come from while a particle accelerates to a discrete value (a kind of super sonic), and after slowing down it has the same mass as before, but, it was in the vacuum and no particle interaction could occour. But only to think.....

So please only experiment in conducting gases as media for sparkgaps. The gas is the absorber and everytime we are living, we have to breath air, so stay on air, it's the carryer of life energy.

cLOSE THE CONTAINER; to avoid activated gas or ions to escape.

OK. A Sparkgap consists basicly of an poleface with an distance between the plates, called capacitance. A nonlinear capacitance as we see later. First this capacitance is relative assymetrical loaded with energy quantas. The paschen formula describes the noninear behaviour of a gas in the nonconductive to the conductive quadrand (?I think so? was it Paschen?). In the moment of conduction, when the breakdown of the capacitive element appears the capacitive element Funkenstrecke changes it's behavior to an resistor with an defined resistance which is verry low in this moment, because the eather is streched. We call this state of the reaction break down of conductive gas.

Now we have an Conductor and a resistor at the same time an the "fifth element", plasma, more powerful than vacuum in relativity to us.
We have also a verry short time to get to R (on), hello to all switchers, and due to the shortest time and the highest current and the lowest resistance and an plasmatic conductor an (some) relativistic effect's including light exchange.

Next phase introduces an swirling motion, forward and backwardmotion of the sub-particles in different directions (rooms) and therefore energy exchanging in an resonant state (plasma is atomic resonance). Here the Inductive part happens, because no energy is created or destroyed, but changed in form or kind of motion (linear, circular or polarized (linear-circular)).

YES IT'S AN RLC IN SERIES   or better it's an R+C of the old style in series with the wires to feed it. 

And a verry good one, but, energyoverflow is lost (or created?) due to radiation as light (massless). If you use a kind of closed lasertube you can use the overflowenergy to feed the process.

But, the resonator of an ordinary sparkgap is an RLC in series. With nonlinear characteristis while breakdown has not occoured, with quasilinear characteristics while breakdown, and back to the box...

In this state the proposed formula was used to describe a so called resonating chamber. But thats to much here, this is an other storry of an future which's horizons only sometimes is seen.

I didn't have the book, I only has the reference, but It looks so important to all your projects that someone should try to get the book. Every book is stored normaly in an university over the world.

But every real HVelectronics could use this formula to play with the RLC factors and see what happens under this conditions.

Who is able to show an example of this quadrand of operation in an example?

Is it really so hard to impline?

The formula is right copied, I'm only a copyman...hohohohoho...

But this makes sense.

I don't have much time to experiment, so intuitive empiric theory and copy i ging is my hobby.

We are at the edge of the univere with our knowledge, Don't PAnic...Just push the button and look what happens...

But, sometimes I experiment with Newman motors and other things like swinging magnets like a little child, sometimes my wife is verry angry about me because I'm laying asleep before my running Newman machine and dream while heraring the swirling of somethousand Hz of rotating neos.

So, please feel free to ask me about my opinion. "And go on my friends, and deal with the healing spirits, with the magic of the ground and the magic of te earth..."(HAWKWIND, Spacebandits) never was the science so overloaded with esoteric, thats a good sign, something good will happen soon.

Add: Please take 1/2 oz of this formula and an 1/2 oz of Harold Aspends Heart of Matherna Testatica Patent and mix at some thousand Hertz as described in the patent (please ask again if you don't know what I mean), Overload it with some thousand static volts and use the surface of the conductor parts (coil and C surface) as an superfast electrostatic carpet with superior R characteristis and.....

Good night everybody, wherever you are..

KARFUNKEL
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: karl on July 17, 2007, 12:51:06 AM
Hi, good results,

interesting formula from Hugh H. Skilling, "Electric Network", John Willey & Sons, 1974, regarding a situation of an RLC Resonator (or Network) which once loaded whith internal energy provides enough energy to swing perpetual (continous changing form of energy).

R^2 < 4 * (L/C)

Includung an PM causes an "Assymetric" and therefore "Nonlinear" introduction in the L-factor (loading in parralel mode, pumping in antiparallel mode).
We should engineer an "Factor of Motivation" which describes the property of selfexcitement (neg. damping).

How should we get into this stable sector?
Possible due to:
#Offset statically
#dyn. Offset due to interacting Waveforms
#canceling out R by using the skin effect (HV)

Best wishes
Karl

Hi Karl,
sounds very interesting.
Could you please scan the pages from this book and post over here ?
Or is it available online ?
Maybe there are also a few drawings with it ?

Is there also more mathematical forumulars with it,
so obe could see how he develops this forumula ?

Many thanks.
Hallo Stefan,

einen guten Ansatz zu finden ist manchmal schwer, aber die heutige Zeit fordert neues von uns.

"Die Schwingkammer", eine Rarit?t aus dem Raum- und Zeit-Verlag (EVERt-Verlag) um die 1980 hat mich zu der formel gef?hrt.
Ein in sich geschlossener Funke wird generiert. Die Kammer ist ein QW?rfel mit 4 Elektrodenw?nden, alle unterteilt in segmente. Ist aber was f?r Ufos, nicht f?r daheim. Der so generierte Kugelblitzschnitt kann aufgeladen und entladen werden und generiert ein neuartiges magnetfeld, das nicht mit ferromagnetica interagiert. UNDERSTAD? Hauptantrieb. UNDERSTAD? KUGELBLITZ. UNDERSTAND? Wandert auch durch W?nde, schwer zu halten... Knoff Hoff...

Ich mach mich mal in der FH-Bibi schlau, die Formel ist wahrscheinlich der Pr?fstein der FE. Unsere Physik ist nicht falsch, sie ist einseitig betrachtet worden und zweckgerichtet vers k(?lle) alaaf t. Last but not least schau ma mal (die engl?nder und chinesen drehn jetzt am rad weil ses net verstehe hhihihih).

Du kannst doch auch mal ne buchleihe(r) anleihern.

Das w?re ja die H?rte wenns in Deinem Forum passiert. Dann kriegst <Du 'nen Orden vom Kanzler.

Ich find's jedenfalls Future styled was hier abgeht, hier funkt auch so schnell keiner rein. ?ber 80% der Himmelsk?rper (kleine) werden von Hobbyastronomen entdeckt. Letzte Nacht habe ich mal mit einem Sternenlichtverst?rker in den Himmel gesehen, wow, da schnuppt's nur so, so viele w?nsche kann man gar nicht so schnell formulieren, naja, daf?r gibt's ja die wunschsparkasse, schnell rein damit, kling, kling...

Los geht's, unsere Achse ist gelegt, bruuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmm...................

Frohes Schaffen und Schlafen,

karLfunkel
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: karl on July 17, 2007, 10:38:46 AM
Stefan,
habe das Buch mal bestellt, kann man auch f?r 2,95 bei Amazon bestellen.
Suchen nach Skilling Networks in INternationalen B?chern, der Mann ist gut, schau mal in google, ein altes H?schene wie auch Aspden, ein Neucreator und Besserdenker, kein Sturkopf.
Er wird wegen seiner leicht verst?ndlichen Schreibweise gelobt, es scheint ein Mensch zu sein hat eine in einer Rezession geschrieben, denn er Schreibt mit Herz und Einf?hlungsverm?gen.
Wenn das Buch bei mir ist (Fernleihe kann einwenig dauern) poste ich den Umfang um die Formel, das interresiert mich selbst mal, was mit der Formel genau gemeint ist:
vielleicht eine simple Oszillatorbedingung bei Gleichspannungsspeisung (selbsterregung nach Schalterschluss).
Ist aber auf alle F?lle interessant f?r mich.
Kann das mal jemand in ein konventionelles Bauteilemodell (SPICE) implementieren?
Die Bedingung ist ja mal sch?n ?bersichlich und kann leich in einem Reihen RLC ausprobiert werden.
Nur die Quelle ist unbekannt und kann leider nur experimentell (so wie fr?her fr?her fr?her...) empirisch und intuitiv ermittelt werden, vielleicht gar keine unbekannte...
Gru?
Karl
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: karl on July 17, 2007, 10:46:44 AM
Karl,

Are you refering to a simple  SERIES connection of L, C, and R?

Can you post more info, a schematic perhaps?

EM

Hi Em,
yes an R&T&L, Book is ordered, you can buy it at amazon.com fore 3 dollars.
One of the best Autors for absolute beginners, have a look at the vitae at google, an high ghost.
I'll tell you in this threat what happens at this point of view after receiving the books.
...looking forward for you...
Karl
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: karl on July 17, 2007, 10:50:07 AM
My formula is from the following book:
Die Schwingkammer, Energie und Antrieb fuer das Weltraumzeitalter (Brosch?re)
von Dr. Jan Pajak (Autor)
5 Angebote erh?ltlich ab EUR 8,85 bei Amazon.
There is the formula reffered.
K
 
 

Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: MarkSnoswell on July 22, 2007, 12:27:07 PM
Hmm? The Energia patent is interesting. There are some features that appear common to a number of other devices.

I can feel the frustration in this thread ? I don?t want to add to that but at the same time I think a step back may be needed. There are assumptions being made that are unfounded and some things are being overlooked.

First here are some questions that the patent raises:

1.   The effect works with or without a permanent magnet ? but the only reference to magnet type talks about an iron cobalt alloy. That is most unusual as it?s not a common alloy for modern commercial magnets. The patent is recent and yet is goes out of it?s way to mention iron cobalt and makes no mention of the most common types -- ceramic or Neodymium based magnets. Why?

2.   Why the very strange earth point? ? as described the whole drive system will float high on a pulse? and it?s a floating potential dependant on the impedance of the coils and the pulse current. They make a particular point of the earth arrangement in the patent. This sort of detail would normally not be worth of comment in a simple system like this.

3.   The pulse sequence is complicated ? in a quick reading of this thread I don?t recall seeing anyone get it right -- apologies if I am wrong. Given the data in the patent there is a sequence of pulses applied to a first coil. These pulses alternate between two values which are at least 50V apart? eg, 200, 200, 300, 300, 300, 200, 200, 200 etc.   with the number of repeats at one level being random from 1 ? 3 (preferentially). This sequence is followed at a very short time interval by the same sequence x 2.5 amplitude on a second winding. So in our example above the second winding would be pulsed with 500, 500, 700, 700, 700, 300, 300  However the effect will work without regular period and with any amplitude ratio as long as the second set is larger and higher than 50V above the first set. Why? ... could this be due to the equivelant frequency increace of electrons with voltage (energy = frequency) or due to an expanding collective wave or due to a non-linear pumping of the second wave in the wake of the first?

4.   The use of two windings allows for very short delay intervals between the pulse trains ? a delay that is less than the pulse duration. This implies that it is the pulse front that is the effective factor here. Furthermore they say that wider spacing of coils ? or more interleaved coils allows for a wider time between the first and second set of pulses. This implies a wave front that is traveling in one direction. ? They do state that a single coil can be used but they imply that the delay between the two pulse streams is too short for this to be practical. Although they also state that an effect can be seen with a single coil and a single pulse train -- but they never once state that you dont need pulses of at least 50V difference in the pulse train.

5.   They give no hint as to why random amplitudes, phase delayed pulse streams or the two level pulse stream is required. Therefore we can?t make any assumptions -- It could either be essential for the function of the effect or it could be to prevent runaway oscillations destroying their devices and equipment.

6.   They state that the device generates magnetic field that is thousands of times greater than the permanent magnet. They give no details of how they measured this. We cannot assume it is a magnetic field they are measuring ? although they clearly measure something that behaves like a magnetic field. Even a microsecond pulse of a 2000 T magnetic field will literally explode both the magnet and the surrounding coil.  ? a simple example? try hold two neodymium magnets side by side such that their north and south poles face the same way ? the repulsion is great. The magnet experiences these self repulsion forces internally which contributes to the fragility of high field magnets.  Likewise ? a pulse of 2000 T field will induce a current spike and a physical force that will explode any surrounding coil? so either they start out with milli Tesla field strengths or they may not be dealing with a magnetic field but something else/new that has some characteristics of a magnetic field.

Whatever the peculiarities of their devices testing is well within the reach of everyone. The description of their motor embodiment only uses 1MHz pulse repetition with 100ns pulse widths. This is quite slow and well within the reach of modest solid state designs.

I am still studying the motor aspects of the patent and may come back with more comments later.

Cheers

Mark.
Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: bob.rennips on July 23, 2007, 12:51:22 PM
Hmm? The Energia patent is interesting. There are some features that appear common to a number of other devices.

I can feel the frustration in this thread ? I don?t want to add to that but at the same time I think a step back may be needed. There are assumptions being made that are unfounded and some things are being overlooked.

First here are some questions that the patent raises:

1.   The effect works with or without a permanent magnet ? but the only reference to magnet type talks about an iron cobalt alloy. That is most unusual as it?s not a common alloy for modern commercial magnets. The patent is recent and yet is goes out of it?s way to mention iron cobalt and makes no mention of the most common types -- ceramic or Neodymium based magnets. Why?

2.   Why the very strange earth point? ? as described the whole drive system will float high on a pulse? and it?s a floating potential dependant on the impedance of the coils and the pulse current. They make a particular point of the earth arrangement in the patent. This sort of detail would normally not be worth of comment in a simple system like this.

3.   The pulse sequence is complicated ? in a quick reading of this thread I don?t recall seeing anyone get it right -- apologies if I am wrong. Given the data in the patent there is a sequence of pulses applied to a first coil. These pulses alternate between two values which are at least 50V apart? eg, 200, 200, 300, 300, 300, 200, 200, 200 etc.   with the number of repeats at one level being random from 1 ? 3 (preferentially). This sequence is followed at a very short time interval by the same sequence x 2.5 amplitude on a second winding. So in our example above the second winding would be pulsed with 500, 500, 700, 700, 700, 300, 300  However the effect will work without regular period and with any amplitude ratio as long as the second set is larger and higher than 50V above the first set. Why? ... could this be due to the equivelant frequency increace of electrons with voltage (energy = frequency) or due to an expanding collective wave or due to a non-linear pumping of the second wave in the wake of the first?

4.   The use of two windings allows for very short delay intervals between the pulse trains ? a delay that is less than the pulse duration. This implies that it is the pulse front that is the effective factor here. Furthermore they say that wider spacing of coils ? or more interleaved coils allows for a wider time between the first and second set of pulses. This implies a wave front that is traveling in one direction. ? They do state that a single coil can be used but they imply that the delay between the two pulse streams is too short for this to be practical. Although they also state that an effect can be seen with a single coil and a single pulse train -- but they never once state that you dont need pulses of at least 50V difference in the pulse train.

5.   They give no hint as to why random amplitudes, phase delayed pulse streams or the two level pulse stream is required. Therefore we can?t make any assumptions -- It could either be essential for the function of the effect or it could be to prevent runaway oscillations destroying their devices and equipment.

6.   They state that the device generates magnetic field that is thousands of times greater than the permanent magnet. They give no details of how they measured this. We cannot assume it is a magnetic field they are measuring ? although they clearly measure something that behaves like a magnetic field. Even a microsecond pulse of a 2000 T magnetic field will literally explode both the magnet and the surrounding coil.  ? a simple example? try hold two neodymium magnets side by side such that their north and south poles face the same way ? the repulsion is great. The magnet experiences these self repulsion forces internally which contributes to the fragility of high field magnets.  Likewise ? a pulse of 2000 T field will induce a current spike and a physical force that will explode any surrounding coil? so either they start out with milli Tesla field strengths or they may not be dealing with a magnetic field but something else/new that has some characteristics of a magnetic field.

Whatever the peculiarities of their devices testing is well within the reach of everyone. The description of their motor embodiment only uses 1MHz pulse repetition with 100ns pulse widths. This is quite slow and well within the reach of modest solid state designs.

I am still studying the motor aspects of the patent and may come back with more comments later.

Cheers

Mark.


Many thanks for your comments Mark, much appreciated.

There are some references on the internet that suggest Iron-Cobalt alloys make good cores for electromagnets, and are also used in power transformers.

In 3). you say that "This sequence is followed at a very short time interval by the same sequence x 2.5 amplitude on a second winding.".

To clarify, I believe the sequences are interleaved, the second sequence starts within a few say nanoseconds of the first sequence starting. This is reinforced in the patent's description of the pulses if using only one coil. In the motor section they quote a delay of just 10 exp-13 seconds between the start of the first and second sequences - the delay due to stepping up the voltage x2.5. in a transformer.

Your observation on the earthing point is very interesting - I hadn't noticed this at all.

If coil1 gets a pulse of 400V this will float both coils to 400V ?
Whilst coil1 is still on, coil2 will pulse with 1000V (x2.5).
Does this mean both coils now float to 1400V ?

Coil1 now turns off, causing a back EMF of say 800V, which will appear on top of the 1000V of coil2 which is still on ? ie. 1800V. ?
Coil2 turns off, causing a back EMF of say 1600V, which will appear on top of the 800V BEMF ?


So what does pulsing a pulse translate to in terms of spinors ?

Cheers Bob.


Title: Re: Proof of concept - perturbing a static magnetic field
Post by: MarkSnoswell on July 23, 2007, 02:25:23 PM
Hi Bob,
Quote
So what does pulsing a pulse translate to in terms of spinors ?

Dont know. There is more that is not said in a patent than there is said -- always hard to follow.
A spinor requires three independant parameters to create -- theoretically this is possible in a single coil but the drive signal would be very tricky -- independant parameters being the helical nature of the coil, the longitudinal wave and the transverse wave. Along with all of this you have the DC bias components of both voltage and magnetic field. It possible to combine and control all of these in a single coil -- but I cant help feeling that's it's an absurd excercise in minimalist design. It's far better to just add extra coils to make things easier for yourself.



The one take home message from this patent is that it's yet another case of interesting effects arising from longitudinal waves and static biases(voltage and magnetic). All the elements are there with the new twist of the seemingly crazy timing and amplitude variations... it is possible that this is hinting at a simulation/stimulation of a self modulation component -- something with an inherent spread spectrum component (this is a feature of spinors that is not in my simple models as yet)??  I wouldnt make too much of that though.

As I said -- just take home the confirmation of longitudinal waves + static biases == interesting stuff.

Cheers

Mark.