Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: Robert on January 28, 2006, 03:22:47 AM
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not possible to have one resonnant circuit excite a second resonnant circuit and have a substancial gain in power? So in essence have a high energy generator with only a minimal power input, such as a microcircuit multivibrator acting as initial source.
I saw a radio shack circuit using a reversed 6/120 transformer through a diode to generate a high voltage, the frequency source was a 555 timer.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not possible to have one resonnant circuit excite a second resonnant circuit
cascading resonant circuits is something that is done since the first day of radio technics. It has the effect that the bandwidth of the filter network is reduced by every single stage and the gain of the network is increased. BUT
and have a substancial gain in power?
resonant circuits have absolutely nothing to do with gaining power. Gain of a filter network means either gain in voltage or current. You can not have both at the same time, because of the law of energy conservation the total power in the system (U*I*cos phi) must be constant.
Resonant circuits at best can only be a means of tapping energy. They can not do this on their own. Even if you have a negative differential resistance driven reactive circuit, you still have the positive static resistance of the circuit that is throwing away all energy you might have gained; bringing the cop again below one.
So in essence have? a high energy generator with only a minimal power input, such as a microcircuit multivibrator acting as initial source.
This is physically impossible. I suggest reading a good book about filter networks and RF design - then the fog is starting to lift ;)
I saw a radio shack circuit using a reversed 6/120 transformer? through a diode to generate a high voltage, the frequency source was a 555 timer.
This is a simple step-up converter, also known as 'inverter'. Although they produce a high voltage, they don't produce power. The current that is available at the high voltage side is significantly lower than the current that must be fed in.
PS: reactive resonant circuits indeed do suck energy from their surrounding - this is how radio works. The best way to demonstrate this is with a dipmeter. It indeed is puzzling how a circuit that is not even connected to the dipmeter steals its energy and this is the way this device works. It displays the energy that has been stolen from it - indicating a resonant circuit in it's surrounding. But at the same time the 'parasitic' circuit comes alive by the stolen energy, it in turn radiates energy off.
-
icyblue:
I'm sorry but I must disagree with you in part. Any good online electronics tutorial will
tell you that power increases anywhere from 10 to 1,000X in a parallel resonant tank,
at the resonant frequency. V is what the source imposes while I increases by exponential
amounts, and those immense currents can even increase V as well. At the same time
input impedance is at its highest, in other words we can barely squeeze any energy into
our oscillating tank. Now it's true that these oscillating currents are confined to the tank,
but a secondary coil loosely or otherwise coupled to the tank inductor will carry that power
over to itself. The primary-secondary relationship can be 1:1. This is not a filtering
application so you shouldn't compare it to that. This is exactly what tesla coils are and
do. A primary resonant tank coupled to a secondary resonant tank steps up POWER,
There is no V vs. I trade-off. This is the big and open 'secret' tesla knew. It's right there in
the textbooks but ignored, overlooked, unused, but for filters and fetching in signals.
These aren't the only application for which resonance can be applied however, as tesla
coils prove. A cascade of resonant stages can suck in enough energy to power starships.
I'll admit this can be an a embarrassing fact to admit if one has worked in the field for
years and still missed it. I remember the first day in tech college, basic electricity, our
instructor told us: "You can't get something for nothing." That is a lie, a misstatement
he learned from instructors before him. The fact is nature IS a free lunch. The same
way of bringing in a signal (via resonance) can amplify that signal without limit. And we
can generate any frequencies we choose artificially; we are not subject to some special
vibratory rate the cosmos decides to shower down at 3 am.
Given the fact and demonstrable proof of resonance, it sort of makes rotating wheels
like the testatika a bit passe. I mean the wheel isn't really the secret. Over-efficient
electrostatic motors are easy to build. The cascade diode employed is interesting and
another OU device, but resonance is where the real action is. The testatika is a wonderful
demonstration of several free energy principles while keeping those same principles
hidden; the principles of which however, are in the public domain.
-
The amount of energy applied would oscillate around a tank circuit until was lost to resistance. This is not multiplying power.
As far as resonance - a given cap and inductor making up a tank circuit would resonate at one natural frequency. Meaning that if you have a var. cap. - you would tune it, and at a certain point reach the frequency that would be perfect to oscillate with min. loss. Right?
Are you saying that a using the inductor as a primary to a secondary circuit would generate current in that secondary circuit without any additional loss on the tank circuit?
-
After further investigation.... ::)
What about series LC circuits??
In series inductive/capacitive circuits... When a state of resonance is reached (capacitive and inductive reactances equal), the two impedances cancel each other out and the total impedance drops to zero.
-and-
The total impedance of a series LC circuit approaches zero as the power supply frequency approaches resonance.
-and-
Extremely high voltages can be formed across the individual components of series LC circuits at resonance, due to high current flows and substantial individual component impedances....
Thus... a series LC circuit using a 10uF cap and a 100mH induction coil will resonate at 159.155Hz. If the incoming cycle of A/C is 159.155Hz - you can expect impedance across the LC circuit to drop to zero.
This would be a short circuit - right? Add a resistor of 1ohm and you would see a peak of 100 to 1000 volts from a 1v power supply.
Apply this to using an antenna that can receive 7.4Hz. {or maybe any broadcast frequency} and wouldn't this set up multiply the power??
Wouldn't a secondary circuit have current induced in it?
Couldn't that current be altered to cycle at whatever rate you wanted??
-
So I might answer my own question here... with the LC circuit above... the coil would not interact with a secondary coil. So that's out...
There should be *some* way of using that power. :-\
-
Elvis:
I'm going to go off on a tangent a bit to answer your question. Textbooks are written
with a very negative slant. It's not that they lie outright, but phrase things in a way so
you only see half the truth and therefore don't try. Oscillations don't dampen if they are
constantly fed! And a parallel tank has such high input impedance, the amount of power
in is very small compared to the output. Will it consume some power to make it work?
Of course it will.
There seems to be a bunch of degreed experts who assert free energy must come from
nothing, no input at all. They are quite rigorous and anal 'purists.' But free energy is simply
more energy out than we put in over time. Try to do it their way will never happen, but
use what's in front of you, and the truth set you free.
-
That is true - a parallel LC circuit's impedance will reach infinity if the input is at the same resonant frequency. So does that mean it will stop drawing power from the input?
So if you had an antenna tuned to the schuman resonance... and you were receiving a small amount of power... wouldn't you want to use a series LC circuit to acheive maximum output from that small source?
Wouldn't it be constantly driving the circuit?
How would you then apply that power to use?
-
Elvis:
There's a problem trying to predict what should or will happen from what the books
say. They seldom agree or give you all the facts, like there's a purple elephant in the
room that no one wants to talk about. For example, when we're told input impedance
reaches infinity, does that mean our circuit refuses all power we give it, even while
generating tremendous currents within itself? If yes, that can be used to advantage.
Isn't that what we want? High outputs with negligible inputs? So who's complaining?!
Filter networks are NOT the way I'd arrange it. They have their place but not for
what we're doing. Also I see circuits people design, grounded in all sorts of ways.
Why would we want to ground anything??? that's sending our energy down a
bottomless hole. Cascading is the way.
The tank coil can also be a primary winding to an iron or air core transformer. The
secondary can be part of or lead to a parallel or series tank. Tesla coils use the latter,
however I like parallel tanks for their large outputs to inputs. In fact I would cascade
them just like Robert suggests. Sometimes it takes a newbie to see things differently
from the way one has been trained. There's more than one way to do anything
and I find it amazing so few have experimented with or written about resonance
from the power amplification perspective. Resonant tanks amplify power, that's a
fact. They are not transformers but can be combined with them. Just because one
person isn't creative or clever enough to arrange his circuit correctly doesn't make a
thing impossible. You could probably build one tuned to the schuman frequency or
any other your heart desires. To say that all that energy is NOT available to you,
is ridiculous. Or to put it another way, why would the methernitha community
employ resonance in their device, if not to step up the gain? You don't need the
wheel, just the resonant tank(s). Use the output any way you choose.
-
I agree with you 100% :) I have taken all text with a "grain of salt" - that's for sure.
I am new to all of this. I'm a network engineer... not an EE. :) I started looking at alternative fuels and after understanding the design of the internal combustion motor - I realized that it was not worth the steel it's made of. The rotary or the "quasi-turbine" design is more efficient. Looking into that, I discovered Tesla and that's when I realized that electricity from the atmosphere was going to be the answer.
I've been studying for a couple of months now... originally I thought it was best to only study Tesla... to know only what he knew and to avoid anything developed after him... I figure its more than likely that there has been an effort to pollute the field of study, so to speak.
But I couldn't talk to EEs without understanding more about what they are taught... and so now I am trying to get it all in my head and work out the best direction to proceed in... THEN I will start experimenting. That is the best way, I think.
Thanks for the help. I am about at the point of being convinced that building an antenna/ground with a tank circuit(s) to amplify that little potential into real power is worthy of time and money.
-
Elvis:
You could just as well use an oscillator to power everything. I used to own a fat book
of Tesla's patents and notes, written in his own words. His circuits were "all wrong"
by today's standards. He used paired capacitive coupling a lot, with shorting inductors.
Turns out that corrects power factor. Everything modern engineers do waste power.
For example, did you ever look closely at a simple voltage doubler/clamper? Once you
see and understand what they do, why would you ever use conventional rectifiers?
Everyone is so used to taking a loss, we've become biased against receiving a gain.
Look at things fresh from how they're commonly used.
-
Have you heard about Marconi and other scientist running to South America? Some say that is where the UFOs come from - some of them anyways.
Any thoughts on that?
-
In series inductive/capacitive circuits... When a state of resonance is reached (capacitive and inductive reactances equal), the two impedances cancel each other out and the total impedance drops to zero.
the reactance drops to zero, not the impedance since Z=sqrt(R^2 + X^2). So even in this case if a ideal oscillator, you would be left with the ohmic resistance.
The total impedance of a series LC circuit approaches zero as the power supply frequency approaches resonance.
a parallel circuit is sort of a closed loop series circuit; so in the PC circulate high currents at resonance, while the SC can pass through high currents at resonance. (BTW: I suggest you to use SPICE for evaluating the behaviour of them. It is a quite handy tool for evaluating circuit designs.) But even if the reactance of the L/C combination would go close to zero - what it hardly does - you are still left with the ohmic resistance that burns your energy and damps the circuit - in addition to the energy that is lost and is radiated off the circuit. Even if you use a negative *differential* resistance element (tunnel diode, gas discharge) to undamp the circuit, the oscillation will only be sustained as long as you provide the supply voltage to it. Shut down the supply, and the oscillation will stop. If the circuit would draw energy from somewhere else - as OU circuits are supposed to do so - the oscillation would continue.
So the only way would be to get into resonance with a external, naturally occuring oscillating phenomenon of sufficient energy, i.e. natural occuring radiation. The problem is just, there are no such natural radiation sources that lie in the rage of <1000Mhz, so that a simple L/C circuit could draw energy from then. Some promising energy sources to me seem to be the conversion of radiation in and above the THz range we have not yet the technology for, or the conversion of radioactive decay.
Apply this to using an antenna that can receive 7.4Hz. {or maybe any broadcast frequency} and wouldn't this set up multiply the power??
no, but in the proximity of a broadcast station you actually could power some lightbulbs this way. This has been done in the early days of radio by some allotment holders, until the radio company figured it out and prohibited it by a lawsuit. This was the end of their 'free energy'.
I once too was very enthusiastic about FE, but the more I learned and experimented, the more the mist lifted and the things got demystified. Even the 'cold current' phenomenon can be explained by simple thermoelectric effects (see the 'peltier element'). I've seen a lot of OU/FE websites, also from those who claim to be scientists, most of them can not even handle a simple camera to make images which are not blurred. Even the power estimations for effects which are well known - but which are unfamiliar to them - were wrong by orders of magnitude. Not just that; we also came around some 'promising technologies' which are even patented and sound quite futuristic (no OU/FE related). We got a science project about it too - in the end it all turned out to be at least unusable. Even the in the patents claimed basic effects were wrong from the root on. So I'm very sceptic about anything.
I suggest reading the publications of the "G?DE Institut f?r Gravitationsforschung", though we have no affiliation with them. They even set of a prize of one million ? for the one who can prove antigravitation http://www.gravitation.org/Start_/Experimente/experimente.html . They also have conducted some OU/FE experiments. Obviously noone wants the million; maybe one million is not enough ::)
I don't think we already invented everything or discovered any possible energy source, it's just that if the person in question who claims to have build a OU device shows the lack of knowledge of the basic principles of physics, I have a hard time to take him for serious. (I don't think of anyone special with this).
-
Here is a link to SPICE simulations of series LC circuit.
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/3.html
-
Thanks for the link. With SPICE one must keep in mind, that all is based on models, and they do not necessarily reflect the reality to 100%. The inductor models for instance mainly lack core saturation. The simulation also calculates probably with zero resistance wires. In reality you have always resistance in the wires and pins. You have loss in the magnet core and in the capacitor, thus they heat up. This all is wasting your energy, but certainly not included in the SPICE models. So SPICE is a good design tool, but the final judge remains the experiment.
(One should not underestimate the importance of wire resistance in high current applications. Even 'fat' wires can show a serious voltage drop if they are supposed to carry several amps)
You may look at LCLR-Network based induction heating designs, like this one: http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/indheat.html
There is a good explanation of what is going on in resonant circuits.
-
IcyBlue; you said:
But even if the reactance of the L/C combination would go close to zero - what it hardly does - you are still left with the ohmic resistance that burns your energy and damps the circuit - in addition to the energy that is lost and is radiated off the circuit. Even if you use a negative *differential* resistance element (tunnel diode, gas discharge) to undamp the circuit, the oscillation will only be sustained as long as you provide the supply voltage to it. Shut down the supply, and the oscillation will stop. If the circuit would draw energy from somewhere else - as OU circuits are supposed to do so - the oscillation would continue.
We have no intention of shutting down the supply. The circuit DOES draw energy from outside itself, via secondary inductors.
Think of an inductor as an infinitely variable flywheel. Now a parallel resonant tank doesn't produce FE per se; it is only manifesting
an alternating "springyness" between its two components. Those high currents at source voltage are only what might be called
artificial or 'virtuall power' because like you said, as soon as the source signal is removed, the oscillations die out.
But the same high currents in the resonant tank can be used to creat REAL power by INDUCING a correspondingly large field in a
secondary coil. The secondary sucks energy in from the ether (flywheel effect); that's what a tesla coil is and does. Do you deny that?
Certainly the increase in power doesn't solely derive from the primary tank. Do you think tesla was shooting lightening bolts from his
Colorado springs tower, using nothing but what he input? Tesla coil builders know better. Yes, resonant tanks can be used to amplify
power. I would advise you study exactly what a tesla coil is and does. They are deceptively simple. Anyway the increase is more than
we started with-- FE. So the same principle can be used to build resonant tank circuits that "spill over" into further stages, as Henry
Moray did. I'm tired of people making this so esoteric. Mathematical models don't always reflect reality, at least not until they
include enough factors to model reality accurately. If we have a prejudice against the very thing we hope to prove, well that's an
emotional problem that could keep us from ever getting there. It's no true representation of reality per se.
The methernitha testatika is well documented. Beyond the spinning and the static, it does seem to amplify power somehow. I assert
that occurs in resonant stages.
What's the point of posting a link for resonant heating? I mean who doesn't know that coils get hot at high amps in the khz range.
Heating effects aren't the objective. Even the utilities seem to've found a way around the heat problem, but resonance will
occasionally fry a transformer. That's why it's a problem for them. What it reveals is that resonance releases a tremendous amount
of energy! They're not looking to exploit, but suppress it.
$1 million isn't enough if it gets you killed, which seems to happen to a lot of OU types. Free energy puts not just millions, but
billions of fortunes, at risk. Last year Exxon made more profits than 125 countries. Please quit with the superficial
understandings.
-
On the subject of Tesla coils... personally I think that solid-state coils are a pretty toy. Can they duplicate what a spark-gap coil can do? Maybe... but first, I think it wise to duplicate what Tesla did with what he used. :)
What Tesla did was to oscillate energy to amplify it. He discharged high voltage into the earth, where it bounced off the other side of the globe and returned to his coil. He had calculated and correctly predicted the time it would take to do that... and the energy that would be left after the trip. This residual power (X-loss) was then added to another (X) at every cycle.
This power bounced between the top of his tower and the other side of the earth... and his lightning bolts got bigger and bigger. This is how he set the record for man-made lightning.
But he was using free electricity from the local power station... until he fried their generators with this experiment.
Now this is much the same as a voltage doubler on a microwave oven. And I guess it is not such an amazing thing... since you are only saving energy until it gets to the size you need.
But, when you consider that there is a potential between an antenna and a ground... then you see that this "stray voltage" that ham radio operators see as an annoyance.... what most people laugh at and say,"what can you do with such low power?" You might see that this can be used for real work.
I do realize that low power is still low power... and if the rate of consumption is high... then you will quickly use stored energy... leaving you with only a low power source.
But how much power can you get from an antenna and a ground?
This is where the resonance comes into play.
Yes you can suck power from a broadcast signal. So why not use the 7.43Hz wave that is bouncing around the resonating cavity of the atmosphere? It's obvious that this paticular frequency contains tremendous power.
And yes - I will be experimentinig. But it is better to consider all factors and start with a very good experiment, than to run off with half an idea and waste time and money and get discouraged.
I do not claim to have the answer (yet) - I am just collecting facts and discussing them. Maybe someone has insight that I had not considered.
-
Elvis,
Just input your signal into a cascade of three resonant parallel tanks,
coupled via secondary windings, each stage more robust to handle
the power increase. The last stage resonant coil can couple to a
final secondary, leads to which you attach your load. Don't ground
anything but your antennae. Tesla built circuits like this.
-
That sounds like a plan. Now I just have to settle on an antenna design. :)
-
Elvis:
Thought you might find this handy; from
http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_8_10.html
You might want to start with the higher frequencies
(which contain more energy) and tune additional
stages to lower harmonics, stepping the frequency
down while extracting the power. A diode in your
antennae, containing a mix of conductive metal and
phosphor powder from an old CRT, might have
some interesting effects.
-
Thanks! Also...
After reading Meyl... which you have probably heard of... he says that Tesla said 12Hz - and his own testing (Meyl) confirmed - that it is indeed 12Hz. But either way... 12 or 7.43 (give or take) - the sizes of components will be close.
So... calculating the freq. at 12 Hz... and just grabbing a number of 1henries on the inductor (this would be about the primary on a A/C step-down transfomer (US) - and the cap is 175 microfarads (rounded up :)
-
Hi Elvis.
Well I'm sure you did your homework there and won't disagree.
All I'll say is that there is much more energy in high frequency waves,
even at tiny voltages, than low frequency ones. If you start with
high frequency, you can step it down through resonant stages
tuned to progressively lower fundamentals, and have way more at
your output (like frequency multipliers in reverse.)
Here might be an interesting experiment; string an antennae,
ground it, insert a phosphor-conductor diode mentioned. Take a
frequency counter and measure the natural rate occurring across
your diode. That's your input f that your first resonant stage
should be tuned to. Each further tuned stage should decrease
the previous rate by half. You'll need to vary the winding ratios in
each secondary to get the V/I you want. Output can be clamped
and peak detected thrice, for steady DC out.
-
Please, people, pick up a first year EE text and learn the difference between voltage, energy and power. Yes, you can put a lot of _energy_ into cascaded resonant circuits, but there is _NO_ power gain, regardless of what voltage comes out of the coil. A resonant coil is like a kid on a swing - with tiny pushes over time you can get him swinging very high. But he is not extracting any power, 'zero-point' or not, from the ether! Same with a Tesla coil.
If you recall back to Tesla's Colorado Springs coil experiment, he ended up burning up the local utility generator to power his resonant coil. This is because he was DRAWING power from the utility, not from the earth, not from the 'zero point', not from the 'ether'. The big sparks he got from the cascaded resonant circuit were from magnification of VOLTAGE not POWER.
-
Now, as far as extracting energy from the Earth's Schuman resonances, keep in mind that you need an antenna. The efficiency of an antenna is proportional to the square of its length as a fraction of a wavelength. An antenna as tall as my house will only be ONE TRILLIONTH of a percent efficient. That is 0.0000000000001%. This is why Schuman resonance waves do not blow out the front end of my ham gear.
-
If you would put down you EE book - and read this entire thread... you will see that the circuit we are talking about building includes a source. That would be an antenna. :) So yes - we are talking about multiplying the power at the expense of a source.
Even so - do not rule out some interesting anomalies when the circuit and the source are resonating.
Your ham gear is grounded - or else it might just blow up. I've seen voltage on a 100' loop of 40v... and you feel it when you touch it.
Call it what you like... that is power. :)
So I am not talking about voodoo... or zpe... I am talking about reality. And yes, it is a matter of scale - but that is just a matter of time and experimentation.
I just read about a lab that has slowed a particle of light... and they are working to utilize it in a new type of computer. Before they did that... you might have said the same things to them. ::)
-
And - on the subject of Tesla... yes he was using power. I did not leave that out in my description of his experiment... so I do not know what your point was...
But here's another lesson from Tesla. With his coil - he produced a cold electricity that he could step up 10,000 times per foot of his coil.
This is the same cold electricity produced with tesla coils anyone can build... and you can touch it without being shocked... and YET - a plate of sheet metal in the field of this coil will have a current induced in it that will light an incandescent bulb. :)
When your EE book can explain that - then you talk to me. :) Otherwise... I suggest that you do not know everything.
-
When I was a broadcast engineer, an old-timer showed me a really cool trick. He walked over to the base of the antenna tower of a 10 KW AM station, and, holding a regular lead penciil in his hand, drew a three inch arc from the tower to the tip of his pencil. The graphite tip of his pencil soon became red hot, and after four or five seconds, he withdrew the pencil - its tip still smoking. He handed me the pencil so I could repeat the same stunt. The body of the pencil - and my hand - became only slightly warm from the RF.
Electricity is electricity, and is neither cold nor hot. Electricity does have volts, current and frequency, and certain combinations thereof behave in ways that are startling if you've never experienced them before.
-
I've built probably a dozen tesla coils - including one that was 12 feet tall, wound with Litz wire, and fed from a 16 kW transmitter. It ended up heating the rebar in the concrete floor so hot the soles of my shoes melted. I've also worked on multi-megawatt shortwave transmitters. The trick there is to KEEP them from becoming tesla coils. There is nothing I've ever seen in my hobbyist tesla coil experiments that I haven't also seen in a high power shortwave transmitter - in a much bigger way.
-
I've seen voltage on a 100' loop of 40v... and you feel it when you touch it.
Call it what you like... that is power. :)
No, that IS my point! Voltage is NOT power. If you terminate this 100' loop with, say, a 50 ohm resistor, then you can correlate voltage and power, but not until then.
-
Voltage is not power. The 40v is just voltage. But I contend that if it shocks you, then it is voltage moving current - right?
So now we are only talking about the amount of power you can pull out of such a large wave of either 12Hz or 7.43Hz.
Apparently Tesla was able to do it with a couple of metal rods and a dozen tubes and some wire in 1931. He powered a 80hp A/C motor in a Pierce-Arrow for a week.
So this is what we are talking about replicating. Perhaps LC circuits are not the way to go... but that is what experiments are for. :)
-
Yes, resonant stages is the way to go. Utility companies occasionally burn up transformers from phenomenon called
ferroresonance. This is covered in Basic Oscillators by Gotlieb. Under certain circuit conditions, steel likes to
resonate at twice the input frequency, also it expands and contracts like a piezo. It also picks up harmonics of
the fundamental and that causes a power surge within a whole range of frequencies, not just one, that smokes
the transformers. Yes that's free energy, more than we put in. The gain from resonance isn't the same as stepping
up a transformer. With the latter there are trade-offs. Resonance is only virtual power but it can be made into real
power with cascade stages and secondaries, and yes the antennae is our source frequency from which we "suck"
all the power we need. There are radio experts who just can't grasp secondaries-parallel tanks in cascade. They think
in terms of filter networks which is all wrong in the wiring for our purposes. Start with high frequency in the antennae
and step it down in each stage. There is twice as much power in a 100Hz signal as a 50hz signal. Step it down and
extract the power.
I think all Henry Moray's rectifier/detector/"valve" did was keep the power flowing down the antennae in one direction, not
radiating it out during half a cycle. He used a "tribo-luminescent zinc" which could be simply zinc sulfide used to coat
cathode ray tubes. So break an old b/w TV or spent flourescent tube and harvest your powder. The detector probably
also helped establish the frequency, as the accrued input static from his wire antennae, rythmically jumped the phosphor.
Maybe there was an electronic cascade effect in the phosphor that increased the total electron flow and strength of the signal.
I use to think his cold electricity was from hole flow, but think I figured that out, is too easy.
Take a transformer. Observe the laminated steel plates. Now think, couldn't a transformer also be made of steel wire
coiled, with copper coils wrapped around the steel wire? Now your wire core transformer still works, just like a laminated plate
transformer, but here's the trick; the two ends of wire from the steel coil are left open! In fact they concentrate magnetic
energy racing up and down the wire in AC fashion at the same rate as your input into your copper coils! Now magnetism is cold... has
no temperature to speak of. Now here's a question worthy of experiment; what if we wrap another steel coil and connect the leads
from the first steel coil to the second. (remember, the first steel coil has copper coil primaries and secondaries.) Will the magnetic
field in the steel wire convey to the second coil? If yes, will field strength be lost or diminished in the first coil? If not, can we wrap
copper coils on the second steel coil and get twice or more bang for our buck? To answer that question, take two cylinder shaped
magnets N-S attracted and insert similar sized steel plugs between them. Now you have one longer magnet. In fact increase the
number of steel plugs until your magnet has reached the length of infinity. Has the field strength decreased as you increased the
magnet's effective size? Not Really! The number of field lines is the same, but you've increased the magnet's surface area/length and
can pick up a lot more stuff with the same field strength!
Point is it's possible we'll get not just the energy we put into the copper coils, but magnetic current from the steel coils
to boot. That magnetic current could act or behave like cold electricity. And because it's true oscillating magnetic current,
(just like occurs in laminated plates), it could be converted back to regular electricity again, to heat irons and such, but better
to use the magnetic current for light bulbs, computers and things you want to run cool. 8)
-
If I get what you are saying... then I would say that steel wire with copper coiled around it... would... I dunno. :-\
If steel will work as a core - that is if it will add inductance to the coil - then it would not be as good as iron, right? You can magnetize steel wire... so off the top of my head, I'd say it would add inductance. You'd have to laminate it with something to keep it from draining current, I'm sure. Even an iron core should be laminated to prevent this - right?
Wrapping that inductor (the copper coil with steel wire coil) around another core of iron would... I dunno again. :)
But I think that the difference... between a coil of copper wire wound straight around an iron core - and - a "coil" of copper "coiled" around a core... that would be interesting. :)
The magnetic field coming off a copper wire is in a paticular direction by anyone's model... and the configuration change might have some interesting affects on the iron core. OR maybe not. And if it does... it might be bad. :) unless you believe theories that say the current in the copper causes a standing wave that draws in magnetic energy... then the effect might be very good.
I better stop rambling until I do a little research, or the EEs will flame me :)
About the phosphorous... IF you assume "stray capacitance" on a coil... I think maybe the phosphorous would lower the amount... or eliminate it maybe? It might actually put you somewhere between the results you see from a coil and what you would see from using a copper pipe as a coil... this would be bad. Right?
I've been up for 30 hours. So maybe I'll take a better look at this later. :)
I have been thinking of LC circuits and driving one off the other and it would seem that maybe voltage... and therefore current would build and build in the first with a steady supply... and that may power a secondary circuit with some loss - but who's counting if the source is free. :) But if this works... then what to do with all the excess before it melts the wires? I probably only *wish* I had such a problem, eh?
I need to read some more of that first year EE book so I am more confident in the theory. But I have been sidetracked now with the link to all the scanned tube manuals from the 30's. All I can think about is what Tesla must have been using for his device. :D
Thanks again - and peace!!
Thanks again for the input. :)
-
Hi Elvis.
Hey man, it's fun to think one's way around the textbooks, what they never got around to describe or consider.
:)
If I were doing the resonant cascade thing, I'd be sure that each stage was made of bigger and burlier wire,
just to be safe. On the other hand if one were using the magnetic current from the steel wire instead of
electron flow from the copper wire, there's little danger of burning anything up. I recall from reading his book,
Moray's device had multiple stages and one could get more power out of the device by tapping into previous
stages. In fact the only limit on power he was able to draw, was determined by the loads. Wouldn't it be neat
if resonance weren't even necessary? -- just cascaded stages of wire core transformers? We could theoretically
draw magnetic current flow from every steel wire stage! Sure, laminate it if you like. Might want to do that
anyway to keep it from rusting. Steels have different hysterisis properties. The same design selection factors
might apply.
-
There is twice as much power in a 100Hz signal as a 50hz signal.
If that is true, then why isn't there infinitely more power in a 60 Hz signal than in DC?
-
Some of Faraday's and Henry's earliest experiments with inductors were constructed like this - with a donut shaped coil of copper stitched around by fine iron wire to make a torus. There is nothing of any significance at the ends of the iron/steel wire, because the magnetic flux would rather leak between adjacent turns of the iron/steel than between the ends.
-
Utility companies occasionally burn up transformers from phenomenon called
ferroresonance. This is covered in Basic Oscillators by Gotlieb. Under certain circuit conditions, steel likes to
resonate at twice the input frequency, also it expands and contracts like a piezo. It also picks up harmonics of
the fundamental and that causes a power surge within a whole range of frequencies, not just one, that smokes
the transformers. Yes that's free energy, more than we put in.
Have you ever seen this? It does occur, because of magnetostriction of the steel when the transformer is overdriven, but stops AS SOON AS THE 60 Hz IS REMOVED. The power surge occurs because the core saturates, but the power comes FROM THE GENERATOR SUPPLYING THE VOLTAGE. There is NO FREE ENERGY here, otherwise the heating of the core would continue without the voltage applied.
-
There are radio experts who just can't grasp secondaries-parallel tanks in cascade.
Yes, and they are unemployed because they can't make their transmitters work properly.
-
magnetoelastic: (you said)
Yes, and they are unemployed because they can't make their transmitters work properly.
Then they are hardly experts.
If that is true, then why isn't there infinitely more power in a 60 Hz signal than in DC?
Not infinitely, it relates to both power input AND frequency. Please; there are plenty of references out there that relate
power to frequency.
Some of Faraday's and Henry's earliest experiments with inductors were constructed like this - with a donut shaped coil of
copper stitched around by fine iron wire to make a torus. There is nothing of any significance at the ends of the iron/steel wire,
because the magnetic flux would rather leak between adjacent turns of the iron/steel than between the ends.
Gee, I thought magflux preferred iron to air at least 100:1. And it loves COPPER almost as much. Neither am I certain from your
description or lack thereof, that the experiment(s) are the same. (Not discouraged.)
Have you ever seen this? It does occur, because of magnetostriction of the steel when the transformer is overdriven, but stops
AS SOON AS THE 60 Hz IS REMOVED. The power surge occurs because the core saturates, but the power comes FROM THE
GENERATOR SUPPLYING THE VOLTAGE. There is NO FREE ENERGY here, otherwise the heating of the core would continue
without the voltage applied.
First off, the transformer doesn't necessarily need to be overdriven from a power stand-point for ferro-resonance to occur.
Second, the excess is above and beyond what the source is supplying, but seems to originate in the ferro core material itself.
(Although air-core transformer coils can smoke too, if the power levels exceed the component's ability to carry, AT RESONANCE.)
There are a few tutorials on the web written for utility engineers, to deal with the problem. Even THEY don't claim to know
where the extra surge comes from so I'm curious where you get your information. But given what we do know, I'd say
the excess current is from transients (harmonics of) the fundamental signal, which should teach you something about waves.
We have NO INTENTION of removing our input signal. We are interested in getting more energy out than we put in, not
"something from nothing;" (please read carefully because they are not the same thing.) Rigorously, it's pretty hard to start
with nothing anyway, since physics has proven that the universe (even empty space) is full of "stuff." There's some oscillations
even at absolute zero, and every circuit even lacking a power source, is being hit by white noise/background radiations. You
need to update your paradigms. Seems like you have some pretty purist and anal definitions of what "free" (as in free energy)
means. Freedom is a condition. It needs some-thing to apply the condition to. Nothing (no-thing) is a non-entity to which the
condition of freedom would make no sense. Free energy is energy unbound, zipping about, able to be collected any number of
ways, by collectors, antennaes, induction, resonance, etc.
-
Both of you guys are right to a degree... and basically agree. :) It's the language and the terms that get everyone miixed up. Like the earlier post arguing about voltage vs power vs energy... ;) But with electronics, the basic theory is full of crazy shit that makes no sense.
i.e. - calling negative charge "negative" just because it was the accepted term at the time.
And - does current flow from - to + or reversed? Depends on whether you use conventional flow or electron flow. And actually there is a force coming from either both directions - or neither, if we believe Bearden.
A/C will have less total power than DC at a given voltage... cause DC is 0Hz A/C. A DC generator is composed of multiple coils that each give a cycle of power - combining these pulses in series creates a constant flow.
It makes sense that higher frequency would have more power... but I will defer to someone with math skills, or until I can study at it myself. :)
The one thing I think is certain though, is that higher frequency translates into a faster change in voltage... and that means more current on your capacitor. So higher frequency would seem a better choice on the surface.
However... IF there is an aether... and if it can be tapped by resonating at 12Hz... then a higher frequency would just be a harmonic and would provide less voltage... right? But.... by using the lower frequency we would get more of the signal... so this is still something that has to be considered.
About the steel wire... while it is true that magnetic fields prefer metal to the air... but it is not going to flow out of the end of the steel and into the iron core. But you would get some magnetic field into the core from the steel being around it. But I would think it would just be a redistribution and not help.
But... the configuration is still a curiousiity. Being would in a coil itself - without the additional iron core... would it's magnetic field become stronger? Is there such a thing as magnetic induction??
I think it would be a good experiment. Especially using some material in the core and around the coil that would shield magnetic fields.
Or at least a core of that material, and a secondary of just copper around the outside.
As far as the cause of transformers burning up... I'd say no one knows for sure. :) Tesla said it was so... and Einstein said it could not be ruled out... and now quantum mechanics requires it. Considering what the aether would do to the oil industry... no wonder people who ordinarily resist change were so quick to accept that aether was just a fairy tale.
I appreciate all the posts in this thread. Sometimes I am glad to hear someone correct me. :) But I will always reserve the right to be skeptical until I see it for myself.
-
Elvis:
Higher the frequency at a common V/I input, the greater the power out. E = hf (where h is Planck's constant
and f is the frequency.) You can see and prove it for yourself another way by simply CASCADING RESONANT STAGES (parallel
resonance) IF you do it correctly. It's not rocket science but it CAN power ...starships. Resonance gain is very well documented
in radio electronics, toasted transformers is proof. A parallel resonant tank has the HIGHEST INPUT IMPEDANCE at resonance;
in other words, you can BARELY squeeze any power in! AND YET the parallel resonant tank coil/transformer WILL SMOKE if
under-rated, due to the VERY HIGH power levels oscillating through it, which are "several orders of magnitude", i.e. FAR GREATER
than input. That IS your documented proof, you can find it yourself, in textbooks, on the web. THAT IS your proof of... magnetic
induction. I told you how and why. "No free lunch" crowd will continue poking at it with a stick. If you're waiting for someone to show
you, don't hold your breath; I see through people's motives, don't care enough what people think to show anybody. That's not how
discovery happens. You need to prove it for yourself. You have to understand that big egos simply can't handle missing something so
simple; it threatens their high-priest status., not to mention the nuclear & fossil fuel industry. They've had plenty of time to discover
what's right under their noses. Consider that they have a vested interest NOT TO SEE certain things. Egotism isn't just a form, but
the cause of... insanity. That and laziness will prevent a person from learning anything. No pity here.
You said:
About the steel wire... while it is true that magnetic fields prefer metal to the air... but it is not going to flow out of the end of the
steel and into the iron core. But you would get some magnetic field into the core from the steel being around it. But I would think it
would just be a redistribution and not help. But... the configuration is still a curiousiity. Being would in a coil itself - without the
additional iron core... would it's magnetic field become stronger? Is there such a thing as magnetic induction?? I think it would be a
good experiment. Especially using some material in the core and around the coil that would shield magnetic fields.
Or at least a core of that material, and a secondary of just copper around the outside.
I'm not sure you get my configuration, intent or objective but that's fine either way. You're asking questions the answers to which
are obvious and easy to find. I wouldn't recommend magnetic shielding though; that'll just suck flux that you otherwise want to
concentrate in the steel wire core itself. What you want is HIGHLY CONCENTRATED, HIGH PRESSURE magnetic flux coming out your
steel wire. As with copper coils, intuition and common sense would suggest, is related to thickness, permitivity, number of turns.
-
I think it is time to experiment with tank circuits. I'll have to order some materials to start. I'll let you know what I see. :)
Peace!!
-
magnetoelastic:
Give up mate. They're never going to believe you. After all, "the textbooks are hiding the truth!!!~~!!~!11" :o
Now excuse me. I've got this fan driven by a generator driven by a windmill driven by the fan that I have to work on...
-
Obviously there's something missing. Unless you can explain how a 100 lb man can lift rocks weighing 20 tons overnight alone without equipment... Wanna take a guess?
And I guess Edison thought he had something right too? Tesla and his damn wacky alternating current.
But seriously - what's your point and why are you here?
-
Speaking of truth omitted...
http://www.rhfweb.com/Scalarwaveskgood1.pdf
-
Meyl is smarter than Bearden that's for sure. Eveyone knows that Germans are better engineers ;) - or at least the USA knows this... after WWII we split the engineers with the Russians.
For anyone reading - who can read German... I have many texts by Meyl - mostly in German. I can attach them here.
-
So in other words, Tesla coils aren't simply lightening machine oddities, they are transmitters and receivers
of electrical power! And the receiver receives up to 5X more than the sender put in! I wonder how
many receivers that would apply to? I guess that also means that, assuming the utility companies aren't
cooperative, a person could have two coils on their property, and produce 5X the input.
Here's a thought: what if our parallel resonant cascades are never loaded, but simply drive a tesla coil
transmitter. You get the gain from each resonant stage (orders of magnitude per stage), X5 at the
receiver. (Most Tesla coil schematics I've seen on the web are series-resonant towers driven by parallel-
resonant tanks.) So the nut is cracked, the horse is out of the barn. Whoever denies free energy doesn't
read very good.
http://www.rhfweb.com/Scalarwaveskgood1.pdf
-
Tesla reported that his coil radiated 'something' that would create current in a receiver. But who would believe a crackpot like Tesla, eh?
Actually I have been studying and a series LC circuit operating in resonance with it's source would not produce current in the coil - and therefore not produce a magnetic field in the core and therefore would not transfer power to a secondary coil to power a load. And a parallel LC in resonance with the source would tend to use all available current to power a secondary load. Even if the source voltage were free... it would have to be enough to power a load.
But tesla did it... or so the reports say. I would like to find the articles that ran in newspapers stating that he was using "black magic" to power the car.
So I still think that somehow it is possible. And in the car, he used tubes. But I have no clue about tubes... so I am studying. :)
But - you are absolutely right about the Tesla coil. A spark gap type coil is what he used... and I have wondered if the new solid state coils would even produce the same effect. Meyl seems to be convinced that his works.
Tesla used a spark gap - and used a disruptive discharge. Under 100ms he began to see these strange anomalies. One of them was a cooling effect. This points directly to what I believe was happening. He was creating "streamers" from the gap. Not streamers like the sparks that one sees from the top of the coil... but streamers like the ionized air streamers that lightning fills when they reach the ground.
When it's hot outside and a thunderstorm rolls in - you can feel this cooling effect then.
This ionized air or "cold electricity" rolled up his coil like a smoke-ring. He was able to step-up voltage 10,000 times per foot of coil... just using the "kick" that comes from disruptive discharge.
This is the same "kick" that Steven Marks is claiming to use...
AND Gray said that he figured out the secret from the way lightning works.
But I am sure that the hecklers know more about it than Tesla... or Meyl. :)
-
Obviously there's something missing. Unless you can explain how a 100 lb man can lift rocks weighing 20 tons overnight alone without equipment... Wanna take a guess?
Yeah, I saw it on an episode of 'Smallville' last night... Too bad more of us weren't born on Krypton.
-
Elvis:
You said: Actually I have been studying and a paralell LC circuit operating in resonance with it's source would nit produce current in the coil - and therefore not produce a magnetic field in the core and therefore would not transfer power to a secondary coil to power a load. And a series LC in resonance with the source would tend to use all available current to power a secondary load. Even if the source voltage were free... it would have to be enough to power a load.
Better keep studying a lot more. Sounds like you're reading the wrong info. Parallel resonant circuits develop circulating currents "orders
of magnitude" greater than input which also raises the voltage. Of course that translates into a magnetic field that can be picked
up by a secondary. What but V/I in a coil do you think creates fields in the first place??? Sounds like you've not the electricity back-
ground to make an informed remark.
Tesla coils are series-resonant towers driven by parallel resonant tanks. True some have spark gaps and those are richer in harmonics
(which goes back to ferroresonance gains I mentioned earlier) but harmonics aren't essential for resonance gains which happen anyway
at the tuned frequency.
Also in Tesla's magnifying transmitter (Meyl link posted) the coupling between transmitter and receiver is actually a combination
of both series and parallel resonant tank. The gain without input cascades, is 5X the input. If you count the parallel-resonant driver
and the series-parallel resonant coupling, that's two stages. The receiver makes 3 stages. So yes there's a gain and it happened
through resonant stages. What do you mean Meyl "believes," Elvis. You're free to reproduce his experiment and he'll sell you the
kit.
magnetoelastic: . Why do you waste your particle of attention on this forum, given your inability to learn anything?
-
I had the lc circuits backwards... actually.
The parallel would reach close to infinite impedance - and that would mean high current. So yes this would couple with a secondary coil.
The series LC would be close to zero impedance... and that would mean it would pull no current in a perfect world. No current = no inductance, right?
And yes, I realize that experimenting is the only way to find out what the anomalies are for both series and parallel LC circuits when resonating with the source. :)
I mentioned the sparkgap coil - because that is what Tesla used. :)
-
Thrival - I see what you are saying about cascading the circuits. Obviously you could add current with every tank in the cascade.
If Meyl's lowest report of 150% was all you could get - you might still multiply that with good coils.
-
Your off-hand reference to a 100 lb man lifting 20 ton rocks, is obviously a reference to Edward Leedskalnin's Coral Castle, and is totally off-topic for the discussion here. As was the mention of Tom Bearden. But while we're talking about Bearden, let me refer you to a link on his website:
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/minuteman.htm
describing a 'overunity' circuit developed by Westinghouse as a power supply for the Minuteman missile. What brings me into this discussion is that I _worked_ at Westinghouse, and _knew_ all the individuals involved in this program. Heber 'Jud' Morrison, who patented the circuit, was a close friend of mine, and we spoke at length about that program, and I became intimately familiar with the details of its operation. Overunity - not! What was happening were switching spikes from the inverter transistors, coupled through the output transformer, being rectified by the output circuit, creating overvoltages when the load circuitry was muted. Nothing more mysterious than that. When I found Bearden's website, I sent this link to my Westinghouse friends, and we all had a great chuckle over this.
The particular irony here is that Jud Morrison was an active investigator and debunker of perpetual motion frauds. He was hired as a consultant to investigate Joe Newman's car demo at Madison Square Garden. He returned muttering about the guy with 500 nine-volt batteries in the trunk of his car. His quick back-of envelope calculations showed the stored energy in these batteries alone was sufficient to power the car through the set of tests it underwent.
Back in '85, I myself built an 'overunity' transmitter, along the lines of Morrison's circuit. At the time, I measured 104% efficiency. Problem is, I was using ammeters that had 5% resolution. Running to the patent office with this wonderful invention was, needless to say, not a top priority for me.
-
(Re. Tesla)? I would like to find the articles that ran in newspapers stating that he was using "black magic" to power the car.
I would like to find _any_ contemporary accounts of this car in operation. To the best of my research, the origin of this anecdote came from a self-proclaimed 'nephew' of Tesla who supposedly witnessed this.
The facts of the matter are:
*During the 1920s and 1930s there were many Serbo-Croatian nationals who came to the US claiming a familial relationship to Tesla, for purposes of immigration. The veracity of their claims has always been suspect.
*During this period, Tesla's primary source of income was a pension from the Serbo-Croatian government which barely met his living expenses, let alone the purchase of a car.
*Every year on his birthday, Tesla would invite reporters to his apartment to issue grand pronunciations about his technologies and their role in the future of mankind. Never, as far as I can determine from the transcripts available to me, did he mention an automobile.
*The FBI files on Tesla, released under FOIA, are markedly silent on the topic of an automobile.
-
I'll continue my discussion, but first, I need to run to the drugstore to pick up a package of Occam's razor blades.
-
Higher the frequency at a common V/I input, the greater the power out. E = hf (where h is Planck's constant
and f is the frequency.)
Planck's Law refers to electromagnetic radiation (photons) not electric currents. To quote Napoleon Dynamite, 'Gosh!'
-
magneto - Bearden is obviously not on to anything. He describes overunity as simple and then defers to others to build it. If he was right in his assumptions, he would have already presented a device that worked.
As for Tesla's car... supposedly the car company provided the car, and westinghouse provided the motor. If this story is not true, then I guess I am searching in vain. I know that troubles you.
And as for Lee Edskalnin - that was not off topic. :) The other guy posting here - the *real* heckler... implied that everything about electricity and magnetism was known and taught in text books. I asked him to explain Coral Castle. Simple as that. Ed obviously knew something that text books do not teach. That was my point.
As for future discussion... if I ask a question, and you know the answer and feel inclined to answer, then feel free. If I make a wild guess at something and you feel inclined to give your opinion of what is wrong with my guess... then feel free as well.
But I could really do without the sarcasm.
While it may make you feel better about yourself to chuckle at me - it really serves no purpose to ridicule anyone in this forum - other than to gain yourself a reputation as an asshole.
And - your reference to Bearden was off topic. No one has quoted him as being right about anything. I believe my one reference was "if you believe Bearden." But maybe language is the barrier here. Do you understand English? ;)
But seriously. If you are an EE and you have education and experience... then put it to good use. I am a network engineer... and I do not act this way with friends who ask me questions about their home networks.
It's called simple courtesy.
-
Peace - agreed. Trust me, we are working toward a common goal. I've been working on OU experiments for over 30 years, researching Tesla nearly 40. Been there, done that. The best thing the OU community can do is learn the vocabulary of 'real' science, not to make silly mistakes, learn how to do real tests, use real test equipment, and be our own worst critics. JL Naudin and Scott Little are doing it right (although I don't agree with all of Naudin's protocalls). The cold fusion community is able to do their research within the context of conventional science without resorting to new-age babble, why can't we?
If I'm a smart-@$$, it's because we (and I've been as guilty as any others here) can get so caught up in armchair theorizing, and urban-myth science that we don't stop to do the hard physics to understand what is happening, or to ask if what we are led to believe really makes sense. There is a role for the skeptic both in science orthodoxy and in science radicalism.
That said, nobody in the science orthodoxy will believe a d**n thing that is said here until someone demonstates self-sustaining OU that has requires no batteries, no wall plug. Maybe Randell Mills will beat me to it, but it won't be through a lack of trying.
Until that day, I am going to continue to challenge sloppy thinking, bad science, factual mistakes, and Tesla-cultists, because uncritical thinking serves no one, and furthers the reputation of legitimate OU researchers as part of the tin-foil beanie crowd.
Excuse me, gotta get back to the lab..
-
I can agree with you. :) But so far we are only discussing the merits of an experiment. I would certainly not proclaim to have found anything based on a conversation about possibilities.
If we can agree that there is a potential between an antenna and a ground. Then what is the best way to use this? To say - "it can't be done." is fine. But if people want to waste time talking about possible ways... then what is the harm?
I agree that we shouldn't be wasting time on nonsense. But who is wasting their time here? Just three of us... and two of us are satisfied wasting time. :)
Personally, I think too many are wasting their time on the devices that 'work' posted here. :) That is the real distraction.
Now... if I posted a video showing a black box running a few light bulbs... and I had all these EEs up at night trying to figure out what made it work... then you would certainly be right to complain.
Anyways... in the future, I will try not to show my ignorance. :) I have only started studying electronics in the last few weeks. All the Tesla and Meyl was what got me interested... and the lack of real help here as made me realize that I will have to know it myself.
So give me a break for now. :) I'm a quick study and I have a knack for solving problems. So maybe someday I will be a help instead of a distraction. :)
Peace!!
-
Elvis:
You said: I had the lc circuits backwards... actually.
The parallel would reach close to infinite impedance - and that would mean high current. So yes this would couple with a secondary coil.
The series LC would be close to zero impedance... and that would mean it would pull no current in a perfect world. No current = no inductance, right?
And yes, I realize that experimenting is the only way to find out what the anomalies are for both series and parallel LC circuits when resonating with the source. Smiley
I mentioned the sparkgap coil - because that is what Tesla used.
I need to address what you said in stages (no pun intended.)
First of all, it's important not to draw false connections. We are studying reality at this point, not trying to establish cause and effects
yet.
Infinite impedance doesn't "mean" high current anymore than zero impedance "means" zero current. You are using only partial
descriptions to predict outputs, and not necessarily accurately. Let us simply look at what a resonance circuit is and does, not
why it does it. That can come later, if at all; it doesn't stop us from building useful circuits today, even if we lack complete
understanding.
A parallel tank has VERY HIGH input impedance at resonance. That means very little current can be squeezed into the input wires,
and yet VERY HIGH currents, "orders of magnitude," are circulating between the tank components. We are NOT saying that one
"causes" the other, only that both properties demonstrate themselves in this particular configuration.
In a series-resonant tank, the voltages between the components are VERY HIGH and the input current is VERY HIGH also. Again,
no causative conclusions are drawn, simply the factual observations.
In Tesla's magnifying transmitter we see neither a pure parallel or pure series resonant tank but something that has elements of both.
The coil is split into two halves. We might intuit then that the voltages that would develop across a single coil might split in half
as well. Now in resonant tanks, the gain is typically 10 to 1,000X the input. I misstated something in my previous post. In the Meyl
diagram, there is only ONE tank, i.e. the central coupling element. The input and output do not resonate. Now if Meyl is getting 5X
his input with only ONE resonant stage, that should tell you something about the power of resonance.
Meyl is correct; this type of circuit simply isn't described in the textbooks because it doesn't fit neatly into contemporary theories
and number-crunching. Of course it isn't necessary to grasp Tesla to make very good money as an EE or radio engineer, but it's sad
that those of us who spend good money for an education, are cheated from being exposed to the most interesting facts. And as
for failures, those are only useful for purposes of informing us what not to do in the future; they certainly don't limit what's possible,
but only define what doesn't work-- not what does.
Magnetoelastic:
Has your party debunked the testatika? I'll bet not, since over 30 engineers visited the community and saw it run.
I find your definition of OU to be purist and anal. Why would you object to a circuit being powered by a battery if it outputs more
energy than input? I hear a lot of high priests who demand to be shown, but the fact they produce nothing themselves already proves
them to be false priests. Why, WHY do the self-important allow one dubious configuration color their whole world? It's simply childish.
I discovered something about Planck's constant: instead of E = hf, E = Pf where P = power in watts. It conclusively proves the how
and why of zero-point energy, and no, you will not be shown.
-
I am open to anything. :) But I am also wanting to be sure I know what something is "supposed to do" before I play with electricity.
I am going to play with some coils. First a tank circuit... trying to get it as close to resonate with the source as I can get. The only thing holding me back is I am afraid to use A/C from the wall... haha Maybe a transfomer to step it down to a few volts first. :)
I'll also try one with bifilar winding as well. If we want to increase the magnetic field in the core - this would seem to do it.
So one or the other or both might show the increase in current in the secondary circuit. If it does... even if it is a little... then perhaps an investment for better materials is warranted. But for sure, the next step would be to cascade a few circuits and see if the increase is at least a sum of the parts - if not something more interesting.
But it will either prove something - or it will send me in another direction. :)
And to both thrival and magneto - we are all interested in the same goal. It does no good to argue anything but facts... and then in a polite manner.
Thrival - you are much like me. we both believe for one reason or another that it is possible. But we are coming towards this problem from abstract thinking. Obviously, people who refuse to think out of the box will never find it... and most prefer to laugh instead of help. :) I've worked with engineers for 20 years - electrical, civil, and networking. Most are very proud of their education and understanding - as well they should be... and it is somewhat insulting when people "armchair" and talk shit about the things they know are true. So put yourself in their place. :)
Magneto - you have education and experience... and maybe you have a hint that something is indeed missing from the accepted principles - but, you have seen many people come and go claiming free energy and yet, we are still on the grid. I worked helpdesk while going to school... so I know the feeling of helping the "technologically challenged." :) But again, put yourself in our shoes.
I'll post again when I see something - one way or the other.
Peace!!
-
Elvis:
A resonant tank has got to be one of the cheapest experiments you can do, just two components. I would advise you do a
parallel resonant tank, reason being it uses very little input power at resonance. A series-resonant tank on the other hand,
uses LOTS of power at resonance. It will suck everything your mains can deliver and will probably blow fuses. Also, close to
resonance, isn't good enough. You need to be 'on the money' to log the effect. Also remember your components should be
sized big enough to handle "10 to 1,000X" your input, or parts may fry and/or go 'pop.'
A caduceus coil is a bit beyond the basic experiment. They don't behave like normal coils.
It's not that I don't understand ivory-towers. It's just that I find smug self-satisfaction, assertion of authority, inferred
omniscience, faulty logic... in falible and quite limited ...human beings, preposterous and disgusting. I'll be the first person to
admit I don't know everything. It's what makes my continuous capacity to learn, possible. Neither cyncism or belief have any
place in science, although from the point of sheer persistence and ultimate results, belief provides more gas to the hoped
destination. Opinions and elbows (everyone has 'em.) Peanut galleries don't have much constructive to contribute. A person
who doesn't know how to do a thing, has a right to their opinion, but not to be taken seriously.
-
I discovered something about Planck's constant: instead of E = hf, E = Pf where P = power in watts. It conclusively proves the how
and why of zero-point energy, and no, you will not be shown.
(sigh). Your equation E=Pf does not contain Plancks constant, how can you assert that you can discover something about Plancks constant in an equation that has nothing to do with Plancks constant?
Back to Physics 101. Energy = Joules, Power = watts = joules per second. Frequency = cycles per second.
Power x Frequency = joule-cycles per second squared, NOTjoules.
This proves nothing about zero-point energy.
QED - NOT.
-
Has your party debunked the testatika? I'll bet not, since over 30 engineers visited the community and saw it run.
I find your definition of OU to be purist and anal.
When the testatika inventors publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, like Randell Mills, or publish a book describing theory of operation, like Joe Newman and T Henry Moray (for crying out loud!) it will be easier to take seriously.
_Nature_ is purist and anal, to anthropomorphize. F = MA, and there is no 'fuzzy physics'. (Except, perhaps, quantum mechanics).
-
To further drive the stake into the heart of the myth of Tesla's automobile, Tesla's nephew stated that they used a 70L7 tube in the power converter unit. The car itself was supposedly assembled in 1931.
Trouble is, the 70L7 was not introduced until 1939.
Gosh!
-
That would make his account embellished... if not totally made up. damn!
-
Magnetoelastic:
You said: (sigh). Your equation E=Pf does not contain Plancks constant, how can you assert that you can discover something about Plancks constant in an equation that has nothing to do with Plancks constant?
Back to Physics 101. Energy = Joules, Power = watts = joules per second. Frequency = cycles per second.
Power x Frequency = joule-cycles per second squared, NOTjoules.
This proves nothing about zero-point energy.
QED - NOT.
Uhh, everything you said above is correct, as far as it goes, but I'm not about to show you what you're missing.
and...
When the testatika inventors publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, like Randell Mills, or publish a book describing theory of operation, like Joe Newman and T Henry Moray (for crying out loud!) it will be easier to take seriously.
_Nature_ is purist and anal, to anthropomorphize. F = MA, and there is no 'fuzzy physics'. (Except, perhaps, quantum mechanics).
The methernitha community and many free energy inventors alive and past, are beyond you. To publish in your reviews would
only add to your already over-inflated egos, suggesting or inferring an authority you don't have. You are not their peers. Many
have already "published" in the global patent archives, and you had the least incentive to learn something, could go there if you
can raise a finger to click a mouse. And it's not even necessary to understand a thing fully to USE it. I mean look at all the crap
written in scholarly journals about gravity, yet have yet to see one published academic demonstrate a practical anti-gravity engine.
Now water-wheels have worked fine for centuries. Gravity is very reliable, even if Hawkings et al, think they understand it.
But the testatika isn't hard to figure out because engineers have visited the community and posted lovely exploded
diagrams. The truth is out and here it is: electrostatic wheel feeds cascade capacitor that feeds resonant stage. There. Are
you satisfied? I thought not.
-
Uhh, everything you said above is correct, as far as it goes, but I'm not about to show you what you're missing.
Won't - or can't?
-
Won't, because you're boring and my proof is proprietary. But take heart--
there's plenty of other public domain stuff you can glean principles from
when you overcome your ego fatness.
-
There are still iconoclasts and maverics within the world of electronics and physics who dare to try to shake the foundations of science as we know it. I would point to Ivor Catt, Tom Van Flandern, and Harold Aspden as prime examples (and worthy of further reading by the visitors here). They, however, are well-versed enough in their respective fields that they command the respect (if not agreement) of those who challenge their assertions. They have earned their credibility because they have the ability to logically defend their hypotheses using the tools of classical science. None of them need resort to defensive snarkiness as an alternative for logical rigor.
I would also point to the example of Stanford Ovshinksy, founder of Ovonics, who despite being self taught, became a leading expert in the field of amorphous semiconductors - a technology which at the time was viewed as impossible. He achieved this through his own research, hard work, and following established scientific procedure, and triumphed despite heavy criticism of his ideas. His is an example that should be emulated by the OU community. Compare his demeaner - and credibility - to Joe Newman, or Dennis Lee.
-
Won't, because you're boring ..... ego fatness.
:-\
(sigh). You should realize by now that lobbing ad hominem attacks is a tantamount admission of a depletion of intellectual ammunition. Or, as my ex-wife's shrink used to say, "The one who yells loudest - sounds wrong-est!"
-
I'm surely not yelling. :D
-
Let us say we have two resonant parallel circuits coupled together thru their inductors. The inductor of the second circuit supplies the kick (active) and the its capacitor supplies the rebound (passive). What would happen if the capacitors were to also be active at the same time and not passive? This would give you a double kick!
Capacitor coupling could be achieved at the same time using a c-stack. Link below:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/cstack/index.htm
Any ideas?
Tishatang
-
Don't forget about the damping effects from real resistance found it the wires as well as stray capacitance and inductances. Any oscillations will die to 0 unelss another kick is provided at the precise time.
Valveman
-
Valveman,
-TIME(=process)-controlling is the most important factor !
The TIME-switch is the "Maxwell D(a)emon"!!!
This will give a temporal/periodical win/gain !
The term "overunity" depends clearly the physics constitution,
but the Carnot-process is also only one of many levels
also to name and ever relativ: Seebeck,Peltier,Thompson
Betz,Lorentz(= over Carnot !)
Sincerely
de Lanca
-
Alright, a real conversation.
Scott Mckay, patent 5146395. Two identical tank circuits. One Tank Cascading into the second Tank and then a reverse process.
Obvoiusly, the same resonant frequency between the two Tank circuits.
A controll unit running on battery, sends Tank A into oscilation by providing an input signal of perfect frequency to it (low power).
Tank A resonates I believe one half cycle or one full cycle. (not sure)
Controll circuit allows extra Power gain in Tank A to be taken out to drive a load.
Controll circuit allows small amount of power from Tank A used to resonate Tank B. The frequency of tank A is perfect frequency to vibrate tank B. As a result of this, only a small amount of power is needed.
Tank B oscilates one half or one full cycle.
Controll circuit allows extra Power gain in Tank B to be taken out to drive a load.
Controll circuit allows small amount of power from Tank B used to resonate Tank A. Only a small amount of power is needed.
Process repeats.
The patent has good descriptions and immages. Check it out.
I think McKay's device is the real deal. I think, following this threaded conversation, this device will work. I have NOT tested it.
There is another person too who has a device based on resonance. Don Smith. But some assume he is a quack. I for one do not. Based on the principals he puts fourth, I think he is the real deal also. If you watch his video, he is hard to understand, he mumbles, and is timid and not exciting at all, yet the same theory is all there. He's all about Tesla and Tank Circuits. He does however make a mathamatical mistake on his website. He also shows pictures of a few weird experiments which ohers claimed did nothing. Curious.
He uses in one model OU supply, a store bought inverter to take 12 volts up to 120. The 120 powers a Neon HV transformer. The output of the Neon transformer is frequency ajusted with a few small caps and directly drives a low inductance coil. This is the input coil of a set of resonantly coupled coils. If the input coil starts at 10 or 20kv and resonates a secondary coil, the secondary output coil must be at hundreds of thousands of volts when at resonance. Trememdous Voltage, Tremendous Current due to resonance. Power Gained. VxI
Instead of letting this now solid state Tesla coil emit sparks, he feeds the output electricity directly into dual sets of opposed capacitor banks via the HV ends of the output coil and a center tap as neutral. This is yet another Tank circuit. (Output Coil and parallel capacitors). Energy is taken off these large Caps for load.
Get this, in his video, he mentions using resonance to vibrate a piece of properly cut wire, which can pick up emmited RF energy to charge the battery, if you didn't want to use conventional methods. More resonance at work.
This system must be tuned to opperate. The primary circuit, a store bought inverter and Neon transformer, obviously vibrate at 60 Hz. The trick of using these two as a source would be to choose the values of the inductivly coupled resonant coils so that the two coils resonate close to 60Hz, so that only fine ajustments are needed with small caps at the input. Once tuned, magic happens. Supposedly. I havn't tested this eiether.
So how do you utilize the output of a high frequency high voltage resonating tank circuit? Rectify it to DC with HV diodes, re-oscilate it at 50 or 60 Hz and step it down with an ordinary 50 or 60hz HV transformer. Start at Super high voltage and a small or even fair current, and end up at the output of the transformer with ordinary high voltage, 120v or 240v at dozens or hundreds of amperes. Remember, for you debunkers, Step down voltage, increase current availability. Real, useable electricity at sufficent wattages for many many appliances.
Anyone care to build one of these two circuits? McKay or Smith?
-sNick
-
May, June, July August....... I guess no one is trying to build and replicate eiether one of these two devices. I will eventually try. I will post when I eventually do. I hope to see other attempts as well.
-sNick
-
sNick, Thanks for your post. This is definitely something to play with... and you seem to have the brains to do it. I'm specifically interested to know if you can attach an LC circuit to an antenna and use resonance to see spikes that might power that antenna to draw more power...
The source? Schumann says 7.4.... Tesla said 12hz...
-
Hi sNick,
Here is a good reference link I think relevant before you start to build anything.
http://www.energyscience.org.uk/le/Le27/Notes.html
Aspden theorizes energy comes from the aether when you negatively pulse a spherical capacitor on its discharge cycle. Somehow, when you make the capacitor discharge quicker, the aether supplies energy to make the capacitor rebound giving a net energy gain. It seems to me easier to test this theory than to build the circuits you describe? These are just the notes for a Berliln lecture, which shows a possible device.
Also, for a short time, Peter Lindeman's "Secrets of Cold Electricity" is available as a free download at:
http://godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?messageid=191269&mpage=1&showdate=1/8/06
Lots of other great books at this link.
tishatang
-
The Kapanadze generator is a tesla coil with a step down transformer at the end, I have in mind something similar, but instead of stepping down after two resonance, make three or four or five circuit in cascade. Does the schematic I include make sense electrically speaking? Also, as far as gain from antenna, a crystal radio does have a huge gain factor from it's antenna input, without amplification, it receives a milliwatt signal and turns it into an audible sound without any external input.
-
The Kapanadze generator is a tesla coil with a step down transformer at the end, I have in mind something similar, but instead of stepping down after two resonance, make three or four or five circuit in cascade. Does the schematic I include make sense electrically speaking? Also, as far as gain from antenna, a crystal radio does have a huge gain factor from it's antenna input, without amplification, it receives a milliwatt signal and turns it into an audible sound without any external input.
hmmmmmmmm, somethings strange. :)
-
Hi nick!
Provide me with a diagram of your proposed LC circuit (sounds like a Hartley Oscillator) and I will build one! My existing custom fabricated custom wouned toroid has an inductance of 200microH; R 1 ohm C = 1.0 nano farad!
-
Would a long time follower of this topic direct me to a poster that has build and experimented with any of the suggestions found here?