@watts up ,
exactly! too easy to change the effect and the correct starting point .lets see what Tony saw..then move on.
It not like it is expensive to build

@ gadget
that generator of yours could be gold (acording to SM) for this  but do  a better coil .. you know that.

@nightlife

Down the road a bit for certain , but for now who gives a rat's where it comes from?

If it is a means of remote power extraction its still fantastic!
None of the other inventors could completely justify its source .We just might find out .
Im not setting up in a bare field just yet. I like the hole explanation ..just for now though.


@tony
Thanks again for your sharing and do try to not let the negativity get to you whatever the various outcomes people get.
It would not be the first time that something was difficult to replicate due to yet unknown influences and abilities.

What a great find you made , I can almost see the tornado effect just looking at this thing , I do expect the right way to harvest the holes as you well put it ,another challenge.

I used a post tube that is 80 mm ..an A4 paper sheet fits the circumference exactly so marking it out is much easier using the paper with marks on it . come to think of it whatever the size cut a sheet of paper to the circumference and away you go!


Many dis-used cable reels have a nice former inside some heavy cardboard some hdpe (plastic)

I will fire this up tomorrow with various generators , wave shapes and voltages

Lindsay

Tony,

Attached is my proposed 4017 circuit.
[snip]
Regards, Alex.

Alex, the resistors R1, R2, and R3 are *extremely* low in value.

The base-emitter junction will have so much charge injected into it, that it will take an eternity to pull the charge out again.

I detest using bipolar transistors if it is at all possible to use FETs, even if this is what Tony wishes for the time being.

In any case, the base drive resistors should be more like 100k or higher, and have a small ceramic capacitor in parallel to help in emptying the base-emitter charge when the drive signal transitions negative.

Until the "mass circuitry" is eliminated as SM says, I would suggest using a shift register rather than a decade counter.  More on this later.   In the meantime, for circuits, consult my 2007 post at
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2582.msg38506#msg38506
to see the advantages of using shift registers over decade counters.

Regards, Earl

Earl,
Those are bipolar transistors so there are no charge.
The circuit will perform OK. I made the circuit as it
is because that was what Tony wanted.
Alex.

Negative.  You are totally incorrect.  It is well known in EE that bipolars need injected charge into the base-emitter junction in order to be able to turn on.  In order for a bipolar transistor to be able to turn off, all this injected charge must be removed.

This is why every experienced EE uses base resistors of appropriate value.  A low-inductance capacitor in parallel with the base drive resistor is not optional, it is a *MUST* in order to increase speed of both turn-on and turn-off.

To further increase your knowledge of BJT, you may refer to
http://ecee.colorado.edu/~bart/book/book/chapter5/ch5_6.htm
where it says:
"As long as significant charge is still stored in the base region, the collector current will continue to exist. Only after this excess charge is removed, will the base-emitter junction capacitor be discharged and the BJT be turned off. The removal of the excess charge can take a significant delay time labeled as td,2 on the figure."

I have observed with an oscilloscope probe in my hand how too low a base drive resistor will cause an unbelievably long turn-off time in a BJT.

Regards, Earl
EE since 40+ years

Listen to what Earl has to say GL.

Speed-up capacitors are well known in their application for BJT switching applications (see 2/3 of the way down the page).

Don't be so arrogant to think that you can not learn something new, especially when analog electronics is not your forte.

@Everybody

I am ready with the coil and stop here with the experimenting and moving to design a complete driving circuitry with ordinary devices, variable duty cycle on each channel. I'll test it in simulator, build it on the breadboard and test it in reality as well by driving the coils and come back with the results.

Actually Gadget, Even though it is wrong, now that I think about it, HOW did you get it that way? I am in my mind trying to see the path that the thread would follow an its a physical impossibility!  Without some fangled routing, my guess by seeing it, it looks like a single loop from one hole to another. Athough I cannot see under the tape.
Im not making fun of your build, its just fact, how did you do that?   lol =]

Mags

WEll . Yes i know the Build for Stephan was wrong and he said it didn't work . I wound this just like a toroid ,one singe wire for the primary,in around in around . . Picture this as a toroid and i wound around the sides and insides .  . It looks like the one he made for Stephan . It appears to me he wound the same but i will accept it is wrong and re read the thread again . And i just was curious if a smaller version could be made and the paper roll was  handy . I also realize its one of the "crapiest : lol coils i ever wound 

The Beauty of Alex's Electronics skills is that you can ask him what you need a circuit can do and he He can make it work almost instantly . I have Great respect for his EE abilities and consider him the best i have seen in 30+ years . I also respect Other's Idea's as well  but when we are dealing with unconventional free energy it's really unexplored territory not written in stone or paper and he was the only one to come up with a schematic  and very fast at that !


Gadget

@skcusitrah,

I DO listen to what Earl has to say. And I'm NOT arrogant, and very willing to LEARN something new.

But we are not here to discuss my person or Earl. We are here to promote free energy. I explained
my reason to why I designed the circuit like it is. I also explained why I did choose to use the
resistor values I did use. It is a shitty little circuit and not important in the long run.

Alex.

The drive circuit can be improved by adjusting the base resistor and adding the parallel cap as has been mentioned and backed up with a reasonable reference.

YOU are talking only about the DC HFE and current requirements, and ignoring the switching characteristics and the recommendations made from an experienced designer.

Show some respect and gratitude for the suggestion, your argument/explanation is incomplete.

Tony,
I don't  know if you believe in a higher power in this world?

I know more about that you'd presume I do. That is why I came forward to the public and asked everybody to save everything on their computer I write and send photos, later vids.

@Earl

Yes quadrature is a good point. I was also thinking about that yesterday to wind it with 4 but I had to move to larger diameter with the tube. I went to the post office to buy larger mailing tubes but they don't have at the moment. No supplies for days due to the extreme wheather (snowing, frost, unmaintained roads, accidents). All I've got in larger diameter is acrylic tube (127mm, see the latest photo). It is not easy to wind even 3 on it as it is clear and you see cobwebs everywhere after 2 is done.

So yes the 4 is a good point. Also the more channel you have the smoother the output will be and the less power you need to keep it running. But yet the more channels require larger tube to keep the spaces between the wires and avoid the "echo". The winding is going in zig-zag to create a working state outside and a resting (accelerating) inside. It gives a picosecond timing and I don't know if you saw my last scopeshots - with the 6 split-channel version coil - that clearly indicated what I wanted to know whether it makes an infuence on the spike. Yes, so the full circle is the most efficient so far. No noise and loss.

I will certainly look into the 4-channel version later with larger tube and varied geometries.