# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: armagdn03 on January 07, 2010, 11:50:37 PM

Title: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: armagdn03 on January 07, 2010, 11:50:37 PM
The transformer process in current light generally refers to a passive electrical component which is designed to take energy at one potential and current state on the input, and output at a differing potential and current state based on well defined and accepted ratios. Generally the transformer is of inductive character defined by two electrically separate conductors wound about the same core. It is expected that the power consumable on the output will be equal and opposite to the power consumed from the input minus losses. This is a feature of design only, and holds true to most modern transformers. In eccentric transformer theory, we will examine various forms of transformer which are geometrically wound about individual centers. We will take note how , The bulk of the transformer process can be described by taking an examination of the laws of induction, but it will be shown also that other phenomenon describe the transformation process, but are hidden to us through conventional design. Both capacitive and inductive transformer coupling will be addressed and calculations presented for each.

Inductive Transformer action

The standard transformer According to Faraday's law (put in this convenient permutation)

Voltage Generated = (-N)(delta (BA))/delta t)

Where we have replaced the unit of inductance with its terms:
-N = number of turns
B = Magnetic field strength in Tesla
A = Area of turns

Assuming the primary and secondary are concentric (about the same center) Lenz law applies in the standard way, giving us an equal and opposite EMF equating to equal and opposite energy states on both primary and secondary minus losses. This essentially describes the bulk of the "transformation" process mechanism for this example. It may not be readily apparent, but the Inverse Squared law of electromagnetic radiation is also in effect, though it is hidden to us in conventional designs.
According to the inverse squared law, as we increase the diameter of the secondary (around the primary, concentrically) the magnitude of the EMF created by the primary will decrease accordingly. As we get one radius away from the primary, the magnitude will be 1/4 of the source. But we have also increased area by a factor of four (area of a circle increases by factor of 4 with a doubling of the radius). Therefore in the equation for Faraday's law, the factors of 1/4 and 4 cancel out for no net effect.
This clearly shows both in practice, and mathematical convenience, that when sharing a common center, Faraday's law creates an Equal and Opposite reaction to any change with respect to time in the current of the primary. However, if the primary and secondary do NOT share centers, a new area of study becomes of interest.
If the secondary is wound about a separate center, sitting adjacent to the primary, Lenz law does not behave in the familiar way. The secondary coil will feel a fraction of the field emitted by the primary according to the inverse square law of electromagnetics. For example:

Primary coil: 16 units Field strength
Secondary coil: 2r away from centre of primary
secondary coil: â€œFeelsâ€: 4 units Field strength

Because of the inverse square law, and our geometric spacing, we can see that the secondary at distance 2r will see only Â¼ of the emf as if it had been wound about the same centre as the primary.  The secondary will now react per Lenz law to push back on the oscillations of the primary coil. This opposing oscillation must now travel back to the primary across free space, and according to the inverse squared law once again, its magnitude will decrease. If we decrease by a factor of 4 once more, we can see that the primary coil will feel a BEMF of only 1unit. To summarize:

Primary coil:
Secondary coil:
Feels 4 units of field from primary
Creates equal and opposite 4 units per Lenz Law (BEMF)
Primary coil:
Feels 1 unit of BEMF From secondary

So we have expended 16 units, to "create" 4, which pushes back for a total of 1. Hugely inefficient, unless you consider the primary to be a charge conserving resonant structure. In this situation, minus the average reduction due to Q loss, 16 units gets reduced by the BEMF for 1, to create 4 units. The rest of the charge within the primary is conserved and reused in succeeding cycles. Thus we find that the primary consumes 1 unit of energy (minus loss) to create 4 units of energy. Here the "equal and opposite" apparent in all areas of electromagnetics has not been circumvented in any way, simply the geometry has been changed to our advantage.

This same effect can also be calculated using only the capacitive coupling for transformer action.
Capacitors can be arranged in simple geometric ways to act as transformers much the same way inductors can. Such a transformer would appear as a sphere, with a sphere around it concentrically. Because the energy states of both â€œplatesâ€ of our capacitor must be equal, but, the surface area of the inner sphere is less than that of the outer sphere, it will have higher charge density than the outer sphere. The ratio of sizes of the inner sphere to the outer sphere can manipulate the charge density on each to give us transformer action in well known ratios. The mathematics are a direct derivation of
Gauss' law. Because both spheres are about the same center, you will find a situation identical to the transformer described in the previous section. When a change in potential on one sphere occurs, it is mirrored in the second sphere equal and opposite.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/electric/imgele/csph.gif
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/electric/imgele/csph.gif)
One may remove the concentricity aspect of this transformer, and place the spheres on eccentric centers. Here one sphere will be physically next to the other.  A simple mental experiment will show that we are left with a similar situation to the transformer action described above. We will assume once again that the primary sphere emits a field of 16 units and both spheres have equal capacitance.  The second capacitor sitting 2r away will feel only 4 units of potential with respect to ground, once again due to the inverse squared law of electromagnetics. The secondary capacitor is allowed to charge to this  4 unit potential. In practice the primary sphere will be attached to an inductor which allows for a resonant circuit. Each cycle the sphere discharges its energy back into the inductor and it is recycled. Because our secondary is now charged, and emitting its own field of 4 units, the primary cannot discharge 100% of its energy back into the inductor. The secondary per inverse squared mechanics will have the primary sitting in its field and the primary will feel 1 unit of field. Now where the primary would have discharged all 16 units back into the inductor for re use, it instead only returns 15 units because one unit is held stationary by the charge found on the secondary. Once again we find ourselves expending 1 unit to create 4 total minus loss.

It can be seen in both cases that by simply changing the geometric relations of primary and secondary, energy can be created. In similar fashion, and through creative design energy can also be destroyed.

It can be shown that as one gets further from the source the signal received will decrease as shown in the graph below. The number 1 on the X axis represents concentric arrangement. As the centers depart from one another, the field felt decreases accordingly.

[u;r]http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb275/tortuga0303/averagefieldfelt.jpg[/ulr]

It can also be surmised that what is felt by the secondary, is returned in Lenz like fassion to the primary, constituting a feedback to the source, and equating to work done. The ratio of power induced on the secondary to power returned to source in Lenz like reactions can be considered a multiplicaiton ratio. So for example with our previous calculations, as the secondary feels 4 units, and returns to the source 1unit of detraction, the multiplication ratio is 4.

It can be seen when graphing this in the chart below, that as one moves further and further from the source, the process becomes more and more efficient. At 3r it becomes a multiplication ratio of 9, at 4r, 16 and so on.

[ulr]http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb275/tortuga0303/mutiplicationfactor.jpg[/ulr]

It must be realized though that while the process becomes more and more efficient, the average power felt by the secondary decreases. We can see that the graphs have inverse relations in their slopes,  and so there will be one point at which they cross. This intersection in the graphs represents the best possible agreement between power felt by the secondary, and the calculated multiplication factor. Mathematically the two equations can be set to one another used to derive the graphs, and find a common solution.
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: armagdn03 on January 07, 2010, 11:52:31 PM
This is also the bulk of the process involved in the "room full of tuning forks" analogy, or the radio tower with infinite crystal radios. They will feedback to the source, this can be experimentally shown, however the process leaves one with excess energy.

It was later discovered that one needs to isolate either the capacitive or magnetic elements in order to have the purest experiment.

I have heard at more than one time someone in a youtube video create a wireless power transmission  device and ask Dr. Stiffler to comment on why it was supposedly doing the same thing as a SEC circuit. 99% of the time it is not doing the same thing. SEC technology is an ultra-wideband oscillator with a huge harmonic range. Most of the time what they are probably referring to is the effect described here, this is not to say that eccentric transformer action does not come into play in some SEC technology.

One of these videos also gives a possible explanation to the Kapanadze patent and videos.
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: armagdn03 on January 08, 2010, 06:00:07 PM
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7679.0

this work definitely relates to this thread.
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: ramset on January 09, 2010, 01:45:08 AM
Armagdn03

Know that would be nice!!

Chet
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: darkspeed on January 09, 2010, 03:53:48 AM
I like it!  ;D
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: ramset on January 09, 2010, 02:19:10 PM
Darkspeed

This man is another amazing fellow!!

And like you,he builds things that are beautiful,

and he is always full of surprises.[this looks like a really big one]

Chet
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: armagdn03 on January 11, 2010, 09:35:39 PM
Thanks for the compliment!

This same thread has really taken off nicely at the energeticforum.com

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5199-eccentric-transformer-theory.html

There are many interesting posts.
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: armagdn03 on January 13, 2010, 06:26:18 PM
User Tak22 From overunity.com forum has sent me some very interesting information on a gentleman by the name of William Barbat of which the rex research page is linked to below:

William Barbat: Self-Sustaining Electrical Generator; United States Patent Application # 0070007844 (http://www.rexresearch.com/barbat/barbat.htm)

The patent application shows a prior art which is a decent list of overunity devices which actually tend to fit nice and easily with eccentric transformer theory. The use of radioactive material is considered, and thought to be an ill resolution to the problem due to cost and amounts available at the time of the devices conception.

I have seen this effect many times in my studies but people seem to get major parts of the understanding of it wrong or half right! It is important not to just witness a phenomenon, but to describe it to the best ability possible.

quote:
"In order for the electrical output to exceed the electrical input, the output coil is situated in such a manner that it receives more of the magnified inductive-photon energy than that which is directed back against the sending coil to act as a back-force. This "energy leverage" causes the electrical energy output to exceed the input. "

This is eccentric transformer theory at work, but he has neglected to show the relationship between transmitter and magnifying coil in geometric space. He notes the relationship vaguely but I would say that this is of KEY importance, due to the interference pattern created by the receiver and transmitter, there will be areas of EXACT distance that will provide the best possible outcome, and this fact more than others is of grave importance. Moving from this distance in one direction may cause decrease in output and de-tuning of the primary causing increased draw on the input, moving in the other direction causes decrease in output. These are both disadvantageous and will make or break so called energy "production"

Also there is also a lot of gobledigook about low mass electrons etc, which play no role in this device. For example "By way of example, the energy-magnifying coil can comprise a superconducting material, wherein the "condition" is a temperature (e.g., a cryogenic temperature) at which the superconducting material exhibits superconducting behavior characterized by production of low-mass electrons."

Also, it is known that resonance in certain structures acts much like room emperature super conductor, none of this cryo stuff is necessary.  The only problem with the resonance concept is that you must now deal with emission of both inductive and capacitive forms, and you must not let them interfere with the process. Thus you may cancel one or the other out, or make its effects be minimized.

I will be creating an inductive transformer today utilizing my concepts, and hopefully show a second half to this puzzle.

Thanks for the info Tak22
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: Magluvin on January 13, 2010, 06:42:04 PM
That pat. had some very descriptive diagrams.
Its funny, does this mean if I have a standard transformer, many turns of fine wire, and fewer turns of heavier wire, that turns 120v .1a to 12v 1 a  If I remake that transformer so the primary many turn side has thicker wire and the secondary fewer has thinner and I apply 12v 1a  ac to the secondary, can I get 120v at 10a from the primary?
That would be whacked if the thickness of the wire is the key.

Mags
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: armagdn03 on January 13, 2010, 07:09:42 PM
NO!!! I think you have missed the point entirely. The purpose is this....Wind coils about the same center, and in essense they belong to the same dipole, and thus share energy, what goes in comes out. When they are wound about different centers (the meaning of eccentric) one dipole stimulates another dipole. They speak to each other, but the energies do not add up in a 1:1 ratio.
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: Magluvin on January 13, 2010, 07:19:54 PM
I see what it is saying, those were just thoughts I had while looking at it.
I have not read the whole thing but I saved it to do so.
The shorted coil puzzles me, it should act as a heavy load to the others, but like I said I have to read it later this evening.

Mags
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: darkspeed on January 13, 2010, 07:40:04 PM
Did you see my three coil on same axis feedback test? http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8593.0
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: armagdn03 on January 13, 2010, 07:48:32 PM
Did you see my three coil on same axis feedback test? http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8593.0

I just glanced over it and will digest a litle bit better here. However it is always nice to hear straight from the horses mouth so to speak.....What is your conclusion? What have you found and does it relate? What vital information should we take away from your hard work?!
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on January 13, 2010, 08:05:17 PM
Hi Armagdn03,

Great work and very nice coil designs. In my quest to read just about every paper/patent from the 1800's(back to the future) on up on electrical and heat generation I came across a paper which may interest you. Although this relates to FCG (flux compression generators) there is a paper that shows that having a slight cone shape as a base for the coils that there is an associated increase in current.

Magnetic flux compression for high voltage pulse applications:
http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-07012008-31295019801231/unrestricted/31295019801231.pdf

There is also an abstract summary from IEEE, I do not have the paper:

Accurate modeling of the proximity effect in helical flux-compression generators:

From summary:
"...It is shown that the scale of the proximity effects in a helical coil carrying a pulsed current can be many times greater than those predicted by the conventional formula..."

This is very fascinating stuff, have you tried any cone or tapered shaped coil designs?
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: armagdn03 on January 13, 2010, 08:47:19 PM
I have not yet tried many designs like this, though I have played with the idea many times in my mind. This is also similar to "pancake" coils, where there is an added change in radius of the coil with respect to its central axis. There are other people who have used tapered wire in quarter wave resonators, so that the grounded end conducts very high currents with large diameter wire, while the upper portion has high capacitive and electrostatic properties with very thin wire. While these are interesting concepts to play with, and Im sure I have missed the point of the papers you sent (I will read them over) I really want to concentrate on a base effect, that is easily provable, using simple setups. I want to distill at this point, then when all the dust has settled, and I know exactly where it all stands, then I will move on to things such as you pointed  out.
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: forest on January 14, 2010, 09:46:10 AM
I think Len'z rule is related to dipoles. If there is one dipole then it's related it's electric and magnetic fields .If there are more dipoles len'z rule is a rule of interactions between them.
The only way to create free energy is to BREAK DIPOLE creating two monopoles separated in space.
Each monopoles now create own counterpart but there is no len'z rule acting between such separated monopoles.
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: armagdn03 on January 15, 2010, 06:09:51 PM
I think Len'z rule is related to dipoles. If there is one dipole then it's related it's electric and magnetic fields .If there are more dipoles len'z rule is a rule of interactions between them.
The only way to create free energy is to BREAK DIPOLE creating two monopoles separated in space.
Each monopoles now create own counterpart but there is no len'z rule acting between such separated monopoles.

Interesting thoughts. Lenz law is fortunately for us quite strict, which allows us to predict how it will react in many situations. Any action or force that centers around one common point, will affect all other things centering that same common point to the same degree. If they share separate points, where one dipole creates the next, or are simply adjacent, then the equal and opposite reaction still can occur, and does. I'm afraid your comment on "the only way to create free energy" is incorrect. There are no monopoles. I know this will cause waves, but this is so. There are many particle or spherical systems which dislpay monopole like activity. This is because we are not properly viewing the particle in correct context. If there is any gradient potential or magnetic that is more powerful towards the center and decreases strength with distance, as any point source of radiation does, then the center with its great energy density would be considered one pole (positive), while surrounding more tenuous area will be considered the negative region, which is exactly how we view most particles, positive towards center, negative facing outward, but there is in reality no monopole.

Think of the very concept of polarity. It is no other than direction with magnitude, much like a vector. There is no way to have a river that heads in one direction without having come from another. You cannot have a fan blow out air, that has no intake for it also, same is true for electromagnetics, you cannot claim something to be polar then say it has only one  pole, this is in and of itself contradictory.

The lenz reaction I describe DOES create energy. I am very certain of this, the only problems at this point enter with energy management. For example, In one of my recent capacitively based transformers I was able to measure 90 percent efficiency for the device as a whole. However when you calculate the energy created at the pick up sphere, and the energy actually consumed in the process of making it (the decrease in P to P voltage when load is applied), the measurements range from cop 2-6 depending on distance, obviously as I calculated there is optimal. This shows me that my switching losses and other losses are bringing the whole thing below the coveted 1 mark, however this is due to small engineering obstacles. It can be shown experimentally that the actual mechanism however does allow for excess energy, both in theory, calculation and practice.

Let me describe how one can come to theses conclusions. Take my last video, evolution 2 with the capacitive globes. We can consider the globe only (transmitter) to have a "quanta" of energy associated with it. We can measure its specs, then take measurements of voltage as we move away from the transmitter. We now know that at distance X it will have some voltage, and at 2X it will have 1/4 that voltage per the inverse squared law. We also can correlate a P to P voltage off of the oscilloscope. Since the nature of the transmitter is in reality an LC circuit we know that during peak capacitive portion of the cycle 100% of the energy is contained within the capacitive elements, therefore any decreases on p to p voltage on the oscope due to loading will equate to a very real quantity of energy supposedly loading the transmitter and a drop in the p to p voltage. This drop equates to an amount of energy actually loading the transmitter. If the energy created in the pick up coil is larger than the energy lost from the transmitter, then you have created energy. However at this point and size, switching losses can eat away everything you have gained very easily. As models get bigger, and power larger, the power loss vs power used ratio decreases and the goal gets easier.

There are also drawbacks to taking the capacitive route but that is another discussion.
For example in that video the capacitive nature of the globe represented about 15% of the total capacitance within the transmitter, this means that the other 85% is within the parasitic capacitance of the coils and is being put to no use, this decreases Q of the coil, and once again hurts out total. But as I said these can be fixed.
Check out Dr Stifflers recent work, very similar.
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: gotoluc on January 15, 2010, 07:18:22 PM
Hi armagdn03 and all,

I bought some shaded pole motors to use the cores and coils for another experiment and was quickly testing them using my SG  to see at what frequencies I can get them to Resonate at. I was also playing with magnets and noticed I could get a phase shift to happen on a secondary by positioning magnets in different places.

This maybe of interest here so I made a quick video before cutting these apart for the intended experiment.

Let me know if this has any value or is of interest to this topic.

Luc
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: forest on January 15, 2010, 07:51:44 PM
Think about it once again somehow you may find that I have right.Lenz rule you described gives energy.True.
I agree. However this is because something is taking part of len'z rule response away from source and that is ambient background between primary and secondary.Finally you should see that you don't need lenz rule because all will be "eaten" actively disconnecting primary from secondary.That will allow amplification of power.

whip it!
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: armagdn03 on January 15, 2010, 10:31:35 PM
Hi armagdn03 and all,

I bought some shaded pole motors to use the cores and coils for another experiment and was quickly testing them using my SG  to see at what frequencies I can get them to Resonate at. I was also playing with magnets and noticed I could get a phase shift to happen on a secondary by positioning magnets in different places.

This maybe of interest here so I made a quick video before cutting these apart for the intended experiment.

Let me know if this has any value or is of interest to this topic.

Luc

Many effects may be interesting to try, thanks for sharing.
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: armagdn03 on January 15, 2010, 10:41:04 PM
Think about it once again somehow you may find that I have right.Lenz rule you described gives energy.True.
I agree. However this is because something is taking part of len'z rule response away from source and that is ambient background between primary and secondary.Finally you should see that you don't need lenz rule because all will be "eaten" actively disconnecting primary from secondary.That will allow amplification of power.

whip it!

There is space in between source and reciever, that is the point of all this. However what you are insinuating has no real basis behind it. I have given mechanisms, math behind it, and simple demonstrations showing it to be true. Saying that I am incorrect and that the space inbetween is the reason is a bit self defeating.

As to this statement

"Finally you should see that you don't need lenz rule because all will be "eaten" actively disconnecting primary from secondary."

Again someone has completely missed the boat, observed the effect, but does not see its mechanisms at work. You DO need Lenz law always. It is always present but decreases with the square of the distance. This is found in all sorts of examples. Try measuring Q on a resonant coil, then put your hand near it, there is space in between...but your hand acts as a load, (and changes capacitance) and when re-tuned to resonance, you will find a decrease in Q, meaning a lenz effect has taken place. It is misleading to say that it has been "eaten" it is still operating and the maths that I show predict this, and the experimentation backs this.

You cannot say that I am wrong and that really it is because of the space in between, and Lenz law is really eaten because of it....that is just repeating what I have shown but with no real thought behind it.
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: forest on January 16, 2010, 10:15:35 AM
you are wrong. I said not about empty space  ::) ambiend background is something else, it IS ACTIVE
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: forest on January 16, 2010, 10:16:31 AM
are you on south or north hemisphere ?
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: darkspeed on January 16, 2010, 06:59:36 PM
are you on south or north hemisphere ?

Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: forest on January 16, 2010, 07:08:20 PM

exactly, Coriolis has beaten Lenz he he ;D
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: armagdn03 on January 16, 2010, 08:34:32 PM
Care to expand upon your insinuation?
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: darkspeed on January 16, 2010, 08:39:19 PM
Care to expand upon your insinuation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: forest on January 16, 2010, 08:40:40 PM
Care to expand upon your insinuation?

not really
in fact there is not much to say except that there is other dipole between primary and secondary
it's symmetrical but also not symmetrical  :P it depends where you're
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: bboj on January 16, 2010, 08:57:46 PM
Would you mind making a simple graphic representation of an example.
Also can you explain what is a monopole and how can it exist?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: armagdn03 on January 16, 2010, 11:21:03 PM
Interesting forest, I know first hand what you are talking about, however i do not see how it plays into this subject. Empirically my results mirror the predicted maths behind them, therefore I do not see other factors coming into play. I would love for you to prove your point and show me. Videos? Maths? Texts?
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: forest on January 17, 2010, 10:45:21 AM
sorry,it's beyond my capabilities

but read http://www.scribd.com/doc/15818874/Valve-Amplifiers-Third-Edition page 262 of original book
and build rotating transformer based on it ,eliminating dangers
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: darkspeed on January 17, 2010, 10:52:11 AM
Look at the direction of the coils

Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: armagdn03 on January 17, 2010, 06:11:00 PM
Thank you darkspeed. This is interesting....however I believe there are large differences. I am not going for distance. The idea is not to create a wireless technology, but rather to describe lenz like reactions with eccentric setups.

I have on more than one occasion flipped my coils to see their relationship to one another, emperically speaking there is absolutely no difference whatsoever which way they are wound. (I have about 10 of these coils all similar, and all i have to do to wind in a different direction is flip them over.)

The statement about the dipole in between was interesting. This is the very reason for induction and time constants. Each winding induces onto the the third dipole onto the next winding causing BEMF however if this dipole is given a path, say a secondary, the time constants and inductance tend towards zero. However, the Coriolis effect is largely a relativistic effect. To us, the observer on the spinning disk, the movement is different to the outside static observer. This might need to be taken into account a person were trying to build a receiver which picked up ambient energy but this is not the case. For example, say we are taking into account the Coriolis effect in conjunction with the two windings. Both windings will for all intensive purposes be sharing the same area within the Coriolis spin. We are dealing with a "quality of zero". Since ambient is always zero to the coils immersed in it, then whatever the transmitter sees, is also seen by the secondary simultaneously. Therefore the quality of the ambient background can be changing considerably, but to the two coils next to each other, there will be no relative potential differences. People often quote that the earth sits in a 5 tesla field, so much power, why can we not tap it? Because we are immersed in it, to us the 5tesla is zero, anything above or below it will want to return to 5 tesla and so represents a field gradient. To make use of this huge power, we need to ground ourselves to something outside this 5 Tesla field.

Also, there has from what I have learned never been a negation of lenz law in these or similar setups. There is always a "back talk" Even if the Q of the circuit drops from 100  to 99 that counts. As you get further and further from source, the back talk exponentially decreases, but is still present. A person cannot even get their hand within 4 feet of these guys without seeing a loading on the coil, the BEMF is there, and needs to be described.

One interesting effect is this....if the secondary is a resonant equivalent to the primary, back talk increases significantly, and the effect is reduced. That is because all resonant action within the secondary will be 180 out of phase with the primary, and so will work against it. What ever is not consumed by the load will be recirculated in the secondary causing a resonant rise, this will detract from what we want. Therefore we do not want the secondary to harmonically match the primary unless our load is perfectly matched also! this is a very different animal indeed than what that Tesla patent patent describes.
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: forest on January 17, 2010, 06:53:18 PM
Wow! Thank you darkspeed! Now I clearly see how electricity flow in Tesla transmitter and receiver. Like a fluid out of gravity! Yes,Coriolis force apply to it.
This is conduction current without resistance and without gravity.Clever beast.
It spins right-hand creating vortex and enormous voltage which hits elevated capacitance. On receiver it spins the same way.
This is not induction - this is flow of fluid ! Magnetic current!
This pair works only on North hemisphere.
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: wings on January 17, 2010, 07:39:54 PM
Wow! Thank you darkspeed! Now I clearly see how electricity flow in Tesla transmitter and receiver. Like a fluid out of gravity! Yes,Coriolis force apply to it.
This is conduction current without resistance and without gravity.Clever beast.
It spins right-hand creating vortex and enormous voltage which hits elevated capacitance. On receiver it spins the same way.
This is not induction - this is flow of fluid ! Magnetic current!
This pair works only on North hemisphere.

leaving the north hemisphere clockwise arriving south hemisphere counterclockwise?
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: forest on January 17, 2010, 08:32:20 PM
wings,

This is interesting however I said only about how vortex can speed up electricity when coil embodiment match Earth local attributes.Apparently Tesla generator was unique, not such as we use today. The current thus produced acted as supeluminal fluid driven by Coriolis force to ekstreme  speed manifested itself as enormous voltages.
Title: Re: Eccentric Transformer theory
Post by: armagdn03 on January 17, 2010, 10:15:12 PM
This has no relevance to this thread, please open a new thread for continued discussion down these lines.