FEMF, BEMF, and Inductive Collapse

[EMJunkie]

Hi Gurus,

I have been around under different names for a while. I am still not an expert, but I get frustrated by the use of terms that are simply incorrect! I am trying to clear these terms up and with help from others here, trying to define their definitions more clearly, so a better approach can be taken to the industry we have all created.

FEMF :
The term Forward Electro Motive Force, or just EMF, this is directly a result of Induction. There are two types of induction, Flux Cutting and Flux Linking. Each are separate and defined differently, by separate equations.
The Flux Cutting equation is : EMF = Bvl
The Flux Linking Equation is : EMF = -dPhi/dt
Defined by George I Cohn.

BEMF :
The term Back Electro Motive Force, the same as CEMF, is also directly a result of Induction, defined in the FEMF section. However, BEMF or CEMF is always in opposition to the Input Power we put into the device that is being acted upon by the BEMF in the first place.

An Example, we are driving an Electric Motor, our input is 12V @ 1 amp. The Rotation of this Electric motor will be affected by BEMF in the opposite direction to the for mentioned input, causing more input into the Electric Motor than is actually required to run the Electric Motor in the first place. Thus, only a fraction of the input we put into the motor is actually doing work to turn the Shaft of the Electric motor, the rest is actually being destroyed by the BEMF, caused by induction as the Shaft, Rotor turns.

BEMF is Induction as a result of the Rotation of the Rotor, which is in opposition to our Input. (In most Cases but not all - Some Motors have no BEMF Issues)

BEMF is NOT Inductive Collapse!!!!


Inductive Collapse :
The term Inductive Collapse, this term is also directly a result of Induction. Let’s step through this as it happens. An Inductor is pulsed at 1 Hz, DC Current is driven into the inductor, a Magnetic Field Builds as the Voltage catches up to the Current in the Inductor. The DC Current is abruptly switched off. We still have a Magnetic Field, at the point the DC Current is switched off, the Magnetic Field B Collapses. The Coil Conductor is cut by the Collapsing Magnetic Field in the Area of the Coil Conductor which in turn creates an EMF through Induction, EMF = Bvl.

The Magnetic Field B may have an area of say one Cubic Meter, but the Coil we use to create this field may only have an area of fifty Cubic Millimetres, so it is easy to see that the Coil Conductor is not going to be cut by all of the Magnetic Field. There are losses in this type of arrangement and these losses can’t be gained back simply by using a few diodes on the ends of the Coil. You can use a Closed Core arrangement and you will get much better Re-Capture of Energy from the Magnetic Field but then you will have Eddy Current, Hysteresis and other losses.

For Example, Through a Bucket of Water up in the air as high and as fast as you can, then try, with your bucket to catch every single drop of water with the bucket again! This is obvious that there is going to be losses in the volume of water.

In our above scenario Diode losses must also be accounted for, each diode requiring at least ˝ a volt to turn on. This method of Re-Capturing Energy of a magnetic Field can be calculated : Energy = 1/2LI Squared.
This process is NOT Over Unity, but it is a very good way to do work, and then recover some of your energy back. This arrangement can easily be measured as Over Unity but most of the time this is Measurement Artefacts and this circuit can never run itself which is the only real proof of Over Unity.

DC to DC Converter :
The DC to DC Converter has been around for quite some time and runs on the same principal, Inductive Collapse. The most efficient DC to DC Converter I have ever seen is 95% efficient. Inductive Collapse increases the DC Voltage at the cost of DC Current.

Over Unity :
Over Unity, where our Input (X) is exceeded by one or multiple Outputs (Y...). So, for example : our Output (Y = 2) divided by our Input (X = 1) = COP = 2. The Coefficient of Performance = 2. This means we are 2 times above Unity. Instantaneous Power Measurements are usually the best to compare.

In our above example with a DC Pulse Motor and Inductive Collapse (Energy Recovery): Over Unity can be achieved if Torque on a Motor Shaft and Energy Re-Capture can both be accounted for in the one device, as long as you have a motor that does not suffer from BEMF and is above 90% efficient but the gain is minimal and the device becomes a Desk Toy and nothing more.

Radiant Energy :
We have all heard about Radiant Energy as far back as the days of Nikola Tesla. Nikola Tesla explained Radiant Energy as Electric in Nature and NOT Magnetic. Radiant Energy can be proven to be Electrical in nature by Experiments done by Prof Konstantin Meyl. Do the Research here yourself.

See : Prof Konstantin Meyl - Scalar Waves - Theory And Experiments (2001) - For the only known Circuits that work for Radiant Energy and theory of Experiments. Its interesting to note the Circuits have been measured Over Unity by Prof Konstantin Meyl!

So, if you have proof otherwise to the above facts, please post a detailed no mess around, reply to this message so it can be easily replicated. No Loads of Neon, Fluorescent or any other Gaseous type Globes will be accepted as evidence as these loads are nothing more than Fools Gold for FE Researchers.

Scalar :
Scalar: A Quantity of something, usually having magnitude and not direction. A “Quantity” of Potential (Electric Charge). Water in a bucket is a Scalar! A "Quantity" of Water!

E.G. The Charge on a Capacitor Plate is a Scalar Potential, a "Quantity" of Potential.

A Scalar Wave is nothing more than Uniform Electrical Impulses, if you like in resonance, to form a wave. A better name : "Scalar Potential Wave" really should be used but most people now know the term "Scalar Wave". Some people find this stuff difficult as the meanings have been distorted for so long, simple things made complex by the minds of those that really dont understand it, but claim they do.


Summary :
I hope this has cleared up many of the hard to understand aspects of this grey area of magnetics. I think it is important to note that Peter Lindemann has pointed this stuff out a few times in his posts and also in his Videos.



Links:
Measuring DC Power : Measuring DC Power (Basic guide)
Measuring AC Power : Measuring AC Power (Basic guide)
Power Factor Guide : Power Factor Guide (Very good explanation here!)
Self-Resonant Frequency of Inductors : Self-Resonant Frequency of Inductors
Generating Negative Energy : Generating Negative Energy



All the Best - EMJunkie

..

[Farmhand]

Hi EMJunkie, I was right with you in agreement until you mentioned Meyl and scalar waves.

I think one of the big problems around this type of research is that ie. I can
agree with almost everything you wrote but not everything, and it's not worth
my time to argue about what I disagree with.

I agree with the Back emf example but Back emf is not restricted to motors, it
happens every where current flows in a wire.

When we use a home made inverter circuit to switch a transformer with two
primaries or a center tapped primary when there is no load the flux in the
transformer is maximum and the resistance to primary current flow is increased so the
transformer idles with very little current draw, isn't this Back emf ? Then when
the secondary is loaded the flux is reduced which in turn reduces the
Back emf which then allows more current to flow to replenish the flux in an
attempt to keep the flux in the transformer at maximum.

Without Back emf current would just keep flowing and everything would burn
up. We should thank our lucky stars for Back emf. Without Counter emf
transformers would just keep using full power even with no load.

Many people want to have setups where the load does not effect the primary
current draw. That might be alright for a system that uses a few watts, but in
a system that uses kW power levels that would be the most ridiculous thing,
a transformer using 5 kW with no load absolutely ridiculous.

Tesla considered it very important the wireless power system he designed
would use less input when there was less load and more input when there was
more load, it makes complete sense.

At some point we need to decide if we want to experiment with novelties or if
we want to experiment with devices to power our stuff. Problem is most of
the experimenting, false info, incorrect terms and whatnot on such a basic
level makes it almost impossible for useful collaboration.

I'm no expert, I'm trying to make sense of things and ignore the rubbish, it's
not easy to ignore it all, but it is easy to spot most of the crazy stuff that
makes no sense or less than no sense. And it's getting easier every day.

Cheers

[EMJunkie]

Nice Healthy Debate!

Hi Farmhand!

I hear you and agree with debate especially with this type of topic. First, however:

I was right with you in agreement until you mentioned Meyl and scalar waves.

Why is it that you disagree with the Meyl Experiments?

I think one of the big problems around this type of research is that ie. I can agree with almost everything you wrote but not everything, and it's not worth
my time to argue about what I disagree with.

I believe it is important to correct the mistakes if I have made any – I welcome your input and am more than willing to update my original post with corrections or additions.

I agree with the Back emf example but Back emf is not restricted to motors, it happens everywhere current flows in a wire.

You’re exactly right; it’s not just motors that suffer from BEMF or CEMF. I used a Motor as an example because it’s probably the best understood. BEMF is any EMF that is opposing the input we are using to drive the circuit/device.

When we use a home made inverter circuit to switch a transformer with two primaries or a center tapped primary when there is no load the flux in the transformer is maximum and the resistance to primary current flow is increased so the transformer idles with very little current draw, isn't this Back emf ? Then when the secondary is loaded the flux is reduced which in turn reduces the Back emf which then allows more current to flow to replenish the flux in an attempt to keep the flux in the transformer at maximum.

If I understand your example here, I would have to term this as Lenz's Law. Lenz's Law and BEMF are not the same because the input we put into the circuit is not always opposed. Lenz's Law is the direct opposition of Flowing Charges. As we know a moving Charge constitutes a Magnetic Field B. So Lenz’s Law is the Induced Magnetic Field B in Opposition to the Magnetic Field B that created the field in the first place.

Without Back emf current would just keep flowing and everything would burn up. We should thank our lucky stars for Back emf. Without Counter emf transformers would just keep using full power even with no load.

This is situation dependant, in a motor, BEMF does limit the input, so yes, but not in a transformer. Wire Impedance, Inductance Reactance and Self-Induction does limit what a Coil conductor can handle on the input, so yes there are limitations as to what the Coil Conductor can handle on the Input but they are very low typically. I guess Self Induction could be classed as a type BEMF. I don’t disagree with you here about Self induction. A Transformer works on Lenz's Law principals, where by a load on the secondary will induce more current draw on the primary. No load on the Secondary, no Charges flowing in the Secondary, thus no Lenz's Law and lower current draw on the input. Most transformers can be up to and beyond 90+% Efficent, so the losses are not great in most cases.

Many people want to have setups where the load does not effect the primary current draw. That might be alright for a system that uses a few watts, but in a system that uses kW power levels that would be the most ridiculous thing, a transformer using 5 kW with no load absolutely ridiculous.

Through Inductive De-Coupling this is totally achievable! The Flux gate magnetometer does this every day of the week through Inductive De-Coupling. Here we face other problems though, the input is acted upon by the Magnetic Field B that the Input Coil is moving in the first place. Thus Lenz’s Law kicks in and the input is affected by the Opposing Magnetic Field. This is a great device to research, very educational if you’re keen to see how it works. In this device, like I said, the input is totally isolated from the output through Inductive De-Coupling.

Tesla considered it very important the wireless power system he designed would use less input when there was less load and more input when there was more load, it makes complete sense.

If you can point me to some links with more information about this. I have not read this anywhere, so I would like to study this in more detail?

At some point we need to decide if we want to experiment with novelties or if we want to experiment with devices to power our stuff. Problem is most of the experimenting, false info, incorrect terms and whatnot on such a basic level makes it almost impossible for useful collaboration.

I completely agree here, we all seem to waste far too much time and effort on the stuff that has been proven many, many times to simply not work. People, think outside the box! If you input X into a System, the System must give you X + more out to get OU. It’s simple addition.

I'm no expert, I'm trying to make sense of things and ignore the rubbish, it's not easy to ignore it all, but it is easy to spot most of the crazy stuff that makes no sense or less than no sense. And it's getting easier every day.

Yes this is the trick. There is so much rubbish out there. Unfortunately we have to sift through Rubbish to separate the good and the bad. It’s a requirement in this industry I guess you could say. I believe we have too much missing in Science to easily get to the hard core experiments that will lead us to OU in useful amounts. It’s down to simple experiments and then look for the unusual things to lead us in the direction we need to go.

Ideally, to use Induction, by means of either equation fore mentioned, we need a way to induce currents at absolute minimal cost to us on the input! We would have to look at eliminating all the associated losses involved and this is the hard part. Through smart thinking, things like Wave Theory, it may be possible to reduce or cancel Lenz Law. If only we could find an induction that was not in opposition to the natural forces.

Thanks for your post Farmhand!

..

[Farmhand]

Hi Farmhand!
Why is it that you disagree with the Meyl Experiments?

I didn't word that very well, I do that a lot. It's not that I disagree with his
experiments or conclusions as such, I must say I agree with much of his
findings, it's the scalar wave thing mainly. And also I think he may be equating
potentials with power or energy sometimes, he can be vague even though he
says a lot.

You’re exactly right; it’s not just motors that suffer from BEMF or CEMF. I used a Motor as an example because it’s probably the best understood. BEMF is any EMF that is opposing the input we are using to drive the circuit/device.

Yeah that says it better than I did.

If I understand your example here, I would have to term this as Lenz's Law. Lenz's Law and BEMF are not the same because the input we put into the circuit is not always opposed. Lenz's Law is the direct opposition of Flowing Charges. As we know a moving Charge constitutes a Magnetic Field B. So Lenz’s Law is the Induced Magnetic Field B in Opposition to the Magnetic Field B that created the field in the first place.

I agree with that, I don't have a full grasp of the proper terms so I try to say it how I think it makes sense.

Through Inductive De-Coupling this is totally achievable! The Flux gate magnetometer does this every day of the week through Inductive De-Coupling. Here we face other problems though, the input is acted upon by the Magnetic Field B that the Input Coil is moving in the first place. Thus Lenz’s Law kicks in and the input is affected by the Opposing Magnetic Field. This is a great device to research, very educational if you’re keen to see how it works. In this device, like I said, the input is totally isolated from the output through Inductive De-Coupling.

Yes I can understand all that and I agree too, but won't that mean the
output is limited to the constant input more or less, as in if the setup was
designed to deliver 100 watts 100 watts is all that you can get maximum and
when you take nothing the input is still the same ? Basically a constant
current arrangement ?

If you can point me to some links with more information about this. I have not read this anywhere, so I would like to study this in more detail?

Yes here are two snippets, from here -

Nikola Tesla On His Work With Alternating Currents -- Chapter IV

This one is in the second last paragraph of the 5th reply to council by Tesla
after figure #79.

Now the vast difference between the scheme of radio engineers and my scheme is this. If you generate electromagnetic waves with a plant of 1,000 horsepower, you are using 1,000 horsepower right along -- whether there is any receiving being done or not. You have to supply this 1,000 horsepower, exactly as you have to supply coal to keep your stove going, or else no heat goes out. That is the vast difference. In my case, I conserve the energy; in the other case, the energy is all lost.

This one is in the third paragraph below figure #82.

Theoretically, it does not take much effort to maintain the earth in electrical vibration. I have, in fact, worked out a plant of 10,000 horse-power which would operate with no bigger loss than 1 percent of the whole power applied; that is, with the exception of the frictional energy that is consumed in the rotation of the engines and the heating of the conductors, I would not lose more than 1 percent. In other words, if I have a 10,000 horsepower plant, it would take only 100 horsepower to keep the earth vibrating so long as there is no energy taken out at any other place.

The way I see it one way is primitive like a stove radiating heat as Tesla put
it ( catch and use what you can when you want but the input goes on
regardless if the system is to be kept running and available, the other way is
smart and advanced like storing the energy in a very low loss machine or
(oscillator) to use only when wanted, efficiently and when the demand is less
so is the input. I know which I would prefer in anything other than a constant
load or (demand) situation, with a constant unchanging load it would be
practical to have a fixed input but with changing demand the input must
reflect the load to be efficient.

I completely agree here, we all seem to waste far too much time and effort on the stuff that has been proven many, many times to simply not work. People, think outside the box! If you input X into a System, the System must give you X + more out to get OU. It’s simple addition.

Yep.

Yes this is the trick. There is so much rubbish out there. Unfortunately we have to sift through Rubbish to separate the good and the bad. It’s a requirement in this industry I guess you could say. I believe we have too much missing in Science to easily get to the hard core experiments that will lead us to OU in useful amounts. It’s down to simple experiments and then look for the unusual things to lead us in the direction we need to go. Ideally we need to find an induction that creates negative Energy then we will be cooking.

Thanks for your post Farmhand!

No probs, Thank you for the sanity check. I needed it.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

I kind of have mixed feelings about the scalar wave issue though.

If all energy is expressed in waves then if energy can be derived from a scalar
"something" then that energy would have to be expressed in a wave of some
kind, this all comes down to peoples definition or understanding of definitions.

Ill ask some theoretical questions, no need to answer them.

eg. What is a wave ? There are many different types of waves even hand
waves. But seriously if a wall of water with a vertical side and unvarying
height was headed at you would you call it a wave ? What about if the wall of
water was standing still and you were moving towards it " Is it a wave then ?
But then what if you didn't perceive it that way, what if you perceive it as the
wall moving towards you.

What if the entire wall of water was moving up and down without changing
it's own height would it be moving in a wave considering the planet it is on is
moving through space ? It would have considerable energy.

But still a completely non varying value in nature is impossible anyway.
Nothing is still and nothing goes unchanged for any period of time. As far as I can tell.

So any application of energy must have a start and an end, and
therefore must be a wave, even a DC wave. All energy is expressed in waves. It must be.

Some things are and will always be theoretical for the sake of an easy
explanation or to finalize something, Like "infinite" the universe is said to
infinite or finite depending on your outlook. If you say it's infinite it saves a lot
of explaining and unnecessary thinking. The term is a tool to use or misuse.

I think we should be able to define what we mean by a term in fairly simple terms.

When used with the word wave as in (scalar wave) what does scalar mean ?

Does it mean the wave amplitude cannot be changed by anything ? Or is it
like a a square wave of energy ? or is it like prods from a stick as in directed
focussed energy blocks ?

I can't visualize what is meant by the term scalar wave.



Cheers

P.S. Thought experiment. If I was to apply 12 volts DC to a simple circuit with
a bulb in it for 1 Hr then stop, the supply is ideal (theoretical) so the 12 volts
does not vary at all. I think what we would see is a wave of energy through
the circuit with a period of 1 Hr. It could be 24 Hr's if that was the experiment
but it is still a wave it's just on a bigger "scale", isn't it ?

..

[EMJunkie]

Hey Farmhand,

Sweet posts! Thanks for the links and references. I will read up on that!

The word "Scalar" has been shrouded in the ultimate mysticism by the very people out there that simply don’t understand the actual meaning of the word. This was the reason for my original post, to clear up the misnomenclature’s of words that have been thrown around so loosely that their meanings have become distorted.

A Scalar Potential : A “Quantity” of Potential.

E.G. The Charge on a Capacitor Plate is a Scalar Potential, a quantity of Potential.

Scalar means a Quantity of something, usually having magnitude and not direction. Have you ever heard of a "Quantity Wave"? Sounds silly doesn’t it! It should be a "Scalar Potential Wave" if anyone wants to make any sense from these novices that loosely use these terms.

I have added this definition to the first Post above.

All the best - EMJunkie

[EMJunkie]

Hi Farmhand,

Re a few questions you had on Inductors in paticular, it may be worth your while to check out the Power Factor Giude Link above on the first post, especially the Reactive power section of that link. It may explain the questions better than I can.

All the Best - EMJunkie

..

[Farmhand]

Hi EMJunkie, I just noticed this link in another thread, so I thought I would share it.

This link more or less tell the concerns I have with Meyls setup and his claims.

Skalarwellen_Versuche

The basis for his OU claims seem to be folly and the basis for the wireless
transmission claims are baseless he uses a connecting wire. The basis for the
Scalar waves is also dubious.

I showed much better results than he did with my pair of Tesla coils I made.
I showed from a 12 volt input to the transmitter receiver voltages of over 800
volts charging a capacitor and could run small motors banks of LED's and
such.

This is from inside one steel shed to inside another steel shed. The transmitter
is powered by a 12 volt battery and the receiver shows 24 volts under load.

Transmitter Test 3-1.wmv - YouTube

This is a capacitor charged to 700 volts from the receiver which is receiving from
the transmitter which is powered from a 12 volt battery, the two transformers
are identical (transmitter/receiver) so the receiver should step down the same
as the transmitter steps up. But that is not a big deal because voltage is not
power or energy. At the end of this video I drivel some stuff about Bemf which is not really accurate so ignore that.

700 volt cap charge.wmv - YouTube

Using a "ground wire" for such transmissions is very easy, however using the
actual ground in place of that wire is a totally different thing altogether.

Meyl's setup is configured to transfer the energy mainly through the "ground wire".

I think his main concern is to make money and he cares little for the truth in
my opinion. He may even be organised disinformation. But I have no way of
proving that.

My conclusion on Meyl is the same as I have stated here in public before a few times.

Meyl is full of it. He a scammer in my opinion, he tries to get money for something which is NOT what he says it is.

He should be made an example of and denounced at every turn.

If an uneducated soul like me can build a setup like I did then it is nothing
special it's just another way to do things. I learned a lot of things from that
setup I built one of the things I learned is that a lot of so called experts are
full of it, and either know less than they make out they know or they are
disinformation agents.

I'm a rank amateur so I am allowed to make mistakes and misconceptions.
I don't profess to be an expert.

Cheers

[EMJunkie]

Scalar Potential Wave - Meyl Experiments.

Hi Farmhand,

Thanks for sharing the Links! I will watch today if I get time

I see you have a strong opinion on the Meyl Experiments! That’s fair enough; we are all entitled to our opinions. I however have a different opinion and I personally think he is on the right track - it’s always hard to argue with experimental proof. The only difference between Meyls work and Tesla's is the ground wire being a wire, and the input voltage that Meyl uses is only 2 volts in most cases.



Above you can see the Scalar Potential Wave, Electric Field in Resonance. I think Bill has done a great job of this diagram. Ref: www dot intalek dot com

Neway, that’s my opinion.

I agree with the money making part, seems a lot of self-proclaimed experts are trying to make money out of "other people’s information"

A real shame! Then they try to Copyright the information as their own! Goodness, Unbelieveable!

I do also agree with you about non experts like us being allowed to make more mistakes on average than the experts, I have a problem with the "Experts" making mistakes of the most simple kind, I find this laughable.

All the Best - EMJunkie

P.S. As for Disinformationalists - easy to pick them, it’s usually the ones that have the most to say and most of it is wrong, then sometimes one or two of them have lots to say but get the real important stuff wrong that is easily proven wrong in experiment. This comes back to the sorting through the rubbish (Disinformationalists) we spoke about in prior posts. Easy to spot them if one puts the time and effort in.

..

[Farmhand]

Hi EMJunkie, Yeah I have a strong opinion but no real proof and I lack a good
grasp of the terms to explain what I think well. The German link summed up
fairly well how I feel about the claims of Meyl.

The electrical phenomenon is quite complex and I don't think it follows a single
set of rules in all cases.

I'm not well educated in a formal sense, I think I can see fairly well what is
happening in my experiments even though I can't always explain it in words
that make sense to others.

This is what I think about the system of one wire or ground transmissions.

Some systems if the transmitter and receiver are close enough can transfer
energy between the air terminals.

My experiments tell me that this will work even without a connecting wire if
the two transformers are close enough to each other. So therefore when the
wire is connected in that situation there can be some of both.

When transmitting from inside a Faraday cage only the current through the
ground wire should reach the receiver. In my linked experiment I transmit from inside
a steel lined shed with a metal mesh door.

In this case the air terminal is just a reference like a ground connection but
it's air, the reference is about the same for both transformers which makes
the air terminals neutral, but not really from our perspective, it's difficult to
visualize but not impossible.

So when the two transformers are a long way apart I don't think they
transmit any energy to each other through the air, the air terminals are just
like a fulcrum or a point to push from. The energy is bounced back and forth
from one transformer to the other through the ground connection, and the
system idle's like a transformer does when no power is drawn, if power is
drawn from the receiver the resistance to the flow of current in the
transmitter primary is reduced and more current flows which puts more energy
into the system to replace what is drawn.

There is no hocus pocus or anything even all that special about the way it
works, the air terminals are designed to radiate as little as possible so energy
is not lost there, but some radiations are inevitable and can be utilized in part.

In my mind it is not much different to a single wire Earth return power
transmission system, except the ground is the conductor and the return path
and the air is the reference point. The return path is a bit of a moot point
with standing waves but there must be one to get them.

The length of the connecting "ground" wire or the distance between the
transformers should be considered as well as stated by Tesla in the patent
787 412 page three lines 30 to 63 or so where he outlines the things needed
for transmission of energy this way (through the ground).

Patent US787412 - NIKOLA TESLA - Google Patents

I don't see how a system for the transmission of energy can be demonstrated
with both transformers only a few meters apart on a bench, they will interact
with each other in ways they would not interact when separated with a
mountain or a steel cage or a big distance.

I came to the point where it was not worth continuing with transmitting and
receiving experiments because I am more interested in actually using the
ground to transmit through, which Tesla says requires the use of frequencies
below 35 Khz around about, this presents three major problems.

1. The size of the transformers.
2. The distance required between them to get to a 1/4 wavelength or multiple thereof.
3. The input required to power such a big transmitter.

Early in my experiments when I was trying to tune my transmitter coil to
resonance, another person who lives here came home and complained that he
was picking up my noise from about 5 Klm away with his car radio as he got
closer it became louder until he turned it off, I was using only less than 10 watts.
I didn't believe him at first so we tested it and sure enough my transmitter
was causing the noise in the car radio. When the transmitter was tuned to
resonance or ground connected the radio noise stopped but transmission
through the ground with 500 khz won't work very well. And transmitting with a
wire is old hat, my electric fence does that in single wire earth return.

So of course there remains one more option, which is to use a magnetic cored
pair of identical transformers which operate at resonance below 35 Khz and
use them like a pair of Tesla coils with an air terminal and the bottom of the
secondaries ground connected, with enough potential at the terminals and the
low frequency with the correct distance between the transformers ground
transmissions should be very possible and actually work using the ground.
I'll get around to trying that sooner or later.

I don't see how there would be any OU though unless a multiple of 50/60 Hz is
used whichever is the local flavor. Which would make our system OU but drag
the COP of the local power station down a miniscule fraction.

Cheers

[EMJunkie]

Hey Farmhand - go and purchase a Wind Turbine and measure the 'hocus pocus" happening there.

Mate youre desputing repetable experiment's - This is "hocus pocus" everyday of the week if you look up the meaning. Dont kid yourself, do the experimentts and proove points.

Out of respect, I am just getting to the point.

If you really are serious do the experiments. You can purchase Meyl's equipment to replicate his eperiments if you really need to. A wind turbine is COP = Infinity! An Atom is always in continuious motion (for 13 Billion Years? or something?). The problem is simply, we are not smart enough to do it, not that it cant be done.

EMJunkie

[Michael John Nunnerley]

many ways to skin a cat



You might want to try this.

WARNING:- use only in a well ventilated area as the coils give off large amounts of ionized gases

enjoy

Mike

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Read this

14-37 Arc Electron Avalanche

Read this together with the post above, you will see how this applies.

Mike

P.S. this applies to more than one thread hear on this forum.
this is in part, part of my electron beam tech: and I am sure you see why.

[madhatter]

[ATTACH]11178[/ATTACH]

You might want to try this.

WARNING:- use only in a well ventilated area as the coils give off large amounts of ionized gases

enjoy

Mike

I find that interesting, it's an eerily similar layout to the circuit I'm working with. the only difference is that instead of L1, L2 & L3 being coils they are capacitor plates, L4 is a bifilar winding around the plates. there is a ground lead at the capacitor off L4. input of pulsed 9vdc output of 70vdc and 70vac rms, there is a massive spike that exceeds my meters every 3secs though. 6kv is the meters limit.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Thats why I posted it here

I find that interesting, it's an eerily similar layout to the circuit I'm working with. the only difference is that instead of L1, L2 & L3 being coils they are capacitor plates, L4 is a bifilar winding around the plates. there is a ground lead at the capacitor off L4. input of pulsed 9vdc output of 70vdc and 70vac rms, there is a massive spike that exceeds my meters every 3secs though. 6kv is the meters limit.

Thats why I posted it, and by the way I will say so if I have not tried it, there are a few differences to e-beam, but, I think this is what you are looking at, it is an electron and photon multiplier and will give you high current if set up in the right way.

High voltage is needed for the input "15kv" so as to energise the air around the coils. Just heed my warning of nasty ionized gases if used in a small space "NOx" if used in air.

Mike

It will also glow in the dark if working properly