Donald Smith Devices too good to be true

[ricards]

ilandtan,

It's not about your slayer exciter.. its about THE slayer exciter..
no relation to ground,..
maximum current is achieved by resonance where coils impedance is 0..
and I mean the secondary coil as well.. because it interacts with your primary is it not?...

your slayer exciter maybe in resonance. but once you introduce a coil that is vibrating differently, it will end up messing up the vibration of your "Auto Resonant Slayer" or whatever it is.. this will result in higher amp draw to your source. once you get them close to get more power from it.

your primary coil and secondary coil must be designed to resonate, your primary should have a matching capacitor, and your secondary as well. as much as possible keep a High Q Tank Circuit.. spaced out your turns well, not too close.

If your pushing a swing at certain intervals, and you have someone on the other side pushing it back at different intervals.. he will end up destroying your momentum.. same thing with your exciter.. It may be designed to be at resonance automatically.. once you introduce some other coil that is not it will mess it up..

here is a calc tool I use to calculate my wire length and Coil Inductance, given I use standard value capacitors.
Resonance_Calc.zip

If you really wish to keep your slayer exciter. at least find its resonant frequency and build secondary coils according to that frequency.

let me say this.. sometimes manual is a lot better than automatics.. as It gives you absolute control.

[ilandtan]

ilandtan,

If you really wish to keep your slayer exciter. at least find its resonant frequency and build secondary coils according to that frequency.

let me say this.. sometimes manual is a lot better than automatics.. as It gives you absolute control.

I have seen numerous examples of multiple resonant coils based off the slayer, which is contrary to standard Tesla coils. They are less common to see multiple receivers.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbqR8EpIP04[/VIDEO]

It appears you have to retune a standard Tesla coil similarly depending on the topload and other factors as well according to the Tesla build sites I have frequented. I have noticed my own proximity to coil changes the frequency I see that with my LCR meter.

You are right I don't know. I have only tried using my DC NST to drive the same coils I use with the slayer circuit, and I was able to generate plasma discharge.

However I will stick with the simple and cheap for now. You don't seem to be telling me it wont work at all... If I can prove over unity with a simple slayer, then I will consider different setups.

So I guess I have to remove the 800 lbs gorilla in the room so I can place your advice in context. Ricards, may I ask you if have you proven a operational system running with over-unity using your standard Tesla coils?

[ricards]

..don't get me wrong I don't have a device that generate more energy. I'm actually stuck. sourcing parts and building oscillator at mhz range controlled, and making my own caps. and I choose not to buy.. It breaks my learning process (also my wallet )..

I'm sure I am very clear in stating with where I am standing.. right now..

It seems you only pick want you want to read..
this conversation is starting to turn into an argument..
you don't seem to take my advice even though you're the one who ask it.
so I will stop.

[Dwane]

If you investigate any ( or all ) of the various devices ( tesla, hendershot, moray etc. ) you'll see they all have one thing in common - they were all building receivers in one form or another.

Don Smiths table top device was modeled around a 1950's crystal radio receiver ( diagram below ) but used an input (nst) to drive L1 instead of a natural signal. This receiver was published in the "Boys book of crystal radio" in the early 50's and is quite amazing the amount of output you can achieve from a radio signal. It was also used by "Utility engines" in 1954 to explain the phenomenon in the Hendershot circuit. They sold plans showing that the receiver would power a small motor including a section on how to build the motor. These plans were removed from the market after Hendershot protested claiming they weren't correct - later admitting they were very close.

My personal opinion is that Don never really achieved his ultimate goal and never actually demonstrated a working model. The suitcase device he demonstrated was never opened to allow inspection - I suspect there was a reason beyond what he stated...

Drawing inspiration from those in the past is a necessity but to achieve something unique only comes from inside you.

Hi Dragon,

Thanks for the reply. I must admit I have a tendency to indulge in information trying to find what I think I want! When something works i then test it further. Quite natural I would think seeing some of the posts here.

Your comments are valid, and the transmitter receiver circuit a clever arrangement. Those boys in the fifties and earlier were very lucky. What we get these days is often reliant upon someone else chipset! Your comments regarding Don Smith echo a lot of others out there. However, in an earlier part of the 1998 Office interview, where he compares himself to Tesla, he pointedly remarks on the production of ozone: which is a by product of spark gaps and HV discharges; so where are these in some of his devices? So in a way, he moved to GDT's for safety or voltage control? I do think he produced something workable, although the extremely high output he suggests might not be achievable with the units he demonstrated. In the office interview part 2 to part 3 he actually contradicts his assessment, we are only looking at a difference of about 12KVA. So what? Even if he was getting the lower value that looked ok!.

I am currently building a unit in conjunction with the Resonance Energy device explained thread. Just have to manage the Resonance! I shall be posting a unit within a few days I hope will be working! Like don's it will operate on high frequency.

Regards

Dwane

Once again, thank you for your assistance

[ilandtan]

I'm sure I am very clear in stating with where I am standing.. right now..

It seems you only pick want you want to read..
this conversation is starting to turn into an argument..
you don't seem to take my advice even though you're the one who ask it.
so I will stop.

Do you take all the advice you are given?

You're right I did read you are stuck. And forgive me but your next sentence sounded like your impasse was of acquiring resources, like you knew where you were going and you knew something. Honestly, I wanted know if there was a plan, or were just fishing like the rest of us. I ask questions, that's why I'm here, and if it sounds argumentative, I can't help that. I'm not trying to be entertaining or glib, I just want the facts. I have engaged some who were willing to shine me on, so now I just drop the pretense and ask to see the cards. Thank you for knowledge you've imparted at this point. I did appreciate it.

[ricards]

ilandtan,

I know where I am going,.. because I see it.. visualized it.. but it doesn't mean its what gonna happen... this is all experiment my friend.
even If I spout all the Iff''s that is running in my head, my theories and such.. what good It would do If it was not proven that Is why I'm stuck because I haven't built it yet.. still

and Am trying to share what I have already done, what I know and already tested.

pardon I have put feelings into my statement, it is just irritating for me to be demanded to show something I never claim to have.
I can show my work, my build no matter how ugly it is..

I can tell you my plan and all the theories behind it.. but there is no guarantee to it.
but do note.. I have been deliberately trying to disprove it in my head why It should not work, trying to figure out the flaw.. because there must be! because I can't accept something so great that's just too damn simple!.
got carried away again!.

[Dwane]

Nice Video

Hi ilandtan,

Would that my bench was as neat and organised such as yours! Great video. Am I correct in assuming that the movement of L2 toward L3 when the light extinguishes that the coupling from L1 to L2 has decreased?

Thanks

Dwane

[ilandtan]

ilandtan,

I know where I am going,.. because I see it.. visualized it.. but it doesn't mean its what gonna happen... this is all experiment my friend.
even If I spout all the Iff''s that is running in my head, my theories and such.. what good It would do If it was not proven that Is why I'm stuck because I haven't built it yet.. still

and Am trying to share what I have already done, what I know and already tested.

pardon I have put feelings into my statement, it is just irritating for me to be demanded to show something I never claim to have.
I can show my work, my build no matter how ugly it is..

I can tell you my plan and all the theories behind it.. but there is no guarantee to it.
but do note.. I have been deliberately trying to disprove it in my head why It should not work, trying to figure out the flaw.. because there must be! because I can't accept something so great that's just too damn simple!.
got carried away again!.

See... I keep on thinking you are onto something, and trying to connect the dots. I don't need guarantees, I'm not buying anything that requires a warranty. All ideas tend to be "As Is". However, I would very much like you to share in your plan and theory. I would be happy to understand your ideas, I keep on thinking that we are moving in complex directions, and the Earth just spins and we don't know why.

[ilandtan]

Hi ilandtan,

Would that my bench was as neat and organised such as yours! Great video. Am I correct in assuming that the movement of L2 toward L3 when the light extinguishes that the coupling from L1 to L2 has decreased?

Thanks

Dwane

I wish that was my desk, and the video is from an experimenter who is really wonderful at dispelling the B.S and, without complex narrations proves the relevance of Tesla's work today. Please view all 7 of his videos.

To answer the relationship of coil positions Three concepts:

1. distance from L1(which creates the field) and L2( draws energy from the field)
2. Difference in field potentials between L2 and L3
3. L3 can act as a ground

I think there are many ideas being shown, one of them is that coils that are resonating sympathetically because they are receivers, when two coils are used the net power being harvested, is the difference in the potentials between the two. As you move L2 toward L3, the pressure becomes the same. Think of a ball on plank, and the further they are apart the more the plank tilts and the ball moves faster. The closer together and the plank becomes level and the ball doesn't roll.

The other superb idea is that if you have a (L1)transmitter next to a (L2) 1st receiver that's grounded, how far can the grounded (L3)2nd receiver be?

I want to test that on a beach and see if I can make it light far away!

I immediately wanted to ask if you moved L3 greater than the wall, would you eventually hit a limit of unity... or over unity, then I thought if you have multiple L2 and L3 coils would it be like Don Smith said that you wouldn't affect the load power of L1? If so then you could eventually prove over unity.

I also wanted to know if an L2 L3 configuration has more potential than L2 and ground.

[dragon]

Let's analyze the DS tabletop circuit as if it were a basic receiver such as the radio circuit I posted...

With the standard radio we receive a carrier wave from the station we're tuned to which contains the information that will be broadcast through the speaker coil ( variable energy packets of sorts pulsing the speaker coil). If we try to draw energy from the carrier wave itself ( resonant frequency) it will load the secondary coil demanding more energy from the input coil ( L1) and ultimately from the transmitter itself.

Our "driven" resonant circuit alone will not drive a load without loading the transmitter (input). We need to add some variables.... other frequencies. We know when one wave passes through another wave traveling in the opposite direction it becomes additive and accumulative. That is, one wave intensity is added to the second wave creating a larger more powerful wave as a result.

Referring to the drawing of the simple radio,(diagram) we remove the capacitor C4 and allow L3 to resonate at its natural frequency, L1 will be responsible to maintain that frequency. We then tune C3 bringing L2 to something slightly lower than L3, either another resonant point or harmonic that helps feed L3. Any frequency difference between L2,L3 will create a 3rd frequency.(and more). Even a slight difference will create a beat frequency. For example a 1000khz on L3 with L2 tuned to 940khz will give us a 60 hz beat frequency- this would be heard as a familiar hum if a speaker were attached to the output. Since this new frequency is the accumulated energy of 2 waves passing through each other we now have a pulse energy that can be extracted without bothering the initial carrier frequency. Quite often, when you achieve a reasonable intensity, the "beats" or "pulses" can be physically felt when touching the coil. (magnetic impulses physically moving the wires ).

This still isn't the OU word, all we've done is taken a small amount of energy at a high frequency then utilize the accumulated output at a lower frequency making it "appear" as if it were. Manipulating energy over time.

[ilandtan]

Let's analyze the DS tabletop circuit as if it were a basic receiver such as the radio circuit I posted...

With the standard radio we receive a carrier wave from the station we're tuned to which contains the information that will be broadcast through the speaker coil ( variable energy packets of sorts pulsing the speaker coil). If we try to draw energy from the carrier wave itself ( resonant frequency) it will load the secondary coil demanding more energy from the input coil ( L1) and ultimately from the transmitter itself.

Our "driven" resonant circuit alone will not drive a load without loading the transmitter (input). We need to add some variables.... other frequencies. We know when one wave passes through another wave traveling in the opposite direction it becomes additive and accumulative. That is, one wave intensity is added to the second wave creating a larger more powerful wave as a result.

Referring to the drawing of the simple radio,(diagram) we remove the capacitor C4 and allow L3 to resonate at its natural frequency, L1 will be responsible to maintain that frequency. We then tune C3 bringing L2 to something slightly lower than L3, either another resonant point or harmonic that helps feed L3. Any frequency difference between L2,L3 will create a 3rd frequency.(and more). Even a slight difference will create a beat frequency. For example a 1000khz on L3 with L2 tuned to 940khz will give us a 60 hz beat frequency- this would be heard as a familiar hum if a speaker were attached to the output. Since this new frequency is the accumulated energy of 2 waves passing through each other we now have a pulse energy that can be extracted without bothering the initial carrier frequency. Quite often, when you achieve a reasonable intensity, the "beats" or "pulses" can be physically felt when touching the coil. (magnetic impulses physically moving the wires ).

This still isn't the OU word, all we've done is taken a small amount of energy at a high frequency then utilize the accumulated output at a lower frequency making it "appear" as if it were. Manipulating energy over time.

If all are basically receivers, and we can determine that we are not loading the input, and we know we can produce an independent power from the receivers. Why not build an L2+L3....L(n) until we have over-unity? Why wouldn't that work?

[dragon]

Since we are not creating energy or harvesting energy from somewhere else you'll find that each secondary coil (satellite) added, shares the energy provided by the transmitter. It would be nice if it were that easy.

I believe it's possible to achieve unity or very close to it, over unity is simply a source of energy unexplained... once understood is simply a new source.

[ilandtan]

Since we are not creating energy or harvesting energy from somewhere else you'll find that each secondary coil (satellite) added, shares the energy provided by the transmitter. It would be nice if it were that easy.

I believe it's possible to achieve unity or very close to it, over unity is simply a source of energy unexplained... once understood is simply a new source.

And that would be the death of anything over unity.

But we are missing something because if you create a box with dimensions of a cavity resonance of 440hz, and then affix 440hz tuning forks to the sides of the box, and re-tuned for the total volume of displacement (probably best to allow for the displacement prior to building the box) Then used a speaker to transmit the 440hz sine wave. I'm sure you could vibrate all those tuning forks being independent of the number of forks(receivers) inside the box. In fact you wouldn't even need a tuned box, just a common medium, as long as it was rigid. It would be ideal if the medium was tuned to 440hz, but if you replaced the speaker with an impact device to strike the medium at 440hz, all those forks would ring.
All without affecting the input power. It would work because of the standing wave you created in the medium. Think of Tesla's Earthquake device based on a building's natural resonance, or the Tacoma bridge. The wind couldn't singularly knock the bridge down but the repetitive sway could.

If there is dampening in our designs, we need to understand and finds ways to negate it.

[dragon]

Yes, that's quite true.... but... all the tuning forks are not doing any real work. If you load them to provide an output of some type the primary "box" would need to be much louder and more intense to maintain the forks vibrations. Thus creating a larger input requirement.

"And that would be the death of anything over unity."

Finding another source of energy would be wonderful ... achieving unity is a pretty significant and challenging goal ...

[ilandtan]

Yes, that's quite true.... but... all the tuning forks are not doing any real work. If you load them to provide an output of some type the primary "box" would need to be much louder and more intense to maintain the forks vibrations. Thus creating a larger input requirement.

"And that would be the death of anything over unity."

Finding another source of energy would be wonderful ... achieving unity is a pretty significant and challenging goal ...

But vibration can be harvested. A vibrating ferrite material will output voltage and therefore current. You can put coils around the tuning forks and gain wattage.

You are saying that load dampens output. That might be true, but my point is you could have a system independent of the input. Do you agree?