Peter, whatever happened with Eric P. Dollard?

[LtBolo]

I was looking back over Naudin's Parametric Power Generator effort from '97, given a little bit better understanding of the problem. As I understand it now, his setup could have worked pretty well. In fact, at the frequency he is driving it, if it had actually worked it probably would have self destructed almost instantly.

I just see one glaring problem. If he is actually changing his inductance from 0.13H to 0.05H as is claimed, his resonant frequency should be changing from ~14kHz to ~22.5kHz from one part of the wave to the next, resulting in a very distorted output wave. His scopeshot appears to be a perfect sinusoid ...meaning... the parameter isn't really changing. Until 1/2dLi^2 exceeds 1/2Ri^2 T/2, you'll get some resonance, but it will not grow to the levels needed to produce useful power.

I suspect that some of the highly efficient motor/transformer designs out there are dancing on the edge of saturation, and in doing so, are flirting with parameter variation power. Done wrong, it would be hit and miss...but mostly miss. In the cases when folks stumbled on the correct answer, the designs probably blew up within seconds, or faster. That is what this predicts. It is necessary to have a closed loop feedback control to keep it operating in a useful range, yet I'm sure that most are not thinking in those terms.

[Shamus]

Well, we've all been told over and over that you can't close loop a system and expect any OU (whatever OU means). So that *might* be a reason why nobody's tried closed looping.

BTW, looking forward to seeing the results of your testing.

[LtBolo]

So that *might* be a reason why nobody's tried closed looping.

Too true. That is, of course, garbage science. A system running with positive gain ...OU... can easily be looped, if in fact it is running with positive gain. Of course a system running with positive gain will also run away if not properly controlled. Looped circuits become a bit harder to design, however, and I can see why folks would make those statements. I am very skeptical of claims of OU that involve battery charging. There are simply too many places that measurement error can creep in.

But actually I was referring to the output circuit only. If after every parameter change you end up with more current than you started with, and the amount of new energy introduced is a function of the current squared, it isn't hard to see that the system will run away until it destroys itself. The challenge becomes in developing a control system that will allow the current to build to a useful level, and then down regulate to maintain steady state. Do it wrong and you get nothing out. Do it wrong to the other extreme and you blow it up.

I find it interesting that the description of some of the semi-successful TPU experiments had the thing blowing itself up in a couple of seconds. That is exactly what synchronous parameter change would predict if not regulated. That is also what would happen with any positive gain process that is looped back.

The thing that I think gets missed throughout the free energy community is that the underlying field that powers creation must be hyper intense. When you successfully gate that energy, you won't be trying to evaluate input to output ratios...it will be glaringly obvious.

[junglelord]

I believe that Eric is the most intelligent person on the planet.


I think that his concept of COP>1 is exactly what non linear phase conjugation is all about. This thread is a goldmine.

[Aaron]

feedback

Well, we've all been told over and over that you can't close loop a system and expect any OU (whatever OU means). So that *might* be a reason why nobody's tried closed looping.

BTW, looking forward to seeing the results of your testing.

Shamus,

I've done it with systems that have a positive gain. Look in the earth battery
sg thread, I recently shared one simple concept of one way that some
recovered potential can be sent back to the front. Any close looping is
really pseudo closed looping - it is still an open system. Other ways to do
it should be obvious to anyone experimenting with that feedback method.

Plus, with different variations of earth rods/batteries, etc... contributing
to the system such as an SG or whatever, it can self run.

[broli]

Check this out:

http://ziosproject.com/NJ/magPres/index.htm

[EgmQC]

Check this out:

http://ziosproject.com/NJ/magPres/index.htm

I don't know who wrote that but he clearly don't understand what he talk about. The equation for the energy stored in the magnetic field is right but when the inductance rise as the magnet move away don't increase the amount of energy the magnetic field already contain. For a analogy, its like a capacitor, suppose it get charge to 10v and its a 1000 uf, the energy stored in it will be 0.05J , now by X process we change the capacitance of that capacitor, suppose we rise it to 10000 uf, whats the voltage now in the capacitor at 10000 uf ? 3.15v , the amount of Joules is still the same , 0.05J.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

[boguslaw]

Except it's not about capacitor electric field but magnetic field ! Displacement current changes between capacitor plates produce weak magnetic field. In some circumstances that field collapse produce gain. Much more powerful is though inductor.

[broli]

I don't know who wrote that but he clearly don't understand what he talk about. The equation for the energy stored in the magnetic field is right but when the inductance rise as the magnet move away don't increase the amount of energy the magnetic field already contain. For a analogy, its like a capacitor, suppose it get charge to 10v and its a 1000 uf, the energy stored in it will be 0.05J , now by X process we change the capacitance of that capacitor, suppose we rise it to 10000 uf, whats the voltage now in the capacitor at 10000 uf ? 3.15v , the amount of Joules is still the same , 0.05J.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

Someone posted this earlier:



First It was a presentation I made a while ago. Second your capacitance "analogy" is wrong too it seems like all you did is use the input energy to get a desired voltage which would satisfy conservation of energy. But that's like saying 1+1 = 3 and using that same equation as proof.

It's best to see energy as charge density and distance between plates. This makes the equation look like this:



So now you can easily see what happens when you change the parameters. If you increase the area the charge will still remain it will just spread out over the new area. But our energy drops in equal proportion. But if you increase the distance the energy is increased in equal proportion. But since the plates are oppositely charged this increase in distance needs mechanical energy. It's only a question of experimentation whether more electric energy is gained than lost mechanically.

Capacitors are equivalent to springs, and parametric change is equal to changing the stiffness of the spring at the right moment.

Now to get back to inductors as you are comparing apples with oranges. Inductors act like mass. The more mass the more they resist a force which wants to get them moving. An oscillating mass attached to a spring is a suitable example. A compressed spring wants to push a mass, if this mass is small the spring decompresses fast, but just when the spring is fully uncompressed the mass is "magically" increased. In our inductor this is done by increasing the core permeability, since it was fully saturated at start the current rises fast (ie the velocity in our spring/mass) but at maximum current the magnet is removed mechanically and forced saturation is gone. You then collapse this field which is now coil + core and gain the extra energy.

Mechanically this is "impossible" to do as it would mean changing the mass of an object while its speed remains unaffected. But in our inductor there's no reason why the current will be affected.

[LtBolo]

It works!!

Well, we ran it. It works.

There are some caveats, however. As predicted by the formula, the output current increases geometrically, which means the magnetic field is also increasing geometrically. Unfortunately, the high magnetic field causes our motor shaft to pull in, which causes our 030" gap to close loudly...metal on metal. We do see the motor current increase a bit due to the lateral shaft force, but we don't think that the increase in motor load matches the amount of output. Unfortunately, until we can get a better mechanical arrangement, it will be impossible to verify that there isn't an equivalent load on the motor. Of course, once the core pieces start hitting each other, the motor draws far more current still...and it gets loud.

That said, it works exactly as predicted. We managed to get it stable at about 100VAC for a while. At 100VAC, we measured about 1.8 watts of dissipation across a 1.5 ohm resistor, as well as about another watt in one of our caps that was breaking down. That cap was a mistake, but it worked out well...it became the non-linear load that kept it all stable. This agreed very well with the predicted 2.5 to 3 watts of excess power at 1 amp.

Note the scopeshot: This is the output going critical. I pulled the wire to shut it down. Note that it hit 381vpp before I pulled the plug. Obviously it showed no signs of slowing down, and the current was well above 1 amp at that point, but we had no way of measuring.

I think this is the real deal...

[LtBolo]

Did a bit more playing. Put about 0.5 ohms inline and put a scope on it. Peaked out at well over 8 amps and 400vac....yikes. Blue trace is across inductor. Yellow trace is across resistor.

Now we gotta figure out how to regulate it.

[Raui]

LtBolo,
Great work!! Not sure if you've seen these series of videos YouTube - Part 1 of 6: Eric Dollard Tesla Longitudinal wave Energy SBARC Ham Radio with Chris Carson by Eric Dollard. He speaks about how the N Machine by Bruce DePalma worked by magnetic fields and this was it's downfall (because of the huge magnetic field it generated) saying a capacitive setup is much more preferable

Raui

[EgmQC]

Someone posted this earlier:



First It was a presentation I made a while ago. Second your capacitance "analogy" is wrong too it seems like all you did is use the input energy to get a desired voltage which would satisfy conservation of energy. But that's like saying 1+1 = 3 and using that same equation as proof.

It's best to see energy as charge density and distance between plates. This makes the equation look like this:



So now you can easily see what happens when you change the parameters. If you increase the area the charge will still remain it will just spread out over the new area. But our energy drops in equal proportion. But if you increase the distance the energy is increased in equal proportion. But since the plates are oppositely charged this increase in distance needs mechanical energy. It's only a question of experimentation whether more electric energy is gained than lost mechanically.

Capacitors are equivalent to springs, and parametric change is equal to changing the stiffness of the spring at the right moment.

Now to get back to inductors as you are comparing apples with oranges. Inductors act like mass. The more mass the more they resist a force which wants to get them moving. An oscillating mass attached to a spring is a suitable example. A compressed spring wants to push a mass, if this mass is small the spring decompresses fast, but just when the spring is fully uncompressed the mass is "magically" increased. In our inductor this is done by increasing the core permeability, since it was fully saturated at start the current rises fast (ie the velocity in our spring/mass) but at maximum current the magnet is removed mechanically and forced saturation is gone. You then collapse this field which is now coil + core and gain the extra energy.

Mechanically this is "impossible" to do as it would mean changing the mass of an object while its speed remains unaffected. But in our inductor there's no reason why the current will be affected.

i was "maybe" a bit too fast in my speculation so ill give it a try , ill do your experiment this week and ill post result, good or bad, i have a decent lab and a bit of time to work on it but ill keep it the way it should be , all the calculation that fit the "normal way" and ill compare the result against it.

Best Regards,
EgmQC

[boguslaw]

LtBolo,


Congratulations, it looks like "your are in business" like Don Smith tend to say.
Watch all his videos and you will see the same exact picture of scope shots.
Now you need a regulator to drop to zero above exact voltage or current. Try transient diodes they are rated for 1500W and any voltage you choose.Then try to maximalize output by two methods: positive feedback (self-sustaining device) and changing frequency. Your scope should looks like many exact trumpets occuring one after another. Or you can rectify output which would then look like TPU - DC with a hash (pulsating). You will know exactly why it is a hash there - system need small period of time to obtain maximum efficiency (max voltage amplitude on scope shot) then drop then again rising.
Keep in mind that I'm telling this all from theory, never made such device, really, but I know that such devices exists.

[wonderful]

Excellent

LtBolo,

Five stars to you!!