Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #871  
Old 12-12-2016, 11:06 AM
voltan's Avatar
voltan voltan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: brisbane,australia
Posts: 107
hi all. auto repair shops that machine brake rotors and drums have piles of iron filings. good source of usually free samples.
apologies for interjecting this torrid torroid discussion,but after reading some mainstream wisdom on the topic of commercial battery desulphators, i think the reason i haven't had success with restoring lead acid batteries is because individual collapsing field spikes are just too brief. i think cap dumping is an essential addition to a medium current joule thief circuit, in order to succeed.
pic 1 is a joule thief concept that sends charging pulses back to the source,the charge battery with a trickle charger hooked up.the plan is to charge the cap up to say 50 volts,then close both switches near simultaneously,the cap and battery equalize,maybe with a short ring down.switches open and the blocking oscillator resumes for say 98% of each cycle. the other 2% the switches are on.
so i'm open to any suggestions as to how to switch between oscillate and dump.
is there a fairly simple way to stop the transistor from turning on during the dump cycle,as obviously it would short the cap,when the dump switch is closed. just after that close the dump switch, open the dump switch,then resume oscillations for the set period.
im thinking maybe mechanical switching or relay contacts might survive as the dump goes through the primary winding,the small delay in current buildup might afford some protection to points or contacts on closing and current drops to zero by the time the points or contacts open,maybe with the addition of a condensor.but also considering scr's, solid state relays,flip-flop circuitry, a 741 chip,opto isolators or using a modified computer fan or something.
*looks like a 200uf flash cap goes from 13.5 to 50v in about .8 of a second.a relay might do it.just need to energise the relay coil with 2% duty cycle every .8 sec.
** ok, pic 3 runs,but backwards to how i intended.the relay has about a 98% duty cycle.so i just had to swap n.o. with n.c. and it does the job.i guess there could be losses if the relay contacts bounce or ark. i should devise a way to monitor or measure the pulses.
cheers.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg cap discharge desulfator.JPG (14.5 KB, 14 views)
File Type: jpg relay cap discharge desulfator.JPG (14.8 KB, 12 views)
File Type: jpg working relay switched cap discharge desulfator.JPG (37.1 KB, 10 views)
__________________
 

Last edited by voltan; 12-17-2016 at 07:13 AM.
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #872  
Old 12-21-2016, 05:56 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Looping your OU machine

Hi all,

I will copy and post a reply I found interesting over on the Figuera open thread. Since it would seem to apply to much more than that particular device, and I'd like to see further discussion which might be off topic over there, here it is:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaad View Post
Give me an electrically operated "black box" using 100W input (DC) and delivering 300W (AC-DC??) from its output.
I can loop that unit and make it self going without any G-part while i'm sleeping!
The hard thing is; not feed it with more than 100W so it not explodes. / Arne
The ONLY THING that you are correct on above post...is that you would do all this...while you are sleeping...resuming:

Only in Your Dreams...

Do you really think it is that "easy"??!!

While sleeping you can do it?

Really Ant?

You are also, so full of BS...I see it coming off your ears...

There are something called "Transfer Switching Losses", whenever you attempt to make an OU device self sustained from its own output.

And it relies exactly on the Ratio of Scaled Up Input/Output over Time. And so, just in milliseconds it takes without power input, is enough to decay beyond recuperation to make it to self loop.

And so, unless you have a Built-In within own System, Pre-Stored Energy Component over time, based on whether Magnetic Fields or Capacitance, which sustains even for those milliseconds...it will not work, since resistors "store" all that power into ATMOSPHERIC HEAT ...which is lost in the air, and so can not be recuperated back to be "reused"...unless you could do that...maybe also while you are sleeping...meaning "dreaming"...

Part G Stores that required extra energy within its own Core Magnetic Field, which is "Reusable within own system" making this Transfer Switching possible.

It takes several testing cutting power off then measuring System Decay over Time with many different Second-Secondaries responses options... to achieve the right and robust transfer spot on.

So, not that simple little ANT.


Another burst of Stupidity at max expression...


No intelligent life on this Planet...Beam me Up Scotty...am done here.







Ufopolitics
Anybody have any experience doing this?

Regards,

bi
__________________
 

Last edited by bistander; 12-21-2016 at 07:27 PM. Reason: Requested by Ufo due to edit on copied post
Reply With Quote
  #873  
Old 12-21-2016, 06:37 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 5,009
I have...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Hi all,

I will copy and post a reply I found interesting over on the Figuera open thread. Since it would seem to apply to much more than that particular device, and I'd like to see further discussion which might be off topic over there, here it is:



Anybody have any experience doing this?

Regards,

bi

Hello Bistander,

By the way...please update-refresh my post, as I have rectified a couple of things there...thanks.

I have done that...with my Repulsion Field Generator by retro-feeding its prime mover: an Asymmetrical small motor I built just for this design...Five Poles.

In an Asymmetric Motor is much easier to do it, since we could loop one Gate (Output on Motor, used as Input) connected to Output Coils from Generator, while the other one (Normal Input) being fed by PSU.

And of course, PSU is the starting supply, or "bait", where you need to reach the proper RPM's on rotor, to generate the required output to do that.

It takes lot of testing where gradually decreasing power on PSU until it is noticed speed (RPM's) does not decay...but that is not all...there must be a small increase when you do that...which means PSU is becoming a load, a drag on motor, instead of a feeding to a higher speed.

Many different size of cores and coils #turns/gauge configurations are involved in this testing until getting the right output.

And what am referring on that post, is basically about this Transfer Switch Losses. related to Figuera Generator operated with resistors versus Part G.

Hope it explain my post...as I wish many more members start joining in -hopefully with experience on this subject, as you wrote above- and not just to theorize or else ..good idea.


Regards


Ufopolitics
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 12-21-2016 at 07:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #874  
Old 04-28-2017, 10:44 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Allen B

I need a place to vent. The OP and a few other members are upset because Allen and BM have dragged it into a b!tch session off-topic. I've been a frequent poster there lately countering, technically, Allen's BS. He continues to demonstrate his lack of math and science skills and basic understanding. Here is a reply of his to which I had not yet responded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen Burgess View Post

You can see the factor in the equation below:


"The Mystery of Inductance of Lead Wire We sometimes see "inductance of lead wire" in Electrical Engineering technical books. For example, the expression below is found in a book titled "Analytical Noise Mechanism" by CQ Publishing Co. at its 120th page".

L = 2*l*(log(4*l/d)-3/4) (nH/m) (1)

where, L = inductance of lead wire (nH/m)
d = diameter of lead wire (cm)
l = length of lead wire (cm)
You can see where Allen highlights in bold (nH/m). He calls it a factor in the equation. It is not a factor. It is the units of the quanitiy. Allen is particularly confused by units.

Thanks for the vent.

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #875  
Old 04-29-2017, 02:12 AM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,323
That is exactly what this thread is for. To post objections and discussions about projects or ideas on this forum without disrupting the original thread. Vent away. I have been too busy lately to waste any more time trying to correct all the errors Allen keeps posting. He is either very lacking in the basic math fundamentals or is deliberately trying to provoke arguments. My own personal opinion is the later.

BM is just another lost cause. No matter how carefully you show him his heroes are wrong he will continue to worship at their feet. He has no technical knowledge of his own so he will follow whatever strikes him as being worth following no matter how ridiculous.

Later,
Carroll
__________________
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them your enemy. We can disagree without attacking someone. This means YOU especially BroMikey.
Reply With Quote
  #876  
Old 04-29-2017, 11:32 AM
Allen Burgess Allen Burgess is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
That is exactly what this thread is for. To post objections and discussions about projects or ideas on this forum without disrupting the original thread. Vent away. I have been too busy lately to waste any more time trying to correct all the errors Allen keeps posting. He is either very lacking in the basic math fundamentals or is deliberately trying to provoke arguments. My own personal opinion is the later.

BM is just another lost cause. No matter how carefully you show him his heroes are wrong he will continue to worship at their feet. He has no technical knowledge of his own so he will follow whatever strikes him as being worth following no matter how ridiculous.

Later,
Carroll
@citfa,

You're a fraud! You said Teslas and Henries were like apples and eggs. How come Tinselkoala and Milehigh are no longer posting? You stated that you were getting me permanently banned from the Overunity site. Drop dead you stinking crank!
__________________
 

Last edited by Allen Burgess; 04-29-2017 at 12:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #877  
Old 04-29-2017, 12:25 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Units confusion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen Burgess View Post
@citfa,

You're a fraud! You said Teslas and Henries were like apples and eggs. How come Tinselkoala and Milehigh are no longer posting? You stated that you were getting me permanently banned from the Overunity site. Drop dead you stinking crank!
The tesla is the unit of flux density and in SI base units is webers per square meter, abbreviation (Wb/m^2). The henry is the unit for inductance and in SI base units is webers per ampere, abbreviation (Wb/A). Clearly the unit henry is not the same as the unit tesla.

The A in the denominator of (Wb/A) is the abbreviation for amperes not used as a symbol for area in this context. I can only guess that is where Allen's confusion about equivalency arises.

Apples and eggs. I like that. Been trying to think of an appropriate analogy.

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #878  
Old 04-29-2017, 04:00 PM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen Burgess View Post
@citfa,

You're a fraud! You said Teslas and Henries were like apples and eggs. How come Tinselkoala and Milehigh are no longer posting? You stated that you were getting me permanently banned from the Overunity site. Drop dead you stinking crank!
Tinselkoala and Milehigh are no longer posting because you are no longer posting foolishness they need to correct. Neither of them has been banned.

I stated that I had asked that you be banned. And I DID! As far as I know you have only been put on moderated status AGAIN because of your constant badgering of the respected members there. If you have actually been banned then all I can say is HOORAY! Maybe you and Zephir can go and start you own forum so that you can both harass and badger anyone you want without repercussions.

And my user name is citfta which you have never gotten right. If you weren't so entertaining I would ask Aaron to ban you from this site also. But you need some place to demonstrate your complete lack of electronic knowledge. Do you stay up all night thinking of ways to mix up electronic terms?
__________________
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them your enemy. We can disagree without attacking someone. This means YOU especially BroMikey.
Reply With Quote
  #879  
Old 04-29-2017, 06:27 PM
Allen Burgess Allen Burgess is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
Tinselkoala and Milehigh are no longer posting because you are no longer posting foolishness they need to correct. Neither of them has been banned.

I stated that I had asked that you be banned. And I DID! As far as I know you have only been put on moderated status AGAIN because of your constant badgering of the respected members there. If you have actually been banned then all I can say is HOORAY! Maybe you and Zephir can go and start you own forum so that you can both harass and badger anyone you want without repercussions.

And my user name is citfta which you have never gotten right. If you weren't so entertaining I would ask Aaron to ban you from this site also. But you need some place to demonstrate your complete lack of electronic knowledge. Do you stay up all night thinking of ways to mix up electronic terms?
@Citfta,

You're not getting anywhere with your complaints. No one listens to you. The deal Stephan struck with those two monsters was that they agree to stop commenting in exchange for renewal of my moderated status. I'm still commenting here on Energetic forum as Allen Burgess while they're down, so I won! You're just some kind of phony ass kisser.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #880  
Old 04-29-2017, 09:23 PM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen Burgess View Post
@Citfta,

You're not getting anywhere with your complaints. No one listens to you. The deal Stephan struck with those two monsters was that they agree to stop commenting in exchange for renewal of my moderated status. I'm still commenting here on Energetic forum as Allen Burgess while they're down, so I won! You're just some kind of phony ass kisser.

Absolutely false as anyone that knows you would already know. As usual you are making false statements with nothing to back you up. Just like all the rest of the ridiculous claims you make. Where's the proof!
__________________
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them your enemy. We can disagree without attacking someone. This means YOU especially BroMikey.
Reply With Quote
  #881  
Old 04-30-2017, 12:34 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Save

Pardon my use of this space, but I'd like to save Allen's post before he can edit it as he has done to other posts after my replies. I'll add some comments later. Thanks. bi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen Burgess View Post
@bystander,

Tinman's measuring his Tesla serial bifilar pancake coil for Overunity and trying to gauge his real A.C. power with a complex RMS equation involving phase angle of current and voltage.

The bifilar coil is storing this electrical power in a magnetic field. Measuring the flux density of the field is a much simpler way of measuring for gain. You , Citfta and those other two turkeys over at O.U. argued with me that a Tesla is not an inverse Henry?

A simple measure of "Flux Density" in Tinman's bifilar is a much more accurate measure of "Real Power" than the measurement of A.C. power with the RMS equation that's too complex for Tinman to deal with.

You have ridiculously argued with me about the electrical power equivalency of flux density along with Citfta the entire time, falsely claiming that the Tesla, Henry and Watt hour are incongruous values such as apples and eggs?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #882  
Old 04-30-2017, 03:27 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
More Allen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen Burgess View Post
Quote from Tinselkoala,

"Repeating the above calculations and taking the scope's reported RMS values and phase shift as "exact", along with a more precise measurement of the DC coil resistance as 10.4 ohms, I get

Total Input Power = 0.011846 W or 11.85 mW.
Total dissipated power in R1+R2+Rcoil = 0.01178 W or 11.78 mW.

Rounding to three significant digits we have 11.8 mW in = 11.8 mW out".

What about any power stored by the bifilar coil in the form of "Magnetic Flux"?
That would be reactive power in units of (var, volt amperes reactive). If you care to learn more about AC power, see:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #883  
Old 04-30-2017, 05:41 PM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 788
On the subject of measuring pancake coils at resonance.
My opinion after watching methods used by TinselKoala's compared to rwg video.
The method used by rwg would be preferred. The current probes could be used
in the lower frequencies such as music.

Meanwhile the analog simulation has made considerable progress.
Relax, Aaron will not remove someone unless they cause real trouble.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #884  
Old 05-06-2017, 08:35 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Allen's grudge

Boggles my mind. No idea why I am grouped with Allen's adversaries from some other forum of which I am not nor ever been a member and seldom visit. But he has included me in this explanation. I am attempting to avoid participating on the thread where he posted it. It does seem off-topic for that thread but the OP BM doesn't appear to object. Here it is along with another of his posts of about 2 hours earlier that day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen Burgess View Post

I've been out foxing four know it all "Flat Nose Maze Mice" since Easter. Inductance is a limited area like Trigonometry. Current density is current intensity. Ampere worked his equivalency theory out with Gauss, then Maxwell refined it to include current displacement (A.C.) RMS cosine values, simplified by Heaviside; then Biot-Savart plate charge "Charge equals Flux" in capacitors, then Lorentz and the electron in a magnetic field in free space then Einstein.

I challenged these heavey weights first on he Overunity site, then back here on Energetic Forum, not as a nice guy, but to repay them for insulting me over a discharge curve comparison. None of them; bistander, Milehigh Tinselkoala nor Citfta can read or understand the algebraic expressions commonly used in our inductance formulas. They're all completely ignorant in the field of Physics. All these men were Physicists: Oersted, Ampere, Gauss, Maxwell, Heaviside, Biot-Savart, Lorentz, Joseph Henry, Nicola Tesla and Albert Einstein etc. These electronics "Scope Gadgeteers" never signed up for one Physics course between the lot. Physicists have no need for Oscilloscopes.

I set out to make that group of "Thamsanka Wizards" look like a pack of chumps. I have a Milehigh decal painted on my cowling at this time.
Quote:
None of them; bistander, Milehigh Tinselkoala nor Citfta can read or understand the algebraic expressions commonly used in our inductance formulas.
I can't speak for the other three gentlemen, two of whom I don't know and have never communicated with, citfta and I have exchanged a few messages, but I do understand the math associated with inductance formulas quite well.

Quote:
These electronics "Scope Gadgeteers" never signed up for one Physics course between the lot.
Not speaking for the other three, but I have done well in college level physics courses even teaching same at university senior engineering level.

Quote:
"Charge equals Flux"
I wonder why Allen put this in quotes. It has occurred to me that it may be a prime source to his confusion when he continues to maintain the electric charge is magnetic flux. He needs to realize that D is not B.

Quote:
but to repay them for insulting me over a discharge curve comparison
I never insulted Allen over a discharge curve. I may have told him he was mistaken, but not an insult. I don't think I have insulted him at all. Not my style. I just try to stick to the facts. This is my first contact with Allen and you can see that I was polite and tried my best to be helpful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Hi Allen,

Your terminology is confusing. "BEMF current"? What is it? A voltage? Or a current? Can't be both.

The behavior of voltage across the inductor and current through the inductor is well established during the storing of energy (building the magnetic field) and during the decaying of the energy (collapsing magnetic field).



As you can see, IL (current through the inductor) is in the same direction for both the storage and the decay phase. VL (voltage across the inductor)is opposite polarity for the decay phase.

Hope that helps,

bi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen Burgess View Post

That's right! Bistander can't understand that. That power would consolidate into high volt high amp pulse that would sustain the Tesla field for perhaps a second and need to be repeated serially to maintain it. A second look at the equations will reveal a proportion of WH/Sec.

Ampere's force law is Ampere per second to gauss
So Allen, assuming you read this, if you have a superior grasp on the subject, please identify the specific equation which you reference here:
Quote:
A second look at the equations will reveal a proportion of WH/Sec.
And then clarify your units of WH/Sec. Is that watt hours per second or watt henries per second? And what do you mean by "reveal a proportion"? Is that a ratio? Of what to what?

Quote:
Ampere's force law is Ampere per second to gauss
Please show me where it is stated in Ampere's force law that Ampere per second relates to gauss.

Not that I expect any answers from Allen. Whenever our discussions or arguments get to the point where he needs to provide proof, he has chosen to go hide in some flying saucer thread or such. He is big on insults and claims but short on logic and proof.

Later,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #885  
Old 05-06-2017, 09:50 PM
SlickDick's Avatar
SlickDick SlickDick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Not that I expect any answers from Allen. Whenever our discussions or arguments get to the point where he needs to provide proof, he has chosen to go hide in some flying saucer thread or such. He is big on insults and claims but short on logic and proof.

Later,

bi
Then why the effort? I mean, I understand where you coming from... Still... why?
__________________
All the best,

Slick
Reply With Quote
  #886  
Old 05-06-2017, 10:08 PM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,131
@Bi

Your going to learn the answer only if you do some experiments for
yourself. Others can give you the answer but you will never be sure
unless you can do the tests. Do some video on what you find and
then it won't be so tempting to revert back to what the books say
with the real verification in hand.

This is great thread to exchange ideas about why it is impossible to leave
the standards of our current models in science. The focus should be in
the tests that you are making to prove current models right, this would
make all other input irrelative, would it not?

I don't want to give any impressions that I am welcome here but only to
answer your charges against me that I am unfair. It is fair to give your
results in test form, just like you were required to do at the college.

In fact the whole scientific reasoning taught in schools should be done
so that after the student leaves their primary training, they go on to
verify everything as they go.
Hopefully adding to the evidence as we accumulate more knowledge.
Some have received prizes for this.

Anyway I am not unfair to suggest that we keep threads separate. And we
will be watching what your evidence is, don't worry about that. Where
is it?


PS i guess this website crashed last night and was down for a number
of hours, probably hacked.
__________________
 

Last edited by BroMikey; 05-06-2017 at 10:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #887  
Old 05-06-2017, 10:26 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Just one of those things

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlickDick View Post
Then why the effort? I mean, I understand where you coming from... Still... why?
He bothers me. I try to help a member and he insults me, thinks he knows everything and seemingly derives great pleasure in rubbing my face in his pretend knowledge. That's all.

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #888  
Old 05-06-2017, 11:40 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
What?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post
@Bi

... [I'm] here but only to
answer your charges against me that I am unfair. ...
What? What are you talking about? I never said anything like that. In fact I try hard not to interact with you. That is the reason I avoid posting on that PM energy thread of yours. BTW, university curriculum inludes testing and industry certainly does. I've done my share of tests and continue to do so when I choose.

Please leave me alone.

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #889  
Old 05-07-2017, 12:16 AM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlickDick View Post
Then why the effort? I mean, I understand where you coming from... Still... why?
I see bistander has answered why he tries to correct the mistaken ideas being presented on this forum. I will also answer why I try to do the same. I got really tired last year of being bashed for trying to correct a lot of the errors I kept seeing on this forum. So I did a very informal poll and asked if anyone thought I should keep trying or just forget it. By a very large majority I was told that correct information was being appreciated and would I continue to help when I could.

The other reason I try to correct bad information is because there are many that come to this forum with no electronic training or experience. It is very easy to confuse them with bad information which will only cause them a lot of problems as they try to duplicate some of the things seen on here or try to do some experimenting of their own.

I do know there are some that will never learn but I have seen some that used to ridicule my comments that now consider what I have to say and even ask for help from both bistander and myself. So there is hope that as some see we are trying to share the truth and not fantasy that more will begin to see the value in real education and experience.

Respectfully,
Carroll
__________________
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them your enemy. We can disagree without attacking someone. This means YOU especially BroMikey.
Reply With Quote
  #890  
Old 05-07-2017, 12:42 AM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,323
Quote from Allen:

Ampere's Force law
From Ampere’s law, it can be derived that the field inside a coil of wire is described as: Formula attached below:

Basically Amperes force law; Current in Amps divided into turns per meter of wire equals magnet field strength in Gauss.

3600 Joules per second would generate 1 Tesla of field strength in an inductor of 1 Henry of inductance.

where:
• B = the magnetic field strength at the center, in Tesla (10,000 Gauss = 1 Tesla)
• µo = a constant, the magnetic permeability of free space, 4π×10−7 N·A−2
• k = a constant, the magnetic permeability of the core material. Iron = 5000, Steel = 100, Air = 1.
• N / L = number of turns per length of the core/shaft, expressed in turns per meter
• I = current flowing through the wire, expressed in Amps
Attached Thumbnails
-electromagnetequation-png
End of quote.

Another totally ludicrous post. Allen has completely mixed up the Ampere's force law with the strength of a magnetic field generated by a coil. They actually have nothing to do with one another. Ampere's force law concerns the attraction or repelling of two wires depending upon the strength and direction of the current flowing in each of them. Wikipedia makes a very clear distinction that this law is not the same as the law concerning magnetic strength of a coil. Here is a link to the article about Ampere's force law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amp%C3%A8re%27s_force_law

And here is a link to the article about the magnetic strength of a coil which is called Ampere's circuital law but was actually arrived at by Maxwell:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amp%C3..._circuital_law

I was not able to find the formula that Allen posted so I don't know where he got it.
__________________
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them your enemy. We can disagree without attacking someone. This means YOU especially BroMikey.
Reply With Quote
  #891  
Old 05-07-2017, 04:34 PM
RAMSET RAMSET is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC and Conn USA
Posts: 1,420
is there any meat with the potatoes?

Is there a demonstration from Allen that has shown his path?
with good input and output measurements?

an experiment?
or is it all theory?

we can do a replication here to discuss this if there is such a test ?

and I am not talking about members replicating his work here that he has attacked and chosen to " personally destroy" [vendetta]

there are plenty of good builders with good resources that can do an honest public replication.

no math no pencils or erasers no formulas

just a build ?
with good power in power out measurements, or some method to show anomalous work performed {which should be an OU claim]

respectfully
Chet K
__________________
 

Last edited by RAMSET; 05-07-2017 at 04:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #892  
Old 05-08-2017, 12:15 PM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,323
Bob Smith,

Originally Posted by Bob Smith View Post
I am watching this topic with interest here and on a couple of other forums. I have been working with a set of three series-wound bifilar pancake (swbifip) coils for about a week. My focus is on the interaction between the swbifip coil and the local electrostatic environment.

If I am not mistaken, an inductor pulsed below resonant frequency will be dominated by resistive reactance, while pulsed above resonant frequency, capacitive reactance dominates. In simplest terms, below resonance, the inductor behaves like a resistor, and above resonance, begins to behave like a capacitor. At resonance, neither predominates.

However, given the low reactance and high capacitance of the swbifip coil due to its configuration, what actually happens to its capacitance (let alone reactance) at resonance?

I'm going to throw out a thought - if reactance in an inductor drops to zero at resonance, and we transpose this understanding to the swbifip coil, is it possible that at resonance, its extremely low reactance might drop below zero, effectively giving it negentropic characteristics of a negative resistor?

There are some decent YT videos out there showing a rise in voltage amplitude at resonance in this coil. Is it another animal entirely, for which another set of parameters has to apply?
Bob


First thing is you have a couple of things slightly confused. Capacitive reactance goes DOWN as the frequency goes UP. Inductive reactance goes UP as the frequency goes UP. So below the natural resonant frequency of a coil the reactance will be capacitive and above the resonant frequency the reactance will be inductive. And you are correct that at the resonant frequency they both cancel each other out and the result is that only the DC resistance remains.

I have not seen any evidence that the reactance can drop below zero. If you can link a video or other evidence showing that I would like to see it.

The only real difference in the bifilar series connected coil and a normally connected coil is the added capacitance of the bifilar coil. It also makes no difference if the coil is a pancake coil or a normal solenoid type coil the extra capacitance is still there if the coils are bifilar. Several tests were done on the OU.com site that confirm this.

The added capacitance of the bifilar wound coil is that it allows the coil to be resonant at a much lower frequency than a normally wound coil. As was pointed out on the OU site at the time Tesla was working with high voltages and high frequency, capacitors that met those requirements were hard to make and so Tesla was looking for a way to make a coil resonant without the need for capacitors and thus came up with the bifilar wound coil. Now high voltage capacitors are fairly easy to come by so the need for bifilar wound coils is not as great. They are still an interesting device for studying resonance and especially for learning about inductive and capacitive reactance.

I hope this helps some.

Respectfully,
Carroll
__________________
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them your enemy. We can disagree without attacking someone. This means YOU especially BroMikey.
Reply With Quote
  #893  
Old 05-08-2017, 01:47 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 5,009
Mainly to Citfta and Bistander...

Hello Citfta, Hello Bistander,

I got a question which is "indirectly' related to what is on discussion right now on the "Multifilar" (which means "not necessarily" it needs to be Two Strands) Coils patented by Tesla...

I am working right now (by the way, very good results that I would be posting soon) on "Double" Bifilar Solenoid (Cylindrical)Type Coils...made several ones based on the same spec's as far as gauge and length, but different geometries.

What am working on is a different concept...and not connected in series as Tesla Patent shows.

I have Two Bifilar Coils "Interlaced" or wound in a different config as conventional method. The result is that I have two terminals that turn on a coil in a magnetic pole order as N-S, and when the other two terminals are energized it becomes a S-N within the same core. Of course, they turn on alternatively...not simultaneously or they would cancel magnetism.

Now, if I just energize one set ON and OFF, while the other is connected as a closed loop with electrolytic caps (an LC Tank Circuit) as it would not work well with AC Caps or Non Polarized...because they would not "Echo" the opposed Magnetic Field which is what am looking for.

Concluding, the closed Tank Circuit will be energized or excited Indirectly by the Induction from the alternatively turned On-Off Coil, since they are within same core and wires are interlaced and next to each others.

The best working Electrolytic cap is at 560uf...

The result is that as I increase the frequency on the energized coil, it would reduce its Volts and Amps from source...while the opposite result takes place in the Tank Circuit Coil...meaning Amps and Volts rise above input values.

The tank circuit does a perfect "Mirror" Signal as the one from the Coil excited from source, except it is greatly amplified as frequency increases (RPM's from Rotary Switch), then it becomes a very smooth sine wave.

Now, finally the Question I mentioned in the beginning...

Is there a way to mathematically calculate, in order to achieve a greater "Echo" response at the Tank Circuit, as frequency goes up?

It is interesting that when I add a 1000uf Electrolytic Cap, the Echo signal goes as a perfect Positive Saw, which is not good for my tests since the On period is too short.

I would like to achieve a Positive Pyramid Signal as Figuera achieves with resistors(smoothly rising up to flat line On time then slowly decreasing, like a "ramp type")...but instead by regulating the capacitance/inductance at tank circuit.

Below is a shot of the Two Scope signals:

[IMG][/IMG]

Both Probes are attenuated at 10X...The Yellow (Chanel 1) is the Input Energized Coil, and the Blue (Chanel 2) is the Echo Tank Circuit reactive signal.

[IMG][/IMG]

Above IMG, RPM's were at 3600 (60Hz), note Tank Blue Circuit rounded up lower sine, as it is now almost double as input (yellow signal)


Thanks in advance


Ufopolitics


P.D: This is just the Generator Exciter System am working on now...the Output from Secondaries is even greater, but am not done with exciter config yet.
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 05-23-2017 at 06:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #894  
Old 05-08-2017, 04:20 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
circuit question

Hi Ufo,

Been a while. I read your post. Nothing in the way of a fast answer today. But I will think about it.

Good luck with it,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #895  
Old 05-08-2017, 05:44 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 5,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Hi Ufo,

Been a while.
Hello Bistander,

Yes, I know...lot of work, lot of testings...plus normal headaches.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
I read your post. Nothing in the way of a fast answer today. But I will think about it.

Good luck with it,

bi
No sweat, whenever you have a chance, no hurry...

Besides I know you have been really busy lately...with Allen discussions...

Just uploaded a new scope pic at 3600 RPM's...


Take care


Ufopolitics
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci
Reply With Quote
  #896  
Old 05-08-2017, 10:47 PM
mikrovolt mikrovolt is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 788
On measuring pancake coil output on other threads we encounter
discussion about conventional methods. An example where non-conventional
entities measured have negative inductance or negative capacitance.
Some think there is a relationship but the uncertainty remains.
Such as this discussion on edaboard:

what does negative inductance mean?

In non-conventional settings there are discussions that
often avoid aether because it's general acceptance and yet
the projects goes on. Also in patents the aetheric discussion
is left out and the diagrams depicted are really misleading at best.
The engineers that review the inventions give the product
a thumbs down on credibility and the investors run away.

To make things worse there are red herring departments
that insure that for every good invention there are hundreds of
fake inventions patented and marketed that will convince
the public that all devices are scams. Keeping this in mind
the rhetoric developed becomes the accepted status quo.

Those trying to fight this rhetoric are unsuccessful in overcoming
what is generally accepted and run into a brick wall. It is common
to see individuals deny conventional science because they feel they
have a small piece of truth they cannot convey. It is only a small piece of
the puzzle and not more. There are plenty of people on the forum
that understand and are not able to help because of the conventional
understanding creates a framework that would cause them
unnecessary confrontation and detract from their goals.
__________________
 

Last edited by mikrovolt; 05-08-2017 at 10:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #897  
Old 05-09-2017, 04:48 PM
Bob Smith Bob Smith is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
Bob Smith,

Originally Posted by Bob Smith View Post
I am watching this topic with interest here and on a couple of other forums. I have been working with a set of three series-wound bifilar pancake (swbifip) coils for about a week. My focus is on the interaction between the swbifip coil and the local electrostatic environment.

If I am not mistaken, an inductor pulsed below resonant frequency will be dominated by resistive reactance, while pulsed above resonant frequency, capacitive reactance dominates. In simplest terms, below resonance, the inductor behaves like a resistor, and above resonance, begins to behave like a capacitor. At resonance, neither predominates.

However, given the low reactance and high capacitance of the swbifip coil due to its configuration, what actually happens to its capacitance (let alone reactance) at resonance?

I'm going to throw out a thought - if reactance in an inductor drops to zero at resonance, and we transpose this understanding to the swbifip coil, is it possible that at resonance, its extremely low reactance might drop below zero, effectively giving it negentropic characteristics of a negative resistor?

There are some decent YT videos out there showing a rise in voltage amplitude at resonance in this coil. Is it another animal entirely, for which another set of parameters has to apply?
Bob


First thing is you have a couple of things slightly confused. Capacitive reactance goes DOWN as the frequency goes UP. Inductive reactance goes UP as the frequency goes UP. So below the natural resonant frequency of a coil the reactance will be capacitive and above the resonant frequency the reactance will be inductive. And you are correct that at the resonant frequency they both cancel each other out and the result is that only the DC resistance remains.

I have not seen any evidence that the reactance can drop below zero. If you can link a video or other evidence showing that I would like to see it.

The only real difference in the bifilar series connected coil and a normally connected coil is the added capacitance of the bifilar coil. It also makes no difference if the coil is a pancake coil or a normal solenoid type coil the extra capacitance is still there if the coils are bifilar. Several tests were done on the OU.com site that confirm this.

The added capacitance of the bifilar wound coil is that it allows the coil to be resonant at a much lower frequency than a normally wound coil. As was pointed out on the OU site at the time Tesla was working with high voltages and high frequency, capacitors that met those requirements were hard to make and so Tesla was looking for a way to make a coil resonant without the need for capacitors and thus came up with the bifilar wound coil. Now high voltage capacitors are fairly easy to come by so the need for bifilar wound coils is not as great. They are still an interesting device for studying resonance and especially for learning about inductive and capacitive reactance.

I hope this helps some.

Respectfully,
Carroll
Carroll,
Thanks very much for this. I'll make the corrections this evening.
Bob
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #898  
Old 05-09-2017, 08:48 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,682
Allen's math

I had started using evostar's thread again as I thought Allen had chased him away but evostar is back using that thread again so I will post this here out of respect for the OP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen Burgess View Post
@bistander,

I made the point that a more tightly wound coil would generate a stronger field than a sloppily wound coil of equal wire gauge and turns for the same input. Lets say the difference in inductance was 5%. We could equal the strength of the sloppy coil with the tight coil by reducing the input by 5%, right?

Lets say we feed 10 watts into both coils: We would gain 1/2 watt in savings, right? 100 watts would result in 5 watts savings and 500 watts would result in 25 watts savings, got it?

My power input calculations result in a savings of that amount with that amount of difference in inductance between the two types of coils. You say I divided when I should have multiplied. Your approach would throw the answer off in the wrong direction by an "Astronomical Parsec".

I was asked for a simple explanation: Greater inductance results greater efficiency, got it? Your math is really stupid! Stop acting strange.
Quote:
You say I divided when I should have multiplied.
Here is what Allen wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen Burgess View Post
16.8 mH divided by 10,000 equals 168 Gauss
Which is: 0.0168 / 10000 = 168.

I say that is wrong and that 0.0168 / 10000 = 0.00000168. So I came to the logical conclusion that Allen meant multiply instead of divide. Because:

0.0168 * 10000 = 168.

Silly me. Allen insists he is correct and I am wrong.

Then another example of Allen's math skill can be found in this recent post of his:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allen Burgess View Post
...

The inference you make that the tiny wire connection between the bifilar windings accounts a huge 1.9 mH difference in inductance is ludicrous. See the High Perm inductance measurements below:
Allen subtracts 15.9 from 16.8 and gets 1.9. Or "16.8 - 15.9 = 1.9"

I wonder if Allen can see his error and actually admit he is wrong. Probably not.

bi
Attached Images
File Type: png Bifi Toroids 2.png (370.6 KB, 168 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #899  
Old 05-09-2017, 09:59 PM
gyula gyula is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 820
Hi Bob Smith and Carroll,

I made my comments in red for both of you within your own text enviroment below. I commented only where I disagreed with you both or where I felt some additions were needed.

Gyula

Originally Posted by Bob Smith:
I am watching this topic with interest here and on a couple of other forums. I have been working with a set of three series-wound bifilar pancake (swbifip) coils for about a week. My focus is on the interaction between the swbifip coil and the local electrostatic environment.
If I am not mistaken, an inductor pulsed below resonant frequency will be dominated by resistive reactance, while pulsed above resonant frequency, capacitive reactance dominates. In simplest terms, below resonance, the inductor behaves like a resistor, and above resonance, begins to behave like a capacitor. At resonance, neither predominates.
However, given the low reactance and high capacitance of the swbifip coil due to its configuration, what actually happens to its capacitance (let alone reactance) at resonance?
I'm going to throw out a thought - if reactance in an inductor drops to zero at resonance, and we transpose this understanding to the swbifip coil, is it possible that at resonance, its extremely low reactance might drop below zero, effectively giving it negentropic characteristics of a negative resistor?


My answer to the latter question is no. At resonance the reactances cancel and purely a resistive impedance dominates. This means there is no any phase shift between input current and voltage. However, the coil and the capacitor still maintain their original properties when we try to examine their own current vs their own voltage i.e. they maintain their own phase shifts within themselves as if they were alone. What manifests to the outside is that the input current and voltage will be in phase at resonance. IF there is any phase shift it means you are not at the resonant frequency of the L and C components yet.

There are some decent YT videos out there showing a rise in voltage amplitude at resonance in this coil. Is it another animal entirely, for which another set of parameters has to apply?
Bob


Answer to Bob by Carroll:

First thing is you have a couple of things slightly confused. Capacitive reactance goes DOWN as the frequency goes UP. Inductive reactance goes UP as the frequency goes UP.
So below the natural resonant frequency of a coil the reactance will be capacitive
No, it will be inductive.
and above the resonant frequency the reactance will be inductive.
No, it will be capacitive.
And you are correct that at the resonant frequency they both cancel each other out and the result is that only the DC resistance remains.

Yes, okay but here we need to define whether we talk about a series or parallel LC circuit? Because for a series LC circuit at resonance indeed there is the coil's DC resistance which limits the input current (besides the generator and any other series components in the circuit if there is any). And for a parallel LC circuit the input current is limited by a much higher resistive impedance at resonance than the coil's DC resistance, this impedance is the loaded Q times either the inductive or the capacitive reactance (these latter two are equal in absolute magnitude value at resonance).

I have not seen any evidence that the reactance can drop below zero. If you can link a video or other evidence showing that I would like to see it.

The only real difference in the bifilar series connected coil and a normally connected coil is the added capacitance of the bifilar coil. It also makes no difference if the coil is a pancake coil or a normal solenoid type coil the extra capacitance is still there if the coils are bifilar. Several tests were done on the OU.com site that confirm this.

The added capacitance of the bifilar wound coil is that it allows the coil to be resonant at a much lower frequency than a normally wound coil. As was pointed out on the OU site at the time Tesla was working with high voltages and high frequency, capacitors that met those requirements were hard to make and so Tesla was looking for a way to make a coil resonant without the need for capacitors and thus came up with the bifilar wound coil. Now high voltage capacitors are fairly easy to come by so the need for bifilar wound coils is not as great. They are still an interesting device for studying resonance and especially for learning about inductive and capacitive reactance.

I hope this helps some.

Respectfully,
Carroll
__________________
 

Last edited by gyula; 05-09-2017 at 10:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #900  
Old 05-10-2017, 12:28 AM
citfta's Avatar
citfta citfta is online now
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,323
Hi gyula,

Good to see you posting here. But you have me confused. I admit I didn't take time to look up everything before replying to Bob. Do you agree that inductive reactance goes up as the frequency goes up and that capacitive reactance goes down as the frequency goes down.

In other words if you connect a capacitor to DC as soon as the capacitor is fully charged it is not going to pass any more current so you could say the capacitive reactance is infinity. And as the frequency goes up the capacitor begins to pass more and more current. And of course everything is just the opposite for an inductor.

So I am confused as to why you said below the resonant frequency the reactance would be inductive and above would be capacitive? Can you please explain the reason for you saying that?

Take care,
Carroll

PS: I do totally agree with your description of a parallel resonant circuit.
__________________
Just because someone disagrees with you does NOT make them your enemy. We can disagree without attacking someone. This means YOU especially BroMikey.

Last edited by citfta; 05-10-2017 at 12:31 AM. Reason: Added PS
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers