Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube ONLY 13% OF SEATS AVAILABLE!!!*** 2017 ENERGY CONFERENCE ***


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


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.

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #2701  
Old 07-07-2012, 04:55 PM
Wicaksono Wicaksono is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 46
quick & dirty method of Eric Dollard's experiment replication

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spokane1 View Post
I have just about all of the parts needed for a first run. Mr. Dollard says he used Teflon coated coax, which is available for $2 a foot and I need 100'. I have Teflon-silver #16 AWG stranded and I'm going to use this first. I need to build the Antenna/Transformer structure as well as the loading coil.
Good luck with the replication Mr. McKay, and don't forget the "white bluish" light bulb which Eric Dollard use to charge the copper sheet. By the way, I have found similar effect by using quick & dirty method with using only high frequency neon sign power supply and strobe lamp. We can compare the results after your experiment is done.

Wicaksono
__________________
 
Reply With Quote

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

  #2702  
Old 07-08-2012, 01:32 AM
jake's Avatar
jake jake is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotron View Post
Spokane1,

The ability of a tripole (++-) tube to generate extra electricity through the process of expanding the volume of energy present in an electrolytic capacitor bank through a coil by enabling it to cross the air gap with potential gained from a bank of silicon rectifiers when its poles are connected with a stream of Hi-Voltage and combined together with it is how the system was thought to work!

A secondary coil would then be used to transform the voltage into a useable level and fed to the source battery in pulses, precicely as done with the other motor circuits. Could it be a matter of using threaded electrodes to obtain a miniscule spark gap for allowing the anode of a 12V battery to be used as input versus having the inverter and all that goes with it providing a resevoir of greater voltage to more readily allow the photoelectric discharge to take place?

The amount of wattage going through the air gap when the Hi-Voltage pulse is combined with the capacitive medium, a reactive pool normally connected directly to a motor coil instead of colliding through this other potential over the gap is what is said to increase in the process through activating an energetic reaction to take place which has the direct outcome of increasing the resultant magnetic field.




--

Something like this?
Tesla Stinging Impulse Rays

Post 22 I posted a schematic for an interesting event that happened to me once.
__________________
 

Last edited by jake; 07-08-2012 at 01:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2703  
Old 07-09-2012, 11:21 AM
geotron geotron is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 321
I've heard tell before of such events taking place; thanks for sharing, interesting circuit.

This following method should not cause any permanent change to the battery when it is
pulsed at a low enough recovery voltage. Its ability to produce extra energy is of course theoretical at this point.

__________________
 

Last edited by geotron; 07-09-2012 at 12:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2704  
Old 07-11-2012, 01:54 AM
Spokane1 Spokane1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 356
What comes Back Out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
In other words: you can super-polarize a dielectric layer within both an electrolytic capacitor as well as a lead-acid battery, which would result as the cap/battery being observed as having been charged.
Dear lamare,

I watched the MIT demonstration and read most of Eric Dollards commentary (at least that which I could understand).

I have no problems with models that propose that ather is the medium that causes the movement of classical electrons. Nor do I take any issue with the demonstrated concept that the dielectric is the active medium in the storage of some quantum of this ather in plate capacitor structures.

I also agree that a sharp time rise and slower decay wave form might be able to super charge a cpacitor and/or lead-acid battery under the right circumstances. However this needs to be researched in full measure since a lot of parameters seem to impact this kind of process.

However, what ever was done to charge the capacitor, be it an exotic wave form or a Whimhurst Machine, it still appears that what comes back out of the capacitor (even if it is OU) is still the same ather that causes classical electron flow that we preceive and measure as magnetic fields and current.

This is not the historical case with the E.V. Gray technology. Whatever came back out of his storage capacitors created magnetic fields two to three orders of magnitude greater than what could be stored in the capacitor with classical electrostatic charge alone (or aether). It is highly unlikely that this output was just a huge increase in this same classical charge (or aether). If that much classical energy were applied directly to the engine coils they most likely woud have exploded like an exploding wire experiment. So there was something vastly different about the energy that was harvested and how it interacted with inductive loads.

This suggests that what ever went into the capacitor was different to start with. But I will not over look models that suggest some kind of conversion process similiar to the super-charging idea that can take place in the capacitor. The main requirement is that the final output product displays these novel porperties.

Speculation: The dielectric properties that you provided for this discussion are still very important and in the end will be the very foundations of this technology. I maintain that the novel "something" is created by the strong magnetic and electrostatic excitation of a dielectric - specifically an electrret type material. If Eric Dollard's experiment proves meaningful then the active material in his setup will be shown to be the Teflon on his secondary coax cable.

I propose that Marvin Cole was using the large "Floating Flux Field" conductors. Who knows what he was using for a dielectric. It could have been Teflon or polyethylene if he was employing commercial "Hard Line" coax. For the short length of cable involved in th EMA4 engine (about 6') he could have cast just about anything into a custom component that looked like a cable.

In 1974 it appears that Richard Hackenberger upgraded the FFF from single turns of a large conductor (between 0.500" and 0.750" in diameter) to 2 or 3 turns of a smaller cable (0.250" to 0.375" in diameter). It is unlikely that he took the time to custom cast these longer custom cables with designer dielectrics. So there is more historical evidence for commercial cables being used all along.

If they were coax cables then they might have been "conditioned" to become electrets. This done by heating the cable in an oven and applying a large voltage potential across it. (like 15 kV DC) Then allowing this configuration to cool over a 3-4 day period. I have read where this works for polyelethyene coax. I have no idea what this would do with Teflon.

After the "charging" process the shield and outer insulation could have been removed to expose the bare activated dielectric or lnear electret. It appears that if this did happen then a new outer insulation jacket was re-applied, perhaps heat shrink material. Who knows if it was this complicated. This dialog only shows what could have been done.

Any thoughts?

Mark McKay
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2705  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:09 AM
Spokane1 Spokane1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 356
Perhaps an NST?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicaksono View Post
Good luck with the replication Mr. McKay, and don't forget the "white bluish" light bulb which Eric Dollard use to charge the copper sheet. By the way, I have found similar effect by using quick & dirty method with using only high frequency neon sign power supply and strobe lamp. We can compare the results after your experiment is done.

Wicaksono
Dear Wicaksono,

I certainly hope that the use of the Diathermy Machine can be replaced with some comercial transformers in these kinds of circuits. It would be a real dissapointment for non-funded researchers if the only thing that worked was a device made in 1920 and is in limited supply.

NST's will probably be able to demonstrate some kinds of weak effects, but I think their overall use will be limited. Thier internal magnetic shunt design used for current limitation is a real drag on effective energy conversion. Just when you need the voltage their current output drops like a stone.

If the power supply for the Blue Engine is what I think it is then we will all be winding our own custom ferrite core HV transformers that operate between 6 and 15 kHz. at 3 kv to 5 kV rectified square wave pulses. This appears to be what his conversion components needed to do their Thing. This construction may not be as bad as it seems since he used an "E" form which lends itself to home-brew work.

Well time will tell.

Mark McKay
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2706  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:25 AM
Spokane1 Spokane1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 356
The Shocking Experiance

Quote:
Originally Posted by jake View Post
Something like this?
Tesla Stinging Impulse Rays

Post 22 I posted a schematic for an interesting event that happened to me once.
Dear Jake,

Your experiance is not all the uncommon. I have heard other reports about people who get zapped like this and then it never happens again with the same circuit.

I would suspect that you have hit upon a fundamental property of this proposed process. The dielectric (perhaps the wire insulation) will generate one pulse of this anomalous "something" then become saturated in the one polarity and not do it again for a long time if ever.

The design of the E.V. Gray converter suggests that some kind of "push-pull" action is required. The wiring of the "Floating Flux Field" is such that when the positive pulses are applied they enter the "FFF" coil at the opposite ends. IF the square wave pulses are applied out of phase then the electric field between the coil conductors will alternate and thus stress the dielectric 180 degrees every other cycle. Such action may just reset the structure of the material to be able to generate another shot of this wonderful "something".

Apparently you can do this pretty quickly if the applied pulses are between 6 kHz and 15 khz.

Thanks for sharing your experiance. In this business these little clues can add up.

Mark McKay
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2707  
Old 07-11-2012, 02:49 AM
Spokane1 Spokane1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 356
Flyback Charging Circuit

Dear geotron,

What comes out of your capacitor after it is charged to 1 kV?

I know this is a tough question if you are not set up to measure it. But this question is central to this technology.

I'm using opposing coils salvaged from some commercial school clocks. The motor coils are 5/8 thick by 1-1/2" in diameter. They run about 900 Ohms DC so there is a lot of fine wire wound on that little bobbin. Never the less the price was right.

I have these two coils wired in parallel with a 1/2" x 18" plastic rod going through the center of them. I have a 5 uf 5kV capacitor that I change with either the output of my latest conveter circuit -OR- the output of my Fluke #508 500 watt 5kV regulated power supply (tube). A 120 VAC contactor connects the capacitor to the opposing coils. I then compare the jumping height of the opposing coils with the converter output then again with the classical output of the power supply. So far I have not noticed any differance with any of the circuits that I have tested in the past.

I'm looking for a difference in acheived height of at least 10%. By rights if a converter circuit were to generate 100% of this anomalous "something" then the little poiing coil should fly right off the support rod and put a noticable dent in the ceiling. So far this hasn't happened.

We are pretty sure that the anomalous "something" could be measured with an Analog Meter, specifically a Tripplett Model #630 using the 5 kV tap. This was a several meg ohm resistor tied directly to the 50 microamp meter movement. Who knows if that setup was reading the "something" or just classical electron contamination. Most likely it was a mixture of both.

You may really be on to something if what is collected in your storage capacitor displays some non-classical behaviour.

My popping coil approach is probably not the only method to check for the anomalous "something". If you come up with another idea, I'm sure we all would like to hear about it.

Mark Mckay
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2708  
Old 07-11-2012, 07:17 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spokane1 View Post
Any thoughts?

Mark McKay
Dear Mark,

I think the most fundamental issue to understanding all these kinds of OU systems is to be found in the understanding of the role the aether itself plays within all these phenomena.

First of all, in essence electrons and atom nuclei ARE some kind of localized EM wave themselves, because of the wave particle duality principle. So, *all* physical phenomena we know ARE interactions of E(M) wave phenomena one way or the other. So, at some point, the idea that even normal currents are in essence the movements of charge carriers, electrons, is no longer valid.

Let's first take a brief look at quantum mechanics. The basis of that lies in the explanation of the famous double slit experiment, which shows the wave particle duality principle. That is perhaps the most fundamental principle of physics. Particles ARE some kind of E(M) wave phenomenon.

However, where things went wrong is when the idea was formulated that a single electron changing it's orbit around an atom nucleus is capable of emitting a photon, an EM wavelet, with a wavelength thousands of times longer than the radius of an atom. From that idea, you get the situation that light emitted from a light source, such as an ionized gas, would be a bunch of photons, each with a random phase because the electrons are supposed to fall back in orbit at *random* moments. That cannot be, because then you would get a (large) number of EM wavelets at your double slits with *random* phase thus canceling out. Therefore, the concept of electrons changing orbits randomly has to go. It is untenable.

Further experiments with this double split principle, show that you can have "single" photons or even electrons that produce an interference pattern, whereby a single photon or electron appears at one of the maxima in your interference pattern, which leads to the crazy concepts that particles supposedly can exist at multiple places at the same time, etc. All those ideas have to go.

What really happens, IMHO, is that you simply have three separate wave propagation modes that give rise to these phenomena, whereby the longitudinal mode has been overlooked:

1. longitudinal mode;
2. classic transverse EM mode, at the boundary of two media with different "density";
3. vortexes - an EM mode running around in circles.

It is these vortex structures we call particles, which may look something like this:


What is very important to understand is that these vortex based localized EM wave phenomena cannot interfere as the other wave modes can, because there is a resulting rotational force, the "magnetic" moment, which drives the "particles" away from one another, unless you bump them on to one another with large velocities, such as they like to play with in CERN.

In other words: as long as the wave phenomena we are talking about are in their vortex-based propagation mode, you cannot get interference.

That means that the double split experiment *must* be a longitudinal phenomenon and therefore what happens at the tiny slits is that the propagation mode changes from "particle mode" to "longitudinal mode".

And now to the point: Because one is able to detect single photons or electrons in the double split experiment, which IS a longitudinal interference phenomenon, it is clear that electrons and photons *can* be "created" by longitudinal waves.

In other words: under the right circumstances, the propagation mode can change from longitudinal to "vortex based", whereby it appears that an electron or photon interferes with itself and can be at multiple "places" at the same time and then an "observation" influences where it actually "locks" into reality or something. In reality, it is simply a matter of a number of changes in propagation mode of a wave phenomena, whereby one mode is "invisible", because we don't even bother trying to measure them because we think they can't exist because of a fundamental error was made in the Maxwell equations. (see my Einstein article).

To sum this up: particles can flip in propagation mode from "particle" to "longitudinal", whereby in "particle / vortex" mode you have the particle characteristics, while in longitudinal mode you have the wave characteristics giving rise to the wave particle duality principle.

This principle is needed in order to explain not only "quantum" electron tunneling effects, but also in order to really explain the MIT experiment.

Now that we have ditched the idea that electrons randomly change their orbits in order to emit photons, it is clear that the mechanism whereby light is emitted from a light source must be a resonance phenomenon, whereby indeed the electrons do change orbit, BUT they do so in a deterministic manner. All these tiny "resonators" are locked in phase and that way you sort of get an antenna array, so you do not get a single electron orbit transition emitting a single photon, but an array of lots of electron orbit transitions locked in phase emitting a continues stream of EM energy, just like with a normal RF antenna. The only difference is that with normal RF radiation the movements of the electrons are different. With normal RF radiation, you get electrons jumping from one atom nucleus to the next, while with light emission you get electrons changing orbit around a single nucleus. BUT the movements are locked in phase and deterministic. It is lots of small movements adding up because of RESONANCE.

In other words: what we are looking at, are longitudinal resonance phenoma taking place within some material, either emitting RF waves or light waves, whereby at some distance of the material you get a mode transition from "longitudinal" within the material, to a classic transverse mode at the surface (border) of the material, which on its turn transits into "particle" mode emission of "photons". The latter mode transition is what we know as "near field" vs. "far field" in RF engineering:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post

So, in essence, Tesla did not realise that there was such a thing as a near field and a far field. And actually, modern science literally makes "things" known as "virtual photons" up in order to hide the fact that they don't have the slightest idea what they are really talking about:

Quote:
In the quantum view of electromagnetic interactions, far field effects are manifestations of real photons, while near field effects are due to a mixture of real and virtual photons. Virtual photons composing near-field fluctuations and signals, have effects which are far shorter range than do real photons.
Yes, that's what it says. Near field effects are due to a mixture of something real and something completely made up aka "virtual", which is literally another word for "imaginary" or "not real".

Update: Prof. Meyl shows this very nicely in his "Wireless Tesla Transponder":
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Mat...ransponder.pdf

Quote:
In the text books one finds the detachment of a wave from the dipole accordingly explained. If we regard the structure of the outgoing fields, then we see field vortices, which run around one point, which we can call vortex center. We continue to recognize in the picture, how the generated field structures establish a shock wave, as one vortex knocks against the next [see Tesla: 1].
Thus a Hertzian dipole doesn’t emit Hertzian waves! An antenna as near-field without exception emits vortices, which only at the transition to the far-field unwind to electromagnetic waves.
However, the accompaning explanation sucks, because IMHO the far-field actually consists of vortices, "particles" with that mysterious wave-particle duality, so he may have to re-do some of his homework.
All right.

Now it is clear that light emission (in the infrared spectrum) is a process that occurs readily in all kinds of materials, which is measured as heat or temperature. Now of course, there is no reason why you could not have "electron" emission along the same principles. After all, it's in essence a matter of a transition of a longitudinal wave phenomenon inside a material into a different propagation mode, whereby vortexes appear.

In other words: the whole concept of charge being tied to electrons and that you have to count the electrons in order to determine the "charge" on a capacitor is a simplification that is no longer valid in the study of the phenomena we are researching. To put it in the words of Steinmetz once again:

Quote:
"Unfortunately, to a large extent in dealing with the dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electrostatic charge on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and the dielectric, and makes the consideration ot dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated. There obviously is no more sense in thinking of the capacity current as current which charges the conductor with a quantity of electricity, than there is of speaking of the inductance voltage as charging the conductor with a quantity of magnetism. But while the latter conception, together with the notion of a quantity of magnetism, etc., has vanished since Faraday's representation of the magnetic field by the lines of magnetic force, the terminology of electrostatics of many textbooks still speaks of electrostatic charges on the conductor, and the energy stored by them, without considering that the dielectric energy is not on the surface of the conductor, but in the space outside of the conductor, just as the magnetic energy."
Break. More to follow.
Reply With Quote
  #2709  
Old 07-11-2012, 07:45 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spokane1 View Post
However, what ever was done to charge the capacitor, be it an exotic wave form or a Whimhurst Machine, it still appears that what comes back out of the capacitor (even if it is OU) is still the same ather that causes classical electron flow that we preceive and measure as magnetic fields and current.

This is not the historical case with the E.V. Gray technology. Whatever came back out of his storage capacitors created magnetic fields two to three orders of magnitude greater than what could be stored in the capacitor with classical electrostatic charge alone (or aether). It is highly unlikely that this output was just a huge increase in this same classical charge (or aether). If that much classical energy were applied directly to the engine coils they most likely woud have exploded like an exploding wire experiment. So there was something vastly different about the energy that was harvested and how it interacted with inductive loads.

All right. What we are apparently looking at with a "polarized" dielectric, is a spacial structure, wherein a number of super-imposed longitudinal resonance phenomena take place. One of the things this emits is light in the infrared or higher wavelength range, depending on the temperature of the material. In semiconductors, such as an LED, one can disrupt the balance within the spacial structure, so it emits light in the visible range once applying an electric field.

Given the MIT experiment, a polarized dielectric is apparently capable of emitting and absorbing "light" in the range of the wavelength we associate with electrons.

In other words: there is no actual "storage" of electrons. What there is, is the emission and absorption of E(M) waves, which transit from one propagation mode into another at the boundary between the dielectric and the metal. So, you actually get "creation" of electrons at one boundary and "destruction" / absorption at the other boundary, which are nothing more and nothing less then a transition of the propagation mode of an E(M) wave from "vortex/particle mode" into "transverse mode" into "longitudinal mode".

Within the material, you have a longitudinal resonance mode, at the boundary you have the classic transverse mode and further away from the surface (of a conductor), you get the transition of transverse mode into vortex/particle mode. In other words: the heating of a filament in an amplifier tube does not "rip" electrons out of the material. It comes in such a resonance mode that it actually "creates" electrons and emits them into free space.

Interesting effects occur when a sudden change in the configuration of an electric circuit occurs, such as the firing of a spark gap. These are what Steinmetz called "transient phenomena":

"Theory and calculation of transient electric phenomena and oscillations"
Theory and calculation of transient electric phenomena and oscillations : Steinmetz, Charles Proteus, 1865-1923 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Quote:
The characteristic of all these phenomena is that they are transient functions of the independent variable, time or distance, that is, decrease with increasing value of the independent variable, gradually or in an oscillatory manner, to zero at infinity, while the functions representing the steady flow of electric energy are constants or periodic functions.

While thus the phenomena of alternating currents are represented by the periodic function, the sine wave and its higher harmonics or overtones, most of the transient phenomena lead to a function which is the product of exponential and trigonometric terms, and may be called an oscillating function, and its overtones or higher harmonics.

A second variable, distance, also enters into many of these phenomena; and while the theory of alternating-current apparatus and phenomena usually has to deal only with functions of one independent variable, time, which variable is eliminated by the introduction , of the complex quantity, in this volume we have frequently to deal with functions of time and of distance. We thus have to consider alternating functions and transient functions of time and of distance.
It is these transient phenomena, whereby you get the propagation of some disturbance in the aether (the electric field) which propagates with a speed of pi/2 times c for a very short time, until it has propagated along your circuit and thus the balance between the internally resonating materials returns.

And it is this phenomena, this transient, this shockwave, which is an energy form that essentially gives rise to the classic (relatively) low-frequency phenomena we call currents, but which of itself is NOT a carried by particles (which are E(M) waves) BUT by the aether itself.

And it is that energy form that Tesla referred to as the wheelwork of nature...

In other words: there is a lot to be researched, but also quite a lot of knowledge is already there in the work of a/o Steinmetz.

And one thing is clear: the interesting phenomena we are after stick their head out of the mud with fast-switching "transients", which give an opportunity to use an energy flow that is NOT transported by particles but by the aether itself....

And what Gray essentially did, was to harnass this transient phenomena by turning it into a usable magnetic field. And we do have the formula by which that can be done:

Maxwell's equations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Ampère's law with Maxwell's correction states that magnetic fields can be generated in two ways: by electrical current (this was the original "Ampère's law") and by changing electric fields (this was "Maxwell's correction").
In other words: changing electric fields, "transients", CAN give rise to magnetic fields. And since we are talking about a) a huge change in voltage AND b) a propagation speed greater than c, we get an extreme dE/dt and thus the potential to create an extremely strong magnetic field.

The question is: how do you guide this transient such that you get a usable magnetic field?

As I stated before, there are quite a few things to take into account:

1) the push-pull principle, as demonstrated by Wheatstone, which suggests you need two coils in series.

2) the propagation of the transient along your coil.


One of the things is that the propagation of the transient along your coil may be improved by the use of a dielectric as a core, so you can guide the transient shockwave along your coil and perhaps create a situation that it rotates multiple times around your coil so that the "transient" maintains the magnetic field it creates for a longer time than in the order of nano-seconds or less.

Another idea may be that you can get the transient to come into "Schumann" resonance along the surface of your coil, which may be what we are able to do with, again, the use of a dielectric core.

Last edited by lamare; 07-11-2012 at 07:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2710  
Old 07-11-2012, 08:36 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spokane1 View Post

In 1974 it appears that Richard Hackenberger upgraded the FFF from single turns of a large conductor (between 0.500" and 0.750" in diameter) to 2 or 3 turns of a smaller cable (0.250" to 0.375" in diameter). It is unlikely that he took the time to custom cast these longer custom cables with designer dielectrics. So there is more historical evidence for commercial cables being used all along.
This also points in the direction of getting a transient creating an extreme dE/dt, as is also used by Tesla as the primary of his TMT. Dollard says it needs to be one turn of shield copper IIRC. See a/o page 7:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_..._Coils_OCR.pdf


What happens with the TMT primary is that it is put in resonance, using the negative resistance area of a spark gap in order to amplify the oscillation of/in the primary. And since that is not a nice harmonic, but a spike with a fast rising edge and a relatively slow falling edge, one can apparently get a single turn coil into a resonance mode, whereby actually this transient phenomena is kept alive and not only that, it is kept in resonance for some time.

What happens when you use dielectric coated or filled conductor, such as a coax cable, is that the propagation speed of the transient becomes substantially slower. And another effect may be that the transient is being contained in a much smaller volume, preventing inter-turn interference.

That way, you may be able to a) use multiple turns without problems and b) work at considerably lower resonance frequency.

I have quickly looked a bit up about this FFF, and it is interesting that we see two coils:

Evolution of the E.V. Gray Circuit Topology -- by Mark McKay


That suggests that this is needed because of the pull-push principle discussed before, especially since the +/- appear to be wired such that they would oppose one another with normal currents.


All this points in the direction that you need two coils in series because of the push-pull principle, which are put into "transient" resonance using a spark gap in it's negative resistance mode of operation, such that the waveform propagating along your coils has the characteristics of a spike with a sharp rising edge and a soft dropping edge.

Update:

Let's look at the schematic:



It looks like there is a magnetic coupling (circuit) between the core of the floating flux field coils and the coils being activated on the rotor, whereby there is a closed magnetic loop.

Since the FFF coil would be the oscillating coil, which determines the oscillation frequency of the transient, and there is a spark gap in series with both coils, it appears as though the transient oscillation may arise because the self-capacitance of the stator/rotor coils acts as the capacitor needed for the transient oscillation to occur. So you then have the (relatively LF, long) FFF coil in series with a spark gap and the stator/rotor coil(s), which for the transient do not really act as coils, but as (inter turn) capacitors.

The magnetic field is created by the FFF coils during the transient, whereby the discharge of caps 25/26 as a normal current trough the spark gaps and the stator/rotor coils occurs in resonance with the transient from the FFF coil, because of the magnetic coupling between all the coils along a closed magnetic loop. And that normal current is probably necessary in order to get and keep the spark gap into it's negative resistance mode of operation...

In other words, we may be looking at:

1) initial phase: spark gap snaps, voltage difference between the FF and stator/rotot coils, transient oscillation between FFF coil in series with spark gap and self capacitance of stator/rotor coils.

2) (pulsed) magnetic field created by FFF induces normal oscillating, pulsed "spiking" current in stator/rotor coils, because of closed magnetic loop, whereby the normal discharge of caps 25/26 trough the spark gap and the rotor coils, which is in phase with the FFF coil, keeps the transient phenomena of the FFF coil alive and in oscillation, until the caps 25/26 are discharged normally trough the rotor coils.

And since the spark gap is in series with both the FFF and rotor/stator coils, you get a superposition of the transient oscillation signal of the FFF coil and the normal oscillating from the discharge of the capacitor in the rotor/stator coils.

So you keep the transient signal alive using a resonating normal current by the discharge of caps 25/26 trough the same spark gaps trough your rotor/stator coils.


To put it another way: the transient oscillation of the FFF coil is amplified by the magnetic coupling between the FFF coil and stator/rotor coils, which is kept alive for some time by the pulsed discharging of caps 25/26 trough the spark gap and stator/rotor coils IN PHASE with the transient oscillation in the FFF coils....

Or would that bee too far fetched?

Update 2: If we are to believe Magratten (see post below), then the position of spark gaps 29/30 and coils 27/28 should be reversed....



In that case, you get a reason for putting a "major" and a "minor" coil in series.... And then, your FFF coils would simply be delay lines, in order to prevent the shockwave from reaching your coils trough the frame ground connection too early...

And that is also what the patent says (above article by Mark):
Quote:
There is not much written about the “Floating Flux Field”. The patent 3,890,548 text states:

“The rectified unidirectional pulsating output of each of the diodes in converter 38 is passed through coil 23, 24 thus forming a harness 37 wound about the case of the engine, as hereafter described, which is believed to provide a static floating flux field. The outputs from delay lines 37 drive respective capacitors in banks 39 to charge the capacitors there in to a relatively high charge potential”

Further on in the patent text we read:

“Around the central outer surface of housing 50 are wound a number of turns of wire 23, 24 to provide a static flux coil 114 as herein before described, which is a delay line as previously described.”

This is all that was disclosed in patent 3,890,548. It is interesting to note that this novel component was not even listed in the multiple claims detailed at the end of the patent text. Who knows what the term “Static Floating Flux Field” meant, but it is certain, from the operation of this device, the field was anything but “static”.

Note that Magratten's step-up transformer is NOT connected to frame ground...

So, I guess the above was a bit too far fetched indeed.


Update 3: And if indeed one of the oppozing shockwaves energizes the coil in the opposit direction as the normal current, then you have a reason for the major/minor coils being unequal. In that case, one would guess the major/minor coils to have an equal length of coil wire, but a different number of windings. That way, you could create a situation that the shockwaves add up and strengthen one another, while the normal current can only partially oppoze the preciously built up magnetic field.

However, that is speculation....

Last edited by lamare; 07-11-2012 at 08:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2711  
Old 07-11-2012, 11:49 AM
geotron geotron is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spokane1 View Post
I have these two coils wired in parallel with a 1/2" x 18" plastic rod going through the center of them.
Spokane1,

What would happen if you were to have the input to the second coil on a spark gap to the output of the first one? When the energy is passing over the gap it could also pass over the cathode of a hi-voltage diode blocking it from reaching the anode of a motor capacitor. This capacitor could have its cathode at the output side of the second coil.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2712  
Old 07-11-2012, 05:54 PM
Wicaksono Wicaksono is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 46
high frequency NST

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spokane1 View Post
NST's will probably be able to demonstrate some kinds of weak effects, but I think their overall use will be limited. Thier internal magnetic shunt design used for current limitation is a real drag on effective energy conversion. Just when you need the voltage their current output drops like a stone.
Yes, what I mean with HF neon sign power supply is actually a NST, but since it is not only a transformer (it has DC input & switching transistor, just like the one you have) then I prefer to use the word power supply. And I know what you mean about current limited NST will only make weak effects, if it is connected between strobe lamp electrodes. But actually my setup is a little different, the NST is connected between an electrode and the trigger grid. By this way, the current is minuscule because the lamp glass acts as insulator. You can check this for yourself if you have a strobe lamp connected to your NST. By the way, what is the frequency output of your NST ?

Wicaksono
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2713  
Old 07-11-2012, 06:28 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Magratten patent

Gary Magratten published a patent for a device which is derived from Gray technology:

Electron avalanche drive circuit - Magratten, Gary J.
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Gray/...0110188278.pdf

This may give some further clues...

Quote:
Edwin V. Gray employed a high voltage spark gap exposed to open air in his U.S. Pat. No. 3,890,548 entitled, Pulsed Capacitor Discharge Electric Engine issued Jun. 17, 1975. The purpose of the spark gap was to provide accurate timing for the discharge of capacitors. At the time, those skilled in the art were unaware that electron avalanche, as developed in a high voltage spark gap exposed to open air, could increase the current to the inductive load. Carefull examination of the placement of the spark gap in the patent drawings show the spark gap after the inductive load rather that before it. This prevented additional current from electron avalanche from being employed to the inductive load.

At present there is no known electric power drive circuit operated on the principle of electron avalanche as developed in a spark gap exposed to open air in order to increase the current delivered to the load. The employment of electron avalanche as developed in a high voltage spark gap exposed to open air for the delivery of additional current to an inductive load is unobvious to all skilled in the art. The result achieved by the employment of the invention for the delivery of increased current to the inductive load is new, unexpected and superior to all prior art.

The prior art referenced were inoperative in that they did not employ electron avalanche in a practical way for the delivery of increased current to the load. The prior art referenced were also inoperative in that they were impossible to succesfully be reconstructed. Another novel mechanism associated with the invention is the use of a high speed, unidirectional switching system to release the additional current developed by electron avalanche from the main circuit.
Update:

Given Magrattens track record, I would guess that the "preferred embodiment" and fig 3 (power from mains) has indeed been tested and actually worked, while fig 2 (Electron Avalanche Drive Circuit with a resistive heating element load) may very well be an educated guess and/or an intentional red herring. Fig 3:



The principle appears to be to have a high voltage cap discharged trough a spark gap to the inductive load, triggered by a commutator (312), while there is a step-down transformer in series with the main (oscillating?) coil (close to the spark gap) which function is to steer a (fast switching) relay in order to dump some normal current to ground. Note that the step-down transformer is at the opposite side from the spark gap to the inductive load.

Why no details on the inductive load??
Why the dumping of current to ground??

We can find some more clues in this 2011 article, apparently a *working* prototype:
PEMM Motor Harnesses Anti-matter and Electron-Avalanche


Quote:
The capacitor is pulsed by the commutator. This occurs when the rotor electromagnet is approximately two degrees or one fourth inch past the stator. At this position the electrodes align with a high voltage potential. This allows a spark to jump the gap from the cathode (negative pole) to the anode (positive pole) through atmosphere. It is during this moment that a couple of very unique phenomena take place that allow for the circuit to increase in current and voltage -- hence an increase in total power. This increase in total power (beyond what was provided by the battery) is one feature that makes this motor unique.

The motor connected to this circuit is composed of multiple stator and rotor electromagnets. No permanent magnets are used. Currently, the electromagnets use silicon steel laminations as core material. It is hoped in the future that supermalloy, permalloy, or mumetal will be used for the cores. The increased permeability of these materials could allow for even more torque to be produced in this already high torque motor.
Note that his patent was filed in feb 2010.

Interesting:

Silicon Steel for Laminations

Quote:
Silicon Steel (Electrical Steel)

When low carbon steel is alloyed with small quantities of silicon, the added volume resistivity helps to reduce eddy current losses in the core. Silicon steels are probably of the most use to designers of motion control products where the additional cost is justified by the increased performance. These steels are available in an array of grades and thicknesses so that the material may be tailored for various applications. The added silicon has a marked impact on the life of stamping tooling, and the surface insulation selected also affects die life. Silicon steels are generally specified and selected on the basis of allowable core loss in watts/lb.
Another interesting detail from pes article:

Quote:
Immediately after the spark crosses the gap between electrodes, the stator and rotor electromagnets fire and produce a repulsive force. However, when the pulses cease, the magnetic field rapidly starts to collapse and reverse polarity. This is due to the concept of "Back EMF." Due to the fact both stator and electromagnets are both experiencing this effect at the same time (in phase with each other) an additional repulsive force is created. For example, if the pulse initially created a condition in which both stator and rotor electromagnet had a "north" pole facing each other after the field collapse they would both have a "south" facing pole. This effect produces additional torque the system can utilize.
A rather curious understanding of Back EMF. Yes, there is a change of polarity of the *voltage* but NOT of the magnetic field. Back EMF is the *collapsing* of the magnetic field, not a reversal of magnetic polarization!

All right. Now some educated guesses.

First of all, the length of the coil wire in the primary (HV side) of the step down transformer 318 is probably considerably longer than the length of the coil wire in the "inductive load".

At the moment the spark gap fires, both coils 316 and 318 are at high potential.

Now when the spark gap fires, you get a transient shockwave exiting both sides of the spark gap simultaneously, in the OPPOSITE direction, which propagate along the circuit, guided by the conductors, Steinmetz' transient phenomenon. In the case when you do not use a step down transformer, but you have two identical coils in series, these shockwaves are apparently capable of energizing the coils in opposite directions, because the delay along the wires and HV cap can be neglected. And if the coils are identical, the oppozing shockwaves meet nicely in the middle canceling one another out and thus restoring the balance of the aether. This process happens within the order of nanoseconds, after which the normal discharge occurs, strengthening the already energized coils.

In the case you have a single coil as inductive load, the oppozing shockwave reaches the terminal on the opposite side of the spark gap almost instantly and then the party is over. However, when you put a step down transformer with a long primary in the line, then the primary of the step down transformer acts as a delay line, so then the shockwave can energize your inductive load before the opposite shockwave reaches the other terminal of your inductive load, which it probably never does, because if the primary is indeed long enough, the shockwaves will meet somewhere within the primary of the step down transformer.

Once the coil is energized by means of both the shockwave AND the normal discharge, you get the back EMF. And that is the one that is dumped to ground using the fast switching relay, which can be a semiconductor according to the patent.

Last edited by lamare; 07-11-2012 at 08:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2714  
Old 07-16-2012, 06:45 PM
Spokane1 Spokane1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 356
Gary Magratten's Work

Dear lamare,

That certainly is a nice write up on Gary's past work. I suppose it took you several hours to compose all that technical writing.

I was wondering if your commentary included Gary's most recent work? Just before the conference Gary sent me a large envelope and some large 8"x10" color photos of his latest exploration. Did you happen to get a copy of that report?

Mark McKay
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2715  
Old 07-16-2012, 07:43 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spokane1 View Post
Dear lamare,

That certainly is a nice write up on Gary's past work. I suppose it took you several hours to compose all that technical writing.

I was wondering if your commentary included Gary's most recent work? Just before the conference Gary sent me a large envelope and some large 8"x10" color photos of his latest exploration. Did you happen to get a copy of that report?

Mark McKay
Nope, don't have that. Would be nice if it could be published, but even if it cannot be published I would love to have it.

However, we may find some more clues in the system currently being disclosed by UfoPolitics on his thread. I commented some over there, and the idea of creating a disbalance in an asymmetric system is intriguing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Oh!, I have a great present here for you all to have lots of fun with...Well "presents for some...and kind of "Head Aches" for some Classic Symmetrical Physics "Experts"...



<snip>

So... it should not turn Right Lamar?...However, it DOES!...and AWESOME!!

Now, why do you think that Happens Lamar?...If "supposedly" this Coils-Inductors "never" change their polarity??!!...
<snip>

All right. What you are looking at in this picture is that N2 and N3 are not activated from the battery. Therefore, their polarity is being determined by the permanent magnet. In other words: N2 is S (induced by the N of the PM) and N3 is N (induced by the S of the PM).

In the current position of the rotor, in the case there would be no current flowing trough the N1 coil, N1 would be neutral in the centre, while you would have an S at the left (induced by the N of the PM at the left) and a N at the right (induced by the S of the PM at the right). In that case, most of the magnetic fieldlines would go trough N2 and N3, and some trough the top of N1.

The firing of N1 makes it a N, which is attracked by the S of the PM, and the closer it gets to the magnet, the stronger the N becomes, because the PM amplifies the pole already induced by the coil, because iron is being attracted by a magnet, by which process the iron gets magnetized by the PM by magnetic induction.

That is all the pretty much like with a normal motor.

Now I realize that the big difference is that N2 and N3 are also connected to a brush on the commutator, most notably during that part of the cycle where the pole moves in/out of the PM, causing a collapsing or building of a magnetic field in the core within the coil, which normally induces a high voltage in the coil, which gives a spark in normal motors.

And THAT is the problem with a normal motor, a problem that has been overlooked by everyone.

You see, the problem with a sparking coil is that you get very powerful phenomena taking place, which Steinmetz called "transients" about which he wrote a whole book:
Theory and calculation of transient electric phenomena and oscillations : Steinmetz, Charles Proteus, 1865-1923 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

And you only need to look at Edwin Gray's motor, which somehow harnassed these powerful transients by discharging a HV cap trough a spark gap into his coils, to realize that unwanted/uncontrolled sparks are a big headache in motors with coils. They generate much more powerfull (negative) effects than is being realized.

Now because your coils are connected to your generator brushes during that part of the cycle where the pole moves out of reach of the PM, you don't get these sparks and thus do not get these very powerfull transients that ruin the party in normally wired motors.

If this is correct, then I would say that you will not be able to have the motor power itself just by using the generator windings to re-charge your batteries. BUT you have all the torque on the shaft which you can use almost for free, so if you connect a separate generator to the shaft, you may very well be able to create a self-runner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
Yes, that is about the idea. It is very hard to connect al the dots theoretically, but I see a certain analogy with Milkovic' pendulum:

Veljko Milkovic - Home Page - Official presentation of the researcher and inventor Veljko Milkovic

I appears to me that the way UFO is working, is indeed much more like working with the already present field of the permanent magnet, instead of fighting it frontally.

Just like with Milkovic' pendulum, you are fiddling with the balance of the system, which enables you to extract energy out of a "DC" field, either a permanent magnetic field or the gravity field in Milkovic' case.

I suspect that when you analyze this completely trough, it can somehow be seen as "parameter variation", whereby you vary some aspect of a system by which you introduce asymmetry. This means that you have an oscillating system (rotation is one form of oscillation) whereby you change a parameter, like for example the inductance or capacitance of the oscillator or in the case of Milovic the length of the long arm.

The idea is then that the changing of that parameter takes you very little energy, while it introduces a disbalance in the oscillator which enables the oscillator to pick up energy from the aether. That is what Bearden refers to as "regauging".

This has been theoretically described in Russian by Mandelstam and Papalexi in the 1930s, a/o referred to by Dollard, which has been recently translated:

Directory contents of /pdf/Reference_Material/Mandelstam_Papalexi/

In the case of these motors, you have a rotor which is asymmetric. Since the field of the PM is DC, but it is a dynamic force, it looks like you influence the path the field of the PM takes by means of firing a coil on the rotor.

As far as I can tell, there is one pole that is (almost) completely within the PM, while there are two that are in a process of magnetizing/demagnetizing because of leaving/entering the PM. Since the PM is DC and there is one pole (almost) completely within the PM's influence, the magnetizing/demagnetizing of the other poles must be (largely) in balance.

Now since you influence this balance by the firing of the coil and the PM is DC, it appears you can see that influencing as some parameter change indeed. You could perhaps see it as akin to lowering the "magnetic resistance" of the pole you want to be attacked by the PM.

So, I do see some theoritical basis on why this system could be COP > 1, but I doubt if you will be able to make it self running just on the generator windings alone. Because if indeed the working principle is parameter change, then all the energy you can get back from the generator winding is the energy spent on changing the parameter, the "magnetic conductivity" of one of the poles.

However, that pole is rotating within a magnetic field of the PM, which makes things very complicated. So, there are also arguments that the rotator coils could pick up some energy from that field. However, if the motor is properly constructed, the idea is that most of the magnetic force is turned into useable torque.

To sum this up: I do see some very interesting possibilities that this design might cause a revolution, but practice will have to tell. Theory can only get you so far....
Break - more to follow.

Last edited by lamare; 07-18-2012 at 07:08 PM. Reason: image recovered.
Reply With Quote
  #2716  
Old 07-16-2012, 08:23 PM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamare View Post
The most fundamental issue regarding all seemingly OU systems is that there MUST be at least TWO separate energy flows, whereby one flow comes for free and the other one is used to influence the energy flow that comes for free. The law of conservation of energy is a fundamental one and it does hold.

So, in whatever machine is created that appears to generate energy out of nothing, there is an energy source that is being tapped.

One of the most simple free energy system are the commercially available heat pumps, which are used to extract heat out of the earth. The trick is that it takes less energy to operate the energy pump than the amount of energy which is extracted in the form of heat out of the earth.

For electro-magnetic systems, the interesting fact described by Prof. Turtur ( http://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/turtur1e.pdf ) is that both the electrostatic and magnetic fields are powered by charge carriers, electrons in practice, which convert energy out of the medium into these fields. So, there you have your energy source. Both the magnetic and electric fields can be considered to be energy sources, because they are powered by the medium or the vacuum in Bearden's terms.

Now in a closed electric system, there is a fixed amount of electrons (even though these can probably be created at will, which appears to actually happen in the heated element of a radio tube, but that's another story), which means that however you let these electrons flow in/out your battery, you can never gain energy, unless you manage to tap it from some other energy source.

So, as long as you keep thinking in terms of charging/discharging coil (windings) as isolated systems, there ain't no way you can account for any surplus energy. And that is the reason I said your witch sucked.

However, when you have two separate energy flows, you can use one energy flow to influence the other, without paying for that in terms of energy, except for some losses. And since mother nature always strives to return balance, all you need to do is bring a dynamic balanced system out of balance in order for some energy flow to do useful work.

The bad news is that this will always cost you some energy, but as long as at the end of the line you manage to get more energy back from mother nature as the energy you have to spend in order to get it, all is nice and well.


Quote:
I still see that You are looking at my System as a "Handicap" by Permanent Magnet Stators "Limited" use, as the "Only Way Out" / Not Scalable"...System...
It definitely helps a lot to start studying a system with a PM stator, because then you know that the PM field does not vary (much) in strength, which makes it possible to recognize that there are two interacting magnetic fields. One created by your stator and one by your rotor coils.

However, the principle that a magnetic field can be amplified and guided by an iron core also applies to electro-magnetic stators. If they are D.C., then the same line of reasoning still applies. If they are A.C., things get more complicated, but if a large part of the magnetic field trough the rotor originates from the stator magnets and it is to a large degree only re-directed from one pole to the next by your rotor coil, then the energy flows can probably still be considered to be separate to a large degree.

However, there are still a lot of questions about how magnetic fields behave in an iron core. Leedskalnin's perpetual motion holder demonstrates that even when the coil around a closed-loop iron core is being disconnected from a battery, the magnetism can remain inside the core.

Edward Leedskalnin's Perpetual Motion Holder
Quote:
Researchers have continued to be interested in this device because it defies natural laws of physics and is unexplainable by conventionally excepted electromagnetic theory.
And in one of his lectures (iirc together with Carlson), Eric Dollard shows that we still do not really understand how a transformer actually works. If the magnetic field stays within the core, how can it influence a coil wrapped around it?

It appears to me that the answer is to be found once again in balance v.s. disbalance. I suspect that the magnetic field inside an iron core only interacts with it's environment (like a coil) when there is some disbalance being introduced, either by a coil or by ripping the iron core apart, such as in the Leedskalnin experiment.
What is very interesting in relation to Ufo's work is that there is also asymmetry in Gray's motor design:

US Patent 3,890,548 Edwin Gray "Pulsed Capacitor Discharge Electric Engine"
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Patents/Gray/...US3890548A.pdf


At first glance, it looks like the asymmetry is in the 3 pole rotor, but here you do not have a more or less continuous path for the magnetic field to follow trough the rotor.

However, the magnetic field must go somewhere and tends to establish a closed loop. It appears that mother nature does us a favor under certain conditions, which is that a magnetic field is amplified by an iron core, because charge carriers do extract energy from the aether and emit that in the shape of a magnetic field. So, it appears that we have a principle by which to extract energy from the aether by means of the establishment of a closed magnetic loop.

On the rotor there are two sets of magnets in line, which both consist of a major and a minor magnet.

One could guess that these sets are fired in the opposite polarity and thus a magnetic field can establish itself inside the rotor, along the length of the rotor.

The question is: how are the major and minor magnets fired with respect to one another and at what moment in the cycle are they fired?

Another question is: could it be that we are looking at the superposition of a D.C., quasi permanent, attracting magnetic field, which is disturbed at the moment the coils fire?

Update: According to the patent description, the major and minor coils are fired independently, and always either the major or the minor coils, at the moments they face one another. So there goes my theory of major/minor coils having something to do with Wheatstone's delay of a high-speed pulse....

Update 2: It appears that if the minor coils fire at 13 1/3 degrees from the top position in the figure, that it may possibly induce an attracting force between the major cores 120a and 121. Have to think about this further, because you also have the pairs along the length section. One would expect mother nature to find the shortest closed loops that it can find, so it can create attracting forces....

Update 3: The degrees at which the coils fire are visible in the figure. It appears as though the minor coils are producing distracting "pushing" forces because they are fired while the cores face one another directly, while the major coils produce an attracting force, because these are not directly over one another at 26 2/3 degrees.

If that is correct, the power is developed by the major attracting coils, while the minor coils are meant to push the rotor over the dead points, whereby the energy spend in the minor coils is mostly losses (except if they indeed already pre-magnetize the major coils), while the major coils can show a gain along the principle extrapolated from Leedskalnin's experiment (see below). If that is correct, one would expect the major coils to be somehow discharged/demagnetized at around 40 degrees in the cycle.

The latter is possible, because if the major coil fires at the point the major coils enter contact, you get a build up of magnetic force in some closed loop, until the major coils face one another completely. From that moment, the field starts collapsing, producing a BEMF, which may generate a high voltage, which can be discharged trough a spark gap, so the attracting force is neutralized an cannot hinder the further rotation of the rotor. IIRC, there is an "overshoot" spark gap somewhere in the design...

From the figure, it appears as though the major an minor coils fire almost at the same time after all...

And if there is to be a closed magnetic loop trough the rotor, one would expect two of the major coils to have the same polarity, while one has an opposing polarity and/or the two sets of coils along the length direction having an opposite polarity. I would guess the latter to be the case....

Last edited by lamare; 07-17-2012 at 09:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2717  
Old 07-17-2012, 06:55 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Been thinking about Leedskalnin perpetual motion holder:

Edward Leedskalnin's Perpetual Motion Holder

This is very interesting. What this shows is that you can magnetize a closed loop magnetic core such that it remains magnetized even though you don't have to feed any current trough the coil anymore. Now if there is a sufficiently small gap in between rotor and stator, we should be able to create the same effect, albeit for a limited time. Say in the order of milli-seconds or seconds instead of hours or days - which is also limited of course, but you get the point.

If this is the principle, then you first of all want to establish as strong a magnetic field as possible, hence the pulsed high voltage and thus (short) high current discharge, and you want the core to maintain the field, which means you have to prevent the coil from sparking because of the BEMF.

Now if my suspicion is right in that a coil can only interact with a contracting or expanding magnetic field and a magnetic field can apparently be contained in a closed loop core, then there likely is a considerable difference in terms of BEMF reaction between a coil around a closed loop core and a coil around an open core.

An open core cannot contain a magnetic field and that means that when you shut of the current trough your coil, it MUST discharge it's magnetic energy and you get a spike.

A closed core can contain a (D.C.) magnetic field and thus it does NOT have to discharge it's energy. Hence when you shut of the current trough such a coil, you would expect the BEMF to be sufficiently weaker in magnitude, while it likely shows a damped oscillation meanwhile stabilizing the field inside the core, whereby the energy is contracted into the core.

Hence it is possible to magnetize a closed loop core, as long as you make sure the BEMF, which would show a damping oscillation, can not discharge electrically.

A sudden discharge of a cap into a coil trough a diode or transistor that is able to withstand the BEMF voltage would be all that is needed in order to create a semi-permanent magnetic field inside a closed loop core. Only once you rip the loop apart, you get a strong BEMF which MUST discharge and thus can create high voltages.

So, you would get a system that is Bedini-like but with a(n almost) closed core, only you can probably not use a diode to capture the BEMF, because during the build-up of the magnetic field the BEMF should not be allowed to discharge. It should only be allowed to discharge once ripping the loop open, which means you would probably need a transistor for that. One tends to think in the direction of a opto-coupler steered (relatively) heavy duty transistor instead of a diode.

Now the interesting thing is that such a semi-permanent magnetic field creates an attracting force across a small gap in between the parts of the looped core. The smaller the gap, the bigger the force and the less leakage. In other words: this principle allows you to create an attracting force, for which you don't have to pay in terms of energy, because once the loop is opened, you can retrieve most of the energy by capturing the BEMF pulse. Now this HAS to be an attracting force, because that is the only way by which you can contract a magnetic field into a closed loop core. So, it this is the principle indeed, there HAS to be a closed magnetic loop in the motor somewhere, which delivers the actual power, which is converted by the atoms that sustain the magnetic field in the core from energy that is already present in the aether a.k.a. the zero-point field, along the lines of Prof. Turtur's theory.

In order to investigate this phenomenon, one would take such a Leedskalnin core and investigate the difference between a closed core and a core with a small gap, like with a sheet of paper in between. One could also measure the attracting force using a piezo electric sensor:
Piezoelectric sensor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Update:

I also posted some on Ufo's thread on the connection of his stuff to Gray's stuff:

My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines
My Asymmetric Electrodynamic Machines

Last edited by lamare; 07-17-2012 at 08:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2718  
Old 07-20-2012, 08:05 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,224
Leedskalnin principle

The big question is whether or not it is possible to gain energy trough a closed magnetic loop according to the principle that a magnetic field can be locked inside an iron core.

This could be investigated with an iron core coil with a U shaped core and a top bar as Leedskalnin used:


The idea is that if you energize the coil with the bar in the position shown in the image and then disconnect the battery, that a magnetic field will be present within the looped core.

So, when you then connect a capacitor trough a diode and rip the bar off, this energy is discharged into the capacitor and you can measure a voltage. (Oops, I have drawn the diode in the wrong direction).

You can repeat the same experiment with the bar in the position whereby it is completely aligned with the U. In both cases one expects to see the same voltage on the capacitor.

However, there might be a significant difference if one energizes the coil with the bar in the shown position, then disconnect the battery and then gently move the bar to the right, until it is completely aligned with the U.

At that point, one connects the capacitor and rips the bar off the U, so you get a discharge. If my theory is correct, you should now see a significantly higher voltage.

The idea is that a closed loop iron core is able to pick up energy from the aether and that the magnetic field locked inside will be constant in magnitude along the closed loop. With the bar in the drawn position, there all the fluxlines are forced trough the small connection area between the bar and the U core, and will thus result in a stronger magnetic field than in the situation whereby the core is energized with the bar completely covering the U core.

Now if the core is able to pick up energy from the aether and it tends to maintain an already established magnetic field strength, then moving the bar over the U core should result in this stronger magnetic field being extended all trough the core, hence containing more energy.

So, if you would then rip the bar of and discharge the energy, you should see a bigger voltage on the cap if this theory is correct.

And if it is, we now have a principle which we can use to build COP>1 motors....

Update:

Peter Lindemann published a Rotary Attraction Motor that may be operated along this principle:
Energetic Science Ministries | Bob Teal | Magnipulsion


Rotary Attraction Motor Update



The idea would then be to (strongly pulse) magnetize the coil at the moment the rotor enters contact with the stator and de-magnetize at the moment rotor and stator face one another, returning both additional energy AND preventing further attraction from slowing your motor down.

Last edited by lamare; 07-20-2012 at 08:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2719  
Old 07-26-2012, 12:29 AM
Spokane1 Spokane1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 356
Stored Magnetic Fields - Short or Long Time Frames

Dear lamare,

The concept of stored magnetic fields is used extensively in MRI machines. Here a large coil made of super conducting Nirobium is charged with DC current over a period of time. Once the maximum current level is reached the coil is shorted out and the trapped current continues to flow. No more energy is needed to matain a 2-5 Tesla field for that bias axis condition. However, this is done at liquid Helium temperatures.

The magnetic field will maintain itself for years until the coil is taken out of service. The procedure for discharging this stored eneregy is done slowly with many safety precatuions. I'm sure that a detailed analysis of the magnitude of the stored energy has never been done.

With this concept in mind and the idea that a closed magnetic field might be able to couple with the zero-point (or what every one calls it) then does an apparatus like the one described above absorb more OU in years of opperation as compared to the various demonstration motors that only maintain a closed field for a few milliseconds?

Spokane1
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2720  
Old 08-02-2012, 04:19 PM
Spokane1 Spokane1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 356
Impromptu Gray Theory Lecture

Dear Folks,

Here is a YouTube link to a 37 minute video recording of me sharing my ideas about the nature of the E.V. Gray converter technology as best determined so far from the avaliable history. This took place after my E.V. Gray historical presentation at the the July Bedini-Lindemann conference.

Thanks to whoever provided this recording.

Again this is mostly speculation on my part and is the best I can come up with so far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-M0...ure=plpp_video

I hope the link works and that you might get some usable ideas from this discussion.

Mark McKay
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2721  
Old 08-19-2012, 07:37 PM
Etherichead Etherichead is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 25
Great video and insight, your R&D is greatly appreciated, as this energy concept is in my opinion the greatest discovery of all time. I just want to give credit where credit is due, E.V. Gray is not the inventor, Marvin Cole is, as he was the chief engineer and developer of the system, after he stepped out, Gray was never able to produce the results on his own. It should be called "Cole's Tube", this and more is in Lindemann's new book "The Real History of the E.V. Gray Motor" I eagerly await to read it. Thank you for your post's, keep up the great work!
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2722  
Old 09-02-2012, 12:07 PM
giqift giqift is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4
Great tube project Aaron... when the coil emits high voltage plasma and the 25KV blocking rectifier on the LV side
says NO WAY and gets the capacitor to froth over the gap in its midst. Hey and the gap on the other side of the coil
to (-)LV and Ground is then where the bulb is right?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2723  
Old 09-04-2012, 01:47 PM
giqift giqift is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4
http://s18.postimage.org/4vmvato6x/hv_motor_coil.jpg
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2724  
Old 09-12-2012, 03:49 AM
ekpod ekpod is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 23
The motor here sends back each pulse to the capacitor.

http://s10.postimage.org/fbhdwj6yx/php0bk4mk.jpg
__________________
 

Last edited by ekpod; 09-29-2012 at 01:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2725  
Old 09-12-2012, 05:50 AM
tachyon tachyon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 233
You're giving me a headache and I've just woken up lamare.. there are simpler ways to explain all this with fluid dynamics.. I guess you didn't read another thread.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2726  
Old 10-04-2012, 04:55 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
Ed Gray's Motor presentation by Mark McKay

Tomorrow, Mark McKay's presentation on the history of the Ed Gray motor will be available.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #2727  
Old 10-06-2012, 01:42 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
The Real History of the Ed Gray Motor by Mark McKay



Go here for the homepage: The Real History of the Ed Gray Motor

Mark - if you have any concerns or corrections for the homepage, please email them to Peter or I and we'll get them changed ASAP!

There you go everyone - Mark's presentation on The Real History of the Ed Gray Motor. It is not a "how to" on the technology itself, but a history investigative lecture on what Mark was able to learn about the path that Ed Gray took. It is highly informative and very entertaining as well!
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #2728  
Old 10-09-2012, 01:51 AM
Spokane1 Spokane1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 356
E. V. Gray History Errata

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post


Go here for the homepage: The Real History of the Ed Gray Motor

Mark - if you have any concerns or corrections for the homepage, please email them to Peter or I and we'll get them changed ASAP!

There you go everyone - Mark's presentation on The Real History of the Ed Gray Motor. It is not a "how to" on the technology itself, but a history investigative lecture on what Mark was able to learn about the path that Ed Gray took. It is highly informative and very entertaining as well!
Aaron,

The only correction is that the FCC confiscated the EMA6 in 1977 and not in 1979. Other than that all of the promotion material looks great. I have already sent Peter an email to this effect.

Fellow E.V. Gray Reseachers who read this Blog,

The DVD download that is being offered is the most accurate history available to date.

If you are interested in my technical speculations on how this equipment actually worked then drop me an email at mmckay@simplexgrinnell.com and I shall send you a 25 page (or so) Word document that covers several major clues as I see them plus the theory as to where I might go from here. The paper follows the same information as discussed in the YouTube video mentioned above in a previous post.


Mark McKay
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2729  
Old 11-18-2012, 02:07 PM
Wicaksono Wicaksono is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 46
delrin as electron source

Mr. McKay, it seems that your hypothesis about the insulator of commutator as extra electron source has a valid background. I found that the process is called secondary electron emission. When I search with google about "secondary electron emission delrin" I found

http://www.google.co.id/url?q=http:/...WzcAMwIkKl_YEQ

What do you think about it ?

Wicaksono
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #2730  
Old 11-19-2012, 06:08 PM
Spokane1 Spokane1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 356
Secondary Electron Emission - Thoughts

Dear Wicaksono,

I quickly scanned the document you found and have these initial responses.

1. The harvested energy that Ms. Baker was working with was described and measured as classical electrons with an energy less than 50Mev. We are looking for a novel energy that is NOT a classical electron and has unique properties of its own.

2. Mr. Baker was using a thermal emission electron beam source with assorted wave length energies in excess of 1000 Mev. The excitation energies avaliable in the Cole/Tesla system are less than 5 Kv, so it is hard to make a comparision on an electron for electron basis.

3. Other than the dielectric none of the components employed in Ms. Baker's experiments are close to what was used in the Gray technology - that I can determine.

4. Ms. Backer's experiments were done in a vacuum chamber.


My conclusion at the moment is that Ms. Baker's research does not seem to be a phemonema assocated with the Cole/Gray/Tesla process.

Mark McKay
__________________
 
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.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers