Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2018 ENERGY CONFERENCE - ALL SEATS SOLD OUT!

2018 Energy Science & Technology Conference
Sponsored by Teslacoin Foundation

Teslacoin Foundation

https://www.teslastarter.org


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
  #31  
Old 06-17-2010, 06:28 PM
LtBolo LtBolo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 87
It appears to work backwards from what the Russian paper suggests. *sigh*

The current decreases when we add inductance, and the current increases when we remove inductance. This is completely consistent with the swing example. As you lean back and raise your legs during increasing velocity (current) you are shortening the pendulum arm (decreasing inductance). To shorten the pendulum arm, you are counteracting centrifugal force (loading the motor shaft).

Our system self-limits very nicely at about 1/2 HP...which happens to be the size of the motor.

There may be some kind of relativistic effect of changing inductance faster than the current can adapt...in essence longitudinal effects applied to parameter change. It is possible that is what Dollard is talking about...but...the Russian experiments are not doing that, I don't think.

For starters, the parameter change required to build the output will never come from aluminum. The permeability is so close to that of air, it won't change the inductance measurably. What would happen is that it would produce eddy currents that would repel the coil's field, thus decreasing inductance. The problem is that if there are eddy currents, then there is a magnetic field, which loads the motor every bit as much as magnetic material.

So, I see several possible inconsistencies with the theory, backed up by our own lab experiments. This makes me question the whole thing.

Eric Dollard seemed convinced that this paper was describing effects he had harnessed...so I believe that there may be more to it. But I would really love it if he were to come forward again and provide some clarification.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

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

  #32  
Old 06-17-2010, 11:18 PM
fzzzy fzzzy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 68
I haven't really been able to understand your experimental setup and how you expect it to operate, but I have a comment about the swing analogy.

Instead of considering the child extending and retracting legs at the right moment, consider someone giving them a push at exactly the right moment. A very small push at the right moment can be very effective.

In many of the circuit diagrams I have been examining recently I have noticed the following parts: high voltage dc source, capacitor, spark gap, pair of coils. This describes the magnifying transmitter although it also has an extra coil and a charge collector.

The way I have been visualizing this is: capacitor fills up enough to cause the gap to arc. The arc is quenched, resulting in a high voltage short duration impulse into the primary coil. This is transferred to the secondary which begins oscillating. If the impulses are timed properly, the impulse will be phase conjugate with the wave in the secondary, magnifying the power somehow. That's my current theory. Notice the impulse is only in one direction, unlike the child moving legs at both ends of the swing which balance out.

I must confess I do not understand the mechanics of what you are attempting here. I did read somewhere that changes in inductance destroy power and changes in capacitance can create power, but I will have to search to find the reference to where I read that.

I must also confess that I have only elementary understanding of traditional electric theory (which may put me at an advantage!). I am intuiting that the magnifying transmitter somehow changes the capacitance parameter very quickly -- is this when the impulse is put into the secondary? Does the capacitance of the secondary change very quickly as a result of saturation? I'm still having a hard time visualizing how either inductance or capacitance would vary in a circuit, so I have much more studying to do.

Thanks for this thread. It's great.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-18-2010, 09:06 AM
broli broli is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 530
@LtBolo: I suggest you keep on experimenting and fiddling since you already got this far. But ultimately I would suggest to work with a PM and exploit core saturation. Changing induction by movement of a core is bound to create a change of flux which will lower current first and then recharge your coil again, but the latter will take long due to the increased inductance so you end up with no gain when you discharge it.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg nlr175.jpg (151.9 KB, 97 views)
__________________
 

Last edited by broli; 06-18-2010 at 10:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-20-2010, 10:58 PM
LtBolo LtBolo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 87
Well, I think our conclusion is that parametric variation will induce power...no additional experimentation is required to prove that. The question is whether it constitutes FE or not, and from our observation the answer is no, at least in this configuration. Are there others that work? Perhaps.

I run an engineering company, and the products we create is how I and my 21 co-workers get paid. I do not have the luxury of 'fiddling'. As I find ideas that are worth pursuing, I will do so, with commercialization as the ultimate end. Given Dollard's endorsement of the Russian paper, and the apparent credibility of that paper, I felt that it was worth a shot. That said, we aren't sitting around with nothing to do, and stuff that doesn't put money in the account can't be pursued indefinitely.

It does appear to me that the large WITTS generator uses parametric excitation, but there is also a second set of coils that have another function. Their official answer is 'quantum energy' and 'particles other than electrons', and that may be true...however...their setup reminds me a great deal of an electronic version of Milkovic's 2 stage pendulum, and I wouldn't rule out obfuscation to hide the truth of how their device works.

Which has started me thinking a bit. There is a paper offering a proof of OU on Milkovic's site. The basic assertion is that if I add 1 unit of velocity at the top of the pendulum's swing, that will translate into a much larger increase in energy at the bottom of the swing.

For instance: Without extra energy, the pendulum would start at 0m/s at the top and accelerate to 10m/s at the bottom. The kinetic energy is 1/2Mv^2, so assuming a 2kg weight, the 10m/s at the bottom is now 100J KE. If I add 1m/s at the top, which represents 1J, at the bottom it is now 11m/s which is 121J. So 1J at the top adds 21J at the bottom...which can be removed to do work. Is that true? Dunno. It's still only 1m/s faster than before, but the energy is 21J higher. Does it really take the removal of 21J to slow it back down to 10m/s? Again, dunno.

If it is true, then the same thing can be applied to electronics, and by extension, it seems to me that there is OU in everything that is resonant. The key is knowing how much and when. Peak KE is the same as peak current, and peak PE is the same as voltage. Inserting extra joules at peak voltage in a resonant circuit and removing the excess at peak current, would naturally follow that math.

It sounds far too simple to me, but then again, maybe not. Resonance can do serious work (damage) so maybe there is OU there. The 'how much' and the 'when' are key, and it appears to me that the amount of excess energy would not get very high until the current got large...high voltage/low current would never produce much extra...and that seems to be the primary direction that everyone goes. The Q would need to be high enough to establish a good resonance, but low enough for the resonance to be high current. Meaning...it has to be designed...random resonance wouldn't necessarily produce meaningful excess.

Just thinking out loud. Somebody feel free to tell me why it doesn't work.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-21-2010, 07:15 AM
broli broli is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 530
I'm not going to tell why or why it won't work but to me the logic seems strange. When you consider an initial velocity like that you have to consider it for the entire system for you to gain 21J. In the case of a pendulum everything has to be moving 1 m/s downward this includes the wall the pendulum is attached to. But if you do this you'll see that 21J is accounted for since "the whole world dropped". But even this is difficult because it has to drop at a constant velocity without being affected by gravity unlike the pendulum bob.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-21-2010, 02:58 PM
boguslaw's Avatar
boguslaw boguslaw is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,474
Look at parametric oscillation amplitude rising in time.EXPOTENTIALLY.
Now assume that you will draw power from it LINEARLY,energy in parametric circuit would still rise ,right ?
It is a time machine. Practically OU inventors pass energy to the second stage completly isolated from driving parametric oscillator to eliminate Lenz law.It can be any open path like Earth electical system for example.
There are few factors which can be used alone or mixed:
- parametric amplification
- close loop feedback
- multiplication of basic circuits in series or parallel
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-22-2010, 12:34 AM
LtBolo LtBolo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by broli View Post
In the case of a pendulum everything has to be moving 1 m/s downward this includes the wall the pendulum is attached to. But if you do this you'll see that 21J is accounted for since "the whole world dropped".
No, the extra energy is just an impulse applied to the bob itself. If gravity was already going to increase the velocity from 0 to 10m/s, and we add an impulse that takes it to 1m/s before gravity can do its work, the final velocity would be 11m/s. Gravity doesn't care what your starting velocity is (within reason), it will accelerate at 9.8m/s^2 anything in its field.

Your impulse costs 1J (0 to 1m/s for a 2kg weight...1/2*2*1^2), but the net increase due to the impulse is 21J (1/2*2*11^2 - 1/2*2*10^2). Interestingly enough, if this is true, it would explain a great number of OU inventions...both mechanical and electrical. Although again, I am far from convinced, just restating the proof offered for Milkovic's device.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-22-2010, 06:55 AM
boguslaw's Avatar
boguslaw boguslaw is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,474
LtBolo I see no reaso why the same cannot work without external push AT CORRECT MOMENT but only by changing inertia by manipulating of the center of mass.Like child on swing.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-22-2010, 07:38 AM
broli broli is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by LtBolo View Post
No, the extra energy is just an impulse applied to the bob itself. If gravity was already going to increase the velocity from 0 to 10m/s, and we add an impulse that takes it to 1m/s before gravity can do its work, the final velocity would be 11m/s. Gravity doesn't care what your starting velocity is (within reason), it will accelerate at 9.8m/s^2 anything in its field.

Your impulse costs 1J (0 to 1m/s for a 2kg weight...1/2*2*1^2), but the net increase due to the impulse is 21J (1/2*2*11^2 - 1/2*2*10^2). Interestingly enough, if this is true, it would explain a great number of OU inventions...both mechanical and electrical. Although again, I am far from convinced, just restating the proof offered for Milkovic's device.
Force is the change of momentum over time. I agree on the fact that both a body starting at rest and a body starting with an initial velocity will need the same time to gain that 10m/s of speed. But will they also need the same distance? NO. in the 1m/s case the force has worked over a longer distance due to the initial velocity. This is simple Newtonian physics with no regard to energy. So I don't know how they could make such a basic mistake. I don't ask you to believe me, perform the simple experiment and measure the speed of the bob. Friction aside, it will be around 10.04 m/s to account for friction perform the same test with no initial velocity to have an idea of the losses.
__________________
 

Last edited by broli; 06-22-2010 at 07:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-22-2010, 11:53 AM
LtBolo LtBolo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by boguslaw View Post
LtBolo I see no reaso why the same cannot work without external push AT CORRECT MOMENT but only by changing inertia by manipulating of the center of mass.Like child on swing.
Yes, parameter change works. Our experiments clearly showed that. From what we saw, there is no excess energy. An impulse is and impulse regardless of whether it comes from an input impulse or from a parameter change.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 06-22-2010, 12:03 PM
LtBolo LtBolo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by broli View Post
in the 1m/s case the force has worked over a longer distance due to the initial velocity.
Makes perfect sense to me. I'm an EE...I purged most of my Newtonian stuff...which is why I was asking.

I suspect that it isn't quite that simple, however, given that the center of rotation is moving as a result of the force acting on the second stage. That will lengthen the travel by whatever excursion the system allows. Is it enough to provide the effect they describe? Can't say. They seem pretty convinced that the second stage is doing more work than they are providing to the first stage and some of their demos are pretty convincing.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #42  
Old 06-22-2010, 07:02 PM
LtBolo LtBolo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 87
Silly me...

I went back and looked at the Milkovic proof paper. I oversimplified...they didn't state it that way. He ran through the math and wound up with a 3 term expression that described initial energy, excess energy, and gravity added energy. So the rookie mistake was mine. This is what happens when you let electrical guys have tools and mechanicals...stuff gets broken!
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-23-2010, 11:16 AM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 284
Schools busy at the moment so I haven't had time to do experimentation however I thought I'd try and resurrect some interest in this very very important topic with some revision over what Eric Dollard has said. I have proven one of his statements mathematically but the other one I have failed to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dollard, E. P. (N6KPH) View Post
There was also the Rotary Electromagnetic Converter, constructed by Michael Knots and Peter Lindemann with the help of Chris Carson. This unit exhibited the property of materializing and dematerializing electric energy without regard for the Law of Conservation of Energy. This is another example of synchronous parameter variation. In this case inductance (L in Henrys) time (T in seconds) gave rise to positive resistance (R in Ohms), hence the unaccounted for destruction of electric energy. It must be just as illegal to destroy energy as it is to create it – don’t you think? E is NOT equal to MC squared. There is no Matter to Energy equivalency – this is: The Great White Lie…
Now take note to the underlined part. From equation L = Vt/I (derived from the formula to calculate voltage in a charging inductor V = LI/t);
If we differentiate this equation with respect to time, that is find out the result of changing inductance over time, we get dL/dt = V/I which funnily enough is equal to resistance! We have proven this statement of Dollard's mathematically. This could explain the why's of LtBolo's failed attempt at replicating the effect where energy is synthesized. However he says, later on in this post, that the two Russians who wrote the paper he cites ("Concerning the Excitation of Electrical Waves Through Parameter Changes" by Mandelstam & Papaleski) appear to be powering a light bulb from a deviation of a magnetic amplifier, "an Alexanderson type Mag. Amp. operating in a self oscillation mode." to be exact. So are we missing something here, if so, this is probably the key to a successful replication!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dollard, E. P. (N6KPH) View Post
Chris Carson Built the Rotary Electrostatic Converter. His design was based entirely on my electrical theory and math. It was designed to demonstrate and validate the concept of Synchronous Parameter Variation and the Four Quadrant Theory of Electricity. The device worked well. It had to spin up to around 10,000 RPM. This unit took Chris months to complete; to get all of the parts together, and to get it perfectly balanced and operational. Chris determined that it was starting to exhibit the effects of synthesis of electrical energy from the electrostatic field. This is a result of the variation of capacitance (C in Farrads) with respect to time (T in seconds) which results in a negative conductance G (in Siemens).
Now I have a question in regard to the statement underlined in the above quote. Trying to prove this statement in the same way is something which brings up a discrepancy. From equation C = It/V (derived from the formula to calculate current in a charging capacitor I = CV/t); If we differentiate this with respect to time, that is find out the result of changing capacitance over time, we get dC/dt = I/V = 1/R which is conductance in Siemens. However, we are trying to prove it results in a negative conductance since a large conductance mathematically is just a very small resistance and not a negative resistance which would be expected if one was the synthesize electrical energy.

Can anyone out there who is smarter than I possibly aid in understanding this? Be easy on me if this is a simple error for I am only still in high school :P

Raui
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-23-2010, 05:05 PM
Armagdn03's Avatar
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 913
quick note on the above post,

Parmetrics involve parameter changes, resistance is included in the L and C list.

2x is ONE stable mode, not the only.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-24-2010, 04:30 AM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 284
After thinking and thinking about my question above last night I thought I'd goto bed and think about it in the morning only to realize the trivial error I had made. I was only considering when the change of the parameter was positive, that is from say 5uf to 5.5uf, and not the situation when the parameter change was negative, say 5uf to 4.5 uf. Re-analyzing this situation brings much different result.

When our change of capacitance is positive (lower capacitance to a higher one) we get a resultant conductance given by the equation dC/dt = I/V = G or conductance which is basically a resistance since it is the inverse of R. For those not too great with mathematics that basically means that if conductance = 1/R or otherwise known as the inverse of R then if we have a very large positive conductance we have a very small positive resistance or hence the apparent destruction of electrical energy. When our change of inductance is positive we get a resultant resistance calculated by dL/dt = V/I = R. Hence again we have the apparent destruction of electrical energy.

If however the rate of change of our parameter is negative (higher capacitance/inductance to a lower one) we get a different situation, the opposite one at that. If we have a negative change of our parameter over a unit of time we must then append the equations used to calculate it. If our change of capacitance per unit of time is negative then our equation for calculating the result is dC/dT = -I/V or a negative conductance which is what Eric said was the result. The same applies to dL/dT = -V/I or a negative resistance both of these both indicate synthesis of electrical energy which explains the Mandelstam/Papaleski apparatus.

I checked this with both my maths and physics teachers. My physics teacher said the maths was right but he didn't like it because of the implications but said it was interesting. I double checked with my math teacher to make sure my analysis was correct and he agreed it was correct.

Also, while browsing for information pertaining to parametric excitation I found the following image of JL Naudin's website.

Now if we do a dimensional analysis on that equation we find that to be true (both the flux coupling and parametric coupling terms have the dimensions of volts). If anyone needs proof of this I can write a proof up and put it on youtube. This also means that our dielectric induction equation can be written as;
I = C(dV/dt) + V(dC/dT)
We need to get a mathematical model together to describe what's going on it's easier to relay the information to each other. We now have a more complete understanding of the equations to work out results from magnetic and dielectric inductions plus the result of a changing inductance/capacitance over time. I think a review of the Mandelstam report "Report on Recent Research on Nonlinear Oscillations" wouldn't do much harm.


EDIT: I just went over this thread and noted something LtBolo has said;
Quote:
Originally Posted by LtBolo View Post
It appears to work backwards from what the Russian paper suggests. *sigh*

The current decreases when we add inductance, and the current increases when we remove inductance. This is completely consistent with the swing example. As you lean back and raise your legs during increasing velocity (current) you are shortening the pendulum arm (decreasing inductance). To shorten the pendulum arm, you are counteracting centrifugal force (loading the motor shaft).
This is completely consistent with the math I have posted earlier in this post. It would be great if Eric or someone in the know would come and help us out. The math in the papers is a little above me, I understand a fair bit of the notation I just don't know the meaning of it all, otherwise I might be able to help out more.

Raui
__________________
 

Last edited by Raui; 08-24-2010 at 09:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-11-2010, 05:06 AM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 284
PP-18/AR Voltage Converter

A friend of mine gave me these documents and said post them here. Not sure if the friend wants a whole heap of fuss in his direction I'm sure he'll post here sooner or later but for now he's an anonymous friend. I think a few of you out there will see these for the goldmines they are!

The documents contain information about the PP-18/AR Voltage Converter, for those who are unaware of what I am talking about it is the device Eric Dollard uses to power the electronics in his car. The first couple of images are picture of the device and the last image is of the wiring diagram!

Imageshack - img20851.jpg
Imageshack - img20861.jpg
Imageshack - img20871j.jpg
Imageshack - img20901.jpg
Imageshack - img20951.jpg

Also I have an explanation of it from Eric himself (attached). I didn't find it too helpful but maybe that's just me. I knew how the device would have operated the problem is seeing how this results in extra energy. I do believe I know how this works though and I think it proves you don't need a nice sinusoidal variation of parameters because in this case a plot of the variation per unit time results in a square wave type signal.

I have shown in earlier posts that a change in capacitance over time results in a negative conductance which is basically a negative resistance but only when the parameter variation is going from a higher value to a lower value (say 10mF -> 5mF). Therefore when they are charged in parallel they have a higher capacitance and when they are discharged they are done so in series and therefore have a lower value for the overall capacitance. So when they are discharged they are discharged through a negative resistance and this is where the excess energy comes from.

I have also been thinking that a solid-state device would be easier to get going than a rotative device which was confirmed by my friend because there are too many variables in rotative devices. By use of this method or the use of specific configurations of magnetic amplifiers I think it would be quite easy to achieve parametric excitation and as long as the energy used to change the capacitance is less than it generates we have energy to power a load.

The variables in a rotation type apparatus that make the it harder to obtain the effects we are after are numerous. For example in a magnetic style which rotates to achieve a changing inductance per unit time we have the problem of Lenz's Law. This was noted by LtBolo in his research. In a solid state apparatus we can excite an external circuit without Lenz's law through use of inductors wound on a common core with no flux coupling only parametric coupling. This is not so much of a problem in a rotating capacitor type setup because of the geometry of dielectric field lines. However phase is a critical issue in both of magnetic and capacitive type setups. The change needs to be done at the correct time in contrast to input signal. This is a lot easier to control electrically than mechanically.

In the PP-18/AR our modulation rate is quite high (max capacitance - min capacitance divided by max capacitance + min capacitance) and it's a lot easier to achieve higher modulation rates in solid state than in rotating setups since the space it would require would be large. So when November rolls in and I finally finish my exams I know where my first avenue of experimentation will be.

Raui
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Device.PDF (416.3 KB, 460 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-11-2010, 05:47 PM
kazm's Avatar
kazm kazm is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 44
Re: PP-18/AR Voltage Converter

Come across this page in my searches, found the VIBRATORS section informative:

Repairing_Valve_Technology

Quote:
VIBRATORS
Radios that have a power source of low voltage DC require some method to generate the HT voltage. A common method, is to use a transformer with a HT secondary, but with a low voltage primary and a device to generate the AC that the transformer requires. A simple electromechanical device uses a vibrating reed to generate the AC voltage. This device is called a vibrator. The vibrator comes in several types. First there is the voltage rating, which is commonly 6, 12, 28 or 32 volts. Next there is the reed type, which can be non-synchronous, synchronous, or split reed. Most vibrators are not sealed and therefore contain air, but there are some heavy duty vibrators that are filled with an inert gas.
The vibrator is normally mounted in a sound treated tube with a valve base, so it can be changed easily. There is a coil to energise the flexible reed and a set of primary contacts to switch the DC to the transformer windings. At power on, the coil is energised, which causes the reed to swing to one side, which breaks the coil contact, and so it swings back. The cycle repeats at a frequency of about 100 cycles per second. A set of contacts switches the DC to the transformer to generate an AC voltage. The reed is usually in the negative (earth or common) lead, and the positive (hot) lead is connected to the transformer centre tapped primary winding. The contacts earth each side of the centre tapped primary, causing current to flow each way in it, similar to AC. The difference is that the current is not an AC sine wave, but a square wave.
The centre tapped secondary of the transformer is connected to a full wave rectifier valve, in the normal way, and this rectifies the AC to generate the HT voltage, which is then smoothed and filtered. This method uses a normal vibrator (called a "non-synchronous" vibrator) and has 3 or 4 pins.

<vibrators-fig1>

The rectifier valve is not necessary if the vibrator contains a second set of contacts, which will switch the secondary voltage in synchronism with the switched DC input. This is a "synchronous" vibrator and usually has 6 pins. The HT is filtered in the normal way. If the radio design requires "back bias", then the secondary reed cannot be earthed, and must be brought out to a pin on the base. This is called a "split reed" vibrator and commonly has 7 or 8 pins.

<vibrators-fig2>

Old vibrators that are not sealed, can be easily opened and cleaned. The contacts are usually hard tungsten, and can be cleaned with emery paper or a file. After cleaning, check with an ohm meter to ensure that no emery cloth is caught between them. The contacts can have burnt during use, or vapor from the internal padding can have deposited on them over the years. The fibre base can arc over and burn due to dirt. Remove the carbon with a rotating hand tool, and seal with silicone rubber. Re-adjust the coil contacts, so that it buzzes correctly, and starts properly (under load as well). Re-adjust the primary contacts so that they switch properly, and that they are a "break-before-make" contact.
There are several capacitors that should be inspected and changed. The HT filtering capacitors should be checked, and changed if necessary. The timing capacitor should be ALWAYS renewed. The capacitor is in the order of 0.0068uf and 1000 volt rating. This is important, as this capacitor determines the time constant (oscillation or "ringing") that occurs when the contacts open. Sometimes there is a resistor in series with the capacitor to get the correct time constant. The value is chosen with regard to the transformer inductance and vibrator frequency (and to a smaller extent the load components) so that the voltage decay coincides with the next contact closure, and (if perfect) there will be no voltage across the closing contacts, so there is no arcing or burning and consequent RF noise. This capacitor may be located on the primary or secondary winding. A cheap source of the the timing capacitors are old CRT computer monitors, as there are normally three 1000 volt capacitors in the EHT section. There are RF noise filtering capacitors in various places, the primary winding to earth, the secondary windings to earth, and possibly some input filter chokes as well. These capacitors are often mica capacitors and seldom fail.

Common vibrator faults are, open circuit coil, faulty contacts (burnt, dirty, mal-adjusted). Other faults can be, burnt or open circuit transformer, shorted or open timing capacitor, faulty HT filtering components, faulty noise filtering components.
~~~

Also found this one with a section about 1.5v->90v vibrator circuit:

Silicon Chip Online - Vintage Radio

Quote:
Around 1940, the Americans experimented with an even lower voltage vibrator power supply. It was designed to run from a 1.5V No.6 cell and provided 90V at 9mA for a set using the relatively new 1.4V filament valves. Interestingly, an article on this appeared in "Radio & Hobbies" at the time.

Whether or not these 1.5V vibrator supplies were ever put into production is unknown. In fact, the "Radio & Hobbies" article expressed doubts about the viability of running a vibrator supply from a No.6 cell.

That's because the vibrator supply and the filaments in a 4-valve receiver would draw around 1.2A from the cell, assuming that the vibrator supply had an efficiency of 65%. A No.6 cell has an amp-hour capacity of 17-30Ah, depending on the load. And that meant a battery life of just 10-20 hours, depending on the usage per day.

Although the article stated that the supply was "quite free of both mechanical and electrical hum", no mention was made about vibrator hash interference. The circuit, shown in Fig.3. was quite basic and had virtually no RF filtering, so it was probably capable of causing significant interference to the receiver.

<1.5_to_90v_vibrator.jpg>
Attached Images
File Type: jpg vibrators_fig1.jpg (31.7 KB, 120 views)
File Type: jpg vibrators_fig2.jpg (20.4 KB, 88 views)
File Type: jpg 1.5_to_90v_vibrator.jpg (40.5 KB, 99 views)
__________________
 

Last edited by kazm; 09-11-2010 at 06:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-13-2010, 04:44 AM
uusedman uusedman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 238
hello everyone,

After glancing at this topic, I know I want to get in and try to experiment, HOWEVER, some words sound gerberish to me. I need help in getting to this stage of understanding of parametric excitation. What BEGINNER reads can you advise ?

Thanks in advance.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-13-2010, 05:17 AM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 284
The best beginner text on this I have read would be found here; PARAMETRIC POWER CONVERSION - by JL Naudin with a little more information found here; PARAMETRIC POWER CONVERSION by JL Naudin I'll try summarize what I've learned. Parametric excitation involves the induction of electrical waves into a circuit due to parameter changes (example; capacitance).

It can be concluded using maths that if we change a capacitance by an amount over a period of time we get a conductance (G measured in seimens which can also be calculated as 1 divided by resistance). A large coductance is really just a very small positive resistance so nothing too interesting there. However if the change is from a higher value to a lower value and the change is a negative change then the result is a negative conductance and therefore using same reasoning above; a negative resistance.

Conversely if we change our inductance over a period of time from lower to a higher inductance the result is a positive resistance. Which again is certainly not excess energy to what we had so we have an extra resistance (which, by the way, might be considered destruction of electrical energy) however if our change is from a higher inductance to a lower one then we have a negative change and therefore a negative resistance! We can even defeat Lenz's Law using parametric excitation in a configuration where there is no flux coupling between the load circuit and exciter circuit because you don't need flux coupling for changes in inductance to occur.

If we have a positive resistance it's safe to assume that energy is being used so a negative resistance would be the opposite right? That is, energy being generated and available for work. There are two interesting ways of changing our parameters which result in high changes in our parameters with no Lenz Law effects.

The inductance method is exploiting core saturation. By attaching a magnet to an electromagnets core so that when no power is being fed to the coil the core is magnetically saturated and when we apply power it works against the core saturation and gives us a very large decay in inductance over a period of time resulting in a negative resistance. The capacitive method is to charge a set of capacitors in parallel and discharge in series as to achieve a rapid decrease in capacitance which as I said above results in a negative conductance.

This is all theory so far, Ltbolo is the only one who has done practical work ehre and he showed that we get energy transfer but no free energy. This may well be due to the fact his apparatus was a rotating transformer core. In rotating apparatus you have several factors working against you that you don't have in solid state devices. So my suggestion would be to start designing solid state solutions where a load is powered by a decrease in inductance or capacitance. There is also some theory to suggest that this only works at 2 times the resonant frequency or multiple thereof but I am not 100% convinced of this statement. I personally have started working on a solid state capacitance setup like the device mentioned above which charges capacitors in parallel and discharges in series. Once my experimentation starts I'll post the circuit. After that I'll be moving onto inductance Hope this helps in some way or another.

Raui
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-13-2010, 02:54 PM
wings wings is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 216
Cravens Wanlass, lot of patents relatet to parametric devices like:

pat. 3648206 CORE CONSTRUCTIONS FOR VARIABLE INDUCTORS
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-13-2010, 04:47 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,193
Parametric inductance circuit STEAP

http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...cuit-video.jpg

Hi all, Use this circuit, it works and very easy to make, just put the output across two batteries in series and power from the front battery of the two only, have had it running for ever, run loads only from the back battery such as leds.

This is an on going investigation

Mike
__________________
 

Last edited by Michael John Nunnerley; 09-13-2010 at 04:50 PM. Reason: foregot a point
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #52  
Old 09-14-2010, 12:56 AM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 284
Thanks for sharing your circuit Micheal, great work What kinda of rate of change do you achieve of the inductance in this circuit and what output do you get (just a rough estimation will do)

Raui
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-14-2010, 01:53 AM
SuperCaviTationIstic's Avatar
SuperCaviTationIstic SuperCaviTationIstic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley View Post
http://www.energeticforum.com/attach...cuit-video.jpg

Hi all, Use this circuit, it works and very easy to make, just put the output across two batteries in series and power from the front battery of the two only, have had it running for ever, run loads only from the back battery such as leds.

This is an on going investigation

Mike
This is the same as Dr. Stiffler's ECAT? Here's his page on it:
Energy Conversion by Articulated Transfer
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-14-2010, 03:44 PM
Michael John Nunnerley's Avatar
Michael John Nunnerley Michael John Nunnerley is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,193
very very similar

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperCaviTationIstic View Post
This is the same as Dr. Stiffler's ECAT? Here's his page on it:
Energy Conversion by Articulated Transfer
Yes it is very similar but I use its natural frequency. I can get a 3X the input voltage going to the output transformer, so with 12v I get 36v into the primary. This can be increased but with current drop, I have increased the design on this circuit but as of yet not publicated it as I feel there is much more to do but have not had the time.

Running for more than three months 24 bright white leds with four 1.2v nicad batteries and the reed switching changed to a system of switching with a transistor as the reed does wear out after a few days of operating.

Mike
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-22-2010, 03:56 PM
Dollard, E. P. (N6KPH)'s Avatar
Dollard, E. P. (N6KPH) Dollard, E. P. (N6KPH) is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3
T-Rex Emergance:

I) The military concept does not offer praise but delegates higher order of responsibility. So let us begin:

1) Purge the mind virus, establish new thinking processes. Regular exposure to the music of J.S. Bach will help facilitate this endeavor.

2) Replace the concept of “free energy” with the concept of energy synthesis, that is the synthesis of energy from its component parts. Nothing is free in the free world except the freedom to pay, that is the law. Stay out of trouble.

3) Discontinue the practice of habitually exchanging the terms power and energy as if they are equivalent, they are not. Engines are not motors, etc.

4) Eliminate the notion that electronic particles convey electricity, they do no such thing. Electrons represent the dissipation of electrical energy and its conversion to noise.

5) Realize that the energy is not equal to mass times velocity squared. Electricity is mass free.

6) Seek in your experiments to develop a system that destroys energy, this as well as the creation of energy invalidated the notion of conservation of energy.

7) Return to the works of the masters, perform their calculations & experiments. Do not just read, but do. Attempting to invent anew before this effort only multiplies the confusion.

8) Endeavor to be in direct contact with nature while thinking on electrical ideas, the intrinsic archetypes of nature will provide answers to your questions. Social situations weaken this process. Keep your mind and body in good shape by avoiding adulterated food; living food for living people, dead food for dead people.

End part (I)

Ref.:

(1) Occult Ether Physics by William Lyne

(2) Survival into the 21st Century by Victor Klaus
Attached Files
File Type: pdf EPD Update.PDF (264.4 KB, 417 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-22-2010, 05:53 PM
Armagdn03's Avatar
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dollard, E. P. (N6KPH) View Post
I) The military concept does not offer praise but delegates higher order of responsibility. So let us begin:

1) Purge the mind virus, establish new thinking processes. Regular exposure to the music of J.S. Bach will help facilitate this endeavor.

2) Replace the concept of “free energy” with the concept of energy synthesis, that is the synthesis of energy from its component parts. Nothing is free in the free world except the freedom to pay, that is the law. Stay out of trouble.

3) Discontinue the practice of habitually exchanging the terms power and energy as if they are equivalent, they are not. Engines are not motors, etc.

4) Eliminate the notion that electronic particles convey electricity, they do no such thing. Electrons represent the dissipation of electrical energy and its conversion to noise.

5) Realize that the energy is not equal to mass times velocity squared. Electricity is mass free.

6) Seek in your experiments to develop a system that destroys energy, this as well as the creation of energy invalidated the notion of conservation of energy.

7) Return to the works of the masters, perform their calculations & experiments. Do not just read, but do. Attempting to invent anew before this effort only multiplies the confusion.

8) Endeavor to be in direct contact with nature while thinking on electrical ideas, the intrinsic archetypes of nature will provide answers to your questions. Social situations weaken this process. Keep your mind and body in good shape by avoiding adulterated food; living food for living people, dead food for dead people.

End part (I)

Ref.:

(1) Occult Ether Physics by William Lyne

(2) Survival into the 21st Century by Victor Klaus
Thank you for the insight.

I have really been focusing lately on the following concept

Quote:
3) Discontinue the practice of habitually exchanging the terms power and energy as if they are equivalent, they are not. Engines are not motors, etc.
One of my latest run of circuits really takes advantage of this fact.

Imagine a circuit where action and reaction are separated by TIME.

The charge in the system is always conserved and stays the same, The work itself oscillates, causing a rise in potential and current simultaneously in the load.

You raise the energy state of the entire system and cause an internal imbalance. The system then seeks balance, and in so doing accomplishes work, over a set time. After equilibrium is reached, the system is at a higher energy state than in began at.

The amount of time dictates the power at a given moment. Then the system is allowed to return to its original lower energy state (the reaction separated by time), causing another internal imbalance, which takes TIME to equalize, again causing the same amount of work to be done as the initial impetus.

It would seem from this circuit that it is possible to create circuits in which time is the dominant factor in output to the load. Dare I say, it is possible to harness the action, reaction, and time is our "source".
__________________
 

Last edited by Armagdn03; 09-22-2010 at 06:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-22-2010, 07:34 PM
Armagdn03's Avatar
Armagdn03 Armagdn03 is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 913
I also think the following resource would be very helpful to many.

Even if you know what imaginary numbers are, and have used them frequently, unless you intuitively understand what they represent, then you really do not understand their importance in such areas.

A Visual, Intuitive Guide to Imaginary Numbers | BetterExplained
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-22-2010, 09:59 PM
Raui's Avatar
Raui Raui is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 284
Well first of all, welcome back Mr Dollard. It's great to see you've come back!! I was aware of some of the things you've said particularly 2-6. I think the analysis of the internals of a capacitor prove the notion that electrons aren't needed as 'charge carriers' of electricity, especially in regard to a vacuum capacitor. My analysis of parameter changes in electric systems have proven both positive and negative resistances appearing and therefore the destruction and synthesis of electrical energy. As for learning from the masters, I have compiled a list of publications by authors you've recommended and a few others I have found useful over the time I've been reading these documents. On your notion that power is not equal to energy I think this is a given by definition. I have always been under the belief that energy is a quantity and power is the rate of dissipation, at least that's the way I was taught it. In the video 'Free Energy Research' I noted when you drove your Tesla coils with the music of Bach that the discharge burned organic type structures in paper, I think you said particle board works better though. It indeed made me think of a plant as a discharge akin to how either you or Tom Brown described it! It seems like this comes in two parts, so I do eagerly await the second part and it is so great to see you around again!

@Armagdn03,
Thanks for the website, I'm reading it now and it's great!. I haven't learned about imaginary/complex numbers so my knowledge of imaginary numbers is essentially self-taught and this helps greatly with visualization

Raui
__________________
Scribd account; http://www.scribd.com/raui
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-23-2010, 03:49 AM
h2ocommuter's Avatar
h2ocommuter h2ocommuter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fresno Ca,
Posts: 146
Send a message via Skype™ to h2ocommuter
Thanks Eric for the guidance

How wonderfull it is to have you expose these things.

Energy and electricty is all to much conseptulized in my mind as majic; So I will be arround but I will be hanging out in the deep outfield.

If I can do anything for you Eric just let me know.
You are one of the greatest masters of all time, I want you to hear that!

Zane
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-23-2010, 12:07 PM
Sputins's Avatar
Sputins Sputins is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 529
Wise advice.

Eric,

I accept the wise instruction you have given here Mr T-Rex.. (1 - 8).

1) Purge the mind virus, establish new thinking processes. Regular exposure to the music of J.S. Bach will help facilitate this endeavor.

We are all infected, to varying degrees with this so called mind virus.. TV, computer games, media & the established education systems have helped established this "mind virus"..
I have of recent times past, listened to the music of J.S. Bach (on CD). After hearing on a recorded lecture you gave, you said that you intuited most of what you knew about Tesla through the music of Bach. So, I learned of Bach bought a few CD's and listened while working on my projects and devices in the workshop (the shed) and while relaxing. I can certainly say that there is really something to it.. It is wonderful music, however I believe a CD doesn't quite do Bach justice. A vinyl LP with a vacuum tube amplifier would be much better for "intuiting" the music because of as all of the notes (frequencies below & beyond 20 & 20kcps) would be better "felt" and better assimilated. It must be of significant importance as you have mentioned it first. (1).

2 - 7: I will endeavor to follow the instructions & advice offered.

8) Endeavor to be in direct contact with nature while thinking on electrical ideas, the intrinsic archetypes of nature will provide answers to your questions. Social situations weaken this process. Keep your mind and body in good shape by avoiding adulterated food; living food for living people, dead food for dead people.

I can vouch for parts of this statement too. Nature is often fractal, self similar & golden ratio(s) appearing everywhere. - Just look. (Schauberger's work is an example of this). Some often ignore nature and are out of touch with it. Also the "Stars above" are of significance for these answers (if you can see them through all the light pollution). The Electric Universe Theory is another important (natural) concept. Longitudinal electrostatic waves are greatly more significant in space and on planetary systems than the (weak) gravitational/magnetic force, for example. (In my humble view).

Don't adulterate any food with a microwave oven.. Living food for living people! Not many living foods come out of a supermarket box!

I) The military concept does not offer praise but delegates higher order of responsibility. So let us begin:

If praise did equal military rank then Eric Dollard would be Fleet Admiral with 5 stars. Maybe that statement is a little over the top, I'm trying to convey my respect here. - Thank you for your post here Eric.

End part (I)

I look forward to part (II), & thank you for the PDF attachment & the references to study.


I hope you and your coyote are doing well.

Regards
Mikey. (Aus).
__________________
 

Last edited by Sputins; 09-23-2010 at 02:49 PM.
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 03:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers