Don Smith A review...

[ilandtan]

HI ilandtan !


hope you are doing fine, if you have further questions please ask !

Hi Med,

Thanks, I do have a question. Is the radiant energy circuit that has all the diodes facing the same way referred to as a "plug"? How does it work?

Thanks!

[med.3012]

Hello everyone !


i would like to see some comments, replicators is needed at this moment so more idea will be clear, anyone interested can post here or in my thread ,

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19857-resonance-energy-device-explained-15.html

without real and serious replicators it's not easy for me to post or show more information ... this technology need to be understood, we have to talk about electrical safety, technical problems encountered so more people will learn or add something useful for all to us !

i hope my message is understood

[med.3012]

HI ilandtan !


hope you are doing fine, if you have further questions please ask !

[med.3012]

just to add something here about the input /output ... the E-TBC treat the L2 coil in different way, this mean L2 outside isn't similar with inside, in the first case lenz's law may affect the work principle of the E-TBC... you have a closed circuit outside the device , in the second case if L2 coil is inside this device the things will be changed ( i stated this in my thread )-- some friends did some test show this-- at the moment i am working on enhancing the device so more work is needed in the high voltage module** i need some hardware**

[med.3012]

It's a sweet deal, nobody is better than the next guy so we may
learn from what we may consider the lesser. We are all able to
contribute and will be handicapped without them.

hi BroMikey !

i agree with you

[BroMikey]

@all
I won't be here for some weeks, but If you build the RLC resonant circuit (transmitter and receiver), you must check that when connecting a load in the output the input is not affected.

Ok, this could be a little bit confusing and I explain why and what you must check.

As you know, if you build the circuit correctly and you tune it correctly you should put a load in the L2 and the load must work. Ok, you can think... no overunity here and you will be partially right. Smith said that in those circuits the input is not affected when you connect the load in the receiver.

So... what to check? As you know, capacitors and inductors don't consume watts in AC because they consume reactive energy (wattless energy). So, if you connect a load in the output of the L2 (receiver) you must check that energy in the L1 (emitter) is reactive. If energy in the L1 is real power, then the load on the L2 affects the input. If the circuit is correct built then the LC #1 uses reactive power and the LC #2 uses real power. You would be using energy in both circuits #1 and #2 but only real power in the receiver and reactive in the emitter.

See you in some weeks guys.

Thanks, I agree

This is always a good reminder, people don't think about that enough.
This concept is starting to become more known in the minds of
technicians yet we forget.

I hope your trip away brings good things.

In almost any Tesla coil video I have watched on the web for
the past 15 years always shows the power going up in both.

That is if they even show you a meter of any kind because of the
fear of losing their meter to a HV run away. Well even an amp meter
is rarely shown from old video's.

They did not hook up to a scope either because of the scare of
ruining it with HV. Since we have grown up as free energy
experimenters, we are learning ways to choke off the creeping
exotic gas so we may see our phase relationship.

Thanks for the reminder, I just watched the D.S. video's again in
Dec 2014 and this is what he says.

If you do find a video of a Tesla coil operating with an amp meter
on it the primary draw current will climb as excessive power demands
rise. Forcing these tune-able circuits into heavy load conditions
will indeed bring about a 1:1 relationship at some point.

What DON did was tune as you say for a phase angle shift while
in resonance that pumps energy around the transmitters circuit.
As an example of reactive power THANE HEINS has devoted much
time to showing how 3 coils can be tuned for a phase relation
where the input power and output power are 90 degrees out of
phase.

This means that most conventional thinkers with great abilities
are tuning their coils in phase because they don't know any better.
It is this group of conventional techy's that we have to work with
as they are able to work all of the tools.

When the people finally do catch on to what you are saying this
field with begin to change very rapidly.

I have learned it takes a delicate balance to keep the transmission
winding reactive without over drawing power off the secondaries but
once this condition is reached you may load the secondary from
0-10 within the design range.

Even the most advanced have stated that they tried it and it is
impossible. This includes everyone who has ever come to this
forum and all other forums on the web since the internet began.

I have never heard any well known name say they have it working.

Yet DON SMITH did it. And I believe he did.

What does that tell us? It tells us we are beginners all.

It's a sweet deal, nobody is better than the next guy so we may
learn from what we may consider the lesser. We are all able to
contribute and will be handicapped without them.

[med.3012]

just to clarify the things ... the source power can build its high voltage even if the load is there so the process of generating a DC pulses is not affected .

[med.3012]

@all
I won't be here for some weeks, but If you build the RLC resonant circuit (transmitter and receiver), you must check that when connecting a load in the output the input is not affected.

Ok, this could be a little bit confusing and I explain why and what you must check.

As you know, if you build the circuit correctly and you tune it correctly you should put a load in the L2 and the load must work. Ok, you can think... no overunity here and you will be partially right. Smith said that in those circuits the input is not affected when you connect the load in the receiver.

So... what to check? As you know, capacitors and inductors don't consume watts in AC because they consume reactive energy (wattless energy). So, if you connect a load in the output of the L2 (receiver) you must check that energy in the L1 (emitter) is reactive. If energy in the L1 is real power, then the load on the L2 affects the input. If the circuit is correct built then the LC #1 uses reactive power and the LC #2 uses real power. You would be using energy in both circuits #1 and #2 but only real power in the receiver and reactive in the emitter.

See you in some weeks guys.

see you too and thanks for your nice coming

[med.3012]

Do you refer to reflectance? I mean reflectance is when you connect a load in the output, the input is affected. When reflectance is blocked and you connect something in the output, the input is not affected. Do you refer to that?

yes i need something like that, if the output is connected to something a coil in our example the input is still high so you ensure you have a speedy DC pulses ..

[AetherScientist]

Important parameter to check

@all
I won't be here for some weeks, but If you build the RLC resonant circuit (transmitter and receiver), you must check that when connecting a load in the output the input is not affected.

Ok, this could be a little bit confusing and I explain why and what you must check.

As you know, if you build the circuit correctly and you tune it correctly you should put a load in the L2 and the load must work. Ok, you can think... no overunity here and you will be partially right. Smith said that in those circuits the input is not affected when you connect the load in the receiver.

So... what to check? As you know, capacitors and inductors don't consume watts in AC because they consume reactive energy (wattless energy). So, if you connect a load in the output of the L2 (receiver) you must check that energy in the L1 (emitter) is reactive. If energy in the L1 is real power, then the load on the L2 affects the input. If the circuit is correct built then the LC #1 uses reactive power and the LC #2 uses real power. You would be using energy in both circuits #1 and #2 but only real power in the receiver and reactive in the emitter.

See you in some weeks guys.

[AetherScientist]

at the moment i am doing a lots of experiments, the overall power is proportional with the frequency of pulsed DC TOWARD L1, i am looking for an easy circuit can provide a quick DC PULSE without effecting the source power .. maybe marx generator will help ? any idea is welcome !

Do you refer to reflectance? I mean reflectance is when you connect a load in the output, the input is affected. When reflectance is blocked and you connect something in the output, the input is not affected. Do you refer to that?

[med.3012]

at the moment i am doing a lots of experiments, the overall power is proportional with the frequency of pulsed DC TOWARD L1, i am looking for an easy circuit can provide a quick DC PULSE without effecting the source power .. maybe marx generator will help ? any idea is welcome !

[AetherScientist]

This is where I need help. If it was a simple matter of finding inductive resonance why have so many people failed at replicating both DS and Tesla accomplishments? Don Smith said that he knew of only 6 out of hundreds who tried and succeeded replicating his experiment. (he didn't know why). I'm thinking that magnetic resonance happens at a slightly different frequency and our tuning is off. If Tesla said that this scaler pulses through the earth were faster then the speed of light, then we are looking at a wave characteristic that throws off our calculation of wavelength, because one of the variables is C. If we are not calculating wavelength correctly, our coils we are building for 1/4 lambda are borked. At the same time, we just aren't looking at our Gauss meters to find magnetically a increase in magnetism, we look for current increase, they may have a phase relationship. So we end up chasing the "wrong rabbit" because it's what our scopes show, and what we know how to calculate is inductive resonance. I have read somewhere that Tesla coil design has always been difficult because making efficient ones never follow the math, is that true? That the only accurate alignment to a smith chart could be achieved through TCTUTER program.

So I understand that dropping a magnet through a tube causes eddy currents that slow down the fall. But what does that have to do with magnetic resonance Med? Please enlighten me, I'm not putting it together.

I will be here for a short period of time because I have to finish some work in 1 or 2 days and it will take me too much time, so I won't be able to post anything for weeks.

I recommend you to start investigating conventional RLC circuits and build the most simple device (resonant circuits of science first website). That is the most simple one. I recommend you to buy the next:

• High voltage module or a neon sign power supply (not the big transformer, the one I'm refering to is small one)
• Inductance meter to check that L1 and L2 have the same inductance.
• Variable capacitors to fine tuning the LC tank

You need to build 2 exactly LC circuits (receiver and transmitter must be the same). Then you need to feed the L1 with high voltage AC or pulsed DC and connect the load in the L2. Check youtube and websites about LC tank circuits, inductive coupling, etc...

[med.3012]

This is where I need help. If it was a simple matter of finding inductive resonance why have so many people failed at replicating both DS and Tesla accomplishments? Don Smith said that he knew of only 6 out of hundreds who tried and succeeded replicating his experiment. (he didn't know why). I'm thinking that magnetic resonance happens at a slightly different frequency and our tuning is off. If Tesla said that this scaler pulses through the earth were faster then the speed of light, then we are looking at a wave characteristic that throws off our calculation of wavelength, because one of the variables is C. If we are not calculating wavelength correctly, our coils we are building for 1/4 lambda are borked. At the same time, we just aren't looking at our Gauss meters to find magnetically a increase in magnetism, we look for current increase, they may have a phase relationship. So we end up chasing the "wrong rabbit" because it's what our scopes show, and what we know how to calculate is inductive resonance. I have read somewhere that Tesla coil design has always been difficult because making efficient ones never follow the math, is that true? That the only accurate alignment to a smith chart could be achieved through TCTUTER program.

So I understand that dropping a magnet through a tube causes eddy currents that slow down the fall. But what does that have to do with magnetic resonance Med? Please enlighten me, I'm not putting it together.

Hi ilandtan !


sometimes we have to depend on our minds, i think it's the only chance for us ! if you understand the working principle behind the E-TBC magnetic resonance will be toward your eyes, the E-TBC is only a coil in the first sight it has an internal capacitor between CD junction :




the secret of this device is only the junction CD ... it's only one point! i call it the one dimensional capacitor because there where the real capacitor exist, Don Smith advised us to use the natural frequency forming a coil like the E-TBC ensure you have natural frequency, now if you are able to make this device oscillate using A VERY quick DC pulses preferably in KHZ if the E-TBC oscillate in MHZ ( so you have an interval time to let this device oscillate alone ... )

the DC pulses will provide a high voltage between the point A -- B ( this is why DS talk about kicking the voltage for L1 coil ..) if you have another capacitor behind the E-TBC to provide a high impedance for the HV signal you are using, when an electric current flow from A TO B a magmatic field will be generated, now where is the electric field ? as we know it inside ordinary capacitor where you have a separated plates ** remember in the E-TBC these plates are already connected together through the junction CD , i made an error in my published document about this junction finally i understood it must be closed ... ****

the induced rotating electric filed provide a constant difference of voltage across the E-TBC from A TO B if B=0 V B=2V the problem with these charges is that it can't be released until the magnetic field take a MAX VALUE and start collapsing just before it collapse the electric field will be visible as scalar potential at the same moment the magnetic field will take its max value, this is the moment when we have useful energy, it's also the time when Ozone gas will be released.. about the electrons they just change the spin rotation because the CW plate in front of your eyes will be CCW from behind ... this is why this geometry is very important, as you see the big player in this device is only the magnetic field even if we talk about the electric field it's generated from the magnetic field itself not from the induced current as normal parallel L/C ...

this device is beyond Lenz's law because there's no closed loop here ! from A TO B it's still en open coil ...

[ilandtan]

This is where I need help. If it was a simple matter of finding inductive resonance why have so many people failed at replicating both DS and Tesla accomplishments? Don Smith said that he knew of only 6 out of hundreds who tried and succeeded replicating his experiment. (he didn't know why). I'm thinking that magnetic resonance happens at a slightly different frequency and our tuning is off. If Tesla said that this scaler pulses through the earth were faster then the speed of light, then we are looking at a wave characteristic that throws off our calculation of wavelength, because one of the variables is C. If we are not calculating wavelength correctly, our coils we are building for 1/4 lambda are borked. At the same time, we just aren't looking at our Gauss meters to find magnetically a increase in magnetism, we look for current increase, they may have a phase relationship. So we end up chasing the "wrong rabbit" because it's what our scopes show, and what we know how to calculate is inductive resonance. I have read somewhere that Tesla coil design has always been difficult because making efficient ones never follow the math, is that true? That the only accurate alignment to a smith chart could be achieved through TCTUTER program.

So I understand that dropping a magnet through a tube causes eddy currents that slow down the fall. But what does that have to do with magnetic resonance Med? Please enlighten me, I'm not putting it together.