Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions

Author Topic: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions (Read 59229 times)

Topic Options

Smudge

Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #50 on: 2015-03-24, 16:37:45 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 1961

Quote from: verpies on 2015-03-23, 15:37:38

I am interested what analytical tools you used besides CoE? I am well versed in the classical EM techniques, so you don't have to dumb it down for me.

For example, my line of thinking revolves around the magnetization energy (domain alignment energy) of a soft ferro/ferrimagnetic and its natural tendency to dissipate by directional randomization in the absence of external MMF ...down to the spins of constituent atoms, if need be.

I use FEMM a lot on the basis that though it is only a 2D tool if you can get OU in 2D you must surely also get it in 3D. FEMM only gives a snapshot but you can use data from it to predict dynamic situations, and you can run a series of snapshots to get the full dynamics. Of course this requires some math external to FEMM. As an example FEMM gives flux linkage and by doing a series of runs with different current inputs you can construct a flux v current graph from which you can obtain inductive input energy even though it may be-non linear. With a colleague who is a FEMM wizard we developed something called sim-dynamic where you perform two FEMM runs at a given geometry to get the data needed for input on the next run where something has moved or changed. This works well both for devices with moving parts as in motors and generators and also for solid state devices like transformers. This is all done under LUA script including the math. I am aware of the limitations of any finite element model so I am always looking for COP that significantly exceeds the math uncertainty.

I do a lot of modelling using classical EM theory, on spreadsheets which I find quicker and easier to do than the old Fortran and Algol that I was brought up on. Having a lifetime experience of electromagnetic theory helps here. I also developed my own methods for doing dynamic analysis in the magnetic domain, something that I find lacking in any EM works although I note now that other people are beginning to do the same. I am not an expert in magnetic materials science which is perhaps something lacking for the work we do. Since retiring in 1999 I have taken to OU forums as a means to keep my brain active, and I did do some of my own experimental work but with very limited capability as all my equipment was cast offs. I envy Peter his new scope.

Smudge

Itsu

Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #51 on: 2015-03-29, 12:50:43 »

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 4235

Quote from: verpies on 2015-03-20, 23:37:07

Like in Graham's device and in this video ?

[youtube]qauZ4WBwAOM[/youtube]

This reminded me of some earlier experiments i (we) did with this setup, see this thread:

http://www.overunity.com/14307/acoustic-magnetic-generator/msg388905/#msg388905

I rebuild the setup (see picture) and made some measurements.
But the resonance seen in the video (192KHz) matches almost the self resonance of the used pickup coil with rod inserted (216KHz), so no special effects were noted up till now.
Data on the pickup coil: L=503uH / 3.6 Ohm

Perhaps a higher value pickup coil will be needed?
I will be changing the amount of magnets to see if it need some specific value of magnetic flux.
I think also that it would be better to glue the rod to the pot core half.

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTjnvI9ZRj8&feature=youtu.be

Regards itsu

------------------------

Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions

magneto 1.png (3385.84 kB, 1632x1224 - viewed 1611 times.)

T-1000

Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #52 on: 2015-03-31, 19:07:10 »

Sr. Member

Posts: 375

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYjPLRQunGk - new twin tesla self runner from Ruslan (in second part of video).
Enjoy!

T-1000	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #53 on: 2015-04-01, 16:36:40 »
Sr. Member Posts: 375	There is new vid from Ruslan - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTpTytGIMBg [youtube]ZTpTytGIMBg[/youtube] He could not get twin tesla coil device self running in beginning and shows some live tuning before it self runs again.. P.S. I added some posts about that matter for discussion in http://www.overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/msg444472/#msg444472 « Last Edit: 2015-04-01, 17:16:30 by T-1000 »

TinselKoala

Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #54 on: 2015-04-01, 17:18:26 »

Group: Guest

It sure looks to me like there is a power supply under the workbench that he connects with some clipleads in order to get "self running". You can briefly see the pilot light on this PSU at certain parts of the video and it's clear that he's connecting something down there.

One thing is certain: There is no genuine highvoltage Tesla coil operating in that mess.

Is this the lab that is in the transmitter building of his FM radio station, I wonder?

T-1000	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #55 on: 2015-04-01, 17:24:02 »
Sr. Member Posts: 375	Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015-04-01, 17:18:26 It sure looks to me like there is a power supply under the workbench that he connects with some clipleads in order to get "self running". You can briefly see the pilot light on this PSU at certain parts of the video and it's clear that he's connecting something down there. People see batteries all around as well If Ruslan would do in that in middle of nowhere, I am sure most of people would be still looking for hidden power source...

T-1000	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #56 on: 2015-04-02, 11:17:50 »
Sr. Member Posts: 375	Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015-04-01, 17:18:26 It sure looks to me like there is a power supply under the workbench that he connects with some clipleads in order to get "self running". You can briefly see the pilot light on this PSU at certain parts of the video and it's clear that he's connecting something down there. It is drill battery charger in place .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfjEsRVO_og [youtube]ZfjEsRVO_og[/youtube] By the way, the first video is removed and if you had no chance to save it offline, here is the copy of previous videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgEecYI5ZQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXzmoY5mBh4 Cheers!

Allcanadian

Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #57 on: 2015-04-02, 23:17:59 »

Hero Member

Posts: 2735

@T1000

Quote

People see batteries all around as well. If Ruslan would do in that in middle of nowhere, I am sure most of people would be still looking for hidden power source.

We cannot prove anything to anyone who cannot prove the matter for themselves. -- T.H.moray

AC

« Last Edit: 2015-04-03, 15:00:41 by Allcanadian »

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

bfulmind23

Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #58 on: 2025-03-02, 14:23:43 »

Newbie

Posts: 19

Quote from: Smudge on 2015-03-20, 16:47:41

If you look at the MEG output waveforms it is clear that there is a resonant effect there. The input is switched but the output is almost sine wave. The resonance can't be explained electrically so IMO it must me an acoustic resonance in the cores. And metglas is magnetostrictive. I found a resonance on a smaller metglas C core so i know it exists. And when you consider that possibility it opens the door to obtaining OU via that route, ignoring Bearden's waffle about A fields etc. I wrote a paper on this, I'll see if I can find it. It uses the fact that the static magnetic field from the magnet is not uniform across the core cross section, the inner laminations are in saturation while the outer laminations are not. Thus when driven at the acoustic resonant frequency the AC flux flows in the outer laminations thus exciting the resonance via magnetostriction, and the inner magnetized laminations get stressed so as to develop anomalous coil voltage via the Villari effect.

Smudge

Are you sure there is no electrical resonance in the MEG ?

Smudge	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #59 on: 2025-03-03, 09:07:47 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1961	Quote from: bfulmind23 on 2025-03-02, 14:23:43 Are you sure there is no electrical resonance in the MEG ? Gosh, a lot has happened in the 10 years since I posted that. As I see it there was no deliberate electrical LC resonance. The output coils of many turns on the high mu metglas core would give a high inductance, but the only capacitance there is the self-capacitance of the coil and my intuition is this would not yield a resonance at the operating frequency. An electrical resonance does not offer a route to OU, but the hitherto ignored mechanical resonance in conjuction with the (also ignored or not even considered) uneven saturation of the core does offer such a route. Smudge

F6FLT

Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #60 on: 2025-03-03, 10:32:19 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 2148

Indeed. The fact that the input is switched but the output is almost sinusoidal may only be due to a low-pass filter effect, not resonance.

On the other hand, I can't see any logical reason why two different effects, each of which doesn't give OU, should give it when combined.

---------------------------

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

bfulmind23	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #61 on: 2025-03-03, 18:04:57 »
Newbie Posts: 19	Quote from: F6FLT on 2025-03-03, 10:32:19 Indeed. The fact that the input is switched but the output is almost sinusoidal may only be due to a low-pass filter effect, not resonance. Could you please elaborate ?

F6FLT	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #62 on: 2025-03-03, 20:35:37 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2148	Quote from: bfulmind23 on 2025-03-03, 18:04:57 Could you please elaborate ? In the MEG context, we have a control circuit fed by a square-wave signal which is supposed to influence a section of magnetic circuit to allow or not the passage of a magnetic flux from permanent magnets. Of course, magnetic fluxes - that's Bearden's delusion - don't switch each other, which would mean multiplicative mixing, but they do add up, possibly by modifying the permeability of the medium, which in no way changes their additivity at a given moment and for a given permeability. So, in the magnetic circuit, the only variable flux we have is that of the control coils, superimposed on the continuous flux of the magnets, without the slightest interaction between them, except indirectly through a concomitant effect on each when the permeability changes (in which case it's a simple parametric device). What we're left with is an inductor, the control coil and output coil which are coupled like a transformer, with a magnetic circuit, part of which may be saturable. An inductor is an element with an impedance that increases with frequency. If it's followed by a load, a capacitor, or if there are losses or a non negligible capacity between turns, the device becomes a low-pass filter, the current decreases with frequency. Since a square-wave signal is the sum of the signal at the fundamental frequency and the odd-numbered harmonics, the harmonics will be attenuated, and if the attenuation is strong enough, only the fundamental frequency from the control signal, i.e. the sine, will remain significant. --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Smudge	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #63 on: 2025-03-04, 08:49:49 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1961	Quote from: F6FLT on 2025-03-03, 20:35:37 In the MEG context, we have a control circuit fed by a square-wave signal which is supposed to influence a section of magnetic circuit to allow or not the passage of a magnetic flux from permanent magnets. Of course, magnetic fluxes - that's Bearden's delusion - don't switch each other, which would mean multiplicative mixing, but they do add up, possibly by modifying the permeability of the medium, which in no way changes their additivity at a given moment and for a given permeability. So, in the magnetic circuit, the only variable flux we have is that of the control coils, superimposed on the continuous flux of the magnets, without the slightest interaction between them, except indirectly through a concomitant effect on each when the permeability changes (in which case it's a simple parametric device). I find it interesting that the Bearden Meg and the Coler Strömerzeuger have two things in common. (a) There is evidence of both devices being measured to be OU. (b) Both have a PM connected to soft ferromagnetic material. In my opinion the various effects occuring within the ferromagnetic materials do not offer simple parametric devices, but rather very complex devices using a number of different parameters. For the Meg we have time-changing saturated domains, magnetostriction driving mechanical resonance, variable air gap between the C cores, the Villari effect. For the Strömerzeuger we also have time-changing saturated domains, the Hall effect, cylindrical Corbino currents. Has anyone seriously looked into these to find why that particular mixture of parameters gave anomalous results? Smudge

F6FLT	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #64 on: 2025-03-04, 11:49:09 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2148	While for Coler's device, we can still make the assumption that energy of unknown origin has appeared, for Bearden, there is no experimental evidence that the MEG would have worked. If it did, the device would be easy to reproduce, given its simplicity and the information we have on it. JL Naudin said he had seen OU in his MEG, but this was unconvincing given the margin of uncertainty in his measurements, and since he didn't insist, it's clear that he screwed up (without saying it, as usual, we had the same case with the “Kapagen”). Not only does nobody have a working MEG, but Bearden's alleged principle makes no sense and is expressed without any scientific method. Coler, on the other hand, has never claimed to give a scientific explanation, nor has he produced the tons of gibberish we've seen from Bearden. You can't put the two devices on an equal footing in terms of credibility, nor link them in terms of operation just because they have some similarities in appearance, taken from a cherry picking. They have no more similarities to each other than any magnetic device has to any other. In fact, the MEG looks much more like an ordinary transformer, which it really is, with the permanent magnets serving no other purpose than to change the permeability, which is of no interest. --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

F6FLT	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #65 on: 2025-03-04, 12:17:14 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2148	It's impossible to “switch” a magnetic flux, because a magnetic flux has no displacement of anything along its field lines. It is nothing like an electric current, whose electrons can be interrupted in a circuit. A magnetic flux is a loop around a charge as seen by an observer who sees it moving. The loop itself doesn't even exist as an intrinsic reality; the magnetic field does not exist in the charge's own frame of reference, since the charge velocity relative to itself is zero. Nothing rotates in the loop, so there's nothing to switch, it's just a relativistic effect on the coulombic field that nobody has ever “switched”. I don't understand why we're still rehashing the tall tales of this crackpot Bearden. Well, not quite. Switching the fields of a permanent magnet, using elegant but deceptive theoretical idea and set-up, is seductive. And in the field of FE, people always want to believe what seems beautiful, easy but false, over the harsh reality. They indulge in a utopian artificial paradise and settle for it like a drug. Which is why, unlike scientists, they have always failed to produce anything useful. --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

bfulmind23	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #66 on: 2025-03-04, 15:32:10 »
Newbie Posts: 19	Quote from: F6FLT on 2025-03-04, 12:17:14 It's impossible to “switch” a magnetic flux, because a magnetic flux has no displacement of anything along its field lines. It is nothing like an electric current, whose electrons can be interrupted in a circuit. A magnetic flux is a loop around a charge as seen by an observer who sees it moving. The loop itself doesn't even exist as an intrinsic reality; the magnetic field does not exist in the charge's own frame of reference, since the charge velocity relative to itself is zero. Nothing rotates in the loop, so there's nothing to switch, it's just a relativistic effect on the coulombic field that nobody has ever “switched”. I don't understand why we're still rehashing the tall tales of this crackpot Bearden. Well, not quite. Switching the fields of a permanent magnet, using elegant but deceptive theoretical idea and set-up, is seductive. And in the field of FE, people always want to believe what seems beautiful, easy but false, over the harsh reality. They indulge in a utopian artificial paradise and settle for it like a drug. Which is why, unlike scientists, they have always failed to produce anything useful. How then does Joe Flynn's parallel path technology work?

chief kolbacict

Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #67 on: 2025-03-04, 15:44:04 »

Sr. Member

Posts: 299

Quote from: F6FLT on 2025-03-04, 12:17:14

Switching the fields of a permanent magnet, using elegant but deceptive theoretical idea and set-up, is seductive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNxob3yY4LE&t=158s&pp=ygURc3RpdmVwMSB0ZWQgYW5uaXM%3D
Is this also a lie ?

------------------------

Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions

images (4).jpg (3.63 kB, 174x130 - viewed 144 times.)

Smudge	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #68 on: 2025-03-04, 16:12:02 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1961	Quote from: F6FLT on 2025-03-04, 11:49:09 While for Coler's device, we can still make the assumption that energy of unknown origin has appeared, for Bearden, there is no experimental evidence that the MEG would have worked. If it did, the device would be easy to reproduce, given its simplicity and the information we have on it. Do we have all the information? Does the device require perfectly matched C cores (matched for acoustic resonance) for it to work? Does the method of clamping the C cores require special tension (the presence of the magnet is pushing the C cores apart)? Had the magnet in Bearden's working model been used and had its characteristics changed? Has anyone since explored the effects of altering things like the clamping tension and the magnet. I suspect not because you can't strip down a build without destroying it, removing the magnet strips off laminations. Many of the so-called replication attempts don't use the exact items that Bearden used (like using ferrite cores and not metglas!). Quote You can't put the two devices on an equal footing in terms of credibility, nor link them in terms of operation just because they have some similarities in appearance, taken from a cherry picking. They have no more similarities to each other than any magnetic device has to any other. In fact, the MEG looks much more like an ordinary transformer, which it really is, with the permanent magnets serving no other purpose than to change the permeability, which is of no interest. This "change of permeability" may be of no interest to you, but it is not a simple change over the entire core as can be seen by performing simulations. That means it is not an "ordinary" transformer. You now have moving saturation fronts, not moving along the core but across the core. That is movement at right angles to the transmission of energy along the core. There are two parallel transmission paths from primary to secondary, one saturated and the other non-saturated, with the boundary between them moving in synch with the transmission. Add into that mix magnetostriction and Villari effects and it is anything but "ordinary". Smudge

F6FLT	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #69 on: 2025-03-05, 10:55:10 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2148	Quote from: bfulmind23 on 2025-03-04, 15:32:10 How then does Joe Flynn's parallel path technology work? Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025-03-04, 15:44:04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNxob3yY4LE&t=158s&pp=ygURc3RpdmVwMSB0ZWQgYW5uaXM%3D Is this also a lie ? Lies or mistakes or whatever, not even refutable. “How then does Joe Flynn's parallel path technology work?” is a premature question, and therefore useless. The question should be first “does Joe Flynn's parallel path technology work?”. Before explaining, the facts to be explained must be demonstrated, and in science and technology, a fact is reproducible. Asking questions about hypothetical facts or Youtube chatter is irrelevant. Sorry guys, but I'm interested in science and technology. In this field, if there's nothing to observe, there's nothing to discuss. Bring proof of abnormal facts and the exact way to reproduce them, and I'd be more than happy to test them and discuss them with you. --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

F6FLT	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #70 on: 2025-03-05, 11:23:09 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2148	@Smudge Contrary to what you say, I'm interested in the change in permeability, but it's classic technology and nobody has succeeded in producing a reproducible device that would show abnormal effects. Until proven otherwise, parametric devices are conventional science with no OU. The fact that the permeability is only changed on one part of the magnetic circuit doesn't allow us to assume anything, and besides, it's nothing new. Not only do we have no credible evidence that an MEG has produced OU, but it is associated with a complete theoretical delusion from Bearden, unsurprisingly, since it is supposed to explain effects that only occur in his head and those of his followers. There is nothing to observe in MEG but conventional functioning, and a theory is designed to explain observations, not illusions. As for Coler's device, we know nothing specific about it. We only have serious indications that it may have been the source of unknown effects, and it is the reproduction of these alleged facts that is of interest. Unlike the MEG, which we're sure doesn't work, we can still assume that there's a real effect at Coler. MEG can be thrown out. For Coler's device, it's still too early to tell. --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"