Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Benches > orthofield > Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions

2024-11-27, 07:30:04
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 [2] 3

« previous next »

Author Topic: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions (Read 56136 times)

Aking.21	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #25 on: 2015-03-19, 06:23:49 »
Sr. Member Posts: 420	Orthofield: Your post about switching echoes the debate over switched mode power supplies. Apparently some researchers are of the opinion that their increased use is causing havoc in some parts of the power supply industry. I have not looked in detail at the technical aspects, but it is in the back of my mind to analyse the situation in detail. I wonder if we already have a ready made device or family of devices that can be re-engineered to suit our quest? I have also noted unexplained rises in my 4 x heavy duty battery pack by simply applying a hv spark. Sometimes up by as much as 3 to 4 hundredths of a volt in just one spark. (Input power negligible.) « Last Edit: 2015-03-19, 21:45:34 by Aking.21 » --------------------------- Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KW charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

Grumpy	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #26 on: 2015-03-19, 19:24:18 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	There should be a way put the little dynamos to work for you.

Allcanadian	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #27 on: 2015-03-19, 21:44:58 »
Hero Member Posts: 2735	@Aking21 You know they say switch mode power supplies are safe but my solid state electrometer goes off like a three alarm fire whenever I get near a switch mode power supplies, florescent lights or those capacitive touch lamps. By near I mean three to four feet, hell I could probably detect my Tesla coil from a block away. Speaking of Tesla coils I doubled the output on my TC this morning simply by taking care of some leakage issues which I knew were happening but we never actually see the losses until the corona appears. Damn thing was leaking like a sieve, lol. AC --------------------------- 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

verpies	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #28 on: 2015-03-20, 12:14:07 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3499	Quote from: Smudge on 2015-03-18, 17:13:03 So is it possible to align some dipoles in soft material (like take it to saturation), extract some energy from the quantum domain (like take it beyond saturation) and hold that energy in something (maybe some other ferromagnetic material) then suddenly turn the dipoles off while still retaining that quantum derived energy? ...but that is the very principle of the CARA experiment, where a piece of soft ferrite is magnetized and that magnetization is held and allowed to do work attracting some mass and after that mass accelerates the magnetization energy is recovered into a capacitor, while retaining the kinetic energy of the accelerated mass.

Orthofield	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #29 on: 2015-03-20, 16:29:59 »
Sr. Member Posts: 331	Hi Aking, I don't know all that much about SM converters. I had to study them when I was involved in a solar project and it seemed to me right away that they had a source of loss which was somehow not showing up in their very high efficiency. As Wiki says: "The current drawn from the mains supply by this rectifier circuit occurs in short pulses around the AC voltage peaks." At least in the solar converters I saw, during the short interval the mains current is NOT going to the converter, this portion was dumped through a cap to ground. This process is known to emit half the energy going into the cap as heat or EM radiation. I suggested simply putting an inductor in line with this cap to reduce the EMI. This energy could further be dumped into a second load like a battery charge circuit. The energy gain was not enough to pursue the idea but in the present context it occurs to me that the immense noise they generate IS a bit anomalous considering their extremely high efficiency. If every (nonresonant) switch in a SM converter is emitting half of its energy in heat and light, as adiabatic studies show, then the overall efficiency should be much lower than it is! It may well be that most high efficiency ones are at some form of resonance throughout their topology-- I don't know these converters well enough to say. I haven't been able to get that article on creating harmonics yet-- I will have to look around for some other material on that subject. Hi Verpies, Smudge, I certainly agree that several seemingly workable devices come from this idea of magnetizing a ferrite and then allowing it to demagnetize itself after it attracts some mass. I'm just not sure that using a motional form is a good way to tap that energy, due to the tendency for inefficiencies in the moving parts. We might need to examine ways to do this that don't require movement, or a very different sort of movement-- possibly an oscillating structure with hard springs, like I've seen several times, which can take advantage of a sort of neutral line phenomena that happens when soft materials are magnetized and demagnetized. orthofield

Smudge	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #30 on: 2015-03-20, 16:31:26 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1940	Quote from: verpies on 2015-03-20, 12:14:07 ...but that is the very principle of the CARA experiment, where a piece of soft ferrite is magnetized and that magnetization is held and allowed to do work attracting some mass and after that mass accelerates the magnetization energy is recovered into a capacitor, while retaining the kinetic energy of the accelerated mass. The problem there is that as the mass moves towards the ferrite the field through the ferrite increases and that change puts voltage across the current source hence drawing more energy. And the extra energy drawn equates to the kinetic energy supplied to the mass. This happens even though the ferrite is saturated and has a mu = 1. I have done many FEMM simulations and this is always the result. I think it needs something extra to get OU, like using magnetostriction to manipulate the dipoles. I am convinced the Bearden MEG uses magnetostriction and I have some papers on that somewhere. Smudge

Smudge	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #31 on: 2015-03-20, 16:47:41 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1940	Quote from: orthofield on 2015-03-20, 16:29:59 We might need to examine ways to do this that don't require movement, or a very different sort of movement-- possibly an oscillating structure with hard springs, like I've seen several times, which can take advantage of a sort of neutral line phenomena that happens when soft materials are magnetized and demagnetized. 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

verpies	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #32 on: 2015-03-20, 23:37:07 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3499	Quote from: Smudge on 2015-03-20, 16:47:41 The resonance can't be explained electrically so IMO it must me an acoustic resonance in the cores. Like in Graham's device and in this video ? [youtube]qauZ4WBwAOM[/youtube] ------------------------ Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions Magnetoacoustics.png (18.96 kB, 553x210 - viewed 2204 times.) Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions Standing Wave Acoustic.gif (1866.95 kB, 900x700 - viewed 2149 times.) « Last Edit: 2015-03-21, 00:09:58 by verpies »

verpies	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #33 on: 2015-03-20, 23:53:31 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3499	Quote from: Smudge on 2015-03-20, 16:31:26 The problem there is that as the mass moves towards the ferrite the field through the ferrite increases and that change puts voltage across the current source hence drawing more energy. In this experiment the ferrite is also that mass gaining the kinetic energy and no additional electric energy is drawn from the source when S2 is closed and the mass is being attracted.

Smudge	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #34 on: 2015-03-21, 09:41:46 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1940	Quote from: verpies on 2015-03-20, 23:37:07 Like in Graham's device and in this video Yes but at a fundamental resonant frequency where the length of the C core is perhaps a quarter wavelength. Then you can imagine the end faces of the core moving just like the end face moves in that animated image. Interestingly that end face movement opens up another possibility. The full transformer core (two C cores) has an inevitable air gap (or rather two air gaps), and in the MEG that gap is considerable for two reasons, (a) the presence of the magnet induces like poles into the adjacent end faces of the cores thus forcing them apart and (b) the construction prevents the use of the usual C core banding straps so the thing holding the C cores together is a flimsy affair (in Bearden's MEG it is a plastic strap around the whole thing). Now if you have a variable air gap you also have variable inductance, so the end face movements brought about by magnetostriction will induce some parametric pumping. That is another possible route to OU. Smudge

Smudge	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #35 on: 2015-03-21, 10:36:55 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1940	Quote from: verpies on 2015-03-20, 23:53:31 In this experiment the ferrite is also that mass gaining the kinetic energy and no additional electric energy is drawn from the source when S2 is closed and the mass is being attracted. The shorted coil tries to hold the flux constant (for a reasonable time shorter than the time constant), it does not hold the current constant. So as the ferrite moves towards the coil the current decreases rapidly. When the ferrite is symmetrically within the coil you have an instantaneous energy balance of (a) energy within the (now increased) inductance of the coil at a much smaller current than the original starting point and (b) the KE of the moving ferrite. I think you will find that the sum of those two energies is equal to the original energy stored in the coil at the starting point. I don't see any OU there. Smudge

verpies	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #36 on: 2015-03-21, 10:52:11 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3499	Quote from: Smudge on 2015-03-21, 09:41:46 Yes but at a fundamental resonant frequency where the length of the C core is perhaps a quarter wavelength. ...because over an integer number of wavelengths the Villari permeability variations integrate to zero and the reluctance stays constant ? Quote from: Smudge on 2015-03-21, 09:41:46 Then you can imagine the end faces of the core moving just like the end face moves in that animated image. Interestingly that end face movement opens up another possibility. The full transformer core (two C cores) has an inevitable air gap (or rather two air gaps), and in the MEG that gap is considerable for two reasons, (a) the presence of the magnet induces like poles into the adjacent end faces of the cores thus forcing them apart and (b) the construction prevents the use of the usual C core banding straps so the thing holding the C cores together is a flimsy affair (in Bearden's MEG it is a plastic strap around the whole thing). Now if you have a variable air gap you also have variable inductance, so the end face movements brought about by magnetostriction will induce some parametric pumping. That is another possible route to OU. That's what the STAAAR Yoke device was doing. It is one of the few successful OU devices, that was reasonably well documented (even with scopeshots and spectrograms). The end faces of the two C-sections can be clearly heard clapping against each other. « Last Edit: 2015-03-23, 01:33:43 by verpies »

verpies	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #37 on: 2015-03-21, 11:08:32 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3499	Quote from: Smudge on 2015-03-21, 10:36:55 The shorted coil tries to hold the flux constant (for a reasonable time shorter than the time constant), No, the coil does not try to hold the current constant. It tries to hold the magnetic flux constant. Quote from: Smudge on 2015-03-21, 10:36:55 ,it does not hold the current constant. Indeed it does not. This is clearly stated in pt.4 of this analysis. Quote from: Smudge on 2015-03-21, 10:36:55 So as the ferrite moves towards the coil the current decreases rapidly. ...but the inductance increases rapidly, too. Quote from: Smudge on 2015-03-21, 10:36:55 When the ferrite is symmetrically within the coil you have an instantaneous energy balance of (a) energy within the (now increased) inductance of the coil at a much smaller current than the original starting point Smaller current in higher inductance does not have to amount to lower energy. Quote from: Smudge on 2015-03-21, 10:36:55 I think you will find that the sum of those two energies is equal to the original energy stored in the coil at the starting point. Perhaps, but that expectation is dictated only by the conservation of energy law, which workaround is the purpose of this forum. Perhaps the the Li² product stays constant while the ferrite is being attracted and not the sum of EM energy and Kinetic energy. This is what the CARA experiment is designed to check. P.S. Aren't there ways to increase the inductance/permeance without increasing KE, eg.: the Villari effect or magnetocaloric stuff or the ferroelectric methods described in that IEEE article by Konrad & Brudny ? In such systems the coil will also try to hold the flux constant and the current will decrease as the inductance/permeance increases.

partzman	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #38 on: 2015-03-21, 13:14:52 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1808	Akula has demonstrated a device in a video that is translated by Wesley in the link below. IMO, it shows the use of magnetostriction as the core resonance can be heard in the audio track and is pointed out by Wesley. Akula breaks down the transformer and the electrolytic caps to show there are no hidden batteries. The core is from a typical HV flyback transformer which includes a spring clip and Akula has placed what appears to be round paper spacers in the gaps. This has all the ingredients for a high frequency, small movement CARA device. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BNgo09N0yM partzman

Smudge	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #39 on: 2015-03-22, 15:13:30 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1940	Quote from: verpies on 2015-03-21, 11:08:32 Perhaps the the Li² product stays constant while the ferrite is being attracted and not the sum of EM energy and Kinetic energy. This is what the CARA experiment is designed to check. I did not base my comments on a strict adherence to conservation of energy, it is based on math analysis of the whole dynamic situation, and that shows your "perhaps" to not be true. I accept that the math uses classical EM theories and those might not be quite true of all situations, so I don't want to discourage any experimentation. I merely offer my comments to perhaps steer those experiments along more productive lines. Quote P.S. Aren't there ways to increase the inductance/permeance without increasing KE, eg.: the Villari effect or magnetocaloric stuff or the ferroelectric methods described in that IEEE article by Konrad & Brudny ? In such systems the coil will also try to hold the flux constant and the current will decrease as the inductance/permeance increases. There are known magneto-mechanical and magneto-electric effects and perhaps some unknown ones, and I think experiments are more likely to succeed if such exotic effects are deliberately introduced. As an example, I have a bee in my bonnet about conduction electrons within ferromagnets, they obtain spin polarization from the fixed atomic or molecular spins and therefore contribute to the overall magnetization. But unlike the fixed dipoles the conduction electrons can be moved, perhaps to one side or one end of the magnet, and that lopsided magnetization does not appear in any of our text books on magnetism. Movement can come from electric effects, after all they are electrons with charge as well as spin. Eddy currents induced into the magnet will move them, and if the magnet is within a metal block, perhaps held in with some non-conductive glue, or mounted in a non-conductive block, the E field vortex that would drive eddy currents across the magnet will move spin-polarized charge to one side. Movement can also come from the presence of a magnetic gradient pulling them along. Perhaps these considerations are why magnetic motors like the Yildiz one works. And perhaps the CARA experiment would benefit from not using ferrite, but instead using laminated metal core material. Smudge

Smudge	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #40 on: 2015-03-22, 15:25:10 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1940	Quote from: partzman on 2015-03-21, 13:14:52 Akula has demonstrated a device in a video that is translated by Wesley in the link below. IMO, it shows the use of magnetostriction as the core resonance can be heard in the audio track and is pointed out by Wesley. Akula breaks down the transformer and the electrolytic caps to show there are no hidden batteries. The core is from a typical HV flyback transformer which includes a spring clip and Akula has placed what appears to be round paper spacers in the gaps. This has all the ingredients for a high frequency, small movement CARA device. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BNgo09N0yM partzman Well if the STAAAR Yoke device and Akula's circuit are real examples of OU using magnetostriction shouldn't there be a thread actively devoted to this line of research? Or perhaps there is $:-\$ Incidentally, going back to the MEG, there were various sites showing the PM magnetism being totally switched from one side of the core to the other. That was utter nonsense. You only have to do the math on the output voltage, frequency and number of turns to discover that the actual AC flux is tiny compared to the DC flux from the magnet. Such small flux change can easily be accounted for by magnetostriction effects. Smudge

Smudge	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #41 on: 2015-03-22, 17:08:04 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1940	Matt, There is often another resonant "circuit" that is not electrical but is nevertheless connected to the electric circuit. This is a mechanical resonance of the core. It is excited by magnetostriction and you will find reference to it as something to avoid when using ferrite toroidal ring cores because of the possibility of core fracture due to the stresses. When there is significant reverse coupling the core resonance will show up as an apparent tank circuit resonance. So yes you can see two resonances. And of course you can drive a resonance not only using the fundamental frequency but also a harmonic or a sub-harmonic. So maybe you have your actual tank circuit at the drive frequency while the core resonates at a different frequency. Smudge

lost_bro	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #42 on: 2015-03-23, 02:10:57 »
Sr. Member Posts: 281	Quote from: Smudge on 2015-03-22, 17:08:04 Matt, There is often another resonant "circuit" that is not electrical but is nevertheless connected to the electric circuit. This is a mechanical resonance of the core. It is excited by magnetostriction and you will find reference to it as something to avoid when using ferrite toroidal ring cores because of the possibility of core fracture due to the stresses. When there is significant reverse coupling the core resonance will show up as an apparent tank circuit resonance. So yes you can see two resonances. And of course you can drive a resonance not only using the fundamental frequency but also a harmonic or a sub-harmonic. So maybe you have your actual tank circuit at the drive frequency while the core resonates at a different frequency. Smudge Good day All: Exactly, I posted some information on one of the threads here (or at OU.com?) last year in relation to the Akula 30 watt device during a replication attempt. I don't have the post handy as reference now, but it documented information from a Russian forum where an experimenter discussed disintegration of ferrite cores in his replications of an Akula device. Something about it would only run for a week or so before the ferrite falling apart. Seem to remember that Akula himself commented about the ferrite self-destruction mode in one of his devices also, apparently related to Ferro-resonance... take care, peace lost_bro

Smudge	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #43 on: 2015-03-23, 11:41:02 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 1940	Quote from: lost_bro on 2015-03-23, 02:10:57 Good day All: Exactly, I posted some information on one of the threads here (or at OU.com?) last year in relation to the Akula 30 watt device during a replication attempt. I don't have the post handy as reference now, but it documented information from a Russian forum where an experimenter discussed disintegration of ferrite cores in his replications of an Akula device. Something about it would only run for a week or so before the ferrite falling apart. Seem to remember that Akula himself commented about the ferrite self-destruction mode in one of his devices also, apparently related to Ferro-resonance... take care, peace lost_bro Meglas is also magnetostrictive and less likely to fracture under stress. Perhaps Akula could be persuaded to try using metglas C cores instead of ferrite ones. Smudge

Enigma	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #44 on: 2015-03-23, 13:13:43 »
Group: Guest	@ all. How about this ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvn7r2Nm-b4 ??E

T-1000	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #45 on: 2015-03-23, 13:14:05 »
Sr. Member Posts: 375	Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015-03-22, 16:23:54 After many hours studying the Akula and Ruslan devices, I came across a phenomena I can only theorize about; maybe you guys can add some meat to it. These devices appear to use fixed frequency oscillators that drive resonant tank circuits. What I noticed from watching them move scope probes around is that the tank circuit does not oscillate at the same frequency as the driver circuit. In one of the videos Ruslan mentions creating a "tension" in the coils. I had originally assumed he meant a voltage, but now I'm not sure the translation from Russian to English properly describes what he is talking about. So I did some thinking... It is about NMR spin conditions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OrPCNVSA4o [youtube]1OrPCNVSA4o[/youtube] Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015-03-22, 16:23:54 How could you drive a tank circuit with one frequency and have the tank circuit itself running at a different frequency? On the surface this seems impossible. Take for example you are pushing a child on a swing and while the child is swinging, someone climbs up on the top of the swing and lengthens the chains. If you continue to push at exactly the same frequency prior to this adjustment, in short time your pushes will become completely out of phase and the swinging will stop. So why do we not see this same effect in the electrical example? My theory is at some point, the tank circuit jumps. Much like a soldier marching in formation--for those that understand taking a half step to get back in cadence. What would be nice is to record a long stream with a DSO and observe if the tank circuit does in fact "jump" to get back in sync with the driving oscillator. I don't know if this is an artifact of an OU-like device or if this is the fundamental mechanism to obtain an OU-like device. Probably best if you take a peek at this video and see if what I'm describing is non-sense or has some merit: Как это работает ! (How does this work!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bBp13svDbM Each material have own physical resonance and this is why it is possible to have tank circuit which is doing free oscillation on material NMR frequency. The electrical to magnetic transformation make kinetic force in magnetic domains which either stimulate that condition or is going against it... Also when you accumulate enough energy in this phenomena the LENR can occur which give you either heat and destruction or strong oscillating magnetic field when there is not enough force to break material down for transmutation. The source of energy is down to subatomic level there.

verpies	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #46 on: 2015-03-23, 15:37:38 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3499	Quote from: Smudge on 2015-03-22, 15:13:30 I did not base my comments on a strict adherence to conservation of energy, it is based on math analysis of the whole dynamic situation, 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. « Last Edit: 2015-03-24, 01:34:26 by verpies »

verpies	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #47 on: 2015-03-23, 15:42:36 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3499	Quote from: Enigma on 2015-03-23, 13:13:43 How about this ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvn7r2Nm-b4 Wonderful! I wonder how frequency dependent that breakage is and if this would also happen if high-k dielectric was used instead of the wire.

verpies	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #48 on: 2015-03-23, 15:46:05 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3499	Quote from: Smudge on 2015-03-22, 15:25:10 Well if the STAAAR Yoke device and Akula's circuit are real examples of OU using magnetostriction shouldn't there be a thread actively devoted to this line of research? Or perhaps there is $:-\$ There are such threads at overunity.com but they rarely mention magnetostriction. Curiously the STAAAR team abandoned the Yoke device not due to non-performance but due to health-concerns

Allcanadian	Re: Excess Energy In Near Field Interactions « Reply #49 on: 2015-03-24, 00:00:45 »
Hero Member Posts: 2735	Gentlemen the future looks bright, live long and prosper. http://www.snotr.com/video/3506 AC --------------------------- 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

Pages: 1 [2] 3

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-11-27, 07:30:04

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2