Aboveunity described in terms of poynting flow

  • 333 Views
  • Last Post 28 April 2020
Zanzal posted this 23 April 2020

Poynting flow can be described as the energy that flows into or out of a circuit as a result of the electromagnetic field. The general form of this is S = E x H. That is, the cross product of the electric and magnetic field vectors results in a vector S which describes energy flowing into or out of the circuit.

Based on this, we must conclude that an above unity device must include a component which produces an E or an H vector which is zero.

Let's assume there are two "source components" and one "receiving component" to the device. If the source components each produce a pointing flow S1 and S2 then the induced pointing flow can be (at most) -S3=(E1+E2)x(H1+H2).

Now let us say H2 = 0 (that is the second source is an electric field with no net magnetic component). Then S3 can now have more power than S1 and S2 combined.

Thoughts?

NOTE: Small edits for clarity.

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Chris posted this 24 April 2020

Hey Zanzal,

I am a stickler for Simplicity, its just how I try to roll.

I always like the Bearden Graphics:

 

 

I like to think in terms of Coil and Coil Interactions, as you know.

With two Output Coils, each Coil can Add its own Individual Energy Component to the System. 

EDIT:

No normal person knows what the Heaviside Energy Flow is when it comes to energy, lets define it:

Energy current is a flow of energy defined by the Poynting vector (E × H), as opposed to normal current (flow of charge). It was originally postulated by Oliver Heaviside. It is also an informal name for Energy flux.

 

and now, the Poynting Vector:

In physics, the Poynting vector represents the directional energy flux (the energy transfer per unit area per unit time) of an electromagnetic field. The SI unit of the Poynting vector is the watt per square metre ( W / m). It is named after its discoverer John Henry Poynting who first derived it in 1884.

 

A long time ago I used an analogy: Throw a Bucket of Water up and try to catch All the Water back in the Bucket again, its impossible. Now this is not just your Bucket that you have to catch, it all the buckets we have ever thrown up! It is an Infinite Flow of Energy, our so called Empty Space Time, is filled with Energy. Thus Tom Bearden's Graphic, Red Arrows representing all the Energy in Space and Time.

I like to simplify this representation of Energy and represent Energy as a Flow from the Coil.

After all we know Voltage and Current sum to give us Watt Seconds, Joules per Second. After all, V x I cos( theta ) is what we know and represent as Energy. This is not wrong, it just misses a step, the step being Source Charge Solution:

Lets be honest, we have been missing this solution for the last 150+ years and done fine, so for most people, they will be fine not grasping this little bit bit.

If we are not too worried about the Source Charge, Electrons and Ions, or Holes, as we see a Current Flow, from the Terminals, then we will be fine to explain Voltage and Current as Energy over the course of Time. Especially for those that have no wish to go deeper into the concept!

   Chris

Zanzal posted this 24 April 2020

Yes, simplicity was what I was going for. I assume though you are saying you don't think the above is simple. Let me say it another way - suppose we have a system where by we wish to fulfill the above conditions. We might organize it like follows...

Let L1, L2, L3 be our primary coils and L4 be a coil attached to the load we wish to power. We arrange the coils geometrically such that they have the orientation described below and are they are phase locked so that E and H are not out of phase (that is maybe another way of saying they are in resonance). The field they produce could be described mathematically at some point in time like:

E1 = (1, 0, 0), H1 = (0, 1, 0)
E2 = (1, 0, 0), H2 = (0, 1, 0)
E3 = (1, 0, 0), H3 = (0, -1, 0)

Now from the above description notice that H2 and H3 sum to zero. We might call these two inductors "bucking coils" provided their electric fields do not sum to zero (and they don't in our example) they cancel each others magnetic fields to satisfy the description.

What I am saying is when this is true, the conditions for above unity can be satisfied. That is bucking coils "can" lead to above unity systems. But this requires the fulfillment of other conditions implied but not expressed (I left out something from the above so people still need to put in some work). So in other words, we can describe above unity systems in terms of poynting flow if we wish to, but its certainly not the only way to describe them.

Zanzal posted this 24 April 2020

The maximum efficiency allowed for the above system would allow for a prime mover poynting vector of (0, 0, -1). Since L2 and L3 are equal and opposite one can fulfill the role of the prime mover while the other will be a load. This means the prime mover only has to supply (0, 0, -1) in the above scenario and L4 will potentially see a field which can supply power equal to (0, 0, 3). Keep in mind these are ideals that don't get into gritty details of actual system building. Rather its just an attempt to describe above unity conditions in a mathematical way.

I know for some the above will seem like some BS math voodoo. My apologies.

Chris posted this 24 April 2020

Zanzal,

Yes I agree and you are right! This is one good way to describe Above-Unity Machines!

If I may say, I believe you ended up short cutting to the same method I was hinting toward in my prior post, E⋅H per Unit Area does simplify down to V and I over the course of Time as H is in Ampere Meters Squared I believe.

Best wishes,

   Chris

Zanzal posted this 24 April 2020

Sure AU systems can be described in terms of V and I. But V and I doesn't tell you how. The above tells you a little bit about how. Just a hint.... Not only does it provide hints about how, but it provides hints that there is more than one way to arrive at the same result. By cancelling E or H we can effect the same change. Further many authors use "scalar" to describe their devices. A common description of scalar waves and even longitudinal waves require either E or B = 0. Hidden in the equations are many implications for those who understand them. But it doesn't necessarily mean it will easier to build a device, especially if one doesn't understand how to get the bucking coils to resonant correctly for example.

YoElMiCrO posted this 24 April 2020

Hello everyone.

@Zanzal.

I agree, for example ...


This tells us that magnetic energy has two components.
One three-dimensional and one one-dimensional.
The first term is positive and this is who we are
able to measure, because the second term is negligible in comparison
to the first.
But if somehow the first term we do 0, we would only get
the second and the latter have inverse properties to everything we know.
The current would be cold, the negative time, the repulsive gravitational force, etc.
Floyd figured out how to extract it, of that there is no doubt.

Thank you in advance.

YoElMiCrO.

Zanzal posted this 24 April 2020

Hello YoElMiCrO,

If you just zero out the first term then your miniscule positive component will just be a miniscule negative component. So this is not useful if I understand correctly (and I probably don't). Also I think if you zero out the first term you also zero out the second.

I am years behind you in terms of my understanding of physics (and calculus). Have fun trying to make negative magnetic flux densities. I don't even want to mess with that. smile

Edit: Actually now that I think about it, there may be some other solutions. (must resist urge to investigate further....)

YoElMiCrO posted this 24 April 2020

Hello Zansal.

The energy contained in the second term should be universal, serious
the energy that maintains everything we see, we touch, in short, all matter.
According to my interpretation ...
It's the dipole that T.Bearden talks about.
Also of the initial process that N.E.Zaev talks about in his ferrocassor.
And no, not at all small.
Only our circuits destroy this dipole and that is why it appears
lenz's law on transformers to take an example.
I'm just trying to find the truth, just like you and everyone in this forum.
I think you have advanced knowledge and are wise in what you say.
Thanks for the compliment.

YoElMiCrO.

Zanzal posted this 24 April 2020

It took me a bit to think about it, but I am guessing what you are describing is similar to Eugene Podkletnov's work. In his experiment he created a device that could emit some sort of gravity pulse. Achieving this involved a high voltage discharge into a superconductor inside a solenoid. That might satisfy your equation above. His superconductor would have a permeability of 0. That would mean that BH/2 could equal zero. His work was referenced by Lee Hively in his scalar related patents which gives me reason to think its probably legit.

Chris posted this 25 April 2020

 

My Friends,

I think the following image says it all:

 

 

The Title spells it out, the Content makes what was not obvious before, clear now, the meaning, the content when understood has much greater consequences!

Maurice Campbell wrote:

In 1988, Floyd produced a paper which he considered to be very important.

Ref: Maurice Campbell - After observing the comments made over the past year regarding the Sweet

 

The Paper is called: Nothing is Something by Floyd "Sparky" Sweet.

Of course, whats referred to as a Team Wave in the paper, is the same as a Standing Wave!

 

It should be noted: We, here on this forum have identified and proven much of what Floyd Sweet said, one such experiment is The Mr Preva Experiment.

Floyd Sweet can be quoted saying:

The feedback loop: Previously mentioned, you will more clearly see how the loop functions at the time you see the physical construction of the stationary armature of stator assembly. The underlying principal (forget Millikan’s experiment) has been derived in that magnetic effects vary on the square of the current. As the load on the machine increases, the volt-ampere product increases. 

Ref: The Space-Flux Coupled Alternator by Floyd Sweet

 

I hope this helps some, in this topic! I have tried so hard to be Clear and Concise, but I see many have not understood, or perhaps not read what I have been sharing. If reading others work, and then gaining the required understanding, is what it takes, then so be it, as long as the required understanding is obtained. What is obvious, is that many are starting to gain an understanding! We can not know everything, I am also still learning and do not know everything!

Best wishes,

   Chris

Zanzal posted this 27 April 2020

I have tried so hard to be Clear and Concise, but I see many have not understood

Thanks Chris as always your work is appreciated even if misunderstood.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
  • YoElMiCrO
Chris posted this 27 April 2020

Hey Zanzal,

I do apologise! I am so sorry if what I say or have said is in anyway misconstrued or not understood. Because I am still learning, and we are all learning reasonably complex stuff mostly in uncharted territory's, it is hard to make sense of my nonsense, even though I do try to make it sensible.

Best wishes my friend!

   Chris

Zanzal posted this 27 April 2020

Hopefully I can get some time in the next few weeks to sit down and explore these ideas more on the bench. I am currently fabricating coils for testing these ideas, but it takes time to produce them. Looking at the problem from the mathematical side has been helpful both in identifying certain misconceptions I had and also inspired me more to think about the problem of energy flow from a field perspective.

Also YoElMiCrO's work is very exciting. I hope he is able to share more information soon.

Zanzal posted this 28 April 2020

At first I thought I'd only need single filar, tesla bi-filar, and non-inductive windings. Then I realized these also can be used as capacitors... Only downside is I need to make more.

 

Members Online:

No one online at the moment

Since Nov 27 2018
Your Support:

More than anything else, your contributions to this forum are most important! We are trying to actively get all visitors involved, but we do only have a few main contributors, which are very much appreciated! If you would like to see more pages with more detailed experiments and answers, perhaps a contribution of another type maybe possible:

Donate (PayPal)

The content I am sharing is not only unique, but is changing the world as we know it! Please Support Us!

Donate (Patreon)

Thank You So Much!

Weeks High Earners:
The great Nikola Tesla:

Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. This idea is not novel. Men have been led to it long ago go by instinct or reason. It has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new. We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who drives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians, and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static, our hopes are in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.

Experiments With Alternate Currents Of High Potential And High Frequency (February 1892).

Close