Center tap non-inductive experiment

  • 268 Views
  • Last Post 4 weeks ago
cd_sharp posted this 08 December 2019

Hey, guys

As there are multiple paths opening from this experiment replication, this thread will hold all the data related to the center-tap version.

Here is something following Don Smith's suitcase device:

It's much easier to achieve full-cycle magnetic resonance if L1 is wound over both POCs.

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
cd_sharp posted this 08 December 2019

Remember, in here we've seen that the center-tap circuit does not achieve full-cycle magnetic resonance. I needed to add a small capacitor between the two POCs to achieve that.

But in the above setup the cap is not needed.

Mimo posted this 08 December 2019

Bonjour cd, and all,
Il y a quelques années, j'ai remarqué cette vidéo.
Ce n'est pas mon travail, mais je pense que je vois une analogie avec le vôtre.

En espérant que cela aide
Mimo

Chris posted this 08 December 2019

Hey CD,

Yes a Center Tap, I have been familiar for some time:

 

Naturally Existing Ferromagnetic Resonance.
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:16:01 -0500


Chris,

You have me at a disadvantage! My present physical condition and that of my beloved wife severely constrain my time. My first job is taking care of her, 24/7. I do a little work in snatches and grabs, as I can, and that’s it. I’ve been steadily shucking tasks, and still have more than I can do in the time I have.

Everything I know about the VTA was released. I never knew the full conditioning program; only about 80 to 90% of it. I do know that the coils he used had a secret center tap, but am unaware of just what he did with that centertap. The actual discharge control circuit was built for him by Walter Rosenthal. Walt also saw the closed loop self-powering system, which I did not see. Basically I just stay away from the VTA insofar as possible. It was a wonderful invention, and it could also produce antigravity. But after a sniper with silenced rifle took a shot at Sweet, just missing him as he stumbled and fell, Sweet would never again discuss or do anything with the antigravity experiment. He felt he would be immediately killed if he tried to do anything with it.

And yes, I did give him the standard nonlinear optics equations, since such were involved in the conditioning process apparently, and since Sweet’s MS EE in the 40s or so was before the advent of nonlinear optics in 1972 when the Russians briefed our guys on it. Sweet had excellent math capability, however, and very rapidly absorbed the gist of NLO. Whatever was puzzling him in his activation procedure (at first he banged and banged away, finally getting a good activation), he immediately resolved it, apparently with the use of NLO equations. The next unit he built produced 500 watts output. It also produced mostly negative energy, which is a quite different bear from positive energy! It was its production of negative energy that so intrigued me, because since positive energy density makes gravity, then negative energy density makes antigravity. And so it proved to be.

On the other things, after the heart attack in 2001 and continuing hypoxia, many of my “files” are no long there or no longer accessible. That and the years intervening mean that I lost some of the details. Also, remember I was never a bench person, but always worked with those who were. My job was to examine some kind of strange behavior or anomaly, and then try to figure out what the devil that was or could be, in terms of physics.

So I hope this gives you some perspective, but I’m unable to provide actual construction details. Probably Walt Rosenthal can do that closer than anyone else, although Sweet’s method of “hiding” it was to tell each person a different story. That way, they could never get it sorted out completely.

Several other researchers have indeed activated magnets, but only for times up to about 5 weeks as the activation slowly decays. Sweet, however, had apparently discovered how to do it in a permanent fashion, so that only a severe perturbation (such as striking the magnet with a hammer) would cause loss of activation.

If you just want to build a working COP>1.0 motor without too awfully great a problem, then use the Takahashi approach. Wrap a linear permanent magnet motor around in a nearly complete circle, so that the back mmf is confined to a very short region. That motor will self-drive all the way around to the back mmf section, and there’s where the “payback” is if the symmetrical regauging of the circuit is allowed to be maintained. Instead, place a pole-piece over that back mmf section, with a coil on it, and with a tiny trickle current in it. Then as the rotor magnet reaches the back mmf section, abruptly (as with a magneto-like action) break the current in that polepiece coil, to evoke Lenz’s law very strongly. That gives you suddenly a cancellation of the back mmf, by it being momentarily overridden by the abrupt field from the polepiece. This can be sufficient for the back mmf to be eliminated during the time the rotor magnet actually passes through. So the net effect is that you eliminate the back mmf or most of it, for only a small cost to you. That gives you ASYMMETRICAL regauging and a momentary breakup of the closed current loop circuit, and momentary injection of excess energy (in a critical manner) from the external environment. All that is necessary in order to get a COP>1.0 engine.

Another engine that works as advertised is the Kawai engine. Effectively, by adroit and very efficient (photo-coupled) switching of the flux path itself, it also eliminates the back mmf of a magnetic motor. That essentially makes the COP of the Kawai motor system double the innate efficiency of the engine, since half the energy in a normal engine is used only to destroy the dipolarity by fighting the back mmf.

If you start with a high efficiency motor (say, a 70% or 80% Hitachi magnetic motor, which are available commercially), and you get a good and efficient application of the Kawai process arrangement, your modified motor should give COP = 1.4 or 1.6 or so, respectively.

Note that conservation of energy is rigorously upheld in those engines, and the OVERALL efficiency of the system is still less than 100 %.

And there is one of the rubs; most in the overunity field do not seem to know the difference between efficiency of a system and COP of that system. The efficiency is defined as the useful output divided by the total energy input from all sources (environment and operator). Or use power output for total power input, if in a steady state condition. The COP, however, is defined as the useful output divided by the energy input by only the operator. If the external environment inputs some extra energy, that is not counted in COP, but is counted in the efficiency. No engine will have efficiency greater than 100%, but with an extra environmental injection of energy, it can jolly well have COP>1.0. E.g., consider a solar cell array powering a system. The solar cell array’s efficiency may be only 20%, so that it wastes 80% of all the solar energy it receives as input. Yet it has a useful output of that 20%, while the operator himself inputs no energy at all. So its COP = infinity! So is the COP of a windmill-powered system, and a hydroelectric powered power grid and all its loads.

Hope that helps.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

Ref: www.cheniere.org - Naturally Existing Ferromagnetic Resonance

 

You, my friend, will see some familiarity's in there.

 

Also, ask the question, Tom's story, about the Back EMF Motor, all they are is just coils, why would he go to such length to tell me about that?

 

Magnet Conditioning is complete BS, and it makes me rather angry to read about even now, its such a HUGE LIE, but I suspect Tom Bearden was FORCED to tell this lie! By his Handler and the CIA. Reading between the lines, it is evident that Tom Bearden did doubt the Condition Lie!

We must learn from our past mistakes, and mistakes those before us have made, learn to be Better, be Stronger, be Self-Less, and only then we can evolve! We do not need Rule or Govern, not in the way we currently understand it! We need Leadership, and Wisdom, quality's most all of our current Govern does not have!

I hope this post gives you some insight!

   Chris

cd_sharp posted this 09 December 2019

Hey, man I think he did what he was ordered to, but he also planted the good seeds. You, my friend, have a sharp mind. You can easily distinguish between the good and poisoned seeds.

cd_sharp posted this 4 weeks ago

Hey, guys,

A little experiment I had on my phone. It's showing that we can make L1 over both POCs and still get sufficient voltage.

Members Online:
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