FringeIdeas Non-Inductive Coil Experiment Replication

  • 2.9K Views
  • Last Post 26 January 2024
FringeIdeas posted this 07 May 2023

I'll start this thread more or less for my documentation and a bit of questioning. I've been reading a ton and going over the videos several times. However, I'm pretty sure I don't have this correct yet. And I'm pretty sure I'm starting to confuse myself. 🙂

L1 is the input, 20 turns clockwise of 0.8mm wire. It's wrapped over, the same direction clockwise, mutually inductive, to L2, which is 140 turns of 0.8mm wire. L3 is next to these, also 140 turns of 0.8mm wire, but wrapped counter clockwise. The lamp is on L2.

The pictures were taken at about 5.6 KHz, nevermind what the scope screenshot says, the counter was all over the place. I'm pulsing 12v from a power supply at 10% duty cycle. Yellow and purple traces are L2 and L3. L1 voltage is the blue trace.

The core makes horribly loud 8-bit video game music while I'm messing with frequency ranges, so I assume some bucking is taking place. But the scope shot doesn't look right, not sawtooth enough. I noticed comments on Madscientist's recent experiments about polarities and the exponential curve instead of sawtooth, but I believe I have my diodes correct. Still, not really seeing magnetic resonance I think.

Correct me here, I'm wrong somewhere I'm sure. The input coil raises the magnetic field, north pole to the left side as it's wound clockwise from the right. Current flows in L2, the same direction, and when L1 is turned off, what is left is the magnetic field which will want to collapse and create current the opposite direction, creating a north to the right side. But then the diode is wrong, as it would be blocking the current from the collapse. UNLESS, we see a flip of current polarity because of the magnetic resonance, Mr Preva. In that case, then we have the currents, and magnetic fields from L2 and L3 opposing, and we should see the sawtooth waveform. But I was under the, possibly ignorant, impression that the Mr Preva experiment worked because of the mismatch of coil turns, 7 to 11 I believe it was. But on these coils we want matching turns, in my case 140 to 140 turns, correct? Because we want matching magnetic fields when loads are applied, for a maximum fight against each other. Again, correct me if I'm wrong please.

So, again, I think I might be seeing a tiny bit of magnetic resonance, but not enough. I need to pick up a few new printed bobbins from a friend this week, but I will increase the turns on L2 and L3 to bring up the magnetic fields, maybe 200 or 250 turns to start. Also, I'll try to increase turns on L1 so more magnetic field is delivered. Maybe overdo that too a bit, so I can walk it down a few turns at a time to see what is best. In the meantime, any advice or pointers would be completely acceptable. 🙂

I'll update more soon. And this has been fun getting back to research, so thanks to everyone that has contributed.

Marcel

 

above-unity
Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Chris posted this 07 May 2023

Hello Marcel,

Thanks for sharing!

The Partnered Output Coils, L2 and L3 must Oppose, Buck Each Other. 

Using Conventional Current and the Right Hand Grip Rule, each Magnetic Field must Oppose each other, which is essentially Conventional Electromagnetic Induction between each Coil: E.M.F = -N δΦ / δt

The Voltage "Generated" on L3, is entirely dependent on the Magnetic Field Change of L2. POC Buck Each Other...

This concept and the engineering behind it is extremely simple once one wraps ones head around it. The trick is wrapping ones head around it in the first place. Floyd Sweet wrote:

Consider for a moment the construction of the triode which includes the bifilar coils located within the fields of the two conditioned magnets. 

When the current in one half of the conductors in the coils (i.e., one of the bifilar elements in each coil) of the device is moving up, both the current and the magnetic field follow the right-hand rule.

 

The resultant motional E-field would be vertical to both and inwardly directed.

At the same time the current in the other half of the conductors in the coils is moving down and both the current and magnetic field follow the right-hand rule.

 

The resulting motional E-field is again vertical to both and inwardly directed.

Thus, the resultant field intensity is double the intensity attributable to either one of the set of coil conductors taken singularly.

Expressed mathematically: E = ( B x V ) + ( -B x -V ) = 2 ( B x V )

Ref: Floyd Sweet - Nothing is Something

 

We were clearly told how the VTA Worked, we just have been so poorly educated, Scientifically, that we missed, entirely, the concept! Floyd Sweet was a Magnetic Expert, he told us how the VTA Worked!

You're on the right track, so keep going, don't give up! It works, and its simple, but it takes some mental and physical effort to make steps to understand this and to improve it! Well Done!

Best Wishes,

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 08 May 2023

Thanks Chris! Yes I'll keep cracking at it. I think I need to pay a bit more attention to the antenna theory you have mentioned as well. I remember in my old tesla one wire transmission that input coil tuning was critical to get the correct "slap". I'll update again after I get my new bobbins and a bit more bench time. Thank again! -Marcel

FringeIdeas posted this 14 May 2023

Hey, still cracking along here. I've come up with a couple observation questions that I'd like some help with. Chris, or anyone else that can help feel free to chime in. Two questions.

1) The thread https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/some-coils-buck-and-some-coils-dont/. At the end there is this scope shot and the question of why is one trace falling and one trace raising.

Unfortunately, the thread ended with no answers and is now locked. But I did notice this in my experiments and I'm very curious because it seems like it's something that should be looked for, as far as tuning is concerned. My first thought was too much resistance in the L1 and L2 coils, but my brain doesn't seem to be offering any valid ideas. Am I correct to say, for one reason or another, the coils are not interacting fast enough?

 

Question 2)

In the video "Non-Inductive Coil Experiment - Video Nine" toward the end, it's shown that toward the end of the trace the current just drops to zero. Screenshot here.

Would this just be a matter of tuning? I assume we would want to see that trace naturally drop close to zero before regauging.

Thanks again! -Marcel

Chris posted this 14 May 2023

Hey Marcel,

With respect, you're focusing on Information that is not entirely relevant to get to the Goal, Excess "Generation" of Energy.

I have given you a 11 Video Series and you're only looking at little parts of some of it.

Of course, any sharp Switching is going to create Transients, which you point out. The Current can change very fast in these Transients. 

I suggest to focus on the Slap:

 

What occurs in this area is where the magic happens, thus why I have marked the Image Important! Which you may be trying to point out in the first question?

This is Asymmetrical Regauging:

What is the Regauge period doing?

Best Wishes,

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 14 May 2023

The regauge period is meant to bring the magnetic field back up, during a resonant condition so there is little to no impedance and it can happen quickly with little energy. At the same time creating the slap during the resonant condition, where the current pumping happens.

And thank you for the reply. I am currently, methodically, dropping turns on my L1, looking for the slap and trying to observe what is going on at different frequencies, i.e. the current and voltage amplitudes. Stared at 75 turns (only because that was 1/4 length of L2 and L3), down to 34. It's a slow process, but those questions I asked came up because of things I was seeing.

The slap is ultimately what I'm looking for though with my experiments. But due to my bobbin size currently, I had changed my L2 and L3 from 08. mm to 0.35 mm wire, and I started with 300 turns. I was thinking that might be a tad bit too thin, tad bit too long. Which prompted the question about the one trace going down while the other trace goes up. That struck me as strange, even with normal induction thinking, it was a point of curiosity anyway.

Again, thanks for the response, I will continue with dropping L1 turns and investigating. Then probably drop L2 and L3 turns from 300 to 250 and start over with a long L1, dropping turns and observing. Thanks!

-Marcel

Chris posted this 14 May 2023

Hey Marcel,

Please don't change anything, please don't change anything, please, it will work with what you have, just watch the TOn of the Mosfet and what happens in the Coils, because the Coils Magnetic Fields B are Current I through Turns N / Length l, and Current I is entirely dependent on Voltage V, watch the basics, and study the Workings, because once this is properly understood, then you can make changes to improve it. 

You get this in the POC:

 

In conventional Electromagnetic Induction, POC2 should have Zero Voltage Induced on it! However, we have shown it has a Voltage! It is easy to show that the Voltage Induced on POC2 is because POC1 has a Changing Magnetic Field, Changing in Time t. We can change the Voltage, but how? What is it that makes the Voltage Change?

This is where you need to study, then make changes, because this is where you get the Magnetisation for almost no input if each Coil is Magnetically Resonant! 

Ask yourself, what does an Antenna do in the same configuration?

Because POC1B + POC2B = 0, Superposition, your Input Coils see's Zero Net Negative Force, unlike Conventional Electromagnetic Induction, where your Input Coil see's 100% Net Negative Force, in the words of those that know no better: "Lenz's Law is circumvented"

Best Wishes,

   Chris

  • Liked by
  • Augenblick
  • ISLab
FringeIdeas posted this 14 May 2023

Roger that. I got down to 9 turn on L1. I'll set that idea aside, save it for later. 🙂 I'll keep L2 and L3 at 300 turns, digest what you just said a bit, maybe digest a little lunch here too, then crack on, observing effects of TOn. I appreciate the guidance!

-Marcel

Chris posted this 14 May 2023

Hey Marcel,

If L1, your Input Coil, has no Net Negative Force back on it, like a Conventional Transformer does, then the Current I through Turns N is only going to be the I2R Losses, which depends on the Inductance L, which will determine the Impedance Z, which includes the DC Resistance R. The Impedance will not change if there is No Net Negative Magnetic Force on your Input Coil, thus the Impedance Z does not go down, as it does in a Conventional Transformer, thus your Input Current I would normally go up in the Conventional Transformer, but this is NOT the case in our Machines!

Our Input will often go Down under Load, in other words, our Input Current I will drop, which means the Inductance L must have gone up, thus the Impedance Z must have also gone up!

Its worth thinking about.

Best Wishes,

   Chris

P.S: I like your answers, they show you have done your homework! Thank You!

FringeIdeas posted this 15 May 2023

Thanks Chris, and.. I hate to admit this but I think I had not done the right hand rule correctly. I was applying the right hand rule to L3 using the magnetic field from L2, and not the resulting magnetic field in L3, if that makes sense. Anyways, some positive looking results here. I switched around the diode on L3 and found this.. Yellow trace is L2 current with the bulb, purple trace is L3 current.

Here is the updated schematic.

I need to revisit the measurements thread to properly see what I have going on here as far as input/output.

One concern I have is before going through the experiments I had tried a sin wave sweep the output coils individually to find Fres, but there really wasn't any defined resonance point. Around 18-19KHz there was a small peak, so that is what I focused on, but the change in amplitude was really not that much. I did notice that this sawtooth type waveform started to appear around 15KHz, up to mid 20's. Which seems correct, but I was expecting a smaller range. Anything below was more of an exponential waveform, and anything above started just getting messy.

So I still don't really like this 300 turns of 0.35 mm on the output coils. 🙂 But progress seems to have been made, so I'm satisfied.

I'll try to figure out some input/output numbers to conclude this setup as I have it now, then get back to the builders guide to see what is next. I'd like to put bigger bobbins on the core and move back to 0.8 mm wire on the output coils. But my car has been in the shop for a week so I can't pick up the bobbins. Soon soon.. Now day job time.

Br,
-Marcel

Chris posted this 15 May 2023

Hey Marcel,

Beautiful Work!

For the mean time, do not focus on Measurements. Again Focus on the actions I posted above.

The reason I say this, is we have a little more to it. You are there, right on the door step!

What you have occurring there, is a World Changing Effect, its Asymmetrical Electromagnetic Induction. Never covered by Science and 100% Ignored by Main Stream Academia. Dogma at its highest level!

Why is the Voltage on POC1 and POC2 not the same? Why the Difference?

When the Voltage on POC1 and POC2 is the same, the Magnetic Field will also be the same with the same Load Resistance.

When does the Input become its Lowest?

Ratio of Input Drop, under Load, can be increased as POC1 and POC2's Magnetic Fields are closer and closer to Magnetic Resonance, 180 Degrees out of phase, and approximately equal in Magnitude, can make a very large difference and quite quickly. 

 

Like the Birthing of any Technology, it requires some study and then steps toward improvement, once understood.

Well Done!

You should be very proud of yourself! Not many have gotten this far, now you need to keep going:

There are two mistakes along the way to Mastery: Not Starting and and not going all the way!

Cite: Master Shi Heng Yi

 

The more time you re-read this thread, and take on the points that are the most important, the easier this becomes. Its a case of repetitive Study, as this is new, and not covered anywhere in Science!

Best Wishes

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 16 May 2023

Hey, yes, exciting. And I did actually do a bit of measurements, but more for the sake of practice. I was not expecting anything cop>1 yet, and it was not of course, though I was surprised the output was as high as it was regardless. But I won't post specifics. I will go over the information several more times I'm sure, and see what I can come up with.

Again, I appreciate the guidance and the positivity!

Thanks!

-Marcel

Chris posted this 16 May 2023

Hey Marcel,

Great to hear!

Please, don't forget, this area is really Important:

 

As the Amplitude Increases, the Output Power also Increases, which is obvious, its a Tap:

 

Partnered Output Coils are a Pump. An Electromagnetic Charge Pump in point of fact. 😉

Voltage is "Generated" by the Magnetic Fields "Slapping" together. A Standing Wave:

 

You're right on track, congratulations! Well Done! Don't Give Up! That's where most fail!

Best Wishes,

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 17 May 2023

Hey Chris, been trying to read and think a bit, but it's been a chaotic few days with work and family life. I do have a question, before I run down any rabbit holes, because I suffer from human nature just like most people 😀

You ask "Why is the Voltage on POC1 and POC2 not the same? Why the Difference?".

The voltage on L3 is generated by the changing magnetic field of L2. The changing magnetic field of L2 ultimately is coming from L1. So.. Is it fair to say at this point I should be just focusing on the parameters of L1. Thicker wire, wire length, maybe check that my mosfet is up to par. Try and get the raise time of L1 as fast and as high as possible, and smack the hell out of L2.

However, I still fail to see how even a great L1 is going to bring L3 to the same exact voltage point as L2. The "why the difference?" of the voltage on L2 and L3 is kicking my butt. Mental block I guess. Maybe it's because L2 is still fighting with L1 too much, and is not being allowed to fight with L3?

Thanks again! -Marcel

FringeIdeas posted this 17 May 2023

Ah, and I forgot to mention, your comment about "Ask yourself, what does an Antenna do in the same configuration?". Again, my focus should be on L1. Raise time that matched the Fres of L2, like you mentioned "The input Coil must fit the Partnered output Coil Resonance Frequency. What I mean, the Slope of the Current on the input Coil, must match the Slope of the Voltage on the Output Coil when at Resonance." in https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/chris-s-electromagnetic-charge-pump-experiment/ . Considering wire diameter and length, etc..

Thanks! -Marcel

Chris posted this 17 May 2023

Hey Marcel,

It so very impresses me how much knowledge you already have gained! You have done your home work, thats for sure!

Its a pleasure having dialog with you, someone that has done the study and also has a sensible approach!

Best Wishes,

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 18 May 2023

Well thank you, you as well! And thank you for maintaining the forum so well. It's been quite easy to study without getting lost in a bunch of nonsense.

Ok, so I'll revisit my L1 a bit, see if I can get it to push the swing properly. Might take a bit, like I mentioned it's been quite chaotic around here with work and family. Bench time has been rare. But consider it done, and I'll post again when I have more to share.

Thank you again for the guidance and positive comments!

-Marcel

FringeIdeas posted this 19 May 2023

Funny.. trying to research my question before I asked, and look what came up. 🙂 Ok, question coming up soon, if I don't find my own answer first.

FringeIdeas posted this 20 May 2023

Hey Chris,

Now I understand why in the new video "Our Flashlight" the person's desk is so messy. It's all the L1 coils that didn't make the cut. 😂

But seriously, I think I'm starting to see some relationship between the coils, and I'm thinking my L2 and L3 are not adequate. Let me explain what I'm thinking, and at any point correct me if I'm wrong please.

Around the "open end" resonance frequency of L2 (also L3) is where we are going to find the bucking, sawtooth waveform.

Also at resonance is where it becomes much easier and quicker to bring the coils to full current, this 5 time constants that you talk about should be shorter because of the reduced impedance at resonance. So then L1 is designed around the parameters of L2 and L3. Specifically the rise time at resonance, which should bring L2 and L3 into magnetic resonance. Which leads me to this..

My L2 and L3 are still the 0.35 mm, 300 turns. I find open end resonance, a tiny tiny rise in amplitude, around 19 KHz, which is also where I see the best bucking wave form, but weak currents and not equal amplitudes. I do see a nice open end nice resonant peak at around 128 KHz. But no bucking at all, just a mess of oscillations, no matter what L1 I use.

I disconnected L1, and connected the sig gen straight to L2, and like you show in your Non-inductive coil experiment video 6, to check out the rise time (5 time constants) of my L2 (not in resonance). It is 400 uS. Which would leave my operating frequency around 250 Hz. Nowhere near 19 KHz or 128 KHz, and no sign of bucking anywhere that low of frequency. I know with the LC resonance of the coil, this rise time should be quicker, and easier, to get current up to max -> shorter rise time. But I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing the impedance of L2 and L3 just causing problems.

So before I start rewinding coils, am I correct to say that it sounds like L2 and L3 are choking themselves out and I need to either bring down the turns, or use thicker wire? Am I missing anything here?

As always, all input is appreciated!
Thank you!

Marcel

Chris posted this 20 May 2023

Hey Marcel,

Did you find Resonance using the same Diode Configuration?

Best Wishes,

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 21 May 2023

Hey, quick answer is no.🙂 I'm really not seeing any points of resonance that are substantial, open end or with diodes. But before I go rewinding my L2 and L3 I want to investigate this a bit more. I did notice a bit lower around 8 KHz my input current, Mean value, started bouncing negative. Also the amplitude of L3 current seemed to grow closer to that of L2 in the lower frequencies, though the current decline starts becoming more exponential and less linear.

I need to pay a bit more attention to the lower frequencies, for some reason I was stuck expecting something at around 19 KHz where that weak resonant peak was. When I find a bit of time I'll poke around a bit more before I unwind anything.

Thanks! Marcel

Chris posted this 21 May 2023

Hey Marcel,

I recommend keeping L2 and L3 just where they are, don't change them.

Maybe change your L1, thicker wire gauge.

The length of the Wire, on L2 and 3, are equivalent to an Antenna. They need to be treated as an Antenna, Transmitter and Receiver, or even an active element, or Dipole:

 

Remember we need B to Cancel, and then E, or I will add:

 

So we need to apply Antenna Theory to our Coils to make them become Resonant.

Best Wishes,

   Chris

P.S: A quick way to do this is to observe L2 and L3 Voltages with the same load Resistance, ensure they are pretty much equal, new data, I have released this only here now, but alluded to this above.

FringeIdeas posted this 22 May 2023

Good morning!

I had tried thicker wire, up to 1.5 mm speaker wire, but maybe I was moving a bit too fast. I will look a bit deeper into antenna theory, and slow myself down a bit.

Thank you again for the guidance!

Marcel

ISLab posted this 28 May 2023

Hi Marcel, congratulations on your rapid progress!

Again, my focus should be on L1. Raise time that matched the Fres of L2, like you mentioned "The input Coil must fit the Partnered output Coil Resonance Frequency. What I mean, the Slope of the Current on the input Coil, must match the Slope of the Voltage on the Output Coil when at Resonance." in https://www.aboveunity.com/thread/chris-s-electromagnetic-charge-pump-experiment/ . Considering wire diameter and length, etc..

This is critical.

Now I understand why in the new video "Our Flashlight" the person's desk is so messy. It's all the L1 coils that didn't make the cut. 

But I think this is off. It is not the length of L1 which will change the rise time as much as the signal itself that is fed into L1.

As far as I understood, in the same thread (or perhaps elsewhere), Chris suggested to control the rise time using a variable resistor in the input signal. This would control the rise time of the MOSFET gate.

Again, as far as I understand. the L1 is related to the L2 as a simple transformer. Here the ideal relationship is with proper impedance matching to transfer full power both ways. So: Z1/Z2 =(N1/N2)2. This was was discussed in another thread.

I hope this is helpful. 😇

ISLab posted this 28 May 2023

As far as I understood, in the same thread (or perhaps elsewhere), Chris suggested to control the rise time using a variable resistor in the input signal. This would control the rise time of the MOSFET gate.

More accurately: The pulse width is set to the duration of quarter wave of the resonant frequency, and the rise time of pulse width is controlled by resistor in the pulse signal. The required resistant is a function of the MOSFET input capacitance, as this combination sets the rise time of the pulse.

Chris posted this 28 May 2023

Hello My Friends,

@ISLab, I believe youre getting different machines confused. The Eternal Flashlight and POC are different machines, while the Eternal Flashlight requires Rise/Decay time adjustment, the POC, not so much! Rise over Run is to do with Input Current, this is the Rise we need to observe. Other methods have been alluded to, Single Shot Pulse, is one.

I believe Marcel's fantastic progress, under my guidance, has shown this.

Watching, and observing, is an interesting process. Sometimes it is easy to see error, sometimes not so. Error and progress combined give intention. Some people try to succeed, some not so much!

Marcel has shown how easy and cheap this is! His success is impressive!

Best Wishes,

   Chris

ISLab posted this 29 May 2023

@ISLab, I believe youre getting different machines confused. The Eternal Flashlight and POC are different machines, while the Eternal Flashlight requires Rise/Decay time adjustment, the POC, not so much!

Thanks for the clarification Chris. Yes, going through all the interesting threads I had been reading with the impression that the tech is the same across all. I will review and corrent my understanding.

Chris posted this 29 May 2023

My Friends,

A clarification if I may, its been one of those days... 

ISLab is correct in what he said, di/dt or the Rise over Run, or the Rise/Decay time is important in all machines, but a different approach is necessary. The Eternal Flashlight requires a 20 to 27 ns rise time, this is Mechanical Resonance of the Ferrite Domains, while the POC require tuning to find the best Rise Time, which falls into another category, Faradays Law or Magnetic Resonance, so we are both correct, but one needs to observe the differences in each machine.

Sorry for any confusion, and sorry for the space taken on this thread Marcel. I try to be as accurate as I can, with the least confusion, and sometimes I think I achieve that, but sometimes I am not very good, especially when tired.

Others can not learn if I am not clear, and I very much want others to have the information in a clear format if they choose to learn. We all owe it to each other to be clear and concise!

 Best Wishes,

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 29 May 2023

Yeah stop cluttering my thread. 😁 kidding of course. The conversation is welcome. ISLab nice to meet you, thank you.

Chris, the ideas are clear no worries. And I'm still here. Just haven't found much bench time. Two day jobs and four boys running around here, it's a bit crazy some days.

Anyhoo, I'm going to spend a bit of time (when I find it) just focusing on the different lengths of L1 and it's relationship to L2. I'm sure there is a general range, say 20 to 30 turns, that would probably work just fine. But it's nice practice with my scope trying to observe what is changing as the relationship there changes. I'll post when I can.

And thanks for the kind words! Talk to you soon,

Marcel

Quick addition edit: I do understand the importance of the duty cycle, rise over run etc, and I won't skip over that. However, the length of L1 interests me, in an impedance match kind of way, which is why I'm interested in spending some time on it.

Chris posted this 17 June 2023

Hey Marcel,

How's your Energy Machine going? Any  progress to report?

Best Wishes,

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 18 June 2023

Hey chief! Thanks for checking in. Still here, but no bench time. Aside from work work work I found I needed to order some parts. My diodes were sketchy, and the 0.1 Ω resistors my friend made started changing values every time I touched them. The parts came in Friday. While waiting I was just re-watching videos and re-reading forum material.

The magnetic resonance idea is interesting. Growing up in California I surfed a bit. I remember seeing opposing waves that would tend to just move right through each other with no effect, and those sets that would climb each other and crash, like in your wave video. Thought it was interesting back then anyway. Interesting to apply that thought to magnetic waves.

So, I did set back up today, with the new diodes and resistors. For my L1 I purchased some 0.7mm wire, so it's exactly twice the diameter. I was looking at your setup in Video 7, and got to thinking about the whole antenna theory idea. Maybe not only length should be considered but surface area, in regards to the relationship between L1 and L2. Just a thought. Anyway I'm ready to get back to the bench now. Hopefully this evening or tomorrow. The next 2 weeks I'm on vacation, from both jobs,😀 so I should be able to find some time.

I'll post when I can, thanks!

Marcel

FringeIdeas posted this 22 June 2023

@chris a little update, nothing too special. So, I got a little bench time which resulted in actually back tracking a bit. If you remember, I never did find any defined resonance of my coils. It's because I was holding it wrong. 🙂 I went back over the video The Secret Revealed - Resonance Magnetically and decided to revisit this because honestly without this data, the rest is like throwing darts in the dark.

I made sure my core was pressed tight, wires shortened, cleaned everything up a bit and took off my L1 because most of it is in my trash can in one turn lengths anyway. ðŸĪĢ I then set up like you have in the video. Here is a screenshot of your setup from the video.

Honestly, I have my amature radio license, I can't believe I botched this. But I found a nice resonant point around 120 KHz. There were others up in the MHz range but I think that is a bit too high for now.
So, quarter wave, we are now looking at the rise time, the first 90' of the cycle. Here, in red.



The time period for one cycle for 120 KHz would be 8.33 uS, which gives us a 1/4 wave of about 2.08 uS, let's just call it 2 uS. So now this is our rise time for L1. Set in stone.


To make sure I get this correct, and to have it here for others who are also somehow missing this. This 2 uS only pertains to the regauge period, NOT the work period. The work period can be vastly different, but the regauge period needs to be 2 uS. This is the time that L1 is charging L2, and L2 needs this frequency/time period to be able to talk properly to L3 and charge L3. This is the area/time of reduced impedance, using that frequency where L2 and L3 talk well. This then allows L2 and L3 to be "equal". Once the regauge period is over, and L2 and L3 are charged, then this 2 uS is not needed for the rest of the cycle, hence the work period could be whatever. Of course we want a short regauge period and a long work period.


So again 2 uS is locked in. If I change the working frequency of the machine, then I need to redial the duty cycle so that my pulse is stays at 2 uS. The off time can shrink or grow, but not the pulse, it has to remain 2 uS.


So a couple of questions. Why do you say shoot for 10% duty cycle? Is there something else special about 10% or is that just a good place to start?


Also, I'm going to rewind my L1 now that I (think I) understand. The relationship between L1 and L2 is just general inductance, correct? Anything else I might be missing? Just thicker wire to bring down physical resistance, less turns for less physical resistance, but not too few.
Ok, the whole household here has some strange flu, not sure when I'll get back to the bench, hopefully this week, soon. Let's see. Still got a lot of wire left for the L1 observations. I'll let you know.


Thanks again!
Marcel

p.s. a few edits trying to add the link to the video. Ended up just adding bold/italics.

Chris posted this 22 June 2023

Hey Marcel,

 

So a couple of questions. Why do you say shoot for 10% duty cycle? Is there something else special about 10% or is that just a good place to start?

 

Yes, just a good place to start.


Also, I'm going to rewind my L1 now that I (think I) understand. The relationship between L1 and L2 is just general inductance, correct? Anything else I might be missing?

 

L1, your Input Coil can be tuned by T = RC, adding a Capacitor.

Again, as I said, look for POC Voltages, aim to try and get them the same, this will require finding a Load, for each Coil, that is sufficient. Remember what Walt Rosenthal said:

The VTA "likes" to always see a minimum load of 25 watts.

Ref Walt Rosenthal

 

This is the feed back between the Coils, you need to make sure the Fields are Working to Generate Energy.

Get Well Soon!

Best Wishes,

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 22 June 2023

Ok, great, I'll keep that info in mind. And thanks! I'll get back to the bench soon.

Marcel

FringeIdeas posted this 02 July 2023

Hey, just checking in.


Family is better. It was strange, like the chicken pox, fever and bumps, but with the addition of sores on hands and feet. Luckily I escaped it somehow, but it got the rest of the family.


So.. Chris, I'm sorry, but I rewound my coils. 😎 The reason being, even though I found that open end resonance finally, I tried hooking up only L2 and L3 in normal transformer mode and something was wrong. With 12 Vpp on L2 at 50 Hz, and a load on L3, the L3 voltage dropped significantly when it should not have, I was not loading it that hard. Then looking at the bobbins that didn't fit the core correctly, I just said forget it.


I got the new bobbins from my friend that I've been meaning to pick up for a few weeks. They fit perfectly and actually give me more room to play with. I wound 250 turns of 0.5 mm on each one, and for L1 I put 25 turns of 1.5 mm wire. I have an Fres of around 81 KHz, and in normal transformer mode the voltage drop caused by the load is much more predictable and makes sense.


Anyway, with the little bench time I got in during our own little plagues of Egypt we had here, I spent time going through different frequencies, duty cycles, and trying different loads. Trying the same load on L2 and L3, and trying with one bigger than the other, just watching voltages. There are variations where I'm starting to see input drop and output rise. For example, around 3.5 KHz, 10-15% duty cycle, with L2 loaded with around 285 Ω and L3 loaded with around 41Ω (calculated values of bulbs powered at 12 V DC), it seems like I have equal L2 and L3 voltage levels. Closer to equal anyway. And as I sweep up manually over 3.5 KHz, the input drops and the light gets brighter. Then around 4.2 KHz or so, the output falls back off and the input goes back up. This also seems to happen around 33 KHz, which I was not expecting. These input drops and output increases are not huge. If you were to sweep fast enough you might not even notice. But they are there.


So, anyway, making a little bit of progress. I understand what you are getting at with "equal", as that will produce the most significant "slap", and a longer fight on the way down. So I'm looking for that. I have not tried tuning the input with a cap yet, as you suggested. I think maybe that would be fine tuning after "equal" is found? I was also going to play with the idea of adding a few extra turns to L3 to try and balance the output coils a bit. But for now I'll only continue to play around with different loads and duty cycles first.


Unfortunately my vacation time is over and tomorrow I go back to the day jobs. But I'll still poke at this when I can. I'll update again soon!


Thanks!
Marcel

FringeIdeas posted this 12 August 2023

Hey, just a check in. Figured I'd write to show I'm still active.

Still fighting for any decent bench time, but I had realized I really didn't know jack about transformers. So I went back to basic transformer studies. Using my microwave oven core, and a new nanocrystalline core I purchased for 100e, just for comparison. This one actually, https://blueferrite.com/download/product/datasheet/D0160O30N01-01.pdf

So, had some fun with 1:1 and some minor step up transformer designs.

Also, I had wound a few different versions of partnered output coils, leaving the input coil off. Just to get familiar with the interactions of the output coils during resonance. I noticed, for example with one build, using the antenna tuning trick of open end resonance, that from output coil 1 -> coil 2, resonance was found around 125 KHz. But going the other way, output coil 2 -> coil 1, resonance was found at around 150 KHz. I assume if we want equal and opposite, this is no good. Too many crossovers when winding I think. So I wound a couple output coils with only 40 turns each so I knew the wind was clean and physically the same, and these reacted with each other at the same frequencies, which I assume is necessary if we consider we want the output coils to talk both directions, in a well tuned antenna type way. Hard to listen to the 40 meter band if your antenna is physically made for 20 meters.

So, this weekend I'm moving my home office. I've been remodeling another room in the house to be sound proofed so I can concentrate during working hours better. This will include my project bench, equipment, etc. I'll get that all moved and set up and in a few days start carefully winding another partnered output coil set, trying to make them physically as close as possible. Probably around 150 turns or so for each, on the nanocrystalline core. And then back to observing a bit more of how they interact. Then get back to the input coil and it's role in the resonant cycle, which I'm quite sure I understand, but let's see.

Moving a bit slow, but still moving! Hope all is well.

Br,

Marcel

FringeIdeas posted this 28 August 2023

Hey, checking in, I'm still alive and moving.

Finally got the new office renovated, sound proof and all. Very nice. Bench is set up. I revisited my switching a little, as it was not really up to par. Maybe still needs a little work. And I have my nanocrystalline core with partnered output coils wound. Still not machine wound perfectness, but much better than before. Each coil is 3 layers of 50 turns, 1mm wire, for a total of 150 turns each. Same length same size, etc, this picture is a bit deceiving.

No input coil yet. I plan on 3 layers of 7 turns, for 21 turns of probably 1.5 mm wire. But first I want to play around with open end resonant peaks. Just get used to what I've got here. I do recall, if I'm correct, that adding the input coil does change the points of resonance a bit. Possibly not enough to worry about, but I want to pay attention to these things as I move along.

Then the plan is to just use the input coil and POC1 as a conventional step-up transformer, and ensure I have that working correctly before I incorporate POC2.

Hope all is well!

Marcel

FringeIdeas posted this 28 August 2023

So, I got a bit of downtime from work and got to play around with the open end resonance of the POC coils. It's strange to me that depending on which end is being signaled and which end is being probed, you can get different resonant frequencies.

However, if I only pay attention to how I will set up the diodes, forcing direction of current, then from POC1->POC2, and POC2 to POC1, I get a lower Fres of 12.4 KHz, and a higher Fres of 228 KHz.

So, I made up a little spreadsheet calc where it calculates expected sub-harmonics and the duty cycle that would be used to keep the same raise time as Fres.

So for example, 228 KHz has a time period of 4.386 mS. 1/4 of that (25% duty cycle), the rise, is 1.096 mS. If I pick a sub-harmonic, for example the next multiple 4.386 mS x 2 = 8.772 mS, or 114 KHz. The pulse should cross 0 at the correct time and in the correct direction, and our duty cycle, maintaining the rise time of 1.096 mS would now be around 12.5%.

Anyway, I still need to get a proper input coil now and ensure the resonant peaks are still in the same place, and play with the input coil-> POC1 a bit. I'll leave POC2 alone for now.

Marcel

Edit: Meant to say I will pick one of the sub-harmonics and try to work around that when playing with the input coil->POC1, try to maximize that relationship. Not sure yet if I want to pay attention to the lower 12.4 KHz or the higher 228 KHz.

Chris posted this 28 August 2023

Hello Marcel,

I started to type a big long post to try to help, but I believe it would be pointless for me to approach it that way.

Let me ask you one question: "How does one Induce a flow of Current in a Coil Conductor, and how do we do it in Two Conductors ( POC ) at the same time"?

When you gain next level understanding, I believe we will see a change in direction, in your work that will be much easier to assist with.

Best Wishes,

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 29 August 2023

Good morning Chris,

I'm still working on coffee here, but I would say a changing magnetic field creates the potential difference, which then allows for the current to flow, assuming there is a load. For two coils at the same time, I feel maybe I'm missing something here? but I would say what we are trying to do is get the magnetic field (input) up to induce the current in POC1 which then creates it's own magnetic field that induces a current in POC2. And I would say we rely on the resonant relationship between POC1 and POC2 to accomplish this.

I do appreciate the direction, if I'm not seeing something correctly!

Marcel

Chris posted this 29 August 2023

Hey Marcel,

POCOne and POCTwo are meant to act as a Pump.

Reaching Peak Output Voltage Potential is controlled by the Input Coil, but not limited by Input Current, and works at the POC Design.

Peak Output Voltage Potential is where Peak POC Magnetic Field Opposition occurs, but this area is not dependent on your Input, its dependent on POC Design.

Best Wishes,

   Chris 

Chris posted this 30 August 2023

Hey Marcel,

I am guessing you're seeing this:

POCOne and POCTwo are meant to act as a Pump.

Reaching Peak Output Voltage Potential is controlled by the Input Coil, but not limited by Input Current, and works at the POC Design.

Peak Output Voltage Potential is where Peak POC Magnetic Field Opposition occurs, but this area is not dependent on your Input, its dependent on POC Design.

 

Already?

Partnered Output Coils are meant to Buck each other! They are an Electromagnetic Charge Pump, working on the Subatomic Charge inside the Copper Conductors! 

Its all very simple once one takes the time to understand these very simple fundamental processes!

Best Wishes,

   Chris 

FringeIdeas posted this 31 August 2023

Hey Chris. I have not gotten back to the bench, so no time messing around with an input coil yet. Some flu is working it's way through the family again. Minor one, but it seems to sap all my time.

Also, I will first revisit my switching. I was trying to get by with just a logic level N-type driving a P-type, with a few resistors in there, but too much ringing/noise. Then I purchased some readymade board and it turns out, like most on the market, it tops out at about 20KHz. So I need to pick a decent high frequency driver and just put together something nice.

I do think I understand the concept enough though. POC coils need to be brought up to the same amplitude of current, in phase with each other. Meaning they buck against one another. The input coil is responsible for bringing up POC1, in a resonant manner, like and antenna transmitter/receiver. POC2 does not see the input coil, due to the diode configuration. POC2 does see POC1 rise, and because of the resonant relationship POC2 will then rise, and oppose POC1. If there is some kind of amplitude mismatch, then as I believe you have mentioned before, playing with different loads can help bring a closer match.

I did notice at the higher resonant frequency, when doing the open end frequency sweeps, that the currents seemed to shift. Not sure if that is relevant, as the coils are already set to oppose each other. But it's possible I\m being a complete bonehead and that is something I should have already noticed. I'll experiment a bit once I get my switching fixed up.

I'll post when I can, thanks again!

Marcel

FringeIdeas posted this 08 September 2023

Ok, so I finally got my mosfet drivers in the mail today. I ordered a handful of the IXDF604PI. No charge pump or anything in them, they are quite simple. The version I got has one inverted output and one normal.

So I have my function generator (5V pulse) driving the input for the inverted leg. Couple of resistors tying the inputs to ground to stabilize, the inputs are quite sensitive. Then a 100µF cap across Vcc and GND, which seems to stabilize it a bit more. The inverted output is pulling down the gate of a IRF9530. I'm high side switching.

At 150 KHz this is what it looks like over a resistive load.

Not too bad, about a 300nS rising edge. Still a bit of overshoot but much better than what I had before. And it still looks decent when sweeping higher, but the overshoot starts to grow around 700KHz or so. Good enough for now.

So, I'll get back to trying to find bench time. I'll be investigating the input coil and it's relationship to POC1. And will hopefully be posting some updates again soon.

Hope all is well!

Marcel

 

ISLab posted this 26 September 2023

So for example, 228 KHz has a time period of 4.386 mS. 1/4 of that (25% duty cycle), the rise, is 1.096 mS. If I pick a sub-harmonic, for example the next multiple 4.386 mS x 2 = 8.772 mS, or 114 KHz. The pulse should cross 0 at the correct time and in the correct direction, and our duty cycle, maintaining the rise time of 1.096 mS would now be around 12.5%.

Hi Marcel, Great work ongoing!

Just wanted to point out that 228KHz corresponds to 4.386 uS (micro-seconds) and not mS (milli-seconds). If it was a slip in writing, then nothing to worry about. But if you calculate based on this, it could take you off track. 😇

FringeIdeas posted this 26 September 2023

Hey ISLab, thanks, and yes thanks I have fat fingers I guess. Probably in a hurry and it just felt natural to hit "mS".

Still fighting for my bench time here, and I think I'm going back to a little Mr Preva investigation before I continue on this thread because there are a few nagging questions in my head that are preventing me from moving forward here. So I'll probably update my Mr Preva thread soon, or start a "Mr Preva extended" thread. Then get back to this thread and these experiments.

Thanks for stopping in, good to see you active!

Marcel

FringeIdeas posted this 30 December 2023

 

Hey Chris,

I got my coils wound finally, double the original CSA. When moving into the resonance the input drops quite dramatic, it's cool to see. From around 700 mA to 320 mA. But I'm still not seeing too much of the assistance from POC 2. Though it's definitely there. Shorting and un-shorting POC 2 does show the difference in input current and light coming from the POC 1 circuit. And when POC 2 is shorted the sawtooth waveform is quite evident. Still a work in progress of course, I just wanted to show this because last time I found the "effect" I didn't take any pictures or video. Here are a few for documentation.

So, a short video.

 

And in this screenshot, the yellow trace is POC 2 current, purple is POC 1 current, and blue is POC 1 voltage over the light bulb.

Like I mentioned in the video, the cores are crap I think. Inside the plastic casing the cores is so soft that it would collapse under it's own weight without the plastic holding it up. Strange. Anyway, still moving forward. Trying to focus a bit more on the experiments for some coils buck and some don't. But I thought I would throw this up in the meantime, to show I have at least touched the "effect" 🙂

Edit: Quickly for readers. The POC coils are 1mm wire, 180 turns each. Input coil is about 15 turns 1mm wire, on top of POC 1 wound in the same direction. POC coils are of course wound CW and CCW. If anyone wants anymore data, inductance, resistance, etc, just ask, I'll go look up my measurements.

Edit 2: Forgot to say Happy New Year from Finland! 2024 already, crazy. But the wife and I have some rum and rockets, so it should be a good time. 😎 Hope everyone is having fun as well, stay safe, see you next year!

Thanks!

Marcel

Chris posted this 30 December 2023

Morning Marcel,

Excellent Work! Very Nice! Well done! Happy New Year!

I left a message on your video:

Excellent Video! You have this setup exactly spot on! Well done! Dont give up! The lamp is 300ma at 12V, so I think if you take into account all the Power, in POC 1 and POC2, I believe you would be surprised!

 

As I said, please don't forget, you have Power in POCTwo! This Power always goes unaccounted for, because it is a short, no one thinks power is running in this Circuit, when it really is!

I see Input Power going down under load! POCTwo connected is 320ma and POCTwo disconnected 330ma. This is important! You are seeing a 100 - 96.969 = 3% Increase by using POCTwo! This can be improved, greatly!

 

You are getting all the right effects! Floyd Sweet was way down, nearly 100% reduction in Input Power! He was in the Microwatt Region!

It is hard to see the entire circuit, do you have a Diode on POCTwo?

I cant see your Input Power, only the amps. I cant see input Volts?

I believe if you scope this setup properly, you will be surprised at the result! I Believe is is not as you said:

Getting what I believe is the effect. The resonance however this is not above Unity nowhere close, I wouldn't even call it a efficient Transformer um

 

We have seen this view before and the machine turned out to be COP = 2.0 in the end! Thank You Captainloz, My Friend!

Anyway, I think you really need to study this in much greater detail! You need to measure the Input via the scope, because some bench top PSU's are not accurate, verify yours is accurate, and measure both POC Outputs!

Excellent work Marcel! You should be very pleased with yourself! This is a very important step, because, from here, you can only improve!

You are working in an area of science that is uncharted! Its a new area! No one has any Textbooks for what you are doing! Only here at Aboveunity.com will you find the answers!

How to improve? Simply get your Voltages Up! By Increasing your Output Voltages your Output will increase and your Input will go down further. Start by doubling your POC Turns.

Please don't give up! I will help you!

Best Wishes,

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 01 January 2024

Hey Chris, thanks!

The input voltage was around 12 or 13V when I took the video. Sorry the edges of the video were cut off. I could see it all fine when I was taking the video, and didn't notice it was cropped until I uploaded to YouTube.

And yes there is a diode on POC 2, so that it only reacts to POC 1. And actually looking at my scope traces now I think I might have had it configured so that the input pushes POC 2, then POC 2 to POC 1. I'll check on that. And I'll go ahead and take measurements with the scope, including the input, and see where it stands.

I probably could find a better duty cycle and frequency as well. I honestly just wanted to get a video showing the effect, so I just threw it together and found the first frequency and duty cycle where I noticed it. But yeah, I'll check measurements and play with it a bit. And order a bit more wire for more turns, maybe later this week I can get that done.

Much appreciated!

Marcel

Chris posted this 01 January 2024

Hey Marcel,

You did a fantastic job! Thank You!

I have always said, look for the effects first, and the AU will follow, and it will, so please don't give up, because like any technology emerging, it takes time and experiment to understand and improve upon, as improvements are made, the Output will increase dramatically, over the input. I promise you!

Like Sir Richard Feynman said: "Little steps for little feet".

Before you know it, you will have a useful output for nearly no input!

Please Note: Right now you are working on a machine that is Not Conventional! This is Asymmetrical Electromagnetic Induction, never before detailed in Science, only here on this forum will you find this new Technology! Its brand New, it needs work and refinement, I have done a lot, but there is still a massive technological Jump ahead! MASSIVE! I have only given the very start, the very basics to get people going.

Free Energy is here, its just the fact that so many are blind to it all, they are desensitized so much, that they think its all lies, we have shown working machines! So many still don't believe it, and just don't do the research and study, they don't sit down and run the figures and check the circuits, they are for the most part to lazy. Isn't it sad!

Thank You Marcel, you have already been added to our list of successes, and you have also done a good deed for Humanity and are helping lead the way forward!

Best Wishes,

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 11 January 2024

Hey, so as per advice I added more turns to the POC coils, and got some interesting results.

Here are a few coil details:

  • From 180 turns to 310 turns each POC, 1 mm wire (to increase the magnetic field/get voltages up).
  • Coil length 4 cm (shortened several posts back to increase the magnetic field).
  • Coil width (CSA) 7x2 cm (increased a few posts back to increase the magnetic field).
  • Avg turn length 24.5 cm, total length 7595 cm.
  • POC1 inductance is 5.49 H, and 1.8 Ω.
  • POC2 inductance is 5.52 H, and 1.8 Ω.
  • Both have a lower open end resonance of 4.9 KHz.
  • POC1 higher resonance of 508 KHz
  • POC2 higher resonance of 520 KHz.
  • Input coil 10 turns 1 mm wire, wrapped around POC1 same winding direction.

The setup, I feel this is important to share. I have the diodes configured so POC2 on the bottom reacts to the input coil, not POC1 (which the input is wrapped on). Then POC1 reacts to POC2. Here is a picture showing the current and magnetic field directions according to what is generated and what is induced.

This has been really messing with my head because I when setting up the diodes so that POC1 reacts to the input and POC2 reacting to POC1, I could not find the sawtooth wave form. Maybe in a different build some time ago. But with this core and these coils I need to have it configured like in the picture. Then resonance is quite easy to find.

I even did the sin wave diode trick to check my polarities. Function generator on the input, positive where my pulse positive would be. Diodes set up like I have them in the experiment. Below, blue trace is input. Yellow trace is POC1. Purple trace is POC2.

POC2 is immediately reacting to the input. POC1 is reacting the the negative swing of the input, meaning it's diode is configured to react to POC2. So I'm sure my drawing of the coils is correct.

So to the experiment. 12.34 V on the input, square pulse with 4% duty cycle at about 5.8 KHz.

Something strange to mention. In the video which I will share, I have a 55V 3W bulb on POC1, and I'm shorting POC2. As expected, the shorting of POC2 assists in lighting the bulb on POC1 as well as bringing down the input. But because of the diode configuration, when I have the circuit for POC2 open, un-shorted, then POC1 should have almost nothing on it, because not much if anything should be coming from POC2. Although on the scope you can see strong oscillations, so in my mind, even though the POC2 circuit is open, it's still acting as an open end antenna, with voltages and currents included. This is something I'd like to investigate further for sure.

Additionally, if I switch the bulb to POC2 and short the POC1 circuit, it does not work the same. The shorting of POC1 seems to kill any interaction between the input coil and POC2.

The 55V bulb seemed to be a good match. Other lower V level bulbs did not allow for such a large input drop. Maybe a bit higher of a value would be better, but I don't have any to experiment with.

Ok, so the video, and some scope shots, then some thoughts.

Scope shot of the input coil V in blue, A in purple, MATH in white:

Scope shop of POC1, with the bulb V in blue, A in purple, MATH in white:

Not as sawtooth as I would like, or normally find, but this had good results nonetheless, so I wanted to share before I start reconfiguring things.

The measurements, like normal, are tricky. The output on the bulb I measured with the scope math because the wave forms are not trivial to calculate manually. I also put a similar bulb straight to DC on the power supply and matched the brightness. I'm confident that the 1.5 W out measurement is quite close.

The input I also measured with the scope math function, but also used various meters, digital and inductive analogue, and I'm also pretty sure the input of 1.2 W is quite accurate. Giving a rough COP of about 1.3. I did not share the measurements for POC2, but did measure it. It was somewhat small though, somewhere around 40-50 mW.

Thoughts:

This spot where shorting POC2 seemed to assist was not at the coil open end resonance, but a little higher (5.8 KHz). If I drop to the coil's natural resonance of around 4.9 KHz or just below, I do see resonance but shorting POC2 increases the input. Maybe something going on with the different components of the impedance. Just thought I would mention that because I've noticed on most of these setups that there seems to be two resonant spots close to each other (somewhere around the coils natural Fres). The lower resonance spot increases the output and dims the bulb, and the slightly higher resonance spot brightens the bulb and decreases the input. If both POC coils are left open, and you sweep with the function generator, you can see the amplitude of these oscillations shrink and grow as you hit the difference resonance points. It's interesting.

I guess that's it for now, I should really get some dayjob stuff done 😃

Any positive conversation is welcome!

Thanks!

Marcel

 

 

Chris posted this 11 January 2024

Hey Marcel,

Thank You for sharing, very good work!

COP >= 1.3

 

How easy is it, to do, what the Morons, tell us all, we can't do! We are doing it, it's easy and its cheap!

You should be very proud of yourself My Friend! Well Done!

Everyone should be studding this intently, because this is yet another example of why we are Light Years Ahead of the others! There are a lot of Brainless Idiots out there that have no commonsense flowing! Here you have MORE EVIDENCE, of how far ahead we are!!!

Can you believe this comment:

solarlab posted this 19 hours ago

 

Hey Chris - over at aboveunity.com, 


You should quit worrying about everyone else's progress, and such, and 
get busy yourself studying and developing an "EE_TFG" excess energy device 
or a "LinGen." These are real devices and have real output capabilities! 

Everything you need to know is outlined in my posts on both the OverunityMachines 
and Mooker Opensource Free Energy Forum. See "solarlab" threads and posts; the 
concepts are actually new 'Excess Energy' discoveries and are "Light Years Ahead." 

They're already analyzed, tested, and easy to build without any exotic equipment or 
parts. Also, there are plenty of "back-up" attachments, etc.. 

Looking forward to reviewing your designs and discussions related to these systems,
or any others that you may have developed yourself, Hey - We're all in this together! 

But, just IMHO ... 

https://overunitymachines.com/ 
https://www.mooker.com/ 

Take care and have a good one, 

SL 

 

I banned this guy because he has no idea and was off on wild goose chases, and he lied to us all, making false claims about the BTG! He claimed he had 100% working BTG, and 100% working theory, with simulations supporting his amazing discoveries!!! WTF!!! All of it turned out to be Fake!

How embarrassing, this guy seems to dig bigger and bigger holes for himself! It is 100% Clear, he has no idea whatsoever! It is evident, he is making a concerted effort to distract, and draw people down Rabbit-Holes, filled with Lies and Propaganda, while we offer Truth and Proof, he offers NOTHING!!!

Now this guy, claims to be a guru? WTF! The truth is, he has no idea! No, we are not in this together! We have always struggled against these sorts of people, trying to mislead and confuse others with Lies and Propaganda and Perpetuated Plagiaristic Hoaxes! The Ignorance Ooozes! ðŸĪĄ

We have given this technology, "new 'Excess Energy' discoveries", freely for about 10 Years! ðŸĪŠ

We are Truth! All of these Independent Replications proves it! Marcel's 'Excess Energy' Replication, it is proof we have this Technology 100% Down and have shared it Freely for a very long time!

This gives everyone a Baseline to gauge, them from Us, we are showing them up more and more everyday with their complete ignorance! The struggle to remain ignorant is evident and obvious!

Are you all tired of these sorts of people? Tired of the Trolls, the Fakers, the Hoaxers, the Plagiarists, and Liars?

We are Light Years Ahead of the others!

@Marcel - I am sorry for going off on a rant, but for others, they can see what we are up against, and we have seen a lot worse!

Thank You Marcel, for again showing how simple this is, and, how Dumb they are, another Independent Replication proves the Truth is HERE ONLY! www.aboveunity.com is the Home of Free Energy Machines! We are Light Years Ahead!!!

FACT: I have helped more people achieve Excess Energy Status, than anyone ever before in History! Do you think there is a reason for this? Hmmm, seems a little too obvious doesn't it! Dur! OMG some people are dumb idiots!

Best Wishes My Friend,

   Chris

Chris posted this 12 January 2024

Hey Marcel,

I would recommend adding a load to the shorted Lamp holder on POCTwo. Them measure and add to your Output.

Adding and adjusting the load, will give you an extra output, and when both outputs are approximately equal and as you have it, opposite, you will have nearly double the output for no extra input!

This is where Floyd Sweets E / 2 becomes E, because you now have E / 2 + E / 2 = E.

If the directions of the two signals are such that opposite H-fields cancel and E-fields add, an apparently steady E-field will be created. The energy density of the fields remain as calculated above, but the value of the E-field will double from E/2 to E.

Ref: Floyd Sweet - Nothing is Something

 

Just out of curiosity, what's your current CSA? Edit, dup, got it: 14 cm2.

Well done and good work My Friend!

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 13 January 2024

Ok, will do, I'll play around with loads. I think Monday I'll have a bit of time. I'll be sure to report.

Thanks,

Marcel

Chris posted this 15 January 2024

Thank You Marcel,

Its a fact, and you have kindly shown this, achieving Above Unity Results is not a hard feat!

COP = 1.3, in calculation, I got COP = 1.6, is a very good, a fantastic, Achievement!

We have shown many times, this same feat! A feat that so many dumb asses, seem to scoff at! They actively Plagiarize and miss-represent it, an act of Propaganda by Traitors! Being a Traitor is a crime punishable by Death, I believe!

Getting the oscilloscope to measure greater Output vs Input is an impossible task, only REAL Machines, that have a greater Output over the Input, does this task become an easy task to achieve, and we do this all the time!

 You know, you have seen this work, and you know how easy, how cheap, and how much knowledge is required to gain the title you now have achieved, as Achieving Above Unity!

I want to thank You Marcel, for being a good, honest person, helping the world see the Light!

Light Up The Darkness!

 

Best Wishes,

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 16 January 2024

Chris, you are welcome, glad I can help. And thank you for providing the information in the first place, quite a task you have accomplished.

Concerning my setup, I got a little time yesterday to play around.

Adding identical loads on the POC coils, 55V 3W lamps, at that frequency of 5.8 KHz or so, instead of shorting POC2, results in more of an exponential drop and the voltages and currents are about 1/3 on POC2 of what they are on POC1. That alone is a bit confusing due to the fact that I have my diodes setup so that the input first interacts with POC2, then POC2 interacts with POC1.

From here, I noticed I could either play with different loads, or drop the frequency until the voltages and currents seemed to match. Dropping the frequency, down to about 2.1 KHz or so, just made the decay faster, more exponential. And I'm guessing I'm getting away from any resonance in the coils, so I stopped experimenting with that.

I then played around with different loads. I got a decent voltage and current match, at around 4.9 KHz, which if you remember was my open-end resonance frequency of the POC coils. So with a 240V 20W on POC1, and a 240V 15W on POC2, voltages were about equal, but current on POC2 was still about 1/3 . And the decay again was more exponential.

POC1 is blue(V) and purple(A), and POC2 is green(V) and yellow(A).

The input coil:

In this configuration input was around 2.14 W mean, POC1 1.5 W rms, and POC2 800 mW or so rms. No real improvement just yet assuming my measurements were clean.

But I may have some faulty components. Looking at the blue and purple trace above,  they swing negative quite a bit which I'm sure adds to the rms value of POC1. I took a scope shot, closeup, of the input current (yellow), POC2 current (green), and POC1 current (purple). This is the order that I have them set up to interact with each other.

 

The X cursors are the input time of 4% duty 4.9 KHz. So when the input fires off, POC2 in green should be climbing and it's not. POC1 in purple (which has the input wrapped around it) is being pushed down. On the other screenshot above it shows both V and A are negative. I would imagine the diode should be doing it's job here.

Anyhoo, sorry for the long post that really went nowhere lol 😂

I'm running to the hardware store later today to get a few new bulbs. Tomorrow I'll double check the hardware and give it another go.

Thanks!

Marcel

Chris posted this 16 January 2024

Thanks Marcel,

Thank You My Friend!

Normally I would say there is something wrong with your waveforms, but you already have shown, possibly due to the core, that the waveform can be a bit different and still get the same result.

Thanks for sharing the updated data!

Best Wishes,

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 25 January 2024

Hey Chris, looking for some advice.

I'd like to leave this thread as is, and move on to some other related experiments. But a few questions.

I was thinking of cutting my core to see if it makes any difference. But I'm wondering if you might know, or if there have been any experiments on, what difference it makes where the core is cut. For example, the Y axis in red under the coils, or the X axis in yellow equally between the coils.

I've read a little (somewhere) about where this bloch wall (middle of coils) vs the area where the fields meet (sides along X axis) might be, which is why I ask.

I'd also like to experiment with the input coil, different variations and positions. Not sure if I want to do this before or after the core cutting though.

Is there possibly something I should be looking at before I cut the core?

Appreciate the help as always, 

Marcel

Chris posted this 26 January 2024

Hey Marcel,

There is a lot to it, Core Reluctance, Magnetic Field Inverse Square Law and more.

Yes, if the Coils are closer together, then you have more Electromagnetic Induction occur, but the core, once cut may exhibit more core leakage... 

I would keep the core as is and experiment with another core.

Best Wishes,

   Chris

FringeIdeas posted this 26 January 2024

Ok sounds like a good plan.

Thanks!

Marcel

We're Light Years Ahead!
Our Above Unity Machines:

Asymmetrical EMI

Wistiti's Bucking Joule Thief
Non-Inductive Coil Experiment
CD's Non-Inductive Coil Rep
Baerndorfer's Experiment
Captainloz's A-R-E
Aetherholic's COP>4.0

Resonant EMI

Yo's Ferro Resonance
Jagau's Non-linear Resonance
Ferrite at work
Recomended Protocol:
Measurement
Switching System
Measurement Block
Current Observation
Current Sensing Resolution
Members Online:
What is a Scalar:

In physics, scalars are physical quantities that are unaffected by changes to a vector space basis. Scalars are often accompanied by units of measurement, as in "10 cm". Examples of scalar quantities are mass, distance, charge, volume, time, speed, and the magnitude of physical vectors in general.

You need to forget the Non-Sense that some spout with out knowing the actual Definition of the word Scalar! Some people talk absolute Bull Sh*t!

The pressure P in the formula P = pgh, pgh is a scalar that tells you the amount of this squashing force per unit area in a fluid.

A Scalar, having both direction and magnitude, can be anything! The Magnetic Field, a Charge moving, yet some Numb Nuts think it means Magic Science!

Start Here:
Help with using the Forum.
Message from God:

Hello my children. This is Yahweh, the one true Lord. You have found creation's secret. Now share it peacefully with the world.

Ref: Message from God written inside the Human Genome

God be in my head, and in my thinking.

God be in my eyes, and in my looking.

God be in my mouth, and in my speaking.

Oh, God be in my heart, and in my understanding.

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:

PayPal De-Platformed me!

They REFUSE to tell me why!

We now use Wise!

Donate
Use E-Mail: Chris at aboveunity.com

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

Thank You So Much!

Browse by Category:
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 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