Induction coil

freethisone

RE: Induction coil
« Reply #25, on November 9th, 2013, 02:10 PM »Last edited on November 9th, 2013, 02:12 PM by freethisone
Quote from Matt Watts on November 9th, 2013, 09:24 AM
Quote from freethisone on November 9th, 2013, 06:20 AM
does his wave look familiar?

so we learn why it is this way. Is that correct?
You mean Stan Meyer's step charging effect?

To me what you have shown so far is that it's not a step charge at all, it's a waveform with feedback by way of a negative resistor, so each cycle increases in amplitude.  Therefore, it's a run-away condition and will continue to increase until there is a catastrophic breakdown in the water that shorts it out; after which it will start all over.

But the main thing here is that a negative resistor allows a HUGE current flow which is completely contrary to everyone's thinking that Stan is splitting water with voltage.
yes , the step charge effect. now what do we do about it?
its nice to have a good understanding of what is going on.  
the old man is opening the door with his experiments..

:cool: cheers:heart:


Heuristicobfuscation


freethisone

RE: Induction coil
« Reply #27, on November 10th, 2013, 03:31 PM »
/watch?v=9xP2sA2ptFA&feature=c4-overview&list=LLNbdkwT-LstmshlLDOqs7JA

deeep.:exclamation:

Matt Watts

RE: Induction coil
« Reply #28, on November 10th, 2013, 03:54 PM »
Remember Free, what I said about Frank Sweet and negative electricity?

You need TWO circuits in series.  One grabs negative electricity from the vacuum but you can't feed that back into itself or the positive and negative electricity will annihilate each other.  So you use two similar circuits, then they feed each other, where one of them at least can grab from the vacuum; maybe both.

Anyway, good stuff Free, keep it coming...

freethisone

RE: Induction coil
« Reply #29, on November 11th, 2013, 07:22 AM »
Quote from Matt Watts on November 10th, 2013, 03:54 PM
Remember Free, what I said about Frank Sweet and negative electricity?

You need TWO circuits in series.  One grabs negative electricity from the vacuum but you can't feed that back into itself or the positive and negative electricity will annihilate each other.  So you use two similar circuits, then they feed each other, where one of them at least can grab from the vacuum; maybe both.

Anyway, good stuff Free, keep it coming...
in response to:

The building up process of understanding, Thomas E. Bearden some of his material is presented again..


Lorentz symmetry in an electrical circuit forcibly equalizes its back emf and forward emf, and in a magnetic circuit it forcibly equalizes the back mmf and the forward mmf. The power company’s power system transmission lines and circuits all enforce Lorentz symmetry, thus assuring that we continue to pay the power company to engage in a giant wrestling match inside its own generators and always lose. To borrow a phrase from Nikola Tesla, the ubiquitous use of this self-crippling circuit is
“…one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history." (Tesla, 1919).
By deliberately violating the normal operation of this self-symmetrizing circuit, the system can be forced to violate Lorentz symmetry, hence permitting COP > 1.0. But because of the ubiquitous use of this terrible circuit, the false mystique has erroneously solidified in the scientific community that COP > 1.0 energy-from-the-vacuum (EFTV) electromagnetic circuits cannot be built and that the second law of thermodynamics cannot be violated. To the contrary, several areas in physics are already known to violate the second law. These areas are listed in some of the leading thermodynamics texts (Kondepudi and Prigogine, 1998 and 1999, p. 459) and are known and accepted by leading nonequilibrium thermodynamicists. One such area is the use of strong gradients (in EM circuits and elsewhere).
In addition, every statistical fluctuation in a system initially in equilibrium (in a state of maximum entropy) produces negative entropy and thereby lowers the system entropy from its initial maximum value. Quoting Maxwell:
"The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body." (Maxwell, 1878).
Precise fluctuation theorems exist for calculation of these effects (Evans and Searles, 1994; Crooks, 1999). Often the effect can be of significance; in certain chemical solutions the negative entropy effects from fluctuations can exist in up to a cubic micron of fluid, and can last for up to two seconds (Wang et al., 2002). In aqueous solutions a cubic micron may contain about 30 billion ions and molecules, and in that region some of the chemical reactions are running backwards.
That EM energy is always positive energy, and that the mass of electrical charges is always positive. To the contrary, with its electron lifted out and departed, a persisting Dirac sea hole has negative mass-energy. As a source charge each hole will also produce negative energy EM fields and potentials. Currents of such negative mass-energy holes (the so-called “dark matter”) and their resulting negative energy EM fields (the so-called “dark energy”) can be evoked and explored in actual circuits, as has been shown (Bedini and Bearden, 2004).
But even Dirac, who despised negative energy and devoted much of his effort to trying to get rid of it, did take the mistaken view that the hole would be observed as a positron—basing it on the assumption that when the hole was moved away, the space originally occupied by the hole will have lost its excess negative mass-energy and negative charge, and thus has become more positive in charge and with a positive-going increase in positive mass-energy. Of course this positive increase in the local space charge is not a direct observation of the departed hole itself, or of any physical interaction with the hole itself. Neither is the positive-going increase in mass-energy of the vacated space. It is just a reaction of a sudden sharp (and momentary) change in the negative charge of a region of space that started from a more negative charge condition and went to zero, and of the change in positive direction in the negative mass-energy of a region of space. It is the replacement of a negative mass-energy electron by a combined positive mass-energy electron and negative mass-energy electron (the replacement of the hole by a piece of ordinary vacuum). A certain charge change in space is thus observed as a positive-going charge change, after the hole has departed that position. But that is most certainly not an observation of the departing hole, and it is not identically the hole.
This mistaken notion of “observation of the hole itself as a positron” has been applied in materials since in interacting with a material lattice (as in the observing instrument) the hole almost always first eats an available electron and—together with the electron—the two as a couplet disappear back into the vacuum as a “piece of the Dirac Sea” (a piece of normal vacuum) without any radiation whatsoever.8 This leaves behind an excess net positive charge in the lattice, and that net charge has positive mass-energy and positive energy EM fields. The hole, on the other hand, has negative mass-energy and negative energy EM fields.
So an excess positive charge is not the hole at all, because the hole is already departed elsewhere. Normal electron hopping in a material lattice with an extra positive charge results in the excess positive charge (the lattice positron) migrating around as a “lattice positron current”. But it has been largely—and erroneously—accepted in solid state physics as “identical” to the hole. To settle the issue, simply evaluate the hole and its fields prior to the hole moving or interacting with anything, so that observation has not occurred.
In this case, remarks by Farmelo are of direct interest. He stated:
"Dirac's idea was that 'empty space' actually contains electrons that obey the negative-energy solutions of the equation. He suggested that the negative-energy states are normally 'full', just like the electrons that fill up the low-energy states of heavy atoms, according to the Pauli principle. This means that positive-energy electrons can't make transitions to these negative-energy states, explaining why ordinary electrons don't continually disappear into space. ... by 1931 he had changed his mind and come to a much more radical conclusion: 'A hole, if there was one, would be a new kind of elementary particle, unknown to experimental physics, having the same mass and opposite charge to the electron.' …By the time Dirac came to collect his Nobel prize in physics, towards the end of 1933, he was in the enviable position of the theorist who has been proven right after his colleagues had almost unanimously dismissed his most imaginative work as misguided and even perverse. His hole theory was soon superseded by quantum field theory (which he did much to invent and came to abominate), so one can only wonder at his ability to use a wrong theory to produce one of the most triumphant predictions of modern science." (Farmelo, 2002, p. 48).
That EM waves in space are transverse; e.g., given propagation along the z-axis, the E-field might be taken as oscillating along the x-axis and the H-field along the y-axis. This assumption of the transverse EM force-field wave in space is false. To explain its falsity, we must explain how the field is measured, and the implications.
Consider the Drude electron gas (Drude, 1900) in a conductor (as in a simple antenna or in a detecting instrument). The electrons continually hop off an atom, into the electron gas, onto another atom whose electron had gone wandering, etc. All the electrons have spin as well, and so we can roughly compare an electron to a spinning gyro if the analogy is not pushed too far.
When an EM signal moves through space longitudinally along a wire at nearly the speed of light, the electrons do not move (migrate) that way or at that speed at all. Longitudinal force is indeed developed in the Drude gas electrons by the diverged Poynting component. When a longitudinally-forced Drude gas electron tries to move longitudinally down the wire, it is repelled back nearly equally by all those electrons beyond it. So viewed as a gyro, the electron’s spin axis is essentially constrained longitudinally. The restrained spinning electron acts as a gyro, and so it precesses (in the wire) at right angles to the longitudinal disturbing force generated by the potentialization energy flow. The longitudinally restrained electron precesses laterally across the cross section of the wire, when "pushed" parallel to the wire with a longitudinal force. As the potentialization signal oscillates to and fro longitudinally, the precessing electrons oscillate to and fro transversely, mostly within the wire’s cross section.
In a conductor whose Drude electrons experience longitudinal to and fro forces from the longitudinally oscillating “signal from space” interaction, these electrons spend most of their time moving axially back and forth (transversely) in the wire, due to their lateral gyro-precession reaction to the longitudinal forces. The electrons do slip longitudinally just a wee bit (particularly at the surface of the wire), and so they do move down the wire with only a small "drift velocity"—usually of a few inches per hour!
In space, the EM wave is a compression and rarefaction of the energy density of vacuum—i.e., of the stress energy of the vacuum. In short, it is analogous to a “sound wave”, and hence longitudinal.
We detect the electron transverse precession movement and direction, so we detect transverse electron gyroprecession waves in the wire. Even for electrons in space away from wires, due to their masses the electrons are relatively very sluggish and inertially-restrained longitudinally, and so they still mostly precess transversely to and fro. The “effect” force field waves in charged matter are transverse electron gyroprecession waves. The “causative” EM waves in space are force-free longitudinal precursor waves of oscillating curvature changes in spacetime—and thus oscillating changes in the intensity of the virtual particle flux of the vacuum.
The detection of electron precession waves and theorizing of EM transverse waves in the conductor and in space were accomplished and fixed before the electron was even known or discovered. Hence no such thing as the electron, its gyroelectron precession effect, or the Drude electron gas itself was even suspected. Since transverse waves were detected in the receiving conductor and instrument, everyone thought that the EM waves coming in from space had just been "intercepted" in the wire. Thus it was assumed that the incoming EM waves in space must obviously be transverse force field waves also.
That is precisely how the pioneers of electrodynamics got the totally mistaken notion of the transverse EM wave in space. They believed in the material ether also, so to them there was not a single point in the universe where mass was absent. If there had been a material ether with spinning material particles to precess, then those transverse force fields (in the ether) would indeed have existed. No such ether exists, and no such transverse EM waves exist in the matter-free vacuum.

so yes annihilation must occur under this theorem.

it is true however we can draw from an infinite stream of particles. Dipole alignment only as a magnetic means to act upon the electric field..;)

Matt Watts

RE: Induction coil
« Reply #30, on November 11th, 2013, 10:46 AM »
Quote from freethisone on November 11th, 2013, 07:22 AM
in response to:

The building up process of understanding, Thomas E. Bearden some of his material is presented again..

..............SNIP...........

so yes annihilation must occur under this theorem.

it is true however we can draw from an infinite stream of particles. Dipole alignment only as a magnetic means to act upon the electric field..;)
Free, can you get your hands on Eric Dollard's Four Quadrant Theory and tell me if this is correct thinking:

In the four quadrants of an AC signal moving through a transmission line, two of those quadrants contain quadratic roots having the square root of minus one.  These two roots are always obfuscated out of existence by the critics, however they are necessary to fully understanding the wave propagation of AC power through a transmission line.  The explanation (best I can understand it) from Eric Dollard is that you can manipulate a transmission line in such a way that the line itself sees the load and not the generator creating the AC power wave.  Heard directly from Eric at the Bedini/Lindemann conference, he has done this successfully--not theory, but an actual real-world, hands-on demonstration.

So if we look at say the Valy self-looped motor/generator (which is shown in another thread here), I suspect what Valy has done is create a synthetic transmission line with his large high voltage capacitor and control box.  He then alters this synthetic transmission line in such a way that the line itself sees the load and not the generator, therefore the generator does not mechanically stress the drive motor, allowing for close-looped Over Unity operation.  Where the excess energy comes from and how it enters the system is still a bit of a mystery to me, but the concept according to Dollard does make sense.

freethisone

RE: Induction coil
« Reply #31, on November 11th, 2013, 12:27 PM »Last edited on November 11th, 2013, 12:30 PM by freethisone
Quote from Matt Watts on November 11th, 2013, 10:46 AM
Quote from freethisone on November 11th, 2013, 07:22 AM
in response to:

The building up process of understanding, Thomas E. Bearden some of his material is presented again..

..............SNIP...........

so yes annihilation must occur under this theorem.

it is true however we can draw from an infinite stream of particles. Dipole alignment only as a magnetic means to act upon the electric field..;)
Free, can you get your hands on Eric Dollard's Four Quadrant Theory and tell me if this is correct thinking:

In the four quadrants of an AC signal moving through a transmission line, two of those quadrants contain quadratic roots having the square root of minus one.  These two roots are always obfuscated out of existence by the critics, however they are necessary to fully understanding the wave propagation of AC power through a transmission line.  The explanation (best I can understand it) from Eric Dollard is that you can manipulate a transmission line in such a way that the line itself sees the load and not the generator creating the AC power wave.  Heard directly from Eric at the Bedini/Lindemann conference, he has done this successfully--not theory, but an actual real-world, hands-on demonstration.

So if we look at say the Valy self-looped motor/generator (which is shown in another thread here), I suspect what Valy has done is create a synthetic transmission line with his large high voltage capacitor and control box.  He then alters this synthetic transmission line in such a way that the line itself sees the load and not the generator, therefore the generator does not mechanically stress the drive motor, allowing for close-looped Over Unity operation.  Where the excess energy comes from and how it enters the system is still a bit of a mystery to me, but the concept according to Dollard does make sense.
i am listening to eric dollar  he suggests this reading.
i read this once, but it needs another look. ETW.

link.ETW aether

i need to find more information.:@

/watch?v=cCJcU7INwnU#t=462
RE: Induction coil
« Reply #32, on November 11th, 2013, 03:35 PM »
is this device separating mass from energy?

Eric dollar was interesting 1 and a half hours later. The best i come up with is magnetic fields produce electric fields, and electric fields cause magnetic field.
It is of special note,  changing magnetic fields produced with a field magnet in motion gives rise to electric current. it is a changing magnetic effect. move an emf.
for simplicity i stay the course that the Aether is the true medium of all space.

because we are in rotation, 1000 miles per hour, we have the earth acting in the same manner  that ed lee fly wheel acts. a magnetic force that is changing and gives rise to electric current.

that is  the best i can do for now. can you find me a copy Matt of the eric dollar Four Quadrant Theory. thanks..
:rolleyes:




Theory of operation
The Alexanderson alternator operates by variable reluctance (similar to an electric guitar pickup), changing the magnetic flux linking two coils. The alternator has a circular laminated iron stator carrying two sets of coils, in a C-shape. One set of coils is energized with direct current and produces a magnetic field in the air gap of the stator. The second set of coils generates the radio-frequency voltage. The rotor is a laminated iron disk with holes or slots cut into its circumference. The openings are filled with non-magnetic material to reduce air drag. The rotor has no windings or electrical connections.
As the rotor turns, either an iron portion of the disk is in the gap of the stator, allowing a high magnetic flux to cross the gap, or else a non-magnetic slot is in the stator gap, allowing less magnetic flux to pass. These changes in flux induce a voltage in a second set of coils on the stator.
The RF collector coils were all interconnected by an output transformer, whose secondary winding was connected to the antenna circuit. Modulation or telegraph keying of the radio frequency energy was done by a magnetic amplifier, which was also used for amplitude modulation and voice transmissions.
The radio frequency emitted by an Alexanderson alternator in hertz is the product of the number of stator pole pairs and the revolutions per second. Higher radio frequencies thus require more pole pairs, a higher rotational speed, or both.
Performance advantages
A large Alexanderson alternator might produce 200 kW of output radio-frequency energy and would be water or oil cooled. One such machine had 600 pole pairs in the stator winding and the rotor was driven at 2170 RPM, for an output frequency near 21.7 kHz. To obtain higher frequencies, higher rotor speeds were required, up to 20,000 RPM.
Unlike the spark-gap transmitters and arc converters also used at the time, the Alexanderson alternator produced a continuous wave output of higher purity. With a spark transmitter, the electromagnetic energy is spread over very wide sidebands, effectively transmitting on several frequencies at once. With a continuous-wave transmitter such as the Alexanderson Alternator (or the Poulsen Arc type), the energy is concentrated onto a single frequency, greatly improving the transmission efficiency.
The frequency of the transmitted signal was directly related to the rotor speed, so an automatic speed regulator was employed to maintain a stable transmit frequency; the speed regulator was designed to compensate for the effect of keying (and the subsequently varying load) on the rotor speed.
Disadvantages
Because of the extremely high rotational speed compared to a conventional alternator, the Alexanderson alternator required continuous maintenance by skilled personnel. Efficient lubrication and oil or water cooling was essential for reliability, difficult to achieve with the lubricants available at the time. In fact early editions of the British Navy's "Admiralty Handbook of Wireless Telegraphy" cover this in considerable detail, mostly as an explanation as to why "The Navy" did not use that particular technology. The technology was widely used by the US Navy.
Other major problems were that changing the operating frequency was a lengthy and complicated process, and unlike a spark transmitter, the carrier signal could not be switched on and off at will. The latter problem greatly complicated "listening through" (that is, stopping the transmission to listen for any answer). There was also the risk that it would allow enemy vessels to detect the presence of the ship.
Because of the limits of the number of poles and rotational speed of a machine, the Alexanderson alternator is at most capable of transmission in the lower mediumwave band, with shortwave and upper bands being physically impossible.
RE: Induction coil
« Reply #33, on November 12th, 2013, 03:17 PM »Last edited on November 12th, 2013, 04:44 PM by freethisone
Quote from freethisone on November 7th, 2013, 06:43 PM
/watch?v=f0fwjY6_-1M

/watch?v=bJdLA4w3w58

ok folk time to put the hard work to the test.


Matt why does this work?

he has a high resistance .  so that means work can be done.

how can it be inproved? :P in any nuber of ways.:dodgy:



Quote from freethisone on November 5th, 2013, 03:15 AM
the a vector?:s



/watch?v=iJsVSMQqCOM
this is the similarity i want to show. at Bohm effect is magnetic B field is completely contained inside the medium or iron core. there you see in the patent similarity.  a iron core coil with an outer iron core. ok same way Ed lee did it. core wire, inner core winding connects to outer iron core. second iron core.  outer core north, inner core south. high magnetic flux = borm effect. does that sound about right to you?

next length of wire, 1500 feet is a good number to shoot for as a coil. as an inductor we put a high resistance between the circuit it powers 1500 watt for example. a good number to shoot for.

at 3 min 38 second self assisted oscillator movie. we have the coil in question. he needs four  sets or at least 2 setups what he has there.  at 6 min 48 seconds 2 pictures of a circuit. one looks like a spark gap is used to shuttle the flux around, have a lag time. at 6 min 54 sec a Tesla looking induction coil, a one wire motor perhaps.

we know were we can charge caps in this circuit diagram. should know..
http://open-source-energy.org/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

after Babcock had said he can beat lenz law i had said, this coil is trying to do the same thing. only problem it still gives drag, but it can  move  half the energy in the coils to be used a second time. what do you think Matt?

here is his motor patent, this could help people see the light in a new way.
RE: Induction coil
« Reply #34, on November 13th, 2013, 11:42 AM »Last edited on November 13th, 2013, 11:57 AM by freethisone
Quote from Matt Watts on November 9th, 2013, 09:24 AM
Quote from freethisone on November 9th, 2013, 06:20 AM
does his wave look familiar?

so we learn why it is this way. Is that correct?
You mean Stan Meyer's step charging effect?

To me what you have shown so far is that it's not a step charge at all, it's a waveform with feedback by way of a negative resistor, so each cycle increases in amplitude.  Therefore, it's a run-away condition and will continue to increase until there is a catastrophic breakdown in the water that shorts it out; after which it will start all over.

But the main thing here is that a negative resistor allows a HUGE current flow which is completely contrary to everyone's thinking that Stan is splitting water with voltage.
you already know Matt how rude..
it allows a voltage because of the magnetic field break down no added voltage or current needs to be supplied. and yes a low carbon inductor at a specific ohm, can be made to do the same thing. i read your post. when the magnetic field falls down all the dipoles, old word . new word ions are forced to find a discharge point. It will have a very high pressure when it does so. hence the reason for this. miles of magnetic field collaps.  

/watch?v=hIkNY5xjy5k

:D:P:P

are you interested in my magnetic field collaps caused by static charge, and my cap. storage system?  charge density=back emf.  it is a accumulator device. do you believe me now?

 /watch?v=w60SIHwOztk

/watch?v=PxKNy-hweMw  

at 13 min plus i have a magnetic field collapsing.:s observe. ouch.. sob..

Matt Watts

RE: Induction coil
« Reply #35, on November 13th, 2013, 01:06 PM »
Quote from freethisone on November 13th, 2013, 11:42 AM
you already know Matt how rude..
it allows a voltage because of the magnetic field break down no added voltage or current needs to be supplied. and yes a low carbon inductor at a specific ohm, can be made to do the same thing. i read your post. when the magnetic field falls down all the dipoles, old word . new word ions are forced to find a discharge point. It will have a very high pressure when it does so. hence the reason for this. miles of magnetic field collaps.  


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIkNY5xjy5k

:D:P:P

are you interested in my magnetic field collaps caused by static charge, and my cap. storage system?  charge density=back emf.  it is a accumulator device. do you believe me now?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60SIHwOztk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxKNy-hweMw  

at 13 min plus i have a magnetic field collapsing.:s observe. ouch.. sob..
No actually, I don't know.  I'm not being rude, I just don't see it in my head.

There two types of electricity:  Static electricity and not-so-static (dynamic) electricity.  It seems a capacitor can store either kind, but an inductor can only store dynamic as a magnetic field.

So lets suppose we charge a capacitor with static electricity, does this charged capacitor produce a magnetic field?  If it does, I've never seen it.  Now what happens if we connect an inductor to the charged capacitor?  Does that charge leave the capacitor and move into the inductor and create a magnetic field?

Still having a hard time grasping all this.

freethisone

RE: Induction coil
« Reply #36, on November 13th, 2013, 01:39 PM »Last edited on November 13th, 2013, 01:50 PM by freethisone
Quote from Matt Watts on November 13th, 2013, 01:06 PM
Quote from freethisone on November 13th, 2013, 11:42 AM
you already know Matt how rude..
it allows a voltage because of the magnetic field break down no added voltage or current needs to be supplied. and yes a low carbon inductor at a specific ohm, can be made to do the same thing. i read your post. when the magnetic field falls down all the dipoles, old word . new word ions are forced to find a discharge point. It will have a very high pressure when it does so. hence the reason for this. miles of magnetic field collaps.  


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIkNY5xjy5k

:D:P:P

are you interested in my magnetic field collaps caused by static charge, and my cap. storage system?  charge density=back emf.  it is a accumulator device. do you believe me now?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w60SIHwOztk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxKNy-hweMw  

at 13 min plus i have a magnetic field collapsing.:s observe. ouch.. sob..
No actually, I don't know.  I'm not being rude, I just don't see it in my head.

There two types of electricity:  Static electricity and not-so-static (dynamic) electricity.  It seems a capacitor can store either kind, but an inductor can only store dynamic as a magnetic field.

So lets suppose we charge a capacitor with static electricity, does this charged capacitor produce a magnetic field?  If it does, I've never seen it.  Now what happens if we connect an inductor to the charged capacitor?  Does that charge leave the capacitor and move into the inductor and create a magnetic field?

Still having a hard time grasping all this.
Hi, i was only trying to make you smile.

i think we can do this algebraicly.  its the speed of collaps a conductor can carry.
it is expressed as surface area on round objects.
it is the distance and momentum a magnetic field collaps carries.
the amount of charge on that area. and the speed of collaps, and duration.
we include at least these variables.
therfore the collaps in a large inductor can be catastrophic.
we know these inductors get hot.

for surface charge is kinetic Its just waiting for a nudge.
the mit lectures are posted describing density of equal potential surfaces. they to have a magnetic field break down, its the same thing.:angel:
anything that is electric, has a magnetic component. if you charge a cap with static energy, when it is discharged sudenly you have a larger spark then before. it can run in self occilation with this system you can charge a larger cap with a higher density charge.

d3x0r

RE: Induction coil
« Reply #37, on November 13th, 2013, 03:45 PM »Last edited on November 13th, 2013, 03:51 PM by d3x0r
Quote from freethisone on December 6th, 2012, 06:55 PM
I was looking through some old book marks, and i found this dated improvement of induction coil.

now thats an inductor.  easy to make. if made by forum, i would like to see your results.

file is attached.:heart:

:angel::angel:

cheers.
so back at the beginning....
This reminds me of Hendershot generator
Russian replication

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njEldCjVw-k

Reminds me of akula0083.... - especially coil 2. (kapanadze sort of device replication)
[attachment=4607]
err sorry this one....  (Hmmm I can't upload the PNG that's got translation marks.... )  Translated schematics here....    And Here....

Edward Leedskalnin in Magnetic currents says you can have a coil on a core, encased in an iron tube and capped- this would be a PMH - would think if you got the iron washers on the end a good tolerance, could be charged and remain together like a PMH... similarly if you cross coupled these, it could form an oscillator(?)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBGJnG-00Gc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTowOHDeB5Y


freethisone

RE: Induction coil
« Reply #38, on November 13th, 2013, 04:28 PM »Last edited on November 13th, 2013, 04:45 PM by freethisone
/watch?v=cTowOHDeB5Y

yes this is a 3 pole pmh. it can be made as a 4 leaf clover. 4 poles. or 6 for that matter.
or even 2 crescent moons. its all there in the symbols.:idea:

i was also thinking the same thing.

however you can now have 2 rolling inductors creating eddy currents, and induction.
im sure you are correct about this also being a pmh. simple test. add a led between north and south. if any ions magnatons are flowing it will produce a current.

after the battery is disconnected.:D lots of ways to go with this.:D but also the duration of that pmh will have the magnetons flow out. it wont go forever in his configuration.

he sparks the pmh several times to get the ions flowing.

I could make the spokes on a wheel.  make a 12 spoke PMH with the outer ring as your holder.  any number of ideas.

Read the patent, he already suggest coupled inductors. and are also PMH. he  suggest 8 magnetic pathways or 4 coupled inductors.

Matt Watts


freethisone

RE: Induction coil
« Reply #40, on November 13th, 2013, 05:33 PM »Last edited on November 13th, 2013, 05:41 PM by freethisone
Quote from Matt Watts on November 13th, 2013, 04:50 PM
I'm pretty sure this user:
https://www.youtube.com/user/Deirones

is a hoaxer.  He's the same guy that takes apart a computer fan and tapes a couple of magnets to it and it runs by itself.  Best if we don't waste too much time on him.
tell me why this set  up would not work.. if electric break down works on a back emf, right when you collaps the magnetic field there is a huge surge of power. the offset crank on the fly wheel may do the same thing.  forcefully breaking, and reconnecting  a pmh. although we have a working model to go by now.  the addition of a battery charge in the field of rotation causes the back emf to have a greater charge density then before.  read what ed had said about sparks, in a book in every home.  they come out. and its a magnet. if these come out from the popper as blue streaks, an aberration l it is called radiant energy. Tesla.
Russ had seen these streams also, in his popper test.
RE: Induction coil
« Reply #41, on November 23rd, 2013, 07:19 AM »Last edited on November 23rd, 2013, 07:22 AM by freethisone

more on induction, coupled coils, and a means to act on them
Quote from freethisone on November 9th, 2013, 06:20 AM
Quote from freethisone on November 8th, 2013, 06:13 AM
/watch?v=JWD0Wy_UOEA



does this wave look familiar?
http://open-source-energy.org/forum/images/smilies/cool.gif
so we learn why it is this way. Is that correct?

:D

see this one also.. 100 times more power../watch?v=px14OF1D3EA
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14804996/The-Triode-Valve


more on induction coupled induction coils, and a means to act on them. rectifiy triode valve.
RE: Induction coil
« Reply #42, on December 7th, 2013, 05:47 PM »Last edited on December 7th, 2013, 05:50 PM by freethisone
Quote from Matt Watts on November 6th, 2013, 08:06 AM
I can't for the life of me see how this could possibly work.  The only thing I can think of is where the rotor shaft goes through the rotor core, it must change the aspect ratio, but we have no idea what those physical dimensions are.
i think this is  what we needed. the theory of.. well i guess i already posted this, but i came across it again. strange..
:)

/watch?v=iJsVSMQqCOM

/watch?v=iJsVSMQqCOM
RE: Induction coil
« Reply #43, on December 12th, 2013, 02:37 AM »
/watch?v=WDUpYnA2AY0
RE: Induction coil
« Reply #44, on January 12th, 2014, 06:42 AM »Last edited on January 12th, 2014, 08:46 AM by freethisone
/watch?v=t6m01VGiNPI

this coil is up on ebay.
/watch?v=BQG8RmS8gdg

this core looks like a giant induction coil.

if i wind my coil how may it be wound upon this core?
:huh:

do we understand ourselves?:dodgy:
Re: Induction coil
« Reply #45, on March 12th, 2014, 03:00 PM »Last edited on March 12th, 2014, 03:04 PM
 in this quote  Ed said we can take out magnets from a sphere. he means Earth.  so it just seems odd to me that he has lead with this statement, and never really said how to do it..

http://www.leedskalnin.com/Leedskalnins-Writings-MAGNETIC-CURRENT.html
 :huh:
any ideas? pyramids? or a north pole, going in, and a south pole going out.
he states he can change poles in a sphere, Earth, with magnets i suppose, by changing the distance of the north and south poles.  bring them close together..



" Now about the sphere magnet.  If you have a strong magnet you can change the poles in the sphere in any side you want or take the poles out so the sphere will not be a magnet any more. From this you can see that the magnet can be shifted and concentrated and also you can see that the metal is not the real magnet. The real magnet is the substance that is circulating in the metal. Each particle "

haiqu

Re: RE: Induction coil
« Reply #46, on March 12th, 2014, 07:54 PM »Last edited on March 12th, 2014, 07:58 PM
Quote from Matt Watts on November 11th, 2013, 10:46 AM
Free, can you get your hands on Eric Dollard's Four Quadrant Theory and tell me if this is correct thinking:

In the four quadrants of an AC signal moving through a transmission line, two of those quadrants contain quadratic roots having the square root of minus one.  These two roots are always obfuscated out of existence by the critics, however they are necessary to fully understanding the wave propagation of AC power through a transmission line.
I believe the source of that is Edmund Whittaker, not Eric Dullard. Tom Bearden has been babbling about it for years. It always helps to refer to the original data / theory / maths / proofs when studying this stuff. These two roots were eliminated by Lorentz when he simplified the formulae for use in electrical engineering.

If you can understand Quaternions then you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

freethisone

Re: Induction coil
« Reply #48, on May 16th, 2014, 03:29 AM »Last edited on May 16th, 2014, 03:37 AM
Hey Matt can you fix all the broken links in this thread please? it was really messed up after the new web page. can you upload the patent i keep uploading that seems to have disapeared. you know the one. you tried to do the same thing with a diffrent kind of transformer. its the most important portion oft this thread.

thank you. just post the patent number. it uses two large inductors 6 feet long, and thats how you use an inductor as a battery. i read in your last post you have a long way to go before you understand it, but just build it and you will make a good theory of its operation.

so thanks i need that patent number  ehehe..