First of all I want to thank the folks that followed me and supported me through the past 12 months in all the work i've been doing concerning this. Its been one hell of a journey.
Recently I started to test bucking coil outputs through self made generators and I am so glad that i'm poor at winding coils because it was that fact that led me to discovering how Meyers VIC works and just like Edward Leedskalnin says 'its more simple than you think'.
When I first watched Meyers vids years ago I was interested in the fact he said one of his resonant charging chokes was in opposition to the other in cancelling current and i was convinced it was something to do with the flux in the core and i've been pondering and thinking out loud on here ever since. I have posted some rubbish aswell as some interesting stuff but thats the way I am, I try to provoke thought in others by thinking out loud.
The last few months I've been studying Edward Leedskalnin and what he had to say and I found several things that related to Stan Meyer especially when I watched video's by our good friend Angus on You Tube. So I decided to build Angus's set up but carefully monitor the results on a scope and on meters.
Here's angus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-yDRf0UN0Y#ws
Firstly, I replicated Angus's experiment and found there was huge cancellations which rendered the ac voltage unusable. I was switching magnetic fields the same as he was and it does produce kind of an hybrid wave form thats bordering dc but that turned out not to be important in the end.
What was important was the fact I could cancel Len's law in a generator, even though the voltage was unusable - it was a start. Angus bless his soul is trying to use the voltage but he can't because he's too good at winding coils! Anyway a friend of mine noticed a bias in a few video's I made to show him, one of my coils was stronger than the other. In the days that followed I reversed the experiment so that I got rid of the magnets and pulsed 12vdc into the coils that were still wired in the bucking config. The result was an electromagnet that was very, very weak but only on one leg of the u shaped core - like a monopole magnet. This actually happened because one of the coils was stronger than the other and we didn't quite have cancellation, one of the coils was dominant and the other pole of the magnet was probably inside the coil somewhere but wasn't allowed to emmerge because of the cancellation coming from the other coil. So, the magnetic field was cancelled in the inverse experiment except because of the fact I can't wind coils very well and had a bias in the form of a weak field on one core leg.
Thats when it hit me, I took a look at Stan's schematic (for the 600th time probably) and thought 'what if Stan cancels the magnetic flux like Angus did but with a bias'?
So I soldered a diode in Angus's experiment just like Stan has it in his schematic which I have drawn below in an attachment. The other two leads went to my 2000v cap I got from a MO. I also monitored it all on the scope at the same time.
I'll tell you what Stan is doing in the below schematic. He's winding two inductors opposite windings, that means one is wound right to left and one left to right. Those two inductors cancel the magnetic field just like Angus does on You tube, they also cancel the voltage. But.......Stan wires one inductor so that it is more powerful than the other so there is a voltage bias in the direction of the diode. The magnetic field is still cancelled and the flux flow back to the secondary is blocked but the bias that one coil has over the other is enough to charge a cap without interfering with the cancellation of the flux flow. He has one coil cancelling around 95% of the other coil but the 5% left over is enough to charge a cap without destroying the flux cancellation. Its absolutely beautiful.
Thats why Edward Leedskalnin said it was much simpler than people think. Stan makes his inductor variable so that he can tune it to be biased without destroying the flux cancellation. The guys a genious.
In my drawing L1 is variable so it is more powerful than L2 and C1 collects the bias without the system cancelling the flux blocking. The diode keeps the voltage in the desired direction. Absolute genius. These guys were clever and I'm so glad i'm crap at winding coils.
 

Very intresting, nice to see some Ed Leedskalnin knowledge being used. :) Angus has said his work will apply to Stan Meyer tech, more to come from him soon I hope.  Have you tried to hook it to a resonant cavity?  This sounds great for my VIC coils I wrapped, I made each coil multi-tap, so I can vary chokes if need be.  I just need to dig out from pile of house hold projects to get back into OS projects.

Can you replicate your set up while documenting windings, wire guage, core info, .. with out destroying your original set up?  Data can give other people a starting point to replicate it for themselves.  Decades have proven that schematics are a small percentage of information needed to make Meyer tech functional.  Also maybe some basic instructions on how to measure and see the effects your describing, to give other people a head start.

Nice work. :)

Quote from firepinto on June 24th, 2014, 04:16 PM

Very intresting, nice to see some Ed Leedskalnin knowledge being used. :) Angus has said his work will apply to Stan Meyer tech, more to come from him soon I hope.  Have you tried to hook it to a resonant cavity?  This sounds great for my VIC coils I wrapped, I made each coil multi-tap, so I can vary chokes if need be.  I just need to dig out from pile of house hold projects to get back into OS projects.

Can you replicate your set up while documenting windings, wire guage, core info, .. with out destroying your original set up?  Data can give other people a starting point to replicate it for themselves.  Decades have proven that schematics are a small percentage of information needed to make Meyer tech functional.  Also maybe some basic instructions on how to measure and see the effects your describing, to give other people a head start.

Nice work. :)

There is no info, its a simple law. Any coil on a magnetic core wired to two inductors on the same core that are wound equally opposite will cancel flux flow back to the coil and cancel the motor effect of Lens law. If there is a bias between the two inductors that doesn't allow Lens law to re-introduce itself and is one directional, the said bias can be collected in a capacitor and used without interfering with the cancellation of said Lens law. Thats it!

Sounds very cool  we all trying to understand the  method,  all  video or explanation to ease understanding and uptake of this info is next step

Thank you for sharing for everyone  to try it

Nav Please do post detailed pics  and video and drawings of you exact method and setup
it helps  alot

Time to Advance

Dan

OK, I wound 2 coils 500 turns of 28 gauge enamelled copper wire. One was wound left to right and the other right to left. The length of the coils is 2 inches and the diameter once wound is three quarters of an inch. I placed the coils on a soft iron U shaped core approx 5 inches long with 8mm bar. The coils were glued in place close to the U bend. I then built a stator out of a remote control car gearbox with a shaft onto a cd where I could place neodimium magnets in any configuration I liked by placing one magnet on one side of the cd and another on the other side so they held themselves in place magnetically. I then ran the cd through the gap in the iron core by pulsing dc into the motor that ran the gearbox. The wheel went around at 2.5hz. I then shorted the two coils out bucking style which means the two wires of each coil are shorted in parallel. This produced a ac cancellation signwave on the scope and ac voltage. It turned out that the motor effect and Lens law was neutralized The voltage is unusable though because of the cancellation. I then placed a diode between one short and left the other two not shorted but directly connected to a cap. Because one of my coils has a different inductance to the other, there is a 95% cancellation in the coils enough to keep Lens law at bay by stopping the flux flow in the core. The remaining 5% though charges the cap. So you create a generator that cancels itself out and cancels lensing but has a little left over to charge a cap.
You can do the same set up in a transformer like Meyer does. If you wind your coils so that each one is capable of perhaps 2000 volts each and you make one variable then you can create the same bias. So on each pulse the cancellation is perhaps 90% (you can play with the variable inductor to see how far you can take it without re-introducing back emf) then you will have 200 volts of lens free energy. The magnetic field in the stator is one directional by the way. I do have vids i've been making as I went along but they are not presentable. I will make a video showing all soon.

ok

nav, I wonder if you could use a true isolation type variac.  The auto-former types with only one winding wouldn't work, but the isolation type might.  You would have one fixed inductor around the core and one variable.  What I'm not sure of is the toroidal core these things use.  Do you think it would need to be split to get the effect we are after here?  Otherwise the flux would be free to completely circulate around the core.  With a split core, the air gap would mostly impede any flux going in that direction, so it would have to revert back from the direction it came from where it could be cancelled out.  Just a thought.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how we could insert such a device between the electrical connections of a motor/generator combo and reduce the Lenz effect in the generator using this transformer in between.  Any place we can stop Lenz whether it be internal to the generator or external in the circuitry, should still give us the edge we are after.

Maybe 2 identical windings on the core and 1 additional winding of a variable inductor outside the core but in series with one of the windings could do the trick ...

interesting find Nav.

thanks for sharing.

i do have some questions tho.
one of them is that if you have 95% cancellation and 5% usable energy... do we still see the increase in rotor RPM?

we know that then there 100% canceled we see an increase in rotor RPM.

I'm just wondering if we get 5% less rotor rpm increase when shorted in your setup.

yeah, a video demo is always good :)

thanks,

~Russ

Quote from Gunther Rattay on June 27th, 2014, 12:04 AM

Maybe 2 identical windings on the core and 1 additional winding of a variable inductor outside the core but in series with one of the windings could do the trick ...

I've seen a schematic similar to that on one of meyer's drawings.

Quote from ~Russ on June 27th, 2014, 06:17 AM

one of them is that if you have 95% cancellation and 5% usable energy... do we still see the increase in rotor RPM?

we know that then there 100% canceled we see an increase in rotor RPM.

I'm just wondering if we get 5% less rotor rpm increase when shorted in your setup.

Yes, if this effect turns out to be linear, it won't help us, but if it's non-linear there will be a sweet spot there someplace where we can get more out then we put in.  And if I was a betting person, I would put my money on it being right at or close to core saturation.  And if that happens to be the case, the load you apply will be ultimately critical to its intended operation.

I have seen very similar circuits with the Akula design and those are also particular to the load placed on the device.  One too many LEDs or one not enough and the circuit mis-behaves and cannot be tuned.

Quote from ~Russ on June 27th, 2014, 06:17 AM

interesting find Nav.

thanks for sharing.

i do have some questions tho.
one of them is that if you have 95% cancellation and 5% usable energy... do we still see the increase in rotor RPM?

we know that then there 100% canceled we see an increase in rotor RPM.

I'm just wondering if we get 5% less rotor rpm increase when shorted in your setup.

yeah, a video demo is always good :)

thanks,

~Russ

I think it works like this: When the cancellation is perfect, the negative motor effect on the generator is neutral. In other words there is no energy spent at all therefore there can be neither a positive nor negative motor effect on the gen and the drive motor of the gen will see no load nor positive push (speed up). When a bias is created on one coil it turns into a positive motor effect within the gen itself, this will in turn speed the drive motor of the gen up and also create useable energy left over while still cancelling Lensing and blocking back EMF in the gen.
This has massive implications because if we cancel Lens law and only have as low a 1% energy left over to spend out of those coils, we can wind high voltage coils and have any number of coils running on any system. If you create HT coils of 30,000v then 1% of that is just immence and it can never radiate backward through the system and count as load. Also when you look at Ohms law and what the implications are there when we turn that voltage into current its just mind boggling.
This is a winner - I can assure you.

There is more to come though,

It's nice to see someone utilizing the aiding and opposing of the coils like I have talked about for over a year here. Good work Nav.

Nav, put a 12 or 24 volt cooiling fan across your cell and tune your electronics, when you get close you will see the fan motor start to sway back a forth. When you hit the sweet spot the fan will start to run. You then can adjust the speed of the fan to your full potential. Have fun and keep up the great work.

this is From Harish

Fine Work   Take Special note of the radar tools pdf link here

Does this look familiar? This is the VIC waveform described by Stanley Meyer and ... Tesla. He called it resonant rise

Daniel, It's also good to see that someone has took an interest into the pulse forming network that I told everyone to look into over a year ago. I have had this pdf for quiet some time. It's one of the best reads you will ever read when it comes to Stan Meyers technology and others.

Normally as in figure 1, the resistive load gets back to the magnet and causes load because Lens law makes a complete circuit and energy is transfered through the load back to the magnet. When Angus causes cancellation as in figure 2 he cancels most of the voltage and nearly all of the magnetic field but because one of his coils has a bias then that bias creates a forward push on the gen drive wheel that is inversely proportional to the load at R1. This is because there is a biased magnetic field that is interchangable. See this vid I made showing the magnetic field on the motor stage of a gen, you must excuse my ramblings, the vid was not designed for public use but a friend of mine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie2V-7jKSOw#
It appears as a monopole magnet but isn't, the other half of the magnet is trapped in that coil because of cancellation coming from the other opposite coil. This changes direction every cycle and always has positive push on the gen drive motor but is inverse to the energy at R1.
I will show how Thane Heins generators and this are linked besides a new way of stealing the energy from a generator that isn't just stealing the bias between 2 coils wound opposite.

In your video are you just inputting DC voltage into your two coils?  And they are tied in parallel?

Quote from Matt Watts on June 29th, 2014, 08:36 AM

In your video are you just inputting DC voltage into your two coils?  And they are tied in parallel?

The two coils are shorted bucking style with the two copper loops and I am pulsing dc into the shorts so it is the reverse of a gen and actually resembles the motor effect but i've removed the magnets on the motor.

Quote from nav on June 29th, 2014, 09:55 AM

The two coils are shorted bucking style with the two copper loops and I am pulsing dc into the shorts so it is the reverse of a gen and actually resembles the motor effect but i've removed the magnets on the motor.

Okay, pulsed DC.  Got it.  About what frequency and does this frequency seem to matter as far as the effect is concerned?  I was thinking about the natural self-resonant frequency of each inductor and if the pulse frequency is higher than both, lower than both or in between.

Quote from Matt Watts on June 29th, 2014, 11:30 PM

Okay, pulsed DC.  Got it.  About what frequency and does this frequency seem to matter as far as the effect is concerned?  I was thinking about the natural self-resonant frequency of each inductor and if the pulse frequency is higher than both, lower than both or in between.

I was pulsing at a range of frequencies between 60 and 120hz. I didn't want to pass the saturation point of the core so i kept it low. The test was about 80hz in the end because that produced a stable magnetic field on one leg.

I would like to add something for people to get to grips with. Have a gander at the picture I have attached. It is a simple transformer core.
The name of the game my friends is much more simple than people imagine. If you want to cancel Lens law which is what Stan Meyer, Thane Heins and a whole bunch of folks are doing, all you have to remember is this simple fact.
If L1 ever see's the load value of R1 we lose. It is as simple as that, you can talk about resonant coils, LC circuits, capacitor materials and spacing and the like till the cows come home but if ever L1 gets to see the load value of R1 all the above talked about parameters are pointless.
That goes for a transformer or a generator, if the stator of the gen and the primary L1 ever get a sniff of the resistive load then you will lose. Thanks.
All that is needed is to remove the core just before L2 collapses into voltage and nothing can stop L2 collapsing into voltage once there is a change in current. Either remove the core or disable it.

That makes sense, BUT...

The trick is isolating L2 magnetically at the correct time without using as much energy as you put into L1 to start with.  Crack that nut and we're home free.

Quote from Matt Watts on June 30th, 2014, 11:23 AM

That makes sense, BUT...

The trick is isolating L2 magnetically at the correct time without using as much energy as you put into L1 to start with.  Crack that nut and we're home free.

We will soon find out because i'm starting a build of Meyers VIC with my biased and opposite wound inductor set up, isolated negative cap potential for the negative cancelled core and a resonant set of tubes that will sing just like my inductors do.