Free Energy from Electromagnetic Wave Fields

[partzman]

............

As a starter and motivator here is a brilliant introduction into wave science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DovunOxlY1k

This is a classic video and I highly recommend you (and everybody interested) to download it and keep it in your archives. It is not so much what he teaches that is so excellent (the same can be found in books as well), but rather the way he does that. His love and respect for the science of waves, his enthusiasm, and pedantic style of presentation will hopefully plant the seed of his spirit in your mind. If you water that seed regularly with daily lectures and problem solving exercises, then finally you will end up with an unshakable big tree of knowledge. I have got some more links, but need your feedback first.

............

ZL,

I have a question regarding the video above.  At the 3:45 minute mark in the video the author states the reflected wave from an open ended transmission line is a "Reflected replica of it's original self".  This is not an entirely correct statement as the reflected wave in an open ideal transmission line is a replica of the original with 2x amplitude. 

This is easily demonstrated as in the attached LtSpice sim.  The half sine input pulse is shown in the plot with a 2v offset for clarity and the 10Meg resistor R1 is needed to allow convergence of the sim.

Is this not correct?

pm

Edit: It might also be noted that the open mechanical transmission line used in the video does not reflect a 2x amplitude wave.

[ZL]

At the 3:45 minute mark in the video the author states the reflected wave from an open ended transmission line is a "Reflected replica of it's original self".  This is not an entirely correct statement as the reflected wave in an open ideal transmission line is a replica of the original with 2x amplitude. 

Are you sure about that? It sounds like you pose as an authority who is competent to debunk Dr. J.N. Shive and his explanation. This also implies that you consider his video and/or wave machine to be a deception, since we can clearly see on the video that the reflected wave's amplitude is not 2x the amplitude of the incoming wave. This is a wrong attitude if you want to learn, and want people to help you.
If you set up a simulation and you see something that you don't understand, then the right attitude is to first question yourself. Did you set up the simulation properly? If you did, then are you really measuring what you intended to measure? If yes, then do you really understand what that measured result means, and why it is as you see it?

If you are unable to find the solution, then it is OK to ask people in a humble manner, like: "...Here is what I did, but don't understand the results. Did I set up the simulation correctly? If yes, then can someone please explain why I measure 2x greater amplitude than what I was expecting based on the video? Etc."

We supposed to respect those who came before us and know (or knew) more than we do. Not all science is wrong. In fact without the body of knowledge collected about electromagnetics, mechanics, physics etc. we would not be able do design any FE machines either. It is proper to criticize science, and contradict certain rules or laws only if we really have some solid proof against it and an alternative explanation, something like what Mr. Vajda presented in his booklet. Please don't take this personally, I point this out here only because inappropriate attitude (not specifically yours) is rampant on this forum, and a bit more humble and respectful attitude would do good to everybody.

The solution to your problem is quite simple and I am sure you can discover that yourself with some effort. And that effort will pay back abundantly, because you will discover, and learn a feature of waves, which is indeed quite counterintuitive. If I would tell you the solution right away it would spoil the point. But here are some tips for you, where to look for the solution:

Are you measuring the amplitude at the right point to get the expected amplitude? Are you sure that the Video does not show you exactly the same wave behavior as your simulation does? How about downloading the video, and playing it back frame by frame in VLC player around the critical 3:45 mark?

Ok, now I have almost given away the solution. But do you really understand why did the wave what you have observed? If you can not dispel the "mystery" even after a day or two of studying it, then I will present the explanation.

Otherwise nice LtSpice simulation Partzman! Keep up the good work; you are sailing in the right direction.

[partzman]

Are you sure about that? It sounds like you pose as an authority who is competent to debunk Dr. J.N. Shive and his explanation. This also implies that you consider his video and/or wave machine to be a deception, since we can clearly see on the video that the reflected wave's amplitude is not 2x the amplitude of the incoming wave. This is a wrong attitude if you want to learn, and want people to help you.

Firstly, I am not posing as or claiming to be any kind of expert but simply seem to see a contradiction between sources.  If I appear to come across in that manner, I apologize as I simply wish to know which is correct.

If you set up a simulation and you see something that you don't understand, then the right attitude is to first question yourself. Did you set up the simulation properly? If you did, then are you really measuring what you intended to measure? If yes, then do you really understand what that measured result means, and why it is as you see it?

If you are unable to find the solution, then it is OK to ask people in a humble manner, like: "...Here is what I did, but don't understand the results. Did I set up the simulation correctly? If yes, then can someone please explain why I measure 2x greater amplitude than what I was expecting based on the video? Etc."

The sim is extremely simple but does have a fault with the conduction of current thru the capacitance of D1 on the input of the transmission line but the effect from this is negligible.  In regards to the measuring points used in the sim, I could have shown the voltage at the lower output terminal of the Tline and it would have been seen as an inverted 2x version of the input.  OTOH, if the lower output terminal was grounded, then the upper output terminal would have shown a 2x Vin non-inverted waveform.   IMO, the sim shows correct results.   

We supposed to respect those who came before us and know (or knew) more than we do. Not all science is wrong. In fact without the body of knowledge collected about electromagnetics, mechanics, physics etc. we would not be able do design any FE machines either. It is proper to criticize science, and contradict certain rules or laws only if we really have some solid proof against it and an alternative explanation, something like what Mr. Vajda presented in his booklet. Please don't take this personally, I point this out here only because inappropriate attitude (not specifically yours) is rampant on this forum, and a bit more humble and respectful attitude would do good to everybody.

I understand and agree.

The solution to your problem is quite simple and I am sure you can discover that yourself with some effort. And that effort will pay back abundantly, because you will discover, and learn a feature of waves, which is indeed quite counterintuitive. If I would tell you the solution right away it would spoil the point. But here are some tips for you, where to look for the solution:

Are you measuring the amplitude at the right point to get the expected amplitude? Are you sure that the Video does not show you exactly the same wave behavior as your simulation does? How about downloading the video, and playing it back frame by frame in VLC player around the critical 3:45 mark?

OK, I have done that and attached a png below.  It is not the best resolution but the levels can be seen for visual reference.

Ok, now I have almost given away the solution. But do you really understand why did the wave what you have observed? If you can not dispel the "mystery" even after a day or two of studying it, then I will present the explanation.

Otherwise nice LtSpice simulation Partzman! Keep up the good work; you are sailing in the right direction.

Thank you.

Well, according to conventional TL theory, when the Vin pulse in this case reaches the end of the open Tline it is un-attentuated and therefore adds to the original input voltage via superposition.  This 2x Vin waveform then begins it's reflection back to the start.  This is the 2x amplitude pulse that we see arriving back at the open start terminal at 2x the Tline delay.  Further observation would say that since we now see a 2x voltage at the input that we have 4x the power in our 50 ohm line over what we inserted initially.  Even yet more pondering might produce the question, "How can I utilize this apparent energy gain?".

pm

EDIT:  The leftmost shot of the mechanical Tline is the return wave with the middle being the start and the third is the peak of the returning wave.

[shylo]

I'm sure you folks know how to read all the scope shots, I don't.
Place them in the right spot, use them at the right time.
Power your initial circuit, now use the reactions of that to run others.
The initial is a given, placing the secondaries is the key, That's what Tesla did, He didn't invent OU, He used every little aspect of the circuit to get the most out of it.
just saying  artv

[ZL]

In regards to the measuring points used in the sim, I could have shown the voltage at the lower output terminal of the Tline and it would have been seen as an inverted 2x version of the input.  OTOH, if the lower output terminal was grounded, then the upper output terminal would have shown a 2x Vin non-inverted waveform.   IMO, the sim shows correct results.   

Well, it depends on what do you want to achieve. If you just want to fiddle with LtSpice, then that is fine, you can say that it shows the correct results for your setup. But, if you want to build a model that is analogous to the wave machine of the video (which we do want in this case), then your setup is not correct.

How do I know that? Simple clear logic: does the wave impulse ever turn negative on the video around 3:45? Does your circuit behave the same way? Forget about your Vin signal generator. Here we are interested only in the part of the circuit that models wave propagation observed in the video, which is the transmission line, because EM waves exist only in that component in the Spice model. Therefore, the input to the transmission line Vin should be measured where you measure Vr, and the output Vout should be measured at the other end of the transmission line on top terminal of R1. Please, measure these two points and change your circuit to behave the same way as the wave machine does in the video. I will reply to the rest of your last post when we get to that point in this problem solving exercise, and then we can progress and untangle the rest of the "mystery".