Talking about phase...

[Earl]

Hi Bob, hi All,

I have just posted an idea with schematic at

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2582.msg38506.html#msg38506

and am looking for peer review.

I call it the Rat Race because it is like a rat running in a circle chasing its own tail.

Regards, Earl

[Bob Boyce]

Hi Bob,

And thank you for your well put together answers to our questions.  I agree that it is amazing how 1000 people can read the same words and most never hear them. 

I also, some time ago, made the suggestion of testing with our units hooked to a simple HHO cell, to get a true reading of output current.  Also because it seems that SM's toroid was able to "rise to the load", of course within bounds.  But if one is lighting one bulb, how does that person know that there is enough wattage to light five bulbs.  So I had suggest the tie in with HHO.  But many in this community boo'd me for this.  I took it as lack of understanding and carried on!  LOL    It is good that you do understand.

Lastly, after you have read SM's clues, how similar would you say your devise is both in function and in mechanics to the SM device?  Also does your toroid produce Alternating Current or Direct Current for power output?

Thank you and warm regards,
Bruce

Yes, one of the "features" of this power source is that it seems to adapt to the load, within reason of course. Load impedance is fairly important to getting maximum output, due in part to the HF portion of the energy riding on the DC output. Momentary shorting of the output does result in a plasma-like discharge arc.

From what I can see, they do look to be very similar. The primary differences that I could see are core material and number of poles. It sounds and looks like SM used stranded copper wire and 4 poles, while I use powdered iron and 3 poles in my current device. Otherwise, both seem to build up a swirling electromagnetic vortex during operation.

I have used other core materials with varying degrees of success as well over the years. I started out with laminated iron cores on the 2 phase devices in the mid 80s, and progressed to air cores on the 3 phase devices in the early 90s. One of the first units I tried 3 phase on was a Seike "g-strain energy absorber" that I had connected to a hand wound 3 phase air core torus coil. Talk about uncontrolled operation! But I kept at it, unaware of the dangers. Since I was no longer doing the hydroxy gas research at that time, I was obsessed with trying to replicate Tesla and Moray research on a shoestring budget. After my lightning strike injury in 1995, I mothballed that line of research until I had the time, energy, and funds to continue. I refused to apply this 3 phase design to practical application until the control issue could be solved.

I have openly shared almost all of my past research online, and even most of my more recent research. But like SM, I am reluctant to share the latest microcontroller based controller research. This does not mean that I will not, it just means that I will do so very carefully. I already have a "bare bones" model designed and being tested by another replicator. The toroidal core is nothing special, a MicroMetals T650-52 green/blue core. They make these material 52 cores in various sizes, but I understand that the T650 size are on back-order due to the current heavy demand from the hydroxy gas folk.

Bob Boyce

[Bruce_TPU]

Again Bob, a wealth of information.  You have answered even unasked questions in your last post.  Thank you again.

A fellow builder and poster, working closely with me on our next build had suggested 3 phase, with the thought that it was probably what Tesla used for his famous "Egg of Columbus" demonstration.  And yes, you are correct, that at least in the early years, there was four poles on the SM TPU.  In his clues, as to the mechanics of the unit, he merely says, "segments".  But hearing the control problem you had with 3 phase, it sounds like you think it safer for us to perhaps start with two phase for our rotating field.

I have tried to get others to realize that it is the way to produce DC output.  The intermix of three frequencies, as facinating as they are, in producing alternating current, it is not overunity, but as SM says, "They are only a means to achieve an end."

With the potential danger that these devices "can" pose, when operating, how can we all work together to overcome these, and introduce such a working device to the world.  Or do you see that as "not possible".  Perhaps it could be scaled up to say "transmission station" size and used safer in that way.  I am sure you must have thought on this.

Warm regards,
Bruce

[bob.rennips]

I had been using one of these:
http://www.oceancontrols.com.au/motor_controller/microstepping_motor_controllers.htm

I had four 'motor' coils arranged on a wooden board in typical 2 phase motor arrangement but all Norths pointing towards the center, so basically pulsing north facing towards center, magnetic pulses in a circle. I placed another air core solenoid over the whole arrangement. i.e. Like placing a pipe vertically over the coils so the circumference of the one pipe covered all the 4 coils. In otherwords this solenoid is at 90 degrees to the four coils.

I placed 12 volts DC from a car battery across this solenoid in series with a 15ohm 20watt resistor.

A function generator pulsed the microstep controller. I had the whole thing running at around 6.8Khz. I was looking at waveforms on the scope to see if the DC coil, even though it was at 90 degrees to the other coils, affected the scope waveform. No real difference detected.

The DC coil was connected to one battery and the microstep and the four coils to another battery. I used two batteries is so that there would be no possibility of electrical noise from the 4 coil switching going over the wires to the DC coil via the common connections to a single battery.

The connection to the DC coil came loose at the battery and was sparking and then POOF the whole microstep controller goes up in smoke. You could smell burnt up electrolytic capacitors and could see resistors burnt out on opening the box up.

Theoretically there should have been no coupling between the DC coil and the four coils... so this is a very interesting result. However, I can't afford to burn up $99+, each time I try this!, so now looking for a cheaper homemade circuit, to continue the 'burning' experiment.

Hi Bob,

Back in April I experienced the above. It appears to have a similar arrangement of coils to what you have been doing. Could this be the case or was it just BEMF getting into the 'motor' coils ?

thanks,
   Bob

[Grumpy]

Thanks much, Bob  B. - my commetns in blue:

More than enough to get started - I am surprised more are not discussing this.

@Grumpy

The DC biasing is distributed around the core periphery.

This makes the direction of the bias field "directional".  Depending upon the field centered may prove beneficial or detrimental - for example of the outer edge reversed.

The one that has a seperate DC bias winding can introduce a much greater angular field, but it can be quite the beast to control.

Yes, I see what you are saying.

The controller that I designed and released into the public domain does not utilize phase control. Precision phase control is too dangerous for most of the type of hobbyists that usually want to build the hydroxy gas systems, so a milder form of controller was the answer. It uses pulse conditioning and safety interrupts prior to the power MOSFET devices. My method of precision phase control is via precision pulse duration and timing using software on a microcontroller. The outputs are conditioned and applied through safety interrupts to power MOSFETs via drivers.

Got it.

Pulse shapes vs effects... It's much more complex than just pulse shapes. But think about what you are asking. Do we really want that sort of information spelled out online, even if there were a mapping chart of frequencies/waveform patterns/effects? Just consider what could happen if certain people were to get all the information they could on negative uses of this or any other energy technology.

I'll stop with the "means of excitation determines the result" and leave it at that.

Bob Boyce