Resonnant circuits in cascade.

[Elvis Oswald]

magneto - Bearden is obviously not on to anything.  He describes overunity as simple and then defers to others to build it.  If he was right in his assumptions, he would have already presented a device that worked.

As for Tesla's car... supposedly the car company provided the car, and westinghouse provided the motor.  If this story is not true, then I guess I am searching in vain.  I know that troubles you.

And as for Lee Edskalnin - that was not off topic.    The other guy posting here - the *real* heckler... implied that everything about electricity and magnetism was known and taught in text books.  I asked him to explain Coral Castle.  Simple as that.  Ed obviously knew something that text books do not teach.  That was my point.

As for future discussion... if I ask a question, and you know the answer and feel inclined to answer, then feel free.  If I make a wild guess at something and you feel inclined to give your opinion of what is wrong with my guess... then feel free as well.
But I could really do without the sarcasm.
While it may make you feel better about yourself to chuckle at me - it really serves no purpose to ridicule anyone in this forum - other than to gain yourself a reputation as an asshole.
And - your reference to Bearden was off topic.  No one has quoted him as being right about anything.  I believe my one reference was "if you believe Bearden."   But maybe language is the barrier here.  Do you understand English? 

But seriously.  If you are an EE and you have education and experience... then put it to good use.  I am a network engineer... and I do not act this way with friends who ask me questions about their home networks.
It's called simple courtesy.

[magnetoelastic]

Peace - agreed.  Trust me, we are working toward a common goal.  I've been working on OU experiments for over 30 years, researching Tesla nearly 40.  Been there, done that.  The best thing the OU community can do is learn the vocabulary of 'real' science, not to make silly mistakes, learn how to do real tests, use real test equipment, and be our own worst critics.  JL Naudin and Scott Little are doing it right (although I don't agree with all of Naudin's protocalls).  The cold fusion community is able to do their research within the context of conventional science without resorting to new-age babble, why can't we?

If I'm a smart-@$$, it's because we (and I've been as guilty as any others here) can get so caught up in armchair theorizing, and urban-myth science that we don't stop to do the hard physics to understand what is happening, or to ask if what we are led to believe really makes sense.  There is a role for the skeptic both in science orthodoxy and in science radicalism.

That said, nobody in the science orthodoxy will believe a d**n thing that is said here until someone demonstates self-sustaining OU that has requires no batteries, no wall plug.  Maybe Randell Mills will beat me to it, but it won't be through a lack of trying.

Until that day, I am going to continue to challenge sloppy thinking, bad science, factual mistakes, and Tesla-cultists, because uncritical thinking serves no one, and furthers the reputation of legitimate OU researchers as part of the tin-foil beanie crowd.

Excuse me, gotta get back to the lab..

[Elvis Oswald]

I can agree with you.    But so far we are only discussing the merits of an experiment.  I would certainly not proclaim to have found anything based on a conversation about possibilities.

If we can agree that there is a potential between an antenna and a ground.  Then what is the best way to use this?  To say - "it can't be done." is fine.  But if people want to waste time talking about possible ways... then what is the harm?
I agree that we shouldn't be wasting time on nonsense.  But who is wasting their time here?  Just three of us... and two of us are satisfied wasting time.

Personally, I think too many are wasting their time on the devices that 'work' posted here.    That is the real distraction. 

Now... if I posted a video showing a black box running a few light bulbs... and I had all these EEs up at night trying to figure out what made it work... then you would certainly be right to complain.

Anyways... in the future, I will try not to show my ignorance.    I have only started studying electronics in the last few weeks.  All the Tesla and Meyl was what got me interested... and the lack of real help here as made me realize that I will have to know it myself.
So give me a break for now.    I'm a quick study and I have a knack for solving problems.  So maybe someday I will be a help instead of a distraction. 

Peace!!

[thrival]

Elvis:

You said:

I had the lc circuits backwards... actually.

The parallel would reach close to infinite impedance - and that would mean high current.  So yes this would couple with a secondary coil.

The series LC would be close to zero impedance... and that would mean it would pull no current in a perfect world.  No current = no inductance, right?

And yes, I realize that experimenting is the only way to find out what the anomalies are for both series and parallel LC circuits when resonating with the source.  Smiley

I mentioned the sparkgap coil - because that is what Tesla used.

I need to address what you said in stages (no pun intended.)

First of all, it's important not to draw false connections. We are studying reality at this point, not trying to establish cause and effects
yet.

Infinite impedance doesn't "mean" high current anymore than zero impedance "means" zero current. You are using only partial
descriptions to predict outputs, and not necessarily accurately. Let us simply look at what a resonance circuit is and does, not
why it does it. That can come later, if at all; it doesn't stop us from building useful circuits today, even if we lack complete
understanding.

A parallel tank has VERY HIGH input impedance at resonance. That means very little current can be squeezed into the input wires,
and yet VERY HIGH currents, "orders of magnitude," are circulating between the tank components. We are NOT saying that one
"causes" the other, only that both properties demonstrate themselves in this particular configuration.

In a series-resonant tank, the voltages between the components are VERY HIGH and the input current is VERY HIGH also. Again,
no causative conclusions are drawn, simply the factual observations.

In Tesla's magnifying transmitter we see neither a pure parallel or pure series resonant tank but something that has elements of both.
The coil is split into two halves. We might intuit then that the voltages that would develop across a single coil might split in half
as well. Now in resonant tanks, the gain is typically 10 to 1,000X the input. I misstated something in my previous post. In the Meyl
diagram, there is only ONE tank, i.e. the central coupling element. The input and output do not resonate. Now if Meyl is getting 5X
his input with only ONE resonant stage, that should tell you something about the power of resonance.

Meyl is correct; this type of circuit simply isn't described in the textbooks because it doesn't fit neatly into contemporary theories
and number-crunching. Of course it isn't necessary to grasp Tesla to make very good money as an EE or radio engineer, but it's sad
that those of us who spend good money for an education, are cheated from being exposed to the most interesting facts. And as
for failures, those are only useful for purposes of informing us what not to do in the future; they certainly don't limit what's possible,
but only define what doesn't work-- not what does.

Magnetoelastic:

Has your party debunked the testatika? I'll bet not, since over 30 engineers visited the community and saw it run.

I find your definition of OU to be purist and anal. Why would you object to a circuit being powered by a battery if it outputs more
energy than input? I hear a lot of high priests who demand to be shown, but the fact they produce nothing themselves already proves
them to be false priests. Why, WHY do the self-important allow one dubious configuration color their whole world? It's simply childish.

I discovered something about Planck's constant: instead of E = hf, E = Pf where P = power in watts. It conclusively proves the how
and why of zero-point energy, and no, you will not be shown.

[Elvis Oswald]

I am open to anything.   But I am also wanting to be sure I know what something is "supposed to do" before I play with electricity.

I am going to play with some coils.  First a tank circuit... trying to get it as close to resonate with the source as I can get.  The only thing holding me back is I am afraid to use A/C from the wall... haha  Maybe a transfomer to step it down to a few volts first.
I'll also try one with bifilar winding as well.  If we want to increase the magnetic field in the core - this would seem to do it.

So one or the other or both might show the increase in current in the secondary circuit.  If it does... even if it is a little... then perhaps an investment for better materials is warranted.  But for sure, the next step would be to cascade a few circuits and see if the increase is at least a sum of the parts - if not something more interesting.

But it will either prove something - or it will send me in another direction.

And to both thrival and magneto - we are all interested in the same goal.  It does no good to argue anything but facts... and then in a polite manner.

Thrival - you are much like me.  we both believe for one reason or another that it is possible.  But we are coming towards this problem from abstract thinking.  Obviously, people who refuse to think out of the box will never find it... and most prefer to laugh instead of help.    I've worked with engineers for 20 years - electrical, civil, and networking.  Most are very proud of their education and understanding - as well they should be... and it is somewhat insulting when people "armchair" and talk shit about the things they know are true.  So put yourself in their place. 

Magneto - you have education and experience... and maybe you have a hint that something is indeed missing from the accepted principles - but, you have seen many people come and go claiming free energy and yet, we are still on the grid.  I worked helpdesk while going to school... so I know the feeling of helping the "technologically challenged."   But again, put yourself in our shoes.

I'll post again when I see something - one way or the other.

Peace!!