The Master Of Magnetics "Steven Mark"

[hartiberlin]

@Kames,
In the bigger unit he could use the 2small toroidal cores to counter rotate
the magnetic flux and produce some kind of a magnetic vortex which "sucks"
in magnetic waves from the surroundings or free air electrons or what else
and produces a vortex motion inside the bigger output coil.
He probaly needs the big airgap between the 2 cores and the outercoil
to have the right vortex size...

[kames]

Hi Stefan,

My time is 2am and my head stops working, But anyway. If you are talking about a magnetic vortex in the bigger coil, what about the smaller coils? There are no torroidal units in it. What generates the vortex in them? We have to assume that Steven is using a different approach in the smaller units or we have to say that the vortex is not the case.
Without thinking a lot I think you need at least three coils to generate a rotating vortex, two is not enough even if they are using a different frequencies and such a called ?running? phase.
I can?t find a link to the website that has a java applet where you can programmatically select a number of different source points, assign different frequencies and see the graphical interference. I will search my computer for that link (not today, it is 2.30am) but no promises.
And again, even if you are right and it is possible to generate a vortex, what about the smaller units? I can hardly believe they are using a different idea.

Regards

[kames]

Hi Lindsay,

You are absolutely right. The inner coils are the part of the control unit that help the other coils to collect. Does it mean vortex? Maybe, but not convinced. The absence of such control unit in some (not all) other torroidal power units in the videos makes me think that the idea is simpler.  When I said ?rotating? field, I actually meant standard rotating field, like in the electrical motor. I didn?t mean vortex. Stefan reminded me that it might me a vortex. Agree with Stefan. But I don?t think the idea of the vortex is used. Even if I am wrong about the vortex I fully agree that the vortex can actually multiply the ?kicks? under some conditions.

Regards.

[kames]

Before proceeding I think that everybody should check it out:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,758.0.html
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,757.0.html
Very nice.

Coming back to my simple transformer experiment.
The experiment I am going to describe is not going to give you any over unity but it will show a real anomaly. You can reproduce it if you like and measure it. It is very much reproducible.

The way I have described the balance in the system for the simple transformer in the previous post cannot be applied to everything. Any kind of system requires its own description. Only the main idea can be reused.
Probably many of you read a lot of articles when somebody was saying that an over unity has been achieved. When asked to loop the system, everything was failing apart. Do you really believe that everybody is a con man? I really like what Steven said (don?t remember exact wording) ? ?You have to be an idiot to believe that there is a hidden battery that can give so much power for such a long time?. If I see a real power output on the active load, I believe my eyes, as simple as is.
How many times have you heard that somebody was using a back EMF and achieved over unity? Probably a lot. Did somebody managed to publicly demonstrate such a system in the self-running mode? I am not aware of it.
Have a look at the next link:
http://www.opensourceenergy.com/txtlstvw.aspx?LstID=d77e8f6b-bc60-46f2-91f2-72d55f53fb46
If the link is not working, search for the ?Zoltan Szili releases 50 watt ZPE circuit for Open Source?
His device is fully based on the back EMF idea. Even all the calculations were performed using special software to simulate the circuit. The question is: who is wrong? Software or the guy that posted it? I would say that both of them are right but it won?t work. At the same time you can use real equipment and do measure the excess of power.
I have performed the same experiment (but not identical circuit) a long time ago and did measure the excess of power in the range of 160% but could never managed to loop the device. Isn?t some kind of nonsense, you have excess of power but you cannot loop/use it, which means you cannot prove anything. The thumbnails for that circuit are not good but pay a very careful attention to them. I would say pay a lot of attention to the timing. What do you see? Nothing? Go back to my previous post and read about splitting two currents in the simple transformer. Otherwise, if you can reproduce it exactly, meaning that you have to get the same timing as in that link, you will get an anomaly, guaranteed. My experiment consisted of 2 identical coils 80 watts transformer with 50 turns in each coil. The frequency was between 100 and 500 Hz. The power ratio was measured using different methods ? converting everything to DC, using oscilloscope, using digital scope and transferring the diagrams to the computer and then calculating the size of the area under each impulse. Any way I was doing it, it was around 160% excess in active power.
Here is the answer for the anomaly. The way I was measuring the power was based on the calculation of the magnetic flux produced by each coil, or in other words, number of turns multiplied by the current in the coil. The output current was exceeding the input by 160% in active power. Can you explain the situation where the output current (the size of the area under the current line, ie in average) is greater than input having two identical coils and it is not even a resonance? I want to make a point here. I know very well the difference between active and reactive power. However, when looping the device back to the battery, the discharge current was always bigger than the charge. You can call it as a mistake but I wouldn?t. The problem was that the power was measured on the transformer, between output and input ON THE TRANSFORMER. The power should have been measured on the entire system despite that there was a piece of unit in the middle of the system that WAS GIVING the excess of power. Here we are coming to the paradox in nature. There are two contradicting things that are very deep in nature and I really don?t want to go that deep. Otherwise, my writing will never end. Just try to build a picture or use it as is.

If you really like to reproduce the circuit, here is the answer how to get the anomaly. In my previous post I have said that the output coil is trying to ?help? you. In order to see it you have somehow to separate the two currents IN THE INPUT COIL. The simplest way to do it is to split in time, making one current invisible to another. The new input impulse MUST not even begin until there is at least a little power left in the output coil. In my case I was waiting until the output current (NOT VOLTAGE) was reduced by the factor of 2 x 3.14 times and only then a new input impulse was sent to the input coil again. ONLY back EMF (using a single rectifier and a big capacitor in the output) was used to power the load in order to separate in time any kind of action that could occur in the input coil and output coil at the same time.


Regards.

[kames]

Hi Mannix,

Yes, I am a little off topic. This is true. I just wanted to show a real experiment based on the theory. It is still a little far from Steven. In one of my first postings I did strongly emphasize that Steven?s device (most of them) doesn?t have a magnetic core. I would even say that I didn?t want to emphasize it initially. I am more than 100% agree that Steven device doesn?t have to do anything with back EMF. I would say that I am absolutely sure about it. It was just an example of anomaly that a lot of people, I hope, would like to try in order to see something at least.
In my opinion, Steven?s device has a lot in common with splitting signals in time, but not only. But about it a little later, it is 1.30 am -:(.
I am just trying to get to the point without saying what I am not yet ready to say for a lot of different reason, including that I don?t have a device like Steven has. But I do have very unusual effects in my latest experiment. Believe me, this is not simple. I want to tell something but every time anything you are trying to explain it is touching the main idea that is not yet ready to be released in all details. I want everybody to understand it and possibly to find a better way.
My apology, I will try to keep myself much closer to Steven?s device.
I probably need two more postings to finish.

Regards