The Master Of Magnetics "Steven Mark"

[penguin hood]

The following explanation is the function principle of a high voltage pulse generator designed and built two years ago to drive capacitive loads. The prototype showed be very good for this purpose.
I think create a website to share deeper information about the generator due the forum visualization is not appropriate.

FIG 1
The figure 1 is a circuital configuration frequently used in electronic to generate unipolar voltage pulses. The output has the Co capacitor as load.
During the transistor cut off (OFF) the voltage output is equal to V1 source while during the transistor saturation (ON) is approached to zero.
The R1 resistance must limit the drawing current through the transistor during the saturation. Therefore the resistance must be increased as long as the V1 voltage is increased. As consequence, for high voltages this circuit has a very large RC time constant affecting the pulse edge, wherein R is the net resistance and C is the net capacitance of circuit.
Also the maximum voltage output of this configuration is being limited by the maximum voltage that can be applied without damaging the transistor.
The objective was to demonstrate the difficulty to generate high voltage pulses with sharp edges using this configuration.

FIG 2
The figure 2 is the circuital configuration used by the high voltage pulse generator proposed.
Two transistors, the transistors M1 and M2 are switched alternatively. While one is satured (ON) the other transistor is cutt off (OFF) and viceversa
Each transistor has connected in parallel a zener diode (Dz1, Dz2). The circuit has a particularity: between the cathode of Dz1 and the negative of V1 the voltage is constant and equal to the zener voltage, despite the switching is changing the transistor states. Chossing the Dz1, Dz2 zener diodes of voltage close to V1 voltage, the resistance can be reduced considerably (several magnitude orders) still keeping unchanged the drawing current throrough the zener diodes. So the RC time constant can be very small improving notably the switching time.
Again the maximum voltage output is being limited by maximum voltage that can be applied without damaging the transistor.

FIG 3
Defining with the name "Cell" to the circuit of figure 2, if the outputs from N cells are serial connected (the fig 3 has 4 cells), the voltage is multiplied by N independing the maximum output voltage of the individual component limitations.
The voltages from V1,V2,V3,V4 sources MUST BE FLOATINGS. It is easy to create many floating AC voltages from one only source using coils coupled magnetically (a transformer with many secondaries). Then from each floating AC voltage are created the high DC voltages (V1, V2, V3, and V4 at fig.3) using voltage multipliers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_multiplier) 
Note that the function of a transformer in this case it is not to gain voltage but to decouple the voltages, while the voltage multipliers are used to gain voltage.
The transformer should operate to high frequency (kHz order) so the voltage multipliers recover rapidly the charge.
With the actually disposable MOSFET transistors each cell could generate unipolar pulses of 1000 volts, then using 4 cells as in FIG.3 it is possible generate unipolar pulses of 4000 volts on a capacitive load on order nanofarads with switching times on the order of nanoseconds.
FIG. 4
Shows to how to control the transistors.
FIG. 5
Shows how to generate the floating voltages for the voltage multiplier and transistor control. The coils are on same ferrite core. The complete diagram to build one cell.

[gn0stik]

Would anyone like to debate the evidence given thus far before committing resources and time to their replication efforts?

If just one person could put forward a convincing unbiased assessment of the information submitted so far, then I should take back my comments and I will gladly do so.

You see, i know some of you guys are as smart as hell, and more than willing to give of your time and effort, but i have been following these information trails for years now online, and I rarely make comments as you may easily confirm with google (as some like to do) But this and the myriad of tales of human colonisation of faraway galaxies by intelligent aliens doing exchange student programs and the like seem to all follow a very simiar pattern and they are all so believeable till you closely inspect the facts of which the crucial ones are almost always left out and the person is often working through a proxy. this proxy often has their ego fully invested see: ego alert >>The Master Of Magnetics << ego alert "Steven Mark"

which by the way is a total misnomer given the nature of the technology presented much more likely that it would be a longitudinal wave phenomena should it be real.

Keep up the good work, keep an open mind even .. much as was put forward in the stan deyo video when the scientists were told the story of the guy who happened upon the antigravity device and perished demonstrating it, If this thread inspires you to try as it so obvously has then Steven Mark story is harmless... but i think the scientist were lucky they werent given a video of a supposedly functional device, rather just the belief they can if they try....

Don't stop trying .. I know i wont.

If your not going to stop trying and you believe we should stay open minded, then why berate? Why share a negative opinion at all? Whether or not someone has believable assessment of the technology and the Man himself is of no consequence if that is your final outlook.

Here is the crux of the device, the video, the man, etc. Regardless of whether or not you like the way he presents it.

The effect you see in the videos is impossible to fake. Unless the videos were professionally edited by someone in hollywood to remove the wires that it would obviously take to provide enough electricity to power those devices, it's real. No transformer/battery arrangement known can do that in that small of a package. Period.

So ad-hominem attacks will get you nowhere in the face of the reality of the device.

Steven CANT give us all the information. He no longer owns the rights to the device. He can give us hints to how the device works and how it is arranged, via little parables and what-not, but unless he wants to lose his home to patent lawyers, he's pretty much stuck to this system of delivery.

Go back and read the ENTIRE thread, and follow all the links posted and read those materials as well. Then come back with a full understanding of the technology we're working with.

Pay close attention to Tao's "eureka" post and the amasci.com materials.

Now, am I unbiased? NO. I believe this thing exists and works. But I simply cannot believe otherwise given the evidence of my eyes.

[dean_mcgowan]

The only convincing part of the demonstration would be the television example however, this may easily have been hoaxed, their is really no way to show that the eample did anything other than close a circuit which may have been supplied power from another source. We do not see behind inside or around the television set. The handy vac and drill could easily have been battery operated for those amounts of time.

Powering those lights could have easily been accomplished for those lengths of time with batteries embedded in the cores of the devices. I honestly believe that we may just be being decieved by making a lot of assumptions then accepting a not so credible tv example. Who amonst you did not honestly doubt up until this point, though readily accepted the demonstation as the "clincher" in the deal. Our hopes and dreams were already engaged by this point and more than anything else, myself included were happy to negate the fact that there was little convincing about this grand finale presentation that had us/me totally taken in. I was more than ready to run off to the workshop and begin tweaking my toys, until i gave myself leave to re-examine the facts provided.

I do appreciate your effort in providing the circuits that are well described in many patents I have examined, however and I know you would agree they are most definitely not the source of the ascribed overunity and are only capable of rearranging the values in our standard equations and not capable of creating more output than input.

This highlight to me your understanding of electronics but not the capabilities of the Marks device. And this again shows us how we are lead along to believe as we take 80% factual information add it to the unknown, which could easily be given should Steven had not be so silly as to attribute his identity to the information and had just posted the information as someone who had just discovered it for themselves. Who is to say he posted  it under these circumstances ? unless ofcourse there is some need for recognition or self glorification?

Or .. its a hoax ?

[bob.diroto]

The following explanation is the function principle of a high voltage pulse generator designed and built two years ago to drive capacitive loads. The prototype showed be very good for this purpose.
I think create a website to share deeper information about the generator due the forum visualization is not appropriate.

FIG 1
The figure 1 is a circuital configuration frequently used in electronic to generate unipolar voltage pulses. The output has the Co capacitor as load.
During the transistor cut off (OFF) the voltage output is equal to V1 source while during the transistor saturation (ON) is approached to zero.
The R1 resistance must limit the drawing current through the transistor during the saturation. Therefore the resistance must be increased as long as the V1 voltage is increased. As consequence, for high voltages this circuit has a very high 1/RC time constant affecting the pulse edge, wherein R is the net resistance and C is the net capacitance of circuit.
Also the maximum voltage output of this configuration is being limited by the maximum voltage that can be applied without damaging the transistor.
The objective was to demonstrate the difficulty to generate high voltage pulses with sharp edges using this configuration.

FIG 2
The figure 2 is the circuital configuration used by the high voltage pulse generator proposed.
Two transistors, the transistors M1 and M2 are switched alternatively. While one is satured (ON) the other transistor is cutt off (OFF) and viceversa
Each transistor has connected in parallel a zener diode (Dz1, Dz2). The circuit has a particular simmetry, no matter the switching, the drawing current from source through R1 remain constant (in other words, the drawing current through R1 is DC). Chossing the Dz1, Dz2 zener diodes of voltage close to V1 voltage, the resistance can be reduced considerably (several magnitude orders) still keeping low the drawing current. So the 1/RC time constant can be very small improving notably the switching time.
Again the maximum voltage output is being limited by maximum voltage that can be applied without damaging the transistor.

FIG 3
Defining with the name "Cell" to the circuit of figure 2, if the outputs from N cells are serial connected (the fig 3 has 4 cells), the voltage is multiplied by N independing the maximum output voltage of the individual component limitations.
The voltages from V1,V2,V3,V4 sources MUST BE FLOATINGS. It is easy to create many floating AC voltages from one only source using coils coupled magnetically (a transformer with many secondaries). Then from each floating AC voltage are created the high DC voltages (V1, V2, V3, and V4 at fig.3) using voltage multipliers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_multiplier) 
Note that the function of a transformer in this case it is not to gain voltage but to decouple the voltages, while the voltage multipliers are used to gain voltage.
The transformer should operate to high frequency (kHz order) so the voltage multipliers recover rapidly the charge.
With the actually disposable MOSFET transistors each cell could generate unipolar pulses of 1000 volts, then using 4 cells as in FIG.3 it is possible generate unipolar pulses of 4000 volts on a capacitive load on order nanofarads with switching times on the order of nanoseconds.

Thanks Penguin Hood. Your efforts are much appreciated.

[bob.diroto]

I've highlighted below the techniques this 'Dean' person is using to instill doubt.

He will attempt to draw us into further discussions, under the guise of wanting 'to believe' or 'prove it to me' to waste time and also so he can use the pattern of selecting a subset of information, making a logical fallacy, and drawing a conclusion that instills doubt.

I suggest any further posts we simply reply by pointing back to this posting
which clearly demonstrates his modus operandi.

The only convincing part of the demonstration would be the television example however, this may easily have been hoaxed, their is really no way to show that the eample did anything other than close a circuit which may have been supplied power from another source. We do not see behind inside or around the television set. The handy vac and drill could easily have been battery operated for those amounts of time.

Powering those lights could have easily been accomplished for those lengths of time with batteries embedded in the cores of the devices. I honestly believe that we may just be being decieved by making a lot of assumptions then accepting a not so credible tv example.

He quotes a small subset of the information available on all the videos/forum.
He then states as fact that only a subset of the information he has given is the only credible information.
He then goes on to show how his ONE example could be faked. And then draws the INCORRECT conclusion that if you doubt the TV example, you should seriously consider that you are being decieved. He is doing the logical equivalent of "All fish live underwater therefore everything underwater must be a fish.". He fails to mention the video demonstration of the flame like discharge from the large coil.

The flame discharge showing vaporisation of metal with intense white arcing light requires HIGH FREQUENCY, HIGH VOLTAGE and HIGH CURRENT. This is a FACT. This clearly indicates that HIGH POWER is available.

Who amonst you did not honestly doubt up until this point, though readily accepted the demonstation as the "clincher" in the deal. Our hopes and dreams were already engaged by this point and more than anything else, myself included were happy to negate the fact that there was little convincing about this grand finale presentation that had us/me totally taken in. I was more than ready to run off to the workshop and begin tweaking my toys, until i gave myself leave to re-examine the facts provided.

Having created some doubt in your mind. He now needs to create a set of statements that you agree with. This is what the above is doing. Sales men use this all the time to create rapport. They get you to agree to 4 or 5 things in a row and then try to sell you their conclusion. Again it's a logical fallacy. If A,B,C and D are true therefore my conclusion is true. In this case, what he is selling is 'DOUBT'. His whole post is about creating DOUBT in your mind.

I do appreciate your effort in providing the circuits that are well described in many patents I have examined, however and I know you would agree they are most definitely not the source of the ascribed overunity and are only capable of rearranging the values in our standard equations and not capable of creating more output than input.

This highlight to me your understanding of electronics but not the capabilities of the Marks device.

This shows us for sure that this 'Dean' mannequin's purpose is to instill doubt.

He INCORRECTLY concluded, because he has not bothered to follow the threads that Penguin Hoods electronic diagrams were an attempt to recreate the Steven Mark device. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. But note how he has latched onto these diagrams to further promote his agenda of instilling doubt. We all know that Penguin Hoods diagrams were in responce to our need for a high voltage dc pulse generator with fast rise and fall times. Obviously this type of circuit is NOT going to be in patents because it is STANDARD ELECTRONICS. So why does
Dean say "I do appreciate your effort in providing the circuits that are well described in many patents I have examined". THIS IS QUITE SIMPLY A LIE to dissuade the casual reader of this thread that we do not know what we are doing. Again he was trying to establish rapport by first complementing and then trivialising the circuits provided. Now lets examine the conclusion he is trying to sell...DOUBT.
[/quote]

And this again shows us how we are lead along to believe as we take 80% factual information add it to the unknown,

Is this really a conclusion from what he just said ? NO NOT AT ALL. And his following statements show that all he wants to do is make more statements to instill doubt.

which could easily be given should Steven had not be so silly as to attribute his identity to the information and had just posted the information as someone who had just discovered it for themselves. Who is to say he posted  it under these circumstances ? unless ofcourse there is some need for recognition or self glorification?

Or .. its a hoax ?

And his final statement leaves us in no doubt what he was trying to achieve.
_________________________________________________________________


The 'mannequin' having been outed, as a paid troll, will now respond by either:

a. Trawling through our posts, selectively picking subsets of information, to try and discredit people. The logical fallacy used will be along the line 'because this is wrong everything else is wrong'. Which is just another version of 'All cows have 4 legs, this table has 4 legs, therefore this table is a cow!!'.

b. Reappearing under a different username. So watch out for new users or users with the same create date as this 'mannequin' guy.

c. Personal attack, going along the ego, paranoid route. His reply to gnostic was of this nature.

d. Further postings trying to link this discussion with fringe 'alien conspiracies'. Again to try and establish these postings, as postings of 'nutters'. You'll notice he is now doing this already on his other posts.

e. Claim that I'm the troll.