After finding no plausible explanation for the
30 Watt energy gain in Romeouk's Muller generator
i have stumbled about some mindful comments by
user Bolt about the possibility that the energy gain
might be from standing waves or a resonance condition
in the generator coils.
Quote from Bolt:
QuoteA series capacitor within a transformer circuit
assumes text book example so there is no increase in
energy thus nothing to be gained. Lets move on...
Romero coil configuration is VASTLY different as each coil
wire out of phase produces a dipole. In between that dipole
there is a virtual capacitance layer which is charged from
the passing neo magnet between the dipole gap.
When the neo has induced a maximal magnetic flux the electric field
in the virtual capacitor is decaying, because of feeding inductance
with electrical current, external electric field from inductance
tries to recharge charge this capacitor by displacement current.
As a result, capacitor pumps energy from M field, and real JOULES o/p
of the systems rises. We allow this to happen because the coils
are wired out of phase. So self created magnetic flux is
minimal thus the BEMF is made ZERO not NULL.
The energy does NOT come from the neo magnet directly
it only creates the conditions to allow this to happen more efficiently!
The same methods can be employed by using other similar methods
to charge the virtual capacitance layer. It can even be done using
air coils if they are wound as flat Teslas Coils.
Please understand this the magnets in a desired operational
system ONLY recharge the virtual capacitance layer they do
NOT directly induce a current into the coils. Stop thinking
conventional and you might get somewhere.
Double coils can be made by winding up the two electric wires
to the magnetic core as a Bifilar coil or as opposing dipole.
It can be seen that the dipole itself must be tuned to the
resonance frequency of the desired rpm * the number of
passing magnets. This is how Romero produced a self resonance coil
by hours and hours of tuning and clipping the wave lengths without
an additional tuning capacitor. Remember Romero said "you can use
capacitors its another method and probably much easier!"
After it can electrify the magnetic core into negative, we can
then flow the electric current in the double coils out of phase
but at that moment the relative opposite self-induction phenomenon
appears between the free electrons attached to the magnetic core
and the free electrons flowing in the double-coils. As a result of
that, a negative energy can be stored in the surroundings where
the relative magnetic field appears. Now we have a negative inductor
which consists of the magnetic core electrified into negative
and the double coils (non-inductive coil dipole) in which the
currents with the same quantity and the opposite directions
flow as pure VARS. The greater the VARS the more intense the KINETIC energy.
The negative inductance of the negative inductor is
proportional to the product of the rate of change of the
relative magnetic fluxes piercing the coil and the number
of turns of the coil, like the general inductor.
The negative inductor stores a negative energy in a space
where the relative magnetic field appears, and as a counteraction,
the inductor generates an electric power with a positive energy.
The free electrons which got a kinetic energy from a space as
accelerating returns the kinetic energy to the space as decelerating.
In a normal conductor, the free electrons lose the kinetic energy by
colliding with the atoms. In this case, the atoms which enhanced their
vibration energy by the collisions with the free electrons radiate heat.
In the electric wire of the negative inductor, the kinetic energy of the
electrons go in and out the space, so that the electrons influence the
atoms just a little. For this reason, the free electrons work to buffer
the thermal vibrations of the atoms. That is, the negative inductor
becomes cold in the operation. The same phenomenon occurs in a
conductor just charged into negative as well. Though the free
electrons in the conductor are making motions in their random directions
while colliding with the atoms, these free electrons cancel out each
other's speed, so the current does not appear macroscopically.
This situation is equal to the one in which the two currents with
the same quantity and different directions flow into the
non-inductive double coils.
So to understand the negative energy is a energy or a matter
which follows an imaginary time. From the Dirac equation, the
energy of a particle ( a electron ) can be positive or negative.
The negative energy is excluded from physical subjects, as it is
not realistic. SO ITS IGNORED with conventional physics! In order
to make the signs be negative, it needs to be understood that the
time should be an imaginary number and the space should be a real number.
OK what does this mean in English? it basically means you tune to
max VARS into a short circuit then open the short into the load
and if you fulfil everything else above you tap the ZPE.
Once understood within our grasp to convert this to solid state system
and kapanadze is so close to what i described above you will not
believe it! I mentioned the general process he uses before in other posts.
So far i have not been experimentally able to
create resonance with a series cancelling bifilar coil,
but am planning to sweep a higher frequency range now
and use different capacitor ranges.
I am convinced that standing waves can account for
energy gain in several overunity devices and think this
deserves a deeper discussion as well as experimentation.
This is basically my simple test set-up:
A series cancelling bifilar coil of zero inductance at varying rotor speeds
and also varying capacitor values.
The voltage meter reads nothing.
To prove the theory, the voltage meter should show
a charge on the cap once resonance is hit and
the cap is charged on the pure voltage node, therefore
the ampmeter should still read zero then.
This is similar to the Avramenko plug.
To understand this approach transmission line theory is required.
Some experimenters have measured in-phase currents to the FWBR, but then the phase-shift is probably not 180 degrees or the opposing inductors are different.
Unfortunately there is no formula (known) that would
give the right capacitor value for out-of-phase inductors.
I had initally thought it could be calculated by assuming
a series connection of 2 in-phase inductors or just using the inductance values of the individual coils forming the bifilar, but that did not work either.
It seems that there is a total different set of math involved with this.
Wondering, what do you make of Gyula's comment about "cold current"? I think it refers to pure reactive current. I recall something about it not being able to register on a normal ammeter, but should still sight a lamp.
M.
Quote from: xenomorphlabs on July 24, 2011, 09:40:40 PM
It seems that there is a total different set of math involved with this.
Excellent.
Please expound!
M.
Quote from: mondrasek on July 24, 2011, 10:07:48 PM
Wondering, what do you make of Gyula's comment about "cold current"? I think it refers to pure reactive current. I recall something about it not being able to register on a normal ammeter, but should still sight a lamp.
M.
This method is entirely reactive, you could even call it reactive resonance.
So the comparison to cold current might apply in a way.
As far as i know there is 3 types of radiant energy, electron spin, electro thermal and time density.
Since the power factor is zero there is no energy consumed in the circuit, 100 % reflected.
The actual charge on the dump cap is i believe a consequence of a displacement current trying to recharge the virtual capacitance layer in the dipole created by the cancelling coils. The dump capacitor plates can obviously turn this into real Joules not VARs.
About the math, i unfortunately am not aware of the right equation to calculate the resonance capacitance for out-of-phase inductors.
Since the inductance is technically zero, all known equations would send you to the "sun" hehe
And most physicist would roll with their eyes when you would ask them to calculate a resonance frequency for a zero inductor with no in-phase current.
I can at best see a correlation to the inductor wire length somehow, but that would drift away into the RF region again.
Some guy in a tesla forum has proven that the math for self resonance of most Tesla coils is based on straight conductors and that the self resonance
of curled conductors as in coils is about 6 times lower.
But i wanna at least give this theory some effort to see if i can establish this condition. In theory it makes perfect sense to me.
Quote from: xenomorphlabs on July 24, 2011, 10:27:49 PM
This method is entirely reactive, you could even call it reactive resonance.
So the comparison to cold current might apply in a way.
As far as i know there is 3 types of radiant energy, electron spin, electro thermal and time density.
Since the power factor is zero there is no energy consumed in the circuit, 100 % reflected.
The actual charge on the dump cap is i believe a consequence of a displacement current trying to recharge the virtual capacitance layer in the dipole created by the cancelling coils. The dump capacitor plates can obviously turn this into real Joules not VARs.
About the math, i unfortunately am not aware of the right equation to calculate the resonance capacitance for out-of-phase inductors.
Since the inductance is technically zero, all know equations would send you to the "sun" hehe
Same conclusions here!
I am very disheartened by every classically trained EE I have tried to explain this to. They mostly appear unwilling to accept the idea of "reactive current" since that is a no-no in classical power transmition.
But as @bolt has said all along, VARs into a cap becomes usuable Joules.
Pretty neat, huh?
M.
Quote from: mondrasek on July 24, 2011, 10:07:48 PM
Wondering, what do you make of Gyula's comment about "cold current"? I think it refers to pure reactive current. I recall something about it not being able to register on a normal ammeter, but should still sight a lamp.
M.
Hi Folks,
I wrote on "cold current" this in Reply #4392 (Muller Dynamo):
"A good observation that once you still measure or normally indicate output current with the usual current meter it must be a conventional current.
Unconventional current (some call it 'cold' current) is not supposed to be measured or even indicated by normal current meters, the presence of such current could be indicated by an incandescent lamp as other stated."
So I did NOT mean reactive current, this latter CAN be measured with normal ammeters. Just try to charge up a 100 or 470uF electrolytic cap via a series current meter from a simple 1.5V AA battery, you will see the (exponentially) diminishing current values till the full charge up state, beyond which the cap's leakage current would flow. The same happens with AC (if your current meter is quick enough to follow the AC frequency), a series of charging and discharging currentflows are repeated at the rate of the AC frequency.
I do not know what constitutes cold current (I mean in case of conventional current the electron flow does it), I simply referred to Floyd Sweet and Bearden's descriptions, where an incandescent lamp "is able" to sense the presence of cold current by giving a very 'whitish' light, while a series normal ammeter cannot show any cold current value...
So please do not mix "cold" and reactive currents.
Gyula
Thank you for the clarification.
An interesting link : http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_14/6.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line
Webby's link describes the differences between a series bifilar coil and opposed bucking coils well.
QuoteBasically, if we take two conventional coils, and connect them in
series, but orient them such that the poles of the two coils are in
opposition, what is often called 'bucking fields', we will find that the
total inductance is greater than that of a single coil. The total
energy stored in the fields of the two coils is not significantly
effected by their orientation, and the system is highly inductive.
All we have done is to distort the flux, we have not canceled ANY flux
at all.
On the other hand, if we were to construct a bifilar coil with exactly
the same ammount of wire, we would find that the coil had nearly no
inductance at all, and stores no significant energy in the form of a
magnetic field.
Some have argued that the field is still present, even though the
current through such a coil reaches E/R in a time limited by stray
inductance alone.
but when we interrupt the circuit, such a coil return NO energy from
this supposed field.
In this case, it appears that we have actually canceled flux, that is
the flux from adjecent bifilar windings has undergone true
superposition, or added algebraically to essentially zero magnetic flux.
Note that when we deal with whole poles of permanent magnets, or
conventional coils, this NEVER happens.
This apparent difference in magnetic field behavior is not a matter of
physical scale as some had suggested, as the bifilar coil simply does
not store, nor return any energy as an inductive coil does.
I will try basically a comparison between a single core bifilar and two bucking coils as i have still the gut feeling that the virtual capacitance
might actually need physical distance or might need two magnetic fields that interact like in the bucking coil case where my bifilar does not develop any magnetic fields at all.
After all this is what Romero has used. Since his method is so much trial and error and weeks of tuning it is highly desirable to understand the maths behind these processes to be able to achieve the tuning by calculation of capacitances to aid the tuning.
As expected this is not simulatable as well. (Has been shown by other users already, just was puzzling with it)
If the inductors are 100% equal you get femto-amperes of currents.
When making them slightly different, the out of phase signals are visible.
Simulating a series LC would probably just give the resonance frequency for a single inductor.
The big mystery to me is still how Romero hit resonance just with Biasing magnets. It becomes more and more plausible that the resonance in question might NOT be an electrical (oscillatory) resonance.
If it was the biasing magnets would have to create a 100 - 200 uF (virtual) capacitance.
The bigger mystery is how Romero actually knew what he was tuning for?
I still think that one of the active experimenters would sooner or later stumble over an outstanding energy gain when experimenting with bucking coils.
I have tuned for capacitances between 0 and 200 uF and i should have hit at least the outer edge of the bandwidth of any possible resonance and see the cap charge up, but no success yet.
Quote from: webby1 on July 25, 2011, 06:03:00 PM
I would like to ask a question:
If I have a bifilar coil and the coils are not connected, if I connect my meter to one leg of each coil is there any way I could get an AC V reading from my meter when I turn the rotor? a reading that goes up the faster I turn the rotor.
Yes, I think the capacitance between the two coils due to the closeness of their wires can pass an increasing current with the increasing RPM. Because there seems to be no closed circuit the two coils has no any connection to each other except capacitive coupling. However, this voltage cannot be loaded because the capacitive inner impedance is very high hence power gets lost in that cap.
Webby, one more thing: it is also a possibility that your meter probes, being close to the rotor, can pick up induced voltage in the probes wires. To minimize this, try arranging the probe wires radially leading them away from the rotor.
Quote from: webby1 on July 25, 2011, 06:03:00 PM
I would like to ask a question:
If I have a bifilar coil and the coils are not connected, if I connect my meter to one leg of each coil is there any way I could get an AC V reading from my meter when I turn the rotor? a reading that goes up the faster I turn the rotor.
Correction, wires were wrongly corrected.
So the correct version is that you do get a nice Voltage waveform,
but cannot extract current. Have not been able to power a load or anything, shows zero mA.
I wonder if this has any potential for development. Maybe by decreasing the impedance somehow.
LCR Meter shows 6.3 nF capacitance between the windings (if that measurement can actually be taken, since it`s not a standard cap)
Quote from: xenomorphlabs on July 25, 2011, 05:53:20 PM
I still think that one of the active experimenters would sooner or later stumble over an outstanding energy gain when experimenting with bucking coils.
As I do not have the simulation skills, I have again adjusted my stator coil to rotor mag distance closer (more Vout) and am again sweeping Rload. Very laborious and time consuming. Grind, grind, grind. (I feel like Edison and should get chewed out by Tesla for this inefficient approach. But it's all I've got.)
I still think what we need is someone who can understand and program Dr. Turtur's sim. He has posted his code for download, but it is so flexible that one must have a complete understanding of the Romero system as well as the software program in order to enter all the correct variables to simulate Romero's set up. This is (again) way beyond my skills.
We need a sim/program guy with enough physics background to bend that sim code to our needs.
I naturally lean towards Poynt99, but while he may be a skilled sim program user, maybe not a programmer himself.
Any other takers?
M.
I pondered about this for a while.
Utkin talked about Kapanadze`s coil being a capacitor.
He manages to get huge displacement currents between the plates (or coils).
The 6 million dollar question is how hehe.
QuoteWe need a sim/program guy with enough physics background to bend that sim code to our needs.
The problem is that this software is something like 50k $ ;)
It is sadly like Bolt sais, you need to be an expert in RF tuning to get this right.
I am sure that once you saw the effect, you could go from there.
Made another generator coil that i simply put on the other side of the rotor,
so that it is physically distant, but maximally out of phase.
Then i tried to charge the cap with zero current on the ampmeter using different caps.
The problem with this approach is that the PF is supposedly 0.
So by introducing capacitors it is in other applications possible to change
it, but not here. The voltage and current are 180 degrees out of phase and not 90 degrees which would be favourable for RE extraction. I gotta dive deeper into the theory to tackle that.
Quote from: xenomorphlabs on July 25, 2011, 07:22:05 PM
The problem is that this software is something like 50k $ ;)
Which begs this question: Would Dr. Turtur be willing to help us? He obviously has access to the software.
I know Dr. Turtur is helping others and cannot help us all. But is he aware of the Romero device? Does he know how many people are looking at this embodiment? Would he be willing to assist us with understanding the variable parameters better by setting up his sim for this embodiment and showing the results?
@X?
Quote from: mondrasek on July 25, 2011, 07:43:31 PM
Which begs this question: Would Dr. Turtur be willing to help us? He obviously has access to the software.
I know Dr. Turtur is helping others and cannot help us all. But is he aware of the Romero device? Does he know how many people are looking at this embodiment? Would he be willing to assist us with understanding the variable parameters better by setting up his sim for this embodiment and showing the results?
@X?
Hmm, well i believe the man is highly focused on his research.
Adapting the sim would take some time and that is exactly what a guy like him doesn't have. Apart from that he certainly wants to come up with something that carries his own signature (even though none of that is entirely new).
Keep in mind that in the sim, all the thousands of adjustments that Romero has done to the Bias magnets, would also have to be fed in over and over again.
I would say you never know until you ask him, so maybe just drop him a short mail. )
Quote from: xenomorphlabs on July 25, 2011, 07:57:09 PM
Hmm, well i believe the man is highly focused on his research.
I would say you never know until you ask him, so maybe just drop him a short mail. )
The last paper that I saw from Dr. Turtur (that you posted), appeared to be an attempt to answer many FAQs that he had been receiving. In that paper he actually set up and ran his sim code with specific values for a specific embodiment in order to show his "colleagues" how to do so.
My belief is that he wants to assist others in building devices that prove his opera, but of course he cannot assist every individual. BUT, if he is made aware of a large group who is working on replicating an embodiment of one of the theoretical devices his algorithms can simulate, this might be of great interest to the man.
Thoughts?
Quote from: webby1 on July 25, 2011, 08:44:01 PM
I just placed a cap across the other legs of the bifilar coil set, not sure what it is but it has .047 + - 20% 200WV EM written on it. With this cap I get more voltage out (4.8VAC) plus I actually get measurable current (.23mA), without no measurable current.
Hmm, but do you not actually create a series adding connection with that connection of the other legs? That way you would loose the capacitor effect and have just a coil.
FYI.
BTW, not from me.
From X.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferroresonance
Quote from: webby1 on July 26, 2011, 08:29:52 PM
Interesting.
Another question:
Can you take the output of a generator coil and place a jumper wire across the ends then attach your DMM to those same leads and still get a reading?
Depends on what you wanna read.
Since this is a dead short, you will have no current through your meter for sure if it is across the 2 leads like a voltage measurement.
There is controversy about the voltage, because to do a voltage measurement in a DMM you need current, which won't flow through the DMM in such condition.
If you look at it from knot potential perspective there is only one potential across the short.
Meter in series will of course show you the short-circuit current.
Quote from: webby1 on July 27, 2011, 09:35:13 AM
Not sure what a knot potential is,, google may help.
Yes a dead short and yes I still get a current reading.
I thought that perhaps maybe what I have created is either a bad meter and nothing is there, or maybe a standing wave, but then I thought that since my current is in AC then not standing but maybe in quadrature.
Sorry my bad, i mean node-voltage potential as from node analysis.
It's easy to determine if you have a standing wave/resonant condition, just change the frequency and observe your reading, if it has a peak at a certain frequency it is most likely a resonance.
So i take it you connected your meter in series with the short?
Most DMMs have a very low internal resistance too, so basically this seems to be Kirchhoff's rule, you got current through two parallel resistances, one being the shorting wire (also very low). That would be my explanation.
I am brainstorming today about the opposing bucking coils which carry 180 degrees out of phase voltages and currents.
So far none of us has been able to really "catch" the full energy of the 2 signals or make a measurement that shows the complete magnitude of them.
A current measurement through a 1 Ohm-Resistor is pointless because the meters can only measure in-phase currents.
I still think a voltage probe measurement should be possible when done with the ground unconnected at the right point on the conductor.
When you look at the 2 signals that travel in opposite directions, then it is noticable that the nodes develop at a specific point in the conductor let's say at a certain length l away from one end of the coil (probably due to the geometry of the coil not changing when the magnet passes this point will be the same throughout the whole wave period)
So to dump energy from the signals into a cap we would have to make sure that that point of the conductor lies exactly on the terminal of our dump cap.
What would be the best method to find this exact point?
Now at a rotor speed of 150 Hertz we would also expect 2 out-of-phase 150 Hertz signals in the generator coil pair.
That would correspond to a wavelength of :
Quote150 hertz = 1998.616386667 wavelength in kilometres
If for some reason, what we are chasing here, isn't an enormous upper harmonic of that frequency or some ominous RF component, then the chances are low to actually catch that current-node in our small centimeter-wire length generator circuit.
If someone sees another way to proceed to extract energy out of this situtation, please go ahead and describe it.
This just reflects what i have been so far able to find out about the nature of low frequency out-of-phase signals.
Quote from: webby1 on July 28, 2011, 08:14:22 PM
In my low tech way of doing things, when I need to turn my DC into AC I use a capacitive voltage divider and when using this simple thing I have current traveling both ways on the wire between the two caps at the same time because I am using it to run two coils. Maybe something like that?
Well, if the currents are 180 out-of-phase and of the same amplitude and frequency, then i'd like to know how you "use" them or get them in-phase again. ) Maybe a schem of the voltage divider.
If you choose a slightly smaller inductance for one of the bucking coils, you can see what is going on in spice.
A good read to grasp the differences between transmission lines and electrically "short" circuits : http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_14/5.html
Quote from: webby1 on July 29, 2011, 03:41:21 PM
I forgot to mention,
Last night one of my sons came by with a friend who happens to be a bit of an electronics geek, well we talked for a while and then I told him about the bucking coil arrangement, which he understood right away, and then said that someone is trying to figure out how to get at the current, his response made me laugh, he said "there's an awful lot of cat in that attempt"
Sounds funny, forgive me but english is not my native language.
What would the expression "there's an awful lot of cat in that attempt" exactly indicate?
That it is a big effort that requires lots of patience to attempt that or that he considers it foolish to even try?
I mean every EE would just look at the zero inductance property of such coil and stop to think any further and maybe they are right, i am just trying to verify that.
I have been reading up a lot on transmission lines last night.
There is a lot of controversy about the fact to even handle a Tesla Coil like a transmission line. At least there you got high enough frequencies that shorten the wavelength down to a range that could well be inside the coil length.
I conclude that the Romero generator circuit is electrically way too short to have any nodes established, i would have a hard time understanding where these nodes should establish at specific points in the conductors.
Except we are dealing with something that falls outside of convential standing wave theory which would predict a wavelength of 2000 kilometers and therefore a distance of 2000 kilometers between the nodes.
But i remember that we had that same interpretation problem with Don Smith's and Kapandze`s devices. The wavelength and wirelength would not
be in the correct proportions.
@webby1, please continue again once you have this thought worked out. I am intrigued.
M.
The long wavelength that would not conveniently fit into the circuit length might actually only at first sight appear to be a hindrance for tapping the energy.
Read some studies on ELF wave transduction.
Quote from: xenomorphlabs on July 29, 2011, 04:19:04 PM
Sounds funny, forgive me but english is not my native language.
What would the expression "there's an awful lot of cat in that attempt" exactly indicate?
To me it could also be a reference to the Ivor Catt anomaly
http://www.ivorcatt.com/28anom.htm
Ron
Well, thats certainly a read and a half...thanks for posting that up i_ron.
Regards...
Excellent conversation fellas !
Quote from: webby1 on March 02, 2012, 04:04:27 PM
....
In fig 2 in the pic what I get is that both caps grow in voltage fairly fast, after about 30 seconds of run both caps are at 30 to 40 volts not just one, and they seem to get there faster than in what I am assuming is the conventional way of hooking them up.
The caps are rated at 14000mfd 30V, so I take 30 seconds of 12V 0.1A and charge both caps to 35V so that is about 7 joules or roughly 14 watt seconds of power so it is nothing overly interesting except that I am having a hard time figuring out WHY both caps charge up so much and that is without the common rail being used, or even if I use the common rail and install a cap.
Hi webby1,
In Fig 2, when you close then open the switch, the big voltage spike from the collapsing magnetic field would charge up BOTH capacitors via the right hand side diode because the two caps are in series from the spike current point of view. When you open the switch the voltage spike has a polarity between the coil ends as follows: the coil end connected directly to the switch will be positive with respect to the other coil end (this latter is also the battery positive) and current can flow via the right hand side diode and via the two caps and towards battery negative, to close the circuit for the voltage spike. And in case part labeled A is still connected AND has a certain impedance or resistance, then the spike current can of course flow via part A towards the other coil end (which is connected to battery positive). The higher the inner impedance or resistance of part A, the more energy can charge up the capacitors, in case part A is a dead short, then the left hand side cap is charged up to the battery voltage (from the battery because it is wired in parallel in that case) and the higher the inner resistance or impedance of part A, the more energy remains for charging the series caps. In this latter case the battery also receives a certain (remaining) energy from the spike because it is included in the voltage spike closed circuit.
Hope this helps?
Gyula
Hi,
A correction to your sentence: "...in fact the cap becomes a 14000mfd 60V cap,"
I would say: the cap becomes a 7000mfd 60V cap (because two 14000mfd in series gives 7000mfd). Agree?
And this explains why the charge up time quicker versus the case in your Fig 1.
Gyula