Overunity.com Archives

Here's a new related topic:

http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/PatD9.pdf (http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/PatD9.pdf)

"Claim 1:

An acoustic magnetic power generator composed of an alternating current signal generator connected to an acoustic transducer which stimulates the core of a permanent magnet such that the atoms of the magnet are caused to vibrate which in turn causes the magnetic field to vibrate and causes a current and voltage to be generated in an output coil wrapped around a permanent magnet or in the magnetic field of the permanent magnet which said current and voltage can be used for powering a load".


Here's a copy of the "Full Patent":

http://www.google.com/patents/US5568005 (http://www.google.com/patents/US5568005)

Danial Nunez has demonstrated how he sends a "Quick and Dirty" audio signal from his I-Pod App, through an amplifier into a Rodin coil. One could use the very simple and low cost Nunez approach to stimulate a smoke detector type Piezo Transducer attached to the magnet core of a "Synchro Coil" with a resonant LC tank and diode. One could easily get the kind of overunity effect described in the "Self acceleration Reed switch thread" that Conradelektro failed to follow through with. This approach is sure fire and wouldn't require any difficult neutral zone positioning of the coil!


More useful gouge:

http://scraw.hubpages.com/hub/Economical-Benefits-of-Free-Energy-For-A-Cab-Driver (http://scraw.hubpages.com/hub/Economical-Benefits-of-Free-Energy-For-A-Cab-Driver)

"It is possible to produce anywhere from 1mA all the way up to 5 Amps".


"Coil Wire

The best way tap into eletrical current from the power generator is to wrap copper wire around the permanent magnet. Any size will suffice, however the number of turns will determine the amound of current and voltage. The load will be connected to the wire terminals, which will need to be connected with a fuse to provide safety in the event of voltage spikes".


A variable capacitor, or "Radio Tuner" wired to the "Synchro Coil" would help tune the LC resonant frequency to the acoustic sine wave.  Amplifier volume would help control power.


Here's what a 20 to 20khz audio piezo transducer looks like below: This would simply attach to the magnet core!

Here's a good article on the MRA or "Magnetic Resonance Amplifier" of Joel McClain and Norman Wootan:

http://rexresearch.com/mra/1mra.htm (http://rexresearch.com/mra/1mra.htm)

Concerning resonance:

"The MRA is a series resonant LC circuit in which power gain is attainable as a result of the increase in effective impedance under certain operating conditions. When the series impedance increases, primary current is reduced. When the power available from the secondary coil either remains the same or increases as the primary circuit impedance increases, a power gain occurs".

"In application, the MRA is tuned at resonance for maximum power transfer, then detuned slightly for maximum power gain. This relates directly to the use of thermal pressure at resonance, and the effect that this has on continued polar rotation and the release of donor electrons".

One can see how fiendishly simple the MRA circuit is. McClain and Wootan simply wrapped one end of the piezo wire around the magnet. They called the piezo chip a capacitor and the wire the inductor of an LC tank. Then there's a secondary to a full wave rectifier, and the D.C. load. They were denied a patent for this overly simplistic circuit. The Davidson patent US 5568005 A merely vibrates the magnet core with the transducer. My version is similar to the Davidson patent but includes a separate tank to tune the coil.

Quote from: synchro1 on February 15, 2014, 07:53:10 PM
Here's a good article on the MRA or "Magnetic Resonance Amplifier" of Joel McClain and Norman Wootan:

http://rexresearch.com/mra/1mra.htm (http://rexresearch.com/mra/1mra.htm)

Concerning resonance:

"The MRA is a series resonant LC circuit in which power gain is attainable as a result of the increase in effective impedance under certain operating conditions. When the series impedance increases, primary current is reduced. When the power available from the secondary coil either remains the same or increases as the primary circuit impedance increases, a power gain occurs".

"In application, the MRA is tuned at resonance for maximum power transfer, then detuned slightly for maximum power gain. This relates directly to the use of thermal pressure at resonance, and the effect that this has on continued polar rotation and the release of donor electrons".

hi synchro1,

I have tested the "barium titanate" which was purchased off ebay.

But without the "Barium ferrite magnet" i'm only able to achieve 500uA at 10volt  of output power (OU) for 1uA(input current) using 5volt input connected via 1kohm resistor in series with Barium titanate running at 16.8KHZ for a specimen /fragment.

Instead of Barium ferrite magnet i was using bilfilar consisting of around 45 turns 18AWG on 3 toroid.There is around 2.2x voltage amplification at around 10..13 volts output but output current is mere 500uA.

There isn't enough power to support even my low power microprocessor which needs 500uA at 2v but i'm unable to get the required frequency which need 5volts.
The objective was to create a loop back the easy way.Unless someone knows maybe a "watch circuit which draw ultra low power for the signal generator" maybe i can do it and still light a led (forever) at least.

It's so hard get Barium ferrite magnet.The only source i know is China.
The last round of barium ferrite magnet (custom order) shippment to my home was a disaster at 45kg they can't shipped out via Air due magnetic field which was too strong even after using metal box.I know nuts about using ships for delivery suggesting for fedex or ups or etc did not give me any result.
But at least they gave me a refund minus  the production cost of USD100."$#%^"



As the site claims it will only gives few watt of power which is good enough for me for a start and use it to smack skeptics in the face. :)

@magpwr,

Permanent Magnets:

Permanent magnets are manmade materials that produce their own magnetic fields. They can attract ferromagntic materials, such as iron, nickel or cobalt. The magnets are made from "hard" ferromagnetic materials such as alnico and ferrite. Engineers use special processing techniques that utilize powerful magnetic fields. This process aligns the internal microcrystalline structure of them, so that they never get demagnetized. Those motivated enough to experiemnt will not have to concern thelmselves with various sizes or magnetic flux. The acoustic-magnetic generator will work with any of them.

The "Acoustic Magnet Generator" or AMG is not the MRA, or "Magnetic Resonance Amplifier", which calls for the Barium Ferrite Magnet! Try the AMG and some Neo's! The Piezo transducer does not make contact with the magnet in the MRA, unlike the AMG!

Quote from: synchro1 on February 15, 2014, 09:31:03 PM
@magpwr,

Permanent Magnets:

Permanent magnets are manmade materials that produce their own magnetic fields. They can attract ferromagntic materials, such as iron, nickel or cobalt. The magnets are made from "hard" ferromagnetic materials such as alnico and ferrite. Engineers use special processing techniques that utilize powerful magnetic fields. This process aligns the internal microcrystalline structure of them, so that they never get demagnetized. Those motivated enough to experiemnt will not have to concern thelmselves with various sizes or magnetic flux. The acoustic-magnetic generator will work with any of them.

The "Acoustic Magnet Generator" or AMG is not the MRA, or "Magnetic Resonant Amplifier".

hi synchro1,

The another reason for me to purchase the Barium ferrite magnet spec related to Floyd Sweet VTA  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFarS-liuBY)ou device.
I have not tried creating bifilar coil on any other magnet yet.Although hematite beads is a possible canidate.

@Magpwr,


Any kind of magnets will work. Hematite beads are too small to wrap. Just order some neo's from K&J magnetics!


http://www.kjmagnetics.com/ (http://www.kjmagnetics.com/)


Just wrap the magnets with a wire coil, attach a rectifier and ring them with a piezo chip!

Quote from: synchro1 on February 15, 2014, 09:47:34 PM
@Magpwr,


Any kind of magnets will work. Hematite beads are too small to wrap. Just order some neo's from K&J magnetics!

I have bad experience with neo.The field is way too strong if you try to wind bilfilar on neo magnet you will know what i meant.
Barium in magnet is a better choice since it would get excited as well and yet produce few watt of ou power only.

It's hard for me to explain unless you purchase the barium titanate and find the optimal output voltage from another bifilar coil once the resonance is found.
The fun part the input current is real tiny at around 1uA since i'm using 1kohms from signal generator output and still able to light led from another coil.It's as far as i can go with limited resources.

@Magpwr,


Place the Neo in a thick dielectric plastic conduit, don't try and wrap directly over the magnet, but wrap over the tube!.

I haven't had much luck with the neos inside the coil. I'm getting nearly 7v (amps not measured yet) using a combo of ferrites & neos. My power source is direct from iphone no additional amplifier.
I'm uploading the video now. Love to test with barium ferrite mags. Uploading the video now


it's here [size=78%]http://youtu.be/aEP0XKZqpfo (http://youtu.be/aEP0XKZqpfo)[/size] but may still be processing

Quote from: Jimboot on February 16, 2014, 01:18:32 AM
I haven't had much luck with the neos inside the coil. I'm getting nearly 7v (amps not measured yet) using a combo of ferrites & neos. My power source is direct from iphone no additional amplifier.
I'm uploading the video now. Love to test with barium ferrite mags. Uploading the video now


it's here [size=78%]http://youtu.be/aEP0XKZqpfo (http://youtu.be/aEP0XKZqpfo)[/size] but may still be processing

Hi Jimboot,

That's is a interesting video to demonstrate the voltage increase using neo magnet near yoke's proximity.

There is a speak brand -"Selenium"  speaker which is using barium ferrite magnet as found in ebay.
I wouldn't dare to cough up money to get that speaker just to extract the magnet from it even if means missing the ou part for me.

@Jimboot,


Awesome video! The Davidson patent says the Piezo Transducer has to be on the magnet or in the magnetic field. Looks like you proved that, and I'll go further and wager you're maybe four times overunity, where the output's forecasted to be. Any kind of output amperage has to add up to an OU COP at six whopping volts, with that tiny amount of milli amp input! Incredible "Quick and Dirty" solution to a very complex sounding experiment. Try and light a bulb. Congratulations on posting a real classic. I think Stephan should select your video for the overunity review.   

Quote from: synchro1 on February 16, 2014, 02:05:52 AM
@Jimboot,


Awesome video! The Davidson patent says the Piezo Transducer has to be on the magnet or in the magnetic field. Looks like you proved that, and I'll go further and wager you're maybe four times overunity, where the output's forecasted to be. Any kind of output amperage has to add up to an OU COP at six whopping volts, with that tiny amount of milli amp input! Incredible "Quick and Dirty" solution to a very complex sounding experiment. Try and light a bulb. Congratulations on posting a real classic. I think Stephan should select your video for the overunity review.

I honestly don't know enough to be as excited as you LOL. But thanks. I'm uploading another video now, where I've lit a couple of LEDs. Won't light an incandescent though of 4.5v so current must be pretty low. I'd like to try much higher frequencies with barium ferrite mags though.


EDIT: Video is still uploading but will be available here [size=78%]http://youtu.be/XJe8OaJo_zw (http://youtu.be/XJe8OaJo_zw)[/size]

Just been playing with it a little more. The power increase is directly proportional to the amount of mags I add. Fwiw

Quote from: Jimboot on February 16, 2014, 03:37:33 AM
I honestly don't know enough to be as excited as you LOL. But thanks. I'm uploading another video now, where I've lit a couple of LEDs. Won't light an incandescent though of 4.5v so current must be pretty low. I'd like to try much higher frequencies with barium ferrite mags though.


EDIT: Video is still uploading but will be available here [size=78%]http://youtu.be/XJe8OaJo_zw (http://youtu.be/XJe8OaJo_zw)[/size]

@Jimboot,


Another smashing video! Here's a quote: "I would have to imagine the iPhone/ iPod Touch and other iPods use about 1 or 1/2 watt".

Those LED's are really blazing. You could easily be five or ten times overunity already!

Your approach is unique. A patentable innovation completely different from any of the magnet wrapped versions. I'm very impressed!

Congratulations, Jimboot! You've invented the saturable-core transformer!

Too bad Synchro is, as usual, wrong about the implications of what you've shown.

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 16, 2014, 11:13:54 AM
Congratulations, Jimboot! You've invented the saturable-core transformer!

Too bad Synchro is, as usual, wrong about the implications of what you've shown.

@Tinklesqualid,


Dim Sum pot sticker!


Jimboot is not running any current what so ever into your so called transformer.

People, I would like to remind that overunity user: paullowance discovered
that a standard radio shack piezo element allowed to rest for 24 hours generated
enought overunity energy to flash a high brightness LED briefly. It did this even
when sheilded suggesting that this energy was caused by either nuclear muon, or
neutrinoes.


piezo -> petrolithic energy -> rock crystal batteries -> neutrinoes -> PEP-II neutrinoes -> LENR
-> LENR iginition signal -> Wigner Array Lattice energy -> a rate limited energy storage
mechanism with exponential stored energy playback.


:S:MarkSCoffman

Quote from: synchro1 on February 16, 2014, 11:19:01 AM
@Tinklesqualid,


Dim Sum pot sticker!


Jimboot is not running any current what so ever into your so called transformer.

Wanna bet, stynchro1? How about showing some measurements that back up this outrageous claim. When the LEDs are lit and the phone is driving the input, the phone is indeed supplying current, I guarantee it.

You think his phone isn't putting any current into the "so called transformer" ? Then he should be able to disconnect it completely and still have bright LEDs. Or is the phone doing some kind of apple-magic that doesn't involve current at all?

That earns a ROFL for sure.

(Stay tuned, I've just made an interesting video that should get you pretty excited, as if you weren't excited enough already.)

Quote from: mscoffman on February 16, 2014, 12:23:35 PM
People, I would like to remind that overunity user: paullowance discovered
that a standard radio shack piezo element allowed to rest for 24 hours generated
enought overunity energy to flash a high brightness LED briefly. It did this even
when sheilded suggesting that this energy was caused by either nuclear muon, or
neutrinoes.


piezo -> petrolithic energy -> rock crystal batteries -> neutrinoes -> PEP-II neutrinoes -> LENR
-> LENR iginition signal -> Wigner Array Lattice energy -> a rate limited energy storage
mechanism with exponential stored energy playback.


:S:MarkSCoffman

Or temperature change stressing the element, or environmental vibration, or contact pressure, or many other things that were never ruled out by experiment. On the other hand there is no evidence that any of the things you mention could produce the effect seen.

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 16, 2014, 11:13:54 AM
Congratulations, Jimboot! You've invented the saturable-core transformer!

Too bad Synchro is, as usual, wrong about the implications of what you've shown.

Bloke - this type of sarcasm is what kills this forum. I never made any claims. I was simply sharing something that I had learned. I wasn't trying to fool anyone like others have done with fake magnet motors. Glad I started this thread somewhere else. Ever heard of simple civil discourse.
I'll be f'ed if I go to any trouble to show you anything.

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 16, 2014, 01:28:32 PM
Wanna bet, stynchro1? How about showing some measurements that back up this outrageous claim. When the LEDs are lit and the phone is driving the input, the phone is indeed supplying current, I guarantee it.

You think his phone isn't putting any current into the "so called transformer" ? Then he should be able to disconnect it completely and still have bright LEDs. Or is the phone doing some kind of apple-magic that doesn't involve current at all?

That earns a ROFL for sure.

(Stay tuned, I've just made an interesting video that should get you pretty excited, as if you weren't excited enough already.)

I knew you'd go with "Stynchro"! You think that tiny I-Phone battery is suppling the current to light those two LED's to full brightness? Those LED's would run that battery down in a few minutes. Any current from the I-Phone stops at the Transducer, and never gets into the core windings.


The Davidson patent explains the output as an acoustic resonance that excites the nuclear structure of the magnet, not a transfer of current into a magnetic field and back again at transformed voltage from windings differences. Ther's no current in the core wraps, therefore it's not a transformer, it's an "Acoustic Resonance Amplifier". 


Jimboot reports increased output with additional magnets and no additional input. Everything is always something else to you "Ivory Tower Egg Heads" with your endless scope shot drivel. How incessantly tedious and unimaginative can people be?


Just "Prove it's not a Platypus"!

Quote from: Jimboot on February 16, 2014, 02:46:48 PM
Bloke - this type of sarcasm is what kills this forum. I never made any claims. I was simply sharing something that I had learned. I wasn't trying to fool anyone like others have done with fake magnet motors. Glad I started this thread somewhere else. Ever heard of simple civil discourse.
I'll be f'ed if I go to any trouble to show you anything.

Lighten up, "bloke". I never said you did make any claims, did I? It is that other fellow who is making claims, for you.  If you don't think you are showing a saturable core transformer, then argue your point. I can certainly argue mine.

Quote from: synchro1 on February 16, 2014, 02:49:40 PM

I knew you'd go with "Stynchro"! You think that tiny I-Phone battery is suppling the current to light those two LED's to full brightness? Those LED's would run that battery down in a few minutes. Any current from the I-Phone stops at the Transducer, and never gets into the core windings.

Wrong. The transducer is a capacitor, it passes the AC signal from the phone to the primary windings without difficulty. Would you like to provide some measurements that demonstrate otherwise? Please feel free to do so.

Quote
The Davidson patent explains the output as an acoustic resonance that excites the nuclear structure of the magnet, not a transfer of current into a magnetic field and back again at transformed voltage from windings differences. Ther's no current in the core wraps, therefore it's not a transformer, it's an "Acoustic Resonance Amplifier". 

Patents can explain all kinds of things, that does not mean that the explanations are correct. There most certainly IS current in the core wraps and it can be measured in many different ways... none of which you have done.

Quote

Jimboot reports increased output with additional magnets and no additional input. Everything is always something else to you "Ivory Tower Egg Heads" with your endless scope shot drivel. How incessantly tedious and unimaginative can people be?


Just "Prove it's not a Platypus"!

The additional magnets move the core around on its B-H curve, since the small currents from the audio source are not sufficient to saturate it completely. This change in the inductance of the core affects the overall impedance of the transformer's coils and the effectiveness of the transformer action, as well as changing the resonant frequency of the piezo capacitor and coil combo. I've shown exactly the same phenomenon by approaching a Joule Thief ferrite toroid with an external magnet... and you know I have.


Meanwhile, this platypus is almost uploaded:

http://youtu.be/ZKlsMRQUSkE (http://youtu.be/ZKlsMRQUSkE)

(No "scope shot drivel" included.... after all, if you aren't required to show measurements, why should I.)

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 16, 2014, 03:29:32 PM
Lighten up, "bloke". I never said you did make any claims, did I? It is that other fellow who is making claims, for you.  If you don't think you are showing a saturable core transformer, then argue your point. I can certainly argue mine.

Yeah, that's the bit you don't get. I didn't come here for an argument - have a nice life

@Tinselkoala,

Nice replication attempt of Jimboot's experiment.

Quote from Tinselkoala:

"Congratulations, Jimboot! You've invented the saturable-core transformer"!

Jimboot's I-Phone dosen't care wether his LED's are on or not, or how much increased power the inclusion of additional magnets makes.

"The ideal transformer induces secondary voltage VS as a proportion of the primary voltage VP".

The ideal tansformer induces Vs as a proportion of Vp. This is not the case in Jimboots magnetic resonance amplifier. There is no proportion between the primary voltage and the secondary output, so how can it be possibly classified as a transformer?

Transformers don't have constant input and variable output. Input is in direct proportion to output in a transformer. There's no way Jimboot's Acoustic magnetic generator can be classified as a transformer. That's just dead wrong! Understand Tinselkoala?

You're magnet coil core is already completely saturated, unlike Jimboots ferrite toroid. What you designed is my "Synchro Coil", and the inclusion of a LC tank with a variable capacitor in series with the coil and bridge rectifier to tune the coil as McClain and Wootan did should increase the output, as you dial off peak resonance at the different frequencies to maximize output.

The other thing is; How do you know how many LED'S can be lit at the output end? You might be able to illuminate an entire bank. I don't trust you to report an honest COP.

@Tinselkoala,

Designate one of your magnet core bifilar coils as the primary. Attach one of your signal generator electrodes to one end of the primary coil, then attach the other end of the primary coil to the cathode of the piezo transducer. The other signal generator electrode attaches to the anode of the piezo transducer. The seconday bifilar wires to the bridge. This gives you the LC tank that Jimboot has wired to his toroid primary, and replicates the McClain/ Wootan Magnetic Resonance Amplifier or "MRA" circuit. Jimboot's hybrid version is a unique variety of an "MRA" due to his ferrite toroid core.

The way you have your transducer circuit wired now constitutes a version of the Davidson patent for the Acoustic Magnetic Generator or "AMG", with no LC tank.

Again:

"The "MRA" is a series resonant LC circuit in which power gain is attainable as a result of the increase in effective impedance under certain operating conditions. When the series impedance increases, primary current is reduced. When the power available from the secondary coil either remains the same or increases as the primary circuit impedance increases, a power gain occurs".

Synchro1:

"The MRA is a series resonant LC circuit in which power gain is attainable as a result of the increase in effective impedance under certain operating conditions. When the series impedance increases, primary current is reduced. When the power available from the secondary coil either remains the same or increases as the primary circuit impedance increases, a power gain occurs".

Can you produce any test data and other information to beck up these claims?  I don't believe the statement above for a second.  The reasoning is the same standard reasoning that I have mentioned elsewhere.  It's just an ordinary circuit that makes use of ordinary components.  The description above is lacking in substance.  There is every rational reason to state that it is under unity and no rational reason to claim that the circuit is over unity.  So unless there is definitive proof that has been independently confirmed by three outside parties, it's nothing but smoke and mirrors.  It's a pitch being made to people like you that want to believe and invest.

Norman Wooton has been around for many years, but I have not done much research on him.  In seeing him in clips, he looks like he is in the "second Old School generation" just behind Bearden.

It's a mistake to believe these things without proof and by looking at the circuit you can see for yourself that it is under unity.

You can't keep on making wild claims with no proof or inventing wild claims with no proof on the spur of the moment.  Any claim has to be backed by serious and reproducible measurements.  That's the way the real world works.  If you can't do that then you are just blowing smoke and crying wolf.

By "you" I mean whoever the claimant is.  So Norman Wootan has had a claim about this device that has been sitting on the Panacea web site and on the PESN web site for years.  That doesn't make it true.  When you think about it, with no follow-up activity for years and years, that pretty much makes it false.

MileHigh

@Milehigh,


The piezo simulates the pulse from a spinning rotor that I tested personally with a magnet core coil, and charged the run battery while looped back to source. I interested Conradelektro in testing the LC tank resonance coil, and you barged in and replaced the capacitor with a pair of resistors this past December. I interested Jimbboot in testing the magnetic resonance amplifier, and he was just as rudly upstaged again by one of your anti overunity fraternity brothers.


You personally ruined that test which would have supplied the proof you persistently challenge me to supply,
now you're undermining the alternate test proof I devised and received help with from Jimboot. Let Tinselkoala get his MRA circuit wired correctly and see what kind of performance he measures.

Synchro1:

Time to let go of the old line about "ruining the test."  You know that I did no such thing and I view this all as a "performance" by you.  I gave Conrad some suggestions, that's it.

I look forward to seeing the tests if people undertake to do them.  The AC excitation voltage should be much higher than what the iPod can put out.  With the AC input and the rectified DC output the power in and power output measurements should not be too difficult.  You notice it is very similar to what Conrad just did.  You drive a parallel LC resonator at the resonant frequency or close to the resonant frequency.  The rectified output is trapping directly into the LC resonant tank.  Therefore as the rectified output drives a load resistor, that will drain energy from the resonant tank.  The voltage in the resonant tank will therefore drop and the AC sine wave powering the circuit will be able to add energy to the tank to bring the resonant voltage back up.  Power will flow through the circuit like this and as you change the value of the load resistor you can observe how it affects the resonant tank.  If you slightly detune the AC excitation frequency of the resonant tank and assume a moderate Q factor, the basic operation will remain about the same.

I am not going to look it up, but I assume that you can model the piezoelectric buzzer as a lossy capacitor.  I assume that the thing will start to sing also.  Probably the higher the frequency the higher the losses.  On the other hand you may want to make the resonant frequency (or hope the resonant frequency) is above 15-20 kHz so you will not go insane from the sound.

I also just realized that the input power measurement is going to be tricky and you will probably need a DSO.  Current supplied by the AC power source is mainly going to flow at the positive and negative peaks of the AC sine wave (to be verified).  So that's a tricky measurement.

MileHigh

I looked at the pdf:

You can't select text so I did a screen cap.  They claim an acoustic signal going through the magnet core will make the magnetic field oscillate and therefore you can get more output power.

Now supposing you are just an Ordinary Joe molecule inside the magnet with your valence electrons spinning nicely and contributing to the generation of the magnetic field.  The magnetic field is just parallel field lines as far as the eye can see.

Now what is the sound wave going to look like to the molecule?  It will "feel" like a slightly "tighter squeeze" with the neighbouring molecules for a brief second.  That's not going to affect the spinning valence electrons.  They will continue to spin in a plane that is perpendicular to the magnetic field.  None of that geometry will be affected by the sound waves.

Why people do these things is anybody's guess.  Perhaps there was a "project" in the 1990s with a backer, just a guess.

The conduction of sound waves directly through the core, or in the air around the core will no nothing to the magnetic field generated by the magnet.

All that being said, I know there will be push-back, and I cave.  I know it's not going to stop people from experimenting and I want them to experiment.  You have a golden opportunity here to test if the sound waves make a difference or not.  You can try variations with sound and without sound and see for yourself.  You have an opportunity to test for over unity, and to do a second test for the alleged "sound advantage."

MileHigh

Quote from: synchro1 on February 16, 2014, 08:28:47 PM
@Tinselkoala,

Designate one of your magnet core bifilar coils as the primary. Attach one of your signal generator electrodes to one end of the primary coil, then attach the other end of the primary coil to the cathode of the piezo transducer. The other signal generator electrode attaches to the anode of the piezo transducer. The seconday bifilar wires to the bridge. This gives you the LC tank that Jimboot has wired to his toroid primary, and replicates the McClain/ Wootan Magnetic Resonance Amplifier or "MRA" circuit. Jimboot's hybrid version is a unique variety of an "MRA" due to his ferrite toroid core.

Are you having comprehension difficulties? This is exactly how I have my apparatus wired in the video, except for the addition of the LEDs. The schematic is included at the end of the video. Did you not watch that far?

Quote

The way you have your transducer circuit wired now constitutes a version of the Davidson patent for the Acoustic Magnetic Generator or "AMG", with no LC tank.

That's right, since that is what this thread is supposed to be about, isn't it?
Except that the piezo acts like a capacitor, therefore there is indeed an "LC tank" involved.

Quote
Again:

"The "MRA" is a series resonant LC circuit in which power gain is attainable as a result of the increase in effective impedance under certain operating conditions. When the series impedance increases, primary current is reduced. When the power available from the secondary coil either remains the same or increases as the primary circuit impedance increases, a power gain occurs".

And that is exactly what I have demonstrated, and that is exactly what Jimboot has demonstrated, and there is absolutely nothing unusual or even "special" about that because POWER IS NOT ENERGY.

QuoteThe other thing is; How do you know how many LED'S can be lit at the output end?

Because I  have made measurements. Have you? Let's see them.

Quote
You might be able to illuminate an entire bank. I don't trust you to report an honest COP.

I don't believe you know what you are talking about, at least three quarters of the time. So I don't particularly care what you trust and what you don't, but I will call you every time I catch you making a bullshit statement like "no current flows in the primary" or that the iPhone isn't providing power to Jimboot's system. Remember this: I back up my statements with checkable outside references, facts, and demonstrations. What do you provide? Nothing but claims and speculation, and a lot of misinformation.

Here's a suggestion: measure the capacitance of your piezo element with a capacitance meter. Then remove your piezo from your circuit and replace it with an actual capacitor of the same value you measured. Then run your experiment again and report your results.

@Tinselkoala,


You've been reported by me to the moderator for vulgar and abusive language. I hope Stephan demotes you to "Pink Comments". You deserve it with your level of conceited pomposity.


Furthermore; There's no "Transformable current" in the primary. There's no "Transformer" proportion between any so called primary current and secondary output; So there's veritably no appreciable transformer type of current there! That's to counter your "False Assertion" that Jimboot's MRA is merely a transformer.

FU,

Synchro


P.S. I see that you indeed did have your "MRA" wired correctly from your video schematic.

@Milehigh,

Conradelektro's resonant tank experiments were very interesting and highly educational.

The resonant LC magnet core coil or "Synchro Coil", is a "Magnet Ringer" practically identical to Lasersaber's ferrite core "Joule Ringer". Wootan explains the maximum output is three octaves above the input frequency. The piezo transducer acts as a good test device to determine the "Magnetic Resonant Frequency" for a specific magnet core. Barrium ferrite magnets have been suggested as superior to neo's for this function, Floyd Sweet's choice for "Ringing" with reported COP'S of 1:3,000,000. My tests have demonstrated an increased "Ringing" output with diametricly polarized neos, primarily due to the angle at which the magnet fields cross the coil wraps.

The "Magnetic Resonant Frequency" should differ with each individual magnet core. Once determined, a coil can be fashioned and a capacitor matched to "Ring" the magnet at an ideal rotor speed. This should help solve the positioning problem.     

You should be reported for making false claims and harassing people who want to know the truth. You have made no measurements for your assertions about the current in the primary, and you have insulted me greatly in the past, and in this thread as well.

Measurement of current in the primary of my device which is wired just as the Keelynet diagram shows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYR9LqzY7VU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYR9LqzY7VU)


The piezo I am using measures 40 nF when measured on a capacitance meter.

EDIT: Make that 35-40 nF, and also please note that the currents cited in the video should be divided by 10 to get the true value-- I was reading the wrong scale on the attenuator knob, since my current probe system is a 1x system.

@Tinselkoala,


Jimboot's I-Phone is not plugged into a wall outlet, and has an upward frequency range of merely 20Khz. This can in no way be considered a primary transformer current for the kind of secondary output he's lighting his two LED's to full intensity with. His I-phone can only output around a half a watt

I tested a digital function generator plugged into a 50 watt amplifier, connected to a bifilar coil and a 120 volt incandescent bulb. I dimmed and brightened the bulb to full intensity modulating the volume control of the amplifier. How many watts is your function generator rated at? You're pushing power into that crappy magnet coil through the piezo transducer at four times the frequency to make it look like Jimboot is burning a hole through the power lines.

Jimboot has a stack of neo magnets hundreds of times more powerful than the tiny stack of ceramics your frying with your signal generator. You're simply tying to make me look stupid with your slight of hand tactics. People don't need more than the half watt I-Phone acoustic app at 20khz to get the MRA to work. You're pushing some kind of transformer effect into that coil to make Jimboot's amplification power look bogus. You pull these kind of Hocus Pocus stunts routinely, like some kind of upside down Mylow!

Furthermore; The Overunity site has rules regarding basic decency. I was placed on moderation for using the not so nice nazi word. Vulgarity is unacceptable even for a big wheel like you. I demand that you recuse your distasteful comment, or I'll cause even more trouble for you Mister big shot!     

Still wrong. Again, without showing measurements that support your claims, that is all they are: claims. If there is no current... then disconnect the phone and show the LEDs still lit, or tell me what magic it's using instead of moving charges around.

Next... I apologize, I made an error in that last video. My current probe is a 1x non-attenuated thing, but I was reading the current values as if from a 10x probe. So the true values are 1/10 of what I spoke. I've added annotations to the video to point out the error. Sorry about that! (But I am not sorry about calling BS what it is when I see it.)

So if I am providing 10 volts p-p at 50 mA peak... what's the power level that I'm cooking my magnets with? And what do you think the capacitance of Jim's piezo is? What's the output power of the iPhone's audio amp, do you know? I do.

Next...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wLCoQoFCjE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wLCoQoFCjE)


Which demonstrates that the Piezo is a capacitor, and that the resonant frequencies obtained by experiment from observing the waveforms and output LED do indeed agree with the predicted frequencies obtained by putting the capacitance and the inductance values into the standard formula for a series tank circuit, both for the Piezo element and for the straight capacitor.

ETA: You should realize that our host is German and this website is hosted in Germany. They are especially sensitive about certain terms and attitudes, even to the point of making laws about it. The words you used are much more inflammatory to many Germans than anything I've ever said on this forum, I guarantee you that.

@Tinselkoala,


I wonder how "Petro-Fascist" would be received to describe a certain brand of twisted bias? 

Quote from: synchro1 on February 17, 2014, 02:17:37 PM
@Tinselkoala,


I wonder how "Petro-Fascist" would be received to describe a certain brand of twisted bias?

Since many years, I make a practice of going for at least two days a week without driving or using any kind of petrol-powered vehicle. So... "when you pass, thank me for your gas".

Twisted bias is one thing, making false claims is another. My alleged bias has nothing to do with the _fact_ that I support my contentions with data, repeatable demonstrations that anyone can do, and checkable and reliable outside references.

I'll be continuing this at http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=1743.0 (http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=1743.0)


Sorry Stefan, this really is a mess.

You may find this article interesting

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 17, 2014, 02:21:51 PM
Since many years, I make a practice of going for at least two days a week without driving or using any kind of petrol-powered vehicle. So... "when you pass, thank me for your gas".

Twisted bias is one thing, making false claims is another. My alleged bias has nothing to do with the _fact_ that I support my contentions with data, repeatable demonstrations that anyone can do, and checkable and reliable outside references.

I have two words for your over amped power hog transformer: "Short Circuit"!

Wrong again. You have been wrong many many times about my demonstrations, why stop now?

More:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asM3Xj_O2Cs

Quote from: synchro1 on February 17, 2014, 04:12:27 PM

I have two words for your over amped power hog transformer: "Short Circuit"!

Wrong, and easy to refute as well. A Short Circuit has very low resistance to DC current, right? But my primary always has either the two 100 nF capacitors in series, or the piezo element in series ... neither of which pass DC current. Therefore... you are Yet Again wrong in your assertions about what my work demonstrates. Furthermore, the coil primary alone has a measurable, significant inductance. What does this mean as far as its ability to pass AC signals of high frequency? Do you know? I do.

@Tinselkoala,

A short circuit is an abnormal connection between two nodes of an electric circuit intended to be at different voltages. This results in an excessive electric current (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current)/overcurrent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overcurrent) limited only by the Thévenin equivalent resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9venin%27s_theorem) of the rest of the network and potentially causes circuit damage, overheating, fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire) or explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion). Although usually the result of a fault, there are cases where short circuits are caused intentionally, for example, for the purpose of voltage-sensing crowbar circuit protectors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowbar_(circuit)).


You found a way to bypass the transducer; Brilliant adaptation for an acoustic amplifier! You also grossed Jimboot off the Website. All you proved in the end was that you failed to get it to work to begin with!

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 17, 2014, 06:30:48 AM
Except that the piezo acts like a capacitor, therefore there is indeed an "LC tank" involved.

Yes, a piezo element acts as a capacitor and will form an LC tank with an inductor.
This is elementary.

Quote from: MileHigh on February 17, 2014, 01:00:03 AM
Now what is the sound wave going to look like to the molecule?  It will "feel" like a slightly "tighter squeeze" with the neighbouring molecules for a brief second.  That's not going to affect the spinning valence electrons.  They will continue to spin in a plane that is perpendicular to the magnetic field.  None of that geometry will be affected by the sound waves.

The magnetic properties of many ferromagnetic materials are affected by sound pressure.  It is called the Villari effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villari_effect).

Quote from: MileHigh on February 17, 2014, 01:00:03 AM
Why people do these things is anybody's guess...
The conduction of sound waves directly through the core, or in the air around the core will no nothing to the magnetic field generated by the magnet.

I have not seen that assertion verified experimentally.  However I have seen the permeability of soft ferromagnetic cores being modulated by acoustic pressure. 

Attached is another patent (http://www.overunity.com/14307/acoustic-magnetic-generator/dlattach/attach/133603/) that takes advantage of the Villari effect caused by acoustic standing waves occurring in a ferromagnetic core.

Thus it seems to makes sense to experiment with acoustically stimulated magnetic circuits like those depicted below:

Verpies:

Thank you for that information, I looked it up.  It appears to be an effect dependent on the specific material, and on the intensity of the magnetic field, and on the intensity of the mechanical stress.  It looked like this effect starts happening at high stress or high magnetic filed intensity so I doubt that it applies in this case.

Beyond that, changing the amount of magnetization that you have in a core material due to mechanical stress is not a way of producing any extra energy.  So it does not act as a "key" to any alleged amplification of power output when compared to a fixed power input.

From Wikipedia (for the related inverse effect of Magnetostriction):

QuoteMagnetostriction (cf. electrostriction) is a property of ferromagnetic materials that causes them to change their shape or dimensions during the process of magnetization. The variation of materials's magnetization due to the applied magnetic field changes the magnetostrictive strain until reaching its saturation value, λ. The effect was first identified in 1842 by James Joule when observing a sample of iron.

This effect causes losses due to frictional heating in susceptible ferromagnetic cores. The effect is also responsible for the low-pitched buzzing sound that can be heard near transformers on alternating current carrying transmission towers.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on February 17, 2014, 08:51:04 PM
From Wikipedia (for the related inverse effect of Magnetostriction):

Why are you quoting an inverse effect when the topic is the Villari effect?

The Villari effect describes the changes of the magnetic properties in a ferromagnet caused by sound waves - not the generation of sound waves by a ferromagnet (which is the opposite, as in "magnetostriction").

I quoted that because it is easier to relate to.  The actual effect changes the magnetism of a core material due to mechanical stress and it will certainly obey the law of conservation of energy.  In that sense, there is nothing there, and the Norman Wooten patent and sample circuit are essentially meaningless.

Perhaps a bigger issue is does it apply here?  There is limited value in quoting a relatively exotic effect if it will not even happen in the experiment.  I am pretty sure that it in fact will not happen in this experiment.  If anybody wants to do the full check to verify that they are welcome to do so.

MileHigh

@Verpies,


Thanks for the hyperlink to the Gunderson patent. Very interesting reading. More similar to what Jimboot did with output windings on a ferrite core rather then over magnets like the McClain/Wootan MRA.

Quote from: MileHigh on February 17, 2014, 09:48:23 PM
The actual effect changes the magnetism of a core material due to mechanical stress and it will certainly obey the law of conservation of energy. 

But that expectation is not a good reason to assign these experiments to a trash pile. 
What if the magnetic flux density and the acoustic standing wave frequency is just right to cause NAR (http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Acoustic-Resonance-Dan-Bolef/dp/0121112500) ?

Quote from: MileHigh on February 17, 2014, 09:48:23 PM
I am pretty sure that it in fact will not happen in this experiment. 

Actually, from my experience the change of permeability under sound pressure happens in ALL ferrite cores that I have tried.
The black ferrites are better at it than the gray ones, but it happens in all of them!

Verpies thanks for your input here. You sir are a man of science.


I have to get this off my chest as a pure amatuer in this field though. I consider it really poor form to berate people for an experiment here and then go and perform the same experiment with 4 vids on YouTube  and not give any acknowledgement to Stefan's forum or some of the ideas that came from this thread. If I did that in the blogging space my career would be over.

The Magnetic Amplifier works off sound pressure. Not only did the "TK Turkey" run four Youtube experiments, he failed to generate any power in the acoustic range, proving that it doesn't work! Another "Classic kibosh" of the kind he's notorious for.

By the way, Jimboot has reported some very interesting discoveries over on the open-source-energy site:

http://open-source-energy.org/ (http://open-source-energy.org/)

Quote from: synchro1 on February 18, 2014, 11:52:40 AM
The Magnetic Amplifier works off sound pressure.

Then in such system the piezo element should influence the device acoustically - not electrically.

In Jimboot's experiments with the iPhone, piezo and the ferromagnetic core, the piezo element influences the device electrically by acting as a capacitor in series with the primary winding of the transformer. 
Most of the time, Jimboot's piezo element does not even touch the ferromagnetic core like it would in a pure magnetoacoustic experiment (as shown e.g. here (http://www.overunity.com/14307/acoustic-magnetic-generator/dlattach/attach/133601/) and here (http://www.overunity.com/14307/acoustic-magnetic-generator/dlattach/attach/133602/))

Tinsel has not analyzed the magnetoacoustic aspect if this device, because the topic was not this type of device. 
He was shown an electronic contraption and he did an electronic analysis of it.  In light of these circumstances ignoring the acoustic aspect of this device seems justified.

Quote from: synchro1 on February 18, 2014, 11:52:40 AM
Not only did the "TK Turkey" run four YouTube experiments, he failed to generate any power in the acoustic range, proving that it doesn't work! Another "Classic kibosh" of the kind he's notorious for.

Tinsel's electronic analysis of Jimboot's system is correct even if his bed side manner is acerbic.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY) and here (http://www.overunity.com/www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WU2SrKDNY4) are related videos that show electronic circuits exhibiting a similar behavior. 
Note that these circuits form a parallel LC tank with the primary winding and a series LC tank with the secondary winding.


P.S.
Note that at one time the input bulb is off while the output bulb is on, suggesting an infinite O/I power ratio, but that is wrong because the light bulb on the input side is not a reliable power indicator (it is merely a current indicator).  The input bulb does not measure the input power as well as the output bulb, because it does not constitute a load itself and the MPTT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem) rears its ugly head.

Quote from: verpies on February 18, 2014, 07:39:44 PM
Then in such system the piezo element should influence the device acoustically - not electrically.

In Jimboot's experiments with the iPhone, piezo and the ferromagnetic core, the piezo element influences the device electrically by acting as a capacitor in series with the primary winding of the transformer. 
Most of the time, Jimboot's piezo element does not even touch the ferromagnetic core like it would in a pure magnetoacoustic experiment (as shown e.g. here (http://www.overunity.com/14307/acoustic-magnetic-generator/dlattach/attach/133601/) and here (http://www.overunity.com/14307/acoustic-magnetic-generator/dlattach/attach/133602/))

Tinsel has not analyzed the magnetoacoustic aspect if this device, because the topic was not this type of device. 
He was shown an electronic contraption and he did an electronic analysis of it.  In light of these circumstances ignoring the acoustic aspect of this device seems justified.
Tinsel's electronic analysis of Jimboot's system is correct even if his bed side manner is acerbic.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQdcwDCBoNY) and here (http://www.overunity.com/www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WU2SrKDNY4) are related videos that show electronic circuits exhibiting a similar behavior. 
Note that these circuits form a parallel LC tank with the primary winding and a series LC tank with the secondary winding.


P.S.
Note that at one time the input bulb is off while the output bulb is on, suggesting an infinite O/I power ratio, but that is wrong because the light bulb on the input side is not a reliable power indicator (it is merely a current indicator).  The input bulb does not measure the input power as well as the output bulb, because it does not constitute a load itself and the MPTT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem) rears its ugly head.

@Verpies,


Quote from above:

"Jimboot's piezo element does not even touch the ferromagnetic core".

The piezo element does not need to touch the permanent magnet, it merely needs to be in the magnetic field!


Quote from Davidson's "Acoustic-Magnetic Power Generator" patent:

"Claim 1:

An acoustic magnetic power generator composed of an alternating current signal connected to an acoustic transducer which stimulates the core of a permanent magnet such that the atoms of the magnet are caused to vibrate which in turn causes the magnetic field to vibrate and causes a current and voltage to be generated in an output coil wrapped around a permanent magnet or in the magnetic field of the permanent magnet which said current and voltage can be used for powering a load".

The Dan A. Davidson patent:

http://www.google.com/patents/US5568005 (http://www.google.com/patents/US5568005)


"The combined effect of the acoustic signal and the stimulating coil increases the efficiency of permanent magnet induction transformers".


Again, from the Davidson patent:


"When an alternating current signal generator is connected simultaneously to an acoustic transducer and a stimulating coil; whereby, both the acoustic transducer and the stimulating coil are located within the magnetic field of the magnet".

@Verpies,

Let me add that Jimboot wired a second piezo element in series with the first and tripled his output voltage! Tinselkoala slapped together a hastily assembled "Piece of Crap" from scavenged junk parts that was a complete failure as an Acoustic-Magnetic Power Generator. He demonstrated that his contraption didn't need a piezo transducer at four times the maximum acoustic frequency, and delivered zero output in the acoustic range, which is what he set out to demonstrate as the chronic nauseating cynic he is. He shoot's from the hip at everyone and I hope I finally got to singe his tail feathers.

The piezo circuit carries an exciter signal that's practically all voltage. There's no transformer level current running through it. That was my point. I'm not trying to deceive anyone. The deception is that the piezo transducer is irrelevant in the circuit, and that it works the same when replaced by capacitors. Jimboot just demonstrated that an additional transducer triples the voltage when making sound, not that there's no difference if it's replaced by a stinking capacitor. Hello? What's that kind of gain have to do with no additional primary transformer current?

I just got a load of TK's new redundant nowhere no magnet LC tank video. Boring! Here we find the narcissist replicating Jimboot's experiment with the conspicuous absence of any credit to Jimboot or any reference to the Overunity site, or the Synchro thread.

Reply from Lasersaber to TK's new video:


"Hi TinselKoala,

I just tried the basic effect using an iPhone like JimBoot started with.  My scope showed .5V on the input before the transducer.  On the output side I found a sweet spot giving over 8 volts.  The LED was nice and bright.  I actually did not expect it to work on the iPhone mic output.  I ran out of time this evening but I will check current draw etc in the future.  I believe the transformer to be a 1:1 ratio but without unwinding I am not absolutely sure.  It seems to me that it is a tank circuit effect".

Lasersaber reports 1/2 a volt on the input before the transducer, and over 8 volts on the output side!

My ball park COP calculation right now is 1:250!

Quote from: synchro1 on February 18, 2014, 08:43:02 PM
The piezo element does not need to touch the permanent magnet, it merely needs to be in the magnetic field!

This is very unlikely because it has never been observed that the piezoelectric element can affect magnetic field directly...or the other way round.
If you had made this statement solely on the basis of the claim in the Davidson patent (http://www.google.com/patents/US5568005), then it would not be a good scientific argument, even if it was not a case of miscomprehension.

In that claim you quoted, the phrase "in the magnetic field of the permanent magnet" refers to the "output coil" - not to the acoustic transducer ( a piezo element ).

oops  :P

my be this compensate my double post :

Naudin regarding soliton generation with caduceus wound coil[/size]

Some thinkings and hypothesis about the observed phenomenon :[/size]
Today, after some tests with the SP-Gen, my main hypothesis is that the train of Soliton pulses is produced by an avalanche effect of the domains walls in the ferrite core. The strong back EMF pulse initiates the motion of the Bloch walls which surround the magnetic domains. Then the avalanche waves of the Bloch walls go back and forth along the ferrite rod as a Soliton wave which moves back and forth in a long and rectangular tank filled with water. The avalanche effect of the domains walls is able to produce an induction with a very weak magnetic field, this is the well known Barkhausen effect⁶ (http://www.ien.it/~durin/barkh.html)[/font][/size] discovered in 1919 by Heinrich George Barkhausen⁷ (http://www.geocities.com/neveyaakov/electro_science/barkhausen.html)[/font][/size]. The most interesting fact to study here in this experiment, is that the Barkhausen jumps seem to move themselves autonomously in the ferrite rod after that the back EMF pulse which as initiated the process has vanished.
Today, it's still an hypothesis and more tests and deep investigations need to be conducted to confirm this fact...[/font][/size]
from:[/size]
http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/ (http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/)

.

Quote from: Davidson's "Acoustic-Magnetic Power Generator" patent
"Claim 1:

An acoustic magnetic power generator composed of an alternating current signal connected to an acoustic transducer which stimulates the core of a permanent magnet such that the atoms of the magnet are caused to vibrate which in turn causes the magnetic field to vibrate and causes a current and voltage to be generated in an output coil wrapped around a permanent magnet or in the magnetic field of the permanent magnet which said current and voltage can be used for powering a load".

In fact this claim is explicit that the causal chain of stimulation is:
acoustic transducer --> atoms of the magnet --> magnetic field --> output coil --> voltage&current.


The conjunction "or" is there only to emphasize that the output coil does not have to be wrapped around the permanent magnet in order to be within the influence of the magnetic field generated by this permanent magnet.

Quote from: synchro1 on February 18, 2014, 08:43:02 PM
From the Davidson patent:...
"The combined effect of the acoustic signal and the stimulating coil increases the efficiency of permanent magnet induction transformers".

This quote refers to TWO separate effects:
1) An acoustic stimulation of the ferromagnetic core
2) A magnetic stimulation of the ferromagnetic core.

Those two effects are stated to work in synergy for increased efficiency, but it does not mean that the acoustic stimulation of the core can be omitted.

The pure acoustic stimulation of the core is depicted in Fig.1 and Fig.2 of the patent.  In those figures the acoustic transducer is in physical contact with the core - not merely within the influence of its magnetic field.
Only Fig.3 and 4 add a second method to stimulate the core for improved efficiency... but it does not subtract the first method !

The patent is explicit that even in Fig.3 the acoustic field must be allowed to radiate into core (not into the magnetic field of the core):

Quote from: Davidson patent, Section: "DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION"
The piezoelectric (1) is placed in close proximity to the permanent magnet (11) such that the acoustic field of the piezoelectric (1) can radiate into the permanent magnet material.

BTW: The magnetic field of Jimboot's transformer is contained inside the core, because the core is toroidal and forms a closed magnetic circuit.  Thus, the magnetic field in this core cannot even reach the piezo element, which is located outside of the core - not that it would matter anyway ...or be in accordance with the Davidson patent.

Quote from: synchro1 on February 18, 2014, 08:43:02 PM
Again, from the Davidson patent:...
"When an alternating current signal generator is connected simultaneously to an acoustic transducer and a stimulating coil; whereby, both the acoustic transducer and the stimulating coil are located within the magnetic field of the magnet".

This is a quote from the patent's Preface and the author apparently did not put much effort to make it cogent.
This quote misleads the reader that the acoustic transducer does not need to transmit acoustic vibrations to the ferromagnetic core.
This is not only my opinion. The author tries to be more precise in the claim sections and contradicts himself on the same issue:

Quote from: Davidson's "Acoustic-Magnetic Power Generator" patent
Claim 4:
"A method of maximizing the efficiency of permanent magnet transformers by stimulating the core material of the
permanent magnet transformers with both an acoustic vibration and an electromagnetic signal simultaneously."

THE PUNCHLINE:
According to the Davidson patent, the acoustic transducer (e.g. piezo element) MUST transmit acoustic vibrations to the ferromagnetic core material and it is not sufficient for this transducer to be merely in the vicinity of the core. 
Also, it is not sufficient for the acoustic transducer to be merely within the influence of the magnetic field created by the core.

However, the output coil can be merely in the vicinity of the core, as long as the varying magnetic flux generated by the core reaches it and cuts its windings.

Quote from: synchro1 on February 18, 2014, 09:10:37 PM
Let me add that Jimboot wired a second piezo element in series with the first and tripled his output voltage!

Quote from: synchro1 on February 19, 2014, 12:11:05 AM
Reply from Lasersaber to TK's new video:
"My scope showed .5V on the input before the transducer.  On the output side I found a sweet spot giving over 8 volts. 

Voltage is not power nor energy.
Voltage increase does not mean power increase.

Quote from: synchro1 on February 19, 2014, 12:11:05 AM
My ball park COP calculation right now is 1:250!

How did you calculate that?
What is the maximum power output of this version of iPhone?
How much power is drawn by the load?

Quote from: synchro1 on February 18, 2014, 09:10:37 PM
He demonstrated that his contraption didn't need a piezo transducer at four times the maximum acoustic frequency, and delivered zero output in the acoustic range

Why must the frequency be in the audio range?  Alas, acoustics does not need to operate in the audio frequency range.  Ultrasonics is still acoustics.
Tinsel used these high frequencies because his inductance was small, not out of malice.  If he had a bigger coil on hand then his frequencies would have been lower and in the audio range.

However Jimboot's system is only an electronic system - so the acoustic phenomena do not matter anyway. 
Jimboot's system is not magnetoacoustic because there is no acoustic stimulation of his core material. 
As such it is not even in accordance with the Davidson patent, which served as a model for Jimboot's device, AFAIK.

Quote from: synce to payhro1 on February 18, 2014, 09:10:37 PM
...which is what he set out to demonstrate as the chronic nauseating cynic he is. He shoot's from the hip at everyone and I hope I finally got to singe his tail feathers.

He might not be nice but as a scientist we have to pay attention to what he is writing, ...not how he is writing it.

Quote from: synce to payhro1 on February 18, 2014, 09:10:37 PM
The piezo circuit carries an exciter signal that's practically all voltage. There's no transformer level current running through it.

Capacitors behave the same way in LC circuits.  You need to measure the voltage across and current flowing through the piezo element to show that it indeed behaves differently.

Quote from: synce to payhro1 on February 18, 2014, 09:10:37 PM
The deception is that the piezo transducer is irrelevant in the circuit, and that it works the same when replaced by capacitors.
Jimboot just demonstrated that an additional transducer triples the voltage when making sound,

But that does not prove that a piezo works differently than a capacitor in that circuit.  Tinsel probably will make a 7th video which will demonstrate that an additional capacitor will also triple voltage at some point.  Then what?

BTW: Voltage is not power.  Voltage gain does not mean Power gain.
Also, in resonant LC circuits voltage is dependent on the value of capacitance and inductance, as shown below ...thus it is nothing unusual that changing the capacitance also changes the voltage.

This sounds a little like the NMR and NAR project that was being carried out elsewhere.
I wonder how that ended up?. Ever seen what really happens to a wine glass when the right ARF is hit?.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE827gwnnk4

Dear All.

Verpies suggested to me via PM that you guys and gall's might be interested in some of my findings using ultrasonic stimulation of a ferrite split core.

This is just one of a series of tests carried out using a very cheap Piezo transducer.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql2zfs5vevM

I have since purchased some 40 W industrial transducers to continue my experiments with. The results will follow sometime soon.

You will notice that stimulation can occur without even touching the ferrite core !! You will also note that the Piezo transducer is not connected in any way to the output coils !!

Cheers Grum.

Acoustic Mag Gen = Mag Resonance Amplifier  :D

Tinsel Koala is in the process of testing it, it would be interesting to watch his channel and it confirms what verpies has said.

Watch his videos here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYR9LqzY7VU

Best

By the way if its overunity, jimboot should be able to charge his iphone by looping the output back to his iphone charging socket.  :o

Quote from: tinman on February 19, 2014, 08:29:23 AM
This sounds a little like the NMR and NAR project that was being carried out elsewhere.
I wonder how that ended up?. Ever seen what really happens to a wine glass when the right ARF is hit?.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE827gwnnk4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE827gwnnk4)

It does. 
I always am amazed how much the glass can bend before it breaks.  I could not squeeze the glass so much in a vise statically.  It would break much earlier than the dynamic deformation shown on that video.

Quote from: Google on February 19, 2014, 09:22:18 AM
Acoustic Mag Gen = Mag Resonance Amplifier  :D
Tinsel Koala is in the process of testing it, it would be interesting to watch his channel and it confirms what verpies has said.

Tinsel has gotten to Part 6 already.  See here (http://www.youtube.com/user/TinselKoala/videos).

Note that his experiments are only about the electronic circuit behavior.  Effectively an LC tank and a transformer.
He does not investigate the stimulation of the ferromagnetic core by acoustic pressure.  Jimboot does not either.

Quote from: Grumage on February 19, 2014, 09:16:57 AM
You will notice that stimulation can occur without even touching the ferrite core !!

Yes but that is because the acoustic pressure vibrates the core through air vibrations.  The closer the piezo gets to the core, the "louder" it sounds to the core. 

If a sound barrier is placed between the piezo and the core then the magnitude of the acoustic influence through air decreases.
Maybe Grumage will show that on his next video.

Even after witnessing the acoustic dampening effect of Grumage's plastic bag, it should be clear that the piezo does not influence the magnetic field of the core directly ...or the piezo is not influenced by magnetic field of the core at a distance. 

The piezo can influence the magnetic field only indirectly - through its influence on the core's atoms. 
It is the core that is primarily  responsible for the magnetic field and the core's material must be vibrated by the piezo either by direct contact or via air (the former is stronger).

Finally, note that magnetic fields are almost completely confined in closed cores (toroidal cores or C cores or E cores or Pot cores, etc..) so almost no magnetic fields exist outside of such cores and nonexistent fields cannot influence anything.

P.S.
A good sound barrier consists of a hard reflecting layer (e.g. a rigid pane of glass, bathroom tile) sandwiched with a soft absorbing layer (e.g. polyurethane foam).  A metal plate makes a good reflecting layer, too, but it is not good for the sound screening test because it disturbs varying magnetic fields.

@verpies, it would be better to take a bar magnet and first determine its natural resonant frequency by the method given below.

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=new%20ferrite%20rod%20frequency&source=video&cd=2&ved=0CDUQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdU0YO_U945c&ei=FsUEU7nRBMbDrAf4tYHgCg&usg=AFQjCNGJAfAe_9nBrYWlfZcZ9Bc1e5Mrig&sig2=2o3wJjfqXRVVMfSbnt0qkw

Second step should be to stick two piezo speakers on both end wired to increase the amplitude of the resonant logitudinal wave. The output from signal gen should be of same frequency. Fixed.

Third step should be to first test just the output of a coil would over the magnet to measure the acoustic resonance effect independent of the input in the primary. This will give a good insight of the acoustic electricity generation.

Fourth step should be to put the primary in series or parallel to the piezos to see where you get the max output.

Best

Quote from: Google on February 19, 2014, 09:59:33 AM
@verpies, it would be better to take a bar magnet and first determine its natural resonant frequency by the method given below.

I'm all for determining the acoustic longitudinal standing wave fundamental frequency of the magnet (or magnet/core combo) as shown in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU0YO_U945c) or by acoustic Time-of-Flight methods.

The achievement of standing waves greatly localizes and magnifies the amplitude of acoustic vibrations in matter.

Quote from: Google on February 19, 2014, 09:59:33 AM
Second step should be to stick two piezo speakers on both end wired to increase the amplitude of the resonant logitudinal wave.

Two piezos are not necessary in systems like this (http://www.overunity.com/14307/acoustic-magnetic-generator/dlattach/attach/133601/).
Also, any single-ended piezo should have a massive counterpoise on its other side anyway.  It must have something to brace against...

Quote from: Grumage on February 19, 2014, 09:16:57 AM
Dear All.

Verpies suggested to me via PM that you guys and gall's might be interested in some of my findings using ultrasonic stimulation of a ferrite split core.

This is just one of a series of tests carried out using a very cheap Piezo transducer.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql2zfs5vevM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql2zfs5vevM)

I have since purchased some 40 W industrial transducers to continue my experiments with. The results will follow sometime soon.

You will notice that stimulation can occur without even touching the ferrite core !! You will also note that the Piezo transducer is not connected in any way to the output coils !!

Cheers Grum.

@Verpies,


Quote from Grumage:

"You will notice that stimulation can occur without even touching the ferrite core !!".

Take special note that Grumage's output volatge is maximized by correct air gap distance positioning between the piezo transducer and the ferrite core!!


P.S. Apparently Jimboot's voltage gain with the second piezo in series was an error caused by a large magnet in close adjacency to the experiment.

Hi!

I have posted some queries below grumage s video on YT. Can you please go thru and comment.

Best

Quote from: synchro1 on February 19, 2014, 12:03:36 PM
Take special note that Grumage's output volatge is maximized by correct air gap distance positioning between the piezo transducer and the ferrite core!!

Not between the piezo and core but between the two C-core halves.  Grum can confirm or deny.
This is to be expected with acoustic standing waves forming inside the core.

Quote from: Google on February 19, 2014, 12:41:00 PM
Hi!

I have posted some queries below grumage s video on YT. Can you please go thru and comment.

Best

Failed to find your comments on Grumage's YouTube video. Thanks for the longitudinal resonance video link.

Piezo transducer power consumption is a function of input voltage and frequency. The proportion is exponential not directly proportional. The higher the frequency, the lower the transducer impedence and the greater the power consumption. The highest gain is at the lowest acoustic frequency. The piezo ferrite resonance video shows the first peak at 8.78 KHz. Raising the frequency above this level lowers the COP. Ultra sound vibration is causing the transducer to waste power at a inordinate level.

My COP calculations are based on .5 volts at the lowest acoustic resonant freqency in milli watts compared to the watt rating of the LED. 

Dear Verpies, Google and all.

I shall have to start this reply with a slight error report!!

I decided to revisit this experiment earlier today and found that some of the signal seen on the Oscilloscope was caused by EM radiation from the Amp and transformer. Undaunted, a leftover Sweetie / Candy tin was pressed into service as an Earth Spike grounded (not supply industry ground) Faraday cage. I was then able to ascertain without any doubt that the Ferrite was indeed generating a signal and not picking up any extraneous signals. The output was a lot weaker than before but resonance and harmonic sub frequencies were all there and in the correct sequence.

Yes there is a "sweet spot" between the core halves !! I found the optimum air gap was 3mm !!

Once again I apologise for my earlier error. I hope that these new findings will exonerate me ??  :)

Cheers Grum.

Dear Google ??

Quote from YT.
Sandeep Kapoor2 hours ago

Hi Grumage. Its very interesting. I made some observations.

1. You exited the core only with piezo and it gave voltage in pickup coil. I am assuming piezo was not connected to input coils.
2. You demonstrated that by adjusting the airgap, a sweet spot is obtained.
3. Piezo must touch the core physically for maximum aplitude of the output voltage.
4. At different input frequencies you got high nodes in the pickup coil. Are these frequencies related in anyway with each other in the ratios of PHI ?

Thanks for sharing. Looking forward to more tests eagerly. BTW verpies directed to this video from overunity dot com.

1. The Ferrite cores were just sat on the Piezo transducer. No, there is no electrical connection.
2. Correct. Around 2.5 to 3mm.
3. Correct.
4. Correct. Verpies did the mathematics some time ago. Although the resonant frequency signature did not alter there were minor resonant points at the "ODD" harmonic scale !! 3.5.7 etc.

Cheers Grum.

Thanks a lot Grum and verpies  :) :)

Now I derive from this:

1.  if you replace the core by a magnet, you would get a much higher output for the same input power ?
2.  higher the number of turns of the pick up coil, higher the voltage generated ?
3.  thicker the pickup coil wire diameter, higher the amperage ?
4.  stronger the magnet, higher is the output power, for a fixed input power ?

5. If all 4 above are correct, what would limit the max power output for a fixed input power.

6. If all the parameters are optimised, can we get a cop of 1 by this arrangement ?

Best

Quote from: Google on February 19, 2014, 09:39:53 PM
1.  if you replace the core by a magnet, you would get a much higher output for the same input power ?

Possibly ...or if this particular magnet is not susceptible to acoustic stimulation, the core can be kept with the magnet added as shown here (http://www.overunity.com/14307/acoustic-magnetic-generator/dlattach/attach/133601/).  Keeping the core has the additional benefit of closing the flux lines in a well controlled magnetic circuit and better guiding the magnetic flux under the pickup coil, because the relative permeability of a magnet is almost 1 and that of a core is usually above 1000.

Quote from: Google on February 19, 2014, 09:39:53 PM
2.  higher the number of turns of the pick up coil, higher the voltage generated ?

Yes, but voltage is not power.

Quote from: Google on February 19, 2014, 09:39:53 PM
3.  thicker the pickup coil wire diameter, higher the amperage ?

Not quite. Thicker wire lowers the resistance (R) of the winding and raises the current limit (I_MAX=V/R).  In other words, it does not mean that higher current will flow - it only means that a higher current can flow through a thicker winding.

Quote from: Google on February 19, 2014, 09:39:53 PM
4.  the stronger the magnet, the higher is the output power, for a fixed input power ?

No, because the output power depends on the magnitude of variation in magnetic flux, not on the absolute level of magnetic flux density.

Quote from: Google on February 19, 2014, 09:39:53 PM
6. If all the parameters are optimized, can we get a COP of 1 by this arrangement ?

Maybe

@verpies, thanks.

That implies, keep the core.
That also implies, the output will depend on flux variation in the core, may be maximisedassisted by a relatively weaker magnet also.
That implies, an efficient piezo which can create vibrations with lesser input power.

Best

Quote from: verpies on February 19, 2014, 09:33:20 AM
It does. 
I always am amazed how much the glass can bend before it breaks.  I could not squeeze the glass so much in a vise statically.  It would break much earlier than the dynamic deformation shown on that video.

As glass is a liquid,i would think that some how the structure of the liquid is being changed by the acoustics-making it more pliable.Maybe John Hutchinson was really onto something?.

I too,have not seen glass flex this much without breaking.I wonder if the same could be applied to that liquid we can use as fuel!water!. Can acoustic resonance break the bonds of water?

@ tinman,

It can break, when placed in a crystal bowl and resonated at 42712.2 hz. Thats what John Keely observed. True or false, I dont know.

Best

Would a setup like this work?
These are 16 ceramic magnets 8 on each side of the piezo element.

Pickup coils on each side moveable to find the acoustic nodes.

Regards Itsu

Quote from: itsu on February 21, 2014, 05:44:07 AM
Would a setup like this work?

If the material of these magnets is susceptible to acoustic stimulation...then maybe it will work a little.

Quote from: itsu on February 21, 2014, 05:44:07 AM
These are 16 ceramic magnets 8 on each side of the piezo element.
Pickup coils on each side moveable to find the acoustic nodes.

The disadvantages of this arrangement are:
- open magnetic flux path (high reluctance)
- short acoustic path (short separation between acoustic nodes)
- open ends radiate acoustic energy to air (acoustic energy loss)
- segmented magnets will cause acoustic reflections inside the stack, which will confuse measurements
- segmented magnets might clap if the stack is not clamped, which will confuse measurements further
- no core for guiding the magnetic flux (magnets have almost the same permeability as air) thus flux can loop back in unexpected places, not necessarily under the pickup windings!


P.S.
Don't you have a large ferrite C-core or a toroidal core that you can cut with a Dremel tool + diamond wheel ?
It's easy to damage this type of piezos by soldering.  Clip-on contacts might be safer...

Quote from: verpies on February 21, 2014, 08:45:34 AM
P.S.
Don't you have a large ferrite C-core or a toroidal core that you can cut with a Dremel tool + diamond wheel ?
It's easy to damage this type of piezos by soldering.  Clip-on contacts might be safer...

Ok,  thanks, i have a ferrite C-core, but its not really large.  I do have some yoke halfs too, but those are not really large either.
By "a toroidal core that you can cut with a Dremel tool + diamond wheel ?" you mean cut it in half, or only one cut where the piezo would tightly fit in?

What about this setup (the rod is graphite which is conductive but not magnetic, so it would need to be a similar ferrite rod):

Regards itsu

Quote from: itsu on February 21, 2014, 09:25:47 AM
What about this setup (the rod is graphite which is conductive but not magnetic, so it would need to be a similar ferrite rod):

That size and proportion would be much better.  The rod would have to be ferrite not graphite, of course  ;D

One thing that's missing in this arrangement is the massive counterpoise on the other side of the piezo. 
The piezo must brace itself against something either mechanically or inertially.  The mass of the piezo is not enough to serve as a counterpoise (and it's bad for it).

An identical ferrite rod on the other side of the piezo would work as a counterpoise but it would affect the magnetic field a little because it is magnetically permeable, ...yet not an intended part of the magnetic circuit. 
Of course the counterpoise can be made a part of the magnetic circuit, too.   
If the counterpoise is not a part of the magnetic circuit then any hard paramagnetic material is fine ...even a glass rod or aluminum rod, as long as it has the same time-of-flight as the ferrite rod on the other side.

If a different material is used for an inertial counterpoise, then its length should be adjusted according to the speed of sound in it.
For example, aluminum has a high speed of sound, so an aluminum rod counterpoise should be longer than the ferrite rod, in order to make the reflection from its open end come back to the piezo at the same time as the reflection from the open end of the ferrite rod.


                     Speed of       Speed of       Loss factor         Loss factor
                    Longitudinal      Shear         Longitudinal          Shear
Material            waves          waves            waves               waves
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond      12000m/s
Aluminum       6374m/s        3111m/s     0.00003-0.0001     0.0001
Hard Ferrite   6300m/s 
Steel              5960m/s       3235m/s      0.00002-0.0003
Iron               5957m/s        3224m/s     0.0001-0.0004        0.0002-0.0006
Soft Ferrite    5700m/s
Copper          4759m/s        2325m/s     0.002                      0.002
Brass             4372m/s        2100m/s     0.0002-0.001       <0.001
Gold               3240m/s       1200m/s      0.0003
Lead              2160m/s         700m/s      0.05 - 0.3                0.02

The table above is missing a column listing the slower longitudinal extensional speeds (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speeds_of_sound_of_the_elements_%28data_page%29), which are more applicable to long rods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Long_rods). 
For example for a long Aluminum rod the extensional speed is only 5000m/s.  See here (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speeds_of_sound_of_the_elements_%28data_page%29) and click on "Speed of sound, solid phase".

WARNING: Graphite is porous, soft and has a high acoustic loss factor.  Its spongy structure makes it work better as an absorber than an acoustic reflector.

Quote from: itsu on February 21, 2014, 09:25:47 AM
By "a toroidal core that you can cut with a Dremel tool + diamond wheel ?" you mean
1) cut it in half, or
2) only one cut where the piezo would tightly fit in?

Both is feasible.
In the 1^st case, the piezo would go in one gap and the magnet in the other gap.
In the 2^nd case both the piezo and the magnet (magnets) would have to go in one gap.

Both cases are nicely illustrated here (http://www.overunity.com/14307/acoustic-magnetic-generator/dlattach/attach/133601/). (the pickup winding can be anywhere on the core. It can also span the entire circumference of the core for some experiments)

In those experiments it's good to have a flat or concave horizontal surface that will hold fine sand in order to cheaply visualize the formation of acoustic standing waves.  Similar to this video (http://youtu.be/CGiiSlMFFlI?t=0m57s) but not in 2D nor transversely - only linearly (1D) and longitudinally.

I grinded a shallow groove in a rod to hold the sand when I was doing those experiments in school.

Quote from: verpies on February 21, 2014, 10:36:43 AM
Both is feasible.
In the 1^st case, the piezo would go in one gap and the magnet in the other gap.
In the 2^nd case both the piezo and the magnet (magnets) would have to go in one gap.

Both cases are nicely illustrated here (http://www.overunity.com/14307/acoustic-magnetic-generator/dlattach/attach/133601/). (the pickup winding can be anywhere on the core. It can also span the entire circumference of the core for some experiments)

What about using a ferrite magnet core like from a big speaker and use the one cut approach to insert the piezo only?
Or is the magnetisation wrong of such a speaker magnet?

Regards Itsu

Quote from: itsu on February 21, 2014, 10:49:33 AM
What about using a ferrite magnet core like from a big speaker and use the one cut approach to insert the piezo only?
Or is the magnetisation wrong of such a speaker magnet?

Unfortunately the magnetization is wrong.
It would have to be magnetized circumferentially, but it is axially :(

Quote from: verpies on February 21, 2014, 10:55:43 AM
Unfortunately the magnetization is wrong.
It would have to be magnetized circumferentially, but it is axially :(

Why not simply stick two speaker toroid magnets together in attraction with the piezo transducer in between, along with some inert spacers to regulate the correct pressure or airgap, and allow room for the windings. Cutting the ferrite is a bad idea.

There is a simplified formula for calculating piezo power consumption, but the best approach would be to just wire a resistor in series with the transducer and coil and measure accross it. The power consumption while in resonance drops considerably as demonstrated by Tinselkoala from 5 nto 2 volts at the 24khz resonant peak in his video.

Quote from: synchro1 on February 21, 2014, 02:26:59 PM
Why not simply stick two speaker toroid magnets together in attraction with the piezo transducer in between, along with some inert spacers to regulate the correct pressure or airgap, and allow room for the windings. Cutting the ferrite is a bad idea.

Because it suffers from the same shortcomings as Itsu's original idea described here (http://www.overunity.com/14307/acoustic-magnetic-generator/msg388905/#msg388905) (and my reply below it).

Also do you remember that a ferrite magnet has a relative permeability close to 1 (like air) while a soft ferrite core has a relative permeability much more than that (usually ~1000) ?

Hi Guys,
I did a few tests today - to test the hypothesis of the opening post - that mechanically vibrating a magnetic core give a useable output in a coil. Using:

- A signal generator. 7v Pk-Pk. Sine wave.
- A 20mm(ish) piezo element
- An electromagnet - which makes an excellent pickup coil
- A 2" ferrite magnet
- A small stack of N42 neo disks

I did a number of tests with different arrangements - but mostly with the piezo in physical contact with either the magnet, coil, or both. (Actually I put it in a plastic bag to prevent direct electrical contact.)

Attached photo shows one arrangement with the ferrite magnet.

I found two main resonance points - no matter the arrangement, at about 100KHz, and 10MHz. The exact resonances did change, but not by a lot.
The voltage output from the coil was always less than the input - in the example above I got 1.76v(P-P) out at 10.3MHz

I suspected that the resonance points may be the natural resonances of the Piezo element itself, but I think its actually the coil...
I tried just the piezo and coil - without the magnets - and again got similar results.

In the end, suspecting capacitive coupling, I replaced the piezo with 2 sheets of aluminium plate as a flat-plate capacitor, and put the coil on top.
I got virtually identical results.

So - in conclusion:
- Capacitive coupling from the piezo may look like an acoustic excitation - but it isn't.
- Did the author of the patent make this mistake?
- If there are acoustic resonances to be found - the piezo's capacitance / electrostatic field would likely prevent it from being observed.
- A non-electrical means of acoustic excitation would be preferable.

Regards, Tim

Quote from: tim123 on February 22, 2014, 10:33:10 AM
In the end, suspecting capacitive coupling, I replaced the piezo with 2 sheets of aluminum plate as a flat-plate capacitor, and put the coil on top.  I got virtually identical results.

Good experiment.  I cannot visualize the arrangement, though. 
Please make a drawing including the magnetization direction of the magnets.

Quote from: tim123 on February 22, 2014, 10:33:10 AM
- Capacitive coupling from the piezo may look like an acoustic excitation - but it isn't.

An important artifact to watch out for in experiments, then.

hi everyone,

I have just uploaded my first working overunity project into youtube.This is based on Magnetic Resonance Amplifier using Barium Titanate which was purchased from ebay around 2 years ago.
The input current consumption is "0.5uA" via Barium Titanate output current  maximum achieved 500uA from output of another bifilar coil.That's estimated 1000x ou in uWatts.

Magnetic Resonance Amplifier using Barium titanate ver 1.0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbQJexS4M4k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbQJexS4M4k)

I don't know why i need to whisper while creating secret video in my room,can't help it. :D :D :D

If anyone know of any signal generator circuit or I/C which uses less than 100uA current and able to produce around 18khz.Please do advise me so that i'm able to demonstrate a close loop system to blink led forever at least. ;)

I have attached a photo to show which of the sample which gave me the best result.

Do google "Magnetic Resonance Amplifier" my experiment is actually based on old research done in the 90s by a group of scientist.

Quote from: verpies on February 22, 2014, 08:10:50 PM
I cannot visualize the arrangement, though. 
Please make a drawing including the magnetization direction of the magnets.

Hi Verpies,
  I found the magnets made little difference, if any, to the output of the coil. I removed them in the end...

2 Pics attached -
a) Coil on Piezo - no magnets
b) Coil on Alu sheet - flat-plate cap - also no magnets

Both arrangements gave the same results. Which led me to conclude that the signal I was seeing was due to capacitive coupling - and not acoustic stimulation...

Regards, Tim

Quote from: magpwr on February 23, 2014, 04:16:04 AM
If anyone know of any signal generator circuit or I/C which uses less than 100uA current and able to produce around 18khz.Please do advise me so that i'm able to demonstrate a close loop system to blink led forever at least. ;)

Hi Magpwr,
  you can't use a multi-meter to measure HF... It won't give you accurate results. You have that super-duper Rigol scope there - why not use that? ;)

Once again - another application for Verpies digital HF wattmeter... It'll be good when it's done. :)

Regards, Tim

Quote from: tim123 on February 23, 2014, 04:57:55 AM
Hi Magpwr,
  you can't use a multi-meter to measure HF... It won't give you accurate results. You have that super-duper Rigol scope there - why not use that? ;)

Once again - another application for Verpies digital HF wattmeter... It'll be good when it's done. :)

Regards, Tim

hi tim123,

I know the multimeter do have it's limitation especially at low current.Hence i use 1.2kohms at signal output adjusted near 5 volt voltage peak since it's 5volts supply for my cheap and reliable signal generator.
0.5 micro Amps x 4.5volt at input = 2.25uW estimated output power achieved 4.5mW

Led can't be lit from the output of bifilar coil if the signal generator is connected via resistor to the input coil since there is no amplification without the barium titanate.
The input current to bifilar coil is at 1.83 mA via 1K2Ohms resistor without barium titanate as shown in the final part of the video.

I have also proven there was no amplification from bifilar coil regardless of applied freq 1khz....100khz in the first part of video.

Hi Magpwr,
  I think I bought some of the same barium titanate off that guy on ebay... :)

TBH - I couldn't actually hear much of what you said in the vid... You did whisper. lol.

It's certainly interesting... You should get an increase in voltage over the supply - because it's a series tank circuit. That might account for the LED lighting up.

Can you measure the input power to the sig-gen? That might be interesting - does it increase under load etc...?

You can get These DDS modules (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1pce-DDS-Signal-Generator-Module-Cheap-and-Fine-0-40Mhz-AD9850-Sine-Square-Wave-/360680913988?pt=UK_BOI_Electrical_Test_Measurement_Equipment_ET&hash=item53fa41fc44) for about $5 on ebay - easily(ish) programmed with an arduino (for example).

The datasheet (http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/data_sheets/AD9850.pdf) says it uses "155 mW @ 110 MHz (3.3 V)"

Regards, Tim

I think that in order to affect the electron's orbits in a magnet - using sound - you maybe need 2 or 3 dimensions of compression waves - i.e. piezos in 3D. Also, the frequencies would have to be modulated to produce the precession / wobble required...

Do-able, but not easy. How did Keely do it? And without using electrics? :)

Maybe you could use 2 near frequencies - and the 'beat' would be the output oscillation. Like a heterodyne... So 2 facing piezos with slightly different frequencies - either side of the electron's resonant frequency...?

Quote from: magpwr on February 23, 2014, 04:16:04 AM

...
The input current consumption is "0.5uA" via Barium Titanate output current  maximum achieved 500uA from output of another bifilar coil.That's estimated 1000x ou in uWatts.

Magnetic Resonance Amplifier using Barium titanate ver 1.0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbQJexS4M4k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbQJexS4M4k)


If anyone know of any signal generator circuit or I/C which uses less than 100uA current and able to produce around 18khz.Please do advise me so that i'm able to demonstrate a close loop system to blink led forever at least. ;)

....

Hi magpwr,

You have interesting results for sure.  8)   

Luc (gotoluc) has built an LC MOSFET oscillator which run at 20 kHz and drew 14 uA from 3V DC  i.e. 42 uW input power, here is his link: http://www.overunity.com/8892/self-running-coil/msg235133/#msg235133    He used an 1 Henry coil and tuned it with Neo magnets, the capacitors for the oscillator were the MOSFET interelectrode capacitors.  Later he managed to reduce power consumption : http://www.overunity.com/8892/self-running-coil/msg235505/#msg235505    I cannot recall schematic but he used two windings on a toroid, one of them was in series with the drain and +power supply input and the other coil was directly between the gate-source pins of the power MOSFET (IRF640), that was all for the oscillator, no more components.

Here is another oscillator which needs no toroidal coils of 1H but uses 10 MOhm (and 22 MOhm) resistors and two MOSFETs in a normal astable multivibrator:  http://discovercircuits.com/DJ-Circuits/astable.htm     of course the 22 MOhm values should be changed to get your oscillating frequency needed.

Off the shelf circuits are also a possibility: http://touchstonesemi.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/TS3003PB-r1p0_Final-Mar-13.pdf

Good luck for looping! Make sure to use some voltage or current limiter means in the feedback loop  to prevent a runaway situation.

Gyula
 

Quote from tim123:


I found two main resonance points - no matter the arrangement, at about 100KHz, and 10MHz. 


What´s wrong with tim123´s experiment-  He´s way outside the acoustic range!


Magpwr´s at 18khz, well inside the acoustic range. 


Mgpwr reports a COP of 1:1000. He goes on to say in his final video statement that watts amount of OU power may be recovered by wrapping directly over a Barrium Ferrite magnet, with a Barrium Titanate fragment as a catalyst.

Quote from: magpwr on February 23, 2014, 05:42:00 AM
I know the multimeter do have it's limitation especially at low current.

The majority of the limitation is not low current but high frequency.  (even as low as 1kHz).  See this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHcl-85baHs) and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvGGtvkEaIo) video.

Your experiment is not measured properly. You cannot multiply AC Volts by AC Amps and expect to obtain average Watts - that calculation works reliably only for DC.

I would appreciate if you measured input voltage and current across a 1Ω current sensing resistor (non-inductive!!!) simultaneously with two channels of your scope.

The output voltage and current can be measured a similar manner ...or with a brightness of an incandescent light bulb with a straight filament (e.g. from auto dome light) and sensed by a PV cell in a dark box (calibrated with DC).

Quote from: magpwr on February 23, 2014, 05:42:00 AM
0.5 micro Amps x 4.5volt at input = 2.25uW estimated output power achieved 4.5mW

You cannot do that with non-DC !!!
Finally, you cannot draw any COP conclusions from the fact that the power output does not affect the power input - even if these power levels are measured correctly.  Relative power levels don't mean much - only absolute levels do.

Quote from: synchro1 on February 23, 2014, 04:32:55 PM
I found two main resonance points - no matter the arrangement, at about 100KHz, and 10MHz. 
He´s way outside the acoustic range!

No, 10MHz acoustic waves are common, e.g. in your doctor's office.
10MHz only is not in the human audio range.

@ all on this thread,

Please check figure 9 on the page http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=219

Its quite similar to what is being done on this thread, the piezo acts as a variable capacitor due to parallel vibrating plates across the piezo crystal plate in the middle.

Dr Turtur has given a mathematical explanation for extracting ZPE from this circuit on the same page.

Please comment.

Best,

Quote from: verpies on February 23, 2014, 06:56:06 PM
The majority of the limitation is not low current but high frequency.  (even as low as 1kHz).  See this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHcl-85baHs) and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvGGtvkEaIo) video.

Your experiment is not measured properly. You cannot multiply AC Volts by AC Amps and expect to obtain average Watts - that calculation works reliably only for DC.

I would appreciate if you measured input voltage and current across a 1Ω current sensing resistor (non-inductive!!!) simultaneously with two channels of your scope.

The output voltage and current can be measured a similar manner ...or with a brightness of an incandescent light bulb with a straight filament (e.g. from auto dome light) and sensed by a PV cell in a dark box (calibrated with DC).
You cannot do that with non-DC !!!
Finally, you cannot draw any COP conclusions from the fact that the power output does not affect the power input - even if these power levels are measured correctly.  Relative power levels don't mean much - only absolute levels do.

Dear verpies,

You are absolutely correct.The multimeter gave false 0.5uA reading for the current regardless of frequency to sample-Barium.

Since this is low current i used 1KOhm 1% resistor to accurately measure current.

I have attached 3 photo to show default setup without sample,voltage measured across 1k shunt to bifilar coil,voltage measured across 1k shunt at resonance.
Used math function A-B .

The current measurement without sample was accurate at 1.8mA as compared with multimeter reading.

But once sample is in place and at resonance the oscilloscope reveal there is actually around 3.5mA current drawn.

I'm sorry for wasting everyone time hence i have promptly removed the video swiftly without second thought. :'(

Thanks verpies.

Quote from: magpwr on February 24, 2014, 02:45:37 AM
I'm sorry for wasting everyone time hence i have promptly removed the video swiftly without second thought. :'(

You've not wasted anyone's time mate. It's all good fun, and part of the learning process... :)

The only 'failed experiment' is one in which nothing was learned... ;)

Regards, Tim

I'd just like to point out that - as Verpies said - we're talking about 2 different devices on this thread. It's a bit confusing.
Magpwr & I were testing different things.

I'd still like to work on the NAR aspect of this...
1) Cancel out the electrostatic field of the piezos if possible - maybe 2 opposing ones
2) Put piezos in 2 or 3 dimensions on the target coil
3) Try harmonic resonances & beat frequency interactions...

Quote from: tim123 on February 22, 2014, 10:33:10 AM
Hi Guys,
- If there are acoustic resonances to be found - the piezo's capacitance / electrostatic field would likely prevent it from being observed.
- A non-electrical means of acoustic excitation would be preferable.

Regards, Tim

Dear Tim.

I have had rather a busy weekend and only just got back to catching up with the posts on this thread.

If you go back to my video below, from 8.15 you will note that we can stimulate an electrical output by mechanical means. I can assure you all there was no apparatus running other than the scope at that point !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql2zfs5vevM

Since then I have also re done the experiment with the cores placed in an earthed faraday cage and can report that although the collected output seen on the scope was much smaller than before. The very same results were recorded.

Cheers Grum.

Quote from: Grumage on February 24, 2014, 12:55:09 PM
If you go back to my video below, from 8.15 you will note that we can stimulate an electrical output by mechanical means. I can assure you all there was no apparatus running other than the scope at that point !!

Hi Grum :)
  I'd forgotten that bit of your vid. Thanks - it is very interesting. I'll have to try it.

When you rub the cores by hand - can you focus in with the scope and see what the resonant frequency is? Is it the same as with the piezo?

QuoteSince then I have also re done the experiment with the cores placed in an earthed faraday cage and can report that although the collected output seen on the scope was much smaller than before. The very same results were recorded.

If you replace the piezo with 2 disks of foil or metal of the same size - what happens then? (I do seem to be at the 'capacitive coupling' stage of my education... So forgive me if everything looks like that right now)

Perhaps a good test would be to use a decent sized ceramic insulator between piezo and coil - it'll transmit the sound but not the electric field... I tried two opposing piezos today - but the output was the same as with one. It was a crap experiment though...

:)
Regards, Tim

Quote from: tim123 on February 24, 2014, 03:37:08 AM

Quote from: magpwr on February 24, 2014, 02:45:37 AM
I'm sorry for wasting everyone time hence i have promptly removed the video swiftly without second thought. :'(

You've not wasted anyone's time mate. It's all good fun, and part of the learning process... :)

Yes,  it was educational and because of that it was not a waste of time.
Now, when you guys see other people make similar error, do point it out to them.

Eliminating error modes gives more chance for real anomalies to stand out.

Quote from: tim123 on February 24, 2014, 03:42:20 AM
I'd just like to point out that - as Verpies said - we're talking about 2 different devices on this thread. It's a bit confusing.
Magpwr & I were testing different things.

Yes and that means that conclusions about one device do not apply to the second one.

Quote from: tim123 on February 24, 2014, 03:42:20 AM
I'd still like to work on the NAR aspect of this...
1) Cancel out the electrostatic field of the piezos if possible - maybe 2 opposing ones
2) Put piezos in 2 or 3 dimensions on the target coil
3) Try harmonic resonances & beat frequency interactions...

4) Pay attention to the angles between acoustic waves and magnetic fields.
5) Pay attention to spin polarization times (T1).
6) Pay attention to the gyromagnetic ratio of the vibrating medium. e.g.: 1132Hz/Gauss for Copper,  1110Hz/G for Aluminum, 1058Hz/G for Manganese, 267Hz/G for Zinc, 138Hz/G for Iron, etc...

Quote from: tim123 on February 24, 2014, 04:24:52 PM
If you replace the piezo with 2 disks of foil or metal of the same size - what happens then? (I do seem to be at the 'capacitive coupling' stage of my education... So forgive me if everything looks like that right now)

A bit of warning:
Many plastics have ferroelectric properties and makeshift capacitors formed out of such plastics will form ferroelectric capacitors.  Read this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferroelectricity#Applications).
This news would have a high yawn factor if it was not for the fact, that all capacitors formed with ferroelectric plastics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferroelectric_capacitor) are also piezoelectric by symmetry considerations.

In other words - it is easy to build a ferroelectric/piezoelectric capacitor inadvertently ...and never know about it.

Quote from: tim123 on February 24, 2014, 04:24:52 PM
Perhaps a good test would be to use a decent sized ceramic insulator between piezo and coil - it'll transmit the sound but not the electric field... I tried two opposing piezos today - but the output was the same as with one. It was a crap experiment though...

The way to get rid of capacitive coupling is not to add a high-permittivity dielectric but to decrease the permittivity of the gap and/or to add tight Faraday's shielding composed out of a good conductor (e.g. copper foil). 
The latter also works well as a remedy against unwanted EM coupling.

is it work with 6khz??

@Verpies,

Here's an interesting note on acoustic frequency:

"Hi Norm: I've found a way to "tickle" the barium ferrite magnets... you can get any output freq you want as a result of the "beat" freq between 8KHz and 174.9KHz. A barium ferrite pair resonates audibly loudest at exactly 8KHz. I'm using your spool of magnet wire inside the gap between the halves to turn the magnet into a "speaker", and you can hear it "sing". The coil is connected to 8KHz from a sig gen".

@Tinselkoala,


The 8 khz beat frequency where the barrium ferrite magnet emits an audible ring is exactly a 10 bi-multiple of the 7.83 hrz Shumman constant. Anyone who has seen the Marcos -Dancing Magnets- video can witness the exagerated oscillation at 7.8 hrz. The 174 khz is a 7.83 bi-mutiple of 22. This is a resonant frequency common to all magnets, regardless of the magnetized element. You maintained the increased oscillation in the Marcos video at 7.8 hrz was a coincidence. How do you account for these additional 7.8 hrz correspondences ?

Tinselkoala has apparently chosen to ignore the  challenge to explain why 7.8 kHz pulse has an increased oscillation effect on the Marcos dancing magnets and also at times 2 to the 10th power, an audible ring. This amounts to not one coincidence as he falsely maintains , but two! 

The evidence of a constant oscillating frequency is magnetisem is more convincing when viewed by the Pergallosi video of Charrier type oscillation and the perpetual pendulum effect demonstrated by Dr. Stiffler.

Tinselkoala has steadfastly maintained that Shumman, Wooten, Marcos, Pergallosi and Stiffler are all demonstrating somekind of bogus effect, not a constant oscillating frequency of magnetisem. Some kind of product from his BS Factory.   

You all need to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barium_titanate

Quote from: synchro1 on February 27, 2014, 12:47:18 PM
@Tinselkoala,


The 8 khz beat frequency where the barrium ferrite magnet emits an audible ring is exactly a 10 bi-multiple of the 7.83 hrz Shumman constant. Anyone who has seen the Marcos -Dancing Magnets- video can witness the exagerated oscillation at 7.8 hrz. The 174 khz is a 7.83 bi-mutiple of 22. This is a resonant frequency common to all magnets, regardless of the magnetized element. You maintained the increased oscillation in the Marcos video at 7.8 hrz was a coincidence. How do you account for these additional 7.8 hrz correspondences ?

Hello Synchro,

You are ABSOLUTELY correct!   

The following is what I'd like you to do, and it is further proof of the Schumann's interaction...

Starting with 8000 hz form a geometric progression table.  8000 / 2 is 4000.  4000/ 2 is 2000, etc, all the way to the Schumann's.

Next take 8000 and x2 is 16000 hz, on up, etc.

now, using the FFT function of your scope, look at how many harmonic peaks MATCH your geometric progression table. 

I have done so with tpu collector I am working on and you will be amazed.

YES these earth magnetic standing wave CAN have a direct influence.

Good work,

Bruce

Quote from: synchro1 on February 28, 2014, 02:10:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XghAn9olnsI
Tinselkoala has steadfastly maintained that Shumman, Wooten, Marcos, Pergallosi and Stiffler are all demonstrating somekind of bogus effect, not a constant oscillating frequency of magnetisem. Some kind of product from his BS Factory.   

Don't you forget the wonderfull work done by Mr Jerry Bales.
He confirmed the effect in a different setup with rotating disks in stead of using a pulsed field and it exactly shows the same behaviour.
This seems to be important because it rules out false readings due to inductive coil collapse and or switching noise spikes and etc. generating unwanted frequency's that might interferere with final readings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l_O8vfyRu0

I am glad to see that there are still people that do not take other's (pre-historic) words just for granted.
I have had it happen so many times i believed someone for a long time untill the day came experiments showed it all to be entirely different.
So i changed from listening to other to seeing is believing.

The last few postings consist of the usual Synchro1 fantasy nonsense talk with some cheerleading and I am here to bring some balance to the discussion.

There is no Schumann resonance anything to worry about when you work on an electronic circuit or play with magnets on your bench.  There are no Schumann effects at all on this scale.  It's simply a ridiculous idea.  If you disagree make a case with a logical argument.

Likewise, there is no such thing as a resonance frequency for a magnet.  It's another ridiculous idea.  If you disagree make a case with a logical argument.

This is nothing more than leading yourselves down a garden path of your own making like you are writers for your own low-budget science fiction movie.  It's an insult to science and engineering and also to the legitimate researchers around here to hear this fantasy nonsense talk all the time.

Again, if you disagree with me make a case with a logical argument.

MileHigh

Like i said just ignore the naysayers and do your own research.
You will find it yourself.

Seeing is believing and you don't need to prove anything to anybody so just ignore them.

Quote from: MileHigh on March 02, 2014, 01:20:05 AM
Likewise, there is no such thing as a resonance frequency for a magnet.  It's another ridiculous idea.  If you disagree make a case with a logical argument.

I'm all for logical arguments.  Let's take a NdFeB magnet as an example:

Over 20% of naturally occurring Neodymium and 2%  of naturally occurring Iron and 100% of Boron have non-zero nuclear magnetic moments, thus their nuclei will resonate at 2.31MHz/T and 1.38MHz/T and 13.66MHz/T, respectively, for the most common isotopes.

These resonances can be invoked by time varying magnetic fields (NMR) or acoustic vibrations of the magnet (NAR).

Also, a rod shaped magnet will support specific acoustic standing wave frequencies inversely proportional to the rod's length.
The Villari effect might influence the magnetic properties of a magnet, especially when acoustic standing waves are formed inside it.

I'm not stating that Out/In power ratio > 1 can be achieved in devices excited by these magnetic or acoustic resonance frequencies, but I think it is incorrect to state, that "there is no such thing as a resonance frequency for a magnet".

Quote from: MileHigh on March 02, 2014, 01:20:05 AM
The last few postings consist of the usual Synchro1 fantasy nonsense talk with some cheerleading and I am here to bring some balance to the discussion.

There is no Schumann resonance anything to worry about when you work on an electronic circuit or play with magnets on your bench.  There are no Schumann effects at all on this scale.  It's simply a ridiculous idea.  If you disagree make a case with a logical argument.

Likewise, there is no such thing as a resonance frequency for a magnet.  It's another ridiculous idea.  If you disagree make a case with a logical argument.

This is nothing more than leading yourselves down a garden path of your own making like you are writers for your own low-budget science fiction movie.  It's an insult to science and engineering and also to the legitimate researchers around here to hear this fantasy nonsense talk all the time.

Again, if you disagree with me make a case with a logical argument.

MileHigh

Quote from Jerry Baylis,

Magnetic standing wave around two variable speed disk magnets resonates with two small 'balance' magnets at the Schumann frequency (7.834 Hz).

Milehigh,

Your crass comparisons of me to a cheerleader and director of nonsensical low budget science fiction movies is just more exhaust from a head held to a tire inflation hose. You pressured Conradelektro into trivializing his flutter discovery with my Synchro Coil. You are nothing more than a petro scoundrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUJza3l8rmU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUJza3l8rmU)

After viewing this video, imagine wrapping the oscillating toroid magnets with copper wire output coils. The experimentor has assured us a constant input power was applied for each frequency. Where would the magnets generate the most output?
The magnet core coil Conradelektro began to experiment with has a máximum output frequency as well. This peak ouput range is not imaginary and corresponds to the 7.83 hrz Shumman constant along with the Marcos dancing magnets and the Jerry Baylis example.

Think about the implications of this! This is a very important discovery, and should not be unduly discredited.

The only implication of this experiment is that the magneto-mechanical resonance of this particular magnet arrangement is 7.8Hz.
The laws of Newton an Gauss predict that with larger magnets this resonance frequency would be lower and with smaller magnets - higher. 
The opposite is true in reference to the magnetic flux density gradient of those magnets.

So far this phenomenon has a very high yawn factor and does not prove in any way that the 7.8Hz frequency is special universally.

Verpies:

What you are saying is valid, I know that you know your stuff.  So a molecular magnetic dipole can be made to resonate within the metallic lattice with external stimulation.  There is not a constant strength of magnetic field inside a bar magnet so different points will resonate at slightly different frequencies.  In reading what you state it sounds like putting a bar magnet inside a coil with the right stimulation will cause individual molecules to resonate.  This is essentially mechanical resonance on an atomic scale.  Since it's on an atomic scale, I will assume that when you remove the stimulation that the oscillation will decay to zero in less than a 100 microseconds.  So exciting a magnet at the mechanical resonant frequency of the individual molecules will indeed happen, and then when you remove the stimulation it will stop essentially instantly.   Likewise I acknowledged that mechanical resonance can affect the magnetic domains but I got the impression that it would require very large amplitudes and very high mechanical stresses to have any noticeable effects.

So, indeed your points are valid.  Can you do anything practical with this on the bench?  Is this in any way related to Synchro1's fantasy about resonance and magnets?  in both cases I assume that the answer is no.

MileHigh

Synchro1:

You cannot give me a logical argument that explains why the Schumann resonance should have any affect on what an experimenter does on his bench.  I asked you to but you ignored the question.

Now, supposing you are in a modern covered football stadium and the place is empty except for you.  You are at one end and you shout out a yelp as loud as you can and you listen for the echo.  You will probably hear one echo and if you are lucky you might hear a second echo.  Now, put yourself in the center of the widest part of the Grand Canyon in the middle of the night when all is quiet.  You can shout your lungs off and you won't hear an echo.   Now put yourself in the center of a giant stadium of the imagination that is 30,000 kilometers by 30,000 kilometers.  Your shout will not be heard nor will the echo be heard.  The whole "connection" to the Schumann resonance is nonsense fantasy talk that you heard about and adopted as a cause celebre.

The flutter talk is nonsense and the Conrad stuff is not true.  Stop that and stop calling me names.

There is no discovery and there are no implications.  That's the real deal Synchro1.

It's Oscar night and I am going to draw a parallel between your online character here and the 2013 movie "Gravity."  The movie is filled with contrived and ridiculous drama and fake junk and impossible pseudoscience.  In other words, just like you.

The top rated user review of the movie on the Internet Movie Database says it all.   I will link to it below.  Read the review and look for the parallels between the persona that you present to the world on this forum as "Synchro1" and the movie itself.  It's uncanny!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/reviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/reviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt)

MileHigh

So what you do is realize that this so called fantasy is actually the largest display of discharged natural electromagnetic energy on this planet currently known to man and once you realize that, it becomes easy to ignore the foolish nay sayers and remember you do not owe anything to anybody.
Not answering someones question is simply not responding to their scream for attention, especially those that try to practise destructive convincing, they are of no importance to us.
Just keep on experimenting and work towards the energy source, and you will be fine.

@Turbo,

Thanks a million for the hyper link to the Jerry Bayles videos. You appeared just in time to save me from the Troll nightmare.

@ Milehigh,

I have movie for you Bub´- Attack of the Zonbie Trolls! I have a metaphor for you and your Grand canyon comparison. Try the A vector potential demonstrated by Jerry Bayles, and a pod of Dolphins riding the bow wake of an Ocean liner! Your Verpies groveling failed to go unoticed. I plan to start a new thread entitled the Synchro Coil, in view of the Bayles tests, because the the subject is growing off topic.

Turbo:

The Schumann resonant cavity is a passive resonant cavity that exists in the ionosphere.  Passive is the operating word.  It sits there and does absolutely nothing except partially reflect energy from somewhere else.  It acts like a partial mirror for certain wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.  It's as dead as a doornail.  However, the idea of the Schumann resonant cavity and the Schumann frequency is used by people to sell books and videos to gullible and ignorant people.  Remember the "Face on Mars?"  Just imagine how many pulp trash books were sold just from that single image.

MileHigh

So like i said in my last post you work towards the source of energy.
This means you take a look at the mechanism that creates these electromagnetic waves and what source is responsible for their existence.
By carefully studying this mechanism and by understanding it you then ask yourself the question what else can we do with this or how can we use it to our advantages by for example changing certain parameters and regenerating the effect on a small scale basis to see what results you get.

Once you understand the mechanism and how exactly these waves are formed but most importantly where the energy comes from you can then easily see how short visioned some people actually are in the sense of saying no nothing there mostly without actually even looking at it and making all kind of false pre consumptions and wrong conclusions that show where the real dead end is.

Just ignore these people as they are of no use to us, and keep in mind that there is a lot of energy available, and then try to understand, tweak, re-create, and use the mechanism for your advantage and you will be fine.

Quote from: MileHigh on March 02, 2014, 09:32:33 PM
Can you do anything practical with this on the bench?

I can get the acoustic effects to influence the resonance of a simple LCR circuit and obtain similar effects to this (http://youtu.be/naJkLzGEXcI?t=3m5s) and this (http://youtu.be/il0X1sNO2PM?t=4m39s) and this (http://www.youtube.com/user/selfonlypath).

I was never able to get my acoustic frequency up high enough to observe NAR in a magnet.  You are correct that any inducted spin precession will decay in T1 time specific to the resonating material and field inhomogeneities will cause rapid dephasing (T2).

Quote from: MileHigh on March 02, 2014, 09:32:33 PM
Is this in any way related to Synchro1's fantasy about resonance and magnets? 

I don't think so, but then I don't really understand what device he is proposing.

"Verpies,

The device I am proposing I already built and tested. It charged the run battery looped back to source. It is simply a magnet core solenoid output coil. The stack of core magnets was diametricly polarized neo tubes, connected end to end. The coil was copper wire wrapped bifilar and series conected. A capacitor was connected in sereis with the coil and a Shottky diode. The capacitor and the coil were matched to créate a series resonant LC tank with a resonant frequency of 7.8 hrz. The diametric spinner RPM was in resonance at around 1000. This caused the amplified oscillation witnessed in the satellite magnets in the Jerry Bayle videos. My magnets were stationary inside the coil core, but of course the flux fluttered with the resonant agitation.

Watch the increased oscillation of the satellite magnets in the Bayles video as he decellerates his rotor into the resonant range of 7.8 hrz. I call this A vector potential magnet core coil the Synchro Coil. Conradelectro started building one and was side tracked by Milehigh when he repalced the capacitor with resistors.

Baylews demonstrates the increased oscillation of his satillite balancing magnets as he powers down into the resonant range, showing the inverse energy to power ratio. The idea is to capture this increased satellite power with output coils. Notice the 90 degree axial relationship between the diametric disks and the spinning satellite.

Imagine Lidmotors Maggie with a neo sphere in the output coil and a bearing  axeled horizontal diametric neo tube spinner for prime mover. Placing the output coil so the wire faced the spinner would not cause Lenz drag from the prime mover, but the satillite neo sphere flux would be cutting the output coil wraps at 90 degrees spinning the upright sphere on its vertical axis. The idea is to spin at resonat 7.8 hrz or 936 RPM where the satillite oscillation is maximized.

Turbo:

QuoteThis means you take a look at the mechanism that creates these electromagnetic waves and what source is responsible for their existence.

You notice I didn't even mention anything about any mechanism that creates electromagnetic waves.  That's called leading yourself down a garden path.

QuoteOnce you understand the mechanism and how exactly these waves are formed but most importantly where the energy comes from you can then easily see how short visioned some people actually are in the sense of saying no nothing there mostly without actually even looking at it and making all kind of false pre consumptions and wrong conclusions that show where the real dead end is.

I suggest that you use Google.  I looked this stuff up a few times.  A subset of the EM spectral energy from a lightning bolt discharge will fall into the range of wavelengths where the Schumann cavity will reflect them.  I will take a wild guess that 0.01% of the radiated EM energy in a lightning bolt will get reflected.  Since the Schumann cavity is a lossy reflective cavity, perhaps within a few seconds all of the reflecting energy is lost - the lost energy ends up heating the surface of the Earth and the ionosphere.  The amount of heat added per lighting strike relative to the thermal mass of the Earth and the ionosphere is akin to putting a single drop of water into the Pacific ocean.  There are something like 1000 lighting strikes per second over the entire surface of the Earth.

So you get incoherent "lossy ringing" in the Schumann cavity.  The amount of EM radiation in the air due to the Schumann ringing is insignificant.  It's like trying to see a lit LED on the surface of the Moon.

What is the power source for all of this you ask?  The power source is the Sun.  What powers the Sun?  Fusing hydrogen into helium.

Now, are my guesstimates of the relative scales of things truly accurate?  Probably not that accurate. but accurate enough for the purposes of this discussion.

The skinny:  The sun shines, that causes lighting strikes, and a tiny fraction of EM energy due to the lighting strikes will "ring" in the lossy Schumann cavity that envelopes the Earth.

The EM energy density in the air due to the lossy Schumann ringing is so tiny as to barely be detectable.  When you pulse a coil on your bench, the energy that is reflected back to you might be ten to the power of minus 50 relative to the original source energy.   That is a fantastically small number.  It's so small that you will never ever be able to detect it.

So there is your magical Schumann resonance.  It has ZERO affect on anything in practical daily life.  Scientists have probably done experiments where they transmit a powerful burst of EM energy at the optimum wavelength at the Schumann cavity and then the listen for the echo.  Because they are beaming a large amount of energy and they have very sensitive listening instruments they can "hear" about five or six echos before all of the energy is lost because the Schumann cavity is lossy.

Now for sure I might not be 100% accurate in my overall description - go to Google.  But the essence of what I am saying is true.  When I say that it's nonsense to fantasize about Schumann resonance effects on your bench that's true.

MileHigh

Hi Turbo,

Good to see you back here for a bit.

Trying to convince Mile High of anything including the size of his ego is useless.   So it is best to ignore him.

He never listens nor experiments.  A waste of your energy.

Just trying to save you the headache. ..lol

Take care and let's compare notes again soon.

kind regards,

Bruce

Bruce:

Quoting you:

QuoteYES these earth magnetic standing wave CAN have a direct influence.

You sound pretty sure of yourself.  I can suggest that you read my last posting a few times over and then make some technical counter-arguments if you can.

I probably have done more experimenting on the bench than you, but it was all for school and work.  Even though it has been more than 20 years now, from watching your clips my feeling is that on an electronics bench I could spin circles around you one-handed and blindfolded.  And the funny thing is I am just an ordinary Joe Blow when it comes to working on a bench for analog stuff.  To be honest I don't even like analog electronics.  Note there are some people on this web site that are the real real thing.  They are in the analog electronics stratosphere, I have nowhere near the experience and knowledge that they have.  But I have enough of a background to understand and appreciate what they say.  For you, it's like they would be speaking "Chinese."

So how much experimenting you have done and how much knowledge you have is a relative thing.  The question for you is where do you honestly and truly fit in the overall scheme of things.

When you and Turbo compare notes you speak another form of "Chinese."

MileHigh

Hello Bruce :)

I follow your and my own advise, just ignore them.
They haven't got a clue.
And it will stay like that so yea, waste of time.
They think we want to extract energy from Schumann Resonance !! haha
And as if google is a free energy mechanism encyclopedia.
Some are even more stupid than you would expect.

Bruce, Turbo:

It's a classic technique, when you can't offer up a logical argument and you are scared - feign arrogance and mutually agree to ignore the other person and claim they are clueless and a waste of time, etc.  Nobody is being fooled, including you yourselves.

I never said anything about extracting energy from the Schumann resonance.  I gave you logical reasons for never having to worry about the Schumann resonance when you work on your bench.  You would be better off trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I never said Google is is a free energy mechanism encyclopedia.  I said to use Google to find more legitimate information on the Schumann resonance.

QuoteSome are even more stupid than you would expect.

I wholeheartedly agree.

MileHigh

@Milehigh,

Wether or not the acknowleged mechanical 7.8 hrz magnetic resonance demonstrated by Jerry Bayles is related to the Shumman constant is of no consequence to the overunity output of the Synchro Coil.

Ok,  back on topic:  Acoustic Magnetic Generator.

I put something together using a 40W Piezo element and 2 ferrite rods on each side of this piezo.
For the time being i tested with my FG output (20V pp) only, but probably need some more power into the piezo by using a transformer or my Amplifier.

I "clamp" the both ferrite rods to the piezo by 2 neo magnets, not sure if this interferes with the flux from the ceramic magnets forming the loop.
I pick up some signals with a 93mH/180 Ohm coil.
I am still trying to fully understand the patent which can be found  here  (https://www.google.com/patents/US8093869)
Comments are welcome.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Pachec48I&feature=youtu.be   

Regards itsu

It seems the pickup coil has a lot of space between. Wind a pickup coil all over the two ferrite rods atleast for it to capture more power.

Quote from: Leely on March 11, 2014, 08:09:34 PM
It seems the pickup coil has a lot of space between. Wind a pickup coil all over the two ferrite rods atleast for it to capture more power.

Right, i could do that at the other rod, and keep the present pickup coil to hunt for the nodes and antinodes.

Thanks,  regards Itsu

I had no idea your target was Gunderson/Chava related otherwise i would never have posted in this thread.
It has got nothing to do with what i was explaining in my posts.
Good luck on your research.

Quote from: Turbo on March 12, 2014, 06:30:28 AM
I had no idea your target was Gunderson/Chava related otherwise i would never have posted in this thread.
It has got nothing to do with what i was explaining in my posts.
Good luck on your research.

@Turbo,


Let me try and restore some coherence to the this thread; Tinselkoala barged in and ran a series of experiments on an MRA, Magnetic Resonace Amplifier, designed by Mclain and Wooten, where the transducer current is directed through a primary magnet core coil primary to create an LC tank resonance. He demonstrated the same infinite resistor effect of LC resonance that Itsu demonstrated in his series of videos. Tinselkoala went so far as to replace the acoustic transducer with capacitors, to underscore his peculiar project that was off topic by two parameters , not one. Firstly, the thread topic is the Acoustic Magnet Generator. The AMG as patented by Gunderson, has nothing to do with the resonant LC tank of the MRA that Tinselkoala elbowed into this thread with.


Tinselkoala had the audacity to call me "Bullshit" because I pointed out that the AMG merely oscillated the Piezo transducer, and did not run current through any primary coil.


I started this thread to find help in determining the resonant frequency of magnets. Milehigh "Trolled" in with the outrageous proposition that magnets have no resonant frequency, only to humbly recant in the face of Verpies rebuttal.


Turbo introduced the work of Jerry Bayles. Jerry's demonstrations of magnetic resonant frequency is definitly germaine to this thread topic, because it dosen't matter if the magnet is acoustically or radial magnet spinner full sine wave oscillated to achieve the resonant output amplification nodes that Itsu is currently experimenting with. 


The exciting feature in common here is the extra energy released from magnets at resonant frequencies.


Bayles appears to be exciting satellite magnets by spinning two axial polarized disk magnets  mounted in opposition on an axle in a Faraday Homopolar configuration. A magnet field viewer would reveal the field of one of the axial polarized spinning disks as stationary. Attaching a copper disk to the spinning magnet disk would generate a current between the radius and axle of the copper, because the copper disk would be running through the stationary field of the spinning magnet disk. The addition of a second disk in field opposition creates a second stationary field. Bayles maintains that the difference between these fields generates an A vector potential that oscillates the satellite magnets at 7.8 Shumman resonance. This is a mysterious force that has nothing to do with Lenz's law, and involves an excitement of the quantum medium, according to Bayles's theories.     


The interesting link here is that McLain and Wooten got Barrium Ferrite magnets to ring at 8khz, a bi multiple of the 7.8 frequency Bayles gets his increased oscillation at. What's going on here? Are we looking at an quantum ionic Chiral effect on the acoustic plane as Bayles theorizes? I don't want Turbo to distance himself from Itzu's experiments on this thread, because there are very exciting parallels between these tests that need correlation!   

Quote from: synchro1 on March 12, 2014, 12:48:47 PM

@Turbo,

The exciting feature in common here is the extra energy released from magnets at resonant frequencies.

Exactly but i jumped in because somebody was discussing my dancing magnet video.
That video was made many many years ago.
The mechanism i was describing is electrical it does not use magnets but it uses high voltage pulsed charges to excite the local medium so that it gives a response which can be loaded.
A voltage to current converter and voltage is cheap..
An continuous energized closed loop is always fighting nature and so you have to keep adding the losses.
The mechanism i describe opens up the loop and from that point on it becomes possible to separate the voltage from the currant and actually have nature helping you to power your load.
It's much like the work of T.H Moray so it's a different thing altogether. 

And i do not have any interest in chava or gunderson or mark golds or any of their patented work.

@Turbo,


Have you done any further tests?

You mean on the magnetic thing?
No because i realized it was mechanical and will have lots of mechanical resistance and will eventually wear down so i switched research into more electrical means or solid state so to speak.
I did find correlations between neuroscience and this dancing magnet experiment i found that this 7.8Hz wave also seems to resonate with all living things on this planet and shows up on an brainwave E.E.G but that is also an entirely different area of research.
My final take was that telepathy must be based on something like the brain plucking magnetic field lines so we are all connected because we all live in the same magnetic field magnetic phone lines? no but i stopped magnetic research at that point.
I started to look at the mechanism that generates these magnetic waves which is lightning and lightning is generated by moving over a high voltage threshold so a strike occurs giving birth to the Schumann waves converting the DC ionospheric charge into alternating electromagnetic waves of a frequency related to dimensions involved.
Once i realized that this mechanism could be used in scaled down bench version to generate electromagnetic waves in a tweaked version of this exact mechanism things got interesting.
The tweaking involves upping the product frequency like Schumann waves on steroids so it matches a HF resonant circuit to extract the energy as well as the means of generating the event by pulsing high voltage in stead of going over a threshold which happens in the natural example.
But that was long after i was using single and slow mechanical generated high voltage pulses and using one way shots and diodes to extract the response and force it through a load to generate current.

I can not write 10 yrs of research into a single post and as you can see this has got nothing to do with the magnetic acoustic thingy.

Thank you for that post!!
This touches everything...............

Chet

Quote from Bayles:

"Proof that free energy is obtained through "wobbulation" around the axis of a spinning magnet where the wobbling is 90 degrees to the magnetic field. The result is a changing energy field axial within a hollow pickup coil that is 90 degrees to the magnetic field but inline axially to the wobbulation offset. A coaxial capacitor in the coil is used to pick up the radial electric field and the presence of that field proves the concept of a three dimensional 90 degree field change which is accomplished via the action of the spinning magnet wobbling towards the pickup coil".


What appears to be an inscrutable explanation here is really simple to decode. Bayles's spinning axial polarized disk magnet is wobbling slightly on the axle, and the output coil is placed sideways. The spinning disk's magnetic field is stationary in the direction of spin, but shifting side to side generating a current in the air core output coil at 90 degrees. This field shift is a fluctuating effect that Bayles has oscillating at a resonant frequency. He maintains there's free energy at  7.8 hrz resonance. This is a sine wave, and at 90 degress no different then the fluctuating effect of a spinning diametric.       

Synchro1:

I am not aware of any applications associated with a "resonant frequency" for a magnet.  Verpies explained a method on the atomic level for very high frequency resonance of atomic dipoles.  I bet you weren't even aware of that, and for me it never even occurred to me but the reasoning makes sense.

None the less, it is somewhat esoteric and if there are any real-world practical applications it would be interesting to learn about them.

For whatever project you want to pursue, it still comes down to power-in and power-out measurements.  If you are a keener, you will draw up timing diagrams.  Wouldn't it be nice to see where the magic extra slice of apple pie appears right on the timing diagram itself.

The 7.8 Hz stuff and the line "The exciting feature in common here is the extra energy released from magnets at resonant frequencies." is just fantasy talk.  You are welcome to prove me wrong.

QuoteThe interesting link here is that McLain and Wooten got Barrium Ferrite magnets to ring at 8khz

Sorry I haven't looked at the link but I am smelling something amiss.  If magnetic molecules mechanically resonate in the megahertz frequency range, resonance at 8 kHz seems way too far fetched.  If you lower the intensity of the magnetic field inside a magnet, then the resonant frequency drops.  I simply don't ever see it getting that low.

However, if they are talking about the acoustic mechanical resonance of the physical magnet itself that makes perfect sense.  But then you are back to battling with Mother Nature:  If the mechanical resonance affects the magnetic domains resulting in the ability to extract power from a coil wrapped around the magnet, how much mechanical power do you have to put in to get the physical magnet to mechanically resonate vs how much electrical power can you extract from the coil.  There won't be an extra slice of apple pie there either.  Certainly experiment if you want to but those are some of the constraints you will find yourself under if you do the experiments and make proper measurements.

MileHigh

@Milehigh,


Here's what I think to be Jerry Bayles's best video including a sound tract: He conducts five tests and discusses an electrogravitational frequency of 10.03 hrz along with the Schumman constant of 7.83 hrz. View tests 3 and 4. Bayles understands the nature of the Shumman resonance cavity between space and ground. Explain why you don't believe there is extra energy generated in Bayles balance magnets at the resonant frequencies he remarks about. There's an inverse conversion factor, and he's measuring in micro seconds.


Bayles's analysis of the Chiral effect, excluding equality of field strength in magnets of equal strength and the possibility of propulsion back and forth from rotation is of special interest as well:


The fundamental electrogravitational frequency of 10.03 Hz is measured as a strong resonance along with others that prove the standing wave field exists around the disk magnets which leads to chiral energy differences that arise from a spiral geometry moving outwards from the disks. This is free energy and proof that energy is not balanced around the disks.

This sounds extremely complex, but Jerry's experiments would be very simple to replicate.


http://www.electrogravity.com/BMRT/BalMagResTests_6.mov (http://www.electrogravity.com/BMRT/BalMagResTests_6.mov)

Quote from: itsu on March 11, 2014, 07:05:54 PM
Ok,  back on topic:  Acoustic Magnetic Generator.
I put something together using a 40W Piezo element and 2 ferrite rods on each side of this piezo.

Generally that's a good arrangement because as the piezo expands and shrinks the two rods constitute symmetrical counterpoises to that motion ...on both sides of the piezo.  What's are the lengths of these rods anyway?

In order to get a clear visualization of the acoustic standing waves forming in the ferrite rod, that are not affected by capacitive and magnetic sensing artifacts, please take a Dremel tool with a diamond wheel and cut a small groove in the rod as shown here (http://www.overunity.com/14307/acoustic-magnetic-generator/msg388953/#msg388953).
Fill the groove with fine dry sand and observe as the sand collects at nodes of longitudinal standing waves, as you vary the piezo drive frequency.
BTW: use some kind of a linear slide to guide the Dremel tool (or the rod) in order to grind a straight groove of constant depth.

Please do not skip this node visualization tool.

Quote from: itsu on March 11, 2014, 07:05:54 PM
For the time being i tested with my FG output (20V pp) only, but probably need some more power into the piezo by using a transformer or my Amplifier.

Yes, PA+IMT should be good for that purpose.

Quote from: itsu on March 11, 2014, 07:05:54 PM
I "clamp" the both ferrite rods to the piezo by 2 neo magnets, not sure if this interferes with the flux from the ceramic magnets forming the loop.

That's clever but the magnets will cause acoustic reflections due to the discontinuity in the speed of sound in them.
Also note that NdFeB, SmCo and AlNiCo magnets are electrically conductive and thus no good at HF because eddy currents form in them - they act as shorted turns at HF.

Quote from: itsu on March 11, 2014, 07:05:54 PM
I pick up some signals with a 93mH/180 Ohm coil.

A narrow coil is fine for detecting permeability and flux changes in the rod, however before you start trusting that coil as an AC field sensor you should determine its LC resonance frequency because this coil will have a lot of interwinding capacitance which will form an LC tank with its self-inductance.
Once you determine this LC resonance frequency, you should remember not to trust this sensor coil at this frequency.

Also, note that the piezo can be a source of intense AC electric fields, that can capacitively couple to various sensors and scope probes.  Use idle scope probes to feel around the piezo to determine how much of a capacitive coupling problem you have.  If it is obnoxious then shield the piezo and its clips/wires with grounded copper foil (without touching the piezo or the ferrite rods with the foil).

Quote from: itsu on March 11, 2014, 07:05:54 PM
I am still trying to fully understand the patent which can be found  here  (https://www.google.com/patents/US8093869)
Comments are welcome. Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Pachec48I&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Pachec48I&feature=youtu.be)   

The author of this patent does not mention NAR.  He mentions only the Villari effect.  Maybe this device inadvertently causes NAR if it is subjected to an accidental magnetic field at a 90º angle.

General advices:
1) Remember to pay special attention to any frequency doublings (I think your video showed it at one point)
2) Even a paper-thin air gap in a magnetic path can easily increase its reluctance by 10x.
3) Remember that the differential permeability of permanent magnets is close to air/vacuum and because of that permanent magnets not make good AC magnetic flux guides.  Even high permeability magnetic flux guides do not function well if they are gaped, thin or if the width to height aspect ratio of the flux path exceeds 1.5:1.

Synchro1:

I looked at the clip.  Here is what I think the setup is:  There is a signal generator that is controlling the speed of a small motor.  The small motor drives two big radially-magnetized disk magnets.  Above the disk magnets there is something that resembles a weather vane.  There are magnets on the "weather vane" that cause it to flutter due to the changing magnetic fields.  At the right frequency the weather vane starts to spin.

Is that accurate?

If it is, then you are looking at a synchronous motor.  The weather vane is pushed around by the changing magnetic fields and then eventually the frequency is right and it starts to rotate synchronously with the big spinning magnetic disks.  So there is no resonance here.  This is a variation on all the clips were an (off camera) rotating magnet makes a bunch of little ball magnets in separate bowls start to run around in circles.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on March 12, 2014, 09:41:26 PM
Synchro1:

I looked at the clip.  Here is what I think the setup is:  There is a signal generator that is controlling the speed of a small motor.  The small motor drives two big radially-magnetized disk magnets.  Above the disk magnets there is something that resembles a weather vane.  There are magnets on the "weather vane" that cause it to flutter due to the changing magnetic fields.  At the right frequency the weather vane starts to spin.

Is that accurate?

If it is, then you are looking at a synchronous motor.  The weather vane is pushed around by the changing magnetic fields and then eventually the frequency is right and it starts to rotate synchronously with the big spinning magnetic disks.  So there is no resonance here.  This is a variation on all the clips were an (off camera) rotating magnet makes a bunch of little ball magnets in separate bowls start to run around in circles.

MileHigh

Wrong! You're looking at two axially magnetized spinning disk magnets in a Faraday Homopolar configuration. The magnetic fields are stationary. The Chiral effect, like the left hand rule, causes one of the equally magnetized disks to grow more powerful, depending on the spin direction. The non equilibrium is contested at the perimeter where the balance magnets are located. This oscillation is determined by the spin frequency! This is an A vector potential and has nothing to do with conventional Lenz related output!

Quote from: synchro1 on March 13, 2014, 12:11:45 AM

Quote from: MileHigh on March 12, 2014, 09:41:26 PM
The small motor drives two big radially-magnetized disk magnets.

Wrong! You're looking at two axially magnetized spinning disk magnets

Please keep the discussion coherent and at a decent debating level.
He wrote "radial" - not "axial".

Quote from: synchro1 on March 13, 2014, 12:11:45 AM

Quote from: MileHigh on March 12, 2014, 09:41:26 PM
If it is, then you are looking at a synchronous motor. 

...in a Faraday Homopolar configuration.

There you go again.
He wrote "synchronous", not "Homopolar"

Quote from: synchro1 on March 13, 2014, 12:11:45 AM

Quote from: MileHigh on March 12, 2014, 09:41:26 PM
...flutter due to the changing magnetic fields

The magnetic fields are stationary.

Why are they stationary if their sources are non-uniform and moving?
Anyway, Milehigh specifically wrote about changing magnetinc fields, not about moving or non-stationary fields.
Conflation of "changing" with "moving" confuses direction with magnitude and brings the discussion to a new lower level.

Quote from: synchro1 on March 13, 2014, 12:11:45 AM
The Chiral effect, like the left hand rule, causes one of the equally magnetized disks to grow more powerful, depending on the spin direction.

This statement seems to imply that the magnetic field is non-constant after all.  According to the statement above, the field "grows" as a result of some spinning motion.
Is there a relationship of the flux or flux density to time or angular position?  Is this relationship periodic or monotonic?

Quote from: verpies on March 12, 2014, 09:18:24 PM
Generally that's a good arrangement because as the piezo expands and shrinks the two rods constitute symmetrical counterpoises to that motion ...on both sides of the piezo.  What's are the lengths of these rods anyway?

In order to get a clear visualization of the acoustic standing waves forming in the ferrite rod, that are not affected by capacitive and magnetic sensing artifacts, please take a Dremel tool with a diamond wheel and cut a small groove in the rod as shown here (http://www.overunity.com/14307/acoustic-magnetic-generator/msg388953/#msg388953).
Fill the groove with fine dry sand and observe as the sand collects at nodes of longitudinal standing waves, as you vary the piezo drive frequency.
BTW: use some kind of a linear slide to guide the Dremel tool (or the rod) in order to grind a straight groove of constant depth.

Please do not skip this node visualization tool.

The present rods are 200mm by 10mm, the new ones will be 200mm by 20mm.
I did use some sort of container taped around one of the rods filled with table salt (see picture), but no movement was observed at all.
Could be the salt is to sticky or somehow no resonance was taking place during this initial test.

QuoteYes, PA+IMT should be good for that purpose.

I used my PA in the following clip (changed the setup a little too), but this limits the frequency range till about 60KHz which could be a problem.
I was able to input >300V pp into the piezo without seeing anything special.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGrgsJCRVe0&feature=youtu.be

QuoteThat's clever but the magnets will cause acoustic reflections due to the discontinuity in the speed of sound in them.
Also note that NdFeB, SmCo and AlNiCo magnets are electrically conductive and thus no good at HF because eddy currents form in them - they act as shorted turns at HF.

Ok,  need to remove them somehow then. 
For the new rods i have some clamps which might fit which will push them against both sides of the piezo. 

QuoteA narrow coil is fine for detecting permeability and flux changes in the rod, however before you start trusting that coil as an AC field sensor you should determine its LC resonance frequency because this coil will have a lot of interwinding capacitance which will form an LC tank with its self-inductance.
Once you determine this LC resonance frequency, you should remember not to trust this sensor coil at this frequency.

Also, note that the piezo can be a source of intense AC electric fields, that can capacitively couple to various sensors and scope probes.  Use idle scope probes to feel around the piezo to determine how much of a capacitive coupling problem you have.  If it is obnoxious then shield the piezo and its clips/wires with grounded copper foil (without touching the piezo or the ferrite rods with the foil).

Right, good point i will try to find its LC resonance frequency.
With the PA (>300V pp) there was a noticeable ac field which i could feel with my finger when touching the piezo.
This touching caused a greater response in the pickup coil, also when touching the pickup coil (to move it), there is a big influenze on the amplitude of the signal (increase), which somehow does not seem right.

QuoteThe author of this patent does not mention NAR.  He mentions only the Villari effect.  Maybe this device inadvertently causes NAR if it is subjected to an accidental magnetic field at a 90º angle.

General advices:
1) Remember to pay special attention to any frequency doublings (I think your video showed it at one point)
2) Even a paper-thin air gap in a magnetic path can easily increase its reluctance by 10x.
3) Remember that the differential permeability of permanent magnets is close to air/vacuum and because of that permanent magnets not make good AC magnetic flux guides.  Even high permeability magnetic flux guides do not function well if they are gaped, thin or if the width to height aspect ratio of the flux path exceeds 1.5:1.

Thanks, i did change the layout of the permanent magnets so they form a continuous path now, see latest video.
When i use the formule V/(2*L)=F from the patent and using 5000 m/s (v) for the ferrite used (20cm), i calculate a Frequency F of 12.5KHz.
But no response seen on that frequency yet.

On my first clip user "attikanagy" responded with some similar experiments with even more simple components (postcard speaker) everybody can collect.
He seens to be able to light a led, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qauZ4WBwAOM


If i stepped on any toes for misusing this thread, please speak up, i will gladly open another one for this.


Regards Itsu

Quote from: itsu on March 13, 2014, 06:31:00 AM
I did use some sort of container taped around one of the rods filled with table salt (see picture), but no movement was observed at all.  Could be the salt is to sticky or somehow no resonance was taking place during this initial test.

Yes, salt never worked for me either.  Eventually I had success with aquarium sand that I got in a zoo/pet store as well as sieved abrasive powders from a hardware store.

I found that for sensing longitudinal waves, the sound's amplitude and longitudinal friction should be maximized.
The exaggerated cross section of a grain of sand in a groove, illustrates this.

Quote from: itsu on March 13, 2014, 06:31:00 AM
Thanks, i did change the layout of the permanent magnets so they form a continuous path now, see latest video.

A semicircle would be better. because of a shorter flux path and less leakage flux due to larger distance from the ferrite rod.

The diagram below illustrates the leakage flux of an inferior rectangular path.  Your rectangular flux path is much wider than higher, thus much more susceptible to such leakage.

Quote from: itsu on March 13, 2014, 06:31:00 AM
When i use the formule V/(2*L)=F from the patent and using 5000 m/s (v) for the ferrite used (20cm), i calculate a Frequency F of 12.5KHz. But no response seen on that frequency yet.

The formula is correct but the speed of sound might not be because for long thin rods you should use the slower extensional speed (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speeds_of_sound_of_the_elements_%28data_page%29) of sound.

Quote from: itsu on March 13, 2014, 06:31:00 AM
On my first clip user "attikanagy" responded with some similar experiments with even more simple components (postcard speaker) everybody can collect.  He seens to be able to light a led, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qauZ4WBwAOM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qauZ4WBwAOM)

Yes, this effect is real.  Note that he tunes his standing wave frequency less coarsely than you ;)
Also he does not have a counterpoise in the other side of his piezo which is bad - it limits his amplitude.

Quote from: verpies on March 13, 2014, 05:39:26 AM
Wrong! You're looking at two axially magnetized spinning disk magnets

Please keep the discussion coherent and at a decent debating level.
He wrote "radial" - not "axial".
...in a Faraday Homopolar configuration.

There you go again.
He wrote "synchronous", not "Homopolar"
The magnetic fields are stationary.

Why are they stationary if their sources are non-uniform and moving?
Anyway, Milehigh specifically wrote about changing magnetinc fields, not about moving or non-stationary fields.
Conflation of "changing" with "moving" confuses direction with magnitude and brings the discussion to a new lower level.
This statement seems to imply that the magnetic field is non-constant after all.  According to the statement above, the field "grows" as a result of some spinning motion.
Is there a relationship of the flux or flux density to time or angular position?  Is this relationship periodic or monotonic?

@Itzu,


Please continue to keep posting here on this thread. I plan to open a new thread to continue the Bayles discussion.


@Verpies,


I'll catch up with you on the new thread. You're way off base in your ridicule bub. Just because Milehigh said radial does not change the polarization from axial as it is. What are trying to pull? You sound like some kind of nut case. You obviously don't have any idea what you're talking about. I lost all respect for you over that last series of comments.

Quote from: itsu on March 13, 2014, 06:31:00 AM
I used my PA in the following clip (changed the setup a little too), but this limits the frequency range till about 60KHz which could be a problem.

Since your fundamental standing wave frequency is around 12kHz you might be fine within this limit.

Quote from: itsu on March 13, 2014, 06:31:00 AM
I was able to input >300V pp into the piezo without seeing anything special.

My 120W ultrasonic cleaner has 200V_RMS across its piezo element and it can do a lot of damage.
BTW: The piezo predominantly is a voltage device but a regular speaker predominantly is a current device.  This distinction is not applicable to this experiment but is important to keep in mind for the future.

Quote from: itsu on March 13, 2014, 06:31:00 AM
With the PA (>300V pp) there was a noticeable ac field which i could feel with my finger when touching the piezo.
This touching caused a greater response in the pickup coil, also when touching the pickup coil (to move it), there is a big influence on the amplitude of the signal (increase), which somehow does not seem right.

The piezo and its wires are working as a transmitter antenna and interfering with your sensors.  Change the driving wires to a flexible coax and shield the piezo with copper foil (all grounded bur not dampening acoustic vibrations of the piezo or the rods).

Quote from: synchro1 on March 13, 2014, 10:39:58 AM
Just because Milehigh said radial does not change the polarization from axial as it is. What are trying to pull? You sound like some kind of nut case.

Just because I understood you differently from what you had in mind does not warrant you making Ad Hominem remarks about my sanity.

You do not express yourself precisely and your frequent use of colloquialisms and loose grammar leads to such confusion.
In this case, you should have directly stated that the magnetization of the disks is axial - not that he was "looking at" axial.  There is a difference.

I welcome criticism of my actions, analysis and ideas but personal statements as to what I am (Ad Hominem) are overboard.
One more remark about my person instead of my actions, analysis or ideas and you will be ad-blocked and completely ignored.
This is your only warning.

@Verpies,


Listen Bub, I have a M.F.A in Professional writing from USC, I have a published book in all the world's libraries and am extremely literate. You can't understand what you read, and I'll be the one doing ad blacking smart guy! You're just another stinking know it all like those other conceited jerks. You can shove it!

@Itsu,


         Very nice improvised soloution. Removing material from the ferrite rod would be senseless. Thanks for the video link:  Magnetostrikció ? I wonder what frequency he's vibrating his transducer at?


That turns Verpies admonition against attaching the transducer to the rod end into rubbish too!

Quote from: synchro1 on March 13, 2014, 01:56:34 PM
Removing material from the ferrite rod would be senseless.

That statement has no justification.
I have stated the reason for a shallow groove in the previous posts clearly: A friction-maximizing sand holder, that does not involve dampening materials.  Also, extensional l.waves are reflected from the surface of the rod and are much weaker above the surface than under the surface.

Quote from: synchro1 on March 13, 2014, 01:56:34 PM
That turns Verpies admonition against attaching the transducer to the rod end into rubbish too!

This statement demonstrates your lack of discernment between qualitative and quantitative objections.

Quote from: synchro1 on March 13, 2014, 01:16:45 PM
You're just another stinking know it all like those other conceited jerks. You can shove it!

Note, that I have never called you names.
I will filter out your posts from now on - you've been warned.

@Verpies,


Drop dead you miserable fraud!

Quote from: verpies on March 13, 2014, 10:41:07 AM
My 120W ultrasonic cleaner has 200V_RMS across its piezo element and it can do a lot of damage.

Thanks for all the info.

i finally found some spec's on my transducer:

1. Low heat.
2  thermal stability.
3. Frequency and static capacitance consistency and strong.
4. Resonant impedance is low.
5. The average long life.
6. It can be widely used in a variety of ultrasonic cleaning equipment.
7. High performance: high mechanical Q, vibration and high efficiency
8. high amplitude   

Model Number:                          CH-S42-50x2.6
Resonant Frequency (KHz):                     40 ± 1
Static capacitance (pF):                  8000 ± 10%
Resonant Impedance (O):                        = 20O
Diameter * height:                               50 * 2.6
Power (W):                                                 35w
Insulation resistance (2500V DC):         = 100MO   

It does not specify the broadbandness of it, but the Resonant Frequency (KHz):     40 ± 1 points to a very narrow band.
Not sure if it can be used for around 12KHz.


I got my new ferrite rods (200 * 20 mm) and am trying to clamp them in a way they stick to the transducer.
A new pick up coil was needed as the rods are thicker.

This new coil measured:

Without ferrite:   L=        365 uH
                         R=           4 Ohm
                         Res F = 564 KHz

with this new ferrite rod:  L=          4 mH
                                      R=          4 Ohm
                                      Res F= 197 KHz   

I will fire this up tomorrow.


Regards Itsu

@Itsu,


Looks like "attikanagy" simply has the transducer glued to the end of the ferrite rod. His video is the first "proof of concept" AMG test I've ever seen. Thanks for that hyper link!

Quote from: itsu on March 13, 2014, 06:14:56 PM
It does not specify the broadbandness of it, but the Resonant Frequency (KHz):     40 ± 1 points to a very narrow band.
Not sure if it can be used for around 12KHz.

The resonant frequency is not the bandwidth of the piezo transducer, it is the frequency at which an unloaded transducer has the lowest impedance.
An unloaded transducer will be the loudest a this frequency (and is most likely to be damaged at it), but it will reproduce lower frequencies, too ...albeit at lower amplitudes. 
When a mass (load) is attached to a piezo its resonance frequency decreases proportionally to this mass - just like it does in a mass-spring* mechanical system.

The frequency response of a piezo is very jagged, see the graph below for a common 3cm diameter piezo disk.
This jagginess is why I don't recommend relying on electrical amplitude measurements for determining the standing wave frequency in the piezo and any loads attached to it.

Quote from: itsu on March 13, 2014, 06:14:56 PM
I got my new ferrite rods (200 * 20 mm) and am trying to clamp them in a way they stick to the transducer.

The literature states, that the pre-loading force pressing on the piezo in rest mode should be 10% of the extension force generated by the flexion of the piezo.  It also recommends some type of glue or gel in the interface gap.
Also, remember that those piezo disks extend flexurally like in Fig.3a and Fig.3b  (somehow most of my students come wrongly convinced that they extend as in Fig.2).


* (the stiffness of the piezo acts as a mechanical spring).

Quote from: synchro1 on March 13, 2014, 07:01:44 PM
@Itsu,


Looks like "attikanagy" simply has the transducer glued to the end of the ferrite rod. His video is the first "proof of concept" AMG test I've ever seen. Thanks for that hyper link!

Your welcome, perhaps i need to glue my ferrite rods also to the transducer as it is hard to "connect" them any other mechanical way.

Regards Itsu

Quote from: verpies on March 13, 2014, 09:33:51 PM
The resonant frequency is not the bandwidth of the piezo transducer, it is the frequency at which an unloaded transducer has the lowest impedance.
An unloaded transducer will be the loudest a this frequency (and is most likely to be damaged at it), but it will reproduce lower frequencies, too ...albeit at lower amplitudes. 
When a mass (load) is attached to a piezo its resonance frequency decreases proportionally to this mass - just like it does in a mass-spring* mechanical system.

The frequency response of a piezo is very jagged, see the graph below for a common 3cm diameter piezo disk.
This jagginess is why I don't recommend relying on electrical amplitude measurements for determining the standing wave frequency in the piezo and any loads attached to it.

Those pictures are quite revealing, thanks for them.
Not sure what the mass (load) of such a transducer would be, most likely a fluid as in those "mist machines" or cleaning apparatus
I wonder if i could make a frequency resonse graph of my transducer, it seems they where using some (good) microphone (distance 10 cm),
perhaps i could use a pickup coil at that distance.

QuoteThe literature states, that the pre-loading force pressing on the piezo in rest mode should be 10% of the extension force generated by the flexion of the piezo.  It also recommends some type of glue or gel in the interface gap.
Also, remember that those piezo disks extend flexurally like in Fig.3a and Fig.3b  (somehow most of my students come wrongly convinced that they extend as in Fig.2).

pre-loading force he, so the rods should be inbetween some (flexible) fixture!
Also the both rods would show a 180° out of phase response looking at those pictures.
I could try to glue them to the piezo as the mechanical solution i have now is not really perfect.

Thanks,  regards Itsu

Quote from: itsu on March 14, 2014, 05:30:22 AM
Those pictures are quite revealing, thanks for them.
Not sure what the mass (load) of such a transducer would be, most likely a fluid as in those "mist machines" or cleaning apparatus.

Yes, air, water droplets, water baths, gels, patients' abdomens, a steel beams of a building, welding joints, tungsten gold bars and metal skin of an airplane are all examples of massive loads to the transducer.  In your case the ferrite rods are the load.

Quote from: itsu on March 14, 2014, 05:30:22 AM
I wonder if i could make a frequency response graph of my transducer, it seems they where using some (good) microphone (distance 10 cm), perhaps i could use a pickup coil at that distance.

That would be hard to do, because the unshielded electric field from the piezo would capacitively couple to your microphone and jam its signal.
Even if you managed to measure the frequency response of an unloaded piezo (e.g. optically), it would change immediately upon putting any mass on its surface.

Quote from: itsu on March 14, 2014, 05:30:22 AM
pre-loading force he, so the rods should be inbetween some (flexible) fixture!

That's only needed for optimum mechanical coupling.  A piezo will work even without this pre-loading, albeit not as well.

Quote from: itsu on March 14, 2014, 05:30:22 AM
Also the both rods would show a 180° out of phase response looking at those pictures.

Yes, the compression waves will travel in opposite directions from the piezo, reflect from the free ends of the rods and later come back to the piezo attempting to affect it from both sides (rods have equal lengths so reflections come back simultaneously from both sides*). That's why one narrow pulse would produce an echo across the piezo after ~90µs round-trip delay.  See this animation (http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/~albert/ones/Lwave.gif)  and  this applet (http://www.physics.smu.edu/~olness/www/05fall1320/applet/pipe-waves.html).

When you visualize this as in Fig.3b, you can see that the amplitude of these compressions will be in-phase on both sides of the piezo but their direction of travel will be opposite. 
Also, ferrite rods are very massive compared to the piezo and these rods represent equal masses on both sides, thus the piezo will stay equally in the middle between the rods as it pushes on them.  If it were not so, then Newton's 3^rd law would be violated or one rod would have to be "more equal" than the other.  - a quote from "Animal Farm".

Quote from: itsu on March 14, 2014, 05:30:22 AM
I could try to glue them to the piezo as the mechanical solution i have now is not really perfect.

If you do that, make sure that the glue is weak enough so the rods can twist-off without breaking the piezo ...or use an ultrasound gel.


* When reflections return to the piezo, the piezo must move in-phase with these reflections in order not to destructively interfere with them.  Constructive interference with reflections is the principle behind standing wave resonance.

Ok,  great info,  also the applet is great to visualize what suppose to happen.

Quoteor use an ultrasound gel.

like this?:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2w_hKvtY5E    (now where is my guar gum powder)


Here a video of my setup as i have it now, sweeping through the frequency range.

Funny is that via the video the audible sound, for me, is reaching much higher as real time.
I can via the video hear the upcomming of these spurious (4-6KHz) audible signals much better too.

No activity in the 12KHz range, so i will glue the rods to the piezo and see if anything changes.

Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0nIM89E2FA&feature=youtu.be


Regards Itsu

Itsu:

Gel used in non-destructive testing (NDT), "juice," is a brown goop with a texture something like slightly warm molasses.  I have never looked it up online but for sure you could order it from somewhere in cyberspace.

If you use the juice then you don't have to put any pressure on the rods with the clamps.  If you are lucky it will all stick together with the thin layer of juice acting like a glue.  It should be quite solid.  Note that some of the piezo power is being "shorted" through the clamp system, and it becomes another impedance discontinuity causing reflections.  If you assume that the juice does the job, then the two rods sit happily on the Styrofoam bed, with your piezo in the "well."  I think you will get better "power beaming" into the rods like that.  Note the "juice" is specifically designed for what you want to do, and will do what the glue will do, without all the disadvantages of the glue.

Have you seen clips of those "vibration tables" on YouTube?  Sometimes they just put sand on the table and as the frequency is swept there are multiple "resonance points" where the sand grains gather at the vibratory nodes on the square vibrating apparatus.  You see all of these amazing patterns.  Other people put "goop" on the tables and at various frequencies it looks like the goop is "alive" and doing various things.  "The Blob"

If you set up a standing wave, I wonder if you could feel it if you slid the tip of your finger down one of the rods.  I doubt it.  If you wanted to, you could buy an ultrasonic microphone, like one used in non-destructive testing, and sweep that down the rod and listen for the peaks and the nodes.  That might be very expensive.  However, that sounds like a cool project - making your own ultrasonic microphone.  Perhaps you can find out what the architecture of a real NDT ultrasonic microphone is like and then build it on the cheap.  :)

I realize that the waves are primarily going to be longituidinal waves, but there will still be transverse waves generated also.  So a microphone sliding down the rod won't be able to hear the longituidinal waves, but it would be able to hear the transverse waves.

For your big magnets lying flat, are they polarized "up-down?"  I noticed that there are pole designations on those big flat surfaces.  I thought the goal was to make a magnetic flux loop?

MileHigh

@Itzu,


Quote from Milehigh:

"For your big magnets lying flat, are they polarized "up-down?"  I noticed that there are pole designations on those big flat surfaces.  I though the goal was to make a magnetic flux loop"?

Milehigh's making an extremely important point on the magnet polarization. You would need to stack that type of ceramic magnet like dominos in a box, not end to end, to construct a magnetic flux loop. Why not just try and position stacks in opposition on each free end of the ferrite rods for initial testing if you don't have a sufficient quantity?

Stacking them side by side would still take a couple of iron keepers on the ends to contact squarely with the ferrite ends. Otherwise you would have to begin to fan them out to form a horseshoe so they met just right. Pretty tricky to get get to work good. My advice is to just go with the end stacks in opposition. There's hardly any field strength at the ends of those side to side magnetized ceramics.


Bar magnets, polarized end to end would be ideal!

Quote from: MileHigh on March 14, 2014, 09:18:04 PM
Note that some of the piezo power is being "shorted" through the clamp system, and it becomes another impedance discontinuity causing reflections. 

Indeed that is a concern.  It can be mitigated by placing the clamps at displacement nodes because the rods are not moving at these nodes.

Re. Damping:

How long does the ferrite rod ring after being struck with a hammer while being suspended in the air by a thin thread in the middle?
VS.
How long does it ring in the "clamp system" ?

Quote from: MileHigh on March 14, 2014, 09:18:04 PM
Have you seen clips of those "vibration tables" on YouTube?  Sometimes they just put sand on the table and as the frequency is swept there are multiple "resonance points" where the sand grains gather at the vibratory nodes on the square vibrating apparatus.  You see all of these amazing patterns. 
Other people put "goop" on the tables and at various frequencies it looks like the goop is "alive" and doing various things.  "The Blob"

Visualizing standing waves in the rod would be very useful.  The difference is that vibrations of those cymatic Chladni tables, you mentioned, are mostly transverse while vibrations in these ferrite rods are predominantly longitudinal and such vibrations don't affect the sand above the surface much.

Once, I was successful in visualizing longitudinal vibrations  by grinding a small groove in the surface to hold sieved sand in it.
When the rod was sampled below the surface and the friction was maximized by the groove, grains of sand became accelerated horizontally and they bumped into each other ...forming patterns.

Quote from: MileHigh on March 14, 2014, 09:18:04 PM
I realize that the waves are primarily going to be longitudinal waves, but there will still be transverse waves generated also.  So a microphone sliding down the rod won't be able to hear the longitudinal waves, but it would be able to hear the transverse waves.

In this method of standing wave visualization the microphone needs to be continuously scanned along the length of the rod, but also:

It is not guaranteed that transverse waves would be spatially correlated with longitudinal waves in the rod. 
Also, Itsu has significant electric capacitive coupling issues in his system, that would interfere with the weak signal from a nearby microphone  (and a ceramic phonograph cartridge, too).
Finally, any jagginess of the microphone's frequency response would falsify the perceived amplitude of the received sound which is the major determinant of node positions in this method.

Quote from: MileHigh on March 14, 2014, 09:18:04 PM
For your big magnets lying flat, are they polarized "up-down?"  I noticed that there are pole designations on those big flat surfaces.  I thought the goal was to make a magnetic flux loop?

Initially I was concerned about that too, but in the end I was not expecting Itsu to make that mistake.
Also, I have another concern involving the integral of sine µ, which is zero for integer number of cycles.

Great info once again guys,  thanks a lot.

Its thru that those ceramic magnets are polarized "up-down", therfor the N/Z notations on them, well spotted.
But i found them to pretty solidly attract together as they where in my first setup, a screwdriver was attracted very well
to the both sides of the rods so there was flux going around.

But if it was enough i doubt it now.

I have rearrange them now with an iron bar inbetween as flux guide, and now the attraction is much better, even so
the both rods attach them selve to the piezo firmly without any clamps used.

Initial tests show many more pickups with the bare FG only, also around 14KHz.

Further tests / video will follow.

Regards Itsu

Itsu:

Looking forward to your clips.  One quick thought is that even with the increased magnetic attraction across the piezo, you still need some sort of "juice."  A very thin layer of Vaseline for the two contact surfaces should work quite well and it may already be in your bathroom medicine cabinet!

MileHigh

Ok, here the once again changed setup.
The magnetic flux is now much stronger, but it does not equate to stronger signals in the pickup coil.
A led across this pickup coil never lights, only all the way up in the coils resonant state (290KHz)
I do have some minor fluctuations now in the lower frequency range (12-15KHz) which i will try to enhance.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNnnaFjqZyc&feature=youtu.be

Regards Itsu

@Itsu,


Is that a bridge rectifier between the pickup coil and the LED?

Hi Synchro1,

no, no bridge rectifier, its the old speaker bracket.

Regards Itsu

Itsu:

There is no need for you to cut the iron bar, it won't make any difference with respect to the amount of magnetic flux that flows through the magnetic circuit.

I think that your build is great.  From my perspective I don't see how beaming sound down the two rods will affect the amount of flux that flows through the circuit.  It's really a mystery to me.

It may be a bit preliminary to pass judgement, but we can see how your pickup coil barely generates any EMF.  It's possible that the EMF that is being picked up has very little or nothing to do with any possible flux modulation from the acoustic waves.

MileHigh

I momentarely upped the input power into the piezo to what is possible with my present setup (Fg + PA)
I used my x100 HV probe on CH1 to measure the voltage which was around 820V pp.

But even then no extraordinary EMF was picked up by the pick up coil.
This screenshot was taken at 11.790KHz where normally no audio was heard (by me), but there was again
this spurious 4-6KHz audible signal.
But as can be seen, it did not produce any high signal in the pickup coil (blue trace).

So brute force is probably not the way to go.

What puzzles me is the negative mean power of -600mW * 2 (for the current probe terminator) = -1.2W
Ch4 (current) is inverted, as it depends how i clip up the probe, but you can see that at this low frequency
the current is leading the voltage which i think is correct (capacitive/low side of the LC).


Regards Itsu

@Itsu,


I think the ferrite rods are super saturated at this point, and that it would help to begin to reduce the number of magnets.


It would also help to rectify the output to DC to illuminate the LED.

Quote from: MileHigh on March 16, 2014, 08:44:53 AM
From my perspective I don't see how beaming sound down the two rods will affect the amount of flux that flows through the circuit.  It's really a mystery to me.

When the sound affects the permeability of the ferrite (and it really does) its reluctance changes locally.
Your intuition probably tells you that the net flux does not change, because any decrease of reluctance in one segment of the core is offset by exactly the same increase in another segment of the core, leading to a zero net reluctance change.
And you would be correct, but only for series magnetic circuits and flux changes over integer acoustic wavelengths.

Parallel magnetic circuits circuits and non-integer acoustic wavelengths can and do produce significant reluctance and flux changes (see here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qauZ4WBwAOM)).  If you muse over it, you'll immediately come up with multitude of magneto-acoustc configurations that will maximize reluctance&flux changes.
IMO if nodes of longitudinal acoustic standing waves in the ferrite are not determined accurately (e.g. by real time visualization) then it is very hard to properly tune and design a parallel magnetic circuit that will maximize these flux variations.

P.S.
I am not insisting that these reluctance changes are free or overly efficient, just because they are caused by acoustic compressions and rarefaction of the ferrite core.  The purpose of these experiments is to determine just that.  ..so let's leave the quantitative O/I discussion for later, when we have more data.

In response to a private message I'm posting the diagram below that illustrates what I mean by a "magnetic circuit".
I'm posting it here because attachments are not allowed in private messages.

This diagram merely illustrates the electric analogy of a magnetic circuit, it is not a suggestion to try this circuit with the Villari effect.  The electric analogy is not complete because it does not show the reluctance of empty spaces between core segments and the PM.
Not that it's bad for it but I have not thought about reluctance modulations of this circuit in the context of magnetoacoustics.  Maybe it would be useful with it and maybe it would not - I'm too tired to think about it now.

In any case, without knowing precise locations of the nodes and antinodes, the chances of doing something useful with it are very small.

After days fiddling around with the setup i had, no noteworthy things happened.
I decided to switch over to another setup like being seen in the video (piezo flat on a glass plate, 1 ferrite rod glued on it).

Also here nothing strange found in the lower frequency regions, but when upping the frequency to around 55KHz
there started to be some sparks and something started to glow at the bottom of the piezo were it touched the glass.
I think it must be some residual flux which i had used to solder the connections to the piezo earlier.

Some movement was seen as the construction was sliding across the plate now and then pointing to some
vibrations causing also some audible tones again around 4-6KHz.

I did had some volts (3/4) on the pickup coil.

Nothing spectacular, but at last something was happening.

Video here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpQsvv-8XCM&feature=youtu.be


Regards itsu

That arcing is worrisome.  I never experienced it but then I had never driven my piezos above 300V.   My IMT outputs maximum 210V_RMS but it delivers 5x more current than your IMT at that voltage.  The IMT has back-forth primary winding above the secondary (both spanning the whole circumference of a ferrite toroid) and it attenuates 3dB at 3.8MHz.
I like that you stood the device on a table, because the table constitutes a mechanical counterpoise for the other side of the piezo.

That the whole contraption moves on a glass table must be caused by some standing waves in it at acoustic resonance and its multiples.  Too bad, that we cannot see them. 
When acoustic reflections come back and the standing wave builds up, it squeezes the piezo turning it into a HV generator (that voltage can be high enough to cause arcing).  Note, that some cigarette and gas lighters use hammer-struck-piezos to generate HV sparks for gas ignition (see here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAyM8Iet1O8)).

Your thick rod and two return flux rods are very close to each other now, and your magnetic circuit becomes more parallel than before because the space between these rods is small enough to "allow" significant magnetic flux to take a shortcut outside of the ferrite.
If you read my previous message, you'll note that parallel magnetic circuits stand a better chance to have large flux variations on one of its branches, than series circuits ...especially if magnetic circuit nodes correspond to acoustic nodes and antinodes.

Strangely, an open magnetic circuit is more parallel than tightly looped circuits (this is most likely the reason why this guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qauZ4WBwAOM) got so lucky ;)  ...this is not to be misconstrued that open circuits produce the largest flux variations and EMF ∝ dΦ/dt.

Quote from: verpies on March 18, 2014, 07:43:38 PM
When acoustic reflections come back and the standing wave builds up, it squeezes the piezo turning it into a HV generator (that voltage can be high enough to cause arcing). 

Hmmm,  should i not have seen that HV on my yellow probe signal?

QuoteStrangely, an open magnetic circuit is more parallel than tightly looped circuits (this is most likely the reason why this guy got so lucky ;) 

I tried that setup lateron, see picture, and it produces similar results as the earlier setup, but then when i applied some pressure
on the magnets (probably to much on one side) the piezo shattered.

Looking at the damaged piezo, i can see where the glow came from earlier, it seems the edge where the back side "flips over" to the front site
is "eaten away" by this burning.  The back is now isolated from this front patch.

These piezo's are very bad to solder as the conductive material does not want to be soldered very well.

Anyway, still one to go, so i will revert to "clamping" the leads to the piezo as i have done before, only problem is that i have to use
the edge of the glass plate to accommodate the clamps.

Regards Itsu

Quote from: itsu on March 19, 2014, 05:36:53 AM
Hmmm,  should i not have seen that HV on my yellow probe signal?

Yes it should, unless the piezos has generated that HV locally at the edge.

Quote from: itsu on March 19, 2014, 05:36:53 AM
Looking at the damaged piezo, i can see where the glow came from earlier, it seems the edge where the back side "flips over" to the front site is "eaten away" by this burning.

Acoustically heated glass can become conductive.  Are there permanent melt marks on the glass table?

Quote from: itsu on March 19, 2014, 05:36:53 AM
These piezo's are very bad to solder as the conductive material does not want to be soldered very well.

This is a well know problem with piezos.  See this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i75semvJblI).
Also, wires that you soldered to the piezo are too thick.  I use sub 0.5mm flexible stranded wire for a 5cm length and join/solder them to thicker wires for longer distances.

Quote from: verpies on March 19, 2014, 07:20:52 AM
Acoustically heated glass can become conductive.  Are there permanent melt marks on the glass table?

Yes, there are some "pits" in the glass where the glow was seen.

QuoteThis is a well know problem with piezos.  See this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i75semvJblI).
Also, wires that you soldered to the piezo are too thick.  I use sub 0.5mm flexible stranded wire for a 5cm length and join/solder them to thicker wires for longer distances.

Great tips, i have some pieces now where i can practice on   ;D

Regards Itsu

Just a couple of random thoughts:

I was thinking that what we call the lines of magnetic force are in fact standing waves. I.E. a magnet acts like a tuning fork in the aether which
causes the lines to appear at certain locations.

I did a search on this but could not find anything but came across a link that you may be interested:

http://montalk.net/notes/tuning-forks-and-megalithic-technology (http://montalk.net/notes/tuning-forks-and-megalithic-technology)

@ Itsu


Might I suggest shying away from ferrite based magnetic field guides. I have found more often than not playing with very very similar setups that conduction within the material is very important. While the ceramics are excellent with respect to acting as a wave guide for acoustic compression and rarefraction, they are poor with respect to transfer of a magnetic field when the material length is far greater than its width. I have several detailed experimental setups which suggest that this could very much be due to the lack of electrical conductivity. There are many reasons for this, and it was extended conversation I had when i was shortly in touch with Eric Dollard. Unfortunately neither he nor I had an adequate reasoning for this result.

Another method I have used with great success is to take two very large ceramic magnets (mine were about the size of a video cassette), and give them a tap with a very hard slightly heavy object to induce an acoustic "ring". Record this frequency for each. Build an exciter circuit at the resonant frequency of the first. Take the second and shave material off of it till it has a frequency difference from the first. Now create an exciter circuit for the resonant frequency of the second magnet. Place a coil around each of the magnets in orthogonal orientations so they are not mutually coupled. When electrically excited at the resonant frequency, the reaction from the oscillating magnetic field will place the exciter into a very high impedance mode and it will be quite efficient. The acoustic excitation of the macroscopic and molecular structure of the magnet will cause fluctuations within the magnetic field. The superimposed fields from both magnets together will create a beat frequency at the difference of frequency. F1 minus F2 = F3.

Build a large pick up coil (large in diameter, and somewhat flat) with loose coupling to the setup. For example, if your magnet setup is one foot by one foot by one foot, create the pick up to have a diameter from 2 to 3 feet. (you will have to experiment. If you take into account wavelengths of F1 and F2 and F3, along with other factors such as the quarter wave relationship with respect to Lenz reaction, you will be able to figure out exactly what you need, but for starters what I describe is a good point of beginning).  This large pick up coil should have a resonant frequency equal to the beat frequency, and when power is drawn from it, it should have filters with maximum blocking impedance at the frequencies of F1 and F2. The two initial frequencies are blocked, and the created frequency is not. Happy experimenting with the missing fundamental generator!!!

Quote from: MasterPlaster on March 19, 2014, 03:20:22 PM
Just a couple of random thoughts:

I was thinking that what we call the lines of magnetic force are in fact standing waves. I.E. a magnet acts like a tuning fork in the aether which
causes the lines to appear at certain locations.

I did a search on this but could not find anything but came across a link that you may be interested:

http://montalk.net/notes/tuning-forks-and-megalithic-technology (http://montalk.net/notes/tuning-forks-and-megalithic-technology)

Thanks MP,  interesting link and info.

Thanks,  regards itsu

Quote from: armagdn03 on March 19, 2014, 05:04:56 PM
@ Itsu


Might I suggest shying away from ferrite based magnetic field guides. I have found more often than not playing with very very similar setups that conduction within the material is very important. While the ceramics are excellent with respect to acting as a wave guide for acoustic compression and rarefraction, they are poor with respect to transfer of a magnetic field when the material length is far greater than its width. I have several detailed experimental setups which suggest that this could very much be due to the lack of electrical conductivity. There are many reasons for this, and it was extended conversation I had when i was shortly in touch with Eric Dollard. Unfortunately neither he nor I had an adequate reasoning for this result.

Great info, so i will try to avoid ferrite as the loop back medium and use some steel.

QuoteAnother method I have used with great success is to take two very large ceramic magnets (mine were about the size of a video cassette), and give them a tap with a very hard slightly heavy object to induce an acoustic "ring". Record this frequency for each. Build an exciter circuit at the resonant frequency of the first. Take the second and shave material off of it till it has a frequency difference from the first. Now create an exciter circuit for the resonant frequency of the second magnet. Place a coil around each of the magnets in orthogonal orientations so they are not mutually coupled. When electrically excited at the resonant frequency, the reaction from the oscillating magnetic field will place the exciter into a very high impedance mode and it will be quite efficient. The acoustic excitation of the macroscopic and molecular structure of the magnet will cause fluctuations within the magnetic field. The superimposed fields from both magnets together will create a beat frequency at the difference of frequency. F1 minus F2 = F3.

Build a large pick up coil (large in diameter, and somewhat flat) with loose coupling to the setup. For example, if your magnet setup is one foot by one foot by one foot, create the pick up to have a diameter from 2 to 3 feet. (you will have to experiment. If you take into account wavelengths of F1 and F2 and F3, along with other factors such as the quarter wave relationship with respect to Lenz reaction, you will be able to figure out exactly what you need, but for starters what I describe is a good point of beginning).  This large pick up coil should have a resonant frequency equal to the beat frequency, and when power is drawn from it, it should have filters with maximum blocking impedance at the frequencies of F1 and F2. The two initial frequencies are blocked, and the created frequency is not. Happy experimenting with the missing fundamental generator!!!

Wow,  - "the size of a video cassette"-   those are massive magnets, and it seems this is a totally different beast.
You  must have i nice workshop when you are able to  "shave material off of it".

verpies mentioned also to try to "ping" the used ferrite rods to see how long and at what frequency the ring.
I still want to do that.

Thanks for your input,  regards Itsu

Here is a thread I started about 6 years ago on the topic. Obviously much progress has been made since, however I no longer have the time to record all I do. If you have specific questions, i can absolutely point you in the right direction. Also, all I did to shave the ceramic magnet was use a tile saw over a  long time, very very small changes.


http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5762-missing-fundamental-generator.html

armagdn03

thanks for the info and link, i see a lot of familiar names there.
I will go through it.

Regards Itsu