I've posted comments on this topic http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4289.0.html which is about gravity, but it better suits here.
(copy&pasting from above mentioned thread - I'm talking about toroid magnet, but that can be any substance - whichever works best - whichever produces higher output - be it plastic or wood)
Before going into further detail you could read this hypothesis: http://peswiki.com/index.php?title=Directory:Anti-Gravity:DC_Acoustic_Waves_Hypothesis
***
OK, if the concept I've offered is valid, what happens when you pass a sharp transient over the wire that is wound around the toroid magnet? Probably a space-time curvature will change around the wire and thus around the toroid. This should immediately result in some kind of 'skew' inside the toroid which matter (as a general principle) will have to make more even (this is similar to temperature equalization). If the space-time skew is ultra heavy (under high frequency operation and high currents) the magnet will go crackles under the wire. I do not know where this equalizing energy should come from, but it may come from the future - well, it's a complex system I cannot grasp with my mind at the moment.
As I've suggested it is better to use a sawtooth wave. And as I've noted if you will be using a square wave the space-time changes will negate each other and no excessive energy will be available on the toroid. In my opinion, pulse generation and surplus energy collection should be run independently (in two separate circuits) so that pulses are minimally interferred with energy feedback.
Even if this theory is valid, one should be sure the magnet is not depleted at an accelerated rate. In this case it will simply turn into a magnetic battery and it won't solve the problem of free energy. On the other hand such pulsing may simply decrease the half-life of the element. In this case it can be considered a free energy source with the energy taken from the matter directly (E=mc^2 is a pretty huge amount for daily work). As for the requirement of magnetic material toroid, it may be needed just to tap excessive energy easy way. The excessive energy should be available with any material (e.g. metal), but it won't be possible to tap it into circuitry (it may appear as heat or ultra-sonic waves). Magnetic field fluctuations are easier to use. But this suggests me that it is very important to measure the character of these fluctuations to get the most from the device: it may be very impractical to have high-frequency electric currents in the circuitry (in an average schematic it will turn into heat most of the time). Instead, it may be beneficial to build a schematic that moves higher frequency oscillation energy to lower frequencies right after they leave the toroid.
By the way, creating pulsating DC electric field should also do a similar job on the magnet. Of course, field currents and pulse frequencies should be considerable for any serious DC acoustic wave emerging. But I would not try this myself as you may damage your own body badly with this. Toroidal magnets seem like a more safe thing.
One more idea: a wire that is wound around magnet and that is used to pulse the space-time may need to be as thin as possible (without burning) because electric current is known to pass on the edge of the wire. In case of thin wire, more wire can be wound around magnet and thus more internal friction will occur on pulses. In case of a thick wire the core of the wire will be left untouched while thick wire also minimizes length of a wire you can wind on the magnet.
***
Comment on this whole post: there is no reason to use "aether" energy semantics. Space-time (even if not in a common sense) is really enough. What happens when sharp transient is generated is the change of space-time scalar field. However, this is the same as changing ambient temperature and so this change is immediately equalized (matter tends to reach minimum potential energy state): this is where the excessive energy comes from. In my opinion it may come from atomic forces directly, but that causes half-life of the element to decrease since the energy is probably taken from atomic structure (hence this can be seen as taking energy from the future). Of course, a lot of RF energy emission should be occuring during this, which should be shielded (just hope it's not ultra-high energy: Geiger counter should be checked).
Again, no need to fill your mind with "aether" nonsense: well, I like the concept of "aether" when it comes to mechanics and inertia, but let's be real: nobody formulated it well enough to be acceptable.
You may also consider different coil configurations - you may use poles instead of toroid, wires of any thickness. This is all no as important as creating sawtooth pulses of high frequency. The polarity of sawtooth may be also important. I'm suggesting using on-off sawtooth (that goes sharp from 0 to 1, and gradually from 1 to 0). Using an inverse "off-on" sawtooth may also give some effect, but in my opinion it will be reverse: the energy will be taken out of system at an accelerated rate (and thus gravity should increase locally). High-frequency operation is essential as on low frequencies no considerable acoustic DC component will be emerging on every sawtooth transient (the exact frequency is material-dependent and can be found with some automated process). The sawtooth wave should be as clean as possible, without shape distortions: it is important that current goes from 0 to 1 instantly (1 being a destination voltage - be it 10V or 1000V). Any uncontrollable capacitances or electrical reactivity should be minimized. This whole thing depends on the electron flow start that shifts atoms from their positions on every transient. If electron flow start is non-instant, this won't work as no phonon-level collisions between atoms will be occuring.
***
Well, the idea is ULTRA simple here :) (doubt it is valid, though) When anti-gravity is created (which should be the main OU thing behind TPU according to DC acoustic waves concept), matter in the anti-gravity field loses its accumulated energy, when gravity is created, surrounding energy (in form of various elementary particles) is attracted and auto-assembled into matter. It can't be easier than that: billiard balls go right into the pockets (minimal potential energy state). Anti-gravity simply changes the established potential field and so matter disassembles with particles having a hope to find better positions (hence a so called overunity is created).
Idea: it can be probably useful to wind thin wire (that carries sawtooth pulses) right on the insulated wire of energy feedback circuitry (no need to use magnetic core). In this case electrons leaving the matter will go directly into the energy feedback circuitry - of course, this system will "eat itself" with metal gradually transforming into lower mass elements, layer by layer (metal will be losing its thickness).
(sorry if this all is just a bunch of nonsense - I'm simply trying to find at least some sense in all these overunity things). Atomic bomb may work on the same principle: even though it is said that atomic bomb may go on its own after critical mass is reached, I highly doubt chain reaction is possible without creating anti-gravity field first (hence the need of precise implosion). I suppose heavy materials have long half-life time because of their weight: they simply create a higher gravity field around them making the random losing of particles a rare thing (well, it's just one of the reasons, but heavy isotopes are considerably longer-living ones than lighter isotopes of various elements).
bump. Well, due to absence of comments I'm either talking something incomprehensible or too fictitious. But I really hope this is a valid working understanding. Turning Lead into Gold? It should not take too much time as these metals are close to each other on the periodic table (just be sure not to get killed by intermediate elements). :D
In the equation E=mc2 what is considered mass. If an atom is considered as a whole wouldn't an electron leaving it's orbital be considered a conversion of the atom's mass into energy? I know it's only 1/1800 of the proton mass but it is mass. If a dc linear pulse is sent through a field of atoms and results in adding inertia to electrons in one direction and protons in the other would this qualify as conversion of mass to energy? I see it more as the potential energy stored in the inertial frame of the proton and electrons being exchanged with the ambient inertial frames. The restructuring of the mass in the future as potential energy of the ambient inertial field being returned to the atomic resonance or atomic mass. This whole procedure having very little to do with gravitons. I am beginning to doubt the existence of gravity at all. Just potential energy exchange from one inertial frame to the other. The Suns gravity is nothing more than a result of how much potential energy it has in it's resonant inertial frame.
Thanks for your response. If gravity can be changed by means of acoustic (phonon) means, this will put E=mc^2 into a "mistake" category. And of course, a lot of physical systems like quantum mechanics and general/special relativity will soon be changed or forgotten. It is very probable that gravity can be changed, and there are evidences exist suggesting this to be true (e.g. gravity is higher near ocean surface).
In my opinion, mass is a "virtual" measure which really sets relation between "average" atomic structure of one object and the other. This measure does not and cannot account for induced gravity changes. Mass being a "virtual" measure means that what is more important is atomic structure of the matter, because it ulimately suggests how strong a matter can be attracted by gravity, and how much gravity matter can create itself.
In my concept gravity is no more than an acoustic wave. That is why it is so weak. However, it is possible to arrange an experiment that can answer the question about acoustic nature of gravity. A bit of TNT should be exploded inside a high vacuum chamber, shielded from all RF emissions. If some kind of ultra-sensitive "resonator" near this chamber will oscillate this may suggest that gravity has acoustic nature. Of course, the order of vacuum should guarantee that no impact wave from exploding TNT reaches chamber's enclosure. In this scenario only DC acoustic waves may penetrate the chamber. Well, the problem of experimentation is actually more complex here since DC acoustic wave affects ALL substances within reach, so you can't just put a resonator and see how it oscillates relative to some "base", because base itself will be affected as well. But I believe it is possible to choose an arrangement that may reveal gravity change: probably a system of several resonators and bases put at different positions relative to the vacuum chamber can be used. Probably atomic clocks can be used for checking: they should be affected by jitter arising from a strong gravity force and will go out of sync relative to atomic clock placed at a longer distance from the vacuum chamber.
If gravity is a DC acoustic wave, it is possible to equate its power to the amount of energy it "transfers" to the object staying on its way (and hence gravity shielding is possible - not what current gravity understanding suggests, but experimentations tell us that gravity shielding is a reality - e.g. when moon stands between Sun and Earth). Of course, emitted DC acoustic wave energy is considered "lost" (the same is true for normal acoustic waves). Otherwise it would not have an infinitely distant reach.
Among other ideas I had is that DC acoustic wave can be modeled as an acoustic mode in the case of sonoluminescense. The air bubble that shrinks down in the acoustic mode "pit" can be thought as a particle falling into a massive gravity "pit". What happens with the particle there is the same thing as with the air bubble: it shrinks; in the case of macro object this creates a change of the length standard I was talking about. It can't be simpler than that, really.
@aleks
From what I understand, E=mc^2 is special relativity. That is, it relates to speed of light of an observer, inertial frames, etc.
I do not think that would not necessarily be violated by new theory of gravity. I think it is general relativity that would fail. But that is just my personal thoughts!
QuoteEinstein developed general relativity to apply the principle generally, that is, to any frame, and that theory includes the effects of gravity. Strictly, Special relativity cannot be applied in accelerating frames or in gravitational fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
"In my opinion, mass is a "virtual" measure"
I think so too.
Back to acoustic waves...
You mention an interesting theory. Are you saying acoustic waves can travel in vacuum? Is there evidence available that shows sound can travel in vacuum? Does sound account for gravity at speed of 340.29 m/s ?
Here is the "conventional" understanding:
Acoustic waves imply compression and rarefaction of mass. They need a medium in which to travel, which is why acoustic waves cannot travel with an absence of air (or water or solid). So they do not travel in a vacuum. Acoustic waves also travels very slow, and probably travels too slow to account for gravity.
What are your thoughts?
Also, by DC acoustic wave, are you thinking more of a DC longitudinal wave (aka scalar wave, compressional wave) which travels at light speed? I might be wrong here though. In any case, the standard model of physics has not managed to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces. So this whole area is wide open. . .
Here is a picture of what I'm talking about:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geo.arizona.edu%2Fxtal%2Fnats101%2F6_4.jpg&hash=6aedbd31f85eacf52715e75e08240e673a6ab08e)
Cell phone calls are TRANSVERSE EM radiation and 'can travel in vacuum'.
Scalar waves are LONGITUDINAL EM radiation and 'can travel in vacuum'.
Sound waves are LONGITUDINAL 'mass-compression' radiation and 'cannot travel in vacuum'.
Your thoughts appreciated,
Feynman
Well, special relativity puts a fundamental limit on speed of any particle or wave: speed of light. If DC acoustic waves exist, their speed is infinite (or close to infinite). According to some measurements (mentioned in Gravity and Antigravity article referenced in my hypothesis), "Tom Van Flandern calculates from binary-pulsar data that gravitons must propagate at least 20 billion times faster than light!" Tom Van Flandern, ?The speed of gravity ? what the experiments say?, Meta Research Bulletin, 6:4, 1997, pp. 49-62.
I've described my understanding that DC acoustic wave should travel at an infinite speed because its frequency is equal to zero. The length of the wave can be equated as: L=s/f. (s - speed of sound, f - frequency, in oscillations/second). In the case of f=0 the formula becomes non-functional. So, I'm deducing that speed of DC acoustic wave becomes infinite. Well, you may argue of course, but only experiment may show if that's the case or not. Not to say that "by understanding" the front of this wave should not propagate, but should immediately change conditions. Only normal acoustic waves can have a propagating wavefront that causes gradual compression, followed by decompression (action and reaction). DC acoustic wave would not be DC if it propagated that way as well. DC acoustic waves do not cause reaction.
This is of course a deduction, but it looks pretty logical to me, and is supported by observation and measurements. E.g. gravity is higher near ocean surface because ocean waves naturally cause a lot of DC acoustic waves because of movements of masses of water, and these movements are probably "expansive" rather than compressive; vortex is a result of "expansive" movement in my opinion; when waves collide this creates a "compressive" movement.
As for the acoustic waves travelling in vacuum, I'm pretty sure that if you apply normal acoustic waves theory (which deals with probabilities of molecular mechanics and collisions) to acoustic waves hundreds kilometers long and SPL of thousands dB, it will penetrate any vacuum and may travel at unexpectable speeds - N.Tesla was mentioning this fact (the so called atmospheric "barrier" for waves he wanted to send to Moon - the barrier was actually imposed by vacuum surrounding earth's atmosphere).
Quote from: aleks on March 26, 2008, 05:02:45 AM
Well, special relativity puts a fundamental limit on speed of any particle or wave: speed of light. If DC acoustic waves exist, their speed is infinite (or close to infinite). According to some measurements (mentioned in Gravity and Antigravity article referenced in my hypothesis), "Tom Van Flandern calculates from binary-pulsar data that gravitons must propagate at least 20 billion times faster than light!" Tom Van Flandern, ?The speed of gravity ? what the experiments say?, Meta Research Bulletin, 6:4, 1997, pp. 49-62.
I've described my understanding that DC acoustic wave should travel at an infinite speed because its frequency is equal to zero. The length of the wave can be equated as: L=s/f. (s - speed of sound, f - frequency, in oscillations/second). In the case of f=0 the formula becomes non-functional. So, I'm deducing that speed of DC acoustic wave becomes infinite. Well, you may argue of course, but only experiment may show if that's the case or not. Not to say that "by understanding" the front of this wave should not propagate, but should immediately change conditions. Only normal acoustic waves can have a propagating wavefront that causes gradual compression, followed by decompression (action and reaction). DC acoustic wave would not be DC if it propagated that way as well. DC acoustic waves do not cause reaction.
This is of course a deduction, but it looks pretty logical to me, and is supported by observation and measurements. E.g. gravity is higher near ocean surface because ocean waves naturally cause a lot of DC acoustic waves because of movements of masses of water, and these movements are probably "expansive" rather than compressive; vortex is a result of "expansive" movement in my opinion; when waves collide this creates a "compressive" movement.
As for the acoustic waves travelling in vacuum, I'm pretty sure that if you apply normal acoustic waves theory (which deals with probabilities of molecular mechanics and collisions) to acoustic waves hundreds kilometers long and SPL of thousands dB, it will penetrate any vacuum and may travel at unexpectable speeds - N.Tesla was mentioning this fact (the so called atmospheric "barrier" for waves he wanted to send to Moon - the barrier was actually imposed by vacuum surrounding earth's atmosphere).
Gravitons are a mathematical particle that "explains" gravity. Because there virtual (at least thats what I heard) they can exceed the speed of light (or go slower). But I completely agree with you, it's just plain wrong to make an exception this big. This is the failure in our excepted system.
Quote from: sparks on March 25, 2008, 11:11:07 AM
In the equation E=mc2 what is considered mass. If an atom is considered as a whole wouldn't an electron leaving it's orbital be considered a conversion of the atom's mass into energy? I know it's only 1/1800 of the proton mass but it is mass. If a dc linear pulse is sent through a field of atoms and results in adding inertia to electrons in one direction and protons in the other would this qualify as conversion of mass to energy? I see it more as the potential energy stored in the inertial frame of the proton and electrons being exchanged with the ambient inertial frames. The restructuring of the mass in the future as potential energy of the ambient inertial field being returned to the atomic resonance or atomic mass. This whole procedure having very little to do with gravitons. I am beginning to doubt the existence of gravity at all. Just potential energy exchange from one inertial frame to the other. The Suns gravity is nothing more than a result of how much potential energy it has in it's resonant inertial frame.
Another try to answer your question. Well, I do not know that much about structure of the matter (beside usual atomic and particle models), but what I think should be correct is the assumption that electron's kinetic energy is "captured" by the atom. An example would be a push-push button lock: first push locks the door and the spring holds potential energy, second push unlocks the door and the spring converts potential energy into kinetic energy and the button goes out. I pretty much believe electrons work the same way: it is like filling bullet magazine: you keep adding bullets and the spring accumulates more and more potential energy at the same time keeping bullets compacted. In this case, the amount of stored potential energy is not related to the push required to release it, especially if the whole system is based on balance of forces: just add a bit of disbalance and electrons will be firing out of it returning all potential energy used to keep them together, to kinetic form (heat and electricity, mainly heat).
Also, if E=mc^2 is invalid (how can you really check it?) various masses (proton, neutron, etc) may not be valid as well, and quantum mechanics generally may need a lot of changes. Proton is a hydrogen atom without an electron, and that may suggest that it is a system of electrons that stores potential energy, so it may not be a whole new particle: just a combination of electrons "locked" to each other, maybe even via gravity force which may be the "last element" that keeps electrons together (not to mention that gravity force is ultra-high near the center of its emission - not to forget that force may be shielded by attracted electrons; by the way, pressure in the center of an acoustic mode is also ultra-high though it is not obvious). Well, hydrogen being a proton, and proton being a hydrogen is a problematic cross-reference in my opinion. What's more important is to understand how this hydrogen-proton is formed: well, from quarks of course, but it all becomes pretty complex to study.
As for the gravity, according to my hypothesis, proton being so "massive" suggests that its internal structure may be tuned to produce DC acoustic waves and hence it creates a lot of energy that attributes to mass. However, it may in reality be composed of more "bread and butter" particles like electrons (they are known to repel from each other, but if you add a source of strong gravity force the electrons may stick to each other and store some potential energy). If much potential energy is stored in proton's structure, such particle may produce mass DC acoustic waves for a long time, but eventually it will of course, disintegrate. Protons being the most wide-spread substance in the universe suggests that the idea of self-assembly of particles under some field like gravity to be valid. Who knows, maybe electron looks more like a four-leaf clover and not as a bubble?
Thankyou for considering my posts. I really do believe that all mass is simply the amount of potential energy in a given inertial frame. The potential energy comes in the form of vibrations. I believe Einstein called it the at rest energy. The more potential energy in an inertial frame the more mass. I also believe charge has to do with the spinor resonance of the field. The neutron mass could then be explained as that portion of the vibrations of an atomic structure that does not achieve spinor resonance.
Just alot of theory until you do the math. :D
Quote from: sparks on March 26, 2008, 05:23:36 PM
Thankyou for considering my posts. I really do believe that all mass is simply the amount of potential energy in a given inertial frame. The potential energy comes in the form of vibrations. I believe Einstein called it the at rest energy. The more potential energy in an inertial frame the more mass. I also believe charge has to do with the spinor resonance of the field. The neutron mass could then be explained as that portion of the vibrations of an atomic structure that does not achieve spinor resonance.
Just alot of theory until you do the math. :D
Well, it's up to you how you build your theory (whatever works best for you). However, in my opinion "mass" is not created automatically by potential energy. Compacted spring does not change its mass. Mass is created by a specific combination of particles "locked" to each other and in prolonged motion, so mass cannot be created by particles without internal structure that could create kinetic energy waves (acoustic or phonon waves). For example, if we dismiss the normal understanding of the matter, we may assume that electron has no mass. However, two electrons CAN create kinetic energy waves if they collide or pass nearby each other, and so system of two electrons has its own mass. And so, a single electron cannot attract surrounding matter while a system of two electrons may attract surrounding matter. But both a single electron and a system of two electrons DO gain kinetic energy in gravity field (which is, according to my hypothesis is a field that transfers acoustic energy instantly to all surrounding objects and thus creates a gradual length standard deviation due to its "infinite speed").
Charge is a very simple concept in my opinion. Charge cannot be lower than an elementary electric charge (electron's charge), so all charges are quantized by this charge. Since electron cannot be infinitesimal (otherwise it would be hard to build it into kinetic theories), it is pretty safe to assume that electron has a field which repels from alike fields, and this field can be expressed as a scalar field gradient (this should allow for elasticity of interactions and potential energy storage). And so, when we are talking about a charge, we mean how many electrons with such field are present in a volume of space. How the field is created? I do not know, and this is probably not important at all. But on a quicker idea, electron may represent an anti-gravity formation itself (however, this will suggest that it has some internal structure - I just hope this subdivision is finite).
@Aleks,
I like your theory. Its always interresting to ponder over the very difficult things I think.
I found this article when I was studying Bremsstrahlung.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/magnetic/mass.html
Maybe you find it interresting
Greetings Rene
Quote from: Spider on May 04, 2008, 02:23:32 PM
@Aleks,
I like your theory. Its always interresting to ponder over the very difficult things I think.
I found this article when I was studying Bremsstrahlung.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/magnetic/mass.html
Maybe you find it interresting
Greetings Rene
Thanks. Bremsstrahlung electromagnetic radiation is interesting (note the infinite power at DC), this article is also interesting, but not to the same degree.
I think the author of this article plays acrobatic tricks with formulas too much. He deducts that magnetic field of a single electron depends on its velocity while from the common knowledge an electric current and its induced magnetic field depends not only on the velocity of electrons, but also on number of travelling electrons. So, if we assume that magnetic field of a single electron does not depend on its velocity, this theory becomes non-physical.
BTW, while Bremsstrahlung somehow corresponds to DC acoustic waves, you should understand that since modern physics is based on conservation of energy dogma, "official" Bremsstrahlung cannot be used to create overunity. Well, it may create overunity upon successful matter transmutation, but that's still corresponds to conservation of energy.
While I myself going a bit "further" - with my DC acoustic waves hypothesis I'm trying to speculate that energy can be created literally out of nowhere: it is like "densification" of energy produced from interaction of matter. (destruction of energy is also possible - in that case it will be a "rarefication" of energy)
I read your peswiki text. I can imagine a bit more vivid what you mean.
The link about gravity /antigravity I have to read some more.
I have been reading so many things the last months, my head spins sometimes...
Most of it in english, and by that not being my native language, its even more difficult.
About the Bremsstrahlung, how many high speed elektrons would it take to slam into the tpu to generate eg. 100 Watts of power.
It would be nice to have a compact overview of all the tpu theories on the forum, the more I read back, the more I find, many of them double.
Greeetings Rene
Quote from: Spider on May 04, 2008, 06:06:29 PM
About the Bremsstrahlung, how many high speed elektrons would it take to slam into the tpu to generate eg. 100 Watts of power.
I can't tell because my hypothesis is not quantitative at this point of time. While I doubt conventional physics can give you an answer as well. If bremsstrahlung is used to produce atomic decay, conventional physics will probably tell you that COP (number of successful strikes/total number of strikes) of this transformation will be so small you won't get more out than you put in. So, the only way is to experiment.
I do not think you should limit yourself to bremsstrahlung alone, because this effect from what I've read is based on electron-atom collisions. DC acoustic waves can be produced from collision of anything with anything - as long as phonon interaction between particles is present. "Power" of DC acoustic wave depends on the rate of change of kinetic energy of particles, so in most cases it is possible to create non-symmetric DC acoustic waves - this is a basis for pure energy and propulsion engines that do not require mass ejection.
Quote from: Loner on May 05, 2008, 03:46:53 AM
SO, Taking what I have typed above, and opening to "Anything is Possible", I come back
around to the start. The only way I can reconcile DC & Acoustic & Wave at the same time
without including the "Mass" as a carrier (Possible in vacuum)
I think you've grasped my concept correctly ("anything is possible") - indeed, DC acoustic wave formations can be mixed together to form very complex forces. However, there is no connection to longitudal waves. DC acoustic wave is a field of "length standard" deviation.
The only thing you are missing is that mass is already in the concept: DC acoustic waves can only be created from kinetic interaction of masses (hence I'm always talking about explosion and imposion). DC is of course 'direct current', and I mean that. I know it is partially misleading, but there is no such thing as 'zero frequency'. Of course, strictly speaking DC acoustic waves == zero frequency acoustic waves. However, Fourier transform deals with DC component - it does not say 'we have a component of zero frequency', because it is even more misleading. In the essence, DC and "zero frequency" are same entities in my hypothesis. Do not be attached to words and their meanings in other fields of knowledge (in the case of "DC", electronics).
qoute A: DC acoustic waves can be produced from collision of anything with anything - as long as phonon interaction between particles is present.
If I understand correctly, would that mean that if I had 2 coils, with opposing magnetic fields(equals mass), which are created in a very short peroid of time and then vanish again, they would create a DC acoustic wave? Like the 2 clapping hands? And if they clap frequently enough, I would create a magnetic potential?
Greetings Rene
see a speaker there, it reminds me that SM worked with speakers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustics#Transduction_in_acoustics
so it should be a gravity wave speaker to receive gravity waves.
Quote from: Spider on May 05, 2008, 05:46:16 AM
If I understand correctly, would that mean that if I had 2 coils, with opposing magnetic fields(equals mass), which are created in a very short peroid of time and then vanish again, they would create a DC acoustic wave? Like the 2 clapping hands? And if they clap frequently enough, I would create a magnetic potential?
Unfortunately, EM fields are massless, that's why I doubt you can create DC acoustic waves from plain magnetic or electric field interactions. Beside that EM fields do not interact via phonons - they interact via photons. Generally speaking, I think waves (be them EM or acoustic) cannot create DC acoustic waves. Only collision (or avoidance) of two impact waves within matter may produce DC acoustic wave, because impact wave creates a "moving densification of matter" thus forming a kind of solid matter. So it's possible that two EM radio impulses directed toward each other can be also used to create DC acoustic wave formations.
Quote from: shimondoodkin on May 05, 2008, 05:53:18 AM
see a speaker there, it reminds me that SM worked with speakers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustics#Transduction_in_acoustics
so it should be a gravity wave speaker to receive gravity waves.
Well, gravity is not so easy to catch and differentiate from earth's gravity field. It should be a nano-scale "speaker" or array of such speakers with some clever arrangement that may filter out non-gravitic influences.
Although not quite in the realm of this topic, I just want to have some feedback on something I was thinking about concerning some clues on the workings of the tpu.
A car engine, when running at idle, the internal resistance of the engine is in equilibruim with the amount of fuel supplied to the carburator.
If a load put on the engine, the trottle has to be applied to reach an new equilibrium.
The same goes for the tpu.
Obviously, a tpu in operation is in equilibrium. Energy drawn from its illusive source is equal to the energy lost in resistance.
If turned on, a voltage is measured. The voltage is constant. I carefully watch the garage video, specially the moment SM connects the first and second lamp. There is no significant drop in the voltage reading on the voltmeter.(arround 91,2V)
I just tested this at home: I put a voltmeter in a wallsocket, 231 VAC. I switch on a 150W lamp, gives a voltage drop of about 1 VAC . After about 1 sec the voltage is up to 231 VAC again.
So, this makes me come to the following conclusion:
The TPU HAS to have a mechanisme which is able to do that.
I think finding this mechanisme before attempting any replication is vital.
An analogy would be a generator with a big flywheel, driven by a small elektric motor to compensate for resistance and applied load.
I think the tpu is a second order system, and concidering the response time when a load is connected, its energy content must be many times higher then the load.
Greetings Rene
Quote from: Spider on May 05, 2008, 07:27:39 AM
The TPU HAS to have a mechanisme which is able to do that.
Not necessary since transition time to the state of balance can be short - so it can be speculated that SM TPU's "cycle" is very short. In case of engine and power line the cycle is long: e.g. big power plant turbines are usually rotating slowly. Power transformers used in grid lines are also usually big and slow.
Maybe I should refrase: Any replicated tpu has to have a mechanisme capable of ligthing a lamp, without a significant drop in output voltage...
It is my simple attempt to reverse engineer the tpu based on function and properties, instead of parts.
As a mechanical engineer I came accross many control system, elektric motors with encoders and frequency controlers.
As a delphi programmer, I have learned about objects, methods, events and properties.
As to one of the properties of the tpu, its energy source, your DC acoustic wave theory is a good candidate.
Maybe with more people together we can complete the list.
Greetings Rene
Spider
A rogowski coil has that feature... The more you load it the more current and the windings are perp to the primary
@BEP,
That post was a while ago....
I know sooooooooooooooo much more today ;D ;D
Greetings Rene
Sorry.
The cell phone web pages don't show much.
Hello Rene
A note on load regulation: The devices tested by Schinzinger and others seemed to exhibit excellent load regulation, with no reported change in voltage output with a two times load increase (amps).
This would point to one of two things, either an inherent extremely low output impedance of the generator or some form of feedback regulation to cause an effective low output impedance.
In a standard DC machine or generator, this can be accomplished by using the output current drain to directly modulate field current. In some DC machines an extra high current field winding is in series with the output of the DC machine. In this type of self excitation, load regulation can be excellent without any type of "active component regulation control circuit", providing the winding is properly sized (number of turns).
With this in mind, we can hypothesize that a bias winding could be in series with the output such that as more current is attempted to be drawn, a stronger biasing field is produced, thus greater alignment of flux and increased power output as in a DC machine.
This makes sense from the standpoint that the speed of the rotating field winds up slowly and cannot quickly slew to new values as loads change.
In the videos, SM makes intermittent contact with the lamps, going from no load to full load a few times. Also in the arcing probe tips as the flame discharge is demonstrated, no load to high load is shown without having to wait for the speed of rotation to catch up.
As in a DC machine, speed is not necessarily varied, field intensity often is.
These ideas do not rule out active circuitry for output power control, they just point to alternative methods. Anyone familiar with DC rotating generators can appreciate this.
............V
@Vortex1
In a DC Generator, increasing current draw will increase BEMF and thus increase drag, even if the field coils are directly coupled to the output through any component providing a ratio of output power to the field coil. The drag will still want to stop the generator and thus you will need to compensate with more torque on the drive motor. But from my experience with many DC generators, I have yet to see one that is directly coupling the field coil to the output. These types of generators will usually have a separate two wire connection to the field coils since usually, you will supply this with a different volts/amps then the output. Also the drive motor is usually a set capacity and the only way to produce a variable voltage output is by regulating the power going to the field coil.
This can be more directly seen by standard gas powered generators. The more current you draw, the electronic control will compensate by automatically making the gas engine run with more torque. That is the type of control one would require.
In the LTPU, voltage was already at 800 volts and from the number of lights connected, there was already at least 1 amp of current available. When he did the sparking, he used a resistor on the output. I do not believe that there is any ramping up of current during operation or more precisely during an increase in current draw. This is evident when you consider that each TPU had its particular load matched to it production capacity. On the LTPU, he did not first run it with 5 bulbs, then with 10 bulbs. He used 10 bulbs right away to match the output. The 6TPU was also matched with the loads at 120 volts via the vacuum cleaner, drill and TV via the inverter. The only TPU that showed a variable load was the OTPU when he plugged one then two lamps, but there, the demo presents many flaws including the possibility that the lamps had some batteries in them. The FTPU was never loaded.
Wattsup
I think we have a communications problem
QuoteIn a DC Generator, increasing current draw will increase BEMF and thus increase drag, even if the field coils are directly coupled to the output through any component providing a ratio of output power to the field coil.
Totally agree, never said anything to the contrary.
QuoteThe drag will still want to stop the generator and thus you will need to compensate with more torque on the drive motor.
Of course, Lenz's law has yet to be repealed. Did I say something contrary to this?
QuoteBut from my experience with many DC generators, I have yet to see one that is directly coupling the field coil to the output. These types of generators will usually have a separate two wire connection to the field coils since usually, you will supply this with a different volts/amps then the output
I never said the field coil was directly connected to the output. I said "this can be accomplished by using the output
current drain to
directly modulate field current. In some DC machines an extra high current field
winding is in series with the output of the DC machine.
This is the same as using a current shunt on the output and feeding the mV signal from the current shunt to a control device for the field current. Again, in the example I cited from DC machines at the turn of the century (last one, not this one) the current shunt comprises a few turns of heavy guage wire inside the machine, concentric with the normal field windings and
in series with the output.
In this manner load is sensed and compensated automatically, provided the winding is properly sized in ampere turns.
Of course it would be utter stupidity to connect the field directly across the output. That is not what I was implying.
QuoteThis can be more directly seen by standard gas powered generators. The more current you draw, the electronic control will compensate by automatically making the gas engine run with more torque. That is the type of control one would require.
In my post I was not referring to a closed loop gas driven generator system that we all are quite familiar with. I was referring to a DC machine as an auxiliary device on a much larger prime mover where feedback to the engine is not possible because it is being used as part of some other power system. e.g hydraulic
QuoteI do not believe that there is any ramping up of current during operation or more precisely during an increase in current draw.
Here we agree and this was exactly my point, there is no time to ramp up the current, so there must be an inherent excellent regulation capability within the device.
QuoteOn the LTPU, he did not first run it with 5 bulbs, then with 10 bulbs. He used 10 bulbs right away to match the output.
In the Schinzinger report for the 15" unit he went from one bank of 5 (1.2 amps 614 volts) to two banks of 5 with not one volt drop until the unit heated up later. Then the measurement went down to 598 volts. So instantaneous load regulation was slightly better than 0.2% considering the limit of readout resolution of the data supplied.
Sorry if I caused any confusion..........think I'll take a break, this bandwidth is too narrow
V
Short break
For further information on compound fields I have attached a PDF.
Google "series and compound dynamos" and you will get a good idea of the technique.
It appears nearly any regulation load line is possible with this method from flat to a slight increase in output voltage when the load is increased (percent over compound.)
It is a clever means of load regulation of DC dynamos evolved before automatic electronic systems were possible. It's simplicity and robustness are appealing.
.......V