Quote from: tinman on October 23, 2017, 09:10:59 AM
Wow,this thread just popped up from years gone by.

Smudge,is this the correct device you are referring to ?



Brad

Yes that's the one.  If you look back at earlier posts on this thread you will see that another group are convinced that the Stromerzeuger was a scam and the Norrby patent did not claim power amplification, only voltage amplification.  But it is clear to me from the descriptions of the Coler/Unruh Stromerzeuger that it was derived from that Norrby device.

Smudge

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on October 23, 2017, 11:40:29 AM
[...]the figures from the German original never got reproduced because they did not have access to them.

Hi Smudge,

The diagrams might also have been available in the original B.I.O.S. document, but of little use for reproducing a working
prototype because the 1943 Coler/Frohlich report states :

"Apart from the great number of alternative arrangements and
connections between the different parts, - during the period
covered by this report eight different circuit diagrams were
tested in addition to the experiments above - the following as
far unsolved problems are hindering success in making the
apparatus work [...]"

So, we have to assume that, either the diagrams in the Coler/Frohlich report (drawn by Coler after his breakdown) were possibly erroneous or the procedure to get the stromerzeuger started and/or pre-magnetize the core magnets were only known by Willi von Unruh (who presumably died in 1937 possibly during the bombing which destroyed the working prototypes along with the related documents including the drawings describing the 6 kW machine version).
The engineer team gathered by Hudson in 1947 might have been faced with the same problems for reproducing the stromerzeuger than those encountered by the Frohlich's team in 1943, which reported failure for experiments 1 and 3 and gave inconclusive results for experiments 2 and 4.
In particular, the experiment 3 (successfully reproduced by "the inventor and his assistant Dipl. Ing. Rudolf Hingst" from measurements on the 1937 working machine) which could have validated the current amplification phenomena, could not be reproduced.

Despite these failures, Coler wrote in his statement relating to the Frohlich'experiments :

"In order to prevent any possible objection, that
the iron had any influence on the results, the whole transformer
was out out during the experiments and an iron-free flat coil
arrangement used as the inductor during these experiments.
[...]I can consider my discovery of the energy difference between the opening
and closing impulse as proved on the basis ot Frohlich' s
experiments.
The result obtained with this experimental arrangement,
[...] was the clear proof of a considerably larger energy during opening (intake), compared with closing impulses.
my intuitively derived view, based on my most primitive experiments, of these
processes has proved correct [...] as my development of the "Space energy
receiver" was based on this and was successful."

So, Coler was convinced that his machines worked as space energy receivers and the role played by the magnetic material was not essential for their operation. The "iron-free flat coil arrangement" he refers to for supporting his successful result is unclear because the corresponding figure 4 only schematizes a standard air-core transformer (alike as the sliding air-core coils used for the magnetstromapparat).  Most surprising is the association of the words "flat coil" and "iron-free" because the flat coils are usually associated to the flat rectangular coil circuit between the plates (these coils are always air-core coils in the Norrby patent), the transformer coils referring to the coils placed in zigzag formation between the two stacks of plates (called the directing circuit). What did he mean when he said "the whole transformer was out out during the experiments"? Did he refer to the directing circuit? The condenser plates seem also to have been absent during these experiments. So, the energy excess observed would only come from the flat coils arrangement. What is your feeling about this experiment?

Coler proudly claimed that "[his] intuitively derived view based on [his] most primitive experiments [...] has proved correct".

The Hudson letter states:

"Coler has written a note describing his theory of the operation.
This is in our hands and being translated."

It might have been interesting to have this note to have Coler's vision about the principle of operation of his machines.

Antigrav89

Where is the Coler's principle of operation theory document ? Is that known ?

Quote from: forest on October 24, 2017, 02:50:25 PM
Where is the Coler's principle of operation theory document ? Is that known ?

I have not seen it but you will find the response from someone who had seen it in the forum that Shanti referred to earlier http://www.energiederzukunft.org/forum/5-allgemeines-forum/285-hans-coler
Go to page 11 reply 381 where there are images of letters form the UK National Archives.  One letter says (with typing errors corrected here) "The report is a rather pathetic personal document showing the picture of a very earnest but entirely untrained observer who has stumbled across discoveries, the explanation of which he is incapable of furnishing. while attempting to do so on a basis of elementary (matriculation standard) physics"

Smudge

Hi Smudge,

Thank you for the link to the original Coler German documents.

When comparatively studying the two Coler machines, it appears to me that the stromerzeuger and the magnetstromapparat share two common characteristics:

- the E-field and B-field in each element are parallel to each other
- the E-fields and the B-fields in the circuit formed by the different coupled elements sum up to zero

The first condition is known to occur in the case of resonant cavities producing standing waves.
The second condition fills the requirement for the existence of scalar waves propagating in the system.

In the case of the magnetstromapparat, the E-field is created by the current passing through the core magnet.
This E-field is due to the difference between the electric conductivities in the iron surface layer and the copper wire in the coil:
injected charges from the copper wire accumulate on the magnet surface at one electrode faster than they flow towards the other electrode by passing through the surface magnet layer, thus creating a potential difference. 

In the case of the stromerzeuger, the E-field created by the capacitor plates is parallel with the B-Field created by the flat coil between the plates.

In the experiment 3 described in the Coler/Frohlich report, the null result is explained by the fact that the two electric induction currents flowing in opposite directions mutually cancel.
This situation is formally equivalent to two oppositely charged currents that would flow in the same direction, one current carrying negative charges (electrons) and the other one carrying positive charges (positrons) resulting from the charge separation from a vacuum pair fluctuation state.
Here it is interesting that the "charge separation" concept is also the hypothesis made by Coler in the Appendix I of the B.I.O.S. report to explain the principle operation of the Stromerzeuger.
How such a charge separation could be possible from the physics point of view?
The response might come from the Aharonov-Bohm dephasage effect, which, in the special case of scalar waves cancels (the four-potential integrand is a total exact differential that zeroes over a closed integration path), allowing to the electronic and positronic currents to travel in phase without destructively interacting.
If I am correct, we could be in presence of a new form of superconductivity based on electron-positron pairs.
It might be explain why the Frohlich's experiments on separate parts of the machine failed to find the cause of the current amplification in the Stromerzeuger: scalar waves only manifest in special circuit geometrical configurations that allow the total E-fields and B-fields to cancel and the system under study has to be considered as a whole.
What do you think about my analysis?

Antigrav89