Theories concerning Hans Coler's Stromerzeuger

[Shanti]

@Smudge:
Sorry don't want to be rude, but postulating such ideas, way off from experimental state sure is possible, but does IMHO not make too much sense.
IMHO you possibly drifted off way too much into the theoretical speculation world...

So my advise would be, just make ONE simple experiment, based on your ideas, which should yield anything special, for the verification of your ideas...

IMHO you try too hard to see any evidence in known allegedly FE-devices verifying your ideas. Probably you are tinkering about this idea already since a long time, accepting all not so common known effects, and integrating them into your theory to give yourself credibility. I meant this in relation to yourself.
If you do this long enough, you will become quite convinced, that your theory is true.
But did you ever do the exact math? Did you ever do an experiment verifying your theory?
I would bet my left foot, that the asnwer will be "No".
If it isn't then please link you experimental or calculation data, as I would be very interested.

As said, read the thread in the german forum, as he has dug out much more, than jus the Reichskanzeli files, and you will very likely also come to the conclusion, that the Stromerzeuger was never OU. Even more, that it seems they deliberately made the device in a way as to trick people, by letting them measure wrong values.

Otherwise stated: If you can clearly make a copy of a Magnetstromapperat, and it works, as described by Coler, and if your setup clearly runs purely on a galvanic effect, what are the odds, that it actually runs completely different?
I know, sometimes it is hard to accept the truth, especially if it violates or does not contribute one's own truth...
But as said, in science, there's occam's razor: The simplest explanation, is most possibly the correct one. And the simplest explanation explaining the devices is a purely conventional one.
So IMHO making a tie from the Coler apparatus here to some fancy theory is IMHO quite a bit far fetched...
As said, IMHO it would make more sense to discuss this theory on its own and make experiments verifying this theory.

BTW: About the zig-zag formation.
IMHO is is quite obvious why they made it that way. You need a DC current from one battery to adjust the bias point of the transductors. This is wasted energy.
So by arranging them in zig zag and also using permanent magnetic material they could increase the base field in these cores, so that they did not need anymore that much power from the battery to get to the bias point.
That's what I would do too, so that the power from the battery is then really just needed for a tiny adjustment of the bias point.  As such an electrical adjustment is way easier than a mechanical adjustment (like in the Magnetstromapperat).

Please do not take this as any personal war/offense against you.
It is just, that I, and also a friend of mine, also once fell into such a theoretical hole. And I know, how difficult it is to get out of it again, as the effects of cognitive dissonance can be quite strong.

[Smudge]

Shanti,

You must admit that the Magnetstromapparat and the Stromerzeuger are very different beasts.  You seem to be of the opinion that the M device is fully explained by the galvanic effect and the S device was definitely a scam.  While I can agree with you in regard to the M device I am not convinced about the S.  You said previously that files from the Reichskanlei show that in all demonstrations people were not allowed to put their own meters in the circuit.  That is at odds with the reports from Kloss and Schumann where they obtained meters from other sources, even going so far as to using different types of meter (e.g. hot-wire as against moving-coil) in order to differentiate between AC and DC effects.  So far there has been no evidence that those reports were fabricated, so on the basis that those tests really did happen and they got the OU results quoted I am prepared to believe that the S device might be OU.  As Wanninger (the guy on the energiederzukunft.org forum who has done most of the research there and has built a non-working replication of the Norrby device) says, "I want to believe in it".

You also seem to think that both devices act as "transductors" which I take to mean magnetic amplifiers or saturable reactors.  I think this is pure speculation since from my knowledge of such devices they require closed magnetic paths without any air gaps.  The sharp knee you see on the BH curve for square loop material does not occur when you plot the Flux v current curve if there is an air gap present, and certainly won't occur with coils wound onto rod cores.  Also there is no connection between the saturation effects and any current flowing through the cores.  So IMO the S device is still a mystery, and I think all possible avenues should be explored.  For this reason I am placing my thoughts here on this forum in the hope that they might prompt someone into doing more research.  I agree that it requires simple experiments to be devised that prove the theory, trying to replicate something as complicated as the S device and expect it to work is fanciful.  The work requires laboratory equipment that I do not have, and also IMO access to annealing processes since I think the condition of the Fe is crucial.  Also surface preparation could be important, and as I pointed out the type of insulation between Cu and Fe could play its part.

I am not wedded to any particular theory, I just think people ought to be aware of the somewhat obscure possibilities out there.  If I suffered from cognitive dissonance I would not be offering a number of different possibilities .

[CANGAS]

Coler information is extremely interesting.

Thanks to all very much.


CANGAS 44

[Shanti]

Shanti,

You must admit that the Magnetstromapparat and the Stromerzeuger are very different beasts. 

Only at first sight. At second sight they are way more similiar...

You seem to be of the opinion that the M device is fully explained by the galvanic effect and the S device was definitely a scam.   

Well both were scam. But the Stromerzeuger actually was an invention which works and which, if built correctly will really increase the voltage, but it will not output more power.
That was the problem of the patent translation into the english, where they wrongly translated higher power output, instead of higher output voltage,

You said previously that files from the Reichskanlei show that in all demonstrations people were not allowed to put their own meters in the circuit.  That is at odds with the reports from Kloss and Schumann where they obtained meters from other sources, even going so far as to using different types of meter (e.g. hot-wire as against moving-coil) in order to differentiate between AC and DC effects.  So far there has been no evidence that those reports were fabricated, so on the basis that those tests really did happen and they got the OU results quoted I am prepared to believe that the S device might be OU.  As Wanninger (the guy on the energiederzukunft.org forum who has done most of the research there and has built a non-working replication of the Norrby device) says, "I want to believe in it".

Sure you can always want to believe in it. But you can also believe in pink invisible elephants. That doesn't make them real.
I gave a much shortened version of the story here, as the whole story can be read on the thread I indicated.
And yes, later they were allegedly allowed to bring their own instruments. But as has already been said in the thread indicated. I would also do it like that, but then just wire it differently, so that some hidden wires would be introduced. There are so many possibilities to scam there...
Or maybe they simply put their own instruments exactly there, where the original instruments were. But as they obviously were not connected in the circuit as officially described, they also would have measured the same wrong values.
And as it was very obvious a deliberate scam when it was tested by the two guys I mentioned, there is IMHO absolute no ground to believe there was anything to it anytime before or after.
Or why should this setup have had the instruments placed so in the circuit as to show false data, if it actually worked???

  I think this is pure speculation since from my knowledge of such devices they require closed magnetic paths without any air gaps. 

No they don't. They just have to be saturated to the corresponding working point. And as this is done by an additional coil, there's no need for a closed loop magnetic path.

The sharp knee you see on the BH curve for square loop material does not occur when you plot the Flux v current curve if there is an air gap present, and certainly won't occur with coils wound onto rod cores. 

Simply not true. As said, when you wire an additional coil on it, as it is usually done, and has been done in the Stromerzeuger you can very easily get to any point on the saturation curve even on a rod. Just look at the other thread in the hcrs forum. There the user Dodes has done extensive tests relating to such curves on rod cores. And they showed exactly this behaviour.
Sure an open core is not ideal, but the principle still works.
But as an example just take the principle replication example given above for the Magnetstromapperat. There the cores are also just rods, but the principle still works fine anyways...

Also there is no connection between the saturation effects and any current flowing through the cores.

No idea, what you mean by this???

So IMO the S device is still a mystery, and I think all possible avenues should be explored.  For this reason I am placing my thoughts here on this forum in the hope that they might prompt someone into doing more research.  I agree that it requires simple experiments to be devised that prove the theory, trying to replicate something as complicated as the S device and expect it to work is fanciful.  The work requires laboratory equipment that I do not have, and also IMO access to annealing processes since I think the condition of the Fe is crucial.  Also surface preparation could be important, and as I pointed out the type of insulation between Cu and Fe could play its part.

Sure you can do share your ideas. I do not say anything against that. I just wanted to make you aware of the fact, that maybe your ideas and theoretical constructs already far wandered off from reality as there's not a single experimental verification for it.

In the end I can also always speculate that pink invisible elephants are there bringing in additional energy. But If I do not have any experimental verification of it, which proves to be true in my model, but is not explainable by conventional physics, it remains nothing but a very unlikely hypothesis.
As occams razor should always be considered.

This is why I would encourage you, based on your theories, you should come up with one experiment, as simple as possible, which would show your hypothesis is valid.

If I suffered from cognitive dissonance I would not be offering a number of different possibilities .

See that's already the problem: We all suffer from cognitive dissonance!!! And we always must be aware of that. It is just the way the brain functions!!!
And giving different possibilities is only a seemingly way out. As the brain is clever and it always gives you options that either are compatible with ones own truth or is so off, that one can discard it as not valid.

[Mr XYZ]

hei Guys! I have here some old diagrams and descriptions which should add some light to the Hans Coler topic, especially as they seem to describe later projects done following on from his work! - It was only recently that I was able to dig around in my old paper records and rediscover these very rare reports which focus on a R&D group called ALPHA THETA, and on which you can find absolutely NOTHING on the internet as far as I can tell, and which I am now sharing here for the first time! – Apart from these photocopies, I have NO other information on this, apart from recalling that I first got this as an appendage attached to an infopack regarding the Coler Stromerzeuger etc at least 15 years ago. In case the photocopied reports/comments are hard to read, I may type them out later, time permitting, but you can see that the diagrams show 3 projects that are derived from the original HC device, and are not unrelated to flux-path--switch type techniques that you should be able to recognize! I trust that these will be illuminating to all here who have for so long pursued this thread and special line of research!   - especially Smudge

Bob,
I have met the author of this article at his laboratory in Kolberg.  He has two replications (built by other people) of the Coler Magnetstromapparat at his disposal.  He also has some sophisticated test equipment there and as you can see he has studied  ferromagnetic acoustic resonance.  AFAIK Aspden was the first to suggest that the magnets may have used this resonance.  The previous paragraph refers to ferromagnetic resonance which I take to be the classical FMR but that is at microwave frequencies and clearly the M machine does not use those directly.  Thorsten has copies of some of my papers.
Smudge