Negative discharge effect

[ayeaye]

I only wanted to say, now i think the name negative discharge effect is a kind of misleading, this is just how it seemed to me at first. This should be called an asymmetric current overunity experiment. Because i now think how it works, is that when the mosfet opens, the leakage current of the diode goes from the capacitor to the coil. This induces a voltage spike and current in the opposite direction, which then goes through an open diode to the capacitor. Thus the reason why it works, is that the current is asymmetric, lower current in one direction through a diode leaking, and greater current in the opposite direction. The diode does not have to be fast for that i think, it has enough time to open during the voltage spike. What has to be fast is opening the mosfet, which causes a quick change in current, by the diode leakage current starting to go through the coil.

I still see that evidently the energy doesn't come from any known source. The induction in the coil of radio waves, or mains voltage, which i have not been able to find, or the mosfet leaking through its output capacitance, all look like a hundred times less than the effect. Of course i can do further experiments, like i can put the whole thing in the faraday cage, to make sure that nothing outside induces anything in the coil. I even bought an oscilloscope, but because of difficulties in my personal life i have not been able to do any further experiments, and i don't know whether i will be able to do them in any foreseeable future.

But who wants to do an overunity experiment, t think this is a good experiment to start from. It is simple, the circuit is very simple, and all the parts are cheap (in fact all ripped from an old crt monitor for free), and easily obtainable. I wanted to do an experiment which an absolute beginner can do, who has only a multimeter and some parts. It turned out that this experiment is better for some more advanced people. Getting that deflection yoke core from an old crt monitor or tv, takes a bit of effort, but then good coil is a great thing for many other experiments too. Who has a lot of money, can buy a big toroid ferrite core instead of course, but such thing is too expensive for me. Considering the quite low frequency where the effect appears, i think arduino can be used for generating pulses. Arduino nano should be good for the purpose, and one can buy it from ebay for only $2.50 with shipping. But, it's also good to have an oscilloscope for such experiment, at least 20 mhz two channels i think. And this is for people who are a bit more advanced in electronics. A bit more advanced, considering that i myself am almost a beginner.

I bought an old oscilloscope, not very old, from 1980's. I would say, the biggest problem was to clean it. It appeared to be fully working, except the contacts needed some switching many times, before they started to work well. The biggest problem was that it was held a long time in who knows where, in some dusty and moist storage room. All the dirt was so stuck to the case, that it was difficult to remove it with a strongest cleaning agent. Yet i could do that, so that it now looks decent. This is a big problem, you don't really want to do some advanced things, with some dirty equipment.

If you want to replicate that experiment, good luck, and have some real fun

[guest1289]

Guest1289, talk about the coils there http://overunity.com/14925/negative-discharge-effect/#.VdFQ5tcuviY , not a right place here.

This  thread  goes straight over my head,  but I'll do my best,  in order to see if this thread can be  translated  for other members in this  website.

(  I can't even fully understand the 'water'  analogy with electricity,   they say that increasing the speed at which water flows through a pipe,     is the same as increasing the current in a wire,    and yet  electricity always flows at the exact same speed.      I suspect they mean that either the amount of electrons actually travelling in a  cross-section  of the wire at any one time is increased,  or,  that the frequency at which these electrons are  pulsed through the wire is increased .     But,   I will never need to understand it anyway )

(  To  me  induction  is either,    current is travelling in a Coil,  and a wire is placed through the Coil,  so an electrical current in generated in the wire,   OR,  if the wire is first carrying a current,  and it induces a current in the Coil  )

In brief, the voltage induced, depends on the speed of switching the current, not on the strength of the initial current, e = df / dt, or such, this is what it is about, very basic, and this is what induction is. Now the induced current should remove the magnetic field, and it will, but these processes have a certain inertia. And this is why there is a voltage spike.

I think your'e saying that the  frequency/amperage  of the initial current,  determines the voltage of the induced current.     
But I'm totally lost when you say   that this  induced-current  should remove the  magnetic-field . 
You probably meant to say that the  induced current,  will have a lesser  magnetic-field than the  original current (  that,  that is what you're trying to achieve  )
I did not know it is scientifically possible to have an electrical current that does not produce an electromagnetic field .   [  I SUSPECT THAT YOU HAVE METHODS OF PLAYING WITH THE PROPERTIES OF THE INITIAL CURRENT,  OR ,  OF THE INDUCED CURRENT,  IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE  MAGNETIC-FIELD  ]   
________________

If  you're onto something in this  thread ( if it has some worthwhile validity ),  then,  to get more people to recognize it's  potential,   you really should :

( 1 ) -  Explain,  in the simplest language possible,   'What the problem is that you are trying to solve'

( 2 ) -  And , in the simplest language possible,  explain how your solution  attempts to solve the problem in point ( 1 ),  or if you have solved it,  then how.

( 3 )  And,  in the simplest language possible,  explain the proof you have recorded ( hopefully replicate-able  )  that your solution to the problem is having any effect

___________________

You had  stated,  that you have given up on using  'Permanent-Magnets',  and have replaced them with  Coils/Induction,  and yet you stated 

Now the induced current should remove the magnetic field

,   it seems like a contradiction in aims.

[ayeaye]

and yet  electricity always flows at the exact same speed.

I have never heard that. I try to explain it in as simple way as possible.

I used to know that current is the speed of the electrons. It is like you are pushing a wheelbarrow. The speed with which the wheelbarrow moves, is current, and the force you use to push it, is voltage. Voltage is also called electromotive force. When you use the same force to push the wheelbarrow, it moves faster on an even road, and slower in a dirt, or when it has to go over rocks. The conditions that slow down the wheelbarrow, are called resistance. So with the same voltage, there is less current, when the resistance in the circuit is higher. What matters is the resistance in the whole circuit, that is literally in the circuit in which the electrons move. Because electrons are tied to each other by repulsion, the resistance to one electron or to some electrons, also resists all other electrons in the circuit. Something like, many people in a row push wheelbarrows in a circle, when one wheelbarrow slows down because of some obstacle, all wheelbarrows slow down.

There are two kind of inductions in a coil, the induction of the magnetic field in the core of the coil, and the induction of electromotive force or voltage by the change of the magnetic field in the core of the coil. The induction of the magnetic field happens by the Ampere's law, which says that the relation between the current in the coil and the magnetic field, is linear. That is, the greater the current, the greater the magnetic field, and vice versa, the strength of the magnetic field is always the current multiplied by some constant.

The induction of the electromotive force in the coil happens by the Faraday's law. This says that the electromotive force e = df / dt (the letters are not correct), where df is the change of the magnetic field, and dt is the period of time. This in the other words says that the strength of the induced electromotive force depends on the speed by which the magnetic field in the coil increases. And by the Ampere's law, it depends on the speed by which the current in the coil increases. Thus it does not depend on the strength of the current, it only depends on the speed by which the current increases. This induction of the electromotive force is responsible for the rising half of the voltage spike.

Now the electromotive force induced in the coil, is by the Lenz law such that the current that it causes, is opposite to the current that induced that electromotive force. That is, the current caused by the induced electromotive force, induces a magnetic field that is opposite to the initial magnetic field, which means decreasing the magnetic field until it eventually becomes zero. This is responsible for the falling part of the voltage spike. Because of these forces working against each other, any current going through the coil should instantly be reduced to zero. But there is a voltage spike with some duration, because the processes that cause that, have some inertia.

Now why are we talking about these "spikes"? Because what we do, is that we periodically switch the circuit on and off, using a mosfet. You may think about mosfet as an electronic switch. The signal at the gate of the mosfet is generated by a function generator, or arduino. Arduino because, arduino is cheaper, arduino nano (costs $2.50 when bought from ebay with shipping) causes a sharp rise of the signal, and enables to adjust the signal easily. Now all is about that in every cycle, the current is switched on very sharply. Which causes the induction of greater electromotive force, by the Faraday's law.

This periodic switching, you may think about it as an equivalent in solid state devices, of rotation in the mechanical devices. Because both of these are a cyclic change, which is the general case. If we want something continuous, we usually need something cyclic. And the cyclic processes in electronics are so common, that oscilloscope is made to measure only such cyclic processes. Thus oscilloscope is very useful for experiments like this, and enables to see better what happens, but the experiment can also be done without an oscilloscope, using only a multimeter (in ebay costs $4 with shipping).

Now what we switch on every time? Well, we have a circuit, consisting of the coil, the mosfet, a capacitor, and a diode, that's all there is in the circuit. We switch on the leakage current of the diode. What is leakage current, it is the backwards current of the diode. A diode is an electronic component that conducts well in one direction, forward, but less in the other direction. There is a leakage current because of some charge there is in the capacitor.

Now because of that every time we switch the mosfet on, we cause a fast increase of the current through the coil, which induces a voltage spike, that causes a greater current which goes to the capacitor, and in that direction the diode conducts well. And thus every time the voltage on the capacitor increases. The voltage on the capacitor can only go as high as the maximum voltage of the voltage spike.

Now the frequency and the duty cycle with which we switch. Duty cycle is the percentage by which the signal is on, so a relative length of the positive pulse. It should not depend on that at all, because all the induction is only caused by switching on the mosfet. Yet it depends, because mosfet, when switched off, is like a small capacitor and a resistance. And this capacitance (output capacitance) is in series with the capacitor in our circuit. So there is a certain self-oscillation when the mosfet is switched off, caused by the coil and the total capacitance, the coil "rings", so to say. This self-oscillation is not great, because of the diode that greatly decreases the current in one direction, and the mosfet's resistance. Yet it matters in that, when we switch the mosfet on when the current in the circuit is opposite to the backward current of the diode, there would not be much increase of the current. So the frequency and duty cycle of switching has to be in resonance with that self-oscillation, and thus the effect, what i now call an asymmetric current induction effect, is there only with a certain frequencies of switching.

You may ask, does the capacitor have to be somewhat charged in the beginning? No this is not necessary. Short circuit the capacitor before the experiment, to make sure that it is empty. Because the voltage at the gate of the mosfet, induces some charge on the output capacitance of the mosfet. In spite that it is very small, it still causes some self-oscillation as described above. Now when the mosfet is switched on at the right moment, there is some charge in the capacitor with the right polarity, and the fast decrease of the mosfet's resistance causes a fast increase of the current the same as it normally happens. Whenever it starts, the process can go ahead only in one direction, and thus the voltage on the capacitor starts to increase.

Now what concerns the overunity, it is the difference between the output power and the input power. What concerns the input power, there are two possible sources, which both should be measured or estimated, to determine the overunity. First is the induction of voltage in the coil from some outside sources, due to electromagnetic radiation. This should be practically zero, because the radio waves or any other electromagnetic radiation, can likely at best induce power which is a thousand times less than the generated power. To make absolutely sure that no output power is caused by the induction in the coil though, an experiment should be done where all the circuit and the multimeter measuring it, is enclosed in a Faraday cage. Like by wrapping an aluminum foil all around it.

The other is the leakage of the mosfet. It is that the voltage on the gate of the mosfet, somewhat causes the output capacitance of the mosfet to charge, which then discharges to the circuit. The power of switching the mosfet is infinitesimal though, so in the experiments and by calculations it was estimated that this leakage power should be a magnitude less than the output power. To make it more clear, it should be calculated and measured more. This is what all this experiment is about, to measure the output and input power as well as possible.

This experiment is very basic, enables to learn about the very basic things in nature. When doing it, you may think that you are a new Faraday, this is a basic thing next to the Faraday's first induction experiment. Faraday was a very religious man, who wanted to find out how the nature works, to see how great it is. And he did. Faraday also, could almost do no math, he just wanted to find out what happens, by doing experiments.

So i explained it now as well as i can. Feel free to ask questions if anything was unclear, or there is something that you still need to understand.

[guest1289]

Well,   everything you have typed is the exact reason why  I'm only interested  in magnetic-fields  (  or other  similarly simple  subjects which appear in this  website  )  ,    it's the exact reason why I'm not interested in the  properties of electrical currents  .

It's good that you typed it though,  so maybe sometime if I'm able to,  I can go back to that post,  and fully understand  everything  you have  typed. 
(  Normally,  on normal days,  my level of comprehension is definitely not high enough to fully comprehend everything you have typed,    which is why I have no interest in complex things like the  properties of electrical currents    )

(  Yes,  I did know how  permanent-magnets  can induce an electrical-current  in a conductor  )
__________

I just found a  wikipedia  page :   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity  ,   and now I realize that even the little I knew about   electrical-currents ,   is totally wrong,   but at least now I know I'm wrong.   
     I also never new that the  individual electrons travel  much-much  slower than the  'Electromagnetic Waves'  in a circuit,  and that the actual energy in the circuit is actually the 'Electromagnetic Waves',   not the electrons.  (  I should not be surprised though,  since  'Electromagnetic Waves',  is all I'm interested in,  although I'm only interested in the  fields of  permanet-magnets  ).     
       It's all pretty obvious though,  it's just that I never had to think about it before.
(  Now I think that a person struck by lightning,  would be damaged by the  'Electromagnetic Waves',  and not by the  actual flow of electrons themselves,  could be both though   )
__________

   Your earlier post on  'November 17, 2014, 07:17:26 PM'  ,  with your diagram of the magnetic-field  of a   'permanent-magnet',   should have been posted in the   Permanent magnet motor    thread.   
      (  That diagram immediately reminded me of the diagrams  I  posted on  'August 15, 2015, 05:30:30 PM',   in that thread   ).
       I may have interpreted  the  2 small  'No-Repulsion-Zones'  in that diagram incorrectly,   but I think  that what you have  identified   gets  right to the core of the problem which was being discussed in  the   Permanent magnet motor    thread ,  of  what is  the  exact  difference  between  the  field  of an  electrical-conductor,  and that of a permanent-magnet ( in order to achieve a  Non-Electric-Permanent-Magnet-Powered-Faraday-Motor  ) .   
But what you have  identified,   will not be a factor in   all  designs,  I  can imagine designs  bypassing  the  'No-Repulsion-Zones'.

       I identified a possible difference  between  the  field  of an  electrical-conductor,  and that of a permanent-magnet ,   I think  that  field  of an  electrical-conductor  may also contain an  'Electric-Field' (  even though the  'Electric-Field'  and  'Magnetic-Field'  were unified in the  special-theory of relativity  ),   and that that   'Electric-Field'  is also  moving in some direction I am not sure of.   
       But,  I assume that even a  permanent-magnet  has an  'Electric-Field',  even though it will be much smaller and very different to that of an  electrical-conductor  .
_________________

     Hopefully, you, and the other members dallying in your field( and closely related fields ) will sometime get an  insight  into exactly what it was  that  'Moray'  discovered  (  'Moray Valve'  ).
     A  recent  new thread (  rightly suggesting that  SHAPES  are an  Ultimate-Key  in collecting energies,  that either have not been collected before,  or  not effectively   ).    The  thread  suggested  that the  Shape  of the  antenna  of the  'Moray Device'  may have been  the actual reason why his device was able to  receive the energy.   
        (   But in historical accounts I have read of  Moray  demonstrating  his device,  I read an account of how the device was  driven to the remote  countryside,  and various components of the device were removed,  and it kept on functioning,  and I am sure that it stated that one of the components   removed ,  was the  antenna  )
      [  CORRECTION :  That thread    http://overunity.com/15969/physical-shapes-that-cause-potential-differences-to-natural-energies/#.VdIdkrKqqko   ,    was actually referring to  "the "antenna" on Tesla's Pierce Arrow"    ]
        The  strange  instinct  that I get about moray's device,  was that there  was a  special  'spacial gap'  in one of the components such as the   'germanium-transistors( or were they diodes or resistors )',   and that  that   special  'spacial gap'  created an  irresistible potential  through which  the energy  he harnessed had to flow
        (  And possibly that a catalyst for that  'special-process'  was the  radio-active  material  the components  also  contained,  a bit like the following -  the radio-active material  emits  some type of  particle,   and then some force suddenly appears to chase that particle.    The problem with this  extra  catalyst  idea is that the  radio-active  material only emits  some type of  particle, on an intermittent basis,  very unlike  the very unusually good current that his device produced (  assumedly very high frequency or something   )
__________________

       I assume that  'Negative discharge effect'  is  not at all related to  'Moray's'  discovery,  they seem to not share any common principles etc.
__________________

       I always worry that people inventing  Solid-State-Overunity-Devices,  may often  mistake   'Persistent-Current' (  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_current  ,  an actual phenomenon )  or  external types of radiation which travel through all materials,  as being a discovery of a  slight  overunity .
_______________

     It's amazing that two years ago they discovered how to  turn-off   the  magnetic-field  of a permanent-magnet,   just by using  'Polarized light'.   
     Its so difficult to  re-find that discovery on the internet.   
     (  It is a type of  reversal of the  'Faraday Effect' concerning light  )
_______________

       

[ayeaye]

       I always worry that people inventing  Solid-State-Overunity-Devices,  may often  mistake   'Persistent-Current' (  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_current  ,  an actual phenomenon )  or  external types of radiation which travel through all materials,  as being a discovery of a  slight  overunity .

Well, the persistent current is in nanoamperes, this may give power in nanowatts. But the effect i described, can give power in milliwatts. This is a huge difference in magnitude.

The field, well, the electromagnetic field is the movement of photons. Because photons are the gauge bosons of the electromagnetic field. Every field is the movement of gauge bosons, well, likely except gravity. The only interaction is when a gauge boson hits a particle, and its properties cause the particle to change speed or other properties. Thus electrons must emit photons all the time, not only when they move. Thus the main difference between the electrostatic and magnetic field, are the properties of the photons. The photons of the electrostatic field should have no frequency, while the photons of the magnetic field have some frequency, as they are emitted by moving electrons that orbit the nucleus of an atom. Weirdly, knowingly no one has yet discovered photons with no frequency. Likely because they have little effect other than attracting or repulsing charged particles. But by the quantum theory, they should exist.

The electric things are complicated, well yes, somewhat more than permanent magnets. Not though when we go to extreme with permanent magnets, trying to achieve a continuous rotation, which is very difficult to do, if not impossible. This is why i say, i think your effort is better used when you deal with simple electric things, than when you deal with permanent magnets. And what you do would finally be less complicated as well. But it sure is complicated, as there simply is some complication which we just cannot escape. All we can do, is to make it as simple as possible. Thus i think you would not regret when you go into electric things, in spite somewhat more complicated, they are much more awarding. Do it gradually, learn step by step, and you find that you can manage it, and these complicated things will look much simpler for you. Everyone started that way, and i am rather a beginner in electronics, thus not so long way to go.

My aim was to do a *simple* overunity experiment. Now what it appears, it is too complicated. Yet i know nothing more simple.