Lenz free generator

[gyulasun]

Hi Mags,

A youtuber, debunkified, did some tests on a series RLC circuit and a push button, he labeled it the Single Pulse Experiment, see here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qDccTUsF40  This is basically a kind of charge transfer from a battery to a low value capacitor.
I drew a schematic on his simple circuit. His ON time is enough to reach the 5*L/R time constant and the energy stored in the coil also has time to charge the 82uF cap to a higher level than the battery voltage via the diode before he releases the push button (this is what he tested with different cap values).  This can be true and in case he releases the button say earlier than the 5*L/R time lapses and the normal charge current can go into the capacitor from the battery (while the coil also accumulates input energy due to the increasing current), then there must be a spark when he interrupts coil current and the voltage spike created can charge up the capacitor via the plasma-like spark as the contacts just start moving away from each other. But his ON time is tested to damp the coil energy into the capacitor. (I forgot to include the DC resistance of the coil in series with it in the circuit, it was 8 Ohm.)
Maybe this is still not what you wish though...   

Gyula

[tinman]

To the proposed scrutiny of the picture from patent  568,179 you have no opinion that's perfectly clear again. Instead you use Tesla's tower as a hook to derail the focus of everyone towards your 1w BS challenge. I could think that you have the attention span of a toddler, but I rather say your ego is desperate for the spot light. Go wind something, show it on youtube and answer the fans' questions as a method of quantifying the number of followers.

Your ego is grotesque, please keep it in leash and spare us of meaningless brain farts. If there is nothing to be said of any value, please have decency to let this thread die gracefully.

Was it i that bought up Tesla's transmitting towers as a free energy device?--no
Was it i that made the claim that they are free energy devices ?--no
Has Erfinder bought anything of value to the table,regarding a Lenz free generator ?--no
Will those here that claim to understand Tesla's work,build one of Tesla's devices,that put's out a single continuous watt of power--no

To me with great discomfort, you represent the typology which gave reason to Sartre to forcefully admit in writing "The story of a life, whichever it may be, is the story of a failure."

Isnt it always the case?,when those here, ask those that know it all, to back up there claim,always end up being the bad guy 

Failure comes from those that claim it all,but deliver nothing.
The truth dose not come from claim's--it comes from fact's,and fact's only become's truth's when proof is provided.

Here is another man that has solved Tesla's secret,and can !amplify! power by 5000%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK3JOlY0V8Y&t=756s

Lucky for us,Jim supplied P/in-P/out numbers for us,and his efficiency was only around 7%--where is the 5000% amplified power?

There are people like you, Jbignes5, Erfinder, Meta,that make many claims,but run from any challenge to back up those claims,and then there are those that like to deal in fact's,like myself, Ron, Mag's- ETC.
But of course,those that like dealing with fact's,are always the bad guy's-right?.

Brad, despite your declared wish to work towards increasing Lenz effects, you just made it perfectly clear that you don't really have an interest in Lenz at all.

Couldnt be further from the truth.
I can only guess that you have gotten lost in all the claim's being made by the guru's,that you keep missing point's being made toward using (what you call)Lenz,to increase the efficiency of electromotive machines.


Brad

[barbosi]

Do you want free energy?
1. if your answer is "no", then you may stop reading now and ask yourself what are you doing here.
2. if your answer is "yes, absolutely free as in the air we breath, I don't wanna pay for anything!!!!".... then it comes another question: why would you care about Pin/Pout? Think for a while and come to peace with the voice of reason...

[Meta]

The tower is a receiver, not the source.
Meta.

Well that being the case,feel free to join in on the 1 watt challenge.

Will you be one of the Tesla guru's to back up your claim,or will you fade of into the distance like the other Tesla guru's?

BTW
The tower is a receiver of what?-->what is the energy source?


Brad

________________________________________________

The tower was a receiver of the energy of abrupt, spark caused, repeated collapsing of space at high voltage and high frequency.....ie, highly frequent (high frequency),  impulses, high frequency discharges, as high voltage spikes, which is what you fail to exploit.

[lancaIV]

Not sure that is the same as I explained.

This is a quote from the pat you have shown....

"Thus a magnetic pulse can be created via the inductor, while substantially reducing the charge current for the capacitor and eliminating a voltage pulse across the capacitor opposite in polarity to that of the charged state of the capacitor for producing the magnetic pulse."

1 This means it it not the same as I have said, "while substantially reducing the charge current for the capacitor and eliminating a voltage pulse across the capacitor opposite in polarity to that of the charged state of the capacitor for producing the magnetic pulse."

2  In your case, the intention is to produce a magnetic pulse, of which if the pulse is absorbed by its intended target, the oscillation will be reduced quickly, as the target is the load. So we lose to the load before we did anything about it.


In my case we have to count on the inductor to be free of any magnetic drains and the cap going full peak in the first phase of the initial wave and then letting the cycle go full reversal before taking from the cap. No diodes so far, just a controlled switching at the neg peak.
If the inductor and cap are very good quality and low ohm loss, the second half of the initial wave cycle will be sending energy back to the source until neg peak.

If we have little loss in doing so, MOST of what was in the cap when dumped to load should be more than what was taken in total from the source within the full 270deg cycle.

This is just a one shot experiment at this time. Thinking on a micro controller to govern the operation to best efficiency, monitoring for neg peaks, etc.

Dunno yet but it seems plausible.

Mags

"no-load" and "load"- condition :
In your case, the intention is to produce a magnetic pulse, of which if the pulse is absorbed by its intended target, the oscillation will be reduced quickly, as the target is the load. So we lose to the load before we did anything about it.

                Is the energy system not a closed cycle ? What kind of energy (e-m-k-f) from electricity is transformed("lost") ?
                                                       Which can becomed feed-backed ? minimum: partial !

http://overunity.com/3605/theory-on-tpu-energy-scource/msg495061/#msg495061   answer 143-147
and Thane Heins Transformer BiTT coil technique ,if you only want to administrate the electrostatic energy part

But how do you will work out a power saving system/circuit up to a loop system without to organize a magnetic energy part conditioning concept ?

Here are only listened some step-by-step improvements not a ready-to-use idea !  divide et impera

very interestant : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67AD2xBz7xw   
                            2:44 the left/right cones their surface area relationship                Lever-factor ?!

and going to the MEG http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm espacenet citing documents :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments?CC=US&NR=6362718B1&KC=B1&FT=D&ND=&date=20020326&DB=&locale=

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&FT=D&date=20160602&CC=DE&NR=102014017612A1&KC=A1#

[0020]    Stellen wir uns dazu einen Würfel (= cube or cone )vor. In einer Achsrichtung der Hauptfluß Phi-H und senkrecht dazu der Steuerfluß Phi-S.

[0021]    Bei einem Material mit ausgeprägtem Sättigungsknick bringt Phi-S den Würfel in die Sättigung, und wenn als Wechselfluß, dann abwechselnd in die positive Sättigung und in die negative usw. Dementsprechend wird Phi-H jeweils gesperrt bzw. durchgelassen.

[0022]    Und wieder muß die Frage gestellt werden: Wie ist der Aufwand für PH-S im Vergleich zu den erzielbaren Änderungen von Phi-H?

[0023]    Bei dem Würfel mit gleichen Kantenlängen gilt Ph-H max + Ph-S max = Konst.

[0024]    Bei Ph-S = 0 kann Phi-H = max. sein und bei Ph-S = max. muß Phi-H = 0 sein.

[0025]    Das ist aber insofern noch kein Gewinn. 

[0026]    Das Ziel ist Phi-S << Phi-H.  fi-lou ?

[0027]    Und das erreicht man, wenn man die Flächen mit einbezieht. 

[0028]    Die Induktion B, d. h. die Flußdichte ist nämlich das entscheidene Kriterium. 

[0029]    Erinnert sei an die Hystereseschleife, bei der die Induktion B in Abhängigkeit von der Feldstärke H dargestellt wird.

[0030]    Für beide Richtungen gilt jeweils für die Querschnittflächen FH und FS:
Phi-H max = Bmax × FH und Phi-S max = Bmax × FS.

[0031]    Aufgelöst nach Bmax: Phi-H max/FH = Phi-S max/FS oder Phi-H max/Phi-S max = FH/FS.

[0032]    Jetzt haben wir den gesuchten Gewinn! `(  Doll! H`EUREKA )

                 Entspricht wohl dem Radius-differentem Mantelflaechenverhalten eines Wind-/Wasser-Fluss uebersetzenden Rotor !



Let us to a cube (or cone) before. In an axial direction of the main flux Phi-H and perpendicular to the control flow Phi-S.  [0021]   
For a material with a pronounced kink saturation Phi-S brings the cube into saturation, and when the alternating flux, then alternately in the positive and in the negative saturation etc. Accordingly Phi-H is respectively blocked or allowed to pass.  [0022]   
And again the question must be asked: What is the cost of PH-S compared to the recoverable change of Phi H?  [0023]   
In the same cube with edge lengths Ph-H max + Ph-S applies max = const.  [0024]   
In Ph-S = 0 can Phi-H = max. be and Ph-S = max. must be = 0 Phi-H.  [0025]   
But that is so far still no profit.  [0026]   
The goal is Ph-S << Phi-H.  [0027]   
And that can be achieved if one includes the surfaces with.  [0028]   
The induction B, d. H. The flux density is in fact the decisive criterion.  [0029]   
Recall the hysteresis loop in which the induction B is shown as a function of the field strength H.  [0030]   
each applies to both directions for the cross-sectional areas FH and FS: Phi-H max = Bmax × FH and Phi S max = Bmax × FS.  [0031]   
Solving for Bmax: Phi-H max / FH = Phi-S max / FS or Phi-H max / Phi-S max = FH / FS. [0032]   
Now we have this win!