Replication of Mini Radiant Exciter circuit of Nelson Rocha

[Zephir]

Myself lose 2 years only study some aspects of  that circuit , and see people already give up just because some Illustrious persons

I hope it's clear for everyone, that superficial misleading replicas have no chance to success in the same way, like none ones. What worse, bad replicas are source of misinterpretation for future, people are spreading wrong schemes all around the web and they're getting unmotivated by lack of success of their replicators. This in its consequences gets worse, than the complete lack of replicas. The bad replicas therefore serve as an important tool of propaganda for various agents and trolls, who are driving away people from free energy research, because layman people (quite correctly) tend to believe the experimenters more, than the people who are just speculating (in both positive, both negative way).

The attempts for replications are indeed welcomed, but in this board I would to want to discourage people in asking: "And what did you actually do?" - especially the people, who also never did show any attempts for replication and who are themselves only waiting, what the other people will do for them. Such a posts are off topic, aggressively personal and subjective, they don't contribute to positive atmosphere of forum - and as such they will be deleted soon or later. Thank you for understanding in advance.

[Zephir]

When happens such behavior's,  i could only say that is a  waste of TIME to everyone!

What I can see is, your parametric oscillator circuit has many things in common with another free energy devices (like the MEG of Thomas Bearden, Steorn Orbo and others) - so I do consider it as a sorta prototype of these devices. In addition, I like its particular construction composed of ferrite rod inserted into toroidal coil. There are many similar constructions of parametric oscillators on the web, like the MEG mentioned above or this one linked bellow. But these constructions also induce back electromotive force into main magnetic circuit - so I consider your geometry very smart and definitely worth the replication. I'll personally start experiments just with this arrangement.

In addition, the parametric oscillators work with nonlinearity of magnetization curve of ferrite in similar way, like the transistors are based on nonlinear response of base. And similarly to transistors, their working point can be adjusted with DC bias, i.e. with magnetization by attaching of permanent magnet. This magnetization will save the energy for feedback loop and it could improve the efficiency of the circuit in very simple way.

[Vortex1]

Dear Mr. Zephir

The attempts for replications are indeed welcomed, but in this board I would to want to discourage people in asking: "And what did you actually do?" - especially the people, who also never did show any attempts for replication and who are themselves only waiting, what the other people will do for them. Such a posts are off topic, aggressively personal and subjective, they don't contribute to positive atmosphere of forum - and as such they will be deleted soon or later. Thank you for understanding in advance.

In light of this would you like that I remove post #3, which I will do posthaste at your desire.

By the way, I am a builder / theorist, but have chosen not to clutter your or anybody's thread with my builds until I have something significant worth demonstrating. I am not a replicator in the cargo-cult sentimentality, nor do I seek social approval on forums.

I have taken the time to properly draw he schematic according to common engineering practice, so that it's operation is more easily understood to those skilled in the profession, and to include the components internal to the TIP121, which are necessary for proper understanding of the parasitic oscillation tendency of the design. Also included in the schematic is the control axial core as an option for discussion. 

I will post the schematic only if it would be a help.

My only reservation with your hypothesis of the saturable core control is that the axial member is having not enough coupling to be very effective to modify the saturation of the toroidal core, as it is very different from the picture you posted in your reply #6 IMG_3331.jpg. Nevertheless, it is the leading hypothesis and worthy of further investigation.

Regards

[Zephir]

the axial member is having not enough coupling to be very effective to modify the saturation of the toroidal core, as it is very different

Actually in one of his devices Nelson Rocha replaced the tiny ferrite coil with single wire threaded through toroid core. I don't think it's "visual error", as he also drew it explicitly in his diagram and he also utilized it in at least one additional prototype. Without it his remark of "parametric circuit" would also have no meaning.

In general, the overunity phenomena are anomalous and they should also utilize some anomalous configurations, which are nowhere used in classical circuits - or they would be already revealed. The only anomaly in Nelson Rocha's circuit I can see is just the ferrite coil embedded into toroid coil. Such an arrangement has no meaning from classical physics perspective, because these two coils shouldn't affect each other (very much). Many overunity circuits (MEG and others) also reduce coupling of coils by maintaining the air gaps between parts of magnetic circuits, because their purpose is to only affect magnetization - but not to induce back electromotoric force mutually. Some inventors even recommend to carefully adjust the size of air gap for to optimize the balance of these two effects. In classical circuits the air gap is used for to avoid the current runaway during saturation (current breaker safety of transformer in welders) of for storing energy during the primary switch on-time (flyback transformers).

I also agree with you, that the single wire shouldn't affect the (saturation of) toroid too much, until it will not transfer some very fast spikes of high intensity - but it's the only clue I have in this moment. Nelson Rocha repeatedly denied the overunity function of his Mini Radiant Exciter circuit - so I think, its construction may be suboptimal being a prototype - and in this respect the usage of single wire instead of coil is still understandable. I also noted, that the Darlington TR1/Q1 isn't actually protected from negative voltage spikes to base (passing through C4 capacitor and R1 trimmer). The PN junction of base electrode must be very narrow for to enable carriers drift and high amplification and therefore its reverse voltage remains limited to only few volts. The diode D2/D5 protects only electrolyte capacitors but not base.

So it's possible at the end, that the main purpose of coil/wire embedded into main torrid coil is actually just to protect the base of TR1 transistor against negative spikes and it has no meaning in alleged "parametric oscillator" function. Of course it would be much simpler, if Mr. Rocha would confirm it himself - but we have to respect his attitude. I can understand that he wants to enforce people in replications of his circuit rather than borrowing it as it is.

Other than that, your diagram of Nelson Rocha's circuit will be indeed useful for everyone here and as such heartily welcomed.

[Dog-One]

The only anomaly in Nelson Rocha's circuit I can see is just the ferrite coil embedded into toroid coil.

I'm surprised Zephir, I thought you were more observant than that.

So you completely missed the large wire-wound resistor.  Do you not think it
odd for a circuit powering a few LEDs that Nelson would have chosen such
a device unless there was a specific purpose?

Certainly you are aware these type of resistors are wound in a bucking coil
configuration.  Chris Sykes spent thousands of hours attempting to explain
the significance of such an arrangement.


Or maybe I'm wrong and Nelson just used it because it was the only resistor
he had with the correct value of Ohms...