Hubbard coil

[Goat]

@EMdevices

With all due respect I don't see what you mean by the last quote, sure the primary impulse gets the device started but how is it used to keep it running?

Regards,
Paul

[Grumpy]

The Hubbard coil is described in such clear terms in the Seattle article from the 1920, it's amazing that nobody has gotten it build and running.

While the device has been patented, the claims for it are so broad that
Hubbard says he does not feel safe in making public his secret.  In general,
he says, it is made up of a group of eight electro-magnets, each with
primary and secondary windings of copper wire, which are arranged around a
large steel core.  The core likewise has a single winding.  A coil thus
constructed, he says, is lifeless until given an initial impulse.  This is
done by connecting the ends of its windings for a fraction of a second to an
ordinary[two words unreadable R.L.R.] -ing circuit, he says.

The manner of this momentary charging, however, constitutes the principal
secret of the device, according to the inventor, who says that while
machinists have built a number of coils for him under his direction, they
have been unable to "start" them.  In the event the power of the coil should
diminish, it can be rejuvenated in less than a second, Hubbard says.


EM

You still need a principle of operation and a guess at which coils are input and output.

[EMdevices]

The device is clearly described, but yes there are unknowns. 

We know there are 8 electromagnets, each has two coils (primary and secondary)  and the main steel drum has only a single coil on it.

Now, we can use our heads and start going through all the permutations of how we can possibly hook up or connect all these coils.

Let's see:    8 *2 + 1 = 17 pairs of wires.   Lot's of room for experimentation !


Missing words in that article seem to be   "BATTERY CHARGING", note the word CHARGING is used in the very next sentence.

Now, the big question is,  why would magnetic/electric oscillations persist in such a device after it is energized?

I brainstorm from time to time on these topics, so since this topic was resurrected I had to chime in.   

I hope you all don't think I have found the secrets of this device and I'm not sharing, cause it's not true.

EM

[sparks]

  I belieive Hubbard used radium in his distributor.  (Moray was into coating his filaments with radioactive stuff)  If you check some of Hubbard's latter work he did some spark plug coating with radium that created more of a flash as well as extending the spark gap often to the head of the cylinder itself.  One more similarity is the results guys are getting on this board using plazma ignition of water vapor.  Also check out radioactive devices in your home.  Smoke detectors.  The use of low level radiation on a filament results in ionizing frequencys.  If we take a distributor and the timing is off there results between the rotor contact and the spark plug contacts a plasma construct.  This is avoided in distributors by timing the collapse in the ignition coil so that the rotor is adjacent a contact.  Perhaps Hubbard's distributor is misstimed to create a rotary plasma arc field.  This is not unlike Tesla's spark gaps.  If the radium is used to ionize the air molecules so that upon dielectric stressing of the air between the rotor and the stator we have a circulation of the free electrons about the ions this results in a plasma.  This plasma represents a highly positive electrostatic field as the electrons are no longer in the inertial frame of the protons.  This positive charge field could be viewed as a dielectric monopole.  It's effect on the surrounding mass such as the wires leading to his coils has yet to be understood by myself.  I do see a number of devices displaying seeming overunity as resulting from the production of a  selfconfining plasma. 

[mdmiller]

I am not a guru in this subject like all the rest of you so I'll go ahead and embarrass myself and toss out a thought.  This reminds me so much of Leedskalnin's perpetual motion holder--  an iron loop, a U-shaped iron bar with another iron bar across the ends of the 'U', wrapped with two copper coils, a PMM.  Once the coils are "charged" the "magnets" as he calls them continue to flow, seemingly forever holding the iron bar to the magnet, a perpetual electromagnet.  Somewhere I saw a video of a fellow that successfully recreated the device. 

Leedskalnin describes how, after charging the copper coils on his device, breaking the iron loop will discharge the current and light-up a bulb, years after the device is charged.  Would it not be possible to discharge the coils -- not into a light bulb -- but instead into another set of coils that had a similar iron loop in place, creating another electromagnet that was rotated to the first pair, effectively creating a rotating magnetic field? 

Suppose you had two PMM's. Can you switch the current you pulsed into the coil in one PMM effectively turning it into an electromagnet, into another PMM, totally deactivating the first PMM and without current loss?   Leedskalnin does this discharge not by connecting coils, but by disconnecting the iron loop.  Introduce a charge and activate one PMM, then using a distributor release the "magnets" loose in the iron loop of the next PMM by disconnecting the iron loop of the first PMM with the distributor.

The current pulse from coil-pair to next coil-pair is created not so much by connection, but by disconnection.

The way I would see this work, using Hubbards layout of 8 cores in a circle, the opposing iron cores would wire together with iron wire through the distributor.  This temporarily created PMM, with the opposing iron cores connected through the distributor support a flow of "magnets" through the iron cores as a loop through the distributor.  One copper coil pair would initially be charged, and the PMM electromagnet is created.  Once the iron loop is in place through the distributor on the next pair of coils, and the copper coils on this next pair connected through the distributor momentarily to the preceding pair, the current flowing in a pair of opposing copper coils could dump or discharge to this next pair by the distributor disconnecting the iron loop of the preceding copper pair.   It is this disconnection of the iron loop that causes the discharge of current to the next coil pair.  Now there is a newly created electromagnet rotated to the preceding pair of coils.  I don't believe the current will leave the first pair of coils and go to the next until the iron loop is broken, so if the copper coils are connected and ready to receive the discharge, there would be very little loss through switching apparatus. 

Ok, it's a crazy thought, I got a little wordy and it might not make sense. - Duane