From:  The Office Of Dr. Aerielle Louise
International*Broadcasting*Corporation
*Enhanced Radio For Advanced Minds*
http://www.IBCRADIO.com/


DR. RITA LOUISE ON "FEET TO THE FIRE"
http://www.feet2fire.com
Sunday. Nov. 7, 2004
8 PM to 11 PM EASTERN USA Time Zone

DR. RITA LOUISE
http://www.soulhealer.com

on

FEET TO THE FIRE:
http://www.feet2fire.com
Host: JAMES ARTHUR JANCIK,
The Black Knight of Talk Radio
Syndicated via IBC Radio Network
http://www.ibcradio.com

SUNDAY, NOV. 7, 2004
8PM-11PM EASTERN, USA

In most of Europe
Monday, NOV. 8, 2004
02:00-05:00
(00:00-03:00 UTC/GMT)

TOLL-FREE CALL-IN Line: 888-863-2722
Outside USA & CA: 317-514-1106

Medical Intuitive, DR. RITA LOUISE is a 20-year
veteran of the alternative health field. She
provides guidance, support, and encouragement to
help you create a balanced life.

DR. RITA can unlock secrets about your physical,
emotional, and spiritual issues and help you find the
means to succeed both personally and professionally.

She will be doing READINGS FOR CALLERS to the show.

Visit Dr. Rita's website:  http://www.soulhealer.com

Also:
THIS WEEK IN FREE ENERGY! with STERLING ALLAN.
Each Sunday Night at 8:53pm to 8:59pm Central,
(end of the second hour of the show)
Sterling offers a five minute update "Free Energy."
http://pesn.com/ThisWeekinFreeEnergy/
http://pureenergysystems.com/
http://FreeEnergyNews.com/

*INTERNATIONAL*BROADCASTING*CORPORATION*

HOW TO LISTEN TO THE SHOW:
http://innersites.com/feet2fire/listen

LIVE STUDIO PHONE LINE DURING THE SHOW:
888-863-2722 (Toll-Free in USA and Canada)
317-514-1106 (outside USA & CA)

TALK ON AIR VIA INTERNET:
Using Skype (www.skype.com) ID: "blknight"
Using Yahoo ID: "ipstreams"

LIVE CHATS:
*Official IBC Network chat room:
http://www.ibcradio.fm/chat.html
*Instant Messenger-Type Private Chats:
*ICQ ID: 247599096
*Yahoo, AOL, IM, iChat IDs: "ipstreams"

LIVE WEBCAM CONFERENCE DURING LIVE BROADCAST:
Download software at www.ivisit.com

ARCHIVES AVAILABLE: http://www.feet2fire.com

Also listen to:
THE BLKNIGHT AND SQUIRE G SHOW
http://www.bksgshow.com
Every Saturday at 3pm-6:00pm EDT.
Check website for rebroadcast, video clips, and more info.

Reach for the Skies... Within!
JAMES ARTHUR JANCIK
THE "BLACK KNIGHT" OF TALK RADIO
BLKnight: blknight@...
Feet 2 Fire: f2f@...
www.feet2fire.com <&> www.bksgshow.com
Tool-Free Studio Line: 888-863-2722

A Member of the LGPRN / IBC Radio Network
http://www.ibcradio.com
*INTERNATIONAL*BROADCASTING*CORPORATION*
*Enhanced Radio For Advanced Minds*

Any builders in the Phila. pa area???

Statement of
Mr. David Schriner

before the

Joint Economic Committee

United States Congress

Wednesday, February 25, 1998

"The Design and Fabrication of a Damage
Inflicting RF Weapon by 'Back Yard'
Methods"....http://www.house.gov/jec/hearings/radio/schriner.htm



       Note, this paper reflects the personal views and opinion of the
author. The material in this paper has been deemed unclassified by those who
hold his security clearances but it does not specifically represent their
views. This paper is a very brief statement on the subject and it is written
from a non-technical point of view to provide an easy look at the subject
manner by non-professional people or groups. Further elaboration on any
point can be requested in either a technical format or at a classified level
with the proper security restrictions in place.

       For many years research activities in different countries have focused
on the use of radio frequency (RF) waves as a weapon. Most of this work has
been titled or described under the title of High Powered Microwave (HPM).
Worldwide, large amounts of money have been invested in this technology to
support both the military interests but also the industrial heating needs.
Like most technologies, with maturity the applications increase and the
costs to use it become lower. One primary point of this paper is that as
these technologies mature they also become affordable and usable by
criminals and terrorists. Most military programs are classified and the
general public knows little concerning their nature but as the technology
becomes available to criminals and terrorists, it may be directly applied to
the infrastructure elements of our society. This paper addresses the
question concerning the possibility of certain types of this technology
being used against the society.

       The primary focus of this paper will be on a different and new form of
HPM called Transient Electromagnetic Devices (TED) that could, in the hands
of enemies, criminals, pranksters, or terrorists pose a significant threat
to much of the United States infrastructure components that are based on
micro-circuits and computer or micro-processor control. This includes
financial institutions, aircraft, security, medical, automotive, and other
critical equipment used everyday in our society. The systems necessary for
the production of this form of energy are much easier to construct and use
than the earlier and more well known conventional HPM narrow-band systems
that are currently in development for military use. Millions of dollars have
been spent on the conventional HPM, systems and it is the type that DOD
managers and their funding offices are well acquainted with. This paper will
briefly speak to these but the main focus of it will be on the very
different type, the TED systems, which is less well known and may be the RF
weapon of choice to the modern cyber or infrastructure RF warrior.

       Conventional HPM systems generate RF wavessimilar to those used for
many different purposes including communications, heating, and radio
location purposes. We are all very familiar with the term frequency as
expressed in mega-hertz (MHz) when we tune our FM radios over the FM band
from 88 to 108 MHz. Likewise with the AM radio band from .55 to 1.5 MHz.
These expressions of frequency describe how many complete RF cycles occur
each second from the radio transmitters that generate them. Radar systems
also generate RF signals but these are in thousands of MHz each second (the
term Giga-Hertz or GHz applies). This is the type of signal that
conventional HPM systems generate or radiate, a sine wave. TED systems do
not generate a sine wave and operate entirely differently than narrow-band
systems.

       Narrow band HPM systems are similar to microwave ovens in that they
use high powered sine waves to cause material placed in their field to
generate heat. This is exactly what narrow band HPM systems do, they attempt
to use extremely high powered RF sine waves to cause a target system to burn
out. Other types of HPM use high powered, but conventional wave-like signals
to enter a target system and cause some of the conventional effects that a
jammer or countermeasure system might. All of these narrow band HPM systems
employ sine waves that are very different than the signals generated and
radiated and employed by the TED systems.

       RF power is expressed in Watts and one million Watts is expressed as
"megaWatts" or MW. A kitchen microwave oven, for example, uses a magnetron
tube to produce a continuous wave (CW) .5 to 1 MW RF signal to provide
energy to heat the material placed in its presence. In a simple way of
describing the heating, the powerful microwave signals cause the molecules
of the material to rub together at the frequency generated by the magnetron
and heat results in the material exposed to the field. Materials such as
meat, many materials containing carbon molecules, and even water heat well
when placed in such a field. Many industrial heating applications require
considerably larger power levels than the home microwave oven but the basic
principles are the same.

       It is with this view of microwave heating that we have the first
notion of the use of microwaves as a weapon. One assumes that if a microwave
signal of extremely high power level is aimed at a distant target of some
type, then heating and perhaps burnout of some part of the target would
occur. If the signal was tuned to the operating frequency of a targeted
radio receiver, for example, one would assume that if enough power was
provided in the radiated beam directed at the target's radio antenna, that
the radio's "front-end", that part directly connected to the antenna, could
be heated sufficiently to burn it out. The key here is whether there is an
entry point for the high powered signal to enter the targeted system and
whether there is enough power to cause burnout.

       The community involved with HPM systems generally describes a
"front-door" and a "back-door" entry point. A front-door point might be, as
in the above example, an antenna normally used by the target platform, such
as an aircraft or a tank, for some RF function such as communication or
radar. Here the RF weapon designer would attempt to radiate an RF signal
into the target platform's antenna and cause either a burnout or a
disruption effect. A back-door entry point might be an unshielded wire at
some point on the targeted platform that would allow the RF weapon signal to
enter some part of the platform's electronic systems and, as before, cause a
burnout or disruption of some sort. The weapon designer would like to have a
priori knowledge of the target so as to select the right frequency and use
the right modulations to accomplish the desired result.

       Since this extremely high-powered RF generation technology also fills
the needs of industrial heating applications, essentially very high powered
microwave ovens, there is a universal worldwide need for the technology and
export controls are confused when it comes to the possible use of this
technology as a weapon.

       The New Kid on the block, the Transient Electromagnetic Device (TED):

       There is a new type of source technology currently under development
in our country and, very likely, other countries as well. This type of
directed RF energy is quite different than the narrow-band systems
previously described. This type of directed energy is called transient
electromagnetic radiation. Instead of generating a train of smooth
sine-waves, as the conventional narrow-band systems do, it generates a
single spike-like form of energy. This spike-like burst of potential does
not have "cycles" or waves and it may be only one or two hundred
pico-seconds (psec) in length. 100 psec is the time that it takes light to
travel 1.2 inches and often these short time duration puoses are described
in "light-inches".

       It is very similar to the type of signal that occurs when you rub your
feet on the carpet on a dry day and then touch your computer keyboard. An
electrostatic discharge (ESD) occurs when you do this. The electrostatic
charge on your body discharges onto and into the computer and a very brief
amount of very high current flows quickly from your finger into the computer
circuits causing a momentary break in the normal flow of signals and bits of
information. Because of this momentary break in the "bit-flow" the ESD may
cause the computer to crash and in some cases it may cause sensitive
electronic circuits to be actually damaged to the point where they are
non-functional and must be replaced. This vulnerable item may be just a
single semiconductor diode in a single integrated chip in a circuit on the
motherboard, and there are hundreds or thousands of these in a desk-top
computer. It is often economical to simply replace a whole circuit board of
components rather than trying to find the one specific circuit and replacing
just it. This type of new weapon source, a transient electromagnetic device
(TED), is actually a system that radiates an ESD-like signal that is
intended to cause a similar responses, as just described, to the targeted
system.

       Let us look at the differences between narrow-band (NB) and TED HPM
systems. The NB systems generate sine waves, the TEDs don't. The NB systems
are very costly and go to great lengths to generate very high average
powers, the TEDs don't, the NB systems are very complex systems, the TEDs
are not, the NB systems generate very high average powers (microwave
heating), the TEDs generate very high peak powers (and are poor RF heaters).
They both use an antenna and the larger it is, the more power they can
radiate, in a narrow focused beam, at the target.

       In a narrow-band HPM device, high technology vacuum tubes are used
that are, in some ways, very similar to those used in our highest-powered TV
or FM stations and radar systems. They are very delicate devices, are
complex, and very expensive. They require large amounts of primary power and
generally require some type of cooling system, either air blowers or liquid
types. All of this complexity requires complex engineering and development,
and the manufacturing time is great and costly. Not for the amateur or a
low-cost, start-up operation. Generally a highly skilled team of various
technical experts of numerous engineering specialties is required to manage
the development and operation of such devices.

       TEDs, on the other hand, are relatively simple devices that generally
use simple spark-gap switches, either in oil or in pressurized gas pulse
storage lines. The power supplies are relatively small in size and much
lower in average power and cost than for the NB systems. The engineering and
mechanical issues are small in comparison to the narrow-band devices. The
technology is well described in the various professional Pulse Power
references found in good technical libraries. The significant development,
engineering, and manufacturing costs are small in comparison to narrow band.
Most of the technology required is available and is an outcrop of the
various nuclear and flash x-ray work done in the past.

       NB systems operate at some given frequency with a small bandwidth, and
you will find them at one spot on the radio dial. The TEDs do not even have
a definable frequency but instead, because of their short time duration,
they occupy a very large spectrum space, and you will find it everywhere on
every radio dial. When a TED pulse is generated it will have the ability to
excite responses in systems designed to receive at any frequency from as low
as 100 MHz up to several GHz, from the FM band up to the lower microwave
bands. A NB system would excite only those systems that were operating at
its frequency, say 2.345 GHz, so a narrow band system must be "tuned" to a
given target's known soft spot but a TED system would go after any soft spot
of the target platform, back-door or front door.

       So what is the bottom line of this discussion?

       Because of the simplicity of TED systems and the suspicion that they
may cause disruptive effects to electronic systems that they are aimed at,
they make an attractive approach for RF terrorists to use for various
purposes. We see hints of this vulnerability in the many warnings that we
get each month about locations where we should not use radios and electronic
devices for fear that we will do some damage to something. They make
passengers on aircraft, during take off and landing, turn off radios, games,
and other electronic devices. Hospitals regularly place signs that
electronic devices are not allowed. Many people do not want you using your
cellular telephones near their computer. Many repair shops require that
wrist-bands attached to ground be used when opening electronic equipment for
repair. We have a lot of things out there in the world that either have
known or suspected vulnerabilities to RF fields or electrostatic discharge.
A TED system provides both of these conditions, an RF electrostatic
discharge nature and its output (the number of pulses per second) can be
adjusted for maximum disruptive effect. Its peak power output can be made
much higher than those fields ordinarily found in everyday systems like
cellular radios, radar systems, TV and FM stations, and simple ESD effects.

       It clearly appears, based on testing that has been done as well the
information presented at unclassified technical papers and conferences, that
the TED would make a good terrorist RF weapon and that, with the
proliferation of high technology infrastructure systems that are integral to
everyday life in our country, we would be very vulnerable to such systems.
It is also clear, because of the extreme cost of repairing all of the
vulnerable systems, that until this vulnerability was shown, no one would
have much concern or interest in it.

       Considerable discussion and innuendo has recently been made concerning
the possibility of building a TED source using "back-yard" methods, a Radio
Shack Terrorist RF weapon. Such a system would have to have sufficient power
to, with some degree of probability, cause detrimental effects to common
infrastructure items such as those found in; financial institutions (banks,
ATMs, and stores), medical facilities, airport facilities, general
transportation items (auto engine controls, ABS, air-bags, etc.), utility
facilities (telephone exchanges, power grid controllers), and other
infrastructure entities. This type of source is imagined to be what a
criminal, terrorist, or prankster could develop or build in a reasonable
time, with reasonable tools and materials and with open literature or
reference material.

       The accomplishment of such an effort would require that either some
sort of estimate of what power level would be necessary to accomplish a
given objective or to simply make all of the power that could be made, and
then go out and test the weapon against various target items under either
controlled conditions or actual attempts against a family of established
targets. Since it is an extremely complex process to even come close to some
predicted level of vulnerability, using even the most advanced modeling and
analysis techniques, the obvious approach would be to "go for the maximum
power and then test" approach. Normal testing would be done under strict
safety and security conditions but a terrorist would not have such
limitations. Normal tests would be conducted at a test location but a
terrorist would simply drive around the block or building until something
happened.

       An important criteria for an RF terrorist would be that any of the
parts and materials used would have to be those that could be easily found
in any city and were not traceable by conventional counter-terrorist
agencies such as the local police, insurance investigators, and FBI.

       It is clear that there are four basic configurations that could be
used, one the size of a briefcase that could be placed very close to a
target system (like a computer at a desk or counter), one that could be
mounted into a small van and disguised to appear as ordinary, one that was
dedicated to be set up at a remote target location and used for some purpose
where appearance was not of any concern, and finally, a system that could be
located in one's back yard such that it could be aimed at over flying
aircraft.

       The systems would likely have much in common and the builder would
employ a learning curve to go to the next more advanced system. The results
or vulnerabilities found with any system could be factored into the use of
the next system. This learn-as-you-go process would be a natural approach
for such an amateur effort.

       The means of manufacturing the system includes parts and tools that
one could purchase at a hardware store or those found in an average garage
shop. Tools such as a small lathe with an integral milling machine
(available via mail-order at a cost about $2,000), drill press, and general
garage tools should be all that were needed, nothing exotic.

       The effort would likely be started with the small briefcase-sized
unit. It could use automobile ignition parts and a camcorder ni-cad battery
for the power supply. It might use a small dish antenna bought mail-order
and some parts picked up at a surplus store. The total cost of such a unit
would be about $300 and it could be built in about one week. The development
behind its design could be accomplished by doing some basic experiments with
stun-guns or other high voltage components found in surplus stores,
automotive shops, and parts from a "well equipped electronics junk box". The
unit could easily be tested at close range to the type of computers and
hardware found in any home office and if it caused some ill effect, then the
terrorist would have proven the effectiveness of the system. Success with
step 1.

       The next step would be to refine the technology and increase the
voltage and the repetition frequency. An advanced design might use a 6-foot
TV dish antenna that could be bought mail-order (for $200) and it might use
a more advanced spark-gap unit than was used in the earlier model. Such
learn-as-you-go is a natural process in the design of spark-gaps.

       Such a unit using a larger antenna (a mail-order 12-foot TV dish),
when finished would look like a simple TV dish system and it (or many like
it) could be mounted such that it could easily be pointed at over-flying
aircraft.

       In support of the information presented in this testimony and taking
advantage of the winter's need to work indoors, a unit that uses oil
spark-gaps was designed, built, and tested. The materials for it were
mail-ordered at a cost of about $500 and about one week was needed to
fabricate the mechanical hardware. It use two ignition coils and a battery
for power, an automobile fuel pump and filter for the oil circulation, and
commonly available transformer oil. An additional week was required to work
out all of the electrical wiring, the oil lines, and the general finishing
details. This unit was ready for testing in two weeks after starting the
effort.

       The signal radiated from the unit was measured and found to be a very
significant power level that can be compared against available vulnerability
and susceptibility levels of military equipment. When the weather permits,
this unit will be tested against a set of infrastructure targets at an
official test range. From the measurements and known signal levels, this
unit is expected to be consistently deadly to many types of infrastructure
items at ranges suitable for terrorist usage.

       This quickly-developed low-cost system could easily be placed in a
small van and used in a parking lot or directed at buildings that the van
was driven past. It is highly likely that this type of device would be a
very effective terrorist system and the findings of its design could be
factored into another either a larger, higher powered device, or a more
advanced design each with significantly greater effectiveness.

       The net result of all of this design, experimentation, fabrication and
measurement proves that such a weapon system could be made by anyone with an
engineering degree or even a bright technician with good hardware
experience. The technical information required can be found in open sources,
if not just from good common engineering sense. The materials needed are
nothing special and if the effort is made, advanced concepts can be made
using everyday hardware such as automotive ignition systems. The testing to
date has been very limited but the results of this testing have provided
considerable insight to just what is vulnerable in infrastructure systems.
This insight and work leads to a firm opinion that a terrorist would have
little trouble developing such technology and that he would have a high
probability of success in the use as an RF weapon against our infrastructure
elements found in any city or near facilities around the country.


       This work has been done within the proper security guidelines since:


     1.. The models made in my home laboratory/workshop used off-the-shelf
materials and open-source references.

     2.. The laboratory tests of this hardware were made in a controlled
environment with the proper security in place.

     3.. The results of these tests, the data capabilities, and the target
set identities are kept in a facility cleared for classified storage.

     4.. The development of any of this hardware is reported on a regular
basis to those with whom I relate at a classified level to assure that they
are informed of the work and are able to apply this to their interests and
efforts if necessary. Any of this hardware can be used by them for any
determination of utility to military interests.
       Work in this area will be continued and an aggressive test and
evaluation of these "back yard" techniques and methods will be accomplished.
This process will be done in cooperation, and if requested, under the
direction of agencies with an interest in this non-military weapon related
process. The author of this report will, if requested, provide to the
Committee further details at a classified level in the proper security
environment.

Dear colleagues,
I hope help you with rotational magnetism.
Go to the web-page: www.andrijar.com
Then go to PHYSICS, N°14
Best regards
Gualarjo7

Gualarjo7,

Thank you for an interesting post. (nice music on the AVI, also)

There are a number of items that are not explained very well,
Do you understand the experiment well enough to explain the
principle involved and how the external wire influences the
motion?

You should post this link to Free-energy group also.

Ron


--- In teslafy@yahoogroups.com, Jorge Arturo Guala <gualarjo7@y...> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> Homopolar EM-induction was recently solved via undisputable
experimentation.
> Go to the web-page: www.andrijar.com
> Then go to PHYSICS, N°14
> I
> Best regards,
> Gualarjo7
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>  Ahora podés usar Yahoo! Messenger en tu Unifón, en cualquier
momento y lugar.
>  Encontrá más información aquí.

Gualarjo7,

Thanks, but we have a problem in that attachments don't come through.
Would you be so kind as to sent them to me by email? You could try a
test post first if you like...

Ron


--- In teslafy@yahoogroups.com, Jorge Arturo Guala <gualarjo7@y...> wrote:
> Dear Ron,
> Now I'm attaching two more detailed papers on the issue, taken from
Royal Swedish Academy of Sicences and American Journal of
Physics.Experimentation was repeted in other universities, and never
was refused.
> Best regards,
> Gualarjo7
>
>

Pulsed Plasma copycats prove my US Patent 6,271,614 is worth
stealing, but not investing in - because everyone seems to think it
cannot possibly be for real. Well, guess again.

All these applications operate on the process covered by my US patent
(including the Lutec & Tomion patents), yet if my patent is so
unbelievable - why are so many trying to get patents on the IDENTICAL
process of intermittent contact to apply power to and extract POWER
from an electromagnetic device? Clip and paste the whole line of code
if the link does not work.

Electrodes with intermittent contact to power a DC motive device.
Impossible or just NEW and "only possible" under my patent?

Some even claim their device runs cool and others say the Plasma,
arc, thermionic discharge, kinetic energy or whatever - is powerful.
Then look at the last application with my Pulsed Plasma device smack
dab in the Plasma Drivers seat of this "impossible" device.


Plasma impulse device application #20040070349
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?
Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
bool.html&r=6&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22plasma+impulse%
22&OS="plasma+impulse"&RS="plasma+impulse"

Thermonic Power Unit
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?
Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=3&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
bool.html&r=124&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Glow&s2=motor&OS=Glow+AND+m
otor&RS=Glow+AND+motor

Here is my hydrogen production method as proposed to the DOE, using
my patented device as the Plasma Drive on a motor. Does this sound at
ALL familiar?
Apparatus and method for generating and using multi-direction DC and
AC electrical currents
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?
Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
bool.html&r=26&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=Glow&s2=motor&OS=Glow+AND+mo
tor&RS=Glow+AND+motor

ELECTROMECHANICAL POWER CONVERTER
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?
Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
bool.html&r=45&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22mechanical+switch%
22&s2=device&OS="mechanical+switch"+AND+device&RS="mechanical+switch"+
AND+device

"As proposed in part" to Puthoff, General Atomics, General Dynamics,
NASA, DoD, EG&G and many others over three years ago. The remainder
of the proposal was in electromagnetic, ZPF and fusion propulsion -
but nobody would invest a dime - except in their own research of my
PATENTED device so they could get their own patent on a mechanical
pulsed drive that was thought unworkable.

General Dynamics
ELECTROMAGNETIC GUN AND ROTATING PULSE FORMING NETWORK
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?
Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
bool.html&r=31&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22pulsed+energy%
22&OS="pulsed+energy"&RS="pulsed+energy"

When this gun goes off - there will be NO hiding from the beam.

I will be contacting the patent office and agents processing these
applications and others, to inform each of them that these
applications infringe on my patent rights, which have priority in
this method of Plasma Formation.

If nothing else, I will be lining up infringement suits so that some
blood sucking lawyer can take possession of my patent in "exchange"
for a small percentage of patent infringement settlements, and maybe
then I can pay off all "MY" creditors.

This will hopefully and most likely be my final post on the Internet,
as after over six years - I have gotten very tired of seeking funding
only to generate interest from those that would rather steal the
breakthroughs, ridicule my discoveries in Pulsed Plasma or both.

CA

--- Stefan Hartmann <harti@...> wrote:

>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Richard Brace
>   To: Stefan Hartmann
>   Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:14 PM
>   Subject: Re: Impedance matching ?
>
>
>   We have a closed loop.  Richard.
>
>   Stefan Hartmann <hartiberlin@...> wrote:
>     Well, some specialists also agrees on this:
>
>     From: "Cyril Smith"
>     Date: Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:16 pm
>     Subject: Re: [ou-builders] OU Motor/Generator
>
>
>     I can think of many systems which consume
> considerable amounts of power when
>     unloaded, then when a load is applied the output
> power exceeds the
>     incremental increase in input power.
That is not
> a demonstration of OU, nor
>     is it an indication of OU.
This is particularly true in different aspects with
the common three phase alternator. In fact ANY
ferromagnetic based machinery, including the ordinary
transformer cannot have a linear input/output power
comparison over the entire range of operation, and
this is due to the simple thing known as saturation. A
mass of segmented silicone iron plates, used as the
magnetic core for the transformer has the effect of
amplifying the magnetic field produced by the
amp-turns of the windings employed for the
transformation of voltage effects.  If the iron core
were not in place for the magnetic field, of course
that magnetic field would be thousands of times
weaker.  In fact an unloaded primary, with secondary
of the transformer in open circuit, may measure a
certain amount of "reactive" amperage consumption,
even though the transformer is in an unloaded state.
Typically for a 1.5 KVA rated 4/1 step up transformer,
a meter may measure 1.1 A @ 110 AC household voltage
input. Now suppose we incrementally increase the input
voltage until the point where the voltage times the
reactive amperage consumption equals the stated KVA
limit. Going beyond this point the primary will begin
loosing its effective impedance, because saturation of
the core begins to take place. The core begins to act
as if no iron were present in its core. Because the
transformer primary looses its effective impedance,
where the presence of iron in the core causes that
impedance effect; beyond that critical voltage input
point, the primary amperage begins to skyrocket, which
if left unchecked will result in insulation meltdown
of the primary. Thus we can burn up a transformer,
even though it is unloaded, by exceeding the
saturation limit of its core. In the second case where
we had an actual load on the secondary, if those
secondary currents also exceeded the stated KVA limit,
saturation would still have the same destructive
effects on the primary insulation. In these cases the
input/output ratios become non-linear because of these
saturation effects.  This also tends to explain what
can happen with an car alternator that is designed
only to resupply the car battery with 12-14 volts for
recharging. We can easily make that alternator instead
output 50 volts, by sending in more current to its
input rotating DC electromagnet known as the field. We
can measure the input voltage to field vs the output
stator voltage, but after about 35 volts we find a law
of diminishing returns of output vs input voltage
occurs. We have begun to operate past the saturation
limit of the iron stator core. And in fact, like the
transformer example we can even operate the alternator
with no loads attached, and if the output voltage
exceeds the cores saturation limit, the alternator can
so severely overheat that the insulation of the stator
windings will melt down. In fact because the AC
alternator is designed as a three phase poly phased
output, we do obtain an internal circulation of
current between the phases, as if the internal stator
windings were wired in delta, where in that situation
each phase would have two connections in common with
its neighboring phases, meaning that internal
circulation of stator phase currents would be easily
possible because the outputs have a closed pathway via
the adjacent phases. However paradoxically the stator
windings are always wired with only one connection
being held in common: they are internally wired in
WYE, not DELTA. Since however it is observed that this
excessive heating effect of the stator core still
takes place at saturation levels, we must conclude
that the spatially rotating magnetic field made by the
flux leakage of the field rotor: this rotating
magnetic field actually enables each phase to function
with a "one ended" current delivery, which is a very
uncommon current delivery, normally only found in high
voltage polar capacity circuits, where no return wire
need be in place for current conduction in a circuit
to take place.

Unless they have
> evidence to the contrary, they
>     are wrong to assume that if they continued to
> apply loading in 369 watt
>     increments the input power would increase in 61
> watt increments, thus
>     reaching OU at the sixth increment.
Again as explained any ferromagnetic device, inherent
with the size of its ferromagnetic core, will have a
certain limit point where saturation effects begin to
degrade any former linear input/output measurements.

  Their
> published table is not a series
>     of measurements, it is just that linear
> extrapolation which IMO is extremely
>     unlikely to be true. Of course a closed loop
> demonstration would settle any
>     argument, it will be interesting if this
> happens.
>
>     Cyril
Somewhat interesting is a method to somewhat bypass
the ordinary saturation problems in the alternator. By
making a regulated closed feedback loop, where the
field is energized by the reduced stator voltage made
by the load of a water cell, (this is actually a
scheme where the output is recycled back to the input,
which if done in a unregulated manner will cause a
runaway remagnetization of the field, leading to
overload saturation operation): by making this closed
feedback loop the alternator can be made to act as if
were functioning as a magneto, where no external
source of power is needed to energize the field. This
is an little known example where the alternator can
function with a self energized field. By instead
employing the "timing" effect of the fields DC pulse
via diodes which is internally "timed" via the timing
on one of the three phases of stator voltage output to
input feedback, the regulated timing of this DC pulse
can cause the field to be significantly energized only
during the timing period when only one phase recieves
the majority of the moving magnetic flux created by
the rotating field rotor.  This stator output phase
will have a significantly higher voltage then its
neighboring phases. Additionally that phase will
recieve a higher amount of flux change in movement,
because that flux change is above and beyond what the
movement of the flux leakage made by the field rotor
in  rotational movement itself causes, for the simple
fact that the input magnetic field that causes that
stator output itself to exist; is also expanding and
collapsing during the predominant phases output stage.
In a certain sense we have combined the actions of a
transformer, that relies on the principle of a
magnetic field that changes in time to create flux
change on its secondary output: we have combined this
with a different class of emf generating machinery
that instead relies on a magnetic flux change brought
about by instead rotating a variable magnetic field in
spatial rotation. This type of electrical generation
shows that the higher heat losses evident in ordinary
saturation effects do not take place in comparison to
the same machine being operated at that level of
voltage output. Further possibilities of generating
voltages above and beyond the norm by such machines
are available by ignoring the recomendations of
electrical engineers, where it is advised to always
avoid making a WYE to WYE transformer connection.
See "Three Phase Transformer Info"
http://www.elec-toolbox.com/usefulinfo/xfmr-3ph.htm
There are only 4 possible transformer combinations:

Delta to Delta - use: industrial applications
Delta to Wye - use : most common; commercial and
industrial
Wye to Delta - use : high voltage transmissions
Wye to Wye - use : rare, don't use causes harmonics
and balancing problems.

In fact because the alternator is internally wired in
WYE, when we hook that WYE stator output to a WYE to
DELTA step up transformer, I have found that generally
a distorted voltage output takes place, where the
three output voltages of the three secondary outputs
express themselves in a ~ 1:2:3 ratio. For example we
might obtain 100 volts on the first phase, 200 volts
on the second phase, and 300 volts on the third phase.
The third phase in fact may be outputing a voltage
beyond what its normal step up ratio specifications
involve.  Now given the fact that with the alternator
fashioned with a self energized field can already have
this inherent voltage inbalance on its phases, by
varying the input connections to the WYE primary, a
combination might be found that even further enhances
the secondaries voltage inbalance. By sensible
experimentation we may in actuality be able to use
three phase principles to make the machine function
very efficiently as a single phase generator. Luckily
I have sometime ago purchased a higher voltage large
three phase WYE to DELTA step up transformer. Much
work remains on making these tests.

Sincerely Harvey D Norris.


=====
Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Hi Mr Norris,
I enjoy very much your efforts to understand
what's going on, I would like to ask you a question:

Do you believe the Continuous Electrical Generator
patent application is possible to demonstarte easly?
(Ask for 20030168921 @ pat2pdf.org)

It's basically a no-moving part alternator.
Two three-phase windings are used on a good circular core
with a phase correction transformer (only simple capacitors?).

What do you think? I find it marvelously simple!

Adam

Anyone know a URL for doing patent searches? Used to know one, but it
has been awhile since I did any patent searches.  Doesnt IBM or
someone have such a service? Cant remember...

In other news...

Been real sick  and bed ridden the last couple of weeks with chronic
gastritus, getting better now. I have almost finished composing a
longer more definitive document concerning the  meter readings and
steps made towards the alternator self energized field phenomenon.
This should be out this weekend.

Later...
HDN

I always use the "Advanced Search" on the USPTO website.  Of course, you
must know how to compose a Boolean query.

I haven't done any foreign searches in awhile, and can't remember what I
used when I did.

-MB

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harvey D Norris [mailto:harvich@...]
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 9:24 PM
> To: teslafy@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [teslafy] Patent Search Engines?
>
>
>
> Anyone know a URL for doing patent searches? Used to know one, but it
> has been awhile since I did any patent searches.  Doesnt IBM or
> someone have such a service? Cant remember...
>
> In other news...
>
> Been real sick  and bed ridden the last couple of weeks with chronic
> gastritus, getting better now. I have almost finished composing a
> longer more definitive document concerning the  meter readings and
> steps made towards the alternator self energized field phenomenon.
> This should be out this weekend.
>
> Later...
> HDN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--- adam.marquis@... wrote:

> Hi Mr Norris,
> I enjoy very much your efforts to understand
> what's going on, I would like to ask you a question:
>
> Do you believe the Continuous Electrical Generator
> patent application is possible to demonstarte easly?
> (Ask for 20030168921 @ pat2pdf.org)
Nope, cant quite understand what is going on there...
> It's basically a no-moving part alternator.
> Two three-phase windings are used on a good circular
> core
> with a phase correction transformer (only simple
> capacitors?).
>
> What do you think? I find it marvelously simple!
>
> Adam
OK, heres what I got for a description from USPTO,
where this info is contained in the patents
application section, meaning that it is not an actual
verified or granted patent;

United States Patent Application 20030168921
Kind Code  A1
Molina-Martinez, Alberto  September 11, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuous electrical generator


Abstract
A stationary cylindrical electromagnetic core, made of
one piece thin laminations stacked to desired height,
having closed slots radially distributed, where two
three-phase winding arrangements are placed together
in the same slots, one to the center, one to the
exterior, for the purpose of creating a rotational
electromagnetic field by applying temporarily a
three-phase current to one of said windings, and by
this means, inducting a voltage on the second one, in
such a way that the outgoing energy is a lot greater
than the input. A return will feedback the system and
the temporary source is then disconnected. The
generator will run by itself indefinitely generating a
great excess of energy permanently.

0002] 1. Field of the Invention

[0003] The present invention relates generally to,
electrical power generating systems. More
specifically, the present invention relates to
self-feeding electrical power generating units.

[0004] 2. Description of Related Art

[0005] Since Nikola Tesla invented and patented his
Polyphase System for Generators, Induction Motors and
Transformers, no essential improvement has been made
in the field. The generators would produce the
polyphase voltages and currents by means of mechanical
rotational movement in order to force a magnetic field
to rotate across the generator's radially spaced
windings. The basis of the induction motor system was
to create an electro-magnetically rotating field,
instead of a mechanically rotated magnetic field,
which would induce voltages and currents to generate
electromotive forces usable as mechanical energy or
power. Finally, the transformers would manipulate the
voltages and currents to make them feasible for their
use and transmission for long distances.

[0006] In all present Electric Generators a small
amount of energy, normally less than one percent of
the outgoing power in big generators, is used to
excite the mechanically rotated electromagnetic poles
that will induce voltages and currents in conductors
having a relative speed or movement between them and
the polar masses.

[0007] The rest of the energy used in the process of
obtaining electricity, is needed to move the masses
and to overcome the losses of the system: mechanical
losses; friction losses; brushes losses, windage
losses; armature reaction losses; air-gap losses;
synchronous reactance losses; eddy current losses;
hysteresis losses, all of which, in conjunction, are
responsible for the excess in power input (mechanical
power) required to generate always smaller amounts of
electric power.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0008] The Continuous Electrical Generator consists of
a stationary cylindrical electromagnetic core made of
one piece thin laminations stacked together to form a
cylinder, where two three-phase windings arrangements
are placed in the same slots not having any physical
relative speed or displacement between them. When one
of the windings is connected to a temporary
three-phase source, an electromagnetic rotating field
is created, and the field this way created will cut
the stationary coils of the second winding, inducting
voltages and currents. In the same way and extent as
in common generators, about one percent or less of the
outgoing power will be needed to keep the rotational
magnetic field excited.

[0009] In the Continuous Electrical Generator there
are no mechanical losses; friction losses; brushes
losses; windage losses; armature reaction losses; or
air gap losses, because there is not any movement of
any kind. There are: synchronous reactance losses,
eddy current losses and hysteresis losses, which are
inherent to the design, construction and the materials
of the generator, but in the same extent as in common
generators.

[0010] One percent or less of the total energy
produced by present electric generators goes to create
their own magnetic field; a mechanical energy that
exceeds the total output of present generators is used
to make them rotate in the process of extracting
electrical currents from them. In the Continuous
Electrical Generator there is no need for movement
since the field is in fact already rotating
electro-magnetically, so all that mechanical energy
will not be needed. Under similar conditions of
exciting currents, core mass and windings design, the
Continuous Electrical Generator is significantly more
efficient than present generators, which also means
that it can produce significantly more than the energy
it needs to operate. The Continuous Electrical
Generator can feedback the system, the temporary
source may be disconnected and the Generator will run
indefinitely.

[0011] As with any other generator, the Continuous
Electrical Generator may excite its own
electromagnetic field with a minimum part of the
electrical energy produced. The Continuous Electrical
Generator only needs to be started up by connecting
its inducting three-phase windings to a three-phase
external source for an instant, and then to be
disconnected, to start the system as described herein.
Then, disconnected, it will run indefinitely
generating a great excess of electric power to the
extent of its design.

[0012] The Continuous Electrical Generator can be
designed and calculated with all mathematical formulas
in use today to design and calculate electrical
generators and motors. It complies with all of the
laws and parameters used to calculate electrical
induction and generation of electricity today.

[0013] Except for the Law of Conservation of Energy,
which, by itself, is not a mathematical equation but a
theoretical concept and by the same reason does not
have any role in the mathematical calculation of an
electrical generator of any type, the Continuous
Electrical Generator complies with all the Laws of
Physics and Electrical Engineering. The Continuous
Electrical Generator obligates us to review the Law of
Conservation of Energy. In my personal belief, the
electricity has never come from the mechanical energy
that we put into a machine to move the masses against
all oppositions. The mechanical system is actually
providing the path for the condensation of
electricity. The Continuous Electrical Generator
provides a more efficient path for the electricity.

HDN comments;
The author notes;
  where two three-phase winding arrangements are placed
together in the same slots, one to the center, one to
the exterior, for the purpose of creating a rotational
electromagnetic field by applying temporarily a
three-phase current to one of said windings, and by
this means, inducting a voltage on the second one, in
such a way that the outgoing energy is a lot greater
than the input. A return will feedback the system and
the temporary source is then disconnected. The
generator will run by itself indefinitely generating a
great excess of energy permanently.
HDN;    If you look at how the stator windings of an
alternator are placed within the context of the
silicone iron laminations, one will see that each
phase has its own set of laminations. This is very
evident on the stator core of my bus alternators which
have only 54 winds of copper busbar, and each
individual wind bisects a core lamination. Each phase
has 18 of these winds placed in series, with that
series connection employing every third lamination.
The "phases" are radially spatially separated to
correspond with the space created by the flux leakage
of the pole face field rotor. Thus when the the
majority of the flux leakage is going across one of
these laminations, the adjacent lamination is not
recieving that amount of flux leakage, which is why
each of the phasings has a different point in time
when its maximum flux change acts. Elementary Watson,
this is merely the principle of polyphased outputs,
when one is at max, the other adjacent phase is not at
max.  Here the patent author apparently is placing two
of these windings on the same slot, and using one of
them as input and the other as output, so in actuality
by that description it is only a single phase
application, even though that input phase is taken
from a three phase source of currents. Now it is the
poly-phase input action that itself produces the
illusion of a rotating magnetic field, where each of
these lamination segnments are energized in succesive
order in time by the actual mechanical rotation of the
pole faces flux leakage rotation. So I fail to see how
any actual rotating magnetic field is being
established by this cited example, since only a single
phase is being exploited for the input.... Perhaps the
author intends to recycle the output of the outside
segment into the next adjacent phase? The author also
notes;
in such a way that the outgoing energy is a lot
greater than the input.[HDN; (Hey thats one hell of a
trick there! Already I am dumbfounded! Not only that I
am dubious! Can anyone fathom how energy can be fed
into a device so that the output is greater then the
input? And this is just casually mentioned in the
patent application; yeah just make it like that, that
s why it can work... duh, Am I missing something
here?}]A return will feedback the system and the
temporary source is then disconnected.
HDN; Okay the author mentions that the return will
feedback the system. The only way I can imagine that a
rotating magnetic field is being established is if
that feedback were directed to the next adjacent
phase, but that phase of course will have reactive
losses involved, and its output certainly is not going
to be greater then the input of the inginal inside
stator winding. The author seems to be giving a
description that is deliberately vague. He simply
states that the output is fed back to the system. What
"part" of the system is he talking about? If he were
to state that it is fed back to the next adjacent
phase, well then things might become understandable.
Because of the reactive time lag the impressed voltage
of the original voltage impulse can have at maximum
phase angle its amperage occuring 90 degrees later,
but that is dependent on its transformative load being
open circuit, which the author states it is not; If
the output of the transformation had a load of the
next adjacent lamination the basic question then
becomes is there a time lag between when the amperage
issues on the first lamination compared to the second
adjacent lamination? If this were true then we should
expect that a semblance of a rotating magnetic field
is being established. These issues remind me of a dog
chasing its own tail... Let us reformulate this
proposition. Suppose we had two isolation
transformers, where all that happens is a phasing
difference, and no transforming of voltages is made.
If we measure the phasing of the secondary with
respect to the primary, if no load is on the secondary
we know its phasing will be 90 degrees out of phase
with the primary. The zero crossing point of the
primaries AC signal is the point where the slope of
the AC curve is at its greatest point: in the language
of calculus we would say that the differential of the
original equations curve corresponds to the slope of
that curve at any point in time: if the input signal
were a sine wave, its differential is the cosine wave,
which is 90 degrees out of phase with the sine, so
actually the point of maximum flux change in the core
corresponds to the original signals AC zero crossing
point where the polarity changes. So for the unloaded
secondary by definition we know its AC voltage output
signal is 90 degrees out of phase with the original
signal. But the moment we put a load on the secondary
this reduces that 90 degree phase difference of
relative voltage timings between the primary and
secondary, which is why the primary then begins to
draw more amperage. But what would happen if we
doubled this situation and attached the secondary of
the first isolation transformer to the primary of a
second isolation transformer? What would be the
phasing relationship of the additional secondary be
with respect to the original primary? Is this a common
practice to hook two isolation transformers together?
In fact I have to say this is a very common practice!
The variacs I use are model WP-32, MONITOR ISO-V-AC
III, and a mpeg has been made where internal arcing
has occured with these. When you take the cover off
these expensive variac models, that retail over 500
dollars, you will see not one but two tranformers. The
ISO in the name brand implies that they use isolation
transformers, which do not change the voltage from one
to another, but they isolate the voltage from the wall
mains where the machine is plugged into from a wall
outlet. The first transformer is the one that is
regulated to produce the variable voltage. That signal
is then sent to an isolation transformer. What I had
done was to take that  second output signal and input
it to even a third transformer, which was a 440 step
up transformer. That output then went to the original
Binary Resonant System of dual high induction coils,
that had a q factor of about 30. By turning up the
variac to 120 input volts, it became 440 volts after
going through that last transformer, and then at the
ending of the circuit the 440 was multiplied by 60 hz
resonant rise of voltage 30 fold to some 13,200 volts
by 30 fold multiplication. Actually the variac could
output 150 VAC, so over 14,000 AC volts could produced
on the ending coil system.
     Check out 1.5 cm BRS Arc Gap & Kickbacks
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/KCB/
     Two bars connected to the opposite resonat rises
of voltage 14,000 volts were attached to needles that
were separated about 1.5 cm. A discharge between the
needles is shown at
1.5 cm Needle Arc Gap
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/KCB/Dzl21B3.jpg


Now as long as that 440 transformer was directly
plugged into a wall outlet, no further problems would
occur with this set-up, but every other sensitive
device plugged into other wall outlets in the house
would show that every time an arc was procurred, the
cable TV would show it, and the computer, even though
it had its own surge protector, it would get knocked
offline everytime the BRS made a substantial arc
between its potentials. A tremendous backfire back
towards the wall wiring was being made everytime the
BRS was made to arc. Now a new situation was made
where the transformer plug was instead plugged into
the variac, instead of the wall outlet, meaning that
now what ever was going on with the high voltage
process was supposedly isolated from the wall supply,
since it had an intervening isolation transformer. In
both cases the 440 transformer outputs were were
connected to the plug that was wired to the BRS, where
the common distance of the electrodes of a common plug
is just over 1 cm.  Now what would happen is that when
the needle gap fired, about a second later an
equivalent or greater arc would occur at the actual
start of the BRS circuit, which was the plug that was
hooked to the 440 output of the transformer. For this
arc to fire, if it were firing from the source of
voltage being expressed at the needle arc gap, it
would have to travel through nine miles of 23 guage
wire in the coils for it to reach its destination.
Since this "backfire" arc always took about one second
to manifest itself, and the coils themselves have a
massive internal capacitance, the normal C value of
the propagation of an electrical impulse had been
slowed considerably. But why would an arc on the
output suddenly appear as an electrical input and send
a high voltage signal backwards through the system so
that now an electrical arc appeared at the normal
beginning of the circuit? This is somewhat easy to
understand because the BRS circuit has point symmetry,
it is the same thing from the inside-out as the
outside-in. We could just as easily use the needles of
the output arc gap, give them the input voltage signal
and then manufacture the arc at what was formerly the
beginning input to the system, which in this case was
the starting plug that is connected to the 440
transformer.  But the point being made here is that IF
that transformer was NOT isolated from the wall
supply, the  plug backfires do not occur. When we
isolate that transformer from the wall supply, the
backfires DO occur. Here is a large backfire on the
secondary plug...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/KCB/Dzl4356.jpg


Now what is not pictured in the KCB file is kickbacks
going even further back up the system.  But on the
mpeg made of this process it is shown. (I now have
broadband on this computer, so if anyone wishes to see
this mpeg it could be quickly sent over the internet
provided the reciever also has a high speed internet
connection) If the output plug hooked to the
transformer secondary did not backfire, the backfires
instead would occur on the output of the variacs
isolation transformer, which has about a 2 cm
separation of output electrodes.  In fact the last
time I was playing around with the  60 hz BRS set-up,
before two of these massive induction coils were
ruined by abuse and no longer appear able to resonate
at 60 hz, I was trying to negotiate a very small rapid
fire arc between the bars, which is done by taking a
stick and poking the touching bars around so that a
small gap appears between the bars. The 440
transformer was then not even in the circuit, so it is
a bit harder to get the arcing going without the
higher input voltage. Instead I had the BRS plugged
directly into the 120-150 volts available from the
variac itself. At some point I had completely opened
the space between the bars and wanted to gradually
push them back together for a close clearance. Shortly
after pushing the bars apart I hears a loud pop, and
sure enough a wisp of smoke was coming from the
isolation transformer of the variac! I then desisted
from doing that kind of nonscense after several more
of those pops; but the variac still works, even though
the front monitor meters appear to be fried. The BRS
quenched arc gap using these bars is shown at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/BRMA/Dsc00339.jpg

  At higher input voltages the bars can be given a very
narrow gap along their entire length, and what seems
like hundreds of pin prick points of miniscule arcing
points will take place, each of thse discharges
represent an rf burst, and very high BPS (Bursts per
Second) rates can be made from such a quenched arc gap
system. It is quenched because the moment the arc
occurs the voltage that creates the arc vanishes, as
the system has been changed from series resonant rise
of voltage that will exist upon open gap position, to
the absence of resonant voltage rise when the arc
bridges the potentials, which also converts the system
to a high impedance tank circuit, that further blocks
any former amperage input to the coil system, which
also chokes off the former amperage input into the
system, which is an additional factor that will cause
the arc to shut down...  Well it looks like my
reminiscing about subjects has caused me to go off
topic again, so back to the business of the patent,
but I wanted to show one more stange thing... A moment
before one of these hugh backfires occur, the VHS
camera will capture something that the eyes do not
see, I called it a yellow sprite...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/KCB/DzlF0B4.jpg

This yellow disharge thingy is pointed towards the
direction of the plug where the backfire will occur
about 1/60th of a second or so later. We might
classify it as a precursor event, but I never saw it
with my eyes, only the camera picked that thing up.
The next frame of camera  review also shows something
very strange, a time period BETWEEN the two frames,
which are normally 1/60th of a second apart, where
here we see both the precursor yellow sprite event,
and then the backfire disharge...
Split frame showing Yellow Streak Precursor to Big
Bang
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/files/KCB/Dzl1080.jpg

What does all this mean? Heck I dont know. Apparently
even though the isolation transformer of the variac is
supposed to prevent backfire rf from reaching the wall
outlets that the camera is plugged into, something
else is making the camera malfunction. Perhaps the
arcs in space itself are effecting the camera... But
how they can apparently go back in time and make
signals to the camera BEFORE the backfire-arc occurs,
that is quite beyond my understanding...

Now back to the patent; If in fact the output of one
lamination segment containing both input and output
windings on its segment were to be recycled back to
the next ajacent segment to produce this rotating
magnetic field effect; it should be accepted that only
a reactive timing delay between first and second
segments magnetic field would make that possible.
Since by this theory the output segment is connected
to another identical segment, this resembles the
condition of max energy transfer where R(int) = R
(load) If in fact the secondary transformative output
was outputing its maximum amount of possible amperage,
this further implies that that the primary would also
be consuming its maximum amperage, and since both
sides are being maxed out that further implies that
little or no phase angle difference would exist
between the input and output phasings, further
implying that no roational magnetic field would be
procurred by such a method. The whole subject makes my
head spin, again it reaminds me  of a dog chasing its
own tail... So lets look at some further claims that
go against my understanding...

[0006] In all present Electric Generators a small
amount of energy, normally less than one percent of
the outgoing power in big generators, is used to
excite the mechanically rotated electromagnetic poles
that will induce voltages and currents in conductors
having a relative speed or movement between them and
the polar masses.
HDN; As will be seen in the upcoming article showing
meter readings for a self energized field, it takes
one hell of a lot more then just 1% of the output
energy to be used for recycling the field amperage. I
just cant fathom what this guy is talking about
anyways. Commercial generators employing rotating
magnets as the field are strictly a mechanical
conversion of energy into electrical energy, and NONE
of the outgoing power is used to excite the
mechanically rotating poles...

So.. I am about to give up on this subject, however
further on in the patent the following claims are
made...

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0023] The present invention is a Continuous and
Autonomous Electrical Generator, capable of producing
more energy than it needs to operate, and which
provides itself the energy needed to operate. The
basic idea consists in the induction of electric
voltages and currents without any physical movement by
the use of a rotational magnetic field created by a
three-phase stator connected temporarily to a
three-phase source, and placing stationary conductors
on the path of said rotational magnetic field,
eliminating the need of mechanical forces.

HDN; Okay now the guy appears to be talking about
something else, yeah now we are inputing three phases,
instead of merely one; and we also have a set of three
windings connected to the same stator cores that are
supposed to be used for output... Huh, what makes this
very different from the standard three phase
transformer? I do have a large three phase step up
transformer and somewhere on purusing some of the many
discussion lists I noted that someone was talking
about recycling the secondary output of the
transformer back to one of the primary windings and
that this would cause a self sustaining rotating
magnetic field to develope on the transformer. I have
NO IDEA on what the specifics of that method was
supposed to involve; but if someone DOES KNOW those
specifics and could sensibly describe it, I would be
willing to try.

In ending here I can only describe one positive aspect
to the whole gamut of ideas here being expressed. I
have tested and can supply some references where I
attempted to resonate ferromagnetic inductors, via
alternator frequency inputs; and in every case the
amount of possible resonance that can be obtained with
ferromagnetic components has been a totally miserable
performance. HOWEVER I was able to find one example
that gave a SUPERB performance. This was essentially a
non sensible experiment, where I applied what might be
called a power factor correction in an attempt to run
an alternator backwards to make it function as a
motor. I then spun the field rotor by hand to see if
it would pick up any rotational effects, which it did
not. That doesnt at all surprise me because the
alternator is a class of machinery where it CANNOT be
run backwards and function as a motor, but they say
that this can be done with an ordinary three phase
motor, its normal rotational output shaft can be spun,
and by somehow sending in some current to initially
make a rotating magnetic field, we can make that 3
phase motor function in reverse so that it becomes
instead a generator, yes I can believe that is
possible, but I dont know the specifics, and I dont
have the  extra motor machinery to try it again, but
many years ago I did try it with a surplus three phase
motor, but I did not succeed it making it work. I am
not about to remove the alternator from the present
motor I am using to again explore that option, as the
current reserch I do is sufficient for me. But here is
the remarkable thing about running the alternator
backwards as a motor experiment.  If I take the
present METR components and take all three voltage
rises and tie them together, this converts the three
series resonances and turns them into three tank
circuits, by making a WYE short of the voltage rises.
At the lowest measured levels I seem to recall that if
the inside lines measured 200 ma, the actual stator
lines measured 25 ma, so this showed the resonant rise
of amperage aspect.  Then I took those inside lines
and hooked them to the staor lines of another
alternator, and got virtually the same result. That
was the only result I have seen where a ferromagnetic
load responded effectively to resonance. If I instead
had a small ferromagnetic 3 phase motor I could try
the same thing, but they dont make three phase motors
in small sizes.  The other option would be to fire up
the very much larger bus alternators, make METR
components for them, and then attach a three phase
motor to the outputs. A lot of speculation exists
here... The windings of a three phase motor may be
quite different from the windings of a three phase
stator of an alternator... In fact thinking about this
now I know a better option, I have a smaller size
three phase transformer also, why not try such a power
factor correction on its three phase inputs and see if
I obtain more current on the primaries than is inputed
by the alternator? Of course then to complete those
tests you also need to see the effects of having a
load on that 3 phase transformer.  Now formerly a air
core example of the above thing was tried that
initially gave some surprising results, and that didnt
even have anything to do with resonance.  When we take
three identical windings of the spiral METR
components, and attach them in WYE load, and we also
measure the voltage across each of those WYE segments,
we obtain a conduction that is in excess to what ohms
law would give as an answer. I now understand the
reason for that, which is because the spirals have
100% mutual inductance, there is actually TWO sources
of emf on each winding, that of the emf made from the
direct alternator line connection, AND that made by
the induction of the neighboring winding. We would
suspect by common sense that the direction of the
imposed voltage made by induction is in the same
direction as that used by the direct line connection,
since each of these things make currents in the same
direction; but that is where the assumption turns out
to be a delusion: in fact the induced emf from a
spatial source will oppose the emf made by the direct
line connection, even though both of those sources
will produce currents in agreement! In that particular
case where ohms law seemed to be defied, in that we
obtained more current on the segment then what its
measured imposed voltage should allow, the delusion
was exposed when we read a 6 volt stator reading, but
only a 1 volt reading on the WYE segment. In fact if
NO mutual induction had taken place between windings,
given an outside stator voltage reading of 6 volts,
the inside WYE segment should have read 6/1.7 = 3.53
volts. Extra current was induced on this segment by
induction of adjacent segments, BUT instead of this
effect increasing the apparent voltage on that
segment, it instead decreased that reading to 1 volt.
This is the only possible explanation for reading 6
volts on the outside of a WYE load, but only 1 volt on
the inside. The identical spiral air core windings in
WYE also produced a magnetic field that summed for
magnetic cancellation by timing differences. Is their
any difference if we made those windings also have
complete mutual inductance, OR magnetic cancellation
in timing differences by having the three phase
windings interior volume containing silicone iron
segments in a complete circle?  Apparently this is an
important question. When do magnetic fields sum to
cancel, and when do they rotate, given the fact that
both methods appear to make the same result.  Enough
speculation for now... Saranaya.

HDN





=====
Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Harvey,

You were getting close there. I believe there is great merit
to some sort of self powered three phase generator.

I am familiar with the RV concept. The first part of this
experiment is were a three phase motor is connected to a
reduced voltage and single phase. A capacitor connected across
two of the other phases allows the motor to start and run.
For example,a three horse three phase motor will run on only 46
watts, 120 volt, AC, single phase line. A second similar motor
coupled to the first motor as a prime mover, a capacitor across
two phases, becomes an alternator. It is facscinating to hear
the pitch chage as the second motor starts to excite.  A typical
reading of this ciculating current in the alternator might be
190 volts at 4/5 amps (one phase)thus it is very possible to have
one or two kilo watts of circulating current for the initial
outlay of 50/60 watts. The trick, needless to say, is to harness
this source of energy to do some useful work.

It is very possible that the continous generator could be made
to work. The initial starting source could be the three phase line
but as the above shows, single phase and capacitors might work
equally as well to produce the rotating field. The 1% feedback
in the patent is highly optimistic, but even 50% feedback would
be an acceptable achievement.

I am not smart enough to follow this through, but with your
knowledge and 3 phase experience...why, I think you should
make every effort to unravel this mystery.  (grin)

Ron


--- In teslafy@yahoogroups.com, Harvey Norris <harvich@y...> wrote:
snip
>
> HDN; Okay now the guy appears to be talking about
> something else, yeah now we are inputing three phases,
> instead of merely one; and we also have a set of three
> windings connected to the same stator cores that are
> supposed to be used for output... Huh, what makes this
> very different from the standard three phase
> transformer? I do have a large three phase step up
> transformer and somewhere on purusing some of the many
> discussion lists I noted that someone was talking
> about recycling the secondary output of the
> transformer back to one of the primary windings and
> that this would cause a self sustaining rotating
> magnetic field to develope on the transformer. I have
> NO IDEA on what the specifics of that method was
> supposed to involve; but if someone DOES KNOW those
> specifics and could sensibly describe it, I would be
> willing to try.
>
> In ending here I can only describe one positive aspect>
snip
> HDN
>

--- iron1of1 <ronee@...> wrote:

>
> Harvey,
>
> You were getting close there. I believe there is
> great merit
> to some sort of self powered three phase generator.
>
> I am familiar with the RV concept. The first part of
> this
> experiment is were a three phase motor is connected
> to a
> reduced voltage and single phase. A capacitor
> connected across
> two of the other phases allows the motor to start
> and run.
> For example,a three horse three phase motor will run
> on only 46
> watts, 120 volt, AC, single phase line. A second
> similar motor
> coupled to the first motor as a prime mover, a
> capacitor across
> two phases, becomes an alternator. It is
> facscinating to hear
> the pitch chage as the second motor starts to
> excite.  A typical
> reading of this ciculating current in the alternator
> might be
> 190 volts at 4/5 amps (one phase)thus it is very
> possible to have
> one or two kilo watts of circulating current for the
> initial
> outlay of 50/60 watts. The trick, needless to say,
> is to harness
> this source of energy to do some useful work.
Yes the RV concept sounds fascinating. I am a little
confused about things here however. Is the final three
phase motor that is being run backwards as an
alternator used as a current that is fed back into the
original prime mover, to decrease its amperage demand
that would initally be required to start the motion?
Wouldnt it be better to employ an efficient actual
magnet generator as that ending piece? Perhaps there
are limitations regarding the efficiency of a three
phase motor being run backwards as a generator? Maybe
next year when my monetary situation improves I can
purchase another motor and two three phase motors to
explore this concept.
> It is very possible that the continous generator
> could be made
> to work. The initial starting source could be the
> three phase line
> but as the above shows, single phase and capacitors
> might work
> equally as well to produce the rotating field. The
> 1% feedback
> in the patent is highly optimistic, but even 50%
> feedback would
> be an acceptable achievement.
I note in the upcoming article that ~ 13% of the
extracted wattage from the interphasal resonant
currents is used to  self excite the field. This
figure goes down slightly when we operate at higher
voltages. I will be showing all aspects of the
operation by use of 13 different meters, showing all
branches of current and voltage. The non-linearity of
field resistance is also shown where when operating at
a 22 volt power output phase, the field appears as 6
ohms, but at the higher level near 35 volts the power
output phase the field appears near 4.8 ohms. I am
optimistic that the process can be used to also power
more exterior loads, (it already does this in the
electrolysis work of the controlling water cell that
regulates the voltage that appears across the field;
it uses the other 87% of the obtained interphasal
wattage). The reason for assuming that more loads can
be added is that the power output phase is about 10
volts above the lowest voltage phase when operating at
the 35 volt level. This would imply that the extra 10
volts if given a further load might better equalize
all the stator voltages, pulling that voltage down to
the level of the other phases. The apparent reason for
this output voltage imbalance, which may turn out to
be a favorable mode of operation for powering further
loads, is that no filter capacitor has been placed on
the internally generated DC pulse that is used for the
fields self feedback loop. Additionally that
internally generated DC pulse appears to be timed so
that one phase recieves the majority of the fields DC
pulse, thereby expressing a higher voltage output.
Additional benefits of using a internally timed DC
pulse for exciting the field is that apparently the
alternator can be operated at these higher voltage
outputs without excessive stator core heating taking
place, and also avoiding some stator saturation
problems that occur with this higher voltage mode of
operation. All the previous alternator experimentation
has taken place with a norm of a 14 - 20 volt stator
as the upper limit, where even if the amperage draw
was minimized, operation above those voltage limits
quickly leads to excessive stator heating. After all
this alternator I have used is only a smaller
Delco-Remy model, and besides this all car alternators
normally are designed to only operate to recharge a 12
volt car battery. The usefulness of employing an
internally timed DC pulse for the field also seems to
be that the phase that recieves the least amount of
field energization, when the DC pulse has gone back
down to zero input, that phase being some ten volts
below the power output phase still developes an
appreciable output considering that hardly any field
energization has taken place during its timed output,
where the fields amperage has gone down to zero and
gone back up again, thus that phase must be harnessing
the remanent magnetism that appears in the field
rotor.
> I am not smart enough to follow this through, but
> with your
> knowledge and 3 phase experience...why, I think you
> should
> make every effort to unravel this mystery.  (grin)
>
> Ron
Yes again, when the funds become available this
further aspect will be explored... Thanx for the input
on this subject. Here is a off list letter I had
recieved concerning the RV idea, which I have only
breifly explored; and was unable to supply any answers
for, so if anyone else has some input, I'm sure the
author would appreciate it. I only made some comments
about the alternator aspect here

Hello Harvey

      I have a problem im trying to solve and you
appear to be discussing something vary similiar with
your last post.

I am building whats known as a rotoverter that hector
of arcresearch has posted See:

http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/ElectromagneticDev/arkresearch/rotov\
erter.htm

The prime mover (PM) is a 9wire 3phase 7.5hp motor
wired for 440vac run on 120vac in a static phase
converter configuration. Best performance is achieved
by tuning the run caps for  best phase to phase
voltage and minimum current draw. See:

http://home.att.net/~waterfront-woods/Articles/phaseconverter.htm

The PM is direct coupled to an identical motor and run
as and induction generator (IG). See:

http://www.qsl.net/ns8o/Induction_Generator.html

Only in this case we have a 3phase IG

This IG motor is wired for 220vac configuration. If
you go back to the first web reference you ill see in
the Full RV closed loop drawing that the output of the
IG is coupled through 3 caps to 3 xfmrs primaries in a
Y config. The secondaries of which are rectified and
fed back to the battery that is powering the inverter
that is driving the PM.

I currently have the IG in a simi resonant state
(cross couple cape = 60uf) generating 290vac with 11a
circulatinc in the tank.  Ive been led to believe that
to couple the energy from the IG i will have to
impediance match to the xfmrs.  My delema and what i
thought you might shed some light on is how does one
go about designing the complex cogigate coupling
network for this. Ballumn xfmr style or maby you have
a better method.

Your thoughts would be appriciated.

Best Regards

Ed

HDN reply;
The schematic page specifies some 3 amps
for excitation current of the alternator field
however. This is a high amount for energizing a field,
BUT, that depends on the rotation speed your
alternator is at. The faster the rotation, the least
proportion of energy required to excite field becomes.
If 380 watts are being expended for the field in the
rotoverter, I would imagine that to be due to a
relatively low rotation, the specs also state it is a
variable speed alternator producing 50 -450 cps. If
the alternator were not a multipole  field design, it
would have to rotate faster to achieve the saame freq
a multipole can deliver.  The point being here is that
when I operated the alternator at slower speeds, (~190
hz?)the field amperage requirements were twice as high
at the speed I am working at now, at 480 hz, to
produce
the same amount of power.

HDN


=====
Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Harvey,

Always interesting to read of your experiments, thanks.
In your car alternator, with up to 12 poles, it is a bit
hard some times to visualize exactly what is happening.
But, as you have noted there is more going on than we can
follow sometimes. Same with an induction motor used as an
alternator, the current in the windings creates the poles,
but the amount of residule magnetism in the rotor is slight,
yet most times it works.

In the RV concept Hector stresses that this is a learning tool.
It is not necessary to use another three phase motor to generate
the output. What is optimal is a low drag, high efficiency generator
(or DC motor) as Norman Wootan used in his closed loop run. At any
rate, the output should not be fed back to the prime mover directly.

To answer Ed's question: I reached this point and was experimenting
with different transformers that I had on hand. However, I didn't
have three matching transformers of high enough volt/amp rating
and needed more caps so stalled out. Just three, single phase
transformers, connected in wye should do. Also, the lead man in my
team dropped out and so I was unable to benifit from his experience.
I see there is a Yahoo group starting for Hector's RV replications.

RV does teach resonance, which ties in nicely with your work.
This is the parallel I was trying to draw attention to. The key
to this continous generator is probably something we already know.

Ron


--- In teslafy@yahoogroups.com, Harvey Norris <harvich@y...> wrote:
>
> --- iron1of1 <ronee@t...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Harvey,
> >
> > You were getting close there. I believe there is
> > great merit
> > to some sort of self powered three phase generator.
> >
> > I am familiar with the RV concept. The first part of
> > this
> > experiment is were a three phase motor is connected
> > to a
> > reduced voltage and single phase. A capacitor
> > connected across
> > two of the other phases allows the motor to start
> > and run.
> > For example,a three horse three phase motor will run
> > on only 46
> > watts, 120 volt, AC, single phase line. A second
> > similar motor
> > coupled to the first motor as a prime mover, a
> > capacitor across
> > two phases, becomes an alternator. It is
> > facscinating to hear
> > the pitch chage as the second motor starts to
> > excite.  A typical
> > reading of this ciculating current in the alternator
> > might be
> > 190 volts at 4/5 amps (one phase)thus it is very
> > possible to have
> > one or two kilo watts of circulating current for the
> > initial
> > outlay of 50/60 watts. The trick, needless to say,
> > is to harness
> > this source of energy to do some useful work.
> Yes the RV concept sounds fascinating. I am a little
> confused about things here however. Is the final three
> phase motor that is being run backwards as an
> alternator used as a current that is fed back into the
> original prime mover, to decrease its amperage demand
> that would initally be required to start the motion?
> Wouldnt it be better to employ an efficient actual
> magnet generator as that ending piece? Perhaps there
> are limitations regarding the efficiency of a three
> phase motor being run backwards as a generator? Maybe
> next year when my monetary situation improves I can
> purchase another motor and two three phase motors to
> explore this concept.
> > It is very possible that the continous generator
> > could be made
> > to work. The initial starting source could be the
> > three phase line
> > but as the above shows, single phase and capacitors
> > might work
> > equally as well to produce the rotating field. The
> > 1% feedback
> > in the patent is highly optimistic, but even 50%
> > feedback would
> > be an acceptable achievement.
> I note in the upcoming article that ~ 13% of the
> extracted wattage from the interphasal resonant
> currents is used to  self excite the field. This
> figure goes down slightly when we operate at higher
> voltages. I will be showing all aspects of the
> operation by use of 13 different meters, showing all
> branches of current and voltage. The non-linearity of
> field resistance is also shown where when operating at
> a 22 volt power output phase, the field appears as 6
> ohms, but at the higher level near 35 volts the power
> output phase the field appears near 4.8 ohms. I am
> optimistic that the process can be used to also power
> more exterior loads, (it already does this in the
> electrolysis work of the controlling water cell that
> regulates the voltage that appears across the field;
> it uses the other 87% of the obtained interphasal
> wattage). The reason for assuming that more loads can
> be added is that the power output phase is about 10
> volts above the lowest voltage phase when operating at
> the 35 volt level. This would imply that the extra 10
> volts if given a further load might better equalize
> all the stator voltages, pulling that voltage down to
> the level of the other phases. The apparent reason for
> this output voltage imbalance, which may turn out to
> be a favorable mode of operation for powering further
> loads, is that no filter capacitor has been placed on
> the internally generated DC pulse that is used for the
> fields self feedback loop. Additionally that
> internally generated DC pulse appears to be timed so
> that one phase recieves the majority of the fields DC
> pulse, thereby expressing a higher voltage output.
> Additional benefits of using a internally timed DC
> pulse for exciting the field is that apparently the
> alternator can be operated at these higher voltage
> outputs without excessive stator core heating taking
> place, and also avoiding some stator saturation
> problems that occur with this higher voltage mode of
> operation. All the previous alternator experimentation
> has taken place with a norm of a 14 - 20 volt stator
> as the upper limit, where even if the amperage draw
> was minimized, operation above those voltage limits
> quickly leads to excessive stator heating. After all
> this alternator I have used is only a smaller
> Delco-Remy model, and besides this all car alternators
> normally are designed to only operate to recharge a 12
> volt car battery. The usefulness of employing an
> internally timed DC pulse for the field also seems to
> be that the phase that recieves the least amount of
> field energization, when the DC pulse has gone back
> down to zero input, that phase being some ten volts
> below the power output phase still developes an
> appreciable output considering that hardly any field
> energization has taken place during its timed output,
> where the fields amperage has gone down to zero and
> gone back up again, thus that phase must be harnessing
> the remanent magnetism that appears in the field
> rotor.
> > I am not smart enough to follow this through, but
> > with your
> > knowledge and 3 phase experience...why, I think you
> > should
> > make every effort to unravel this mystery.  (grin)
> >
> > Ron
> Yes again, when the funds become available this
> further aspect will be explored... Thanx for the input
> on this subject. Here is a off list letter I had
> recieved concerning the RV idea, which I have only
> breifly explored; and was unable to supply any answers
> for, so if anyone else has some input, I'm sure the
> author would appreciate it. I only made some comments
> about the alternator aspect here
>
> Hello Harvey
>
>      I have a problem im trying to solve and you
> appear to be discussing something vary similiar with
> your last post.
>
> I am building whats known as a rotoverter that hector
> of arcresearch has posted See:
>
>
http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/ElectromagneticDev/arkresearch/rotov\
erter.htm
>
> The prime mover (PM) is a 9wire 3phase 7.5hp motor
> wired for 440vac run on 120vac in a static phase
> converter configuration. Best performance is achieved
> by tuning the run caps for  best phase to phase
> voltage and minimum current draw. See:
>
> http://home.att.net/~waterfront-woods/Articles/phaseconverter.htm
>
> The PM is direct coupled to an identical motor and run
> as and induction generator (IG). See:
>
> http://www.qsl.net/ns8o/Induction_Generator.html
>
> Only in this case we have a 3phase IG
>
> This IG motor is wired for 220vac configuration. If
> you go back to the first web reference you ill see in
> the Full RV closed loop drawing that the output of the
> IG is coupled through 3 caps to 3 xfmrs primaries in a
> Y config. The secondaries of which are rectified and
> fed back to the battery that is powering the inverter
> that is driving the PM.
>
> I currently have the IG in a simi resonant state
> (cross couple cape = 60uf) generating 290vac with 11a
> circulatinc in the tank.  Ive been led to believe that
> to couple the energy from the IG i will have to
> impediance match to the xfmrs.  My delema and what i
> thought you might shed some light on is how does one
> go about designing the complex cogigate coupling
> network for this. Ballumn xfmr style or maby you have
> a better method.
>
> Your thoughts would be appriciated.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Ed
>
> HDN reply;
> The schematic page specifies some 3 amps
> for excitation current of the alternator field
> however. This is a high amount for energizing a field,
> BUT, that depends on the rotation speed your
> alternator is at. The faster the rotation, the least
> proportion of energy required to excite field becomes.
> If 380 watts are being expended for the field in the
> rotoverter, I would imagine that to be due to a
> relatively low rotation, the specs also state it is a
> variable speed alternator producing 50 -450 cps. If
> the alternator were not a multipole  field design, it
> would have to rotate faster to achieve the saame freq
> a multipole can deliver.  The point being here is that
> when I operated the alternator at slower speeds, (~190
> hz?)the field amperage requirements were twice as high
> at the speed I am working at now, at 480 hz, to
> produce
> the same amount of power.
>
> HDN
>
>
> =====
> Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal
Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/

Hi,
here are two other interesting needed references:

1- Again, at http://pat2pdf.org
20030025416 Generators and transformers with toroidally wounnd
             stator windings
"[...] have outputs wich are not limited by the torque capacity
  of their rotors"
2- http://www.internetfred.com/maggy.html
  Small proof of concept experiment for the magnetic interference
  generators with a twist, maybe related to the callaway track?
  http://www.fdp.nu/triangle/default.asp

So this is somewhat possible to dissociate the direct relation between torque
and electrical power in a genrator.

So lets go head on to the rebutal:
>[...]
>  Here the patent author apparently is placing two
> of these windings on the same slot,

One very important fact to me is that inner windings (fig 2)
get intersected serially and perpendiculary, in pairs.
by the rotating field. Would love to phrase it
in another way, as what matter are the charges,
not the fields. (point of view of Distinti, justified
by his work that simply a lot most of what's going on
and get precise results!)

>[...]
> so in actuality
> by that description it is only a single phase
> application, even though that input phase is taken
> from a three phase source of currents.

I always saw three phases in action, in the input of
the first winding or at the output of the perpendicular one.
Look at fig 9.

>[...]
> in such a way that the outgoing energy is a lot
> greater than the input.[HDN; (Hey thats one hell of a
> trick there! Already I am dumbfounded! Not only that I
> am dubious! Can anyone fathom how energy can be fed
> into a device so that the output is greater then the
> input? And this is just casually mentioned in the
> patent application; yeah just make it like that, that
> s why it can work... duh, Am I missing something
> here?}]

See the excelent work of Distinti on the matter:
perhaps energy here means Kinetic energy per charge or
EMF? Could explain why it has been so casually
stated. Perhaps the amperage (number of such charges
passing at the measuring segment per unit of time)
is less than at lower voltages, but still the energy
(not power) is higher.

> A return will feedback the system and the
> temporary source is then disconnected.
> HDN; Okay the author mentions that the return will
> feedback the system. The only way I can imagine that a
> rotating magnetic field is being established is if
> that feedback were directed to the next adjacent
> phase,
Why not three phases at once? That was my point, asking
if the triple phase correction transformer was practical,
or instead....!!!

Use diodes to get DC from second coil (with loss, but still, read on)
to drive the primary with three half bridges hooked to the main DC cap using Don
Lancaster's Steplocked Magic Sinewaves. Too much electronic control for the
purist, but would be perfect for research. (Website seems down, anyway Don's
papers are worth
reading for all digital electronics fans!)

> but that phase of course will have reactive
> losses involved,

Mentionned in patent application, in his list of losses.

> The author seems to be giving a
> description that is deliberately vague. He simply
> states that the output is fed back to the system. What
> "part" of the system is he talking about?

Of the first thing that comes to mind, I don't see the
problem here, but I don't have a perfectly working
simultaneous three phases understanding yet.
One excelent page is
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~elepal/moottori/gener_e.html
along with his
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~elepal/impedance2.html
which explain why quarter wave dipole antenna works in the first place. It
always puzzled me. Perhaps it could be of some use
in phase correction?

> Is this a common
> practice to hook two isolation transformers together?
> In fact I have to say this is a very common practice!

The author of the P.A. clearly states that all classical laws of transfomer
design apply, except conservation of energy,
since the angular velocity of the rotor is replaced with
frequency. Don't ask me why I used the word "since", perhaps
magical thinking at work.

> Now back to the patent; If in fact the output of one
> lamination segment containing both input and output
> windings on its segment were to be recycled back to
> the next ajacent segment to produce this rotating
> magnetic field effect; it should be accepted that only
> a reactive timing delay between first and second
> segments magnetic field would make that possible.
> Since by this theory the output segment is connected
> to another identical segment, this resembles the
> condition of max energy transfer where R(int) = R
> (load) If in fact the secondary transformative output
> was outputing its maximum amount of possible amperage,
> this further implies that that the primary would also
> be consuming its maximum amperage, and since both
> sides are being maxed out that further implies that
> little or no phase angle difference would exist
> between the input and output phasings, further
> implying that no roational magnetic field would be
> procurred by such a method.

Look carefully at the wye winding of the secondary in FIG 2.
I don't kow by heart the state of each T1, T2 T3 at any given
three phase time, but I think the key is in there.

> The whole subject makes my
> head spin, again it reaminds me  of a dog chasing its
> own tail... So lets look at some further claims that
> go against my understanding...
>
> [0006] In all present Electric Generators a small
> amount of energy, normally less than one percent of
> the outgoing power in big generators, is used to
> excite the mechanically rotated electromagnetic poles
> that will induce voltages and currents in conductors
> having a relative speed or movement between them and
> the polar masses.
> HDN; As will be seen in the upcoming article showing
> meter readings for a self energized field, it takes
> one hell of a lot more then just 1% of the output
> energy to be used for recycling the field amperage. I
> just cant fathom what this guy is talking about
> anyways. Commercial generators employing rotating
> magnets as the field are strictly a mechanical
> conversion of energy into electrical energy, and NONE
> of the outgoing power is used to excite the
> mechanically rotating poles...

I think you are right, but perhaps energy here still
is energy per charge, or 1% of output voltage is needed?
But I think not.

> HDN; Okay now the guy appears to be talking about
> something else, yeah now we are inputing three phases,
> instead of merely one; and we also have a set of three
> windings connected to the same stator cores that are
> supposed to be used for output... Huh, what makes this
> very different from the standard three phase
> transformer? I do have a large three phase step up
> transformer and somewhere on purusing some of the many
> discussion lists I noted that someone was talking
> about recycling the secondary output of the
> transformer back to one of the primary windings and
> that this would cause a self sustaining rotating
> magnetic field to develope on the transformer. I have
> NO IDEA on what the specifics of that method was
> supposed to involve; but if someone DOES KNOW those
> specifics and could sensibly describe it, I would be
> willing to try.

I thought you would understand the design instantly,
I'm not quite the guy who could do this, except by
suggesting using steplocked magic sinewaves to vary
frequency at will and have some DC to power DC loads,
(on short circuit no need for fuse, the generator would
simply stop until restarted) but still not sure how to
do it.

>[...]
> HOWEVER I was able to find one example
> that gave a SUPERB performance. This was essentially a
> non sensible experiment, where I applied what might be
> called a power factor correction in an attempt to run
> an alternator backwards to make it function as a
> motor.

Used capacitors to correct phases?
Like in the squirrel motor page?
There he used caps to store some potential energy,
so that potential and kinetic energy could effectively
fluctuate.

>[...]

I don't get all the discussion below, but
I played a little with a bifilar coil and
perhaps this could prove useful in this
endeavour. Induction (change in velocity of charges)
force depends on the distance, not distance squared
like constant speed magnetic and electronic (nul speed)
forces. By using a bifilar, one could emmbed the capacitor
needed for the tank circuit inside the coil, as Tesla
pointed out in his patent.

So bottom line is maybe that in electronic devices,
Potential AND Kinetic Energy are about Voltage squared.
N Squared is the sum of the n odd natural numbers.
Goes hand in hand with Eric Reiter work about non-classical
charge waves representation. 1 then 3 then 5, even being
the center of each cycle, odd numbers being the counted
extremities.

Adam Marquis

You really let yourself down, not once but twice.
Firstly you presumed electricity was only the
product of the mechanical work of the shaft and,
therefore only a consequence of the burning
(non-reversible chemical/nuclear reaction) of
coal, gas and nuke rods, and the way you fell back
on the conventional generator model seemed to
presume that there couldn't be any other kind.
Secondly, you voiced astonishment that anyone
presumed it possible to derive more curent from
that (or any?) system than was visibly input.
You have been running some interesting tests
but, in the light of the above, what the hell are
you doing anywhere near forii that are supposed to
deal with alternative energy?

The first glaring error was that, when an analog signal
is sent down a coil, you do not have an isolated peak
but an approaching curve and a decaying one.
Falling back on Tesla, you are fully aware of the analgy of
the shook, or, more precisely spun, jump-rope.
Using the left-hand rule, you could project a consequent
magnetic field on the ferro core around which the coil
is wound which has a similar beginning, middle and end,
and moves through the core like a blob of toothpaste
squeezed through the tube and, since the ferro is a
continuous substance, there is not the isolation of
individual magnetic domains that you would compare
to the stop-frames of an animation or "illusory" rotating
field, unless you presume that any real rotating field is
impossible from any set-up.
Not only would it be possible, given the looped core and
the north/south-seeking polarities of the fields so created
being polarised around the core, it seems not merely possible
but compulsory that, unlike that dumb dog, this serpent will
take hold of its own tail, like the worm Oraboros perhaps?

It is quite a mistake to, very unlike nature, treat the core and
coils in isolation: what is happening in the immediate area?
Look, for instance, at the "Quadra" experiment
http://67.76.239.187/vectorpot.asp
in which they found not just the projectile wire effect (which
I would have found interesting on its own) but that the coil
seemed to exhibit measurable weight-loss, and I am certain that
S1 polarity changer is a part I have lying around having
cannibalised it from a dead radio/TV so even I could try a
duplication.

How would the core under rotating fields respond to strong
but not saturating fields from above/below the core?

In your "surprise" over input/output ratios you seemed to rest
entirely on supposing the Poynting vector to be the only
current because of the way Lorentz "integrated" the much more
substantial Heayside component into "insignificance" because it missed his
precious closed circuits but, if you
won't go to Tom Bearden, look at the Kraus text he cites,
a standard highschool tome which I would have bought
for that illustration alone exept that, no income, I just
cannot afford it, and if your "input" allowed a fraction of
the Heayside component into the system, that would
more than account for the disparity and happily switch to
self-running without the need to bring in the "wierd" into
the explanations of how this was done.

What is not at all expensive, unlike tomes, are components and most of mine are
cannibalised anyway and, barring
fried transistors and overloaded capacitors (not
compulsory if you find out where the overload came
from and re-adjust the circuit to suit!), you can reuse
most of the parts from a "dead" project into a current one.

Looking at the Marcus device approximation, I have interlinked two ferro-ring
cores and wound them with octofilar coils.
Each coil-pair, one coil on each core, is to be driven by a
Flux Capacitor driver, courtesy of Jaro Kolman (Brave guy!!!),
but with the possible exeption that I plan to eventually
substitute the diodes so that the BEMF is not just "blocked" but diverted to
where it could be accumulated into a
forward pulse.

"Never say 'Never again!'", from the James Bond movie, but, though
"The World is not enough!", works better,
"Tomorrow never dies!" just about caps it!

Seasons Greetings and a Wiser New Year, perhaps?

John Johnson.

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

John's comments are definitely worthy of consideration. I suggest
anyone actually try Bearden's $1 free energy device. I tried it. I
placed a short piece of wire in the cavity of ferrite PMs and
aluminum plate capacitors charged with 12V battery. I connected a
digital multimeter to the wire. It showed millivoltage present. Seems
the wire acted to diverge the Poynting flow present in the cavity.
This was a static E X H = S device just like the one on Bearden's
website. I'm convinced it could be enhanced to diverge more of the
Poynting flow.

I am working on a device that accomplishes the same thing in a
different configuration.

--- On Tue 11/23, Doug Derbes < dmd201@... > wrote:
From: Doug Derbes [mailto: dmd201@...]
To: teslafy@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:13:50 -0000
Subject: [teslafy] John Johnson Comments

<html><body>


<tt>
<BR>
John's comments are definitely worthy of consideration. I suggest <BR>
anyone actually try Bearden's $1 free energy device. I tried it. I <BR>
placed a short piece of wire in the cavity of ferrite PMs and <BR>
aluminum plate capacitors charged with 12V battery. I connected a <BR>
digital multimeter to the wire. It showed millivoltage present. Seems <BR>
the wire acted to diverge the Poynting flow present in the cavity. <BR>
This was a static E X H = S device just like the one on Bearden's <BR>
website. I'm convinced it could be enhanced to diverge more of the <BR>
Poynting flow. <BR>
<BR>
I am working on a device that accomplishes the same thing in a <BR>
different configuration.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Sounds brilliant!
That motor may be 12v when it comes to
the charge needed to get it to work but
no way does it deliver a fraction of that in
generator mode though It could be used as
long as it is spun by something more strong
and sustained than my finger and thumb so,
maybe, I'm judging a little prematurely.
The Ceramic Capacitor is a 240v one so
I'll need to push the charging considerably
higher or find a way more modest cap.
No wonder I didn't get much of a reading
for the capacity of the cap-charging
connections to let go as soon as my attention
was elsewhere and the difficulty in holding
those mags in place when, though I tried to
mantain the capacitor sandwich, they were
tugging to attach themselves to each other.
That object that passed for a "voltmeter",
BTW., is sensitive but not that sensitive.
I think that, if it was possible to deliver the
voltage to the cap in spikes the intervening
gaps would allow in the resultant and definitely
non-zero input from the wire; maybe a nice
collecting coil.
Best thing is to keep "playing around" and take note
of anything that looks interesting before we
even think of heating the house or running the
PC off it.
Also, we could do much if we could find out
some more about the Heavyside component that
Lorentz so disregarded: there must be some sources
out there especially as the Heavyside was given as
considerably more potent that the visible Poynting
current so we can work out ways to enhance the effect.

All the research possible would do little if we
do not have the imagination to visualise how it can
work out so let's keep trying!

John J.

_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!

The Poynting S Flow Device can be found at Tom Bearden's website
www.cheniere.org. On main page find find Free Energy link. On that
page find Poynting S flow link. A graphic with text is there.

I am doing qualitative testing with my own geometry for optimizing
the divergence of the Poynting Flow into conductors.

I have found that the stronger the H field and E field are, the
stronger the Poynting Flow is. Measuring voltage in the collection
conductor with a multimeter shows increased voltage in a direct
linear relationship.

It appears that the Poynting Flow acts as a pump on the electrons of
the collection conductor. The higher the poynting flow, the higher
the voltage in the collection conductor.

This device is in essence an ElectroMagnetoStatic Field Electrical
Generator. The collector conductors drive the load without destroying
the poynting flow source dipoles.

Continued qualitative tests indicate the importance of spatial
geometry of functional elements of the Poynting Flow device.

Source E and H dipoles proximity to cavity collection conductors is
an important parameter for increased efficiency.

The collection conductors volumetric percent of the poynting flow
cavity volume is another parameter for increasing efficiency of
collection divergence.

My present qualitative testing device has cost me $10. I had the PMs
and the plates and the batteries.

I have used Ferrite PMs and NIB PMs for the H dipoles.

I have tried 12V, 24V, 48V charge voltage on the E dipoles.

The collection conductors have been wired in series, parallel and
series-parallel using fine wire with alligator clips.

I continue to optimize the geometry of the device.

Where can I find a description of Beearden's $1 free energy device?

 

 

> John's comments are definitely worthy of consideration. I suggest

> anyone actually try Bearden's $1 free energy device. I tried it. I

> placed a short piece of wire in the cavity of ferrite PMs and

> aluminum plate capacitors charged with 12V battery. I connected a

> digital multimeter to the wire. It showed millivoltage present. Seems

> the wire acted to diverge the Poynting flow present in the cavity.

> This was a static E X H = S device just like the one on Bearden's

> website. I'm convinced it could be enhanced to diverge more of the

> Poynting flow.

>

> I am working on a device that accomplishes the same thing in a

> different configuration.

<SNIP>

 

 

Hi Doug,

VERY Interesting, you seem to actually understand what Bearden was talking
about here.  Is this the graphic you mean?

http://www.cheniere.org/images/meg/f5.jpg

Also, if you could, please give us a detailed description of what you're doing
(parts, setup, etc.)?

Best regards,

Dave Narby


----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Derbes" <dmd201@...>
To: <teslafy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 11:17 PM
Subject: [teslafy] $1 Free Energy Device


|
|
| The Poynting S Flow Device can be found at Tom Bearden's website
| www.cheniere.org. On main page find find Free Energy link. On that
| page find Poynting S flow link. A graphic with text is there.
|
| I am doing qualitative testing with my own geometry for optimizing
| the divergence of the Poynting Flow into conductors.
|
| I have found that the stronger the H field and E field are, the
| stronger the Poynting Flow is. Measuring voltage in the collection
| conductor with a multimeter shows increased voltage in a direct
| linear relationship.
|
| It appears that the Poynting Flow acts as a pump on the electrons of
| the collection conductor. The higher the poynting flow, the higher
| the voltage in the collection conductor.
|
| This device is in essence an ElectroMagnetoStatic Field Electrical
| Generator. The collector conductors drive the load without destroying
| the poynting flow source dipoles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Yahoo! Groups Links
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Dave,

The URL for the $1 Free Energy Generator is
www.cheniere.org/misc/static%20poynting%20gen.htm

The image you specified in your message shows the diverged poynting
flow into a powered circuit conductor per Bearden.

About 4 years ago I came across the article about the $1 free energy
device by Bearden. When he put up his site, he repackaged it and
posted it under his free energy articles. It was straight forward and
simple. BUT he said to capture and use the poynting energy flow was
going to be TRICKY and he gave no specifics.

Since I had some permanent magnets, aluminum plates, wire etc...I
figured I would try it. I also had some small 12V batteries used in
remote control airplane applications.

I set up the device a little different. I used ferrite PMs in attract
mode held in a thin wood frame the width of the capacitor plates. I
cut the plates to the same width and height of the PMs. I held the
plates in a thin wood frame. This made the poynting flow cavity
slightly rectangular in volume in the vertical direction. I used a
12V battery and thin wire with alligator clips to hook the battery up
to the capacitor plates.

Just to see what would happen, I suspended a short piece of copper
wire in the device cavity. I used a digital multimeter alligator
clipped to each end of the suspended wire. The multimeter showed
millivoltage.

When the polarity of the magnets and capacitor were reversed, the
polarity of the millivoltage in the wire was reversed.

I have described some qualitative tests I have done in my previous
posts.

The length, width and height of the rectangular flow cavity is 1" X
2" X 1".
The length of the cavity conductor is 3". Not sure of the gauge but
the wire is about 1mm in diameter. Have not looked at my wire gauge
chart in awhile.

As my previous posts mention, if higher voltage and stronger NIB
magnets are used, the millivoltage in the cavity conductor goes up in
a direct linear relationship.

I made a few device setups and hooked up the cavity conductors in
series, parallel and series parallel and made measurements. In
series, the millivolts went up and the milliamps were constant. In
parallel the millivolts were constant and the milliamps went up. In
series-parallel both the millivolts and milliamps went up. The
multimeter was zeroed before all measurements and calibrated for
stability at zero for 5 minutes.

Other tests were done to see the effect of proximity of the cavity
conductor to the PMs and capacitor plates. I didn't want to modify
the magnets or plates, so I used a thick square copper rod cavity
conductor that filled the cavity volume. There was only about a 3mm
space between the rod and the capacitor plates and magnets.
Measurements taken showed increased millivolts and milliamps in the
cavity conductor at the same capacitor voltage of 12V. This showed
that proximity to source dipoles was a factor in device efficiency.

It appears that the poynting energy flow in the cavity acts as a
electron pump on the cavity conductor. The picture on Beardens
website that you linked to in your post to me shows diverged poynting
flow into a conductor that has current flowing through it. This
picture is what gave me the idea to place a conductor in the poynting
flow device.

All of the above tests and equipment and materials have been done on
a small 3 foot square table in my little shop at home. My total
outlay of money so far has been $10. I had most of the materials at
hand and already had the digital multimeter.

I am not sure of the strength of the permanent magnets I am using.
They were given to me many years ago. The ferrite magnets look like
the rectangular magnets you can get at radio shack. I believe they
are around 800 gauss. The NIB PMs were surplus from high end military
applications. I bought them for pennies on the dollar at a Boeing
Surplus sale in Seattle many years ago. I would not be surprised if
they were over 10,000 gauss.

So far in my qualitative tests, the highest readings I have obtained
was when measurements were taken on a series-parallel connection of 3
devices with 3 rod cavity conductors. I used 48 volts on the
capacitors and used the NIB PMs in all 3 devices. I measured 4.6
volts at 3.2 amps=14.72 watts. All 3 devices had flow cavity size
measurements of 2" high, 1" wide and 1" deep.

I am a 53 years old engineer with my own consulting practice. My
customers are major energy companies, mostly oil and pipeline
companies. Sometimes I get work from major electrical utilities
companies.

The qualitative tests that I am doing now were started out of
curiosity and to have some scientific method fun while I took a 30
day vacation. I had returned to my home in South Louisiana ( Cajun
Country) after spending 2 months in the Seattle area doing some work
for major pipeline companies. I will be leaving again for a 3 week
assignment in Texas in a few days.

As time permits, I will continue to investigate these devices and try
to optimize the geometry and efficiency. Additionally, I want to
produce some CAD drawings for some optimized geometries that are
different from the ones I'm investigating now.

This concept is simple and inexpensive enough that anyone can
investigate it.

Dave,

The URL for the $1 Free Energy Generator is
www.cheniere.org/misc/static%20poynting%20gen.htm

The image you specified in your message shows the diverged poynting
flow into a powered circuit conductor per Bearden.

About 4 years ago I came across the article about the $1 free energy
device by Bearden. When he put up his site, he repackaged it and
posted it under his free energy articles. It was straight forward and
simple. BUT he said to capture and use the poynting energy flow was
going to be TRICKY and he gave no specifics.

Since I had some permanent magnets, aluminum plates, wire etc...I
figured I would try it. I also had some small 12V batteries used in
remote control airplane applications.

I set up the device a little different. I used ferrite PMs in attract
mode held in a thin wood frame the width of the capacitor plates. I
cut the plates to the same width and height of the PMs. I held the
plates in a thin wood frame. This made the poynting flow cavity
slightly rectangular in volume in the vertical direction. I used a
12V battery and thin wire with alligator clips to hook the battery up
to the capacitor plates.

Just to see what would happen, I suspended a short piece of copper
wire in the device cavity. I used a digital multimeter alligator
clipped to each end of the suspended wire. The multimeter showed
millivoltage.

When the polarity of the magnets and capacitor were reversed, the
polarity of the millivoltage in the wire was reversed.

I have described some qualitative tests I have done in my previous
posts.

The length, width and height of the rectangular flow cavity is 1" X
2" X 1".
The length of the cavity conductor is 3". Not sure of the gauge but
the wire is about 1mm in diameter. Have not looked at my wire gauge
chart in awhile.

As my previous posts mention, if higher voltage and stronger NIB
magnets are used, the millivoltage in the cavity conductor goes up in
a direct linear relationship.

I made a few device setups and hooked up the cavity conductors in
series, parallel and series parallel and made measurements. In
series, the millivolts went up and the milliamps were constant. In
parallel the millivolts were constant and the milliamps went up. In
series-parallel both the millivolts and milliamps went up. The
multimeter was zeroed before all measurements and calibrated for
stability at zero for 5 minutes.

Other tests were done to see the effect of proximity of the cavity
conductor to the PMs and capacitor plates. I didn't want to modify
the magnets or plates, so I used a thick square copper rod cavity
conductor that filled the cavity volume. There was only about a 3mm
space between the rod and the capacitor plates and magnets.
Measurements taken showed increased millivolts and milliamps in the
cavity conductor at the same capacitor voltage of 12V. This showed
that proximity to source dipoles was a factor in device efficiency.

It appears that the poynting energy flow in the cavity acts as a
electron pump on the cavity conductor. The picture on Beardens
website that you linked to in your post to me shows diverged poynting
flow into a conductor that has current flowing through it. This
picture is what gave me the idea to place a conductor in the poynting
flow device.

All of the above tests and equipment and materials have been done on
a small 3 foot square table in my little shop at home. My total
outlay of money so far has been $10. I had most of the materials at
hand and already had the digital multimeter.

I am not sure of the strength of the permanent magnets I am using.
They were given to me many years ago. The ferrite magnets look like
the rectangular magnets you can get at radio shack. I believe they
are around 800 gauss. The NIB PMs were surplus from high end military
applications. I bought them for pennies on the dollar at a Boeing
Surplus sale in Seattle many years ago. I would not be surprised if
they were over 10,000 gauss.

So far in my qualitative tests, the highest readings I have obtained
was when measurements were taken on a series-parallel connection of 3
devices with 3 rod cavity conductors. I used 48 volts on the
capacitors and used the NIB PMs in all 3 devices. I measured 4.6
volts at 3.2 amps=14.72 watts. All 3 devices had flow cavity size
measurements of 2" high, 1" wide and 1" deep.

I am a 53 years old engineer with my own consulting practice. My
customers are major energy companies, mostly oil and pipeline
companies. Sometimes I get work from major electrical utilities
companies.

The qualitative tests that I am doing now were started out of
curiosity and to have some scientific method fun while I took a 30
day vacation. I had returned to my home in South Louisiana ( Cajun
Country) after spending 2 months in the Seattle area doing some work
for major pipeline companies. I will be leaving again for a 3 week
assignment in Texas in a few days.

As time permits, I will continue to investigate these devices and try
to optimize the geometry and efficiency. Additionally, I want to
produce some CAD drawings for some optimized geometries that are
different from the ones I'm investigating now.

This concept is simple and inexpensive enough that anyone can
investigate it.