Transients are a Potentially Useful Source of Freely Available and Reusable Energy

[Vinyasi]

Tesla's Simulator Brain

You got one runin? Is this a virtual motor model?
Do you run a simulator for your designs, hypothetically.

In Tesla's autobiography, he talks about how he had to discipline his mind to put reality into his fantasies lest he do something similar to what he did as a child in which he jumped off the roof of his parent's home holding nothing but an umbrella! Ouch!

Once he was a young man, he could simulate a device in his head so realistically that he could tell an assistant how to build it and it would work the first time, every time. That's what I hope I'm doing. It's just taking me a tad longer than however long it took Tesla to do the same thing 'cuz I have to self-teach myself electrodynamics using the simulator as my guide and people like Eric Dollard to confirm and explain my experiences.

Micro-Cap trial demo for free forces me to keep my experiments small and simple.

There is no doubt you are superman on technical terms.
I like to hear you rattle them off. I am sure you are working on it.

To answer a prior question of yours concerning "do I use the Fibonacci ratio in my 1.67 Ohm resistor?" No, I use it to regulate the voltage ratio versus the current of what is supplied to the twin motors of a RAV4 EV from 2002: 345V vs 206A at full throttle. This data I got from the R&D which Toyota authorized Alan Cocconi, of AC Propulsion to develop based on the 2003 model year of the RAV4EV. AC Propulsion built EV race cars and inventor of the motor controller for the GM EV-1 portrayed in the "Who Killed the Electric Car" movie and silent partner behind Elon Musk's Tesla.

https://youtu.be/2CV5Y5QkI_8?t=1010

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ldm...youtu.be&t=237

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ebox+tom+h...ffsb&ia=videos

[BroMikey]

Hanks is a gay twit butt plug controlled Masonic Hollywood asset who never
tells the truth. All FAKE NEWS and totally for the brain washed masses.
Puke is a nice word by comparison.

On the other hand maybe you have a simulator brain like TESLA? How
many times did I hear this before and those guys are nowhere to be
found.

Show me a simplified desktop test to perform to get me and others on
board.

[Vinyasi]

Avoiding ( Minimizing) Lenz Law

If we're not trying to actuate a solenoid nor rotate a motor; if we're merely attempting to transform reactant power among coils of differing inductances; then it may be advantageous to minimize back EMF by avoiding the magnetic saturation of these coils by diffusing the magnetism of their core material into a much larger mass of ferromagnetizable material.

https://archive.org/details/avoidingminimizinglenzlaw

https://www.scribd.com/document/4244...izing-Lenz-Law

=========================================

If a coil, or a set of coils, are not being used to magnetize (actuate) a solenoid or a motor involving moving parts, but are -instead- being used to merely act as a multicoiled transformer engaging in the transference of purely reactive inductance among its several coils using a non-conventional core material of high remanence – such as solid steel, and if a high magnetic coupling is required not to fall below 99%, and if back EMF is to be avoided or reduced, then diffusion should be sought of the magnetic field of these coils into a much larger body by coupling this larger mass of ferromagnetizable material to the core material which is shared among all of these coils. This is to avoid saturation of the core of these coils to minimize their back EMF. Since these coils are not being used to move other coils, but merely transform the reactionary formative forces of electricity, then it won't matter that we may want to reduce their magnetism by way of diffusion. This also will have the property of reducing their emission of a local radio interference which could upset the FCC as well as our neighbors. But most importantly, this will improve efficiency by reducing the wasteful emission of a magnetic field wherein it is not needed. All that is needed is whatever will be contained within the wires and the core material, not what emanates out of them. By reducing their magnetic field per their current, a higher than normal rate of efficiency can be achieved within their mutual coupling making possible a 99% coupling coefficiency when such a high rate of coupling may not normally be probable. This state of unity of magnetic coupling is mandatory if my circuit is to achieve resonance with overunity. {Although a coupling of 1 is not, herein, stated, it is implied. It's just that the simulator won't allow a value of 1, yet will accept a parameter of nearly 1, such as a coefficiency of 99%.} 98% won't work. I've tried that under simulation. What this means in the real world of actually building my circuit is that there must be absolutely no back EMF! Or, as William Lyne has quoted Nikola Tesla (in chapter 18 of William's book, entitled: “Pentagon Aliens”) concerning Tesla's Special Generator, “For every two hundred pounds of iron added to his device, one horsepower is added to its output”. The Germans used the hull of their Elektro-U-Boot submarines to dissipate the magnetic force of their installation of Tesla's Special Generator. Tesla may have used the chassis of the Pierce-Arrow during either of his 1897 or 1931 demonstrations of his EV conversion of that car. We'll never know what Tesla did, but we certainly must adhere to this principle if we are to achieve anything of our own merit in a similar situation.

Here is a diagram of my latest development. It is hypothesized to work based on what I can nearly simulate using a slightly simpler design which stays within the boundaries of Micro-Cap's free, trial demo version of their software. It can be downloaded in a ZIP compressed file from here...

http://is.gd/reactivemotor

...including other files as well. Or else, it may be downloaded all by itself from here...

http://vinyasi.info/energy/reactive-...correction.jpg

...as a screenshot, or as Micro-Cap simulation file from here...

http://vinyasi.info/energy/reactive-...correction.cir

The power factor correction comes about due to one plunger coil is allowed to invert itself into a negative inductor due to this being a side effect of its adjacent spark gap, while the other twin plunger coil has this odd condition transmuted into normal coil behavior through the use of parallel capacitance built into this twin coil, or else by simply placing a capacitor nearby in parallel with this twin coil. The purpose of the sparking pair of plunger coils is to put back together the formative forces of electricity – its reactionary components of capacitive and inductive reactance, so that these two plunger coils may act as a suitable load to harness all of the energy which this circuit goes to so much trouble enlarging from its initial inception of scant stimulation arising from its sine wave generator. This scant stimulation can be anywhere from one micro volt up to around ten volts, but no greater lest we kill this circuit's overunity using the Ferranti (Mistaken) Effect.

Brute force of throwing more voltage at a circuit is “old school”. New school is a tender touch intended to allow reactance to amass a huge momentum of so-called useless (lossless) reactant energy. This amplification of reactance is a necessary intermediate step in the creation of free energy – as its outcome – once power factor correction completes this process.

Free energy is not a “thing”; it is not a noun. It is a verb, a process, whereby a little energy is transformed into a lot more energy via the amplification of its fragmentation into its constituent ingredients of the formative forces which comprise electricity, namely: the reactances of the electric and magnetic fields of electricity. Once this amplification, or diminishment, has taken place to our satisfaction (since both are possible), then we may employ power factor correction to put everything back together again so that we may use this newly fashioned electricity to power our appliances with whatever quantity of electricity we desire using a minuscule quantity of electricity to stimulate this procedure.

If that isn't getting more from less, well....I might as well crawl back under a rock and hide!

[BroMikey]

I picked out valid phrases. You must test you theories first. So far
below you have said nothing knew that proves your model. Profound
statement and bench work are far far apart. Any number of devices
were spoken of just like you are and not one can produce a greater
output YET. I want to make sure I use the word YET.

Even the best builders of the TESLA coil magnifier find that when loading
more than one receiver the power begins to split up or divide.

Have you been under a rock that you must crawl back

If we're not trying to actuate a solenoid nor rotate a motor;

instead- being used to merely act as a multicoiled transformer engaging in the transference of purely reactive inductance among its several coils using a non-conventional core material

All that is needed is whatever will be contained within the wires and the core material, not what emanates out of them.

By reducing their magnetic field per their current, a higher than normal rate of efficiency can be achieved within their mutual coupling

“For every two hundred pounds of iron added to his device, one horsepower is added to its output”.

these two plunger coils may act as a suitable load to harness all of the energy

This scant stimulation can be anywhere from one micro volt up to around ten volts, but no greater ..........................

Brute force of throwing more voltage at a circuit is “old school”

Free energy is not a “thing”; it is not a noun. It is a verb, a process, whereby a little energy is transformed

If that isn't getting more from less, well....I might as well crawl back under a rock and hide!

[Vinyasi]

This post which you cite has nothing to do with power amplification___

I picked out valid phrases. You must test you theories first. So far
below you have said nothing knew that proves your model. Profound
statement and bench work are far far apart. Any number of devices
were spoken of just like you are and not one can produce a greater
output YET. I want to make sure I use the word YET.

Even the best builders of the TESLA coil magnifier find that when loading
more than one receiver the power begins to split up or divide.

Have you been under a rock that you must crawl back

The point, herein, is power correction factor. And an alternative to a magamp to insure a 99% coupling coefficient among the four coils, two VC's and two CC's. The power amplification is strictly reactive power which is the easiest to implement and the hardest to convince any formally trained engineer is worthwhile. Yet, the bottom line is not the free amplification of reactive power. The problem is with making it useful. So, your criticism is right on, but not at all critical since engineers do it all the time. They just don't rave about it. So, your criticism is irrelevant, but well meaning.
Ergo, I don't need to prove myself since the a appearance or disappearance of reactive power is so commonplace as to be not worthy of your misplaced criticism.

Yet, you are spot on one other point: I am merely hypothesizing this technique for correcting power factor using an unproven method of dissipating magnetic flux rather than supersaturating it. That's the germinus of what I am proposing and again your criticism isn't saying anything new since I already I have not simulated it, but merely extrapolating it from William Lyne's statements and my wishful hypothesizing.

So, yeah, you're right, but that's not my point.

I can't simulate it. The simulator won't conceptually model that. So, I'm wondering out loud and getting it down for the benefit of my short term memory.

If I don't propose it, I won't test it one way or another some time or another. So, a little patience is required and tolerance on your part.

I could be wrong. But if I don't record it, I'd be wrong.

So, yeah, I'm sticking my neck out on our behalf.

But you didn't contribute to the logic I was exercising one way or another. So, I'm just repeating myself what I thought was self-evident in that I'm citing someone else in hopes that it is applicable on a minor point of power factor correction.

The four pillars to my circuit concept are: a mild stimulus, fractionation of electricity, reactant buildup or diminishment, and putting it back together again (its correction).

[BroMikey]

about it. So, your criticism is irrelevant, but well meaning.
Ergo, I don't need to prove myself since the a appearance or disappearance of reactive power is so commonplace as to be not worthy of your misplaced criticism.

Yet, you are spot on one other point:
I can't simulate it. The simulator won't conceptually model that. So, I'm wondering out loud and getting it down for the benefit of my short term memory.


So, yeah, I'm sticking my neck out on our behalf.

Okay now thats better we are all on the same page. Of course you
understand why I questioned you. Many others would like to but are
unwilling to point out that your book is only a little more than speculation
without some form of hardware confirmation.

Of course you understand that we all have heard hundreds of claim
and the inventor can not back any of it up. Of course you understand that
this all get tiring UNLESS you state that your book is only a thought
and not an actual working unit. That is fine.

Thanks for clearing this all up.

[Vinyasi]

Involvement takes many forms and it takes many forms of involvement to make a whole.

Seeing is not believing. And believing is not seeing. The two are completely different operations. To see and then not believe is no better, nor worse, than to believe and thus not to see. For in both, a connection is missing - an inner connection.

Some may have already experienced, yet lack any motivation to show off (share) that experience. So, they tell stories of what they've done and leave it at that.

Is there proof? What is a memory? Is that proof? And what form may memory take? Of mind? Or, of soul? Is it proof enough for the story teller? It's not intended to be adequate proof for the listener. It's intended to bait the hook, so to speak, for the audience. There is no need for both audience and story teller to have the same experience at the same time. This is why we have eternity: to accommodate a time lag separating your aha moment from mine and from everyone else's.

Commerce, or accolade, is when there is no time lag greater than a generation gap - which these days is very short to accommodate our shortened attention spans.

Thorough planning never hurt anyone! I'd rather bore you than blow my arm off! I'd rather you pay for me saving my arm intact with your patience, or boredom - take your pick.

**********************************

I was reading one of Aaron Murakami's latest newsletters and watching the recorded excerpt of Peter Lindemann latest presentation at this year's summer conference, in 2019, at Hayden Idaho, and I was inspired to reinvestigate the application of my reactive circuit to battery extension for an EV along the lines of the R&D pursued by Alan Cocconi who was commissioned by Toyota to create a concept hybrid for them in 2001. He did, and here is his data...

ACP AC Propulsion Series Range Extending Trailer prototype. Toyota Rav4-EV Hybrid prototype. Alan Cocconi. 2000 BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle). RXT-G. LongRanger. Hybrid Trailer. EV Range Extender. GenSet.

Ossie Callanan discovered sometime ago that dead batteries are useful for converting radiant energy into usable energy. So as not to breed confusion over terminology, I call radiant energy reactive power since they are one and the same thing.

See...
Working Radiant Energy - Ossie Callanan

This circuit works so well, that I think this is the ideal application since it has the added benefit of reducing the accumulation of voltage to no more than whatever is inside the battery pack of a hybrid EV being topped off by this circuit as it drives along. So, the batteries have the additional advantage of acting like diodes, but instead of regulating current (such as diodes will do while leaving alone the voltage), a battery regulates the voltage and leaves alone the current. So, I tried beefing up the capacitor to the immediate left of the four diode bridge rectifier to a whopping one kilo Farad and this straightened out the amperage at the battery pack for a little while before escalating all over again. So, I reverted to the use of spark gap. It also matters how much self-induction is inside the Battery Charging Coil, for this will determine the magnitude of the amperage charging the batteries. Somehow, miraculously, the current is negative at the batteries!

http://is.gd/battext

A spark gap serves as a safety fuse in this circuit since it doesn't regularly fire such as it does in the other versions of this circuit. Yet, its presence is superior to a large capacitor, such as of: 1k Farads, in that it lends much more stabilizing influence than does any capacitance could ever lend. This is probably due to a spark gap's ability to ionize a pathway across its gap and, thus, leak a little - at low voltages - too low to fire an arc. A capacitor could never do this without first suffering permanent breakdown of its dielectric material. Hence, it's worthwhile keeping a spark gap in here despite its lack of firing. Micro-Cap simulator sets a voltage breakdown for its spark gap at 90 volts. This is in the vicinity of a fluorescent tube - slightly higher than a neon bulb. Maybe the connections for the capacitor which is adjacent to the spark gap should be swapped periodically to prevent a runaway surge of current from occurring? I'm presuming this since the voltage in this circuit remains somewhat steady while the current surges. Without a surge in voltage, the spark gap may never fire and, thus, never protect the circuit from overloaded voltages?

Latest circuit with node voltages...

[Vinyasi]

It is a Minor Detail to Strive for “Hardware Confirmation” of a Design

Okay now thats better we are all on the same page. Of course you
understand why I questioned you. Many others would like to but are
unwilling to point out that your book is only a little more than speculation
without some form of hardware confirmation.

Of course you understand that we all have heard hundreds of claim
and the inventor can not back any of it up. Of course you understand that
this all get tiring UNLESS you state that your book is only a thought
and not an actual working unit. That is fine.

Thanks for clearing this all up.

Success is Born of Taking Complete Responsibility

You're right on one point: I have an articulate imagination amounting to a simulator for a brain. But it takes more than this to adequately, and accurately, emulate reality. To do the reverse direction: to build an imaginary object exactly to its specification requires a certain responsibility towards that thought. If it worked in principle, but not in its actuation, then the fault does not lie with the design; it lies with the builder for failing to build it first in their brain. In other words, they fail to “own it”. This is where belief takes a hike. Belief will never get you to the goal of success. Belief belies an inadequacy of understanding. If you thoroughly understand your design, no belief is required.

You think I believe in reincarnation? Hogwash! Yet, I've understood it since childhood. It's built into my brain at birth whether I want it to be there or not as a consequence of having been born with access to my soul's memory: the memory shared among countless individuals whom I've never met, nor would I want to take responsibility for their unfinished business. Yet, the fact remains that I have complete responsibility towards their unfinished business or else “enlightenment” is an impossibility in this lifetime. Complete responsibility for karma attached to a human soul is a dire prerequisite for achieving human fulfillment. Anything less than complete responsibility will surely spawn failures of one sort or another.

Where is the failure in this? Surely it does not lie in the design. We certainly have the best of intention to succeed in building an entire life around success. But do we take complete responsibility for success, or do we lean upon some gimmick or another to cut corners and avoid taking complete responsibility? Such as the gimmick of: build it first and then we will believe you? That's a cop out.

Take the coupling coefficience of 99% among the four coils of: VC1, VC2, CC1, and CC2 for instance. That's no easy accomplishment to achieve. Yet, it is mandatory if success is to be achieved in building a working model of this design. This is just one stipulation of this circuit which must be met. There are several others. Yet, if even one stipulation is not met, the whole thing won't work.

So, what do we do to insure success? Turn the pages of history to find out.... What did inventors do in the past in this regard? Oliver Heaviside, Nathan Stubblefield, and Nikola Tesla all used bare iron wire or bare iron ribbon mixed in parallel with insulated copper wire for some reason. I suspect it was to achieve a nearly, or precisely, 100% magnetic coupling among the copper strands of wire. This is the Heaviside Solution.

Imagine burying a copper wire in a magnetic field such that absolutely none of its magnetism escaped without being captured and recovered. If the iron wires are electrically connected in parallel with the copper wires, and these same iron wires surround each and every copper strand such that absolutely none of the magnetic field of each copper strand escapes without also being captured and recovered, then perhaps it is possible to achieve a complete coupling of 100% among each and every copper strand?

This is where the “Devil is in the Details” such that we are hounded, and tormented, with failure if we also fail to actuate each and every stipulation of a design. My circuit is not complicated. But it does demand a lot of the builder to achieve success with it. Asymmetry, the foundation for overunity, is a condition of stress. There is nothing easy about asymmetry. If you want easy, stick with flashlight circuits. They're easy since they're symmetrical. But, they require brute force – aka, lots of voltage – to achieve success with them. This is the Ferranti Effect. Or, should I say: the Ferranti Technique which spawns his Failure? Simple-minded, over-simplification not unlike that of an archaeologist who comes upon an ancient site and discards countless clues thinking them to be worthless shreds of evidence of technology occurring in prior civilizations. That is our loss, too!

If you build it, then they will come and gawk and not rebuild it in their hearts.

[Vinyasi]

Efficiency is the Opposite of Conventional Wisdom

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgaH4OPZPGY[/VIDEO]

[Vinyasi]

prana tells the whole story

Vin Yasi's answer to Has anyone tried to recreate Joseph Newman's perpetual motion machine? - Quora