Back EMF vs. Collapsing Magnetic Field Spike

[lighty]

Lighty,

Normally, I agree, you can't do 0 or negative volts with current to charge a coil in a conventionally charged closed loop coil. But...

Leedskalnin's "perpetual magnet holder" - this is current with zero voltage. After the current is established (with voltage to begin with), it remains that way - circulating. When it is disconnected, then the field collapses and gives some voltage from the induction...this is cold magnetic current circulating with no back emf at all... current and zero voltage.
Emery Version - Leedskalnin Perpetual Motion Holder - KeelyNet 06/05/03
The magnetic current is circulating at negative resistance with no voltage potential difference in the circuit at all...just like a permanent magnet.

There are other ways to maintain current in a coil after power is disconnected.

There are also other variations that deviate from what is normally expected.

I generally do agree with your asesment of PMH, however we were talking about conventional coils used to produce inductive collapse spikes.

[Aaron]

unconventional current

LOL, agreed. But I do want to lead to that eventually in a different thread.

[boguslaw]

This is ALL related and Leedscalnin PMH is a proof for useful WORK that can be done using Earth magnetic field.

The effect is weak, radiant spike particularly in low voltage circuits,but IMHO when it is played many times in circle it can create work by using magnetic field.

In PMH seems there is static magnetic field created which holds a lever,but I bet there are others configurations of iron and copper coils which create PULSATING magnetic field FOR FREE.

Then there is only one trouble - a coil which generates current by induction must be put in that pulsating field AND that coil surplus current must be SYNCHRONIZED with original closed-circuit flowing current. POSITIVE FEEDBACK.

Either device such constructed will break from large current or create large and sustaining power output.

I've always said so, theory is simple and you will see that A LOT of free energy devices are using this scheme :

- create a lot of very weak but overunity 'kicks' in completely closed path
- use weak magnetic field generated by kicks to produce current (mostly on conductor surface)
- use positive feedback
- use a regulator to prevent damage to device

The simplest regulator is to CLOSE positive feedback loop using LOAD of some minimum resistance or impedance (vide Sweet VTA)
That's not a very good way but it seems to work.

[nilrehob]

Aaron

@ Aaron

For arguments sake, lets swap positions. I'm the believer and You are the skeptic.

How do You, the skeptic, explain this experiment?

Circuit: Battery, switch, coil and big cap in series, the same coil, diode and another small cap in series.
Both caps are empty.

Switch is turned on and then quickly off.

All electrons leaving the battery when the switch is on ends up in the big cap in series (and as the cap is big the current is not hindered that much).
When the switch is turned off the current from the battery is stopped, the current into the big cap is stopped, but still some electrons wind up in the second small cap.

Where did the extra electrons in the small cap come from?
What did I miss?

[Aaron]

charging a cap

Hi Nilrehob,

That is a nice simple experiment but I believe it is an assumption that there are electrons winding up in the small capacitor just because there is charge...there could be some electrons that wind up there but that isn't what charges the cap...the charge in that small cap is a potential charge and is different than a cap charged with straight hot current.

The electron model is only a theory as there is no proof that electrons exist... just something to keep in mind.

The properties are different, the sparks when shorted are different color and for the same voltage, it can jump farther than the normal gap compared to a hot current charged capacitor. A capacitor charged with inductive spikes are like an aerosol can that you pressurize with gas, literally.

If you get a chance, please read this by Eric Dollard:
Eric Dollard Notes (1986--1991)
Read the Introduction to Dielectricity and Capacitance on pages
26-29 in the pdf.

[nilrehob]

Ah, come on Aaron, visit the other side and explain it as a skeptic would!

You may quote it and say: "This is what a skeptic would say:".
And after that, You, I or someone else will shot it down.

Its good exercise for the mind, and often a good way to prove something.

[Matthew Jones]

@nilrehob
You keep saying your skeptic, have you not been able to get somthing working that you can measure?

I don't understand your need to go on and push for a conventional explanation of anything. OR challenge everything.
You either believe or you don't.
You either look for the truth or don't.

So whats the story with you?

Answer if you want, maybe I am just not following the jest of the conversation.

Matt

[nilrehob]

@nilrehob
You keep saying your skeptic, have you not been able to get somthing working that you can measure?

I'm working with the Tesla-switch, trying different variants for about 70h and measuring the voltage on the batteries during each run. Its quite time-consuming, but I'm not in a hurry, and the batteries are quite unpredictable little animals. I'm not done yet, so it's too early for me to draw any conclusions yet. But I'll let You know when I do if anyone is interested.

I don't understand your need to go on and push for a conventional explanation of anything. OR challenge everything.
You either believe or you don't.
You either look for the truth or don't.

I don't challenge everything.
I don't believe it ... yet.
I am looking for the truth. But in my own way, it seems.

So whats the story with you?

If I'm scaring, annoying or making anyone uncomfortable I beg You to forgive me.

But...

The coil-spike-thing is quite central in many applications, and I really want to understand it. So far none of the explanations for it have convinced me.

Right now I'm trying to explain it from another angle.
By using the skeptics way of reasoning I'm hoping to find a situation that cannot be explained conventionally. Thats all.

So now I'm going to do all the math I can on the circuit in my previous post and see what it gives me.

If this forum is not interested in this kind of discussion, just let me know and I'll stop!

[Aaron]

process

Hob,

To see the truth you cannot be skeptical...but you also can't be so open-minded your brains fall out. lol

In my opinion, this is what I feel is a productive way of approaching things like this: I'm not skeptical nor am I automatically believing in something out of gullibility.

I do my best to see something with no judgment whatsoever and I simply observe what is going on and what I wind up believing is based on the results and I could care less what is "supposed" to be the case. What is self-evident carries more weight than any opinion on the matter by anyone else on the same matter.

My belief is always subject to change if something appears that makes more sense then the belief or model adjusts and adapts.

It is about as simple as that and to progress in this direction, I never have to be skeptical, which is a pre-judgment against even seeing something to the contrary and that is the primary inhibitor of real progress or real thinking, in my opinion.

[Matthew Jones]

If this forum is not interested in this kind of discussion, just let me know and I'll stop!

I am OK with the discussion. I just didn't understand the direction of it. Some people become skeptics cause they have a hard time getting things going.

And if your little TS setup isn't convincing you write me. I'll give you one that will. Or I'll be publishing it soon as it gets picture worthy.

Matt

[nilrehob]

In my opinion, this is what I feel is a productive way of approaching things like this: I'm not skeptical nor am I automatically believing in something out of gullibility.

Thats exactly why I call myself a skeptic enthusiast.

I am OK with the discussion. I just didn't understand the direction of it. Some people become skeptics cause they have a hard time getting things going.

Like I said, batteries are strange and unpredictable little animals, thats why I sometimes rerun a setup between other setups, just to find that it got different the second time, strange little animals they are those batteries

And if your little TS setup isn't convincing you write me. I'll give you one that will. Or I'll be publishing it soon as it gets picture worthy.

Please do publish it!

---

It feels too often that there are two churches, the skepticals church and the believers church, and that if You are not with a church You are against it, regardless of which church.
I was really hoping that a new approach, by explaining the spike the skeptical way and then proving it wrong, would make the discussion going again, but I was wrong.
I give up!

[Hoppy]

Thats exactly why I call myself a skeptic enthusiast.



Like I said, batteries are strange and unpredictable little animals, thats why I sometimes rerun a setup between other setups, just to find that it got different the second time, strange little animals they are those batteries



Please do publish it!

---

It feels too often that there are two churches, the skepticals church and the believers church, and that if You are not with a church You are against it, regardless of which church.
I was really hoping that a new approach, by explaining the spike the skeptical way and then proving it wrong, would make the discussion going again, but I was wrong.
I give up!

Hi Hob

Nothing can be proved right or wrong in this 'free energy' game its just a matter of interpretation and belief. I don't believe that OU is possible I'm still looking for the proof that I'm wrong. Others have already claimed OU and are looking to see proof that they are wrong. IMO its pointless arguing the toss. Just state your case and leave it at that.

I don't see the spike as anything special, others do and that's fine with me.

Hoppy

[nilrehob]

Just state your case and leave it at that.

I don't see the spike as anything special, others do and that's fine with me.

Although I don't have a case yet, You are certainly right, and I will.

[lighty]

@Aaron

I agree with you on this one. One can hold two opposing ideas in one's mind and value both of them equally (at the beginning). It is a tricky thing to do at first but it's doable and is known in psychology to be possible. I do it all the time.

For example I can have a gut feeling (intuition if you will) to accept certain concepts and ideas that are seemingly exotic. I can also hold in my mind a completely skeptical point of view. Then, as I progress in my way of thinking and experimenting (either mentally or practically) I will try to give support to both ideas and I will try to disprove them both. After a certain time one idea will prevail. The real trick is to indeed look at both ideas as to what they are - just ideas. They can be changed any time when new evidences come along. I think of it as a argumented scientific discussion inside one's mind.

It may seem that there is apparent dichotomy in this way of looking at things but there really is none. So, I will question everything and everybody no matter how much I wish something was true. There is no any scientific "prophet" so holly that his ideas are above examination. That's the way science works. Everything other than that is faith. And faith have no place in scientific process.

[Aaron]

misquote

Please do publish it!

You quoted me but I didn't say that