High Voltage from Thin Air?

[dragon]

auto tuning circuit?

@theremart

If you are going to try direct charge from an AV Plug to a cap like this, you will fail. The impedance differences will not allow it with any efficiency. This was covered a page or two back. Without some type of auto tuning on the Exciter it just does not fly.

Now if you are going to use an ESEC design, might I suggest you build it from scratch and not modify the 18-1 board. When you mod the board as needed for the ESEC you no longer have the 18-1 until you would repair it to normal.

Just trying to save you some time and frustration, but of course that is learning and may be a good experience to try the AV Plug.

Hi DrStiffler, you mentioned an autor tuner of sorts. I checked back through some of the posts and couldn't find anything about it. Could you or anyone direct me to the correct information?

Thank you very much.
________

[Armagdn03]

I dont believe any auto tuning mechanism was shown. If you would like to persue this route I would look into feedback systems positive negative the whole shabang. However I would think more on why the charging causes a drifting resonant point, and how this can be circumvented.

If you understand the how the why, and you can explain to your satisfaction what is happening, you will have an easier time with choosing your plan of attack.

[DrStiffler]

I dont believe any auto tuning mechanism was shown. If you would like to persue this route I would look into feedback systems positive negative the whole shabang. However I would think more on why the charging causes a drifting resonant point, and how this can be circumvented.

If you understand the how the why, and you can explain to your satisfaction what is happening, you will have an easier time with choosing your plan of attack.

@Armagdn03
Sounds like a man that has it all figured out and all the ducks in a row

So what is your theory

[Tecstatic]

Let me have a guess.

If we just hypothesize the capacitor voltage is constant, then we have no drift of the exciter tuning frequency.

I have this nagging idea, that the average charging current is almost constant due to the impedance of the medium, all other stuff unchanged.

The voltage of the capacitor rises proportional with time for a constant charging current...but as the stored energy rises proportional to the squared voltage, it is desirable to just top off the upper charge of the capacitor.

I also have the idea that an AV plug is a top clipping circuit, thus reflecting the load back to the source (this is way too fast a frequency to use the better Hector diode plug, which does not reflect back).

But if we arrange for a switch circuit with practically no leak current, and this switch circuit quickly remove a bit of charge from the capacitor to another circuit (SMPS topology), and do this frequently so the capacitor voltage is constant within eg. 0,5V of max allowed voltage, then we get the maximum power output without detuning the SEC exciter.

Please excuse me for saying this without experimental backup. Since my week of bad health, I want to understand more of the basics before I resume experimentation.

Eric

[Inquorate]

Let me have a guess.

If we just hypothesize the capacitor voltage is constant, then we have no drift of the exciter tuning frequency.

I have this nagging idea, that the average charging current is almost constant due to the impedance of the medium, all other stuff unchanged.

The voltage of the capacitor rises proportional with time for a constant charging current...but as the stored energy rises proportional to the squared voltage, it is desirable to just top off the upper charge of the capacitor.

I also have the idea that an AV plug is a top clipping circuit, thus reflecting the load back to the source (this is way too fast a frequency to use the better Hector diode plug, which does not reflect back).

But if we arrange for a switch circuit with practically no leak current, and this switch circuit quickly remove a bit of charge from the capacitor to another circuit (SMPS topology), and do this frequently so the capacitor voltage is constant within eg. 0,5V of max allowed voltage, then we get the maximum power output without detuning the SEC exciter.

Please excuse me for saying this without experimental backup. Since my week of bad health, I want to understand more of the basics before I resume experimentation.

Eric

I have been thinking this also; you could have a 12v zener diode to the first leg of an scr, and a 13v zener diode to the gate so it switches on at 13v and off once at 12v..

But I'm also wondering why ppl want to do this? The last thing dr stiffler showed was one sec running another which was exiting itself.

From what I gather, the dr ain't without a plan here, and I will be further pursuing this line of thought.

Thanks to ren for showing me how to build this.

14092009748 - Vox

@ Dr Stiffler - do you think Germanium diodes with voltage drop of .1v each will show a similar coherence to the LED's?

love and light

[Tecstatic]

But I'm also wondering why ppl want to do this? The last thing dr stiffler showed was one sec running another which was exiting itself.

From what I gather, the dr ain't without a plan here, and I will be further pursuing this line of thought.

I would not be surprised, if Doc has a circuit exceeding the 2.9 CEC he mentioned, and this circuit "bites its tail"

Eric

[Inquorate]

It begins

YouTube - Dr Stiffler circuit rep progres

[Armagdn03]

@Armagdn03
Sounds like a man that has it all figured out and all the ducks in a row

So what is your theory

The following is Copy-written information under the name Andrew Manrique, it is my own work, please respect the rights of others!

What pertains of my "theory" here would be the definition of "singular systems" in discussing eccentricity and concentricity in transformer setups.
My setups use pickup coils rather than the "plug" but I have tried both and have similar results.

The simplest example is this.

According to Faraday's law (put in this convenient permutation)

Voltage Generated = (-N)(delta (BA))/delta t)

Where we have replaced the unit of inductance with its terms:
-N = number of turns
B = Magnetic field strength in Tesla
A = Area of turns (as the radius doubles, the area increases by a factor of four)

Assuming the primary and secondary are concentric (about the same center) Lenz law applies in the standard way, giving us an equal and opposite EMF.

This essentially describes the bulk of the "transformation" process mechanism for this example. It may not be readily apparent, but the Inverse Squared law of electromagnetic radiation is also in effect, though it is hidden to us in conventional designs.

According to the inverse squared law, as we increase the diameter of the secondary (around the primary, concentrically) the magnitude of the EMF created by the primary will decrease accordingly. As we get one radius away from the primary, the magnitude will be 1/4 of the source. But we have also increased area by a factor of four (area of a circle increases by 4 with a doubling of the radius). Therefore in the equation for Faraday's law, the factors of 1/4 and 4 cancel out for no net effect.

Its almost as if the law of inverse squares was never applied because it is "invisible".

However, if the primary and secondary do NOT share centers, there is a whole new area available for study.

For example:

Say a Primary emits a field with a strength of 16 units. A secondary with the same characteristics of the primary is placed one radius away from the primary. The secondary will feel an average of 4 units of field strength due to the inverse squared law. Now Lenz law comes into play, and we have an "equal and opposite" EMF created and emitted from the secondary, which must also travel back at least 1 radius in order to impinge back on the primary. Say this is reduced by a factor of 1/4, meaning the primary only feels an emf due to lenz law of 1 unit.

So we have expended 16 units, to "create" 4, which pushes back for a total of 1. Hugely inefficient, unless you consider the primary and secondaries to be charge conserving resonant "coils". In this situation, minus the average reduction due to Q loss, 16 units gets dinged for 1, to create 4. 15 units now remain, and the cycle continues.

1 unit creates 4 (in this example, reality can be much higher which necessitates more explanation)

Here the "equal and opposite" apparent in all areas of electromagnetics has not been circumvented in any way, simply the geometry has been changed to our advantage.




Continuing....

Equations can be easily derived for the multiplication factor for the power, (inverse of power consumed over power induced)

And

we have the equation given to us for field "felt" at a distance per the inverse squared law of electromagnetic radiation.

Setting these two equal to each other gives us the best balance, or a maximum power transfer point, which manifests as a ring or "orbit" in which the primary likes to be. Consequently this falls at 2x the radius of the primary.

This orbit is not found until TWO SYSTEMS INTERACT, then its as clear as day.

We can consider the capacitive aspect too, however if we have tesla style solenoids, there is an electric potential gradient which is parallel to the magnetic one, not 90 degrees out of phase, this is most interesting and leads to totally new transformer designs.

Funny how almost all Kabalistic and other ancient or elightened science texts scream the importance of compendium changes (aka octave changes, aka doubling the radius, squaring the area, and cubing volume).


What I want to stress the importance of is eccentricity. Power transformers which share centers are in essence the SAME singular unit. Power transformers which do not share centers act as parent-child transformers, much like our own sun and planet.

WIth a mechanism like this, drifting resonant point problems start to disappear. Other mechanisms like this exist which are stupid simple, just gotta understand (what makes sense in your own mind).

[DrStiffler]

Table of Example Frequencies

I obtained a bit of time and captured the low end numbers from a tuned Exciter into a LED load.

Take a bit of time and graph it in different ways, interesting what always shows up in a frequency chart.

F(f) Rel-dbm F(h)=13.2 F(h)=4.4

4.4000 -33.0000 -3.0000 1.0000
8.7000 -26.0000 -1.5172 2.0000
13.2000 -23.0000 1.0000 3.0000
17.6000 -26.0000 1.3333 4.0000
22.0000 -28.0000 1.6667 5.0000
26.4000 -33.0000 2.0000 6.0000
30.8000 -39.0000 2.3333 7.0000
35.0000 -46.0000 2.6515 8.0000
39.6000 -43.0000 3.0000 9.0000
44.0000 -31.0000 3.3333 10.0000
48.5000 -45.0000 3.6742 11.0000
52.8000 -47.0000 4.0000 12.0000
57.1000 -42.0000 4.3258 13.0000
61.3000 -39.0000 4.6439 14.0000
66.1000 -38.0000 5.0076 15.0000
70.4000 -39.0000 5.3333 16.0000
74.8000 -43.0000 5.6667 17.0000
79.1000 -44.0000 5.9924 18.0000
83.5000 -43.0000 6.3258 19.0000
88.0000 -44.0000 6.6667 20.0000

Another one of interest

F(f) Rel-dbm F(h)=13.6 F(h)=6.6
6.6000 -31.0000 2.0606 1.0000
13.6000 -22.0000 1.0000 13.2000
20.7000 -27.0000 1.5221 19.8000
27.6000 -36.0000 2.0294 26.4000
41.5000 -42.0000 3.0515 33.0000
48.3000 -42.0000 3.5515 39.6000
55.4000 -45.0000 4.0735 46.2000
62.2000 -45.0000 4.5735 52.8000
69.1000 -41.0000 5.0809 59.4000
76.0000 -42.0000 5.5882 66.0000
82.7000 -47.0000 6.0809 72.6000

[Tecstatic]

Curve plots

Take a bit of time and graph it in different ways, interesting what always shows up in a frequency chart.

post #1000, page 34

@Tecstatic
Not totally sure what you are headed for here, but I like your result. When you run a graph against a coil for spatial resonance you can indeed see some strange results and be very confusing at first, yet the further you go the clearer it should become.

I have included a link to a plot I did three years ago from exciters using the antenna coil with the ferrite core. I think the similarities should be apparent. Now if you take any number of coils and run a sweep you begin to see something very key in the results. At first you question you generator of Exciter, even your particular setup. Then a commonality will form in your thoughts and one should see what they found over 100 years ago that we ignore today. I know many people hate my coining of 'Spatial Energy Coherence' and or Spatial anything, well that is indeed to bad.

http://67.76.235.52/images/CE4Chart01.gif

and post #1006, page 34

@Tecstatic
Wet behind the ears but drying out fast. Move away from the conventional "Wavelength" view it can not even cover the possibilities at the so called molecular level. It's fine to start out this way so that you can build from it, but one must think of a universal resonance from the macro level and leave the detail to whats called "Nature".

@Doc
I still feel wet, and this is frustrating. I put your data in a spreadsheet.

What I can see from it is peaks at the 1x, 10x and 15 base frequency.

In the first set the 10x frequency has a distinct peak, while in the 2nd set the "10x peak" is barely "visible".

In the 2nd set the base frequency is skewed by a factor of 1.5, which could be the cause of the extinguished peak at 10x base.

You have previously stated, that these frequency spectra's are difficult to interpret, even when knowing what to look for.

If this is not about selecting the base frequency so the harmonics match natures frequencies, I'm out of clues right now.

So you are certainly right, especially when I don't even know what to look for.

I miss the experience you gained from hours of tuning work, so please Doc, a bit more help to understand this will be much appreciated.

Eric

[DrStiffler]

post #1000, page 34



and post #1006, page 34



@Doc
I still feel wet, and this is frustrating. I put your data in a spreadsheet.

What I can see from it is peaks at the 1x, 10x and 15 base frequency.

In the first set the 10x frequency has a distinct peak, while in the 2nd set the "10x peak" is barely "visible".

In the 2nd set the base frequency is skewed by a factor of 1.5, which could be the cause of the extinguished peak at 10x base.

You have previously stated, that these frequency spectra's are difficult to interpret, even when knowing what to look for.

If this is not about selecting the base frequency so the harmonics match natures frequencies, I'm out of clues right now.

So you are certainly right, especially when I don't even know what to look for.

I miss the experience you gained from hours of tuning work, so please Doc, a bit more help to understand this will be much appreciated.

Eric

@Tecstatic
Thanks for keeping everything in context to insure my accuracy.

Well lets work backwards and maybe that will help you as you have missed it completely.

Data Set (1) is a properly tuned Exciter in coherence mode.
Data Set (2) is an Exciter tuned to the second peak of the two possible production levels and is the point of high current and transistor over heating with no coherence and if there is coherence it is dissipated in the transistor.

Graphing F(h)=4.4 is a linear result.
Graphing F(h)=13.2 is non-linear until you reach 13.2.
Graphing Rel-dbm should have brought forth a bit of interest
Graphing F(f) is again a linear result.

Oh, what do you think is the real fundamental of the Exciter here?

Ask your self how the first data set differs from a "Normal" Oscillator output spectrum. What should be the energy distribution across the spectrum. Additionally in such a simplified circuit (lack of implied selective filters) how can you rationalized the energy distribution graph?

Part of understand is understanding, comparing what these data show and what is considered normal, then looking at the similarity of all who have measured a data set when using many variations of coils and construction jigs containing various capacities and inductance. Even when one may be offset by a couple hundred KHz an effect is present, but of course not so strong.

The Energy Lattice is not of extreme High Q and using sharply defined frequencies for excitation dos not aid coherence.

What so called Natural Frequencies are you hung up on? Has anyone yet shown that using Earth, Atmospheric, Gravitational, Water and on and on frequencies ever produced any coherence? NO!, not to my knowledge, folk lore that keeps idol minds busy.

[Tecstatic]

@Tecstatic
Thanks for keeping everything in context to insure my accuracy.

Well lets work backwards and maybe that will help you as you have missed it completely.

Data Set (1) is a properly tuned Exciter in coherence mode.
Data Set (2) is an Exciter tuned to the second peak of the two possible production levels and is the point of high current and transistor over heating with no coherence and if there is coherence it is dissipated in the transistor.

Graphing F(h)=4.4 is a linear result.
Graphing F(h)=13.2 is non-linear until you reach 13.2.
Graphing Rel-dbm should have brought forth a bit of interest
Graphing F(f) is again a linear result.

Oh, what do you think is the real fundamental of the Exciter here?

Ask your self how the first data set differs from a "Normal" Oscillator output spectrum. What should be the energy distribution across the spectrum. Additionally in such a simplified circuit (lack of implied selective filters) how can you rationalized the energy distribution graph?

Part of understand is understanding, comparing what these data show and what is considered normal, then looking at the similarity of all who have measured a data set when using many variations of coils and construction jigs containing various capacities and inductance. Even when one may be offset by a couple hundred KHz an effect is present, but of course not so strong.

The Energy Lattice is not of extreme High Q and using sharply defined frequencies for excitation dos not aid coherence.

What so called Natural Frequencies are you hung up on? Has anyone yet shown that using Earth, Atmospheric, Gravitational, Water and on and on frequencies ever produced any coherence? NO!, not to my knowledge, folk lore that keeps idol minds busy.

@Doc
Your welcome, that is the least I can do, when asking for help. And thank you for an extensive answer.
What I ask for is some of the most difficult issues to understand I have met for a long time.

For some reason I did not graph:
"Graphing F(h)=13.2 is non-linear until you reach 13.2."

Which is remarkable.
Here we have the first two points "outside" the line.

For the 2nd set there is only 1 point "outside" the line.
I have noted you comments about linearity below and above the fundamental.

Graphing Rel-dbm should have brought forth a bit of interest

Yes, the 2nd set look kind of deform and not like an ordinary spectra.

Am I correct the measured curve is the oscillator spectra multiplied with the properties of the Energy Lattice, or is this nonsense ?

"Oh, what do you think is the real fundamental of the Exciter here?"
13.2MHz

Ask your self how the first data set differs from a "Normal" Oscillator output spectrum.

"
For this I have no precise opinion right now. It is many years since I learned about this, and I'm uncertain of the "source" signal type. This is fortified by lack of an SA.

The Energy Lattice is not of extreme High Q and using sharply defined frequencies for excitation dos not aid coherence.

This is a very significant statement for designing circuits, but I don't know why the "Q" is so, and what about the other properties. Do you have a reference helping me to read about the Energy Lattice so I hopefully get a better understanding, or are you in reality the only person with a precise answer ?

I wish I could come up with some better answers, but thats my abilities so far.

It seems my mental model is wrong, but seeing that, is the first step for a better model.

I have attached my curves. maybe it can be to some help. Rename the file to .xls extension before opening.

Eric

[Tecstatic]

Here's my partial replication of the 1 wire sec. I don't think I have it tuned just right, at the best brightness it draws 65ma's at 24 volts.

Does anyone know the mod in this video? Finding Spatial Resonance Part #6

Try looking at post #959, page 32. Maybe that can help you.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post64145

When I approach the sender sphere with some metal or another alu covered sphere, the receiver gets a significant increase in intensity. Too close and it dims totally out.

Eric

[Tecstatic]

I don't think I have mentioned this before, but some spin info that goes along with the MPSA06 and the ideal frequencies of operation.

V/MHz where H(o)=1T

(2)H -> 6.53573
(6)Li -> 6.2660
(9)Be -> 5.989
(11)B -> 13.6626
(13)C -> 10.7081

Another point of view that is possible.

@Doc

Is this related to Spatial Resonance, or is it just the MPSA06 ?
If spatial related, do you have some links for reading ?

Eric

[DrStiffler]

@Doc

Is this related to Spatial Resonance, or is it just the MPSA06 ?
If spatial related, do you have some links for reading ?

Eric

@Eric

This is the resonant frequencies of isotopes that may indeed be present in the MPSA06. It is possible that some of this can be explained by the specific transistor in coherence and the resulting harmonic presents seen as common throughout replication in which the result is only seen when the 06 is used.