Dipole Preservation Oscillator

[SuperCaviTationIstic]

My goal with this idea is to create an oscillation circuit which:
-runs from a DC potential (battery, caps.....)
-creates a field in an inductor on the on pulse
-on the off pulse the field collapses and sends the charge back to the source
-there is NO current link between poles of the source of potential, only voltage link (capacitive coupling between + and - poles)
-inductor may have secondary on it for power take off
-to sum it up: (do work with only potential, never depleting the source)

here's a diagram of one way I thought of doing it:
[ATTACH]5426[/ATTACH]
the transistor would be an NPN reverse biased for an avalanche breakdown switch. obviously there could be some resistors in there, but i showed my basic idea without any specific components. this may be a poor design, but with a proper oscillation created on the + side of the source, I think you'll get what I'm trying to do.

maybe a load could be placed on the primary circuit, maybe it should be on a secondary.

what if you put a ground on the - side of the battery, maybe with a diode pointing to ground, so if electrons are somehow used up during the process, more can be introduced to replenish it?

[Aaron]

recharging pulse

That is almost the concept of the Ainslie circuit.

All you have to do is oscillate a mosfet - the collapse is routed back
to the source through the diode in the mosfet. You can put a scope
on the battery and see that on each off pulse, the recharging pulse
goes right back to the power battery.

[SuperCaviTationIstic]

Here's a simpler picture of what I'm trying to do:
[ATTACH]5429[/ATTACH]
Aaron, do you think it would be possible to create a circuit like my idea though, with no direct current link between the poles of the battery?

I took a look at the Ainslie circuit, and it doesn't have that property.


I guess one of the other main points I thought would be helpful, was if the flyback from the inductor collapse could discharge a cap quickly through its self, adding to the intensity of the reversed field. I'm not sure if it's better to direct that discharge back into the positive side of the battery, or the negative side. I tend to think it would depend on the chemical composition of the battery, yet if the source was a capacitor, it would definitely need to go back to the positive side.

I thought of an other idea if you wanted the charge to continue to the negative side:
[ATTACH]5430[/ATTACH]

With both windings going in the same direction, the magnetic fields would cancel each other and shouldn't allow much/any current to flow, but the capacitor lets current flow in the first winding, and when the field collapses the capacitor equalizes through the second winding

[Harvey]

Hi SuperCaviTationIstic,

This is certainly a great concept and I applaud your application of the zener effect emitter breakdown oscillator. But there is one small flaw that has to do with displacement currents.

When we get the inductor and capacitor into resonance we are effectively placing an AC current across the DC electric dipole. This will be seen from the dipole perspective as a discharge / charge cycle. Therefore from an energy point of view, what we take out, we attempt to put back. This is real current flow that connects the positive pole to the negative pole in an AC fashion. Eventually, you will incur a loss as the inductor and capacitor both have some resistance and power will be dissipated in them. You will want to keep your resistance as low as possible.

Now one interesting thing about this setup is the ability to boost voltage. Years ago I did an analysis on resonant LC systems and found that the junction of the inductor and capacitor can increase to hundreds of thousands of volts if the resistance is near zero. In real world tests, the voltage on a 60Hz LC resonant tank produced about four thousand volts at that node. But, that voltage is AC voltage and has little power associated with it.

I have to disagree with Aaron's comment here comparing your circuit to another. Having worked with both of these concepts hands on, I must say they are both very different animals.

I must applaud your efforts to designing something that preserves the dipole. It certainly follows Tom Bearden's advice that new technology work at not destroying it the way we do now. His theory suggests that the dipole is an open window into the vacuum which lets charge continue to pour out indefinitely. It is an interesting concept considering the fact that if we move a dipole in space, the information that it has moved takes time to reach a distant observer. If the field were static, the information would travel instantly. This intimates that some sort of dynamic is in play between the two poles of the dipole that fills the field that is interactive with the vacuum of space-time. In other words, lines of electric force at a distance from the dipole tend to stay in place after the dipole is moved and a new line of force emanates from the poles from the new location with a bend connecting it to the old line of force. That bend is considered to be a magnetic interaction with space-time.

If it were easy to preserve the dipole and extract the energy from it, I imagine we would have many devices available to do so. But it is this very difficulty that makes the challenge so enticing. Keep thinking out of the box, you just may be the one to show us how it can be accomplished