Parametric Excitation

[LtBolo]

It appears to work backwards from what the Russian paper suggests. *sigh*

The current decreases when we add inductance, and the current increases when we remove inductance. This is completely consistent with the swing example. As you lean back and raise your legs during increasing velocity (current) you are shortening the pendulum arm (decreasing inductance). To shorten the pendulum arm, you are counteracting centrifugal force (loading the motor shaft).

Our system self-limits very nicely at about 1/2 HP...which happens to be the size of the motor.

There may be some kind of relativistic effect of changing inductance faster than the current can adapt...in essence longitudinal effects applied to parameter change. It is possible that is what Dollard is talking about...but...the Russian experiments are not doing that, I don't think.

For starters, the parameter change required to build the output will never come from aluminum. The permeability is so close to that of air, it won't change the inductance measurably. What would happen is that it would produce eddy currents that would repel the coil's field, thus decreasing inductance. The problem is that if there are eddy currents, then there is a magnetic field, which loads the motor every bit as much as magnetic material.

So, I see several possible inconsistencies with the theory, backed up by our own lab experiments. This makes me question the whole thing.

Eric Dollard seemed convinced that this paper was describing effects he had harnessed...so I believe that there may be more to it. But I would really love it if he were to come forward again and provide some clarification.

[fzzzy]

I haven't really been able to understand your experimental setup and how you expect it to operate, but I have a comment about the swing analogy.

Instead of considering the child extending and retracting legs at the right moment, consider someone giving them a push at exactly the right moment. A very small push at the right moment can be very effective.

In many of the circuit diagrams I have been examining recently I have noticed the following parts: high voltage dc source, capacitor, spark gap, pair of coils. This describes the magnifying transmitter although it also has an extra coil and a charge collector.

The way I have been visualizing this is: capacitor fills up enough to cause the gap to arc. The arc is quenched, resulting in a high voltage short duration impulse into the primary coil. This is transferred to the secondary which begins oscillating. If the impulses are timed properly, the impulse will be phase conjugate with the wave in the secondary, magnifying the power somehow. That's my current theory. Notice the impulse is only in one direction, unlike the child moving legs at both ends of the swing which balance out.

I must confess I do not understand the mechanics of what you are attempting here. I did read somewhere that changes in inductance destroy power and changes in capacitance can create power, but I will have to search to find the reference to where I read that.

I must also confess that I have only elementary understanding of traditional electric theory (which may put me at an advantage!). I am intuiting that the magnifying transmitter somehow changes the capacitance parameter very quickly -- is this when the impulse is put into the secondary? Does the capacitance of the secondary change very quickly as a result of saturation? I'm still having a hard time visualizing how either inductance or capacitance would vary in a circuit, so I have much more studying to do.

Thanks for this thread. It's great.

[broli]

@LtBolo: I suggest you keep on experimenting and fiddling since you already got this far. But ultimately I would suggest to work with a PM and exploit core saturation. Changing induction by movement of a core is bound to create a change of flux which will lower current first and then recharge your coil again, but the latter will take long due to the increased inductance so you end up with no gain when you discharge it.

[LtBolo]

Well, I think our conclusion is that parametric variation will induce power...no additional experimentation is required to prove that. The question is whether it constitutes FE or not, and from our observation the answer is no, at least in this configuration. Are there others that work? Perhaps.

I run an engineering company, and the products we create is how I and my 21 co-workers get paid. I do not have the luxury of 'fiddling'. As I find ideas that are worth pursuing, I will do so, with commercialization as the ultimate end. Given Dollard's endorsement of the Russian paper, and the apparent credibility of that paper, I felt that it was worth a shot. That said, we aren't sitting around with nothing to do, and stuff that doesn't put money in the account can't be pursued indefinitely.

It does appear to me that the large WITTS generator uses parametric excitation, but there is also a second set of coils that have another function. Their official answer is 'quantum energy' and 'particles other than electrons', and that may be true...however...their setup reminds me a great deal of an electronic version of Milkovic's 2 stage pendulum, and I wouldn't rule out obfuscation to hide the truth of how their device works.

Which has started me thinking a bit. There is a paper offering a proof of OU on Milkovic's site. The basic assertion is that if I add 1 unit of velocity at the top of the pendulum's swing, that will translate into a much larger increase in energy at the bottom of the swing.

For instance: Without extra energy, the pendulum would start at 0m/s at the top and accelerate to 10m/s at the bottom. The kinetic energy is 1/2Mv^2, so assuming a 2kg weight, the 10m/s at the bottom is now 100J KE. If I add 1m/s at the top, which represents 1J, at the bottom it is now 11m/s which is 121J. So 1J at the top adds 21J at the bottom...which can be removed to do work. Is that true? Dunno. It's still only 1m/s faster than before, but the energy is 21J higher. Does it really take the removal of 21J to slow it back down to 10m/s? Again, dunno.

If it is true, then the same thing can be applied to electronics, and by extension, it seems to me that there is OU in everything that is resonant. The key is knowing how much and when. Peak KE is the same as peak current, and peak PE is the same as voltage. Inserting extra joules at peak voltage in a resonant circuit and removing the excess at peak current, would naturally follow that math.

It sounds far too simple to me, but then again, maybe not. Resonance can do serious work (damage) so maybe there is OU there. The 'how much' and the 'when' are key, and it appears to me that the amount of excess energy would not get very high until the current got large...high voltage/low current would never produce much extra...and that seems to be the primary direction that everyone goes. The Q would need to be high enough to establish a good resonance, but low enough for the resonance to be high current. Meaning...it has to be designed...random resonance wouldn't necessarily produce meaningful excess.

Just thinking out loud. Somebody feel free to tell me why it doesn't work.

[broli]

I'm not going to tell why or why it won't work but to me the logic seems strange. When you consider an initial velocity like that you have to consider it for the entire system for you to gain 21J. In the case of a pendulum everything has to be moving 1 m/s downward this includes the wall the pendulum is attached to. But if you do this you'll see that 21J is accounted for since "the whole world dropped". But even this is difficult because it has to drop at a constant velocity without being affected by gravity unlike the pendulum bob.

[boguslaw]

Look at parametric oscillation amplitude rising in time.EXPOTENTIALLY.
Now assume that you will draw power from it LINEARLY,energy in parametric circuit would still rise ,right ?
It is a time machine. Practically OU inventors pass energy to the second stage completly isolated from driving parametric oscillator to eliminate Lenz law.It can be any open path like Earth electical system for example.
There are few factors which can be used alone or mixed:
- parametric amplification
- close loop feedback
- multiplication of basic circuits in series or parallel

[LtBolo]

In the case of a pendulum everything has to be moving 1 m/s downward this includes the wall the pendulum is attached to. But if you do this you'll see that 21J is accounted for since "the whole world dropped".

No, the extra energy is just an impulse applied to the bob itself. If gravity was already going to increase the velocity from 0 to 10m/s, and we add an impulse that takes it to 1m/s before gravity can do its work, the final velocity would be 11m/s. Gravity doesn't care what your starting velocity is (within reason), it will accelerate at 9.8m/s^2 anything in its field.

Your impulse costs 1J (0 to 1m/s for a 2kg weight...1/2*2*1^2), but the net increase due to the impulse is 21J (1/2*2*11^2 - 1/2*2*10^2). Interestingly enough, if this is true, it would explain a great number of OU inventions...both mechanical and electrical. Although again, I am far from convinced, just restating the proof offered for Milkovic's device.

[boguslaw]

LtBolo I see no reaso why the same cannot work without external push AT CORRECT MOMENT but only by changing inertia by manipulating of the center of mass.Like child on swing.

[broli]

No, the extra energy is just an impulse applied to the bob itself. If gravity was already going to increase the velocity from 0 to 10m/s, and we add an impulse that takes it to 1m/s before gravity can do its work, the final velocity would be 11m/s. Gravity doesn't care what your starting velocity is (within reason), it will accelerate at 9.8m/s^2 anything in its field.

Your impulse costs 1J (0 to 1m/s for a 2kg weight...1/2*2*1^2), but the net increase due to the impulse is 21J (1/2*2*11^2 - 1/2*2*10^2). Interestingly enough, if this is true, it would explain a great number of OU inventions...both mechanical and electrical. Although again, I am far from convinced, just restating the proof offered for Milkovic's device.

Force is the change of momentum over time. I agree on the fact that both a body starting at rest and a body starting with an initial velocity will need the same time to gain that 10m/s of speed. But will they also need the same distance? NO. in the 1m/s case the force has worked over a longer distance due to the initial velocity. This is simple Newtonian physics with no regard to energy. So I don't know how they could make such a basic mistake. I don't ask you to believe me, perform the simple experiment and measure the speed of the bob. Friction aside, it will be around 10.04 m/s to account for friction perform the same test with no initial velocity to have an idea of the losses.

[LtBolo]

LtBolo I see no reaso why the same cannot work without external push AT CORRECT MOMENT but only by changing inertia by manipulating of the center of mass.Like child on swing.

Yes, parameter change works. Our experiments clearly showed that. From what we saw, there is no excess energy. An impulse is and impulse regardless of whether it comes from an input impulse or from a parameter change.

[LtBolo]

in the 1m/s case the force has worked over a longer distance due to the initial velocity.

Makes perfect sense to me. I'm an EE...I purged most of my Newtonian stuff...which is why I was asking.

I suspect that it isn't quite that simple, however, given that the center of rotation is moving as a result of the force acting on the second stage. That will lengthen the travel by whatever excursion the system allows. Is it enough to provide the effect they describe? Can't say. They seem pretty convinced that the second stage is doing more work than they are providing to the first stage and some of their demos are pretty convincing.

[LtBolo]

Silly me...

I went back and looked at the Milkovic proof paper. I oversimplified...they didn't state it that way. He ran through the math and wound up with a 3 term expression that described initial energy, excess energy, and gravity added energy. So the rookie mistake was mine. This is what happens when you let electrical guys have tools and mechanicals...stuff gets broken!

[Raui]

Schools busy at the moment so I haven't had time to do experimentation however I thought I'd try and resurrect some interest in this very very important topic with some revision over what Eric Dollard has said. I have proven one of his statements mathematically but the other one I have failed to do so.

There was also the Rotary Electromagnetic Converter, constructed by Michael Knots and Peter Lindemann with the help of Chris Carson. This unit exhibited the property of materializing and dematerializing electric energy without regard for the Law of Conservation of Energy. This is another example of synchronous parameter variation. In this case inductance (L in Henrys) time (T in seconds) gave rise to positive resistance (R in Ohms), hence the unaccounted for destruction of electric energy. It must be just as illegal to destroy energy as it is to create it – don’t you think? E is NOT equal to MC squared. There is no Matter to Energy equivalency – this is: The Great White Lie…

Now take note to the underlined part. From equation L = Vt/I (derived from the formula to calculate voltage in a charging inductor V = LI/t);
If we differentiate this equation with respect to time, that is find out the result of changing inductance over time, we get dL/dt = V/I which funnily enough is equal to resistance! We have proven this statement of Dollard's mathematically. This could explain the why's of LtBolo's failed attempt at replicating the effect where energy is synthesized. However he says, later on in this post, that the two Russians who wrote the paper he cites ("Concerning the Excitation of Electrical Waves Through Parameter Changes" by Mandelstam & Papaleski) appear to be powering a light bulb from a deviation of a magnetic amplifier, "an Alexanderson type Mag. Amp. operating in a self oscillation mode." to be exact. So are we missing something here, if so, this is probably the key to a successful replication!

Chris Carson Built the Rotary Electrostatic Converter. His design was based entirely on my electrical theory and math. It was designed to demonstrate and validate the concept of Synchronous Parameter Variation and the Four Quadrant Theory of Electricity. The device worked well. It had to spin up to around 10,000 RPM. This unit took Chris months to complete; to get all of the parts together, and to get it perfectly balanced and operational. Chris determined that it was starting to exhibit the effects of synthesis of electrical energy from the electrostatic field. This is a result of the variation of capacitance (C in Farrads) with respect to time (T in seconds) which results in a negative conductance G (in Siemens).

Now I have a question in regard to the statement underlined in the above quote. Trying to prove this statement in the same way is something which brings up a discrepancy. From equation C = It/V (derived from the formula to calculate current in a charging capacitor I = CV/t); If we differentiate this with respect to time, that is find out the result of changing capacitance over time, we get dC/dt = I/V = 1/R which is conductance in Siemens. However, we are trying to prove it results in a negative conductance since a large conductance mathematically is just a very small resistance and not a negative resistance which would be expected if one was the synthesize electrical energy.

Can anyone out there who is smarter than I possibly aid in understanding this? Be easy on me if this is a simple error for I am only still in high school :P

Raui

[Armagdn03]

quick note on the above post,

Parmetrics involve parameter changes, resistance is included in the L and C list.

2x is ONE stable mode, not the only.

[Raui]

After thinking and thinking about my question above last night I thought I'd goto bed and think about it in the morning only to realize the trivial error I had made. I was only considering when the change of the parameter was positive, that is from say 5uf to 5.5uf, and not the situation when the parameter change was negative, say 5uf to 4.5 uf. Re-analyzing this situation brings much different result.

When our change of capacitance is positive (lower capacitance to a higher one) we get a resultant conductance given by the equation dC/dt = I/V = G or conductance which is basically a resistance since it is the inverse of R. For those not too great with mathematics that basically means that if conductance = 1/R or otherwise known as the inverse of R then if we have a very large positive conductance we have a very small positive resistance or hence the apparent destruction of electrical energy. When our change of inductance is positive we get a resultant resistance calculated by dL/dt = V/I = R. Hence again we have the apparent destruction of electrical energy.

If however the rate of change of our parameter is negative (higher capacitance/inductance to a lower one) we get a different situation, the opposite one at that. If we have a negative change of our parameter over a unit of time we must then append the equations used to calculate it. If our change of capacitance per unit of time is negative then our equation for calculating the result is dC/dT = -I/V or a negative conductance which is what Eric said was the result. The same applies to dL/dT = -V/I or a negative resistance both of these both indicate synthesis of electrical energy which explains the Mandelstam/Papaleski apparatus.

I checked this with both my maths and physics teachers. My physics teacher said the maths was right but he didn't like it because of the implications but said it was interesting. I double checked with my math teacher to make sure my analysis was correct and he agreed it was correct.

Also, while browsing for information pertaining to parametric excitation I found the following image of JL Naudin's website.

Now if we do a dimensional analysis on that equation we find that to be true (both the flux coupling and parametric coupling terms have the dimensions of volts). If anyone needs proof of this I can write a proof up and put it on youtube. This also means that our dielectric induction equation can be written as;
I = C(dV/dt) + V(dC/dT)
We need to get a mathematical model together to describe what's going on it's easier to relay the information to each other. We now have a more complete understanding of the equations to work out results from magnetic and dielectric inductions plus the result of a changing inductance/capacitance over time. I think a review of the Mandelstam report "Report on Recent Research on Nonlinear Oscillations" wouldn't do much harm.


EDIT: I just went over this thread and noted something LtBolo has said;

It appears to work backwards from what the Russian paper suggests. *sigh*

The current decreases when we add inductance, and the current increases when we remove inductance. This is completely consistent with the swing example. As you lean back and raise your legs during increasing velocity (current) you are shortening the pendulum arm (decreasing inductance). To shorten the pendulum arm, you are counteracting centrifugal force (loading the motor shaft).

This is completely consistent with the math I have posted earlier in this post. It would be great if Eric or someone in the know would come and help us out. The math in the papers is a little above me, I understand a fair bit of the notation I just don't know the meaning of it all, otherwise I might be able to help out more.

Raui