Author Topic: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION (Read 3544610 times)

Magluvin · « **Reply #6900 on:** February 27, 2015, 04:19:17 AM »

Sorry for the delays. Just poured the core. Nothing special.

But interesting how the iron particles and powder acted. In small tests, the iron sinks and the resin rises. I just didnt think of it that way.

The iron sand/powder mix was measured in the tube itself, then poured in a mixing cup. I needed just about the same level, in another cup, of resin to get a pourable mix. But, there was very little of the final mix left over after filling the tube. Freaked me out a bit, as I was pouring the last bit, I was worried I didnt have enough.

lol Weird. Lots of space between them atoms, err iron particles.

Anyway, Im hanging out here to scrape off the top every once in a while as the mix seems to be expanding and lumping up over the top of the tube. The other end(bottom) is capped off. Resin expanding due to heat of curing most likely. Little air bubbles gathering. Was thinking to pour it in to the top and it might settle a bit and I could just top it off later, but no.

Gunna go home here in a bit. First tests will be one shot tests as described in Utkins paper.

Mags

a.king21 · « **Reply #6901 on:** February 27, 2015, 10:37:39 AM »

Tito: Don't close the dipole??

forest · « **Reply #6902 on:** February 27, 2015, 06:09:49 PM »

Quote from: a.king21 on February 27, 2015, 10:37:39 AM

Tito: Don't close the dipole??

What ? Still wondering ? I can tell you that while the concept is easy the construction is very difficult . Mostly ends up as a piece of not working crap or with a pile of damaged mosfets....

Magluvin · « **Reply #6903 on:** February 27, 2015, 06:32:47 PM »

Well, today the resin is hard and it sunk in a bit. Its still weird, as it seemed I would have had quite a bit of mix left over. Better more than short. Im going to dremel out the top a bit as it is mostly resin and fill to the end. The core needs to be consistent so each coil has the same amount of core to work with, I believe anyway.

If I have to do it again in the future, I will make on end of the tube longer with some tape and when cured, grind the excess.

The core is very magnetic. Compared to a mag on solid iron, its got pretty close to the same pull. I remember the TPU guru made some cores and posted that they were not as dense as he imagined. So, Im happy with these results so far.
Mags

TinselKoala · « **Reply #6904 on:** February 27, 2015, 06:44:34 PM »

You can probably "densify" your mix in the mold by putting a magnet underneath to aid gravity. Then the iron will pack as densely as it can before the resin cures.

I remember how funny it was to see "J-B Weld" creeping when trying to use it to stick various arrangements of magnets and pole pieces together. It's essentially epoxy filled with powdered steel.

Magluvin · « **Reply #6905 on:** February 27, 2015, 11:28:50 PM »

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 27, 2015, 06:44:34 PM

You can probably "densify" your mix in the mold by putting a magnet underneath to aid gravity. Then the iron will pack as densely as it can before the resin cures.

I remember how funny it was to see "J-B Weld" creeping when trying to use it to stick various arrangements of magnets and pole pieces together. It's essentially epoxy filled with powdered steel.

Nice idea. Will try that in the future.

I messed with the jb. Had to mix in some powdered iron to get a higher concentration of magnetic attraction. But was very thick to work with. And didnt have anything near the mag attraction as iron of similar size. But it does have some. Tried the putty also. It has a bit more attraction than the 2 part liquids.

Here I used layup resin which is thinner than he auto parts stores or home depot resins. Even boatyard resin is a bit thick. Looks like I have about an eighth of an inch of clear resin on top. Will dremel it out and fill. Then Ill do some inductance measurements and continue on.

Will fart around with it all this weekend.

Thanks T

Mags

Magluvin · « **Reply #6906 on:** March 01, 2015, 11:30:32 PM »

Ok, one coil measures 2.54mh and the other is 2.62mh. As each coil measures the same length with a micrometer, I suspect the core for the differences. Will drill out a bit of core on the side with 2.62mh and see what haps adjusting it that way before I start changing the windings to equal them out. Like balancing the flywheel. Drill out the center of that end with a 1/8 bit about 1 in, then step up the size till its balanced at 2.54mh per side. The coil with the high reading is the bottom of core that was poured, so there is probably more settled smaller particle there than at the top.

With the coils connected in the middle, opposing coils measured at the outer leads, I get 4.74mh. Hmm. Woulda thought there would have been a large reduction in mh with opposing coils.

With one coils outer lead connected to the inner lead of the other, still series, 5.54mh. The 2 individual coils added together is 5.16mh, if that is the way we should figure it here.

So, to me, a bit of weirdness. Continue on. Mounting the coils today. Will do a mh measurement of primary when it is set with the core coils. Will do one measurement with the primary in the middle of the whole, and one in the middle of 1 sec coil. The do a primary measurement with the sec coils in series shunted, opposing and not.

Mags

Tito L. Oracion · « **Reply #6907 on:** March 09, 2015, 12:49:22 PM »

i just want to share this everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQNPvbVZ6Vk

a.king21 · « **Reply #6908 on:** March 09, 2015, 05:15:23 PM »

Quote from: Tito L. Oracion on March 09, 2015, 12:49:22 PM

i just want to share this everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQNPvbVZ6Vk

Hi Tito, good to hear from you. Are you using the doubler or the cascade?

Tito L. Oracion · « **Reply #6909 on:** March 10, 2015, 03:24:02 AM »

Quote from: a.king21 on March 09, 2015, 05:15:23 PM

Hi Tito, good to hear from you. Are you using the doubler or the cascade?

Well, i'm not using both of them, i just showed them their simplicity of use.

.

bye buddy.

Bob Smith · « **Reply #6910 on:** March 10, 2015, 05:15:42 PM »

Quote from: Tito L. Oracion on March 09, 2015, 12:49:22 PM

i just want to share this everyone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQNPvbVZ6Vk

Just thought I'd share this along with this helpful video Tito Posted:
http://www.diyphysics.com/2012/02/09/d-i-y-250-kv-high-voltage-dc-power-supply-with-neat-trick-for-switching-polarity/
Note the page's description of the Cockroft-Walton voltage multiplier:

Quote

The Cockroft-Walton multiplier uses a cascaded series of diodes and capacitors to generate a high voltage DC potential from an AC input through a circuit topology that uses diodes to charge capacitors in parallel and discharge them in series.

"... charging in parallel, discharging in series..." Sound familiar?
Bob

Magluvin · « **Reply #6911 on:** March 10, 2015, 11:58:08 PM »

Quote from: Bob Smith on March 10, 2015, 05:15:42 PM

Just thought I'd share this along with this helpful video Tito Posted:
http://www.diyphysics.com/2012/02/09/d-i-y-250-kv-high-voltage-dc-power-supply-with-neat-trick-for-switching-polarity/
Note the page's description of the Cockroft-Walton voltage multiplier: "... charging in parallel, discharging in series..." Sound familiar?
Bob

Thats a lot of voltage. But what do we do with that to get us some extra out?

We would need to measure the input and compare to the output.

Mags

Magluvin · « **Reply #6912 on:** March 11, 2015, 02:21:16 AM »

It is all good to know. But transforming into a higher power is the key. Another thing is safety. 250kv is no joke. Is it possible that xrays are emitted from the spark gap? At that voltage transistors are not an option really. Relays dont have enough throw distance to help.

Im kind scared to get into those areas. It may be a setback for me here. Tesla lived to a good old age. But he knew things we do not.

I get that raising the voltage, even though it has less total current available, can be dumped into a low resistance, but what emanates from that blast that might be harmful or at the least, detectable. Detectable as in, maybe it could be detected that such a device is operating and get into deep trouble over it. Multiple discharges of 250kv may attract FCC or worse.

Thats why I have always stated that I would rather try for a softer go at it. Would be great to work at lower voltages, and lower freq if possible.

So with my walls in front of my goals, maybe I am wasting time. But I keep stepping forward, one step at a time.

Mags

Bob Smith · « **Reply #6913 on:** March 11, 2015, 02:50:19 PM »

Quote from: Magluvin on March 11, 2015, 02:21:16 AM

It is all good to know. But transforming into a higher power is the key. Another thing is safety. 250kv is no joke. Is it possible that xrays are emitted from the spark gap? At that voltage transistors are not an option really. Relays dont have enough throw distance to help.

Im kind scared to get into those areas. It may be a setback for me here. Tesla lived to a good old age. But he knew things we do not.

I get that raising the voltage, even though it has less total current available, can be dumped into a low resistance, but what emanates from that blast that might be harmful or at the least, detectable. Detectable as in, maybe it could be detected that such a device is operating and get into deep trouble over it. Multiple discharges of 250kv may attract FCC or worse.

Thats why I have always stated that I would rather try for a softer go at it. Would be great to work at lower voltages, and lower freq if possible.

So with my walls in front of my goals, maybe I am wasting time. But I keep stepping forward, one step at a time.

Mags

I hear ya, Mags. HV wouldn't be my preference either. I think Tito hinted that there were a few ways to get the desired result, and yours may well be one of them. What I see is an antenna to collect ambient charge, followed by something that will pulse. For me his link to the negative resistance oscillator was a good example. YT user Larskro also has a very low mV Joule Thief oscillator on his channel - I think the lowest anyone's come up with yet. The other thing that I got a sense Teets was alluding to was the use of litz wire to multiply current after the pulse. That could be stepped up for increased voltage. Finally the special coil

which I think you're well on the way to working out. I believe its magic lies in its ability to act as a secondary without affecting the primary's resonance.
Take care,
Bob

Magluvin · « **Reply #6914 on:** March 11, 2015, 05:22:58 PM »

Quote from: Bob Smith on March 11, 2015, 02:50:19 PM

I hear ya, Mags. HV wouldn't be my preference either. I think Tito hinted that there were a few ways to get the desired result, and yours may well be one of them. What I see is an antenna to collect ambient charge, followed by something that will pulse. For me his link to the negative resistance oscillator was a good example. YT user Larskro also has a very low mV Joule Thief oscillator on his channel - I think the lowest anyone's come up with yet. The other thing that I got a sense Teets was alluding to was the use of litz wire to multiply current after the pulse. That could be stepped up for increased voltage. Finally the special coil which I think you're well on the way to working out. I believe its magic lies in its ability to act as a secondary without affecting the primary's resonance.
Take care,
Bob

Hey Bob

Yeah, coil with a tail. Utkin shows an example of one of the 2 opposing coils open at the outer end. Possibly the primary induces the 2 coils, and the one that is loaded produces current and the other coil produces voltage added to the loaded coil?

Anyway, been trying to put time into it. Just have to make mounting posts for the sec and try some things.

Just picked up a variable supply last week. Ebay $78 shipped 30v 10a. Played with it a bit and it works very nicely. Been wanting one. But Ill go bateries on this as to not possibly hurt the supply.

Mags

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION (Read 3544610 times)

Magluvin

Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

a.king21

Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

forest

Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

Magluvin

Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

TinselKoala

Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

Magluvin

Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

Magluvin

Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

Tito L. Oracion

Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

a.king21

Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

Tito L. Oracion

Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

Bob Smith

Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

Magluvin

Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

Magluvin

Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

Bob Smith

Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

Magluvin

Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION