The good, the bad and the uglyHarvey-- I was excited to see your input to VORTEX-l along with Jones.
Thanks. What is you take on the high-frequency-input and size of the material being stimulated. Do normal rules for TRIAC power supplies apply? Bob Cook From: Jones Beene Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2015 7:06 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:The good, the bad and the ugly Harvey, As the world’s leading (and possibly only) expert on “interphasal resonance” … can you comment specifically on Rossi’s power supply, used at Lugano. If you have done so, either I missed it or did not understand it. Rossi specifically mentions this power supply in his patent application. It reads something like this: Quote: That is, the TRIAC power supply used in the second experiment was replaced by a controller circuit having three-phase power input and single-phase output, mounted within a housing… A significant difference… lies in the control system, which allows the reactor device 400 to work in self-sustaining mode. END. Apparently, Rossi believes that this power supply is the secret to self-sustaining mode. It has 3-phase input and single phase output, but does not seem to be rectified. But the disclosure completely failed to provide a circuit diagram of it, and thus – through the ineptness of the patent attorney who drafted this poor document, Rossi could lose important coverage for this detail. Can you shed any light on how and why “having three-phase power input and single-phase output” would allow this system, and what is a simple resistive heating coil, to perform so differently that “self-sustaining mode” is the result? From: Harvey Norris >From my understanding, there are situations where the amount of energy in >oscillation between L and C in series resonance can exceed the amount of real >energy manifested as I squared R heating losses. Many years ago I got the idea >that that if you sandwiched three phases of 120 degree time separated magnetic >fields together from spiral made inductors of maximum mutual inductance; you >could reverse the polarity of the middle segment making it only 1/6 th out of >phase with its top and bottom segments and thus acting like a magnetic triode, >the middle element would cause the magnetic fields from the exterior elements >to be expanded in the opposite direction of the interior magnetic compression >being made for 5/6ths of the cycle reaction time. The problem with this idea >is that time is directional and because of phase rotation depending on the way >the stacks are arranged in order, one phase will always be inducing current on >the next one in the phase rotation, and the currents in the stack cannot be >balanced. Just like in mathematics it takes nine consecutive numbers for a >number array to be both horizontally, vertically and diagonally balanced as a >magic square, the three phase reactive currents require nine elements to form >a balanced mutual induction between phasings on a lateral placement scheme >such as this. The following demonstration made four years ago from what I >called a 266 machine offers an initial confirmation of the working principle >involved with using magnetic compression to affect another magnetic expansion, >and then to collect that energy via means of resonant secondary inductors. An >initial quandary is made when we measure the wrong things and assume >over-unity. Here in this video 11 times the amount of energy going in the top >primary is taken out of its secondary, and on the other side of the stack 7 >times this amount occurs. But we are not counting what the middle segment as >the magnetic propelling agent consumes, but even then the energy coming out of >the combined secondaries is clearly greater then what is apparently being >inputed to the primaries. Acting Q's of 10 found on Secondary Reactive/Resonant tests. https://youtu.be/32KwpmBcXZc So what gives here and why is this not "over-unity"? The saving grace made in this demonstration is that the input is made without a field of the 3 phase alternator and we know that it is near a 1 volt level. The fiasco that creeps in here is that we are very accustomed to concluding that the I^2R losses represent the true power input, which is always less then the "apparent V times I " power input. However in an ideal series resonance which never seems to be possible VI=I^2R. And here in this instance the top .5 ohm primary layer consumes .18 A @ 1 volt, or simply .18 VAR, volts ampere reactive. The right side of the equation shows slightly in excess to this at .01 watt primary + .18 watts secondary = .19 watts real heat energy as I^2R expenditures. Thus a slightly higher top output is made by virtue of the middle element compression. But the issue here is that contrary to most observations here in this special circumstance, the apparent power input must be considered as the true power input, and not vice versa, or otherwise the situation appears as over unity. Sincerely HDN Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ On Saturday, June 13, 2015 1:51 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: As Peter laments, there are two extremes in the recent LENR news. Thomas Clark’s report lucidly states exactly what many of us having been saying for months about the flawed Lugano report. The good news in the provocative site: http://tet.in.ua/index.php/en/ Which is the Laboratory of Experimental Physics — also known as “TET” — in Ukraine and also in Moscow. Curiously, it combines Russian and Ukrainian efforts towards alternative energy. The curious part of this partnership goes all the way back to Chernobyl – another joint effort that resulted in catastrophe, but which result could be rectified to a large extent if this new effort is successful. The induction coil seems to offer the most promise to me – especially when the copper coil can double as the calorimeter - in the way Jack Cole has proposed. The Ukrainians seem to be doing exactly the same thing with the pictured coil which is covered in furnace cement. The problem with this approach, as Jack has documented on his blog, is capturing a larger proportion of the input energy than is normally possible with an induction setup. I believe this can be done. I have recently seen a report showing that induction cooktops, when properly designed at the best resonance level can actually apply more net energy from the grid to a cooking utensil than direct contact with the traditional resistive heating element – which is a surprise since we assume the latter is nearly 100% (it isn’t). Jones
