Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

SrFe Heating Effects with Ferromagnetic and Resonant Voltage Sources

Expand Messages
  • Harvey D Norris
    Apparently there is nothing magical about ferrite loosing its resistance, or is there? Actually these experiments were first obscured by use of a bad full wave
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 4, 2005
      Apparently there is nothing magical about ferrite loosing its
      resistance, or is there? Actually these experiments were first
      obscured by use of a bad full wave rectification, where only half the
      voltage output was made, and caused high input amperages to enter the
      diode system, thus smoking the wires. After replacing the
      rectification system a sensible DC supply was made. This was not
      taken directly from the variac, as first tried, which supplies 0-150
      volts. Instead this method employs a four fold step down of variac
      voltage through an intervening step down transformer; which is the
      same method used for the external alternator field regulation. The
      voltages produced in the four fold reduction of available wall
      voltage places the ferromagnetic source in the necessary safety range
      of operation whereby maximum ferrite amperage in a runaway form does
      not develope. The resonant source of voltage will quickly reduce its
      output voltage with accordance to the reduced ohmic load it
      experiences, which is the practice once a significant ferrite
      heating glow developes, the ohmic resistance of the load rapidly
      drops with the rising temperature of the ferrite. But the resonant
      source of voltage is current limited by the impedance of the reactive
      components, which in this case is the 7 ohms reactance of the METR
      spirals comprising the resonances placed on each of the three
      phases. Since the DC rectifications act as two interphasal pathways,
      or actually three, inside the triangle of delta series resonances
      the availability of these interphasal currents are predicted to be
      1.7 times the reactive current itself. Thus we can surmise that a 7
      volt stator, on short of the voltage rises of the resonances; where
      the load acts as zero resistance, this causes the entire circuit to
      act as three phases of parallel resonance, with shared pathways on
      the former interphasal currents, making that pathway contain more
      amperage then is contained on the tank itself, in fact 1.7 times more
      amperage. So at a 7 volt input one amp should assume itself on the
      outer pathways, and 1.7 amps on the inner pathways, but in that ideal
      tank circuit, the currents on the branches being served will be q
      times that which is inputed. In this case the acting q being 5, five
      times less current enters the branch then exists on the branch
      itself. Thus by making the load appear with less resistance, the
      circuit begins to act in the direction of the actions of this three
      phase tank circuit. However the investigated strontium ferrite
      currents obtained from alternator resonances has its own limitations
      of the amount of current it can supply, and actually it can only
      sensibly operate at the conversion point between series and parallel
      resonance, which becomes the point where the circuit stops acting as
      a voltage rise circuit, and the input stator voltages then
      approximately match the inner voltages created on the former series
      resonant voltage rise, now bridged by a load that has eliminated this
      voltage rise, whereby it is found that the acting resistance of the
      ferrite sample has come to a value close to 7 ohms. A firing of a
      fractured piece of ferrite showed an equalization of voltage rise to
      stator voltage occured with an average 24 volt stator input enabling
      a 23.4 DC volts enabling a 3.4 A ferrite conduction for 23.4/3.4 =
      6.9 ohms., this being done at a stator line draw of 2.8 amps. What is
      found that in certain comparisons, where the extra current is added
      to the equation from an outside DC source, making for a shared
      ferrite amperage through the piece: that the extra current further
      reduces the effect of the apparent resistance of the ferrite so that
      now the resonant source has reduced its voltage to 13.8 volts across
      a combined 7.6 A, where 50% of the current was obtained by its own
      source. Formerly 23.4 volts was needed to accomplish the same
      amperage input through the ferrite, so the parallel amperage
      contribution has caused the effective resistance of the piece to
      change from 6.8 ohms to 13.8/7.6 = 1.8 ohms, a 3.8 fold reduction.
      This reduction of load resistance in turn caused the voltage input to
      drop 59%, but the amperage delivery does not drop
      7.6 A Combined Wall and Alternator SrFe Currents

      The DC Wall voltage input was set at 17 volts. The current obtained
      through the wall voltage step down of voltage through the ferrite is
      very sporiadic at first, even cycling in time, as that branch is
      initially below the 23.4 volts of the adjacent branch. The current
      through the wall branch was only .80 A, after some time, so I went to
      increase the input to 20 volts DC, when its amperage contribution
      suddenly increased to the shown 3.89 A, and a much brighter glow was
      produced on the piece. In this situation with only 17 volts parallel
      input from the wall voltage system, if the alternator contribution is
      turned off, this disables the entire system, as the heat glow factor
      decreases over time as the input amperage drops gradually also with
      the accordant loss of heat. The 17 volts input from the wall voltage
      system was unable to maintain any kind of constant ferrite amperage,
      so in this system with the wall voltage contribution initially set at
      a lower voltage then the resonant contribution, the wall voltage is
      set too low to maintain the heating effect, and the system will only
      work (cooperatively) when both sides are engaged. This led to
      wonderings where would it be possible for the wall voltage to enable
      the SrFe heating effect alone, after it had been heated by the
      availability of initial high voltages from the resonant side. This
      was also tried by shutting down the alternator side and then
      increasing the DC voltage to 30 volts and quickly back down to 20
      volts, which then showed a 9 A consumption at 15 DC volts input,
      showing a 5 volt drop from source to load in accordance to demand.
      In comparison for the wall voltage side producing more amperage
      delivery then the resonant side, this does not appear to change the
      amperage delivery contribution made by its resonant branch, thus 6
      amps can be passed on the wall voltage side without it significantly
      effecting the set 3.74 A delivery from that side. In comparing the
      stator line deliveries for both cases, a 24 volt stator initially
      enabled a SrFe voltage equalization at a cost of a 2.8 stator line
      draw producing ~2A phase conductions and yielding 3.4 A conductions.
      After a certain amount of wall voltage current was placed in parallel
      to its contribution it was found that the same 3.4 A delivery on its
      branch had been accomplished with a slightly increased stator voltage
      near 25 volts but which only enabled 1.8A into the branches. Now in
      this circumstance it is specifically seen that since the amperage
      quantity does not significantly change, but the voltage input does,
      this then shows that for both cases the power input also decreased
      ~40% for the alternator side when both systems were combined. Thus
      the stator line input for both cases also shows this comparison,
      however now the phase amperages are approximately equal to the stator
      line delivery wires, where normally they are 1.7 times that value,
      and so for straight line stator amperage vs ferrite amperage
      comparisons we start with a condition of a 2.8 A line draw, down to a
      1.8 A line draw, without any amperage reduction through the load. In
      these comparisons in is important to note that we have reduced the
      power input to accomplish the same amperage conduction. Essentially
      here the same thing could be attempted by the alternator alone, to
      cause a 7.6 A ferrite conduction, but to do this the input voltage
      would have to be at a very high value, but the net effect would be
      the same: to make the entire load appear with a smaller resistance,
      while at the same time making the outside impedance of the alternator
      circuit appear higher, thus minimizing the current input. The fact
      that the phase currents are then equal to the delivery line currents
      show that at least a 70% resonant rise of amperage has been obtained
      on the phases that itself supply the SrFe current. To accomplish this
      alone would require a very high stator voltage, but here by the
      method of mutual heating of ferromagnetic and resonant currents on
      the ferrite, higher amperage deliveries become possible. It is useful
      to compare what the current limitation on the resonant side should be
      at the level of 25 volts, where 25/7 shows the phase amps, and 1.7
      times this would be 6A. This means that if the SrFe heating effect
      could be driven down to a level of zero ohms, perhaps a ludicrous
      proposition, the outside circuit in that circumstance could only
      deliver 6A at the present voltage input. Thus the ferrite currents
      are already beyond the ability of the alternator supply to provide
      for that amperage, but this shared amperage pathway does not make its
      load appear as zero resistance , but it does increase the efficiency
      of delivery currents to that load by driving the outside circuit more
      in the direction of a resonant rise of amperage inherent in tank
      The unregulated, unballasted transformer source of current may not
      have the quality of voltage reduction with reduced ohmic loads that
      the resonant supply offers, instead it may only conduct increasingly
      large amperages once a sufficiently low ferrite resistance is
      encountered. Thus we start out with a low wall voltage source that is
      stepped down four fold and then rectified, and each rectification is
      hooked to the ferrite sample in identical DC polarities of course.

      This method of dual inputs applied to a water cell may proove
      fruitfull, as in this case it has enabled the resonant circuit to act
      with a better q factor, without itself requiring an increase of
      voltage from the source itself, where it is this increase of applied
      voltage that becomes significant in reducing the apparent resistance
      of the water cell itself. For purposes of making sensisble SrFe
      heating effects on water, a very inneficient water cell design can be
      made, and thus the voltage reduction across the ferrite is less
      severe by the leakage of electrolysis. It is difficult to make a
      ferrite conduction scheme underwater because of the voltage loss made
      by the surrouding medium of water.

      Sincerely HDN
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.