Harvey, It is extremely daunting to see a post that is comprised of a single paragraph that scrolls off into infinity. There is no way I am even going to try to read a monolog of such lengths. It's too damned intimidating. I realize no one is asking me for my advice on grammatical matters, but I certainly would recommend trying to introduce a little more punctuation into such posts in the future. It helps the reader collect their thoughts on what you are trying to convey.
Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks > -----Original Message----- > From: Harvey Norris > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Self charging ? > > Incorrect address on first sending, now resent > Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/ > > For years I was deluded on the subject since I wouldn't let the results > speak for themselves. It took at least a year before I was able to > control the runaway chain reaction. I see here that my results are out > of context with what is seen on the video, but will still make comment. > I did many studies, and are still involved with car alternator 3 phase > circuits driven between 465 and 480 hz, where I first commenced > research. At first I wondered over ten years ago, where this is > probably archived on my teslafy yahoo group; whether we could use the > pre-existant alternator output before the field is energized > (erroneously assumed by the scientific community to be due to remanent > magnetism of the field rotor) whether that output could be rectified > and sent back to the field to actually energize the field in a self > feedback loop. In my first experiments I concluded that it didn't work, > and then later I realized why it initially didnt appear to work. About a > year or so later I re-performed the experiment and was astounded by the > observation, which was a runaway chain reaction made by the feedback > loop, where as I have noted took another year or so where I was able to > use water to control the chain reaction, as amuzing as that sounds. I > was then able to control the output of this self regulated machine by > simply immersing electrodes into the water for the lowest output, or > raising the plates out of the water for higher output. Believe it or > not, the field has a non-linear resistance, like water. But this > nonlinear behavior only exists at the lowest levels of field > excitation. This means at the lowest levels of DC amperage conduction > to the field, it acts as a much higher resistance then its actual > resistive value. In reality the revolving "electromagnetic" field must > first equal or match the pre-existant "rotational" magnetic field before > it begins to add further to the voltage and amperage load effects seen > on the stator output. Generally speaking the voltage on the stator > output for the unenergized field case is not high enough to cross the > barrier presented by the non linear field resistance. Additionally we > have to rely on diodes to convert the AC stator output back into DC for > feedback loop back to the field. So when we test that circuit, at first > it doesnt seem to work,(at the tested rpm). So the first time I tested > it, it didnt work. But the second time I tested it, I left the > connections of the feedback loop on for about 30 seconds, AND IT DID > WORK, BUT IT RAN AS A RUNAWAY CHAIN REACTION ALMOST IMMEDIATELY THAT > STARTED GROANING THE ALTERNATOR AS IT WAS FUNCTIONING IN OVERLOAD > CONDITION AND WOULD QUICKLY OVERHEAT AND BURN ITSELF UP. Yep I > had created my own electrical frankenstein monster that for a year or > so could not be controlled until the mechanisms for controlling it were > learned. But what happened was that after thousands of cycles the > voltage would gradually build up until it crossed the non-linear field > resistance barrier and then once the effect took place it became a > runaway self feedback loop. Yes technically machines that power their > own source can be built, but the subsidiary problems to control the > chain reaction will be self evident. I was actually thinking that I > could apply for a patent on this form of regulation that I developed, > and actually with the current circuits that I am working with, this > could be tried in a different manner then before, but again the chief > danger in those tests is the mentioned runaway circuit conditions, > meaning that you just don't walk out of the room and come back with > those things because when things go overload you need to shut things > down right away. This actually happened to me in one instance where I > used an overload output circuit that accidentally went open circuit and > caused the machine to start outputing excessive voltages. In answer > to your question then in this alternator context, yes a rotation can be > used to charge itself, but there are complications involved with the > applications. To show what can actually be done with resonant > alternator circuits the following video shows the unergized field being > used to light a 500 volt neon bulb, but I have dropped all > experimentations involved with instituting that mentioned field self > feedback loop. It is not enough to merely have a high voltage to > use in the feedback loop, the circuit must also be able to supply the > neccessary amperage for the fields usages. But amazingly in the shown > circuit using the flux capacitor principle it acts as a "magnifier" in > that when the neon load is removed, more vibration of amperage ensues > then what the equal size inductor that caused its vibration to > begin with has. I noted this on one of my videos, perhaps I can find > that item shown by actual experimentation and repost it to vortex. I > will end with the following question that will show the great mistake > made in the following video...<br>HDN's Time Distortion Theory: The > added influence of the air core vector made by<br>Lenz law at 1/6 cycle > separation causes that component to rotate faster on the<br>phase > rotation then does the ordinary phase rotation established by the > line<br>connections. This component of continual advancement of the > phase rotation cycle<br>after cycle "SEPARATES" itself from the > ordinary phase rotation made by the line<br>connections themselves. > However the symmetry of when it opposes the line voltage<br>and when it > aids that line voltage by rotation does not hold true, and a > longer<br>time period is found in that rotation when the new slightly > higher frequency<br>rotating vector aids the voltages normally > exhibiting the line voltage, compared<br>to when it opposes the line > voltage. The net result is that more voltage appears<br>on the > interphasal outputs then can be accounted for by the sum of its<br>components > vector wise, and we state from those results that time reference<br>points > of voltage<br>appearance in time itself has been expanded. This in turn > implies that time<br>itself has been converted to voltage rise, and the > next step then becomes<br>demonstrating this with real ohmic loads > rather then mere noble gas discharges.<br><a > href="http://youtu.be/USLqK59o-ec"; > target="_blank">http://youtu.be/USLqK59o-ec</a><br><br>The grand > mistake that I made in this video is contained in the following > question, which when realized will show why my assumptions made in the > video were false. I think I will put this one an yahoo question and > answer....<br><br>In 24 hours from start to finish, how many times on a > clock does the minute hand cross the hour hand. Get your thinking caps > on for that one. I will now try to locate the video evidence for a > magnifier action, where a smaller vibration causes a larger vibration > to be imparted on the ending part, something along the lines of this > enquiree here and also generally assumed to be impossible. I > remember that it was just after this above video was made, somewhere in > my four video demonstration. I will look for this on you tube and post > back...
