William Jay Fogal's Charged Barrier Semiconductor

[SteveThackery]

I agree, it's all just nonsense. Perhaps if Chet refrained from the flowery language of the professional charlatan people would better understand his aims, and give better arguments, rather than just calling bullshit on his delusional ramblings.

[...]But it doesn’t stop there. The three coils are still not opposed to each other caduceus-style[...]

What the fuck is that?

I suppose the reference is to the medical staff emblem with two intertwined serpents... why not just say bifilar, trifilar etc... that would be understood by casual readers, Tesla loving nutjobs, and free energy crackpots alike.

That's the point, of course. Chet talks like that because he doesn't want just anyone to understand him. He wants to sound erudite, like he is smarter than you, and "special" because he has insights you don't. It's pretty sad, really.

[paul cotter]

Indeed, Steve, it is a sad waste of a life.

[Xena E]

Hi Zena, a "caduceus coil" is a coil wound in the manner of the medical symbol you quoted with exactly half the number of turns wound in reverse, cancelling most of the inductance.

Thanks Paul, however staff and serpents emblem is not arranged like the two winding woo woo coils*, it is purely a bifilar arrangement... but OK it's a good elitists term to make the protagonists feel superior.

Having looked into the  of these devices I see it's only real use is deep into nut job overunity territory. The bifilar coil patented by Tesla, was in reality nothing more than another way to create capacitance, so with the contrawinding of coils shown in some of the crackpot search results, it is a way to create a winding with minimal capacitance and/or inductance, so the question begs why not just use separate wires?

*One description that I found on the Internet for these so called caduceus-style coils was accompanied by a drawing credited to Jean Louis Naudin... it basically details a single coil of wire wound in a conventional but spaced manner... not even bifilar 



Chet likes his AI so here's the breakdown of the BS:-

How It Works.
Bifilar Winding: Two separate, insulated wires are wound together. As they wrap around the core, their physical paths cross and intertwine in opposite directions.

Field Cancellation: When an alternating current passes through these two opposing wires, the resulting magnetic fields oppose and theoretically cancel each other out.

Bullshit warning!

Scalar Waves / Non-Hertzian Fields:  Because the standard inductive magnetic field is neutralized, proponents claim the energy transforms into "scalar waves" or longitudinal waves.

Popular Uses & ClaimsAlternative Energy: The coil is heavily associated with fringe physics and over-unity devices, such as the Joe Cell or tests for extracting zero-point energy.

Soliton Pulses: Some researchers, such as Jean-Louis Naudin, have demonstrated the coil's ability to produce sharp, undamped soliton pulses, usually when paired with a ferrite core or pulsed circuits.

EMF Shielding: In conventional technology, specific flat caduceus-style spiral coils have been patented and studied for their theoretical ability to attenuate or redirect harmful electromagnetic radiation emitted by wireless devices like cell phones.

We keep being told what can be achieved if X,Y,and,Z are done, but the promoters of the magic don't explain why? Then they complain that the onus is on the detractors to prove them wrong.

The burden of proof is on them.

Go for it! I say. Prove yourself correct, make us all look like stupid idiots, but they don't... why?

Oh! I forgot, big oil is going to pop a slug into their ass...

In that case keep it to yourself, use the overunity power you generate to run your industry and make massive profits without anyone knowing.

(Suggestion: aluminia smelting facility.)

Once more, Why don't they do it ?

Because it's Bullshit.

[Chet]

I agree, it's all just nonsense. Perhaps if Chet refrained from the flowery language of the professional charlatan people would better understand his aims, and give better arguments, rather than just calling bullshit on his delusional ramblings.

[...]But it doesn’t stop there. The three coils are still not opposed to each other caduceus-style[...]

What the fuck is that?

I suppose the reference is to the medical staff emblem with two intertwined serpents... why not just say bifilar, trifilar etc... that would be understood by casual readers, Tesla loving nutjobs, and free energy crackpots alike.

That's the point, of course. Chet talks like that because he doesn't want just anyone to understand him. He wants to sound erudite, like he is smarter than you, and "special" because he has insights you don't. It's pretty sad, really.

I said, it's not caduceus style because if it were, then the first coil would be wound in the same direction to the third coil if the first coil was counterwound to the second and if the second was counterwound to the third in other words caduceus only works for a pair of coils but cannot work for three if they are all wound on the same bobbin which my supposition or speculation of having a three-dimensional cross is a possible answer so as to not have them counterwound on the same bobbin caduceus style so has to induce a negative mutual inductance between them.

And if the ends of the three-dimensional cross splits into two flux paths because the core material splits into two separate pathways that loop back to the endpoints of two other axes other than the one they came from, then it may be possible to spawn a simultaneity of bi-directional flux to mimic what a pair of counterwound coils would do but do it for a triad of coils instead of a mere pair.

[Chet]

NO.

Interesting response and I'm seeing this bs more and more.

Rather than form any kind of rational response actually touching on the nuances or science of the subject at hand you suppose to have some misguided authority to project your judgement on the matter. Which is in effect the foundation of pseudoscience in my opinion. In effect, "NO" I don't believe it which means little if nothing imo. I don't give a shit what you believe or not unless you can justify it just like anyone else.

If you cannot be bothered to form any kind of coherent argument then I would suggest a lack of response.

For example, my argument to Chet would be all this science math stuff is fine but at some point we must prove our convictions. Otherwise were just fooling ourselves aren't we?. It's well enough to believe but one cannot truly believe until we see the results for ourselves. The goal cannot be beliefs without justification otherwise it could be distorted into anything removed from reality.

This is why I like to do real experiments because I don't trust anyone. If trust or belief ever enters the equation it's generally a losing proposition imo. Consider that nearly half the population have substance abuse issues and are cheating on their partner. If this is not just cause to believe little others claim then I would submit, what is?.

Proof is relative to the method of proof.

So, whereas my proof is a mere demonstration of the possibilities (since it is not a physical demonstration; it is a virtual demonstration made by a simulator that is less than perfect - to put it mildly), a physical proof would be an improvement - to put it mildly!

[Xena E]

I agree, it's all just nonsense. Perhaps if Chet refrained from the flowery language of the professional charlatan people would better understand his aims, and give better arguments, rather than just calling bullshit on his delusional ramblings.

[...]But it doesn’t stop there. The three coils are still not opposed to each other caduceus-style[...]

What the fuck is that?

I suppose the reference is to the medical staff emblem with two intertwined serpents... why not just say bifilar, trifilar etc... that would be understood by casual readers, Tesla loving nutjobs, and free energy crackpots alike.

That's the point, of course. Chet talks like that because he doesn't want just anyone to understand him. He wants to sound erudite, like he is smarter than you, and "special" because he has insights you don't. It's pretty sad, really.

I said, it's not caduceus style

I did not say that caduceus-style was what you were claiming for your brainchild, it was that fact that you mentioned it being just another layer of incomprehensible word salad to prevent anyone actually understanding what your motives and objectives are... you didn't then explain exactly what you were proposing.


Edit: even with your edit there is only vague hand waving, no exact description of your intended  design proposal.

 I've told you and your pal Electrodynamic before, don't strawman or misquote people's posts, or do you think you're entitled as a paid up member of the dishonorable order of Internet bullshiters?

Do you want to enlighten us? Is this in some way generating if not energy, then perhaps some income for you? Or does it tickle your pickle to troll engineering forums where you're sure of some pushback.

Why don't you just physically prove your claims if you're convinced of their validity, instead of just agreeing that it would be a good idea? The burden of proof is on you.

I'm still waiting to eat some craw over your nonsense but I'm feeling pretty safe.

Indeed, Steve, it is a sad waste of a life.

I agree it is a sad life of a waster.

[fourfathom]

*One description that I found on the Internet for these so called caduceus-style coils was accompanied by a drawing credited to Jean Louis Naudin... it basically details a single coil of wire wound in a conventional but spaced manner... not even bifilar 

I probably don't have to tell most of you this, but that particular coil winding technique will reduce the inter-winding capacitance and therefore increase the self-resonance frequency.  But it's still just an inductor.

[paul cotter]

fourfathom, you are back! I detect in you a true connoisseur of total nonsense, like the rest of the gang here.  I call it a devious sense of humour but it can be great fun.

[Chet]

*One description that I found on the Internet for these so called caduceus-style coils was accompanied by a drawing credited to Jean Louis Naudin... it basically details a single coil of wire wound in a conventional but spaced manner... not even bifilar 

I probably don't have to tell most of you this, but that particular coil winding technique will reduce the inter-winding capacitance and therefore increase the self-resonance frequency.  But it's still just an inductor.

"JUST AN" is one example of three conductors, the other example being three pieces of wire, each piece of wire in parallel to each inductor, shorting out the three terminals of a transistor. That's the whole point is that an inductor is a perfect example of an efficient method of producing a short since it delays the onset of current. The fact that an inductor is prone to current-delay is sufficient vulnerability toward having its current reversed altogether rather than merely delayed.

[fourfathom]

fourfathom, you are back!

Oh, I've been watching the whole time.  Good job, all of you! 
This particular thread was just getting too ridiculous for me not to comment, and I've been recently designing RF filters where I use orthogonal orientation of solenoid inductors to minimize unwanted coupling.  And another design with closely-spaced toroids.  So it's not rocket science or magic.

[Xena E]

fourfathom, you are back!

Oh, I've been watching the whole time.  Good job, all of you! 
This particular thread was just getting too ridiculous for me not to comment, and I've been recently designing RF filters where I use orthogonal orientation of solenoid inductors to minimize unwanted coupling.  And another design with closely-spaced toroids.  So it's not rocket science or magic.

Yup, thanks .

That's what I was aware of as being called pi winding when I took my education!

The idea when used in series succession of individual coils spread along a core was to reduce the distributed capacitance, pretty much the opposite of the contrawound bifilar that the nutters rage on about. It's just the insistence on their trying to claim all as 'new science'

[Chet]

fourfathom, you are back!

orthogonal orientation of solenoid inductors to minimize unwanted coupling

Good call since this will eliminate coil orientation from becoming a contributary influence of determining mutual inductance. This will limit mutual inductance to merely the shape of the magnetic core material, which was described and diagrammed earlier as being adequate for inducing the reversal of current at least whenever shorting out the three terminals of a transistor. Thus, the use of a mathematical negation for mutual inductance is merely representational for the uniquely shaped magnetic core since this representation makes the simulation successful without directly suggesting how to build the simulation.  For that, I had to design this core-shape to make up the difference for what the simulation lacks. The simulation assumes non-orthogonal coil orientations. And it assumes coils magnetically coupled in pairs. This is where we get to think outside of norms: how to deal with a threesome of coils and a negation of current which does come from the circuit, alone, but is aided by the circuit (not coming from it) arising from the geometry of the magnetic coupling.

[Xena E]

fourfathom, you are back!

Oh, I've been watching the whole time.  Good job, all of you! 
This particular thread was just getting too ridiculous for me not to comment, and I've been recently designing RF filters where I use orthogonal orientation of solenoid inductors to minimize unwanted coupling.  And another design with closely-spaced toroids.  So it's not rocket science or magic.

Back in the day inductors using orthogonal orientation as you, were the way for reducing coupling, I've used the technique and three coils can be successfully isolated without screening...

If the pioneers over a century ago knew about this stuff why do these clowns think they're onto something new, I suspect DK 'syndrome'.

[TimFox]

Avoiding coupling or zero mutual inductance:
The perpendicular arrangement of nearby coils is obvious.  I was intrigued by the partial overlap of coplanar coils when I first learned of it in MRI applications.  I also designed non-inductive (capacitor network) circuits to easily adjust the coupling cancellation.  Besides coplanar arrangements, I used this to cancel the small remaining coupling between almost-perpendicular coils.
The overall response of overcoupled resonant circuits (kQ > 1) is a very interesting topic.

[Xena E]

[...] I also designed non-inductive (capacitor network) circuits to easily adjust the coupling cancellation.  Besides coplanar arrangements, I used this to cancel the small remaining coupling between almost-perpendicular coils[...]

Interesting... thanks for an injection of facts in this thread of ignorance.

Having been the beneficiary of the NMRI technology, I had never considered how the system was able to focus its individual 'slice'.

My observation with basic cylinder coils was that the null was an almost but not quite perpendicular arrangement. Would the assumption that your capacitive method being also frequency specific be correct?

The overall response of overcoupled resonant circuits (kQ > 1) is a very interesting topic.

The cause of rabbit ear response curves in the frequency domain to us technically illiterate observers?

😁

[paul cotter]

As regards the mri the gradient coils alter the B field such that the B field that corresponds to the RF (trough the gyromagnetic ratio) is only present in a restricted zone, allowing visualisation when the protons relax. This is my way of describing it and Tim may wish to correct any errors. For some scans a gadolinium chelate is used instead of proton nmr.

[Xena E]

Thanks, (I think I need to read up...)

[paul cotter]

You need to understand nuclear magnetic resonance first and after that it is only a matter of the gradient coils altering the main B field such localised slices are scanned- the B field has to have the right intensity for a given frequency. How the final picture is assembled I can't tell you as my knowledge on this subject is primitive but I do know there are many ways of performing a scan.

[TimFox]

Capacitive coupling cancellation:
Actually, the capacitive circuit is not inherently frequency dependent.
I’ll add a drawing when I’m on my computer.
The basis:  earlier, I gave the equation for mutual inductance coupling between two L-C parallel resonant circuits:
k = M/(L₁L₂)^1/2.
Although the resonant circuits are frequency dependent, the coupling co-efficient is not directly a function of frequency.
A capacitor between the ungrounded ends of two L-C circuits has a similar result.  If between the “dotted” terminals (in phase), then k is positive; if from one “dotted” to the other “undotted” terminal, it is negative.
In MRI usage, the two coil circuits are usually balanced (push-pull) with respect to ground to reduce dielectric loss from the E fields, so two capacitors are required.  To effect the small capacitances, I used “H” networks (balanced Ts), with the center leg variable to adjust the net capacitive coupling. 
If the sign of the unwanted coupling was not known a priori, a fixed H in one polarity and an adjustable H in the other direction could go from positive to negative coupling with a single trimmer.  The equivalent circuits (Y-delta) of these configurations are straightforward, but a bit complex since they have a small effect on the resonant tuning of the two L-C circuits.

Rabbit ears:  if you start with two identical resonant circuits that are weakly coupled, the response is narrower than that of a single circuit.  When the coupling increases, the response goes from a single peak to a double-humped curve, with a local minimum at the original center frequency.
More interesting: start with two similar individually tuned circuits, and tune no. 1 to a lower frequency than no. 2.  With coupling, you will see two peaks very close to the original resonant frequencies.  Now, start slowly tuning no. 1 towards the frequency of no. 2.  You will see the lower peak increase in frequency, but not merge with no. 2.  Instead, as no. 1 approaches the second frequency, the higher-frequency peak starts moving away from the lower peak (the two peaks in your rabbit-ear curve).

[TimFox]

As regards the mri the gradient coils alter the B field such that the B field that corresponds to the RF (trough the gyromagnetic ratio) is only present in a restricted zone, allowing visualisation when the protons relax. This is my way of describing it and Tim may wish to correct any errors. For some scans a gadolinium chelate is used instead of proton nmr.

MRI always uses proton resonance.  NMR spectroscopy (non-imaging) can use other nuclei.
Chelated Gd is used as a “contrast agent” in both x-ray CT and MRI.
In MRI, the magnetic properties of Gd affect the local B field in the patient, affecting the spatial imaging.  The radiologist needs to know where the agent went (usually the bloodstream) and locate that by its effect on the image.  An example would locating a bulge in the blood vessel.
Gd had already been cleared for medical x-ray use (it’s heavy), so the MRI radiologists realized its magnetic properties and were able to exploit its existing safety clearance.

[TimFox]

You need to understand nuclear magnetic resonance first and after that it is only a matter of the gradient coils altering the main B field such localised slices are scanned- the B field has to have the right intensity for a given frequency. How the final picture is assembled I can't tell you as my knowledge on this subject is primitive but I do know there are many ways of performing a scan.

The simplest imaging method is to use the gradients to form a small volume where the field agrees with the RF frequency and move that spot around the imaging volume.  That is far too slow in real time for practical medical imaging, so much more complicated strategies are employed: spatial “encoding” (frequency becomes a function of position) and “reconstruction” (Fourier analysis to map frequency back into spatial location).

[paul cotter]

Nmr spectroscopy is extremely useful in organic chemistry where the structure of a compound can be inferred by subtle chemical shifts in the resonance due to nearby structures.
this is an appalling state of affairs wherein Chet's thread has been hijacked by real science!

[Xena E]

Capacitive coupling cancellation:

Actually, the capacitive circuit is not inherently frequency dependent.

I’ll add a drawing when I’m on my computer.

Thanks!

The basis: earlier, I gave the equation for mutual inductance coupling between two L-C parallel resonant circuits:

k = M/(L₁L₂)^1/2.

Although the resonant circuits are frequency dependent, the coupling co-efficient is not directly a function of frequency.

A capacitor between the ungrounded ends of two L-C circuits has a similar result. If between the “dotted” terminals (in phase), then k is positive; if from one “dotted” to the other “undotted” terminal, it is negative.

Thanks.Yes, that I've got.

In MRI usage, the two coil circuits are usually balanced (push-pull) with respect to ground to reduce dielectric loss from the E fields, so two capacitors are required. To effect the small capacitances, I used “H” networks (balanced Ts), with the center leg variable to adjust the net capacitive coupling. 

If the sign of the unwanted coupling was not known a priori, a fixed H in one polarity and an adjustable H in the other direction could go from positive to negative coupling with a single trimmer. The equivalent circuits (Y-delta) of these configurations are straightforward, but a bit complex since they have a small effect on the resonant tuning of the two L-C circuits.

This I'm having trouble with.

I understand the first part (I think...) each coil driven at either end in antiphase, in classic bridge connection. I am also familiar with capacitive 'T' networks, for instance within positive feedback loops to provide balancing against inductive feedback for wide range RF oscillators or regenerative amplifiers... but cannot visualise the development of the star/delta equivalent circuits you speak of in this application.

Rabbit ears: if you start with two identical resonant circuits that are weakly coupled, the response is narrower than that of a single circuit. When the coupling increases, the response goes from a single peak to a double-humped curve, with a local minimum at the original center frequency.

More interesting: start with two similar individually tuned circuits, and tune no. 1 to a lower frequency than no. 2. With coupling, you will see two peaks very close to the original resonant frequencies. Now, start slowly tuning no. 1 towards the frequency of no. 2. You will see the lower peak increase in frequency, but not merge with no. 2. Instead, as no. 1 approaches the second frequency, the higher-frequency peak starts moving away from the lower peak (the two peaks in your rabbit-ear curve).

Thanks, yes I've seen that!


One thing I was taught by an educator, (originally his career being teaching 'radiotricians' in the USAF), after my making an appalling job of IF strip realignment in a receiver that I'd been given,  ignorantly aligning the double tuned IF cans to peak at centre frequency. It was only with his making it the subject of the class, patience in explaining, and practical demonstration of the nuances and contra-intuitive nature of the chalk and blackboard mathematics that I, and others in the classroom finally got it, and that there is a limit to stage gain versus bandwidth and stability in tuned amplifiers.

[Xena E]

Nmr spectroscopy is extremely useful in organic chemistry where the structure of a compound can be inferred by subtle chemical shifts in the resonance due to nearby structures.
this is an appalling state of affairs wherein Chet's thread has been hijacked by real science!

For it is written that the fig tree of knowledge shall be fertilised by dunging it about to bring forth the fruit of understanding... and in Chets threads there sure is a lot of shit to dig into those roots.

Sorry Paul, they've got me on the strong meds again...

[paul cotter]

No problem,Xena, take whatever meds you want. On Tim's subject of coupling coefficients and bandwidth I was once tasked with modifying a narrow band cavity filter for broadcast FM use: after trying many silly ideas I unscrewed both n-type sockets and stretched the coupling loops increasing the coupling- after several adjustments I had the bandwidth exactly as required.