Observation

920 Views
Last Post 2 weeks ago

Admin

Chris posted this 11 July 2025 - Last edited 13 July 2025

My Friends,

You have been lied to, mislead, and swindled, by self proclaimed gurus, you those members of other forum's, they are absolutely NOT qualified, never will be, yet they have had a grasp on your direction for decades.

The Power of Observation, key to understanding and furthering our technologies, advancing as a Species, hopefully together.

We all know the Floyd Sweet VTA Schematic, we have seen it a million times, but have we closely studied and made critical Observations:

A short list of some Key Observations:

P1 supplies a Voltage and therefore a Current to one coil in P2 and vice versa.
At-least two signals at any one time is present, one from FB1/2 and another from the opposite Power Coil.
The Arrows indicate the Bucking, which ties in with the below quote.
The VTA was started by a battery, and stopped by momentary disconnection of the Power Coils.

Quote

FIELD SUPER-POSITION AND THE VACUUM TRIODE

Electromagnetic induction with no measurable magnetic field is not new. It is well known that in the space surrounding a properly wound toroidal coil there is no magnetic field. This is due to the superposition of the fields. However, when alternating current is surging through a transformer an electric field surrounds it. When we apply the principle of superposition to the vacuum triode it becomes more obvious how the device is in fact operating.

The principle of superposition states that; "In order to calculate the resultant intensity of superimposed fields, each field must be dealt with individually as though the other were not present". The resultant is obtained by vector addition of each field considered singularly.

Consider for a moment the construction of the triode which includes the bifilar coils...

When the current in one half of the conductors in the coils (i.e., one of the bifilar elements in each coil) of the device is moving up, both the current and the magnetic field follow the right-hand rule.

The resultant motional E-field would be vertical to both and inwardly directed.

At the same time the current in the other half of the conductors in the coils is moving down and both the current and magnetic field follow the right-hand rule.

The resulting motional E-field is again vertical to both and inwardly directed.

Thus, the resultant field intensity is double the intensity attributable to either one of the set of coil conductors taken singularly.

Expressed mathematically: E = (B x V ) + ( -B x -V ) = 2 ( B x V )

You will note: E = (B x V ) + ( -B x -V ) = 2 ( B x V ) is this statement, in long form:

Quote

If the directions of the two signals are such that opposite H-fields cancel and E-fields add, an apparently steady E-field will be created. The energy density of the fields remain as calculated above, but the value of the E-field will double from E / 2 to E.

My Friends, can we Cross Reference these observations? Yes we can!

Andrey Melnichenko's GLED uses the very same facts, also the same with Kapanadze's machines.

I already tried to show you all, Tinman's RT V3 also uses the very same effects by injecting a small current into one POC at the right time:

I said:

Look For Effects - I have always said this, this is how I found this path! Some effects to look for:

Ref: Chris

I gave you all, a very simple experiment a long time ago:

Some of my Pulsed DC work was documented here: Akula0083 30 Watt Self Running Generator.

The CLOSE Observation of this experiment was a real blessing for me! I found some very important aspects to Bucking Coils in the experiment! Other very bennificial Experiments also helped!

You will obtain success if you follow these key observations, which are Intuitive yet contrary to what we know. I will have more on this very soon!

Best Wishes,

Chris

Liked by

22 Comments

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes

skzt234 posted this 4 weeks ago

Does anybody know how transformers work?
Why does the primary take more current when the load current is increased?
How does it know to increase the current?

There is no electrical link between primary and seconday.
The only link between input and output is the magnetic field in the core.
If you can answer the question why the primary takes more current when the secondary takes more current then this is a starting point for moving forward.

Of course the answer is that the load current generates a magentic field in the secondary coil which is opposite to that from the primary.
Thus, as in any linear system, the superposition theorem applies and the two fields (forward and reverse are summed together).
Thus the primary field is reduced as the secondary back mmf is subtracted from it.

But the field cannot go to zero because then there would be no reverse field to cancel the forward field, so it goes to some lower value.
Thus the net field is reduced for the same input current therefore the input iniductance (ratio of current to field) is reduced, hence the input takes more current.

Okay! How can we get around this?
THe secondary field only cancels the primary field because they are at the same frequency.
If a voltage at frequency f is applied to the primary, the magnetic field is at frequnecy f and so is the output emf.
And there is no law that says you can't take a million amps from the secondary .
Faradays law only states that a changing magnetic field will generate a changing emf, it doesn't specify the maxmimum current in any way.

So our output emf is at frequency f - we cannot get around this. But we CAN engineer the current to be at a different frequency.
What if we switch the output sine waveform to chop out the middle third of each half-wave.
Then we generate a waveform with a strong 3rd harmonic component.
Apply bandpass filtering at 3f so the load takes current at this frequency.
Apply bandpass filtering at f at the primary side so that the generated 3rd harmonic at the secondary sees a high impedance at the primary and does not drive into the source.
Switching the output waveform makes the circuit relatively simple and minimises losses in generating the new frequency component.
There will be many other harmonics generated by switching of course, but to a crude estimation you would have generated a different frequency which then will not clash with the primary frequency, and hence the secondary field will not cancel the primary field.

Comments? suggestions?
Will it work?
Thanks for reading!

Liked by

skzt234 posted this 4 weeks ago - Last edited 4 weeks ago

Wait .. no. It wouldn't give third harmonics. I think only 2nd and 4th so it wouldn't work. But anyway you get the idea- you can play with the load current to try and generate other frequencies

Liked by

skzt234 posted this 4 weeks ago

A couple more thoughts.

Why does the turns ratio rule always appliy to transformers, whether open-circuit or loaded?

An open circuit transformer is an inductor, effectively. So you would think that if you double the frequency of the input voltage, the primary current would be half (due to the reactance being double), therefore the magnitude of the magnetic field will be half and hence the output voltage would be half. But why doesn't this happen?

It is because the output voltage is proprtional to rate of change and hence is doubled due to this, hence the turns ratio is maintained. Isn't it interesting though how it always maintains the voltage!?

Also remember that a transformer works both ways. Just because we call one side 'primary' and the other 'secondary' doesn't really mean anything and this just arbitrary. A current in either coil will produce a magnetic field in the core and hence a voltage (emf) at the other winding(s).

Thus current in either coil will contribute to the magnetic signal in the core. Multiple magnetic frequencies can co-exist in the core at the same time, just like currents at multiple different frequencies can co-exist in a wire, without interfering with each other.

The current in the coils is like the 'input' to the magnetic core and current translates directly into magnetism. And the 'output' from the magnetic core is the voltage developed at the winding (all windings in fact) due to the rate of change of magnetic flux - at any and all frequencies present in the magnetic domain.

Liked by

Admin

Chris posted this 3 weeks ago - Last edited 3 weeks ago

Does anybody know how transformers work?

Yes, we have studied in detail and there are threads here on this forum about this.

Why does the primary take more current when the load current is increased?

How does it know to increase the current?

As the Magnetic field's in the Transformer increase, the Coils loose some of their Impedance, as the Impedance reduces, the input Current goes up, because: I = V / Z which is the same as I = V / R, at saturation. Of course at Saturation the equation is: I = V / R. This is because all of the Coils Impedance is lost, Inductance is gone, and the only thing limiting the Current is the DC Resistance. This is the simplified version.

There is no electrical link between primary and seconday.
The only link between input and output is the magnetic field in the core.
If you can answer the question why the primary takes more current when the secondary takes more current then this is a starting point for moving forward.

Of course the answer is that the load current generates a magentic field in the secondary coil which is opposite to that from the primary.
Thus, as in any linear system, the superposition theorem applies and the two fields (forward and reverse are summed together).
Thus the primary field is reduced as the secondary back mmf is subtracted from it.

Yes, all correct, youre on the right track!

But the field cannot go to zero because then there would be no reverse field to cancel the forward field, so it goes to some lower value.
Thus the net field is reduced for the same input current therefore the input iniductance (ratio of current to field) is reduced, hence the input takes more current.

Okay! How can we get around this?
THe secondary field only cancels the primary field because they are at the same frequency.

The issue here, is the Symmetrical Nature, which is by design, of the Transformer.

If a voltage at frequency f is applied to the primary, the magnetic field is at frequnecy f and so is the output emf.
And there is no law that says you can't take a million amps from the secondary .
Faradays law only states that a changing magnetic field will generate a changing emf, it doesn't specify the maxmimum current in any way.

I am pleased someone else has noticed this hole, where it is easy for assumption to creep in!

So our output emf is at frequency f - we cannot get around this. But we CAN engineer the current to be at a different frequency.
What if we switch the output sine waveform to chop out the middle third of each half-wave.
Then we generate a waveform with a strong 3rd harmonic component.
Apply bandpass filtering at 3f so the load takes current at this frequency.
Apply bandpass filtering at f at the primary side so that the generated 3rd harmonic at the secondary sees a high impedance at the primary and does not drive into the source.
Switching the output waveform makes the circuit relatively simple and minimises losses in generating the new frequency component.
There will be many other harmonics generated by switching of course, but to a crude estimation you would have generated a different frequency which then will not clash with the primary frequency, and hence the secondary field will not cancel the primary field.

In my experience, the only way, properly, is to introduce Asymmetry to the Transformer. This forum does have many detailed experiments showing our successes in this field: Non-Inductive Coil Experiment

Comments? suggestions?
Will it work?
Thanks for reading!

There are many ways to try to "Generate" an excess in Electrical Energy. Most I have tried in the past have failed. I only know of the one approach, again Asymmetry, appears to be the only successful path forward.

At a basic level, the fact stands, any Symmetrical System is always below Unity, because: Output = Input - Losses, never can we get more Output due to this limit.

The Prime Mover in any Symmetrical System, doing all the work, is the total work done and once we account for losses, the work then is reduced, and the work done is always greater that the work out.

We have many machines that have been shown to be Above Unity, but there is a bit of work first to learn, then to build them correctly, and them measure correctly. But, we have them. No one else has ever achieved this.

Best Wishes,

Chris

Liked by

skzt234 posted this 3 weeks ago

Thanks Chris for the detailed response, it is much appreciated and nice to get some feedback!

Had a quick look at the non-inductive coil exp and will have a more detailed look later. But what immediately sprung out at me was the 'something is nothing' statement which reminds of what Bill Alek said- that when two magnets of like poles face each other, the field is 'zero' (not measurable) in our space but goes into 'imaginary' space. By this he talking about space as a complex coordinate system with real and imaginary parts which gets rather interesting.

So many different angles and approaches to all this stuff. But your website is a valuable resource which I shall continue to use as a source of information and inspiration. And I'll keep learning and experimenting as any good engineer should.

best wishes

David

Liked by

skzt234 posted this 3 weeks ago

Just on the subject of asymmetry..

By 'symmetry' in a transformer, what you are referring to - I think- is the fact that the load current destroys the source magnetic field from the primary which caused the secondary emf that created the secondary field. In other words the load destroys the source.

But my suggestion changes the frequency between output voltage and output current. I thnik that is the key and that should break the symmetry because the output can no longer destroy the input if they are on different frequencies.

Liked by

skzt235 posted this 3 weeks ago

The words of Tom Bearden are becoming ever more valid and clear to me, when he said that
not a single watt of power from the power line ever reached the electrical loads in your house.
And that all you have to do is create a dipole in the vacuum and nature pours out all the EM
energy you could ever need, and that our circuits today use half the energy to destroy the dipole.
Another analogy is like trying to lift a board while standing on it.

People talk about transformers as if power goes in, passes through the core and then comes out the secondary
(plus core losse & winding losses etc).
But this is total nonsense. I'll admit it does appear that this is what's happening, but really
the power out has nothing to do with the power in, it has only to do with the magnetic field in the core and the load resistance.

Poeple talk about efficiency as power out divided by power in, and while this can be useful practically,
it completely hides the truth of what is going on. Power talk about 'power' in the magnetic core but again
this is complete nonsense. The only thing in the core is magnetic field.

What happens is that the input current creates a magnetic field in the core and that is all.
The magnetic field does not have a 'power' rating. There is no 'power' in the core, it is magnetic potential.
Yes it has magnitude but that bears no relation to output power, only output volts.
THe magnetic field does not know anything about how much power you are taking from the secondary coil,
and as a consequence neither does the primary since that is the only link between the two, therefore once again the power out is not related to power in.

The magnetic field in the core sets up a dipole in the secondary coil and produces a voltage across its terminals.
From this you can take as much current as you want. This power is being GENERATED in the secondary coil due to the magnetic field. It does not come from the primary. It comes directly from the vacuum and not from the watts that you put into
the transformer.

This false idea that people have of energy passing through the transformer is what limits their thinking and beliefs and
this is why they cannot conceive the idea of overunity in relation to a transformer, because naturally if I put x watts in
and they pass through to the output then I can't have more than x watts coming out.
But this is to misunderstand how transformers work.

Liked by

skzt235 posted this 3 weeks ago

On the practical side of things I am thinking that generating f/3 would be a better way to go, i.e. generate a lower frequency current from the voltage at frequency f on the secondary side.

This means switching at a lower frequency which makes it a bit easier, and you can simply enable the load current every third half-cycle, for a duration of one half-cycle. This will give you an alternating waveform at f/3.

The load operates at f/3 and is band-pass filtered at this frequency. Again the source is filtered at f so as not to let the f/3 see the source voltage.

There are a few questions remaining though..

1) will it work!?

2) Will it be stable (or safe)?

3) What is the COP?

It would be ideal to model this mathematically and see what would happen. Or just build it .

Using 50Hz is not really practical for this design, because the filter inductors would need to be so large and you wouldn't get a good Q factor due to the long winding resistance. You can maybe operate an iron-core transformer at upto 1kHz though, and that might work. Otherwise ferrite is a good choice. Square waves can be used to drive the primary and these will become siney after passing through the input filter.

Another question is, if the load is filtered at f/3, how will the thing start generating f/3? because only f/3 gets throuygh the filter.

It may be necessary to switch a load as described above enabling it every 3rd half-cycle of f and then this will always generate asn f/3 magnetic field in the core. Then the main load will receive power from the volts generated at f/3.

This is all speculation at the moment but I remain hopeful and will build something as soon as I am able to .

But I'd really like to hear if anyone can see any obvious, glaring reasons why this won't work !!?!!

I'll put my hands up and admit it!! and then go back to the drawing board.

Liked by

skzt235 posted this 3 weeks ago

Liked by

Admin

Chris posted this 3 weeks ago - Last edited 3 weeks ago

Just on the subject of asymmetry..

By 'symmetry' in a transformer, what you are referring to - I think- is the fact that the load current destroys the source magnetic field from the primary which caused the secondary emf that created the secondary field. In other words the load destroys the source.

But my suggestion changes the frequency between output voltage and output current. I thnik that is the key and that should break the symmetry because the output can no longer destroy the input if they are on different frequencies.

Hey David,

Symmetry in a Transformer refers to every aspect of Electromagnetic Induction inside the Transformer.

As an example, in an Ideal Transformer: M.M.F_Secondary = M.M.F_Primary

Of course, we know a real Transformer: M.M.F_Secondary = M.M.F_Primary - Losses

So, you can see, there is a nearly perfect Symmetry between the Primary and the Secondary, Magnetic Fields are Equal but Opposite. Electromagnetic Induction, specifically Lenz Law, requires the Opposition, and equal E.M.F. Electromagnetic Induction, with incorporated Lenz Law, will always be Equal and Opposite. You can also use a Power analogy: Every Watt_Output = Watt_Input - Losses. The very same analogy can be applied here, because of this Symmetry. Electromagnetic Induction requires Symmetry at a base Level. Asymmetry incorporates Symmetry!

This video shows output Voltage Symmetry:

However, this machine is Asymmetrical.

Antenna Theory relies on breaking symmetry to convert electrical signals into electromagnetic waves.

A perfectly symmetrical transmission line, such as parallel wires with no breaks, would have balanced electric fields that cancel each other out and would not radiate. By intentionally breaking this symmetry, for example by creating an opening in the line or by using different geometries like a flared end, the electric fields no longer cancel, leading to the emission of electromagnetic radiation. Symmetrical systems don't radiate: In a perfectly symmetrical system, such as a pair of parallel, unbroken transmission lines, the electric fields from the opposing conductors are equal and opposite. They cancel each other out, and no electromagnetic wave is radiated.

Breaking the symmetry: Antennas work by creating an asymmetrical structure. When an oscillating signal is applied, the broken symmetry allows the electric fields to become unbalanced and cause the oscillating charges to radiate electromagnetic waves.

Examples of broken symmetry:

A dipole antenna: This is a common example where the two arms of the antenna are designed to be asymmetrical, such as by being of a specific length to resonate with the signal.

Flared transmission lines: If you flare the ends of a transmission line, the parallel geometry is broken, and the fields no longer cancel, causing radiation.

Dielectric resonator antennas (DRAs): These antennas rely on the polarization of a dielectric material to create an oscillating dipole moment. This oscillating dipole then radiates electromagnetic waves.

When your EM Machine breaks Symmetry, is Asymmetrical, then you no longer need to abide by the Rules a Transformer is Bound to! An Asymmetrical System can output more Electrical Energy when you are in Resonance:

Best Wishes,

Chris

Liked by

skzt235 posted this 3 weeks ago

Thanks for the replay again. It is useful to have these conversations as it stimulates ideas and progress.

You mention something which I had forgotten about: resonance.

With that in mind I would modify my circuit to the following..

Liked by

skzt235 posted this 3 weeks ago

Maybe put a diode in series with the switch. Then switch on for one cycle every 3 cycles of f.

The diode will allow the capacitor in the tuned circuit to charge up with a pulse of current and then the tuned circuit will oscillate at f/3.

Without the diode the tuned circuit would leak current back into the transformer secondary.

Liked by

Admin

Chris posted this 3 weeks ago

Maybe put a diode in series with the switch. Then switch on for one cycle every 3 cycles of f.

The diode will allow the capacitor in the tuned circuit to charge up with a pulse of current and then the tuned circuit will oscillate at f/3.

Without the diode the tuned circuit would leak current back into the transformer secondary.

Hello Skzt235,

I believe an experiment with the proper measuring techniques will provide your answer.

My gut tells me it wont work, not as you're hoping, but hey, please prove me wrong.

The reason I say I believe it wont work is because of the Symmetry I described above, instantly turn off the input, the Output will instantly also be turned off, except for a little fly-back. As you're no doubt aware, a DC Fly-back Transformer is not Aboveunity, no one has shown results that show AU, but I am open, if you can show that it is, then great.

Best Wishes,

Chris

Liked by

skzt235 posted this 3 weeks ago

Hi Chris

I too have doubts that it will work - but I can't quite pinpoint why!

With most things in electronics there are two ways of looking at it: time domain and frequency domain.I think the key thing here is the input filter, although it sounds trivial. Normally any harmonics generated in the load current will propagate directly back to the input as you say, and they will see a short-circuit at the source and then this is wasted energy.

But if a filter is employed then these back-fields which cause a voltage at the primary at their respective frequencies , will just be driving a high impedance and will not cancel because they will not get through the filter.

Similarly - to quote Tom Bearden again - he says that sharp impulses in voltage or current will give extra 'negative' energy which can be transduced into positive via capacitors. So I often think, why do switch mode power supplies not exhibit any of these phenomena? Maybe just a few design tweaks and they could achieve it.

With the frequency change idea between volts and current this could possibly be analysed by a simulator. I think it comes down to the exact frequency composition of the waveform coming back, and this could be determined by computer program, if one had the time!

But there is no doubt in my mind that the secondary current can be made to deliberately generate a sub-harmonic at a lower frequency than the fundamental, and that this would cause a magnetic field comonent at said lower frequency.

The load voltage is a sinewave, that is fixed, at least to start with. It is a pure single frequency, a spectral line in the frequency domain. The load current however can have harmonics & subharmonics, a whole slew of spectral lines. Each spectral line in the current at the load will produce an identical and proportional spectral line in the magnetic field signal (magnetic potential) in the core. (Amperes law)

Correspondingly then that will cause voltages at all windings to replicate the differential of the field following Faraday's law. Thus if you take a current at f/3, now the output voltage will have this component in it, because it was in the field! So the output volts will look messy with f plus f/3 and whatever other harmonics. If you only allow one freq into the transformer at the primary from the source then this is the only one you pay for , and if the dominant load current component is a different freq then input current will be less at f.

Its also worth remembering that the output power does not come from the input power as I explained above. How can it? when the only parameter linking pri & sec is the field, and yet the field determines only magnitude of output volts, it has nothing to do with ouput power! So in my view the system is ripe for overunity phenomena. The fact that output current causes the field to diminish and this causes the input inductance to reduce hence increasing input current - is purely circumstancial as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway the only proof is to build it. (else use a circuit simulator)

best wishes

David

(Apologies for the two usefnames by the way. I forgot my password for one account so had to start another!)

Liked by

skzt235 posted this 3 weeks ago

Here's another way of looking at it..

Lenz's law is the SOLE reason that transformers are always under unity.

If you do ANYTHING to break Len'zs law then you must be in OU territory!

Liked by

skzt234 posted this 3 weeks ago

All you need to generate volts is a magnetic field.

Once you have the volts, ohms law says that the current depends on the resistance. i.e. no limit to the current you can take!

If the volts is there, you will have as many amps as you want.

If you have a field, you will have volts, Faradays law.

As long as the current you take from the volts does not destroy the field that caused the volts, then this is overunity.

Liked by

Admin

Chris posted this 3 weeks ago

All you need to generate volts is a magnetic field.

The Magnetic Field must vary in Time, E.M.F = Bvl for Flux Cutting. E.M.F = -NδΦB/δt for Flux Linking. Electromotive Force is measured in Units of Volts.

Once you have the volts, ohms law says that the current depends on the resistance. i.e. no limit to the current you can take!

Yes, a Hole in Science exists here, but you're not quite coving the whole picture here. Again an Experiment will show you that the Secondary Magnetic Field must be Supported. There is more to it than you're alluding to.

If the volts is there, you will have as many amps as you want.

Technically, no, this is not true. Every Coil of Wire, an Inductor, has DC Resistance, AC Resistance, which is Impedance, to the Output Current depends on these values and the Coil Geometry. Output Power Density is linked to the Inductor properties.

If you have a field, you will have volts, Faradays law.

Yes, the Changing Magnetic Field in the proximity to the Conductor will "Generate" an E.M.F measured in units of Volts.

As long as the current you take from the volts does not destroy the field that caused the volts, then this is overunity.

A simple ten minute Experiment will show you why these statements are only partially correct and do depend on interpretation.

A Voltage is the Potential Difference in Charge, a fundamental Charge difference between Terminal One and Terminal Two, where the Positive Terminal has greater Negative Charge than the Negative Terminal, that could be considered to have more Positive Charge if you're viewing this problem from Capacitor theory, or no Charge if you're viewing this from EM Theory. Another hole exists here, no one ever covers this properly or correctly.

I have 11 videos showing, providing answers to all these questions, miss-understandings:

You can watch the Play List here: &list=PLz0hV4NkTSsMCI7l2ARV0o50KYo_jtDr2&pp=gAQB

Best Wishes,

Chris

Liked by

skzt234 posted this 3 weeks ago

Thanks again. This does bring up a question that I kind of have in the back of my mind:

If a magnetic field is 'magnetic potential' (MMF) in a magnetic circuit in an analogous way to voltage being electric potential (EMF) in an electric circuit, then what is it that determines its 'impedance' or its strength ?

What is the 'source impedance' of a magnetic field / potential? i.e. if another equal but opposing field is present, which one wins . Or do they always cancel exactly?

Liked by

Admin

Chris posted this 3 weeks ago - Last edited 3 weeks ago

Hey Skzt234,

I believe Reluctance ℜ is the term you're looking for?

Where:

$Magnetomotive Force (MMF) = Magnetic Flux \times Reluctance$

$F = Φ R$

Force F = NI, so the Ampere Turns of the Coil is also the M.M.F when Reluctance is 1.

There is no such thing as a "Source Impedance" for the Magnetic Field, in EM Theory, but there is Superposition.

Best Wishes,

Chris

Liked by

ERTW posted this 2 weeks ago - Last edited 2 weeks ago

My Friends,

You have been lied to, mislead, and swindled, by self proclaimed gurus, you those members of other forum's, they are absolutely NOT qualified, never will be, yet they have had a grasp on your direction for decades.

The Power of Observation, key to understanding and furthering our technologies, advancing as a Species, hopefully together.

We all know the Floyd Sweet VTA Schematic, we have seen it a million times, but have we closely studied and made critical Observations:

A short list of some Key Observations:

P1 supplies a Voltage and therefore a Current to one coil in P2 and vice versa.

At-least two signals at any one time is present, one from FB1/2 and another from the opposite Power Coil.

The Arrows indicate the Bucking, which ties in with the below quote.

The VTA was started by a battery, and stopped by momentary disconnection of the

I've been thinking about this schematic last couple of days and would add the following observations

P1, FB1 are shown connect with a dashed line which traditionally means core. but i thought in later VTA versions (which this one is because it includes the self starting circuitry) sweet used air core
DC battery, T1/EX1/FB1 are used to start the system. at startup, FB1 acts like Coil A or L1 in Chris's standard POC drawing. the voltage on FB1 must be very high due to T1/EX1 turns ratio. really, its unnecessarily high because we already now POC work well even at low L1 coil voltage. Why did Sweet feel the need to kick-start at such high voltage?
after system starts up, the T1/EX1/FB1 is no longer forward biased by battery because the battery is DC. Essentially this means there is no more input power. so how does Sweet maintain a 120V 60Hz output? does he still apply a 60Hz input signal (microwatts input power) through a pure sinewave generator, if so its not shown on this schematic
FB1, FB2 .. i read this to mean "feedback 1, feedback 2". so during normal operation when the input DC battery is no longer able to do anything (previous statement), that's when these coils are somehow used, as feedback.. taking 120V 60Hz power from P1 then backwards towards EX1/T1 .. to what purpose i don't know. the voltage at T1 will be tiny since it started as 120V and went backwards through massive step down turns ratio.

anyway, that's my first post on this forum

- as an aside, i am currently building a lab and ordering materials to catch up to you all. i've watched all of Chris' vides as i watch and learn while treadmill jogging. will be starting with MrPreva and then POC experiments to prove out the basics first!

Liked by

Admin

Chris posted this 2 weeks ago

Hello and Welcome ERTW,

Thanks for posting and sharing your observations! Yes, there are many, and some critical, to make sense of the VTA!

Once the Flux of the Magnets is moving, and if it is moving in the correct way, we have Voltages "Generated" in the Excitation Coils Ex1 and Ex2, that then drive the system, or act as the Input:

Walt never lied and never made up an exaggeration as far as I can tell:

From what I can tell, as Walt pointed out, the Drive Coils were Ex1 and Ex2, these coils kept the VTA in operation and also regulated the System Frequency because of expert design, by Floyd Sweet.

The VTA was one of the best Energy Machines History has ever produced in my opinion:

Best Wishes,

Chris

Liked by

Aboveunity.com awesome starts here! - Thank You L0stf0x

We're Light Years Ahead!

We are Light Years ahead of the other Forms!

Members Online:

Past Visitors: 0 | Live Visitors: 0

3D globe widget by: Chris Sykes

Our Above Unity Machines:

Asymmetrical EMI

Wistiti's Bucking Joule Thief

Non-Inductive Coil Experiment

CD's Non-Inductive Coil Rep

Baerndorfer's Experiment

Captainloz's A-R-E

Aetherholic's COP>4.0

Resonant EMI

Yo's Ferro Resonance

Jagau's Non-linear Resonance

Ferrite at work

Recomended Protocol:

Measurement

Switching System

Measurement Block

Current Observation

Current Sensing Resolution

What is a Scalar:

In physics, scalars are physical quantities that are unaffected by changes to a vector space basis. Scalars are often accompanied by units of measurement, as in "10 cm". Examples of scalar quantities are mass, distance, charge, volume, time, speed, and the magnitude of physical vectors in general.

You need to forget the Non-Sense that some spout with out knowing the actual Definition of the word Scalar! Some people talk absolute Bull Sh*t!

The pressure P in the formula P = pgh, pgh is a scalar that tells you the amount of this squashing force per unit area in a fluid.

A Scalar, having both direction and magnitude, can be anything! The Magnetic Field, a Charge moving, yet some Numb Nuts think it means Magic Science!

Start Here:

Help with using the Forum.

Message from God:

Hello my children. This is Yahweh, the one true Lord. You have found creation's secret. Now share it peacefully with the world.
Ref: Message from God written inside the Human Genome

God be in my head, and in my thinking.

God be in my eyes, and in my looking.

God be in my mouth, and in my speaking.

Oh, God be in my heart, and in my understanding.

We love and trust in our Lord, Jesus Christ of Nazareth!

Your Support:

More than anything else, your contributions to this forum are most important! We are trying to actively get all visitors involved, but we do only have a few main contributors, which are very much appreciated! If you would like to see more pages with more detailed experiments and answers, perhaps a contribution of another type maybe possible:

PayPal De-Platformed me!

They REFUSE to tell me why!

We now use Wise!

Donate Use E-Mail: Chris at aboveunity.com

The content I am sharing is not only unique, but is changing the world as we know it! Please Support Us!

Thank You So Much!

Browse by Category:

Weeks High Earners:

Chris 390
ERTW 170

The great Nikola Tesla:

Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. This idea is not novel. Men have been led to it long ago by instinct or reason. It has been expressed in many ways, and in many places, in the history of old and new. We find it in the delightful myth of Antheus, who drives power from the earth; we find it among the subtle speculations of one of your splendid mathematicians, and in many hints and statements of thinkers of the present time. Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic? If static, our hopes are in vain; if kinetic - and this we know it is for certain - then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature.

Experiments With Alternate Currents Of High Potential And High Frequency (February 1892).