Some paragraphs out of the Boyce PDF, just trying to get this information correct:
Rotational mode, where channel 1 is pulsed, then 120 degrees later channel 2 is pulsed, then 120 degrees later channel 3 is pulsed, then 120 degrees later channel 1 is pulsed again, etc. NOTE: This phase is related only to the pulses that are common amongst the 3 phases. IE every fourth pulse on channel 1 (42.8khz), every other pulse on channel 2 (21.4khz), and every pulse on channel 3 (10.7khz). The in between pulses of channel 2 will also be about 120 degrees behind the center pulse of the off-time pulse group of channel 1. This creates 2 nested RMFs at X and 2X, and a pair of bi-directional impulses every X cycle. In this mode, phase is the twist, or offset, in true 120 degree timing per primary. There is not a very pronounced phase-locking effect as there is in pulsed mode. The analogy for this mode is like a "tropical storm", to a "mild hurricane". This is a higher energy mode, which can tend to lose stability, and as such is more difficult to maintain control. Timing for channel 1 would be at 0 degrees, channel 2 at 120 degrees, and channel 3 at 240 degrees, then repeat. Channel 1 is never changed in phase, The twist is slight variations of channel 2 in reference to channel 1, of no more than 1/10th of a degree, and matched by twice that at channel 3, i.e. no more than 1/5th of a degree. This is assuming that the primaries are placed exactly on 120 degree centers. Each primary winding is like a particle accelerator for the toroidal ring, they must be fired at the right times or they will buck the rotations instead of reinforcing them.
Question: What does he mean about the 1/10th or 1/5th of a degree?
Let me try to initiate an example: 42.8khz @ 2.5% on time, 21.4khz@1/10th of a degree more 2.75% on time?, and 10.7khz@1/5th more 3%on time?
Does this example appear correct?
Suggested pulse width 500ns: 0.0000005seconds = 500 nanoseconds, 42,800hz = 0.0000233 seconds per pulse
A later PDF I uploaded stated to adjust the frequency's, then adjust 42.8Khz to its minimum width and adjust the other 2?
1 Hz resolution is fine for bench test applications where you're just looking for proof of concept. Is it a fast
and powerful enough microprocessor to monitor all the feedback points while maintaining tuning on the resonant reaction? It will require at least 0.01 Hz resolution to maintain a good phase control system for higher performance operation. This can make the difference between a 200 - 300% power efficient vs. a 500 - 1000% power efficient system.
Notice, the fine point of resolution stated that is needed. (tuning to the 100th is very fine).
Rotational mode is where the timing of the pulses are about 120 degrees out of phase. These are
driven in a Wye configuration.
Regardless of the mode, phase angle between drive signals can be used to create repeatable
interference patterns in the EM field. Try to think of these interference patterns as EM holograms,
that given the right conditions can interact with dominant energy. When the dominant energy is
kicked, it can kick back - hard! Normally, the three states of dominant energy are in balance, and
no net energy flow occurs. When unbalanced, energy flow can be initiated. Our goal is to create
controlled imbalances, and maintain this control while we make use of the tapped energy to power
loads.
extremely fast switching times
very sharp and narrow pulses
Longer duration on times are just wasted power
accuracy of primary coil mounting
Even assuming that we are able to get our primaries precisely located in exactly the right places, a perfectly balanced 3 phase field rotation is not going to put out much like that. That is where a null in the response is, and minimal output occurs. If it were a case of just needing simple 3 phase output, then we would just need to drive all 3 primaries with a common 3 phase motor controller. As I am told quite often by those that do not understand the precision phase requirements, I could just buy a 3 phase motor controller chip. When I ask them if a chip like this provides precision phase control, of course the answer is no.
When tuning for resonance, the first resonant frequency of the coil will be Transverse resonance. About 1.5 times that frequency will be the
longitudinal frequency.
This next statement on tuning is interesting:
Suggested method of tuning: a. Build a Faraday Cage b. Place your coil within c. Place a SECOND coil of some type outside of the box. d. On finding the first transverse resonant frequency, there will be no signal picked up on the SECOND coil. e. When you think you have found the longitudinal resonant frequency (about 1.5 time the frequency of the transverse) you will pick up a signal on the SECOND coil that is outside of the Faraday cage.
This is hard to understand why elevation would suggest to change polarity?
For the lower performance and more stable toroidal power systems, only the secondary bias is used. That is the DC potential bias only. This secondary bias is what creates the dipole charge separation I spoke of. The dipole can be of either polarity, but for some reason one will work better than the other depending on the local environment. For this high altitude location and the replicator in a high altitude location in Colorado, it works better with + applied to the secondary and - applied to ground. For the replicator near sea level in Florida, it works better the other way. I have not yet figured out for sure why location makes a difference in which works better.
The DC bias is two-fold in my system. Primary function is to provide a relatively high voltage dipole charge separation between the core and earth/ground. The RMF which occurs during 3 phase drive of the toroid takes place while contained within the electrostatic field of this DC bias. Secondary function is
specifically related to the application of this system as a power source for the hydroxy gas system. It
provides a source of free electrons for canceling charge, which is required by my resonance drive system. You are 100% correct in that the higher the DC bias potential, the greater the energy gain possible. The only reason I limit to the 160 VDC region in that common unit is because it is the voltage requirement of the load that unit was designed to power. By the way, I had that same replicator run a test by installing a DC blocking capacitor in series with a 120 volt load, raise the DC bias potential, and watch the output climb while no additional load was placed on the power supply. I think he finally may have learned something about the potential of DC potential ;-)
You will likely find that with 16 gauge silver plated, Teflon insulated wire, you may end up near 140 turns if you keep it tight.
NOTE: I kept this tight and ended with 130 turns and in order to create a perfect space between turns I had to remove 1 turn (total 129 turns).
The three primaries are equidistant on 120 degree centers
same care for even winding spacing as the secondary
Each primary MUST have the same exact number you choose
This is an excerpt from another PDF:
For primary winds around coil.
Primary to produce voltages of about 25% of the measured secondary voltage.
For example only: secondary voltage 155 divided by 4 = 38.75 divided by 12.5 (primary voltage) = 3.1 which is the turns ratio.
My secondary has 129 turms divided by 3.1 = 41.6 so instead of 42 I ended with 41 on my primary.
Lets try a variable: 157 divide 4 = 39.25, 39.25 divide 13.6 = 2.88, 129 divide 2.88 = 44.8 turns (now my electronics can't compensate because I have 41 turn primary).
So according to the math relationship written in the PDF the effect of resonance I want can't be found using the second example above using my battery on automotive GM charge system.
According to this math above in order to get the right response I need to be able to provide a primary voltage adjusted properly to the secondary voltage.
I say this because some vehicles have a higher battery voltage from the regulator if used in an automotive application.
It appears you need to compensate the voltage in an appropriate fashion.
So a bench test application would suggest an adjustable primary, and a variac on secondary to compensate for coil windings.
Now somewhere it was posted that Patrick Kelly came up with this formula after talking with Bob.
This information is important in the respect that there is only a tiny window to get the correct reaction.
It would be nice to hear about any other variations.
