A better alternative to LENR

Getting back to the John Bendini video again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOJ_sFy6BQU

At 8:12 into the video, John Bendini shows how the conditioning of the magnet using a coil that wraps around the side of the magnetic billet will produce a magnetic pole structure that has one pole located in the center and another pole surrounding the center pole located on the exterior edge of the billet.

The edge coil produces magnetic field lines which conditions the billet that pass orthogonal to the surface of the billet. After conditioning, all the magnetic boundaries are standing vertical to the surface of the billet. This orientation of the conditioning field lines direct the magnetic domains to reorient themselves to all assume the polarization of one pole directed vertically from the surface. As a reaction to edge concentration of polarity, at the center of the billet, magnetic domains of the opposite polarity will concentrate forming a centralized magnetic bubble.

All magnetic field lines rise vertically from the surface of the billet. This is why the needle seen in page 6 of the slide show reference below points up vertically from the center of the billet.

https://ecatsite.files.wordpre…/ahern-manelas-device.pdf

I beleive that this magnetic bubble is made to vibrate when a triggering magnetic field is applied to the billet. John Bendini states that the bubble moves around easily when a magnet is placed next to it. This is why the metal tappers shake during the determination of the quantum critical point seen in the Sweet video. We will look at that video in a future post.

It can be seen in the plastic magnetic sensor viewer that the edge of the bubble is highly magnetized. The output pickup coil must utilize these magnetic field lines emanating from this bubble edge boundary to induce the output current produced by the VTA system.

In short, the vibrating bubble must produce the output current.

Thinking about how to determine how the aforementioned magnetic bubble behaves as follows:

The boundary of the boarder of the bubble as described in my last post should be determined through experimentation in order to understand, visualize, and maximize the operation of the output pickup coil. To do this experimentally, we must determine how the border of the bubble(BB) behaves in response to the adjustments applied quantum tuning parameter (QTP): it might expand or contract while still centered in place, it might move horizontally and/or vertically with this movement including the bubble center, and finally the boarder of the bubble might grow and decrease periodically in strength.

In order for these aforementioned bubble movements to be visualized in Magnetic Viewing Film (MVF) as seen in the Bendini video, the frequency of the activation coil pulses would need to limited to under 10 CPS so that bubble movement can be seen with our eyes.

As an experimental equipment requirement, a sensitive signal wave generator that can handle very low frequencies together with sub cycle fine tuning is required to drive the activation coil.

Don Watson - Mike Watson - On the successful Replications of Floyd Sweet's VTA.

A reason for the replication failure after a minute is a change in temperature.

If you consider the diagram above, you will see that the quantum critical point changes with a increase or decrease in temperature. Maintaining a constant temperature might be required to keep the VTA working. In other words, the activator signal is sensitive to temperature change of the billet. The billet might have cooled due to magnetic cooling.

I like the two magnet configuration because this position of the coils in between the two magnets might minimize coil interference with the magnetic flux lines between the two magnets.

There are two objectives to conditioning the billet. First, the billet must be demagnetized to form a highly mobile central dead zone bubble. A small magnetic field must move the bubble easily. My guess is that the central bubble must be right on the threshold of total demagnetization so that the quantum critical point is within reach of the activation magnetic field. The billet or at least the bubble zone must be on a knife's edge between magnetization and demagnetization to make the magnetic bubble mobile.

Second, before conditioning, the billet must be excited by a high voltage (20 KV) DC electrostatic charge to remove electrons from the magnetic domains. This will amplify the strength of the magnetic domains. When electrons are removed from the Barium ferrite crystal, they don't return because of the high resistance of the material.

Two plates of conductor must be placed on each face of the billet so that a capacitor is formed where the billet is the dielectric.

I would expect that the procedure for judging that ionization of the billet has occurred is if capacitive breakdown is detected where current begins to flow across the billet.

What Don Wilson said about Sweet was meaningful. When Sweet prepared a barium ferrite billet, he did it in small steps removing magnetization one small bit at a time repeatedly over hours until Sweet got to the critical level that was optimal.

It was Sweets goal to get the magnetic field right on that cutting edge where it could be shut off with a minimum counter field.

Or it could also be that the activation field turned on the field with a minimum of power required. In either case, the change of state between magnetization and non magnetization, between a week field and a stronger field produce the change in flux that produces the movement of current in the output coil(S).

In general, the goal over overunity power production is the activation of power production with a activating parameter(s) that consumes less power than it produces.

It sounds like Sweet had the knowledge to find that optimum point in the setup of the magnet to reach that point of minimum field activation or deactivation power requirement.

The goal is to duplicate the Manelas or Sweet magnet in order to run tests on the replicant. Replication is marked by the creation of a liquid like mobile magnetic bubble with a boundary that is easily movable located at the center of the magnet. The assumption is that the preparation process is common between these two types of magnets: barium or strontium. The difference between these two systems is most likely in the nature of the activation signal. Fabricating this special magnetic configuration seems to take a accumulation of experience so either barium or strontium magnets will serve well for practicing proper techniques.

Replication process

Buy at least 1 ceramic magnet of the appropriate size and material

https://www.amazon.com/Applied…&keywords=ferrite+magnets

This magnet in all probability will be strontium.
---------------------------------------------------------

Test to determine what type of magnet was delivered. If the surface of the magnet does not conduct electricity (continuity tester) then the magnet is barium, if the surface does conduct electricity then the magnet is strontium.

---------------------------------
Prepare the magnet by pre-treating it with high voltage electrostatic tension.

Place two conductive plates(copper) on each side of the billet. This will form a capacitor out of the billet with the magnet as the dielectric. Apply high voltage (20,000 volts or more) of electrostatic potential to the billet. Capacitive breakdown of the dielectric billet should occur. Increase the voltage until capacitive breakdown does occur.
----------------------------------

Using a capacitor bank able to store voltages up over 1000 volts and 1000 joules of energy and a coil of wire wrapped around a plastic cylinder 8 inches in diameter

This video shows how to build the magnetic conditioner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFarS-liuBY

I would add a shelf upon which the magnet can sit that is located in the middle of the coil where the magnetic field produced by the DC pulse is maximized.
-------------------------------------------------

The key idea is to partially demagnetize the billet. To do this, the magnetic field lines from the magnet must oppose magnetic field lines produced by the sides of the billet.

The demagnetization process must be done in small steps where feedback about the behavior of the magnetic bubble can be applied to arrive at a goldilocks level of magnetization: not too much and not too little. The capacitor bank should start out energized with only 100 volts worth of energy.

Then the magnetic bubble should be checked out after each demagnetization operation to determine if a liquid and highly mobile magnetic bubble has emerged in the center of the billet's sides.

This validation process could be automated through a mecanized scan of the total surface area of the magnet aginst a bebchmark.

or it could entail rapid eyeballing of the magnetic field lines using magnetic field viewing film

https://www.amazon.com/Magneti…gnetic+field+plastic+film

Through trial and error, a voltage step up delta increment value should be determined to gradually demagnetize the billet.

After establishing this test bed, then we can move on to imposing the activation signel into the billet.

@Alan Smith

At this very early juncture, there is no guarantee that any one characteristic or set of characteristics of the magnetic bullet will be determinative in creating the liquid like behavior of the central magnetic bubble in the billet that seems to be required in the preparation of the magnet. It is a matter of experimentation and experience: trial and error.

IMHO, it is best to start out with the most available and convenient of materials to allow the VTA replicator to get off the ground ASAP that he may get his feet under him or her. As the VTA replicator community gains experience and collaboration springs forth, then the optimum set of billet characteristics will emerge.

What is required is a MFMP style give and take open source transfer of experimental results to move the experimentation forward. When the VTA community begins to develop the expertise to formulate a specification that lists all the optimum characteristics of the billet that is optimal, then a resource where they can go that is responsive to that specification on the one off retail level will be invaluable.

Regarding highly magnetic reactive material like gadolinium oxide...

Through recent research, it has become apparent that the VTA effect is centered on the particular properties of liquid magnetic behavior in large scale ceramic billets rather than powdered magnetic reactive material. To start out with, I will be interested only on ceramic magnetic billets.

I found another billet source with more technical information...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-Cera…%3D30%26sd%3D321080445975

Quote

2 Piece of 6" x 4" x 1"

Ceramic Block Magnet

BrMax: 3850 Gauss

Approximate Pull Force: 45 lbs

Magnetized through the 1" Thickness

Poles are on the 6" x 4" Flat Surfaces.

Ceramic magnets, also known as ferrite magnets is a type of permanent magnet made of iron oxide and strontium carbonate.

We carry the grade C8 ceramic magnets, which is the strongest ceramic magnet.

Ceramic magnets are widely used as craft magnets and refrigerator magnets.

Grade C8, the strongest ceramic magnets available

Buy with confidence from us:

• Trusted and reliable global magnet distributor and supplier.
• Committed to customers with lowest price, highest magnet quality.
• Honesty and trustworthiness are our #1 priority.
• Outstanding customer service.
• Proven track record and excellent reputation.
• All of our Neodymium Iron Boron magnets are manufactured in ISO certified factory.

Display More

Quote from E_man

Does not ship to Czech Republic

Does know anybody reason?

I heard that strong magnets are not permitted on aircraft, they might distort their instrumentation.

@Alan Smith

A System's engineer and systems integrator will alway look to the "BUY" option in preference to the "Make" option in a make or buy decision.

I would be interested in seeing if you can make the billet conditioner described here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFarS-liuBY

Brian Ahern might also be interested in acquiring such a unit also.

I stay away from experimentation because I am afraid of killing myself because of ineptness. If you could make the unit safe, that would relieve my fears of killing myself.

I have tried to understand the wiki article on Superparamagnetism...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superparamagnetism

It seems to me that the level of Superparamagnetism can be adjusted in such a way that a weak magnetic field can be applied to a ceramic magnet which is highly superparamagnetic to reduce that superparamagnetism and therefore the associated magnetic field of the magnet.

This technique is used to write and erase bits onto the surface of a magnetic disk with a ceramic magnetic coating. The way this is done is to adjust the number of magnetic domains that are impressed into each and every nano particles that make up the structure of the ceramic magnet surface through a demagnetization process.

The way that the number of these magnetic domains are adjusted is done by demagnetizing the magnet using a magnetic field that includes a specific frequency. The magnetic domains within the nanoparticles become forever sensitive to that frequency.

When this weak magnetic field is applied, the magnet becomes demagnetized through random thermal vibration. When this alternating magnetic field is removed, the magnetic field of the ceramic magnet returns.

This process is just what happens in the magnetic conditioning of the billet, and the subsequent application of the weak activation magnetic field.
This case is summarized by this snippet from the article

https://wikimedia.org/api/rest…3276b17f7cd35d605bce504b9

From this frequency-dependent susceptibility, the time-dependence of the magnetization for low-fields can be derived:

There is no time-dependence of the magnetization when the nanoparticles are either completely blocked T << T_B or completely superparamagnetic T>> T_B.

The condition we want to get to is when T = T_B, that is when the nanoparticles are right on the cutting edge between magnetism and diamagnetism, so that a tiny magnetic field can turn them off or on.

I will add more detailed explanation if it looks like to you'll that there is something to this adjustment in the superpara-magnification of the ceramic billet to be sensitive to weak frequency-dependent magnetic fields. Opinions are welcome.

Strong magnets are composed of magnetic nanoparticles where patches are all magnetized in the same direction, Those patches or magnetic domains are each enclosed by their own dedicated boundary wall.

When a magnet is completely magnetized: Saturated, no boundary walls exist inside the nanoparticle. When it is partially magnetized then boundary walls develop. As more demagnification develops, magnetic domains start to change their magnetic direction until when totally demagnetized, all the magnetic domains point in random directions.

If a weak external magnetic field is applied to a partially magnetized magnet, some magnetic domains inside the nanoparticle changes polarization direction but when the external field is removed the magnetic domain spins back to where it started from. But if the external magnetic field grows stronger, a new magnetic domain wall might appear or disappear based on the polarization of the external magnetic field and become permanent based on the direction of the magnetic direction of the external magnetic field.

In electrical engineering and materials science, the coercivity, also called the magnetic coercivity, coercive field or coercive force, is a measure of the ability of a ferromagnetic material to withstand an external magnetic field without becoming demagnetized.

There is a risk that a too strong activation field will permanently change the field strength of the entire bullet. The activation field must be just strong enough to change only some magnetic domain magnetic field polarizations but not strong enough to change the nature of the magnetic nanoparticle as a whole, that is the coercivity of the magnetic material is exceeded.

It seems to me that the energy that is produced by the Sweet VTA comes from the coercivity of the magnetic material or the resistance of the magnetic domains to change in number inside the nanoparticle.

http://www.rexresearch.com/sweet3/sweet3.htm

Construction of Floyd Sweet's VTA
by
Michael Watson

From this VTA cookbook, the output coil was said to be a bifilar coil to eliminate any magnetic influence from the output current. How would this coil be setup, as show in the diagram below?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifilar_coil

In the last paragraph under section Magnet Material, the Sweet cookbook states that the output coil was bifilar in order to keep the output current induced by the billet from distorting the sensitive magnet activation fields induced by the activation coil that was located around the edge of the billet. The activation coil was positioned in an identical way as the conditioning coil and produced a magnetic field with the same characteristics as the field produced by the conditioning coil.

The purpose of the activation coil is to produce a magnetic field that drove the billet into a magnetically blocked state when that coil was energized. When the activation coil was deenergized, the billet again became magnetic,

The magnetic field has a precise form that must not be changed by any other source of magnetism. Such a source might be the output pickup coil. This is why the output coil cannot generate any magnetic fields. Such a field would scramble the character of the magnetic field of the activation coil. For this reason, the output coil was constructed from bifilar wire.