Figuring out an epoxied circuit?

[Jobet]

Hi RG. I'm a newbie here, but if you're RG Keen, I am very much honored to have met you interactively here, and to say, a lot of my knowledge in modding and DIY'ing comes from you and your site.

Okay to the matter at hand.

I have been quite conservative, in a way, in the way I've handled the scalarizer. A good place to start is at the beginning. I have been playing with scalar devices since 2002 or so. Being an Electronics Engineer myself, I have found this very hokey at the start. But certain results seemed to jibe.  So to get a few things out of the way, I did not discover anything, and neither do I understand the math as is put in www.cheniere.org (Tom Bearden's site). And yes, i don't believe in scalar weaponry and all that stuff (yet) until I see one in action for myself. So let's get that much out of the way.

From the things that I've learned from experience, and the things that I've read but have not yet tried, this was the principle that most intrigued me. Scalar waves contain infinite harmonics. I learned how to create scalar waves, or at least from the info on the internet. Caduceus coils, shakti coils and others. My playing with these things did not involve music and playing guitar yet. Then in September of last year, I made my first device. I didn't tell anybody what it was or how it worked, yet. My friend and landlord, who is a far better guitar player and ear than i am became my first guinea pig. I said "let's put something in your guitar". He said "what will it do?" I said " I don't know yet". Actually, I said that so as not to contaminate his findings.

I made him listen to his guitar without the device. Then I installed it. His face crumpled in amazement and said "it sounds like Angel's harps!" Of course he couldnt have heard angel's harps already, but I got the idea.

Not yet contented, I tried it on other friends, who said the same things. Then as a soft launch and as its popularity grew, I started charging for it, and I still do to this day. This started only in January of 2007, a few months after my first installation. I can say that in the 500 scalarizers sold and installed on practically every audio device that we could think of (guitars, keyboards, guitar effects, microphones, mike preamps, mixers), I'm quite satisfied, and luckilly, so are the many previous customers. Only now, actually by circumstance, am I venturing out into the international markets, although I've already had a number of informal US sales before.

So there. You can say, in a way, I've acted as conservatively, as scientifically and as "engineer-like" as I could on the product. And aligning with this, I would be honored if you take the first demo unit that I'm offering for the diystompboxes forum. I've sent out 7 units to the Petrucci forum with their agreement that they would post an honest review (good, bad or never mind) of the unit. Only one did turn in a review and thank goodness, it was a good one.

I'm surprised that the threadstarter wanted to break the unit I sent him open. This is , in a way, a disappointment and a violation of trust. At any rate, the unit has been filed with the Philippine Patent office, and by virtue of reciprocity with the US Patent Office, I am somewhat protected from a similar application and it should tide me over as I write the International Patent application. 

Again R.G. , I would be honored if you take the first unit for this forum. Even the postage is on me, there is nothing to lose.

You may also contact Brian Wampler. His conclusion, and I quote "it works".  I will contact him again soon with new application notes on how to install the scalarizers on guitar effects pedals. I keep on forgetting.

Anyway, thank you for your reply and your attention.

Jobet

[R.G.]

It is a pleasure to meet you. I will take a look at some of the references you mention and do more research.

I have to tell you though, that until I can come up with a reasonable explanation, I still have the same opinions. It is indeed unfortunate that you have described your device in the language of the "free energy" group. Even if your device is a worthwhile genuine advance, you have set yourself back by describing it so.

I have the opinion that there is not yet any device that can take advantage of the zero-point energy; I take that back - there is no device that humans can use as yet to do so. I do believe Steven Hawking's explanation about how black holes do in fact produce a positive output from the zero point energy. We can't control black holes as yet.

There is a logical explanation for proof that no zero point energy tapping devices exist as yet. It's the application of Occam's Razor and basic economics.

The essence of engineering economics is the equivalence of money and energy. For instance, a US dollar is most easily defined at the moment as being worth a bit more than 1% of the energy in a barrel of oil. Let's assume that the MEG mentioned in the web site you reference exists and works as shown. It's of simple construction; I could build one and test it, and so could many other people, easily. So therefore if it works as stated, I could make a device that would produce an excess of energy, in the form of electricity. So I could, personally, set up a device that would reduce my electric bill every month. I could use that money to build another unit, and reduce my bill further. Eventually I pay nothing for electricity because it is coming out of my MEGs free.

If I am disciplined, I continue to use my monthly "electric bill" money to build more MEGs. Now I produce an excess of electricity. In Austin, the electrical utility must, by law BUY my self produced electricity if I set up the feeds to the power line correctly. And I can, because I have a source of free electricity and cash that I'm not paying. At some point, I have invested enough of my monthly electricity bill to gain a monthly payment back from the power company. When that happens, I have a positive cash flow from selling my excess electricity, and I get free money.  I invest the returns in more and bigger MEGs. Soon, the power company approaches the legislature and demands to not have to pay me because they're going broke. The legislature rescinds the "must buy" law for them. But I can now (a) sell big MEG setups to my neighbors (b) sell the excess power to my friends (c) use the excess power to manufacture things with the free electricity, turning it into money again. I can in particular manufacture big MEG setups to sell to anyone who wants to be free of electrical bills.

I can use my free electricity to convert water to oxygen and hydrogen and power machinery with. So my gasoline bill vanishes. Even simpler, I use the excess money to buy gasoline so the gasoline bill effectively vanishes. Money equals energy again.

You see what happens. If the MEG works, we would now be witnessing the dismantling of the power companies and oil companies. It's been long enough since the patenting of the MEG. Even if the government/big business/etc. tried they could not suppress it because once the principle is known and spread to the net, people can independently go make their own. Think of the vast business enterprise that has arisen around the trade in drugs, which is being vigorously and violently suppressed. The governments can't stop it. In the same way, governments are powerless to suppress something so fundamental as free energy, which equals free money. Especially where the ability exists to start with such a simple device as shown in the MEG patent. If there was a huge investment to be made, millions if not billions of dollars to create even the first kW-Hr of electricity, they maybe it could be suppressed. But the MEG as shown can be made by a guy who's sitting in his garage back in the hills in Idaho and wants to live off-grid anyway. There are a lot of those people in the USA, enough that a real free-electricity device that worked would instantly be picked up and used. They use solar cells to do the same now.

Even if such a device existed, and could be restricted to the energy companies, it would instantly kill the global trade in oil. No reason to cooperate with those dirty guys wherever else if I can make my own energy here. If I'm an oil company I can use the free electricity to SYNTHESIZE oil. To say that the ongoing oil trade is a sham is to imply that the entire fiscal and legal energy of governments and business is increasingly invested in a sham to hide a free energy source. The sham must collapse, or eventually the entire business world is doing nothing but participating in a scheme to hide the free energy.

That there is no sign of such a collapse is an indication that the MEG (or some alternate, but equivalent result device) does not yet exist. Occam's Razor tells us that of the two possibilities, (i.e. free energy existing but being hidden and suppressed, versus not yet existing) the simpler explanation must be the most likely one.

This is a long winded way of saying that if you had simply said "I have this neato new device that really makes your guitar sound great. How it works is a secret." I would not have questioned it for a second. I have no doubt that you may in fact have come up with some arrangement of coils, capacitors, permanent magnets, etc. of entirely conventional structure that does make a guitar sound great. New frequency shaping devices and subtle distortions (which can be magnetic in nature) exist and can be combined and recombined. But  they do not rely in entirely new physical principles, only new uses of the existing physical laws. That's what I meant when I said that your choice of language sets you back.

And it may move you into category (b). You may genuinely believe you're tapping scalar waves or whatever.

I wish you no disrespect. It has always been important to me that pseudoscience not slip into musical electronics the way it has corroded hifi electronics.

I will do the research.

I appreciate your offer to send a unit for research, but no, I cannot accept such a unit. You imply that you would not like an evaluation unit to be reverse engineered, and I have no interest in a unit that cannot be reverse engineered. It's really of no use to me to know that something sounds great without knowing why. Even if I don't reverse engineer it, someone will. I'm not the only one who can. And patent applications must include an explanation of how the device works. So the working of the device will be come public domain at some point anyway, through your patent application.

Since you have already filed a Phillipine patent, and by extension for a US one, I encourage you to explain your device fully in public. As you note, you're already protected from later filed patents, so there is not much to lose for you.

Again, I will go do my research before I get into this further; and I do mean no disrespect.

[Jobet]

Thanks RG.

Let's get a few more things out of the way so as to avoid speculation about me or my motives.

I am a "hopeful" for free energy. Yes, I've tried many, many things before, to include fuel vaporizers on cars. Yes they work, but not to the extent of the 200mpg Pogue carburetor. Many explanations exist, the most plausible one being that the oil companies have put in paraffin in the gasoline which clogs up the catalyzers in units like the Pogue, Ogle and countless other range-extending fuel devices.

My own car, a 1600 cc Toyota corolla is fitted with two fuel savers, an air injector (corrects the air-fuel mix, specially on idle) and a fuel pre-heater, which vaporizes the more volatile components of gasoline. Savings are great for me, but could sound modest for others. I won't lie nor brag about it...the figure is 15 kilometers per liter, highway. This number is easily kicked in the butt by the Honda VTI Civic, which makes 17 kilometers per liter. But for a 1994 car with very traditional fuel injection, which only makes 11 kilometers per liter highway, 4 kilometers per liter more is a form of savings. And my engine burns cool. Anyway, that's OT, but I was just going to segue to saying...oh...I'm not to say anything more about that on the net, sorry. Let's just leave it at that that I am really a free energy "hopeful". And I don't believe that a thing works until it works for me.  Even if I did succeed in a free energy device, I'm not stupid to put that on the internet.

That's the thing. The scalarizer is *not* a Free energy device. It's something that does things to low-level audio.

Okay...my patent description is on another laptop which is not accessible to me, so I'll do the explanation free-hand.

It is a scalar field generating device. Scalar fields, to my understanding, created simply by making opposing magnetic fields coincide. All scalar coils operate on this principle, at its simplest, just by running two adjacent conductors that have currents that are opposing in direction. As you can imagine, this is very easy to do.

Taking from my learning under Don Croft, he said that scalar coils must be wrapped in boundary coils, which I realized, could mean "Faraday Traps", i.e. things that prevent magnetic fields from escaping. So the primary scalar coils are then protected by two sets of Faraday traps. I won't go into the detail of that for now, but it's part of the secret. Then, after countless experimentation, I realized that the scalar waves, being stationary, will do not much good anywhere if they were not "re-mobilized". Acting on a hunch, I put in a powerful 4,000 Gauss neodymium magnet on the assembly. That hit the spot.

And that was it. Everything fell into place. The only thing missing at this point was the core material, which is basically material of varying magnetic permeability. I tried various materials starting from natural quartz crystals, then ferromagnetic material, then something organic, then various liquids in small watertight enclosures around which the coils were wrapped in. I must have tried 15-20 materials, to include graphite, various ceramics etc and eliminated those that were too difficult to fabricate or those with too-close sound to the existing ones. With these, I landed on the five core types that I am offering now. I didn't even know what they would sound like, but each find really did floor me, specially the hydrocore, which even I thought was "impossible!". As Paul Teutel Jr. would say "if you do it trial and error, you're bound to get somewhere". Anyway that was the story to that. So its basically a scalar coil, two sets of Faraday traps, a remobilizing magnet and a core material. 

Anyway, just to show that this is a serious item, here is the acknowlegement page for the Philippine patent I applied  for it :



So sir, I truly, honestly understand why anyone or even everyone would be a skeptic about this. I was its  very first skeptic, and that's why it took me too long to get out to the market with it. Only after several repeated, paid, highly lauded installations was I fully convinced that this device must be shared with the guitar-playing (and audio-using) public at large. You can say, I'm an Adam Savage and Jaime Heinemann fan. I will try something at least once to see if it works. And this is the same reason why I dare other people to try it on their cheapest, sh*ttiest guitars. I will readily close shop if I am not contributing to the art of the guitar, because I'll just be throwing my reputation away.

While I do realize that putting my language in league with Tesla and Croft and Bearden will also put me in the "hokey" crowd, neither can I lie about the true inspiration which led me to develop the scalarizer. So it's more truthful marketing than ever because I had more to lose by being truthful. So again, while I agree with what you said about not giving the explanation being better for me, I'd rather take the other tack. Anyway, there's the explanation and story to it. Believe it, don't believe it, doesn't matter so long as you TRY IT, and tell me if it works or not, does it do what I said it would, or not. Like I said, Empiricism and proof will trump speculation any day.

Warmest. And thank you again. Your sentiments on the matter are most enlightening. Most presumably it is representative of any thinking civilized man, specially a technically-inclined one.

Jobet

[frankclarke]

I'm going to sell mojo bags on ebay. You put one on top of your amp, and it makes the girls go crazy.

[Jobet]

I'm going to sell mojo bags on ebay. You put one on top of your amp, and it makes the girls go crazy.

Better yet, experiment putting a strong neodymium magnet on top of the output tranny of a tube amp. This will remobilize the trapped B-Field in the transformer core and will make your amp sound richer.

Try it. It's cheap.

[theblueark]

My own car, a 1600 cc Toyota corolla is fitted with two fuel savers, an air injector (corrects the air-fuel mix, specially on idle) and a fuel pre-heater, which vaporizes the more volatile components of gasoline.

I'm an Adam Savage and Jaime Heinemann fan.

That's interesting cos they did an episode where they busted a couple of fuel savers.

You sound serious, so I'm thinking R.G's possibility (b) sounds very plausible.

[R.G.]

I am a "hopeful" for free energy.

So am I. Or at least for a better way than we have now, even if it's not free. I'd prefer anything that's decentralized, not easy to control from one place.

Even if I did succeed in a free energy device, I'm not stupid to put that on the internet. 

Good! You're smart.

That's the thing. The scalarizer is *not* a Free energy device. It's something that does things to low-level audio.

Yes, that was clear. However, the lack of evidence for scalar waves will get back to people not believing you about your scalarizer. Better simply to say "I've found a new way to hook up coils and stuff that sounds good. By referring to scalar waves as the inspiration, you cast doubt on the truth of your whole explanation.

It is a scalar field generating device. Scalar fields, to my understanding, created simply by making opposing magnetic fields coincide. All scalar coils operate on this principle, at its simplest, just by running two adjacent conductors that have currents that are opposing in direction. As you can imagine, this is very easy to do. 

Yes. It's done in every twisted pair cable and coaxial cable on the planet, all the time.The principle of creating a magnetic field as the sum of the M-fields of currents in conductors is well known to physics indeed. However, the fields from two adjacent conductors with current in them in opposing directions add, instead of opposing. It's the entire basis of inductance and electromagnets, with both AC and DC. So this is very much everyday physics.

Taking from my learning under Don Croft, he said that scalar coils must be wrapped in boundary coils, which I realized, could mean "Faraday Traps", i.e. things that prevent magnetic fields from escaping. So the primary scalar coils are then protected by two sets of Faraday traps. I won't go into the detail of that for now, but it's part of the secret.

This is a tough one. Unless I misunderstand your meaning, there are no "Faraday Traps" at temperatures above absolute zero. No existing materials except a superconductor will shield or prevent penetration of a magnetic field. Ferro materials shunt them, and conductors oppose changing M-fields, but an M-field will reach right through them in some measure.

Did you really mean a method to prevent M-field from leaking out? Or just coils to repel the M-field away in a certain direction? That's basic physics, and understandable by the normal processes.

Then, after countless experimentation, I realized that the scalar waves, being stationary, will do not much good anywhere if they were not "re-mobilized". Acting on a hunch, I put in a powerful 4,000 Gauss neodymium magnet on the assembly. That hit the spot. 

A Neo magnet produces a powerful local "DC" magnetic field. Unless this is moving, I don't see how the scalar waves were moved by it. Or is the Neo magnet moved somehow?

The only thing missing at this point was the core material, which is basically material of varying magnetic permeability. I tried various materials
...
Anyway that was the story to that. So its basically a scalar coil, two sets of Faraday traps, a remobilizing magnet and a core material.

Permeability is a common concept in physics. Materials are one of (a) nonmagnetic (b)diamagnetic or (c) ferromagnetic. Nonmagnetic materials only interact with magnets by their electrical conductivity. A magnet not moving with respect to a nonmagnetic material is unaffected, and its field extends as it normally would if the material is not there. This is how you can move iron filings around on a piece of paper. Diamagnetic materials have a weak opposition to magnetic fields, and trivially so. Ferromagnetic materials do have high permabilities, and do so conceptually by aligned electron spin. Their permeabilities are all variable, in that they vary with the intensity of the B-field inside the material. They all saturate, when all the available spins are aligned, at which time the permeability drops dramatically.

So are your cores a, b or c? Or some new class of magnetic materials?

Anyway, just to show that this is a serious item, here is the acknowlegement page for the Philippine patent I applied  for it :

No question here. I fully believe you have filed for a patent, and I hope you get it.

While I do realize that putting my language in league with Tesla and Croft and Bearden will also put me in the "hokey" crowd, neither can I lie about the true inspiration which led me to develop the scalarizer. So it's more truthful marketing than ever because I had more to lose by being truthful. So again, while I agree with what you said about not giving the explanation being better for me, I'd rather take the other tack. Anyway, there's the explanation and story to it. Believe it, don't believe it, doesn't matter so long as you TRY IT, and tell me if it works or not, does it do what I said it would, or not. Like I said, Empiricism and proof will trump speculation any day. 

Nothing wrong with being brutally honest. I respect that. However, I think there may be an alternate way to explain what you have done that is more within the bounds of normal physics.

Warmest. And thank you again. Your sentiments on the matter are most enlightening. Most presumably it is representative of any thinking civilized man, specially a technically-inclined one.

I will keep open the possibility that there is something I do not understand fully. Happens all the time. However, to be honest with myself, I must try to use the training I have to fit against any new phenomena. So I will explore; hence my questions.

Better yet, experiment putting a strong neodymium magnet on top of the output tranny of a tube amp. This will remobilize the trapped B-Field in the transformer core and will make your amp sound richer.

And here we have the glimmer of an explanation. Of course it will change the way the amp sounds. I first used this effect when I suggested magnetic offsets to wah inductor coils.The B-H curve of ferromagnetic fields is curved, but symmetrical. It is largely but not perfectly linear over much of its range, but changes dramatically near saturation. If you add a static magnetic bias to an other wise magnetically balance magnetic device, it pushes the zero-signal B-field inside the device to one side of its B-H curve. As such, signals will hit saturation on one polarity of the signal before they hit it on the other. That makes for asymmetrical distortion of the signal.

There is no question that asymmetrical distortion can sound good; and also no question that putting a neodymium magnet on an output transformer could easily push it to one-sided B-H curve, and asymmetrical distortion.

And it is possible that this is what you mean, and are merely using different words. I am always mindful that language is a flexible tool, as taught to us by our dearly departed president, William Jefferson Clinton's remark that "It all depends on what your definition of "is" is.".

It is possible that your use of a neo magnet and "coils" has produced an offset inductor or transformer effect, and possibly in combination with other parts this is softly saturating and maybe adding some tone contol peaks and dips. That would indeed add new harmonics, and maybe sound good. But I don't yet see non-standard physics at play there.

So I'll do more research.

[frankclarke]

Better yet, experiment putting a strong neodymium magnet on top of the output tranny of a tube amp. This will remobilize the trapped B-Field in the transformer core and will make your amp sound richer.

I read the magnet on the wah inductor, never thought of other coils. Plus you could have an electromagnet driven by the guitar signal to make it touch sensitive.
Fuel Saver mojo bags: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html

[PerroGrande]

I'm inclined to default to a position similar to that of R.G. 

There are *plenty* of cool things just waiting to be learned and discovered.  Could this thing be one of them?  Perhaps.  However, I'm more likely to believe that whatever action it makes relative to the sound of a guitar is something that can be explained by well-known Physics (and, by proxy, Electronics). 

That said -- I went to your site and listened to all of the clips (one of the links didn't work -- I think it was the link to the "active" version demo, but don't quote me on that). 

You mentioned the word "subtle" in your web site -- that is an understatement.  I didn't stop to look at the bit rate of the resulting mp3's -- and I know you mentioned that some of the characteristics could be lost due to the encoding/recording process.  As one who happens to have pretty good hearing, I can certainly admit to the audibility of loss in lower bit-rate mp3 files. 

To be brutally honest, I could not hear much difference between the clips.  Those differences I did here (and there were some), were things that, to my ear, could be attributable to variances in playing technique OR due to some RL/RLC notching.  Again -- not denying that there may be sonic differences, just not convinced that it is due to scalar waves or something "new".  If your device truly lives in the realm of the subtle, I might recommend a shorter clip -- but running at a high bit rate. 

This whole bit about recording demos is tricky stuff -- especially when A-B comparisons are involved.  There are so many variables that influence the sound - variances in playing technique right at the forefront -- all the way down to studio temperature/humidity changes, and the like. 

[Dai H.]

sounds like those Bybee Quantum Purifier things... 

[Jobet]

My own car, a 1600 cc Toyota corolla is fitted with two fuel savers, an air injector (corrects the air-fuel mix, specially on idle) and a fuel pre-heater, which vaporizes the more volatile components of gasoline.

I'm an Adam Savage and Jaime Heinemann fan.

That's interesting cos they did an episode where they busted a couple of fuel savers.

You sound serious, so I'm thinking R.G's possibility (b) sounds very plausible.

They're not all the same. Simple pre-heaters will work by skewing the level of the vaporized gasoline content, and the gains are  modest. I haven't been able to make a  Thermal Catalytic Cracking type fuel saver to work yet. I've made my own design but the first prototype I made leaked like crazy at the catalytic bed. I haven't been able to revisit that one yet, but it's good you brought it up. Magnets in the fuel line are still hokum in my mind. But I'm open.

[Jobet]

Okay guys. Just like any other inventor with no possible means of measuring scalar fields, I am constricted to work on hypotheses and validate/invalidate these as I go along. These explanations are what I offer because these are the ones I've been operating from. If I've been wrong about my hypothesis...of course that's a possibility. But however, unless someone proves me wrong, I just have to continue operating from these hypotheses.

Okay, in alignment, let's continue the story. The passive scalarizers were great. Then I thought to myself...what would happen if I had a second scalar coil wrapped around the original assembly, then power that with a battery ? The sound produced should be even richer than the original passive variety because more scalar waves, containing infinite harmonics

So I did another prototype with that configuration. And oddly enough, the sound was indeed richer, to the point of sounding "processed" already albeit in my ears, in a good way.

So this may be a case of the hypothesis being confirmed or the wrong hypothesis making me think that the hypothesis is correct.

Okay let me offer another failed experiment, or rather learning experience. I had a prototype that did not have the boundary coils, just the scalar coil. The sound was so raw to the point of being harsh. No, I don't have an explanation for that yet, all I know is that this was the result.

That said -- I went to your site and listened to all of the clips (one of the links didn't work -- I think it was the link to the "active" version demo, but don't quote me on that). 

You mentioned the word "subtle" in your web site -- that is an understatement.  I didn't stop to look at the bit rate of the resulting mp3's -- and I know you mentioned that some of the characteristics could be lost due to the encoding/recording process.  As one who happens to have pretty good hearing, I can certainly admit to the audibility of loss in lower bit-rate mp3 files. 

To be brutally honest, I could not hear much difference between the clips.  Those differences I did here (and there were some), were things that, to my ear, could be attributable to variances in playing technique OR due to some RL/RLC notching.  Again -- not denying that there may be sonic differences, just not convinced that it is due to scalar waves or something "new".  If your device truly lives in the realm of the subtle, I might recommend a shorter clip -- but running at a high bit rate. 

This whole bit about recording demos is tricky stuff -- especially when A-B comparisons are involved.  There are so many variables that influence the sound - variances in playing technique right at the forefront -- all the way down to studio temperature/humidity changes, and the like. 

Yes I do realize that. While we did this in the studio and we could hear what was happening, recording just didn't produce much results. Anyway, I've done the soundclipping again, this time on an el cheapo RJ SG guitar  and will post more clips soon. I'll take your suggestions to heart.

Here's another of our experiments. We pitted a "scalarized" Behringer B1 microphone against a Neumann U87. We oriented it top to bottom and as close to each other to reduce the effects of panning.



Our conclusion : The U87 won in the high-frequency clarity but by only a very small margin. The difference was so close that it took the golden ears of that guy in the photo (he's among the top recording engineers here in the country) to hear the difference, which when he pointed it to us, we started to hear it as well during the A-B session.

Then we ran the clips through the frequency response modules of the DAW software. Here's the results. Left is for the Behringer B1, right is for the Neumann U87 :



They're almost the same except for the higher bass on the B1 and the "rounded" edges on the U87. The higher bass was because we disengaged the low-cut filter on the B1.  No I don't know what the rounded edges mean yet.

Encouragingly enough though, a recording engineer colleague of ours, based in New York asked us "what microphone did you use to record the last album you did ? " We replied "A scalarized Behringer B1 microphone". He said "Dang, I should have not bought my Neumann U87!". From another golden ear, that's a $120 microphone versus a $3000 one !

Like I said, there is a wealth of experimentation results in the one year and four months that we've been running experiments on the scalarizers. I have here the clips of five microphones recording pink noise, one of them was our workhorse Behringer B1. I haven't run them yet on the frequency analysis graphs.

Oh I think Cooledit 2.0 has a Fourier Analysis feature. I think I'll run those on that. Whew...just interacting with you guys sure is productive for me !

[PerroGrande]

I'd be more interested in seeing a "scalarized" B1 vs. a "non-scalarized" B1 -- side by side, just like you did with the B1 vs. U87.

Don't get me wrong -- the B1 vs. U87 comparison is interesting.  However, without a "control" group, the comparison is somewhat apples to oranges.

[Jobet]

Yup.

It just so happened that the Scalarized B1 was already in our mike cabinet and was a prized tool of our trade, and to dismantle it just for the test was too unnerving to consider. As my partner said "don't touch it if it aint broke !".

I can do this again, this time however on an el cheapo generic $2 dynamic microphone. Or wait, I know of other studios who just junked their B1's when they got something better. I'll borrow one. Thanks again Big Dog ! (that's what Perro Grande means doesn't it ? )

edit: wait, we've done this already before and the results are sitting in our old DAW machine. I'll just dig them up.

[PerroGrande]

Yep -- means Big Dog    My nickname is in honor of my beloved Doberman Pinscher who passed away this past summer.    For 10 years, he was an unwavering friend and companion to me and my family. 

I'll be interested to see/hear your results.  And, of course, if that studio has some more B1's in the "junk bin" I would be happy to take some off their hands... 

[Jobet]

Took me a while to digest the questions. Whew ! That's like taking the Electromagnetics section of my Engineering board exam hehehe.

Okay, to the best of my understanding. I might not be able to squeeze in the five years of my tinkering with scalar fields, but I'll give this a go.

It is a scalar field generating device. Scalar fields, to my understanding, created simply by making opposing magnetic fields coincide. All scalar coils operate on this principle, at its simplest, just by running two adjacent conductors that have currents that are opposing in direction. As you can imagine, this is very easy to do. 

Yes. It's done in every twisted pair cable and coaxial cable on the planet, all the time.The principle of creating a magnetic field as the sum of the M-fields of currents in conductors is well known to physics indeed. However, the fields from two adjacent conductors with current in them in opposing directions add, instead of opposing. It's the entire basis of inductance and electromagnets, with both AC and DC. So this is very much everyday physics.

Scalar fields are produced when two opposing magnetic fields coincide. For instance, if the north and north of a magnet were to be faced to each other, and some mechanical way were present to prevent the magnets from moving, a scalar field is created between them and becomes a "scalar bubble". Force is there, and yet there is no resultant. It's akin to two elephants pushing each other. There is no vector and yet the forces operating are massive. Electromagnetically, it can be produced when two wires with opposing currents are adjacent. This creates a north-north and south to south orientation hence preventing the build-up of the M-field. If north-south orientations were created, as in the case of a straight-wound coil, then inductance will increase because the magnetic fields add up vectorially. Scalar coils are thus also categorized as "non-inductive coils", by applying this principle, and the same principle is used on non-inductive wirewound resistors.

Taking from my learning under Don Croft, he said that scalar coils must be wrapped in boundary coils, which I realized, could mean "Faraday Traps", i.e. things that prevent magnetic fields from escaping. So the primary scalar coils are then protected by two sets of Faraday traps. I won't go into the detail of that for now, but it's part of the secret.

This is a tough one. Unless I misunderstand your meaning, there are no "Faraday Traps" at temperatures above absolute zero. No existing materials except a superconductor will shield or prevent penetration of a magnetic field. Ferro materials shunt them, and conductors oppose changing M-fields, but an M-field will reach right through them in some measure.

Did you really mean a method to prevent M-field from leaking out? Or just coils to repel the M-field away in a certain direction? That's basic physics, and understandable by the normal processes.

Yes the goal was to prevent magnetic fields from leaking out. If I failed that, then at the very least prevent a certain amount of the M-field from leaking out so it can be "bumped" and concentrated against other M-fields thus resulting in magnetic scalarization.The coils that do this are actually doing this physically, just like the faraday cage would prevent EM fields from getting in or coming out. It's not important that this is done perfectly, only a certain amount that will allow the scalarizing action (and hence tone enrichment) to come out is enough.

Then, after countless experimentation, I realized that the scalar waves, being stationary, will do not much good anywhere if they were not "re-mobilized". Acting on a hunch, I put in a powerful 4,000 Gauss neodymium magnet on the assembly. That hit the spot. 

A Neo magnet produces a powerful local "DC" magnetic field. Unless this is moving, I don't see how the scalar waves were moved by it. Or is the Neo magnet moved somehow?

Okay. In analogy, it's like the two elephants pushing against each other with massive force. Then comes a small boy and pushes on the hiney of one of the elephants. The massive force is still there, but now it starts to move because of the small imbalance of force. Yes, the magnet provides a sort of magnetic bias, which is necessary to allow the scalar field to move and allow the harmonics that they carry to be inserted in the signal path. Actually, the boundary coils are also the "capture" coils, in which the scalar fields and their attendant harmonics are re-induced.

The only thing missing at this point was the core material, which is basically material of varying magnetic permeability. I tried various materials
...
Anyway that was the story to that. So its basically a scalar coil, two sets of Faraday traps, a remobilizing magnet and a core material.

Permeability is a common concept in physics. Materials are one of (a) nonmagnetic (b)diamagnetic or (c) ferromagnetic. Nonmagnetic materials only interact with magnets by their electrical conductivity. A magnet not moving with respect to a nonmagnetic material is unaffected, and its field extends as it normally would if the material is not there. This is how you can move iron filings around on a piece of paper. Diamagnetic materials have a weak opposition to magnetic fields, and trivially so. Ferromagnetic materials do have high permabilities, and do so conceptually by aligned electron spin. Their permeabilities are all variable, in that they vary with the intensity of the B-field inside the material. They all saturate, when all the available spins are aligned, at which time the permeability drops dramatically.

So are your cores a, b or c? Or some new class of magnetic materials?
[/quote]

Okay. I didn't exactly have a methodology when I was trying out things, it was all random. Obviously only the metalcore had any real magnetic properties so its just ferromagnetic. Most other materials were non-magnetic but they were reacting (okay theoretically in my imagination, and empirically, in our ears) with the  B-fields generated by the coils. And in various ways. I don't have a hypothesis on this yet, but I offer you a few results. Graphite sounded just like crystalcore, perhaps because it was crystallized carbon. Ceramics sounded also like crystal, but they had an edgy "bite" to it. Aircore sounded also like crystal, but with less of the chime-like sounds. Those were the reasons why these were not included in the line.

While I do realize that putting my language in league with Tesla and Croft and Bearden will also put me in the "hokey" crowd, neither can I lie about the true inspiration which led me to develop the scalarizer. So it's more truthful marketing than ever because I had more to lose by being truthful. So again, while I agree with what you said about not giving the explanation being better for me, I'd rather take the other tack. Anyway, there's the explanation and story to it. Believe it, don't believe it, doesn't matter so long as you TRY IT, and tell me if it works or not, does it do what I said it would, or not. Like I said, Empiricism and proof will trump speculation any day. 

Nothing wrong with being brutally honest. I respect that. However, I think there may be an alternate way to explain what you have done that is more within the bounds of normal physics.

Warmest. And thank you again. Your sentiments on the matter are most enlightening. Most presumably it is representative of any thinking civilized man, specially a technically-inclined one.

I will keep open the possibility that there is something I do not understand fully. Happens all the time. However, to be honest with myself, I must try to use the training I have to fit against any new phenomena. So I will explore; hence my questions.

Better yet, experiment putting a strong neodymium magnet on top of the output tranny of a tube amp. This will remobilize the trapped B-Field in the transformer core and will make your amp sound richer.

And here we have the glimmer of an explanation. Of course it will change the way the amp sounds. I first used this effect when I suggested magnetic offsets to wah inductor coils.The B-H curve of ferromagnetic fields is curved, but symmetrical. It is largely but not perfectly linear over much of its range, but changes dramatically near saturation. If you add a static magnetic bias to an other wise magnetically balance magnetic device, it pushes the zero-signal B-field inside the device to one side of its B-H curve. As such, signals will hit saturation on one polarity of the signal before they hit it on the other. That makes for asymmetrical distortion of the signal.

There is no question that asymmetrical distortion can sound good; and also no question that putting a neodymium magnet on an output transformer could easily push it to one-sided B-H curve, and asymmetrical distortion.

And it is possible that this is what you mean, and are merely using different words. I am always mindful that language is a flexible tool, as taught to us by our dearly departed president, William Jefferson Clinton's remark that "It all depends on what your definition of "is" is.".

It is possible that your use of a neo magnet and "coils" has produced an offset inductor or transformer effect, and possibly in combination with other parts this is softly saturating and maybe adding some tone contol peaks and dips. That would indeed add new harmonics, and maybe sound good. But I don't yet see non-standard physics at play there.

So I'll do more research.

Yes the magnet will produce an offset in the B-field.Your hypothesis sounds good too.  In my hypotheses, there is enough B-fields built up in the core of a transformer that simply making them move to hit the coils again will make the sound richer. I have a hunch that there are a good number of output trannies that have a small amount of counter-rotated windings in them thus creating a scalar field. Maybe the winders are not exactly aware of what they're doing, but what they do know is that trannies wound this way would sound much richer than those that are just wound straight. Putting a magnet on top of output trannies like these will intensify the effect.

Okay as for the skewed B-H field inductor theory, here's my take on it. Many people who hear the crystal core notice this action :

1. "Painful", shrill  frequencies are mitigated.
2. "Bell chime" effects are noticed.

Many have even said that the treble increased as a whole and made guitars livelier sounding. Taking from this, had the scalarizer been an inductor, it would have discriminated against the high frequencies and passed the low frequencies. The observation should have been the reverse: that the bass gets increased and the treble is mitigated. Which then puts in doubt the skewed inductor hypothesis in question, because the thing is not acting like an inductor. There is a small reactance in it caused by the boundary coils, but they are too small to affect the total action.

We're not even talking about distortion here, I mean the type that happens in output trannies. The guitar signal is too miniscule to pull the cores into saturation, even on the metalcore.

I'm not saying that this is the bible truth, it's just the best information/ digestion that I have at this time.

[joegagan]

wow my head hurts from trying to comprehend all of this thread, but it's a good hurt.
thanks jobet and rg for a very stimulating read!
i will stay tuned.

[R.G.]

OK, I've done a lot of research. All of the references on the web I've found so far break down into two camps. These are:
(a) What I have to call the lunatic fringe, sadly. These contain everything from conspiracy-suppressed free energy to cures for cancer, common cold, warts, eczema, to time travel. Not very likely to produce repeatable results.
(b) Observations that no amount of testing of the ideas of the scalar wave/scalar bubble, caduceus coils, etc. ever produced repeatable results, let alone the purported results.

Here's a typical quote, from wikipedia:

Magnetic fields interaction

SFT is based on "non-symmetrical regauging" potentials, demonstrated by the interaction of two magnetic fields.

When the field lines oppose each other, the magnets are pulled together. When the fields are aligned in the same direction, the magnets push apart. When two magnets strongly oppose each other but are not permitted to move apart, the force between them is said to create a "scalar bubble" between the magnets. The greater the repulsive force, the larger this scalar bubble becomes. As the magnets move away and the pushing force decreases, the scalar bubble shrinks in size and strength.

In a similar manner, two magnets that are strongly attracted create a "scalar void" between them that grows larger the closer the two magnets become. Two magnets powerfully attracted to one another create a very large scalar void, that decreases as the attracting magnets are moved apart.

Despite the claims of its proponents, no repeatable experiments were able to show the existence of the scalar field. All observed effects were shown to comply to the standard physical laws of electrodynamics. The observations are in spectacular agreement not only with classical electromagnetics, but also with quantum electrodynamics, both of which are fields of physics.

(italics are mine, for emphasis)

Engineers are perhaps the least bound to theory of any of the scientific disciplines; an engineer with no theoretical explanation for why something happens will happily tablulate what happens and work from the tables. That may be what is happening here. You may have, to paraphrase zach, ignored the standard explanations and not knowing what could not be done, and experimented until you found your own beautiful reality. It just doesn't map all that well to the reality everyone else uses.

I can find no convincing argument that there is any kind of consistent result from any of the zero-point energy/scalar wave stuff. Boy is there ever a cloud of verbal fluff of the worst lunatic-fringe kind there though. If you want a ride through some of this, type caduceus coil and Gibbs into google for a look at the Hyper Dimensional Resonator and the other swarm of things crawling around on the corpus of this kind of pseudoscience. Some of it is funny, and some of it is just sad.

Jobet - in the absence of additional information, I think you have mislead yourself. I believe you may have some sort of effect on signals going through your widget. However I do not think it has anything to do with unknown and unprovable scalar field physics. IF there is an effect on signals and IF the effect is repeatable, I see no evidence of any way alternate physics can be behind it, since to date no one has been able to unambiguously demonstrate that any of these even exist. The history of human psychology in general and audio psychology in specific is full of people who have either deliberately deluded others or inadvertently deluded themselves.

I think you are doing yourself and any customers a disservice with this characterization of whatever your widget is. I believe that the longer you use this characterization of your device, the more you veer into deliberate pseudoscience. I urge you to find a description of your device's operation within the bounds of normal electronics and electromagnetics.

[Jobet]

I respect your view.

Have I misled myself ? That is a possibility although as you said, things do fit in my reality and the more I operate from that which I established, the more proof of this "reality" do I find.

I guess there's only one thing left for you to do then. Empirically test the device.

If you want to believe wikipedia and put more weight there, that's up to you. I have five years of my own experience (e.g. "reality) behind me. It's really painful to depart from paradigms that we have kept and nurtured and form our established set of beliefs. I won't ask you to depart from your own if you're not yet ready. Albeit, scalar waves are just one small skip away.

How difficult is it to think that opposing magnetic waves will become non-vector (e.g. scalar) waves ? What does classical electromagnetics say about "cancelled" waves? It says that these are destroyed. But wait...the first law of thermodynamics forbids that. So where do they go ? Do they go to some limbo inaccessible to us ?

If that makes me a looney, that's okay sir. I am in good company . All pioneers will eat ridicule for breakfast   Just a little more sir. Open your mind, just a little bit more. The proof is already here, sitting in my shop, waiting to be mailed to you.  How can one ridicule solar energy when the solar cell already works ?

Look through these
http://www.bamfxaudio.com/links.html

and find the links for Philmusic. You might have to wade through non-English posts, but in here is the empirical PROOF that the thing works.

Of course I can change the explanation. But I would be lying. You don't want that do you ? I mean there are too many lies going around already.

[R.G.]

I guess there's only one thing left for you to do then. Empirically test the device.

The problem is that listening to it would do nothing to explain what difference it makes. I have no doubt that it may make a subtle difference in sound. I have great doubt that we need to step outside accepted physical phenomena to explain it.

At some point, one of the devices will certainly be disassembled and reverse engineered by someone. At that point, I feel certain that any changes it makes in signal will be explainable in terms of conventional electronics theory.

The problem is that there is no repeatable evidence that any of the rationale you give for your device's operation even exists.

Of course I can change the explanation. But I would be lying. You don't want that do you ? I mean there are too many lies going around already.

Rephrasing that a bit, you could change the explanation, but you maintain that your existing explanation is correct. That is unfortunate, because standard electromagnetic theory can be tested and demonstrated by disinterested observers. Your explanation cannot be demonstrated to exist, from what I read. That your device does something does no more to prove that scalar waves are the basis for its operation than flames are the evidence for the existence of phlogiston. If I tried very hard, I could come up with a plausible sounding explanation for grass dying in the winter because tiny invisible mice are eating the roots at night when no one is looking, and cite as evidence for this that the grass turns brown. It's the same circularity of argument that insisting that listening to your device proves the existence of scalar waves.

I have a very open mind - but given the bulk of evidence for how Mother Nature insists that the universe works, it takes more than a different tone from a few coils and other parts to demonstrate a new set of Rules. If the whole scalar wave stuff exists, it should be repeatably testable by disinterested observers. That doesn't seem to be the case. Occam's Razor cleaves the arguments and tells us that the simplest explanation is that you believe in something that is not necessarily so, rather than there being a whole branch of theoretical physics that has been passed around in whispers since the time of Tesla.

My condolences.

You seem to be  decent fellow otherwise. I wish you