← The Hum

Working Hypothesis · Open for Revision

Current Concept Prototype

One candidate embodiment of a working Hum — built around back-EMF recovery, the most independently-convergent and cheapest-to-falsify of the five mechanism clusters we read out of 768 patents and 35 experiments. This is a living document. Every section links to the experiments that would confirm or refute it.

⚠️This is not a proven design. It's an open hypothesis. That's the point.

Where this comes from

An earlier version of this page claimed all 768 patents converge on one recipe — non-linear + resonance + pulsed. Reading the actual claims, not just keyword counts, corrected that: only about 2% of patents combine all three. The real signal is narrower and stronger — five mechanism templates that unrelated inventors keep arriving at independently, decades and continents apart, with no shared citations:

Back-EMF Recovery LoopsThis prototype

Capture the inductive-collapse spike and feed it back. Bedini and a dozen unrelated inventors arrived at it independently — and it is the single cheapest claim to falsify (a battery-to-battery coulomb count). This prototype is built around it.

Casimir / Ambient-EM → DC

Asymmetric vacuum-fluctuation cavities feeding a rectifying junction. Reached independently by three or more unrelated inventors — the most internally consistent anomalous family.

Resonant Water Dissociation

Tune an electrical or acoustic resonance to split water below the Faraday minimum. US, Russia, Chile, Japan — 30 years, no shared citations.

Metal-Hydride LENR

Hydrogen loaded into a nickel or palladium lattice, then "rung" by current, magnetic, acoustic, or THz stimulation for claimed excess heat.

Collisional Plasma

A rotating (E×B) field driving low-energy fusion collisions — the same mechanism filed independently under more than one patent class.

The prototype below is one candidate embodiment — built primarily around back-EMF recovery, the cluster that's both independently convergent and the cheapest to settle with a single meter. The pulsed drive, bifilar core, and resonance tuning are design choices in service of that loop — not universal laws of the corpus.

Signal Flow

↩ Bridge feeds recovered energy back to Spark (optional self-sustaining loop)

Component Details

The Spark

Pulse Generator

Hypothesis
Component

555 Timer + IRF540N MOSFET

Values

40 kHz, 10–15% duty cycle, ~100ns rise time

Why this configuration

The Spark drives the recovery loop: a fast, low-duty-cycle pulse so every switch-off produces a sharp back-EMF spike for the Bridge to capture. The sharp rising edge (~100ns) also spreads energy across harmonics, in case the Core's non-linearity contributes. A 555 timer is cheap, tunable, and well-understood; the IRF540N handles the current without significant switching losses at 20–100 kHz. Duty cycle in the 5–20% range keeps the on-time short so the collapse spike is large.

Confidence

Medium — duty cycle and frequency are the main unknowns. The patent literature suggests 10–15% but this needs per-system tuning.

Experiments that test this

The Core

Non-Linear Element

Partially Tested
Component

Bifilar-wound coil on FT-50-43 ferrite toroid

Values

50–100 turns bifilar (series-aiding), driven near saturation

Why this configuration

A bifilar-wound ferrite toroid (Tesla's 1894 configuration, US512340) driven toward saturation. The bifilar winding adds large inter-winding capacitance, which shifts the self-resonant frequency and gives the Tuner a built-in LC resonance to lock onto; pushing the core toward saturation adds a sharp non-linearity that generates harmonics from the pulse. Non-linearity is a design choice here, not a law of the corpus — reading the claims, most patents show no non-linear element at all — but it is cheap to include and easy to measure. Mix 43 ferrite keeps the core's own resonances (20–250 MHz) well above the operating band, avoiding confounding effects.

Confidence

High — bifilar geometry definitively shifts SRF vs conventional winding. The question is whether this shift matters for energy conversion.

Experiments that test this

The Tuner

Resonance Lock

Hypothesis
Component

Variable capacitor + feedback tap

Values

Tuned to the Core's self-resonant frequency (typically 1–10 MHz for a 50-turn bifilar on FT-50-43)

Why this configuration

Resonance is a tuning lever, not the corpus's dominant pattern — an earlier read called it "the most common element," but reading the actual claims, most patents show no resonance at all. So we treat it as an optional amplifier, not the effect itself. The Tuner sweeps a variable capacitor against the Core's parasitic capacitance to find and lock maximum impedance, and a feedback tap lets the pulse frequency track that resonance as temperature, load, and component aging drift.

Confidence

Medium — we know resonance matters, but the optimal tuning strategy (fixed vs adaptive) is unresolved.

Experiments that test this

The Bridge

Energy Recovery

Hypothesis
Component

Fast-recovery diode bridge + storage capacitor

Values

UF4007 diodes (1A, 75ns recovery), 100µF electrolytic storage cap

Why this configuration

This is the heart of the prototype. Back-EMF recovery is one of the five convergence clusters — the "capture the collapse spike and feed it back" template that Bedini and a dozen unrelated inventors arrived at independently across decades, and the single cheapest anomalous claim to falsify. On each switch-off the Core kicks back a spike that can exceed the drive voltage 10–50×; a conventional flyback diode burns it as heat, while the Bridge routes it into a storage capacitor. Fast-recovery diodes (75ns) are essential to catch the nanosecond-scale edge. Whether net recovery ever exceeds input is exactly the question a battery-to-battery coulomb count settles — which is why this cluster tops the buildable list.

Confidence

Low-Medium — recovery circuit topology is the area with the most variation across patents. Multiple approaches may work.

Experiments that test this

💡

The Load

Output

Hypothesis
Component

USB 5V regulator + LED indicator

Values

5V / 500mA output (2.5W), green LED = producing, red LED = consuming

Why this configuration

The Load is how you know if it's working. A simple USB regulator converts whatever the Bridge captures into a usable 5V output. The LED indicator provides instant visual feedback: green means the system is outputting net energy to the load; red means it's consuming more than it produces (which is the expected state until the system is properly tuned). This isn't the final form — it's the measurement stage. If the green LED stays on with no external power input, that's the result everyone is looking for.

Confidence

N/A — the load circuit itself is straightforward. The question is whether the upstream system produces enough energy to light it.

Estimated Bill of Materials

ComponentPartEst. Cost
Spark555 timer + IRF540N MOSFET + passives$5
CoreFT-50-43 toroid + 30 AWG magnet wire$10
TunerVariable capacitor (air-dielectric)$8
BridgeUF4007 diodes (x4) + 100µF capacitor$3
LoadUSB 5V buck regulator + LEDs$4
MeasurementNanoVNA-H4 (if you don't have one)$30
MiscPerfboard, wire, solder, connectors$10
Total (without NanoVNA)~$40
Total (with NanoVNA)~$70

What would change our mind

This is a falsifiable hypothesis. Here's what would make us revise each section:

Help us test this

Every experiment you run either strengthens or weakens a section of this diagram. Both outcomes move the project forward. The only thing that doesn't help is not building.

The Hum — Current Concept Prototype