PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2017-08-17, 10:42:31
News: Registration with the OUR forum is now by invitation only.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 37
Author Topic: Romerouk's Muller Replication  (Read 248142 times)

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2609
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Have a look guys, in particular the second "looping" video.

I can't explain it; it looks authentic. Has he done it?

.99
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/v/o3YqCp84IOE&hl=en_US[/youtube]


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/v/8KVU3ZM14rw&hl=en_US[/youtube]
« Last Edit: 2011-05-11, 15:04:50 by Peterae »
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 76
Nice video, and build! Looks authentic as all videos could look authentic, if done properly.

I don't want to alert peoples in that early stage, but we all know it could be faked very easily.

Anyway if that works like that, it would change everything what we know about magnetism, but my guess that's not gonna happen just now...
 


---------------------------
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery
   
Group: Guest
Have a look guys, in particular the second "looping" video.

I can't explain it; it looks authentic. Has he done it?

.99

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnO9O-fm9TU[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDW_OfkIaIU[/youtube]


Romerouk works with his hands and brains and is sincere about acknowledging it's Bill Muller's concept and it works - none of the high drama apparent in a certain thread where the circuit is so much simpler consisting of a few components and the two combatants get at each other's throats. Build the damn thing and proof it works or doesn't work. Don't need a rocket scientist to put a few discreet components together. learn from Romerouk.

cheers
chrisC
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2609
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Some drawings kindly provided by GL (except where noted).

.99
   
Group: Guest
Well we've got a big buzz going on this one.  Just for fun I am reading through the thread and will comment later.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2609
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
On first inspection, it all checks out to me.

I can't see any problems with it at all, and I don't get the impression he is faking it.

He has apparently run it for a number of hours now, self-powered. I wonder if that was with the bulb load?

 :)

.99
   
Group: Guest
I'm still working on the first clip, the battery power vs. the generator power.  I think I may have found a key to explaining this.  Still working on it.
   
Group: Guest
Okay I'll take a break from the thread.

The first question that comes to my mind is about the analog voltage and current meters.  I have limited experience with analog meters.  I am wondering if they are AC or DC meters, you can't tell from the markings.  I suspect that either type of meter might act like a peak detector for the voltage/current waveforms, and that would exaggerate the output power measurement.

The motor is set up with nine stator coils and eight rotor magnets.  Two of the stator coils are drive coils and seven are pick-up coils.

For a minute, let's assume that you have nine pick-up coils.  In that case as the rotor turns you have "poly-phase" full-wave rectification (akin to mains power three-phase rectification).  At any given time one of the pick-up coils is generating the most EMF and drives the output.  Which pick-up coil drives the output fires off in a round-robin pattern like the firing of the cylinders in a piston engine.

Getting back to the real setup, there is a major difference.  There are seven pick-up coils and not nine.  That means that two out of nine "cylinders" "don't fire" as the generator runs.  It's like the output voltage waveform (and current waveform for a resistive load) has two "missing teeth."

Another issue that would have to be checked on the scope, is how much of a "dead band" is there between voltage peaks.  When you look at the geometry of the setup and pretend for a second that the rotor and stator have nine pick up coils and nine magnets (i.e.; eliminate the poly-phase rectification) then you can see that there is a significant "dead band" between magnet passes where the AC voltage output would be very low.

I am suspecting that the analog meters can't really detect the "missing teeth" and the "dead bands" in the waveforms and are therefore acting like peak detectors instead of giving you the true average voltage.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that my hypothesis is correct.  Keeping it really simple let's try to make a derating factor that we can apply to the voltage and current measurements.

The "missing teeth" derating factor = (7/9) = 0.78

For the "dead band" derating factor, let's make a conservative guess of 0.85.

Therefore the total derating factor = 0.78 * 0.85 = 0.66

Let's look at the numbers:

Quote
The setup is not fully completed but these are the results so far:
in 12.50v * 0.94a = 11.75W
out 11.8v * 1.8a = 21.24W

11.8 V * 0.66 = 7.79 V
1.8 A * 0.66 = 1.12 A

7.79 V * 1.12 A = 8.72 Watts

This is the output power from the generator after applying a derating factor to the voltage and current measurements from the analog meters.

There is an easy way to make an accurate generator power output measurement that Romerouk could do if he has a true-RMS digital multimeter.

We are going to assume that Romero can determine the resistance of his light bulb filament when illuminated with a fair degree of accuracy.  This might require doing a separate simple experiment which we won't discuss now.

Assuming this is true then using a true-RMS multimeter all that he has to do is calculate Vrms-squared/Filament_resistance to make a very accurate generator output power measurement.

Even easier, drop the light bulb all together and use a 10-watt power resistor that has the same approximate resistance of the light bulb filament.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2011-05-07, 05:48:37 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
Okay I'll take a break from the thread.

The first question that comes to my mind is about the analog voltage and current meters.  I have limited experience with analog meters.  I am wondering if they are AC or DC meters, you can't tell from the markings.  I suspect that either type of meter might act like a peak detector for the voltage/current waveforms, and that would exaggerate the output power measurement.

The motor is set up with nine stator coils and eight rotor magnets.  Two of the stator coils are drive coils and seven are pick-up coils.

For a minute, let's assume that you have nine pick-up coils.  In that case as the rotor turns you have "poly-phase" full-wave rectification (akin to mains power three-phase rectification).  At any given time one of the pick-up coils is generating the most EMF and drives the output.  Which pick-up coil drives the output fires off in a round-robin pattern like the firing of the cylinders in a piston engine.

Getting back to the real setup, there is a major difference.  There are seven pick-up coils and not nine.  That means that two out of nine "cylinders" "don't fire" as the generator runs.  It's like the output voltage waveform (and current waveform for a resistive load) has two "missing teeth."

Another issue that would have to be checked on the scope, is how much of a "dead band" is there between voltage peaks.  When you look at the geometry of the setup and pretend for a second that the rotor and stator have nine pick up coils and nine magnets (i.e.; eliminate the poly-phase rectification) then you can see that there is a significant "dead band" between magnet passes where the AC voltage output would be very low.

I am suspecting that the analog multimeters can't really detect the "missing teeth" and the "dead bands" in the waveforms and are therefore acting like peak detectors instead of giving you the true average voltage.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that my hypothesis is correct.  Keeping it really simple let's try to make a derating factor that we can apply to the voltage and current measurements.

The "missing teeth" derating factor = (7/9) = 0.78

For the "dead band" derating factor, let's make a conservative guess of 0.85.

Therefore the total derating factor = 0.78 * 0.85 = 0.66

Let's look at the numbers:

11.8 V * 0.66 = 7.79 V
1.8 A * 0.66 = 1.12 A

7.79 V * 1.12 A = 8.72 Watts

This is the output power from the generator after applying a derating factor to the voltage and current measurements from the analog meters.

There is an easy way to make an accurate generator power output measurement that Romerouk could do if he has a true-RMS digital multimeter.

We are going to assume that Romero can determine the resistance of his light bulb filament when illuminated with a fair degree of accuracy.  This might require doing a separate simple experiment which we won't discuss now.

Assuming this is true then using a true-RMS multimeter all that he has to do is calculate Vrms-squared/Filament_resistance to make a very accurate generator output power measurement.

Even easier, drop the light bulb all together and use a 10-watt power resistor that has the same approximate resistance of the light bulb filament.

MileHigh


@MileHigh
Before you run your theories and numbers, maybe it will be better to sit tight and wait for Romerouk to report how long he has run his looped dynamo (last report was 3.5 hours). Nobody on this forum has even come close despite several highly learned people and theoreticians and professors.  Good idea?

cheers
chrisC
   
Group: Guest
As far as the self-running goes, I will defer commenting and instead let's let this play out for a another week or so.  For people on tight budgets, I would advise them to hold off on replicating for a while yet.
   
Group: Guest
@MileHigh
Before you run your theories and numbers, maybe it will be better to sit tight and wait for Romerouk to report how long he has run his looped dynamo (last report was 3.5 hours). Nobody on this forum has even come close despite several highly learned people and theoreticians and professors.  Good idea?

cheers
chrisC

Chris:

There is a flaw in the logic of your statement.  This is a generic comment because I have seen the issue come up hundreds of times.

He doesn't need to see how long it will run.  If it can run for two minutes, then it should be able to run for months and months until the bearings wear out.

If the setup is over unity then it should run "forever."  His self-runner video, if true, is already proof.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Chris:

There is a flaw in the logic of your statement.  This is a generic comment because I have seen the issue come up hundreds of times.

He doesn't need to see how long it will run.  If it can run for two minutes, then it should be able to run for months and months until the bearings wear out.

If the setup is over unity then it should run "forever."  His self-runner video, if true, is already proof.

MileHigh

MH:
I'm glad we agree. Other than being a fraud (which I do NOT believe), this is the best evidence we've seen of a O.U experimentation. Let's hope people are able to replicate it. He is no MyLow!

cheers
chrisC
   
Group: Guest
Chris:

If I can suggest a focus on the technical end of things, why not take one small step at a time.

I suggested verifying the output power measurement using a true-RMS multimeter only - one single measurement.  For sure, when the motor is running at it's normal "zippy" speed, the voltage waveform is in the "very sweet spot" for the true-RMS multimeter and you will get a very accurate true-RMS voltage measurement.   You can then calculate the output power measurement from the generator section as per his first clip.  You are using digital technology to double-check the analog measurements.

If the thread on OU goes overboard and everybody jumps into trying to build self-runners right away without considering double-checking the generator output power measurement it would be a mistake.

Again, starting off with a baby step would be a very wise thing to do.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Just speculating about the nature of analog meters.  The needle/spring movement is a mechanical system.  It's yet another kind of tank circuit when you think about it.  The needle has mass and rotational inertia.  The spring applies torque against the movement of the needle and tries to push it down.  Then you can see how a lot of analog meter movements have extra mechanical damping added and the needle moves quite slowly.

If you are pulsing current through the needle armature movement, I think that the needle can be kept at an artificially high reading.   It's because the mechanical damping in the meter movement itself prevents the needle from deflecting back down before the next pulse comes along.  You end up with the needle "riding the top of the wave."

Here is another way to put it:  For a certain pulse frequency range, the rise-time of the analog meter movement is much shorter than the fall-time.  The rise-time is determined by how much electrical juice pushes the needle to the right.  The fall-time is determined by the extra mechanical damping built into the meter movement.  This represents an asymmetry in the way the needle deflects to the right vs. the way it deflects to the left.  That's sort of like a "mechanical diode" and can keep the needle riding the peaks.

However, when the pulse frequency increases past a certain point, then the rotational inertia of the needle itself is comparable to the damping and the needle starts to indicate the average voltage.

Then to carry the thought experiment even further, eventually the pulse frequency can get too high, and go beyond the electrical and mechanical bandwidth of the meter, and the needle will drop to zero.
   
Group: Guest
One final thing and Poynt has already mentioned this:

Quote
Quote
The setup is not fully completed but these are the results so far:
in 12.50v * 0.94a = 11.75W
out 11.8v * 1.8a = 21.24W

11.8 V * 0.66 = 7.79 V
1.8 A * 0.66 = 1.12 A

7.79 V * 1.12 A = 8.72 Watts

The original calculation highlighted in bold has a basic issue with respect to power measurement:  Even if you were to assume that these are correct average readings for the voltage and the current of the generator output, you can't multiply average current by average voltage for a non-DC waveform and calculate the output wattage.

This is a very important issue, a fundamental basic about measuring the power in an AC waveform.  You need to know the instantaneous voltage and current and multiply them together and then take the average from that.

That's the reason I suggested using a true-RMS multimeter.  The "RMS" does that for you.

So unfortunately, Romerouk's generator output power measurement in his first clip is fundamentally flawed.  He has to use a true-RMS multimeter to get a valid output power measurement.

MileHigh
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 186
Quote
...
If you are pulsing current through the needle armature movement, I think that the needle can be kept at an artificially high reading.   It's because the mechanical damping in the meter movement itself prevents the needle from deflecting back down before the next pulse comes along.


Hi,

I agree with you but this should be clarified:
Quote
 You end up with the needle "riding the top of the wave".


A moving coil meter responds to the average current value, it always does. No peak value, no need for considering shorter or longer rise or fall times: the mechanical mass of the moving coil and the needle attached (together with some balancing weigths) insure the average response.

I believe that the looping video is not a fake and the output power must be higher more than twice the input power, and if we accept this, then the output current and voltage measurements MUST BE very close to reality. 

The anomaly to be explained is why the input current changes only a very little when the load is applied to the output? (while the heavyness of the load expressed in dissipated power is comparable and even exceeds the input power, consider rotor mass and the DC-DC converter inherent 80-85% efficiency).

Respectfully,  Gyula

PS Quote from this link: http://vk1od.net/measurement/SquareWave/THD.htm   

A simple form of AC voltmeter circuit is a rectifier, a resistor and a d'Arsonval (moving coil) microammeter. The moving coil meter deflection (or response) is proportional to the average current flowing through the meter coil, so in this case it is proportional to average of the rectified AC signal.

   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3493


Buy me some coffee
A few observations.

First i don't like seeing a mains power plug unit on the ground running up to the table top which looks to be plugged in, if the motor starts from a lead acid battery then why would this even be here.

The other thing is these tables generally have a hole in the middle for an umbrella to drop into, also what are those big support columns under the table, normally these cheap plastic tables have 4 flimsy legs around the outside periphery.
   
Group: Guest
Hi Peter and all!

I tried my best to get a look at the plastic cap which normally fills in the umbrella hole on these garden tables.  The cap looks like its in its hole and solid.  It looks from this angle as if there is a black wire going under the edge of the cap but in reality I think it goes to a coil there and the cap would have to be raised or removed that cable to fit down the side between the hole and the edge of the cap?


Regards,

David.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3493


Buy me some coffee
Hello David

Nice snap shot, certainly looks in place  O0
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 76
Oh well, I just got Stefan attention. No more fast posting for me on OU.com... C.C


---------------------------
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery
   
Group: Guest
Well Ladies and Gentlemen:

First and foremost, I have pointed out that Romero's generator output power measurement is no good.  We are talking about the basic fundamentals of how to measure the output power when there is an arbitrary AC waveform going into what we can consider to be an almost purely resistive load.  I also indicated the right way to measure the output power and I assume that most experimenters these days have true-RMS digital multimeters.

Five of you posted after me and I assume that all of you read my comments yet none of you has acknowledged that this is an issue.  This is a recurring problem with the experimenters and commenters on the free energy forums.  Jumping ahead and ignoring technical issues because you are enthusiastic about the next steps in the replication.

So I ask you, what if Romero does the proper power measurement with a true-RMS digital multimeter and it turns out the first clip in his Muller replication shows under unity.  What then?

What I am saying has to do with basic measurement fundamentals and the comments simply can't be ignored.  If Romero and future replicators never do this measurement properly for the battery output power out vs. the generator output power into the light bulb load then it's indicative of how the whole free energy community has a problem doing their due diligence and making their measurements properly.

MileHigh
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3493


Buy me some coffee
Sorry MH i was under the impression he had looped the output to the input and it was free running, you are getting tangled up with questions about facts we don't know and are not in a position to ask, looping the output to the input and having it run for a time tells me a lot more than you attempting to show us we don't have enough information to calculate it's running, for now anyway.

Power measurement debates can go on for months with regard to the values that could be shown.
Because it appears to free run, i decided to try and see if there were any external power sources near by, and there was.

I am not saying your points are invalid, just at this point i like to look over something, find any major holes and decide whether it's worth spending any time on.
   
Group: Guest
Gyula:

Quote
A moving coil meter responds to the average current value, it always does. No peak value, no need for considering shorter or longer rise or fall times: the mechanical mass of the moving coil and the needle attached (together with some balancing weigths) insure the average response.

Here is the proposition:   Supposing that you have nine pick-up coils.  Each time a magnet passes the given pick-up coil that is currently driving the output with the highest EMF generated you get two rectified pules, a "double hump" in the output EMF.

So when the rotor turns with nine pick-up coils you get 18 voltage pulses.

Now in reality there are only seven pick-up coils.  That means the output waveform consists of 14 voltage pulses and four "missing" pulses.  The missing pulses are effectively drop-outs in the output voltage waveform.

I am speculating that the mechanical damping in the movement of the analog meter will prevent the analog meter from factoring in the drop-outs and you will end up with an incorrect average voltage reading.

And again, if the analog voltage meter is supposed to give you the average voltage, that is a problem in itself because you need to use the RMS voltage reading if you want to measure the output power.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Gyula:

Quote
The anomaly to be explained is why the input current changes only a very little when the load is applied to the output? (while the heavyness of the load expressed in dissipated power is comparable and even exceeds the input power, consider rotor mass and the DC-DC converter inherent 80-85% efficiency).

This is something that is seen with pulse motors all the time.  I am sure we have all seen dozens and dozens of clips where this is demonstrated.  The input current to the motor goes down when you put it under some kind of load.

In a regular motor when you put it under mechanical load the RPMs go down and as a result of this the counter-EMF generated in the rotor decreases and therefore it draws more current.  The extra power associated with the extra current draw is burned off in the mechanical load.  You don't have this phenomenon happening with a pulse motor.

Nonetheless, this could still be looked into.  I just don't think it is particularly special in comparison with the apparent over unity from the generator and the self-running.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Peterae:

Quote
Sorry MH i was under the impression he had looped the output to the input and it was free running, you are getting tangled up with questions about facts we don't know and are not in a position to ask, looping the output to the input and having it run for a time tells me a lot more than you attempting to show us we don't have enough information to calculate it's running, for now anyway.

I submit to you that these are facts that we can know and the measurement is very easy to do.  Like I said before, the wisest course of action is to take small steps.

I honestly view this as a "major hole" and I hope somebody plugs that hole and then we move on.

There are two major events that are allegedly happening, 1) an over unity generator, and 2) a self-runner.

The first major event is just as big if not bigger than the self-runner.  The self-runner in effect is a "spin off," or a demonstration, of the fact that the setup is over unity.

So the first thing to do is double-check that the motor-generator is indeed over unity.  And again, I will point out one more time that the methodology for the generator power output measurement in the fist clip is fundamentally flawed.

MileHigh
   
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 37
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2017-08-17, 10:42:31