PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-05-03, 12:35:33
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 37
Author Topic: Romerouk's Muller Replication  (Read 492299 times)
Group: Guest
WaveWatcher:

Right now the way it looks is that the Earth is flat for the Romerouk supporters and replicators.  There are many issues to ponder, probably the biggest one being that Romero's measurement of the output power from his motor is no good.  I have to assume that dozens of people on the OU Romero thread do read this thread but nobody has raised the issue.  Just some happy sheeple living on a a flat Earth.

Unfortunately some people with tight budgets will drop a lot of cash and time into a replication even though they know that there are some unanswered questions in the back of their minds.  It's going to be yet another rush of lemmings running to the edge of the flat Earth and plunging into the abyss.

What people on OU should do is demand that Romero run more tests and take measurements on his allegedly over unity device and share that data.  But you can see already that nobody is going to do that.

None of the replications will work and chances are Romero will tell them that they don't have the right wire or the number of turns on their pick-up coils is wrong.

You end up with a bunch of enthusiastic people afraid to ask serious questions and they will spin their wheels with their replications until they get fed up.  That's a classic flat-Earth scenario if you ask me.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2637
@Milehigh
Quote
My best guess right now is that all of the replications will work the way the "old school of thought" says they should work.

That is an interesting thought which I believe says quite a bit about peoples perspective in regards to FE. Consider the new Nantenna technology which is simply two nano-scale conductors having a spacing equal to 1/2 the wavelength of the EM energy to be extracted. This new cutting edge technology is based on a very old and quite obvious concept because we know as a fact that if the conductors fall on the opposite peaks of the EM wave then they will be charged oppositely which constitutes electrical energy.
Now if this technology is so obvious then why didn't anyone develop it sooner utilizing larger wavelengths? Well because the "old school of thought" does not revolve around the fact of whether something works or not, the "old school of thought" makes the false assumption that we do not have the capacity to create new technology from old concepts.

The "old school of thought" is really saying we cannot create or invent anything new which should be no surprise because old people having been saying this throughout history despite the fact that the younger generation has always proven them wrong. So let's be perfectly honest here, when people refer to the "old school of thought" they are not speaking of technology nor whether something works or not --- they are referring specifically to their belief that nothing can change and that we cannot do anything different as old people often do. Thankfully change is inevitable and progress will come despite our beliefs, embrace the change grasshopper -- embrace the change :D
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2637
@exnihiloest
Quote
Until today, "stuff never seen before" is in the best case only "stuff already seen" but now misinterpreted.
New schools of thought, if we can speak of "thoughts" concerning them (there are not two of them saying the same thing with enough formalism), never succeeded in proving their assertions of overunity. Until proof of the contrary, i.e. by credible third party duplications of a self-running device, there is no OU. So explanations from "old school of thought" applying to conventional phenomena misinterpreted by the others, are the right ones.
I have never seen OU and have a hard time believing in that concept however every single day I see external forms of energy imparting this energy to tangible things. Therefore while I have an issue with OU I have no issue with any external form of energy entering supposedly closed systems because there is no place in nature we cannot see this process happening. I guess the real question is how would we know the difference? if external energy enters a circuit and we have no knowledge of how or why this happens then it would appear to be OU so really we are not dealing with facts of any sort only appearances. Rather than follow the "old school of thought" and go into denial by thinking it is impossible I use the new school of thought which says I should understand "why" it happens regardless of what I may believe.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
MH,

I agree with everything in your last post except those concerning the energy measurements.

They are pointless if it is truly self-running. That brings me to the only important question. Is it truly self-running? When I see enough information to make me believe it is then I will think about a replication.

I have doubts you could reach a point where you can ask yourself the same question. So, repeatedly requesting energy measurements is your limit. I don't see that as a fault. It is the limit most should reach being reasonable folk having no reason to think such a thing is possible. This doesn't make it any less pointless for this stage.

If the math is to be ran, it should answer the unknown 'how much energy is coming from wherever to make this thing keep chugging along?' and 'where could it be coming from?'

Both are questions for later if and only if it is truly self-running.

I am a little more open to the possibilities because I know Lenz can be circumvented for part of the cycle. The whole cycle? I don't know that.

All,

As far as previous comments about static fields not modulating another field.... I didn't suggest that. I suggested the inverse. Static fields being modulated (changed-redirected-focused-moved) by non-static fields.

One thing that should be considered is that the oncoming rotor magnet will change the stator magnet field. Another is that applying current to the coil can make that core partially invisible to the attached stator and oncoming rotor magnets.

Yes, the same amount of energy is required to make it less visible but only if there is no relative motion. If the coil is energized while the rotor magnet approaches, there will be little if any resistance to that rotor magnet being positioned below the coil. The coil will look to the rotor magnet as if it was air cored. If then the coil pulse ends... the field of the rotor magnet envelopes the coil with a field reversed of the stator magnets.

This means two things: The coil output is AC, not pulsed DC. When the induced pulse finishes, the top and bottom magnets will squeeze the rotor magnet out the other side with a great deal of force. Then things continue.

It is all really simple. The only valid question remains... Is it truly self-running?

Please don't continue about magnets having no effect upon an iron core coil. This is old stuff and completely false. The electronics industry knows it is false. I know several dozen shop electricians who know it is false. There are many devices which simply would not function if it was true.



   
Group: Guest
.... Rather than follow the "old school of thought" and go into denial by thinking it is impossible I use the new school of thought which says I should understand "why" it happens regardless of what I may believe.
Regards
AC

Well said A.C. All the 'power calculations' is really moot if this thing is really self running. Wait for replications before writing too many words and theories, IMO. Thanks

cheers
chrisC
   
Group: Guest
AC:

Quote
Now if this technology is so obvious then why didn't anyone develop it sooner utilizing larger wavelengths? Well because the "old school of thought" does not revolve around the fact of whether something works or not, the "old school of thought" makes the false assumption that we do not have the capacity to create new technology from old concepts.

I think that you are stepping out of some reasonable bounds here.  I would say that both of us are amateurs when it comes to microwave and antenna theory.  You don't know that something wasn't developed sooner for longer wavelengths, even if the article you read stated that.

Quote
The "old school of thought" is really saying we cannot create or invent anything new which should be no surprise because old people having been saying this throughout history despite the fact that the younger generation has always proven them wrong.

I think that it's fairer to say that the "old school of thought" was used by the original poster as a euphemism for modern science and electrical engineering.  In that sense the "old school of thought" has completely changed the world in the last 20 years and it continues non-stop.  At the same time nobody in an iPad II design review meeting ever stated "let's pulse a coil in the power section to extend the battery life" because they would have been laughed out of the meeting.

WaveWatcher:

Quote
It is all really simple. The only valid question remains... Is it truly self-running?

Please don't continue about magnets having no effect upon an iron core coil. This is old stuff and completely false. The electronics industry knows it is false. I know several dozen shop electricians who know it is false. There are many devices which simply would not function if it was true.

Is it self running?  I'll try to give you my thought process on this from a slightly different angle.  We have all seen Beini motor clips with extra pick-up coils.  The outputs from the pick-up coils are typically total a small fraction of the input power.  Romero's setup has better flux cutting and a better timing setup so that you get more output pulses from the pick-up coils.  It still doesn't matter, Romero's setup is still not fundamentally different from a Bedini motor rotor driving some pick-up coils.  The Beini pick-up coil setups as seen on may Youtube clips are almost always grossly under unity.  There is simply no logical reason in the world for a spinning disk with magnets on it connected to pick-up coils becoming an over-unity device.

Static magnets as described in the setup, above and below a compound-pick up coil, will have no significant affect on the operation of the generator.  You will polarize the ferrite but so what? Hopefully we will be able to see the voltage output waveform from a single isolated coil with and without the extra magnets.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
RomeroUK credits Bill Muller and I'm wondering if Mr. Muller ever demonstrated a self running motor.   Anybody know?

RomeroUK's addition to the basic Bill Muller design seems to be the biasing magnets, and from his answer to my question, they don't work if the polarity is reversed, and it's a delicate balance he has achived.    I'm currious if anybody else will be able to replicate his design, or if Romero himself will be able to scale it up, as the sensitive balance might not be achived again.  

However, what encourages me about this design is the fact that it doesn't have to operate at a particular speed, which excludes resonance, like in the Timothy motor/generator setup  (that amish guy).     This indicates to me that the OU mechanism involved is very stable and repeatable, so perhaps replications will be easy.  I hope !


@ MH and exnihiloest,    I'm in agreement with you on the idea that the coils only respond to the varrying flux, but that's where my agreement with you both stops.    I make exceptions to the general statement that the magnets don't do anything or the static field does not achive anything significant in Romero's motor/generator.     Like I've said before, the static magnetic field biases the ferrite, and the bias point plays an important role.  The widely accepted fact is that it reduces hysterisis losses, which is very important, but, even if you eliminate all losses,  I'm not really sure the Muller generator principle of using ODD/EVEN ratios is realy the key either.   I say this because Mr. Adams' motor from long time ago worked similarly to RomeroUK's motor but he did not have the Muller arrangement, just even symetry and he credits the specific timing he used, as I remember.      I belive the phenomena involved here has it's roots in the traversal of the B-H curve, and also in how the magnet and ferrite interact as a unit in a rotational frame of reference.    

But, it's useless at this point to define a specific operating principle, better build something.    Who's planning on building a replica?    

EM
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3947
tExB=qr
With the coil guns and flux capacitors, there is no room left on my bench...   ;D

   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2993
RomeroUK credits Bill Muller and I'm wondering if Mr. Muller ever demonstrated a self running motor.   Anybody know?

RomeroUK's addition to the basic Bill Muller design seems to be the biasing magnets, and from his answer to my question, they don't work if the polarity is reversed, and it's a delicate balance he has achived.    I'm currious if anybody else will be able to replicate his design, or if Romero himself will be able to scale it up, as the sensitive balance might not be achived again.  

[snip]   I belive the phenomena involved here has it's roots in the traversal of the B-H curve, and also in how the magnet and ferrite interact as a unit in a rotational frame of reference.    

But, it's useless at this point to define a specific operating principle, better build something.    Who's planning on building a replica?    

EM

EM, just saw this thread this morning -- good to be back.  

I'd like to build a replica.  (As I've noted elsewhere, repeatability is the heart of good science.) First question -- WHERE to buy the magnets? (and exactly what type?)

Next -- where do we get the "Litz" wire?  seems important.

I've just seen Stefan's .pdf ... helpful.  Is that the best write-up?
(Is there anything on this Muller generator elsewhere on the web?)

We recall the great hype that accompanied claims of excess heat (sans neutrons), enough to heat hot water for a cup of tea, via cold fusion by two chemists -- but those claims could not be replicated.  
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3947
tExB=qr
Can someone post Stephan's PDF?

thanks


   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2993
Trying here to attach Stefan's .pdf
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2993
  Replication underway here also:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7982-muller-generator-replication-romerouk.html

I just found some discussion of the Litz wire there.
   
Group: Guest
We recall the great hype that accompanied claims of excess heat (sans neutrons), enough to heat hot water for a cup of tea, via cold fusion by two chemists -- but those claims could not be replicated.  

PhysicsProf,

You may wish to catch up a bit....

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4081892/Cold-fusion-experimentally-confirmed

Those two have been vindicated but the arguments continue...

There have been numerous announcements of replication. I think each is taking it in the chops for mentioning it. The US Army and Navy don't seem to care about the negative activists  ;D
   
Group: Guest

But, it's useless at this point to define a specific operating principle, better build something.    Who's planning on building a replica?    

EM

I'm more and more tempted but I still don't have time even to perform a miracle  >:(
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2993
PhysicsProf,

You may wish to catch up a bit....

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4081892/Cold-fusion-experimentally-confirmed

Those two have been vindicated but the arguments continue...

There have been numerous announcements of replication. I think each is taking it in the chops for mentioning it. The US Army and Navy don't seem to care about the negative activists  ;D


Still not a hot water heater, though, WW -- which was claimed by Pons over 20 years ago.
And remember, the neutrons have to be COMMENSURATE with the heat produced.  (I.e., quantitatively.)  

PS - that article was from over two years ago, here's a relevant comment:
3/24/2009 4:59 PM EDT

Quote
Not again! The fact is that neutron metrology is very difficult, and most chemists are clueless about the nuances. With all the electro-chemistry going on, I am skeptical about the thermal energy balance, as well.
(I was at ORNL for the first round of claims(Fleischmann/Pons), and work on the metrology aspects of verification efforts, radiological and thermal, which showed no cold fusion.

1.  Replication
2.  Peer-reviewed Publication
3.  Scale it up (to at least heat ten gallons of water by the excess energy)


Above applies to the coldfusion, Muller and all claims -- hope this one works...
   
Group: Guest
EMdevices:

Quote
RomeroUK's addition to the basic Bill Muller design seems to be the biasing magnets, and from his answer to my question, they don't work if the polarity is reversed, and it's a delicate balance he has achived.    I'm currious if anybody else will be able to replicate his design, or if Romero himself will be able to scale it up, as the sensitive balance might not be achived again.

Unfortunately, this is complete and utter crap.  Sorry for the strong words and they are not directed at you at all.  As has already been stated several times, the magnets associated with the pick-up coils do nothing.  The proof for this fact is screaming out to be investigated.  Anybody that makes a replication, or Romero himself, can make measurements on the setup with and without the extra magnets and compare the results.  There is no "sensitive balance" associated with the magnet positioning.  In fact, you are setting yourself up for a fall when you use that phraseology.  It's like you are giving Carte Blanche to Romero so that when nobody's replications work he can say, "You failed to achieve the delicate balance in magnet positioning."  Bullshit.

Screw the "sensitive balance" business.  Any replicator that builds a setup can make measurements on the pick-up coils and the overall motor itself to prove to themselves that the magnets mean nothing and do nothing.  So you don't have to believe me, the replicators can investigate this for themselves and find out the truth for themselves.

Quote
I belive the phenomena involved here has it's roots in the traversal of the B-H curve, and also in how the magnet and ferrite interact as a unit in a rotational frame of reference.

It's fine to say that but does what you are saying really have any meaning?  So you bias the core and you change it's B-H curve.  So what?  What the B-H curve represents is the hysteresis loss when you bias and then unbias the core.  So if you change the B-H curve you make slight changes to the energy loss mechanism.  Where does that get you?

As far as the magnet and ferrite interacting goes in a "rotational frame of reference" goes, big deal.  Magnetic potential energy is converted into rotational energy which is then converted back into magnetic potential energy.  This stuff has been studied to death and there is zero energy gain associated with it.  I will remind you again, Romero's motor is nothing more than a glorified Bedini motor with a pulsed coil drive and some pick-up coils.  There is absolutely nothing special associated with it.  Seriously, you may as well have a coil in one hand and a magnet in the other hand and move them past each other and claim over unity.  On a fundamental level, there is no difference between that and Romero's motor.

You make reference to the replica builders.  Let's pray to God that they are open-minded enough to make some real measurements on their motors after their self-runners fail.  That's where the "action" could be if some of them are astute enough to really try and understand what their motors are doing.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
MH,   I'll be very brief with you.



1)  If you haven't read what RomeroUK said, read it.   He explains his magnets and their position and why he uses washers, etc..

2)  Read up on hysterisis losses and how to minimize them.


EM
   
Group: Guest
EMdevices:

Unfortunately, this is complete and utter crap.  Sorry for the strong words and they are not directed at you at all.  As has already been stated several times, the magnets associated with the pick-up coils do nothing.  The proof for this fact is screaming out to be investigated. ....Bullshit.

...
MileHigh

Strong words indeed. Well, unless the two videos RomeroUK made are fake, we'll have to wait for replication to prove that it's true and there are facts you DON'T know and you are not the all knowing GOD.  We'll just have to leave it as it is for now. I don't wish to see you eat your words....

cheers
chrisC
   
Group: Guest
To All:

I am just going to comment again on where the Big Mistake is with respect to people's thought processes about the Romero motor.

The logic is as follows:  The motor develops COP > 2 and that's enough to loop it back upon itself to make a self runner.  Therefore I will build the motor in a self-runner configuration and test it.

The "big shocker" is this, "The motor develops COP > 2."

If the motor in itself is an over unity device I sure as hell would want to verify that with measurements before I try to make a self runner.  This is the real news, not the fact that you can allegedly make a self-runner.  It blows my mind that people don't want to investigate this first.

When all of the self-runners fail, only a subset of the experimenters will have the skills and the drive to start making measurements on their motors.  Here is where some of them might try making some magnet/no-magnet measurements on the pick-up coils also.

In a month or so you will be left with Romero being the only person that has allegedly demonstrated a self-runner in a YouTube clip.  That might be the time to press him to make some serious measurements on his motor.

I will say it one more time, the power output measurement in his first clip is no good.  I also outlined how to make a proper measurement with a true-RMS multimeter.

Right now this whole ball has been set in motion by two things, 1) a video clip that allegedly shows over unity power output but the measurement is no good, 2) a video clip that allegedly shows a self-runner that could easily be faked if you wanted to.

You have to ask yourself the question, "Why in Romero's case does a magnet moving past a pick-up coil allegedly produce over unity when thousands of other pulse motors have been built based on the same principle that don't produce over unity?"

Beyond that, the physics analysis clearly shows that a pick-up coil and moving magnet system is an under unity device that obeys the law of conservation of energy.  Why should Romero's pick-up coils and magnets be different?

All I ask of all of you is to look at Romero's proposition at face value.  There is absolutely nothing special about Romero's motor configuration.

Anyway my prose sounds more worked up about this than I really am.  It's just a question of watching the drama play out.  When things start to fall apart I hope and pray that some of you have what it takes to start asking Romero some tough questions and insisting that you get some real answers.  Even that possibility doesn't look particularly good.  Romero has already stated that he is not going to make any more clips claiming that he can't do any more but in fact he has barely scratched the surface.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
EMdevices:

Quote
1)  If you haven't read what RomeroUK said, read it.   He explains his magnets and their position and why he uses washers, etc..

2)  Read up on hysterisis losses and how to minimize them.

I am pretty sure that I read them, I have read the whole thread except for the last 18 hours worth.  Romero does not explain anything of significance about the positioning of the magnets and what it means.  He says nothing of substance as to why the positioning of the magnets does something special.  Like I said, the magnets do nothing.  Anybody can verify what I am saying is true by connecting a single pick-up coil output to their scope and adding and removing the magnets.

I know all about hysteresis losses.  Minimizing hysteresis losses does not equate to free energy in any way, shape, or form.  Even saying that the hysteresis losses in the core will be minimized due to the influence of the magnets is also pure speculation.  If I am wrong then please give me a link to show this.  This is one of those cases where somebody has a hunch that biasing the ferrite cores will reduce the hysteresis losses and all of a sudden everybody believes that it's Gospel truth.  It's not the truth and it's not proven as far as I am concerned.

ChrisC:

Quote
we'll have to wait for replication to prove that it's true and there are facts you DON'T know and you are not the all knowing GOD.  We'll just have to leave it as it is for now. I don't wish to see you eat your words....

I DO know how a pulse motor with pick-up coils works and it's not over unity.  I never claimed that I was a god!

Bring on the replications and I know who will be eating their words as time goes by.  I have looked at hundreds and hundreds of pulse motor clips on YouTube and I assume that most others around here have done the same thing.

If anybody can offer an explanation as to why Romero's motor should work I would like to hear it.  For all of the discussions so far (mostly on OU) I haven't seen anything from anybody proposing to explain how it works.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
There is another issue that I think is worth mentioning.  For the Rosemary Ainslie saga at one point she offered to fly Stefan of Over Unity to South Africa to verify her device.

Just the other day on OU someone also made a comment about Stefan verifying Romero's device for over unity.

Here is a recent comment from Stefan:

Quote
Well, maybe it is better to put all outputs coils then in series
for higher voltage outputs and only have a normal
silicon diode bridge rectifier then at the end.
Then you could also use a DC to DC converter with high efficiency to transform
the violtage down again.
This way you will only loose power in the ONE bridge rectifier and not
in all rectifiers... This could also save a lot of wasted power in the circuit
and it is cheaper as you don´t need so many rectifiers....
If you make the coils much bigger also a higher current should be possible at
the higher series voltage.

Regards, Stefan.

Stefan is not knowledgeable enough about electronics and energy and physics and related matters to verify Rosemary Ainslie's claims.  Nor is he knowledgeable enough to verify the claims about Romero's pulse motor.

Anybody that is astute in electronics and energy reading Stefan's comment above would agree with me.  Don't shoot the messenger.  The simple fact is that Stefan is not the person you want to call to verify somebody's over unity claim.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
EMdevices:

I am pretty sure that I read them, I have read the whole thread except for the last 18 hours worth.  Romero does not explain anything of significance about the positioning of the magnets and what it means.  He says nothing of substance as to why the positioning of the magnets does something special.  Like I said, the magnets do nothing.  Anybody can verify what I am saying is true by connecting a single pick-up coil output to their scope and adding and removing the magnets.

I know all about hysteresis losses.  Minimizing hysteresis losses does not equate to free energy in any way, shape, or form.  Even saying that the hysteresis losses in the core will be minimized due to the influence of the magnets is also pure speculation.  If I am wrong then please give me a link to show this.  This is one of those cases where somebody has a hunch that biasing the ferrite cores will reduce the hysteresis losses and all of a sudden everybody believes that it's Gospel truth.  It's not the truth and it's not proven as far as I am concerned.

ChrisC:

I DO know how a pulse motor with pick-up coils works and it's not over unity.  I never claimed that I was a god!

Bring on the replications and I know who will be eating their words as time goes by.  I have looked at hundreds and hundreds of pulse motor clips on YouTube and I assume that most others around here have done the same thing.

If anybody can offer an explanation as to why Romero's motor should work I would like to hear it.  For all of the discussions so far (mostly on OU) I haven't seen anything from anybody proposing to explain how it works.

MileHigh

Actually I believe the extra magnets do have an affect. I used the technique on my Orbon solid state orbo. And I think that Bruce TPU and Gotluc would stand by me on that, as we had similar projects at the time.

And as for Romero going over every detail of alignments, pew, lol, the guy doesnt have time for anything at the moment. He has been bombarded from every angle.  Each replication will have its slight differences, and alignments of all kinds will be a strange to each. He did give some details as to working with one coil at a time to balance them.

And thirdly, the design is one that with odd no. coils and even no. mags, and the config, reduced cog and drag to a minimum. The pulse motor is nothing special. Just eff. enough to getter dun. ;]

Romero has been a straight up guy. Some just have it. And some dont. ;]  Give it a bit of time.  It hasnt been years that he has been preaching this. Its just the beginning. Far from Mylow. ;]

Mags




   
Group: Guest
Mags:

Quote
Actually I believe the extra magnets do have an affect.

What is it that they do and how is it beneficial?

Quote
And as for Romero going over every detail of alignments, pew, lol, the guy doesnt have time for anything at the moment. He has been bombarded from every angle.  Each replication will have its slight differences, and alignments of all kinds will be a strange to each. He did give some details as to working with one coil at a time to balance them.

The kinds of details that Romero should be discussing are the power into the device, the power into the DC-to-DC converter, the power output from the DC-to-DC converter.  What are the numbers for different loads? For different RPMs based on different DC-to-DC converter voltage settings, what is the voltage and waveform coming back from the pick-up coils?  As a matter of fact, how about waveforms for all of the relevant signals in the motor?  So far you have nothing.

When it is running in self-runner mode, what is the power output from the DC-to-DC converter?  What is the power input to the to the DC-to-DC converter?  What are the waveforms like for the different signals on the self-runner?  What happens to all of the measurements and waveforms on the self-runner when you have no light bulb load versus when you have a light bulb load?

How come all of you are attempting to build a self-runner when you have none of the information in the paragraph highlighted in bold above?  How can any of you accept that Romero is finished making video clips and documenting what his self-runner does when all of the questions in the paragraph highlighted in bold above are unanswered?  How come nobody on OU is asking any of these very important questions?

Quote
And thirdly, the design is one that with odd no. coils and even no. mags, and the config, reduced cog and drag to a minimum. The pulse motor is nothing special. Just eff. enough to getter dun. ;]

The configuration with the odd/even stuff does not reduce the drag to a minimum at all.  When a given pick-up coil is outputting power (voltage and current) into the load it creates Lenz' law drag just like the equivalent drag would be created in any other pulse motor that has pick-up coils.

Some food for thought.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
Ok MH, I'll expend a bit more energy on you to redeem you from the dark side.


@MH
Quote
I will say it one more time, the power output measurement in his first clip is no good.  I also outlined how to make a proper measurement with a true-RMS multimeter.

I thought we settled this already?    Have you not looked at his circuit and noticed the filter on the output.  I told you this already in a previous post, the bulk of the output power is DC not AC, due to this filter.   Are you familiar with filter theory and how the time constant smooths a waveform?    And how about the further smoothing of the ripple in the electromechanical  gages he uses, with their large time constants?  

Quote
Right now this whole ball has been set in motion by two things, 1) a video clip that allegedly shows over unity power output but the measurement is no good, 2) a video clip that allegedly shows a self-runner that could easily be faked if you wanted to.

The measurement is good MH, saying otherwise shows me that this is just your un-educated and ignorant opinion.
Yes, videos can be faked, I'll give you that much.

Quote
You have to ask yourself the question, "Why in Romero's case does a magnet moving past a pick-up coil allegedly produce over unity when thousands of other pulse motors have been built based on the same principle that don't produce over unity?"

Why did Edisons new lightbulb material work when thousands didn't work before?  



Quote
Beyond that, the physics analysis clearly shows that a pick-up coil and moving magnet system is an under unity device that obeys the law of conservation of energy.  Why should Romero's pick-up coils and magnets be different?

I'm not sure what analysis you refer too, but I can do an analysis that shows extra energy coming in.   You see, our analyses are based on theories based on experiments, if this is something new, and I believe it is, then we need new theories and new analyses.

Quote
There is absolutely nothing special about Romero's motor configuration.

So the 8/9 magnet/coil ratio is not special?  you see that in any standard generator out there?
Biasing the core of a generator is so commonplace it's standard practice right?
Pulsing some coils and generating from others is such an un-special configuration you can sell me a few on Amazon right?



MH, it's not good to be negative, let it go man.  When a major discovery arrives, it's paradigm changing, it will shock some and some will never accept it.    Remember the old saying,  If God wanted man to fly he would have given them wings?


EM

P.S.      
Quote
[Actually I believe the extra magnets do have an affect.]

What is it that they do and how is it beneficial?

You realy don't read what I say, or perhaps you don't understand.   That's why I told you to read up on hysterisis losses and how to minimize them.    I'm going to say it again.  

BIASING THE FERRITE CORES WITH THE MAGNETS MINIMIZES HYSTERISIS LOSSES WHICH CAUSES UNECESSARY DRAG ON THE ROTOR!

 :o
   
Group: Guest
...
ChrisC:

I DO know how a pulse motor with pick-up coils works and it's not over unity.  I never claimed that I was a god!

...
MileHigh

Well MH. I really am not suggesting you are GOD. Just for the sake of making things really simple, assuming for now RomeroUK faked his videos, then all bets are off and everyone goes back to your 'old school of thought' process and you're once again correct. Fair enough?

Now what if the videos were not faked and he actually ran the device for 5.5 hrs looping without a battery; just that capacitor and he showed it suspended. With all your 'pulsing' knowledge and experience with all the Bedini motors you have personally encountered and deemed to be non-O.U, how then can YOU explain? And please don't bring in the power measurements for now. Wanna explain to us?

cheers
chrisC
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... 37
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-03, 12:35:33