http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CleoildQFM
http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6483.pdf [contributed by Dave 45 from energetic link below]
http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6823.pdf [contributed By Tak 22 from OU .com link below]
being discussed here as well
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14404-44-overunity-scalable.html#post238813 [tittle here is wrong Dave has asked for a change from admin ,cpl days ago]
http://www.overunity.com/13781/44-times-more-power-output-than-input/msg369921/#new
THX
Chet
PS
Peter
this is probably the Wrong section for this Topic?
ramset,
I've taken a look at some of his videos of the 'Jeff Cook Effect'. Now, I'm just more confused.
Why would he name this 'effect ???' after himself when the effect has long been explained?
Maybe I just haven't found where he discovered something new :(
WW
I have not yet seen this effect-where an axially magnetized disc magnet can rotate while standing virtical over an inductor?.
How exactly dose this happen?.
You guys may have seen these video's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA-6PSO2A_k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNEGBelLZNY
The device mimic's the effect of a superconductor and a magnet without the superconductivity.
A series of pictures show a device,don't know if its real or fake,he claims it moves a candle flame.
I'm including a pdf of how to make it,it sounds very much like a later device made by a Russian
scientist that made first, a gravity modification device that used a spinning ceramic superconductor disk.A later device
was claimed to be able to knock down things from a distance, it also needed superconductivity to work.
Quote from: tinman on 2013.09.07, 03:06:17
WW
I have not yet seen this effect-where an axially magnetized disc magnet can rotate while standing virtical over an inductor?.
How exactly dose this happen?.
Just for the sake of clarity please post a link or reference a post and link to an example of what you describe.
I'll explain what I see in that video.
Most of what I've seen has to do with why a coin spins as it settles on a surface, magnetic polarity across the end surface (or any coil surface) of a coil always includes both poles and spin being caused by interaction within orthogonal fields.
@WW
Here is the setup as depicted below.
The yellow disc represents the coil(inductor).
As you can see,the magnet is a ring magnet with a shaft through it's center hole. The magnet is magnetised axially.Via a belt,the rotating magnet turns a small DC motor being used as a generator.
So my question is-how dose the magnet rotate having an axial field,while vertical to the horizontal coil?.
It has been mentioned that the field on each side would be not quite even. Although that may be the case,there is no possable way it could produce enough torque to turn a loaded generator-and via a belt mind you.
Here is the P/in for the coil that is causing the rotation of the PM that is driving the small generator.
V/in=.27
A/in=.012 or 12mA
Both measured with a protek 608 true RMS DMM.
Although most of you will know already,below is a diagram of magnetization directions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNEGBelLZNY
This thread really shouldn't be titled 4400% OU anymore as the document above ramset posted from TAK explains clearly that Jeff realized he had made a mistake in calculations. It's best to read that doc before anything else. I do think there may still be some reason to look more at this effect and it's possible it may still be COP > 1 but at this time he has admitted it's not COP 44.
Sir
A very good suggestion.
Thx
Chet
The magnets rotate on a horizontal axis. Still, it seems they should not be influenced by the inductor considering their orientation and magnetization. But how do we know they are the source of energy to turn the motor since no control experiment is shown without the magnets? Could it not be a possibility that the motors are influenced directly by the inductor pulsing? Would the magnets spin if not connected to the motors? These questions have not been answered or included as control experiments.
This should be seriously considered before anyone spends the time or money to build one of these devices. A few simple tests could answer these questions.
Regarding the inductor, I think he measured DC resistance and called it impedance. The impedance at the frequency he uses may be closer to 22 ohms. DC resistance should not be confused with AC impedance.
I read that he is using pulsed DC i.e. a square wave with a DC offset as input, also a filter used to limit the input to the coil between 35 to 55 Hz. He also talks of "frequencies sent to the coil". (see attachment 1)
Looks like he only measured the DC going to the coil and ignored the AC component (see attachment 2).
Control tests should be performed with the magnets replaced by ferrous or non ferrous materials or eliminated completely, to be sure the motors themselves are not influenced by the magnetic pulses since they are immersed in the fluctuating field.
In light of how low the actual power input is, there is no need for a 500 Watt amplifier, this can be done with a single FET or bipolar transistor so that input power can be very accurately measured.
A killowatt meter on the front of the amplifier noting quiescent and running power would be helpful.
At any rate, this should be dead easy to loop considering the claimed COP.
Summary: The paper contains lots of data, charts photo's etc and is nicely done. It is similar to what we would expect of a scientific inquiry, but there are serious measurement omissions that are important and would negatively impact his final data and claims. Further it lacks control experiments noted above.
I did a simple test with a small DC motor above a pulsed coil. Leads were left open to measure the induced emf and later shorted to see if I could get it to spin from the induced pulses.
Although a max of about 30 mV were induced into the rotor windings from a pulsed coil, no shaft rotation was detected in any orientation.
The rotational torque may therefore be coming from the magnets.
This test is inconclusive as I don't have the exact motor, nor did I use a Dc offset, but I tried a few types with basically the same results.
I will have to repeat the test with a DC offset, and if I can locate a axially magnetized magnet in the shop, I will couple it to the rotor and also test it independently.
Thanks, tinman.
Where does one look for evidence that the driving magnets are indeed axially polarized?
And if axially polarized, are they allowed to wobble on the magnet's supporting shaft?
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.09.07, 21:46:24
Thanks, tinman.
Where does one look for evidence that the driving magnets are indeed axially polarized?
And if axially polarized, are they allowed to wobble on the magnet's supporting shaft?
Hi WW
It is writen in his paper.Quote: 28. ¾" NeFeB Ring Magnet x 1/4" Thick x ¼" ID, magnetized
through thickness (direction of rod) (available online)
Looking at the drawing,and reading the paper,it seems the magnets are fixed firm to the shaft,to eliminate the other 3 movements he mentions.
Ok.
Assuming the magnets are polarized the way he says, there is no way they would spin on the shaft over a common solenoid coil, air or metal core.
Over a Brook's coil with a hollow coiled ferrous core may be interesting but that should be very dependent upon the driving frequency/coil design and the material of the magnet, if possible.
My Net connection is limited.... Has anyone posted a replication of this spinning magnet concept? It was his wand and making a magnet spin over a planar or Brook's coil with loose mounting and wobble that comes from textbooks.
@WW
The pdf link is in the first post-second link,posted by Chet.
I'm not sure how limited your net connection is,but it is only 1.1MB.
This explains it all pretty well,and there is a theory on a Z field at play here-being zero point energy-Mmm.
No video's of a running system exists that i am yet aware of,but Chet is trying to get the ball rolling on that.
I have just ordered the specific magnets as per the PDF,and i already have the motor's in stock. I do have quite a few axially magnetized ring magnet's,but might as well stick the spec to start with-although i wouldn't think it would matter that much.
I have also started building the coil to spec's,as per the PDF.
I don't believe we need the amp,as we can make that our self.
The SG,scope and power supply i already have,And the machining i can also do myself on the lathe.
This is something i need to see for myself,as i am still unclear as to how the magnets could spin in this configuration.
Here is a paragraph from the PDF,that seems to indicate that the magnets motion is restricted to rotation only.
Using the above apparatus, the magnet is restricted from
moving to or from the center of the coil (eliminating nutation),
restricted from moving side to side (eliminating orbit) and
hooked only to a pulley belt that only turns when the magnets
are rotating; in other words, they can precess back and forth but
the motors do not turn in the least when they do (further demonstrating
independence between the motions), generating no electrical
power from precessional motion (eliminating precession).
The only power being measured from this apparatus being the
energy of the rotation.
@tinman
It is not common knowledge but the near field of a magnet is anything but uniform. I have done a great deal of research and experiments into magnetic phenomena including levitation and passive magnetic bearings in the past. Below is one experiment, a 1" x 1/2" N42 Neo cylinder magnet being levitated in a 2" gap. The laser detects non-uniform material density which translates to non-uniform field density as verified with a hall sensor device. Now if the field is not perfectly uniform then these area's may be used in the translation of force ... theoretically, lol.
In fact one goal in this experiment was to spin the magnet up into the 100,000+ RPM range at the brink of the material strength to probe for anomalies, thankfully common sense got the better of me.
On a note of interest which you may find some value in, a small circular 1/4" thick aluminum plate below the magnet will dampen all vertical movement stabilizing the levitating magnet but will not hinder the rotation on axis to any measurable degree. I use this stabilization control in most every device I build, it works very well.
AC
AC said:
QuoteOn a note of interest which you may find some value in, a small circular 1/4" thick aluminum plate below the magnet will dampen all vertical movement stabilizing the levitating magnet but will not hinder the rotation on axis to any measurable degree. I use this stabilization control in most every device I build, it works very well.
Anyone interested in more information on this should search "eddy current damping". There are a host of interesting articles and clever uses for the effect using Al. and other materials.
@AC
It is fairly well known that the near fields of a magnet ain't uniform,and inconsistencies exist. But in no way would these small inconsistencies be enough to produce enough torque to turn those small motors(generators) in the above setup,The magnets are only 3/4 inch in diameter,with the belt around there circumference. So no-that isn't the answer here.
Also,in most of my maglev setup's,the field is fairly even,as there is very little (if any) wobble in the shaft.
A few have struggled with replicating Mr.Cooks work.
http://www.americanantigravity.com/files/articles/JCE-Generator-Experimental-Notes.pdf
JLN surrendered before witnessing the "Cook effect" that Mr.Ventura replicates above { with more input and other adjustments]
However there I s a brief "Movie" of Jeff demonstrating his "effect" in the JLN Link below
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/jcook/
Thx
For looking
Chet
Quote from: tinman on 2013.09.09, 00:42:05
@AC
It is fairly well known that the near fields of a magnet ain't uniform,and inconsistencies exist. But in no way would these small inconsistencies be enough to produce enough torque to turn those small motors(generators) in the above setup,The magnets are only 3/4 inch in diameter,with the belt around there circumference. So no-that isn't the answer here.
Also,in most of my maglev setup's,the field is fairly even,as there is very little (if any) wobble in the shaft.
Perhaps he enhances these inconsistencies with the hollow ferrous coil core and the fact that the wider than normal coil end surface area presents a changing field polarity angle to the magnet. i.e. The magnet will see two different fields beneath it. At one point in time the N/S orientation is the axis of the coil. At another point in time the N/S orientation is radial to the coil.
The same exists for the magnet but in static form where the N/S orientation depends upon where the observer is on the magnet. This is much easier to see in a large diameter axially polarized magnet. At the end of the magnet the N of a compass will point to the perimeter and the S will point near the center of the same end or vice versa depending on the magnet end you choose.
This could explain why he claims the magnet rotation isn't synchronized to the coil drive frequency unless the magnet is nearer to the coil center.
I'm still having difficulty seeing which effect is the newly named effect. Bending flames (already known)? - Spinning an axially polarized magnet above a pulsed coil (already known but not well known - and hard to do. So much so you might as well say 'impossible')<I've seen it done. I just couldn't make it work myself>
Come to think of it.... he would need a DC coil bias so it would never see a reverse in polarity....
Compass pointers on a planar coil:
Mr Cooks paper lacks scientific rigor, e.g. no kinematic analysis, no electrodynamic analysis, but at least he compiled something, as painful as it is to read.
The motions he deals with, and the forces generating them, require vector calculus. integrating the torques generated by a non uniform time varring magnetic field upon the magnetic domains of the magnet reveals why there is a torque generated about the center of each magnet.
"The Jeff Cook" effect? yea right ! C.C
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.09.13, 08:07:13
Mr Cooks paper lacks scientific rigor, e.g. no kinematic analysis, no electrodynamic analysis, but at least he compiled something, as painful as it is to read.
The motions he deals with, and the forces generating them, require vector calculus. integrating the torques generated by a non uniform time varring magnetic field upon the magnetic domains of the magnet reveals why there is a torque generated about the center of each magnet.
"The Jeff Cook" effect? yea right ! C.C
EM
Torsion fields is apparently the secret???.
WW said:
QuoteCome to think of it.... he would need a DC coil bias so it would never see a reverse in polarity....
The square waves ride on top of a DC bias (amplifier DC offset) fed into the coil.
Vector math and calculus won't answer how rotation of the magnet is achieved unless you blow out the generalities.
Notice how the spin axis of the magnets are not all perpendicular to the driving coil axis C.C
In order to 'pull' on one side of the magnet diameter more than the other side the proximity of the magnet diameter must be closer to the coil hollow core.
It doesn't really matter, does it? Hasn't it been proven that there is no fibroid like force connecting to something like an individual magnetic domain pole?
In accepted theories there is no way to rotate the magnet because the magnet's field is not anchored anywhere except the poles.
Now, if we stop thinking of possible interactions between A, H & B some useless baggage goes away. Think instead of Lorentz force on the electrons in the magnet and how torque could be applied to their trajectories just by them being in a time dependent magnetic field. I'm speaking of a single field that not only changes in density with each pulse but also changes between three angles.
As the pulse rises one half of the magnet N pole is repelled by the increasing coil field.
At the same time, the shorted gardener wire coil/core has an opposite magnetic field induced into it.
The other half of the magnet N pole diameter is attracted to the coil/core.
Doable?
WW, the way this setup is analyzed is by integrating the forces generated on a sub volume dV of the magnet by the time varrying magnetic field at that location, and vector calculus is needed. All analysis problems have some assumptions made so we need to be careful. If the axis of rotation of the magnet wobbles, or theres nonlinear impact with the axle because its diameter is smaller, then the kinematic analysis gets even more comples, and this can explain the spin perhaps, but not in the assembled unit with pulleys, because its a weaker force.
I've conducted experiments and theoretical analysis similar to this setup, but with static fields shaped to produce a perpetual torque, and it did't work, but my conclusion was that time varying magnetic fields were needed. I was hoping that the magnet in a divergent field would spin, if shaped appropriately, but realized the field also produces a force on each domain, not just a torque, as each magnetic domain tries to align to the external field, and these forces when integrated and pivoted about an axis perfectly counteracted the torque. Of cours this is a simplistic way of thinking about it. I hope im making sense.
EM
You make perfect sense and calculus is needed but there two points not working in your hypothesis.
1. There wouldn't be forces on individual domains. I'm not saying there could not be. I'm saying that the accepted thoughts are that these forces would only be applied to the magnetic domain group making up the entire ferromagnetism of the magnet, with the exception of the few domains already not in-line with the majority. What I do think is that the magnet must be looked at as a saturated core. Unless the external magnetic field is in either repulsion or attraction it should have no uni-directional effect upon the magnet. Surely, if we could polarize a toroid shaped magnet so that all field lines were closed within and around the toroid, like a saturated toroid core, it would be useless as a magnet but no magnet would stick to it ;D
2. From your posts on this I still have the impression that you aren't considering the third magnetic field being created between the core(iron coil - induced field), the normally expected field from the coil (copper) bottom and top and the normally unexpected polarity shift perpendicular to the copper coil field.
We know what happens between opposing fields(copper coil vs. the field induced in the iron wire core). In the area of opposition there is a radial magnetic field created. Since there is an existing radial field at right angles to the former, we have convergence of three radial fields all at right angles to one another. If all this is true, wouldn't we expect something unique?
Of course, none of the above would make sense unless you are convinced that a planar (and single layer) coil produces two magnetic fields opposing one another and on opposing sides of that layer (the same as a single layer solenoid coil does except the field is in the shape of a toroid and finally, a single field).
And, that there is no termination of a magnetic field line. Figurative or not, all magnetic field lines are closed loops with absolutely no termination point, unlike field lines of charge.
Sorry, that is a sticking point for me as I have never found a magnetic field simulator that will show the empirically proven dual radial fields of a simple planar coil. They all seem to show the field as a single compressed solenoid field. Stupid, in my opinion.
Edit>> In fact, there is no difference between a solenoid and planar coil magnetic field. The problem lies in the way the results are presented and generally understood. There isn't enough clarity. This leads folks to think that there is North at one end of the coil and South is at the other. It isn't that simple. At each end of a solenoid or planar coil there is a North & South. So, a planar coil (or the end surface of a Brook's type coil) there is a pole at the ID and the other pole is at the OD. The mirror opposite is at the other end of a Brook's type coil (or the other side of a planar coil)).
Magnetic field lines don't terminate anywhere and North/South is another construct only good for navigation.