Thought i would start a thread on actually building and testing so called !free energy machines!.
We have already done the cap charge experiment and shown my test result's,and although there was no extra energy shown,it seems that it may be a great battery reconditioner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pv7ecENsOk
The next one we tried out was the !in series battery/motor/battery recharge,desulphating,free energy device. So apparently a small battery will not only recharge a battery of twice the size with a higher power value,it will also recondition your battery at the same time O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfVKykD9FEc
A review on the last two experiments ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G18rwl2r3DA
The next one is pictured below,and is quite simple. I think slider may have done something similar?
I will be using 1/2 inch x 10 inch S/S tubes,and the copper plate is around 65mm wide x .7mm thick x 350mm long.
If you get time can you investigate this free energy machine ?
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.04.12, 09:40:07
If you get time can you investigate this free energy machine ?
Yep-it is a confirmed free energy device that is powered by the sun O0
Who remembers the GEGENE
So just a bit of fooling around in this first video,but we do have a small explosion lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWR4jDbBf3A
The best free energy comes from the moon 24/7 "tide power" O0
regards
Mike 8)
didn't do salter or his ducks much good!
A quick cal test with and without the coil loaded.
We can see a definite magnetic field drop to the pot full of water when the coil is loaded.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW5wB7dx22k
Re the GEGENE. I was stopped in such research by my fascination with blowing LED's at good distances. While really a supercharged pancake coil wireless system (a lot like the BAC based SWES), it didn't sit well in the household that this was in the kitchen, connected to the mains and capable of terminal destruction and loud bangs.
It now makes a good chilli heater :)
One of my faves of your stuff TinMan was the big vertical wheel with the non corroding electrodes (water electrolyte ?). I still haven't worked out how that was achieved, but it seemed to be reliant on a carefully set resistor somewhere. Non corrosion of galvanic batteries is always of great interest.
Same thing with the Positive plates of car batteries. If we don't haul 200A out of them every morning and continuously throw 100A back into them once the car starts, those plates should do as well as the Negative plates do. Should get decades of use out of the things, instead of 3 or 4 years.
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.04.12, 14:09:28
One of my faves of your stuff TinMan was the big vertical wheel with the non corroding electrodes (water electrolyte ?). I still haven't worked out how that was achieved, but it seemed to be reliant on a carefully set resistor somewhere. Non corrosion of galvanic batteries is always of great interest.
Ah yes-that one. That was actually for the first pulse motor build off Russ and myself held.
It worked by reversing the inductive kickback current in the galvanic battery setup. What this did was recoat the zinc plates with the zinc that just left them-->reverse electroplating process. But some one who shall remain nameless(Chet knows about this) kind of borrowed the idea,and now he and a group of others make galvanic battery torches that run for months on one small zinc anode-->and i didn't even get a Christmas card lol.
I believe this is the one you are talking about slider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64EDo4OB_L0
Edit:-In actual fact Mark,i think this is about as close to a free energy device that i have seen lol. Im a little wiser now,and have my digital scope--> i think I'm going to rebuild this one,or one very close to it that runs on the same principle.Yep-the build starts tomorrow-->unless i can get a trailer tomorrow,then it will be cart racing day insted lol.
Ah your not going to believe this Mark--> i just found all the original copper plates in one of my scrap boxes O0
I dont know where the galv ones went,they wernt in there with the copper ones. But anyway,i also have the bearing head,and the neo with the threaded holder on it still. I do remember making a JT as well with just one of these cell's that went for month's-->not sure what happened to that,as that was 3 years ago now.
Anyway-the build starts tomorow O0
Thanks for the reminder, yep that's the fella.
Am going to modify my 3 year running Nephilim Penny with the method.
Edit, have just seen your next post.
Very cool ! because it was a winning idea..as you said in the vid, a hydrogen generator that makes its own power, lights an LED and powers a rotor. All the while, suffering no ill effects to the metals used for the plates.
O0
well,spent the last 2 hours in the workshop making cocktails,as i don't want to use salt water,or any water for that matter. So i came up with this brew that consist of 3 liquids-none of which are water or acid. These liquids you can buy at your local supermarket or corner store,and they pack a punch with galvanic cells. If we use zinc and copper,we would normally only get around .8 to .9 volt's-as per the galvanic table. With this liquid,i can get 1.1 volt's,and 14mA dead short with this very small amount of galv wire that you will see in the video below. Infact,as you will see,i barley put the cell in the liquid,and the LED glows nice and bright.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XOe21_gwRw
Couldn't leave this one alone LOL
I've used Isopropyl Alcohol, Hydrogen Peroxide and Bleach.
0.945V, 20mA
It lights an LED well.
Vid here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFAtaoUoHmA
8)
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.04.12, 23:30:26
Couldn't leave this one alone LOL
I've used Isopropyl Alcohol, Hydrogen Peroxide and Bleach.
0.945V, 20mA
It lights an LED well.
Vid here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFAtaoUoHmA
8)
Lol-you cheated :P. you used two big plates to get that much current. Lets both go with two plates of 2" square,and compair current reading's lol.
You have one of the liquids right-the one that wouldn't do your driving skills any favours if you drank it,but wouldn't kill ya lol.
Ah but, the copper is just copper clad...it's like cardboard or something, crunches and snaps instead of bends.
I have noticed some staining on the steel over the hours so far, which is better than it being the copper, means I can introduce your SSG type of thing and see if it stops that.
Will make them 2" square.
Hmm, what else is clear and household ? it's good fun in a well ventilated room :)
Edit: have just measured the originals. Am looking at an increase in surface area lol, because the originals had 2" x 1 1/2" actually covered by the mixture !
It's only a smallish coffee jar (Juan Valdez BuenDia or something, from Walmart, 100g)
Annnnd, i've just ruined it :D
Tried to charge it with a Ni-CD charger, 1.2V at 200mA.
The copper flew off the piece as soon as the leads went on ! it darkened the piece and coloured the water.
Voltage immediately fell to around 0.725V, but the current climbed.
Quick vid here for a laugh at how it looks now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF744T81BmI
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.04.13, 01:14:21
Annnnd, i've just ruined it :D
Tried to charge it with a Ni-CD charger, 1.2V at 200mA.
The copper flew off the piece as soon as the leads went on ! it darkened the piece and coloured the water.
Voltage immediately fell to around 0.725V, but the current climbed.
Quick vid here for a laugh at how it looks now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF744T81BmI
Lol-nice soup you got there slider-->but that shows the working principle,although you put waaaay to much back into it lol.
You seen the current climb first,and then after some time it came back down-as they normally do. But put this is the situation where it gets a very short burst of reverse current between each cycle,and so the next time the cell is drawn from,you have a slightly higher current. During each cycle,the zinc is redeposited onto the zinc plate O0
@ Slider
I been running some test,and i think we may actually be coating the zinc plate in graphene O0
I can actually get a dark grey coating on the zinc plate,and it will put out more current for a longer period of time each time i pulse it with a reverse current. I can carry this experiment out in slow motion kind of,where we do a long drain on the cell over a load,and then send a reverse current back to it for a shorter period of time. The more i repeat this process,the more power i get from the cell.
Centraflow may be interested in this one.
Try magnesium and carbon electrodes with that mixture, I got some magnesium ribbon but it's not very good because it breaks too easily. I found with zinc and carbon electrodes in dirt the carbon developed some hard stuck black scale growing on it in places. I'm interested in setting up shorted galvanic cells for putting current through soil in long pots to grow stuff in. I did do a test with some tomatoes that showed promise at first but I failed and allowed the pots to dry out. I have 3000 tobacco seeds and I want to test two long rectangular planter boxes with copper and either aluminium or zinc coated steel along the long sides, dirt and plants between. I also want to try to find the best current by using a battery and some kind of regulation, so I need three planters a galvanic, a solar/battery planter and a control, but I have to set it up so they get equal sun and water ect.
Going by the claims in some of the old books it does work to boost growth and I believe I have seen the effect for a short time. But alas if I'm gone for too long no one else will water them so I need to set up automatic drip watering or something, maybe they won;t all like the same amount of water or use differing amounts so I'll just have to see.
..
@ slider
I have found an extremely easy way to make a super cap. Next video we put my cell up against a 25 farad supercap O0
It's on-->can you make a cell like this one? O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JcUMu8JqlA
Here is the cell up against a 25 farad super cap. both the super cap and cell are being drained over a 100 ohm resistive load.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klaPRvLurn0
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.04.13, 04:12:18
@ Slider
I been running some test,and i think we may actually be coating the zinc plate in graphene O0
I can actually get a dark grey coating on the zinc plate,and it will put out more current for a longer period of time each time i pulse it with a reverse current. I can carry this experiment out in slow motion kind of,where we do a long drain on the cell over a load,and then send a reverse current back to it for a shorter period of time. The more i repeat this process,the more power i get from the cell.
Centraflow may be interested in this one.
I do not know what is in your electrolyte makeup so can't comment on the graphene, but I expect the coating is an oxide of some sort, once I know the chemical composition of the electrolyte I probably can guess on that oxide.
The switching of polarity in a special way causes some interesting results O0 also causes some interesting chemical formations not only on the electrodes, but also in the electrolyte.
The carbon formation "graphene" in my SMD was mainly created by injecting CO2 at the changeover electrode, the oxygen is used up to create the oxide once the hydrogen had done it's work. Graphene oxide is nearly non conductive, only when the hydrogen does it's work on the oxide does it become conductive and pure graphene.
My time has been very limited just lately and oh for a good lab with the equipment needed, or be able to work in someone else's lab with that equipment needed. We are so near a point of great discovery I think, and it goes deeper than one can imagine.
good work Brad O0
regards
Mike 8)
For Ref: the following can be used for co-deposition in electrolytic cells.
It is interesting what Chet posted about the Navy and LENR research, I think all this is part and parcel of the same pot, I have had the high heat but not a melt down yet as I have never run the SMD system long enough, that just might be the next thing to do. :D
Read all of that article, things start to make more sence
The metals used as matrices for electrolytic co-deposition:
Nickel (Ni)
Copper (Cu)
Silver (Ag)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb) alloys
Aluminum (Al)
Gold (Au)
Zinc (Zn)
The following substances are used as the second phase particles:
Aluminum oxide (Al2O3)
Carbide ceramics|Silicon carbide (SiC)
Tungsten carbide (WC)
Diamond (C)
Silicon oxide (SiO2)
Graphite (C)
Thermoplastic Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
Molybdenum disulphide
Boron nitride (BN)
regards
Mike 8)
@Mike - How interesting about the oxidation process. Link that with electrically charged static deposition on the electrode surface and do we get graphene oxide ?
There are a bunch of ways of making graphene (see Robert Murray-Smith vids on YouTube) and I do wonder.
The twice treated structure of TinMans is showing great promise and getting stronger...!
@Farmhand. Great info. The 27MHz system works, i'll always stand by that method. Yield is greater, pests don't bother the plants and weeding is a thing of the past. Grab a 27Mhz R/C transmitter from a toy car. Put it in a gallon of rain water for 15 seconds, water the plants. Repeat daily (don't need to use full gallon each time of course). Chet may also say to name the plants and talk to them about life the universe and everything...but I think that's just how I grow my plants !
Ok Mr 'its on' guy...lol, have got something to show and am uploading it now.
Have just set up a PC in the livingroom and the vid output seems wonky, but hopefully will balance out over at YouTube.
Anyway, ever seen a cell rise in voltage and current when loaded ?
Current of 45mA too.
Update, vid:
(2min 23sec)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_sunUvPMTk
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.04.13, 17:11:18
@Mike - How interesting about the oxidation process. Link that with electrically charged static deposition on the electrode surface and do we get graphene oxide ?
There are a bunch of ways of making graphene (see Robert Murray-Smith vids on YouTube) and I do wonder.
The twice treated structure of TinMans is showing great promise and getting stronger...!
Yes I know Robert.
Graphene will only be created if there was carbon to start with in some form or other, in my case it was the CO2 added and absorbed into the electrolyte. If there is no carbon, oxides will still form of what ever metal the oxygen comes into contact with and can react. In an electrolytic cell that oxygen is O and not O2, it is very reactive looking at electron exchange.
Looking at your video I noticed you used Boron, look at the second phase non metalic elements I have posted, along with the metal electrodes (copper and zinc) in co-deposition. I did not note what else you used, just that the Boron stuck out infront of me ;)
regards
Mike 8)
A tongue in cheek message was put in the description box for the vid..because of UFO's allegedly stealing Boron from the Earth :D
Goes well with the space rock that TinMan has haha
Can only imagine that the aliens are looking to create softer laundry. Starched and cardboard like underwear are no good for 8 light year space journeys. It would also explain why they seem to always be nekkid when seen...their clothes are not comfortable.
Here's a link, to buckyballs of boron that indicate similarity to carbon: http://lurch2.blogspot.com/2014/07/boron-buckyball-discovered.html
Will be making 2 more of these. In 1 will be aluminium and graphite electrodes (Stanford Uni have just created a battery that charges in 1 minute based on aluminium: http://www.wskg.org/pbs/battery-could-charge-your-phone-one-minute-ask-stanford ) and the other will have BBQ charcoal and a carbon rod.
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.04.13, 17:11:18
Ok Mr 'its on' guy...lol, have got something to show and am uploading it now.
Have just set up a PC in the livingroom and the vid output seems wonky, but hopefully will balance out over at YouTube.
QuoteAnyway, ever seen a cell rise in voltage and current when loaded ?
Current of 45mA too.
Update, vid:
(2min 23sec)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_sunUvPMTk
Indeed-just built one last night lol. But cant show you that one until you see the next video O0
You can now get rid of all those bad chemicals -->all you will need is some fish and chip enhancement juice :D
Video up in a couple of hours-very slow today.
For those that think this is a galvanic process-->i has just successfully used stainless steel and copper to get the same effect O0
There is something in the liquid that is giving us this effect.
Due to the last design i made that used a water cell that did not destroy the galv plate being !!borrowed!! by a certain some one,and used to make some money from,i am keeping the !how to! video unlisted. Those here that would like to see how i process these cell's can email me,and i will forward the link to them-->on the understanding that it is kept with you for the time being. I have forwarded the video to Mark(slider),and have asked him to replicate it,and post his result's<-- i forgot to put that bit in the email Mark.
If you could take the time to try this method out Mark,and post a video of your finding's,that would be great. I don't mind you posting a public video,as long as you don't mention the liquid being used just yet<--need to keep this away from tech thieves for a while lol.
So after much testing of the cells,i have started the build on the pendulum O0.
I have 3 new cells made,and most of the frame work is done__>no laughing at my wood work,as I'm a metal man ;D
Found an old coil i made some time ago for another project-cant remember what it was lol. Anyway,it has 3.2 ohms across the primary,and 4.7 ohms across the secondary-->spot on for a system 6 volts and under.This one will only be using 3 cells in series,so should be around a 2.7 volt supply to the coil. So that gives us a maximum current across the coil of 843mA each pulse-->should be low enough for the cells to keep up,but we wont be driving it that hard i wouldn't think lol.
I think your woodwork is great, much better than mine ;D
regards
Mike 8)
Mike
I was thinking the same thing :-[
Great minds think alike!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkdSGxd3dt8
Hi Brad
You might try liquid ammonia and acetic acid "white vinegar" as like in sodium acetate, this is ammonium acetate. It has a very high ion concentration and can make great electrolytic capacitors, also depending on the electrodes can become what I would call a battery cap of high power density.
Off the shelf, in kitchen, products that cost next to nothing ;)
regards
Mike 8)
PS Heat it up slowly to make it more concentrated, but still keep it liquid. Best done in a pressure cooker and let it cool slowly and naturally, the results are outstanding :D
Pretty fine woodworking there TinMan....it's missing the wood glue runs, the nails sticking out and the sharp wood splinters !
Win O0
That's half the fun Mike indeed, costs nothing if the stuff is there anyway.
Here's a pic of your Ammonia/Vinegar solution on test here.
Originally, I had 2x carbon pieces in there, BBQ charcoal and the rod from a dead AA battery. It would charge with a 3V coin cell but tailed off on the blocking oscillator within a couple of minutes.
So, I ditched the BBQ piece and used aluminium for the negative...no conditioning, fired right up.
Flash rate is ~5Hz, easy enough to capture on the camera.
Galv steel would work better, but aluminium is always something a little more challenging to use successfully.
Any mix which can output to such a low power load (0.5V 10uA) without a charge or conditioning being applied will run forever...if non reactive electrodes are used. I like carbon/carbon, but am looking forward to seeing what the aluminium does. If the sacrificial end with this mixture is the positive, then it will similarly run on and on.
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.04.21, 11:01:14
Hi Brad
You might try liquid ammonia and acetic acid "white vinegar" as like in sodium acetate, this is ammonium acetate. It has a very high ion concentration and can make great electrolytic capacitors, also depending on the electrodes can become what I would call a battery cap of high power density.
Off the shelf, in kitchen, products that cost next to nothing ;)
regards
Mike 8)
PS Heat it up slowly to make it more concentrated, but still keep it liquid. Best done in a pressure cooker and let it cool slowly and naturally, the results are outstanding :D
You are spot on Mike,as i am indeed using white vinegar,and only white vinegar. Being able to recharge the cells,and have that dark grey coating build up on them just go's to show that the zinc is no longer being consumed O0
Well i have the pendulum motor up and running,but not on the liquid cells yet,as i need to get some more zinc plate.
but it is interesting how almost completely dead batteries can seem to have quite a bit of energy left in them. they seem to jump to life once current is drawn from them.
next we will be looking at a true energy multiplier,that draws energy in from the environment. O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrjCRU0_F_8
Is the venturi really an energy amplifying device?
Here in this test,the air flow is regulated at 5psi,and flow restricted by the 1.6mm jet. The extra force produced to spin the generator faster to produce more power is coming only from the environment O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsDXKN4Mosw
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.04.25, 07:24:35
Is the venturi really an energy amplifying device?
Here in this test,the air flow is regulated at 5psi,and flow restricted by the 1.6mm jet. The extra force produced to spin the generator faster to produce more power is coming only from the environment O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsDXKN4Mosw
Interesting - nice little experiment, TinMan. No measurements yet of actual input ENERGY, which would be important at some stage of the analysis.
Air is a fluid, and so is water. I wonder if a water-based venturi system might give an interesting result?
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.04.25, 07:24:35
Is the venturi really an energy amplifying device?
Here in this test,the air flow is regulated at 5psi,and flow restricted by the 1.6mm jet. The extra force produced to spin the generator faster to produce more power is coming only from the environment O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsDXKN4Mosw
I don't want to be picky Tinman but air flow is described in liters per minute ect. Air pressure is in psi. Pressure and flow are very different and the flow might be calculated by considering the air temperature, pressure and the orifice size (size of hole). Or better still a calibrated flow meter can be used.
As a boilermaker the main consideration with the use of welding gasses and such is flow rate, the gas fittings for a mig welder should include a flow meter to monitor the flow rate and a pressure meter to monitor the pressure in the gas cylinder (how much is left).
I think you just made a word typo. I just thought I would clarify that.
..
The amount of air flowing out the nozzle is a volume per time period value. eg, liters per minute. In the case of temperature the flow rate out of the nozzle is unrelated except for the temperature of the stored gas compared to ambient temp. And if the gas temp rises between tank and nozzle, before leaving the nozzle. Is what I think.
Very difficult to quantify I think. Easy to measure flow rate, take a bag or such of a certain volume when full and fill it in so many seconds then calculate to the amount of air flow per minute.
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.04.29, 07:20:36
I don't want to be picky Tinman but air flow is described in liters per minute ect. Air pressure is in psi. Pressure and flow are very different and the flow might be calculated by considering the air temperature, pressure and the orifice size (size of hole). Or better still a calibrated flow meter can be used.
As a boilermaker the main consideration with the use of welding gasses and such is flow rate, the gas fittings for a mig welder should include a flow meter to monitor the flow rate and a pressure meter to monitor the pressure in the gas cylinder (how much is left).
I think you just made a word typo. I just thought I would clarify that.
..
The amount of air flowing out the nozzle is a volume per time period value. eg, liters per minute. In the case of temperature the flow rate out of the nozzle is unrelated except for the temperature of the stored gas compared to ambient temp. And if the gas temp rises between tank and nozzle, before leaving the nozzle. Is what I think.
Very difficult to quantify I think. Easy to measure flow rate, take a bag or such of a certain volume when full and fill it in so many seconds then calculate to the amount of air flow per minute.
One flaw in your logic farmhand.
In order for the fan to do more work,and the pressure being regulated to 10psi,then the only way to increase the work output is by increasing the flow rate or amount of gas imparting a force upon the fan blades.
The flow rate from the compressor is set,in that X amount of gas can pass through a 1.6mm nozzle per minute while regulated to a pressure of 5psi. We know that the venturi is drawing in extra gas,so we know that the fan blade see's an increase of gas flow when the venturi is put into action. This is also confirmed by the fact that more work is being done when the venturi is open,because the flow rate from the compressor is a set volume.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2015.04.25, 14:39:16
Interesting - nice little experiment, TinMan. No measurements yet of actual input ENERGY, which would be important at some stage of the analysis.
Air is a fluid, and so is water. I wonder if a water-based venturi system might give an interesting result?
I used to design venturi water circulating systems for central heating and domestic hot water heating, all from solid fuel boilers without automatic control.
regards
Mike 8)
So you can't measure the amount of air directed to the fan with and without the Venturi ? Or at least the input and output with and without the Venturi ?
I was only pointing out that you made a word typo, anyway. You wrote the flow is set at 5psi, psi is a pressure value. I realize you may have meant to write the flow rate, or that you intended people to decipher that the flow rate is restricted by the pressure and the hole size. But some might be confused by it. Pressure in psi or kpa and flow rate in liters per minute or some other volume per time value.
The only logic I offered was a way to actually measure the flow rate. People use that method to measure the flow rate of water or other fluids.
..
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.04.29, 23:22:45
So you can't measure the amount of air directed to the fan with and without the Venturi ? Or at least the input and output with and without the Venturi ?
I was only pointing out that you made a word typo, anyway. You wrote the flow is set at 5psi, psi is a pressure value. I realize you may have meant to write the flow rate, or that you intended people to decipher that the flow rate is restricted by the pressure and the hole size. But some might be confused by it. Pressure in psi or kpa and flow rate in liters per minute or some other volume per time value.
The only logic I offered was a way to actually measure the flow rate. People use that method to measure the flow rate of water or other fluids.
..
Ah yes,i see what you mean. It should say gas flow pressure is regulated at 5psi,and flow rate is determond by that pressure and the 1.6mm nozzle. I will see if i can find my flow meter,and will run the test again with that in the delivery line.
Re done the test with flow gauges on the delivery and on the venturi O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fQkEp0iDGo
Hi
With the venturi open your volume of air goes up at a little cost to the pressure, the venturi inlet has no restriction unlike the pressure inlet.
It is like voltage and current, your volume of air is the voltage and your pressure is the current (voltage goes up and your current goes down). The interesting thing is with air or another liquid, it seems to be not linear, so yes you can get more out in relation to no venturi, with the venturi your volume of air has increased far in excess of the pressure drop due to that venturi (more volume leaving the outlet the more the pressure drop but seems non linear).
All interesting stuff, but can we really make use of it energy wise?
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.04.30, 11:18:11
Hi
With the venturi open your volume of air goes up at a little cost to the pressure, the venturi inlet has no restriction unlike the pressure inlet.
It is like voltage and current, your volume of air is the voltage and your pressure is the current (voltage goes up and your current goes down). The interesting thing is with air or another liquid, it seems to be not linear, so yes you can get more out in relation to no venturi, with the venturi your volume of air has increased far in excess of the pressure drop due to that venturi (more volume leaving the outlet the more the pressure drop but seems non linear).
All interesting stuff, but can we really make use of it energy wise?
regards
Mike 8)
We just did-didnt we?.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.04.30, 11:30:16
We just did-didnt we?.
Yeh, wrote that badly in a hurry :)
Not sure you could scale it up enough to do any good. The problem would be when a good size load was put on the generator I think. You could play with the pressure but pressure costs input power, the volume has a limit in relation to the pressure and apperature of the venturi, not so easy, wish it was.
regards
Mike 8)
This might explain better
As air is ejected from nozzle A, it mixes with the air in the tube at B Imagine that the air from the nozzle mixes with four times as much air. Momentum is conserved, so this cloud of air, now five times as much as came out of the nozzle, is now moving at one fifth the speed of the jet from the nozzle. All that air moving to the right requires replacement air to be pulled in from the left. So we now have suction at C.
Moving five times as much air may seem efficient, but the kinetic energy of the moving air is a function of velocity squared. So we may have five times as much air moving, but the kinetic energy per volume of air is now 1/25th of what it was in the jet, and the total kinetic energy is one fifth of what we started with. Venturi pumps are not efficient.
regards
Mike 8)
This is an idea of using a possible power gain
https://books.google.es/books?id=Gp_pAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=is+there+a+power+gain+on+the+output+from+using+a+venturi&source=bl&ots=0sU29KGLSO&sig=v4JJuDIeehMtokd3iApfBabK0HE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j1lCVZiOHMusU9yogOAC&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=is%20there%20a%20power%20gain%20on%20the%20output%20from%20using%20a%20venturi&f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrouded_tidal_turbine
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.04.30, 16:48:16
This might explain better
As air is ejected from nozzle A, it mixes with the air in the tube at B Imagine that the air from the nozzle mixes with four times as much air. Momentum is conserved, so this cloud of air, now five times as much as came out of the nozzle, is now moving at one fifth the speed of the jet from the nozzle. All that air moving to the right requires replacement air to be pulled in from the left. So we now have suction at C.
Moving five times as much air may seem efficient, but the kinetic energy of the moving air is a function of velocity squared. So we may have five times as much air moving, but the kinetic energy per volume of air is now 1/25th of what it was in the jet, and the total kinetic energy is one fifth of what we started with. Venturi pumps are not efficient.
regards
Mike 8)
Lol-you had a copy/pastergasm Mike lol-->i read that very paragraph as well on that web site O0
But i have been conducting test on a two tank system,and have managed a result of 110% of the starting energy stored within those two tanks with the venturi alone. I would like to get the results that MarkE calculated for me from the thread (open systems),but OU seems to be down at the moment. I have gone further with this setup,and have achieved a result of 133% using a pneumatic air cylinder. But after that test,MarkE insisted on seeing my setup,and that's where it all ended.
But anyway,there is a way to gain energy from the venturi,and i have already shown how that it possable. As soon as OU is back up,i will go and collect the data from my test(which i should have written down my self),and post it here ,along with a picture and schematic of the setup. This 110% was confirmed by MarkE,and the test was run 5 times on each occasion.
Here is Pomodoro's take on the effect at Energetic forum
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20104-tinmans-true-energy-amplification-device.html
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.01, 12:47:38
Lol-you had a copy/pastergasm Mike lol-->i read that very paragraph as well on that web site O0
But i have been conducting test on a two tank system,and have managed a result of 110% of the starting energy stored within those two tanks with the venturi alone. I would like to get the results that MarkE calculated for me from the thread (open systems),but OU seems to be down at the moment. I have gone further with this setup,and have achieved a result of 133% using a pneumatic air cylinder. But after that test,MarkE insisted on seeing my setup,and that's where it all ended.
But anyway,there is a way to gain energy from the venturi,and i have already shown how that it possable. As soon as OU is back up,i will go and collect the data from my test(which i should have written down my self),and post it here ,along with a picture and schematic of the setup. This 110% was confirmed by MarkE,and the test was run 5 times on each occasion.
Yep a copy and paste as I have not had much time lately, it was the best I could find, first page of google I think ;)
Be careful of Mark E, there is something about that guy which gives me a warning light and bells :D
regards
Mike 8)
Centraflow: I agree
Yea-well im done with him. He is all happy to help until you show excess energy-which of course comes from the environment,and go's back there when put to work-energy is conserved. Im still waiting for OU to come back up,so as i can retrieve my data,and post it here.
TinMan
user Pomodoro at Energetic [pretty sure he is at OU.Com Too]
left this comment after seeing your flow gauge vid
Thanks for the video with the flow meters. Yes, this video is more convincing. More accurate flow measurements are required as I am not sure if those flow meters are accurate under pressure, perhaps some tiny hot wire anemometer in the pressurised pipe. If he can keep the the hot wire at the same current for venturi on and off, then he has improved the efficiency for sure! Someone has to also determine the theoretical maximum efficiency for such a system and see if this system overcomes that. Its a good , simple experiment, well done.
from here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20104-tinmans-true-energy-amplification-device.html?s=5b40dce3165105dd49eee47525b4d925
A close look at the ssg pulse motor by hudini O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX14Pd4tg68
This is something i always wanted to build.
Below is a pic of my center wound toroid transformer. The two sets of copper wires you see are actually wound around a ferrite core. I then incased that inside a larger core(which is a devcon steel putty mix-very magnetic),so as the windings are in the middle of the toroid core itself.The core was aloud to set over night,and was then cooked in the oven at 100*C for an hour-this makes the material very hard. I then wound 10 turns of multi strand speaker wire around the outside of the completed core as my P/in winding. The load is an incandecent bulb rated at 1.5 watts. Both voltages are taken at RMS value,and I/in and I/out were averaged.
Nothing much happened to begin with,and the P/in far exceeded the P/out-->until i hit a frequency of 7.62KHz. At this frequency,the bulb went very bright,but the P/in didnt change. The scope shot below shows the yellow trace across P/in,and the blue trace across the load(bulb)
VRMS in is 1.68,and VRMS across the load is 5.8-->i am only using one of the secondary windings at this time. AVG I/in is 988mA,and average I/out is 253mA
Note how current is still flowing through the load during the off time of the primary coil at an average of 3.5V across the load-->the on time is only 16% of the cycle.
So to explain the two scope shot's below.
I have wound another winding around the outside of the core,so as it has the same length of wire to that of the inner winding's-->(not the same amount of turns-same amount of wire).I am using two identical incandescent bulbs as the load on each output coil-both running at the same time.
The first scope shot shows the blue trace across the primary winding,and the yellow trace across the output coil that is wound around the outside of the core-right along side the primary winding.
As you can see,the output power to the load go's to zero when the primary coil stop's ringing
The second scope shot is with the yellow trace moved from the load on the outer winding to the load(globe) on the inner winding. You can clearly see that even after the primary coil stop's ringing,a current is still flowing from the output coil that is in the center of the core.
The next step is to wind a coil around the outside of the core that has the same number of turn;s to that of the two coils on the inner core-->which is 30 turns,so as our amp turns are equal.. At the moment,the outer output coil has only 10 turn's,as that is all i could get with the length of wire that equaled the length of wire on the inner core coils.
But regardless,it can be clearly seen that the inner coils are recieving a changing magnetic field for a far longer period to that of the outer coil. This transformer is far more efficient than a standard toroid transformer-in that it uses far less wire to achieve a greater output. It also shows that the magnetic field exist 100% of the time toward the center of a toroid,while the magnetic field around the outside of the transformer core ceases to exist when current stops flowing through the primary winding.
Here is a video of the transformer in action-also now has an outer wound secondary for comparison to the inner windings.
There can be no doubt-->the magnetic field at the center of a toroid remains far longer and more powerful than that of the field on the outside of the core.
I am now going to carry out some test using the inner windings as the primary coil,and the outer windings as the secondary coils(output coils).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87Lgu4lNCa8
Nice experiment Tinman, but could it not be (among other things) that your inner toroid is of much better electrical properties
then the outer Devcon liquid steel toroid?
What happens when lowering the working frequency to 50Hz or so?
What happens when using a similar Devcon liquid steel toroid as an inside toroid? (i know, not easily done)
Regards Itsu
The next video will show it all Itsu.
But-if we look at the setup(transformer)as it is,you will note that the magnetic field has further to go through the devcon to get to the inner core than it dose to get to the secondary that is wound right next to the primary-and yet the inner winding produces far more output. In the next video,i show one of the inner windings being used as the primary,and the second inner winding being used as an output. So we are using the inner core and windings as the transformer-->and the results are very poor. This eliminates any chance that the inner core is a better carrier of the magnetic fields. I also drop the frequency right down to 100HTz-and no change in performance O0
This is showing us that the magnetic field in the center of the toroid reduces at a far slower rate than that around the outside of the transformer. All this can be seen in the next video.
THEN-the video after that is probably one you wont want to miss-->i believe we have hit the jackpot O0
But that video wont be up until tomorrow,and i am unsure where to put that video,or the work to follow from it-->if you know what i mean ;)
I think i might have to go and have another look at the TPU thread.
TinMan, can you please show the circuit of the driver/amplifier stage that sits between the FG and the input winding of the coil? Also the exact points for the input voltage measurement...
Thanks,
TK
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.23, 11:52:07
TinMan, can you please show the circuit of the driver/amplifier stage that sits between the FG and the input winding of the coil? Also the exact points for the input voltage measurement...
Thanks,
TK
Below is the amplifier circuit.
But exact points for the input voltage measurements?.Do you mean the battery voltage,or the instantanious voltage across the coil during the on time?-which is when i had the scope across the primary coil.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.23, 12:49:37
Below is the amplifier circuit.
But exact points for the input voltage measurements?.Do you mean the battery voltage,or the instantanious voltage across the coil during the on time?-which is when i had the scope across the primary coil.
Tinman
The way you have the two diodes is creating a VCO, variable controlled oscillator, when the fet turns off the BEMF is putting a voltage between the cathodes of those diodes, this voltage is causing the oscillations seen on the blue trace of your scope until the energy is used up. Maybe that is where the energy in the secondary is coming from for some time after the mosfet is off.
This was just my knee jerk reaction, really I need to look more at it, interesting idea though O0
regards
Mike 8)
P.S.
can you put your scope probe between the two cathodes of D1 and D2? that might prove my theory :-\ you have given it an easier path than through the internal diode of the mosfet to ground.
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.05.23, 13:22:01
Tinman
The way you have the two diodes is creating a VCO, variable controlled oscillator, when the fet turns off the BEMF is putting a voltage between the cathodes of those diodes, this voltage is causing the oscillations seen on the blue trace of your scope until the energy is used up. Maybe that is where the energy in the secondary is coming from for some time after the mosfet is off.
This was just my knee jerk reaction, really I need to look more at it, interesting idea though O0
regards
Mike 8)
I think it more a case that a current loop is formed through L1 and D2,but will throw the scope across the two points you mentioned.
Thanks for posting the schematic.
So in the video you are driving this circuit with the output of the waveform generator. (nice unit, wish I had one!) So normally, the "black" or BNC shield output lead of this generator is connected to the mains ground, and therefore to the ground reference leads of the scope, through the mains wiring. Right? Unless you have isolated either or both instruments from the mains ground.
So I'm concerned about where the grounds go. For the signal feeding the Gate of the mosfet, presumably the other lead from the waveform generator is connected to the Source of the mosfet? But the "input" scope probe and its ground reference are connected across the Primary of your coil set?
See, that's why I wanted you to indicate just exactly where your probes are connected, and the full connection from the waveform generator. It's a pain I know, but otherwise some fellow is going to bother you with questions like this....
;)
Thank you Tinman for sharing.
Your device remember me of the Gabriel device...
http://overunity.com/10518/the-gabriel-device-possible-cop8/#.VWFPQ9m9LTo
Maybe i have the same possibility...
Hey TK
QuoteSo I'm concerned about where the grounds go. For the signal feeding the Gate of the mosfet, presumably the other lead from the waveform generator is connected to the Source of the mosfet? But the "input" scope probe and its ground reference are connected across the Primary of your coil set?
Ground loops are my nemesis, lol, and when I started doing some more interesting things like mosfet diodes in series with an inductance or really anything out of the ordinary it created major headaches. So long as we hold to the ordinary things seem to work okay but when we go beyond that all hell seems to break loose. The problem is with a series inductance the voltage polarity reverses but the current remains in the forward direction thus the mosfet thinks the current has reversed but this is not the case. You probably won't understand this but I found a way to inject a low voltage source into a high voltage conductor mid-stream on the fly if you will because voltage across any given conductor segment is of course low... our bird on the wire. I understand it doesn't work for you because you probably use lumped sum analysis however infinite element analysis opens up so many more opportunities to do more creative things which creates exponentially more problems because few things work as they should in this configuration.
In effect it's a freaking disaster because a person has to basically consider the PD and current within a given cross section of one segment of a conductor having it's own self induction and often variable resistance if you include skin effect/parasitic capacitance. You want to talk about ground loops, what happens when the circuit is floating and the ground is in effect moving?. Fubar
AC
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.23, 16:55:07
Thanks for posting the schematic.
So in the video you are driving this circuit with the output of the waveform generator. (nice unit, wish I had one!) So normally, the "black" or BNC shield output lead of this generator is connected to the mains ground, and therefore to the ground reference leads of the scope, through the mains wiring. Right? Unless you have isolated either or both instruments from the mains ground.
So I'm concerned about where the grounds go. For the signal feeding the Gate of the mosfet, presumably the other lead from the waveform generator is connected to the Source of the mosfet? But the "input" scope probe and its ground reference are connected across the Primary of your coil set?
See, that's why I wanted you to indicate just exactly where your probes are connected, and the full connection from the waveform generator. It's a pain I know, but otherwise some fellow is going to bother you with questions like this....
;)
Ah,ok.
No-my scope is ground isolated through the UPS,so in no way conected to the ground on the SG. I can now place my scope ground any where on a circuit,and it has no effect-even when powering the circuit with my mains power supply.When dealing with 240volt+ circuit's i even disconect the UPS from the mains,and use only the 24 volt battery bank to power the UPS that powers the scope. This eliminates any sort of inductive coupling to the mains through the transformer in the UPS-->and the good thing is,when i unplug the UPS,i dont even have to turn my scope off lol.
Here is the next video on some more test that i carried out on request by PW.
TK-if you read this-->when we do our P/in math to the coil,would we go by the instantaneous voltage across the coil when the AMP switches on?,as using the battery voltage would only include power being dissipated in the rest of the drive circuit. It makes sense to me that the voltage across the primary coil is the voltage that should be used when calculating power consumption by the transformer it self,as the full battery voltage is never across the coil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiirD9mTPZk
Quote from: Wistiti on 2015.05.24, 04:22:50
Thank you Tinman for sharing.
Your device remember me of the Gabriel device...
http://overunity.com/10518/the-gabriel-device-possible-cop8/#.VWFPQ9m9LTo
Maybe i have the same possibility...
I just had a quick read of that thread-interesting. What was the outcome-did anyone get one up and running at all?.
I think they should have kept going with it,as there is a very different magnetic field at play in the center of the core. It's almost as though time it self has no meaning to the magnetic field at the center of the toroid core.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.24, 05:53:30
Here is the next video on some more test that i carried out on request by PW.
TK-if you read this-->when we do our P/in math to the coil,would we go by the instantaneous voltage across the coil when the AMP switches on?,as using the battery voltage would only include power being dissipated in the rest of the drive circuit. It makes sense to me that the voltage across the primary coil is the voltage that should be used when calculating power consumption by the transformer it self,as the full battery voltage is never across the coil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiirD9mTPZk
Measuring just the transformer primary as "input" is OK with me at this point. But... I still need to ask, and comment, about the circuitry and measurement points.
First, the scope probe reference clips are still connected internally at the oscilloscope, aren't they? So Picowatt's suggestion is a good one. If you are measuring the two sides of the transformer by connecting one probe "across" the Primary and one probe "across" the secondary or load, then you are connecting the two sides through the "ground" clips of both probes. It would be better, then, to avoid spurious ringing and other complications, to connect the Primary and Secondary "bottoms" with a short wire directly and use this connection as the Common Ground point for both probes.
Second... your driver circuit is a "high side load" or "low side switch" configuration. This means that the mosfet Drain voltage will be HIGH (at or near battery voltage) when the mosfet is OFF and will be LOW (near the zero voltage level, lifted by the voltage drop of the mosfet). But the mosfet Drain shares a common node with the Common Ground point for the toroid's windings. This means that the phase relationship between Gate Signal and the two signals read by the scope probes may be affected.
So, I'd like to see, if you have time, three scopeshots like this: (referring to my marked-up version of your schematic below)
One shot where one scope probe is connected where the FG is connected: probe tip at the connection marked "FG Red" and reference at "FG Black", and the other scope probe connected at "TP 1", with reference also at "FG Black".
Another shot where one scope probe is connected where FG is connected as before, and the other probe connected with TIP at "Common Probe Ground" (aka mosfet Drain) and reference also at "FG Black"
(These two shots of course "de-isolate" the FG's Black lead back to the system common ground established by the scope probe reference connections.)
A third shot where the two scope probes are connected at TP 1 and TP 2, with both references at "Common Probe Ground" using PW's suggested connection rather than relying on the probe ground lead circuit to make that connection.
Please do all the shots at the same frequency setting, scope channel voltage settings etc.
I think with these three sets of shots we should be able to see clearly the relationship between the mosfet On and Off times and the responses of the transformer windings.
(I haven't watched the latest video yet, so please excuse me if you've already done some of these suggestions)
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.24, 07:58:15
Measuring just the transformer primary as "input" is OK with me at this point. But... I still need to ask, and comment, about the circuitry and measurement points.
First, the scope probe reference clips are still connected internally at the oscilloscope, aren't they? So Picowatt's suggestion is a good one. If you are measuring the two sides of the transformer by connecting one probe "across" the Primary and one probe "across" the secondary or load, then you are connecting the two sides through the "ground" clips of both probes. It would be better, then, to avoid spurious ringing and other complications, to connect the Primary and Secondary "bottoms" with a short wire directly and use this connection as the Common Ground point for both probes.
Second... your driver circuit is a "high side load" or "low side switch" configuration. This means that the mosfet Drain voltage will be HIGH (at or near battery voltage) when the mosfet is OFF and will be LOW (near the zero voltage level, lifted by the voltage drop of the mosfet). But the mosfet Drain shares a common node with the Common Ground point for the toroid's windings. This means that the phase relationship between Gate Signal and the two signals read by the scope probes may be affected.
So, I'd like to see, if you have time, three scopeshots like this: (referring to my marked-up version of your schematic below)
(These two shots of course "de-isolate" the FG's Black lead back to the system common ground established by the scope probe reference connections.)
Please do all the shots at the same frequency setting, scope channel voltage settings etc.
I think with these three sets of shots we should be able to see clearly the relationship between the mosfet On and Off times and the responses of the transformer windings.
(I haven't watched the latest video yet, so please excuse me if you've already done some of these suggestions)
I have also done a video that is uploading ATM,will post when done-but i missed one of the test you wanted in the video.
But i do have the scope shots per test request-as below. The scope shots below are named each test-EG,test one scope shot.
I have not inverted the scope traces in any of the tests,and all frequency,duty cycle,and voltage remain the same throughout each test.
Test one-Quote: One shot where one scope probe is connected where the FG is connected: probe tip at the connection marked "FG Red" and reference at "FG Black", and the other scope probe connected at "TP 1", with reference also at "FG Black".-->Yellow trace is on FG red-Blue trace on TP1
Test two-Quote: Another shot where one scope probe is connected where FG is connected as before, and the other probe connected with TIP at "Common Probe Ground" (aka mosfet Drain) and reference also at "FG Black"--> Yellow trace is on FG red-Blue on mosfet Drain
Test three-Quote: A third shot where the two scope probes are connected at TP 1 and TP 2, with both references at "Common Probe Ground" using PW's suggested connection rather than relying on the probe ground lead circuit to make that connection.-->Yellow trace is on TP2-Blue trace on TP1
Here is the video. I ran out of memory near the end,so there will be a hickup in the video where we seem to start again on one test,as i didnt know when the camera switched off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzx5xHWWYPg
Thanks for doing those tests. Now I'm really confused.
Comparing your shots for Test 1 and Test 2, you can see that the Yellow trace is very different between the two shots. But it should have been exactly the same! Probe grounds are connected in the same place for both tests (FG Black), and the Yellow trace is connected probe tip to FG Red for both tests, right? So why are the yellow traces so different?
ETA: I guess I wasn't too clear where I was asking for the probes to be connected in Test 1 and Test 2. The only difference is that Test 2 moves the Blue probe tip to the other side of the L1 coil.
Please check the diagrams below...
???
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.24, 14:08:31
Thanks for doing those tests. Now I'm really confused.
Comparing your shots for Test 1 and Test 2, you can see that the Yellow trace is very different between the two shots. But it should have been exactly the same! Probe grounds are connected in the same place for both tests (FG Black), and the Yellow trace is connected probe tip to FG Red for both tests, right? So why are the yellow traces so different?
ETA: I guess I wasn't too clear where I was asking for the probes to be connected in Test 1 and Test 2. The only difference is that Test 2 moves the Blue probe tip to the other side of the L1 coil.
Please check the diagrams below...
???
Ah ok.
So here's were things got mixed up. In test two,i moved both grounds of the scope to the drain,and probe A to FG red,and probe B to FG black--my screwup. I will redo tomorrow,and see if i can get it right this time.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.24, 14:08:31
Thanks for doing those tests. Now I'm really confused.
Comparing your shots for Test 1 and Test 2, you can see that the Yellow trace is very different between the two shots. But it should have been exactly the same! Probe grounds are connected in the same place for both tests (FG Black), and the Yellow trace is connected probe tip to FG Red for both tests, right? So why are the yellow traces so different?
ETA: I guess I wasn't too clear where I was asking for the probes to be connected in Test 1 and Test 2. The only difference is that Test 2 moves the Blue probe tip to the other side of the L1 coil.
Please check the diagrams below...
???
Below are the scope shots of the two test. Hope i got it right this time O0
Here is some more testing i have carried out.
I to would like to know what is going on,so as i know what to look for if this comes up again. But at the moment,i just cant spot any mistake. I am about to go and conduct some of the test PW recomended,so we will see where we end up there. I am going to look more into the two diode setup you will see in the video,and compare that with what the globe should look like with that voltage across it. This will let us know once and for all if the scope is showing facts or some sort of artifact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9LV0jikMa8
Here is the latest test video on this transformer. We went back to the start,and checked all windings on the transformer are good O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-PIC6P17VI
Hey tinman
I got some supercaps off Ebay for this kind of thing and built two identical 5 Farad/24v packs. It works very well to test circuits like yours and since the primary/secondary are isolated from one another it should not be difficult to route the output back to the input. If I was testing this I would first try input and output caps to see where the final voltages end up then try looping the output back to the input then try looping the output back to the input while the input is powering a 555 timer to pulse the circuit. If the last scenario works while powering a load then your the man.
I use my DSO for everything but when it comes to accurately measuring power and energy it takes forever to setup and half the time the measure is questionable at best unless it is a pure sine or DC. It's just not worth the time using a scope in my opinion and I can prove a circuit in minutes versus hours with the scope using my simple capacitor based system. I have been down this road before and it can get pretty frustrating moreso if there are ground loops in the circuit which screws everything up.
AC
Now you have my attention Tinman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt5Mjau_Ehk
Although the measurements are a bit dodgy here.
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.05.27, 00:13:53
Now you have my attention Tinman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt5Mjau_Ehk
Although the measurements are a bit dodgy here.
Some have seen something worth looking at,and some have not. I guess it is up to each person to make there own choice,and choose what to do about it--build it,or not :)
Replicating Tinmans special transformer
7cm Potcore with small yoke inside
L1 (Prim) has 20t awg 23 (0.6mm), 8.5mH @ 10KHz / 0.5 Ohm
L2 (inner) has 30t awg 28 (0.3mm), 307uH @ 10KHz / 0.4 Ohm
L2 (outer) has 30t awg 28 (0.3mm), 18.5mH @ 10KHz / 1.4 Ohm
Load on both L2's is a 22 Ohm resistor (L2 outer resistor getting hot)
Using IRF740's instead of IRF840 MOSFETs
2x 1N5408 diodes
12V input from PS
7KHz @ 4% d.c. from FG
Screenshot:
yellow across L2 (outer) signal inverted!!
Blue across L2 (inner) signal inverted!!
Will do some more tests, but it seems that my inductance relation (L2 inner / outer) is way off compared to Tinmans setup :(
So my results are not anywhere near Tinmans.
Regards Itsu
That looks very nice Itsu!
You are getting some of the slight negative voltages that TinMan is seeing.
What would happen if you simply reversed the connection of the L1 Primary to the driver board? Would you then be able to display the two traces without inverting them? ;)
Here's where I'm at, with my setup at the moment. I'm not able to see any power in the "off" time because the current during that time is so low. I see around 2 volts negative peak and around 4 to 8 mA negative peak current, so the power in that portion is at most 16 mW, but the peak power is nearly 2 W, so I have to use a scale (500 mW/div) that can't show up such small levels of power during the "off" time. So the "off time" power looks just like a straight line at zero. If I boost the sensitivity to show some power in this portion, the peaks are way offscreen and the measurements are screwed up by this clipping. Average power is 65-70 mW.
This is with a 33 ohm load on my second potcore, a small one with 30 turn primary and 90 turn secondary all inside the core. FG driving at -2, +10 volts, 12 V SLA battery as source. A one-ohm current viewing resistor is in series with the 33 ohm load. Ch1 is voltage across the total 34 ohms, Ch2 is voltage drop across the 1 ohm resistor, Math is Ch1xCh2.
Tk,
yes, reversing the connection of the L1 Primary swaps the output direction, also reversing the both L2 connections does that for each L2 coil.
I have setup it now as i do not need to invert any channel.
I have changed to 33 Ohm resistors on each L2 coil now too (½ watt), but the L2 outer coil resistor is getting hot.
Also my duty cycle was adjusted to 10% to show some better pulse on the L2 inner.
I have the same problem as you as that the voltage / current (power) through the L2 inner coil is very low, much lower then through the L2 outer coil.
On a freshly calibrated scope using a 12V SLA battery as power source and the FG set at -2V, 10V @ 7KHz and 10% d.c. i too see no power during the off time.
Blue is the voltage across the L2 inner coil load resistor (33 ohm)
green is the current through this L2 inner coil load resistor (with current probe controller set to 10mA/div., so same as the green trace display)
red is math function Ch2 (blue) * Ch4 (green).
No sign of any power during the off time.
Guess we need a much better coupling between L2 inner and L1 primary and/or more inductance on the L2 inner toroid (yoke in my case) to come close to Tinmans results.
Regards Itsu
I filled my small pot core transformer with the steel putty that i used on my big transformer,but the results where no better than they were without the putty. The little one just dosnt perform like my bigger unit :(
But i have now got the bigger one tuned to near optimal performance O0.
Im now at 7v ,and a duty cycle of 13%--> seems to be the best i can get it. Below is a scope shot of some test's i carried out tonight. I now have the current and voltage during the off time that close to constant it's not funny. But im not sure how this is happening,as you need a changing magnetic field to produce current ???. When the field is changing-lets say decreasing,the voltage and current should also decrease. If the field strength is increasing,then we would see an increase in the voltage and current trace. So im at a loss as to why the voltage and current traces seem so constant.
Anyway,the blue trace is my current-over a 1 ohm CSR,and my yellow trace is across the globe.
Here is the blown up version with a red horizontal line just under the traces,to give you a reference as to how stable the voltage and current values are during the off period.
Right, that's flat :)
I lowered the driving frequency from 7KHz to 600Hz to be able to show how long it takes for my voltage and current to return to zero, see screenshot.
Could you try something similar?
Regards Itsu
Next to my yoke inside the potcore combo, i created a new toroid set, see picture.
The coil on the inner toroid is 55t awg 22 and 17.4mH @ 10KHz and 0.3 Ohm.
The coil on the inner/outer toroid is 30t awg 22 and 12mH @ 10KHz and 0.4 Ohm.
The setup is still 12V (300mA) from a SLA, 7KHz from the FG -2V, 10V 10% duty cycle, 33 Ohm load on the inner coil.
screenshot:
Blue is voltage across this 33 Ohm load
Green is current through this 33 Ohm load (current controller set to 50mA/div., so green / red values need to be taken times 5
red is math ch2 (blue) * ch 4 (green).
We see a faster return to zero compared to my other potcore/yoke combo.
The MOSFET heatsinks and the toroid are getting lukewarm, due to dissipating the bulk of the input power (3.6W).
Regards itsu
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.27, 17:03:45
I now have the current and voltage during the off time that close to constant it's not funny. But im not sure how this is happening,as you need a changing magnetic field to produce current ???.
I explained this (but apparently not well enough).
The energy in the secondary is STORED. That means that you can remove the source (the changing primary current) and the sec. coil has a certain amount of stored energy (in the form of a magnetic field) it can release to its load. In other words, long after the primary switches OFF and there is no longer a changing magnetic field in the primary, the secondary can still be dumping its energy into a load.
Is it clear enough now?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.05.27, 23:50:12
I explained this (but apparently not well enough).
The energy in the secondary is STORED. That means that you can remove the source (the changing primary current) and the sec. coil has a certain amount of stored energy (in the form of a magnetic field) it can release to its load. In other words, long after the primary switches OFF and there is no longer a changing magnetic field in the primary, the secondary can still be dumping its energy into a load.
Is it clear enough now?
No argument there Poynt O0
But i am just looking into why the off time period power from the secondary is giving me MORE delivered power that it dose during the on time period. So this is why i posted these questions on OU
Quote:
Below is the schematic with test points and CSR value. The yellow trace is across the load(globe),and the blue trace is across the CSR. The scope shot shows the trace results with D2 in place. What i want to know is-
1- will the yellow trace(positive voltage value) increase with D2 removed during the on cycle,or will it decrease?.
2-Will the yellow trace(negative voltage value) increase with D2 removed during the off cycle,or will it decrease.
3- Will the blue trace(forward current value) increase with D2 removed during the on cycle,or will it decrease?.
4- Will the blue trace(reverse current value) increase with D2 removed during the off cycle,or will it decrease?.
5- Will the P/in increase with D2 removed,or will it decrease?.
Quote:
"But i am just looking into why the off time period power from the secondary is giving me MORE delivered power that it dose during the on time period. So this is why i posted these questions on OU"
Let's do a rough _energy_ calculation to see what's happening. You are using a 1 ohm CSR, and the Blue trace is the Vdrop across this CSR, so it is displayed at 500 mA per division, right?
So just roughly squaring off the waveforms in that scopeshot above and doing some math, we have for the positive portion of one period roughly 650 mA x 13.5 V = 8.8 W, or 8.8 Joules per Second. But this is happening for about 25 microseconds, so the energy in this portion is 8.8 J/s x 0.000025 s = 0.00022 Joules.
For the negative portion of one period, we have about - 190 mA x -2.8 V = about 0.53 W, or 0.53 Joules per Second. But this is happening for about 113 microseconds. So the energy in this portion is 0.53 J/s x 0.000113 s = 0.000059 Joules.
So the energy delivered in the "off" time is about 59/220 = about 0.27 times that delivered during the "on" time.
Please check my math and assumptions, I am prone to misplacing decimal points sometimes!
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.28, 05:27:32
Quote:
"But i am just looking into why the off time period power from the secondary is giving me MORE delivered power that it dose during the on time period. So this is why i posted these questions on OU"
Let's do a rough _energy_ calculation to see what's happening. You are using a 1 ohm CSR, and the Blue trace is the Vdrop across this CSR, so it is displayed at 500 mA per division, right?
So just roughly squaring off the waveforms in that scopeshot above and doing some math, we have for the positive portion of one period roughly 650 mA x 13.5 V = 8.8 W, or 8.8 Joules per Second. But this is happening for about 25 microseconds, so the energy in this portion is 8.8 J/s x 0.000025 s = 0.00022 Joules.
For the negative portion of one period, we have about - 190 mA x -2.8 V = about 0.53 W, or 0.53 Joules per Second. But this is happening for about 113 microseconds. So the energy in this portion is 0.53 J/s x 0.000113 s = 0.000059 Joules.
So the energy delivered in the "off" time is about 59/220 = about 0.27 times that delivered during the "on" time.
Please check my math and assumptions, I am prone to misplacing decimal points sometimes!
TK
If both the average voltage on the CSR and across the globe are negative,how do we get more power in the positive direction.
So if we use our peak voltage X's our average current,and we get our average current by using ohm's law to calculate current,we would have I=V/R. So that would be -40mV/1 ???
Or we take our peak current,and X's that by average voltage. So (about)700mV x 1ohm = 700mA.
So now it is 700mA X's minus 200mV ???-->or do i have this wrong,and we have to use RMS voltages or something?.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.28, 06:20:09
TK
If both the average voltage on the CSR and across the globe are negative,how do we get more power in the positive direction.
So if we use our peak voltage X's our average current,and we get our average current by using ohm's law to calculate current,we would have I=V/R. So that would be -40mV/1 ???
Or we take our peak current,and X's that by average voltage. So (about)700mV x 1ohm = 700mA.
So now it is 700mA X's minus 200mV ???-->or do i have this wrong,and we have to use RMS voltages or something?.
In the first place I think you are focussing too much on the scope's reported "averages". I believe that the scope is just using what is displayed on the screen to calculate those averages. So unless you are very careful about setting horizontal scale and trigger delay, you can have more, or less, than a complete integer's worth of cycles on the screen, and hence going into the average calculation. If the "average" number changes as you change your horizontal scale then this is probably what is happening. Up to a point, these "averages" will be more accurate the more complete cycles you have displayed on the screen. For example if you have three "negative" parts of a waveform displayed but only two "positive" parts displayed, the average calculated in this way will err towards the "negative" value. You may have a menu choice in there somewhere to get the scope to calculate either using the screen data or the entire memory buffer data; most often just the displayed data on the screen will be used. I'll check the manual to see if I can find out more information about this a bit later on.
Next, the CSR "automagically" performs the Ohm's Law calculation for you in its instantaneous readings. If you are looking at a 1 ohm CSR with a scope probe, then the actual Current in Amps = the voltage reading in Volts. The "blue" trace then gives the correct current at any place along the waveform. OK, so now you have instantaneous voltage and current values to go into the power calculation. If you scope will at least display the power waveform, but won't give you the measurements in "numbers in boxes" you can still get the measurements you need off the screen by counting and estimating graticule divisions.
But even if you can't display a power waveform you can proceed as I did in the post above, by mentally "squaring off" the peaks to get their areas. So for a single period, you chop off the tops and use them to fill in the sides, so to speak, until you have a mental picture of a perfectly rectangular pair of areas, one above and one below the zero reference line. Then, for the duration of the area, the "peak" value is the same as the true "average" value since the pulse is flat on top (or bottom) and vertical on the sides. So you can just multiply the squared-off "peak" values of the positive current pulse times the positive voltage pulse and get the power represented by that portion of the waveform. Then a simple multiplication by the duration of that portion gives you the energy concerned. Ditto for the negative going portions: square them off, multiply "peak" (= "average") for that portion, then multiply by the duration. The result is in Joules of energy for the two parts of the single period of the waveform.
This process is the equivalent of performing the instantaneous multiplication of Current and Voltage to get a Power waveform, then integrating that Power waveform across time to obtain an energy curve in Joules.
In the old days, people would do things like trace the waveform onto fine-grid graph paper and count up the squares to find the areas, or even cut out the shapes from the paper and then weigh the cutout bits on an analytical balance to find the difference in weights which correspond to the difference in areas.
(In my own scopetrace that I posted up above I got the Current probe attenuation wrong. I forgot I was using a 10x attenuated probe instead of a direct connection to the CSR. So the Current is actually displayed at 200mA/div and the Power trace value is actually at 5W/div instead of 500 mW/div. So I have peak output wattage near 19 Watts, but this only occurs for about 5 percent of the time. Squaring off the Power peak I estimate about 14 Watts average during that 5 percent, so across the entire waveform I get a final average of about 14 x .05 = 700mW, which accounts for the heating in the three parallel 100 ohm 2Watt carbon power resistors, and the brightness of the small bulb if that is used instead. The power during the "off" portion is so small that it doesn't even show up in the scope trace, so to first order it can be neglected.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.28, 11:01:14
In the first place I think you are focussing too much on the scope's reported "averages". I believe that the scope is just using what is displayed on the screen to calculate those averages. So unless you are very careful about setting horizontal scale and trigger delay, you can have more, or less, than a complete integer's worth of cycles on the screen, and hence going into the average calculation. If the "average" number changes as you change your horizontal scale then this is probably what is happening. Up to a point, these "averages" will be more accurate the more complete cycles you have displayed on the screen. For example if you have three "negative" parts of a waveform displayed but only two "positive" parts displayed, the average calculated in this way will err towards the "negative" value. You may have a menu choice in there somewhere to get the scope to calculate either using the screen data or the entire memory buffer data; most often just the displayed data on the screen will be used. I'll check the manual to see if I can find out more information about this a bit later on.
Next, the CSR "automagically" performs the Ohm's Law calculation for you in its instantaneous readings. If you are looking at a 1 ohm CSR with a scope probe, then the actual Current in Amps = the voltage reading in Volts. The "blue" trace then gives the correct current at any place along the waveform. OK, so now you have instantaneous voltage and current values to go into the power calculation. If you scope will at least display the power waveform, but won't give you the measurements in "numbers in boxes" you can still get the measurements you need off the screen by counting and estimating graticule divisions.
But even if you can't display a power waveform you can proceed as I did in the post above, by mentally "squaring off" the peaks to get their areas. So for a single period, you chop off the tops and use them to fill in the sides, so to speak, until you have a mental picture of a perfectly rectangular pair of areas, one above and one below the zero reference line. Then, for the duration of the area, the "peak" value is the same as the true "average" value since the pulse is flat on top (or bottom) and vertical on the sides. So you can just multiply the squared-off "peak" values of the positive current pulse times the positive voltage pulse and get the power represented by that portion of the waveform. Then a simple multiplication by the duration of that portion gives you the energy concerned. Ditto for the negative going portions: square them off, multiply "peak" (= "average") for that portion, then multiply by the duration. The result is in Joules of energy for the two parts of the single period of the waveform.
This process is the equivalent of performing the instantaneous multiplication of Current and Voltage to get a Power waveform, then integrating that Power waveform across time to obtain an energy curve in Joules.
In the old days, people would do things like trace the waveform onto fine-grid graph paper and count up the squares to find the areas, or even cut out the shapes from the paper and then weigh the cutout bits on an analytical balance to find the difference in weights which correspond to the difference in areas.
(In my own scopetrace that I posted up above I got the Current probe attenuation wrong. I forgot I was using a 10x attenuated probe instead of a direct connection to the CSR. So the Current is actually displayed at 200mA/div and the Power trace value is actually at 5W/div instead of 500 mW/div. So I have peak output wattage near 19 Watts, but this only occurs for about 5 percent of the time. Squaring off the Power peak I estimate about 14 Watts average during that 5 percent, so across the entire waveform I get a final average of about 14 x .05 = 700mW, which accounts for the heating in the three parallel 100 ohm 2Watt carbon power resistors, and the brightness of the small bulb if that is used instead. The power during the "off" portion is so small that it doesn't even show up in the scope trace, so to first order it can be neglected.)
I will have to keep trying to work out the math on my scope O0
The first thing to try would be to vary the horizontal timebase setting to see if those "average" values change with more or fewer cycles displayed on the screen. This will probably tell you if the scope is using just the screen display for the computed measurements.
On my scope I have the choice for those "left menu" measurements, they can use either the screen display or a portion of it defined by some cursors. I don't think I have the option to use the whole memory buffer for those measurements. The "hardware frequency counter" at top right is always using the full memory buffer though.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.28, 06:20:09
TK
If both the average voltage on the CSR and across the globe are negative,how do we get more power in the positive direction.
So if we use our peak voltage X's our average current,and we get our average current by using ohm's law to calculate current,we would have I=V/R. So that would be -40mV/1 ???
Or we take our peak current,and X's that by average voltage. So (about)700mV x 1ohm = 700mA.
So now it is 700mA X's minus 200mV ???-->or do i have this wrong,and we have to use RMS voltages or something?.
How did we get on this kick of using average voltage and/or current for computing Pout?
The only time you can use average voltage or current with switched circuits is when computing Pin, AND when the VDC supply is steady. As follows: Pin(avg) = Vdc (bat or psu) x I(avg).
However, IF your load is a pure resistance and you have a good true rms meter (or scope), you can use the rms voltage across the resistor and compute Pout via the following: Pout(avg) = Vrms
2/R. Just make sure you know what the "hot" value of R is when you are computing the power.
If the load is not purely resistive, then you must use the instantaneous method.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.05.27, 17:03:45
I So im at a loss as to why the voltage and current traces seem so constant.
Already explained. The time constant of your L1I coil is large relative to the time constant of L1O.
Quote
Anyway,the blue trace is my current-over a 1 ohm CSR,and my yellow trace is across the globe.
Great. But you can not use the average current or voltage to compute the Pout.
It is quite possible for the average current to come out to 0 Amps, as you saw already. How then could you say you have 0 Watts going to the bulb? You can't, right? But that is what your computation would tell you if you used average current.
If the load is purely resistive, and you know the "hot" value of the resistor, you can compute the output power either using the rms current or rms voltage as follows: Pout(avg) = Vrms
2/R, or Irms
2R.
Here I think there's some problem with the definition and the use of the term "average". If you are computing the power in, say, a waveform that consists of in-phase (resistive load) square pulses of current and voltage, and you are concerned about comparing the power in the "on" portion of the waveform with the power in the "off" portion, then the "average" across the "on" portion is the same as the peak value for that portion. You can consider the voltage and current to be constant at the value of the top of the "on" pulse and these values will also be the "average" values for that portion of the waveform since the pulse is flat on top during the "on" portion of the period. So to find the energy in the ON portion of a squared-off pulse you multiply the "average" or constant peak value of the current, times the "average" or constant peak value of the voltage _for that ON portion only_ and then multiply that result by the duration of the "on" portion. Ditto for the "off" portion.
But this is a different use of the term "average" than what is shown on the "average" measurements on TinMan's scope, since I'm talking about portions of one period during which current and voltage are constant, and the scope is computing "averages" based on the entire screenfull of data: some number of full and partial periods.
I agree TK, there may be some confusion.
I also agree with your statements. It is fine to call the power over a portion of the cycle "the average", as long as one understands what that is referring to.
I could be wrong, but it seems Brad is using measured average values from his scope and DMM's to compute Pout.
I just posted a video demonstration of what I was talking about with respect to the measurements being taken from the screen data only rather than some larger portion of data in the scope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_fOJw8rePg
All,
I am somewhat hesitant to jump in here but I would like to offer several thoughts on the results TinMan is seeing on the output and the measurements involved.
What I would recommend TM is to measure the current thru L1 so the current is measured during the off phase of the mosfets. What i believe you would find is that the current continues to flow thru the primary during the off phase because the low voltage across D2 is "clamping" the primary collapsing field. The current will decrease on a slope determined by the D2's voltage drop, the resistance of the primary, and the current in the loaded secondary. This is the source of the negative current/voltage you are witnessing across the lamp loaded secondary IMO. If you have removed D2, you have already found that the output negative voltage and current will diminish rather quickly after the IRF840's come out of avalanche at ~500v. They should reach avalanche unless there is an appreciable amount of capacitance in the drain circuit on the primary in which case the output will still diminish rather quickly and a half resonant sine will be seen on the drain during this period.
EDIT: If you do not experience a decrease in the output negative voltage and current with D2 removed, then you do have an anomaly O0
Regarding average or rms measurements, there is a time for each. If we are trying to determine if a particular DC powered circuit driving a resistive load is OU or not, we will measure the average DC current drawn from the supply in most cases. This is not always the case but sufficient for this discussion. For the load, we chose to make a true rms measurement and compare the two for the resulting COP. The problem here is that we are comparing apples to oranges in the fact that rms does not represent the true power in regards to equivalent heating as the average or mean measurements do. To really have an accurate energy or power measurement, one must use the average or mean on both input and output measurements to really be meaningful. TK has already pointed out how to take the approximate average or mean energy in joules of the output waveform and this IMO is the preferred method. If one's scope has vertical cursor capability, then use these cursors to take the average or mean measurement of energy in each portion of the negative and positive occurrences for the complete cycle, convert to power and sum. There are exceptions of course but in this circuit that will suffice.
If one has a math channel, it is possible that the math function will integrate the average of the instantaneous values or samples over time and this should yield a rather accurate result. I can say that the TEK 3000 series scopes operate in this manner but now sure about any other brands or series.
regards,
paartzman
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.05.28, 13:32:17
I agree TK, there may be some confusion.
I also agree with your statements. It is fine to call the power over a portion of the cycle "the average", as long as one understands what that is referring to.
I could be wrong, but it seems Brad is using measured average values from his scope and DMM's to compute Pout.
No
I only used average voltage,and instantaneous current to measure power disipated through the globe test i posted not so long back,as some assumed that more power was being disipated through the globe that was brightest.. As it was a clean square wave that was 0V to peak V on each cycle,and never went below the 0 volt line,then i assumed this was the correct way to do it-->same as P/in we went through some time back Darren. There were no inductors,just a resistive load,and power being delivered via the pulsed mosfets. The way i have been obtaining average power for both the top half and bottom half of the wave forms is simply to rectify the output with two diodes on each leg of the secondary(cathode and annode together on either leg),and send the power from the off cycle to a cap with a resistor across it,and the same for the on time via a different cap of the same type and value with the same value resistor across it. Now,if i have a higher voltage across the cap/resistor that is collecting the off time power than i do across the cap/resistor that is collecting the on time power,then i must have more power output from the secondary during the off time than i do during the on time-correct?. I have also used average current X's supply voltage when the wave is square,and not below the 0 volt line. my DMM was within .8mA,so im guessing i was preaty close to being correct in this case.
When it comes to AC type waves that have offset's,that is when i need help. PW said something about using the averages,and others have said to use RMS values-->so who knows. I think i will just stick to my rectifying,and cap/resistor combo's to get P/out O0
Quote from: partzman on 2015.05.28, 15:53:49
All,
I am somewhat hesitant to jump in here but I would like to offer several thoughts on the results TinMan is seeing on the output and the measurements involved.
The problem here is that we are comparing apples to oranges in the fact that rms does not represent the true power in regards to equivalent heating as the average or mean measurements do.
Perhaps you should have pondered this statement a little more before making it.
Using rms voltage or current in the Pout computation with a pure resistance is perfectly valid (and this IS what I have been saying).
Why the reference to apples and oranges? A valid power measurement is a valid power measurement. It is perfectly valid to use an average input current times the DC supply voltage to obtain Pin, and it is perfectly valid to use the rms output voltage and hot resistance to obtain Pout. Both results (Pin and Pout) are
average power.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.05.29, 12:02:32
Perhaps you should have pondered this statement a little more before making it.
Using rms voltage or current in the Pout computation with a pure resistance is perfectly valid (and this IS what I have been saying).
Why the reference to apples and oranges? A valid power measurement is a valid power measurement. It is perfectly valid to use an average input current times the DC supply voltage to obtain Pin, and it is perfectly valid to use the rms output voltage and hot resistance to obtain Pout. Both results (Pin and Pout) are average power.
QuoteUsing rms voltage or current in the Pout computation with a pure resistance is perfectly valid (and this IS what I have been saying).
Well this is all good when we want the total power out,but what when we want to measure only the top or bottom half of the wave form?. Is this not when you would use the average voltage of say the bottom half of the wave,and use your average current from the bottom half of the wave form to get your average power from the bottom half of the wave form?.
Yes. But that method with diodes isn't going to work too good if you're dealing with output voltages of 0.7V or less.
Brad,
Remove D2 (flyback across PRI) and post a scope shot of the current and voltage across the load again. Is there any difference with it In vs. OUT?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.05.29, 12:57:02
Yes. But that method with diodes isn't going to work too good if you're dealing with output voltages of 0.7V or less.
Brad,
Remove D2 (flyback across PRI) and post a scope shot of the current and voltage across the load again. Is there any difference with it In vs. OUT?
I installed a switch on the 1n5408 diode to make it easy to do this comparison. On my build, the only difference I can tell is in the "bottom right corner", that is, the trailing edge of the pulses. The negative offset during the OFF time isn't really affected much. But I don't have quite the magnitude of that negative part that TinMan does have.
See the shots below. First one is with diode disconnected, second with diode in circuit.
(ETA: The shots were taken in the "Average" acquisition mode with 8 averages. If I use "Normal" mode there is a big noisy ringing on the TE of the Iout trace (but not the Vout trace) instead of the small rings that show in these shots. )
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.05.29, 12:57:02
Yes. But that method with diodes isn't going to work too good if you're dealing with output voltages of 0.7V or less.
Brad,
Remove D2 (flyback across PRI) and post a scope shot of the current and voltage across the load again. Is there any difference with it In vs. OUT?
i will post a scope shot when i put it all back together O0
Removing D2 decreases the P/in by a third-the amp draw go's from 430mA down to 320mA @ 7 volts.The P/out go's up. The forward side(above the 0 volt line)rises in voltage,and the reverse side(below the 0 volt line also increases. D2 seems to be a big power killer in both the P/in and P/out
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.05.29, 12:02:32
Perhaps you should have pondered this statement a little more before making it.
Using rms voltage or current in the Pout computation with a pure resistance is perfectly valid (and this IS what I have been saying).
Why the reference to apples and oranges? A valid power measurement is a valid power measurement. It is perfectly valid to use an average input current times the DC supply voltage to obtain Pin, and it is perfectly valid to use the rms output voltage and hot resistance to obtain Pout. Both results (Pin and Pout) are average power.
Poynt99,
I wholeheartedly agree that rms is a valid measurement and compares equally with the mean measurement as long as the signal being measured is a square wave. If however, we are measuring the rms of any wave shape other than square, the result will not be comparable or equal to the mean.
For example, we have a circuit that produces a sine wave output of 10v rms across a 10 ohm resistive load for an output of 10w rms. The averaged mean input power from the DC supply also measures 10w so we're thinking we reached an efficiency of 100% with our circuit. Remembering however that the average or mean of a sine wave is 90% of the rms, our output voltage is really 9v mean. This calculates to 8.1w mean which means our true efficiency is 81%. In order to reach 100& efficiency with this circuit when comparing the mean input power to rms output power, the rms output voltage would have to be 1.11 times higher or 11.1 volts to be 100% efficient. This is the apples to oranges I was referring to.
With complex wave shapes this difference can become quite large and therefore IMO, the only true method of accurate measurement is the average or mean.
Regards,
partzman
Wowsers. I've been using a duty cycle of 5 percent HI. When I change to 16 percent HI, the picture changes drastically and my mosfets, both diodes, and load resistors get quite hot. (using 12 v in from battery)
I dropped back to 10 percent Hi to cut down on the heating. Here's where I'm at now.
Quote from: partzman on 2015.05.29, 13:52:03
Poynt99,
I wholeheartedly agree that rms is a valid measurement and compares equally with the mean measurement as long as the signal being measured is a square wave. If however, we are measuring the rms of any wave shape other than square, the result will not be comparable or equal to the mean.
For example, we have a circuit that produces a sine wave output of 10v rms across a 10 ohm resistive load for an output of 10w rms. The averaged mean input power from the DC supply also measures 10w so we're thinking we reached an efficiency of 100% with our circuit. Remembering however that the average or mean of a sine wave is 90% of the rms, our output voltage is really 9v mean. This calculates to 8.1w mean which means our true efficiency is 81%. In order to reach 100& efficiency with this circuit when comparing the mean input power to rms output power, the rms output voltage would have to be 1.11 times higher or 11.1 volts to be 100% efficient. This is the apples to oranges I was referring to.
With complex wave shapes this difference can become quite large and therefore IMO, the only true method of accurate measurement is the average or mean.
Regards,
partzman
I would agree when measureing either the top half or bottom half of the wave form,but when measureing as a whole,i would think that you would have to use the RMS value,as i have managed(as can be seen in some of my scope shots) to achieve a 0volt average both on current and voltage-->so dose that mean we have 0 power?-->something was providing the energy to light the globe. O0
Looks like squeaky bum time. ;D ;D
(To quote the former manager of Man United)
On a more serious note: this is Tesla's version of Tinman's trafo.
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-433702-electrical-transformer-or-induction-device
Tesla states that the main object is to secure a 90 degree phase difference between primary and secondary.
Tee Hee: Is there no limit to Tesla's genius?
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.05.29, 14:58:29
I dropped back to 10 percent Hi to cut down on the heating. Here's where I'm at now.
Good stuff TK, looks to me like you have a very close match to Brad's results.
Quote from: partzman on 2015.05.29, 13:52:03
Poynt99,
I wholeheartedly agree that rms is a valid measurement and compares equally with the mean measurement as long as the signal being measured is a square wave. If however, we are measuring the rms of any wave shape other than square, the result will not be comparable or equal to the mean.
That is incorrect. As long as the wave form is repetitive (does not change significantly from cycle to cycle), the rms value of ANY wave form (or shape) in conjunction with the resistance value can be used to obtain Pout.
Quote
For example, we have a circuit that produces a sine wave output of 10v rms across a 10 ohm resistive load for an output of 10w rms. The averaged mean input power from the DC supply also measures 10w so we're thinking we reached an efficiency of 100% with our circuit.
I can assure you that if the Pin and Pout are properly measured using the methods I've stated, you will not be able to obtain power measurements of equal power for input and output. If you do, then you might have something. What you are stating above is either dreamed up or the result of poor measurement methodology.
Quote
With complex wave shapes this difference can become quite large and therefore IMO, the only true method of accurate measurement is the average or mean.
You seem a knowledgeable person, however something seems amiss. I invite you to show a real example or even a simulation to support these notions of yours.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.05.29, 18:34:49
That is incorrect. As long as the wave form is repetitive (does not change significantly from cycle to cycle), the rms value of ANY wave form (or shape) in conjunction with the resistance value can be used to obtain Pout.
I can assure you that if the Pin and Pout are properly measured using the methods I've stated, you will not be able to obtain power measurements of equal power for input and output. If you do, then you might have something. What you are stating above is either dreamed up or the result of poor measurement methodology.
You seem a knowledgeable person, however something seems amiss. I invite you to show a real example or even a simulation to support these notions of yours.
Poynt99,
I have to admit the error in my mistaken understanding for years that the area under a waveform would create the equivalent to DC heating. I now see that the rms is equivalent and I apologize to any I have misled. The positive side of this for me is that I have actually developed OU circuits thru these past years and didn't realize it.
However, it is like A.King said "just another squeaky bum"!
partzman
Quote from: partzman on 2015.06.01, 14:50:20
Poynt99,
I have to admit the error in my mistaken understanding for years that the area under a waveform would create the equivalent to DC heating. I now see that the rms is equivalent and I apologize to any I have misled. The positive side of this for me is that I have actually developed OU circuits thru these past years and didn't realize it.
However, it is like A.King said "just another squeaky bum"!
partzman
Please share as i (and many others here)have over the years.
But i would probably remove the OU from the equation,and just call it something like-very efficient circuit.
Tinman: On that note, how is your very efficient toroid circuit?
Any further results to share? ;)
Quote from: partzman on 2015.06.01, 14:50:20
The positive side of this for me is that I have actually developed OU circuits thru these past years and didn't realize it.
Care to show some proof?
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.05.29, 16:14:14
On a more serious note: this is Tesla's version of Tinman's trafo.
http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-433702-electrical-transformer-or-induction-device
Tesla states that the main object is to secure a 90 degree phase difference between primary and secondary.
Tee Hee: Is there no limit to Tesla's genius?
Aking, that is a "constant current transformer" nothing special, the device would provide the same output current even if short circuited. That means no matter what the load the maximum current output is limited to a known maximum. It is not OU or even highly efficient. It is a transformer designed for a specific purpose. To provide a constant current to all loads.
What makes you think it is special or OU ?
Did you read the patent then notice the 90 degrees phase difference and wet your pants ?
The 90 degree phase difference means the input and output are limited, that's all.
Where Tesla says all loads he errs a bit because with a current limit of 1 ampere, if one was to connect a 3 watt bulb to the output the current would be less than if one applied a 100 watt bulb of the same voltage rating, however if the current was limited to say 1 amp then the 100 watt bulb could only get a maximum of 1 amp of current through it. Even with a maximum of 1 amp of current not every load we can imagine will receive 1 amp of current.
And actually we can achieve a constant current "effect' by using a too high of a frequency for a given transformer, the frequency induced impedance limits the output and input and this can show us the effects of a reduction in current when a load is applied and also the acceleration under load effect neither of which are OU and both are very inefficient.
Tesla's constant current transformer would be more efficient than the previous examples for limiting the output.
Basically it is a transformer that can be shorted without overloading the source.
..
Basically it is a transformer that can be shorted without overloading the source.
Hmm...then make a parallel resonant circuit on primary side....
Quote from: forest on 2015.06.02, 10:09:03
Basically it is a transformer that can be shorted without overloading the source.
Hmm...then make a parallel resonant circuit on primary side....
Then you might come back to my old post... http://overunity.com/12736/kapanadze-cousin-dally-free-energy/msg357338/#msg357338 ;)
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.06.01, 18:59:11
Care to show some proof?
Poynt99,
I have decided to post the attached simulation which is the circuit I was going to use to "prove" my incorrect point of average verses rms. This is a sim of an actual operating bench circuit and was used for ease in tweaking and tuning the overall performance and it includes the calcs for both rms and average outputs. I let the reader decide if the circuit is OU or not.
I choose not to disclose the operation of this circuit.
partzman
Farmhand: I was privvy to some inside info and was reacting to that. No need to bring bodily functions into it.
Quote from: partzman on 2015.06.02, 13:23:56
Poynt99,
I have decided to post the attached simulation which is the circuit I was going to use to "prove" my incorrect point of average verses rms. This is a sim of an actual operating bench circuit and was used for ease in tweaking and tuning the overall performance and it includes the calcs for both rms and average outputs. I let the reader decide if the circuit is OU or not.
I choose not to disclose the operation of this circuit.
partzman
PoutRMS/Pinavg=1.28261 :o
Are you telling me a sim is showing an OU value?
-->Poynt???
Have the sums been done properly?
http://www.eznec.com/Amateur/RMS_Power.pdf
QuoteThe RMS value of power is not the equivalent heating power and, in fact, it doesn't represent any useful physical quantity.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.06.02, 18:41:15
Have the sums been done properly?
http://www.eznec.com/Amateur/RMS_Power.pdf
That paper uses a square wave obtained by turning a switch on and off, i.e. the voltage is either positive or zero, it is never negative. And getting the RMS value involves the square root of 2 (actually divided by 2 to become 0.707) which also happens to be involved when getting the RMS value of a sine wave. This can lead some people to think that all waveforms use that 0.707 factor in going from peak to RMS and that is wrong. If the square wave were both positive and negative the RMS value is exactly the peak value, no 0.707 involved. But it is correct in that the RMS value of the voltage-squared (power) waveform is of no use, as the M in RMS implies you must take the mean value of that power waveform then square root it to get a useful RMS value
Smudge
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.06.02, 14:40:00
PoutRMS/Pinavg=1.28261 :o
Are you telling me a sim is showing an OU value?
-->Poynt???
Brad,
I can assure you with 100% confidence that there is an erroneous measurement, assumption, or math expression somewhere there.
If partzman would be so kind to post the coupling factor among L1, L2, and L3, I will simulate it and perform proper Pin and Pout computations.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.06.03, 00:00:04
Brad,
I can assure you with 100% confidence that there is an erroneous measurement, assumption, or math expression somewhere there.
If partzman would be so kind to post the coupling factor among L1, L2, and L3, I will simulate it and perform proper Pin and Pout computations.
Poynt99,
I will not share any more circuit details until provisional patents are filed. This circuit is the result of months of research and development of a conceptual idea and I will not divulge any additional details.
You know LtSpice and I'm sure you are familiar with transient analysis, so simply look at the .meas commands. The pin average measurement and the output load voltage rms measurements and the pout calculation are straightforward and really need no explanation except maybe I'll point out that the measurement interval is over three complete cycles of the periodic function.
The average measurements are not exactly as easy to follow with certain time measurements being established "on the fly" and then used to determine the time periods for the average measurements. This should not be of any concern however.
There are no tricks involved as it is not my intention to deceive so if you should find an error of any sort, please let me know.
partzman
Well,
Most of the values are there. I think the only missing items are the inductor K factor (I am going to assume "1"), and the period (I am going to start with 12us).
I have already finished drawing it up. Next we'll see if I have your wave forms. If so, then Pin and Pout are child's play.
;)
btw, I think your provisional patent may be a little premature, especially considering your recent measurement faux pas. Stand by, measurements coming soon.
Poynt99,
Here is a little more measurement info. These are measurements using the plot math functions and they show the input average power (which is actually better than my calcs) and two methods for pout which agree with my .meas calculation.
partzman
EDIT: The reason the pin is less than my .meas calculation is due to the fact that the plot window is 1us longer than the .meas window. I make the plot window slightly longer to eliminate any ambiguity at the end of the measurement period. When the plot window is shortened to 72us, the plot measurements agree 100% with my .meas calculations.
Do you have any DC resistance associated with coils L1-L3? If so, what values? I think in LTSpice you can enter those but it may not show on the schematic.
btw, I'm using PSpice, not LT.
btw2, do a power measurement on both VG1 and V4 (your gate drive sources), and post the sum here. I think you'll be surprised! :o
Do you think some of that power is contributing to the output? C.C
This is how it should be done. A circuit and it's P/in P/out measurements are presented,and then open for others to check for eror's O0
I will be interested to see what Poynt comes up with.
Brad,
I need the DC resistance of coils L1 thru L3 in order to properly simulate the circuit. The K coupling factor between them can be adjusted until the wave forms match. I am also assuming that both VG1 and V4 are in phase and driving both gates in sync.
So far I have the same output power, but much higher input power. So I need the coils' resistance. I was using a different MOSFET too so that may be contributing to the problem. I now have the model for the MOSFET so will try that tonight. The MOSFET parasitic capacitances, and circuit capacitances have a large effect on the wave forms.
@ partzman, would you be willing to post your LTSpice .asc file?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.06.03, 12:29:25
Brad,
I need the DC resistance of coils L1 thru L3 in order to properly simulate the circuit. The K coupling factor between them can be adjusted until the wave forms match. I am also assuming that both VG1 and V4 are in phase and driving both gates in sync.
So far I have the same output power, but much higher input power. So I need the coils' resistance. I was using a different MOSFET too so that may be contributing to the problem. I now have the model for the MOSFET so will try that tonight. The MOSFET parasitic capacitances, and circuit capacitances have a large effect on the wave forms.
@ partzman, would you be willing to post your LTSpice .asc file?
Poynt99,
I'm sorry but I won't give any additional info at this time. I'm in the process of filing a provisional and when that is completed, I'll share the data.
partzman
Quote from: partzman on 2015.06.03, 13:59:28
Poynt99,
I'm sorry but I won't give any additional info at this time. I'm in the process of filing a provisional and when that is completed, I'll share the data.
partzman
??? The DC resistance of your coils is proprietary information? Really?
I would save yourself the time, money and effort, because I can assure you that your simulation or the interpretation of the simulation results are erroneous or incomplete. I would bet my house on that. Would you be confident enough to bet against me?
Aren't you interested in verifying your assumptions? I really have no interest in your circuit, because I know it does nothing extraordinary. I'm only interested in proper power measurements and the ACCOUNTING of all power in the circuit. You would be wise, in my opinion, to heed my advice and at the very least double check your work. The above additional measurements is not sufficient. Even better would be if a third party can vet your results, like I am offering to do. You can't patent a simulation.
@ Partzman
If you do not wish to post the information here on a public forum,then get in touch with Poynt via message,and organise with him to do it off grid. I can assure you he wont take your idea and run of to claim it as his own.
@ Poynt
Betting your house is a big risk,although I'm sure you feel quite safe doing it from what the laws of physics tell you what is and is not possable. But even so,the day will come,and your house will go lol.
Have you been that conditioned over time that you automatically dismiss everything without having replicated it yet-even when the sim shows otherwise?.
Maybe you have this backward Poynt. Rather trying to get your sim to show his circuit is underunity,make it your task to get your sim to show the overunity insted O0. What I'm saying is,go into it with a positive attitude,and don't get into the habit of dismissing everything straight up,as the evidence provided so far is saying your house is up for grabs lol. There is a good chance that something has been overlooked here,but until that something is found,then we look into the results that have been provided in a positive way. O0
It is impossible to get an OU result with a simulator Brad.
When every source of power is accounted for, the results will always indicate a net zero gain or loss.
There is zero risk of losing such a bet when it comes to simulations. ;)
You SHOULD already know this by now.
Hi partzman,
I have not seen your mentioning that the bench test on your actual circuit also shows COP>1 result as the LTSpice simulation does. So would you mind telling this, please.
Thanks,
Gyula
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.06.03, 16:23:46
It is impossible to get an OU result with a simulator Brad.
When every source of power is accounted for, the results will always indicate a net zero gain or loss.
There is zero risk of losing such a bet when it comes to simulations. ;)
You SHOULD already know this by now.
Ahhh
So a simulator will never show an OU result.
Well that is something i have been saying all along,and the very reason i don't like them being used to replicate an actual device.
Sims are based around only the known,and will never account for anomalies that an actual device may produce.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.06.03, 18:49:18
Ahhh
So a simulator will never show an OU result.
Well that is something i have been saying all along,and the very reason i don't like them being used to replicate an actual device.
Sims are based around only the known,and will never account for anomalies that an actual device may produce.
Sure, but to date the simulator has been able to replicate (and shed light on) everything electrical you have come up with if I'm not mistaken. ;)
I've been saying for years that simulations can't show OU if used properly, but several folks have FOOLED themselves into thinking they HAVE achieve OU with their simulation. I'm afraid this is the case with partzman as well.
Quote from: gyula on 2015.06.03, 17:21:46
Hi partzman,
I have not seen your mentioning that the bench test on your actual circuit also shows COP>1 result as the LTSpice simulation does. So would you mind telling this, please.
Thanks,
Gyula
Gyula,
I bench tested this device many months ago and I do not recall any rms output measurements because all I was taking at the time was mean or average. I do recall the mean measurements were near unity and the device was shelved because of that. I have run literally hundreds of bench designs since then and dozens of sim variations on most of those so I have massive files to search thru to find what notes I have on those tests . I am in the process of replicating the bench circuit in order to take the rms measurements.
partzman
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.06.03, 23:04:09
Sure, but to date the simulator has been able to replicate (and shed light on) everything electrical you have come up with if I'm not mistaken. ;)
I've been saying for years that simulations can't show OU if used properly, but several folks have FOOLED themselves into thinking they HAVE achieve OU with their simulation. I'm afraid this is the case with partzman as well.
Poynt99,
Let us assume for a moment that you are correct and I am "fooling" myself in my simple simulation. Let us also assume that no simulation will never show OU as you state.
This begs the question "why"?
Is it A) Sim models are inaccurate, or B) No OU will ever be seen within the confines of classic electrodynamics which all simulators are based on, or C) both?
Which is it?
partzman
Quote from: partzman on 2015.06.04, 02:14:26
Poynt99,
Let us assume for a moment that you are correct and I am "fooling" myself in my simple simulation. Let us also assume that no simulation will never show OU as you state.
This begs the question "why"?
Why were you wrong about the rms question?
Why do you think you have proven OU with your sim? Why can't you give the DC resistance values for the coils in your sim?
The answer to your question is obvious....mine, not so much.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.06.03, 23:04:09
QuoteSure, but to date the simulator has been able to replicate (and shed light on) everything electrical you have come up with if I'm not mistaken. ;)
This much is true O0
QuoteI've been saying for years that simulations can't show OU if used properly, but several folks have FOOLED themselves into thinking they HAVE achieve OU with their simulation. I'm afraid this is the case with partzman as well.
Mmm-is it not a bit soon to dismiss Partzman's circuit?.
I tend not to make judgement of the future by using the past as an example.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.06.04, 09:32:53
Mmm-is it not a bit soon to dismiss Partzman's circuit?.
I tend not to make judgement of the future by using the past as an example.
For the simulation, it's Absolutely Not Too Soon! When I say I would bet my house on it, I'm not joking.
There can be no way whatsoever that a simulation will show OU when ALL power is accounted for in the circuit.
partzman could do a much better job coming up with the Pin and Pout numbers for starters. First of all, you do NOT need to use a whole slew of long expressions to get the power measurements, LTSpice has a power meter built in. Second, partzman is not using a sufficient number of cycles for the computation. When making power measurements one should use a minimum of 10 cycles, preferrably 15 or 20. Third, and perhaps the most important, partzman is NOT accounting for ALL the power in the circuit, INCLUDING that which may be coming from the gate drives.
He is obviously afraid to find out the truth however, otherwise he'd pass on sufficient info for someone to replicate and verify his sim. If it works for him, I'd be willing to sign a NDA and test it in private. That way when I prove to him that the circuit is indeed underunity, he can stop this madness.
I got the spice model for the IPB038N12N3 (from the INFINEON web site) but something with the syntax is causing the pspice modeler to complain, so at the moment I can't use it. Too bad because it is a heavy duty device and has huge parasitic capacitance, which is difficult to model just by adding some. I believe this is partly key to getting this sim to work like partzman's, as his circuit is in resonance, and that means getting the capacitance values right is important.
OK, I think I've fixed the syntax problem, and I can now import the entire INFINEON library. I will try it out tomorrow.
Poynt99,
I will end the madness for you. But first I'll say to you that the value of the dc resistance of L1,2,and 3 are .15 ohms and are not critical to the operation. However at least one other assumption you made incorrectly is V4. V4 is the same 24us period with 50% duty cycle as V1, but delayed 90 degrees or 6us.
So, as I request to be removed from this list, I'll leave you with only one set of variables to solve and that is the K factors or couplings between windings.
Good luck!
partzman
Thanks for the 90 degree delay and dc resistance info. That is kinda critical. lol. But it doesn't sound like it is going to stop the madness ;) Save your time and money, and get some assistance performing a proper analysis of your sim. Deep down you have to know that the power accounting will work out to zero, right?
As you mention K factor in plural, do I assume correctly that there are two rather than one?
If so, then this complicates things quite a bit I would think, in terms of replicating the sim.
Stick around to see if I can succeed in replicating your results. O0
Well, sorry Brad.
Even with the additional info on the DC resistance, 90 degree delay, and better model for the MOSFET, I can not get close to the wave forms partzman showed. In addition, I can not get the seemingly resonant condition evidenced by the current in the 50V supply. Perhaps I have made an error somewhere too, which is entirely possible.
Perhaps there are more missing clues, I just don't know. It is difficult enough to get simulations to replicate real circuits when little info is given, but purposely obfuscating circuit details pretty much makes it impossible. What else is missing that partzman left out? I don't know. Maybe he said "good luck" for a good reason? LOL.
Through email, partzman has been gracious enough to provide the last unknowns (the K factors) to fully replicate his simulation. It also became clear to me that using the Infineon PSpice model was not going to cut it, so I decided to redraw the schematic and simulate it in LTSpice, and use the LTSpice VDMOS model just like partzman.
Here is the measurement procedure and the results:
Set the .tran statement so that a minimum of 10 cycles will be displayed and used for the following (I used about 40 cycles). Get the input power (blue trace) on the 50V supply, and the output power (green trace) on the 200 Ohm load to display on the screen (use alt-click over the device), then use "ctl-click" over each trace label in the wave forms window. This gives you a small window indicating the average and integral of that power trace (too bad you can not do more than one trace at a time).
Using this method (with 1ms of data on the screen), the Pout(avg) measurement is 492mW, and the Pin(avg) measurement shown on the screen capture is -845mW (negative because it is supplying rather than dissipating power). This works out to a COP of about 0.58.
I have included my .asc file as well as a screen shot of the power traces and resulting Pout(avg) measurement.
Because the load is purely resistive, we can also obtain Pout(avg) via the following approach:
Pout(avg) = Vrms2/R
= (9.9201)2/200
= 492mW
This is the same Pout(avg) result as obtained above using the average of the instantaneous output power.
There seems to be something wrong at OU dot com, where a discussion is/was happening about TinMan's current device, so I'm putting this here.
It appears that the device is putting out more power than it takes to run it... but it cannot simply be self-looped due to the configuration of the supply and output. The solution is very simple. Here is what you do. You make a _second, identical_ device and run it on the output of the first one. Say the device uses 10 watts and produces 12 watts output. (I'm just using those numbers for illustration.) SO you take the first one, connect its output to the input of the second device along with a 2-watt resistive load. The first device taking in 10 watts should be able to run the second device AND the 2-watt additional load, and the second device should put out its full 12 watts. Daisy-chain a few identical devices this way, each one running the next one in line PLUS an additional load.... And if the device incorporates a motor, then each extra device in the chain should have its motor running at the same speed or torque as the first one. IF, that is, the devices are really putting out more power than it takes to run them. You should be able to chain an indefinite number of devices plus their extra loads, all operating only on the original 10 watts input to the first device.
Or ... you should be able to come up with some coherent explanation of why this cannot be done, in spite of the "overunity" performance _measurements_ of each individual device.
Yeah OU is displaying 403. Happens quite a bit.
I like your solution TK.
Looks like Brad has removed the vids from public view. Hope all is good.
Jim
I suspect this is all quite nerve wracking ...The TinMan has battled this measurement beast many times before.
And now there seems more misunderstandings over choice of words and trust...
One thing is certain ,the Tinman is a man of action and impeccable character ,we have all seen this many times.
he practices Brutal Honesty even when it hurts.
Quote from: Chet K on 2015.06.29, 12:35:14
Jim
I suspect this is all quite nerve wracking ...The TinMan has battled this measurement beast many times before.
And now there seems more misunderstandings over choice of words and trust...
One thing is certain ,the Tinman is a man of action and impeccable character ,we have all seen this many times.
he practices Brutal Honesty even when it hurts.
Kultus made me aware of brads work and the thing I've always liked about him is that he is a skeptical old bastard even on his own work. I think a bigger question here is what does it really mean to open source? On one hand you have the altruistic motives and on the other you want to look after your family and be able to work on your projects full time. I have my own views on how you can achieve this but for the individual maybe the best option is to license the tech if you have something that works.
To either patent, sell or license you need a company, it would be shut down in a flash, look what happened to Ed Gray, Stanley Meyer & Steven Marks UEC, hell they even ruined Tesla over it.
Open source is the only way to get the tech out any other way would be crushed, it just depends if they intend to destroy you and your family or not, which in Ed's case they did both.
Mr Oil man will not allow a $30 device to generate unlimited free energy, would you if your countries income depended on it.
To put it another way, it's you & your company against all developed governments and every oil producing billionair & probably more, who do you think is going to come out worse.
But Tesla wasn't shut down because he built a free energy machine. He had his funding stopped because he obtained funding under false pretense. He spent other peoples money on certain things when he was supposed to be spending on other things. His investors had every right to stop funding and the result would seem to be caused by Tesla's needing to be funded in the first place. One of Tesla's big problems was that he had few people he could trust and lacked the ability to develop his inventions with secrecy. He seems to have had a big need for showmanship and not enough business savvy. One man can't do everything and remain sane.
With that said Tesla never claimed any devices that produced more energy than was input to them in total. All that can be done is to utilize energy for free, it cannot be made, only utilized.
Tesla suffered business "death", not because of free energy or OU but because that is what happens in business, people use their money and wealth to take people down that keep secrets from them or otherwise piss them off.
Tesla pissed of his creditor and the creditor stopped the credit.
If Tesla ever intended to pay to run his generators (and he did, it didn't run for free) to power his Magnifying Transmitter so as to let anyone and everyone tap into the disturbance and utilize energy for free but at his expense then he was a nutter. I don't think he was a nutter. I think it entirely possible that there was ways to prevent people from drawing (in system power) and the only power available for scavengers would have been waste RF power.
I have yet to see any claim actually made by Tesla himself that his Magnifying Transmitter produced more out than he put in. At Colorado Springs he kept good records and they say he input all the power to the device and ran at a loss.
..
Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:07:19
To either patent, sell or license you need a company, it would be shut down in a flash, look what happened to Ed Gray, Stanley Meyer & Steven Marks UEC, hell they even ruined Tesla over it.
Open source is the only way to get the tech out any other way would be crushed, it just depends if they intend to destroy you and your family or not, which in Ed's case they did both.
Mr Oil man will not allow a $30 device to generate unlimited free energy, would you if your countries income depended on it.
To put it another way, it's you & your company against all developed governments and every oil producing billionair & probably more, who do you think is going to come out worse.
O0
Exactly!
This is why Russ Gries started his Live Science initiative--to get everything in the hands of others the same moment the breakthrough happens. The hope is to move the information out to the public faster than the sweeper teams can clean it up. Unfortunately with Russ's position under QGR, he can't quite take this approach to the full extent he envisioned. The idea though is still sound. The method we can use is to document as we build and the moment one of us hits the jackpot, everything goes viral so you're not left swinging in the breeze to fend for yourself. Holding the goodies for an hour can be dangerous enough; for a day? Too long. For a month? You're probably already dead.
Now, where did I put my grenade coil... ? ;)
Ditto...
Quote from: Peterae on 2015.06.29, 17:07:19
To either patent, sell or license you need a company, it would be shut down in a flash, look what happened to Ed Gray, Stanley Meyer & Steven Marks UEC, hell they even ruined Tesla over it.
Open source is the only way to get the tech out any other way would be crushed, it just depends if they intend to destroy you and your family or not, which in Ed's case they did both.
Mr Oil man will not allow a $30 device to generate unlimited free energy, would you if your countries income depended on it.
To put it another way, it's you & your company against all developed governments and every oil producing billionair & probably more, who do you think is going to come out worse.
There will be capitalists after somebody takes the fall and we will all be living the life like in the movie 5th Element.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2015.07.01, 15:59:47
Ditto...
There will be capitalists after somebody takes the fall and we will all be living the life like in the movie 5th Element.
that is not capitalism my friend.
Look whats happening to Greece, the government is standing up to the EEC and the capitalists that run it. May not be the right way to go, but, they have b*lls to do it, we will see what happens
regards
mike 8)
capitalism and corpratism are two very different things.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2015.07.01, 23:47:23
capitalism and corpratism are two very different things.
But that pit hole was not what I meant.
When people are free but have no moral boundaries all hell breaks loose.
Then there are the steppers and the steppees.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.06.29, 05:16:36
There seems to be something wrong at OU dot com, where a discussion is/was happening about TinMan's current device, so I'm putting this here.
It appears that the device is putting out more power than it takes to run it... but it cannot simply be self-looped due to the configuration of the supply and output. The solution is very simple. Here is what you do. You make a _second, identical_ device and run it on the output of the first one. Say the device uses 10 watts and produces 12 watts output. (I'm just using those numbers for illustration.) SO you take the first one, connect its output to the input of the second device along with a 2-watt resistive load. The first device taking in 10 watts should be able to run the second device AND the 2-watt additional load, and the second device should put out its full 12 watts. Daisy-chain a few identical devices this way, each one running the next one in line PLUS an additional load.... And if the device incorporates a motor, then each extra device in the chain should have its motor running at the same speed or torque as the first one. IF, that is, the devices are really putting out more power than it takes to run them. You should be able to chain an indefinite number of devices plus their extra loads, all operating only on the original 10 watts input to the first device.
Or ... you should be able to come up with some coherent explanation of why this cannot be done, in spite of the "overunity" performance _measurements_ of each individual device.
What do you think will happen if Tinman did that? Do you think TPTB will allow it?
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.07.02, 22:30:29
What do you think will happen if Tinman did that? Do you think TPTB will allow it?
What I think will happen isn't really important, is it? What's important is what _actually_ happens when/if Tinman tests his device this way.
After all, Ruslan and Akula and Kapanadze, with their clearly self running systems producing kilowatts of power without any input at all, haven't been prevented from doing anything by TPTB, have they?
Quote from: Farmhand on 2015.07.01, 01:08:45
But Tesla wasn't shut down because he built a free energy machine. He had his funding stopped because he obtained funding under false pretense. He spent other peoples money on certain things when he was supposed to be spending on other things. His investors had every right to stop funding ...
Tesla suffered business "death", not because of free energy or OU but because that is what happens in business, people use their money and wealth to take people down that keep secrets from them or otherwise piss them off.
I don't know about the first part, but the last part seems true enough: " people use their money and wealth to take people down that keep secrets from them or otherwise piss them off.
"
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.07.03, 01:11:46
What I think will happen isn't really important, is it? What's important is what _actually_ happens when/if Tinman tests his device this way.
After all, Ruslan and Akula and Kapanadze, with their clearly self running systems producing kilowatts of power without any input at all, haven't been prevented from doing anything by TPTB, have they?
Ask MarkE
What proof is there that the devices of Ruslan and Akula and Kapanadze work as claimed?
Think about this way if there is a men in black agency,and you saw
Ruslan's and Akula's device's you would think very likely there frauds,in the case
of Kapanadze it may be real,but maybe it is fake,hes appearance doesn't help
he looks like an old conman.So they would not act on either of them
until it was for sure that there devices were real.I think there a possibility,
you guys have been pranked by the tinman,if its true its a good one.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2015.07.04, 00:14:41
What proof is there that the devices of Ruslan and Akula and Kapanadze work as claimed?
Maybe mr sparkly marsupial was being a little facetious?
Quote from: cheappower2012 on 2015.07.04, 03:12:55
.I think there a possibility,
you guys have been pranked by the tinman,if its true its a good one.
Yes-thats me-the prankster.
Guys
I'm done with the free energy movement.
I can no longer do what i want to do without limits being imposed.Neither my heart or enthusiasm is in it any more.
I wish i could share everything with you,but cannot-as some will know.So i wish you all the best,and thank all of you for the help over the years.
For you Chet.
I'm very sorry to hear that Brad. You're one of the best experimenters I've had the pleasure working with.
Hope you stick around ;)
Take care, and enjoy your restoration! :)
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.07.04, 15:59:29
Yes-thats me-the prankster.
Guys
I'm done with the free energy movement.
I can no longer do what i want to do without limits being imposed.Neither my heart or enthusiasm is in it any more.
I wish i could share everything with you,but cannot-as some will know.So i wish you all the best,and thank all of you for the help over the years.
For you Chet.
Dear Brad.
Sad news indeed, however the " Lust for Rust " has always run through my veins !! I wish you all the best with your future projects.
Best wishes, Graham. O0
All the best Brad
don't rock the boat I was always told ;) lifes too short, get some enjoyment out of it
Hope you don't disapear all together, as Graham said to me one day, made a nice bunch of friends here on this forum, energy investigation apart O0
regards
Mike 8)
Brad,
very understandable, but.... those thing need to sink in before you can make a final decision.
I am sure you will looking at things differently within a few weeks, nevertheless, thanks for all the inspiration you have given me/us up till now. O0
Regards Itsu
Brad
I have to say
That is one cool Desoto ,I have never seen anything Quite like it ,we call that Fleetside [no discernible rear fender or Stepside] Not what I expected at all....
On another note I will just add.
This situation Sucks !!
I enjoy your Friendship Tremendously ,and that is how that will always be...and My door is always open to you and yours.
Well bugger. All the best though mate. And a big thanks for the PMBO comps esp.
TinMan: Go to your local Member of Parliament and make a complaint.
"Their" funding can be cut off.
"They" have to also account for their actions to the people, the taxpayer.
Go for it. They've made their mistake.
It's understandable, particularly as noone else was there to help in a tech way or be there to discuss it right as the events happened. Could well feel like a case of one man against a world of unknowns.
I do hope you keep posting classics to YouTube, such as the powered trike hill runs and the yacht pulling with the micro motored tractor !
Hey, who knows, the next time we see you could be in a news report, of the Desoto powered by a new type of electric motor...well, here's hoping :)
Best wishes to ye TinMan on your endeavors in a new
direction.
I found the photo of the engine compartment of your
old truck the most interesting. Those flat-head engines
were something. It reminded me a bit of the engine on
my '51 Ford. Simple, easy to access, plenty of room.
Bringing old machines back to life with good looks is
extremely rewarding.
Keep us informed on your progress willya?
"D"
Best to cover your ears....
word is the Engine is scheduled for removal ...to be replaced with a Big V8..
the engine Room will be a bit cozier after that, and I suspect there might be other alteration? Pipes and stacks
and the smell of racing fuels ...although I do have a friend who Builds flathead v8 racing engines for boats
however those are fords..
TinMan should look for one of those 50's Era Hemi V8's that Dodge made over here .
Didn't see that one coming...mind you, been a bit of a week for it hasn't it !
So, that wonderful old dear of a truck is going full on nitrous oxide, flames down the side and to do 1/4's in the mid 10's ? ???
Well, hmm, what was it doing to get in its present state, besides nothing lol, fun fun fun this way around.
Quote from: Chet K
"D"
Best to cover your ears....
word is the Engine is scheduled for removal ...to be replaced with a Big V8..
the engine Room will be a bit cozier after that, and I suspect there might be other alteration? Pipes and stacks
and the smell of racing fuels ...although I do have a friend who Builds flathead v8 racing engines for boats
however those are fords..
TinMan should look for one of those 50's Era Hemi V8's that Dodge made over here .
Argh!! Oh well, just dreaming of what might have been.
TinMan, take good care of that old flathead willya?
It would be worth a small fortune to the right kind
of person who would love to restore it to its former
glory...
@Tinman,
Aye lad... You might vacate but you can never really leave. Once adventure and enthusiasm run their course through your veins the addiction sets in and one is haunted the rest of their days.
[Redpills are people who have chosen to face reality, while bluepills remain living in ignorance of the truth, whether by choice or because they have not had a choice.]
sad to see you go tinman I hope there's a few breaks in your restoration and you drop by with some project or another kind regards amigo
I suppose I should put this here, just for the sake of completeness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvgBkm-QuYc
I sure hope my hard drive doesn't fry.
.... wait.... is that the sound of a black helicopter I hear?
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.07.08, 11:43:44
I suppose I should put this here, just for the sake of completeness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvgBkm-QuYc
I sure hope my hard drive doesn't fry.
.... wait.... is that the sound of a black helicopter I hear?
Dear TK.
If I have understood your circuit correctly, you have the Field coil connections reversed? So in standard series configuration this actually stops the motor from turning? If you were to reverse those connections I assume your motor would run just fine?
My compliments on a well presented and interesting phenomenon, who'd have thought that the little ubiquitous motors used almost everywhere might still be holding onto a secret or two? ;)
Cheers Grum.
Tinsel
listen Smarty Pants...Just watch that your hair doesn't catch on fire ,{that's why I keep the
Tinfoil hat close by....}
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.07.08, 11:43:44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvgBkm-QuYc
Hi,
As you got motor/generator pair already, it should not be difficult to give a try with a bit different configuration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9voniPT7v_M
Sorry for another Russian, just the trick there contains the right angles on magnetic rotors on generator and motor then driving motor coils only in peak values of generator output with the help of step down transformer (and for getting more current) and phase delay..
Should be fun to see that on your table.
Cheers!
Quote from: Grumage on 2015.07.08, 12:36:41
Dear TK.
If I have understood your circuit correctly, you have the Field coil connections reversed? So in standard series configuration this actually stops the motor from turning? If you were to reverse those connections I assume your motor would run just fine?
No, reversing the field coil connections simply reverses the direction the motor turns. All other effects are just the same as shown in the video.
In the standard series configuration, the motor runs slowly. When the yellow jumper directly shorts the field coils, the motor stops and locks. When the field coils are "shorted" or rather paralleled with a small resistance (an arc, or a light bulb) then the motor speeds up and goes very fast. When the short (or small resistance) is applied through the diode, the max speed is a little greater than when the diode is bypassed, judging by the sound. I haven't put the tachometer to it yet.
If the field coil connections are reversed, the motor just turns in the other direction but behaves just as above.
Quote
My compliments on a well presented and interesting phenomenon, who'd have thought that the little ubiquitous motors used almost everywhere might still be holding onto a secret or two? ;)
Cheers Grum.
Indeed! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Quote from: T-1000 on 2015.07.08, 12:47:36
Hi,
As you got motor/generator pair already, it should not be difficult to give a try with a bit different configuration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9voniPT7v_M
Sorry for another Russian, just the trick there contains the right angles on magnetic rotors on generator and motor then driving motor coils only in peak values of generator output with the help of step down transformer (and for getting more current) and phase delay..
Should be fun to see that on your table.
Cheers!
Yes, I've seen that video before. Honestly, I have to say that I don't believe that it is for real. But they sure are using some fancy test equipment.
Quote from: Chet K on 2015.07.08, 12:43:11
Tinsel
listen Smarty Pants...Just watch that your hair doesn't catch on fire ,{that's why I keep the
Tinfoil hat close by....}
So that's what that smell is, my pompadour is smoking!
(Just don't tell the boys at PESN what I'm doing. I dislike the term "QMoGen"... and I sure don't want to wind up on any more of their "lists".)
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.07.08, 14:12:44
Yes, I've seen that video before. Honestly, I have to say that I don't believe that it is for real. But they sure are using some fancy test equipment.
In that case sometimes it is just best to follow and do a test instead of belief. Then see what results will be so you can have clear ground for discussion... ;)
Heres a replication,is it a prank? Is tinmans device a prank :D
The motor is from a power drill that had a chipped gear,this setup is to
show you how you can be tricked,however it uses key things I believe
tinman used in hes device.It is not possible to say a device is fake for certain
from a video,however if you can replicate it in a fake way,it most likely is fake
If you try and fake a real device you can do it,however other factors have to be taken into account
to determine if the chances are its fake,this type of thing I've done to the tpu and
Kapanadze's devices,this is Kapanadze's device's,not the other fake devices claiming there Kapanadze
replications.The motor is powered by a power supply,the meters show current and voltage of both the motor and lamps,the lamps are 12v auto lamps.Normally I don't get involved unless I feel a device maybe real,however
this is such a brilliant possible prank,I couldn't resist the challenge.
I think anyone showing a working device that produces electricity with no input or an output that exceeds the input, will receive a visit from unsavory people, after which you will be not showing the device again.
So, if the inventor has not been visited then the device is probably not real.
There are a few people I know of, who got the "visit":
Steven Mark
Spherics
RomeroUK
Hendershot
Stephan Marinov (suspected visit)
Energia Celeste (also suspected visit)
There are some gentlemen in the 1980's that I have heard of who built large toroidal devices. One placed a unit on his roof and his home was destroyed by a tornado. This effect is expected, considering to the comments in letter from Geza Korcsmaros to Hendershot. An open-field device will rotate ions above/ below it. There are a few recent articles around of research confirming ion concentrations preceding the formation of tornadoes and earthquakes.
@cp2012: Awesome demonstration! I have several guesses as to what's in the Black Box. (A hamster with electrodes in his ears? Another battery or two? Electric eels? )
@Grumpy: But how are "They" to know if the device is real or not, without making a visit in the first place? Some of the YT videos from the "unvisited" claimants have fooled a lot of people on the forums, after all. So... as I sometimes say... "They" are either a lot smarter than the average forum member... or "they" just don't exist at all.
I don't think it's a prank by Tinman, (not that I think it over C.O.P. = 1 either), but I'm fairly sure I recall Tinman stating some time ago that he had anomalous power from his so called Rotary Transformer. I think he genuinely believes he has something or did believe, whichever.
It's all beside the point unless he divulges the required info to replicate or properly analyze the setup. Not much different to a text insinuation of having something, no solid evidence shown at all.
The M.I.B. Claims seal the deal for me. And besides with or without the M.I.B claims the resulting information given is not much use for making head nor tails of anything.
..
"They" can tell by either detecting some known effect from the device or by its configuration and claimed results.
is this Tinman's last video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmayxefg8A8
G
No that is not the Vid in question,these were a series of 3 measurement protocol Vids with much input from the Crew at OU.com .
it was a Black box affair [the DUT] no disclosure of operating principle.
The Only thing unusual about the Vids were the Public measurements and the fact That Mark E [of much Notoriety
to the measurement community he hires out to do this sort of thing professionally for investors] was personally guiding TinMan through a test procedure
which he felt comfortable with...Much scope shot and Meter scrutiny ,back and forth for quite a few days until it was at a fetching for straws
"one last Thing" scenario for the test over site crew.
Then POOF..............
Did the box show more out than in? or were were they struggling to show that?
One unit in ...1.8 out.so yes He showed OU results in the Vids
Rock solid up to the point where they were removed by Others.
also it wasn't a black box per say ,but an electric motor with special undisclosed internals....
Removed by others?
by who?
That's it, no friendly visit?
Quote from: Chet K on 2015.07.09, 23:27:44
One unit in ...1.8 out.so yes He showed OU results in the Vids
Rock solid up to the point where they were removed by Others.
also it wasn't a black box per say ,but an electric motor with special undisclosed internals....
>:-)
Not quite rock solid. He showed OU... OR he showed some kind of subtle measurement error. Or even both, or neither one. The jury, at least in my hemisphere, is still out on that one. The motor stalls when the output is connected to the input or battery supply in an attempt to self-loop. IIRC TinMan said he would try a DC-DC converter to get around this problem. This is a good idea but I don't know if he ever actually did it. Also, my suggestion about "daisy chaining" was never addressed. In fact, TinMan went dark, IIRC, just after I posted that suggestion. :'(
I've repeatedly made the claim... or is it a statement ;) ... that with a true COP of 1.3 or better in a device with electrical outputs and inputs, I can make it self loop. In this case it should be especially easy since both input and output are low-voltage DC at moderate currents. ??? But will that get me a visit from the "Others"? :-[
And the "box" wasn't black, was it? It looked more like a galvanized-silvergrey color to me. :P
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.07.10, 09:11:12
>:-)
Not quite rock solid. He showed OU... OR he showed some kind of subtle measurement error. Or even both, or neither one. The jury, at least in my hemisphere, is still out on that one. The motor stalls when the output is connected to the input or battery supply in an attempt to self-loop. IIRC TinMan said he would try a DC-DC converter to get around this problem. This is a good idea but I don't know if he ever actually did it. Also, my suggestion about "daisy chaining" was never addressed. In fact, TinMan went dark, IIRC, just after I posted that suggestion. :'(
I've repeatedly made the claim... or is it a statement ;) ... that with a true COP of 1.3 or better in a device with electrical outputs and inputs, I can make it self loop. In this case it should be especially easy since both input and output are low-voltage DC at moderate currents. ??? But will that get me a visit from the "Others"? :-[
And the "box" wasn't black, was it? It looked more like a galvanized-silvergrey color to me. :P
TK,
I do not know what videos you did look at? And I do not know if you did read all the posts over at over unity dot com,
but here is what I did see:
Tinman did ASK for help to measure his circuit. He got help from MarkE and Picowatt.
He did measurement according to what they told him.
He did show approx. 9 Watt into the circuit and approx. 18 Watt out of the circuit.
His o-scope measurement did agree with his DVM measurement within a 5% error margin.
He also did filter the input and output with electrolytic capacitors and small ceramic capacitors.
He did show on the o-scope that there was no large noise spikes on the input. (Down in the mW range.)
He did show by using a LUX meter that the output currents and voltages was almost the same from
the circuit as when he did use a power supply for the same light in the bulb, thus proving the output
from the circuit was real.
MarkE confirmed that Tinmans measurement was solid and correct. Then there was talk about trying
to self loop the circuit, and then the shit hit the fan, and everything went shitty.
All in all, Tinman posted 3 measurements videos on YouTube. All three videos was deleted.
I see that Picowatt is a member of this forum now, maybe he can confirm what I'm
posting here to be correct or not?
GL.
G
Yes there was a friendly Visit after the Vids And computer and Phone line were shut down.[since turned back on]
at the time of the visit there was an invitation [mandatory attendance ] to a Gov't building for
an "explanation"
at No time was anything touched removed or even looked at ,just Talk ,very friendly and passive.
Oh and when TinMan tried to query youtube about the Vid removal they just sent a Copywright infringement excuse.
and would not correspond at all, if you saw the vids there were no Copyrights involved [No Music etc]
during this time I had been in Phone contact with Tinman and the next day My Long Distance service was
removed with no good reason given By Frontier communication ,they had good news though "you have been paying to much"
and put me on a "new Plan"....
thanks,
I never use that method to make long distance calls anyway ,however when they pulled my Phone I could only call in my local area.
also My old throw away IBM laptop was fried the day after , went to sleep it worked fine woke up the next day
Boopkis...Tech says the Harddrive is gone "happens all the time"
first time for me.
Stick this in your pouch, TK.
E??
Chet,
That is typical criminal groups activity (and dangerous when they are part of govt) and unless you make insurance with spreading out information in open source format before showing anything the research is always at the risk...
Also there is century war still going on between scientists and those who want to keep monopoly&power.. http://www.infowars.com/list-of-dead-scientists/
Who has a copy of the 3 vids in question? I have not seen any of them, but I can say I had computer problems also the day this happened, most strange
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.07.10, 14:01:10
Who has a copy of the 3 vids in question? I have not seen any of them, but I can say I had computer problems also the day this happened, most strange
regards
Mike 8)
Dear Mike.
This one might be the most important one IMO.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2912.msg50296#msg50296
Cheers Grum.
Hi Groundloop,
I can also confirm that the happenings and the chain of events you posted below is correct.
Thanks for collecting them.
Gyula
Quote from: Groundloop on 2015.07.10, 10:04:28
TK,
I do not know what videos you did look at? And I do not know if you did read all the posts over at over unity dot com,
but here is what I did see:
Tinman did ASK for help to measure his circuit. He got help from MarkE and Picowatt.
He did measurement according to what they told him.
He did show approx. 9 Watt into the circuit and approx. 18 Watt out of the circuit.
His o-scope measurement did agree with his DVM measurement within a 5% error margin.
He also did filter the input and output with electrolytic capacitors and small ceramic capacitors.
He did show on the o-scope that there was no large noise spikes on the input. (Down in the mW range.)
He did show by using a LUX meter that the output currents and voltages was almost the same from
the circuit as when he did use a power supply for the same light in the bulb, thus proving the output
from the circuit was real.
MarkE confirmed that Tinmans measurement was solid and correct. Then there was talk about trying
to self loop the circuit, and then the shit hit the fan, and everything went shitty.
All in all, Tinman posted 3 measurements videos on YouTube. All three videos was deleted.
I see that Picowatt is a member of this forum now, maybe he can confirm what I'm
posting here to be correct or not?
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on 2015.07.10, 10:04:28
TK,
I do not know what videos you did look at? And I do not know if you did read all the posts over at over unity dot com,
but here is what I did see:
Tinman did ASK for help to measure his circuit. He got help from MarkE and Picowatt.
He did measurement according to what they told him.
He did show approx. 9 Watt into the circuit and approx. 18 Watt out of the circuit.
His o-scope measurement did agree with his DVM measurement within a 5% error margin.
He also did filter the input and output with electrolytic capacitors and small ceramic capacitors.
He did show on the o-scope that there was no large noise spikes on the input. (Down in the mW range.)
He did show by using a LUX meter that the output currents and voltages was almost the same from
the circuit as when he did use a power supply for the same light in the bulb, thus proving the output
from the circuit was real.
MarkE confirmed that Tinmans measurement was solid and correct. Then there was talk about trying
to self loop the circuit, and then the shit hit the fan, and everything went shitty.
All in all, Tinman posted 3 measurements videos on YouTube. All three videos was deleted.
I see that Picowatt is a member of this forum now, maybe he can confirm what I'm
posting here to be correct or not?
GL.
Picowatt doesn't need to, I can confirm that all you say is correct, as far as I can tell. I was following along all the while, and last night I went back over the past 30 or so pages of that thread (my goodness that EMJ fellow sure is distracting and irrelevant), and I also remember the three videos very clearly, as if it were only yesterday that I watched them. And I know just where my "daisy chain" suggestion fits into the timeline, too.
None of that negates what I have said in my post. Errors in measurement and interpretation can still slip through this remote-control vetting process.
For example, as I recall, when TinMan was trying to use the PSU to send DC through the load bulb to obtain the same brightness and power, his PSU was in _current limiting_ mode, as indicated by his narration and also by the red light on the unit itself. He never did wind up with the exact settings as happened during the experimental demonstration itself, according to my notes. Those values were, again, according to my notes, IN 12.44V@0.744A = 9.255W and OUT 9.37V@1.583A = 14.833W. This is pretty darn impressive, and the error of the "control" with PSU in current-limiting mode would only be less than a Watt, so it's still an impressive result.
So, by the Daisy-Chain method, one should be able to run another identical unit on the output of the first one, with power left over, and then a third off the power output of the second, etc. Daisy-chain several units together and take the combined mechanical power from the motor shafts and use it to turn a separate generator, which would easily provide the power to run the first unit in the chain! Why isn't TinMan being a hero, risking everything to bring such a simple device to the public? Release the complete plans all over the internet, and thumb noses at the PTB and the MiBs !!!
Or... perhaps the units cannot be daisy-chained at all, and then the conclusion that the measurements are in error is inescapable, no matter how many EEs agree that, to the best of their knowledge the measurements were correctly performed.
If a device puts out plain old DC at higher power than is being input as plain old DC... what conceivable reason could there possibly be that would prevent them from being daisy-chained? I can understand how the circuitry might not permit one device looping back to itself, but what is there to prevent daisy-chaining, except _lack of sufficient real power_ in the first place?
Heck, send me the parts and instructions to build three identical units and I'll do it myself. I ain't afraid of no MIBs.
ETA: The lower voltage of the output can be easily handled by using an efficient DC-DC converter, or even by putting the outputs of two identical units _in series_ .
Quote from: Enigma on 2015.07.10, 12:46:22
Stick this in your pouch, TK.
E??
See? It's the Streisand Effect. The extended Internet never forgets. Once something is "out there" in the wild, it's there for good... or bad... and short of instituting massive censorship or shutting the whole damn net down, there is nothing that G-men of any stripe can do about it. By their very actions, they are drawing attention to that which they wish to suppress.
(And I think that the _real_ MiBs are smarter than that.)
Quote from: Enigma on 2015.07.10, 12:46:22
Stick this in your pouch, TK.
E??
Just checked quickly per Grum's request.
Was Brad running resonant circuit? The caps and DC motor brushes would certainly be able to create the resonance condition where fixed large load can run on reactive power without much consumption from power source...
P.S> For curiosity I calculated power levels. Pin: 9.44955W, Pload: 14.47908W. Just unless question about recycled reactive power is answered I would avoid throwing in OU discussion.
Hi T-1000,
There is no indication from Brad posts or from his videos that a resonant circuit was used anywhere in his setup.
I think that regardless of whether there was resonant circuit or not, if you have a setup that consumes say 9.4W DC power and delivers say 14.4W DC output power to a load, then why is it a question whether this is a COP > 1 or not?
For me this setup clearly shows excess power output and even with a 80% efficiency off-the-shelf DC-DC converter you could make a looped self-runner. And still a good 2W power would be available for a load. And remember that in your calculations on Pin and Pout, the mechanical power available on the motor shaft is not considered, whatever small or not small its value is. I mean the inherent COP may be higher than this divison: 14.4/9.4 suggests.
Gyula
Quote from: T-1000 on 2015.07.10, 16:07:13
Just checked quickly per Grum's request.
Was Brad running resonant circuit? The caps and DC motor brushes would certainly be able to create the resonance condition where fixed large load can run on reactive power without much consumption from power source...
P.S> For curiosity I calculated power levels. Pin: 9.44955W, Pload: 14.47908W. Just unless question about recycled reactive power is answered I would avoid throwing in OU discussion.
Quote from: Grumage on 2015.07.10, 14:27:25
Dear Mike.
This one might be the most important one IMO.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2912.msg50296#msg50296
Cheers Grum.
Thanks Grum, I did not see that, very interesting
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Chet K on 2015.07.10, 12:12:23
Yes there was a friendly Visit after the Vids And computer and Phone line were shut down.[since turned back on]
at the time of the visit there was an invitation [mandatory attendance ] to a Gov't building for
an "explanation"
at No time was anything touched removed or even looked at ,just Talk ,very friendly and passive.
Friendly visit? One that would lead to TinMan calling it quits? I kind of uh uh doubt it.
Exactly who are these creatures? Or better, who is their employer? We need to pay them a little visit. This is a hobby for most here. It's not like we are putting any strain whatsoever on the major energy producers. If we are prohibited from this sort of research, maybe we should all pack our bags and get the hell off this rock.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Why is so much time being invested in speculating the circumstances which surround Tinman's decision to pack up and go? The time could be better invested in either back tracking all that has been presented over the years, or one could just do his/her own research and come to similar or possibly better conclusions.
His method isn't important, the message is. There are many ways to approach the problem of engineering the system to do more as he has demonstrated. The problem we have as a community is that we are hell bent on copy and pasting, and owing to this no one is in the position to offer a workable theory of where the excess "power" not energy is coming from! In truth, I prefer a system which shows gains in energy versus gains in power. The reasoning behind that should be clear.
Where are you on the bench with regards to this and related topics, that's what we should be discussing.
Regards
I've just been mucking around with TKs setup - fascinating effect - higher current draw for me when I attach the incandescent. Just mucking about with things. I have no idea what I'm doing Mr ASIO man . Nothing to see here.
Didn't Tinman put magnets on the stator, so being able to use the stator coils as generator coils?
Then the shorting coil is shorted by a mosfet with the gate driven by? or just a reed switch and no mosfet!
Just thinking aloud as not at home to experiment
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.07.11, 10:02:47
Didn't Tinman put magnets on the stator, so being able to use the stator coils as generator coils?
Then the shorting coil is shorted by a mosfet with the gate driven by? or just a reed switch and no mosfet!
Just thinking aloud as not at home to experiment
Regards
Mike 8)
Magnets in the stator to facilitate induction in the stator sounds difficult.
I don't recall reading anything about magnets being part of the device, however, I will not rule it out if for no other reason, the rotary transformer was inspired by his permanent magnet based L.A.G. One could presume that he would eventually move towards integrating permanent magnets into the rotary transformer since the two technologies are basically different embodies of the same principles and concepts. However being as clever as he is, if I were in his position I wouldn't, but he isn't me nor I him.
We shouldn't forget that the rotor can be exited individually, the rotor will spin, no torque in the true sense of the term will be produced as there is no orthogonal field being generated in the field windings, neither here nor there, as this isn't specifically about motoring effects and torque. This frees up the field windings for whatever one desires to try out. We were informed on several occasions, not including the present disclosure, that the field windings were rewound. The rewinding usually included, but were not limited to adding a second winding which functioned as a trigger winding enabling the use of an inductively triggered circuit. If this were practiced, (DC excited to rotor, in conjunction with inductively triggered circuit driving stator windings) no permanent magnets would be required in the stator as is being suggested.
Are we really going to try and piece this mystery together? By the time we are done we will have a machine that is identical in appearance to his, but it will be radically different in how it operates.
The question to ask is simple.....what were you shown? The answer is even simpler......nothing he hadn't shown you more times than many care to recall......
Regards
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.07.10, 15:44:39
See? It's the Streisand Effect. The extended Internet never forgets. Once something is "out there" in the wild, it's there for good... or bad... and short of instituting massive censorship or shutting the whole damn net down, there is nothing that G-men of any stripe can do about it. By their very actions, they are drawing attention to that which they wish to suppress.
(And I think that the _real_ MiBs are smarter than that.)
Well... see what I mean?
http://overunity.com/15395/partnered-output-coils-free-energy/msg455426/#msg455426
Somebody -- NOT ME -- has posted a copy of this one "forbidden" video on a new YT channel created on July 10, and posted a link to it on OU dot com. I expect the other two videos to appear shortly. The Internet never forgets. Once something is ever posted to the internet it is very hard indeed to clean it all up. The MiBs have their work cut out for them now, as I imagine that many people will be copying this video for their own use and analysis... just in case it should disappear from YT again.
Quote from: gyula on 2015.07.10, 19:22:05
Hi T-1000,
There is no indication from Brad posts or from his videos that a resonant circuit was used anywhere in his setup.
I think that regardless of whether there was resonant circuit or not, if you have a setup that consumes say 9.4W DC power and delivers say 14.4W DC output power to a load, then why is it a question whether this is a COP > 1 or not?
For me this setup clearly shows excess power output and even with a 80% efficiency off-the-shelf DC-DC converter you could make a looped self-runner. And still a good 2W power would be available for a load. And remember that in your calculations on Pin and Pout, the mechanical power available on the motor shaft is not considered, whatever small or not small its value is. I mean the inherent COP may be higher than this divison: 14.4/9.4 suggests.
Gyula
The reactive power in proper circuit can be accumulated with the values to the higher than power on input. Unless you loop back and start seeing 0 amps draw in power input the claiming of COP > 1 may be very misleading.
Just as a reminder, you can see same effects on induction heater circuit experiments such as J. Naudin's replica iin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W2ABWjeTrk with all attempts to loop power back there which was not successful...
http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/indexen.htm
P.S> Someone could invite J Naudin to the forum so we could have good discussions :)
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.07.12, 09:08:27
Well... see what I mean?
http://overunity.com/15395/partnered-output-coils-free-energy/msg455426/#msg455426
Somebody -- NOT ME -- has posted a copy of this one "forbidden" video on a new YT channel created on July 10, and posted a link to it on OU dot com.
Yup, Streisand Effect.
Do you think these large capacitors shown in this video are before or after the meters?
P.S.
How can you withstand watching that video with your aversion to crocodiles and all ?
Quote from: T-1000 on 2015.07.12, 10:59:24
The reactive power in proper circuit can be accumulated with the values to the higher than power on input.
You can't compare GeGene measurements with TinMan's measurements because one is measuring kHz AC and the other close to DC.
Quote from: verpies on 2015.07.12, 11:15:36
Yup, Streisand Effect.
Do you think these large capacitors shown in this video are before or after the meters?
As far as I can tell the capacitors are simply in parallel with the input and the output of the device, in conformity with Poynt99's schematic which I have attached below. I am not sure about the CSR values that TinMan used, but the consensus seems to be that the capacitors have adequately filtered the input and output currents so as to have very little ripple or spikes in the DC power measurements.
But without direct access to the apparatus, or further communication from TinMan, it is difficult to be sure.
Quote
P.S.
How can you withstand watching that video with your aversion to crocodiles and all ?
Any hungry crocodile that comes for me will find himself with a bigger mouthful than he can easily chew and swallow. Besides being very tough, I am quite bitter as well.
I'm curious who "Brad Power" is that reposted it???
Brad made a comment back in 2013 on his old forum, and someone there asked him a question about it:
Quote@TM
I want to be clued in on "Boxes within boxes" & "Simple complications"
Brad's answer:
QuoteIt means -never asume that you can judge the size of the gift by going on the size of the box,as there may be a smaller box inside that contains the gift.
Simple complication's is adding components to a system that arnt needed- to keep the sleepers from profiting from your hard work.
So here Brad openly admits to obfuscation. One would have to assume his most recent diagrams may have "errors" as well.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.07.12, 14:25:41
I'm curious who "Brad Power" is that reposted it???
I don't know, nor do I have any clues to follow. The YT account was evidently opened on July 10, and only contains the one video.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2015.07.12, 14:43:05
Brad made a comment back in 2013 on his old forum, and someone there asked him a question about it:
Brad's answer:
So here Brad openly admits to obfuscation. One would have to assume his most recent diagrams may have "errors" as well.
I would hope that this isn't the case. If we believe that Brad would "obfuscate" in that way, or even that he would deliberately fake something, then his results may be trivially easy to reproduce. Just put a battery and some simple circuitry inside the silver "black box" . Personally, I would prefer not to believe that of Brad. But there is something extremely fishy about this whole story of suppression, in my opinion.
I don't believe Brad has faked his latest results, but he has said repeatedly that he does not want to provide enough information to have it replicated. So intentional obfuscation would not be out of the question in my opinion.
The Green Oxide Mystery or Another attack of the MIBs?
As you all know I have been attempting a replication of Brad's latest motor.
Two days ago we had a violent thunderstorm, coincident with my landline phone going dead...no dial tone all phones silent. A little tinge of fear about MIBs quickly vanished as I headed out to the pole on the property and removed the metal cap to measure the voltage. It was only around 4 to 5 volts, way down from the expected 48 to 52 volts, the normal reading. I disconnected the wires at that junction and the voltage came up to 55 volts , a tad above the normal 48 to 52 volts expected. I put a test phone on the line and had a dial tone. So the line to the street from my pole was intact despite running through some trees, which I thought might have stretched and broken the wires internally during the high winds as it seemed to be still rigidly strung.
I had previously disconnected all phones, fax machines etc. thinking the lightning might have taken something out, partially shorting the line. This was not the case, the line was still shorted. I disconnected the line at the basement box, then I was able to get a dial tone there. But when I put the RJ-11 plug back into the box connecting all internal house wiring, the voltage again dropped to around 5 volts.
Well at least it wasn't the underground cable which zig zagged over 300 feet through the yard on it's way to the house. Rather than disconnect all five lines that ran in various directions through the basement up to receptacles on the first floor and ring each one out, I decided to take one last look around.
Coiled behind a speaker cabinet in the bedroom I found a short length of connecting cable with a very suspicious green oxide on the RJ-11 contacts. It was from a phone that had previously used the cable but had been disconnected and the open end of the connector was lying on the floor. When I disconnected the cable, the voltage came back up to 55 volts, and the phones worked throughout the house once again.
Then I recalled that a few days ago wifey thought she smelled some possible cat marking in that area, so sprayed the area with some kind of powerful deodorizer.
So was it the cat marking by Queso, the deodorizer spray, or did the MIBs sneak into my house and spray something corrosive on the RJ11 jack?
Queso was home at all times so only Queso knows for sure.
Ah it all makes sense ION
In my home town there was a reported crashing of a UFO in the 50's, and for many years there have been reports that infact the DNA of cats has been altered in their favour.
Strange thing is that over a year ago one of my neighbours cat decided it did not like them anymore and tried moving in to our place, we took it back and handed it over many times, but it just came back and sat outside the conservatory door all day and all night, i would get up for a wee in the middle of the night and glance down the hall through the conservatory and the cat was always there :o
Winter came and it was still there, trying to scrounge a stroke and some food, it was getting thinner and starting to look wild, the neighbours said it no longer went home to eat or sleep, in the end it looked like it was on it's last days so we started feeding it and letting it sleep in the conservatory during the cold nights, it's still here 1 year on and pretty well owns our house now.
Periodically inspects my lab by looking over every inch before exiting.
Could it be i am being observed ;D
http://ufologie.patrickgross.org/ce3/1955-05-05-uk-brighton.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361878/Russian-flight-controllers-UFO-aliens-speak-cat-like-language.html
Dear All.
My son was doing some internet trawling for me, using key words, he found this!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmJr4_gHygo&feature=youtu.be
Cheers Grum.
118 views already and no comments. Nobody really cares? Maybe the MiBs have learned their lesson: Simply ignoring works better than active suppression.
And then again maybe the message was for the fellow that new how it worked...
as an example ,I can post vids all day long of Atom bombs too ,and guess what ?
have a nice day !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSsmScZqMts&feature=youtu.be
Download and copy please..
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.07.14, 17:28:29
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSsmScZqMts&feature=youtu.be
Download and copy please..
All 3 videos can be downloaded from https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnGwp_xxmyJiY-r1oshJn9Q/videos as well.
Tk has mentioned this a lot of times,its a very important concept,
any device can be thought of as a black box,with an input and an output.
If the output exceeds the input it can be looped.Its assumed that the required input to
run the black box plus the
load of the output are equal to at least the total possible output of the black box,then it can be looped.
This applies wither the device is fake or real.In a real device no physical examination will reveal
a battery or hidden wires or wireless energy transmission.
A fake can not be determined by any test without a physical examination.
This why the tests Mark told tinman to do ,are not valid and prove nothing.
Sometimes its necessary see looping visually,to get a feel for it,in this demo
I'm using a modified 100 watt inverter,the under voltage/over voltage detector
circuit has been disabled,this prevents an inverter from operating with too low or too high an input dc voltage.
I did some other modifications so this wasn't needed,the inverter will operate on 10v dc.
I'm using an ac adapter 100v to 240 vac input,output 12vdc,3 amps.Only the lamp current is
measured by the current meter,not the current fed to the inverter.In the video at the
end I flip the on/off switch to show it is not going to restart once the loop is broken.
The video and pictures are nice, but could you supply a simple sketch of the setup and an explanation of what you are actually trying to do? Maybe I'm dense but I did not get the full idea of what you were trying to demonstrate.
Thanks in advance
Regards, ION
There has been some talk on ou.com re patents. Also, it's good to see Brad back.
Anyway, in order to put the record straight:-
If you publish an invention into the public domain ie OUR or OU.com, youtube etc. then it CAN NOT BE PATENTED.
All you have to do is inform the relevant patent office, the whereabouts and the "whenabouts" of the public disclosure
and the patent will be revoked.
I remember a discussion about this on energetic where one member stole and patented another member's invention.
The patent was subsequently revoked.
Good point AKing.
But what about the "inverse" case... which is what I was talking about when I mentioned patents over there.
Say a big powerful corporation or government owns a patent on some secret worldchanging technology. Perhaps the patent rights were assigned, or perhaps the patent was "secretized" because of national security reasons. They definitely do this in the USA and I would certainly expect it to be done in Australia as well.
So now some private individual -- who may or may not actually have "inside" knowledge of said patent and the art it teaches -- starts putting up YouTube videos that come very very close to revealing the secret of the patent. And it's clear enough so that the Watchers believe that the individual definitely knows the secret himself.
What then?
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.07.16, 18:27:33
But what about the "inverse" case... which is what I was talking about when I mentioned patents over there.
Say a big powerful corporation or government owns a patent on some secret worldchanging technology. Perhaps the patent rights were assigned, or perhaps the patent was "secretized" because of national security reasons. They definitely do this in the USA and I would certainly expect it to be done in Australia as well.
So now some private individual -- who may or may not actually have "inside" knowledge of said patent and the art it teaches -- starts putting up YouTube videos that come very very close to revealing the secret of the patent. And it's clear enough so that the Watchers believe that the individual definitely knows the secret himself.
What then?
Been there, done that, got the T shirt!! In my professional career I have been been served secrecy orders on some of my patent applications to do with military equipment. I have also received dire warnings from the USA (I live in the UK) about another application that they said breached the World War 2 lease-lend agreements that gave the USA all proprietary rights to certain types of military equipment. This was some 40 years after the war and in spite of the fact that my invention was an improvement over existing designs.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2015.07.16, 18:58:41
Been there, done that, got the T shirt!! In my professional career I have been been served secrecy orders on some of my patent applications to do with military equipment. I have also received dire warnings from the USA (I live in the UK) about another application that they said breached the World War 2 lease-lend agreements that gave the USA all proprietary rights to certain types of military equipment. This was some 40 years after the war and in spite of the fact that my invention was an improvement over existing designs.
Smudge
Confirms what I've been saying all along, sadly.
This is why I believe Tinman was silenced.
It is called stochastic mixing.
ie mixing radiant energy with ordinary ac or dc
or mixing static electricity with pulsed dc or ac.
I noticed over at the ou.com forum, that there is talk of radio interference.
It would seem to be a possibility that broad noise at a high enough power output could be a good reason for troubles.
That scope shot certainly looks noisy. It's my opinion that the visitors could have said one thing but meant/implied another and the result would be the same effect that it has evidently had on our Aussie friend.
In light of which, a Faraday cage should be constructed to house the motor and, guess what we have then ?
The spinny motor black box that sits in peoples utility rooms making power !
The expected grail of devices that everyone imagines a free energy machine would be lol, true though !
Glad my workbench is inside a shipping container then :) No AM, FM, 3G or 4g inside that baby
The purpose of the looping post is to show that a fake device can be looped the same as a real device,electronic tests alone can not determine a real device from a fake device,only a physical examination can.Tinman's reaction to poynt99's,"funny business", statement is a bad sign".There are two circuits the first relies on voltage generated by field coil L2,when the voltage reaches a certain point it causes the scr to conduct causing the relay to close the contacts, applying current to the lamp and L1 thru resistor R the current in the field coil causes a magnetic field to form this causes the rotor to turn faster,reducing its current draw,the scr unlatches when the switch is turned off.The second circuit is more cut and dry,you simply apply current to both the field coil L1 and the lamp at the same time thru a switch.There are many ways to do this illusion.
Any electric motor no matter what it is relies on magnetic forces of attract and repulsion.The universal motor is no different it relies on a magnetic field created in the housing,by two electromagnets(field coils),the housing is a laminated core that is resistant to magnetization.The rotor has 2 electromagnets on opposite sides that repel and attract the magnetic fields from the field electromagnets.This causes a rotation of the rotor,the rotor must overcome friction,caused by the brushes in contact with the commutator(coil rotor switch).In a motor like this when you disconnect the field coils,and apply a current to only the rotor,the rotor will not turn,the electromagnets of the rotor will apply force on the housing but will not turn.In tinmans schematic it shows no power applied to either field coils,one is used as a generator,the other in a shorting unknown circuit,without a magnetic field present at start up it can not turn,no shorting of anything will make it turn.Until you address why a rotor will turn in the absence of any counter magnetic field you guys are simply going in circles.If you were to get a motor to run without the field coils needed,applying current to a field winding will increase the rotors speed and decrease the current drawn by the rotor,a fact not a theory.If a person could get a universal motor to run with no current in the field coil,he could create an illusion where a hidden source of energy is applied to not only,the lamp but the field coil causing the lamp to light and causing a current in the field winding,causing an increase in the magnetic field in the field coil ,causing an increase in the speed of the rotor,causing a decrease in current drawn by the rotor.
Heres a little more investigating of tinmans device,With any investigation, you set your limits,and conditions.1 a universal motor is used,the field windings must be separate.2 One winding is used as a generator,the other to help create a rotation.3 A special type of shorting of one field winding occurs.You have only one winding free to use to rotate the rotor,what happens if a current is applied to the rotor with both windings disconnected?picture (zero rotation) answers this,the rotors electromagnets create force on the core the result is the rotor becomes very hard to turn by hand,no rotation happens.In order for the special shorting to occur the rotor must rotate,in the videos the rotor instantly rotates when current is applied.Next the core is removed,picture,(magnet-rotor-effect) shows whats needed for the rotor to rotate.The setup picture,(setup,one magnet),a single magnet, south pole facing rotor is used,picture,(magnet-rotor-turning),a video of this,(one magnet to run motor).I tried placing very powerful magnets on the core to make the motor run no luck,I found that cutting the core in half allowed magnets to be used to rotate the motor.The amount of current fed the field coil controls the current dawn by the motor,picture (setup,field current effects rotor current),video,(current of field coil effects rotor current),keep in mind that the closer the field winding is to the rotor the greater the reaction,in this demo the distance is not too close.I investigated why a solid core can't be used with magnets to create rotation of the rotor.Picture, (set magnetic field ),shows a very powerful magnet used to test polarity and field strength,I'm using a polarity magnetic probe,in picture,(half core magnetic field),the center is south pole,as expected as well as the outer part.Now I joined the core pieces to form a complete core,the magnetic field is south pole thru out the outer core,picture,(magnetic field of complete outer core).I used the probe to test the inside of the complete core,the probe showed no magnetic field or so little that the probe didn't react to it,picture,(magnetic field in side complete core).I used first a screw driver,which showed that there was a magnetic field in the center of the core,then a magnet probing, using magnetic repulsion to test the core,it indicated that the center of the core was completely a south pole,this creates conditions that prevents rotation.I believe that the probe uses a hall device which is effected by this making it seem there's no magnetic field at the center of the core.In building my version for the demo,I found if the split cores get too close to each other the motor stops turning,there has to be a gap between the split cores.Is tinmans device a prank I believe it is,you guys make up your own minds.
I'm sorry I stopped reading after you inferred brad is anything less than honest.
With ya on that Jim...those who don't know the guy may leap around all over the place, treating this device like any other that doesn't have full disclosure. Historically, nothing is resolved about what is claimed by an inventor, so there is vindication in the vicious attacks. And, indeed, when claimed as something and it gets debunked, the feeling is of a superiority to the inventors scam tactic. Nothing wrong with that, who wants to be a mug.
Biggest point, in my opinion, is that this one was never claimed to be anything, it just is what it is.
People are choosing to be offended by Brad's stance...choosing to be offended.
The readings have been made, the scope shots given, the circuit changed to accommodate peer requested components.
Right from the offset there was no case of misleading into spending cash on parts toward a dead end.
If you want one, build one, but you have to have the hours in of understanding to get there.
The research has to be done, the bench time put in, the long nights of brain crunching to gain tiny realisations and make methodical changes.
Let me put it this way. If 100 people put in the time, discover, learn how this process works, then that can be far superior to 1 person with 1 device immediately disclosing all. 100 different versions will produce improvements, changes, greater efficiencies, a forwarding. 1 device will be static, halted beside minor skirting around the basic concept. An example may be the SSG, where people know the exact circuit and construction, so that is what they build. It works, so why do anything to it ?
Quote from: cheappower2012 on 2015.07.17, 08:07:33
The purpose of the looping post is to show that a fake device can be looped the same as a real device,electronic tests alone can not determine a real device from a fake device,only a physical examination can.Tinman's reaction to poynt99's,"funny business", statement is a bad sign".There are two circuits the first relies on voltage generated by field coil L2,when the voltage reaches a certain point it causes the scr to conduct causing the relay to close the contacts, applying current to the lamp and L1 thru resistor R the current in the field coil causes a magnetic field to form this causes the rotor to turn faster,reducing its current draw,the scr unlatches when the switch is turned off.The second circuit is more cut and dry,you simply apply current to both the field coil L1 and the lamp at the same time thru a switch.There are many ways to do this illusion.
Any electric motor no matter what it is relies on magnetic forces of attract and repulsion.The universal motor is no different it relies on a magnetic field created in the housing,by two electromagnets(field coils),the housing is a laminated core that is resistant to magnetization.The rotor has 2 electromagnets on opposite sides that repel and attract the magnetic fields from the field electromagnets.This causes a rotation of the rotor,the rotor must overcome friction,caused by the brushes in contact with the commutator(coil rotor switch).In a motor like this when you disconnect the field coils,and apply a current to only the rotor,the rotor will not turn,the electromagnets of the rotor will apply force on the housing but will not turn.In tinmans schematic it shows no power applied to either field coils,one is used as a generator,the other in a shorting unknown circuit,without a magnetic field present at start up it can not turn,no shorting of anything will make it turn.Until you address why a rotor will turn in the absence of any counter magnetic field you guys are simply going in circles.If you were to get a motor to run without the field coils needed,applying current to a field winding will increase the rotors speed and decrease the current drawn by the rotor,a fact not a theory.If a person could get a universal motor to run with no current in the field coil,he could create an illusion where a hidden source of energy is applied to not only,the lamp but the field coil causing the lamp to light and causing a current in the field winding,causing an increase in the magnetic field in the field coil ,causing an increase in the speed of the rotor,causing a decrease in current drawn by the rotor.
Heres a little more investigating of tinmans device,With any investigation, you set your limits,and conditions.1 a universal motor is used,the field windings must be separate.2 One winding is used as a generator,the other to help create a rotation.3 A special type of shorting of one field winding occurs.You have only one winding free to use to rotate the rotor,what happens if a current is applied to the rotor with both windings disconnected?picture (zero rotation) answers this,the rotors electromagnets create force on the core the result is the rotor becomes very hard to turn by hand,no rotation happens.In order for the special shorting to occur the rotor must rotate,in the videos the rotor instantly rotates when current is applied.Next the core is removed,picture,(magnet-rotor-effect) shows whats needed for the rotor to rotate.The setup picture,(setup,one magnet),a single magnet, south pole facing rotor is used,picture,(magnet-rotor-turning),a video of this,(one magnet to run motor).I tried placing very powerful magnets on the core to make the motor run no luck,I found that cutting the core in half allowed magnets to be used to rotate the motor.The amount of current fed the field coil controls the current dawn by the motor,picture (setup,field current effects rotor current),video,(current of field coil effects rotor current),keep in mind that the closer the field winding is to the rotor the greater the reaction,in this demo the distance is not too close.I investigated why a solid core can't be used with magnets to create rotation of the rotor.Picture, (set magnetic field ),shows a very powerful magnet used to test polarity and field strength,I'm using a polarity magnetic probe,in picture,(half core magnetic field),the center is south pole,as expected as well as the outer part.Now I joined the core pieces to form a complete core,the magnetic field is south pole thru out the outer core,picture,(magnetic field of complete outer core).I used the probe to test the inside of the complete core,the probe showed no magnetic field or so little that the probe didn't react to it,picture,(magnetic field in side complete core).I used first a screw driver,which showed that there was a magnetic field in the center of the core,then a magnet probing, using magnetic repulsion to test the core,it indicated that the center of the core was completely a south pole,this creates conditions that prevents rotation.I believe that the probe uses a hall device which is effected by this making it seem there's no magnetic field at the center of the core.In building my version for the demo,I found if the split cores get too close to each other the motor stops turning,there has to be a gap between the split cores.Is tinmans device a prank I believe it is,you guys make up your own minds.
Anything can be faked,but we will see how you go with my next video i post--lets see you fake that.
Fight or flight becomes fight - good on ya Brad O0
Quote from: Erfinder on 2015.07.11, 10:34:20
Magnets in the stator to facilitate induction in the stator sounds difficult.
I don't recall reading anything about magnets being part of the device, however, I will not rule it out if for no other reason, the rotary transformer was inspired by his permanent magnet based L.A.G. One could presume that he would eventually move towards integrating permanent magnets into the rotary transformer since the two technologies are basically different embodies of the same principles and concepts. However being as clever as he is, if I were in his position I wouldn't, but he isn't me nor I him.
We shouldn't forget that the rotor can be exited individually, the rotor will spin, no torque in the true sense of the term will be produced as there is no orthogonal field being generated in the field windings, neither here nor there, as this isn't specifically about motoring effects and torque. This frees up the field windings for whatever one desires to try out. We were informed on several occasions, not including the present disclosure, that the field windings were rewound. The rewinding usually included, but were not limited to adding a second winding which functioned as a trigger winding enabling the use of an inductively triggered circuit. If this were practiced, (DC excited to rotor, in conjunction with inductively triggered circuit driving stator windings) no permanent magnets would be required in the stator as is being suggested.
Are we really going to try and piece this mystery together? By the time we are done we will have a machine that is identical in appearance to his, but it will be radically different in how it operates.
The question to ask is simple.....what were you shown? The answer is even simpler......nothing he hadn't shown you more times than many care to recall......
Regards
Hi ER
Now back home from my 10 days away in France and easier to access the net :)
This is just thinking allowed and what I would try and might try, after several years of what others have done or not done ^-^
Cut the stator core in half with one coil on each half, rejoin with a neo mag between each join. Now you need to have one stator coil used as a generator coil and the other as a field interrupter of the neo's of now the PM ring core.
By creating a circuit to switch (short) the one coil in a frequency harmony of the rotor ( pulse of the "generating coil" gating a mosfet). Two things will happen I think, when the coil shorts a high current will be produced ( the mosfet used will have to cope with this), the mag field will be pushed through the generating coil causing a current to flow which will be added to the generated voltage produced by the rotor. This is a bit like a buck booster in a loose way, except here we generate the voltage (10+-V) and add the high current made by switching the mag flux with compression through the coil. The second thing to happen is due to all this the rotor input power drops due to the mag flux movement reducing drag on the rotor.
All seems a most interesting idea, no "laws" broken as it is using the power of the neos being pushed and springing back for little input to do it O0
Regards
Mike 8)
So, TinMan, you've decided to post more videos after all?
(Just for the record, I do NOT think that you are faking anything you've shown. However I acknowledge cheappower's analysis and I thought myself that putting a battery inside the switchbox might be one possible way to fake it.)
I've just discovered that one of my little shunt motors WILL rotate quite fast and with good torque with only the armature brushes connected to the power supply... no connection to the field coils at all. It needs a little manual spin to get started, then it accelerates rapidly. The other one won't quite do it but seems to try, maybe it still has too much friction in its bearings.
These motors have no magnets in them and there appears to be no remanent magnetism in the core assembly. Both field coils are normally connected together in series inside the case. But as part of my efforts I just took one apart and rewired it so that the coils are now separate. I also lubed the little ball bearings so that the motor turns more freely. These things are at least 50 years old and the grease in the bearings is like wax. This rewired one is the one that will run with only the armature brushes connected to the power supply and the field coils not connected to anything.
What's even weirder is that the polarity of the power supply doesn't matter... it turns the same direction regardless of the polarity of the PS connection to the armature brushes. I have to admit that I don't understand what's going on in these motors when they are spinning without any field coil connections. The armature poles aren't straight, they are kind of a spiral.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.07.17, 18:36:18
.....
What's even weirder is that the polarity of the power supply doesn't matter... it turns the same direction regardless of the polarity of the PS connection to the armature brushes. I have to admit that I don't understand what's going on in these motors when they are spinning without any field coil connections. The armature poles aren't straight, they are kind of a spiral.
Hi TinselKoala,
I think the answer is that the rotor has those slanted or wavy segments which are not parallel with the rotor shaft as usual: this makes for the rotor to operate easily as a pulsed attraction motor. After a small manual spin is given, there will always be parts of the rotor segments starting to attract to a stator core part towards which it is approaching. And by the time a dead center situation would cause drag due to the total facing in attraction, the brushes just change to another rotor coil hence another attraction is able to start and so on.
This explains the same rotational direction too because attraction of an electromagnet to a soft iron does not care polarity.
By the way other members at the ou forum already managed to maintain rotation of the rotor by directly feeding DC into the brushes of universal AC motors, though there was no info whether the rotor segments were wavy like yours or not.
I think that rotors with straight segment pieces instead of the wavy ones can also run on DC fed to the brushes with field coils floating.
Thanks for showing the 'inside world' of your motor.
Gyula
OK, I think I get it, maybe. The necessary bias or "advance" is built into the armature windings by where the windings are connected to the commutator segments. This makes the motor want to turn in one direction, by attraction to the field pole pieces even when there is no power to the field coils.
But then, why does the motor reverse direction when polarity is changed, when the field coils are in use?
Ah, I've been up too long and there are too many variables. Need to stop for a while and get some sleep, maybe I'll understand it all better when I wake up.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.07.17, 22:18:22
...
But then, why does the motor reverse direction when polarity is changed, when the field coils are in use?
...
Well in that case the field coils are required to insure say a N-S pole on the facing field pole pieces and when the input polarity is flipped the field pole pieces become an S-N pole, right?
Yes, that's right. It's just my impression that the motor doesn't seem to be biased to run in one preferred direction when connected "properly" using the field coils as you state. When changing the supply polarity in that case, it seems to run equally well in the other direction. Maybe it's just my impression, I haven't made any of the appropriate measurements yet.
I posted this on ou.com for a bit of light hearted fun. But the message is LOUD.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.07.17, 15:09:54
Anything can be faked,but we will see how you go with my next video i post--lets see you fake that.
Looking forward to it!
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2015.07.18, 00:30:36
I posted this on ou.com for a bit of light hearted fun. But the message is LOUD.
Intermodulation is not required.It is important to understand the fundamental principle which is damn simple.It started around 1840 when Edison found etheric force.
Quote from: forest on 2015.07.18, 12:43:00
Intermodulation is not required.It is important to understand the fundamental principle which is damn simple.It started around 1840 when Edison found etheric force.
The "proper" blending of harmonics, overtones, or any combination of the two independent or collective to one another is missing from everything we do. In our machines we cannot get away from the fact that the systems as a rule always produce distorted wave forms. We try to engineer these distortions out, I liken this to how in our creative genius we have decided that Nature made a mistake in how it routes rivers and streams, in our brilliance we straighten such water ways, and wonder why they flash flood. These machines we construct are screaming at us that we should invest more of our attention on the fact that we are generating harmonics and overtones. That we should try to comprehend what these two number sequences mean, root out their significance, discover what they represent within our technology.
The term "spike" is misleading, (you didn't use this term, however, I feel its related to the subject) we have yet to generate such in the true sense, we don't generate impulses, we produce high frequency damped oscillations, these oscillations "can" take on the "appearance" of an impulse. This is an important thing to note as well, because those damped waves can be used to modulate the carrier wave, here the carrier is symbolically represented by the sinusoidal wave form we see when we spin the shaft.
Regarding the damped oscillation, when we recognize what is taking place, in that instant we comprehend that we are not limited solely to recovering via the mechanism of self induction, we understand that we can collect again and again, when circuit relations allow, if for no other reason, the collapsing field was not captured!
Regards
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.07.17, 18:19:30
Hi ER
Now back home from my 10 days away in France and easier to access the net :)
This is just thinking allowed and what I would try and might try, after several years of what others have done or not done ^-^
Cut the stator core in half with one coil on each half, rejoin with a neo mag between each join. Now you need to have one stator coil used as a generator coil and the other as a field interrupter of the neo's of now the PM ring core.
By creating a circuit to switch (short) the one coil in a frequency harmony of the rotor ( pulse of the "generating coil" gating a mosfet). Two things will happen I think, when the coil shorts a high current will be produced ( the mosfet used will have to cope with this), the mag field will be pushed through the generating coil causing a current to flow which will be added to the generated voltage produced by the rotor. This is a bit like a buck booster in a loose way, except here we generate the voltage (10+-V) and add the high current made by switching the mag flux with compression through the coil. The second thing to happen is due to all this the rotor input power drops due to the mag flux movement reducing drag on the rotor.
All seems a most interesting idea, no "laws" broken as it is using the power of the neos being pushed and springing back for little input to do it O0
Regards
Mike 8)
Hello Mike,
I have built several versions of the device you describe. One was modeled after a device patented by John Bedin1, one modeled after Flynn, one modeled after a patent granted to James German, and yet another modeled after Raymond Kromrey. My non scientific approach to the bench work led me to experience many interesting phenomena, all of which eventually led to a few realizations concerning the different forms of generator and transformer action operating in pulsed DC apparatus. I do not limit my use of the term "pulsed" to semiconductor and mechanical based switching, a careful and open minded review of the aforementioned will reveal that they all were reintroducing in their own way a forgotten switching methodology. Variable reluctance style generators open the door to switching concepts which have no immediate relation to switching as we presently practice and or understand switching.
I like your thinking regarding shorting the coil in at a frequency which is in harmony with the rotor, one thing I would like to suggest is that you not forget that the wave you are switching is not a pure sine wave, it will contain harmonics, overtones, or a combination of the two. There isn't much you can do about this owing to our not being able to afford the costs of perfect machining of rotors for magnet placement, hell we cant get any of the tolerances perfect which would yield a "perfect" sine wave, in many cases, not even resonance can aid us. One way around this limitation is an understanding geometry, geometry as it applies to harmonics and overtones. Thanks to Fourier we know that any wave shape can be produced by combining sines of proper amplitude and frequency, this includes the sine.
Also important to consider is "when" to switch, and why to switch there. Most say short the coil at the peak of the sine wave but don't communicate why?
At any rate, I don't follow the scientific method, and this is frowned at, I am not interested in calculating more out than in. Its clear in my mind anyway that mainstream has acknowledges that perpetual motion is fact, they even make a bold case (if you read into it like I did) for beyond unity, we need only know where look, and do so with an open mind, no bias, and no preconceived notions.
I really enjoy whats "implied" in the "Electric Force Example"
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
If we keep an open mind, its all related.
Regards
Well I can't get my universal motor to spin at all with stator coils disconnected. Mind you it wasnt spinning that quickly on 12vdc to begin with. Its out of a blender that I accidenally broke. >:-) . My wife has a thermomix now anyway so it wont be missed. It has a spiral rotor like TKs. Might have to look for something else to break
A little something I have had on my computer and just found it ;)
regards
Mike 8)
For Brad
A very efficient boost converter with adjustable output voltage and high amp
regards
Mike 8)
Here is some of the rest
http://www.overunity-theory.de/ecklin/ecklin1.htm
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Erfinder on 2015.07.18, 14:43:57
I really enjoy whats "implied" in the "Electric Force Example"
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
That example points out the enormous quantities of positive and negative electric charge in so called neutral matter. We all assume that because the matter is neutral it does not produce an external electric field (true) and therefore it can not radiate the quanta that produce electric fields (untrue). A simple gedanken experiment will tell you that the quanta are radiated but that everywhere outside of the matter the "positive" quanta (those radiated from positive charge which on their own would produce a repulsion on a positive test charge) are negated by the "negative" quanta (those radiated from negative charge which on their own would produce an attraction on a positive test charge). The radial force impulses on our test charge occur in equal numbers as outward and inward forces, the net effect is zero. But the quanta are still there. Something to ponder on.
Smudge
For those that might have missed it:
http://overunity.com/15901/tinman-generator-research-moderated-topic/
Regarding Tinmans older video of his modified motor vs a cheap fan induction motor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szpJ97M58G4
This is not a very fair comparison by Tinman. Those AC induction fan motors are notoriously inefficient, as they are made as cheaply as possible and tend to run very hot, wasting a lot of power, but since they are mounted behind a fan, no problem, the consumer pays the bill.
Universal Motors, such as the modified washing machine motor he is testing against are far more efficient than the cheap induction fan motors. The washing machine motor is a far more rugged unit designed for high torque continuous duty without a fan to cool it.
A fair test would be a modified washing machine motor against an identical unmodified washing machine motor, and with a variety of loads on each because you really need a torque, speed, and efficiency curve for each device to get the whole picture.
It is fairly easy to rig a test to look good at one particular point on the curve, vs one that is handicapped by operating at a different point on the curve.
I won't post this on the new thread so as not to derail the flow or get into a squabble with Brad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qly8nB98BKE
Regards, ION
Hey Ion
I used to be what some might call a hardcore "measurist" at one time however at some point in my studies of philosophy and psychology I came to understand I was spending endless hours measuring things but I was making no real progress. At which point I decided to change my habits and use relative measures, for instance I don't need to know the exact power dissipated by a motor down to the last mW I only need to know how much I have improved the efficiency in a relative sense. Thus I am not preoccupied with exact measures but moreso how much I have improved the measures in one instance versus another in a general sense. I found I was able to make very big steps in understanding and technology rather than many small steps which resulted in very little or no progress.
It's like spending endless hours measuring every aspect of a model T as it relates to another model T when someone pulls up in a new Ferrari. At which point it may be understood that while the results may be very accurate the whole premise may in fact be flawed rendering the results pointless. Which is why comparing apples and oranges may not be a bad thing because if you spend your whole life only comparing apples then you may never know that the right solution that works is a grapefruit. "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."-- Einstein.
This theme relates to some of my new work, you see everyone always tries to make a meaningful comparison using the process of induction which is actually self-induction as the working premise. Induction always relates to one magnetic field acting on another and this always invokes Lenz Law which causes one field to oppose the change in the other. Induction is our apple and very few can grasp the possibility of an alter-ego to induction we might call anti-induction. What would anti-induction look like?, what would it do and how would it work?. Now if a magnetic field is an apple and we always use apples to act on other apples then what is an anti-apple?... it may be or invoke no apples. If apples induce other apples and these like apples always oppose the change of one another then the most sensible solution would seem to be to induce an orange which constitutes a complete lack of apples. The thing to remember here is that a North polarity magnetic field is not the true opposite of a South polarity magnetic field because they are both magnetic fields. How can they be truely opposite when they are both the same thing fundamentally?.
The fact remains that doing and thinking the same things over and over which does not work does not make it any more workable... it means were probably wasting our time and should try something new. I like tinman's style which is in line with another Eistein quote -- "I never let my schooling get in the way of my education."
AC
http://overunity.com/15395/partnered-output-coils-free-energy/msg456977/#msg456977
Quote
OK here is a link to the thread I made at EF about using the Universal motor from a vacuum cleaner by powering the rotor and doing stuff with the field coils. I mentioned about using some permanent magnets as well.
The thread is from - May - 2012. http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11417-modifying-motors-generators.html
So I'm kinda wondering did Tinman come up with the idea himself ? Did he take my idea and run further with it without giving credit for where the idea came from. Did he come up with the idea before me, or did he come up with the idea without ever seeing my thread or idea's. I don't know and don't care. But maybe others will.
It's about as much a loss to me as some guy selling plans to an exciter is a loss to the slayer guy or whomever it was Tinman was complaining about. Nil loss.
Erfinder, the waveform at the end of this video is actually a clip showing the wave form from a different device and the end of the clip was not trimmed, that shouldn't even be there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAiYzYGOKIs
Anyway yippee, we have another free energy Guru - Tinman. He fits the bill just like J.B. and P.L. Secrets secrets secrets.
Funny thing is he is telling people he has no intention to reveal the necessary details, and still people are hanging on his words.
Congrats Guru Tinman.
Hopefully Tinman is not stringing people along and some people will show replications showing excess energy, or Tinman will show a device that can be replicated which shows excess energy or Tinman will make available for purchase a device or plans to build a device that will show excess energy if built to spec.
In three years time or so we should know one way or another. Is three years enough ? Or does it require 30 years ? I might be gone and buried by then. :)
The MIB suppression story has created a hero in the making, and the excuse in advance to never produce the goods. Time is short Tinman, the world is in dire need of a de-centralised energy solution that is under the control of Everyman..so be a hero Brad even if you may fall in the process.. present in full what is proffered.
ETA: removed profanity.
Whats the chances that someone will else will be able to show what Tinman showed but will use the same excuse not to actually show enough information to be able to replicate and analyze the setup.
AC, When TInman is comparing to a fan motor it is ok if the object is to produce a more efficient fan motor than he is comparing to. But Tinman is hinting at more out than in, which is drawing in "hopefuls" even though they know he has no intention of even explaining a theory of operation not to mention a real circuit drawing. And also claiming government suppression.
What Tinman is doing is so very similar to what J.B. and P.L. as well as UFOPolitics and all the other F.O.S. people are doing.
As I see it, good luck to them. Time will tell. Not that it needs to, they aren't harming anyone. I just don't see that another endless thread is needed to be started with secrecy right from the beginning, and on an open source web site.
But I guess there will be more soon, all that is needed is a demo with a black box showing apparently more out than in and a claim of suppression, instant Guru. hahaha Of course we need as much of that happening as possible, so I would hope that several more people at least do a similar thing. We need more secrets and more gurus to keep the eternally hopeful all in one thread. :) He hasn't drawn them all in there are more for others.
..
..
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.07.23, 20:44:49
http://overunity.com/15395/partnered-output-coils-free-energy/msg456977/#msg456977
The MIB suppression story has created a hero in the making, and the excuse in advance to never produce the goods. Time is short Tinman, the world is in dire need of a de-centralised energy solution that is under the control of Everyman..so be a hero Brad even if you may fall in the process.. present in full what is proffered.
ETA: removed profanity.
The removed profanity was valid in my opinion.
@Farmhand
QuoteAC, When TInman is comparing to a fan motor it is ok if the object is to produce a more efficient fan motor than he is comparing to. But Tinman is hinting at more out than in, which is drawing in "hopefuls" even though they know he has no intention of even explaining a theory of operation not to mention a real circuit drawing. And also claiming government suppression.
What Tinman is doing is so very similar to what J.B. and P.L. as well as UFOPolitics and all the other F.O.S. people are doing.
As I see it, good luck to them. Time will tell. Not that it needs to, they aren't harming anyone. I just don't see that another endless thread is needed to be started with secrecy right from the beginning, and on an open source web site.
I would agree and it would seem to be a pattern of behavior we have all seen before in the past. The problem is an old story regarding the boy who cried wolf and it is hard to determine whether the wolf was there or not. Most likely it is not however as the story goes you never know.
More often that not I think it is not malicious in it's intent but more so wishful thinking of things that never were. Such is Life
AC
Lasersaber seems to be making great progress !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43lxNJjIKD8
He mentions rewinding his AC coils...and nothing about magnet insertion, brush angles, filings or much else.
A very very interesting video, when showing current draw and running a fan.
His current draw goes down when connecting a mains light..as it rotary transforms 12V to >120V.
12V 2.2A in with no load, 160V at 0.46A out when running at 1.2A reduced draw.
14.4W in, 73.6W out :D
Please do triple check lol, presumably the voltage comes right down with that dead short loading.
Hi all,
The fundamental principle behind all your stuff is still same and does not matter how hard you complicate your setups - http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2678.msg45498#msg45498 ..
It is all about manipulation of magnetic field interaction and timing where you have controls on when and what happen. :)
Cheers!
QuoteHe mentions rewinding his AC coils...and nothing about magnet insertion, brush angles, filings or much else.
A very very interesting video, when showing current draw and running a fan.
His current draw goes down when connecting a mains light..as it rotary transforms 12V to >120V.
12V 2.2A in with no load, 160V at 0.46A out when running at 1.2A reduced draw.
14.4W in, 73.6W out
I am just beginning to experiment with this. I had very little time to test it yesterday. The test at a 160V .4 amps short circuit does not give wattage out! It is just a quick test with a single multimeter. In the stock configuration before the new windings the same test was outputting 30V at 50mA short circuit. Before the new coils I was almost ready to shelf it. Now I do think there may be an effect here worth pursuing even if only as an inverter type device.
At this point my best guess is that the system is not even 60 percent efficient. It is still fun to try to unlock more potential out of it.
To Farmhand
I watched your video,"Generating Field DC Motor".
Same vacuum motor I am not familiar with motors used in Australia,
on the motor in the video is the core surrounded by permanent magnets,added by the manufacturer
of the motor,Or is there no permanent magnets.It seems everybody that gets the motor working is from Australia
or bought a motor on ebay used in your area of the world.
thanks
Quote from: LaserSaber on 2015.07.24, 11:16:34
I am just beginning to experiment with this. I had very little time to test it yesterday. The test at a 160V .4 amps short circuit does not give wattage out! It is just a quick test with a single multimeter. In the stock configuration before the new windings the same test was outputting 30V at 50mA short circuit. Before the new coils I was almost ready to shelf it. Now I do think there may be an effect here worth pursuing even if only as an inverter type device.
At this point my best guess is that the system is not even 60 percent efficient. It is still fun to try to unlock more potential out of it.
Great demo LS.
This video would be a great example for others to watch,and explain the below.
I am getting much criticism over my device,but no one has yet to explain where the Lorentz force has nowhere is the counter electromotive force from the generating coil?.
So the rotor has a magnetic field as it approaches the stator coil core(if it did not,then the motor wouldn't spin). In every other generator the stator coil(generating coil) will produce that apposing magnetic field,and bog the prime mover down,but in the RT set up,the motor speeds up when a load is applied to the generating coil.The magnetic field produced by the generating coil is the opposite field to that of the rotor,and so the motor gains torque and RPM. Another effect to this outcome is that eddy currents are !almost! completely eliminated from the core.
Im guessing you have wound many turns of finer wire where the original coil use to be in order to gain the voltage and current needed to run that mains bulb.
Nice work LS> O0
When people understand why this is,then the rest will start to fall in place.
Thanks LS...I was overjoyed to see such progress and that you have taken an interest in exploring the effects.
It bolsters the research, from someone else highly respected and that's never a bad thing, as Brad has been delivered far too much negativity in some places.
Sorry if I seemed 'off' anywhere, that video produced a broad smile :)
TinMan - A new understanding, for myself is that a magnetic field need not be shut off when it's done its work, but be introduced instead. A coil not charging for most of its cycle, then being blipped with a very high discharge.
So, only 1% of the cycle is used for charging the coil, not 99%...if a natural field was in place, then suddenly swapped, the inrush would produce more into the coil than the slower natural motor forces. It becomes about nullifying for most of the time, not collecting for most of the time. Switching things 180 to at least what I thought had to happen.
In Luc's video, the AC coil is energized with 3V, an effect dependant on that value being 3V, higher and lower don't work. Where upon, the keeper drops from the electromagnet. 3V is easy to generate in a 12V system and he only used a small amount of current. The magnet is always attracted until that 3V blip from his capacitor.
So, the permanent magnet can impart a condition where it is opposite in magnetism to the natural motor effects, until a point where for 1% of the time, it is negated.
If we replace his assembly with the laminations of a motor, the magnet is always attracted to the laminations, so its other side magnetism can work on the motor. Remove the attraction to the laminations with 3V and its forces are negated for a split second. With only needing 3V and low current to make that happen, we're already ahead by 9V with a 12V system and are drawing no more current than a coil on the opposite side would collect in the cycle.
As a newbie to these motors, it seems the Lorentz Force can be negated by using sharp reversals of an otherwise natural condition. The AC coils are air core, after all.
Nice demo, LS.
Can you measure the internal resistance of your multimeter on the amp setting you used? Knowing this resistance will allow us to estimate the power of the 0.463 amps of short-circuit current.
For example, one of my "el cheepo" DMMs (plus its probe leads) has a resistance of 1.8 Ohms when used as an ammeter in the 10 ADC range. If I measured a short circuit current of 0.463 amps with this meter, I'd be seeing a power of I2R or (0.4632) x 1.8 = about 386 mW. Your meter is probably different, it would be nice to know the actual value.
And the input, IIRC, was something like 12V at 1.2 amps or so, when the meter was connected as a short circuit, right? So the motor was dissipating something a bit over 14 Watts...?
ETA: I think it's also important to consider the mechanical power available from the motor. Normally, if a brushed-armature motor is running without a load on it at a stable RPM, there is _no_ extra mechanical power available, all the power is used up to keep the motor running at that RPM against bearing friction, windage, brush contact friction, electromagnetic effects etc. ... any mechanical load you put on the shaft will _normally_ slow it down and increase the current draw. Do these motors act this way when a mechanical load is put on the shaft?
Here's something interesting. You know I'm using those small DC shunt motors. One of them I have rewired so that each field coil has its own wires, rather than being wired in series inside the motor as they were originally. But that's irrelevant for what I've found today, since I have the coils re-connected in series just as they were originally. Now... as we know, when running with power only to the armature, the armature turns the same way and at about the same RPM and current draw, regardless of the polarity of the supply to the armature. But get this: I've tried shorting the field coils through a fast highcurrent diode. Here are the results:
Polarity to armature: +12V to "white" wire, - to "red" wire, rotation CCW:
Shorting stator coils through diode: motor slows down heavily and armature current goes UP
Shorting stator coils directly without diode: pretty much no effect.
BUT
Polarity to armature: +12V to "red" wire, - to "white" wire, rotation CCW:
Shorting stator coils through diode: motor SPEEDS UP and armature current goes DOWN
Shorting stator coils directly without diode: pretty much no effect.
There are no magnets in these motors, and there is no connection between armature brushes and the stator coils, the coils are well-insulated from the frame and everything else. The brushes too are in Bakelite holders and don't make electrical contact with anything except the armature commutator (and the supply wires of course).
The speeding up with current dropping (from about 600 mA to about 410 mA, a substantial drop) really surprised me. But even more surprising was the asymmetry of the effect, considering that the armature turns the same way regardless.
TK - replicating JimBoot's schematic is a good idea. You may well see your output go up considerably.
Over here, that's what happened. Very dimly lit 3V bulb turned into a nicely lit bulb.
It's similar to your experiment, when analyzed :)
Your write up helps to prove out the effects noted by others.
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.07.24, 22:32:56
replicating JimBoot's schematic is a good idea.
Said no one ever....
Well until today! I'm attempting to calculate a cap value as suggested by arunas, as the frequency can wander a bit is it best to look for a mean, median or peak in this type of circuit?
Btw i have absolutely no issue with brads approach on this. I'd like to thank him for sharing as much as he has.
LOL Gromit O0
Yep indeed, good HV caps are being desoldered over here ready for testing.
And yep indeed, learn and try out things, rather than replicate a full schematic and process where noone learns anything. If the device doesn't work, the knowledge gained gives a better route of being able to fix the problems !
Agreed Wallace Agreed. O0
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.07.24, 22:20:14
Here's something interesting. You know I'm using those small DC shunt motors. One of them I have rewired so that each field coil has its own wires, rather than being wired in series inside the motor as they were originally. But that's irrelevant for what I've found today, since I have the coils re-connected in series just as they were originally. Now... as we know, when running with power only to the armature, the armature turns the same way and at about the same RPM and current draw, regardless of the polarity of the supply to the armature. But get this: I've tried shorting the field coils through a fast highcurrent diode. Here are the results:
Polarity to armature: +12V to "white" wire, - to "red" wire, rotation CCW:
Shorting stator coils through diode: motor slows down heavily and armature current goes UP
Shorting stator coils directly without diode: pretty much no effect.
BUT
Polarity to armature: +12V to "red" wire, - to "white" wire, rotation CCW:
Shorting stator coils through diode: motor SPEEDS UP and armature current goes DOWN
Shorting stator coils directly without diode: pretty much no effect.
There are no magnets in these motors, and there is no connection between armature brushes and the stator coils, the coils are well-insulated from the frame and everything else. The brushes too are in Bakelite holders and don't make electrical contact with anything except the armature commutator (and the supply wires of course).
The speeding up with current dropping (from about 600 mA to about 410 mA, a substantial drop) really surprised me. But even more surprising was the asymmetry of the effect, considering that the armature turns the same way regardless.
I have also run these tests. I think what is happening is that with the diode across the field coils you get the speedup or slowdown based on the fact that these motors generally run slower but with more torque available when the diode is aiding the field strength by self excitation.
When the diode is such that the self excitation causes a slight reduction of the induced field, the motor speeds up.
There is very little energy to rectify, due to the brief dropout and collapse of the induced field from the rotor. This is due to brush mscontact, a brief interruption of applied current to the rotor. This energy, is usually seen on the scope as fast short duration pulses. When rectified these current pulses either slightly add to or subtracts from the larger flux induced by the rotor into the pole pieces and stator structural return path.
I have owned and maintained a G.E Elek Trak electric tractor for over 35 years and have made some observations about these DC machines. It uses a series of throttle switched small resistors to modulate field current in combination with very large resistors that are switched in to modulate armature current.
The stronger the field current generally the slower the motor will run, but with great torque available.
Reduce the field strength down to zero applied current and the motor will run very fast but not have nearly the torque.
I know this is counter intuitive but that's the way it seems to work on my bench.
You can try this test yourself but it will require two power supplies, one for rotor and one for field coils.
Regards, ION
See my research notes for DC Machines.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.07.24, 22:20:14
Here's something interesting. You know I'm using those small DC shunt motors. One of them I have rewired so that each field coil has its own wires, rather than being wired in series inside the motor as they were originally. But that's irrelevant for what I've found today, since I have the coils re-connected in series just as they were originally. Now... as we know, when running with power only to the armature, the armature turns the same way and at about the same RPM and current draw, regardless of the polarity of the supply to the armature. But get this: I've tried shorting the field coils through a fast highcurrent diode. Here are the results:
Polarity to armature: +12V to "white" wire, - to "red" wire, rotation CCW:
Shorting stator coils through diode: motor slows down heavily and armature current goes UP
Shorting stator coils directly without diode: pretty much no effect.
BUT
Polarity to armature: +12V to "red" wire, - to "white" wire, rotation CCW:
Shorting stator coils through diode: motor SPEEDS UP and armature current goes DOWN
Shorting stator coils directly without diode: pretty much no effect.
There are no magnets in these motors, and there is no connection between armature brushes and the stator coils, the coils are well-insulated from the frame and everything else. The brushes too are in Bakelite holders and don't make electrical contact with anything except the armature commutator (and the supply wires of course).
The speeding up with current dropping (from about 600 mA to about 410 mA, a substantial drop) really surprised me. But even more surprising was the asymmetry of the effect, considering that the armature turns the same way regardless.
This is what i call the escalator effect.
Your diode orientation represents the escalators direction.
One way,you have the escalator doing work against the people on it,in that the escalator is raising people up.
The other way,you have people doing work against the escalator,where the escalator is lowering the height of the people on it.
So is the motor on the escalator going in the down direction doing work?,or are the people on that escalator doing work against the motor,and the motor is now a regenerative brake?.
I see ION has a theory on this effect.
Quote: When the diode is such that the self excitation causes a slight reduction of the induced field, the motor speeds up.
This is not what is happening.If the rotor is producing a magnetic field,and we have a diode say in the forward direction on the stator coil,then the apposing field will be produced at the stator coil,and want to push against that approaching magnetic field of the rotor. If we have the diode in the reverse direction,then when the rotor field is leaving the stator coil,the stator coil will produce a field that is opposite that of the rotors field,and want to pull the rotor back toward it-normal lorentz force-CEMF that we see in all generators.
So the only way that the rotor can speed up,and reduce the input current to that rotor,is to have the stator coil/core combo produce a field that is opposite to that of a normal generator,so as it works with the field produced by the rotor.
Now all you have to do is work out how this happens-and it really is quite neat.
From Tinman
QuoteI see ION has a theory on this effect.
Quote: When the diode is such that the self excitation causes a slight reduction of the induced field, the motor speeds up.
This is not what is happening
Not a theory, just my observations and thoughts about what might be happening, more like a hypothesis, which I admit
may be wrong.
Your escalator analogy is interesting and the rest.
Thanks for your writeup and your take on what is happening, I will give it due consideration and study.
Best of luck with your situation
Regards, ION
btw here is my current setup and test vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymKWbcOeSSg
(http://overunity.com/15901/tinman-generator-research-moderated-topic/dlattach/attach/150855/image//)
obviously ignore the henry values the lamp is rated at 12v 100ma
with a universal motor rotor in this setup where is the field produced in relation to the brushes? I don't want to pull apart my motor to test :)
Hi everyone,
nice job on the resonance Grum!... I'm glad TK is still testing. Thanks for sharing guys,
No sleep yet at 4:15am. My fist test video of the RT is just about done. I think you guys are going to like it. I had the ideal a few weeks back and been wanting to test it.
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pib2fpHRsaM
Luc
Thanks luc I'm sure grum Allan and I will be colluding on how to implement on our motors!
Hi everyone,
thanks Jim for your positive feedback.
Apparently UFO politics used a PWM in his experiments. I didn't know since I only looked at his topic at the beginning and lost interest then.
Using a pwm was a quick and easy way to see what the effect of sending some of the outrageous current (2.4A) the rotor coil consumes back through flyback to the motors stator coil and load. The effect was a positive, so I shared it.
My original idea was and I still may do it, was to modify the brushes by having two sets of brushes. The second set would be a little advanced (from the first set) and would have a diode so when the first set of brushes comes off the commutator segment the rotor coils flyback would be collected by the second set of brushes and reused. That's what I wanted to do. However, it's a more complicated build and a few days ago I thought of using a pwm to chop the DC input and collecting the flyback multiple times while the brushes are still on the segment. This allowed to test the effect before hand to see if it's a worthwhile effect to pursue. I not trying to take someone else idea or work and claim it as mine. I'm only interested in results, not fame and fortune.
None of the pwm input goes through the stator coil diode. What you are seeing in the video is only rotor flyback going to the stator coil.
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on 2015.07.25, 14:54:24
My original idea was and I still may do it, was to modify the brushes by having two sets of brushes. The second set would be a little advanced (from the first set) and would have a diode so when the first set of brushes comes off the commutator segment the rotor coils flyback would be collected by the second set of brushes and reused. That's what I wanted to do. However, it's a more complicated build and a few days ago I thought of using a pwm to chop the DC input and collecting the flyback multiple times while the brushes are still on the segment. This allowed to test the effect before hand to see if it's a worthwhile effect to pursue. I not trying to take someone else idea or work and claim it as mine. I'm only interested in results, not fame and fortune.
Luc
Luc
There is no inductive kickback from the rotor coils of one of these motors,as the coils are all connected-there is never an open circuit for an inductive kickback current to flow out from. What you see as high voltage spikes on the scope is only brush noise/arcing. The coils of the rotor form one big current loop. RF is generated from brush arcing due to high current's,and more so bad brush contact to the rotors armature.
QuoteQuoteNone of the pwm input goes through the stator coil diode. What you are seeing in the video is only rotor flyback going to the stator coil
.
I would say this is incorrect,and that your PWM pulses are indeed what is going through to your stator coil. Using your diode setup,capture the output from the rotor diode into a high voltage cap,and see what the voltage climbs to.
below picture compliments of verpies,showing the two different styles of windings.
How to loop test an apparent COP>1 device...
Shorting field coils through diode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkV1RMtlJnk
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.07.25, 17:18:53
Luc
There is no inductive kickback from the rotor coils of one of these motors,as the coils are all connected-there is never an open circuit for an inductive kickback current to flow out from. What you see as high voltage spikes on the scope is only brush noise/arcing. The coils of the rotor form one big current loop. RF is generated from brush arcing due to high current's,and more so bad brush contact to the rotors armature.
.
I would say this is incorrect,and that your PWM pulses are indeed what is going through to your stator coil. Using your diode setup,capture the output from the rotor diode into a high voltage cap,and see what the voltage climbs to.
Wow :o... I'm surprised of your answer and of how sure you are of it. Is this really you writing this or have the MIB taken over your account?
In any even, I made a video to demonstrate your suggestion to send the flyback to a cap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3-CqJLUKfc
Luc
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.07.25, 17:18:53
There is no inductive kickback from the rotor coils of one of these motors, as the coils are all connected-there is never an open circuit for an inductive kickback current to flow out from. The coils of the rotor form one big current loop
That's true.
The brushes periodically short windings as they span two commutator segments during their travel. Filing down brushes minimizes the time during which two commutator segments (and windings) are shorted.
To avoid this shorting altogether, the brushes' tips would have to be filed down to a width less than the gap between commutator segments. This is both impractical and undesirable as this will interrupt the current to the windings and inductors "hate" when this is done to them.
Unlike capacitors, inductors do not create spikes and sparks when shorted, but when opened - they do.
In other words: inductors "like" to be shorted - capacitors do not.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.07.25, 17:18:53
What you see as high voltage spikes on the scope is only brush noise/arcing. RF is generated from brush arcing due to high current's,and more so bad brush contact to the rotors armature.
Yes
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.07.25, 17:18:53
below picture compliments of verpies,showing the two different styles of windings.
...and Grum mentioned yet another type of rotor winding
@
GrumagePlease alter my diagram to show what you meant.
Quote from: gotoluc on 2015.07.26, 02:44:50
In any even, I made a video to demonstrate your suggestion to send the flyback to a cap.
A PWM module (or intermittent brush contact) interrupts the current flowing through the windings. Such interruption of current always causes inductors to rebel and produce high voltage spike to maintain their current. I do not want to call it a "flyback spike" because the current through the winding during that spike does
not reverse direction.
If your were using pure DC and the current through the windings was not interrupted then you'd have nothing to capture in your capacitor.
A few things I've learned today.
I used one of my pulse motor circuits to drive the motor. Pretty ordinary performance.
I shorted the stator coils using a reed. Not much joy there. Lowered the output.
On the upside I found that with more area of the brush making contact the greater the output and therefore lower current draw ( I love that new law)
Also here is something weird - I gave up smoking last year and now I'm a vaper (verb) If I exhale the vapour (noun) near the machine it slows down considerably. Shorting perhaps? very weird.
My motor unloaded draws about 2.1A loaded 1.5A . That's having the stators in series. More speed does not necessarily equal more output. Now i think I need to go and get a washing machine :)
I've also been studying the Alexander patent which is fascinating in relationship to this motor.
Which caused me to think about the rotor windings. This guy is winding almost the common way except they are all separate coils. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9CLtlkl6fM
My added two penny worth :)
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.07.26, 10:21:51
My added two penny worth :)
regards
Mike 8)
Interesting... thanks for this. Parts list as well! Only need to buy the Zener. :) I'll have to have a play with that.
Quote from: verpies on 2015.07.26, 09:09:43
...and Grum mentioned yet another type of rotor winding
@ Grumage
Please alter my diagram to show what you meant.
Dear Verpies.
As far as I'm aware there are only two configurations for Armature coil winding, Lap and Wave. It was 30 years ago since " School ", I wonder if the terminology has changed ?
I have attached linear pictures of these winding methods for reference.
Edit. I have also attached a drawing of how I think Tinman's brush tipping looks pictorially.
Cheers Grum.
I agree with your tipping diagram Grum. Still waving at my lap over the other stuff
Quote from: JimBoot on 2015.07.26, 10:36:11
Interesting... thanks for this. Parts list as well! Only need to buy the Zener. :) I'll have to have a play with that.
Jim the zener is only to fix the upper limit of voltage to 15v, like Brad I have used an IRF 540 which has a gate full on at 4v and a max of 20v, most mosfets are on at 8-10v, this one is max 4v ;) ;) R1 is a current drop resistor also for the gate, as possibly the L1 will supply more than the mosfet likes :) D3 must be fast, the rest does not matter so much. This is a simple circuit and proven, the difference is the interaction of the rotor/stator in relation to using as (L2) a bucking coil. Not only voltage but current is created (added) to the output.
Self run!!!!!!! you tell me, proof is in the eating ;)
regards
Mike 8)
Mike,
i tried your circuit, but other then lightning up a 6V/2W bulb with some difficulty, no abnormalities found up till now.
See video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwwEVgFhThs&feature=youtu.be
Below screenshot is the signal on the gate (blue) and the drain (yellow).
Thanks, regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2015.07.26, 14:01:09
Mike,
i tried your circuit, but other then lightning up a 6V/2W bulb with some difficulty, no abnormalities found up till now.
See video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwwEVgFhThs&feature=youtu.be
Below screenshot is the signal on the gate (blue) and the drain (yellow).
Thanks, regards Itsu
Hi Itsu
The circuit is a straight foreward buck boost but the timing is critical with the rotor. This is because the phasing is all important between rotor generation and coil release energy when the mosfet switches off (opens). All the energies need to add at the same time, so the switching of the mosfet is all very critical with the passing of the rotor. A means of changing the timing on the gate I think will show this, as you have shown playing with the brushes O0
You did check the coil directions? this is all important as it will work against you if you have it wrong, there are many different configurations, Brad showed 2 on one coil, here we have 2 coils so this is 4, then between the 2 coils all in relation to the rotor I think will make it more.
There seems to be a very subtle effect when all is in the right phase, i think Brad was trying to show this without going into huge detail. We need to add and not subtract, as I have said, buck boost works, but here we have added input at a particular phase, get it together at the right time and it will take off ;)
regards
Mike 8)
Mike,
yes i tried all combinations of coils hookup, i only have 2 separate field coils and the rotor coil.
I added variable brush timing, but this did not improve things, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI464sfwBLM&feature=youtu.be
Not sure how i could delay the gate timing, you mean in an electronically way?
Regards Itsu
Hi Itsu
You said you only have 1v, where? the gate or the charging of the L2 coil? in either case that is not enough and something is wrong with the just generating side of things, never mind the circuit!!!
regards
Mike 8)
PS the IRF 540 needs min 3v, normal is 4v to switch full on
Mike,
the mentioned 1V was at the drain where the yellow probe is. This will not light up the 6V/2W bulb.
But as you can see in the screenshot above, there the drain voltage is about 5V, then the bulb is lid, which is when i hit a sweetspot with the timing and/or tension of the brushes.
The gate signal is much higher and often is limited by the 15V zener to..... 15V.
So the MOSFET is switching OK (>4V gate to source voltage), but there is sometimes just not enough drain voltage to light up the bulb.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2015.07.26, 17:17:40
Mike,
the mentioned 1V was at the drain where the yellow probe is. This will not light up the 6V/2W bulb.
But as you can see in the screenshot above, there the drain voltage is about 5V, then the bulb is lid, which is when i hit a sweetspot with the timing and/or tension of the brushes.
The gate signal is much higher and often is limited by the 15V zener to..... 15V.
So the MOSFET is switching OK (>4V gate to source voltage), but there is sometimes just not enough drain voltage to light up the bulb.
Regards Itsu
Turn L2 connections around, does not make sense that the gate voltage is higher than the drain voltage unless L2 is going against the drain, opposite charge from the rotor.
regards
Mike 8)
Hi Itsu,
It doesn't look like your brushes are tangentially connected to the commutator like in Grum's diagram? I've found that is where I got most output.
Mike I was getting 36v on my scope (which is why it no longer works) across the stator coil with diode. I'll try an IRF1405 instead I think and omit the zener.
Thanks
Jim
Quote from: verpies on 2015.07.26, 09:45:38
A PWM module (or intermittent brush contact) interrupts the current flowing through the windings. Such interruption of current always causes inductors to rebel and produce high voltage spike to maintain their current. I do not want to call it a "flyback spike" because the current through the winding during that spike does not reverse direction.
You don't want to call it a "flyback spike"... so what do you want to call the effect when a coils current is shut off?
How can the current not reverse direction when the mosfet opens? if it didn't the capacitor would not get charged so fast and so high since the blocking diode only allows reverse current to go through?
Quote from: verpies on 2015.07.26, 09:45:38
If your were using pure DC and the current through the windings was not interrupted then you'd have nothing to capture in your capacitor.
Yes I agree! and why I used a switch to interrupt the input current and added a diode in the reverse direction of the input current.
Luc
Quote from: Itsu on 2015.07.26, 14:52:39
Mike,
yes i tried all combinations of coils hookup, i only have 2 separate field coils and the rotor coil.
I added variable brush timing, but this did not improve things, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI464sfwBLM&feature=youtu.be
Not sure how i could delay the gate timing, you mean in an electronically way?
Regards Itsu
Itsu, look at the close up of Brads brushes. They are not in a strait line to each other. You will need this variable which you were kind of doing when you pushed the brushes from side to side.
Read the OU topic also for information as these were posted some days ago. http://overunity.com/15901/tinman-generator-research-moderated-topic/msg456925/#msg456925
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on 2015.07.27, 05:18:14
Itsu, look at the close up of Brads brushes. They are not in a strait line to each other. You will need this variable which you were kind of doing when you pushed the brushes from side to side.
Luc
Both Grum and I and I think Luc? Have found greater output when "tuned" in that fashion. Also The brushes will be needed to be shaved to fit that profile for optimum performance. Discovered that one last night.
Quote from: gotoluc on 2015.07.27, 04:14:44
You don't want to call it a "flyback spike"... so what do you want to call the effect when a coils current is shut off?
Any other phrase that does not contain the word "back" because it suggest that the current through the windings reverses on interruption...and it doesn't.
Quote from: gotoluc on 2015.07.27, 04:14:44
How can the current not reverse direction when the mosfet opens?
How can it reverse through the winding if discontinuous current through any inductor is against its very nature?
Quote from: gotoluc on 2015.07.27, 04:14:44
if it didn't the capacitor would not get charged so fast and so high since the blocking diode only allows reverse current to go through?
Because current through a diode is not the same as current through the winding/inductor.
This is elementary.
Thanks Grum for the photos
Here is the updated rotor, you will see that every other segment is disconnected from the commutator. This does two things, it pulses the DC input to the rotor and second there is never a short of two or more segments of the commutator.
The second thing is the frame has been cut, coil B has less rotor contact than the A coil, very clever.
regards
Mike 8)
Here is the modified frame
regards
Mike 8)
QuoteTurn L2 connections around, does not make sense that the gate voltage is higher than the drain voltage unless L2 is going against the drain, opposite charge from the rotor.
Mike,
as said before, i tried all possible coil connection combinations, there is lots of difference, but the most successfull
combo gives 1V on the drain and when releasing the brushes spring tension there is a sweetspot to 5V on the drain.
QuoteHi Itsu,
It doesn't look like your brushes are tangentially connected to the commutator like in Grum's diagram? I've found that is where I got most output.
Jim,
tangentially connected
Definitions
Sorry, no definitions found.
I think you mean "under an angle", if so, yes you are right, my variable brushes bracket does not allow this.
I don't want to ruin my single motor yet, so i am going slow.
QuoteItsu, look at the close up of Brads brushes. They are not in a strait line to each other. You will need this variable which you were kind of doing when you pushed the brushes from side to side.
Read the OU topic also for information as these were posted some days ago
Luc,
see my answer to Jim, and yes i am reading there too.
QuoteHere is the modified frame
Mike,
could it be that he cut off the B coil core sides to make room for 2 magnets, one on each side so to make a flux path
as in his solid state version mentioned here: http://overunity.com/15901/tinman-generator-research-moderated-topic/msg456633/#msg456633
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2015.07.27, 10:12:01
Jim,
tangentially connected
Definitions
Sorry, no definitions found.
I think you mean "under an angle", if so, yes you are right, my variable brushes bracket does not allow this.
I don't want to ruin my single motor yet, so i am going slow.
sorry didn't know how else to explain. Under and angle isn't precise enough for what I'm trying to articulate. I've found best results where the brushes are coming off at a tangent either side of the commutator. Just sharing what Ive learned.
Mike what vid is that frame shot from? Also did you see something in the vids that made you think the rotor segments were disconnected?
Quote from: JimBoot on 2015.07.27, 10:22:43
Mike what vid is that frame shot from? Also did you see something in the vids that made you think the rotor segments were disconnected?
The last one of him demonstrating arcing on a copper plate
regards
Mike 8)
Itsu
but the voltage on the gate is what? the charging on the L2 should be the same as for the gate, all comes from the same place, coil L1!!!! Maybe remove the diode D2 :-\ is possible that it is not needed or it is it's value that is wrong, needs to be faster.
What voltage does L1 generate to start with? if not enough then there is the problem, the rest should work.
The commutator change as shown will make a huge difference to generator action and reduce input by 50% the pulsing of those rotor coils will turn it into a transformer with the L1 and L2 as secondaries ;) as it is at the moment there is no real pulse on the primary and so limited voltage on the secondaries.
Just thinking aloud on the above.
regards
Mike 8)
ahahhaa the thot plickens
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.07.27, 09:02:46
Here is the updated rotor, you will see that every other segment is disconnected from the commutator. This does two things, it pulses the DC input to the rotor and second there is never a short of two or more segments of the commutator.
Yes, and because of that the current to the coils is periodically interrupted, which will cause HV spikes at the break.
The tangential arrangement of the brushes does not change anything electronically - only mechanically, because only the contact points with the commutator matter...and they are still diametrically opposite of the rotor, just as if they were with non-tangential brushes.
Tangential arrangement only increases brushes' mechanical stability.
Our resident mechanical genius would be able to explain better why that is so.
Quote from: verpies on 2015.07.27, 11:12:41
Yes, and because of that the current to the coils is periodically interrupted, which will cause HV spikes at the break.
The tangential arrangement of the brushes does not change anything electronically - only mechanically, because only the contact points with the commutator matter...and they are still diametrically opposite of the rotor, just as if they were with non-tangential brushes.
Tangential arrangement only increases brushes' mechanical stability.
Our resident mechanical genius would be able to explain better why that is so.
I'm 100% in agreement, I myself could not see this timing aspect when the brushes are diametrially opposite.
regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.07.27, 09:31:34
Here is the modified frame
regards
Mike 8)
Good eyes 8) on you Mike! I didn't notice that. I noticed the rotor commutator he showed had the coil wires removed on every other segment. I also though of doing the same experiment.
One thing id for sure, Brad has put in a lot of hours in testing all these different possibilities.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Thanks to Grum, he sent me the stills and then I saw what I saw ^-^
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow on 2015.07.27, 10:44:09
Itsu
but the voltage on the gate is what? the charging on the L2 should be the same as for the gate, all comes from the same place, coil L1!!!! Maybe remove the diode D2 :-\ is possible that it is not needed or it is it's value that is wrong, needs to be faster.
What voltage does L1 generate to start with? if not enough then there is the problem, the rest should work.
The commutator change as shown will make a huge difference to generator action and reduce input by 50% the pulsing of those rotor coils will turn it into a transformer with the L1 and L2 as secondaries ;) as it is at the moment there is no real pulse on the primary and so limited voltage on the secondaries.
Just thinking aloud on the above.
regards
Mike 8)
Mike,
the voltage on the gate is OK, it is more then 15V but it is limited to 15V by the zener.
The load (6V/2W bulb) is to much for the field coils and pulls the voltage down to the mentioned 1v.
When i remove the bulb, the voltage on the capacitor raises, but as soon as i load it again with the bulb it drains it.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2015.07.27, 13:39:17
Mike,
the voltage on the gate is OK, it is more then 15V but it is limited to 15V by the zener.
The load (6V/2W bulb) is to much for the field coils and pulls the voltage down to the mentioned 1v.
When i remove the bulb, the voltage on the capacitor raises, but as soon as i load it again with the bulb it drains it.
Regards Itsu
OK, then we are not generating current, only voltage, the current I hope will come with the rotor change. Not enough magnetic field passing the stator coils as it is.
I have just finished altering mine, it was a big job as this was/is a quality motor, I had to drill the compressed wires in the segments. I am going to leave the frame for now and see how she goes.
Regards
Mike 8)
Mike - from which you will see a huge leap in current to a small bulb and HV enough to light a neon :)
My motor wants to spin now with the mod, but doesn't. That's the downside.
With a neon connected across 1 coil and 12V to only the armature windings, it will light partially with a hand spin.
The neon will actually flicker if the rotor is turned very slowly by hand, notch by notch and when the 12V is feeding the armature coils.
Bottom left in pic.
To add. When running at 24V (ATX PC power supply), a straight short of the other coil will kill the motor.
Adding a 12V bulb will kill the motor.
But, a 3V bulb will light very brightly, to the point of burn out. There is a sweet spot between the 2.
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.07.27, 21:30:05
Mike - from which you will see a huge leap in current to a small bulb and HV enough to light a neon :)
My motor wants to spin now with the mod, but doesn't. That's the downside.
With a neon connected across 1 coil and 12V to only the armature windings, it will light partially with a hand spin.
The neon will actually flicker if the rotor is turned very slowly by hand, notch by notch and when the 12V is feeding the armature coils.
Bottom left in pic.
Well that's very curious Wallace. How well did it spin before the alteration?
Very well Gromit....freely and to a good speed (approx 1400 RPM), instant spin up. Output was much much lower though.
Sparking is more prominent now, so my next stage, as well as 12V running again, is to quench those somehow.
Another tip, appears to be to offset 1 brush by approx 80 degrees when in this configuration. On my motor, the brushes are at 90 degrees to the rotor coils. 1 is changed to be 80 degrees nearer to the other brush side. When stock, the 3V bulb comes on ok, but when offset, it gets really bright.
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.07.27, 21:58:25
Very well Gromit....freely and to a good speed (approx 1400 RPM), instant spin up. Output was much much lower though.
Sparking is more prominent now, so my next stage, as well as 12V running again, is to quench those somehow.
Another tip, appears to be to offset 1 brush by approx 80 degrees when in this configuration. On my motor, the brushes are at 90 degrees to the rotor coils. 1 is changed to be 80 degrees nearer to the other brush side. When stock, the 3V bulb comes on ok, but when offset, it gets really bright.
Is the brush tip "square" with the comm or angled in the offset? Have you tried the new rotor without the offset? Thanks
mate.
It's a little complicated, but the answer is 1 of them is offset, the other is stock. Changing from fine contact to full contact affects arcing, but HV is always there. The best current, has been with less brush surface area contact and when that offset brush is near 80 degrees - see pic.
Don't forget though, nothing is scientific in my setup yet...it's all plug/change/note/change. Not much scope work yet or multiple multimeters.
This motor is from a car vacuum cleaner, Dirt Devil.
The motor was encased in plastic, which supported the brushes and bearings. I've removed one side and 1 brush, but that means 1 brush is still stock.
The other brush sits on a piece of thick copper (house gauge) which is nailed to the wood piece that the motor is also affixed to. So one side is stock, the other can be moved around.
To complicate further, the stock side brush is filed to have a thinner contact area, probably a mistake. The other side is using a square brush from another motor. Mainly, because the arcing will likely eat a brush in short order and these were short to begin with.
I've got it running on 12V again, but, is only a temporary measure.
Am using a 3rd brush :D
The third brush connects to the same input (Positive supply) as the one on the end of the copper wire.
It then is placed where the original stock brush would go LOL
Upshot of all this.
If your motor won't spin up on 12V after modifying the rotor, attach a 3rd brush to a clip lead and put it near TDC (Top Dead Center) and move it slightly toward the brush side that you're taking the power feed from.
The only point of which, up to now, is to try out various other measures while running at the original 12V.
I do however see a link to thoughts on 4 brushes. In which case, a 4th brush at the other side (BDC) at a slight offset would also likely improve running.
Pic attached.
On left is me holding the 3rd brush in place, where there used to be one anyway.
A few degrees off from the top is the mid brush, held with the thick copper wire. On the right is the other brush.
Oh and the coil and LED on top is there because of the wireless noisy field, the LED lights up :)
Dear Slider 2732.
Old school again, this was employed moons ago " third brush regulation " for simple voltage control of automotive dynamos.
It seems we are seeing things again in a new light !
The first ever piece of test equipment I saw was my dear Unclles Runbaken armature growler, this device, when used correctly could determine a shorted turn in Dynamo armatures. You see I've had a life of electricity that was nearly ended when I tried to illuminate a 12 V lamp from an un warded 240 socket outlet !! Threw me over 12 feet across the living room, mother was quite upset with my father as he had given me the lamp to play with, all I can say now, thanks Dad . :)
I hope to share some findings tomorrow.
Cheers Grum.
Really ?
That's cool. I mean, that it's got history to it as something that actually works LOL
Neat to self discover it.
I imagine there will be tips toward best employment of the regulation too :)
Image from Back To The Future just there, where Marty plugs the guitar into the huge speaker and goes flying.
@Grumage
QuoteThe first ever piece of test equipment I saw was my dear Unclles Runbaken armature growler, this device, when used correctly could determine a shorted turn in Dynamo armatures. You see I've had a life of electricity that was nearly ended when I tried to illuminate a 12 V lamp from an un warded 240 socket outlet !! Threw me over 12 feet across the living room, mother was quite upset with my father as he had given me the lamp to play with, all I can say now, thanks Dad . Smiley
Been there... my first experience was an electromagnet made of 10 turns of 14 ga wire around a 4 inch long nail. It was too weak using a 1.5v D cell so I plugged it into the 120v outlet.... it worked, man did it work, lol.
AC
my video last night re the brushes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsBH9ylic74
Just adjusted the rotor coils. Killed my dyson but did wonders for my breville blender motor. Previously I hadn't got the blender lighting a lamp with the new rotor design it does. The Dyson not so much. I think it's all about the brush contacts spaced just right. If I tweak the brushes on the dyson its starts to run but very unstable.
Morning gents, I'm about to go to bed.
Here's a video of my blender
http://youtu.be/4tpr1whM-QM
Quote from: JimBoot on 2015.07.28, 13:22:36
Morning gents, I'm about to go to bed.
Here's a video of my blender
http://youtu.be/4tpr1whM-QM
Dear Jim.
Remember Crocodile Dundee ? ;) :)
http://youtu.be/IZiP0JoMub0
Cheers Grum.
Jim - if you can now change the angle/offset of one of those brushes on the blender motor, your bulb may well light much brighter and rotor speed pick up. Perhaps it's possible to disconnect one input and use another brush on a clip lead through the hole at the side ? That brush (from a crappy non runner thing of your choice lol) could be tried flat, angled, whatever for tests.
The output right now might not light a neon, but would be expected to, with one brush altered.
I have no idea if all this is applicable to Brads running device, because of the slow down, HV output etc...but I do think it to be on the understandings path.
Grum - used to watch the TV series in the 1970's :)
and I quite agree, but only Ned Kelly knows.
As an update - Am still working on speeding up the motor today. It's got half the poles but the speed drop should be able to be bridged somehow.
Pushed, pulled, capacitive coupling, something !
;D well if you put 40 watts in... ! Nice work mate. Very interesting.
Good idea mate. I'll give it a try tonight after work.
My semi solid state non rotary transformer :) http://youtu.be/wt9HRXtSB3k
Well I have now put magnets in the stator and we are on a role it seems. I'm not posting anything until I have things right, I still have more to do yet, but magnets are a must.
One thing is to put a large cap across the brushes for those who have removed every other commutator connection, because there is a huge flyback causing arcing
regards
Mike 8)
Jim - Was using the same kind of brushes myself yesterday 8)
Nowhere as good as your result though O0
The real carbon one would move in the grip of the clip lead jaws, so I just took it out and carried on.
Mike - Tried that too...we're all motoring along in a similar direction. But over here it was just the rotor from something that got taken apart years ago. Pic below, with Dremel motor behind it having similar tests with stator in place.
There only need to be very small magnets on the rotor itself to move it by using another very small magnet at the distance a field coil would be at. To me, that means that at speed, an opposite pole magnet can push a rotor segment past the missing pole section.
It's where to place them...was looking at the actual windings and, at least on that rotor, the windings are 1 section short of covering 180 degrees. Each winding crosses 5 sections of the 12 section rotor.
If a magnet sat on each segment, it would negate the effect of the last. Therefore, there have to be either 1/2 the number or 2 or whatever you motor guru's tell me there should be lol
As it sits now, it has 1 magnet per 4 poles, the thinking being to introduce an asymmetric method to how it runs. Mind you, i did that after watching the 1961 AC motors video on YouTube that someone linked to, where the rotor is shown lagging behind the field coils.
Will certainly try a cap across the brushes again. I was thinking HV types and small electrolytics, but presumably a 'soaker' is needed. As luck would have it, 2x 6800uF 80V were found yesterday, tatty condition so can blow up if they want to :D
Hi Mark
The magnets are on the frame at 90 degrees to the field coils, the stronger they are the less input is needed to the rotor.
I need to do a lot of testing, but I'm finding some interesting results and need to investigate more
Regards
Mike 8)
Mike - I see, so to just think of the process with the field coils doing the switching ?
On the Dremel motor, I have magnets on the top and at both sides, all on top of the stator and all of the same face direction. The rotor spins up far more freely and to a much higher speed. Perhaps that is in keeping with your findings,
In TinMan's new project, he mentions the 'every 5' winding of the 12 segments on his air pumps. Thinking about it, 180 degrees would result in no rotation...another penny drop moment with all of this.
One thing learned yesterday, was that as a rotor rotates, the magnetic fields are pushed slightly in the direction of travel. Such that, the brushes won't be at the null point when the motor has run up to speed. It would seem likely that changing the brush placements is an arc reducing method. However, if we reduce the back EMF with circuitry, magnetics, or reuse it, the fields are going to react in a different way. I know that's probably obvious, but new to me :)
Finally got the dyson going again with the detached rotor segments. Got the lamp as bright as Ive had it for only 5watt input. Tried to reattach the disconnected rotor coils to the untouched com bars but buggered it up on the fine wire that was in the rotor, Grum was right - Brad must have the patience of Job. Anyway looking forward to the chop phase converter build.
Say Jim, I noted on the other forums' thread that you got it going with 5W loaded and 12W unloaded. Might I enquire as to how ?
Am thinking the chop is a mechanical version of the same and, hopefully containing many pointers to the other...so have begun one here. Bit of a different method, in that i'm using ex printer DC motors and it will be 5V input. But it's far easier to find 2 of the same motors without ruining a good universal motor.
Quite surprising if you know of usual small DC motor construction...these motors have overlapped windings between sections and actual brushes. Just missing the stator coils and laminations. Well, I can wind the coils with the wire from the motor that the 2nd commutator came from. The laminations might be derived from small transformers and shaped, or be omitted in favour of a magnet ring.
One good thing, is that the extra commutator can be rotated for angle, because the end of the shaft has notches that grip.
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.07.30, 14:05:23
Say Jim, I noted on the other forums' thread that you got it going with 5W loaded and 12W unloaded. Might I enquire as to how ?
Am thinking the chop is a mechanical version of the same and, hopefully containing many pointers to the other...so have begun one here. Bit of a different method, in that i'm using ex printer DC motors and it will be 5V input. But it's far easier to find 2 of the same motors without ruining a good universal motor.
Quite surprising if you know of usual small DC motor construction...these motors have overlapped windings between sections and actual brushes. Just missing the stator coils and laminations. Well, I can wind the coils with the wire from the motor that the 2nd commutator came from. The laminations might be derived from small transformers and shaped, or be omitted in favour of a magnet ring.
One good thing, is that the extra commutator can be rotated for angle, because the end of the shaft has notches that grip.
God you must have the hands of a surgeon. I was thinking about a couple of dc motors but after breaking the rotor wire last night I think I'll have a hunt for some of those compressors :) I got the dyson consuming 400ma when loaded but I had to hold the "brushes" which were two bent strips of copper. unloaded it was consuming about 1.1A . SO the modified rotor really lowered the input required and go a nice bright light too.
Very cool and thanks for the info Jim :)
Maybe there are clues to the original motor with what i'm doing, hope so.
This contraption is up and running now, as a DC motor to start with.
Just 1 magnet slightly off center and it runs fine. A variable pot controls speed. Piece of galv steel curves over and supports the magnet.
Those coils on the solder tube are from the donor motor and were its windings, 2 of which have now become the hoped equivalent of stator windings.
Here's something strange, to me at least.
I put an LED across 1 of the coils and had it all over the place for induction tests....only when directly underneath the powering magnet would the LED light ! Even put several slice type neos together as a stack and put them inside or above the coil and nothing happened anywhere...the only action was under that powering magnet !
However, putting the other coil in series (as per 1 side of a universal motor) would see wireless induction from it to the other coil. That will be the switching across the gaps on the commutator...nifty though. The coil itself doesn't seem to affect running much, might need to be doubled or trebled, but even putting it to the side of the motor when running, the other coils LED will still light.
And, putting 2x 1N4148 on the power inputs backwards, delivers > 0.5V of back EMF, as tested with a 1000uF cap. In other words, even at 5V running like this, there's enough to run an oscillator or switch a transistor.
Anyroad, next to come up with some type of trigger circuit for the commutator on the other end.
I'm reading that multiple times Mark. You're not doing video at the moment? Anyway here is the dyson at 5 watts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFyzn9CoCDY
Thanks for the vid.
I'd need to rig up a stand/mount of some type, because, same as your demo, some of this stuff needs 2 hands :)
Mind you, I could certainly show the thing running. But it doesn't have any fruity things on the extra commutator yet, so would just be a DC motor turning lol.
The point though, was that induction to the air coil only happens when it is placed exactly under the single motor magnet and nowhere else. Which was surprising. The rebuilding has allowed an exploration of how magnets and coils interact.
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.07.31, 16:45:55
Thanks for the vid.
I'd need to rig up a stand/mount of some type, because, same as your demo, some of this stuff needs 2 hands :)
Mind you, I could certainly show the thing running. But it doesn't have any fruity things on the extra commutator yet, so would just be a DC motor turning lol.
The point though, was that induction to the air coil only happens when it is placed exactly under the single motor magnet and nowhere else. Which was surprising. The rebuilding has allowed an exploration of how magnets and coils interact.
Aint that a hoot.
And yet the guru's(like MileHigh) will tell you that a PM will make no difference to the output power in a transformer setup.
Nice find Mark O0. Make sure you dont just file that find at the back of the shelf-->work out how and why the coil only produces power while under the magnet.
Quote from: TinMan
Make sure you dont just file that find at the back of the shelf-->work out how and why the coil only produces power while under the magnet.
Aye, excellent suggestion TinMan! There is indeed an answer
to the question. When "unexpected" events such as this are
noted the path to greater knowledge beckons.
Yep, it stumped me lol
Theory at the moment - is that the field lines produced by the rotor segments rotate with the rotor, but the magnet lines are straight, into the rotor. The lines are sheared each time an energised rotor section passes the magnet and so much stronger induction occurs into the coil that sits between.
Edit to add - straight rapidly switched lines of electromagnetic force for induction, not DC or arched that form a tight loop from pole to pole. That's why the LED also lights on the series connected coil in the vid as wireless electricity. Rapid on/off of straight lines.
Have decided to do a video, for Jim mainly as he asked, about this motor and the direction of experiments.
It would seem that it IS useful, for working out what goes on inside universal motors, as well as other types.
A rather obvious thing, to me now, is that series stator coil induction is diminished when a smoothing cap goes on the front end...because it smoothes it out, by going across the whole connected chain. Not a bother when the stator coils are separated from the armature power wires though. Which is exactly the case for the Rotary Transformer :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xXwVYFnRx8
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.07.31, 19:13:24
Yep, it stumped me lol
Theory at the moment - is that the field lines produced by the rotor segments rotate with the rotor, but the magnet lines are straight, into the rotor. The lines are sheared each time an energised rotor section passes the magnet and so much stronger induction occurs into the coil that sits between.
Edit to add - straight rapidly switched lines of electromagnetic force for induction, not DC or arched that form a tight loop from pole to pole. That's why the LED also lights on the series connected coil in the vid as wireless electricity. Rapid on/off of straight lines.
Have decided to do a video, for Jim mainly as he asked, about this motor and the direction of experiments.
It would seem that it IS useful, for working out what goes on inside universal motors, as well as other types.
A rather obvious thing, to me now, is that series stator coil induction is diminished when a smoothing cap goes on the front end...because it smoothes it out, by going across the whole connected chain. Not a bother when the stator coils are separated from the armature power wires though. Which is exactly the case for the Rotary Transformer :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xXwVYFnRx8
That was fantastic. Thank you for taking the time. I understand it now. It reminds of a vid i did a while back but was told at OU that it was nothing and to run along and play.
I've had magnets effect output before on transformers I didn't think that was significant.
This is the vid from a few years back. Showing magnets effecting out put. It was part of the mag resonance discussion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFyzn9CoCDY
Will take a look at that in a minute Jim :)
ETA: was that an oops moment ? the link goes to your latest upload,
Have just uploaded the next stage in this. To see what sort of output is coming from the induction under the magnet.
As such, an oscillator is now attached to the coil.
It's been found that just 1 diode works better than 2. Only the 1 wire has a diode, a 1N4148, in the positive direction.
At this diddly scale, it seems that a little more current is used without the oscillator attached than with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6wVwQQzjRM
oopsyes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJe8OaJo_zw
Thanks Mark. Nice demo of the power of the just the magnet and no core.. Those rotors arent modified are they? I played with several rotors today but the wiring guages were all a bit to light for my liking. I think it might be quicker if I just go to a spare parts shop.
comedy time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ7I9XgaW3A
Jim - As you likely know (now ? lol), nearly all smaller DC motors have 3 commutator sections and the coils are separately individually wound per rotor segment, Mabuchi RF-300 and such. These printer ones are wound the same as universal motors and have 5 sections. I'd have liked there to be 6 sections but ah well. As such though, they are good mini versions of the construction of universals. Nope no mods to the windings, or the commutator yet.
Gauge here is approx 32AWG.
A big part of it, is to be open and airy for quick changes and to need no posh tools to make modifications :)
TinMan - Ah yes, Mr. Morin and his wonderful contrapticons.
Unfortunately the video is sitting with a black screen and a spinning circle, but I gather from your post under it, that he thinks PWM affects voltage. *smh* as they say.
Funny enough, this morning I was to take an 'It Can Fly' R/C aircraft out to the nearby field for a test flight but the controller doesn't like Ni-MH's. A very kind friend was clearing out his old toy grade stuff and sent me it. Thing being, the system plays notes through the aircraft motor, using the motor as a speaker to notify of throttle changes.
You're quite right to point out, that the PWM changes the pulse duration of a fixed voltage and current. PWM mark/space time interval changes will produce audible tones if they are held for a short duration at audible frequencies to us. Nearly every R/C speed controller emits notes from the motor at power on. I mean, fer cryin out loud, Pulse Width Modulation..it's right there in the name LOL
Here's 42 seconds of an It Can Fly doing it's funny business with the motor notes, which I presume is what Mr. Morin is getting all confused about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYbWBxrKwOc
Have just watched the fail vid.
Say, if you stick that rotor in the freezer for a while, the glue should peel right off. It's rubbish at sticking when cold :)
Sorry I'm spending my time by re watching your vids
7/31:
Quote from: TiMan on 2015.07.31, 17:21:06
Aint that a hoot.
And yet the guru's(like MileHigh) will tell you that a PM will make no difference to the output power in a transformer setup.
Nice find Mark O0. Make sure you dont just file that find at the back of the shelf-->work out how and why the coil only produces power while under the magnet.
This is a curious effect!
Good to hear from you! I'm back also from long travels... . Getting my bench warmed up lol...
MileHigh is mostly right about magnets... for certain values of "right". >:-)
I was using biasing magnets on my Orbette core-effect motor back in 2012; they went onto the _far_ ends of the toroidally wound ferrite "beads" I used for the drive coils. They work in that case by partially pre-saturating the cores, so that it only takes a small current in the windings to drive the core into full saturation.
Man that fail vid had me laughing from the opening frame. Talk about dramatic irony. Hot glue being my most sophisticated fixing material I am all too familiar with it's failings which usually results in finger burns or flying neos. Even eddy currents are enough to get it to melting point.
Btw Im headin to US in a couple of weeks. Vegas first for a conf I'm speaking at then maybe SF LA & NY. ANyone around love to catch up. Trying to setup a time to meet with Russ as well.
Aren't you a promotions type of person ? Why is the conference name and subject not included in your post ? LOL
It could be an idea to start a topic on your Bench area or wherever....to get the arrangements routed for the time frame.
Would be great Jim, i'd sink a couple of tinnies with ya !
Am out in the backwaters though compared to your itinerary, Oklahoma.
However, Vegas to Tulsa Intl, flight change of a few hours to go to a bar, hop up to NY and it would then be just a dogleg :)
Jim
Sure,
if you come into NYC I'll Knock down a few magnums with yah...
http://www.magnumicecream.com/products/
[if I'm around].
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.08.02, 19:13:13
Aren't you a promotions type of person ? Why is the conference name and subject not included in your post ? LOL
It could be an idea to start a topic on your Bench area or wherever....to get the arrangements routed for the time frame.
Would be great Jim, i'd sink a couple of tinnies with ya !
Am out in the backwaters though compared to your itinerary, Oklahoma.
However, Vegas to Tulsa Intl, flight change of a few hours to go to a bar, hop up to NY and it would then be just a dogleg :)
Hahaha cos I'm polite! But here it is anyway. http://www.thinkglobalretail.com/ The trip is going to curtail my build time severely! Sadly I dont think I'll make it to OK this trip.
Quote from: Chet K on 2015.08.02, 19:49:52
Jim
Sure,
if you come into NYC I'll Knock down a few magnums with yah...
http://www.magnumicecream.com/products/
[if I'm around].
I'll hit you up when I know where I'll be. I havent planned anything really after vegas, except my wife needs to be in SF for a silversmithing workshop.
So what did we think of Brad's 3d Transformer. ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDRchA2g6a4
Here's his post at OU.
"OK,i left the first two parts out of the video-long and boring.
The core i made from cast iron powder,and set with two pack epoxy.
The primary and secondary are wound together(1:1) at 1 layer each dimension.
I carried out some further experiments,but will leave them for another day-as it is late here.
But the results i am getting are like no other transformer i have tested so far.
Further updates to come."
I'm looking forward to the light test
Quote from: JimBoot on 2015.08.03, 00:14:17
So what did we think of Brad's 3d Transformer. ?
See what he's doing there right?
Off the wall ideas, way off the beaten path. This is the way to finding what we want.
Many thanks Brad!
What do we think of it ?
Can he slow down please !
and..wow...that's cool :o
Nice idea and very different.
Maybe the SWES or even a JT are similar. Depends on connections, if a bifilar coil (in essence), transistor, the 1 wire output etc. BUT, he's using much less amperage :)
In fact, thinking about it, this should be able to run without a sig gen.
I'm liking the low power side of it.....
Cube building this evening.
Time to go outside, with a piece of ferrite from a TV yoke in a plastic bag and a hammer >:-)
Update:
The pic seems to show a half assed cube and large ferrite pieces. However, it's really a half assed cube and large ferrite pieces.
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.08.03, 01:45:32
Update:
The pic seems to show a half assed cube and large ferrite pieces. However, it's really a half assed cube and large ferrite pieces.
LOL! I'll be interested to see the results.
Man things travel fast from youtube to forums.
I wasnt even going to post it on forums just yet, as I have only spent an hour on it, but some one else started a thread on it at OU.
I am going to rewind the cube tonight with just a single wire, and have a good look at the inductive spike, as something seems amiss there-it looks to be ass about to what it should be.
Anyway-it was just a crazy idea from some time ago, and I needed a break from winding motors, so I thought-what the hell.
It's a good what the hell, am enjoying this !
And here you go Jim, some results :)
While we don't know the wire up of TinMan's creation I took some liberties.
Biggest liberty was to wind it bifilar...32AWG and 28AWG.
30 turns, single layer x 2 directions.
End of 1 of the 28AWG to the other winding direction start 28AWG. Both of those go to positive power input.
The other ends go to transistor Base and Collector.
Then one of the 32AWG's from positive power to the Base of the 2N3904 transistor.
A 100ohm resistor is in series before both wires get to the Base. It will work with no resistor, but drew 150mA.
Now, it's much lower at around 70mA, which is still too high - but here are the features:
Runs well on a 1.5V AAA
Uses only a transistor and the cube (resistor for lower current)
It self starts
Has wireless output
The spare 32AWG wire can run a green LED brightly off the pickup energy.
Sorry about the dirty hands, ferrite isn't very clean stuff when it's been under the hammer.
Well that is interesting. Do you plan on doing the third direction?
It's cos you're a celeb Brad. ;D
This guy Alvaro_cs seems to have been working on a similar idea back in 2011, but using a ferro fluid core. I'm sure many types of ferrous material can be tried if you have the time.
http://overunity.com/6123/joule-thief/msg305125/#msg305125
I thought this video might be helpful in this discussion. http://youtu.be/fRz_-2xYuEY
Quote from: ION on 2015.08.03, 11:44:52
This guy Alvaro_cs seems to have been working on a similar idea back in 2011, but using a ferro fluid core.
You should post about this on
http://overunity.com/15935/3-dimensional-transformer/msg458066/
While you're at it, you may want to link
this (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2912.0;attach=19566) relevant document, too.
Quote from: verpies on 2015.08.03, 13:00:40
You should post about this on
http://overunity.com/15935/3-dimensional-transformer/msg458066/
While you're at it, you may want to link this (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2912.0;attach=19566) relevant document, too.
That's where I got the info, as Alvaro_cs himself posted it there. You can post the pdf's there as they are your research findings.
Regards, ION
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.07.31, 16:45:55
The point though, was that induction to the air coil only happens when it is placed exactly under the single motor magnet and nowhere else.
Slider,
I wasn't able to discern exactly what you meant. Could you elaborate?
Thanks.
Sure Poynt.
No matter where I tried to get some induction, beyond a paltry 0.1V or 0.2V, it was only when the coil was put directly under the magnet that things radically changed. Anywhere else brought what would be expected of 100 turns of fine gauge air core coil. But, adding ferrite in or behind the coil didn't do much for improvement. Sure, I used a random piece of ferrite and have no idea of its permeability rating for example, but only when under the magnet did the circuit fire up and strong light come from the LED.
Adding thin slice neo's under the armature, to better simulate a DC motor construction didn't have the desired effect. Those magnets have been found to need 16 of them to equate to 1 stock one from the motor. As such, the 4 or 5 under the motor didn't affect running and with the coil over those, the induction was unchanged, no good.
Jim - What 3rd direction ? :D
So I wound the 3rd direction C.C
Now it has 1 wire capability from those 2 bifilar wires connected together as 1 (same as single filar of course). Other end to the Collector.
I found that holding the battery, it would do the 1 wire, but my body was already in the circuit, holding the battery.
Swapped to an AV plug and neo's to hold the battery.
Thanks.
So to make sure I'm understanding correctly, you have a DC motor with PM stators. Using an air-core coil you search for the best induced voltage and find that it is highest when placed between the rotor and PM?
Yep, that seems to be it :)
There is some confusing terminology, partly my fault, partly criss crossing from AC to DC motors by many.
The armature is a regular wound DC type, but of 5 overlapping coils, similar in construction to that of a universal motor.
There is only 1 magnet, sitting at the top and although it sticks to the galvanized steel plate (the metal over the top) it is glued, in case of armature attraction/bumping etc.
The coil then sits under the magnet, the armature sits below that.
Rotor, armature, close enough as far as motors go in my books. I think we all know what is being referred to (I hope) in either case. ;)
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.07.31, 16:45:55
The point though, was that induction to the air coil only happens when it is placed exactly under the single motor magnet and nowhere else. Which was surprising.
OK, so you seemed surprised by this "effect". Why so?
My own experiments have used ferrite or iron or even coathanger pieces when induction has needed to be strong. Air core coils can do some work, especially when lack of rotor interaction is needed...but to have such a bigger difference showing when under the magnet was the surprise.
Plus, because the magnet is there anyway, the pull interactions on the armature are from the magnet. The RPM's seemed very much similar with or without the coil. Non scientific of course, but with ferrite the difference is quite striking, here, not very much difference if any.
Or, in other words, if induction is required, throw the coils in front of the magnets every time !
It is sensible to me that there will be more induced voltage when the coil is in front of the magnet as opposed to being on either side...regardless if the coil is air-core or not.
I guess I find it surprising that you find that surprising. ;D
Well I guess if the magnet has ferrite in it, ya know lol
Or iron, perhaps. But actual ferrite was not as good. Just try it out :)
It's cool how the rotor doesn't seem to be affected.
Result = the magnet is doing the work :D
Personally, quite honestly, I didn't know they are not supposed to be able to do any work. The things are packed with displacement energy ! A fridge magnet sticks to a fridge and holds a piece of paper in place for years. Likewise, an opposite polarity pair of microwave magnets will form a fantastic bearing for a wind turbine, just by sitting there.
Btw, the cube now runs a blue LED nice and brightly at 3.8mA. Simply connected it on 1 of the windings as a JT, with a 0.068uF cap and 1meg resistor in parallel to the Base of the transistor.
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.08.04, 05:18:28
Personally, quite honestly, I didn't know they are not supposed to be able to do any work.
Me neither I was stunned when MH et al told me a magnet is just a hammer. Esp when I see those real lines of flux in Ken Wheelers whatchamacallit.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2015.08.04, 08:11:47
Me neither I was stunned when MH et al told me a magnet is just a hammer. Esp when I see those real lines of flux in Ken Wheelers whatchamacallit.
There is a video someplace where ED is explaining "flux lines", saying they are not contiguous, each one aligns itself to a particular place. His example: If you take two permanent magnets, set one North and one South separated by some distance, then wind a small coil and connect it to a set of headphones, you can move the small coil around between the two magnets and hear the cracking and popping as you break those lines of flux. Then he goes on to infer that by breaking those lines of flux you in effect create electrons--as he says they are the result of destroying the dipole, i.e. destroying energy in its natural form.
Certainly a different way of looking at things, maybe helpful; maybe not. It is an easy experiment to try and come to your own conclusion with though.
That is an interesting take on it Matt....
Hmm, here's a thought, which i've also just realised is likely more pants than a closing out sale at a tailors shop.
Oh well, i've started typing now.
What if ED is correct and the effect is that of 'creating electrons'. It could be viewed mentally as analogous to bond splitting of water molecules for HHO. That magnets have what would amount to water flowing between the poles, the action of passing a wire through is like passing a bucket through the water. If the bucket is stationary, nothing happens, the water flows around it.
:)
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.08.04, 21:30:31
What if ED is correct and the effect is that of 'creating electrons'. It could be viewed mentally as analogous to bond splitting of water molecules for HHO. That magnets have what would amount to water flowing between the poles, the action of passing a wire through is like passing a bucket through the water. If the bucket is stationary, nothing happens, the water flows around it.
Does it make a difference whether the bucket is already full or not? Moving or stationary?
I would contend it does, very similar as to what you would witness with the literal experiment of flowing water and buckets.
My feeling is that energy (not power) seeks equilibrium. When you go probing around in a place where energy has situated itself, it is going to re-align. It has to, that is what it does. In the process of re-aligning, it does so in time. And shazzam, now we can introduce the concept of power--a movement of energy in time. Where I'm convinced we have made some oversights, is in lumping each individual strand of energy. In some respects you can do this because each strand responds to the strand around it, but at the same time, it is its own entity and must be considered as such. This is where I suspect nano-technology takes things to a whole new level, because now you can begin to operate at the level of each individual strand, which I estimate probably works at an atomic level or smaller.
See, when we wind a coil of un-aided visible size, we have no idea how many individual elements of energy we are disrupting. We group everything together and measure it on the oscilloscope inferring the waveform tells the whole story. I highly doubt the scope even scratches the surface of what it really going on. To be quite honest, I think even with the best instrumentation we are still nearly blind. What we really need to understand is all the moving parts,
then we can use instrumentation as a simple confirmation everything really is as we predict.
We also need to be aware of the math. A lot of the formulas we use lump things together to reduce complexity--not good when you're looking for a needle in the haystack.
Ah, but put a big auto salvage yard electromagnet above the haystack and....plink, the needle is found instantly :P
Mind you, that does relate to what you say. Knowing the right methods, the best way to convert or extract energy, or needles..
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.08.04, 22:19:42
My feeling is that energy (not power) seeks equilibrium.
I thought that was how an electric motor worked? Don Smith used to say a similar thing.
Is current flowing in your classical generator operating under no load condition? The generator is open circuit, DVM indicates a voltage, is there current operating in the coil in this situation?
When the answer to this question is found, and the underlying mechanism comprehended, one has what one requires to begin considering how to build a generator which has as much drag as an unloaded generator when loaded.
Regards
Quote from: Erfinder on 2015.08.05, 04:39:05
Is current flowing in your classical generator operating under no load condition? The generator is open circuit, DVM indicates a voltage, is there current operating in the coil in this situation?
When the answer to this question is found, and the underlying mechanism comprehended, one has what one requires to begin considering how to build a generator which has as much drag as an unloaded generator when loaded.
Regards
Currents always flow through the body of the generator-regardless of weather the generator has a load attached to what we know as! The outputs!.The trouble starts when the current produced when a load is attached creates a secondary current throughout the body of the generator that is in opposition to that of what is the free flowing current of the unloaded state.
Maybe just chuck a PM in the body of the generator to enhance the free flowing current. The downside is that at idle or a no load attached situation, we draw more power from the prime mover-always a down side, but not really a problem if the output is always loaded.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.08.04, 21:18:37
There is a video someplace where ED is explaining "flux lines", saying they are not contiguous, each one aligns itself to a particular place. His example: If you take two permanent magnets, set one North and one South separated by some distance, then wind a small coil and connect it to a set of headphones, you can move the small coil around between the two magnets and hear the cracking and popping as you break those lines of flux. Then he goes on to infer that by breaking those lines of flux you in effect create electrons--as he says they are the result of destroying the dipole, i.e. destroying energy in its natural form.
Certainly a different way of looking at things, maybe helpful; maybe not. It is an easy experiment to try and come to your own conclusion with though.
The cracking and popping is known as Barkhausen noise. There is a wikipedia entry for it. The second graphic is an animated GIF that shows one interpretation although the author is talking about moving the domain wall rather than field lines. On the other hand, if you move the domain wall you move the field lines also.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkhausen_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barkhausen_effect)
More info and videos: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=barkhausen%20effect (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=barkhausen%20effect)
I think that graphic is incomplete however. It shows the field line moving over an impurity in the material. When the field line passes over the impurity it stretches for 2 frames but then he shows the field line all the way to the right. But to get there the field line must actually break and then reconnect. I'm thinking that reconnection is what causes the Barkhausen noise.
When you research "magnetic reconnection" most of what you find is astrophysics and plasma research. If, however, we think of aether as the basic "plasma" of the universe I don't see any reason the magnetic reconnection wouldn't occur inside materials. I'm not sure about magnetic reconnection
creating electrons but the research says it will definitely accelerate them.
The attachment is an animated GIF showing the magnetic reconnection and it operating in both directions as a magnetic field is oscillated both ways over the impurity.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.08.05, 04:53:31
Currents always flow through the body of the generator-regardless of weather the generator has a load attached to what we know as! The outputs!.The trouble starts when the current produced when a load is attached creates a secondary current throughout the body of the generator that is in opposition to that of what is the free flowing current of the unloaded state.
Maybe just chuck a PM in the body of the generator to enhance the free flowing current. The downside is that at idle or a no load attached situation, we draw more power from the prime mover-always a down side, but not really a problem if the output is always loaded.
It seems we are on the same page. To be in complete agreement however will take some time. I find that we must consider how the so-called "secondary current" co-manifests with the primary in the open circuit state. Induced current is born out of opposition to change in voltage. It is firmly established that when one eliminates the capacitve coupling within an inductive circuit, no voltage can manifest, no induced voltage no induced current. It would appear that the magic dipole that the would be gurus preach about is very real, and machines we build are built around the idea that the primary must be destroyed.
With this in mind I ask myself what is the fundamental difference between a shorted and unshorted inductance? The answer that keeps bubbling up to the surface is Asymmetry versus Symmetry. As I mentioned before, present day concepts are built around the idea of destroying the primary, when we look at these systems we find them to be very symmetrical. Any tendency to perform asymmetrically is engineered out. I am finding that what is need, is oscillations between asymmetry and symmetry, when experimenting along these lines it became clear that the concept of oscillating between the two is directly related to the oscillations between the inherent energy storage mechanism of inductance and capacitance on all levels.
Regards
Quote from: Erfinder on 2015.08.06, 05:18:38
It seems we are on the same page. To be in complete agreement however will take some time. I find that we must consider how the so-called "secondary current" co-manifests with the primary in the open circuit state. Induced current is born out of opposition to change in voltage. It is firmly established that when one eliminates the capacitve coupling within an inductive circuit, no voltage can manifest, no induced voltage no induced current. It would appear that the magic dipole that the would be gurus preach about is very real, and machines we build are built around the idea that the primary must be destroyed.
With this in mind I ask myself what is the fundamental difference between a shorted and unshorted inductance? The answer that keeps bubbling up to the surface is Asymmetry versus Symmetry. As I mentioned before, present day concepts are built around the idea of destroying the primary, when we look at these systems we find them to be very symmetrical. Any tendency to perform asymmetrically is engineered out. I am finding that what is need, is oscillations between asymmetry and symmetry, when experimenting along these lines it became clear that the concept of oscillating between the two is directly related to the oscillations between the inherent energy storage mechanism of inductance and capacitance on all levels.
Regards
Good day Erfinder
Yes, indeed!
take a look at the attached pdf from '95............... old but forgotten news?
This is a form of parametric resonance switching the inductance *on & off* so to speak within a mechanical system.
It can also be done within a totally electrical/SS system as well.
take care, peace
lost_bro
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.08.04, 22:19:42
Does it make a difference whether the bucket is already full or not? Moving or stationary?
I would contend it does, very similar as to what you would witness with the literal experiment of flowing water and buckets.
Modelling backed by experimental verification is the best known method for significant progress being made.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.08.04, 22:19:42
My feeling is that energy (not power) seeks equilibrium. When you go probing around in a place where energy has situated itself, it is going to re-align. It has to, that is what it does. In the process of re-aligning, it does so in time. And shazzam, now we can introduce the concept of power--a movement of energy in time. Where I'm convinced we have made some oversights, is in lumping each individual strand of energy. In some respects you can do this because each strand responds to the strand around it, but at the same time, it is its own entity and must be considered as such. This is where I suspect nano-technology takes things to a whole new level, because now you can begin to operate at the level of each individual strand, which I estimate probably works at an atomic level or smaller.
"
My feeling is that energy (not power) seeks equilibrium". Correct, power is the manifestation of energy attempting to achieve zero potential difference through time, the rate of power. A bucket of water has weight when weighed externally on a scale, it has hydrostatic pressure differential when the liquid pressure is measured internally from top to bottom. The external weight can increase internal hydrostatic pressure on another bucket and then the properties between external and internal energy can be substituted.. in situ.. without moving the mass, once the mass that was at the top has descended to the bottom, doing work and has zero gravitational potential energy remaining (apart from the internal hydrostatic pressure differential of the lower bucket, which is small and will equalise in a U pipe anyway).
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.08.04, 22:19:42
See, when we wind a coil of un-aided visible size, we have no idea how many individual elements of energy we are disrupting. We group everything together and measure it on the oscilloscope inferring the waveform tells the whole story. I highly doubt the scope even scratches the surface of what it really going on. To be quite honest, I think even with the best instrumentation we are still nearly blind. What we really need to understand is all the moving parts, then we can use instrumentation as a simple confirmation everything really is as we predict.
Map the properties at each stage and build a model, confirm the predictions with experiment.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2015.08.04, 22:19:42
We also need to be aware of the math. A lot of the formulas we use lump things together to reduce complexity--not good when you're looking for a needle in the haystack.
I found my needle:
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.06.28, 13:03:37
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight
Definitions
Several definitions exist for weight, not all of which are equivalent.[3][7][8][9]
Gravitational definition
The most common definition of weight found in introductory physics textbooks defines weight as the force exerted on a body by gravity.[1][9] This is often expressed in the formula W = mg, where W is the weight, m the mass of the object, and g gravitational acceleration.
In 1901, the 3rd General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) established this as their official definition of weight:
"The word weight denotes a quantity of the same nature[Note 1] as a force: the weight of a body is the product of its mass and the acceleration due to gravity."
— Resolution 2 of the 3rd General Conference on Weights and Measures[11][12]
This resolution defines weight as a vector, since force is a vector quantity. However, some textbooks also take weight to be a scalar by defining:
"The weight W of a body is equal to the magnitude Fg of the gravitational force on the body."[13]
The gravitational acceleration varies from place to place. Sometimes, it is simply taken to a have a standard value of 9.80665 m/s2, which gives the standard weight.[11]
The force whose magnitude is equal to mg newtons is also known as the m kilogram weight (which term is abbreviated to kg-wt)[14]
Operational definition
In the operational definition, the weight of an object is the force measured by the operation of weighing it, which is the force it exerts on its support.[7] This can make a considerable difference, depending on the details; for example, an object in free fall exerts little if any force on its support, a situation that is commonly referred to as weightlessness. However, being in free fall does not affect the weight according to the gravitational definition. Therefore, the operational definition is sometimes refined by requiring that the object be at rest.[citation needed] However, this raises the issue of defining "at rest" (usually being at rest with respect to the Earth is implied by using standard gravity[citation needed]). In the operational definition, the weight of an object at rest on the surface of the Earth is lessened by the effect of the centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation.
The operational definition, as usually given, does not explicitly exclude the effects of buoyancy, which reduces the measured weight of an object when it is immersed in a fluid such as air or water. As a result, a floating balloon or an object floating in water might be said to have zero weight.
ISO definition
In the ISO International standard ISO 80000-4(2006),[15] describing the basic physical quantities and units in mechanics as a part of the International standard ISO/IEC 80000, the definition of weight is given as:
Definition
F_g = mg
where m is mass and g is local acceleration of free fall.
Remarks
It should be noted that, when the reference frame is Earth, this quantity comprises not only the local gravitational force, but also the local centrifugal force due to the rotation of the Earth, a force which varies with latitude.
The effect of atmospheric buoyancy is excluded in the weight.
In common parlance, the name "weight" continues to be used where "mass" is meant, but this practice is deprecated.
— ISO 80000-4 (2006)
The definition is dependent on the chosen frame of reference. When the chosen frame is co-moving with the object in question then this definition precisely agrees with the operational definition.[8] If the specified frame is the surface of the Earth, the weight according to the ISO and gravitational definitions differ only by the centrifugal effects due to the rotation of the Earth.
What is the Unified Field Theory?
http://physics.about.com/od/physics101thebasics/f/fund_forces.htm
Gravity
Of these forces, gravity has the furthest reach but it's the weakest in actual magnitude.
It is a purely attractive force which reaches through even the "empty" void of space to draw two masses toward each other. It keeps the planets in orbit around the sun and the moon in orbit around the Earth.
Gravitation is described under the theory of general relativity, which defines it as the curvature of spacetime around an object of mass. This curvature, in turn, creates a situation where the path of least energy is toward the other object of mass.
Electromagnetism
Electromagnetism is the interaction of particles with an electrical charge. Charged particles at rest interact through electrostatic forces, while in motion they interact through both electrical and magnetic forces.
For a long time, the electric and magnetic forces were considered to be different forces, but they were finally unified by James Clerk Maxwell in 1864, under Maxwell's equations. In the 1940s, quantum electrodynamics consolidated electromagnetism with quantum physics.
Electromagnetism is perhaps the most obviously prevalent force in our world, as it can affect things at a reasonable distance and with a fair amount of force.
Weak Interaction
The weak interaction is a very powerful force that acts on the scale of the atomic nucleus. It causes phenomena such as beta decay. It has been consolidated with electromagnetism as a single interaction called the "electroweak interaction." The weak interaction is mediated by the W boson (there are actually two types, the W+ and W- bosons) and also the Z boson.
Strong Interaction
The strongest of the forces is the aptly-named strong interaction, which is the force that, among other things, keeps nucleons (protons & neutrons) bound together. In the helium atom, for example, it is strong enough to bind two protons together despite the fact that their positive electrical charges cause them to repulse each other.
In essence, the strong interaction allows particles called gluons to bind together quarks to create the nucleons in the first place. Gluons can also interact with other gluons, which gives the strong interaction a theoretically infinite distance, although it's major manifestations are all at the subatomic level.
Unifying the Fundamental Forces
Many physicists believe that all four of the fundamental forces are, in fact, the manifestations of a single underlying (or unified) force which has yet to be discovered. Just as electricity, magnetism, and the weak force were unified into the electroweak interaction, they work to unify all of the fundamental forces.
The current quantum mechanical interpretation of these forces is that the particles do not interact directly, but rather manifest virtual particles that mediate the actual interactions. All of the forces except for gravity have been consolidated into this "Standard Model" of interaction.
The effort to unify gravity with the other three fundamental forces is called quantum gravity. It postulates the existence of a virtual particle called the graviton, which would be the mediating element in gravity interactions. To date, gravitons have not been detected and no theories of quantum gravity have been successful or universally adopted.
Fundamental interaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
Fundamental interactions, also known as fundamental forces or interactive forces, are the interactions in physical systems that don't appear to be reducible to more basic interactions. There are four conventionally accepted fundamental interactions—gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Each one is understood as the dynamics of a field. The gravitational force is modeled as a continuous classical field. The other three are modeled as a discrete quantum field, and exhibit a measurable unit or elementary particle.
Gravitation and electromagnetism act over a potentially infinite distance across the universe. They mediate macroscopic phenomena every day. The other two fields act over minuscule, subatomic distances. The strong interaction is responsible for the binding of atomic nuclei. The weak interaction also acts on the nucleus, mediating radioactive decay.
Theoretical physicists working beyond the Standard Model seek to quantize the gravitational field toward predictions that particle physicists can experimentally confirm, thus yielding acceptance to a theory of quantum gravity (QG). (Phenomena suitable to model as a fifth force—perhaps an added gravitational effect—remain widely disputed). Other theorists seek to unite the electroweak and strong fields within a Grand Unified Theory (GUT). While all four fundamental interactions are widely thought to align at an extremely minuscule scale, particle accelerators cannot produce the massive energy levels required to experimentally probe at that Planck scale (which would experimentally confirm such theories). Yet some theories, such as the string theory, seek both QG and GUT within one framework, unifying all four fundamental interactions along with mass production within a theory of everything (ToE).
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.08.06, 20:55:51
There are four conventionally accepted fundamental interactions—gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Each one is understood as the dynamics of a field.
Specific Heat Field ?.. would that put us up to six conventionally accepted fundamental interactions ?.. anyone.. ?
Quote from: evolvingape on 2015.08.06, 21:14:19
Specific Heat Field ?.. would that put us up to six conventionally accepted fundamental interactions ?.. anyone.. ?
No force - no interaction. All of the fields enumerated above are understood by the mainstream physicists as force fields, or in other words, fields of forces (Grav, electric, magnetic, weak, strong, etc...)
IMO www.rs2theory.org unifies them the best.
I'm traveling next week but when I get back I will be starting a new build of the Tinnie (thought that was a good name). I was thinking of using the Alexander patent for the gen coil though as it would be easier for me to implement. I was thinking this would work ok even though it does not switch the output coil like the Tinnie does. Any thoughts?
Yeah Jim...after a few tinnies, don't start up the grinder !
Oh and I don't think they'll let you to hook wires up to things while on the plane lol
Happy travels :)
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.08.09, 04:30:08
Yeah Jim...after a few tinnies, don't start up the grinder !
Oh and I don't think they'll let you to hook wires up to things while on the plane lol
Happy travels :)
Lol thanks Mark. Have you tried shorting the output coils?
On a plane ? :D
Otherwise, yes, some shorting and variations on it all. But have had no real luck as yet.
It seems they/it need to be shorted at exactly the right moment of rotor travel. Very fine adjustments until something click-pops into place and it does something extraordinary.
What I need to do, is to get 4 working meters together. Have repaired 1, where the amperage output had blown and need to fix at least 1 more ( a piece of aluminium foil as a fuse doesn't do meters any good *cough* ). Then I could see the input vs output measurements. Same for any project in fact, so does need to be done.
On a dead short on the output it increases to 400ma out whilst input is down around 550ma . On the Tinnie Brad is switching the output with the secondary commutator but that does not look like it happening for the Alexander patent.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2015.08.10, 03:16:54
On a dead short on the output it increases to 400ma out whilst input is down around 550ma . On the Tinnie Brad is switching the output with the secondary commutator but that does not look like it happening for the Alexander patent.
In the Alexanderson patent, the output is modulated AC, slip rings are depicted in the patent, not a second commutator. That is something that should be taken into consideration. All who are working on this and comparing back and forth should keep that fundamental difference in mind. Second, the "secondary" windings are not located in the same slots as the motor windings, or as an alternative, they are not quadrature phase related to the motor windings, the latter is what I recommend versus the common slot configuration discussed in the patent. Another thing to note is that in the Alexanderson patent we see that his input is very high, the few replicators of either the patent or Tinman are
NOT experimenting with high input power as the patent states. I have conducted experiments along these lines using machines of my own conception and construction and do see what could be considered as a blending of the generator and transformer action, however, to get the effect, its necessary that my input requirement be high, just food for thought.
Regards
Quote from: Erfinder on 2015.08.10, 09:58:20
In the Alexanderson patent, the output is modulated AC, slip rings are depicted in the patent, not a second commutator. That is something that should be taken into consideration. All who are working on this and comparing back and forth should keep that fundamental difference in mind. Second, the "secondary" windings are not located in the same slots as the motor windings, or as an alternative, they are not quadrature phase related to the motor windings, the latter is what I recommend versus the common slot configuration discussed in the patent. Another thing to note is that in the Alexanderson patent we see that his input is very high, the few replicators of either the patent or Tinman are NOT experimenting with high input power as the patent states. I have conducted experiments along these lines using machines of my own conception and construction and do see what could be considered as a blending of the generator and transformer action, however, to get the effect, its necessary that my input requirement be high, just food for thought.
Regards
Thanks Erfinder, that's what I thought. Just wanted to make sure my thinking was correct. Certainly a lot easier to implement anyway.
Not a free energy device,but great to see the old timer going again.
The intention is to get it to run on the waste oil from work that we collect when servicing vehicles.
So the fuel cost will be zero to run this-->in fact,as we have to pay to have the waste oil taken away,we will actually be saving money running this motor O0. So maybe it is a free energy device,as we wont be paying for the fuel lol.
And a sneak peak at some up and coming projects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2SX5gQXemw
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.08.18, 10:26:11
Not a free energy device,but great to see the old timer going again.
The intention is to get it to run on the waste oil from work that we collect when servicing vehicles.
So the fuel cost will be zero to run this-->in fact,as we have to pay to have the waste oil taken away,we will actually be saving money running this motor O0. So maybe it is a free energy device,as we wont be paying for the fuel lol.
And a sneak peak at some up and coming projects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2SX5gQXemw
Dear Brad.
That's quite a collection you have!!
Nice Detroit Jumbo! That magneto is a Webster Tri polar Oscillator, Low Tension magneto. Very popular type fitted to hundreds of different American engines. I found them all to have weak magnets, that's usually all that's wrong. However the odd one or two had to have the Zinc Alloy end covers replaced as they had self destructed!
Shame about the exhaust damage, but I'm sure you will be able to make a sound repair.
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2015.08.18, 10:56:15
Dear Brad.
That's quite a collection you have!!
Nice Detroit Jumbo! That magneto is a Webster Tri polar Oscillator, Low Tension magneto. Very popular type fitted to hundreds of different American engines. I found them all to have weak magnets, that's usually all that's wrong. However the odd one or two had to have the Zinc Alloy end covers replaced as they had self destructed!
Shame about the exhaust damage, but I'm sure you will be able to make a sound repair.
Cheers Grum.
No-not my collection :( :(
This is my bosses collection,and im getting paid to restore them-well get them running anyway.
For every engine i get running,he is going to give me one of the smaller engine's O0-along with my weekly pay cheque ;)
Looks like some fun projects there Brad.
First thing to strike me is the likely weight of all that iron. Do you have some sort of slim pallet jack to move them around or just pure deep breaths and elbow grease?
Yes indeed, those old engines certainly do look heavy!
You're a very fortunate man TinMan, to have access to
those old beauties. Bringing those old technology
machines back to life is one of the most gratifying
of endeavors. The old diesel you fired up runs with
the sound of music to one's ears.
Fantastic!
My brother in law is in to restoring similar engines. He would drool at that collection.
A nice respite from a he craziness that is Vegas.
Quote from: muDped on 2015.08.19, 04:25:49
Yes indeed, those old engines certainly do look heavy!
You're a very fortunate man TinMan, to have access to
those old beauties. Bringing those old technology
machines back to life is one of the most gratifying
of endeavors. The old diesel you fired up runs with
the sound of music to one's ears.
Fantastic!
This one is my favourate muDped-
What a rhythm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJYyJccePh8
TinMan - The only way to improve on that large engine would be if it blew smoke rings with each firing.
That was a great vid, sounds like tribal dance beats.
Was explaining your work situation to my wife. I was using household items to explain sizings of the engines and said "he gets a desk fan for fixing a clothes basket" lol. I think she understood.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.08.20, 10:07:15
This one is my favourate muDped-
What a rhythm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJYyJccePh8
Aye, that is a goodun'! What a beautiful monster!
With just a wee bit of TLC that one could run forever.
When looking closely at the exhaust plume you'll see
that each "puff" shoots a small donut vortex straight
up into the air which very rapidly flies up several
meters. Really a very pleasant sound.
They begin to show up with pretty good regularity at
about 18 seconds into the video. The exhaust seems
to consist of two major areas; the lower smoke cloud
which blows with the wind horizontally away from the
machine, and the very speedy toroidal vortex which
shoots straight up really, really fast for a surprisingly
long distance. At about 1 minute and 20 seconds,
near the end of the video, the cameraman shows
more of the exhaust stream and they're very pretty.
It's a shame that they're not made for such durability
today. Well, maybe the Lister.
Today i have come up with a way to make an AC super capacitor.
Would there be any use or need for such a capacitor?.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLOkV5qIOgs
Your comparison to the commercial AC capacitor is not a fair one. A true AC capacitor can not only charge to either polarity, but it does not need to be "trained" to do so. It will carry a continuous AC current. That's why they are called "AC" capacitors. Your cell does not appear to be able to do that. Your cell however is very interesting. Good work!
Great job Brad :)
I think these AC results are very encouraging O0
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on 2015.08.30, 14:54:55
Great job Brad :)
I think these AC results are very encouraging O0
Luc
The cap will work as an AC cap,but the capacity is that great that the AC cycle would have to be very low,and the current flow very high.The one problem though is that the voltage capacity is very low-2.3 volts.We could of course join a few in series to get the voltage up,but i dont really see a use for such an AC cap of this size.
But to have a super cap that can be charged in either direction would have it's benefit's.
My goal now is to make a 20,000 farad cap the size of a AAA battery.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.08.30, 15:16:19
The cap will work as an AC cap,but the capacity is that great that the AC cycle would have to be very low,and the current flow very high.The one problem though is that the voltage capacity is very low-2.3 volts.We could of course join a few in series to get the voltage up,but i dont really see a use for such an AC cap of this size.
But to have a super cap that can be charged in either direction would have it's benefit's.
My goal now is to make a 20,000 farad cap the size of a AAA battery.
I still think this is interesting and just the beginning!
Wishing you success with your Utra-Cap build
Luc
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.08.30, 15:16:19
The cap will work as an AC cap,but the capacity is that great that the AC cycle would have to be very low,and the current flow very high.The one problem though is that the voltage capacity is very low-2.3 volts.We could of course join a few in series to get the voltage up,but i dont really see a use for such an AC cap of this size.
But to have a super cap that can be charged in either direction would have it's benefit's.
My goal now is to make a 20,000 farad cap the size of a AAA battery.
What would further my interest in such devices would be if charge / discharge curves could be made such that the overall linearity of the capacitance versus voltage or current is apparent, among other factors. Dissipation factor and frequency response might also be useful, but not that important for bulk DC storage devices, but is for AC capacitors.
It is good to have a goal that focuses on
which parameter of the capacitor is deemed most important.
If it is pure bulk capacitance you are after, remember that is only one factor that makes a capacitor interesting. Other factors would be effective series resistance, life cycle capability, aging without use( on the shelf ), aging with use, change of capacitance versus temperature, self discharge rate, dielectric absorption, peak current capability, to name just a very few.
From the looks of it, it would seem your capacitor is a mesh equivalent of several R's and C's, plus some possible battery effects, hence it's apparent self recharge, It will take quite a bit of testing to identify the internal equivalent circuitry in your device.
I serve at times as a consultant to this company:
http://www.highenergycorp.com/
and can help you with some test procedures if you are interested.
Nice start. Experimenting with chemical batteries / capacitors can be fun.
Over here, I can't wait for the next video...because of some weird ceiling of 0.4V !
No matter what i'm doing, charging with various cell structures is hitting that problem.
Attached is a pic of the latest. Epsom salts, white vinegar and graphene. Zinc as electrodes. Same thing happens with galv steel as electrodes.
The cell structure doesn't matter, because it doesn't work lol. But anyway, the graphene is in a suspension from a vid that RMS showed several months ago. It worked well when painted with a brush onto a CD and left to dry. Did a YouTube vid on that at the time.
I've painted it onto a piece of packing plastic. Then a piece of a shamwow type thing was soaked in the electrolyte and 2 pieces of a CD are either side for rigidity (with foil removed via the packing tape method).
Pressure is created by a 'papers holding squeezing thing' that i've clean forgotten the name of at the moment ???
I think i've worked out the 'Tri' in Triphene. The graphene and the 2 electrodes. The charging action forms a carbon coating.
All could well be completely wrong and seems to be :D
At least it's practice at cell building and I now have a decent way to clamp a real one in the future.
AHA!
Thanks to Lidmotor and his latest video...stainless steel makes a big difference O0
So, have to wonder if stainless features in the real deal.
I have some IKEA Blanda Blanks, they are similar to Lidmotor's bowls, except magnetic.
Same mixture and graphene painted on the lower one that is where the shamwow type of stuff sits. It puts out 1.2V and the current is 60mA start, fades off within about 3 seconds to 10mA, then sits there for a few seconds. Not bad, only on its 2nd charge yet, though I need to charge with something less powerful.
On that note, the charger is an R/C plane type for NiCd and NiMH. Lowest current is 200mA and it quits if a resistor is used.
In the pic below, you can see what happened to kitchen roll when charged like that ! burned it !
I have to say that I am doubtful that these devices are actually functioning as capacitors. Capacitors store energy in the electric field produced by concentrated positive and negative charges separated by a dielectric. Bigger plate area + smaller separation = higher capacitance. I think the devices under consideration here, including Robert Murray-Smith's, are actually batteries, which are working by electrochemical interactions, ionic flows in electrolytes. I realize that there is some crossover between electrolytic capacitors, and batteries. Perhaps an examination of "ESR", equivalent series resistance, would help to clear up the matter.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.08.31, 09:50:25
I have to say that I am doubtful that these devices are actually functioning as capacitors. Capacitors store energy in the electric field produced by concentrated positive and negative charges separated by a dielectric. Bigger plate area + smaller separation = higher capacitance. I think the devices under consideration here, including Robert Murray-Smith's, are actually batteries, which are working by electrochemical interactions, ionic flows in electrolytes. I realize that there is some crossover between electrolytic capacitors, and batteries. Perhaps an examination of "ESR", equivalent series resistance, would help to clear up the matter.
I would tend to agree. Also the recharging effect is easily modeled using two capacitors connected through a high resistance. The outside world sees one of the capacitors. Dielectric absorption models are similar. Add some electrolytes like vinegar and baking soda, and you are crossing over into battery land.
Knowledge of the ingredients will shed more light on the electro chemistry involved. Lacking that, standard performance curves would reveal much.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.08.31, 09:50:25
I have to say that I am doubtful that these devices are actually functioning as capacitors. Capacitors store energy in the electric field produced by concentrated positive and negative charges separated by a dielectric. Bigger plate area + smaller separation = higher capacitance. I think the devices under consideration here, including Robert Murray-Smith's, are actually batteries, which are working by electrochemical interactions, ionic flows in electrolytes. I realize that there is some crossover between electrolytic capacitors, and batteries. Perhaps an examination of "ESR", equivalent series resistance, would help to clear up the matter.
Two problems with that.
1-i am yet to see a battery that will accept a charge of either polarity.
2-i do use a dielectric material between the two plates-there is no conductivity between the two plates.
I'd like to apologise for being a ditz C.C
There have been quite some stresses at home over the past week or so and I clean forgot about the stainless steel mesh, plus other stated details. Nothing wrong with re-finding the details by trial and error, but if memory was working right, i'd not have needed to rediscover what had already been plainly spoken about in the Triphene videos !!!!
Interesting second point there TinMan. The original way of making graphene was with a piece of tape. Being that tape itself would be a dielectric plastic layer, could that become a super-light method of creating the graphene layer ? and perhaps it is on both sides.
Apologies if you've already stated as much LOL
The stainless is that of fine mesh screen doors. Some time back, I got a sieve from Dollar Tree and intend to use that material. Perhaps another kitchen item to make a Triphene :)
Shown below with English penny and USA quarter for mesh size.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.08.31, 13:15:02
Two problems with that.
1-i am yet to see a battery that will accept a charge of either polarity.
2-i do use a dielectric material between the two plates-there is no conductivity between the two plates.
Modern lead acid batteries are made with dissimilar lead plates, but will accept a reverse charge, just not as much, and probably not good for the life of the battery.
If pure lead is used for both plates (like the original batteries), they can charge effectively in either direction.
Google "lead acid reverse charge" for more info
I suspect you have built a "pseudocapacitor" or "hybrid" capacitor
Also see this on pseudocapacitors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudocapacitor
What is the dielectric material in your "capacitor"?
Dear Slider2372.
It seems that the new craze of Vaping might just come to the rescue !!
http://www.vape-atomizer-mesh.com/products/superfine_micron_mesh.html
Really fine mesh at ridiculously low price !!
Cheers Grum.
Here is also an Ultra Fine stainless steel mesh, down to 5 micron :o
https://utahbiodieselsupply.com/stainlessmesh.php
Luc
Look at the below images comparing 40 micron to 15 micron, so imagine 5 micron!
Grum - Clicked the link and it said in bright red letters "Will not ship to USA"
>:-)
Joking, relates to a post of yours recently.
A fascinating find ! might try that vaping thing just to get some of the mesh sheets. They often look like bongs to me, or some weirded out mini saxophone.
Luc - that is crazy !
My sieve idea seems to have holes in it.
I would think any conductive material would do for the plates. I only used the S/S mesh as i thought the pockets would hold the graphene paste well. I will be trying solder soak(braided copper wire) as the two plates in my next video.
@ ION
I use a plastic cloth that i spray with silicon either side as my dielectric layer.
Would this work ?
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2015.08.31, 21:53:43
Luc - that is crazy !
My sieve idea seems to have holes in it.
You crack me up
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2015.08.31, 09:50:25
I have to say that I am doubtful that these devices are actually functioning as capacitors. Capacitors store energy in the electric field produced by concentrated positive and negative charges separated by a dielectric. Bigger plate area + smaller separation = higher capacitance. I think the devices under consideration here, including Robert Murray-Smith's, are actually batteries, which are working by electrochemical interactions, ionic flows in electrolytes. I realize that there is some crossover between electrolytic capacitors, and batteries. Perhaps an examination of "ESR", equivalent series resistance, would help to clear up the matter.
Nope, Rob's are hybrids but don't use ionic conduction as such. He has created a way to create a huge surface area which utilises the double layer area to create the dielectric and so the huge capacitance.
Some of you will remember my copper coated carbon nano tubes, these deposited on two collector plates can make a hybrid, other ingredients are a separator and FeO3 (the iron oxide is the dielectric)
regards
Mike 8)
Oh, good thinking FeO3 !
Yeah, my first try at this used deposits from an experiment of yours (years back now). Took the coating off with tape and then stuck it unstuck it 100 times.
The separator thing isn't working well here. If I use straight chemicals I get straight battery type results, albeit using similar metals.
Fun though, to go at it Edison style..knowing what doesn't work can be beneficial.
Along those lines, here's a fail lol
TinMan - you mentioned graphene paste and that intrigued me, also plastic cloth which I have no idea about.
The only thing I could think of to make a paste, was activated charcoal as the carbon, crush it up to a fine powder and that would mix with the liquid ingredients to form a paste. In the vids, it seems to be a black paste sure enough, but the granules wouldn't be graphene. Well, tried it anyway.
Epsom salts and water were used to simply try it out, piece of packing plastic and silicone as separator.
Result - 0.026V :(
With a coffee filter and silicone as the separator, 0.560V that ran a blocking oscillator for about 10 seconds :(
At least the cell looks more like one of the real ones :D
Mark
have you seen this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMLcWE6NLgM
regards
Mike 8)
I have now Mike O0
Hence squeezing probably works on the plates as a way to decrease the distance of separation, as well as to fully adhere reactive agents. 5:15 was interesting, about electrolytics and the construction, the use of oxides :)
See, that's where my graphene experiments normally fall over, graphitic oxide not translating to graphene. But, it would seem that graphitic oxide itself may be a player here on the stainless surface ?
Quote from: verpies on 2015.07.26, 09:45:38
A PWM module (or intermittent brush contact) interrupts the current flowing through the windings. Such interruption of current always causes inductors to rebel and produce high voltage spike to maintain their current. I do not want to call it a "flyback spike" because the current through the winding during that spike does not reverse direction.
Hi verpies and everyone else,
about a month ago I put together a test device to study what's goes on in a DC motor concerning coil on and off time.
I'm trying to see if we can do something advantageous with the so called "Flyback spike"
Please have a look at both videos and let me know what you think. All the test scope shots are below.
Test 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbFFJvbYHdk
Test 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH6QyLoewcw
Coil data: 1.1 Ohm DC Resistance and around 8mH Inductance
Does anyone see any advantages? Thanks for your input
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on 2015.09.30, 03:30:33
Hi verpies and everyone else,
about a month ago I put together a test device to study what's goes on in a DC motor concerning coil on and off time.
I'm trying to see if we can do something advantageous with the so called "Flyback spike"
Please have a look at both videos and let me know what you think. All the test scope shots are below.
Test 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbFFJvbYHdk
Test 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH6QyLoewcw
Coil data: 1.1 Ohm DC Resistance and around 8mH Inductance
Does anyone see any advantages? Thanks for your input
Luc
Hi Luc
Nice test.
When you add the diode,you are creating a current loop through the inductor. This allows the magnetic field to be maintained longer around the inductor than it would be if the inductor became open circuit-no diode to create the current loop. So without the diode,the coil becomes open,and the magnetic field collapses as soon as the current source(batteries) is disconected,where if the diode is in play,that current can continue to circulate around the coil until the voltage drop's to the value of the voltage drop across your diode-->this is why you see an abrupt stop at about . 6 volts to the current flow. Also note that you have your diode so as it is with the current flow,not against it,as the current will continue to flow in the same direction through the inductor when the power is disconnected from the inductor(pulse from batteries finishes). Only the voltage inverts when the P/in is disconnected-as can be seen on your scope shots.
Also,in regard to using a higher voltage and lower current.
With a set inductor,the current will rise as you raise the voltage. A couple of ways to lower the current is by either increasing the set resistance of the coil of the inductor,or increasing the frequency(by quite a lot) of the pulses sent to the inductor until the skin effect starts to take place. This is much like reducing the size of the wire the current is flowing through,as the skin depth of the conductor(wire) the current flows through become's less with the increase of frequency-->but this is at high frequencies.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.09.30, 12:58:18
Hi Luc
Nice test.
When you add the diode,you are creating a current loop through the inductor. This allows the magnetic field to be maintained longer around the inductor than it would be if the inductor became open circuit-no diode to create the current loop. So without the diode,the coil becomes open,and the magnetic field collapses as soon as the current source(batteries) is disconected,where if the diode is in play,that current can continue to circulate around the coil until the voltage drop's to the value of the voltage drop across your diode-->this is why you see an abrupt stop at about . 6 volts to the current flow.
Is this what the diode is doing in your RT?
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.09.30, 12:58:18
Also note that you have your diode so as it is with the current flow,not against it,as the current will continue to flow in the same direction through the inductor when the power is disconnected from the inductor(pulse from batteries finishes). Only the voltage inverts when the P/in is disconnected-as can be seen on your scope shots.
I have a little trouble understanding this part. The way I see it is, the
initial pulse current cannot enter the diode, if it did, would the pulse not be short circuited?... to me it looks like the diode only comes at play when the input pulse ends (switch opens) and the coil wants to dump the voltage which is now going in the opposite direction as the initial pulse but now the diode open and sends it back in the coil to loop till the coils resistance burns it up, which in exchange may be what holds the current?
That's the way I see it and if you see it differently I would be very open to a more detailed explanation.
Quote from: TinMan on 2015.09.30, 12:58:18
Also,in regard to using a higher voltage and lower current.
With a set inductor,the current will rise as you raise the voltage. A couple of ways to lower the current is by either increasing the set resistance of the coil of the inductor,or increasing the frequency(by quite a lot) of the pulses sent to the inductor until the skin effect starts to take place. This is much like reducing the size of the wire the current is flowing through,as the skin depth of the conductor(wire) the current flows through become's less with the increase of frequency-->but this is at high frequencies.
At what frequencies would this effect start and can pulsed DC be considered to do this?
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on 2015.09.30, 13:45:24
Thanks for sharing
Luc
QuoteAt what frequencies would this effect start and can pulsed DC be considered to do this?
http://www.belden.com/blog/broadcastav/understanding-skin-effect-and-frequency.cfm
QuoteIs this what the diode is doing in your RT?
No.
QuoteI have a little trouble understanding this part. The way I see it is, the initial pulse current cannot enter the diode, if it did, would the pulse not be short circuited?... to me it looks like the diode only comes at play when the input pulse ends (switch opens) Quoteand the coil wants to dump the voltage which is now going in the opposite direction
as the initial pulse but now the diode open and sends it back in the coil to loop till the coils resistance burns it up, which in exchange may be what holds the current?
That's the way I see it and if you see it differently I would be very open to a more detailed explanation.
The diode allows the current to continue to flow around the inductor(the loop),so the diode is in the direction of current flow,but blocks current from flowing in the opposited direction. The voltage invert's because the magnetic field is now collapsing in stead of expanding around the inductor when the current source(batteries)is disconnected. In the pic below,the red arrows show current flow around the conducting wire when the batteries are the current source,and the red plus and minus signs show voltage polarity-the magnetic field around the inductor is expanding(being built). The blue arrows show current flow when the batteries are disconnected,and the collapsing magnetic field becomes the energy source that causes the current to continue to flow. But now because the magnetic field is collapsing in stead of expanding,the voltage polarity is inverted-shown by the blue plus and minus signs in the pic.-->Remember,it is current that flow's-voltage is only a potential difference needed for current flow.
One of the booby traps in the modern teaching on electromagnetics is the minus sign when dealing with back emf, such as V=Minus L*di/dt or V=Minus dPhi/dt. And that minus sign comes about because of where the voltage is coming from, i.e. is it forward voltage (as in applied voltage from a battery trying to drive inward current) or is it backward voltage (trying to drive current coming back out toward the battery)? The minus sign is merely an indication of that backward polarity. By that reasoning we should use Ohm's law as V=Minus i*R but convention has called that V "voltage drop" and we don't have the minus sign there. It is that disparity that is the reason we have the minus sign in V=Minus L*di/dt but we don't have a minus sign in the AC version V=i*wL. The AC voltage across the reactance wL is treated as a "voltage drop" whereas the transient voltage voltage from di/dt isn't. If we think of back emf having the polarity of "voltage drop" perhaps the confusion is removed.
Smudge
Hey Tinman
QuoteThe diode allows the current to continue to flow around the inductor(the loop),so the diode is in the direction of current flow,but blocks current from flowing in the opposited direction. The voltage invert's because the magnetic field is now collapsing in stead of expanding around the inductor when the current source(batteries)is disconnected. In the pic below,the red arrows show current flow around the conducting wire when the batteries are the current source,and the red plus and minus signs show voltage polarity-the magnetic field around the inductor is expanding(being built). The blue arrows show current flow when the batteries are disconnected,and the collapsing magnetic field becomes the energy source that causes the current to continue to flow. But now because the magnetic field is collapsing in stead of expanding,the voltage polarity is inverted-shown by the blue plus and minus signs in the pic.-->Remember,it is current that flow's-voltage is only a potential difference needed for current flow.
That is a good explanation, fundamentally a magnetic field may only expand into another region or contract from it. The physical analogy for Gotoluc's circuit is an air turbine with a cross tube and check valve (the diode). The air source applied pressure/flow spins the turbine and the applied pressure holds the check valve closed. When we remove the air source the turbine generates it's own pressure seen as reversed relative to the applied source however the flow remains in the same direction through the check valve.
This is why Tesla often referred to the property of inductance as electrical inertia. Here is an excellent article where the author makes direct comparisons between physical and electrical properties--http://rexresearch.com/bellocq/bellocq.htm. I love this old school stuff because Bellocq explains the properties in very simple terms which are easy to understand.
Many might not get this but Bellocq describes a system to raise water against the force of gravity in a different way using a fraction of the power normally required. Then he goes on to describe how the properties of his water pumping system are just like that of an electrical circuit. Uhm... it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together. Note the applied source of pressure is at the top of the well not the bottom and the water flow moves towards the source not away from it?.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2015.10.12, 15:30:34
Note the applied source of pressure is at the top of the well not the bottom and the water flow moves towards the source not away from it?.
AC
The system is resonant within the specific gravity field.
The well top is open to atmospheric pressure (air gas pressing down on liquid column [weight force]).
The compressor piston reciprocating in the Toribio BELLOCQ Wave Pump is pumping the atmosphere.. in a closed pneumatic / hydraulic loop..
http://rexresearch.com/bellocq/bellocq.htm#1730337a
"This system would seem contrary to the laws of gravity, which does not permit of liquid being elevated or drawn up from a depth greater than the length of a column of the same liquid counter-balancing the atmospheric pressure; however, in fact there is employed a force which travels throughout the pipe and arrives at the lower valve VI. This force operates at this valve in the same manner as if there were a piston at this point.
The present system would also seem to be contrary to the law which does not permit a piston of a given displacement to obtain at each stroke a volume of liquid greater than such displacement; but it will be apparent that a piston of a given displacement, under a given pressure, may obtain at each stroke a liquid volume several times greater than the volume of displacement of such piston, but under a pressure several times less. "hhop gen 3 introduces liquid gas phase transition and therefore exploits the magnitudes volume differential between a liquid and a gas, doing work in the process.