A fellow is showing a beautiful build here
http://overunity.com/17609/170-watts-in-1600-watts-out-looped-very-impressive-build-and-video/msg517573/#new
Vids here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_-xw_hL8nQ
the spinning he gets with the iron filings ? [solid state device
perhaps just an attribute of his driving circuit and switching?
Had mentioned we could get some eyes on this with good test equipment [if it shows more promise
we shall see ?
Chet
Seems to like using large capacitor banks (Super Capacitors) and the voltage seems to deplete slowly.
Yes, even to begin evaluating this claim, the first thing we need is data on the capacitor bank.
However... the frequency reported by the cheap frequency meter, 60.6 Hz, is extremely suspicious, less than one percent different from the nominal grid frequency. This could easily be a error in his cheapo frequency counter. Some people have suggested that he display both the grid frequency and the device's output frequency at the same time using the same kind of meter. Of course it is possible that the timing, controlled by the Arduinos, could be deliberately made to produce a 60.6 Hz output frequency even when the device is disconnected from the grid. If that's the case...why not set the timing for exactly 60 Hz then, instead of the 60.6 Hz shown on the cheapo meter?
There are many tests this claimant could do, convincingly, in order to support his "self running" claim. Powering an electric drill motor under no load for a couple of minutes isn't one of them.
So.. the latest information (unconfirmed) is that the Cap Bank consists of 18 ea. 500F 2.7V units wired in series, for a total of around 27.8 F and 48 volts. That's a fair amount of energy storage, and just driving the rotatory magnetic fields and the Arduino and switching circuitry, could run a good long time, probably many minutes. A drill motor, not drilling anything, doesn't really add much load.
I'd like to see the thing in "self looped mode" running a 1500 watt electric heater. For longer than 2 seconds...... >:-)
Right yes, a 400 watt bulb for 5 minuets would be a start, if the bulb is proven to be 400 watts and there is no other trickery going on.
I think you said over at OU look at his other videos, looks like OU is easy which is a big red flag for me.
Did you all miss the ~1200w micrwave he connected while the unit was self looped except the power for the Arduino and relay control? He heated a cup of water for 1 minute in the second video and the numbers are as follows-
Voltage across supercap bank ~20.5vdc steady
Input transformer current 2.6A
Output current 13.7A
Output voltage 115
So, not accounting for any phase angles, the input power to the transformer is 300w, the output power is 1575w for a difference of 1275w which accounts for the MW power.
Now, assuming the supercaps are 500F each (but could be 100F), the energy of the series caps at 20.5vdc would be 5836J. The MW energy is 1275J so how long would the MW run with no input to the supercaps?
Regards,
Pm
It would be a lot more interesting if it provided power at some other voltage and frequency than one gets directly from the wall outlets in Ontario (115 VAC at 60.6 Hz).
It's really too bad that Pierre has to work so hard at his day job that he doesn't have much time left to devote to the most amazing, world-changing, Nobel Prize winning invention of the millennium.
well
Luc is warming up the bench, and paying attention....
honestly
a busy life ,.....?
It happens....and if he is sharing an open source discovery like this One ...and working a 60 hour a week job .
a special fellow indeed.
we shall see
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2018.03.07, 20:00:36
It's really too bad that Pierre has to work so hard at his day job that he doesn't have much time left to devote to the most amazing, world-changing, Nobel Prize winning invention of the millennium.
He has this one as well.
Looks much easier to build,and he has the right amount of clip leads for OU. :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6cJmVdeyYU
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.03.08, 12:58:06
He has this one as well.
Looks much easier to build,and he has the right amount of clip leads for OU. :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6cJmVdeyYU
Oh... I remember that one. I didn't realize it was the same fellow. Yes, much easier to build. I wonder why people who are so excited about the big coil thing aren't all putting one of these together, while they wait for more details about the big one. Should only take a couple of hours to build.
Here's even more of his work (loud music though):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKcyOoz8n4c
I wonder why Bruce is not interested. it is pure rotating magnetic field O0
Things are moving along with Pierre's claim
I see Partzman is helping Luc with ......."Parts" :) [very nice to see]
and Stefan's forum is getting sorted out too... O0
http://overunity.com/17609/170-watts-in-1600-watts-out-looped-very-impressive-build-and-video/270/
Quote from: forest on 2018.03.09, 14:37:46
I wonder why Bruce is not interested. it is pure rotating magnetic field O0
No,it's a stepped rotating magnetic field.
A pure rotating magnetic field would be spinning a speaker magnet while it was standing on it's end.
It is my prediction that this will go no where,as many others have.
The guy has already posted fake OU video's in the past.
I mean,just look at what he has--what is so different that will make this device an OU device ?--it's the same old same old.
I have started looking into the different,and the different is what you will not see here in the realms of the norm.
Keep an eye on TK's EEEE project as well. O0
Am an 'optimistic skeptic' about this.
On the one hand, it looks so fake and so silly and so 2011 for the type of parts and wiring setup.
But on the other, he is asking questions of it himself, replying to questions (via Luc) and generally asking for help with improvements. That makes it different.
We need a schematic, the Arduino code and some scope shots.
1. for validation by EE's
2. to form a basis for improvements
3. in case anything happens, which seems to be de rigeur, as they say in French.
Plus it would be really cool if he could plug in an electric heater on his looped system.
Many thanks again to partzman for helping Luc to get rolling with a replication, through which we all should be able to analyze and improve whatever is going on, or debunk it. Scepticism is healthy and definitely deserved, but this does seem a little different while logic in this game says it isn't.
I agree about the 2 motors and capacitor thing, why don't we just build that ? or as well ? if that is hokum it doesn't bode well for this fancy one.
Has he stated where his inspiration came from ? We could study the same things and move things along without as much guesswork.
Anyway, have ordered a Mega2560. The idea was to work on the code, then send the Arduino to Luc. But, now that Luc will have one as well it's all a heap better, because if stuff needs to be changed when actually tested it's now possible to update Luc's device by posting here. Similar to 3D Magnetics and his 3D hall effect project thread...which itself could be very useful for this.
Am also building a 5 row 7 LED array. The idea is to get the switching correct and see the output on the panel, emulating the one seen in the videos.
I think it is magnetic field moving in 3D like Steven Mark described. O0
Very simple but working code on an Arduino Nano.
It moves 18 LED's in the same 1 on, 2 on, 1 off, 3 on, 2 off manner as described by Pierre.
Can't do/test all 5 rows until the Mega2560 gets here, but this looks like the principle.
Timing can be tuned with a pot on Pin A7.
// Sequencing outputs w/variable speed pot
// For Pierre Cotnoir DZ Generator
//
// Pierre quote - the goal being not to turn off the stream
// only move it ex: 1 on, 2 on, 1 off, 3 on, 2 off etc.
// Slider2732 March 2018
int counter = 0;
int switchspeed = 0;
void setup()
{
pinMode(A7, INPUT); // variable speed pot
}
void loop()
{
switchspeed = analogRead(A7);
// make range usable with a map
switchspeed = map(switchspeed, 0, 1023, 3, 350);
// 1 on, 2 on, 1 off, 3 on, 2 off
// 5 rows of 7 outputs
// the following routine is nearly all available outputs on Nano, rows of 7
// to be mixed 5 times for the different row outputs, all within 1 loop
// there is also a different start point per row (coil phase changes ?)
digitalWrite (2, HIGH); // first output on
digitalWrite (19, LOW); // turn off last output after first output switched on
for (counter = 3; counter <=19; counter ++)
{
digitalWrite (counter, HIGH);
delay(switchspeed);
digitalWrite (counter -1,LOW);
delay(switchspeed);
}
}
It's good practice to explicitly declare your output pins as OUTPUT in the setup() section. This can be done with a simple for loop in setup(). Also, shouldn't there be a delay between turning 2 ON and turning 19 OFF? That is, all pins should be turned on and off inside the for loop that contains the delays, shouldn't they? And if you put the analogRead(map) statement inside the for loop you can change timing on the fly during the cycle, instead of waiting for the completion of the for loop before the pot adjustment takes effect.
I agree and thanks for the pointers, posting good code is a route that's helped by anyone else looking at it O0
The delay at the end was an oversight.
Was just showing the thinking though of the switching on and off sequencing.
For the good practice, it works without but you are correct.
There's some learning that's happened when doing the mappings just now. Took an hour to play at slow speed and freeze frames while writing down LED positions. The sequence may be able to be run with just 7 outputs and correctly wired LEDs ? It's an offset repeating pattern down the 5 Rows.
5 Rows of 7, but 5 coil sets. If numbered sequentially left to right then left to right again on the next rows, there are times when this is the sort of sequence - 1, 14, 15, 16, 17, 34, 35.
Ordinarily that wouldn't make sense, unless separated and not just divided into 5 Rows. Then, any LED pairing can happen and that may be obvious, but first i'd heard of this was last night.
As such, the relays signals could then be derived directly from the LEDs when they fire and save a bunch of output pins.
Hmm no, scratch that, they would still need to be separated for the actual build, else bunches of relays would power on together.
A build of one of his other devices is taking shape.
The 2 motors came out of a dismembered Epson printer, magnets from old HDD's, flywheel is 6x HDD platters and the wood is also salvaged. It came from part of the smashed up cabinet of my street found Yamaha Clavinova keyboard !
The rubber band wheels are a fast 3D print on 4mm setting for PLA on the Anet A8. The printer broke down with heater bed issues and this was a test. Can supply the .gcode or .STL if any interest...your print will be 10x better if 0.2mm or finer.
Still needs a bearing of some type for the top section, but otherwise is pretty much done.
Update - nothing much with the 2 motor thing, though the flywheel bearing isn't the best.
I considered putting 2x 3.7V Li-ion in the large capacitor to fully replicate a lot of these devices C.C
Pic attached anyway, because it was finished and tested.
The Mega 2560 should arrive tomorrow.
So, why not have some fun with the programming before it arrives ?
A way of writing the code would be to continually upload and change and upload and change on an Arduino Nano, but my luck has never been good with writes and rewrites of the EEPROM's. About 250 cycles of large code and then they die off. Also it doesn't have enough outputs of course.
Sure. I could use a visual whatnot emulator doodah, but had another idea. It's a simple enough program in concept, just a timing thing over 5 rows of 7. Use something else instead, something that just runs code on a screen...maybe an old 8-bit computer.
The Apple IIe should be fine to get the LED sequencing method in place, then convert that to C++ for the Mega.
Timing diagram, right to left as shown on the LED panel:
Got a really strange problem here.
The Arduino Mega 2560 code is ready for testing and peer review, but runs at vastly different speeds on the Mega compared to an Arduino Nano.
It runs at the correct speed on the Nano, but far too slowly on the Mega. Both are 16MHz and the Mega has several better specs than the Nano.
I've written 2 different methods of doing the sequencing...neither is using arrays as we're only switching a few LEDs and it's intended to be easily human readable, should changes be required.
One method uses the delay function, right down to zero if wished, the other is a state machine.
Both methods are in the attached zip and both run like crap on the Mega !
Here's a quick 1 minute video, to demonstrate the problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlFGXTsAnzM
I've had problems when trying to use Digital pins 0 and 1 for ordinary uses other than communications. Or at least I did once or twice and stopped using them ever since.
I just dug out my Mega 2560 so I'll try to see if I can duplicate your problem. It may take a while.
Meanwhile, is your Mega an actual Arduino manufacture, or is it a Chinese unbranded clone? Is yours the "R3" version? Mine is an OSEPP brand, years old, not "R3".
OK, I've used the sketch with the delay, not the state machine, and it seems to be running at full speed on my Mega. I didn't install all the LEDs, I just added another output pin and put an LED in that, to be flashed at the end of the loop(). I also tested whether the Pin1 (TX) use was causing a problem-- doesn't appear to be, runs fine using it.
// Sequencing outputs w/variable speed pot
// For original Pierre Cotnoir DZ Generator
//
// To be amended to 30 pole for GotoLuc replication
// To Do: What do the top 2 LED's do, next to the Mega2560 ?
// TX LED will flash to pot rate, because is also Pin 1
// Pierre quote - the goal being not to turn off the stream
// only move it ex: 1 on, 2 on, 1 off, 3 on, 2 off etc.
// Slider2732 March 2018
/*
Example, Position 9
1 2 3 4 |5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A | *
B * |
C | *
D | *
E * |
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
14 13 12 11 10 9 8
21 20 19 18 17 16 15
28 27 26 25 24 23 22
35 34 33 32 31 30 29
*/
int counter = 0;
int switchspeed = 0;
void setup()
{
pinMode(A7, INPUT); // variable speed pot
for (counter = 1; counter <=40; counter ++)
{
pinMode(counter, OUTPUT);
}
pinMode(51, OUTPUT); // inserted by TK for debugging
}
void loop()
{
switchspeed = analogRead(A7);
// make range usable with a map
switchspeed = map(switchspeed, 0, 1023, 0, 100);
//Position 11
digitalWrite (1, HIGH); // A
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // B
digitalWrite (17, HIGH); // C
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // D
digitalWrite (35, HIGH); // E
delay(switchspeed);
// Switch off position 1
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // A
digitalWrite (14, LOW); // B
digitalWrite (16, LOW); // C
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // D
digitalWrite (34, LOW); // E
//Position 10
digitalWrite (2, HIGH); // A
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // B
digitalWrite (18, HIGH); // C
digitalWrite (22, HIGH); // D
digitalWrite (0, HIGH); // E
delay(switchspeed);
// Switch off position 11
digitalWrite (1, LOW); // A
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // B
digitalWrite (17, LOW); // C
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // D
digitalWrite (35, LOW); // E
//Position 9
digitalWrite (3, HIGH); // A
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // B
digitalWrite (19, HIGH); // C
digitalWrite (23, HIGH); // D
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // E
delay(switchspeed);
// Switch off position 10
digitalWrite (2, LOW); // A
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // B
digitalWrite (18, LOW); // C
digitalWrite (22, LOW); // D
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // E
//Position 8
digitalWrite (4, HIGH); // A
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // B
digitalWrite (20, HIGH); // C
digitalWrite (24, HIGH); // D
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // E
delay(switchspeed);
// Switch off position 9
digitalWrite (3, LOW); // A
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // B
digitalWrite (19, LOW); // C
digitalWrite (23, LOW); // D
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // E
//Position 7
digitalWrite (5, HIGH); // A
digitalWrite (8, HIGH); // B
digitalWrite (21, HIGH); // C
digitalWrite (25, HIGH); // D
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // E
delay(switchspeed);
//Switch off position 8
digitalWrite (4, LOW); // A
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // B
digitalWrite (20, LOW); // C
digitalWrite (24, LOW); // D
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // E
//Position 6
digitalWrite (6, HIGH); // A
digitalWrite (9, HIGH); // B
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // C
digitalWrite (26, HIGH); // D
digitalWrite (29, HIGH); // E
delay(switchspeed);
// Switch off position 7
digitalWrite (5, LOW); // A
digitalWrite (8, LOW); // B
digitalWrite (21, LOW); // C
digitalWrite (25, LOW); // D
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // E
//Position 5
digitalWrite (7, HIGH); // A
digitalWrite (10, HIGH); // B
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // C
digitalWrite (27, HIGH); // D
digitalWrite (30, HIGH); // E
delay(switchspeed);
// Switch off position 6
digitalWrite (6, LOW); // A
digitalWrite (9, LOW); // B
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // C
digitalWrite (26, LOW); // D
digitalWrite (29, LOW); // E
//Position 4
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // A
digitalWrite (11, HIGH); // B
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // C
digitalWrite (28, HIGH); // D
digitalWrite (31, HIGH); // E
delay(switchspeed);
// Switch off position 5
digitalWrite (7, LOW); // A
digitalWrite (10, LOW); // B
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // C
digitalWrite (27, LOW); // D
digitalWrite (30, LOW); // E
//Position 3
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // A
digitalWrite (12, HIGH); // B
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // C
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // D
digitalWrite (32, HIGH); // E
delay(switchspeed);
// Switch off position 4
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // A
digitalWrite (11, LOW); // B
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // C
digitalWrite (28, LOW); // D
digitalWrite (31, LOW); // E
//Position 2
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // A
digitalWrite (13, HIGH); // B
digitalWrite (15, HIGH); // C
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // D
digitalWrite (33, HIGH); // E
delay(switchspeed);
// Switch off position 3
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // A
digitalWrite (12, LOW); // B
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // C
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // D
digitalWrite (32, LOW); // E
// Position 1
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // A
digitalWrite (14, HIGH); // B
digitalWrite (16, HIGH); // C
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // D
digitalWrite (34, HIGH); // E
delay(switchspeed);
// Switch off position 2
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // A
digitalWrite (13, LOW); // B
digitalWrite (15, LOW); // C
digitalWrite (40, LOW); // D
digitalWrite (33, LOW); // E
//
// inserted by TK for debugging
//
digitalWrite (51, HIGH);
delay(5);
digitalWrite (51, LOW);
//
}
So I'm thinking either you got a bogus Mega, or there is something wrong with your external circuit or the connections of the speed pot, maybe.
I guess I'll post this here since it may be relevant at some point (although if self-running can be confirmed it is probably moot).
This is a pdf from Keysight about RMS measurements.
Thanks for the testing, much appreciated.
The Mega is new, but Chinese from a USA reseller. One of the ones that has a CH340 for Serial rather than a 16U2.
I've heard nothing of Beta factory chips being reused or anything like that, so can't really see how the Atmel chip could be running much slower...unless the crystal is defective/wrong value. Will check that. Am new to the Mega2560 but don't think it has an internal slow oscillator like some of the others (the much older Mega32 for example). If it does have one, it could be that the firmware has been flashed to use the internal oscillator...will reflash the firmware.
Will see about replacing the onboard SMD xtal with a proper 16MHz if reflashing doesn't improve it. It's kinda useless as it sits, so needs to be sorted out.
In time honoured fashion for a Sunday morning, I made the diagnosis far too complicated C.C
After a look through everything for enough female to female to male Dupont leads, the firmware was re-flashed with a Genuino Italiano Uno o. No change, so then a good look at the SMD crystal. Then, yes why not touch behind A7 with a finger tip to simulate a direct Ground...zooom, the display was far quicker !
It was indeed something amiss with the pot. It's been replaced with another 10K and now is fine, full speed running with useful range.
:D
Shot here from a run of the 'delay' code. It shows the 1's, 2's and 3's lit of the Pierre videos frame rate, so should be good for testing. I guess in a way it was worth the rewrite to the state machine version, there now being 2 lots of code to try.
Many thanks TK for putting me on the road to sorting this, by mentioning the speed pot.
Edit: 2nd pic below, a screenshot of the state machine version...looks better as a replication of the original frame rate view. Also has the feature of being locked to the processor timings, rather than possibly less exacting delays.
I have to admit that I don't really understand the sequencing. I mean, in several places you have the same pin being turned on or off several times in a "Position".
For example Pin 40 in Position 11:
digitalWrite (1, HIGH); // A
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // B
digitalWrite (17, HIGH); // C
digitalWrite (40, HIGH); // D
digitalWrite (35, HIGH); // E
... so only 4 LEDs are actually being turned on, not 5.
And similar in other positions.
I also don't understand the "timing diagram" you posted up above, or how it relates to the coils being energized/de-energized in a sequence rolling around the stator. What am I missing?
Ah...Pin 40 is a place holder, which does nothing.
The LED's are connected on Pins 1 to 35, with 40 only there to show the A, B, C, D, E sections in full.
That way, if there need to be changes or simply when viewing how the code works, it reads far better than missing lines and would make any changes easier.
Pin 40 is used throughout for the same thing, a placeholder and has no wired connection from it.
It looked messy if those lines were commented out and looked perplexing if the lines were deleted.
The timing diagram is an example position, from which all others in the sequence can be derived.
If the videos of Pierre's are studied for the lighting sequence, it's apparent that the shown LED's going on and off at different times are not the whole story. There are 4 positions outside of the shown LED's. That's how there can be a whole row blank when freeze framing, no LED's lit.
Moving the position left each time shows the relationship between each row, their offsets from each other.
On catching up with the big thread at ou.com, I saw it mentioned that Pierre should share his code with Luc. Quite agree, it's getting to be important to those building.
Pierre may consider it a key, I dunno, I thought he would have posted it by now really, considering he's being open and communicative to all via Luc. Think of it another way, if Pierre isn't liking the attention and the thing does work, someone such as Luc or another builder could take up the reins via the collaborations and a shift in the focus. He has no obligations, yet appears to be wishing to forward it.
OK... so Pin 40 is just a placeholder... but from 1 to 35 that's only 35 pins, shouldn't there be 36?
My brain must be getting ossified because I still don't get it.
Can't someone post an actual timing diagram? The closest to a real timing diagram was posted on OU by listener191 here:
http://overunity.com/17609/170-watts-in-1600-watts-out-looped-very-impressive-build-and-video/msg518380/#msg518380 (post 375)
Also, I'm not so sure that freeze-framing through the YouTube video to get the timing and sequencing is likely to be error-free. YouTube does its own processing on uploaded videos and in my experience, what you see on YT is not always identical to what was uploaded, and even what was uploaded is sometimes different from what actually happened. All of this is due to various video compression artifacts combined with camera artifacts. It might be better if Pierre would post his original videos at a file-sharing site so we could see what came out of the camera directly without having to worry about possible framing artifacts from YT processing. Maybe there would be no difference, but it's an issue worth considering, I think.
It really is an issue...but the main thing is that when the emulated code runs, it does so in keeping with the LED placements of Pierre's code. The state machine version appears to do so best. Also, anything personally uploaded to Youtube 'should' also have timings that are similar. But, LED positions are the important thing.
The 36 position problem is acknowledged and mentioned in the code.
I do know that the top 2 LEDs next to the Mega 2560 could well be for that use. They can be triggered at the correct timing readily enough, if that's what they are. 1 for sequence start position and 1 for coil 36 ?
An updated version of the code is attached, answering your questions (for others who may have them) about Pin 40 etc and including PmgR's 22 Millisec addition, for running at that speed without a timing adjustment pot.
Unfortunately it looks like somebody acting like a whiny little brat with a chip on his shoulder has decided to take over the thread on OU and turn it into a personal attack against Luc and anyone associated with him. This person has never, to my knowledge, actually contributed anything, neither cogent skeptical criticism nor practical advice nor details of any constructions of his own. Waking up to stuff like that is enough to put anyone off, and is a damn good reason to have private or invitation-only forums like this one where such distractions may be avoided.
Myself, I don't believe Pierre's claims for self-running or OU, everybody knows that, but I am still willing to help with the examination of the claims and to help develop tools and procedures to either achieve the ultimate goal, or to debunk false claims. As long as the project can be done without having to wade through page after page of some hypocrite's "me me me" bloviating. At this point I would suggest that Luc abandon Stefan's out-of-control forum entirely and just continue to report on his work here or some other venue of his choosing where he or some other reasonable person can control the trolls and bloviators.
Luc is doing beautiful work and whether or not I feel that he is wasting his time, we are all learning from the experience. Meanwhile not even I can think of any reason why a 36-slot stator might produce self-running OU whereas a 30 slot stator wouldn't.
Pierre's similar titles to many of his youtube offerings and "magic show" form of presentation are enough to turn me off.
QuoteMeanwhile not even I can think of any reason why a 36-slot stator might produce self-running OU whereas a 30 slot stator wouldn't.
Oh come on TK, can't you see it? 36 is evenly divisible by 3, 6
and 9, Tesla's "magic numbers" !! And 30 isn't.
Therefore overunity. :D
18 would be cheaper ....
in all seriousness... Luc being an unfunded fellow is using what he has available
or is cheaper to access.
a spot on replication will be done ...Eventually
its just a preliminary "easier" to do cost effective scenario .
in a perfect world, Luc would have everything he needs at his fingertips .
edit: to remove a double negative [I think ??]
I'm thinking Pierre posted misleading vids first, but have no idea why. Perhaps to build up a following such that his 'real' device is actually seen by people interested in the topic.
Noone can deny the quality of that build...not a single 1970's Soviet era dirtied thick gauge wire to be seen.
Out of nowhere - superb build - has been somewhat open in communications - ego isn't out there in the stratosphere - what to think ?
Am with ION and TK for some of this, if only due to jadedness. Otherwise, let's go and find out.
I don't think 30 or 36 coils is going to be the deal breaker either, if it is truly OU. Might be that he had the same situ as Luc, it was just what he had available. Likewise, it would be hilarious is only Bosch ones as fitted to VW's in WWII worked. Who knows, 50% of them could be 36's and 50% 30's.
IF the principle works, it should be possible to self run a far simpler machine with a poor to near zero excess. Perhaps the Steven Mark stuff, Romerouk's machine and the Lockridge device are in this mix.
What links all 4 ? anything ?
Could a switcher using a microcontroller control something else that would result in a coreless rotating magnetic field ?
If so, ima do that :)
Has anyone yet, in simple language, attempted to
explain how this device may tap into some
unidentified reservoir of free energy?
There must be some basis in theory which
might account for a principle or two to
help understand what is being sought?
Or, is it still a mystery with no explanation?
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2018.03.21, 19:35:24
Likewise, it would be hilarious is only Bosch ones as fitted to VW's in WWII worked. Who knows, 50% of them could be 36's and 50% 30's.
IF the principle works, it should be possible to self run a far simpler machine with a poor to near zero excess. Perhaps the Steven Mark stuff, Romerouk's machine and the Lockridge device are in this mix.
The !lockridge! device was bought into existence by P.Linderman and B-e-d-i-n-i--a fabricated device that never existed. This was done so as they could write another book about a wonderful free energy device,which the gullible would buy.
If you do a google search on the lockridge device,you will see that every page listed has 1 or both of those names plastered all over it.
Of course,no one else in the world knew anything about this !lockridge! device :D
Brad
Ahhhhhh O0
Thanks TinMan, I didn't know that.
muDped - true enough, am a bit stumped on the size of the capacitor bank for a start.
There was mention of coil shorting as a theory, as they switch over, in the big OU.com thread.
To my much less astute eyes than some, it looks like something could be worked out with a box fan motor and no shaft...just for circuit study. Because that's another question, whether power can be drawn off from the outside of the coil assembly.
I believe this device works because we have pure magnetic field moving in space so no drag, output depends only on frequency and field.
IMO, there is still much to learn from field interactions and we could assume they do exist in Pierre's device. Therefore, I maintain the possibility that his device works due to my own research in this area.
I've attached a paper on some tests I ran a few years ago based on phased bucking coils and their resultant H fields driving a load in the center of the toroid.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: muDped on 2018.03.21, 21:41:00
Has anyone yet, in simple language, attempted to
explain how this device may tap into some
unidentified reservoir of free energy?
There must be some basis in theory which
might account for a principle or two to
help understand what is being sought?
Or, is it still a mystery with no explanation?
I agree and it would seem the first order of business for anyone wishing to widely spread a new idea would be to first present the operational hypothesis in clear language, then follow up by demonstrating the
simplest proof of concept hardware.
The complexity of the device is not impressive (to me).
Videos with all pizzaz and no meat don't tell much. Too much time spent stripping wires and connecting things rather than real info.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbTYIW_yo65zgWdMlcA3s9A/videos?disable_polymer=1
Regarding the Lockridge device I agree with Tinman. After watching the ###### and Linde#### promotional video on the subject I concluded it was a poorly done presentation with ###### blowing the usual hot air interspersed with some stock WWII photos. If there is any truth to the device, those two never had it.
Regards
In other words : it works because it mimic the patents of Figuera and Benitez. O0
I would put my money on partzman's device from his attached pdf earlier reply #41.
Quote from: ION on 2018.03.22, 16:23:00
I would put my money on partzman's device from his attached pdf earlier reply #41.
With a COP of 1.88 we should be taking a closer look at this--but the build description has me a bit lost.
A more accurate build description would be great.
Quote: This topology consists of a toroid transformer with 4 identical windings connected in aiding and bucking pairs that are in
parallel and driven by two sine waves 90 degrees out of phase. An output coil is positioned between the aiding pair of
coils for maximum output to the 24.5 ohm load.
It has been found that square waves will also work in the same manner and would be the preferred drive source in order
to recover the negative energy to the power supply.
It might be noted that the magnetizing current for the windings at 20khz is appreciable.
The net input power = 184mw with the output power = 345mw for a COP = 1.88.
Edit: Center cores (2) of 3019 pot cores are inserted in the middle of L5.
So is there a gap between the aiding windings on the toroid,so as the pot cores and bobbin fit between the gap,and close to the toroid core?,or dose it just sit in the middle of the toroid?.
Also,i think one of the dots indicating winding direction is in the incorrect place.
Seem to have 3 coils in parallel each way,and only 1 coil in bucking mode each way ?.
Was this sim done using ideal coils,or was the resistance and capacitance added in ?
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.03.23, 10:29:23
With a COP of 1.88 we should be taking a closer look at this--but the build description has me a bit lost.
A more accurate build description would be great.
Quote: This topology consists of a toroid transformer with 4 identical windings connected in aiding and bucking pairs that are in
parallel and driven by two sine waves 90 degrees out of phase. An output coil is positioned between the aiding pair of
coils for maximum output to the 24.5 ohm load.
It has been found that square waves will also work in the same manner and would be the preferred drive source in order
to recover the negative energy to the power supply.
It might be noted that the magnetizing current for the windings at 20khz is appreciable.
The net input power = 184mw with the output power = 345mw for a COP = 1.88.
Edit: Center cores (2) of 3019 pot cores are inserted in the middle of L5.
So is there a gap between the aiding windings on the toroid,so as the pot cores and bobbin fit between the gap,and close to the toroid core?,or dose it just sit in the middle of the toroid?.
Also,i think one of the dots indicating winding direction is in the incorrect place.
Seem to have 3 coils in parallel each way,and only 1 coil in bucking mode each way ?.
Was this sim done using ideal coils,or was the resistance and capacitance added in ?
Brad
Brad,
I will have to recreate the circuit on the bench to confirm the coil connections as there is a discrepancy between my description and the schematic and my memory doesn't serve me well on this at the moment.
The load winding in the center of the toroid is gapped by ~.25" on each end.
Also, I use LtSpice for a schematic tool and in this case, this circuit was not actually simulated.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2018.03.23, 12:20:04
Brad,
I will have to recreate the circuit on the bench to confirm the coil connections as there is a discrepancy between my description and the schematic and my memory doesn't serve me well on this at the moment.
The load winding in the center of the toroid is gapped by ~.25" on each end.
Also, I use LtSpice for a schematic tool and in this case, this circuit was not actually simulated.
Regards,
Pm
Ah.ok
Well let us know how you go,as i have the bits needed to build this one,and it seems simple enough.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.03.23, 14:14:27
Ah.ok
Well let us know how you go,as i have the bits needed to build this one,and it seems simple enough.
Brad
The good news, the schematic is correct! Bad news, I can't replicate using a freshly wound toroid! I searched but could not find the original transformer used with the four windings so I have to assume it was used for another experiment. :-[ However, I do have is a toroid core that could have been used that has two buck windings and exhibits unusual characteristics that I have previously posted on the forum. So, at some point in the near future, I will rewind that core and we'll see if that solves the mystery. The bad thing is, I have a test that was recorded on the following day using a 70 degree shift which showed negative input with over 1w output. The possibility exists there was measurement error!
Regards,
Pm
Am sure you'd like some verification of those measurements and, perhaps the 2 projects can dovetail ?
I agree with Brad's thinking that the principle is what's being replicated, the functions, the effects. A 100% carbon copy might show whether a device runs as described, but arguably little learning is achieved.
Well, a wish has been to find something of a stator that is far more readily available, perhaps for free and yet useful for exploration of a number of the principles of Pierre's device. I now wonder if such a thing would have a use in your own studies too. Perhaps not, wrong amount of windings etc, but....box fan AC motors !
16 segments, 8 coils. It would have horrendous stepping but then again can a case be made for square wave output and DC rectification, or sinusoidal output shaping as a circuit follower ?
At least it's worth me asking the question :)
Got 2 of these from old box fans:
I am sure this comes as no surprize C.C
From Pierre
it's only to rotate the magnetic field you will not get much voltage with that there is something else that I keep secret it's like an engine that has no piston it does not start it's the same thing for the generator dz the important thing is not what we see but rather what we do not see I have seen too many people who want to take the merit in my place so my contribution will stop here now it will make you discover the rest by yourself and I can tell you that it is not won it took me nearly 2 years to find the solution rotation is only one aspect of the dz is really more complicated than that at least people will be able to learn to rotate a magnetic field but it will stop they will not get the result I had, I still have problems to settle but I think everything solve problems with the second prototype that is in manufacture I have for several months I need all over again from the beginning new circuit new coil more powerful and a brand new programming that looks pretty complicated to sequence then I wish you the best of luck for the sequel and beware of those who tries to keep the information to have it all want the information for them and does not reveal anything else I wonder why humm, when I have applied for a patent I can show you the rest of the generator dz version 2 but not before thank you.
Who are the people trying to take this ?
we need to fix this open source problem [theft for profit]
regardless the outcome of this Claim.
a clause is supposedly in the minutes of patent law about loss of patent rights when something is used commercially?? [ebay sale??]
is that a sale for profit ?
or use in a commercial venue ??
top on this weeks "to do" list
Quote from: Chet K on 2018.03.25, 13:59:21
Who are the people trying to take this ?
we need to fix this open source problem [theft for profit]
regardless the outcome of this Claim.
a clause is supposedly in the minutes of patent law about loss of patent rights when something is used commercially?? [ebay sale??]
is that a sale for profit ?
or use in a commercial venue ??
top on this weeks "to do" list
Chet,
Your question of "who" is valid and my response would be that Pierre or anyone else with IP to disclose publicly would not have a clue as to persons intending to steal because they would be stealth about it. So, either Pierre has suddenly become paranoid or the device really never worked from the beginning and he's throwing out the "I've kept the secret" to free himself from all the questions that will arise when Luc and others find this out.
However, to be fair to Pierre and assuming for another moment that the device works, I would propose a scenario for the coil switching that would involve the out-of-alignment coils to be opposed switching or bucking in order to place an H field on the fixed rotor which would then be recirculated to the power supply upon collapse. The in-alignment coils would be switched in a normal aiding mode. This would require a more complex switching scheme than has be revealed.
Regards,
Pm
:o
:-[
Ah crap. Oh well, maybe with some clever linking of the Benitez method by the community brains it can be carried forward. But, it kinda seems odd now, as though getting something working is somehow going against the inventor ? But again, what invention ? noone knows that it genuinely works as shown.
I would have thought that reproducing an effect and proving it out would be a high priority for anyone showing something. That person is always going to be acknowledged as doing the thing first, especially with what it seems to be.
Hmmm. Well i've got some kind of build going now.
Have decided to learn a bit about this rotating field thing anyway and that may be of use around you guys later on who do this stuff regularly lol.
Have converted the Pierre code to 16 positions (am still lost about what to do with coil 8's other terminal though). It runs on the far less expensive STM32F103C, commonly known as the Blue Pill. Another version of these is called the Red Pill. They're about $1.85 and their only downside is the rather interesting bucket load of spam mail if you search for Blue Pill online !
C.C
Tentative idea is MOSFET switching at low power, likely 5V, with diodes all over the place.
Here's the code and attached is a pic of the STM32 running.
/*
Pierre's Original Sketch
Modded by Tinselkoala 24 Mar 2018 for 30-slot stator
Modded by Slider2732 25 Mar 2018 for 16-slot stator - provisional
For STM32F103C microcontroller
Speed control pot: connect wiper to PA0, legs of pot to +5v and GND
*/
int stepspeed = 0, rawspeed = 0;
int pin = 1;
void setup()
{
// initialize all needed digital pins as OUTPUT
for (pin = 0; pin <= 10; pin ++)
{ pinMode(pin, OUTPUT); }
pinMode(PB1,INPUT);
pinMode(PB10, OUTPUT); //
pinMode(PB11, OUTPUT); //
pinMode(PB5, OUTPUT);
pinMode(PB8, OUTPUT);
pinMode(PB9, OUTPUT);
}
void loop() {
rawspeed = analogRead(PA0); // read speedpot on Analog Pin PA0
stepspeed = map(rawspeed,0,1023,1,100); //transforme rawspeed en une valeur de 0 à 100 (millisecondes)
// digitalWrite HIGH turns on an LED, digitalWrite LOW turns it off
// LED Pins, as seen by eye:
// 5 4 3 2 1
// 10 9 8 7 6
// PB9 PB8 PB5 PB11 PB10
// Coil 8, would be Pin16 - spare wire always to Gnd (for initial tests)
digitalWrite(1,HIGH), digitalWrite(8,HIGH), digitalWrite(PB9,HIGH);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(5,LOW), digitalWrite(7,LOW), digitalWrite(PB8,LOW);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(2,HIGH), digitalWrite(9,HIGH), digitalWrite(PB10,HIGH);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(1,LOW), digitalWrite(8,LOW), digitalWrite(PB9,LOW);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(3,HIGH), digitalWrite(10,HIGH), digitalWrite(PB11,HIGH);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(2,LOW), digitalWrite(9,LOW), digitalWrite(PB10 ,LOW);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(4,HIGH), digitalWrite(6,HIGH), digitalWrite(PB5,HIGH);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(3,LOW), digitalWrite(10,LOW), digitalWrite(PB11,LOW);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(5,HIGH), digitalWrite(7,HIGH), digitalWrite(PB8,HIGH);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(4,LOW), digitalWrite(6,LOW), digitalWrite(PB5,LOW);
delay(stepspeed);
}
On Page 25, Reply #361 of the other boards thread, Alex81 draws attention to Ingo Köth and his universal motor project. A German chap and the video is in German.
Regardless of any language barrier for many, it all looks highly familiar, including the use of a MEGA2560 !
16 slot motor, N and P MOSFET's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOvtCt1MkhY
Perhaps this type of lead for direction will now become important.
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2018.03.26, 00:29:17
:o
:-[
Ah crap. Oh well, maybe with some clever linking of the Benitez method by the community brains it can be carried forward. But, it kinda seems odd now, as though getting something working is somehow going against the inventor ? But again, what invention ? noone knows that it genuinely works as shown.
I would have thought that reproducing an effect and proving it out would be a high priority for anyone showing something. That person is always going to be acknowledged as doing the thing first, especially with what it seems to be.
Hmmm. Well i've got some kind of build going now.
Have decided to learn a bit about this rotating field thing anyway and that may be of use around you guys later on who do this stuff regularly lol.
Have converted the Pierre code to 16 positions (am still lost about what to do with coil 8's other terminal though). It runs on the far less expensive STM32F103C, commonly known as the Blue Pill. Another version of these is called the Red Pill. They're about $1.85 and their only downside is the rather interesting bucket load of spam mail if you search for Blue Pill online !
C.C
Tentative idea is MOSFET switching at low power, likely 5V, with diodes all over the place.
Here's the code and attached is a pic of the STM32 running.
/*
Pierre's Original Sketch
Modded by Tinselkoala 24 Mar 2018 for 30-slot stator
Modded by Slider2732 25 Mar 2018 for 16-slot stator - provisional
For STM32F103C microcontroller
Speed control pot: connect wiper to PA0, legs of pot to +5v and GND
*/
int stepspeed = 0, rawspeed = 0;
int pin = 1;
void setup()
{
// initialize all needed digital pins as OUTPUT
for (pin = 0; pin <= 10; pin ++)
{ pinMode(pin, OUTPUT); }
pinMode(PB1,INPUT);
pinMode(PB10, OUTPUT); //
pinMode(PB11, OUTPUT); //
pinMode(PB5, OUTPUT);
pinMode(PB8, OUTPUT);
pinMode(PB9, OUTPUT);
}
void loop() {
rawspeed = analogRead(PA0); // read speedpot on Analog Pin PA0
stepspeed = map(rawspeed,0,1023,1,100); //transforme rawspeed en une valeur de 0 à 100 (millisecondes)
// digitalWrite HIGH turns on an LED, digitalWrite LOW turns it off
// LED Pins, as seen by eye:
// 5 4 3 2 1
// 10 9 8 7 6
// PB9 PB8 PB5 PB11 PB10
// Coil 8, would be Pin16 - spare wire always to Gnd (for initial tests)
digitalWrite(1,HIGH), digitalWrite(8,HIGH), digitalWrite(PB9,HIGH);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(5,LOW), digitalWrite(7,LOW), digitalWrite(PB8,LOW);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(2,HIGH), digitalWrite(9,HIGH), digitalWrite(PB10,HIGH);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(1,LOW), digitalWrite(8,LOW), digitalWrite(PB9,LOW);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(3,HIGH), digitalWrite(10,HIGH), digitalWrite(PB11,HIGH);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(2,LOW), digitalWrite(9,LOW), digitalWrite(PB10 ,LOW);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(4,HIGH), digitalWrite(6,HIGH), digitalWrite(PB5,HIGH);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(3,LOW), digitalWrite(10,LOW), digitalWrite(PB11,LOW);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(5,HIGH), digitalWrite(7,HIGH), digitalWrite(PB8,HIGH);
delay(stepspeed);
digitalWrite(4,LOW), digitalWrite(6,LOW), digitalWrite(PB5,LOW);
delay(stepspeed);
}
Hey slider
Next time you go camping,throw a couple of those blue pill's in your tent.
Come back in 10 minute's,and it should have erected itself ;D
Somewhere in the original thread at OU someone posted a paper by GOGO55 in Russian that referenced a patent(?) also in Russian that appears to be similar to Pierre's device. Google translated pdfs are attached below.
Regards,
Pm
O0 TinMan, that's exactly the erm issue.
Am half expecting a stripped down version of the ESP32 to be released, called Naked Lady. How about the 'Ron Jeremy' version of the ESP8266 or the 'Big boobs' Raspberry Pi !
Ah cool partzman, presumably if anything does derive from all this we can now officially be guilty of some Russian collusion.
Edit - looking at the NG, am I right in thinking that the diode for each coil connects to the next in the firing series ? Was wondering about that and it makes sense as some type of amplifier.
Update - SMD FET's ordered.
20x N channel and 20x P channel. Have used them before to repair RC quadcopters.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/20PCS-AO3404-A49T-5-8A-30V-SOT23-N-Channel-MOSFET-SMD-transistor-NEW-/232077638730?hash=item3608e7bc4a
https://www.ebay.com/itm/20PCS-AO3401-A19T-4-2A-30V-SOT23-P-Channel-MOSFET-SMD-Transistor-BH-/183001699892
$0.77, $0.16 shipping, again for 20 of them
Why SMD, cos they work and they are really cheap !
Hi guys :)
I was following Piere's videos as well. Since I am also involved in research related to magnetic flux path switching I am interested in how it worked.
To me the secret he mentioned may be in energy recovery circuit. If you manage to recover most of energy in BEMF/inter-winding induction, the rest can be covered by 90 degrees induction from center core. Also for magnetic field rotation from the program Pierre shared it looks like 1-2,1-2,1-2 coils activation in steps before moving around circle. I also shared the rest of my thoughs on OU forum http://overunity.com/17609/170-watts-in-1600-watts-out-looped-very-impressive-build-and-video/msg519019/#msg519019 and http://overunity.com/17609/170-watts-in-1600-watts-out-looped-very-impressive-build-and-video/msg519057/#msg519057 and hopefully that is useful.
P.S> Benitez patent is also very important clue here...
Cheers!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m16qvt9-2Kk&feature=youtu.be
Luc's build is almost ready for experiments
quite a beauty indeed.
unless I'm mistaken, it seems it will actually show the flow...
No kidding, that is a wonderful build.
That's my thinking too, that we should see exactly what is doing what and where as it runs.
Speaking of such flows, i've been doing Hall Effect experiments and just ordered 10x 3341's for $0.78 shipped from China, before Trump taxes the crap out of such bargains ^-^
The thinking being that we may be able to further some of the rotating field logic in other solid state motors. Instead of a magnet passing flipping the sensor, a powered coil would trigger it. The coil logic would be seen and confirmed, with LED's on the sensor outputs.
I happened upon this page: http://elecnote.blogspot.com/2014/12/sensored-cd-rom-bldc-motor-hall-effect.html
A quick scroll to the bottom of the page has a video...it's short and just shows what happens with the Hall sensors on a regular CD-Rom drive. The sequence is the same as the Pierre one. As in, the next LED lights before the last one goes off... and that's how they work by design !
So what do you fellas take away from Luc's translation of Pierre's latest message ?
QuoteGood evening everyone ,
I've been watching the progress you're doing here on Overunity Forum and naturally I've noticed Luc's excellent work and his superb device which he's managed to rotate the magnetic field. He seems to be on the right track but there is something crucial that is missing which I see none of you have thought of yet since you are too concentrated on a replication of my prototype, the coils, 3 pole, 6 pole the number of transistor etc
I can see that no one has ever ask the real question of how to make current and what is happening by breaking down the cycle of a generator. If you really understand this then you will be able to understand the dz generator principle and you will not need to try to copy the dz generator which is far from being perfect. There are many improvements to be made from the first version.
-First of all, what happens when we approach a magnet towards a coil? there is a variation of the magnetic field and the closer we get to the collecting coil there is an opposing field that is created, so a variation and intensity of this magnet is of great importance.
So VARIATION AND INTENSITY are the words to remember
-Secondly, when the speed of displacement of this magnetic field is moving faster, the larger this fluctuation, except when it is an electromagnet coil. It should be noted that the coil has a CHARGE TIME and if the magnetic field moves too fast before the coil is fully charged you will have a loss at this point and also a loss on the coils return.
-Third, the MOVEMENT of this magnetic field that you started to experience, so you're starting to understand.
-And finally, there is the COIL RETURNS, if you channel then at the right place and at the right time you will have a very powerful combination, not only will it destroy mosfet's but it turns out to be a very interesting partner to use.
Of course there are losses in the coils and the resistance etc, but if we compare the dz generator with a combustion engine generator which has friction and heat losses and an electromagnet rotor that we need to magnetize, we would be close to 70% or more losses which does not compare to the dz generator which I eliminated the biggest loss, which is, the combustion engine.
In my first prototype I made some design errors. I think that crossing fields in the coils can affect the performance, that's why I change my method in my second prototype. Surely there are several ways to design a dz generator. I've just provided you with all the ingredients to make such a device. Just make your own recipe with the 4 point that I gave you and it's very likely that you will achieve overunity. You just have to put the right amount in the right place. I hope you take note of this message because it is the secret of the dz generator. It's the 4 points mentioned above. If one of these points is not in your build, you will never have a surplus of energy. I hope my comments are useful to your build. I will not translate this message, I'll let someone else do the translation. Apparently, Google translation is not an ideal translation.
Good evening.
Pierre Cotnoir(Translation by gotoluc)
Especially the viewpoints of guys who have many many years of motor rewinds, measurements.
Does it read right ? like a bunch of essential tricks and tips that caused a nod of knowing..or is it a bit vague still ?
I think what we're looking at is the way to defeat Lenz, with electromagnets, that are timed to switch on and off with both brute force and subtlety at specific timed event points.
There's no reason why a force should pull a rotor back if that energy can be electrically redirected, that's my take on it.
well
I feel the best path forward would be if Pierre could allow Luc to make a visit.
hopefully this will be entertained "again"at some point.
*
again the link to the thread where Pierre is now assisting replicators as member Pedro
http://overunity.com/17653/pierres-170w-in-1600w-out-looped-very-impressive-build-continued-moderated/msg520095/#new
Quote from: Chet K on 2018.04.11, 00:16:44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m16qvt9-2Kk&feature=youtu.be
Luc's build is almost ready for experiments
quite a beauty indeed.
unless I'm mistaken, it seems it will actually show the flow...
Wish i had that much spare time on my hands.
Hi guys :)
After last Pierrre winding explanation video it is clear Luc have replication gone wrong and need rewind his stator.
No surprise there is almost no current in his pickup coil as the EMF cancelation is all over place there. The program alterations also would not solve root cause.
My posts was deleted in OU forum by Luc but that does not change truth, heh..
Also I am rarely finding stators which allow winding to the center and outside, is there an specific keyword they could pop in search?
Like https://www.easa.com/sites/files/winding_failures/goodfull.jpg but not https://www.dhresource.com/0x0s/f2-albu-g2-M01-E7-69-rBVaGlVmZ8OAft6eAAF56xqbpvo550.jpg/motor-stator-winding-machine-wire-coiling.jpg
I would like to avoid 3D printing winding former and using transformer steel toroids to make one. Need something like 20cm in diameter so I could buy one already made then make own setup.
Cheers!
I did ask Luc to explain this comment
he said Pierre was agreeing that it was correct ,and in French in the video he says so ??
Snip
Quote from: pedro1 on April 17, 2018, 04:48:40 AM
this one works!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSnjIoQ2rh8
Thanks Pierre for taking the time to make a video of exactly how your stator coil winding were done.
Regards
Luc
Fr. Merci à Pierre d'avoir pris le temps de faire une vidéo de la façon exacte dont le bobinage de votre stator a été réalisé.
Cordialement
Luc
end snip
however I could be wrong
I feel I must comment. For me personally, locking the general discussion thread on the OU forum was a slap in the face. If I am not allowed to openly discuss research ideas publicly, then I will do it in private!
IMO, much work is being done without complete consideration. For one example, the builders need to analyze the currents drawn from the mains in Pierre's first video both prior to inserting the rotor and after and compare to their own results. Calculate your total coil dc resistances with your present circuitry and try to justify with Pierre's voltage and current measurements without the rotor inserted.
Regards,
Pm
Yes
Luc has been a bit overwhelmed with all of this [the work load]
I believe today he will open a discussion topic
it does appear quite rude ,but in Luc's defense he is doing too much
by himself,it takes him hours to translate and write sometimes, apparently the French Canadian dialect [Luc's native language] is even different then Domestic French ??
and I believe even Spoken there are differences which can be Huge for interpreting the true meaning of a technical topic.
and Pierre has left the forum over there one prior time due to earlier disruptions
not an easy task .
here is the link where Pierre validated Lucs windings [for T1000]
http://overunity.com/17653/pierres-170w-in-1600w-out-looped-very-impressive-build-continued-moderated/msg520019/#msg520019
Thanks Chet :)
I actually started ordering parts - arduino controller MEGA 2560 R3, bunch of optocouplers for 3.3->12V change to mosfet drivers, jumper wires, 2x 6 500F cap banks with protection circuit, etc.
All I need at the moment is to figure out how and where I can get correct stator or multiple iron steel cores with coil formers.
Then I can start coils assembly. Hopefully electronics/programming part will be done by then as I am going to try simulate 3 phase from DC input (Figurera way) with 6+6 coil sets (12 wires) going around ring in series of groups,
If you could help me find where I can make windings without too much effort of getting machining done (I do not have access to machining tools at home) this would be great.
Cheers!
Much confusion seems to exist on OU with Pierre's device and it's operation regarding the switching of his 36 serially connected stator coils. The output levels of the builder's attempts thus far are low which indicates there is a flaw in their thinking. So, in an attempt to resolve the problem, I simulated the power transformer feeding the supercap (SC) pack while supplying the running stator without the rotor inserted. The idea was to replicate Pierre's SC loaded output voltage with the known input voltage and current to the power transformer under these conditions. No real magic here but a few parameters had to be assumed such as coupling factor, etc.
Considering the assumed and accepted switching connections by the replicators plus their posted coil dcrs, a relay switched arrangement should present a load in the ~.5-1 ohm range to the SC pack. When these load numbers were used in the sim, the results were way off from Pierre's measurements and I posted this info on OU to no avail. IMO, the assumed switch connections are wrong and some basics are being overlooked that is, the voltage and current waveform generated by passing a PM over a coil. So, this post represents my thoughts on the matter.
Attached is an 18 slot sim for simplification to get the point across. The current measurements for each coil used are offset for clarity. It consists of 2 poles that are physically and electrically opposite from each other namely L1,2,3 and L10,11,12. All other connected coils have zero current and the reason why is apparent if the circuit is studied. This is the key because if we now do average measurements on the voltages and currents, we arrive at a net load resistance in the range that allow the original power transformer sim to work. IOW, not all coils are energized all the time. The switching to move the fields around the stator should be academic from here based on the number of poles desired and the slot pitch.
Any recovery from the inductive switching can now be visualized from the moving electromagnetic field over the stationary loaded rotor similar to a PM passing over coil.
Depending on one's intent with Pierre's device, the patent application attached below should be noted.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: partzman on 2018.04.27, 15:50:35
physically and electrically opposite from each other namely L1,2,3 and L10,11,12.
For what I seen personally it is not single coil activation. Perre definatelly did show drawing with 6 coils per pole with 4 coils active. Which mean when you give positive to coil 1 the negative goes to coil 4 then coil 12->16. And because all coils are in series to each other the positive also will have a negative path from coil 12 to coil 4
This is what I am targeting in my setup assembly.
P.S> If you could point out 10-20cm diameter stator frame to buy for coils dual placement on each position towards center and outside (like on toroid core) it would help me a lot.
Cheers!
I'm not an expert in motors and generators, but if you are one of them then THINK before replicating Pierre device. Is that new info here ? I don't think so... Figuera , Benitez and many less known had done it before.
Hello What is this two things you are missing from generators which has to be adequate simulated ?
Unfortunately I don't know how to do it , but I know what has to be done (and it's not easy not easy)
Quote from: forest on 2018.04.27, 20:08:47
I'm not an expert in motors and generators, but if you are one of them then THINK before replicating Pierre device. Is that new info here ? I don't think so... Figuera , Benitez and many less known had done it before.
Hello What is this two things you are missing from generators which has to be adequate simulated ?
Unfortunately I don't know how to do it , but I know what has to be done (and it's not easy not easy)
Forest,
I'm certainly no expert so I don't know. What is missing?
Regards,
Pm
First one : in ordinary generators what is fixed and variable about the field constitution ? what is movable and what it gives because of something is fixed. if simulated how (if anyway) can we set the field rotating and keep this thing fixed ?
you will understood only if you put attention to this problem an elegant solution in ordinary generators which imho give us overunity
but I'm not expert not expert
second one : why if you do not load generator you can set it free running using so little mechanical power and why on load it "convert" mechanical power into rising current ? can you measure field on load, can you compare field in both situations ?
why nobody is asking the correct questions ?
Quote from: T-1000 on 2018.04.27, 16:16:46
For what I seen personally it is not single coil activation. Perre definatelly did show drawing with 6 coils per pole with 4 coils active. Which mean when you give positive to coil 1 the negative goes to coil 4 then coil 12->16. And because all coils are in series to each other the positive also will have a negative path from coil 12 to coil 4
As I view Pierre's stator, it consists of 36 slots wound with 36 coils on a 6 slot pitch. My simplified sim was meant to show an 18 stator example with 6 poles with each pole having 3 coils on at any one time a total of 6 coils would be activated and sequenced. In a 36 pole stator therefore, 2 opposite poles or 12 coils would be activated and sequenced which will produce considerable output at the rotor. What is interesting is that in an analysis of my sim coil connections, one will notice that an H field will exist between the areas of the stator under the coils that have zero current which is created by the bucking fields between the opposing pole pairs. This rotating H field will have an effect on the output of the rotor coil depending on it's angle relative to the rotor. I find it interesting that Pierre's gen2 version of his device will depend solely on rotating H fields for rotor induction so I'm curious as to the outcome!
Simulation attempts of his stated connections along with his posted sketch for the Arduino just do not work! Look at Luc's results with his initial replication for example. Pierre also confirmed that Luc's original stator winding was correct when in fact it was not which Luc has now corrected. What I am saying is either Pierre has left out critical information or we are misunderstanding what he is saying.
Quote
This is what I am targeting in my setup assembly.
I wish you the best with your replication. O0
Quote
P.S> If you could point out 10-20cm diameter stator frame to buy for coils dual placement on each position towards center and outside (like on toroid core) it would help me a lot.
I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for here so I don't have any suggestions at the moment.
Regards,
Pm
Quote
Cheers!
Well, I see that Pierre has given up on his gen2 version as it didn't work as expected. I'm not surprised as I had predicted this outcome on OU that was apparently ignored which is why I don't post there anymore. However, this is not to say that an H field approach couldn't work.
Regards,
Pm
partzman
Can you measure magnetic field intensity in non-loaded and loaded generator and compare to the power (electrical) needed to create this field ? - only based on the actual measure we can solve this problem.
Let's imagine a DC dynamo like the one used in Figuera times. Let the armature have coils to create static magnetic field and the output is taken by coils on rotor (taken with slip rings).
if the field of armature coils is static and to power load we only need to apply torque (mechanical force on shaft) then how is this possible by Faraday law of induction to get more electrical power on output ?
I believe that the essential is the positive feedback explained indirectly by Figuera :
the more we load the generator the more intensive field we get by combining the initial field of armature coils and the generated field by current flowing in output coils via load. This field is causing magnetic attraction or repulsion according to Lenz law and it's the breaking of magnetic dipole the source of cogging effect.
Now , if we have a slightly bigger field intensity then due to Faraday induction we have the slightly bigger output on output coils which makes cogging effect a bit bigger and so on up to the steady state according to Ohm law with current flowing though the load.
So the first answer is : am I right ? what about field intensity on generator ? is it change ? if it isn't then we have another puzzle to solve.
A simple experiment to prove that the field doesn't change is to just use a DC permanent magnet motor as the generator. Drive it with any other motor you want and vary the load on the generator. As the load increases you will measure an increase in current going to the drive motor. You may have to increase the voltage to the drive motor to keep the output up on the generator. But you will see when you get the output up on the generator side that the only thing you really had to do was get the generator back up to the original speed it was before it was loaded. As I posted before a simple rule of thumb for generators is "Speed creates voltage and torque creates current".
Respectfully,
Carr0ll
PS: I thought Brad was going to test that with his rebuilt generator. I guess he hasn't had time yet.
author=CITFTA link=topic=3599.msg67501#msg67501 date=1525001204]
QuotePS: I thought Brad was going to test that with his rebuilt generator. I guess he hasn't had time yet.
I did,and i did shoot a video--just have not uploaded it yet,as im flat out with the !!other!! project. O0
QuoteAs I posted before a simple rule of thumb for generators is "Speed creates voltage and torque creates current".
Indeed.
Electrical voltage= mechanical rpm
Electrical current=mechanical torque
Electrical voltage+electrical current=electrical power
Mechanical RPM+mechanical torque=mechanical power-(horse power)
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2018.04.29, 12:26:27
author=CITFTA link=topic=3599.msg67501#msg67501 date=1525001204]
I did,and i did shoot a video--just have not uploaded it yet,as im flat out with the !!other!! project. O0
Indeed.
Electrical voltage= mechanical rpm
Electrical current=mechanical torque
Electrical voltage+electrical current=electrical power
Mechanical RPM+mechanical torque=mechanical power-(horse power)
Brad
But did you measure by precise gauss meter if the field inside this generator is higher when loaded when torque is higher ? I suspect that torque is because of higher attraction between coils magnetic field and iron core exactly what Figuera mentioned in one of patent
Quote from: forest on 2018.04.29, 04:59:30
partzman
Can you measure magnetic field intensity in non-loaded and loaded generator and compare to the power (electrical) needed to create this field ? - only based on the actual measure we can solve this problem.
Let's imagine a DC dynamo like the one used in Figuera times. Let the armature have coils to create static magnetic field and the output is taken by coils on rotor (taken with slip rings).
if the field of armature coils is static and to power load we only need to apply torque (mechanical force on shaft) then how is this possible by Faraday law of induction to get more electrical power on output ?
I believe that the essential is the positive feedback explained indirectly by Figuera :
the more we load the generator the more intensive field we get by combining the initial field of armature coils and the generated field by current flowing in output coils via load. This field is causing magnetic attraction or repulsion according to Lenz law and it's the breaking of magnetic dipole the source of cogging effect.
Now , if we have a slightly bigger field intensity then due to Faraday induction we have the slightly bigger output on output coils which makes cogging effect a bit bigger and so on up to the steady state according to Ohm law with current flowing though the load.
So the first answer is : am I right ? what about field intensity on generator ? is it change ? if it isn't then we have another puzzle to solve.
Forest,
To date, all my work has been done in solid state rather than rotational devices so I have nothing to test without physical construction. A simulation could be done using gyrator/capacitor modeling but the task is enormous and requires many parameters to be known before any kind of accuracy of the device to be simulated could be expected. It sounds like Brad may be the best source for bench testing if he has the time.
Regards,
Pm
Hi forest,
Here is a link that goes pretty deep into electric motor and generator theory. Maybe something in there will help you find what you are asking about.
http://www.electricianeducation.com/theory/electric_motors.htm
Carroll
Quote from: CITFTA on 2018.04.30, 00:54:56
Hi forest,
Here is a link that goes pretty deep into electric motor and generator theory. Maybe something in there will help you find what you are asking about.
http://www.electricianeducation.com/theory/electric_motors.htm
Carroll
The more precise would be http://www.edisontechcenter.org/inductionMotors.html for Pierre's case. We make rotating magnetic field on stator but forcibly have rotor stopped and take generated power out to the load from the rotor... Just there are differences:
1) We have field moving by 6 coils groups from which we make one single magnet from 2 coils by winding one's begining on other's end. So Figuera style. Not just 120 degrees 3 phase AC changing polarity on 3 coils.
2) There is single signifant magnetic pole across 4 coils in series
3) We have weak bucking polarity going opposite way as well due all coils connection in series
Hopefully this will clear up some confusion.
Cheers!
A thought has been nagging me for a while and, needs throwing out as an idea.
Likely in terms of "that's not gonna work Slider", but here goes.
Pierre mentioned several times that he learned a secret that took 2 years of experimentation to discover.
Could it be, that he has magnets in the pickup rotor ?
At first it doesn't seem sensible, but sensible devices aren't OU.
Such an idea would feasibly magnify the induction effects of the magnetic fields. North would become a Super North and South a Super South. Likewise, when the field is at 180 degrees and (presumably) not useful with such an arrangement, the induction would be greatly reduced.
The AC behaviour would then be derived from this super induction method and subsequently similar far higher field collapse in the output stage.
What do magnets do to induction, when sat within rotor coils that experience sharp square wave on/off pulsing ?
Quote from: Slider2732 on 2018.05.04, 22:30:48
A thought has been nagging me for a while and, needs throwing out as an idea.
Likely in terms of "that's not gonna work Slider", but here goes.
Pierre mentioned several times that he learned a secret that took 2 years of experimentation to discover.
Could it be, that he has magnets in the pickup rotor ?
At first it doesn't seem sensible, but sensible devices aren't OU.
Such an idea would feasibly magnify the induction effects of the magnetic fields. North would become a Super North and South a Super South. Likewise, when the field is at 180 degrees and (presumably) not useful with such an arrangement, the induction would be greatly reduced.
The AC behaviour would then be derived from this super induction method and subsequently similar far higher field collapse in the output stage.
What do magnets do to induction, when sat within rotor coils that experience sharp square wave on/off pulsing ?
Just ask him if capacitors are essential. If so then it's no more then what Kapanadze discovered ;-) If capacitors are essential then the large flux required to get OU power is done by disruptive discharge method - then this is the secret. If so I would be disappointed because it is not a replication of Figuera principle.
Has anyone yet considered that some of the coils are physically shorted at certain parts of the cycle?
And how this affects the dynamics of inductance, flux, and saturation as energies are circulated around the transformer?
Mechanical relay contacts are not instant make/break. Especially when de-energizing, there is a delay of many milliseconds before the relay contact is physically broken. Based on the switching diagrams I've seen, it seems likely that there can be periods of coil-shorting at certain phases of a cycle.
Coil-shorting results in parametric variation of inductance (ie: Mag-Amp). Parametric variation of L and/or C is a fundamental note in much of Eric Dollard's writings.
So what happens when we try to model and simulate a rotary transformer that is also a mag-amp? ^-^
(just a quick thought I've been pondering as I work on my own experiments)
Quote from: Reiyuki on 2018.05.05, 18:25:56
Has anyone yet considered that some of the coils are physically shorted at certain parts of the cycle?
And how this affects the dynamics of inductance, flux, and saturation as energies are circulated around the transformer?
Mechanical relay contacts are not instant make/break. Especially when de-energizing, there is a delay of many milliseconds before the relay contact is physically broken. Based on the switching diagrams I've seen, it seems likely that there can be periods of coil-shorting at certain phases of a cycle.
Coil-shorting results in parametric variation of inductance (ie: Mag-Amp). Parametric variation of L and/or C is a fundamental note in much of Eric Dollard's writings.
So what happens when we try to model and simulate a rotary transformer that is also a mag-amp? ^-^
(just a quick thought I've been pondering as I work on my own experiments)
I see this all in a different light as to what is being done. The full circuit has not been given, AFAIK, but was given a small diagram which if looked at well resembles a boost circuit.
If so, then part of the voltage is sent to the capacitors and the other to the next coil, I use this myself for other devices, yes parametric if the capacitor is across two adjacent coils. Charge one and discharge two, the result is the change in inductance of one coil into two coils which actually gives you X4 the inductance when there is a core.
By doing this using one mosfet for two coils, connected between two coils, there will be a natural progression around the stator, fisical polarity changing in my view is not needed, this is similar to Figura.
Regards
Mike 8)
And now it appears that I am being censored at OU dot com. I will not stand for that.
Pierre's claimed overunity is a HOAX. You can waste all the time and money you like trying to replicate what he has only shown in a dodgy video. You will not be able to do it. And Pierre himself cannot face true scrutiny, and he has already planned his exit strategy. And I and other skeptics like me will be blamed for it!
yes
it is quite true what you say , the group who are actually spending their time and their money don't
want generic negative comments ,its how they chose to spend their time and their money
I don't imagine that any group anywhere [insert any science research project with questionable theory here [ION drive...LENR ... Quantum whatever ...etc etc]
I don't imagine negative input would get you a seat at those tables either [already well known the reasons "Not".. its the "why nots ?" that get you a seat there...
most likely "the door" would be offered to the "Nots"
is that censorship ??
or ?
grown men doing what they like to do with their own money and time ?
racetracks ,gambling,Gaming ...car racing ,deep sea fishing ...Golf....etc etc.
sorta like a Peta person showing up with protest signs trying to stop the meat eaters barbecue
and expecting a seat at the table.....
instead being shown the door
is that censorship ?
or?
Whatever, dude. People do win races, they do reach the tops of mountains, sometimes they win at poker or catch a billfish or hit a hole-in-one .... etc. But trying to reproduce, say... David Copperfield's illusion of vanishing the Statue of Liberty.... well, if you don't do it by trickery like he did, you AINT GONNA DO IT. And trying to reproduce Pierre's hoax is kind of like that. At least, before spending a lot of money, people should have the common sense to challenge his extremely extraordinary, earth shattering, CHILD SAVING device claims.... and they should insist on a proper test/examination before throwing their money at it.
What if it does only work for ten minutes powering itself and a microwave before the relays catch on fire.... those ten minutes, shown to some Real Scientists and Real Engineers... could literally save the world.
But no... Pierre just can't be arsed to repair it and demonstrate it properly to someone who can tell the difference.
Remember another "sincere gentleman" who didn't even bother to demonstrate his claims of a Permanent Magnet Only Motor.....?
I reserve the right to say "I TOLD YOU SO" when everybody eventually gives up on Pierre and he disappears.... just like we have seen so many others do.
Well I can easily see both sides of this issue. I have of course been involved with Matt and Dave and the 3 battery generating system as Dave calls it. I have seen that it does give extended run times from those batteries by at least 30% to 50%. But I have seen great resistance from a lot of sources that insist that it doesn't work. And of course that is not from people that have actually spent the time and effort to properly test the system.
On the other hand I have seen so many foolish attempts at building things that don't stand a chance of working and those involved in those projects are absolutely convinced they know what they are doing and everyone else is just a naysayer. I know TK and I both have a lot of electronic experience so I think that helps us to be discerning when it comes to those types of projects.
My personal opinion about Pierre's device is I wouldn't waste ten minutes attempting to build it. There are just too many red flags about that whole demonstration and the claims. I won't post my opinion on OU.com because I know it would only be a waste of my time and effort and create some ill will I don't need from some people I respect. I did try to ask a couple of questions early on but got shouted down real quick so I gave it up. What amazes me is that there appear to be so many people that are willing to invest a lot of time and money on projects they don't really understand. But I guess that is just my conservative nature showing up.
Just my 2 cents worth of opinion.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Now, here is something else, that some people have already realized.
There is NO combination of the wiring schemes AND the original Arduino program that Pierre published that will result in a 60.5 Hz output frequency which was shown on his meter. Unless the output is actually DC and is fed to an ordinary OTS inverter, making it independent of the program frequency ... and we have not seen any evidence of that.
The Arduino sketch that Pierre first published is a kludge, written by someone who is a real beginner at Arduino programming. It operates at a fixed frequency, determined by the delay() statements. It is trivial to alter the sketch to make it have an adjustable frequency. Challenge: Let someone show that the output frequency of 60.5 Hz is _actually_ set by the Arduino sketch's cycle speed, by making the frequency adjustable in the sketch and then showing that the output frequency can be varied by a few Hz either way by adjusting the sketch timing.
Will we ever see such a test?
QuoteI won't post my opinion on OU.com because I know it would only be a waste of my time and effort and create some ill will I don't need from some people I respect.
Why should you respect people who don't respect your opinion? Or to put it another way, why shouldn't people respect your opinion, if you respect them? After all, your opinion is worth quite a bit, due to your experience and education. Why cast pearls before swine, so to speak? The reason is a love for Truth and a hope that someday someone will crack the nut. Right? So where does "respect" come into it?
But I do agree with you, actually. It is just that I hate to watch trainwrecks, over and over and over.
well
maybe you missed that part
where he stated the device shown [or as shown] was not all inclusive ..
something about a piston action [or analogous too] which was not shown ??
also the timing sequence was not the same for the running unit [merely a step along the path??
yes its Par for most OU courses ....
Quote from: Chet K on 2018.05.28, 22:15:26
well
maybe you missed that part
where he stated the device shown [or as shown] was not all inclusive ..
something about a piston action [or analogous too] which was not shown ??
also the timing sequence was not the same for the running unit [merely a step along the path??
yes its Par for most OU courses ....
I have to totally agree with TK and I was a supporter of the device early on. However, there are just too many coincidental red flags at this point and I consider any replication attempts based on the info Pierre has supplied as a total waste of time. Those who are waiting for him to supply the "secret" after getting 'protection' will be waiting for years.
From my own research, there is a possibility that there could be gain derived from a non-linear parametric change in inductance from coils adjacent to the fixed rotor as compared to those off center to the rotor with consideration of a moving PM field. In order to determine if this is possible, the stator saturation characteristics or B/H curves would have to be profiled along with all the coil induction characteristics such as coupling, etc.
Out of time-
Pm
There is many old patents interesting and ready for replication, but nobody is trying....
Luc has the deluxe version under preliminary test .
Note : Vid is not Public [just thru forum links here and at Stefan's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RhUY8HX90Y&feature=youtu.be
https://overunity.com/17653/pierres-170w-in-1600w-out-looped-very-impressive-build-continued-moderated/msg522129/#msg522129
The truth was told in regards to solid state alternator (also including same in Figuera patents)
Now it is only technical challenge left how to make it happen...
Quote from: T-1000 on 2018.06.05, 14:17:24
https://overunity.com/17653/pierres-170w-in-1600w-out-looped-very-impressive-build-continued-moderated/msg522129/#msg522129
The truth was told in regards to solid state alternator (also including same in Figuera patents)
Now it is only technical challenge left how to make it happen...
I think it's related to fact that in standard generator field is constant in other words current in armature is fixed and magnetic field lines cut by rotor generate output only by flux cutting without flux linking. Am I right ?
I mentioned previously that it's the basic principle of every generator and to replicate it or simulate by switching and rotating magnetic field is tricky.
I just wanted to know if we are on the same topic.
More "unlisted" movies from Luc's testing and run up
Video Part 1: https://youtu.be/Y4oJ0e9BcZc
Video Part 2: https://youtu.be/PSGs6xbah00
Video Part 3: https://youtu.be/8hrBa8qRhY4
and member Pmgr requested a test [he has been a huge help to Luc throughout this build.
Luc
Quote
Low Frequency test requested by Pmgr plus other higher Frequency comparisons.
Everyone, please keep in mind I am not testing an exact replication of Pierre's device. These are as is tests. There are still many modifications to be completed.
Link to video: https://youtu.be/QRV8MxjM-vA
end quote
and link to Stefan's forum topic
https://overunity.com/17653/pierres-170w-in-1600w-out-looped-very-impressive-build-continued-moderated/960/
Ron shared this yesterday at David Bowling and Matt's thread
I thought I would repost it here
------------------------------------------------------------------
Snip
This is a repost from Norman Wootan on EV Gray.
But it does suggest a solid state model.
-------------------------------------------------------
I think I can see what you have been trying to tell us but not really telling us about isolating the load from the supply, this is an old idea that we talked about in the 1950s, but it does work. Let me explain:
Let's say we have a coil with both leads going to the common terminals of 2 two-way changeover switches. From the load terminals of the two-way changeover switches let's say that we connect the applied voltage supply on the left side terminals, and we connect the load to the right side terminals.
So in effect our coil leads are connected to the common terminals of the 2 two-way changeover switches, and then the coil can be switched on to the left side terminals to the applied voltage supply, to get a pulse, and then switched to the right side terminals to the load, to put the resulting collapsing field spike into the load.
Every time we switch the changeover switches to isolate the coil from the supply voltage, we supply a voltage spike to the load and by doing it many times a second we have a useful OU output to the load.
Here is something from my notes that I came across while investigating more about collapsing field technology some years ago. I don't know the name of the author or owner of this document.
CFT- (Collapsing Field Technology) - Updated 2008
In electrical systems, the term "back emf" actually refers to the equal and opposite force field accompanying the "forward emf", in any "symmetrical" electrical system.
In magnetic systems, the corresponding term is "forward and back mmf", rather than "forward and back emf".
All rotating motors actually turn themselves from the broken symmetry that is created inside them. The present engineers have been trained that they must pay to put extra energy into the system, just to break its symmetry. That of course is totally false. Otherwise, a rotating electron (with its continual spin) would not spin.
In a normal motor, we are trained to put in a coil (say, there in the back mmf region) and then we pay to put in a sudden surge of EM energy to that coil, so that it momentarily overrides (cancels) the back mmf force. In short, we momentarily make the system asymmetrical, so that its net back mmf is less than its forward mmf.
That means that now the motor retains at least some of its excess acceleration and excess angular momentum added to the flywheel and shaft in its previous acceleration (forward mmf) zone, but we are "paying" (the electric power grid) to have this occur.
Anyway, once that broken symmetry between forward and back mmfs is there, with the back mmf deliberately reduced to less than the forward mmf, the motor will self-rotate because of its own system asymmetry.
The fact that this effect has for over one hundred years been viewed as a problem to be designed out of electrical systems, perhaps because of greed, and no on had seriously considered it as a source of abundant free energy. Everyone knew it was there, but no one recognized its potential.
The standard, as manufactured, electrical generator systems can be modified inexpensively to the Over-Unity / Asymmetrical design concept.
By the addition of a second set of commutator brushes and / or the addition of a second slip ring assembly in the present electrical generators,
Over-Unity output, or asymmetrical rotation is achievable in hours.
These additional elements are to collect / scavenger, the collapsing fields (C.E.M.F.) of both the the armatures and field coils of present electrical generator sets.
Present design throws away this tremendous amount of electrical energy in the collapsing fields.(C.E.M.F.) You pay for it, why not get the utility of it?
Everyone who makes use of electrical circuits have always considered the collapsing field effect to be a nuisance because, when using a mechanical relay coil in an electronic circuit, it would cause a current to be pumped back into the circuit, creating havoc. One solution to the problem of C.E.M.F. was to install a diode across the coil leads and when the power was removed, the C.E.M.F. caused a current to flow which passed through the diode and to be dissipated as heat in the coil itself and not in the circuit.
On the armature / exciter element just install a second set of brushes or slip rings the exact amount behind behind the driver units, needed to collect the C.E.M.F., of the armature field collapse, to take it out of the system for additional output generator utility.
On the field coil system, just install a second set of brushes / slip rings the exact amount behind the original primary field coil system needed to collect the C.E.M.F. of the field coils collapsing fields for utility, when taken out of the unit as additional generator output utility.
The additional new C.E.M.F. outputs can easily be phased to the original output system load wiring.
These modifications more than doubled the generators output power at small modification cost / time, and no increase in operating costs.
This general design modification allows for most any currently manufactured electrical generator set to be an over-unity design; and with some additional external modifications a self-standing over-unity configuration can be obtained on most commercial electric generators by any competent electrical engineer. Why pay for fuel / power that you have available in your generator system already?
Again, just collect (scavenger) the C.E.M.F. of the armature and field coil"s collapses for far- over unity operation of these devices, and with external circuit additions, stand alone, fuelless electrical power is available to everyone, in the form of an off the shelf, self-substaining, asymmetrical, electrical generator.
The same modifications can be made in most manufactured motors as they can be made into generators easily.
Just scavage the armature and field coil collapses , control it with an external circuit, and you have a stand-alone over-unity electrical generator.
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©
Below is a stationary "motionless electromagntic generator design, based on the Alexander patent, that has been built experimentally; No far out 0 point vacuum explanations needed;
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©
The best form would have no moving parts.
Looking at at the common transformer, and how it works, supplies the answer.
In any kind of transformer, electricity is transferred between the two coils by the magnetic field. When a coil is initially powered up or switched off, that coil creates a magnetic field which causes an initial rush of electricity, usually called a 'voltage spike.'
In conventional electronics, this voltage spike is suppressed to protect the other components from damage. In collapsing field technology (CFT), that voltage spike is harnessed, not suppressed.
If I take a DC signal generator power supply, and connect it to the primary of the transformer, I can make a generator of sorts.
I'll turn on the DC signal in the primary coil windings for just an instant, and then turn it off.
In the secondary there is a flux linkage following of the primary signal that is some 90% of he input power.
But we can recover also, the secondary's field collapse for an additional 90% of input power.
Thus, any transformer secondary will produce about 180% of the input power in this mode, with a gradually applied quarter sine or sawtooth wave shape. input DC signal.
But wait, we are throwing recoverable power away in the primary coil winding's field collapse. By applying the DC power input signal and then , when the input power is cut off, switch the primary winding's field collapse to the output also, the primary field collapse contributes at least another 90% to the output, for a grand total of about 270% gain, in this design.
The DC power signal must only take primary winding up and then let go (open ) at the top voltage.
Thus, the primary can be switched to the output to recover it's field collapse, that is in synchronozation with the secondary's field collapse.
Simple electronic switching can accomplish all of these functions, at little power usage and low cost.Therefore, the gain of a transformer over-unity generator would probably be about 250% output power to input power, and no mechanical motion needed.
Many old motors and generators could be adapted to the transformer design, given above.
The armature must be fixed permanently stationary and the air gap between armature and field coils filled with iron filings. The air gap iron filings, or iron powder filling is to make the best use of the primary's ( armature ) full flux power.
This makes for best transformer action and the highest power gain possible with this conversion design.
Cooling, through holes, can be left in the air gap if necessary in these units. The external switching electronic circuitry is the same as common transformer design, above.
All we have done is to turn the motor / generator into a reasonable transformer.
What is happening in this design is that for one"up"( power signal ) in the primary coil, we get the "up" ( field build ) in the secondary coil and the " downs" ( field collapses ) of both the secondary and primary coil as output power
Think of the primary coils as coupled "springs" and it will all be clear.
This transformer / generator design has been the nature of electromagnetic coils all the time--we just never saw it.
And if the unit is actuated 60 times a second, allowing for the counter-electromotive force field collapses, it makes the standard household 60Hz electrical generator.
This design concept is the natural last step after recovery of secondary collapses was introduced in generator designs.
The same gain principle and results could then be achieved in capacitor systems.
The charge (up ) cycle from the secondary plate and the two discharge cycles from both the secondary and primary plates would be the output power.
The basic external switching electronics is generally the same as in the transformer designs.
These designs are in the basic nature of energy storage / transfer elements---one input allows for the utility of the one input transfer and the two storage collapses or discharges as output power ( about 300% gain )
__________________
If there is one thing that I cannot stomach, it is long posts like that, that pretend to Teach what the author has Never Done and Cannot Do.
"Collapsing Field Technology"
Quote
The standard, as manufactured, electrical generator systems can be modified inexpensively to the Over-Unity / Asymmetrical design concept.
By the addition of a second set of commutator brushes and / or the addition of a second slip ring assembly in the present electrical generators,
Over-Unity output, or asymmetrical rotation is achievable in hours.
OK, I'm starting the clock now. OU output is achievable in hours. Says so right there and tells you why and how. Get building! It's inexpensive and fast.
Quote from: Chet K on 2018.07.09, 12:16:09
Ron shared this yesterday at David Bowling and Matt's thread
I thought I would repost it here
------------------------------------------------------------------
Snip
This is a repost from Norman Wootan on EV Gray.
But it does suggest a solid state model.
-------------------------------------------------------
I think I can see what you have been trying to tell us but not really telling us about isolating the load from the supply, this is an old idea that we talked about in the 1950s, but it does work. Let me explain:
Let's say we have a coil with both leads going to the common terminals of 2 two-way changeover switches. From the load terminals of the two-way changeover switches let's say that we connect the applied voltage supply on the left side terminals, and we connect the load to the right side terminals.
So in effect our coil leads are connected to the common terminals of the 2 two-way changeover switches, and then the coil can be switched on to the left side terminals to the applied voltage supply, to get a pulse, and then switched to the right side terminals to the load, to put the resulting collapsing field spike into the load.
Every time we switch the changeover switches to isolate the coil from the supply voltage, we supply a voltage spike to the load and by doing it many times a second we have a useful OU output to the load.
Here is something from my notes that I came across while investigating more about collapsing field technology some years ago. I don't know the name of the author or owner of this document.
CFT- (Collapsing Field Technology) - Updated 2008
In electrical systems, the term "back emf" actually refers to the equal and opposite force field accompanying the "forward emf", in any "symmetrical" electrical system.
In magnetic systems, the corresponding term is "forward and back mmf", rather than "forward and back emf".
All rotating motors actually turn themselves from the broken symmetry that is created inside them. The present engineers have been trained that they must pay to put extra energy into the system, just to break its symmetry. That of course is totally false. Otherwise, a rotating electron (with its continual spin) would not spin.
In a normal motor, we are trained to put in a coil (say, there in the back mmf region) and then we pay to put in a sudden surge of EM energy to that coil, so that it momentarily overrides (cancels) the back mmf force. In short, we momentarily make the system asymmetrical, so that its net back mmf is less than its forward mmf.
That means that now the motor retains at least some of its excess acceleration and excess angular momentum added to the flywheel and shaft in its previous acceleration (forward mmf) zone, but we are "paying" (the electric power grid) to have this occur.
Anyway, once that broken symmetry between forward and back mmfs is there, with the back mmf deliberately reduced to less than the forward mmf, the motor will self-rotate because of its own system asymmetry.
The fact that this effect has for over one hundred years been viewed as a problem to be designed out of electrical systems, perhaps because of greed, and no on had seriously considered it as a source of abundant free energy. Everyone knew it was there, but no one recognized its potential.
The standard, as manufactured, electrical generator systems can be modified inexpensively to the Over-Unity / Asymmetrical design concept.
By the addition of a second set of commutator brushes and / or the addition of a second slip ring assembly in the present electrical generators,
Over-Unity output, or asymmetrical rotation is achievable in hours.
These additional elements are to collect / scavenger, the collapsing fields (C.E.M.F.) of both the the armatures and field coils of present electrical generator sets.
Present design throws away this tremendous amount of electrical energy in the collapsing fields.(C.E.M.F.) You pay for it, why not get the utility of it?
Everyone who makes use of electrical circuits have always considered the collapsing field effect to be a nuisance because, when using a mechanical relay coil in an electronic circuit, it would cause a current to be pumped back into the circuit, creating havoc. One solution to the problem of C.E.M.F. was to install a diode across the coil leads and when the power was removed, the C.E.M.F. caused a current to flow which passed through the diode and to be dissipated as heat in the coil itself and not in the circuit.
On the armature / exciter element just install a second set of brushes or slip rings the exact amount behind behind the driver units, needed to collect the C.E.M.F., of the armature field collapse, to take it out of the system for additional output generator utility.
On the field coil system, just install a second set of brushes / slip rings the exact amount behind the original primary field coil system needed to collect the C.E.M.F. of the field coils collapsing fields for utility, when taken out of the unit as additional generator output utility.
The additional new C.E.M.F. outputs can easily be phased to the original output system load wiring.
These modifications more than doubled the generators output power at small modification cost / time, and no increase in operating costs.
This general design modification allows for most any currently manufactured electrical generator set to be an over-unity design; and with some additional external modifications a self-standing over-unity configuration can be obtained on most commercial electric generators by any competent electrical engineer. Why pay for fuel / power that you have available in your generator system already?
Again, just collect (scavenger) the C.E.M.F. of the armature and field coil"s collapses for far- over unity operation of these devices, and with external circuit additions, stand alone, fuelless electrical power is available to everyone, in the form of an off the shelf, self-substaining, asymmetrical, electrical generator.
The same modifications can be made in most manufactured motors as they can be made into generators easily.
Just scavage the armature and field coil collapses , control it with an external circuit, and you have a stand-alone over-unity electrical generator.
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©
Below is a stationary "motionless electromagntic generator design, based on the Alexander patent, that has been built experimentally; No far out 0 point vacuum explanations needed;
©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©
The best form would have no moving parts.
Looking at at the common transformer, and how it works, supplies the answer.
In any kind of transformer, electricity is transferred between the two coils by the magnetic field. When a coil is initially powered up or switched off, that coil creates a magnetic field which causes an initial rush of electricity, usually called a 'voltage spike.'
In conventional electronics, this voltage spike is suppressed to protect the other components from damage. In collapsing field technology (CFT), that voltage spike is harnessed, not suppressed.
If I take a DC signal generator power supply, and connect it to the primary of the transformer, I can make a generator of sorts.
I'll turn on the DC signal in the primary coil windings for just an instant, and then turn it off.
In the secondary there is a flux linkage following of the primary signal that is some 90% of he input power.
But we can recover also, the secondary's field collapse for an additional 90% of input power.
Thus, any transformer secondary will produce about 180% of the input power in this mode, with a gradually applied quarter sine or sawtooth wave shape. input DC signal.
But wait, we are throwing recoverable power away in the primary coil winding's field collapse. By applying the DC power input signal and then , when the input power is cut off, switch the primary winding's field collapse to the output also, the primary field collapse contributes at least another 90% to the output, for a grand total of about 270% gain, in this design.
The DC power signal must only take primary winding up and then let go (open ) at the top voltage.
Thus, the primary can be switched to the output to recover it's field collapse, that is in synchronozation with the secondary's field collapse.
Simple electronic switching can accomplish all of these functions, at little power usage and low cost.Therefore, the gain of a transformer over-unity generator would probably be about 250% output power to input power, and no mechanical motion needed.
Many old motors and generators could be adapted to the transformer design, given above.
The armature must be fixed permanently stationary and the air gap between armature and field coils filled with iron filings. The air gap iron filings, or iron powder filling is to make the best use of the primary's ( armature ) full flux power.
This makes for best transformer action and the highest power gain possible with this conversion design.
Cooling, through holes, can be left in the air gap if necessary in these units. The external switching electronic circuitry is the same as common transformer design, above.
All we have done is to turn the motor / generator into a reasonable transformer.
What is happening in this design is that for one"up"( power signal ) in the primary coil, we get the "up" ( field build ) in the secondary coil and the " downs" ( field collapses ) of both the secondary and primary coil as output power
Think of the primary coils as coupled "springs" and it will all be clear.
This transformer / generator design has been the nature of electromagnetic coils all the time--we just never saw it.
And if the unit is actuated 60 times a second, allowing for the counter-electromotive force field collapses, it makes the standard household 60Hz electrical generator.
This design concept is the natural last step after recovery of secondary collapses was introduced in generator designs.
The same gain principle and results could then be achieved in capacitor systems.
The charge (up ) cycle from the secondary plate and the two discharge cycles from both the secondary and primary plates would be the output power.
The basic external switching electronics is generally the same as in the transformer designs.
These designs are in the basic nature of energy storage / transfer elements---one input allows for the utility of the one input transfer and the two storage collapses or discharges as output power ( about 300% gain )
__________________
So many incorrect statements--or for better words-->misunderstandings of how exactly electric motors and generators work.
QuoteAgain, just collect (scavenger) the C.E.M.F. of the armature and field coil"s collapses for far- over unity operation of these devices,
Since when do electric motors and/or generators have !collapsing! magnetic fields?
How is C.E.M.F in any way related to inductive kickback or flyback as it is commonly known as.
The voltage polarity of C.E.M.F or B.E.M.F is the same polarity as that of the supply voltage,and always of a lower value.
One of the biggest misconceptions is that there is a current flowing due to the C.E.M.F, that apposes the current flow from the supply. This couldnt be further from the truth--there is no opposition current flow.
Another misconception is that if we could remove the C.E.M.F altogether,we would have a much better motor,which is just wrong. What we would have is a big bathroom heater--a power hungry,good for nothing motor.
If (if) we could design an electric motor,where the C.E.M.F was equal to that of the applied voltage,then we would have a self runner-->an electric motor that would consume no power.
Normans post above is sounding all to much like the !imaginary! made up fairy tail of the lockridge device,where which both come from the bodini fan club forum.
Anyway,how do we make a self runner?,well thats easy :D
Here is what you have to do
Step 1--example-,get a 12 volt brushed DC PM motor
Step 2--apply 12 volts to said motor-->the 12 volts is your EMF value
Step 3--record max RPM while connected to said 12 volt supply,example RPM=1000
Step 4--now disconnect 12 volt supply,and place DMM set to DC volts across said motors input wires.
Step 5--now spin motor at 1000 RPM,and obtain the C.E.M.F value for that RPM-->which will probably be around 9 to 10 volts.
Step 6--now,without changing anything on the motor,modify the motor so as it produces a C.E.M.F value of 12 volts at 1000 RPM O0
Now you have a motor where the C.E.M.F is equal to the applied E.M.F.
As there is now no potential difference between the applied E.M.F and C.E.M.F,no current will flow,and the motor will self run O0
The hardest bit is modifying the motor to produce the extra C.E.M.F to a value of 12 volts,while not modifying the motor,so as it still dose 1000 RPM with the applied E.M.F of 12 volts :D
But once you have worked that out--bob's ya uncle,and you have a self runner O0
Brad
I started laughing when I got to the ASSymmetrical part. Sounds just like UFOpolitics and his grand design to make a better motor. I could probably buy a nice house or at least a cabin if I had all the money that was wasted on that project by all his followers. I wonder if that original idea is where UFO got his design from?
I love the ideas introduced by that camp. I attended the first energy conference and heard the Great Doctor L proclaim how we were wasting power in a motor because of the BEMF. In my mind my mouth dropped open. Was there really that little of an understanding about how motors worked? Just for kicks and as an example for the EF folks I designed and wired a motor with almost no BEMF. I then videoed how much more current it drew in comparison to a normal motor and how much less torque it produced. I got some praise from a small group who actually understood what I was trying to show but to most it fell on deaf ears.
As an aside if you ever want to see what happens when a really big motor like 25 horse power or so suddenly looses the BEMF all you have to do is just cause the field current to suddenly be lost. We had a large machine at work that was acting up. We had this large 25 horse DC motor running at close to normal speed. While trouble shooting we accidentally bumped the field current relay and caused the motor to loose the field current. This of course meant no BEMF and the armature current when sky high. There was a tremendous boom that shock the whole building.
Unfortunately for my partner and I this machine was right outside the maintenance office! The head of the maintenance department was a former electrician that had many years of experience working there. He came flying out of the office and saw us standing there. He asked if we were OK and then said "You lost the field current didn't you?" Then he started laughing. "I bet you won't do that again, will you?"
So I really love it when I see such ridiculous ideas being tossed about.
Carroll
Quote from: CITFTA on 2018.07.09, 17:43:49
So I really love it when I see such ridiculous ideas being tossed about.
Carroll
Why I found it interesting is, as I was having another go at the Adam's motor and the directions call for switching (pulsing) out the generator coils. The fly back on this interruption supposedly drives the unit. So I think we should keep an open mind on fly back. Of course dc motor s have fly back...what do you think causes the sparking?
I didn't hear anyone ridiculing the pulsed transformer idea?
Ron
Hi Ron,
Yes the pulsed transformer idea is a totally different animal in my opinion. I forgot to comment on that. I have seen some very strange things when pulsing transformers. I was once pulsing a normal 120 volt to 12 volt step down transformer. I was pulsing the 120 volt side with 12 volts. Short pulse widths at about 1000 hertz. It would light a 120 volt small wattage bulb on the 12 volt output side. Yet I could put a bridge rectifier on the 12 volt side and run a 12 volt dc motor on it. It almost seemed like the output voltage adjusted itself to whatever the load needed. Someday I hope to get back to working on that idea some more to see where it might lead. At least that part of the article seemed interesting to me.
Carroll
Quote from: ronee on 2018.07.09, 20:25:43
Why I found it interesting is, as I was having another go at the Adam's motor and the directions call for switching (pulsing) out the generator coils. The fly back on this interruption supposedly drives the unit. So I think we should keep an open mind on fly back. Of course dc motor s have fly back...what do you think causes the sparking?
I didn't hear anyone ridiculing the pulsed transformer idea?
Ron
DC/AC brushed motors do not have flyback.In fact,no !everyday electric motor! has flyback--only the pulsed type motor has flyback.
The sparking of the brushes is caused by two things
1-bad/soft contaminated brushes,where small pieces of the brushes are breaking away.
These small pieces of carbon become wedged between the commutator segments and the brush itself. They then heat due to now carrying all the current flowing through the motor.
You will also find that small pieces of carbon from the brushes sometimes gets stuck between the commutator segments. This causes a short between those segments/coils,and the small carbon piece will glow white hot until it simply burns out.
These will be seen as orange/red/white sparks coming from the brushes.
2-When the brushes overlap two commutator segments,those two related coils are being shorted--see pics below.
This is the blue colored sparks seen coming from the brushes in high voltage/current brushed motors.
This is also the cause of the radio interference you hear through your radio.
In order for flyback to occur,the coils within the motor must become open-which they never do in everyday electric motors.
But even then,very little will be seen in the way of flyback,due to the self induced EMF generated by the coils motion through the PMs field.
In order to get some form of flyback,you would have to chop the current being supplied to all of the coils within the motor at the same time.
For this you could use a PWM,where the protection diode and cap are removed.
Added-- a slow motion video.
He gets it wrong when he says that an arc is being sustained between the commutator segments,as it is actually small pieces of carbon from the brushes that is jammed between the segments that is causing the white hot flame-not high voltage jump as he is inferring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc4l1eooPKM
Brad
Quote from: CITFTA on 2018.07.09, 21:51:02
Hi Ron,
Yes the pulsed transformer idea is a totally different animal in my opinion. I forgot to comment on that. I have seen some very strange things when pulsing transformers. I was once pulsing a normal 120 volt to 12 volt step down transformer. I was pulsing the 120 volt side with 12 volts. Short pulse widths at about 1000 hertz. It would light a 120 volt small wattage bulb on the 12 volt output side. Yet I could put a bridge rectifier on the 12 volt side and run a 12 volt dc motor on it. It almost seemed like the output voltage adjusted itself to whatever the load needed. Someday I hope to get back to working on that idea some more to see where it might lead. At least that part of the article seemed interesting to me.
Carroll
The output voltage of the secondary coil is not only determined by turn ratio,but also rate of change of the magnetic field. The faster the rate of change,the higher the voltage value--regardless of turn ratio.
Brad
Looks like interest is starting to wane. The thread has dropped off the first page at OU dot com.
On another (but similar) topic.... Remember this website?
http://energy-shiftingparadigms.com/index.php
Yep, Ains-lie's website is up for sale, auction ends today.
well
that link goes to a blank page here
I believe Rosemary was quite.....
Sincere ....at first !
Quote from: Chet K on 2018.07.10, 19:07:59
well
that link goes to a blank page here
Try this one:
http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://energy-shiftingparadigms.com?reqp=1&reqr=
you may still be able to buy it for cheap
Quote
I believe Rosemary was quite.....
Sincere ....at first !
Then why did she have to lie so much? I've documented lies from her going all the way back to the original Quantum article. I even think that she badgered her collaborator in those early days so much that he actually killed himself.
But never mind, she's gone. Probably passed away herself, although I've not been able to find an obituary.
an anomaly ?
a statement from an open source builder
listener192
quote
This requires further investigation to understand why this is happening.
post 1351 here
https://overunity.com/17653/pierres-170w-in-1600w-out-looped-very-impressive-build-continued-moderated/new/topicseen/#new