Hi All,
Here's a curiosity from my files... Alexander Graham Bell's free energy device.
This patent is classified as H02K53/00 in the international system, "purported perpetual mobilia".
What do you think?
Fred
Quote from: Orthofield on 2022.11.19, 02:27:18
Hi All,
Here's a curiosity from my files... Alexander Graham Bell's free energy device.
This patent is classified as H02K53/00 in the international system, "purported perpetual mobilia".
What do you think?
Fred
Thank you so much Orthofield for sharing
BELL Patent No. 181553
It solves the trouble of Faraday Homopolar generator edge contact power transmission, and the current can be drawn from the shaft, and the friction is much smaller.
What's more:
The permanent magnet N S, Fig. 4, may be set in rotation in the interior of a hollow cylinder of copper, so as to obtain the full inductive action of the magnet all around; and the copper cylinders of a number of similar instruments may be united in series for quantity or intensity in an analogous manner to the arrangements shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The currents induced in the copper cylinders, and the currents induced in the rotating magnets themselves, may be thrown into the same circuit, so as to produce a maximum effect.
In this way, the copper tube for generating electricity does not have to rotate, and it is very easy to connect the wire that draws the current.
PYM
It's the principle of the Faraday disk in generator mode. There is no free energy there, and Graham Bell does not claim it, energy is needed to make the magnet rotate.
This patent is of no practical interest, the voltage being too low for long line data transmission. I have never heard of it being used by the telegraph companies of the time.
ok :)
Hi Panyuming, F6FLT,
I can't speak to the overunity properties of either Bell's device, or the homopolar generator in general. I read a lot about many years ago but have forgotten most of it now. There doesn't seem to be any particular reason why it would generate energy in excess of what it took to drive it.
My main interest is in why the patent examiners chose to put the patent in this classification. They usually know what they're doing. There are thousands of patents in this class, and most of them are obviously free energy devices-- magnet motors, motors that drive generators that then drive the motor, and the like.
As you say, F6FLT, there is no claim of 'OU' in the patent, nor is there anything anomalous about its operation. Other homopolar generators and motors are in a different class than this one. Why was this one singled out? We'll never know, I guess...
Fred
Quote from: Orthofield on 2022.11.19, 22:05:14
...
My main interest is in why the patent examiners chose to put the patent in this classification. They usually know what they're doing.
...
I really don't see what makes you say that. Moreover, sometimes the examiners have busy periods, and they work too fast to get it right.
Quote
There are thousands of patents in this class, and most of them are obviously free energy devices-- magnet motors, motors that drive generators that then drive the motor, and the like.
And not a single mistake?
Quote
As you say, F6FLT, there is no claim of 'OU' in the patent, nor is there anything anomalous about its operation. Other homopolar generators and motors are in a different class than this one. Why was this one singled out? We'll never know, I guess...
Fred
All homopolar generators work on the principle of this one. I don't even understand why it was patentable when Faraday has the anteriority of the idea since 1831!
Mine (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3738.0) would be. :)
Orthofield
QuoteHere's a curiosity from my files... Alexander Graham Bell's free energy device.
This patent is classified as H02K53/00 in the international system, "purported perpetual mobilia".
What do you think?
Good snag... that's an interesting patent.
AC
I don't think the patent is OU however there's a lot a keen mind can learn from the details of the patent. The devil is always found in the smallest of details.
For example, in the patent Fig 1 shows a standard homopolar generator setup but Fig 2 and 3 show the induced current moving inward/outward from the center.
Fig 4 then elaborates on this concept by showing counter rotating magnets about the center producing a unidirectional current in an induced copper tube.
Do you see the problem?, it all but proves there must be a "neutral point" at the center of the magnet where the magnetic field reverses it's spin/polarity.
Otherwise there would be no need to connect to the center outwards in Fig. 2, 3 or reverse the magnets rotation in Fig 4.
Many still might not understand what I just said so we can change the argument/perspective.
If as many claim a magnet is just a bunch of smaller magnets and all are unidirectional and uniform fields acting from South to North.
Then why does the patent show the center of the magnet(s) as the fulcrum from which all the forces and currents evolve?.
If there is nothing going on at the center of the magnet then why does this patent show everything proceeding from the center?.
In effect it's practically a slap in the face to all the supposed experts who claimed there is no neutral point.
Despite the fact there must be a change in spin/polarity near the center in order for a one polarity to transition to another polarity.
We could also make a rational argument asking how one condition or polarity is able to transition into another?. Does one pole just magically become
another because it sounds absurd. Normally every dipole looks like this N>>>>>>0<<<<<<S or (-)>>>>>>0<<<<<<(+).
Howard Johnson who supposedly built a working all magnet motor also depicted a split magnetic field. Below we can see the pattern is almost
identical to that suggested by Bell.
AC
A very simple experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2JFDpTE_ls
Pm
Thanks again to Orthofield for sharing! O0
Homopolar Generator as I understand it:
Bell's patent is based on the same principle as Faraday's Homopolar Generator.
Bell's patent also gives a structure: the magnet rotates and the copper tube is fixed, so that the brushes or mercury pools of Faraday Homopolar Generator are not required, and the frictionless and no spark stable direct drawn current.
Similarly, the copper disc of a Faraday Homopolar Generator can be fixed, only rotating the magnet, and a steady current can also be drawn.
But there are important differences: in Faraday Homopolar Generator, a part of the sector near the copper disc connection lead wire is the effective power generation part, and the rest of the copper disc provides almost no current to the brushes. Bell's patent, the longer the fixed copper tube, the more efficient it is to use most of the cross-section of the copper tube.
The power generation principle of Homopolar Generator, is the most basic: wire cutting magnetic field line principle.
The most important characteristic of Homopolar Generator is that there is "no Lenzi Effect".
Homopolar Generator with brushes can be simplified to a situation where only one copper wire generates electricity: the secondary magnetic field generated by the output current is perpendicular to the magnetic field of the rotating magnet, and the Lenzi effect does not affect the rotation of the magnetic field.
There are articles that say that the COP=5 of Homopolar Generator.
Some articles say that Homopolar Generator can OU without the Lenzi effect, but the experimental results do not clarify the experimental device OU.
Homopolar Generator are not OU devices. because, although Homopolar Generator do not have the Lenzi effect, the rotating magnetic field during power generation needs to provide a Lorentz force to drive the offset of electrons. The more electrons are offset, i.e. the greater the output current, the greater the Lorentz force required.
Reducing the Lenzi effect, it is possible to OU, probably from the transformer principle.
Seniors introduced an asymmetric transformer:
Figure 1
Many people experiment, it is true that there is no Lenzi effect, but there is no output either.
Can the Lenzi effect-free of Homopolar Generator be used in transformers?
Can the alternating magnetic field generated by the primary coil of the transformer be equivalent to the secondary coil cutting the magnetic field lines?
If yes, this is the key.
We wrap the secondary coil vertically around the place where the magnetic field lines of the secondary magnetic field are concentrated like a Homopolar Generator:
Figure 2
Is it possible to OU? C.C
This is only a schematic diagram and cannot be applied in practice.
Is it not possible to wind a suitable secondary coil in practice?
Thank you
Panyuming
Find some materials:
Figure 3
It seems to have come up with a suitable structure:
Figure 4
No Lenzi Transformer?
Is it possible that Lorentz forces are still needed and cannot OU?
Sorry
Quote from: panyuming on 2022.12.01, 19:00:16
...
Is it possible that Lorentz forces are still needed and cannot OU?
This is not a question of possibility, it is a fact, and the causes are obvious.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.12.01, 21:35:13
This is not a question of possibility, it is a fact, and the causes are obvious.
Thank you F6FLT！
I stop it。 :(
No OU,no study。
Panyuming
QuoteNo Lenz Transformer?
Is it possible that Lorentz forces are still needed and cannot OU?
All Lenz Law claims is that if we use a changing magnetic field to induce a current in a conductor the induced magnetic field will oppose the field which induced it. Think of it this way... changing magnetic field>>>>>>induced current<<<<<<opposing induced magnetic field.
However Lenz Law does not apply to all "generators". A solar cell can generate a direct current and Lenz Law does not apply. There is no changing magnetic field only photons causing excited electrons to jump a band gap. The solar cell also transforms the energy from the photons into the linear motion of electrons in a conductor. So we could call the solar cell a different kind of No Lenz energy transformer/generator.
It's best not to get caught up in too many different dogmas or narratives and concentrate on the primary cause of things. A moving electron is called an electron current and the only thing required to move an electron is a force. It doesn't matter how or why the force came about on the electron only that it does.
AC
Hi Allcanadian, Panyuming,
I appreciate that you've found more in this old patent than I ever saw. I don't have an eye for details, only general principles that show up in many places. I consider that if multiple researchers have found anomalies in a certain area, then it's worth looking further into it. I'm more of a historian than an inventor.
I don't consider homopolar machines to be a fertile ground for experimentation. Sure, it's possible that something has been missed, but aside from the reports from Tewari, Palma, and Trombley, thousands of experimenters have played with these devices without seeing anything unusual. The American Journal of Physics has many articles showing variations of the motor or generator as high school science projects.
As a general rule, anything that can behave as a motor as well as a generator is out of the running for me. It is showing reciprocity of action. On the other hand, established nonreciprocal processes are of great interest.
I do have some rules of thumb as to where the goodies lie--developed out of looking at perhaps more than 50K patents/projects at this point--and I'll get into that in another post.
Panyuming, I do agree that a transformer configuration has a good possibility of, not *cancelling* the Lenz effect, which will always exist, but of actively *using* it to increase output. There are a great number of transformer type 'excess energy' devices that do this, including one that was installed in the LA power system for some time. References are Cobb, Murray, Alek, Jensen, and my own FNT. Among many others now forgotten. I consider it a proven fact that reaction forces can increase output under certain conditions.
Allcanadian, your point about solar cells is a good one. Even in rotating magnet generators there are cases where Lenz effect won't exist. For instance, a rotating permanent magnet attracting or repelling piezoelectric transducers attached to ferrous masses. Because magnetic force is being transduced to electric voltage directly, such devices are classically nonreciprocal. In other words, pulsing the PZ devices is not going to counter rotate the magnet (the masses move only slightly). This is an area where patents have been issued, but it hasn't been explored enough.
Also, I believe there is good evidence that *when there is a source of natural energy present* like ambient heat and light, using passive electric fields can increase the output of solar cells, thermoelectric generators, and possibly any sort of semiconductor with a substantial electron mobility. That's my current research interest.
Fred
Quote from: panyuming on 2022.12.01, 23:34:59
Thank you F6FLT！
I stop it。 :(
No OU,no study。
Don't stop, otherwise you won't be able to do anything since all the laws of physics are incompatible with OU.
There is no OU anywhere yet, that's why we are looking for it. No one can say whether there will be OU here or there, since there is no theory of the OU except among the self-proclaimed experts of the free energy, those pretentious idiots and charlatans that you see everywhere.
The only method is to imagine new experiments that might show anomalous results or circumvent laws like Lenz's law, and test them. If it is absurd to repeat old experiments that nobody has ever succeeded in making work (because they cannot work, imho that's 99% of what we see in the field of FE), on the other hand we can always hope for revolutionary results in the fields not yet explored.
So in summary, we need to find new phenomena that are compatible with the laws of physics, for example a source of energy that is still unknown, or apparently incompatible and that will require theories to evolve or new ones to be found, but only when the facts are well established.
The laws of physics are with us, we must use them rather than stupidly fight them, as in those martial arts where we use the strength of the opponent against him.
The hardest thing is to find really new ideas, which are certainly not on youtube when you search on "free energy". Just rely on yourself.
Panyunming,
Take a look at the attached patent. This is a good place to start, in my opinion.
The Cobb Energy Conservation Circuit was installed in all the factories in an industrial district of LA under the auspices of the city government, and reduced their electric bills by an average of 15%. Since normal transformers are quite efficient, this indicates a small OU performance. Surprisingly, nobody has investigated further, although the device is of simple design.
Another good example with at least two replications is the Jensen Unidirectional Transformer. Jensen's original description as a well as a more recent replication with full power balance are attached.
In both these devices, one secondary flux reacts on another one.
Fred
Thank you, Allcanadian Orthofield F6FLT Senior Members, and thank you to everyone who followed this thread.
Thank you for your guidance.
Okay, don't stop. Thank you F6FLT for your encouragement. Indeed, it is impossible to explore free energy if we follow the existing laws.
Thanks to Orthofield for introducing three more important documents. It turns out that transformers also have surprises for people.
I used to have a very naïve idea about solar energy: solar power can be thousand times greater?
I am using the analogy of a regulated power supply, if a small load resistor is connected to the output of the regulated power supply, the regulated power supply will enter a current limit state.
The current output of the regulated power supply is obtained on a small resistor, but only a small voltage is obtained. Then the power obtained by the load resistance is also very small.
To get more load power, you should increase the voltage obtained while getting the current.
The presently solar cell seems to only get the 'light flow' of the sun, and does not use the 'light pressure' of the sun's light?
Solar researchers must be working on materials to maximize the output voltage of solar cells. But that's just studying how the voltage of the PN junction increases due to 'optical flow', which seems to have little to do with 'light pressure'.
Can the radiation energy patent given by Nikola Tesla guide the method of using 'light pressure'? C.C
Thank you.
Panyuming
I'm not sure if the Homopolar Generator principle I mentioned earlier is equivalent to transformers.
Go back and look at Homopolar Generator to envision a structure:
Figure 7
Whether a higher voltage output can be obtained?
In fact, the key is: to increase the current output, does the force to maintain the rotation speed of the magnet also increase?
I haven't done experiments with Homopolar Generator and don't know the actual situation.
Hi Panyuming,
I think I get you about voltage vs. current in a solar cell.
The losses in the cell are mostly I2R losses. I reasoned that if the output of a solar cell was 'all voltage', the output would be increased due to a reduction in thermal losses. A solar cell is a capacitor. So use sunlight to charge a series string of cells, then discharge them, based on the time constant of the string, dumping the voltage into another capacitor through an inductor (to reduce losses-- a resonant transfer circuit).
I don't know about 'thousands of times', but this should allow operation of the string at near maximum power point all the time.
Fred
Quote from: Orthofield on 2022.12.04, 03:29:44
Hi Panyuming,
I think I get you about voltage vs. current in a solar cell.
The losses in the cell are mostly I2R losses. I reasoned that if the output of a solar cell was 'all voltage', the output would be increased due to a reduction in thermal losses. A solar cell is a capacitor. So use sunlight to charge a series string of cells, then discharge them, based on the time constant of the string, dumping the voltage into another capacitor through an inductor (to reduce losses-- a resonant transfer circuit).
I don't know about 'thousands of times', but this should allow operation of the string at near maximum power point all the time.
Fred
Let's take a look at the picture of Nikola Tesla:
Figure 8
Hypothesis, S in Figure 8, which consumes 1W of power and generates a radiated current, which is received by P, causing p to T to generate 1mA.
From the use of radio receivers, we know that the ability of the radio to receive signals has nothing to do with the location of the radio. At sea, in the mountains, on high-voltage transmission lines, the radio's ability to receive signals is the same. The distance between the radio station and the radio, the reception efficiency and interference noise are not discussed. Only one principle is derived from this: no matter how high the voltage (DC) of the radio receivers to ground, it does not affect the radio to receive the broadcast signal.
Figure 8 Similarly, P's ability to receive radiation from S is independent of the DC voltage at T.
That is, P is an ideal current source.
When P begins to receive radiation from S, the voltage of T to ground begins to increase linearly.
Using modern circuit technology, it is possible to start drawing 1mA continuously and stably when the voltage VT=1000V. That is, the load gets 1W of power. If the voltage reaches 1000000V, and then start to draw 1mA, the load will get 1000W of power. It can also be said COP=1000.
I don't know where the extra energy is coming from.
But receivers are such principles.Nikola Tesla did not say what properties the radiation of S was.
Current theory says that all kinds of radiation are waves, with different wavelengths and different names. Alpha ray; X-ray; Blue light; Infrared.. And it has 'wave-particle duality'.
If S radiates mainly particles, it is easy to understand: particles reach P, are trapped by P and form an electric current.
If S radiates waves, I don't understand: waves, which are positive and negative for a while, should cancel each other out after p captures.
If there is a plate that functions as well as P in Figure 8, it receives optical radiation. We got a thousand times more solar energy than we have today.
Thanks all
Panyuming
Bell's figure 4 is not a homopolar generator and I think it doesn't exist in reality. The magnetic fields from the magnets come from electron spins that have enormous rotation rates and spinning the magnets about their axes does nothing to the magnetic field. That is why in the classical Faraday disc homopolar device it matters not whether the magnet moves with the disc. It is the spins of the electrons that create the field, not the spin of the device carrying those electrons. So I can't see it working.
Smudge
Hi Panyuming,
This is famous patent US685957.
I'm confused by your references.
This is fig. 3 in the patent, not fig. 8
There are no mentions of Watts or mA in the patent. Nor does Tesla ever specifically define any input or output characteristics in any patent, as far as I know. He does in the Colorado Springs notebooks.
The source S is described as "an arc arc emitting copiously ultraviolet rays" so Tesla is indeed defining the nature of the source--although of course he believes the source emits energetic particles. (Tesla didn't believe in Hertzian waves).
Aside from artificial sources like this, the voltage at the height of P is set by the voltage differential between the Earth and Ionosphere, about 300 V/m as I recall. So positing a million V at P is pleasant to contemplate but has no relationship to reality.
It's quite possible to draw 5 W of power from an antenna or low balloon, as Oleg Jeffimenko did, but without some active means of drawing power down from the upper ionosphere, that's very likely all that will happen. There are some patents that use cold emission or ionizing laser beams or such to create a pathway that electricity can flow down. I would hesitate to develop these because what is essentially tapping lightning for power might have big ecological consequences. We are still dealing with Tesla's choice of 60 Hz for the power grid based on the diameter of the ionospheric cavity-- it 's very close to Schumann frequencies that entrain magnetic particles in the pineal gland, and not particularly good for us, disrupting sleep patterns in particular.
Tesla himself says that "energy is generally supplied at a very slow rate to the condenser" which implies that it is collecting electrostatic energy.
In the time period when Tesla patented these devices, there were many many attempts to gather electrostatic energy from the atmosphere. Many were far more ingenious than Tesla's, but now forgotten.
I haven't found any replications of these Tesla radiant energy devices that got more output than you would expect from atmospheric electricity. Nor does Tesla indicate anything more than that.
But by all means, try it out! Maybe everyone has missed something.
I do suggest as a general rule, as F6FLT said, that inventive ideas that everyone has examined extensively (for a hundred years in this case) are the *least likely* place to find new energy sources. But it is a natural phase we all go through when we start this work-- raking through other people's projects, seeing possibilities, and getting enthusiastic about them.
Eventually though, we need to think beyond what mythologized inventors have done, and either look for unknown or forgotten projects and principles, as I've done, or come up with our own projects and principles.
BTW, Tesla was completely right about wireless power transmission. We tested it and sent 5 W several hundred meters through a single wire with no loss of power. Instituting this concept in the power system would save a lot of power now wasted as heat!
Fred
How is this motor arranged inside?
Obviously this is a collector motor with permanent magnets and a tachometer for speed loop.
It was used in reel-to-reel video recorders for direct tape advance.
Distinctive feature, low turns without reducer.
Hi Chief Kolbacict,
Probably a permanent magnet stepper motor.
Fred
Quote from: Orthofield on 2022.12.04, 16:24:08
Hi Panyuming,
This is fig. 3 in the patent, not fig. 8
There are no mentions of Watts or mA in the patent. Nor does Tesla ever specifically define any input or output characteristics in any patent, as far as I know. He does in the Colorado Springs notebooks.
The source S is described as "an arc arc emitting copiously ultraviolet rays" so Tesla is indeed defining the nature of the source--although of course he believes the source emits energetic particles. (Tesla didn't believe in Hertzian waves).
Thank you Orthofield Senior Member for your guidance and discussion.
My own expression skills are poor, and I don't know English. :-[ Without web translation, I wouldn't be able to learn and discuss here.
I'll just change some words. ;)
Oh, and the number in Figure 8 is the number of the image attachment I used in this thread.
The W, mA I said is all under the premise of assumptions. I think it's for clarity.
There are two key points I want to make: it's also like one thing.
1. The ability of the receiver to receive radiated energy has nothing to do with the receiver's voltage (DC) to ground.
2. The receiver P is approximately an ideal current source, and the output current of P has nothing to do with the DC voltage of T.
It does not say to receive static electricity from the atmosphere. It is a situation in which a clear radiation source of receiver P is directed and aligned.
The radiation source S can be an ultraviolet lamp, an X-ray tube, or even the sun, rather than an omnidirectional like a radio station.
Assuming that the power of S is also indifferent, even if it is stronger than the sun. It just means that the radiation source causes P to generate an electric current.
Assuming 1mA, it is also completely indifferent to the value, and it is also within the achievable range.
Assuming that the power of 1000W from T is also to facilitate the introduction of COP=1000, I think the output of the solar receiver may be a thousand times larger than it is now.
These assumptions are also intended to illustrate the following two points:
1. In the case of getting the same current, increasing the output voltage at the same time can get more power output. (Although it is well known, it should be specifically noted here.) ）
2. If the voltage exceeds the critical value, it enters the OU realm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
After the above explanation, I thought of another possibility.
The radiation cited by Nikola Tesla should be contained in solar radiation by its radiative properties.
The sun is a broad-spectrum radiation source, regardless of the sun's peak radiation distribution, the amount of radiation in line with the radiation spectrum that Nikola Tesla said is certainly greater than the illuminance of artificial radiation sources, especially in spacecraft. 8)
Thanks
Panyuming
Quote from: Orthofield on 2022.12.04, 20:19:59
Probably a permanent magnet stepper motor.
No, no, definitely not a stepper motor, a commutator motor with brushes.
It has only two outputs, rotates when the polarity changes in different directions.
The rotation speed depends on the applied voltage.
For many years, no one can show a drawing of the internal structure.
It does not take apart on screws. It's a pity to break.
Sorry
This thread was taken off topic by me, and went back to Homopolar Generator.
I continue the discussion, or hope that there will be an OU.
I think about the Faraday Homopolar Generator that rotates up and down the magnet, and the copper disk in the middle is fixed, such a structure.
In the absence of a leadwire, the magnet rotates, and there is a Lorentz force that drives the electrons acted on by the rotation of the magnetic field lines throughout the copper disk to move towards the edge of the copper disk.
The magnet stops spinning and the electrons return to their initial equilibrium state.
When the magnet rotates, the electrons driven towards the edge must have a force that attempts to restore equilibrium so that the copper disk has no potential difference, canceling out the Lorentz force generated by the magnet's rotation.
If the copper disc is removed, the magnet only rotates at a constant speed in the air, and all that is needed is bearing friction and air friction.
After adding the copper disk, the increased force required to maintain the original constant rotation is the Lorentz resultant force.
Without current elicitation, a Lorentz force is still required to drive the magnet to rotate.
Having said that, I understood why the typical Faraday Homopolar Generator is made into a structure where copper disks rotate with magnets. ------ copper disc has no cutting magnetic field lines, no Lorentz force, only air friction.
When the edge of the copper disc is connected to the brushes, the friction of the brushes is increased.
When current is drawn from the brushes, it is equivalent to the flow of electrons in a sector-shaped area where the brushes touch. The flow of these electrons requires the drive of the Lorentz force, which shows an increase in the driving force of the rotating magnet. Also shows not OU.
But how come the most promising and actual 'No Lenz effect' is not manifested?
How can I take advantage of the No Lenz effect?
Hi Chief Kolbacict,
Then maybe some investigation of where the motor came from, any parts numbers, or looking for similar types of devices?
Google image search?
Figuring out who the manufacturer is?
As a patent researcher I can say that there are a lot of odd motors in the patent databases that rarely or never get used-- hybrids of commutated, stepper, permanent magnet, alternating current, even homopolar. There can be endless combinations of these.
However, with a very tiny group of possible exceptions (flux switching permanent magnet motors?) they are all under unity in output.
Fred
Hi Panyuming,
I appreciate the work you are putting in to machine translating our English here. I machine translate patents all the time, and it's not easy even with machine help. The Korean database is full of interesting looking patents but the translation is very poor.
I am amused by the irony of age and experience vs youth and inexperience. The young (and by young I mean younger than 70) are full of energy and enthusiasm, but often direct their energy into dead ends, or scatter it in a hundred directions, while the old know better than to waste their energy chasing after a thousand things that have already been tried, but don't have the energy to pursue what they know is important and meaningful. Ah, if only the young would listen to the old and stop wasting their enormous energy and talent...it will never happen LOL
In some ways we are talking past each other. There's no such thing as 'no Lenz'. Action and reaction are a hard law with no loopholes-- unlike some fishy stuff in thermodynamics, it cannot be violated.
BUT a reaction force can be caused to react against another reaction force, as in the transformers I sent you. This is like martial art where what seems to be opposition is made to help instead. Or caused to change its vector of operation, as in certain permanent magnet motors, and a few generators. Or displaced in time so that the reaction happens out of synch with action, as in some devices using domain wall movement.
Now, many here will disagree with my latter statements, but as a historian of overunity reports/patents I can tell you that these methods have been used and been reported to be successful since the early 1920s-- at least-- so there's more than likely some substance to them.
At the same time, after searching my records, I find only four reports of Homopolar devices being overunity. Now five, if one counts the AG Bell patent. I will send you some of this info if you think it is worth it.
As to the Tesla radiant energy device, I think it quite possible that there is 'another energy' within sunlight that can be tapped. The Vedas and other ancient texts say that sunlight contains prana, and I believe that there is good evidence that prana, ki, chi, etc, are actually electromagnetic in nature, essentially small ball lightning particles that are absorbed by the chakras from sunlight. These particles are composed of EM knots where the E and B vector are parallel. Such parallel E and B fields are a common feature of solar electromagnetism and there's no reason to think that such particles could not be emitted by the Sun in vast quantities.
But that's all (informed) speculation on my part, and I don't know how to tap that energy...maybe you can figure it out..
Your idea of combining a current source and a much higher voltage sounds nice, but try it on your bench and see what happens. You don't need to use sunlight, just do it with a handy current source. Sure, one can take a current source and raise it well above ground potential, but when power begins to flow, that power has to come from somewhere. There's no 'virtual' power source that can power a real load.
Fred
Quote from: Orthofield on 2022.12.05, 15:42:01
Hi Chief Kolbacict,
Then maybe some investigation of where the motor came from, any parts numbers, or looking for similar types of devices?
Google image search?
Figuring out who the manufacturer is?
As a patent researcher I can say that there are a lot of odd motors in the patent databases that rarely or never get used-- hybrids of commutated, stepper, permanent magnet, alternating current, even homopolar. There can be endless combinations of these.
However, with a very tiny group of possible exceptions (flux switching permanent magnet motors?) they are all under unity in output.
Fred
This was used in Soviet reel-to-reel video recorders. In the 70s.
It must have been copied from Western VCRs in the 60s. years.
So you must know this design.
Interesting reference. In the 1970s in the West, the general public had no idea of the techno used in the USSR. I see here (https://krsk.au.ru/3000176/) that there was still such a device on sale in 2013, in new condition! :) I wonder what is the use of the two plugs that we see on one of the photos, protruding from the back of the device.
Orthofield
QuoteThere's no such thing as 'no Lenz'. Action and reaction are a hard law with no loopholes-- unlike some fishy stuff in thermodynamics, it cannot be violated.
That's not true and it depends on the context.
To be clear, Lenz Law only applies when one magnetic field induces a current and a second magnetic field which opposes the first. This is all Lenz ever claimed and to suppose it should apply in any other context is incorrect.
Many like to put words in Lenz mouth supposing the law applies to action/reaction and the conservation of energy in general which is false. Do you see the problem?, these people are applying circular reasoning determining the answer they want first then cherry picking facts to support it. On the other hand Lenz simply described the effect in question then warned everyone not to read more into it, which they obviously did anyways.
So of course there is such a thing as "no Lenz". No Lenz is any effect which doesn't use one magnetic field to induce another which opposes the first. There are literally thousands of examples of this happening in nature.
AC
Hi Allcanadian,
I assumed the context was understood to be electrical machinery. As you said before, there are all sorts of natural processes that don't involve Lenz's law.
And now that I think about it, even in electrical machinery there are exceptions, a Hall plate being a good one. Applying a voltage to the edges of a Hall plate doesn't cause a current to flow. It's nonreciprocal.
So I'll retract that statement altogether. Maybe there is such a thing as a 'no Lenz' electric motor/generator/transformer.
Fred
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.12.07, 15:23:53
I wonder what is the use of the two plugs that we see on one of the photos, protruding from the back of the device.
This is a wired remote control.
Orthofield
QuoteSo I'll retract that statement altogether. Maybe there is such a thing as a 'no Lenz' electric motor/generator/transformer.
It's cool and your statement just stood out among the others.
Early on I found it odd that many were taking Lenz Law out of context. They were applying it as a be all end all to justify action/reaction and the conservation of energy which is wrong in my opinion. Then when I actually read Emil Lenz work in his own words I realized many were making it out to be much more than it actually is. It begs the question, how can we understand Lenz if we don't know what he actually said?.
On a no Lenz motor/generator/transformer it's debatable. I have found it's never a black and white proposition more so shades of gray. For example, the Tesla hair pin circuit can produce an energy transfer which has little or no measurable magnetic field. It can light a 100 watt bulb through a wire as big as a human hair which proves it has almost no current/magnetic field. Of course Lenz Law would apply to any current producing a magnetic field however were only talking about a very small fraction of the total energy present.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.12.07, 19:11:54
Orthofield
It's cool and your statement just stood out among the others.
Early on I found it odd that many were taking Lenz Law out of context. They were applying it as a be all end all to justify action/reaction and the conservation of energy which is wrong in my opinion. Then when I actually read Emil Lenz work in his own words I realized many were making it out to be much more than it actually is. It begs the question, how can we understand Lenz if we don't know what he actually said?.
On a no Lenz motor/generator/transformer it's debatable. I have found it's never a black and white proposition more so shades of gray. For example, the Tesla hair pin circuit can produce an energy transfer which has little or no measurable magnetic field. It can light a 100 watt bulb through a wire as big as a human hair which proves it has almost no current/magnetic field. Of course Lenz Law would apply to any current producing a magnetic field however were only talking about a very small fraction of the total energy present.
AC
This statement is interesting! Do you have a link or paper for this demonstration?
Regards,
Pm
Hi Allcanadian,
I tried to find an English translation of "On the Laws which Govern the Action of a Magnet upon a Spiral" by Lenz, and was unable to find one. But if you do a search for the exact phrase on Google, you turn up a book "The Contributions of H.F.E. Lenz to Electromagnetism" and you can read the paraphrase of that author.
Lenz himself didn't see any association with a conservation of energy law, which didn't exist yet, and had a more empirical and mechanical understanding of his experiments. Helmholtz apparently used Lenz's observations as an example in his formulation of that law some fourteen years later.
I didn't see any indication that he warned others of making too much of his principle, but it's clear that he saw it as simply an empirical observation that appeared to hold true in every case he had seen. He seemed to be an admirer of Ampere's original force law, and something of a detractor of Faraday, although he replicated many of his experiments.
As an aside, he didn't seem to understand or use Faraday's concept of 'lines of force', and since I believe Ampere's original law didn't include the concept of a field, he might be called a follower of Ampere-- so today would probably be in the camp of Graneau, Parry, Moon and others who don't believe that the existence of a field is necessary to explain interactions between conductors, or between conductors and a magnet, which would be seen as a collection of circular currents.
Fred
How will such a bifilar differ from the usual one with one rod?
If you choose the number of black and red turns, so that the total inductance is zero?
Hi chief kolbacict,
I think in order for the total L to be zero, the area of both coils would also need to be equal.
As to how it would be different, I don't know.. try it and let us know...
Fred
correction to my post about Lenz..
Parry Moon, and Domina Spencer
rather than Parry, Moon, and Spencer.
Two disbelievers in field theory who wrote extensively in the 50s and 60s.
Fred
Quote from: SolarLab on 2022.12.08, 03:34:20
Electric Machine Design Flow with ANSYS, Inc. Tools
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4_7j1pOpto
Simulating an Electro-Permanent Magnet (EPM) Using Ansys Maxwell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpO6OLXCSO4
Could you simulate my coil in your ANSYS ?
I don't even try to install these programs on my computer, it's not serious.
I think as long as there is no movement near the pole pieces, a balanced coil will have the properties of a classic bifilar.
And, accordingly, as a bifilar, it should not have the Lenz effect.
partzman
QuoteThis statement is interesting! Do you have a link or paper for this demonstration?
The video's I saw seems to be missing in action however I have done all these experiments for myself.
It starts with a series of logical questions...
1)How do we light a 100w bulb through two very small wires when the wire cannot handle 100w?.
2)According to basic electrical theory it's not the voltage or power that limits the wire size it's only the current.
3)How do we limit the current in the hairpin circuit?, we make the capacitors very small and use two to block in the working circuit.
4)The capacitors will only allow a very small amount of current to pass on each cycle limiting the total current.
5)The total power in the circuit is then determined by the voltage and the frequency/wavelength.
I started with two diy 4"x4" plate capacitors made from aluminum roof flashing with 2mm plastic spacers. As Tesla said, make the capacitors very small and the inductance therefore voltage very high. The very small nF capacitors allow almost no real current to pass but the power can still be high if the voltage and frequency are high. So I started with very small capacitors then kept increasing the voltage/frequency until I hit the power level I wanted.
It's easier if we think of it this way, conceptually the real goal is to take a direct current and break it up into millions of smaller pieces alternating back and forth. It's technically the same current and only the way it's moving back and forth has changed. Hence the reason I built the capacitors first to set the amount of current then built the rest of the circuit around them to get the results I wanted.
AC
Is this related ? http://jnaudin.free.fr/avramenko/avramenk.htm
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2022.12.08, 15:02:33
...
And, accordingly, as a bifilar, it should not have the Lenz effect.
Whether bifilar or not, Lenz's law applies, the electronic coulombic influence being reciprocal.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.12.09, 20:54:27
Whether bifilar or not, Lenz's law applies, the electronic coulombic influence being reciprocal.
Probably you're right. I don't argue.
But it hasn't inductance.and field arround.that's certainly.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2022.12.10, 11:50:29
Probably you're right. I don't argue.
But it hasn't inductance.and field arround.that's certainly.
In theory you are right. In practice this is never the case because the magnetic coupling between the two wires is never 100%. If the coupling was perfect and the current in each wire was flowing in opposite directions, the inductance would be strictly zero, which is never the case.
For example, there will always be magnetic field lines around each conductor, passing through the gap in the insulator. It is enough to place a test coil connected to a scope to see the considerable leakage field produced by a bifilar coil.
Yes, nothing is perfect in real life. I agree.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2022.12.11, 17:50:09
Yes, nothing is perfect in real life. I agree.
Alas! Because a simple perfect diode would give us OU! :)
Hi F6FLT,
Yes, a diode with no voltage drop would rectify noise into useful energy.
But that sparked an idea. Thinking of Shanefield's device, attached, which does claim to rectify thermal noise by boosting its voltage before putting it through the diode, I had a lateral leap and remembered that there is such a thing as a magnetic rectifier, attached. Tesla invented the first one but I have several others in my files.
The first version of his device requires a source of DC current but a further version (fig. 6) uses two permanent magnets to provide the saturation of cores that 'sorts' currents in two directions.
Obviously such a device can have a minimal voltage drop as wires and coils can have a large cross section and minimal resistance along their length. Would such an arrangement be able to rectify thermal noise?
I wonder if some devices like the Coler Magnetstromapparat could have worked on this principle? In his case the magnet itself would have been the path of the thermal noise current.
All highly speculative of course, but it came to me in a flash when I read your post.. might as well spew it out...
Fred
Hi Fred,
The spectrum of thermal noise extends over a huge bandwidth, and as the energy density per Hz is constant, the recoverable energy at low frequencies is excessively low because only a small bandwidth is available. For example, the energy available between 100 KHz and 1 MHz will be 1/10th of that between 1 and 10 MHz, which will be 1/10th of that between 10 and 100 MHz, which will be 1/10th of that between 100 MHz and 1 GHz and so on...
No transformer exists that would have a transformation ratio sufficient to raise the noise level above the threshold voltage of a diode, and this over a sufficiently large bandwidth, say 1 GHz, to derive useful energy which will be ridiculously low anyway. Even the electromagnetic background noise available at the terminals of a broadband antenna provides considerably more energy than the thermal noise.
I don't think Coler's machine has anything to do with thermal noise at all.
As for Tesla's idea, while we no longer have the problem of the diode threshold (which is not really a problem since we can always raise AC voltages to levels in relation to which the diode threshold voltage is negligible), we do have the more serious problem of losses, since the DC current comes from an imbalance between two paths, which is far from perfect, and a reverse current will always flow in the disadvantaged branch, reducing that of the favoured branch, and therefore the total current, but contributing to losses.
I think we really need to stop looking to the past, including Tesla's patents, except for those interested in the history of technology, but that's not the point here. If the solutions were there they would have been generalized, our ancestors were not idiots, they did not retain useless things or found better ones since. Only the conspiracy theorists will tell us otherwise, but as they have never been able to produce anything useful and have no grasp of logic, their speeches can be taken as the worst kind of nonsense.
Hi F6FLT,
I can write only briefly (for me haha) about the points you raise. Bullet points:
1) I agree with you about thermal noise of a resistance at equilibrium, but I'm interested in the situation where the resistance is heated. And your analysis assumes that the 'receiver' of noise energy is passive. But projects such as the Black Hole Antenna of Sutton, and the artificial low noise resistors of Forward, and the negative feedback circuit of Black, suggest that in some situations an active 'antenna' for noise can pull in more energy than it takes to attract it.
2) Your assertion that no transformer exists sufficient to raise the noise threshold above the drop of a diode goes against the evidence of the Shanefield patent. Admittedly it has not been tested here, but Shanefield was head of the EE department of Rutgers when he invented it, so there is at least a chance that it might work. I admit that this is an ad hominem argument, but so often skeptics will invoke some illustrious expert to say why something won't work, that I feel justified in using one to say why something MIGHT work :-)
3) I have no idea how Coler's device worked, but I've been witness to two replication attempts and each got small outputs that continued over time, so I think there is something to the device. It also has a higher level of documentation than most such projects.
4) In general I agree with you about looking to the past-- if by the past you mean the mythology of the 'free energy movement'. It's very atypical of me to bring up Tesla, or for that matter Coler. I brought up Tesla's magnetic rectifier patent because it is less well known.
5) Conspiracy theories are a waste of time. Sure, there are some hidden actors and organizations, but they are not concerned about the 'free energy' subculture. Nor do they have any reason to be.
6) But your statement that 'if the solutions were there [in the past], they would be known' is completely mistaken. The idea that our ancestors were 'not idiots' and thus would have always made the right choices as to what to develop takes it for granted that human nature was somehow different in the past, that in the past people were rational actors who always made the right decisions about what to develop and what not to. The idea that people are rational actors is quite irrational! The belief that technical development HAD to proceed along the lines it has is an article of faith, somewhat similar to the Communist belief in the inexorable path of the dialectic, or the Capitalist belief in the invisible hand of the market, or the Christian belief in the return of Christ. The historical record simply proves this wrong. Cultures, and scientific cultures, determine what will be developed and what will be ignored. I see examples of this in patents all the time, and I saw the process at close range in various companies I was in, where quite often the projects chosen were fraudulent or ill conceived while substantial projects were underfunded or ignored because they weren't flashy or promised instant gold.
7) As a result I spend my time trawling patent databases, and old scientific papers, and mostly ignoring what everyone else cares about, and this has resulted in quite a pile of interesting material. At least interesting to me!
Fred
Orthofield
Quote2) Your assertion that no transformer exists sufficient to raise the noise threshold above the drop of a diode goes against the evidence of the Shanefield patent. Admittedly it has not been tested here, but Shanefield was head of the EE department of Rutgers when he invented it, so there is at least a chance that it might work. I admit that this is an ad hominem argument, but so often skeptics will invoke some illustrious expert to say why something won't work, that I feel justified in using one to say why something MIGHT work :-)
Zero threshold diodes as EPAD mosfets which have basically no voltage drop are already old technology.
https://aldinc.com/ald_zerothresholdmosfet.php
QuoteThe Quad/Dual N-Channel Matched Pair Zero Threshold MOSFETs are matched at the factory using ALD's exclusive EPAD® CMOS technology to achieve the industry's lowest threshold voltage of 0.0V with an exceptional range of variation from 0.01V to -0.01V and an offset voltage of just 2mV.
An inductor/transformer has little to do with the threshold more so the conduction devices attached to it. I was building and testing zero threshold devices almost a decade ago until Advanced Linear Devices beat me to it. In my opinion the zero threshold concept should have been on the mind of any credible researcher concerned with efficiency. It's an obvious bottleneck in every circuit just waiting for a solution.
The technology isn't difficult and zero threshold simply means a gate bias which automatically anticipates conduction. The gate is always at zero thus anything over zero must trigger conduction through an ultra low resistance path. So it should have been obvious pre-charging the gate and holding/regulating said pre-charge was the only limitation. As is often the case most are chasing smoke and mirrors trying to solve things which don't need solving because there not the real problem.
The notion of a free energy device is similar. Were already swimming in a sea of EM and high energy particles so energy is not the problem. Understanding the form of energy in question and how to concentrate it and/or transform it efficiently is the problem.
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.12.12, 21:51:08
Orthofield
Zero threshold diodes as EPAD mosfets which have basically no voltage drop are already old technology.
https://aldinc.com/ald_zerothresholdmosfet.php
...
Except that EPAD mosfets are not diodes. Apparently you can't read a datasheet or you haven't tried. Otherwise you would have understood that there is no possibility to rectify the voltage from thermal noise with such a technology, see for example the ALD110800A datasheet.
And even if we had real diodes with zero threshold, which these MOFETs are not, the rectification of the noise would be impossible for the reason that we would also need a diode without internal thermal noise. This would be possible with a diode at absolute zero and the resistance at room temperature, but then it is a conventional circuit since it involves a temperature difference.
Hi Allcanadian,
Thanks for mentioning these EPAD Mosfets. I wasn't aware of them. Here's a page where they are used as a replacement for diodes in a crystal radio set...
http://www.creative-science.org.uk/epadmosfets.html
I've only just begun to read about them so can't comment more.
It's possible to create a circuit with no internal noise. However, the circuits are not passive. Harold Black did this with negative feedback and hybrid coils, and later Robert Forward patented several devices to do this using FETs and other transistors. One version is attached.
Thermal electrical noise WILL flow out of a resistor into one of these circuits, and the resistor will get colder. Black reported this in 1940. Refer to pg. 9 of the attached patent.
The only issue is whether the energy needed to power the circuit is more or less than the energy that can be extracted from the heated resistor. This has not been determined, and cannot be asserted one way or the other until an experiment has been done.
Fred
Orthofield
QuoteThanks for mentioning these EPAD Mosfets. I wasn't aware of them. Here's a page where they are used as a replacement for diodes in a crystal radio set...
They can act as a synchronous rectifier which emulates a diode which is what zero threshold devices are all about. So it can act exactly like a diode without all the normal defects inherent in them. Normally diodes have poor efficiency and are completely outdated in my opinion.
I worked in this field of tech for around 6 months building many zero threshold devices including a unique grid tie inverter. I'm still a little irritated ALD beat me to market, lol.
QuoteIt's possible to create a circuit with no internal noise. However, the circuits are not passive. Harold Black did this with negative feedback and hybrid coils, and later Robert Forward patented several devices to do this using FETs and other transistors. One version is attached.
Thermal electrical noise WILL flow out of a resistor into one of these circuits, and the resistor will get colder. Black reported this in 1940. Refer to pg. 9 of the attached patent.
Yes, there are so many technologies with so many opportunities it's difficult to know which direction to go. Conceptually I am biased against any thermal/heat related technology. As Viktor Schauberger implied, heat is the lowest form of energy utilized by the lowest level of thinkers. As such I abandoned thermodynamics years ago and concentrated on electrodynamics. It follows the notion that if we want to make real progress we should not be listening to or following others still stuck in the past.
AC
@Fred
From what I've read it's simply a MOSFET whose gap is adjusted so that at Vgs=0, Rds is ON (but still Rds remains large), that it works with low voltage, and that the input capacitance is low. An oscillator has been made that operates at 20 mV.
If Vgs varies slightly around zero, then the drain/source junction behaves as a resistor proportional to Vgs (so no kink effect), which is the case with the thermal noise signal. For the rest it behaves like a normal MOSFET.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.12.13, 18:16:58
Yes, there are so many technologies with so many opportunities it's difficult to know which direction to go. Conceptually I am biased against any thermal/heat related technology. As Viktor Schauberger implied, heat is the lowest form of energy utilized by the lowest level of thinkers. As such I abandoned thermodynamics years ago and concentrated on electrodynamics. It follows the notion that if we want to make real progress we should not be listening to or following others still stuck in the past.
AC
Yes, there are many directions and of course everyone will have their favorite directions. I ignored heat for a long time, it just didn't seem interesting compared to motors/generators/transformers-- but then I found a patent which generated excess heat from Triacs, and got interested in the subject. The Bice patent was tested with calorimetry in a company lab, and did have gain. That led me to several finds in the thermoelectric literature which convinced me we don't really understand the relationship between heat (phonons in metal) and electrons.
As to those stuck in the past-- I see both conventional and unconventional researchers selectively looking at the past (for instance Schauberger on one side, and Helmholz on the other) while ignoring huge piles of additional projects-- on both sides. Most of what has been done is just not known on either side. Everyone just goes to their favorite sources. And this isn't surprising, because the volume of information available is just too much to comprehend. And for me to say that is saying something, because I remember pretty much everything I ever looked at--something of an idiot savant in those terms...
Fred
Is F6FLT an amateur radio call sign? :)
@Chief
Yes it's mine :)
@Fred
What always amazes me about these old patents is that no follow-up has been given to an invention that seems revolutionary.
If commercially a heater was given for "2 KW of heat for only 1.5 KW of power supply", I'm sure it would be successful. And don't tell me that this is because of a "dogma" of energy conservation, when we see much worse in commercial advertisements, and here a simple measurement by a certification body would show that this is true.
If this was not done, would it not be that the inventor's interpretation of his measurements was not correct?
Orthofield
QuoteYes, there are many directions and of course everyone will have their favorite directions. I ignored heat for a long time, it just didn't seem interesting compared to motors/generators/transformers-- but then I found a patent which generated excess heat from Triacs, and got interested in the subject. The Bice patent was tested with calorimetry in a company lab, and did have gain. That led me to several finds in the thermoelectric literature which convinced me we don't really understand the relationship between heat (phonons in metal) and electrons.
I know the feeling and I should have said I would like to think I abandoned thermodynamics. In the real world we still have to heat our house, domestic water and any number of other things.
QuoteAs to those stuck in the past-- I see both conventional and unconventional researchers selectively looking at the past (for instance Schauberger on one side, and Helmholz on the other) while ignoring huge piles of additional projects-- on both sides. Most of what has been done is just not known on either side. Everyone just goes to their favorite sources. And this isn't surprising, because the volume of information available is just too much to comprehend. And for me to say that is saying something, because I remember pretty much everything I ever looked at--something of an idiot savant in those terms...
That is interesting and I also have a near photographic memory with respect to science and technology. I'm not sure how a person could succeed without one because of the sheer magnitude of information which needs to be covered and retained. I have found free energy is basically like a large game of connect the dots between technologies and inventors. Most inventors were using the same process on different levels in different ways.
AC
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.12.15, 09:57:19
@Fred
What always amazes me about these old patents is that no follow-up has been given to an invention that seems revolutionary.
If commercially a heater was given for "2 KW of heat for only 1.5 KW of power supply", I'm sure it would be successful. And don't tell me that this is because of a "dogma" of energy conservation, when we see much worse in commercial advertisements, and here a simple measurement by a certification body would show that this is true.
If this was not done, would it not be that the inventor's interpretation of his measurements was not correct?
Yes, it is surprising, isn't it? In this case the device was replicated and tested with professional calorimetric gear and the results were as the inventor said-- although the gain was more like 8% over unity as I recall.
The decision was made by those on high not to pursue the technology. There were several projects competing for funding at that time, and the CEO went for a glamorous 'free energy generator' which is now patented (I worked on the patent), but has not gone anywhere. The company no longer exists. Far from being the dogma of energy conservation, what killed this project was the confluence of the bright shiny object, the easily distracted and non technical CEO, and the charismatic inventor who's going to revolutionize society and make the CEO a billion bucks.
In all three companies I was involved in, the myths of the glamorous free energy machine and the lone wolf genius effectively killed the development of genuine technologies. If we in the lab had something with a COP of 1.02, the CEO would instead spend all the money on a Russian anti-gravity machine (true story).
In the larger sense, unless the inventor works under the aegis of a corporation, or has a lot of money to do their own development, it's not likely that anyone would notice their invention in the sea of data. It takes enormous drive and self-marketing ability to get funding in a world of (often meaningless but profitable) competing inventions.
And of course, if the inventor claims some sort of unconventional effect or unusual performance, it will often stall in the patent office. And even when companies actively search for patents to develop or buy (not often) they hire professionals to do the searching, and the searches are strictly focused on very specific subclasses of patents. My searches cover many classes--for instance, all solar energy converters-- and work laterally across seemingly unrelated lines of technology, looking for anomalies and general principles. Otherwise things like Bice would never see the light of day. They are forgotten by everyone except the inventor from the moment the patent is filed.
There are two devices that have documented anomalous performance which have broken through and had some minor commercial success. The Griggs Hydrosonic Pump, now renamed the Shockwave Reactor, and the Cobb Energy Trimmer previously mentioned.
https://www.hydrodynamics.com/products/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn_NhUq3k-I
(the video is long and tedious, but toward the end shows the inventor preparing to install the Energy Trimmer in an LA public library).
Although both have been tested and shown to have energy gains not fully accounted for, neither was marketed as a 'free energy device', which of course is the kiss of death for commercial development.
Fred
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2022.12.15, 10:23:07
I know the feeling and I should have said I would like to think I abandoned thermodynamics. In the real world we still have to heat our house, domestic water and any number of other things.
That is interesting and I also have a near photographic memory with respect to science and technology. I'm not sure how a person could succeed without one because of the sheer magnitude of information which needs to be covered and retained. I have found free energy is basically like a large game of connect the dots between technologies and inventors. Most inventors were using the same process on different levels in different ways.
AC
Yes, and losses in electrical machines are mostly about heat, so you are going to encounter heat whether you want to or not. (On the back burner, I think there may be methods of eliminating thermal losses in motors, generators, and transformers that are similar to adiabatic charging of capacitors.)
I think it's possible to be very effective as an inventor without knowing so many different fields. It only takes one good idea, and determination to drill into that idea until it works or doesn't work. It's just as easy to let the vast sea of information be a distraction. Each have their gifts.
Fred
What do you will say about that ?
rummaged in my old archives. I have found it... :-\
@Fred
A gain of "like 8% over unity" or a COP of 1.02 are very low. "8%" is much when talking about electrical voltage, but in thermodynamic measurements it is common.
Therefore, if the margin of error of the measurements has not been carefully evaluated, one cannot conclude anything. In all the cases I have seen so far, the margin of uncertainty of the measurements is never specified and probably never evaluated. I understand that companies do not persist when an apparent anomaly remains within the likely measurement uncertainty range.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2022.12.15, 19:08:17
What do you will say about that ?
...
This paper is the usual nonsense of those who do not understand anything about electromagnetism, talk about it anyway because of their Dunning-Kruger syndrome, and of course are unable to provide achievements that would work according to their raving.
I am only responding to "energy generation by it's own application", the others being equally stupid but my time is not infinite.
Tesla's setup is clever, because the current in the helical wire will create a magnetic field which, if the direction of the helix is right, will add to the field of the magnet.
The foolishness is to claim that this would provide energy. In a Faraday disc, it is not the magnetic field that provides the energy. In the generator version, it is the mechanical force exerting torque on the disc, and in the motor version, the electric current.
If the magnet or magnetic field is stronger, you will get the same effect at slower speeds but same energy provided, or a greater effect at the same speed but only if you expend more energy.
And while the idea of increasing the magnetic field may have been useful in Tesla's day, it is no longer useful today for two reasons. Firstly, permanent magnets are much more powerful. Secondly, the Faraday disc is concerned with very low voltages but high currents. If you increase the length of the conductor by putting a spiral instead of the disc, the resistance becomes considerably higher and the interest of this type of generator/motor is lost.
Because it must also be understood that the spiral coil do not increase the voltage. If it is true that the conductor is longer, on the other hand, as it no longer crosses the magnetic field at right angle because of the spiral, the component of the Lorentz force along the conductor on each electron is weaker (to be multiplied by the cosine of the angle of the conductor with respect to the radius of the disc). The voltage therefore remains the same.
I consider this nonsense about Tesla's inventions to be an insult to his memory.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2022.12.16, 10:02:21
@Fred
A gain of "like 8% over unity" or a COP of 1.02 are very low. "8%" is much when talking about electrical voltage, but in thermodynamic measurements it is common.
Therefore, if the margin of error of the measurements has not been carefully evaluated, one cannot conclude anything. In all the cases I have seen so far, the margin of uncertainty of the measurements is never specified and probably never evaluated. I understand that companies do not persist when an apparent anomaly remains within the likely measurement uncertainty range.
Hi F6FLT,
I should have said a COP of 1.08-- my arithmetic error. The paper is not in my hands and was a decade ago. And no, one can't conclude anything.
But it was a far better bet than the goofy project that was chosen instead!
In general if an electrical device shows a conversion efficiency of something like COP .95 or more at standard temperature, then I would suspect an 'excess energy' principle, or at least some unusual heat conservation.
And nothing wrong with near 100% efficient! Why is that not a worthy goal? And it seems quite possible in motors, generators, transformers, transmission lines, and direct energy converters. In other words, the entire energy structure of our societies.
My bet is that the amateur geniuses here, in aiming for the stars (overunity) will reach the moon (near-unity).
Even that isn't considered possible in conventional circles, which have set the bar WAY too low.
And if someone finds real overunity (or in reality a new energy source) then great! All the better!
Fred
@Fred,
Even a COP of 1.08 is within the margin of uncertainty of the measurements, except for very large measurement precautions that are rarely seen, and calculation of the margin of error.
If people measured their resistances, inductances, capacitances, voltages and currents with accurate and well-calibrated instruments, they would be surprised. And I'm not even talking about the more subtle defects, such as induced current in a measuring loop.
I would put the bar for a promising COP rather between 1.3 and 1.5.
Hi F6FLT,
You are of course correct if one is interested in "proving overunity" (for some reason, which escapes me!), but if you are looking at pointers as to what projects to choose from to improve energy efficiency, then even results well below unity can be taken into consideration, if a total power balance is done, and accurately.
Here is an example. This is a test of the Cobb energy trimmer from an extremely able EE I dug up from my files the other day. (This was a device that was installed commercially in the LA area and had been authenticated at Edison Electric, the power company there. You could get energy credits from LA for installing it.) You can see that the useful COP is 1.055, but a total accounting of losses shows that the 'absolute COP' is 1.151.
Other tests without the third coil that makes it work showed the appropriate COP of below unity for both useful and absolute numbers.
Now, these numbers are not going to make the papers, but they point to an effect that is clearly there, easily achievable, and subject to possible improvement (I have some ideas on that). It runs at mains frequency with an unsaturated core--there's no high voltage/high frequency/parametric hocus pocus.
In my opinion, this sort of evidence points strongly to something that is worth pursuing--over mythologies with missing information, or fiddling that never gets more than conventional wisdom suggests.
Fred
@Fred,
I understand your point of view. However, one does not have to prove the OU to others any more than to oneself.
It happened to me several times to see OU in one of my setups, and it is by looking closer that I understood the problem of measurement.
With a COP of only 1.05, I think you have to assume that the error is in the measurement, because that is what is most likely. It's not a question of giving up, but of proving to yourself that it's really 1.05.