Have a look guys, in particular the second "looping" video.
I can't explain it; it looks authentic. Has he done it? (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg284131#msg284131)
.99
Nice video, and build! Looks authentic as all videos could look authentic, if done properly.
I don't want to alert peoples in that early stage, but we all know it could be faked very easily.
Anyway if that works like that, it would change everything what we know about magnetism, but my guess that's not gonna happen just now...
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.05.06, 12:29:02
Have a look guys, in particular the second "looping" video.
I can't explain it; it looks authentic. Has he done it? (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg284131#msg284131)
.99
Romerouk works with his hands and brains and is sincere about acknowledging it's Bill Muller's concept and it works - none of the high drama apparent in a certain thread where the circuit is so much simpler consisting of a few components and the two combatants get at each other's throats. Build the damn thing and proof it works or doesn't work. Don't need a rocket scientist to put a few discreet components together. learn from Romerouk.
cheers
chrisC
Some drawings kindly provided by GL (except where noted).
.99
Well we've got a big buzz going on this one. Just for fun I am reading through the thread and will comment later.
On first inspection, it all checks out to me.
I can't see any problems with it at all, and I don't get the impression he is faking it.
He has apparently run it for a number of hours now, self-powered. I wonder if that was with the bulb load?
:)
.99
I'm still working on the first clip, the battery power vs. the generator power. I think I may have found a key to explaining this. Still working on it.
Okay I'll take a break from the thread.
The first question that comes to my mind is about the analog voltage and current meters. I have limited experience with analog meters. I am wondering if they are AC or DC meters, you can't tell from the markings. I suspect that either type of meter might act like a peak detector for the voltage/current waveforms, and that would exaggerate the output power measurement.
The motor is set up with nine stator coils and eight rotor magnets. Two of the stator coils are drive coils and seven are pick-up coils.
For a minute, let's assume that you have nine pick-up coils. In that case as the rotor turns you have "poly-phase" full-wave rectification (akin to mains power three-phase rectification). At any given time one of the pick-up coils is generating the most EMF and drives the output. Which pick-up coil drives the output fires off in a round-robin pattern like the firing of the cylinders in a piston engine.
Getting back to the real setup, there is a major difference. There are seven pick-up coils and not nine. That means that two out of nine "cylinders" "don't fire" as the generator runs. It's like the output voltage waveform (and current waveform for a resistive load) has two "missing teeth."
Another issue that would have to be checked on the scope, is how much of a "dead band" is there between voltage peaks. When you look at the geometry of the setup and pretend for a second that the rotor and stator have nine pick up coils and nine magnets (i.e.; eliminate the poly-phase rectification) then you can see that there is a significant "dead band" between magnet passes where the AC voltage output would be very low.
I am suspecting that the analog meters can't really detect the "missing teeth" and the "dead bands" in the waveforms and are therefore acting like peak detectors instead of giving you the true average voltage.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that my hypothesis is correct. Keeping it really simple let's try to make a derating factor that we can apply to the voltage and current measurements.
The "missing teeth" derating factor = (7/9) = 0.78
For the "dead band" derating factor, let's make a conservative guess of 0.85.
Therefore the total derating factor = 0.78 * 0.85 = 0.66
Let's look at the numbers:
QuoteThe setup is not fully completed but these are the results so far:
in 12.50v * 0.94a = 11.75W
out 11.8v * 1.8a = 21.24W
11.8 V * 0.66 = 7.79 V
1.8 A * 0.66 = 1.12 A
7.79 V * 1.12 A = 8.72 Watts
This is the output power from the generator after applying a derating factor to the voltage and current measurements from the analog meters.
There is an easy way to make an accurate generator power output measurement that Romerouk could do if he has a true-RMS digital multimeter.
We are going to assume that Romero can determine the resistance of his light bulb filament when illuminated with a fair degree of accuracy. This might require doing a separate simple experiment which we won't discuss now.
Assuming this is true then using a true-RMS multimeter all that he has to do is calculate Vrms-squared/Filament_resistance to make a very accurate generator output power measurement.
Even easier, drop the light bulb all together and use a 10-watt power resistor that has the same approximate resistance of the light bulb filament.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.07, 03:18:16
Okay I'll take a break from the thread.
The first question that comes to my mind is about the analog voltage and current meters. I have limited experience with analog meters. I am wondering if they are AC or DC meters, you can't tell from the markings. I suspect that either type of meter might act like a peak detector for the voltage/current waveforms, and that would exaggerate the output power measurement.
The motor is set up with nine stator coils and eight rotor magnets. Two of the stator coils are drive coils and seven are pick-up coils.
For a minute, let's assume that you have nine pick-up coils. In that case as the rotor turns you have "poly-phase" full-wave rectification (akin to mains power three-phase rectification). At any given time one of the pick-up coils is generating the most EMF and drives the output. Which pick-up coil drives the output fires off in a round-robin pattern like the firing of the cylinders in a piston engine.
Getting back to the real setup, there is a major difference. There are seven pick-up coils and not nine. That means that two out of nine "cylinders" "don't fire" as the generator runs. It's like the output voltage waveform (and current waveform for a resistive load) has two "missing teeth."
Another issue that would have to be checked on the scope, is how much of a "dead band" is there between voltage peaks. When you look at the geometry of the setup and pretend for a second that the rotor and stator have nine pick up coils and nine magnets (i.e.; eliminate the poly-phase rectification) then you can see that there is a significant "dead band" between magnet passes where the AC voltage output would be very low.
I am suspecting that the analog multimeters can't really detect the "missing teeth" and the "dead bands" in the waveforms and are therefore acting like peak detectors instead of giving you the true average voltage.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that my hypothesis is correct. Keeping it really simple let's try to make a derating factor that we can apply to the voltage and current measurements.
The "missing teeth" derating factor = (7/9) = 0.78
For the "dead band" derating factor, let's make a conservative guess of 0.85.
Therefore the total derating factor = 0.78 * 0.85 = 0.66
Let's look at the numbers:
11.8 V * 0.66 = 7.79 V
1.8 A * 0.66 = 1.12 A
7.79 V * 1.12 A = 8.72 Watts
This is the output power from the generator after applying a derating factor to the voltage and current measurements from the analog meters.
There is an easy way to make an accurate generator power output measurement that Romerouk could do if he has a true-RMS digital multimeter.
We are going to assume that Romero can determine the resistance of his light bulb filament when illuminated with a fair degree of accuracy. This might require doing a separate simple experiment which we won't discuss now.
Assuming this is true then using a true-RMS multimeter all that he has to do is calculate Vrms-squared/Filament_resistance to make a very accurate generator output power measurement.
Even easier, drop the light bulb all together and use a 10-watt power resistor that has the same approximate resistance of the light bulb filament.
MileHigh
@MileHigh
Before you run your theories and numbers, maybe it will be better to sit tight and wait for Romerouk to report how long he has run his looped dynamo (last report was 3.5 hours). Nobody on this forum has even come close despite several highly learned people and theoreticians and professors. Good idea?
cheers
chrisC
As far as the self-running goes, I will defer commenting and instead let's let this play out for a another week or so. For people on tight budgets, I would advise them to hold off on replicating for a while yet.
Quote from: chrisC on 2011.05.07, 04:04:36
@MileHigh
Before you run your theories and numbers, maybe it will be better to sit tight and wait for Romerouk to report how long he has run his looped dynamo (last report was 3.5 hours). Nobody on this forum has even come close despite several highly learned people and theoreticians and professors. Good idea?
cheers
chrisC
Chris:
There is a flaw in the logic of your statement. This is a generic comment because I have seen the issue come up hundreds of times.
He doesn't need to see how long it will run. If it can run for two minutes, then it should be able to run for months and months until the bearings wear out.
If the setup is over unity then it should run "forever." His self-runner video, if true, is already proof.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.07, 04:11:19
Chris:
There is a flaw in the logic of your statement. This is a generic comment because I have seen the issue come up hundreds of times.
He doesn't need to see how long it will run. If it can run for two minutes, then it should be able to run for months and months until the bearings wear out.
If the setup is over unity then it should run "forever." His self-runner video, if true, is already proof.
MileHigh
MH:
I'm glad we agree. Other than being a fraud (which I do NOT believe), this is the best evidence we've seen of a O.U experimentation. Let's hope people are able to replicate it. He is no MyLow!
cheers
chrisC
Chris:
If I can suggest a focus on the technical end of things, why not take one small step at a time.
I suggested verifying the output power measurement using a true-RMS multimeter only - one single measurement. For sure, when the motor is running at it's normal "zippy" speed, the voltage waveform is in the "very sweet spot" for the true-RMS multimeter and you will get a very accurate true-RMS voltage measurement. You can then calculate the output power measurement from the generator section as per his first clip. You are using digital technology to double-check the analog measurements.
If the thread on OU goes overboard and everybody jumps into trying to build self-runners right away without considering double-checking the generator output power measurement it would be a mistake.
Again, starting off with a baby step would be a very wise thing to do.
MileHigh
Just speculating about the nature of analog meters. The needle/spring movement is a mechanical system. It's yet another kind of tank circuit when you think about it. The needle has mass and rotational inertia. The spring applies torque against the movement of the needle and tries to push it down. Then you can see how a lot of analog meter movements have extra mechanical damping added and the needle moves quite slowly.
If you are pulsing current through the needle armature movement, I think that the needle can be kept at an artificially high reading. It's because the mechanical damping in the meter movement itself prevents the needle from deflecting back down before the next pulse comes along. You end up with the needle "riding the top of the wave."
Here is another way to put it: For a certain pulse frequency range, the rise-time of the analog meter movement is much shorter than the fall-time. The rise-time is determined by how much electrical juice pushes the needle to the right. The fall-time is determined by the extra mechanical damping built into the meter movement. This represents an asymmetry in the way the needle deflects to the right vs. the way it deflects to the left. That's sort of like a "mechanical diode" and can keep the needle riding the peaks.
However, when the pulse frequency increases past a certain point, then the rotational inertia of the needle itself is comparable to the damping and the needle starts to indicate the average voltage.
Then to carry the thought experiment even further, eventually the pulse frequency can get too high, and go beyond the electrical and mechanical bandwidth of the meter, and the needle will drop to zero.
One final thing and Poynt has already mentioned this:
QuoteQuote
The setup is not fully completed but these are the results so far:
in 12.50v * 0.94a = 11.75W
out 11.8v * 1.8a = 21.24W
11.8 V * 0.66 = 7.79 V
1.8 A * 0.66 = 1.12 A
7.79 V * 1.12 A = 8.72 Watts
The original calculation highlighted in bold has a basic issue with respect to power measurement: Even if you were to assume that these are correct average readings for the voltage and the current of the generator output,
you can't multiply average current by average voltage for a non-DC waveform and calculate the output wattage.This is a very important issue, a fundamental basic about measuring the power in an AC waveform. You need to know the instantaneous voltage and current and multiply them together and then take the average from that.
That's the reason I suggested using a true-RMS multimeter. The "RMS" does that for you.
So unfortunately, Romerouk's generator output power measurement in his first clip is fundamentally flawed. He has to use a true-RMS multimeter to get a valid output power measurement.
MileHigh
Quote
...
If you are pulsing current through the needle armature movement, I think that the needle can be kept at an artificially high reading. It's because the mechanical damping in the meter movement itself prevents the needle from deflecting back down before the next pulse comes along.
Hi,
I agree with you but this should be clarified:
Quote
You end up with the needle "riding the top of the wave".
A moving coil meter responds to the average current value, it always does. No peak value, no need for considering shorter or longer rise or fall times: the mechanical mass of the moving coil and the needle attached (together with some balancing weigths) insure the average response.
I believe that the looping video is not a fake and the output power must be higher more than twice the input power, and if we accept this, then the output current and voltage measurements MUST BE very close to reality.
The anomaly to be explained is why the input current changes only a very little when the load is applied to the output? (while the heavyness of the load expressed in dissipated power is comparable and even exceeds the input power, consider rotor mass and the DC-DC converter inherent 80-85% efficiency).
Respectfully, Gyula
PS Quote from this link: http://vk1od.net/measurement/SquareWave/THD.htm
A simple form of AC voltmeter circuit is a rectifier, a resistor and a d'Arsonval (moving coil) microammeter. The moving coil meter deflection (or response) is proportional to the average current flowing through the meter coil, so in this case it is proportional to average of the rectified AC signal.
A few observations.
First i don't like seeing a mains power plug unit on the ground running up to the table top which looks to be plugged in, if the motor starts from a lead acid battery then why would this even be here.
The other thing is these tables generally have a hole in the middle for an umbrella to drop into, also what are those big support columns under the table, normally these cheap plastic tables have 4 flimsy legs around the outside periphery.
Hi Peter and all!
I tried my best to get a look at the plastic cap which normally fills in the umbrella hole on these garden tables. The cap looks like its in its hole and solid. It looks from this angle as if there is a black wire going under the edge of the cap but in reality I think it goes to a coil there and the cap would have to be raised or removed that cable to fit down the side between the hole and the edge of the cap?
Regards,
David.
Hello David
Nice snap shot, certainly looks in place O0
Oh well, I just got Stefan attention. No more fast posting for me on OU.com... C.C
Well Ladies and Gentlemen:
First and foremost, I have pointed out that Romero's generator output power measurement is no good. We are talking about the basic fundamentals of how to measure the output power when there is an arbitrary AC waveform going into what we can consider to be an almost purely resistive load. I also indicated the right way to measure the output power and I assume that most experimenters these days have true-RMS digital multimeters.
Five of you posted after me and I assume that all of you read my comments yet none of you has acknowledged that this is an issue. This is a recurring problem with the experimenters and commenters on the free energy forums. Jumping ahead and ignoring technical issues because you are enthusiastic about the next steps in the replication.
So I ask you, what if Romero does the proper power measurement with a true-RMS digital multimeter and it turns out the first clip in his Muller replication shows under unity. What then?
What I am saying has to do with basic measurement fundamentals and the comments simply can't be ignored. If Romero and future replicators never do this measurement properly for the battery output power out vs. the generator output power into the light bulb load then it's indicative of how the whole free energy community has a problem doing their due diligence and making their measurements properly.
MileHigh
Sorry MH i was under the impression he had looped the output to the input and it was free running, you are getting tangled up with questions about facts we don't know and are not in a position to ask, looping the output to the input and having it run for a time tells me a lot more than you attempting to show us we don't have enough information to calculate it's running, for now anyway.
Power measurement debates can go on for months with regard to the values that could be shown.
Because it appears to free run, i decided to try and see if there were any external power sources near by, and there was.
I am not saying your points are invalid, just at this point i like to look over something, find any major holes and decide whether it's worth spending any time on.
Gyula:
QuoteA moving coil meter responds to the average current value, it always does. No peak value, no need for considering shorter or longer rise or fall times: the mechanical mass of the moving coil and the needle attached (together with some balancing weigths) insure the average response.
Here is the proposition: Supposing that you have nine pick-up coils. Each time a magnet passes the given pick-up coil that is currently driving the output with the highest EMF generated you get two rectified pules, a "double hump" in the output EMF.
So when the rotor turns with nine pick-up coils you get 18 voltage pulses.
Now in reality there are only seven pick-up coils. That means the output waveform consists of 14 voltage pulses and four "missing" pulses. The missing pulses are effectively drop-outs in the output voltage waveform.
I am speculating that the mechanical damping in the movement of the analog meter will prevent the analog meter from factoring in the drop-outs and you will end up with an incorrect average voltage reading.
And again, if the analog voltage meter is supposed to give you the average voltage, that is a problem in itself because you need to use the RMS voltage reading if you want to measure the output power.
MileHigh
Gyula:
QuoteThe anomaly to be explained is why the input current changes only a very little when the load is applied to the output? (while the heavyness of the load expressed in dissipated power is comparable and even exceeds the input power, consider rotor mass and the DC-DC converter inherent 80-85% efficiency).
This is something that is seen with pulse motors all the time. I am sure we have all seen dozens and dozens of clips where this is demonstrated. The input current to the motor goes down when you put it under some kind of load.
In a regular motor when you put it under mechanical load the RPMs go down and as a result of this the counter-EMF generated in the rotor decreases and therefore it draws more current. The extra power associated with the extra current draw is burned off in the mechanical load. You don't have this phenomenon happening with a pulse motor.
Nonetheless, this could still be looked into. I just don't think it is particularly special in comparison with the apparent over unity from the generator and the self-running.
MileHigh
Peterae:
QuoteSorry MH i was under the impression he had looped the output to the input and it was free running, you are getting tangled up with questions about facts we don't know and are not in a position to ask, looping the output to the input and having it run for a time tells me a lot more than you attempting to show us we don't have enough information to calculate it's running, for now anyway.
I submit to you that these are facts that we can know and the measurement is very easy to do. Like I said before, the wisest course of action is to take small steps.
I honestly view this as a "major hole" and I hope somebody plugs that hole and then we move on.
There are two major events that are allegedly happening, 1) an over unity generator, and 2) a self-runner.
The first major event is just as big if not bigger than the self-runner. The self-runner in effect is a "spin off," or a demonstration, of the fact that the setup is over unity.
So the first thing to do is double-check that the motor-generator is indeed over unity. And again, I will point out one more time that the methodology for the generator power output measurement in the fist clip is fundamentally flawed.
MileHigh
The motor/generator doesn't amaze me but the arguments against it, so soon, do.
As far as analog vs. digital metering goes....
We should apply the same arguments for any experiment not using digital meters. This includes the ones done before we had digital meters. Somebody call Faraday, Tesla, etc.
Most of you are right. We should be looking for holes in the presentation not crunching numbers we don't have. If the presentation is clean then the only math result will be is an error like !DIV0
Assuming a relatively high pulse frequency compared to the "attack" and "decay" times of the meters, the analog meters will provide a very good average, even with missing pulses. Think of the sluggish meter movement as a loaded filtering capacitor, and this will be very close.
Now, if the rectified output was heavily filtered, and I believe he is doing that now with a 47,000u or 470,000u capacitor, and we use a CSR or current meter after this filter cap, we can get a pretty good idea of the output power, provided the filter cap is not loaded too heavily. The load can be "matched" to the output by monitoring the output voltage with a DMM while the load resistance is steadily lowered until the measured output voltage starts to drop. Take a DC voltage or current reading at this point and using the final measured resistance of the load, the output power can be calculated with some degree of accuracy, at least close enough to know if it is higher or lower than the input power. This method should work well with any electrical device where the output can be rectified, and the input is a DC source.
I don't think taking the RMS of a pulsed DC output then using V2/R is going to work because the voltage and current information is not present, and we know those will most likely not be in-phase. But I could be wrong.
At any rate, I agree with Peter at this point. He seems to have looped the device, and that tends to make the output power measurement a moot point at this time.
.99
Hi all,
Living only a few miles from RomeroUK, I offered to visit and take some more expensive equipment, but he doesn't seem interested, at least not at this time.
Also perhaps something to consider is the mass of the rotor seems to be somewhere between 2kg and 5kg and if only a very small load is being drawn once the battery is disconnected and with good bearings this kinetic energy could perhaps sustain it for the length of the video. It would be nice to know the RPM. 3.5 hours as he claims would rule that option out but we only have a short video...
Regards to all,
Dave.
Poynt:
There is an interesting simple experiment that would be nice for somebody to do. Take a signal generator and set it up to output a positive going pulse, say 0 volts low and 10 volts high. Make the duty cycle of the output waveform 90% high and 10% low. Then connect that to an analog voltage meter and slowly sweep the frequency higher and higher.
At very low frequencies the needle will deflect back and forth and you will be able to see the attack and decay times. As you sweep the frequency higher the needle will have a jiggle that progressively reduces in amplitude. I am speculating that there will be a band where the analog meter is showing too high a voltage before it settles down and shows the proper average voltage.
On the other hand what you state about the low-pass filtering makes perfect sense also. I am just not sure that there isn't a frequency range were the differences in the attack time and the decay time come into play. I don't think it's a linear filter.
You mentioned that he has the big filtering capacitor. That's going to do some smoothing but still be energy neutral. In that sense you can ignore it when looking at the energy trail. I don't see it affecting the power measurement on the light bulb load.
QuoteI don't think taking the RMS of a pulsed DC output then using V2/R is going to work either because the voltage and current information is not present, and we know those will most likely not be in-phase. But I could be wrong.
Another interesting investigation. Like you said, a scope and some current sensing resistors would be fun. I can't see why the voltage and current wouldn't be in phase. The filament is always seeing a coil discharging through it except for the drop-outs. Ignoring the drop-outs and the dead bands for a second you have what looks like a DC voltage with a small AC ripple superimposed on top. The ripple is not a sine wave, it's a series of positive humps.
This observation from Gotoluc is interesting:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg284752#msg284752 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg284752#msg284752)
The battery voltage drops when the light bulb load is applied as shown on the digital multimeter. That's implying that when the battery is outputting a pulse of current to transfer power into the load, it's a higher-current pulse. So how come the digital current meter is not showing a higher current consumption? My assumption would be that when the light bulb load is applied that the battery voltage drops because its outputting more energy per output pulse of current for a higher average power output. In other words there is higher current flowing in the pulse itself. So I am mystified and that is worth investigating further with a scope and CSR.
MileHigh
Quote from: ctglabs on 2011.05.07, 14:33:15
Hi all,
Living only a few miles from RomeroUK, I offered to visit and take some more expensive equipment, but he doesn't seem interested, at least not at this time.
Also perhaps something to consider is the mass of the rotor seems to be somewhere between 2kg and 5kg and if only a very small load is being drawn once the battery is disconnected and with good bearings this kinetic energy could perhaps sustain it for the length of the video. It would be nice to know the RPM. 3.5 hours as he claims would rule that option out but we only have a short video...
Regards to all,
Dave.
Very good points about the spinning rotor. There is a transient phenomena happening from the start till the rotor hitting it's maximum constant speed. Higher the speed or the mass, higher energies could be stored in the rotor. I think he mention somewhere necessary to use high weight rotor.
Personally I am not too concerned about the mass of the rotor. The mass of the rotor and its associated rotational inertia is of course energy neutral. It can store energy but only for a minute or so. Plus you would observe the rotor slowing down as it spins.
There is a time constant for the spinning rotor discharging it's energy into the light bulb load. Let's suppose it's something between say 20 seconds and one minute. In five time constants the rotor will nearly come to a stop. So you can rule out the mass of the rotor as being able to mask a free energy effect.
MileHigh
EMdevices:
I am sure people will be doing their things and we will see what happens. If people can't get their self runners going chances are they will remember my comments about doing a proper generator power output measurement and go back and take a look.
I did see Romero changing the settings on the DC-to-DC converter and the way the setup responded. I am aware of the filter capacitor and I just posted about how it is energy-neutral. Because of that you can be aware that it's there but still discuss the circuit without it for a second just for purposes of simplification.
MileHigh
Romero has his own forum:
http://underservice.org/index.php?board=5.0
He shares a lot of info here.
I know of a working Mueller replication that is OU and that required development of a special core material for the electromagnets, very critical timing, and lots of tuning. Someone else tried to replicate this replication and was almost killed when one of the large magnets came off the rotor. Some may know who I speak of. The ferromagnetic core material switched very fast with no remanance (spelling?), and was non-conductive.
Side note: If it works, I would not expect it to work with a conductive flywheel. Anyone building one check for the static field on the flywheel. You may find that increasing this static field gets interesting.
Side note 2: my friend keeps his running in a lexan box - in case something comes loose.
I'm out of this one for now.
It's a shame he turned down Dave's offer to come and help, this indicates 1 of either 2 things, it's a fraud or he doesn't want us to know the true way it works.
Considering there's a switched mode psu on the magnacoaster device and a mains extension lead under the table with something plugged in, my best guess right now is that the magnacoaster psu is on, a hall sensor on the magna is picking up pulses from the spinning rotor and is firing magnetic fields from that large stack of neo's, think about it, these types of motors can be greater than 75% efficient, so he starts it on a lead acid and once the momentum is there it just needs an external 25% to maintain running, this could be coupled from the magna device quiet easily i think.
Hope i am wrong but am now waiting more info.
Thanks G
Well the web site looks real good with loads of devices built, seems like an honest guy, my hope is raised somewhat.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.05.07, 16:25:24
RomeroUK is answering a lot of questions on the overunity.com forum. I'm reading it just now, and came across a few instances where he says:
adjust the magnet on top of the coils to eliminate rotor drag.
this is very interesting, perhaps it's not just the 8 vs 9, magnet vs coil ratio? The neodymium magnets he is using would certainly saturate the ferrite, so perhaps this is a lot more interesting than I thought.
EM
Yeah but the problem here is that we have to be operating under the assumption that playing with the magnet positioning on top of the pick-up coils modifies the amount of cogging, but that doesn't eliminate the rotor drag. I think that anybody that has experimented with a pulse motor would agree with this.
In the strictest sense cogging is energy neutral. The pull-in equals the pull-back as the rotor magnet passes the pick-up coil/stator magnet arrangement.
We also know that reducing the cogging reduces the mechanical stresses on the bearings and the unwanted and useless vertical torque on the rotor. That in itself makes for a smoother rotation but it remains energy neutral.
You can say that there are two drags on the rotor. The first is the bearing and air friction and that's a given. The second is related to the actual power output going into the load. In simplified terms you can say that every time the drive coils are energized there is given pick-up coil that is pushing current through the light bulb load. That creates Lenz' law drag on the rotor. The drive coil energizes and the battery pushes current through the drive coil and that results in a pick-up coil exporting power into the light bulb load by pushing current through the filament resistor.
MileHigh
For those of us having some real experience with such motors and modified (some say 'switched' - perhaps more correct is 'redirected' PM fields....
Has anyone noticed how the device tends to run backwards during some startups and make a good deal of noise or vibration when running backwards?
Pole counts between the rotor and stator:
It is almost always a good idea to have an even count on one and odd on the other. Yes, this does reduce cogging.
Coils:
They look to me to be coils removed from relays. Some show signs of a bit more sloppy wind. Perhaps he had to wind a few himself?
Redirected attraction:
He may be timing the coil pulse to make the coil core partially invisible to the attached magnet. Then that magnet would attract the next nearest rotor magnet.
In any case, interesting.
There is a pretty good comparison between a regular electrical transformer with a primary and a secondary and any pulse motor that has a similar configuration to Romero's variation on a Muller replication.
For an electrical transformer, the primary puts energy into the ferrite core and the secondary extracts that energy from the core. So the ferrite core is the "middle man" in the energy transaction. Power flows into the core and it stores that energy. That stored energy then is transferred into the secondary and then into the load.
With the motor, the equivalent to the ferrite core is the spinning rotor. Otherwise look how similar it is: The drive coils are like the transformer primary. The drive coils pump power into the rotor and it is stored in the spinning of the rotor. The spinning rotor then discharges that stored energy into the pick-up coils, which are like the transformer secondary. The pick-up coils export power into the load.
So the Romero motor has coils on the input side and coils on the output side, just like an electrical transformer has a primary coil and a secondary coil. The core in an electrical transformer does not give you a visible indication of how much energy is stored in it but the "core" of a pulse motor does, it's the RPMs of the spinning rotor.
MileHigh
Everyone overlooks the electric field generated on the rotor. Instead, they think it is some sort of magnetic thing going on, but it is the interaction of the two that allows magnification.
Lots of theories to consider.
It is just a transformer..... I completely disagree. Sure, there is some of that going on but to reduce it to a transformer? Sorry.
Rotating charge on the rotor..... If the coils were a Helmholtz set and the rotor disc diameter didn't go beyond the coil diameter I would consider it possible. I don't see how Lorentz would allow it on this setup.
I'm waiting to see if this 'self-running' is possible without the magnets ^-^
From what I see, there is no device without the stator magnets.
This is essentially a repulsion motor, or depending on how strong the coil pulse is, it may be a repulsion-attraction-repulsion motor.
.99
Here are a couple more diagrams added at OU:
WaveWatcher:
QuoteIt is just a transformer..... I completely disagree. Sure, there is some of that going on but to reduce it to a transformer? Sorry.
I didn't say that it was a transformer or try to reduce it to a transformer, I was just pointing out similarities. Today Romerouk said that however you choose to drive the rotor was irrelevant, just try to do it as efficiently as possible. So he is saying that all of the action is in the spinning rotor interaction with the pick-up coils.
So this actually gives us an opportunity to reduce the setup to a ridiculously simple model. The model is a rotor magnet passing by a pick-up coil arrangement that has some extra magnets. The truth is the extra magnets are almost irrelevant except for the influence that they can have on the energy-neutral cogging. Since the magnetic fields from the magnets are static and unchanging, they exert no influence on anything else.
So we are left, if you assume that this is all true, that a moving magnet on the rotor produces over unity in the pick-up coil. People have built hundreds and hundreds of pulse motors before with magnets moving past pick-up coils and they have never seen any free energy. So what could possibly make Romerouk's motor-generator special?
MileHigh
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.05.08, 01:45:49
OMG, I just downloaded the pdf file that Stefan created with all of RomeroUK comments so far, and he tried the unit UP-SIDE DOWN, and it doesn't work so well !!
wow, could be like the TPUs, and thinking about the 8/9 ratio of magnets to coils, and seeing the red wire going around the device to connect to the diode bridges, what if a "squeezing the hose" type of action is taking place?
EM
LOL,
Have a glass of milk and let the tryptophan do its thing EM; it's probably nothing. ;)
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.08, 01:51:00
Since the magnetic fields from the magnets are static and unchanging, they exert no influence on anything else.
I don't know how you could believe this. Placing a piece of iron near a magnet changes the field said to be generated by that magnet. Why wouldn't pulsing a coil attached to the magnet change the field of that magnet?
Quote
So what could possibly make Romerouk's motor-generator special?
When he tells me I'll let you know :) Since I'm not in a position to ask it may be a while.
WaveWatcher:
What I mean to say is the static magnets with their static fields will have no influence on the way the pick-up coils respond to the rotor magnet fly-bys. The pick-up coils will only "see" the moving magnets on the rotor. The static magnets on top and on the bottom of the pick-up coil pair will be "invisible" as far as the pick-up coil pair is concerned.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.08, 02:30:24
WaveWatcher:
What I mean to say is the static magnets with their static fields will have no influence on the way the pick-up coils respond to the rotor magnet fly-bys. The pick-up coils will only "see" the moving magnets on the rotor. The static magnets on top and on the bottom of the pick-up coil pair will be "invisible" as far as the pick-up coil pair is concerned.
MileHigh
MH,
The static magnets will polarize the cores to a degree, so that must influence the interaction of the core/coil with the rotor magnets as they fly by. Furthermore, this motor will not work without those static magnets, if I understand the motor/generator operation properly.
.99
Poynt:
You are correct. I didn't mention that partly because it was mentioned by Romero and others at the start of the main thread. The partially polarized cores will have a different B-H curve as a result of this. This will result in the rotor magnets being less attracted to the cores themselves. This arguably can fall under the umbrella of changing the nature of the cogging. One can assume that this will also slightly affect the amount of flux that cuts the through the coils because of the changed B-H curve of the core and hence that will affect the coil output waveform.
Once you build a motor, you can easily test this. Just hijack two pick-up coils and remove them from the motor circuit. Configure one pick-up coil with the extra magnets and the other without. Connect the outputs of the two coils to your two scope channels and compare the two waveforms while the motor runs on reduced cylinders. I would expect that there would be a marginal difference at best between the two voltage traces.
Anyway, not really wanting to put a damper on the "honeymoon" but I will predict that over the next few weeks no replicators will be able to produce self-runners. There is going to be some drama.
MileHigh
Yes, the secret is in the biasing magnets, I'm on this like a hawk, already brainstorming like mad over here B-H curves and all.
I'm out of milk P99 :D
EM
P.S. If you look at how he biases the core relative to the magnets on the rotor, you notice that the rotor magnets are in opposition. So the B-H curve is traversed from a higher H value to a lower H value and back, as I show below in the graph drawn below his original graphic. This traversal from high to low and back is very significant, but the general accepted benefit of biasing a core is to reduce hysteresis losses. However, I think more than this is happening as I've expounded before on B-H curve interactions and saturation. Notice that RomeroUK did say the gap and biasing is critical. So maybe reducing the hysteresis losses and providing a very efficient motor function along with a Muller style no cogging 8/9 ratio, finally proved useful.
There is a good question about the self-running clip. When he switches the DC-to-DC converter output to a lower voltage the rotor slows down a lot. So that means the voltage output from the pick-up coils goes down a lot. And that means the voltage feed to the input of the DC-to-DC converter also goes down. A lower input voltage to the DC-to-DC converter means that it has to draw more input current to maintain a fixed output voltage and associated power output. That could get very dicey so it would be interesting to see what the input voltage to the converter is at the lower RPM.
Note when he switches back to a higher output voltage the motor seems to speed up just fine and the DC-to-DC converter requires even more input current when this happens because now it has to output a higher voltage which will result in higher output power. Note that most likely the DC-to-DC converter was designed to produce a lower output voltage as compared to the input voltage. We can assume that it can't produce a higher output voltage as compared to the input voltage.
If you wanted to fake this all that you would have to do is connect a hidden battery supply to the full-wave rectifier output positive and negative rails. You can see the wire bus that connects all of the rectifiers together in a semicircle on the top of the motor. The positive and negative rails are the perfect place to inject power because the diodes in the full-wave bridge rectifiers prevent current from flowing in that direction. The setup is a rat's nest of wires which is perfect camouflage. Just sayin'.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.05.08, 03:20:25
Yes, the secret is in the biasing magnets...
You gents need to think out of the box a little.
A rotating dielectric in a magnetic field will have a static electric field on it. Changing a magnetic field or electric field 'within' the other field will expose the magnifying field.
Just in case anyone is interested this is the DC-DC converter he used
http://www.maplin.co.uk/universal-3a-dc-power-supply-228639 (http://www.maplin.co.uk/universal-3a-dc-power-supply-228639)
(http://images.maplin.co.uk/300/a92jh.jpg)
He mentioned it would start without a battery when he spin it up little by hand. Very strange, hence it would mean, over one single cycle the output coils converting the movement of magnets to more electricity, as what needed to create the movement. I would love to see that's happening in the front of my eye. ;)
Anyway, anybody remembering the Mylow saga? How hard was for some to accept, that lovely looking man, who built a lot of things before, coned the whole forum successively for several weeks? I would love to be sure, that's not what happening now again, but honestly I can't be.
Microcontroller (marco) at OU just posted that Romero's Muller motor is a "fraud". This post was promptly deleted by Stefan.
He probably just got himself put on moderation too. Good going marco, you finally got what you were asking for! O0
Let us hope that when the string-finding-debunkers apply their craft to this one they have learned to reveal the string without showing it below an object in one view and above that object in the next view.
People see what they wish. Some will massage it until it shows what they wish.
I see that period as a time when the know-it-alls showed how weak their knowledge was.
1. A magnet sliding down on a conductive surface drags evenly when polarized one way and lifts when polarized the other way. A few revealed themselves on that one.
2. A ferrous toroid no longer attractive to a magnet when the coil is energized. Many more embarrassed themselves with that.
3. A stack of washers forcefully separating themselves while in a magnetic field. Someone even tried to patent that idea :(
This motor/generator might reveal a few more. Hopefully me - then I can learn something :)
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.05.08, 13:09:37
Microcontroller (marco) at OU just posted that Romero's Muller motor is a "fraud". This post was promptly deleted by Stefan.
He probably just got himself put on moderation too. Good going marco, you finally got what you were asking for! O0
I noticed that too. So much for open discussion. Stefan was foiled though because Hoptoad quoted it. So he may delete that posting also.
For posterity:
QuoteQuote from: Microcontroller on Today at 02:46:35 PM
Why do you stress so much about the no battery's inside??
Did you ever turn a generator by hand to lite up a 12 volt 20 Watt bulb?
It needs alot of kinetic energy to do that.
Which is why i can tell your device is a fraud.
That rotor is spinning way too slow to burn that lightbulb but it seems i am the only one that sees that.
Maybe that is because I actually used a lot of hand driven generators...whilst the rest of the members never did since they can just plug things in.
20 watts requires a moderate amount of muscle power. If you go to a science center chances are you will come across a stationary bicycle connected to a generator and you can pedal it to light up a 60-watt light bulb. Once the light bulb actually comes on and is brightly lit, you might be very surprised how hard it is to pedal the generator.
That's just a point of information that does not necessarily apply to Romero's device. However, you can still make a rough estimate in your mind about how much mechanical power you think the battery and the two drive coils can produce and compare that to an estimate of how much mechanical power it takes to drive a 20-watt electrical load. You can only do that if you pedaled on a bicycle-generator in a science center or something equivalent.
MileHigh
Indeed MH,
But that is with the assumption that the generator coils experience the standard counter-emf normally expected. If in actuality there is little or no cemf, then it would require much less energy to propel the rotor, even whilst it is driving a load.
.99
Two points:
Romero just did a video clip where he suspends the setup in free air with holding it with his arm. It looks pretty convincing and naturally people will be both amazed by the clip and others will offer up explanations as to how it could be faked.
If I was going to fake that clip I would have bought a second DC-to-DC converter. Then just hollow-out the second converter and put batteries inside. In the new clip the RPM of the rotor is consistent with it being powered by a 3-volt source based on the observations in the 20-minute self-runner video.
Going back to the self-runner video, there is something else for concern. When he switches from the battery power to the DC-to-DC converter power nothing changes, the rotor has the same sound and the RPM doesn't change. There really should be some sort of perceptible change in the motor when that happens. The same thing when he has it in self-runner mode and he connects and disconnects the light bulb load. There is no perceptible change in the operation of the self-runner. One more time, there should be a change as the motor-generator stabilizes to a new operating point with the addition of the light bulb load.
Again I have to say, one possible explanation for no perceptible change in the operation of the motor is that it is being powered by a robust voltage source. That robust voltage source might be a direct connection from a battery. By the same token the voltage source might be the DC-to-DC converter. This of course implies that something else is powering the DC-to-DC converter.
With no perceptible changes in the operation of the motor it suggests that the voltage source was rock-steady. The DC-to-DC converter is able to output a rock-steady voltage as compared to a moderately sized battery like the one we see in the clip. A larger battery would also be able to output a rock-steady voltage.
MileHigh
Fresh Air
Its great to see the forums jumping with excitement again
and the depressing subject of the last four months finally
relegated to the insignificant status that it always was.
Mookie
@Milehigh
QuoteThat's just a point of information that does not necessarily apply to Romero's device. However, you can still make a rough estimate in your mind about how much mechanical power you think the battery and the two drive coils can produce and compare that to an estimate of how much mechanical power it takes to drive a 20-watt electrical load. You can only do that if you pedaled on a bicycle-generator in a science center or something equivalent.
I would agree and if we want to understand the reason as to why a standard generator works so poorly we can pass a very strong neo magnet past a block of aluminum. When we do this it is as if the magnet just entered a bowl of jello and all motion is resisted which is a similar to the reason why a standard generator requires so much effort to turn under load. However with a little understanding and insight we can change the facts to some extent, for instance I once asked the simple question can a motor action be produced with no inherent generator action? That is can a coil produce a magnetic field which acts on a rotor magnet but the rotor magnetic field cannot act on the coil (no Bemf) ---my experiments have proven that the answer is yes. The issue here is that in order to get better answers we have to start asking better questions which do not make assumptions based on the popular understanding of things.
QuoteGoing back to the self-runner video, there is something else for concern. When he switches from the battery power to the DC-to-DC converter power nothing changes, the rotor has the same sound and the RPM doesn't change. There really should be some sort of perceptible change in the motor when that happens. The same thing when he has it in self-runner mode and he connects and disconnects the light bulb load. There is no perceptible change in the operation of the self-runner. One more time, there should be a change as the motor-generator stabilizes to a new operating point with the addition of the light bulb load.
Hmm maybe you have answered your own question, what if the FE effects were based on the fact that the "load" or a change in load which is a generator function cannot effect the motor function driving it. In this case the reason you may have assumed it cannot work is in fact the reason it does, it reminds me of this quote----"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us into trouble. It's the things we know that just ain't so.".
@Poynt99
QuoteMicrocontroller (marco) at OU just posted that Romero's Muller motor is a "fraud". This post was promptly deleted by Stefan.
One question we should ask here is ---- should we blindly accept the statements of persons who have never succeeded at FE? Personally I have little interest in the opinions of people who have never succeeded because quite simply they have never succeeded :D. This is equivalent to seeking advice from the worst race car driver on how to beat the best race car driver, it is like seeking financial advice from a homeless man who has lost everything and makes no sense whatsoever.
Regards
AC
Marco did claim he had a working OU device to me in PM. I had told him a long time ago that he would never have OU and he wanted to tell me how wrong I was. Might have been via his PAGD replication. Don't know and don't care.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.05.08, 16:11:40
@Poynt99One question we should ask here is ---- should we blindly accept the statements of persons who have never succeeded at FE? Personally I have little interest in the opinions of people who have never succeeded because quite simply they have never succeeded :D. This is equivalent to seeking advice from the worst race car driver on how to beat the best race car driver, it is like seeking financial advice from a homeless man who has lost everything and makes no sense whatsoever.
Regards
AC
I was simply stating what happened. Don't read too much into it. I don't necessarily agree that his post should have been deleted (it shouldn't have, even though I disagree with him), but he should however be put on moderation for other posts he's made, that's for certain.
.99
AC:
QuoteI would agree and if we want to understand the reason as to why a standard generator works so poorly we can pass a very strong neo magnet past a block of aluminum. When we do this it is as if the magnet just entered a bowl of jello and all motion is resisted which is a similar to the reason why a standard generator requires so much effort to turn under load.
You can't forget that a standard generator is working properly when it offers resistance to turning when it is driving a load. There is no such thing as a "better" generator that will offer less resistance when driving a certain load. i.e.; a generator that is 100% efficient will require 20 watts of mechanical input power to put 20 watts of electrical power into a load. It's impossible for it to do any better than that.
Anyway, we are off to the races. I am looking forward to seeing the replications.
The bare-bones of the setup is that moving magnets pass by pick-up coils that are driving a load. The fact that you have seven pick-up coils each connected to a full-wave bridge rectifier and sharing a common power output bus is incidental, it's just window dressing. The same thing applies to the 9/8 arrangement for the seven pick-up coils (and two power coils) and the the eight rotor magnets. That's just a mechanical arrangement to stagger the timing of the output pulses from the pick-up coils so they fire off in sequence and each one gets a time slice for driving the load.
You have two drive coils that fire for every rotor magnet pass, eight firings per revolution. Every time the two drive coils fire, you get 14 output pulses from the seven pick-up coils and four missing (teeth) pulses. If the rotor is turning at 120 RPM, then the output pulse repetition rate is (2 x 8 x 18) = 288 pulses per second. When you factor in the "missing teeth" you get (2 x 8 x 14) = 224 pulses per second.
Each one of those pulses is due to a rotor magnet either approaching or departing from a pick-up coil. When the pulses are driving a load current flows and you get a little "pulse" of Lenz law drag on the rotor from the particular pick-up coil that is driving the load at a particular instant. This extracts rotational energy from the rotor which is then replenished by the firing of the two drive coils.
I don't see anything magical here, I just see a straight-on generator setup and a straight-on pulse motor driving it.
Like I said, looking forward to seeing more results from all parties and especially interested in the replicators!
MileHigh
If this keeps up, George Soros will sell his gold and buy magnets...hahaha
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.07, 13:29:47
Gyula:
This is something that is seen with pulse motors all the time. I am sure we have all seen dozens and dozens of clips where this is demonstrated. The input current to the motor goes down when you put it under some kind of load.
In a regular motor when you put it under mechanical load the RPMs go down and as a result of this the counter-EMF generated in the rotor decreases and therefore it draws more current. The extra power associated with the extra current draw is burned off in the mechanical load. You don't have this phenomenon happening with a pulse motor.
Nonetheless, this could still be looked into. I just don't think it is particularly special in comparison with the apparent over unity from the generator and the self-running.
MileHigh
Hi MH,
Again, I agree in general with what you answered that (in many pulse motors shown) the input current goes down when the output is put under load. One example is Thane Heins who does not care (unfortunately) how much the total input power is, he considers only the decrease in current and calculates power with that value to get COP > 1, and I disagree with this method.
BUT I wrote ( http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=827.msg13697#msg13697 ): the anomaly to be explained was why the input current changes only a very little when the load is applied. This is not the same situation like referred to above and in Romero's setup the
total input current is considered, in fact any change (which is very very small by the way) in input current is NOT considered.
Here is another quote from you I would like to address because it has remained unanswered in this forum but not on overunity.com forum:
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.07, 14:52:46
...
This observation from Gotoluc is interesting:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg284752#msg284752 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg284752#msg284752)
The battery voltage drops when the light bulb load is applied as shown on the digital multimeter. That's implying that when the battery is outputting a pulse of current to transfer power into the load, it's a higher-current pulse. So how come the digital current meter is not showing a higher current consumption? My assumption would be that when the light bulb load is applied that the battery voltage drops because its outputting more energy per output pulse of current for a higher average power output. In other words there is higher current flowing in the pulse itself. So I am mystified and that is worth investigating further with a scope and CSR.
The answer was given by Romero a bit earlier than gotoluc asked it (he did not notice it) and member lanenal quoted it to gotoluc, here it is:
I had few questions from the 'replicators' here about voltage on the battery going down when the load is on.
The reason for that is that from the output bridge rectifier I am using one diode to send power back to the battery to keep it charged.When the 20watt bulb is connected the power going back to the battery is reduced resulting that slight voltage drop. and member lanenal added: Basically from my understanding, the 20w bulb is too heavy a load for the system...if it were a 5w bulb, you should see no voltage drop at all.
This clarifies gotoluc correct observation and I think for correctness sake this should also be mentioned in this forum too. In fact, from gotoluc pictures on the current consumptions and from the video
you can see that the load does not influence the actual input current draw at all! (The change in amper draw from 0.92 to 0.94 Amper and back comes from the change in the available output power FOR the charging, the bulb drains from the available total output power hence less power remains for charging back.)
rgds, Gyula
I would also like to mention that RomeroUK has started building a second setup with higher output power as a goal.
When he is ready with it, Stefan Hartmann will personally visit him and surely report his findings.
Gyula
Gyula:
QuoteBUT I wrote ( http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=827.msg13697#msg13697 ): the anomaly to be explained was why the input current changes only a very little when the load is applied. This is not the same situation like referred to above and in Romero's setup the total input current is considered, in fact any change (which is very very small by the way) in input current is NOT considered.
I am not sure about the current consumption issue. I am not sure I understand your statement about Romero's setup not being the same. Honestly this stuff could be resolved on the bench. Since you have a motor, perhaps you would be tempted.
QuoteI had few questions from the 'replicators' here about voltage on the battery going down when the load is on.
The reason for that is that from the output bridge rectifier I am using one diode to send power back to the battery to keep it charged.When the 20watt bulb is connected the power going back to the battery is reduced resulting that slight voltage drop.
and member lanenal added: Basically from my understanding, the 20w bulb is too heavy a load for the system...if it were a 5w bulb, you should see no voltage drop at all.
This clarifies gotoluc correct observation and I think for correctness sake this should also be mentioned in this forum too. In fact, from gotoluc pictures on the current consumptions and from the video you can see that the load does not influence the actual input current draw at all! (The change in amper draw from 0.92 to 0.94 Amper and back comes from the change in the available output power FOR the charging, the bulb drains from the available total output power hence less power remains for charging back.)
Which diode? It won't work if you only connect one diode. Perhaps Romero can give a more complete description and Groundloop's schematic can be updated.
For me this is not clear yet. The battery acts like a short-circuit to it's operating potential. A little tiny pick-up coil discharging into the battery will most likely barely affect the battery voltage at all. The coil will just short-out directly into the battery.
I will discuss this more in the next posting.
MileHigh
Gyula:
Quoting you from OU:
QuoteThank you for the tips. I have had my Muller for 8 years. I have tried several 100th of variations
for motor driving and generator outputs. My Muller is made in a CNC machine. All the coils are
factory made. So there is not much I can tune. All I can do is trying to add Ferrite cores to
my coils. There is no way I can get my magnets out of the rotor to try all the same pole out.
The magnets are glued to the rotor with a strong Epoxy. So I'm stuck with the NSNSNSNS configuration.
I have no spare time to build a new Muller now. But I will get time next winter. Then I will build
an Acrylic one and make as a close replica to your Muller as possible.
If you add ferrite cores it sounds like you will be able to have a great replication going based on your description. I realize that you are going to hold off on replicating so this is just an academic discussion. The best place for getting the ferrite cores is to follow the trail. Didn't Romero state that he got them from chokes inside an old CRT monitor or something? Just go onto Digikey and look for the equivalent chokes and pop the ferrite cores out of them. I assume that they will be cheap.
You are not stuck with your rotor magnet configuration because it doesn't matter. The pick-up coil outputs go through a full-wave bridge rectifier and you get a double-hump voltage pulse output. You get the identical double-hump irrespective of the rotor magnet orientation, or the stator magnet orientation.
I am not sure how you drive your rotor with the alternating magnet orientations but I assume that you have it figured out.
Going back to the question of the current consumption, all that you need to is put one or more current-sensing resistors in the circuit and make some scope measurements.
Without a scope I would be very tempted to measure the power going into the DC-to-DC converter. With a filtering capacitor across the pulse train output from the bridge rectifiers you might have near-DC for higher rotor RPMs. So all that you have to do is put an ammeter between the bridge rectifier output and the input to the DC-to-DC converter. Measure the voltage and current and calculate the power going into the DC-to-DC converter. That's the amount of power being produced by your pick-up coils into the DC-to-DC converter load. Then see how that relates back to the input power measurement and also to the output power measurement of the DC-to-DC converter itself into the actual load. Experiment with-load, without-load, etc.
I know that people are going to rush to make self-runners. If they are not successful then making the three power measurements described above would be the logical place to go.
One of the things that a lot of experimenters don't realize is that the amount of output power you can measure from your device is dependent on the load itself. So if you want to be thorough, you will experiment with how the motor operates with a series of different loads.
MileHigh
Hi MH,
To answer your last but one post, all I can say is that in your quated answer to me yesterday you answered oranges while I talk about apples, that is all, sorry.
The current consumption isue you brought up in your yesterday answer in general for pulse motors is not valid for Romero setup because input current in his setup does not change at all when output is loaded. You wrote: This is something that is seen with pulse motors all the time. I am sure we have all seen dozens and dozens of clips where this is demonstrated. The input current to the motor goes down when you put it under some kind of load.
This has nothing to do with Romero setup (orange-apple comparison).
The other issue with the charging diode was valid for the non looped video demo what gotoluc observed (it is the 12 minute long video) where Romero used part of the output power for charging back the input battery. This is not valid for the looped back setup where the battery is removed and no need for Groundloop to update the schematic.
And now in you last post above you seem to mix me up with member Groundloop.... for you wrote you quoted me from ou.com while what you quoted was written by Groundloop.
Please be more attentive...
Thanks, Gyula
Quote from: gyula on 2011.05.08, 22:31:51
Hi MH,
To answer your last but one post, all I can say is that in your quated answer to me yesterday you answered oranges while I talk about apples, that is all, sorry.
The current consumption isue you brought up in your yesterday answer in general for pulse motors is not valid for Romero setup because input current in his setup does not change at all when output is loaded. You wrote: This is something that is seen with pulse motors all the time. I am sure we have all seen dozens and dozens of clips where this is demonstrated. The input current to the motor goes down when you put it under some kind of load.
This has nothing to do with Romero setup (orange-apple comparison).
The other issue with the charging diode was valid for the non looped video demo what gotoluc observed (it is the 12 minute long video) where Romero used part of the output power for charging back the input battery. This is not valid for the looped back setup where the battery is removed and no need for Groundloop to update the schematic.
And now in you last post above you seem to mix me up with member Groundloop.... for you wrote you quoted me from ou.com while what you quoted was written by Groundloop.
Please be more attentive...
Thanks, Gyula
Good points Gyula. Old school of thought always seem to find a cleverer way to explain stuff they have never seen before.
cheers
chrisC
Gyula:
Sorry about the mistake quoting the wrong person.
QuoteThis has nothing to do with Romero setup (orange-apple comparison).
I disagree. The Romero setup is driven just like any typical Bedini pulse motor. But I can't comment about the current consumption issue without the proper information.
Romero's comment about connecting a single diode back to the battery having the ability to keep the battery voltage higher doesn't make sense. There is a small chance that somebody will investigate this.
ChrisC:
QuoteOld school of thought always seem to find a cleverer way to explain stuff they have never seen before.
For the clip where Romero shows more power out than power in, I explained that Romero's measurement is no good. For the self-running clip, that's only one piece of evidence. People should require more evidence before they decide an over unity claim is true. Many more measurements should be made on Romero's motor and there should be successful replications.
My best guess right now is that all of the replications will work the way the "old school of thought" says they should work.
MileHigh
Lawrence:
QuotePower comes out (positive waveform) but there is brought-in energy coming back (negative waveform).
You are playing your "lead-out lead-in" game one more time. Your statement above about Romero's scope waveform is pure nonsense, it's totally wrong. Both the positive and the negative-going pulses represent the potential for the coil to output energy. There is no "brought-in energy coming back."
You are doing a disservice to others when you post this kind of stuff.
QuoteIf Rumerouk had done the full thing – Instantaneous Voltage, Instantaneous Current and Instantaneous Power for both Input and Output, the picture will be much clearer.
QuoteI had the misfortune of debating with Poynt99 with Harvey as the Moderator. Instead of relying on the waveform, the debate ended with "using the mean value" of the Instantaneous Power as the "recommended" method.
Using the mean value of the instantaneous power as per what Poynt said in the second quote above is identical to what you say in the first quote above. You seem to be implying that they are different but they are in fact the same.
Certainly making these instantaneous measurements would be helpful but I don't know if any of the replicators have DSOs. The good news is that this is a perfect application for PC scope software.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.08, 02:30:24
...
What I mean to say is the static magnets with their static fields will have no influence on the way the pick-up coils respond to the rotor magnet fly-bys. The pick-up coils will only "see" the moving magnets on the rotor. The static magnets on top and on the bottom of the pick-up coil pair will be "invisible" as far as the pick-up coil pair is concerned.
...
I totally agree about this point. It is a key point that is not well understood. A static field simply adds to a varying field but a coil "feels" only the varying field. It is the reason why such things like MEG or Flynn's magnetic parallel path technology gave not one positive result, we don't recover energy from a static field.
The objection that the static field can "modulate" the parameters of non linear elements in a magnetic circuit, changes nothing in the energy balance. For example, for a static field to change the permeability of a coil core near the saturation, a work must be done to rotate the magnetic domains of the material. This work is not extracted from the field of the permanent magnet. It is obtained from the mechanical work for changing the relative position of the permanent magnet and the core. Even though the permeability decreases with the distance magnet/core, there is at any instant of time an action/reaction force F. An elementary work dW=F*dx is done for moving the pieces, to be integrated along the path for the total work without forgetting that F depends on x in a not straightforward manner because µ is also depending on the distance magnet/core.
Overunity would be obtained if such a work was not the same when the magnet approaches the core than when it moves away. Until now, according to physics laws, the magnetic force derives from a potential, so the work is independent of the path. So we can be sure that a reasoning to explain overunity but using only terms and equations of conventional electromagnetism, is erroneous. Either a hidden source of energy, or different rules than conventional EM, must be specified. I am interested in propositions about one or the other point but I didn't see one from participants here and unfortunately I must confess that I have not one myself. In any case, I think that the experimental evidence must be first provided because science applies only to observable facts and only new facts need new theories.
Quote from: chrisC on 2011.05.08, 22:47:16
...
Old school of thought always seem to find a cleverer way to explain stuff they have never seen before.
Until today, "stuff never seen before" is in the best case only "stuff already seen" but now misinterpreted.
New schools of thought, if we can speak of "thoughts" concerning them (there are not two of them saying the same thing with enough formalism), never succeeded in proving their assertions of overunity. Until proof of the contrary, i.e. by credible third party duplications of a self-running device, there is no OU. So explanations from "old school of thought" applying to conventional phenomena misinterpreted by the others, are the right ones.
This is what we see and we know those traveling off the edge never return. So the fact remains the Earth is flat. ....
I can understand the viewpoints because I held the same so dear for such a long time.
The only one with value defaults to empirical proof.
WaveWatcher:
Right now the way it looks is that the Earth is flat for the Romerouk supporters and replicators. There are many issues to ponder, probably the biggest one being that Romero's measurement of the output power from his motor is no good. I have to assume that dozens of people on the OU Romero thread do read this thread but nobody has raised the issue. Just some happy sheeple living on a a flat Earth.
Unfortunately some people with tight budgets will drop a lot of cash and time into a replication even though they know that there are some unanswered questions in the back of their minds. It's going to be yet another rush of lemmings running to the edge of the flat Earth and plunging into the abyss.
What people on OU should do is demand that Romero run more tests and take measurements on his allegedly over unity device and share that data. But you can see already that nobody is going to do that.
None of the replications will work and chances are Romero will tell them that they don't have the right wire or the number of turns on their pick-up coils is wrong.
You end up with a bunch of enthusiastic people afraid to ask serious questions and they will spin their wheels with their replications until they get fed up. That's a classic flat-Earth scenario if you ask me.
MileHigh
@Milehigh
QuoteMy best guess right now is that all of the replications will work the way the "old school of thought" says they should work.
That is an interesting thought which I believe says quite a bit about peoples perspective in regards to FE. Consider the new Nantenna technology which is simply two nano-scale conductors having a spacing equal to 1/2 the wavelength of the EM energy to be extracted. This new cutting edge technology is based on a very old and quite obvious concept because we know as a fact that if the conductors fall on the opposite peaks of the EM wave then they will be charged oppositely which constitutes electrical energy.
Now if this technology is so obvious then why didn't anyone develop it sooner utilizing larger wavelengths? Well because the "old school of thought" does not revolve around the fact of whether something works or not, the "old school of thought" makes the false assumption that we do not have the capacity to create new technology from old concepts.
The "old school of thought" is really saying we cannot create or invent anything new which should be no surprise because old people having been saying this throughout history despite the fact that the younger generation has always proven them wrong. So let's be perfectly honest here, when people refer to the "old school of thought" they are not speaking of technology nor whether something works or not --- they are referring specifically to their belief that nothing can change and that we cannot do anything different as old people often do. Thankfully change is inevitable and progress will come despite our beliefs, embrace the change grasshopper -- embrace the change :D
Regards
AC
@exnihiloest
QuoteUntil today, "stuff never seen before" is in the best case only "stuff already seen" but now misinterpreted.
New schools of thought, if we can speak of "thoughts" concerning them (there are not two of them saying the same thing with enough formalism), never succeeded in proving their assertions of overunity. Until proof of the contrary, i.e. by credible third party duplications of a self-running device, there is no OU. So explanations from "old school of thought" applying to conventional phenomena misinterpreted by the others, are the right ones.
I have never seen OU and have a hard time believing in that concept however every single day I see external forms of energy imparting this energy to tangible things. Therefore while I have an issue with OU I have no issue with any external form of energy entering supposedly closed systems because there is no place in nature we cannot see this process happening. I guess the real question is how would we know the difference? if external energy enters a circuit and we have no knowledge of how or why this happens then it would appear to be OU so really we are not dealing with facts of any sort only appearances. Rather than follow the "old school of thought" and go into denial by thinking it is impossible I use the new school of thought which says I should understand "why" it happens regardless of what I may believe.
Regards
AC
MH,
I agree with everything in your last post except those concerning the energy measurements.
They are pointless if it is truly self-running. That brings me to the only important question. Is it truly self-running? When I see enough information to make me believe it is then I will think about a replication.
I have doubts you could reach a point where you can ask yourself the same question. So, repeatedly requesting energy measurements is your limit. I don't see that as a fault. It is the limit most should reach being reasonable folk having no reason to think such a thing is possible. This doesn't make it any less pointless for this stage.
If the math is to be ran, it should answer the unknown 'how much energy is coming from wherever to make this thing keep chugging along?' and 'where could it be coming from?'
Both are questions for later if and only if it is truly self-running.
I am a little more open to the possibilities because I know Lenz can be circumvented for part of the cycle. The whole cycle? I don't know that.
All,
As far as previous comments about static fields not modulating another field.... I didn't suggest that. I suggested the inverse. Static fields being modulated (changed-redirected-focused-moved) by non-static fields.
One thing that should be considered is that the oncoming rotor magnet will change the stator magnet field. Another is that applying current to the coil can make that core partially invisible to the attached stator and oncoming rotor magnets.
Yes, the same amount of energy is required to make it less visible but only if there is no relative motion. If the coil is energized while the rotor magnet approaches, there will be little if any resistance to that rotor magnet being positioned below the coil. The coil will look to the rotor magnet as if it was air cored. If then the coil pulse ends... the field of the rotor magnet envelopes the coil with a field reversed of the stator magnets.
This means two things: The coil output is AC, not pulsed DC. When the induced pulse finishes, the top and bottom magnets will squeeze the rotor magnet out the other side with a great deal of force. Then things continue.
It is all really simple. The only valid question remains... Is it truly self-running?
Please don't continue about magnets having no effect upon an iron core coil. This is old stuff and completely false. The electronics industry knows it is false. I know several dozen shop electricians who know it is false. There are many devices which simply would not function if it was true.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.05.09, 16:07:33
.... Rather than follow the "old school of thought" and go into denial by thinking it is impossible I use the new school of thought which says I should understand "why" it happens regardless of what I may believe.
Regards
AC
Well said A.C. All the 'power calculations' is really moot if this thing is really self running. Wait for replications before writing too many words and theories, IMO. Thanks
cheers
chrisC
AC:
QuoteNow if this technology is so obvious then why didn't anyone develop it sooner utilizing larger wavelengths? Well because the "old school of thought" does not revolve around the fact of whether something works or not, the "old school of thought" makes the false assumption that we do not have the capacity to create new technology from old concepts.
I think that you are stepping out of some reasonable bounds here. I would say that both of us are amateurs when it comes to microwave and antenna theory. You don't know that something wasn't developed sooner for longer wavelengths, even if the article you read stated that.
QuoteThe "old school of thought" is really saying we cannot create or invent anything new which should be no surprise because old people having been saying this throughout history despite the fact that the younger generation has always proven them wrong.
I think that it's fairer to say that the "old school of thought" was used by the original poster as a euphemism for modern science and electrical engineering. In that sense the "old school of thought" has completely changed the world in the last 20 years and it continues non-stop. At the same time nobody in an iPad II design review meeting ever stated "let's pulse a coil in the power section to extend the battery life" because they would have been laughed out of the meeting.
WaveWatcher:
QuoteIt is all really simple. The only valid question remains... Is it truly self-running?
Please don't continue about magnets having no effect upon an iron core coil. This is old stuff and completely false. The electronics industry knows it is false. I know several dozen shop electricians who know it is false. There are many devices which simply would not function if it was true.
Is it self running? I'll try to give you my thought process on this from a slightly different angle. We have all seen Beini motor clips with extra pick-up coils. The outputs from the pick-up coils are typically total a small fraction of the input power. Romero's setup has better flux cutting and a better timing setup so that you get more output pulses from the pick-up coils. It still doesn't matter, Romero's setup is still not fundamentally different from a Bedini motor rotor driving some pick-up coils. The Beini pick-up coil setups as seen on may Youtube clips are almost always grossly under unity. There is simply no logical reason in the world for a spinning disk with magnets on it connected to pick-up coils becoming an over-unity device.
Static magnets as described in the setup, above and below a compound-pick up coil, will have no significant affect on the operation of the generator. You will polarize the ferrite but so what? Hopefully we will be able to see the voltage output waveform from a single isolated coil with and without the extra magnets.
MileHigh
RomeroUK credits Bill Muller and I'm wondering if Mr. Muller ever demonstrated a self running motor. Anybody know?
RomeroUK's addition to the basic Bill Muller design seems to be the biasing magnets, and from his answer to my question, they don't work if the polarity is reversed, and it's a delicate balance he has achived. I'm currious if anybody else will be able to replicate his design, or if Romero himself will be able to scale it up, as the sensitive balance might not be achived again.
However, what encourages me about this design is the fact that it doesn't have to operate at a particular speed, which excludes resonance, like in the Timothy motor/generator setup (that amish guy). This indicates to me that the OU mechanism involved is very stable and repeatable, so perhaps replications will be easy. I hope !
@ MH and exnihiloest, I'm in agreement with you on the idea that the coils only respond to the varrying flux, but that's where my agreement with you both stops. I make exceptions to the general statement that the magnets don't do anything or the static field does not achive anything significant in Romero's motor/generator. Like I've said before, the static magnetic field biases the ferrite, and the bias point plays an important role. The widely accepted fact is that it reduces hysterisis losses, which is very important, but, even if you eliminate all losses, I'm not really sure the Muller generator principle of using ODD/EVEN ratios is realy the key either. I say this because Mr. Adams' motor from long time ago worked similarly to RomeroUK's motor but he did not have the Muller arrangement, just even symetry and he credits the specific timing he used, as I remember. I belive the phenomena involved here has it's roots in the traversal of the B-H curve, and also in how the magnet and ferrite interact as a unit in a rotational frame of reference.
But, it's useless at this point to define a specific operating principle, better build something. Who's planning on building a replica?
EM
With the coil guns and flux capacitors, there is no room left on my bench... ;D
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.05.09, 19:20:19
RomeroUK credits Bill Muller and I'm wondering if Mr. Muller ever demonstrated a self running motor. Anybody know?
RomeroUK's addition to the basic Bill Muller design seems to be the biasing magnets, and from his answer to my question, they don't work if the polarity is reversed, and it's a delicate balance he has achived. I'm currious if anybody else will be able to replicate his design, or if Romero himself will be able to scale it up, as the sensitive balance might not be achived again.
[snip] I belive the phenomena involved here has it's roots in the traversal of the B-H curve, and also in how the magnet and ferrite interact as a unit in a rotational frame of reference.
But, it's useless at this point to define a specific operating principle, better build something. Who's planning on building a replica?
EM
EM, just saw this thread this morning -- good to be back.
I'd like to build a replica. (As I've noted elsewhere, repeatability is the heart of good science.) First question -- WHERE to buy the magnets? (and exactly what type?)
Next --
where do we get the "Litz" wire? seems important.I've just seen Stefan's .pdf ... helpful. Is that the best write-up?
(Is there anything on this Muller generator elsewhere on the web?)
We recall the great hype that accompanied claims of excess heat (sans neutrons), enough to heat hot water for a cup of tea, via cold fusion by two chemists -- but those claims could not be replicated.
Can someone post Stephan's PDF?
thanks
Trying here to attach Stefan's .pdf
Replication underway here also:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7982-muller-generator-replication-romerouk.html
I just found some discussion of the Litz wire there.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.05.09, 19:55:13
We recall the great hype that accompanied claims of excess heat (sans neutrons), enough to heat hot water for a cup of tea, via cold fusion by two chemists -- but those claims could not be replicated.
PhysicsProf,
You may wish to catch up a bit....
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4081892/Cold-fusion-experimentally-confirmed
Those two have been vindicated but the arguments continue...
There have been numerous announcements of replication. I think each is taking it in the chops for mentioning it. The US Army and Navy don't seem to care about the negative activists ;D
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.05.09, 19:20:19
But, it's useless at this point to define a specific operating principle, better build something. Who's planning on building a replica?
EM
I'm more and more tempted but I still don't have time even to perform a miracle >:(
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.05.09, 20:23:04
PhysicsProf,
You may wish to catch up a bit....
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4081892/Cold-fusion-experimentally-confirmed
Those two have been vindicated but the arguments continue...
There have been numerous announcements of replication. I think each is taking it in the chops for mentioning it. The US Army and Navy don't seem to care about the negative activists ;D
Still not a hot water heater, though, WW -- which was claimed by Pons over 20 years ago.
And remember, the neutrons have to be COMMENSURATE with the heat produced. (I.e., quantitatively.)
PS - that article was from over two years ago, here's a relevant comment:
3/24/2009 4:59 PM EDT
QuoteNot again! The fact is that neutron metrology is very difficult, and most chemists are clueless about the nuances. With all the electro-chemistry going on, I am skeptical about the thermal energy balance, as well.
(I was at ORNL for the first round of claims(Fleischmann/Pons), and work on the metrology aspects of verification efforts, radiological and thermal, which showed no cold fusion.
1. Replication
2. Peer-reviewed Publication
3. Scale it up (to at least heat ten gallons of water by the excess energy)
Above applies to the coldfusion, Muller and all claims -- hope this one works...
EMdevices:
QuoteRomeroUK's addition to the basic Bill Muller design seems to be the biasing magnets, and from his answer to my question, they don't work if the polarity is reversed, and it's a delicate balance he has achived. I'm currious if anybody else will be able to replicate his design, or if Romero himself will be able to scale it up, as the sensitive balance might not be achived again.
Unfortunately, this is complete and utter crap. Sorry for the strong words and they are not directed at you at all. As has already been stated several times, the magnets associated with the pick-up coils do nothing. The proof for this fact is screaming out to be investigated. Anybody that makes a replication, or Romero himself, can make measurements on the setup with and without the extra magnets and compare the results. There is no "sensitive balance" associated with the magnet positioning. In fact, you are setting yourself up for a fall when you use that phraseology. It's like you are giving Carte Blanche to Romero so that when nobody's replications work he can say, "You failed to achieve the delicate balance in magnet positioning." Bullshit.
Screw the "sensitive balance" business. Any replicator that builds a setup can make measurements on the pick-up coils and the overall motor itself to prove to themselves that the magnets mean nothing and do nothing. So you don't have to believe me, the replicators can investigate this for themselves and find out the truth for themselves.
QuoteI belive the phenomena involved here has it's roots in the traversal of the B-H curve, and also in how the magnet and ferrite interact as a unit in a rotational frame of reference.
It's fine to say that but does what you are saying really have any meaning? So you bias the core and you change it's B-H curve. So what? What the B-H curve represents is the hysteresis loss when you bias and then unbias the core. So if you change the B-H curve you make slight changes to the energy loss mechanism. Where does that get you?
As far as the magnet and ferrite interacting goes in a "rotational frame of reference" goes, big deal. Magnetic potential energy is converted into rotational energy which is then converted back into magnetic potential energy. This stuff has been studied to death and there is zero energy gain associated with it. I will remind you again, Romero's motor is nothing more than a glorified Bedini motor with a pulsed coil drive and some pick-up coils. There is absolutely nothing special associated with it. Seriously, you may as well have a coil in one hand and a magnet in the other hand and move them past each other and claim over unity. On a fundamental level, there is no difference between that and Romero's motor.
You make reference to the replica builders. Let's pray to God that they are open-minded enough to make some real measurements on their motors after their self-runners fail. That's where the "action" could be if some of them are astute enough to really try and understand what their motors are doing.
MileHigh
MH, I'll be very brief with you.
1) If you haven't read what RomeroUK said, read it. He explains his magnets and their position and why he uses washers, etc..
2) Read up on hysterisis losses and how to minimize them.
EM
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.09, 21:10:32
EMdevices:
Unfortunately, this is complete and utter crap. Sorry for the strong words and they are not directed at you at all. As has already been stated several times, the magnets associated with the pick-up coils do nothing. The proof for this fact is screaming out to be investigated. ....Bullshit.
...
MileHigh
Strong words indeed. Well, unless the two videos RomeroUK made are fake, we'll have to wait for replication to prove that it's true and there are facts you DON'T know and you are not the all knowing GOD. We'll just have to leave it as it is for now. I don't wish to see you eat your words....
cheers
chrisC
To All:
I am just going to comment again on where the Big Mistake is with respect to people's thought processes about the Romero motor.
The logic is as follows: The motor develops COP > 2 and that's enough to loop it back upon itself to make a self runner. Therefore I will build the motor in a self-runner configuration and test it.
The "big shocker" is this, "The motor develops COP > 2."
If the motor in itself is an over unity device I sure as hell would want to verify that with measurements before I try to make a self runner. This is the real news, not the fact that you can allegedly make a self-runner. It blows my mind that people don't want to investigate this first.
When all of the self-runners fail, only a subset of the experimenters will have the skills and the drive to start making measurements on their motors. Here is where some of them might try making some magnet/no-magnet measurements on the pick-up coils also.
In a month or so you will be left with Romero being the only person that has allegedly demonstrated a self-runner in a YouTube clip. That might be the time to press him to make some serious measurements on his motor.
I will say it one more time, the power output measurement in his first clip is no good. I also outlined how to make a proper measurement with a true-RMS multimeter.
Right now this whole ball has been set in motion by two things, 1) a video clip that allegedly shows over unity power output but the measurement is no good, 2) a video clip that allegedly shows a self-runner that could easily be faked if you wanted to.
You have to ask yourself the question, "Why in Romero's case does a magnet moving past a pick-up coil allegedly produce over unity when thousands of other pulse motors have been built based on the same principle that don't produce over unity?"
Beyond that, the physics analysis clearly shows that a pick-up coil and moving magnet system is an under unity device that obeys the law of conservation of energy. Why should Romero's pick-up coils and magnets be different?
All I ask of all of you is to look at Romero's proposition at face value. There is absolutely nothing special about Romero's motor configuration.
Anyway my prose sounds more worked up about this than I really am. It's just a question of watching the drama play out. When things start to fall apart I hope and pray that some of you have what it takes to start asking Romero some tough questions and insisting that you get some real answers. Even that possibility doesn't look particularly good. Romero has already stated that he is not going to make any more clips claiming that he can't do any more but in fact he has barely scratched the surface.
MileHigh
EMdevices:
Quote1) If you haven't read what RomeroUK said, read it. He explains his magnets and their position and why he uses washers, etc..
2) Read up on hysterisis losses and how to minimize them.
I am pretty sure that I read them, I have read the whole thread except for the last 18 hours worth. Romero does not explain anything of significance about the positioning of the magnets and what it means. He says nothing of substance as to why the positioning of the magnets does something special. Like I said, the magnets do nothing. Anybody can verify what I am saying is true by connecting a single pick-up coil output to their scope and adding and removing the magnets.
I know all about hysteresis losses. Minimizing hysteresis losses does not equate to free energy in any way, shape, or form. Even saying that the hysteresis losses in the core will be minimized due to the influence of the magnets is also pure speculation. If I am wrong then please give me a link to show this. This is one of those cases where somebody has a hunch that biasing the ferrite cores will reduce the hysteresis losses and all of a sudden everybody believes that it's Gospel truth. It's not the truth and it's not proven as far as I am concerned.
ChrisC:
Quotewe'll have to wait for replication to prove that it's true and there are facts you DON'T know and you are not the all knowing GOD. We'll just have to leave it as it is for now. I don't wish to see you eat your words....
I DO know how a pulse motor with pick-up coils works and it's not over unity. I never claimed that I was a god!
Bring on the replications and I know who will be eating their words as time goes by. I have looked at hundreds and hundreds of pulse motor clips on YouTube and I assume that most others around here have done the same thing.
If anybody can offer an explanation as to why Romero's motor should work I would like to hear it. For all of the discussions so far (mostly on OU) I haven't seen anything from anybody proposing to explain how it works.
MileHigh
There is another issue that I think is worth mentioning. For the Rosemary Ainslie saga at one point she offered to fly Stefan of Over Unity to South Africa to verify her device.
Just the other day on OU someone also made a comment about Stefan verifying Romero's device for over unity.
Here is a recent comment from Stefan:
QuoteWell, maybe it is better to put all outputs coils then in series
for higher voltage outputs and only have a normal
silicon diode bridge rectifier then at the end.
Then you could also use a DC to DC converter with high efficiency to transform
the violtage down again.
This way you will only loose power in the ONE bridge rectifier and not
in all rectifiers... This could also save a lot of wasted power in the circuit
and it is cheaper as you don´t need so many rectifiers....
If you make the coils much bigger also a higher current should be possible at
the higher series voltage.
Regards, Stefan.
Stefan is not knowledgeable enough about electronics and energy and physics and related matters to verify Rosemary Ainslie's claims. Nor is he knowledgeable enough to verify the claims about Romero's pulse motor.
Anybody that is astute in electronics and energy reading Stefan's comment above would agree with me. Don't shoot the messenger. The simple fact is that Stefan is not the person you want to call to verify somebody's over unity claim.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.09, 22:03:47
EMdevices:
I am pretty sure that I read them, I have read the whole thread except for the last 18 hours worth. Romero does not explain anything of significance about the positioning of the magnets and what it means. He says nothing of substance as to why the positioning of the magnets does something special. Like I said, the magnets do nothing. Anybody can verify what I am saying is true by connecting a single pick-up coil output to their scope and adding and removing the magnets.
I know all about hysteresis losses. Minimizing hysteresis losses does not equate to free energy in any way, shape, or form. Even saying that the hysteresis losses in the core will be minimized due to the influence of the magnets is also pure speculation. If I am wrong then please give me a link to show this. This is one of those cases where somebody has a hunch that biasing the ferrite cores will reduce the hysteresis losses and all of a sudden everybody believes that it's Gospel truth. It's not the truth and it's not proven as far as I am concerned.
ChrisC:
I DO know how a pulse motor with pick-up coils works and it's not over unity. I never claimed that I was a god!
Bring on the replications and I know who will be eating their words as time goes by. I have looked at hundreds and hundreds of pulse motor clips on YouTube and I assume that most others around here have done the same thing.
If anybody can offer an explanation as to why Romero's motor should work I would like to hear it. For all of the discussions so far (mostly on OU) I haven't seen anything from anybody proposing to explain how it works.
MileHigh
Actually I believe the extra magnets do have an affect. I used the technique on my Orbon solid state orbo. And I think that Bruce TPU and Gotluc would stand by me on that, as we had similar projects at the time.
And as for Romero going over every detail of alignments, pew, lol, the guy doesnt have time for anything at the moment. He has been bombarded from every angle. Each replication will have its slight differences, and alignments of all kinds will be a strange to each. He did give some details as to working with one coil at a time to balance them.
And thirdly, the design is one that with odd no. coils and even no. mags, and the config, reduced cog and drag to a minimum. The pulse motor is nothing special. Just eff. enough to getter dun. ;]
Romero has been a straight up guy. Some just have it. And some dont. ;] Give it a bit of time. It hasnt been years that he has been preaching this. Its just the beginning. Far from Mylow. ;]
Mags
Mags:
QuoteActually I believe the extra magnets do have an affect.
What is it that they do and how is it beneficial?
QuoteAnd as for Romero going over every detail of alignments, pew, lol, the guy doesnt have time for anything at the moment. He has been bombarded from every angle. Each replication will have its slight differences, and alignments of all kinds will be a strange to each. He did give some details as to working with one coil at a time to balance them.
The kinds of details that Romero should be discussing are the power into the device, the power into the DC-to-DC converter, the power output from the DC-to-DC converter. What are the numbers for different loads? For different RPMs based on different DC-to-DC converter voltage settings, what is the voltage and waveform coming back from the pick-up coils? As a matter of fact, how about waveforms for all of the relevant signals in the motor? So far you have nothing.
When it is running in self-runner mode, what is the power output from the DC-to-DC converter? What is the power input to the to the DC-to-DC converter? What are the waveforms like for the different signals on the self-runner? What happens to all of the measurements and waveforms on the self-runner when you have no light bulb load versus when you have a light bulb load?How come all of you are attempting to build a self-runner when you have none of the information in the paragraph highlighted in bold above? How can any of you accept that Romero is finished making video clips and documenting what his self-runner does when all of the questions in the paragraph highlighted in bold above are unanswered? How come nobody on OU is asking any of these very important questions?
QuoteAnd thirdly, the design is one that with odd no. coils and even no. mags, and the config, reduced cog and drag to a minimum. The pulse motor is nothing special. Just eff. enough to getter dun. ;]
The configuration with the odd/even stuff does not reduce the drag to a minimum at all. When a given pick-up coil is outputting power (voltage and current) into the load it creates Lenz' law drag just like the equivalent drag would be created in any other pulse motor that has pick-up coils.
Some food for thought.
MileHigh
Ok MH, I'll expend a bit more energy on you to redeem you from the dark side.
@MH
QuoteI will say it one more time, the power output measurement in his first clip is no good. I also outlined how to make a proper measurement with a true-RMS multimeter.
I thought we settled this already? Have you not looked at his circuit and noticed the filter on the output. I told you this already in a previous post, the bulk of the output power is DC not AC, due to this filter. Are you familiar with filter theory and how the time constant smooths a waveform? And how about the further smoothing of the ripple in the electromechanical gages he uses, with their large time constants?
QuoteRight now this whole ball has been set in motion by two things, 1) a video clip that allegedly shows over unity power output but the measurement is no good, 2) a video clip that allegedly shows a self-runner that could easily be faked if you wanted to.
The measurement is good MH, saying otherwise shows me that this is just your un-educated and ignorant opinion.
Yes, videos can be faked, I'll give you that much.
QuoteYou have to ask yourself the question, "Why in Romero's case does a magnet moving past a pick-up coil allegedly produce over unity when thousands of other pulse motors have been built based on the same principle that don't produce over unity?"
Why did Edisons new lightbulb material work when thousands didn't work before?
QuoteBeyond that, the physics analysis clearly shows that a pick-up coil and moving magnet system is an under unity device that obeys the law of conservation of energy. Why should Romero's pick-up coils and magnets be different?
I'm not sure what analysis you refer too, but I can do an analysis that shows extra energy coming in. You see, our analyses are based on theories based on experiments, if this is something new, and I believe it is, then we need new theories and new analyses.
QuoteThere is absolutely nothing special about Romero's motor configuration.
So the 8/9 magnet/coil ratio is not special? you see that in any standard generator out there?
Biasing the core of a generator is so commonplace it's standard practice right?
Pulsing some coils and generating from others is such an un-special configuration you can sell me a few on Amazon right?
MH, it's not good to be negative, let it go man. When a major discovery arrives, it's paradigm changing, it will shock some and some will never accept it. Remember the old saying, If God wanted man to fly he would have given them wings?
EM
P.S.
Quote[Actually I believe the extra magnets do have an affect.]
What is it that they do and how is it beneficial?
You realy don't read what I say, or perhaps you don't understand. That's why I told you to read up on hysterisis losses and how to minimize them. I'm going to say it again.
BIASING THE FERRITE CORES WITH THE MAGNETS MINIMIZES HYSTERISIS LOSSES WHICH CAUSES UNECESSARY DRAG ON THE ROTOR! :o
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.09, 22:03:47
...
ChrisC:
I DO know how a pulse motor with pick-up coils works and it's not over unity. I never claimed that I was a god!
...
MileHigh
Well MH. I really am not suggesting you are GOD. Just for the sake of making things really simple, assuming for now RomeroUK faked his videos, then all bets are off and everyone goes back to your 'old school of thought' process and you're once again correct. Fair enough?
Now what if the videos were not faked and he actually ran the device for 5.5 hrs looping without a battery; just that capacitor and he showed it suspended. With all your 'pulsing' knowledge and experience with all the Bedini motors you have personally encountered and deemed to be non-O.U, how then can YOU explain? And please don't bring in the power measurements for now. Wanna explain to us?
cheers
chrisC
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.05.09, 23:30:20
P.S.
You realy don't read what I say, or perhaps you don't understand. That's why I told you to read up on hysterisis losses and how to minimize them. I'm going to say it again.
BIASING THE FERRITE CORES WITH THE MAGNETS MINIMIZES HYSTERISIS LOSSES WHICH CAUSES UNECESSARY DRAG ON THE ROTOR!
:o
EMdevices:
QuoteI thought we settled this already? Have you not looked at his circuit and noticed the filter on the output. I told you this already in a previous post, the bulk of the output power is DC not AC, due to this filter. Are you familiar with filter theory and how the time constant smooths a waveform? And how about the further smoothing of the ripple in the electromechanical gages he uses, with their large time constants?
Have you seen the waveform? I assume that the answer is no because we all are in the same boat. All we can say right now is that we can assume that the waveform has a DC component and an AC component and most likely the AC component is small. But the truth is we really don't know. The moment you have AC going into a resistive load you need to do an instantaneous voltage times instantaneous current calculation as the basis for your power measurement. An alternative is to use a true-RMS multimeter which will do the same thing.
So measuring the voltage and current with two analog meters in this case is fundamentally wrong. On top of that I have some suspicions that under certain conditions analog meters are non-linear.
Another issue is this: Asking for a second measurement because the first one is flawed is a good thing. Even if the first measurement was good, double-checking it with a true-RMS digital multimeter would be a good thing. Why do over unity enthusiasts instinctively and reflexively resist requests to make better measurements or to make double-checking measurements? Think about it, it makes no sense.
The power output measurement in the first clip is no good.
QuoteWhy did Edisons new lightbulb material work when thousands didn't work before?
You are making an apples and oranges comparison here and it's wrong. A rotor magnet flying past a pick-up coil in a Bedini motor is fundamentally the same as a rotor magnet flying past a pick-up coil in Romero's motor. All of the believers and replicators will have to do some soul searching about that one. There is simply nothing at all in Romero's Muller replication to suggest that it will produce over unity. If some of the replicators are competent with respect to making measurements, the measurements will bear this out.
QuoteBeyond that, the physics analysis clearly shows that a pick-up coil and moving magnet system is an under unity device that obeys the law of conservation of energy. Why should Romero's pick-up coils and magnets be different?
I'm not sure what analysis you refer too, but I can do an analysis that shows extra energy coming in. You see, our analyses are based on theories based on experiments, if this is something new, and I believe it is, then we need new theories and new analyses.
Please go ahead and show me your analysis that shows extra energy coming in. What kind of energy is "coming in?" From where? What experiments? What theories? If you have some links that would be great.
QuoteSo the 8/9 magnet/coil ratio is not special? you see that in any standard generator out there?
Biasing the core of a generator is so commonplace it's standard practice right?
Pulsing some coils and generating from others is such an un-special configuration you can sell me a few on Amazon right?
It's not special. It's just a method of staggering the outputs from the pick-up coils in time. Big deal.
You never see biasing of the core of a generator because in real life that's useless and does nothing. The only place you are are going to see that done is on the free energy forums.
Pulsing coils and storing the energy in a rotor and extracting that energy with pick-up coils is another thing that you will only see on the free energy forums.
QuoteMH, it's not good to be negative, let it go man. When a major discovery arrives, it's paradigm changing, it will shock some and some will never accept it.
I'm not being negative, I am just being realistic and sensible. Watch as the weeks go by and nobody can make a self-runner. You will start to see my comments in a different light.
QuoteYou realy don't read what I say, or perhaps you don't understand. That's why I told you to read up on hysterisis losses and how to minimize them. I'm going to say it again.
BIASING THE FERRITE CORES WITH THE MAGNETS MINIMIZES HYSTERISIS LOSSES WHICH CAUSES UNECESSARY DRAG ON THE ROTOR!
Let's take another look at this. Let's suppose that I accept that biasing the ferrite cores with magnets does what you say above.
Ok, fine, so what does that give you?
It gives you this: It reduces the rotational friction on the spinning rotor by a very slight amount. Let's say that there are three components to the rotational friction, 1) air friction, 2) bearing friction, 3) hysteresis losses in the cores.
So you have slightly reduced the drag on the motor but you are still left with air drag, bearing drag, and reduced hysteresis drag.
So EMdevices, what is so profound about that that you jumped up to a really big font? Does it help the system achieve over unity or does it just marginally reduce the losses associated with the rotational friction?
MileHigh
ChrisC:
QuoteNow what if the videos were not faked and he actually ran the device for 5.5 hrs looping without a battery; just that capacitor and he showed it suspended. With all your 'pulsing' knowledge and experience with all the Bedini motors you have personally encountered and deemed to be non-O.U, how then can YOU explain? And please don't bring in the power measurements for now. Wanna explain to us?
The truth is that is for Romero to explain not me. Why isn't HE taking his scope probe and making measurements and finding the alleged source of over unity and documenting it and then attempting to explain it? Why isn't HE making a bunch of measurements on the self-runner and sharing them with the open-source community?
Your question should have already been posed to Romerouk.
MileHigh
Magluvin:
You probably already read my response to the issue of the biasing of the cores. Supposing for the sake of argument biasing the cores reduces the rotational friction by 2%. What is the significance of this as far as you are concerned?
Romero has made some comments about how critical the positioning of the biasing magnets is. Well, if we are operating under the assumption that the biasing of the cores only makes a marginal reduction in the rotational friction, then Romero's comments about the critical positioning of the magnets don't really make any sense, do they? What do you think about this issue?
Please share with us any thoughts that you have about the benefits of the biasing magnets.
MileHigh
I am going to make one kind of tough comment here that I feel a bit uncomfortable making. However, I think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages for people that are following both threads and are relating to my comments.
Here is a quote from the OU user Bolt:
Quote
Either you are replicating OR you are up-scaling and using bigger better coils and magnets. In which case get the best Schottky diodes you can afford. Excess amps now wont go a miss later. With 10A diodes in a bridge you got like an easy 50w per coil with 10 very large generator coils collectively 500w system.
Is this what you are building? :)
Also one other point. Once you built this some of you will want to use coil shorting to give an extreme boost of power and volts. You get 300-400v when the coil is shorted. If you plan on doing this you need like 500v diodes. At 350v and 0.5 amp you now have 175 watt per coil = 1.7Kw system. No its not too far fetched the wind power guys make these muller style systems at that power rating.
Bolt is a pie-in-the-sky over unity space cadet. I have read many of his postings and most of them are just outrageous free energy fantasy talk that has no substance and makes no sense at all.
So my advice is to ignore all technical comments from Bolt because they will only corrupt and confuse impressionable minds that are trying to follow the debate and learn something.
There are many others like this but Bolt is in a class all by himself. So sorry to sound tough but for those that are truly trying to follow and learn something Bolt's technical comments are to be avoided like the plague.
Again, I'm sorry but I feel compelled to speak the truth in this one particular case because the disinformation is so extreme.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.10, 00:26:33
ChrisC:
The truth is that is for Romero to explain not me. Why isn't HE taking his scope probe and making measurements and finding the alleged source of over unity and documenting it and then attempting to explain it? Why isn't HE making a bunch of measurements on the self-runner and sharing them with the open-source community?
Your question should have already been posed to Romerouk.
MileHigh
If it's not fake, I don't have questions for RomeroUK. He probably doesn't know where the extra energy comes from but he is not stubborn like you. You seemed to have a ego so high you can't believe anything else can be true if it cannot be explained by your power equations. Maybe time to to get down to ground level without being a mile too high?
cheers
chrisC
Hey Mh
Well in Romeros case, his setup would have to be experienced to get a feel for what he says and claims.
We dont know really anything to either argue nor endorse it for sure.
But a good tech, one that has interest in these devices and really wants to see one come to fruition, will not put down something he has not seen nor experienced. He/She should investigate with delight, experiment and find the truth before committing to comments.
Romeros setup has differences to Mullers. You know how if you took a pat. of a supposed device and build it, they dont seem to work.
maybe they all or most just need subtle changes to correct them.
So Romeros device is new. Maybe he was diligent enough to gitter dun. :D
Its fresh. It has a claim. Like Myth Busters. Those people have their opinions before the tests, but they DO the tests, then come to conclusions. Admittedly, I dont agree with all of their ways of testing to fully assume busted or not. But thats show biz.
I also have some of doubts still, due to experiences. But I keep thinking. Thinking of possibilities that I have not encountered. ;]
Just as every day there is a new song, there can always be a new way that we have never heard of nor experienced.
I dont believe Romero is lacking all that much info thus far. More keeps coming. Diagrams are drawn, circuits are shown, wire/parts and sources are shown. So I give it thumbs up so far. We shall see.
mags
CrisC
Is that you, from Fizzx?
Mags
Quote from: chrisC on 2011.05.10, 01:08:11
If it's not fake, I don't have questions for RomeroUK. He probably doesn't know where the extra energy comes from but he is not stubborn like you. You seemed to have a ego so high you can't believe anything else can be true if it cannot be explained by your power equations. Maybe time to to get down to ground level without being a mile too high?
cheers
chrisC
ChrisC:
I can't explain to you why Romerouk is demonstrating a self runner when I see no evidence of any sort that that is possible. I apologize if I appear to have a big ego. Part of that is that you probably know how much mental work it is to make sure every sentence you write is in "politically correct free energy forum talk." It can be very mentally draining to do that all the time.
One thing for sure, is that I am being 100% real and telling you what I really think and feel about Romero's Muller replication. I am honestly and truthfully giving you the straight goods as I see them. That's all that I can do. For what it's worth I once did a course in "Electric Machines" but it was so long ago and the course did not make a big impression on me so I don't remember much. Sadly, my professor about 10 years later was gunned down by a maniac.
Anyway, let's watch as the replication YouTube clips start to come down the pipe in a few days.
MileHigh
P.S.: Good pun work!
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.10, 01:05:54
I am going to make one kind of tough comment here that I feel a bit uncomfortable making. However, I think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages for people that are following both threads and are relating to my comments.
Here is a quote from the OU user Bolt:
Bolt is a pie-in-the-sky over unity space cadet. I have read many of his postings and most of them are just outrageous free energy fantasy talk that has no substance and makes no sense at all.
So my advice is to ignore all technical comments from Bolt because they will only corrupt and confuse impressionable minds that are trying to follow the debate and learn something.
There are many others like this but Bolt is in a class all by himself. So sorry to sound tough but for those that are truly trying to follow and learn something Bolt's technical comments are to be avoided like the plague.
Again, I'm sorry but I feel compelled to speak the truth in this one particular case because the disinformation is so extreme.
MileHigh
Well thats not nice. ???
Some may not know everything. Some want to help, even if its of the little that they may know.
Ehh. Some just want to be a part of it. However they can. Some are a pain in the ass. O0
One thing though, I dont think it needs fast diodes really. Not as a gen on that motor. But if he does try the shorting later, better diodes would help with the spikes and current. I have seen advantages of paralleling diodes. funny thing is, I wonder why it can be done, paralleling diodes. Like you cant have 2 leds in parallel with 1 limit resistor, only one will light. Maybe if the current is enough the other breaks down also. hmm
But anyways, not nice.. ;) U were right in the first sentence. :(
Mags
Mags:
Let me try to give you an analogy to help put things in context.
For starters. I can look at a pulse motor clip and have a pretty good innate feel for what going on. I used to watch clips on Youtube and I sometimes realized that I knew much more about the motor in question than the person that built it and made the clip. It's very easy for me (most of the time) to visualize the electrical and mechanical power flow and see the mathematical modeling that you can apply to the situation.
So here is the analogy: You are a seasoned automotive mechanic that has worked on car engines for 20 years. Somebody shows you a truck engine with a problem and asks you your thoughts on it? Do you shy away and say you can't because you only work on car engines? Of course you don't, you are quite capable of diagnosing a problem on a much larger truck engine because you have a lot of experience with car engines.
So when I tell you that there is no logical reason in the world to assume that Romero's pulse motor is over unity I really mean it. I can look at the clips and see the construction and see what it is doing and easily visualize the electrical and mechanical energy/power trail that it manifests. It all makes perfect sense in terms of it's operation, except for the over unity claim.
Romero's pulse motor is a vanilla pulse motor that is an under unity device. I am certain of that and time is really and truly on my side.
Going back to the technical debate on OU, we are finally coming to the end of the round of questions about how to physically replicate the device. This round of technical questions always happens and in a sense it's rather unfortunate that it always plays out this way. Honestly people are asking the wrong questions at this time. Whether a pick-up coil has 200 turns or 250 turns is almost incidental at this point in time. People should be asking the technical questions about how it actually works. Romero might not know how it works in the explanation sense, but he sure as hell can show how it works with sample scope shots and measurements. That way people would have an idea for what to shoot for when they do their own building and testing. Unfortunately this line of questioning is beyond the scope of your typical replicator.
But, there is a silver lining here. Even a non-technical person reading this thread has seen my comments about what kinds of questions should be asked.
MileHigh
Hey MH
Would it be to say that you dont believe in ou?
Mags
Mh,
I'm glad you finaly got the point, thanks to the big font. :)
I never know if people read what I post or comprehend what I say!
Now, the hysterisis loss and minimizing it may or may not be the full answer, and I don't think it is. If you look at my other posts, I tend to belive the traversal of the B-H curve from high H values to low H values may also be critical, and romero confirmed that it doesn't work if the magnets are reversed (implying a low-to-high and back H value variation)
Think about this, assume most of these exotic magnet motors are operating with a slight OU factor say 1.01, or 1%, but due to losses like windage, eddy currents, hysterisis, I^R, etc... you would never know it, so something to do is always mimimize the loses you can identify. Bolt made a very good point over at overunity.com and I agree with him on that point.
I tell you guys, the only thing I fear is that Romero will get nervous due to all the attention and come out and "claim" the device was faked, just to disperse the crowds. And then, if this thing is realy hard to tune and balance and we need his help we won't have it.
EM
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.05.10, 01:30:18
Well thats not nice. ???
One thing though, I dont think it needs fast diodes really. Not as a gen on that motor. But if he does try the shorting later, better diodes would help with the spikes and current. I have seen advantages of paralleling diodes. funny thing is, I wonder why it can be done, paralleling diodes. Like you cant have 2 leds in parallel with 1 limit resistor, only one will light. Maybe if the current is enough the other breaks down also. hmm
But anyways, not nice.. ;) U were right in the first sentence. :(
Mags
I agree that it was not nice. But by the same token posting outrageous nonsensical bullshit to people that might be looking up to you is not nice either. Even if you might not be self-aware that you are posting outrageous nonsensical bullshit it's still not nice.
You are right, there is no need for fast diodes here. It's a motor, the switching frequencies are on the order of hundreds of Hertz. That has nothing to do with the switching times of diodes which are probably on the order of nanoseconds. There is nothing wrong with paralleling diodes. With enough current flow, eventually both of them will switch on.
With respect to Romero's motor, the paralleling of the diodes is not needed, they bring nothing of any real value to the table.
If somebody doesn't believe me they can do the following: Make a series of reference measurements that characterize your motor. Power in, power out, RPMs, voltage and waveform going into the DC-to-DC converter, etc. (In fact, all of the replicators should try to define a "standard set" of measurements so that they can compare the performance characteristics of different motors.) Then remove the extra diodes and repeat your measurements. You will find that the extra diodes had no real affect on the operation of the motor.
MileHigh
MH quotes:
QuoteSo when I tell you that there is no logical reason in the world to assume that Romero's pulse motor is over unity I really mean it.
QuoteI can look at the clips and see the construction and see what it is doing and easily visualize the electrical and mechanical energy/power trail that it manifests.
Ok, I'm not a shrink but here it goes.
DENIALand
IGNORANT and PRIDEFULL OVERCONFIDENCEMH,
You don't know electronics and motor theory well enough to comment, and you've clearly demonstrated that to me. If you're a skeptic be a skeptic but don't expose yourself any further. For your sake I hope this thing turns out to be a fake so we can all bow down to you and acknowledge our foolishness ! :-X
EM
Hey MH
Well if the bridge were to get warm or even hot, would that not have affect to the outcome in any way? If they were to get hot, and adding the extra diodes reduced the current in the bridge, reducing the heat.
In this business, every bit counts. ;]
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.05.10, 01:11:53
CrisC
Is that you, from Fizzx?
Mags
Sorry Magluvin. I'm not associated with Fizzx. What is Fizzx? I'm just a regular guy who is eager to learn and to explore.
cheers
chrisC
Mags:
I would believe in it if I ever saw it but so far nothing. Aaron and Paul Lowrence and Rosemary Ainslie will tell you that over unity is popping up all over the place like the first round of Spring dandelions but they are wrong.
EMdevices:
QuoteThink about this, assume most of these exotic magnet motors are operating with a slight OU factor say 1.01, or 1%, but due to losses like windage, eddy currents, hysterisis, I^R, etc... you would never know it, so something to do is always mimimize the loses you can identify. Bolt made a very good point over at overunity.com and I agree with him on that point.
That's not the claim in this case though. Look, what do the cores _really_ do? Nobody ever discusses that. They increase the inductance of the pick-up coils. That means when a magnet flies by the core the induction process results in less current flow through the pick-up coil (when it is in a discharging time slice) and a longer discharge cycle. Certainly the external magnets may influence the inductance because of the polarization of the core, but the main effect of the cores is to increase the inductance of the pick-up coils.
More importantly, if you are an astute builder and tester you will do some measurements on one of the pick-up coils yourself with and without a core and draw your own conclusions. You can also make measurements with and without magnets. Some astute experiments might start to smash down some of your preconceptions with real hard data.
Honestly, as far as I am concerned the issue about the hysteresis energy losses due to the cores is yet another preconception that a lot of you have in your heads that is insignificant in the overall scheme of things. Like seriously, suppose you loose three micro-joules of energy in a core when a rotor magnet passes. Then you add your biasing magnets and you end up losing two micro-joules instead. ( I think that these are realistic numbers) What the hell does that have to do with the operation of the motor? The answer is nothing. In my opinion it's an example of you guys garden-pathing yourselves into an empty part of the woods.
In my opinion you have to focus on what is real. Chances are the inductance change of the pick-up coils due to the cores is millions of times more significant than a few paltry micro-joules of lost energy from hysteresis losses.
Another question: Do you really need the cores? What value do they bring to the table? I think that they will increase the energy transfer out of the generator. Each pick-up coil can theoretically store more energy with a core in place. However, I am out on a limb here and there are many factors at play. The bottom line if I built a motor myself I would remove the cores and run the entire suite of test measurements again to generate a "performance vector" for the motor without cores and compare it to "reference performance vector" of the motor with cores.
MileHigh
EMdevices:
How can I be in denial when the burden of proof rests on Romerouk's shoulders? By saying that I am in denial you are implying that Romero's over unity motor is real. So you saw two YouTube clips and you now believe that in 10 years we will be in a Jetson's Hydrogen economy and the world is going to change forever because Romero made a magic vanilla pulse motor? If you were wise you wold take a step back from that untenable position.
QuoteYou don't know electronics and motor theory well enough to comment, and you've clearly demonstrated that to me.
Now I think that you're in denial. I'm no wizard but I'm pretty well informed.
Also, you never replied about the output power measurement issue from Romero's first clip. The power output measurement is invalid.
Mags:
Quoteadding the extra diodes reduced the current in the bridge, reducing the heat.
Sorry, wrong and wrong. The current won't change and adding extra diodes might make for a very marginal reduction in heat losses in the bridge rectifier.
MileHigh
@milehigh
QuotePlease share with us any thoughts that you have about the benefits of the biasing magnets.
Initially I had the same thoughts as you have on this issue however I have built more motor/generators than is probably sensible and experimented with magnetic biasing. On the surface there should be no reason that magnetic biasing should make any difference but in the real world it does and this can be proven easily with a spin test. That is I would spin up the motor/generator to X rpm and count the revolutions to a dead stop and magnetic biasing would always show much better returns on the initial energy input, near 15% in my estimation. I use laminated transformer cores on my relatively low speed generators which should produce almost no drag forces however in reality I have found there is a considerable amount of drag unless the cores are biased.
Another aspect in which we can be mislead concerns the motor/generator bearings, now if we use good quality ball bearings we can assume we have reduced friction to a minimum however this mimimum is in fact very large. In this respect we need a direct comparison to actually know how bad our supposedly good technology is which is why I always perform real direct comparison tests. For instance I used standard ball bearings on the rotor of my generator and an applied force of X produced 10 revolutions, next I bought some high quality ball bearings then washed the grease out of the races and replaced it with a high quality low friction synthetic oil. These bearings on the same rotor with the same applied force of X produced 23 revolutions. Now most would assume this is the best we could do however I then invented my own passive magnetic bearings to take the technology to the next level because for me enough is never enough. My magnetic bearings on the same rotor with the same applied force of X produced 73 revolutions. While we may think we are at peak efficiency with any standard technolgy this is seldom if ever the case, in reality I have found what many call standard technology is in fact a very poor way of doing things and always involves what I consider to be massive losses.
This is why I believe we should never replace real experiments with equations and calculations because real experiments can give us real insight and understanding but equations can only tell us what we usually already know or what has already been done.
QuoteWith respect to Romero's motor, the paralleling of the diodes is not needed, they bring nothing of any real value to the table.
Im not sure I would agree, if we are dealing with currents having a relatively low rate of change then we can use standard diodes in the standard configurations. However I have built cuircuits with a high rate of change in which a single 4148 diode added in series produced a voltage rise of almost 100 volts. In this case it should be obvious that the rate of change of current must be higher than the rate of conduction of the diode otherwise there is absolutely no reason adding a single diode in series should produce such a difference. In fact this is a huge problem for me because I have yet to find any diodes anywhere that have the required specs to reduce this voltage rise to acceptable levels. Another note of interest is that at high rates of change leakage becomes an issue and diodes must be placed in parallel and cleaned with rubbing alcohol because the oil on our skin leaves a conductive residue when we handle the diodes. Why place the diodes in parallel? because this represents an increase in surface area which must produce a proportional decrease in charge density relative to the rate of conduction.
As well there is another issue which has confounded many experimenters, I have a small capacitive charging circuit with a high rate of change and when I move to another room the device either drops in efficiency or stops all together-- why does it do this? This issue bothered me for many days until I considered what should have been obvious, the relative humidity in the first room was 27% and in the next room 82%. Essentially there are a staggering number of things to consider in even simple circuits which can reduce efficiency, it is all those damn little things that always get us. As such I have little if no interest in standard technology my interest is in perfection and unfortunately standard technology and standard practice fall so short of this level they are practically useless.
Regards
AC
@ac, Thanks for those insights.
@mh, I already commented on the output power measurement, and why it is valid. Did you not read my normal font posts? Do I have to kick it up a notch again?
One simple question: Why are you on this forum, if you don't believe in OverUnity devices?
BTW, You are in denial because you are shown an overunity machine runing in closed loop AND generating extra power and don't believe it because of your mind set. Yes I believe it's real until proven otherwise.
EM
Fun stuff. Educational. Keep an open mind, MH.
Today, romerouk posted (OU):
QuoteI have removed one of the pair coils and replaced with a larger one and that has improved the system.
[/b]
This suggests to me that he won't object to some changes with his system... and that he himself has an open mind (IMO)
User Bolt made a few good posts there as well. Apparently the Muller even/odd arrangement is not the OU "key" either, just a scheme for reducing cogging, especially in wind turbine generator designs. He also seems to credit the biasing magnets.
Those magnetic flux simulations that were posted are really nice.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.05.10, 04:55:25
@mh, I already commented on the output power measurement, and why it is valid. Did you not read my normal font posts? Do I have to kick it up a notch again?
One simple question: Why are you on this forum, if you don't believe in OverUnity devices?
BTW, You are in denial because you are shown an overunity machine runing in closed loop AND generating extra power and don't believe it because of your mind set. Yes I believe it's real until proven otherwise.
EM
I'll repeat it again. The pick-up coil output is a combination of DC and AC and it's going into a resistive load. The analog meters measure the average voltage and the average current. This only works for pure DC. Once you have AC you need to use a true-RMS digital multimeter across the load. That will give you the correct power measurement. Therefore Romero's power measurement is no good. This is basic electronics, it has nothing specifically to do with Romero's setup. That's all that I can say about this issue.
I am on the forum for some fun and a plurality of views always makes things more interesting.
I haven't been shown an over unity machine. I have been shown two clips that pretend to show an over unity machine. As the replications start failing you might change your tune.
MileHigh
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.05.09, 15:41:23
...
Consider the new Nantenna technology which is simply two nano-scale conductors having a spacing equal to 1/2 the wavelength of the EM energy to be extracted. This new cutting edge technology is based on a very old and quite obvious concept because we know as a fact that if the conductors fall on the opposite peaks of the EM wave then they will be charged oppositely which constitutes electrical energy.
Now if this technology is so obvious then why didn't anyone develop it sooner utilizing larger wavelengths?
...
The answer is simple: the technology didn't allow it.
Today the improvement of the technology allows to apply conventional concepts as radio antennae, to very short EM wave length compatible with light, because we are now able to make them.
Quote
The "old school of thought" is really saying we cannot create or invent anything new
...
It is not true.
The "old school of thought" always said that light and radio are EM waves, not different in nature, therefore that antennae can work at any frequency. It is just a technological problem to make them under some very small size.
There is nothing new from a theoretical viewpoint. These Antennae at light wave length work according to conventional physics laws, they are products of an "old school of thought". We were not speaking of "school of thought" in engineering but in theoretical physics.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.05.09, 16:07:33
...
I guess the real question is how would we know the difference? if external energy enters a circuit and we have no knowledge of how or why this happens then it would appear to be OU so really we are not dealing with facts of any sort only appearances.
It doesn't a matter. My point is: assuming a system remaining the same over time (nothing consumed), those who try to explain OU with conventional concepts of physics and without considering extra input energy are wrong, question of consistency and logic. We are left with only two possibilities:
- either we consider that academic knowledge can explain OU and in this case we must consider that energy enters from outside into our apparently closed system
- or we consider that academic knowledge doesn't apply and therefore new theories are needed to explain apparent creation of energy.
Why? Because in the other cases (OU without energy coming from outside of the system), conventional equations of physics lead to 2+2=5.
Quote
Rather than follow the "old school of thought" and go into denial by thinking it is impossible I use the new school of thought which says I should understand "why" it happens regardless of what I may believe.
Regards
AC
"Why it happens" is a useless question when nothing is happening. The first point is to prove OU as a fact.
Then an answer can't be right if its formalism is not internally consistent, question of methodology, and it is not internally consistent if one of the two above possibilities is not realized.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.05.09, 23:30:20
...
The measurement is good MH, saying otherwise shows me that this is just your un-educated and ignorant opinion.
...
The measurement is not good. We can't even speak of "measurement".
Quote from: chrisC on 2011.05.10, 01:08:11
...you can't believe anything else can be true if it cannot be explained by your power equations. Maybe time to to get down to ground level without being a mile too high?
MH can't believe. We can't believe, we must not believe, we must know and the knowledge comes from the analysis of facts, observation, measurement. Until now OU in Romerouk's device is a question of faith, and it will remain a question of faith until answers to the "power questions".
Ex,
do you want a spanking too? What is your guys problem? He has shown you FACTS and OBSERVATIONS. He has MEASURED for you the Input power and the Output power and you have OBSERVED if you watched the video. So what faith are you talking about, you don't trust your eyeballs? And why is the measurement not good? Because it shows almost twice the power out? And you can't handle that?
EM
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.05.10, 09:24:36
MH can't believe. We can't believe, we must not believe, we must know and the knowledge comes from the analysis of facts, observation, measurement. Until now OU in Romerouk's device is a question of faith, and it will remain a question of faith until answers to the "power questions".
Hmm
Is there any indication that the ferrite core saturates when the rotor is approaching? I'm just wondering based on the strong magnets on both ends of the ferrite.
Anybody know what is the timescale on the scope shot what Romero posted?
I afraid to ask in the topic, hence Stefan threatened me with banning, if I ever attack Romero in any way. :D
How many people here have meet romerouk in person and can verify that hes truthful,none
No one knows this person other than thru this video,so you have a faith based belief
that hes telling you the truth.If Hes smart enough to make this device then hes smart
enough to trick you.Maybe theres a hidden battery, like in the capacitor or some other place.
Some people require very little concrete proof to believe,
some people require a great deal.untill someone other than Romerouk makes a replication that works
you can't be sure if its fake or real.
Quote from: cheappower2012 on 2011.05.10, 14:04:23
How many people here have meet romerouk in person and can verify that hes truthful,none
No one knows this person other than thru this video,so you have a faith based belief
that hes telling you the truth.If Hes smart enough to make this device then hes smart
enough to trick you.Maybe theres a hidden battery, like in the capacitor or some other place.
Some people require very little concrete proof to believe,
some people require a great deal.untill someone other than Romerouk makes a replication that works
you can't be sure if its fake or real.
You'll just have to wait until tomorrow. He just said he will upload a new video, replacing the large cap. with a bunch of smaller caps in parallel and also removing the plastic encapsulation of the DC-DC converter so you unbelieving people can see the only batteries in the system are the ones that are invisible to you men of little faith!
cheers
chrisC
Quote from: Chef on 2011.05.10, 13:55:18
Anybody know what is the timescale on the scope shot what Romero posted?
I afraid to ask in the topic, hence Stefan threatened me with banning, if I ever attack Romero in any way. :D
Don't worry about that. I've been banned from OU several times.
Romero is building a larger unit.
Who does everyone think that to get more power, the device must be "larger". I think a better analysis of something that works will lead to a btter build than just scaling it up.
(The Methernitha (mis-spelled) group tried to scale up their device to produce 20kw and it wouldn't work.)
Quote from: chrisC on 2011.05.10, 01:08:11
You seemed to have a ego so high you can't believe anything else can be true if it cannot be explained by your power equations. Maybe time to to get down to ground level without being a mile too high?
cheers
chrisC
Tread carefully with your methods, chrisC, or you may find yourself kicked out. You are not on overunity now.
Paul-R
Quote from: Paul-R on 2011.05.10, 16:48:21
Tread carefully with your methods, chrisC, or you may find yourself kicked out. You are not on overunity now.
Paul-R
Believe me Paul-R, you'll be the absolute last person in the world I would need technical or for that matter any advice from, please crawl back under your rock and observe what is happening.
cheers
chrisC
I'm waiting for a replication, too. But I've seen enough with my little blocking-oscillator circuits to give this a chance. It might work.
I would also like to see the input and output power waveforms, and MEAN Pin and Pout evaluated as we have discussed.
"Rigor without Rancor" is my motto.
Any news on the "Gabriel device" replications? That path seems to have gone quite silent. I know there were several working on replicating, including feynman (are you there, feynman?)
If he truly is giving us all the details and it's not a fraud, personally i would cooperate in getting a replication up and running, then once all doubt has gone, he would have all the money he ever wanted thrown at him to scale up and understand the operating principle, the only problem with that is there's a good chance it would have been taken out of Public view, full disclosure to the masses is the only way but with guidance from Romero, i am hoping it gets this far.
Who's replicating and how far along are they?
Anyone on this board, if so please publish the build in a bench
Quoteromerouk
Re: Muller Dynamo
« Reply #633 on: Today at 03:45:39 PM »
T H I S W A S A B I G F A K E, S T O P R E P L I C A T I N G
THIS IS MY LAST POST
World will be the same
SORRY!
EDIT: ...that post was from romerouk, ...on the other site.
EDIT: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg285496#msg285496 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg285496#msg285496)
Hey guys,
Greetings from Waikiki, HI.
Why are you guys getting agitated? Like with the Mylow fiasco, time will sus out Romero's device in terms of its authenticity.
I am leaning towards it being authentic, because I have no reason to believe he is trying to be dishonest, and I can not see anything with the apparatus that would make me suspect foul play. Obviously not every stone as been unturned (every possible means of trickery), but it sounds as if Romero is willing to oblige in these respects, and is doing so as we speak.
I would suggest that we stay calm until the facts become verified with time.
Right now, validity of the looping should perhaps remain the focus, because that will prove all, one way or the other. The measurements are a moot point at this time imho.
How about we give Romero the optimism and benefit of the doubt, and focus on the evidence he is offering?
Cheers guys.
.99
Hi Rosphere.
Yeah I saw that over there, and made a post.
I'm not so sure I'm convinced. He may be super-frustrated right now, and doing what he did is one way to alleviate the immense and constant pressure he's been experiencing since the beginning.
We're going to have to wait for someone who has close contact with him know the truth.
Too bad it had to come to this. :-\
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.05.10, 19:03:05
Hey guys,
Greetings from Waikiki, HI.
Go to Diamond Head (an old volcano) if you have time, and the rainforrest.
Paradise Cove on west side.
Some lookout point you can drive to also.
This is absolutely Bizarre
His home address is under the domain for all to see
my best guess is his work just got funded >:(
yeah address and phone too
I noticed his forum doesn't work now.
Maybe he was threatened.
:) :'(
It will unravel in time, either the rep's will work or they wont, still a whole lot to unfold yet.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.05.10, 20:16:08
...
Or maybe I'm in DENIAL, like I accused MH. :-[
EM
I don't think you're in denial EM. I believe nobody would go through what Romero has done (past YouTube videos) and the amount of details he released to want to fake this. He's probably got a great offer to shut up or was threatened. Only way to find for sure is to replicate this thing. Probably costs at most $230.00 for all components including magnets; that's my quick mental calculation.
cheers
chrisC
MIB's have not pulled the entire stock of Maplin converters they are on a special price right now £9.99
Whatever the truth is I hope he dumps the load he tried to carry (No pun intended).
If it was faked he did a great job of it.
If not, he should take the money and shut up about it. The alternatives may be many and probably very ugly.
When folks come forward with something like this that has a chance of being real - I wonder about their level of intelligence or naivety. The only thing safe to do is post everything needed for replication in one burst to as many people as possible and then run. The only option I can imagine is to make use of it for yourself and keep quiet.
:(
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.05.10, 20:46:40
MIB's have not pulled the entire stock of Maplin converters they are on a special price right now £9.99
Somehow, I doubt MIBs had any participation. These web forums of so-called 'peers' can be brutal enough.
Memorable quote:
QuoteWith a number of overunity devices coming up - skeptics
should at least begin practicing a little disembling and groveling while
saying: "I didn't know you could do that". :D History won't be repeating
itself any time soon.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Can you say that again?
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.05.10, 23:47:58
There should be an easier way to bias the ferites than stacking magnets and washers like he did.
I just ordered 90 neodymium disk magnets ! :) (I'll make a few models and vary parameters)
EM
Say it sin't so, EM! Say it isn't so!
It is much more productive to cut the flux like Smith and Muller than to spin magnets. Spinning allows the fields to creep up and slide away wheres as cutting has clear demarcations which excite the coils more.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.05.11, 00:01:41
Say it isn't so, EM! Say it isn't so!
Maybe we should no longer wish anyone OU success, ...we will never hear from them again. :'(
So much for Romerouk,
As far as I am concerned this guy got caught in an irrational compulsion to fake over unity and when he realized he was in too deep he freaked out.
Perhaps he looked at his two analog meter readings and got a free energy hard-on and the thing took on a life of its own. After years of failed experiments he felt a compulsion to demonstrate success, even if it meant putting on a charade. So he hid his wires and followed his compulsion and did the 20-minute video.
I don't buy all the stuff about the "intense pressure" at all. It's email. You don't have to answer it. There was only a mild amount of skepticism on OU.
However, his clips were definitely not as slick or as perfect as he thought they were. He read some comments on OU about little inconsistencies in the clips, perhaps here also, and he started to get worried.
The pressure started to build up inside him because he knew that he could never pull off a fourth clip and address some of the technical issues that were mentioned. For example, when he was running the motor at 3 volts, the pick-up coils were probably returning a bumpy waveform with peaks of about three volts. The DC-to-DC converter is designed for 12-volts in. Chances are the DC-to-DC converter would croak with the very weak output from the pick-up coils trying to power it. My assumption is that he was faking that clip and running 12-volts to the DC-to-DC converter the whole time.
So, with that kind of stress on him, there was another stress on top of that. The stress was knowing that many people were probably spending somewhere between $200 and $600 to try to replicate his fake bullshit. Many of these people were his online friends and peers and he felt horrible about inducing them to spend so much of their hard-earned money for junk, not to mention all of the time they would waste trying to build something that he knew ahead of time would not work.
When you are under that kind of self-imposed pressure and the community that you are dealing with is all virtual and online, the way to make it all go away is to simply run away.
So that's what he did and even played the fake "guilt trip" card that Mylow played. He barked out, "T H I S W A S A B I G F A K E, S T O P R E P L I C A T I N G" as his parting run-away shot in an attempt to make all of us feel guilty about putting poor Romerouk under "so much pressure." "I am so wounded that you are doubting me that I will cry out in pain and show you all how you made me feel." Kiss my ass liar!
The pressure was all self-created inside Romerouk's head. He did a stupid nonsensical irrational thing and it was bound to spiral out of control in his head so he had to run away.
MileHigh
A few follow-up comments to this ridiculous fiasco.
The believers and supporters of Romerouk, sometimes you guys don't have your heads screwed on right. The moment Romero did his videos and showed a bare minimum of information you were all convinced. When requests were made for more information many of you actively resisted this and acted as blockers. Romero provided almost NO INFORMATION and you fought tooth and nail to PREVENT any more information about the motor being shared with the community. You actually insisted that he provided all the information necessary when anybody with the most basic understanding of electronics and motors would think that you were nuts for stating that.
WTF??? Really, what the fuck is wrong with you guys? This is supposed to be OPEN SOURCE, you are supposed to encourage the sharing of information and you end up doing exactly the opposite.
This thing was a MOTOR, and there are WAVEFORMS that show how it works. There are MEASUREMENTS that can be made external and internal to the circuit to enlighten and teach others how it works and you fools RESISTED these requests.
Wake up and do some soul searching about this. Next time this situation happens, put your brains in gear and try to work with the developer to understand how the ELECTRICAL MOTOR works with respect to the ELECTRICAL SIGNALS that describe it.
You guys obsess over how many turns in the coil and and the electrical resistance and if it's litz wire or not. You obsess over the MECHANICALS but you are not interested in the ELECTRICAL SIGNAL being produced by the coil. It's fucking ridiculous!
Rant off.
MileHigh
EMdevices:
I assume that you will concede that there is something amiss with your calculations because the calculated voltages don't reflect the reality. The setup was not putting out 300 volts at one rotation per second (60 RPM). Also note the rotor never even got close to 100 rotations per second in his clips.
Look, there is a much simpler way to analyze this. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the scope shot was taken at 100 RPM. Since the output voltage is proportional to dB/dt then if the rotor was spinning at 200 RPM the output voltage from the coils would double.
As far as the waveform goes, what you see is all purely based on geometry, it has nothing to do with the biasing magnets. If somebody builds a replication then the they can do that test I suggested where they look at the same waveform with and without biasing magnets.
That waveform is perhaps a good opportunity for some people to learn, especially if you are going to build a replication. If you look at that waveform and don't understand why it is shaped the way it is shaped, you should try and figure that one out for yourselves as a learning exercise.
MileHigh
what asymmetry?
Romero faking or not, Bill Muller claimed it was OU.
Hey Em
In that scope shot. Is that the combined output of all coils in succession, or is it of just 1 coil pair?
Either way, I see the larger flat spot as if the rotor mag is in between coils. And the peaks are showing when the mag is on top of the approaching edge of the coil or close and just after passing the core. The short flat spots are when the mag is over the core.
When the mag approaches the coil, it is concentrated on just one side of the coil, producing a positive or negative peak, and on the exit we see the opposite polarity peak.
As the mag approaches, the mags field is attracted to the side of the coils core, where the windings are, causing current to flow in one direction through the coil. And when the mag passes the core, the field lines will be attracted to the exit side of the core, causing current to flow the other way.
I think if we analyze the wave form, I believe we can see a difference in the attack and decay of the peaks, as it should be, because of where the mag filelds begin and end in the attack, and where they begin and end in the decay.
Like in an alternator stator core,( you can search pics to see) its not the armature field just jumping from core section to core section that causes the current in the stator windings, its the fields being dragged along the stator core and flowing into the winding gaps that creates the currents in the windings. ;] The fields need to CUT the windings to produce current in the wire.
Now we have another ingredient. The Bias mags. ;]
Are they just biasing the coils?
I see it this way.....
Lets just picture 1 set of coils, top and bottom, no rotor.
I think that being the top and bottom are in attraction to each other, when the rotor mag is not over the coils, but in between coils, that this attraction happens and helps to create a flux field band between top and bottom coils.
Now we will just look at the top coil and assume the bottom will mirror the tops actions. ;]
When the rotor mag approaches the coil, we might think that the mag is not attracted to the coil core. It may not, being the core is biased in repulsion to the approaching mag pole. This approach of the rotor mag will most likely push the bias field to the opposite side of the coil core. Now we have the bias mags field cutting the exit side of the coil, and we have the entry side of the coil being cut by the rotor mag.
This combination could be doubling the amount of flux cutting the coil at that time. Instead of just cutting on the approaching side, and just the exit side when the mag passes the coil. This may be key to his amount of generation, for such an open and seemingly sparse generator construction, say as compared to any production model considered.
More later....
Mags
EMdevices:
I see the asymmetry also but like I said it all has to do with geometry.
QuoteSo in anycase, it appears that it should work just fine at lower speeds if the DC/DC converter can handle that low of voltage.[/u]
This is a good question and my guess would be that the DC-to-DC converter would fail if it was fed a very low voltage like three volts. The spec for it specifically states 12 volts in. So that means it probably works from about nine volts through 15 volts. I am talking voltage-source volts here also. That's much different from the higher impedance three-volts-with-ripple that would be coming from the pick-up coils at a lower rotor RPM. Even if the DC-to-DC converter worked at this very low voltage it would demand so much current from the pick-up coils to maintain it's output that the output from the pick-up coils would likely croak.
Realistically, the oscillator and the voltage sensing and PWM circuitry in the DC-to-DC converter was designed as cheaply as possible so that means it would only work at higher voltages.
When somebody gets the DC-to-DC converter they can perhaps set the output voltage to three volts and put a five watt load on the output. Then start feeding it 12 volts on it's power input and slowly lower the voltage. I expect that it will croak at around nine volts. It's just a guess.
If someone was really anal they could do the audio analysis of the 20 minute clip and get the RPMs of the rotor at 12-volts and also at 3 volts. You assume that the 15-volts in from the pick-up coils is legit (for the sake of argument) and then derive the pick-up coil output voltage at the lower RPM. Then you could see how the DC-to-DC converter responds.
It's actually a bit more complicated that that relating to the conduction angle of the FWBRs versus the quasi-DC output voltage from the FWBRs and capacitor combination as it relates to the actual load being drawn by the power input of the DC-to-DC converter. In simple English the quasi-DC voltage measurement from the FWBR outputs is also a function of the load. The lower the effective resistance of the load the lower the quasi-DC voltage. Since Romero is gone, the only way to get a handle on that would be to have a quite similar replication and do an investigation.
The results of the investigation should show that when Romero was powering the motor with three volts DC from the DC-to-DC converter that the output from the pick-up coil plus FWBRs would not have nearly enough juice to keep the DC-to-DC converter alive. Hence he was powering the FWBR output voltage bus with an external power source when he made the 20-minute clip.
MileHigh
EM,
Give it up.
Soon he will fall into a deep twitching sleep and be back to maintain the vacuum in the morning. You will never convince him the curve is anything more than carved into ferrite and analog meters are completely unreliable except when Kirchoff used them ( :D ).
I'll bet you didn't know that Kirchoff's work is the basis for the action in a D'Arsonval meter movement C.C
Anyway.... So much for that....
What is next? Is there any meat left on Rosemarie's bones?
Should I stick one of my projects in the Paraná filled aquarium? Maybe my flashlight schematic? Nope -- don't think so. I'm sure somebody would have a problem with me claiming the bulb glows when the switch is turned on.
Magluvin:
QuoteThis combination could be doubling the amount of flux cutting the coil at that time. Instead of just cutting on the approaching side, and just the exit side when the mag passes the coil. This may be key to his amount of generation, for such an open and seemingly sparse generator construction, say as compared to any production model considered.
That all seems to sound fine and dandy. Imagine some flux contortions and you double your power. If you double your power you have to double the mechanical power that the rotor is supplying to the pick-up coils. Your imaginative example comes up often on the free energy forums.
He is a simplified version of your example that we have all read hundreds of times, "I'll add some extra pick-up coils and produce more power!"
It doesn't work like that. You can't produce more electrical power out of thin air by adding extra pick-up coils. The only way to produce more electrical power if you add extra pick-up coils is to supply more mechanical power.
MileHigh
QuoteThis is the asymetry that has my curriosity right now. The red line I drew is different then the blue, and almost looks exponential in nature.
So what possible explanations can you come up with the explain the asymmetry? Anybody?
As far as I am concerned, here is the real critical issue of the day:
(Quoting myself)
QuoteThis is supposed to be OPEN SOURCE, you are supposed to encourage the sharing of information and you end up doing exactly the opposite.
Do any of you have the guts to acknowledge this issue and admit that you were wrong? You know who you are and that applies to the lurkers from OU also.
MileHigh
Actually MH, Prove that its a fake? You have all this so called knowledge, numbers, and magic visual abilities. SHOW me that he faked it.
Show me! You cant. You cant look at the vid and find 1 fault. SHOW ME! lol
Ya cant. :P All you have in all these posts is strictly negative speculation. And yes, we are all about positive speculation.
Its like an Atheist. They could care less about believing in God, yet they spend ALL their time preaching that God does not exist.
You may say you are trying to help us from our so called demise. We are not in pain. We are not asking for that kind of help. We are happy with what we cant see. ;) And that just eats you up dont it. lol Amazing Ok lets boogie. O0
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.11, 03:27:25
As far as I am concerned, here is the real critical issue of the day:
(Quoting myself)
Do any of you have the guts to acknowledge this issue and admit that you were wrong? You know who you are and that applies to the lurkers from OU also.
MileHigh
Lurkers? Did you start this thread? Is this your forum? Are you the top cop here?
I am here by permission just as you. I have not been banned from anywhere. eeevvver ever.
OU and OUR should be working together on things. But it seems to be a small war. Them this and they that. Grow up MH. What grade are you in? lol
Mags
Magluvin:
You know the response to this: The burden of proof is on you if you or others are going to build it.
There were lots of faults in the videos, go back and read what I posted.
Prove to me that there aren't going to be pink elephants in the sky when I drive to work tomorrow morning. You can't prove that I won't see pink elephants in the sky tomorrow morning! You can't! :P O0
MileHigh
Magluvin:
QuoteOU and OUR should be working together on things.
I agree. And that's why the issue is so important. It's so ironic to see the people that want to share information actively suppressing information. It takes character to admit that you were wrong. (That's a generic "you.")
What grade are you in?
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.11, 03:44:42
Magluvin:
You know the response to this: The burden of proof is on you if you or others are going to build it.
There were lots of faults in the videos, go back and read what I posted.
Prove to me that there aren't going to be pink elephants in the sky when I drive to work tomorrow morning. You can't prove that I won't see pink elephants in the sky tomorrow morning! You can't! :P O0
MileHigh
Well I already have the PUTTING on the stove. Ill let you lick the spoon when its cooked. O0
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.11, 03:48:39
Magluvin:
I agree. And that's why the issue is so important. It's so ironic to see the people that want to share information actively suppressing information. It takes character to admit that you were wrong. (That's a generic "you.")
What grade are you in?
MileHigh
Are you saying I am suppressing info? Oh wait, are you talking to the guy in the mirror? ;)
So far lately all I see from you is negativity. That can push people away or deter them. THATS a form of suppression. >:-)
I see you making fun of others. Nobody laughs. Your colors are bright and clear. : 8)
Im in grade 46. ;)
Mags
Mags:
The main thing that you saw from me was an honest and realistic appraisal of what I saw. Show me where I made fun of others.
As far as Romero's version of pulse motor with pick-up coils goes, he's gone because he cheated and the replicators will end up building these "motors" for nothing. These little pulse motors have been floating around on YouTube since its inception and there is nothing special about them.
These motors do nothing more than move magnets past pick-up coils. There is absolutely nothing special about this, they are a dime a dozen. There must be hundreds if not thousands of clips with little motors like this. All of them obey the law of conservation of energy.
MileHigh
Hey Mh
Ok. Well you made fun of me once that i know in the Rose thread and you made fun of bolt yesterday. I suppose I could load this thread with this stuff, just on rose alone. Anyway, thats just you.
lets say that I pulled up next to you at a red light, in my 87 Fiero GT. You would probably assume my lil v6 is a turd.
Then I wail 400 hp, 2 stage nitrous, in yo face. Ya might say hmmm. Like every one else does at first. then they just gota ask.
I know you think you have all your marbles when you gander at a device, but I bet your not right all the time. Wooptydoo.
And you may be wrong here. You should give yourself some slack. Ya never know dude. but you really think you do.
Most wont take that lightly. Look at the past few pages. Just you and US. O0
And your question on the asymmetrical. In this case it has to do with the mags being of even no. and the coils being of odd no.
Lets say that when a mag is approaching the coil/core, that there may be some repulsion due to the bias mag. But a few coils away, there is a mag leaving a coil/core. It evens things out compared to even no. mags and coils. This helps. Maybe not for a mag motor or other mech perps.
And maybe the bias mag also nulls the attraction of the rotor mag to the cores some. This helps
Anyway, Im not really wanting a fight. Just constructive discussions. I think we can have that. If you cant and need to ad lib beyond those parameters, Ill be cool and just see the constructive part of what you post and ignore the other. It works for me.
Ok MH its been real. And I know you enjoy it. :-*
Gotta get to sleep. Ill do some testing this week and Ill put it on the table and we can talk.
Mags
Magluvin:
I can't remember what I said about you and I wasn't making "fun" of Bolt, it was a warning. I probably made a comment about your drama about the discharging inductor stuff that had your head spinning. Don't you think now that you went a bit overboard?
Look, let's suppose I am right. That means that Romero is a bad guy, and some people with limited funds will squander their money instead of spending it more wisely, like on their children. It's f*cked up. I will guesstimate that about fifteen thousand dollars will be squandered chasing after Romero's pipe dream (50 x $300).
The comments about the MIB and all that stuff blow my mind. That's nothing but a demonstration about how gullible people can be. Like, did Bedini get roughed up by the Feds and as a result only sells battery chargers instead of selling over unity devices? That's just manufactured nonsense to keep the "Bedini buzz" going. Bringing it back here, some Joe Blow makes a spinny thingy that moves magnets past coils and the Feds are after him? He was bought off? He might already have been killed? That is just ridiculous nonsense that belongs with the "Face on Mars" people. You see it because you want to see it.
Forgetting about all of the side-shows, let's bring it back to the Romero motor.
Can somebody tell me why they think this motor works with a technical explanation? Keep this in mind: You go to Radio Shack and you buy a spool of magnet wire and you buy a magnet. You put the spool of wire on your desk and you hook up a resistor to it. You take the magnet in your hand and wave it past the spool of wire.
The Romero motor and the spool of wire with the magnet waving in your hand are for all practical intents and purposes identical in function.
So I am asking for anybody to give me a technical explanation as to why the Romero motor is an over unity device.
MileHigh
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.05.10, 13:09:47
Ex,
do you want a spanking too? What is your guys problem? He has shown you FACTS and OBSERVATIONS. He has MEASURED for you the Input power and the Output power and you have OBSERVED if you watched the video. So what faith are you talking about, you don't trust your eyeballs? And why is the measurement not good? Because it shows almost twice the power out? And you can't handle that?
EM
Appearance from videos is not enough, flaws in measurements are usual, scams are always possible, we are very far from being able to affirm conclusive facts.
For 10 or 20 years, hundreds of "inventors" already showed the same "facts" as Romerouk and we have not yet a working machine. I'm always astonished by all the gullible people not able to retain the lessons of the past and skipping about by pavlovian reflex each time they see a video and hear the good word: "over unity". They should duplicate the perpetual machine and speak of "facts" only after having themselves observed that it works. In order to duplicate the machine, we need much more matter from the [yet hypothetical] inventor.
OMG Stirling is talking about going after him in the courts for wasting peoples time to deter similar future hoaxes, and they have his address, what a mess
Romer must just about be realizing that saying it's a fake has put him in hot water, so will he come out with a full apology or reaffirm it's real but could not handle the limelight and is worried about his family safety.
Time will tell.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.05.11, 13:56:32
OMG Stirling is talking about going after him in the courts for wasting peoples time to deter similar future hoaxes, and they have his address, what a mess
This post at OU just now by JouleSeeker --
QuoteI know Sterling Allan personally. Decent fellow, but I did not like his post claiming a hoax by RomeroUK --without a shred of evidence presented. And it almost sounded like a threat of "civil" or "criminal penalties", ie. a Lawsuit. And he spoke of an embarassing article at his website -- but who will be embarrassed in the end?
Such talk by Sterling unfortunately puts a damper on efforts to pursue alternative energy and I don't like it.
I sent Sterling an email, will let you know what he responds.
Posting at OUResearch this morning:
"OMG Stirling is talking about going after him in the courts for wasting peoples time to deter similar future hoaxes, and they have his address, what a mess"
In response to Sterling's post here...
MH said:
QuoteSo I am asking for anybody to give me a technical explanation as to why the Romero motor is an over unity device.
RomeroUK's motor is an OVER UNITY device because it generates more OUTPUT POWER than INPUT POWER.
also,
RomeroUK's motor is an OVER UNITY device because it was run in closed loop, meaning some of the output power was supplied to the input, to verify if indeed it is OU, and it worked, and not only did it work, but it supplied exta power to the light bulb.
BTW, This will be my last post here. It's been a memorable journey!
EM
Sterling replied; and quotes from an email he rec'd today from RomeroUK which explains a lot. The man was intimidated at his home -- read carefully:
QuoteFrom: RomeroUK
To: sterlingda...
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 8:37 AM
Subject: RomeroUK
Dear Mr Sterling,
I am sending this email after I saw your opinion on the forum.
First of all I do not have that device anymore, probably is destroyed, I have no idea and I don't care anymore.
I have spent years in trying to do different things, replicating all sort of devices and spent lots of money for that.
This last week was a nightmare for me, you have no idea under what pressure I have been and how many people contacted me, warnings that I should keep quiet, people saying they run multimillion companies and want be to build for Africa,... and in the end, yesterday, I had a personal visit after leaving my day to day job.
I had the impression that I live in a free country but it was demonstrated that anything is possible, we will never move forward.
I am an IT guy and I thought that I have a good brain but now after that I even forgot simple passwords and things I use every day, this is how scared I am.
I have a family, kids and they are most important for me. I had a lot of problems home with my wife because this too, she never wanted me to publish any of my work, but I did, and it looks that I should have listen to her. Well, now I learned my lesson.
I have never asked anyone for money or invited them to do a copy of the device I built, I have only showed my results, no intention to harm anyone in any way.
All I want now is to enjoy the life I had before and forget about doing any more research, I don't have the power to do that anymore.
I am not good for this kind of pressure, I already have hearth problems, it is not worth it.
I just hope that one day someone better than me will have the strength to go thru all this.
I have always stated that I have no intention to sell or do any public demonstrations, please check my posts on overunity forum.
This is the end I hope, I don't want be contacted by any other people, I have no more info to share. All I had I posted free and it is better to be considered as not working.
Best Regards,
RomeroUK
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.05.11, 16:11:12
MH said:
RomeroUK's motor is an OVER UNITY device because it generates more OUTPUT POWER than INPUT POWER.
also,
RomeroUK's motor is an OVER UNITY device because it was run in closed loop, meaning some of the output power was supplied to the input, to verify if indeed it is OU, and it worked, and not only did it work, but it supplied exta power to the light bulb.
BTW, This will be my last post here. It's been a memorable journey!
EM
Wait -- please reconsider, EM. Your posts have been insightful, very helpful. And I mean that sincerely.
Don't blame ya, EM.
You can only beat your head against a wall for so long.
Well, government 1,free energy people 0 The powers that be acted too slow on this one
Theres a lot of replication going on at overunity some of it looks good this isn't over not even close
he did post enough to replicate it as long as they build it exactly as hes and assuming
the original worked.
MH,
Although I respect your input and insights, I think you have gone over the line here.
Why are you jumping to the conclusion that the device was fake only because of Romero's post? Obviously it was not sincere.
Indeed, even his email to Sterling could be fake, but I doubt that very much. It appears the situation is very much a combination of the pressure he was receiving, and now some sort of intervention from powers that be.
Perhaps we'll never really know if it was real or not, but at this moment in time, we can not say with any degree of certainty "yes" or "no".
If it was a fake, he did a brilliant job of it, that's all I'll say.
.99
Based loosely on Romero's statements about adjsuting the magnet spacing, I believed that he had the start of something.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.05.11, 20:56:55
Based loosely on Romero's statements about adjsuting the magnet spacing, I believed that he had the start of something.
Yea, funny how a bit of iron between opposing fields can act as a traffic cop and field redirection mechanism for both fields. When they aren't opposing it just sits there and does almost nothing. It works much better with a bit of gap between it and a magnet or coil.
Those pesky field lines do insist on staying closed even if they have to flip directions to do it :)
I don't think NASA ever did figure out why there was excess energy during magnetic reconnection. Anyone heard any news on that?
Maybe they had an unexpected visitor too ;D
Last I heard, MIT shut up about it.
QuoteSo I am asking for anybody to give me a technical explanation as to why the Romero motor is an over unity device.
>>> RomeroUK's motor is an OVER UNITY device because it generates more OUTPUT POWER than INPUT POWER.
also,
>>> RomeroUK's motor is an OVER UNITY device because it was run in closed loop, meaning some of the output power was supplied to the input, to verify if indeed it is OU, and it worked, and not only did it work, but it supplied exta power to the light bulb.
Well, that sums it up pretty nicely. It's an attempt to use knowledge and reasoning and logic vs. pure blind faith.
It also illustrates a measure of cognitive dissonance. You ask for an attempt at a technical argument and the question is ignored and the best one can do is parrot back the party line.
If you said, "Look I really can't make a technical argument I concede that. But I still believe that it works nonetheless." That would have been an honest response.
Poynt:
QuotePerhaps we'll never really know if it was real or not, but at this moment in time, we can not say with any degree of certainty "yes" or "no".
I can say with 100% certainty. Sorry if that is a downer for the hopeful souls out there hoping for their Garden of Eden. The output of the device is magnets cutting their flux through coils. No free energy here because the device operates in perfect harmony with Nature.
The clips were not particularly impressive to me. When it was allegedly self-running and the light bulb load was connected and disconnected nothing happened. That doesn't jive. The clips left out critical data and measurements. A follow-on clip could have addressed those issues but that would have busted Romero.
You also can't forget that leading up to this episode Romero was repeatedly posting how he was firmly plugged into the ethos of the open source free energy community and that he would never betray his peers. But instead I believe that he fell into a psychological compulsion and started doing stupid things. He succumbed to a weakness and got trapped in a slightly unbalanced state of mind for a while. This can happen to any normal rational person. This started to be corrosive to his psyche. Then the only way out of this viscous circle was to run away.
An analogy would be when a normal law abiding citizen succumbs to a strange and irrational urge to shoplift. It happens all the time.
With the limited information that we have available, that's how I see it. This is just my amateur opinion, I am no psychologist that's for sure.
MileHigh
P.S.: I know that there are some of you reading this that think what I am posting is all part of psyop operation. Oh please get real and realize that I am just a normal everyday person. I am sure there are some people I could never convince otherwise. What a world we live in.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.12, 01:08:05
Well, that sums it up pretty nicely. It's an attempt to use knowledge and reasoning and logic vs. pure blind faith.
.. I am sure there are some people I could never convince otherwise. What a world we live in.
Indeed. It's not hard to be unconvinced by people bestowed with a one-track mind. You just have to wait and see and maybe learn something new.
cheers
chrisC
You wish the learning could go the other way though. When this one dies then in X amount of months there will be another free energy claim revolving around the same concept: magnets cutting flux through pick-up coils. Lo an behold, the rabid believers will believe again.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.12, 01:23:23
You wish the learning could go the other way though. When this one dies then in X amount of months there will be another free energy claim revolving around the same concept: magnets cutting flux through pick-up coils. Lo an behold, the rabid believers will believe again.
Milehigh, I do not think you belong on this board, and this is not an insult. You recognize that certain things are impossible given the laws of our universe. While it is noble to say "nothing is impossible" and "if we try hard enough, we can do it", this is just false logic. Some things are impossible, and what makes things difficult here is the complexity of the situation, give how many different ways overunity can be tried.
It is like watching someone playing with 100 pennies, making all sorts of arrangements with them - towers, circles, pyramids, etc. - and hoping they add up to more than a dollar. No matter how you arrange the coins, it will always be a dollar. It is impossible to come up with more.
So you are going to constantly get booed down by the guys stacking pennies and saying "wait, if we put this one like this, and stand this one on its edge, and spin this one just this way . . ."
Guys, if 100 pennies added up to more than a dollar, this universe would not exist in its current form. If overunity was possible, then everything we know about the basic forces of nature - magnetic, gravitational - would be flat wrong, and I do not see how atoms could even stick together in that world. Just stop it, give it up. I am not an MIB, but really, go research wind or geothermal or something that obeys the laws of physics and get off this pipe dream.
Eatenbyagrue:
You make some interesting points. What just transpired was the vetting process of a new claim that had a high profile. That's actually a fun thing to do. You get points raised on both sides and you analyze and look at different situations and scenarios with respect to the claim and so on. In this case we have a claim with ostensibly impressive looking videos, but it's on razor thin ice. The razor thin ice is that you have magnets passing pick-up coils in an ordinary configuration that we have all seen hundreds of times before. Ho hum. And yet the believers want to believe but in this case they don't even have a buzzword or some alleged secret sauce they can cling to. It's kind of funny in that sense.
The desire (or the fantasy) is that some of the interested parties that are pro free energy would say for this case, "I get it. This is an ordinary mundane application of pick-up coils and we all know that pick-up coils are under unity and obey the law of conservation of energy. Therefore let's ask Romero to explain it further and request more information." Because we are talking about the ordinary application of pick-up coils, even the hard core believers in free energy should be suspicious of this one and be asking some serious questions.
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. So the vetting is basically over and we are going to see the replications, and a lot of long faces at the end of the day.
MileHigh
WaveWatcher:
QuoteDon't blame ya, EM.
You can only beat your head against a wall for so long.
Are you making a reference to me here?
MileHigh
You, alone?
No.
I'll take it back if it will prevent you from repeating yourself, again.
( That is much better. Only three sentences :) It is a good thing my router crashed several minutes ago. My response would have been much more rude and abusive. Must be that 'Faith' thing again.)
WaveWatcher:
That took a long time for you think over and plan out. If you have an issue with me just say it directly to me. It sure as hell looks like you do with this comment, "My response would have been much more rude and abusive."
So do you?
MileHigh
@Milehigh
QuoteI can say with 100% certainty. Sorry if that is a downer for the hopeful souls out there hoping for their Garden of Eden. The output of the device is magnets cutting their flux through coils. No free energy here because the device operates in perfect harmony with Nature.
LOL, I could fill a few libraries with the names of the critics who were 100% certain that a new technology could never work and history has proven more often than not the critics were dead wrong. Oh we have scams and errors here and there where they were correct but more often than not the critics have been completely misguided in there opinions concerning new technologies that have really improved science and technology -- so you are in good company.
QuoteP.S.: I know that there are some of you reading this that think what I am posting is all part of psyop operation. Oh please get real and realize that I am just a normal everyday person. I am sure there are some people I could never convince otherwise. What a world we live in.
I would agree you seem like a normal everyday person and I can respect that however we should understand that normal everyday people have never improved anything in any way and simply repeat what they have been taught--- they hold the status quo. I would agree you seem perfectly normal which may be the reason why every one of your arguments tries to justify that everything must remain the same, have you ever wondered why that is?, why you think everything must remain normal--the same-- and that nothing can change?. I understand what you are saying however I am not bound by your limitations as I am an inventor, that is I have made substantial improvements in many areas of technology which is not considered normal. All we have to do is ask a simple question --- have you ever improved any technology in any way?.
@eatenbyargue
QuoteIt is like watching someone playing with 100 pennies, making all sorts of arrangements with them - towers, circles, pyramids, etc. - and hoping they add up to more than a dollar. No matter how you arrange the coins, it will always be a dollar. It is impossible to come up with more.
It seems like you are stuck on the same hamster wheel as milehigh, where the wheel just keeps going round and round and it seems like progress is being made but you never seem to get anywhere. As well your penny analogy is misguided because any inventor would have simply paid your $1 to a stranger to perform $2 worth of work for someone else in which case they have doubled their money. You see you are arguing nonsense because your answer is obvious due to the severe limitations you have applied which are that your silly pennies cannot interact with anything else. Does it make any sense whatsoever to state that something cannot change because the specific conditions we apply will not allow any change?. Maybe a question might help us understand----Can you name anything, anywhere in the universe that cannot and will never interact with it's external environment in some way? the answer is NO, there are no "isolated systems" and your analogy is complete nonsense.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.05.12, 05:08:32
Can you name anything, anywhere in the universe that cannot and will never interact with it's external environment in some way? the answer is NO, there are no "isolated systems" and your analogy is complete nonsense.
Who cares about "interaction." Interact all you want, but we are talking about overunity - production of energy without the need for fuel. This is not possible. By the same token, show me something anywhere in the universe where energy is produced and no fuel is consumed.
Here's Stirlings article
http://pesn.com/2011/05/11/9501823_Romeros_Self-Sustaining_Muller_Dynamo_Drama/ (http://pesn.com/2011/05/11/9501823_Romeros_Self-Sustaining_Muller_Dynamo_Drama/)
@eatenbyagrue
QuoteWho cares about "interaction." Interact all you want, but we are talking about overunity - production of energy without the need for fuel. This is not possible. By the same token, show me something anywhere in the universe where energy is produced and no fuel is consumed.
No, you are talking about OU because it is any easy way for you to justify your belief that we cannot get something for nothing in a closed/isolated system which is obvious. However I believe we, the people here, are talking about a free energy device which will produce energy we do not have to pay for hence the term "free energy". I don't think anyone here gives a damn about your silly OU, we are interested in a free energy device which is non-polluting and sustainable, on the other hand you keep confusing this issue giving the impression that we cannot harness a free energy source because it must be OU which is not the case. Let's be perfectly clear I don't give a damn about OU, I want a device which produces free energy to power my house and car.
Regards
AC
It is a new free form of conversion we seek, how can anyone say that conversion of energy from one form to another is not possible, it happens all day long :)
Free energy, COP>1 or Overunity call it what you want but no matter how you look at the device ultimately it will be a conversion device even if the process is not understood at the time of conception.
So if anyone wants a name for their device just stick converter on the end and all will be well O0
Found on ou.com:
"Great Work Romero!
IT WORKS!!!!! REPLICATION SUCCES!!!!!!!!"
There are tens of such messages everywhere. Yes, great work Romero, you have revealed the idiots but also clever persons who warned the others not to undertake premature duplications. Great work Romero, now we clearly know who is who. :-)
The worst in the Romero's story is that the participants who supported him and affirmed here and there that his matter was enough as evidence of over unity when it was obviously not, will do it again next time when a new romero will appear on youtube with a fake video, or a crank on the web with beautiful photos of miracles and preposterous theories.
Did you see them presenting apologizes or admitting their mistakes? No. Their faith is outside of any science, indisputable, preventing them from any progress because it let them deny the facts, falsify the reality, refuse to learn, ignore the lessons, fight the objective knowledge, with the collateral damage of encouraging cranks and charlatans.
In the quest for "overunity" the real experimenters must fight every day this counterproductive attitude, which is an obstacle much more troublesome than excessive doubts from academic authorities.
In free energy also there are bigots, and the bigots of free energy believe they have an "open mind" when they have only an empty mind. ;D
Discarding them without compromise, without pity, and without further ado is imho the solution for a better efficiency, the life is too short to waste time and energy with them.
It is not a fit of temper but my cold analysis about our activity, thanks to Romero! Sorry for the digression.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.05.12, 06:58:53
@eatenbyagrueNo, you are talking about OU because it is any easy way for you to justify your belief that we cannot get something for nothing in a closed/isolated system which is obvious. However I believe we, the people here, are talking about a free energy device which will produce energy we do not have to pay for hence the term "free energy". I don't think anyone here gives a damn about your silly OU, we are interested in a free energy device which is non-polluting and sustainable, on the other hand you keep confusing this issue giving the impression that we cannot harness a free energy source because it must be OU which is not the case. Let's be perfectly clear I don't give a damn about OU, I want a device which produces free energy to power my house and car.
Regards
AC
In that case, what you want already exists and there is no need to keep looking for it. Just get yourself enough solar panels and batteries, and you will not need to pay for any more electricity for your house. Non-polluting and sustainable, everything you asked for.
@eatenbyargue
QuoteIn that case, what you want already exists and there is no need to keep looking for it. Just get yourself enough solar panels and batteries, and you will not need to pay for any more electricity for your house. Non-polluting and sustainable, everything you asked for.
Well any fool can do what you suggest however what I am interested in is a free energy device which works 24/7 anywhere which is a little different. Your just a barrel of laughs, first you try to confuse the issue by suggesting free energy is OU, then you suggest we should just buy a conventional system which are very expensive and inefficient --- so really what your suggesting is that we should just hold the status quo or sit on our ass and do nothing, lol, sorry that's not an option considering how screwed up our world is and everyone but you seems to understand this. Maybe you should consider politics where sitting on their ass holding the status quo is considered a way of life, personally I like to improve something every day, the key word here is ----- "IMPROVE" ie " To raise to a more desirable or more excellent quality or condition; make better. ...".
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.05.12, 16:44:24
personally I like to improve something every day, the key word here is ----- "IMPROVE" ie " To raise to a more desirable or more excellent quality or condition; make better. ...".
OK, then, let's improve solar, wind, etc. But magnet motors? Those are impossible.
I have a soft spot for the solar tower. They were supposed to build a big one in Australia but it didn't happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower)
There must be a lot of land in the US Midwest that could be used for this purpose. Out of sight and producing a lot of power.
What if he is playing with (100) 1909-1982 copper pennies?
Metal Composition: 95% copper, 5% zinc
Total Weight: 3.11 grams
Using the latest metal prices and the specifications above, these are the numbers required to calculate melt value:
$3.9749 = copper price / pound on May 12, 2011.
.95 = copper %
$0.9753 = zinc price / pound on May 12, 2011.
.05 = zinc %
3.11 = total weight in grams
.00220462262 = pound/gram conversion factor (see note directly below)
The NYMEX uses pounds to price these metals, that means we need to multiply the metal price by .00220462262 to make the conversion to grams.
1. Calculate 95% copper value :
(3.9749 × .00220462262 × 3.11 × .95) = $0.0258903
2. Calculate 5% zinc value :
(0.9753 × .00220462262 × 3.11 × .05) = $0.0003342
3. Add the two together :
$0.0258903 + $0.0003342 = $0.0262245
$0.0262245 is the melt value for the 1909-1982 copper cent on May 12, 2011.
Those same 100 pennies can bring in $2.62
Quote from: eatenbyagrue on 2011.05.12, 01:39:21
It is like watching someone playing with 100 pennies, making all sorts of arrangements with them - towers, circles, pyramids, etc. - and hoping they add up to more than a dollar. No matter how you arrange the coins, it will always be a dollar. It is impossible to come up with more.
So you are going to constantly get booed down by the guys stacking pennies and saying "wait, if we put this one like this, and stand this one on its edge, and spin this one just this way . . ."
Guys, if 100 pennies added up to more than a dollar, this universe would not exist in its current form. If overunity was possible, then everything we know about the basic forces of nature - magnetic, gravitational - would be flat wrong, and I do not see how atoms could even stick together in that world. Just stop it, give it up. I am not an MIB, but really, go research wind or geothermal or something that obeys the laws of physics and get off this pipe dream.
Just to comment on this near-compulsion about Litz wire:
QuoteNot sure but it didn't even appear he had Litz wire on them.
Litz wire is a way of compensating for the skin effect that comes into play at high frequencies.
There are
no high frequencies present in the motor-generator.
This apples to the drive coils and to the generator coils.
Forget about the Litz wire. It will make no difference if you use it or not.
Next time a project comes up look at what you are trying to accomplish and try to determine if there will be high frequency signals in your design. Look up Litz wire online and get a sense whether or not the specific frequencies that you are concerned with are relevant to what you are doing and make an informed design choice.
Quote from: iquant on 2011.05.13, 02:34:09
Those same 100 pennies can bring in $2.62
Yes, they can bring in that. And if they were all rare collectors pennies, maybe they can bring thousands of dollars. But you know what I mean.
Well, I know you wont believe it MH, but Romero said there was a very noticeable difference with the litz vs solid wire.
Do you think it was just for props? Considering you believe it was faked.
Mags
I interrupt this oft-repeated argument between "all is known" and "more can be known by experiments"
to ask a favor --
I'd like to be able to draw a circuit diagram using a computer program -- any suggestions for software out there? I tried one a while found using Google; didn't work out for me. I don't recall the name of it.
A simple JT-type circuit is all I need to sketch. Any suggestions?
An example, by .99 is attached. About that level of complexity...
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.05.13, 04:26:45
Well, I know you wont believe it MH, but Romero said there was a very noticeable difference with the litz vs solid wire.
Do you think it was just for props? Considering you believe it was faked.
Mags
At high frequencies, the current flows near the surface of the conductors (skin effect). There is a difference only at high frequencies (> Mhz) because the numerous thin threads in the Litz wires permit to increase the conductor surface vs a solid wire.
PhysicsProf,
I have the same need but gave up on multiple drawing programs from the web. They are only a good example of 'you get what you pay for'.
Magluvin,
The statements about litz wire are true but like so many other subjects beaten into submission on these forums - there is more. Don't bother asking here. You will only be spewed upon.
Try to acquire some and experiment yourself. A good source is an old junk solid-state audio amplifier. Many of them used inductors wound with Litz wire. You know, the inductors with the magnets attached to their core. They look almost the same as a small radial-lead electrolytic capacitor.
On the pennies....
iquant is correct and provides a fine example of the difference between the folks who run experiments using a simulator, there mind's eye, the calculator or not at all (because they KNOW the outcome beforehand) AND
the rest of us. WE MAKE MORE CENTS ;D
"You know what I mean"? A question was asked. An answer was supplied. This answer is correct. Will people apply what SHOULD be learned from that exchange? No.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.13, 03:36:03
Just to comment on this near-compulsion about Litz wire:
Litz wire is a way of compensating for the skin effect that comes into play at high frequencies.
There are no high frequencies present in the motor-generator.
This apples to the drive coils and to the generator coils.
Forget about the Litz wire. It will make no difference if you use it or not.
Next time a project comes up look at what you are trying to accomplish and try to determine if there will be high frequency signals in your design. Look up Litz wire online and get a sense whether or not the specific frequencies that you are concerned with are relevant to what you are doing and make an informed design choice.
Milehigh,
What kind of frequency does a square pulse have?
(When driving a coil with a square pulse.)
GL.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.05.13, 07:23:14
I interrupt this oft-repeated argument between "all is known" and "more can be known by experiments"
to ask a favor --
I'd like to be able to draw a circuit diagram using a computer program -- any suggestions for software out there? I tried one a while found using Google; didn't work out for me. I don't recall the name of it.
A simple JT-type circuit is all I need to sketch. Any suggestions?
An example, by .99 is attached. About that level of complexity...
Prof,
I use Windows Paint for simple drawings. For larger projects I use Eagle CAD from www.cadsoft.de
GL.
Quote from: Groundloop on 2011.05.13, 11:43:02
Milehigh,
What kind of frequency does a square pulse have?
(When driving a coil with a square pulse.)
GL.
Groundloop:
I know what you are trying to imply. How about this: You answer the question first and let's discuss it more and see what kind of conclusion we arrive at.
MileHigh
I use KiCad open source & Free
http://www.lis.inpg.fr/realise_au_lis/kicad/
This is the sort of ferrite he was using from the old inductors used in computer switched PSU's, not sure if these are the right size there are some variations.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/330UH-RF-CHOKE-FERRITE-CORE-/360112267177?pt=UK_ConsumerElectronics_SpecialistRadioEquipment_SM&hash=item53d85d1fa9
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.05.13, 07:23:14
I interrupt this oft-repeated argument between "all is known" and "more can be known by experiments"
to ask a favor --
I'd like to be able to draw a circuit diagram using a computer program -- any suggestions for software out there? I tried one a while found using Google; didn't work out for me. I don't recall the name of it.
A simple JT-type circuit is all I need to sketch. Any suggestions?
An example, by .99 is attached. About that level of complexity...
Why not use the well known LTspice? Not very beautiful drawing but easy to use (2 mn to draw the attached example which can be greatly improved).
Moreover it can simulate the circuit both in time and frequency domain.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.05.13, 07:23:14
I'd like to be able to draw a circuit diagram using a computer program -- any suggestions for software out there? I tried one a while found using Google; didn't work out for me. I don't recall the name of it.
PhysicsProf,
I use LTSpice for simulations & schematics. It is less complex than PSpice and it runs on Windows & Linux.
http://www.linear.com/designtools/software/ (http://www.linear.com/designtools/software/)
Video Tutiorials:
http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~steriana/Videos/LTSpiceTutorial_PartI_TheBasics.wmv (http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~steriana/Videos/LTSpiceTutorial_PartI_TheBasics.wmv)
http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~steriana/Videos/LTSpiceTutorial_PartII_Models.wmv (http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~steriana/Videos/LTSpiceTutorial_PartII_Models.wmv)
Support:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/LTspice (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/LTspice)
Hope this helps..
Here's a freebie:
http://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-amp-fullrect.html (http://www.falstad.com/circuit/e-amp-fullrect.html)
Professor,
Do you have Visio?
The schematic you showed of mine was made with Visio.
LTSpice would be a good option though I think. It is not pretty, but it works. The bonus too is that you could run sims of your circuits if you wished.
.99
Quote from: duff on 2011.05.13, 16:30:59
PhysicsProf,
I use LTSpice for simulations & schematics. It is less complex than PSpice and it runs on Windows & Linux.
http://www.linear.com/designtools/software/ (http://www.linear.com/designtools/software/)
Video Tutiorials:
http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~steriana/Videos/LTSpiceTutorial_PartI_TheBasics.wmv (http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~steriana/Videos/LTSpiceTutorial_PartI_TheBasics.wmv)
http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~steriana/Videos/LTSpiceTutorial_PartII_Models.wmv (http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~steriana/Videos/LTSpiceTutorial_PartII_Models.wmv)
Support:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/LTspice (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/LTspice)
Hope this helps..
Wow, great! I watched most of the claymore... tutorial. This is just what I need. However, when I tried to download and run the LTSpice on my Mac, it says it won't run on a DOS machine. Is there a version for Mac??
That's one of the possible limitations when you're in the MAC world professor. There are not a lot of "technical" programs out there for them, and certainly few if any that are free.
Hopefully someone here will know where to find something either free or inexpensive.
.99
Professor
http://www.macspice.com/ (http://www.macspice.com/)
This one require to learn the way you input the circuits, which make it may harder to learn.
Tutorials available at the site also.
Prof,
Chef's suggestion is a great one. If that doesn't work for you, look into Windows emulators. The emulator called 'Wine' is solid and supports multiple versions of LtSpice.
( http://wiki.winehq.org/MacOSX )
You need to make sure it fits your OS version.
I ran the *Nix version on multiple servers for years just so I wouldn't have to take up residence in the NOC for the usual midnight WindBlow$ crashes and reboots.
I have a single laptop at home using Micro$not without OpenBSD as the base OS. My BSD boxes run AutoCad, LtSpice and numerous other complex software over Wine without any issues.
Just the same.... take a look at Chef's suggestion first.
AC:
QuoteI can say with 100% certainty. Sorry if that is a downer for the hopeful souls out there hoping for their Garden of Eden. The output of the device is magnets cutting their flux through coils. No free energy here because the device operates in perfect harmony with Nature.
>>>> LOL, I could fill a few libraries with the names of the critics who were 100% certain that a new technology could never work and history has proven more often than not the critics were dead wrong. Oh we have scams and errors here and there where they were correct but more often than not the critics have been completely misguided in there opinions concerning new technologies that have really improved science and technology -- so you are in good company.
There is no new technology here. When an issue comes up your tactic is to cite examples from unrelated subjects and then try to draw an analogy with the current subject at hand. The current subject at hand is that a magnet moving past a pick-up coil is under unity and it has nothing to do with the "few libraries" that you could fill.
As Exnihiloest stated shortly afterward, this is a case of "Failure to Learn" and "Ignore the Lesson" on the part of the experimenters on OU. They have been thrown off the path by Romero's clips and we are going to watch the drama play out. Romero will also be watching the drama play out.
QuoteI understand what you are saying however I am not bound by your limitations as I am an inventor, that is I have made substantial improvements in many areas of technology which is not considered normal. All we have to do is ask a simple question --- have you ever improved any technology in any way?
I suppose I helped improve technology when I helped design a "3D" stereo-vision system that allows surgeons to perform minimally invasive surgery with a heads-up type display or when I helped design a real-time processing system for inspecting flat panel displays for LCD and plasma display manufacturing plants in Asia.
As far as your substantial improvements go, I think that you should consult with your peers to see what they think. I get a sense that your "substantial improvements" are similar to the "discoveries" that happen on the free energy forums all the time.
Magluvin:
QuoteWell, I know you wont believe it MH, but Romero said there was a very noticeable difference with the litz vs solid wire.
Do you think it was just for props?
I would guess that more than 95% of the experimenters don't understand the why's and how-to's for Litz wire. They just think that they are supposed to use it so that's what they do. And no, I don't buy what Romero said about Litz wire.
The real thing for an experimenter to do is make an "A-B test" on a coil with and without Litz wire if they doubt what I say and share their results with the open source community. The frequency issues are a little bit complicated so the easiest thing to do is do the A-B test.
MileHigh
@milehigh
QuoteThere is no new technology here. When an issue comes up your tactic is to cite examples from unrelated subjects and then try to draw an analogy with the current subject at hand. The current subject at hand is that a magnet moving past a pick-up coil is under unity and it has nothing to do with the "few libraries" that you could fill.
Actually this wasn't a tactic of any sort and I was simply trying to be polite, what I really wanted to say is that when I hear people say they are 100% certain about things warning bells go off because I think this is a form of fanaticism ie.(excessive intolerance of opposing views). That is a when person has made up there mind regardless of all the facts and they will not even entertain the idea that they could be incorrect which I find a little disturbing because it also implies egotism and intolerance in a greater sense.
QuoteI suppose I helped improve technology when I helped design a "3D" stereo-vision system that allows surgeons to perform minimally invasive surgery with a heads-up type display or when I helped design a real-time processing system for inspecting flat panel displays for LCD and plasma display manufacturing plants in Asia.
As far as your substantial improvements go, I think that you should consult with your peers to see what they think. I get a sense that your "substantial improvements" are similar to the "discoveries" that happen on the free energy forums all the time.
So what your really saying here is that you are a genius, a god among men in the engineering world, and I am a delusional free energy crank, hmm that's an interesting theory.
Edit: after reading my two posts I see I was a little too honest and not very polite, I apologize in advance and will try to stay on topic in the future. I just enjoy the banter because you can debate your point very well but this is not the place for our jousting matches, lol.
Regards
AC
It's good to see we're able to "play nice" guys.
Nothing wrong with some healthy debate...keeps each "side" on their toes so to speak. ;)
I see a lot of activity and new threads on OU. I haven't really been following things there since the "announcement". Where do things stand at the moment?
Regards,
.99
Quote from: Chef on 2011.05.13, 19:46:51
Professor
http://www.macspice.com/ (http://www.macspice.com/)
This one require to learn the way you input the circuits, which make it may harder to learn.
Right -- I downloaded macspice but don't see how to input the circuit, which is what I want to do, of course.
Attached is what I get on the screen -- allows me to enter a few commands...
@.99 -- I've been following. There is one replicator who says he is about ready. And someone found a youtube from 2009 that shows a possibly similar device, self-running is claimed: http://www.youtube.com/user/Rod5157#p/u/2/SOyPEiPb9Zw
PhysicsProf,
I've never run Mac so I can't be much help.
It does however look like the spice3 command line interface though in which you would have to provide a .net file or create one through the edit command.
I think you'd be much happier in the long run installing wine as WaveWatcher suggested and running LTSpice under wine.
Heres another link that may help.
http://davidbaumgold.com/tutorials/wine-mac/
Video how to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msYNfqvv-uw
I urge anyone replicating this to publish their build, i suspect if the pressure got to Romero and this is the only reason then he may have been reincarnated as another user who may just help tweak and align the build O0
If indeed this is successfully replicated then the pressure will be of him and he would be in a position to reinstate his website and the pressure would be off, so it's still in his interest to help people build.
Peterae:
I also think that Romero will "spawn" again and be back a few months (not sooner) because he wants to have his fun on the forums. I don't think that he will ever come back with his original handle.
I know that some enthusiasts and replicators must think that I am a bad guy. However, for one thing I have made perhaps a dozen or so technical comments illustrating problems with his setup and nobody has tried to rebut them.
After we go through the "Mylow type" replication cycle with dozens of people posting clips of non-working motor-generators perhaps some of the believers out there will start to see what I said about this one in a different light.
So I await my "redemption" although it's going to take some time.
MileHigh
Indeed MH
The thing i cannot get my head around is that if you are going to deliberately fake something then why do it when people know your name and address, he would know the anguish that faking would cause everyone, he has obviously put a lot of time and effort in the past in building other devices, why didn't he claim one of these as being OU, i find it hard to believe this is really a fake, but as you say time will tell.
I don't see right now any difference between Romero and Mylow, and all others who did not told the whole truth about the videos which they made. As I remember Mylow built a lot of things also, before he made the fake videos, and he was there on the forum to help others. There was no rational explanation why he done that. Peoples sent him free magnets, parts, everybody was so excited. That was what peoples needed, and Mylow give them. Most of the OU community peoples want to believe in every single video what they see on youtube, which show a claimed OU devices! The builders want to replicate, the chatters want to talk about,posting countless meaningless post, arguing about the nothing, trying to convince each other about their beliefs. That's what they like! After some time, MIB must appear, which bring the excitement to the next level. Some week, month will pass when most of them will realize they was played all along, but hardcore believers will still believe!
..and there is Stefan, who can't be happier about these excitements, hence in the end, it's just a business...
Quote from: Chef on 2011.05.14, 13:25:40
I don't see right now any difference between Romero and Mylow, and all others who did not told the whole truth about the videos which they made. As I remember Mylow built a lot of things also, before he made the fake videos, and he was there on the forum to help others.
The part I find amusing is the way people interpret Romero's final message, the shocking "It was all a fake" parting shot. Most everyone seems convinced that the MIBs put pressure to force him to fabricate this lie. Hasn't anyone considered that Romero wanted to leave this impression? Much more devious than just admitting the fake straight up in an honest way. Nothing is better than leaving a juicy conspiracy and watching the ants scamper about, digesting the possibilities.
I interpret the "It was all fake!" comment as an attempt to lay a guilt trip on all the members in the forum, both supporters and detractors, because of all of the "pressure" that was being put on Romero. In other words it's supposed to be interpreted in the opposite way as he stated, as a cry out in frustration that "It was all real!" Mylow did exactly the same thing.
However, it's all a double-cross. He wants you to think that it was real by crying out that it was fake but the real truth is that it really was fake.
Note also that Romero made many statements that he would never let his open source buddies down. Nor did he appear to be "under pressure" except for the fact that new people were coming into the thread and were too lazy to read it from the beginning and therefore asking the same questions over and over. That was tiring. Horror of horrors. That's what they have FAQ's for.
Finally, when you are in a panic because you realize that you got in over your head and you know that you are eventually going to be found out, you play the "MIB card" because you know ahead of time about half of your forum peers that believe in your motor-generator are going to believe you. Then you run away and simply disappear.
So you make a hasty exit in an MIB smoke screen and then watch people waste their time and money as an anonymous cookie-free web surfer on the forums.
Not a happy story at all. It's like when jackass kids break into a high school at night and block all the sinks and flood the bathrooms and set off all of the fire extinguishers. Their "youthful prank" ends up causing $350,000 in damages.
I am going to comment on our friend Fausto's video:
Quote
There has been concerns from many members that such small coil would not be able to produce more than 2 or 3 volts when used as a generator.
In this video, I am demonstrating a very simple experiment that it is very possible and indeed very simple.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pHLKPciCGM
Fausto.
I think your overall setup is a reasonable approximation of Romero's setup for the purposes of your experiment. However, your analysis is incomplete.
Let's look at the issue of the relay coil itself. It is machine-made and it is done with a much higher gauge (smaller diameter) wire. Therefore it has many more turns as compared to Romero's hand-wound pick-up coils that are made with much lower gauge wire.
You know that the voltage generated by the pick-up coils is proportional to the number of turns in the coil. I challenge you to unwind your relay coil and count the number of turns. Then someone else probably knows the approximate number of turns in Romero's pick-up coils. Compare those two numbers.
Your experiment is great except for the fact that you are not factoring in the fact that your machine-wound relay coils have a much higher number of turns.
Try repeating exactly the same experiment with hand-wound pick-up coils that are similar to Romero's and see what kind of voltage output you get.
You really should know this Fausto.
MileHigh
Another comment about Fausto's experiment where he changes the orientation of the neodymium magnet that he has attached to his relay coil.
There is more cogging when the the rotor magnet is attracted to the magnetically biased pick-up coil core. That's when the orientation is [N-S] [N-S]. So in this case Fausto feels a pull when the rotor magnets fly by.
There is less cogging when the the rotor magnet is repelled from the magnetically biased pick-up coil core. That's when the orientation is [N-S] [S-N]. So in this case Fausto feels a push when the rotor magnets fly by.
That's all fine and dandy. Either way the cogging is energy neutral.
However, Fausto says this when he does a test where there is repulsion between the rotor magnets and the biased pick-up coil core, "You can feel that by hand here, the fighting back is so much smaller, and produces so much more energy."
Fausto, you are leading yourself down a garden path here. I watched the clip. For both orientations of the neodymium magnet the scope traces and the apparent brightness and duration of the flashing of the LEDs appears to be about the same.
I suggest that you go look at your clip again. There is no reason for one orientation to produce more energy than the opposite orientation and that is clearly demonstrated in your clip. Again, you are seeing what you want to see and this is not good at all.
Your conclusion is flat-out wrong.
You have to be unbiased if you want to do successful experiments. You made two major mistakes, 1) ignoring the higher number of turns in your pick-up coil, and 2) letting your own wishful thinking and bias to want to believe in free energy conclude that one magnet orientation produced more energy than the other orientation when that was clearly not the case.
I hope all of the replicators read these last two postings and do some serious contemplation about what just happened here.
MileHigh
Quoting Fausto:
QuoteI think this is only demonstrating one of the thing his motor has. This will definitely help with the cogging and easy the rotation. It will not eliminate cogging specially when using the energy generated by the generating coil BUT there is a very fine line where the generation of energy and the cogging is balanced to its best.
So this technique will help fine tunning, as Romero said, the position of each individual magnet/coil arrangement while pursuing the most energy.
There is no real relationship between the cogging and the generation of energy by the pick-up coils. As I stated before, any magnetic bias that you apply to the pick-up coil core will not affect the generation of energy. Fausto proved this in his last clip.
Fausto seems to be implying that there is a balance or perhaps a trade-off between cogging and energy generation and this is not true.
You should all know exactly where the "energy generation" comes from. The rotor magnets pass by the pick-up coils and induce EMF in the coils and that pushes current through a load attached to the coils. When that happens there is a Lenz' law drag on the rotor. It's not truly "energy generation" rather it's energy transformation where kinetic energy stored in the spinning rotor is converted into electrical energy when the rotor magnets pass the pick-up coils. It's all energy transformation that is taking place and there is not a single iota of energy generation taking place.
For what it's worth I also noticed that the two problems that I pointed out with Fausto's clip were not mentioned by anybody on the OU forum thread.
Listen boys, don't be sheep and be afraid to speak up and say what you think. I bet you that at least a few of you noticed the same two issues about Fausto's clip that I noticed and posted about but perhaps you would not feel comfortable stating them. That is a recipe for disaster and if you operate like this you guys will never figure things out and come to the right conclusion.
MileHigh
Mh
You can sit there and blah blah blah what is it, 12 hours a day here. Maybe even more. Your words mean nada. You are proving nothing to anyone. lolol
Till YOU start disproving with your vids and pics and scope shots, your words are as good as you claim Rosemarys are. blah blu blah. lolol
You will never debunk with your words. You got nutthin. lol I laugh at most of your crap Show me any of your experiments/experience that gives you this authority here. lol
You wont and you dont. Just blah your wrong, blah it can never work and blah... lolol haha
Its like no matter what is shown, you try to find a way to make it look and sound bad. I see nobody at your side here in agreement with you. That shows a lot. Pathetic. lolol
Why dont you go over to OU and tell Fausto himself? Are you not allowed there? lol
Cmon, show us what you got as any proof to what you say. SHOW IT. You wont. You just dig the argumentation. lol
I saw the vid. You are the only one I see complaining, 3 posts in a row.
Mags
Just like here in your latest post about Rose...
" I posted once that she should refrain from describing circuitry and post schematics instead. "
Yet all you do is describe and show nothing. pew What a laugh. Hypocrite.
Mags
Magluvin:
You are a Joe Blow that barely knows his ass from his elbow when it comes to electronics and physics and energy. I am a Joe Blow that used to make a living doing this stuff and I have had thousands of hours of training and thousands of hours of experience on the bench and years of experience in the real world doing this stuff.
So keep that in mind as you watch all of the honest replicators FAIL to reproduce Romero's magic.
MileHigh
Magluvin:
You bitch about me giving reasons why it shouldn't work.
You tell me why it should work.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.14, 22:25:36
Magluvin:
You are a Joe Blow that barely knows his ass from his elbow when it comes to electronics and physics and energy. I am a Joe Blow that used to make a living doing this stuff and I have had thousands of hours of training and thousands of hours of experience on the bench and years of experience in the real world doing this stuff.
So keep that in mind as you watch all of the honest replicators FAIL to reproduce Romero's magic.
MileHigh
I dont believe you. Why should I? Show me. lol
mags
Ask others and they will tell you that it's true.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.14, 22:28:44
Magluvin:
You bitch about me giving reasons why it shouldn't word.
You tell me why it should work.
MileHigh
We are all workin on it. You are just talking.
These forums are suppose to be constructive, yet your posts a destructive. How about making your own forum that does what you like to do. lol talk about bitching. Hypocrite.
Mags
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.14, 22:34:14
Ask others and they will tell you that it's true.
Oh, well then it must be true. I appologize. NOT
I ask you to prove it, and you pass the buck. Thats just lazy.
If we started a new thread here, where constructive people could gather, you would not stay here on this one. You would come there an try to ruin it for those that dont care for your comments. I betcha. Thats what you do. lame.
This thead here is worthless now. Nobody is here, they are all over there. Why? Because of YOU. :-*
Mags
Magluvin:
The number of guests on this forum have been spiking pretty high recently. I can only wonder if a lot of them are people on the OU thread coming here for a second viewpoint.
My postings are constructive, I can assure you. It's important to have opposing views on a subject expressed even if that requires the pretense of having two tabs open on your browser. That's not much of a big gulf, is it?
If you want to play in an electronics sandbox and fantasize about coils and free energy while your OU buddies spend hundreds of dollars building a silly "motor-generator" that ultimately does nothing but turn battery power into waste heat, more power to you.
The real bad guy is Romerouk and in a few months chances are you will realize that.
MileHigh
P.S.: And I know that you can't tell me why it works. In your case it's a rhetorical question. However, even the seasoned experimenters can't say why it should work. In fact nobody can state why it should work. That's a pretty shaky premise to drop $300 on and the next two months worth of experimenting.
Fausto made some comments about Litz wire probably producing more output voltage in the pick-up coils on his YouTube clip. I told him that this is not the case for the same number of turns. He forwarded me a description from BruceTPU so let's have a look at what he said.
QuoteWell, the next day, a thought crossed my mind, to seperate the strands on my 8 stranded parallel wire coil (individually insulated is all I am speaking of!) and to see what I see. And lo and behold, identical voltage and amperage was on each wire! But how to get at it..? Well, initially, I connected each strand to it's own individual full wave bridge rectifier. And then connected the full wave bridge rectifiers, like little batteries, either in series for more voltage or in parallel for more amperage. Very cool stuff.
Identical voltage and amperage (equals power) on each wire if you test them
separately. Test them
in parallel and you will get
one-eighth the power from each wire.
QuoteBut then yesterday, I found an even easier way to get at this power. I took individual diodes to individual strands of the coil. Then each strand could be wired in parallel for more amperage or in series for more voltage or both, just like little batteries. Then, using just one full wave bridge rectifier for the total coil output. This worked well, and produced the identical output, at using an individual full wave bridge rectifier per strand.
One more time this is not true. If you wire them in parallel the amperage per strand is one-eighth the amperage of the single strand. If you wire them in series by connecting pairs of wires together at each of the ends for a "zig-zag" current flow then there is self-cancellation and you've got nothing. If you add extra wires to connect them in series with all of the current flowing in the same direction then you will get eight times the voltage and one-eighth the current.
QuoteIf you have 4 strands @ 20 feet, or 1 strand at 80 feet the power potential is identical. The advantage only becomes apparent, when you wind a coil with say, 12,000 feet of wire, if all in series, the resistance would be so high, no current would flow, thus, not possible. BUT, if I wind 50 strands at 225 feet per strand, I only have the resistance of 225 feet for that given strand and gauge wire, put will STILL have the power potential of nearly 12,000 feet!
I think that Bruce is making wild speculations here. The bottom line is this: You put power into a pick-up coil by putting avarying magnetic flux through the coil that cuts through the loops of wire. You can only extract a finite amount of power from that based on how much power is being transferred into the coil by the varying magnetic flux. There is a upper limit of power that can be extracted from the coil. More output voltage means less output current and more output current equals less output voltage. No amount finagling with the individual strands and how you wire them up will change this.
QuoteSo, we are able to use extreme lengths of wire, in parallel, keeping the resistance reasonable, and produce enormous amounts of output for said given magnetic field.
See my comment just above. Bruce's comment here is deluded and/or misleading. You cannot get any kind of power output amplification by playing with how you configure the individual strands in a multi-strand coil.
QuoteEach collector for our TPU, made of our homemade litz, will need to have each strand, with a diode attached, and a full wave bridge rectifier per collector output segment. This will allow us to use all 12,000 feet of wire contained in our three collector output TPU coils. Rotate a weak magnetic field around that, and I already have proved it will produce power.
It will only produce as much power as you can pump into it via varying magnetic flux and no more. The length of wire and the number of strands means nothing, it's just a trade-off between voltage and current. More voltage equals less current and vice-versa.
MileHigh
Going back to Fausto's clip for Magluvin or anybody else:
I made three points about Fasuto's clip:
1. He did not account for the larger number of turns in his coil.
2. He was wrong when he said one core-biasing magnet orientation produces more power than the other.
3. He was wrong when he suggested that there was a relationship between the cogging and the output power.
If anybody wants to debate this be my guest.
lololol Perhaps somebody would like to create a "Kamikaze" profile on OU and copy and paste the above text into the OU thread. I wonder how long the posting would last. lololol
MileHigh
Mags:
QuoteThis thread here is worthless now. Nobody is here, they are all over there.
I think the read count on this thread went up by about 900 in 24 hours. Who knows, it could be the Muller enthusiasts on OU pushing the read count up. Dontcha think?
MileHigh
I wonder sometimes ......
Where exactly does lightning come from?
Of course it would be entirely impossible to create those conditions within a controlled envoronment, so dont even try.
It would have nothing to do with magnetic fields would it?
Of course we know it is just the clouds rubbing together ! silly me
Skycollection posted a preliminary test clip for his build:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdxMbCU7O8c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdxMbCU7O8c)
He does beautiful clean builds with really nice materials.
It's preliminary so I don't really have any comments except to mention one thing.
Note that he used a big capacitor for the load for his preliminary test. I fear that a lot of people will start to use capacitors for the real testing. This is to be avoided at all costs.
The best load would be made with some kind of combination of power resistors. The next-best load would be a light bulb.
A capacitor as a test load actually makes no sense. As the capacitor gets charged to it's maximum voltage it "disappears" and does not even appear to the generator as a load any more.
Lo and behold, the "bad guy" is giving some sound practical advice to the replicators.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.14, 23:28:59
Mags:
I think the read count on this thread went up by about 900 in 24 hours. Who knows, it could be the Muller enthusiasts on OU pushing the read count up. Dontcha think?
MileHigh
Maybe you should stop clicking 'Refresh'? ;D
As an alternative I suggest you read up on the other reasons to use Litz wire, beyond skin-effect theory.
Although I seriously doubt any energy amplification in Bruce's work I would expect lower energy losses using his posted methods, regardless of the applied frequencies.
Quote
1. He did not account for the larger number of turns in his coil.
2. He was wrong when he said one core-biasing magnet orientation produces more power than the other.
3. He was wrong when he suggested that there was a relationship between the cogging and the output power.
1) it does not matter. The before and after experiment were all on the same coil. Others have measured their coil and seen that for the equivalent "SIZE" of coil it was not producing 12 volts. My coil is only equivalent in size not in turns or weight or area of copper. The concept is to prove that a "small coil can easily produce 12 volts".
2) And indeed it did. I clearly showed that on the video even though in rough ways. You could post a video yourself showing more professional measurement and proving my demonstration wrong! One can see it right away more light on the LEDs by simply putting the biasing magnet. You did not notice it?
3) Off course there is a relationship between the too. A child can see that!
Look, if cogging is, let's say really bad, it will in a certain time x work input produce much less power, simply because the rotor will stop spinning really fast. While if you remove any cogging it will also on the same time x work input produce more simply because the motor will spin longer times and therefore produce more over time. IT is simple logic.
There is a balance point where after the top of the bell it will no longer work and go on the other direction. The biasing is simply a mechanism to find that optimal point for more power out versus input.
Now the real thing is this question: Do you really know all that one must know about magnet biasing coils? Really? There is nothing new here? I can see dynamics here never expressed anywhere in books or videos. Nothing simple really. It is a very dynamic process once you put that biasing magnet on the back.
And no, I am not mad with your challenges MileHigh. I kind of like it as long we keep it cool and logical and respectful. :)
Fausto.
Quote from: gridbias on 2011.05.14, 23:47:44
I wonder sometimes ......
Where exactly does lightning come from?
Of course it would be entirely impossible to create those conditions within a controlled envoronment, so dont even try.
It would have nothing to do with magnetic fields would it?
Of course we know it is just the clouds rubbing together ! silly me
The whole point of bringing up Tesla's monitoring of magnetic fields produced by a storm several miles away was to tell you that electric fields can interact and enhance magnetic fields. You are so caught up in the drama of the roses that you can't fell the bee stinging your arse.
This "condition" is quite easy to create if you get off your ass.
Hi Fausto,
Thanks for your reply. A few comments...
Quote1) it does not matter. The before and after experiment were all on the same coil. Others have measured their coil and seen that for the equivalent "SIZE" of coil it was not producing 12 volts. My coil is only equivalent in size not in turns or weight or area of copper. The concept is to prove that a "small coil can easily produce 12 volts".
You are completely missing the point here. This is pure Faraday's Law and nothing more. It has nothing to do with the fact that it is is a "small" coil. If you compare two different coils that are approximately the same size and one generates a much high voltage than the other then you have look at why that is happening.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html#c1 (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html#c1)
Any change in the magnetic environment of a coil of wire will cause a voltage (emf) to be "induced" in the coil. No matter how the change is produced, the voltage will be generated. The change could be produced by changing the magnetic field strength, moving a magnet toward or away from the coil, moving the coil into or out of the magnetic field, rotating the coil relative to the magnet, etc.
Faraday's law is a fundamental relationship which comes from Maxwell's equations. It serves as a succinct summary of the ways a voltage (or emf) may be generated by a changing magnetic environment.
The induced emf in a coil is equal to the negative of the rate of change of magnetic flux times the number of turns in the coil. It involves the interaction of charge with magnetic field.
The transformer coil that you tested had many more turns than Romero's pick-up coil and that's one of the main reasons that you could generate that high a voltage. Repeat the same test with a coil that is hand-wound and the same gauge wire that Romero used and approximately the same size and you will be in for surprise. The main difference between the two coils will be the number of turns and that will explain why the observed voltages are different. This is absolutely incontrovertible.
Quote2) And indeed it did. I clearly showed that on the video even though in rough ways. You could post a video yourself showing more professional measurement and proving my demonstration wrong! One can see it right away more light on the LEDs by simply putting the biasing magnet. You did not notice it?
I'll watch the clip again soon and tell you what I see. "Rough ways" is part of the problem. Your ability to hold the coil in approximately the same place is limited because in one case you are trying to compensate for attraction and in another case you are trying to compensate for repulsion. As long as the brightness and the length of the flashing is compatible and knowing the limits of human perception for detecting these differences is one factor. More importantly, I think in your clip you manage to show a few good scope shots for both orientations and the look very comparable.
Put it this way, the understanding of magnetic interactions says the power generation should be the same. You made a "rough" test and as long as they look "roughly" the same then you've got nothing Fausto.
Like I said I'll look at the clip again but as researcher you absolutely want to avoid fooling yourself. You know the story of the horse that could do addition and subtraction? If you don't know the story you should look it up.
Quote3) Off course there is a relationship between the too. A child can see that!
There is no relationship Fausto.
For the output power:
For the spinning rotor, the only thing that determines how much energy is transferred into the pick-up coil is the difference in rotational speed before it passes by the pick-up coil and after it passes by the pick-up coil. It is as simple as that because the energy reduction in the slower spinning rotor has to go somewhere. Where it goes is "into" the Lenz law drag. And when you have Lenz law drag that means you have transferred some energy into the pick-up coil.
For the cogging:
On the other hand, the cogging is always energy neutral, and has nothing to do with the decrease in energy in the spinning rotor. We are going to ignore any possible increased bearing friction that may occur from the cogging. Depending on the type of cogging, the rotor will first speed up and then slow down as it passes the polarized core of the pick-up coil, or, alternatively, it will slow down then speed up as it passes the polarized core.
The output power event causes the rotor to slow down and extracts energy from the rotor. The cogging event does not cause the rotor to slow down and does not extract energy from the rotor.
Even though the two events happen at the same time, they are superimposed on top of each other and have nothing to do with each other. This happens all the time in electrical circuits and in mechanical systems. You need to try to "open your mind" and see this because this is the true reality that describes the dynamics of this system.
MileHigh
My comments.
1 - again my goal was to show small coil and 12 volts. My video shows that. Concerning your description of physics, your're right and irrelevant for my goal on the video. So you can not state i was wrong here.
2 - yes rough and i will build it with Litz and see it again. Where is your video? Im still showing on my roughfness the correct observations. To be proven wrong still.
3 - absolutely cogging will change output power dramaticaly. If cogging goes to the point of stopping the rotor of spinning it will be zero output power and probably increased input power. Im still right here too.
Fausto.
MileHigh,
Why not sit back a bit and see what transpires? I think you're getting agitated and it's not healthy for anyone, mostly yourself.
Have a cool-off my friend. ;)
.99
Fausto:
We are probably going to have to agree to disagree but I have some follow-up thoughts for you:
Quote1 - again my goal was to show small coil and 12 volts. My video shows that. Concerning your description of physics, your're right and irrelevant for my goal on the video. So you can not state i was wrong here.
My impression was that you were trying to prove that it was feasible to generate 12 (or 15) volts with a setup that resembled Romero's setup. If you want to change one parameter that's your choice. I believe that any replications that are similar to Romero's including the RPMs of the rotor will not generate anything close to 12 or 15 volts. That suggests the possibility that Romero was cheating here and connecting a power supply to the generator output to falsify the output voltage and power the motor part of the motor-generator.
Quote2 - yes rough and i will build it with Litz and see it again. Where is your video? Im still showing on my roughfness the correct observations. To be proven wrong still.
This will be proven definitively by the replicators if they run a test with the biasing magnets and without the biasing magnets. They can also change the polarity of the biasing magnets. They will find that without biasing magnets, or with all biasing magnets pointing north up, or with all biasing magnets pointing north down, the generator output will remain essentially the same. Please try to do that test because I don't expect many replicators will actually test for that. That's really unfortunate because that means that they are talking Romero's word for it and Romero is wrong. These concepts were all proven more than 100 years ago.
Quote3 - absolutely cogging will change output power dramaticaly. If cogging goes to the point of stopping the rotor of spinning it will be zero output power and probably increased input power. Im still right here too.
You are mixing together the concept of the cogging causing extra friction in the bearings and unwanted vibration in the rotor which will slow it down with the "pure" concept of the cogging being an energy-neutral effect that does not change the average speed of the rotor. I am more focused on the "pure" definition of the cogging. Naturally the output power will decrease if regular friction or friction caused by cogging slows it down. In the final analysis though, the output power is determined by the RPMs of the rotor and other factors.
MileHigh
Poynt,
Don't worry. I know what some of the meta issues are that you are concerned about. I am not getting overly worked up I am just saying it like it is in a methodical and admittedly sometimes forceful manner.
I think that it has been covered pretty well now so don't be surprised if I slack off. The people that are really steaming are the ones that want to build this thing and are reading what I am stating. I am sorry for that but I think that the exercise has some merit, even though that may not become apparent until after some time passes.
I am not here to bash the concept of free energy in a generic sense. I can see like usual that it's very hard to engage people and share new ideas and discuss the merits or lack thereof of various ideas. You had the same experience with Rosemary and it got pretty testy a while back.
Anyway, only time will tell if what I am saying sinks in. Let's assume that some of the replicators have read what I said. If even a small subset of them try some of the tests that I have proposed that might help a lot. The test to see what happens with and without the biasing magnets that I just mentioned comes to mind right away.
Again, I am fully aware of the "big picture" and there is no point in repeating some of these concepts at this point. By the same token some of the repetition is related to the fact that there isn't even a sense that a dent has been made in the replicator facade. There is a long-shot that some of what I said will sink in and be taken more seriously as the replicator frustration sets in.
In terms of the even bigger picture, I may be greatly reducing or even eliminating my contribution to the whole scene at the end of this round which should be over in few months. There is a very strong sense of "been there - done that" and there is nowhere else to go. I am sure that will make a lot of people happy.
So what appears to be passion is more a methodical laying out of the facts, granted with some repetition, coupled with some genuine indignation that a bunch of people have been led to jump through hoops yet again. I know that those are charged words in themselves but they are "tough love" words and the message will probably not get through.
I engaged Fausto in the sense that he was the first out of the block to investigate something related to the claim and his conclusions were wrong and surprise surprise, nobody on the other side said anything.
I hope this makes sense to you. Seriously, you probably saw the last blast. It's getting boring and the fun has lost a lot of wind in it's sails. But I am absolutely not getting overworked up about this, just somewhat forceful and a bit overbearing. Barely a dent made in the mind-share of the replicators, and I was hoping for at least a glimmer.
Who cares, I already know the outcome. One thing I have never done is "spin." I say it like I see it and yet I am fully aware that other see me as a big-time spinner through their own prism. The end is just over the horizon.
MileHigh
Hi Milehigh,
Although I agree with you about the outcome of this particular Muller dynamo replication, learning should be fun so just sit back and let them have fun experimenting. Those that believe in self running devices simply from watching video's need to learn through their own endeavours.
Hoppy
Hello MileHigh,
it is good what you doing. I admire that.
Look I DO see your points and they are correct. I do agree that biasing will not change the output power directly. I do somehow agree that Litz may not change but there is some evidence (to be tested still by me) that shows that it will change the outcome somehow in not conventional ways and I do agree that the "cogging" in pure sense is net zero. I actually posted in my new thread at ou (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10716.0) exactly that.
When the poles on the rotor and the biasing are the same cogging becomes net zero (or almost because of losses) and does not interfere with the output.
Now, what we are disagreeing here is HOW i am using those very known facts to a more than "the sum is the collection of the parts".
So allow me to go very slow on my logic. First I want to show to the replicators that indeed is "possible to create 12 volts from a small coil". That's it, I am not saying there is something magical about the coil or the Litz or whatever it is only that it is possible at that small size to indeed get 12 volts and who knows how much power. You can see that, can't you? There is a building block, I think, for the Romero's motor.
The biasing will help smooth out the NET ZERO effect so it will be indeed NET ZERO power or losses because of the pure sense of cogging. Off course once one puts a load on the coil we have Lenz's law creating the second effect (you mention on your previous post) that is somehow masked by the pure cogging. I KNOW THAT.
What is important is that the BIASING will HELP in getting to the balance point where using a load will still perform with minimum cogging and NET ZERO because of the cogging.
What I am doing here is playing with the parameters in a conventional manner to get to the best of the sum of its parts.
Now, put the hat of an engineer that have to solve this problem, being true or not. To get this motor running to its best. That's what I am doing.
Take care,
Fausto.
Fausto,
Please, also consider proximity effects between turns and winding layers. This is a consideration in high power and pulse transformer design. The winding design has the basic concepts for the use of Litz wire but the windings will have little to no interleave at low frequency AC applications.
These windings can be described much as BruceTPU describes (and SM). This may also include a specific spacing between turns and layers of a coil. The object is to minimize resistance, impedance, eddy currents generated in adjacent conductors and distance traveled. This practice is a bit out of the realm of most coil builders or electrical engineers. It is also hotly debated because it reduces inductance while increasing the output voltage of transformers beyond the series vs. parallel arguments.
As far as adding a magnet to a core... this practice is used to decrease the inductance, increase Q and minimize the need for winding mass. The effects are much the same as using non-interleaved Litz.
Whether or not such practices apply to a given project must be determined.
Of course, such practices are of little use for steady-state DC unless you are looking for very low resistance for the DC component of a signal with mixed AC/DC.
@WaveWatcher,
YES. I agree. I think we need low resistance coils here and as you mention, those parametrs are ways to achieve that. Basing will obviously help at that.
Fausto.
something that has always stuck in my mind about the HRR motor was he showed it as OU, but when he tried to replicate it, he could not get it to work, so they resorted to dismantling the coil to see what was special, the conclusion was that there may have been shorted turns that made it OU but because they unwound it they couldn't be sure.
Something similar happened to SM, he said something like when he had a working coil, they tried to reproduce it but ended up unwinding the original to see what was special, they then realized and were able to recreate it, at a guess what would you learn from unwinding a coil, well that also could have been a shorted turn.
So just in case Romero has trouble scaling up, then before he rips up the old coil, i would recommend monitoring inductance or resistance as each coil is unwound, just in case this is also the case.
It's a long shot but i would prefer to mention this just in case it's important.There maybe something hidden from theory in a shorted turn coil under certain conditions.
I will also add that shorted turns in Lineoutput TV transformer can result in flames and smoke, in scan coils it may be possible to couple the frame stage to the line stage, specially in the early days of tv design this could be very dangerous, but as time went on each individual circuit had overcurrent and monitoring circuit's to shut down the disfunctional circuit's to protect from fire and damage.
I think when you look back at what SM said about the TV exploding then the most likely event would be a shorted line/frame yoke coil assembly, most of the circuits were isolated and functional in separate circuits, the frame oscillator and horizontal oscillator both drove the scan coil yoke, so it's logical and common to think any current mixing would happen here
Who knows?
I have seen some of the most unthinkable causes for unexpected behavior(electric, logic, network & mechanical systems). Nowadays names like RCA (Root Cause Analysis) and 6-Sigma are used so it looks like we are doing magical things. B.S.
The job is just harder now because we must document everything and follow guidelines created by the Software & Bean-counter folks.
Not one of them know which end of a screw-driver to hold. I wouldn't complain so much if I hadn't been called in to correct their mistakes, as well.
Just think about this....
What if we tried to devise a "transformer" that made positive use of eddy current generation vs. common EM induction. It wouldn't have an iron core - would it?
There is a lot going on when you consider eddy currents. I believe the majority of it is still speculation.
It would explain how many folks have been able to a stick copper or brass rod in place of the core for an inductor and then light an incandescent lamp with it. Of course, I'm sure all of those were declared fake as well.
Today an interesting post appeared at OU -- among the many coming in for this replication.
I notice .99 posts over there occasionally, too.
Here's what caught my eye:
QuoteHere is a small snippet from an email I received a few weeks ago. I have edited out the names. I thought this was very telling.
I know a man xxxxxxxx He made it big in the xxxxx business. He sold out to some international conglomerate and is set for life. As part of his humanitarian contribution to the world he decided to search for a true free energy technology and do what it takes to finance it and develop it into something workable, hoping to do an end run around the MIB. He doesn't do all his work on the Internet. For the last two years he has traveled to the prospective inventors with about $50,000 in Tektronix energy analyzers and other support equipment (including the FET probes). When I talked to him last, about 4 months ago at xxx here in xxxx, he said he had personally interview 118 individuals in 10 different countries. He said:
4% are outright Fraud (I thought that number was low)
48% have instrumentation errors and 80% of those are with current analysis – especially pulsed current.
48% are delusional about their accomplishments and the manner in which they evaluate their results
It's those last 48% that clog up the forums and discussion groups. You can show them with the latest equipment that their setup is only running at 70% efficiency and they will continue to think they have made a breakthrough and want you to provide them a research grant and buy stock in their company. So far he has found two legitimate OU devices one that operated at the 1 watt power level and another at 1000 watts. He attempted to get the second one together with a prince in Europe that was ready to finance a manufacturing effort, but the inventor wanted 60 million Euros up front. So far the people with the working inventions are impossible to do business with. No wonder so many inventors go to the grave with their secret. This is the same problem that Stan myers had.
-- toranorod
Is anyone here attempting a replication?
Professor,
I would agree with that 4%, 48%, 48% assessment, especially the latter two.
I don't think anyone here is trying Romero's version of the Muller generator. I think we're all watching OU to see if anyone there can achieve any results that may indicate Romero wasn't faking it. So far there hasn't been any definite proof either way as far as I know.
It would also seem that there is still confusion as to whether Romero's motor was working in repulsion or attraction.
.99
Romero explained that the drive means has nothing to do with his finely tuned device , except for making it self contained for a self run demo.
Either he was faking it or he was legitimate.
There is no doubt, that if he was not faking it, the self run with the globe needs no measurement.
Who in their right mind would want to be surrounded entirely by greedy men, well educated disbelievers, and worshipers ?
There an old book around about one such fellow
How about the two "successes", .99? :)
Lidmotor has just posted a semi-replication: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdDFVUfX5jg&feature=uploademail
He notes it is not OU and explains the problem he is having...
I've been watching as well.
None of the claimed replications would qualify as a replication, in my opinion. All seem to be a variation on Bedini's fantasies.
As far as magnet orientations goes.... I have the opinion that RomeroUK used the term 'repulsion' to indicate where most of the rotational force came from. Also, his device used both repulsion and attraction.
Where was it stipulated that the generator coils were the ones with the magnets? That doesn't make sense to me. The magnets would only be useful on the drive coils.
At least this is the way they work on toys with kicker magnet/coil combinations.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.05.16, 11:10:47
I've been watching as well.
None of the claimed replications would qualify as a replication, in my opinion. All seem to be a variation on Bedini's fantasies.
As far as magnet orientations goes.... I have the opinion that RomeroUK used the term 'repulsion' to indicate where most of the rotational force came from. Also, his device used both repulsion and attraction.
Where was it stipulated that the generator coils were the ones with the magnets? That doesn't make sense to me. The magnets would only be useful on the drive coils.
At least this is the way they work on toys with kicker magnet/coil combinations.
Romero post on his own website, indicated attraction and repulsion depending on the position of the rotor. I could not find a Google cache of anything to this effect, but you might contact "Baroutologos". I think this is prety typical for all who try to build a magnetic generator that might be OU.
The ideal device should not require anything to physically rotate.
The Energia Celeste Patent has more detail for an OU motor.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.05.16, 14:02:57
/SNIP
The ideal device should not require anything to physically rotate.
The Energia Celeste Patent has more detail for an OU motor.
Right !
I wonder if anybody ever tried a replication of that.
The big problem would be finding a simple way to modulate the H-V for the magnets.
Thanks.
I have a basic rule set for these motors.
One of them is -- If it needs electronics it can't be OU. Another is -- If it doesn't start without a push it isn't OU.
Since I have an open mind, I'll not slam a project from another unless my personally collected evidence is clear that it won't work.
I don't consider the text of my library as 'personally collected' until the experiment is confirmed on my bench. The same goes for YouTube videos.
There isn't enough information available for an Energia Celeste build. Not for me anyway.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.05.16, 17:03:37
There isn't enough information available for an Energia Celeste build. Not for me anyway.
there is enough for proof of concept
Yes, I'm familiar with it.
I believe the patent said 'at least one winding' but it should say 'at least three separate windings and delayed pulses. I have the impression the whole thing works on the premise that the rebounding magnetic field rebounds at a tiny fraction of c. I've never found that to be true.
Something that should start a wildfire is the rebound time can be considerably less than c. The problem is the domains in a magnetic core do not like to change polarity meaning the BH curve is incredibly narrow if there is one at all.
It does work better with bare windings and pulses in the low kV range with the core being a poor conductor. I have wondered how Peter's snap-crakle 'n pop would work on it.
How is it that an electric pulse can multiply a magnetic field thousands of times?
EDIT: changed "magnify" to "multiply"
I can't say it will multiply it a certain amount of times but it can increase it. Why that is is still a mystery to me but I have a theory.
That theory doesn't have enough backbone or enough time on my bench to be worth a discussion.
The final answer may dig into the weird science of spintronics.
Grumpy:
I don't know how you can possibly believe some of those "patents" that you post sometimes but that's just me.
QuoteExperimental results have shown that the resultant magnetic field has and amplitude far higher (eg. several thousand times) than the field produced by the magnet....
Magnetic fields are just vector fields that add together like vectors add together, with magnitude and direction. What that really means is that they don't even react with each other, they just "swim past each other" and create a new net magnetic field.
Meanwhile, here is a moment of brilliance from Mscoffman on OU:
QuoteThe DC2DC converter is a good idea for regulating voltage. I'd like to cautiously suggest that if there is a toroid in the converter circuit that it itself might be overunity.
Amazingly enough Romerouk put in an appearance today, seemingly not concerned with the threats to himself and his family considering that the MIB must be monitoring the thread. Perhaps the "MIB Pope" waived Romero's offenses? No comments about this from the forum contributors considering all the alarm they expressed about the MIB a week ago, almost like some kind of mass hypnosis event is taking place.
Interesting comment from Baroutologos:
Quotei know Romero more than anyone here i guess so i feel that i somehow should answer that question.
I have replicated more than 3 or 4 OU promising devices conceived by Romero, being all of them short of OU. Afterwards, indeed, he admitted his inspirations were not OU but close to it. (not selfrunning or anything promised or claimed to had achieved by them)
Nothing conclusive here of course. However, this is at least consistent with my pet theory that Romero succumbed to an irrational compulsion from years of frustration and faked his motor-generator.
Finally, the boys on OU are agonizing because they are not sure what the configuration is. Surprise surprise, it happens again and again and again and the enthusiasts are left to speculate and clutch at straws.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.16, 23:14:07
Grumpy:
I don't know how you can possibly believe some of those "patents" that you post sometimes but that's just me.
Magnetic fields are just vector fields that add together like vectors add together, with magnitude and direction. What that really means is that they don't even react with each other, they just "swim past each other" and create a new net magnetic field.
"scalar multiplication"
increasing the scalar variable will "multiply" the vectors - a rather "catchy" idea
Our very fast, hv electric pulse does this much like the air rushing in to fill the void of a bubble when it is popped. For an instant, I pulled more space into my work area and increased the scale, so to speak, multiplying the magnetic field.
Not a very clear explanation, but it does increase dramatically.
Grumpy:
I have noticed that you often use the term "scalar" standalone in some of your technical discussions, as if it meant something.
Note the definition:
Quotesca·lar
–adjective
1. representable by position on a scale or line; having only magnitude: a scalar variable.
The term is meaningless unless you associate it with something tangible.
If you believe so strongly that some kind of multiplication of some variable takes place can't you do some real-world measurements and share the data on the forum? I am under the impression that you have a bench and do experiments.
So the scalar
what will multiply
what vectors?
This is all rhetorical, you don't have to answer. Please at least think about what I said.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.16, 23:42:40
Grumpy:
I have noticed that you often use the term "scalar" standalone in some of your technical discussions, as if it meant something.
Note the definition:
The term is meaningless unless you associate it with something tangible.
If you believe so strongly that some kind of multiplication of some variable takes place can't you do some real-world measurements and share the data on the forum? I am under the impression that you have a bench and do experiments.
So the scalar what will multiply what vectors?
This is all rhetorical, you don't have to answer. Please at least think about what I said.
MileHigh
I am glad you asked:
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_multiplication
QuoteIn mathematics, scalar multiplication is one of the basic operations defining a vector space in linear algebra[1][2][3] (or more generally, a module in abstract algebra[4][5]). In an intuitive geometrical context, scalar multiplication of a real Euclidean vector by a positive real number multiplies the magnitude of the vector without changing its direction. The term "scalar" itself derives from this usage: a scalar is that which scales vectors. Scalar multiplication is different from the scalar product, which is an inner product between two vectors.
I have a bench and do experiments, but I am sorely lacking when it comes to measurement, expecially of things that I am not really sure how to measure.
For example, I say that I pulse a coil with HV and hodl a magnet near and that I think that the magnetic field is stronger because the magnet tries to move strongly. How might I "prove" that the magnetic field is increased and by how much it is increased. I need a method that will not be affected by the HV pulsed coil. I came up with a mechancial way that uses a sliding piece of iron and a pulley and weight, but this just shows that the field is changing and is not definitive.
Compass needles respond to the electric field as well as the magnetic field, and I don't have a non-conductive compass needle.
Grumpy:
I have a helpful suggestion for you. I am not sure if you are familiar with the mathematical concepts of differentiation and integration.
With respect to integration you probably know that it is a form of addition. There are two simple examples that I can think of. When you take a picture with a film or a CCD camera the image sensor adds up all of the light. The light can vary during the exposure and the integrating function of the film or CCD sensor copes with that and still gives you a proper result.
The other is filling up a sink with water. You can vary the water flow and the water level in the sink gives you the integration of the water flow x time.
So imagine you make a loop of solid insulated wire perhaps two inches in diameter and you connect it to a length of coax that terminates in a standard BNC connector. Say you make the loop with three turns of wire.
Now for step one you can run some experiments and position the loop and look at the scope display. You should see "heartbeat" spikes on the scope display that spike up and spike down whenever you have a pulse event that creates a pulsed magnetic field.
Then the next step would be to feed the signal into an operational amplifier setup that you make on a small project board. The operational amplifier is configured to perform integration on the input signal. This means that there is a capacitor in the negative feedback loop of the operational amplifier that performs the actual integration. It would also need to have a reset button to zero out the integration.
http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/ref/circuits/node5.html (http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/ref/circuits/node5.html)
http://focus.ti.com/lit/an/sboa092a/sboa092a.pdf (http://focus.ti.com/lit/an/sboa092a/sboa092a.pdf)
http://www.national.com/an/AN/AN-31.pdf (http://www.national.com/an/AN/AN-31.pdf)
Operational amplifiers are like gold, they really are. They do similar things to what transistors do but a 1000 times better.
Continuing on, you need to connect the output of the operational amplifier to a peak detector. The reason for this is that the output from your loop for a magnetic field impulse is always going to have a positive and negative spike, and the two spikes will cancel each other out when the integration is done.
So, you probably can also find an operational amplifier circuit that uses a diode as the basis for peak detection, but one more time it will be 1000 times higher in performance than a peak detector based on a diode alone. The peak detector will also have a push button to reset it.
So your test sequence would be as follows: 1) Reset your integrator and your peak detector with your push buttons. 2) Fire your pulse circuit that generates the magnetic field pulse. 3) Read the voltage on the peak detector. 4) Reset your peak detector. 5) Go to step 1.
The key point here is that you could adjust the input gain of your integrator and increase the size of your integrating capacitor if you need to. So it should be possible to make measurements of very high magnetic field pulses by adjusting the integrator settings.
I realize that this might be advanced for you and it would even be a challenge for someone with a lot of analog bench experience. I am just giving you a rough sketch here. However, it certainly is an interesting concept. It sounds like it would be right up Giantkiller's alley also.
This is not an open invitation to give anybody tech support. With a lot of work and experimentation I think it is all doable though.
MileHigh
That sounds simple enough, but how do you compare the base magnetic field strength to the increased field strength?
If the scalar value is truly increased, and the magnetic field is multiplied, would a coil that is powered with DC (and, hence, an associated magnetic field) show increased power?
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.05.16, 23:14:07
Magnetic fields are just vector fields that add together like vectors add together, with magnitude and direction. What that really means is that they don't even react with each other, they just "swim past each other" and create a new net magnetic field.
The second part of that statement worries me a bit. They don't react with each other but together they create a new net magnetic field?
MH,
You write of magnetic vector fields as if they are totally separate entities. There is attraction and repulsion but they don't react with each other?
Think about those contradictory statements and ask yourself why many people can't understand things like magnetic and gravity fields.
With your description I now see why you can't understand how a magnet can have an effect upon a driven coil.
MH
As part of my process control design experience, I would build op amp integrators and differentiators as part of the PID process control loop. These were used in our product line. Not many are familiar with the nuances of good analog design, especially at microvolt signal levels. I cut my teeth with the uA709 back in '69, then moved on to lower drift precision opamps such as uA725. Chopper stabilized opamps came along and brought it all to a new level of performance in instrumentation. Today there are lots of excellent choices too numerous to mention.
Yes it would be relatively easy for a well rounded analog guy to build a peak detecting integration scheme, but I think Grumpy is looking for a simpler mechanical means to indicate relative magnetic field strength.
I will be giving this some thought in the days ahead.
Ever method that I come up with is not full-proof.
Take the magnetometers of Tesla and Nipher - both recording magnetic fields from storms. The measurements indicate field changes but they are not definitive. Do they change because the source has moved or changed or the properties of space have changed? This is the problem before me.
The coil method that I mentioned above may be the simplest way if I can show that the "power" increased more than can be accounted for from the coil supply and the pulsed coil combined. Basically, if it shows "gain", then we have something. This gets more complicated if the output is all over the place, or if it is so low that it is lost in measurement error.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.05.16, 23:58:21
...I don't have a non-conductive compass needle.
That alone is a topic. :)
(Sorry to quote that out of context)
Hey ION
I was also involved with PID temperature controllers, one of the biggest manufacturers in the UK, now taken over by a US company, I was a bench engineer in the test department for a couple of years,then subcontracted to design, prototype and build the test fixtures.
Peter
Grumpy,
The best method for measuring and plotting magnetic fields is to employ the use of a high quality Hall-Effect sensor. It takes a bit of ingenuity to minimize the effect the probe has on the field and good ones are expensive.
I remember the arguments about the field plotting by Howard Johnson. Whatever folks say about him he was a solid thinker. His unbelievable results are easily repeated and confirmed.
You can place a low grade Hall-Effect sensor in a fixed relative position with the wiring at right angles to the source on a non-metallic support with little more than DC power applied and the output tied to a resistor and scope probe.
For an environment with a high electric field you can hollow out an aluminum can electrolytic to cover the sensor. This requires accounting for the time for eddy currents in the can to subside.
All,
With the backgrounds of ION and Peterae I add mine covering Power Distribution/Control, PID loops, SCADA and wave propagation. Unfortunately, all of that fun stuff has degraded recently to Root Cause Analysis and system design correction.
We have an interesting list of experiences :)
Here's an interesting post by Paul-R on the delay thread
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=256.msg2939#msg2939
Imagine a coil on a stator, and a passing ferrite core on a rotor (in the style of Robert Adams).
You pulse the coil to attract, and get a BEMF as the field collapses. This field will appear too
quickly to help out. If there is a delay, then as the rotor's core passes, it will get pushed by
the BEMF effect.
There is an additional effect involving the Lenz's Law induced field. If that can be delayed
by a small amount, the rotor's core will have passed an inch or so, and the Lenz reaction
will help to push the rotor rather than hinder.
Consider this: A lot of designers throw a diode across a relay coil in an effort to snub the BEMF spike and keep it from destroying the drive transistor.
But this is a rather poor approach, especially if you want the relay contacts to quickly open, as the diode keeps current circulating in the coil and hence the magnetic structure releases slowly. If you have an AC load on the contacts, severe arcing will occur due to the sluggish opening of the contacts.
A better approach is to use a series R-C across the coil. In this way the circulating current will snap off much quicker, the drive transistor will be protected, and the contacts will open much faster.
Alternately you could use a diode in series with a parallel R-C across the coil typical of a flyback snubber.
The R-C creates a slight delay in drop off of the coil current. Appropriately chosen you may get the delay required.
Maybe this technique can be used to provide the timed delay of the BEMF
Another idea would be to switch off the drive current, but keep the current circulating in the coil with another transistor across the coil until you desire to turn that second transistor off.
Study electronic ignition systems as used on small engines (magneto's). Some of these have automatic timing advance.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.05.17, 11:38:24
Here's an interesting post by Paul-R on the delay thread
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=256.msg2939#msg2939
Imagine a coil on a stator, and a passing ferrite core on a rotor (in the style of Robert Adams).
You pulse the coil to attract, and get a BEMF as the field collapses. This field will appear too
quickly to help out. If there is a delay, then as the rotor's core passes, it will get pushed by
the BEMF effect.
There is a thread somewhere on achieving this delay. No result, though.
How much wire would one need in a drum of wire for the time taken for the current to
pass down this wire to create a sufficient delay if the rotor was going at a fast speed
(and therefore the delay time would be relatively short)?
Here are a few methods I outlined earlier that will control the collapse of the magnetic field.
The switch in the synchronous method is representative of a transistor and is opened at the moment the BEMF is required. Note that the drive will have been turned off some time earlier and the circulating current will maintain the field until you desire to release it.
It would be simple to create a timing diagram and the appropriate drive signals for the mosfet and the transistor switch.
Mosfets are shown as the main drive but these could also be BJT's
ION,
Thanks for the snubber tips.
If you haven't already, could you please add that to your thread of technical tips?
Regards,
.99
ION,
Another common method is to use two diodes, in series, opposing polarity. This works for AC or DC and is found across huge solenoids. The pair conduct in either direction for a very short period then look like an open circuit.
They are generally high current Schottky. They were (are?) used to protect the relay contacts driving the device and still allow quick mechanical action of the device.
The voltage ratings of the diodes were chosen at 10 times the operating voltage for DC (usually 24, 32 or 48) and 6 times the operating voltage for AC.
A single diode wasn't acceptable for dump valves on fire control systems or fuel cutoff valves on diesel engines driving the fire pumps. Single diodes created a slow valve closure.
WW,
That would be using the diodes in a zener mode, and unless carefully chosen, they could be unpredictable as to the breakover voltage.
.99
Zener mode?
Yes, you can actually use zeners, too. The arrangement is called a 'clipper-diode'. Any diode pair may be used but one arrangement may function from the capacitance of the diode junctions. Another will rely mainly upon junction conduction to off time.
The main purpose of ones used on high impedance solenoids in critical valve closing times were as described. The zener characteristics were of little consequence.
Edit>>>
I still have a few ;D
So much I've forgotten since I was working with generators.... When I started in that biz you could build your own or buy them assembled. Later, they came ready in one package. The 1N60 Series was the most common I used.
I see now they are thrown under the classification of TVS diodes.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.05.16, 17:52:13
there is enough for proof of concept
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=827.0;attach=5008
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=827.0;attach=5010
The author of the patent wrote also:
"Tests have been carried out with different fixed values of the period up to a minimum value about 10
-12s"
10
-12s = 1ps. In 1998 (and even now), hundreds of volts at Thz frequencies were far from the possibilities of independent inventors or small companies. Moreover at such frequencies the coils would have an incredible high impedance on the order of hundreds of megohms so no current could flow except if tremendous voltages in the tens of MV range were used but Joule losses would also be tremendous. Even at Ghz frequencies, it would be a crazy challenge. The inventor is a liar.
"In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the unit 120 generates a first voltage pulse sequence at its output terminals 125 and 135; the time interval (in the following indicated as"period") between two contiguous pulses (considering negligible their length) is fixed, and has a value related to the application and the structure of the electromagnetic device 100. Tests have been carried out with different fixed values of the period up to a minimum value about 10-l2s, but the present invention lends itself to be implemented also with not fixed periods. The voltage pulses generated at the output terminals 125 and 135 have an amplitude (with regard to a reference value of the earth terminal) which takes alternatively a"low"type value VL and a"high"type value Viz where the difference between the amplitude of a high type pulse and the amplitude of an immediately preceding low type pulse is greater or equal to a predetermined minimum value, preferably 50V."
"The inventor is a liar."
Classic!
Ex, is this a language issue or are you having a bad day? I respect anyone able to function using more than one language. Folks in the U.S. don't think a second or third is needed. I think they should be ashamed.
If you are just having a bad day I suggest you investigate a little more before making such statements.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.05.18, 07:55:46
The author of the patent wrote also:
"Tests have been carried out with different fixed values of the period up to a minimum value about 10-12s"
10-12s = 1ps. In 1998 (and even now), hundreds of volts at Thz frequencies were far from the possibilities of independent inventors or small companies. Moreover at such frequencies the coils would have an incredible high impedance on the order of hundreds of megohms so no current could flow except if tremendous voltages in the tens of MV range were used but Joule losses would also be tremendous. Even at Ghz frequencies, it would be a crazy challenge. The inventor is a liar.
10
-12s = 1ps
This refers to the period between the two pulses - a phase shift or delay.
Most here already know that at some amount of phase shift between the pulses, the two pulses are compressed and one high amplitude pulse results.
@Wavewatcher
Quote"The inventor is a liar."
Classic!
I would agree it is classic, I have always found it very odd if not a little disturbing that whenever some people encounter something they do not understand they believe it must either be impossible or a scam. In which case they are essentially implying that the known universe and all of it's effects must revolve around their beliefs which is of course fanatic if not insane. Personally I find this mind-boggling and think it represents a form of egotism I find hard to understand, I have to wonder what would cause anyone anywhere to believe that they could never be wrong or misguided in their thoughts? Did someone declare them infallible or did they just fabricate this nonsense all on their own?. I think this stems from insecurity in one's self which leads to a pattern of behavior whereby an individual must judge everyone else in order to make themselves feel normal if not superior. The neat part of this form of delusion is the fact that the individual will always demand proof of equality if not superiority from everyone else but require no such proof from themselves, in fact they cannot accept criticism or else they would be bound to the same rules they apply to everyone else in which case their argument simply falls apart.
Regards
AC
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.05.17, 20:41:29
ION,
Another common method is to use two diodes, in series, opposing polarity. This works for AC or DC and is found across huge solenoids. The pair conduct in either direction for a very short period then look like an open circuit.
They are generally high current Schottky. They were (are?) used to protect the relay contacts driving the device and still allow quick mechanical action of the device.
The voltage ratings of the diodes were chosen at 10 times the operating voltage for DC (usually 24, 32 or 48) and 6 times the operating voltage for AC.
A single diode wasn't acceptable for dump valves on fire control systems or fuel cutoff valves on diesel engines driving the fire pumps. Single diodes created a slow valve closure.
The two diodes in series are what's commonly known as Surgistors, or Transzorbs.
They are more like very high power zeners diodes, and come paired in a two-lead package.
In the days I speak of zeners weren't something we had on the shelf. We made our own from 1N4000 series to selenium stacks.
I still remember the rotten egg smell from the stacks when we didn't figure it right.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.05.18, 14:15:59
@WavewatcherI would agree it is classic, I have always found it very odd if not a little disturbing that whenever some people encounter something they do not understand they believe it must either be impossible or a scam. In which case they are essentially implying that the known universe and all of it's effects must revolve around their beliefs which is of course fanatic if not insane. Personally I find this mind-boggling and think it represents a form of egotism I find hard to understand, I have to wonder what would cause anyone anywhere to believe that they could never be wrong or misguided in their thoughts? Did someone declare them infallible or did they just fabricate this nonsense all on their own?. I think this stems from insecurity in one's self which leads to a pattern of behavior whereby an individual must judge everyone else in order to make themselves feel normal if not superior. The neat part of this form of delusion is the fact that the individual will always demand proof of equality if not superiority from everyone else but require no such proof from themselves, in fact they cannot accept criticism or else they would be bound to the same rules they apply to everyone else in which case their argument simply falls apart.
Regards
AC
Excellent reply, Allcanadian O0
I would assume that this behavior is also one of the reasons why we still don't have Free energy to this day.
And think about the irony about a post like that, being made in a forum on Free Energy... C.C
Cheers
@ Wavewatcher,
So right ! ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.05.18, 00:10:56
Zener mode?
Yes, you can actually use zeners, too. The arrangement is called a 'clipper-diode'. Any diode pair may be used but one arrangement may function from the capacitance of the diode junctions. Another will rely mainly upon junction conduction to off time.
The main purpose of ones used on high impedance solenoids in critical valve closing times were as described. The zener characteristics were of little consequence.
If there are two "regular" diodes in series, back-to-back, then the only possible breakover is via "
zener mode". You'll have a current path through the diode junction capacitances, but that is not what I was referring to.
.99
Take it easy folks.
Ex is not superhuman and I doubt anyone else can make that claim.
How many of us have not made the same mistake?
When a 'period' is mentioned in such a document, how many would not first assume it meant wavelength or pulse length?
IMO his knowledge is needed here. If we must, we can pick and choose but it is needed.
For that matter.... How many of us can claim we are not an anal passageway on occasion? NONE ;D
Poynt,
I need to describe a finer point of semi-conductor junctions relating to initial charge application and current flow. I'll look for the references and post them elsewhere on OUR.
It has to do with current flow before the junction begins it's work. I don't recall seeing it on recent datasheets but it is a means to build a simple and ultra-short pulse generator, if you can find a switch fast enough.
The last time I built one the gate signal was from a 1N914(inverted) and the switch was a microwave class signal transistor with a tiny strip of board foil for the inductor. Most scopes can't show the pulse but you can charge a cap with the output.
In short: diodes conduct in reverse long before break-over but for an incredibly short time. Forward, they don't conduct until the same amount of time.
It was common for us (my old group) to use two 1N4007s with cathodes tied together across a 24VDC solenoid to extend the life of the driving relay contacts. Granted, most cases only required one diode, if the valve closure time was allowed in the hundreds of millisecond range or longer. I have seen some of the solenoids mentioned send a flyback of 200x operating voltage. I didn't care to measure inductance on them but I imagine they were in the ten's of Henries range.
Cathode to Cathode Zeners are pretty common on AC loads that may ring-down on power removal or when susceptible to AC hash on the line. There, they just clip + & - peaks.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.05.18, 10:37:11
...
"The inventor is a liar."
Classic!
Ex, is this a language issue or are you having a bad day? I respect anyone able to function using more than one language. Folks in the U.S. don't think a second or third is needed. I think they should be ashamed.
If you are just having a bad day I suggest you investigate a little more before making such statements.
As already explained, the inventor said to have conducted not feasible and not even consistent experiments. A 10-
12s time gap regardless it is a delay or a period or whatever, implies signals spectrum in the Thz region, incompatible with the components of the device. And experiments in the Thz/Ghz/tens Mhz region, need to consider propagation phenomena i.e. to go out of the hypothesis of the quasi-stationary state approximation, upon which the author bases all the explanations of the functioning.
Every one aware of electronics basis and signal theory, can detect such inconsistent speech of uneducated liars. I'm always astonished by the gullible people unable to duplicate absurd patents and nevertheless supporting the inventors only because these inventors say with simple words, not relevant but understandable by them, what they love to hear. Wishful thinking.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.05.18, 20:24:36
Take it easy folks.
Ex is not superhuman and I doubt anyone else can make that claim.
How many of us have not made the same mistake?
When a 'period' is mentioned in such a document, how many would not first assume it meant wavelength or pulse length?
...
You are right, I'm not (yet? :D) a superhuman but no mistake here, just implied terms. Any time gap dt during which the amplitude of an electric signal is changing, implies a spectrum of frequencies in the 1/dt range. It doesn't a matter it is a period or a delay.
Quote from: altair on 2011.05.18, 17:11:13
Excellent reply, Allcanadian O0
I would assume that this behavior is also one of the reasons why we still don't have Free energy to this day.
And think about the irony about a post like that, being made in a forum on Free Energy... C.C
Cheers
This behavior doesn't prevent you from building the suspicious patent and to prove it works.
So why do you say that we still don't have Free energy to this day?!!! Don't you trust the hundreds of free energy devices from patents like that one?
O men of little faith, why do you doubt? Of course we have hundreds, may be thousands, of working FE devices. We just have to build them according to the patents. ;D
@exnihiloest
QuoteThis behavior doesn't prevent you from building the suspicious patent and to prove it works.
I would agree however the first issue that would need to be addressed is the simple fact that "we cannot build what we do not understand" which is obvious.
QuoteSo why do you say that we still don't have Free energy to this day?!!! Don't you trust the hundreds of free energy devices from patents like that one?
Well, if this is a matter of "trust" then we could either trust the very ingenious inventors who have spent a great deal of time and tens of thousands of dollars to patent their device and the patent office or we could trust in you who believes they are all liars, again I think the answer is fairly obvious.
QuoteO men of little faith, why do you doubt? Of course we have hundreds, may be thousands, of working FE devices. We just have to build them according to the patents
We should understand that a patent is not designed to provide you and others with practical information on building or understanding the patent, it is designed to protect the inventor and their invention from people like you and others.
Regards
AC
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.05.19, 07:59:45
As already explained, the inventor said to have conducted not feasible and not even consistent experiments. A 10-12s time gap regardless it is a delay or a period or whatever, implies signals spectrum in the Thz region, incompatible with the components of the device. And experiments in the Thz/Ghz/tens Mhz region, need to consider propagation phenomena i.e. to go out of the hypothesis of the quasi-stationary state approximation, upon which the author bases all the explanations of the functioning.
Every one aware of electronics basis and signal theory, can detect such inconsistent speech of uneducated liars. I'm always astonished by the gullible people unable to duplicate absurd patents and nevertheless supporting the inventors only because these inventors say with simple words, not relevant but understandable by them, what they love to hear. Wishful thinking.
The reference to 10-
12s is not a time gap between two pulses on a single line but is the time gap between two pulses on two lines. A difference in the length of wire can achieve 1ps difference between the two pulses.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.05.19, 14:17:13
The reference to 10-12s is not a time gap between two pulses on a single line but is the time gap between two pulses on two lines. A difference in the length of wire can achieve 1ps difference between the two pulses.
Grumpy,
BRAVO!
This makes length of pulse and length of wire unimportant but is a hard idea to grasp outside of QED. Classical Electrodynamics can't explain it with any accuracy.
Feyman (and others) solved the problem. They wouldn't be crackpots, would they?
BTW: If it didn't work we wouldn't have gas lasers or other types using external excitation using heterodyne or infradyne methods.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.05.19, 14:17:13
The reference to 10-12s is not a time gap between two pulses on a single line but is the time gap between two pulses on two lines. A difference in the length of wire can achieve 1ps difference between the two pulses.
At 1ps, every conductor segment of only 0.3 mm length represents a full wave antenna radiating EM.
Moreover, the rise time of the circuit is longer than 1ps by many orders.
Consequently 1ps or even 1ns time gap is here completely irrelevant, it is as irrelevant as talking about a 1ns time lag between two watches beating second.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.05.19, 13:15:34
@exnihiloest I would agree however the first issue that would need to be addressed is the simple fact that "we cannot build what we do not understand" which is obvious.
It is not obvious. It is easy to build what is not understood, provided that a detailed procedure is given.
Quote
Well, if this is a matter of "trust" then we could either trust the very ingenious inventors who have spent a great deal of time and tens of thousands of dollars to patent their device and the patent office or we could trust in you who believes they are all liars, again I think the answer is fairly obvious.
I don't see what is "ingenious" in not working patents. I don't say that all inventors are liars. Most of the patents can work (even if there are not all usefull). Most of inventors are not liars. But most of inventors of FE devices are liars, or complete cranks, otherwise we would have succeeded in building at least one FE device.
Quote
We should understand that a patent is not designed to provide you and others with practical information on building or understanding the patent, it is designed to protect the inventor and their invention from people like you and others.
Regards
AC
It is a very partial view. The patent is designed to protect the inventor but
in compensation, the inventor must publish his idea, fairly, honnestly, in order to let produce new devices for the benefit of the community.
Most of the patents can be duplicated and work, but none of the FE patents. And FE patents expire without having been duplicated. These pseudo-inventors would have saved money in not patenting their ideas while provided with the same protection by keeping their idea for themselves only. Same result. :)
I guess that most of them are egocentric and convinced that their [wrong] idea will work, they patent without having built their device or without having checked the reality of the so-called "free energy".
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.05.20, 19:35:02
...
Most of inventors are not liars. But most of inventors of FE devices are liars, or complete cranks, otherwise we would have succeeded in building at least one FE device.
...
The various Patent granting authorities worldwide serve a
very useful "control" function for their respective governments.
Inventions and/or technologies which are deemed to have
potential benefit to the aims of the Military Industrial Complex
are seized in the "interests" of National Security.
Patent Documents are very often crafted to be instruments of
deception. Much knowledge has been suppressed.
Those classified technologies are gainfully exploited in
underground facilities (Area 51 et al.)
All "FE" devices are strictly controlled.
Quote from: Dumped on 2011.05.20, 20:37:53
The various Patent granting authorities worldwide serve a
very useful "control" function for their respective governments.
Inventions and/or technologies which are deemed to have
potential benefit to the aims of the Military Industrial Complex
are seized in the "interests" of National Security.
Patent Documents are very often crafted to be instruments of
deception. Much knowledge has been suppressed.
Those classified technologies are gainfully exploited in
underground facilities (Area 51 et al.)
All "FE" devices are strictly controlled.
I think you're right, dumped - if you have any decently documented examples, I'd like to know! (I'm aware of RomeroUK's visit from two MIB's)
I spoke to Carmen Muller of Muller Power Co. today. Sharp, articulate, ended up she asked me more questions than I asked her. ;) Our phone contact got flaky and connection failed finally. But she has my email address... She said there are some things she won't discuss via phone...
Give up folks.
We see what we expect to see, regardless of what is in front of our eyes. This is true for both sides of the argument.
The 1ps or even 1ns time gap argument is completely irrelevant and so is rise or fall time.
As long as one party is convinced there can be nothing interesting in any coil arrangement there is no point in the discussion. They simply don't have the experiences to formulate a different or more flexible view. They are only here to irritate. There can be no other explanation.
Certainly, they aren't here to participate in overunity research.
-----------
Somebody contact Feyman and tell him he is a crackpot.
-----------
This argument is off topic anyway.
Actually, we see what the best measuring devices we can get tell us -- and even then we have to re-check and use various methods.
"Somebody contact Feynman..." good luck -- wish he would come back, but he seems to have disappeared also from OU.com. I also miss EMDevices...
Hi Professor,
I'm still here, see my bench project. I'm just not going to butt heads with the skeptics anymore.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.05.21, 00:22:09
Hi Professor,
I'm still here, see my bench project. I'm just not going to butt heads with the skeptics anymore.
EM
Hey, great! I'm really excited that you're going to do the Muller/RomeroUK build. Best wishes on that. O0
Wish someone would try this much simpler build: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=853.0
No expensive magnets needed, or bearings, or big coils. Just a 9-wind toroid and a transistor, and you're almost there...
But hey, I'm learning a lot and having fun! The data are lookin' good, too.
PS -- any contact with Feynman? hoping he is alright. He was going well on the Gabriel device last I heard.
PhysicsProf,
I was speaking of Richard Feynman, theory of quantum electrodynamics fame :)
He would be hard to contact, too.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.05.20, 21:35:58
...
As long as one party is convinced there can be nothing interesting in any coil arrangement there is no point in the discussion.
...
As long as one party is convinced that the other party is convinced that there can be nothing interesting in any coil arrangement there is no point in the discussion.
Only the facts say if there is something interesting, for example by anomalous experimental results. May be there is something interesting in coil arrangement, nevertheless those who pretend that there is something interesting in coil arrangement never provided the evidence in spite of many crazy claims. So until now, it is an unfunded assumption and a hypothesis based on nothing else than a pure belief. We can keep it, but for no more than what it is.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.05.21, 02:25:46
PhysicsProf,
I was speaking of Richard Feynman, theory of quantum electrodynamics fame :)
He would be hard to contact, too.
Just a question of faith, as for a coil arrangement. May be with a good coil arrangement, it would be possible to radiate "scalar waves" and communicate with his spirit, or to move back in the past. The method is even possibly patented. ;D
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.05.21, 09:34:32
Just a question of faith, as for a coil arrangement. May be with a good coil arrangement, it would be possible to radiate "scalar waves" and communicate with his spirit, or to move back in the past. The method is even possibly patented. ;D
Ex,
I don't mean to intrude upon your religion but you didn't get my point.
Your arguments against the point others have been 'attempting to discuss' are already proven pointless by Richard Feynman several decades ago.
---
If anyone wishes to continue this off-topic discussion, please place it on thread you can moderate.
I've just found a cheap UK source for the magnet's
£1.15 each 20mm x 10mm Neo's
http://www.shop4tools.co.uk/acatalog/Neodymium_Magnets_Disc_Sphere_Block_Gold_Silver_Magnets.php
and the ferrite ones
pack of 10
£2.46 20mm x 5mm
http://www.shop4tools.co.uk/acatalog/Ferrite_Disc_Fridge_Magnets.php
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.05.21, 11:09:41
...
Your arguments against the point others have been 'attempting to discuss' are already proven pointless by Richard Feynman several decades ago.
False assertion.
Quote
If anyone wishes to continue this off-topic discussion, please place it on thread you can moderate.
A discussion is not "off-topic" only because you don't understand it or you refuse to consider points of physics and electronics that you disagree while nevertheless they apply here.
There is strictly no relation between Romerouk's Muller Replication and QM. Invoking Feynman is just a magic word, not even an argument from authority because you didn't connect it logically to this thread. On my side I gave all the reasons why a "ps" duration is here completely irrelevant, reasons easily understandable by people skilled in electronics or physics.
Nevertheless I can change my mind. I'm aware of QM, and Feyman's work. I can handle Feynman's diagrams.
So instead of digressing and accusing others with useless, unfounded and off-topic assertions ("They are only here to irritate", "they aren't here to participate in overunity research"...) and with a total lack of arguments, you should give your specific points relative to Feynman and our context, and I hope they will remain scientific and technical. What are they?
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.05.21, 09:34:32
Just a question of faith, as for a coil arrangement. May be with a good coil arrangement, it would be possible to radiate "scalar waves" and communicate with his spirit, or to move back in the past. The method is even possibly patented. ;D
Do you believe scalar fields exist? Can you explain what a scalar field is?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.05.22, 14:42:42
Do you believe scalar fields exist? Can you explain what a scalar field is?
Of course "scalar fields" exist. Anything whose the intensity or amplitude in any point of space can be characterized by a simple numerical value, is a scalar field.
In didn't speak of "scalar field" but of "scalar wave", which is a magic incantation from FE gurus (see Bearden) for transforming a quasi-static electric or magnetic field into a wave, by misinterpreting what is a "near field" condition.
Just to let people know i have found a cheap Perspex disc supplier.
They are cheap, they do different colours, these can be used for the top and bottom plates.
Here's the details
383mm Dia X 5mm Disc Fl.Blue,Perspex 7t97 Neptune Blue, Fluorescent Acrylic Disc £3.45
They can also provide
clear acyrlic 200mm x 10mm disc with a dead centre pilot hole drilled for £14.85
The down side is they charge £12.50 P&P
Here's the link to the coloured cheap discs
http://www.plasticstockist.com/Special-Offers.aspx
Michael Wong is the guy to speak to, they also do fabrication.
Anyway i have ordered 2 sets and will raffle one set Free Of Charge to anyone who wants to enter the raffle when they arrive.
Also, try this supplier: -
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sheet-Plastics-Suppliers/Acrylic-Disks-Circles-/_i.html?rt=nc&_nkw=perspex&_fsub=2003536017&_sid=1015747227&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1513&_pgn=5
Hoppy
Not to be a party pooper, but....
Don Smith,s and Muller's builds did not let the fluxes float around smoothly attracting or repelling.
The design has an aluminum cutter wheel to sharply and quickly annihilate the flux connections as abruptly as possible.
This is not EMF or BEMF. Mother nature abhors a vacuum. I posted this 4 years ago to instill the concept of jacking the flux at a very, very high rate of speed. I did not mean rotational either and neither did Smith or Muller. This is what Magnacoaster found out.
Does anyone know which bearings Romero used, the shaft looks like it may have come from a video player machine drum motor.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.05.26, 14:46:08
Does anyone know which bearings Romero used...
Very workmanlike offerings are available ex stock from builders' merchants. Ask for
replacement router bearings.
Wow good call thanks Paul-R i know the ones O0
Cheers for the links, i like the router bearings they are greased for high speed and ready to go, simply bearings looks good as well.
I wont know until i get my hands on some, but i imagine a router bearing is probably quiet a nice running beast, they can spin at 21,000 rpm, i would expect them to be pretty free running as there are no gears to drive it to such high revs.
I cannot find the litz wire Romero used on the website he gave, looks like it's no longer stocked
7 X 0.125MM SOLDERABLE STRAND EN.Cu 500g
ST01250007-500
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.05.28, 07:24:39
I cannot find the litz wire Romero used on the website he gave, looks like it's no longer stocked
7 X 0.125MM SOLDERABLE STRAND EN.Cu 500g
ST01250007-500
Peterae,
They had some yesterday - guess they sold out again.
I emailed them earlier in the week - here's their response.
Quote
We are currently producing more of the enamelled stranded wire 7 x 0.125mm.
It will reappear on www.wires.co.uk in about 10 days.
Cheers Duff Looks like it must be one of their popular items ;D
Something i find very interesting is the point at which each of the driver coil's are energized see pictures below
Hall 1 is triggered circumferentially as the rotor magnet is dead center above the driver coil
Hall 2 is triggering either before or after the rotor magnet hits the driver coil and he said he uses repulsion.
EDIT
Now in the video the direction of rotor rotation is Clockwise, this is strange because it means Hall 2 is triggering the driver coil before the magnet passes the coil, if the driver coil was being used in repulsive mode surely this would stop the motor, i would say i either have something wrong or this driver coil is working in attraction mode, while the other is working in repulsion mode.
Another EDIT :)
Hall 2 gets triggered from the rotor magnet, which turns on the driver coil right next to the hall sensor DOH i can see potential for this to oscillate the driver coil, as the coil energizes it may switch of the hall, which switches off the coil, then the magnet switches the coil back on....
As there is no need for me to doubt what Romero said about working in Repulsion mode, then maybe this is why the rotor rock back and forth when he first switches on, first drive coil repels rotor and de-triggers, second coil repels as the rotor approaches and pushes it back the opposite direction, only when it's given enough push can it pass with enough energy to over come the second repulsive coil, once the rotor magnet gets directly over the drive coil then it would then carry on repelling and accelerating the rotor, anyway the only way i guess is to build it, i think getting this process correct could be key.
There's certainly a lot to learn from the build anyway, just wish i had more time to devote to the build.
I think i will end up making my own 7 strand wire, shouldn't be hard to twist in a drill 7 lengths together, i have done it before for another project.
@DeepCut
Quote@Peterea, 21,000 RPM that's crazy fast, i may have to get some of those myself.
21,000 RPM is fairly high however I have brushless RC helicopter motors that max out at 70,000 RPM in which case the bearings must be as small as possible because the linear speed of each ball bearing is a function of the inner diameter of the race in relation to the ball bearing diameter. One of my pulse motors uses ball bearings with an outside diameter of 1/4" which is quite small and has very little friction as well I have some ball bearings with an outside diameter of 1/8" which is very small.
The best bearing for larger applications that I have found are ceramic skate-board ball bearings which have the lowest friction I have yet to measure other than my magnetic bearings which of course have basically no friction at any speed. It is important to remember that the friction increases drastically with load and RPM as such a bearing may feel as if it has no friction on the bench but have a great deal of friction at max speed under load. I like to do a comparison test because it is hard to grasp just how much friction standard bearings actually have until we compare it to a high quality bearing, for instance a standard ball bearing will make 8 revolutions on a spin test and a magnetic bearing will make 70+ revolutions in the same test.
In any case the best quality off the shelf bearings I have found are usually high end, application specific, bearings made for RC helicopters or skate boards.
I should also mention that my thoughts concerning bearing technology led to a little insight concerning other technologies. That is we can never know which setup is best until we have seen the best and make a relative comparison. As such I think it is silly that some people may say spinning a magnet past a coil of wire must always produce the same results, you see the technology we have is not the best way of doing things but the worst. Imagine that, what if we were doing everything wrong but this was the only way we knew of doing things -- how would we know?. I have found there is always a better way of doing things however we have to think for ourselves instead of following others and their popular opinion of the way things are.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.05.15, 20:50:56
something that has always stuck in my mind about the HRR motor was he showed it as OU, but when he tried to replicate it, he could not get it to work, so they resorted to dismantling the coil to see what was special, the conclusion was that there may have been shorted turns that made it OU but because they unwound it they couldn't be sure.
Something similar happened to SM, he said something like when he had a working coil, they tried to reproduce it but ended up unwinding the original to see what was special, they then realized and were able to recreate it, at a guess what would you learn from unwinding a coil, well that also could have been a shorted turn.
So just in case Romero has trouble scaling up, then before he rips up the old coil, i would recommend monitoring inductance or resistance as each coil is unwound, just in case this is also the case.
It's a long shot but i would prefer to mention this just in case it's important.There maybe something hidden from theory in a shorted turn coil under certain conditions.
I will also add that shorted turns in Lineoutput TV transformer can result in flames and smoke, in scan coils it may be possible to couple the frame stage to the line stage, specially in the early days of TV design this could be very dangerous, but as time went on each individual circuit had overcurrent and monitoring circuit's to shut down the disfunctional circuit's to protect from fire and damage.
I think when you look back at what SM said about the TV exploding then the most likely event would be a shorted line/frame yoke coil assembly, most of the circuits were isolated and functional in separate circuits, the frame oscillator and horizontal oscillator both drove the scan coil yoke, so it's logical and common to think any current mixing would happen here
Notice in the Hall 1 picture that one of the coils has a solder joint, looks like he may have lengthened the wire by tagging on some more, to do this he would have soldered all 7 wires together, i wonder if he did this for all coils.
So we have 7 inductors in parallel, which are then in series with another 7 inductors that are in parallel and if the other coils are the same we then have these in series with the same again.
The bridge rectifier is likely to be Maplin Spec, they do 2 like this and seems that the 600V is the same price as the 100V i would think he went for thr higher voltage so it's likely to be a KBPC606
http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/datasheet/irf/kbpc1.pdf
(http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/m/mlgSY75hbMdzYlmBmH3pkAg/140.jpg)
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.05.28, 13:59:07
As there is no need for me to doubt what Romero said about working in Repulsion mode,....
Hi Peter.
I am fairly certain that Romero commented that the motor ran in attraction mode.
I commented early on that imho, it ran in repulsion mode, or a combination of both, depending on the strength of the core magnets and coil pulse.
.99
Hi .99
Thanks for putting me right O0
His post Reply 16 says
Quotethe coils are conencted in pairs, top with the bottom but when i am talking about coils I am refering to each individual one.
The current setup works with the driving coils in attraction to the magnets. I have originally tried in repulsion but this one works better.
and his diagram also makes this clear.
These images were posted by Romerouk on OU
Setting up procedure by Romerouk
QuoteUltra important is to have the magnets spaced equally and the coils too.Failing in this arangement will cause system not to work properly. Leave the hall sensor to the ned to be able to find the right position and do it separately for each coil, not having both powered.
Initial tests must start with a load connected, at least a 5w but 10w will be better.
Don't connect all rectifiers togheter from the beginning, test and do the magnets adjustments individually.
I wish you luck.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.05.22, 16:27:12
Of course "scalar fields" exist. Anything whose the intensity or amplitude in any point of space can be characterized by a simple numerical value, is a scalar field.
In didn't speak of "scalar field" but of "scalar wave", which is a magic incantation from FE gurus (see Bearden) for transforming a quasi-static electric or magnetic field into a wave, by misinterpreting what is a "near field" condition.
If a scalar field exists, then why can't you have a scalar wave in the scalar field? A "scalar wave" is just a scalar field, with a different density than the ambiant scalar field, that is propagating or changing. Since a scalar field affects energy density, then it may apear as particles that effect the charge of other particles, but they are not deflected by a magnetic field since a scalar field or wave has no charge. That is all Tesla's Radiant Electric Effect is, by the way, induction by modification of energy density.
Wattsup,
When you speak of the coil pairs being hit with both polarities of the magnet at the same time, 'the magnet' means the rotor magnet? 'Both polarities' then means you are also considering the stator magnets mounted on that coil?
If so, I see your description is not as incorrect as MH proclaims. There is a severe disconnect of visualization when you don't understand the difference between varying amplitude DC and AC, how a planar coil works and how biasing a coil core can effect operation when there is a passing magnet of opposite polarity.
Unfortunately, I don't have the time needed to force my learned offerings simply by repetition and volume.
I'm glad to see there is another seeing this motor as not being a common motor or generator. Don't change your direction due to other's opinions. Use results on the bench as your guide :)
BTW:
The only way to induce a useful amount of current into a planar coil is to hit it with equal but opposing magnetic polarities. Lenz law still applies but Lenz was only partially correct. Such induction results in a net null magnetic force. I think you are on the right track with your description of connecting the inside wire of one coil with the outside wire of the next coil.
In any case, good luck with those experiments.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.04, 17:10:44
MH,
If you would like to help, here's a question.
Where can I find a good strong disk that is clear but does not shatter? I just cracked one of my disks while drilling. Actualy it's a question for anybody.
EM
Drilling almost any plastic sheet is best done this way:
1. Use a drill press. The slightest change in drill angle may cause uneven stress and cracking.
2. Avoid the use of the common twist drill. While these work just fine under the use of a skilled hand the chances of breakage is higher. Use a spade bit (very sharp one that is sharpened correctly) or hole saw for larger holes or a brad point for smaller holes.
3. The work piece must be fully supported by backing it with a solid piece of wood. No deflection, bending, shifting, etc. can be allowed.
4. Avoid drilling near the edges of the work piece. It is better to drill the holes before cutting the outer edge.
The speed of the drill and applied force is also important.
The best thing I've used is a spiral plunge saw bit in a router using jigs & guides.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.04, 17:10:44
MH,
If you would like to help, here's a question.
Where can I find a good strong disk that is clear but does not shatter? I just cracked one of my disks while drilling. Actualy it's a question for anybody.
EM
EM:
I had forgotten to warn people using the acrylic disks (Tab Plastics) that when you drill a hole size appreciably larger than 1/16 inch, you need to drill several times, each with a bit size increasingly larger until the desired hole size is finished, otherwise you'll likely to end up with broken plates!
But if you did it as I suggested, the plates are very solid and I've my rotor running quite well with the VCR bearings/base and I've also found out what Romero said about tuning the coils via magnet/washer combinations is so very true! I'm just now 'tuned' a coil combination (one drive, one pickup) to 13V from 12V supply running around 870RPM. Time for more experimenting.
cheers
chrisC
EM
Sorry to hear that, can i ask what you are currently using to drill the hole so i don't make the same mistake.
I tried a 18mm normal drill bit but no go because the angle was all wrong, went on to try spade wood bit and this worked, these were dummy tests on an old bit of perspex, i am now waiting for the correct size bits before i can continue.
EDIT Just occurred to me there maybe middle ground where the thing shatters at high rev's i suggest everyone builds a shield around it
MH
Do you think that the relay thin wire would carry 1 amp OK? I am not sure what the AWG is otherwise i could have looked it up
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.04, 17:10:44
MH,
If you would like to help, here's a question.
Where can I find a good strong disk that is clear but does not shatter? I just cracked one of my disks while drilling. Actualy it's a question for anybody.
EM
use a high speed drill motor so that the drill melts through the plastic, break off the melted edge when it cools
EM,
Having an axis controller blown out this weekend on my DIY CNC forced me to rethink(remember) drilling Lexan by hand. (No, I'm not currently building a motor replication)
chrisC had the best advice. Use a small pilot hole and increase the diameters in steps. If the hole diameter is less than twice the thickness you should be able to drill the hole without stepping up in diameters. A pilot hole is a safe bet in any case.
@Wavewatcher
QuoteThe other current problem is the use of generalizations.
-All working motors work this way therefore your working motor works the same way. Since there is more than one way for a motor to work I wonder about this statement.
-Lenz's Law applies to all coils because coil geometry doesn't matter.
-Kirchoff's voltage law applies to all circuits because all completed circuits are the same
-Any ideas outside of my understanding is esoteric and questionable
I would agree with you that the statements above are silly and do not imply a deep understanding of anything. Rather than believe everything we are told I like to seek the limitations of the things we think are written in stone at which point we usually find they are not. Here are some examples---
Quote-All working motors work this way therefore your working motor works the same way
Wrong, I have built motors which cannot act as generators, that is at no point will the spinning rotor magnet induce a voltage in the coils of my motor forcing it to act as a generator therefore I know as a fact this statement is false. We should remember that in order to understand the limitations of something we have to actively seek ways to exceed the known boundaries, for me my initial intent was to produce a pure motor with no generator action and this is what I did.
Quote-Lenz's Law applies to all coils because coil geometry doesn't matter.
Wrong, Lenz Law relies solely on the fact that a current must be induced in the coil which produces a magnetic field in opposition to the changing magnetic field which induced it. This means the current must flow in a direction parallel to the conductors otherwise Lenz Law cannot apply, that is if there are two conductors wound parallel to one another (Bifiliar) as a coil and the conductors act as plates of a capacitor then the current is not parallel to the conductors but at right angles to it. This is true because the current in a parallel plate capacitor acts inward in "all" directions summing to zero as a regional gradient thus no Lenz Law. I told Milehigh this a long time ago yet he continues to ingnore it because I believe he has no explanation for why or how Lenz Law fails in my opinion.
Quote-Kirchoff's voltage law applies to all circuits because all completed circuits are the same
I think the Wikipedia definition will suffice-
QuoteThis is a simplification of Faraday's law of induction for the special case where there is no fluctuating magnetic field linking the closed loop. Therefore, it practically suffices for explaining circuits containing only resistors and capacitors.
Quote-Any ideas outside of my understanding is esoteric and questionable
Ah the human Ego can be a strange thing and I have often wondered what would justify a persons belief that they could never be wrong or that everyone else must be somehow misinformed or misguided. I learned a little secret a long time ago which has helped me in more ways than I could mention---- I always presume I am wrong in my thoughts. When we do this we must always seek alternative answers and we must always test what we think we know therefore there are no "right" answers there are only temporary answers related to the level of understanding we have at the time. As such I know I'm wrong about most everything on some level and I have no need to compete with anyone here as I intend to prove myself wrong first and foremost, that is my goal -- to prove myself wrong. This relates to a statement made by Victor Schauberger---- Do the opposite of what we do today.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.06.06, 15:23:34
This relates to a statement made by Victor Schauberger---- Do the opposite of what we do today.
To do the same thing over and over and expect change is insanity. The ones who make change are considered crazy. Sounds like the slow train to progress is a trip of insanity.
The first page of this thread has everything needed to dispell this build.
I had posted a simple fix to attain better results but got slammed because the idea was replication.
The model of involvement that this thread shows is ad nauseum, ad infinitum. The paradox if 'If you want it then find it yourself' with 'Come on in, the waters fine' with 'I told you so'. Camaraderie to a fault.
Tis an easy thing to fall into. Even me with these party quotes. That puts me in the group 'I told ya so'.
Silly humans....
FYI, I started a 3D Ansys Maxwell simulation thread at OU:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10841.0
I basically confirmed by simulation that it is possible to adjust the bias magnets such that no overal drag caused by BEMF occurs.
Using that and minimize other losses, like eddy currents, skin effects in coil wires, air friction etc could result in the desired situation.
I will do some calculation of the consumed energy by the driving coils versus the energy generated by the generator coils to give a good impression about the simulated figures to point out there is any OU potential.
Quote from: DeepCut on 2011.06.06, 21:22:23
Hi Chris,
do you have links to those two posts please ?
Thanks,
Gary.
It's todays posting, reproduced here:
Re: Muller Dynamo
« Reply #2569 on: Today at 06:42:31 PM »
Quote
Well done @minoly, can you confirm for all others that the speed goes beyond the normal speed without the coil in place?
Hopefully now people will pay more attention to what I said many times before. I have never lied and I made statments only confirmed by myself during my experiments.
I have mentioned the Kromrey effect few times before but it was ignored because for some people this is too simple to be true and work.
As you all can see it works, and when you will understand more about it you will manage to do this much more easy.
I wonder why for all this time nobody ever managed to see this effect except Thane , but that in my opinion is a little bit different.
Why Muller's daughter continues her father work if there is no benefit?
This was my question when I decided to go for this Muller setup.
Best Regards,
Romero
cheers
chrisC
oh, Rod's posting shows those nice waveforms:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7982-muller-generator-replication-romerouk-15.html#post143274
I see RomeroUK has posted again yesterday
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg289680#msg289680
I am here not to give you any info or directions regarding the Muller device, that is not going to be anymore but I am seeing a lot of people spending a lot of time and money thinking that just looking at my device is enough to make a 100% replication.
I hate to see people spending money on something they don't understand completely.
Most of the time is not what you see, is not in front of your eyes it is a bit more than that.
My advice to all of you is to stop working on the Muller device and just play with a simple rotor and 2 coils, one driving and one for collecting. When you will make that to speed under load or shorted then you can apply that to different even more simpler setups.
I know that most of you will say that the speed up will bring the rotor to the original speed where we don't have the collector coil in place and there is no gain. Try and measure the speed before adding the collector coil then do the same when you shorted the coil. I think that is easy enough.
If you cannot get this effect then you will not be able to get to the next step and better stop before wasting any more time and money. My Muller device had a little bit from all of my discoveries during many years of building and testing and most of the time I failed in getting my goal but every time I have learned a bit more.
This arrangement is a complicated one and requires thousands of adjustments but it can be built in simpler ways.
Lately I have tried different toy size arrangements and I will build a total different type hopping that I am not going to upset anyone now.
I've got all the parts I have ordered before, thinking to get a bigger size Muller device and I will use them towards a different concept, nothing related to Muller idea.
Now again, I hope people will think many times before starting any project then decide what to do and please do not take my devices or ideas like an invitation to replicate, that is your decision, don't blame me if you fail, we are all the same but still, not all can play football but we like to try and maybe we will learn.
Best Regards to all,
Romero
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg289791#msg289791
Well done @minoly, can you confirm for all others that the speed goes beyond the normal speed without the coil in place?
Hopefully now people will pay more attention to what I said many times before. I have never lied and I made statments only confirmed by myself during my experiments.
I have mentioned the Kromrey effect few times before but it was ignored because for some people this is too simple to be true and work.
As you all can see it works, and when you will understand more about it you will manage to do this much more easy.
I wonder why for all this time nobody ever managed to see this effect except Thane , but that in my opinion is a little bit different.
Why Muller's daughter continues her father work if there is no benefit?
This was my question when I decided to go for this Muller setup.
Best Regards,
Romero
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.06, 22:39:41
I'm glad to hear that Teslaalset, since I suspected from the begining that that's what the biasing magnets were doing. If you have any pretty diagrams or graphs feel free to paste over here as well ( I can access the OU site only from home.) I'm specificaly interested in the B-H curve traversal as the magnet approches and departs. The B-H curve should be ploted for the magnets and for the ferrite rod, and hopefully Maxwell will let you do that.
EM
B-H of the ferrites and magnets are defined in the material list I used. Nothing special.
The ferrite B-H curve was copied from a manufacturer data sheet.
I use 3C90 material, but anything is possible with Maxwell, I can even create materials that in practice do not exist yet.
By plotting the flux densities of the ferrites during normal operation I can indicate what part of the B-H curve is used during normal operation of the rig.
I will be able to generate all that, but I will do some optimalization first on the total rig model.
Once I have found the optimum magnet and rotor distance allignment, I can post those details.
@All
Here are a few laws which may supercede the almighty Lenz Law.
Clarke's three laws:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur.C.Clarke
Regards
AC
Quote from: RomeroUK on 2011.06.07, 06:37:14
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg289791#msg289791
I have mentioned the Kromrey effect few times before but it was ignored because for some people this is too simple to be true and work.
This is a 46 meg pdf of a book on the Bedini's work with the Kromrey and Brandt Style Tesla Converters:
(With comments by Tom Bearden...)
http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/Mueller.pdf
Thanks EM
QuotePeter, I was just holding down the disk with my hand and using a hand drill, I did have a small pilot hole drilled, but then I jumped up directly to the correct diameter drill and it jamed and spun my disk an hit a nearby box, and the stress on the drill hole cracked it. Oh well, lesson learned.
I will make sure i don't try that one, i was tempted the other day, Tonight maybe the night i find out my flat wood bits arrived, i guess at least i have 2 discs so if one goes tit's up hopefully i will be able to have another go.
The important thing is to not lose any limbs in the process 8)
Yes, the Worldwide Web, the Internet and this Forum are
each sets of the Stage that is our terra firma.
We are all actors playing out roles to satisfy our needs.
Some very energetically and dramatically. Others more sedately.
Some with honest and sincere intent. Others who wish to deceive.
Some very skillfully and craftily. Others with less polish and suavity.
In spite of this (or because of this) there is progress being made in
unraveling the mysteries behind the RomeroUK device and the Muller
Generator.
Some remarkable results with the "coil shorting" technique.
There may yet be a happy ending to this saga. Or beginning...
We are staying tuned.
What comes off the paper and what hits the concrete are 2 different things. And that is when what hits the rotary oscillator.
Back to the future now for a quick moment then we can return to the farside:
How about placing an aluminum sheet or plate with holes between the magnets and coils where the holes line up with the coils. This would give an aperture for the flux to pop through or appear for a shorter moment of passing? Start with small holes then widen them.
Ok, back to the group hug. Wouldn't this make it 2 steps back with my 1 step forward? Dosie doe.
I didn't mean you personally, just the reps i have seen so far including Zero Fossil Fuel
Clanzer does some amazing stuff indeed, but most have different coils, rotor magnet counts, a true rep should be as close as possible
Most are using ferrite rod, the cores that Romero used may not be straight ferrite from the data i have seen the core in the choke is a high saturation beast, theres so much in the detail that can break a replication until the method of operation is understood.
GK,
Don't you think adding an aluminum plate will change it from a motor to an Eddy brake?
--
If someone is being paid to troll these forums PLEASE! Send me a job application.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.06.09, 15:55:02
The thing i cannot get my head around is that i am yet to see someone try replicating Romero's motor.
I think one can do better with a non-moving device, that offers a higher magnification factor.
Yep i agree G but lets try getting the original to work, then we can take measurements if we get lucky.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.06.09, 20:19:43
Yep i agree G but lets try getting the original to work, then we can take measurements if we get lucky.
Consider a simpler experiment to velidate the operating principle before you build the entire device. If you can not produce the magnified magnetic field, then you will probably not get the gernator to work. Muller reported that he achieved an increase in magnetic field strength of 400 times the base field strength. Spherics mentioend that magnfiication of 1000 times can be achieved in the TPU. ED Gray mentioned magnetic fields increased beyond normal magnitude, but I don't recall if he gave an actual number. Energia Celeste claimed magnification of "thousands of times".
The basic premise is to wrap a coil around a magnet and apply hv DC pulses. Try that first.
All of this BEMF this and that, and timing of push and pull are all secondary and do not offer any "gain".
Before anything maybe @MH or anyone else can answer this question which is Romero wheel pertinent.
Take any center tapped coil. Put the pulse on one end and the other polarity on the other end. I does not matter what frequency or what power is used to drive the pulse.
Now take your scope probe and put it on the coil side that is being pulsed. Grab the waveform image. Now take your scope and put it on the center tap and grab an image. Then put your scope on the other end and grab the image. Very simple. So you have a coil that is pulsed on the ends, and you scope the pulse side, center tap and other side.
So the question is.
1) What waveform will you see at each location and if there are any differences between these three waveforms, WHY?
wattsup
I choose not to defend my position but the position. I am working on configurations that Grumpy posted about from simple to complex. But no moving parts except a magnetic field. I have all the combinations I need to do any of this type testing. And I am.
I saw Muller's flux cutting videos. He uses an aluminum disc with holes done in California in 1996. I saw Don Smith's flux cutting design done in California in 1996. I saw SM's flux model TPU done in California in 1996. Do you see a pattern here? Oh and guess where Dollard was? Is the pattern becoming clear now? Have any here been to or witnessed something new outside the pattern of devices mentioned here? Come on speak up!
Grumpy mentioned the basis. I have mentioned the basis. Marco mentioned the basis. Spherics mentioned the basis. If you can not see the simplicity then keep wasting time beating your plowshares into swords. I have alot of tests pursuing this. They might look all over the board but I was chasing one thing in many avenues and builds. This one thing. I don't have any mechanical builds. I started right off the bat with the GK4 from Tesla's patent. Pretty simple. I didnt need to build a cromagnon wheel spinner to understand what Bedini had done by shearing the field between 2 magnets. Same thing again. This is the answer that everyone wants. Or better yet why am I yelling in the dark?
And here is the Coup' de etat': Almost everybody here has had their fun slamming Magnacoaster. Well guess what? He got it with no moving parts and he started out with moving parts! Wadda yuze gotz? Nada.
I got Frankencoils made from FrankenLegos and am tired of the lightning shows.
Forgive if I have offended anybody. Sometimes my Jersey fire gets to goin'.
No need to use the ground of the scope. Just the scope probe on the three points. I am not asking you to troubleshoot a resistor.
Anyways, even if you put the ground on the negative of the coil, it will show the same thing.
If the pulsed coil is a standard ac transformer that has a primary or secondary with a center tap, just use it and pulse on the ends. On the other coil of that transformer, connect it to a dioded capacitor with an LED that will light up. This LED is witness to the energy transfer at the time of scoping. Then I could simply say put the scope probe and ground to the transformer in any way you want as long as the LED still lights up. Take the three scope images and show them here.
But I could also save you some time by saying, the probe ground is not needed and LED or not will not change the waveforms.
wattsup
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.06.10, 02:37:16
I choose not to defend my position but the position. I am working on configurations that Grumpy posted about from simple to complex. But no moving parts except a magnetic field. I have all the combinations I need to do any of this type testing. And I am.
I saw Muller's flux cutting videos. He uses an aluminum disc with holes done in California in 1996. I saw Don Smith's flux cutting design done in California in 1996. I saw SM's flux model TPU done in California in 1996. Do you see a pattern here? Oh and guess where Dollard was? Is the pattern becoming clear now? Have any here been to or witnessed something new outside the pattern of devices mentioned here? Come on speak up!
Grumpy mentioned the basis. I have mentioned the basis. Marco mentioned the basis. Spherics mentioned the basis. If you can not see the simplicity then keep wasting time beating your plowshares into swords. I have alot of tests pursuing this. They might look all over the board but I was chasing one thing in many avenues and builds. This one thing. I don't have any mechanical builds. I started right off the bat with the GK4 from Tesla's patent. Pretty simple. I didnt need to build a cromagnon wheel spinner to understand what Bedini had done by shearing the field between 2 magnets. Same thing again. This is the answer that everyone wants. Or better yet why am I yelling in the dark?
And here is the Coup' de etat': Almost everybody here has had their fun slamming Magnacoaster. Well guess what? He got it with no moving parts and he started out with moving parts! Wadda yuze gotz? Nada.
I got Frankencoils made from FrankenLegos and am tired of the lightning shows.
Forgive if I have offended anybody. Sometimes my Jersey fire gets to goin'.
If there is a mechanism for "gain" in Romero's version of Muller's Generator, then this should be identifiable without building the complete device. So, where is it? Find the mechanism for "gain" and study it. Start with one magnet and one set of coils and look for something unusual. I hate to see money and time wasted on full builds without the basics to make them work.
Ah Memory Lane
The good old 6502, i learned on the commodore pet, and wrote a defender style game, mind bending graphics as well ;D
:)
I have got to say it is really good to see Romero still posting on OU
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.06.10, 12:20:16
:)
I have got to say it is really good to see Romero still posting on OU
Agreed.
It would be nice though if he would come clean regarding his statement that it is "fake", and explain really what happened.
.99
Here are a few questions for all.
1) In Romeros wheel he has many singular magnets on a rotor. So is the north and south field of a magnet identical in field strength?
2) When you put two drive coils in series and pulse the pair from one end, do both coils have the same field strength?
If you answer "no" to 1 and 2, then you agree there are two pairs of varying strength fields and now know how to match each side to get the best average. He He He. It's not only the coil plate distance.
Sorry but there is logic to the madness Nature always finds the perfect balance.
Guys with wheels need to use just one drive coil (if only one pair) or two drive coils one in each of there positions (if using two drive coil pairs) but the drive coil should be in series with the second drive coil but not already placed on the plate. This will give you the exact strength comparison when using two drive coils.
But in each position drives coils have to be tested and experimented in all the variables.
Single mounted drive coil.
1) Mount drive coil and connect to pulse.
2) Switch wire on the coil.
3) Turn the coil to the other side and connect to pulse.
4) Switch wires on the coil.
Single mounted drive coil with second coil in series but not mounted on the plate.
1) Mount drive coil and place second drive coil in series without mounting it and connect so pulse hits mounted coil first. Test.
2) Switch the mounted drive coil wires around and test.
3) Turn the mounted drive coil around and test again.
4) Switch the mounted drive coil wires around and test.
Single mounted drive coil with second coil in series but not mounted on the plate. Test for the second series coil.
1) Mount drive coil and place second drive coil in series without mounting it and connect so pulse hits NON mounted coil first. Test.
2) Switch the mounted drive coil wires around and test.
3) Turn the mounted drive coil around and test again.
4) Switch the mounted drive coil wires around and test.
Keep a record of all the variables and see what the highest rpm is achievable under each. You may have to play around with the distance of the drive coil from the rotor.
Done on north side of rotor, then repeat for south side.
The above variables, if not known, means this build is being done blindly and builders are taking to many variables for granted. So many traps to fall into.
With these results, you will be in a better position to now test with both drive coils mounted, with pulsed side tested, coils turned around, wires switched, and then magnet polarity switched.
In the end, you should wind up with the pulsed side coil mounted where it showed the least rpm (strongest coil on the weakest magnet side) and the coil not on the pulsed side showing the highest rpm (weakest coil on strongest magnet side).
ONCE THE DRIVE COIL WIRING AND ORIENTATIONS HAVE BE OPTIMIZED, THEN YOU CAN ADD THE FIRST SET OF PICK-UP COILS (PUC). ONLY ADD THE PUC ONE PAIR AT A TIME. YOU WANT THE DRIVE COILS TO TURN THE WHEEL ON ONE PAIR OF PUC, PRODUCE OUTPUT AND SEE THE LEAST RPM DROP POSSIBLE. THEN HOLD THAT SETTING, ADD THE SECOND PUC PAIR AND SEE HOW MUCH THE RPM DROPS AGAIN. IF WHEN YOU ADD THE SECOND PUC PAIR THE RPM DROPS BY 10, GREAT. IF IT DROPS BY 500 RPM, BAD. RE-ADJUST UNTIL YOU GET THE MINIMUM DROP WITH ONLY TWO PUC PAIRS AND THIS WILL PERMIT YOU TO EXTRAPOLATED IF THE OTHER PUCS WERE ON THE PLATES. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO PLAY THIS GAME IN A MANNER THAT WILL TEACH YOU SOMETHING AT EVERY TURN.
Some will say none of this matters. But unfortunately it does. Otherwise all replications should work by now. I am sure Romero knows all the trials he had to make to get his device going as it does, but the complexities with all the variables to work out are rather daunting and trying to explain it is even more daunting, so I can understand why he would want to pull out of the limelight.
wattsup
PS: Just answer the question in my previous post and this will be your proof.
Now that Romero is posting again, and has just put up another video showing his work on a smaller device, I think I know what happened regarding all that went on a month ago. I'll keep it to myself or with those that inquire for now though.
.99
Phew, I thought WWIII was about to start. Look guys, it is simple. Nothing personal. @MH has a way of spicing up his minced meat before he puts it on the grill, and I feel rightly so that @EM had to make a stand, but the burger was somewhat overcooked.
Now, since I was next in line, and since no one cares or dares to answer my question previously posted, I will show it myself and push the question along.
So I am putting up four images.
coil-pulse1.jpg - Overall set-up showing an AC transformer with pulse generator on each end of the coil with a center tap. Pulse is at 9khz, 16vdc, 50% duty. The output of the transformer goes to a dioded capacitor with an LED bank on it and my volt meter shows a steady 6.21 vdc on the capacitor while loaded. So I know there is energy transfer happening between the primary and the secondary when I scope my three points.
coil-pulse2.jpg - Image of scoped waveform taken at the positive pulse point on the transformer.
coil-pulse3.jpg - Image of scoped waveform taken at the center tap point on the transformer.
coil-pulse4.jpg - Image of scoped waveform taken at the negative pulse point on the transformer.
@MH or anyone else, if you may please explain what the three waveforms show. @PhysicsProf you are more them welcome to interject also.
@MH I know you may alreayd have your hands full and I certainly would not want to partake in any ganging up like thing which would be purely consequential to my questioning.
What do these images tell you about what is going on energy-wise and pulse-wise inside the transformer? I know this is EE 101, but that's the point.
wattsup
wattsup
I am not totally sure i understand your setup fully but
If you are using the scope probe ground and connecting this to the signal gen 0V side of the center tapped transformer, (I know you said it doesn't matter if you connect the scope ground or not) then you would get a flat line trace because the scope probe will be in the same position as the scope ground, next the center tap should be reading half the signal gen amplitude the transformer is acting as a divider due to the driven waveform energy being distributed across both primary half windings, the top transformer tap is where you are driving from so will show twice the middle point and full Sig gen waveform, this is exactly what i am seeing in your scope shots as well.
What am i not understanding?
Wattsup,
Are you aware that the scope and signal generator are already connected to each other via ground?
I imagine you know that already but knowing it should make it easy to understand the scope shots.
OK I have put MH on read only and on this basis i would prefer if that's the end of it, this thread will be cleaned up over the next few days, any reference or post by MH and replies to him will be deleted on the Romero thread.
I ask you all to no longer post relating to MH, it would not be fair as he cannot reply anymore.
Peter
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.06.11, 13:52:19
wattsup
I am not totally sure i understand your setup fully but
If you are using the scope probe ground and connecting this to the signal gen 0V side of the center tapped transformer, (I know you said it doesn't matter if you connect the scope ground or not) then you would get a flat line trace because the scope probe will be in the same position as the scope ground, next the center tap should be reading half the signal gen amplitude the transformer is acting as a divider due to the driven waveform energy being distributed across both primary half windings, the top transformer tap is where you are driving from so will show twice the middle point and full Sig gen waveform, this is exactly what I am seeing in your scope shots as well.
What am i not understanding?
Wow, we step out for a few and come back to see the scenery changes again. Hmmmmmm. Must be all those tornadoes changing the world around.
@Peterae
The scope probe ground is not required here or is not used. Just the probe itself. It does not change the waveform. Yes I know the frequency generator and scope are already grounded. But none of that changes what is. Under the same conditions, three images all different.
Just explain what the scope images tell you about the energy pulse (for simplicity I will say) "as it passes through the coil". After all, we are pulsing energy into the coil and the scope sees this energy.
The scope probe does not care about one side, half or other side. It simply shows the energy reactivity at a given point. Yes or no? What does this tell you about the energy being utilized in this transformer coil, since while the probe is on the point(s), the secondary and LED prove energy is being transferred.
Let me ask it another way.
Do all three images of the scope show that the energy pulsed into the transformer coil is equal throughout the coil?
I need to read this answer from some of you so it does not come from me.
wattsup
PS: When I posted the post #402 on this thread I was thinking of you and your fantabulous Romero wheel build. Sorry I did not tell you earlier but it is just fantastic. Great diameter, great mass availability, just a top notch approach indeed. I just don't want you to fall into the same trap others are in.
Romero made a wheel. It does not mean you cannot do even better. But you have to work smart, logical, keep track of the variables and results, don't play it by ear. Don't even drill the holes for your stator coils yet. Give it a good week or more. Just put one drive coil in series with another and only put the first one on an adjustable support and play around with pulse and coil position. Why, because drilling the stator coil positions means you are putting your money on a fixed system. Working with flexible drive coil positions means you are optimizing the device as you build it. Big difference if you can get 10% to 20% or more torque/rpm if the drive coil is off by 4-5 degrees, that is where the science is. Then with the second coil again optimized. I figure you should have both drive coil pairs plus at least two pick-up coil pairs mounted on movable and tiltable supports that run the rotor to find the optimum method. Let the coils teach you how they best work instead of forcing them to work in the confined area you have decided in advance, just because it is symmetric. You will learn 10 times more this way. Let the preliminaries answer all these questions first, then with your experiments exhausted with resulting answers, build this device the way it should be. If you need any help along the way, let me know.
One word of advice from the start to prevent a possible checkmate. Design it so that one of the two stator plates, let's say the top plate can be turned at least the distance of a pick-up coil, so that you can adjust this one last parmeter. This one last variable may come in handy to pass the OU mark. You should be able to test this again before the stator plates are drilled.
wattsup i am still trying to work out where you are measuring, where the Sig gen is connected and where the leads are, is it possible to do a sketch of the circuit maybe just to clarify the setup or was i correct in my previous post where i said the Sig gen was and the points you scoped.
@Peterae
OK, here is a diagram of the set-up.
Although this should not make any difference since the scope images are shown.
wattsup
@wattsup
The ground path is so important to the onserved waveforms.
It is a severe limitation we face when trying to measure floating /seperate / newly created levels .
I wish we had truly floating measuring devices perhaps add mode on the cro ?
It is my personal "belief" that to find magnetic interactions our sources and measuring equipment MUST be isolated from each other at source at least ..difficult for sure
Romeros coils do that very well
There is a large earth loop complicated by square wave transients which make visualisation of the circuit very difficult .
Would you mind drawing the common earth path for us? It may not matter ... but it is hard to get past what has confused so many and still does .
@Wattsup
It is relatively easy to understand what is going on when we understand the basics of what electricity is however many textbooks tend to confuse the issue.
In your scope shots we see a waveform which appears to be pulsed AC and it can be seen that your scope is set to DC , this wave form also appears to become smaller as the probe is moved towards the ground connection. We also know the oscilloscope is a Voltage measuring device and Voltage is not something it is a measure of something which is how many free electrons are in one area relative to another area or differential charge density.
In this case the ground plane which we call the negative terminal (-) is a charge reservoir which contains a massive amount of (+)(-)charges and the positive terminal (+) of the Signal Generator is simply adding free electrons above ambient conditions showing a negative charge increase then alternately removing free electrons below ambient conditions showing a positive charge increase because voltage is a measure of how many free electrons are in a given region relative to something else.
An Electric Current is the motion of charges, it is what happens when we move free electrons to one region leaving an equal and opposite lack of free electrons in another area. It is also what happens when a region with more free electrons discharges into another region with fewer free electrons to return to ambient conditions.
Consider that we have a neutral uncharged wire at ambient conditions, we then move some free electrons to one end(-) with a changing magnetic field leaving an equal lack of free electrons on the other end(+), we call this induction. The motion of free electrons is an Electric Current, now if the magnetic field stops changing the free electrons at the (-) end move back towards the (+) end and this motion is an Electric Current and when the free electrons are evenly distributed once again we are back at ambient conditions.
I use an Electrometer which tells me the potential at a singular point in any given region which is really a measure or comparison of how many free electrons are present above or below ambient conditions. If there are more free electrons present than ambient conditions my meter shows a (-) potential and if there are less free electrons present than ambient conditions my meter shows a (+) potential.
Here is a good example of what most people have failed to consider, I have three people holding hands and the last person is holding one end of a 50' length of 20AWG and the other end of the wire is attached to my Electrometer. Now when the first person touches the single negative terminal of a 12v battery this change in potential travels through three persons and the 50' length of wire to the Electrometer which now shows a Negative potential is present. It is important to remember that there are no different types of electricity because fundamentally electricity relates directly to charge density and the motion of charges, everything else just confuses the issue.
Regards
AC
@wattsup
LOL, I'm not sure I even answered your question in my last post. The ground is ambient conditions (It is both (+) and (-) and neither)and the resistance of your primary coil resists changes in potential therefore as you move the probe along the coil or any resistance you will find the highest potential at the source of the change in potential and the lowest potential near the ground plane. It is no different than changing the water pressure (above and below ambient)at one end of a pipe when the other end of the pipe is open to a lake, the maximum pressure is measured at the source of the pressure change and the pressure diffuses all along the pipe to the end open in the lake which is at ambient conditions.
Regards
AC
wattsup thanks for taking the trouble to make the diagram, it is connected as i thought it was.
What is that connecting the back 2 terminals of the bridge, the 1n4001's are huge in comparison, it looks more like a bat type diode we used on philips TVs years ago, very small glass body diode.
@Guys
Thanks for your answers. It is what I expected to hear and know.
Well, my EE level is not up to par of course, but to me above and beyond the more technical aspects of the explanations, these three scope shots tell me one major thing.
That the pulse side of the coil which is the positive in this case produces a much higher amplitude effect at the point of pulse then it does in the middle of the coil then it does at the end of the coil. If this is considered to be correct, then what we have with the Romero series coils is the same effect. Nothing more nothing less. Except that in Romeros series case, the pulse amplitude is highest again on the pulse side but since the two coils are in series, at the end of the first coil the pulse is still half the amplitude and not zero as in the case of a single coil. The second coil in series is starting at the half amplitude and this drops to zero by the end of the second coil. The second drive coil is getting maybe 20% or 30% of the pulse amplitude left over from the first coil.
This goes back to the questions I asked in a previous post.
We know the strength of a magnet is not identical on the north versus the south side. We should also know that pulsing two series coils against these magnets will not provide the identical motive field strengths in each coil.
I don't know if anyone with a wheel has tried to pulse only one mounted drive coil but have the second drive coil is series but not installed. In this manner, you can test and determine the difference in strength when pulsing the series coils from the side that is mounted or from the side that is off the mount. Based on this, I would suspect that it would be best to have the pulse enter the top drive coil in one pair and enter the bottom drive coil in the second pair when using to pairs of drive coils. This way, the total energy impulse is the same on both sides of the magnets. Similar to using two identical paddles to row your boat straight out, versus using two paddles of different width.
Also, as indicated above, if the pulse is stronger on the pulse side of the coil then on the pre-biased side, then it would stand to reason that if the pulse entered the coil on the side that has the first layer starting at the drive coil core, that this greater amplitude will provide a greater and more directed or pin-pointed pulse field to create the motive effect against the TDC of the rotor wheel magnets.
Of course all this has to be tested and compiled to determine or identify some generalized rules or conditions that others can use for their builds.
wattsup
wattsup if you put your sig gen on the same ground place and drive using the middle tap then scope each connection you will see twice the driving amplitude on the top connection of the transformer, it's now stepping up the drive amplitude.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.06.01, 18:30:11
If a scalar field exists, then why can't you have a scalar wave in the scalar field? A "scalar wave" is just a scalar field, with a different density than the ambiant scalar field, that is propagating or changing. Since a scalar field affects energy density, ...
What you call "scalar wave" is just a "varying field". You are confusing "propagating wave" and "varying field".
A propagating wave is an autonomous phenomenon carrying energy and independent of its source. If energy is no more provided to the source, the wave continues its way.
A varying field is linked and locked with its source. If energy is no more provided to the source or is reduced, the field collapses or reduces, and the field energy is restored to the source.
The objectivity seems to be vacillating like a swing getting pushed at the correct moment.
In a coil switching off, the key is to pulse again at the 75% mark up from the bottom of the spike thereby pushing the collapse into the coil to promote a positive upsurge. This leads to resonant rise energy formation. This can be done with a rotorized device also.
EM,
Could you please post the scope shot you are referring to? (I think I know which one, but it would be good to have a copy here).
Also, could you please explain where the scope probes were placed for that measurement?
Thanks,
.99
P99, the waveform and my analysis is found on my bench. romeroUK's original posted image is this one:
The waveform was taken while self-running and with a load. It was scoped across a top coil with 300 turns. Both the probe and it's ground clip are connected (I was asking if he left the clip off because I see a low frequency that is modulating the whole pulse train, but no it's some phenomena that needs to be understood, maybe a wobble in the rotor but not realy since we see about 5 pulses pairs and there are 8 per rotation, so we should have seen half a wavelength of this low frequency if it was a warped rotor, but it's not it's something even lower in frequency.)
EM
The scalar wave could be at a low freq, and to increase the output, it is this frequency that has to be increased.
Thanks EM.
So just to be clear, the scope probes are across the coil before the FWBR?
Also, do we know for sure that this is across only a single coil, and are the top and bottom coils in series or parallel, adding or canceling?
.99
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.21, 20:11:35
I was asking if he left the clip off because I see a low frequency that is modulating the whole pulse train, but no it's some phenomena that needs to be understood, maybe a wobble in the rotor but not realy since we see about 5 pulses pairs and there are 8 per rotation, so we should have seen half a wavelength of this low frequency if it was a warped rotor, but it's not it's something even lower in frequency.
The slight differences in the pulse shapes is due to the variation in the rotor magnet strengths.
The 8 magnets in the rotor all differ a bit in Gauss strength
Each magnet passing by has a slightly different induction effect to the coil that has been measured here, causing the phase shift at the resonance point in the raising trail to occur at a slightly different level.
The lower frequency indeed could be caused by rotor wobble.
We see about half a rotation here in the scope picture.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.21, 20:11:35
P99, the waveform and my analysis is found on my bench. romeroUK's original posted image is this one:
The waveform was taken while self-running and with a load. It was scoped across a top coil with 300 turns. Both the probe and it's ground clip are connected (I was asking if he left the clip off because I see a low frequency that is modulating the whole pulse train, but no it's some phenomena that needs to be understood, maybe a wobble in the rotor but not realy since we see about 5 pulses pairs and there are 8 per rotation, so we should have seen half a wavelength of this low frequency if it was a warped rotor, but it's not it's something even lower in frequency.)
EM
Thanks for Romero's tuned output. Hey, here's mine today. Not identical but getting closer. Romero was correct (again)!
cheers
chrisC
P99,
yes, the waveform was taken across the coil, before the FWBR.
@teslaalset,
I wonder about this low frequency because it might be significant, but if it is due to a rotor wobble, which is periodic every 8 cycles of the pulse trains, we should have seen more than half a wavelength of it on the screen, like an upwards bias from a sin() function between 0 to pi, but this low freq. appears to be even lower in frequency than the RPM. Very interesting.
@all,
Something else that might not have jumped at you guys, the low frequecy is actualy on the CAPACITOR, because the FWBR still work and clip the waveform. (assuming this phenomena is from the dynamo) What does this mean? And actually, at one point in the video I saw romero switch his voltameter to AC and tried to take a reading but than switched it back to DC. what was that all about?
But, this low frequency could be something else like magnetic fields affecting the circuitry of the oscope, and bending the electron beam, or if shielding doesn't allow that, maybe it affects it some other way. I'm just throwing these ideas out....
EM
PS That's looking good Chris, you're almost there. @all, should we move this discussion back to the original tread?
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.21, 22:32:33
...
EM
PS That's looking good Chris, you're almost there. @all, should we move this discussion back to the original tread?
Good idea. I'm for that.
chrisC
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.21, 21:03:49
Also, do we know for sure that this is across only a single coil, and are the top and bottom coils in series or parallel, adding or canceling?
.99
Anyone?
Also, I don't recall if Romero mentioned what his coil's resistance was....anyone?
.99
P99, this info is straight from romero. One coil only was scoped and the coils are in SERIES. In opposition does not make sense becasue we don't get a voltage difference at the FWBRs. So the peaks on his waveform are approximately +/- 6 volts.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.21, 22:32:33
P99,
yes, the waveform was taken across the coil, before the FWBR.
@teslaalset,
I wonder about this low frequency because it might be significant, but if it is due to a rotor wobble, which is periodic every 8 cycles of the pulse trains, we should have seen more than half a wavelength of it on the screen, like an upwards bias from a sin() function between 0 to pi, but this low freq. appears to be even lower in frequency than the RPM. Very interesting.
@all,
Something else that might not have jumped at you guys, the low frequecy is actualy on the CAPACITOR, because the FWBR still work and clip the waveform. (assuming this phenomena is from the dynamo) What does this mean? And actually, at one point in the video I saw romero switch his voltameter to AC and tried to take a reading but than switched it back to DC. what was that all about?
But, this low frequency could be something else like magnetic fields affecting the circuitry of the oscope, and bending the electron beam, or if shielding doesn't allow that, maybe it affects it some other way. I'm just throwing these ideas out....
EM
PS That's looking good Chris, you're almost there. @all, should we move this discussion back to the original tread?
The slow magnifying field would appear in the output.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.21, 22:48:21
Anyone?
Also, I don't recall if Romero mentioned what his coil's resistance was....anyone?
.99
A few ohms, 3 to 5 I believe.
chrisC
Anyone thought about getting rid of the rotor? Biasing the fields a bit more? top and bottom coils different diameters?
Quote from: chrisC on 2011.06.21, 23:13:22
A few ohms, 3 to 5 I believe.
chrisC
Hi Chris.
I see neptune mentioned 2 Ohms in his notes, so I think I'll go with that.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11009.msg290965#msg290965
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.22, 00:22:05
Hi Chris.
I see neptune mentioned 2 Ohms in his notes, so I think I'll go with that.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11009.msg290965#msg290965
.99
Yes, I'm sorry. I am reminded his coils are 300 turns and mine are 500. So, I wrongly gave you my coil values instead of his. Apology!
chrisC
No problem Chris. ;)
.99
Here are some of my questions regarding Romero's build and inherent hidden "secret(s)":
1) Is there anything particular about how the generator coils are wound or interconnected, either individually or with its mate?
2) Is the timing of the two separately-driven drive coils intended to work against each other in such a way as to maintain a certain RPM?
3) If 2) is yes, is that to keep the rotor RPM at a certain range where the gain mechanism is active? (Romero alluded to this)
4) If 2) is yes, is this the reason the motor draws 12W under all conditions, including no-load?
5) Is achieving that gen coil output wave form key to the gain mechanism? If so, why?
6) Romero mentioned that the battery was connected to the output rail, but not directly. How then, and why?
7) The assumption is that all the gen coil outputs are paralleled via the FWBR outputs. How does he achieve such a high output voltage from each coil pair at such a relatively low RPM?
8] Are any discrete caps used in combination with any of the coils?
That's about it for now. I'm sure many more will crop up. ;)
.99
good questions, I'll comment on a few.
2) 3) and 4) I think this was not deliberate on his part, but the result is that it limits the RPM and more current is drawn, and some of it is not wasted into a resistance but flowes into the EMF of the coil and the effect is that it distorts the fields. It basicaly puts on the breaks, converting kinetic energy back in to a magnetic field that opposes the rotor, so a strain in the magnetic balance of the fields. It's complicated to explain, but maybe if you visualize a rotor that has a spring on the perifery and as it rotates you stick your hand in there for a quick second and the spring compresses on one side and streches on the other side of your hand, and then when you pull your hand out this distrubance does something, it flowes forward and backwards or something we don't understand yet.
5) I wouldn't say it's "key" not realy, but it sure is indicative of what is happening and from my analysis we can see the effects of the biasing magnets distorting the flux symetry in time. Also that flat segment in the voltage waveform seems to be unique. But if we create a dynamo and it has a waveform close to that, I would venture to say that it should work like his.
6) yeah that's interesting, I think he mentioned this before, it's that recovery diode stuff. that's why the battery volts and amps go down slightly when the load is turned ON in the first video. He explained this in the begining somewhere. This is how I understand it: He tried a basic loop back approach, to feed the output back to the input, before people suggested a DC2DC converter, and in this basic setup, he had these recovery diodes, to harvest some of the kickback from the motor coils back to the battery, much like Bedini does, or maybe some other approach. Anyway, these spikes of energy raise the voltage on the battery slightly and when he loads down the rotor, it's dynamics change and some of the spikes are not injecting as much energy and so the voltage drops ever so slightly, and I believe the amperage drops because THE VOLTAGE DROPED. What's amazing here is that his dynamo basicaly shows no loading effects on the input besides this slight voltage drop with a corresponding amperage drop, and maybe I'm detecting a slight slow down in RPM from the sound. If he did not have this recovery diodes in place, maybe the voltage and amperage would not change at all which is just amazing, almost makes you think it's fake and the battery is connected to the output as well, but that's the amazing thing here, the input ammeter does not register the extra amps when the load is turned on.
7) oh, I have no problem with the voltage being around 12 to 15 volts at those RPMs, he is using a total of 600 turns of wire and powerful neos and I've done calculations before to show it's quite reasonable.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.21, 22:32:33
@teslaalset,
I wonder about this low frequency because it might be significant, but if it is due to a rotor wobble, which is periodic every 8 cycles of the pulse trains, we should have seen more than half a wavelength of it on the screen, like an upwards bias from a sin() function between 0 to pi, but this low freq. appears to be even lower in frequency than the RPM. Very interesting.
It could be caused by mechanical resonance as well.
I remember, while working on optical discs drive designs many years ago, that a CD disc also has some self resonance when spinining at high speed.
For CD discs it was around 200Hz.
This self resonance is probably triggered by the Z-forces (forces parallel to the Z-axis) that the coils cause, since there are not only tangential forces in the X-Y plane, but also significant Z forces.
If well alligned the Z direction forces are cancelled out by the coil pairs (top and bottom) but there will be always deviations between coils and core values.
The actual rotor wobble is probably caused by the difference between the disc rotation and disc resonance frequency, e.g. when the disc is rotating at 50Hz (3000 RPM) and its selfresonance is 82 Hz, the wobble has a typical frequency of 82-50=32 Hz.
Quote from: teslaalset on 2011.06.22, 09:04:37
It could be caused by mechanical resonance as well.
I remember, while working on optical discs drive designs many years ago, that a CD disc also has some self resonance when spinining at high speed.
For CD discs it was around 200Hz.
This self resonance is probably triggered by the Z-forces that the coils cause, since there are not only tangential forces in the X-Y plane, but also significant Y forces.
If well alligned the Z direction forces are cancelled out by the coil pairs (top and bottom) but there will be always deviations between coils and core values.
The actual rotor wobble is probably caused by the difference between the disc rotation and disc resonance frequency, e.g. when the disc is rotating at 50Hz (3000 RPM) and its selfresonance is 82 Hz, the wobble has a typical frequency of 82-50=32 Hz.
In an attempt to take a step from my 'voice of sanity' label....
So, we may be seeing a combination of Maxwell stress tensors and Larmor precession, on a macro scale.
I like that better than his scope deflection yoke being twisted out of place :)
Thanks EM.
Here are Ben's (k4zep) thoughts on point 6)
QuoteAnother thought, a very nice way to add the gen to the loop is to feed the motor through a diode, cathode to positive rail of motor and drive from power supply going through the diode, then put your gen output ACROSS that diode, Plus to the cathode, minus to the anode, floating Gen I assume. any positive current/voltage above +.7VDC, give or take will be added to the total loop supply, a diode adding circuit. Very simple, keeps your motor running, and you can take the Gen in and out. Have fun with it!
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg292156#msg292156
Also, his findings agree with my assertion that the output voltage (15VDC) seems high for the RPM.
QuoteI just don't see him getting 15VDC out @ 1200 rpm with the size coils he uses, I can only get 6/7 V RMS, just doesn't happen for me, of course I'm ate up with LENZ and am not OU.!
.99
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.06.22, 10:45:54
I like that better than his scope deflection yoke being twisted out of place :)
I expect the scope trace has a low frequency affecting the entire trace. (sorry, i forgot what this is called)
maybe he just had the scope not adjusted correctly and the pulse train went down hill, i cannot remember the name but the old scope i used had a level adjustment for the x axis. any other inaccuracies between each pulse would be magnet/coil imperfections.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.06.22, 14:20:15
maybe he just had the scope not adjusted correctly and the pulse train went down hill, i cannot remember the name but the old scope i used had a level adjustment for the x axis. any other inaccuracies between each pulse would be magnet/coil imperfections.
I am sure that is precisely what it is. My old Hitachi has the same adjustment available. It's called "tilt" or some such thing.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.06.22, 14:20:15
maybe he just had the scope not adjusted correctly and the pulse train went down hill, i cannot remember the name but the old scope i used had a level adjustment for the x axis. any other inaccuracies between each pulse would be magnet/coil imperfections.
It is not tilted dammit!
What about that scope shot, would make someone take notice?
Where are Ion and WW, the "tube guys", at?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.06.22, 14:46:47
It is not tilted dammit!
What about that scope shot, would make someone take notice?
Where are Ion and WW, the "tube guys", at?
It's tilted Grumps. After looking at and using analog scopes for 26 years, I have a pretty good idea what a tilted scope trace looks like, and that is most definitely one.
from an oscilloscope users guide
QuoteTrace Rotation Control. The earth'smagnetic field changes from one location to the next which may affect the trace tilt.Oscilloscopes have a trace rotation control that can be used to compensate for the earth's magnetic field and adjust the trace to a perfectly horizontal position. This control is often a screwdriver-type adjustment.
There we go we have now diagnosed his faulty oscilloscope for him ;D
Just keep in mind that what we see as tilt on that shot could also be a lower frequency additional AC or variation of a base DC signal being modulated by the waves we see.
If we have a video of the scope this would be apparent. If it was tilt that same video would show it as the pic shows it.
In addition.... any nearby strong magnetic dipole could cause tilt. This would not be limited to the Magnacoaster setup he may have had nearby. It can also be caused by an apparent magnetic vortex ( or electrostatic ) with the right strength and proximity.
So, I don't think we nailed a scope problem for him. The tilt can still be another puzzle piece.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.22, 14:56:21
It's tilted Grumps. After looking at and using analog scopes for 26 years, I have a pretty good idea what a tilted scope trace looks like, and that is most definitely one.
Tilted my Arse! I'll give Romero enough credit to know when his scope trace really is tilted and how to fix that little problem.
Think out of the box, my dear friends, way out of the box.
If you were an entity who's purpose is to supress free energy, what curious aspect of that scope trace would catch your attention and force you to take action?Did Romero show his scope settings as well, or just the trace?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.06.22, 15:45:52
Just keep in mind that what we see as tilt on that shot could also be a lower frequency additional AC or variation of a base DC signal being modulated by the waves we see.
If we have a video of the scope this would be apparent. If it was tilt that same video would show it as the pic shows it.
In addition.... any nearby strong magnetic dipole could cause tilt. This would not be limited to the Magnacoaster setup he may have had nearby. It can also be caused by an apparent magnetic vortex ( or electrostatic ) with the right strength and proximity.
So, I don't think we nailed a scope problem for him. The tilt can still be another puzzle piece.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.22, 12:51:11
Thanks EM.
Here are Ben's (k4zep) thoughts on point 6)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg292156#msg292156
Also, his findings agree with my assertion that the output voltage (15VDC) seems high for the RPM.
.99
Don't lean too much that way just yet.
The FWBR will inject 2 X diode voltage drop on each half cycle - 1.4V.
In order to show a peak of 15V the drive AC voltage only needs to be 15 - 1.4 - the gain in voltage found in the usage of a FWBR.
So the average zero to peak voltage before the FWBR only needs to be ...
2Vp / sqrt of 2 minus the diode voltage drop (here divided by 2 since he has paralleled the bridge diodes with outside diodes) minus any peak voltage seen added by the additional diode junction capacitance.
So... the coil pair output could be around 10 - 11V.
There is another reason the voltage from the coils could be higher but I'll confirm that with a bench test to see if it might apply here before loosing my 'voice of reason' status ;D
EDIT>>>
Oh!, there is another reason to see less voltage but may not apply due to frequency & rise-time. This is where the diode does not immediately 'turn-on'. They aren't ON, even in the forward direction until voltage is applied. This can be a big voltage loss in low voltage power supplies.
Think as you wish guys but imo you're reading far more into the trace rotation issue than what is really there. Sometimes things really are what they appear to be, and in this case, it's obviously a scope trace rotation pot that needs adjusting. But what does it matter anyway?
.99
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.06.22, 15:45:52
Just keep in mind that what we see as tilt on that shot could also be a lower frequency additional AC or variation of a base DC signal being modulated by the waves we see.
If we have a video of the scope this would be apparent. If it was tilt that same video would show it as the pic shows it.
In addition.... any nearby strong magnetic dipole could cause tilt. This would not be limited to the Magnacoaster setup he may have had nearby. It can also be caused by an apparent magnetic vortex ( or electrostatic ) with the right strength and proximity.
So, I don't think we nailed a scope problem for him. The tilt can still be another puzzle piece.
It could be many things, but the most obvious and most likely explanation, is that the scope trace rotation is in need of adjustment.
Just to put the lower frequency modulation question into perspective, assuming the RPM=1500, that amounts to 25 rots per second, and since there are 8 or 9 magnets per rotation, that puts us on the order of
800Hz try 225Hz. So, are you seriously thinking that there could be some few Hz signal modulating that wave form? C.C
.99
EDIT: corrected frequency
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.22, 16:25:07
It could be many things, but the most obvious and most likely explanation, is that the scope trace rotation is in need of adjustment.
Just to put the lower frequency modulation question into perspective, assuming the RPM=1500, that amounts to 25 rots per second, and since there are 8 or 9 magnets per rotation, that puts us on the order of 800Hz. So, are you seriously thinking that there could be some few Hz signal modulating that wave form? C.C
.99
Can you determine the progression caused by the difference in coil number and magnet number.
If the scope trace showed "what to look for", would it matter then?
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.06.22, 16:12:36
The FWBR will inject 2 X diode voltage drop on each half cycle - 1.4V.
In order to show a peak of 15V the drive AC voltage only needs to be 15 - 1.4 - the gain in voltage found in the usage of a FWBR.
:o
Please give me the part number for that magic FWBR WW, I've got to have one!
1kHz sine wave
Bridge formed with 1N4007
output cap= 100u
output load = 1k
AC input voltage required to yield 15VDC on output = 16.7Vp
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.06.22, 16:38:57
Can you determine the progression caused by the difference in coil number and magnet number.
No, but if someone offered you $1M if you chose the correct answer, scope trace rotation or "other", which would you seriously pick?
Quote
If the scope trace showed "what to look for", would it matter then?
I did not say the scope trace was of no value. Peter and I are simply saying "don't get hung up on the fact the the trace is not horizontal; it's most likely a scope issue as noted".
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.22, 16:43:03
:o
Please give me the part number for that magic FWBR WW, I've got to have one!
1kHz sine wave
Bridge formed with 1N4007
output cap= 100u
output load = 1k
AC input voltage required to yield 15VDC on output = 16.7Vp
I don't care much for Wiki but try this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectifier#Rectifier_output_smoothing
The very old rule of thumb for FW tube rectifiers in a bridge configuration is 1.4 X the P-P input will be the peak of the ripple on the first cap in the filter.
Notice: I didn't say there was a power gain. There isn't.
The only time I've had that ROT fail is when the rectifiers aren't chosen correctly for the application.
BTW:
I agree with you on the scope trace. I don't think the visible tilt is anything to hang your hat on.
it's modulated
EDIT:
(actually double modulated, but that is harder to see with such a limited trace)
If the trace is "crooked" then the double mod goes away, but the trace is still modulated at least once.
The Billion Dallar Question is: What is modulating this signal?
Here I added a curved line to show the modulation better:
scope traces from Magnacoaster Patent also show voltage bias modulation:
Grumpy,
You do realize that much of that can be intentional or non-intentional stator magnet adjustments?
As far as what is being called the 'tilt' - I'm more inclined to think it is a snapshot of the rotor wobble over a maladjusted scope or rotating fields of some sort.
I hope to have some postable proof on my radial field idea but the only time I seem to have nowadays is when the boss isn't looking.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.06.22, 19:40:35
Grumpy,
You do realize that much of that can be intentional or non-intentional stator magnet adjustments?
As far as what is being called the 'tilt' - I'm more inclined to think it is a snapshot of the rotor wobble over a maladjusted scope or rotating fields of some sort.
I hope to have some postable proof on my radial field idea but the only time I seem to have nowadays is when the boss isn't looking.
I found it curious that both the RUK device and Magnacoaster appear to have similar modulation, and a claim of OU along with it. I would like to know if the modulation is steady or changes with time...hmm...
it may be that when the rotor rotation and the rotation of this modulation source coincide that you see gain.WW: I have not overlooked the peripheral Hall trigger magnets - they are radial.
Grumps,
you are awesome dude! I can't belive I did not notice the rotor modulation in those flat spots, thank you, thank you !
Now I feel better, we can clearly see the rotor modulation, which corresponds with 8 pulse cycles, and each cycle has two pulses, one postive and one negative. Remember 8 magnets fly past a coil per revolution and create a pulse pair, and if the rotor is warped or the magnetic field is not uniform around the rotor, it will show up with a periodicity of 8 cycles of the pulse train.
EM
Is this modulation good or bad?
As was previously stated 'Magnacoaster switched to a non mechanical version after he found the process using a rotor'.
And a partridge in a pear tree.. ;D
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.22, 19:52:58
Grumps,
you are awesome dude! I can't belive I did not notice the rotor modulation in those flat spots, thank you, thank you !
Now I feel better, we can clearly see the rotor modulation, which corresponds with 8 pulse cycles, and each cycle has two pulses, one postive and one negative. Remember 8 magnets fly past a coil per revolution and create a pulse pair, and if the rotor is warped or the magnetic field is not uniform around the rotor, it will show up with a periodicity of 8 cycles of the pulse train.
EM
Glad to be of service!
...of if there is a not-so-perfectly-steady scalar wave rotating with the rotor, it will cause an increase in energy denisty which will cause a "voltage bias modulation", which is what that curve is on the scope trace.
(The trace location, in ref to zero, may not be accurate as it may have been lowered.)
Could this be an indication of OU?
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.06.22, 19:59:12
Is this modulation good or bad?
As was previously stated 'Magnacoaster switched to a non mechanical version after he found the process using a rotor'.
And a partridge in a pear tree.. ;D
An positive bias at the output is "gain".
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.22, 19:52:58
Grumps,
you are awesome dude! I can't belive I did not notice the rotor modulation in those flat spots, thank you, thank you !
Now I feel better, we can clearly see the rotor modulation, which corresponds with 8 pulse cycles, and each cycle has two pulses, one postive and one negative. Remember 8 magnets fly past a coil per revolution and create a pulse pair, and if the rotor is warped or the magnetic field is not uniform around the rotor, it will show up with a periodicity of 8 cycles of the pulse train.
EM
That modulation appears to have a frequency about 1/3 of the generator coil frequency.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.22, 16:25:07
It could be many things, but the most obvious and most likely explanation, is that the scope trace rotation is in need of adjustment.
Just to put the lower frequency modulation question into perspective, assuming the RPM=1500, that amounts to 25 rots per second, and since there are 8 or 9 magnets per rotation, that puts us on the order of 800Hz. So, are you seriously thinking that there could be some few Hz signal modulating that wave form? C.C
.99
I wonder if the rotor is actually turning a little over 1300 RPM. Hummmm... That would place the passing magnet Hz @ a little over 21 the third harmonic of 7.
?
Nah! That is even too far fetched for me :D
So, by now someone should have noticed that there is a difference in the density of the mag field around the magnet, which constitutes a radial gradient, with the vertical magnetic field component as well. If particle drift principles apply to aether, since it is virtual pos and neg particles, then you get a little boost in-line with the winding.
So, replacing the moving magnet with a pulsed coil will create the same effect and give you more control. A static magnet or DC-fed coil will not work as nothing is changing. Ths would be a non-rotating version of Magnacoaster.
Problem is you still have your magnifying field in the same space as the driving coil, so you drive, collect, drive, collect, etc.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.06.22, 23:00:46
I wonder if the rotor is actually turning a little over 1300 RPM. Hummmm... That would place the passing magnet Hz @ a little over 21 the third harmonic of 7.
?
Nah! That is even too far fetched for me :D
Looks like we're both having troubles with our calculators;
I stated 800 Hz for an RPM of 1500, should be 225Hz (i.e. 9 cycles per rotation, and 25 rotations per second).
Unless you are referring to eyeing only a single magnet, the rotations per second is 21.66, and with 9 cycles per rotation = 195Hz created by all 9 magnets.
So I suspect Romero's scope shot is showing a wave form frequency of between 150Hz and 300Hz.
.99
1/10077696 the speed of light is 216 Hz
I thought there were 8 magnets on this thing?
Doesn't matter. I blew off the math to get to the punch line because I had people interrupting me every 30 seconds.
Sorry. I couldn't wait any longer for somebody to link this to Schumann ;D
Bad call. :-[
You're right, 8 magnets, 9 coils...I was too lazy to check.
Doesn't matter, we're still in the ballpark.
Someone interrupting you every 30s? I thought all your kids were already grown and out of the house? ;D
Schumann...
The plot thickens...
That's right! :D Good observation guys...the shoe-man was obviously involved in helping Romero with his 3rd video.
O0
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.23, 01:09:02
You're right, 8 magnets, 9 coils...I was too lazy to check.
Doesn't matter, we're still in the ballpark.
Someone interrupting you every 30s? I thought all your kids were already grown and out of the house? ;D
Still have one lounge lizard. That one isn't interrupting. It is my company cell phone. 24/7 on-call so I'm still at work even when I'm at home.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.23, 01:23:41
That's right! :D Good observation guys...the shoe-man was obviously involved in helping Romero with his 3rd video.
O0
I don't think the shoe-man was very helpful with that one. Romero was barefoot. I think the shoe-man stole all his shoes since they were also OU..
Ok. It looks like it is my bed time. Everything I say and do is stupid.....
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.06.23, 01:31:28
I don't think the shoe-man was very helpful with that one. Romero was barefoot. I think the shoe-man stole all his shoes since they were also OU..
Ok. It looks like it is my bed time. Everything I say and do is stupid.....
I was alluding more to the notion that the shoe-man was there picking up Romero's shoes for repair, and hence the bare feet. The shoe-man therefore hung out for a bit to make sure Romero didn't slip and fall while carrying the big gyro across that nice patch of wood flooring, but you're right; he should have given the camera to the shoe-man. ;)
In terms of everything said and done being stupid....that's always the response Rose gives me for some reason. ???
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.23, 02:39:56
...
In terms of everything said and done being stupid....that's always the response Rose gives me for some reason. ???
Rose is not Romero and I think you're being unfair. Common sense should have persuaded you that no one will spend hundreds of British pounds every month and then go onto replicate a next generation Mark2 Muller so to try impress others and dig a deeper hole for himself. Seriously. btw, why are the knowledgeable people on this forum so 'into' Romero's bits and pieces if it's all charlatan practice? Surely the so call video sleuth has convinced everyone it is fraud by now?
cheers
chrisC
I'm being unfair about what exactly?
Sorry, I don't understand what you are going on about Chris ???
We're not mixing Rose and Romero up, it was a comment in passing. And I've made no intentional comment to pupu Romero.
Chill a little man. 8)
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.23, 04:09:58
...
Chill a little man. 8)
Sorry 99. It was my fault. I misread and typed too quick. Pls accept my apology - had a bad day!
chrisC
Bad day here all over the place except in overunity mindset. Now I get a feeling of how Tesla felt.
Back to the modulation and the Schumann frequency....
What I sensed is the thickness of the environment being churned like the thickening of cream to butter. At the correct specifications the swirling of the field appears. Looks like ROUK got this and although his scope shot didn't show any numbers the rpm starts the whole calculation process. Instead of smacking coils for chaos the gentle pushing gets the intended harmonics. This could be what ROUK alluded to that there is something else going on. The underlying feedback appears when any material is moved at the correct frequency: sympathetic vibratory physics. This also connects the Schumann with Shauberger. I just shit my pants.
Makes a rotating field in the TPU and the two transformer oscillation more plausible now.
Today will be a better day.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.06.23, 10:16:31
Today will be a better day.
Today IS a better day!
Let anyone thinking otherwise suffer the consequences >:-)
Cheers Chris,
No Problem. It was a bit of a strange day yesterday :)
.99
Just a thought.....
Has anyone ever perform spectral analysis if a waveform from the picture of a scope shot?
I'm tempted to enter the picture into my AWG to look at relationships between frequencies on an FFT, if not the actual frequencies.
Indeed WW,
If and when I can achieve that wave form in my sim (I've asked bolt to try an recall how he did it), then I'll be able to do the FFT on it.
.99
Incidentally,
I suspect that lower frequency modulation present in the wave form is 50/60Hz noise.
3x 50/60 is 150/180Hz (range of the output rail frequency).
.99
Was it ever confirmed that Romero's generator stops working when it is flipped over, or is that still inconclusive?
Also, If the rotor is a little "off", I don't think this will cause the votlage bias modulation that we are seeing in the scope trace. Rather I would expect to see changes in the amplitude of the pulses, not the whole trace to move do to differences in the rotor magnets.
On the other hand, I would expect to see voltage bias modulation if he is coupling to the ambiant aether to some degree.
EM asked Romero about his scope connection as he thought it might be mains noise too -and he concluded that is probably was not.
All good points.
However, my 'WaveWatcher' handle is quite true.
I have been performing ESA (Electric Signature Analysis) and MSA (Magnetic Signature Analysis) since the 70's. Much of the requirements for those tasks are not documented. Documented or not, the rule is 'start with what you see then figure out how to see what you don't'.
A slowly undulating stream of waveforms is also indicative of precession. The confirmation will be how is that undulation relating to the other frequencies and at what relative angle?
I identified and located a string of reflective orbital balloons once as the reason for multiple direction finding signatures on a covert phase modulated transmission once 8)
And that was with tube-based equipment at multiple locations during the late 70's. (Try measuring Faraday rotation for distance calculations with a tube set and see what you get :D )
Give me a flux change and I'll figure how it was made ;)
Oh well, I was useful in my youth :(
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.06.23, 15:16:08
A slowly undulating stream of waveforms is also indicative of precession. The confirmation will be how is that undulation relating to the other frequencies and at what relative angle?
"precession" of what?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.06.23, 15:21:19
"precession" of what?
Who knows?
Could be the wobble of a rotor, relative rotation of a change in flux density (dielectric or electric), precession of an elliptical or radial field. Normally, it is related to mechanics.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.06.23, 15:56:48
Who knows?
Could be the wobble of a rotor, relative rotation of a change in flux density (dielectric or electric), precession of an elliptical or radial field. Normally, it is related to mechanics.
The rotor is plastic with magnets in it. This constitutes a change in flux density by it's very design.
Regarding the waveform, seems to me if he took it at the generator coil and if the coils were still connected to the FWBR, but the DC side was not connected or loaded, the wave should be different, more spiky.
I would be curious to see @peterae doing a test to see the waveform.
1) Put the scope across one generator coil with FWBR connected as normal and no load on the dc output rail. Take a photo of the waveform.
2) Same thing but this time again no load but apply a 12 volts dc supply to the dc output rail as if it was pre-connected to the battery. Take a photo.
3) Same thing as #2 but now apply load. Take a photo.
@poynt99
About your post on the Wire X thread, I will respond tonight when I return from work.
Have a good day.
wattsup
The modulation also brought to mind the gyration vibration in the TPU.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.23, 14:40:04
Indeed WW,
If and when I can achieve that wave form in my sim (I've asked bolt to try an recall how he did it), then I'll be able to do the FFT on it.
.99
Yea, that sim. from Bolt was a replica of the waveform Romero posted; I wished he could find those files and you can do a sim. on it. I came close but can't tune it with just the AC caps alone. I can't change the coil resistance on the super glued coils easily. I like the idea of mariuscivic(?) on the OU forum where he proposed to use CD's sandwiched with magnets and coils where he can move things around easier and much cheaper than using more solid plastics just to prove/disaprove concepts.
chrisC
ps: this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJfVDZmuwx8
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.06.23, 16:06:01
The rotor is plastic with magnets in it. This constitutes a change in flux density by it's very design.
Yes, it does. However, the passing magnets should account for 1, maybe two frequencies. I see 4 and a possible 5th and 6th.
This is why I'm interested in generating an FFT.
Thought I would snag this for the thread.
With the short you have a generator in there.
As for working out means to cancel Lenz law in the generating coils, there is a way I am thinking that may be interesting. This goes above and beyond trying the D22 as always on, or trying a second hall sensor on the drive coil placed where they should be when under load.
1) If you cascaded the generator coils by let's say two positions. This means you identify your generator coil pairs as 1 to 7. You connect the bottom coil of 1 in series to the top coil of 3, and so on. Something like this.
Bottom 1 + Top 3
Bottom 2 + Top 4
Bottom 3 + Top 5
Bottom 4 + Top 6
Bottom 5 + Top 7
Bottom 6 + Top 1
Bottom 7 + Top 2
Now when the magnet hits coil pair 1, what will happen? :o
Well the energy hit onto coil pair 1 will be shared by 3 and 6 that will be in their various stages of magnet excitation or no magnet excitation. If the generator coil orientation towards the rotor magnets is right, some instances should create either additional repulsion or attraction to the rotor and help it turn. This is a theory right now, but I think if the generators coils were properly oriented when mounted to the plates and when facing their side of the rotor magnets, this should work. Testing this would be easy with two drive coils and two generator coil pairs. You chose which two generator coil pairs by aligning a rotor magnet under one pair and looking for another coil pair that has the magnet just past the TDC. The above connection is just for giving you the idea but it may not be the best mix of inter coil connections.
This may even work with the the drive coils if using three pairs placed at 180 degrees.
Bottom D11 to Top D22
Bottom D22 to Top D33
Bottom D33 to Top D11
Another idea is to connect gen coil pairs in parallel but put hall sensors at the TDC of each generator coil so that at TDC, you switch the wires on the gen coils around. This would produce DC output and eliminate the fwbr altogether.
wattsup
Peter or Chris
If you have a Oscilloscope with a CRT like Romero, can you guys try and capture a waveform like his on one of the coils only, and place the dynamo close to the scope?
I want to see if the proximity to the CRT will distort the waveform and create a similar slope or tilt to the waveform.
@all,
another crazy idea to explain the tilt could be the mysterious "magnetic walls" that were discovered by the Russians experimenting on the SEARL generator. These "walls" were detected at large distances away from the machine and they resembled ripples in a pond, meaning, concentric disturbances centered on the machine. They describe their experiment in a paper that's floating around on the net. There are similarities between the SEARL and this romerouk dynamo.
EM
Quote from: chrisC on 2011.06.23, 18:35:32
Yea, that sim. from Bolt was a replica of the waveform Romero posted; I wished he could find those files and you can do a sim. on it. I came close but can't tune it with just the AC caps alone. I can't change the coil resistance on the super glued coils easily. I like the idea of mariuscivic(?) on the OU forum where he proposed to use CD's sandwiched with magnets and coils where he can move things around easier and much cheaper than using more solid plastics just to prove/disaprove concepts.
chrisC
ps: this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJfVDZmuwx8
Using the bias magnets will tune the coil values. So, you can play with both, coil values and capacitor values.
These bias magnets have another function besides tuning the coil value.
I showed that at OU, first page of the 3D simulation thread.
So, my advise: tune the bias magnets first for that purpose.
Don't forget to do that with a fixed load and keep that load while tuning.
Another thing you might check is the resonance timing towards TDC.
During resonance the coil impedance is equal to the coil resistance, so it obtains its lowest impedance value at that point in time.
This is the moment where the energy of the coil + parallel capacitor is easiest to be transfered to the buffer capacitor.
An emptied coil capacitor allows for maximum BEMF current in the coil, charging that emptied capacitor.
Maximum BEMF current flow in the coil at the wrong moment in time will cause unwanted drag.
Thanks teslaalset,
I'll keep this in mind when playing with the sim. O0
.99
Darren I will be doing some tests tonight, if you need to know any info let me know like inductance with the magnet over it and as it moves away i can video the inductance meter, i will perform wattsup questions above also.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.24, 12:12:39
Thanks teslaalset,
I'll keep this in mind when playing with the sim. O0
.99
Are you performing simulations as well?
Ansys?
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.06.24, 13:05:54
Darren I will be doing some tests tonight, if you need to know any info let me know like inductance with the magnet over it and as it moves away i can video the inductance meter, i will perform wattsup questions above also.
Hi Peter. I'll keep that in mind as I progress, thanks.
@teslaalset,
I'm attempting to perform an electrical equivalent simulation in PSpice.
.99
I wonder if perhaps RomeroUK inadvertently gave us wrong information about his rotor design.
He did say he played with a few rotors and even corrected himself about the dimensions. But what about the magnet polarities?
Maybe the flat spots in the voltage waveform tell us the rotor magnet polarities should not be uniform but alternating: N S N S N S N S, just like in the original Muller's design.
I'm beginning to think so especially after looking at the rotor modulation I posted earlier, I said it takes 8 cycles per rotor, but that rotor modulation is a bit faster, so I think we have 4 cycles per rotor which implies an alternating magnet polarity ! Besides, biasing the ferrites (unless very hard all the way past saturation) can't produce that much time delay for that flat spot in the voltage. (blue curve)
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.24, 14:32:38
I wonder if perhaps RomeroUK inadvertently gave us wrong information about his rotor design.
Besides, biasing the ferrites (unless very hard all the way past saturation) can't produce that much time delay for that flat spot in the voltage. (blue curve)
EM
EM,
I seriously doubt that biasing the ferrite is much of the important action. Those cores should be there for 2 reasons only.
1. Add storage capacity to the coil
2. Enhance reconnection between the stator magnets when the rotor magnet is pushed out of the area.
It is also my opinion that the flat spot simply represents the point where the reversed rotor magnet is in opposition with both stator magnets. The resulting field is then radial. When that radial field is centered (vertically) on each coil, induction stops and so does release of stored energy from when the stator magnets are connected. This release of the previously stored energy is delayed during the time the rotor/stator combination is in opposition but will fall off at a much slower rate.
This isn't B.S. folks. Lenz is circumvented simply because induction cannot happen when the rotor/stator magnets are in opposition and that radial field is centered on each coil. The rotor magnets must be opposite the stator magnets and not alternate around the rotor.
The energy lost during rotor magnet insertion is regained when it exits.
BTW:
Adding an external magnet to a ferrous core decreases the coil inductance. This also decreases the action/reaction time of that coil. The result is opposite to delay.
A bit of clarification:
When the rotor magnet is between the stator magnets there are two radial fields produced. One between the top stator magnet and rotor magnet and the other between the bottom stator magnet and same rotor magnet. That flat spot should be showing that the radial field is well centered (vertically) on it's coil.
It is a simple concept and can be seen with a iron-filing on paper test.
EM my scopes are all digital these days no CRT
Let me explain what the magnetic biasing does, in case you guys missed it.
Assume the top ferrite coils are biased to saturation with a S pole downward and N pole upward.
EDIT: I just did a test, (see next posts) and I did not see any difference, perhaps it's too hard to bias the ferrite cores and this concept only works for closed magnetic circuits, like a toroid.
1) If a N-pole up magnet passes by a saturated ferrite, it induces a small voltage since the coil is practically an air core coil. This is because the polarity of the rotor magnet aides the biasing magnet and the ferrite is already saturated.
2) If a S-pole up magnet passes by the saturated ferrite, it induces a voltage that is almost 1000 times LARGER than that of an air core coil. This is because the polarity of the rotor magnet opposes that of the biasing magnet and brings the ferrite out of saturation.
In essence we have a magnetic diode ! So I'm wondering if there are missing peaks in that waveform that we don't see because they are very small.
EM
EM,
I really hope you are correct for this device.
Unfortunately, my experience tells me otherwise. There are some rather rare things happening. We'll see.
Since I do have a couple of different CRT based scopes maybe I can answer your earlier question as well.
Those antiquated CRTs might come in handy after all. O0
EM
Yes, antiquated.
But the only way to see a signal for what it really is ( but only if you know how to read it ;D ).
I use my DSO when I'm not interested in doing the math or the scan rate jaggies won't hide anything or when the averaging between scans isn't likely to show something not there.
I just realized.... My home DSO hasn't been turned on in almost a year ??? Last time I had it on I used it as a curve tracer :)
Oh well, it is pretty !
I have a very industrial 1 gHz lab quality Tek ( from the mid 90's ) which has never been effected by anything I've seen.
Would you say a Tektronix 465 is about the same grade as the one used by Romero?
Between the two we should see something once I reassemble the spin generator. (Old project not unlike the Romero device)
I avoid using my DSO unless I'm looking at conventional circuits. Sure, it will ignore most mag fields but the last one lost it's cookies without a probe connected during an experiment. I'm not in a position to buy another one.
@WW
QuoteI really hope you are correct for this device.
Unfortunately, my experience tells me otherwise.
Guess what WW, you might be right!
I wound this coil today and biased it quite heavily (6 neos vs 1 on the rotor) and the waveform looked just as happy and undistorted, almost mocking me. >:(
I got too much textbook stuff in my head that I need too flush out. ;D
EM
PS I want to try this saturation stuff with a toroid, which should saturate a lot easier, but I'll have to saturate it with a current instead of a magnet, since it's a closed loop. I have to know if this magnetic diode concept works, even Tesla talked about it and it's so intriguing.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.25, 05:38:34
@WW
Guess what WW, you might be right!
I wound this coil today and biased it quite heavily (6 neos vs 1 on the rotor) and the waveform looked just as happy and undistorted, almost mocking me. >:(
I got too much textbook stuff in my head that I need too flush out. ;D
EM
PS I want to try this saturation stuff with a toroid, which should saturate a lot easier, but I'll have to saturate it with a current instead of a magnet, since it's a closed loop. I have to know if this magnetic diode concept works, even Tesla talked about it and it's so intriguing.
Biasing/saturating only limits the quantity of magnetic domains we can flip and the ease of doing so.
As for magnetic diodes... take a look at documents/links posted on the OUR magnetic amplifier thread. What you propose has already been done. I still have the graphic you found about a proposed mag-amp bridge rectifier ;)
Closed loops in toroids... that is another story. Did you know the H field can deflect/distort the B field even in a toroid, and vise versa?
Something of particular interest to you: Starting at page 46 of http://ia600402.us.archive.org/29/items/MagneticAmplifiers/MagneticAmplifiers.pdf
Hello to all.
hello @em devices. 8)
i like to ask some one here about this generator did some one has make reply working devices like romero. or still no one has reply .im vondering how is hard to reply something and whit shematics can we imagen we here in to this forum has traed to reply some devices whitout eny kind sheme is hard but i thing and now is hard to make devices whitt all sheme given here <IST true is not simple and is not easy i imagen that and romeru uk . and for him is hard to make more powerfull devices like this <ist @rumero.uk. some time is hard to make reply of even of if you make duble ???
if we thing or imagen how is dificolt lets say make reply of steven device <t.p.u> whit out eny real shematic :)
M CD,
You should find a document link in the earliest part of this thread. It seems to be quite complete and includes schematics and wiring.
Of course, you are correct. Even an exact replication mat not provide the same results.
We try anyway - don't we O0
yes you have raid to say we all time traed to make for me im traing about 6 years whit stefan forum.and ather helping forums .
my thing and words has to point that is very hard to reply i knowing about sheme if lets say annd some one in athere view see this and he whill tell to athere <look man see this people how is stupid they cant even make devices whit sheme <what kind of experimentators ,hobitst and prof is here in to this forums <this is real.ists >
for some one else we are children who dont knowing nothing <sory but and im here > is sad for me one man has to me for this stuff >. you are playng games like children and dont knowing how to bylding sheme <funy .......................................................................
WW, thanks for the document, I had it saved somewhere but it's nice to read it again.
Mac, a few people replicated Romerouk's dynamo but to my knowledge nobody has achieved over-unity.
EM
I'm most intrigued by RomeroUK's output waveform, and some of you might disagree with me, but I can see the typical magnet approach curvature in his waveform, than the sharp drop off that occurs around Top Dead Center (TDC), when the magnet is aligned with the coil, but than his waveform at TDC has the most unusual "flat line" that is also modulated by the rotor. If I take out these flat areas than you can see his waveform resembles ours.
I'm not going to rest until I figure this out, it's bugging the heck out of me ! >:(
EM
This is my take on possibly explaining the "dead-time" in the wave form:
There are two possible ways of looking at what constitutes one cycle from the same rotor magnet; I believe most have been assuming incorrectly.
Option 1 illustrates how I believe most have assumed one cycle passes. However, it might be that option 2 is the correct one. The approach is negative, and departure positive = one cycle from the same rotor magnet. The "dead-time" then is simply the spacing between the rotor magnets.
.99
P99,
I like Option 2, it's the less mysterious one, on a bad day I'll pick that one, but that typical curvature I highlighted is a tell tale sign of the approach of the magnet, so I want to rule this option out.
However, Option 1 has the long unusual flat spot at TDC which can't be (never seen it before up to now) and is very mysterious.
Here's the whole waveform compressed.
So, Million Dollar Question: What creates the flat spots?
EM
PS What if the diodes somehow clip another set up downward and upward sings where those flat spots are? We have to admit there are lots of diodes and FWBRs in his setup.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.25, 16:43:30
So, Million Dollar Question: What creates the flat spots?
EM
PS What if the diodes somehow clip another set up downward and upward sings where those flat spots should be? We have to admit there are lots of diodes and FWBRs in his setup.
My money is on the spacing between rotor magnets. Romero et al have said that the spacing needs to be minimum 2x the width of the rotor magnets. In my books, that's a pretty solid explanation for the rapid and consecutive down-up cycle, then the dead-band due to the spacing, then the next cycle from the next rotor magnet.
What is the ratio between the rotor magnet diameter and the spacing between them on your rotor?
.99
OK here we have it, Sorry EM i nicked your scope shot as it was the fastest thing i could grab :)
I detached the periphery hall and moved into different positions and the results are as follows
So we have the red circle, this is where the rotor magnet is farthest away and starts it's approach(The rotor magnet is in between coils)
Black circle is dead center where the rotor magnet is directly over the coil being scoped
my rotor has a ratio of 2.5 to 1, i.e. spacing between magnets is 2.5 times the diameter of a magnet.
The spacing appears to be a little over 2x for Romero's rotor.
OK Peter. Will be interesting to see.
.99
OOPS edited my post and theres been 2 since, please look back 2 posts to see the position firing.
The rotor magnets are 2cm in diameter and spaced about 4.5cm distance apart, so about 2.25 spacing ratio
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.06.25, 17:21:23
So we have the red circle, this is where the rotor magnet is farthest away and starts it's approach(The rotor magnet is in between coils)
Black circle is dead center where the rotor magnet is directly over the coil being scoped
Thanks Peter. O0
.99
The black circle may have needed to be a little higher, it was difficult to hold and there was also the hall on time, i forgot my camera again, each day i need to take it to work and bring home again, so maybe tomorrow night i will try to take some shots.
Ah but hang on i could have connected the coil up to the scope the other way and had a totally different story, the pulse would have been positive O0
Although i guess the shape would have been mirrored also, OK something i will try when i get my camera back here tomorrow
The polarity wouldn't make any difference anyway Peter. What we're looking for is "shape".
OK Darren.
So wouldn't that flat area be as simple as working out which coil has the rotor in between while the periphery hall sensor if firing it's coils and pulling the rotor for a fraction of a second,, if so that flat area would only happen on one coil, so the hall fires the coil pair tugs at the rotor causing a prolonged period where one coil has the approaching rotor magnet on it's initial approach run and therefore prolongs this rotor magnet mid position.
Peter,
I thought you had posted the specs of your coils recently....but I can't find them now. ???
re. your last post, do what you gotta do man to determine the answer. ;) Seems to me that flipping the scope probe around isn't going to make much difference though.
.99
No what i am saying is when the periphery driver coils are on, only 1 set of gen coils will have the magnet in approach mode, if when the periphery coils are switched on then we already know that the rotor will decelerate and therefore the coil set that has the rotor magnet approaching will see a prolonged time before the periphery drive coils switch off and allow the rotor to accelerate again, this i would expect would increase the length of the flat area, but it would only be visible on one gen coil set that is aligned such when the periphery coils fire.
Coil Specs
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=862.msg14536#msg14536
and here
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=862.msg15145#msg15145
First, there were some earlier comments about Romero's pics being flipped left to right. Is this the case for the much analyzed picture?
Second, I consider .99's suggestion to be correct. This is the hard part.... I'm still not backing down from my previously posted theory of operation. I don't see my theory and .99's description to be in conflict. I hope to clarify this. Words alone aren't going to work, in this case.
The question is: Where is this gap in Peterae's scope shots?
In any common generator there will be no flat spot on the waveform depicting the mid-point between poles.
So, the flat spot is still the most interesting thing to analyze. Is it not?
QuoteSo, the flat spot is still the most interesting thing to analyze. Is it not?
Absolutely, I'm glad were in agreement WW.
Since the change of flux that created the voltage waveform can be obtained by integration, this indicates the flux through the coil reaches a maximum and than maintains it for a short duration longer before the flux begins to drop off.
This behavior could be due to a large magnet diameter relative to ferrite core diameter, and also very narrow gaps between the magnet and ferrite.I think this is it guys.
EM
So, the gap between the ferrite and magnet is very important in creating those flat spots.The dimensions of Romero's dynamo is as follows:
magnet diameter = 2.0 cm (later he said 2.5)
ferrite diameter = 0.6 cm
so I would say the gap between the magnet and ferrite should be less than about 0.5 cm, to create those flat spots.
EDIT: I found the text where romero talks about the gap. I was right.QuoteSorry, diameter is 25cm and distance from the rotor to the coils is about 3.5-4mm.
EM
PS Now I feel much better and I can relax about these "flat spots". Now the waveform looks quite normal to me, no longer "mysterious". Only issue now is why the rotor modulation seems to be periodic in only 4 cycles or magnets, maybe that's the way it is warped or the magnets are displaced.
EM,
Yes, the flat spot is surely the time the rotor magnet's field takes to pass through the cross section of the magnetic connection between the top and bottom core.
(No, I'm not saying .99 is incorrect)
----------
If I understand you correctly then you should agree with me in saying the rotor magnet does not induce current into the coils directly.
Rather it causes the stator coils changing polar elongation of the field of the stator magnets to induce current into the coils.
-and-
Therefore, the net result of rotor drag due to movement of the rotor magnet relative to the stator coils, is zero.
?
QuoteRather it causes the stator coils to induce current into the coils
You probably meant to say: stator magnets induce current into the coils, right?
I'm not sure if I want to say the rotor magnets don't induce current into the coils directly, the change in flux is what induces a voltage in a coil, and current will flow depending on the impedance provided. In romero's dynamo, there is no current flow until the diodes in the FWBR conduct and than, in a quick burst, we get a pulse of current. This current pulse is occurring in time and position when the ferrite is still quite a ways away from the magnet, so I can see the temptation to say the magnet is not doing it DIRECTLY, but it is the moving magnets that induce the voltage which drives the current when the impedance drops. I just see the stator magnets as beneficial in biasing the ferries and adding more complexity for us :)
Did you notice my edit above? romero's gap is about 3.5 to 4 mm
EM
Yes, I did mean to say that and I just looked at your edit.
"the change in flux is what induces a voltage in a coil"
Sorry EM. I beleive that is the rule but it should be understood as ... the NET change in flux is what induces a voltage in a coil.
The reason why no current is induced into the coil by the rotor magnet is the fields of the rotor and stator magnet are centered on the coil. The NET change remains at or near zero even though the flux of both fields gain equally in density as they are being pressed together.
What is the flux density in the exact middle between opposing and equal magnetic poles forced into physical or near contact with each other?
What is it as the opposing poles are approaching each other?
The answer to both questions is 'it is immaterial because the net is zero'.
I see how you think, yes I agree with the flux compression, when they are opposing each other at max there is really no NET change. Yes it's that NET change of flux that induces a voltage.
On a different note: Peter you have some testing to do. ;D
This is a quote from romerouk in that pdf file:
I have spent about one month to do all this testings and adjustments. Small things can make a huge
difference, like my extra diodes on top of the rectifier.The gap from the rotor to the coil I had it
increased and decreased hundreds of times to get it right.
:)
EM
EM,
I've looked at the wave form some more, and I agree with your assertion of where TDC is, and where the approach is, especially in regards to your own scope shot.
I've labeled Romero's scope shot with some food for thought and a bit of a theory as to what may be causing the flat spot, or as I believe it may be, simply a "delay" in the negative excursion.
First off, the approach does not look right either. There is a sharp transition there where it should be smooth. It appears to me that the coil is generating as expected with a gradual slope as the magnet approaches, but rather than ramping up swiftly in an upward curve, the trace suddenly jumps upward linearly. Something is clearly "adding" to that part of the trace.
Second, there is no way the negative excursion should occur in such a delayed manner. Yours and Peter's scope traces affirm that. We know that the core flux has to be changing polarization as the magnet passes TDC. So the only way the trace can go flat from TDC onward, is if the coil output is briefly canceled by adding it to a negative counterpart, such as from another coil set, or from a 3rd coil wound on the same coil pair just for this purpose. The eventual negative excursion that does appear would then be due to an inductive kickback response when the coil currents suddenly stop canceling.
.99
I am placing this post here since it also has my post regarding cascading generator coils and I will refer guys here from OU.
About the sine wave, I think once @peterae has had an opportunity to try the three tests I mentioned, this should provide you with more clues. Actually I am thinking that one of them will fall smack onto this waveform.
@All
My previous post on this thread will provide some means to try and fight the Lenz while using it to move the wheel .
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=827.msg15129#msg15129
Here are some other observations I have on this wheel for guys looking to push it "further".
Point #1:
If you can sprint fast at 30 mph without transporting any added weight, compared to if with a good sized weight you can only run at 15 mph, then just learn how to run extremely well at 15 mph, because sprinting produces no work.
What I mean is simple.
Once you know the best or strongest or more motive generating drive coil orientations (I cover some of that below), ultimately, there is no point to finally adjust your hall sensors for the wheel to turn at maximum rpm with no load. Attaining maximum rpm means attaining minimum torque.
Let's say you adjust your sensor positions for maximum rpm at no load like everyone is doing to set their devices. When load is applied, the rpm / drag ratio will stabilize and eventually, because of the sensor fixed positions that cannot compensate for the lag in time between sensor activation to drive coil and rotor swing, there results a major shift in the momentum that cannot be overcome. So, instead, you should try to position your sensors for a much lower rpm at no load. When you load the output, the reduction or effect of the load will again want to reduce the rpm "to where it already is", but now the sensors are well positioned to work at that lower rpm. Now when you apply a load, the rpm should not change that much because the no load rpm it is already at the rpm it should be under load to begin with. Sounds complicated, maybe, but in a nutshell, if you load the output, the wheel will want to stop and while it wants to stop you adjust your sensors to run steady at that slower rpm.
But don't expect to have the exact same effect as Romeros higher rpm at no load and no rpm change under load since in Videos 1 and 2 his dc output rail was already connected to a battery, the rotor never saw coil drag since when the load was applied, the generator coils where not even solicited. He says it was connected through a special diode to feed the battery but it was not. The wires are going right from the rail to the battery.
Point #2
OK, I will try to explain to you one thing that no one really understands or has not clearly shown and which is a key aspect of any drive coil pair to achieve maximum motive strength and not speed and that is, what is the real effect on the rotor of two drive coils in series that receive a pulse. This is very easy for anyone with a wheel to check. I know in advance what is happening but someone needs to test this to show guys the cold hard facts.
To test this, just use one drive coil (not a pair) with everything else disconnected. Position your sensor to achieve and measure maximum rpm on the rotor wit that one drive coil. Now switch the wires on that one coil and see if rpm changes and if you reposition the sensors to any higher rpm level. Now add a second drive coil in series with the one mounted drive coil. The second drive coil must not be mounted on the plate to actually act the second motive force, but just to stay inline with the mounted drive coil. Now do the test again to see how fast the rpm is then switch over the wires and test again. This will give you....
1) RPM with one drive coil. Note the wiring method (explained more below).
2) RPM with one drive coil with wires switched. Note the wiring method.
3) RPM with one drive coil and one coil in series but not mounted. Note the wiring method.
4) RPM with one drive coil and one coil in series but not mounted with wires switched. Note the wiring method.
These four results will explain most of what is going on and what is lacking with driving a coil pair in series. It will not give the complete portrayal of differences since to do so, one would have to repeat the above with the one mounted drive coil turned so the other side is now facing the rotor magnets but I realize that most builders have "fixed" their coils permanently, so this will be impossible to check. Too bad though.
After these tests, I anticipate that either #3 or #4 will be much superior to #1 or #2, but also that the other of #3 or #4 will be so lamentable that you will be wondering what you did wrong. You did nothing wrong. As what I anticipate is it will be when the pulsed coil is the one that is not mounted. This will confirm that the coil that is second in the series when mounted will be performing at low level, whereas the coil that is first that receives the pulse is working 75% of the field production. Basically, if you are using two coils in series, you better know what these coils really do. The good thing is because there is a second drive coil, the first one is stronger. Just scope the drive coils as A and B with the same settings and this will tell you all.
You can then test with both drive coils mounted, but this time add an ac transformer primary in series with the drive coil pair. Test the rpm, then switch the wires and test again. Then put the transformer on the other drive coil, test, then switch around the wires and test again. The AC transformer primary should have the same or close enough inductance as the two drive coils in series. Actually any single coil or coil in a transformer of the same value will do. Try it and see the difference in motive force. This should increase the impulse energy to the mounted drive coils. I won't go into why because this would take to long here.
The configs giving the highest rpm will be the one that is providing the best motive impulse to the coils.
This has nothing to do with how to finally run the device via the sensors, just how the coils should be best oriented to impart their full force. The ultimate sensor placement should be taken from point #1 above.
Once you have proven to your self that the second drive coil is not doing that much to assist in the motive force of the rotor, this will start to open up new ways of thinking about how to best drive the drive coils. Romero did not invent all the ways so it is up to you guys to better him on this.
Point #3
Another aspect of the wheel is how the coils are driven. Right now guys are using n-channel or npn components to drive off the negative side of the drive coil pairs. This may not be the best way of doing this since the positive potential will always be in the coils. It may require further testing if you use a p-channel or pnp component and work the pulse off the positive side.
wattsup
VERY VERY VERY IMPORTANT: For those looking to wind new drive coils or generator coils, please put in a center tap. Again I won't get into the why of this because it would take to long. Suffice to say there are many things you can do with a center tap on a single coil.
Future considerations: Ultimately in my opinion, guys with wheels will eventually start to think of changing the positions of the two drive coil pairs . There will be a major difference in motive force if you compare two isolated drive coil pairs that are separated by several generator coils, as it is now, or if you use two drive coil pairs that are positioned one next to the other. The distance between the magnets and the travel they must accomplish to hit one of the sensors means the motive initiating can only happen in a very small window of opportunity when the drive coil pairs are positioned alone. But if two drive coil pairs are positioned one next to the other at least 3 magnets will always be in the prime activation zones for better motive force across any rpm momentum.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.26, 15:31:15
EM,
I've looked at the wave form some more, and I agree with your assertion of where TDC is, and where the approach is, especially in regards to your own scope shot.
I've labeled Romero's scope shot with some food for thought and a bit of a theory as to what may be causing the flat spot, or as I believe it may be, simply a "delay" in the negative excursion.
First off, the approach does not look right either. There is a sharp transition there where it should be smooth. It appears to me that the coil is generating as expected with a gradual slope as the magnet approaches, but rather than ramping up swiftly in an upward curve, the trace suddenly jumps upward linearly. Something is clearly "adding" to that part of the trace.
Second, there is no way the negative excursion should occur in such a delayed manner. Yours and Peter's scope traces affirm that. We know that the core flux has to be changing polarization as the magnet passes TDC. So the only way the trace can go flat from TDC onward, is if the coil output is briefly canceled by adding it to a negative counterpart, such as from another coil set, or from a 3rd coil wound on the same coil pair just for this purpose. The eventual negative excursion that does appear would then be due to an inductive kickback response when the coil currents suddenly stop canceling.
.99
The only problem i can see is that your TDC is a fraction left of where i scoped the magnet furthest away from the coil, in other words this is the furthest point the coil is from the rotor magnet.
I will re post my image from yesterday
Where Black circle is TDC and red circle furthest away or where the rotor magnet is in between the previous coil and the coil being scoped, i am not mistaken by this i used a hall sensor pulse to align the coil waveform and find these positions.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=827.0;attach=5506)
Peter, I'm not sure how you are trying to correlate your scope shots with Romero's ?
Here is your scope shot again, and I've marked out the transition points.
Do you agree with them as marked?
.99
No thats the wrong one see my last video for waveform shape
Peter,
How did you mirror-image the wave form?
.99
I think it was as simple as connecting the scope the other way round
I see.
Well, that doesn't change things in terms of where TDC is; it has to be on that straight zero-crossing transition as I've marked on your diagram.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.26, 21:33:45
I see.
Well, that doesn't change things in terms of where TDC is; it has to be on that straight zero-crossing transition as I've marked on your diagram.
Would it make more sense if the identified 'zero-crossing point' isn't because the actual voltage zero crossing is at the central X line along the Y axis on the graticule where most would place it during a grounded input prior to looking at the waveform?
I think this is where the rubber hits the road. I have stated my theory where it is not possible for the rotor magnet to induce current except by modulating the static fields of the stator magnets nor is it possible for the rotor magnet to reverse the induction on the coils. in other words.... TDC isn't zero.
Wanlass configuration
http://www.linux-host.org/energy/awan.html
OK, Direct from my arm chair:
"About Strange Ef ects Related to Rotating Magnetic Systems"
http://tgd.wippiespace.com/public_html/pdfpool/Faraday.pdf
Also if you feel brave you can look further:
http://tgd.wippiespace.com/public_html/pdfpool/
Maybe we should read what the US Navy concluded about Wanlass wound motors.
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA140085
or the lawsuit he filed against GE
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1425.html
The flat part of the waveform si when the magnet on the rotor is aligned with the coil. i.e. there is very little flux change at that time. As the magnet is departing coil-space, another magnet arrives right after the departer of the first - hence the positive and neg pulses are very close together.
I am adding a optic 'marker pulse' to my spin generator for the purpose of proving the flat area is indeed where the three magnets are aligned.
That part isn't difficult. Most of the weekend bench work was due to the differences between my device and the Romero set. I changed one set of coils and matched the magnets. The flat spot is still there.
On a happy note: I rear-ended someone today and I'm afoot :D
When you see that TV commercial using the phrase 'Ford Tough' know that they are liars. The Chevy I hit didn't have a scratch while my whole front-end caved in and the doors had to be pried open.
Jaws of life on jaws of death?
Had a Ford Mustang and rear ended a Chevy van. I scratched his bumper, he pushed in my front end.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.06.27, 20:31:27
I am adding a optic 'marker pulse' to my spin generator for the purpose of proving the flat area is indeed where the three magnets are aligned.
That part isn't difficult. Most of the weekend bench work was due to the differences between my device and the Romero set. I changed one set of coils and matched the magnets. The flat spot is still there.
On a happy note: I rear-ended someone today and I'm afoot :D
When you see that TV commercial using the phrase 'Ford Tough' know that they are liars. The Chevy I hit didn't have a scratch while my whole front-end caved in and the doors had to be pried open.
I'm glad you're ok WW, sorry to hear about that.
I hope you didn't tell any of the involved parties that you were distracted becasue you were thinking about free energy. ;D
EM
Here's a progression of charts showing what happens to induced voltage as the magnets are placed closer together on the rotor.
Assumptions: Flux is obviously unipolar in these graphs, but in actuality the coil will see the reverse polarity after it passes the magnet, depending on dimentions and geometry, also, the peak of the flux will widen significanly depending on the gap to magnet diameter ratio. At small gaps, the peak will be a flat line for some width corresponding to the width of the magnet and this will give us those "flat spots" we've been discussing.
So, this is just a rough qualitative simulation to illustrate how the waves become shaped.
EM
P.S. I added a few more with a shorter separation distance. Notice how we approach the AC waveform. By the way, I only use two flux pulses for these sims, but in actuality we would have a series of them (for uniform magnet placement around rotor) and the fact that we have positive flux is not important here because we are differentiating the flux to get the voltage and we can have any DC offset, and as it's apparent mashing two gaussian pulses together seems to create the apperance of a sinusoidal wave, which is very interesting.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.06.27, 20:06:52
The flat part of the waveform si when the magnet on the rotor is aligned with the coil. i.e. there is very little flux change at that time. As the magnet is departing coil-space, another magnet arrives right after the departer of the first - hence the positive and neg pulses are very close together.
Why are we not seeing this flat spot with Peter's and EM's wheels then?
.99
QuoteWhy are we not seeing this flat spot with Peter's and EM's wheels then?
My only insight was that we are not using the same gap between the magnet and ferrite cores. Romero said he uses 3.5 mm If this is not it and proved wrong, than I'll be back at mystefying these "flat spots" :)
just added a few more charts above. I'll do more sims by widening the peaks.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.27, 21:34:23
My only insight was that we are not using the same gap between the magnet and ferrite cores. Romero said he uses 3.5 mm If this is not it and proved wrong, than I'll be back at mystefying these "flat spots" :)
just added a few more charts above. I'll do more sims by widening the peaks.
EM
I would think that Peter has tried a variety of rotor/coil spacings by now, and he still has not seen that flat spot as far as I am aware.
I'm not in agreement with Grumpy and WW on this one.
TDC I believe is near the peak in the trace. It may be more correct to state that TDC actually covers a small range on either side of exact TDC. The negative transition after the positive peak begins because of
no net a reduced change in flux at that point. The coil is at the edge of the "null zone". That carries the trace down to the "zero" level. From there, the magnet is beginning to depart out of the "null zone", and again the coil experiences an intense change in flux which drives the voltage below zero to the negative peak.
That "null zone" is not nearly wide enough to cause the big flat spot we see in Romero's scope trace.
.99
EDIT: changed "no net" to "a reduced"
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.27, 21:26:25
Why are we not seeing this flat spot with Peter's and EM's wheels then?
.99
That trace was taken when the device was self-running. Why does it run with gain?
Quote from: Sir Arthur Conan DoyleOnce you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
The scope shot may wasn't made from this device what we see on the videos! C.C
My best guess, it was made from a different wheel, where there are less (maybe only one) magnet around the wheel, and the flat spots could be the spacing between the magnets.
OK, the pdf shows that famous scope trace as being with the coil "open circuit" - see attached.
If the flat spot is not from the magnet being aligned with the coil then it is the magnets between the coils.
Can't we correlate the polarity of the pulse to the polarity of the magnet and see what is what?
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/electromag/java/faraday2/
North approaches = positive pulse
North recedes = negative pulse
So, the deadtime is between pos and neg which is when the magnet is aligned with the coil. I base this on Romero saying south was "up" and the coils do not buck the magnets (they are in attraction mode).
Here is another one - you can see the electrons:
http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/faraday
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.27, 20:45:48
I'm glad you're ok WW, sorry to hear about that.
I hope you didn't tell any of the involved parties that you were distracted becasue you were thinking about free energy. ;D
EM
Thanks. Actually I wasn't thinking of free energy at all. Maybe I should have :)
As far as why EM and Perter aren't seeing the flat spot my best guess is the adjustments.
At the small gaps between coils and magnets a very slight adjustment is a great deal of change in force. Then, you have the issue where nothing is stable until you have more than one near the adjustment range and better with three in a sequence.
I'll be posting this work. We can compare to see what is really going on.
Who knows? I may be completely whack. I've never bothered to throw a marker pulse on the display. I may be more surprised than others.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.06.27, 20:31:27
I am adding a optic 'marker pulse' to my spin generator for the purpose of proving the flat area is indeed where the three magnets are aligned.
Hey Wave
I used an led to strobe a rotor to see where the magnet was during rotation.
If you us a trigger, reed, hall, to light the led just when the mag is at tdc with the coils, very easy to set up and time it. Then you can add an additional trace to a scope also to see it both ways. The strobe visual is very cool and informative. Just set up the led above where you want to see.
I fully believe the flat spot is between mags. One can simply see it. ;] There is a very short time crossing tdc vs the in between. Especially if you know that 1 half of the wave is the field cutting one side of the coil, then the field cuts the other side of the coil causing the other half of the wave..
It could be slightly off center maybe due to coil,capacitance delay, but I cannot see far from it. ;]
Mags
It's so nice of you all to speculate ! ;)
As an example, here's how the magnetic field varies with distance around a simple current loop.
It will be similar for a cylindrical magnet of some thickness. In the graph, note the flat top developing around z=0.4.
So like I said, a flat top of the flux will mean the derivative is zero, so the voltage is zero. That's why romeroUK's waveform has those flat spots at TDC, because his coils are very close to the magnet, with an air gap of only 3.5 mm. Peter what kind of gaps have you tried?
EM
P.S. Assumptions: I used a closed form equation to compute this graph, and this equation uses the complete elliptical integrals of first and second kind, which modify the results somewhat (slightly scale and adds some curvature to it), and these I have not implemented yet, as this software doesn't have a built in function and I just don't have the time right now to write the function. So the result is approximate if you will.
What if Romero had the probe/ground backwards?
In regards to the apparent modulation of the signal:
Quote
The schumann resonance also sets up ever changing patterns in the ether. You set up the stable ether pattern, this interacts with the ever changing pattern caused by the schumann resonance in a predictable and repeatable way. On top of this pattern you applied another oscillating ether pattern. At certain frequencies these patterns stabilise into an oscillation of the ether that has an effect similar to a large magnetic field.
And the result I've been looking for! :)
EM
Em these wave forms you are showing, they are actual traces from your replication?
Mags
EM,
I'm surprised you have software correctly showing how changes in flux density leads induced potential. Not surprised that 'YOU' have it. Just surprised to see it posted on a web site.
Of coarse it makes sense but rare to see for me.
Do you see how we are dealing with more distance than just the travels of the core over the rotor magnet surface?
Well guys, I don't think you've quite got it yet.
Here is a refinement of my previous post. I don't think you're going to find that flat spot by adjusting the rotor/stator spacing, but waiting to be proved wrong. ;)
The graphic pretty much says it all, but I'm sure I'll have opportunity to explain. Rotor magnet spacing is 2.25x magnet diameter.
Regards,
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.28, 01:01:46
Well guys, I don't think you've quite got it yet.
Here is a refinement of my previous post. I don't think you're going to find that flat spot by adjusting the rotor/stator spacing, but waiting to be proved wrong. ;)
The graphic pretty much says it all, but I'm sure I'll have opportunity to explain. Rotor magnet spacing is 2.25x magnet diameter.
Regards,
.99
Exactly. And to the Point! ;]
Mags
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.27, 23:55:36
And the result I've been looking for! :)
EM
Guys -- can you catch me up on where things stand, pls -- my daughter just had a baby and I've not kept up. Last I checked here, Wattsup had just found a serious "flaw" in the RomeroUK claim, a tell-tale wire in his vid ...
Now it looks like EMDevices has found something important in the waveform ...
Help! where do things stand with respect to the Romero/Muller claims??
Here's an interesting thought, if something is above ambient then energy is lost, if something is below ambient then energy is gained, think of a kettle standing when it's internal temperature is either above or below room temperature.
Anyway hopefully this video will sort out this timing issue, i glued a hall sensor to a pencil, tagged a pull-up resistor to it's output and fed this to the 2ND Chan of my scope, the 1st Chan of the scope is connected across the coil with no load attached, i kept the supply voltage right down to slow the rotor speed to a mangable speed.
The size of the pulse varies quiet a bit shows how bad my rotor center magnets are or periphery magnets have been glued in place C.C
Oh yer one other thing, i am yet to see any proof that closing the coil/rotor magnet gap increases the flat area, i so far have noticed no difference, i will say this again the way to increases this flat area is to use the braking drive coil to momentarily slow the rotor, this will elongate this area when timed correctly but on only one of the output coils.
Anyway enjoy. PS sorry about the focus dam camera LOL
.99,
I agree with your assessment as it applies to a system without stator magnets or a system with incorrectly adjusted stator/rotor/coil relationships.
---
Congrats Grandpa. Daughters tend to do that C.C Mine just did about a month and a half ago.
Congratulations Chaps O0
Glad you are OK WW with the car accident, i guess one way of looking at it, all that crumpling took quiet a bit of energy out of the impact. I bet cars are designed that way because the last thing you want is to push the back end of a car right in when the fuel tank is situated right there. OOPS sorry i am not helping much.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.06.28, 09:52:20
.99,
I agree with your assessment as it applies to a system without stator magnets or a system with incorrectly adjusted stator/rotor/coil relationships.
I believe it applies to a well-adjusted system with nothing extraordinary done to it. Peter and EM have proved that afaik. Even with an added stator coil magnet, the flux never stops changing. It also doesn't appear that the core is saturating anywhere.
I think the only way you're going to get that funky flat spot, is if something wonky is applied, such as the counter-motive drive pulse Peter suggests is occurring, or something else.
.99
Thanks for the video Peter.
So, it would appear to me, that aside from the wave form being inverted (i.e. negative excursion first rather than positive), you have confirmed what I laid out as the progression of the rotor magnet across the generator coil.
;)
.99
Your last one indeed i do but it was this one that confused me as your TDC is not where i am showing it.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=827.0;attach=5524)
So to me it appears the flat spot is a dead band in between the rotor magnets that is slowing the flux change in the coil core, my hall is telling me i have a north pole in between the rotor magnets at the point of the flat area, for the slope to go up slightly would need a revsere magnetic field presence with respect to the rotor magnets polarity, this could be caused by an external bias magnet that is in opposition to the rotor magnets.
The thing that still puzzles me, i have not found black ceramic magnets that have a south or north pole, all the ones i find have north and south on the same flat surface, why would they make magnets this way and what would be the effect of putting a dual pole magnet on top of a Ne magnet.
The TDC shown in that Romero's scope shot is correct and correlates with mine as well.
The difference of course being that there is something "extra" causing the delay his wave form.
.99
Do you agree i have the flat spot here but it's not as flat you can see the area i am talking about where the hall is showing a pulse, this is the flat spot area of the waveform, i have also attached a picture of where the hall was at the time which was with the rotor magnets in between coils
and that this is TDC where the flat area should not be, this is where the hall is positioned right on the rotor magnet
No, that's not where the flat spot would be in Romero's scope trace.
The flat spot in his traces is right after TDC. The flat spot you are referring to is in between rotor magnets, and that one is normal.
.99
Peterae,
Was your hall-on-a-stick sensing the fields of the periphery magnets or the fields of the larger magnets or both?
This question is why I'm trying a photo eye and broken light beam.
Almost done correcting my transportation problem. I need to get back to the bench.
Peter,
This is how your waveform should look at TDC. Decrese the gap to 3.5 mm and you'll have it, hopefully.
EM
WW yeah on a stick and sensing periphery magnets not rotor magnets
OK guys now i see my confusion i was looking at the wrong side, so i have a completely linear line there, but my other side is much flatter than Ruk's.
OK now that's cleared up off to the bench O0
Cheers
Peter
Yep indeed i closed the gap right down and i do indeed get quiet a large flat area but still on the wrong side
For those of you interested, this is now the more accurate calculation of the off-axis magnetic field strength in the z-axis from a loop lying in the x-y plane.
I finally implemented the elliptic integrals of the first and second kind (had to write my own function) For reference the equation is listed here: http://www.netdenizen.com/emagnet/offaxis/iloopoffaxis.htm
(http://www.netdenizen.com/emagnet/offaxis/iloopoffaxis.htm)
The x-axis of these graphs are distances away from the center of the loop, or axis, and the distance is normalized to the radius of the loop. So a x-axis value of 1 means we are above the circumference of the loop, a value of 0 means we are in the center.
The different curves are for different HEIGHTS above the loop, corresponding to a gap between a magnet and coil. The reason I'm simulating these curves is to show you that the farther you are away from the loop, the sharper the magnetic field peaks get, and the closer you are (or a smaller the gap) the flatter the magnetic field peak get (example at h=0.45) and any closer than 0.45 and we start to develops those overshoots on top of the peaks.
Remember this is for a current loop, not for a magnet, but the same thing happens with a magnet, i.e. the closer we are to it the wider that peak gets.
So next I'll do another differentiation of one or two of these loops so you get the idea of how those "flat spots" in the voltage waveform develop. I'll choose the flux curve at h=0.45 and h=1.0 for comparison;
EM
I picked the h = 1.0 and 0.45 flux curves above, and differentiated them to get the following voltage curves.
Hopefully now you will understand how the linear voltage transitions at TDC begin to develop into those exibiting "flat spots"
It's about geometry and how close the rotor magnets pass by the coils, or the rotor gap. So a smaller rotor gap begins to develop those flat spots, assuming the ferrite diameter is smaller than the radius of the magnets, which it is.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.28, 21:18:42
I picked the h = 1.0 and 0.45 flux curves above, and differentiated them to get the following voltage curves.
Hopefully now you will understand how the linear voltage transitions at TDC begin to develop into those exibiting "flat spots"
It's about geometry and how close the rotor magnets pass by the coils, or the rotor gap. So a smaller rotor gap begins to develop those flat spots, assuming the ferrite diameter is smaller than the radius of the magnets, which it is.
EM
You may be on to something EM.
The question remains however; what change is required to get that wave form on your wheel?
.99
I will never be able to get that wave shape with my current setup, because:
1) Magnet diameter: 10mm
2) Ferrite diameter: 7mm
3) Rotor is warped, and the closest I want to get to it is about 3 mm, and that's not close enough with these geometries.
But with a new rotor with BIGGER magnets, let's say 25mm, than at 3mm gap I will begin to see those flat spots with my current ferrites.
It's all about proportions! Peter is actualy setup properly to test this because he is replicating RomeroUK's motor exactly, while I'm experimenting and playing with the dimentions. (but my next bigger build will be using the same proportions)
However, we are back at asking more questions now:
Are those flat spots significant in light of this new understanding?, or more significant than the rotor modulation? Is any of it indicative of OU? Personally, I'm not sure at this point. I must finish my dynamo to gain more understanding and experiment with timing and biasing magnets.
EM
Where did you get that flux curve from?
I'm not convinced that it is so linear in the middle as you've shown it.
.99
QuoteWhere did you get that flux curve from?
The magnetic field curves are generated by my program according to the governing equation for a current loop. I posted a link to that in my previous posts.
The voltage curves are derived from those magnetic curves by differentiation. The top of the magnetic field peaks seems quite linear at h=0.45, but I'm sure it's not perfectly linear.
Here's two voltage waveforms offset from each other to approximate RomeroUK's voltage waveform. (I used the ones at h=0.45)
EM
PS. P99, I added a zoomed in graphic of the h=0.45 flux curve peak. We can see that it's not perfectly linear and I wouldn't expect it to be.
EM,
These magnets won't have the same flux profile that a current loop has. Did you see my diagram of a core passing over one of these magnets? The magnets will have a much more pronounced dip in the middle compared to your current loop. With that in mind, taking the differential of that should convert that flat spot back to a nice straight line.
.99
P99,
QuoteThese magnets won't have the same flux profile that a current loop has.
Yes, I agree. there is a difference between a current loop and a magnet of some thickness. I
n fact a current loop models a very thin magnet of the same area. To model a thick magnet of some height, I would need to integrate in the z-axis, which is a summation of those curves you see.
So the take away from all of this is that the gap length and the relative diameters of the magnet and ferrite all contribute in creating those flat spots.EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.28, 23:51:15
P99,
Yes, I agree. there is a difference between a current loop and a magnet of some thickness. In fact a current loop models a very thin magnet. To model a thick magnet of some height, I would need to integrate in the z-axis, which is a summation of those curves you see.
So the take away from all of this is that the gap length and the relative diameters of the magnet and ferrite all contribute in creating those flat spots.
EM
Well, we'll see when Peter shows us a scope shot with the close rotor/stator spacing. I predict the result will be a pronounced flat spot
in-between rotor magnets, and I'm betting the TDC transition will
still be a straight sloping line with no flat spot.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.06.28, 23:59:26
Well, we'll see when Peter shows us a scope shot with the close rotor/stator spacing. I predict the result will be a pronounced flat spot in-between rotor magnets, and I'm betting the TDC transition will still be a straight sloping line with no flat spot.
.99
Indeed this is what i am seeing, forgot my camera again Grrr
I am not able to close the gap more than 3mm top and bottom due to rotor warp though.
Peterae
QuoteIndeed this is what i am seeing...
Well, I guess than we need another explanation for those flat spots, because varying the geometry apparently is not the answer, at least for your dynamo.
Maybe those flat spots are developed in the areas between the magnets and at TDC we get the slightly curved distortion which fools us into thinking it's not TDC?
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.29, 16:27:44
Peterae
Well, I guess than we need another explanation for those flat spots, because varying the geometry apparently is not the answer, at least for your dynamo.
Maybe those flat spots are developed in the areas between the magnets and at TDC we get the slightly curved distortion which fools us into thinking it's not TDC?
EM
Lol Now who is the one that has been disinforming? hmmm? Check my posts. I had it way back.
This is just funny
Mags
Magluvin,
I'm sorry you think my efforts at understanding this waveform is regarded as "DISINFORMATION".
EM
Mag that comment is out of order no sniping PLEASE, we are trying to understand whats going on, so may the best theory win, where is your explanation can you give me a link to look at.
Peter
Here's a video of the rotor adjusted about 3-4mm gap top and bottom, i could probably go a little more but would need to be carefull as the rotor is not perfect.
Personally i think we are concentrating on the wrong artifact on the waveform, i think we need to know why he has a little squiggle on the other side of his waveform.
You can see in the video that TDC is dead in the linear side of my waveform and the flat in exactly in between magnets.
So what i want to know is whats causing the sharp transition on this waveform, see Poynts label 'Sharp Transition'
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=827.0;attach=5524)
To everybody this idea may help you or not however your left with
the Romerouk device, maybe very close tolerence of arrangements of components
or very complex adjusments or its just a fraud.I notice a lot of people are
adding other components to the
coils and thinking thats it,there not on the original.Romerouk seems to have experimented with coil shorting
a lot before building the device,he stated that it didn't work until it reached a certain speed.
Its not known what speed the wave form was taken at,and weither a load was on the output.
Of great importance is who visited Romerouk, that would explain Romerouk's behavior which is
leaning toward deception.Its very hard to believe that no one has made a self runner
given the really smart people here if the information is correct.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.06.29, 18:15:44
Mag that comment is out of order no sniping PLEASE, we are trying to understand whats going on, so may the best theory win, where is your explanation can you give me a link to look at.
Peter
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=827.msg15236#msg15236
And I have repeated it several times at OU.
By the way Peter, I like the scope shot in you last post. . I see you tightened it up a bit on the trigger for finding tdc.
The big reason I posted what I said about EM is when I posted in the link above about the tdc and the flat spot is in between the mags, read ems post after that. Bang bang. ;] fair is fair. It is EM who is speculating, not I. I knew what was up with magnet position vs scope shot from experience. But nobody listened. Point had the same answer also. Experience. ;]
I may here n there make some miscalculations on things, but I put many hours into this stuff, and get little sleep at times because I just keep on goin. Cant stop baby pop. So, im human.
I had to put down my dinner to write this after I read your responses. Ok back to KFC potato bowl w/sides. ;]
I will give as much respect as I receive. ;]
Mags
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.06.29, 18:59:01
So what i want to know is whats causing the sharp transition on this waveform, see Poynts label 'Sharp Transition'
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=827.0;attach=5524)
This I explained also.. When the rotor mag approaches the coil, only 1 half of the coil sees moving flux causing current in one direction in the coil as a whole.. The field is cutting the wires on 1/2 of the coil.. At tdc the flux is equal on both sides of the coil, same magnetic polarity, same direction. The currents cancel out at that time.. After tdc, the field cuts the other side of the coil reversing the currents. the core is like a barrier to keep the flux from passing all the way through the core as it approaches and leaves, thus a + swing, then null, then a - swing. And the flat spot is no generation at all, err very very little, because the magnet is not near the coil. Or we could say that 1 magnet is approaching and 1 is leaving, thus cancellation or null generation. make sense? ;]
mags
Hey Peter
here is the way back explanation. http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=827.msg13895#msg13895
At the time I was envisioning the bias mag in the mix but the same ideas.
Look into Faraday. . The field must cut the conductor to induce currents. Now apply that to the coils you are using.
If the core was not there, the field would be able to go all the way through the coil as a whole giving a lot less output due to both sides of the coil are being induced by the magnet more than without the core acting as a barrier between the incoming and outgoing side of the coil.
This is general as to the way the magnet approaches the coil from the side and leaves to the side of the coil.
Now, if w have a magnet at tdc and moved the mag up and down, inline with the core/coil, we would have generation also due to the flux is not moving perpendicular to the axis of the coil, it will be oscillating from front to back of the coil not left and right.
Anyways, I apologize to EM. i just got a lil frustrated with the "disinfo" thing when it was really the other way around but nobody paid attention. So now we are clear on what is happening on how the magnet generates current in the configuration we have. ;]
Im doing some tests on my bifi that may show why the magnet spacing is necessary to eliminate lenz, but the mag, at the right speed, rpm, hz, can tickle the bifi ito a resonant state for at least one cycle(due to load killing the resonance). The one cycle at the right(resonant) freq will generate more out, because it is easy when the freq is right..
The bifi is an inductor with greater internal capacitance than a normal coil. It will have a resonant freq, and harmonics there of. I believe that Romeros gen coils(bifi and confirmed) may only be hitting a lower harmonic, as I dont see his coils havong a resonant freq of near 160hz. For example, 1200 rpm x 8 mags = 9600 passes per min divide by 60sec = 160hz. And that figure may be higher because the magnetic induction event is not an even flow on the rotor. Remember the flat spot. ;] its just an estemate to get the idea.
We will see tonight hopefully, and will post results here and at OU.
Let me know if you think Im wrong with any of this and I will explain further. ;]
Mags
Here is a post of mine back on the 14th of this month at OU.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11009.msg290923#msg290923
And here is romeros post just after mine
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11009.msg290925#msg290925
And, when I find it, it is recent, a pic of romeros coils on the plexi plate before assembly. it shows some coils with 3 leads. Bifi? yup
I believe so. this is one piece of info he had left out. The only one I can see so far. but he came clean. ;]
So this is why my theory of the coils being self resonant and we have to take advantage of it.. Pure genius it is. Spacing to avoid lenz and tickle the coil from the distance. of course there is a balance and many tweaks. is it worth it? yes!
Mags
When I stated this 2 posts ago...
The bifi is an inductor with greater internal capacitance than a normal coil. It will have a resonant freq, and harmonics there of.
What I meant to say also is that the resonant freq of the bifi is much lower( in the range we may need) than a normal coil, due to greater internal capacitance.. LC
mags
Mags,
Appology accepted, I would say it's very tempting and an easy conclusion to arrive at, that the "flat spots" in the voltage waveform must be the due to the space between the magnets, because that space is about 2.5 times the magnet diameters, and I was tempted to believe that on a few occasions.
But romeroUK's output voltage waveform, if I remove the "flat spots", starts to look very close to my and Peter's waveforms. So since I can't replicate his waveform I need to understand it from whatever angle I can.
I'm currious if you have a replica similar to romero's and if you can provide us with some output waveforms.
@Peter,
that sharp transition does look a bit too sharp, maybe youre right, we're focusing on the wrong parts of his waveform. Of course we are also focused on the "tilt" in the waveform, which reminds me I should ask romero about his CRT oscilloscope if it has any alignments issues.
For those that are still wondering, let me say it again because I got it straight from Romero.
His voltage waveform was taken while the dynamo was self-running, with a 12 V light bulb as the load, and it was scoped at the terminals of a single top coil.
EM
All good Em ;]
So the wave form in the trace in peters post is his or romeros? It looks good to me. Im not following.
is the replication the same as romeros? Bifi coils? Loaded? bias mags/washer? Loaded meaning the output need always be higher than the storage cap that is loaded.
Some are still on the possibility of shorting. I dont see that in the scope shots. Though if there were a diode(again not seen in the shot) that shorted 1 half of the waveform, then released on the other half, but I dont believe so. cannot say.
Anyways, your right, dont be concerned with the shape of the wave form, be concerned with the height. ;]
Mags
Here is the post with the pic of the coils with more than 2 leads coming from them. ;]
There seem to be 4 on most. It was quite a few pages back. 3 or 4, well at least there are more than 2. bifi. ;]
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg292732#msg292732
Mags
Here is a correction to my previous post that links my post and then romeros. ;]
I must have copied the quote link within my post by accident. So it didnt take you directly to my post. ;]
here is my post on the 14th
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11009.msg290923#msg290923
And here is Romeros post just after mine
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11009.msg290925#msg290925
Maybe some that read the incorrect post figured it out, but I wanted to make sure. I think its important info to know.
Mags
OK Mag glad you 2 are cool, i was getting a bit jittery with people having a pop at each other, there's no need we are all here for the same thing.
OK some good posts, I am not sure there are 4 wires on those coil plates though because the coils are bolted on the other side of the perspex and therefore the holes are drilled through the perspex and i can only see 2 holes per coil, and not only that we don't see 4 wires for each coil when it's all wired up.
Well i guess my next move should be to study the current and voltage waveforms under load and see what the resulting rpm load changes are, i still need to build a rev counter to give me a live rev feed for this, so there is going to be a delay for me.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.06.30, 00:51:00
His voltage waveform was taken while the dynamo was self-running, with a 12 V light bulb as the load, and it was scoped at the terminals of a single top coil.
EM
EM,
Could you please provide a reference to the above statement.
I'm only aware of the statement made by Romero posted with the scope shot, in which he said nothing about a 12V light bulb or the self-running build.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg284923#msg284923 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg284923#msg284923)
-Thanks
I think there's a bit more going on with this flat area
Notice in this scope shot of Rom's theres noise or oscillation on his flat, his scope is not coping well with it, but just as the trace starts you can see 2 horizontal lines, and on each flat there is a haze?
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=827.0;attach=5524)
Now when you look at my traces i have the start of a noise burst as well.
Could this be why each of his flat's has a different slope angle, it's just the scope capturing a moment in time and interpreting the noise/oscillation randomly.
OK so it looks like switching transients my scope is not connected to any part of the drive circuit, although they connected to the same mains supply.
Duff, that is not a quote, it is me sharing information with you that I received from romero in a PM over at overunity.com I was asking him about the tilt of his waveform and I was thinking he may have forgoten to clip the probe ground clip and so I thought I was seeing the 50 Hz power grid interference, but he told me no that was not the case he had the probe and its ground clip connected, and he told me the conditions under which it was obtained like I stated.
@Peter,
good observation and question, however we should be aware that high frequency noise does not change the slope of the trace just makes the trace look wider. I'm noticing on romero's waveform the second flat spot from the right looks realy fat, fatter than the others, so why would there be a larger noise burst there than the other segments? could this tell us something about how his motor is firing? Is it firing only once per revolution from the periffery magnets? Do we know for sure he has perifery magnets for every rotor magnet?
EM
Hi EM
Viewing the first Rom video on this thread 1:47-1:48 you can see 3 consecutive rotor magnets and each clearly has a periphery magnet, more can be seen, i cannot confirm everyone but most seem to have and i think therefore it's a good bet all have the magnets.
It would appear a source of noise is the coils themselves.
Yellow CH2 50mv/Div trace is connected straight across a coil
Red CH1 200mv/Div trace again is connected across a coil but with the probe tip connection of the coil also connected to one side of the bridge.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.06.30, 08:25:18
I think there's a bit more going on with this flat area
Could this be why each of his flat's has a different slope angle, it's just the scope capturing a moment in time and interpreting the noise/oscillation randomly.
Trying to catch up... (more problems than a barrel of monkeys here now)
I agree with more things going on elsewhere.
The interpreting done by scopes becomes a problem when looking this close. An analog scope will just swing the trace in reaction to signal change. This can have a displayed averaging effect, depending upon the scope and many other things. The thing to remember is an analog scope doesn't interpret anything any more than a D'Arsonval meter movement.
Digital scopes do much the same except they are more likely to display spikes where there may be none or where the signal is actually much wider - sampling rates, etc.
When looking as close as you have shown, I generally disregard the fine details displayed on a digital scope unless it can handle it.
Example: the noise you show on your video may also be from the diode junctions.
At the moment I'm looking into the coils becoming microphonic (that is, after I hitch-hike back home :D ).
http://pcbmotor.com/pcbmotors-17/
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.06.27, 23:12:20
I fully believe the flat spot is between mags. One can simply see it. ;] There is a very short time crossing tdc vs the in between. Especially if you know that 1 half of the wave is the field cutting one side of the coil, then the field cuts the other side of the coil causing the other half of the wave..
It could be slightly off center maybe due to coil,capacitance delay, but I cannot see far from it. ;]
Mags
The flat spot seen in Romero's scope trace isn't caused by the weak spots between magnets. The flat spot seen in his trace occurs right after TDC.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.07.02, 07:41:06
The flat spot seen in Romero's scope trace isn't caused by the weak spots between magnets. The flat spot seen in his trace occurs right after TDC.
.99
Im listening.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.07.02, 13:29:37
Im listening.
Mags
Know one yet knows what is causing the flat spot in Romero's scope trace (or at least no one has come out with an explanation), although there are a couple of theories. Note on the pic where "TDC Area" is labeled. Also, where I have labeled "sharp transition", is the point in-between the rotor magnets, and where the flat spot occurs, but there is something messing that up as well. The less space between rotor and stator, the more pronounced this "in-between magnets" flat spot appears with a "normal" setup.
.99
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=827.0;attach=5524)
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.07.02, 16:37:10
Know one yet knows what is causing the flat spot in Romero's scope trace (or at least no one has come out with an explanation), although there are a couple of theories. Note on the pic where "TDC Area" is labeled. Also, where I have labeled "sharp transition", is the point in-between the rotor magnets, and where the flat spot occurs, but there is something messing that up as well. The less space between rotor and stator, the more pronounced this "in-between magnets" flat spot appears with a "normal" setup.
.99
I am maybe speaking out of ignorance, but Bloch wall something comes to mind with this...that sharp transition, sort of as if a resistance or domain barrier gave way...then the flat spot, perhaps a balance of domains...the mythical 'tuning'?
Until I can get a scope on a build here, I'm lost as anyone, but I think this discussion about the scope shot is the most practical and realistic research about this device thus far. The semi-periodic cycling that seems to be going on, that slight wave in the mid peaks that has been pointed out is interesting as well. I did notice Romero's stator had a slight warp to it during the spin down in one of his videos, not sure if it was #1, or #2.
This is out on a limb, but why his stator was painted black has not been discussed much and since I've been cutting ferrite and generating plenty of dust, I've wondered if he added some ferrite 'pigment', on a lark. Might be more fantasy though.
What if this is a "current" waveform, meaning a voltage measurement across a (1 Ohm) shunt resistor.
It surely looks like one.
Regards Itsu
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.06.29, 22:25:10
This I explained also.. When the rotor mag approaches the coil, only 1 half of the coil sees moving flux causing current in one direction in the coil as a whole.. The field is cutting the wires on 1/2 of the coil.. At tdc the flux is equal on both sides of the coil, same magnetic polarity, same direction. The currents cancel out at that time.. After tdc, the field cuts the other side of the coil reversing the currents. the core is like a barrier to keep the flux from passing all the way through the core as it approaches and leaves, thus a + swing, then null, then a - swing. And the flat spot is no generation at all, err very very little, because the magnet is not near the coil. Or we could say that 1 magnet is approaching and 1 is leaving, thus cancellation or null generation. make sense? ;]
mags
Magluvin, you may want to consider the following explanation:
From JLN: (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mromexp.htm)
QuoteDuring the approach phase of the North pole of the magnet (from the left to the coil axis), a North pole is created on the bottom surface of the coil (according to the Lenz law), this creates the negative voltage shown. When the North pole of the magnet leaves the axis of the coil, a South pole is created on the bottom surface of the coil (according to the Lenz law), this creates the positive voltage shown in the scope picture. The flux in the coil has been reversed in this case.
See the attached diagram (left) for which his description refers. I've added another diagram showing the side profile of the rotor magnet and core/coil.
.99
I dont get what your trying to tell me.. I see that tdc is the sharp transition in the gif above. Is this not what I have stated?
Mags
Also in the scope shot to the right in the gif, it shows only 1 hump. The field only cuts 1 side of the coil.
Do we know if the probe coil has a core?
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.07.03, 18:18:18
I dont get what your trying to tell me.. I see that tdc is the sharp transition in the gif above. Is this not what I have stated?
Mags
No. You see where I have labeled the scope shot "
TDC AREA", yes?
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=827.0;attach=5524)
What I'm trying to tell you is that you have TDC and "the space between magnets" areas reversed. The area labeled "
SHARP TRANSITION" is actually the point in the trace where the coil is in-between magnets. It normally doesn't look like this, but something unknown at this time is causing that sharp transition.
.99
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.07.03, 21:16:13
Also in the scope shot to the right in the gif, it shows only 1 hump. The field only cuts 1 side of the coil.
Do we know if the probe coil has a core?
Mags
It is an air-core.
I posted the link to JLN's web page for this, but here it is again:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mromexp.htm
The explanation for the right half of the diagram is there. To quote:
QuoteIn the right case (orthogonal field (Mini-Romag Setup)), you may notice that the voltage induced is more positive than negative (asymmetrical) when the magnet crosses the middle of the tangent coil. During the approach phase of the North pole of the magnet (from the left to the middle of the coil), a North pole is created on the left surface of the coil (according to the Lenz law), this creates the negative voltage shown. During the exit phase of the North pole of the magnet (from the middle of the coil to the right), a South pole is created on the right surface of the coil (according to the Lenz law), this creates the negative voltage shown. The coil flux has never been reversed in this case. Now, look at the middle position (when the magnet crosses the middle of the coil). In this case, the orthogonal magnetic flux density drops to zero (this has been checked with a gauss meter). So the positive pulse induced in the coil is not due to the moving magnet, but it is generated by the collapse of the magnetic field (Back EMF)....In this case there is no magnetic coupling between the rotor (magnets) and the stator (coil) during the positive phase of the signal generated.
.99
Hey Point
Hmmm. Well I guess things have changed.
When I look a post 599 I read "You can see in the video that TDC is dead in the linear side of my waveform and the flat in exactly in between magnets."
And in the vid on that post I see the trigger to show tdc is where? Was there a mistake in the test in this post and it has been corrected since?
So a lot must have changed since
Also in jln's gif, the waveform on the left must not represent the tdc position of the mag n coil below it. And it is the left shot that represents the muller, no? So his explanation may be different as to how it happens. But I see tdc vs waveform in his gif that represents what I am in favor of, but you are representing as not. Sorry if I am super stupid.
Or are we talking about different flat spots? lol
Respectfully
Mags
Ps the scope shot that you lay out that tdc is at the beginning of the flats, how are you determining those points?
Mags,
How do you see either of the JLN examples relate to this motor?
Since the orientation between coil and magnet are not the same, I don't see it.
------
I get it. You folks are talking about the output of the probe coils, not the motor coils.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.07.04, 18:32:13
Hmmm. Well I guess things have changed.
I'm not aware of any change.
Quote
When I look a post 599 I read "You can see in the video that TDC is dead in the linear side of my waveform and the flat in exactly in between magnets."
This is correct. Peter's wave form is a bit different at the peaks, but other than that it represents the typical wave form picked up from a generator coil, or a pair of generator coils in series adding.
Quote
Also in jln's gif, the waveform on the left must not represent the tdc position of the mag n coil below it. And it is the left shot that represents the muller, no? So his explanation may be different as to how it happens.
Correct, JLN's test was performed with a single coil, not two coils sandwiching the rotor magnet as per the Muller/Romero dynamo. However, the result is identical as shown with Peter's and EM's, scope shots, and they used two coils.
Quote
But I see tdc vs waveform in his gif that represents what I am in favor of, but you are representing as not.
I don't know what you mean, but let me try to explain what might be the confusion; We are looking at two distinct wave forms; 1) that of the typical response captured by both Peter and EM et al, and 2) that of the wave form produced by Romero's setup; they are
distinctly different despite the similarity at first glance.
Quote
Ps the scope shot that you lay out that tdc is at the beginning of the flats, how are you determining those points?
There are two distinct characteristics that are give-aways as to which part of the wave form pertains to which position on the rotor. I have already shown in the following diagram how things look when all goes as expected (i.e. a conventional output wave form) (which you seemed in agreement with):
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=827.0;attach=5558)
The range between points 5 and 6 with the
gently-decreasing then increasing slopes is clearly the transition from the end of magnet one, to the beginning of magnet two. The rate of change of flux in this range is relatively low, and results in the "flatish" looking part of the trace.
The range between points 2 and 4 clearly indicate where the coil crosses each edge of the rotor magnet, passing across TDC in the middle. This area is characterized by a
quasi-linear slope from one polarity to the opposite polarity.
Now, examine Romero's scope trace again and
look for these two characteristics; you'll find that the first (between points 5 and 6) is there but it is distorted or interrupted by a sharp transition, and the second (between points 2 and 4) is completely altered by transposing or seemingly delaying the negative excursion beginning at TDC.
Does it make sense to you now?
.99
Oh Ar you saying that the tdc shown in the long trace in the previous post on this page, Is Romeros pic and his detail of tdc? Where as what you have just posted, yes, i agree with.
Could there be a phase thing going on if the rotor is near the resonance(or lower harmonic) of the coil, that the coil could be leading the magnet giving the speedup?
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.07.05, 01:27:03
Oh Ar you saying that the tdc shown in the long trace in the previous post on this page, Is Romeros pic and his detail of tdc? Where as what you have just posted, yes, i agree with.
The scope trace picture in Reply#627 (above) is of Romero's dynamo that he posted. The annotation to that picture was done by me. Romero did not convey any information regarding TDC etc. in regards to that scope trace, as far as I know.
Quote
Could there be a phase thing going on if the rotor is near the resonance(or lower harmonic) of the coil, that the coil could be leading the magnet giving the speedup?
Mags
At this point there are many possibilities that could be causing these irregularities IMHO. For eg. I'm not even ruling out the possibility of backfeed from another generator coil through the FWBR's (assuming no output filter cap).
.99
Are you thinking that it could get back through the fwbr to apply drive force? I thought of different configurations of the additional diodes, but i think if any were in any other direction other than copying the fwbr there would be a drain issue for the storage cap.
I wonder if Romero had measured a different gen coil if the wave form would be different. Like if he is showing the gen coil that is just before a drive coil, maybe we are seeing an effect in the wave form due to the motor drain. I dont know if that would show up on the gen coil shots.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.07.05, 01:55:30
Are you thinking that it could get back through the fwbr to apply drive force? I thought of different configurations of the additional diodes, but i think if any were in any other direction other than copying the fwbr there would be a drain issue for the storage cap.
I'm thinking more along the possible idea of one gen coil pair affecting the output (and Lenz-effect) of another gen coil pair, via backfeed.
.99
It would be good then to see some current traces.
mags
New Info from Romero, I asked about the tilt in his waveform and if his CRT Oscilloscope possibly has a tilt in the deflection coils or if other things are happening like an influence from the dynamo magnetic fields upon the electron beam.
His answer in a nutshell:
It's possible the apparent tilt of the voltage waveform is due to some influence from the dynamo magnetic fields due to proximity or possibly something else (but not missalignment of the CRT oscilloscope, it's working just fine)
EM
Romero has a new website where he is posting: www.underservice.org
He referred me to his website to see examples of his CRT waveforms from various devices. You might want to browse his website and see some of the interesting waveforms.
Anyway, here's a scope shot that shows his CRT is aligned properly.
EM
PS I added the second picture showing an upward tilt in one of Romero's waveforms. Notice how linear it is, no rotor modulation here, (his posting has the text: "RG", is this an abbreviation for "Romero Generator" ?) I'm not sure what device produced this waveform, but the upward tilt is quite interesting, if it's not something obvious like 50 Hz AC.
There are quite a few scope shots there EM, and only 2 appear to have a level trace. Maybe he does have the scope quite close to the wheel when doing these tests, and the mag field is causing the trace rotation. It is definitely there in almost every shot.
.99
This video appears to show a self-running Motor-Generator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH-1rjKbdEM&feature=feedu
After a while, the experimenter connects to a battery and shows that the battery voltage is going UP rather quickly. OK -- is this a self-runner? or a case of "battery relaxation"?
Note that there is a circuit diagram... and this text:
QuoteUploaded by Mopozco on Jul 2, 2011
one driving (motor) bedini coil and five generating (generator) coils to BR and Cap and Its' following pulse discharge by Reed Switch to battery; the same time a bemf pulses helping to charge bttry and run motor for hours...
He notes, "and run motor for hours..." -- would it not run indefinitely if self-charging? What do you think is going on here?
--Thanks for the URL, EMDevices.
PhysicsProf,
Instantaneous battery voltage measurements (charging pulses) mean practically nothing. He may show a steady increase in battery voltage but that doesn't indicate how much energy is stored in the battery.
I suspect if his video continued to where he disconnects the battery from the device the battery voltage would quickly drop to a point lower than it was before he powered the motor.
Actually, it is more than a suspicion :)
He confimed that the dynamo was closer than one meter from the oscilloscope when he took that snapshot. I think he agrees with me that it's the magnetic fields of the dynamo that affect the CRT oscilloscope.
EM
@all, I also posted this over at OU.
did anyone else find it strange that, at around 5:30 in the selfrunning video (20 minute), Romero
measures the DC at the switch - 15.07 volts.
at 6:20, he switches the DMM to AC volts, and tries, without success, to measure the AC coming
into the bridge rectifier.
The 64,000 dollar question -
why is he unable to get any reading on the DMM ?
I must admit, he fumbles and falters, and even seems surprised and confused (noted by his
changing of probe location) as to why he sees no AC.
Food for thought.
I gotta say. This has been severly disheartning but much has been learned.
Penno
I'm on a slow connection right now in Slave Lake, so I can't watch the videos to have a look for myself.
Hey, watch what you say penno, or I might have to shrink your text like this.... :P LOL
.99
Quote from: penno64 on 2011.07.06, 03:50:11
The 64,000 dollar question -
why is he unable to get any reading on the DMM ?
Find out if his meter will measure voltage-biased AC.
Quote from: penno64 on 2011.07.06, 03:50:11
did anyone else find it strange that, at around 5:30 in the selfrunning video (20 minute), Romero
measures the DC at the switch - 15.07 volts.
No.
Quote
at 6:20, he switches the DMM to AC volts, and tries, without success, to measure the AC coming
into the bridge rectifier.
The 64,000 dollar question -
why is he unable to get any reading on the DMM ?
I will accept cash or a bank cashier's check :)
He does fumble a bit. I suspected he didn't really understand what he produced. His other web forum (with the multitude of different waveforms) makes me think he does understand far better than most would.
I ask, 'why would he expect to see an AC component while the coils were under load and the motor was turning?'. Obviously, most wouldn't ask this question.
An easy and quick answer would be that his meter wasn't capable of the frequencies involved or he was simply surprised he blew a bridge. These would not be my answers.
Quote from: penno64 on 2011.07.06, 03:50:11
@all, I also posted this over at OU.
did anyone else find it strange that, at around 5:30 in the selfrunning video (20 minute), Romero
measures the DC at the switch - 15.07 volts.
at 6:20, he switches the DMM to AC volts, and tries, without success, to measure the AC coming
into the bridge rectifier.
The 64,000 dollar question -
why is he unable to get any reading on the DMM ?
Penno
I've now watched it, and all I can say is perhaps he is actually measuring on the output (DC) side by mistake, or his leads are not making a good connection, or there is no AC there. :o
.99
Thanks for that.
Penno
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.07.07, 02:10:25
An easy and quick answer would be that his meter wasn't capable of the frequencies involved or he was simply surprised he blew a bridge. These would not be my answers.
Most meters are capable (-3dB) up to at least a few kHz. We're dealing with probably less than 300Hz here. Also, a reading of absolutely zero would indicate the frequency was 100 times or so out of range of the meter.
There is no way his cap is 47000uF, my 47000uF BHC cap just arrived and it's at least twice the diameter.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.07.07, 09:53:28
There is no way his cap is 47000uF, my 47000uF BHC cap just arrived and it's at least twice the diameter.
I don't know the details but the dimensions of a cap can vary quite a bit, including multiples of the original diameter.
This is true even when the voltage and capacity are matched.
Maybe so WW it's the same make and voltage though
I haven't looked at the cap closely, was it clearly labeled with the value and voltage?
If the one you received is bigger, one possibility is perhaps the manufacturer changed their design? It's a long shot I know, but possible.
.99
The camera did zoom in but the value was not 100% clear, Romero himself also said it was 47000uF
I think it maybe 4700uF instead of 47000uF, i guess there could be reasons why the manufacturer made them larger it just seems strange that the same value and working voltage could be double the size.If mine is double the diameter that's a lot more than 2 times the internal surface area to house the capacitor electrodes and electrolyte.
Guys,
If you have 5 minutes to spare, view this
http://www.youtube.com/user/lyudkavsk
It was in minoly's favourites on his yt channel
penno64,
He is using a DC ammeter to measure current. Just because the output of the generator is pulsed DC doesn't mean the circuit current is DC.
His circuit is highly reactive so, as the scope shows, the circuit current is AC. The meter will only show an average, which would be at or near zero.
--
In effect - he built a resonant transformer and is using the wrong equipment to measure current.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.07.07, 09:53:28
There is no way his cap is 47000uF, my 47000uF BHC cap just arrived and it's at least twice the diameter.
I got one of same values but it's about the same diameter and about half the length. Newer caps tend to be smaller in some cases. Also I thought someone had a HD zoom on the cap that confirmed the values. I also can't see any reason he would lie about it or not have given a correct value. While he may have slipped on some parameters where he had changed values a lot of times I'm guessing he got this one right.
I appreciate that e2 but my cap is brand new and the same manufacturer, same uf and voltage yet a lot bigger than Rom's
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.07.07, 15:39:39
I appreciate that e2 but my cap is brand new and the same manufacturer, same uf and voltage yet a lot bigger than Rom's
I got the exact same model ( ebay, via Istanbul ) It's a huge beast, as big as the AC one in my heat pump. Of all the items I ordered for the build, this one took the longest to arrive, but then they waited 10 days just to ship it.
I just re-checked the video... at 26 seconds (self runner, #2) he rolls it across the camera..it is very hard to make out but it's indeed a 47000uf it would seem. Can't make it out in one frame, have to scroll through 3 or 4 to get all the aspects (uf, then the 3 zeros, then what looks like a 7 then a 4)
If you look at the frames around this one, to either side, it's clearer, but no one grab can show it ideally. Tried here, added some options for easier viewing to either side of the dark light.
Cheers for checking AG
Yeah this one came from the same place and took quiet a while to come >:( and feels very light, it feels like theres a small cap soldered to the terminals inside LOL, the only other thing i had noticed with Rom's cap is that the value seems to be printed on a sticky label, when i get some time i must try hunting for datasheets to see if they have ever made a small version of the 47000uF cap.
Peter
Peterae,
Romero may have had an ALS10 series. The lower voltage types were used large computer server power supplies. These were classified as 'compact'.
Compared to the ALS20 series they were smaller.
It is light, isn't it? My capacitor's plastic covering seems a little suspect, or maybe it was a second...there are linear cracks, like someone took an X-acto blade and ran it from top to bottom light enough to score but not cut, and the cutout on capacitor bottom is jagged and wonky.
Per WaveWatcher's mention of ALS10, I googled on that size and found the following.
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/archive/bhccat.pdf (http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/archive/bhccat.pdf)
http://www.thlaudio.com/bhcapitme.htm
(http://www.thlaudio.com/bhcapitme.htm)
The PDF has a load of info.
Below's an item on ebay which looks like R-uk's size, but it's 470uf, and 450v. It also has what looks like the sticky label. I posted a screenshot of this cap since this link will be void later and someone might wish to know what it showed, hope that is alright.
http://cgi.ebay.com/1pc-BHC-ALS30A-Electrolytic-capacitor-470uf-450V-new-/220613612777#ht_868wt_885
(http://cgi.ebay.com/1pc-BHC-ALS30A-Electrolytic-capacitor-470uf-450V-new-/220613612777#ht_868wt_885)
Great work chaps.
So indeed i have the wrong model
ALS2 25V 65X105
ALS2 25V 65X115
ALS2 25V 66X115
ALS3 25V 36X105
ALS4 25V 36X105
ALS6 25V 66X105
ALS22 25V 40X75
EDIT i had not noticed any marks on my cap, i will have a look tomorrow when i have it in front of me.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.07.07, 20:53:59
Great work chaps.
So indeed i have the wrong model
I believe your picture shows you have an ALS20.
Don't spend more money on a different cap. Even if you found the exact duplication there are more than enough variables that change over use, time, temperature, environment, etc that will still make it only 'similiar'.
Hell, throw a bleeder resistor across it and call that "replication of Romero's capacitor leakage due to age and abuse". Then, you'll be right on the mark ;)
@penno,
Yes, interesting about Skywatcher's results (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3631-generator-increases-speed-under-load.html) over at EF. Seems he has been through much of this already. I wonder what his conclusions were? He is a member here, but not yet posted.
Could you please download some of his diagrams from that thread and post them here? Thanks.
.99
Quote from: penno64 on 2011.07.06, 03:50:11
@all, I also posted this over at OU.
did anyone else find it strange that, at around 5:30 in the self running video (20 minute), Romero measures the DC at the switch - 15.07 volts.
at 6:20, he switches the DMM to AC volts, and tries, without success, to measure the AC coming into the bridge rectifier.
The 64,000 dollar question -
why is he unable to get any reading on the DMM ?
I must admit, he fumbles and falters, and even seems surprised and confused (noted by his changing of probe location) as to why he sees no AC.
Food for thought. I gotta say. This has been severely disheartening but much has been learned.
Penno
It's good to be back home, even if my vacation was just great and very relaxing.
Well, I can say it simply. All generator coils combined gave him a DC output of his wheel at around 2-3 vdc after the rectifier added to the 12vdc coming already from the hidden battery that was already connected to the DC output rail, that gave him the 15vdc reading at DC. At AC before the rectifier of course he will see almost nothing because his 2-3 vdc was a combined voltage. Putting the probe at AC before the rectifier means it is only on one generator coil hence reading will be practically nothing. I don't think it has anything to do with a frequency limitation since his dc reading was shown at the same frequency. Reading the DC after the rectifier should not change the frequency so why should lit influence the AC reading before the rectifier.
I am just amazed as to why it takes so long for @members to realize when something is just not right. I posted at OU about Romero removing the resistors from his drive circuits when he did his suspended video but it seems that guys have trouble with 1 + 1 = 2. It always has to equal something else. Sorry but Romero is a fake, from Video 1 to 3, all the way and guys just do not want to see it.
Ok, here is a question about the waveform. When you put your probe on one generator coil, you are measuring voltage variation versus time. Each cycle is one magnet passing through the gen coil. The RPM gives you the fixed amount of frequency of the waveform. But the frequency also includes the space between each magnet. If there are let's say two rotor magnet diameters of empty space between each rotor magnet, this means 1 magnet, 2 spaces, 1 magnet and so on making the empty space 66% of the frequency and the actual magnet passage 33% of the frequency. So....... where is the 66% in the waveform?
wattsup
Added: About the output, the generator coils combined did not produce much voltage by themselves. They never had too and the rather generous distance seen between his rotor magnets and his generator coils should have told us that this device would not produce the output seen on his meter. That's why guys are now measuring peanut outputs from their devices with the same rotor/gen distances. Why should it be different for Romeros' wheel. Again he faked it. Simple. This whole thing was a simple and deliberated scam on his part. Anyone with a wheel should stop trying to figure out how Romero made his wheel work and start asking how they can make their wheels work with
NEW IDEAS.
Again AOAO, cascading generator coils and even full cascading generators coils where the drive coils are also used as generators meaning no drive coils required are some of the ways I see that guys will have to start testing. There would be set-up procedure to elaborate to do this.
It is there wattsup. Look at EM's scope trace in my diagram.
.99
Quote from: wattsup on 2011.07.08, 13:31:39
It's good to be back home, even if my vacation was just great and very relaxing.
Well, I can say it simply. All generator coils combined gave him a DC output of his wheel at around 2-3 vdc after the rectifier added to the 12vdc coming already from the hidden battery that was already connected to the DC output rail, that gave him the 15vdc reading at DC. At AC before the rectifier of course he will see almost nothing because his 2-3 vdc was a combined voltage. Putting the probe at AC before the rectifier means it is only on one generator coil hence reading will be practically nothing. I don't think it has anything to do with a frequency limitation since his dc reading was shown at the same frequency. Reading the DC after the rectifier should not change the frequency so why should lit influence the AC reading before the rectifier.
I am just amazed as to why it takes so long for @members to realize when something is just not right. I posted at OU about Romero removing the resistors from his drive circuits when he did his suspended video but it seems that guys have trouble with 1 + 1 = 2. It always has to equal something else. Sorry but Romero is a fake, from Video 1 to 3, all the way and guys just do not want to see it.
Ok, here is a question about the waveform. When you put your probe on one generator coil, you are measuring voltage variation versus time. Each cycle is one magnet passing through the gen coil. The RPM gives you the fixed amount of frequency of the waveform. But the frequency also includes the space between each magnet. If there are let's say two rotor magnet diameters of empty space between each rotor magnet, this means 1 magnet, 2 spaces, 1 magnet and so on making the empty space 66% of the frequency and the actual magnet passage 33% of the frequency. So....... where is the 66% in the waveform?
wattsup
Added: About the output, the generator coils combined did not produce much voltage by themselves. They never had too and the rather generous distance seen between his rotor magnets and his generator coils should have told us that this device would not produce the output seen on his meter. That's why guys are now measuring peanut outputs from their devices with the same rotor/gen distances. Why should it be different for Romeros' wheel. Again he faked it. Simple. This whole thing was a simple and deliberated scam on his part. Anyone with a wheel should stop trying to figure out how Romero made his wheel work and start asking how they can make their wheels work with NEW IDEAS.
Again AOAO, cascading generator coils and even full cascading generators coils where the drive coils are also used as generators meaning no drive coils required are some of the ways I see that guys will have to start testing. There would be set-up procedure to elaborate to do this.
Well, I dont know what coils you are using,
in your replication that you have done everything you can, beyond what has been done , to come to your infallible conclusions, that you are out here just about demanding that others should quit on this.
" Anyone with a wheel should stop trying to figure out how Romero made his wheel work "
Time will tell.
I dont know how much voltage
out of YOUR coils with ferrite cores and bias mags, but im getting bout 8v at 3/8in and near 25v at less than an 1/8in. Loaded. Lots of lenz at 1/8, but the mag on the rear of the coil helps there alot. A lot. And a voltage increase as compared with no bias mag.. I call it a bias mag as it seems the common term which all understand.
Im not building the muller. Im just messing with 1 coil, bifi, ferrite core. Im using a separate motor circuit to drive the rotor.
Also I believe that the storage cap in Romeros setup is being step charged between 1 of the drive pulses, but the other drive only gets 2 steps of charge, then the cycle continues. So my immediate recommendation beyond Romeros way, would be to have odd no mags and even coils. Now we can have the drive coils opposite of each other and they each get the same no. of step charges.
I just find it odd in Romeros setup. Also, the timing for each drive must be somewhat different as the halls are being triggered from different radius's and different mags, may have been his way of compensating, BUT, could it be that one of the drive coils is a shorted coil for cap charging?
Many things going on.. But I suggest you do some real testing before you make too many claims that are circumstantial. ;)
Mags
Mags that's a good comment about the second drive coil being switched as a short, this could make much more sense than driving the opposite way to the other, and it hadn't occurred to me, i need to do some thinking on this one, thanks.
wattsup
QuoteI posted at OU about Romero removing the resistors from his drive circuits when he did his suspended video but it seems that guys have trouble with 1 + 1 = 2.
what resistors do you refer to as he does not use any in relation to the drive coils? unless you mean the 100 Ohm for the hall supply
This is starting to make some sense, i always wondered why i draw twice the current on my replication, maybe it's because he's only driving 1 coil pair but using the second to short the coil, Think about the way the hall works, it's effectively a collector-emitter configuration and the emitter is connected to 0v so therefore when a magnet triggers it, the collector gets pulled to ground, meaning that if the transistor was swapped for a TIP41C (NPN) then the coil would be shorted until a periphery magnet triggers the hall to switch, so we have a shorted coil which is opened 8 times each full rotation.
Lets face it i know the periphery coil pair if driven are opposing the direction of rotation and this has never made any sense.So here is the reason why.
The Periphery coil is also the one that tapers in at the top and show signs where he has soldered extra wire to add more turns
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.07.08, 18:53:13
wattsup
what resistors do you refer to as he does not use any in relation to the drive coils? unless you mean the 100 Ohm for the hall supply
@Peterae
Here are the resistors shown in Video 1, Video 2 and not there in Video 3. Regardless of if they are used for Hall Sensor or not, the fact remains that in Video 3, Romero removed the resistors. If the resistors were on the feed to the hall sensor, then he obviously did not have enough battery power hidden in his dc convertor box to pass the resistors, activate the hall sensor and have enough to trigger the gate to create his required switching on/off of the drive coils. Regardless of why, the fact remains he did try to show Video 2 and 3 as a continuation but fooled us there again.
Now you know why I asked you if you can try running your wheel on one or two 9vdc batteries.
Also, if someone does a sound scan of the wheel turning in Video 3 compared to Video 2, then if there is any difference someone will have to explain it. But don't count on Romero to do so because in his book, silence is his best ally.
I may seem like a pain in the ass but if you realize how much time this guy has taken up and how much effort all based on simple crap, it just knocks me to the ground when we have so many other potential OU methods to run after instead of this guys failures and deceit. We see builders all the time showing their stuff and explaining why it does not work the way they planned, and we try to help where we can. But when someone comes in and fakes three videos and takes up so much energy on the forums, I am just dumfounded, and hence, my reason for pushing back.
@poynt99
Thanks for your reply but where in that waveform can you see when the generator coil is in between two rotor magnets? Seems to me the time factor is not right. If you have one magnet plus two (or more) magnet spaces before the next magnet, seems to me the time factor which does not change regardless of voltage output. Add that to the fact that there will also be a delay somewhere before the hall sensor actives the drive coil to push the rotor forward again, there is something wrong. But anyways, this is a moot point in the grand scheme of this scheme.
@mag
Yes, the sooner you stop looking at Romeros wheel and concentrate on looking at newer avenues to work this out, the better. This I know guys will be telling themselves 1 or 2 months from now. We have all been down this road so many damn times it really is not funny anymore. My post at OU that @Plengo downsized explains it better. http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg294185#msg294185
It is very simple - Asking yourself how Romeros wheel worked is the wrong approach to begin with. That first mistake will lead no where but endless conjecture and endless suppositions. You say I am drawing conclusions. No way. These are facts. Fact that Video 1 was battery driven. Facts that the same battery wires were sent down a hole in Video 2. Fact that he removed those resistors in Video 3. No need for guessing anything here. Simple facts says it all and all these then coincides with Romeros' dancing replies to me at OU, coincide with his MIB story and miraculous come back and now even more a miraculous new forum. Wow them MIBs are really on the ball. lol
wattsup
"Periphery coil"?
If you are correct then the circuit diagram given is wrong. Just swapping the PNP for an NPN won't short the coil.
The collector/emitter pair are still in series with the coil and battery. It would reverse the on/off sequence.
Wrap a reader/pickup configuration around the activity of a secondary activity impressed upon a primary resonant field. This will garner the necessary attention.
Hey Peter
It will be interesting to see what results you get with 1 driver set.
I was chattin with Deepcut, and I told him to try some reverse polarity diodes on his drive coils. He tried 1 and the rpm increased.
Just put the diode across the coil so that the cathode is on the lead of the coil that is connected to + from the driver circuit. You will see an increase in rpm at the same input level as without the diode. ;]
When the driver circuit sends the pulse to the coil, the diode doesnt conduct yet, till the input pulse ends, then the diode allows current to continue (in the same direction) in the coil. It is not bemf or cemf, it is like a flywheel and the diode allows the current to continue for a bit. No reversal happening here. ;]
Sooo, now you can shorten the input pulse( less input) and get the same rotational power to the rotor that you are getting now. Also, you may have to adjust the timing( I find the need to retard, or trigger a bit later. ) when using the diodes.
I have a vid on YT that is of a pulse motor with 1 coil being driven. Then I take the so called bemf ;] and rectify it to a cap and that cap is the source for a second drive coil. And there was a significant increase in rpm. Ive had up to 3 coils like this.
Just saying, there are things that you can do to get more rpm for the same amount of power in. We can either try to send some of the drive energy directly back to the battery from the drive coil, or we can apply it all to getting the rotor going and let the gens charge the battery.
With the diodes, we are using the energy in the coil, that is still there when the input is cut, and using it up to increase rpm buy a longer lasting magnetic field pushing the rotor, after the input is disconnected. ;] Extree.
Try it and let us know what you find. Lets see if we can really reduce the input necessary. Romero used this in a circuit before his shorting coil run. I asked him about it, but he said nobody listened. He used it on the primary of a transformer. Imagine, using maybe half as much of a pulse width input to get a desired width input with the diode freewheeling the primary. Are we getting more?
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2011.07.08, 17:08:29
Well, I dont know what coils you are using, in your replication that you have done everything you can, beyond what has been done , to come to your infallible conclusions, that you are out here just about demanding that others should quit on this.
" Anyone with a wheel should stop trying to figure out how Romero made his wheel work "
...
Mags
I wouldn't lose sleep over his statements, especially when he doesn't have a wheel nor the technical expertise. - the wannabe emperor has no clothes.
cheers
chrisC
Here is a post of David70 at OU and my PM to him.
Quote
Quote from: David70 on July 9th, 2011 at 02:27:25 AM posted here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg294304#msg294304
@wattsup
i have tested the circuit with and without that resistor and it makes no difference.i run it as low as 4 volts and i get the same speed, 366RPM. I think it looks like that because the video was done inside and not too much light.
David
@David70
I said I would not post to the Muller Dynamo thread anymore so I am PMing you instead. You can post my answer to your post if you wish.
There is no mistake. The resistors are removed from video 3 since it is noticed when you move through the frames of the video at several points. See here: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=827.msg15451#msg15451
The point is not that it works at 4 volts with or without the resistor in your particular case. The point is what would you do if you run the wheel with a 12vdc by 7-12ah battery like he was using in his Videos 1 and 2 . In that case you would not take any chances and keep the resistors in place so as not to risk to overload the hall sensors that would overload the transistor gates.
But if you were using very small batteries, regardless of 4 volts or 9 volts types with a minimal ah, you will want to remove the resistors because the resistance will cost you to much energy and also because the risk of overloading the hall sensor is minimal with such small batteries as he can hide in his dc convertor box.
Also, in Video 3 he put Wire X Red and Black of the DC output rail directly back to drive coil circuit inputs so the use of the DC convertor to be used as a convertor is useless or cancelled. But by doing so and having a battery in the dc convertor box, this would energize the device to turn the rotor wheel as it did. lol
Also, I notice that the dc convertor box has screwdriver marks between each half of the outside covers as you will get when trying to pry open the box, it always leaves burr marks. Those burr marks are not evident in Video 2.
There is no question to ask anymore if Romero faked his videos or not. It is a certainty.
Thanks for your interest.
wattsup
@chrisC
You are just setting yourself up to eat some big crow. You should find a nice spot where there is some soft sand. Easier to stick your head in and hide from the facts.
Quote from: wattsup on 2011.07.09, 11:58:52
..
@chrisC
You are just setting yourself up to eat some big crow. You should find a nice spot where there is some soft sand. Easier to stick your head in and hide from the facts.
You are the one shitting all over the place with your totally stupid assumptions. You'll make a good clown and please take your clown acts somewhere else. Thank you.
cheers
chrisC
I reckon it is way past time to jump ship
I wish wattsup could employ his skills and gather the detail need to replicate this -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfg4ZLFWSG8
At least it seems more realistic.
Just cant for the life of me figure how Romero get more than a couple of volts from his gen coils. I've obviously
used all the tricks I know of and short of using multifilar coils to raise the voltage, I just can't get there.
Penno
Quote from: chrisC on 2011.07.09, 13:22:49
You are the one shitting all over the place with your totally stupid assumptions. You'll make a good clown and please take your clown acts somewhere else. Thank you.
cheers
chrisC
Greetings.
@ChrisC
Wattsup is critiqued for not having a unit to prove the issue, or to be allowed to play as an equal party for same reason, that instead, he's just using a video to bash something wonderful. However, the critics do not use the video to observe and acknowledge the evidence that is there. Fair's fair.
In this post here, http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1003.msg14950#msg14950 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1003.msg14950#msg14950), you signed onto and lauded a demonstrably false 'proof'. The continuation arc drawn in and proposed by EMDevices to be evidence of sameness can be proven to be connecting two completely dissimilar wires. Will you yourself look at the video #2, and admit error? See 2.24+ time.
Begin wrong there, can mean one is wrong elsewhere. Critical points should thus be given the benefit of the doubt.
Point of fact: a) the arc drawn by EMDevice's connected a red wire, to an orange wire, not another red wire. b) The view shows that the wire drawn as connected to red Wire X is actually an orange coil wire, quite separate. The red one next to that, is also, quite separate. Look at 8.41 for reference. c) I can show 3 or more views at different times, each showing Wire X terminating into the umbrella plug. I can argue, factually, that Plengo's 'case closed proof' posted in rebuttal on OU, which was a quite logical monstrosity hiding behind the moderator's hammer for any counterpoint, also assumes points made in clear error.
But what's the point, when blind belief alone, has become the point. ??? No one in the critical camp has said the Muller dynamo is void, or invalid at all, or cannot be made to self run ever..only that the evidence for this particular species of one as a self runner, has become (increasingly) questionable.
@Penno
That's a cool one, like Perendev has been done right finally. One notices that the magnets of the rotor are entirely covered by the farthest away stator/surround, the middle one seems to be about 3/4 covered, and the one closest to the demonstrator are about 1/2 covered. It's very interesting.
Robert (AG)
@chrisC
Maybe you should think about what you post or take time to wipe the flux from your eyes and out of your ears. Maybe demagnetize your brain while you're at it.
OK, I know you are the smartest person on the block and nothing can be run past you without you understanding perfectly what is going on. I mean you are so wise and full of experience.
So here it is in a nice easy to understand block diagram of how Romero set-up his device for Video 3. ALL PLAIN TO SEE BY ANYONE WILLING TO SEE IT.
Sooooooooo......... Mr. Smart Ass, tell me what the DC converter is doing in this diagram? Give me one good explanation instead of complaining.
You are simply a fool to think that you have to have an exact build to know what is going on with the wheel. Just juvenile thinking.
Maybe if you figured out that I am on your side here and not on Romeros because when stuff stinks in Video 1 and 2, and rots in Video 3, the buffet will wind up being pretty stale for everyone no matter how nice the table looks.
Romero thought all of us here are just a bunch of dumb asses that would never figure out how he made his videos. He even complained about Wire X on his forum. He is the one who used them and tried to hide them, not me. So go and blame where the blame belongs. Or maybe you do not have the guts.
@penno64
You should start a new thread on that and we will see.
wattsup
@AG,
Great objectivity.
Also
The division amongst us causes descension.
This doth produce commradarie not.
Get over it folks. I appreciate Wattsup's work and great attention to detail. We seldom agree but that changes nothing.
As an example: The 'two resistors' are visibly three. Connecting resistors in parallel, as is shown, is a common practice. So is replacing these with the proper 'single' one, later.
That single resistor may not have color code band.
Shorting the second motor coil (turned ON by the periphery magnets) is pretty much the same thing as driving the coil to produce opposition to the rotor, because the induced EMF voltage in the coil and the battery voltage ADD in polarity, so the current through the coil rises faster according to di/dt = V/L.
However, if he simply shorted that coil without actually supplying voltage to the circuit, than it does not explain the rocking back and forth of the rotor at start up. So I conclude that what we thought all along still holds: he simply drives that coil in opposition.
EM
PS. @wattsup, your diagram shows the input and the output of his DC2DC converter connected to the same wires, this will not allow him to switch the converter to different voltage levels, as he clearly demonstrated in his second video, regardless of the fact if we believe he had hidden wires or batteries.
I had a look at the 3rd video to see if there was any evidence of tampering with the DC2DC converter box; I could not see any.
.99
Quote from: wattsup on 2011.07.09, 17:07:03
@chrisC
Maybe you should think about what you post or take time to wipe the flux from your eyes and out of your ears. Maybe demagnetize your brain while you're at it.
....
Sooooooooo......... Mr. Smart Ass, tell me what the DC converter is doing in this diagram? Give me one good explanation instead of complaining.
...
wattsup
Well Wattsup. I'm not the first to say you don't know much if anything at all. Romero himself stated this about you in his previous message: "@wattsup
for long time I had a good impression about you and your posts and I tought you have good knowledge in understanding a real thing from the unreal.The fact that you cannot understand and succeed in making any OU device does not mean you are right."
My issues with you is not whether you are trying to prove a fake. Quite rightly you should and we will all benefit. But, instead of proving without a shadow of a doubt, you character assassinate Romero for being a fake. This is a LOW class act. Not only are you not skilled at all in electronics, you write as if you knew the solutions; often babbling about stuff you have no ideas. We call people like you clowns.
Look at the diagram you you painstakingly drawn to show you're a smart ass. When have you seen a DC-DC converter hooked up like this? Shows you know nothing about electronics. Get a Electronics for Dummies book. They're a good educational book, even for clowns.
I am not diplomatic like most other people. If I was I will not be in my job of suing B$ companies to force them to take a license for my patents. But I do detest clowns who assassinate other people because they wanted to prove their worth. I am writing this from Hong Kong a good 13 hours ahead and I have not been able to be online much for the past 3 weeks. Get yourself a life and try to learn something before you open your mouth or write volumes of trash.
cheers
chrisC
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.07.10, 01:28:59
I had a look at the 3rd video to see if there was any evidence of tampering with the DC2DC converter box; I could not see any.
.99
I have gone all through that one as well, and see no obvious anomalies (other than the rearmost rod top remaining unseen). I suppose if one really wanted to fake it, they could also put in a dummy coil or two in the mostly unseen areas, which hid some batteries, but there's no way to know.
I have a near identical converter unit here (except for branding, the Maplin one, by Nikkai, had a friend from UK bring me one over he came to the states). It has two rather unique screws holding it together on back. I haven't torn it apart due to that, so I cannot say how hard it is to open, or if prying afterwards would be needed once the screws are removed. Somebody at OU did do a teardown though. Would note that if there
are batteries in there, leaving the L.E.D. lit at time mark 0.14'ish was a nice touch. I'd feel a lot better about this one if it was also running the same lamp visible in the other two.
Wish the one party who truly knows would illuminate things more than they have chosen to.
Ok, a battery in DC-DC converter is very unlikely and I don't see the need for this when they could have been placed anywhere out of camera view in video 3. With regards to the self-runner in vide 2, the video analysis for wires passing through the centre of the table is quite convincing IMO.
I'm waiting in anticipation for the first person to give a credible demonstration of a their replication knocking-out 15V plus on the FWBR output bus with a 12V/5W auto lamp as load.
Hoppy
@chrisC
If you think your little blast does anything but show how stupid you are, then trying to impress me with your globe trotting sue-a-bunker, think again. I am refraining here.
If you can't take the heat whens someone comes on the forums and tells us his wheel turned on its own but who had obviously faked the first two videos, then maybe you need to get your head checked. Hint: It's called insanity.
@all
Thanks to those that have provided some constructive comments. Of course, it is always better to have more heads on this then only one. Taking your comments, I did some more digging and here is what I found.
First of all the wiring diagram I showed in the previous post was to show you how Romero connected his device in Video 3 from what we could see up till now. This diagram would fall in perfectly if he used the DC converter to hide a battery. But one member indicated he did not need to hide it there since there are other places that are hidden from view that he could have used. So taking that as the base idea, I just followed the Wire Xs and as I did in Video 1 and 2, this is what I found.
If you want to know the video time of the frame, just divide the frame number by 30 to get your seconds.
The first image (video3-resistor2.jpg) shows the Red Wire X actually is gong behind the rear drive circuit AND STOPS THERE. I had shown this before continuing further but @ponyt99 was good enough to point out (no pun intended) that they were wires on the floor. The Black Wire X is also going there as shown in my previous post. Historically, Romeros' pattern has been very obvious in that anywhere the Wire Xs go, there is a battery to which they are connected. It would be very easy for Romero to place a 9 vdc or other battery hidden behind the circuit board. You will not see it and thereafter think the device is running on its own. So showing any attempt or discrepancy, given his past actions in Video 1 and 2 that were obvious attempts to fool the viewer and any possible discrepancy in Video 3 means what? That Romero is again up to his old antics. Let's call a spade a spade so the tolerance level here for any funny games should be zero.
Given @WW's concern (Reply #683) that the resistors could be non-coded, the second image (video3-resistor3.jpg) is of the front drive circuit where you can clearly see from this new angle that is not blocked by the red wire, that there is no resistor. Only the fresh and shiny solder points. Actually when I grabbed this image I realized something. This drive coil circuit may not even be working since he never re-connected those two points once he removed the resistors. So it is possible that in Video 3 the rotor wheel only turned with the rear drive coil set. This would be a good tactic to reduce battery consumption if the wheel can turn with only one drive coil pair and maintain a respectable rpm at no load during this less then two minute Video 3.
The third image (video3-resistor4.jpg) is of the back drive circuit where you can see there is no resistor but this time he filled in the open space to connect the two points with a solder weld. That to keep the rear drive circuit on.
But how can one show there is something behind the rear drive circuit when Romero never turned the device around to the other side for us to see. This was why he challenged me to find an outside wire. There were none because he hid his battery behind the circuit. So how to show this? Think. Think. OK.
The fourth image (video3-resistor5.jpg) is of the front drive circuit to show how light passes through all the board holes anywhere there is no component. Notice that the light can pass through even though the background of that image is of the wheel and not a nice white background. This gives you a good idea on what is being blocked from the front and from the back. So how could this help. Well compare it to the rear drive circuit where Romero sent his Wire Xs.
The fifth image (video3-resistor6.jpg) there is no great shot any better then this frame 2522 or at 1 minute and 24 seconds in the standard Video 3. It says it all. No coincidence could explain this discrepancy any other way then by saying "there is something behind the rear circuit board, were by chance my Wire Xs are just hanging around acting dumb and all". And he would continue to say "Oh, by the way, out of the 4 threaded legs I could have chosen to hold in my hand to do the video, I picked the one that kept the rear drive circuit out of view but it was all just by chance and purely unintentional".
Y'a, sure, sure, sure.
Given that the combined number of discrepancies and taking into account all the evidence of Video 1 and 2 all converging around this Video 3, I can only conclude that Romero tricked Video 3 as prescribed here-in. His Wire Xs go behind the rear drive circuit where he has hidden a battery. Some will ask for proof. You don't need any more then what is shown here to understand that Video 3 is a fake. Sooooooooooooooo............when Romero said it was fake, it was fake. When he said build at your risk, build at your risk. When he said he lost his wheel while playing the violin, he still has it and is always playing with it to try and make it work. When he said some bad guys ruffed him up, he broke a toe nail. When he said he will not talk about it anymore, he will not talk about it anymore (except on his web forum). When he says he is now looking for newer ways to make OU, there is no newer way when your first way was faked. There is only your first way just like everyone else here. So I invite Romero to just come clean because the cat is now out of the bag. Then we will talk as equals, and not him pretending he already made an OU device. What a farce this whole thing turns out to be. Just come clean and do it now to not waste anymore time.
CASE CLOSED :'( :'( :'(
@GK
I can now start my next build. Something to show noding around. That's noding, not nosing around. Had enough of that for a good while. Man oh man.
wattsup
@Wattsup
This backlighting behind the driver is indeed suspicious, good detective work.
The smoking gun would be to find a shot in other videos where light does pass clear through the holes in that particular driver board in the same area. I checked the other two videos, and it's hard to find a shot that is not just showing the holes themselves, and also backlit. However, alternatively, one can find many shots of the backside of that board in video #1, and there's no obvious anything there to cause a light blockage in the same place later in #3. So it seems probable you are correct; as it is obvious there's a lighting issue with clear passage through that board in #3. Dimensions wise, given the standoff from the heatsink (1/2" to 3/4"?) and where one does note the blockage, any 9 volt there would I think have to be long dimension away from viewer perhaps, perhaps supported in part by the heat sink. Lengthwise placed, it's a tight positioning? Standing, can't be easily, with the heatsink in place?
A question is, could a stack of 4 x CR2032 3.3v lithium button cells also work long enough to drive this for 1.5 minutes? The other area not shown, where a battery could be, is the rear bottom of the chassis, always blocked from view by rotor. A plain 9v battery could be velcro'ed there, or one could go about replacing 2 or 3 coils each on the underside of the rotor, with a stack of button cells.
Just the framing and videography of these things has always made me wonder, it's artificially tight in all of them, but what has continued to bother me is this...wouldn't someone claiming to have an OU self runner which lit a light bulb in the prior two videos, also -happily- and quite logically also show that being lit too in the walking model? One could not though if it was battery run, and battery power was limited. He said this motor was tuned to a 25 watt load, 20 of which was the bulb? No bulb makes the claimed need for tuning notion suspect. He also has said as you noted, "was a big fake", and don't build it, "world will be the same".
Whatta world, to be the same.
Robert (AG)
Quote from: ArtistGuy on 2011.07.11, 20:04:18
Dimensions wise, given the standoff from the heatsink (1/2" to 3/4"?) and where one does note the blockage, any 9 volt there would I think have to be long dimension away from viewer perhaps, perhaps supported in part by the heat sink. Lengthwise placed, it's a tight positioning? Standing, can't be easily, with the heatsink in place?
@Wattsup
I'm on board for the battery theory as to #3, given the evident obstruction/blackout behind the driver board as pointed out. However...a 9v seems problematic potentially.
A TIP120 will fit 5x (measuring using its width) along the length of a 9v battery, and so in my image program, if laying the battery across the back lengthwise, I see it extending another transistor's width beyond the blackout. So I don't see where there's room there, unless it is standing, back of the heatsink.
However, perhaps there's another explanation...a single model, or pair of the following? 3LF22...4.5v DIM: 1.25" x 1.12" x 0.75" About 3 TIP 120's suffice here, so there's plenty of room to obscure one of these. They are alkaline (would run things for 1.3 minutes, you'd think)...at 4.5 volts, or 9 volts if in pair, series. (better to explain LED on DC Converter, but who knows). This is a common computer battery (Apple, typically).
AG
@ArtistGuy
Yes, I know that showing the back is important as the final nail but actually I was hoping someone else would recommend it, so thanks. Shows you are thinking right.
Here are the back shots of both the front and rear drive circuits as seen in Video 1. Above and beyond this, since both show no major obstructions and since only in Video 3 the front circuit is completely transparent, there is then no excuse for the rear circuit to not be as transparent especially when in Video 3 the background of the rear circuit was white and the background of the front circuit was the dimmer top plate.
Regarding the choice of battery, that is not really important here. The only thing that is required is to show that there is a greater then 9 in 10 chance of willful deceit. Then Romeros' Videos 1 and 2 take care of the other 1 in 10. This goose is cooked.
Any more time spent on digging any further is simply a waste of time and I personally want to get back to my bench. But if guys are willing to work their wheels in new ways and not try to figure out how Romero made his wheel "supposedly work", then for me, this effort was worth the time. I also wanted to clear the names of Muller and gang since having this device wrongly placed in the midst of those greater men would have been a true insult to them.
wattsup
Quote from: wattsup on 2011.07.11, 12:37:50
@chrisC
If you think your little blast does anything but show how stupid you are, then trying to impress me ...
wattsup
@Wattsup. You're way over yourself. Impressing you? That would be like a mouse trying to impress an elephant for size. hahaha. Get over it. Tracing video connections isn't exactly rocket science and especially when you're still doing such a lousy job. Never mind. some mothers do have them.
cheers
chrisC
Stick to the "technical" guys.
If this device actually worked, and Romero was made to destroy it or someone seized it, why is he building something different now?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.07.12, 13:56:37
If this device actually worked, and Romero was made to destroy it or someone seized it, why is he building something different now?
@Grumpy
I think if you have followed much of the entire 280 pages of the RomeroUK thread, particularly the answers to Wattsup's accusation here (Post #11): http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=profile;u=13854;area=showposts;start=0 ,
you would have perhaps understood why he discontinued the electro-mechanical wheel design. My understanding was that he was working with someone else and the final pieces of the truth of how this structure worked was not his own to disclose completely and we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
If you have also followed closely, this design is not straightforward, there are at least half a dozen critical pieces or tricks that must be done correctly to overcome the normal impediments found in these normal magnetic wheel technology. If I was Romero, as much as I had wanted to share, I would certainly be pissed off by some of these 'know it all people' and venomous low ability video sleuths hell bent to destroy my integrity. Wouldn't you? He left enough information for the smarter ones to eventually solve. The dumb asses will still continue to cry "Fake!".
As to why he is starting on a new wheel design, again, if you have followed closely, this new design is different. More like the new generation of Muller and if I may add, much less dependent on mechanical adjustments since he already understood the O.U principles involved. It would not be progress if he had continued tweaking his old mechanical design. Common sense IMO.
cheers
chrisC
Magnacoaster also moved away from a rotational design to a non-moving one. The same effect is documented by Magnacoaster's and Energia Celeste's patents, but no one bothers to explore it. Muller also mentioned a magnetic field that was made much stronger than normal, as did Ev Grey.
EDIT:
IF this same effect exist in the rotational Romero/Muller design, then you will be able to find it with a pulsed coil rather than a mechanically moving one. Romero probably has found this by this time.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.07.12, 14:58:31
Magnacoaster also moved away from a rotational design to a non-moving one. The same effect is documented by Magnacoaster's and Energia Celeste's patents, but no one bothers to explore it. Muller also mentioned a magnetic field that was made much stronger than normal, as did Ev Grey.
EDIT:
IF this same effect exist in the rotational Romero/Muller design, then you will be able to find it with a pulsed coil rather than a mechanically moving one. Romero probably has found this by this time.
I've asked the question of Romero regarding a SS version, and he advised that it is much more difficult, which is why he continues along the "wheel" lines for now.
.99
Romero,
Have you found the means to magnify a magnetic field?
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.07.12, 15:16:24
I've asked the question of Romero regarding a SS version, and he advised that it is much more difficult, which is why he continues along the "wheel" lines for now.
.99
It is easy to see the effect, but harder to prove to prove it and to do something with it. I was just curious if Romero found it or not.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.07.12, 15:31:50
It is easy to see the effect, but harder to prove to prove it and to do something with it. I was just curious if Romero found it or not.
As an alternative, Romero may have noticed that under certain circumstances, magnetic fields do not fall off with the cube of the distance, indicating that the field density is somehow "altered".
@ wattsup
I watched Romero's videos again, all 3.
1) no sign of fakery. Input amps would go up to 3 amps when load is on, if battery was source and input side somehow connected to output side.
2) no sign of fakery. WiresX looks ok to me.
3) no sign of fakery. However, a spinning rotor is no proof of OU. Also, there are no hidden wires coming from overhead, you must be seeing things or I'm blind :)
Why do you get excited about the controller boards? Does a modification mean fakery to you? BTW, the "hole" your seeing is shiny solder joint.
This dynamo appears quite real to me, and if there was any fakery it would have to be more subtle than what you have proposed so far.
EM
Romero,
Was there any indication of a DC bias in your output?
Was the scope trace move down to the centerline of the scope in the scope trace picture that you posted?
DC bias where it shouldn't be is indicative of possible gain.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.07.13, 11:15:55
@ wattsup
I watched Romero's videos again, all 3.
1) no sign of fakery. Input amps would go up to 3 amps when load is on, if battery was source and input side somehow connected to output side.
2) no sign of fakery. WiresX looks ok to me.
3) no sign of fakery. However, a spinning rotor is no proof of OU. Also, there are no hidden wires coming from overhead, you must be seeing things or I'm blind :)
Why do you get excited about the controller boards? Does a modification mean fakery to you? BTW, the "hole" your seeing is shiny solder joint.
This dynamo appears quite real to me, and if there was any fakery it would have to be more subtle than what you have proposed so far.
EM
Counterpoint:
1) One would think that video #1 was the safest from being contested, but there are those who see clear problems.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg292191#msg292191 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg292191#msg292191)
Also:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg289518#msg289518 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg289518#msg289518)
2) The Wire X's do unfortunately go into the table in video #2, it is clear that they do. I do not understand the animosity which has arisen from anyone pointing this out. Ad hominem arguments are offered freely and illogically, but the wires are not explained logically as to why they are entering the hole there. Which they are. :(
3) The hole mentioned (adjacent to the blocked area) in video #3 is not a shiny solder joint, but an actual hole...it's part of the PCB and visible in many shots. The hole is not in contention, only that area seen to the right of it (parts side), where the existing holes are blocked from backlighting, unlike in other views.
Regards,
Robert (AG)
Just so you guys don't miss it!
I looked at the video and observed those wires claimed by wattsup to go "into a hole" and to me they are not. The frame grab he posted shows the wires going into the bolt, because of an OPTICAL ILLUSION.
LIGHT FROM THE WIRES IS REFRACTED BY THE BOTTOM TRANSPARENT PLASTIC DISK, AND MAKES THE WIRES APPEAR TO GO INTO THE BOLT, OR A HOLE.
This is simply the difference between people that undersand physics and those that don't and think they are great detectives.
Like I said, if he faked it he would have done it in a more camuflaged way. How about hiding little lithium batteries under the magnets, because there is a small space there including the space inside the washers. Or how about coupling magneticaly to the motor with a coil under the table? Or how about using a thin wire you can't see in the videos to bypass the input ampmeter or connect through a hole in the table? etc... Just drop this "wireX going in the hole" nonsence, its just silly and childish.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.07.14, 22:21:25
Just so you guys don't miss it!
I looked at the video and observed those wires claimed by wattsup to go "into a hole" and to me they are not. The frame grab he posted shows the wires going into the bolt, because of an OPTICAL ILLUSION.
LIGHT FROM THE WIRES IS REFRACTED BY THE BOTTOM TRANSPARENT PLASTIC DISK, AND MAKES THE WIRES APPEAR TO GO INTO THE BOLT, OR A HOLE.
This is simply the difference between people that undersand physics and those that don't and think they are great detectives.
Like I said, if he faked it he would have done it in a more camuflaged way. How about hiding little lithium batteries under the magnets, because there is a small space there including the space inside the washers. Or how about coupling magneticaly to the motor with a coil under the table? Or how about using a thin wire you can't see in the videos to bypass the input ampmeter or connect through a hole in the table? etc... Just drop this "wireX going in the hole" nonsence, its just silly and childish.
EM
So, if the Romero Device runs with gain, is this gain evident in the scope trace that he posted?
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.07.14, 22:21:25
Just so you guys don't miss it!
I looked at the video and observed those wires claimed by wattsup to go "into a hole" and to me they are not. The frame grab he posted shows the wires going into the bolt, because of an OPTICAL ILLUSION.
LIGHT FROM THE WIRES IS REFRACTED BY THE BOTTOM TRANSPARENT PLASTIC DISK, AND MAKES THE WIRES APPEAR TO GO INTO THE BOLT, OR A HOLE.
This is simply the difference between people that undersand physics and those that don't and think they are great detectives.
Like I said, if he faked it he would have done it in a more camuflaged way. How about hiding little lithium batteries under the magnets, because there is a small space there including the space inside the washers. Or how about coupling magneticaly to the motor with a coil under the table? Or how about using a thin wire you can't see in the videos to bypass the input ampmeter or connect through a hole in the table? etc... Just drop this "wireX going in the hole" nonsence, its just silly and childish.
EM
@EM
I agree with you. When people are not qualified in technical ability, they try to magnify their worth often by writing lots of words and showing lots of 'must be true' pic. connections as if people are more likely to believe them. As you've said before, a smarter person would have done the trick much easier by hiding tiny high energy ion batteries out of sight.
As RomeroUK already said in his reply, and I quote below:
2) In your second video where you remove the battery from the table top, you have two wires, a red and a black wire that are behind the unit going down inside the center opening of the table? Yes or No?
= No, those wires are going to the bottom coil..
The wires going to the bottom coil could be a clue to one of Romero's O.U tricks.
Why do we call people idiots? Because they continue to do the same idiotic things over and over again!
cheers
chrisC
Quote from: chrisC on 2011.07.14, 23:02:02
The wires going to the bottom coil could be a clue to one of Romero's O.U tricks.
Why do we call people idiots? Because they continue to do the same idiotic things over and over again!
cheers
chrisC
In this particular case, is the bottom coil a drive or generator coil?
Cool it with the harsh language guys.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2011.07.14, 23:16:08
In this particular case, is the bottom coil a drive or generator coil?
Cool it with the harsh language guys.
.99
@99
I believe it is the bottom coil of the driver and I also believe the stranded litz of the driver coil is connected with different strands (more than 2 nodes).
cheers
chrisC
Let us assume Romerouk's device is real,then who would benefit
if the members here never got the information,follow the money$$$.Optical illusions happen
this happens with SM's tpu video's. My theory is,Romerouk posts the information file,he lists personel information(bad mistake),a member close
to him contacts mullers daughter thru the muller's web site,tells her innocently that Romerouk has built a duplicate of
her fathers device and its a self runner.Mullers daughter realizes they don't have a self runner and its her fathers work
so it belongs to her father and her.They (muller team)are responsible for what I can only describe as a high tech crack pot device
looks like it came out of a physics lab,cool looking but high tech snake oil,worthless can not be looped.I believe Romerouk held back some information
that is needed to make this work.The original muller device is a crack pot device and can't be looped.
Mullers daughter or her people are the primary suspect's
that visited Romerouk.Romerouk needs to come clean totally as to who visited him,and what is the missing part
needed to make this device work.I suspect something to do with the pickup coils.
When people get frustrated they decend into sillyness this happened with SM's tpu and is happening
with this device.There is no chance anyone will create a self runner without the missing information,and in the end it will be said it was a
fraud,then when another device that shows up
thats real ,everbody will say theres another fraud ,fake device I'm not wasting my time or money building it.
cheappower2012,
I can't really disagree with what you said.
My understanding is that it is not the Muller group. The group is apparently unknown, but most likely in the UK.
The secret is in the coils is what I've been told.. One other secret I'm fairly certain of, is the interaction of the IK from the drives coils and that generated by the gen coils. Remember the unusual sharp transition and missing neg pulse?
.99
@poynt99
The problem with this whole situation
is without the missing information no one will be able to build a self runner.
If a company or group has that information they will try to get $$$,it is also possible
thats its a government agency
front,either way its history.Any real free energy device
is a giganic threat to all sources of energy.No one knows what will happen when a real free
energy device is
introduced ,my guess is at first an ecconomic disaster,companies go broke solar,windmills,ects,
oil ,natural gas,coal market crashes
middle east explodes.When you ring a coil it has a slow decreasing pattern,when you short a
part of the coil and ring it there is
a bunching up of the pattern.A lot of people have built Romerouks device exactly,so it has
to be in the pick up coils.A few people have tried connecting the ends of the litz wire
to increase the effective number of coil windings,problem is the video's do not show that,some have
tried adding components,also the video's do not show added components.The video waveform
does give clues however it is not known if he loaded the circuit or not.My guess on how this
works is
like this ,when you load the circuit,when its in an overunity mode,the duty cycle increases
transfering energy from an unknown source to the coil,greater on time ,greater power,less time
less power,the duty cycle varies with the load applied.
My guess is that theres a small separate winding shorted on each coil, or a small portion of the winding is shorted ,this
causes a damped ringing.This follows because Romerouk
built units and shorted the coil,before he built the muller device,
in this matter the shorting is automatic.To be perfectly clear you can not under any
conditions defeat the laws of physics,it requires an external energy source,be it unknown or known(fake)
.
@cheappower2012
Please leave Muller daughter alone, there is no connection at all with her in what happened, it is only my fault, I should have kept my mouth shut.
I respect her for what she does and follow her father work. How many ladies we have in this field??? very few and that makes her special.
She has also encouraged all to try and replicate the original Muller Dynamo.
The device I built was not 100% Muller arrangement only even/uneven magnets and coils, even that was not as Bill Muller sugested, I should I had 8 magnets and 7 coils to keep it to the original.
I will not comment that device anymore, fake is fine if is not is fine too.
I moved away from that device, why don't you all who believe that is only a simple dynamo move away too?
There are so many other devices that can be replicated, many of them much more easy and cheap to be built.
Best regards,
Romero
So mr Romerouk so should add you to my list of betrayers of mankind
along with SM creator of the tpu.Well if your thinking theres free energy everywhere
in every device there isn't only a few are real.With out a source of alternate energy
there will be very hard times for a lot of people,and a lot of people will die,
think about that one.I really do not understand you,why did you do this,did you
really think you were going to post an overunity device and everybody was going to thank you
there are government agents ready to stop you possibly kill you and your family.People that are making
billions off the energy industry,would have no trouble hiring a hitman.
Also you have demoralized a lot of people so when another device that will come sometime in the future,
people will remember this one, and think another phony device,I'm not building it.
@cheappower2012
this was nothing compared with other devices already discovered and presented recently.
The future energy is not going to come from any devices like this, this one had a lot of problems and had a lot of limitations.
If you consider that me, SM, Kapanadze and others are betrayers of mankind what will you do? It is so easy to talk when you are not in my position.
If you have to chose between you and all others what will you chose?. In an ideal world 'maybe' will chose the others but this world is far from ideal, we are all struggling, including me.
Regards,
Romero
A question for Romero will you be demonstrating free energy again soon with another device and share the results and the design.
@cheappower2012
Stop with the Valium act. There is no MIB, no need to scare anyone here because they already know this was faked, no need to pull Mr. Muller and his family into this because they have nothing to do with it. Don't bring in humanity, betrayal of humanity, millions of starving children, etc., into this. It's like saying one bowl of soup will feed the world. Just stick to the facts.
@chrisC
Hint: To go out for Halloween as a King's Jester, just go as you are.
Either you have no idea on the context of his reply to my question or you are willfully neglecting the context and just shooting off your mouth. You are not aware that before Romero started looking at all my posts at OU, Mr. @plengo brilliantly removed my posts from the Muller thread. Those posts with the photos of the exact X Wires (as well as those even better ones posted by @none) going down the hole. NOT UNDER OR ANYWHERE ELSE. At that point Romero thought we were just blindly guessing about the X Wire going down the hole because he DID NOT HAVE the opportunity to see the proof. Hence his response saying "they are going to the bottom coil" which is in fact partially true. THERE ARE FOUR WIRES. YES TWO ARE GOING TO THE BOTTOM COIL LIKE ALL THE OTHER BOTTOM COILS, BUT THE TWO X WIRES ARE GOING DOWN THE HOLE. That is reality. You can cling to your own delusions as you wish, that is your problem. You on the other hand just wait around until @EM posts some illogical rendition and you immediately pounce on me with your same junk. Worth? What the hell do you know about worth to attack the one @member that is really working for the builders.
@EM
Wrong again.
May I suggest if you have some time available to do a sound scan of Video2 and Videos3 to try and see what the difference in rpm of the rotor is between each. This way the answer will secure your apprehensions and you will know you did the checking yourself.
Look, I know it is not good news, but it is not bad news, because now guys can concentrate on what really matters. From day one, Romero said the videos were faked. He said it and he meant it. I did not say it. He did. I am only proving him RIGHT. So.................since when is proving that someone is right, so WRONG? lol
Guys at OU are not aware of this yet and I will not post in their thread anymore as I had promised. Let them find out when they may. @Plengo posted a question lately but I can't remember which page but it did show he is starting to think twice now. Wow, that's an innovation. So let @plengo tell them as he is the moderator there.
I will repeat this. When he was responding to my posts on OU, he had no clue to the amount of information that was already in hand otherwise he would not have given such flimsy responses. When @Plengo removed my posts , he also removed Romeros' chance to realize the level of what we are witnessing. That's why when he answered about the Wire X in Video 1 going to the battery, he said "but not directly". They were in fact directly. That's why he challenged me to find more wires because he was not even aware of how close we can see things.
All he has to do is come clean. Then he will earn my respect and guys can have the true choice to move on with this build.
@romerouk
I know you must hate my guts and you may have every right too. But you cannot blame me for looking twice and trying to get to some reality for the builders, regardless of the final effect. You made a big mistake to try and trick those videos, but there are so many others on youtube doing the same thing so you thought you would get away with making a practical joke. But it started to take on a life of its own. Instead of clarifying your joke right away with proof, you then made Video 2, then Video 3. You got caught up in the checkmate. Checkmate because now so many started building and you could no longer tell them the truth otherwise you feared the consequences. So for a few months now guys are just turning around in circles. So you see why I put so much energy into looking at your videos. I know you did not expect it but now you are free because I made the decision for you. With proof so guys cannot deny the facts.
I am not saying your build was not nice as others have made the same and are now playing with a really nice toy to learn things. Eventually when they get to AOAO and cascading coils or pulsing drives through a primary transformer, it will get even more interesting, but first guys have to know to start looking at other ways to drive this toy. They will not look at anything else unless they are convinced the Videos are not real. So you can blame me all you want. I was only doing what we do here on OU forums and this is look close, analyze to better understand and work out the logic.
wattsup
@romerouk
All devices that are real conform to a certain configuration,that's the only reason that I would consider that yours worked,the muller device can not work,the Kapanadze also can't work.This is the reason why I don't bother to post things here.I already saw that your device would have a lot of limitations,such as lack of great power output,possibly erratic in operation however because no one has posted complete instructions on a working device a lot of people here were hoping that it was a real working free energy device a starting point to a more powerful device.One thing i wondered would people coperate on building a free energy device,this was answered,however the instructions must be totally complete.You have to do what you have to
protect your self and your family,however you should not have held back on information
from the start,safety is in the number of devices made they can't kill everybody or threaten everybody.
@wattsup you need to stop calling people frauds,weren't you one of the fools that worked on the tpu for years and got nowhere,couldn't even identify the current meter used in the sm video.chrisC calling you a rabid dog might have been a correct statement on hes part.
@wattsup
I don't hate you at all, everything is beneficial is some ways, trust me, I hate no one, critics are always welcome.
Regards,
Romero
Quote from: cheappower2012 on 2011.07.15, 12:49:10
@wattsup you need to stop calling people frauds,weren't you one of the fools that worked on the tpu for years and got nowhere,couldn't even identify the current meter used in the sm video.chrisC calling you a rabid dog might have been a correct statement on hes part.
When you talk about looking at the TPU, everyone here did, not only me. Everyone, so you are in fact talking to everyone with your junk and not only to me. Good for you. So, what were you doing during the TPU threads to better understand the devices? Wait, I can't hear your answer. If you want to call me a rabid dog for not taking flack and not biting on the poisoned dog bone, no problem.
@romerouk
Quote from: romerouk on 2011.07.15, 12:55:01
@wattsup
I don't hate you at all, everything is beneficial is some ways, trust me, I hate no one, critics are always welcome.
Regards, Romero
Trust in not easy to give. It must be earned by ones actions and how they deal with their misdeeds. At this stage I would say trusting is a little premature. I need some reasons to trust so when you are ready to spill the beans, please feel at home here. I have no personal problem with you but only hope that guys can work things out on the same level playing field and not based on illusions. It's up to you.
wattsup
@wattsup
Your problem is finding everything to be fake, only two of SM devices are fake,the rest are real.
I watched your video on the garage tpu,from that I figured how to duplicate it exactly,also the 4 inch tpu exactly using parts from the time the video was made.
You have a nasty attitude,one thing is common to everybody that was on the tpu threads you don't listen,theres no point in telling you anything, the concepts would only confuse you because there very different from what SM said.I don't follow the rule that SM can't lie or wants you to be able to build a tpu or all tpu's are fake.
(Hello Marco.)
There are a few devices that are detailed enough to build and have a high probability of success:
1. Correa PAGD: proven and detailed
2. Aspden's concentric capacitor generator: detailed, unproven
3. Both Spheric's devices: detailed, unproven
4. Ed Gray's tube/motor: details may be deliberately erroneous, but proven
The following are sketchy on details:
4. TPU
5. Hendershot
6. Moray
I have yet to see an OU magnet motor that is real, and doubt they can exist. This rules out several supposedly OU devices.
Pick one and start hammering...
I forgot to include the Kapanadze Garden Device (green box).
I think this worked on the same principle as Aspden describes in his patents. So, Kapanadze didn't give details, but Aspden did. Kap drives the middle coil and collects between the ground and outer coil (which is open).
The basic premise in my terms: A change in scalar density induces charge separation.
Quote from: romerouk on 2011.07.15, 10:37:20
@cheappower2012
Please leave Muller daughter alone, there is no connection at all with her in what happened, it is only my fault, I should have kept my mouth shut.
I respect her for what she does and follow her father work. How many ladies we have in this field??? very few and that makes her special.
She has also encouraged all to try and replicate the original Muller Dynamo.
The device I built was not 100% Muller arrangement only even/uneven magnets and coils, even that was not as Bill Muller sugested, I should I had 8 magnets and 7 coils to keep it to the original.
I will not comment that device anymore, fake is fine if is not is fine too.
I moved away from that device, why don't you all who believe that is only a simple dynamo move away too?
There are so many other devices that can be replicated, many of them much more easy and cheap to be built.
Best regards,
Romero
Thank you, Romero, for jumping in here and clarifying this -- "Please leave Muller daughter alone, there is no connection at all with her in what happened,"
I have communicated with Carmen Muller and found her to be intelligent and cooperative.
Frankly, I'm quite disgusted by the level of unfounded and accusatory remarks here (unlike OU.com);
I appreciate Romero's calm and insightful responses.
Quote@cheappower2012
this was nothing compared with other devices already discovered and presented recently.
The future energy is not going to come from any devices like this, this one had a lot of problems and had a lot of limitations.
If you consider that me, SM, Kapanadze and others are betrayers of mankind what will you do? It is so easy to talk when you are not in my position.
If you have to chose between you and all others what will you chose?. In an ideal world 'maybe' will chose the others but this world is far from ideal, we are all struggling, including me.
Regards,
Romero
I would like to ask Romero what "other devices already discovered and presented recently" he is alluding to... I'm curious what devices you are thinking of, that may be better than the "RomeroUK" device... (Thanks, Grumpy...)
@PhysicsProf
For your information professor when someone hides information everybody is on the suspect list.
As for OU ask a question get put on moderation because someone didn't like your question.
If you have a problem with me address it to me otherwise shut your trap. >:(
Quote from: cheappower2012 on 2011.07.15, 14:07:00
@wattsup
Your problem is finding everything to be fake, only two of SM devices are fake,the rest are real.
I watched your video on the garage tpu,from that I figured how to duplicate it exactly,also the 4 inch tpu exactly using parts from the time the video was made.
You have a nasty attitude,one thing is common to everybody that was on the tpu threads you don't listen,theres no point in telling you anything, the concepts would only confuse you because there very different from what SM said.I don't follow the rule that SM can't lie or wants you to be able to build a tpu or all tpu's are fake.
@cheappower2012
Well, after all these posts, one thing is certain. It's quite pointless trying to reason with a stone.
Forest Gump was correct in saying, 'Stupid as stupid does'.
cheers
chrisC
Quote from: cheappower2012 on 2011.07.15, 15:12:58
@PhysicsProf
For your information professor when someone hides information everybody is on the suspect list.
As for OU ask a question get put on moderation because someone didn't like your question.
If you have a problem with me address it to me otherwise shut your trap. >:(
I don't know what your problem is, CP, but Romero clarified that his visit did not involve "Muller's daughter".
I have spoken to her by phone, and found out that she is intelligent and cooperative. Knowledgeable and open.
Have you talked to her?
We should be on the same team, CP, but try to force me to "shut my trap" as you say, and you'll find me quite vocal.
@PhysicsProf ''I would like to ask Romero what "other devices already discovered and presented recently" he is alluding to... I'm curious what devices you are thinking of, that may be better than the "RomeroUK" device... ''
Andrea Rossi's E-Cat Energy Catalyzer is confirmed and that is really powerful. Aviso is another one that I personally believe is true.
Magnacoasters I believe is true but has a lot of issues that I hope he can resolve, heat and controlling the device is not as easy as we think. The heat there is not comming so much from the coils but from the magnets.
Kapanadze I believe is working 100%, again some problems and lots of radiation, difficult to control but working.
Multiple Angular Force Generator is working and most of devices that are using the benefit of gravity.
In the end but not last, Adams motor/generator, the simplest one, is working too but people are not paying attention to the details.
The list can continue... Most of the people are looking to get results without understanding the principle of the device they are working on, patience is another problem.
You don't need to be a doctor in science to try to understand then apply, actually a doctor in science have more chance to fail.
If Tesla, Hendershot, Moray,... did what they did at that time and invented so many beautiful things, with limited access to info drawings, test equipment, components, then we should be much more advanced these days when we have access to everything.
Anyway, this is only my opinion.
Best regards,
Romero
I'm reasonably convinced that Romero faked the video. Others are just as convinced that he did not. Its not worth arguing about and getting nasty with each other. A video can so easily be faked, so they are of little use in trying to show proof of self-running. That said, those people that are still enjoying building their wheels will form their own opinions as their replications develop and will acknowledge or dismiss naysayers as they see fit, so forcing one's opinions on others is pointless.
Hoppy
Quote from: romerouk on 2011.07.15, 16:11:39
@PhysicsProf ''I would like to ask Romero what "other devices already discovered and presented recently" he is alluding to... I'm curious what devices you are thinking of, that may be better than the "RomeroUK" device... ''
Andrea Rossi's E-Cat Energy Catalyzer is confirmed and that is really powerful. Aviso is another one that I personally believe is true.
Magnacoasters I believe is true but has a lot of issues that I hope he can resolve, heat and controlling the device is not as easy as we think. The heat there is not comming so much from the coils but from the magnets.
Kapanadze I believe is working 100%, again some problems and lots of radiation, difficult to control but working.
Multiple Angular Force Generator is working and most of devices that are using the benefit of gravity.
In the end but not last, Adams motor/generator, the simplest one, is working too but people are not paying attention to the details.
The list can continue... Most of the people are looking to get results without understanding the principle of the device they are working on, patience is another problem.
You don't need to be a doctor in science to try to understand then apply, actually a doctor in science have more chance to fail.
If Tesla, Hendershot, Moray,... did what they did at that time and invented so many beautiful things, with limited access to info drawings, test equipment, components, then we should be much more advanced these days when we have access to everything.
Anyway, this is only my opinion.
Best regards,
Romero
Thanks for your response, Romero. I think we have much to learn together, and pls don't hold it against me that I'm a "doctor in science". I'm an experimentalist, and I've shown a willingness to challenge scientific (and political) dogma throughout my career. (I was early-retired, at the age of 57, from my university for challenging certain dogmas...)
At the same time, I believe in rigor in conducting measurements -- and in repeatability as a measure of true scientific progress.
I'm particularly curious regarding the Adams motor/generator from your list -- any references would be appreciated.
Maybe this was posted before here, I am not sure.Requires time to read and don't skip the rows.
Adams info:
@PhysicsProf
please forgive me, no offense but I have a good friend science teacher who under no circumstances will believe free energy generator exists.
Romero
welcome to the forum romeroUK, its a little quieter than OU.com but does not lack in fiery conversations :)
@wattsup,
I'll give you an example why I'm not wrong, as you say. You have not accounted for all the wires going in and out from under the device, as I asked you to in the beginning, and not doing so has lead you to believe there are wires going under the table. If you do a careful accounting of all the wires, assuming the bottom coil takes 2 wires, you will realize everything is ok.
Keep in mind these points as you observe:
1) Romero uses wires of different colors to connect with the bottom coils. He uses an orange black pair, a red black pair, and black black pair (1A and 1B, and 2A and 2B, on my drawing), and also a red orange pair.
2) Some wires curve under the device and come back out, see wire 3 and 4
Now, if I were going to fake this do you think I would have an obvious wire pair going from top down under? NO, I would have an extension from one of the bottom coils, that nobody can see.
EM
[EDIT: Please note that these images are from Video 1, not 2. Later on it becomes clear to me that wattsup is talking about video 2 where the wires go down under the table ]
Romero
Was there a bias in the output?
Aspden-Adams Motor Patent: GB2282708
Oh! I forgot "Tesla": OU, difficult details
EDIT: Aspden lecture on his motor patent - says it has to be OU
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2011.07.15, 16:21:56
Thanks for your response, Romero. I think we have much to learn together, and pls don't hold it against me that I'm a "doctor in science". I'm an experimentalist, and I've shown a willingness to challenge scientific (and political) dogma throughout my career. (I was early-retired, at the age of 57, from my university for challenging certain dogmas...)
At the same time, I believe in rigor in conducting measurements -- and in repeatability as a measure of true scientific progress.
I'm particularly curious regarding the Adams motor/generator from your list -- any references would be appreciated.
@PhysicsProf
Just in case you missed this one. It's real.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4967330n
cheers
chrisC
I don't think anyone can say he missed it ;D
The potential is exciting... he says. Thanks Chris, interesting 60 minute show.
NickZ
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.07.15, 16:38:50
@wattsup,
I'll give you an example why I'm not wrong, as you say. You have not accounted for all the wires going in and out from under the device, as I asked you to in the beginning, and not doing so has lead you to believe there are wires going under the table. If you do a careful accounting of all the wires, assuming the bottom coil takes 2 wires, you will realize everything is ok.
Keep in mind these points as you observe:
1) Romero uses wires of different colors to connect with the bottom coils. He uses an orange black pair, a red black pair, and black black pair (1A and 1B, and 2A and 2B, on my drawing), and also a red orange pair.
2) Some wires curve under the device and come back out, see wire 3 and 4
Now, if I were going to fake this do you think I would have an obvious wire pair going from top down under? NO, I would have an extension from one of the bottom coils, that nobody can see.
EM
@EM
You are looking at the wrong place to begin with. You are one coil to the left of the rear drive circuit when you should be looking further up. Because you are such a nice guy I will really spell it out for you and others that there is no doubt about Wire Xs going down the hole.
First look at where the Black Wire X starts at the negative of the Generator DC output rail. It then goes in parallel with the battery negative (which is also the dc converter negative) to the input of the rear drive circuit terminal. From there, behind the circuit Romero soldered a black wire to continue down and through the table hole. It is absolutely and irrevocably unmistakable leaving no doubt at all that the Black Wire X and the Red Wire X are going down that hole. He used this same black wire to connect his hidden battery in Video 3.
The Red Wire X starts to the right of the rear drive coil and I have shown it enough times for you to know where it starts. He also used this same Red Wire X to connect to his hidden battery in Video 3.
Do not mistake these two wires with the orange and black of the bottom drive coil. They are both totally distinct and their origins are as shown.
Again, there is no mistake, no illusion, no error.
wattsup
Added: In the last three images where I mention Gen Coil should be Drive Coil.
@poynt99 or @Peterae,
You need an objective point of view here,instead of the
heroworshiping,ass kissing,Pink unicorns and fairy dust that's happening now.How about
allowing Mr MileHigh to post again ,that's if hes still restricted.
I don't buy everything he says but most of it and he is objective,and an expert in hes field,perhaps
a little tempermental,maybe.
Anyway consider allowing him to post again,
Thanks
This stuff is getting out of hand.
Objectivity on a free energy forum? C.C
BTW:
UNICORNS AREN'T PINK! - unless you've skinned yours :P
Where did all the whack come from? Did somebody leave the screen door open?
We need more bullets thrown in the campfire?
This started out throwing bones to each other.
Then throwing stones.
Then objectivity gets thrown out the window.
Then warring chimps arise in hopes of a domination.
Then cluster hugs of brooding.
Then tenable agreements until a new item chimes in.
And round and round it goes, swirling into the compressible vortex of soapboxes.
My advice is look into the Casimir effect.
Valone mentions some interesting effects when affecting a bias level at sub atomic levels.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.07.16, 01:20:26
We need more bullets thrown in the campfire?
This started out throwing bones to each other.
Then throwing stones.
Bullets in the campfire? Yeh! Then we could argue about longitudinal waves or just insult each other for having a different opinion !
Sounds like fun, GK. You stoke the fire and I'll throw in a case of 12 ga. bird-shot shells after the first round of Kum Ba Yah >:-)
I get the feeling a just sprayed a can of whoopass in my face.
Titled 'Self inflicted diatribe'.
Here we go again...
I agree that MH is objective, and his gag should be removed. CP is right about being objective as well. Not much "scientific approach" on forums.
@all
Guys, don't worry anymore. This is my last post on this subject. Just figure it out yourselves. I now realize it is simply pointless.
I will just stay on the sidelines. lol
Sorry to the builders but I have had more then enough with this clowning around a wheel.
If you want to look at these Romero videos closer yourself, you need a Naevius type youtube to AVI program then use VirtualDubMod program to open the AVI. In VDM, use the "null transform" feature to zoom into the area of any frame to blow it up. I use Snaggle to grab the image. Good luck.
wattsup
Quote from: wattsup on 2011.07.16, 02:32:53
@all
Guys, don't worry anymore. This is my last post on this subject. Just figure it out yourselves. I now realize it is simply pointless.
...
Wattsup
Best news I've heard for a long long time. But I am thankful that you're learning to shut up until you can learn something worthwhile. We'll just have to see how long you can resist that temptation.
cheers
chrisC
Quote from: giantkiller on 2011.07.16, 01:34:30
'Self inflicted diatribe'.
GK,
I get a real kick outta your way with words! ;D
I have no idea why you would call it self inflicted but the phrase kills me :D
@ wattsup
QuoteYou are looking at the wrong place to begin with. You are one coil to the left of the rear drive circuit when you should be looking further up.
Not only am I looking at the wrong place, I'm looking at the wrong video! I should have been looking at video 2. Thank you for having patience with me.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have seen the "light", wattsup has found something problematic with the wires, too many wires going down below the device in video 2. wattsup, we don't even need to look at the back side, here is a shot from the front. There are just too many wires going down.
So this is how he possibly faked the videos: (I say possibly, because we don't have concrete proof, we are speculating here based on videos)1) In video 1, the 12 volt light bulb is powered from the same battery, he just bypasses the input amp meter. I tried to trace the wires and they disappear under the amp meter. This is the most likely way to fake such a video.
2) In video 2, the extra wires that disappear under the device (one red and one black, hint hint ;) ) could very well go through a hole in the table, next to the bolt. Now I believe wattsup, and it's suspicious because in the whole video, Romero avoids filming back there.
3) Video 3 is nothing for me. I can do that with a spinning rotor that has lots of inertia.
Oh well, maybe he faked it just like he said. I sure fell for it, now I feel stupid.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.07.16, 07:27:49
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have seen the "light", wattsup has found something problematic with the wires, too many wires going down below the device in video 2. wattsup, we don't even need to look at the back side, here is a shot from the front. There are just too many wires going down.
EM
It's so obvious that the wires go down below the table, I cannot understand why Chris cannot see this!
I agree with others that MH should be invited back to post on the forum.
Hoppy
I find it perplexing that if he was faking it like some assume ...wouldn't he use fine litz strands?
or put much more effort into hiding things ?
Why would he try to help people ?
We all need to reach our own conclusions with the evidence provided, it's just not possible to push someone into thinking either way.
The thing i am not very happy about is personal attacks, this so far includes MH & EM, Wattsup and Romero, Cheap and wattsup and a few others, whats the point in this, we are here to experiment and study and to do research and present data in a manner that we can all use and learn from.
Personal attacks will not be tolerated because it gets to the point where the admin need to choose who to ban so we can all carry on work.
If you have reached a point where you feel this project is no longer respresenting a working device and are convinced it is fake then move on, stop disrupting and let the rest carry on experimenting because things can still be learnt from studying the device either way, and as some of us have gone to the expense of building then we might as well study it.
With regard to MH i also feel that we could reinstate his posting status, but i keep asking myself does he really belong on an OU forum, he outright denies any possibility of achieving excess energy which goes against the efforts of why we are here, which is to study devices and try and formulate working principles, if he was more constructive instead of destructive in his manner then he would be welcome, his ramblings early on in this thread were incredibly disruptive and if the device had turned out to be a working device or does turn out to be a working device( I will remain neutral while i am working on it) then he could have done endless damage to our chances of replication and again this goes against the objective of this forum.
I'm still neutral on this.
We may never know the truth about Romero's dynamo, but indeed the mud slinging won't be tolerated any further.
Chris made a good point about the two extra wires going down and connecting on to a coil. The only problem I have with that, is where is all the excess wire?
.99
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.07.16, 10:28:34
...
With regard to MH i also feel that we could reinstate his posting status, but i keep asking myself does he really belong on an OU forum, he outright denies any possibility of achieving excess energy which goes against the efforts of why we are here
...
Being indulgent with the cheats while intolerant with those who expose the cheats on behalf of the truth, goes against our goal of free energy. Being destructive of liars or of psychotic pseudo-inventors is constructive for OU research.
I'm grateful to all of you who point scams, falsifications, misinterpretations or absurdities. You allow me to save time and to not waste in dead ends my efforts for free energy.
Peterae
Are you completely nuts? If that is the reason you banned MH, you might as well ban most everyone else here as well.
Everyone posting here call things the way they see them from a standpoint of their own experience and understanding of the facts and evidence at hand. Most members here believe that electromechanical OU is not a possibility and look for real evidence that shows otherwise.
If you make a claim in this forum you'd better come prepared to defend, both yourself, and your claim.
If you cant stand up to the scrutiny of your own assertations then get out of this forum.
Thats the kind of place this has always been and should always remain,
not place for like-minded candy-assed groupies like you're suggesting.
Whether MH believes in the possibility of achieving excess energy or not, should be totally irrelevant to you.
He was always a voice of reason and most times the only one to provide a dose of reality to a conversation.
He got too personal and carried away ...so what ? A one week ban would have been appropriate in order to
cool off and get back to the facts at hand ..but members like MH are what this forum has always had
to keep people honest.
Six months ago in this forum, the claims of Ainslie circuit were appropriately disproven by attacks which were
far more harsh then anything you can find in these Romero threads. If you've forgotten, go back and read them.
The members of this forum eventually vetted the facts as the rhetoric escalated. The claimant chose to leave this forum
on her own because she was not able to stand up to the scrutiny of these same members you are now talking about,
and she was eventually exposed as a fraud.
This forum never been a 5th grade classroom Peterae, unless thats what you're trying to change it to.
Mookie
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.07.16, 10:28:34
if he was more constructive instead of destructive in his manner then he would be welcome, his ramblings early on in this thread were incredibly disruptive and if the device had turned out to be a working device or does turn out to be a working device( I will remain neutral while i am working on it) then he could have done endless damage to our chances of replication and again this goes against the objective of this forum.
There is no "if". The reason he was critical of the device is precisely because it had no chance of working. Destructive/constructive is in the eye of the beholder. Bottom line is he spoke the truth.
ChrisC brought up an interesting 60 Minutes followup on the misnamed "cold fusion" project. This seems to at least be possible, as fuel is consumed, so the laws of thermodynamics are at least not obviously violated from step 1. Looking for pure electromechanical OU is like looking for a working gravity wheel. There are losses everywhere that current flows - you just cannot get ahead that way. Why is using fuel (even if it is water) or renewable energy so taboo around here? You guys can dedicate considerable manpower to improving solar or geothermal or wind power generation efficiency by standing on the shoulders of existing technology and improving it. Instead you spend months chasing down faked claims in youtube videos.
I agree with Peterae's opinion.
Everyone one should be able to voice opinions and state facts as they see them. The only problem I have with that is when those opinions and statements of fact are forced down the throat of others as if the fact givers are the final keepers of all truth.
On many levels I respected and appreciated MH's posts. However, when it gets to the point it is impossible to have a conversation relating to a subject considered outside the norm someone needs to shut up. More often than not, the folks trying to have the conversation had to give up. That is not right.
Anyone having the opinion that all that can be known is already known should leave on their own.
My personal opinion of extra energy from an electromagnetic motor is that the thought is plainly stupid. I don't press that opinion because I don't know everything and pretending to is the ultimate stupidity.
Edit>>
In the wake of my motors being stupid statement I will say that a thorough investigation of this motor is anything but a waste of time. There are many aspects of magnetics not realized or used that have interesting possibilities. This and the Adams motor are a couple of examples.
There is no point in identifying these for anyone. All efforts normally result in insults, post bombing and a host of other useless actions. There have been some great analysis but few seem to lead those directions.
Has anyone considered that the drive coils may not be using the pulse energy directly to drive the motor?
Has anyone considered this generator may not be using induction caused by the rotor magnets passing the coils as the direct source of voltage generation?
Dear Fellow Members
I do not want you to be disappointed because I took this new stance on RomeroUK's dynamo videos. I can change my position on this in a heart beat, if new evidence arrives. I have no problem with that.
Also, I'm pressing forward with my experiments on this motor because there is a lot that can be learned from this dynamo. Romero was not the first to build such a device, and certainly won't be the last. After all he was duplicating the Muller dynamo.
One good thing from this whole episode is that it exposed who is really for or against free energy. (and we probably need to weed out a few more people.)
Folks who are closed minded about new possibilities and arrogant in their time proven stance, and by their own admission are here only to help us understand our devices (with the implication that they are not OU) are only a hindrance when they continue with long posts and just won't quit pushing their point of view, especially when we all know their point of view quite well because it is THE MAIN STANCE OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.
As a practicing engineer I come to these forums because I find a welcomed diversion from my day to day activities and stress, and there is plenty now in this bad economy, and here I can be stupid and informal if I choose to. I can talk freely about subjects that would get me ridiculed at work. Just look what happened to the Professor, he was retired early because he held an unpopular view. So if we allow these types of people who don't believe in free energy to flood the forum, than this place will become no different than my work place, and so it will no longer be a place that I desire to escape to because it will no longer be a pleasure to be here, and so the result will be that I will move on to another forum. So it's really about what kind of forum do we want.
EM
Quote from: gridbias on 2011.07.16, 10:03:12
I find it perplexing that if he was faking it like some assume ...wouldn't he use fine litz strands?
or put much more effort into hiding things ?
Why would he try to help people ?
You would think but apparently not. In the beginning I thought he could easily hide among all the wires, but I gave him the benefit of doubt. After all, a video like his with so many wires hanging around should make one feel very nervous, but the claim of OU was so powerful most of us were taken in by it and mesmerized.
Why would he try and help people? Good question.
I think he did not intend for this joke to get such wide circulation, he had his own little forum with another guy or two on there, and he was playing a joke on that guy. But than all of a sudden he was thrust in front of a lot of people at OU.com and who can resist replicating. Than he did not know what to do and kept up the act untill he couldn't bear it any longer and it became clear to him how many people had jumped on the band wagon. If you look at his fake admission he ends it with "I'm sorry"
But then Mr. Sterling showed up, with his idiotic legal questioning, and I think Romerouk started feeling nervous, and than began to backtrack on the "fake" comment, and invented a story of suppression, or he said that to get people to go away because he was getting too many emails and people started to be really bold and even went to his work place.
A red flag should have gone up when Romero said the device is not for sale, or that nobody can come and see it. Are you kidding me? If I had a device like that and some rich guy came offering 10 Million dollars, I would sell it in a heart beat, especially since it was not my original idea but Muller's like he claimed.
@
RomeroUK,
don't be afraid of legal action, Mr. Sterling is not the sharpest guy. Everything we do on these forums is at our own risk. I'm continuing my build and I want to see you continue to post here. A good fake once in a while is a good thing to keep us on our toes. >:-)
EM
Quote from: gridbias on 2011.07.16, 10:03:12
I find it perplexing that if he was faking it like some assume ...wouldn't he use fine litz strands?
or put much more effort into hiding things ?
Why would he try to help people ?
I have posted this before:
You will notice that some only go so far and then stop. On purpose.
What was it or is it that makes this happen? A finding, a realization, a visit.
Just how does one go about causing a magnetic bubble from resonance and get away with it?
What is the step need to get beyond the standardization of the group think into the isolated dilema?
Things seem to stop after the event publication but before the detail publication.
EM Devices wrote: -
"A good fake once in a while is a good thing to keep us on our toes."
Agreed, but I don't consider that this was a very clever fake at all. I had grave doubts from the beginning simply looking at the meter readings. The 'x' and 'y' wire revelation was simply the nail in the coffin. I think many of us on this forum could have pulled it off more convincingly. I don't think it matters to some people whether its a fake, as they just enjoy building electrical gadgets and that's fine. However, I'm sure there will also be those that will eventually feel upset and let down at having spent good money once they realise after many hours of tuning, that their replications cannot self-run.
Hoppy
Well i still have lots to do yet, not really had time after throwing too much in to get it built, but one thing i am still unable to understand is the amount of noise i am seeing on the flat area.
it can be seen in Romero's scope shot when the volts per div is zoomed out the flat area appears thicker than the sloped parts of the pulse.
Peter,
the noise your seeing is Barkhausen noise with perhaps some EMI.
EM
Quote@PhysicsProf
Just in case you missed this one. It's real.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4967330n
cheers
chrisC
Thanks, ChrisC -- Yes, I saw it -- months ago. LOL.
Notable to me, Fleischmann on camera stated that he should never have called what he was seeing "fusion" in the first place. (OK, I can agree with that.)
But he did not say what it should be called.... Recall that I and colleagues at BYU and U of Arizona published claims of a much smaller effect, but clearly d-d- fusion from the energetic neutrons and protons observed. (See our publication in Nature, April 1989). Our claimes were put on solid footing when the "BYU-level" cold-fusion effect was made 100% reproducible by experiments in Japan and Europe, along with the use of state-of-the-art equipment (which we also used). Replication is the heart of science. The best metal for catalyzing cold fusion found so far is a lithium-palladium alloy. A brief summary can be found here: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
People have asked me about the claims of heat-production via proton-Nickel "cold fusion" by Rossi and Focardi in Italy. Below is an abbreviated version of my response, which is also a challenge to the "inventors" to do serious experiments and to publish those results. First the claim (by Focardi): "Here's what's going on: there, in the container, we have nickel and hydrogen, then we heat up the system. Then, let's say, the hydrogen nuclei, which are protons, move inside the system and these protons are able to come into contact with the nickel, with the atom, penetrate into the atom and even into its nucleus. So, when the proton penetrates into the nickel nucleus, nickel is turned into copper..." – Focardi, http://22passi.blogspot.com/2011/04/sergio-focardi-father-of-ni-h-cold.html
Adding a proton to a Nickel nucleus as claimed by Rossi and Focardi will produce Copper isotopes, predominately Cu-59 and Cu-61, since the predominate isotopes of nickel are Ni-58 (68%) and Ni-60 (26.2%). Both Cu-59 and Cu-61 are highly radioactive and easily detectable. And detecting their presence via decay products would conclusively demonstrate the occurrence of the proton-capture reaction on Nickel. I challenge Rossi et al. to make quantitative measurements to demonstrate the proton-Nickel reaction they claim. I would use a gamma-ray detector; detailed gamma spectra from the decay of Cu-59 and Cu-61 are given in this reference: http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/
Cu-59 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-59%20EC Half life: 81.5 s – short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not.
Cu-61 http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/cgi-bin/decay?Cu-61%20EC Half life: 3.33 hrs, also short enough to be VERY easy to observe and demonstrate, to determine whether actually produced or not
Thus, while Romero and others have pointed to this claim as "confirmed," to me the Rossi claims are NOT confirmed until they show direct evidence for the process they are claiming, as outlined above.
A snip from the Adams motor manual.
QuoteTHE INVENTOR WISHES TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS ONE VITAL
FACTOR WHICH IS THE RESULT','OF THIS INVENTION, THAT BEING THE
ABILITY OF THE MACHINE TO TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A WAY
THAT, WITH "FINE TUNING", THE MACHINE IS CAPABLE OF
COMPLETELY OVERCOMING THE EFFECT OF "BACK EMF" AND, IN SO DOING,
REACHES A STATE OF RESONANCE, IN TUNE WITH THE UNIVERSE, SO
TO SPEAK, MAKING IT CAPABLE OF GREATER THINGS.
QuoteTHE FEEDBACK, PRODU0ED BY THE OUTPUT GENERATING COIL,
PRODUCES A POLARITY REVERSAL NORNALLY RESULTING IN LARGE. EDDY
CURRENT LOSSES IN CONVENTIOMAL MACHINES, BUT, IN THE ADAMS
MACHINE, IT IS HARNESSED TO DEVELOP FURTHER ADDITIONAL
TORQUE TO THE MAGNETIC ROTOR. THE LARGER THE OUTPUT
GENERATING COILS THE GREATER THE TORQUE DELIVERED T6.THE ROTOR.
QuoteTHERE IS NO POWER FACTOR LOSS BECAUSE THE ADAMS MACHINE RUNS
IN A CONDITION OF RESONANCE. THEREFORE, THE POWER FACTOR
LOSS'IS ZERO.
Is anyone making/selling a prototype of the Adams motor?
Here is the easy to replicate waveform -
Penno
Sorry, I should have been more specific.
I only get that waveform if I bias one side of the coil pair. (I guess this is particular to my setup only)
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.07.16, 16:37:26
You would think but apparently not. In the beginning I thought he could easily hide among all the wires, but I gave him the benefit of doubt. After all, a video like his with so many wires hanging around should make one feel very nervous, but the claim of OU was so powerful most of us were taken in by it and mesmerized.
....
@ RomeroUK,
don't be afraid of legal action, Mr. Sterling is not the sharpest guy. Everything we do on these forums is at our own risk. I'm continuing my build and I want to see you continue to post here. A good fake once in a while is a good thing to keep us on our toes. >:-)
EM
@EM
Despite the fact there are more than one wire pair needed does not mean Romero faked it. The different wires may serve a different function. Romero has enough electronics expertise not to try a fake that can be traced via video. Don't you think so? I give him the benefit of the doubt - he's a lot smarter than most on this forum and above all I believe his integrity. My own belief is that his design worked but the number of (tuning) variables are against it. But do keep on building, as I myself will when I have time to spare.
cheers
chrisC
Quote from: penno64 on 2011.07.17, 00:11:53
Sorry, I should have been more specific.
I only get that waveform if I bias one side of the coil pair. (I guess this is particular to my setup only)
Lay the generator on it's side.
It is on it's side ?
It's so obvious now how Romero FAKED the first video.
It's even simpler to prove than the second one!
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.07.17, 06:49:21
Ok guys, I was exploring video 2 again and I found a frame where we can see the wires on the back of the controler board in question.
It now seems obvious to me the two black wires going down under the device are in fact one loop of wire, that is just hanging over the side, and not two separate wires going down under as I previously thought. Can you see that?
(snip)
PS. The second image from video 2 shows there is no hole in the table.
@EM, [ edit: you've since deleted or reworded your post, so I modified this a bit ]
Helpful angles in video #2 can be found at 1m6s, and 8m41s
The wires are (unfortunately) not a loop.
You cannot see where they enter the table in your image 2 because the threaded support rod blocks the view of them. The rod's purpose in my belief, is to hold down the cap's edge, that is likely why it is there at the rim and not hidden under the unit, as has been proposed would be done by the 'smarter illusionist' [theory]. 1m31s
I have also reposted some of the original (infamous) shots posted by "@none." from OU. Hope that is ok per the forum. I also have a PDF of that entire page 215, snagged before Plengo removed the meat in it.
@generally
Even when I have been openly insulted as to my intelligence here by a particular party or two, I have tried to speak to the known facts at the time, so hope that I am not considered to be one causing a ruckus, though if no one wants to hear about wire X's anymore (moderators, I mean) I'll certainly give it a rest. These pics are just counterpoint, and hopefully illuminating. I am only wanting to know the truth. I go look again, whenever a new point is raised, yet always, I am left with these two wires looking homeless.
@Peter, read up on that Adams file, I might make one of those too.
@Pons and Fleischmann ...it is a shame that scientists of the day then and even now, were not open-minded enough, nor simply gracious enough, to look beyond a flawed
terminology or
presentation, and still seek the truth objectively.
Robert (AG)
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.07.17, 06:49:21
It's so obvious now how Romero FAKED the first video.
It's even simpler to prove than the second one!
EM
Greetings. (guess you did an edit while I was composing my other, and changed your viewpoint again perhaps) :)
I saw that connection which you point out, last night, while seeking the coil wires and such, and wondered about that too, but figured as most might have that it was an output tap. If you've found a new angle on this, congrats.
Robert (AG)
Hi AG
You are doing some great work with those pictures O0
I am just trying to stop angry mud slinging matches, as it just disrupts any chance of research either way, i have no problem with wattsup saying it's a fake or anyone else as long as they dont then start attacking anyone who says it's not, this works both ways as well.
Yeah the Adams motor is quiet interesting, and relevant with Romero's motor.
Thanks, Peter.
Civil contention about facts yields its own research opportunities in the pursuit of verification, or refutation, becomes fun then.
Since I did a repost of the older images combined with one new image, just to clarify, the first image (2 Wires.jpg) is one I composed from my own grab, the other 4 wirex-wirex4 are the "@none." images, reposted, they have good gamma correction, were the clearest seen yet.
Robert
Ok i need some technical help here.
Adams uses the collapsing field in his drive coils to pull the next magnet into position.
What i cannot understand is that at the point in time the field is collapsing the coil is no longer being driven by the transistor and therefore the coil is open circuit, so does this mean the collapsing magnetic field contains all of the energy that was used to create the field in the coil when it was driven by the transistor, if the coil was short circuited after being driven then most of the energy in the collapsing magnetic field would get dissipated in heat as the field collapes in the coil and core.
so to put this another way how can i calculate the magnetic field strength when the coil has a known voltage and current flowing and then calculate the resulting collapsing magnetic field strength when de-energized.
I guess i could do this experimentally by using a hall sensor that has a bias midway point that detects north and south poles and place it near the pole of the coils core and scope while the coil is energized and then let the coil de-energize.
Having done some reading on the theory i can confirm i am having trouble LOL
So back to plan b
Looks like i need to position a ratiometric hall sensor above the drive coil and scope the output against a periphery hall sensor for alignment, this way i will be able to track the MMF, the UGN3503 is a great little device it biases at half the supply rail for 0G and swings above or below for different polarity magnetic fields.
QuoteWhat i cannot understand is that at the point in time the field is collapsing the coil is no longer being driven by the transistor and therefore the coil is open circuit, so does this mean the collapsing magnetic field contains all of the energy that was used to create the field in the coil when it was driven by the transistor...
Peter,
In a stand alone coil, pulsed very quickly (less than 4 time constants perhaps) the magnetic field would contain most of the energy that was put in, minus some I^2 R losses.
In a motor like this dynamo, most of the energy goes into the kinetic energy of the rotor, ( if the timing is appropriate, but some also goes into building up the magnetic field and also some is wasted in I^2 R losses.)
Regarding the Adams motor, I thought he let the magnets attract to the core, and thus give the rotor an impulse and speed it up, and than at a particular angle that is critical, he energized the coil to repel the departing magnet. Not only that, but he would capture the kick back after the firing. This has been my understanding of his motor since the 1990's
@ Penno
Nice waveform! It appears to approach Romero's towards the right (flat spots are more pronounced) but towards the left not so much. Congratulations, looks like you're almost there! O0
@ ArtistGuy
I can now clearly see the table cap covering the center hole of the table, thank you for the photos. Yes I did waver in my decision for a moment, but than "wire-X" saved me! ;D
@ ANYBODY
Did Muller have a self-running, power producing, dynamo? I see his videos and it appears to be. In a way I'm glad that Romero did not replicate it but faked it, because now I have a real chance at the OverUnity $$ JACKPOT $$ LOL :D
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.07.17, 14:31:48
@ ANYBODY
Did Muller have a self-running, power producing, dynamo? I see his videos and it appears to be. In a way I'm glad that Romero did not replicate it but faked it, because now I have a real chance at the OverUnity $$ JACKPOT $$ LOL :D
EM
I agree. Hopefully it won't involve the many frustrating hours of tuning that led Romero to fake it!
Hoppy
I made a posting at OverUnity.com alerting the folks that I am now convinced it is a fake.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10781.msg295153#msg295153 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10781.msg295153#msg295153)
EM
PS, In retrospect, I know how I fell for this:
Romero shifted the focus from his first video rapidly to his second video, the apparently closed loop self running video, and I was just amazed. His persistence in this line of fakes is what did it. If anybody makes a fake video and than sits back and laughs and has a drink at our expense, than sooner or later we'll figure it out. However, Romero quickly continued to the second fake video that was even more steeped in deceit. What bothered me in the first video from the beginning was the fact that his output voltage was the same as his input. I should of acted on that hunch and taken the time to analyze the wires, but frankly, seeing so many wires dissuaded me from engaging in a video investigation, because I was tired and burned out after looking at the SM videos for years. But the most important point about why I fell for this is MY STRONG DESIRE FOR FREE ENERGY IN THIS WORLD. I'm sorry if I'm an optimist.
Quote from: penno64 on 2011.07.16, 23:57:04
Here is the easy to replicate waveform -
Penno
Hi penno. I don't see the resemblance. One question though, is that across the coil or across a series CSR?
.99
Quote from: penno64 on 2011.07.17, 06:28:14
It is on it's side ?
your axis is horizontal, his axis was vertical
Well I'm back and I will congratulate Wattsup on doing the video frame detective work. I didn't have the energy to do that. Thank you Peter for reinstating me.
Romerouk did not show waveforms to back up his claim; the voltages before and after the FWBR, and the voltage output from the DC-to-DC converter. If he had shown these waveforms for all of the different voltage settings on the DC-to-DC converter output his claim would have been credible. However, he intentionally did not show those waveforms because that would have exposed him.
Here is the critical point in the long clip as far as I am concerned: He sets the DC-to-DC converter to three volts and rotor slows down a lot. The output from the FWBR must have been very low voltage and also low in power in this case. We know from the replications that this is indeed the case. Some replications have the same rotor magnets and approximately the same pick-up coil configuration.
Now, you have to ask yourself, how could the motor run in self-sustaining mode under these conditions when you can make a guesstimate that after the FWBR the voltage must have been very low, perhaps a few volts. More importantly, the available power was very low. Simply put, the DC-to-DC converter would croak under these conditions. I am almost 100% sure that particular DC-to-DC converter needs at a bare minimum 9 volts on the input, because it was designed for a 12-volt input.
So, if a replicator ever gets to the point where they wire in the DC-to-DC converter, and sets the output to 3 volts, and temporally powers the converter with 12 volts from an external source, and then switches off the external power source and connects the FWBR output to the DC-to-DC converter input, their motor will grind to a halt right away. There will simply not be enough juice to power the DC-to-DC converter, much less the motor itself. The only logical explanation, barring the "magic tuning" speculation, is that Romero wired DC power into the FWBR output bus covertly, which is exactly what Wattsup found in the video frames.
The lesson here is that the enthusiasts and believers absolutely must demand from the person posting the alleged free energy clip is that their demo has to be supported by clear and unambiguous measurements that back up the claim. When you see a clip that allegedly demonstrates free energy, there is a logical thought process that you can follow where you collectively agree that it's an interesting clip but the proponent of the clip has to make measurements A, B, C, D and E before anybody gets excited about anything.
This process of logical deductive reasoning was not done for the Romero clips and I am hoping that this process does take place for the next time a situation like this happens. If Romero was subject to this process he would have run away right away because the measurements would have exposed him. If you look at the case of Ismael Avisio, it's basically the same thing. Ismael has no real measurement data to back up his claim yet people believe. On top of this when Ismael talks tech, to a discerning ear like mine, it's blatantly obvious he barely knows what he is talking about. Yet, he drops some buzzwords and those that want to believe will believe.
Anyway, Wattsup found what I predicted was done within the first day of seeing Romero's clips.
I suppose we are on the downward slope with respect to the replication phase. LaserSaber seems to have bowed out and ZeroFossilFuel has an ambitious build but he already has some serious doubts. It's probably going to take Plengo a few months more testing before he gives up. He concentrates on the smaller "victories" like seeing his rotor speed up under load but he knows that eventually he is going to have to deal with power-out vs. power-in because that's what it's all about.
Shame on Romerouk for orchestrating this farce. If you go back and read his comments from the beginning with a "new attitude" you might see them like I see them - he says whatever he has to say to pretend that everything is real. I know that there is a subtle difference between someone really telling the truth because of their conviction and somebody not telling the truth at all and pretending the whole way though. If you read his comments again with a critical ear you should be able to detect the latter modus operandum. You can tell that often Romero was improvising his answers to detailed technical questions. There is a parallel here to to what Wattsup said about looking at his video clips again (which I haven't done). Once you look at his video clips again keeping in mind what Wattsup said about the camera angles that Romero was trying to avoid, it should become painfully obvious that that's what was really happening.
Anyway, that's about my final take on the Romerouk deal. Sorry for all of the people that believed in this and especially sorry for the people that put time and money into this project. Better luck next time but do your due diligence beforehand. Don't take the pure visuals of a clip for granted. The person making that clip has to make real scope and multimeter measurements to support their claim. Without that then the pattern risks repeating itself all over again.
MileHigh
Finally, permit me to post a link not for the faint of heart.
I actually "caught up" with Romero on a YouTube clip a while back.
I will admit freely that I beat the living crap out of him in the comments on the clip. He deserved it and I am no angel at all with respect to my choice of words.
This conversation with Romero actually took place before Wattsup did the video frame analysis.
So for those that might be interested here is the YouTube clip where I have a no-holds-barred conversation with Romero (You have been forewarned):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5cdhOmwofI
The conversation is not pretty but for some they may find that there is an element of poetic justice associated with my bad behaviour.
MileHigh
Ok then I am back also. he he. Twas a brief respit but the rest was good.
@MH
What is your username on that youtube page? I don't see anyone named @MileHigh.
Also, in the POLL thread I was too late to post something I had prepared but was not finished before I had to leave this afternoon. I will finish it and still post it just to give you my thoughts about you coming back and giving you a little of my background so you know at least something more about me then what you see and read on the forum. This may push you to relax your pen with the big attacks and start acting like you are part of a team. Team @members get to know the guys, know their weaknesses but above all, show some respect for our varying abilities.
wattsup
Added: OK forget my question. You have to be ReasonForemost. Yep, I could tell that writing style from 1 mile away. lol
well said wattsup
I have always looked at everyone interested in what i am also interested in as being friends, and anyway who wants enemies there's enough of those in the big world anyway life's too short to keep creating enemies.
Dr Steven Jones,
I admire you very much for the articles and the research you have done and for risking your career and reputation on the subjects you did. I read your article in entirety. An early retirement might not be a bad thing, just enjoy it!
I'm just curious, when you talked with Carmen Muller, did she mention if her father's motor is self running? Is she willing to do any demonstrations for people?
EM
Two items:
Muller did a backyard demo in 1996 with a running device.
I skyped Carmen if they ever sold a working production unit. She never answered back.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.07.17, 16:24:53
I made a posting at OverUnity.com alerting the folks that I am now convinced it is a fake.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10781.msg295153#msg295153 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10781.msg295153#msg295153)
EM
...
Well, to all those people gleefully congratulating themselves on how well their did to 'uncover' this RomeroUK fake, I can only wish you well in your beliefs. You can go on believing it and that is just fine by Romero. He is not a contentious personality and respects other people's viewpoint.
You probably also didn't know the real reason why he 'quit' working on this previous design and it is NOT because it is a fake. The device will run with or without the 'extra' wires accordingly. All the smart people will one day discover they really are not so smart after all. :'(
cheers
chrisC
ps: @EM . I hope you'll win the O.U prize based on your improvement to this faked device. I really meant it.
Well what if there was just by chance the inclusion of sympathetic vibratory physics?
The scope would show it. There would be a beat frequency too. And he would be able to feel it.
http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Patents/GB2282708.pdf (http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Patents/GB2282708.pdf)
Quote from: Grumpy on 2011.07.15, 17:24:20
Romero
Was there a bias in the output?
Aspden-Adams Motor Patent: GB2282708
Oh! I forgot "Tesla": OU, difficult details
EDIT: Aspden lecture on his motor patent - says it has to be OU
Quote from: chrisC on 2011.07.18, 00:25:49
You probably also didn't know the real reason why he 'quit' working on this previous design and it is NOT because it is a fake. The device will run with or without the 'extra' wires accordingly. All the smart people will one day discover they really are not so smart after all. :'(
cheers
chrisC
Why should Romero want to fake it from the outset if he has the real thing?? Whatever the reason, I await the shout of 'Eureka' from a replicator. Until then, interest will continue to wain as frustration sets in. Like MH, I smelt a rat from the beginning with this one. The simple way he did it in the first video suggests to me that he very much underestimated how much smarter his audience would be! He clearly missed or failed to learn from the Milow magic magnet motor fiasco!
Hoppy
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.07.17, 21:53:02
Dr Steven Jones,
I admire you very much for the articles and the research you have done and for risking your career and reputation on the subjects you did. I read your article in entirety. An early retirement might not be a bad thing, just enjoy it!
I'm just curious, when you talked with Carmen Muller, did she mention if her father's motor is self running? Is she willing to do any demonstrations for people?
EM
Thanks, EM -- we're in this together, as we seek the facts. Let me say (something I've been thinking about again) -- that the "BIG LIE" principle /"there is a certain force of credibility in the big lie"/ is alive and well in society, unfortunately -- so we are up against a big obstacle.
I talked to Carmen some weeks again, and "self-running" or "demonstrations" were not mentioned, although these would be good questions for her.
You might want to contact her -- phone number at the Muller energy site.
I should note -- she quickly turned things around and began asking a lot of questions of me, my background and interest etc. She made it clear that she was cautious about whom she would disclose certain "sensitive" matters to... in a tactful way.
Overall, I found her intelligent and to-the-point. I recently rec'd an email from her, asking more about my background, and I replied... That's all, to date.
EMDevices was saying earlier before his change of mind, that we WireX'ers were mistaking refraction for other things, but here, I believe refraction proves the point.
I didn't know whether to post this here or Wire X thread, but it's kind of a 'literal' vindication for 'Wattsup'...
As in "watt's turned up", thanks to the light bulb showing a nice clear something going somewhere (verification angle?). ;D
I have not seen any 'lit' angles posted before, and there are 2 nice ones at 18m12s and 18m29s or so.
There is another angle one can grab at 1m06s as well. While there's no great 'other side' angle so to speak, there are at least 4 showing this wire end going into the table and nothing suggesting it's a coil wire. If it is not going in a hole, no naysayer has said where red wire x's lower end goes.
Ah well.
Robert (AG)
Has anyone noticed a red led glowing through the top stator plate, i have seen this several times i watched the video but at first dismissed it as maybe a reflection from the camera he used, but then maybe i am wrong as it looks like a plain led where a camera would probably use something more like a battery indicator on a small screen or something.
@Peter
If it's not a reflection of the one on the converter, not sure what it might be. Do you have a time on the video where you are seeing that?
I am not sure where it's coming from it's at the start 39 seconds on the first video on this thread page 1
At that time point I see a red dot near a bolt for the support rod which is nearest the switch, looks like a paint dot, or shred of insulation perhaps?
Thanks for looking AG yes indeed it does look like a red paint fleck or something like that.
I personally think that Romero's unusual waveform on his coil has to be because there is something unique with his rotor configuration, we can see the coils-cores and wiring and bias magnets, the only thing we cannot see is inside the rotor, and why does the rotor look like it's been painted black has anyone worked out if the rotor has indeed been painted or not.
EDIT
I find it very strange indeed when you look at the picture of the rotor the surface looks indented all over as if he's painted it with UK brand Hamerite paint, but why would he do this, we know they are Perspex discs and you cannot see any blemishes as if he has drilled in more magnets anywhere on the rotor, the only Suspicion i have is that he has zinc/aluminium painted the disks, It also looks to me as if you can see blobs and smudges of paint on the magnet edges and in some cases on the flat face of the magnets also.
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=827.0;attach=5149;image)
Click here to see a larger post of this image, you can see the indented surface
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=827.msg14259#msg14259
Actually looking at it again, the magnets were added after it was painted because he has drawn black felt tip lines on the painted surface ready to drill holes for the magnets, there is another reason he may have painted the rotor, if there was something unusual with the magnets then you would be able to see this if it was a clear rotor, IE 2 like pole magnet faces clamped together in a vice then glued in place leaving a small ish gap in between the 2 magnets would clearly be visible without painting the rotor.
Perspex probably would not be easy to paint and this may explain the spatering effect on the surface, infact when you look close you can see Matt areas which if you have ever tried to spray with a can is inevitable unless you are real good.
I Think i can conclude from this there are 2 magnets in each rotor magnet place so not only do we have a south up pole but also a south down pole.
So then the question would be, if you have 2 magnets North poles forced together and glued in position under extreme force, what would each south pole look like, i can test this out quiet easily by putting a hole into a piece of wood and gluing in 2 5mm magnets and then using my hall UGN to sense the south face, could be quiet an interesting experiment.
If one magnet was off line by even 1mm so they were not exactly on top of each other but misaligned slightly i am guessing you would get an angular south pole which has a fanned out field pattern.
We already know his magnets protrude above and below his rotor perspex thickness to something like this is definitely going on, judging from the amount of glue he had to use around each magnet it would also be feasible to missalign top and bottom magnets by 1mm just by placing a match stick in the right place while the glue sets
Hi Peter,
Yes indeed.
If you look back through Romero's posts over at OU, you will find the he declares that he added an extra 5mm mag to each of the rotor mags.
I'll go see if I can find the post and link it.
He claimed his originals were 20 x 10 mm then he added another 5mm.
I think the question came up from the claim that if the rotor was 3 layers of 4mm then that is 12mm. Why then do 10mm mags protrude?
That was his response. He added the 5mm.
Penno
Here tis -
Hi Romero
just a quick question
Is it possible that on the rotor, you use a pair of magnets in opposition to get a "kind of super pole" with the same pole outside ? yes or no ?
If yes it could explain why the magnet get something out of the 12 mm thick rotor on the pix we have seen on the other thread (and i remember you spoke of adding magnet on top of each other but you did not say how.
If yes in this case there is no more a Muller divice and it works completely differently.
Thank's and good luck for your next project for me i go on testing and learning and it is a lot of fun
Laurent
Romero's response -
that was a mistake I made, realised after a while.I changed rotors and everything so many times and I forgot. The rotor was 12mm and because the 10mm magnet was too small I added a 5mm magnet, so total magnet lenght was 15mm
Plus another from may 9th -
Hi all,
I see there are questions about the rotor being smaller that the magnets lenght.
I am not at home now to recheck but I know for sure that the rotor was made from 4 0.3mm discs.
During the initial building and testings I have changed the rotor, changed the magnets,... It might be a 1cm + 0.5mm magnets togheter, I remember having that on the rotor at one point, but I am not sure, I must check later.
I had to use the heat gun to take the magnets off, initially I dan them in NSNS configuration.
I had measured the inductance and it is 1.203mH plus and minus, not all coils are exact value but with the magnets on the rotor being close to them that might not be exact.
What about this one regardsing the size of the rotor - questioned by Woopy-
Hi Romero
how a lot of question and thank's so much to have this patience.
I am at my shop and doing the rotor. I would like to be very near from your config.
So I have a small problem. If i take some measurement on your set up and my CAD drawing, it seems that the spacing between magnets arround the disk is not correct if i use 20mm diameter magnet on a 25 cm rotor disk.
On my CAD design or the rotor is 25 cm and in this case the magnet should be 25 mm diameter, or the rotor is 20 cm diameter and the magnet are 20 mm diameter
Can you please remeasure your rotor disk diameter and 20 mm magnet diameter.
( on the pix the black circle are the magnet 20 mm and the red circle are the coil with the 6 mm ferrite core the rotor is 20 cm diameter. the wood rotor bottom is 25 cm and you see the 20 mm diameter magnet seems very small on this disk)
Many thanks
Good luck for the future
Laurent
Hi,
I have measured the rotor and it is 20cm, sorry. I had so many changes and I also had a 25cm and a 35 cm rotor in another setup.
Diameter has nothing to do with the results if u space the magnets equally.
Based on previous tests larger diameter = better results.
All other dimensions are 100% correct.
I have just tried to have the device running on the side and even upside down.
On the side looks the same but upside down slows down a lot.It might be nothing, maybe the way the bearings are behaving in contact with the shaft, I am not sure yet.
I am trying now to have it suspended with a piece of cotton string and do a video.
Hi Penno
Thanks, yes i do remember him saying exactly the above as well, but then why paint the rotor disks, i thought he said they were 6mm thick and 2 of them but i am not the best to remember
I am really trying to work out why the scope waveform is different from mine, i don't think it would be possible for me to get that waveform without altering the rotor magnetic field in some way.
It would be somewhat impressive if one could manage to glue two opposing neo disc magnet faces together in a rotor like that. ^-^
.99
Hi Poynt:
I did epoxy a pair of 1/2" X 1/2" rounds together. Lasted a while but then
ripped the metal coating off one and seperated. They were N38's.
thay
I've just managed to do it in a piece of perspex, i could hold them together with my fingers, so i then put some low viscosity super glue in to glue first magnet in place and when that was dry glued the spacer in place that comes with the magnet, slipped the other magnet horizontally into the hole applied pressure and glue and it is stuck fast in place, the only thing i will say is that i wish i had gel or high viscosity instead of low viscosity because it's now all over my fingers LOL.
but all in all it was not that hard, but i would say if i didn't use the 2mm spacer it would not have been easy
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.07.23, 10:51:42
I am really trying to work out why the scope waveform is different from mine, i don't think it would be possible for me to get that waveform without altering the rotor magnetic field in some way.
I've had a little reprieve from family matters. (I'm sure that will change when they find I'm at home with "nothing" to do >:( )
I'm hoping to complete enough of this to show you rather than tell you.
In-short.... You don't need to change the rotor. It is all centered around two opposing fields meeting in the middle of the core to cause no induction (flat spot) and the peaks soley generated by the stator fields separating and reconnecting. The energy needed to spin the rotor only spins the rotor (with small exceptions).
OU or not these claims will seem wild enough to require a demonstration, even though all of it is covered in standard theory. The concept is part of the demos I promised to share on my bench.
WW good luck with this looking forward to it, i have only just realized what you have been trying to get me to do then, null in the middle of the core is no problem now i understand what you mean.
You know we are months on in this saga and as Hoppy observed people are getting frustrated and trying anything. Resonance, Litz wire, even radio waves and the infamous 1/4 wavelength length of wire. With the frequencies we are working with that's one hell of a long length of wire.
Our friend ZeroFossilFuel made a bold prediction that he would have a self-runner within a week, and that was more than a week ago. Plengo sees an increase in speed when he plays with one bias magnet, and makes the mistake of believing that if all of the bias magnets are "tuned" their effects will add together. He also thinks that he sees things that are "not in the book" but he is wrong.
When the experimenters tweak something and see an increase in rotor speed they think that they are making progress. They are forgetting to look at the power output from the generator coils into the load and seemingly don't want to measure this. In the vast majority of cases it's reasonable to assume that when you see a speed increase on the rotor, it's because you are outputting less power into the load. In other words, seeing the rotor speed increase is the opposite of what you want. Seeing the rotor speed increase just means that you are pumping more of your drive power coming from the two drive coils and turning it into waste heat in the form of air friction and bearing friction. This design is not about tweaking to get higher RPMs. This design is about tweaking in an attempt to increase the ratio between your output power going into the load and the input power that drives the rotor. For what it's worth, sometimes people do make those measurements and the ratio is abysmal to fair, perhaps between 0.1 and 0.7.
Anyway, my real point is that after a few months now, how come nobody has at least tried to hook-up the DC-to-DC converter? I assume many people bought the same one Romeouk demoed in his clips, so how come nobody has at least given it a shot?
MileHigh
I did a cop plot and found exactly what some are going through, increase RPM but similar output power to low RPM ect
I don't see any point in connecting the converter until i see a situation that my output is big enough to stand a chance, we are at the moment stuck in an infinite loop of alignment
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.07.23, 21:22:51
I did a cop plot and found exactly what some are going through, increase RPM but similar output power to low RPM ect
I don't see any point in connecting the converter until i see a situation that my output is big enough to stand a chance, we are at the moment stuck in an infinite loop of alignment
Peter,
Just to make sure you know....
My goal, on this project, is not a self-runner or OU. My luck has been pretty bad lately. So I don't expect OU to sneak up behind me.
I just wish folks to realize there is a lot more to force & field. It is almost impossible to convince someone that magnets in opposition create a radial magnet field. There is so much more I never see on these forums.
If we are to find something extraordinary we need to look beyond the obvious. If there ever is a real free energy machine I have serious doubts it will rely upon some physics law which has been scrubbed clean of the original detail and the math optimized to the point where the old 'assumptions' are zeroed out.
This motor, intentional or not, has most of the oddities producible in magnetics.
It isn't 'null' in the middle of the core. It is 'Net apparent null' ;)
This is why earlier I suggested not adjusting for peak amplitude. At TDC induction should be zero and the flat part is the thin core traveling over the much wider surface of the rotor magnet (or vice-versa).
Your best sensor position and alignment should be attained by placing your linear Hall on the outer periphery of the coil's windings. Align the sensor so the poles follow a radial line from the center of the core through the windings.
Then adjust your spacings for highest amplitude of the Linear Hall sensor - not the output of the coil.
Edit>>>
Then your waveform should look exactly like Romero's and the curves will exist for the same reasons, including that little bump (transition) and what you identified as noise.
Bothers in arms...
This aspect is the only thing not readily realized.
This is the ghost in the machine.
I worked at Keystone transformer as a builder/tester. There was this ballast test that would not only physically vibrate the devices but would resonate your arms and chest.
It was the most profound thing i have ever experienced. Is there a standard explanation? Probably. But when you let go you would feel this void.
Dansway had me coil two opposing magnets. I now know what this means after Grumpy suggeted the same thing.
If i hadn't experienced it myself I would not be agreeing with you.
Mystical? Nope and not electrocution either. The factory was a dangerous environment.
QuoteI just wish folks to realize there is a lot more to force & field. It is almost impossible to convince someone that magnets in opposition create a radial magnet field. There is so much more I never see on these forums.
If we are to find something extraordinary we need to look beyond the obvious. If there ever is a real free energy machine I have serious doubts it will rely upon some physics law which has been scrubbed clean of the original detail and the math optimized to the point where the old 'assumptions' are zeroed out.
This motor, intentional or not, has most of the oddities producible in magnetics.
It isn't 'null' in the middle of the core. It is 'Net
apparent null'
You all might might find this as useful as I have in the past
in order to create and view some simple simulations on this very subject.
http://www.falstad.com/mathphysics.html
..a good way to visualize ideas.
Mookie
I finally hooked up the necessary electronic components (hall sensors, MOSFET, etc.) to the motor I'm building, and it runs pretty fast at about 3000 RPM
The high speed and the slight imbalance of the rotor combined to produce a very annoying "levitation" effect of the motor across my desk top. Now I need an extra hand to keep it stationary so it won't drift and fall off the table.
But here's the crazy thing. The time constant of my coil pair is about 1ms, and one waveform period at 3000 RPM is slightly under 3 ms, with an ON time of about 1.5 ms. At these fast speeds the inductor's magnetic field barely has time to build up, but yet it has plenty of energy in it when it discharges. I have a few energy harvesting circuits in mind that I want to test before I add anymore coils to it. I want to see how much I can do with just one coil pair, both to motorize and to generate, and how efficient I can get it to run.
EM
Blobs of plastercine or bluetack should do the job O0
Like many, i follow this topic with pleasure.
RUKOn gave us many directions, but probably left out some.
My 2 cents for today is that some of you are focussing to much on the waveform shot.
You all have different setups, so scopeshots will differ.
Maybe, if i would like to misguide the builders, i would place a nice scopeshot as well.....
Meaning, go after your own tests. See what works and what doesn't.
Dont hunt a scopeshot, unless your tests show that thats the better direction.
Steve
Has anybody seen this Self Running motor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbF63Gzvtd4
.
Quote from: AllPhase on 2011.07.27, 18:44:49
Has anybody seen this Self Running motor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbF63Gzvtd4
He writes in the text uner the video: "...the 1 volt watch battery only serves as a power buffer(instant charge-slow discharge)"
So it cannot be said if it runs from the watch battery for a certain time and generator coils helps slowing down the complete discharge of the watch battery OR it really selfruns and the watch battery is a voltage stabilizer to prevent runaway...
Hi all,
While backtracking and thinking about what he was working on prior to the dynamo, I went back throuh the coil shorting thread.
I think the answer to the waveform can come from Nilrehob!
Penno
Can you elaborate on your thoughts here penno?
.99
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.07.23, 22:16:13
Peter,
Just to make sure you know....
My goal, on this project, is not a self-runner or OU. My luck has been pretty bad lately. So I don't expect OU to sneak up behind me.
I just wish folks to realize there is a lot more to force & field. It is almost impossible to convince someone that magnets in opposition create a radial magnet field. There is so much more I never see on these forums.
If we are to find something extraordinary we need to look beyond the obvious. If there ever is a real free energy machine I have serious doubts it will rely upon some physics law which has been scrubbed clean of the original detail and the math optimized to the point where the old 'assumptions' are zeroed out.
This motor, intentional or not, has most of the oddities producible in magnetics.
It isn't 'null' in the middle of the core. It is 'Net apparent null' ;)
This is why earlier I suggested not adjusting for peak amplitude. At TDC induction should be zero and the flat part is the thin core traveling over the much wider surface of the rotor magnet (or vice-versa).
Your best sensor position and alignment should be attained by placing your linear Hall on the outer periphery of the coil's windings. Align the sensor so the poles follow a radial line from the center of the core through the windings.
Then adjust your spacings for highest amplitude of the Linear Hall sensor - not the output of the coil.
Edit>>>
Then your waveform should look exactly like Romero's and the curves will exist for the same reasons, including that little bump (transition) and what you identified as noise.
Most magnetic fields vary with distance from the source, which means they are inhomogneous, which means there is an additional force vector perpendicular to the magnetic field vector.
Do a little reading and research, you will not get magnetic induction without this inhomogeneous field.
Sorry Poynt,
I thought some of the guys here were chasing this illusive scope trace. Turns out that this was a photo in the coil shorting thread early on (over at OU).
It was posted by Conrad but it is from a Youtube by Nilrehob
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10398.msg276122#msg276122
Nilrehob is around and we can ask questions if we need. He has done some good vids from what I recall.
Hope this makes sense now.
Penno
How does cutting a flux line not make the flux alter in value, i have shown the flux to be the same under load and unloaded.
When the flux line is cut and an electric current is induced in the wire the rotor feels force in the opposite direction to which it was traveling to induce the current in the wire, so the flux line in my mind is just a coupling medium which the coupling strength is dependant how fast the flux line cuts the wire, what if we had a stationary flux line and spin 2 coils one on top of the other but in opposite directions, so each coil cuts the same flux line in opposite directions, surely the coupling torque to the rotor would cancel but the induced current in each coil would still be the same but opposite polarity, or would the coils not see any induced current at all.
So what is the result of 2 wires cutting the same flux line in opposite directions at the same time?
And how does cutting a flux line couple to the torque of the rotor in the first place, i mean the flux line is not a rigid substance and therefore there has to be a mechanism that allows a coupling of some type, how is the kinetic energy of the rotor being transferred to the wire that cuts the flux line, i am sure that physics describes this in detail so maybe MH or someone else could put me straight on this.
Ah having thought on this some more, with Romero's setup i can already try my idea above, but instead of 2 moving coils i can use the top and bottom coil but connect them in anti series, the result is that no current would flow in the 2 series coils and there would be no torque on the rotor, at least i am pretty sure i already tried this and that was the result.
So i have stopped the torque on the rotor by not being able to drain any current from the induced coils even though i have induced voltage across each coil, so then i imagine then that by drawing current from the coil that an opposite magnetic field is setup around the conductor that cuts the flux line, so when a flux induces a current in the conductor there is an opposing field setup in the same conductor which is proportional to the resulting current that is flowing in the conductor.
So overunity is simple then, all we need to do is provide current only from a separate source and add this to the induced voltage of each coil in a balanced way between top and bottom coils and we have free energy :)
EDIT so by providing just 1 amp of current from another unrelated source and combining that with the induced voltage of a coil we would get
P = I x V
P = 1 x 15 = 15 Watts of energy that would not slow the rotor, i know how to get the voltage without current, but how do you get current without voltage, well could this be our new form of induction.
Induction current without voltage? i don't think we have a way of measuring this or am i wrong, all our test equipment requires current to pass a resistive loop to enable us to measure it, or is it a case of phasing out the voltage and grabbing the current when the voltage is out of phase.
I wonder what would happen if i separated the 7 strands i have, connect 2 groups of 3 wires in parallel put these 2 groups in anti series and place a resistor load across each pair, surely this would cancel any torque loading on the rotor but still allow me to draw current from each pair.
Sounds a bit like a Tesla bifilar C.C maybe this is what he was trying to tell us.
Hi Peterae,
Would like to ask if you apply a load also to the the two groups in series? I mean you want to connect the two groups in series, then do you connect a load too across the two series groups?
I understand that you load the two groups individually with one-one load.
Hello gyula
Interesting question and this shows a hole in what i am saying, because with the coils not connected in anti series but each loaded then which way does the current flow, it would be the same DOH, it's only when they are connected in anti series that a relative direction of current can be made (Well in my mind), this is without a load across the anti series coils but with a load across each coil, not sure if a load resistor is needed across the anti series coil pair and also not sure what the result would be yet, i need to try this just to clear up the mess it's all made of my mind.
In short i am confused LOL
EDIT having thought about this some more and it takes me a while C.C offcourse the current would be different directions and so they would not need to be connected in anti series as long as each pair had a load resistor, that makes much more sense, sorry for my confusion.
So this also stands for the top and bottom coils of the Rom device, the top and bottom coils can be loaded separately, but this brings in an important point the coils must oppose or generate current in opposite directions to counter oppose each other, I've wound my bottom coils in the wrong direction, and this explains why my coil connections are wired in reverse to Rom's video
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.07.30, 09:44:10
How does cutting a flux line not make the flux alter in value, i have shown the flux to be the same under load and unloaded.
When the flux line is cut and an electric current is induced in the wire the rotor feels force in the opposite direction to which it was traveling to induce the current in the wire, so the flux line in my mind is just a coupling medium which the coupling strength is dependant how fast the flux line cuts the wire, what if we had a stationary flux line and spin 2 coils one on top of the other but in opposite directions, so each coil cuts the same flux line in opposite directions, surely the coupling torque to the rotor would cancel but the induced current in each coil would still be the same but opposite polarity, or would the coils not see any induced current at all.
So what is the result of 2 wires cutting the same flux line in opposite directions at the same time?
And how does cutting a flux line couple to the torque of the rotor in the first place, i mean the flux line is not a rigid substance and therefore there has to be a mechanism that allows a coupling of some type, how is the kinetic energy of the rotor being transferred to the wire that cuts the flux line, i am sure that physics describes this in detail so maybe MH or someone else could put me straight on this.
Lorentz Force Law
Peterae, I do not know if you are aware of Romero's recent answer to a question on whether his coils were in adding or cancelling connection but here it is what he wrote:
http://underservice.org/index.php?topic=6.msg213#msg213
Thank you gyula, no not been looking there.
and thankyou Grumpy.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.07.30, 15:59:36
Thank you gyula, no not been looking there.
and thankyou Grumpy.
You are most welcome.
It works because forces transfer momentum.
Cheers Grumpy.
I really cannot appreciate how clever you theory guys are, the theory on this is overweeningly complex from a physics point of view for someone like me to understand.
I now see that no matter which way a current is induced there will be torque to reduce the motor speed, and that it's the opposing currents that nullify in the bucking configuration and hence we get no net gain in a balanced 2 coil system.
And the only way to stop the torque is to apply current which then gives us a motor.
Still trying to get my head round this, but it appears to me that a magnetic field is infact equivalent to current without voltage, and the electric field is voltage without current.
What i need is an accelerometer to monitor the conversion of induced current versus torque, trouble is this needs mounting on a rotating rotor and at the moment i cannot see a way of doing this, this would enable me to compare the induced current against torque( maybe someone has already done this and theres already data)
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.07.31, 09:58:28
Cheers Grumpy.
I really cannot appreciate how clever you theory guys are, the theory on this is overweeningly complex from a physics point of view for someone like me to understand.
I now see that no matter which way a current is induced there will be torque to reduce the motor speed, and that it's the opposing currents that nullify in the bucking configuration and hence we get no net gain in a balanced 2 coil system.
And the only way to stop the torque is to apply current which then gives us a motor.
Still trying to get my head round this, but it appears to me that a magnetic field is infact equivalent to current without voltage, and the electric field is voltage without current.
What i need is an accelerometer to monitor the conversion of induced current versus torque, trouble is this needs mounting on a rotating rotor and at the moment i cannot see a way of doing this, this would enable me to compare the induced current against torque( maybe someone has already done this and theres already data)
No ordinary run of the mill permanent magnet generator is ever going to produce excess energy. You typical magnet always produces a mirror image and no net gain. We have to look into the process of induction.
Current produces the magnetic field, the magnetic field is not current, it is just polarized space. A current polarizes space and it transfers the momentum.
What is space, and how can it transfer momentum? Does space have momentum itself, can it store momentum, can it magnify momentum applied to it?
Look at a simple bar magnet in a coil that you move to induce current. You have the force vector of the magnetic field, another for the magnet in motion, and the hidden one that everyone ignores is perpendicular to both of the other two because magnetic fields decrease in strength (distance cubed).
Quoteand how can it transfer momentum?
Indeed this is quiet mind bending stuff, question is how can we test to see whats going on.
The first thing i can think of is to map the change in momentum and see how it is phased in relation to the induced current and the phase of the magnetic field.
Break the momentum link and we are on a home run.
Anyone got any experiment ideas to unravel this?
I wish i could find a way of monitoring the change in velocity, but i am unable to place an accelerometer on the rotor and i cannot connect a tacho to my bearing shaft because it's fixed.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.07.31, 15:52:34
Indeed this is quiet mind bending stuff, question is how can we test to see whats going on.
The first thing i can think of is to map the change in momentum and see how it is phased in relation to the induced current and the phase of the magnetic field.
Break the momentum link and we are on a home run.
Anyone got any experiment ideas to unravel this?
I wish i could find a way of monitoring the change in velocity, but i am unable to place an accelerometer on the rotor and i cannot connect a tacho to my bearing shaft because it's fixed.
If you run your generator with a motor and speed control, you can sweep though the speed range and look for sweet spots. Put the accelerometer on the drive motor or pulley.
With all of this quiet I'm wondering if anyone figured out why one of the hall-effects is not facing a magnet.
Instead, it faces the side of a coil.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.08.03, 09:29:48
With all of this quiet I'm wondering if anyone figured out why one of the hall-effects is not facing a magnet.
Instead, it faces the side of a coil.
@WW
Please elaborate.
@Peterae
This is not related to your question. I think I realize something about this device that did not dawn on me earlier but I think it is a very important aspect that has been overlooked.
I do most all of my own experiments with coils and my two pulse generators. My baseline is simple. I always use the same output retrieval via a diode to one of my many capacitors. On the cap I will put an LED bank that starts lighting up at 5vdc, plus I will have a volt meter reading the cap. If something happens out of the ordinary, I will see it right away. At 3vdc I will only see it on the meter. At 8vdc on my meter, my LED will be blinding. This is not peak to peak but more an RMS voltage since it is the voltage with my cap loaded. I am not really concerned about precise , measurements because I can still see the gain or loss happening in real time and know from experience what is going on when I make slight changes to the device under test.
But what I have most is that the diode on my capacitor is not one diode, but a terminal holding 6-7 different diodes pointing in parallel to the cap with other ends open. When I pulse a newly built coil or device, one output is on the cap and the other in my hand and I will try each diode and read the output and look at my led bank. Some diodes will give nothing on this new coil but other diodes do give and one of them will give the most. That is the one I will use for this new coil.
So for me, I would say there is something wrong with guys building an elaborate wheel, to then use a standard off the shelf fwbr. Something very wrong indeed. For me, on my own bench work the output diode is the most important and first component and should be chosen with lots of care since all future tests will be dependent on that diode working in the range I am working around to pass and hold my output.
Standard fwbrs are usually used on the secondary of clean AC 60hz driven transformer coils. They may not have the right specs or attributes for the outputs you guys are working with but I could be wrong, but I don't think I am wrong. In any event, you can test your own diodes with your wheel to see if you can find better diodes to make your own fwbrs. Seems to me the standard off the shelf type may be working against your outputs and guys may have to do what I would call "output diode hunting".
What I would do is this granted it is much more trickier to do with a wheel then a set of coils.
Set up your output capacitor. I would say any non-polarized cap with 100uf or more should do. Find all the diodes you can get and make yourself a diode bank as shown below. Put an LED Bank or small bulb on the cap along with your volt meter and even your scope.
1) Run the wheel with only one gen coil, not a pair.
2) Connect one end of the coil to the open terminal and by hand use the other coil end and try each diode one by one checking the output reading on the meter and/or the bulb brightness.
Yes I know with AC it is more confusing but that is not important. With one diode you should be able to pass half the cycle and see how the diode let's the energy pass at your nominal rotor rpm.
3) Once you have found the diode producing the highest or strongest output, use that model to make an fwbr.
4) Try the fwbr on the coil and put the dc output on the cap again via the diode bank to find the best output diode.
Don't take for granted your EE skills in this regard because there are no calculations to predefine what you are looking for. Well for me anyway. I am more hands on. My opinion, the only real component that has been overlooked by all builders is the fwbr and it just so happens that it is the most important component of the lot.
If you change major working parameters or output coil connections, like from parallel to series or to cascading, you then run the device again that way and hunt for the best diode once again. It may be the same you had, but don't take a chance because your next umteen tests will depend on it. Once you have it, keep going.
I guess what I am trying to say is if the wheel is not an ordinary output method then why would you suppose a standard fwbr is all you need to make it work? Whatever method you can elaborate yourself to find the best diodes, since some may elect to make two diode banks each pointing in opposite directions to quickly test both sides of the AC coil at the same time, it is just more fun.
wattsup
PS1: Find your own diodes for your own device. Even if someone tells you to use this one or that one, get as many types as you can on a terminal and test it anyways. Be sure for yourself. Each device will have its own.
PS2: Found this ready made coil. Looks very interesting. What do you think for a small test wheel?
http://www.falconacoustics.co.uk/audio-inductors-ferrite-air-core-iron-dust/sp056-super-power-ferrite-core-6mh-7mh-audio-inductor.html
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.08.03, 09:29:48
With all of this quiet I'm wondering if anyone figured out why one of the hall-effects is not facing a magnet.
Instead, it faces the side of a coil.
Monitoring the external resonant bias field...
WW
I have the same setup as Rom and it only See's the rotor magnet pole not the driver coil field.
wattsup
I am coding a controller at the moment that PWM controlls the drive coil but also switches a cap across the drive coil when the peak bemf voltage is above the capacitors stored voltage and can in theory i think do away with any diode requirement totally, rectification without diodes :)
The same controller will work on each gen coil but in this case it will charge 2 caps in series, one for the positive cycle and 1 for the negative cycle then the output voltage is taken from the 2 caps in series, i will also be able to set the phase angle at which the current is taken from the gen coil and also set the phase angle it stops, it will be interesting to see how efficiently i can charge the cap.
Quote from: Peterae on 2011.08.03, 21:48:13
WW
I have the same setup as Rom and it only See's the rotor magnet pole not the driver coil field.
I would not expect it to see the driver coil field because the sensing axis is perpendicular to the driver coil field.
If radial fields are created on the adjacent gen coils the sensor should see those.
Logic based rectification? Dude, you amaze me O0
IF CoilStatus == 'GivingFreeEnergy'
Rectifier = ON;
ELSE
Rectifier = OFF;
END
;D
Quote from: wattsup on 2011.08.03, 13:54:03
...
So for me, I would say there is something wrong with guys building an elaborate wheel, to then use a standard off the shelf fwbr. Something very wrong indeed. For me, on my own bench work the output diode is the most important and first component and should be chosen with lots of care since all future tests will be dependent on that diode working in the range I am working around to pass and hold my output.
Standard fwbrs are usually used on the secondary of clean AC 60hz driven transformer coils. They may not have the right specs or attributes for the outputs you guys are working with but I could be wrong, but I don't think I am wrong. In any event, you can test your own diodes with your wheel to see if you can find better diodes to make your own fwbrs. Seems to me the standard off the shelf type may be working against your outputs and guys may have to do what I would call "output diode hunting".
...
wattsup
PS1: Find your own diodes for your own device. Even if someone tells you to use this one or that one, get as many types as you can on a terminal and test it anyways. Be sure for yourself. Each device will have its own.
...
Wattsup,
The technical electronic community is just now beginning
to realize that the diode is not as simple as we tend to
think. At high rates of change in signal the diode can often
act in unexpected and surprisingly disappointing ways.
You are to be commended for your suggestion. It is always
good policy to subject each and every diode to a process
such as you've implemented.
Another technique which may provide interesting results is
to make use of the full wave voltage doubler configuration
rather than the full wave bridge rectifier. By rectifying each
half cycle separately in the full wave voltage doubler it is
easy to determine which half cycle of the applied signal is
more productive; compare the voltages across each of the
two capacitors.
The full wave bridge rectifier seems to be very popular with
experimenters but if they should take a closer look at its
performance they may experience a change of preferences.
Again, kudos. It is such simple things which can trip us up.
Let me guess...Vacum tube rectifiers might be better ?javascript:void(0);
Well for diodes there are thee basic parameters, the forward bias voltage, the reverse breakdown voltage, and the current handling capacity. The second and third parameters are not important for a Romerouk build.
So you are left with choosing a diode with a minimum forward bias if you want to reduce the energy losses in the FWBRs. It's as simple as that, but that doesn't mean you don't do your due diligence and verify them in the application.
Related issues are that you want the pick-up coils to generate a voltage under load that's perhaps 10 times the voltage drop in the diodes themselves so that you loose relatively little energy in the FWBRs as compared to what you export into the load.
So that means you can run the motor at a higher RPM, but there is a trade-off there because your bearing and air friction goes up.
Alternatively you can run at a lower RPM but have more turns in your pick-up coils. That leads to another trade-off where you increase the losses in the coils themselves due to the higher resistance.
All this implies looking for a sweet spot for maximizing your power output. If I was Brains from The Thunderbirds I could create a bunch of plots and zero in on that sweet spot.
But there is nothing special or mysterious about diodes. Either the holes and the electrons don't dance and stay on opposite sides of the room, or the holes and electrons have a mosh-pit-style dance going and when they slam into each other they eliminate each other, kind of like anti-matter meeting matter except no explosion. They simply open up the dance floor for more party-goers and the mad annihilation dance continues.
That's the ticket.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.08.05, 02:50:02
...
But there is nothing special or mysterious about diodes.
...
That's the ticket.
MileHigh
Ah, but there is indeed something both special and mysterious
about semiconductor "diodes" of the various kinds.
Semiconductor "Diodes" can be used for much more than simple
rectification of power or signals.
Their capacitance is uniquely controllable.
Some are used as frequency multipliers and oscillators.
And other awesome applications.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.08.05, 02:50:02
Well for diodes there are thee basic parameters, the forward bias voltage, the reverse breakdown voltage, and the current handling capacity. The second and third parameters are not important for a Romerouk build.
So you are left with choosing a diode with a minimum forward bias if you want to reduce the energy losses in the FWBRs. It's as simple as that, but that doesn't mean you don't do your due diligence and verify them in the application.
Related issues are that you want the pick-up coils to generate a voltage under load that's perhaps 10 times the voltage drop in the diodes themselves so that you loose relatively little energy in the FWBRs as compared to what you export into the load.
So that means you can run the motor at a higher RPM, but there is a trade-off there because your bearing and air friction goes up.
Alternatively you can run at a lower RPM but have more turns in your pick-up coils. That leads to another trade-off where you increase the losses in the coils themselves due to the higher resistance.
All this implies looking for a sweet spot for maximizing your power output. If I was Brains from The Thunderbirds I could create a bunch of plots and zero in on that sweet spot.
But there is nothing special or mysterious about diodes. Either the holes and the electrons don't dance and stay on opposite sides of the room, or the holes and electrons have a mosh-pit-style dance going and when they slam into each other they eliminate each other, kind of like anti-matter meeting matter except no explosion. They simply open up the dance floor for more party-goers and the mad annihilation dance continues.
That's the ticket.
MileHigh
MH
I think you missed one important spec. that the people messing with this stuff should know about and pay attention to, and that is Trr, reverse recovery time. The time it takes a diode to recover from passing or blocking current. Many of the FWBR's are made for 50-60 Hz operation and do not function well even at a few hundred Hz. Some diodes are built especially for high frequencies, I think this spec is the problem people are having with selecting diodes, and also why some diodes work better then others.
Room3327:
I haven't looked at a spec sheet for a diode in a long time. To the best of my recollection diodes switch off in a few microseconds or less. It might even be nanoseconds. So it's not an issue for the Muller motor or any similar motor that experimenters tend to build on the forums.
MileHigh
If an LED is considered a diode, is it possible to make a FWBR with LEDs. Just to see how they light up relative to the rotor magnet passage between the coils. Sort of like a visual FWBR.
wattsup
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.08.06, 00:02:31
Room3327:
I haven't looked at a spec sheet for a diode in a long time. To the best of my recollection diodes switch off in a few microseconds or less. It might even be nanoseconds. So it's not an issue for the Muller motor or any similar motor that experimenters tend to build on the forums.
MileHigh
MH,
I don't have time right now to post a spec sheet scan, but just looking at some of the Trr times in the book they go from 8000 usec. (or 8 ms) down to a couple of usec ( 2 usec.) I could only find a couple diodes that went down to nanoseconds and they were like 750 nsec. Common diodes like the 1N4000 series run about 30 usec. or .03 milliseconds. Diodes are not as fast as you think they are.
Quote from: DeepCut on 2011.08.06, 19:17:06
Trr for schottkys is in the pico-seconds range, no ned to scan in data-sheets !
Deepcut,
Absolutely, if you know that your using schottkys and what they are, but there are some people that are cutting diodes off old circuit boards and what not, that don't know what the difference between diodes is and why they are getting such different results with their various diodes.
Room3327:
I plucked this off another forum:
Quotepart Vf Vrrm Iav Ifsm Cj trr
1N4007 1.0V 1000V 1A 40A 15pF no spec
1N4148 1.0V 100V 0,3A 2A 5pF 4ns
STTH1R06 1.7V 600V 1A 25A - 25ns
HER108G 1.7V 1000V 1A 30A 10pF 75ns
15ETX06 2.3V 600V 15A 170A 20pF 18ns
RHRG50120 3.2V 1200V 50A 500A 150pF 100ns
Credit goes to Tecstatic for gathering the data.
For the 1n4007 most data sheets don't quote the reverse recovery time but I found it here and it's 30 microseconds like you also quoted.
http://www.oup.com/us/pdf/microcircuits/students/diode/1n4004-general.pdf
This diode has a very high reverse breakdown voltage of 1000 volts and perhaps a design trade-off is an increased reverse recovery time. This diode is overkill for an FWBR for sure and there are better diodes that you can use. However, you still have to keep relative time scales in mind. Lets say for a motor use use 10 milliseconds as a representative time scale. The diode switches off in 0.03 milliseconds. So the diode switches off in 1/333th of 10 milliseconds. My guess is that you might see a very marginal difference in performance if you use a 1N4007 in an FWBR as compared to a much faster diode that otherwise has similar specs.
You have to remember that when the coil reverses polarity it's due to the rotor magnets flying past the pick-up coils. This is a relatively slow and easy voltage roller-coaster ride for the diode. When it's first reverse biased it's at a very low voltage and it's all slow relative to the time scale of the diode. The diode is already fully switched off before it sees higher reverse EMF from the pick-up coil. Everything is as slow as molasses in January here.
MileHigh
MH,
I understand what you are saying , I don't disagree with you, well rarely anyway. In this case I just thought we should discuss Trr, which had not been talked about concerning the problems some people are having understanding the differences in diodes and why they produce such different results.
And yes things are slow as molasses.
:D
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.08.07, 16:11:47
The diode is already fully switched off before it sees higher reverse EMF from the pick-up coil. Everything is as slow as molasses in January here.
MileHigh
Interesting..
I see this as placing a fast cutoff to the wave form. Potential without current flow? Grumpy has spoken about this many times before.
Here is a question about diodes.
Let's say I take a frequency generator driven H-Bridge that enables me to pulse any frequency AC into a small AC transformer primary. I then connect the secondary via two diodes that are both pointing to a good uF Capacitor. So both diodes are pointing to the cap meaning that the positive can pass through the diode from either secondary coil wire but not the negative.
Technically, the cap should not see any rise because the coil cannot see the negative side of the cap.
But the diode has a forward bias and a reverse breakdown. So can the condition of forward and reverse happen at the same time in a diode? So what if at the right frequency there is a "slight" reverse breakdown where the AC from the secondary can see a negative or neutral condition on the cap and send bursts of energy output to the cap. I am wondering if this is possible and if so, would it make like a cannon burst at the right frequency and load the cap real fast. Would this be a good way to study an out-of-the-box output effect of a diode?
wattsup
PS: Yes, I know we already tried talking about this some good while ago but then, @MH was more in attack mode and it was hard to converse. These days, with a cooler and calmer @MH, let's try it again. lol
Toranoroid's
Makin Bacon with the Mulller concept
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7982-muller-generator-replication-romerouk-41.html :o
Chet
thanks Chet, I've been reading what toranorod's been posting last weekend, and I like his methodical approach. He's doing good research, but could document a little better.
He's input power is on the order of 15 watts, and his output on the order of 3 watts so far with two gen coils. He has a ways to go.
EM
Wattsup:
I didn't really catch your posting because I am not really reading the Romero stuff anymore. I only glance at it once in a while.
You really come up with colourful ideas like "cannon bursts." I read your stuff and it's like you turn electronics into abstract Cubism that would make Picasso proud.
So, I am not going to answer your question because I am trying to be nasty or anything, I am going to turn your last posting into a challenge for you.
The challenge is two-fold:
1. Draw up a circuit diagram
2. Make a timing diagram
Do those two things and find the answer for yourself. This would be a fantastic exercise for you.
It's very hard to talk about electronics with prose sometimes. As a general comment not just directed at you, you might not realize how difficult it is to juggle a bunch of sentences in your head and then try to "invent" the circuit on the fly and then work out the timing and then respond, all in your head. Even simple examples can make your brain hurt.
I don't even think your prose translates into a circuit. Nor do your comments make much sense about how it works, and then you have the "out of the box" hope tagged on at the end.
So please, draw up a circuit diagram based on what you are saying and then develop a timing diagram that shows how it is supposed to operate. If you post it that would be great. You need to do this as a kind of self-discovery exercise.
MileHigh
Wattsup,
Yes, at a certain point in increasing frequency the other side of that capacitor will see a connection making the loop complete. This is due to capacitance between the FG and the unconnected terminal of the capacitor. (provided your transformer will function at these higher frequencies).
As far as your question about diodes firing cannons..... please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_recovery_diode
What you describe sounds very much like an SRD or snap-off diode. It is more like cracking a whip than firing a cannon :D
They are well known and certainly not a source of OU.
EM
Well ,Its really this very recent Quote by Shadesz .
Shadesz
Qoute:
From Here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7982-muller-generator-replication-romerouk-42.html
So now think of it, as the magnet approaches it begins to charge the copper which starts to kick back. Rod has seen effective results by draining the copper as fast as possible using a dc/dc converter. Perhaps this is because with less charge, means less lenz effect, so it doesn't push back as much (as if the copper was still stagnant).
Now about the type of core. Remember, magnetic fields want to take the easy rout. Copper has a magnetic permeability almost like air. I'm guessing that copper under induced current has an even lower permeability. So, the magnetic field is now having a hard time following its normal path past the magnet.
Now at about this instant it finds the iron core. Iron has a relative permeability of 4,000 μ/μ0 (see Electrical Steel). This is roughly 4,000 times more attractive to the field than air and stagnant copper. The field jumps forward to take a path through the core, this accelerates the rotor. Not only that, but while the field chooses the core over the coil, lenz isn't there!
Then at some point the magnetic field saturates the core. In which case the field returns to the copper and air, and lenz shows his ugly face. BUT this time, if your magnet is just over TDC, lenz is helping you by pushing the magnet as it leaves the coil!
---------------------------------------------------------
See ,
I am a fish out of water around here,I worked with structural engineers all my life
But in a very interesting venue ,Changing the way things were done ....
In some of the biggest Most Highrisk areas you could imagine,successfully.
Oh ,Change ain't easy sometimes........
I see what Shadesz has posted above ,and I see change.
They're experimenting ....Finding things out ... And making new changes based on those findings.
I See a structure ,Modified toward a specific end ,To utilyse the attributes of all the components ...In a different way ,to make a very specific outcome.
OU
A thing of beauty!
Chet
Imagine having a situation where the rotor was to speed up when the coils are loaded, you would need to add another drive coil that slows the rotor from destruction, i mean you could not slow it down by shorting another coil.
Looks like it's time to hunt for this speed up situation 8)
IMAGINE
From Elias
Over here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7982-muller-generator-replication-romerouk-42.html
The "transmission time" viewpoint allows us view the second assumption of Newton's Third Law as an assumption of absolute time (or absolute simultaneity), if the action is at a distance. This assumption continues despite the reality that the "reaction" of a body to an externally applied force can not be simultaneous with the initial application (the "action") of the external force. This profound restriction on Newton's Law brings time into the equation -- a restriction which becomes the critical factor.
It should be noted that this concept of a non-simultaneous "reaction time" to an applied force (whatever the nature of that force is considered to be) is applicable not only in mechanics, but also in electromagnetism and other fields of physics. A sudden surge (an "action") of current along a conductor, for example, will also result in an equal and opposite reaction -- but again not simultaneously. Likewise a rotating shaft surrounded by permanent magnets arranged so as to impel the rotation will encounter an equal and opposite magnetic force which will brake the rotation -- after a time delay, or what might be called the "Critical Action Time" (CAT)!
Chet
Hey, Chet -- excellent point IMO.
I've raised the issue of time delay and Newton's Third Law here at OUR before, remember the 2 wire loops with one pushing on the other and no "kick back"? Also, I posted the question here, and have not found a valid response yet:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13223/2-electromagnetic-loops-with-light-speed-constraints-is-newtons-third-law-viol
With this additional question; again no response from the physicists there:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13236/3-current-loops-with-non-conservation-of-momentum-when-one-specifically-consider
This same "CAT" should apply to motors and ALSO TO TRANSFORMERS -- if the TIMING is just right. I'm quite interested in the latter, the possibility of "OU Transformers" -- easier IMO to build and maintain since there are no moving parts. But first -- the proof of principle is needed; note in this regard the comment today at OU:
QuoteRe: PLEASE READ THIS-MAJOR BREAK THRU FROM BILL MEHESS
« Reply #162 on: Today at 08:44:49 AM »
* Reply with quoteQuote
I have one comment regarding 'there is no such thing as OU' some people seem to think.
Just take look at Thane's BiTT. It has been verified by third party and it gives more out than goes in. Theory of operation is simple to understand and it is very easy to build. Even I managed to build one using scrap material and I got about 1.85 COP, 26 watts out for free. It feels nice to think that I was able to build a better transformer than any commercial trafo out there as they all have COP < 1.
But immediately this raises my concern, since OU is so simple, why I cannot buy OU trafos from my local store ? Surely OU trafo would be a successfull product and with a bit of tuning using better core materials a guaranteed success.
I have asked "Jack NoSkills" for further details.
Until this is replicated with CAREFUL MEASUREMENTS, one should not accept this at face value IMO -- but I am interested in this approach and any details which would lead to a replication.
Chet,
There is more than one reason why a permanent magnet motor could speed up under load at high RPM. Let me give you a few:
1) Hysterisis losses are minimized more than I^R losses increase. When the magnetic domains flip energy is lost. The guys figured out that if they bias the cores with another magnet things improve. However, when you load the coils you prevent the flux from increasing and decreasing so much, and you basicaly dampen out the AC portion of the flux that incurs the hysterisis losses. Also, the I^2R losses are mimimal at high RPM since the time constant for the coil is relatively large compared to the period of the magnetic waveform seen by the coil
2) If the magnetic field of the magnets is opposed, they decrease in strength. A weaker magnetic field in the magnets means the motor will turn at a faster velocity for the same imput voltage (because the induced emf is smaller now). In one of my electric machines classes years ago, the professor cut the field coil current to an industrial sized motor to show us what can happen, and the motor sped up in an instant to such huge RPM that he quickly cut the power to the ROTOR to stop it. His point was, be very carefull HOW YOU TURN OFF A MOTOR. Explosions have occured and people have died from the centrifugal forces that rupture the rotor.
3) There could be other phenomena at play I'm sure. But he needs to monitor that input current to see what happens to it when loading occurs. If the current doesn't change, than something else is happening, that should be explored diligently.
EM
EM
To be quite honest I havent read Toranirod's entire thread,
Sigh...............
now I will!
Until I understand his test criteria and how he establishes "positive results",I cannot offer up "suggestions"!
Thank you for taking the time to share your Knowledge on these matters!
Priceless!!
@Steve
Yes ,getting the info from Jack would also be a huge benefit!!
Thank you
Chet
EM
MH
@?
Toranarod is excited to see this Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL90Nmea0Mk
Is It One of these 3 ?
EM
Quote:
There is more than one reason why a permanent magnet motor could speed up under load at high RPM. Let me give you a few:
1) Hysterisis losses are minimized more than I^R losses increase. When the magnetic domains flip energy is lost. The guys figured out that if they bias the cores with another magnet things improve. However, when you load the coils you prevent the flux from increasing and decreasing so much, and you basicaly dampen out the AC portion of the flux that incurs the hysterisis losses. Also, the I^2R losses are mimimal at high RPM since the time constant for the coil is relatively large compared to the period of the magnetic waveform seen by the coil
2) If the magnetic field of the magnets is opposed, they decrease in strength. A weaker magnetic field in the magnets means the motor will turn at a faster velocity for the same imput voltage (because the induced emf is smaller now). In one of my electric machines classes years ago, the professor cut the field coil current to an industrial sized motor to show us what can happen, and the motor sped up in an instant to such huge RPM that he quickly cut the power to the ROTOR to stop it. His point was, be very carefull HOW YOU TURN OFF A MOTOR. Explosions have occured and people have died from the centrifugal forces that rupture the rotor.
3) There could be other phenomena at play I'm sure. But he needs to monitor that input current to see what happens to it when loading occurs. If the current doesn't change, than something else is happening, that should be explored diligently.
---------------
Do you understand whats happening?
Thanks Fellahs
Chet
I enjoyed that video Chet, thanks.
I think this is definitely hysteresis and eddy current losses getting minimized when the coil is shorted. He uses an iron bolt, and that not only will suffer hysteresis losses from domain flipping, but also eddy current losses due to it's conduction properties. Toranorad at least used laminated steel, so he cut down on his eddy current losses but still has hysteresis losses, so that's why his speed up was not as pronounced as the guy in the video.
However,
I just read a comment on his video, and somebody was saying that toranorad has a higher RPM with the coil shorted, than WITH NO COIL AND IRON CORE PRESENT IN THE SETUP.
I like that, that's good thinking right there. Just remove the coil and core entirely from the system and see what the RPM is. Than place it there and the hysteresis losses and eddy current losses should slow it down, than when the coil is shorted, minimizing these losses by opposing changes in flux, the rotor should speed back up, but will it speed up faster than with no coil and core present?
If it does than this could be good news, and than we need to eliminate the other objections I had. The magnets field could be weakened and than the motor will draw more current and speed up, since the emf that opposes the input voltage drops with weaker B fields at a set RPM.
If this is ruled out as well, and the input current stays constant, meaning input power stays constant, than we might have something interesting here, very interesting.
EM
Thank you for the reply EM
Toronarads comment was
"!I can see just What he needs to do. This is very cool.
seeing the Vid makes me even more confident. We are going to get this"
----------------
And Elias posted this
Yes, this it true. I was seeing all of these results about 6 months ago, but what I think that he should also demonstrate, is the coil-less rpm of the rotor, like Rodney, did, which will "prove" that there is energy inserted to the system, by a shorted coil.
Very good to see people are waking up to this simple idea!! Very happy.
-----------------------------------
Sounds like these boyz are in agreement with you? [I think?]
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7982-muller-generator-replication-romerouk-42.html#post152577
Thanks again EM
Don't fret too much DeepCut, lot's of links go unnoticed these days! :P
Chet, thanks for the links. I hope they discover something special, they must work at it diligently and methodically.
Chet:
QuoteToranarod is excited to see this Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL90Nmea0Mk
Quite a while ago I posted that I suspected that the shorting coil was reducing the friction on the bearings so the rotor would speed up.
Without the coil shorted, as the rotor turns the magnets are attracted to the core inside the coil. This creates stress on the main rotor bearing and thus increases the friction which slows the rotor down.
With the coil shorted, the induced currents tend to make the core "disappear" and nullify the attraction between the rotor magnets and the coil core. Hence less stress on the bearings and the rotor "magically" speeds up.
So there is nothing there and the boys have been spinning their wheels for months on this thing and getting nowhere fast. I am surprised that people are still hacking away at this project.
MileHigh
@Milehigh
I'm not 100% satisfied with the explanation because the rotation speed changes a lot (around 15%), so we should hear a supplementary noise at low speed due to the stress on the bearing. But at low and high speed the rotation noise is very stable, just the frequency changes. And the bearing seem to come from a HD or a CD drive so it is high precision mechanics with no play at all in the ball bearing.
It is easy to verify your hypothesis: removing the coil and its core should accelerate the rotation up to a speed equal or higher than the high speed of the previous test with the shorted coil (I ask the question on youtube). This would totally convince me about your hypothesis. Has it been done?.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.08.20, 14:10:48
Chet:
Quite a while ago I posted that I suspected that the shorting coil was reducing the friction on the bearings so the rotor would speed up.
Without the coil shorted, as the rotor turns the magnets are attracted to the core inside the coil. This creates stress on the main rotor bearing and thus increases the friction which slows the rotor down.
With the coil shorted, the induced currents tend to make the core "disappear" and nullify the attraction between the rotor magnets and the coil core. Hence less stress on the bearings and the rotor "magically" speeds up.
So there is nothing there and the boys have been spinning their wheels for months on this thing and getting nowhere fast. I am surprised that people are still hacking away at this project.
MileHigh
Im with Ex here also.
Its funny that you blame all of the speed up on lower tension on the bearings. As you say, "tend to make the core disappear" , but you cant see that eliminating the attractive bumpy drag of the core, has anything to do with allowing the rotor to spin faster than when the coil is open?
Hmm, thought you were better than that. Cmon Mh think
If by shorting the coil the core, lets say mostly seems to disappear, you have to admit that current must be flowing in that coil for this to happen. Usable current.
And this is just a guy with a long bolt, coil, rotor, driver, on the carpet. There is room for improvement.
Can we get near 100% invisible core with this method? I think its already close. And I think the closer to 100% invisibility, the more usable current in the coil. Now add more coils..
Marius had the filament of the light bulb glowing, not bright, but glowing. Thats not led currents....
So I have to disagree with your assumption that the only thing happening hear is eliminating tension on the bearings, and thats all you get from the setup.
If the coil were open, can you see that cogging would be an issue with slowdown? ;]
Mags
Quote
...
It is easy to verify your hypothesis: removing the coil and its core should accelerate the rotation up to a speed equal or higher than the high speed of the previous test with the shorted coil (I ask the question on youtube). This would totally convince me about your hypothesis. Has it been done?.
...
To sleep on it gave me a much better explanation. The varying magnetic field when the magnets pass near the coil induce eddy currents in the core. Of course these currents generate an opposing magnetic flux (Lenz's law) which slows the motor. In any case, this is checkable by the same method as above: without the core, the rotation speed should increase.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.08.21, 08:35:54
To sleep on it gave me a much better explanation. The varying magnetic field when the magnets pass near the coil induce eddy currents in the core. Of course these currents generate an opposing magnetic flux (Lenz's law) which slows the motor. In any case, this is checkable by the same method as above: without the core, the rotation speed should increase.
And with the core the speed will increase when the coil is shorted(or very low resistance) because of Lenz in the coil. The current induced in the shorted coil effectively hides much of that long bolt core from the passing magnet.
The explanation would works except for reverse effect with low current. If it is due to hiding the core or neutralize the eddy current, then high or low current would be just more or less speed up.
Originally Posted by toranarod
No load No coil and no side magnets 4106 RPM
No load with coil and no side magnets 4099 RPM
Full load 190 m AMPS at 6 volts 4145 RPM very quick acceleration.
Now here the bit that has got me in a spin. short the coil 4088 RPM I got no idea why.
From Here,
http://energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7982-muller-generator-replication-romerouk-43.html
----------------------
Chet
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2011.08.21, 14:50:57
The explanation would works except for reverse effect with low current. If it is due to hiding the core or neutralize the eddy current, then high or low current would be just more or less speed up.
At lower currents the mag field of the coil is much weaker and not capable of minimizing the rotor's visibility of the remaining length of the bolt.
The same would happen if he attempted to short the coil but had an unintended high resistance contact.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.08.21, 15:26:38
At lower currents the mag field of the coil is much weaker and not capable of minimizing the rotor's visibility of the remaining length of the bolt.
The same would happen if he attempted to short the coil but had an unintended high resistance contact.
I mean at high current the magnetic field hide the bolt so rotor speed up. At lower current the mag. field can't hide most the bolt but it would hide some of the bolt which would also result in an increase in speed. However, the vid show that 20 Ohms actually lower the speed in reference to unload.
It would be interesting to put in a resin-based high-permeability core because then you remove almost all of the eddy current effects.
I figure with the coil shorted you remove most of the eddy currents that you set up in the core also. The polarization of the core would be greatly reduced, so it's not storing/releasing significant energy. It would be interesting to measure the bearing temp and the core temp before and after a test run.
It's reasonable to assume the bearings are "fragile" in the sense that they are not designed to handle much radial stress. That gets cost-reduced out of them as much as possible by the bearing manufacturers.
With a digital scope you could measure the deceleration when you cut the power with the coil and core in place. I am assuming a half decent DSO, even computer based, could get an external trigger and store then self-trigger exactly one-half second later and store. There is your precision deceleration measurement data along a "constant slope" in the angular velocity vs. time curve that allows you to make a quite precise calculation.
If you remove the coil and core then you get a "pure deceleration" without any external influences. It would be interesting to compare the two. That deceleration data would say a lot all by itself.
If you can do a reasonable calculation of the moment of inertia of the spinning CD plus rotor magnets, that data plus the spin-down deceleration data gives you the friction power at the steady-state speed. It should be pretty easy to do.
Then you can make careful measurements of the electrical input power, and do more tests like outlined above but with a generator setup. You can factor in the coil wire resistance also.
In theory you could develop a power pie chart for different setups. I'll do all that tomorrow. lol
Will there be a mystery "extra energy" slice in the pie chart, or will there be an "unknown or other losses" slice?
MileHigh
Too bad in that shorting video he did not scope the coil. That coil is very far from the rotor so induction would be minimal hence his bulb was so dim. As the magnet passes that coil bolt, there will be a polarity shift and the last shift just may be in repulsion to that rotor magnet hence pushing it out. The bolt being so thin is giving a more precise return knock on the rotor magnet. Something like a 1 foot squared trampoline versus a 10 foot squared trampoline. The 1ftsq will react more quickly as a recoil.
This is great because this is step one towards experimenting with cascading coils. They will get there slowly but surely.
wattsup
or Picasso for some - lol
Interesting comment:
Quoteand if you times that speed up by the 14 genrator coils total each producing a speed-up, and the small voltas and amps produced by one coil, then this X 14, and fact that when rotor does speed up you get more volts and amps produced from the higher rpms,
and fact that when it keeps seeding up with nothing to stop it like lenz law and just friction of bearings and wind resistance, it will go into runaway-mode, also what romeorUK reported which was solved by the DC to DC convertor...so jsut thought I would point all that out in case somebody thinks romeroUK made it all up for some reason.
It would be nice if this was true. The problem is that as you add coils they don't add up, they divide. Adding more coils to the mix means that the group of coils start to share the available mechanical power from the rotor to do a generator function, for example. You have two pick-up coils and the output power per coil is approximately one-half the power output per single coil. So you are up against a wall. In this case specifically if you had two shorting coils, they would look quite close to a "no coil" configuration again. Just like a single shorted coil looks like a "no coil" configuration. So the wall here is the max speed with no coils present and two shorted coils would be "sharing" the increased RPM benefit from a single shorted coil configuration.
MileHigh
Wattsup:
QuoteToo bad in that shorting video he did not scope the coil.
That's an interesting idea and would be fun because you could then easily measure the RMS current going through the coil and calculate the power dissipation in the coil. And of course your scope trace would show you how much induction action was going on. I am assuming the voltage will be well above the noise threshold.
You would have to make a "coil tap point" about half-way down the length of the coil to find your voltage differential.
If I was an experimenter I would look for a sale on cheap digital multimeters and buy a half-dozen of them. You could dedicate some of them to standard functions, like a current sensing resistor or like the example above. Then go insane.
MileHigh
I built a replica of the thanes motor/generator a few years back and experimented with this effect,its not overunity.One thing in the video that the person didn't try was putting a diode across the coil and reversing the direction of the diode.The speeding up effect only works in one direction,I discovered this when I put a large led across the coil.
Another Very nice movie!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8AC8T5cvm4
From Freepower at OU
@Cheappower
Looking at Toranarad's endeavour ,Do you have any Input or comment to share??
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7982-muller-generator-replication-romerouk-42.html#post152577
Thank you
Chet
MH
I am using 2 very high quality bearings the only loading on them are the axial forces as the rotor spins which they are designed to withstand, there are coils above and below the rotor and these balance any forces on the rotor in the vertical force plane.
I went to the site and could not see a specific description of this little unit.
A mini muller. Sweet. If he get can his to work what is incorrect about all other attempts.
Then he adds a fwbr and a filter cap. The running unit is different than the assembling unit. The assembling unith has the 2 neodyn pod iin it.
As the n/s turbine rotates each magnet on the rotor swings past the neodyn pod he attaches. While running it jack the field. That Neodyn pod is in series with the drive coils.
The drive coils look to be in series. Then obviously the the ac side of the FWBR is in series with the drive coils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmann_voltameter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmann_voltameter)
http://freeenergylt.narod2.ru/ismael_aviso_car/ (http://freeenergylt.narod2.ru/ismael_aviso_car/) has a Kapanadze coil in it.
Most of the designs are fast field jacking to charge a cap.
What is this guy doing wrong? The unit spins continuously!
http://freeenergylt.narod2.ru/vega/ (http://freeenergylt.narod2.ru/vega/)
Now aside from this mini unit... Why are the units in the thread so large if a unit this small can run?
And, here is the joke: What if SM's units all had a pager motor in them?
Quote from: ramset on 2011.08.22, 16:04:58
Another Very nice movie!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8AC8T5cvm4
From Freepower at OU
@Cheappower
Looking at Toranarad's endeavour ,Do you have any Input or comment to share??
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7982-muller-generator-replication-romerouk-42.html#post152577
Thank you
Chet
GK
Quote:
Now aside from this mini unit... Why are the units in the thread so large if a unit this small can run?
-------------
I was wondering the same thing,this size would cost A LOT less to experiment with ?
The ideas that the BoyZ at Toranarads thread are kickin around could be added to this guys rig in no time?
Thanks
Chet
The special materials is the 'squeezing reality from physics' again. And this is where things get out of hand.
The mini muller is so simple it can be let alone. Put some coils around it to get the power up a few notches then create another step.
The balance would be the effort towards exotic builds or replicating cheap step ups (that we all comprehend).
The beauty of this small build is he did not add any extra weight(as in a bigger unit) that would cause losses or resistance. So I would call this unit in the 'float' level of operation.
A real fine balance.
Quote from: ramset on 2011.08.22, 19:52:19
GK
Quote:
Now aside from this mini unit... Why are the units in the thread so large if a unit this small can run?
-------------
I was wondering the same thing,this size would cost A LOT less to experiment with ?
The ideas that the BoyZ at Toranarads thread are kickin around could be added to this guys rig in no time?
Thanks
Chet
QuoteAnother Very nice movie!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8AC8T5cvm4
Another fake.
It amazes me how some of you won't even post some possibilities for cheating when you see clips like this.
@mh,
You piqued my interest. How is this faked?
I was curious about the spark when he touched the red lead to the wrong connection.
Are there batteries in the wooden stems?
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.08.22, 22:25:42
Another fake.
It amazes me how some of you won't even post some possibilities for cheating when you see clips like this.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.08.22, 22:25:42
Another fake.
It amazes me how some of you won't even post some possibilities for cheating when you see clips like this.
Yeah, how EXACTLY is it a fake? Show me the money. Or are you saying its just a possible fake? ;]
Mags
How about your suggestions (both of you) for how you think it's a fake?
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.08.22, 22:25:42
Another fake.
It amazes me how some of you won't even post some possibilities for cheating when you see clips like this.
My fakemeter is broken, geez, or is it my truemeter that is not properly calibrated. I don't know anymore. lol
@GK
I have been mulling over a new build and will start it tomorrow. Basically, I want to make a coil build that will show nodding but also be able to step-down high voltage (or reactive power) into a more amperage ridden output. I think this is the only thing that is missing. Producing high voltage is very easy and can be done in a very efficient manner with most energy returned to source. It is what to do with that energy that has stopped many from progressing. Including me.
If you think about SM indicating the 1000 feet of wire and one magnet versus 1000 pieces of wire 1 foot long and one magnet, is it by chance that his LTPU is at least 6 inches high. I will do the reverse of what @Bruce_TPU did. He is using a horizontal conductor that has many conductors of Litz wire in it that will hit or get hit by his outer winds. I will put many single wires vertically all paralleled on a top and bottom copper wire ring, and a second one a little wider so one fits inside the other. Then between them I will have one wire loop pulsed that can slide up or down the verticals and play with frequency and pulse loop vertical position and see what type of output can come from each. It will resemble your red toroid coil but the verticals will all be top and bottom paralleled. I will post as I progress. Also, I just purchased another HP 8116A so now I will have three FGs. More fun.
wattsup
A gyroscopic/flywheel generator going to a bridge rectifier(4 diodes),with a capacitor to retain charge
The meter doesn't load it down 10 meg input impedance,very clever fraud.The flywheel/gyroscope stores energy
from the spin up.You guys should ask the professor hes opinion on this one hes a physics guy.
There was another of these but on a big scale,it had a crank to get the flywheel up to speed,powered a few light bulbs :o.
Ok I am crying Uncle!
Those are pretty funky and fat cores if you ask me. Ask yourself, when's the last time you saw a coil + core combination that looked like that? It just doesn't look right. There is some black guk there also.
Somebody posted the "autotransformer" circuit for those "perpetual motion" novelty items recently. It's just a coil with a 1/4-length-tap that fires a transistor. There might not even be a resistor in that circuit.
So each coil-battery combination is a self-triggering coil that gives the rotor a push.
When's the last time you saw a simple pulse motor that had to be spun up by a Dremel? He has to speed it up fast enough so the autotransformer triggering kicks in.
Then there is an SMT transistor in the guk. They can get so small that they look like a spec of pepper.
Anyway, that's how I would fake this one.
As far as the spark goes, the high voltage is generated by, guess what, the flyback in the coils. When the short is made, the motor recovers and sounds exactly like a motor should sound if it's powered by batteries.
More importantly but perhaps more subtly, you get a sense of the available power by how much time it takes the rotor to speed back up, only a second or two. That's an "oomph" factor that you normally associate with the lower output impedance of batteries. Compare that to your typical tiny anemic pulse motor that can take up to a full minute to spin back up. And that's what you are normally expecting here, a "delicate balance," a "magic combination" that just manages to be over unity lest you make the slightest configuration change before you "loose the magic." Don't sneeze! lol
It must be the mental masturbation for this guy! lol Better that than trying to set fire to a $50,000 police car for "kicks" I suppose.
MileHigh
http://www.smallbattery.company.org.uk/sbc_lithium_catalogue.htm (http://www.smallbattery.company.org.uk/sbc_lithium_catalogue.htm)
@ milehigh it is possible that there are smt
components since they could be hidden,however you as an engineer
are going to think of a very sophisticated way to do things,"how would I do it",these guys
that make these frauds are not very sophisticated.
We are in agreement that it is a fake and differ only in how its faked. O0
Quote from: ramset on 2011.08.22, 16:04:58
Another Very nice movie!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8AC8T5cvm4
That's a cute motor/generator but I'm confused.
In the second part of the video he assembles it and we can see that at the bottom he inserts 3 or 4 small watch batteries in series between the two springs. So it's powered from the batteries. OK, but where is the commutation circuit for the motor function? I don't see it. I think the guy is trying to show us that he starts it with the dremell tool and than somehow it keeps turning maybe due to phasing. If that's the case it's neat!
The generator part of the device seems to be up top. That's nothing to shout about.
Bottom line, I don't think the guy is trying to show off an OU device here, just his workmanship. Did he make an OU claim somewhere on the forums? [edit: I just noticed the title of the video: FREE ENERGY GENERATOR! LOL ;D ]
Oh, I almost forgot, what's that larger diameter wheel in the middle of the shaft for? I thought I saw two magnets attached to it, it might be indicative that the guy has a hall sensor or reed switch buried in the wooden post to sense angle position and facilitate the motor commutation, I think that's it.
EM
PS wattsup, have you traced the wires yet? lol ;D
this little motor/generator is very interesting. Is there a website that talks about it some more? You guys got me curious now.
by the way, in the first part of the video, it looks like he connects a liquid battery in those 3 clear tubes, we can see the center carbon rods. I'm not sure what that part of the video is trying to prove but it's not anything OU.
This is what the inventor says:
Este motor funciona a partir de un campo electromagnético auto inducido a partir de bobinas que repelen al rotor conformado por un imán y un volante inferior con dos pesos para crear inercia. Como fuente de potencia inicial se conecta una bateria que entrega 2.4 volts que convierte las bobinas en electro imanes y al girar en las bobinas se induce a su ves una corriente alterna en el bobinado secundario de cada bobina llevando esta corriente alterna a diodos que la rectifican en corriente continua pulsante, se conecta un condesador para estabilizar la corriente obteniendo mas de 60 volts de potencia como resultado. Las bobinas funcionan como inductancias y como transformadores a su ves.
Cada bobina tiene un doble hilo de alambre, el consumo del motor es de 100 mha. la velocidad de giro es aproximadamente de 7000 rpm.
Translation using google:
This motor operates from a self-induced magnetic field from coils that repel the rotor consists of a magnet and a lower wheel with two weights to create inertia. As initial power source is connected to a battery that delivers 2.4 volts, which converts electric coils and magnets to rotate the coils induce her see an alternating current in the secondary winding of each coil carrying alternating current to the diodes that rectify DC pulsing, a condenser is connected to stabilize the current obtained more than 60 volts of power as a result. The coils act as inductors and as transformers.
Each coil has a double strand of wire, motor consumption is 100 mha. the speed is about 7000 rpm.
I want one............
Chet
I'll admit I was even having a problem believing that little motor. What first put up a red flag for me is that the motor seemed to start spinning before he even put the dremel on it (like just a fraction of a second before) when I looked at the vid close in high definition. I might be wrong but after seeing his other vid with the battery it seemed something wasn't being shown and the fact he won't share how it's done seems suspicious. I'm thinking the lower rotor with has 2 magnets and they are being spun by a motor under the table or nearby that has 2 magnets on it.
There is a child under the table spinning a magnet wheel.
The child speaking, in Lithuanian, is asking 'Are we there yet daddy?' LOL.
Damn junior trolls! They start young, don't they?
I saw no batteries. I thought the 2 items between springs were 2 gapped neodyns.
This creates a switch electrically and a magnetic field that communicates with the magnets spinning by on the turbine. AC generator.
Like I mentioned: a real fine balance.
But the spark really intrigues me.
From Toranarads place here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7982-muller-generator-replication-romerouk-45.html
-------------
Quote:
Below is the latest comment from romero it may be of interest to you all
Hi all,
After reading some recent posts on different forums I decided to clarify some points.
The core used to obtain speed under load can be most of the metals, laminated or not, ferrite, irondust or mumetal .
I have obtained the effect even without core just air, but that is another thing and very tricky.
I have tested all metals and got the effect but as we all know mumetal is the best because of many factors.
The biggest problem with soft metal, steel or normal lamination is the heat acumulated in the core after short period of time.
With ferrite, irondust or mumetal we don't have this problem. Ferrite is not as good as steel for the effect but because it stays almost cold is the advantage and the relative cheap price to buy it.
If someone will get the effect with steel core then replace the core with something else the effect will vanish.
Many parameters must be accounted and only after playing a lot with simple arrangements will understand every step.
After playing with all of them I decided to continue working with irondust cores.They work much better than ferrite and cheap to obtain.
When we are talking about speed under load we must understand that the load must be controlled all the time.
The resistance of the load must be maintained in the limits but that is not limiting our posibilities to use it.
Another thing I saw recently on the forums is the fact that the gain is shared to the numbers of the coils,... in my opinion is not true.
Example: having multiple coils that are never in line with another is like we have one coil only and we are moving that coil in multiple points. Multiple coils means less rpm too.We can have the same thing with only one coil but at very high speed.
We are aiming to keep the speed low.In my experiments until now high speed did not help a lot.
This effect is not enough to get much OU unless we learn how to convert or transform the energy.
Best regards,
Romero
The small motor is exactly that, a motor. The guy tells us it's a motor. 2.5 V input from the battery between the springs. Yes it has a generator function as well, but that does not surprise me at all. Getting 68 V at 7000 RPM from those coils should not surprise anybody.
What's not apparent to me is how he is handling the commutation to achieve the motor function. Now that he mentions his coils are double wound, it is possible this is a Bedini motor scheme, and this explains why he needs to speed up the rotor before it begins to function. A few of us have built these and they work just fine. However, the problem with this assumption is that I do not see a transistor, and that's about all that is needed to have a motor Bedini style. All I see is 4 diodes the capacitor and the two coils up top.
If this is a new form of commutation I am very interested. But perhaps it's similar to an induction motor, still interesting since these run on AC and he is driving them from a battery, so perhaps there's resonance involved that keeps driving the motor. Just speculating here.
EM
PS Can somebody who speaks Spanish please translate more correctly? I have a feeling google/translate is leaving out some of the finer details.
EM
@ All
Seems that this [the Wee Motor/Genny]has Peaked the interest of a few "builders" here?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11320.msg298633#new
Comments about "hows He Do That"???
Piezo crystal, gyroscopic, polarity flippin, Nasa Funded ,Flavour Shavers...........
Chet
Hmmmmmmmmm.
If you wind a generator coil in bifilar but opposing bifilar you will have two inverse generators per coil. You can output both independently, or you can output one and short the other for more effects. When the coils get energized via the rotor magnet, the coils when energized should not then create drag against the rotor magnet because both polarities being inversed should produce a neutral zone. Could it be as simple as that where the coils can output power while staying magnetically neutral and all the rotor magnet ever sees is the core mass as usual?
wattsup
PS: Who ever put up that video of the man with the battery, inverter and caps, etc. Thanks. I just learned that two IRF840s in parallel will give a much better pulse. I have been using them alone and have burnt so many. lol This guy is explaining his device very well with the required three events per cycle. This is working out the problem logically and implementing it. But like he said, the EE acumen required goes ions above my head. The interference problem of harmonics to not exist from one event to the other to the other of one cycles is just a crazy level of control. Incredible. Thanks.
Note in the first part of the clip the little spinny motor is clearly not audibly slowing down over long periods lasting 10 seconds or more. The Laws of Nature say it has to slow down. So it's a very robust over unity deice or battery powered.
To respond to Romero:
QuoteAnother thing I saw recently on the forums is the fact that the gain is shared to the numbers of the coils,... in my opinion is not true.
Example: having multiple coils that are never in line with another is like we have one coil only and we are moving that coil in multiple points. Multiple coils means less rpm too.We can have the same thing with only one coil but at very high speed.
It would be a good investigation for replicators to do, check if coils add, multiply, or divide when it comes to their effects. Common sense tells you that they divide. There is a pie of energy and they share the pie.
Having multiple coils that are never in line helps in rectifying the AC outputs from the pick-up coils. Each pick-up coil gets a separate time slice to drive the load. It's like rectifying three-phase power to get DC with some ripple. Otherwise these coils act exactly like any other pick-up coil.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.08.23, 23:21:17
There is a pie of energy and they share the pie.
MileHigh
Since the gen coils are all FWBRed in series pairs, they cannot share anything with other pairs. They can only add their DC outputs. I tried to explain somewhere that putting the top coils in series and the bottom coils in series would create some major havoc (call it sharing havoc) that would be interesting to experiment with but no one has talked about this thus far.
wattsup
OOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
You Gotta see this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe the original Vid is Back?
VidBid Posted this REMERO ? Replication at Toranarads
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNvp6Ttm818&feature=youtu.be
PDF
http://alt-nrg.org/files/selfrunning_free_energy_device_muller_motor_generator_romerouk_version1_1.pdf
From Here
http://energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7982-muller-generator-replication-romerouk-45.html
Chet
VIDBID IS STARTNG A NEW THREAD HERE
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/8923-remerogen.html
PDF'S Videos ,Dancing girls and free Beer[non alcoholic]...........[
Quote from: ramset on 2011.08.24, 00:35:15
OOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
You Gotta see this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe the original Vid is Back?
VidBid Posted this REMERO ? Replication at Toranarads
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNvp6Ttm818&feature=youtu.be
PDF http://alt-nrg.org/files/selfrunning_free_energy_device_muller_motor_generator_romerouk_version1_1.pdf
From Here http://energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7982-muller-generator-replication-romerouk-45.html
Chet
@ramset
That's Video 1. Nothing new.
Also, when you refer us to posts at EF, please use their permanlink located at top right of the post you want us to see. Otherwise we have to wade through the whole thread page to find what you are indicating, so we iz lost. Just right click it, copy link location, then paste it.
wattsup
Thanks
Wattsup
I suppose Vidbid will be showing "his Interpretation".
Permalink it will be Thanks
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/8923-remerogen.html#post153212
Chet
Howza bout this:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/fake-pm.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/fake-pm.htm)
QuoteElectromagnetic boost.
Roger Wayne Andrews obtained in 1974 Patent #3783550 for a "Novelty Electric Motor". This patent covered a variety of toys that sustained motion for days with no apparent source of energy. They all had hidden batteries (usualy 9 volt) connected to a transistor and a tapped electromagnet coil. The first one marketed was called Top Mystery manufactured by the Andrews Mfg. Company and sold by the Johnson Smith Company (of Whoopie Cushion fame). It consisted of a simple plastic base on which a small top (22) was set spinning on a concave surface. The top enclosed a hidden electromagnet. As spinning tops will, it wandered around the slightly concave surface, but when it got near the center (lowest point) its magnet was close enough to the coil (16) to induce a current in it, and a portion of the tapped coil supplied a potential to the base of a transister (20), large enough to trigger it into the transistor's "on" state, allowing the battery (18) to send current through the entire coil, and its magnetic field gave the spinning magnet a slight boost, hardly noticable. The transistor acts as an electronic switch. To further misdirect observers, a small bump (12') in the concave surface causes the spinner to deflect toward the outer rim of the device. The resulting spinner path could be quite complex and apparently unpredictable.
(http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/andrews-spinner.gif)
Notice how simple the self-triggering circuit is. That's what I called the "autotransformer" triggering method. As easy as pie!
Quote from: ramset on 2011.08.23, 19:52:40
...
Seems that this [the Wee Motor/Genny]has Peaked the interest of a few "builders" here?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11320.msg298633#new
Comments about "hows He Do That"???
Piezo crystal, gyroscopic, polarity flippin, Nasa Funded ,Flavour Shavers...........
Chet
The motor looks as if it is one of those surplus CD/DVD
drivers with the long shaft. They're very efficient and
capable of high rpms. Input power is DC.
The pickup coils are very loosely coupled to whatever
alternating/undulating magnetic field which may be
influencing them. Perhaps the tiny motor?
The flywheel has a considerably larger diameter than
the motor so there is a potential mechanical advantage
there. Once it's wound up it will probably free-wheel
for a surprisingly long time
I believe it'd be fairly easy to duplicate...
It's an unorthodox variant of the dynamotor.
Wattsup:
QuoteSince the gen coils are all FWBRed in series pairs, they cannot share anything with other pairs. They can only add their DC outputs. I tried to explain somewhere that putting the top coils in series and the bottom coils in series would create some major havoc (call it sharing havoc) that would be interesting to experiment with but no one has talked about this thus far.
The coils share the mechanical energy that's coming from the spinning rotor. That's the source energy. On the other hand, you are talking about the outputs from the pick-up coils.
Going back to that autortransformer self-triggering circuit, you can see how if you made something larger in size typical to what people build around here you could make an amazingly convincing fake. It would run for hours and hours no problem with no visible wires and it would be very easy to fake larger cores that were actually cylindrical lithium-ion batteries hidden inside a metal tube form. All that you have to do is experiment and figure out where to tap into your coil to turn on the transistor to make the rotor turn at the speed you want. The visible wires on the motor would be for a fake triggering circuit. It would be a really big sheww.
MileHigh
I went back and viewed the video again when he first started the device
spinning with the dremel tool
the cylinder that looks like a battery fell out,then the device came to a stop real quick
indicating that milehigh is right,it is being aided.I have some chokes that look like the
chokes in the video.
Picture one ,shows the choke apart,the bottom part can be hollowed out with a dremel tool,
to hold parts
like a transistor,hall effect ic,ect.Picture 2 shows my pole identifier,it has a hall sensor
at the tip,the core conducts the flux
from the small magnets.It is possible that theres a hall sensor glued against the bottom of the
core,inside the base,he uses two windings
one for pickup and one that when the magnet reaches TDC the hall sensor fires a pulse that
gives it a small push.I didn't have any hall sensors to use,it takes a strong magnet field to
turn on the hall device a weak energized coil would not.This is just a theory so you can kick it around
maybe true maybe not.
Cheappower2012:
Do you see the two schematic diagrams in the graphic of my reply #923? You don't need a Hall sensor, the coil itself is the sensor that is used to switch on the transistor. It is as simple as you can possibly get, a battery, a coil, and a transistor.
So a cylindrical battery disguised to look like a core with a coil around it can be made into a self-contained self-triggering device that pushes on the rotor to keep it turning.
MileHigh
Quote from: cheappower2012 on 2011.08.24, 11:14:54
I went back and viewed the video again when he first started the device
spinning with the dremel tool
the cylinder that looks like a battery fell out,then the device came to a stop real quick
indicating that milehigh is right,it is being aided.I have some chokes that look like the
chokes in the video.
Picture one ,shows the choke apart,the bottom part can be hollowed out with a dremel tool,
to hold parts
like a transistor,hall effect ic,ect.Picture 2 shows my pole identifier,it has a hall sensor
at the tip,the core conducts the flux
from the small magnets.It is possible that theres a hall sensor glued against the bottom of the
core,inside the base,he uses two windings
one for pickup and one that when the magnet reaches TDC the hall sensor fires a pulse that
gives it a small push.I didn't have any hall sensors to use,it takes a strong magnet field to
turn on the hall device a weak energized coil would not.This is just a theory so you can kick it around
maybe true maybe not.
When the cylinder fell out it rolled behind the battery holding springs he first stopped the rotor with his fingers before fiddling around to pick up the cylinder. The rotor did not stop on its own. You can see the volt meter reading decreasing from 32.4vdc in about a 1/2 volt increments.
The cylinder seems to look like a neo magnet holding a first button battery that then holds another neo magnet that holds another button battery. Since the neos have a conductive coating, they are perfect to hold the two batteries while providing continuity. (see image)
When he put the neo/bat back and again spinned the rotor with the dremel bit, the voltage shot up to 147 vdc and when the dremel was removed the voltage fell in 2 volt increments down to 68.6 vdc. By the time he finished checking the rpm with his hall sensor the voltage was now 68.1 vdc. When he removed the meter clips to check an AA battery, voltage was at 67.9 vdc. By the time he put back the volt meter clips back onto the output cap, voltage was now at 66.2 vdc. When he finally removed the meter clips voltage was down to 64.9 vdc. So there is a gradual decrease in output that would be indicative of a slow battery depletion.
Anyways, I like the idea of using that flywheel inertia storage but how to explain the voltage levels. I think he is basically confirming what I recommended to guys with Romero wheels to try and test by connecting all the top gen coils in series and bottom coils in series to create some major AC havoc that the fwbr will regulate to high voltage dc and stabilize off the capacitor. In this small build the two coils are on the same plate, offset by 180 degrees but I think there is a few degrees off perfect alignment so there are two coils with an AC off phase creating voltage spikes.
So at this stage, I could not say this is perpetual motion. But I like his really nifty build.
wattsup
PS: No I ain't gonna spend another lifetime on this.
@milehigh,My reservation would be the timing,its one thing if used in a toy that moves
at a slow speed,another that is moving at high speed.You still could be right
its simple and does not require a lot.
@wattsup,my mistake ,when he kicks out the battery at the end,also during the video
when he moves it by hand you can get an idea of the resistance caused by the
attraction of the magnets.
This would come to a fast stop without a source of power,batteries.Main
thing its a fake.
DeepCut, thanks for contacting the guy. Keep us posted.
@All,
I've looked at the videos closely and took snapshots and I'm starting to believe there are no transistors or reed switches or any commutation brushes, contacts or anything of this sort. I also refined the translation of what he says and it's quite revealing:
Este motor funciona a partir de un campo electromagnético auto inducido a partir de bobinas que repelen al rotor conformado por un imán y un volante inferior con dos pesos para crear inercia. Como fuente de potencia inicial se conecta una bateria que entrega 2.4 volts que convierte las bobinas en electro imanes y al girar en las bobinas se induce a su ves una corriente alterna en el bobinado secundario de cada bobina llevando esta corriente alterna a diodos que la rectifican en corriente continua pulsante, se conecta un condesador para estabilizar la corriente obteniendo mas de 60 volts de potencia como resultado. Las bobinas funcionan como inductancias y como transformadores a su ves.
Cada bobina tiene un doble hilo de alambre, el consumo del motor es de 100 mha. la velocidad de giro es aproximadamente de 7000 rpm.
Translation using google: (and edited by me after careful study and research)
This motor operates from the self-induced magnetic field of the coils that repel the rotor, which consists of a magnet [in the top part of rotor] and a lower wheel with two weights for creating inertia. As initial power source, a battery is connected that delivers 2.4 volts, which converts the coils into electromagnets, and while rotating, in the coils is induced in turn an alternating current in the secondary winding of each coil, and carrying this alternating current to the diodes which rectify it into pulsing DC current; a capacitor is connected to stabilize this current [or to smooth it out] and 60 volts of power is obtained as a result. The coils act as inductors and as transformers in turn.
Each coil has a double strand of wire, motor consumption is 100 ma. the speed is about 7000 rpm.
EM
@all
OK, regarding the small two coil motor, so we do not spend an eternity on this trying to tout it as OU, and since the builder has not come forward, I had a last look at that video and have found one peculiar aspect and that is the electrolytic capacitor is not the same in both halves of his video.
One the first half, his capacitor is longer and seems to have a second part to it even though it is encased in the outer coating, it looks like he added two small batteries at the top end. This video half he does not show he is adding any battery but he pretends he is charging the cap.
On the second half of the video, he does add his magnet/battery and the capacitor is much smaller.
See images below.
This video was a good trick. It still remains that producing 60-70vdc is interesting and I am sure it is because he is producing rectified output from two out of phased AC. The voltage drops within a short time frame so the small button batteries are not lasting that long. He says each coil is two coils. On each coil, one wind must be shorted with the other coil wind in series for acceleration mode (this proves cascading coil mode) and the other wind in each coil is the generator for production mode. But the whole device winds up working like a step up transformer.
Maybe someone should open up a new thread for this device.
wattsup
Wattsup,
Why are you posting crappy fuzzy low resolution photos? LOL ;D
Come on dude, didn't you see the links to the original videos in the comments section at YouTube? 8)
Go check it out, they are much better resolution.
Regarding the 60 volts plus that are created on the output. This voltage seems a bit too high to be generated by induction alone. I think it's more probable it is created from collapsing magnetic fields, or kickback, but where is the switching? If there is no switching, than I guess he has many many turns of wire in there and a good strong magnet on the rotor to induce those high voltage levels
EM
PS I added the picture, and we can clearly trace the wires. He is using 4 diodes as a full wave bridge rectifier (FWBR).
And by the way, good point about the charging up of the motor condenser in the first video, it would discharge faster than you can blink if it was connected to the coils directly. So right after he disconnects the battery pack from the capacitor, it would be discharged before he would have a chance to use the dremell tool to speed it up. So there has to be a switch mechanism somewhere that keeps the coils open as he charges up the capacitor, and that's what bothers me the most about this video. How is he switching the coils to make the motor run? Is there a hidden transistor, or a reed switch? Somebody please email this guy and ask him straight up, maybe he will answer.
The answer to this mystery is in the title of the video:
Motor de auto inducción y rotación por inercia
Translation:
Auto induction motor and rotation due to inertia.
The second part is key, the rotation is due to INERTIA. Those dremell tools can be set to various RPMs like: 15000, 7000, 5000, etc, and he just speeds up this thing very fast and the inertia of the lower wheel keeps it going. This is energy storage in a flywheel, and the energy comes from the dremell tool. The battery or capacitor at the bottom is a DIVERSION. It accomplishes nothing. The speed also decreases slowly indicative of energy depletion by friction.
Bottom line: THIS IS NOT A MOTOR JUST A FLYWHEEL AND GENERATING COILS.
EM
PS, There is another possibility for the bottom battery, it might not be a useless diversion. It is used to energize the coils and create a magnetic field so the rotor can change the inductance. Which means the rotor is not really a magnet but an iron bar, else you wouldn't need a battery at all. Looking at the rotor, it is probably pulled from an AC motor that depended on rotating magnetic fields, and has no magnets on it just steel laminations. So this explains why you need to have the coil energized first, else the flywheel can't output it's energy since there are no magnetic fields to work with.
@EM
I just followed a link on this thread to the video on youtube and figured that was it. But when I saw the quality of your pictures, I wondered, how did you get it so clear?
I just went back to the same youtube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gECwKzRw-gs
and the video is now by invitation only. lol
Lucky I already have the converted avi but now you are saying there is a better quality video. Where oh where?
wattsup
Lidmotor has done an attempt at a replication of this little spinning device -- interesting work and commentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZEJnqZo8pU&feature=uploademail
@ wattsup,
I just tried to go see the videos on YouTube and they are removed. I do have backups. That original low resolution video had 2 links to the original videos in the comments section. But now I can't find these originals either. The text I translated came from the second original video.
Oh well, it must have been "REAL" if he removed it. :P
@ Professor,
thanks for the link. I like Lidmotors videos, he explains everything he does.
EM
PS. Here's another picture of this tiny dynamo, and I drew a schematic of the wiring, the best to my knowledge and what the guy says about it. Very simple.
@EM
Thanks for the diagram.
OK, here is a switching theory in a very crude explanation. lol
One coil of the pairs are in series and basically creating a semi-short across the battery which is rather energy consuming. Usually when you short a battery, the voltage drops to 0. Then you have the diodes in the fwbr that forward at .7 volts. As the rotor turns and the weak field is in front of the coils, voltage drops below .7. As the rotor turns the fields to the coils, voltage increases and the diode forwards, bleeding off the produced energy. Then the rotor to coils is in no field again, voltage drops again and the diodes close again. That simple on/off fluctuation in the diodes is the switching and I would say that the timing is random but happens often enough to hit the rotor magnet enough times at the right interval to keep it turning. The switching is not directly switching of input energy but indirect depletion of output energy.
You would need to scope the motor as it is turning to see this.
wattsup
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.08.25, 18:37:12
The answer to this mystery is in the title of the video:
Motor de auto inducción y rotación por inercia
Translation:
Auto induction motor and rotation due to inertia.
The second part is key, the rotation is due to INERTIA. Those dremell tools can be set to various RPMs like: 15000, 7000, 5000, etc, and he just speeds up this thing very fast and the inertia of the lower wheel keeps it going. This is energy storage in a flywheel, and the energy comes from the dremell tool. The battery or capacitor at the bottom is a DIVERSION. It accomplishes nothing. The speed also decreases slowly indicative of energy depletion by friction.
Bottom line: THIS IS NOT A MOTOR JUST A FLYWHEEL AND GENERATING COILS.
EM
PS, There is another possibility for the bottom battery, it might not be a useless diversion. It is used to energize the coils and create a magnetic field so the rotor can change the inductance. Which means the rotor is not really a magnet but an iron bar, else you wouldn't need a battery at all. Looking at the rotor, it is probably pulled from an AC motor that depended on rotating magnetic fields, and has no magnets on it just steel laminations. So this explains why you need to have the coil energized first, else the flywheel can't output it's energy since there are no magnetic fields to work with.
Actually, I believe I'm wrong about this being just an energy storing flywheel. The reason is because the math does not support it. This device if not a hoax is quite interesting, and we could be witnessing OU operation. The LED load is probably 4 or 5 watts, and this along with friction should have stopped it after a few seconds.
Speaking of OU
ToranaRod suspects the OU beast has appeared................
And he wants to share here,
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/7982-muller-generator-replication-romerouk-51.html#post155261
Chet
Chet:
I suppose that I am feeling somewhat cynical this morning. I can't make head or tail about what Toranarod is really trying to say. He says that he is going to post more so perhaps then.
MileHigh
@ramset
It looks like hes shorting the bridge or causing a large current
to flow at a precise time,where does the signal come from that goes to the gate of the mosfet.
I'm assuming that this is Romerouk's setup that hes using,not the other one.
For Romerouk's device to work the output would have to be short pulses exceeding the normal voltage of the coils.
I'm watching very closely what goes on with Romerouk's device as this relates directly to what I'm doing.
There are several "magnet" topics here ( chose this one to bump with below info)
I did hear from a wonderful researcher ( Plengo) he shared a useful link ( an actual ( not AI?) you tube experimenter sharing useful methods)
And Plengo is an exceptional research/builder...
Here the link
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SdbjNuh8Tfw
Respectfully submitted
Chet K
That's an interesting experiment. I'd like to try it sometime.