Measuring POWER in a motor-generator or transformer

[PhysicsProf]

  Thinking, pondering.
 I recall as a child wondering what would happen if a guy hooked up a generator to an electric motor, then took the output of the generator and fed it back into the motor.  Could you get it to keep running?
 
  That's what we're talking about here really -- correct me if I'm wrong -- with the Muller, RomeroUK, Bedini etc. devices.  Even if they somehow want to combine the motor with the generator (MG) with a single rotor, it's still such a combination.

  Later when I studied Physics, I learned that this is IMPOSSIBLE to keep running, due to something called the Second Law of Thermodynamics...  Entropy and all that.  Graduate school, PhD in Physics -- they drilled this in.  Heck, I drilled it in.

 But of course, if there is an OUTSIDE SOURCE of ENERGY, then the combo can keep running as long as the OSE continues, with no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Like gasoline added to the motor/generator.

  Fast forward to the present and find inventors claiming they've GOT IT -- a self-running moto-generator (MG) combo.  OK -- once this is EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED and replicated and verified again, THEN we can do experiments to determine the nature of the OSE.

It really doesn't help to make progress if someone says IN ADVANCE of experiments, that it is IMPOSSIBLE.  Really, that is just a statement that there is NO other source of energy than those already currently known.  

I'm not willing to take such an arrogant Lord-Kelvin attitude.  I'm willing to let experiments take the first step, does it work?  Make the measurements carefully THEN we can worry about determining the OSE.  (And at that stage, I predict finding the OSE will be relatively easy through carefully-designed experiments.)

SO -- my question has to do with HOW to make rigorous MEASUREMENTS of a moto-gen (MG) combo.  Help me on this, I know how to do measurements of V and I using a Tek 3032 DPO, for example.  Is that the best way here with an MG?

Example:

Motor is 12 V DC and draws a few amps.  
Generator is 12 V DC and puts out a few amps.

Critical now to MEASURE the Vin and Iin accurately as well as the Vout and Iout -- or any other reliable way to measure Pin and Pout.   BE sure to allow for PULSED DC.

I await your best thoughts and suggestions on how to reliably do these measurements. Then I want to build a simple MG combo and test out the methods.

Thanks, in advance!  I know you guys have good ideas.

[PhysicsProf]

  In addition, I want to be ready to reliably and accurately measure Pin and Pout for a transformer based on AC measurements.
For example,

100VAC in @ a few amps
100VAC out @ a few amps.

Again, what are the cleverest ways to measure input and output POWER?

[exnihiloest]

...
But of course, if there is an OUTSIDE SOURCE of ENERGY, then the combo can keep running as long as the OSE continues, with no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Like gasoline added to the motor/generator.

  Fast forward to the present and find inventors claiming they've GOT IT -- a self-running moto-generator (MG) combo.  OK -- once this is EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED and replicated and verified again, THEN we can do experiments to determine the nature of the OSE.

It really doesn't help to make progress if someone says IN ADVANCE of experiments, that it is IMPOSSIBLE.  Really, that is just a statement that there is NO other source of energy than those already currently known.  

I'm not willing to take such an arrogant Lord-Kelvin attitude.  I'm willing to let experiments take the first step,
...

I agree with this method, it is a rational procedure currently implemented by the people skilled in their domain.

I think it is not the main problem when we face claims of overunity from "inventors" or experimenters. Most of them misinterpret the observations and the measurements (when they have ones).
For the ignorants all is possible: why not to put a wind turbine on the top of the car, to charge the battery that powers the electric motor that let run the car that allows the wind turbine to get wind? When we explain why their ideas, observations or measurements are not correct and can't lead to conclusions of overunity, they consider that we deny overunity and only say it is impossible, when we just show either the lack of facts or the inconsistency of their reasoning, often due to their incompetence.

Imho, no one should speak of "overunity" without having built himself a selfrunning machine. Only after this step and after third party duplications, the "OSE" is to discover. And before this step, one should only speak of "paradoxal results" or "anomalous measurements".

[PhysicsProf]

I agree with this method, it is a rational procedure currently implemented by the people skilled in their domain.

I think it is not the main problem when we face claims of overunity from "inventors" or experimenters. Most of them misinterpret the observations and the measurements (when they have ones).
For the ignorants all is possible: why not to put a wind turbine on the top of the car, to charge the battery that powers the electric motor that let run the car that allows the wind turbine to get wind? When we explain why their ideas, observations or measurements are not correct and can't lead to conclusions of overunity, they consider that we deny overunity and only say it is impossible, when we just show either the lack of facts or the inconsistency of their reasoning, often due to their incompetence.

Imho, no one should speak of "overunity" without having built himself a selfrunning machine. Only after this step and after third party duplications, the "OSE" is to discover. And before this step, one should only speak of "paradoxal results" or "anomalous measurements".

Yes, we're on the same page on this XNihiloest -- one thing, however:
"Imho, no one should speak of "overunity" without having built himself a selfrunning machine."

I would say, without careful, repeatable MEASUREMENTS of input and output POWER, and showing Pout/Pin >1.  (Or Eout/Ein >1) 

Peterae points to a "perpetual motion machine" that actually runs forever --
http://www.wjcc.k12.va.us/ROBB/Atom%20Animation%20Resources_files/image003.gif   

Now c'mon -- HOW do we accurately measure POWER input and output in these two straightforward cases (M-G and xformer, above)? 
I'm looking for rigor.  Measurement methods don't have to be complicated or expensive.  Is using the math-mean function on a Tektronix 3032 the best we can do?

[exnihiloest]

...
I would say, without careful, repeatable MEASUREMENTS of input and output POWER, and showing Pout/Pin >1.  (Or Eout/Ein >1)

When their result is negative, measurements are just a method to discard false symptoms of overunity.
But when their results seem positive, they are not enough to be a proof. Steorn was a typical example. Steorn affirmed they have OU when it was their measurement protocol that was erroneous. Measurements are just a mean of research. It is really only a self-sustaining machine that can prove OU.

Peterae points to a "perpetual motion machine" that actually runs forever --
http://www.wjcc.k12.va.us/ROBB/Atom%20Animation%20Resources_files/image003.gif   

It runs forever but doesn't provide energy (except if we would change its internal structure according to E=M*c²).
I know that you know it but nevertheless I say it: a perpetual motion machine doesn't contradict conventional physics when there is no losses, as for an inertial motion or rotation of a body in space. It is true for the atom also. Here there is no input/output power to measure, it is a whole balanced state of motions (eventually through an equilibrium with the environment) without forces to stop it, so it goes for ever.

Now c'mon -- HOW do we accurately measure POWER input and output in these two straightforward cases (M-G and xformer, above)?

I'm looking for rigor.  Measurement methods don't have to be complicated or expensive.  Is using the math-mean function on a Tektronix 3032 the best we can do?

Even though the motor and generator functions can be mixed in the machine, a m-g has an input and an output. May be I missed something because I don't even see where there is a measurement problem. What would prevent easy measurements of input/output?

[PhysicsProf]

What would prevent easy measurements of input/output?

--exN

"Easy measurements" are indeed what we want; I'm seeking specific measurement methods with some detail of how one would do these, with a few alternative measurement methods sought.

 I guess I would start, since I have a Tek 3032 available, by using CSR's (current-sensing resistors) on the input and output legs of the circuits -- of sufficient power-rating to handle the currents.  Then measure the input [later, output] voltage with one scope probe and the current with the other, multiply these on the scope to get the Power, and then take the MEAN value of Power over many cycles.  Should work when the power is in the tens of watts or even higher, if all is done properly.  This approach works well for the little sj1 circuit described on another thread, where the powers are typically less than a watt.

 BUT I'd like to see other power-measurement methods described in some detail for the devices outlined earlier in THIS thread... using DMM's if possible, instead of the fancy DPO scope.  Clear enough?

[exnihiloest]

...
 I guess I would start, since I have a Tek 3032 available, by using CSR's (current-sensing resistors) on the input and output legs of the circuits -- of sufficient power-rating to handle the currents.  Then measure the input [later, output] voltage with one scope probe and the current with the other, multiply these on the scope to get the Power, and then take the MEAN value of Power over many cycles.  Should work when the power is in the tens of watts or even higher, if all is done properly.  This approach works well for the little sj1 circuit described on another thread, where the powers are typically less than a watt.

Now it's clear. It is what I consider "easy", "easy" in the sense it is a direct application of the theory (Int[V(t)*I(t)]), but not always easy to realize (except with a digital oscilloscope which can calculate automatically from the stored samples).

 BUT I'd like to see other power-measurement methods described in some detail for the devices outlined earlier in THIS thread... using DMM's if possible, instead of the fancy DPO scope.  Clear enough?

Yes, thanks. Unfortunately I have no suggestion.

[poynt99]

Professor,

The dual-DMM method I have outlined should work for all DC Input sources. I still have to try this with the Ainslie oscillator when I return.

I also have an idea for how it might be possible to achieve an accurate output power measurement, and I have outlined that some time back as well, but that has not been proven with a simulation yet.

As far as AC measurements, that poses another challenge, especially on the input side, but this also depends on the frequency and wave shape.

Regards,
.99

[PhysicsProf]

Professor,

The dual-DMM method I have outlined should work for all DC Input sources. I still have to try this with the Ainslie oscillator when I return.

I also have an idea for how it might be possible to achieve an accurate output power measurement, and I have outlined that some time back as well, but that has not been proven with a simulation yet.

As far as AC measurements, that poses another challenge, especially on the input side, but this also depends on the frequency and wave shape.

Regards,
.99

\
Thanks for reminding me of this; will it work with DC from a battery, but when you look on the scope, the input current has a strong AC component? 

  Testing with a SIM is fine... but I would like to see whether the dual-DMM method agrees with the Tek 3032 method. 

And a method for AC would be helpful...

[poynt99]

\
Thanks for reminding me of this; will it work with DC from a battery, but when you look on the scope, the input current has a strong AC component?  

 Testing with a SIM is fine... but I would like to see whether the dual-DMM method agrees with the Tek 3032 method.  

And a method for AC would be helpful...

Professor,

The dual-DMM measurement relies on the fact that the source of power is DC (Power Factor=1), and therefore we are permitted to heavily filter both the voltage and current measurements for the DC source.

Build the small RC filters previously shown in another discussion thread and use your DMM to measure the voltage across the battery, then across the input CSR. You can then directly multiply these two averaged values together to obtain the input power. Remember to factor in the value of your CSR if it is anything other than 1 Ohm.

Regarding the AC input power measurement, could you specify what the source is exactly?

.99

[PhysicsProf]

Professor,

The dual-DMM measurement relies on the fact that the source of power is DC (Power Factor=1), and therefore we are permitted to heavily filter both the voltage and current measurements for the DC source.

Build the small RC filters previously shown in another discussion thread and use your DMM to measure the voltage across the battery, then across the input CSR. You can then directly multiply these two averaged values together to obtain the input power. Remember to factor in the value of your CSR if it is anything other than 1 Ohm.

Regarding the AC input power measurement, could you specify what the source is exactly?

.99

See my discussion on the other thread regarding a comparison of the MEAN power-in calculated by the Tek 3032 and the power calculated by your dual DMM method.  There must be a way to check whether your method is in agreement with the Tek 3032 calculation of the actual power Pin.

"Regarding the AC input power measurement, could you specify what the source is exactly?"  Here let's home in on the Gabriel-type transformer, so the AC input comes off the electric grid @ 60 Hz (in the US).

[poynt99]

See my discussion on the other thread regarding a comparison of the MEAN power-in calculated by the Tek 3032 and the power calculated by your dual DMM method.  There must be a way to check whether your method is in agreement with the Tek 3032 calculation of the actual power Pin.

"Regarding the AC input power measurement, could you specify what the source is exactly?"  Here let's home in on the Gabriel-type transformer, so the AC input comes off the electric grid @ 60 Hz (in the US).

Professor,

I would bet my house on the results obtained via the dual-DMM RC filter method. I would not rely heavily on the P(t) measurements from the scope. Check out the results I've been posting regarding Rose's oscillator circuit. It can be shown that power flows back to the battery simply by scoping the battery voltage on the other side of a small amount of inductance. This is not the true battery voltage.

Here is an experiment you can do with your scope:

When you are measuring VBAT, use the scope measurement function to display the MEAN value for the battery. Then do the same for the CSR trace, and multiply the two values together. If the value is not the same as your P(t) result, then you know inductance is skewing the measurement.

A DC source is a PF=1 source, therefore we not only can, but should filter out the high frequency components when measuring the input power.

40mW sounds very plausible, based on the testing I performed on the JT circuits.

Perhaps a simulation of this latest variant is in order, esp. since no one seems to be able to get the same frequency of operation.

.99

[PhysicsProf]

Professor,

I would bet my house on the results obtained via the dual-DMM RC filter method. ...

A DC source is a PF=1 source, therefore we not only can, but should filter out the high frequency components when measuring the input power.

40mW sounds very plausible, based on the testing I performed on the JT circuits.

Perhaps a simulation of this latest variant is in order, esp. since no one seems to be able to get the same frequency of operation.

.99

Wow!  I'm inclined to accept your bet, given my results with a capacitor for the input (Ein) and a stopwatch to measure the time. 
This is not a JT circuit, really, since components have been moved around significantly.

Anyway, experiments rule, as discussed on the other thread:

  Four 10K uF caps, to run the sj1 circuit.  By measuring the volts before and after 30 seconds on the caps, I can calculate input power!

delta-E = 1/2 C(Vi**2 - Vf**2) ,  Pin = deltaE / delta-T  , 30 seconds.  C = 40mF.

Start, Vinitial = 1.385V  , Vfinal =  1.255V

So delta-E = 6.8 mJoules.
and Pin = 6.8/30sec = 0.23 mW .  Yet the LED glows dimly on the output leg......

(see http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=853.msg14304#msg14304 )

This is MUCH less than 40 mW reported by Itsu, and I'm asking him to repeat his measurement using both the dual-DMM method AND this cap&stop-watch method, so we can check the dual-DMM method.

[acmefixer]

OSE or OutSide Energy may be there to harvest, but harvesting it may not be practical. Putting a conductor in a rotating magnetic field gathers energy from the resulting induced electric current.  We wind this coil and orient it so that the stationary coil rotates once every 24 hours along with the earth's rotation.  The earth's magnetic field rotates along with the earth, so we have to use the magnetic field from the Sun. We get an extremely small current induced into the coil, and this is at a rate of 1 cycle every 86400 seconds, or about 11.574 microhertz.

So now we have a source of OSE. But in order to harvest enough useful energy from this experiment, we would need to make a sizeable coil, something about the diameter of Greenland, or maybe Australia. I'm thinking that that would probably use up most of the world supply of copper.  It looks like this experiment is not going to scale up. 

We've discovered a source of OSE, but it's not practical, I'm afraid.