PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-10-20, 22:48:37
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Author Topic: Pierre's OU claim  (Read 22173 times)
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
Well, I see that Pierre has given up on his gen2 version as it didn't work as expected.  I'm not surprised as I had predicted this outcome on OU that was apparently ignored which is why I don't post there anymore.  However, this is not to say that an H field approach couldn't work.

Regards,
Pm
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 325
partzman

Can you measure magnetic field intensity  in non-loaded and loaded generator and compare to the power (electrical) needed to create this field ? - only based on the actual measure we can solve this problem.
Let's imagine a DC dynamo like the one used in Figuera times. Let the armature have coils to create static magnetic field and the output is taken by coils on rotor (taken with slip rings).

if the field of armature coils is static and to power load we only need to apply torque (mechanical force on shaft) then how is this possible by Faraday law of induction to get more electrical power on output ?

I believe that the essential is the positive feedback explained indirectly by Figuera :
the more we load the generator the more intensive field we get by combining the initial field of armature coils and the generated field by current flowing in output coils via load. This field is causing magnetic attraction or repulsion according to Lenz law and it's the breaking of magnetic dipole the source of cogging effect.

Now , if we have a slightly bigger field intensity then due to Faraday induction we have the slightly bigger output on output coils which makes cogging effect a bit bigger and so on up to the steady state according to Ohm law with current flowing though the load.

So the first answer is : am I right ? what about field intensity on generator ? is it change ? if it isn't then we have another puzzle to solve.


   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 490
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
A simple experiment to prove that the field doesn't change is to just use a DC permanent magnet motor as the generator.  Drive it with any other motor you want and vary the load on the generator.  As the load increases you will measure an increase in current going to the drive motor.  You may have to increase the voltage to the drive motor to keep the output up on the generator.  But you will see when you get the output up on the generator side that the only thing you really had to do was get the generator back up to the original speed it was before it was loaded.  As I posted before a simple rule of thumb for generators is "Speed creates voltage and torque creates current".

Respectfully,
Carr0ll

PS: I thought Brad was going to test that with his rebuilt generator.  I guess he hasn't had time yet.


---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3651


Buy me some coffee
 author=CITFTA link=topic=3599.msg67501#msg67501 date=1525001204]


Quote
PS: I thought Brad was going to test that with his rebuilt generator.  I guess he hasn't had time yet.

I did,and i did shoot a video--just have not uploaded it yet,as im flat out with the !!other!! project.  O0

Quote
As I posted before a simple rule of thumb for generators is "Speed creates voltage and torque creates current".

Indeed.
Electrical voltage= mechanical rpm
Electrical current=mechanical torque

Electrical voltage+electrical current=electrical power

Mechanical RPM+mechanical torque=mechanical power-(horse power)


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 325
author=CITFTA link=topic=3599.msg67501#msg67501 date=1525001204]


I did,and i did shoot a video--just have not uploaded it yet,as im flat out with the !!other!! project.  O0

Indeed.
Electrical voltage= mechanical rpm
Electrical current=mechanical torque

Electrical voltage+electrical current=electrical power

Mechanical RPM+mechanical torque=mechanical power-(horse power)


Brad

But did you measure by precise gauss meter if the field inside this generator is higher when loaded  when torque is higher ? I suspect that torque is because of higher attraction between coils magnetic field and iron core exactly what Figuera mentioned in one of patent
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
partzman

Can you measure magnetic field intensity  in non-loaded and loaded generator and compare to the power (electrical) needed to create this field ? - only based on the actual measure we can solve this problem.
Let's imagine a DC dynamo like the one used in Figuera times. Let the armature have coils to create static magnetic field and the output is taken by coils on rotor (taken with slip rings).

if the field of armature coils is static and to power load we only need to apply torque (mechanical force on shaft) then how is this possible by Faraday law of induction to get more electrical power on output ?

I believe that the essential is the positive feedback explained indirectly by Figuera :
the more we load the generator the more intensive field we get by combining the initial field of armature coils and the generated field by current flowing in output coils via load. This field is causing magnetic attraction or repulsion according to Lenz law and it's the breaking of magnetic dipole the source of cogging effect.

Now , if we have a slightly bigger field intensity then due to Faraday induction we have the slightly bigger output on output coils which makes cogging effect a bit bigger and so on up to the steady state according to Ohm law with current flowing though the load.

So the first answer is : am I right ? what about field intensity on generator ? is it change ? if it isn't then we have another puzzle to solve.

Forest,

To date, all my work has been done in solid state rather than rotational devices so I have nothing to test without physical construction.  A simulation could be done using gyrator/capacitor modeling but the task is enormous and requires many parameters to be known before any kind of accuracy of the device to be simulated could be expected.  It sounds like Brad may be the best source for bench testing if he has the time.

Regards,
Pm   
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 490
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
Hi forest,

Here is a link that goes pretty deep into electric motor and generator theory.  Maybe something in there will help you find what you are asking about.

http://www.electricianeducation.com/theory/electric_motors.htm

Carroll


---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 334
Hi forest,

Here is a link that goes pretty deep into electric motor and generator theory.  Maybe something in there will help you find what you are asking about.

http://www.electricianeducation.com/theory/electric_motors.htm

Carroll

The more precise would be http://www.edisontechcenter.org/inductionMotors.html for Pierre's case. We make rotating magnetic field on stator but forcibly have rotor stopped and take generated power out to the load from the rotor... Just there are differences:
1) We have field moving by 6 coils groups from which we make one single magnet from 2 coils by winding one's begining on other's end. So Figuera style. Not just 120 degrees 3 phase AC changing polarity on 3 coils.
2) There is single signifant magnetic pole across 4 coils in series
3) We have weak bucking polarity going opposite way as well due all coils connection in series

Hopefully this will clear up some confusion.

Cheers!
« Last Edit: 2018-04-30, 16:39:31 by T-1000 »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1375
... .-.. .. -.. . .-.
A thought has been nagging me for a while and, needs throwing out as an idea.
Likely in terms of "that's not gonna work Slider", but here goes.

Pierre mentioned several times that he learned a secret that took 2 years of experimentation to discover.
Could it be, that he has magnets in the pickup rotor ?
At first it doesn't seem sensible, but sensible devices aren't OU.
Such an idea would feasibly magnify the induction effects of the magnetic fields. North would become a Super North and South a Super South.  Likewise, when the field is at 180 degrees and (presumably) not useful with such an arrangement, the induction would be greatly reduced.
The AC behaviour would then be derived from this super induction method and subsequently similar far higher field collapse in the output stage.
What do magnets do to induction, when sat within rotor coils that experience sharp square wave on/off pulsing  ?


---------------------------
ʎɐqǝ from pɹɐoqʎǝʞ a ʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 325
A thought has been nagging me for a while and, needs throwing out as an idea.
Likely in terms of "that's not gonna work Slider", but here goes.

Pierre mentioned several times that he learned a secret that took 2 years of experimentation to discover.
Could it be, that he has magnets in the pickup rotor ?
At first it doesn't seem sensible, but sensible devices aren't OU.
Such an idea would feasibly magnify the induction effects of the magnetic fields. North would become a Super North and South a Super South.  Likewise, when the field is at 180 degrees and (presumably) not useful with such an arrangement, the induction would be greatly reduced.
The AC behaviour would then be derived from this super induction method and subsequently similar far higher field collapse in the output stage.
What do magnets do to induction, when sat within rotor coils that experience sharp square wave on/off pulsing  ?

Just ask him if capacitors are essential. If so then it's no more then what Kapanadze discovered ;-) If capacitors are essential then the large flux required to get OU power is done by disruptive discharge method - then this is the secret. If so I would be disappointed because it is not a replication of Figuera principle.
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Full Member
***

Posts: 157
Has anyone yet considered that some of the coils are physically shorted at certain parts of the cycle?
And how this affects the dynamics of inductance, flux, and saturation as energies are circulated around the transformer?

Mechanical relay contacts are not instant make/break.  Especially when de-energizing, there is a delay of many milliseconds before the relay contact is physically broken.  Based on the switching diagrams I've seen, it seems likely that there can be periods of coil-shorting at certain phases of a cycle.

Coil-shorting results in parametric variation of inductance (ie: Mag-Amp).  Parametric variation of L and/or C is a fundamental note in much of Eric Dollard's writings.

So what happens when we try to model and simulate a rotary transformer that is also a mag-amp? ^-^

(just a quick thought I've been pondering as I work on my own experiments)


---------------------------
Critical thinking is important, but a professional skeptic will never discover anything new.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2405
Has anyone yet considered that some of the coils are physically shorted at certain parts of the cycle?
And how this affects the dynamics of inductance, flux, and saturation as energies are circulated around the transformer?

Mechanical relay contacts are not instant make/break.  Especially when de-energizing, there is a delay of many milliseconds before the relay contact is physically broken.  Based on the switching diagrams I've seen, it seems likely that there can be periods of coil-shorting at certain phases of a cycle.

Coil-shorting results in parametric variation of inductance (ie: Mag-Amp).  Parametric variation of L and/or C is a fundamental note in much of Eric Dollard's writings.

So what happens when we try to model and simulate a rotary transformer that is also a mag-amp? ^-^

(just a quick thought I've been pondering as I work on my own experiments)

I see this all in a different light as to what is being done. The full circuit has not been given, AFAIK, but was given a small diagram which if looked at well resembles a boost circuit.

If so, then part of the voltage is sent to the capacitors and the other to the next coil, I use this myself for other devices, yes parametric if the capacitor is across two adjacent coils. Charge one and discharge two, the result is the change in inductance of one coil into two coils which actually gives you X4 the inductance when there is a core.

By doing this using one mosfet for two coils, connected between two coils, there will be a natural progression around the stator, fisical polarity changing in my view is not needed, this is similar to Figura.

Regards

Mike 8)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Guest
And now it appears that I am being censored at OU dot com. I will not stand for that.

Pierre's claimed overunity is a HOAX. You can waste all the time and money you like trying to replicate what he has only shown in a dodgy video. You will not be able to do it. And Pierre himself cannot face true scrutiny, and he has already planned his exit strategy. And I and other skeptics like me will be blamed for it!



   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3230
yes
it is quite true what you say , the group who are actually spending their time and their money don't
want generic negative comments ,its how they chose to spend their time and their money

I don't imagine that any group anywhere [insert any science research project with questionable theory here [ION drive...LENR ... Quantum whatever ...etc etc]
I don't imagine negative input would get you a seat at those tables either [already well known the reasons "Not".. its the "why nots ?" that get you a seat there...

most likely "the door" would be offered to the "Nots"

is that censorship ??
or ?

grown men doing what they like to do with their own money and time ?

racetracks ,gambling,Gaming  ...car racing ,deep sea fishing ...Golf....etc etc.



sorta like a Peta person showing up with protest signs trying to stop the meat eaters barbecue
and expecting a seat at the table.....

instead being shown the door

is that censorship ?
or?













   
Group: Guest
Whatever, dude. People do win races, they do reach the tops of mountains, sometimes they win at poker or catch a billfish or hit a hole-in-one .... etc. But trying to reproduce, say... David Copperfield's illusion of vanishing the Statue of Liberty.... well, if you don't do it by trickery like he did, you AINT GONNA DO IT. And trying to reproduce Pierre's hoax is kind of like that. At least, before spending a lot of money, people should have the common sense to challenge his extremely extraordinary, earth shattering, CHILD SAVING device claims.... and they should insist on a proper test/examination before throwing their money at it.

What if it does only work for ten minutes powering itself and a microwave before the relays catch on fire.... those ten minutes, shown to some Real Scientists and Real Engineers... could literally save the world.

But no... Pierre just can't be arsed to repair it and demonstrate it properly to someone who can tell the difference.




Remember another "sincere gentleman" who didn't even bother to demonstrate his claims of a Permanent Magnet Only Motor.....?

I reserve the right to say "I TOLD YOU SO" when everybody eventually gives up on Pierre and he disappears.... just like we have seen so many others do.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 490
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
Well I can easily see both sides of this issue.  I have of course been involved with Matt and Dave and the 3 battery generating system as Dave calls it.  I have seen that it does give extended run times from those batteries by at least 30% to 50%.  But I have seen great resistance from a lot of sources that insist that it doesn't work.  And of course that is not from people that have actually spent the time and effort to properly test the system.

On the other hand I have seen so many foolish attempts at building things that don't stand a chance of working and those involved in those projects are absolutely convinced they know what they are doing and everyone else is just a naysayer.  I know TK and I both have a lot of electronic experience so I think that helps us to be discerning when it comes to those types of projects.

My personal opinion about Pierre's device is I wouldn't waste ten minutes attempting to build it.  There are just too many red flags about that whole demonstration and the claims.  I won't post my opinion on OU.com because I know it would only be a waste of my time and effort and create some ill will I don't need from some people I respect.  I did try to ask a couple of questions early on but got shouted down real quick so I gave it up.  What amazes me is that there appear to be so many people that are willing to invest a lot of time and money on projects they don't really understand.  But I guess that is just my conservative nature showing up.

Just my 2 cents worth of opinion.

Respectfully,
Carroll


---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   
Group: Guest
Now, here is something else, that some people have already realized.

There is NO combination of the wiring schemes AND the original Arduino program that Pierre published that will result in a 60.5 Hz output frequency which was shown on his meter. Unless the output is actually DC and is fed to an ordinary OTS inverter, making it independent of the program frequency ... and we have not seen any evidence of that.

The Arduino sketch that Pierre first published is a kludge, written by someone who is a real beginner at Arduino programming. It operates at a fixed frequency, determined by the delay() statements. It is trivial to alter the sketch to make it have an adjustable frequency. Challenge: Let someone show that the output frequency of 60.5 Hz is _actually_ set by the Arduino sketch's cycle speed, by making the frequency adjustable in the sketch and then showing that the output frequency can be varied by a few Hz either way by adjusting the sketch timing.

Will we ever see such a test?

   
Group: Guest
Quote
I won't post my opinion on OU.com because I know it would only be a waste of my time and effort and create some ill will I don't need from some people I respect.

Why should you respect people who don't respect your opinion? Or to put it another way, why shouldn't people respect your opinion, if you respect them? After all, your opinion is worth quite a bit, due to your experience and education. Why cast pearls before swine, so to speak? The reason is a love for Truth and a hope that someday someone will crack the nut. Right? So where does "respect" come into it?

But I do agree with you, actually. It is just that I hate to watch trainwrecks, over and over and over.
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3230
well
maybe you missed that part
where he stated the device shown [or as shown] was not all inclusive ..
something about a piston action [or analogous too] which was not shown ??

also the timing sequence was not the same for the running unit [merely a step along the path??

yes its Par for most OU courses ....

   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 917
well
maybe you missed that part
where he stated the device shown [or as shown] was not all inclusive ..
something about a piston action [or analogous too] which was not shown ??

also the timing sequence was not the same for the running unit [merely a step along the path??

yes its Par for most OU courses ....

I have to totally agree with TK and I was a supporter of the device early on.  However, there are just too many coincidental red flags at this point and I consider any replication attempts based on the info Pierre has supplied as a total waste of time.  Those who are waiting for him to supply the "secret" after getting 'protection' will be waiting for years. 

From my own research, there is a possibility that there could be gain derived from a non-linear parametric change in inductance from coils adjacent to the fixed rotor as compared to those off center to the rotor with consideration of a moving PM field.  In order to determine if this is possible, the stator saturation characteristics or B/H curves would have to be profiled along with all the coil induction characteristics such as coupling, etc.

Out of time-

Pm 
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 325
There is many old patents interesting and ready for replication, but nobody is trying....
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3230
Luc has the deluxe version under preliminary test .

 Note : Vid is not Public [just thru forum links here and at Stefan's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RhUY8HX90Y&feature=youtu.be

   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 334
https://overunity.com/17653/pierres-170w-in-1600w-out-looped-very-impressive-build-continued-moderated/msg522129/#msg522129
The truth was told in regards to solid state alternator (also including same in Figuera patents)
Now it is only technical challenge left how to make it happen...
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 325
https://overunity.com/17653/pierres-170w-in-1600w-out-looped-very-impressive-build-continued-moderated/msg522129/#msg522129
The truth was told in regards to solid state alternator (also including same in Figuera patents)
Now it is only technical challenge left how to make it happen...

I think it's related to fact that in standard generator field is constant in other words current in armature is fixed and magnetic field lines cut by rotor generate output only by flux cutting without flux linking. Am I right ?
I mentioned previously that it's the basic principle of every generator and to replicate it or simulate by switching and rotating magnetic field is tricky.
I just wanted to know if we are on the same topic.
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3230
More "unlisted" movies from Luc's testing and run up


Video Part 1:  https://youtu.be/Y4oJ0e9BcZc

Video Part 2:  https://youtu.be/PSGs6xbah00

Video Part 3:  https://youtu.be/8hrBa8qRhY4

and member Pmgr requested a test [he has been a huge help to Luc throughout this build.


Luc
Quote

Low Frequency test requested by Pmgr plus other higher Frequency comparisons.
Everyone, please keep in mind I am not testing an exact replication of Pierre's device. These are as is tests. There are still many modifications to be completed.

Link to video: https://youtu.be/QRV8MxjM-vA
end quote

and link to Stefan's forum topic
https://overunity.com/17653/pierres-170w-in-1600w-out-looped-very-impressive-build-continued-moderated/960/
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-10-20, 22:48:37