Could post a paragraph or two about what is going on here? I came by almost at random, and know I'm intrigued. Also I see that info is no longer availabe on your site.
However, on the power supply side of the filter the load will look very 'smooth' and there will be a continuous, smooth flow of current. Just put your multimeter in series between the power supply and the first inductor and you will get very accurate DC current measurements, even if the load on the other side of the big low-pass filter is a spiking pulse motor.
You could make a nice low pass filter, you would just have to do a bit of research to get caps and inductors that are large enough.
What I'm working on now won't need a filter for power measurements as you describe. It's way "cooler" than my other designs. At this point though, I'm choosing to keep much of the results private for now.
Yet all my life, I've never seen a motor that when mechanically loaded the amp meter did not detect and display it. Especially under heavy load as compared to this demonstration.
I know what these type of filters are. This was an older model. I've moved on to better working designs that use conventional laws of physics, not EE theory and motor designs that have not changed in a hundred years.
Conventional laws of physics and "EE theory" are always in total agreement.
You need to understand the 100-year-old motor designs to give yourself a foundation of knowledge to further experiment. Those same 100-year-old motor designs are still in use today for the vast majority of motor applications.
All that you did was measure the DC resistance of the motor coils and then hook up your power supply and measure the current through the motor coils when the motor was not spinning. All that you did there was measure the motor like it was a resistor. That has nothing to do with measuring the power consumption of the motor when it is free running or running under load. I am not trying to offend you I am simply telling you the truth.
"Yes I know what I did. I was showing the maximum power that motor could use under full load and stopped."
For a given source voltage there is a certain output speed and torque from the motor that will transfer the maximum amount of power to the load. It's called mechanical impedance matching and it would represent the point of maximum power that the motor could use.
You did not measure the motor under full load, and measuring the current of the motor when it is stopped is meaningless.
What is REALLY meaningless is the fact that voltage has NOTHING to do with the strength of the electromagnet B-field of which moves the rotor and creates torque or power. Most people including you don't seem to grasp this simple concept that voltage is-has-and-always-will-be "decoupled" from magnetic field strength therefore making input watts irrelevant of actual power output.
I never said that voltage has to do with the strength of the B-field. The current and the core properties determine the strength of the B-field. The magnitude of the source voltage and the impedance of the coil determines the maximum current.
It's not about whether or not the voltage is 'decoupled' from the current. It is about the power flow. The input watts flow into the motor. Some watts are lost as heat, some watts are output as mechanical power, and that's it.
As a general suggestion, you should get two 5-Watt 0.1 ohm resistors. You should be able to insert these resistors in series in various parts of your circuits without disturbing the operation of your various motor configurations.
These two shunt resistors coupled with the scope can become your 'eyes' for seeing what is going on in the circuit. You can monitor the current flows at various points with your oscilloscope.
For example, you can look at the currents coming into and/or going out of your two batteries. You will be able to see plain as day if they are charging or discharging, what the charging back EMF current spikes look like going into the battery, etc.
Another great thing would be to monitor the current with the shunt resistor setup while at the same time monitoring the voltage. You may find it interesting in that you will probably find that the voltage and current have different timings.
Thing is, I'm not charging batteries in this video, not most of them. Again, I don't need to see that from the setup that I'm using now. But I do know what you mean about "phase shifts" between current and voltage nodes. I have my spreadsheet of LCR variables and calculations that I use.
"The current and the core properties determine the strength of the B-field."
Only Partially correct... you missed the most important part of which is stated at least twice on the comments section of this video.
Your argument makes no sense.. power "in" is determined by volts times amps. Yet a B-field strength is not determined by voltage. Yet it is the B-field which is providing the motor torque. In essence motor torque is NOT a direct linear relationship to input watts.
"Yet a B-field strength is not determined by voltage. Yet it is the B-field which is providing the motor torque.."
Let me respond to that by talking about capacitors and inductors. Capacitors store energy. The value of the capacitor is determined by the geometry of the plates and dielectric between the plates. The higher the permittivity of the dielectric, the higher the capacitance. A bigger capacitor takes longer to charge and stores more energy.
Inductors (like motor coils) act just like capacitors in many ways.
Inductors store energy. The value of the inductor is determined by the geometry of the wire coil and the permeability of the medium between the coil. The permeability acts like a "magnetic field resistor" as it goes up, the "resistance" drops, it "provides a freer path" for the magnetic field.
An inductor with an air core stored less energy than a similar inductor with a ferrite core, because of the permeability of the iron.
Great, so you get a larger B-field strength from the inductor with the ferrite core.
Here is the key point: You have a battery connected in series to a resistor then connected to an inductor. You flip the switch on, how long until the inductor is fully "charged" with current?
Answer: It takes LONGER to fully "charge" the inductor with the ferrite core than the air core. The ferrite core inductor has a larger B-field and is storing more energy.
HOWEVER, you had to suck MORE current times voltage ( = energy) out of the battery to "charge" the ferrite core inductor.
The B-field is larger because you used up more batter energy to get there. It's not about the current, it's not about the voltage, it's about how much energy you had to expend (from the battery) to get there.
There is a DIRECT LINK between getting more torque from stronger B-fields and how much energy you suck out of the battery.
Dude!!! Wire= 1 ohm. Make 10 winds on air core or mu metal, it does not matter. Apply 1 Volt. B-field=10 gauss. Now take same of X cross sectional area. Split in half so each wire is 1/2 X cross sectional area. Now wind each wire in parallel. You end up with 20 winds @ 1 ohm. Apply 1 volt. B-field now = 20 gauss. Simple!
Dude, don't we all wish life was so simple. Split the wire in half and make it look like a bifilar coil. Then you made a big mistake.
The new 'half-wire coils' are now 2 ohms in resistance. One volt supply, 1/2 amp current through the first coil, 10 turns, you get 5 gauss from the first coil. The second 'half-wire coil' contributes another 5 gauss, for a total of 10 gauss.
It's really 20 winds @ 2 ohms, apply 1 volt, B-field now =10 gauss. Simple!
"It's really 20 winds @ 2 ohms, apply 1 volt, B-field now =10 gauss. Simple!"
*Wrong*.
The wire size split in two and then added\wound together(wired in parallel) still equals one ohm, yet now there are double the turns. You forgot that each wire is 2 ohms divided by 2 wires in parallel.. this equals 1 ohm for 20 gauss.
"You forgot that each wire is 2 ohms divided by 2 wires in parallel.. this equals 1 ohm for 20 gauss."
You are missing something fundamental. Each half-wire coil now has one half of the current going through it. The total currents has not changed, it is still one amp. Therefore each half-wire coil carries one-half of an amp, and only produces five gauss.
Try visualizing this: You are looking at the bifilar coil along the radial axis. It's a cylinder shape, 10 cm high and 1 cm wide. One of the coils is then 'slid back' so that you now have a wider double-coil, 10 cm high and 2 cm wide. The two coils have the same winding, so the B-filed adds up when the current is in the same direction.
This "looks like" a 20-turn coil with 1/2 amp going through it, producing 10 gauss.
I have to admit I may be wrong on this. I've had this conversation with people trained in this field and not found an absolute consensus. I know that people have done experiments with litz type of wire, and it always works better than a single strand. This may be due to the skin effect. It's a simple experiment to do. Maybe you should do it and post your results.
I'm sure that I got that right. The skin effect comes into play at high frequencies for AC currents. I'm not sure at what frequency it starts to have an effect for a typical coil used in these type of experiments, I would have to look it up. However, I'll guess it is in the megahertz range. I haven't played with a breadboard for about 20 years!
A coil pulsed with DC generates a type of AC. It is one thing to look it up, and quite another to actually build a small coil and rotor and test each one and record the results. No breadboards needed here.
Remember that I have done that stuff in school, literally hundreds of engineering labs classes hands-on with circuits.
For a coil pulsed with DC, you assume that it is in series with a resistor. The current in the coil when you first throw the switch will be zero, because the coil acts as an open-circuit on initial contact. The current then rises in exponentially, climbing quickly at first and then slowly leveling off to the point limited by the resistor.
Well, this is so basic that it's not really open to interpretation. It goes back to the application of Maxwell's laws and stuff like that. They can be crunched down to a formula for a loop of wire that tells you how much flux you get based on the number of turns of wire, the radius, the current, etc.
Maxwell's "laws" were reduced from the original by Heavyside and company. So really, they are no longer Maxwell's but someone else's interpretation of them.
That's cool, I just read a few things about Oliver Heaviside. He really laid out a lot of important groundwork in his field. He name should have a much higher profile.
Keep in mind that the "Maxwell-Heaviside Equations" model the electromagnetic reality as we see it. Even if we can't exactly explain why and the mechanism, they do accurately reflect and can predict how all electric circuits operate.
Tell that to NASA. They lost a teathered satellite due to reducing Maxwell's original work. I feel Heavyside aided to hinder more than he helped. "As we see it".. um.. not all the time, unless a "quantum model" is superimposed. Again, modern EE does not include quantum physics, so they are limited by that reduction.
"Between 1880 and 1887, Heaviside developed the operational calculs), a method of solving differential equations by transforming them into ordinary algebraic equations which caused a great deal of controversy when first introduced"
That's "Da Bomb" right there. It is one of the most important applications of mathematical modeling used in engineering. It is used for electric circuits, reducing them to algebraic equations. Awesome dude.
The time constant is LONGER. Obviously, but that is still not what I was getting at. I'm not sure why you came to my page here. You obviously feel the COP >1 is impossible. It seems like you start with that premise and then use your background to try and substantiate that. Yet you missed one key point. There are more than one key points to know in this area of research. I've not the time to debate someone whom can't see what is so obvious. Thanks for your interest, but you are wasting your time.
So am I, the point is that you came to my page claiming COP>1 is impossible, I send you links\vids about reputable people that have worked with this and you gloss over\ignore it.
In general, I have already looked at most of those types of vids. I am not impressed with what I see. Point me to one again, say one that you really agree with and I will be happy to give you a few comments.
Vids, but have you ever built any of these devices and tested yourself? I have test results here from people that I don't or haven't disclosed. I've talked and or met with some of these people and know more than I care to say online at the moment. This really is not the best forum to discuss this. Join the EVGray forum on yahoo if you are interested in posing your comments and are willing to be shown more than you may be aware of.
Also, here are some names. Tesla, Gray, Meyer, Bedini, DePalma, Malove, etc... the list is fairly long. Most of these people have been "hassled" for what they are doing, including me. Again, if you want to comment on all of this, join the yahoo group I mention. Also, I did show you the reactive power of a very strong magnet, and you brushed it off as nothing so, I'm not sure how creative you may be in actually thinking "out of the box" with much of this.
Thanks, I've toured around lots of this material on YouTube and on Google. Honestly, I have not seen anything that looked real from my perspective. The Lutec motor never went anywhere, the EBM machine is no go, Steorn failed in their demo last July, Searl and company look like a farce, the documents on his website are ridiculous. Tom(?) Lee has been chased down by the law. Sorry to be such a downer.
I don't claim to know everything or be the brightest man alive. Yet I know that if you put energy into a coil(inductor) and don't let the coil stay on longer than the time constant, that energy can be recovered. That is how electromagnetic resonance works. Yet at the same time, that coil can be used to push against a reactive magnetic field(magnets). I'm sure you know that an LRC circuit R becomes X and Q becomes the important factor. Think more on this and it may hit you. ;-) Take care.
Er.. Memory laps in names. Sorry. I meant Dr. Deborah D. L. Chung... google "negative resistor" and her name... and most likely not the only way to achieve this.
Jul 10, 1998
'Negative resistance' surprises material scientists
"So far, Chung and Wang have demonstrated negative resistances as low as -8 ohms for a contact area of one square centimetre."
I must add, that I've had the pleasure of talking to people that you have not. What they said I care not to disclose to you. Needless to say COP>1 is real. I have no reason to think they are lying to me. I have every reason to believe that what they told me is quite true. You seem very bright and knowledgeable to the point that you could prove this to yourself if you wanted an not have to rely on others to do it for you. Start small and easy with the SSG. Build one. You will convince yourself.
Those people that you have been taking to, challenge them to prove their stuff by setting up a real demo. Something like free-running OU device sitting inside a Lucite cube powering a flashlight bulb for six months.
Again you are just looking at videos. I asked if you ever built any of these devices. I take that as a no. EE has it's place. One thing is that quantum mechanics has not bridged the gap between the two. If both were were integrated more into mainstream physics, I believe many amazing advancements would become apparent. There are many obscure papers that reference the quantum anomalies. Connie Chung discovered a "negative resistor" recently. Check out her work for it's value.
I will be looking forward to seeing future clips, if you choose to do them, to comment.
I will try looking up the negative resistor, that's a concept that's even covered in engineering school, how about that? lol Try looking up "gyrator", which is a different type of transformer.
For me the big issue looking at the YouTube pulse/Bedini motor community is how to make your measurements properly. There are tricks that allow you to get proper measurements on pulse waveforms.
We'll see how it goes. Regarding Bedini, if one can charge multiple batteries off of one, and then cycle(charge and discharge them at the C20 rating) them numerous times from the same battery, that is better than any meter could show.
I disagree, and in my marthale7 postings I explain how to to a good home-brew measurement on the number of Joules stored in a battery. The idea being to know how many Joules in the battery(ies) at the start of the experiment, run the experiment, and then measure the energy left in the battery(ies). Measuring the battery voltage give you very little information, you have to measure the Joules.
They forget that the source of energy for that back EMF energy is the original source of the energy itself, the power supply. There is no 'bonus' associated with the back EMF, it's already been paid for. Certainly you can use the back EMF to make the motor more efficient, but you are still dealt the same energy pie from the power supply, you are just slicing it differently. If you so a good job, you make the mechanical output a thicker slice, and the lost heat a slimmer slice.
I just deleted your comments. I did not find them helpful at all and in fact, totally off track of "not well known" devices and experiments of which you seem to avoid the important questions I posted. Search youtube for "Free Energy - A Reality Not a Conspiracy". Maybe you will have better luck with your logic debating Paramahamsa Tewari, a Project Director with the Indian Nuclear Power Corporation with his N-Machine experiments
You have got to be kidding! I gave you a beautiful explanation for what happened in your experiment with the coil and the two magnets. You should welcome different viewpoints and really contemplate the ideas.
No.. you have to be kidding. I found your explanation er.. dumb to be honest. I welcome different view points but not long post(s) that are so far off base. I did contemplate your ideas and found them worthy of deletion. You continually say that these things are impossible, yet totally ignore the examples I put forward. I'm not here to argue or debate these things with everyone that comes along. I'll just delete the irrelevant junk as it piles up.
Finally, I have a basic thought for you about your motor experiments.
When the motor is free running with no load, the source power goes 'down the drain' to three places (which all become heat): Mechanical friction, electrical resistance, and air friction. The pie is being sliced three ways.
When you add a load with your fingers, now the pie is being sliced four ways. You add the mechanical output power, which, of course becomes heat also.
However the pie is still essentially the same size.
When you add the load with your fingers, the rotor slows down resulting in less bearing friction, and less air resistance, the electrical resistance remains about the same. The reduced loss due to bearing friction and air resistance is balanced out by the new 'loss' of the mechanical load that you are applying with your fingers.
That's why you don't notice much of a change in the current consumption when you slow down the motor with your fingers.
Only to the point where the mechanical load friction is greater than the air and bearing friction which is very small compared to the mechanical load...
Only to a point where the added mechanical friction is greater than the air and bearing friction. This is, I'm not sure if you even know how this circuit is wired. It's not a conventional circuit as you may be assuming.
I only looked at this clip, but from what I see I hate to burst your bubble with respect to your current measurement with the analog meter: The analog meter (and most digital multimeters) are totally incapable of measuring the current consumption in a pulse circuit. The current measurement will be moderately to wildly inaccurate. You need a "True RMS" digital multimeter to make those measurements, and even those devices will have a certain 'operating range'.
Re: Your Goal: "More mechanical output power than electrical input power... i hope that explains it well."
It's never going to happen. You seem like a nice guy and not a glazed-eyed free energy goober type. Do your experiments and I can guarantee you that you will prove that over unity is impossible with your setup (or any setup). The catch is that you will need to make extremely accurate power consumption measurements of your pulse motor (see previous post).
You will also need to devise a way to make extremely accurate mechanical power output measurements for your motor. That's not an easy thing to do either.
"It's never going to happen". Opinion noted. No, I ain't glaze-eyed goober type you describe. Yet I'm not as foolish to state such an opinion as fact that you just did. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I feel you need to do a bit more homework. See my other video on "electromagnet testing" and figure out where the 'extra energy' comes from to move a heavier magnet farther and faster with the same amount of joules than an less heavy one with less gauss.
Well, I would suggest to you that there is tons of evidence but it may be pretty hard to find online. For the hell of it, let's assume that the five or six types of electric motors were fully researched and understood by 1950. Just a guess on my part.
I looked at the 'electromagnet testing' clip. I am somewhat rusty on this stuff but chances are the answer lies in the amount of flux in each of the two sample magnets themselves.
The ceramic magnet only offers up "B" amount of flux, and yields "kB" force when you switch the circuit on. The other magnet offers up "5B" amount of flux and yields "k5B" force when you switch the circuit on and thus it jumps farther away. It's something like that.
"Thank you. You just proved to yourself that magnets are a source of "free energy"."
Ha ha... The cap is able to transfer more of its energy into the heavier magnet as compared to the lighter ceramic magnet. That's all. Some might call it impedance matching.
I disagree. The magnet imparts more of it's energy to the field created by the electromagnet. I said this before. If the amount of energy imparted to an electical system is the volts times the amps, and the short formula for a an electromagnet is current times the number of turns(I*N), then it's quite obvious that there is not relationship to voltage and therefore watts to create a the field.
Hi.. I feel I should add that there IS evidence of at least a COP=1 if not greater machine that has been tested by a national lab. I have an autographed patent from the inventor. Google US Patent 6,271,614. Table top particle accelerator is just one application. ;-)
I'll add to this that "overunity" is a word I don't like to use. COP is much more accurate. Also, "extremely accurate" only matters with a small COP's of 1.1 for instance. A COP of 3 or greater would be quite evident even with a small margin of error. Your statement is extremely relative to the given situation and should not be applied to all circumstances
I am assuming that you mean "Coefficient of Power"? I would agree with your statements about the margins. The only problem is that you are getting into the stratosphere when you talk about devices that output three times as much power as they input. If you think that is doable then the challenge is to pinpoint exactly where and when in the circuit the extra power comes from, even if you can't explain the source for the power.
Yes... and I take that as a compliment. Go back to my magnet experiment. There is a simple device that does what you claim can't be done. It just needs to be made into a practical device. Also, look at the video on youtube here:
ca dot youtube dot com / raviwfc
or search user raviwfc. Water splitting.. high volume with very low watts.
"True RMS"? was that not understood long before "digital meters"?. I am aware of what you are saying. Yet at the same time, longitudinal waves can't be measured by RMS meters either. The analog gives a relatively good average for now, better than anything else that I had my hands on and could afford.
Yes, "True RMS" is only a marketing term for digital multimeters to differentiate them from "vanilla" multimeters. Whenever you are looking at power flow in an electronics circuit based on only one variable (voltage or current) then you have to use the RMS value.
I really doubt the analog meter gives a good average. The needle indicator acts as a mechanical low-pass filter, so for a narrow train of pulses at a high frequency, it may show next to zero.
Btw. Root Mean Square=0.717. So in effect what you are saying is that my input current is actually ~30% less than I'm showing or stating using an analog meter. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with your comment about accuracy really.
You meant 0.707. That only applies to sinusoidal waveforms.
Here is a copy/paste: "Calculating Actual RMS Voltage: If you have a 'true RMS' voltmeter, the meter measures the instantaneous voltage at regular time intervals. On the following graph, the little vertical lines along the sine wave represent the points in time where the voltage is measured."
"The microprocessor in the voltmeter then 'squares' all of the voltages at each point and adds the squared values together. It then calculates the average (mean) from the squared values. And finally... it calculates the square root of the average (mean) value."
And oscilloscope and a bit of work would give you the ability to make the RMS measurements yourself. If the tops of the pulses are flat, it is trivial. If not, then you can approximate the RMS values by tracing the waveform and slicing/squaring/averaging/square-rooting yourself. Again, the main point being a vanilla digital or analog multimeter simply can't make accurate measurements on arbitrary AC waveforms, then only thing they 'understand' are sine waves.
I do have both a scope and two "true RMS" meters here. I can use them and do. This video was done years ago when I did not have them... and yes, the top is relatively flat.
I think what he's trying to say is , stop showing everyone you're smart, and start showing the world this does in fact what you claim it does. I'm not here to debate but I do want some results. you will get a peace prize if you're correct and don't try to market it. yet give it to the world
Hi, thanks for your opinion. I don't think I'm smart though, just plain average and determined. I have no need for a "peace prize" either... at this point I keep my intentions close to a few 'select' people for reasons I choose to keep fairly private... but I understand what you are getting at.
i been lerning and hope to build something similar in the future i made my first to day all the parts i canabalized around the house lol even made my own reed switch heh
Hi.. thanks. I looked at your motor. It's amazing what you can do with things that people throw away.... but be careful with using tape to hold those magnets. I've seen them let go and I would not want to be in the way. Someone I know put a hole in his wall when one took off.. '-)
A nice tough generator. Are you making to sell. Can this unit recharge 12vdc batteries to power electric cars. Your design layout similar to the shape in the video GMC HOLDING CORP REMAT.
Thanks. I would like to see this in the public sector some day. It could charge batteries if that is what you want it to do. A work in progress right now.
When you put a load on there was no extra current drawn it because it slowed down. If the RPM was kept the the same while the load increased then there would be extra current drawn.
No, you are wrong with your evaluation. I know what a 'flywheel effect' is. You say "if", well... well, i DID and there was no extra current draw. This video may not show it very well, but I have repeated that experiment over 100 times with witnesses. Also, others have done it too with the same result as myself. Go to overunity-dot-com and you can read more.
Hey, sorry I misunderstood you here. You are correct. The current drawn is directly related to the applied voltage. To keep the rpm the same under load *would* require more current, and the only way to do that is to increase the applied voltage. But that is quite irrelevant the obvious advantage of having more watts out than in at any applied voltage and therefore current draw...
I'm just reading and filming the meters. I do know what good science is. At the same time, I don't need a thermometer to tell me that the stove is hot... what is obvious is obvious. Also, if you look at my last video post. Motor uses 7 watts, I extract 2 out electrically. I can stop this one with two fingers.
Also, you could just build one. It doesn't cost that much and if it works as i say, then you will have something quite extraordinary on your hands. :-) The benefit would outweigh any small risk of investment I'm sure you would agree.
can you provide a URL that has info about how to build this, please? have you read about the rotoverter? thats a pretty nifty x going in 3x coming out - but with a off-the-shelf low-horsepower electric-motor with high-impedance tricks.
Yes, a generator is one, a prony brake another. I know what you are getting at...
Then again, prove to me you can find an electric motor that uses seven watts that you can't stop with your hand at 1200 rpm without any sort of gear reduction...
Yes, the prony brake test that I did kept bouncing on the scale. I'm in the process of replacing the switches so it can handle more input and output load. Yet on the other hand, if you are up to it, find a motor that uses seven watts without gear reduction that you can't stop with your hand. ie, it either does or does not. But thanks for your interest. The feedback is good. I should have something new to post sometime soon.
The bouncing of the prony brake is probably because the motor rotates in steps. It looks to me like you've built a simple stepper motor. Instead of using an electronic controller you use precisely positioned reed switches to create rotation.
Instead of running the current though the reed switches you should try running it through transistors and controlling the transistors with with the reed switches. You could even replace the reed switches with magnetic coils, or even an ir emitter and detector with a chopper between them.
Your challenge does interest me. Your inability to stop your motor with your hand could be explained by the fact that stepper motors are most efficient at very low RPM, producing their highest torque accelerating from a dead stop, entirely different from most electric motors which are most efficient at a certain RPM and once it is slowed down below that speed torque drops dramatically.
My best bet would probably be with a stepper motor. I've found one online with a holding torque of 7.35 inch-lbs at 6.7 watts, i could probably find a better one if i looked harder.
Bottom line:
If your motor produces less than 7.35 inch-lbs at 6.7 watts, it's nothing special.
Well, torque is measured in lb-ft Newton-meters, etc... so if you trying to figure this motor out, then you may want to take the time to understand the nomenclature of the trade. Further, stepper motors don't use resonant circuits as far as I'm aware. XL=2pifL, XC=1/2pifC. Z=L/CR. You do know about these formulas and their various applications?
Forgive me if I am not comprehending you here properly. "Your challenge does interest me". Not sure if this was about finding a seven watt motor, or my other one of building minr. Following threads here is a bit confusing. Google Tesla roadster - 100% Torque, 100% of the Time. On mine, it is 1,200 rpm where it gets very hard to slow down. ie burns fingers.
Yes.. done that.. mechanical switching is best.. fastest and less loss. Also, transistors limit the ability to 'where' the transistor can be placed in order to do certain things with the circuit.
Actually, the shaft was a bit bent and the rod also had threads which grabbed too much. It is similar to a stepper, but there IS more to this that I have not disclosed... and have never seen anyone figure it out yet. If you do I'll let you know, but if not, I'm not going to give everything away on here at the moment.
Regarding your input output assumptions. My motor has an electromagnet repelling a permanent magnet. So, some brain candy for you. First off, we are dealing with MAGNETIC FIELDS. The formula for the strength of the B field is the current(i) times the the number of turns(N) or if you have a metal core, mu(i)(N). *Nowhere* is the voltage a requirement for the strength(force) of a magnetic field.. think geometry, not input watts by calculating volts times amps.
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi I just read the news on ABCnews Car runs on water!!!!! Drink Up: Car Runs on Water spread the news
mochiam 3 years ago
Could post a paragraph or two about what is going on here? I came by almost at random, and know I'm intrigued. Also I see that info is no longer availabe on your site.
zamistro 3 years ago
However, on the power supply side of the filter the load will look very 'smooth' and there will be a continuous, smooth flow of current. Just put your multimeter in series between the power supply and the first inductor and you will get very accurate DC current measurements, even if the load on the other side of the big low-pass filter is a spiking pulse motor.
You could make a nice low pass filter, you would just have to do a bit of research to get caps and inductors that are large enough.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Anyway, if you actually did that it would be so cool! It would of course be very interesting to see you try it out on your designs.
I'm almost sure the small motor free runs at 1/2 Watt max and your cool motor in this clip is probably running at 5 Watts and above.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
What I'm working on now won't need a filter for power measurements as you describe. It's way "cooler" than my other designs. At this point though, I'm choosing to keep much of the results private for now.
Yet all my life, I've never seen a motor that when mechanically loaded the amp meter did not detect and display it. Especially under heavy load as compared to this demonstration.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
I know what these type of filters are. This was an older model. I've moved on to better working designs that use conventional laws of physics, not EE theory and motor designs that have not changed in a hundred years.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Conventional laws of physics and "EE theory" are always in total agreement.
You need to understand the 100-year-old motor designs to give yourself a foundation of knowledge to further experiment. Those same 100-year-old motor designs are still in use today for the vast majority of motor applications.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
I understand the laws of energy which govern the laws of EE and there are a few "wholes" in EE theory that many textbooks fail to resolve.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
All that you did was measure the DC resistance of the motor coils and then hook up your power supply and measure the current through the motor coils when the motor was not spinning. All that you did there was measure the motor like it was a resistor. That has nothing to do with measuring the power consumption of the motor when it is free running or running under load. I am not trying to offend you I am simply telling you the truth.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Yes I know what I did. I was showing the maximum power that motor could use under full load and stopped.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
"Yes I know what I did. I was showing the maximum power that motor could use under full load and stopped."
For a given source voltage there is a certain output speed and torque from the motor that will transfer the maximum amount of power to the load. It's called mechanical impedance matching and it would represent the point of maximum power that the motor could use.
You did not measure the motor under full load, and measuring the current of the motor when it is stopped is meaningless.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
What is REALLY meaningless is the fact that voltage has NOTHING to do with the strength of the electromagnet B-field of which moves the rotor and creates torque or power. Most people including you don't seem to grasp this simple concept that voltage is-has-and-always-will-be "decoupled" from magnetic field strength therefore making input watts irrelevant of actual power output.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
I never said that voltage has to do with the strength of the B-field. The current and the core properties determine the strength of the B-field. The magnitude of the source voltage and the impedance of the coil determines the maximum current.
It's not about whether or not the voltage is 'decoupled' from the current. It is about the power flow. The input watts flow into the motor. Some watts are lost as heat, some watts are output as mechanical power, and that's it.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
As a general suggestion, you should get two 5-Watt 0.1 ohm resistors. You should be able to insert these resistors in series in various parts of your circuits without disturbing the operation of your various motor configurations.
These two shunt resistors coupled with the scope can become your 'eyes' for seeing what is going on in the circuit. You can monitor the current flows at various points with your oscilloscope.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
For example, you can look at the currents coming into and/or going out of your two batteries. You will be able to see plain as day if they are charging or discharging, what the charging back EMF current spikes look like going into the battery, etc.
Another great thing would be to monitor the current with the shunt resistor setup while at the same time monitoring the voltage. You may find it interesting in that you will probably find that the voltage and current have different timings.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Thing is, I'm not charging batteries in this video, not most of them. Again, I don't need to see that from the setup that I'm using now. But I do know what you mean about "phase shifts" between current and voltage nodes. I have my spreadsheet of LCR variables and calculations that I use.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Yes, thanks, I know what shunts are and how to use them. Thing is, I don't really need to see all that when I get what I've desired to get.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
"The current and the core properties determine the strength of the B-field."
Only Partially correct... you missed the most important part of which is stated at least twice on the comments section of this video.
Your argument makes no sense.. power "in" is determined by volts times amps. Yet a B-field strength is not determined by voltage. Yet it is the B-field which is providing the motor torque. In essence motor torque is NOT a direct linear relationship to input watts.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
"Yet a B-field strength is not determined by voltage. Yet it is the B-field which is providing the motor torque.."
Let me respond to that by talking about capacitors and inductors. Capacitors store energy. The value of the capacitor is determined by the geometry of the plates and dielectric between the plates. The higher the permittivity of the dielectric, the higher the capacitance. A bigger capacitor takes longer to charge and stores more energy.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Inductors (like motor coils) act just like capacitors in many ways.
Inductors store energy. The value of the inductor is determined by the geometry of the wire coil and the permeability of the medium between the coil. The permeability acts like a "magnetic field resistor" as it goes up, the "resistance" drops, it "provides a freer path" for the magnetic field.
An inductor with an air core stored less energy than a similar inductor with a ferrite core, because of the permeability of the iron.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Great, so you get a larger B-field strength from the inductor with the ferrite core.
Here is the key point: You have a battery connected in series to a resistor then connected to an inductor. You flip the switch on, how long until the inductor is fully "charged" with current?
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Answer: It takes LONGER to fully "charge" the inductor with the ferrite core than the air core. The ferrite core inductor has a larger B-field and is storing more energy.
HOWEVER, you had to suck MORE current times voltage ( = energy) out of the battery to "charge" the ferrite core inductor.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
The B-field is larger because you used up more batter energy to get there. It's not about the current, it's not about the voltage, it's about how much energy you had to expend (from the battery) to get there.
There is a DIRECT LINK between getting more torque from stronger B-fields and how much energy you suck out of the battery.
I realkly hope that helped!
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Dude!!! Wire= 1 ohm. Make 10 winds on air core or mu metal, it does not matter. Apply 1 Volt. B-field=10 gauss. Now take same of X cross sectional area. Split in half so each wire is 1/2 X cross sectional area. Now wind each wire in parallel. You end up with 20 winds @ 1 ohm. Apply 1 volt. B-field now = 20 gauss. Simple!
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Dude, don't we all wish life was so simple. Split the wire in half and make it look like a bifilar coil. Then you made a big mistake.
The new 'half-wire coils' are now 2 ohms in resistance. One volt supply, 1/2 amp current through the first coil, 10 turns, you get 5 gauss from the first coil. The second 'half-wire coil' contributes another 5 gauss, for a total of 10 gauss.
It's really 20 winds @ 2 ohms, apply 1 volt, B-field now =10 gauss. Simple!
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
"It's really 20 winds @ 2 ohms, apply 1 volt, B-field now =10 gauss. Simple!"
*Wrong*.
The wire size split in two and then added\wound together(wired in parallel) still equals one ohm, yet now there are double the turns. You forgot that each wire is 2 ohms divided by 2 wires in parallel.. this equals 1 ohm for 20 gauss.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
"You forgot that each wire is 2 ohms divided by 2 wires in parallel.. this equals 1 ohm for 20 gauss."
You are missing something fundamental. Each half-wire coil now has one half of the current going through it. The total currents has not changed, it is still one amp. Therefore each half-wire coil carries one-half of an amp, and only produces five gauss.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Try visualizing this: You are looking at the bifilar coil along the radial axis. It's a cylinder shape, 10 cm high and 1 cm wide. One of the coils is then 'slid back' so that you now have a wider double-coil, 10 cm high and 2 cm wide. The two coils have the same winding, so the B-filed adds up when the current is in the same direction.
This "looks like" a 20-turn coil with 1/2 amp going through it, producing 10 gauss.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
I have to admit I may be wrong on this. I've had this conversation with people trained in this field and not found an absolute consensus. I know that people have done experiments with litz type of wire, and it always works better than a single strand. This may be due to the skin effect. It's a simple experiment to do. Maybe you should do it and post your results.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
I'm sure that I got that right. The skin effect comes into play at high frequencies for AC currents. I'm not sure at what frequency it starts to have an effect for a typical coil used in these type of experiments, I would have to look it up. However, I'll guess it is in the megahertz range. I haven't played with a breadboard for about 20 years!
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
A coil pulsed with DC generates a type of AC. It is one thing to look it up, and quite another to actually build a small coil and rotor and test each one and record the results. No breadboards needed here.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Remember that I have done that stuff in school, literally hundreds of engineering labs classes hands-on with circuits.
For a coil pulsed with DC, you assume that it is in series with a resistor. The current in the coil when you first throw the switch will be zero, because the coil acts as an open-circuit on initial contact. The current then rises in exponentially, climbing quickly at first and then slowly leveling off to the point limited by the resistor.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Well, this is so basic that it's not really open to interpretation. It goes back to the application of Maxwell's laws and stuff like that. They can be crunched down to a formula for a loop of wire that tells you how much flux you get based on the number of turns of wire, the radius, the current, etc.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Maxwell's "laws" were reduced from the original by Heavyside and company. So really, they are no longer Maxwell's but someone else's interpretation of them.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
That's cool, I just read a few things about Oliver Heaviside. He really laid out a lot of important groundwork in his field. He name should have a much higher profile.
Keep in mind that the "Maxwell-Heaviside Equations" model the electromagnetic reality as we see it. Even if we can't exactly explain why and the mechanism, they do accurately reflect and can predict how all electric circuits operate.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Tell that to NASA. They lost a teathered satellite due to reducing Maxwell's original work. I feel Heavyside aided to hinder more than he helped. "As we see it".. um.. not all the time, unless a "quantum model" is superimposed. Again, modern EE does not include quantum physics, so they are limited by that reduction.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
"Between 1880 and 1887, Heaviside developed the operational calculs), a method of solving differential equations by transforming them into ordinary algebraic equations which caused a great deal of controversy when first introduced"
That's "Da Bomb" right there. It is one of the most important applications of mathematical modeling used in engineering. It is used for electric circuits, reducing them to algebraic equations. Awesome dude.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
The time constant is LONGER. Obviously, but that is still not what I was getting at. I'm not sure why you came to my page here. You obviously feel the COP >1 is impossible. It seems like you start with that premise and then use your background to try and substantiate that. Yet you missed one key point. There are more than one key points to know in this area of research. I've not the time to debate someone whom can't see what is so obvious. Thanks for your interest, but you are wasting your time.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
I know what a "time constant" is. Each coil has it's own. Again you are missing the point.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
"The value of the inductor is determined by the geometry of the wire"
Bingo! But you are still missing the point.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
You missed the point... Big Time.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
What's the point? I am being serious.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
So am I, the point is that you came to my page claiming COP>1 is impossible, I send you links\vids about reputable people that have worked with this and you gloss over\ignore it.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
In general, I have already looked at most of those types of vids. I am not impressed with what I see. Point me to one again, say one that you really agree with and I will be happy to give you a few comments.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Vids, but have you ever built any of these devices and tested yourself? I have test results here from people that I don't or haven't disclosed. I've talked and or met with some of these people and know more than I care to say online at the moment. This really is not the best forum to discuss this. Join the EVGray forum on yahoo if you are interested in posing your comments and are willing to be shown more than you may be aware of.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Also, here are some names. Tesla, Gray, Meyer, Bedini, DePalma, Malove, etc... the list is fairly long. Most of these people have been "hassled" for what they are doing, including me. Again, if you want to comment on all of this, join the yahoo group I mention. Also, I did show you the reactive power of a very strong magnet, and you brushed it off as nothing so, I'm not sure how creative you may be in actually thinking "out of the box" with much of this.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Thanks, I've toured around lots of this material on YouTube and on Google. Honestly, I have not seen anything that looked real from my perspective. The Lutec motor never went anywhere, the EBM machine is no go, Steorn failed in their demo last July, Searl and company look like a farce, the documents on his website are ridiculous. Tom(?) Lee has been chased down by the law. Sorry to be such a downer.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
I don't claim to know everything or be the brightest man alive. Yet I know that if you put energy into a coil(inductor) and don't let the coil stay on longer than the time constant, that energy can be recovered. That is how electromagnetic resonance works. Yet at the same time, that coil can be used to push against a reactive magnetic field(magnets). I'm sure you know that an LRC circuit R becomes X and Q becomes the important factor. Think more on this and it may hit you. ;-) Take care.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Er.. Memory laps in names. Sorry. I meant Dr. Deborah D. L. Chung... google "negative resistor" and her name... and most likely not the only way to achieve this.
Jul 10, 1998
'Negative resistance' surprises material scientists
"So far, Chung and Wang have demonstrated negative resistances as low as -8 ohms for a contact area of one square centimetre."
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
I must add, that I've had the pleasure of talking to people that you have not. What they said I care not to disclose to you. Needless to say COP>1 is real. I have no reason to think they are lying to me. I have every reason to believe that what they told me is quite true. You seem very bright and knowledgeable to the point that you could prove this to yourself if you wanted an not have to rely on others to do it for you. Start small and easy with the SSG. Build one. You will convince yourself.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Those people that you have been taking to, challenge them to prove their stuff by setting up a real demo. Something like free-running OU device sitting inside a Lucite cube powering a flashlight bulb for six months.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
I have no need too as long as i prove it to myself.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Again you are just looking at videos. I asked if you ever built any of these devices. I take that as a no. EE has it's place. One thing is that quantum mechanics has not bridged the gap between the two. If both were were integrated more into mainstream physics, I believe many amazing advancements would become apparent. There are many obscure papers that reference the quantum anomalies. Connie Chung discovered a "negative resistor" recently. Check out her work for it's value.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
I will be looking forward to seeing future clips, if you choose to do them, to comment.
I will try looking up the negative resistor, that's a concept that's even covered in engineering school, how about that? lol Try looking up "gyrator", which is a different type of transformer.
For me the big issue looking at the YouTube pulse/Bedini motor community is how to make your measurements properly. There are tricks that allow you to get proper measurements on pulse waveforms.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
If you are interested in some ideas for improving your measurements, check my postings on marthale7's channel.
Just search on "99 hours of testing NO VOLTAGE LOSS".
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Thanks, I didn't look, but there are OTHER ways as well.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
We'll see how it goes. Regarding Bedini, if one can charge multiple batteries off of one, and then cycle(charge and discharge them at the C20 rating) them numerous times from the same battery, that is better than any meter could show.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
I disagree, and in my marthale7 postings I explain how to to a good home-brew measurement on the number of Joules stored in a battery. The idea being to know how many Joules in the battery(ies) at the start of the experiment, run the experiment, and then measure the energy left in the battery(ies). Measuring the battery voltage give you very little information, you have to measure the Joules.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Huh? I agree with your disagreement. Yes, measuring the joules is the best way... ie cycling the batteries with a known resistive load.
***I sent you a private message. Did you receive it?***
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
They forget that the source of energy for that back EMF energy is the original source of the energy itself, the power supply. There is no 'bonus' associated with the back EMF, it's already been paid for. Certainly you can use the back EMF to make the motor more efficient, but you are still dealt the same energy pie from the power supply, you are just slicing it differently. If you so a good job, you make the mechanical output a thicker slice, and the lost heat a slimmer slice.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
I just deleted your comments. I did not find them helpful at all and in fact, totally off track of "not well known" devices and experiments of which you seem to avoid the important questions I posted. Search youtube for "Free Energy - A Reality Not a Conspiracy". Maybe you will have better luck with your logic debating Paramahamsa Tewari, a Project Director with the Indian Nuclear Power Corporation with his N-Machine experiments
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
You have got to be kidding! I gave you a beautiful explanation for what happened in your experiment with the coil and the two magnets. You should welcome different viewpoints and really contemplate the ideas.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
No.. you have to be kidding. I found your explanation er.. dumb to be honest. I welcome different view points but not long post(s) that are so far off base. I did contemplate your ideas and found them worthy of deletion. You continually say that these things are impossible, yet totally ignore the examples I put forward. I'm not here to argue or debate these things with everyone that comes along. I'll just delete the irrelevant junk as it piles up.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Finally, I have a basic thought for you about your motor experiments.
When the motor is free running with no load, the source power goes 'down the drain' to three places (which all become heat): Mechanical friction, electrical resistance, and air friction. The pie is being sliced three ways.
When you add a load with your fingers, now the pie is being sliced four ways. You add the mechanical output power, which, of course becomes heat also.
However the pie is still essentially the same size.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
When you add the load with your fingers, the rotor slows down resulting in less bearing friction, and less air resistance, the electrical resistance remains about the same. The reduced loss due to bearing friction and air resistance is balanced out by the new 'loss' of the mechanical load that you are applying with your fingers.
That's why you don't notice much of a change in the current consumption when you slow down the motor with your fingers.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Only to the point where the mechanical load friction is greater than the air and bearing friction which is very small compared to the mechanical load...
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Only to a point where the added mechanical friction is greater than the air and bearing friction. This is, I'm not sure if you even know how this circuit is wired. It's not a conventional circuit as you may be assuming.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
I only looked at this clip, but from what I see I hate to burst your bubble with respect to your current measurement with the analog meter: The analog meter (and most digital multimeters) are totally incapable of measuring the current consumption in a pulse circuit. The current measurement will be moderately to wildly inaccurate. You need a "True RMS" digital multimeter to make those measurements, and even those devices will have a certain 'operating range'.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Re: Your Goal: "More mechanical output power than electrical input power... i hope that explains it well."
It's never going to happen. You seem like a nice guy and not a glazed-eyed free energy goober type. Do your experiments and I can guarantee you that you will prove that over unity is impossible with your setup (or any setup). The catch is that you will need to make extremely accurate power consumption measurements of your pulse motor (see previous post).
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
You will also need to devise a way to make extremely accurate mechanical power output measurements for your motor. That's not an easy thing to do either.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
...the same way any industrial motors were measured forty or fifty years ago. The method has not changed.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
oh.. btw, yes it may not be easy. But I've done it. Thanks.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
"It's never going to happen". Opinion noted. No, I ain't glaze-eyed goober type you describe. Yet I'm not as foolish to state such an opinion as fact that you just did. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I feel you need to do a bit more homework. See my other video on "electromagnet testing" and figure out where the 'extra energy' comes from to move a heavier magnet farther and faster with the same amount of joules than an less heavy one with less gauss.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Well, I would suggest to you that there is tons of evidence but it may be pretty hard to find online. For the hell of it, let's assume that the five or six types of electric motors were fully researched and understood by 1950. Just a guess on my part.
I looked at the 'electromagnet testing' clip. I am somewhat rusty on this stuff but chances are the answer lies in the amount of flux in each of the two sample magnets themselves.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
The ceramic magnet only offers up "B" amount of flux, and yields "kB" force when you switch the circuit on. The other magnet offers up "5B" amount of flux and yields "k5B" force when you switch the circuit on and thus it jumps farther away. It's something like that.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
See my other comment. So now don't just sit on this. Make it work for you in a practical way. it can be done.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Thank you. You just proved to yourself that magnets are a source of "free energy".
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
"Thank you. You just proved to yourself that magnets are a source of "free energy"."
Ha ha... The cap is able to transfer more of its energy into the heavier magnet as compared to the lighter ceramic magnet. That's all. Some might call it impedance matching.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
I disagree. The magnet imparts more of it's energy to the field created by the electromagnet. I said this before. If the amount of energy imparted to an electical system is the volts times the amps, and the short formula for a an electromagnet is current times the number of turns(I*N), then it's quite obvious that there is not relationship to voltage and therefore watts to create a the field.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Hi.. I feel I should add that there IS evidence of at least a COP=1 if not greater machine that has been tested by a national lab. I have an autographed patent from the inventor. Google US Patent 6,271,614. Table top particle accelerator is just one application. ;-)
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
I'll add to this that "overunity" is a word I don't like to use. COP is much more accurate. Also, "extremely accurate" only matters with a small COP's of 1.1 for instance. A COP of 3 or greater would be quite evident even with a small margin of error. Your statement is extremely relative to the given situation and should not be applied to all circumstances
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
I am assuming that you mean "Coefficient of Power"? I would agree with your statements about the margins. The only problem is that you are getting into the stratosphere when you talk about devices that output three times as much power as they input. If you think that is doable then the challenge is to pinpoint exactly where and when in the circuit the extra power comes from, even if you can't explain the source for the power.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Yes... and I take that as a compliment. Go back to my magnet experiment. There is a simple device that does what you claim can't be done. It just needs to be made into a practical device. Also, look at the video on youtube here:
ca dot youtube dot com / raviwfc
or search user raviwfc. Water splitting.. high volume with very low watts.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
"True RMS"? was that not understood long before "digital meters"?. I am aware of what you are saying. Yet at the same time, longitudinal waves can't be measured by RMS meters either. The analog gives a relatively good average for now, better than anything else that I had my hands on and could afford.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Yes, "True RMS" is only a marketing term for digital multimeters to differentiate them from "vanilla" multimeters. Whenever you are looking at power flow in an electronics circuit based on only one variable (voltage or current) then you have to use the RMS value.
I really doubt the analog meter gives a good average. The needle indicator acts as a mechanical low-pass filter, so for a narrow train of pulses at a high frequency, it may show next to zero.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
Btw. Root Mean Square=0.717. So in effect what you are saying is that my input current is actually ~30% less than I'm showing or stating using an analog meter. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with your comment about accuracy really.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
You meant 0.707. That only applies to sinusoidal waveforms.
Here is a copy/paste: "Calculating Actual RMS Voltage: If you have a 'true RMS' voltmeter, the meter measures the instantaneous voltage at regular time intervals. On the following graph, the little vertical lines along the sine wave represent the points in time where the voltage is measured."
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
"The microprocessor in the voltmeter then 'squares' all of the voltages at each point and adds the squared values together. It then calculates the average (mean) from the squared values. And finally... it calculates the square root of the average (mean) value."
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
And oscilloscope and a bit of work would give you the ability to make the RMS measurements yourself. If the tops of the pulses are flat, it is trivial. If not, then you can approximate the RMS values by tracing the waveform and slicing/squaring/averaging/square-rooting yourself. Again, the main point being a vanilla digital or analog multimeter simply can't make accurate measurements on arbitrary AC waveforms, then only thing they 'understand' are sine waves.
Drevtoobe 4 years ago
I do have both a scope and two "true RMS" meters here. I can use them and do. This video was done years ago when I did not have them... and yes, the top is relatively flat.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Yes, I've read about this many times in the past. Thanks.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Yeah 0.707. My mistake.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
I think what he's trying to say is , stop showing everyone you're smart, and start showing the world this does in fact what you claim it does. I'm not here to debate but I do want some results. you will get a peace prize if you're correct and don't try to market it. yet give it to the world
sn1pe352 4 years ago
Hi, thanks for your opinion. I don't think I'm smart though, just plain average and determined. I have no need for a "peace prize" either... at this point I keep my intentions close to a few 'select' people for reasons I choose to keep fairly private... but I understand what you are getting at.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
"but I do want some results" ...
then like the guy said.. go and build one yourself.
and why would one NOT get a 'peace prize' if such an invention was marketed?
warrencurrier 4 years ago
Nice motors you got there, 2 thumbs up
i been lerning and hope to build something similar in the future i made my first to day all the parts i canabalized around the house lol even made my own reed switch heh
scope my profile and check it out lol
mcpotplant 4 years ago
Hi.. thanks. I looked at your motor. It's amazing what you can do with things that people throw away.... but be careful with using tape to hold those magnets. I've seen them let go and I would not want to be in the way. Someone I know put a hole in his wall when one took off.. '-)
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
I dont understand the goal of this experience..... ?
th4002 4 years ago
More mechanical output power than electrical input power... i hope that explains it well.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
A nice tough generator. Are you making to sell. Can this unit recharge 12vdc batteries to power electric cars. Your design layout similar to the shape in the video GMC HOLDING CORP REMAT.
durian789 4 years ago
Thanks. I would like to see this in the public sector some day. It could charge batteries if that is what you want it to do. A work in progress right now.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
When you put a load on there was no extra current drawn it because it slowed down. If the RPM was kept the the same while the load increased then there would be extra current drawn.
Livingfishguy 4 years ago
No, you are wrong with your evaluation. I know what a 'flywheel effect' is. You say "if", well... well, i DID and there was no extra current draw. This video may not show it very well, but I have repeated that experiment over 100 times with witnesses. Also, others have done it too with the same result as myself. Go to overunity-dot-com and you can read more.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Hey, sorry I misunderstood you here. You are correct. The current drawn is directly related to the applied voltage. To keep the rpm the same under load *would* require more current, and the only way to do that is to increase the applied voltage. But that is quite irrelevant the obvious advantage of having more watts out than in at any applied voltage and therefore current draw...
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
what exactly was your point then?
Livingfishguy 4 years ago
I was thinking the same thing about your statement...
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
You seem to be making a point that there is no current draw when loaded therefore the load doesn't cost anything.
Livingfishguy 4 years ago
I'm just reading and filming the meters. I do know what good science is. At the same time, I don't need a thermometer to tell me that the stove is hot... what is obvious is obvious. Also, if you look at my last video post. Motor uses 7 watts, I extract 2 out electrically. I can stop this one with two fingers.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Also, you could just build one. It doesn't cost that much and if it works as i say, then you will have something quite extraordinary on your hands. :-) The benefit would outweigh any small risk of investment I'm sure you would agree.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Please come to overunity dot com
to discuss your motor.
How did you measure your mechanical output ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
hartiberlin 4 years ago
can you provide a URL that has info about how to build this, please? have you read about the rotoverter? thats a pretty nifty x going in 3x coming out - but with a off-the-shelf low-horsepower electric-motor with high-impedance tricks.
esaruoho 5 years ago
The URL is in the description here. Yes, I know about RV as well... it's all good.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
So what is your point? Does this mean you can run this motor without it costing you because it doesn't draw current from the electricity source?
MarkDant 5 years ago
The motor uses about seven watts of electricity, yet the mechanical output is 4 to five times that of the electical input. I hope that helps.
Truthbeeknown 5 years ago
What are the exact numbers?
IA = input amps
IV = input volts
IW = input watts
OA = output amps
OV = output volts
OW = output watts
IA x IV = IW
OA x OV = OW
OW - IW = Power generated (in watts)
Livingfishguy 4 years ago
IA = 600 ma
IV = 12 V
There is no output amps or volts.. the output is mechanical...
I know what COP is...
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
in that case, in order to prove over unity you need to attach a generator and produce more current then it draws.
Livingfishguy 4 years ago
Yes, a generator is one, a prony brake another. I know what you are getting at...
Then again, prove to me you can find an electric motor that uses seven watts that you can't stop with your hand at 1200 rpm without any sort of gear reduction...
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
That may be, but stopping motors with your hand isn't a very scientific way of measuring efficiency.
Livingfishguy 4 years ago
Yes, the prony brake test that I did kept bouncing on the scale. I'm in the process of replacing the switches so it can handle more input and output load. Yet on the other hand, if you are up to it, find a motor that uses seven watts without gear reduction that you can't stop with your hand. ie, it either does or does not. But thanks for your interest. The feedback is good. I should have something new to post sometime soon.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
The bouncing of the prony brake is probably because the motor rotates in steps. It looks to me like you've built a simple stepper motor. Instead of using an electronic controller you use precisely positioned reed switches to create rotation.
Livingfishguy 4 years ago
Instead of running the current though the reed switches you should try running it through transistors and controlling the transistors with with the reed switches. You could even replace the reed switches with magnetic coils, or even an ir emitter and detector with a chopper between them.
Livingfishguy 4 years ago
Your challenge does interest me. Your inability to stop your motor with your hand could be explained by the fact that stepper motors are most efficient at very low RPM, producing their highest torque accelerating from a dead stop, entirely different from most electric motors which are most efficient at a certain RPM and once it is slowed down below that speed torque drops dramatically.
Livingfishguy 4 years ago
My best bet would probably be with a stepper motor. I've found one online with a holding torque of 7.35 inch-lbs at 6.7 watts, i could probably find a better one if i looked harder.
Bottom line:
If your motor produces less than 7.35 inch-lbs at 6.7 watts, it's nothing special.
Livingfishguy 4 years ago
Well, torque is measured in lb-ft Newton-meters, etc... so if you trying to figure this motor out, then you may want to take the time to understand the nomenclature of the trade. Further, stepper motors don't use resonant circuits as far as I'm aware. XL=2pifL, XC=1/2pifC. Z=L/CR. You do know about these formulas and their various applications?
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Forgive me if I am not comprehending you here properly. "Your challenge does interest me". Not sure if this was about finding a seven watt motor, or my other one of building minr. Following threads here is a bit confusing. Google Tesla roadster - 100% Torque, 100% of the Time. On mine, it is 1,200 rpm where it gets very hard to slow down. ie burns fingers.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Yes.. done that.. mechanical switching is best.. fastest and less loss. Also, transistors limit the ability to 'where' the transistor can be placed in order to do certain things with the circuit.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Actually, the shaft was a bit bent and the rod also had threads which grabbed too much. It is similar to a stepper, but there IS more to this that I have not disclosed... and have never seen anyone figure it out yet. If you do I'll let you know, but if not, I'm not going to give everything away on here at the moment.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago
Regarding your input output assumptions. My motor has an electromagnet repelling a permanent magnet. So, some brain candy for you. First off, we are dealing with MAGNETIC FIELDS. The formula for the strength of the B field is the current(i) times the the number of turns(N) or if you have a metal core, mu(i)(N). *Nowhere* is the voltage a requirement for the strength(force) of a magnetic field.. think geometry, not input watts by calculating volts times amps.
Truthbeeknown 4 years ago