Muller Dynamo for experimentalists

[plengo]

after watching this youtube video of the Muller motor presented by is daughter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfF23IvRqpY&feature=uploademail)  I am convinced that Romero did tell us the truth about his motor.

It is indeed very simple and fine tunning indeed is the biggest player here. No complicated parts at all. Just like I already presented in the beginning of this thread:

- SMOT effect (tri-gate) where the trigger coils aid in the remaining "putting out of balance" stick point where the rotor magnets repulsions cause the torque necessary for the rotation until balance again is reached (sticky point) which another trigger or triggers in sequence continue that process.
Think about this not like one single SMOT or gate but a series of gates just like the moon animated picture shows. Each coil / rotor magnet (or cell as I call it) is a gate and a part of a whole gate.  Also here Romero mention the necessity of having the magnets on the rotor being perfectly equidistant and coils with correct dimensions for the core - since they will attract the magnets.

- Biasing magnets on the back of the coils are for two reasons
   a) avoid cogging
   b) aid in the tunning

- coils of very low resistance and possibly relatively large inductance where back-EMF is recycled via the FWBR and extra diodes. A possibility for replacement of large inductance could be the use of Litz or multi-stranded wire where each wire helps in self-induction of each strand therefore effectively giving high inductance although low inductance when not in use (I could be wrong here, so shoot a helper comment please). Off course back EMF for the trigger coils. The other generator coils only need the FWBR and diodes.

So, with that being said one must envision a series of tests to prove each point. I think the cogging has been demonstrated and pretty much replicated by a few experimentalists.

The fine tunning could be done may be by simplifying the rotor to two magnets only (such as the picture which Romero already tested) and find the principal of balancing act via one coil and the magnets, possibly the coil with a biasing magnet too. This would pretty much demonstrate the SMOT effect and the out of balance action that the trigger coil can inflict.

To test the multi-strand small coil one could just build a rotor rotated by an external device or motor and attach to the perimeter of the rotating rotor a few small coils and measure their performance under load. I think some experimentalists also proved that indeed we can create around 2 watts of power spinning at around 1200 rpm.

I can see based on this very simple but orchestrated series of principles ways to improve this motor to an unbelievable level by simply implement a few techniques such as coil shorting on the generator coils, proper timing of the trigger by usage of micro-controllers, machined rotor and parts for perfect balancing and high RPM performance, coils manufactured to precision with corresponding proper balanced magnets for the correct counter magnetic attraction/repulsion action.

We can start just like Romero with a simple trigger and small generators coils. Romero also mention that the whole design SHOULD scale by maintaining its proportions since the "secret" is not in hidden events but simply the interaction of the principles established in this design.

I am not saying that the vacuum energy or zero-point is not present , probably is, what I am saying this is indeed a very simple device that needs relentless observation skills and tremendous patience in tunning.

And to complete my excessive craziness I will even propose a possible scenario that could logically and scientifically demonstrate that indeed this is possible. If the net energy necessary to move a magnet in repulsion to a stationary magnet of equal magnitude would be zero the only cost to make it happen would be an infinitesimal amount of energy to make the net not zero. Off course losses will make it more costly, but not impossible, while the inertia and magnetic induction of coils on the vicinity would be free, that being that the cost initially proposed to make net energy non zero is the only price to pay. Some will argue that the "free energy" would be embedded on the cost of the "non net zero external paid price", but I would argue that the magnet is indeed creating work which today is not counted at all in standard science.

Just to think that the magnets can repulse to me is work.

Shoot my ideas please and let's be focused. I will remove any response that is out of line and noizy! (specially the ones against my ideas     - just kidding - but seriously I will delete noisy posts).

Fausto.

[infringer]

Interesting animation fausto why not put this animation in the original thread I think that speaks a bit louder then the moon pictures. Where you are going with the whole gate theory.

I'm with you I think the magnets play a very important roll as does the arrangement.

[khabe]

Today night I did read about Muller and etc devices,
Valley inventors pursue free and clean energy generators, (by Jeane Manning, April 2005 , Okanagan Life)
on the end of this article we can read one interesting sentence:
"Worst-case scenario -  Even if the extraordinary magnetic generators never selfrun, they can still combine with and revolutionize improve wind and ridal energy."
So it means that these guys( (and girls) not claimed these machines selfrun today? At least 2005  not
cheers,
khabe

[khabe]

When you are trying to replicate Rom´s device then he told the primary thing is "high efficient" generator, while motor for spin this generator can be some other kind as well, even no needs it locates on the same rotor disc. So why to mess with leds, drivers and with "two diodes" 
First thing is main principle of Rom´s coils set up
1.) rotor magnet acts to ferrous core coil and induces voltage ...
or
2.) rotor magnets are really only just like "power switshes" for the flux of coil top magnet 
 
First thing is to try to tune one coil pair with top  magnet, works it at all or not.
What is primary?
2.) rotor speed and number of magnets -> frequency ...
or ...
1.) rotor speed and diameter -> magnet velocity ...
When common generator then of course velocity of magnet.
When velocity of rotor magnet is important then (when all coils, magnets and gaps are as the same as possible) also rotor diameter (diameter where magnets are) must to be the same  - only then you can get appr. the same output voltage with the same RPM as Rom. And of course there must to be rectifier and capacitor already included.

cheers,
khabe

[teslaalset]

@Fausto,
I completely agree with your views. This principle has high potential.
One thing is worth having in mind: the fine tuning is required due to a number of reasons:

- tolerance of the coils
- tolerance of the cores
- tolerance of the magnets

If the spread in these components is too wide, fine tuning will not help enough and/or will be very time consuming.
Especially magnets can have big strength differences, up to 20%.

I am doing some 3D simulation with Ansys Maxwell to look at the sensitivity of these tolerances.
The nice thing with simulations is that you can set the tolerances to zero.
Doing that, results in a netto torque of zero over the 360 degrees circumference, even when full load is applied.
Cogging is still there in this particular design, but can also be minimized when size of magnets and mutual distance of the magnets are tuned in the design, but that's for later.

So, for best practice, I advise to buy more magnets than you require and select the best matched ones.
That will allow for much easier fine tuning.
There are few tricks to select magnets, but I am not sure we should discuss that here.