Arguments against Muller design

[khabe]

@Khabe .It is interesting that you met Bill Muller . You say that he never claimed That the Muller Dynamo was Overunity .Then what was his purpose .These days we have cheap inverters to change one type of power/ voltage to another .Why would he go to all that trouble to build what is in effect a rotary converter . Was he also trying to reinvent the horse and cart? I f he was in fact trying to devellop an overunity machine , why would you bother to meet him .There are a lot of us here trying to do the same thing , and you do not seem keen to meet any of us ? So Mullers machine did not work . And Romero`s machine did . And Romero` s machine goes "missing" . What conclusion can we reach here? All I am saying is that it seems strange to me .

We never met, just talked. Muller had his own understanding about free energy,  he admitted his device does not self run, ibid he believed it will run ... just something need to be done a little bid more ... or even no self run - he hardly believed this device will come in use in cooperation with other sources of energy. We talked in nineties when I was building similar machine for ...School. Honoured Mr. Muller was fairly resentful because this machine meant as sample as "new era perpetuum mobile", like exhibit. I tried to reassure this old man that student will surely make a lot of tests with and will make their own conclusions.
cheers,
khabe

[ElectronManipulator]

A copy of one of my message in another section:
What about BEMF ?, in a transformer when you load the seconndary it produce a CEMF that oppose the primary EMF (lenz law), this CEMF is energy also !!! but out of phase by 180°, so the secondary fight the primary rather than aiding.

Are you handy with electronics?

If you are, or know someone who is, you should phase match, and add the signals.

If you need info on how to do this, look up, and read, genset pairing or solar/wind system grid-tie information.

Often a solar systems output (after inversion) is AC which is out of phase with the POCO (Power Company), so grid-tie inverters phase-match.  This will allow you to take out of phase signals and add them together without the loss of a diode drop and DC conversion.


*****************

@Mr, UK

Also, I see many folks over-using diode bridges (bridge rectifiers).  When you are dealing with such low power generation, why THROW AWAY a volt and a half on each bridge??

Read up on capacitive rectification, and using MOSFETs as IDEAL (no drop) diodes.

I am by no means a know-it-all, but I see simple errors all over that could help push people a little closer to their goals on this site.

Another thing to look into would be small signal power harvesting.  It would allow you to charge caps with VERY LOW power.

You can then use a switch (optical or HALL effect) to activate a pair electro-magnets to get the boosts you need to overcome magnetic cogging.

If you have a few mA and mV to spare in this dynamo, you can charge a capacitor.  Use a XLP PIC to monitor the cap voltage and when at proper levels, attach the load, and pulse the electromagnets.  After a few cycles, disconnect the load and continue along your battery switching routing (using the PIC to handle this also) and charging the capacitor for the next cycle.

Doing this will give you MINIMAL cogging.

If you are going to continue using diodes,  use germanium diodes instead of silicon, you will gain .2v instantly on your system.  They have a lower diode drop than silicon.  This will give you what you need to use the harvesting technique.

A vibrating piezo can charge a large cap over time with these harvesting circuits.

You should really look into this.

[Tudi]

+1 to your troll diploma on the other threads
Again. You are misunderstanding the concept of OU. Imagine that you need 3 barrels of oils to produce 100 barells ( refine crude oil). That is OU. There is no magic in this, you just need to find the process of refinement...

[nueview]

I think i would tend to agree with the statement that it is a process as over the years i have seen and read up on many processes used by big business for either fuel savings or energy savings that are not used by the general public nor are they promoted this is mainly due to the flow of money but that aside most people do not pick up on these tips when they are put forward either. that does not mean it is not possible.
if a train can move a ton of freight 350 miles for a gallon of fuel why can't a car do the same?  PROCESS plain and simple.
how many times on this forum have you heard discussed the phase shift of energy.
you need good discussions before you can do things that are not readily excepted such as you cannot do other than established physics with established physics. then learn the other process in short we need to be open minded.
Martin

[allcanadian]

@TommyLReed

The amount of energy that is present before and after work is the same (scientist say energy is conserved). For example, let's say you drop a ball. Scientists can measure the energy before, during, and after the fall. The amount of energy remains constant throughout the process. Likewise when an object is thrown or a spring released or something is burned, the energy can be measured. This is the reason behind the first law of thermodynamics, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another; scientists have found that the amount of energy in a closed system remains constant.

I think it is important to understand the contradiction in the statements above, all this nonsense relies on the fact that energy remains constant in a closed system because they consider it a closed system. That is they state that in a perfectly isolated/closed box the energy is constant because the box is closed which is nothing more than stating the obvious. My first question for these scientists would be can you give me one single example of a perfectly closed/isolated system? You see there are no completely isolated  systems that we know of anywhere in the known universe so there argument is pointless.

The following set of statements are various ways of expressing the first law of thermodynamics:
* Energy is conserved.
* The amount of energy in the universe is constant.
* Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
* There is no free lunch.
* It is impossible to build a machine that produces more energy than it uses (This type of machine is called a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.)

Actually the first law of thermodynamics states---

"In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced."

and

In a thermodynamic process, the increment in the internal energy of a system is equal to the difference between the increment of heat accumulated by the system and the increment of work done by it.

You will notice that the first law of thermodynamics relates directly to heat hence the term Thermo(heat)-Dynamic(relating to energy/motion). As such I think all the expressions of the first law you have noted are irrelevant as any expression not related directly with heat energy has no business being lumped in with thermodynamics, which should be obvious. I also think that assuming the amount of energy in the whole universe is constant because of the simple relationship between heat and work is absurd.

Second Law of Thermodynamics
The following set of statements are various ways of expressing the second law of thermodynamics:
* With each energy conversion from one form to another, some of the energy becomes unavailable for further use.
* Heat cannot flow from a cold object to a hot object on its own.
* It is impossible to convert heat energy into work with 100 percent efficiency.
* You cannot break even.
* It is impossible to build a machine that produces as much energy as it uses. (This type of machine is called a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.)
* The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.

Actually the second law of thermodynamics states---

No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.

Now to me expressions are kind of like opinions and opinions as we know are not facts especially when they have nothing to do with the subject at hand which is thermo(HEAT)dynamics. Take this expression--"The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum", now how in the hell could anyone make such an absurd statement when we have very little understanding of the small part of the universe we can actually see let alone the whole universe-- this is pure speculation. Here is more nonsense--" It is impossible to build a machine that produces as much energy as it uses", now what does this mean--a machine which "produces" as much "energy" as it "uses"?. I can name hundreds of machines which produce more energy than they use like wind turbines,hydro-power and solar power. What could they be talking about? Well they are talking about the same nonsense as they were prior, that is this expression means absolutely nothing unless they put their "machine" in some magical isolated/closed box-- which is insane.

I should make it clear that I believe in the conservation of energy and have no problem with it however I do have issue with unproven theories which rely on magical closed boxes that must exclude all external sources of energy we know as a fact are present everywhere in the known universe. All you have to do is ask the right questions--- give me one example of a perfectly isolated system anywhere, give me one example of any space in the known universe where no forms of energy are present. You see a good theory must hold up under scrutiny and not simply fall apart when the right questions are asked.
Regards
AC