Book: Basic Principles of Over Unity Electromagnetic Machines

[Merg]

Sorry but this is, at least in theory not true!
When an iron bar is attracted to an electromagnet the impedance of the coil increases, and the magnetic field gets stronger.
This induces a voltage in the coil that opposes the current applied.


This might still be OU because now the magnetic field is stronger we can extract more energy in it's collapse, but there is a catch.


Imagine 2 examples, in one case we have a coil of 500 turns with a steel core, we pass 1 amp through the coil and in doing so generate a magnetic field.
As the magnetic field is established we pay for it in impedance.
We then turn off the current and with it the magnetic field, the magnetic field again resists any change and so it increases the voltage we had been applying, the faster we try and cut off the applied current the greater it will fight back.


In theory we get out from the collapsing magnetic field as much we invested into it (minus radiation resistance) provided we give the back-emf a circuit to flow in.


Now imagine a second scenario, we take an identical coil on an air core and establish 1 amp, this coil has a much lower impedance being air core so we lose less energy in establishing 1 amp, but we also have a weaker magnetic field.
Now let an iron core be attracted to our air core electromagnet, as it is attracted we gain kinetic energy, but we pay for it too in increased impedance, as the magnetic field grows due to the iron creating a stronger field it will induce a voltage into the coil that opposes the applied voltage.


This seems like it might be ok at first blush because we get all the energy back when the field collapses right?
Nope!


What happens is that because the current was at the full 1 amp level when it encountered the impedance the voltage drop created by the iron core is induced on a wire carrying more energy.


So lets say that in the first case the coil felt an average of 5v of opposing voltage from the coil for 1 second and during that time an average current of say 250ma, this means it cost us  5v * .25 amps= 1.25 watts to establish the magnetic field.


In the second case the iron being attracted generates say the same 5v (actually minus the air core impedance we already had to may for) of voltage drop but it does it to an average current of 1 amp, so 5v x 1A = 5watts we had to pay for.


If you look at it we have just found why hysteresis works, the delay in magnetization of a core for whatever reason causes a loss of energy due to the fact that by the time it becomes magnetized there is a greater current flowing and the opposing voltage is working against a greater current.


I fooled myself with this concept a few months ago so that is why I can so easily dismiss it.


Of course Free Energy has also been noted by similar setups but only because they operate outside of the known laws of physics, it isn't as simple as attracting a magnetic rod.

I do not know what you meant by saying it cost s 1,25W or it cost us 5W we had to pay for.
We have to pay for nothing except for heat loses. Opposing voltage and voltage drop will return energy back to circuit.
Histeresis loses are also turned into heat loses. Author already excluded heat loses.
If we used superconductors then there would be no heat loses at all.

[Merg]

New reader's review:


Strong research material, September 24, 2012
By Georgios V. (USA)

I was looking for some validation on my own experiments. The book gave me allot of materiel in one place to use for supporting evidence on a patent of my own. I did not know how far many people had come and how close my research was to many others. Soon I will be a contributor to this book and will be combining several principles into one new practice and thanks to the book itself it will be easier to show prior art and prior principles and their sources. Like many inventors we all stand on the shoulders of giants and we add to their original genius. I will ask Mr Marjanovic to become an SME for my company as soon as the first product rolls out. Keep up the good work! You have no idea what a resource this is to simple garage inventors.


source: http://books.veljkomilkovic.com/#reviews

[Merg]

New reader's review:


---, October 15, 2012
By Nenad S. (Serbia)

This is a very good book for people who believe that the laws of classical physics are outdated and who wish to experience a different point of view. The basic assumption is that readers should have a sound knowledge of electrical engineering if they wish to understand and accept that which is written in the book. At the end of the book, in order to remove the last remaining skepticism in readers, a grade school example of one simple over unity motor should have been presented. People usually believe in what they see.


source: http://books.veljkomilkovic.com/#reviews

[Neo-X]

It seems interesting.. Where can i read this book for free?

[Merg]

New reader's review:


---, November 19, 2012 
By Russell B W. (USA)

Mr.Marjanovic's "Basic Principles of Over Unity Electromagnetic Machines" is a great book. It increased my understanding why overunity is possible to demonstrate with tabletop models. I built two devices listed in the appendix. Now I grasp why my Bedini motor behaves the way it does. I hope the author will offer a second edition with lots of photos of working machines. I would like to contribute to it!


source: http://books.veljkomilkovic.com/#reviews