Quanta Magnetics Experimental Kits

[MileHigh]

Scorch:

By all means please go ahead and experiment with your pulse motor.  But for example, replicating a high-voltage output experiment that is seen on a Quanta Magnetics clip with your setup and then stating that is a "confirmation of the effect" will not cut it.  You want to do the experiment and then explain how you got the high voltage.  That is the true scientific method.

To rebut what you say in your posting:  I never said it "won't work," you are making a false straw man argument.  What I have stated is totally relevant, and I am encouraging you to do your work scientifically, and it is in the spirit and intent of this forum.  As opposed to "same old song" you have been introduced to many new concepts from our discussion where chances are you never even heard of them before.

Pulsing an electromagnet to make a disk rotate or using coils to generate electricity from moving magnets or getting high voltages from a discharging inductor are universal concepts that will apply to any pulse motor/generator.  So indeed, having a very good understanding of how your particular pulse motor will perform even before you build and test it is a no-brainer.  It's nothing more than the application of the scientific method.

Please test and do measurements and generate good data and analyze and make inferences and draw up conclusions.  Also explain how and why things are happening as opposed to a "blind replication of the the 'effect.'"  People around here can help you do that.  That will put you light-years ahead of Quanta Magnetics.

MileHigh

[Pirate88179]

Does Bill support the negativity discovered throughout this record?

Bill, (That would be me) supports the truth, knowledge and learning.  If that somehow appears to you to be negative, then that is your problem and it is on you.

2+2=4.  If you don't believe that it does, or are not sure as you have not added it yourself, and someone here tells you it equals 4, that is NOT being negative.  It is being accurate and truthful.

Bill

[TinselKoala]

Exactly, MH.

You are referring to this Quanta "high voltage" clip, showing "600% AMPLIFIED VOLTAGE" (caps in original) ??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8kTzzAf_dw

That's a pretty silly "demonstration" but if that is the standard to which we are working... fine, homie can play dat.

Using the same procedure, charging a capacitor from the Power Takeoff terminal of the MHOP, I get easily 1000% AMPLIFIED VOLTAGE.

The MHOP is powered by a split 12+12 volt supply, with 12 volts running the logic and 24 volts being switched into its coil, and I can very quickly charge a capacitor to over 250 volts, more than 10 times, or 1000 percent, of the input voltage. This happens with _no decrease in RPM_ and the same slight decrease, after a brief and small increase, in the input current, as shown in my previous video with the ring oscillator.

In other words, ONCE AGAIN the MHOP wins, hands down.  And by the intelligent application of known principles, on an apparatus that cost a couple weeks of _actual_ cooperative development and _actual_ experimentation, and about 20 dollars in parts. Over half of the complexity of the circuit is the optional strobe system, which uses a 555 timer as a pulse shortener and a 4017 as a divide-by-four pulse counter. Without these niceties the thing only uses one half of a TL082 op-amp comparator, and the power mosfet that actually switches the coil.

I have already presented a video showing the MHOP charging and powering a small neon ring oscillator. The presence of the neons somewhat restricts the voltage buildup in the ring oscillator's reservoir capacitor, but without any load on the reservoir, _as shown in the Quanta video_, it is easy to charge very rapidly to over 250 volts, on 24 volts input. A 10x or 1000 percent "voltage amplification".

Below you can see a scopeshot I just made, having dusted off the MHOP and turned it on. This shot is taken while the MHOP is also _recirculating_ power through one neon back to the battery supply, "charging" it in the standard "bedini" manner while at the same time running the rotor.

I am still waiting for someone to demonstrate something from some other pulse motor that is touted as being "overunity" or special in some way, that the MHOP can't do as well or better.

The MHOP self-starts when power is applied, runs stably driving a propeller load, produces high voltage spikes and "radiant", recirculates those spikes back to its own batteries, can be used to power external devices, has adjustable timing and dwell, is equipped with its own built-in strobe system, runs in either direction, runs with either coil polarity, and even runs _without a rotor_.

Is this "negativity"... or is it a demonstration of how to have all the fun you want, experimenting, without spending a lot of money that goes into the pockets of false claimants?

[TinselKoala]

So that nobody will accuse _me_ of making unsupported claims...

I just shot a new video showing the MHOP charging a 150 uF, 450 V capacitor to a hair over 300 volts (24 v input) in a few seconds. That is a "Voltage Amplification" of 1250 percent, over TWICE what is shown in the Quanta clip. The MHOP outperforms the Quanta system both relatively (1250 percent vs. 600 percent) and absolutely (300 volts vs. 287 volts).

I'm processing and uploading the video now, it should be viewable in half an hour or so.

But I don't have a "toroidal voltage amplifier" on the MHOP! So how could this be? Is it possible that the "TVA" on the Quanta system isn't really doing what they claim, since I am able to get better results without one?


ETA: Video is here. If it's not viewable yet, please check back in a few minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfC5cTHtfYY

Note that by about 3:20 or so the voltage on the cap is actually around 340 Volts, as shown on the scope trace.

Erratum: At about 2:14 or so I say "battery" but of course I'm actually talking about the capacitor.

[MarkE]

Bill, (That would be me) supports the truth, knowledge and learning.  If that somehow appears to you to be negative, then that is your problem and it is on you.

2+2=4.  If you don't believe that it does, or are not sure as you have not added it yourself, and someone here tells you it equals 4, that is NOT being negative.  It is being accurate and truthful.

Bill

Are you sure that works?  Does it hold for large values of two and small values of four?