Gyroscopic Inertia Generator

[Scorch]

Hello everybody. 

Completed some more G1 assembly work today.

Pretty straightforward although a little challenging.
I did discover that the through bolts for the primary rotor hubs didn't have quite enough threads for some reason so that the bolts were bottoming out on their threads instead of the washers and hub.
Don't know why and haven't run into this issue on the previous Q3 build which, presumably, is the same rotor, bolts, washers and hubs.
Possible that hubs are slightly thinner or bolts just have a longer shoulder than previously supplied bolts.

Solution is simply to add more washers or dye cut a few more threads in the bolts.
Decided not to bother with cutting more threads, didn't have any stainless steel washers in this size, and I merely used some nylon washers from inventory.

The challenge is that it all has to be assembled as a complete, layered, unit with end bracket, rotor, stator, another rotor, another stator then another rotor and all bolted together as a single unit while still making sure shaft is still free enough (for final adjustments) within four disks and two hubs with eight spacers in two different locations and eight hub bolts doing two different things..... 

That is all for now.

Kindest regards;

}:>

[Scorch]

Well, at least, that would still be an alternative energy system because hamsters are solar powered. 

Tinsel(Mythbuster)Koala apparently found the hamster in Mike Kantz's motor alternator!

[TinselKoala]

Thank you for the information, I have watched the video in it's entirety and is very interesting, but appears to be out of context. Or, otherwise, not quite what I might care about in terms of usefulness and the fact this experiment is not even in the same class, requires a powered transmitter, and appears to only be a demonstration of the wireless transmission of energy that is NOT demonstrating how much potential is consumed by transmitter versus how much potential back out from the receiver or anything beyond typical characteristics of electrolytic recovery which is similar to that of a battery electrolyte that also recovers some voltage after load removed. Nothing new here. . . . 

Please show me a joule thief that does not require a powered transmitter and is charging my 12 volt car battery... then I might care about that! 

For clarification regarding said hypothetical "what if" scenario; this scenario is in regards to a system that appears to be operating in an electrical-mechanical resonance providing well over 13 volts to power a bank of sixty LEDs or charge a common 12 volt battery or a bank of nine 350 farad ultra capacitors.

The video of the $5 experiment, producing 1-2 volts, does not appear to be anywhere near the useful 13+ volt lighting-charging output I might care about and is not an electro-mechanical system also providing a rotational 'shaft output'.

Please forgive me; but I do love mechanical, spinning, devices operating within, or even in conjunction with, this solar system and my Mother earth. 
But, of course, if there is a solid state device producing more useful output, such as a 'giant' joule thief that doesn't require a transmitter, then I might care about that as well. 

Kindest regards;

}:>

Ah, so that is not all you care about after all. I thought not. But did you not notice that the wireless transmitter was turned OFF early in the video, remained OFF for the rest of the video and was OFF during the voltage rise demonstration? The initial power could have come from, say... a battery directly wired to the apparatus, just like your Quanta system will have when it's running.  But never mind that; nobody need be impressed by a big capacitor regaining some voltage while it's running a small load.  And if you want to light 60 LEDs and/or charge a battery, why did you say, or rather ask "if" "possibly lighting an LED" was all you cared about? But certainly I or any other JT builder here (except maybe LTseung) can light 60 or even 100 LEDs or more, brilliantly, from very low voltage inputs. I use a 24-LED bank, lit by one depleted AAA battery, regularly as a flashlight around the house and in my observatory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM1qdATaiks

But you want a spinny thing. I can respect that, of course, spinny things are cool and it is true that the Quanta kit is nicely arranged and you can be proud of it when you are finished. But you will get better performance as a battery charger or LED-lighter-upper, I guarantee it, if you don't waste your input power rotating a rotor. Everything that the spinny thing can do as far as battery charging or lighting lights can be done better, and more efficiently, and for lower cost, with a solid-state system with no moving parts. The only real justification for wanting a spinny thing is... that you want a spinny thing.


I like spinny things myself and have built many of them. Here's one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emj8kSREv7c

ETA: I must say that I'm a little surprised that the Quanta kit has parts that don't fit properly. That seems rather incongruous considering the nice look and finish of the CNC-tooled big parts. You should complain to your supplier.

[MileHigh]

Scorch:

From the picture it looks like the wire pairs from the far pick-up coils are not twisted.  It's a minor thing but if they were twisted it would reduce any pick-up of EMF that is extraneous to the the main signal from the pick-up coil itself.  Just like networking cable.

MileHigh

[Scorch]

Please forgive my failure to discover any indication of how long the transmitter had to be on to charge the system or how much power was used.
Thank you for the additional videos. Some very interesting stuff there. 
Appears you are into some pretty complicated systems.

I hope to do more with less as in; "keep it simple".
And, BTW, unlikely anybody actually knows what I think or care about. 

Why the surprise? Parts is parts is parts and, after all, it IS a prototype, experimental, kit.   

Haven't you ever had that experience with parts discrepancies?
Such as the same manufacture sending the same part under the same specification but not being quite the same such as slightly different color, new assembly process, different plastic, a couple less threads on the bolts, wood screws not stamped properly, brand name battery charger with specific part number actually completely different design depending on which vender manufactured it, and etcetera.

These experimental things have to be fitted.

For example the machined holes in the disks might be a very close tolerance and very tight just BECAUSE there can be slight differences therefore better to be a slightly tight fit that can be sanded out versus risk of to loose and unusable disk that will cause vibration.

It has been my experience there have been many improvements with these kits since I built the original Q2.
This is a constructive, developmental, educational kit that continues to advance and evolve from where it initially started and likely the G1 will eventually be surpassed by something even better.

Complain? Why?!? 

To complain is to make conscious choice to have a problem with some thing.

Why would I, the solution seeker, decide to have a problem versus my proactive, positive attitude choice to NOT have a problem and merely implement a solution per my technical and electronic training and experience duty to replicate the experiment regardless of these minor fitment challenges.

The manufacturer is well aware of this thread and does make quality control checks and balances as needed.
This is how we learn, improve, and evolve. No reason to complain about it. 

Especially in the revealing light of quantum physics in which the experimenter, himself, is part of the experiment and any initial choice or decision to have a problem or the system "won't work" will surely have an effect on the outcome of the experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Kindest regards;

}:>

Ah, so that is not all you care about after all. I thought not. But did you not notice that the wireless transmitter was turned OFF early in the video, remained OFF for the rest of the video and was OFF during the voltage rise demonstration? The initial power could have come from, say... a battery directly wired to the apparatus, just like your Quanta system will have when it's running.  But never mind that; nobody need be impressed by a big capacitor regaining some voltage while it's running a small load.  And if you want to light 60 LEDs and/or charge a battery, why did you say, or rather ask "if" "possibly lighting an LED" was all you cared about? But certainly I or any other JT builder here (except maybe LTseung) can light 60 or even 100 LEDs or more, brilliantly, from very low voltage inputs. I use a 24-LED bank, lit by one depleted AAA battery, regularly as a flashlight around the house and in my observatory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM1qdATaiks

But you want a spinny thing. I can respect that, of course, spinny things are cool and it is true that the Quanta kit is nicely arranged and you can be proud of it when you are finished. But you will get better performance as a battery charger or LED-lighter-upper, I guarantee it, if you don't waste your input power rotating a rotor. Everything that the spinny thing can do as far as battery charging or lighting lights can be done better, and more efficiently, and for lower cost, with a solid-state system with no moving parts. The only real justification for wanting a spinny thing is... that you want a spinny thing.


I like spinny things myself and have built many of them. Here's one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emj8kSREv7c

ETA: I must say that I'm a little surprised that the Quanta kit has parts that don't fit properly. That seems rather incongruous considering the nice look and finish of the CNC-tooled big parts. You should complain to your supplier.