The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )

[gotoluc]

I have dificulty with construction with laminations, so this is going to take time, or I could use ferrite cores (small version) but this also will take time..

and because I don't want you to wait for me, but rather everyone build his own one..  so I decide to make some drawings and explanations so everybody will understand the idea.

I am drawing them now..

I'm glad you came to that decision l0stf0x. Some of us are better equipped to build. Also, working as a group is much more efficient and productive.

Thanks for sharing

Luc

[gotoluc]

Hey brad in my experiments the ferrite did not work nearly as well as steel laminates. It was explained by arenas and Matt that it's because the poles can't as flip as fast. I'm trying to work out where to get soft iron like syair used. Paul Babcock swears by steel shot but its a bit hard to get in melbourne.

Ferrite will transition much faster that iron or steel,this is why they use ferrite in high frequency transformers or inductors. Steel and iron hold residual magnetism quite well-im guessing you have a few magnetised screwdrivers lying around?. See how much magnetised ferrite you have that wasnt a magnet to start with-my guess is none.

As Jimboot has found in his experiments (as I have), much of the effect is lost when using ferrite!... maybe Iron powder cores would be a better choice? 

Maybe MarKE can explain Iron powder vs Ferrite core characteristics.

Luc

[l0stf0x]

I'm glad you came to that decision l0stf0x. Some of us are better equipped to build. Also, working as a group is much more efficient and productive.

Thanks for sharing

Luc

Sharing is wise

Here it is check it please.. its simple idea but I can't find anything similar at google.. thanks


http://overunity.com/15341/sotogen#.VKHP_14CAA

[gotoluc]

Luc:

In order to get the "C" core to pull to the gap in the "I" cores the "C" core would need to be much thicker. Going thinner would cause the "C" core to not want to stay in the gap but pull to one side or the other while if it was wider it would pull to where the flux is best conducted.

We can see by rotating a large "C" section that flux moves into the "C" making it a magnet, then as the core rotates it pushes back from the next pole causing a load on the drive system.  The problem with a wider "C" core is that it will load with even more flux and increase the drag.

To me the solution is to mount the "C" core stationary below the "I" cores and make the "C" core as wide as the outside of the "I" cores. (about twice as wide as is now)

Space the "C" from the "I" cores and rotate other smaller segments to transfer the flux.

The idea is that flux retained in the smaller rotating pieces will be small because they can only retain a small amount of flux.

Overall, the way to reduce the core drag is to reduce the size of the moving iron.

A few days ago I made a new rotating plate with a C core that is as wide as both the I cores (outside end to end). The result was a standard generator action. When coil was on load no matter the RPM the input to prime mover did not go down and the power across the load was exactly reflected back to the prime mover.

So I fail to see what you recommend would be any different?

Luc

[MileHigh]

Okay it's time for a generic rant at all of you.  This is not specific to any individual even though I am going to discuss Luc's build.  It's directed at the original participants in this thread, the original people interested in this proposition and Luc's build.  You all know who you are.

First of all Luc should be congratulated for doing the build.  It's real, it's very solid, and overall very well built and it obviously does what it is supposed to do.  I view Luc's build as your collective project and test bed.

Here is the problem:  Doing the build is only half of the project.  Doing the testing and measurements on the build is the other half of the project.  And to be be more realistic, it's the testing and measurements and drawing your conclusions from the data that really counts.  The build itself is only of secondary importance.  It's more like 10% build and 90% testing and analysis.

All of you guys have almost nothing to say about actually testing the device now that it has been built.  There is something seriously wrong there.  I have not seen a single suggestion from anybody on what to do now that the thing is actually built.

So many times I have been chastised by you guys, some of you are participants in this very thread.  I hear, "You know nothing if you don't build it yourself," or I hear, "We are builders and doers, and you are not a doer."  I also hear, "What you are saying is 'just words.'"

Well, right now I don't see any "doing" at all.  I see the usual bullshit where people start talking about different ferrite choices and stuff like that, bla bla bla.  That's bullshit, the build is done.  It's almost like you want to say anything to escape actually analyzing the system.  It's time for you to talk about what you are going to DO.

This is an energy forum, all about searching for new and alternative sources of energy.  You now have a perfectly good test bed, it's time for you to put your brains together and talk about how to test the energy aspects of this device.

If none of you have any ideas or something to say about testing the device, then why even bother building it in the first place?  I am serious.  I can't tell you how many times I have seen all sorts of enthusiasm for a new project, a few people build replications, and then nobody knows what to do.  You see somebody measure the current draw for their build, big fucking deal.

Now that this thing is built, what the hell do you do?   Is somebody going to step up to the plate and offer something real?  With all due respect to Luc, his first attempt at an analysis is no good.  But it is not just for him to do this himself.  It's up to you collectively to do something.  Right now you have a good solid build, and almost no data.  You have nothing to speak of.

So the challenge is out there to all of you.  If you all move on and nobody says anything, then this whole thing was an exercise in bullshit.  Likewise, when a new YouTube clip clip comes along and you want to replicate it in search of over unity, you had better seriously consider my words.  If you build something with no idea what you really are going to do, with no preliminary test plan, with no predefined goals for what the project is supposed to accomplish, then you are full of shit.  There is no point in being stuck in a revolving door going around in circles.

The "bonus rant" is that I don't want to hear people tell me, "Oh you are not a builder, you are not a doer, you have no right to say anything" - well you guys can kiss my ass because my credibility has long been establish by what I say.  I don't want to hear any stupid flack like that when I clearly can bring some value to the table.  Saying that "I am not a builder" is just an excuse to avoid listening or responding to what I have have to say.  I am not always right but at least I say something.

So, is this project already dead and gone, or do you guys as a collective group interested in this project and in the original YouTube clip have something of value to say?  What suggestions can you now offer to Luc after all the time and effort and expense he put into making his build?  His build is a test bed, so where do you guys, you "energy researchers" go from here?

MileHigh