Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[hartiberlin]

Hi baudirenergie. The issue is whether these type of setups might be 'OU' or not, however. 
Energy in inductive switching spikes which normally may be dissipated in windings in the fan
or in other components in the fan such as diodes, can be redirected to pulse a secondary battery, but this still
in no way in itself necessarily indicates anything about OU. I have experimented quite a bit with using inductive
switching spikes in pulse circuits to pulse secondary batteries and unfortunately, no OU. In all my experiments
I have found that the energy is coming from the source battery driving the pulse circuit. Even if you are swapping
the batteries back and forth, the batteries start to run down if you leave it all running long enough.
If there are special exceptions to this where such an arrangement shows possible indications of actually being OU, I have
not ever seen a convincing demonstration of it anyway.

This is the point which some people here have been trying to get across here.
It is an incorrect assumption to think that because you can direct energy from inductive switching spikes,
or similar, to charge a secondary battery or batteries, that this somehow indicates 'OU'.
Such an arrangement actually in no way necessarily at all indicates OU.

Only by doing a proper comparison of average output power to average input power, or by self-looping such
a setup in some way and leaving the self-looped setup running for a suitably long enough time, can you understand
what the real performance of a given setup is in regards to efficiency. If using a battery to power a self-looped setup,
then the suitable run time needed to determine if the circuit might be OU or not depends on the current draw from the battery
in comparison to the battery's Amp-hour rating.

If some people are not understanding and acknowledging the above points, which should all be givens at overunity.com,
then they are only demonstrating that they don't really understand what they are doing.  Sorry, but there is no nicer way to
say it. That is just the plain reality of the situation.

Sure these motors have some ohmical losses, they are only 95 to 97 % efficient in their best building types...
But let´s just use an example:Take a 12 Volts 7 Amphour battery that is fully charged and then contains 84 Watthours of energy.
Now power one of the Fanmotors from Rick.
My friend has the same  and they draw about 0.37 Amps in the normal mode unmodified.
that is about 4.44 Watts.Now if you run this on the 84 Wh battery this would give you about 19 hours run time.
Now when he had modified the motor as Rick did with removing the snubber diodes and using fast diodesto redirect the BackEMF pulses to a second 12 Battery, which was charged this way, the motor drew only then 0.35 to 0.36 amps and had the same torque,measured via a airflow meter.
So now do you agree if the motor now runs longer than 19 hours and also a few hours on the earlier empty second battery which was charged up and then will also run the same
motor also for another  few hours ?
So what do you call this now ?  OU or hyperefficient ?

[hartiberlin]

Hi Brad, You need to read more carefully. I did not state anywhere that the voltage across the coil remains the same polarity.
I stated that the voltage across the coil when the magnetic field collapses is
the same polarity as the original applied voltage Vi, so it acts to try to keep the current flowing in the same direction
in the coil that it was flowing in before Vi was cut off. It is not of a polarity that is in opposition to the original applied voltage Vi,
so it is definitely incorrect to call it 'Back EMF' or 'Counter EMF'. Exactly as I wrote in my previous comment.

Brad was correct, that the voltage gets reversed... !! but not the current through the coil. You mixed that up...

[tinman]

Sure these motors have some ohmical losses, they are only 95 to 97 % efficient in their best building types...
But let´s just use an example:Take a 12 Volts 7 Amphour battery that is fully charged and then contains 84 Watthours of energy.
Now power one of the Fanmotors from Rick.
My friend has the same  and they draw about 0.37 Amps in the normal mode unmodified.
that is about 4.44 Watts.Now if you run this on the 84 Wh battery this would give you about 19 hours run time.
Now when he had modified the motor as Rick did with removing the snubber diodes and using fast diodesto redirect the BackEMF pulses to a second 12 Battery, which was charged this way, the motor drew only then 0.35 to 0.36 amps and had the same torque,measured via a airflow meter.
So now do you agree if the motor now runs longer than 19 hours and also a few hours on the earlier empty second battery which was charged up and then will also run the same
motor also for another  few hours ?
So what do you call this now ?  OU or hyperefficient ?

There is no doubt that !some! motors can be made more efficient with some simple modifications.
The question is-->how efficient was it in the first place?

Herein lies the problem Stefan--we just cant seem to get any base line efficiency numbers from Rick(or anyone) as to the actual efficiency of those fan motors.

We have heard Rick say that the guy i got them off said they are around 94% efficient,but that is nothing more than hearsay.

claiming OU is very easy,but actually being able to present the required data to back up those claim's seems out of Rick's reach. This is data that is critical toward our research into OU.
No one enjoys having there time wasted,and as you know,a lot of us here have spent a lot of our time and own money replicating claimed OU devices. The difference most time's is we have a clear schematic or diagram to go by,but in Rick's case,information is very scarce.

So,i would start out first getting actual efficiency measurements of the fans in question.
To do this,you will have to calculate differential pressures on each side of the fan,and know the actual flow rate of the fan at a set RPM. This can be calculated if the blades size and pitch on the fan is known,along with the RPM. This will then give you an accurate CFM figure. Once that is obtained,then you will need the differential pressure across the fan. These values can then be used to calculate the energy required to move that volume of air at that pressure. Waving one of those little plastic CFM meters around like Rick dose will give you a very inaccurate reading,and will not give you the differential pressure needed to make the calculations.

The simplest way at this point in time is to measure RPM to P/in in standard mode,and then again in modified mode. Stick with the RMP per mW value's,and leave those cheap air flow meters out of it,as they will give you all sorts of readings depending on as to how you hold them in the stream of air.


Brad

[ramset]

Apparently resident metrologist Is making a movie showing some very interesting things
will hopefully be ready in the near future

[seaad]

There is no doubt that !some! motors can be made more efficient with some simple modifications.
The question is-->how efficient was it in the first place?


So,i would start out first getting actual efficiency measurements of the fans in question.
To do this,you will have to calculate differential pressures on each side of the fan,and know the actual flow rate of the fan at a set RPM. This can be calculated if the blades size and pitch on the fan is known,along with the RPM. This will then give you an accurate CFM figure. Once that is obtained,then you will need the differential pressure across the fan. These values can then be used to calculate the energy required to move that volume of air at that pressure. Waving one of those little plastic CFM meters around like Rick dose will give you a very inaccurate reading,and will not give you the differential pressure needed to make the calculations.

The simplest way at this point in time is to measure RPM to P/in in standard mode,and then again in modified mode. Stick with the RMP per mW value's,and leave those cheap air flow meters out of it,as they will give you all sorts of readings depending on as to how you hold them in the stream of air.


Brad

What about an old decent Prony Brake.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prony_brake

Arne