Can anyone verify cogging-torque neutralization ?

[postingsite]

    The simplest solution to make this device function could be to :
     -  first,  power the  motor ( which is intended to rotate the generators ) by using an  'external power source'
     -  and then,  when the generators are generating power,   gradually mix the output of the generators with the current of the 'external power source',  and then gradually decrease the  'external power source',  until the device is self-powered

   Everyone realizes this could be as simple as two variable-rotary-resistors/potentiometers, connected together via two cog wheels,  so that when you increase one, you are also decreasing the other,  and their combined output going to the motor .

[postingsite]

I just thought of a reason why the design that this thread is based on,  the design in the diagram,  on the very first post on this thread,  may ( ? ) have a problem .
    -   In this design,  when one  rotating-magnet  approaches a  coil-with-core, ,  that coil may already have current flowing through it,  because of current generated in other generators on the same shaft,  so because of that electromagnetic-field already emanating from the coils,  the device may experience  the  electromagnetic-braking-effect  problem experienced in other designs .
          -  Maybe each separate generator on the shaft,  could transmit it's power via an induction method,  but usually induction also works both ways .
          -  Maybe diodes would be a solution .

     I don't if this device would have the problem detailed above 

[Dbowling]

Magnetic cogging neutralization.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzkQ57f3Gdo


This generator will put out between 1600-1800 watts. My bigger machine will put out between 1800-2000 watts. Input to this machine, run by an MY1020 rewound razor scooter motor is less than 300 watts. Of that 300 watts, the 3 Battery circuit that no one believes works can recover about 70%.


There are several keys to success. First, build the generator EXACTLY as I have described. All magnetic cogging is neutralized. There is a patent for this that is over a 150 years old, so it is in the public domain already. Second, wind the coils according to what Tesla described in his patent. (for this sized rotor with the magnets I have described in the video) 12 strands of #23 each 253 feet in length in parallel. Then connect groups of four strands in series. You will end up with 3 wires. That particular coil will speed up under load at 2200 rpm. This means the rewound motor must run on 24 volts to achieve the proper rpm.  Thats it. You can run it with a stock motor if you want. You just won't be able to recover much of the input energy. Still, the COP is pretty high.


When I would put 12 coils in my big machine I used to have to put a 12" crescent wrench on each end, and it took two people to turn it 1/6 of the rotation from one magnetic lock position to the next. Now, with all the magnets adjusted, I can spin the rotor by hand past the coils.


The only issue now is HEAT. The constant change of flux in the iron generates heat, and if you run the generator for more than an hour, you will melt the insulation off the wires in the coils and now you have close to $900 worth of paperweights. Been there. Done that more than once before I learned. I have some other coil cores I am testing on my coil tester, but won't have any info for at least a few months. In the process of moving right now. THIS IS A PROOF OF CONCEPT MACHINE ONLY not a prototype. There are half a dozen things I have learned that are not in this video that I now incorporate into the machine. I would suggest building a small machine with only a couple coils, one on each side of a rotor, and then the opposing magnets. It will prove to you whether I am full of crap or not. But really, this is NOT rocket science. 

[postingsite]

I know you're only demonstrating cogging-torque neutralization, and surplus output,  both impressive

Has it ever been self-running  ?
  - preferably without batteries, 
  -  no connection to mains
  -  any capacitors or batteries should hold no charge at all,   at the start, 

-  Apparently batteries almost always have some charge left,  so batteries are not preferable for  a proof-of-concept  self-running  device  .

I keep on reading debunkers explanations for higher outputs than inputs,  so the only way it could not be debunked would be to be self-running ,  it's the only thing that counts  .

[Dbowling]

I'm not claiming a self runner unless I have self run it on my bench. I have NOT. I'm in the process of moving so I have no time for at least a couple months to even unpack my stuff which is all in boxes. The video was made a couple months ago.


I ONLY posted because of the interest in neutralizing magnetic cogging. It should be OBVIOUS that this machine does that. Plus there is a patent from over 150 years ago that applies the same principle. The patent had: coil (in attraction) rotor then magnet (in repulsion). I didn't LIKE that arrangement because all the forces exerted on the rotor were in the same direction. Pulling it from one side and pushing it away from the other. That would really exert unnecessary torque on the rotor. In MY design there are coils on BOTH sides of the rotor in attraction and magnets on BOTH sides of the rotor in repulsion at the same time. Forces are equalized. When I have time to prove inputs and outputs on my generator, I will do that. Until then, please consider ONLY what I have shared about the elimination of magnetic cogging. Any reasonable individual should be able to see the benefit of THAT. The rest you can consider pie in the sky until proven.


Matt Jones over on Energetic Forum is building a SMALL version of the generator, only two coils, to see if one that small has a COP>1. I'll post the results here whether they are positive or negative. There will be video and measurements.