Is this the first selfrunning overunity motor w/o batteries ? Mike?s motor

[hartiberlin]

Hmm,
many thanks for the answer.

It seems Mike used the Relay to add a battery inside it and mixed it up himself !
Many thanks for calling Crouzet !

Best regards, Stefan.

acg schrieb:
> Stefan,
> 
> I searched all over and finaly talked to Crouzet.  There is no such relay that has 4 pins in the exact middle with an output on the LEFT or RIGHT side.  Please see the "Joe" folder in the Bedini_window_energizer group for pics of my SSRs.  This also is part of a  message I posted in that group:
> --------
>
> "...Yes, the dual SSR in my photos folder is also a Crouzet. I believe
> it is very close to the model Mike used too."
>
> "I asked both people from Crouzet and Crydom if there has ever been a
> dual relay that existed with 4 horizontal input pins in the exact
> middle of the SSR (like Mikes) with the output tabs configured on the
> LEFT and RIGHT sides, the answer was NO. The ouputs are always on
> the top and bottom I was told. "
> ------------------
> 
> I also talked with an electronic store owner for 30 years, and he never heard of a "mike configed ssr".
> 
> It looks like Mike's SSR was not doing anything!
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Joe

[Joh70]

Hi Techpeople,

maybe it looks like a fake, what Mike said. But don't give up. Overunity is possible and will be reality soon - i think. As i could learn watching all construction here and there, there always seems one thing to be evident:

Three grades of energy serving principles.

1st grade: Normal Motors, which use much more energy to run, as they do work.
2nd grade: Constructions, which run "almost" itself. Two principles are balance out, so that they run easy. NO usefull work could be done with it.
3rd grade: Three energy delivering principles work in harmony and delivering more energy, as they consume (always thru free energy effects, not an isolated perpetuum motion is possible).

This construction here, as proofen by more than one replications, seems to be a consturction of the 2nd grade - as many half baken ideas. For example SPPs version shows, to overcome the notorious "sticky point" suprisingly little energy is needed. This is a sign of having two energy serving principles running well together. Here maybe

1. magnetic force
2. A more vertically wider coil than horizontaly (magnetic stator, switched by electronics)

Capacitor only conserves energy from moving masses to get a smooth movement and overcome downs and ups somewhere - its not an energy serving thing.

In my opinion, for successfull perpetuum motion, always 3 independent factors have to play together  = more than 2!

[Joh70]

What i also want to say with that: When Mike's thing is not a real perpetuum motion, don't waste your time, choosing other electronic parts or adjusting values here and there. There must be added an other basic principle, otherwise it will never run itself. Save your time! Spend it on research, not only on producing demo after demo. This is also one thing, i learned.

[DMBoss]

I was wondering if you could easily "cheat" this system myself.  I have built a replication of Mike's device, and his circuit diagram is wrong in places.  Namely the relay subcircuit.  No conduction path exists for this subcircuit!

I used a reed switch and a single timing magnet on a separate disc.  And then connected a SS relay too.  The relay control circuit drains the capacitor faster than motoring, and the switched waveforms (when you connect the 3rd coil right to make a conduction path) between reed switch vs SS relay are identical.  So the relay is not required.

Now the speculations about a fake relay - am I the only one how can see what parallax or perspective distortion does to a side view or what?  Those control pins on the new longer video are NOT in the center of the device they are closer to the camera left side of the relay, similar to the spec sheet that was posted recently.

BUT I will say you can "fake" the operation in the video, and get the same voltage traces Mike relayed.  Well not entirely on the waveforms.  And you cannot make a hidden battery power the rotor with Mike's circuit - you have to change some things to do that.

I did it by taking my reed switch, and connecting one lead to the hidden battery, and then after the switch go to the + terminal of the "generator" coil.  Then the - terminal of the generator coil must go back to this extra battery directly.  it cannot make a path through the bridge to the capacitor and back to the extra battery!

BUT you can leave the bridge in place on the generator coils - and have this subcircuit of the reed switch and hidden battery - and it will then start from zero volts on the cap, with a slight turn of the shaft, the rotor accelerates and voltage climbs steadily on the cap.

Mine only needed 3V to achieve 280 rpm with only 450 turns on the motor coil and only 300 turns on the "generator" coil.  The transistors still trigger and produce the spikes and "corners" of the waveform.  But the rotor is being driven by the extra battery.

HOWEVER - two things which I cannot duplicate, or hide are as follows in this "cheat test":

1.  When Mike stops the rotor, the cap voltage stays constant.  When he gives the rotor a small start twist - the cap voltage immediately rises from the point it stopped at.  BUT with my cheat test - no matter what I do, the cap voltage falls rapidly for several dozen revolutions - because the transistors are still turning on from the trigger coil and this drains the capacitor - until enough speed is achieved to start recharging again.  Bedini's test also has his cap voltage drop when first starting after leaving voltage on the cap.  Mike's did not!

2.  I can get the two pulses that the reed switch is not ON for of the coil voltages to look just like Mike's.  BUT every coil will see a huge peak/plateau during the reed switch/cheat battery pulse!  Mike's scope traces - some of them have 4 or 5 cycles visible and no such tell tale sign of additional battery pulse is in evidence!

Now point 1 above could be explained by Mike not connecting the base trigger lead so his transistors are not even turning on - only the relay/cheat battery are active.

Point 2 above could be explained by Mike spinning the rotor by hand without the cheat battery and with transistors active, and taking the photos or the screen.

So my arguments are not foolproof.

But in my explorations I did find some interesting anomalies and can almost get it to self run.  My turns ratios are wrong - that is for sure based on testing.  And you have to wire things a little differently than Mike's diagram shows.

Here's one thing I did without the cheat battery, and with these experimentally made modifications (because the only way to duplicate his waveforms was to change the wiring):  I spun up the rotor to a known speed (verified with scope freq measurement between cursors on 3 cycles, and with an external laser tachometer).  Then let it run down until the rotor stops.  I recorded how long this took and what the capacitor voltage fell to.

I did this with the active feedback of the switch circuit engaged vs without this active feedback. (making a parallel connection between motor and generator windings so motor coil "powers" the generator coil to make a motor force, while gated by the transitor turn on).  With active feedback, the rotor took 3:45 to come to rest starting from 240 rpm, and cap was at 2.135 volts.  Without active feedback rotor came to rest after only 3:05, and cap voltage was 1.987 volts.

With no drive or load on any coil, starting from 240 rpm as the above, the rotor takes 2:55 to come to rest.

So I repeated these tests several times and while each test run has slightly differing times, the relationships are the same.  Shortest time to come to rest from a known speed is without anything connected to any coil.  Next longest time is with the "motor" coil only being driven by the transistors and cap, with the generator at all times connected through bridge (which provides a path for the BEMF).  And finally the longest time is with motoring coils active, and the feedback with switch - once per every 3 motor cycles where the two coils "bootstrap" each other - AND make a motoring force AND still push charge back into the capacitor.

So I have more output than input.  But my "losses" are too high to let it self run.  I have to increase my turns overall and make wire smaller size - brining the voltage higher and current lower for more force, and lower proportions of losses.

I don't know if I can make it work - but it might, even if Mike hoaxed us!  But I think it is worth the new coil I have planned to test anyway.

Cheers

Hmm,
many thanks for the answer.

It seems Mike used the Relay to add a battery inside it and mixed it up himself !
Many thanks for calling Crouzet !

Best regards, Stefan.

acg schrieb:
> Stefan,
> 
> I searched all over and finaly talked to Crouzet.  There is no such relay that has 4 pins in the exact middle with an output on the LEFT or RIGHT side.  Please see the "Joe" folder in the Bedini_window_energizer group for pics of my SSRs.  This also is part of a  message I posted in that group:
> --------
>
> "...Yes, the dual SSR in my photos folder is also a Crouzet. I believe
> it is very close to the model Mike used too."
>
> "I asked both people from Crouzet and Crydom if there has ever been a
> dual relay that existed with 4 horizontal input pins in the exact
> middle of the SSR (like Mikes) with the output tabs configured on the
> LEFT and RIGHT sides, the answer was NO. The ouputs are always on
> the top and bottom I was told. "
> ------------------
> 
> I also talked with an electronic store owner for 30 years, and he never heard of a "mike configed ssr".
> 
> It looks like Mike's SSR was not doing anything!
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Joe

[dingbat]

So, did he cheat? I for one am not certain yet, but I will try this battery trick to see if I can achieve the same scope shot Mike posted.

Darren,

Make sure to connect your scope ground below the npn transistor in the lower left of the circuit.  This will give you a chance at reproducing the scope shot that Mike produced.  See the posts on gn0sis for more detail.

I think if you connect right across the main coil (L2), you will get a waveform like CTG, which is the expected result.  If Mike had connected above the transistor (right at the coil) I think his wave would have looked like CTG's