new magnetic motor goes 2000 rpm without load 1000 rpm with load

[allcanadian]

@Ted Ewert

"The induced electromotive force or EMF in any closed circuit is equal to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit".
This "law" as stated is conditional. I found that "magnetic flux" is not all the same thing. Faraday's law only holds true as long as the voltage and the current are out of phase, which is nearly always the case in an AC circuit (especially through an inductive load such as a transformer).
However, DC won't produce induction only because the voltage and current are in phase, not because of the lack of change. This has nothing to do with permeability or core size.

I would have to agree, it should be understood that if you keep doing the same old things you can expect the same old results. As well, most of what we call "Laws" do have conditions attached to them, that is you must continue to do the same old things in the same old ways for the laws to apply fully. This is why acadamia has failed to produce results, because while they may be good at memorizing what has already been done they lack creativity. The creative mind will seek understanding then build on this to seek creative means around the problem at hand. The creative minds may not be "lawbreakers" but they most certainly bend them to the extreme, LOL.
Regards
AC

[hartiberlin]

Hi Ted, could you please post some examples, what you found out exactly ? Please specify the used circuit and how you powered it and what the output was. Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.

[Ted Ewert]

Hi Ted, could you please post some examples, what you found out exactly ? Please specify the used circuit and how you powered it and what the output was. Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.

Here's a simple circuit that illustrates my point.

See image here: http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/6688/megcircuit.gif

In the unpowered state, magnetic flux flows and is contained within the iron loop. The iron is polarized according to the polarity of the magnet.
The coil is bifiler wound, with one winding being used as the power coil and the other as the load coil. The power coil is driven by a voltage suitable to overcome the force of the magnet (which can be surprisingly low).
When the coil is energized, and a magnetic field is developed counter to that of the magnet, magnet flux from the magnet ceases to flow all the way through the iron. Instead, it is blocked since the polarity of the iron core has been reversed by the energized coil.
When power to the coil is removed, the magnet naturally reestablished the original flux path through the iron by reversing the polarity of the core. Once the polarity is changed, full current once again flows.
The load coil has dutifully recorded this event, which is monitored through a scope and a load power meter. What is seen on the scope clearly shows the power pulse to the coil, but nothing else. There is no signal or power induced once the electrical pulse in the power coil ceases. According to Faraday, there should be electrical current generated in the load coil when the magnet reverses the polarity of the core and reestablishes full flux flow. But there is nothing. I also tried the same circuit with a piece of iron in place of the magnet and got identical results. The magnet made no difference.
This is a simple setup that clearly illustrates why the MEG, in its most common form, doesn't work. Having a magnet stuck on the end of a coil doesn't produce current because there is no movement between the magnet and the coil. Likewise with the MEG.
I encourage anyone interested to replicate this simple circuit and independently verify the conclusions stated above. If anyone can find a way to alter the phase of the B and H fields, as through movement, you'll have free power forever with even the simple circuit shown here.

Cheers,

Ted

[gyulasun]

Hi Ted,

I have read your thoughts and findings on the MEG with interest.  Years ago I built a MEG as per the Bearden / Naudin setup but I found a COP of 0.86 or so only.
I also realized as it is shown, it is a normal transformer,  cannot work otherwise.
I would like to read your take on the so called Bulgarian MEG version where one or two of the permanent magnetic pathes that are closed in themselves like in the MEG are cut by another and independent magnetic pathes that are also closed in themselves. This way the input and output coils cannot induce directly into each other (like in the MEG) because they are placed into the two different magnetic pathes.
I believe induction between the input and output coils can happen only by saturating the core in one of the magnetic pathes, thus the other path "sees" a big magnetic resistance due to the "airgap" thus created. At least this is how I imagine the working principle, see the first post in this thread here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4300.0 

Can you agree with this principle?  IF your understanding is different on this Bulgarian setup, I would love to read it.

Also,  I am aware of magnetic amplifier circuits of the 50s (or max the 60s) when the core included (rectangular or round) holes with coils to excite a certain part of the core, causing local saturation at that part, hence increasing the magnetic resistance.  Is this a good approach to apply for building a real MEG-like setup, I wonder?

Thanks,  Gyula

[Ted Ewert]

@Ted Ewert
I would have to agree, it should be understood that if you keep doing the same old things you can expect the same old results. As well, most of what we call "Laws" do have conditions attached to them, that is you must continue to do the same old things in the same old ways for the laws to apply fully. This is why acadamia has failed to produce results, because while they may be good at memorizing what has already been done they lack creativity. The creative mind will seek understanding then build on this to seek creative means around the problem at hand. The creative minds may not be "lawbreakers" but they most certainly bend them to the extreme, LOL.
Regards
AC

Good point, I agree. While it's foolish to throw the baby out with the bath water, believing that scientific "laws" are immutable is equally ridiculous.
Science is still in it's infancy. There are vast possibilities open to the discerning mind. Creative experimentation leads to greater understanding of natural processes. Theory is fine, but you have to build it to really understand it. The MEG is a good example of this.

Cheers,

Ted