3 HP motor works with 116 V and 0.42 Amp. (But don't have enough power)

[ashtweth_nihilisti]

wattsup  apply that set up to this device, already there are TWO successful replications
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/Meyerswatercell.htm

Dont forget Guys to try a Frequency drive to get more HP.
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=9089608413203959523

Circuits to START with are post here
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/files/RV%20energy%20saving%20applications%20and%20R%20and%20D.pdf

I would go down the road for RV OU in the current attachment.
(Updated) already tested, this is the working system from this page
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/RotoVerter.htm

>I have come to the conclusion that Rotoverter requires a large PM running a smaller generator.

A 7.5 HP 60 hertz RV will give you 1-1.8 HP at the shaft.
FREQUENCY DRIVE IT FOR MORE

A 3HP 60 hertz RV will give you around 1HP at the shaft
FREQUENCY DRIVE IT FOR MORE

Check the video. Guys please read the compilations more

Mem, since you modified the Sch(yes you added /subtracted and dont use the FWBR), it will not give you as much torque, i suggest you try the whole circuit as is.

watts up, the standard systems work, we have the most efficient Drill in the world,
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=5816656720879983601&hl=en-AU

If you stick to what we suggest, NO WHERE HAVE WE SAID  DRIVE A CAR ALTERNATOR AND OR YOUR GEN AS IS.

Guys please stick to the circuits posted in the compilations, that way we can help and trouble shoot with you.

[oouthere]

Hi guys,

Just to let you know I ordered a 10 amp shunt today....this should put the complete concept in the true light.

Rich

[Mem]

I wrote this yesterday and forgot to post it. My wife and son of 18 are leaving next Monday to Compostelle, Spain for an 800 km walk. So I have been busy with their preparations.
Hi wattsup,
Thank you so much for your lenghty comment, I enjoyed reading it line by line.
Without getting too melodramatic or bogged down by the hereafter, looking at your diagram, you should have only caps between L1 and L3 all in parallel. Your current should be on L1 and L2. Only L# is driven by the caps.

See my photo of my test bench using a 5hp 230/460 1750 rpm at 110 vac driving a 1200 watts 12vdc alternator. The alternator is now removed as I will be using it for my VAR project. I have also tried a 3hp PM.
Man you got so many capacitors, you can run 10 motors in RV mode...
No, it was not producing OU. Yes I did learn. Yes I will try it again eventually when I have SOME spare time.
I think we are all in the same boat here... Spending time, money lots of hopes, you name it.
The alt is so small, and it's producing of 1200 watts (108 amps) is so high that the torque required to turn it at full amps production is totally horrendous.

LOL I was thinking to do exact same setup. I even vent to town get the 100 amp alternator. Thank God I didn't do it. Instead friend of mine gave 1.5 Hp 3 PM and with lower rmp and I trie that but but I had no power output. Story is too long to tell you here.

Used on a car, this alternator would only require to top continuously the battery so the drag is reasonable unless if you are pounding a 1000 watts car radio (sound propulsion). But as an RV set up, the object is to withdraw the most wattage possible from the generating medium, so you then agree to be exposed to the alternators' maximum torque (or maximum wrath). What a beast. Yeap alternators needs a lots HP

Here is another thought that I had: How about De palamas N Machine? It's an induction free generator might be worth while we look into this? 
But basically, do you see the capacitor bank in the background. Yea I see it, you invest more then 100 bucks for those caps...These are connected in parallel to the L1 and L3 of the PM. You don't really need all these caps. I like to have more then less. You start the motor with no load and switch caps until you get the lowest amp draw.
Yes I hear you, thats the way to go
Now, when you start loading the motor, the caps selection at no load is no longer valid so you have to switch in and out other caps until the load can be carried, but always in parallel and only between the L1 and L3.
Ah.. I see what your saying, some guys did this as I watched them on youtube

I have come to the conclusion that Rotoverter requires a large PM running a smaller generator. By using the rotoverter with a 7.5 hp, you get about 3 hp of motive force (or less). That's not bad at all if you run that motor under wattage then what it put's out, BINGO LOL right on that becomes OU without any further question, I keep my eyes open for 7.5 PM or even bigger if I can find one.

Now there is also a relation between the PM rpm rating. If you have a 1750 rpm PM, it will have twice as much torque as the same motor running at 3600 rpm. Another good point to remember.

I believe there is potential here for OU, But, and notice the capital B, this cannot be accomplished with all mixes of motors and generators. You need a specific proper match from all sides. This is the problem because it's expensive and so varied, so the proper mix is not evident. Man, this research can get costly! Honestly I been thinking to make a home made genrator: And use 1" diameter say 20" long rear earth magnet shaft (multy pole) then put air core magnetic coils to pic up the power. Do you understand the true purpose of this?

I would say the following would be the best match;

PM - 7.5 hp - 1750 rpm under RV
Generator - 5.0 hp at 900 rpm  Do they actualy have 900 RPM PM? I spouse single PM

The PM at 1750 rpm would have maximum torque but since it is running under RV the total HP would drop. The generator at 5 HP and 900 rpm means it has more windings to produce the same current at lower RPM. More winding means the drag is spread out evenly over a larger surface area. I think this paramiter are good. "Logical to think that with a big probability will work"

Compare this to my alternator that is very small, produces high amps and high rpm means the drag is much harder. Again what a beast. (Looks little thing but it's a beast LOL)

So I concede that my current set-up is not ideal and I am sure others are running into the same problems. Yes there are electronic work-arounds out there that you can see on Panacea's web site. Plus you can get more info in the RV section of this forum. You know I donload all those PDF files, you got to read a lot of stuff to see what those guys are doing there. (I wish I had more time and money) 

Now here's the fun part.

So, what I do not understand is that if RV is working and producing OU for some, why have they not standardized a perfectly matched system and started to sell them on the market. This is what I would do the next day, the next minute even. People need this now. You are apsolutly right on this, I don't think word went out yet! Energy saving motors surely will dramaticly increse PM's sales. Wouldn't be nice if would get funded to do this research for them?

It seems that some of the motor manufacturers should be funding this standardization research to get a standard unit out there ASAP. It would be in their interest to sell more motors.
Maybe we should send out grant a propousal, what do you think of this?

So for me RV is not a universal answer. It requires testing with many combinations to develop a standard repeatable working system. I just can't figure out why this has not been done yet. As far as RV goes we are at the early infancy stage of this thecnology!
Either someone is missing the boat, or, the boat sank but nobody wants to admit it. In my view, the latter would be the current case since the former is not yet accomplished. What comes to  me is the priorities of the people, not every one has the same goal you know 

Of course, the RV guys will debunk this vehemently as they should. I don't think they would, we are progressing but darn slowly!
So where's the standard system?  Don't be surprise we may see it on the lable that may say " Made in China"

- Another Idea -

I have some small 1/4 hp 90 vdc identical permanent magnet motors. I am wondering if the rotors were modified so that portions of the each rotor would loop to the other rotor, the bemf of one would be sent to the the other and vise versa, too see if two motors could run in tandem to turn a same shaft. This way, both motors would not waste the bemf to heat and potentially use less power to run. Just a tought. I presently don't have the time available to try this but one day I will try it.

This is coolest idea I ever heard, man you got some smart head over there. I like to hear what will come out of this! (when you test this let me know)

I hope my comments are readable. Have good day

[Mem]

Hi guys,

Just to let you know I ordered a 10 amp shunt today....this should put the complete concept in the true light.

Rich

<<Hey Rich, what is this "10 amp shunt" ? I never heard the term before.
Mem|>>

[Humbugger]

@Ashtweth

Hi there!  I read your writeup and watched the videos at the link you provided to Panacea on RV status.  I'd like to discuss that:

"In summary the input current is 385 watts, The output current is 1600 watts OF REACTIVE POWER. Take 1600 watts, subtract 385 watts and it will equal 1215 watts of over unity from the input needed to create it.

Where is this excess energy coming from?  [A better question is where is it going?  Humbugger]

It has since been proven via resistors and an oscilloscope that the voltage and current wave forms are REAL, these results are mentioned in the advanced RV research and development compilation listed on this page. This is real power, but must be extracted via RF protocol.

Panacea has also made a Video of this test.

This is what needs to be studied and understood through further testing in the R & D centre. Panacea's tests are conclusive and prove it is possible to Loop the RV with the excess energy produced. And it is further feasible that Hectors R & D is valid and is to be submitted into the research and development centre."

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose or you are confused, but you are presenting a very distorted picture here regarding "excess energy" production.  First of all, current is not expressed in Watts, but rather Amperes. 

Worse yet, you are apparently quoting power numbers here.  One is the DC input power, accurately expressed in watts as the product of a DC current and DC voltage.  The output power, you fairly note, is "reactive power".  This is also known as "imaginary power" and it is not properly expressed in Watts but rather in VAR (Volt Amps Reactive) for that very reason.

It is not real power capable of doing real work in a real load.  It does not indicate energy being used in the load.  The energy is simply reflected by the capacitive load and circulated right back to the generator.  The term "real", as applied to electrical power, is the opposite of the terms "reactive" and "imaginary".  You cannot correctly refer to this quantity as "reactive" power in one breath and as "real" power in the next!

So, while it might sound really exciting and fool many readers who don't know any better, it would be totally wrong, incorrect and absolutely misleading to say that input Watts can be compared for efficiency purposes with output VAR.  That's a scam!

Real power will, in practice, always be delivered to some small degree whenever current flows unless superconductive elements are in play because no load or output impedance is purely reactive...all have some ohmic loss which represents real power absorption. 

However, the real power could easily be only 1% or less of the VAR value in a real-world reactive load and frequently is that low a percentage.  Even average quality caps have dissipation factors of well below 1% and ESR (equivalent series resistance) figures on the milli-ohm scale.

VAR are "imaginary/reactive watts", to abuse a common oxymoron. They cannot be simply "converted to" real watts by using "RF protocol" (not familiar with the term despite designing RF plasma-drives for CO2 lasers since 1995).  I imagine, using my best guessing skills, that you mean by that the practice of making a matching network to correct for the reactive portion of the load and provide a conjugate match for ultimate maximum real power transfer. 

Well, when you do that, if that is what you meant, you will find that your measurement of real power in real watts delivered to a real load and doing real work with real forward energy flow is going to be a much much smaller real number or, that the system's input power will rise proportionally to provide the increased "real power" energy output! 

If your intent was to show the prospects for overunity operation, why in the world would you choose a purely reactive zero-energy-absorption load such as a capacitor bank? You seem to know the difference in the video, admitting that this is reactive power and that "conventional science" dictates that it is not real extractable power. 

Then you overlay that little picture of a scope shot which was obviously not connected to the test setup at the time and which shows V and I being "almost 180 degrees" rather than 90 (as in a pure reactance).  Magically, you change your tune...it's now actually real power after all!

Suddenly your capacitor bank has become a strange real power load with a 180 degree phase angle?  Come on, Ashtweth!  At the reported "1600W", there would be smoke and fire pouring out of your cap bank if that were the case.  If that after-thought scope shot was looking at the voltage and current in your cap bank it would show almost perfect 90 degree phase lag in the voltage.  It would have no alternative!  That's what capacitors do...every time!

If your "evidence" depends entirely on that faked scope shot and that piece of paper with the magic circuit, why make the big demonstration at all?  Nothing you actually demonstrate there indicates any evidence of overunity operation whatsoever.

Please discern:  I am not belittling your projects, your beliefs, your stated goals or your ongoing value as a human being.  I am, however, absolutely rejecting your writeup and this video as being any kind of viable evidence or demonstration of the promise of this approach for OU. 

A fair analogy would be a man claiming an over-unity wine keg, one that multiplied the wine internally.  The man pours endless jugs of wine from the spigot of the keg, handing each to his assistant who carefully measures and tallies each amount on a big chalkboard and then pours each jug right back into the keg!  To complete the analogy, a carefully measured small amount of "input wine" is added to compensate for spillage and leakage, allowing the process to continue forever.  These small amounts are carefully subtracted from the ongoing chalkboard tally. 

The audience cries out "Fill our jugs!", but the man declines, mumbling some no-doubt good reason, yet still insisting he has demonstrated a net gain in wine.  "Look at the numbers", he insists!  He then goes on to ask the audience for investment donations so that he can build more and bigger versions...

If OU or self-running can be gotten from a rotoverter, this should be your tutorial guidebook on how not to go about proving it to anyone! 

It almost appears to have been intended expressly to deceive the naive, which really makes me quite sad, since you are actively soliciting funds and ostensibly doing charitable altruistic work on behalf of the world's children.  I want to be able to trust you!

You have earned the all caps Humbugger salute for this month:

BAH  HUMBUG!