Muller Dynamo

[Tudi]

@gotoluc : thanks, maybe this is why it will work. Everyone quit before finishing a full experiment and missed the surprise form the end

[Arthurs]

Hi all

Thank's to all for input

And especially to the coil inverting idea

I did invert the coil wiring of one of the  generative coils. (i flip the wiring of the top coil as per Penno)

and here are the trace

2 first pix = before the bridge  one without biasing magnet and second with biasing magnets. (very similar to Romero trace isn'it)

Than the next are measured after the bridge, one without load and one with a small load. (both pix with biasing magnet)i

What puizzled me is that if load completely (short) the outut after the bridge, i got very low current (about 4 ma) and when i begin to add the biasing magnets, the current climbs (first test up to 50 ma)

Now i begin to see something and there is really something to tune

Thank's to all ,great job here. 

And now back to the shop to invert all the generative coils (but not the motorising coils)

Special thank's to Romero to survey us, i hope we are on the right track now (yes or not )

good luck at all

Laurent

Hi Laurent:
This is very likely the key to success!
I have experiment: effect indeed!

[powercat]

From Lidmotor

Muller Dynamo-- generator coil shorting test.ASF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYUTFi8Zdt4

[nul-points]

[...]
Everyone quit before finishing a full experiment
[...]

?!?

[gyulasun]

....

i've often used paralleled diodes (you can see this in some of my own threads, over the past couple of years) to reduce volts drop

my question was - and still is - "is there any difference between using Romero's arrangement (which needs extra diodes) - and using only a diode bridge which ALREADY GIVES THE SAME VOLTS DROP (and doesn't need extra diodes)?

if Romero's arrangement does MORE than just reduce the volts drop, then we should investigate this effect

if there is NO difference, then we can just use a single bridge (eg. schottky) -ie.  to achieve the same drop

Dear nul-points,

You surely recall, Romero listed several diode types he tested, see here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg285229#msg285229

I checked their data sheets what they are like, see here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg287926#msg287926

So the mistery why Romero found the listed Schottky types as worse than the diode bridge with the paralleled 1N4001s is a question to be answered.
  (One of my thoughts on this is that the peak to peak output AC voltage from the coils approached in his tests the 35-40V and his Schottky diodes he had were of 40V max reverse voltage rated so reverse current went up rather high to cause loss.  Another factor might be the Schottkies higher parallel self capacitance versus silicon types, so the 4-5 kHz "switching" frequency of the many alignments within one full revolution of the rotor (member EMdevices mentions this frequency elsewhere here) can leak through and get lost in the puffer capacitor.)

Now trying to answer your question: I think when you substitute the 0.8V drop diode bridge+1N4001 with another diode bridge which has the same voltage drop, 0.8V AND the AC properties of the two are say identical THEN the latter diode bridge should work with the same loss, hence no need for a diode bridge+1N4001s!

Of course this should be tested on spot when someone has got a working setup and can insert several diode types, including Schottkies and normal Si or Ge diodes and see the output power. No any more amount of further theory is needed.

rgds,  Gyula