Muller Dynamo

[scratchrobot]

No.

The homogenous vector within a magnet that is not interacting with anything is of no consequence.

It's not doing anything, when it's all alone 

But as soon as you tap into its field for whatever your purpose, you are introducing an external parameter, that introduces added vectors.

It is precisely how the magnets external field reacts to and influences this external parameter that is of significance.

Once an external element is added, it may be nearer or farther or equal distance from N or S and the vector between that element and either pole will determine whether it is attracted to one greater than the other or experience a net pull by neither of them because of their equal attractive force.

It is the vector interaction between the magnet and element that matters when designing something like .... hmnnn a muller generator perhaps.

Simply by putting a core next to a magnet, they will both influence each other in terms of how they will "see" each other.

Cheers

I think this is a very important point. Simply by putting a core next to a magnet your not done.
I played with coil in my hand so I can adjust it's position and on scope I can create many different waveforms so I do belief that the position and distance of the coils to the magnets is very important.

[Hoppy]

I am focused on the generator side of RomeroUK's setup only.  I don't believe the drive side is where the OU effect could be found.  Of course the drive side power requirements are important if one hopes to loop.  And I do wish to loop since that is the only proof of OU many could understand.  So I am looking at the relationship of the output to drive circuit input on this system to try and determine if my coils are designed with enough output to even consider moving forward with adding additional coil pairs right now.

M.

From what I can gather from Romero's postings about tuning, only when everything is exactly right after carrying out adjustments to wire lengths and spacings, will OU materialise. This suggests that coils could be prematurely discarded as unsuitable when maybe more time and effort spent on tuning could result in success.

There are many variables involved here but the most important thing as I can see is having lots of patience and time available to work through all the permutations. How do we know that the highest voltage is necessarily best when the criteria for tuning is not fully understood. It maybe that number of coil turns is of much less importance than exactly balancing the coils electrically as Romero seems to be suggesting. After all, he is not certain on how many turns he originally wound on each coil, so there is a distinct possibility that they are different and remain different even after meticulous tuning.

Hoppy

[mondrasek]

There are many variables involved here but the most important thing as I can see is having lots of patience and time available to work through all the permutations. How do we know that the highest voltage is necessarily best when the criteria for tuning is not fully understood. It maybe that number of coil turns is of much less importance than exactly balancing the coils electrically as Romero seems to be suggesting. After all, he is not certain on how many turns he originally wound on each coil, so there is a distinct possibility that they are different and remain different even after meticulous tuning.

Hoppy

I agree.  I am looking at my system from all angles I can imagine and searching for an anomaly and/or a phenomenon that can be usefull.

As DW has indicated, we have too many variables right now.  Hopefully testing can establish the relationships of some of the variables, allow us to determine a correct replacement constant for certain variables in a given design, and ultimately engineer a system for an expected performance.

If not, it's still a cool spinny thing to examine.  I am still learning a lot so not a loss either way (to me).

M.

[xenomorphlabs]

From what I can gather from Romero's postings about tuning, only when everything is exactly right after carrying out adjustments to wire lengths and spacings, will OU materialise. This suggests that coils could be prematurely discarded as unsuitable when maybe more time and effort spent on tuning could result in success.

There are many variables involved here but the most important thing as I can see is having lots of patience and time available to work through all the permutations. How do we know that the highest voltage is necessarily best when the criteria for tuning is not fully understood. It maybe that number of coil turns is of much less importance than exactly balancing the coils electrically as Romero seems to be suggesting. After all, he is not certain on how many turns he originally wound on each coil, so there is a distinct possibility that they are different and remain different even after meticulous tuning.

Hoppy

Well you got 2 generator coils (just looking at one pair) that are supposed to deliver approx. 16-20 Volts DC to the dump cap (otherwise you could not even attempt looping).
So it seems highly likely that the voltage IS a tuning criterion.

The big question is how to get that voltage out of 2 tiny coils?
Even with coils 3 times bigger than Romero's i can't reach such voltage.
So there is a process going on that significantly boosts the voltage.
If it's not resonance, then it has to be something else.

Did someone actually try Tesla-style series bifilar generator coils with this?
This might increase the voltage in such a fashion.
(Thread gets too long, not sure if someone did)

Until that is not fully understood, devices will stay underunity.
I am pretty sure that Romero figured out how to do that with a small test unit
until he would fully construct the big unit glueing all the coils in place with confidence that those small coils will deliver the voltage he needs.

[konehead]

coil "shorting" is how you get lots more votlage out of genrator coils. maybe romero does it "automatically" witout any swtihcing of coil leads togethar at sinewave peaks, using airgap adjsut between top airgap comapred to bottom arigap and strength of fields of magnets vs coils field being induced by mangets.
If you have the EXACT SAME field, then the fields will collapse at same time, "sort of" a shorting effect this would be... if one field, rather magnet or coil is stronger than other, then it overhwlems and its not a bucking-collapse anymore! Now its however the coil is wired, if repulsive or attracive pull or push but what you are looking for it the perfect smash of fields where each coil collapses the other - fairly easy to do if you have coils vs coils and you wind coils exactly the same difficult to do if you have magnets vs coils on top and bottom.
SO this might be IT - you have to have same field strength to gernator coils vs magnets so coils collapse, not push or pull...
Also I disagree with someones theory a few pages back about how the helper/regauaging magnets at back of cores work and he says it aligns the domains makes the field stronger but I disagree since then it whould work wih magnet in both directions, but the helper magent needs to be certain polarity so I think it is the push it gives to the rotor magnet right at TDC and it is the timing of the "flipover" not added strength or power to the power produced because of aligned domains...so its rotational advanatge, not so much added power - jsut theories again...has anyone got a big advantage from the magents behind genrator coils yet???
I got it to work with motor coils in it has 1/2 draw but nothign with the gernator coils yet.