Are Tommey Reed´s pulse motor circuits overunity ?

[powercat]

2 videos from Tommey / OverUnityNow1
In these videos Tommey talks in detail about his measurements

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h7JeGvE6sE&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVRKMIZIICA&feature=channel_page

cat

[powercat]

@ poynt99

Although I somewhat agree with what you're saying I don't think it's safe to say that it can never be realized, we just haven't seen it succeed by replication yet.

Take for instance, the WO1999038247 patent for HARNESSING A BACK EMF, as patents go you are usually left with more questions than answers as far as components used. 

Even if the patent is granted such as this one, and even if it states that "The net effect is that the workload exceeds the depletion rate of the source" there is no way to validate this because of all the missing information.  I'm still wondering why the patent offices grant inventors patent rights when it should be replicated and validated by the scientific community first!!!???  I find patents to be more like a pie in the sky idea rather than physical proof (sort of like intellectual property rights) otherwise this world would be full of OU devices don't you think?

I also think that part of the problem is that there isn't any data provided that follows a definite measurement protocol which is probably only available to Labs or Universities that have proper measuring equipment and knowledgeable personnel to carry out these tests.  Another problem is in replications where it's hard to get the exact same test components and materials as well as proper measuring equipment being that most people are probably not equipped with such things. 

Anyways sorry for the rant, I guess I'm lamenting on my own shortcomings and wished there was a better way to find the truth to all these but in the end most of the great inventions do come from people who get a Eureka moment whether skilled in the art or not.

As such I wish Tommey the very best in his endeavors and hope he comes up with something that others may have missed.

Regards,
Paul

Hi paul

Yes, I am sure the Right Brothers were not the first to experiment with wings on their device

cat

[poynt99]

@ poynt99

Although I somewhat agree with what you're saying I don't think it's safe to say that it can never be realized, we just haven't seen it succeed by replication yet.

To clarify: It won't ever be realized with the specific circuit/method as shown here and in the countless other similar circuits before it. Maybe some other way, such as in the TPU, but not this way. This is good old inductive kickback, and when one understands how it works and what it does, one moves on to other more exotic endeavors... or not.

I also think that part of the problem is that there isn't any data provided that follows a definite measurement protocol which is probably only available to Labs or Universities that have proper measuring equipment and knowledgeable personnel to carry out these tests.

Regards,
Paul

Proper measurements can be difficult to achieve, but not impossible, even with relatively simple equipment. The first step however in getting accurate data is KNOWING the limitations of cheap meters (they just don't cut it for this kind of research) and KNOWING how to get accurate results etc. The fact that all "discoverers" of BEMF (so far) are oblivious to this exemplifies the fact that this problem will persist.

Yes, protocol SHOULD be established at this forum for such claims. Not having one is the reason this scenario persists, and will continue to do so until the site administrator takes the proper corrective action.

.99

[Goat]

Thanks poynt99 for your response, all your points were well taken.

If you haven't already looked at the WO1999038247 HARNESSING A BACK EMF patent could you please let me know what you think of it, pie in the sky or otherwise.   

I'd be interested in your or anyone's views of it's information and whether or not it makes sense as far as recovering energy to the point of exceeding the input needed as stated in the patent.

Regards,
Paul

[plengo]

Hey Tommey,

great work. On the last video of yours where you show the math, is the input a constant voltage and current or you are still using the PWM? If you are, would not the measurements shown on the meters be showing only the current of the averaged current of the duty cycle of the PWM? (no pun intended here)

Would be possible that the measurement you show on the input to really be much higher because, lets say the duty cycle is 70% (so 30% percent ON and 70% OFF), your meter will average on that 30% ON  and try its best to see it as if it was a 100% ON therefore showing a much higher discrepancy.

Just asking here, not trying to flame neither to discredit your work. I am learning with you!

Fausto.