Mehess Motor

[Humbugger]

Humbugger, these are some of the best posts I've ever read on this forum.

Count me for it too.
But Bill was hit repeatedly. I did it first (check my posts on pages 20-21) and I did it hard.
Now it?s happening again. 
I guess it was just bad luck.

Bill, you can?t just remove the dark.
For that to happen, light has to be brought in.
From my point of view, your experiments are welcome as long as you do not advertise a successful device while it is actually far, far from that.

Tinu
?In the absence of light, dark prevails?

I am with you on this Tinu, having read your posts now...one little correction though...you said a few posts back:

". Capacitors do not charge linear in tension. That is, for you to understand, if you get 200mv in the first minute, you get ALWAYS les than 200mv in the second minute, even lesser in the third and so on, so on. This is not a matter of ?what if?, to find a clever solution to it. This is the bottom line. ALWAYS. Period."

What you say is true when a capacitor is charged from a voltage source through a resistor.  It is not true at all when charging a capacitor from a constant current source, in which case you do get a perfectly linear voltage/time ramp on the capacitor.  This is how all analog sawtooth and triangle waves are generated!

Just keeping the teacher honest!  You will surely do the same for me sometime.

[tinu]

What you say is true when a capacitor is charged from a voltage source through a resistor.  It is not true at all when charging a capacitor from a constant current source, in which case you do get a perfectly linear voltage/time ramp on the capacitor.  This is how all analog sawtooth and triangle waves are generated!

Just keeping the teacher honest!  You will surely do the same for me sometime.

Of course you?re right!
And I thought for a long time that the statement will end remaining unnoticed. Not many pay attention to what is really written or if they do, fewer really understand and even lesser will bother to answer. I?m glad you did.

My rationale was:
a) given the state of learning at that stage, I thought it would have been too much for a first lesson;
b) coils (and circuit composed of passive elements, in general) does not provide the functional basis for building (or actually for assembling, by pure luck) a constant current source. Even the addition of some non-linear elements (i.e. diodes) is not going to be enough for building one. The use of transistors or other command elements was not mentioned?
c) there is an approximation, for high input voltage and very low currents & low voltage on the load, and in this case one large resistor is good enough for the cheapest  approximation of a constant current source. But the emf of a small coil driven by a low-speed moving magnet is only a couple of Volts at max and the approximation will not hold above a couple of mV (at best) on the load. This was not the case either.

Did I make up for my previous quilt by omission?
Thanks again for your attention!

Tinu

[Humbugger]

Dear Bill,

I have just listened to your audio interview and now I see where your thinking went awry beyond this time-power-energy problem you've been having.  Even though the interviewer tries to raise the issue several times, you boldly beat it down and insist that "only the weight on the pendulum" matters.

Have you no clue that the electrical load on the coil will mechanically load the pendulum as the magnet swings through it?  If there is no load (open coil), then there will be no mechanical resistance offered by the coil as the magnet swings through it.  At the other extreme, if you short the coil, there will clearly be a mechanical loading imposed on the magnet, as if it were going through invisible molasses rather than air. 

The amount of this mechanical load is proportional to the degree of coupling between the coil and magnet (strength of the magnet and how close they are spaced and the ability of the coil to intersect all of the magnet's flux lines) and the electrical load placed externally on the coil. 

Did you think that it was just as hard to turn the shaft of a standard rotary generator when nothing was plugged into it as when it was fully loaded to capacity electrically?  Have you never seen or heard a motor/generator set "bog down and grunt" as electrical loads are added?  There is nothing different about your generator, except it probably has a much lower coupling coefficient than a well-designed standard rotary unit, so you don't notice any loading effects.  Try the old experiment of dropping one of your powerful neo magnets down a long thick-walled copper tube if you don't believe me...it won't free-fall!  The copper tube is like a shorted one-turn coil. 

Or take a big long-throw woofer with a huge magnet and a "high compliance" long-throw suspension...push the cone in rapidly with no load and then do the same with the terminals shorted.  You will feel a big difference in mechanical resistance.

What you have described are six basic systems.  First you have a wound up spring.  These are quite efficient and have very low loss over time as energy storage goes...maybe even better than a super high quality low leakage capacitor.   Still, you cannot get more energy out than you put in. 

Next you have a complex multi-element system that converts rotary torque stored in the spring into pendulum swing.  That's pretty efficient possibly, too, although certainly less so than the spring itself.  Always you will get less total energy (work) out of the swinging pendulum than the spring puts into it via the mechanism.

Thirdly, you have your magnet/coil generator.  No matter what magnet you use or how beautifully you couple the coil to the field and no matter the shape or orientation of the setup, you will NEVER get more electrical energy out of the coil than the mechanical energy it takes to move the magnet through the coil, which IS dependent on the electrical load (unless you stick an AC-driven coil or another moving magnet nearby).  In this part of your setup you have several loss mechanisms, mechanical friction including wind resistance, back-emf of the coil's load path fighting the freedom of the magnet to swing through as described above (Lenz's Law) and less-than-perfect coupling between magnet and coil.  The last two, happily, work oppositely.  Tight coupling helps give you more forward charge per swing but also makes back emf worse; loose coupling eases back emf but worsens forward power generation for a given magnet and coil setup.

Fourth, you have your rectifier diode, a back-check valve to prevent the return swing of the magnet and the DC path of the coil from discharging your capacitor...a major lossy element if it's dropping 200mv while pumping your cap up by only 3mv each pulse...very big loss here!

Fifth, you have your capacitor which has equivalent parallel (leakage) and series resistances, both of which represent energy losses although they can be fairly small drains if you use exceedingly good quality expensive caps.

Finally, you have your spring-re-cranking motor.  Very lossy most likely...probably 40-75% efficient at best.

So...where is the extra energy introduced?  Well sir, it simply isn't.  All you are accomplishing here is to play a shell-game using power, energy and time.   You laugh on the the interview at how obvious it must be to everyone that anything charging a capacitor, even a little bit at a time, if left to do so for eight days or thirty days would clearly have the capability of pumping your spring-winding motor for a mere 15 seconds once a month!  Yet if you use simple math and basic electrical and mechanical formulae, you will find, every time, that it takes more energy to rewind that spring than you got from unwinding it!  Even if Lenz's law were repealed just for you, your scheme wouldn't be overunity. 

That one very sad fact of life and your assertion that the coils' electrical loads do not mechanically load the pendulum (Lenz's law)...those are your downfalls in understanding your own invention.  Relax...you share these very basic misconceptions with a huge crowd of other "inventors" on the web here.

I do confess to not having read each and every post in this thread, front to back.  Maybe someone has already pointed all of this out to you and it seems to you I'm just rubbing it in.  Sorry if that's the way you see it or if these sad revelations have been stated and understood previously. 

It was truly heartbreaking for me to hear how enthusiastic and sure you were as you proclaimed how easy and simple and clever and new and different (and over-unity for sure) your invention was.  Please don't fall prey to a horrible deep depression now, okay?  Laugh it off.  Live and learn.  We all have to live in the same harsh reality eventually.

[Humbugger]

What you say is true when a capacitor is charged from a voltage source through a resistor.  It is not true at all when charging a capacitor from a constant current source, in which case you do get a perfectly linear voltage/time ramp on the capacitor.  This is how all analog sawtooth and triangle waves are generated!

Just keeping the teacher honest!  You will surely do the same for me sometime.

Of course you?re right!
And I thought for a long time that the statement will end remaining unnoticed. Not many pay attention to what is really written or if they do, fewer really understand and even lesser will bother to answer. I?m glad you did.

My rationale was:
a) given the state of learning at that stage, I thought it would have been too much for a first lesson;
b) coils (and circuit composed of passive elements, in general) does not provide the functional basis for building (or actually for assembling, by pure luck) a constant current source. Even the addition of some non-linear elements (i.e. diodes) is not going to be enough for building one. The use of transistors or other command elements was not mentioned?
c) there is an approximation, for high input voltage and very low currents & low voltage on the load, and in this case one large resistor is good enough for the cheapest  approximation of a constant current source. But the emf of a small coil driven by a low-speed moving magnet is only a couple of Volts at max and the approximation will not hold above a couple of mV (at best) on the load. This was not the case either.

Did I make up for my previous quilt by omission?
Thanks again for your attention!

Tinu

Tinu...you had nothing to make up for!  Your guilt was only in being so emphatic and saying Always and Never without qualifying by saying "under your particular set of conditions" or "in your application".  We who try to teach must be careful lest our students lose respect or, worse yet, learn fallacies by misunderstanding the context.

[Nastrand2000]

@tinu
@Humbugger

Both of you have yet to show anything but armchairing...(Those that think they are above the rest, so they don't have to build). Before you criticize, maybe you should build something....anything. Of course, it will be easy to berate me with your unfathomable ignorance in this field. All you claim to know is IT CAN WORK. That is plain bullshit. You have no idea where energy come from or where its is going. You only know how to harness it in conventional ways. Please sit at the sidelines where you belong and just read.

Nas