Overunity.com Archives

I thought about an idea how this could work.

Take the rotor Romero did and its coils. There is one less magnet than coil. Cogging is there. Imagine now that we balance things so that cogging is even in every step, magnet approaching coil and passing by with net energy equal 0.

Now, if you spin the rotor fast enough it will somehow spin for a long time with zero energy loss caused by the cogging and only resistance losses. The energy necessary to pass the cogging is gained back as soon as it pass the coil, if repulsion is used as the mechanism. Such as Romero's design.

So far nothing new, no OU. Now, connect the coils to loads, such as 10 ohms resistors and again, balance the wheel by using distance of the magnets and coils and other ways so that cogging is again there but net zero with one difference now, we have a load and heat is created on the resistors. No OU yet, only more losses because of Lenz-laws.

Now, let's imagine that if the closed path of the whole wheel is balanced, as the rotor spins we generate electricity by the coils and the counter-EMF that increases the resistance of the cogging therefore causing greater losses.

How to fix that, imagine that if the closed magnetic path is very balanced in every step of the magnets passing by the coils will always have equal forces on all the points (magnets and coils) but what would happen if in one point we either loose some of the balance via making a magnet flux less intense, would not that cause the rotor to spin one revolution and cog at that unbalanced point?

Would be possible to now unbalance the opposing magnet/coil and restore the current magnet/coil balance causing the rotor to spin again with zero net loss/gain only paying for the unbalancing energy cost?

Would be possible to use the loads on the coils to be elements that cause that unbalance while using the energy generated when the rotor spins because the unbalance magnetic closed path flux?

I remember Romero saying that was very important to tune the motor with the proper load already connected so that the balancing would be specific to that load?

It sounds to me that one could create a very balanced closed path magnetic flux rotor where the coils are the pulsating unbalancing actors for causing the rotor to spin indefinitely only paying for the unbalancing cost which is NOT proportional to the strength of the rotation of the rotor. The rotor will spin proportional to the total magnetic energy in place, stronger magnets stronger spins and therefore more energy generated and less energy necessary to cause unbalance.

Please, shoot my idea.

Fausto.

I can't say I have fully understood your argument, but it's good to hear someone focusing on what makes this motor unique  ;D

QuoteI remember Romero saying that was very important to tune the motor with the proper load already connected so that the balancing would be specific to that load?

Romero can only have tuned once  just before making the video ?

In the video he used different voltages on the DC to DC    and first there was no load and then later with the lamp there was a load,
at no time did I notice him retuning anything, so I think you only tune to make the motor run with no loud ?

This video is very interesting it was posted by David70 on the main thread, it was one of Romero's research videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCJKCXXZb-Y&feature=related

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg285933#msg285933

Here are the other two videos Romero was researching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX-PsJZzri8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTDGtSKrLPQ
it's great to see you are a moderator Fausto.

@Powercat .Romero emphasised more than once that you MUST tune with a load . He said you must tune each coil with an [unspecified] load before connecting the output of its bridge to the common rails . The whole circuit is tuned again with a 21 watt bulb as a load .

@neptune, it sounds a bit like tuning an old car, using the distributor to find the middle ground for best all round performance, hmmm  maybe a strobe gun might help  ;)

Quote from: powercat on May 12, 2011, 11:08:57 AM
I can't say I have fully understood your argument, but it's good to hear someone focusing on what makes this motor unique  ;D

Romero can only have tuned once  just before making the video ?

In the video he used different voltages on the DC to DC    and first there was no load and then later with the lamp there was a load,
at no time did I notice him retuning anything, so I think you only tune to make the motor run with no loud ?

This video is very interesting it was posted by David70 on the main thread, it was one of Romero's research videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCJKCXXZb-Y&feature=related

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg285933#msg285933

Here are the other two videos Romero was researching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX-PsJZzri8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTDGtSKrLPQ
it's great to see you are a moderator Fausto.

thank you. I will look into it and got to home.

Fausto.

Quote from: powercat on May 12, 2011, 11:08:57 AM
I can't say I have fully understood your argument, but it's good to hear someone focusing on what makes this motor unique  ;D

It is about balance. Have you seen those magnetic bearings where friction is almost gone? Image now a rotor, like Romeros, in a kind of like magnetic bearing but the whole rotor is inside that bearing, the rotor is the bearing.

Now, if everything is very well balanced and having the coils with loads, one could spin that rotor very freely with no much energy loss neither input.

Now, again, if you somehow unbalance, or make the magnetic field non-linear, either by increasing one of the magnetic flux or by inputing energy in one of the cois, the whole rotor would spin to the proportion of the magnet's strength and stop cog where the field becomes asymmetrical.

The cost of making the whole field non-linear is way less, I think, than the force the strong magnets would inflict on the rotor spinning.

Fausto.

Hi plengo
Magnetic bearing s a god idea
if we levitate the rotor  using magnets opposing each other in the bottom  and top
beside a stainless steel shaft  just like in vertical wind vane generators
Im trying to replicate  the design with ring magnets only from microwave ovens
and see where it will go

cheers
totoalas

Quote from: totoalas on May 12, 2011, 05:08:33 PM
Hi plengo
Magnetic bearing s a god idea
if we levitate the rotor  using magnets opposing each other in the bottom  and top
beside a stainless steel shaft  just like in vertical wind vane generators
Im trying to replicate  the design with ring magnets only from microwave ovens
and see where it will go

cheers
totoalas

sorry but it is not what I mean although also using magnetic bearings would improve.

Let me give a new shot at the problem, it will be long but bear with me.

Imagine a door that can revolve to both directions. On each side I put a strong man, both are equivalent strong and both are pushing the door with their hands. One is pushing to the right and the other man on the other side of the door is pushing to the left.

If both strong mans are pushing at the same force the door will not move, although lots of energy will be wasted by doing so. Imagine what would happen if one of the man becomes a little bit stronger and exert a little bit more force, let's say to the left, the door will move to the left to an equivalent amount of energy which would be the difference of both mans total work.

Whenever they both exert the same force the door would stop moving, although the total amount of energy used will be the sum of both strong man. Also total of net usable energy is 0 (Man1 - Man2 = 0).

Now, imagine that the door has a lock and I can lock it at the middle position and I do so when both man are pushing the door until a balance is reach, the door is in the middle and I lock the door. Now the door will not move even if one of the man's force is much greater than the other simply because the door is locked, although again, both are using a great amount energy and therefore the total energy on the system would be the sum of force of each man's push. Again net energy = 0 (Man1 - Door - Man2 + Door = 0).

Now, I will slide the man on the left just enough so that his hands are no longer on the door but on the wall besides the door. With that I used another amount of energy. So total energy used is Man1 + Man2 + sliding Man1 to the side. Door is not moving, it is locked still, remember? Net energy gained is still 0.

Now, what would happen if I unlock the door in this instance? it will open violently in the direction of Man2 exerting force. Imagine also that the door is connected to a generator so when the door opens violently it will generate electricity to an equivalent of the amount of energy Man2 put it in.

Total energy of the system now is not in balance. I have Man2 + moving Door Generated Energy + Man1 (pushing the unmoving wall) + Sliding Man1 energy to the side + unlocking the door. This time I have an extra energy (generated energy by moving the door) with still the same amount of the Man's used energy, plus a little bit extra the put it by sliding a man and unlocking the door, but still, much more energy than the first scenario available to good use.

Somehow I generated an extra amount of energy simply by making both Man not fighting each other. Obviously this is a scenario where we have things setup in the beginning so that the amount of energy generated and used to be 0 but in the second scenario we get an extra Man2 energy back.

Nothing special here so far. I am making an analogy of the Man's being the magnets and the door being the coil trigger and the door's generator being the other coils in the motor.

Now, imagine even if I replace the two man with two gigantic monster elefants. Would not the energy generated be of much higher value? Bigger magnets will create much greater counter balancing forces that when directed in a different way, just like when I slide one of the Man to the side, and also a much greater door pushing movement and therefore greater generated energy. Off course I pay a little bit more to slide gigantic elefants.

What I am trying to say is that the magnets, just like first scenario, are fighting against each other and counter balancing one another so no net energy created, only waisted. On the second scenario where I lock the door and move the Man2 and unlock the door, it is when we trigger the trigger coil so that both Mans (Magnets in opposition or total CLOSED PATH MAGNETIC FLUX) is not long in opposition and a non-linear situation is created where the net energy is not longer 0.

What I think it is happening on Romero's motor is something similar where the magnets are locked in place in a CLOSED PATH MAGNETIC FLUX where all are counter balancing each other just like the two mans on the door. When we pulse the trigger coil, a unbalancing act happens where the Magnets are trying to balance them selfs again and in doing so causes the rotor to spin and generate energy.

Off course when energy is generated Lenz law applies and cause resistance BUT the magnets are so freaking strong that the amount of resistance is too small to stop them and therefore they will spin until a stronger forcer stops it which is the cogging. At that instant the whole system is in balance again and the amount of energy generated is absolutely free and more important irrelevant to the balance of the system.

The clever situation here is they way the coils where arranged with more magnets on top and bottom causing a pumping effect where even more energy is created and a faster balancing act is created.

Triggering another coil will again put things out of balance and will cause the magnets to fight desperately for balance cause more spin and therefore more energy generated.

I think for this to be really possible one must disconnect the amount of rotation torque from the amount one pays to cause unbalance on the magnetic flux of the closed path. It is easy for me to see how it is possible by simply imagining the exact same motor with gigantic more than stronger magnets now. It will spin with an gigantic amount of torque which DID NOT COME from the trigger. It is inherent of the magnets.

If one turns of the trigger coil, the whole system will seek balance and stop rotating. Triggering again will unbalance things and cause it to spin or wiggle. Wiggle was the first effect we see on the second video when Romero's turns the machine on. He than pushes the rotor with his fingers helping the system to get into resonance so the rotation can pass the first cog. The next cogging effect is easy to win by simply being already part of the net zero energy in the system plus the inertia mass + the trigger input energy. Very small increments of trigger energy inserted into the system causes a greater and greater amount of torque by simply forcing the magnets to seek balance.

Makes sense now?? Anyone to help??

Fausto.

Those are the bobbins I ordered this weekend:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220690920914&ssPageName=ADME:L:OU:US:1123

also rods

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400137000838&ssPageName=ADME:L:OU:US:1123#ht_929wt_939

bearings and shaft

http://www.vxb.com/page/bearings/PROD/kit1002
http://www.vxb.com/page/bearings/PROD/Kit11677
http://www.vxb.com/page/bearings/PROD/Kit7257
http://www.vxb.com/page/bearings/PROD/Kit7580
http://www.vxb.com/page/bearings/PROD/Kit7581

Magnets

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220778446228

black iron oxide powder (DIY ferrite rods)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004KICAVU

The rotor disk is just regular MDF 1/2" wood and the acrylic to make the disks from

http://www.acrylicsworks.com/clear-acrylic-plexiglass-sheet-20quotx-20quot-38quo202038.html


Fausto.

Great work Fausto!
Do you have the dimensions on the bobbins you ordered?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220690920914&ssPageName=ADME:L:OU:US:1123

It didnt say any measurement on ebay.

Best regards
Erik

already made discs and more
http://www.plasticonline.co.uk/acrylic-sheets-discs/acrylic-discs/cat_1381.html

Quote from: erikbuch on May 13, 2011, 08:19:09 AM
Great work Fausto!
Do you have the dimensions on the bobbins you ordered?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220690920914&ssPageName=ADME:L:OU:US:1123

It didnt say any measurement on ebay.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, 

In this link

http://www.gonesewing.com/servlet/Detail?no=122   

two measures turn out: Bobbin diameter measures 7/16" thick x 13/16" wide.

Gyula

Thank you Gyula!

Best regards
Erik

Hi all

http://www.bearingworks.com/products/full_ceramic.php

don't kill the scpetics :(
- magnetic field without usage just makes other objects inherit their matnetic spin orientation ( get magnetized )
- inserting a metalic object into a magnetic field will make it change
- removing the metalic object will make it regain it's original state
- you invested energy to move closer the object and to remove the object. At this point only you made all the action.

now try to imagine :
- i move a wire in a magnetic field
- wire will have "current" in it
- i use this current on a bit further in a motor and convert it back to mechanical motion

i want to break the chain by making the motor run. I can run the motor as long as i'm sacrificing mechanical energy to move the wire closer to the magnets. I can deactivate the motor when the wire is at closest position to the magnet. This is all fine. What next ?

What i really would loved to see, romero having a lightbulb attached to the device as consumer. And make it run more then 5 hours. Yes i know, someone already explained to me that there was clear evidance this lightbulb was not needed. Still, it would have been a simple example to make most of us get very very excited.

Spent 2 days trying to figure out where the energy comes from. I completly agree with the balance part. I agree that the device can loop for days/weeks. I cannot figure out how it gets OU :(.
Someone said that the coils should get cold after a while, that is my best guess so far :(

Edit: Actually if one of the magnets is pulling all the time towards a coil, and none are in "pulling back mode" = the coil circuit is broken fizically, then in theory it should try to go forward all the time. No ?

Quotedon't kill the scpetics :(

skeptics are good to have specially good ones. :)

Quote- you invested energy to move closer the object and to remove the object. At this point only you made all the action.

yes but if the removing of the object is aided by the magnet than the net energy is zero. All i put it is returned during the repulsion.

Quotenow try to imagine :
- i move a wire in a magnetic field
- wire will have "current" in it
- i use this current on a bit further in a motor and convert it back to mechanical motion

even when using the current later farther in the line it will still generate a counter-force that will act as resistance, Lenz law, but yes,  I got your point. Use it outside the influence of the magnetic field.

QuoteEdit: Actually if one of the magnets is pulling all the time towards a coil, and none are in "pulling back mode" = the coil circuit is broken fizically, then in theory it should try to go forward all the time. No ?

Interesting, this is more inline with my reasoning. Would be possible to accomplish that "always out" but never "in"????

I am seeing a few components in this motor that is not the obvious at first:
- the "gate" of the rotor magnet + the coil + the 2 other 90 degree magnets are actually forming the famous tri-gate that Howard Johnson created (http://www.fdp.nu/triforcegate/default.asp).
- Ed Leedskalnin perpetual motion in place
- out of balance action of the trigger.

This is one the reasons I would think that just spinning the same rotor with no trigger would not create OU.

Fausto.

Sterling engines work almost the same way. You provide pressure, the piston moves a bit then breaks the cycle to be able to move back almost with no cost. Meantime the second piston is getting pushed.

I have no idea if it is possible to turn on / of fmagnetic properties of a material with less investment then pull force amount. Considering the magnetic field decays rapidly, the amount of movement length would be small = sensible device.

Again, electrons just help you store mechanical energy to "rotate another motor in another place". In theory you can only loose here due to the electron transfers. Maybe we need a totaly strange apraoch. Luck of a random effect observation.

hi guys

excuse me 'chipping in' here...

i saw a thread someone's just started in the last 24hrs or so, where they're discussing the asymmetry of force needed to pull magnets apart in line with the magnets, compared with the force required to 'slide' them apart

the member is drawing diagrams of raising & lowering one magnet on a shaft & trying to move the other magnet horizontally

he believes that there is the opportunity to get power from a magnet this way

well - isn't this what we have in motor arrangements like the Muller, etc?

we 'slide' the magnet into place sideways - the force of attraction between rotor mag and the core/coil gets converted via rapid flux change into elec in the coil - and then we 'slide' the rotor mag away, and repeat with the next rotor mag

i think the motor approach is what this member's new thread is basically trying to achieve - the spinning rotor (with its inertia and any anti-cogging, which Romero added) is giving a 'mechanical advantage' - a lever, if you will - so that we can use the inherent force in the magnet whilst doing less work than that to apply that force

just my 2c

thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

I don't really see connection to the  RomeroUK motor but experiments that you are talking about were conducted in 1998 by J.L. Naudin: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm

Quote from: futuristic on May 14, 2011, 06:19:45 AM
I don't really see connection to the  RomeroUK motor but experiments that you are talking about were conducted in 1998 by J.L. Naudin: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm

this is the new thread i referenced:

   link --> http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10731.msg286214#new (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10731.msg286214#new)

the connection is to any device where a magnet gets moved 'sideways' into position on the common axis line between the coil/core & the magnet

the guy in the thread, ResinRat, believes that the action of the magnet provides more work output than the work required to get the magnet into position

he's trying to picture it with shafts or rods & such

my point is that a rotor does the 'sideways' move for us - and we get benefit from inertia, and any anti-cogging arrangement of the setup

Romero's Muller Dynamo replication is just one example

if ResinRat is correct in his thinking, then the effect he's trying to achieve with 'linear' implementations may be the reason that we see excess energy available in Romero's device

hope this clarifies what i was saying earlier
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

There has been concerns from many members that such small coil would not be able to produce more than 2 or 3 volts when used as a generator.

In this video, I am demonstrating a very simple experiment that it is very possible and indeed very simple.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pHLKPciCGM

Fausto.

The relay used is part number is IEC255 OMRON LY2 12 VDC - from RadioShack - made in Indonesia. Dimensions are 13.42 mm diameter, 13.39mm height outside, 6mm inner diameter. Core is 5mm diameter, 17.24mm height.

156 ohm and 155 mH.

Fausto.

the problem with the idea of circular magnet movement (sideways) in romerouk aproach is that you need exactly the same amount of energy to move it closer and take it apart. You are at 0 best case. The most bothering part is that when you put a consumer ( lightbulb ) on the coil, you will get a force that is trying to stop the movement of the magnets. This force only exists when you put the consumer on. You are transfering mechanincal energy of the rotating magnets to the consumer.
We are thought that magnets cannot be extracted for energy just as gravity, it is true that gravity is hard to negate, it can be done, but since we know little about gravity, we do it in a way to loose more energy then we would gain.
In magnets, we can shield them pretty efficiently, as the piston gets close to the pull destination, one could slide a "metal" plate to shield the pull force. However, at some point you need to remove the plate ....Not sure if there is any gain :(
In romerouk version, the part that he is tuning the device to not have too strong magnets for the load seems like the need of the shielding when magnets are tryng to leave the coils. The drag under the load. Moving the coils further from the magnets = smaller magnetic field, smaller attraction, smaller energy conversion ... However maybe this very sensible edge is the key here. let's say the COP you can get out this way is really small 1.0001 per magnet / coil. In case you put a hevier load, you will eat up the gain + mechanical energy and stop the rotating wheel. If you balance it just right, and extract only 0.00009 of the energy, the wheel should very very slowly speed up. Having 18 coils all in parallel might add up all the small gains.

They key point is to get your wheel speed up. And you can see thousends of videos on youtube with guys having a speeding up wheel with magnets. Which, as we are thought should be impossible.

Balancing is the key ? Too strong magnets might not always good ?

I got some stuff in progress (until all the remaining things comes).

I used the software (free) from this site (http://www.emachineshop.com/machine-shop/index.php). They will allow you to order build your parts, although I think it is too expensive, BUT, the software was very easy to use and to create my rotor design.

Attached is also the 2 designs for the Rotor and Stator coils for their software. Once I designed the disks I printed a few times and glue 2 pages together so I could have one full real size skeleton. Than I cut with scissors and glue on the rotor to precision drill.

I used Dremel tools (no marking from me here :)) http://www.dremel.com/en-us/Pop-ups/Pages/ProductImages.aspx?pid=TR800&tab=2&urlhttp://www.dremel.com/en-us/AttachmentsAndAccessories to cut the rotor to precision 250mm. It was very easy and very accurate.

Fausto.

nice plengo, keep it rollin
I watched all day videos on youtube about others experimetning with magnetic motors and different ways to make OU. There was this SEG aproach but i did not understand any of it ( might be a good thing :D )
Shenhe Wang that tried to do as i imagine it would be working OU, but the guy was kicked out from research team after quite a few years of working there. I guess the idea fails somewhere. Too bad.

We'll have my sad sleep and get a new dream tomorrow :) Kept hearing about devices that cool the air around them. Need to find more details about that.

Greetings fellow researchers!

I'm very pleased to see so many folks trying to replicate this Muller generator design.   I'm joining the fun as well, and I ordered about 100 disk magnets last week, which should arrive this week sometimes.

I am planing on building a few variations of the basic design so I can learn what features are critical and which are not.

Here's the theory that I want to validate:

Magnets in motion will convert extra energy from the subatomic world, as they pass a loaded coil wound on a ferrite core that is magnetically biased in opposition to the passing magnet polarity.


EM

I was studying Thains motor and I think he does explain pretty well what is going on here.

Hey says that when the frequency of the rotor is above a critical point where the impedance of the coil (which is frequency related) is the highest, the ability of the coil of performing Lenz's Law is limited since the resistance is high and current is very low which reduces the counter magnetic field.

When the frequency is too low, the impedance is the lowest and therefore the coil is ABLE to pass more current and therefore create more counter magnetic field. Frequency will be ZERO at TDC therefore the impedance will be equals the very low coils resistance of below 5 ohms, therefore creating more current.

His coils are not small. They are high value gauge which means they are very small diameter coils, with resistance on average of 1.5 ohms. Which kind of corroborate Romero's coils. Very low resistance.

Now, with the relay coil that I did a video demonstration I right away realized that although they are good in creating 12 volts they will not be good for this particular Muller design, they are 150+ohms. The only way I could think of reducing the resistance is, again corroborating what Romero did, is by using many strands of the same wire in parallel so that the total resistance will be much smaller while keeping the amount of turns high to allow creation of higher voltage.

I am not concerned with creating lots of current yet, since once the rotor rotation is aided by the "high voltage" coil (such as Thains explanation), the current will be available any way. What I mean is the parameters for design Romero's coils are:

- very small diameter of wire to allow more turns and aid in high voltage generation
- very small resistance (below 5 ohms) to allow the generation of current to be very limited when the impedance reaches the maximum. Litz wires come in mind.
- proportional size coils to magnets since too little magnets or too big coils may not be the most optimal for magnetic flux/cutting wires relationship.
- cogging reduction by using biasing magnets

This video from Thains explains that pretty well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czXmazZ4obs&feature=channel_video_title

Fausto.

Quote from: plengo on May 15, 2011, 11:59:56 PM
I was studying Thains motor and I think he does explain pretty well what is going on here.

Hey says that when the frequency of the rotor is above a critical point where the impedance of the coil (which is frequency related) is the highest, the ability of the coil of performing Lenz's Law is limited since the resistance is high and current is very low which reduces the counter magnetic field.

When the frequency is too low, the impedance is the lowest and therefore the coil is ABLE to pass more current and therefore create more counter magnetic field. Frequency will be ZERO at TDC therefore the impedance will be equals the very low coils resistance of below 5 ohms, therefore creating more current.

His coils are not small. They are high value gauge which means they are very small diameter coils, with resistance on average of 1.5 ohms. Which kind of corroborate Romero's coils. Very low resistance.

Now, with the relay coil that I did a video demonstration I right away realized that although they are good in creating 12 volts they will not be good for this particular Muller design, they are 150+ohms. The only way I could think of reducing the resistance is, again corroborating what Romero did, is by using many strands of the same wire in parallel so that the total resistance will be much smaller while keeping the amount of turns high to allow creation of higher voltage.

I am not concerned with creating lots of current yet, since once the rotor rotation is aided by the "high voltage" coil (such as Thains explanation), the current will be available any way. What I mean is the parameters for design Romero's coils are:

- very small diameter of wire to allow more turns and aid in high voltage generation
- very small resistance (below 5 ohms) to allow the generation of current to be very limited when the impedance reaches the maximum. Litz wires come in mind.
- proportional size coils to magnets since too little magnets or too big coils may not be the most optimal for magnetic flux/cutting wires relationship.
- cogging reduction by using biasing magnets

This video from Thains explains that pretty well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czXmazZ4obs&feature=channel_video_title

Fausto.

Litz wires :

It's the fact that parallel conductors have a mutual inductance, so a changing current in one conductor induces a voltage in the other conductor.

http://lists.contesting.com/_towertalk/2005-03/msg00282.htm

high frequency more effect

Interesting about Thains motor. I did watch the video about it yesterday, somehow i skipped it quickly without paying much attention to it.
About high frequency. Yeah, now that is a domain that contains a lot of magic for me. A lot of "strange" things happen at high enough frequency. Let's not forget that all matter exists as long as it has some "movement" at atomic level. Playing with that movement might alter even matter. Even magnetic field has a propagation speed, at high frequency you might get to a point where there is no back EMF or even magnetic attraction. Which makes me think you need a stable RPM for romerouk device to be able to finetune it.
Another cool thing i saw today is the programable magnets. These babies attract to each other to a certain distance then repel each other in a way to create an equilibrium state at some distance see example : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POc32aioLFE
maybe a similar design would help in creating a piston like motor ? Attract for a while then at equilibrium state slide them away ...

Maybe romero was using the extra magnets to obtain this effect also ? Let the coil attract the incoming magnet then using the magnet at the back create an equilibrium state to let it escape the back EMF more easely ?

btw, when having 2 paralel wires (litz) and you induce current in them, aren't they suppose to try to cancel out each other ? the magnetic field around them tries to oppose each other. This is why some use low wind count, or try to devise interesting wire configurations, or use loosed windings to separate wires a bit.

[quote author=Tudi link=topic=10716.msg286654#msg286654 date=1305529205

btw, when having 2 paralel wires (litz) and you induce current in them, aren't they suppose to try to cancel out each other ? the magnetic field around them tries to oppose each other. This is why some use low wind count, or try to devise interesting wire configurations, or use loosed windings to separate wires a bit.

[/quote]

if I remember correctly each single wire of the litz is connected in series to have high voltage output, bit more complicated

Quote from: plengo on May 15, 2011, 11:59:56 PMHey says that when the frequency of the rotor is above a critical point where the impedance of the coil (which is frequency related) is the highest, the ability of the coil of performing Lenz's Law is limited since the resistance is high and current is very low which reduces the counter magnetic field.

Well actual calculations that I did show that in romerouk setup things are opposite :) At 1250rpm his 1.2mH coilpairs (if that 1.2mH indeed goes for coilpair, not single one) should hit resonance with 47000uF cap. But in actual setup there are FWBRs between the coils and cap, besides interference picture forms from all the waveforms combined. I have done no experiments on what happends if you hit single cap with multiple resonant waveforms with phase shift...

Also there are LOWEST LOSSES when system is in resonant mode. I'm personally convinced that there is no "magic wall" in motor-generator performance. You just remove losses one by one. There are plenty to go around :P

Also RED FLAG for making your own multistrand and paralleling the ends. My tests show that hand made multistrand (did w/o twisting) has horrible performance and is good only for using in Tesla n-filar configuration, NOT in parallel.

These are just my findings, not absolute truth. Actual performance of replications will show...

Quote from: plengo on May 15, 2011, 11:59:56 PM
I was studying Thains motor and I think he does explain pretty well what is going on here.

Hey says that when the frequency of the rotor is above a critical point where the impedance of the coil (which is frequency related) is the highest, the ability of the coil of performing Lenz's Law is limited since the resistance is high and current is very low which reduces the counter magnetic field.

When the frequency is too low, the impedance is the lowest and therefore the coil is ABLE to pass more current and therefore create more counter magnetic field. Frequency will be ZERO at TDC therefore the impedance will be equals the very low coils resistance of below 5 ohms, therefore creating more current.

His coils are not small. They are high value gauge which means they are very small diameter coils, with resistance on average of 1.5 ohms. Which kind of corroborate Romero's coils. Very low resistance.

Now, with the relay coil that I did a video demonstration I right away realized that although they are good in creating 12 volts they will not be good for this particular Muller design, they are 150+ohms. The only way I could think of reducing the resistance is, again corroborating what Romero did, is by using many strands of the same wire in parallel so that the total resistance will be much smaller while keeping the amount of turns high to allow creation of higher voltage.

I am not concerned with creating lots of current yet, since once the rotor rotation is aided by the "high voltage" coil (such as Thains explanation), the current will be available any way. What I mean is the parameters for design Romero's coils are:

- very small diameter of wire to allow more turns and aid in high voltage generation
- very small resistance (below 5 ohms) to allow the generation of current to be very limited when the impedance reaches the maximum. Litz wires come in mind.
- proportional size coils to magnets since too little magnets or too big coils may not be the most optimal for magnetic flux/cutting wires relationship.
- cogging reduction by using biasing magnets

This video from Thains explains that pretty well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czXmazZ4obs&feature=channel_video_title

Fausto.

hi Fausto,
Heins made nice experiments but why there written NASA  ???
For iimpressiveness  ::)
cheers,
khabe

started reading : http://www.ostfalia.de/export/sites/default/de/pws/turtur/DownloadVerzeichnis/Series-english-5Articles.pdf at least he has some idea about some of the already working theories.
Figure 2 tries to explain in a nutshell why field create / collapse is good for you.
At some point he states there is a replication that has a 150n Watt gain. knocks your socks off i know.
But if he is right, wire length and a lot of small details might be very important to be able to replicate RomeroUK device. The amount of electric wave that are overlapped.

Quote from: khabe on May 16, 2011, 04:34:29 AM
hi Fausto,
Heins made nice experiments but why there written NASA  ???
For iimpressiveness  ::)
cheers,
khabe

The story goes that they showed their motor to NASA and other universities.

Fausto.

Quote from: plengo on May 16, 2011, 08:26:32 AM
The story goes that they showed their motor to NASA and other universities.

Fausto.

Thank you very much, Fausto,
Your explication is sufficient,
Otherwise some simple guy thinks - oh yes  :o things are going on in NASA Laboratory  ::)
cheers,
khabe

Quote from: Tudi on May 16, 2011, 10:28:34 AM
idiot chrome...how do i delete my post ? :(

Quote from: Tudi on May 16, 2011, 07:38:00 AM
started reading : http://www.ostfalia.de/export/sites/default/de/pws/turtur/DownloadVerzeichnis/Series-english-5Articles.pdf at least he has some idea about some of the already working theories.
Figure 2 tries to explain in a nutshell why field create / collapse is good for you.
At some point he states there is a replication that has a 150n Watt gain. knocks your socks off i know.
But if he is right, wire length and a lot of small details might be very important to be able to replicate RomeroUK device. The amount of electric wave that are overlapped.

if you like working theories this one :

http://electropub.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/cyril-smith-getting-energy-from-the-vacuum-is-easy/

lol, the guys that kept saying for over 4 years that next year they will have a working device are making a post : "...is easy"
Nice

Romero's generator produced 12 v loaded and 15 v unloaded (at 12 v input) which means one pair of coils has about 3 ohms resistance given a 2 amp load current.    As we know, best power transfer occurs when load is also about 3 ohms, assuming the speed stays constant.

Here's a crucial insight into Romero's generator:

Same coils are used for motor and generator functions, so both will have the same induced voltage.  However, his input voltage is 12 V and output 15 volts.  This tells us he is pulsing way before max peak voltage, and the motor function stops and reverses into generator action as the voltage increases.

EM

Quote from: EMdevices on May 17, 2011, 01:12:24 AM
Romero's generator produced 12 v loaded and 15 v unloaded (at 12 v input) which means one pair of coils has about 3 ohms resistance given a 2 amp load current.    As we know, best power transfer occurs when load is also about 3 ohms, assuming the speed stays constant.

Here's a crucial insight into Romero's generator:

Same coils are used for motor and generator functions, so both will have the same induced voltage.  However, his input voltage is 12 V and output 15 volts.  This tells us he is pulsing way before max peak voltage, and the motor function stops and reverses into generator action as the voltage increases.

EM

Very clever EM.

Fausto.

just my 2 cents, how could be tuned up the coils (attraction, or repulsion)

after watching this youtube video of the Muller motor presented by is daughter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfF23IvRqpY&feature=uploademail)  I am convinced that Romero did tell us the truth about his motor.

It is indeed very simple and fine tunning indeed is the biggest player here. No complicated parts at all. Just like I already presented in the beginning of this thread:

- SMOT effect (tri-gate) where the trigger coils aid in the remaining "putting out of balance" stick point where the rotor magnets repulsions cause the torque necessary for the rotation until balance again is reached (sticky point) which another trigger or triggers in sequence continue that process.
Think about this not like one single SMOT or gate but a series of gates just like the moon animated picture shows. Each coil / rotor magnet (or cell as I call it) is a gate and a part of a whole gate.  Also here Romero mention the necessity of having the magnets on the rotor being perfectly equidistant and coils with correct dimensions for the core - since they will attract the magnets.

- Biasing magnets on the back of the coils are for two reasons
   a) avoid cogging
   b) aid in the tunning

- coils of very low resistance and possibly relatively large inductance where back-EMF is recycled via the FWBR and extra diodes. A possibility for replacement of large inductance could be the use of Litz or multi-stranded wire where each wire helps in self-induction of each strand therefore effectively giving high inductance although low inductance when not in use (I could be wrong here, so shoot a helper comment please). Off course back EMF for the trigger coils. The other generator coils only need the FWBR and diodes.

So, with that being said one must envision a series of tests to prove each point. I think the cogging has been demonstrated and pretty much replicated by a few experimentalists.

The fine tunning could be done may be by simplifying the rotor to two magnets only (such as the picture which Romero already tested) and find the principal of balancing act via one coil and the magnets, possibly the coil with a biasing magnet too. This would pretty much demonstrate the SMOT effect and the out of balance action that the trigger coil can inflict.

To test the multi-strand small coil one could just build a rotor rotated by an external device or motor and attach to the perimeter of the rotating rotor a few small coils and measure their performance under load. I think some experimentalists also proved that indeed we can create around 2 watts of power spinning at around 1200 rpm.

I can see based on this very simple but orchestrated series of principles ways to improve this motor to an unbelievable level by simply implement a few techniques such as coil shorting on the generator coils, proper timing of the trigger by usage of micro-controllers, machined rotor and parts for perfect balancing and high RPM performance, coils manufactured to precision with corresponding proper balanced magnets for the correct counter magnetic attraction/repulsion action.

We can start just like Romero with a simple trigger and small generators coils. Romero also mention that the whole design SHOULD scale by maintaining its proportions since the "secret" is not in hidden events but simply the interaction of the principles established in this design.

I am not saying that the vacuum energy or zero-point is not present , probably is, what I am saying this is indeed a very simple device that needs relentless observation skills and tremendous patience in tunning.

And to complete my excessive craziness I will even propose a possible scenario that could logically and scientifically demonstrate that indeed this is possible. If the net energy necessary to move a magnet in repulsion to a stationary magnet of equal magnitude would be zero the only cost to make it happen would be an infinitesimal amount of energy to make the net not zero. Off course losses will make it more costly, but not impossible, while the inertia and magnetic induction of coils on the vicinity would be free, that being that the cost initially proposed to make net energy non zero is the only price to pay. Some will argue that the "free energy" would be embedded on the cost of the "non net zero external paid price", but I would argue that the magnet is indeed creating work which today is not counted at all in standard science.

Just to think that the magnets can repulse to me is work.

Shoot my ideas please and let's be focused. I will remove any response that is out of line and noizy! :) (specially the ones against my ideas   ;D  - just kidding - but seriously I will delete noisy posts).

Fausto.

Interesting animation fausto why not put this animation in the original thread I think that speaks a bit louder then the moon pictures. Where you are going with the whole gate theory.

I'm with you I think the magnets play a very important roll as does the arrangement.

Today night I did read about Muller and etc devices,
Valley inventors pursue free and clean energy generators, (by Jeane Manning, April 2005 , Okanagan Life)
on the end of this article we can read one interesting sentence:
"Worst-case scenario -  Even if the extraordinary magnetic generators never selfrun, they can still combine with and revolutionize improve wind and ridal energy."
So it means that these guys( (and girls) not claimed these machines selfrun today? At least 2005  not :o
cheers,
khabe

When you are trying to replicate Rom´s device then he told the primary thing is "high efficient" generator, while motor for spin this generator can be some other kind as well, even no needs it locates on the same rotor disc. So why to mess with leds, drivers and with "two diodes"  ::)
First thing is main principle of Rom´s coils set up
1.) rotor magnet acts to ferrous core coil and induces voltage ...
or
2.) rotor magnets are really only just like "power switshes" for the flux of coil top magnet 
??? 
First thing is to try to tune one coil pair with top  magnet, works it at all or not.
What is primary?
2.) rotor speed and number of magnets -> frequency ...
or ...
1.) rotor speed and diameter -> magnet velocity ...
When common generator then of course velocity of magnet.
When velocity of rotor magnet is important then (when all coils, magnets and gaps are as the same as possible) also rotor diameter (diameter where magnets are) must to be the same  - only then you can get appr. the same output voltage with the same RPM as Rom. And of course there must to be rectifier and capacitor already included.
::)
cheers,
khabe

@Fausto,
I completely agree with your views. This principle has high potential.
One thing is worth having in mind: the fine tuning is required due to a number of reasons:

- tolerance of the coils
- tolerance of the cores
- tolerance of the magnets

If the spread in these components is too wide, fine tuning will not help enough and/or will be very time consuming.
Especially magnets can have big strength differences, up to 20%.

I am doing some 3D simulation with Ansys Maxwell to look at the sensitivity of these tolerances.
The nice thing with simulations is that you can set the tolerances to zero.
Doing that, results in a netto torque of zero over the 360 degrees circumference, even when full load is applied.
Cogging is still there in this particular design, but can also be minimized when size of magnets and mutual distance of the magnets are tuned in the design, but that's for later.

So, for best practice, I advise to buy more magnets than you require and select the best matched ones.
That will allow for much easier fine tuning.
There are few tricks to select magnets, but I am not sure we should discuss that here.

Quote from: khabe on May 18, 2011, 02:36:07 AM
When you are trying to replicate Rom´s device then he told the primary thing is "high efficient" generator, while motor for spin this generator can be some other kind as well, even no needs it locates on the same rotor disc. So why to mess with leds, drivers and with "two diodes"  ::)
First thing is main principle of Rom´s coils set up
1.) rotor magnet acts to ferrous core coil and induces voltage ...
or
2.) rotor magnets are really only just like "power switshes" for the flux of coil top magnet 
??? 
First thing is to try to tune one coil pair with top  magnet, works it at all or not.
What is primary?
2.) rotor speed and number of magnets -> frequency ...
or ...
1.) rotor speed and diameter -> magnet velocity ...
When common generator then of course velocity of magnet.
When velocity of rotor magnet is important then (when all coils, magnets and gaps are as the same as possible) also rotor diameter (diameter where magnets are) must to be the same  - only then you can get appr. the same output voltage with the same RPM as Rom. And of course there must to be rectifier and capacitor already included.
::)
cheers,
khabe

IMO the key is in this simulation but with the right stator magnets strength 

the stator magnets like to have flux connected also because of ferrite core while the rotor magnet push it away

I see not any anomaly and not any normal magnetic effect what can help to get something extraordinary from ferrite core/coil.
Looks like from coils(cores) coming nothing, far not some kind of extras.
To be honest I dont trust every kind of simulation programs. These are good for defense of a thesis to get a degree and just for bla-bla, very seldom any help in real life.
Or perhaps you have better eye to detect something else  ::)
cheers,
khabe

Quote from: khabe on May 18, 2011, 07:48:47 AM
I see not any anomaly and not any normal magnetic effect what can help to get something extraordinary from ferrite core/coil.
Looks like from coils(cores) coming nothing, far not some kind of extras.
To be honest I dont trust every kind of simulation programs. These are good for defense of a thesis to get a degree and just for bla-bla, very seldom any help in real life.
Or perhaps you have better eye to detect something else  ::)
cheers,
khabe

see this frame V=dFlux / dt
......
the stator magnets like to have flux connected also because of ferrite core while the rotor magnet push it away

also the washer is necessary to mask .... ?

Quote from: wings on May 18, 2011, 09:32:35 AM
see this frame V=dFlux / dt
......
the stator magnets like to have flux connected also because of ferrite core while the rotor magnet push it away

This is the "gate" i am talking about.

Fausto.

I see, but flux between two ferrite cores when so long distance between is insignificant.
I do not blame you, myself I have removed  kind simulation programs as quick as installed, first try was 10 years ago.
There is impossible to create similar situation and state of affairs with actuality, you can insert different materials and data how many times you like,
result will come unconformable with real life anyway.
This is just my own opinion, possible Im wrong  ::)
cheers,
khabe

Fausto
Greetings,
I just spent the better part of an hour on the phone  with Carmen [Mr. Mullers Daughter].
A fabulous woman That carrys her fathers legacy with Pride!
I mentioned your name and will be forwarding her a link to this thread .
She is a kindred spirit!!
Chet
PS
If I was her father I would be very proud!

Quote from: ramset on May 18, 2011, 12:40:11 PM
Fausto
Greetings,
I just spent the better part of an hour on the phone  with Carmen [Mr. Mullers Daughter].
A fabulous woman That carrys her fathers legacy with Pride!
I mentioned your name and will be forwarding her a link to this thread .
She is a kindred spirit!!
Chet
PS
If I was her father I would be very proud!

Thank you Chet. That was a great idea. I would be very proud of her if she was my daughter too.

Fausto.

Quote from: wings on May 18, 2011, 09:32:35 AM
see this frame V=dFlux / dt
......
the stator magnets like to have flux connected also because of ferrite core while the rotor magnet push it away

also the washer is necessary to mask .... ?

from winsonali in enother forum:
a normal core material saturates in 10 ms its so there is no need to waste power by continuously powering it for 20 ms
this can alone save quite good energy in transformers
this can be represented as flywheel effect in mechanical
how we can describe the same effect when we are generating energy.

In order to replicate and have max output from Romerouk experiment the diameter of magnets, stators and rotors - rotational speed and timing seems important.

Quote from: wings on May 19, 2011, 05:18:29 AM
from winsonali in enother forum:
a normal core material saturates in 10 ms its so there is no need to waste power by continuously powering it for 20 ms
this can alone save quite good energy in transformers
this can be represented as flywheel effect in mechanical
how we can describe the same effect when we are generating energy.

In order to replicate and have max output from Romerouk experiment the diameter of magnets, stators and rotors - rotational speed and timing seems important.

Tom Bearden - http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/jap/masterprinciple.htm :

Regauging thus can provide work-free stored EM energy "refueling" of an electrical or magnetic system â€" a Maxwell's Demon of special kind. The gauge freedom axiom of quantum field theory already assumes that a system’s potential energy can be freely changed at will.

In the real world, magnetic domains and moving electrical charges occupy finite volumes rather than the "point unit magnetic north pole" and "point positive coulomb of charge" assumed by conventional EM field theory. Particularly in a magnetic system, a highly nonlinear single-valued potential with radical magnitude changes in a stator region smaller than the finite domains of the rotor can be utilized as a "pseudo MVP," since a rotor domain will experience this rapid alteration of the magnetostatic scalar potential in a single domain as a nearly instantaneous "jump". Even over many domains, a sharply changed single-valued potential with a finite rise time can be used if the resulting field is radially oriented so that no tangential drag results on the rotor. The jump time dt can be made sufficiently small so that the overall ò F(t)dt "back impulse" becomes negligible or vanishes. The jumped potential can be appreciably higher than that of the next forward tangential stator region. In that case a strong tangential force results which accelerates the rotor and adds energy to it. Consequently, immediately after the jump the rotor can experience a substantial net overall boost out of the pseudo MVP jump region, as formally proven by Johnson's magnetic gates in actual laboratory force-time measurements every 0.01 sec.

Core saturation is interesting but are you sure  we can speak about saturation when distance between  core and magnets is 10mm from both ends ? ::)
cheers,
khabe

Quote from: wings on May 19, 2011, 05:18:29 AM
from winsonali in enother forum:
a normal core material saturates in 10 ms its so there is no need to waste power by continuously powering it for 20 ms
this can alone save quite good energy in transformers
this can be represented as flywheel effect in mechanical
how we can describe the same effect when we are generating energy.

In order to replicate and have max output from Romerouk experiment the diameter of magnets, stators and rotors - rotational speed and timing seems important.

I think Winsonali made a mistake here. Looking to a transformer, the in and ouput current always have a phase difference of at least 180 degrees ( i.e. > 10 ms when 50 Hz is applied).
I have measured many, many cores on B-H curve characteristic, I never saw these kind of delays to to core behaviour.

Quote from: teslaalset on May 19, 2011, 07:13:37 AM
I think Winsonali made a mistake here. Looking to a transformer, the in and ouput current always have a phase difference of at least 180 degrees ( i.e. > 10 ms when 50 Hz is applied).
I have measured many, many cores on B-H curve characteristic, I never saw these kind of delays to to core behaviour.

this time is related to Magnetic Domain propagation speed - domino effect ( 100 - 2000 m/s ?)

i.e. magnetic viscosity
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Magnetic_Viscosity

Quote from: wings on May 19, 2011, 07:50:16 AM
this time is related to Magnetic Domain propagation speed - domino effect ( 100 - 2000 m/s ?)

i.e. magnetic viscosity
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Magnetic_Viscosity

I was aware of magnetic viscosity.
Let's restrict this to ferrites.
However I have never seen scientific papers mentioning magnetic delays larger than 10 micro (us) seconds .
So, 10 ms is unreal in my view.

Nicolay Zaev has published some scientific research results of magnetic viscosity in ferrites.
Attached is one of his papers. I have more publications of him but these files are too large to post here.

I have said this already 2 times before, but if the tolerances of the used components were very tight, one would not even need to use the extra stator magnets and washers.
However in particular the popular magnets have a fairly high spread in strength.
This is why earlier attempts have failed, because people do not realize this and because in case one uses large spread in magnets the BEMF integral over one circumference is not zero anymore.
RomeroUK has found a trick to compensate the rotor magnet strength spread in a clever way, but in some cases it will not be sufficient, because compensation can not be done 100% in this way.
Why not? well if you compensate for one rotor position, the next rotor position will require a different compensation due to the spread in rotor magnet strength.
So, compensation can only be done as a kind of average over all rotor positions.
In his case this worked. If people do not understand this issue and have larger spread in rotor magnets they will fail in replicating this.

B.t.w. Peswiki should not be used as a technical reference, its far from reliable. It's good for finding new initiatives though, but never scientifically verified.

[Edited]

@teslaalset . Where you say "The whole priciple of the Muller Dynamo etc etc . Is this the opinion of Zaec , or is this your own personal opinion ? I f this is in fact the case , there would be a way around this . You would need some way to measure magnet field strength . In its simplest form , this could be a meads of measuring "pull" at a fixed distance . Now bbuild a machine with only the top stator .Leave out the bottom stator coils . Now slide the magnets up or down in the rotor so they all have the same pull on the cores above .

Quote from: neptune on May 19, 2011, 03:00:11 PM
@teslaalset . Where you say "The whole priciple of the Muller Dynamo etc etc . Is this the opinion of Zaec , or is this your own personal opinion ? I f this is in fact the case , there would be a way around this . You would need some way to measure magnet field strength . In its simplest form , this could be a meads of measuring "pull" at a fixed distance . Now bbuild a machine with only the top stator .Leave out the bottom stator coils . Now slide the magnets up or down in the rotor so they all have the same pull on the cores above .

Hi Neptune,

Only the magnetic viscosity finding is from Zaev.
The rest is my own insights. I am only human, so let's discuss, I may be wrong too.
Most of it is just common sense.
It is confirmed by Ansys Maxwell simulations. As soon as I have a good report I will post it at OU, not earlier, because it will clutter the discussions.
See it as my 'virtual replication'.

Regarding your suggestion to use only one stator side, there is still the problem of rotor magnet spread. I'll make an illustration to explain, so we can allign our opinions, one drawing tells more than 1000 words. Allow me some time, I'll post it here.

   Want to know if you are powering it too long, insert a .1 ohm and scope it. If your trace levels off at the top, you are. In this case, back the hall out a bit. Saw that used in the attraction motor secrets thread on EF.

thay

@Neptune,

Here's the figure to explain the tolerance and fine tuning issue.

It should be self explaining.
If Rotor magnet RM1 is facing the stator coil, the optimum is tuned by Stator magnet SM1.
Then rotor rotates and rotor magnet RM2 faces the same stator coil.
But RM2 has different strength compared to RM1 (0.95T versus 1.05T).
Then the position of SM1 should be tuned again for optimum drag, which will spoil the optimization for RM1.
So only an avarage optimum position can be obtained.
If RM1 would have same value as RM2 than optimization would be perfect.

Quote from: wings on May 19, 2011, 07:50:16 AM
this time is related to Magnetic Domain propagation speed - domino effect ( 100 - 2000 m/s ?)

i.e. magnetic viscosity
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Magnetic_Viscosity

@Wings,

I noticed you added these graphs.
Can you post the link?  I like to check this, my own observations might be to narrow minded....

After my replication of another prototype I will build the stator plate out of non ferrous metal or ceramic and encapsulate it and evacuate the air AND place it on magnetic bearing (if it is balanced enough)  Then the RPM will be targeted between 20,000- 22,000 and since the output is linear the wattage will increase 40 fold. That will give us a unit that is able to handle most our power needs.  It will be about the size of a 5 gallon propane tank and will be nearly as lite as an empty propane cylinder.   This will include an AC inverter  and regulated DC outputs also. 

Longevity in real statistics?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGrKDswHdIo This youtube states 300 years.  Degrading .93% every 10-15 years (loose data) depending on environment.

Also we realize that the hall switches will not be able to keep up at that 20K rpm so we will look toward opt relays like these:
http://www.alliedelec.com/search/productdetail.aspx?SKU=9090167



This is what a manufacture states:

Sintered Nd-Fe-B magnets will remain magnetized indefinitely. They experience a minuscule reduction in flux density over time. As long as their physical properties remain intact, neodymium magnets will likely loose less than1% of their flux density over 100 years. Generally the magnet will experience a degradation in its physical properties, such as corrosion, prior to it demagnetizing because of age. However, heat and high magnetic fields can demagnetize these magnets.

@Teslaalset .Your logic is irrefutable . What I would suggest as a starting point is this . I f you have loads of magnets on stock . Devise a simple test rig to measure the attraction force agains a piece of iron ,using a spring balance . Then pick the 8 magnets that come closest in strength . That may well reduce the need for tuning .

Quote from: teslaalset on May 19, 2011, 04:39:29 PM
@Wings,

I noticed you added these graphs.
Can you post the link?  I like to check this, my own observations might be to narrow minded....

searching: magnetic domain wall speed

Magnetic domain-wall velocity enhancement induced by a transverse magnetic field

http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.6056

Quote from: neptune on May 19, 2011, 05:23:50 PM
@Teslaalset .Your logic is irrefutable . What I would suggest as a starting point is this . I f you have loads of magnets on stock . Devise a simple test rig to measure the attraction force agains a piece of iron ,using a spring balance . Then pick the 8 magnets that come closest in strength . That may well reduce the need for tuning .

Or simply use the hall sensor that you need anyhow to measure relative magnet strengths.
I'll check other simple methods. I found several in the past, but I can't reproduce them right now.
I'll post them here, when I found them again.

Quote from: wings on May 19, 2011, 05:29:21 PM
searching: magnetic domain wall speed

Magnetic domain-wall velocity enhancement induced by a transverse magnetic field

Thanks Wings, I got it.
I'll study this, and sorry for being so bypassed. Learning all the time.
If this is feasible this will be great for solid state versions as well !!

just 2 cents

perhaps this can help

and if somebody of you can interprete  something usable in this video, please i would be very pleased

thanks

Laurent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TCc6yI2BeA

Build you're own gauss meter http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magmeter.htm

I think this would work if the magnet sat in a jig so the magnets were in the same exact spot every time.

@TEKTRON,

             Exactly, that's why I went with snug fitting diametric tubes.

Quote from: wings on May 19, 2011, 05:29:21 PM
searching: magnetic domain wall speed

Magnetic domain-wall velocity enhancement induced by a transverse magnetic field

http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.6056

@Wings,
Unfortunately this paper applies to permaloy nanowires, one can not apply these findings to ordinary ferrite I am afraid.

I looked for the comment of Winsonali and found it as well.
The 10 ms he is referring to is just 10 ms part of a 20ms pulse.
If one pulses a coil that has a non-liniar core, the core starts with a high value inductance and as soon as the core reaches saturation the core value decreases significant. This causes a large increase in current through the coil.
The current delay is caused by the coil value, not by the magnetization speed of the core materials in my view.
One can do a simple experiment to proove that.
Just put a load on the secondary of such transformer with similar core material. The current will increase much faster than in the case of a none loaded secondary. 
This is caused by the counter flux. If the core material would be 'slow' then the counter flux would be delayed and one would not see this effect.

[/quote]

Quote from: teslaalset on May 20, 2011, 03:28:51 AM
@Wings,
Unfortunately this paper applies to permaloy nanowires, one can not apply these findings to ordinary ferrite I am afraid.

I looked for the comment of Winsonali and found it as well.
The 10 ms he is referring to is just 10 ms part of a 20ms pulse.
If one pulses a coil that has a non-liniar core, the core starts with a high value inductance and as soon as the core reaches saturation the core value decreases significant. This causes a large increase in current through the coil.
The current delay is caused by the coil value, not by the magnetization speed of the core materials in my view.
One can do a simple experiment to proove that.
Just put a load on the secondary of such transformer with similar core material. The current will increase much faster than in the case of a none loaded secondary. 
This is caused by the counter flux. If the core material would be 'slow' then the counter flux would be delayed and one would not see this effect.

99 % of research is in nanotech and so the paper ...

IMO the effect at our scale is effective see Energia Celeste device with in mind the last paper posted or Naudin orbo test :

http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/indexen.htm

but now we are far away from this forum.

Quote from: wings on May 20, 2011, 05:18:15 AM

99 % of research is in nanotech and so the paper ...

IMO the effect at our scale is effective see Energia Celeste device with in mind the last paper posted or Naudin orbo test :

http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/indexen.htm

but now we are far away from this forum.

Wings, I hessitate to accept that the paper that shows the magnetic lag while increasing the flux is applicable to normal ferrite cores with the time scale that is shown in the paper you refer to. I can't find any comparable results published before the 'nano' period.
I am sure this has been investigated earlier.

It's a long time since I reviewed Naudin's findings on Orbo.
I did some experiments with magnetic biasing of ferrite cores last year, so this is a kind of a dejavu.

My experiences with magnetic biasing was quite educating.
In general I found that you can 'tilt' the B-H curve by a magnetic bias (clockwise tilt looking at the B-H curve).
I did this in a stationary situation.
Tilting a B-H curve means changing the maximum coil value and changing the + and - RM level.
Translating this to moving magnets, I see that the only difference between RomeroUK's setup and a normal pulsed DC motor is the pulsed magnetic bias to the stator coils.
I need to think this through to come to a good conclusion why this would lead to energy gain, but it certainly is a gap in my experience.

Quote from: teslaalset on May 20, 2011, 06:45:10 AM

It's a long time since I reviewed Naudin's findings on Orbo.
I did some experiments with magnetic biasing of ferrite cores last year, so this is a kind of a dejavu.

My experiences with magnetic biasing was quite educating.
In general I found that you can 'tilt' the B-H curve by a magnetic bias (clockwise tilt looking at the B-H curve).
I did this in a stationary situation.
Tilting a B-H curve means changing the maximum coil value and changing the + and - RM level.
Translating this to moving magnets, I see that the only difference between RomeroUK's setup and a normal pulsed DC motor is the pulsed magnetic bias to the stator coils.
I need to think this through to come to a good conclusion why this would lead to energy gain, but it certainly is a gap in my experience.

my experience is much less than yours, just a reading hobby with small experiments.
I read a document in the past by Cyril Smith that speculated about OU from a cycle by BH magnetization.

now no longer found in internet and I have only one copy on paper and I will find it.

thought: in this case the ferrite core domains are aligned in some direction, direction changes do not start from random arrangements that involving more flipping energy ....

in any case more in: phase i.e. more rapid, more powerful

Energia Celeste have the pulse delay coils installed within the magnet!!

Kunel also ?

Quote from: wings on May 20, 2011, 08:07:52 AM
my experience is much less than yours, just a reading hobby with small experiments.
I read a document in the past by Cyril Smith that speculated about OU from a cycle by BH magnetization.

now no longer found in internet and I have only one copy on paper and I will find it.

thought: in this case the ferrite core domains are aligned in some direction, direction changes do not start from random arrangements that involving more flipping energy ....

in any case more in: phase i.e. more rapid, more powerful

Energia Celeste have the pulse delay coils installed within the magnet!!

Kunel also ?

relating to magnetic domain alignement by external magnets

here two experiments that explain the effect of stator magnets effect on coils during

motor configuration = magnetLauncher

generator configuration = solidStateGenerator

in the generator phase the you have to assume the equivalent effect (in reality you move by rotation the small magnet and so you recover by the coil the energy)

http://science.net84.net/magnetic-generators/generatorY.html

Fausto may smite us all for the theoretical discussion, but...

Assuming that magnetic viscosity delays the propagation but does not eliminate the energy, even 10us might be useful at a high enough rotation speed. The rotor magnet approaching the coil will induce an opposing field in the coil, and as it crosses over the center-line of the magnet, that will reverse into an attracting field. Both will produce drag equal to the power induced. However, if the repulsive field stays around long enough to start pushing the rotor magnet past the coil, that cancels some of the drag coming in. The longer that reversal is delayed, the more that you will have current in the coil that isn't producing a net drag.

Even 10us delay at the speeds that RomeroUK is running might produce a significant bias. I did a quick estimate, and it looks like 10us could shift the effective reversal by a couple of mm. Additionally, the diode bridge will chop the current as it pulls back from the high point, which may further delay the ferrite's ability to reverse the field...since it will also delay the establishment of the reversed field...it takes energy to remove the existing magnetic field. It would stand to reason that a high coercivity material will delay both the onset of the repulsive field and the reversal of it into an attractive field.

Just thinking out loud.

hi LtBolo,
Have you thought about that very long time and very many peoples have been messed with PM motors and generators, some of are very smart, some bit less ... Why none expert in detected such kind phenomenon you are talking about ???
Im not belittling you, not talk down - Im just asking - perhaps you are right,
How about to know what is your experience about this area?
Or you just read something like that from somewhere ::)
cheers,
khabe

Quote from: LtBolo on May 20, 2011, 05:12:13 PM
Fausto may smite us all for the theoretical discussion, but...

Cool. It is progress what you are doing. The problem is non sense discussions, ranting and so on.

Good talk.

Fausto

 @Khabe

Magnetic viscosity is a well established phenomenon.

The idea of the phase delay due to it is my own idea, but I am sure that others have considered it as well. I didn't think it was viable since I was expecting it to be a nanosecond delay...not microseconds. At microseconds and 100s or 1000s of Hz, it could make a very significant change to the integrated drag force.

It is also interesting that the thing that makes this work as a generator would be seen as losses in a motor. The very reason that pulse motors can approach 100% efficiency is due to the ability to tighly control pulse phase and duration, thus eliminating those losses.

As for all of the smart people that haven't seen this...well...how many overunity devices have you seen? I'm just suggesting reasons why RomeroUK's device worked...not trying to explain the 99% failures.

Quote from: LtBolo on May 20, 2011, 06:54:55 PM
@Khabe

Magnetic viscosity is a well established phenomenon.

The idea of the phase delay due to it is my own idea, but I am sure that others have considered it as well. I didn't think it was viable since I was expecting it to be a nanosecond delay...not microseconds. At microseconds and 100s or 1000s of Hz, it could make a very significant change to the integrated drag force.

It is also interesting that the thing that makes this work as a generator would be seen as losses in a motor. The very reason that pulse motors can approach 100% efficiency is due to the ability to tighly control pulse phase and duration, thus eliminating those losses.

As for all of the smart people that haven't seen this...well...how many overunity devices have you seen? I'm just suggesting reasons why RomeroUK's device worked...not trying to explain the 99% failures.

Agree, but delay depends about materials you use, ferrite, at least by my opinion, is the last material for to use in generators and motors.
I do not name myself as smart guy,
I havent seen any OU,
I have not seen Romeros device works, just bad quality videos and messy talking about,
When in some video half of magnets missed, then ... "tuning!" :o
I cant speak it does not work or it does work, may be, but ... I do not believe,
I did read many times all his posts ... every time found more and more incompatibilities,
He does not remember what he spoke last time or last week, comes nervous  when to ask ... speakings about huge lot of work experience ...
And ... like again and again  - a visit of cruel man in black 8)
of course, this just my opinion,
We´ll see  ::)
cheers,
khabe

Today I got my bearings with a 12mm rod. I mounted to my rotor with magnets already positioned.

Now I am going to work on the top/bottom stators and the stable station. Later insert the relay coils and give it a spin.

Fausto.

Quote from: khabe on May 20, 2011, 07:21:16 PM
Agree, but delay depends about materials you use, ferrite, at least by my opinion, is the last material for to use in generators and motors.

According to what I am suggesting, the ferrite's high coercivity, and because of that a tendency to cause a phase shift, would be the very reason that it worked. Is that best for motors and generators? Conventional ones, no.

Quote from: khabe on May 20, 2011, 07:21:16 PM
I have not seen Romeros device works, just bad quality videos and messy talking about,
When in some video half of magnets missed, then ... "tuning!" :o
I cant speak it does not work or it does work, may be, but ... I do not believe,
I did read many times all his posts ... every time found more and more incompatibilities,

You have made it abundantly clear in the other thread that you don't believe, and it is your privilege to choose not to believe. Myself and others are discussing reasons why it might work, not discussing why it can't. I would respectfully suggest that you drop that, especially when the moderator has asked that the focus remain positive.

Working now on the stators. Tomorrow I will cut it and mount the whole station. Hopefully even run a single coil or two test.

Fausto.

LtBolo,
Looks like you do not use soft ferrite but hard ferrite  :o
cheers,
khabe

Soft ferrites
Ferrites that are used in transformer or electromagnetic cores contain nickel, zinc, or manganese compounds. They have a low coercivity and are called soft ferrites. Because of their comparatively low losses at high frequencies, they are extensively used in the cores of switched-mode power supply (SMPS) and RF transformers and inductors. A common ferrite, chemical symbol MnZn, is composed of the oxides of manganese and zinc.
Hard ferrites
In contrast, permanent ferrite magnets (or "hard ferrites"), which have a high remanence after magnetization, are composed of iron and barium or strontium oxides. In a magnetically saturated state they conduct magnetic flux well and have a high magnetic permeability. This enables these so-called ceramic magnets to store stronger magnetic fields than iron itself. They are the most commonly used magnets in radios. The maximum magnetic field B is about 0.35 tesla and the magnetic field strength H is about 30 to 160 kiloampere turns per meter (400 to 2000 oersteds).

Quote from: khabe on May 21, 2011, 02:04:04 AM
LtBolo,
Looks like you do not use soft ferrite but hard ferrite  :o
cheers,
khabe

Soft ferrites
Ferrites that are used in transformer or electromagnetic cores contain nickel, zinc, or manganese compounds. They have a low coercivity and are called soft ferrites. Because of their comparatively low losses at high frequencies, they are extensively used in the cores of switched-mode power supply (SMPS) and RF transformers and inductors. A common ferrite, chemical symbol MnZn, is composed of the oxides of manganese and zinc.
Hard ferrites
In contrast, permanent ferrite magnets (or "hard ferrites"), which have a high remanence after magnetization, are composed of iron and barium or strontium oxides. In a magnetically saturated state they conduct magnetic flux well and have a high magnetic permeability. This enables these so-called ceramic magnets to store stronger magnetic fields than iron itself. They are the most commonly used magnets in radios. The maximum magnetic field B is about 0.35 tesla and the magnetic field strength H is about 30 to 160 kiloampere turns per meter (400 to 2000 oersteds).

Khabe :

You have a great experience, what is your suggestion to make a device that use the LtBolo phenomenon of magnetic viscosity?

@Khabe .I find it strange that as a sceptic you just "happen " to know the telephone number of Bill Muller`s daughter . I also find it strange that she does not post here . But I bet she does a lot of reading ...

wings,
About common motors and generators yes I have some  experiences, but I have never told I have experiences with OU,
I have tried some ideas but never achieved any success  ::) But can I ask - who have successful experiences with OU ? 8)
I do not try to dis anybody, I have repeated many times,
Just when anyone uses some specific term then Im a little bid interested - does he know what it means at all ::)
Why to take ill  ???
Some guys are so hyperaesthete you even cant ask why repellent magnets on his replication are so tiny - right away takes umbrage and goes sulk >:(
Very sad of course,
best regards,
khabe

Quote from: neptune on May 21, 2011, 06:53:20 AM
@Khabe .I find it strange that as a sceptic you just "happen " to know the telephone number of Bill Muller`s daughter . I also find it strange that she does not post here . But I bet she does a lot of reading ...

Dont worry, body,
I did not give phone number was just link to homepage  8)
I had some contact with Bill in nineties, never spoken with his daughter just in this century got few emails something like "Muller machine news", nothing else.
cheers,
khabe

Quote from: khabe on May 21, 2011, 02:04:04 AM
LtBolo,
Looks like you do not use soft ferrite but hard ferrite  :o

Haven't used anything hard or soft Khabe, just reasoning out loud.

Part of the scientific process is making predictions and testing those predictions. I am starting from the viewpoint that RomeroUK's device worked as described, and am attempting have discussion with others about a possible mode of operation. I am neither a skeptic nor a believer, nor am I an optimist or a pessimist. I am an electrical engineer by education and best described as a pragmatist. What works, works.

In the end I believe that so-called 'free energy' has a quantum origin. I believe that the quantum is powered by a virtually infinite source of energy. I believe that Einstein missed it in some major ways and mankind is still paying the price for that. I believe that nature was designed to be inherently stable, and a major part of maintaining that stability requires that creating an imbalance is difficult. I do think it is possible, but I am certain it isn't the most straightforward or obvious thing.

My comments about the possible phase shift due to magnetic viscosity was simply voicing a possible mode of operation for RomeroUK's device. I thought of it a while ago, but it seemed more plausible after seeing the discussion between Teslaalset and Wings regarding the propagation times of magnetic fields. To the extent that propagation can become a macro effect, it might be a viable answer. In essence, if we can create a delay between action and reaction, such that the reaction actually becomes helpful, the mechanical load on the rotor might be greatly reduced relative to the amount of power generated. By combining that with a highly efficient pulse motor, even small amounts of OU may become measurable.

Incidentally, if magnetic viscosity manifests more as 'magnetic inductance'...a time constant to establishing the field...but not as a propagation delay, then the theory doesn't work. It is critical that the energy be there, simply slowed down. That is probably the case. Sorry for the diversion.

I like the idea of Magnetic viscosity simply because I SEE that everywhere in nature. Why not at that level?

Fausto.

Uhm don't know where to post since we have 3 topics now :D. I'm a bit late and it might have already be mentioned, but has anyone checked the amount of power released from a coil with:

a) the magnets on the backside of the coil in repusion mode
b) the magnets on the backside of the coil in attraction mode

I made a small test by moving a magnet past the coil. You can feel by hand that in repulsion mode it is much easier to move it past the core as was already said in the original thread. Isn't maybe possible to just build a generator with lots of coils or so and maybe multiple "layers" (e.g. coils-rotor-coils-|-coils-rotor-coils-|- etc.) and that it will just put out overunity then since it wouldn't need so much power to pass by the magnets and therefore less power to rotate the axis? Maybe then even less RPMs are needed.

Of course that might only be my cheap thinking :D

I like this guy explanation of the Muller dynamics.

Fausto.

Originally Posted by elias 
Hello

I am very happy to see many people are getting on to this.
Good luck to all of the builders. The Lenz drag is not like it seems at all.

Thanks lidmotor for your recent video, it clearly shows that there is something
to this system, that we do not see when we think conventionally.

I am looking forward to see more results. It would be really good if we could
reach a place to lay out a complete blueprint about the Muller machine so that
any one can follow and build it. I am out of budget at the moment for this.

Also as I was reaching for very high speeds (more than 6000RPM) it was quite
dangerous, and plexiglass doesn't have the necessary strength to withstand
that type of pressure, so I highly recommend against using plexiglass.

The pulsing in the Muller design allows the other coils to collect, when one of
them is firing at the moment. That makes a stepwise increase in speed right at
that moment, and helps decrease the Lenz effect. Also because all of the coils
are out of phase with eachother, when one is generating a maximum voltage
the others are generating less than that, thus it makes the machine work
much uniformly. Namely there will be 15 different phases in a 15 coil machine.

Because there is no magnetic cogging in this system, when the Lenz repulsion
kicks in, it causes minimal drag, because it cannot overcome the strong
attraction that keeps the system, with cog. So the system doesn't
see the momentary Lenz repulsive drag because of that. Note that there is no
attractive drag in this system. At the attractive phase, the generator works
as a motor, and pushes the magnet away. Another major factor is the speed
of operation, as the speed is higher, the less drag will be noticed, by the
rotor. All of this when add up makes this motor-generator, do what it does.
This system must be seen as a whole.

<Attraction of unlike poles in magnetic fields is much more powerful than repulsion of like poles>

I am going to demonstrate the statement above, with a simple device I had built quite time ago.

Elias

Quote from: gauschor on May 21, 2011, 02:55:27 PM
Uhm don't know where to post since we have 3 topics now :D. I'm a bit late and it might have already be mentioned, but has anyone checked the amount of power released from a coil with:

a) the magnets on the backside of the coil in repusion mode
b) the magnets on the backside of the coil in attraction mode

I made a small test by moving a magnet past the coil. You can feel by hand that in repulsion mode it is much easier to move it past the core as was already said in the original thread. Isn't maybe possible to just build a generator with lots of coils or so and maybe multiple "layers" (e.g. coils-rotor-coils-|-coils-rotor-coils-|- etc.) and that it will just put out overunity then since it wouldn't need so much power to pass by the magnets and therefore less power to rotate the axis? Maybe then even less RPMs are needed.

Of course that might only be my cheap thinking :D

My first thought would be yes, BUT, you have to think also the dynamics of Lenz's Law when we extract energy out of the coil. Many on the other thread have proposed the removal of the trigger or driving coils and only have generator coils while the rotor is rotated by an external motor.

All that is good in theory only practice will prove it. Soooo, let's build and see. :)

Fausto.

Attraction is more powerful than repulsion, as stated and I agree. 

What most people might not realize is the simple fact that a magnet is not so different than a ferrite.    Placing a coil around a magnet will increase the B field inside hundreds or thousands of times since the material is magnetizable, despite the fact that it already has some remnant magnetization, and it's certainly not saturated by any means, and so more of it's domains can and will align with the external field.   

something very critical to understand about magnetic materials and how they obtain the B-H curves, is the fact that these tests are done on toroids or closed magnetic path circuits.  So when you see a value for remanence (Br) for a magnet, it's only applicable if you have a closed path.   But if you have a small piece of magnet in your hand, that B field inside of it is less then Br, because the magnetic path flows through the air as well which has less permeability, so this is an open circuit, and so the proper location on the B-H curve for such a small magnet is to the LEFT of the origin and ABOVE the H-axis.   So if you pulse a coil in REPULSION to the magnet, you will actually push the magnets magnetization further down the B-H curve to a lesser value of B field, but if you pulse in ATTRACTION you will move the material up on the B-H curve and to the right, increasing the energy in the system which is equal to the area under the curve.

To really maximize the power capability of a dynamo per volume, you should have an almost closed magnetic circuit with only a very small air gap between the rotor and the stator core.

EM

info...
http://freeenergylt.narod2.ru/muller_dynamo/
INFO...
Mopozco
"quest for OU" XI -- "COP over 1"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYRVwIw0azo

to make sure the meters're showing right readings in previous video have changed the motor's design -- coils-magnets arrangement and heavier light, but on the same principle; meters still showing cop^1 readings and motor's running on supercap with power source disconnected
(but no worries yet, not for long - only for couple hours)

Some thoughts on the rotor bearings.
Great deal of the losses will be due to the rotation bearings.
Idealy an air bearing or magnetic bearing would be preferred, but these are mostly too costly and complex to use at our level of replication.

So, I thought of a simple contruction for a magnet bearing that would be worth trying in practice.
Attached a few 3D shots I made.
The red/blue parts are magnetic rings that are quite easy to obtain.
What I have in mind here is that the axis is locked up in all 3 dimensions by magnetic repelling.
The allowed movement tolerances will be part of the design of course, the tighter the air gaps, the less freedom of undesired movement.
Any comments on this concept?

Quote from: EMdevices on May 22, 2011, 12:40:52 AM
Attraction is more powerful than repulsion, as stated and I agree. 

What most people might not realize is the simple fact that a magnet is not so different than a ferrite.    Placing a coil around a magnet will increase the B field inside hundreds or thousands of times since the material is magnetizable, despite the fact that it already has some remnant magnetization, and it's certainly not saturated by any means, and so more of it's domains can and will align with the external field.   

something very critical to understand about magnetic materials and how they obtain the B-H curves, is the fact that these tests are done on toroids or closed magnetic path circuits.  So when you see a value for remanence (Br) for a magnet, it's only applicable if you have a closed path.   But if you have a small piece of magnet in your hand, that B field inside of it is less then Br, because the magnetic path flows through the air as well which has less permeability, so this is an open circuit, and so the proper location on the B-H curve for such a small magnet is to the LEFT of the origin and ABOVE the H-axis.   So if you pulse a coil in REPULSION to the magnet, you will actually push the magnets magnetization further down the B-H curve to a lesser value of B field, but if you pulse in ATTRACTION you will move the material up on the B-H curve and to the right, increasing the energy in the system which is equal to the area under the curve.

To really maximize the power capability of a dynamo per volume, you should have an almost closed magnetic circuit with only a very small air gap between the rotor and the stator core.

EM

Very good theory, EM.
Atached a B-H graph of an example Alnico magnet.
But as I see it, if there is no additional field generated by an additional coil the magnet situation is the one where H=0, so Br, in your graph, the area of the arrow tails in my graph.
Adding extra field to such magnet will either move the old situation over the top part of the curve, as indicated below by the red and blue arrow.
So, very little difference if moderate pulse energy is used.
Only if very large pulse energy is used to bring the B strength to near zero, one will have this difference, the only reason for doing that would be a large load.

Also attached an overview of the forces to the rotor if a maget passes a ferrite core.
The red line represents the force in the direction of the rotor movement (X and Y axis).
The black line represents the force in the axis direction (Z axis, although the label in the figure says Y -axis. This is due to the different way of using the orientation in my simulations).
The noise on the graphs is due to the FEM mesh size. I took rather rough resolution to speed up the calculations.
The magnet is at TDC at 10 ms in the graph.
Zooming into the red graph you can see that you need very little extra force to have an overal positive movement of the rotor.
Only if you want to generate a lot of force, your situation is the required one.

I see a possible flaw and that is that the pulsing is done such that the effect is mainly in North/South direction (Z-axis) and is not in the direction of the movement (X and Y axis)

BTW, the vertical force should not be neglected, since it is a large one.
In RomeroUK's model, the build is symmetrical in the Z axis in theory.
However, the magnets and cores will have some tolerances.
These tolerances cause vertical imballance.
In my opinion RomeroUK uses the stator magnets to ballance the vertical vibrations.
There might be additional reasons for the stator magnets, but I believe the vertical vibration compensation is the main reason.

@EMdevices

QuoteTo really maximize the power capability of a dynamo per volume, you should have an almost closed magnetic circuit with only a very small air gap between the rotor and the stator core.

this is an alternative view:

http://www.totallyamped.net/adams/#top

QuoteStandard Electrical Induction Generator Theory says you should put the cores as close as possible. In this instance I strongly disagree. I say put them where you get the most Voltage before your rotor slows significantly. And remember - This is an Open Magnetic System and We Play by Different Rules here! What can appear to be a weakness can be a great strength. There is a "yet to be discussed anomaly" which makes good use of the changing Bloch and Transition walls.

Today I was able to cut my stators and make the holes for the coils and their cores. I am still missing about 5 coils (they are the Relays from RadioShack).

It takes forever to get any single small thing done, BUT it is fun!

Fausto.

I post here to don't distract the Muller forum.

Naudin: Some important keys to get an excess of energy (IMO in some parts applicable also here)

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm


The output coil must be fully EM decoupled from the input coil (no mutual inductance), so this why the toroïdal coil is used as the input coil and a cylindrical or a flat coil set at 90° as the output coil.

The magnet is used only to set the operating point in the MH curve of the toroïdal core. The magnet is not the source of the excess of energy. The ferromagnetic core is used on the highly non linear portion of the MH curve (where the core permeability drops quickly)

Shorter the clock pulse (low DTC) is, lower the energy spent for the magnetization process will be.

The 2SGen is not a transformer: The excess of energy tapped on its output comes from the magnetic material itself (during the demagnetization process). The volume of the ferromagnetic core used is important to get more power: greater the volume of the core is, higher the power at the output will be.

The pulse period must be greater than the time required for the magnetization/demagnetization process and this is fully dependent of the performance of the magnetic core used.

The best tuning is done when there is no change in the measured DC input power while the output coil is loaded.

Don't forget that energy of the magnetization pulse is the cost to be paid for obtaining the excess energy from demagnetization.

attraction stronger than repulsion test by Elias - imagine the magnetic field line

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5q47JJJAww&feature=player_detailpage

today I got my ferrite rods at 7mm diameter and my bobbins too. I am still missing one coil to finish the stator. All the other coils are in place glue with Gorilla Glue.

My bearings are inside a container with gasoline so that the grease will leave and than I will put a very efficient oil that I used successfully in my ceramic bearings.

I should finish building this motor, first version, pretty soon. I will also build another motor in parallel more in line with Romero's coils specs of 1.2mh and less than 2ohms resistance.

My coils now are from relays at 156mh and 160ohms but they come with very good cores too and their size is perfect and precision made so we will see.

Fausto.

Today I got my last relay coil installed on the stator. Now rotor and stator mechanical parts are complete. My bearings are clean and spinning freely really well. Gasoline works very well.

Tomorrow I will try to put all together and give it a spin by hand and may be even a video showing where I am. The shaft being 12mm and with good bearings this is looking very solid and the stator is dead flat non wobble at all. Very good!!!

Time to start collecting the electronic parts now. What would be the best FWBR that would be the most efficient? I am not concerned with anything above 1amp. I doubt any of those coils will generate even more than 100ma.

Fausto.

If I were you, I would just make a rectifier out of discrete diodes. Schottky diodes are the best choice since they have a lower forward voltage drop (0.4V-0.6V depending on the current). Here's an example:

http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=MBR1100RLGOSCT-ND

- Jason O

Quote from: Jdo300 on May 25, 2011, 10:25:46 PM
If I were you, I would just make a rectifier out of discrete diodes. Schottky diodes are the best choice since they have a lower forward voltage drop (0.4V-0.6V depending on the current). Here's an example:

http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=MBR1100RLGOSCT-ND
- Jason O

Just for the record, Romero said he had no such luck with Schottky diodes, and another guy gave some potential explaination for that

Quote from: tanakat on May 25, 2011, 10:33:06 PM
Just for the record, Romero said he had no such luck with Schottky diodes, and another guy gave some potential explaination for that

I do not know what your friend told you.
my opinion is that in order to start the avalanche do not have to stop quickly.
i.e. you need a bit more voltage delay - non linearity.

Quote from: wings on May 26, 2011, 01:27:21 AM
I do not know what your friend told you.
my opinion is that in order to start the avalanche do not have to stop quickly.
i.e. you need a bit more voltage delay - non linearity.

I was just reporting what RomeroUK said about the schottky diodes, actually.

Quote from: tanakat on May 25, 2011, 10:33:06 PM
Just for the record, Romero said he had no such luck with Schottky diodes, and another guy gave some potential explaination for that

hi all

Romero's comment about not finding that his Schottkys were beneficial shouldn't stop us from considering their use

not all Schottky diodes have low forward volts drop (some are 0.8V or more) and also the volts drop increases to some extent with forward current

so it's important to check the specification first to see if the particular component is going to be suitable


for example, i've bought some IXYS manufactured parts: DSSK 38-0025B  which have 0.48V Vf  at 20A (so Vf will be a bit less than 0.48V at say 2 or 3A) - the diodes are paired in one case (common cathode), so i only need three parts to make one FWBR (3 parts contain 6 diodes - two diodes will be unused)

(NB  my particular diodes only have a 25V reverse voltage rating but my system is using a 3V DC motor drive, so i don't need the same headroom as required on a system using 12V drive)


hope this helps
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

I can see it either way.

The use of Litz wire favors very high frequencies, so perhaps the high frequencies are an important part of what is happening. Schottky devices certainly offer benefit with high frequencies.

OTOH, at a few hundred HZ, the speeds are much too slow to make much difference in most devices. I certainly wouldn't be using big clunky devices...the current simply doesn't require it, and they certainly will not respond as quickly and generally waste power.

Kind of a dumb question...wouldn't it make the best sense to use the device that RomeroUK used...at least to start with? You know it works. Or if it doesn't, the rest is kinda moot.

Quote from: LtBolo on May 26, 2011, 11:55:07 AM
[...]
Kind of a dumb question...wouldn't it make the best sense to use the device that RomeroUK used...at least to start with? You know it works. Or if it doesn't, the rest is kinda moot.

hi Lt B

in my case, i'm using a 3V DC motor to provide both the bearing and the drive, so reducing voltage drop losses figures pretty high on the 'must have' list! (that's just my choice, and i have to accept the outcome)

i agree that for a 'close' replication, it makes sense to stick with Romero's parts list and only change items after achieving COP > 1


all the best
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

The generator coil output is very elastic...open circuit voltages go very high and drop depending on load. Operating the drive side at 3vdc doesn't have to have much bearing on the generator side...especially given that you really should have some isolation between the two.

That said, if the goal is to reduce forward drop, I certainly would consider alternative rectification strategies.

Since we still have no clue as to why it works and where the extra energy is acquired, I would personally be pretty reluctant to stray too far from RomeroUK's design.

I can't shake the feeling that all FE devices are converting energy through undocumented quantum mechanisms. The rarity of looped devices is driven by the fact that what appears to be happening isn't what is really happening. Little details like diode type could easily be changing bandwidth, for instance, which changes the harmonic composition. A thing that would appear to have no meaningful effect could be the single thing that is most important.

Last night when I was testing the build of my Muller I noticed that with those very powerful magnets and so many coils with cores it is very difficult to align the rotor so that it will not wobble neither colide with the coils if the distance between the cores and magnets are very small, like say 5mm.

For this reason and with the knowledge that this can run at 2000rpm or more I highly advice DO NOT USE VCR bearings. Use a shaft to support at both ends of the rotor to a very stable and rigid stator.

It will definitely crash your Muller if you use those non shaft bearings like VCRs although the VCRs bearings are excellent for lighter and less tension motors.

Fausto.

I have a drum with magnets mounted radially (from another device) that I have been using to observe magnet/coil interaction. Depending on magnet arrangements, the force on the coil can become quite strong, so it wouldn't surprise me that it could cause considerable trouble. You have so many different magnetic interactions it is hard to predict which will most dominant at any particular time and place.

The interesting aspect of that is that a certain amount of wobble may cause non-linear changes that might play a major factor in the effect.

I am building a Muller-Romero Generator variant with 5 magnets on a rotor and 6 pairs of generator coils on two stators. The rotor will be driven by a DC-motor (2.5 to 8.4 Volt, 0.7 Ampere).

The generator coils are taken from 12 Volt relays (90 Ohm DC resistance, I also have coils with 275 Ohm DC resistance, inductance is unknown so far, I do not own a LRC meter). Because of the high number of wire turns on the relay coils, each pair of generator coils will put out a rather high Voltage (and low Amperage).

To harvest the electricity I plan to use a ferrite toroid. Each pair of generator coils has a "feed winding" on the toroid (see the attached drawing). And a "pick up winding" will take the electricity from the toroid to the DC motor (via a full bridge rectifier).

The number of turns for a "feed winding" (high number) and the number of turns for the "pick up winding" (lower number) should define the Voltage output of the "pick up winding" for the DC-motor.

The toroid and its windings should act like a step down transformer.

Because there are more generator coil pairs than magnets, the generator coils will "fire" one after the other and the "sine waves" going into the toroid will not cancel themselves out.

Please comment, I might be completely wrong.

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: conradelektro on May 26, 2011, 02:33:16 PM
[...]
The generator coils are taken from 12 Volt relays (90 Ohm DC resistance, I also have coils with 275 Ohm DC resistance, inductance is unknown so far, I do not own a LRC meter). Because of the high number of wire turns on the relay coils, each pair of generator coils will put out a rather high Voltage (and low Amperage).

To harvest the electricity I plan to use a ferrite toroid. Each pair of generator coils has a "feed winding" on the toroid (see the attached drawing). And a "pick up winding" will take the electricity from the toroid to the DC motor (via a full bridge rectifier).

The number of turns for a "feed winding" (high number) and the number of turns for the "pick up winding" (lower number) should define the Voltage output of the "pick up winding" for the DC-motor.

The toroid and its windings should act like a step down transformer.

Because there are more generator coil pairs than magnets, the generator coils will "fire" one after the other and the "sine waves" going into the toroid will not cancel themselves out.
[..]
Greetings, Conrad

interesting idea - combining o/p magnetically, rather than electrically - also impedance matching the higher voltage gen coils back to a lower level to get the current drive for the motor

sounds neat - i guess you can do a basic go/no go type test with just a couple of 'channels' & see if it's feasible, before committing to a full coil set

if you don't see the same '1+ 1 = 2.5' type behaviour which Romero got when combining FWBRs, then it would suggest this method won't get you to that initial 105% (ie. before adding stator mags)

good luck!
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Quote from: conradelektro on May 26, 2011, 02:33:16 PM
I am building a Muller-Romero Generator variant with 5 magnets on a rotor and 6 pairs of generator coils on two stators. The rotor will be driven by a DC-motor (2.5 to 8.4 Volt, 0.7 Ampere).

The generator coils are taken from 12 Volt relays (90 Ohm DC resistance, I also have coils with 275 Ohm DC resistance, inductance is unknown so far, I do not own a LRC meter). Because of the high number of wire turns on the relay coils, each pair of generator coils will put out a rather high Voltage (and low Amperage).

To harvest the electricity I plan to use a ferrite toroid. Each pair of generator coils has a "feed winding" on the toroid (see the attached drawing). And a "pick up winding" will take the electricity from the toroid to the DC motor (via a full bridge rectifier).

The number of turns for a "feed winding" (high number) and the number of turns for the "pick up winding" (lower number) should define the Voltage output of the "pick up winding" for the DC-motor.

The toroid and its windings should act like a step down transformer.

Because there are more generator coil pairs than magnets, the generator coils will "fire" one after the other and the "sine waves" going into the toroid will not cancel themselves out.

Please comment, I might be completely wrong.

Greetings, Conrad

Conrad, looks interesting but what keeps the toroid from pumping power into the other gen coils?

Quote from: TEKTRON on May 26, 2011, 03:41:44 PM
Conrad, looks interesting but what keeps the toroid from pumping power into the other gen coils?

theoretically: nothing  (some will be distributed)

practically: impedance differential between gen coils & load?

@Conrad

your transformer is great for impedance matching.
As all the pulses from the pickup coils are time-interleaved you should not get any negative effects from
core saturation I think.

@Fausto.
Well maybe it is not so good to have so close and tight airgaps.

Romero had almost 0.5 to 1 cm airgaps in his design I guess ?

I think too small airgaps will also need different back stator magnet setups.

You still want to switch the flux back and forth inside the pickup coil´s ferrite cores...

So you need to have the right working point on the BH curve.
If the airgaps are too small you might not be able to switch them fully
back and forth...

Regards, Stefan.

Quote from: TEKTRON on May 26, 2011, 03:41:44 PM
Conrad, looks interesting but what keeps the toroid from pumping power into the other gen coils?

@TEKTRON, nul-points, Stefan:

The critical factor is exactly the influence of the generator coils on each other via their "feed windings" on the toroid.

The "pick up winding" does not pose a theoretical problem (in my opinion).

And I hope that all generator coils and their "feed windings" just swing along unisono. Meaning, that all coils (generator coils and feed windings) swing at the same frequency and at each pulse (complete sine wave) only one pair of generator coils feed in "power" (via the "feed winding" they are connected to).

The big question, do the generator coils which are not energized by the passing magnet (all but one pair) dampen the power put in by the energized generator coil pair to the toroid significantly?

I guess, only the experiment can show the way forward.

Greetings, Conrad

P.S.: I am waiting for the delivery of a 4 mm Phenol Hartgewebeplatte PFCC201 ca. 500 x 250 mm
http://cgi.ebay.de/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160446209722

I could mill a few fairly good round disks and drill holes at exact angles with a dividing head and a press drill. These tests were done with acrylic.

Quote from: conradelektro on May 27, 2011, 01:32:23 PM
@TEKTRON, nul-points, Stefan:
[...]
The big question, do the generator coils which are not energized by the passing magnet (all but one pair) dampen the power put in by the energized generator coil pair to the toroid significantly?

I guess, only the experiment can show the way forward.

Greetings, Conrad
[...]

i look forward to hearing any results with interest

good luck, Conrad!

np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

I found an interesting article from Steorn on using a stationary and a moving magnet at both ends of a ferrite rod.
Mind the results of Experiment 4: asymmetric Non-linear MH.
Might have some relation with RomeroUK's findings...

Quote from: teslaalset on May 28, 2011, 07:07:35 AM
I found an interesting article from Steorn on using a stationary and a moving magnet at both ends of a ferrite rod.
Mind the results of Experiment 4: asymmetric Non-linear MH.
Might have some relation with RomeroUK's findings...

relation also here?
http://books.google.com/books?id=iwEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=iwEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102#v=onepage&q&f=false)

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3500.3690;wap2 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3500.3690;wap2)

http://www.tcs-access.com/sensor/english/wiegandeffect.htm
http://www.tcs-access.com/sensor/english/4129800.pdf
http://www.borderlands.de/Links/PSMM%20-%20SPESIF%202010%20-%20Valone.pdf


The Wiegand effect is a macroscopic extension of the Barkhausen effect as the special treatment (twisted like litz?) of the Wiegand wire causes the wire to act macroscopically as a single large magnetic domain. The small high-coercivity domains in the Wiegand wire outer shell switch in an avalanche, generating the Wiegand effect's rapid magnetic field change.

Quote from: wings on May 28, 2011, 10:15:23 AM
relation also here?
http://books.google.com/books?id=iwEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102#v=onepage&q&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=iwEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102#v=onepage&q&f=false)

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3500.3690;wap2 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3500.3690;wap2)

The Wiegand effect is a macroscopic extension of the Barkhausen effect as the special treatment (twisted like litz?) of the Wiegand wire causes the wire to act macroscopically as a single large magnetic domain. The small high-coercivity domains in the Wiegand wire outer shell switch in an avalanche, generating the Wiegand effect's rapid magnetic field change.

@Wings,
After reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiegand_effect I don't think there's a relation.
But still an interesting effect!
(the patents at the bottom of the wiki page show nice details)

FYI: today I had my cisco router "bricked" by an outside party. The attack has been very well designed with the intention to kill my router, which they succeed.

I had to by a new router for another $150.00. I don't see this as a coincidence, but I am crazy anyway.

Fausto.

ps: more progress done today. I got the rotor balanced with the shaft, bearings and stators. I will setup the coil connections tomorrow.

Plengo how did they brick your cisco router ? Were you running third party firmware "DDWRT" on your router?

I find claims like this rather amazing not to say that it is impossible but it is not likely someone just bricked your cisco router...

You could do this by uploading a bunk firmware to the router sure but you would first need wired access to it or it would fail... I am sure something could be scripted to do it but very few people are capeable of such a thing really.

It would be likely more easy to turn up the output of the antenna signal to something high to make your router burn up in a jiffy if you were running DDWRT or something of that nature.

Secure your wireless connection surely nothing is 100% secure and I'm sure I could figure out your password with backtrack likely by salting a gigantic password list but it would likely take a while if you were using WPA2 PSK ... But to actually brick your router that is a whole different story wireless bricking requires a fairly extensive knowledge of your particular router unless as I said you are running a 3rd party firmware.

Possible but not likely.

While I doubt the MIB's are after you and this is just sheer coincidence good luck with your build off to a good start.

150bux for a router sheesh I have three wireless n cisco routers laying around here I would've sold you for like 30.00 plus shipping sheesh! Must be one hell of a router mind if I ask you which model you had and which model you currently bought?

I know!!!! And it is Bricked for good. I try every trick on the net to revive it but no luck. I had a Linksys E2000. First time I was using a simple password. No DDWRT.

My new router is NetGear-N750, much faster than the previous one and this time only MAC address of my stuff will be allowed.

I am very surprised too but this is actually the third time that happened. The first time I did not know anything about routers but after twice I studied a little bit and now I know a lot more. Whoever is doing this is doing in purpose because is not the first time. I have no idea why but It all started after my first videos on Youtube about free energy. Figures!!!

I don't think it is MIBs, they have more important things to do and off course they could simply knock my door and take everything without any hassles, after all this is USA the country of "freedom".

Fausto.

lol fausto a mac address protection is alright but that is what they use to grab your packets they knock a connection off with a mac address and sit in the middle I could set my wireless mac address to whatever I want.

If they are that hard core where they can brick your router a mac address protection will not help you. Anyhow it is possible that you are having brown outs or whatever I have the equvialents to the e2000 routers. Bummer I am sorry you have had these issues with routers but I would invest in a surge strip or better yet a UPS to protect this at that rate cause surge strips prevent spikes ups will prevent spikes and lows aka brown out conditions you could actually cause these conditions if you have too much hooked into the same breaker.

I think it is coincidence bud nothing to worry about. As far as someone bricking your router.

I do however understand your views on the US not being constitutional as of late we have really went out of our way to overturn the rules that this great nation was founded on and even then there are government agencies that do not have to follow any rules most times they are companies that are hired to work outside of the rules that law enforcement must abide by.

But in your case I think you are safe.

Today i started my Romero/Muller and guess what happens? nothing. The coils are absolutely the wrong resistance, 150+ohms is too high and does not allow much current consequently much attractive/repulsive magnetic field. It could be also the wrong cores.

I was suspicious this would happened and that's why I ordered the Litz wire but they are taking soooooo long to get here.

I changed the ball bearings for my ceramic and still no good. So it is not the friction but the coils. The good thing about those relay coils is that they create a lot of voltage just by spinning the rotor at 10 rpm or less, very impressive.

I may switch just the driving coils with coils of less than one ohm and see what happens.

One thing is for sure, if this motor was a scam, it means that Romero spent a good amount of money a time just to fake it because this is not a simple Bedini SSG motor. It is very tricky and as toranarod said, there are lots of places for tunning and research.

Fausto.

Today I ordered from another source Litz wire with the spec from Romero. 36 AWG 7 strands (0.125mm) each strand.

It will be here by next weekend. I also going to replace my coils with those hand wound coils. I few things I learned with the current 156 ohms coils from relays.

The speed of rotation is below 15 rpm or so. Very little speed BUT it does have a good torque which is very surprising. I think the core that came with the relays causes the rotor to be very rigid, even after replacing my bearings and shaft with ceramic and 5mm shaft. Which I used many times and they spin very freely.

So the cogging with those powerful magnets and the not correct cores causes too much friction and very little rotation.

Another interesting thing is that with that setup I was also able to produce easily above 20v per magnet pass on the generator coils and running lamp loads. So less than 15 rpm and still producing good amount of energy and torque.

So lots to learn even from my mistakes. It is as if the magnets repelling force when overcomed also produces a very good acceleration that provides a very good differential therefore more energy out.
Also the torque is very strong since the repelling force is also strong. Very strange and not very intuitive to be honest. I know some "experts" will say that this is all conventional and very intuitive but I am not saying anything special either. So please spare me.

Fausto.

Hi Fausto,
with the higher resistance coils, you just need higher
supply voltages.
Maybe you can try to use a 1:1 transformer from the 120 Volts AC grid ( You are living in the USA, right ? )
with a bridge rectifier
and cap and use this as the input voltage ?

Surely you can also try to use a few 12 Volts batteries in series to get a higher input voltage.

The only difference you might get is that the L of the coils is bigger, thus the motor would not run as fast
as the complex impedance is bigger and thus the RL timeconstants of the coils needs longer charging and discharging
times.

But with higher impedance coils you could also have less input power as it is also in Newman motors...

Hope this helps.
Regards, Stefan.

Ferrite made with black sand video by Peter Linderman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4NBR0cl0b8

and how to make your own cores

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA8HalLJ92c&NR=1

Fausto.

Quote from: hartiberlin on May 31, 2011, 09:45:46 PM
Hi Fausto,
with the higher resistance coils, you just need higher
supply voltages.
Maybe you can try to use a 1:1 transformer from the 120 Volts AC grid ( You are living in the USA, right ? )
with a bridge rectifier
and cap and use this as the input voltage ?

Surely you can also try to use a few 12 Volts batteries in series to get a higher input voltage.

The only difference you might get is that the L of the coils is bigger, thus the motor would not run as fast
as the complex impedance is bigger and thus the RL timeconstants of the coils needs longer charging and discharging
times.

But with higher impedance coils you could also have less input power as it is also in Newman motors...

Hope this helps.
Regards, Stefan.

Thanks Stefan, yes I did use my power supply with 30 volts to do just that and indeed it works with low speed at that higher voltage. What I am really surprised is the torque amount (felt by holding the shaft with my fingers tightly) and the good amount of voltage generated by those coils at such a low speed.

The cogging is bad and good. Bad because it takes a good amount of force to overcome and good because you get all back after overcoming TDC and the ratio of speed is really fast which creates a good rate of change and therefore higher induction. The coils also have much higher induction than Romero's coils, it is around 156mh as you stated correctly.

Fausto.

Hi all,I have question romerouk pulled rf chokes from equipment and used the core
from the choke.Is the choke the same as sold by radio shack?Does the core fit thru the bobbin
with out either boring the bobbin or using a dremal tool to shave down the core.
If he did have to make the
core fit which method did he use boring the bobbin or shaving the core or both.

Quote from: powerunlimited on June 01, 2011, 03:59:40 PM
Hi all,I have question romerouk pulled rf chokes from equipment and used the core
from the choke.Is the choke the same as sold by radio shack?Does the core fit thru the bobbin
with out either boring the bobbin or using a dremal tool to shave down the core.
If he did have to make the
core fit which method did he use boring the bobbin or shaving the core or both.

I tried the choke from RadioShack and the bobin and it fit perfectly. I used two bobbins for this picture where I cut the ends of each bobin. CORRECTION: it is magnetic  (wrong: The core is also not magnetic which IS GREAT).

Fausto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0leZLxHgST0

one more about shorting coils:

Yesterday I got my new coils using Litz wire. They are 0.125mm each strand, 7 strands, total diameter around 0.375mm. The wire seems perfect. I bought it from http://www.surplussales.com/Wire-Cable/LitzWire.html item "(WHS) LW-7/36" group B. It is a gigantic spool that easily I could build 500 of those little bobbins.

I did not worry about how many turns it took. I only concentrated on making all coils as close as possible to 3 ohms. They look very alike Romero's coil so I guess Romero did not measure his coil correctly (which I doubt) or he mention the wrong number or turns. There is no way one can fill those 6mm x 10mm bobbins (internal dimensions) to the edge and still be less than 2 ohms.

I also changed my shaft and bearings. Now I am using a threaded rod for the shaft where I can control the distance of the rotor from the coils with easy and more accurate. Also it is much easier to work with small bearings. I guess my 12mm rod shaft idea will be postpone for when this becomes a larger motor.

Cores are from RadioShack http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103978. I removed the wires and cut the core in half. They fit very tight inside the bobbins. So it is good to use a drill to enlarge just a little bit the center diameter of the bobbin and all fits perfectly.

edit: I forgot to mention. Inductance is around 1.2mh.
edit 2: No core is 0.45mh with core 1.2mh. No magents.

Fausto.

Welll done plengo. Just keep going

Tonight I run my replication using ONLY 2 driver coils and no generator coils installed.
The first thing I noticed is that those little coils can give a nice punch to the rotor and spin it really fast.

This is just a test run. I am using Arduino Duemilanove as multi pulse driver so that I can have more control over the pulses, and timing. I am using a hall effect.

At 3 pulses, 6 volts and around 300 to 400 ma I can spin this thing to 650rpm easily. The very interesting thing is that it will start slow than current consumption will go up to around 450ma. Than as the speed increases it will drop current to 300 and continue spinning faster and faster. Almost like switching shift in a car as the car increases its speed.

Spikes on the coils are above 250 volts. There is much more to this little bobbin coil and magnets than one would think. Attaching load to the DRIVING coils will actually help a lot in speeding it even faster for a mere 20ma increase. Very interesting. Imagine when I have all the gen coils doing that?!!!

This motor is very exciting because it is not behaving at all like an SSG or window motor or Adams. There this funny "banging" sound that magnets are causing as the speed gets to the point of "needing to switch the gear" and go in higher speed where than the banging gets smoother. As the speed increases it starts the cycle again.

Sometimes the pulsating, as the rotor speeds, misses some pulses and the rotor goes finally to the next "gear" and the whole cycle repeats.

Fausto.

edit 1: one pulse, 12.5v at 300ma, 970rpm and accelerating. Load on the drive coils make no difference on current consumption.

thank you woopy and lidmotor
i found this today after watching a you tube by lidmotor about the muller motor i have seen the effect staring at me but needed to have it jogged from my mind it is very interesting and will do a better vid again please watch it as it may help you all.

http://www.youtube.com/user/geshbeddin?feature=mhee

motor test 3
martin

Sounds great plengo!  Fascinating results you are getting.  Sounds like you are on the right track. 

my video with my second run test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG3OshMBwrs

Fausto.

ALL,

I want to give you some insights that I have into this dynamo that might help you understand it better. 


1)  this generator conducts current into the output capacitor in short pulses, which come from each coil in a sequential order.   At 2400 RPM there are approximately 5700 pulses per second or a 5.7 kHz frequency.  This speed is higher due to the ODD/EVEN ratio of magnets to coils, and different sets of coils and magnets come into alighnment every 5 degrees of rotor rotation.

2)  the pulses occur around the maximum induced voltage, when the voltage increases ABOVE the output capacitor voltage.   RomeroUK's dynamo produced around 15 Volts unloaded, and 12 volts when loaded with that 12 volt light bulb,  and on the graph below I drew the red lines where this corresponds on the normalized curve.   (12/15 = 0.8 )

3)  notice that the flux is ZERO at maximum voltage according to the laws of electrodynamics, and the flux in this region of current pulses is linear (I drew thicker lines in this region)

4) However, the most important thing to note is the short duration of the pulses, approximatley 0.5 ms.   Why is this important?   It's because it is a shorter duration than the TIME CONSTANT of the coils when shorted, which is calculated as:   

tau = L/R = (5 mH) / (1 ohms) = 6 ms        (approximate, I think Romero said one coil was about 1.5 mH, and doubling the turns increases it by 4 times if coupling is 1, which gives 6 mH, but I'll derate it to 5 mH as an approximation, and 1 ohm resistance as an approximation)

and we know that it takes 4 or 5 time constants for steady state to be reached, where the magnetic induction stops and the voltage drop is all due to the resistance of the coil wire.

So what this is saying is that the flux interaction is very efficient and I^2 R losses are minimized or eliminated at higher speeds.

Design Guidelines:

1) Use big coils with lots of turns, that will give higher inductance and results in longer time constants.
2) Keep the coil wire resitance low, by using thicker litz wire or even solid wire if Litz is not available.  This will also result in longer time constants.
3) Faster speed is desirable, but with higher speeds more losses occur from air friction and bearing viscosity, etc.. however, the higher speed will compensate for a shorter time constant.
4) Biasing magnets reduce hysterisis loses in the ferrites as they cycle their magnetization.

EM

P.S.   Nice work Fausto,  I'm trying to catch up, winding coils this weekend.

Here's something that should raise your eyebrows!

With the light bulb load,  Romero has about 2 amps continuous current flow from the output capacitor.   The input to the capacitor is from the current spikes generated in the coils, but these are of short duration, so they must be much higher in current than 2 amps.    The duration of the pulses is approximately  1/10 the duration of one cycle, or the period T.    Remember the coils don't conduct current only when their voltage goes higher than the capacitor voltage plus the diode bridge forward voltage drop.


So to have an energy balance into the output capacitor,   we need pulses 10 times higher in current, or approximately 20 amps !


Now you should realize how important it is to use Litz wire or thick wires to handle the large current bursts.  Litz wire is better to handle the higher frequency and will have a lower AC resistance at the same frequency as a comparable sized solid conductor.  But you can use a solid conductor of thicker size, but then you will have a larger coil.   It's all about optimization and minimizing unnecessary losses.

Here's an approximate calcualtion of I^2 R losses in the coil:

(20 amps)^2 * (1 ohm) = 400 watts pulsed

so averaging over one period we get a continuous power loss of:

400/10 = 40 watts !

So this generator outputs 25 watts into the light bulb, and loosing 40 in the coils, for a total of 64 watts, but this lost energy is NOT COMMING FROM THE INPUT (12 watts), IT IS GENERATED FROM THE MAGNETS  ? 

If this is the case:   the COP is (64-12) / 12 =  4.3

This dynamo is actualy generating a net 52 watts out of "thin air."

So shouldn't this be COOLING DOWN THE MAGNETS SIGNIFICANTLY?

EM

EMDevices,  thanks for all the analysis.  For some reason I'm not getting what you said here though regarding the capacitor voltage: "2)  the pulses occur around the maximum induced voltage, when the voltage increases ABOVE the output capacitor voltage."

What voltage is the "output capacitor voltage"?  You aren't talking about the maximum voltage rating of the cap are you?  Sorry I'm lost on exactly what this means in this case.  (P.S.  I think I understand now after seeing your post in the main Muller thread.  Still scratching my head a bit though on this :)  ) 
   
   Have you seen teslaalset's explanation for what is going on in this device?  (he has a separate message thread now on this) He ran a simulation with the Ansys Maxwell program and seems to have come up with some good explanations of how it works within traditional physics.  It also appears that higher RPM is not necessarily the best for this device based on Romero's statement plus several replicators have noted some better results in the area of 1200 RPM I believe. 

   I'm having some trouble with the idea that we are putting 20 amps through the wire coils also.  With the gauge suggested by Romero and in use by some replicators I would think everyone would be smoking their wires.  You are way over my head with your calcs but just from experience I know pushing 20 amps through wire that is about 27 gauge will surely burn it out fast.  I think 27 gauge is rated around 1.7 amps. 
Thanks for your help with this and good luck in your build. 

Guys, I'll do some sims on the actual voltage and currents and post a link here to my data that I will post in the 3D sim thread I created yesterday, if that helps you.

Disregard what I said about the 20 amp pulses.    I was typing my previous post late last night and forgot that there are many such pulses per second, not just one, and their frequency is  around 5.7 kHz at 2400 RPM.    RomeroUK was showing us just ONE output waveform from a particular coil he chose.   

I'll be doing new calculations soon.


[Edit]

Ok,  notice in my appended figure the superposed output waveforms for only 3 of the coils, shifted from each other in time. I only drew 3 as an example, but there are many more.  The output is not actualy a superposition of 9 of these waveforms, as they don't add like that because of the diode bridges (FWDB) for each coil, and the single output capacitor.


What I want to do now is to calculate the number of pulses per second going into the single output capacitor from all the coils firing in sequence.

To arrive at an approximate pulsing frequency, I ASSUME all coils are generator coils (2 are actualy motor coils),  and due to the 8/9 ratio,  every 5 degree turn of the rotor will bring another magnet and coil into alignment. 

So the number of coil/magnet alignments per rotation of the rotor is:   360 deg/ 5 deg = 72 alignments per rotation

(EDIT:   an interesting side note here:  If you divide the 72 alignments by 9 coils you get 8.  this means each coil participates in 8 alignments for each rotor rotation.  It also means that the virtual rotational speed of these alignments relative to the rotor is 8 times FASTER, or a virtual "gear ratio" of 1:8  )

Each alignment contributes 2 pulses into the output capacitor (from the + and - swings) so  now we have 2*72 = 144 pulses per rotation of the rotor.

At 2400 RPM we have 2400/60 = 40 rotations per second

Therefore, the pulsing frequency is  2*72*40 = 5760 Hz    or   5.7 kHz

This is the actual pulsing frequency if we would use all the 9 coils as generator coils.

Now, if we knew the actual time settings of his output waveform, then we can determine how much they overlap or don't overlap,  so I have a feeling the pulses might just occur right after each other, as we need to overlap 9 such pulses in one period, so each coil will pulse at around 1 amp but not 20 amps like I previously said.   And it's 1 amp and not 2, becasue there is a bottom pulse sequence that contributes half the power.

I hope that clearifies things.   And regarding the question of when current flows,  notice that each coils voltage needs to rise above the output capacitor voltage, in order for the coil current to flow into it.   RomeroUK showed us his light bulb operating at about 12 Volts and 2 amps,  so each waveform tops out at 12 volts, and that's when current flows, at the top of each peak, just during that short segment at the top of the peaks of the waveforms  (both top and bottom peaks)

EM



PS.   If we wanted a more accurate pulse count, taking into account the fact that two of the dynamo coils are actualy motor coils, and not participating in the generator process, we would have to subtract their missing contribution from the total pulses we calculated above as 5760 pulses.

So here's the calculations of the missing pulses:

8 alignments per rotation per coil x 2 coils = 16 alignments per rotation,  and
16 alignments x 2400 RPM/60 sec =  640 alignments per second, and since two pulses occur per alignment:
640 x 2 = 1280 missing pulses per second

therefore, the actual pulse frequency when 2 of the coils are motor coils is:

f  = 5760 - 1280 = 4480 pulses per second

I think the calculations are a bit more complicated than you think EM.

Your assumptions about the inductance and resulting time constant is based on a static inductance measurement. The problem is that the inductance of each gen coil is constantly changing as the coil enters and exits a magnetic field. When the ferrite gets hit with a strong field from a rotor magnet, it effectively saturates, lowering the inductance close to that of an air core. Toss in the field from the current being generated in the gen coil by the changing field and the field from the bias magnets, and you have inductance that is all over the map...rising and falling within the span of a single rotor magnet. It's a mess.

The other crazy weird aspect is that the changing inductance is also changing the current itself, in addition to the changing magnetic field changing the current...so the current is similarly unpredictable.

I think in the end it is going to be very hard to predict the behavior, and understanding is going to need to come more from empirical observation than a theoretical perspective. One sure thing though, when you get all of the elements that RomeroUK was using, you are bouncing all over the different quadrants. If there is any wrinkle to be exploited, he tested all of the possibilities...at once.

LtBolo,  I agree, calculations are a lot more complex, and I'm fully aware of that, you can be sure.   That's why what I'm calculating here is often prefaced with "approximate".    So yes, the ferrites are in the presence of the magnets and get cycled magneticaly back and forth, and their B-H curve is non-linear.   But how saturated the ferrites get, I'm not sure, since the biasing magnets counteract the moving magnets, so yes, the whole motor is quite complex, but not beyond the modeling capabilities of advanced software like teslaalset is using.  You might think these calculations are useless stuff, but us engineers live and breathe calculations every day.  I just happen to be an open minded type of electrical engineer (EE) that belives we don't know everything there is to know.   

I also agree that experimentation is key, but consider the fact that current theory is nothing more than the sum of the knowledge and wisdom extracted from lots of past experiments, and quite valuable !  Any new experiments that challenge the established theory should be scrutinized to see why?  And when the why is answered, new exceptions to the rule will be discovered and the theory revised.  Science in progress !   

So, I'm just calculating the simpler things first, because it helps me to have more insight into this motor.   

EM

Here is the start to my dynamo.  My coils are hand Litzed by me. 5 strands, almost .9mm total.   I could not fit even 100 wraps on the bobbins I have.  The cores are radio shack choke cores.  with the cores in each coil measures about 150 micro Henry's (yes micro not mili)  in parallel they are about 63uH.  if I leave in parallel and short one of the coils, of a pair, to itself the inductance drops to about 5uH.  So virtually nothing.   series there is virtually no change in Inductance.
  My question is on resistance.  This is a new meter that I am using.  When I try to measure Resistance @ 200 Ohms scale the meter pegs out.  But on 2k scale they all read 1.39 k Ohms.  so is this k Ohms or Ohms? If it is K Ohms how high of a voltage ill I have to use to even get this spinning?  Should I start re-wrapping now? LOL

Also does having such a low inductance hurt?  will this low of inductance generate any electricity whatsoever?

And yes there are only 6 sets of coils.  This is a testbed for the bigger motor in the works.  I had a feeling there was gonna be a big learning curve and no straight replications when I began this so I went a little smaller and dif configuration for learning.  but same principle

Quote from: redrichie on June 07, 2011, 11:51:53 PM
....
  My question is on resistance.  This is a new meter that I am using.  When I try to measure Resistance @ 200 Ohms scale the meter pegs out.  But on 2k scale they all read 1.39 k Ohms.  so is this k Ohms or Ohms? If it is K Ohms how high of a voltage ill I have to use to even get this spinning?  Should I start re-wrapping now? LOL

Also does having such a low inductance hurt?  will this low of inductance generate any electricity whatsoever?

.....

Hi Redrichie,

I assume your new meter has a separate resistance and inductance measurement input points?  I ask this for I am not sure what exactly you mean on Resistance here: the DC resistance of the coil I suppose? 
Or your new meter is able to measure inductive reactance at a built-in test frequency?

Try to check you meter first in the 200 Ohm resistance scale with a 100-180 Ohm normal resistor to see if it is ok.  If yes, then your coil(s) probably force your meter into spurious oscillations, I have come across such phenomena once or twice with some meters, very rare but rather confusing.
Also try to check your meter in the 2 kOhm scale too by any normal resistor of 1.5 - 1.8 kOhm. If it shows correctly, then again your coil makes your meter oscillate in the Resistance range and display shows an erratic value.

You can surely estimate your coil DC resistance by its wire gauge diameter and wire length, considering the paralleled wires in your Litz winding of course. I guess the paralleled 5 strands in the Litz has got well under 1 Ohm DC resistance (based on your 0.9mm total dia.)

If you really have a coil inductance value in the some hundred microHenry range, then all you may find is the generated output voltage is less than for a coil in the few milliHenry range. Induced voltage, V_i is linearly proportional to L,  V_i=L*dPHI/dt  where dPHI is the fluxchange in the coil and dt is the time under which the change happens.
So you can compensate the lower L by making higher fluxchange, of course there are limits to this (core saturation). Another choice is to find ferrite cores with higher permeability than the present ones

Nice build you  have!

Gyula

Quote from: EMdevices on June 06, 2011, 10:37:04 PM
ALL,

I want to give you some insights that I have into this dynamo that might help you understand it better. 
[...]
3)  notice that the flux is ZERO at maximum voltage according to the laws of electrodynamics, and the flux in this region of current pulses is linear (I drew thicker lines in this region)

4) However, the most important thing to note is the short duration of the pulses, approximatley 0.5 ms.   Why is this important?   It's because it is a shorter duration than the TIME CONSTANT of the coils when shorted
[...]
EM

hi EM

appreciate the work you're doing investigating the little amount of data we have from the Romero's actual build!

can i just throw another piece of information from the actual build, into the mix?

when i ran up a trial on my rotor with a single coil, and then a 1-position coil pair, to get a ballpark value for the turns/volt i'd be aiming for, my single coil waveform was the standard 'sine-with-a-gap' (see trace below)

notice that this looks significantly different to Romero's trace

ONE of the transitions from one peak to the opposite should be a smooth line (as the mag passes across the coil) - Romero's trace instead has NO smooth transition between the peaks (ie. there are two discontinuities, or gaps,  present)

i designed my mag diameter to mag gap ratio to be close to Romero's, so the wider, flatter 'back-porch' on Romero's waveform won't be due to a wider mag gap

the new insight into Romero's trace came when i connected my first coil-pair together

my new trace looked just like Romero's - two gaps (or 'porches'), much narrower pulses instead of previous 'sine' section - also that rather 'irregular' look to the whole trace - like each cycle was unique
(i didn't save the trace unfortunately)

AND THEN I REALISED...   I HAD THE TWO COILS IN OPPOSITION!

they still gave a decent output  (even on my 10 ohm resistive load) but they had this very irregular 'pinched' look

Now - the significance of this observation to your work on the induction from each coil pair is this:  in the single trace which Romero showed us the slope of each 'half-sine' section is actually STEEPER than the regular sine slope (because the pulse has been 'squeezed' into a shorter proportion of the cycle)

the result is that the flux rate-of-change is greater and also there is a better match of the pulse width to that section at the peak of the waveform where the coil energy dumps into the buffer cap through the FWBR


SO - the big question is this: "DID ROMERO HAVE ALL HIS COIL PAIRS WIRED IN OPPOSITION, OR WAS THIS JUST A 'ROGUE' PAIR?!?"

if ALL Romero's gen coil pairs were wired in opposition, this would be a significant factor in the total performance of his device


keep up the good work
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Very relevant observation in itself, this waveform shape bothered me too. But I was not able to reproduce it just by wiring single coilpair in different ways. Could you please post a pic how exactly was it wired, where was load and what were measurement points?

Quote from: yssuraxu_697 on June 08, 2011, 05:51:46 AM
Very relevant observation in itself, this waveform shape bothered me too. But I was not able to reproduce it just by wiring single coilpair in different ways. Could you please post a pic how exactly was it wired, where was load and what were measurement points?

hi yssuraxu_697


here's a schematic for the test waveform i posted above
(and a photo of the test rig in action, with single coil)


config details:

each coil is ~ 100 Turns of 7x0.09mm multi-strand solderable wire
(narrower version of Romero's wire, from same supplier)

DC resistance approx 1.4 ohms per coil

core is 20x6mm OD 4B1 ferrite from Farnell

stator mag was 10x10mm OD Neo, fixed to 20mm OD mild steel washer

load was 10 ohm resistor
(5W? encased in ceramic block, probably wirewound)

pk to pk voltage on single coil was ~ 3.2V into 10 ohm

true RMS o/p (single coil) into 10 ohm ~ 90mW
(plugged PC scope trace data into Excel, (average(sum(instantaneous V*i)) * time)

waveform pulse freq: 278Hz

6 mag rotor, so rpm = 278 * 60 / 6 = 2780rpm

intending to use 3W DC motor drive for rep
(unless some of the magic turns out to be in the pulse motor!)


you say you couldn't get a similar w/f - were your test configs on a good amount of load?


anyway, hope this helps
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Strange, I did try this config... Will take scope shots in the evening. Could you please scope shot your waveform also?
I have a crude rig where are 4 coils (2 pairs) and each one can be positioned pretty
much anywhere. I actually did get the same pic as per remerouk but I took some phase shifting.
Maybe your coils were not perfectly aligned also by accident?
What was winding direction, both coils same or reversed (I have same)?

Quote from: yssuraxu_697 on June 08, 2011, 07:19:32 AM
[...]
Could you please scope shot your waveform also?
[...]
Maybe your coils were not perfectly aligned also by accident?
What was winding direction, both coils same or reversed (I have same)?

i can't setup my test rig again at the moment (using PC scope elsewhere for a medium-term logging test at the moment) but will try & recreate when i'm back on the MD project (may be later next week)

yes, certainly possible that coils weren't aligned - BUT all i did to correct (as i thought) what i saw, was to reverse the o/p terminals from one coil - coils remained in their same physical location in the test rig

so if the coils WERE misaligned for my 'Romero-type' trace, then they would ALSO have been misaligned for the 'corrected' trace

my intention with the winding directions of the two coils was that the lower coil would wind in the sense of a continuation of the upper coil when both were located in their respective positions - eg. looking down on same long axis of both coils from above, say the top coil was wound CW from its 'top' terminal, then the lower coil was 'supposed' to be wound the same

this is what i assumed when i wired it up, and was surprised to find the waveform that i later realised looked like Romero's trace

so i just assumed that i had made a mistake in the second wind, and i swapped the connections to the second coil and the waveform then looked like my single coil waveform

Quote from: yssuraxu_697 on June 08, 2011, 07:19:32 AM
[...]
Could you please scope shot your waveform also?
[...]

great - woopy has just saved me the job! - check out his trace shots with the coils in opposition

May be it is interesting for some builders.

With the generator coil set up on the photo (just this one pair of coils) I get the attached scope shot.

Each coil has a DC resistance of 265 Ohm and is wound with many turns of very thin wire. The coils were taken from 12 Volt relays.

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: nul-points on June 08, 2011, 04:26:54 AM
hi EM

appreciate the work you're doing investigating the little amount of data we have from the Romero's actual build!

can i just throw another piece of information from the actual build, into the mix?

when i ran up a trial on my rotor with a single coil, and then a 1-position coil pair, to get a ballpark value for the turns/volt i'd be aiming for, my single coil waveform was the standard 'sine-with-a-gap' (see trace below)

notice that this looks significantly different to Romero's trace

ONE of the transitions from one peak to the opposite should be a smooth line (as the mag passes across the coil) - Romero's trace instead has NO smooth transition between the peaks (ie. there are two discontinuities, or gaps,  present)

i designed my mag diameter to mag gap ratio to be close to Romero's, so the wider, flatter 'back-porch' on Romero's waveform won't be due to a wider mag gap

the new insight into Romero's trace came when i connected my first coil-pair together

my new trace looked just like Romero's - two gaps (or 'porches'), much narrower pulses instead of previous 'sine' section - also that rather 'irregular' look to the whole trace - like each cycle was unique
(i didn't save the trace unfortunately)

AND THEN I REALISED...   I HAD THE TWO COILS IN OPPOSITION!

they still gave a decent output  (even on my 10 ohm resistive load) but they had this very irregular 'pinched' look

Now - the significance of this observation to your work on the induction from each coil pair is this:  in the single trace which Romero showed us the slope of each 'half-sine' section is actually STEEPER than the regular sine slope (because the pulse has been 'squeezed' into a shorter proportion of the cycle)

the result is that the flux rate-of-change is greater and also there is a better match of the pulse width to that section at the peak of the waveform where the coil energy dumps into the buffer cap through the FWBR


SO - the big question is this: "DID ROMERO HAVE ALL HIS COIL PAIRS WIRED IN OPPOSITION, OR WAS THIS JUST A 'ROGUE' PAIR?!?"

if ALL Romero's gen coil pairs were wired in opposition, this would be a significant factor in the total performance of his device


keep up the good work
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Nul,

I am at a loss here... when I connect the two coils in series adding I get 20 volts AC. When I reverse the wires of one coil the voltage drops to zero.

This sounds logical to me? how do you get any output? What are your voltages adding and reversed, please

Ron

Hi i_ron,
I am sure that due to the precision of your build, both coils of one pair are precisely aligned in one axis. You may want to try and shift/offset them a tiny bit, or alternatively twist the top and bottom stator-plates of your rig a few degrees against each other to offset the alignment.

Yes, if you do sin(x)-sin(x) you get Zero,
same doing sin(x)-sin(x+2pi)
But when you do sin(x)-sin(x+pi) you get good output.
And when the wave form is very narrow/spiky, the additive effect can be very pronounced, even when the geometric offset is quite small.
Yes, right, then both stator coils of a pair are not directly opposing each other any more ....
Don't know whether this is good or bad ...

Could it be - given spiky waves and a tiny mis-alignment of a coil pair's axis - that the electrical wave shapes of the coils add up while the magnetic forces (Lenz) get subtracted from each other (almost canceling) ?  Yes, sounds crazy

Quote from: oscar on June 08, 2011, 12:56:30 PM
Hi i_ron,
I am sure that due to the precision of your build, both coils of one pair are precisely aligned in one axis. You may want to try and shift/offset them a tiny bit, or alternatively twist top and bottom stator-plates of a full setup a few degrees against each other.

Yes, if you do sin(x)-sin(x) you get Zero,
same doing sin(x)-sin(x+2pi)
But when you do sin(x)-sin(x+pi) you get good output.
And when the wave form is very narrow/spikey, the additive effect can be very pronounced even when the geometric offset is quite small.
Yes, right, then both stator coils of a pair are not directly opposing each other any more ....
Don't know whether this is good or bad ...

Could it be that - given spikey waves - the electrical wave shapes of the coils add up while the magnetic forces (Lenz) get subtracted from each other (almost canceling) ? Sounds crazy

Oscar,

Shifting the coil axis only distorts one half of the sine... still no romero type wave form. It is a puzzle to me how woopy and null are getting an output with reversed phase.

Thanks for the reply.

Ron

@null-points,

if your coil pairs are in opposition, and everything is symmetrical, you should get zero volts, as mentioned by Ron.

Are you using any biasing magnets like Romero?

@all

Here's an analysis of RomeroUK's waveform.   In a little while I want to also INTEGRATE this voltage waveform to determine the FLUX, since V = -N d phi/dt

Now take a look at the waveform:

1)  The first thing to note is that there is a slight slope to the whole waveform.   I show an angle theta between the grid and the bottom red line I drew.    This could be due to the fact that he left the ground clip on his probe hanging and is picking up 60 Hz, so his waveform is superposing on this slower frequency.   But if he did connect the ground clip, then this is very interesting.

2) Also notice that the ratio of a/b is changing from pulse #1 to pulse #3, and then back for pulse 4 and 5.   This could be due to different strengths of the magnets and the fine magnetic balance he has achieved.  (a/b = 1.7 at pulse #1  and  a/b=0.7 at pulse #3, approximately)

3) Notice the 2 short yellow vertical lines I drew.  If we cut out this segment and reconnect the waveform, then we should have a waveform closer to what null-points showed, but why are these segments there?  Again, I believe they are there because of the biasing magnets he is using, they create a phase shift and compression of the waveform. i.e.,  the magnet has to approach a lot closer to the ferrite before it snaps it’s magnetic domains in the other direction.

Stand by for more…..

EM

PS,  forgot to mention,  this waveform was most likely taken while the dynamo was under load, because the peaks are flat, indicating the voltage would have risen much higher but it got clamped by the ouput capacitor voltage, as the FWBR conducts.

    Would this then mean that his coils were off just a bit and one starts generating and as it is falling off going the other way, then the other sort of helps it along? I would have issue with romero making that kind of mistake. Too good of a builder. Then, I look at mine sitting here and can't say they are. If they are off a minute amount, then it would make that effect "very" speed dependent. Hmmmmm?

thay

if there is a greater amplitude of one polarity over the other polarity across the genset coils
then i can see how the pulses are riding on a DC offset.

with the Muller config (NSNS) you would not see much DC offset.

its like sending a pattern of 01010101.... down a copper pair line.
as long as the line is balanced you won't see a DC offset.
but once more 1's than 0's are sent down the line or more 0's than 1's you'll see the dc offset.
to compensate the industry uses line coding methods like AMI, B8ZS, or Manchester but still can have issues with DC offset.

i suspect that if romerouk had evenly balanced number of the same magnets the pulses coming out of the genset coils would
end up riding on a DC voltage.

some of this can be seen on his scope shot, although the pulses are not riding on a steady DC voltage, as the offset shows a slope.

i think this slope is part of a changing wave that the pulses from the genset coils are riding on.
the reason for the wave is how he arranged his remaining back bias magnets.

couldn't tell how they're arranged on the bottom but on the top it appears there is a section where he started with a thinner magnet,
then up a size then after a bigger size back down to a thinner size. this is where the generated pulses get caught riding a wave.

lots of variables.

take care.

nap

Quote from: EMdevices on June 08, 2011, 01:35:02 PM
@null-points,

if your coil pairs are in opposition, and everything is symmetrical, you should get zero volts, as mentioned by Ron.

Are you using any biasing magnets like Romero?

@all

Here's an analysis of RomeroUK's waveform.   In a little while I want to also INTEGRATE this voltage waveform to determine the FLUX, since V = -N d phi/dt

Now take a look at the waveform:

1)  The first thing to note is that there is a slight slope to the whole waveform.   I show an angle theta between the grid and the bottom red line I drew.    This could be due to the fact that he left the ground clip on his probe hanging and is picking up 60 Hz, so his waveform is superposing on this slower frequency.   But if he did connect the ground clip, then this is very interesting.

2) Also notice that the ratio of a/b is changing from pulse #1 to pulse #3, and then back for pulse 4 and 5.   This could be due to different strengths of the magnets and the fine magnetic balance he has achieved.  (a/b = 1.7 at pulse #1  and  a/b=0.7 at pulse #3, approximately)

3) Notice the 2 short yellow vertical lines I drew.  If we cut out this segment and reconnect the waveform, then we should have a waveform closer to what null-points showed, but why are these segments there?  Again, I believe they are there because of the biasing magnets he is using, they create a phase shift and compression of the waveform. i.e.,  the magnet has to approach a lot closer to the ferrite before it snaps it’s magnetic domains in the other direction.

Stand by for more…..

EM

EM,

I certainly appreciate your posts on this subject.

However, I am unable to duplicate R's 'porch' with bias magnets?

Couple of points I have ascertained:

The narrowness of the peak is directly proportional to the core/magnet ratio. for example the first scope shot below is with a 16mm core against a 25mm magnet.

The second shot is with an 8mm core against a 25mm magnet.

The romero wave shape is a puzzle though

Reversing the coil connections and offsetting the coil alignment gives the final scope shot, again, not like R's

Ron

Edit: the last pic is with the same two coil 16mm cored coils as the first pic however,  the  first pic has the probe on the divide by 10 setting... the last pic on 1:1... so the the first pic has 10 times the voltage (scale)

Hi.

I would really like to understand what is so special about that scope shot?
I've build many pulse motors and mostly all had the same induced voltage trace on scope.

As J.L.Naudin demostrates here:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mromexp.htm

Ron,

thank you for the scope shots.  I like the third one because I am seeing that "porch" segment begin to take shape.


I'm assuming that you all have the same dimentions for your coils, magnets and rotor, etc.., just like Romero's dynamo.     Also we don't know the SPEED at which his waveform was taken.


If the geomety is off in your design, and the spacing different than his, this can easily account for the extra "porch" segment.  If it's the same, than something else is doing this, and this is a vital clue for us, to help us tune our dynamos.

Also, I'll mention it again,   his waveform seems to be taken while the generator is UNDER LOAD, because the peaks are flat, hitting that capacitor voltage.

EM

I promised earlier some simulated signals of the generator coils.
They are posted in the 3D sim thread:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10841.new#new

There's current, flux and voltage graphs for all 9 coils time wise and one that has all three parameters for only one coil

thank you teslaalset,  I'll go check them out next.


Here's the first cycle from RomeroUK's  waveform.   I rotated it, scaled it, removed the color, and drew the midline.  I'll be using this waveform as a template to extract some points to curvefit, so I can than do an integration.

EM

Quote from: futuristic on June 08, 2011, 02:09:04 PM
Hi.

I would really like to understand what is so special about that scope shot?
I've build many pulse motors and mostly all had the same induced voltage trace on scope.

As J.L.Naudin demostrates here:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mromexp.htm

futuristic,

The scope shots that have been posted such as mine, conradelektro's and JLN's are what you would expect.

What romero posted is quite different... the narrowness of the pulse and the  'porch' on each side

Ron

Quote from: i_ron on June 08, 2011, 03:47:41 PM
futuristic,

The scope shots that have been posted such as mine, conradelektro's and JLN's are what you would expect.

What romero posted is quite different... the narrowness of the pulse and the  'porch' on each side

Ron

Possibly due to different core materials (different B-H curves).
There are soft and hard ferrites, I am not sure what type RomeroUK uses.
Possibly caused by different distances of the rotor magnets to the stator core.

Ok, I have more-less cracked the mystery.

In short: Only thing that can generate Rom's trace is phase shift. Now the reason for that phase shift is whole another matter. I only succeeded with physically offsetting the coilpair.

Maybe woopy's test explains it:
"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)"

I cannot retest it because my setup is low-speed and just wont hold up w/o biasing magnets (too much cogging - breaks it into pieces).

Scope shots are added:
coilpair_antiseries_unconnected.png - shows that only outcome of connecting them in series would be "flat line" which it was when I did it
coilpair_series.png - coils in series, classical stuff
coilpair_series_phaseshift.png - Rom's trace - coils still in series but physically phase shifted by quite a few degrees
coilpair_antiseries_phaseshift.png - Naudin's trace - coils in antiseries and phaseshifted, very interesting because only other way to achieve this is rotating pickup coil or rotor magnet by 90 degrees, as per Naudin's schematic

Main difference between my setup and Rom's setup (as publicly known) - I have long cores (2x the coil) and can physically phase-shift coilpairs.

So I repeat: reason for trace is phase shift. Question is - from where? Biasing magnets? Phase shift under load? Under load with help from caps? I dont think that it comes from physical offset like in my setup UNLESS Rom pictured not a COILPAIR but PAIR OF COILPAIRS offset exactly like his drive coils...

Keep up the good work guys! This is good stuff.

Opposed huh?

The discontinuity could be caused by mismatched coils, misaligned coils, the bias magnets, and a handful of other things.

The discontinuity could in fact be the interesting point, regardless of where it originates.

On the other hand...

...opposition is very interesting too. From a 300Hz perspective, the opposed coils are mostly canceling, allowing for some difference between the top and bottom coils. But what about a 10Khz perspective? 100Khz? 1Mhz? Higher?

Why does it matter? Well, Litz wire makes no difference to a system operating at 300Hz, and the 1N4007s wouldn't make a dramatic difference in the performance of the bridge...both things that RomeroUK stated as being of great significance. What both of those will make a big difference in is high frequency response.

I put a coil near a rotating drum with radially mounted magnets, and turned on the spectrum analyzer. From what I could tell there was a harmonically rich spectrum originating from the coil. The very sharp transition as the magnet crosses the center-line of the core would be quite fast, and naturally be harmonically rich.

For frequencies high enough, the opposed coils really aren't so opposed. Think hairpin. Below a certain frequency everything would cancel...all of the stuff that is loading the motor. Above a certain frequency, they would not cancel, nor would they load the motor. Not sure how long RomeroUK's wire was, but for reasonable wire lengths the coils would have a 1/4 wave resonance in the single digit megahertz range. Well into the range that the big bridge would struggle and Litz wire would become useful.

The whole thing might end up as a sort of coil shorting exercise where the coil simply remains shorted...and only the very high frequency energy is harvested. Just thinking out loud...

So if this is the case LtBolo, the secondary diodes may be faster than the stock bridge he was using and would capture the higher frequency components perhaps?

Yes. I'm sure the 1N4007s are faster than a high current bridge. Several folks have suggested a lower forward bias voltage, but that isn't necessarily true. Faster, I'm sure of.

 
apologies guys, i've been out having a life this evening!

(well, band practice, anyway - almost a life)  8)

Ron, i guess i didn't take a trace of the waveform when the coil pair was opposed ,thinking it was incorrect - hah!  that'll teach me

and my PC scope is in use for a few days now on a logging task - don't think i'll be able to setup the test rig again til later next week  :(

so - from memory, i'm pretty sure that it had a similar look both to Romero's and woopy's first traces showing one coil reversal

i was getting reasonable output with a 10 ohm load - it could have been 50% or more of the pk-pk with the coils in 'addition' - i seem to remember that the w/f was locked solid, but that could be because i had the two coils mounted on a hand held yoke so that i could move them along a radial to determine what was the best o/p i could get


i've just cut out my stator plates and now need to drill for core positions and rotor shaft access, and then somehow get them and the DC motor fixed securely on my baseplate (a bread board!)

when i have a stable platform i can repeat my handheld coil tests, but i reckon someone else will have been able to give us all more info by then

nice teamwork guys - i was just about to give up posting after my experience on the MD thread

keep it flowing
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Update:


I managed to digitize and extract data points from RomeroUK's output waveform (just the first cycle) and than I corrected for the small negative slope seen across all his waveform (perhaps due to 60 Hz interference), and also centered the waveform, so that the begining coincides with the end, so it's exactly one cycle period.   I extracted 71 data points.   

Now it's time for curve fitting, and FFTs and than integration,  time to fire up Matlab.


EM

Quote from: EMdevices on June 08, 2011, 02:37:42 PM
Ron,


I'm assuming that you all have the same dimentions for your coils, magnets and rotor, etc.., just like Romero's dynamo.     Also we don't know the SPEED at which his waveform was taken.

EM

EM,

1104 RPM (approx) different core material, somaloy, different coil size, different  wire, but still my grandfathers ax

Ron

 
...just seen that EM asked if my tests were done with bias mag - they were - all details of my test setup are posted above, near where i first suggested that Romero's trace indicated that coil pair was in opposition

thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Here's an FFT of RomeroUK's pulse.

The first line is the DC value, and it's not zero.   I'll be using all the harmonics I labled to recreate a time domain replica that is smooth and curvefit by sines and cosines.  I'll discard the other ones as they are too small.

EM

PS,    I added the second graph, the result I was aiming for.  Notice how the flux is narrower going down and wider going up, with the added slant.   I expected this asymetry due to the biasing magnets, and the rotor having all the magnets with the same polarity facing one side, say N, and so there would be virtual S poles inbetween the magnets,  but these are not localized and can shift, i.e.  snap ahead and lag behind.

I added the third graphic, to show you how the flux is aligned with the magnets and rotor.  Notice the virtual S-pole is flexible and can advance and retard in location relative to the rotor, and that's what is happening, which is why we see the wider and the narrower flux waves (positive portion of flux is wider, negative narrower)  This S-pole snaps ahead and lags behind, because the biasing magnets have a N-pole facing down, and attract this virtual S-pole, which can shift because it's not emanating from a magnet, which brings up a very important point:

Make sure the biasing magnets are in OPPOSITION to the rotor magnets, which Romero confirmed.

Now here is a most important speculation:   

As the S-poles snap forward to the nearby ferrite, and then lag behind as they try to pull away, AND THIS HAPPENS IN SEQUENCE, from coil to coil,  than there is a VIRTUAL "elastic magnetic wave" that is traveling and rotating 8 times faster than the rotor, and it is this virtual "magnetic wave of elasticity" that could be generating the FREE ENERGY,   This is a type of pole shifting in a rotating frame of reference!

and in the end,   we might realize that we are back at the mysterious   TPU, with it's "rotating magnetic field" or "turbine" effect.   !

and also in the end, we might realize that Spheric was right,  two bifilar coils with phase shifted pulses, will give rise to an interference pattern that TRAVELS AHEAD OF THE PULSE's ACTUAL SPEED, just like it happens in this motor due to the 8/9 ratio, i.e. the magnet/coil alignments travel at 8 times the rotor speed. And if you wrap this bifilar coil in a toroid, you can generate similar conditions.

EM

@EM

That is brilliant.

Fausto

nice reverse-engineering, EM - good work!

sounds like there's some evidential support for Bourne's 8x 'Reverse Travelling Wave' suggestion, prompted by his paper simulation of the coil/mag meshing

is there any chance you could repeat the exercise for the 'regular' (ie. non-Romero) waveform to see what the advantage is, when using Romero's setup?


great progress - thanks for doing this for us!
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

EM, that's pretty good stuff to digest.
Good start for further investigations.
B.t.w. I also plotted the flux curves in my present sim results as presented in the sim thread.
It may be handy if I plot the magnet positions in those graphs as well.

I'll try to do my sim share to see what causes that difference in waveshape.
The waveshapes I posted in the sim thread are without bias by the way, so you might be right about the cause of the extra discontinuity in the wave shape. We'll find out.

Quote from: EMdevices on June 08, 2011, 08:09:30 PM
Here's an FFT of RomeroUK's pulse.

The first line is the DC value, and it's not zero.   I'll be using all the harmonics I labled to recreate a time domain replica that is smooth and curvefit by sines and cosines.  I'll discard the other ones as they are too small.

EM

PS,    I added the second graph, the result I was aiming for.  Notice how the flux is narrower going down and wider going up, with the added slant.   I expected this asymetry due to the biasing magnets, and the rotor having all the magnets with the same polarity facing one side, say N, and so there would be virtual S poles inbetween the magnets,  but these are not localized and can shift, i.e.  snap ahead and lag behind.

I added the third graphic, to show you how the flux is aligned with the magnets and rotor.  Notice the virtual S-pole is flexible and can advance and retard in location relative to the rotor, and that's what is happening, which is why we see the wider and the narrower flux waves (positive portion of flux is wider, negative narrower)  This S-pole snaps ahead and lags behind, because the biasing magnets have a N-pole facing down, and attract this virtual S-pole, which can shift because it's not emanating from a magnet, which brings up a very important point:

Make sure the biasing magnets are in OPPOSITION to the rotor magnets, which Romero confirmed.

Now here is a most important speculation:   

As the S-poles snap forward to the nearby ferrite, and then lag behind as they try to pull away, AND THIS HAPPENS IN SEQUENCE, from coil to coil,  than there is a VIRTUAL "elastic magnetic wave" that is traveling and rotating 8 times faster than the rotor, and it is this virtual "magnetic wave of elasticity" that could be generating the FREE ENERGY,   This is a type of pole shifting in a rotating frame of reference!

and in the end,   we might realize that we are back at the mysterious   TPU, with it's "rotating magnetic field" or "turbine" effect.   !

and also in the end, we might realize that Spheric was right,  two bifilar coils with phase shifted pulses, will give rise to an interference pattern that TRAVELS AHEAD OF THE PULSE's ACTUAL SPEED, just like it happens in this motor due to the 8/9 ratio, i.e. the magnet/coil alignments travel at 8 times the rotor speed. And if you wrap this bifilar coil in a toroid, you can generate similar conditions.

EM

Good stuff EM and thanks for taking the time to generate those graphs. Here's a couple of pics. of my setup and a quick scope shot.

Running off 1 driver and 1 pickup. Both biased with magnets. Input voltage ~ 10V, output across bridge 16.3V at 220mA. Probably spinning around 920 rpm and the corresponding waveform across the pickup coil. The front slope is not quite like Romero's but the back is about the same.

Stay tuned. Won't be able to update for a week. Out of town tomorrow. Keep up the good work guys.

cheers
chrisC

Thank you guys.   I'm glad you appreciate what I'm posting.



Here's an updated graphic. 


I shifted the Flux curve up, so it starts at zero.  When I normalized the curve for my previous chart, I had overlooked a code line in my script.     

Anyway, speaking about integration, it has to start with some intial value, which we don't realy know, but do have a clue as where to start.   The clue is that when the induced voltage is at a maximum, the flux is at a minimum, and so I chose zero as my starting point.   So now in this new graph, we can see that flux in the positive direction is slightly higher in magnitude than the negative peak, which also makes sense because we know the S-pole is attracting to the biasing magnet's N-pole and the combined B field is higher due to the attraction.  So this is just one more confirmation that we are interpreting this correctly.

A comment on the voltage waveform:  we do not have this same position ambiguity, of where to shift the curve up or down, because the top and bottom flat peaks tell us the FWBR is conducting and we are seeing the capacitor voltage, so we just center the waveform based on the top and bottom peaks, which is what I've done.

This weekend I'm working on my dynamo, winding coils!  Next weekend I might do more calculations.

EM

PS,  Nice build ChrisC, looks like you posted while I was typing my post.    Yes the waveform is looking pretty good, and if you clip those peaks at 12 volts perhaps, than it might look very similar to RomeroUK's waveform.

see this it will help!

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg290354#msg290354

Quote from: bolt on June 09, 2011, 05:07:41 PM
see this it will help!

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg290354#msg290354

Hi Bolt:
That suggestion is very meaningful. I will find time after this weekend to play around with the inductance tuning and let you know next week. Thanks!

cheers
chrisC

hi all

user 4Tesla was just asking in the MD thread about which stator mag & washer config people were using and this reminded me that there was another interesting outcome of my coil test

apologies, this slipped my mind after i mentioned about Romero's gen coils possibly being connected in opposition - after that, all hell seemed to break loose and i forgot to mention the following!


my coil test used scheme 'C' - core fully up to washer & mag

however, i observed that the presence of the washer DOUBLED my pk-pk output - on-load with a 10 ohm resistor!

all other details as for my earlier post around when i questioned Romero's gen coil connection

my washer was 2x20mm OD mild steel, countersunk centre hole, approx 6mm ID

trace for waveform & test photo (both WITHOUT washer) below


thought this might be helpful info
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Just when you thought it was safe to go in the water...lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkV2Y4Yke4I

Now can someone explain this to me?
Ron

Hi Ron,

As you may have noticed, I have already posted many questions about this experiment in
the MD thread.

The explanation is simply this -

This is the effect - master the effect and apply it to whatever you wish !

What is the effect - Pulling a load from a generator and having the generator speed up instead of,
as with our generators, lug down.

Hope this helps

Penno

There is nothing really wrong with this circuit imho. It is basic, simple, and obviously does the job exactly as Romero uses it.

Usually, it is a good idea to have a base resistor for any power transistor, especially when driven by a voltage source. In this case however, it's driven by more of a current source of sorts, so this may not be so critical.

If one wants to ensure limiting of the Hall transistor to the max specified 25mA, the base resistor R should be about 450 Ohms, so 470 will do nicely.

The 100 Ohm in series with the Hall supply may not be necessary, unless it is felt that protection is required from high voltage transients that my be present on the supply line, otherwise, this 100 Ohm resistor will only limit the base current drive to the Hall transistor, and thus slow down the switching.

Romero has the right idea with the 20k (10k or smaller would be better) he showed on his recent post. This should help speed up the switch-OFF of the Hall transistor, and hence in turn, the drive transistor.

.99

Quote from: poynt99 on June 10, 2011, 08:01:11 PM
There is nothing really wrong with this circuit imho. It is basic, simple, and obviously does the job exactly as Romero uses it.

.99

But the circuit you posted is not what Romero used.

The circuit I spoke about was minus the base resistor.

The bottom line here is as Romero admitted...

" ...where the simple one PNP transitor was using 230ma to drive a motor coil this one in the same circuit used only 90ma."

A better circuit is two and half times more efficient.

Ron

Quote from: i_ron on June 11, 2011, 03:32:21 PM
But the circuit you posted is not what Romero used.

The circuit I spoke about was minus the base resistor.

The bottom line here is as Romero admitted...

" ...where the simple one PNP transitor was using 230ma to drive a motor coil this one in the same circuit used only 90ma."

A better circuit is two and half times more efficient.

Ron

The circuit he used without the base resistor apparently worked fine and still allowed for the motor to be looped.  8)

Agreed there are better circuits, and it would seem his 4-transistor (MOSFET?) circuit is just that.

I know you were referring to the circuit without the base resistor, and as I alluded to, I'm not certain whether adding the base resistor will reduce the current consumption or not. That may depend on the conduction mode or modes the TIP drive transistor is operating in.

.99

Quote from: poynt99 on June 11, 2011, 04:09:24 PM

Agreed there are better circuits, and it would seem his 4-transistor (MOSFET?) circuit is just that.

.99

Well this is open territory here, I thought at first that the four "things" made up an H bridge... but why then do the two yellow wires from the 'output coil' go over to this circuit board?

Could it be that he is coil shorting from this board also?

R

Hi Ron,

You are, as I was, seeing it all wrong.

The yellow wires do go to the drive coil - it is the MO fan coil/core (but now he tells us it has
special core).

The white coil at the top of screen is the "specially wound" collector coil.

As he will not open up and disclose what it is, we can only speculate from what is visible to us.

At best guess and after watch that video more times than I can count, i am leaning towards a bifilar.

You will note the two wires from the drive circuit come to the MO core/coil. from there, two of the four strands for the collector(pickup) coil are connected. The black(negative) for the leds seems to me
to be connected to the junction oif the bifilar.

Any one else like to put forward a connection plan.

I have tried all combos that I can come up with.

Little if no joy.

I guess that many things need to be right for this to work. Again, like searching for a needle in haystck.

Penno

Quote from: penno64 on June 11, 2011, 07:15:28 PM
...
I have tried all combos that I can come up with.

Little if no joy.

I guess that many things need to be right for this to work. Again, like searching for a needle in haystck.

Penno

Hi Penno:

I think you're thinking too hard. You already have the basics of the coil drivers and pickup and a lot of good advice on what and why you need to tune the inductance with the capacitor values to achieve the final result with almost no current so no Lenz effect. The big cap. load would have picked up all the required charges and voltage to drive the motor in it's most efficient state as taught by Bolt and confirmed by Romero. If you can achieve that the DC-to=converter will allow the power supply/battery to be removed and your looping will be confirmed. Hope I'm not simplifying or confusing you. I will try these tuning next weekend when I'm back in town.

cheers
chrisC

penno64 my friend, you can do speed up under load or shorted just with a stand alone coil.
Don't complicate your life, take it the easier way.Leave my last video aside for later.
I better stop showing all these videos before people here will go crazy.
I promise you all that it can be done with a single coil, not litz, multifillar.... just simple.
Once you get the effect you can decide what to do to improve it.
The problem is that most of you keep ignoring many of my helping posts and jump direct into adding a coil close to the rotor and expect the Fu____G OU...
Don't take the hard way, keep the easy one.
I had confirmations from few people where they managed to have a proper speedup under load.
I am not going to tell their names but they can confirm it here if they wish.
One of them is from the same country as I am and that makes me happy.
If they did it many others can.
Looks that at the moment here on the forum I am loved and hated at the same time.
What to do now.....................................................................?

Thanks Chris,

It is simply frustration.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg290609#msg290609

Shows the pickup coil.

My Dearest Romero,

I have no hate whatsoever.

As a matter of fact, I feel guilt for my response to a fellow member trying to iron out his drive circuit. I really should appologise to him.

I am so pleased that you avail yourself and assist others - and I hope that the final outcome
is one where we can all help each other.

Moreover, I applaud you for putting up with everything that people on this forum, including
myself, have thrown at you.

I do not, for one minute expect anything OU.

But I am getting frustrated.

I respect your position and understand that it is not possible to disclose everthing and I am not asking
you to do so.

Please, please, do not take my posts as anger or hate towards you.

Kindest Regards, Penno (Garry)

Quote from: romerouk on June 11, 2011, 07:36:40 PM
snip
Looks that at the moment here on the forum I am loved and hated at the same time.
What to do now.....................................................................?

Relax and be yourself!

Keep in mind your task doesn't end in weeks or months, think of John Bedini who has been trying for 25 years to get his message out, lol

So if everyone is as thick as me, then the message has to be repeated over and over and simple building examples presented that lead to enlightenment.

If no "exact" way to replicate is presented then no replications will be exact.

Warm regards

Ron

Quote from: penno64 on June 11, 2011, 07:53:18 PM
My Dearest Romero,

I have no hate whatsoever.

As a matter of fact, I feel guilt for my response to a fellow member trying to iron out his drive circuit. I really should appologise to him.

I am so pleased that you avail yourself and assist others - and I hope that the final outcome
is one where we can all help each other.

Moreover, I applaud you for putting up with everything that people on this forum, including
myself, have thrown at you.

I do not, for one minute expect anything OU.

But I am getting frustrated.

I respect your position and understand that it is not possible to disclose everthing and I am not asking
you to do so.

Please, please, do not take my posts as anger or hate towards you.

Kindest Regards, Penno (Garry)

Hi penno,

I was not directing anything to you personally, it is only what I feel in general...
Let me make something clear for all: you will not have OU using a single collector coil or even if you do there will be no chance to closeloop, at least not  in a non solid state version.
Combining the drive coil with the collector coil can take you to OU but still without chances to selfloop.
If it is possible then I have not achived that and I don't know.
Even if someone here will manage to build a device to run itself and that person will post all info about it, that will not necessarily  be enough to be replicated.
I can tell you from my own experience, many times, I find myself in a position where I cannot easy replicate my own experiments.
Once something is done properly then we need the masters in theory to jump on and do the proper maths, then  having full understanding everyone can do easy replications.
In my case I hate to do that, I am more practical than anything else.
When or if I will be able to come out with a different concept that will be easy replicated and confirmed by the right people then I will let all know or I will start making and selling small ou toys for adults to play with. This way I should start to recover  some of the money I keep spending every day.
... but this is a dream we all have.

Thank you.

Penno

Quote from: romerouk on June 11, 2011, 09:15:03 PM
Hi penno,

I was not directing anything to you personally, it is only what I feel in general...
Let me make something clear for all: you will not have OU using a single collector coil or even if you do there will be no chance to closeloop, at least not  in a non solid state version.
Combining the drive coil with the collector coil can take you to OU but still without chances to selfloop.
If it is possible then I have not achived that and I don't know.
Even if someone here will manage to build a device to run itself and that person will post all info about it, that will not necessarily  be enough to be replicated.
I can tell you from my own experience, many times, I find myself in a position where I cannot easy replicate my own experiments.
Once something is done properly then we need the masters in theory to jump on and do the proper maths, then  having full understanding everyone can do easy replications.
In my case I hate to do that, I am more practical than anything else.
When or if I will be able to come out with a different concept that will be easy replicated and confirmed by the right people then I will let all know or I will start making and selling small ou toys for adults to play with. This way I should start to recover  some of the money I keep spending every day.
... but this is a dream we all have.

@RomeroUK

I've been following this OU forum for several years and have never come across a down to earth, sincere person who talks with his hands and brains! You are such a blessing to all of us - you experiment, record, verify and publish. Not some mumbo jumbo theory, not any delusional crap shot ideas but simple, working solutions overlooked by most textbook and professors!

Thank you and please keep up the great work and I personally would pray for your success in creating beautiful and practical OU toys for kids and adults.

cheers
chrisC

Quote from: i_ron on June 11, 2011, 09:15:01 PM
Relax and be yourself!

Keep in mind your task doesn't end in weeks or months, think of John Bedini who has been trying for 25 years to get his message out, lol

So if everyone is as thick as me, then the message has to be repeated over and over and simple building examples presented that lead to enlightenment.

If no "exact" way to replicate is presented then no replications will be exact.

Warm regards

Ron

yes, our task will end only when our life ends. This is like a drog or maybe worse.
I do appreciate Bedini a lot and I built most of his devices. I am confident he has answers to many questions but just as me, he cannot talk for some reasons.

Today I sent a message on youtube to Richard Willis from Magnacoasters asking him to do a video and show he's device working with a load on and take the pressure off from people who paid him already since 2008 and never got anything. Well, the message has been removed, why?
I was sure that he has got something there and I believed he is genuine but now... I am not so sure.
I have been trying to replicate he's work from the begining but so far without success in the solid state version. The one with rotating rotor has more potential.

Quote from: penno64 on June 11, 2011, 07:15:28 PM
Hi Ron,

You are, as I was, seeing it all wrong.

The yellow wires do go to the drive coil - it is the MO fan coil/core (but now he tells us it has
special core).

The white coil at the top of screen is the "specially wound" collector coil.

As he will not open up and disclose what it is, we can only speculate from what is visible to us.

At best guess and after watch that video more times than I can count, i am leaning towards a bifilar.

You will note the two wires from the drive circuit come to the MO core/coil. from there, two of the four strands for the collector(pickup) coil are connected. The black(negative) for the leds seems to me
to be connected to the junction oif the bifilar.

Any one else like to put forward a connection plan.

I have tried all combos that I can come up with.

Little if no joy.

I guess that many things need to be right for this to work. Again, like searching for a needle in haystck.

Penno

OK, I had a closer look... yep, looks like the wires come from the white coil down to the lower coil, you are right.

So not only is the output coil bifilar but in some way part of the drive coil as well... great... Sherlock himself would be hard pressed to answer this...

Ron

Quote from: romerouk on June 11, 2011, 09:31:27 PM

I do appreciate Bedini a lot and I built most of his devices. I am confident he has answers to many questions but just as me, he cannot talk for some reasons.
snip
Today I sent a message on youtube to Richard Willis

I built several Bedini models also, Patrick Kelly has one of my builds in D3.
But what I found was that some days they worked and some days they didn't.

I was quite fascinated by JB's recent 'Ferris wheel'. It is using the magnetic amplifier principle. Are you familiar with this and do you use it in any of your models?

Was in London for a week one time, not far from Paddington, great city!

Ron

ps: not sure about Richard myself? Is it him or is it the PTB in control?

Quote from: i_ron on June 12, 2011, 11:17:46 AM
I built several Bedini models also, Patrick Kelly has one of my builds in D3.
But what I found was that some days they worked and some days they didn't.

I was quite fascinated by JB's recent 'Ferris wheel'. It is using the magnetic amplifier principle. Are you familiar with this and do you use it in any of your models?

Was in London for a week one time, not far from Paddington, great city!

Ron

ps: not sure about Richard myself? Is it him or is it the PTB in control?

I found that some devices behaved different sometimes.
The Ferris wheel is something I have not tried as I don't have that much space available

Quote from: i_ron on June 12, 2011, 11:17:46 AM
I built several Bedini models also, Patrick Kelly has one of my builds in D3.
But what I found was that some days they worked and some days they didn't.

IMHO Bedini's operate like the oscillation of a RLC circuit, where phase changes are very very sensitive, because the R values used are quite small and thus having a very high Q factor.
A tiny bit of different environment change and the phase status is changed beyond the desired value.

The trick is to understand how to control the phase and keep it stable. I guess we are all looking for that still.

In Romero's closed loop demo, the buffer capacitor is doing a kind of Phase Locked Loop function in my view.
As the DC level of this buffer capacitor is changing, so does the timing of shortening the generator coil.
When the capacitor DC voltage level is decreasing, the shortening occurs earlier in time, when the DC level is increasing the shortening starts later in time.
This way this system is keeping itself kind of stable, but within capable boundaries.

Quote from: nul-points on June 09, 2011, 01:42:37 AM
nice reverse-engineering, EM - good work!

sounds like there's some evidential support for Bourne's 8x 'Reverse Travelling Wave' suggestion, prompted by his paper simulation of the coil/mag meshing

is there any chance you could repeat the exercise for the 'regular' (ie. non-Romero) waveform to see what the advantage is, when using Romero's setup?


great progress - thanks for doing this for us!
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Thanks to EMDevices for all the great work.

I have added your 'virtual south poles' to my paper model just to see what is happening.

Just a brief video  http://youtu.be/SOqs_umrSg0 (http://youtu.be/SOqs_umrSg0)

If the black discs are north and red lines are south I sort of get the impression there is a 'virtual bar magnet' (not so virtual in the case of the north face of the magnets) across the diameter of the rotor. At any given point the coils are seeing (around the whole rotor) 3 north black discs or 2 virtual south poles.

These virtual/non-virtual regions are travelling much faster and in opposition to the actual rotor motion

I hope it is helpful in some way.

Vid from diveflyfish
regarding parallel FWBRs  :o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkaR9lLY1DE&feature=feedu

you guys are going to love this video!

http://www.youtube.com/user/plengo?feature=mhee#p/u/0/T8VkG7jqmkQ

Fausto.

Quote from: plengo on June 12, 2011, 08:10:48 PM
you guys are going to love this video!

http://www.youtube.com/user/plengo?feature=mhee#p/u/0/T8VkG7jqmkQ

Fausto.

Good work. Thanks for sharing. The included capacitive phase conversion is a refreshing approach.

Cheers and KneeDeep

Quote from: plengo on June 12, 2011, 08:10:48 PM
you guys are going to love this video!

http://www.youtube.com/user/plengo?feature=mhee#p/u/0/T8VkG7jqmkQ

Fausto.

Fausto,

Power wise, you are showing less than 40 mW out and 6W in for one set of generator coils, which is less than 5% of the input power consumption! Multiplied by 7 for a full set of generator coils, this would give 280mW / 0.28W. I would not expect your input ammeter to deflect noticeably with lamp load or short circuit for one or two coil sets, as the supply is being very lightly loaded. Try adding the remaining coils and repeat the same test. The load will still only be consuming very low power but you may detect a deflection to the RHS on the meter as more coil sets are added. Its important to think in terms of input and output power / energy consumption, not just amp draw.

Hoppy

Quote from: Hoppy on June 13, 2011, 10:31:33 AM
Fausto,

Power wise, you are showing less than 40 mW out and 6W in for one set of generator coils, which is less than 5% of the input power consumption! Multiplied by 7 for a full set of generator coils, this would give 280mW / 0.28W. I would not expect your input ammeter to deflect noticeably with lamp load or short circuit for one or two coil sets, as the supply is being very lightly loaded. Try adding the remaining coils and repeat the same test. The load will still only be consuming very low power but you may detect a deflection to the RHS on the meter as more coil sets are added. Its important to think in terms of input and output power / energy consumption, not just amp draw.

Hoppy

You are right it is very low power but its a principle issue for now to give some clues towards tuning the rig.  Forget the i/p power for now its really not important. That can be dealt with later. eg collect the driver coils BEMF and send that off to the dump cap might find an extra watts or two.

For now take  the drive up to 1500 rpm then retune the generator coil its still not tuned correctly more "sniffing" the power.  When its correctly matched the volts will be a LOT higher out to a dump cap and the waveforms very symmetrical.

Quote from: bolt on June 13, 2011, 10:44:30 AM
You are right it is very low power but its a principle issue for now to give some clues towards tuning the rig.  Forget the i/p power for now its really not important. That can be dealt with later. eg collect the driver coils BEMF and send that off to the dump cap might find an extra watts or two.

For now take  the drive up to 1500 rpm then retune the generator coil its still not tuned correctly more "sniffing" the power.  When its correctly matched the volts will be a LOT higher out to a dump cap and the waveforms very symmetrical.

Hi Bolt,

What are we aiming for in terms of output power? with a 1R load and all coils in circuit, we would need to maintain around 2.45V across the load to match the input power and that's assuming that the input power does not increase as the coils are added. With a 20R load we would need to maintain 11V. I sense we will be chasing tails here to get anywhere close to unity.

Hoppy

Quote from: Hoppy on June 13, 2011, 11:06:28 AM
Hi Bolt,

What are we aiming for in terms of output power? with a 1R load and all coils in circuit, we would need to maintain around 2.45V across the load to match the input power and that's assuming that the input power does not increase as the coils are added. With a 20R load we would need to maintain 11V. I sense we will be chasing tails here to get anywhere close to unity.

Hoppy

I think you are worrying too much about amps and watts.  When the system is tuned it all be working in reactive power the dump cap charge very fast to a higher voltage. This is because the cap will charge on the pure voltage node points from each generator coil while the current is at the zero node so the cap is hit with standing wave. What happens in the dump cap though is real joules or watt seconds.

Quote from: bolt on June 13, 2011, 12:25:15 PM
I think you are worrying too much about amps and watts.  When the system is tuned it all be working in reactive power the dump cap charge very fast to a higher voltage. This is because the cap will charge on the pure voltage node points from each generator coil while the current is at the zero node so the cap is hit with standing wave. What happens in the dump cap though is real joules or watt seconds.

This makes no sense to me as a practical proposition. Have you actually achieved self-running using this approach?

Hoppy

@ bolt
i think what you are trying to tell people is about the phase change that occurrs on ciruits voltage and current relationship it is best described using capacitors set in series and paralell put a high voltage to a series string and the voltage is divided among the caps by number but the current is total then shift the capacitors to paralell and the charge current is multiplied but the voltaqe is less. the reverse is also true for this phase shift.
martin

Quote from: nueview on June 13, 2011, 01:41:16 PM
@ bolt
i think what you are trying to tell people is about the phase change that occurrs on ciruits voltage and current relationship it is best described using capacitors set in series and paralell put a high voltage to a series string and the voltage is divided among the caps by number but the current is total then shift the capacitors to paralell and the charge current is multiplied but the voltaqe is less. the reverse is also true for this phase shift.
martin

You are assuming there is no gain because that has what you have always been taught.  I believe you see PF correction in this way alike a conventional transformer where the volts and amp always = watts in = watts out minus losses so moving it about doesn't create anything useful but the method i am showing is a real eye opener when you understand for all these years it was so simple in relative terms. Its NOT simple to tune though.

This Thrapp device is real i know how this works and the principle is identical to the muller setup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhn2w4UvZkg&feature=related

Watch VERY carefully how the generator  starts up. LISTEN to the sound when its hit full resonance VARS power. Then look at the capacitors on the side of the generator. He used to have a big box of caps on the floor like 12 off 50uf's.  The poles are all wired out of phase.  The little DC motor is the "pulse motor" on muller.  Behind the generator is a 120v inverter to power the lamps and is the same as Romero DC to DC inverter in effect.

I don't have one of these but i know about 6 OU generator systems i have very high creditability for the reports by private  emails over the years. I have seen looped RV's over skype pushing about 250 watts into a load. Another RV now is running in canada 2000 watts OU.  There are others in Norway in the mountains powering kabins. There are several Magnetic Amplifiers RV's not looped but they increase power by a COP 5 in Santo Domingo DR.  This is beside all the other stuff we know like Kapandaze, TPU, Isamael MEG etc so not surprise to me whatsoever when i see RomeroUK's muller. Exciting yes but not shocking or dismissed as a fake :)

Quote from: Hoppy on June 13, 2011, 10:31:33 AM
Fausto,

Power wise, you are showing less than 40 mW out and 6W in for one set of generator coils, which is less than 5% of the input power consumption! Multiplied by 7 for a full set of generator coils, this would give 280mW / 0.28W. I would not expect your input ammeter to deflect noticeably with lamp load or short circuit for one or two coil sets, as the supply is being very lightly loaded. Try adding the remaining coils and repeat the same test. The load will still only be consuming very low power but you may detect a deflection to the RHS on the meter as more coil sets are added. Its important to think in terms of input and output power / energy consumption, not just amp draw.

Hoppy

Hoppy, correct BUT did you notice that the RPM did not change. Any amount of load will change the speed very easily. I have done the experiment. It is very difficult to have the combination of input power, RPM and having a load and not change any.

I think even though the amount of power is small it is still of great value that indeed the phase "trick" works.

Fausto.

Quote from: plengo on June 13, 2011, 09:59:02 PM
Hoppy, correct BUT did you notice that the RPM did not change. Any amount of load will change the speed very easily. I have done the experiment. It is very difficult to have the combination of input power, RPM and having a load and not change any.

I think even though the amount of power is small it is still of great value that indeed the phase "trick" works.

Fausto.

The problem is shifting the phase reduces the power factor. I think the trick is to phase shift only enough to get the magnet under the core. At this point more current could be produced along with Lenz force. However, if enough shift/delay can be achieved, the Lenz force will have no effect pushing directly on the face of the rotor magnet. Additional shift could be achieved by raising the rail voltage where the dump capacitor engages without additional losses in the PF.

There is likely to be many other parameters involved in this feat since even the ratio of core size to rotor magnet size and rotor magnet spacing would be important and even the spacing of the coils to the rotor could all play into it.

Using this principal you might think of the rotor as having only two long magnets with each magnet covering 1/4 of the rotor and the spaces also 1/4 rotor.

Now as the magnet approaches the coil, it remains invisible due to the stator magnets on the coils. Then very rapidly, it switches polarity. With a resistive load, Lenz forces would instantly repel the incoming rotor magnet and slow the rotor. But due to increased rail voltage and some phase shift, the rotor magnet would be under the coil BEFORE the Lenz forces start repelling.

At this point, any current draw would have no rotor drag as increased Lenz forces could only push on the magnet face.

On exit the rapid polarity reversal would again produce voltage, but again delayed so as to not pull back the exiting magnet, and once out of range, the stationary stator magnet would be left to deal with the Lenz forces and still no rotor loading.

Just a theory!

bolt
i would have thought that you would have expanded upon this to explain other phase chenges and corrections and multi signal coupling but instead you reduced what i was saying to watts are watts sorry i even bothered.
Martin

Quote from: plengo on June 13, 2011, 09:59:02 PM
Hoppy, correct BUT did you notice that the RPM did not change. Any amount of load will change the speed very easily. I have done the experiment. It is very difficult to have the combination of input power, RPM and having a load and not change any.

I think even though the amount of power is small it is still of great value that indeed the phase "trick" works.

Fausto.

Fausto, like the input current, the RPM will not change noticeably with the tiny load you had connected. Also, there is a lot of kinetic energy stored in the rotor. As Bolt has suggested get all coil sets connected and tuned and make sure you work your COP out using Power & time (in secs) to calculate Joules. The input to output ratio of energy in Joules will give the COP, not amps or power.

Hoppy

Quote from: Hoppy on June 14, 2011, 03:20:20 AM
Fausto, like the input current, the RPM will not change noticeably with the tiny load you had connected. Also, there is a lot of kinetic energy stored in the rotor. As Bolt has suggested get all coil sets connected and tuned and make sure you work your COP out using Power & time (in secs) to calculate Joules. The input to output ratio of energy in Joules will give the COP, not amps or power.

Hoppy

It may be true for you not in my setup. I have tested ANY load without those capacitors and the change in RPM is instant and very, very visible. This is the difference in theory and practice. I can make a video showing that to prove what I am saying. Are you only repeating the theory you know or experiments you have done?

Fausto.

Quote from: plengo on June 14, 2011, 08:01:56 AM
It may be true for you not in my setup. I have tested ANY load without those capacitors and the change in RPM is instant and very, very visible. This is the difference in theory and practice. I can make a video showing that to prove what I am saying. Are you only repeating the theory you know or experiments you have done?

Fausto.

Yes, Ive done the experiments and I don't see anything unusual as you do. I appreciate your comments and hope that you achieve OU.

Hoppy

Quote from: teslaalset on June 12, 2011, 01:41:22 PM
IMHO Bedini's operate like the oscillation of a RLC circuit, where phase changes are very very sensitive, because the R values used are quite small and thus having a very high Q factor.
A tiny bit of different environment change and the phase status is changed beyond the desired value.

The trick is to understand how to control the phase and keep it stable. I guess we are all looking for that still.

In Romero's closed loop demo, the buffer capacitor is doing a kind of Phase Locked Loop function in my view.
As the DC level of this buffer capacitor is changing, so does the timing of shortening the generator coil.
When the capacitor DC voltage level is decreasing, the shortening occurs earlier in time, when the DC level is increasing the shortening starts later in time.
This way this system is keeping itself kind of stable, but within capable boundaries.

Bedini system he just power factoring his charging battery.  Many people would benefit by using a SERIES tuned capacitor with the load before the bridge or diode to maintain the best  VSWR.  As you say load changes greatly effect the source in passive systems. Except now consider the muller where is you have 10 generator coils going to a common load BUS and the load impedance changes by say 10% then you can see 10% on one tuned device will knock off tune. BUT with 10 coils sharing the distribution load now each coil has a phase loading of just 1% even though the load changed by 10% due to load balancing.

With this in mind the faster you build your rigs to have all coils making a contribution the greater immunity you have to load changes. Oh with one small factor....you at least know how to make one successful coil!

Many hands make light work:)

Quote from: Hoppy on June 14, 2011, 09:07:49 AM
Yes, Ive done the experiments and I don't see anything unusual as you do. I appreciate your comments and hope that you achieve OU.

Hoppy

@Hoppy
It's interesting to hear you've done the experiments and discovered nothing unusual(?).
What experiments did you actually perform and what are the results if I may ask.
Thanks

cheers
chrisC

Quote from: chrisC on June 14, 2011, 06:29:17 PM
@Hoppy
It's interesting to hear you've done the experiments and discovered nothing unusual(?).
What experiments did you actually perform and what are the results if I may ask.
Thanks

cheers
chrisC

Hi Chris,

To clarify, I don't see anything unusual in what Fausto shows in his video for the reasons I explained. I have seen some things with my own experiments that I considered unusual at the time but that I later realised could be explained. In none of these experiments have I seen overunity when running the experiments over the course of time. Battery vagaries are a source of excitement, where supply battery voltage can climb for long periods of time when loaded, giving the impression of overunity. My experiments with rotor based devices over the last few years have shown the Bedini 'G' Field generator variants to be very interesting and I have had interesting results from these where the supply battery has appeared to power the machine for much longer than its ampere hour rating should allow with coil discharge loop back. However, when energy calculations are properly worked out over the full running period, the result is always under unity.

Hoppy

Chris,

Please do not think I'm implying that the Romero device replications will fail to self-run when the battery is removed. I would not be surprised to see some replications that run-on for a period of time. However, I do expect all to stop running when the stored energy within the device is exhausted. This will be manifest by a reduction in rotor speed over time.

Hoppy

Quote from: Hoppy on June 15, 2011, 05:21:45 AM
[...]
However, I do expect all to stop running when the stored energy within the device is exhausted. This will be manifest by a reduction in rotor speed over time.

Hoppy

hi Hoppy

i'm interested to know what stored energy you believe there to be in Romero's system


i can see that the 47000uF capcitor is one store of energy - at 12V it stores less than enough energy (approx 4 Watt-seconds) to sustain the 12W motor drive for half a second

the rotor inertia is a second store of energy - spin-down from switch-off at regular running rpm sustains rotation at a decreasing rate for around 100 seconds


what is the third (and any other) store of energy which you see as sustaining operation (with & without additional electric load) for the remaining approx 15 minute runtime during Romero's video?

15 minutes of motor drive requires an energy input of 10.8 Kilowatt-seconds

where do you see  this 10.8 Kilowatt-seconds  as being 'stored energy within the device'?


thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Quote from: nul-points on June 15, 2011, 06:46:00 AM

hi Hoppy

i'm interested to know what stored energy you believe there to be in Romero's system


i can see that the 47000uF capcitor is one store of energy - at 12V it stores less than enough energy (approx 4 Watt-seconds) to sustain the 12W motor drive for half a second

the rotor inertia is a second store of energy - spin-down from switch-off at regular running rpm sustains rotation at a decreasing rate for around 100 seconds


what is the third (and any other) store of energy which you see as sustaining operation (with & without additional electric load) for the remaining approx 15 minute runtime during Romero's video?

15 minutes of motor drive requires an energy input of 10.8 Kilowatt-seconds

where do you see  this 10.8 Kilowatt-seconds  as being 'stored energy within the device'?


thanks
np

http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Hi np,

No more than you have stated, which is why I see all replications running down to a stop.

Hoppy

Quote from: Hoppy on June 15, 2011, 06:55:27 AM
Hi np,

No more than you have stated, which is why I see all replications running down to a stop.

Hoppy

?!?


what i stated accounts for much less than 100-and-a-half seconds of operation


i asked you where you see the OTHER 10.8 Kilowatt-seconds being stored in Romero's system, which is how much stored energy would be required to  keep it operational for the remaining 900 seconds of his video?

thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

Quote from: nul-points on June 15, 2011, 07:10:08 AM
?!?


what i stated accounts for much less than 100-and-a-half seconds of operation


i asked you where you see the OTHER 10.8Kilowatt-seconds being stored in Romero's system, which is how much stored energy would be required to  keep it operational for the remaining 900 seconds of his video?


thanks
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)

In a dipole.

Hoppy

 

Quote from: Hoppy on June 15, 2011, 07:24:18 AM
In a dipole.

Hoppy

LOL   - up a gum tree   ;)

Quote from: nul-points on June 15, 2011, 07:56:21 AM


LOL   - up a gum tree   ;)

Its to heavy to get it up there! -  ;)

Quote from: Hoppy on June 15, 2011, 08:52:50 AM

Its to heavy to get it up there! -  ;)

at my age there's no shortage of reasons  to be unable to 'get it up' there...

thinking about it, 'shortage' is probably the main reason!

Quote from: nul-points on June 15, 2011, 09:27:56 AM

at my age there's no shortage of reasons  to be unable to 'get it up' there...

thinking about it, 'shortage' is probably the main reason!

LOL: I'll drink to that!!

Hi Fausto,
well done !
So with no DC path in the output, only AC coupling you get
no Lenz law drag down effect ?

How much power can you extract this way on one coil pair at about 920 RPM ?
Many thanks for your great work !
Regards, Stefan.

Hi Fausto and all:

I wonder, what will happen, if you use no DC path in your output,
but only use 2 Avramenko plugs to generate the output DC.

So put on every coil output wire just an Avramenko plug with 2 diodes and 1 cap,
so for each coil you get 2 Avramenko plugs.

Then you have no DC current path.

Would be optimal also with coil shorting cause there you have fast changing waveforms...
and it would also not slow down the rotor.

Regards, Stefan.

Not sure where to put this.  it is coil shorting but using the Romero circuit with a reed.  But combined in one unit.  Heres a video on the coil shorting effect I had written about about.  please excuse the sloppy setup.  ITs heartbreaking to spend so much time on a rig that is a dud.  so I had to redeem myself a little.  This is very crude and basic.  I was going to show a small light bulb lit from the output through a bridge into a cap.  But I burnt them out.  All of them.  I need a little bigger one. 
The speed of rotor and the amount of Amp draw decrease is VERY dependent of input voltage and current..
No I didnt put a meter on it either.  Dont laugh, but I can generate enough energy to burn out light bulbs but if you forget to charge batteries for your meters then.....well youd be me!!! :o  ANd yes that was magnet launching at the end. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJcRh_3I3VU

Quote from: redrichie on June 15, 2011, 01:28:01 PM
Not sure where to put this.  it is coil shorting but using the Romero circuit with a reed.  But combined in one unit.  Heres a video on the coil shorting effect I had written about about.  please excuse the sloppy setup.  ITs heartbreaking to spend so much time on a rig that is a dud.  so I had to redeem myself a little.  This is very crude and basic.  I was going to show a small light bulb lit from the output through a bridge into a cap.  But I burnt them out.  All of them.  I need a little bigger one. 
The speed of rotor and the amount of Amp draw decrease is VERY dependent of input voltage and current..
No I didnt put a meter on it either.  Dont laugh, but I can generate enough energy to burn out light bulbs but if you forget to charge batteries for your meters then.....well youd be me!!! :o  ANd yes that was magnet launching at the end. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJcRh_3I3VU

Excellent video.
From my point of view, this is another indication that delayed BEMF caused by coil shortening is contributing to higher efficiency.

L + N ( 230V) = ONE VIRE = the light bulb 230 V
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G3kfcIl09o

Quote from: FreeEnergyInfo on June 15, 2011, 01:42:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G3kfcIl09o

Not sure if this has anything to do with the Muller dynamo but I don't have a clue what was being said as it sounds Russian.  It does look interesting but what was it about? 

It's Serbian. The man invented special type of single wire that can carry AC current to the light bulb.
The wire is not insulated and you can touch it with no danger.

It's very interesting but has nothing with this topic...

Quote from: hartiberlin on June 15, 2011, 10:45:54 AM
Hi Fausto and all:

I wonder, what will happen, if you use no DC path in your output,
but only use 2 Avramenko plugs to generate the output DC.

So put on every coil output wire just an Avramenko plug with 2 diodes and 1 cap,
so for each coil you get 2 Avramenko plugs.

Then you have no DC current path.

Would be optimal also with coil shorting cause there you have fast changing waveforms...
and it would also not slow down the rotor.

Regards, Stefan.

Great idea. I will try that tonight.

Fausto

Quote from: plengo on June 16, 2011, 07:52:37 PM
Great idea. I will try that tonight.

Fausto

I finally had a chance to play with the AV idea and it was a disaster. I have to test again with more patience on the weekend.

Fausto.

Quote from: plengo on June 20, 2011, 10:58:15 PM
I finally had a chance to play with the AV idea and it was a disaster. I have to test again with more patience on the weekend.

Fausto.

Fausto,
don´t use electrolytic capacitors for it,
only use foil capacitors not too big, like 220 nanoF  or 1 uF foil capacitors and only use
1N4148 diodes for a first test.

Regards, Stefan.