Here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-95.html#post218245 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-95.html#post218245)
Congrats UFO politics for Achieving OVERUNITY !!! . It was there all the time and for once,Piss on all of the neysayers and let them be in the dark.
Ramset and Gadgetmall:
After all this time around here, years, you would think that both of you would not be jumping the gun and would take some time and watch as things develop. I can tell you right now that you should hold your horses. I watched the clip and I am familiar with UFOPolitics' cult of personality.
I am just giving you the real deal so don't get mad at me. He claims 12000 watts out, then he drops that to 6000 watts, and then Tinman has pointed out that he is only driving two 500-watt bulbs in his clip. There is going to be a lot of angst and high emotion on the EF thread and it will take weeks or even months to sort itself out.
Rewiring a motor does not produce any "magic." I think UFOPolitics made a big deal about the "witch" or something like that, and you had to "kill the witch." The "witch" is what he perceives as being something inside the motor that "sucks up energy" or something like that. The "witch" is actually the voltage drop across the windings (times the current) that actually makes the motor turn. The "mysterious sucking up of energy that seems to go nowhere" is actually the electrical input to the motor being turned into the mechanical output. So "nowhere" is actually torque x angular velocity.
Just let the story play out, and unfortunately there is not going to be a happy ending. I am telling you the truth as I see it so please don't demonize me. I am not acting maliciously, I am just giving you my honest appraisal.
MileHigh
Looks very promising...
The only problem I can think of is the caching of the excess energy. IIRC some months ago a selfrunner on a likewise setup was invented, but its problem was that the self-charging shortened the lifetime of the batteries, and after a few weeks running on full power the batteries died completely. Though this is a common problem.
I wonder if this device can be run in a closed loop without any batteries attached?
Hi . That is his next Step as i understood his video in he said the next thing will be to loop the otput and use the batteries for start only
Quote from: gadgetmall on December 13, 2012, 10:52:53 AM
Congrats UFO politics for Achieving OVERUNITY !!! . It was there all the time and for once,Piss on all of the neysayers and let them be in the dark.
In the video, it shows the motor pulling 40 to 50 amps (as indicated by the pegged 40 amp scale clamp probe) at approx 35 volts. That's 1400 - 1750 watts required to produce 1000 watts at the gen output.
How is that indicating overunity?
PW
I believe it can be looped without a battery, with just diodes and caps...More to come from ufo!
Quote from: picowatt on December 13, 2012, 11:34:29 PM
In the video, it shows the motor pulling 40 to 50 amps (as indicated by the pegged 40 amp scale clamp probe) at approx 35 volts. That's 1400 - 1750 watts required to produce 1000 watts at the gen output.
How is that indicating overunity?
PW
@picowatt
His output was AC, what if he converts it to DC? And it seems that the gen head can still give more juice, hearing his rpm went down just a bit after connecting the two bulbs...lets wait and see ;)
Quote from: crazycut06 on December 13, 2012, 11:38:41 PM
I believe it can be looped without a battery, with just diodes and caps...More to come from ufo!
Not at the demonstrated 60 to 70% efficiency...
Congratulation to ufo!!! cheers ;D
Quote from: picowatt on December 13, 2012, 11:46:12 PM
Not at the demonstrated 60 to 70% efficiency...
I have a question or two. If it says 500 watts on the bulb, that means when it's lit, it is drawing 500 Watts, right?
And I'm wondering about the clampon meter. He's measuring what, with it? At one point he shuts the pegged over 40 Amps meter off and says the batteries can't be generating that much. Huh? Those batteries will easily "generate" 400 amps, probably more like 700, if you let them. Try dropping a wrench across that stack and see what happens.
But clampon meters measure AC, anyway, don't they? Is he trying to use it to measure the battery input power to the motor?
At around 6:00 he says "33 amps, each battery but I had them connected in series" Does he mean "33 amphours capacity"? Because each battery can certainly deliver more than 33 amps, those are Lead Acid Batteries, Deep Cycle kind, aren't they?
Then after he shuts it off he shows that the battery voltage climbs a little. Wow..... who knew that would happen?
Then he uses his fancy laser thermometer to measure the temperature of the .... light bulbs?? I could probably have told him that they were hot. After all.... they were glowing _white hot_ just a few moments before.
I don't have any clue as to where any excess energy or overunity was demonstrated in that video. But the people at Energetic are going on and on with praise and adulation, it almost makes my teeth hurt it is soooooo sweeeeeeet. It's another story of mismeasurement, misinterpretation, and a lot of misdirected enthusiasm.
I like his crimper, though.
(The next time anyone criticizes any of My videos for shaky camera work, blurs and poor lighting.... I will have them watch this fourteen minutes of motion sickness, and then ask them if their opinion has changed.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 14, 2012, 09:14:34 AM
I have a question or two. If it says 500 watts on the bulb, that means when it's lit, it is drawing 500 Watts, right?
And I'm wondering about the clampon meter. He's measuring what, with it? At one point he shuts the pegged over 40 Amps meter off and says the batteries can't be generating that much. Huh? Those batteries will easily "generate" 400 amps, probably more like 700, if you let them. Try dropping a wrench across that stack and see what happens.
But clampon meters measure AC, anyway, don't they? Is he trying to use it to measure the battery input power to the motor?
At around 6:00 he says "33 amps, each battery but I had them connected in series" Does he mean "33 amphours capacity"? Because each battery can certainly deliver more than 33 amps, those are Lead Acid Batteries, Deep Cycle kind, aren't they?
Then after he shuts it off he shows that the battery voltage climbs a little. Wow..... who knew that would happen?
Then he uses his fancy laser thermometer to measure the temperature of the .... light bulbs?? I could probably have told him that they were hot. After all.... they were glowing _white hot_ just a few moments before.
I don't have any clue as to where any excess energy or overunity was demonstrated in that video. But the people at Energetic are going on and on with praise and adulation, it almost makes my teeth hurt it is soooooo sweeeeeeet. It's another story of mismeasurement, misinterpretation, and a lot of misdirected enthusiasm.
I like his crimper, though.
(The next time anyone criticizes any of My videos for shaky camera work, blurs and poor lighting.... I will have them watch this fourteen minutes of motion sickness, and then ask them if their opinion has changed.)
TK,
Clamp meters now come in both flavors, able to measure AC current only or able to measure both AC and DC current.
I tried to identify the clampmeter model by its looks, and the closest I could come was a Mastech MS2108A. Not saying that is the model, but the physical layout is similar. That model also has a 40 amp DC range (as wel as a 400 amp range).
As his motor is commutated, possibly the clamp meter was going bonkers from the noise and therefore nothing can be gleaned from the indicated OL in what I believe he said was the 40 amp scale.
Either way, the jury should remain out, because as you say, the batteries appear more than capable of supplying 40-50 amps for a period of time (particularly with those nicely crimped interconnect cables!).
Some of the posts over there seem to indicate the belief that if you can spin an unloaded 6kw gen head, you have the capability to produce 6kw. Although there is a degree of mechanical and magnetic drag on the prime mover when the gen is unloaded, load on the prime mover increases as the load on the gen increases. If the gen head is around 80% efficient, 1kw would require 1200-1300 watts equiv mechanical power from the prime mover. If the prime mover is an electric motor and around 80% efficient, then the prime mover will draw 1600-1700 watts, which at 35 volts would be around 45-50 amps. That sort of efficiency would be expected from an "off the shelf" motor-generator.
Until a more accurate indication of prime mover current/power draw is given, the "party" is likely a bit premature...
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 14, 2012, 09:14:34 AM
Try dropping a wrench across that stack and see what happens.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIT4BYJ2jCg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6CxVyCzntU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_TnsHu2u4c
Quote from: picowatt on December 14, 2012, 11:11:24 AM
Until a more accurate indication of prime mover current/power draw is given, the "party" is likely a bit premature...
Same mistakes repeated ad nauseum...
to date no one has demonstrated a dc motor powereing up a 6000 watt ac gen head .(WTF are you Mcgeorge) That in it self is an accomplishment . Now if he pluggs in a refrigerator plus the 1000 watt studio lamps that should tell if you can hook up a 100 amp battery charger to loop it.
Personally I don't think it is fair to present anything before it is fully self running and has done so for weeks.
Additionally, these brake throughs claimed in the COP>1 area without even displaying the device in a fashion beyond any doubts are soo taxing!
If this guy really has found a way to fascilitate Heaviside's Giant Curled EM Eqautions and Poynting Energy Flow Component by using the function of the dipole in extracting the EM energy from the vacuum and pouring it out to power the circuit just like Tom Bearden always have tried to tell us, then this is absolutely wonderful.
But why all this unclear information and unsatifying videos?
It just kills me.
A device of this novel magnitude should as I said only be presented when self running and exhibited in a big empty room upon a glass table. Otherwise it is just a painful experience for anyone schooled in the tradition of scientific validation procedure.
Gwandau
Some more info is posted, Quote[/font][/size]
About Testing Measurements
Hello to All,
To those that have not read about me...please realize that I KNOW what I am talking about...I am not claiming "something" out of thin air...meaning, NOT without the correct knowledge or without the proper measurements.
This Set Up I am working on IS NOT A PERFECT ONE READY TO GO OUT AND BUY IT, I have repeated that fact before...This Set Up probably will need more voltage/amperage at Input (another battery) OR Other set of Higher Capacity Batteries... BUT THEN, the System MUST BE REGULATED, regulating the Feed from Source to Prime Mover, as to provide a constant speed/torque at the requirements from Generator Output/Loads behaviour, this regulation NEEDS TO BE A FAST RESPONSE ONE, otherwise it will NOT WORK AS DESIRED.
I have ALSO wrote here previously, that this Motors NEED TO BE PULSED TO PERFORM BETTER, as also their OUTPUT MUST BE "EXHAUSTING" TO A LOAD, in order NOT TO CREATE A HIGHER AMPERAGE POPULATION running within Machine Coils.
As ALSO have to Consider that this Machine (Prime Mover) will GIVE BACK to Us the residual non used Energy through their Output terminals (NOT CONNECTED, NOT MEASURED HERE)...and that MUST BE Counted as ADDING to Output OR... DEDUCTED from INPUT...In either way, it is a "PLUS ULTRA" Attribute towards GAIN and NOT LOSS.
I have run another video with tests, please bare with me here , I really do not want to create a heavy discussion on a War of Measurements ...it WILL NOT take Us anywhere....I am trying (beyond my possibilities) to deliver proper tests...I had to get a High Amperage Meter yesterday that could read DC Amps (Not Available everywhere folks), as another one I had of 200 Amps AC...I recorded a video of both measurements Input and Output, HOWEVER, I AM NOT DOING THE RIGHT WAY OF LOADING GENERATOR, I only have two hands, one for the Camera and the other to do the plugging, the switching etc,etc...NOW, Generators are NOT supposed to be loaded AT ONCE a FULL 2000 Watts, that IS NOT RECOMMENDED EVEN IN THE GENERATOR MANUALS...but I am doing it since I do not have the time to make individual switches for each 500 W Lamps/Allowing time for both machines to stabilize...By doing this I am dumping at ONCE a big Load on Generator and ON A PRIME MOVER, WITHOUT REGULATION...and OF COURSE it is going to suddenly and drastically drop down in RPM's...This is FORCING BOTH MACHINES AT EXTREME STRESS ...The Prime Mover is going to SUCK AS MUCH AS IT COULD TO KEEP RUNNING....while the GENERATOR WILL BE OUTPUTTING CLOSE TO MAX TO SATISFY LOADS AT NOT THE RIGHT RPM's...SO, this is NOT A RIGHT AND NOT STRESSED TESTING, BUT ON THE CONTRARY...a VERY stressful one for BOTH Machines...
Initial Battery Voltage 38.1V
INPUT= 1st Reading UNDER LOAD
Voltage: 33.08
Amperage:75.8
Input Watts:2507 Watts?...Is this Correct? OR Should it be the Difference between Starting V and Voltage Drop, which is 5.02 Volts...You tell me which one would be correct.
Input 2nd Reading UNDER LOAD
V:31.2
A:71
W:2215 Watts...
Output
Four Lamps at 120V
Amperage: 41 A
Output Watts: (120X41)=4920 Watts
Now, here, I have not installed a Volt Meter at Output...My Bad...I should have, so we get an exact out voltage,therefore we are "assuming" it is a steady 120V...We should NOT DO THAT and I am conscious about this error, but I would do it eventually...just have to set the proper Mains Out Connectors from Both Generator Outputs in a SAFE manner, (remember, this is High Amperage AC here...and should be handled with extreme caution and safety measures (Meters would be TWO for each output, between the Two Live and sharing the One Common Neutral)
This Generators have two white wires (neutral) and two live wires (red and black), and the Loads MUST BE attached EVENLY , BALANCING each Generating Fields Output.
To Obtain the 240 V the two white are common (joint together) and red-black live would be your two 240 live terminals. That is the reason why I took the Amperage read out from common joint white output from generator, since it is common for both output terminals.
You do/make your own math/calculations here...then You tell Me whether we have Overunity or not...
MECCALTE IMPERIAL RUN 2 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkdYI2li1qk&feature=youtu.be)
Regards to All
I WILL KEEP MAKING BETTER TESTING...SO STAY TUNED...
Ufopolitics
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-99.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-99.html)
[/font][/size]
However; the generator is running at around 2450 rpm with the load on. (from the video 6:41) Let's say it's a typical generator 3600 rpm for 110 V output no load and typical linear V vs rpm curve, then at 2400 rpm the no load Voltage should be around (2450/3600)*110 or about 75 volts. (at about 41 Hz) Will there be voltage squatting under load of about 41 amps? Voltage measurements at that amperage would be helpful. So what is the correct power out? Thanks for the info, nice work there.Mike
Quote from: mikestocks2006 on December 14, 2012, 07:17:57 PM
Some more info is posted,
[/font][/size]
However; the generator is running at around 2450 rpm with the load on. (from the video 6:41)
Let's say it's a typical generator 3600 rpm for 110 V output no load and typical linear V vs rpm curve, then at 2400 rpm the no load Voltage should be around (2450/3600)*110 or about 75 volts. (at about 41 Hz)
Will there be voltage squatting under load of about 41 amps? Voltage measurements at that amperage would be helpful.
So what is the correct power out?
Thanks for the info, nice work there.
Mike
The 41 amp AC reading doesn't make much sense. Not sure why there is such a high reading, as the load is only 2000 watts of incandescent lamps. It would have been nice if he would have checked each 120VAC leg independently or used the other clamp meter to confirm the AC current. Both clamp meters can also measure voltage, and an AC voltage reading would have been nice. As well, the DC reading may be inaccurate as the commutation will produce a lot of high frequency pulsing/noise.
The voltage regulator in the gen head will maintain the proper voltage within a certain range of RPM's. As the gen lugs down the RPM of the prime mover, the output frequency will vary directly with the gen RPM but the voltage will hold fairly steady until the RPM is so low that the gen windings or exciter can't produce enough current to drive the load and at that point the voltage will drop with further drop in RPM, but not necessarily linearly.
My backup power gen set has an idle feature that still produces 240/120 at idle, but at around 13Hz. Normally a sense circuit detects a load and spins it up when a load is applied, but to conserve fuel (and noise), I have drawn a few hundred watts off of it while idling (and tricking the sense circuit). It can hold its voltage pretty well at idle up to a few hundred watts but collapses at greater loads.
Just about every configuration of motor-generator has been commercially built in the past. AC to DC, DC to AC, single phase AC to multi-phase AC and vice versa. They were a lot more common in the "olden days".
Give him more time, he seems intent on getting better measurements.
At the moment though, I'd still hold off on the party...
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 14, 2012, 09:14:34 AM
I have a question or two. If it says 500 watts on the bulb, that means when it's lit, it is drawing 500 Watts, right?
And I'm wondering about the clampon meter. He's measuring what, with it? At one point he shuts the pegged over 40 Amps meter off and says the batteries can't be generating that much. Huh? Those batteries will easily "generate" 400 amps, probably more like 700, if you let them. Try dropping a wrench across that stack and see what happens.
But clampon meters measure AC, anyway, don't they? Is he trying to use it to measure the battery input power to the motor?
At around 6:00 he says "33 amps, each battery but I had them connected in series" Does he mean "33 amphours capacity"? Because each battery can certainly deliver more than 33 amps, those are Lead Acid Batteries, Deep Cycle kind, aren't they?
Then after he shuts it off he shows that the battery voltage climbs a little. Wow..... who knew that would happen?
Then he uses his fancy laser thermometer to measure the temperature of the .... light bulbs?? I could probably have told him that they were hot. After all.... they were glowing _white hot_ just a few moments before.
I don't have any clue as to where any excess energy or overunity was demonstrated in that video. But the people at Energetic are going on and on with praise and adulation, it almost makes my teeth hurt it is soooooo sweeeeeeet. It's another story of mismeasurement, misinterpretation, and a lot of misdirected enthusiasm.
I like his crimper, though.
(The next time anyone criticizes any of My videos for shaky camera work, blurs and poor lighting.... I will have them watch this fourteen minutes of motion sickness, and then ask them if their opinion has changed.)
Camera closeups can throw perspective off but he did say those were glass mat small scooter batteries. So no they can't generate 400 to 700 amps even in a dead short. But UFO is a very smart guy with lots of engineering background and I don't believe for a minute he would say he had something if he didn't. He's not asking anyone for money or fame. He was just trying to get something out on the promised date and will have more solid evidence soon. Give him some credit as he is spending a huge amount of time, money and work to build all he does and keep everyone at EF up to speed on what he is doing with a lot of education going on regarding the principles behind his ideas. It's all out there free for everyone - totally open source.
Looking at the battery in his last video, here is the specs on the battery.
B
By the way, I am not pro or con on this, just showing what the battery specs are. I have a boat with deep cycle BIG batteries and can honestly say that they won't even come close to start my car, but they last a long long time on the water when I use my trolling motor.
Quote from: icanbeatbob on December 15, 2012, 12:13:33 AM
Looking at the battery in his last video, here is the specs on the battery.
B
Of course the critical spec for our present discussion, the CCA or MCA (cold cranking amps or marine cranking amps) is missing from Every Listing I could find for the Werker battery.
I did however find this:
QuoteYou can use a Deep Cycle battery as a starting battery provided that you take into account the lower
CCA of a Deep Cycle battery. As a rule of thumb it's a good idea to upsize the battery by about 20% to
deliver the same amount of cranking amps from a deep cycle battery. Also the self discharge rate of
Sealed batteries is a lot less than flooded lead acid types.
http://www.batteriesinaflash.com/specs/floodedleadacid/TrojanSpecs/Deep%20Cycle%20Battery%20FAQ.pdf (http://www.batteriesinaflash.com/specs/floodedleadacid/TrojanSpecs/Deep%20Cycle%20Battery%20FAQ.pdf)
So if a 35 A-H starting LA battery can deliver 600 or 700 CCA, not unrealistic.... a 35 A-H deep cycle battery will be expected to deliver 20 percent less, about. Call it 400 amps to be conservative. See below for a 35 A-H starting battery that delivers 950 CCA.
Now.... if you can find a document that says that the CCA or MCA of the Werker battery is less than 40 amps..... I would like to see it. I still maintain that those batteries are capable of "generating" hundreds of amperes if the "load" is of low resistance. If you can cite any documents that actually contain this vital battery parameter--- available for every battery line I looked at over the past half-hour EXCEPT for the "Werker" line.... I'd like to see them.
QuoteSHURiKEN's SK-BT35 Power Cell puts out 950 cranking amps with a 35 amp hour rating. This battery will resist extreme heat conditions and vibrations and is 100% sealed in a reinforced ABS plastic case. SHURiKEN has designed this power cell to be used with ring terminals or a buss bar. You will love the way SHURiKEN batteries get your system powered up and ready to go!
http://www.sonicelectronix.com/item_17902_SHURiKEN-SK-BT35.html
Quote from: e2matrix on December 14, 2012, 09:50:46 PM
Camera closeups can throw perspective off but he did say those were glass mat small scooter batteries. So no they can't generate 400 to 700 amps even in a dead short. But UFO is a very smart guy with lots of engineering background and I don't believe for a minute he would say he had something if he didn't. He's not asking anyone for money or fame. He was just trying to get something out on the promised date and will have more solid evidence soon. Give him some credit as he is spending a huge amount of time, money and work to build all he does and keep everyone at EF up to speed on what he is doing with a lot of education going on regarding the principles behind his ideas. It's all out there free for everyone - totally open source.
I see that a whole lot of people are ordering the motor kits with unwound armatures, for hundreds of dollars a pop, and some people are even concerned that the kit manufacturers won't be able to handle the flood of orders.
Will these people be disappointed when they discover that their systems cannot be self-looped and cannot generate any excess energy over what it takes to run the motor .... if that is the case?
Would it not be better to dampen the wild enthusiasm and get some actual reliable power numbers first, like by using correct instruments correctly ?
Here's my prediction: UFOPolitics will still be running his house from the grid this Christmas.... and next Christmas too.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 15, 2012, 02:32:40 AM
I see that a whole lot of people are ordering the motor kits with unwound armatures, for hundreds of dollars a pop, and some people are even concerned that the kit manufacturers won't be able to handle the flood of orders.
Will these people be disappointed when they discover that their systems cannot be self-looped and cannot generate any excess energy over what it takes to run the motor .... if that is the case?
Would it not be better to dampen the wild enthusiasm and get some actual reliable power numbers first, like by using correct instruments correctly ?
Here's my prediction: UFOPolitics will still be running his house from the grid this Christmas.... and next Christmas too.
At least Diane is giggling :)
Seems like Werker is just a brand name used by Batteries Plus and the internals could have been made by any manufacturer. Werker may have been superseded by Rayovac brand name.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_makes_Werker_batteries
http://www.bimmerboard.com/forums/posts/872416
The closest I could get to a CCA spec was from an ebay listing selling an alternative battery to the Werker WKDC12-33J, which the 35AH version replaced apparently. 315 CCA on the 12V 35AH UB12350 replacement.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/12v-35ah-U1-UB12350-UPS-Battery-replaces-33ah-Werker-WKDC12-33J-/200696379094
http://www.homesecuritystore.com/p-1813-ub12350-upg-sealed-lead-acid-battery-12volt-35ah.aspx
http://www.topmobility.com/universal-sealed-agm-u1-batteries-ub12350-p2352.htm
Gents,
Before you all get too enthusiastic, always try to understand what you are looking at.
UFO Politics created a beautiful video presentation and great animations, well done, I will definitely contact him for my next presentation, but for OverUnity, do your homework before you get carried away.
Some basic electric motor/generator theory would be of help to understand what UFO is showing. We can agree that the video twist and stretches the truth in order to achieve a better position from which UFO can make his case. The "CEMF/BEMF witch" is well known to be a curse but not exactly for the same reasons that UFO provided in his video.
What touched my attention was a slide (10:30) that says "output greater because of the Laws of Nature and Laws of God" followed at (10:40) "My own concept, using Tesla's secret", somewhat puzzled on the physics that underpin the concept. I must say its promotional aspect is well done, UFOpolitics understands the power of a good presentation. We need to give him credit for that, a splendid sales effort, well executed. But can we believe him all the way ? I am not so sure.
What is an electric generator ?
Effectively the same as an electric motor but you drive it mechanically to be able to tap into the EMF generated by the winding rotating through the magnetic field.
As current is drawn from the generator, that current creates a magnetic field that opposes the primary magnetic field (BEMF), this makes it harder to maintain the generator RPM and more mechanical power must be input to maintain the electrical output power demand.
What is an electric motor ?
Effectively the same as an electric generator, but you pump in some electrical power and the motor will start turning and you can tap off rotational mechanical power. The problem with the motor is that when it rotates it also generates power in the same windings. The EMF generated is the same than the generator but is now called Back EMF because it opposes your input power and limits therewith the voltage and RPM. This back EMF controls the power balance in versus mechanical out. When the motor runs the fasted it consumes the least power because back EMF is the highest. This also means that your greatest torque is at low RPM when the current is the greatest (opposite to your combustion engine), one of the reasons why diesel electric hybrid trains are popular.
When you mechanically load the motor, the reaction is slowing of the RPM, this reduces the opposing back EMF and allows more current to flow to compensate for the higher mechanical demand and so maintain the balance.
What did UFOpolitics do?
As shown in his video, "asymmetry to enlightenment", there are 2 coils, one input (motor coil) and one output (generator coil), this is the reason for the 2 commutators.
Both winding interact with the PM main field and with each other.
The primary functionality is the motor since this is required to makes the coils turn through the PM field.
The motor and generator winding will interact with the PM field. As he motor coils are energized, the field they create leads the PM field by 90dgr, and they interact with the generator coil, like a transformer. This effect is in addition to the to the field changes created by rotation.
The generator coil Cemf field created by the load current will lag by 90dgr on the PM field. The generator coil Cemf field opposes the motor coil field by being 180dgr out of phase.
The motor action is reduced by 2 influences,
1.. The electrical Cemf (called the "witch" in the video)
2.. The opposing magnetic field created by the generator current, (because they are wound on the same rotor pole).
These two influences will reduce the motor drive action, and the generator load will be directly responsible for increasing the motor current by reducing the inductance
The generator coil induced emf by the PM main field will be modified by the motor coil field. The motor coil field will influence and distort the overall field as seen by the generator coil, and it is expected that it will reduce the generator lag and bring the generator reaction field more in line with the main field and thereby reduce the magnetic reaction drag force which can be seen as a small gain, a good thing.
Naturally, the generator loading and the phase shift the load introduces will influence and modify the drag factor.
So what is for and what is against,
The way I see it, some beneficial gain in the generator section but this cost is paid in full by the motor section (+ some more, most likely)
Overunity, possibly when being lenient on some measurement errors. The generator will produces spikes due to commutator motor drive that is fed by DC and inductively coupled to the generator. Will it do OverUnity in the real world, I do not think so, since there is nothing to suggest this possibility in any way.
PS: The motor modification shown in he video can NOT be a "TESLA SECRET", because Tesla was the king in AC Power and AC motors, not in DC motors. This motor will have no sine-wave shape anywhere circulating around in these coils, neither going in or coming out (some adulterated half sines, yes). very unlike Tesla.
In you think we have a prince, believe me the witch still rules
Remember, a high idle RPM is no guide to mechanical power, this is the lowest consumption level because of a high CEMF. A motor without Cemf would always increase in speed until it destroys itself in the process.
There has been a patent in the seventies that did exactly what UFOpolitics claims, but it wasn't very successful.
When measuring electrical power in these setups be very careful with power factor and wave shapes. Accurate measurements using normal instrumentation in this type of configurations is a nightmare
The Witch ? I let you find out for yourselves who got bewitched !
Do not take advice uninformed, take advice to inform yourself ! It will aid you in the long run.
Regards
@Red_Sunset, thank you for the good explanation about what's going on, i don't think you are welcome in the official thread ;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 15, 2012, 02:32:40 AM
I see that a whole lot of people are ordering the motor kits with unwound armatures, for hundreds of dollars a pop, and some people are even concerned that the kit manufacturers won't be able to handle the flood of orders.
Will these people be disappointed when they discover that their systems cannot be self-looped and cannot generate any excess energy over what it takes to run the motor .... if that is the case?
Would it not be better to dampen the wild enthusiasm and get some actual reliable power numbers first, like by using correct instruments correctly ?
Here's my prediction: UFOPolitics will still be running his house from the grid this Christmas.... and next Christmas too.
Dampen enthusiasm too much and I have no doubt UFO would disappear from posting. I'm personally not running out to buy the 'kits' as I will wait until I see it self looped or some other undeniable proof. I have not actually followed that thread enough lately to be completely sure of what UFO has but I am confident he is a very educated person in the motor field (IIRC he has a number of patents) and there is no reason I have to believe he is intentionally misleading people. So I will stay enthusiastic and support his progress but will wait a little longer before I invest hundreds of dollars. I know from early on in that thread he was ready to leave and not post anymore because of detractors and naysayers. So I don't think it can hurt any to stay positive and those who choose to spend money now must realize there is always some risk in any investment of money or time spent.
My prediction: UFO will be off grid by next Christmas :)
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 15, 2012, 09:42:17 AM
What did UFOpolitics do?
As shown in his video, "asymmetry to enlightenment", there are 2 coils, one input (motor coil) and one output (generator coil), this is the reason for the 2 commutators.
hello all
As I´ve been reading & posting in there, I¨ll like to clarify that there is not such two coils in Ufopolitics machine. Every coil in the rotor is separately connected to each commutator. one side of coil at input, and the outside at output. All coils are therefore motors and generators.
That is the reason for two commutators.
I kindly suggest you to revise better all the info showed there as it will avoid misinformation.
Thank
Alvaro
Quote from: ALVARO_CS on December 15, 2012, 03:30:18 PM
hello all
As I´ve been reading & posting in there, I¨ll like to clarify that there is not such two coils in Ufopolitics machine. Every coil in the rotor is separately connected to each commutator. one side of coil at input, and the outside at output. All coils are therefore motors and generators.
That is the reason for two commutators.
I kindly suggest you to revise better all the info showed there as it will avoid misinformation.
Thank Alvaro
Hello Alvaro,
I guess that what you are referring to is that the coils are swapped every half turn between the top and bottom brushes and therefore no unique generator or motor coil exist. You are correct because the two coils are wound in opposing directions. and since the commutator does not take care of the polarity reversal because only one polarity is maintained at one commutator. The opposite winded coil need to take care of that reversal.
I would gather this was done to give the impression that this would change the opposing magnetic field polarity between motor and generator. I am sorry to say that it doesn't do that. The magnetic field will always oppose the field that caused the induction no matter in which direction you wind the coil. If there is an other reason, pls share it.
This detail does not change the explanation of the functionality that has been described in the previous post.
It would have been better to have both ends of one coil on the same commutator, this would have simplified and standardized the setup. As far as I can see, the position of the brushes have nothing to do with the operating symmetry of the system (or linear connection). If there is, pls explain it to me how this is or can impact the working of this motor/generator, and what the impact is when doing it differently.
I would be interested and all ears !
I hope this helps
@Red_Sunset
Please have a look at the different ways of winding
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?uo7zlkakgcd5lye
regards
Alvaro
A man of Character and Impeccable moral fiber humbles himself to the community,with a promise..........
{He is also saddened By the Tummy ache experienced by some [one?]after viewing his Video
Ufopolitics (http://www.energeticforum.com/members/ufopolitics.html)
Quote
My Fault...
Hello to All,
First I want to say that all this discussions, arguments and noises here are all MY FAULT/Mea Culpa...Ladies and Gentlemen.
I should have never rush this tests to accomplish a deadline date...
This was completely my own idea, and as I wrote before, I wanted to set a date to force myself to finish this...no matter if I would be lacking off my personal duties...and else...but again, my complete fault, my error...and I assume it on its entirety.
This very wrong testing because of running against time have delivered not only arguments here...but also accidents here and there...not good.
Just today making the Energy Meter test, I realize the brand new AGM Werker Battery I got two-three days ago, was shorted in a weird way...even when I took it back the owner told me it was rare readings...Battery will not raise one Milli volt after several hours charging it at a safely 2.0 amps...however the tester showed a CCA of @ 300 Amps...I got another Battery just now...as also a dedicated charger that uses "AGM Mode"...nice new switching chargers...
Accidentally (because of rush, long hours of work...no sleep...etc)...I made contact with Motor without the switch ...to one terminal (Positive)...and melted off a chunk out of the lead pole...the guy exchanged it because I have bought a lot of Batteries and chargers there...for a long time...but any other new customer...would have lost $70.00..
I had originally purchased a nice switching charger but only reaches 24 Volts Max...at 6.0 Amps charge rate...so I was using trickle type chargers for this new battery at the positive end side...This contributed killing it I believe...
Second, I ran all this tests with an unfinished Motor...no output brushes on, Output side is still not connected in series like it is supposed to.
Third: Generator Head had been running with the bad burnt front bearing from High Temp welding while it was on,...even though I have bought its replacement...
So it has been all my fault guys, cause of making it happen on the 12-12-12 (And still I did NOT make it til the morning of the 13th, ...adding to all this a lot of procrastination during the process...
So please do not blame the skeptics, or anyone else who is against this wrong testing...they are completely right to have doubts and disbelief...and heavily criticize the tests as Myself...
I opened this doors completely ...
Besides lousy video quality, causing dizziness and blurry vision...to top it off!
But everything here has solutions...except death....there is absolutely nothing we can 't do about that...but being alive...and breathing?...of course everything have solutions...and they will. .
I am gathering ALL required testing equipment ,the proper Motor finishing as reading its out gates in A & V and Hertz also...I have even forgotten about frequency with so much winding and Motors...
I need to read the Pulsed DC at Motor Input and Output...
But I do not want to get into tech details here...but to apologize to all about this error on testing on such investment of time and money...just because of rushing it...for a date that I did not come up in time...
But we All learn from our mistakes...
Regards to all
Ufopolitics
Quote from: ALVARO_CS on December 15, 2012, 05:04:37 PM
@Red_Sunset
Please have a look at the different ways of winding
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?uo7zlkakgcd5lye
regards Alvaro
Hi Alvaro,
Pls do not get the impression that I am trying to break down UFO's concept idea. I am only trying to analyze and define what it is. We can only create something good and workable by understanding what doesn't work so good and why.
A nice document you linked to, detailing the different winding strategies. It doesn't explain a lot but I am getting the gist of its intend.
You see, technically you can have two independent windings on the same rotor that do not influence each other. That is a common layout for every commercial motor like a 20-22 pole rotor served by one or two fields as shown on page 21-22 where the windings overlap. The overlap does not impact other overlaid winding by magnetic induction due to magnetic balancing, one overlap Magnetic Force (MF) increases while the other overlap MF decreases. The same rule and characteristic applies to the reverse induction from rotor into the stator field magnet or field coil. The overall induced magnetic field sum should always be zero to avoid heating up a conductive magnet with eddies or super impose an AC on top of the stator field.
This characteristic only works well with nice smooth and symmetrical AC, a DC motor is none of that. You can see why Tesla loved AC, as it is way more gracious and elegant.
According to the document, UFO offsets the generator coil. This means that we have maximum flux in the one coil when the other coil flux is minimum.
These brushes are not exactly electronic pulse motors. The motor pulse is "on" pretty much all the time as the cummutator presents different copper segments to the brushes. What is of interest here is that only one coil is activated into one direction at any one time. The power is DC, so apart from start and stop transients, there is no other motor induction into the generator part. So there is no canceling of MF in other overlapping generator windings and they will generate some output under MF input of these half overlapping motor windings as they get switched. The generator coils would have minimal to no reverse induction effect on the motor coils although their MF created, opposes the motor coils MF and will reduces the mechanical motor torque as a result.
One thing I am still not clear about why UFO wires one coil to two commutators, why use all the coils as motor and generator, is this done to reduce windings or is there an other reason? The reasons in the video do not match the practical reality.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 16, 2012, 01:27:29 AM
Hi Alvaro,
Pls do not get the impression that I am trying to break down UFO's concept idea. I am only trying to analyze and define what it is. We can only create something good and workable by understanding what doesn't work so good and why.
A nice document you linked to, detailing the different winding strategies. It doesn't explain a lot but I am getting the gist of its intend.
You see, technically you can have two independent windings on the same rotor that do not influence each other. That is a common layout for every commercial motor like a 20-22 pole rotor served by one or two fields as shown on page 21-22 where the windings overlap. The overlap does not impact other overlaid winding by magnetic induction due to magnetic balancing, one overlap Magnetic Force (MF) increases while the other overlap MF decreases. The same rule and characteristic applies to the reverse induction from rotor into the stator field magnet or field coil. The overall induced magnetic field sum should always be zero to avoid heating up a conductive magnet with eddies or super impose an AC on top of the stator field.
This characteristic only works well with nice smooth and symmetrical AC, a DC motor is none of that. You can see why Tesla loved AC, as it is way more gracious and elegant.
According to the document, UFO offsets the generator coil. This means that we have maximum flux in the one coil when the other coil flux is minimum.
These brushes are not exactly electronic pulse motors. The motor pulse is "on" pretty much all the time as the cummutator presents different copper segments to the brushes. What is of interest here is that only one coil is activated into one direction at any one time. The power is DC, so apart from start and stop transients, there is no other motor induction into the generator part. So there is no canceling of MF in other overlapping generator windings and they will generate some output under MF input of these half overlapping motor windings as they get switched. The generator coils would have minimal to no reverse induction effect on the motor coils although their MF created, opposes the motor coils MF and will reduces the mechanical motor torque as a result.
One thing I am still not clear about why UFO wires one coil to two commutators, why use all the coils as motor and generator, is this done to reduce windings or is there an other reason? The reasons in the video do not match the practical reality.
Well, my impression is that your analysis is based only in that video, and this is a too small base of information to get conclusions. (IMO this is the origin of your last question)
Again you talk about generator coils and motor coils which confuses me because as far as I understood it (after reading a lot in the thread and experimenting with replicas), the motor and generator are both functions of every single coil, at different times and relative positions. In other words, a coil receives the input at one radial position, and discharge at a different position due to rotation.
The document I linked is not descriptive of functionality, only of the coils configuration. In it you can see that the coils are split in two halves, winded on two rotor poles NOT at 180 degrees. That is to project a N magnetic field at the first half, and a S at the second half. In conventional DC motors, the coils S is faced (and absorbed) to/ by the shaft/armature.
I understand and accept your intention to have a serious objective discussion as I´m not a blind fanatic of Ufo´s technology, but an open minded researcher, but from your words I got the impression that you did not read any of the abundant descriptions and analysis that are found in that thread. I may be wrong of course and insist in that I will not fight tooth and nail to defend it.
Regards
Alvaro
Chet,
I need to make one thing very clear, I am not hammering UFOpolitics for his work in this area which I actually find is quite interesting.
My issues were twofold and have been addressed by UFO himself in that copied post.
The first issue is safety, electricity and batteries are very dangerous and even if you know what your doing the people replicating may not. Setting a deadline for yourself to complete a certain project is quite common, but when you rush and your tired you inevitably make mistakes, and serious consequences could possibly arise because of that. When I get tired, start making mistakes, I drop what I am doing and walk away. Safety first.
The second issue is announcing overunity results without the evidence to support it. I have lost count of the number of times this has happened, and every time it has turned out to be measurement error or faulty analysis of the results. You must understand that if you are going to announce you have developed a device that operates on principles outside of the known laws of physics it must have solid evidence to support it. I see this same mistake repeated over and over, a situation not helped by the alternative media who irresponsibly trumpet it as loud as they can. The device or system or whatever then gets quietly forgotten about to move onto the next "overunity" device. Do you see how this damages the credibility of the open source energy research community ?
Ok.... so we note that the CCA of the Werker type batteries is quoted at 335 in some specs and has been measured at 300 by UFO himself.... so that rests that question, I hope. The statement in the video that the batteries could not "generate" 40+ amps is out the window, therefore.
Next... if the lathe is the King of Tools, surely the oscilloscope is the King of Test Equipment. Anyone who claims OU from an electrical device who does not investigate its performance with an oscilloscope is like a chef without a knife.... he may be able to get some results, but they won't be clean and pretty and they might not even be very palatable.
Please..... if you are working with electrical/electronic devices and you are searching for OU, get an oscilloscope and learn how to use it.... I guarantee it will pay for itself the first time it prevents you from making a false claim based on DMM readings.
Perfectly fine analog scopes can be had on the surplus/used market for under 200 dollars. This expense, and a few hours of study and practice, might be the best money you have ever spent, if you are an electrical OU researcher.
Evolvingape
I don't pretent to understand The "original Maxwell Work" that is at the root of this claim. Many of the fellows who are experimenting with this are way beyond the garage Tinkerer level.
You are one of the most selfless men I have ever encountered on these forums, your personal open source sacrifice to this world and community
puts you and your opinions on very solid ground.
Thank you,
Chet
I can't see any OverUnity here.
The input measurements (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkdYI2li1qk&feature=youtu.be) are roughly: 33 volts at 75 amps = 2475 watts
So there should be no problem to power 4 incandescent lamps each of them rated at 500W in full brightness with that input power. There are even 475 watts left to be wasted in the motor-generator assembly.
If someone could explain this to me. ???
Regards
Quote from: ALVARO_CS on December 16, 2012, 03:58:57 AM
Well, my impression is that your analysis is based only in that video, and this is a too small base of information to get conclusions. (IMO this is the origin of your last question) ...............................................................
...................................................................................
Regards
Alvaro
Hi Alvaro,
I am sympathetic with the content of your last post and share the same sentiments you describe.
It is important that we should defend a principle that is based on good reasoning and that can be verified and not just on a sentiment of belief without having addressed all the bases it depends upon.
When it comes to the UFOpolitics concept proposal, there is a piece of information missing that should explain why this dual commutator is of interest, this was the reason for my last question. Although I think I have discovered the reason and it is starting to look interesting. I am doing a more detailed analysis what is to follow.
With reference to the two type of coils,
You say that all coils are generator at one time and motor at an other time, and this is the reason for the commutator layout, this is understood. When you take a time snapshot in time, you will find that at any one time, there is "only one" generator and "only one" other motor winding active, regardless which coil this is. I agree that the video is insufficient to make all the necessary deductions.
I am having a closer look at a 3 pole rotor shown in he beginning of your winding document and already came across some interesting interactions due to the commutator setup, more soon
Regards,
Chet,
The more you know, the less you understand.
As of today I have requested to be permanently banned from overunity.com due to irreconcilable differences with the management. This will be my last post ever on this forum.
I wish UFO and his supporters well and will continue to watch their safe progress. I am learning from them, as are many others, and I thank them for that.
There is one thing I want to say before I go...
"God does not send angels to do battle with demons, he sends demons who want to go home."
Rob Mason.
Rob:
Sorry to see you go.
Chet:
PW raised the point about the current meter on the output not being correct because it was reading too high. This is where free energy experimenters often go wrong. If UFO alleged that he was outputting 6 kW then that would mean that 1.5 kW were being dissipated in each 500-watt lamp. That clearly was not the case because the lamps would have been blindingly bright or perhaps they would have burnt out within 10 seconds. If you are around this test setup all the time then you are supposed to know what the feel of 2 kW is like coming off of your four lamps. Then you run your test and see if your meter readings are at least backed up by the feel. This clearly did not happen.
Also, many on EF are up in arms that people asked UFO for more measurements, etc. What do they want? If someone makes a claim then you ask the person about the claim. How could UFO not measure the voltage across the load? Even if he didn't do it in the clip itself, he could have done it offline and report it when he posted and give the power in and power out.
Here is what I think: The motor dropped in RPM under the load. Who knows what kind of waveform was driving those bulbs but let's put that issue aside for the moment. Let's suppose that the voltage driving the lamps was only 90 volts. Therefore (90*90)/(120*120)*500*4 = 1125 watts being dissipated in the four lamps. So his efficiency in transferring battery input power to load output power would be about 50% based on these assumptions.
With respect to UFO's rewiring of electric motors in general, I don't really follow the thread but I doubt that any serious analysis is done to compare unmodified vs. the modified motor. You are probably aware that any serious motor analysis demands that you plot performance curves for the motor. Without a prony brake you can easily use a generator attached to a resistive load instead. With some thought and effort an astute experimenter could make before/after comparisons on a motor using a generator with an attached load bank as the mechanical load for your motor under test.
When you distill all of the talk and speculation down, the end of the line is how does your unmodified or modified motor act under a mechanical load. So a "UFO modified" motor would have to generate performance curves that are superior to the stock unmodified motor to get my attention. Just a couple of days testing with an unmodified motor and a couple of days testing with a modified motor using a generator attached to a load would allow you to generate the required data. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that has ever been done.
MileHigh
Gents,
I need to say that the UFOpolitics motor/generator concept is an interesting device to say the least. Some serious thinking went into this. I would guess he took the integration of motor and generator to a maximum, optimizing the interaction of the magnetic fields. But I can not agree with the "asymmetrical" as related to the working principle. Asymmetry requires one directional influence only with no push back. A hard nut to crack. If you are interested to crack that one, have a chat with Wayne Travis from Hydro revolution, he can teach you a few ways on how to do that, unfortunately in buoyancy only.
Description:
The dual commutator is the core of the motor alteration and directs the concept. As a 3 pole motor, each pole will see for 120dgr motor service followed by a 60dgr gap before it starts a 120drg generator service. Each motor and generator functions for only 33% of the revolution time. The remaining 33% is idle. Each generator pole outputs only ½ wave form (120dgr of 180dgr) from a descending magnetic field per revolution.
The initial first half of generator function corresponds with the last half of motor function and visa versa.
The complete function and interactions can be seen by the 2 views attached, motor mode at middle commutator position, and generator mode at middle commutator position.
What is of interest to note:
In the example shown, when pole 3 is the generator, it is going through a reducing primary PM field. The poles #1 & 2 will reduce this primary field faster than a the rotation would be able to do, and this increase the induced emf generated. In addition, the opposing magnetic force of pole 1 & 2 will also reduce the generator loading force.
The unfortunate penalty for the reduced loading force is a equal reduced motor force during the first 60dgr of motor function.
During the second half of motor function (increasing field) and first part of generator function (decreasing field), will have a neutral effect on pole #2 that now entered the neutral idle zone.
Conclusion,
I am sorry to say that I couldn't find a gemstone, that doesn't mean that there isn't one. We have a motor who's duty cycle is severely reduced by the introduction of the generator. A generator beneficial aspect impacts the motor section adversely and the remaining behavior is neutral.
Apart from an interesting configuration, I still can not see any redeeming factor that could have a capability to take this device anywhere into the OU zone.
Remember, this is my view from a distance looking at paper facts only. The practical world can always serve unexpected surprises.
If anybody has additional information that can "add or correct" any information presented here, do not hesitate to post it.
Some advice on proving OU with batteries
The method to try to prove overunity with batteries is more complex than initially thought of. This type of motor/generator is by nature a spiky device (motor pulse is in the middle of the generator cycle) and this in combination with the chemistry of batteries can give you some serious misleading reactions and readings, at least for a while and the reckoning comes later (although it can be good for de-sulfating of lead acid batteries).
Quote from: evolvingape on December 16, 2012, 04:42:52 AM
....................................
The second issue is announcing overunity results without the evidence to support it. I have lost count of the number of times this has happened, and every time it has turned out to be measurement error or faulty analysis of the results. You must understand that if you are going to announce you have developed a device that operates on principles outside of the known laws of physics it must have solid evidence to support it. I see this same mistake repeated over and over, a situation not helped by the alternative media who irresponsibly trumpet it as loud as they can. The device or system or whatever then gets quietly forgotten about to move onto the next "overunity" device. Do you see how this damages the credibility of the open source energy research community ?
evolvingape,
you nailed it right there, this is the very core of the matter responsible for the present lack of credibility in the open source energy research community.
Solid evidence backing you up is absolutely essential before even thinking of blowing the wistle.
So don't announce any claims before you have a fully functional device that has been subjected to long test runs.
And if you want to present your device in a video, fine, but remember that no video, no matter how elegant, carry any proof whatsoever.
The only proof that carry any weight at all is when the device is functioning as a closed loop and repeatedly built and test run by independent third party goups.
To claim anything before that is self destructive and highly unscientific.
Gwandau
Rob
We are in conflict, a battle that will test us to the boundaries of our resolve.
And the limits of our resources.
Your intentions on these pages has been clear
Rob [Evolvingape]
Quote
I just want people to use my work to make the world a better place, save lives, and help themselves.
I have invested in them, let's see what they do with it...
-----------------------------------------
Rob as I type this the president of my country makes a speech at a school not far from my home,Some Evils are self evident, a maniac twisted by "demons" taking the lives of hero's and innocents.other evils not so obvious
other "demons" appear much more innocuos ,yet cause far more suffering.
Lets turn the page on the past ,and open the door to the future.
Mr UFO has this vision too,the one where an unbridaled access to energy
will bring change of a much different flavor to this planet,a "change" for the better.
Perhaps this abomination against the children will bring us together as a society to knock down these digital, electronic, impersonal barriers that stand between us?
Maybe this will trickle down to our community of experimenters?
Maybe even to the point where we will trust each other enough to ask for help
to utilize our resources to the utmost in these builds[like when we fall behind schedule in our overzealous [yet commendable] construction schedules].
To be able to ASK FOR HELP...........
Rob
Did I say we were at "conflict"?
you are an amazing Asset to this community!!
I do not know the circumstance surrounding your "situation".
I pray you reconsider your choices.
Very Much your friend
Chetkremens@gmail.com
G'Day Red Sunset And others
I have been reading the posts here regarding UFO's 12/12/12 Word
When any of you have made a project have you not tried to see if it works as soon as you are able even though it is not finished
All Here need to realise that every one that is trying to make over unity machines in the past have not succeeded or have disappeared
I am writing here to just set a few things straight
As Red Sunset stated in his post « Reply #24 on: December 15, 2012, 03:42:17 PM »
Do not take advice uninformed, take advice to inform yourself ! It will aid you in the long run.
It is obvious to me that most of you here are giving and taking unimformed advice
That you are making comments about things you have not even read, especially about what UFO is disclosing to everyone for free
First before you all make any comment regarding what UFO is sharing
You should read all his posts starting here about the disclosure that UFO has made it is here Not all the rubbish by uninformed persons disrupting the thread
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10529-my-motors-got-me-tap-into-radiant-energy.html#post178976 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10529-my-motors-got-me-tap-into-radiant-energy.html#post178976)
Then read all the posts starting here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines.html)
You will notice that UFO did not ask anyone to buy 2 $600 or even $100 motors to alter and see for ourselves what he was trying to explain he asked us if we want to buy 3 $6 motors and SEE for ourselves what he is saying
Every time someone asked a question regarding his disclosure he willingly answered everyone even those who here having trouble he helped so they got thier machines going
AS you read these posts you will understand the logic and as you build you will see for yourselves that what he is disclosing to us is just as he has said (it is our experimenting not his as he has finished all the experimenting before his disclosure)
many have asked about different Electric motors to convert he has looked at them and after has shown how to wire them or if the wont be useful to discard them and gives the reason why
Not averyone on the above lists are exactly sure that what UFO is disclosing is going to be exactly as he says But we are patient
And those who have built/modified like myself as he has shown are confident in what he says is feasible the fact that they are purchasing more expensive machines proves this.
Also I am sure that the Imperial Electric Company like other electric motor companies would not sell incomplete motors to anyone Just to experiment with (Believe me I have tried every where to purchase a bare motor that is without wire) especially at the price they are doing, so if they did not think there was any benefit.
So Before anyone else is going to comment here I suggest you do as As Red Sunset stated
Do not take advice uninformed, take advice to inform yourself ! It will aid you in the long run.
Kindest Regards
Ian Koglin aka Kogs
Quote from: picowatt on December 14, 2012, 09:39:06 PM
The 41 amp AC reading doesn't make much sense. Not sure why there is such a high reading, as the load is only 2000 watts of incandescent lamps. It would have been nice if he would have checked each 120VAC leg independently or used the other clamp meter to confirm the AC current. Both clamp meters can also measure voltage, and an AC voltage reading would have been nice. As well, the DC reading may be inaccurate as the commutation will produce a lot of high frequency pulsing/noise.
The voltage regulator in the gen head will maintain the proper voltage within a certain range of RPM's. As the gen lugs down the RPM of the prime mover, the output frequency will vary directly with the gen RPM but the voltage will hold fairly steady until the RPM is so low that the gen windings or exciter can't produce enough current to drive the load and at that point the voltage will drop with further drop in RPM, but not necessarily linearly.
My backup power gen set has an idle feature that still produces 240/120 at idle, but at around 13Hz. Normally a sense circuit detects a load and spins it up when a load is applied, but to conserve fuel (and noise), I have drawn a few hundred watts off of it while idling (and tricking the sense circuit). It can hold its voltage pretty well at idle up to a few hundred watts but collapses at greater loads.
Just about every configuration of motor-generator has been commercially built in the past. AC to DC, DC to AC, single phase AC to multi-phase AC and vice versa. They were a lot more common in the "olden days".
Give him more time, he seems intent on getting better measurements.
At the moment though, I'd still hold off on the party...
It would appear from his videos that he is using the Mecc Alte 6KVA brushless generator.Looking at the specs, the built in Voltage regulator can handle from -5% to +30% of recommended input 3600 rpm.At 2450 rpm it is operating at around – 32% of recommended. Way below the -5%. So what would be the output voltage at that speed?No specs, voltage curves for that rpm level available. It would be great to have a voltage measurement at that rpm. ThanksMike
Little disclaimer: I forgot about the voltage regulation on the output of the generator... I don't have any occasion to play with generators so it was 3/4 ignorance and 1/4 forgetting because I did indeed read about the regulation recently. So my hypothetical number crunching a few posts back is moot even though it was just posted that the voltage regulation would likely not work. The solution to the mystery would have been for UFO to use a voltmeter on the output. duh
However, my comments about the "feel" test hold true. If you are familiar with your four 500-watt lamps and know what it feels like to stand near them, and your meters are supposedly telling you that you are now pumping 6000 watts into the same four lamps - then you should also feel that on your skin and with your eyes. It's a mistake to not use your own senses sometimes.
Quote from: mikestocks2006 on December 18, 2012, 08:09:51 PM
It would appear from his videos that he is using the Mecc Alte 6KVA brushless generator.
Looking at the specs, the built in Voltage regulator can handle from -5% to +30% of recommended input 3600 rpm.
At 2450 rpm it is operating at around – 32% of recommended. Way below the -5%. So what would be the output voltage at that speed?
No specs, voltage curves for that rpm level available. It would be great to have a voltage measurement at that rpm.
Thanks
Mike
That is a very tight low RPM range spec. Possibly that is at full load.
Do you have a model/type number for the Mecc Alte he uses? (or a link to data sheet...)
Most gens will do full voltage unloaded to a very low RPM. The Mecc Alte digital regulator series can be programmed to follow an RPM versus voltage curve unloaded below a low RPM alarm setting, or allow full output voltage to very low RPM (20-25% nominal). I do not have a Mecc Alte, but to answer your question for any generator would require knowing the RPM as well as the applied load.
I have not tried it, but based on experience with other loads, my 8KW gen loaded with 2KW would likely maintain full out voltage @2400RPM.
PW
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
Rob:
Sorry to see you go.
Chet:
PW raised the point about the current meter on the output not being correct because it was reading too high. This is where free energy experimenters often go wrong. If UFO alleged that he was outputting 6 kW then that would mean that 1.5 kW were being dissipated in each 500-watt lamp. That clearly was not the case because the lamps would have been blindingly bright or perhaps they would have burnt out within 10 seconds. If you are around this test setup all the time then you are supposed to know what the feel of 2 kW is like coming off of your four lamps. Then you run your test and see if your meter readings are at least backed up by the feel. This clearly did not happen.
Also, many on EF are up in arms that people asked UFO for more measurements, etc. What do they want? If someone makes a claim then you ask the person about the claim. How could UFO not measure the voltage across the load? Even if he didn't do it in the clip itself, he could have done it offline and report it when he posted and give the power in and power out.
Here is what I think: The motor dropped in RPM under the load. Who knows what kind of waveform was driving those bulbs but let's put that issue aside for the moment. Let's suppose that the voltage driving the lamps was only 90 volts. Therefore (90*90)/(120*120)*500*4 = 1125 watts being dissipated in the four lamps. So his efficiency in transferring battery input power to load output power would be about 50% based on these assumptions.
With respect to UFO's rewiring of electric motors in general, I don't really follow the thread but I doubt that any serious analysis is done to compare unmodified vs. the modified motor. You are probably aware that any serious motor analysis demands that you plot performance curves for the motor. Without a prony brake you can easily use a generator attached to a resistive load instead. With some thought and effort an astute experimenter could make before/after comparisons on a motor using a generator with an attached load bank as the mechanical load for your motor under test.
When you distill all of the talk and speculation down, the end of the line is how does your unmodified or modified motor act under a mechanical load. So a "UFO modified" motor would have to generate performance curves that are superior to the stock unmodified motor to get my attention. Just a couple of days testing with an unmodified motor and a couple of days testing with a modified motor using a generator attached to a load would allow you to generate the required data. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that has ever been done.
MileHigh
MH,
I've read the last few pages over there since the original post on this thread. During morning coffee I've been reading that thread from the beginning, up to page 37 now, I believe. It seems an early project was to modify a Radio Shack motor and it seems several did. You mentioned proper testing, one of the posters over there modified one RS motor and used another similar motor coupled to the mod as a generator, to which a load was attached, to measure any performance increase. He tested both a modified and unmodified as a prime mover and measured their V and A while the gen was driving an incandescent lamp. I thought that was an excellent and fair test set up. When the tests did not appear to be going well for the modded motor, he got flamed pretty hard. Rather than calmly discuss why that was not a fair test or possibly propose what would be a fair test, things got a bit rough.
Possibly as I read on I will read of a test performed in some similarly fair fashion with any version of the modified motors that will demo increased efficiency...
There is indeed a lot of work and thought going on, but I'd still hold off on the party...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on December 18, 2012, 10:02:41 PM
That is a very tight low RPM range spec. Possibly that is at full load.
Do you have a model/type number for the Mecc Alte he uses? (or a link to data sheet...)
Most gens will do full voltage unloaded to a very low RPM. The Mecc Alte digital regulator series can be programmed to follow an RPM versus voltage curve unloaded below a low RPM alarm setting, or allow full output voltage to very low RPM (20-25% nominal). I do not have a Mecc Alte, but to answer your question for any generator would require knowing the RPM as well as the applied load.
I have not tried it, but based on experience with other loads, my 8KW gen loaded with 2KW would likely maintain full out voltage @2400RPM.
PW
In this video: Mecc Alte 6KVA Generator head (00:26 time stamp or about)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RPsgcgmt3M&list=UUdmFG5BeS0YnD2b5zasXXng&index=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RPsgcgmt3M&list=UUdmFG5BeS0YnD2b5zasXXng&index=1)
From Mecc Alte site:
http://www.meccalte.com/index.php?s=173&VAin=3&VAin_prec=3&FHz_prec=60&FHz=60&giri_prec=3600&giri=3600&monotri_prec=1&monotri=1&TenVacmono=&IP_value_prec=21&IP_value=21&ClasseHF=H&step=6 (http://www.meccalte.com/index.php?s=173&VAin=3&VAin_prec=3&FHz_prec=60&FHz=60&giri_prec=3600&giri=3600&monotri_prec=1&monotri=1&TenVacmono=&IP_value_prec=21&IP_value=21&ClasseHF=H&step=6)
The ECP3-1S/2
Is what comes up when using 6KVA power required. And 3600 rpm
The DS (DataSheet click on the tab for pdf) shows Voltage regulation min -5% to + 30% or the recommended rpm.
also
http://www.general-files.com/download/gs55bf0df0h32i0/ecp3_1s2.pdf.html
"Regulation with DSR ±1 % with any power factor and speed variations between -5% +30%"
So at -32% speed variation, what would be the voltage? Would the regulator be able to handle it? Drop to lower value?
Thanks
Mike
Quote from: MileHigh on December 16, 2012, 01:58:12 PM
Rob:
Sorry to see you go.
Chet:
PW raised the point about the current meter on the output not being correct because it was reading too high. This is where free energy experimenters often go wrong. If UFO alleged that he was outputting 6 kW then that would mean that 1.5 kW were being dissipated in each 500-watt lamp. That clearly was not the case because the lamps would have been blindingly bright or perhaps they would have burnt out within 10 seconds. If you are around this test setup all the time then you are supposed to know what the feel of 2 kW is like coming off of your four lamps. Then you run your test and see if your meter readings are at least backed up by the feel. This clearly did not happen.
Also, many on EF are up in arms that people asked UFO for more measurements, etc. What do they want? If someone makes a claim then you ask the person about the claim. How could UFO not measure the voltage across the load? Even if he didn't do it in the clip itself, he could have done it offline and report it when he posted and give the power in and power out.
Here is what I think: The motor dropped in RPM under the load. Who knows what kind of waveform was driving those bulbs but let's put that issue aside for the moment. Let's suppose that the voltage driving the lamps was only 90 volts. Therefore (90*90)/(120*120)*500*4 = 1125 watts being dissipated in the four lamps. So his efficiency in transferring battery input power to load output power would be about 50% based on these assumptions.
With respect to UFO's rewiring of electric motors in general, I don't really follow the thread but I doubt that any serious analysis is done to compare unmodified vs. the modified motor. You are probably aware that any serious motor analysis demands that you plot performance curves for the motor. Without a prony brake you can easily use a generator attached to a resistive load instead. With some thought and effort an astute experimenter could make before/after comparisons on a motor using a generator with an attached load bank as the mechanical load for your motor under test.
When you distill all of the talk and speculation down, the end of the line is how does your unmodified or modified motor act under a mechanical load. So a "UFO modified" motor would have to generate performance curves that are superior to the stock unmodified motor to get my attention. Just a couple of days testing with an unmodified motor and a couple of days testing with a modified motor using a generator attached to a load would allow you to generate the required data. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that has ever been done.
MileHigh
G'Day MileHigh and others
Here is the first Video UFO onhis thread http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10529-my-motors-got-me-tap-into-radiant-energy.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1KALMgFscg&list=UUdmFG5BeS0YnD2b5zasXXng&index=1&feature=plcp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1KALMgFscg&list=UUdmFG5BeS0YnD2b5zasXXng&index=1&feature=plcp)
Here are 2 videos of my replication of the first Circuit His
happy Motor circuit Ufo showed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edTP06B31ZE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edTP06B31ZE)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIpGdXzo-wQB31ZE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIpGdXzo-wQB31ZE)
when I was lighting the bulbs I set the circuit to output 240v then as each bulb was added the volts reduced each time but the lights continued tp be just as bright
It was only when the number of bulbs were over 3 that the circuit was getting a bit hot but all the time the draw from the 3 12v batteries in series was 200ma.
THE REASON PROBABLY WAS BECAUSE UFO said that the coils need to match the load
When I was running the motor unmodified same circuit same batteries the motor was running from very low volts to above 90v still the draw was about the same
and the motor never got hot but the speed was over the limit as you could see I had to stop else the motor would probably explode
These bulbs and the motor were running on Radiant Energy
I did try running my first modified $10 motor with circuit I did not take a video of it as it was going too fast again the coils probably were toooo big for such a little motor.
I am really convinced that UFO latest project the one he showed prematurely 12-12-12 will perform very well I have purchased
one Mecc Alte S16W-130/2 5Kva B9/22 J609B and 3 Imperial Electric Motors P56 MD003 4 HP motors as a UFO Kit
one I will replicate UFO's 12-12-12 unit as He progresses in his project he will show how it is done and
the other 2 motors I will wire up in a pair one running in reverse and hopefully use these 2 motors to run my small PulsarQ motor car
Even so I imagine that these 2 projects will take some time I am not in a hurry but I am sure I will succeed.
I will keep you posted of my progress
Kindest Regards to you all
Kogs
MH
I don't know how I missed your post ?,But I honestly did...
{the Rob situation really bothers me]
Regarding these builds ,the wheels are turning,UPS is delivering ,Anticipation /expectations are rising And Mr. UFO is quite confident in his systems capabilities.
To not rush the next "showing" until he has all his ducks in a row is wise at this time.
And Yes I do believe the test protocol will be quite definitive ,which would be Mandatory
to sustain his OU claims amounst the highly skilled critics that frequent these forums.[a good thing].
Thx
Chet
PS
I see things are getting a bit fiesty over there,"Red flag abuse" to moderator reports.
Whats a moderator?
I think I heard of these moderators, they lived a long time ago ,and used to Quell uprisings and such in a time when men were less civil to each other..... They have long since moved on to enjoy their lives frolicking around in Campers and such.
Perhaps they are not as evolved over there ?
Wonder if they do steel cage matches too ?
HHmmm
Quote from: mikestocks2006 on December 18, 2012, 10:38:29 PM
In this video: Mecc Alte 6KVA Generator head (00:26 time stamp or about)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RPsgcgmt3M&list=UUdmFG5BeS0YnD2b5zasXXng&index=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RPsgcgmt3M&list=UUdmFG5BeS0YnD2b5zasXXng&index=1)
From Mecc Alte site:
http://www.meccalte.com/index.php?s=173&VAin=3&VAin_prec=3&FHz_prec=60&FHz=60&giri_prec=3600&giri=3600&monotri_prec=1&monotri=1&TenVacmono=&IP_value_prec=21&IP_value=21&ClasseHF=H&step=6 (http://www.meccalte.com/index.php?s=173&VAin=3&VAin_prec=3&FHz_prec=60&FHz=60&giri_prec=3600&giri=3600&monotri_prec=1&monotri=1&TenVacmono=&IP_value_prec=21&IP_value=21&ClasseHF=H&step=6)
The ECP3-1S/2
Is what comes up when using 6KVA power required. And 3600 rpm
The DS (DataSheet click on the tab for pdf) shows Voltage regulation min -5% to + 30% or the recommended rpm.
also
http://www.general-files.com/download/gs55bf0df0h32i0/ecp3_1s2.pdf.html
"Regulation with DSR ±1 % with any power factor and speed variations between -5% +30%"
So at -32% speed variation, what would be the voltage? Would the regulator be able to handle it? Drop to lower value?
Thanks
Mike
I found several current and obsolete 2 pole (3600 RPM) gens at that rating on their site. As others over there are ordering/obtaining these heads someone surely has an exactmodel number. Maybe as I read I will run into it.
That quoted -5% is at any load and power factor and at 1% regulation, so that would not necessarily be the lower RPM limit for a 2kw load.
Of course it would not be all that difficult for the OP over their to stick an additional voltmeter on his test rig to measure it!
I must have missed some drama, but I too am sorry to see EA go...
PW
Um... I'm trying, I really am...... and I'm only on Page 101. but here's one quote from UFOPolitics where he computes an output power from his readings:
Quote
Output
Four Lamps at 120V
Amperage: 41 A
Output Watts: (120X41)=4920 Watts
And in the quote below I see that he and another poster are having a rather profound misunderstanding of the relationship between current, voltage, resistance, and power.
Quote
Originally Posted by machinealive (http://www.energeticforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif) (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-101.html#post218640) If you have 12 watt light, with 12 v and 1amp.
If you lower the voltage, amps will go up if there is a source to draw from, to give same 12 watts.
if you lower the volts, watts out will go down if there is no source to provide extra current,why would amps not stay the same, or decrease? therefore less then 12 watts, and light dims.
(emphasis mine)
And UFOPolitics agrees, and goes on to "explain" the relationships in Ohm's Law.............
If you lower the voltage, amps will go up if there is a source to draw from, to give the same 12 watts. Is there anyone reading +here+ that agrees with that statement?
PW, TK:
It looks like the over unity claim has blown over. This notion of modifying perfectly good electric motors to "improve" on them is an old recurring theme. UFO made a big impression on many people but I am pretty sure with some close scrutiny and proper analysis that there would be a few surprises for the believers.
In my mind's eye I can imagine making a series of YT clips called "Demystifying 'Radiant' Energy." That would be of great benefit to the free energy community and would help many and justifiably knock the wind out of the sails of others.
MileHigh
Quote from: mikestocks2006 on December 18, 2012, 10:38:29 PM
In this video: Mecc Alte 6KVA Generator head (00:26 time stamp or about)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RPsgcgmt3M&list=UUdmFG5BeS0YnD2b5zasXXng&index=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RPsgcgmt3M&list=UUdmFG5BeS0YnD2b5zasXXng&index=1)
From Mecc Alte site:
http://www.meccalte.com/index.php?s=173&VAin=3&VAin_prec=3&FHz_prec=60&FHz=60&giri_prec=3600&giri=3600&monotri_prec=1&monotri=1&TenVacmono=&IP_value_prec=21&IP_value=21&ClasseHF=H&step=6 (http://www.meccalte.com/index.php?s=173&VAin=3&VAin_prec=3&FHz_prec=60&FHz=60&giri_prec=3600&giri=3600&monotri_prec=1&monotri=1&TenVacmono=&IP_value_prec=21&IP_value=21&ClasseHF=H&step=6)
The ECP3-1S/2
Is what comes up when using 6KVA power required. And 3600 rpm
The DS (DataSheet click on the tab for pdf) shows Voltage regulation min -5% to + 30% or the recommended rpm.
also
http://www.general-files.com/download/gs55bf0df0h32i0/ecp3_1s2.pdf.html
"Regulation with DSR ±1 % with any power factor and speed variations between -5% +30%"
So at -32% speed variation, what would be the voltage? Would the regulator be able to handle it? Drop to lower value?
Thanks
Mike
G'Day Mike
In the first video you mentioned UFO is showing how he is modifying the mecc Alte Generator head that he purchased
This generator is S16W 130/2 5Kva that is a 1 bearing Job dedigned with a short shaft that has an female taper to the end where it is designed
to marry up to another either Petrol or diesel motor that has a mating shaft to match with the Mecc Alte gen head
I purchased a new Mecc Alte gen head that has a parallel shaft keyed and therefore has 2 bearings
As I progress with my builds I will keep all you here posted
Kindest Regards
Kogs
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 19, 2012, 12:38:21 AM
........................................................................................
If you lower the voltage, amps will go up if there is a source to draw from, to give the same 12 watts. Is there anyone reading +here+ that agrees with that statement?
Hi TinselKoala,
Your are absolutely correct to your 'initial' understanding, in this relationship, it is important to realize what comes first "the chicken or the egg". The regulation mechanism in this example is the voltage, not the lamp resistance.
What comes first: A lamp is a resistance, that will draw a current according to the voltage it is connected to.
What follows: is the consumption which is the product of the "voltage x current", commonly referred to as "power" and this value is expressed in "watts".
Of interest to note, is what adds to this value: the current is the "'voltage' divided by 'resistance'", this means that a lower voltage will also lower the current. So a lower voltage will have a dual impact on the power consumed.
I think the motor/generator concept and it's initial intent were clever but to execute OU in a device using the same reference frame is to our current knowledge impossible (the generator reflects its load to the motor, so the output draw comes from the input, for OU this link needs to be severed. To sever this link you need to bridge over into an other reference frame, so there is a relationship but no feedback onto the source.
A simple test is to compare the motor load increase vs the output loading, e.g. does the motor slow when connecting a load to the generator?, allowing for some measurement tolerance would give a fast indication of a OU possibility.
If the motor slows down, is already an indication that the generator load is transferring its load onto the input, lets assume it is not transferring its full load, than we most likely have a more efficient system but not necessary OU, this would dependent on how efficient the motor has become after reducing its duty cycle to 50% (since the other 50% of the rotation is allocated to the generator).
The fast analysis done some posts back does not show any glittering gems that would have the promise of OU, if they were there, they would show and be explainable. Because for OU, the generator MUST contribute to the ongoing rotation of the rotor., it can do that by promoting the motor section or start acting as a motor itself, or the reverse where the motor section neutralizes the magnetic back force created by the generator under load.
None of these possible scenario's were found (I must admit that I have not read all the whole forum on the other website after seeing a few too many assumptions) and I tend to trust my own instincts to be eager to find OU, not to disprove it. This doesn't remove the need to see a good reason why it is OU.
Quote from: Ian Koglin on December 19, 2012, 03:41:28 AM
G'Day Mike
In the first video you mentioned UFO is showing how he is modifying the mecc Alte Generator head that he purchased
This generator is S16W 130/2 5Kva that is a 1 bearing Job dedigned with a short shaft that has an female taper to the end where it is designed
to marry up to another either Petrol or diesel motor that has a mating shaft to match with the Mecc Alte gen head
I purchased a new Mecc Alte gen head that has a parallel shaft keyed and therefore has 2 bearings
As I progress with my builds I will keep all you here posted
Kindest Regards
Kogs
Hi, Ian KoglinIn his video it states Mecc Alte 6KVA. No specs on your S16W 130/2 could be located at the Mecc Alte. If you have the specs that came with your unit, it would be great to post the DSR operation limits with respect to speed.Are they also -5% to 30% ?ThanksMike Ps:Latest video and measurements with 2 light bulbs,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPum7B65e1w&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPum7B65e1w&feature=youtu.be)
Input about 800 watts measured Vdc x AmpsDc 34.4x23.4Output about 1000 watts measured using a watt meter I would be interesting to see what the rpms are. For closing the loop this maybe useful: http://www.trcelectronics.com/Cosel/pba1000f-36.shtmlAlso, if the motor can handle 48 VDc this power supply (cheaper) may be useful for closing the loop:http://www.trcelectronics.com/Meanwell/rsp-1500-48.shtml
Quote from: mikestocks2006 on December 19, 2012, 12:10:42 PM
Hi, Ian Koglin
In his video it states Mecc Alte 6KVA.
No specs on your S16W 130/2 could be located at the Mecc Alte. If you have the specs that came with your unit, it would be great to post the DSR operation limits with respect to speed.
Are they also -5% to 30% ?
Thanks
Mike
Ps:
Latest video and measurements with 2 light bulbs,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPum7B65e1w&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPum7B65e1w&feature=youtu.be)
Input about 800 watts measured Vdc x AmpsDc 34.4x23.4
Output about 1000 watts measured using a watt meter
I would be interesting to see what the rpms are.
For closing the loop this maybe useful:
http://www.trcelectronics.com/Cosel/pba1000f-36.shtml
Also, if the motor can handle 48 VDc this power supply (cheaper) may be useful for closing the loop:
http://www.trcelectronics.com/Meanwell/rsp-1500-48.shtml
I watched the video. It appears that he was only measuring the DC current feeding one set of motor windings. With the initially turned on winding, he measured 46 amps or so, then he switched on the "output" winding, which was actually being used as an additional motor winding and the current dropped in the first leg, because the second set of windings were likely pulling as much as the first set, but were not included in the measurement (i.e., 23 amps or so perwinding set). 46 amps at 34 volts is ca 1564 watts to produce 1000 watts. Quite sensible, but no OU.
Others can scrutiny the video to see if my "he only measured half the DC current" assertion is correct based on what can be seen of the wiring, but he should have clamped his ammeter right on the cutoff switch knifeblade or measured the current in both legs and added them up. If he actually believes one set of windings is acting as an "output", then the knife blade or a wire loop right off the battery to the knife blade would have been the correct location to measure DC current. (He could also measure at any battery interconnect loop as well).
Surely he knows this.
For now, still no party...
PW
I see another poster over there mentioned the "only measuring half the current" issue. UFO's response was to claim that he was measuring directly off the battery in a loop to his knife switch. At 00:39 seconds it can be clearly seen that one end of the knife switch is bolted to the battery terminal. The opposing end of the knife switch has the two largish wires attached that appear to feed the two switches which are assumed to be connected in series with the two sets of brush pairs in the motor (the opposing ends of the two brush set pairs then presumably are connected to the battery negative).
One switch on, one set of motoring brushes driven. Both switches on, both sets of motoring brushes driven. The clamp meter is only measuring one set of brushes.
His "explanation" as to why the current can't be measured at the negative end of the battery stack says a lot, and it does not inspire confidence.
Putting my party hat back in the closet...
PW
Why is it so difficult to get these simple measurements done in simple ways? Never mind, it's a rhetorical question.
So we have the misstatement from earlier that the batteries cannot "generate" something over 40 amps, so we just turn that meter off.... when we now know that the CCA of those batteries can be hundreds of amperes into a low impedance load.
And we have the evident and continuing misconceptions about the relationship between voltage, resistance, current, and power, as shown in the conversation that I linked above.
Now we appear to have some further mismeasurement that seems to avoid including a substantial portion of the input power.
We have data-plate values taken as output (If a 500 Watt bulb is glowing brightly it must therefore represent 500 Watts of power) instead of actual measurements, we have measuring instruments being used improperly and we have data from those instruments being used wrongly in miscalculations... then we have claims based on the miscalculations that are causing people to make behavioural decisions, ordering parts.
And now we evidently have people packing and sending off those parts who have no clue about packaging heavy and delicate items; we have armatures that aren't even turned down to fit into the (sometimes missing) matching stator housings.... and we have conspiracy theories about just who is opening the packages and removing the packaging material that surely must have been there when the boxes were shipped because nobody in their right minds would just toss the commutators into the box with no protection, or ship a heavy armature in such a way that it is _certain_ to get damaged in transit....
Yes, it must be the Christmas hired help.
Quote from: picowatt on December 19, 2012, 04:24:45 PM
I watched the video. It appears that he was only measuring the DC current feeding one set of motor windings. With the initially turned on winding, he measured 46 amps or so, then he switched on the "output" winding, which was actually being used as an additional motor winding and the current dropped in the first leg, because the second set of windings were likely pulling as much as the first set, but were not included in the measurement (i.e., 23 amps or so perwinding set). 46 amps at 34 volts is ca 1564 watts to produce 1000 watts. Quite sensible, but no OU.
Others can scrutiny the video to see if my "he only measured half the DC current" assertion is correct based on what can be seen of the wiring, but he should have clamped his ammeter right on the cutoff switch knifeblade or measured the current in both legs and added them up. If he actually believes one set of windings is acting as an "output", then the knife blade or a wire loop right off the battery to the knife blade would have been the correct location to measure DC current. (He could also measure at any battery interconnect loop as well).
Surely he knows this.
For now, still no party...
PW
G'Day picowatt, EtAl
Please beleive me I intend no disrespect here to any one. I consider all who are here my friends and all my friends call me Kogs
It is obvious you have not understood the rewiring of the Motors that UFO has explained on his site.
If you dont read the 2 lists/threads that UFO has started (Disregarding all the posts that distract what is being taught )you can not understand what he is explaining in the videos.
You can not make assumptions from just watching and thinking that it is working the way a normal DC motor works. His motors are not normal DC motors.
There are not 2 motor windings in his motors the switches he has attached are not what you are saying, without going into too much detail here
as he explains himself quite clearly on his thread and it would take me too long to try to teach you here and I am not going to try to teach here as he is doing a good job himself to all those who want to take the time to read and learn what he is saying and actually by reading all his posts.
Simply stated
his machines are actually a motor and generator combined each separate winding is either a motor winding or a generator winding all depending on the position of the windings whether it has power to it or not. When it has power to it then it is a motor winding and runs the motor, it uses the input to the motor and draws current from the DC source the battery and is measured in the amps when the same motor winding is in a different position it is a generator not a motor and therefore produces energy and does not draw power from the source and then is the output of the motor and it can also be measured in amps. A 3pole motor has 3 separate windings, a 5 pole motor has 5 separate windings, a 20 pole motor hase 20 separate windings. These windings are not wound as a normal DC motor winding but are explained quite clearly on his thread here.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-106.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-106.html)
You need to start read from Post one
UFO has shown US on his two sites how to switch or rather channel the output from the gererator windings (the output) into the Motor winding (the input) and when he does this the whole motor then only draws about half of the the amps it is /was using when the input was only to the motor winding.
I hope this helps you understand things more clearly
I would encourage all of you to start reading here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-106.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-106.html)
Starting from post one
Kindest regards
http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa350/Kogs1/Kogs%20UFO%20Photos/gears_animated_avatar_99x89_57418.gif[/img]](https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1193.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa350%2FKogs1%2FKogs%2520UFO%2520Photos%2Fgears_animated_avatar_99x89_57418.gif&hash=cc754de8b479a0fc196606fbae325cab9adac149) (http://[img)
Kogs trying to help
Kogs
Thank you for taking the time and effort to offer explanations and guidance With UFO's Unorthodox Motor /Gen system.
Surely this will "Do what it Do" in the very near future!and the Skilled
measurement Men will have their Day too.....
And perhaps the party to follow !{@pix , hold unto your hat}
Thx
Chet
What does it matter "how" it is supposed to work? You have some batteries supplying a "black box". Inside this box is an asymmetric machine, or a very tired squirrel, or the very Wheelworks of Nature..... who knows, we'll take a look later on. There is a set of outlets on the side of the Black Box that you can plug some load into, like a bank of lightbulbs. Explanations of how the Black Box powers its load are not necessary, since it has _not yet been shown_ that the amount of energy coming _out_ of the black box, during a suitable time interval, exceeds that energy being put _Into_ the black box from its batteries.
Perhaps Kogs has access to some better measurements of input and output _energies_ than what we have seen so far. If so.... by all means let us examine them.
Kogs:
QuoteSimply stated
his machines are actually a motor and generator combined each separate winding is either a motor winding or a generator winding all depending on the position of the windings whether it has power to it or not. When it has power to it then it is a motor winding and runs the motor, it uses the input to the motor and draws current from the DC source the battery and is measured in the amps when the same motor winding is in a different position it is a generator not a motor and therefore produces energy and does not draw power from the source and then is the output of the motor and it can also be measured in amps. A 3pole motor has 3 separate windings, a 5 pole motor has 5 separate windings, a 20 pole motor hase 20 separate windings. These windings are not wound as a normal DC motor winding but are explained quite clearly on his thread here.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-106.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-106.html)
You need to start read from Post one
UFO has shown US on his two sites how to switch or rather channel the output from the gererator windings (the output) into the Motor winding (the input) and when he does this the whole motor then only draws about half of the the amps it is /was using when the input was only to the motor winding.
When it comes to a motor winding if you insert a generator winding like you are describing then it's like you have merged a motor and a generator into one system. That's all fine but you need to understand that the same things still happen. What I mean by that is when a motor winding is active it pushes on the rotor to make it speed up. When a generator winding is active it pulls on the rotor to slow it down. Then also in the UFO-winding case you can have direct transformer action between the motor winding and the generator winding.
The thing to keep in mind that although it sounds like a fascinating winding scheme, the same principles that apply to separate motors connected to separate generators and transformers will still apply. The fundamental things that are happening is the motor coils are creating changing magnetic flux and generator coils are producing counter flux. A UFO-wired motor is a changing magnetic flux mish-mash - but the same principles that you observe when a moving magnet passes a coil connected to a load will apply.
The question is how many people can "see" that.
With respect to the motor drawing half the amps, then you have to measure its mechanical power output to be able to draw any conclusions. One more time, the same basic motor and generator principles will apply. You can assume that a motor that draws half the amps will have approximately one half the mechanical power output. That would ideally require a comparison of the torque vs. RPM vs. input power plot (or something equivalent done with a generator connected to a load bank) for the two motor configurations.
Of course I realize that the whole premise of the UFO wiring configuration is that it does something special.
MileHigh
Quote from: Ian Koglin on December 19, 2012, 08:04:29 PM
G'Day picowatt, EtAl
Please beleive me I intend no disrespect here to any one. I consider all who are here my friends and all my friends call me Kogs
It is obvious you have not understood the rewiring of the Motors that UFO has explained on his site.
If you dont read the 2 lists/threads that UFO has started (Disregarding all the posts that distract what is being taught )you can not understand what he is explaining in the videos.
You can not make assumptions from just watching and thinking that it is working the way a normal DC motor works. His motors are not normal DC motors.
There are not 2 motor windings in his motors the switches he has attached are not what you are saying, without going into too much detail here
as he explains himself quite clearly on his thread and it would take me too long to try to teach you here and I am not going to try to teach here as he is doing a good job himself to all those who want to take the time to read and learn what he is saying and actually by reading all his posts.
Simply stated
his machines are actually a motor and generator combined each separate winding is either a motor winding or a generator winding all depending on the position of the windings whether it has power to it or not. When it has power to it then it is a motor winding and runs the motor, it uses the input to the motor and draws current from the DC source the battery and is measured in the amps when the same motor winding is in a different position it is a generator not a motor and therefore produces energy and does not draw power from the source and then is the output of the motor and it can also be measured in amps. A 3pole motor has 3 separate windings, a 5 pole motor has 5 separate windings, a 20 pole motor hase 20 separate windings. These windings are not wound as a normal DC motor winding but are explained quite clearly on his thread here.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-106.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-106.html)
You need to start read from Post one
UFO has shown US on his two sites how to switch or rather channel the output from the gererator windings (the output) into the Motor winding (the input) and when he does this the whole motor then only draws about half of the the amps it is /was using when the input was only to the motor winding.
I hope this helps you understand things more clearly
I would encourage all of you to start reading here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-106.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-106.html)
Starting from post one
Kindest regards
http://i1193.photobucket.com/albums/aa350/Kogs1/Kogs%20UFO%20Photos/gears_animated_avatar_99x89_57418.gif[/img]](https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1193.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa350%2FKogs1%2FKogs%2520UFO%2520Photos%2Fgears_animated_avatar_99x89_57418.gif&hash=cc754de8b479a0fc196606fbae325cab9adac149) (http://[img)
Kogs trying to help
With all due respect, when he switches on the second switch, the motor speed increases and the amp draw on the first set of brushes (first switch) goes to half its previous value. The second set of brushes/windings switched in are acting as a second motoring winding and the load is therefore shared by both brush pairs, hence both switched leads. And that is exactly what the measuremenrt he showed demonstrated.
Measuring where he did only measures half the motor drive current. Measuring on any of the single wires used to connect the batteries together (or the knife blade) will give a true current reading.
Anyone that buys into his reasoning regarding why the motor drive current can't be measured at the negative battery wire should be ashamed. He should be called on that.
Several members duplicated the little RS motor mod and when someone began to perform actual performance comparison measurements UFO went off the deep end and then said the motor was only a small model not intended to prove any OU (nor did it even appear more efficient). So what was the point of that motor mod?
It seems he is now attempting to measure only what and where it makes his system look good.
If he does not/will not redo the motor power measurement with the clamp meter on a single battery interconnect wire, both his ethics and understanding of power measurement should be questioned.
This is not the first time he has demonstrated a lack of understanding about power measurement. For example, when he claimed OU on 12-12, he used 50 amps @ 240 as his generating capability, even though his gen is only rated at 25 amps @240 (and I doubt his motor could ever drive that gen to full load without producing smoke).
Sorry, all the party favors are back in the closet.
PW
PW:
QuoteHis "explanation" as to why the current can't be measured at the negative end of the battery stack says a lot, and it does not inspire confidence.
I second that emotion!
I just checked and UFO is not understanding this sentence in the his link for "Measuring Tip & Glossary - KYORITSU" and misinterpreting it as "You have to measure current from the positive terminal of the battery."
QuoteClamp on to a conductor just the same way as with AC current measurement using an AC current clamp meter. In the case of DC clamp meters the reading is positive (+) when the current is flowing from the upside to the underside of the clamp meter.
MileHigh
Quote from UFO:
"Most of times...some "Experts" believe they know it all...til one single day...they get to "find out"... they didn't know absolutely nada, nothing at all..."
Exactly...
Sounds a bit like the kettle calling the pot black.
Quote from: picowatt on December 19, 2012, 09:47:20 PM
With all due respect, when he switches on the second switch, the motor speed increases and the amp draw on the first set of brushes (first switch) goes to half its previous value. The second set of brushes/windings switched in are acting as a second motoring winding and the load is therefore shared by both brush pairs, hence both switched leads. And that is exactly what the measuremenrt he showed demonstrated.
Measuring where he did only measures half the motor drive current. Measuring on any of the single wires used to connect the batteries together (or the knife blade) will give a true current reading.
Anyone that buys into his reasoning regarding why the motor drive current can't be measured at the negative battery wire should be ashamed. He should be called on that.
Several members duplicated the little RS motor mod and when someone began to perform actual performance comparison measurements UFO went off the deep end and then said the motor was only a small model not intended to prove any OU (nor did it even appear more efficient). So what was the point of that motor mod?
It seems he is now attempting to measure only what and where it makes his system look good.
If he does not/will not redo the motor power measurement with the clamp meter on a single battery interconnect wire, both his ethics and understanding of power measurement should be questioned.
This is not the first time he has demonstrated a lack of understanding about power measurement. For example, when he claimed OU on 12-12, he used 50 amps @ 240 as his generating capability, even though his gen is only rated at 25 amps @240 (and I doubt his motor could ever drive that gen to full load without producing smoke).
Sorry, all the party favors are back in the closet.
PW
G'Day picowat
Without prejudice
It costs just $12.00 to buy 2 RS motors probably $5.00 for the wire to rewind and say 6 to 8 hours to make the mods
Just make one as UFO has explained (Read the posts first follow exactly) then when you have finished show the results
I think you probably wont because if you do build exactly you will see that he is right and you wont want to do that.
You said that people there have built and been dissapointed No they are not because everyone there that has succeeded has helped the others so that they can finish it and see for themselves
Com'on picowat
All the replicators on UFO's site have paid thier $12 made the mods seen the results bought various other motors some costing a couple of $100 made the mods and
Now are buying $600.00 motors BUT because they have to unwind the motors and make the mods one of the participants "Machinealive" spent hours discussing with the Motor company to make a deal where the Motor is un assembled UNWIRED so as the other participants would not have to unwind the motor he did not make any money on the deal nor did any one else The motor firm has agreed to supply all the participants as a reduced rate so they can further their learning
Now why would every one that has made the mods to the RS toy motors do the tests then buy larger different ones Of their own choosing test these
THEN TURN AROUND AND NOW SPEND A LOT MORE MONEY just because they like to spend money. THEY CAN SEE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT THESE MACHINES CAN DO
and FORSEE THE FUTURE CAPABILITIED.
When UFO showed his premature video there were a lot of people jumped to conclusions and tried to explain how it just could not be possible to do what he said
He has stated this is
not his experiment it is
our experimenting he has done all the experimenting before he started his 2 main threads
One of the members/Participants on UFO's Forums stated this and I am sure it is the sentiments of all those who are actually replicating UFO's Mods/Disclosure
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ALL who are concerned of us being a misled flock of innocent guys.
If you feel we were addict to a guru and need enlightment - you are wrong, completely wrong!
If you think research were a path along well known side rails and the only exciting task were to puzzle with known matters - you are wrong, completely wrong.
If you feel you were the first who shares these concerns - you are wrong, completely wrong. We ourselves were the first asking theses questions.
We all are aware of being on a jurney with no paved path, even no game runway in sight. Many other threads are on similar ways, all trying to research the terra incognita (unkown world). This is the jurney we choose freely and in full responibility!
Along that we are willing to take risks and everybody measures his own amount of risk - freely and unaffected by any guru. Risk contains the inherent possibility of going wrong. We know that! No risk no fun!
There pop up some gurus here from time to time trying to give enlightment we did not request. If you think we need unrequested help - you are wrong, completely wrong.
Obviously you did not get it: Chiming in and suggesting we were immature and under-aged creatures. You are wrong, completely wrong! This is a serious insult you never would accept to suffer yourself.
So please accept us to go the way of life we choose - asking for solutions and not for worries. And everybody shall stand away from this thread and any similar who does not accept the risk of research.
JohnS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I joined this thread as I thought people were interested in what UFO was doing and I thought I might be of some help
So to You all here If you want I will continue to show my progress here but will not anymore comment to anyone else who make a negative comment without actually making his own replication and showing his results.
Kindest Regards to you all
Kogs
Quote from: Ian Koglin on December 20, 2012, 01:30:28 AM
G'Day picowat
Without prejudice
It costs just $12.00 to buy 2 RS motors probably $5.00 for the wire to rewind and say 6 to 8 hours to make the mods
Just make one as UFO has explained (Read the posts first follow exactly) then when you have finished show the results
I think you probably wont because if you do build exactly you will see that he is right and you wont want to do that.
You said that people there have built and been dissapointed No they are not because everyone there that has succeeded has helped the others so that they can finish it and see for themselves
Com'on picowat
All the replicators on UFO's site have paid thier $12 made the mods seen the results bought various other motors some costing a couple of $100 made the mods and
Now are buying $600.00 motors BUT because they have to unwind the motors and make the mods one of the participants "Machinealive" spent hours discussing with the Motor company to make a deal where the Motor is un assembled UNWIRED so as the other participants would not have to unwind the motor he did not make any money on the deal nor did any one else The motor firm has agreed to supply all the participants as a reduced rate so they can further their learning
Now why would every one that has made the mods to the RS toy motors do the tests then buy larger different ones Of their own choosing test these
THEN TURN AROUND AND NOW SPEND A LOT MORE MONEY just because they like to spend money. THEY CAN SEE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT THESE MACHINES CAN DO
and FORSEE THE FUTURE CAPABILITIED.
When UFO showed his premature video there were a lot of people jumped to conclusions and tried to explain how it just could not be possible to do what he said
He has stated this is not his experiment it is our experimenting he has done all the experimenting before he started his 2 main threads
One of the members/Participants on UFO's Forums stated this and I am sure it is the sentiments of all those who are actually replicating UFO's Mods/Disclosure
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ALL who are concerned of us being a misled flock of innocent guys.
If you feel we were addict to a guru and need enlightment - you are wrong, completely wrong!
If you think research were a path along well known side rails and the only exciting task were to puzzle with known matters - you are wrong, completely wrong.
If you feel you were the first who shares these concerns - you are wrong, completely wrong. We ourselves were the first asking theses questions.
We all are aware of being on a jurney with no paved path, even no game runway in sight. Many other threads are on similar ways, all trying to research the terra incognita (unkown world). This is the jurney we choose freely and in full responibility!
Along that we are willing to take risks and everybody measures his own amount of risk - freely and unaffected by any guru. Risk contains the inherent possibility of going wrong. We know that! No risk no fun!
There pop up some gurus here from time to time trying to give enlightment we did not request. If you think we need unrequested help - you are wrong, completely wrong.
Obviously you did not get it: Chiming in and suggesting we were immature and under-aged creatures. You are wrong, completely wrong! This is a serious insult you never would accept to suffer yourself.
So please accept us to go the way of life we choose - asking for solutions and not for worries. And everybody shall stand away from this thread and any similar who does not accept the risk of research.
JohnS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I joined this thread as I thought people were interested in what UFO was doing and I thought I might be of some help
So to You all here If you want I will continue to show my progress here but will not anymore comment to anyone else who make a negative comment without actually making his own replication and showing his results.
Kindest Regards to you all
Kogs
Regards,
While I have only just begun reading that thread since the OP on this thread, what I did read so far was only one attempt to determine any efficiency improvement in the RS mod and that person got flamed for his efforts. If there were accurate efficiency measurements made by others that I have not yet read about, please direct me to a post over there regarding that.
So far, I have not read nor seen any plausible evidence that the RS mod, the "wrench beater" motor, or the latest motor/generator setup offer any efficiency improvements over standard motor configurations.
Sorry, the latest motor/gen measurements video in concert with UFO's commentary since that video has sealed the deal for me.
Nothing to celebrate...
PW
Now it appears that KCL is out the window, and you cannot measure DC current at the negative pole of the supply.... only the positive one. And of course, the Kyoritsu manual is cited as support for this.... when it actually is only pointing out how to know the correct _direction_ of the current and says nothing about whether one _must_ measure on the positive or negative side of the load.
QuoteI have been measuring Amperage on NEGATIVE POLE OF BATTERY....AND THAT IS VERY WRONG!!!...
NEVER, EVER, DC AMPERAGE GETS MEASURED ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE POLE OF LOAD...AS THIS CURRENT...IS...NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS...THAN THE MANIFESTED CURRENT BACK TO BATTERY FROM MY MACHINE (THE EXCESS, THE RESIDUAL)...SINCE...CURRENT "MANIFESTS"...NEVER TRAVELS LIKE VOLTAGE DOES...WELL, IT MANIFESTS AS INPUT AS MY MOTOR REQUEST IT ONLY AT POSITIVE TERMINAL OF BATTERIES...NEVER AT NEGATIVE!!
(emphasis in the original)
Further, he is using a Chicago Electric wattmeter. From the reviews of this product on the Harbor Freight website:
QuoteDoes not appear to correctly measure watts.
By Fred
from UndisclosedComments about Chicago Electric Digital Electricity Usage Tester:
I bought because I misplaced my Kill-A-Watt. I tested it on some reactive loads that had low power factors. The readout was close to just multiplying volts time amps (VAR) rather than true Watts (VAR times PF)
I have to wonder how a properly measured DC current could be different on either side of a load.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 20, 2012, 03:46:19 AM
Now it appears that KCL is out the window, and you cannot measure DC current at the negative pole of the supply.... only the positive one. And of course, the Kyoritsu manual is cited as support for this.... when it actually is only pointing out how to know the correct _direction_ of the current and says nothing about whether one _must_ measure on the positive or negative side of the load.
(emphasis in the original)
Further, he is using a Chicago Electric wattmeter. From the reviews of this product on the Harbor Freight website:
I have to wonder how a properly measured DC current could be different on either side of a load.
TK,
I just read the following quote from UFO on 8-18-12:
"NOW WHEN IT COMES TO TESTING MY MACHINES , MY DESIGN IN ORDER TO COMPARE THEM, CRITICIZE THEM, ANALYZE THEM OR WHATEVER...I RESERVE ENTIRELY THE RIGHT TO APPROVE OR NOT TO APPROVE ANY OF THOSE TESTINGS, IF THEY ARE NOT DONE, MADE OR EFFECTED ACCORDING TO MY SPECIFICATIONS, MY EXPLANATIONS AND MY FINAL DECISIONS."
Oh well...
PW
Hi Guy's
It is good to see some that can see how thing's realy are.
But some word's of warning from some one that knows first hand
If you are going to post on UFO's thread over at EF,and are not one of his follower's
1-dont question his measuring method's
2-dont try and correct his followers in reguard's to what will happen to the amp draw to an incandecant bulb when the volts rize.
3-dont try to defend your self when UFO's army come charging.
As some here may have seen,i know first hand what happens if you do any of the above.
I also see that if you replicate any of his motor design's,that all measurment's taken must now be approved by UFO him self-(as stated in comment above)
I guess the good thing about that is,many of us will now be able to build overunity system's.
It is mentioned in a post here not long ago,that a man built one of UFO's motor/generator setup's.
If it is the same guy i am thinking about,then you would have to agree that it was built to exact specification's and that measurment's would have been very precise.
This man the tried to make some point's on how UFO could impprove his setup,and like mentioned above-was crucified for his effort's.
I know this man,and there could not be a kinder person out there in the FE comunity.
The thing that has me stumped is that UFO claims to be trained in physic's,electronic's and is a mechanic aswell.
But two simple measurment's seem to elude him?(input and output)
Kogs,
Does UFO have overunity, yes or no?
Quote from: poynt99 on December 20, 2012, 08:10:47 AM
Kogs,
Does UFO have overunity, yes or no?
Kogs also has OU because he build the $10 motor. I have seen a video from UFOpolitics where he also thought he had OU because he hooked up his motor to a Lipo battery and was all surprised about the torque! He thinks he is some kind of god like some others in the OU comunity.
The truth is he is misleading people!
Quote from: tinman on December 20, 2012, 06:47:54 AM
Hi Guy's
It is good to see some that can see how thing's realy are.
But some word's of warning from some one that knows first hand
...
But two simple measurment's seem to elude him?(input and output)
Hi Tinman,
You have spoken some true and pivotal words, it is important to keep your feet on the ground. This is easy to do when you are on the fringe.
At the same time it is a different story for someone who is in the heat of the action, right in the middle of it all. His closeup involvement changes all.
All his eggs are in that basket, he might know that not all eggs are good for an omelet but there you come and want to mess with those eggs, you are asking for trouble and that you will get, this is not so difficult to understand. It is never nice to see "that good idea" of the last 12 month's obsession being trampled upon.
I call this the human factor, give it some time and do some prodding peace meal, not too much in one go and the right responses will be received to answers these more difficult questions. Because in the end OU would cook you an omelet, easy over.
The best OU test is frying omelets, pancakes, make coffee in the middle of a parking lot with an electric pan. No meters, no batteries anywhere. Only some nice smelling breakfast. Now that is a indisputable OU test!
Lets remember that it is easier to breakdown an idea, that it is to bring one to the table. An unrealized shared idea obviously needs help to get it to full realization, constructive building criticism is needed here, so gently does it !
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 20, 2012, 04:29:53 PM
Hi Tinman,
You have spoken some true and pivotal words, it is important to keep your feet on the ground. This is easy to do when you are on the fringe.
At the same time it is a different story for someone who is in the heat of the action, right in the middle of it all. His closeup involvement changes all.
All his eggs are in that basket, he might know that not all eggs are good for an omelet but there you come and want to mess with those eggs, you are asking for trouble and that you will get, this is not so difficult to understand. It is never nice to see "that good idea" of the last 12 month's obsession being trampled upon.
I call this the human factor, give it some time and do some prodding peace meal, not too much in one go and the right responses will be received to answers these more difficult questions. Because in the end OU would cook you an omelet, easy over.
The best OU test is frying omelets, pancakes, make coffee in the middle of a parking lot with an electric pan. No meters, no batteries anywhere. Only some nice smelling breakfast. Now that is a indisputable OU test!
Lets remember that it is easier to breakdown an idea, that it is to bring one to the table. An unrealized shared idea obviously needs help to get it to full realization, constructive building criticism is needed here, so gently does it !
Gently would have probably been a better option.But the reason i joined the thread in the first place was because i actualy believed in UFO's work.
But then came the scream of !! overunity galore !!.What i saw after that was guy's spending money on kit's,so as to get this overunity galore for them self's.
My gentle approach turned into more of a !!hang on guys!! approach. (probably my mistake)
I have seen this happen all to often,and im sure many have aswell.
The kit's them self are a great base for doing some testing of your own,but there was no need to imply that they could achieve overunity if built right-as that has in no way been proven.
We would all be asked the same question's that i asked UFO,if we made that overunity claim aswell.
But that would be a claim i would never make,unless i could back it up with absolute proof-and it had been replicated by atleast 2 other people.
But time will tell,and many have there kit's now-so we shall see the outcome soon enough.
On another note:-I wish you all a merry Xmas.
Quote from: picowatt on December 20, 2012, 04:47:37 AM
TK,
I just read the following quote from UFO on 8-18-12:
"NOW WHEN IT COMES TO TESTING MY MACHINES , MY DESIGN IN ORDER TO COMPARE THEM, CRITICIZE THEM, ANALYZE THEM OR WHATEVER...I RESERVE ENTIRELY THE RIGHT TO APPROVE OR NOT TO APPROVE ANY OF THOSE TESTINGS, IF THEY ARE NOT DONE, MADE OR EFFECTED ACCORDING TO MY SPECIFICATIONS, MY EXPLANATIONS AND MY FINAL DECISIONS."
Oh well...
PW
G'Day picowatt
By taking just one part of a conversation you here are I am sure KNOWINGLY you are trying to discredit UFO It looks like You intentionaly forgot to explain what UFO was saying here.
All the experimenters were discussing thier own Ideas of how to test the motors they had Modified some had not modified according to his disclosure on how to modify them and some were putting forward thier results as they had tested thier own machines thier own way and were trying to compare the results.
UFO had explained that the tests need to be done using the standard for measuring the energy output of any machine and that is to measure the brake horsepower and this can only be done by using a recognized Peony testing machine and he has shown on the same forum even how to make one of these machines and explained how to use it correctly so as to take the proper measurements so as to do the proper calculations to arrive at the Brake Horsepower value of these machines. and by doing so everyone would be comparing thier machines correctly.
So picowatt if you are going to use someones comments Please do not take them out of context If you do then your comment is truly a lie.
I rember hearing once a proverb it said IF YOU TELL A LIE ONCE
NOBODY WILL EVER BELIEVE YOU AGAIN EVEN IF YOU TELL THEM THE TRUTH.
I Wrote in post 76
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I joined this thread as I thought people were interested in what UFO was doing and I thought I might be of some help
So to You all here If you want I will continue to show my progress here but will not anymore comment to anyone else who make a negative comment without actually making his own replication and showing his results.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This time I could not really help my self I do not tell lies and just do not like to see other people tell lies just to try to discredit someone I thought people on these forums wanted to learn and help each other understand
So Now Picowatt I feel now as still reading on after my previous post that consequence of my posting here would be taken out of context or ridiculed and or I will not post my progress of my replication of UFO's or any other of my projects here I will not post anything here again
Kindest Regards to you all who are interested
I am on UFO's lists and I do show my results there where they are appreciated and if you are interested in my progress you can see them there
Kogs
Koalas have proverbs too, you know. One of ours goes, "If you make crazy mistakes in your power measurements, and have misconceptions about Ohm's Law, don't understand the relationship between Voltage, Current, Resistance and Power, and don't think SLA batteries can "generate" over 40 amps, and don't understand the difference between a true Tesla Bifilar winding and one that cancels magnetic fields and inductance, for example ...... then there is no reason to believe you when you make claims of electrical overunity."
Or something like that. It's much more poetic in the original.
@Red: The problem here is similar to a problem we have discussed before. Only here, there are not only no sausages, but also no eggs for your omelet. What you are being shown, and told "Look! Egg!", isn't an edible egg at all. Get up close to it and take a good look.... it smells a bit, and you can see that there are definite toxic parts in the mix that are totally unpalatable. You can do all the cooking in the parking lot you like, but without a real, unspoiled egg, you get..... a big eggshaped zero.
Kogs
I live by another rule,"the truth shall set you free".
In this Case the ultimate truth will prevail,and I find it quite commendable that you make a stand for that !
I personally would be sorely Dissapointed by your departure under these circumstances,especially given that post of yours explaining the Proper Context of UFO's Measurement Quote.
You are his Champion here ,it can be a cruddy Job but somebody has to do it!
HOLD!! !! !! !! !!
Do not yield the ground !!
Thx
Chet
PS
If you must depart for your own sanity sake ,[I am mostly insane /numb to this place from over exposure]
And you happen to become aware of any other untruths/deceptive postings
Send me an Email at Chetkremens@gmail.com
Quote
Originally Posted by machinealive : If you have 12 watt light, with 12 v and 1amp.
If you lower the voltage, amps will go up if there is a source to draw from, to give same 12 watts.
if you lower the volts, watts out will go down if there is no source to provide extra current,why would amps not stay the same, or decrease? therefore less then 12 watts, and light dims.
(emphasis mine)
And this was agreed to by UFO (See the image of the post below).
Either I am somehow misunderstanding what is being said, or these two have a profound misunderstanding of the relationship between Voltage, Current, and Resistance.
So..... whatever the context of UFO's speech about measurements, it really does matter that people share some common understanding of terms and the very basics of circuit analysis..... before they go off making outrageous claims that get people all excited.
Or is there some missing "context" here that I am not taking into consideration?
QuoteIf I am wrong in what I said above, would someone explain why.
Would someone explain to _me_ why nobody explained this to _him_ in the UFO-party thread?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_Kbe0YXyPw
Well, I have finished reading the entire thread and watching the videos over there. Not one measurement of efficiency on any of the modified motors was ever performed. If I somehow missed an efficiency test, someone please point it out to me.
One poster, Turion, came closest to making a measurement, and began putting together a Prony, but apparently abandoned that, as I never saw any results posted. He did make one anecdotal comment regarding torque or something, but no measurements that indicated improved efficiency were ever posted. It is a shame, as he spent quite a bit on scales and such. Had he replaced his rubber bungee or v belt (he might have cut a v belt and applied bungee hook ends to it, was hard to tell) and v pulley with a leather or metal belt and a drum pulley, he very likely would have been able to collect some great data. (too much "stiction" from heating bounced his scale readings all over the place)
Early on, I believe he also wanted to use an unmodified RS motor as a generator, and drive it electricaly loaded with a modified and unmodified motor to see which was more efficient at driving the generaor. That was, I believe, a brilliant, low cost, and simple way to determine if any efficiency improvement resulted from the new winding method. But again, that method was abandoned, with his initial results not looking well for the mod.
For those that may be upset about me taking a quote from UFO out of context, I highly recommend reading the pages that lead up to that quoted statement.
UFO is all over the place with his measurement methods. One method mentioned was to feed power to the motor and measure the unloaded output voltage from the output (generator) brush pairs. I believe in the example he was driving the motor at 10 volts, and the output voltage was 18 volts, so that was a COP of 1.8, or something to that effect. Another method, wherein I guess he figured current had to be accounted for somehow, he subtracted the output voltage from the drive voltage, and then multiplied that result by the amp draw. So, for example, if it took 10 volts at 10 amps to drive the motor, most would consider that to be 100 watts. But, if the output brush pair measured 8 volts (unloaded mind you), we subtract 8 from 10, and then multiply the remaining 2 volts by the 10 amps for 20 watts. Amazing...
When anyone made mention of any type of measurement or observation that did not bode well for or questioned the mod motors' efficiency, UFO would pull out the all caps, large fonts, sarcastic emoticons, and remind all how much he knows that others don't. Reminded me a lot of someone else who likes to use a lot of glowy text...
So yeah, I thought the quote I posted was quite telling, and I would not have bothered to post it if UFO had been pushing for proper and sensible measurement methods.
Someone here asked why else would people be spending big bucks on larger motors if the low cost RS mod did not perform as expected. And I too echo that question. In my read, as I did not see even one measurement of efficiency improvement with the new winding method using the RS motor, I too question why some moved on to build other motors, without testing the first mods properly before doing so.
Many over there are dedicated builders/winders, and I wish them luck for all their efforts, but even now it seems UFO is talking about an even larger motor so as to mechanically "hammer" the load.
There are a lot of talented people over there, and as a group, they could likely accomplish a lot. As followers, I am not so sure...
That's just my take on the whole read... no evidence of improved efficiency, no evidence of OU.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 21, 2012, 12:12:14 AM
(emphasis mine)
And this was agreed to by UFO (See the image of the post below).
Either I am somehow misunderstanding what is being said, or these two have a profound misunderstanding of the relationship between Voltage, Current, and Resistance.
So..... whatever the context of UFO's speech about measurements, it really does matter that people share some common understanding of terms and the very basics of circuit analysis..... before they go off making outrageous claims that get people all excited.
Or is there some missing "context" here that I am not taking into consideration?
Would someone explain to _me_ why nobody explained this to _him_ in the UFO-party thread?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_Kbe0YXyPw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_Kbe0YXyPw)
They have their own OHM's law ???
PW:
Thanks for doing all that hard work for me! lol
No measurements of any substance performed on the modified motors? Dang!
Let me segue shamelessly into a sales pitch I already made.
I am assuming that many experimenters bought two small identical DC motors. Perhaps they have three small identical motors, that would be even better. So if they use one as a generator connected to a big resistor they can test different motor configurations by driving the generator + resistor at the same RPM. (Note the generator setup does not necessarily have to be done with an identical motor.)
Now any keeners should be able to do the basic number crunching and measuring that goes along with the following discussion:
Let's assume you want to have the big resistor dissipate about 3 watts at say 3600 RPM. With a true-RMS meter and trying different load resistance values and using an unmodified motor to drive the generator you find a setup that comes close to your target. Say for the sake of argument you find a resistor setup that gives you 2.8 watts of dissipation at 3600 RPM.
Step 1: The first thing you have to do is measure the DC voltage and the average current that you had to drive the original motor with so that the rotor turns at 3600 RPM and drives the generator setup to dissipate 2.8 watts in the load resistor. You multiply the voltage and the average current to get the input power for the original motor configuration. That is your reference for the next test.
Step 2: Now take your UFO-modified asymmetrical version of the same motor and connect it to the generator. Measure the DC voltage and average current required to drive the generator at 3600 PM.
Step 3: Compare the power consumed by the original unmodified motor and the UFO-modified motor and see which one performed better.
This is a simple way to ensure you are putting the same mechanical load on the original and modified motors. You will know right away if the UFO-modified motor performs better or not.
Note: I haven't forgotten the fact that the UFO-modified motor can be a generator at the same time that it's motor. Go for it and make the measurements; while keeping the RPM at 3600 by tweaking the supply voltage, try adding different load resistors to the generator output of the modified motor and with your true-RMS meter measure the power being dissipated in the local load resistor. Create a table and share your data with the other experimenters.
Required equipment:
Two or three identical motors
Shaft coupler
Some resistors to connect in parallel and/or series to create your 3-watt load bank
Variable power supply
Optical tachometer
One digital multimeter
One true-RMS digital multimeter
Calculator or spreadsheet
MileHigh
For those who only think they know what ohms law is
here is a refresher in OHM's Law
Ohms law Is an inverse proportional law Look here with regard inverse proportionality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics))
The concept of inverse proportionality can be contrasted against direct proportionality. Consider two variables said to be "inversely proportional" to each other. If all other variables are held constant, the magnitude or absolute value of one inversely proportional variable will decrease if the other variable increases, while their product (the constant of proportionality k) is always the same.
Ohms Law states that Power = Volts x Amps
Examples
Ohms law says Power =Volts x Amps
Therefore
720P =240v x 3A and 720P = 120v x 6A and 720P = 60v x 12A
Not
720P= 50v x 12A
or
720P =10v x 3A
PLease Moderators ban me from this list I do not want to even look at list again as too many people do not know what they are saying
or care to know what they are saying is correct and therefore say others are just like them
Good Bye
Quote from: Ian Koglin on December 21, 2012, 03:16:19 AM
For those who only think they know what ohms law is
here is a refresher in OHM's Law
Ohms law Is an inverse proportional law Look here with regard inverse proportionality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics))
The concept of inverse proportionality can be contrasted against direct proportionality. Consider two variables said to be "inversely proportional" to each other. If all other variables are held constant, the magnitude or absolute value of one inversely proportional variable will decrease if the other variable increases, while their product (the constant of proportionality k) is always the same.
Ohms Law states that Power = Volts x Amps
Examples
Ohms law says Power =Volts x Amps
Therefore
720P =240v x 3A and 720P = 120v x 6A and 720P = 60v x 12A
Not
720P= 50v x 12A
or
720P =10v x 3A
PLease Moderators ban me from this list I do not want to even look at list again as too many people do not know what they are saying
or care to know what they are saying is correct and therefore say others are just like them
Good Bye
Ian,
You seem upset. Not at all MY intention.
Perhaps I missed something in my read of that thread.
Can you point me to even one set of proper measurements that indicated any improvement in the efficiency of the modified motors?
PW
@Ian Koglin:
Is there some point in my video that you would like to dispute?
What about V=IR? That is a DIRECT relationship, not an inverse one, and is one of several ways of stating Ohm's Law. If you hold resistance constant, then raise voltage, the current goes up, in direct proportion, not inverse. Your parroting of the "refresher" from Wiki in your post only reveals that you don't understand it.
QuoteIf you lower the voltage, amps will go up if there is a source to draw from, to give same 12 watts.
Do you agree with this statement? Or not? UFOPolitics did.
Perhaps you can tell me just how to increase the current....without raising the voltage or lowering the resistance.
Post Script
@Mile high
You just like you are doing here you was causing so mutch trouble not interested in what goes on anly trying to cause discord and that is why in UFOs Threads you were expelled not permitted to post there any more
I did not appreciate you sending me a private Email asking me to post a long document on UFO's thread I did not even read it I marked it as Spam
I just forgot to include this in my previous post
QuoteExamples
Ohms law says Power =Volts x Amps
Therefore
720P =240v x 3A and 720P = 120v x 6A and 720P = 60v x 12A
Not
720P= 50v x 12A
or
720P =10v x 3A
PLease Moderators ban me from this list I do not want to even look at list again as too many people do not know what they are saying
or care to know what they are saying is correct and therefore say others are just like them
You seem to think that a 20 watt lightbulb will always draw 20 watts, no matter what. It automatically adjusts.... something.... so that whenever you supply any power to it, it pulls 20 watts. Right?
Come on, Ian, think for a moment. You supply a load with VOLTAGE. The RESISTANCE of the load determines how much CURRENT will flow at that supplied VOLTAGE. Once the current is flowing you measure the supplied VOLTAGE and CURRENT..... and then you have numbers that tell you the POWER in WATTS that you are dissipating. The WATTS number isn't the constant value, it isn't what you are supplying.... it is determined by the load's resistance and the current being pushed through it by the supplied VOLTAGE. If your source isn't powerful enough, then the voltage sags or even disappears, because it can't supply the current demanded by the load's low resistance.
So if you have a resistive load that draws 3 amps at a supplied voltage of 240 Volts, that is 720 Watts of power, you got that much right.
Now, in contrast to your straw men above.... what happens if YOU LOWER THE VOLTAGE to that same load? Does the current rise somehow to maintain 720 Watts?
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 21, 2012, 03:43:17 AM
@Ian Koglin:
Is there some point in my video that you would like to dispute?
What about V=IR? That is a DIRECT relationship, not an inverse one, and is one of several ways of stating Ohm's Law. If you hold resistance constant, then raise voltage, the current goes up, in direct proportion, not inverse. Your parroting of the "refresher" from Wiki in your post only reveals that you don't understand it.
Do you agree with this statement? Or not? UFOPolitics did.
Perhaps you can tell me just how to increase the current....without raising the voltage or lowering the resistance.
I am not disputing Ohm's law neither was UFO There is as you say a DIRECT relationship between I and V and R
it just that what UFO said it is an Inverse proportional relationship
UFO said
Ohms law is an inverse proportional and this what those disputing are disputing
Why can't you people even read and understand V=IR If you only change either I or R then the v has to change for V to be constant
both the I and the R have to change this is what
inverse proportional is
I am only a simple Joiner and even I have learned that
This is the reason I asked the Moderators to ban me I just cannot reason with people that connot even understand what they read and jump in without putting thier brain into gear
I really an sorry for the way I have expressed my self here this argument is trivial and usless because of the ones here that are not humble enough to think they can be taught something they do not even check things to see what is correct
Please moderators ban me
Ian:
Quote@Mile high
You just like you are doing here you was causing so mutch trouble not interested in what goes on anly trying to cause discord and that is why in UFOs Threads you were expelled not permitted to post there any more
I did not appreciate you sending me a private Email asking me to post a long document on UFO's thread I did not even read it I marked it as Spam
I just forgot to include this in my previous post
I was never on UFO's thread and I sent you the proposed motor test that I just posted here. Nor am I trying to cause discord. I sent you the email as a courtesy because my posts can take one or two days to appear.
The fact that you didn't even read the proposed motor test makes my eyes roll. PW reported that nobody in the EF thread did a proper modified motor test so I sent you a proposed test that most of the experimenters should be able to perform themselves. It makes no sense to not do some real testing on the other thread.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 21, 2012, 03:58:12 AM
You seem to think that a 20 watt lightbulb will always draw 20 watts, no matter what. It automatically adjusts.... something.... so that whenever you supply any power to it, it pulls 20 watts. Right?
Come on, Ian, think for a moment. You supply a load with VOLTAGE. The RESISTANCE of the load determines how much CURRENT will flow at that supplied VOLTAGE. Once the current is flowing you measure the supplied VOLTAGE and CURRENT..... and then you have numbers that tell you the POWER in WATTS that you are dissipating. The WATTS number isn't the constant value, it isn't what you are supplying.... it is determined by the load's resistance and the current being pushed through it by the supplied VOLTAGE. If your source isn't powerful enough, then the voltage sags or even disappears, because it can't supply the current demanded by the load's low resistance.
So if you have a resistive load that draws 3 amps at a supplied voltage of 240 Volts, that is 720 Watts of power, you got that much right.
Now, in contrast to your straw men above.... what happens if YOU LOWER THE VOLTAGE to that same load? Does the current rise somehow to maintain 720 Watts?
Well i did try to explain this to them TK,but thats when the real trouble started lol.
Lester444 first made the comment that the amp draw would fall when the voltage was raised.
And when i told him this wasnt the case,he gave me a nother not so nice reply.
But after that ,he did what well all should do-he went and tried it for him self.
He then made a post saying that the amp's do indeed go up with the volt's,but UFO and other's still agreed that the amp's wopuld drop.
I believe they asume that because the resistance in an incandecant bulb will rise with heat,the bulb will draw less amp's?.I did mention that they should factor in the heat being produced aswell,and that more heat requires more watts of power.
But we all know how that went.
I must say-UFO played a great game of chess
Hi,
I used some multi strand Beadalon wire as heating elements for motorcycling gloves, about 4ft., I was a bit worried
about using a constant voltage, 12v., but as the temperature rises the current seems to limit itself. Still got most of my
fingers!
John.
Quote from: Ian Koglin on December 21, 2012, 03:16:19 AM
Ohms Law states that Power = Volts x Amps
Examples
720P =240v x 3A and 720P = 120v x 6A and 720P = 60v x 12A
That is always true
only for DC.
No law says that: average Power = average Volts * average Amps.
The above equation is false for AC and PDC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_DC).
Quote from: verpies on December 21, 2012, 06:23:30 AM
That is always true only for DC.
No law says that: average Power = average Volts * average Amps.
The above equation is false for AC and PDC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_DC).
I would suggest to keep this simple basic problem as simple as possible.
This discussion problem can be verified quicker than I can write this post.
Anybody who thinks that the power stays constant because it is written on the bulb, pls just put your meter in the circuit and check for yourselves.
A simple test is to plug a 110v bulb into 220v and explain what you see happening
A simple test is to plug a 220v bulb into 110v and explain what you see happening.
There is no better belief that "self discovered" belief !
Otherwise it remains an"opinion", and we can have many of those !
Verpies
When we Pulse AC, By say passing thru a diode.........
@ Kogs
If this were a steel cage match I would have tapped in for you some time ago.
I would Grab that knuckle dragger MH by his Nose [very close to the ground]
Fold him up and put him in his own pocket...........
Alas thats against forum rules [I think?]
So we have to play fair ,I respect you Bud ,Your Zeal is Noble!
Please be aware there are men here that want the Truth and do not twist the facts or forward an agenda at all costs [deception]
Yes some do ooose Condescension at times here ,however...
you are a Joiner if I were to walk up to you as you worked and tell you infront of your client or boss that you had it all wrong, and were wasting much material and time ...
at first you would perhaps lend me an ear, due to your good upbringing
However things would get fiesty real quick if you could not make your case
Rock hard real quick!!
These men [some ]make their living with those Laws,when you walk up and tap them on the shoulder do so with the same respect you would expect for your self ,you can imagine the hair goes up pretty quick after they keep seeing the same mistakes in different flavors ,UFO will have his day when He "Do what he do" .
Thx for your perseverance and good intentions
this will serve you well in our world .However do not do so at the cost of truth
A blind eye can not See.............
They have "history" on their side of the fence [battin 1000]
perhaps UFO will knock this out of the Park? I hope so........
We could use a good grand slam![or a good body slam ,wheres that $#@% MH]
Thx
Chet
Well i think this is getting all a bit fancy in regards to amp's,volts and ohm's law.
The statement was simple-amp's will drop as volt's rise in an incandecant bulb.
The answer is simple-no they wont.Amp's will rise right along with volt's was my reply to the above statement.
I have tried,AC,DC and pulsed DC-the result's are always the same-amp's climb with volt's.
Myself and a member of EF tried to put forth another idea as to how to measure an overunity system.
This would be a very good and simple of a looped overunity system.
We have a battery,prime mover and generator in a looped system.
In an underunity system(although all systems are unity)when we conect the motor to the run battery and then send the power from the generator back to the battery-we would see the battery drop in voltage.
Then when we disconect both the motor and generator from the battery at the same time-we will see the battery voltage go up to a rest voltage(recovery voltage)
If we did the same as above,but the system was overunity in electrical power-when we disconect both motor and generator from the battery,the battery voltage would go down.
I have done a quick video on a simple setup that show's what i mean.I will upload the link here when done loading.
If UFO intends on looping his system,then this is a very simple test and would work in any dc to dc system-which it would have to be if he is going to use battery's.
Amoment of Silence for the 26 souls 9.30 am est
Chet
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 21, 2012, 08:07:26 AM
I would suggest to keep this simple basic problem as simple as possible.
This discussion problem can be verified quicker than I can write this post.
Anybody who thinks that the power stays constant because it is written on the bulb, pls just put your meter in the circuit and check for yourselves.
A simple test is to plug a 110v bulb into 220v and explain what you see happening
A simple test is to plug a 220v bulb into 110v and explain what you see happening.
There is no better belief that "self discovered" belief !
Otherwise it remains an"opinion", and we can have many of those !
Exactly! start experimenting and do the light bulb test and tell us what you see?
Quote from: tinman on December 21, 2012, 09:23:10 AM
Well i think this is getting all a bit fancy in regards to amp's,volts and ohm's law.
The statement was simple-amp's will drop as volt's rise in an incandecant bulb.
The answer is simple-no they wont.Amp's will rise right along with volt's was my reply to the above statement.
I have tried,AC,DC and pulsed DC-the result's are always the same-amp's climb with volt's.
Myself and a member of EF tried to put forth another idea as to how to measure an overunity system.
This would be a very good and simple of a looped overunity system.
We have a battery,prime mover and generator in a looped system.
In an underunity system(although all systems are unity)when we conect the motor to the run battery and then send the power from the generator back to the battery-we would see the battery drop in voltage.
Then when we disconect both the motor and generator from the battery at the same time-we will see the battery voltage go up to a rest voltage(recovery voltage)
If we did the same as above,but the system was overunity in electrical power-when we disconect both motor and generator from the battery,the battery voltage would go down.
I have done a quick video on a simple setup that show's what i mean.I will upload the link here when done loading.
If UFO intends on looping his system,then this is a very simple test and would work in any dc to dc system-which it would have to be if he is going to use battery's.
Tinman,
Personally, before I would attempt to measure for OU, I would be only conerned with evidence of increased efficiency.
EF poster Turion's initial idea regarding the use of a non-modified RS motor as a generator to couple the modded and un-modded motors to is still the best idea I heard. Doing this with the RS motors makes this low cost and fairly easy to do.
The motor used as a gen can be fittled with a small flexible coupler (bellows, slotted, etc) for the required shaft size. Motors and gens can be held down with pipe straps or perforated strap to a wooden board.
On the gen side, varios fixed resistive loads (no lightbulbs!) such as 100, 50, or 10 ohms of proper wattage, can be attached as a load and a low cost DVM used to monitor the voltage across the resistors. A small ceramic capacitor across the generator's brushes can be added to reduce electrical noise.
On the motor side, the motors would be driven with a variable DC supply of sufficient current rating with volt and amp meters (or alternately external meters used).
Using an unmodofied motor, the system would be run at a reasonable speed with a 100 ohm load for a time to set the brushes on both motor and gen. The DC supply voltage would then be adjusted to produce various outputs at the gen side.
Depending on the generator's capabilities, let's say the DC supply voltage is set to produce 2 volts at the gen output with a 50 ohm load connected thereto. The DC current and voltage from the supply would be written down for that gen output. The DC supply voltage would then be adjusted upward until the gen was producing 5 volts, and again the DC supply's current and voltage noted. This can be repeated at 10 volt and 12 volt or any other generator output voltages within the capability of the motor and generator.
The above would be repeated a few times with the same unmodded motor attached to verify the results are reasonably repeatable.
The unmodified motor would then be replaced with the modified DC motor and coupled to the gen. The DC supply voltage would then be adjusted to produce the same generator output voltages used to test the unmodified motor, and the required current and voltage for each of those same gen outputs noted..
If an unmodified motor required 10 volts at .5 amp to produce 5 volts at the gen into 50 ohms, that would mean it required 5 watts to produce .5 watts at the gen.
Similarly calculated, if the modified motor used less than 5 watts to produce the same .5 watts (i.e., 50 volts at the gen output with a 50 ohm load), that would be an indication that the modified motor is more efficient than the unmodifed motor.
Various resistor values could be used to test the motors under various loads.
This test will not necessarily indicate OU (unless there is an awful lot of it!) nor would it be an absolute measurement, but it would indicate any relative efficiency improvement. If the modifed motor is 20% less efficient than the unmodified motor, there would be little hope that OU could be acheived. However, even then, the test jig would be useful for comparing any efficiency improvements via further modification or experiments utilizing the gen out brush pairs in various configurations, brush timings, etc.
If increased efficiency is observed in the modified motor, a small Prony could then be constructed to make quantitative measurements.
It seems I read over there that the RS motors varied quite a bit regarding winding resistance and the like, so in performing the baseline tests, it might be advisable to test 2 or three unmodified motors and pick the most efficient one for comparison to.
Similarly, the setup could be utilized in reverse for testing the use of the modified motors as generators. With the same unmodifed motor used as the prime mover in the preceding baseline tests, the motor being used as a generator could be replaced with a modified motor (now being used as a generator) and the DC supply current and voltage noted for each of the generator output voltage test values. If the modded motor (again, now being used as a generator) produces a similar power output at less DC supply wattage than was required in the baseline tests, that would indicate the modified motor is also more efficient as a generator.
PW
To all OU talent out there,
OUpolitics apparently got to this advanced stage based on a principle that appeared to have merit.
If that principle has merit, now having a few difficulties is not the time to abandon him. This is the time to throw in all your weight to HELP him to achieve the target if you can .
The implementation(1) of a concept(2) are two separate requirements,
If (2) is sound, than an incorrect implementation can be the problem.
Naturally, this is on the condition that you AGREE with OUpolitics reasoning and his proposed concept. Do not walk away from a challenge. Show your true colors ! Don't be too ready to jump on upon someone who has some difficulty.
If you weren't displaying your colors at the concept development stage, don't appear now ready to hit the man down !
PS: I would help, but for me the concept principle is flawed, but that is only me.
RS
Funny I was just thinking something similar
I will post the link
Here, comments today regarding these issues from UFO
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-9.html#post219405 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-9.html#post219405)
A little help would be nice, if not the concept then How to make this DC pulse measurement effectively [has also caused me grief in the past]\
Thx
Chet
Quote from: ramset on December 21, 2012, 03:10:17 PM
...........................................................
A little help would be nice, if not the concept then How to make this DC pulse measurement effectively [has also caused me grief in the past]\
Thx
Chet
To my limited knowledge, there is no meter that will be able to sort out a difficult waveform accurately, and I do not think that this would matter at this point in time.
1.. I am sure that the first knowledge and question you are after is,
"is it OverUnity or not ?", this should allow you a fair margin of tolerance. So if the power ratio between in & output is not marginal, you should be able to determine if you are winning or not.
2.. Thereafter you can home in for accuracy.
If you can not determine if you are in the ballpark with #1, that I think you need to have a closer look at the concept.
Technically pushing the input and output through seperate DC-DC convertors with a known performance ratio would simplify the actual measurement by smoothing out the in & output waveforms.
Quote from: ramset on December 21, 2012, 03:10:17 PM
RS
Funny I was just thinking something similar
I will post the link
Here, comments today regarding these issues from UFO
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-9.html#post219405 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-9.html#post219405)
A little help would be nice, if not the concept then How to make this DC pulse measurement effectively [has also caused me grief in the past]\
Thx
Chet
Typically a high current shunt is used to measure large current. They look something like this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Shunt-Resistor-for-DC-75A-75mV-Current-Meter-Ammeter-/120872306540?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c248d076c
I am not endorsing that particular one, but the 75 mv drop at 75 amp would be handy, as the drop would be 1mv per amp (zooming in on the image there is also a 100 amp .5 stamped on this one, possibly this is its overload or peak rating or a stock photo but it is a bit confusing). The measurement precision would determined pretty much by the shunt resistor tolerance (as well as the DVM utilized). The slots cut into the sides of the shunt (visible in the ebay photo) usually indicate some attempt to trim the shunt for accuracy was performed.
I would bolt something like this to the battery negative and connect all wires originally connected to that end of the battery to the free end of the shunt.
As one would expect a fair amount of noise across the shunt due to commutation, one end of a 50 to 100 ohm resistor can be soldered to one end of a film or ceramic capacitor. The free end of the cap would connect to the battery neg terminal end of the shunt and the free end of the resistor to the other end of the shunt. Measurement would be via a DVM connected across the capacitor.
I would use two conductor shielded wire to connect the DVM to the cap, and only connect the shield to the DVM negative terminal (just cut off the shield wire on the other end of the wire and put a piece of heat shrink on it to dress out the end). It does not take much to pick up a few millivolts of noise in a sparking commutator environment, hence the shielded wire.
I would also be a good idea to put one of these inline at any one of the battery interconnect loops:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/4-8-GAUGE-AGU-FUSE-HOLDER-5-PACK-100-AMP-AGU-FUSES-FAST-FREE-USA-SHIPPING-/230818216122?pt=US_Car_Audio_Video_Fuses_Fuse_Holders&hash=item35bdd678ba&vxp=mtr
I have in the past seen what an angry lead acid battery can do...
PW
I see a length of heavy gauge wire is being considered as a shunt. Although this concept is sound for DC, the current noise components present due to commutation and arcing will see the inductance inherent in any significant length of wire and produce a much larger AC/noise component across the shunt. It could be made to work but would likely require a greater degree of filtering (resistor and cap as in previous). As well, if a 'scope measurement is desired to see the actual commutation signal, the inductance in the length of wire would make this difficult to do accurately.
Also, without a fairly precise dummy load to calibrate to, the exact value of a wire shunt such as this would not really be known. A dummy load could be constructed to calibrate the wire if desired, but the inductance issue would rule out this method for me.
PW
It looks to me like UFOPolitics needs some good advice about measuring current in a complex signal using an oscilloscope. Unfortunately..... especially since he made that last statement about needing to measure on the high (positive) side of the load, mistakenly interpreting the Kyoritsu manual...... it looks like there's a lot of faulty baggage that needs to be unloaded, before he can take the correct material on board.
He has got to be able to acknowledge that some of his conceptions are faulty, and he's got to be able to take advice from those with more experience and knowledge than he has in this area. And that is going to be a problem, since he apparently thinks he knows all he needs to know already.
The material here on current measurement has been thoughtfully linked by Matthew Jones and contains much good information but doesn't really solve UFO's dilemma.
http://www.diodes.com/_files/products_appnote_pdfs/zetex/an39.pdf (http://www.diodes.com/_files/products_appnote_pdfs/zetex/an39.pdf)
It does, hopefully, make the point that high-side and low-side current measurements should give the same value if correctly performed.
A shunt similar to that shown by picowatt is necessary, and if an ordinary (unisolated) scope is used one must be careful about how and where it is installed into the circuit. The simplest way is to put the shunt on the negative battery terminal and use the scope to monitor the voltage drop across the shunt, bearing in mind that this creates an "artificial ground" that is slightly elevated in voltage from the true battery negative ground potential. If one tries to do this on the high-side of the load, one needs isolated channel references (like with the Fluke scopemeters) or differential voltage probes, or an isolation module as detailed in the Zetex document above. Far simpler to do it on the low side.... but this requires acknowledgement from UFOPolitics that a low-side current reading is valid, or at least a real, coherent explanation why it would not be.
Or one could use an actual, lab-grade power monitoring instrument like a Clarke-Hess 2330 or similar.
http://www.clarke-hess.com/2330.html
A couple of my commercial, calibrated, high-current shunts:
Red said,
QuoteTo my limited knowledge, there is no meter that will be able to sort out a difficult waveform accurately, and I do not think that this would matter at this point in time.
To which I reply (for just one example):
Quote
TRUE RMS/REALLY BROADBAND
The Model 2330 Sampling Watt Meter is a precision, high accuracy, auto-ranging watt meter which simultaneously measures and displays true rms Voltage, true rms Current and true mean Power over a frequency range from dc to more than 600kHz. Full scale Current and Voltage inputs are typically measured within ±0.1% of the reading in amplitude to at least 400kHz. The corresponding Power is typically measured to within ±0.1% of the input Volt-Amperes to 200kHz and to within ±0.2% of the input Volt-Amperes to 400kHz for loads of any Power Factor.
MULTI-FUNCTION (ENERGY)
In addition to the rms Voltage, rms Current, and mean square Power the Model 2330 watt meter also measures simultaneously the peak Voltage, the peak Current and the Frequency and calculates the Volt-Ampere product, the Power Factor and the Energy accumulated over a period of time from 1-99 hours. These functions may be displayed or may be read over the IEEE-488.2 interface. The Energy function makes compliance with the Federal Guidelines for Standby Power Use quite straight forward. (Executive Order 13221)
UNPARALLELED HIGH FREQUENCY ACCURACY
The Model 2330 watt meter allows broadband and high accuracy measurements of both sinusoidal and highly distorted wave shapes. The Current, Voltage, Power, and Power Factor accuracies to 400kHz of the Model 2330 far exceed any other sampling Volt-Ampere-Watt Meter, or for that matter, with respect to Current or Voltage, almost all conventional multimeters. Although reduced by a factor of two, excellent accuracy is maintained to 600kHz.
Full scale Power ranges exist for loads with impedances from (0.6V/1.5A) = 0.4W to (600V/1.5mA) = 400kW.
WIDE MEASUREMENT RANGE
The Model 2330 watt meter has full scale Power ranges from 1.0000mW to 10000W. With external shunts or current to voltage transducers the upper range may be extended by a factor of ten or one hundred. Full scale Voltage from 2.000V to 2000V (usable to 600V) and full scale Current ranges from 5.000mA to 5.000A (all rms values) cover a wide range of load impedances. Full scale Current and Voltage inputs may have crest factors up to three while smaller inputs may have even higher crest factors. Sinusoidal inputs with rms values of twice the nominal Full Scale value may be measured with no loss in accuracy.
POSSIBLE MEASUREMENT USES
Measurement of Ultrasonic Equipment of all types and power levels, Finished Transformers, Transformer Core Material, Switching Power Supplies, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts of all types, Mercury Arc Lamp Circuits, Sodium Lamp Ballasts, Speed Controlled Motors of all types, Efficiency of any device with an electrical input and an electrical output, SCR Controlled Devices of all types, High Frequency and/or Distorted Currents from any source, Voltage Response of any device from DC to 600kHz, and the Characteristics of Electric Automobile Drives.
http://www.clarke-hess.com/2330.html
This is not the only "meter" with these capabilities.
I find it extremely ironic that I have never seen an electrical OU claimant report measurements made with an actual lab-grade power meter like these.
I think measurments get all to dificult,when they realy could be done quite easy.
If UFO has that much more output than input,then testing for overunity should be very easy.
When we have to start useing scope's and high end DMM's,then the input and output must be so close it's not funny.
Smooth DC in,and Smooth DC out-the best way to get accurate measurment's.
This is done simply by useing large diode's for rectification and large cap's to smooth out pulses.
A quick demo on what you will see your battery voltage doing in an underunity system,and an overunity system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNmusKnGlNY
So if UFO can loop his system as he say's,and the battery voltage DROP's to a rest voltage when load and return are disconected-then he will have everyone's attention.
TM
Please be advised ,any time you use the B word and O word together in the same sentence on this forum
Well................B.O.
I must also add that there is some part Of this Battery thing, that as you state above does need to be better understood .But
ultimately the simplest thing to do is cook eggs in the parking [batteries not included] lot or Loop the system
Thx
Chet
Hi, Ramsey - Mr. Chet!
Just popped in to say hello to you!
Cheers!
spinner
Spinner
You big creep ;D ........Good to see yah!
Have a good holiday,
Go out and do something nice for some one today and don't get caught.
Chet
Quote from: ramset on December 22, 2012, 07:46:31 AM
TM
Please be advised ,any time you use the B word and O word together in the same sentence on this forum
Well................B.O.
I must also add that there is some part Of this Battery thing, that as you state above does need to be better understood .But
ultimately the simplest thing to do is cook eggs in the parking [batteries not included] lot or Loop the system
Thx
Chet
Hi Chet
Well you lost me on the...B.O thing,but anyway
Cooking egg's in the parking lot is easy,just throw them on the bonnet of your car on a hot day-and they will cook.
Even a solar cooker will cook snag's and egg's,no problem.And we are collecting energy from the enviroment to do so !! free energy !!.
What i was trying to point out is,it is very easy to show that you have an overunity device-there is just no need for all these half done measurments that we have seen.
And like you said Chet,!! loop the system.!!
Any overunity device will run itself at the very least.
TM
Batteries And Over-unity.=B.O.
The Consensus from the "Heckspurts" here is Over Unity =batteries not included.
Myself I chose to listen and learn [and experiment of course ].
thx
Chet
Tinman:
A very good course of action in the UFO-modified motor case would be to do load testing on unmodified and then modified motors like I suggested. PW wrote up a more comprehensive test plan based on the same idea of using another motor in a generator configuration with a load resistor as the mechanical load on the motor under test. This is a manageable and doable test that any experimenter should be able to do. The most important thing being that you can actually generate tangible data. It's really unfortunate that the contributors on the EF thread that are lurking here are not saying anything. The EF thread has been going on for months with no third-party tester data to confirm or deny UFO's claims about his modified motors.
Your proposed test could be done if there was any data from the above proposed motor-generator test that indicated a chance of a self-runner. The essence of your test would be to see if the battery was charging or discharging during the run. In that sense you could put a big shunt on the positive terminal of the battery and connect a resistor in series with a capacitor across the shunt like PW indicated in an earlier posting. That will give you a low-pass filter and all that you have to do is look at the DC voltage across the capacitor to know if the battery is charging or discharging.
Battery voltage is not a reliable indicator of the state of charge of a battery. So instead of reading the before-after battery voltages you could discharge it after the test and measure the energy stored in it. You would have to know the initial amount of energy in the battery beforehand by doing other testing.
MileHigh
Hello all,
This is my first post here or on any other OverUnity/Alternative Energy forum for that matter. I stumbled upon UFOPolitics posts in the Energetic Forum site quite by accident. I have been following that thread for 10 months. Sitting in the bleachers so to speak. Unfortunately I am a total novice. This is not my field at all and I have a lot of trouble following. Still the last few months I learned quite a bit about this overunity subculture. John Bedini, Don Smith, Tariel Kapanadze, Ed Gray etc. The list is long. Fascinating stuff.
About 3 months ago a Latvian named Gints Dzelme made a series of videos using UFO's motors and did some tests. Those videos can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/VaterisVideo/videos
I'm not sure if you guys have seen them yet. I find the last one the most interesting. You may have to push the pause button often as it moves along quite briskly. Well at least the videos has some data.... I'm asking here because I believe there may be a more 'balanced' view here.
Anyway just wondering what you guys think. As I said I'm a newbie and this is over my head.
Nickstir
QuoteHello UFO thanks for everything.
Hope all is going great. Another trip to the UPS Store revealed the following on their scale.
Commutator each ------------ 1.70 lb, ---- 0.771107 kg
Big Bearing -------------------- 0.25 lb, ---- 0.113398 kg
Small Bearing ----------------- 0.15 lb, ---- 0.068039 kg
Previous Information
Weight of bare armature -- 11.50 lb,---- 5.216312 kg
Total UFO Armature Weight after finished... 19.73 lb --- 8.9493775 kg
So.... if your armature weighs, say..... 8.9494022 kg.... or you scraped off too much epoxy and it only weighs 8.9492852 kg.... I am afraid your overunity mogen probably isn't going to work.
And for the builders:
NTE 2397 mosfet, 400 V 10 A, Rdss 0.55 ohms, cost between 5 and 10 dollars each. (5.81 each from Mouser).
IRF740 mosfet, 400 V 10 A, Rdss 0.55 ohms, cost between 1 and 2 dollars each. (1.63 each from Mouser).
Of course, if you use the less expensive parts...... well, what can I say.
I just had a scary thought. Looking at the 555-controlled mosfet pulser, and considering the Ohm's Law mashup and some other things I've read..... I just wonder........
Let's say you have a timer-driven mosfet pulser like is shown in the last few posts "over there". A 555 timer sends a pulse to the gates of a bunch of parallel mosfets, which switch a 36 volt supply to a low-impedance (under 1 Ohm) load. The individual mosfets have an on-state resistance of about half an ohm so the overall on-state resistance of the mosfets is about 0.1 ohm.
OK.... so the load is connected like this: +36 V Positive rail > load > D-mosfet-S > negative rail. Right? Or like this: +36 V Positive rail > D-mosfet-S > load > negative rail. Either way, makes little difference for the moment.
And the 555 timer sends a positive pulse to the gates of the mosfets to turn them ON and allow current to flow through their D-S channels and the load. Right? The timer is variable in frequency and/or duty cycle-- the proportion of time the output pulse is "High" or in this case nearly +12 V.
So now we hook a voltmeter in. Positive lead to the Drain of the mosfet(s) and negative lead to the negative rail. When the 555 timer sends a "high" or positive 12 volt signal to the gate of the mosfets.... what does our voltmeter on the mosfet Drain read?
And when the 555 timer signal is Low or off, the "off" time of the duty cycle, what does our Drain voltmeter read? If we scoped the drain and the gate of the mosfet, what kind of relationship should we see in the two signals?
Nickstir
Welcome and than you for posting the Vids and "some" data.
most here are quite sincere and dedicated to finding OU [yah even that TK guy].
thx
Chet
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 21, 2012, 07:32:17 PM
I find it extremely ironic that I have never seen an electrical OU claimant report measurements made with an actual lab-grade power meter like these.
Just a few questions for you here:
Do you think the fact that a Clark-Hess costs a couple thousand dollars has anything to do with it?
Do you have such a power meter?
Is it borrowed? Or did you purchase it new with your own money?
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 23, 2012, 07:54:16 AM
I just had a scary thought. Looking at the 555-controlled mosfet pulser, and considering the Ohm's Law mashup and some other things I've read..... I just wonder........
Let's say you have a timer-driven mosfet pulser like is shown in the last few posts "over there". A 555 timer sends a pulse to the gates of a bunch of parallel mosfets, which switch a 36 volt supply to a low-impedance (under 1 Ohm) load. The individual mosfets have an on-state resistance of about half an ohm so the overall on-state resistance of the mosfets is about 0.1 ohm.
OK.... so the load is connected like this: +36 V Positive rail > load > D-mosfet-S > negative rail. Right? Or like this: +36 V Positive rail > D-mosfet-S > load > negative rail. Either way, makes little difference for the moment.
And the 555 timer sends a positive pulse to the gates of the mosfets to turn them ON and allow current to flow through their D-S channels and the load. Right? The timer is variable in frequency and/or duty cycle-- the proportion of time the output pulse is "High" or in this case nearly +12 V.
So now we hook a voltmeter in. Positive lead to the Drain of the mosfet(s) and negative lead to the negative rail. When the 555 timer sends a "high" or positive 12 volt signal to the gate of the mosfets.... what does our voltmeter on the mosfet Drain read?
And when the 555 timer signal is Low or off, the "off" time of the duty cycle, what does our Drain voltmeter read? If we scoped the drain and the gate of the mosfet, what kind of relationship should we see in the two signals?
TK,
I believe the circuit is intended for low side switching, hence the indicated wire on the drain/heat sink connections.
When the MOSFETS are fully on and at 50 amps current draw, there will be about +4.6 volts at the MOSFET drains which equates to about 230 watts of heat they will produce (and power wasted). That is, just before the rather smallish source traces fuse open!!
Additionaly, using the limited current drive of a 555 to switch all those MOSFETS in concert with the 330R gate resistors is going to produce relatively slow rise/fall times, during which MOSFET dissipation will be much greater than 230 watts. In other words, if the source traces don't fuse open (whch I believe the ground connection side will do immediately upon seeing 50 amps!), there will be a lot of heat to get rid of. Not very efficient...
A buffer on the 555 or a proper hi-current gate driver and smaller value gate resistors to reduce rise/fall times, much, much larger PCB traces (or a proper buss bar) for the source connections, and the use of lower RDSon MOSFETS are highly recommended. Also, to acheive fast rise/fall times with a hi-current gate driver is going to require at least the addition of a ground plane to the PCB and lots of local supply decoupling.
A fast diode snubber across the output and a transorb or MOV for reverse V and spike protection would also not be a bad idea.
PW
Also, decoupling the 555 supply and the 555 signal ground to the high current source trace is likely going to produce a lot of ringing or outright oscillation at the 555 output.
A single point ground should be employed and all traces should be short and low Z.
I'd also put all the FET's in a physical layout more suited to paralleling for hi-current.
Hi-speed and/or hi-current circuits and PCB's require additional considerations when designing the PCB layout and power/ground connections.
I would consider this circuit design and layout totally inadequate to switch 50 amps or greater at a reasonable efficiency and with any reliability.
PW
Quote from: anomdeguerre on December 23, 2012, 10:15:52 AM
Just a few questions for you here:
Do you think the fact that a Clark-Hess costs a couple thousand dollars has anything to do with it?
Do you have such a power meter?
Is it borrowed? Or did you purchase it new with your own money?
I believe TK owns his, and he likely bought it used. But keep in mind, all manner of test equipment can be rented or leased.
Many times, when I have needed a 20K plus piece of equipment for a specific project, I just lease/rent from one of the many companies that do so.
Right now, however, a fairly accurate shunt, LP filter, a couple DVM's and a decent Prony set up would go a long way in performng sorely missing measurements.
I'd suggest a single arm Prony with a brake set-up appropriate for the expected HP and dissipated heat.
PW
Quote from: anomdeguerre on December 23, 2012, 10:15:52 AM
Just a few questions for you here:
Do you think the fact that a Clark-Hess costs a couple thousand dollars has anything to do with it?
Perhaps it does. How much is an electrical overunity machine worth, anyway?
Quote
Do you have such a power meter?
Is it borrowed? Or did you purchase it new with your own money?
I wonder why you are asking me these things. (Actually..... I don't, it's part of the obvious and general strategy of attacking the skeptics instead of addressing their points rationally, in an attempt to take the pressure off the outrageous claimant.)
I have access to one when I need it, borrowed, yes. But remind me..... just where did I make a claim of electrical overunity performance? Am I the one who needs good measurements to bolster a claim of overunity electrical performance?
And as picowatt says, it's easy to rent one for a day or a weekend if you actually need one. Is one actually needed in this case? Well, they are a lot easier to use and interpret than an oscilloscope is for straight power measurements: the CH gives you unequivocal numbers in boxes, all you have to do is hook it up properly, push some buttons and take the readings. Whereas to do energy flow measurements with the scope, one requires some knowledge and finesse.
@Picowatt: You bring up some very important points about the mosfet switcher as laid out "over there". I wasn't even going that deeply into the specifics, though.... I am worried about that "fundamental error" of thinking that the drain voltage being high, at or near the supply voltage, means that the mosfet is "on", and when the drain voltage goes low, the mosfet is "off". This flipped duty cycle error was at the root of someone else's mistakes in power calculations in another circuit we know about. I hope it's not being made here as well. A voltmeter on the drain will read the high voltages and consider the "high" times as "on" for the purposes of duty cycle readings.
TK,
Sorry, thought you owned that beast.
Regarding your prior post, I knew exactly what you were referring to... no spoilers from me.
Nice shunts in your previous photos...
PW
I looked at the latest video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bBLguuBTuQ&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bBLguuBTuQ&feature=youtu.be)
I am not really that familiar with big motors but here goes some comments.
At 1:04 you see the original commutator. It looks like there are four commutator brushes 90 degrees apart. I am assuming that this is a big DC motor. I think there are four big magnets that line the outer case alternating North-South. I am also going to assume that they are radially polarized. The rotor looks like it has about 40 'poles' - branches of the armature.
So my assumption is that the original motor is set up so as the 40-pole rotor turns, it will generate a pair of virtual magnets at 90 degrees to each other. These 'migrating' (relative to the spinning rotor) virtual magnets will be quasi-stationary relative to the case magnets and be in strong repulsion all the time. Hence the motor turns.
So there are four points of magnetic repulsion that are 'active' all the time and they are nearly always positioned at the point of maximum repulsion. So that must generate a lot of torque because you continuously are pushing on the rotor to make it turn at four points.
If what I stated is correct then it will be very interesting to see some comparisons between the unmodified and the modified big motor. Now, there may be a problem if the people that ordered motors only ordered one motor and they modify it before they even test the original motor under load by making a series of measurements. People that are just getting a bare stator will not be able to do any comparisons directly. Someone with an unmodified big motor could make measurements on it and share the data with others.
I looked at this person's videos:
http://www.youtube.com/user/VaterisVideo/videos (http://www.youtube.com/user/VaterisVideo/videos)
Interesting music and slick production but short on substance and real measurements. Wen running tests of a running motor, you have to put your focus on power in and power out measurements as your most important data. Everything that is happening in real time is power-based. Before/after battery voltage measurements are only of secondary importance.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 23, 2012, 03:05:01 PM
Perhaps it does. How much is an electrical overunity machine worth, anyway?
Perhaps? Of course it does. What does the worth of an overunity machine have to do with my question?
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 23, 2012, 03:05:01 PM
I wonder why you are asking me these things. (Actually..... I don't, it's part of the obvious and general strategy of attacking the skeptics instead of addressing their points rationally, in an attempt to take the pressure off the outrageous claimant.)
I'll ignore your ad hominem as it is irrelevant.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 23, 2012, 03:05:01 PM
I have access to one when I need it, borrowed, yes.
I suspected as much.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 23, 2012, 03:05:01 PM
But remind me..... just where did I make a claim of electrical overunity performance? Am I the one who needs good measurements to bolster a claim of overunity electrical performance?
Remind me where I said you made such a claim.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 23, 2012, 03:05:01 PM
And as picowatt says, it's easy to rent one for a day or a weekend if you actually need one. Is one actually needed in this case? Well, they are a lot easier to use and interpret than an oscilloscope is for straight power measurements: the CH gives you unequivocal numbers in boxes, all you have to do is hook it up properly, push some buttons and take the readings. Whereas to do energy flow measurements with the scope, one requires some knowledge and finesse.
And out of curiosity, just how much would a Clark-Hess cost to rent for the week? You do realize that just because you live in a metro area doesn't mean Joe Public does. A Clark-Hess isn't something Joe Public from Smalltown can go down to the corner store and rent.
Quote from: anomdeguerre on December 24, 2012, 03:51:35 AM
Perhaps? Of course it does. What does the worth of an overunity machine have to do with my question?
Everything. Making a claim of "overunity" requires the strongest proofs in order to be credible, and if hundreds of dollars are to be spent on components of such a machine, then some dollars can certainly be spent acquiring adequate measurements.
Quote
I'll ignore your ad hominem as it is irrelevant.
And I'll do the same for your entire attack against me, since you cannot address any substantive points I've made. Your style reminds me very much of some other sock puppets and trolls who seek to attack me personally but who cannot dispute any of the points I am making.
Quote
I suspected as much.
Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? You suspected that I might be able to borrow a Clarke-Hess 2330 when I need to use one? Congratulations on your remarkable astuteness. It must be remarkable... since you have chosen to remark upon it.
Do you suspect that I might be able to borrow a chain saw when I need to clear some brush? Do you suspect that I might be able to borrow a cup of sugar from my next door neighbor when I'm making a pie?
I suspect that you are a sniper, and you are looking for anything you can find in order to snipe at me. But you cannot refute any of the substantive points I've made.... or else you would do so, instead of "suspecting" that I can borrow test equipment when I need to.
Quote
Remind me where I said you made such a claim.
We were talking about the utility of using the Clarke-Hess instrument to examine or validate claims of electrical overunity, weren't we? I suggested that OU claimants should, but never do, use these kinds of instruments. Then you sarcastically asked if I had one. So I'm wondering WHAT MAKES YOU THINK I NEED ONE, in this context. Whether or not I have one is IRRELEVANT in this context unless I am making a claim of my own. But I am not, am I.
Quote
And out of curiosity, just how much would a Clark-Hess cost to rent for the week?
If you really wanted to know the answer to that you could find out for yourself. Google is your friend. But you apparently want someone else to do your homework for you. Or rather, you are just sniping. You aren't going to be renting a CH and popping down to UFO's place for a test session, are you. And UFO isn't going to be doing these kinds of tests either.... and not because of the expense. Which was sort of my point in the first place: you will not see comprehensive and unambiguous energy flow tests from this kind of overunity claimant, no matter how expensively or cheaply they can be done.
QuoteYou do realize that just because you live in a metro area doesn't mean Joe Public does. A Clark-Hess isn't something Joe Public from Smalltown can go down to the corner store and rent.
Where does UFOPolitics live? Does he _not_ live in or close to a metro area? Is that relevant to being able to rent test equipment? You do realize, don't you, that UFOPolitics isn't "Joe Public" from Smalltown, that lab equipment rental organizations don't care where you live, and that they deal over the internet and via FedEx, UPS and carriers like that.... don't you?
UFOPolitics has shown that he is willing to spend plenty of money on test equipment that gives him the answers he likes. He's shown that he has no problems encouraging people to buy six dollar mosfets when two dollar ones are exact equivalents, he has no problem encouraging people to spend hundreds of dollars on motor "kits". Why then does he have so much trouble performing measurements that are actually adequate to demonstrate his claims? Is it really a matter of cost? Somehow I don't think so. But perhaps you have some actual, coherent arguments that would indicate that UFO is unable to perform the measurements needed using a CH 2330 because of cost or unavailability. Or why he can't do the measurements using a 2-channel analog oscilloscope, a camera and a spreadsheet. Or perhaps you'd just rather attack me further with your irrelevant sniping.
Hi,
I've been reading these things for years now and nearly every time peoples hopes are aroused by poor initial measuring
techniques.
Even if you have the best equipment you've got to be able to use it properly. Likewise some very accurate work can
be done with quite simple tools- the main point is- you have to know what you're doing.
Comparative run times using a good secondary battery should soon tell you if you're on to a winner.
John.
Quote from: anomdeguerre on December 24, 2012, 03:51:35 AM
..................................................................................
Monsieur 'A nom de Guerre'
With that alias, you choose your opponent well ! Don't waste too much energy.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 24, 2012, 04:51:41 AM
Everything. Making a claim of "overunity" requires the strongest proofs in order to be credible, and if hundreds of dollars are to be spent on components of such a machine, then some dollars can certainly be spent acquiring adequate measurements.
I disagree. You said "that I have never seen an electrical OU claimant report measurements made with an actual lab-grade power meter like these." Was there hundreds of dollars spent on the device in each and every one of those claims? Your argument is a weak strawman.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 24, 2012, 04:51:41 AM
And I'll do the same for your entire attack against me, since you cannot address any substantive points I've made. Your style reminds me very much of some other sock puppets and trolls who seek to attack me personally but who cannot dispute any of the points I am making.
Wow! You are going a little crazy here. I only addressed one point which you made and that was regarding what you found "ironic". The reasons why I may or may not have addressed your "substantive" points are my business and not yours.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 24, 2012, 04:51:41 AM
Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? You suspected that I might be able to borrow a Clarke-Hess 2330 when I need to use one? Congratulations on your remarkable astuteness. It must be remarkable... since you have chosen to remark upon it.
Good, Bad, Ugly. I suspected that you cannot afford one anymore than any other average Joe Public. Don't you think it is ironic that an allegedly respected metrologist cannot afford such a measurement tool and yet he expects others to have them at hand? Thank you and yes, it must be if you say so. :)
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 24, 2012, 04:51:41 AM
Do you suspect that I might be able to borrow a chain saw when I need to clear some brush? Do you suspect that I might be able to borrow a cup of sugar from my next door neighbor when I'm making a pie?
I suspect you might. ;) Of course those things are much more common than a Clark-Hess are they not? Another weak strawman.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 24, 2012, 04:51:41 AM
We were talking about the utility of using the Clarke-Hess instrument to examine or validate claims of electrical overunity, weren't we? I suggested that OU claimants should, but never do, use these kinds of instruments. Then you sarcastically asked if I had one. So I'm wondering WHAT MAKES YOU THINK I NEED ONE, in this context. Whether or not I have one is IRRELEVANT in this context unless I am making a claim of my own. But I am not, am I.
I didn't sarcastically ask you anything and if anyone was being sarcastic, it was you. I asked you 3 questions and now you are all bent out of shape. Is it nap time? The point I was making is that not everyone has several grand spend for instruments and not everyone lives where there is a Clark-Hess at every corner store. Refresh my memory please, did you specify UFO or did you make a generalization about every claimant?
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 24, 2012, 04:51:41 AM
If you really wanted to know the answer to that you could find out for yourself. Google is your friend. But you apparently want someone else to do your homework for you. Or rather, you are just sniping. You aren't going to be renting a CH and popping down to UFO's place for a test session, are you.
I did use Google and there were no real results for renting such a meter, try it yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?q=renting+a+clarke-hess+2330
Are you borrowing the one you have access to and popping down to his place? If not, why should I spend money to rent one? It appears you have much more interest in this claim _and in sniping_ than I do as you have responded to almost every post in this thread.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 24, 2012, 04:51:41 AM
Where does UFOPolitics live? Does he _not_ live in or close to a metro area? Is that relevant to being able to rent test equipment?
We aren't talking just about UFO, we are talking about your generalization. You are going a little crazy here, swerving from broad generalizations to specific instances as it suits you. Have you been drinking? Could you keep it between the lines please?
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 24, 2012, 04:51:41 AM
UFOPolitics has shown that he is willing to spend plenty of money on test equipment that gives him the answers he likes. He's shown that he has no problems encouraging people to buy six dollar mosfets when two dollar ones are exact equivalents, he has no problem encouraging people to spend hundreds of dollars on motor "kits". Why then does he have so much trouble performing measurements that are actually adequate to demonstrate his claims? Is it really a matter of cost?
What UFO encourages people to spend their money on is hardly relevant "any claimant" to spending thousands on a Clark-Hess. That is just silly. What is your deal with all these strawmen?
Why do you insist upon getting belligerent whenever you are questioned?
Disclaimer: All questions by the author in the above post are rhetorical.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on December 24, 2012, 11:17:13 AM
Monsieur 'A nom de Guerre'
With that alias, you choose your opponent well ! Don't waste too much energy.
Thank you for the good advice. Conversations with the glam marsupial is an obvious waste of time. I bid adieu to all of you.
QuoteIt appears you have much more interest in this claim than I do as you have responded to almost every post in this thread.
I am indeed interested when people make CLAIMS THAT THEY CANNOT SUPPORT, and when they try to support their claims WITH BOGUS MEASUREMENTS.
I am also interested in the phenomenon which you are exhibiting here, sock puppet. You cannot address the very real points I make so you choose to attack me personally.... while at the same time accusing me of making ad-hominem and straw man arguments. You are the very picture of hypocrisy. You remind me of someone who has recently been put on moderation because of similar behaviour, and you are fooling no one.
In addition, you are a liar, "Anomdeguerre". Count my posts. Be sure to include the three or four where I am only responding to YOUR ATTACKS on me. What are the numbers you arrive at? How many posts have I made, how many total posts are there? Is it true, by any stretch of the imagination, that I have "responded to almost every post in this thread"? Of course it isn't. Fifteen percent or more of my posts are simple responses to YOU. There have been, by my count as I write this, 132 posts in this thread, and I have made 18 posts, three of which are direct responses to YOU. In other words, when you claim that I have "responded to almost every post in this thread"..... you lie. I am not even the most prolific poster in this thread.
Some other representative posters and their post counts: picowatt, 22 posts. ramset, 14 posts. Red_sunset, 11 posts. Ian Koglin, 9 posts.
You want to continue your attacks on me.... fine, it shows your true character and shows that you care nothing for the truth. Whatever you choose to say about me, even lying like you do above, it changes nothing: UFOPolitics has made extravagant claims based on poor measurements. He has shown no realistic support for his claims. Testing his device properly, with FOR EXAMPLE something like a CH2330, would put his claims to a real test, but people in his position NEVER, to my knowledge, perform adequate testing with power analyzers or even oscilloscopes properly used. Instruments like the CH2330 are easily available for rent over the internet, could be delivered to Joe Average's home in Podunk Florida by UPS or FedEx and the rental cost is likely less than the cost of a day's worth of blown NTE brand mosfets. And it is NOT my responsibility to test UFOPolitic's claims, it is HIS responsibility to provide real support for them.
Your entire series of posts questioning me, especially this last group of calumnies and lies, show your agenda, "anomdeguerre".... you are engaging in an outrageous ad-hominem abusive attack against me. You are not addressing the points I've made but rather are attacking me personally in an attempt to discredit me.... the very definition of ad-hom abuse.
And the very first place I looked has a Clarke-Hess 2330 for rent.
http://www.testequipmentconnection.com/manufacturer/Clarke-Hess
QuoteTest Equipment Connection provides test and measurement equipment for Sale, Lease or Rent.
And another:
http://www.microprecisionte.com/advanced_search_result.php?keywords=clarke+hess&osCsid=itvd9dvudk5qdm5p1b7sfd9d74
QuoteTest Equipment Sales & Rental Used | Refurbished | New Test Equipment Sales and Rental We provide for all of your test equipment needs. Whether you need to rent a specialized analyzer for a specific task, or wish to purchase fiber optics for your long term needs, we are dedicated to speed, dependability and integrity.
Equipment Leasing We offer customers Rental and Leasing services. This gives our customers flexible options to meet their ever changing equipment needs.
We even offer Rent to Own packages.
Quote from: anomdeguerre on December 24, 2012, 11:29:19 AM
Thank you for the good advice. Conversations with the glam marsupial is an obvious waste of time. I bid adieu to all of you.
You have a funny idea about "conversations" when you lie about me and my posts, you lie about the availability of the CH2330 for rent, and you do nothing except attack me with your posts here. Goodbye, then, sock puppet.
Sigh
Seems Like "W" has reincarnated to the next level of "Pain in the Pants".......
Quote from: ramset on December 24, 2012, 09:51:43 PM
Sigh
Seems Like "W" has reincarnated to the next level of "Pain in the Pants".......
You can say that alright, so lets not edge him on or he will degenerate and not know how to stop.
It is interesting to observe this obsessive idea of being under attack and the "liar" counterpart. (I observed the same sequence also in other threads). An assured recipe for conflict engagement, to nobody's benefit.
For this Christmas, may we FORGIVE man's mistakes and have peace on earth.
I wish you all a Merry Christmas in its truest sense (without the complications of testing OU)
Love to you all, Michel
Michel
"True Dat" {jamaican !:.}
My Daughter Sent this to me last night
""Time is too slow for those who wait, too swift for those who fear, too long for those who grieve, too short for those who rejoice, but for those who love, time is eternity.— Henry Van Dyke""
Love "THE True" spice of life!!
May you all have more than your fair share this coming year.......
Chet
Quote from: ramset on December 26, 2012, 06:35:37 AM
.................................................................................
Love "THE True" spice of life!!
May you all have more than your fair share this coming year.......
Chet
Chet,
The one good thing is that this "Spice of Life" ... is 'free and energetic' !
Talking about OverUnity of an other kind, a winning double.
Let's hope that a double fair share may be yours 'to have and to hold' in this coming year ..............
Seasons greetings !
UFO just posted pictures of an unmodified rotor and of a nearly identical modified rotor. So possibly UFO himself is in a position to compare an unmodified motor to a nearly identical modified motor.
Will he do that comparison? What kind of tests and measurements will he do? Is he skilled enough to do some proper tests and does he have the proper equipment? Only the Shadow knows.
My prediction would be that the unmodified motor will clearly outperform the UFO-modified motor. This would be a good lesson to all concerned on that thread. No proper tests of the modified motor have been done and more importantly no comparative tests have been done between identical unmodified and modified motors.
The lesson is to proceed cautiously and make proper tests and gather good data before you go jumping on the bandwagon. Engineers have been designing electric motors for more than a century. Why should you believe that you can simply open one up and 'improve' on it as if it was all so obvious? Are you blinding yourself with a smokescreen of your own making?
Does anybody remember "Imhotep" and his project to modify a standard computer fan and turn it into a pulse motor? "Free energy at last - step by step a must see" produced no free energy at all. The wave of enthusiasm was huge and lots of people rewired computer fan motors but got no free energy.
MileHigh
@Michel
A sailing scene ....[for me sailing is true bliss[unless I'm lousing !:,{]
MH
The difference is Words ,words like asymmetrical and how that could apply to
Design enhancement .To me the Pics are self evident, a comparison for the sake of comparing........[no hidden meaning] as well as showing off some
very good skills!
Here is a discussion on the measurement protocol as it formulates
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-9.html#post219876 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-9.html#post219876)
Thx
Chet
PS
MH
I just noticed an issue at OP's thread ,You know I never ever have asked for any member here to be Banned nor do I ever Complain to the "BOSS" here.
I do joke about that at times But honestly ,I could not even tell you the process for "quickly reaching the Boss" here , We are grown men that have to work things out ,Banning is Not something I believe in ,open discussion needs to be an active part of progress....
Yes sometimes I do want to Squeeze/HUG you extra tight,[but we have a no touching rule]...
Quote from: ramset on December 27, 2012, 10:40:36 AM
(snip)
Here is a discussion on the measurement protocol as it formulates
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-9.html#post219876 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11933-open-discussion-projects-forum-9.html#post219876)
Thx
Chet
(snip)
Ah hah. I see that finally.... the use of the oscilloscope and the shunt to monitor the current waveform is being considered.
QuoteSuch great method could not come from any other one, than a Great Scientist like You !...(http://www.energeticforum.com/images/smilies/smile.gif)
Sometimes it's really hard to detect irony in forum postings. Isn't it?
(The purple dots indicate synchronous current and voltage readings that were measured off a grid on the enlarged image, and then multiplied in a spreadsheet to yield an instantaneous power curve for the cycles indicated between the bold vertical red lines.)
Geeze Its chilly in here,Who left a window open?
yah know until you guys get some Ou.......
Oh.......... never mind I see where the Breeze is coming from.....
Its TK feverishly pattin himself on the back.....[doin his Who's your Daddy dance]
How Ironical.........
Quote from: ramset on December 27, 2012, 04:31:01 PM
Geeze Its chilly in here,Who left a window open?
yah know until you guys get some Ou.......
Oh.......... never mind I see where the Breeze is coming from.....
Its TK feverishly pattin himself on the back.....[doin his Who's your Daddy dance]
How Ironical.........
UFOPolitic's point was that it apparently takes some "Great Scientist" to suggest the use of an oscilloscope for measuring power in pulsed circuits.
My point is that it is possible to do accurate power measurements correctly, using an analog oscilloscope and a little knowledge and sweat. And that this is "old news", and that I don't just talk, I do -- and I show others how to do, as well.
What was your point, again?
(The issue of whether or not the measurements in the scope trace shown actually represent the quantities they are supposed to be measuring is beside the point for this discussion.... I am very well aware that the battery spikes do not represent the true battery voltage seen by the circuit, thank you.)
My point TK?
Twas ultimately to say .....................
Sigh ,{I can do this,Gasp ,Choke..... Breathe !!]
At this point in time ![well other times too]
You and the skills that you bring to this forum, as well as the effort you put in
to attempt to assist in an honest and straightforward way, are Absolutely Price less,,,,And a debt that would be very hard to repay.
My point?
Thank you for being here...
Chet
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1596.msg27295#msg27295
The basic experiments to confirm overunity have been performed as Christmas Gift to the World.
The UFOpolitics device may find theoretical backing.
It is product time now....
Hey TK
Are you able to get some sort of output useing scope reading,s across an LED?
Input is no problem,but i have to keep the LED's on the output to get the switching from the solar pannel-cant use a resistor on output.
The video is unlisted,due to a device some of us are trying to replicate that was left to me by my step father.
Anyway,i will share this one in the hope that some one may be able to tell me if it's possable to get some sort of output power measurments from the scope shots?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB_ONy-cC6Y
Quote from: tinman on December 28, 2012, 08:41:12 AM
Hey TK
Are you able to get some sort of output useing scope reading,s across an LED?
Input is no problem,but i have to keep the LED's on the output to get the switching from the solar pannel-cant use a resistor on output.
The video is unlisted,due to a device some of us are trying to replicate that was left to me by my step father.
Anyway,i will share this one in the hope that some one may be able to tell me if it's possable to get some sort of output power measurments from the scope shots?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB_ONy-cC6Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB_ONy-cC6Y)
Hmmm..... that's interesting.
First, let me answer the basic question: Yes, it is possible to use a scope to measure the output of your device.... I think. It sort of depends on what you mean by output, though. If you want to see the electrical power delivered to the LEDs, that's different from measuring the light output of the LEDs, but either one can be done; but I think a two-channel scope will be required.
Next.... allow me to express my bafflement. That's a single channel scope, right? So I don't quite understand what's being displayed on the screen. There looks like a pretty ordinary "Joule Thief" type waveform, and then there's your Tornado. It's as if there are two different signals shown, but I only see where one is coming from. Can you explain what's going on here? Are we seeing something like the Tornado happening every four or five JT oscillations, and the scope falsely triggering and superimposing the two waveforms?
Also, what's the clicking sound I'm hearing in the video?
It would be very helpful if I could see the schematic and duplicate the circuit here in my lab. Perhaps you could start another thread, so we don't hijack this one.
Can I ask you to check one thing for me please: Use the green DMM to measure the _resistance_ of the Yellow DMM when it's used in the "milliamp" current mode you are using. Know what I mean? Just treat the yellow DMM as a "resistor" and measure its resistance. One of my DMMs has a series DC resistance of about 1.8 ohms when used as a milliammeter.
OK.... we are not hijacking this thread about UFOPolitic's work and measurements, but I have no other way to get this information to tinman right now.
Here's a scopeshot for you, tinman, please take a look and let me know what you think.
TK
Mi casa Es tu casa,
ATM things are in the "Tuning" stage with UFO ,Highlights will be Added as required.
Do as you please..........
Thx
Chet
UFO's First Motor run Test Vid
Here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkTYWwknG1g&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkTYWwknG1g&feature=youtu.be)
Some Test Run Data W/link to original unmodified motor specs
Here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-110.html#post220061 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-110.html#post220061)
Thx
Chet
Chet:
His modified motor consumes almost a kilowatt of power with no load attached to it. My instincts are telling me that that doesn't sound very good at all. I am going to guess a standard motor running the same unloaded test would dissipate less than 150 watts.
For now, I am assuming that his DC clamp-on meter is doing a proper job of averaging the current consumption. I have no experience with DC clamp-on meters so I am not really sure and I am not going to look it up.
The legitimate test that he did not do would have been to compare his test run data of the modified motor with a standard motor also running without a load. In addition, both motors would have to be turning at the same RPM so you would need a beefy variable power supply also.
For some strange reason he compares his modified motor running without a load to the standard motor running and driving a 4-horseposer load. There is simply no point in comparing an unloaded motor with a loaded motor.
MileHigh
So am i seeing right?-32 amps at 37 volt's just to have it free running with no load?
1180+ watts just to run the motor-man that is one hungry motor.
Wonder what will happen when a load is applied,like a 6kva gen head?
Now correct me if im wrong,but isnt one leg of the motor suppose to be an output(ie generator)?.If so,why dose he have power going into both legs of the motor?
So now,just out of curiousity-im going to hook my 1hp 24 volt motor up to 36 volt's and look at the current draw.
This is just to see how much current a motor should draw in standard trim.
It would seem to me that UFO's two input legs are having argument's with each other,and causing a massive current draw?.
Inviting Comparison........?
@TM
It would seem that a comparison is being offered,I do not see a "no load" or "Idling load" spec in the data sheet.
I have no doubt this Value is readily available![from what I can see "Googling" DC motors use 5-10 times [dif / design types] less under No load / idling ]
However,UFO Must be aware of this ,he seems to be going for RPM
which at 7500 is 3 times published design speed of 2500.
He's happy ,and the replicators are happy,I suspect this High RPM
is the comparison at this point!
I wouldn't mind seeing what that little beast would do at the golf course
[I see its a golf cart motor].
I am sure a load test is soon to follow once his high RPM Coupling issue is resolved.
He just needs a good R+D guy to help him out over there.
Thx
Chet
What is amazing is that after 110 pages and mods of both the RS motor and the Imperial, not one efficiency test has been performed.
UFO does however appear to be preparing a Prony Dyno using a steel cable, drum, and dual scales. Depending on the size of those components and the surface area of the contact area, there is going to be rapid temp rise on the brake. Localized heating/galling will likely cause the scales to hop all over the place.
A mini-bike/go-cart disc brake or similar would likely be a better brake option for the expected kw.
Another alternative is to drive a single or three phase induction motor and apply a bit of DC to a winding. The frame of the AC motor is mounted so that there is a degree of freedom about its drive axis and a bar of known length is attached to the AC motor frame with its free end resting on a scale. Many AC motors have mouting brackets that use rubber bushings coaxial to the end bearings and these are easily used with plastic or metal bushings to allow the frame some rotational freedom.
DC can come from a supply or battery charger with a Variac on the AC input.
Heat is still a concern, as the rotor of the induction motor will get quite warm as it dissipates the brake energy, so it is common to use a small blower ducted to feed air into one end of the AC motor to assist in cooling. The set up allows for pretty smooth braking (depending on the test RPM). The required AC induction motor HP rating is more dependent on temp rise and test run time, so the larger the motor used, or the better the air flow used for cooling, the easier it will be to deal with heat. 3/4HP or larger would be a good starting point. Three phase motors can usually be found pretty cheap and can also be used.
A bit of research on the web in various forums for small engine modders (competition chain saws, lawn tractor pullers, steam guys, one lungers, etc) will yield a wealth of info regarding Dynos made in all manners from simple to water cooled.
The biggest problem is always regarding heat, and having smooth braking so the scales aren't jumping all over the place. For mechanical brakes, large surface areas and hi-temp materials prevent localized hot spots and galling which tends to "catch" and bounce the scales. Brake rotors, calipers, and brake pads are designed to deal with these issues, but even long duration test runs can over heat a brake.
PW
ADDED:
Replacing the flexible shaft coupler with a rigid coupler is likely not a very good idea. Any misalignment between shafts will produce a lot of vibration, increased bearing loading, and shaft/coupler wear. The use of a solid coupler requires precision alignment. If the flex coupler is getting warm, it probably indicates that the shafts are out of alignment and the coupler is having to flex excessively. Better alignment and proper selection of the elastic material for the spider (or a different type of flex coupler) would be more advisable.
Another very simple test would be to run the standard motor without load on the same 3 battery source. He has one such motor available. Record the rpm, volts and amps, see the difference if any.
Thanks
Mike
Mr UFO lays out the protocol for the test,as well as showing a vid from a replicator with "harvesting" techniques ,and the ultimate shape this project will take .
The Vid
Ufopolitics Project Replication with DC brushed motor. by netica. Video 2 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uAYKhrPDPc)
More info relevant to the "Data issue".
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-111.html#post220114 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-111.html#post220114)
Thx
Chet
Unfortunately, there is a misunderstanding of what is going on in Netica's video #2.
UFO explains how the motor is running on "radiant energy." What he really means is that the motor is running on the pulsing current output from the discharge of coil. I am pretty sure the coil is being energized by a battery connected to a low-side MOSFET controled by an oscillator with an adjustable frequency and duty cycle.
Take note of this:
By definition, the output from a pulsing coil (like in a standard Bedini motor setup) will be constrained to a maximum current level and also to a maximum average power level.So it is no surprise at all that as Netica applies a mechanical load to the motor shaft the current measurement does not go up. The exact same thing would happen with a conventional motor.
The other thing that Netica could have done but did not do was to look at the voltage at the motor input terminal as he applied the mechanical load to the motor shaft. He would have seen the current remain the same, but the voltage would have dropped. What that means in reality is that as he applied a load to the spinning shaft the motor slowed down and its power consumption dropped and its mechanical output power dropped. The same thing would have happened with a conventional motor. The reason for this is that the motor was being powered by a discharging inductor. Without understanding how a discharging inductor works (it's not "cold electricity") then why this happens will remain a mystery for many.
Quoting UFO:
QuoteNetica is running that Motor with pure Radiant Energy Field collected from the Inductor Coil, that somehow is isolated from our Hot side Input from Batteries...and the spent energy at Hot side is Minimal compared to our output (after Diodes)
The highlighted part of his comment is not true. The average battery power that is put into the external coil, the "hot" side, will be equal to or greater than the average power that goes into the motor via the discharging coil that goes through the diodes, the "cold" side.
UFO goes on to state that the tests of the modified motors will be done this way. This is the wrong course of action. A conventional DC motor that runs off of a battery is a device that is designed to run from a constant voltage source. I think that it is reasonable to assume that the modified motors also should run off of a constant voltage source.
UFO is saying that the testing will be done using the output from a pulsing coil. The output from a pulsing coil is a current source with a constraint on the maximum available power. The maximum available output power is "choked" and limited to a certain value. This will cause problems and as I stated above, the motor mechanical power output (modified or standard) will decrease as you apply a mechanical load to the motor shaft.
Normally DC-type motors are designed to be powered by constant or near-constant voltage sources that are able to supply very large amounts of current (and also power). I am suggesting that the same type of power source should be applied to the UFO-modified motors.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on December 30, 2012, 06:42:10 PM
Unfortunately, there is a misunderstanding of what is going on in Netica's video #2.
UFO explains how the motor is running on "radiant energy." What he really means is that the motor is running on the pulsing current output from the discharge of coil. I am pretty sure the coil is being energized by a battery connected to a low-side MOSFET controled by an oscillator with an adjustable frequency and duty cycle.
Take note of this: By definition, the output from a pulsing coil (like in a standard Bedini motor setup) will be constrained to a maximum current level and also to a maximum average power level.
So it is no surprise at all that as Netica applies a mechanical load to the motor shaft the current measurement does not go up. The exact same thing would happen with a conventional motor.
The other thing that Netica could have done but did not do was to look at the voltage at the motor input terminal as he applied the mechanical load to the motor shaft. He would have seen the current remain the same, but the voltage would have dropped. What that means in reality is that as he applied a load to the spinning shaft the motor slowed down and its power consumption dropped and its mechanical output power dropped. The same thing would have happened with a conventional motor. The reason for this is that the motor was being powered by a discharging inductor. Without understanding how a discharging inductor works (it's not "cold electricity") then why this happens will remain a mystery for many.
Quoting UFO:
The highlighted part of his comment is not true. The average battery power that is put into the external coil, the "hot" side, will be equal to or greater than the average power that goes into the motor via the discharging coil that goes through the diodes, the "cold" side.
UFO goes on to state that the tests of the modified motors will be done this way. This is the wrong course of action. A conventional DC motor that runs off of a battery is a device that is designed to run from a constant voltage source. I think that it is reasonable to assume that the modified motors also should run off of a constant voltage source.
UFO is saying that the testing will be done using the output from a pulsing coil. The output from a pulsing coil is a current source with a constraint on the maximum available power. The maximum available output power is "choked" and limited to a certain value. This will cause problems and as I stated above, the motor mechanical power output (modified or standard) will decrease as you apply a mechanical load to the motor shaft.
Normally DC-type motors are designed to be powered by constant or near-constant voltage sources that are able to supply very large amounts of current (and also power). I am suggesting that the same type of power source should be applied to the UFO-modified motors.
MileHigh
G'Day
I may be a simple joiner BUT I did work for a few years at Power Controls International where they did research and development on soft starters even for a slip ring motor which was successful and up till that time had not been done before but that was quite some years ago.
I was not directly involved in the R&D but was following along and even the ones doing the R&D claimed that you can always learn something every day especially if you listen, look and with an open mind you will find that things do not always go the way you think they should.
I have built several Bedini machines and have not as yet seen a setup that would work like the one that UFO has shown us. If you or anyone here has followed his UFO's diagrams /circuits built them and run them you would not be making the uninformed comments like above.
I have made/Replicated the motors that UFO showed from the tandy ones to a larger one a 5pole wiper motor for a car and am quite convinced that exactly what UFO is saying is as it really is.
In my video here then can you explain the results I am getting here Look up the specs for this MY1018 motor and see if you can replicate using a bedini or other device to show the results I am getting and showing here I had to stop increasing the output from the circuit after 90v DC as this was 3 times the volts and speed as shown in the specs for this motor and I thought it may not be able to handle it and probable fly apart and yet the amps to the motor is 0.6amps and all the time there was always only 200ma draw from the 36v battery(3 12v car batteries in series) by replication of UFO's Happy motor diagram
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIpGdXzo-wQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIpGdXzo-wQ)
This is NOT A STANDARD Bedini setup it is a special motor controller that UFO showed us how to make and connected to a special built 2 coils in series and I built it just as UFO showed us.
When he showed us how to build this setup then quite a few like you MileHigh because you and other lurkers sprang up and was giving UFO so much verbal abuse that he and others who were learning started to respond in like that UFO spat the dummy so to speak and was so discusted because that is not how he normally is and so he removed ALL his diagrams and circuits and stated he would not continue to show anyone anymore. It was only when his interested ones asked/pleaded with him to continue that he did.
I did before suggest that all here should read his posts from the start especially his thread "mymotorsgotmeintoradiantenergy" since then I have myself started to reread all this thread from the start because on there they are attempting at designing a better controller so as to be more efficient and I wanted to learn and keep up with everything as I have been too busy on his other thread keeping up with learning there
Upon reading from the start I realise that all the informatiom/Circuits/diagrams are not there as he has not reposted them
I am sorry for that and I came back to here to show the diagrams and circuits that are missing so you all could really be informed as to what he was explaining so as to understand what he is showing us and how his circuits work.
BUT AGAIN after reading the lasts posts it is of no consequence to do so because of the closed minds here and it seems that most of the posts here from MH and PW and others are so negative about UFO disclosure and they really do not want to learn or understand anything he says
.................. appears the title of this thread
"UFO politics Keeps his word 12-12 12 Let the games begin......." is a misnomer and an excuse to have some where to only to tear him down and to make fun of him
Bye
Hi Ian,
I found a link that is close to the schematic you are using, the Happy motor diagram. I watched your clip and it looks like it's a variation on a Bedini setup.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10529-my-motors-got-me-tap-into-radiant-energy-34.html#post199306
In looking at the diagram, your 555 timer circuit controls a bank of MOSFETS. The MOSFETs energize the coil (or in your case you have two coils) and then when the MOSFETs switch off the coils discharge through the load, and the load is your motor.
In a nutshell, this setup allows you to control how much power that you pump into the motor. The higher the power throttle is set, the higher the power pumping and the higher the voltage across the motor itself.
It's a rather unusual way to power a DC motor but nonetheless it works. It's not 'radiant energy,' rather, coils have the innate ability to bump up their output voltage depending on the nature of the load. The coils can force electrical power into the motor. Because they can force electrical power into the motor that's why you could push the voltage up to 90 volts. That's a simplified explanation for your YouTube clip.
Quotethey really do not want to learn or understand anything he says
That's a two-way street Ian. PW can spin circles around me blindfolded. I can spin circles around people on your EF thread blindfolded. I can assure you that you can learn many things here than you won't learn on the EF thread.
How come your special controller can push the voltage on the motor all the way up to 90 volts? I can suggest a simple test for you to do that will explain it all to you. The onus is on you and hopefully others in your thread to want to learn and understand why that happens.
MileHigh
Ian
Will You make this A "them and Us" scenario ?
Hide your candle under a bush?
Nah ,Thats not how we do it,If you believe it ,you live it!
at first perhaps by intuition,perception ,faith !
You nailed the single biggest problem we men have .
""US""
Pride ,EGO ,selfish.......
Every Man wants to shine,be important ,be recognized [in some way],
Some one Insults or hurts our feelings,we want to punch them in the face
take our marbles and go home!
if mothers or women where running things around here there would be a lot of changes! [at least in the "tanTrum" department}
Changes........
You want the world to Change?
Be that Change!
even when it hurts [most times it will]
This Hiding your Candle thing,what change will that bring [more Us and Them stuff] ?
PLEASE RECONSIDER YOUR POSITION!
And happy new year!!
Thx
Chet
PS
In The small Forum world we share here,the push backs and insults are to be expected.
But never forget in this Case and this place
"what doesn't kill you makes you stronger"
Ian,
The very first post on this thread is a link to someone claiming "overunity galore". However, subsequent videos related to that claim did not demonstrate OU. That is not exactly being "negative", but merely an observation.
The concept of OU is something like more power out than in, and if it is related to a motor, then the output will be mechanical rotation at a given torque and RPM.
If someone is going to design or build a motor that is to be more efficient than current designs, would it not be logical to first construct or obtain the equipment necessary to measure the mechanical output from both standard and modified motors for comparison and quantification?
I read all 112 pages of the thread linked to in the first post and did not see any measurements of input power (electrical) versus output power (mechanical).
Although he needed a smoother acting brake setup, poster Turion over there came close to building a Prony to measure the RS motor output/efficiency but it seemed his efforts were less than encouraged.
Again, if anyone has actually performed electrical power in versus mechanical power out measurements that I either missed in the thread I read or that are posted in an alternate thread, please post a link or direct me to where such measurements can be found.
Far from being "negative", I encourage anyone performing UFO's motor mods to construct or obtain a dynamometer of some type to allow measurement of power in (electrical) versus power out (mechanical).
How else can any improvement in efficiency or OU be measured or verified?
PW
@MH: That's an interesting place to look in the thread. I see that Ian has had some difficulty with the mosfet PWM module......
QuotePS
Perhaps I could try it with only 1 or 2 Mosfets as it is very expensive destroying 6 at a time
Kogs
Perhaps you could try it _without_ the expensive NTE-brand mosfets and use the IRF equivalents which are about one-third the price or less. As I noted before the NTE mosfet sells for between 6 and 10 dollars each depending on the source, and the equivalent IRF mosfet can be had for between 1 and 2 dollars each.
NTE brand components are always much more expensive than the actual part they replace. The only time to deal with NTE (ECG) is when you absolutely cannot find a substitute component anywhere else. The choice of 6 NTE brand mosfets in a circuit that is sure to blow them frequently is a mistake, when there are IRF power mosfets that outperform the specified NTE parts and are much cheaper.
(Just think.... if we here had gotten involved sooner we might have been able to save Kogs some money and frustration. It's all Ramset's fault for not opening this thread earlier ! ;) )
Is there a difference in behaviour between a commutated DC motor driven by straight ("linear") DC power, and the same motor driven by a pulse width or frequency modulated controller?
What happens to the RPM and power consumption in each case, when the motor is loaded or even stalled by heavy shaft load?
TK:
I have some related questions. What happens when you power a motor with a current source when the motor is normally supposed to be powered by a voltage source? Will that sometimes induce very high voltage surges on the power leads going to the motor and will that be a potential shock hazard? Look at the example of when the commutator brushes disconnect the armature for a short period of time as the rotor turns. The current source will generate arcing. Is that arcing worse than the commutator arcing that you normally see in a DC motor? Will that double the amount of arcing and will that shorten the life of the commutator and the brushes?
Also, could this explain the blown MOSFETs? Let's assume the motor is just starting up and the RPMs are very low. Let's assume the coil is fully energized and starts its discharge into the motor. Let's assume that the brushes and commutator go open circuit and the open circuit time will be longer because the rotor is turning slowly. Will that set up a "perfect storm" and allow the fully energized coil to discharge through the MOSFETs and blow them? Naturally I am assuming that there is no protection device across the MOSFETs in this case.
MileHigh
Current source, voltage source?
Voltage is the "pressure" that pushes charge through an impedance. Current is the time rate of flow of charge. Could you tell me the difference between a "voltage source" and a "current source"?
My bench power supply has a current-limiting mode. You short together the output leads and set the current limiting pot to the desired short-circuit limiting current. Then the power supply regulates its _voltage_ to avoid exceeding the limiting current when the load's impedance drops.
A constant-current supply will vary its output voltage as the load's impedance changes, in order to maintain a constant current in the load.
TK:
QuoteVoltage is the "pressure" that pushes charge through an impedance. Current is the time rate of flow of charge. Could you tell me the difference between a "voltage source" and a "current source"?
I can give you a pure technical answer but it probably won't mean too much for the guys on the EF thread. An ideal voltage source has an output impedance of zero, and a real voltage source has an output impedance close to zero. An ideal current source has an output impedance of infinity and a real current source has a very high output impedance.
Here is a simple thought experiment to explain the very high output impedance of a current source: Imagine you have a 100-million-volt voltage source in series with a 100 mega-ohm resistor. Suppose you try putting different resistances across the output of this device. 100-ohm, 1k-ohm, 10K-ohm, 100k-ohm. What will the current flow be in each of those cases? How much power will be dissipated in the different resistances? Assume that this thought-experiment current source has two terminals that are separated by 2 centimeters. What happens if you put a short-circuit across these two terminals? What happens if you open-circuit these two terminals?
With respect to your bench power supply, you probably have a few with the 10-turn knob for the voltage setting and the 10-turn knob for the current setting. You explained how you can play with the current setting to do current limiting. However, you can use your power supply to act as a voltage source or as a current source.
For voltage source mode, it's pretty straightforward. You turn the current setting all the way up to the maximum, and then you simply adjust the voltage setting to your desired voltage.
For current source mode, it's similar but used much less often. With the current setting at zero, first turn the voltage setting all the way up to maximum. Then connect the two leads from the power supply to the circuit under test. Then turn up the current setting to your desired current level. Now as you change your circuit your power supply will always inject the same amount of current into the circuit. This can be a very useful function when designing and debugging circuits.
A discharging coil is basically a current source. In fact it's very close to an ideal current source. Hence people observe voltage spikes and plasma arcs and mistakenly call that "cold electricity."
Going back to the DC motor being powered by a current source, if you put a big mechanical load on the motor and it slows down, you know that you are lowering the electrical impedance of the motor relative to the current source. The slower a motor turns the less counter-EMF it is generating hence the lower the electrical impedance of the motor. The lower the impedance a current source sees the less power it outputs. That's in contrast to a voltage source where the lower the impedance it sees the more power it outputs.
There was a clip recently discussed where the experimenter puts a load on the motor shaft with two wooden blocks and the motor slows down. Because the motor was powered by a current source it slowed down in a "benign" way and drew less and less power and came to a stop. The problem is that a motor is not supposed to do this - it's supposed to "fight" and draw more power when you put a load on it. The motor needs to be powered by a voltage source to do this.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 02, 2013, 05:25:08 PM
My bench power supply has a current-limiting mode. You short together the output leads and set the current limiting pot to the desired short-circuit limiting current. Then the power supply regulates its _voltage_ to avoid exceeding the limiting current when the load's impedance drops.
A constant-current supply will vary its output voltage as the load's impedance changes, in order to maintain a constant current in the load.
It´s quite usually to optimize voltage sources with bypass capacitors - but there are few people improving their current limiting voltage sources(==current sources) with 1Henry coils.
A current limiting voltage source is a poor substitute for a true current source.
Torque Test One:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvgoRRfgbA0&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvgoRRfgbA0&feature=youtu.be)
UFO has a really nice setup. Unfortunately he makes a big mistake. Who will be the second person to point it out?
His asymmetrically modified imperial motor is under unity. I am somewhat surprised in that it seems to be about as efficient as you would expect an unmodified motor to be. However, this was just one test and the real way to compare the modified vs. unmodified motors would be to plot performance curves for both of them and compare.
Some comments from UFO:
Quote
The Scales are around 1.5 to 2.0 % error
Meters are not "cheap ones" but True RMS Both
The only thing here I am not satisfy with...is with the DC Clamp Meter...which is designed to measure Linear DC and NOT Pulsed.
And all my Motors are pulsed In and Out:)
Pulsed DC should read much less Amperage than what is showing linear reading with that Clamp.
I seriously doubt that his DC clamp meter is wrong. Note also that the three batteries are directly connected to the motor. So when he says "pulsing" he is talking about the current draw by the motor itself, and not some sort of external pulsing circuitry.
The only thing that may be a bit off in one or two of his measurements is that he may have frozen a frame when the motor was decelerating. That will completely muck up the measurements. The motor absolutely must be turning at a constant velocity when you gather data points. In a related matter I get the impression that he was applying force to the lever with his arm to create the friction for the Prony brake. That's okay for a first test but to be serious he needs to add some weights to the lever so that he takes the human factor out of the equation for creating the friction.
Also, you have to look at the digital displays for several seconds while the motor is turning at a constant velocity and make sure that you are recording the "real" reading and not the occasional reading that is above or below the "real" reading. We are all familiar with how digital displays can jump around. I am not sure if UFO was paying attention to this when he froze the video frames.
These two points about the art of making proper measurements are very critical and can never be ignored.
MileHigh
This UFO is one hard working fellow.......
TORQUE_TEST_ONE - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvgoRRfgbA0&feature=youtu.be)
Thx
Chet
UFOPolitics video on the torque test is based on Peter Lindemann's -- Electric Motor Secrets. Peter's video can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLGuf1geOiQ
The first 13 minutes of Peter's video should give you an idea of what UFO is trying to do. UFO has mentioned in the past that he uses Lindemann's -- Electric Motor Secrets like a 'bible'.
Nickstir
Quote from: ramset on January 02, 2013, 09:33:32 PM
This UFO is one hard working fellow.......
TORQUE_TEST_ONE - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvgoRRfgbA0&feature=youtu.be)
Thx
Chet
Yes a lot of work and commendable,However;P=V*(F1-F2)P=powerV=tangential speed at the contact interphase Belt-PulleyV=pi*N*DPi=3.14N=revolutions per secondD is the pulley diameterF1 and F2 are the tensions on the belt segments (rope, wire etc)Also P=V*F1*[1-e^(-u*theta)]u=friction coefficienttheta is the wrap angle in radians. It appears there is a sign error with his calculations overstating the power...He is using P=V*(F1+F2)... Thanks for the videoMike
Quote from: Nickstir on January 02, 2013, 11:06:09 PM
UFOPolitics video on the torque test is based on Peter Lindemann's -- Electric Motor Secrets. Peter's video can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLGuf1geOiQ
The first 13 minutes of Peter's video should give you an idea of what UFO is trying to do. UFO has mentioned in the past that he uses Lindemann's -- Electric Motor Secrets like a 'bible'.
Nickstir
Hi Nickstir
UFO has once again messed up his test result's.
For some one (UFO) that claim's to be a mechanic and have some sort of degree in physic's,simple mesurment's just keep eluding him.
The test he just carried out, are just plain wrong.
UFO
.
Time after time UFO dose test that are wrong and missleading to those that know no better,and now it is getting beyond a joke.
He (UFO) obviously dose not take Peter's work very seriously at all.Infact it would seem he has no idea as to how Peter done his measurment's.
UFO added the 6.67 lb from F2B to the 35.58lb of F2A.
This is incorrect.
The 6.67lb has to be subtracted from the 35.58lb to get the deflection force.
Correct input output mesurment's are
Input=v x A=w 33.59 x 114.2 =3835.97 watts
1HP = 746 watts.
input HP= 3835.97 watts/746 watts=5.142HP input.
Output=feet per second x lb deflection
69.73 fps x 28.97 lb deflection=2020.078flb per second
flb/HP is 2020.078/550=3.672HP output.
Efficiency is
output-3.672/input of 5.142=71.4% efficiency.
Standard motor specs as posted by UFO
Input-36 volts At 103 amps=3708 watts
Output=4HP.
Summery
Standard motor-input 3708 watts
Output 4HP
UFO motor-input 3835.97 watt's
Output-3.672HP
Go figure?
There are some that say UFO could use people that have knowledge to help him along this journey.But the truth is UFO is not interested in people that have a difference of opinion to his own-and this i know first hand.
You will never see a side by side test done correctly between UFO's mod motor and a standard motor by UFO him self.
Infact i havnt seen a correct efficiency test done on one of his moded motors yet that is correct.
Only the blind see truth within lies.
Nickstir:
QuoteUFOPolitics video on the torque test is based on Peter Lindemann's -- Electric Motor Secrets. Peter's video can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLGuf1geOiQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLGuf1geOiQ)
The first 13 minutes of Peter's video should give you an idea of what UFO is trying to do. UFO has mentioned in the past that he uses Lindemann's -- Electric Motor Secrets like a 'bible'.
The first thirty minutes or so of the video are great.
Unfortunately there is a big fail that starts at 38:12, the "big secret" discussion.
Peter says, "
The back-EMF destroys 3.2 volts."
Then he goes on to say, "
9.6 watts of energy is destroyed by the back-EMF and 2.4 watts of electricity is what creates all of the mechanical energy of what the motor puts out. That is the secret of this problem."
This "destroying" is what I think UFO calls the "Witch."
I hate to be a bearer of bad news but Peter has it backwards.
The 2.4 watts of power is what is lost as heat in the resistance of the commutator and the resistance of the armature wire.
The 9.6 watts of power is the voltage drop times the current that is being transformed into the mechanical energy output of the motor.
So there is no "destroying" by the counter-EMF (a.k.a. the back-EMF.) What Peter thinks is "destroying" is just the electrical input power being transformed into the torque x angular velocity output power of the motor, i.e.; the useful mechanical output.
MileHigh
Astounding.
I just looked and nobody is talking about the clear error in his calculations. They have more important things to worry about..... it seems that their motor "kits" are being shipped with unmagnetized stator magnets !!
It certainly seems to me that there are some rather large communication breakdowns in this story. The "kits" seem to be a bunch of parts that some junior clerk is throwing into a box, without even caring to check if the parts are complete, usable or even fit together. And to ship unmagnetized stators to a bunch of amateur motor builders.... is a cruel joke at best. At least I am laughing in my coffee about it. I'm sure some of those who paid hundreds of dollars and waited weeks for their parts are also quite amused. I imagine their mirth will increase even further when the torque computation error is noticed.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2013, 03:34:15 AM
Astounding.
I just looked and nobody is talking about the clear error in his calculations. They have more important things to worry about..... it seems that their motor "kits" are being shipped with unmagnetized stator magnets !!
It certainly seems to me that there are some rather large communication breakdowns in this story. The "kits" seem to be a bunch of parts that some junior clerk is throwing into a box, without even caring to check if the parts are complete, usable or even fit together. And to ship unmagnetized stators to a bunch of amateur motor builders.... is a cruel joke at best. At least I am laughing in my coffee about it. I'm sure some of those who paid hundreds of dollars and waited weeks for their parts are also quite amused. I imagine their mirth will increase even further when the torque computation error is noticed.
Astounding?
It is clear by now, that this is a common occurrence - sad but true.
It would seem that this thread and us are quite popular over at UFO's thread on EF.
Quote from iankoglin-I First saw the URL for the TORQUE_TEST_ONE over where the Skeptics are demanding these tests They do not want to even try to replicate what you are doing Just show on their part trying to prove to themselves how these things that you are showing cannot be realised.
Quote from jason65r-Kogs. I to read that post. I'm really not happy with the tone of it. It is sad, but I expect there always will be a group of loud mouthed know it alls (who don't know anything) ready to mud sling when they don't understand something.
Ok guy's,could one of you please pass on these couple of link's that tell you how to do the test properly to UFO.
http://www.gearseds.com/files/sample_lesson2.pdf
ou will notice on page 2 that they even give you a spread sheet you can print out-so as not to make any mistakes in your calculation's
Also on page 2 you will see that Force (net)= scale reading B minus scale reading A
Here is the link to wikipedia on how to use a prony brake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Prony_brake
A short extract from the second paragraph-The difference between the two readings is used to calculate torque
Thank's guy's
From the guy's who dont know anything. ;)
TM
The fellows here know I did not start this Thread with any intent of Malice towards UFO, quite the contrary.........However it seems that some very good points are being made here.
Some of these same Fellows critiquing here have been Knocking me on my Butt for many years regarding measurements and "anomolies".
To say this education is unique would be an understatement[spans all sciences],To say that it has saved me and others here TONS of time in my life ...Likewise.
However one thing it has done is make US much more effective.
{those that tuff it out].
If this thread serves no other purpose than to keep EF's thread free of
distractions that would slow the progress of UFO's Final Build,I'm fine with that,If he can glean any useful info towards Honing his Data into "Rock hard"
Indisputable Data,even better!
Thx
Chet
Quote from: ramset on January 03, 2013, 12:08:16 PM
TM
The fellows here know I did not start this Thread with any intent of Malice towards UFO, quite the contrary.........However it seems that some very good points are being made here.
Some of these same Fellows critiquing here have been Knocking me on my Butt for many years regarding measurements and "anomolies".
To say this education is unique would be an understatement[spans all sciences],To say that it has saved me and others here TONS of time in my life ...Likewise.
However one thing it has done is make US much more effective.
{those that tuff it out].
If this thread serves no other purpose than to keep EF's thread free of
distractions that would slow the progress of UFO's Final Build,I'm fine with that,If he can glean any useful info towards Honing his Data into "Rock hard"
Indisputable Data,even better!
Thx
Chet
Hi Chet
I dont believe that people trying to put forward there opinion on how UFO is calculating his tests should be seen as a distraction,but rather useful input that should be taken into account.
I have recently made a circuit that show's an output far greater than the input,but rather than go jumping for joy i lean more toward making a mistake in my measurments some where?.
So i have asked TK and any one else who view's the video,to tell me where the mistake is im making?.
I live in the real world,and rather trying to proove my measurments to be correct-i go looking for any mistake's first.
The second step would be to get a couple of other people to build and test the circuit,and see if they get the same result's as me.
The third step would be to build a loop system,that requires no batteries to run.In the case of my circuit,that will be a bit tricky-as the positive output is also the negative input.
In the end,it dosnt matter who you are-whether it be myself or UFO--never object to people trying to point out mistake's they believe you are making.
Take a look at my latest video-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYeGUGbmmII
And point out any mistake you think im making here-as something is obviously wrong?
Just post a comment on my youtube video or email me what you think-rather than post it here on this thread-all input is welcome by you all.
UFO has done a great job building his latest motor-the workmanship is very good.
But he just isnt interested in anyone trying to point out mistakes he is making-and that is a bad attitude to have.
Some of the guy's(as seen above)on UFO's crew have decided that we are wrong,and have no idea what we are talking about.
But some who read this thread may actualy go and check for them self what we are saying to be correct,and then they will see who it is that dosnt know what there talking about.
UFO sent me an email,saying he has carried out the test correctly???
His next video will be showing torque useing a torque wrench and torque adaptor-no scale's.
So i guess we will have to wait for that one.
In all honesty i hope he actualy dose have an overunity motor,but i just havnt seen a test done to this day that confirms that.
Maybe the next one will be undisputable?
TM
You "OWN" Your perspective ,as a replicator you belong to a "halloed Ground Club" that should have no Diminished input ,nor be silenced by anyone else replicating.{unless it is obvious you have an "Agenda to Disrupt".......}
A league of your own....
Your method for Evaluating an idea or concept is Similar to mine.[expert eyes]
My Vid access at the shop here is still not up and running .{ a few more days here].
So.... Tinsel has not gotten back to you on that one?[I have not, nor Cannot see your vid yet].
If he does not respond shortly I will Grab it now and take it somewhere for a quick viewing by some wonderful fellows [open source gents].And report back to this thread.
Thx
Chet
Quote from: ramset on January 03, 2013, 01:24:57 PM
TM
You "OWN" Your perspective ,as a replicator you belong to a "halloed Ground Club" that should have no Diminished input ,nor be silenced by anyone else replicating.{unless it is obvious you have an "Agenda to Disrupt".......}
A league of your own....
Your method for Evaluating an idea or concept is Similar to mine.[expert eyes]
My Vid access at the shop here is still not up and running .{ a few more days here].
So.... Tinsel has not gotten back to you on that one?[I have not, nor Cannot see your vid yet].
If he does not respond shortly I will Grab it now and take it somewhere for a quick viewing by some wonderful fellows [open source gents].And report back to this thread.
Thx
Chet
I would suspect TK hasnt yet seen my email or had time to view it-as it has only been up for about an hour.
I've seen tinman's videos, very interesting indeed. Right now my only response (that I sent to tinman in a PM) is to link Professor Lewin's lectures here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqjl-qRy71w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqjl-qRy71w)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bUWcy8HwpM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bUWcy8HwpM)
I don't think Tinman is doing anything "wrong". His measurements are showing how we must really be careful measuring power in circuits with pulsed power and high (relatively) inductances.
I spent an hour winding a fresh Tesla bifilar pancake coil; not as much wire as in tinman's but a start, I'll wind another one with more wire now that I've got a technique down.
Please.... I need to see a sketch of the schematic of the LED/Cap/diode board, I can't figure it out from the verbal description. Once I'm sure I'm using the same circuit as Tinman I can apply some scoposcopy to it and see if we can figure out what's happening. I think my signal generator can substitute for TM's oscillating power supply. Meanwhile, Lewin's lecture material is important, I think.
But this: Quote from jason65r-Kogs.
QuoteI to read that post. I'm really not happy with the tone of it. It is sad, but I expect there always will be a group of loud mouthed know it alls (who don't know anything) ready to mud sling when they don't understand something.
I'm really not happy with the tone of that post, ho ho ho. It is indeed sad, but I can't recall anyone here personally insulting the arrogant ignorant bunch of naive idiots over there..... YET..... but if that's the way they want to play, I can play that way too.
>:(
Things I don't like about the latest torque tests:
1. The brake setup has too fast of a temp rise likely causing coefficient of friction to change as it heats. A wider drum with a metal band would increase the surface area of the brake, slow T rise, and provide a smoother more consistent braking force.
2. Capturing video frames to freeze measurements does not take into account that not all readouts (meters/scales) are updating at the same time, and therefore not necessarily providing numbers that reflect "simultaneous" measurement.
3. Number 2 above is likely further exacerbated by number 1 above. The braking force and RPM must be held constant long enough for the meters and scales readouts to stabilize. This requires a smooth and steady brake.
4. I have never been a fan of two scale dyno setups like this, but would be more impressed if a fixed preload with equal scale readings was applied prior to each run and then the applied pressure calculated via the difference in the scale readings as noted during a run. If RPM and indicated load vary during a run, more work is needed to improve the brake.
5. The ammeter should be verified with a shunt and a low pass/voltmeter or a scope to confirm the ammeter's readings.
6, Even if precise quantification is not possible with the present setup, comparisons can be made to a stock motor. What efficiency does a stock motor indicate under similar testing?
As I said, I have never been a fan of these two scale dyno setups. A single arm Prony using a single scale can easily provide the motor shaft lb-ft of torque and then horsepower is simply (RPMXlb-ft)/5252.
That digital torque wrench adapter he has would be a great start, but I would use it to measure the torque right at the motor's shaft axis. This would require modifyng the brake so that the braking force is axial to the motor shaft.
Using an AC induction motor with a bit of DC applied for use as an eddy current brake as in my previous post makes a quick and dirty axial brake setup. Attaching the digital torque readout to the induction motor housing so that its centerline is the same as the induction motor shaft centerline would provide a direct readout of shaft torque in lb-ft, and again, horsepower would simply be (RPMXlb-ft)/5252.
Alternately, a small disc or drum brake setup could be incorporated.
Many in the "one-lunger" crowd just use a single arm made of oak that is clamped, using wingnuts or bolts, to a drum mounted to the motor's shaft. The end of the arm rests on a scale or is hung from a spring scale. The scale readout is divided by the length of the arm in feet to arrive at torque in lb-ft and (RPM X lb-ft)/5252 is used to calculate HP.
I truly hope UFO improves on his dyno, or at least compares a non-modified motor using the same setup, I am indeed curious to see what his modified motors and all his hard work can do.
PW
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2013, 03:35:54 PM
...I can't recall anyone here personally insulting the arrogant ignorant bunch of naive idiots over there..... YET..... but if that's the way they want to play, I can play that way too.
>:(
I believe you just did...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on January 03, 2013, 03:46:55 PM
I believe you just did...
PW
Irony is hard to convey in forum posts, isn't it.
I suppose I rewound my first DC motors (Mabuchi and Johnson 'can' motors) nearly 40 years ago, to win slot car races. It was fairly common practice to improve torque and top RPM, to strip the armatures and rewind with heavier wire, fewer turns, and epoxy the wire in place so the motor wouldn't "throw wraps" from the extreme RPMs attained. Of course we were running on the track's supplied DC power so we didn't care much about input power, we just wanted fast acceleration (high torque) and high top speeds for the races. And if the motor lasted a day, that was just fine.
Another thing that might seem crazy, but actually works, is to run the motors completely underwater for an hour or so. This "sets" the new brushes so that they make full contact with the commutator.
Of course after doing this the motor needs to be dried well and re-lubricated.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2013, 03:35:54 PM
I've seen tinman's videos, very interesting indeed. Right now my only response (that I sent to tinman in a PM) is to link Professor Lewin's lectures here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqjl-qRy71w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqjl-qRy71w)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bUWcy8HwpM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bUWcy8HwpM)
I've done Lewin's version of the experiment, and I found that he has mis-interpreted the results he is seeing, and as such, misled his students. Unfortunately, Lewin is comparing apples and oranges when he states that Kirchhoff "is for the birds!", and "Faraday is the only law that matters!".
According to my results, KVL indeed DOES hold in this experiment, but you must know what to measure and how to measure it properly and completely, which unfortunately, Lewin did not do.
TK
I have a slight technical problem........
Last week We drained the water out of the Pool for the winter, blasted air through all the water lines [freeze protection ] and our pile of "Nefarious fill"
is frozen solid.
Long story short we are woefully unprepared for a "Mud slinging" Event{ a bit Shorthanded without "W" too].
Can we please refrain [for the time being] ?
When you draw fire it irritates those "close by".........{specially when we're out of Mud]
Thx
Chet
Sorry Chet..... I'm just slinging the mud back, you know. I realize you don't have control over the posters like Kogs who will insult us "over there".... you can consider my "mud slinging" comment a protest against their insulting behavior.
QuoteQuote from jason65r-Kogs. I to read that post. I'm really not happy with the tone of it. It is sad, but I expect there always will be a group of loud mouthed know it alls (who don't know anything) ready to mud sling when they don't understand something.
Of course, I suppose he might have been referring to someone else.
@99: That is interesting. Lewin was trying to make a point to his students, and I'm quite sure he's given that same lecture every year for many years. What exactly is he doing wrong, and how would you explain his results? He might like to know where he's going wrong, himself.
Further, how do you explain Tinman's result where his two inline ammeters read differently?
Hi Chet
I think what TK was saying is-when push come's to shove-you push back.
But on a diferent note-do you think UFO has calculated his last test useing the prony brake correctly?
Reading all the post here on this thread(except TK's return fire lol) all i see is us guys explaining and proving how and why UFO is getting his overunity result's.
And then to have his sheep say that we dont know what were talking about,(when it is they them self that are lost)-is just a plain insult realy.
Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2013, 11:58:12 PM
Hi Chet
I think what TK was saying is-when push come's to shove-you push back.
But on a diferent note-do you think UFO has calculated his last test useing the prony brake correctly?
Reading all the post here on this thread(except TK's return fire lol) all i see is us guys explaining and proving how and why UFO is getting his overunity result's.
And then to have his sheep say that we dont know what were talking about,(when it is they them self that are lost)-is just a plain insult realy.
G'Day all of you at Overunity
I never came here to sling any mud I came here because I could see from your posts that you had really NO IDEA of how UFO's circuit is built even when I showed you my machine and how it works you was saying how it was working or rather how you thought it was made and how you thought it was working and I still see by your replies since then showed you were still not interested how it works and we say it works I could see from the attitude you still display that you are not really interested anyway as when he said he was going to do another test and even said if you do not agree with the way he is going to do the next test he will not the test. You are questioning why he is going to do the test this way and talk how it is wrong for him to do it that way
The machines do not work the way any of you here have described how they work they are built different to the way you say they are built
Also UFO is not asking how to do his modifications he is asking those who want to to replicate what he has discovered and done his own extensive testing he has been gradually showing others participating on his forums/sites his disclosure and after when he has finished the building/testing of this P56 motor that we are now working on particularly for his next level there he is about to start another site in which there are some things that UFO does require help and has asked for this help on, but it is only those who understand how his machines are built and how they work and this can only be done by replicating exactly what he is disclosing and therefore any who only guess how they are made and work cannot really qualify to make any suggestionon what they think.
UFO is a kind and helpful person he answeres all those who are replicating his disclosure even those who are finding it difficult to acchieve what he is showing.
He does not like it when people who do not even try to replicate his disclosure and of course do not understand how it works or try to say how it wont work and how he should be doing it. he really works long hours and is prone like all of us to at times to say something that does not sit right with some but if asked properly he will explain how or why and if he is wrong he will admit it,
BUT if people make fun of him because he appears to have done something wrong he has in the past but has resolved now not to reply in a negative way.
I am the same but when I try to show people how to do something that they do not Quite understand and they critisize what I am saying and explain how they think I am wrong without any regard to what I have seen by my own builds I then say to my self and them WHY SOULD I BOTHER as I mentioned 2 or three times before.
Incidently the circuit you displayed some posts back are not correct and were corrected by UFO later, also when I could not get my the same circuit working I did suggest that perhaps I should try a slightly smaller circuit so as to not blow so many mosfets until I sorted out what was wrong. Again this is something you here ridiculed me about taking what I said out of context. Even some of you here have stated that you only want to disrupt what is being do and intend to sling mud.
Again the mosfets shown in the circuit are the ones UFO said he used But the ones I used were less than one third of the price but were still the same specs and there again some one held me in derision over that but they were not informed as to what was correct.
So like I have said before People only take things out of context or only state some of what is said so as to ridicule others
Even some of you have said you are only trying to help UFO get his machines going BUT I hane not seen any of thisOnly the tenor is disrespectful towards him.
Regards to you all Kogs
Hi Ian
I myself dont know exactly how UFO's motor works in the sence of the effects that are going on within the motor.
What i do know-and are more interested in,is the efficiency of the motor it self.
The only comments i made over at EF were to try and correct UFO's(and others) measurment's-or the way they were added up.
UFO has once claimed overunity with an incorrect measurment,and he has just done it again -claiming his motor has over a 100% efficiency.
Once again he has incorrectly done his measurments.But when you try to explain this to him-he just dosnt want to know you-or as befor,ask you to leave his thread.
I have gone and spent $100.00 today on scales and a pully.
I have spent my afternoon setting up a prony brake just as he had his in the video-even as far as useing wire rope
I will post the video tomorow with a link here,but useing UFO's method of testing-i have a standard motor that is 137% efficient.
But done the correct way-it is 74.6% efficient--much more believable i think..
Hi,
well done tinman! That shows some real commitment. I'm looking forward to seeing how you get on.
John.
Ian:
You are overly emotional and saying a lot of things that are either not making sense or they are exaggerated.
There are two main themes that have come up around here. The first is to do electrical power in vs. mechanical power out measurements. The second is to compare an unmodified motor with a modified motor.
Now can you in all reasonableness argue with the appropriateness of these two themes?
You say that you have shown your motor and how it works. You did the first but not the second. All that you did was demo the motor in operation.
I explained to you how your motor was working and I am very confident I am correct. Naturally I can't tell you all of the fine nuances because I was just watching a clip. You haven't made any comments about what I said and you haven't tried to engage and discuss. Instead, all that you are doing is making a rant.
UFO screwed up the torque measurement on his recent clip. If you were creative, you could do a thought experiment and prove it to yourself that he screwed up. Here is a big hint: What if the friction belt was actually very slippery with respect to the drum so that you could put a lot of tension on both sides of the belt but the drum still turned easily. Do you add or subtract?
The fact that UFO won't correct this error and the people on the EF thread are circling the wagons around him are two problem issues that hinder your progress.
Are you upset because I say that there is no "cold electricity" or "radiant energy" associated with your builds? Do you want to talk about it and engage on a technical level instead of on an emotional level?
Do you want to talk about the technical aspects of your motor clips or one of UFO's clips or do you just want to rant and say we are all wrong and don't understand anything? Which path leads to the exchange of ideas and a better understanding of what is going on?
MileHigh
Tinman's post is very important because it illustrates a basic principle that is often overlooked. Your test procedure must itself be validated! This is typically done by using the exact same test methods on a _known_ non-overunity system, that has also been tested by another different procedure. Your test procedure should give non-OU results when tested on a known non-OU system... duh.... and should also agree with other, more commonly accepted test results on those known systems.
Kogs, if you had consulted here when you first built UFO's "incorrect" circuit using NTE mosfets.... you would have saved yourself a lot of trouble and money. You yourself posted a comment there asking if you could use fewer mosfets because it was getting expensive to blow all six at once. You could have avoided all of that, if you only would have availed yourself of the "loud mouth non-experts" here, who have considerable experience, which you denigrate, with mosfet power supplies and PWM and FM circuits of all kinds. There are some easy and simple mods to the basic UFO circuit that would improve its performance and reliability, and should have been designed into it in the first place. We first discussed that circuit here many days ago. The NTE mosfet is a bad choice for several reasons, not the least being its price. Higher voltage, higher current, faster, and lower Rdss mosfets are easily available for quite a bit lower cost. Your accusation that we are non-helpful is a matter of your viewpoint. Sure.... if you choose to ignore the help and advice that is offered.... then we are non-helpful, obviously. Is that a good reason to insult us?
However, it's hard to ignore the repeated and _false_ or at least unsupported claims of overunity performance. Maybe we should try harder to ignore them ..... or maybe the incorrect claims shouldn't be made at all until certainty is attained.
A little safety note:
UFO mentions cranking up the voltage on one of his big motors and getting it to run at 8000 or 9000 RPM. He also stated that the motor spec says 2500 RPM.
I don't really know for sure, but my instincts are telling me that this could be dangerous. If the bearings seize at 8000 RPM or the motor starts to self destruct then the motor could rip itself off of its moorings and cause serious bodily harm.
MileHigh
The Armature suffers a Fleshwound during "Run Up" ,perhaps made the Jump to "warp" speed ?
Tell you one thing.....
After these fellows get done with all this "EXTRA TIGHT" Winding that will have to be done For High speeds ,You better be on good terms if you ever get to shake their hand {Crunch !:.}
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-114.html#post220650 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-114.html#post220650)
THx
Chet
Threw some wraps at 9000 RPM, did he? I see that on the previous page he says "the motor can take it" when talking about boosting input voltage and RPM. Perhaps that was a bit premature. Is there nobody around over there who played with slot car racing as an adolescent? I know nobody listens to me, but surely there is is someone else who has experience rewinding motors for higher torque and RPM who could have suggested that they epoxy the exposed wraps at the armature ends.
I wonder why he thinks "high temperature" epoxy is needed. I thought his motors were supposed to stay cool. Regardless, ordinary quick-curing epoxy properly applied will solve this issue, and it doesn't need vacuum impregnation or any other fancy treatment.... just use a stiff disposable brush to work it in well (and quickly) where the wire is exposed above and below the segments. And..... yes, dynamic balancing will also help prevent throwing wraps.
It's a lot easier to prevent this from happening, than it is to fix it after it happens.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 04, 2013, 07:05:54 PM
snip..... Is there nobody around over there who played with slot car racing as an adolescent?
snip...
Ahh.... ScaleXtric .... now them were the days..... KneeDeep
Many's the curve taken too quickly, with awesome high speed exits and catastrophic crashes. Almost makes a grand prix look tame!
Cheers
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2013, 10:31:25 PM
@99: That is interesting. Lewin was trying to make a point to his students, and I'm quite sure he's given that same lecture every year for many years. What exactly is he doing wrong, and how would you explain his results? He might like to know where he's going wrong, himself.
This should be discussed in its own topic, but basically, Lewin is mixing and confusing measured
electric field and measured
potential difference. He is only and always measuring the electric field in his experiment, yet he is discussing and calculating potential differences in the circuit on the chalk board. He has not measured any potential differences on the circuit, because his measurement leads are not decoupled from the experiment; they are in fact
part of the experiment. Lewin has also left out the fact that there are two other "components" in his circuit, for which he has not accounted for. These of course are the two pieces of wire between the resistors, where of course the circuit emf is induced.
There have been many other tests and articles written about this experiment, and thus far I have only seen folks making the same errors (and other errors) as Lewin is.
Quote
Further, how do you explain Tinman's result where his two inline ammeters read differently?
I'd love to be able to comment on tinman's circuit and results, but without a detailed circuit diagram, this is near impossible to do with any certainty. It behooves folks that are making such videos and asking for comment, to post a good diagram of their complete setup. Sorry. :-\
Here is my prony brake setup($100.00 later lol)
It would seem i have an overunity motor that is an off the shelf motor and very tired after a hard life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLo5wXLAopc
The words look like crap after i uploaded to youtube,so redoing a version 2 with clearer words i hope.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2013, 09:28:58 AM
This should be discussed in its own topic, but basically, Lewin is mixing and confusing measured electric field and measured potential difference. He is only and always measuring the electric field in his experiment, yet he is discussing and calculating potential differences in the circuit on the chalk board. He has not measured any potential differences on the circuit, because his measurement leads are not decoupled from the experiment; they are in fact part of the experiment. Lewin has also left out the fact that there are two other "components" in his circuit, for which he has not accounted for. These of course are the two pieces of wire between the resistors, where of course the circuit emf is induced.
There have been many other tests and articles written about this experiment, and thus far I have only seen folks making the same errors (and other errors) as Lewin is.
I'd love to be able to comment on tinman's circuit and results, but without a detailed circuit diagram, this is near impossible to do with any certainty. It behooves folks that are making such videos and asking for comment, to post a good diagram of their complete setup. Sorry. :-\
Hi poynt99
Yes i must get into the habbit of posting scematics with my circuits.
I will have the scematic in my next video about the circuit-trying to do many things at once here lol.
One thing has been worked out,after my big over sight that the square wave on the wave generator dose not remain a 50/50% cycle in the higher frequencies-cheap circuit.
But there remains the problem of both potentials going negative in the higher frequencies-when one should remain positive?
Anyway,we will get it sorted.
Here is version 2 of the video ,that has clearer word's.
I have forgoten to include the screen shot,but that can be seen in the last video.
You can also take your own screen shot at any time-the results will be the same if useing UFO's measurement method's-we will get an overunity result.
The correct measurement method will always show an efficiency very close to the manufactures specs for this motor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkwRA28Y0dM
Tomorow i will do the test again on an AC motor,useing a watt meter.
This will eliminate any error in volt and amp to watt conversions.
I might aswell after spending the cash on this setup lol.
tinman,
Per your video, are you certain the pulley diameter is 7.17 inches?
I believe you said the pulley diameter is 58mm, which is 2.28 inches. This yields a circumference of 7.16 inches.
@.99: thanks for the explanation... I see your point now. Has anyone voiced this objection to Lewin?
@Tinman: Good job, as usual... thanks for spending the time and money to do this. Who could have imagined that all these motors (and cheap induction cookers!) could all be so "clearly" overunity in performance.
I'm looking forward to seeing your schematic for the cap/LED/diode board testing. The schematic for the little function generator would also be very helpful in case the specifics of that circuit might be important for the effect. (I don't see how or why, but just in case a standard FG can't reproduce the effect, it would be nice to know the circuit of your oscillator.)
I've done a little bit of searching for your oscilloscope... a single channel scope is kind of unusual these days..... It looks like it has the same kinds of knobs on it as my Topward power supply, so I thought it might be a Topward, but Topward's current lines of scopes are different, so I'm still in the dark about your scope.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm
;D
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2013, 11:47:45 AM
@.99: thanks for the explanation... I see your point now. Has anyone voiced this objection to Lewin?
I've not seen nor heard of any objections. I doubt very much there are any.
His lecture is very convincing, but unfortunately amounts to an unintentional deception.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2013, 10:49:16 AM
tinman,
Per your video, are you certain the pulley diameter is 7.17 inches?
I believe you said the pulley diameter is 58mm, which is 2.28 inches. This yields a circumference of 7.16 inches.
Yes it should say circumference,not diameter-i have posted that in the description.
58mm gives us a circumference of 182.21mm.This gives us 7.17 inches in circumference.
The one word may be wrong,but the results are correct.
I will take more care in the next test on an ac motor tomorow.
Quote from: hoptoad on January 04, 2013, 09:30:34 PM
Ahh.... ScaleXtric .... now them were the days..... KneeDeep
Many's the curve taken too quickly, with awesome high speed exits and catastrophic crashes. Almost makes a grand prix look tame!
Cheers
Yep..... the neighborhood track was on my way home from High School, so I wasted many hours and many dollars there after school .... they had a big 8-lane track for 1/24 and sometimes 1/32 scale cars, with a long (10 meters) straightaway leading into a big radically banked 180 degree turn, then into a flat slalom, some other flat turns, and then a flat 180 into the long straight. Of course you used full power during the straight, and if you didn't brake fully and then hit full power again at exactly the right instant, you would either go flying spectacularly off the track (sure to bend an axle or shatter the body) or "flop" down and fall off inside the turn from insufficient centrifugal force to stay "stuck" to the radical bank. To win the organized races an unmodded motor had no chance. I never won, I wasn't a good enough driver, but I made plenty of super-motors out of the Mabuchi and Johnson cans that were in use at that time.
Whatever happened to these big commercial public slotcar tracks?
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2013, 11:48:51 AM
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/test-pm.htm)
;D
Yep. Lots of good stuff in Simanek's museum, definitely.
Here's a video I shot several years ago, showing the testing of Mondrasek's gravity/magnet wheel according to one of Simanek's protocols. I don't have this on YouTube because I used some audio clips for a soundtrack and they always flag it. No copyright violation is intended; this video is for educational use only, and the artists are credited in the video.
http://www.mediafire.com/?wuldel0syug
(48 MB, 17 minutes long)
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2013, 11:58:30 AM
Yep..... the neighborhood track was on my way home from High School, so I wasted many hours and many dollars there after school .... they had a big 8-lane track for 1/24 and sometimes 1/32 scale cars, with a long (10 meters) straightaway leading into a big radically banked 180 degree turn, then into a flat slalom, some other flat turns, and then a flat 180 into the long straight. Of course you used full power during the straight, and if you didn't brake fully and then hit full power again at exactly the right instant, you would either go flying spectacularly off the track (sure to bend an axle or shatter the body) or "flop" down and fall off inside the turn from insufficient centrifugal force to stay "stuck" to the radical bank. To win the organized races an unmodded motor had no chance. I never won, I wasn't a good enough driver, but I made plenty of super-motors out of the Mabuchi and Johnson cans that were in use at that time.
Whatever happened to these big commercial public slotcar tracks?
They are now available in various video game formats....
Don't even have to leave the house or get off the couch, let alone learn anything about motors!
PW
Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2013, 10:39:29 AM
Here is version 2 of the video ,that has clearer word's.
I have forgoten to include the screen shot,but that can be seen in the last video.
You can also take your own screen shot at any time-the results will be the same if useing UFO's measurement method's-we will get an overunity result.
The correct measurement method will always show an efficiency very close to the manufactures specs for this motor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkwRA28Y0dM
Tomorow i will do the test again on an AC motor,useing a watt meter.
This will eliminate any error in volt and amp to watt conversions.
I might aswell after spending the cash on this setup lol.
Tinman,
I liked your adjustable mounting bracket for the scales. Much more stable readings.
Excellent videos...
PW
Quote from: poynt99 on January 05, 2013, 10:49:16 AM
tinman,
Per your video, are you certain the pulley diameter is 7.17 inches?
I believe you said the pulley diameter is 58mm, which is 2.28 inches. This yields a circumference of 7.16 inches.
It might be 7.10 soon enough. ;D
Mags
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2013, 11:47:45 AM
@.99: thanks for the explanation... I see your point now. Has anyone voiced this objection to Lewin?
@Tinman: Good job, as usual... thanks for spending the time and money to do this. Who could have imagined that all these motors (and cheap induction cookers!) could all be so "clearly" overunity in performance.
I'm looking forward to seeing your schematic for the cap/LED/diode board testing. The schematic for the little function generator would also be very helpful in case the specifics of that circuit might be important for the effect. (I don't see how or why, but just in case a standard FG can't reproduce the effect, it would be nice to know the circuit of your oscillator.)
I've done a little bit of searching for your oscilloscope... a single channel scope is kind of unusual these days..... It looks like it has the same kinds of knobs on it as my Topward power supply, so I thought it might be a Topward, but Topward's current lines of scopes are different, so I'm still in the dark about your scope.
Hi TK
I will get the schematic up today with the next video.
The wave generator seems not to be keeping a 50/50 % duty cycle when hooked to the coil.
This i asume is why we see a current drop on the positive input side and a current rise on the negative side-or visa versa depending on frequency.
But in the next video you will see this not to be the case,and for some reason i get two diferent duty cycles fron each half of the pancake coil ?
About the scope-after much serching,i found it (should have taken more care with the manual for it)
http://www.haines.com.au/index.php/physics/heat-light-sound/cathode-ray-oscilloscope-single-trace-cro-0-10-mhz.html
I have changed the knobs on the dial's as the original ones split at the shaft hole,and just spun in circles.
Just a few thoughts on powering the big DC motor with pulses from a MOSFET array instead of directly from the battery. This is what UFO wants to do. Anybody feel free to correct me or comment.
I suppose the first question is is your pulsing frequency going to be faster than the commutator contact time or slower. Let's just look at the case where the pulsing frequency is faster than the commutator contact time. Let's assume the duty cycle of the pulsing is 50%.
With the DC case the applied voltage has all of the available time the commutator contact is ON to push current through the motor coil. So with a longer push time you get more current to flow through the motor coil and hence you can put more power into the motor. When the commutator contact switches OFF you get a spark between the commutator and the brushes.
With the pulsing case the shorter voltage pulses have less time to push current through the motor coil. So you can expect to pump less power into the motor as compared to the DC case. Don't forget that every time a pulse goes OFF the next pulse has to start over from zero current flow. When the MOSFET array switches OFF the motor coil will generate a voltage spike that will try to continue pushing current though the MOSFET array. So most likely the MOSFET array will need some sort of protection.
If the MOSFET array is on the low side, the drain pins are going to see a big positive voltage spike. If the MOSFET array is on the high side, the source pins are going to see a big negative voltage spike.
Honestly it would be unwise to expect any "magic" to happen if you start powering a DC motor with voltage pulses. In the preliminary analysis it just looks like you are going to be able to pump less electrical power into the motor. Therefore it will output less mechanical power. If you want the same output power then you have to compensate by raising the voltage level of the pulses. There will be more spiking on the power connections because of the extra switching.
Thinking more about this, at normal RPMs for a 40-pole motor I suppose that the commutator contact time is quite short. So that may mean it's more likely that the pulsing frequency will be slower than the commutator contact time. So in the case were the DC pulse is ON for multiple commutator contact times, that looks more like the DC case than the pulsing case. It's a mish-mash that I don't think makes much sense.
What this really means is that you want to do some preliminary number crunching and determine what kind of pulsing frequency you need or what you want to work with. Also, you should look at the current waveforms and the various voltage waveforms for both setups, load and no load. Your oscilloscope is an indispensable tool for this investigation.
Naturally there is a logical comparative test that can be done to see if the pulsing case is getting you anything: Run a Prony break test with a pure DC connection and measure the mechanical output power and efficiency. Then do a Prony brake test with the voltage pulsing where the motor outputs at approximately the same RPM and approximately the same output power. You may have to increase the voltage of the pulses to do this. Then measure the mechanical output power and efficiency. Compare the two test results.
MileHigh
@tinman
Well... I built the circuit, and it works, of course, but I have a couple of questions.
(maybe you should start a thread, this is very interesting stuff and there will be much discussion; we don't want to hijack this thread....)
Anyway...
1. The "load" connection is where the orange LED goes, right?
2. You are using one DMM milliammeter in series with the "positive" output of the signal generator, to the board, and the other DMM in series with the "negative" lead from the SG (common ground, actually your hookup is directly to the battery for the SG) to the board, right?
3. Where are you hooking up your scope?
I've seen some interesting things already. For example, the orange LED hooked at the "load" connection is seeing almost pure DC with only a very slight ripple, barely perceptible (not too surprising considering the 2200 uF cap). And I think I know the explanation for the different current readings. It's not that the duty cycle changes, but rather the shape of the waveform changes, according to the input voltage from my FG. At low input voltages and frequencies the positive and negative sides of the signal are symmetrical, looking sort of like a half-funnel, with a short almost level portion from a peak voltage of around 3v at the start of a half-cycle going down to about zero at the end, where the waveform flips and there is a peak at -3V then "increasing" to zero for the next half-cycle. But when the input voltage is increased and/or the frequency is increased, there is a longer flat zone in the negative half-cycle, where it just stays at -3V and no longer looks like a flipped version of the positive half-cycle. Thus, the DMM's "average" current reading will be higher for this half-cycle.... I think.
You should be able to see this on your scope by hooking it across the main LEDs/TBcoil, and then varying the frequency and-or the voltage output of your signal generator.
I have not yet hooked in any DMMs to see if I can get the same kinds of readings you show in your latest video. Did you ever determine the in-line DC resistance of your DMMs when used as milliammeters?
When you start a thread I'll try to put some scope images there, and later on I'll try to make a video of my findings so far.
Thanks for this interesting circuit... It makes beautiful waveforms. If you have another TB coil, try using it as a "pickup": scope this second coil and lay it down onto the operating coil. I see very beautiful "tornadoes" or inductive rings on every half-cycle this way. The rings are only happening in the second coil, of course, as the operating coil switches back and forth. Beautiful nevertheless.
The beast has been brought back to life !
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-115.html#post221049 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-115.html#post221049)
Did this thread go dead?
I see that they are contemplating using Arduino for controlling things. Good luck to them. I'm glad they are getting good expert advice, too. ::)
Here's a little bit of information that might be useful to someone, someday.
Switching an IRF530 mosfet directly from the Arduino's digital output pin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxxPWbDqIcA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxxPWbDqIcA)
Using the PWM output of the Arduino to drive an optoisolator which then drives an IRFP460mosfet switching rectified line voltage into a 700 Watt load:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuaCp4dc9EM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuaCp4dc9EM)
I just pulled 4 ea. 18n50 mosfets from an old PC ps, and I see that UTSource has IRFB4310 for between 1.50 and 3.00 each.
Just trying to be helpful.......
(The Arduino "motor control shield", not shown here, uses twin L293D H-bridge driver chips which could in turn be used to drive 4 mosfets or sets of mosfets at their full required gate voltages.)
Some good info on using the L293D chip with Arduino:
http://www.me.umn.edu/courses/me2011/arduino/technotes/dcmotors/L293/L293.html
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 10, 2013, 09:31:08 PM
Did this thread go dead?
I see that they are contemplating using Arduino for controlling things. Good luck to them. I'm glad they are getting good expert advice, too. ::)
Here's a little bit of information that might be useful to someone, someday.
Switching an IRF530 mosfet directly from the Arduino's digital output pin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxxPWbDqIcA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxxPWbDqIcA)
Using the PWM output of the Arduino to drive an optoisolator which then drives an IRFP460mosfet switching rectified line voltage into a 700 Watt load:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuaCp4dc9EM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuaCp4dc9EM)
I just pulled 4 ea. 18n50 mosfets from an old PC ps, and I see that UTSource has IRFB4310 for between 1.50 and 3.00 each.
Just trying to be helpful.......
(The Arduino "motor control shield", not shown here, uses twin L293D H-bridge driver chips which could in turn be used to drive 4 mosfets or sets of mosfets at their full required gate voltages.)
Some good info on using the L293D chip with Arduino:
http://www.me.umn.edu/courses/me2011/arduino/technotes/dcmotors/L293/L293.html
Does anyone know why UFO wants/needs to spin his motor at 10,000RPM? She's gonna' blow captain...
As for driving the MOSFETs, it is all about switching speed and a good HF layout and design. At 100 amps plus of switching current, the object is to have the MOSFETs only be "on" or "off", with the transitions between those two states as short as possible. This keeps the MOSFET dissipation to a minimum. A slower driver allows the MOSFET to operate in a "linear" region for a length of time wherein the dissipation would be very high. The use of a proper gate driver with switching times well under 100 nanoseconds would minimize MOSFET dissipation. Although 20-40 nanosecond transitions would be preferred, 100 nanoseconds requires a minimum circuit bandwidth of 50MHz to produce a decent square wave at that speed, with more BW than that preferred.
The buffered 555 circuit discussed over there, while better than just a 555, is not the equal of a high speed gate driver capable of 10 to 20 amps of gate drive. Also, in order to charge/discharge a large gate capacitance with up to 20 amp driver pulses, requres good HF layout and design to prevent ringing/overshoot at the gates and driver supply. At the MOSFET drains, commutator noise will be an issue, and protection such as a snubber should be considered.
Now, more complex four phase switching is being considered. While the use of an Arduino a is a possibility, a proper motor control program should include RPM feedback from the motor and a bit more complexity in code than just a PWM determined by RPM (such as accel/decel ramp, current limit, etc). Even a simple RPM referenced PWM control will require some degree of hardware or software damping to prevent speed "hunting" within the control loop. Of course you could also put a human in the control loop and just manually adjust speed with pot as load and prime mover speed changes.
If it was known that a PWM circuit was going to be needed to prove OU, it seems it would have been much simpler to do a proof of concept using the smaller motors that were modified, as their current draw was much less than the 100 amps plus being discussed.
I believe I read that these modified motors were not supposed to require additional supply current as the load increased, which does not seem to be the case so far.
Possibly UFO will return to repeating his efficiency tests using his Prony and do a comparison to a non-modified motor. It seems pointless to move forward with a possibly complex and costly controller design project if the motor itself is not all that efficient.
But then, possibly not...
PW
PW:
You are in a completely different world....
... The real world.
I think that you mentioned that you are retired. It sounds to me like you could easily be a $300/hr consultant.
MileHigh
I see UFO also spun a bearing during his high speed test. Again, anyone know why he has decided he needs this kind of speed?
Pushing !0,000RPM without dynamic balance and mechanical strength analysis/testing seems a bit scarey to me.
I thought he needed only 3600RPM for driving the AC gen...
PW
Quote from: picowatt on January 10, 2013, 11:05:05 PM
I see UFO also spun a bearing during his high speed test. Again, anyone know why he has decided he needs this kind of speed?
Pushing !0,000RPM without dynamic balance and mechanical strength analysis/testing seems a bit scarey to me.
I thought he needed only 3600RPM for driving the AC gen...
PW
The one thing you wont see PW is ufo doing the same test he did on his moded motor with an of the shelf motor.
I have done the test ,his way and the correct way.
Useing his method,my tired old 24 volt motor had an efficiency of 130% plus.
Useing the correct method,i came within 4% of the manufacture's spec for that motor-about 74% efficient.
Now useing UFO's own measurments,his motor(when calculated correctly) is about 70.4% efficient.
So im guessing he is now going for the land speed record-or something like that.
I think i would just go and buy one of these motor's if i wanted high RPM-and only $480.00 here in OZ.
http://www.400hertz.net/Products/ME-C500-75WC.htm
In reguards to the motor speed controller,if it is going to be under 20khz on the frequency-would it not be better to use IGBT's?
They handle current much better than a mosfet,and are what most HF tig welders use today.
My little caddy is happy at 140 amps all day,or 170 amps at 60% duty cycle.
Infact it would be quite easy to convert one of these to a motor speed controller.
Maybe UFO is going for speed now to keep the interest there?
Perhaps some more insight into the "effect" from UFO.
If You do not have clear the Symmetrical Basic Concepts...You can not understand Asymmetry, my friend...That is why I dedicated just one video to show how Symmetry works [SYMMETRY OF DARKNESS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DjB3gGGVUY&list=UUdmFG5BeS0YnD2b5zasXXng&index=16)]...looking at it from their Static-Symmetrical Virtual Magnetic Fields at their Rotor-Armatures (Watch it at Video Time 3:10 )...and that "Side of Symmetry"...You WILL NOT learn it at ANY Engineering or Technical Schools...That is where the "Key" to unveil the Big Difference between the Two Systems exists.
-------------------------------
Quote from: tinman on January 11, 2013, 05:25:57 AM
The one thing you wont see PW is ufo doing the same test he did on his moded motor with an of the shelf motor.
I have done the test ,his way and the correct way.
Useing his method,my tired old 24 volt motor had an efficiency of 130% plus.
Useing the correct method,i came within 4% of the manufacture's spec for that motor-about 74% efficient.
Now useing UFO's own measurments,his motor(when calculated correctly) is about 70.4% efficient.
So im guessing he is now going for the land speed record-or something like that.
I think i would just go and buy one of these motor's if i wanted high RPM-and only $480.00 here in OZ.
http://www.400hertz.net/Products/ME-C500-75WC.htm
In reguards to the motor speed controller,if it is going to be under 20khz on the frequency-would it not be better to use IGBT's?
They handle current much better than a mosfet,and are what most HF tig welders use today.
My little caddy is happy at 140 amps all day,or 170 amps at 60% duty cycle.
Infact it would be quite easy to convert one of these to a motor speed controller.
Maybe UFO is going for speed now to keep the interest there?
Tinman,
Yes, IGBT's could be used, but device dissipation can be made lower for MOSFETs. IGBT's typically have a saturation voltage of 2 volts or greater, so 100 amps passing thru a 2V Vce IGBT would dissipate 200 watts of heat. A MOSFET with a .01ohm RDSon would only have a 1 volt drop across it when fully on and only dissipate 100 watts of heat under the same conditions. Paralleling MOSFET's reduces the total on resistance, hence their Vdrop, hence total dissipation, whereas paralleling IGBT's does not decrease dissipation (Vce remains the same) but does make all the devices share the total dissipation.
For high voltage applications, however, the IGBT can be just the ticket, and can be more robust in some applications. Also, IGBT's are available with and without a freewheel diode across the CE junction and can be useful where the MOSFET's parasitic body diode is not desired.
Most inverter type TIG/MIG boxes use an offline switcher (ie, switch the rectified AC line) to drive a transformer, so the IGBT or similar switching device does not see the full output current due to the primary/secondary xfmr ratio. By using HF switching (as in the 20KHz you mention), the transformer can be very small and lightweight compared to a similarly rated 50/60Hz xfmr.
I believe you said UFO emailed you regarding his Prony tests and your assertions relating to his errors, have you heard from him since you performed your tests and made your video? You are probably correct regarding not seeing him do a comparison Prony test on a non-modified motor.
As for his desire to operate at higher RPM, possibly he is just raising the bar to make testing more difficult, with high speed and complex drive circuits now required to show OU. He is now discussing a four phase drive circuit, and I don't really see why. He is discussing asyncronous operation, and originally, I thought he wanted to only power a winding briefly as commutation ocurred and be synchronous to that commutation. At the higher RPM, that would require pretty fast switching.
Again, if his concept is sound, one has to wonder why all this could not have been done with a smaller modified motor with lower current requirements to make testing and drive circuits much easier for a proof of concept (and less costly for replicators).
PW
I just read UFO's response to Ian's question regarding the need for such high RPM.
Are people over there really buying that?
Not sure what his "pounds" measurement refers to, but, and please correct me if I am wrong, 15 foot pounds at 3600 RPM should drive his AC gen at or near full load.
15 lb ft X 3600/5252= 10.28 HP
PW
Added:
If the gen is only 60% efficient, then closer to or just over 20 foot pounds at 3600 RPM would be needed.
And if UFO is still throwing wraps, or nearly so ....even with his costly epoxy and his winding skills.... how much less successful will be the less-experienced rewinders in the project? One builder's photo shows some very loose wraps indeed.....
But the mosfets from the electric bike, IRFB4310, have a typical Rdss of 0.0056 Ohm... supposedly the lowest available in a TO-220 device. Clearly they are fast enough for FM/PWM motor controllers. I wonder just what the sequence of events was that caused the bike controller to fail.
I really like these high-powered "inside-out" brushless motor designs, where you never have to worry about throwing wraps... because the armature is motionless and the "stator" with magnets rotates around the outside of it. Other high-power brushless motors are conventionally built with stationary coils wound like field coils in the case and "armatures" that are just magnets on the shaft. The controllers for these brushless DC motors can do just about anything, from running in either direction, to braking, to regeneration, and many even have variable timing to compensate for varying loads and speeds.
The funny thing is that in certain realms there is clearly an attitude that the "asymmetric" winding system is superior than "conventional 'symmetric'" winding system. Yet, it still has never been proven with any data.
Here is a great link for deep motor contemplation and prime mover enlightenment:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=electric+motor+performance+curve&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=osDwUN2fMrSs0AGosIGQBA&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1204&bih=609 (https://www.google.ca/search?q=electric+motor+performance+curve&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=osDwUN2fMrSs0AGosIGQBA&ved=0CDkQsAQ&biw=1204&bih=609)
Keep your hands in your pockets and look at the squiggly lines.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 11, 2013, 07:10:45 PM
But the mosfets from the electric bike, IRFB4310, have a typical Rdss of 0.0056 Ohm... supposedly the lowest available in a TO-220 device. Clearly they are fast enough for FM/PWM motor controllers. I wonder just what the sequence of events was that caused the bike controller to fail.
I really like these high-powered "inside-out" brushless motor designs, where you never have to worry about throwing wraps... because the armature is motionless and the "stator" with magnets rotates around the outside of it. Other high-power brushless motors are conventionally built with stationary coils wound like field coils in the case and "armatures" that are just magnets on the shaft. The controllers for these brushless DC motors can do just about anything, from running in either direction, to braking, to regeneration, and many even have variable timing to compensate for varying loads and speeds.
As for blowing the controller transistors, I havnt had any problems, with 3 bikes. ;]
My trek with 500w fr wheel hub motor, 48v, the controller stays very cool. No cooling needed, zipped up in a small bike bag behind the seat post. In fact the hub gets very warm in comparison.
Could be a problem with another part of the controller board.
Could be shorted winding in the hub or cabling where it enters the hub through the hollowed shaft axle. These things are not water proof.
Could be an issue with the hall sensor in the hub. I had one go bad in that motor. It caused abrupt thumping like something was broken mechanically. Replaced and was ok.
Mags
Quote from: picowatt on January 11, 2013, 02:55:35 PM
Tinman,
Yes, IGBT's could be used, but device dissipation can be made lower for MOSFETs. IGBT's typically have a saturation voltage of 2 volts or greater, so 100 amps passing thru a 2V Vce IGBT would dissipate 200 watts of heat. A MOSFET with a .01ohm RDSon would only have a 1 volt drop across it when fully on and only dissipate 100 watts of heat under the same conditions. Paralleling MOSFET's reduces the total on resistance, hence their Vdrop, hence total dissipation, whereas paralleling IGBT's does not decrease dissipation (Vce remains the same) but does make all the devices share the total dissipation.
For high voltage applications, however, the IGBT can be just the ticket, and can be more robust in some applications. Also, IGBT's are available with and without a freewheel diode across the CE junction and can be useful where the MOSFET's parasitic body diode is not desired.
Most inverter type TIG/MIG boxes use an offline switcher (ie, switch the rectified AC line) to drive a transformer, so the IGBT or similar switching device does not see the full output current due to the primary/secondary xfmr ratio. By using HF switching (as in the 20KHz you mention), the transformer can be very small and lightweight compared to a similarly rated 50/60Hz xfmr.
I believe you said UFO emailed you regarding his Prony tests and your assertions relating to his errors, have you heard from him since you performed your tests and made your video? You are probably correct regarding not seeing him do a comparison Prony test on a non-modified motor.
As for his desire to operate at higher RPM, possibly he is just raising the bar to make testing more difficult, with high speed and complex drive circuits now required to show OU. He is now discussing a four phase drive circuit, and I don't really see why. He is discussing asyncronous operation, and originally, I thought he wanted to only power a winding briefly as commutation ocurred and be synchronous to that commutation. At the higher RPM, that would require pretty fast switching.
Again, if his concept is sound, one has to wonder why all this could not have been done with a smaller modified motor with lower current requirements to make testing and drive circuits much easier for a proof of concept (and less costly for replicators).
PW
Hi PW
No -i never heard back from him again.I recieved an email from youtube showing me a comment that had been made by UFO.But when i went to my video to read the whole comment-he had removed it.
I guess he went and redid the calculations i did on the video,and worked out where he went wrong.
I see that the prony brake testing has gone dead silent over there.
I thought he had a new setup all ready to go?
I see a trend there with UFO and his testing.
First test useing a generator driven by his motor driveing a couple of light's-overunity galore was the cry.
Then questions were asked as to how he came about his measurements-then no more test with that setup.
Second test useing prony brake setup-resulting in another overunity claim.
Once again questions were asked and the test i did aswell,and put forth my results-no more prony brake testing.
I think testing should be done very carfuly,and no claims should be made until you have given others a chance to replicate and test to confirm result's.
Or have a third party test the device and confirm the result's.
He is makeing things that hard to replicate now,it will be hard for the average joe to build the thing.
If he is so sure that his prony brake test showed overunity,then why not just persue that avenue?
I'll give you one guess why.
Quote from: tinman on January 12, 2013, 10:13:22 AM
Hi PW
No -i never heard back from him again.I recieved an email from youtube showing me a comment that had been made by UFO.But when i went to my video to read the whole comment-he had removed it.
I guess he went and redid the calculations i did on the video,and worked out where he went wrong.
I see that the prony brake testing has gone dead silent over there.
I thought he had a new setup all ready to go?
I see a trend there with UFO and his testing.
First test useing a generator driven by his motor driveing a couple of light's-overunity galore was the cry.
Then questions were asked as to how he came about his measurements-then no more test with that setup.
Second test useing prony brake setup-resulting in another overunity claim.
Once again questions were asked and the test i did aswell,and put forth my results-no more prony brake testing.
I think testing should be done very carfuly,and no claims should be made until you have given others a chance to replicate and test to confirm result's.
Or have a third party test the device and confirm the result's.
He is makeing things that hard to replicate now,it will be hard for the average joe to build the thing.
If he is so sure that his prony brake test showed overunity,then why not just persue that avenue?
I'll give you one guess why.
Tinman,
One would have thought that UFO would have repeated his Prony tests comparing a modified and unmodified motor just to prove to everyone he was correct. Possibly he did perform those tests and did not like the results, so chose to just move on and forget they ever happened. Of course, that would put everything into a completely different realm with regard to integrity.
PW
It is very common for people to "bugger" the scientific method in at least five ways:
0. No well-specified and potentially falsifiable hypothesis is put forth.
1. Experimentation is done _not_ in an effort to disprove one's hypothesis, but rather to _demonstrate_ its "correctness". That is, only confirmatory experiments are performed, not ones that have the potential to falsify the hypothesis.
2. Improper "control" experiments, or none at all, are done.
3. Testing methods that show OU are not validated by performing the same tests on known non-OU systems, nor compared with other, known to be valid, test methods.
4. Data that doesn't fit with the investigator's desires or preconceptions is simply discarded and/or not reported.
We see these five "fails" illustrated quite well currently, in UFO's work and also in the work with the induction cooking hobs.
These fails have little to do with instrumental or measurement errors, rather they have more to do with philosophical attitudes.
It's refreshing to see that Tinman isn't falling into these same pitfalls.
""WE Don't need no Stinking Measurements"" [Al Pachino I think?}
The Loop.............[or a reasonable facsimile [sort of] ]
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-118.html#post221530 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-118.html#post221530)
Quote from UFO
Ufopolitics
P.D: I have edited and analyzed this Post for Hours, and many times...making sure everything I have written is correct and perfect, and not writing too much as to confuse you,
I think he dose a good enough job of confusing him self-just like i have with my latest setup on the-reversing electron flow!thread lol.
I think i see some sort of rotor vertor setup in there some where?,but looks like 1 and 2 half motors all wired up to kill each other.
I see smoke on the horizon from many that follow those schematic's
So what happened to the new prony brake setup he had invented useing a torque wrench?
I really hate to say this... but the UFO thread is reminding me a lot of Archer Quinn and the "Sword of God" magnet/gravity motor that he said he could build.... and continued to change, build and change, always claiming it worked but never actually did.
UFOpolitics is like a very sophisticated Archer Quinn. He clearly has some knowledge of his topic.... but he's leading a herd of sheep down paths that might be familiar to him, but in the final end lead nowhere, or back to the starting point.
I am amazed. There has been no evidence provided of any "OU" performance, other than the bad measurements we have already discussed. Yet the "garden path" gets longer and longer, more convoluted.... did I read right, that he is toying with LiPo batteries, trying to charge them using his motor-generator system? I sure hope he doesn't wind up burning his house down.
Re the Prony/torquewrench testing: I have the strong feeling that data which does not fit UFO's preferences are ignored, not being reported, and/or the appropriate testing is just not being done. See my 5 "fails" above. Has he even acknowledged his error with the previous testing which he claimed showed OU efficiency?
Yes, I think there will be smoke events, and costly ones at that.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 14, 2013, 12:12:48 AM
I really hate to say this... but the UFO thread is reminding me a lot of Archer Quinn and the "Sword of God" magnet/gravity motor that he said he could build.... and continued to change, build and change, always claiming it worked but never actually did.
UFOpolitics is like a very sophisticated Archer Quinn. He clearly has some knowledge of his topic.... but he's leading a herd of sheep down paths that might be familiar to him, but in the final end lead nowhere, or back to the starting point.
I am amazed. There has been no evidence provided of any "OU" performance, other than the bad measurements we have already discussed. Yet the "garden path" gets longer and longer, more convoluted.... did I read right, that he is toying with LiPo batteries, trying to charge them using his motor-generator system? I sure hope he doesn't wind up burning his house down.
Re the Prony/torquewrench testing: I have the strong feeling that data which does not fit UFO's preferences are ignored, not being reported, and/or the appropriate testing is just not being done. See my 5 "fails" above. Has he even acknowledged his error with the previous testing which he claimed showed OU efficiency?
Yes, I think there will be smoke events, and costly ones at that.
TK,
It is getting a bit scarey. Lead acid batteries discharging 100+amps next to sparks flying from commutators, MOSFET circuits with no current limiting, high RPM operation, elimination of flexible shaft couplers, loose fitting bearings in housings held in place by a set screw, etc.
And little to no discussion regarding safety, as in ventilation, fusing, etc.
At the very least a master cutoff switch and eye protection should be used... and a fire extinguisher kept close by!
I don't know why the bar kept getting raised (and continues to be raised). The smaller motor mods and a similar sized motor modded for the generator would have been much easier, less costly, and safer to perform proof of concept testing with.
I believe the LiPo reference was regarding the motor he modded and operated from a LiPo pack (and demonstrated its torque capability by dragging a wrench against the shaft), but if LiPo's are to be used otherwise, as you imply, they are way less forgiving than lead acid batteries...
PW
The plan of securing bearings with setscrews against the outer race.... I've tried that, and it's very easy to cause binding in the bearing that way. It doesn't take much force at all from the setscrew(s) to distort the outer race of even a heavy bearing, and make the bearing run rough. Applying enough squeeze to hold the bearing in place, but not enough to cause binding, can be difficult to do. There are good reasons for the precise fit of bearings into housings: differential expansion due to heating, or simple mechanical compression, can cause binding if the fit is too tight, and if the fit is too loose the thing will wallow out and fail to provide the necessary support and alignment pretty soon, resulting in spun bearings and material damage.
I suppose the fact that all these factors are carefully engineered by motor designers is irrelevant when overunity is concerned.
Sometimes it's possible to get bearings that have specific oversize on the OD, that will fit properly in reworked housings.
Knurling the ID of the housing might also work but I doubt if the proper knurling tool is available to most builders. If I absolutely had to use a setscrew system I'd file or machine a small flat on the OD of the bearing and have the setscrew bear lightly against the flat. This will prevent spinning without compressing the outer race too much.
Some amazingly skilled and hard working fellows on this project.
imperial turbo run - YouTube (http://youtu.be/4ncu1XszxI8)
Thx
Chet
Chet:
Really nice rig, nice setup. For very high current measurement I am sure you can get an appropriate COTS current sensing resistor.
It's a good setup to do some real measurements on. To sound like a broken record, he needs to do some comparisons with an unmodified motor. It will be really interesting to see motor power in vs. generator power output measurements also. Looking forward to seeing future clips, I realize this clip was just an initial test run.
Measure measure measure.
MileHigh
MH
Yes amazing effort here..
A personal favorite newcomer Who is building with dumpster diving pieces
Bent nails and chewing gum.
This Very impressive builder will be putting the Ruler to the effort!!
Lester444
Here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10529-my-motors-got-me-tap-into-radiant-energy-57.html#post222606 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10529-my-motors-got-me-tap-into-radiant-energy-57.html#post222606)
UFO was Kind enough to send him needed parts at his own expense.
Obviously well worth the effort!
Thx
Chet
UFO Crunches some Lumber and gets busy with a real world test regimen.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-124.html#post222812 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-124.html#post222812)
Thx
Chet
I watched the clip and I am not thrilled Chet. It's just another anecdotal clip. Until somebody gets serious about doing their measurements there is not much to say.
Well, this experiment confirms his Amp meter is not giving the correct reading. Notice the battery voltage drop as he loads the motor. This is a sure sine the batteries are delivering more current.
Luc
This man is trying to fight his replication [some sort of thumb wrestling [Russian jitsu]]
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11885-my-asymmetric-electrodynamic-machines-125.html#post222993