Overunity.com Archives

I propose this simple and working design to be made quickly

based on truly magnificent experiment

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mep1.htm

Pic explanation:
only one wound coil (orange) is shown.(there are 3) and are pulsed in same time
(light orange) is just some wood or plastic mechanical spacer distancer that stops steel plates to bend to rotor.(only one shown)
(light blue) none magnetic material.
(dark gray blue) is magnetic steel material.
magnets are red-blue.

How it works:
1. if wound coil is not energized magnets close their fields through core of coil.
2. when coil is energized magnets badly want's to close their fields through rotor
and strongly attracts rotor steel.
3. when steel at rotor is completely attracted coil is switched of and inertia leads rotor
to next position suitable for energizing coil.(2.)

some simple electronics should be built to switch coil on and off.
For probe only ONE attractor can be made (no need for three)

If NdFeB magnets are used even twenty times (20) larger is mechanical output than small input electrical energy.

Igor Knitel

Hi Igor,

I am pleased you returned to this idea and showed this interesting setup.

You mentioned small electrical input energy need: however I do think that considering only the one coil case the electromagnet must receive an input energy to create a flux at least comparable or equal to any one permanent magnet's flux, right?  But even so, your setup still seems to be overunity. Has anyone tested it?

I remember a setup on this Forum a year ago, based on similar principle but shown with a different layout:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,309.0.html   and I think this also "seems" overunity but needs further design to utilize the output power.

Regards
Gyula

Quote from: gyulasun on August 07, 2006, 05:19:10 AM
Hi Igor,

I am pleased you returned to this idea and showed this interesting setup.

So am I, motionless setups are at least unstable and hard to replicate for beginner.
and working hy voltage  wich makes electronics and measurements more complex
Easy replication is a must.

Quote from: gyulasun on August 07, 2006, 05:19:10 AM
You mentioned small electrical input energy need: however I do think that considering only the one coil case the electromagnet must receive an input energy to create a flux at least comparable or equal to any one permanent magnet's flux, right?  But even so, your setup still seems to be overunity. Has anyone tested it?

What is certain is that input can be indeed small, much smaller than expected, probaly 1/5 th and smaller
of the strenght of one magnet but under one condition wich is not hard too meet. The rotor steel when switching coil on
must be very close or just started to overlap with stator plates. In this case magnet flux emidiatellly has way to close through rotor so input doesn't have to be that much forced.

Quote from: gyulasun on August 07, 2006, 05:19:10 AM
I remember a setup on this Forum a year ago, based on similar principle but shown with a different layout:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,309.0.html   and I think this also "seems" overunity but needs further design to utilize the output power.

Regards
Gyula

Yes, interesting topic and evolved into this. Advantage is simplicity (no mechanicall input nedded). And this thingy
can be stacked to meet any power wanted.
i'll post a picture of it stacked.

Igor Knitel

Hy Gula and all!

This is pic shows it stacked. rotor is in about position to energize coils on the right side.
I think this is simpler to build than Hildenbrand design (allthough it is very very good one)
In Hildebrand design there is need for small negative coil energization to stop magnets from attracting rotor, which is not the case
in this design. When coil is off magnets close on themselves completely.

I'm putting any other research aside till I build this one.

Best Regards
Igor Knitel

This looks very good...will be very interesting to see your results
mark

Hi Tao,

Many thanks for your interesting findings. Now we have more info on this setup.

I tend to think that using permanent magnets in the rotor instead of iron would increase the attractive force: this can be one conclusion from your second part: "NOW, when there IS an iron/steel core and without any power applied to the coil, the rotor is NOT ATTRACTED to the steel/iron bars at all. AND, as more DC current is applied to the coil the attraction of the rotor to the steel/iron bars is INCREASED until a maximum attraction."

Regards
Gyula

Hi !

This gives me the best on/off ratio and highest on Teslas through rotor steel and is much simpler then previous.
So I'll go with this one hoping that CD motor can generate enough.
There is allways steel core in wound coil in my setup and flux is ment to be pumped out to rotor.

Igor

Thanks Tao !

it is much easier to proceed if knowing that simulations results are simmilar.
Were we all wen't wrong is the point when seeing possible mechanical OU unit we
emidiatelly jumped to motionless setups where things forces and counter reactions
comes much more complex.
There is plenty of energy in these mechanicall setups... even for space trevel

Currently I'm searching for someone with CNC machine who is not on vacation...

Best regards
Igor

Last minute change !

The whole setup must be made of many thin plates (preferably silicon iron, or some soft magnetics)
with isolation between plates (sort of transformer like assembly) to stop eddy currents
develop and there would be many induced if parts are made as solid. Many of setups fail
cause of edy current induced.

I have oredered parts

Igor

Hello Igor,

I am watching as this thread develops and I wonder about one thing :

What makes you believe that with no force ( no current in coil) and adding magentic flux via current in the coil - that you get the power of two magnets ?

Basic experiment of J.Naudin just demonstrated that with a starting fieldvalue  of one magnet ( not zero !!! ) you will get an undefined increase of field by the upcoming bucking-coil-field.

This bears no possibily of OU.

In the measurements you start with zero because the magnet-field is thinned out within the iron-plates. Applying coil-field will only give additionally that part.

Kator

tao,

the amount of flux-density in the space between the two magnets, which has to be compensated, is that of two magnets ( not of one )

So energy-input in coil necessary to compensate space-flux also is in the order of two magnets. It`s so obvious.

Kator

Quote from: Kator01 on August 11, 2006, 09:08:28 AM
tao,

the amount of flux-density in the space between the two magnets, which has to be compensated, is that of two magnets ( not of one )

So energy-input in coil necessary to compensate space-flux also is in the order of two magnets. It`s so obvious.

Kator

hy Kator !

As You see I'm using only one magnet, and one coil.
In every setup for now using magnets and coils from mechanicall (Flinn, Hildenbrand...) to motinless setups (MEG)
has been many times proven practically that small magnetic input is capable of manipulating many times larger magnetic fields...
Simulations allso says the same.
It is really magnetic transistor.

igor

Igor,

somehow pic5,gif on page two did not show up when I was loggend in lately.
What is the dimension of the coil you are planning for ? Windings, gauge, inner resistance, Ampere-Turns, Voltage applied ?

Only if you use a iron-core within the coil you will have the magnetic flux closed and no attractive force at the end of metal-bar-stator.

I have strong doubts and I simply do not know how the permeabilty of the iron-bar behaves on the right side of the coil facing the rotor.

MEG-Devices are no good argument. Any attempt failed practically,especially the HOPE of Mr. Fauble. They always ended up with powered neon-lights where you are not able to exactly calculate exact feed-in-energy. I cornered Mr. Fauble in challenging him to give proove by using incadescant bulbs. He admitted that this does not work.

So what I am suggesting here is to invent a simple representative experimental setup for proove of the principle, before you invest too much time . Naudine did not proove it. Simulations do not give proove either.

I have an open mind. Go slow and think about the principles first.
I myself will think about a setup for proove of principle.

Good luck
Kator

Hello  tao,

yes, yes,  I already understand what you mean. My simple question is :

how much energy input in coil is necessary for what amount of flux-density appearing at the
rear end attracting the  rotor. No simulation can give you an answer here. You have to test it.
It is a oversimplified view to talk here about the way of least resistance. It is all a matter of permeabilty and saturation. When you apply a current to the coil, the flux has to overcome the polarized Fe-Elements. I simply ask for the amount of energy necessary to do this.
There is another unknown component in such a system : If you you use a bucking current-puls you will get a supersonic soundwave coming up in the flux-path, circling and bouncing forth and back in the iron-core. No one ever thoguht about this, not even Naudine was taking this into consideration. This might be a very nasty thing affecting your body. So please be careful whe you do practical tests. It is difficult to shield.
This supersonic-wave is occuring here for sure and might be causing side-effects either helpful or the contrary, I do not know

For detailed Information of this priciple here is a website of the german Frauenhofer-Institute :

http://www.ndt.net/article/0398/huebsch/hueb.htm

Kator01

Hello tao,

yes I will.

I encourage everyone to read this link about supersonic sensor-systems,. It is not a theory
it is a fact based on convetional physics
It is written in english.
They are able to produce mechanical supersonic waves in the range of GigaHerz, by using bucking-fields which create these waves by Lorenz-Force.
No mechanical trigger - therefore almost no limit to frequency !

http://www.ndt.net/article/0398/huebsch/hueb.htm

Kator

Hi !

Things are getting complicated as I tried to find a way or someone that can cut
silicon iron (trafo plates) into a size I need. The thing is that everyone I contacted
uses technology to first make tool of dimensions requiered and than just pressout
that shape. This is convinient for huge series production of trafos since dimensioned tool
is expensive in order 5 to 10 thousend euros, well maybe one day...

Anyone has an idea if I buy silicon iron plate 0.27mm - 0.30mm thick how can I cut it myself ?
How does it behave in CNC machine ?

What about idea to mix and steer hot plastic with some fine pure Fe dust and poor it into shape
needed and leave it to cool down ?

The idea is to make things as more cheap and homemade.

Igor

Hi Igor,

The question is what shape you wish the lamination to cut.

I have seen two places on the internet where this was a topic, see the first here:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Flynn_Parallel_Path_OEM_motor

and the second link is only a picture but it worths a thousand words:

http://home.planet.nl/~sintt000/CutCores.jpg

This latter picture shows how someone cut up the mains transformer taken from a bad Microwave Oven and made laminated C cores.  Make sure to insulate laminations after cutting because they may become a electric short circuit at their cut edges from eddy currents point of view.

Yes I know these "technics" are labor intensive,  I wish you much patience  8)

Gyula

Hi wizkycho
Try to find an old transformator like this one.
http://cgi.ebay.de/Transformator-220-V-24-V_W0QQitemZ170017467365QQihZ007QQcategoryZ9728QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

In erliear time the laminates of the core (E-shape and I-shape) were just held by screws.
Take of the screws and you will get this E-shape. Then cut off the center et voila, you got a c-shape. Put them again together use the same screws to hold them.


Just an idea.

By
2Tiger

I have some in stock.

Power ratings are NOT .75 VA !
it is 75 VO  equiv to 75 Watts !

give attention to this
if you look for this item

Hi all !
Found material silicone Iron and CNC guy who can do this. waiting for calculation of price.
...while I waited like it usually is, fond out that previous simulations are not too good. better to say core is not
shaped well for too powerfull NdfeB. Although it could work lot's of potential of NdFeB is unused.

Igor

new simulation !

coil wire: fi 0.5mm
400 wounds
1.5 ohm

coil-on: 0.7A
Input Power = 0.75727 Watts

This small 0.7W is making magnet to release huge 0.8T through rotor (through red line)
rotor is spaced 0.2mm from top and bottom (0.4mm air gap) of 1 stator core.


Igor
Perihelion Labs

This is real MEP generator. Will it work as FE generator ? Not only that !
I think it can propel rotor itself !!!

When rotor magnet is entering stator (it is attracted) arangement it makes magnetic field (field jumps from 0.06 to 0.9T).Then current is extracted. Lentz creates counter field that tries to repulse magnet.Lot of current can be extracted and still stator is NOT repulsing rotor magnet because there are two more magnet fileds.
Instead attraction only LOWERS (if not pushed to pedal), as we extract more current, making rotor magnet (that is now completely in stator) very easy to exit. It will exit easy scince attraction is low and attraction to next magnet rises because is different polarity and entering the stator with opposite lenz field.

I assume that if energy from coils is extracted in some manner (pulsed or constant) that this extraction will
make self rotate rotor. if not that it will at least make rotor to turn easier from the outside.

eather way this is FE generator.

Can you please make some sims with fem or some "stronger" program to confirm or discard stated above.

Perihelion Labs
Igor Knitel

Hi Igor,

Seems very good, now it is high time to test it practice for sure.

Gyula

Hi all !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRNZSu31ZZo

proof of concept. Magnet Transistor Exists.
Unlike Common tranzistors it uses INFINITE source of magnetic field - permanent magnet

Wiz

Hi all !

to procede experimenting, can someone buy and send me 3 pieces of A1302

(http://www.allegromicro.com/en/Products/Part_Numbers/1301/1301.pdf)
(I requested sample parts, but there is no answer)

I'll pay You the cost of parts, postage and packing plus the effort, cause I can not find this or simmilar part

in electronic stores near me.

THX

Wiz

ou cant nothing energize with this part
(no receive any power)
Pese

Hi wizkycho,

Great Experiment you did in your video! It's great to finally see some experimental evidence that shows that magnetic flux can be electronically switched. As for your hall effect sensors, There is a seller on eBay offering the exact part number you want here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/A1302-Linear-Hall-Effect-Sensors-Magnetic-sensor_W0QQitemZ320239689222QQcmdZViewItem?_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116

Keep up the great work!

God Bless,
Jason O

Thx JDO300 !

I believe this answers your comment from youtube

i bought this 3 pin (SIP housing) hall senzor part long time ago....
"S022
05L" is written on part itself, maybe someone can find datasheet I couldn't. But it is digital type (only OFF,ON at output) and has
pin assignment like on schematic.

think it is same as TLE4905L

Wiz

I'm the same guy that sent that youtube pm, also thanks for the answer.

I agree on the data collection part. There's quite the collection of data to be made which seems like fun, too bad I don't have the tools. Graphs can be made for instance of  the strength of the magnetic field that reroutes in function of the voltage/current on/through the coil. My magnetic knowledge is still very basic.

Going bezerk now  ;D !!!!

Please Help... Find me somebody, not to love, but to cut some custom silicon iron sheets
with laser CNC, material is cheap, energy spend allso , but they all want to charge me by Hour and that costs as hell

Please Help

anyone from Croatia with laser CNC and some spare time ?
Anybody in this forum has ability to cut sheets ?

THX

Wizard going bezerk

Have you tried;

http://www.emachineshop.com/

the more you order the cheaper it gets.

I registered to ebay but haven't received activation mail...or any other mail from them - they don't respond

So please

to procede experimenting, can someone buy and send me 3 pieces of A1302

(http://www.allegromicro.com/en/Products/Part_Numbers/1301/1301.pdf)
(I requested sample parts, but there is no answer)

I'll pay You the cost of parts, postage and packing plus the effort, cause I can not find this or simmilar part

in electronic stores near me.

THX

Wiz

hi all !

this is I think final variation of setup.
this one uses allread available E cores for stator drivers

this is what I'm starting to build, i don't think it will be finished soon (rotor needs to be made) but parts are cheap enough
and are available.

uses latest Hildebrand advices - nonoriented sheets, magnet valves (mag. transistors) paralel to shaft...
I wonder what he ment when said that on same principle he can build el. generator allso ? how he is planning to overcome lenz.
anyway it would be very productive motor-generator pair.

Wiz

Well done,
But always you have wrong direction of laminations. Why not to use SMC (Soft Magnetic Composites) like mix 26 Micrometals E cores,
http://cgi.ebay.com/250-Ea-MICROMETALS-E-CORES-E100-26-PayPal_W0QQitemZ7533143278QQcmdZViewItem?_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116
Very cheap! I have bought several times. As well as big ones.
Mix 26 has good Material Properties. mix 45 has bit higher Permeability but hard to find.
You can cut, saw, drill, mill ... what ever!
Viva SMC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers,
Khabe

Quote from: khabe on October 17, 2008, 10:59:25 AM
Well done,
But always you have wrong direction of laminations. Why not to use SMC (Soft Magnetic Composites) like mix 26 Micrometals E cores,
http://cgi.ebay.com/250-Ea-MICROMETALS-E-CORES-E100-26-PayPal_W0QQitemZ7533143278QQcmdZViewItem?_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116
Very cheap! I have bought several times. As well as big ones.
Mix 26 has good Material Properties. mix 45 has bit higher Permeability but hard to find.
You can cut, saw, drill, mill ... what ever!
Viva SMC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers,
Khabe

Laminates are non oriented - people please read mails more carefully before criticising and then stating something that has been allredy stated.

Where does satturation knee starts (at what ammount of T or Gauss). I can not find this number.

Wiz

Yeah ... not oriented steel ... it does not matter, it does not mean you can place laminations crossways to rotor moving direction. The same story with rotor steel. Laminations need to have always the same direction as rotation, otherwise you will have lot of problems like eddy losses etc.
But OK,
You Boss ::)

cheers,
khabe

It's always a good thing to know the basics before making a design ;D

Hi all !

awaiting for A1302 to come....analog hall senzor IC-s.

I had an replay with dimensions of E laminates attached and already prices calculated, after that another replay with some additional details from same source, then I asked can they do glueing with epoxy.
...waiting for replay already two days... uuuufffffff I'm so eager to start experimenting.

Wiz

This is drawing with rotor V2 (no laminates here - just massive full metal body of rotor)
Stator-drivers are E cores silicon iron for AC trafos (non-oriented)
Of course, I'm expecting Eddyes here...

there are actally two valves (magtrans) per driver(core). they are counter polarised, and that could help disperse eddyes through body of rotor. allso other driver has counter polarised magnets from first driver.
two coils (on one driver) are switched one against another in bucking manner. could help lowering inductance of coils

parts are in machining process

- probably there'll be need for lot's of rotor types to try...

screws through nonpermeable (light green) frame are not shown

Wiz

Nice to hear the parts are being made. I had some other (stupid) idea. What if we used that famous spiral design but added this concept to it.

In the attached picuture what's supposed to happen is. The coil is ON for most of the rotation and then at the end it switches OFF to pass the gate/wall.

And hopefully the power from the rotation exceeds the power needed for the coil :D.

Hi all !

here is progress... see pic
rotor with bearings and stator holders weight 6kg.
3 more coils to wind on stators-drivers (in front).
each coil 6 layers times 30 winds per layer = 180 windings
arround 1.8-2 Ohms.

cost so far 210E

wiz

Looks very nice. Where again did you get the parts made?

Quote from: broli on December 10, 2008, 06:53:57 AM
Looks very nice. Where again did you get the parts made?

I gave it to local expert private metal machine shop - so they made parts according to my drawings.

more to come ...

Wiz

Hi !

...currently I'm in process of constructing/drawing/making some tools for winding simple coils...
many driver types to experiment with.

very important note

but for now (two coils winded) I can confirm that Hildebrand type of valve has some very interesting advantages comparing
MEP and Genesis.

    The thing is that flux from copper coil is strongest and more concentrated on the edges of core (close to the coil itself, and that is logical and known). For changing orientation of magnetic domain in a center of core MUCH MORE ENERGY needs to be invested then in situation where center is not really used,cause to get to the center, all of the sheets inbetween must be first very strongly magnetized (if not satturated). If center of core is not allso forced to align according to coils field polarity,  field lines from magnets are slightly bending and are closing through that core center (if not mag oriented and center has enough non satturated surface) ->
magnet lines are not rerouting to reach the rotor.

So in Hildebrand type valve Coil needs to force mag. orientation only where that is easiest and that is much closer to surface of core and closest to first raw of coil itself.

If making MEP type, Core surface should be even smaller then surface of magnet.
This is exactly an error I did (surface of core (v1) 50% larger than surface of magnets) in first try.(tried to avoid satturation big time)
Genesis type is less affected with this but it still is. (still can work)
Now becomes more logical why Hildebrand Valve works even using such a small inputs.

This might explain why some experiments not made close to Hildebrand specifications have failed.

more to come...

Wiz

looks like an awesome idea..i might just try it.  I know someone else did a similar setup.. but the coil was on the outside of the ring.  He had some promising results.

Quote from: smithandwes on December 16, 2008, 05:48:45 AM
looks like an awesome idea..i might just try it.  I know someone else did a similar setup.. but the coil was on the outside of the ring.  He had some promising results.

What does "promising results" mean in a forum like this.
If you refer to plain movement/rotation it means nothing.
If you mean anything else but confirmed overunity, it means nothing.

Hi all !

...done some extensive research in magnetic amplifier domain and must say Magnetic Amplifier term has absolutely nothing to do with
Hildebrand, Flynn, Genesis, JNaudins MEP... processes of rerouting magnetic field.(all different approach-setups but resulting in much stronger Mfield at output than can be even produced from energy invested at input by any type of coil of any efficiency)
...all of these processes can be unified in Magnetic Transistor term... so indeed Magnetic Transistor is completely new invention proven by many experiments even somewhat allready blindely used in industry but without any awareness of its real properties.

so Magnetic Transistor is invented here at overunity.com and knowledge-awareness of it's properties is new.it's not resurection , but even if it is, it deserves much closer observation and attention

Magnetic Transistor main researchers:

Jnaudin (MEP)
Flynn
Hildebrand
Genesis
.
.
.

Let's say it outloud and give ourselves some credit we really invented this. We established it, recognized it's properties, defined it, and made it possible to replicate. nobody but us.

Allso Invention of Magnetic Transistor (four types are known) can lead to mass-(anti)gravity manipulation.


@Harti

- I suggest (You)we put this discovery red glow at start of home page. together with Milkovich pendulum and Butch's pseudo solid magnet motor
Magnetic Transistor is really news
- my avatar is not shown (maybe settings in my IE ?)

Wiz

Looks good.
No iron lamination?

What about eddy currents then ?

Let us know your test resultswith a video and I will
put it into the news section.

Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.
P.S: Avatars are disabled in this moment until the new SMF 2 Software will be used
due to security.

Quote from: Ergo on December 16, 2008, 10:49:33 AM
What does "promising results" mean in a forum like this.
If you refer to plain movement/rotation it means nothing.
If you mean anything else but confirmed overunity, it means nothing.

I completely disagree and decided to comment about comments like this. So you understand...in case you don't do physical research yourself...promising results most likely indicate that someone is researching a previously unknown effect, and by relatively blind empirical testing, their results seem to indicate proper understanding of an effect. If you're getting confusing results, then you need to change your understanding. Promising results do mean something. They mean we are beginning to understand, each on our own personal levels. Continue on and be safe with the research.

Hi all !

about exepriment:
...here clearly can be seen that static field of permanent magnet is fluctuated at desired point (rotor)

this is very crude experiment since:

- rotor permeability only 400 (tooooo low)
- air gap 1.2mm (tooooo big) - 0.3mm possible - same pressure for much lower power input
. magnet 5mm smaller (and round) then cores
. genesis type (Hilden Brand type has even better efficiency)
. core is not even rounded for rotor
.
.
.

- electric input is done with pulse width modulator on 2*BUZ100 filtered with 10000uF/40V

- fluctuation of pressure generated is around 2* times greater then coil used only.


fluctuation of magnetic field is direct cause of creating KINETIC ENERGY. 90% todays electromotors uses

for knowledgable nothing-but-underunity (that dare to compare magnet with accumulator or capacitor):
    hundred of meassurements have been done and magnet did not lower its strenght (preassure same - for same input power).
With power spended on coil probably 3 or 4 additional magnets could be made, but magnet didn't lose it's strenght a bit after more then 100 applied strong fields.
(cause even TODAYS SCIENCE KNOWS that magnet will start to deplete (lose strenght) if direct repulsion is forced AND that forced field must be 50-80%(depending on type) of strenght of magnet itself
- that is threshold when magnet only starts to deplete. below that threshold - free permanet magnetic field lasts long enough to say forewer)



Now with Magnetic Transistor functional one more of many ways of generating Energy surplus is certanly opened.

Perihelion Labs

You are right on the energy for keeping the magnets alive. The point of using an iron core around a solenoid is to amplify the field for free! You need very little power compared to what the total setup can give to keep the magnets at full strength all the time. So the argument of dieing magnets is bullshit unless the magnets die within minutes  ;D.

.... supplemental stardate ....

- 90W is maximum I could put on that coil since I used PC powersupply 12V
but as can be seen on chart - last measurement is still around 2x pressure stronger so more pressure can be developed before that faktor g(withmag)/g(without)
goes down.

- have not yet determined for sure why power input rises exponentially, pressure only lineary
is it heat due to ressistance (and it heats at from 50W-, pretty quckly , havent used thermometer though....) ? haven't wait long enough too cool down either between messurements
or is it due to very small but existant down movement of scale (angle of rotor changes) ?

that of course doesn't negate that pressure is doubled because coil heats the same with and without magnets

for additional experiments,suggestions,questions, schematic,data I'll bemore then glad to respond
I might though not replay to sceptics - cause there is really not much room left for that  8)

Wiz

Quote from: broli on March 19, 2009, 08:44:50 AM
You are right on the energy for keeping the magnets alive. The point of using an iron core around a solenoid is to amplify the field for free! You need very little power compared to what the total setup can give to keep the magnets at full strength all the time. So the argument of dieing magnets is bullshit unless the magnets die within minutes  ;D.

   Not quite sure if I understood You understood what I wrote to those stubborn (at least) underunity people - but I can't blame (completely) them - profesors are actally teaching them in schools and that is just WROOOONG.

Magnet once made doesn't require additional energy to maintain it's magnetic strenght if used properly below threshold
shortly - In these setups magnet doesn't lose it's strenght a bit. cause it is used without direct repulsion in a first place.

PM acts like a quality building, once made it can stay there loooong because of its structure - the magnetic field in permanent magnet emerges from its structure not from what it contains
like accumulator or capacitor. It has no CAPACITY(electrons). it is permanent and from our perspective of time eternal.

Wiz

If we made two separate countries, one where the skeptics would live and one with the free thinkers I believe the skeptics will be still playing with fire while the free thinkers already reached other galaxies. I hate closed minded people I don't want them near me at all. They and others around them will achieve nothing in their lives. If it wasn't for skeptics "cockblocking" free thinkers we wouldn't be in this filthy world filled with greed and corruption.

Quote from: wizkycho on March 19, 2009, 09:33:44 AM

Magnet once made doesn't require additional energy to maintain it's magnetic strength if used properly below threshold
shortly - In these setups magnet doesn't lose it's strength a bit. cause it is used without direct repulsion in a first place.

Wiz

Well put! Magnetic Domains are self recruiting and generally restore each other to replace
the net sum of the magnetization field.  In certain specific domains this may fail, but the effect reaches
a limit and that limit sticks. Domains are generally erased by nanoscopic Curie heating taking
a certain AC energy strength to accomplish.

:S:MarkSCoffman

Quote from: broli on March 19, 2009, 09:44:00 AM
If we made two separate countries, one where the skeptics would live and one with the free thinkers I believe the skeptics will be still playing with fire while the free thinkers already reached other galaxies.

;D It seems you're quite familiar with living in some other galaxies?... 

Quote
I hate closed minded people I don't want them near me at all. They and others around them will achieve nothing in their lives.

;D ;D
We're lucky, we have you... 

Quote
If it wasn't for skeptics "cockblocking" free thinkers we wouldn't be in this filthy world filled with greed and corruption.

;D ;D ;D

Good for you, it seems that  "skeptics" are the only problem you have to deal with...

Btw, how old are you?
No offence....

Cheers!



Yep, this site is always entertaining...

Hi all !

about exponentialy rising input:

the Main reason I think is that more and more energy is requiered to force coil's magnetic field to go deeper and deeper into coils core.
this is known in transformer operation.

that is why Hildenbrand type of magnetic transistor has advantage . only surface of core needs to be magnetized.

what a finess !

- by making smaller airgap to rotor (much less energy input - for now easier swithch of PM field)
- using more permeable rotor (again much less energy input - for easier swithch of PM field),
- and Hildenbrand type of MT (less energy input for more rerouted PM flux)

energy amplification is very likely expected...and lots of free energy.

I think that Mr. Hildenbrand didn't quite reveal and he understated how much surplus Watts these motors can develop

Of course they wouldn't grant him a patent then

Wiz

I've been on the Hilden Brand subject before and I hold on to my opinion that his motors are not overunity.
I cleary remember a strange statement from Hilden Brand a while ago.
It was about his three phase motor (the one Honk was building a controller for).
He said it reved up to 4000rpm and that's OK, but he also said it took some 3-4 minutes to reach full speed. :o
His input was 90watts at 150V. And he told us he was getting several Hp output.

Now here's the tricky part. If his motor was truly overunity and could deliver many Hp from 90watts input then it
shouldn't take several minutes to reach 4000 rpm. It should happen in matter of seconds, not minutes.
This is one of all his statements that clearly show him not really knowing how to perform accurate measurements.

Of course, this statement of his has been removed by himself as most other statements. It's sad that this forum used to
allow the members to edit or remove their posts a long time afterwards. Luckily this feature is gone nowadays.

Quote from: Ergo on March 24, 2009, 04:28:16 AM
I've been on the Hilden Brand subject before and I hold on to my opinion that his motors are not overunity.
I cleary remember a strange statement from Hilden Brand a while ago.
It was about his three phase motor (the one Honk was building a controller for).
He said it reved up to 4000rpm and that's OK, but he also said it took some 3-4 minutes to reach full speed. :o
His input was 90watts at 150V. And he told us he was getting several Hp output.

Now here's the tricky part. If his motor was truly overunity and could deliver many Hp from 90watts input then it
shouldn't take several minutes to reach 4000 rpm. It should happen in matter of seconds, not minutes.
This is one of all his statements that clearly show him not really knowing how to perform accurate measurements.

Of course, this statement of his has been removed by himself as most other statements. It's sad that this forum used to
allow the members to edit or remove their posts a long time afterwards. Luckily this feature is gone nowadays.

Ergo

I remmember your every previous post, they were pretty much same but not showing any experiment with negative results although as You claim you have made many
but being so sure it is false !?

Now it is very logical (and not silly at all) to see that allready very efficient (but still under100%) properly build todays electric motor with addition of magnets (many ways to do that - and on many types allso) has very large probability to go over 100%.

I really did the above experiment that shows that power input requirement is not rising with added magnets - only output is affected - it has now 1.8 times more power (and must be repeated this is very very badly made stator-rotor - cheaply as it gets).

The only thing that here is missing is dynamic in other words frequency characteristic (better switch on switch off times) of input coil with and wo magnets.

This meassurement does not include rise and fall edges of current in coil or rise and drop edges of magnetic strenght on end of stator.
But since magnetic filed from PM is allowed to easily (it is not forced) change its path I do not expect significant
differences in rise and fall time both current or magnetic strenght. comparing with or without magnets situation

Timing when switching coil needs to be somewhat more precise then in just-to-rotate type setup. there should be enough rotor surface overlaped with stator , then efficency is gretest................................
Also if not made as precise - low RPMs can help then influence of rise and fall times is lowered.

Now please do some experiment - cause this is much past just the theory concept - so if you mean to bring it down you can do it only with experiment.

thx

Wiz

Quote from: wizkycho on March 24, 2009, 01:25:43 PM
Now it is very logical (and not silly at all) to see that allready very efficient (but still under100%) properly build todays electric motor with addition of magnets (many ways to do that - and on many types allso) has very large probability to go over 100%.

If you are talking about making regular electric motors more efficient than 100% by adding extra magnets you are so totaly wrong.
It's simply not possible due to how "regular" electric motor operate. The only benefit by stronger magnets is higher efficiency. But OU is impossible.
Please read carefully below how a regular motor work. This is not something I have made up. If you don't understand this you need to
catch up on your electrical understanding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a regular motor all torque is created by the interaction between the electromagnets and the permanent magnets. Push and pull.
When the motor is energized and increases in speed the coils will generate a Back Voltage from the passing magnets.
The motor will continue to increase in speed until the Back Voltage has reached the same level as the applied voltage.
This is the "Rated RPM level" of the choosen motor.

When you load the shaft of a regular electric motor, it lowers the RPM and the Back Voltage is lowered as well.
The difference between the "Applied Voltage" and the generated "Back Voltage" divided by the "Internal Resistance" of the motor
is equal to the current flowing into the motor to maintain the loaded RPM level.
It's simply Ohms law. This is why a regular motor consumes more and more current when being loaded. It can never become overunity.

Inserting an even higher magnetic field in the motor from extra magnets will increase the Back Voltage, and the number of copper
turns in the coils can be reduced to match the desired RPM goal. This leads to much lower internal resistance, thus increasing the
efficiency, up to more than 90%, sometimes 98%, but you can never exceed 100% due to all torque being created by electrical force.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you don't believe me I can tell you that no matter how you add magnets to your "regular" motor you will still have to pay for the difference
in Applied voltage and Generated back voltage divided by the Internal resistance. And there is no workaround or shortcuts in this matter.

Quote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a regular motor all torque is created by the interaction between the electromagnets and the permanent magnets. Push and pull.
When the motor is energized and increases in speed the coils will generate a Back Voltage from the passing magnets.
The motor will continue to increase in speed until the Back Voltage has reached the same level as the applied voltage.
This is the "Rated RPM level" of the choosen motor.

There are several TYPES of REGULAR motors.
We are talking about TYPE pure induction (generated exclusively by coil no Pmags here) AC (or pulsed DC) motors.
Further on their SUBTYPE is coilless ROTOR. (this is not siemens-alternator self exciting motor-generator TYPE with coil on rotor)
So Cannot be used as generator.And No Lentz. So there is no back Voltage
They are widely used today and their efficiency allready is very high at certain loads and rpms - 70 to 90%. Now add PMagnets....  ?
again NO LENTZ - and btw:

I tried genesis type generator properties and since half the flux of PM is going to rotor it generated 1Vpp max. (when there is no rotor - there is Peak - full flux on coil now)
BUT this is very low generation AND (unlike lentz) is 180 angle - means shortly it does not affect INPUT power needed - because it is not acting when power is ON. when 100 ohm load is connected that voltage is zero - microamps Why? because flux of PM reroutes easily to rotor. so there is NO real generator properties that can affect input a bit.
HildenBrand type does NOT even have half the flux on the rotor (off state) so no genaration of voltage at all. so movement of the rotor does not even generate that weak and 180 delayed voltage ! PERIOD.

Your observation can contribute to experimentaly prooven thinking
that motors with PM really preserve very very long their strenght.
In other words PM do not wear out !

Quote
When you load the shaft of a regular electric motor, it lowers the RPM and the Back Voltage is lowered as well.
The difference between the "Applied Voltage" and the generated "Back Voltage" divided by the "Internal Resistance" of the motor
is equal to the current flowing into the motor to maintain the loaded RPM level.
It's simply Ohms law. This is why a regular motor consumes more and more current when being loaded. It can never become overunity.

Inserting an even higher magnetic field in the motor from extra magnets will increase the Back Voltage, and the number of copper
turns in the coils can be reduced to match the desired RPM goal. This leads to much lower internal resistance, thus increasing the
efficiency, up to more than 90%, sometimes 98%, but you can never exceed 100% due to all torque being created by electrical force.[/b]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you don't believe me I can tell you that no matter how you add magnets to your "regular" motor you will still have to pay for the difference
in Applied voltage and Generated back voltage divided by the Internal resistance. And there is no workaround or shortcuts in this matter.

as said wrong type of motor....no back voltage.....these motors doesn't have generator capability - "only" generation of OVER 100% efficient torque.
(claim with high probability - based on experiments)
...

about change rise and fall time (and somewhat generator properties) - in dynamic actuall operation - I questioned in letter before
this 2 messurements with 2 different instruments I just done
can contribute to thinking that rise and fall time change comparison (no mags - mags) due to change in inductivity 
will not interfere significantly so higher RPMs are possible and still in OU mode.
(looks like difference is due to tolerances of meters)

Lx meter 1

32.0mH   woM
31.1mH     wM

Lx meter 2

26.6mH   woM
27.2mH   wM


@Ergo and all

very important:
No Lentz - here and coil is switched on when rotor is somewhat overlaping stator (low magnetic resistance) so coil easily reroutes flux of PM - nothing needs to be forced and output resistance from load does not change that (if pulsed in right positions of rotor). In other words coil needs
to change only magnetic resistance it doesn't have to fight the Lentz

Wiz

Hahahaha...No Lenz's law and no back Voltage just because there is no PM magnets.
Of course both of these features are present in an induction motor.
You can't circumvent these laws. No matter whether the motor is PM or Induction based.

Take the induction motor for example. If you didn't have Back Voltage (as you claim) the
motor would run at almost No Voltage at the Rated RPM level.
If your induction motor armature resistance is 0.5R then you should be able to run this
motor at its rated level at only 1.5 volt if the No-Load current is 3 amps. 3A x 0.5R = 1.5V
But you can't. You know about this and you better acknowledge it. Open your eyes....
I don't know the rated voltage of the induction motor you are using.
But most induction motors run at high voltgage levels, like 200-400V. And they run at high
voltage despite of the low armature resistance at 0.5R due to the back voltage generated.

The coilless rotor is still being magnetized by the applied current and this induces back voltage
in the surrounding stator coils when it spins. So there is no gain here either. Take a class.

Every other idea you share is based on hope or your own conclusions.
It never ceases to amaze me on how badly educated you are. If you truly
want to find the holy grail you must know how things work in real life to
avoid making the same mistakes as everybody else before you.
When you don't know about physics you'll end up spending a lot of time
on some impossible case or development that is doomed to be a failure.

Most other people here don't know about these things either but they
usually don't make any strange claims in every post. It's the claims from
you before having checked or verified your statements that bother me.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against overunity, just ignorance.

1. very shortly.
I tried it with experiment - NO Lentz - No generator effect

2. again shortly
Induction motor (no siemens type or without coils on rotor) can not be used as generator. This is Known Fact.
No Back Voltage allso.
It is Just Motor 

(Only eddy currents here can induce back voltage - but eddy currents in dynamic operation are surpased 99% with laminates.
That is why transformer can reach 90-98% efficiency.)

Rotor on picture is not laminated - is this what you mean ? - cause for static messurement not laminated is enough (it was cheapest thing to do).

When building real motor Laminates must be used but although material is very available and cheap, it's making-cuting in shape is expensive for prototyping.

and please can you calm down.

Wiz

You can continue to believe in your own imaginary ideas but it doesn't change the
facts and principles of all regular motors, Induction, PM or Pulse won't matter.
Don't you think that all of those hundreds of thousands scientists that's been working on all kinds
of electric motors throughout the years would have noticed such possibilities if they were true?

When you get strange test results, then you have to tripple check your test procedures.
Don't avoid to bring in someone classified to make judgement. Most important, don't thrust yourself.
It's most likely an measurement error or bad understanding of the test results.
Your test methods must lack some important input or maybe you avoid seeing the whole picture.

Last time we had an argument it was about the B/H curve and Hilden-Brand valve.
I was right in that discussion and I'm right this time to. But you will never admit that.
Please continue your research and learn what you missed to see while playing around.

Quote from: Ergo on March 26, 2009, 04:36:49 PM
You can continue to believe in your own imaginary ideas but it doesn't change the
facts and principles of all regular motors, Induction, PM or Pulse won't matter.
Don't you think that all of those hundreds of thousands scientists that's been working on all kinds
of electric motors throughout the years would have noticed such possibilities if they were true?

When you get strange test results, then you have to tripple check your test procedures.
Don't avoid to bring in someone classified to make judgement. Most important, don't thrust yourself.
It's most likely an measurement error or bad understanding of the test results.
Your test methods must lack some important input or maybe you avoid seeing the whole picture.

Last time we had an argument it was about the B/H curve and Hilden-Brand valve.
I was right in that discussion and I'm right this time to. But you will never admit that.
Please continue your research and learn what you missed to see while playing around.

My believe first came from well documented positive experiments of other people. JLN,Flynn,Hildebrand,Genesis...
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Electromagnetic
and of course on Overunity.com http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2222.0 (newest experiments)
by many researchers Nali2001, broli, i_ron and many others. All of those experiments
were positive but non the less I take them questionable - till I made some experiments of my own.
And all of them positive and leading undoutably with their results that at least we are on the right track.
So at least it is not fair to bump in without showing actuall negative experiment. Without showing negative results one just can not be right. Not after
all of those positive experiments. Those positive results ca not be called strange - they are rule now.
What I have shown in last experiment is that Addition Of PermanentMagnet (in static conditions - but allso low frequency dynamic conditions)
will not influenece power input but will greatly increase output.
this is small step ahead of other static messurements (not only input voltage is messured - but actuall power)

You can point your finger and say how do you think experiment is done wrong.

now (after experiment is done, and assuming what "obstacles" i can encounter in making it dynamic) I can make conclusion of high expectancy that further development
will render positive results. I know all the theory in this field you know.(BH curves, induction ..etc.) This MagneticTransistors concept works by influencing magnetic path resistances. this is not just biasing so to develop higher fluctations - efficiency. results showing that it refuses to be under 100% - it is much more then biasing.

Many dynamic (actuall motors) experiments are allso positive although I'm still sceptic (cause of this and that)...but for now I haven't bumped to any obstacle (not even in theory)
not even with experimenting, that can (if obstacles properly used in account) render actuall motor not working (in some range of RPMs and Loads) in FE mode.

So further proper experiments must be done - cause there is no obvious theory that can be expresed mathematicaly or with words that can render this motor under 100%.

Wiz

I hope you are right.  ;D
Good luck in your findings.

Quote from: Ergo on March 28, 2009, 04:06:39 AM
I hope you are right.  ;D
Good luck in your findings.

I'm certanly wrong, but proper experiment is more and more likely to be right.

all the best

Wiz

Things and formulas to have in mind when doing your experiments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advices:
1) The torque force of your motor must be stronger than the Lenz law drag.
    The formula below shows you the Lenz drag you need to overcome to reach overunity.

2) The radius of the measured force is of utmost importance.
    You need heavy force at large radius to accomplish lots of work.

3) Rpm times Force = Hp.
    The more force you can get at high rpm, the more output you will have.
    In real life you will get half the stall torque at half the free rpm = optimum output.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanations:
1) Force Hp Formula = (10ft-lbs x 2 x 3,14 x 200rpm ) / 33000 * 746 = 284W
    This tell's you it will take 10ft-lbs of torque at 200rpm to develop 284watts of power.
    If your motor consumes less than 284watts at 200rpm and 10ft-lbs loaded shaft, then you have reached OverUnity.
    You can rearrange the numbers to fit your type of motor and output.

2) When you measure the shaft force then consider that you have to recalculate
    the numbers to ft-lbs, this meaning 1 foot from the shaft centre.
    Simply put. If you measure 1kilo of force at 15cm distance from centre (like in your setup) then
    you have to divide the measured force by two and multiply by 0.445 before using the formula above.
    The divisions gives you 30cm distance = 1 foot and the 0.445 multiply converts kilo to pound.

3) In all motors only half the stall torque is accessible at half the free rpm.
    If your motor is free spinning at 400rpm and no shaft load, then you should load it down to 200rpm.
    This is where you will find the optimum output vs rpm mode. The torque is completely rpm dependent.
    The higher the rpm the lesser the torque, and the lower rpm the higher the torque. This is simple physics.
    See the formula below.

T  = Ts - (N * Ts / Nf)

T  = Torque at loaded rpm
N  = Loaded RPM
Ts = Stall torque              (in this case 20 ft-lbs)
Nf = Free spinning rpm     (in this case 400 rpm)

T  = 20 - (150 * 20 / 400) = 12,5 ft-lbs
Output = ((12,5*2*3,14*150)/33000)*746 = 266 watt <-- you can see that you get less out when loaded harder.

T  = 20 - (200 * 20 / 400) = 10 ft-lbs
Output = ((10*2*3,14*200)/33000)*746 = 284 watt <--Always max output at half the "free rpm". This is a physics law. Use it.

T  = 20 - (250 * 20 / 400) = 7,5 ft-lbs
Output = ((7,5*2*3,14*250)/33000)*746 = 266 watt  <-- you can see that you get less out when spinning faster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you take your time and read this carefully until you understand the importance of my advices.
If you don't understand then please ask me to be more specific and I'll try my best to help you understand.
Or else you will just be reaching in the dark when performing your tests.

Hi !

many thanks for the input...

I'm aware that when messuring actuall power output I can expect FE (motor going over 100%) in certain range of RPM and of course certain
range of input (and pulsing at ceratin angles of rotor to make ON window where efficency of transfer of PM field to rotor is greatest).
And it would be quite a task....but once....

I didn't know that at half RPMs the power product is highest and this will help a lot - unless magnets will change power output peak appears at some other RPM value.
Anyhow I intended to messure all of the "spectrum" of RPMs - and all of the input power range as input....It is neccessery to define all of the spectrum so to use it as FE at first and then with some genarator (first some efficient classic one, and later allso FE type - toroid,faraday,lorentz, peripeteia... ) as OU.

Many thanks

all the best

Wiz
btw. (what you describe is not Lenz - but none the less)

hi all !

What I'm allso thinking about is another type of Magnetic Transistor - with mechanicall input
either another magnet or permeable material instead of coil (current-voltage) input,
and allso using balanced equilibrium in input rotor...haven't baked the idea throughly.
two rotors again - one equilibrilized for using very small input that interferes with magnetic resistance
on stator with Pmagnet and therefore much stronger Power output on another rotor.

This will be great improvement since coils here can not be wound in bucking or biffilar for faster switching and still temper properly with magnetic resistance.
(or can they?)..and there is resistance of coils.....

benefit: much higher COP, wider range where device works in FE

does it seems doable? can someone think of obviously working Magnetic Transistor (or pair - for balancing (in-out)) with small power mechanical input ?


Wiz

Quote from: wizkycho on March 29, 2009, 03:07:06 PM
Wiz
btw. (what you describe is not Lenz - but none the less)

Sorry, I thought I knew about Lenz's law that causes the generator drag when loaded.
Perhaps I'm wrong here but maybe we mean the same thing but use different terms.

Quote from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A demonstration that illustrates Lenz's law is:

Find a small electric motor.
Spin its shaft.
Connect its wires together (with a paper clip or alligator clip), and spin the shaft again.
This time, the motor resists turning, because current can flow through its wires.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I'm wrong about this, then how do you describe Lenz's law in easy terms?

Quote from: wizkycho on March 29, 2009, 03:07:06 PM
I didn't know that at half RPMs the power product is highest and this will help a lot - unless magnets will change power output peak appears at some other RPM value.

It doesn't matter how you design the motor. The half RPM output is caused by the motors own losses.
At increased RPM more and more torque is lost within the motor due to windage and bearing losses.
It's actually self-explanatory.

Letting the motor spinn freely without any load all torque is used up by the motor itself to reach maximum peak speed, aka Free RPM.
Braking the motor to stand still will give you all available torque without any spinning losses, aka Stall Torque.
Just in between these extremes you find the sweet spot where you get Half the Rpm at Half the Torque, no matter how you design the motor.

If you somehow can increase the torque you will automatically increase the free rpm by itself, which must be loaded down to Half Rpm at Half Torque.
And there you go again. Getting your maximum at the same way as before. Half the Rpm at Half the Torque but a higher output as both Rpm and Torque has increased.

Here's a link that describes it: http://www.gizmology.net/motors.htm

Hi all !

I done some research to determine closest simmilar motor name ...

the closest match is

Switched Reluctance Motor Drives

http://www.fleadh.co.uk/srm.htm: http://www.fleadh.co.uk

but must be noted that rotor is laminated so no induction of current (and has no coil of any kind on rotor) appears in rotor therefore no Lentz.

Wiz

Hi all !

I done some research to determine closest simmilar motor name ...

the closest match is

Switched Reluctance Motor Drives

http://www.fleadh.co.uk/srm.htm: http://www.fleadh.co.uk

but must be noted that rotor is laminated so no induction of current (and has no coil of any kind on rotor) appears in rotor therefore no Lentz.

see allso Lindemann motor allso Lentzless

Wiz

...so after establishing that this is magnetic reluctance motor type... dating from 19th century (but unable to be driven efficiently, no mosfets - at that time, so design was abbandoned till recent years)

their properties are (unlike induction):
- lentzless motor
- no back force (or any back effects) from applied load
- since efficiency of these types of motors is very high (higher then induction mot.) they again, in last 10 years, arrise in production quantity.

further (only in OU and FE development - not yet in industry !?!):
- by adding permeable magnets and established and prooven Magnetic Transistor (using change in reluctance) theory/practice
efficiency of these motors must exceed at least 100%......(many finished experimental - Hildebrand, Flynn .... motors confirms it is so and even reaching 200% - 300%)

this is where this thread will continue from:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1319.msg164396#msg164396

this experiment allso solved some questions:
nonoriented silicon iron is good material for this motor - no residual magnetism after coil is switched off (but using frq 1khz and lower is must - for now lower freq. the better)
(but even if there is residual mag. - specially build stator sequence with changed polariti of mag. transistor can reuse this magnetism....)

...due to luck of small money surplus...further development of actuall motor is on hold for some time....

Perihelion Labs

Quote from: wizkycho on April 10, 2009, 04:36:54 AM
...so after establishing that this is magnetic reluctance motor type... dating from 19th century (but unable to be driven efficiently, no mosfets - at that time, so design was abbandoned till recent years)

their properties are (unlike induction):
- lentzless motor
- no back force (or any back effects) from applied load
- since efficiency of these types of motors is very high (higher then induction mot.) they again, in last 10 years, arrise in production quantity.

further (only in OU and FE development - not yet in industry !?!):
- by adding permeable magnets and established and prooven Magnetic Transistor (using change in reluctance) theory/practice
efficiency of these motors must exceed at least 100%......(many finished experimental - Hildebrand, Flynn .... motors confirms it is so and even reaching 200% - 300%)

this is where this thread will continue from:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1319.msg164396#msg164396

this experiment allso solved some questions:
nonoriented silicon iron is good material for this motor - no residual magnetism after coil is switched off (but using frq 1khz and lower is must - for now lower freq. the better)
(but even if there is residual mag. - specially build stator sequence with changed polariti of mag. transistor can reuse this magnetism....)

...due to luck of small money surplus...further development of actuall motor is on hold for some time....

Perihelion Labs

At least 175% OU see this.

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


some experiments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUxQHkkRSoc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Nlspw1HY-w&feature=channel

Dr.Imris let convert a conventional 4 KW electric motor with his "capacitive winding concept",
then it was used/connected with the 4,8 KW(KVA) electric generator, taken away from a conventional "homedepot" internal-combustion-motor/generator-system, and tested:
input 528W and output 3375 W .

Sincerely
             Lança

Hi Lança,

Don't you know how Dr. Imris would explain the origin of the higher effective output than input?

Thanks, 
Gyula

PS   Is there any new 'baby' forming on your side?  ;)

Hello gyulasun,hello buda and pesta,

Dr. Pavel Imris probably explains the technical process in his, actually non disclosed, patent !
Publicated is only the "more common" GM(Gebrauchsmuster).

More help would be to understand the "Cornelius Lungu,capacitive winding"
+ integrated in a condensator/condenser cycle !

"Babies ?" With two legs and a "nice Vorbau"(viel Holz vor der Huettn, in bajuwaric) :  :-* ?
Actually- time out-   :'(:-[ , : strikte clausur !
Without legs and only TEC
2007:BBI  2008:BBII- 2009:BBIII: C.O.P. only 11(eleven), cause other concept.

Have a nice week
                         Lança

Quote from: lancaIV on April 13, 2009, 08:33:55 PM
Hello gyulasun,hello buda and pesta,

Dr. Pavel Imris probably explains the technical process in his, actually non disclosed, patent !
Publicated is only the "more common" GM(Gebrauchsmuster).

More help would be to understand the "Cornelius Lungu,capacitive winding"
+ integrated in a condensator/condenser cycle !

"Babies ?" With two legs and a "nice Vorbau"(viel Holz vor der Huettn, in bajuwaric) :  :-* ?
Actually- time out-   :'(:-[ , : strikte clausur !
Without legs and only TEC
2007:BBI  2008:BBII- 2009:BBIII: C.O.P. only 11(eleven), cause other concept.

Have a nice week
                         Lança

This is for Tesla resonance topic. And since there are no data on actuall construction ...all of it is just impossible.

I'm more then satisfied with Magnetic Transistors COP 1.8 - 3 times and looped.... ;D

Wiz

Hi all !

thinking of simplest and least expensive ways of quick building and getting results I came up with this:

as I announced before
Mechanicall Magnetic transistor or M-MEP

(magnets are drawn as such (mostly 2 magnets - in "series") cause I have exact those)

thickness of laminated core is important and it needs to be balanced so magnet in stator with lenz will repel magnet on rotor
if thickness of main core is not balanced (too thick) additional drive coil is needed for driving rotor and connected in series with output coil - again no E inputs.

machine needs to be rotated by hand first to start and generate voltage high enough to triger some zener-thyrstor combination.(or using comparators for various RPM-s and voltages)

no input just two outputs - although one should be used  (electricall) if not used machine stops.

it is very simmilar to this but came independently (from other think point)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7241.0;topicseen
(or not - he is not using additional magnet on drive coil.....)

wiz

Perihelion Labs

Hi all !

I just brain stormed how to make Hildebrand type Stator, and Rotor and all laminated
and all from exsistant parts used for E I trafo cores. ;) (without using CNC machines)

now motor can be build properly and cheaply.

if interested i can describe further.

(...hope they would not forbid production of silicon iron sheets now.. :-\....then We'll be forced to invite forces of vaccuum....)

Wiz

Perihelion Labs

Hi Wiz,

Very interesting setup you have drawn above, thanks for sharing. 

I think the critical phase of the operation comes when  -after the voltage maximum- you draw current from the coil and you expect the field thus created will be enough to help the rotor magnet escape from between the main cores. 

The field needed for helping escape the rotor should reach a certain minimum strenght so that the rotor could surely move further on,  this needs a certain amount of load on the output to be always present, is not it so?   Of course this would not be a problem in itself... :)

There is one more thing I would like to mention:  the flux change you can use for inducing output is in fact not higher than the rotor magnet can cause by its coming and leaving movement.  This is because the stator magnet makes a static field in the core, and to this static field the change comes from the rotor magnets' flux, ok?

I will try to think about this setup further on, if any improvement occures to me I will post it.

If you feel like describing the new motor I would be curious.

rgds,  Gyula

Hi !
   
    I agree that lentz alone even current extracted maximum is insufficient for repel, but it is not stretched at all to expect
that generated lentz's counter flux will reroute part of static field of PM to rotor and make repel action.
(by prooven effect of magnetic resistance increase in coils core)

(coil's core can have an airgap inside to balance magnetic resistances.)

...but this setup needs to be made differently (rotor) to be mechanically strong enough since magnets are very strong
and distances to stator are supposedly small..(bearings should not move left-right a bit - which is rarelyt case).

I think I'll try it while solving parts for real Magnetic Transistor Hildebrand type motor.

Wiz

What is this "magnetic resistance" you are talking about?
Do you refer to inductance or what?
Magnetic resistance is not a recognised technical term.
You should avoid using your own imaginary terms if you want
people to follow your explantions and ideas.  ::)

Quote from: Ergo on April 15, 2009, 09:24:39 AM
What is this "magnetic resistance" you are talking about?
Do you refer to inductance or what?
Magnetic resistance is not a recognised technical term.
You should avoid using your own imaginary terms if you want
people to follow your explantions and ideas.  ::)

magnetic resistance = magnetic reluctance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reluctance

OK, very good, I have now learned that regular "magnetic reluctance" also goes under the name "magnetic resistance".
Please use the more widely accepted phrase reluctance in your future developments. It would makes things easier.

Quote from: Ergo on April 15, 2009, 10:09:24 AM
OK, very good, I have now learned that regular "magnetic reluctance" also goes under the name "magnetic resistance".
Please use the more widely accepted phrase reluctance in your future developments. It would makes things easier.

Yes there are many "magnetic resistance" devices (trim bikes or such) on web when actually they talk about repel action or eddy current induced by magnet to repel magnet. they describe force of repel action.

all the best

wiz

How is you "design" proceeding?
Any news to share?  ;D