I don't believe this device has been picked up here yet on Overunity so I'm looking for discussion on it. It seems from my quick skim over the material that it has been done in a very scientific way with a lot of controls, data and calculations along with extensive discussion of theory. Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CleoildQFM
And nice write up in PDF here: http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6483.pdf
It doesn't even look that hard to build. This was 4400% OU with just 2 motors (cheap inefficient Radio Shack motors) but can be run with more motors easily increasing the output to input percentage a lot more.
Thank you for this info. At first glance it looks worth consideration and I just happen to have a supply of new DC motors sitting around waiting for a purpose. :)
I wonder if the effect only works with PMs? I can see using EMs or other magnetic field generators that have a higher field density.
tak
Thanks for starting the topic
Does it say anywhere how the round magnets are polarized? ... I would guess each half of the magnet circle is a pole?
I don't know why the spinning magnet poles would not cause a generator effect back to the coil?
Luc
3/4" NeFeB Ring Magnet x 1/4" Thick x 1/4" ID, magnetized through thickness (direction of rod)
Quote from: tak22 on September 04, 2013, 03:54:35 PM
3/4" NeFeB Ring Magnet x 1/4" Thick x 1/4" ID, magnetized through thickness (direction of rod)
Thanks tak22
The magnetization through the thickness is surprising. With the poles in that direction it should not cause a generator effect in the coil.
Surprising the magnets will spin that way. I'll have to try this one.
Thanks for the info
Luc
Ok, I really _really_ want to hear this one's explanation for why the device can't be self-looped. Because we all know already that it cannot be self looped.
I assure you, if I had a device that made 44 times more _energy_ output than input over an appropriate time period, I would certainly be able to self loop it even if the output was pumped water and the input was high voltage DC. Or whatever.
You take your generators and use them to keep a bank of batteries at or above, say, 12 volts. The batteries act as superexcellent filters; if you have any real output you can obviously put it through a diode and onto a battery stack no matter what the waveform is, if it has a positive excursion that is over the battery's own voltage. You run a 12 volt inverter off of the batteries. You use the output of the inverter to power your audio amp and signal source for the big inductor. Stand back and watch it run. Even with sixty percent losses at each step, you only need a few times more output than input for that to work.
But there is some reason why this outstanding 44x OU device cannot be self-looped. What is it? I didn't see the reason given in the most excellent writeup.
Please... before the replications begin.... ask to know why it cannot be self-looped.
TK,
Ok, I really _really_ want to hear someone's explanation for why the device can't be self-looped, without starting a guessing game. If you know, then just say it.
I only replied as the provided PDF looked 'serious' enough to warrant adding it to my 'future file', others as you say may be buying or ordering parts this very second.
Please prevent 10 pages of speculation and just get on with the explanation. It would be appreciated!
tak
added from the PDF (Future Experiments):
QuoteAt some point, an experiment should be constructed with 555 Timers and Op-Amp powere transformer circuits run off a battery, where the output could be reapplied to the input.
So what are you saying? There is no excuse for it not being self-looped other than that he just hasn't gotten around to it, yet? Sure, that sounds right.
Why mess around with 555s and op-amps when you have 44 times OU (not 43, or 45....)? I mean, if you were claiming three times OU then your gains might be lost in the less-than-unity efficiencies of the charging system, the inverter, the audio amp and signal source, etc.... but come on. 44 times OU. Just do what I said, charge some batteries with the generator output. How hard is that? Some wires, some diodes, and a meter or two. Say you lose half your efficiency in charging. So now you are down to 22 times OU. So then you run your inverter. Lose another 50 percent, now you only have 11 to one OU. Your audio amp and iPod don't use much power do they? Say it takes 30 Watts from the inverter to provide 10 Watts of audio power, a 33 percent efficiency. So now you are running the whole system, with lots of losses, and you still have 3 times OU left over, or more, to power your house with. And you could put the whole system together in a day, with off the shelf parts, once you have the basic apparatus.
Right?
What is the publication date on that .pdf, anyway?
This man developed a device that outputs 44 times more than is input yet his paper only took 2nd place at this conference? What the hell did the 1st place guy have then? Time travel?
Holy crap.
Bill
TinselKoala, I just got back in from working on another project all day and haven't yet had the chance to read the whole PDF or even watch the whole video. Does Jeff say that it can't be looped to self run? Or are you just speculating that because he hasn't mentioned it? I would agree you can't claim 44 times more out than in and say it can't be looped to self run once started. At least I can't think of any valid reason. I don't know what he has stated in regard to this yet but I can take a guess at why he might say it won't self run or be looped even if he knows it can. Claiming that would potentially bring out the masses of "Perpetual motion is impossible" crowd, the scorn of traditional scientists and possibly the attention of the PTB who may want to stop this before it gets rolling. All just my guesses if that's indeed what he has stated.
Well off to do some reading on that PDF. This one could be very interesting....
It's way too much effort to digest this whole thing. But I did watch the first 14 minutes of the video clip and I lightning-skimmed through the pdf.
The verdict isn't good. It's the phenomenon of "what you see before your eyes is what you are supposed to see," at play on a larger scale. It's an amplified version of the case when a beginner plays with a coil and sees high voltage spikes. They can be shocked (emotionally) and amazed at what they are seeing. They can believe that it's "cold electricity" or some kind of zero point energy being extracted from the vacuum.
They are looking at the response of an electro-mechanical filter to different excitation frequencies. Strange looking phenomena appear to be happening as they play with their generator frequency, etc. These things are not easy to analyze, but they can be simulated in pSpice if you have the required knowledge to construct the circuit and provide the excitations, etc.
There wasn't any language in the first 14 minutes that was confidence inspiring and they get into the "Aether field" as a "third field" and they talk about Rodin coils. Dropping like a lead balloon! lol
I didn't even get to the measurements. But just from looking at it I can see that it's a pipe dream to think this device outputs 44 times the input.
The Bad News Bear strikes again. Sorry.
MileHigh
Seems like a 'far out' idea. :o
Just the initial idea of experimenting, he found a new and different way of converting from electrical to mechanical. And then to add the motors.
Will look at the pdf more. Looks like a lot of work was put into it.
Mags
A surprising jump to conclusion Milehigh for so little study on this. I can't see discounting this based on your lack of any real analysis of all the details the author has provided. It seems he has really done his homework and while he mentions ZPE and Rodin coils I'd hardly consider that a good reason to conclude he has nothing of interest. Based on details later in the PDF it seems he has gone to a lot of trouble to cover all bases. I still haven't read the whole thing but I did find his statement about self looping : " At some point, an experiment should be constructed with 555 Timers and Op-Amp power transformer circuits run off a battery, where the output could be reapplied to the input. " which I assume is his way of saying he believes it could self run or be looped or that it at least has the potential to do so.
I think for myself it is worth giving it a deeper look and some more discussion -- possibly with the author by email too. It's really not that hard to put together a circuit to try the looping part as the author mentioned.
Quote from: e2matrix on September 05, 2013, 12:01:45 AM
I still haven't read the whole thing but I did find his statement about self looping : " At some point, an experiment should be constructed with 555 Timers and Op-Amp power transformer circuits run off a battery, where the output could be reapplied to the input. " which I assume is his way of saying he believes it could self run or be looped or that it at least has the potential to do so.
Exactly right. And, as TK mentioned, this self-looping idea came as a sort of aside. Gee, I have 44 more output than in....I guess someone (not me of course) could design a circuit to have this self run.
Does this really make any sense to you E2? I mean, the good folks on OUdotcom would be thrilled, totally thrilled mind you, to have anything that was 100.000001% efficient. This guy says he has something 44 times better than that and...yes, I guess it could be self-looped one day....by someone else....I suppose.
I am just saying that this defies credibility. Plus, do remember that his paper was only # 2 over there. I am still waiting for the #1 guy to post over here.
I watched the entire video and the only thing I took away from that was his introduction where he was to present the 2nd place paper. Well, that and the self-looped part as a sort of after thought. I would have thought that to be the goal from the get go.
Bill (Bold type in quote added by me)
Found this after a bit of digging ...
http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6823.pdf (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6823.pdf)
QuoteAbstract:
In the paper, "Experiment on the Linear Increase in Efficiency with Multiple Moving Magnets over Pulsed Inductors" I, the author, described and measured an experimental apparatus in attempt to discover whether or not the efficiency of such a system would increase linearly with an increase in the number of generator-turning magnets and an increase in frequency, as previous experiments had suggested the hypothesis could very well be valid. The result was that it increased exponentially, and that aspect of the paper remains intact despite the measurement error. By filtering the input power (but not the output power) to the system, such that at each increase in frequency the input power would in turn reduce with an output power increase, such a successful experiment would surely be telling of an over-efficient system, perhaps even self-sustaining systems could be a practical technological reality. While the apparatus design was successful, an important input measurement error was discovered, thus the experimental results will need to be retested and the paper appended...
Food for thought. (http://www.flynnresearch.net/technology/PPMT%20Technology.htm)
This came to me in March 2012. Time for education:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp2dpP6GYLs&feature=BFa&list=UUgQPXnv5t07PzqJz5n4\ M8nA&lf=plcp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp2dpP6GYLs&feature=BFa&list=UUgQPXnv5t07PzqJz5n4%5C%20M8nA&lf=plcp)
Regards
Kator01
Oh boy, Torsion Fields! No wonder my head is spinning all the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgMrYPax5dE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd5w8KhYrQk
TK
In the interest of fairness..
It is not possible to loop this system as presented unless it gives birth to magnets ,motors and such .
I don't believe Procreation is part of the claim?
Thx
Chet
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 05, 2013, 09:38:56 AM
Oh boy, Torsion Fields! No wonder my head is spinning all the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgMrYPax5dE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd5w8KhYrQk
Lol-TK
I was going to post those very video's here,but you beat me to it lol.
Whats a torsion field? Is it an engineering degree in suspention for vehicle's?
Quote from: tak22 on September 05, 2013, 12:55:11 AM
Found this after a bit of digging ...
http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6823.pdf (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6823.pdf)
Excellent FIND tak22! Everyone needs to read that 3 page correction and explanation. It explains it all and I'm even more sure now this guy is on the level and may be good to keep track of his work. It seems there is still a possibility of COP > 1 from this based on that paper.
Quote from: ramset on September 05, 2013, 10:27:49 AM
TK
In the interest of fairness..
It is not possible to loop this system as presented unless it gives birth to magnets ,motors and such .
I don't believe Procreation is part of the claim?
Thx
Chet
The video that I responded to showed a fellow holding a magnet on an axle, and it was rotating due to its nearness to a coil that was carrying an oscillating signal. My videos show the same thing, only with more hair, and unlike some of the other fast spinning synchronous motor videos you might see, I confirm that my motor is in fact synchronous and spinning at the rate I say it is because I use two different means of measuring its rotational rate, and they agree. My motor isn't the fastest, and the magnet doesn't drive a generator shaft... but you can bet your bippy that it is generating current as it spins within those coils. I could alternate drive and drain in short pulses: have the magnet spin up to speed, cut off the drive and let the magnet generate while it spins for a while, then re-speed up, and do this in very short pulses. Would that be as good as Cook's mechanical linkage, do you think?
In the interests of fairness... I will wager that YOU could self-loop the system presented in Cook's first video, if it actually did make even 5 times OU. I know that I certainly could. But I'm not about to build the system that he has presented. I will gladly, however, work towards making the electrical and electronics conversions necessary to self loop it, and I think you, Chet, know I can do these conversions with high efficiency. All I require is for Cook to send me the apparatus, and I will begin work immediately.... _after_ I confirm his power and energy measurements for myself.
I admire his construction and procedure, and his paper is very well written, exemplary in fact, and I especially respect his respect for significant digits in computations. But I fear ... along with him, evidently... that there has been an error in input and output power measurement. Without having the apparatus to test I can't tell you just where it is, but the implausible result would surely make one seek for the error diligently.
Meanwhile... have you been MyLOWed again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYQM8WbCq2Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYQM8WbCq2Y)
ETA: I just saw the link to the latest .pdf corrections. I guess I should probably read it... again, admirable behaviour on Cook's part. This is what you are supposed to do: seek errors, find them, admit and correct if possible. He was premature in releasing the claim but other than that he gets a high score from me.
;)
Quote from: tinman on September 05, 2013, 10:47:45 AM
Lol-TK
I was going to post those very video's here,but you beat me to it lol.
Heh.. great minds think alike, obviously!
Quote
Whats a torsion field? Is it an engineering degree in suspention for vehicle's?
Beats me. Maybe it has something to do with rotating crops?
Quoterotating crops
Would that be crop circles then??
truesearch
TK
You are of course correct on all Counts
:-[
thx
Chet
Roflmao you guys crack me up, if ya,ll aint geten paid your worken for free, Iv watched this board for years and as soon as something comes along you dismiss it out of hand and everyone agrees, then you all start patten each other on the back. lol
Dave45:
I don't think that you should re-act too much to the detracting "noise" that is made here. I for one admire your research and willingness to share what you experience and find both here on overunity.com as well as at energeticforum.com.
There are many here that continue to experiment and research although sometimes there isn't anything to show for it. . . .
And many people here have been though the drama of MyLow, Inventacom, and others who proved out to be fakers. It's easy to get negative about ANY new ideas based on past history.
I sincerely wish you the best in your discoveries and would like to see you continue to share here, in spite of those that discount the efforts.
truesearch
Smatter, Dave, did you swallow the 44-to-1 claim "out of hand" then? Or did you yourself perhaps think there was something just a little "too good to be true" there? Could YOU manage to self loop, say, a 10-to-1 system? How about a 20-to-1? There will be losses in your conversion from the generator output to the amplifier power source. OK, say 30-to-1. Sure, you could do that, probably.
But what _would_ you do? If you had a system that you _genuinely believed_ made 44 times the _electrical power output_ than the _electrical power input_ required to run it?
Would you write a second-place scholarly paper on the thing, or would you work your silly butt off to self loop the mother? I know what I'd do.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 06, 2013, 04:03:52 PM
But what _would_ you do? If you had a system that you _genuinely believed_ made 44 times the _electrical power output_ than the _electrical power input_ required to run it?
Would you write a second-place scholarly paper on the thing, or would you work your silly butt off to self loop the mother? I know what I'd do.
Exactly my point. Nothing against the author of this paper but, it just does not make sense to me. The paper was very well written but, I am missing some logic on this one.
Bill
If something actually output 44 times the input, chances are you would sense it, or feel it, take your pick. When you applied power you would get the sense that the thing was amplifying the input power and it's response would be extremely vigorous, much much more vigorous than you would expect. After all, the thing is allegedly acting like an electrical/mechanical power amplifier. Applying battery power (or in this case feeding it power from an audio amplifier) would feel like you were adjusting a throttle. See - no meters of any kind, just use your wits and your senses and your gut feel. More importantly, what does your gut feel tell you when you don't sense anything special is going on?
I read the document addressing the issue of the measurement errors. They look like serious "studious" guys with good intentions, but they are not connecting in their analysis on the correct level. They state that they wanted the experiment to be reproducible using multimeters only, so there is your "gap" because you need a scope to look at the voltages and currents.
MileHigh
Mt question is-how do the magnets actualy rotate,if set up like the pic bellow??.
Tinman:
The hollow cylinder magnets rotate because they are never perfectly symmetrical about the main axis with respect to the magnetic field they produce. There is always an asymmetrical "lump" in the magnetic field and therefore that extra repulsion/attraction creates torque and gives you a motor.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on September 07, 2013, 03:07:49 AM
Tinman:
The hollow cylinder magnets rotate because they are never perfectly symmetrical about the main axis with respect to the magnetic field they produce. There is always an asymmetrical "lump" in the magnetic field and therefore that extra repulsion/attraction creates torque and gives you a motor.
MileHigh
MH
While i agree in what you are saying,i cant see that slight ofset being enough to turn a small DC motor-not to mention that it is coupled via a belt. Then to place a 10 ohm load across that small motor that is being used as a generator,and still have it turn?.
The inconsistancy in the magnetic field surely wouldnt be enough to give that kind of torque output,also concidering the very small amount of P/in to the coil itself.
Something else must be happening here.
Looking at the setup,with the motors placed in close proximity to the pulsing coil,is it possable that the rotor coils them self,inside the small motors are also recieving some sort of transformer like power from the inductor?.
The other thing to concider is this-if it was the case,that it is only the inconsistant magnetic field around the PM that is causing rotation,why not just use diametrically magnetised magnet's?.
The inconsistant field on the PM's wouldnt cause rotation while the magnet is placed flat on the coil,as shown in other video's. Then there is the video,where the magnet is rotating while on the table next to the coil-not on the coil.
We must also rember that the coil is pulsed with a DC pulse,so a rise and fall of the same magnetic field.
The other thing is,that the magnets these day's are fairly good in quality. And as he is using NeFeB,one tends to think the field would be preaty even all round.
With the slight imperfections within the field of the PM's,and looking at the P/in-i see no way that that is what is giving the rotational torque.
P/in=
V-.27
A-.012.
Motor specs
High Speed Reversible DC Motor (9-18 V), 1 1/8" OD w/2
mm shaft (available at Radio Shack)
P/in measured with protec true RMS DMM.
Now,i dont know what you think,but that P/in would go no where near close to driving one of those motors alone-and yet he runs 5 of them.
Even without any P/out from the motor's,he has achieved the very near imposable just getting those 5 motors to rotate with such a small P/in to the coil.
Tinman:
I remember seeing cylindrical magnets on a wire in the clip just like your drawing so that's all I was discussing. The motor business is another aspect that I saw but didn't bother investigating. I don't have the desire and there is too much to dig into. I have already discounted the clip and there is nothing there from what I could see. Plus the nasty fact that combinations of coils, magnets, motors etc are a kind of "fool's gold" that you see over and over.
MileHigh
Fools Gold Huh?
The nasty combinations that might lead to something wonderful......
Sort of like our Planet ,a piece of rock in a vast void of space hurdling through a sea of nothingness,and then a few nasty combinations come along and suddenly there is something from nothing.
I see this fellow Tinman as a man that lives in such a place as planet earth who can recognize there is much more here then might have passed accross the bench of MH over the years,and perhaps this Man Jeff Cook has seen a bit of that himself?
Perhaps a symphony just waiting for the musicians to play the right combination and make some beautiful music which the Earth has not yet seen?
I appreciate men Like Brad and Jeff and the curiosity which brings them to places where men Try to make our world a better place and perhaps learn something new along the way.
I also appreciate your efforts MH,sometimes I think they need a little more Breathing room.
thx
Chet
@MH
Yes,i know where you are comeing from-anothe PM EM machine claimed to be OU. Turns out the measurements taken where incorrect,and the inventor corrected them.
But the OU part is not what grab'd my interest,it was the fact that the axially magnetized magnets could actualy rotate at all,while conected to a motor via a belt.
The other thing was these torsion field's?. I had never heard of them,and niether had TK-do you know what they are ,without looking them up?.
Turns out they are very real,and now i know what they are-something learned already.
Torsion fields: WIKI
In physics, a field is an assignment of a quantity (vector, tensor, or spinor) to every point of the space containing it. The word torsion refers to any variable that describes rotation. Thus, torsion fields do exist. For example, an electromagnetic wave with circular polarization or the stress tensor of a solid body under torsion stress can be described as torsion fields, although such usage is rare.
Below is a pic of the coil,and how the magnet is placed-coil yellow section.
Also a close up pic of his actual setup,showing the belt around the motor and disc magnet.There is two O rings either side of the belt on the disc magnet.
Now i know the video you refer to isnt showing anything new,but this is different,when the magnets are fixed to a shaft,and driving small generators-wich had a 10 ohm load across them.
I think you would have a hard time comeing up with an explination for this one MH.
It may be a worthy challenge for you.
Quote from: MileHigh on September 07, 2013, 03:07:49 AM
Tinman:
The hollow cylinder magnets rotate because they are never perfectly symmetrical about the main axis with respect to the magnetic field they produce. There is always an asymmetrical "lump" in the magnetic field and therefore that extra repulsion/attraction creates torque and gives you a motor.
MileHigh
Hi MH, Tinman,
Either that or because of eddy currents, much like an asynchronous motor. It is well known that the magnetic field of a pulsed coil is a sum of two counter rotating magnetic fields; if the conducting rotor is placed on the axis of symmetry of such coil it won't start rotating by itself but here the rotor is placed off the axis. I'm too lazy to do the math but maybe someone is willing to test if a non-magnetic squirrel cage (or a tin can for that matter) starts rotating if similarly placed above and off-centre of a coil.
Oh, almost forgot to mention that NeFeB magnets and their coatings are good conductors... Moreover, magnets are mounted using brass tubes and washers.
I suspect a ceramic magnet (i.e. one taken from an old speaker) won't rotate.
Regarding the paper http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6483.pdf (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6483.pdf) , apart from the good words I have for it, there is at least one potential huge error not yet discussed in: "Having five magnets provided a calculated COP of 40 when multiplying the
number of moving magnets by the generated power out of
one generator when..." (page 90, bottom right).
Well, there are many systems including mechanical ones (i.e. car differential) where one could take power out either from one place or simultaneously from several places but the total available power is the same. Here, because of the intricate magnetic coupling, I strongly suspect the author made a simple but unfortunately wrong assumption.
Best regards,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on September 08, 2013, 10:11:39 AM
Hi MH, Tinman,
Either that or because of eddy currents, much like an asynchronous motor. It is well known that the magnetic field of a pulsed coil is a sum of two counter rotating magnetic fields; if the conducting rotor is placed on the axis of symmetry of such coil it won't start rotating by itself but here the rotor is placed off the axis. I'm too lazy to do the math but maybe someone is willing to test if a non-magnetic squirrel cage (or a tin can for that matter) starts rotating if similarly placed above and off-centre of a coil.
Oh, almost forgot to mention that NeFeB magnets and their coatings are good conductors... Moreover, magnets are mounted using brass tubes and washers.
I suspect a ceramic magnet (i.e. one taken from an old speaker) won't rotate.
Regarding the paper http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6483.pdf (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6483.pdf) , apart from the good words I have for it, there is at least one potential huge error not yet discussed in: "Having five magnets provided a calculated COP of 40 when multiplying the number of moving magnets by the generated power out of one generator when..." (page 90, bottom right).
Well, there are many systems including mechanical ones (i.e. car differential) where one could take power out either from one place or simultaneously from several places but the total available power is the same. Here, because of the intricate magnetic coupling, I strongly suspect the author made a simple but unfortunately wrong assumption.
Best regards,
Tinu
Hi Tinu
There was a measurement error,and he has a second paper that explains that. It was in reguards to the DC input,and forgetting about the AC component.
In his first paper,you will see that the test went beyond 1 generator x 5. He has two hooked in series,and a cap on the output aswell. This is how he made his measurements x5. First 1 gen,then two,and the math was done from those measurement to get the total for 5. He also talked about the magnetic coupling between all 5 magnet,s ,and arranged them to dismiss that. Also with disc magnet,s having like or unlike poles facing one another-you will not gain any drive coupling from them that will effect the next one to it.
I am having a really really hard time believing that the apparatus as shown will actually turn the generators by spinning the magnets. I don't believe that there is enough torque. Sure, a magnet can spin when it's not trying to turn anything else... but those belts and pulleys, the O-ring edge things.... no. Unless I see that apparatus itself running on top of the big coil and spinning the magnets which are then spinning the generators, I just don't believe it.
Is the device in the photo a _mockup_ of something he wished would work?
I skimmed through the video and I can't tell from that. I just read the paper again, and it seems that he did use clipleads to measure and never actually soldered all the motors together with wires. But I still can't believe that the magnets can rotate those motors! I am thinking right now that it might be the case that the big coil's oscillating field might be rotating the _motors_ instead of the magnets.
Anyway, if there is a video of the apparatus in operation please let me know asap, because I just can't imagine how to get enough torque from the rotating magnet to overcome the _huge_ mechanical losses built into the system.
ETA: Oh, I didn't mean to say I'd never _heard_ of torsion fields, I just said I didn't know what they are. The WIKI definition isn't really what people like Gennady Shipov mean when they talk about torsion fields, I think. I don't believe in the kind of torsion fields that Shipov does, and I think that those are the only kinds of torsion fields that can (or rather can't) be responsible for things like this magnet spinner or Gennady's "reactionless" inertial drive systems.
Is this the same Jeff Cook? Selling a 'reactionless drive toy'...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLJDQwHnItA
I was wondering that too. Cook, Cox, Dean, those fellows have been around a long time in the inertial propulsion zone.
QuoteI am thinking right now that it might be the case that the big coil's oscillating field might be rotating the _motors_ instead of the magnets.
I agree. The motors themselves also look like magnets with some asymmetry that get turned by the big pulsing coil right underneath. The 10-ohm resistors complete the circuits for the motor coils and allow them to react to the changing magnetic field. So some people (the experimenters?) got faked out by that.
There are no torsion fields at play here in an exotic sense, just conventional torque causing conventional motor action. Although a turning rotor is a "solid body under torsion stress."
MileHigh
Quote from: tim123 on September 08, 2013, 11:49:00 AM
Is this the same Jeff Cook? Selling a 'reactionless drive toy'...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLJDQwHnItA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLJDQwHnItA)
The display model simply allows a magnet to become magnetically locked in attraction on both sides of a ring magnet, then by the input of additional force to overcome the magnetic lock, forcing the magnet beyond the attraction lock, enters the repel field on the far side of the ring and moving magnet to launch away from the ring magnet with a repel force. I don't see a potential for real gain in this magnetic configuration, because the attract force of the magnets must be overcome with a similar input of force. It is like trying to get more force out by applying force to a repel field of a magnet, and expecting to get more out from the spring action of the repel field. This repel action does not yield more usable output.
Liberty
@TK
This is why i am going to build the device as specified in the paper,as i to cant see how the disc magnets can turn those motors. A test has already been carried out by a very gifted man on another forum,in reguards to the electromagnetic field of the coil being the sorce of power that is turning the small motors. Even at high power levels,and an open circuit on the motor(generator)only 30mV were achieved-and absolutly no rotation when the two leads were shorted.
Also we must concider that the small motors them self have two reasonably strong magnets right next to the rotor,wich would just about kill any field sent by the inductor powering the system.
Here is a paragraph from the test carried out at the NPA 19 conference
Quote: This was evident and presented at the NPA 19 conference and
is indisputable, showing that by increasing it beyond 60 Hz the power input was so
small that the magnets were unable to even rotate any longer; thus, it was decreasing
with frequency.
The best performance is reached with a frequency of between 45 and 50 Hz.
The device pictured above,is the actual test device-and it dose run as stated.
How-i dont know-yet.
He's selling a reactionless-drive-toy - that you operate - while holding it down with your hand. Thus making it impossible to observe any such reactionless behaviour. It's a non-sequitur. I smell fish.
HMMM
somethin fishy Huh ?
Perhaps a few more candles and a couple Crawfish then?
Grandma had a good recipe......,Lacking that, there was a vid of this Candle effect somewhere?
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/jcook/ (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/jcook/)
thx
Chet
PS
I see the "movie" is in the above link!
OK, as most of you know, my background is in precision machining. Well, check out the non-alignment of these pulleys. They are not even close to being lined up with each other. Even if you could get a magnet to spin as this fellow states, it would have next to 0 torque and you for sure would want the "drive system" designed to have as little friction as possible. You do NOT do that by having the pulleys at weird angles to each other. It takes the same amount of time to mount those devices in alignment as it does to mount them as we see here. Also note that the drive "belts" are not continuous. They appear to have a staple or metal binder of some kind joining them together. I could not even begin to calculate the additional force it would take to overcome this crude design. A simple "O" ring would have no such power robbing joints. What gives here?
Bill
***EDIT***
I know that some have posited that the motors will spin on their own from the field of the coil. this may be the case. If so, why burden them with all of that friction of the pulleys and the magnets? Why is there no video of this device running that we know of? Maybe this guy is a great theoretician and writes great papers but possibly his practical skills are not up to the task? I really do not know and am just asking questions here. Has anyone seen this running?
Quote from: tim123 on September 08, 2013, 11:49:00 AM
Is this the same Jeff Cook? Selling a 'reactionless drive toy'...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLJDQwHnItA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLJDQwHnItA)
He got some kind of patent awarded for that toy? I think I remember reading or hearing about that last year. The system is not reactionless, and the basic behaviour of bar magnets and ring magnets has been known (by some people) for a long time. But it keeps being rediscovered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C69a28Jpmec
Great demo vid TK.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction-well almost.
There is a way to eliminate the reaction force,by simply deviding it into to half forces in opposite directions 90* to that of the action force.
Quote from: tinman on September 08, 2013, 09:06:36 PM
Great demo vid TK.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction-well almost.
There is a way to eliminate the reaction force,by simply deviding it into to half forces in opposite directions 90* to that of the action force.
That's great sir, I LIKE IT. ;)
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 08, 2013, 06:02:11 PM
He got some kind of patent awarded for that toy? I think I remember reading or hearing about that last year. The system is not reactionless, and the basic behaviour of bar magnets and ring magnets has been known (by some people) for a long time. But it keeps being rediscovered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C69a28Jpmec (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C69a28Jpmec)
So, Newton was correct after all? That does not jive with what the guy with the patent on his toy was saying in his video. My guess is that he was not correct. Your video clearly shows this.
Bill
Insted of getting off topic in this thread,i will get the below thread up and going again-for those that find this subject interesting.
http://www.overunity.com/6387/inertia-drive/
American antigravity did a test On Mr.Cooks Flame experiment here.
http://www.americanantigravity.com/files/articles/JCE-Generator-Experimental-Notes.pdf (http://www.americanantigravity.com/files/articles/JCE-Generator-Experimental-Notes.pdf)
a successful [sort of ] replication.
thx
Chet