Overunity.com Archives

Hi People.

I have been a long time lurker on this site and others.  I have extensive background in electrical/mechanical engineering and hold 9 patents in this field,  so i am not some over excited child.  I spend much of my time in my fully equipped shop building, tinkering, looking for the next big thing.  I fully understand the laws and workings when it comes to this type of thing.  It does not work!  can not work!  That being said...

For some reason there are many recent videos and news articles popping up from all over this planet talking about looped motor generator combinations functioning with power to spare.  Many of these are from legitimate inventors or companies.  many with no battery.  This is not like the usual YouTube video of a magnet motor or some other junk followed by hype, replications and failure.  There are too many separate occurrence,  this feels different.  Is it possible that maybe a certain alignment of phase angles or some other anomaly could unlock something so simple that we have just never looked at it?  All of the sciences have been wrong from time to time.  This one has too many legit people and is too spread out to be like the other 99.999% of impossible claims...

Anyone around here spend any time looking at this?  [size=-3]

http://www.overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/topicseen/#.UqKDaeJalD8

Hi rice,
I have a very similar background and I must say that I see no difference in 99.99% of these claims to all the other junk claims that come along.
With an electrical background you would already know that claims like phase anomaly and phase angle and resonance are just bunk claims made from those without understanding.

With that being said, I have seen some motor-generator combinations that provide excess power and appear they may be real.
Of the ones that actually appear to operate, there is always a roberval balanced flywheel that directs angular momentum to increase the drive torque to the generator. This is something that is just now showing up in some other threads also.

A roberval configuration has the ability to remove the back torque from the generator from reaching the drive motor so the motor can be much smaller than what would normally be required to drive the generator.

I have been looking at several other ways that roberval configurations can be used and have concluded that many different OU devices may be possible using this setup.
:o

Campbell claimed overunity years ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgk0HfXhU9M

Not just a flywheel, but a roberval system.
Let me explain a simple system as in this pic.

Suppose we drive only wheel "A", with the chain sprockets "B" and "C" able to rotate on their own bearings attached to wheel "A"

There are three possible conditions for sprocket "B"

1: Sprocket "B" is held stationary and prevented from rotating.
In this state, the weighted arms will remain in the same orientation as wheel "A" turns but the drive on wheel "A" sees no additional load. The force on the connecting chain from "B" to "C" will be changing as the centrifugal forces change direction on the weights, but wheel "A" feels only the rotating mass of the weights.

2: Sprocket "B" is attached to wheel "A" and rotates with it.
In this configuration, wheel "A" is simply a flywheel and responds the same as condition one. Wheel "A" spins freely.

3: Sprocket "B" is attached to a generator.

With sprocket "B" driving a generator, you can see that if the generator turns freely, it will be the same as condition two, and if the generator was loaded until it stopped, it would be the same as condition one. Neither condition one or two can place additional load on wheel "A".

Now, one can also see that increasing the mass of the weights or rotating wheel "A" faster, will increase the drive force on sprocket "B" but additional load on sprocket "B", cannot prevent wheel "A" from rotating the same as a simple flywheel.

The drive force on sprocket "B" is derived only from the centrifugal force of the weights, independently of the torque applied to wheel "A".

Thanks for the link Dave,  looks like Luc is hard at work.  Not sure if this will get him anywhere or not.  Hopefully his Long hours will pay off for him.  Power factor can easily play tricks on people.

Lumen,  I agree with what you say about resonance and the other hocus pocus.  Probably will never amount to anything.  Your flywheel idea might have some promise.  I just can't get over the fact that these motor generators are coming from legit people and companies from all corners of the world.  This is not a normal pattern when it comes to something that can not work.  I have spent time working on MW motor generators used in underground mines to run Huge DC motors.  I seem to remember these set ups to be efficient but obviously not overunity.  Never crossed my mind at the time to do the math.

Have a look at US 7,095,126.  It is not common for the USPTO to entertain such an idea.  Has this been attempted or discussed here?  It is an old one.

rice,

The patent doesn't mean much. There are many patents that make even bigger claims.
If you could just purchase off the shelf parts and build such a system then they would be everywhere for sale already. The fact that they are not indicates the result.

I have seen some try nearly this exact setup using an inverter and battery, and in the end they leave the battery connected and say it is charging when in fact it's going dead.

All the parts to build a test system would not cost much. At some point I plan to build a torque increaser and test the entire concept.

http://bg2000.satom.ru/

http://realstrannik.ru/forum/48-temy-freeenergylt-antanasa/134521-eka-elektirik-ustanovka.html?limitstart=0

Quote from: rice on December 06, 2013, 08:59:37 PM
Hi People.
...I spend much of my time in my fully equipped shop building, tinkering, looking for the next big thing.

Anyone around here spend any time looking at this?

Hi Rice :)
  yes, I'm interested in this stuff too... It seems to good to be true, so it probably is, but fun to try - and who knows...

I've a small collection of motors, and I'm considering building a central flywheel / gearbox to attach them to - so I can try different motors / ratios etc.

I've tried linking two 3-phase motors together 'rotoverter' style last year - I got about 60w out for 100w in...

Have you done any tinkering on this yet?

Hi Tim,  I have not been tinkering with anything energy related lately,  trying to finish up 2 big projects that have been on the go for too long.  I am trying to decide what my next project can be.  I would never have thought to waste my time by using an electric motor to turn a generator.  It is just too strange that all of these claims are happening now.  Like lumen said,  if it actually worked everyone would be dong it.  I think I'm going to give it some more time.  There are probably many people building these setups as we speak. Once my big projects are done and out the door I will probably at least clamp down a motor and spin an alternator and see where it takes me.

Hi Rice :)
  Here's some info on 'connective physics' - which might relate to this subject - if not it's still interesting. It's all about how all things in the universe ar connected - and inertia is one outcome. Another concept is 'critical action time' - which modifies the newtownian force equations - and allows for OU:
http://www.halexandria.org/dward137.htm

I rather disagree with the assertion that "if it worked everyone would be doing it"... The wisdom of the herd is a well known oxymoron... I mean, most people actually believe government is lawful, and that banks lend out their money. Lol...  ::)

Still, it'll be interesting to see if any of these Q-mo-gen's (as Stirling calls 'em) take off / go public with plans etc... I'll slowly work on building one, just for the crack, amongst my other projects...

Regards
Tim

Quote from: lumen on December 07, 2013, 12:46:00 PM
Not just a flywheel, but a roberval system.
Let me explain a simple system as in this pic....

Hi Lumen :)
  that is a very interesting design, and it's really stretching my tiny brain... :D

Have you simulated it, or built it?

Regards
Tim

PS: I think the back-force will be transmitted from the load via the chains to the 'C' wheels - to their bearings - to the outside of wheel 'A'...

Tim,

I know the brain thing, it's almost like an illusion that you think you have figured out but then not.

The real effect is simply to create a platform on a rotating disk that remains stationary as it moves around the disk. This platform will experience a rotational gravity that would be very easy to extract energy from.

If you were on the disk, you could just build a gravity wheel, but instead of trying to move the weights to get it to rotate (like people try now) you could just put all the weight on one side and have the gravity rotate.

A roberval system removes torque and should work well to generate the stationary platform without inducing any torque back into the main disk.

There are other ways to achieve the same setup, so I can't see how this could fail and this puts me in the same boat as you, brain strain!

I have done some motion simulations in another thread but they are only motion simulations and return no useful data.

Quote from: webby1 on December 08, 2013, 02:23:51 PM
There is a force imparted by the generator into "A"

I spent a while playing with something very similar to this and found that the CASE torque indeed supplied a reactive force into whatever was moving it.

This CASE torque by the way did not need to have an outside force it was "pushing" against per-say.  I isolated the source of resistance and only allowed the shaft torque to be the influence so any force from the motor, in my case for testing, that the case imparted was from the torque alone.

I actually always wondered if there was a reaction as such since the case is both pushing and pulling,  my tests showed that there was a reaction.

If that is true then one could cause "A" to rotate by applying a torque on the "C" sprockets.

Before we move on to the next design that totally eliminates the proposed problem, we should try to fully understand why or how a load on "B" could slow disk "A".

Lets suppose that while the weights are held outward by centrifugal force that by slowing the rotation of sprocket "B" that it does cause disk "A" to slow.

This would logically seem possible since in reverse you are locking the "C" sprockets to the rotating disk "A" by the centrifugal force on the weights.
But in reality, slowing the rotation of "B" pulls only on the weights and causes a partial retraction. The retraction of the weights tries to conserve angular momentum as the radius gets shorter and causes disk "A" to rotate faster. The same as a skater pulling in their arms during a spin or like a weight on a rope wrapping around a pole and causing the radius to get shorter and spin faster.

Having done so, maybe you can explain what you believe causes the disk "A" to experience a slowing from increased drag on "B".

Quote from: webby1 on December 08, 2013, 04:44:27 PM
Well, my testbed sure did move with only the torque from the motor,, so I would say yes.

Maybe you could show your test better so we can see how it applies to this device.
Are you saying you spun up a similar device and experienced some moving forces on the entire unit?

did you all see the video I linked from the russian seller ? Disk size can be approximated by watching videos, I these people went and machined custom parts, more likely they took what was on hand. Something about rotoverter and modified inverter.

@ Webby, plz show us a video if you can.

Webby,

If it was possible to rotate disk "A" by applying torque to "C", then we could just wind a spring and connect it to "C" and watch the disk "A" rotate forever because the spring would never unwind with "C" traveling a circular path but never itself rotating. (as long as "B" was stationary)

It would be interesting if you achieved something different using the gear setup because pondering that configuration, I was wondering if it achieves the same goal but using different force directions.

Applying a torque to "C" with "B" stationary, only applies a force in disk "A" from the center point of "B" to the center point of "C".

Webby,

I like the bola and the hatchet, it's like art only scary.

It does look more like a gravity experiment than what I am thinking here.
You are right that a spring connection between disk "A" and sprocket "C" will turn the disk "A" until the spring unwinds, but nothing should connect to disk "A"
from any of the sprockets "B" or "C".

The view that rotating "C" from "A" will turn the disk backwards, you are really turning "A" from stationary sprocket "C", because "C" cannot turn with "B" stationary.
In any case, I was meaning that the spring was applying a torque to sprocket "C" from an external point not connected to disk "A".
This is the confusing part, the chain is not connected to disk "A" in any way.

I'm still not seeing a problem, when disk "A" is rotating, it is only following sprocket "C" with it's weight attached. If sprocket "B" stops then sprocket "C" starts rotating the same as if it was winding up the chain around a pole on stationary sprocket "B".

At least now you don't have to worry about leaks!

Quote from: webby1 on December 09, 2013, 10:19:11 AM
Indeed TK,, no leaks, and at this time of the year no freezing solid :)

@lumen

Where do you see the torque from the arm being expressed?

I see it being expressed into the belt or chain going around "B" and then with the other "C" providing an equal and opposite force I see no torque left over.

Here is a pic of a crude spring testbed I did a while ago,, in the junction of the two arms is a spring that connects the two arms together,, so the one arm can be rotated and wind the spring up.  This was to test for the transfer of the spring potential created by the one arm into the other,, the testbed was mounted in several different orientations and stuff, the question was if one arm could tension the spring and be held at a constant value and still create a motion in the other arm.  It did not manage to do that, if I kept moving the input arm with force, some of that force was transferred but that took an input force being moved over a distance.

Exactly!

You have it, with no motion or distance traveled, no work is done. That is why placing a torque on "C" cannot rotate "A" even though "C" is free to move around, it still does not rotate and no work can be done.

Now, all the centrifugal force from the weights are trying to rotate the center sprocket "B".

So we allow "B" to rotate at the same rate as disk "A" and now "C" and "B" are stationary to each other so still no work is done, But actually "B" is now rotating with this huge torque from the weights on "C", and needs to be restrained to rotate only as fast as disk "A" is rotating.

So we can load it down with a generator.

In the end, those are the two conditions for no work on disk "A"

1: sprocket "B" is stationary
2: sprocket "B" rotates with disk "A"

Quote from: rice on December 06, 2013, 08:59:37 PM
Hi People.

I have been a long time lurker on this site and others.  I have extensive background in electrical/mechanical engineering and hold 9 patents in this field,  so i am not some over excited child.  I spend much of my time in my fully equipped shop building, tinkering, looking for the next big thing.  I fully understand the laws and workings when it comes to this type of thing.  It does not work!  can not work!  That being said...

For some reason there are many recent videos and news articles popping up from all over this planet talking about looped motor generator combinations functioning with power to spare.  Many of these are from legitimate inventors or companies.  many with no battery.  This is not like the usual YouTube video of a magnet motor or some other junk followed by hype, replications and failure.  There are too many separate occurrence,  this feels different.  Is it possible that maybe a certain alignment of phase angles or some other anomaly could unlock something so simple that we have just never looked at it?  All of the sciences have been wrong from time to time.  This one has too many legit people and is too spread out to be like the other 99.999% of impossible claims...

Anyone around here spend any time looking at this?  [size=-3]

Exactly my feeling for some time.   You said it almost exactly the way I would describe it.   It's been going on for quite a long while too.   

Quote from: webby1 on December 09, 2013, 12:15:04 PM
Just thinking this out.

I see that if the arms were straight out and "B" offered no resistance and the system were brought up to speed, then I would need to apply a force into "B" to rotate the arms back 90 degrees, and it is this force you are talking of.

You are correct, this force will be equal to the centrifugal force required to retract the weighted arms due to the rotation of "A"

Quote
When I think about that, what I see is a force of pull on the belt\chain from "B" to "C" and that force is not through the center-line of the axle for "A" to the center-line axle for "C" and as such represents a force in the opposite direction of rotation to "A" and will slow down "A".

This is not correct! the force is only from the center of "B" to the center of "C". If the sprockets are the same size then the line of force is directly inline with the centers. Different size sprockets can cause an angle to the force vector.  Disk "A" cannot see the pulling on the chain, only the compression between centers because neither "B" or "C" has a torque connected to "A"

Quote
Likewise I see that if I tried to apply the force on "B" to rotate the arms on "C" the other way, advance them, then that force would try and accelerate "A".

This is the mystical question, because if "A" was rotating, then applying a forward torque on "B" would still rotate the arms back in which would increase the RPM on "A" this would cause the arms to want to move back out where they would pull in again further increasing the RPM on "A". The question is, is it really driving it. Suppose you apply 500 HP to sprocket "B" while I hold disk "A" stationary with my hands! Oh yes sprocket "C" will rotate with the weights, but is it driving "A"?

Quote

I just stepped over the change in angular velocity and momentum and stuff and went straight to the constant state conditions,, of course when you first retard the weights that reduction in radius will impart a force of acceleration against the axle of "C" but that stops when the new constant state is reached.

So what I see is that there are more than one lever, the offset from axle of the gears\pulleys to the chain\belt creates the other levers and you are always pulling backwards on the new one on "C" from "B".


What value of resistance that makes I am not sure of, maybe someone with a better understanding and knowledge could point that piece out.

So work is being done on and by "B" using the input from "C" created by a rotating "A"

I could be wrong,, I usually am.

This setup contains some illusionary properties so the final result should be considered the worst case and deemed that it doesn't work until shown otherwise.

I do plan to build a test device to define the final results, but for now, on to the next design that is less entwined in doubt.

Quote from: webby1 on December 09, 2013, 05:34:56 PM
The chain is pulling on the sprocket, that has a distance from pivot.  The weight is pulling on the end of the arm, that has a distance from pivot.  The chain going to "B" is pulling on the mid area of an arm, that then has the lever action being applied between the weight and the pivot\axle for "C" with the chain as the fulcrum point, so the lever is trying to push the axle of "C" back in while the weight is trying to fling outward while a mid-point on the lever is being restrained by the chain.

Clear as mud :)

I bet this is not so clear as you perceive it is.
Let me make a sketch to change your view.

So we can have sprocket "B" as a solid stationary block, which it is when it cannot rotate.

Then disk "A" can be viewed as a solid bar with pivot points on each end.

The chain is still just a chain and can only provide a pulling action.

As you can see, disk "A" can only feel the compression forces from the center of "C" to the center of "B".
The chain can exert no pull on disk "A" because it's never connected to "A".

If there was any force angle vector then "A" would rotate from the weight and in effect raise the weight doing work for free.

Well lets move on to the next design and see if we can find the reason why it cannot work.

Suppose the two disks marked "A" are connected with some notch belt or chain drive and rotate together.

There are two rotating platforms mounted on each disk "A" with a connecting rod "B" that keeps them from rotating. (see animation)
The generators "C" are mounted on these platforms that remain stationary and each has a weight "D" to rotate the shaft of the generator from the centrifugal force generated by rotating "A"

If the generator did not turn, then the weight simply would appear to be just another part of the connecting arm "B" and follow the arm around the wheel.

Quote from: webby1 on December 10, 2013, 09:44:29 AM
I keep things as simple as I can when I am trying to figure stuff out, and to do that I include, in your drawing, the virtual arm that goes from the axle of "A" straight out to the CoM of the weight, this is the force that the weight brings to the system.

This virtual arm then has an angle to both the "A" "C" arm and the "B" "C" chain arm, this force tries to pull "B" forward in the direction of rotation but also tries to pull "A" backwards, fine so you reverse the direction of rotation so now it is trying to pull "A" forward but now it is trying to pull "B" backwards.

This is the resistance to rotation I am seeing, and to what extent that force is, I am not sure of.

The chain is never connected to "A" in a way that it can detect any pull.
If you rotated "B" and raised the weight, would "A" rotate, No
If you rotated "B" and lowered the weight, would "A" rotate, No
If you remove the weight or add to the weight, No
If you cut the chain, No (maybe wiggle)
If you remove the weight and apply a rod to the center of "C" and rotate it, does "A" move, No

Because "A" can only see the center to center force of "B" to "C".
The chain is independent of "A" on both ends and can have no effect.

I'm not saying this works, but whatever prevents it from working would also prevent concept 2 from working also and it has no mystical properties.
To make a guess, I would think it has more to do with the direction of the artificial gravity. All gravitational vectors on the rotating system come from the center point.
The location of the weight has a different vector than the pivot point of the weight, and may cause a percentage of back drag in all systems like this. Though this could be reduced by keeping the arm short and using a larger weight.

Hi Guys,
  I thought it through, and I'm quite sure the back-force does get transmitted back to wheel A. Diagram attached.

You have to think about where the tension in the chain is...

Getting back to the topic... ;)

There are plenty of machines in Stirling's QMoGen page. None of which have been validated (as far as I know):
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Motor-Generator_Self-Looped_with_Usable_Energy_Left_Over

Are any of them genuine?

tim123,

I like the sketch with the forces as one would expect them to be. But the problem is that just rotating or applying a torque to "C" does not rotate "A".

You can apply torque until the chain breaks on "C" and "A" still cannot rotate!

This is the same setup as a floating shelf. All of the force is transferred to the stationary center sprocket and none to the rotation of "A"

Though I believe what you have drawn is close because if you draw a line from the center of "A" to the weight, I believe that to be the gravitational vector to the weight and thus the amount of pulling back on "A".

Any other force on "A", simply does not exist.

As far as the QMoGens go, I only seen one that I thought may have been real, and it used some artificial gravity torque increasing device. (not simple gearing)

That's why this is the most important part required in order to build a QMoGen unit from off the shelf parts.

QMoGen stories have been around for years and nothing comes from them. Now there are more stories because everyone thinks all you need is a motor and generator and some inverter unit to build it and it works.

Many make big claims before they even build it, then once the do, you never hear from them again. If it worked, someone would be selling them or the plans.
When you go to Stirling's QmoGen page, you can read the double talk, Phase angle, power factor, resonance, none of which can produce real power to run anything! They are either hiding their idea or covering up the facts.

Torque increasing device! Real or not.  Centrifugal force increases with RPM at very little cost.

It works. I saw in old russian video.

When the weight turn 90 degree in outside, the table (A circe) turn in opposite direction.
Turn with constant speed, the A circle turn-stop-turn-stop-turn-stop.
The rocket can turn around in the space without any fuel burning.

Quote from: webby1 on December 10, 2013, 05:13:25 PM
Yes Lumen, you are correct,, no matter how hard or fast I turn "B" it will not turn "A",, that is until you put the weight on the arm, now when you turn "B" you are accelerating that weight and that interaction is what will move "A" by pushing on "C" which is attached to "A" via the axle.

If you have a playground handy with a merry-go-round and you have say a 10lbs weight you can go try this without building anything.

Take a friend with you, each stand on opposite sides of the merry-go-round and with the weight in your arm held out straight and your feet firmly planted on the merry-go-round rotate at the waist to throw the ball across the merry-go-round to your friend and have them catch it in the opposite hand you threw it with,, again with there feet firmly planted on the merry-go-round.

I figure 10lbs is enough to get it rotating for you,, so the ball is thrown from the same hand by each person and caught with the opposite hand.

I am not sure how real these QMoGens are,, I have seen some massive over readings on my meters using a motor, a belt, a flywheel and an oscillating load, when the belt slips and grabs,, and stretches and stuff,, up to 10X the readings,, well it was a DC motor and the massive readings were AC,,  BUT, was there actually more power consumed or anything from that that could be converted?? that is more like TK's area :)

Now your getting into another entire area. Driving "B" with the intent of rotating "A".  But if that was possible then driving "A" with the intent of driving "B" would also work. The question is does it actually do that?

The merry go round concept is a bit different in that you are saying that if you put a track on "A" like a figure 8, and move a ball through the track, then disk "A" will rotate.  Doing this by hand is not a valid experiment since you can make a merry go round move with only one person standing on it and twisting and jumping. I doubt either one would work in space.


If driving "B" would make "A" turn in space, then what are you standing on to turn "B"......."A"?


I don't see why everyone here is missing the point. The idea is to move a platform in a circular path to generate an artificial gravity that would be rotating if you were standing on that platform. Then, just build a weighted wheel on that platform and let it generate power. How hard is that?

Well, at least the second design avoids all the speculation so I think that is the one I should build.
:D

Quote from: lumen on December 10, 2013, 04:34:29 PM
When you go to Stirling's QmoGen page, you can read the double talk, Phase angle, power factor, resonance, none of which can produce real power to run anything! They are either hiding their idea or covering up the facts.

Torque increasing device! Real or not.  Centrifugal force increases with RPM at very little cost.

Mmm, I tend to agree... There's a lot of speculation, but nothing replicable. Out of the 30+, no one has given any proper details, published any tests. The guy with the patent seems to have vanished...

I do think though, that slipping belts etc. giving rise to sharp changes in acceleration could give rise to OU - if the 'Fifth Element' / 3rd derivative theory of force is true:
http://www.halexandria.org/dward124.htm

Regards
Tim

The guy with the patent hasn't vanished. Stirling has posted new info:
http://pesn.com/2013/12/11/9602405_Interview-with-QMoGen-Patent-Holder_Jesse-McQueen/

It all sounds quite bizarre...

I was trying to find input power requirements for alternators. I found this spec - and on the last page it shows efficiency & input & output power. Always UU:
http://www.raad-eng.com/techdata/stamford/PI734D.pdf

Stirling also posted 'plans' for a QMoGen. But I can't see any indication in there of how it might go OU. It also uses a big motor and smaller generator - unlike others:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:_Nigerian_QMoGen_Plans

tim123,

Thank you for the .pdf specification for the rotating equipment. Generally I think that this device
should be called a "generator head" rather than an alternator. A generator often contains a small
secondary magneto that produces DC to run "field" magnets in the rotor. The AVR automatic
voltage regulator controls the strength of the field current such that the output voltage becomes
regulated. In a generator the number of magnetic poles past the output coils per second becomes
the output AC frequency, so mechanical input RPM needs to be carefully controlled.

An alternator has a battery that supplies the initial field current, but then suprisingly works
the same way, but rectifies it's output 3phase to DC. The 3phase is done to limit cogging as
the energy is spread three ways. The alternator therfore needs not to produce any specific
frequency and input RPM is uncontrolled.

Now about the efficiency figures. This shows that the device is nearly 96 percent efficient while
it still produces it's own DC field current. I assume this is absolute mechanical efficiency.  Imagine
replacing the dynamic field generation by permanent magnets, It seems difficult that the
efficiency figures would still be below 100% without having any power being dissipated creating
the field. I would have assumed that permanent magnets in this service was impossible, but
yet Albia Company has listing for permanent magnet AC equipment.

Now regulating the voltage of permanent magnet equipment would be difficult because the
AVR would have difficulties controlling the field strength but...

So something seems not to add up in the efficiency department which is one reason that
I feel that Q-moto-generators may be possible.

:S:MarkSCoffman

Hi Mark :)
I was looking to see if I could find torque outputs & requirements for motors & generators & them match them up to make OU. I didn't really find what I was looking for... But I didn't look that hard...

I was wondering if the rated specs for some motors etc might give the torque needed to run a bigger generator head.

I was intrigued by the idea of using a starter motor - but I didn't get as far as doing any calcs... I must admit to being a bit skeptical about the whole thing still. Skeptical, but open-minded.

Regards, Tim

I really don't see any of these working.

I like this one:

8.   "Please DO NOT operate the fuelless generator for more than 18hrs a day; at least switch it off for 3-4 hrs each day after long usage, this is to cob any problem arising from over usage of the dc motor and over temperature of the battery."

AND

"DISADVANTAGES:
Deficiency in capacitor, if not properly rated it may need constant boosting"

One has to wonder what all this means!

Here is a NICE site that has NUMEROUS Motor/Generator posts:


http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Motor-Generator_Self-Looped_with_Usable_Energy_Left_Over (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Motor-Generator_Self-Looped_with_Usable_Energy_Left_Over)

That's a nice clear picture of about 40% loss.

I would bet that a simple inverter running the light bulb would run longer on those two batteries.

I have a video documentary of free energy inventions, with the inventors describing their inventions. One was indeed a zero friction alternator. Under a load even. The description was vague, describing an odd number of rotor magnets with an even number of stator collectors, or vise verse. It was a well published documentary, narrated by a well known narrator at the time. 1987 I think.
The segment that got my attention was the DC crystal battery. Produces direct current indefinitely, and can produce enough current to explode. Did a little research, and the closest I got to the design concept was something to do with the transition fault between a crystal and its melt forces the polarity by tapping zero point somehow? The guy gives an undeniable demonstration, but little on the material used, and the process involved. Now that is the mac daddy of discoveries right there fellows.  :o

There's a chap called Emmett Butler - who's promising to explain how to build a QMoGen in the next couple of weeks, according to:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Emmett_L._Butler%27s_QMoGen

This is BS of the highest order

Quote from: markdansie on December 20, 2013, 08:45:36 AM
This is BS of the highest order

Indeed

No nonsense!
A few patents dealing with the subject.

Quote from: TheCell on December 20, 2013, 11:26:43 AM
No nonsense!
A few patents dealing with the subject.

Hi TheCell :)
  interesting patents... I don't read Dutch though... Can you tell us if there's anything in there that might be considered a *principle of operation* ?

I've not heard anything that sounds like a reasonable explanation for how one might work.

Jesse McQueen says you have to 'match up' the components. But how can you match a 1Kw motor to a 10Kw gen? It makes no sense...  :-\

I'm as mystified by this as I am by Rarenergia... lol.

Regards, Tim

Hello tim123
this direct-shaft driven motor-gen with no gears and belts I have only one Idea it could work as a 'skalar wave charger' which was a device by john bedini. There was a motor driven by  a battery which drained down; the motor was still turning far blow his normal operating voltage. This kind of device was introduced by an african replicator some time ago also.
For the version with belts and gears.
In the thread 'Free Electric Multi-use motor - Home gen-Car motor-Boat Motor-lawn mower' another Forum site 'Inventacom' was raised and one Member reported that with a combination of 2 belts and a gear box he was able to operate his motor-gen combination. See photo. THis gear box he said was out of an old photocopy machine which used induction motors in the early days.
(filename renamed)

That picture was from me trying inventacom's claim that a small auto radiator fan motor could power a generator and be looped back. His claim was that a small motor could power a larger load by using a gearbox to increase torque, then a second drive to increase speed. Well it did power the load but there was no way it would loop back and power the prime mover.  We followed his postings on a private forum and kept waiting for his input into our experiments only to find out he was fooling us all and that he had a questionable background. Ask e2matrix about this guy.

In any case I tried a multitude of motor generator combinations with different gearboxes and drives to no avail. Everytime I threw the switch to loop the voltage degraded so quickly that there was no way to self power. I gave up before trying to loop back thru a battery when we found out about inventacom"s past.

Vince

Quote from: tinman on December 20, 2013, 10:16:12 AM
Indeed

Hi TM, hope you're well... :)
  do you have, lying around the 'shop, a flywheel, bearings, a few pulleys etc? You are one of the most practical folk around here, and it'd certainly be more fun than watching TV... Even 'Christmas' TV...

I'm planning to set up a generator test-bench - for testing some DC motors I bought as generators for wind turbines. Just for fun... But the winter's slowing play... I'm planning on making a flywheel + variable ratio pulleys to act as the 'gearbox' between motor & generator.

Don't you think a motor / generator test-rig is just exactly what you need anyway? ;)

I'm also planning to make my own variable voltage & frequency drive - using a center-tapped site transformer, some DC  SSRs, capacitor switchbox, and a square wave gen... For running a 3 phase drive motor (& other fun).

The thing is about all this is that all generator manufacturers * test their products *. They give efficiency ratings etc... So the idea you can just hook these things together seems crazy...

Maybe this QMoGen stuff is all a case of: "Make the lie big enough, and repeat it often enough, and people will believe it"...? Maybe it isn't... I just don't know...

Regards, Tim

Quote from: vince on December 20, 2013, 01:56:24 PM
...I tried a multitude of motor generator combinations with different gearboxes and drives to no avail. Everytime I threw the switch to loop the voltage degraded so quickly that there was no way to self power...
Vince

Hi Vince :)
  thank you for your valuable input...

So you have actually had some hands-on experience... Would you be able to elaborate on the types of motors and generators you tried please? It would help a lot to get some actual specs...

As I said, I tried a rotoverter-gen, and it was about 60% efficient...

Regards, Tim

If I were going to build a Motor Generator, I would seriously consider a
weight lifter weight, rather than an automotive flywheel.  They come in
several weights and sizes.  Plus they already have a standardized shaft
hole in the center to fit popular bearing sizes.

                                                                                                           .

Hi Tim

It was quite a while ago that I tried those tests. They were very frustrating!! I used
Auto fan motor to treadmill motor for generator with many gearbox and belt pulley combinations.
AC /DC universal motor with treadmill motor generator
Auto fan motor with 1hp induction motor as generator with capacitors for field excitation
Auto fan motor with 2hp induction motor as generator with capacitors for field excitation
1/2hp induction motor with 2 hp induction motor as generator
1\2 hp induction motor with 3000watt generator head
More combinations but I can't remember them all.
I have many cast iron sheaves that I used for flywheels including several large 14 inch double groove sheaves.
In many of these tests the units made considerable power, however whenever you tried to loop them back they always immediately loaded up the prime mover and voltage dropped like a stone. Even the flywheels made no difference other than a little longer run down.

I don't know about all these claims of self running machines but I do know that in my tests there is no way to run themselves if built to just send back power to the prime mover, capacitors or not.  If there is anything to these claims there has to be something in between the motor and generator to compensate for loss of power on switchover.  I was hoping that Gotoluc was onto something regarding this subject in his thread on reactive power. I have been following that and if he can get enough power out of his circuit without loading the motor it might be a step in the right direction towards self powering.  I once read somewhere that  in one of these motor/generators the magic was in a voltage stabilizer called a "stay-volt".  That may be a bunch of BS but I do know that without some kind of circuitry between the motor and generator you are just wasting your time.

As a side note: Do you remember the you tube video of that guy loopng a motor generator with a high power water pump and a pelton wheel on the generator.  Well I know everyone thought it was bunk but think about it for a second. When that machine was running at full pump pressure it was drawing x amps. If it was able to turn the pelton wheel at the required rpm to generate required power to run a specific load then any additional load or even a stall on the pelton wheel would not cause any more draw on the motor other than the x amps. That motor only sees the load of the pump. What happens to the water after it leaves the pump makes no difference on the motor. It still sees the pump as the load. A slow down of the pelton wheel does not reflect back on the motor and it continues to draw the same amps.  Makes you stop and think.  Maybe there was something to his demonstration.



Vince

Hi Vince,
  thanks for the full reply. It's much appreciated. You did give it a fair go...

I'm not sure what to make of Luc's reactive work. He initially presented it as a working circuit that delivered OU, but seems to have backtracked... It looks like he was making some measurement errors. Other than that - who knows...

I did see the video you referred to... It was interesting, and you're right about the fact that there can be no reaction on the source. I was taught that there's an electrical analog for all machines. So what would the analog of this be i wonder?

It's something I'd like to try one day. Centrifugal pumps are extremely efficient, and so is a pelton wheel...

I have a theory about OU - that spiralling fluids can convert energy from otherwise inaccessible sources. An example would be a tornado / whirlwind converting heat into velocity. Which I understand they do.

Another example would be eddy currents creating anomalous extra heating, or even causing nuclear fusion, by entraining other particles as they spiral inwards.

I can't apply it to this thread though... :)

Centrifugal pumps are efficient, except you are always accelerating new mass and that requires work.

I am thinking that the answer lies in centrifugal force as a means of transferring work with increased torque as shown in the first page of this thread.


The proof would be if a gyro could operate and accelerate if all input energy was provided at 90 degrees to it's rotational mass.
With the gyro wheel stationary, the input would prevent it from operating in that it would simply rotate the entire unit, but once started, the stability provided would prevent turning while the input increases the gyro's RPM, which would increase stability, to allow increased RPM, to increase stability.

My description is a bit lacking, but if it works this way, then would it not prove over unity exists in centrifugal force?
The fact would show that the stability force provided is stronger than the input torque force required to operate it.

Quote from: tim123 on December 21, 2013, 10:04:09 AM
Hi Vince,
  thanks for the full reply. It's much appreciated. You did give it a fair go...

I'm not sure what to make of Luc's reactive work. He initially presented it as a working circuit that delivered OU, but seems to have backtracked... It looks like he was making some measurement errors. Other than that - who knows...

I did see the video you referred to... It was interesting, and you're right about the fact that there can be no reaction on the source. I was taught that there's an electrical analog for all machines. So what would the analog of this be i wonder?

It's something I'd like to try one day. Centrifugal pumps are extremely efficient, and so is a pelton wheel...

I have a theory about OU - that spiralling fluids can convert energy from otherwise inaccessible sources. An example would be a tornado / whirlwind converting heat into velocity. Which I understand they do.

Another example would be eddy currents creating anomalous extra heating, or even causing nuclear fusion, by entraining other particles as they spiral inwards.

I can't apply it to this thread though... :)

Why not make your flywheel a linear device that is enclosed with fluid that is allowed to spiral so to speak?

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2013:12:21#1930.2F1960_QMoGen_and_1882_patents_--_It.27s_variants_have_been_around_a_long_time

Interesting, but an amplidyne requires input power - it doesn't create energy, it's an amplifier - used for control of power delivery...

Emmett Butler says " it had a 1 watt input and had a 10,000 watt + output " - but he's just looking at the control input, and ignoring the power input from the drive motor...

When people confuse stuff like this, what credibility can they have? Sigh.

Quote from: tim123 on December 22, 2013, 05:43:18 AM
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2013:12:21#1930.2F1960_QMoGen_and_1882_patents_--_It.27s_variants_have_been_around_a_long_time (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2013:12:21#1930.2F1960_QMoGen_and_1882_patents_--_It.27s_variants_have_been_around_a_long_time)

Interesting, but an amplidyne requires input power - it doesn't create energy, it's an amplifier - used for control of power delivery...

Emmett Butler says " it had a 1 watt input and had a 10,000 watt + output " - but he's just looking at the control input, and ignoring the power input from the drive motor...

When people confuse stuff like this, what credibility can they have? Sigh.

This is how a modern automobile alternator operates. The stator windings provide the output and a small control voltage on the rotor controls the rotating magnetic field.

It is very efficient at controlling the high current output of the alternator but it also changes the load on the prime mover.

This is an interesting link - in russian:
http://nshb.at.ua/load/svobodnaja_ehnergija/rezonansnyj_usilitel_moshhnosti_stepanova/21-1-0-589

Posted by wings on the Luc Reactive thread here:
http://www.overunity.com/14106/reactive-power-reactive-generator-research-from-gotoluc-discussion-thread/msg380409/#msg380409

Ignoring the hilarious mistranslation by google translate on the second line, the article is quite interesting, if a little hard to follow...

Quote from: tim123 on December 21, 2013, 10:04:09 AM
Hi Vince,
  thanks for the full reply. It's much appreciated. You did give it a fair go...

I'm not sure what to make of Luc's reactive work. He initially presented it as a working circuit that delivered OU, but seems to have backtracked... It looks like he was making some measurement errors. Other than that - who knows...

I did see the video you referred to... It was interesting, and you're right about the fact that there can be no reaction on the source. I was taught that there's an electrical analog for all machines. So what would the analog of this be i wonder?

It's something I'd like to try one day. Centrifugal pumps are extremely efficient, and so is a pelton wheel...

I have a theory about OU - that spiralling fluids can convert energy from otherwise inaccessible sources. An example would be a tornado / whirlwind converting heat into velocity. Which I understand they do.

Another example would be eddy currents creating anomalous extra heating, or even causing nuclear fusion, by entraining other particles as they spiral inwards.

I can't apply it to this thread though... :)

You might be interested in Bruce's uncle's toy. An example of Overunity being unwittingly achieved.


I'll dig out the details from BesslerWheel.com
===============================


Found it.


http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118919#118919 (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118919#118919)


You will notice it's also got a comment from a bod whose into electrics like you. ;-)

Oh come on Frank. You are citing a third party's report of a device that someone showed to an eight year old child, many years ago.

QuoteHe had an uncle who liked to arrange, to invent. One day, old Bruce of seven or eight years, returned visit to the uncle who showed to the grandfather the new play that it had made for his children (it had six of them).  

Of course, like all such devices, it is no longer available for inspection, and there exists no further information or evidence of its performance other than the report of an eight year old child, filtered through at least one other party.

QuoteIts descendants do not know any more what became this play, it is probable that the uncle in recovered the parts as it was its practice to rebuild another thing, unless it does not sleep yet in an old farm, in dust... They do not remember either to have seen other apparatuses functioning in an autonomous way, nor of engine on the play, but know that the play had stopped afterwards weeks and simply set out again after being cleaned.

[/color][/color]Your standard of evidence is very deficient if you think that is evidence of anything at all other than an uncle's playing with some children.

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2014, 04:46:54 AM
Oh come on Frank. You are citing a third party's report of a device that someone showed to an eight year old child, many years ago.

Of course, like all such devices, it is no longer available for inspection, and there exists no further information or evidence of its performance other than the report of an eight year old child, filtered through at least one other party.


Your standard of evidence is very deficient if you think that is evidence of anything at all other than an uncle's playing with some children.

I am.


And people buy lottery tickets.
I suppose you think they're stupid.

Quote from: Grimer on January 03, 2014, 03:04:09 PM
I am.


And people buy lottery tickets.
I suppose you think they're stupid.

Just the ones who _don't_ win!

(They don't call the lottery a "tax on the poor" for no reason.)

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2014, 07:01:31 PM
(They don't call the lottery a "tax on the poor" for no reason.)

Most taxes are taxes on the poor...

I thought they called the lottery the 'tax on the stupid'...

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2014, 07:01:31 PM
Just the ones who _don't_ win!

(They don't call the lottery a "tax on the poor" for no reason.)

And what about the ones that do win?


If someone offered you a free lottery ticket would you accept it?

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2014, 04:46:54 AM
Oh come on Frank. You are citing a third party's report of a device that someone showed to an eight year old child, many years ago.

Of course, like all such devices, it is no longer available for inspection, and there exists no further information or evidence of its performance other than the report of an eight year old child, filtered through at least one other party.


Your standard of evidence is very deficient if you think that is evidence of anything at all other than an uncle's playing with some children.

OK, I'll admit the evidence is very weak. However, the thing that makes me wonder is those vortex charity boxes. You know, the ones that you put a coin down a slide and it rolls round the vortex faster and faster until it exits the bottom at high speed and gives the wall of the box a terrific whack.


It's the type of experiment someone with your manifest skills could easily conduct - if only to slay the myth which travels round the internet on sites like Peswiki.


It would be a fun demonstration and sure to enhance your reputation as Al, oops, as TinselKoala The Myth Slayer. ;-)

The vortex boxes are fooling you too. The "high speed" at the bottom looks fast, but that's because the coin is going around a very tight circle. Actually, the tangential speed of the coin madly circling around at the bottom of the funnel is no higher than the vertical speed of a coin simply dropped from the starting height. The "miracle" is that the vortex funnel efficiently changes the velocity vector _direction_ of the "dropped" coin, so that at the bottom of the funnel, the coin flies off on the tangent of its circular motion and hits the wall of the container, instead falling straight down and hitting the floor. But the momentum of the coin is the same in each case (neglecting losses in the vortex "ramp"). Don't forget, as I momentarily did, that the coin is also launched into the vortex with some initial tangential speed by Mr. Hand.

Were this not so, I think you'd have a gravitational FE machine, since you could use the "extra speed" of the coin at the bottom of the funnel to make it climb a ramp back up to the start position, lather rinse repeat.

QuoteOK, I'll admit the evidence is very weak.

I can't resist pointing out that the evidence, in this case, is exactly as 'strong' as the evidence for the Tooth Fairy. The eight-year-old kid found a quarter (or maybe a shilling) under his pillow, the morning after he put a tooth under there, and many years later, told a friend of mine's cousin's uncle about it. And now I'm telling you. QED: the Tooth Fairy exists, by eye-witness account, unrefutable.

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 04, 2014, 06:09:26 PM
...
Were this not so, I think you'd have a gravitational FE machine, since you could use the "extra speed" of the coin at the bottom of the funnel to make it climb a ramp back up to the start position, lather rinse repeat.
...

You would indeed have a gravitational FE machine - which is exactly my point.


You don't address the argument about the string pulling in the weight.


After all it's easy to demonstrate that pulling in the weight adds energy.  One only has to let a string pendulum swinging in a vertical plane impinge against a horizontal bar at the same time as the string is being pulled to see that the bob rises above its starting point.


I've actually carried out the pendulum experiment so I know it works.  8)

This one here is about as close as i have seen to a self runner. Im still trying to understand as to why the motor runs longer when the generator is hooked up to it,if the generator is another loss in the system.If a generator consumes more power than it delivers,then the motor run down time should be less when the generator is hooked up to it(or looped).Lets say the generator is 85% efficient-this would mean another 15% loss when looped. So why dose the motor run longer when this loss is added,and shorter when the generator is left open?.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl57y-c_bWc

Quote from: Grimer on January 05, 2014, 01:41:29 AM

You would indeed have a gravitational FE machine - which is exactly my point.


You don't address the argument about the string pulling in the weight.


After all it's easy to demonstrate that pulling in the weight adds energy.  One only has to let a string pendulum swinging in a vertical plane impinge against a horizontal bar at the same time as the string is being pulled to see that the bob rises above its starting point.


I've actually carried out the pendulum experiment so I know it works.  8)

You know how you think it works, but if you think you are getting energy from gravity you are wrong. When you are pulling on the string you are adding energy to the system in the usual manner: by Mister Hand, and this energy ultimately comes from the Sun, through your breakfast.
Please review your Beer & Johnston.
https://archive.org/details/VectorMechanicsForEngineersDynamics

Quote from: tinman on January 05, 2014, 07:28:51 AM
This one here is about as close as i have seen to a self runner. Im still trying to understand as to why the motor runs longer when the generator is hooked up to it,if the generator is another loss in the system.If a generator consumes more power than it delivers,then the motor run down time should be less when the generator is hooked up to it(or looped).Lets say the generator is 85% efficient-this would mean another 15% loss when looped. So why dose the motor run longer when this loss is added,and shorter when the generator is left open?.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl57y-c_bWc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl57y-c_bWc)

That's a great demonstration! It's easy to see, from this demo, how people can fool themselves into thinking they are going to be able to make it self-run "if only" some little improvement somewhere could be made.

I don't know the answer to the question right off the bat, but I suspect it lies in the assumptions being made. Your video will no doubt make a lot of people start tinkering... like me, for instance. I'd like to know more about that generator you are using, and I wonder if I can get the same effect from my two little Delco motors.

Ah... there goes another Sunday, I guess. I just spent all day Saturday working on an electrostatic generator idea, only to find that it "works" but only makes a couple of volts max, so I'm ready for something else.

EDIT: Is there a big capacitor inside that generator housing?

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 07:53:17 AM
I'd like to know more about that generator you are using, and I wonder if I can get the same effect from my two little Delco motors.


EDIT: Is there a big capacitor inside that generator housing?

Who's-mine in Luc's thread,or the one in the video i posted?

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 07:40:54 AM
You know how you think it works, but if you think you are getting energy from gravity you are wrong. When you are pulling on the string you are adding energy to the system in the usual manner: by Mister Hand, and this energy ultimately comes from the Sun, through your breakfast.
Please review your Beer & Johnston.
https://archive.org/details/VectorMechanicsForEngineersDynamics (https://archive.org/details/VectorMechanicsForEngineersDynamics)

I know all that. But in the case of the vortex there is no string. Th coin is being forced in by the walls of the funnel.


You just can't get it can you.


But then you couldn't see the solution to the water and wine problem so it's not really surprising.

If acceleration can be considered a linear phenominon. RPM limitation has
to be accompanied by an *exponentially* increasing resistance, with the mathematical
intersection of the curves representing the final RPM limit. For example
"wind resistance" is function that is the third power of the velocity. The generator
has some efficiency at converting some mechanical resistance to an increasing
circuit voltage but will probably be more efficient than the exponential limiting function
is at limiting it, hence the RPM increases by an offset. Ultimately the exponential
mechanical exponential function still wins but at the new higher RPM.

To be self running the generator would need to produce all of the current required
to run the motor and so current from the battery should be supressed or reversed
(charging). Most likely the only effect here is to spilt the current supplied battery and
the generator so it is not an example of a self running cicuit.

Many Q-motor generators seem to use power regaugement. For example run the motor
on one 12Volt battery and see if power balance between the motor and generator is better.
You also might want to try the Oldsmobile high output 12v alternator into a Min Kota
multicircuit "alternator" battery charger which can charge all three batteries from
one 12V alternator without disconnecting them. A real good test would be to try
a very high RPM "electric leaf blower" motor through a high mechanical RPM step down.
A PMA permanent magnet alternator might be interesting with the understanding
that the motor is going to hit a "brick wall" RPM as the alternator voltage rises to the
battery charge voltage.   Caution; A system redesign will need to follow the discovery
of an OU configuration.

:S:MarkSCoffman

I think it is much simpler then you think... DON'T KILL THE DIPOLE ! First DC motor can be used as prime mover , because it is easier, it has to maintain the same or higher RPM then generator when coupled. Power usage is not that important. Then it's all about one trick I think but I must check it.....  :D  Very easy one in theory

Quote from: Grimer on January 05, 2014, 09:38:29 AM

I know all that. But in the case of the vortex there is no string. Th coin is being forced in by the walls of the funnel.


You just can't get it can you.


But then you couldn't see the solution to the water and wine problem so it's not really surprising.

The fact a vortex does work on a  ball rolling down to the exit can be shown with an equvalent, abeit vastly more complicated system.


All a ball "sees" on its journey is a very small contact area with the vortex cone. If that changing area is always present and exerting the same force, then the rest of the cone is redundant structure. Anyone familiar with structural engineering knows what a redundant member is.
You can take it away and the structure is still stable.


So for every point in the ball's path the whole of the cone can be taken away apart from the small contact area and strut held in place by a suitable, albeit magnificently engineered, mechanism.


Think of it as a three dimensional balancing act of a ball on the end of a snooker cue.


To get the ball to its final destination the strut will do work as it pushes the ball towards the vertical axis of the vortex. This push will increase the velocity of the ball.


Push is the inverse of pull as explained at length in my publications.


Al could easily carry out an experiment to show this is true.


But of course he won't because he "knows" Jupiter has no moons.

QuotePush is the inverse of pull

Finally you've said something that makes some kind of sense. You really should restrict your speculations about other people, though.



Would you like to see "al's" astrophotography rig? He is perfectly aware that Jupiter has moons, having seen them for himself.

Would you like to hire someone to do the experimental work that you think "al" could do? Can you afford it? Would you accept a "null result" from "al"? Have you reviewed your Beer&Johnston yet?

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 09:19:58 PM
Finally you've said something that makes some kind of sense. You really should restrict your speculations about other people, though.[size=78%] [/size]
...
Would you like to hire someone to do the experimental work that you think "al" could do? Can you afford it? Would you accept a "null result" from "al"? Have you reviewed your Beer&Johnston yet?

Now you're talking.  8)
Yes.
£2000 upper limit.
I'd accept if from Al in whom I have complete confidence.  ;D
Don't need to.

Hi Tinman,

Thanks, that is an interesting video. Is that DC to DC motor/gen?

I've tried various ways to get a motor/gen to loop and failed. You need 3x COP, as MsCoffman states, in order for you to generate enough power to run itself and run a real load.

Trying to decouple the prime mover from the load has been my main goal, also trying to find efficient generators. I recently acquired two small generators from China.

site: http://small-generator.com

The shipping is expensive to US. The company was really good answering questions I had and the quality of the generators was excellent.

The first is YAF 54 this one is not too bad it's small but needs high rpm to generate.

http://small-generator.com/buy/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=8

The second is YAF 80 this one is a little bigger but really nice output at low rpm. Just hand twisting it can make a 30watt incandescent bulb filament glow a dim red. Very low cogging too seems much less than the low wind Windblue I have. I'm pretty impressed with this one. Just need more time and warmer temps to see how it really performs.

http://small-generator.com/buy/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=10

I'm also putting up these two ideas here a different way of looping, these are untested but may be give someone inspiration for a new idea.

The wind lens is really interesting but I don't hear much about it. Here are two videos showing it off with a 2.5-3x gain on output over regular wind turbines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQexzNg_e9A

The next video is in Japanese but watch the numbers. Without lens 13watts output, with lens 37watts for same air flow/gen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGWCAvBD8eo

The idea I had was to take a efficient high velocity computer fan and focus it through the lens to another bladed fan as generator. The focus and lens can be made out of flowerpots or any other plastic kitchen container. This would partially decouple the output from the input. This design could be placed on a wide wire shelf so no real complicated support is needed for testing purposes.

Next video showing one fan running another, now if the output could be improved with a wind lens 2.5x or more could it aid in looping?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdhDq-FmM38

I also noticed the small-generator site had small hydro-generators that hook to a garden hose.

http://small-generator.com/buy/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7&products_id=26

The other idea was to take a small solar garden fountain pump(6vdc@1amp or 12vdc@0.5amp 4ft fountain) and make a ring of generators. This one I'm not sure how much loss will be in the piping. It would be interesting to see how the high pressure from the expulsion side be aided by the pull of the low pressure of the suction side through the loop. It may be possible to combine the lens idea to make a water lens section of pipe and a spinning diametric magnet with blades attached. A water lens section can be 3D printed.

Too many ideas so little time. :(

Ok, this is the question for a proof of overunity generator concept for all the real thinkers and math wizards.

In this picture, the large green gear at the bottom is applied a rotation. If the rotation is applied when everything is stationary then the center brown bracket and the blue gyro wheel will just rotate with the gear.

The question is, if the blue gyro wheel was rotating, would there be a point where the rotation of the large green gear would instead increase the rotation of the gyro wheel?

Because the force required to increase the RPM of the blue gyro wheel remains constant and the stability provided by the rotation of the gyro wheel increases with RPM, there should be a point where they cross and further force applied to the gear will increase the RPM.



The gear ratio is 10:1 and if the stability point can be reached, then this in itself is proof that over unity exists in inertial mass and power could be extracted at no cost.
This would mean that a motor and generator could provide excess power through the use of inertial mass.

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2014, 09:19:58 PM
...
Would you like to hire someone to do the experimental work that you think "al" could do? Can you afford it? Would you accept a "null result" from "al"? ...

You may have missed my reply of 6th Jan but I repeat:


I would like to hire someone to do the experimental work providing it would be less that about £2000. I would accept a null result. After all it would be cheaper than going to a trick cyclist, would it not.  ;)

Quote from: Grimer on January 08, 2014, 12:28:09 AM
You may have missed my reply of 6th Jan but I repeat:


I would like to hire someone to do the experimental work providing it would be less that about £2000. I would accept a null result. After all it would be cheaper than going to a trick cyclist, would it not.  ;)

Well, my mommy told me never to accept candy from a stranger, and my daddy taught me never to take money from easy marks.... and I'm sure you could do somebody some real good with that money, paltry sum that it is.

But if you PM me with some kind of coherent, testable hypothesis, I'll look it over and if it seems feasible or interesting I'll put in "al's" inbox for you and we can see if he takes a nibble. But seriously.... why don't you call up your local machine shop, just for grins, and ask them how much time and effort your 2000 pound would buy from them. I'd really like to know, for purposes of calculation of  administrative and plant operational overhead. Can't compete if you don't know the market!

How's that?

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 08, 2014, 05:21:05 AM
Well, my mommy told me never to accept candy from a stranger, and my daddy taught me never to take money from easy marks.... and I'm sure you could do somebody some real good with that money, paltry sum that it is.

But if you PM me with some kind of coherent, testable hypothesis, I'll look it over and if it seems feasible or interesting I'll put in "al's" inbox for you and we can see if he takes a nibble. But seriously.... why don't you call up your local machine shop, just for grins, and ask them how much time and effort your 2000 pound would buy from them. I'd really like to know, for purposes of calculation of  administrative and plant operational overhead. Can't compete if you don't know the market!

How's that?

I wouldn't have thought the experiment was that difficult or need involve a vast expense.


All one needs to do is get hold of one of those charity boxes with a classic vortex shape. Cut a hole in the side to allow coins to fly out, see how far they go before hitting the ground and calculating their horizontal speed as they leave the bottom of the vortex cone. 


No doubt if you approached the manufactures and explained what you were doing they would let you have one cheap. After all an engineer is someone who can do for tuppence what any fool can do for sixpence.


Is £2000 pounds a paltry sum for that?


I assume your offer was sincere and not one you knew I couldn't take up because I wouldn't be able to afford it.

Quote from: Grimer on January 05, 2014, 03:38:45 PM
The fact a vortex does work on a  ball rolling down to the exit can be shown with an equvalent, abeit vastly more complicated system.
...

Hi Grimer,
  you can buy a toy called 'SpaceRail' in the UK - it lets you set up a ball track similar to what you describe... For far less than your £2000.

I bought one a few years ago to try, I think, exactly what you are suggesting. It was an interesting experiment.

Regards, Tim

Here you go, Frank.

http://www.spiralwishingwells.com/guide/physics.html
http://www.spiralwishingwells.com/toy/prices.html

"Al" says you can send him the 2000 pounds by Western Union. He'll PM you the address details.

Very interesting.


I didn't see anywhere it mentioned the speed of the coins exiting the cone at the bottom.


Did I miss something?

Quote from: tim123 on January 08, 2014, 05:59:55 AM
Hi Grimer,
  you can buy a toy called 'SpaceRail' in the UK - it lets you set up a ball track similar to what you describe... For far less than your £2000.

I bought one a few years ago to try, I think, exactly what you are suggesting. It was an interesting experiment.

Regards, Tim

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=SpaceRail&safe=off&espv=210&es_sm=122&tbm=isch&source=iu&imgil=pk8iImpiH2vwZM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcQI0TOQMXTCwks2p_Yos33BR4bojmNA7nk2fGBAiBlIFZOqQ2ff%253B580%253B382%253BnYxv5sonhZ-80M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fblog.tboox.com%25252F2010%25252F11%25252Fspacerail-steel-ball-roller-coaster-kit%25252F&sa=X&ei=RYbNUsuJH4rH7Aalg4CQCg&ved=0CHIQ9QEwBQ&biw=1536&bih=757#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=pk8iImpiH2vwZM%3A%3BnYxv5sonhZ-80M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fblog.tboox.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2010%252F11%252Fspacerail01.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fblog.tboox.com%252F2010%252F11%252Fspacerail-steel-ball-roller-coaster-kit%252F%3B580%3B382


Yes. My son-in-law was bought one for Christmas.


However as far as I can see from that above link none of them have a vortex shape with a Paternoster lift driven by the action of the balls.


If you have a ballet dancer with metal balls in her hands on a platform at the top of a pole which can be pulled up and down - and as the pole goes down she pulls her arms in along a vortex path then she is putting energy into the weights. That energy to pull the weights in comes from her, not gravity. The two energies are distinct.


If the balls are released from the cone and taken up by a lift then this extra energy can be used to overcome the inevitable losses of the system. The gravitational energy will take them up by the lift and then they can roll down the cone again and get another ration of 3rd derivative energy.


The trick is in recognising that the hoop stresses induced in the cone are pushing the balls towards the vortex axis. Push is the inverse of Pull.


If in the Carnot cycle you send a gas back up the same isothermal path as it came down then you won't get any power out of it. You have to introduce adiabatic legs and send it back up a different path. It's a bit like the two staircases in a lord's house. The food goes up the posh one and the empties go back down the servant's one.


I'm really surprised that TK can't see this.


Thanks for your reply, Tim.

Grimer,
It's possible that the OU potential of the 2 things you've mentioned are linked:
- 'jerk' or 3rd derivative
- vortex motion

Natural (irrotational) vortexes accelerate towards the center. The large rates of change could exceed the 'critical action time' of the 'system', and bring in environmental energy, according to Davis & Stine type reasoning...

It could work better with charged particles, because their parallel motion in the vortex creates a magnetic field - which brings them together - maybe adding potential energy for free...

How does this relate to the topic though? I have no idea. :)

Quote from: tim123 on January 08, 2014, 01:19:43 PM
Grimer,
It's possible that the OU potential of the 2 things you've mentioned are linked:
- 'jerk' or 3rd derivative
- vortex motion

Natural (irrotational) vortexes accelerate towards the center. The large rates of change could exceed the 'critical action time' of the 'system', and bring in environmental energy, according to Davis & Stine type reasoning...

It could work better with charged particles, because their parallel motion in the vortex creates a magnetic field - which brings them together - maybe adding potential energy for free...

How does this relate to the topic though? I have no idea. :)

Big whorls have little whorls
That feed on their velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity)


And little whorls have lesser whorls
And so on to viscosity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity) 8)

Quote from: Grimer on January 08, 2014, 10:50:03 AM
Very interesting.


I didn't see anywhere it mentioned the speed of the coins exiting the cone at the bottom.


Did I miss something?

Yes, apparently you did. 

The links talk about the "terminal velocity" of the dropped coin or ball, and explain how that is precisely equal to the speed reached by the gravitational acceleration acting over the _vertical travel_ of the dropped ball. There is no magic arising from making the object travel the path around the vortex funnel; only the coin's or ball's height affects the terminal velocity of the object (neglecting friction and other losses, of course.)

You also haven't put forth a coherent testable hypothesis for your experimental suggestion. What it sounds like you are getting at is this: IF the vortex funnel system adds energy somehow, above and beyond that provided by simple GPE due to the height of the coin/ball release, then the ball/coin will exit, tangentially through an opening, at a velocity greater than it would have at that point while simply falling vertically from the same initial height/velocity.

The testable null derived from that is "IF there is NO ENERGY added to the system by the path taken down the vortex funnel, then there will be no difference in the speed of the coin at the coin's horizontal escape point, than it would have if simply dropped vertically."

In fact, since the coin funnel is less efficient than a simple pendulum, involving drag against the surface, the horizontally ejected coin will be going a little slower than the coin dropped vertically. To the external observer it "looks like" the coin is travelling quite rapidly, but that is because it is going around a tight circle, rather than travelling in a straight line.

Gravity is a conservative field of force. This means, if you will recall your Beer&Johnston and other good engineering basic textbooks, that the energy of the moving coin or ball around a closed loop under the influence of gravity alone is _independent_ of the path taken. The walls of the vortex funnel no more add energy to the motion of the coin or ball than does the string which supports a pendulum bob. Start with the pendulum bob at the same level as the support point, and drop the bob. The string converts the path of the ball from falling vertically when first released, into horizontal travel at the bottom of the arc. This pendulum conversion adds nothing to the energy of the ball: it merely converts GPE efficiently to KE, and as the bob rises on the ascending arc, back again to GPE (but always at the same or lower level, due to the inevitable losses from air and pivot friction, etc.)

The coin vortex is NO DIFFERENT, in fact it is less efficient than the pendulum. Only ADDING ENERGY (see the links I posted) can cause the coin or ball to rise up to or above the point (and velocity) of initial release. The walls of the coin vortex add no more energy to the system than does the string (arm) of a pendulum. That is.... none at all. All the energy in the coin vortex system comes from whatever means is used to raise up the coin or ball to the top of the system in the first place, and none enters the system from any other source (unless you move the whole apparatus, as explained in the links.) This means that the coin or ball will not be going any faster horizontally than it would be going vertically if it were simply dropped. Just like the bob of the pendulum: at the bottom of the arc it is going exactly as fast, horizontally, as it would have been had you simply dropped it vertically from the starting height, without the string.

You now have a link to where you yourself can purchase a small vortex funnel for a few tens of pounds/dollars. You can cut a hole in the steep part of the funnel in the region where the coin or ball is still rolling, before it falls vertically out the bottom. You can use video cameras or other means to measure the horizontal velocity as the ball comes shooting out the hole in the side. (Balls are more efficient than coins in the funnel, as you will see if you actually bother to read the links I've posted.) You can perform this entire experiment for yourself for less than it would cost to convert 2000 pounds into US Dollars.

So you can either just send the money along now, since you have been disproven time and time again by solid physical analysis, or you can keep your money, order your own coin funnel from the link provided, and perform the experiment yourself. Then I won't have to feel guilty about taking candy from a baby, or fleecing an easy mark.

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 08, 2014, 08:19:30 PM
Yes, apparently you did. 

The links talk about the "terminal velocity" of the dropped coin or ball, and explain how that is precisely equal to the speed reached by the gravitational acceleration acting over the _vertical travel_ of the dropped ball. There is no magic arising from making the object travel the path around the vortex funnel; only the coin's or ball's height affects the terminal velocity of the object (neglecting friction and other losses, of course.)

You also haven't put forth a coherent testable hypothesis for your experimental suggestion. What it sounds like you are getting at is this: IF the vortex funnel system adds energy somehow, above and beyond that provided by simple GPE due to the height of the coin/ball release, then the ball/coin will exit, tangentially through an opening, at a velocity greater than it would have at that point while simply falling vertically from the same initial height/velocity.

The testable null derived from that is "IF there is NO ENERGY added to the system by the path taken down the vortex funnel, then there will be no difference in the speed of the coin at the coin's horizontal escape point, than it would have if simply dropped vertically."

In fact, since the coin funnel is less efficient than a simple pendulum, involving drag against the surface, the horizontally ejected coin will be going a little slower than the coin dropped vertically. To the external observer it "looks like" the coin is travelling quite rapidly, but that is because it is going around a tight circle, rather than travelling in a straight line.

Gravity is a conservative field of force. This means, if you will recall your Beer&Johnston and other good engineering basic textbooks, that the energy of the moving coin or ball around a closed loop under the influence of gravity alone is _independent_ of the path taken. The walls of the vortex funnel no more add energy to the motion of the coin or ball than does the string which supports a pendulum bob. Start with the pendulum bob at the same level as the support point, and drop the bob. The string converts the path of the ball from falling vertically when first released, into horizontal travel at the bottom of the arc. This pendulum conversion adds nothing to the energy of the ball: it merely converts GPE efficiently to KE, and as the bob rises on the ascending arc, back again to GPE (but always at the same or lower level, due to the inevitable losses from air and pivot friction, etc.)

The coin vortex is NO DIFFERENT, in fact it is less efficient than the pendulum. Only ADDING ENERGY (see the links I posted) can cause the coin or ball to rise up to or above the point (and velocity) of initial release. The walls of the coin vortex add no more energy to the system than does the string (arm) of a pendulum. That is.... none at all. All the energy in the coin vortex system comes from whatever means is used to raise up the coin or ball to the top of the system in the first place, and none enters the system from any other source (unless you move the whole apparatus, as explained in the links.) This means that the coin or ball will not be going any faster horizontally than it would be going vertically if it were simply dropped. Just like the bob of the pendulum: at the bottom of the arc it is going exactly as fast, horizontally, as it would have been had you simply dropped it vertically from the starting height, without the string.

You now have a link to where you yourself can purchase a small vortex funnel for a few tens of pounds/dollars. You can cut a hole in the steep part of the funnel in the region where the coin or ball is still rolling, before it falls vertically out the bottom. You can use video cameras or other means to measure the horizontal velocity as the ball comes shooting out the hole in the side. (Balls are more efficient than coins in the funnel, as you will see if you actually bother to read the links I've posted.) You can perform this entire experiment for yourself for less than it would cost to convert 2000 pounds into US Dollars.

So you can either just send the money along now, since you have been disproven time and time again by solid physical analysis, or you can keep your money, order your own coin funnel from the link provided, and perform the experiment yourself. Then I won't have to feel guilty about taking candy from a baby, or fleecing an easy mark.

Thank you for your detailed and interesting reply, TK.


Has it been disproved by the experiment you describe so beautifully?


If so, can I have a link?


If not, are you prepared to carry out that experiment?


If you think £2000 would be "taking candy from a baby, or fleecing an easy mark" then name what you consider a fair price.


The reason I'm asking for you to carry out the experiment is that if my black swan hunch proves to be correct you have a large audience which will believe you since you have a reputation for meticulous and reliable experimentation.


If you feel that carrying out an experiment which you "know" will prove negative, will damage your reputation and hold you up to ridicule then you can do it in private and let me know the results in private. I will keep them confidential. You know I am a man of my word. You will no doubt remember on the Steorn Forum that I paid Hairy Krishna the £200 pounds of our bet - and then gave it to the Save the Children's charity at his request. You know also that when my son who specializes in finding out who people are said it would be no problem to find out who you were, you asked me not to and I agreed.


Cheers


Frank

Quote from: DreamThinkBuild on January 06, 2014, 03:01:21 PM
Hi Tinman,

Thanks, that is an interesting video. Is that DC to DC motor/gen?

I've tried various ways to get a motor/gen to loop and failed. You need 3x COP, as MsCoffman states, in order for you to generate enough power to run itself and run a real load.

Trying to decouple the prime mover from the load has been my main goal, also trying to find efficient generators. I recently acquired two small generators from China.

site: http://small-generator.com

The shipping is expensive to US. The company was really good answering questions I had and the quality of the generators was excellent.

The first is YAF 54 this one is not too bad it's small but needs high rpm to generate.

http://small-generator.com/buy/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=8

The second is YAF 80 this one is a little bigger but really nice output at low rpm. Just hand twisting it can make a 30watt incandescent bulb filament glow a dim red. Very low cogging too seems much less than the low wind Windblue I have. I'm pretty impressed with this one. Just need more time and warmer temps to see how it really performs.

http://small-generator.com/buy/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=10

I'm also putting up these two ideas here a different way of looping, these are untested but may be give someone inspiration for a new idea.

The wind lens is really interesting but I don't hear much about it. Here are two videos showing it off with a 2.5-3x gain on output over regular wind turbines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQexzNg_e9A

The next video is in Japanese but watch the numbers. Without lens 13watts output, with lens 37watts for same air flow/gen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGWCAvBD8eo

The idea I had was to take a efficient high velocity computer fan and focus it through the lens to another bladed fan as generator. The focus and lens can be made out of flowerpots or any other plastic kitchen container. This would partially decouple the output from the input. This design could be placed on a wide wire shelf so no real complicated support is needed for testing purposes.

Next video showing one fan running another, now if the output could be improved with a wind lens 2.5x or more could it aid in looping?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdhDq-FmM38

I also noticed the small-generator site had small hydro-generators that hook to a garden hose.

http://small-generator.com/buy/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7&products_id=26

The other idea was to take a small solar garden fountain pump(6vdc@1amp or 12vdc@0.5amp 4ft fountain) and make a ring of generators. This one I'm not sure how much loss will be in the piping. It would be interesting to see how the high pressure from the expulsion side be aided by the pull of the low pressure of the suction side through the loop. It may be possible to combine the lens idea to make a water lens section of pipe and a spinning diametric magnet with blades attached. A water lens section can be 3D printed.

Too many ideas so little time. :(

The prime mover looks to be a brushed motor(probably a series wound motor),and the motor/generator looks like a PM type?-not sure.There is no info about the two,so im just guessing.

Like i said,this is about as close to a looped system(that works) as i've seen. But this is where people get traped-they start thinking-well if i did this,if i did that,it would work.I was thinking the very same thing when i first watched the video. What if i used a propper coupling with correct alignment,what if i used ceramic low friction bearing's?-i mean it realy seems as though it's so close to running itself. This is a trap many(includeing myself) have fallen into,and many more to come yet.

people don't feed the trolls ,
as proven in many themes TinselKoala is here just to troll you

Quote from: DreamThinkBuild on January 06, 2014, 03:01:21 PM
Hi Tinman,

Thanks, that is an interesting video. Is that DC to DC motor/gen?

I've tried various ways to get a motor/gen to loop and failed. You need 3x COP, as MsCoffman states, in order for you to generate enough power to run itself and run a real load.

Trying to decouple the prime mover from the load has been my main goal, also trying to find efficient generators. I recently acquired two small generators from China.

site: http://small-generator.com

The shipping is expensive to US. The company was really good answering questions I had and the quality of the generators was excellent.

The first is YAF 54 this one is not too bad it's small but needs high rpm to generate.

http://small-generator.com/buy/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=8

The second is YAF 80 this one is a little bigger but really nice output at low rpm. Just hand twisting it can make a 30watt incandescent bulb filament glow a dim red. Very low cogging too seems much less than the low wind Windblue I have. I'm pretty impressed with this one. Just need more time and warmer temps to see how it really performs.

http://small-generator.com/buy/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=10

I'm also putting up these two ideas here a different way of looping, these are untested but may be give someone inspiration for a new idea.

The wind lens is really interesting but I don't hear much about it. Here are two videos showing it off with a 2.5-3x gain on output over regular wind turbines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQexzNg_e9A

The next video is in Japanese but watch the numbers. Without lens 13watts output, with lens 37watts for same air flow/gen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGWCAvBD8eo

The idea I had was to take a efficient high velocity computer fan and focus it through the lens to another bladed fan as generator. The focus and lens can be made out of flowerpots or any other plastic kitchen container. This would partially decouple the output from the input. This design could be placed on a wide wire shelf so no real complicated support is needed for testing purposes.

Next video showing one fan running another, now if the output could be improved with a wind lens 2.5x or more could it aid in looping?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdhDq-FmM38

I also noticed the small-generator site had small hydro-generators that hook to a garden hose.

http://small-generator.com/buy/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7&products_id=26

The other idea was to take a small solar garden fountain pump(6vdc@1amp or 12vdc@0.5amp 4ft fountain) and make a ring of generators. This one I'm not sure how much loss will be in the piping. It would be interesting to see how the high pressure from the expulsion side be aided by the pull of the low pressure of the suction side through the loop. It may be possible to combine the lens idea to make a water lens section of pipe and a spinning diametric magnet with blades attached. A water lens section can be 3D printed.

Too many ideas so little time. :(

Hi these are brilliant ideas. Do you think this might work for the air amplifier instead of flower pots?
http://gyroscope.com/d.asp?product=AIRAMPLIFIER

Also for the water loop generator what if we used mercury instead and propelled it in another way?

Thanks for sharing! :)

Quote from: turbogt16v on January 09, 2014, 10:30:11 AM
people don't feed the trolls ,
as proven in many themes TinselKoala is here just to troll you

And you couldnt be more incorrect if you tried newbie.

Frank, the "experiment" is being done every day, all around you, in many many forms.

Look: I have a theory that, when the sun rises on February 29th, it will appear green until noon, then will turn blue for the rest of the afternoon. This phenomenon can only be observed  while you are standing on your head inside the Tower of London. You say it won't? PROVE IT.

I'll pay you thirty dollars to go stand on your head in the Tower at dawn on Feb. 29th, and observe. I'll gladly accept your report as to the viability of my theory of Sun-Color-Dates. Sorry it can't be more, this is all I can afford for this world-shaking experiment.

Does this seem ridiculous to you? Too much trouble, even though you KNOW the answer already and it would be easy money for you? Would you feel entirely right about doing my experiment and taking my money?

Sheesh.

Take a coin funnel and erect a simple ramp from the exit hole you've drilled, leading back up to the top. Obviously this simple ramp can be much _shorter_ than the total path the coin makes on the way down and around the funnel. According to you, the coin exits the hole horizontally with excess velocity. It would be a simple matter, then, to have the coin just climb back up the much shorter ramp back up to the starting position,where it will arrive with a bit of extra velocity remaining. After the second loop, even more, etc etc. Imagine the delight of small children in museums all over the world when their coin refuses to stop, and eventually flies off the TOP of the funnel due to all the extra momentum it has accumulated.

Yet, with hundreds of thousands of coin funnels in existence and at least two major manufacturers selling them world-wide, nobody has thought of this simple way to demonstrate the OU magic. Right.

Maybe you should offer yourself as a consultant to these companies, Frank. I'll bet that they could perform your experiment in one day, for nothing.

After they stop laughing at you , that is.

OK, Frank, just to show you that I have "good faith".... We have no funds to operate on at all, so in lieu of you simply paying us the full amount in advance, we will need you to buy some supplies for the experiment, up front. These supplies will be returned to you... in the event of a positive result that supports your hypothesis. (You know... the hypothesis that you have still not yet explicitly stated.)

So, if you will buy one of those small "toy" coin funnels that are in the link above, and send it or cause it to be delivered to us here in South Texas, we will set it up to perform the experiment you suggest. We have the apparatus necessary to measure the velocity of the coin in both conditions: simply dropped from the start height to the exit height as the "control" condition, and the velocity of the coin exiting a hole in the side of the funnel on a horizontal (tangential) path as the experimental condition.

If you agree, let me know and I'll PM you the address details. The toy funnel costs about 25 dollars US, I think.

QuoteYou know also that when my son who specializes in finding out who people are said it would be no problem to find out who you were, you asked me not to and I agreed.

That sounds vaguely like a threat.

Quote from: lumen on January 07, 2014, 12:45:29 AM
Ok, this is the question for a proof of overunity generator concept for all the real thinkers and math wizards.

Can't all gear systems be partially modeled by levers?

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 09, 2014, 05:17:14 PM
OK, Frank, just to show you that I have "good faith".... We have no funds to operate on at all, so in lieu of you simply paying us the full amount in advance, we will need you to buy some supplies for the experiment, up front. These supplies will be returned to you... in the event of a positive result that supports your hypothesis. (You know... the hypothesis that you have still not yet explicitly stated.)


So, if you will buy one of those small "toy" coin funnels that are in the link above, and send it or cause it to be delivered to us here in South Texas, we will set it up to perform the experiment you suggest. We have the apparatus necessary to measure the velocity of the coin in both conditions: simply dropped from the start height to the exit height as the "control" condition, and the velocity of the coin exiting a hole in the side of the funnel on a horizontal (tangential) path as the experimental condition.


If you agree, let me know and I'll PM you the address details. The toy funnel costs about 25 dollars US, I think.


...

Thank you so much for agreeing to carry out the Bruce's Uncle experiment.


The easiest thing for me will to pay you the £2000 in advance and for you to make all the necessary arrangements such as choice and purchase of the vortex shaped cone, etc.


If there is money left over when you have deducted your consulting fee,
experimental work fee, materials cost and administrations costs then please give it to a charity of your choosing.


By paying you in advance I ensure that you are not out of pocket should the grim reaper come for me before the experiment is completed.


Perhaps I should explain in more detail why I want this experiment done.


As you know, there is a rumour that the Boys from Brazil have discovered gold at Sutter's Mill (metaphorically speaking). If the rumour proves to be true then in no time every Tom, Dick and Harry will be swarming all over the place. Before that happens I want to stake out the Bruce's Uncle's claim which is easier to mine than the Keenie wheel.


I'm a great believer in Nassim Nikola Taleb's "Black Swan" strategy of buying options on unlikely events. You might have even read his book "The Black Swan". I am buying an option on the unlikely event of the RAR rumour being true and the possible outcomes.


Think of it as insurance. A man goes on a dangerous skiing trip and buys 2000 quid's worth of insurance. When he gets home in one piece is he miserable? Of course not. He's delighted.


And if you find a null result I will be equally delighted that I haven't missed a once in a lifetime opportunity.


So many of my hunches have turned out to be correct over the years (the M1 and Ross-Spur motorway failures, the GRC debacle, the water vapour equations of state - even Steorn's 550 bhp motor - remember that?) that I don't want to miss out on this one.


So finally, if you agree to my above proposal where shall I send the cheque (or which Swiss Bank account shall I pay it into - only joking. I'm sure you wouldn't dream of evading income tax).


I apologise if my comment on finding your address seemed vaguely threatening. It wasn't mean to make my request into an offer you couldn't refuse though perhaps if I were you I might also have seen it in that light.


Personally I think Rosemary is a paper tiger. If she really wanted your address I'm sure she could have found it by now and arranged for the proverbial parcel bomb or equivalent - and no, I'm not trying to give her ideas.   ;)


Cheers


Frank

@Grimer:
No, sorry, I really can't take money from you "in advance", much as I might like to. If you really don't want to do the experiment for yourself, or have someone local do it, then pretty much the only alternative from my viewpoint is what I suggested above: a small expenditure on your part to purchase a small coin funnel and ship it to us here. This way neither one of us is "in too deep". I owe you nothing except the experiment itself, and vice versa. After the experiment is performed and written up, you then can decide whether the knowledge is worth anything to you or not.

I'm hoping to be able to save you even that small expense, and us a lot of trouble, by showing a mathematical proof that you would accept in lieu of actually performing the experiment. I have engaged consultants to help in this effort, so we shall see what they can come up with.

Quote from: Grimer on January 10, 2014, 10:40:59 AM
I'm a great believer in Nassim Nikola Taleb's "Black Swan" strategy of buying options on unlikely events. You might have even read his book "The Black Swan".

I did, although I did throw it against the wall a few times in the process.

IIRC Taleb doesn't advocate a particular "black swan strategy".  He talks about his "barbell" strategy.  Which is more about doubting the risk evaluation of fund managers and the like.  However he doesn't really address the important point that the number of "black swans" will outnumber "safe bets" by many orders of magnitude.  So how do we decide what to invest in?

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 10, 2014, 12:03:02 PM
@Grimer:
No, sorry, I really can't take money from you "in advance", much as I might like to. If you really don't want to do the experiment for yourself, or have someone local do it, then pretty much the only alternative from my viewpoint is what I suggested above: a small expenditure on your part to purchase a small coin funnel and ship it to us here. This way neither one of us is "in too deep". I owe you nothing except the experiment itself, and vice versa. After the experiment is performed and written up, you then can decide whether the knowledge is worth anything to you or not.

I'm hoping to be able to save you even that small expense, and us a lot of trouble, by showing a mathematical proof that you would accept in lieu of actually performing the experiment. I have engaged consultants to help in this effort, so we shall see what they can come up with.

Thank you for your prompt reply, TK
Please don't trouble with the mathematical proof. I'm only interested in the experiment


As for the funnel, choosing that must be the responsibility of the experimenter, obviously.


I'm rather flabbergasted by your scruples in not accepting the money in advance - as a sponsorship for Myth Destroying, say. You are worse than my convert father. He used to worry when he cleaned his teeth in the morning before mass that he might have swallowed some of the toothpaste and broken communion fast (those were the days  ::) ). My mother, a continental catholic with a more realistic view of things used to have endless problems with him.


Most free energy researchers would bite my hand off for a sponsorship contribution from someone who admired their research.


Still, if 2000 is too much, how much is not too much? How much would not get you "in too deep"?


And I don't need to wait until the experiment is done to know how much it's worth to me.


The fact it is done is worth 2000 to me irrespective of its outcome.


Cheers


Frank

@Grimer:
I hope you can agree that making a funnel from scratch is out of the question. Commercial units of the size we see in museums and malls cost more than your entire budget, usually. The only one that is at all affordable given your budget is this one:
http://www.spiralwishingwells.com/toy/index.html (http://www.spiralwishingwells.com/toy/index.html)
I believe it is large enough to provide useful data, but I can't know that absolutely until testing has commenced, so it's somewhat of a risk.

You can purchase it on-line I think, and cause it to be sent to me. The company is located in Ohio so there won't be any Customs silliness or long shipping delays. If you actually want this to happen it is going to have to be this way. Let me know when you decide to assent; then I'll trust you enough to PM a shipping address, and you can place the order with the company, ASAP. If you write them a nice letter or phone them and tell them what you are doing, they might be interested enough to make a donation of the toy, even! (And the Moon might turn blue one day.....) Who knows.

There are at least two ways to get the coin speed data out of the system. Perhaps the very simplest would be to use a video camera and a precise clock to time, say, 5 or 10 revolutions of the coin when it is down in the neck of the funnel, at the specified height where the circumference is precisely known. This would not even require any modifications to the toy, except marking the chosen measurement level. The video isn't even necessary: the timing could be done electronically, by, eg, having the coin or ball shadow a photodetector once per revolution. Another way would be what we discussed earlier: putting a hole in the apparatus and measuring the coin's (or ball's) velocity as it "falls" horizontally out the hole. This can be done stroboscopically with the help of a camera, ruler and calculator.

You still haven't stated your testable hypothesis. I gave you one version, but we really need to agree explicitly just what the HUT is and what kind of data would either falsify or support it, before going further. One can't really design an experiment unless one knows these things. So I'd like to see your own statement of just what we are testing and how we will know what result we obtain.

TK,


Now you're talking.

That's a very reasonable suggestion. In effect you have chosen the funnel albeit Hobson's choice. I'm quite happy to contact the company, explain what we are doing and pay all costs.


Carry on McDuff.


Cheers


Frank

Well, I went and built the gyro test unit to see if it was possible for a gyro to provide a stable platform against it's own driving force.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBV6Fehml5Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBV6Fehml5Q)
Sorry the sound is a bit low  ???

Quote from: lumen on January 12, 2014, 06:36:56 PMI went and built the gyro test unit...

Hi Lumen,
  that is a beautiful build... It's great to see actual research being done... :)

Are you working towards building one of your gyro-wheel things?

Quote from: tim123 on January 13, 2014, 11:34:01 AM
It's great to see actual research being done... :)

I'm not sure how this is research.  I get the idea that something was built but where exactly is the hypothesis?  How is this outcome not expected or for that matter OU?

That is really neat, a great looking build! Interesting interplay of forces.

Gyro forced precession is the closest thing to antigravity I've seen.

This was a simple test to show that a gyro can generate a stable platform while consuming little energy to power itself.
The long term theory here is the possibility to supply centrifugal force, working only against the gyro's stability, to operate the gyro.
The concept would allow a single bearing point on a larger driving wheel as the only connection and would prevent any reverse interaction with the driving wheel.


Not a good description but in the end centrifugal force working against the gyro would power the gyro with 90% free excess energy.

Quote from: tim123 on January 13, 2014, 11:34:01 AM
Hi Lumen,
  that is a beautiful build... It's great to see actual research being done... :)

Are you working towards building one of your gyro-wheel things?

Thanks, The build took 1 day to dig for parts and design it and 2 days to build it.

I believe from the tests that it may be possible to build great force in inertial mass with little energy and that one only needs to use that force to achieve an over unity device.
It may be that a gyro is not even required to do the task but it appears to me the gyro test has shown the potential exists.

In my next build, I plan to skip ahead to a design that I hope can convert the force of inertial mass into useable output and do some testing on that.

Hi Lumen,
  I'm looking forward to the next installment.

FYI - came across this the other day (http://www.keelynet.com/interact/arc_1_98-7_98/00000297.htm)

Quote> All one needed to see was Laithwaite standing on a large weighing
> machine and doing his flywheel lift while one read the weight
> recorded. It was only years later that a television documentary on
> Laithwaite's gyroscopic activity, which included participation by the
> Alex Jones, was screened here in U.K. and it did include that weighing
> machine demonstration which proved the weight loss.

Could be an interesting experiment... :)

In case anyone missed it, here's a 'Q Mo Gen' that's hopefully soon to be available to buy:

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

Quote from: lumen on January 13, 2014, 01:08:14 PM
centrifugal force working against the gyro would power the gyro with 90% free excess energy.

So again I'm not exactly sure what's going on.  Was there any evidence of this device actually providing any free energy?  Is there some model for this device which if you change a parameter you would expect free energy?

Also it, simply on casual inspection appears that everything that's happening in the device is happening because of the battery.  So what reason do we have to believe we can get more than a "battery's worth" of power out of this?  Put another way, where exactly do we think the excess power would come from, if not from the battery?

Quote from: tim123 on January 14, 2014, 05:56:24 AM
In case anyone missed it, here's a 'Q Mo Gen' that's hopefully soon to be available to buy:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Midtech_Energy_Black_Box_Power_Station (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Midtech_Energy_Black_Box_Power_Station)

Have I heard that before some where like about 40 times

Quote from: sarkeizen on January 14, 2014, 08:58:27 AM
So again I'm not exactly sure what's going on.  Was there any evidence of this device actually providing any free energy?  Is there some model for this device which if you change a parameter you would expect free energy?

Also it, simply on casual inspection appears that everything that's happening in the device is happening because of the battery.  So what reason do we have to believe we can get more than a "battery's worth" of power out of this?  Put another way, where exactly do we think the excess power would come from, if not from the battery?

Sorry if you thought this was an over unity device. ::)

This was an experiment to show how the forces generated from inertial mass are several times stronger than the forces required to cause the effect. (sounds a bit like over unity)

I could have done this electronically (other than the motor providing the force) but using only mechanical components leaves no room to debate the results. The results show that while using only 10% of a force to drive inertial mass, a counter force over 9x stronger is produced.

How can this be used to provide excess energy? That is the question.

Quote from: lumen on January 14, 2014, 11:29:29 AM
Sorry if you thought this was an over unity device. ::)

Research towards overunity devices should probably consist of devices showing an overunity effect.  Even if that effect is debatable.

Quote
How can this be used to provide excess energy? That is the question.

Uh but again, all of the motion seems to be the result of having a battery hooked up.  So how could you expect to get more than a battery's worth of work out of this?

Quote from: sarkeizen on January 14, 2014, 12:55:34 PM
Research towards overunity devices should probably consist of devices showing an overunity effect.  Even if that effect is debatable.Uh but again, all of the motion seems to be the result of having a battery hooked up.  So how could you expect to get more than a battery's worth of work out of this?

There are none so blind as those that cannot see! (or are there)

I just setup what is essentially a balance beam with 90% offset on one side and 10% on the other and with equal weights, the 10% side wins!

Is that an over unity device? No because it's not producing an output. Does it have potential to be an over unity device? I would think so.


It's just a test of applied forces where the results are what you would expect. Don't try to make it more than it is.

Quote from: lumen on January 14, 2014, 01:30:48 PM
There are none so blind as those that cannot see! (or are there)

I think people who substitute platitudes for thinking critically are kind of blind.  Don't you?

Quote
I just setup what is essentially a balance beam with 90% offset on one side and 10% on the other and with equal weights, the 10% side wins!

Except that you *couldn't* set up a balance beam like that and if you could - you could easily extract energy from it.  So the question is why does it *appear* (to you anyway) as if you had and why is there no obvious way to exploit this?

Quote
It's just a test of applied forces where the results are what you would expect.

A test usually involves a hypothesis and it's unclear what yours is and if these forces are "applied" what is applying them other than the battery?  Perhaps I miss the point of OU "research" but it's unclear how this is even a candidate for an OU device.  There is no explanation of what you are trying to falsify and the device's operation seems to be fully explained by "There is a battery attached to a motor".

QuoteDon't try to make it more than it is.

Dude.  You said: "then this in itself is proof that over unity exists in inertial mass and power could be extracted at no cost."

Are you saying this device is PROOF of OU or not?

Quote from: sarkeizen on January 14, 2014, 03:00:02 PM
Except that you *couldn't* set up a balance beam like that and if you could - you could easily extract energy from it.

Except if you didn't extract any energy from it, is it still an over unity device? You put the weights on the scale by hand, how can that be over unity?

QuoteSo the question is why does it *appear* (to you anyway) as if you had and why is there no obvious way to exploit this?

There is an obvious way, you only think the weight problem works because you think you see the answer.  Just because you don't see the answer to this device you simply conclude it must not work, though it is working in a similar fashion.

QuoteA test usually involves a hypothesis and it's unclear what yours is and if these forces are "applied" what is applying them other than the battery?  Perhaps I miss the point of OU "research" but it's unclear how this is even a candidate for an OU device.  There is no explanation of what you are trying to falsify and the device's operation seems to be fully explained by "There is a battery attached to a motor".Dude.  You said: "then this in itself is proof that over unity exists in inertial mass and power could be extracted at no cost."

Are you saying this device is PROOF of OU or not?

I do consider it proof that over unity exists in inertial mass, but I never said it was an over unity device.
This was only a test of a possible OU principal. The results were as expected. I plan to move on and attempt to extract energy from the inertial mass principal.
Just give it a rest! If you don't understand what you have just seen, then simply look the other way and say it must not work.

Quote from: lumen on January 14, 2014, 04:21:28 PM
You put the weights on the scale by hand, how can that be over unity?

The reason for it to be OU would be because you would get more work out than you put in.  Putting a weight on a lever by hand is "putting something in".   It seems obvious, to me anyway that anything claiming to be OU would have to exhibit a behavior which requires greater energy than is claimed to have gone in.  If I could somehow place a 10Kg weight on a lever and get the equivalent force of putting 100Kg dropped from the same spot.  That would seem to qualify.

Quoteyou only think the weight problem works because you think you see the answer.  Just because you don't see the answer to this device you simply conclude it must not work,

Wrong on so many levels it's almost like you're trying.  I don't think the "weight problem" works.  I don't think levers can be set up to gain OU.  However if you could place a 10Kg weight on a lever and produce, on the other side (or after going through several levers and weights) produce force equivalent to placing a 100Kg weight at the same height and dropping it.  I think that exploiting that would be conceptually obvious.

QuoteI do consider it proof that over unity exists in inertial mass, but I never said it was an over unity device. This was only a test of a possible OU principal.

I'm confused.  Is it a possible principle or a proved one?  How can something which produces no excess energy be a proved principle of OU?  Does OU mean something other than getting more energy out than you put in?  Does "proved" mean something other than "demonstrated in some way"?

Quote
Just give it a rest! If you don't understand what you have just seen, then simply look the other way and say it must not work.

Uh...no.  I'm saying I don't see how this test is indicative of anything to do with OU.  I think it's pretty minimal to require that a device claiming to prove a principle of overunity must produce more energy than is put in.

Whatever ::) just take the sticks as they fall.

Quote from: lumen on January 14, 2014, 06:10:35 PM
Whatever ::) just take the sticks as they fall.

Can you at least tell me where the extra energy is supposed to be coming from?

What are the odds?

I was at an Arby's in Greensburg, Indiana, yesterday, stopping for lunch while on my way to some business meetings near there.  They have a large spiral coin funnel thingy collecting money for charity.  I took a moment to read the label on the funnel and it was manufactured by Divnick International in Miamisburg, Ohio.  That was a shocker for me because that is the city where I work!  I looked up divnick.com and it links directly to the spiralwishingwells.com website.  Same company.  And only about 3 miles from where I am sitting right now.

M.

Quote from: mondrasek on January 16, 2014, 01:28:04 PM
What are the odds?

I was at an Arby's in Greensburg, Indiana, yesterday, stopping for lunch while on my way to some business meetings near there.  They have a large spiral coin funnel thingy collecting money for charity.  I took a moment to read the label on the funnel and it was manufactured by Divnick International in Miamisburg, Ohio.  That was a shocker for me because that is the city where I work!  I looked up divnick.com and it links directly to the spiralwishingwells.com website.  Same company.  And only about 3 miles from where I am sitting right now.

M.

Well... good for you. Why don't you take Grimer's 2000 pounds, then. I don't want to have anything to do with him, at this point, and I'm very glad I haven't given him any more information. (If you need a sub-consultant, I'll help you construct a system for measuring the speed accurately, for 20 percent of the take.)

I do have a mathematical proof that shows the speed of the ball or coin anywhere in the funnel cannot be faster than [sqrt(2gh) + Vinit], which is its speed attained in a vertical fall through height h, starting with speed Vinit. But of course nobody is interested in mathematical proofs, as they ultimately rely on Conservation of Momentum as a hidden assumption. An assumption that has _never_ been seen to be violated, of course.

Was the Arby's any good? I haven't had one in ages.

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 16, 2014, 02:35:49 PM
... Why don't you take Grimer's 2000 pounds, then. I don't want to have anything to do with him, at this point,...

:-* :-* :-*

Quote from: mondrasek on January 16, 2014, 01:28:04 PM
What are the odds?

I was at an Arby's in Greensburg, Indiana, yesterday, stopping for lunch while on my way to some business meetings near there.  They have a large spiral coin funnel thingy collecting money for charity.  I took a moment to read the label on the funnel and it was manufactured by Divnick International in Miamisburg, Ohio.  That was a shocker for me because that is the city where I work!  I looked up divnick.com and it links directly to the spiralwishingwells.com website.  Same company.  And only about 3 miles from where I am sitting right now.

M.

All you need to do is to show the speed on exit is more than it should be and you'll be famous.  ;D
The rest is simply engineering.


I'd do it myself but I'm not an experimentalist.

@TK,

Ha!  I doubt anything I would do would be adequate!  Plus, proximity to the company that markets the coin vortex doesn't mean I have any advantage as far as doing an experiment with one.

Since I don't have video equipment to measure velocities, nor skills to whip up a photo-interrupter timer in short order, I would have probably have gone a different way.  Not that I believe such an experiment would provide extraordinary results.  But I do like to see how you experienced experimenters build, instrument, and test.

I liked your idea about a purely mechanical test where some sort of ramp would re-direct the coin as it exits the bottom of the funnel and causes it to attempt to rise back up to the starting height.  But I had no idea how you could pull that off simply!  I was looking forward to seeing what you might have come up with.

I was wondering what you would have thought of this idea:  Cut off the end of the funnel.  Suspend it a known distance above a level surface.  Measure the distance the coin travels horizontally when it exits the bottom of the funnel until it hits the surface.  Now create a simple, non-spiral vortex ramp that would cause the coin to drop the same vertical distance as from the funnel entrance to its exit, with the bottom being horizontal and at the same height above the surface.  Roll the coin down this second ramp and measure the horizontal distance it travels.  Compare the two distances.  If the vortex added some KE from EG then the coin on the simple ramp would travel less far, right?

One concern was that the coin leaving the funnel would not be traveling exactly horizontal.  Still, I was wondering how accurate this type of simple mechanical comparison setup would be.  Any thoughts?

No Arby's?  Wow.  I've haven't spent much time in Texas and never noticed their absence.  Not that I go looking for them.  Just not a lot of options in Greensburg, Indiana, and I end up there about once a week.  So it is in the "rotation" for lunch destinations.  It was, per usual, adequate.

@ MIDTECH =>  things are beginning to heat up;

http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2014:02:09#MidTech_releases_Black_Box_Dominator_price_list

Note: that there is a lot of visual information given about what this black box contains is in the youtube videos.

My recommendation to future customers is to do what the guy says to do;

People who want to use the box as a back up power unit now can go ahead and order it, but
anyone else interested in anything about overunity should wait for further research and development
as well as further discussions here.

For those who want utility power backup:

This is a nice electric utility power backup unit with 420AH x 12V deep cycle battery of storage = ~5KWH this
would run an iron like load straight out for about 4 hours plus any additional electrical energy that
can be collected from the solar panel and wind generator during that time, plus have whatever overunity
energy that might or might not be there from the motor/generator.  This unit is not utility interactive
but could be made that way with the addition of a small Siemens standalone line interactive inverters
(not part of unit).

These would be turned on sometime before the "power dump" board in the back center of the unit. This
board seems to use water heater elements in open air to burn up to heat excess battery energy. Battery
overcharge might result which can lose battery water by electrolysis, were the board not present. The
solar array, wind generator, or plug in cord would be necessary to use if unit's battery is entirely discharged.

Criticism of this design: The binding posts on back of unit need to be recessed inside of cabinet surface or
risk breaking them off. It may be possible to use the type of same plastic boxes used inside for the outlets.
For a large storage bank a larger connector would be required to help prevent DC current losses.

---

Overunity Discussion:

This Midtech Black Box Dominator appears to be a pure Qmogen.
The internal 210ah deep cycle acid/lead batteries are in series at 12VDC.

Does anyone know which is the motor and which is the alternator?
I expect that both the motor and the alternator are 12VDC?

:S:MarkSCoffman

http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Free_Energy_Blog:2014:02:09#MidTech_posts_first_Black_Box_Dominator_video

To me it looks like this is nothing more than a "electric motor powered generator", the battery is storage for the wind and solar inputs and to drive the generator when the power goes out. The load dump would be for the wind turbine and the wind turbine only, wind turbines generally cannot be unloaded or they spin too fast, some models have magnetic braking and or blade "feathering" but are more expensive. Without those things a load dump is required when the batteries are fully charged and the unit is not in use, the battery charge controller prevents the battery from overcharging. It has a V belt from motor to generator. hehehe  ???

These systems will never be OU unless you consider the solar and wind power as OU. If there is such a thing as OU it would be no different in reality to wind or solar being that energy would be collected for free from somewhere.

If the grid power goes out and the sun blocked by clouds and there is no wind then the system will deplete the batteries charge as normal and when they become depleted enough the unit will cease to output power.

This is a back up AC power system with wind and solar "or grid" input.

An electric motor connected to a generator will not produce more energy than it consumes. None have so far and I doubt any ever will.

The solar and wind inputs keep the batteries charged and ready for when the power goes out, and if there is wind and sun those inputs will contribute to the output along with the batteries which will provide power in excess of the solar and wind 750 Watt max output when it is required but that will deplete the batteries.

All in all it could be a useful system, but the motor generator part will not run itself, not in my opinion, nor is it intended to. If I was Midtech I would request the PESwiki article be removed for fear they will cause people to expect the setup to eventually produce power with no input, hence causing people to not buy a usable system now and wait for the OU version which will never become available. I mean if they cannot work out how to power the motor from the battery something is fishy. PESwiki the hype kings are running out of funds, they need your money for more hype up write ups. I fail to see what purpose PESwiki serves. Except to instill false hopes.

Cheers

P.S. Petrol and diesel powered generators are polluting noisy things but in a power outage that lasts for days, they are difficult to beat, you just keep putting fuel in them and they can run day and night for as long as in needed (not including breakdowns). We have a 6 kVA generator and it will run the entire house for days on a surprisingly small amount of fuel. It's very handy. For short outages I usually just don't use stuff and make light with my solar charged battery bank. For long outages we turn off the generator at night and keep all but one of the fridges and freezers closed. Also when they are not in use there is no wear and tear on them.

..

"Does anyone know which is the motor and which is the alternator?
I expect that both the motor and the alternator are 12VDC?

:S:MarkSCoffman"

Mark, Midtech has said the motor used is Marathon Electric Motor, 1/4HP, 1625rpm, thermally protected, AC, Model number: 5KCP35KNB057AS

No info on the generator, but looking at the size, and wire gauge and flange type, my guess would be a 2 or 3hp treadmill duty 130VDC motor (used as generator). These are fairly popular among the diy wind crowd. Again this is a guess only right now.

I found a way to connect a small black box to a wheel through a single bearing point on the wheel and the box will generate power by rotating the wheel. It's not magnetic and has no other connections.

The question is , what mechanism exists that will counter the rotation of the wheel when the only connection the box has is the single bearing point on the wheel?

It's not making sense, either over unity devices exist, or there is some type of unknown vector drive.

Quote from: deanc5000 on February 10, 2014, 01:37:02 PM
"Does anyone know which is the motor and which is the alternator?
I expect that both the motor and the alternator are 12VDC?
"

Mark, Midtech has said the motor used is Marathon Electric Motor, 1/4HP, 1625rpm, thermally protected, AC, Model number: 5KCP35KNB057AS

No info on the generator, but looking at the size, and wire gauge and flange type, my guess would be a 2 or 3hp treadmill duty 130VDC motor (used as generator). These are fairly popular among the diy wind crowd. Again this is a guess only right now.

Wow, Thank you for information, unexpected really.

---

There seems to be a triac lamp/speed controller beneath the motor mounting board. Which would make sense if it controls
the motor drive.

I'd love to try dropping a Keppemotor in there as a prime mover to see if they are BS or not.
but I have no idea whether .25HP Keppemotor even exists.

Quote from: lumen on February 10, 2014, 02:07:45 PM
I found a way to connect a small black box to a wheel through a single bearing point on the wheel and the box will generate power by rotating the wheel. It's not magnetic and has no other connections.

The question is , what mechanism exists that will counter the rotation of the wheel when the only connection the box has is the single bearing point on the wheel?

It's not making sense, either over unity devices exist, or there is some type of unknown vector drive.

Two:  (a) air resistance and static electricity like a Wimshurst machine. The youtube video of the helicopter generating
               fiery halo while operating in a dust storm. Variation based in relative humidity or brush injection of electrons
               with auto ignition coil and CRT TV high voltage rectifier.

         (b) some sort of homopolar magnetic generator utilizing the earth's magnetic field. Might look for a systematic
               variation of voltage during wheel precession. Could also be due to a single split loop of the utility wiring
               in the room where device is being tested, due to a "two switches for one light" type circuit.

:S:MarkSCoffman

@Mark,

Sorry mark, I should have provided more info on the device.

From the Gyro experiment in my video, it is clear that pitting centrifugal force against the stability of a gyro will produce over ten times the energy it takes to operate the gyro.

The gyro and a weighted lever are combined into a single box that is attached to a wheel by a single bearing pivot point on the wheel. The gyro provides a stationary platform while the weighted lever operates against the gyro to run a generator.

The question then becomes:

By attaching a single black box on a wheel, connected only by a single pivot point, is there any known force that could act against the wheel?

I ask this because the data proves this to be possible. The gain of energy in the black box would require that the energy comes from some source and it would likely be the wheel, but I see no mechanism to resist the rotation of the wheel.

Quote from: lumen on February 11, 2014, 01:47:16 PM
@Mark,

Sorry mark, I should have provided more info on the device.

From the Gyro experiment in my video, it is clear that pitting centrifugal force against the stability of a gyro will produce over ten times the energy it takes to operate the gyro.

The gyro and a weighted lever are combined into a single box that is attached to a wheel by a single bearing pivot point on the wheel. The gyro provides a stationary platform while the weighted lever operates against the gyro to run a generator.

The question then becomes:

By attaching a single black box on a wheel, connected only by a single pivot point, is there any known force that could act against the wheel?

I ask this because the data proves this to be possible. The gain of energy in the black box would require that the energy comes from some source and it would likely be the wheel, but I see no mechanism to resist the rotation of the wheel.

See also the discussion (http://www.overunity.com/10825/free-energy-magnet-motor-selfrunning-powering-lightbulb/30/) about the so-called Rotoverter Qmogen. Very simple to replicate PM circuit converting energy from an unknnown source, and lighting a bulb.
download: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/67378968/rotovert%28Free%20energy%29.mp4 (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/67378968/rotovert%28Free%20energy%29.mp4)


http://www.overunity.com/10825/free-energy-magnet-motor-selfrunning-powering-lightbulb/ (http://www.overunity.com/10825/free-energy-magnet-motor-selfrunning-powering-lightbulb/30/)

Nice trick .   Light bulb is easy part but I'm impressed with how the motor fake is done.   Probably replaced motors with small DC motors and have a battery and diode setup inside the coil(s).    I wish this was real but I can't believe it for a moment.  I rarely call fake but I'm sure these microwave fan motors can't do what is being shown.   

Yes, that's what I thought. Very nice.

It would be easy to give all the information on this simple device if it actually worked but then one could duplicate the build and the truth would be known one way or the other, right!

Of course it's fake. The lightbulb is powering the motors, not the other way around.

Right?

;D ;D ;D ;D

But I am intrigued by lumen's device, as I have an interest in gyroscopes and precession phenomena. I can't quite get the picture from lumen's description, though. Can we see a diagram or even better a video demonstration of lumen's apparatus?

@TK,

In my first video I was showing how a gyro can support itself against it's driving input of at least 10 times it's own driving force, and is likely more than 100 times staying within a safety margin. The self support is directly dependent on the RPM of the gyro where the drive input is constant minus some air drag.

Now that I know this as fact, I am working on a fully operational device that will acquire energy from somewhere. The device can be built but the energy somewhere is unknown at this point. Once the gyro is connected with a weighted lever as the driving force, the device would become a black box that could be mounted on a larger rotating disk and the weighted arm would supply a driving force into the gyro while the gyro provides it's own counter rotational force. (as I have already shown possible)

The interesting question is the only thing that can keep it from working as designed, would be some force against the larger driving wheel, but because it is connected to the larger wheel by only a single pivot point on the wheel, there is no known means to resist the rotation.

So in fact the gyro will gain energy from the rotating wheel but cannot apply any resistance to counter this rotation.

I tried to change the design several ways to eliminate the need for a gyro, but they all end creating a path for drive resistance. Using the gyro seems to defy the problem and make overunity possible.

In the end it will need to be built to know for sure. At this point I am trying to decide if I want the black box to be fully mechanical or if it should use electrical components to simplify some of the building.

I am leaning a bit to electrical using a generator and tiny drive motor because it offers more control and could already provide the energy to loop the device.
A fully mechanical device would still provide overunity proof but in the end, one would need to attache a generator to supply power to loop the device.

The design is moving forward and I am hoping to solve this soon. If it works, I will build another one to send to you for testing.