Overunity.com Archives

Hi all,
I used the standard circuit that made by Phil Wood. 3 HP, 3 phase motor worked real well with no problem all. The original wiring with no modification made, allow the motor run real smooth at 116 V  and 0.92 Amp. I further improved the circuit that drop down to 116 V  and 0.42 Amp by adding 2 more capacitors.
1-4 Mf.  and the other one is  1-25 Mf.

Now the problem is this: This 3 HP motor don't have enough torque power on the shaft? Do you guys know why?
When I turn the motor on and runs full speed at 1800 rpm, I can stop the shaft by using a leather glove.

Amount of energy uses to run is great, but how can I improve the out put power of this motor?

My feeling is that RV is not efficient under any motor that 7.5 HP 

I'll greatly appreciate any comments on my circuit.

Mem.

Mem,

Just to say, you can stop a 1/2 hp motor with leather gloves or a rag.  I have done that before, thats how I kinda figure out how much hp my motor is putting out.   If I cannot stop it, then I know it's putting out more than 1/2 hp.

Later,,,,,,JackH

Quote from: Mem on August 17, 2007, 05:56:19 AM
Hi all,
I used the standard circuit that made by Phil Wood. 3 HP, 3 phase motor worked real well with no problem all. The original wiring with no modification made, allow the motor run real smooth at 116 V  and 0.92 Amp. I further improved the circuit that drop down to 116 V  and 0.42 Amp by adding 2 more capacitors.
1-4 Mf.  and the other one is  1-25 Mf.

Now the problem is this: This 3 HP motor don't have enough torque power on the shaft? Do you guys know why?
When I turn the motor on and runs full speed at 1800 rpm, I can stop the shaft by using a leather glove.

Amount of energy uses to run is great, but how can I improve the out put power of this motor?

My feeling is that RV is not efficient under any motor that 7.5 HP 

I'll greatly appreciate any comments on my circuit.

Mem.

I also would very much like to hear from someone who is a proponent and believer in the idea that you can get more power out of the shaft than you put in electrically in these RV setups.  Can anyone answer this fellow's questions?  He is being very clear, sincere and direct.  He has been led to believe that this is a well-known, accepted and working approach to saving energy.  Based on that belief, he has spent time and money.  It sounds like he's thinking of trying it on a larger motor; spending more money and time.  Now it doesn't seem to work that well after all. Why is most all the shaft power gone?  How come he can't get more torque?  Could someone please explain? 

Does he use the wrong capacitors?  Is it hooked up wrong?  Should he expect to lose some shaft power with this approach?  Is there any kind of accepted formula to predict how much power he will need to put in to get a certain amount of shaft power out? Or is he to expect the full rated mechanical output (or very nearly) despite putting in many times less electrical power.  Can a true proponent who has had success with RVs please step up to the plate and answer these questions for Mem?

I have my own opinion, based on the old-fashioned idea that you can't get more out than you put in, at least without doing something very very special and mysterious and totally new that has not been achieved as yet.  Something much more than adding a passive device like a capacitor. 

But that kind of opinion is not popular here, so I just wanted to add my voice to Mem's and ask for someone who believes in this and can explain it clearly to please answer Mem's questions.  Thanks!

 
Dear Humbugger,
thank you for adding more voice to my unspoken words... I am not a theoretical guy, I just know how to built things if there is a logical circuit.
This "Rotoverter" has been interesting and fascinating project to me, jut like you said who wants to vested he's time and money? Which is so true. Yes I did spend energy, time + money for above project what I have describe. All is good I have regret at all. But please hear us here and give us some a clear direction.

I wish that those who have advance knowledge and more hands on experience will come forth and "truly share" in the name of simplicity and truth. Perhaps it just a matter of time that right person will show up and tell us what's truly going on with "Rotoverter" here?

There is no question about 3 phase motor that runs with 120 AC and resonance, that's very clear to me. But, in order for us to be fully informed about free or efficient energy technologies we need to disclose of our findings and let our fellow man to be able duplicate the technology clearly.
Or else "our selfishness can/will consume our fortune" so to speak.
So many inventors died with their inventions, WHY a Nobel man looses he's nobility right after he's been given little vision and knowledge of mechanical solutions of physical world.
When the soul departs from earth plain, leaves behind all physicals things he has accumulated on earth, but accumulated good that he has created, becomes like a rocket fuel that propels the soul in to the higher octaves of Light.

Selfishness and various other perversions becomes like a concrete blocks that are attached to space rocket (soul)   

We have been separated and concurred enough from the begging of the time and man is truly been developed to be a modern "slave" of moneychangers in the land.

Creativity is the inner intuition of the soul; no soul can be made progress in spiritual path unless he/she will use their creativity to serve small or large number of people.

Dear ingenious and creative brothers and sisters across the Globe let us arise against the opposition that keep us continuously depend for their energy production/control and let us create and share non polluting and free energy technologies solution that untimely can be adaptable to every way of our energy needs. We can do this.

If we did this in past we can do it at the present too. Therefore I implore you one an all to freely share our solutions that can never be bought and locked up or will never be lost again!

And if we?ll ever do this, some day we?ll look back in time and see the profound good that we have done that affected life ways that we have left behind, therefore we shall be liberated from the shackles of human creation to move on into other octaves of Light  beyond this earth plane, for the work well done?

Because we have other worlds to concur? Mem.>> 

I believe the simple answer here is that when you lower the current going into any type of motor, or device for that matter, you're going to get less power out.

With regards to these types of pulse motors (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't studied Rotoverter designs well, but I was under the impression that the rotoverter motors were pulsed), or any type of brushless motor (like the type used in computer fans, which use hall-IC's), the current determines the torque, whilst the voltage determines the RPM (to an extent... you have to supply the minimum current to get it to speed, and after that the speed stays relatively unchanged if you continue to add current).

Therefore the RPM's will remain the same with your design, but by lowering the current you lower torque.

Thats just my theory anyways.

Quote from: Sataur? on August 20, 2007, 08:15:15 PM
I believe the simple answer here is that when you lower the current going into any type of motor, or device for that matter, you're going to get less power out.

With regards to these types of pulse motors (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't studied Rotoverter designs well, but I was under the impression that the rotoverter motors were pulsed), or any type of brushless motor (like the type used in computer fans, which use hall-IC's), the current determines the torque, whilst the voltage determines the RPM (to an extent... you have to supply the minimum current to get it to speed, and after that the speed stays relatively unchanged if you continue to add current).

Therefore the RPM's will remain the same with your design, but by lowering the current you lower torque.

Thats just my theory anyways.

@Sataure:  You are on the right track there...I won't elaborate...might get in trouble with the local authorities, if you know what I mean.

Humbugger



@Mem:

I went and looked at the PDF file by the Panacea guys on the link posted by Stefan but the very first statement under the RV section stopped me cold:

It states emphatically and with absolute certain authority that the electrical power consumed by a ten HP motor is always ten HP regardless of the mechanical load on the motor.  After reading that, which is absolutely not true, I lost faith in the whole document. 

I'm sure there is probably some good useful information in there and, if nothing else, by reading it thoroughly you will get an idea of what the writer thinks and expects from the techniques.  Just don't necessarily believe everything you read, because at least some of it is just not the truth. 

I hope you find your answers.  I'm not saying there is no advantage to be gained from using caps on a multiphase motor and running single phase power.  But I am rather wary of many of the claims of huge efficiency gains, especially those attributed to magical zero-point energies brought forth by resonances, etc. 

One of the problems with high Q tuned "resonant" circuits, whether they be purely electrical or electromechanical or purely mechanical is that narrowly-tuned circuits are thrown off very easily by any parametric change.  This absolutely does include the loading of a motor, just as the real "resistive" power loading a parallel "tank" circuit changes its effective Q and may also shift the resonant frequency in some complex systems.

In order to truly optimize the use of resonant techniques, the application should probably involve a constant mechanical load.  You have apparently tweaked the cap values to lowest current draw at no load, but you also need to observe the phase angle of the current and voltage and do some cap value tweaking at the expected and worst case (typically maximum) mechanical load values.

Not knowing exactly what your design goals and system requirements are, it would be wrong of me to speculate on solutions.  I am not an expert on this specific subject of using 3ph motors on 1ph power.  I expect there are engineering compromises involved that may not be so eagerly pointed out or acknowledged by some enthusiasts who are primarily striving and searching for or even outright proclaiming over-unity operation.

I also expect (and would bet my last money) that, in general and given optimal capacitor values, the lower power you draw electrically, the lower mechanical power output will be available at the shaft and vice versa. 


Humbugger

<<Hi there Humbugger,
I fully agree with you as you said "In order to truly optimize the use of resonant techniques, the application should probably involve a constant mechanical load."

Without this I think researcher get's into problems that I got here. When the HP increases beyond 7 and 10 this paramiters may change all together, (which I am only assuiming here)

Sataure, your comments touches the most key points of RV methode that I am expereincing: you said: the current determines the torque, whilst the voltage determines the RPM (to an extent... you have to supply the minimum current to get it to speed, and after that the speed stays relatively unchanged if you continue to add current).

Therefore the RPM's will remain the same with your design, but by lowering the current you lower torque.

Will be nice if we can test a 7 or 10 HP motor with RV circuit to see what the outcome will be specialy under constant load operation.

Mean while I hope we'll get comments from other researchers that will shed more light to our discussion here.

Mem>>

Just curious, Mem:

Why do you think scale is a factor here?  It seems intuitively, to me, that scale wouldn't give any change to the basic relationships.  I don't know why it would. 

I guess we're both waiting to hear more opinions and knowledge from someone with some serious insight and experience in this matter. 

Maybe they are all too busy building secret RV generators in their basements and getting rich selling watthours to the utilities!

<<Hi there Humbugger,  
Insert Quote
Just curious, Mem:

Why do you think scale is a factor here?  I have no ideaIt seems intuitively, to me, that scale wouldn't give any change to the basic relationships.  I don't know why it would. Well you could be right on here

I guess we're both waiting to hear more opinions and knowledge from someone with some serious insight and experience in this matter.  Yeah we are

Maybe they are all too busy building secret RV generators in their basements and getting rich selling watthours to the utilities! I don't think so, it just a matter of time. We'll hear from them.
Mem.>>

I wrote this yesterday and forgot to post it. My wife and son of 18 are leaving next Monday to Compostelle, Spain for an 800 km walk. So I have been busy with their preparations.

Without getting too melodramatic or bogged down by the hereafter, looking at your diagram, you should have only caps between L1 and L3 all in parallel. Your current should be on L1 and L2. Only L# is driven by the caps.

See my photo of my test bench using a 5hp 230/460 1750 rpm at 110 vac driving a 1200 watts 12vdc alternator. The alternator is now removed as I will be using it for my VAR project. I have also tried a 3hp PM.

No, it was not producing OU. Yes I did learn. Yes I will try it again eventually when I have SOME spare time.

The alt is so small, and it's producing of 1200 watts (108 amps) is so high that the torque required to turn it at full amps production is totally horrendous.

Used on a car, this alternator would only require to top continuously the battery so the drag is reasonable unless if you are pounding a 1000 watts car radio (sound propulsion). But as an RV set up, the object is to withdraw the most wattage possible from the generating medium, so you then agree to be exposed to the alternators' maximum torque (or maximum wrath). What a beast.

But basically, do you see the capacitor bank in the background. These are connected in parallel to the L1 and L3 of the PM. You don't really need all these caps. I like to have more then less. You start the motor with no load and switch caps until you get the lowest amp draw. Now, when you start loading the motor, the caps selection at no load is no longer valid so you have to switch in and out other caps until the load can be carried, but always in parallel and only between the L1 and L3.

I have come to the conclusion that Rotoverter requires a large PM running a smaller generator. By using the rotoverter with a 7.5 hp, you get about 3 hp of motive force (or less). Now there is also a relation between the PM rpm rating. If you have a 1750 rpm PM, it will have twice as much torque as the same motor running at 3600 rpm.

I believe there is potential here for OU, But, and notice the capital B, this cannot be accomplished with all mixes of motors and generators. You need a specific proper match from all sides. This is the problem because it's expensive and so varied, so the proper mix is not evident.

I would say the following would be the best match;

PM - 7.5 hp - 1750 rpm under RV
Generator - 5.0 hp at 900 rpm

The PM at 1750 rpm would have maximum torque but since it is running under RV the total HP would drop. The generator at 5 HP and 900 rpm means it has more windings to produce the same current at lower RPM. More winding means the drag is spread out evenly over a larger surface area.

Compare this to my alternator that is very small, produces high amps and high rpm means the drag is much harder. Again what a beast.

So I concede that my current set-up is not ideal and I am sure others are running into the same problems. Yes there are electronic work-arounds out there that you can see on Panacea's web site. Plus you can get more info in the RV section of this forum.

Now here's the fun part.

So, what I do not understand is that if RV is working and producing OU for some, why have they not standardized a perfectly matched system and started to sell them on the market. This is what I would do the next day, the next minute even. People need this now.

It seems that some of the motor manufacturers should be funding this standardization research to get a standard unit out there ASAP. It would be in their interest to sell more motors.

So for me RV is not a universal answer. It requires testing with many combinations to develop a standard repeatable working system. I just can't figure out why this has not been done yet. Either someone is missing the boat, or, the boat sank but nobody wants to admit it. In my view, the latter would be the current case since the former is not yet accomplished.

Of course, the RV guys will debunk this vehemently as they should. So where's the standard system?

- Another Idea -

I have some small 1/4 hp 90 vdc identical permanent magnet motors. I am wondering if the rotors were modified so that portions of the each rotor would loop to the other rotor, the bemf of one would be sent to the the other and vise versa, too see if two motors could run in tandem to turn a same shaft. This way, both motors would not waste the bemf to heat and potentially use less power to run. Just a tought. I presently don't have the time available to try this but one day I will try it.

wattsup  apply that set up to this device, already there are TWO successful replications
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/Meyerswatercell.htm

Dont forget Guys to try a Frequency drive to get more HP.
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=9089608413203959523

Circuits to START with are post here
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/files/RV%20energy%20saving%20applications%20and%20R%20and%20D.pdf

I would go down the road for RV OU in the current attachment.
(Updated) already tested, this is the working system from this page
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/RotoVerter.htm

>I have come to the conclusion that Rotoverter requires a large PM running a smaller generator.

A 7.5 HP 60 hertz RV will give you 1-1.8 HP at the shaft.
FREQUENCY DRIVE IT FOR MORE

A 3HP 60 hertz RV will give you around 1HP at the shaft
FREQUENCY DRIVE IT FOR MORE

Check the video. Guys please read the compilations more

Mem, since you modified the Sch(yes you added /subtracted and dont use the FWBR), it will not give you as much torque, i suggest you try the whole circuit as is.

watts up, the standard systems work, we have the most efficient Drill in the world,
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=5816656720879983601&hl=en-AU

If you stick to what we suggest, NO WHERE HAVE WE SAID  DRIVE A CAR ALTERNATOR AND OR YOUR GEN AS IS.

Guys please stick to the circuits posted in the compilations, that way we can help and trouble shoot with you.

Hi guys,

Just to let you know I ordered a 10 amp shunt today....this should put the complete concept in the true light.

Rich

Quote from: wattsup on August 22, 2007, 09:46:28 PM
I wrote this yesterday and forgot to post it. My wife and son of 18 are leaving next Monday to Compostelle, Spain for an 800 km walk. So I have been busy with their preparations.
Hi wattsup,
Thank you so much for your lenghty comment, I enjoyed reading it line by line.
Without getting too melodramatic or bogged down by the hereafter, looking at your diagram, you should have only caps between L1 and L3 all in parallel. Your current should be on L1 and L2. Only L# is driven by the caps.

See my photo of my test bench using a 5hp 230/460 1750 rpm at 110 vac driving a 1200 watts 12vdc alternator. The alternator is now removed as I will be using it for my VAR project. I have also tried a 3hp PM.
Man you got so many capacitors, you can run 10 motors in RV mode...
No, it was not producing OU. Yes I did learn. Yes I will try it again eventually when I have SOME spare time.
I think we are all in the same boat here... Spending time, money lots of hopes, you name it.
The alt is so small, and it's producing of 1200 watts (108 amps) is so high that the torque required to turn it at full amps production is totally horrendous.

LOL I was thinking to do exact same setup. I even vent to town get the 100 amp alternator. Thank God I didn't do it. Instead friend of mine gave 1.5 Hp 3 PM and with lower rmp and I trie that but but I had no power output. Story is too long to tell you here.

Used on a car, this alternator would only require to top continuously the battery so the drag is reasonable unless if you are pounding a 1000 watts car radio (sound propulsion). But as an RV set up, the object is to withdraw the most wattage possible from the generating medium, so you then agree to be exposed to the alternators' maximum torque (or maximum wrath). What a beast. Yeap alternators needs a lots HP

Here is another thought that I had: How about De palamas N Machine? It's an induction free generator might be worth while we look into this? 
But basically, do you see the capacitor bank in the background. Yea I see it, you invest more then 100 bucks for those caps...These are connected in parallel to the L1 and L3 of the PM. You don't really need all these caps. I like to have more then less. You start the motor with no load and switch caps until you get the lowest amp draw.
Yes I hear you, thats the way to go
Now, when you start loading the motor, the caps selection at no load is no longer valid so you have to switch in and out other caps until the load can be carried, but always in parallel and only between the L1 and L3.
Ah.. I see what your saying, some guys did this as I watched them on youtube

I have come to the conclusion that Rotoverter requires a large PM running a smaller generator. By using the rotoverter with a 7.5 hp, you get about 3 hp of motive force (or less). That's not bad at all if you run that motor under wattage then what it put's out, BINGO LOL right on that becomes OU without any further question, I keep my eyes open for 7.5 PM or even bigger if I can find one.

Now there is also a relation between the PM rpm rating. If you have a 1750 rpm PM, it will have twice as much torque as the same motor running at 3600 rpm. Another good point to remember.

I believe there is potential here for OU, But, and notice the capital B, this cannot be accomplished with all mixes of motors and generators. You need a specific proper match from all sides. This is the problem because it's expensive and so varied, so the proper mix is not evident. Man, this research can get costly! Honestly I been thinking to make a home made genrator: And use 1" diameter say 20" long rear earth magnet shaft (multy pole) then put air core magnetic coils to pic up the power. Do you understand the true purpose of this?

I would say the following would be the best match;

PM - 7.5 hp - 1750 rpm under RV
Generator - 5.0 hp at 900 rpm  Do they actualy have 900 RPM PM? I spouse single PM

The PM at 1750 rpm would have maximum torque but since it is running under RV the total HP would drop. The generator at 5 HP and 900 rpm means it has more windings to produce the same current at lower RPM. More winding means the drag is spread out evenly over a larger surface area. I think this paramiter are good. "Logical to think that with a big probability will work"

Compare this to my alternator that is very small, produces high amps and high rpm means the drag is much harder. Again what a beast. (Looks little thing but it's a beast LOL)

So I concede that my current set-up is not ideal and I am sure others are running into the same problems. Yes there are electronic work-arounds out there that you can see on Panacea's web site. Plus you can get more info in the RV section of this forum. You know I donload all those PDF files, you got to read a lot of stuff to see what those guys are doing there. (I wish I had more time and money)   

Now here's the fun part.

So, what I do not understand is that if RV is working and producing OU for some, why have they not standardized a perfectly matched system and started to sell them on the market. This is what I would do the next day, the next minute even. People need this now. You are apsolutly right on this, I don't think word went out yet! Energy saving motors surely will dramaticly increse PM's sales. Wouldn't be nice if would get funded to do this research for them?

It seems that some of the motor manufacturers should be funding this standardization research to get a standard unit out there ASAP. It would be in their interest to sell more motors.
Maybe we should send out grant a propousal, what do you think of this?

So for me RV is not a universal answer. It requires testing with many combinations to develop a standard repeatable working system. I just can't figure out why this has not been done yet. As far as RV goes we are at the early infancy stage of this thecnology!
Either someone is missing the boat, or, the boat sank but nobody wants to admit it. In my view, the latter would be the current case since the former is not yet accomplished. What comes to  me is the priorities of the people, not every one has the same goal you know 

Of course, the RV guys will debunk this vehemently as they should. I don't think they would, we are progressing but darn slowly!
So where's the standard system?  Don't be surprise we may see it on the lable that may say " Made in China"

- Another Idea -

I have some small 1/4 hp 90 vdc identical permanent magnet motors. I am wondering if the rotors were modified so that portions of the each rotor would loop to the other rotor, the bemf of one would be sent to the the other and vise versa, too see if two motors could run in tandem to turn a same shaft. This way, both motors would not waste the bemf to heat and potentially use less power to run. Just a tought. I presently don't have the time available to try this but one day I will try it.

This is coolest idea I ever heard, man you got some smart head over there. I like to hear what will come out of this! (when you test this let me know)

I hope my comments are readable. Have good day

Quote from: oouthere on August 23, 2007, 02:50:41 AM
Hi guys,

Just to let you know I ordered a 10 amp shunt today....this should put the complete concept in the true light.

Rich

<<Hey Rich, what is this "10 amp shunt" ? I never heard the term before.
Mem|>>

@Ashtweth

Hi there!  I read your writeup and watched the videos at the link you provided to Panacea on RV status.  I'd like to discuss that:

"In summary the input current is 385 watts, The output current is 1600 watts OF REACTIVE POWER. Take 1600 watts, subtract 385 watts and it will equal 1215 watts of over unity from the input needed to create it.

Where is this excess energy coming from?  [A better question is where is it going?  Humbugger]

It has since been proven via resistors and an oscilloscope that the voltage and current wave forms are REAL, these results are mentioned in the advanced RV research and development compilation listed on this page. This is real power, but must be extracted via RF protocol.

Panacea has also made a Video of this test.

This is what needs to be studied and understood through further testing in the R & D centre. Panacea's tests are conclusive and prove it is possible to Loop the RV with the excess energy produced. And it is further feasible that Hectors R & D is valid and is to be submitted into the research and development centre."

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose or you are confused, but you are presenting a very distorted picture here regarding "excess energy" production.  First of all, current is not expressed in Watts, but rather Amperes. 

Worse yet, you are apparently quoting power numbers here.  One is the DC input power, accurately expressed in watts as the product of a DC current and DC voltage.  The output power, you fairly note, is "reactive power".  This is also known as "imaginary power" and it is not properly expressed in Watts but rather in VAR (Volt Amps Reactive) for that very reason.

It is not real power capable of doing real work in a real load.  It does not indicate energy being used in the load.  The energy is simply reflected by the capacitive load and circulated right back to the generator.  The term "real", as applied to electrical power, is the opposite of the terms "reactive" and "imaginary".  You cannot correctly refer to this quantity as "reactive" power in one breath and as "real" power in the next!

So, while it might sound really exciting and fool many readers who don't know any better, it would be totally wrong, incorrect and absolutely misleading to say that input Watts can be compared for efficiency purposes with output VAR.  That's a scam!

Real power will, in practice, always be delivered to some small degree whenever current flows unless superconductive elements are in play because no load or output impedance is purely reactive...all have some ohmic loss which represents real power absorption. 

However, the real power could easily be only 1% or less of the VAR value in a real-world reactive load and frequently is that low a percentage.  Even average quality caps have dissipation factors of well below 1% and ESR (equivalent series resistance) figures on the milli-ohm scale.

VAR are "imaginary/reactive watts", to abuse a common oxymoron. They cannot be simply "converted to" real watts by using "RF protocol" (not familiar with the term despite designing RF plasma-drives for CO2 lasers since 1995).  I imagine, using my best guessing skills, that you mean by that the practice of making a matching network to correct for the reactive portion of the load and provide a conjugate match for ultimate maximum real power transfer. 

Well, when you do that, if that is what you meant, you will find that your measurement of real power in real watts delivered to a real load and doing real work with real forward energy flow is going to be a much much smaller real number or, that the system's input power will rise proportionally to provide the increased "real power" energy output! 

If your intent was to show the prospects for overunity operation, why in the world would you choose a purely reactive zero-energy-absorption load such as a capacitor bank? You seem to know the difference in the video, admitting that this is reactive power and that "conventional science" dictates that it is not real extractable power. 

Then you overlay that little picture of a scope shot which was obviously not connected to the test setup at the time and which shows V and I being "almost 180 degrees" rather than 90 (as in a pure reactance).  Magically, you change your tune...it's now actually real power after all!

Suddenly your capacitor bank has become a strange real power load with a 180 degree phase angle?  Come on, Ashtweth!  At the reported "1600W", there would be smoke and fire pouring out of your cap bank if that were the case.  If that after-thought scope shot was looking at the voltage and current in your cap bank it would show almost perfect 90 degree phase lag in the voltage.  It would have no alternative!  That's what capacitors do...every time!

If your "evidence" depends entirely on that faked scope shot and that piece of paper with the magic circuit, why make the big demonstration at all?  Nothing you actually demonstrate there indicates any evidence of overunity operation whatsoever.

Please discern:  I am not belittling your projects, your beliefs, your stated goals or your ongoing value as a human being.  I am, however, absolutely rejecting your writeup and this video as being any kind of viable evidence or demonstration of the promise of this approach for OU. 

A fair analogy would be a man claiming an over-unity wine keg, one that multiplied the wine internally.  The man pours endless jugs of wine from the spigot of the keg, handing each to his assistant who carefully measures and tallies each amount on a big chalkboard and then pours each jug right back into the keg!  To complete the analogy, a carefully measured small amount of "input wine" is added to compensate for spillage and leakage, allowing the process to continue forever.  These small amounts are carefully subtracted from the ongoing chalkboard tally. 

The audience cries out "Fill our jugs!", but the man declines, mumbling some no-doubt good reason, yet still insisting he has demonstrated a net gain in wine.  "Look at the numbers", he insists!  He then goes on to ask the audience for investment donations so that he can build more and bigger versions...

If OU or self-running can be gotten from a rotoverter, this should be your tutorial guidebook on how not to go about proving it to anyone! 

It almost appears to have been intended expressly to deceive the naive, which really makes me quite sad, since you are actively soliciting funds and ostensibly doing charitable altruistic work on behalf of the world's children.  I want to be able to trust you!

You have earned the all caps Humbugger salute for this month:

BAH  HUMBUG!

@Hum

I knew knocking you off this board was a mistake, but after reading your post.....

take a deep breath first....think zen.....

I'm convinced I was right. Good job.

Here are some questions.

Example on my 5 hp RV PM set-up with the alternator is connected to the shaft but not excited, so no load or minimal load.

1) When I measure the input to the Prime Mover, I measure the voltage of 114 vac and current of 0.7 amps.

2) Now when I excite the alternator my PM amperage shoots up (even after the best capacitor regulation) to 5.3 amps but the alternator is only producing 13.65 volts DC at 9.3 amps. This is a 108 amp alternator. I tried by increasing the load on the alternator but no way to bring it up above 10.3 amps before the PM start to really slow down and stop. Also, the PM gets very hot.

3) Question, is the DC power from the alternator real or VAR, or is VAR only applicable to AC generators that are capped to the hilt.

4) Question. If instead of my alternator, I used an AC single phase generator without any other components, caps, or other. Is the power comming from the generator real power or reactive power.

5) Question. In essence, in laymans terms, what you are saying is as soon as the generator has capacitors connected to its output, the power is not real but VAR and the measurement taken off the generator, although they may show good numbers for amperage and voltage = watts, the true value is zero. So this still needs some more explaining.

6) Question. Are you intested in buying an RV set-up. I have one for sale. lol

Here's your report card for your POST.

Logic: 99% (only I get 100%) lol
Content: 85% (try to use some pictures, people love pictures)
Diplomacy: 65% (I know you're trying hard. I can sense you're holding back)
Harshness: 65% (We all have our limits, I know.)

Report Card Comment: Try a bring up the diplomacy and bring down the harshness but all in all, good job. Now wait till Hector responds as what you have pointed out is pivotal to the RV effort.

Boy, we should have all new OU proposals to pass the Humbugger test.

Quote from: Mem on August 23, 2007, 04:28:41 AM
...
<<Hey Rich, what is this "10 amp shunt" ? I never heard the term before.
Mem|>>

Hello Mehmet,

A '10 amp shunt' is a robust precision resistor designed for passing 10 amper current safely (not heating up significantly and burning out) and you can measure the voltage drop across its two terminals: this voltage drop is propotional to the current and no need for a separate 10A current meter.

See this link out of many explanations: http://www.rc-electronics-usa.com/current-shunt.html

Regards
Gyula

Quote from: wattsup on August 23, 2007, 05:35:50 PM
@Hum

I knew knocking you off this board was a mistake, but after reading your post.....

take a deep breath first....think zen.....

I'm convinced I was right. Good job.  Thank you

Here are some questions.

Example on my 5 hp RV PM set-up with the alternator is connected to the shaft but not excited, so no load or minimal load.

1) When I measure the input to the Prime Mover, I measure the voltage of 114 vac and current of 0.7 amps.

2) Now when I excite the alternator my PM amperage shoots up (even after the best capacitor regulation) to 5.3 amps but the alternator is only producing 13.65 volts DC at 9.3 amps. This is a 108 amp alternator. I tried by increasing the load on the alternator but no way to bring it up above 10.3 amps before the PM start to really slow down and stop. Also, the PM gets very hot.

3) Question, is the DC power from the alternator real or VAR, or is VAR only applicable to AC generators that are capped to the hilt.   VAR or reactive power is a time-phase related phenomena and does not apply to true, steady-state ripple-free DC measurements.  It applies any time AC or cyclic time-varying "DC" is fed into a load that contains non-resistive (reactive, energy-storing) elements.  It is most prevalent (in ratio to real power) when reactance dominates resistance in any load, whether a motor, transducer, tuned RF circuit, transformer or just a big capacitor or inductor.  In most of these loads, we find maximum reactance when the coupling or loading is above or below the nominal design maximum values.  This is generally done by design to present the most resistive looking load at the maximum power level allowed by the continuous rating.

4) Question. If instead of my alternator, I used an AC single phase generator without any other components, caps, or other. Is the power comming from the generator real power or reactive power.    That depends on the load and the output impedance of the generator.  Even if the external load is virtually pure resistive (heater, incandescent lamp, resistor, well tuned RF load, etc) any reactive portion of the output impedance of the source (generator) will add reactive, imaginary portion to the power transferred.  That is why, in RF circuits tuned for maximum forward power transfer, we add compensating reactive elements between source and load to make a "conjugate match".  The output impedance of the generator is reverse-mirrored by tailoring the load to look equally reactive but in the opposite direction.  Add a series inductance to resonate away to zero a series capacitive reactance in the output source, for instance.
   
5) Question. In essence, in laymans terms, what you are saying is as soon as the generator has capacitors connected to its output, the power is not real but VAR and the measurement taken off the generator, although they may show good numbers for amperage and voltage = watts, the true value is zero. So this still needs some more explaining.   In real life, no load is ever 100% reactive or resistive.  AC loads all contain some reactance and some resistance.  My point to Ashwent, above, is that it is definitely cheating to measure forward energy flow for purposes of proving high efficiency while using a nearly pure reactive load, since it does not actually accept any energy.  In practical real world power transfers, there is always a ratio of real power and imaginery power.  At 0 degrees phase shift, it's purely real watts...resistive.  At 45 degrees its half and half and at 90 its pure reactive power.  If current leads voltage, the mismatch is capacitive; if voltage leads current, it's inductive.  At 50/60/400Hz AC line power frequencies, we refer to the ratio between real watts and VAR as power phase angle or sometimes it is called power factor (although that can refer to sine distortions in amplitude as well).  At RF, the ratio of reactive and real power is called VSWR for Voltage Standing Wave Ratio (ratio of reflected reactive power over forward real power) or just "mismatch".

6) Question. Are you intested in buying an RV set-up. I have one for sale. lol Nope...too much stuff already!

Here's your report card for your POST.

Logic: 99% (only I get 100%) lol
Content: 85% (try to use some pictures, people love pictures)
Diplomacy: 65% (I know you're trying hard. I can sense you're holding back)
Harshness: 65% (We all have our limits, I know.)

Report Card Comment: Try a bring up the diplomacy and bring down the harshness but all in all, good job. Now wait till Hector responds as what you have pointed out is pivotal to the RV effort. I know, I'm bad, especially if I think someone is purposely trying to mislead for their own benefit or to hide the truth from others because they don't want to face it themselves. 

Boy, we should have all new OU proposals to pass the Humbugger test.  No no no...all I want is for people to learn to do and discuss measurements of energy right and proper.  That alone will eliminate huge amounts of goose chasing, misunderstanding and frustration.

There...all hard to read and reddish glowing.  About pictures.  I have AutoCad, SolidWorks, Orcad Schematic Capture, some analog simulators, etc.  Like getting on the workbench and firing up the soldering iron and scopes, drawing pretty pictures is something I reserve for when I'm really motivated and usually getting paid well or thinking I am onto a big important idea.  These days, it's fairly rare, sad to say.  Anyway, I'm not sure what pictures I would have drawn so far for any of my rants.

Thanks for your constructive comments, criticisms and really good questions.  I hope some of it made sense and that I have not managed to dull your enthusiasm. It really is more fun and more productive to play the game if you know most of the rules and all of the language...even when busting out of the rules and adding to the language is the goal!

Humbugger

Afterthought:  Keep this in mind:  Elements that are termed "resistive" take in electrical energy and convert all of it to heat, light, sound, motion, EM waves or some other form of energy.  Pure "reactive" elements generally do not; they merely store and return or "circulate" the energy they take in.  A pure capacitor gives back all of the charge you store in it, delivering none out in other forms.  Same with an inductance if it is not magnetically coupled to other circuits with resistive loads in them.  A magnetic field is built up, but then collapses back on itself and reverses, over and over again.

So, it follows that when a source of power and potential work (the output of an energy delivering machine or source of any kind) finds only a reflecting reactive load made of pure L or C or a combination of the two but with no element that can absorb and convert electrical input energy to another form, the can be no forward power delivered to it on a continuing basis.  This is all standard textbook stuff and I'm not ashamed to say that I believe in it and have found no exceptions to it nor heard any credible evidence that refutes any of it.

A transformer will "look" like an inductance primarily, until a resistive load is hooked to the other side of it; then the primary looks mostly resistive, too.  A typical motor will appear mostly reactive once the free-wheeling shaft and armature attains speed and until the shaft is loaded down and input energy is then being converted to shaft work rather than just being stored as kinetic inertia.  Then it typically starts looking more resistive at the power input leads. 

Of course, adding external reactances will change the operating points around and, for certain situations, that can lead to higher efficiency at a given set of load and power transfer conditions.  So, there can definitely be merit in tuning your motor or other load for highest performance and efficiency if the conditions of operation are known and fixed.

Designers of standard off-the shelf general duty motors often can't optimize for any set of conditions except nameplate rated RPM and HP, leading to less-than-optimized performance at lower speeds and torques.  Engineering is said to be a game of compromises and optimizations given limited ranges of required performance i.e. "design specifications".  I find that to be very much true.

Here is a very good basic tutorial about power factor, complete with graphics and simple math.  It probably does a better job explaining and teaching about AC reactive power than I do in a few paragraphs of words.

The basic idea I'm trying to get across here is that loads that only reflect power back to their sources do not provide power for external work.  Therefore, it is not realistic, fair or honest to use reactive loads in demonstrations of a machine's electrical efficiency.  High apparent power output may impress the gullible, but it does not heat your home or turn the shaft of your motors or run your appliances.

For an essentially pure reactive load such as a capacitor bank, the output port of the machine being tested is also being used as an input port!  Only the tiny losses of the interconnecting wiring and dissipation factors of the capacitors comprise the net output forward power.  All other measured power is reactive and returned immediately to the source.

Link:http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/AC/AC_11.html (http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/AC/AC_11.html)

The only correction I would make to this otherwise excellent basic tutorial is this:

"REVIEW:

In a purely resistive circuit, all circuit power is dissipated by the resistor(s). Voltage and current are in phase with each other.

In a purely reactive circuit, no circuit power is dissipated by the load(s). Rather, power is alternately absorbed from and returned to the AC source. Voltage and current are 90o out of phase with each other.

In a circuit consisting of resistance and reactance mixed, there will be more power dissipated by the load(s) than returned, but some power will definitely be dissipated and some will merely be absorbed and returned. Voltage and current in such a circuit will be out of phase by a value somewhere between 0o and 90o."

The reason for my correction being that the struck-out text is only true if the resistive portion is greater than the reactive portion.  Another way to correct the statement would be to change the lined-out word "dissipated" to "taken in" or "accepted".  "Dissipated" implies permanent conversion and dispersal, as in turning it into heat, light, vibration, radiated forms, rotary motion, etc.


Humbugger - promoting honesty in measurements and clarity in communications

Hi Hum and all,

Okay, the simple answer is, Hector and David Kou have used/extracted (not as conventional engineering would) your "VAR" or reactive power, as WATTS in a real load. And that is the justification of me stating what is stated based on that report. We are ATM replicating David Kous circuit to prove this.

Hector did it with the nodes lighting up light bulbs (again a watts load). David Kou did it on the run cap resonance with his neon switching circuit to charge a secondary battery with no reflection.

So what i said still stands Im afraid, if you use try to TAP the 'reactive power' CONVENTIONALLY, then what you say stands, we do not load it that way.


This can be tapped and has been by two engineers, you can dis prove them and replicate their findings if you wish.

Here is how we explain it
http://panacea-bocaf.org/files/RE-OU-v6_1.pdf

So i think although i could fine tune it for YOUR better understanding, if you read the RE-OU ebook you will see that this 'reactive'  power' is EXTRACTED in a different way.There is no Scam here, just open sourced circuits, and reports of it it being done and replications.

Ash...

You might just as well tell me that your two engineers are in the back room converting lead to gold or apples to oranges.

It sounds like no one here disagrees that it requires real power to run real energy loads. 

Why do you insist on making up those bogus equations which compare VAR output vs. Watts input?  You see, the definition of VAR is that it is just as much an input as an output!  So, for your equation to stand, you must put the VAR number on both sides of the equation for COP.  Every VAR of output power is immediately turned around and shoved back into the system as one VAR of input power! 

This is not because of a bad conventional political-economic-compromised physics theory or because I claim it true or because hundreds of tests have been done.  This is because that is the definition of reactive power and its unit of measure!

In a nutshell, if your engineers are claiming to you that they can make you "a black box" which presents a purely reactive load like a capacitor bank to the energy source (your generator) yet which also gives real power output to an external real resistive load, then they are not telling you the truth.  If they could do that, then you could skip all the rotary machinery. 

If you have a box of electronics that reflects all the power put into it back to the source, yet also provides an equal (or any) forward power into real loads, then you're done!  Just plug it into your wall socket; it won't register any energy use, since it is purely reactive with a power factor of zero.  Now simply attach all your regular energy-hogging loads to it's magical output port and you're home free!  Infinite COP!  Skip the heavy machinery!

Watts and VAR...these two units of power measure are not the same and, regardless of what your unconventional engineers claim, they cannot, by their very definitions, be cross-converted.  Every VAR will always be a VAR; every Watt a Watt.  A load can be tuned or a resonant circuit can be tapped but in the end, all reactive power is, by definition of the term itself, reflected back to its source and is not forward-flowing energy in a power train and cannot legitimately be measured in efficiency or COP calculations. 

When will you show us a valid real-power in vs real-power out demonstration with the scope and meters hooked up in real time and with a load that represents real forward energy transfer?  You obviously had the proper loads and equipment to do that right there in the video in question. Why didn't you use them? Anything short of that, you must logically agree, is no kind of valid demonstration at all!

Anyone can produce all kinds of fancy unsupported theories, inconclusive demonstrations, assertive publications, wild claims, sincere promises and endless excuses...thousands are doing it every day, it seems.  You may even be able to persuade millions of people that your theories are correct!  You can shout down, ridicule and ostracize those who don't agree.

None of that yet changes the world energy situation one tiny iota until real forward energy is actually fed into real loads at 100% or greater efficiency.  Those of us who have heard the claims and promises and theories are still waiting for the first wee tiny bit of actual scientific evidence. 


Humbugger

@Humbugger

What if the VAR was sent to an AC to DC transformer.
Would the DC side be VAR also or unstable?

Quote from: wattsup on August 27, 2007, 12:38:32 AM
@Humbugger

What if the VAR was sent to an AC to DC transformer. see below
Would the DC side be VAR also or unstable?  No such thing as a DC VAR

By definition, a VAR is a unit of measure, not a thing.  VARs are not "sent".  VAR is a way of stating and quantifying what happens when a certain alternating electrical force (Volts) is applied to a certain reactive load (net inductance or capacitance of +/-j Ohms reactive).  The calculations are similar to Ohm's law except that TIME enters into the equation.  The big thing to remember is that pure reactances store and give back energy; they do not "use" or "convert" or "dissipate" energy like resistive elements do.

Reactive loads, when AC current is forced through them by AC voltage being imposed across their leads, alternately store and then give back electrical energy on each cycle of the AC wave.  Net consumption is zero.  Resistive loads change the form of the input energy to heat or other forms and do not give it back to the source. 

There is no such thing as DC reactance, therefore there is no such thing as DC VAR.  All DC power is properly measured in Watts and is "real". 

You cannot "send VAR" into a resistive load any more than you can "send Watts" into a reactive load.  The phase angle of the power will be determined 100% by the load across which the voltage is being measured and through which the current is being measured.  This is true regardless of the internal inductance or capacitance of the power source. 

In other words, no matter what the output impedance of the source looks like, the measured voltage and current through a purely resistive external load will always be in phase and those through a purely reactive load will always be 90 degrees out of phase.  The phase angle measured at the load is only a function of the load and not of the source.  The amplitudes of voltage and current are, on the other hand, effected by both the load and source impedances.

Please go back four posts and read the tutorial.  It explains it very well with pictures and simple equations.

Humbugger

So would putting a transformer on the AC output of a generator, and, measuring the dc output as real watts suffice to show OU or not on an RV system?

Quote from: wattsup on August 27, 2007, 02:09:44 AM
So would putting a transformer on the AC output of a generator, and, measuring the dc output as real watts suffice to show OU or not on an RV system?

Yes but it's not necessary at all.  A transformer is not necessary; a simple bridge rectifier and very large filter cap will do.  DC measurements are not prone to the misunderstandings and measurement errors due to phase shift and power factor, but the output side measurement really doesn't need nearly that much attention!

It is far easier and much less lossy to simply assure the use of essentially-resistive loads like big non-inductive resistor banks or groups of incandescent lamps.  Even wirewound (inductive) resistors will have so little reactance at 50 or 60Hz that it can be ignored, causing way less than 1 degree phase shift.  If your OU machine puts out 10KHz square waves, however, you'll need to be a lot pickier.

As I just said in the last post, there will be no phase shift observed in a resistive load no matter what the source impedance is.  A wideband true RMS reading meter should be used so that harmonic distortions do not compromise the measurements, but phase shift between voltage and current cannot and will not appear in resistive loads.  All power flowing into a purely resistive load is real power and may be measured, calculated and expressed in Watts.

Time, however, can still cause big measurement errors, even if everything is measured in DC units or perfect resistive loads are used to measure AC output power.  See my post in the Charles Campbell thread for more on the other kind of time-imposed problems in systems with large internal energy storage.  http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg45667.html#msg45667 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2487.msg45667.html#msg45667)

Also, if a sytem being measured requires an AC input, then we have no control over the power factor and phase angle there because it is established by the equipment being tested, not the power source.  My recommendation overall is that a high-quality watthour meter which measures only real power as opposed to apparent power (VAR+Watts) be used. 

In any event, inaccurate readings due to including VAR at the input will lead to lower COP numbers rather than larger-than-life ones as when VAR is included in output measurements.

I'm not sure whether the cheapo units like the KillaWatt and others qualify under those terms, but you can get meters that will accumulate only true watt-hours real and ignore VAR.  Fluke makes one or two and many of the new solid state panel-style watthour meters give independent displays of Watts, VAR and VA Apparent (Watts + VAR). 

Analog Devices has cheap chips and evaluation boards that are able to distinguish between real and apparent power, so it would not be too tough or hugely expensive to build something up.

Somebody who owns a Kill A Watt might want to stick a nice fat high quality AC-rated capacitor across its power outlet and observe.  If it runs up Watt-hours as if the cap's reactance (1/(2*pi*f*c)) were a resistance then it does not distinguish between VAR-hours and Watt-hours and should not be used to measure energy on the input side of experimental DUT (device under test) AC systems.  It would be okay on the output side, where we have control over the load and we choose a purely resistive load.

I have not been able to find an engineering spec sheet on these ubiquitous units and I don't know what chip they use offhand.

>You might just as well tell me that your two engineers are in the back room converting lead to gold or apples to oranges.

No, all David Kous input and out put still makes your understanding not valid, read the Neon document and deliverance data, conventional theory cannot explain the added gains.

Forget your classic training , we are not stupid and know that reactive power as is, is not  claimed as the OU, i already explained this to you. The Extraction of it is being done and cannot be explained conventionally.

let me put this to you, humbug

YOU- replicate David Kous circuit,  AND YOU PROVE IT DOESN'T WORK

other wise i find i cannot explain any more to you, i would read the engineers results and try the circuits,the lab is the best way for you to educate your self.

>Yes but it's not necessary at all.  A transformer is not necessary; a simple bridge rectifier and very large filter cap will do.  DC measurements are not prone to the misunderstandings and measurement errors due to phase shift and power factor, but the output side measurement really doesn't need nearly that much attention!

this is different via RV theory, it depends if you are using Hectors method of extraction where we use the RF nodes,  and a transformer is needed/used (Trafo in the comps)

I suggest you Both read these compilations to save allot of re explaining how RV works, and how the extraction process is done
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/files/Advanced%20RV%20Research%20and%20development.pdf
http://panacea-bocaf.org/files/RE-OU-v6_1.pdf

Ash-

read both of those thoroughy.  extremely unintelligible to me.  sorry!  i tried but it's not making any sense to this old conventional electronics design engineer.

i guess i just live in an entirely different world than those of you who really seem to understand this stuff.  the technical jargon is totally foreign to me and there are many statements that appear to be frankly inaccurate or entirely nonsensical. 

no hard feelings, i hope!

cheers, and have fun visiting with Charles!


Humbugger

Hum, It has been [reported]  done so far by three. Brian prater reported self running a RV lawn mower, he got spooked and disappeared with it.

Hector, he also said he got interference when he disclosed a looping set up.
David Kou so far is the only person disclosing an EASY method to extract the resonance.

Dont worry , conventional theory wont help, David Kou has stated that he cannot explain i via conventional theory.

Hum  since you are so much value here and thorough, i will Send you a kit of the circuit, we are making 4.

Only thing is if its used for your OU prize, please donate it back to Stefan to help the forum. I wish more people would replicate David Kous information.

Hi ashtweth,

Wasn?t the RV lawnmower considered to be a hoax?

hi  argona, No i find Brian Prater to be Creditable, And the spooks only usually turn up when you have some thing working ;)

   Kone also did an RV lawn mower.
http://img466.imageshack.us/img466/4072/rvlawnmoweryr2.jpg

"Doug Conzen has been the first to benefit by applying the RV energy saving principle into real life applications, which saved him energy and money. Doug likes to cut grass  and did so with this adaptation of a home depot lawn mower. This test clearly demonstrates the significant energy saving involved with the RV?s capacity of power on demand, and how the use of this technology in intermittent roles works in making the energy consumption drop.

Quote: Today I cut some grass with the RV lawnmower - it cut through it great, and it was wet and high grass too. The amps went DOWN when cutting grass - started out at 1.4Aac and dropped to 1.2A while cutting. These Electric lawn mowers you can buy in stores like home depot and draw 15Amps so that is pretty good doing it RV instead at around 1.2A.One thing I did is made my own aluminium-blade in it, this saves lots of watts as compared to the original heavy thick steel one.

1.2 A is 12.5 times less energy than the 15 amp HD ones

I Just spent around 3 hrs mowing a couple lawns with the red RV mower it bogged down in thick grass and I had to restart it a few times, but so does the gas mower too in same place. Anyways I used 19uf run cap, and 5uf more for start cap, for a time in the thick grass, I hooked up the start cap all the time and then the motor got hot a bit but not too hot. It would be nice to have a switch for easy adjusting of the cap-uf
size, as at pure-idle mode, I could drop that run cap down to 10uf or even lower, but then when you hit the grass with it, there isn?t enough power to cut it without bogging down so you need a "load" cap as well as an "idle" and "start" cap too is what I would say for next lawn mowing job.

Also I ran the mower on a single half-charged up 7ah/12V battery not a Coleman 400W invertor and then the invertor running the RV lawn mower. The speed and power seemed the same as when running direct 120VAC house power (with long cord) but the battery drained down pretty fast - I didn?t look at the current-draw (didn?t have meter that big) but assume it is around 12A X 12VDC as its 144W watts on 120VAC.

This lawn mower is a good demonstrator for sure - its very easy actually to do the conversion, my motor is only 1/2hp too, lots of them on e-bay for super cheap I  would go up to 1hp rated AC motor next lawnmower project however.

One thing I did is made my own aluminium-blade in it, this saves lots of watts as compared to the original heavy thick steel one - you don?t need all that blade to cut  grass. In conclusion I?m using only 1.2A ac compare to "conventional mower" using  15 isn?t a direct-comparison, since I changed the blade too maybe if the conventional  electric lawnmower had a lightweight blade, it would then only draw 8 or 9 amps
I would guess. ?end quote"

.

Kone is on EVGRAY yahoo energy groups, he just posted a new RV/DC pule motor design, am working my way up to adding into the compilaitons