Looks Cool New Idea for magnet motor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_HRwqKzFk
How do you think about it.
it is an interesting way of making a motor, thats for sure..
but i have a hard time fathoming that a 1.6HP (overunity) motor would require the use of ten deep-cycle 12V batteries to operate it..
It's not even close to being OU.
I wonder where all crasy guys come from and why they develop one after another
non working OU contrapments? To scam people??
I think this concept is very considerable idea for making overunity device.
http://www.gap-power.com/videos-2.html
check out the vids , its all explained, how much power is required and why,... and helps to understand how much power is required get past the sticky point via neutralizing the magnet to make it easy to slip past and as you up the voltage to slip past the motor becomes MUCH stronger at doing work.,... from his calculations it looks like the neutralization part of one rotation cycle is ONLY about 2% to maybe 4% of a single rotation(depending on the configeration of your motor). it also looks like extra power might be being made or drawn from the collapse, there more to this than meets the eye, i guess just screaming its carp is easier to do for some folks?. its a shame its been rubbished so early on here in this thread before it even had a chance to get onto the table.
if any one takes the time to watch the full set of videos youll have a better understanding of whats going on here. ;D
Thank you Luishan, for posting the vid.
It's very interesting. The switchable on/off magnetism has intrigued many of us over the years....all the way back to the mysterious NASA boots (I won't explain, you just have to investigate for yourself).
I love the sincerity that the inventor has. He says he believes he has OU, but freely admits he may not, and that sharing information is what is important. I feel he is the type of person i could call friend...unlike some in this thread who thrive on degrading peoples efforts before they even know what the hell is going on. But, that said, at least one out of ten of us is a sociopath whose brains have no genuine reference point for empathy and compassion. It's not their fault, any more than it was mine to be born an ignorant ass.
Check it out other considerable ideas.
http://www.youtube.com/user/theENERGYDREAM#g/u
The website doesn't list the coil specs. I sent an email to see if they would update the parts list page with that info. The magnets listed are from KJ magnetics. Below is a link showing the repelling force between two of these magnets.
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/largergraph.asp?CI=4&pName=DZ0X0
I'm not entirely sure we can make a determination of OU or not without all the facts. If we knew the coil specs, we could determine at least the input power.... :-\
Quote from: luishan on July 23, 2010, 11:08:52 PM
Looks Cool New Idea for magnet motor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_HRwqKzFk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM_HRwqKzFk)
How do you think about it.
You did very good job.
I like what they have tried to do here. However the real test is to see if they can generate enough power by using the current generated by the coil and say a generator run by the wheel to keep th batteries charged (man there are a lot of batteries)
I am working on something similar but uses gravity to assist and mechanical means of neturalising the field.
Mark
has anyone bought the DVD from this gap-power.com website?
hello?
The problem with the dvd seems to be that it offers the same information that is already shown. (the neutralization explanation, the tests etc.)
Why pay 25.00 for something that has been already explained?
Jesus
Jesus its been a while ! :D
Hi everyone , just one idea ...
Remember the old Vw bug motor ?
I would make a 4 cylinder out of it 4 time what it is now , in sets of 2 one magnet pushing and one free , the other set is the same but 90 degree off .
They could could then be fix to a axle , by timing in sequence each magnet would make one forth of the rotation requiring one pulse per coil in sequence , leaving the other 3 coil to charge back the battery ...
Then maybe blow the battery ;D
Quick illustration
Quote from: FreeEnergy on July 27, 2010, 12:36:06 AM
hello?
Huwwo..lol...
I looked at this video and a few things
jumped into my mind right away on this.
I understand that a few centuries ago
a crankshaft looked like a good idea.
But that it is still used is just idiotic.
In the case of this experiment,
the most force available to use
is wasted to the least leverage
When just past 0 (Zero) or 180 degrees,
almost no "lever" (Hence leverage) is present.
The ratio is just abysmal to say the least...
As the magnets force quickly weakens from distance,
the crankshaft is gradually increasing usable leverage.
Very sad...
A nice heavy flywheel, with a ratchet toothed edge
and the linear motion of a matching "Pawl" ratchet
utilizing the full force of available linear energy
needs to be the first improvement here for sure !
If set up correctly,
when the magnet pair are at their closest
the pawl would be at 90 degrees to the axle,
thus making the longest lever with most leverage
and transfer 100% of the usable energy provided.
Gradually tapering off as the pawl leaves a perfect
90 degree lever transfer angle (Maximum leverage)
decreasing in leveage as the magets force reduces too.
The current arrangement is absolutely backwards
in conversion efficiency to be absolutely clear.
Moving on to the next step of potential improvement,
we have to abandon the usual way we think about power.
We tend to think:
Power in >>> Power out.
(Electricity in >>> Motive force out)
the video's concept is backwards to our way of thinking.
It is the opposite of the usual concepts
we naturally tend to gravitate towards.
Here, we are putting power in to CANCEL
what will the result in power output.
However, once thinking is reversed here,
lots of good things quickly come to mind.
If the force we are trying to harness is linear,
then go with that and add to it in multiplicity.
Let me define the word "Unit" to mean:
One pair of opposing magnets,
orientated to repel each other
(N<>N or S<>S to be clear)
and one coil to cancel the repulsive force
as a "Building block" to save typing space.
[/Start: "Draw picture with words mode"]
1 - Start with a very heavy large flywheel,
add two opposing sets of ratchet teeth
to the flywheel's edge side-by-side.
2 - Align a linear motion rod past flywheel edge,
support each end in two saddle-block bushings.
3 - provide a staggered set of "Pawl" clutchblocks
such that they engage at each of the rod's travel
forming a perfect 90 degree lever upon the flywheel.
transfering linear power to rotary @ 100% effeciency.
4 - Place one "Unit" on BOTH ends of the linear rod.
5 - Alternatively turn off each of the two end "Unit's"
to utilize both directions of the linear travel rod.
(As opposed to wasting one of the usable directions)
[/End: "Draw picture with words mode"]
OK, now we have a starter kit that has 100% effeciency
of linear to rotary energy conversion for the most part,
and we are no longer completely wasting one the linear rod's
full range of motion to just a "Return trip" to the beginning.
when the left coil releases the usable magnetic force
one of the pawls engages with the corresponding track
of ratchet teeth on the flywheel's edge.
At the end of the rod's full stroke to the right,
the right coil will release It's cancellation force.
The second pawl will engage the second track of ratchet teeth
and will be lined up at 90 degrees too to maximize effeciency
due to this pawl being mounted at a staggered position on the rod.
Now it gets intersting (LOL), think "Parallel-path" magnetics.
Start with the left "Unit", lets say it is N<>N orientation.
Make a secone unit that is S<>S orientation
and mount it directly on top of the first one,
connect the unused core ends with a magnetic bridge.
Mount the movable north and south set on a second
magnetic bridge too, then onto the linear rod's end.
So far it is just a complete path loop.
But we are still in "Repulsion" mode,
only now it is 2X in effective force
in both directions of linear rod travel.
[/Start: "Sail off end of concept mode"]
Now add a third bridge and matching coil set
and you will still have 2X Repulsion,
but you can also add 4X attraction too.
with only a small input of electrical energy
to (What has now become) a four coil set.
Thats 4X attraction when energized,
and 2X repulsion when non-energized.
[/End: "Sail off end of concept mode"]
This just isn't easy to put into words here,
but I don't have a easy to use drawing utility.
Any suggestions on a free and easy CAD utility,
that will work on the old Win-9x kernal machine I use?
Three pics would have done the work of all the above...
To those not familier with parallel-path concepts:
Google "Parallel Path Magnetic Technology"
http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&newwindow=1&num=100&lr=lang_en&safe=off&q=#num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=%22Parallel+Path+Magnetic+Technology%22
A "Starter kit" to get your mind wrapped around this:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Joe_Flynn's_Parallel_Path_Magnetic_Technology_--_by_Tim_Harwood
Hope this helps, sorry to ramble.
Please don't re-quote this entire friggin thing on here,
just reply instead, or edit the quote to short quips OK ?
Thanks :)
Quote from: Mk1 on July 27, 2010, 01:03:23 AM
Jesus its been a while ! :D
Hi everyone , just one idea ...
Remember the old Vw bug motor ?
I would make a 4 cylinder out of it 4 time what it is now , in sets of 2 one magnet pushing and one free , the other set is the same but 90 degree off .
They could could then be fix to a axle , by timing in sequence each magnet would make one forth of the rotation requiring one pulse per coil in sequence , leaving the other 3 coil to charge back the battery ...
Then maybe blow the battery ;D
Quick illustration
Hi @mk1
You are always posting good ideas!
Jesus
1 How much energy is used to overcome the repelling force?
2 The energy used to top the piston to the magnet is less than the energy it creates even with that poor magnetic coil field interaction and energy transfer or induction?
QuoteWhen electricity is applied to the coil, (+ -), it greatly amplifies the magnetism over and above what would normally be the combined force of the electro-magnet and the permanent magnet. It's actually 2.9 times the power of the permanent magnet. When the polarity is switched, (- +), the magnetism at the face end of the coil is gone. Simply stopped. At 18 volts, 95.31 percent of the power produced by the above motor is generated by the permanent magnet. The electro-magnet is just simply acting as a switch, which at the appropriate time, is turning on and off the magnetism from the permanent magnet.
http://www.gap-power.com/index-2.html
What about this idea?
Jesus
this uses the same principle:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Harry_Paul_Sprain_magnet_motor (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Harry_Paul_Sprain_magnet_motor)
http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/MagneticMotors/Paul_Harry_Sprain/Paul_Harry_Sprain_magnet_motor.avi (http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/MagneticMotors/Paul_Harry_Sprain/Paul_Harry_Sprain_magnet_motor.avi)
There is another easy one with just 2 magnets, that uses a floating rotor or something like that to self run.
http://www.youtube.com/user/theENERGYDREAM#p/u/3/PKz1Y3UayHw
Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=024EJ9Aa0xU&feature=related
I don't think you'd want to replicate this exactly as shown as there is
lots of room for improvement. a few comments:
1. stick with linear action, avoid rotary!
2. junk the motor output in any form and go straight to a linear generator
3. go with two units in opposition which will give you a neutral resting position
using either N><N, S><S
4. don't bother trying to turn a unit completely off, use just enough power to bias
the opposing units to create an imbalance cycle which gives either a pull or push
stroke depending on the DC to the coils
5. stacking PMs is not an efficient method for creating a strong long throw PM field,
better to go with a Bushman type array
6. once you've optimized and confirmed the concept with real measurements of I/O,
move onto more complex configurations as suggested by others
tak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU7jjmQECd8
There are plenty of people that claim that their device is overunity but when you try to replicate it, it never is overunity.
Jesus
@jesus
The idea of ou is to me a bit stupid , because you need to build a machine that powers it self , so the function of the machine is to drive it self how useful is that . Ok if there is enough left maybe we can run leds on it .
What i am looking for is over use of power , OU is hard to Tell get 10 different experts and you will get 10 different results , if you got tough that ou doesn't exist then you will never proclaim it dose , his testing is only to prove that he is wright .
Quote from: Mk1 on July 27, 2010, 06:50:07 PM
@jesus
The idea of ou is to me a bit stupid , because you need to build a machine that powers it self , so the function of the machine is to drive it self how useful is that . Ok if there is enough left maybe we can run leds on it .
What i am looking for is over use of power , OU is hard to Tell get 10 different experts and you will get 10 different results , if you got tough that ou doesn't exist then you will never proclaim it dose , his testing is only to prove that he is wright .
The thing is that if you get the motor running for free, you attach a generator at the other end to power lights or to charge batteries for free, etc.
Also you can add a secondary winding at each coil to get useful energy.
Remember I may be wrong.
Jesus
@jesus
I know there is a huge potential with this one , i see it do everything .
But my point is To really prove Ou you will need no meter and no experts , that is the only way to do so , you just got to be able to do the impossible regardless of meter readings .
Like using a 1.5v battery to light a 40 watt bulb to full brightness for over one hour , at that point you can prove OU but not that you are legit ...
So everyone get overuse so wasting time with closing the loop because the loop needs to be free standing and out of the circuit and nobody is ready for it ...
Mark
MK1,
No offense, but now who's sounding like IST?? (just kidding) :P
Quote from: MrMag on July 27, 2010, 07:58:49 PM
MK1,
No offense, but now who's sounding like IST?? (just kidding) :P
Well honestly , he repeated all i did shown him but never quite got the meaning of it and kept repeating his naive views ...
I'm Canadian too i have been subjected by the same federal propaganda he was we are only a few years apart , but that is where it stops .
why does the magnet need to spin? why not just pulse its field into a coil (input) as +-/-+ and use a secondary coil for output? no moving parts!
Do you mind make a working prototype of your proposal idea ?
And show us.
Thank you.
Quote from: luishan on July 28, 2010, 01:00:45 AM
Do you mind make a working prototype of your proposal idea ?
And show us.
Thank you.
who me?
i can't right now, but do you see what i am saying?
SOMEONE please correct me if i am wrong!
see
Would tell us little bit detail how to give electrical pulse, What gauge wire use ...
Thank you.
you would input d/c or a/c current depending on the strength of the magnet at high volts. use some kind of switching device for pulsing different polarities.
here's an example of using different polarities using a 9v battery and an audio speaker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIMHGkxw72o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIMHGkxw72o)
How about this looks cool idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKz1Y3UayHw
http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magelect.htm
homopolar! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaKbB0QffVc&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaKbB0QffVc&NR=1)
imagine wrapping coil around this magnet (in the video) without touching so the magnet can spin freely. the coil wrapped around the magnet would be the output! use a very strong magnet! this would be another way of getting more output than input. all this must be tested!
You can't use the resistance of the coil. you have to calculate the impedance of the coil. Please refer to this page.
http://www.midnightscience.com/formulas-calculators.html
Would you show us example experiment diagram ?
i have ordered some powerful neo magnets on ebay. i still need to buy two spool of copper wire, and a 9v battery. hopefully a 9v battery will work with these magnets. will be a couple of days.
edit - and some kind of auto/self magnetic switching device? will need to research on this.
ok a reed switch?
.
Hi long time no visit
is a COP of 19 qualify for a mag motor alternator? and that's only at 567 revs with a rough test rig. 700 RPM would give COP 32
keep trying
I have done it 8W in and 160watts out.
aussepom
This one is to help someone to try the idea posted above by @freeenergy.
Jesus
Quote from: nievesoliveras on August 02, 2010, 01:43:23 PM
This one is to help someone to try the idea posted above by @freeenergy.
Jesus
thanks for the help i needed that. :-)
im not even sure what type of copper wire to use.
i was thinking of building your suggested modified diagram, could you list part names/numbers and where i can buy? ebay?
so far i have ordered 4 Neodymium N50 Magnets 1 x 1 inch Cylinder Rare Earth.
@freeenergy
All the parts needed can be gotten at Radio Shack
Maybe the more expensive is the 555 ic and the wire.
If you want lots of voltage, choose a 30awg or less wire.
If you want more amperage, choose a 26awg or higher.
You can use 26awg on the pulser and 30awg on the pick coil.
Remember I am a newbie also.
Jesus
Quote from: nievesoliveras on August 02, 2010, 01:43:23 PM
This one is to help someone to try the idea posted above by @freeenergy.
Jesus
Hi Jesus,
Would you mind inserting a series capacitor in the wire of the coil that goes to pin 3 of the 555? The electrolytic cap positive leg goes to pin 3 (where the LED goes too) and the cap's negative leg goes to the coil wire, the coil's other end goes down to the battery negative as shown.
Without the capacitor the coil's DC resistance (just a few Ohms or less) directly short circuit pin 3 to the negative battery point, making huge current flowing out of pin 3 continuosly, the pulses cannot defeat this huge current, hence the 555 may burn.
Thanks, Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on August 03, 2010, 01:51:26 PM
Hi Jesus,
Would you mind inserting a series capacitor in the wire of the coil that goes to pin 3 of the 555? The electrolytic cap positive leg goes to pin 3 (where the LED goes too) and the cap's negative leg goes to the coil wire, the coil's other end goes down to the battery negative as shown.
Without the capacitor the coil's DC resistance (just a few Ohms or less) directly short circuit pin 3 to the negative battery point, making huge current flowing out of pin 3 continuosly, the pulses cannot defeat this huge current, hence the 555 may burn.
Thanks, Gyula
well im no electrician, or anything like that. sorry but i dont really know how to read a circuit diagram too good, i know a few symbols like a diod symbol, the ground symbol, etc. maybe if you can label each part i can have a better understanding.
Quote from: FreeEnergy on August 03, 2010, 03:25:39 PM
well im no electrician, or anything like that. sorry but i dont really know how to read a circuit diagram too good, i know a few symbols like a diod symbol, the ground symbol, etc. maybe if you can label each part i can have a better understanding.
I will do a new circuit with @gyulasun recomendations of the capacitor's right position and with the part names, as soon as I get all the information.
Jesus
Hi Jesus,
Thanks for your activity. The number 2 position is what I described, polarity is ok as is. The positive capacitor end goes directly to pin 3, as the led cathode leg does too, ok?
Gyula
EDIT cap is about 47uF 50V or 63V rated.
Quote from: gyulasun on August 03, 2010, 04:04:59 PM
Hi Jesus,
Thanks for your activity. The number 2 position is what I described, polarity is ok as is. The positive capacitor end goes directly to pin 3, as the led cathode leg does too, ok?
Gyula
EDIT cap is about 47uF 50V or 63V rated.
Thank you @gyulasun.
Jesus
Yes, that is ok now.
A well made video and very good craftsmanship on the device construction.
A few things:
1. Near the beginning he demonstrates the concept by running the device in the vertical position - this incorporates gravity into the equation.
But all other runs/tests are shown in the horizontal position.
It would seem for it to run well this way it would need a much larger flywheel for that 1/2 cycle.
2. He expresses confusion over the disconnect between the voltage/current draw - early/large voltage spikes relative to current draw.
Seems he's not considering the impedence of his large ohm coil.
(and isn't getting accurate current readings as it shows a constant .4 amps)
Setting up a large capacitor bank, running it from that for a short period, and then comparing the start/finish charge of the bank would be an accurate way to determine power consumption.
(edit): or even use a Watt's Up Meter - $60. These things are way cool and I think alot of people could make great use of them:
http://www.powerwerx.com/tools-meters/watts-up-meter-dc-inline.html
3. While the coil will *produce* power on the 'off' cycle (as the magnets retreat), it will still suffer from our old nemesis Lenz, so don't see how you can get the full power back from it that you put in to it (even including capturing coil collapse)- *especially* in the horizontal position.
Some good workmanship and good presentation, but still lacking on details and don't see it being OU, especially from a horizontal position. Needs to be orientated in the vertical to include gravity to maximize the theory IMO.
Would like to hear more from him.
------------EDIT-------------
* 4 Neodymium Magnets 1 x 1 inch Cylinder N50 Rare Earth.
thanks guys for all your help.
just to make sure will the 555 ic pulse vice versa polarities right? +-/-+
to start things simple i will build something like this:
i will probably try to test this out first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDELb8JcI0Q
listen to what he says "it gets faster", "batteries charge up".
how does this thing work exactly with the wiring, positive and negative connections?
The pulse connection is wrong. The correct one is:
Jesus
i did a small change again to the diagram but no picture this time :-)
i bought Magnet Wire 30 Gauge AWG 3200 Feet Enameled Copper 200C and Magnet Wire 26 Gauge 325 Feet Coil Enameled Copper 200C from ebay. should be here by next week.
next i will buy the 555 IC!
lol i hope i know what im doing lol
i already chipped my new magnets by not being careful and hurt my finger, oops! minor incident, could of been a lot worse!
i am getting a bunch of different types of 555s on ebay, could you see what's a good 555ic for me to buy on ebay? and maybe the rest of the parts? :-)
The chip I used was labeled NE555.
The other parts that are resistors, capacitors and led, could be any brand.
If you test them and they work, use them.
Jesus
do you think this is a good one to buy?
http://cgi.ebay.com/10x-NE555-General-Purpose-Bipolar-Timer-/330453308995?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2
Quote from: FreeEnergy on August 07, 2010, 01:38:39 PM
do you think this is a good one to buy?
http://cgi.ebay.com/10x-NE555-General-Purpose-Bipolar-Timer-/330453308995?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2
Yes, that one is good for the circuit. Also it is good if it has an LM in front of the 555. Like this LM555.
Jesus
LM?
Quote from: FreeEnergy on August 08, 2010, 12:33:10 AM
LM?
There are different LM555 s.
The one you need is with the dip configuration.
http://www.supplyframe.com/partsearchservlet/partnerWormhole.action?id=1024489&partnerName=DSA
But if you really would like to be an expert, look onto this info:
http://home.cogeco.ca/~rpaisley4/LM555.html
Jesus
Sorry to jump so late onto this thread,
but now I caught up with this.
They now have their own Youtube channel at:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheGAPpower#g/a
I still have to take a closer look at their
scope shots and power calculations, but so far it looks
pretty interesting how much mechanical power they get
out of this magnet motor and how low the electrical input power
is and how much also the BackEMF power due to the scopeshots
(what they don´t show in the videos how they use this..)
Using both sides of the magnets via iron cores should yield still a much higher efficiency
which is currently not used...so this motor could still be scaled up in efficiency just
with a few additional iron core pieces...
Well done.
Regards, Stefan.
I found the error, so this device is unfortunately not overunity !
He is not measuring the Input voltage at the battery, but wrongly on the coil only !
As the coil voltage is behind the relay he uses, this does not show the real input voltage.
He just must use the constant 45 Volts of his battery as the calculation for the input power.
As he shows in an analog ampmeter test, the AVERAGE input current is about 0.6 amps all the
time and this is validated via his 1 amp fuse test, which does not break !
So from the batteries always an average current of about 0.6 amps is drawn.
So we can say that the total input power all the time is battery voltage multiplied
by the average input current.
So 45 Volts x 0.6 amps = 27 Watts input power.
Now the mechanical output power lifting the 22 pounds weight is
7 Watts.
So 7 Watts out / 27 input power is around 26 % efficiency only...
Too bad that he just did not measure the input voltage at the battery,
but only at the coil...
Regards, Stefan.
Great conclusion Hartmann.
As usual the inventor of this device is ignorant and his perception skills are simple.
Ignorance and simple minds always seems to come along in the Free Energy business.
Well, the presentation and replication device and all the video presentation was very
well done and professionally and I think he really meant well and wanted to do it all in the open
and was thinking, he already had cracked the efficiency.
But unfortunately nobody saw this measurement error,
also not the quoted university professor.
I think with a changed unit and using both poles via iron core pieces
and chopped pulsed input current at higher input voltage and not a constant input current during the
100 Milliseconds ontime or so this unit could still get overunity.
If the input current is chopped several times during the 100 Milliseconds Ontime
via mechanical switches and the right mechanical material points are used, like
in a Newman commutator copper and graphite this will even generate more BackEMF output power.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 27, 2010, 08:24:04 AM
I think with a changed unit and using both poles via iron core pieces
and chopped pulsed input current at higher input voltage and not a constant input
current during the 100 Milliseconds on time or so this unit could still get overunity.
Regards, Stefan.
Going from 26% efficiency to more than 100% is quite a goal.
Actually an impossible goal if history will repeat itself one more time.
It might be possible to reach +90% if most losses are eliminated but
going above 100% I can't see happening from this design.
Well, it is only about 26 %, cause the BACKEMF Power was not included.
As they did not show, if and how at all they extracted the BackEMF power from
the coil, I could not add this in the calculation.
But if the BACKEMF Power from the coil would be extracted witha few diodes and
charge up a capacitor and drive an additional electrical load, this power could get quite
big with the right commutator design.
Imagine using 300 Volts of input voltage and have a chopper circuit,
that applies 50 input current pulses 1 milliseconds long and the offtime would also
be 1 milliseconds, then we have about the same "input" cycle length of 100 milliseconds,
but only really 50 x 1 milliseconds would the input voltage be supplied.
This will increase dramatically the BACKEMF Power and could get the motor
into the OU range.
Regards, Stefan.
@ Hartmann
The idea of harvesting Back EMF energy is good but unfortunately this will not help.
Back EMF recovery only represent a fraction of the total energy spent when pulsing an electromagnet.
I have attached a drawing for a clearer view on the pulse properties of an electromagnet.
BTW, the Back EMF pulse always switch polarity, therefore the negative spike in the drawing.
@FatChance
what you have shown is only the case in a static case.
Here in the motor we have the dynamic case, where the magnets are moving
and the inductance L changes, etc...
Also it only will work with mechanical switches which have
partial negative resistances and work as a battery during the sparks
as the dissimular metal points act together with the arc-plasma as a battery
and introduce external energy into the circuit.
It is the same principle as in a Newman motor.
You basically convert copper and graphite points mass into electric energy
this way which will charge up your batteries if you do it right with the right extraction circuit.
You need fast High Voltage diodes.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 29, 2010, 09:34:41 AM
@FatChance
what you have shown is only the case in a static case.
No I'm not referring to a "static case".
What is shown represent repeated pulsing during a certain On-time period.
There is no difference between a static single pulse and repeated pulses except
the "Fully On" period can be infinite when static.
And furthermore, dynamic operation in the presence of a permanent magnetic field
(like a magnetic piston moving inside a coil) will consume even more power due to
the counter induced voltage in the coil from the magnet in motion.
This increases the necessary voltage needed to establish the same field, compared to
static mode, by several hundred percent or more, all depending on the speed involved.
Well, it seems I'm still right in this case. But I wish I was wrong and we could all finally
reach our long time overdue pursuit for overunity.
Hi,
Today I tested a double coil with a common Ferrite core inside.
At each side a put a Neo magnet as shown in the drawing. I then
used my 555 switch to drive one coil. The output from the diode bridge
was connected to the input battery(12V 7A). The system was under
unity when run at any frequency and duty cycle setting. At the best
frequency and duty cycle setting (found by adjusting pot meters), the
system ran with little power input but still was able to keep the ultra
bright led connected to the battery (1K series resistor) bright. The battery
was very depleted (6 volt).
Groundloop.
@All,
I did change my circuit to the attached circuit. The idea was to get a better impedance
match between the output coil and the battery. I also lowered the oscillator frequency
down to approx. 2 Hz at minimum. I did try out different configurations on the coil. With
and without magnets. More magnets and less magnets on the coil. I could not see any
difference in the performance with or without magnets on the coil. My lead acid battery
is loosing charge over time.
Groundloop.
Hi Groundloop,
your circuit is nice but a different circuit, a solid state circuit.
You are missing the mechanical output, that
www.gap-power.com
is getting.
Have to tried to replace your NTE109 Diode with high power LED diodes
and see, how much power you could extract there in the primary coil ?
Also try to use mechanical switches for the primary coil with graphite-copper
contact points and put at least 2 in series, so you have a faster current change dI/dt inside
the coils and thus more induction voltage and more output.
It really matters that you use mechanical switching, cause only the
dissimular metal effect between graphite and copper will give you
the "external battery effect" which will bring in additional energy.
See it this way:
The spark is the electrolyte and the dissimular metal contact points are
your battery plates.
As this "contact point battery" is switched in series into the circuit, it
will introduce new energy into the circuit and can recharge your main power supply battery.
This is why these Newman machines had the massive big negative current spikes.
They come from this special "battery effect" when the spark occurs on the mechanical
commutators.
Regards, Stefan.
I just looked at gap power I am sorry to say the guy with the monotonous voice doesn't have a clue.
At least a dozen times he states Ohms Law is a law of physics it cannot change.
Yeah Ok I get that. But then he applies ohms law to an inductor (the coil).
You cannot apply ohms law to calculate the power of an inductor. You must use the inductance in (milli)henries to calculate power you must also factor in the frequency as well as the voltage. And don't forget the inductance changes should any metal come into the field, er like his entire contraption moving in and out. Inductance is easily influenced by the environment its in. that's why when tuning a radio's receiver coil you use plastic tools (and take your metal watch off).
Because of the method he uses to switch the coil, this is a very complex calculation. The frequency is shall I say erratic. Now I cant recall all the math involved it's been many years since my electronics course. basically you have to calculate the resistance of the coil based on the frequency AND the inductance of the coil. Once you have that then ohms law applies. but you also need the RMS value of the voltage which is to say the 'average' value of the voltage. given his "weird" (his words) voltages that would be hard to determine.
Its also a simple matter to explain his confusion over "more input power when not under load" he totally fails to take into account the fact the motor is running faster when not under load. it throws his already totally incorrect readings even further out the window. The frequency is higher therefore the inductive resistance of the coil is also higher so the real current is lower.
Its a sad fact that many of the people purporting to create OU devices only fool themselves by not learning some basic information.
If you are going to play with electronics don't you think you owe it to yourself to get an education?
The most common mistake I see is people using moving armature meters or even digital multimeters, measuring the peak voltage and multiplying that against the average current and thinking they have a valid power measurement. They don't and are just fooling themselves. Or trying too fool others.
If you are going to do OU learn about electronics and engineering. it will save you some costly mistakes.
Now I might take the time to review all his videos. It would have been nicer if he presented his figures in a spreadsheet for validation. but going on what I have seen so far I only expect more of the same stupid mistakes.
By the way one of my own OU devices which I am working on uses "magnetic cancellation". You cannot get OU directly from canceling a magnetic field.
It must be patently obvious to any one with a glimmer of intelligence that to cancel a magnetic field with an electromagnetic field requires at least as much energy as the magnetic field contains. its a 1 to 1 relationship, to cancel one Gauss of magnetic field strength you need 1 Gauss of electromagnetic field strength. In other words ignoring all sorts of losses in the "switching coil" you must put in exactly the same amount of energy as you hope to get out of it. (This ignores light switching and high frequency low current switching which I have yet to see any proof of.)
Factoring in losses means you must put a lot more in than you can possibly hope to retrieve.
Its little wonder with people like the people at gap power pushing OU that the mainstream science community will have nothing to do with us. and I don't blame them one iota.
There is some damn good stuff out there but the science community will shy away from it because of the laughable claims put forward by some peddlers.
CC
When i read such topics i question myself, if it is really even possible to produce such OU, self propelling, small power machine. I^ve been accustomed to only big frames, big power engines. And don^t forget, that magnets loose energy with a time. Such was for german DAR^s (dynamic atomic reactors) from mid 20 previous century. They, although with much free power (OU), had to change (radioactive) fuel after specified time of working. The only water has possibility to renew. We can not go other way as the Nature is built. But it is dangerous, 2 way axe. www.nsppp.bloog.pl
2 CuriousChris
You are absolutely right about measuring power. But they are at the right way selecting direct weight/height estimation of productivity. They should try some more clear way to show input power, though, it would be hard). Regard to OU of their setup I'd say it would be completely possible if they used so called "peaks" at turning off the solenoid so that increase original field of solenoid's PM. But there's more efficient ways to utilize "peaks", MEG for instance. m?
I like the idea of a small gap device, for the pure and strict use (only) of keeping a Milkovic style pendulum in swing, giving it that tap... if even "not over unity" it could provide a thousand gallons of pump action an hour, with just a little "tap" made by a rubber ended piston fired electromagnetically.
Hi,
GAP-power again has a new video out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvkUIr8dv_k
Well done again in documenting,
but
Unfortunately he again makes the error, that he measures the voltage at the
coil and not uses the voltage from the battery.
He need to use the 45 Volts from the battery x average input current x 0.43.
This is the real input power.
Then compare this to his output power.
Probably the input power is greater then.
YOu can avoid this by using back iron cores from the magnet to the
end of the piston where the piston is the most away from the coil.
Compare this to RomeroUK device.
Regards, Stefan.
Looks like a great simple idea, i cant say much for the calculations, i find people spend a lot of time trying to figure out where someone went wrong than actually trying simple experiments to see if it's possible.
Does anyone know if others have tried replicating it?
If so, I would think once the machine is running it should continue on it's own.
It's a neat idea, I'm seeing this as just momentum of the return swing of the piston (magnetic push) that is likely stronger than the actual power it's taking to neutralize the field.
ill be attempting to replicate this over time out of curiosity, in the meantime ill continue to return here to get some other insight, thanks peeps