I have been thinking about this and have concluded that it should make sense. Core saturation isn't talked about a lot in motors or generators, and if it is it's seen as a bad thing.
To cut to the chase. According to my logic when you take a core with long legs and saturate it, and then close or open a gap on the far side, the coil will be completely oblivious to it. Because closing the gap does not increase flux since the local core part has already been fully saturated. The reason why it's so far is to exclude raw interaction between the coil only and this new piece.
What this means is that the piece can enter the gap with no reaction from the coil, (and the coil can unenergize with more energy?) When the coil is unenergized the core piece is pulled out with little effort and finally the coil is energized again to reset the loop.
Does this make sense or is there some fundamental flaw in the logic?
Hi broli,
I think your logic on this setup makes sense, question is the supposed gain coming from the increased permeability core is enough for maintaining the movement for the core piece?
In a sense this setup may be considered the magnetic equivalent of the changing capacitor setup where you charge up a capacitor's plates at a lower capacitance setting and then mechanically turn the capacitor plates to get higher surfaces facing, hence a bigger capacitor value than during the chargeup. It is expected that in the increased capacitance value the previous amount of charge will somehow increase...
Somewhere on the net there was an explanation that the original energy input into the lower capacitor plate setting does not get enhanced at the increased capacitor value, the stored energy in the cap remains more or less the same.
With this I do not mean your magnetic setup would not produce any extra at all, it needs experimenting.
I think both your magnetic and its capacitor dual circuit belongs to parametric circuit setups.
rgds, Gyula
@Broli,
This looks to be very close to Steorn's theory of operation.
I wonder if by adding a core piece, if the additional field draw would not reduce the size of the saturated area around the coil and if this would change anything?
The idea sure seems worth formulating some type of test device.
In textbooks an air gap supposedly stretches the hysteresis to the right, thus reducing the overall permeability and increasing the needed applied field to saturate it. But I believe this only counts for gaps near the coil. When it's close to the core, the piece you remove to make the gap had a substantial effect on the coil but not when you increase the distance between the gap and the coil.
I predict than when inserting or removing a core piece far from the main coil would change little in the hysteresis curve. In fact I think there would be a distance where inserting and removing a core piece will have no effect anymore on the hysteresis and thus inductance/permeability.
Of course this is all pure speculation :P .
Hi broli. This is a parametric generator type. You can find some similar designs on JLN pages. He has done quite a few experiments on them. In your case the question is - can you get more, than you need, to make a parameter (permeability) change. Not so easy to do. Steorn seems to have done that, but note that he is also utilizing the rotor movement for "traditional" current generation.
Quote from: Airstriker on August 04, 2010, 08:28:42 AM
Hi broli. This is a parametric generator type. You can find some similar designs on JLN pages. He has done quite a few experiments on them. In your case the question is - can you get more, than you need, to make a parameter (permeability) change. Not so easy to do. Steorn seems to have done that, but note that he is also utilizing the rotor movement for "traditional" current generation.
The inductance doesn't have to change to gain more energy. The gained energy can be mechanical when the core piece is attracted in the gap. When the power is collapsed it can be removed again with little effort and the power you collapse should be near equal to the input power. This is also the basis of the Lindemann attraction motor. But he doesn't mention that saturation could be a good thing or the gap distance from the coil.
So it's not per se a parametric change, rather than a mechanical change that has NO parametric change.
Quote from: broli on August 04, 2010, 08:57:25 AM
The inductance doesn't have to change to gain more energy. The gained energy can be mechanical when the core piece is attracted in the gap. When the power is collapsed it can be removed again with little effort and the power you collapse should be near equal to the input power. This is also the basis of the Lindemann attraction motor. But he doesn't mention that saturation could be a good thing or the gap distance from the coil.
So it's not per se a parametric change, rather than a mechanical change that has NO parametric change.
Ok but how about ORBO ? You have got there both mechanical and parametric change. In your's design you want only mechanical. If Steorn barely has OU (we still don't really know if they do) then I wouldn't bet much on yours design to be OU. Right ?
I think the idea, is to apply power to the coil and saturate a portion of the core around the coil. Then add additional core mass in a manner that the coil does not see any change because the coil only sees a fully saturated core.
Then when the field colapses, there is a greater return because the core is now larger. I think all these cases where core saturation occures can produce an OU condition, but it's like saying, I can give a device way more energy than it can take and now it gives back more than it should. (but never more than you put in)
A while ago I proposed a similar design which would operate as a generator. That design DOES operate on parametric change. I made a presentation about it which can be viewed here:
http://ziosproject.com/NJ/magPres/VIG/index.htm
Quote from: broli on August 05, 2010, 02:35:07 PM
A while ago I proposed a similar design which would operate as a generator. That design DOES operate on parametric change. I made a presentation about it which can be viewed here:
http://ziosproject.com/NJ/magPres/VIG/index.htm
I like the concept, and it is shown to work. But then what is wrong? Is there is a problem in possibly the current required waiting for the magnet to move away that will consume any final gain?
Again this is very close to the Steorn device. If their device was working beyond any doubt, then why would they abandon it for the yet unproven solid state device? Makes no sense to me.
Quote from: lumen on August 05, 2010, 11:53:47 PM
Is there is a problem in possibly the current required waiting for the magnet to move away that will consume any final gain?
Yes you are right joule heating should be accounted for. I did some crude "realistic" calculation too a while ago which was posted elsewhere, here it is:
QuoteHere's some crude calculations. First let's consider the complete charge time to be 4*L/R to play it safe.
When the magnet is at TDC the inductance of the coil is 0.1mH. Assuming we have a 30V power supply that can supply 5A then we choose R = 6 Ohm so the charge time is 66µs. Assuming we use neo magnets and our C core gets perhaps saturated 10° before and after TDC. So we give ourselves 10° of charge time. Using our time constant this leads to a constant rpm of 2500 RPM. After this 10° the influence of the magnet on the core starts to diminish, but also meanwhile current is used as joule heating. Let's assume that 45° later the magnet has no more effect on the core and the coil can be discharged. First let's calculate the joule heating energy.
given period = 45°, since rpm = 2500 time is then 300µs. Joule heat enegy = V*I*t = 0.045J.
Notice that I ignored inductive energy input and just put it as a "loss" in joule heating, I'm that confident .
So finally now we can discharge our inductor without any external influence. I took the final inductance to be 0.1H and the load 333.33 ohM. First of all lets calculate the energy of the inductor.
E=0.5*I^2*L=0.5*25*0.1 = 1.25J.
Electric wise the energy out / energy in = 27 or 2700%.
Since this needs again time to discharge. 4*L/R = 1.2ms. From our 2500 rpm rotation that is equal to 180° of rotation. So it will take 180° of rotation to discharge our high inductive coil through the 333.33 Ohm load.
And to finish it all let's look at the power generation. We know it rotates at 2500 rpm and that every rotation steals 0.045J and gains 1.25J. In average watt values this results in 1.87 Watt of loss and 52.08 Watt gain.
And that's just one example of high energy gain from this system. Many parameters can be adjusted to gain any desired cop.
However I didn't talk about mechanical losses there. But they should be minimal as the magnet saturates the core before it's fully aligned with it. This design can use multiple core setups around the wheel to increase energy output. But if you have a big inductance difference only one magnet can be used as the increased inductance will take a while to discharge.
Quote from: broli on August 06, 2010, 08:03:57 AM
Yes you are right joule heating should be accounted for. I did some crude "realistic" calculation too a while ago which was posted elsewhere, here it is:
However I didn't talk about mechanical losses there. But they should be minimal as the magnet saturates the core before it's fully aligned with it. This design can use multiple core setups around the wheel to increase energy output. But if you have a big inductance difference only one magnet can be used as the increased inductance will take a while to discharge.
Ok, so then if I had the magnet connected to an arm that was connected to a flywheel by some elliptical gears, so the magnet would attract to the core at half the speed causing an increase in flywheel RPM, then leave the core at twice the speed which causes a decrease in flywheel RPM, then the mechanical loss would still be the same but the retraction time from the core would be half as long. (so I reason that if the exit loss is greater than the approach gain, an exit speed of 2x the approach speed would also result in a 2x exit mechanical loss)
Would the reduced exit time from the core provide additional performance on the output side since joule heating time would be cut in half also?
If so, then at what point would the mechanical leverage of the increased gearing on the exit side reach a point that any further increase in approach to exit change would increase the mechanical loss to a point where further reduction in joule heating time would no longer provide further final output gain? What would be point of maximum gain? (2x, 5x, 10x)
I'm not sure I explained this in a understandable way!
Quote from: lumen on August 06, 2010, 05:28:36 PM
Ok, so then if I had the magnet connected to an arm that was connected to a flywheel by some elliptical gears, so the magnet would attract to the core at half the speed causing an increase in flywheel RPM, then leave the core at twice the speed which causes a decrease in flywheel RPM, then the mechanical loss would still be the same but the retraction time from the core would be half as long. (so I reason that if the exit loss is greater than the approach gain, an exit speed of 2x the approach speed would also result in a 2x exit mechanical loss)
Would the reduced exit time from the core provide additional performance on the output side since joule heating time would be cut in half also?
If so, then at what point would the mechanical leverage of the increased gearing on the exit side reach a point that any further increase in approach to exit change would increase the mechanical loss to a point where further reduction in joule heating time would no longer provide further final output gain? What would be point of maximum gain? (2x, 5x, 10x)
I'm not sure I explained this in a understandable way!
Yes the increased speed will reduce joule heating as it would take less time to reach that 45°-away-from-tdc position. However it does not increase the mechanical losses as you say. Mechanical energy is force times distance; E=F*x The equation does not depend on velocity. In your example both the force and the distance haven't changed. It doesn't matter if you were rotating at 1 rpm or 10000, the mechanical losses always remains the same for the same amount of degrees. I hope it makes sense.
The idea of variable speed is good in theory, but as you notice yourself it becomes quite cumbersome in practice. Gears would already be overkill let alone elliptical ones. Definitely not something most garage scientists can build :P .
Quote from: broli on August 06, 2010, 05:44:46 PM
Yes the increased speed will reduce joule heating as it would take less time to reach that 45°-away-from-tdc position. However it does not increase the mechanical losses as you say. Mechanical energy is force times distance; E=F*x The equation does not depend on velocity. In your example both the force and the distance haven't changed. It doesn't matter if you were rotating at 1 rpm or 10000, the mechanical losses always remains the same for the same amount of degrees. I hope it makes sense.
The idea of variable speed is good in theory, but as you notice yourself it becomes quite cumbersome in practice. Gears would already be overkill let alone elliptical ones. Definitely not something most garage scientists can build :P .
I agree that the gain to the proposed flywheel during the approach would be the same as the loss at the accelerated exit, however something has changed at TDC. The core does not decrease in magnetic field as the magnet exits and therefore has a greater attraction during the exit phase.
This would increase the exit losses, and with 2x gearing there should be 2x the additional loss.
Even at equal speed, you have shown additional mechanical loss on exit. If the core was not energized, then the exit loss should be only little over approach gain.
I have made elliptical gears for other magnetic projects and I must say they are difficult. The layout alone in CAD can take an entire day for a single gear set. I can then mill them out of Lexan sheet in a few minutes.
I dont understand it but it sound like you do so Im going to tell you something
first Tesla is in the Bible revelation second he screwed us with ac and dc power now I know what everyone thinks im a idiot but listen photon power comes from 144,000 it cannot be measured in conventional volt metters or electric metters the reason theres no gaps so tesla created the gaps so jp morgan could sell the power to enslave the world now some are going to say its not teslas fault blame is not the point the point is the open loop between the magnets releases the frequency to the air that frequency is the ineffeciency so tesla knew the only way to release all the energy at once was to open the circuit the points which creates the spark so thats the wrong way now im not a engeneer but if you have a way to create the spark constant with no gaps thats the key and if you scientist figure out the frequency to offset the gaps in the 60hz we dont pay no one so it should be like this 60/144,000= frequency gaps the metter reads
or 60x144,000= frequency gaps
so with that we should be able to make a crystal or series of crystals to ballance our power to perfect from what tesla screwed the world with. turn the economy and finish my unimited earth battery conversion tesla took to his grave now if you know how to build the circuit i posted the video the battery is easy it went well over 5 miles
and next im going to build a martha stuart generator with vinegar milk grape honey molases =potasium salt and water thats the formula how it goes together good luck im going to a buffet in the morning if you beat me congrats.its about turning our economy from these dictators.
Quote from: lumen on August 06, 2010, 07:35:28 PM
I agree that the gain to the proposed flywheel during the approach would be the same as the loss at the accelerated exit, however something has changed at TDC. The core does not decrease in magnetic field as the magnet exits and therefore has a greater attraction during the exit phase.
This would increase the exit losses, and with 2x gearing there should be 2x the additional loss.
Even at equal speed, you have shown additional mechanical loss on exit. If the core was not energized, then the exit loss should be only little over approach gain.
I have made elliptical gears for other magnetic projects and I must say they are difficult. The layout alone in CAD can take an entire day for a single gear set. I can then mill them out of Lexan sheet in a few minutes.
Yes I know about the exit loss. But you believe this loss gets greater at greater speeds. This is where we don't agree. Even if we approach the core veeery slowly and leave from TDC at lightning speed. The mechanical gain and losses remain equal if we did the same experiment with any combination of speeds. It's because the force acted over the same distance irregardless of the speed. Does that make sense?
Quote from: cletushowell on August 06, 2010, 09:26:57 PM
I dont understand it but it sound like you do so Im going to tell you something
first Tesla is in the Bible revelation second he screwed us with ac and dc power now I know what everyone thinks im a idiot but listen photon power comes from 144,000 it cannot be measured in conventional volt metters or electric metters the reason theres no gaps so tesla created the gaps so jp morgan could sell the power to enslave the world now some are going to say its not teslas fault blame is not the point the point is the open loop between the magnets releases the frequency to the air that frequency is the ineffeciency so tesla knew the only way to release all the energy at once was to open the circuit the points which creates the spark so thats the wrong way now im not a engeneer but if you have a way to create the spark constant with no gaps thats the key and if you scientist figure out the frequency to offset the gaps in the 60hz we dont pay no one so it should be like this 60/144,000= frequency gaps the metter reads
or 60x144,000= frequency gaps
so with that we should be able to make a crystal or series of crystals to ballance our power to perfect from what tesla screwed the world with. turn the economy and finish my unimited earth battery conversion tesla took to his grave now if you know how to build the circuit i posted the video the battery is easy it went well over 5 miles
and next im going to build a martha stuart generator with vinegar milk grape honey molases =potasium salt and water thats the formula how it goes together good luck im going to a buffet in the morning if you beat me congrats.its about turning our economy from these dictators.
Wrong thread?
im not very good at expalining things so if you dont understand please dont get mad just ask a different way
what im saying is there is loops of inifinty there is two loops one of three and one of five
I dont know how to get out of the loops but I know how to complete the loops so if you have a magnet motor
its going to get stuck on one spot you can either discharge this spot with a frequency to match the magnet or
you can absorb the frequency and magnify it to the other side by three loops but magnets are all different strength so its hard to perfect unless your using elctromagnets and even electro magnets are shit because iron is not the same so you need optics so you have to create the magnetic poles of frequency with no iron like how I warp the light bulb but using optics
compensate the lost frequency of the design with frequency conversion from other frequencies exampel if your using a light pulse your going to have a frequency loss of the light spectrum but if we convert the frequency above the spectrum were not using to equal the loss were losing to the air then we have a complete loop so were essential taking the exray frequency and spliting it into light rays and equaling the lost energy so it never stops the lost energy goes to the air we take that energy back. I hope some one understands.
Quote from: broli on August 06, 2010, 09:35:03 PM
Yes I know about the exit loss. But you believe this loss gets greater at greater speeds. This is where we don't agree. Even if we approach the core veeery slowly and leave from TDC at lightning speed. The mechanical gain and losses remain equal if we did the same experiment with any combination of speeds. It's because the force acted over the same distance irregardless of the speed. Does that make sense?
Wrong thread?
Well, that's not exactly what I'm saying and I agree that force x distance is the work regardless of speed, but lets go back to just the magnet on a wheel rotating by the coil as in your example.
As the magnet approaches the coil core, and is about 45 degrees from TDC, the magnet aligns some domains in the core and the core starts to become attractive. This attraction is in the approaching direction and applies a gain to the rotation direction.
At the same 45 degree point after TDC, during the exit phase, the core is still fully saturated from the coil current and provides additional attraction to the magnet that did not exist on the approach side. This additional attraction is working against the rotation direction and applies as loss to the rotating direction.
There would then be greater mechanical loss on the exit after TDC where the core remains saturated for a longer time than on the approach. The distance and speed have not changed, but the force did. Do you agree this would be true?
Quote from: lumen on August 07, 2010, 12:03:41 AM
Well, that's not exactly what I'm saying and I agree that force x distance is the work regardless of speed, but lets go back to just the magnet on a wheel rotating by the coil as in your example.
As the magnet approaches the coil core, and is about 45 degrees from TDC, the magnet aligns some domains in the core and the core starts to become attractive. This attraction is in the approaching direction and applies a gain to the rotation direction.
At the same 45 degree point after TDC, during the exit phase, the core is still fully saturated from the coil current and provides additional attraction to the magnet that did not exist on the approach side. This additional attraction is working against the rotation direction and applies as loss to the rotating direction.
There would then be greater mechanical loss on the exit after TDC where the core remains saturated for a longer time than on the approach. The distance and speed have not changed, but the force did. Do you agree this would be true?
yes completely. This is what the animated presentation shows, in fact there I don't even consider the attraction on approach which would lower the mechanical loss in my favor. But I assume you are going to try to make a point by having a mutual understanding first, so please go on.
Quote from: broli on August 07, 2010, 06:03:45 AM
yes completely. This is what the animated presentation shows, in fact there I don't even consider the attraction on approach which would lower the mechanical loss in my favor. But I assume you are going to try to make a point by having a mutual understanding first, so please go on.
In trying to find a method to return as much electrical energy as possible, we would need a way to reduce joule heating which is the major loss.
Because saturation current on exit is a required condition, the only way to reduce this is to reduce the time, but because there is a limit on rotation speed due to the recovery time of the coil as it collapses with larger inductance, electrical output gain would increase if the system controlled the approach and exit speeds.
Because accelerating and decelerating a mass also takes energy, a workable method would be to use elliptical gearing so the deceleration recovers energy that is again used to accelerate the object.
At this point you can now see the problem. Essentially, there would be two different gear ratios, geared 1x on the approach and say 2x on the exit side. Now because the exit side has 2x the leverage on the mechanical portion of the device. This means you would also have 2x the mechanical losses compared to the 1x mechanical gain on the approach side.
Now because we have 2x mechanical loss but reduced the joule heating time by 1/2, does this increase the actual usable output? If so , then a 5x ratio would be better, because you would lose 5x mechanical losses but joule heating time would be 1/5 also.
This is only a concept to overcome the hidden factors that seem to make these devices not function as calculated.
Yes I understood the concept from your earlier post. And I think I understand what you mean by losses. When we want to increase the speed of the magnet at TDC and beyond we need energy to accelerate it. This energy comes from the motor or a fly wheel who sees a counter torque. But then the energy we have used to accelerate is pushed back into the system when the gears cause the speed of the magnet to decrease back, the fly wheel will get a forward torque from this. So that part is conserved. This I agree with.
But how the magnet eats x times more energy I don't agree with. We only end up with the net energy loss from the attraction of the magnet and core. Which is the same irregardless of speed.
Quote from: broli on August 07, 2010, 01:37:33 PM
Yes I understood the concept from your earlier post. And I think I understand what you mean by losses. When we want to increase the speed of the magnet at TDC and beyond we need energy to accelerate it. This energy comes from the motor or a fly wheel who sees a counter torque. But then the energy we have used to accelerate is pushed back into the system when the gears cause the speed of the magnet to decrease back, the fly wheel will get a forward torque from this. So that part is conserved. This I agree with.
But how the magnet eats x times more energy I don't agree with. We only end up with the net energy loss from the attraction of the magnet and core. Which is the same irregardless of speed.
Then if we can calculate that the magnet on exit from TDC would have the same mechanical loss, then there is only the reduction in joule heating time.
I understand there is no additional loss if the exit from TDC was at 2x the approach speed because it would exit the area in 1/2 the time even while the drag on the mechanical system was 2x. So in the end 2 x .5 is still 1. (this assumes no additional loss with additional mechanical components)
So in the end with a momentum conserving mechanical accelerator, there will only be a decrease in joule heating from the reduction in exit time.
The setup you show would be easy to test. Have you done any testing to see if the values you used for the inductor fall within realistic values? Like the 1000 to 1 change in inductance from saturation?
Quote from: lumen on August 07, 2010, 05:22:38 PM
The setup you show would be easy to test. Have you done any testing to see if the values you used for the inductor fall within realistic values? Like the 1000 to 1 change in inductance from saturation?
To be blunt, no. I have based all the numbers on what I gathered from the Internet. I'm still planning on buying and LRC meter to do what you suggested, but in my current bum state I won't go far. So I'll pick it up when I have some finance I hope before the world ends.
This was also part of that research:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9345.0
Ill give you my Advice send me your
math ill compute it through the axis of infinity
make shure it right before you start beings I have string theory
and am the first to the math to double the speed of light
so dont know how to slow time but i can speed it up
you need a v shape create a black hole and water
or enough energy to warp like einstien
v hull philidelphia
noahs ark
and time traveler video
the water and pipe to earth battery
Quote from: cletushowell on August 08, 2010, 01:48:07 AM
Ill give you my Advice send me your
math ill compute it through the axis of infinity
make shure it right before you start beings I have string theory
and am the first to the math to double the speed of light
so dont know how to slow time but i can speed it up
you need a v shape create a black hole and water
or enough energy to warp like einstien
v hull philidelphia
noahs ark
and time traveler video
the water and pipe to earth battery
What you said makes completely no sense to me. If I didn't know any better I'd say you're a skeptic joker trying to make a point on how stupid OU people are by saying random incoherent things and making people believe. Just my instinct ;) .
Quote from: cletushowell on August 08, 2010, 01:48:07 AM
Ill give you my Advice send me your
math ill compute it through the axis of infinity
make shure it right before you start beings I have string theory
and am the first to the math to double the speed of light
so dont know how to slow time but i can speed it up
you need a v shape create a black hole and water
or enough energy to warp like einstien
v hull philidelphia
noahs ark
and time traveler video
the water and pipe to earth battery
Isn't there a way to make clowns such as the one who wrote the above stay away from the discussions?
@broli, this is a very interesting idea and I agree with the previous participants that it appears very much similar to what Steorn do, unless I'm missing something. It would be interesting to hear what @Omega_0 has to say about it as the first one who has independently reproduced Steron's eOrbo overunity claim.
I said it was my advice odviously you didnt take me serious
i said i have string theory
I have the math axis if infinity so if you give me your math
I can calulate it to see if its right or do it yourself
12 144,000 12,000
every number reduces to 1-12 and goes thru 144,000
so I eliminated the decimals solved the necerending 2.333
7/3 =2.3333 wrong
7x144,000 = 1008000/3 336000
a perfect number so you can now see you made a mistake
have a good day
Gee,
So we should solve all our calculations based on religious beliefs from our perceived reality instead of directly from the perceived reality we believe we are in?
Ok, I finally see it! (now go away)
No try to do it your way you cant so its not a religious
beleif its a fact I solved the math
but you must have gad the answer already
of the 2.333 so you know how to make teslas earth quake
then i guess were even
Well, I did a test on the amount of inductance change and I was able to get the coil of 450mH to change down to .04mH when saturated by a PM. This shows that a change of 1000 to 1 is possible.
Another interesting effect I noticed during the test was, if the core was only partially saturated using tiny magnets to a point where the inductance read about 15mH then, rotating the setup in the earths field would show a change in inductance of about 1mH.
The coil was toroidal, so I think the next step would be to wind a simple coil using the same ribbon core material and test it again, and also test the increase in pull to the magnet when the coil is energized.
I'm thinking this setup would provide some additional information that will not show up using a toroidal coil.
What exactly are you trying to do
reach 1
3691888
there wind the coils reverse spiral thru
sheetmetal shit i turned brain to one energy
you want 1000 magnigication
369 add 3 to your coil each wave
you want contained saturatution
of magnetism use the car coil
contains frequency
you want earth quakes like my aug 13- now
marina islands use 369
210. Mv
you want wireless transmision
of 120 volts stick the postive
wire to the car coil spark plug side
then you get 120 wiresless on other sidd
ground that to 3691888
then you have complete loop
you want dc ac photon
plug iphone charger in wall hook negative
side to car coil
get ac /dc 1.2 ghz in same wire go back to ground
over unity unmettered energy
1.2 is exact center of everything sepersted
polarity and zero point
but you can move the 1 by dividing
by 13.5 to the right
and pie is 144,000
144,000/9/6/3 =888888888
all numbers never ending
56,000/9/6/3 = 1234567910
so theres you two sides of
power but i seperated all numbers
from decimals have good day maybey one day you
wish you payed attention
3.141592653589793
141+ 3 leaves 0
9+5=14=7-7=0
144,000 3.14159
2+6=8
5+3=8
53=8
89=17=8
79=16 = 88
i can do this all day 100 ways
Because every number
= 8
88= 16=7
888=24=6
8888=32=5
88888=40=4 and0
888888=48=3=12
8888888=56 =2=11
88888888=64=1=10
888888888=72=9
8888888888=80=8
peace
You spoke of speeds to enter an exit the exitation periods at. NO NO NO not that instead find where they DRAW from and create a flux there impeed the flow it MUST balance, so you then get power.
There is one thing that everyone is overlooking. As the inductor is being charged, the flux isn't fully engaged with the core material due to the changing or increasing current. The magnetic field of the dual magnets will interact with any flux which isn't fully engaged in the core material and induce a BEMF. If the flux is fully engaged and confined within the core material faster than the dual magnets can depart from TDC, then there will be no BEMF induced. In order for this to occur, we need the current to reach it's maximum value allowed by the resistance almost instantaneously in order for the inductor to be charged and saturated faster than the rate of the dual magnets departing from TDC, which is related to RPM.
BEMF is proportional to the RPM and the charging time of the inductor. Let's take the e-Orbo for example. It may not have a BEMF at it's maximum RPM, but at some point above it's maximum RPM, it would suffer from a BEMF because the dual magnets will be departing from TDC faster than the flux can fully engage the core material in order to saturate it.
You can't just use any voltage/current/resistance/inductance/inductance change/ or core material you want and expect to replicate the Orbo effect. Everything needs to be matched. The bottom line is, if the inductor isn't saturated in less time than the rate of the dual magnets departing from TDC, then there will be a BEMF induced and any gains in inductance predicted by the math equations you can say good bye too.
GB
Quote from: broli on August 07, 2010, 05:58:11 PM
To be blunt, no. I have based all the numbers on what I gathered from the Internet. I'm still planning on buying and LRC meter to do what you suggested, but in my current bum state I won't go far. So I'll pick it up when I have some finance I hope before the world ends.
This was also part of that research:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9345.0
As for GAMMAMET cores - please read my comment at:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9345.msg267607#msg267607