Hi Paul,

I loaded the file in FEMME and it got stuck half-way through the calculation process. This is a rare error, I've never had it happen in version 4.0. At the moment I am not sure what is causing it but if I were to take a guess, I would double-check the materials that you are using an make sure that the settings for those are correct. I'll keep playing with it and let you know if I come up with more information.

God Bless,
Jason O

Hello z_p_e,

Quote from: z_p_e on August 31, 2006, 07:47:03 PM
I have done extensive work on the design of coil pulse drive circuits for pulse motors, and have found that the cemf spike you are capturing and trying to make greater than your initial input power is only good for about a 64% return. However, you have to remember that you are also doing work with the original coil pulse, and the cemf spike is essentially free.

If you monitor the input coil current, replace the cemf bulb with a short, then monitor the cemf pulse current, you will see that the two peak currents are almost identical, however, the pulse duration of the cemf pulse will only be about 64% the length of your input pulse. This of course assumes that your input coil current has not "plateaued" and is still rising before you turn off the current.

I would suggest you try this (shorting out the load) and confirm the 64%, then apply your magnet and see if you can stretch the pulse out again to exceed the 64%. You should also see that the peak currents are equal in amplitude.

Why not do some work with the input pulse such as driving a pulse motor? Then capture the cemf spikes to step-charge a capacitor to ~40V (assuming a 12V battery), then discharge it into a second battery and repeat. Bedini claims this will re-charge a spent battery before the first battery dies, which implies you can continuously rotate the batteries and run your pulse motor for as long as you want.

Thank you very much for your informations about the cemf spike and its percentage proportion to the overall power.
Also thanks for your suggest how to improve this experiement (ditto to kingrs!). I will surely do this in good season.

As I formerly said in this thread my main goal is to learn how Mr. Marks device is working.
During the process of collecting more and more fragments of informations about Mr. Marks device, I change the point of view how it works serveral times. So currently I don't think this experiement will picture the main secret of Mr. Marks invention. I want to concentrate to more basically experiments now which don't use any metallic core. I don't want to get stuck by focusing only to one small approach.

Of course I will post results, progress or simply questions also in this thread.

Maybe some of the reproducers of my experiement want to go on with the current setup. As you already indicated it have some capabilities to be a OU-device.

Regards, Markus

Thanks Jason,

I'll look into the materials as you suggested.  I have noticed, so far, when I remove the coil the problem goes away.  If true, then I don't see why since the coil is simple copper material and a circuit property. As far as I can see, circuit properties are very simple-- a series/parallel checkbox and two current parameters.

That file was taken from one of the femm examples as a seed for that file. Presently I am working with a different femm example and so far so good-- knock on wood! :-)



Marcus,

It's good to hear you will still work on your devices. This morning I am more convinced than ever that you and Patrick Stephen's MEG are on to something big-- real potential for "free energy."  If I ever get FEMM working, lol, then I have a design that will hopefully shed some light.

BTW, Patrick Stephen is the original creator of the MEG, correct?

Paul

Jason,

Someone emailed me the answer, but I don't understand why it works since I don't understand exactly what the boundary property does.

He said ->


> as a first pass make a boundary called Zero with
> prescribed characteristics defaulted to zero.  Then
> go back select the edges of your box [all four] and assign
> those edges to the name, Zero.
>
> THEN your program will run as it stands. 


Thanks for help,
Paul

Hello again,

this time I would ask for your opinion about the "kick-effect" Mr. Steven Mark
mentioned when a current is floating through a wire for the first time.

Mr. Mark said:
"Scientists tell us that over unity is impossible. They say that you cannot
get more out of something then you put into it.
Then I think about that wire with the small kick when first turned on. . .
There in lies the secret my friend."

So I took him at his word and made a simple experiment.

I took my squarewave generator and feeded a simple 60cm wire with the square pulses.
Yes I simply shorten the output of the generator with an 60cm wire and measured
the voltage between this 60cm of copper. With an adequate high frequency this is not
destrutive for the output-transistor of the generator. :-)

But strictly speaking I also use a diode directly after the output of the generator
to uncouple the opositional cemf spike from the generator.

Then I measured the generatorsignal on chanel 1 of the scope and on the same
time the voltage across the 60cm wire on chanel 2.

So you see the inputsignal which is injected into the wire, ch1,  and compare
it to the voltage drop across the 60 cm wire, ch 2 (wich also gives informations
about the current that flow through the wire at the same time. The wire was
a quite thick copper wire, so I don't think that the resistance does change
during the experiment - not like "the glowing wire" within a incandescent lamp would do)

Look at the scope shots. Should this be the initial "Kicks" Mr. Mark is meaning?
(You have to multiply the shown voltages by factor 10, because of the used scope
probes which dividide the voltage by 10)

I hope so, but I would gladly hear your opinion.
And please let me also know if my setup/measurement is completely bullshit because of
errors in reasonings or something else. Thank you very much.


Regards, Markus


PS: I read still only the first 20% of the big thread >The Master Of Magnetics "Steven Mark"<
but it seems some of the readers nearly scared off Mr. Mark in this short time by asking thumb
questions or get him on his nerves with demanding more detailed informations about his invention.

I feel sad about the course of the above-mentioned thread, because I think it is a
unique chance to get in contact with such a great inventor. Since I saw the SM-Videos
for the first time (aprox. 1 year ago) I really never dreamed about to get more Information
than published in the Videos. I couldn't belive it when I saw the first time, that there where
statements personally from Mr. Mark in this big thread on www.overunity.com!

I hope in the remaining 80% of the above-mentioned thread will become better and more appreciate
to this great person.