Quote from: captainpecan on November 30, 2008, 02:45:08 PM
@ Pointz

I never claimed my setup was the most efficient, I definitely do not see a problem trying to make it better.  Thanks for taking a few minutes to try and make a more efficient circuit.  There are many ways to improve it, and that's kind of why I posted it to start with. The more we can catch in the caps the better, because we will get work out of the motor either way. That's the whole point.  The interesting part is though, IST appears to be correct as far as I can tell.  There may not even be a need for rotation.  I'm seeing some pretty interesting stuff solid state right now.

Actually, you kinda did miss the two points I was trying to make, but that's ok.

.99

@Pirate88179,

It is a Dynacap. See: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=tpmod;dl=get200

Yes, you was right. I reversed the coils and got a very bad rpm. I will change them back.

Tips to others that want to build a reed relay motor. Make the reeds adjustable in position.

Groundloop.

@ Pointz

I just tried your circuit, minus the resistors as I dont have those values, and I believe you said they were only needed to get spice to work right.  It does not appear to perform as spice says it does.  In fact, it appears to be worse than I originally did.  I added some smaller resistors that I had available, just in case, and I got even worse results that followed my belief that the resistors dont need to be there.  Using that method, I split 18.48v in C1 to end up with  9.31v in C1 and 9.09v in C2.  I tried using one of my coils, then 3 of my coils, then using a MOT in place of the coils, and I am getting all the same results, the voltages are staying in the mid to low 9's when split, far from the average of mid 12's as the simulation states.

Either I'm doing something wrong, which I do not think that I am, or spice's simulation in this case does not work in reality.  One thing is for sure though, spice is using the exact physics equations for it's calculations.  Again, It seems I am not able to match what the equations say I am?  Anyone else done this before and get the results spice says you are supposed to?  This circuit is not rocket science, but I sure am not able to get it to work the way it says it should.

Good that you are thinking about the idea, but I figure one important aspect of the circuit may have been overlooked:

Did you use your hand and manually short the wires together, or how did you implement the switch?

Improper timing of the pulse will give you varied end-voltages on the caps. The circuit isn't rocket science, but to make it work you really need an electronic switch driven by a pulse circuit that has an adjustable pulse width. Is this what you have used?

You are correct about the two resistors in the circuit, just pretend they are not there.

.99

Quote from: poynt99 on November 30, 2008, 04:19:24 PM
Actually, you kinda did miss the two points I was trying to make, but that's ok.

.99

Actually, no, I knew exactly what you were getting at.  Like your other posts in the past, your intention was to show that there is no "free energy" in my circuit.  Your point in your simulation was trying to show how "inefficient" my circuit is and how it seems to loose lot's of energy.  I saw no point in reading it as a tear down, and I looked for valuable information that may be there, as I always do.  If someone can show me how to split 18v into 2 12.5v caps, I'm all for it.  That just makes it even better.  In fact, I think Stefan read it the same way I did.

So, even though I think you wanted to make it look like there is no chance of free energy in my system, thanks for trying to prove it wrong.  I did try your advice.  Actually, I kinda wish it worked!