T-1000:

I already discussed that clip but let me add some more thoughts.

It's possible for the power consumption of the motor controller to go down under load:

No load:
Motor controller:  75 watts
Load:  0 watts

With load:
Motor controller:  50 watts
Load:  10 watts

It may look impressive but it doesn't mean anything.   The empirical observation is that the motor controller is more efficient in terms of its own power-in vs. power-out when you attach a load to the motor.   Yes, the total power consumption of the motor controller dropped by 25 watts when you attached a load - but it still doesn't mean anything.

Again, sorry but that clip is inconclusive.

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on July 15, 2012, 11:07:34 AM

It may look impressive but it doesn't mean anything.   The empirical observation is that the motor controller is more efficient in terms of its own power-in vs. power out when you attach a load to the motor.   Yes, the total power consumption of the motor controller dropped by 25 watts when you attached a load - but it still doesn't mean anything.

There are lots of other videos with same efffect. For example, another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpTw_Hf_CHo

If you still do not see what I am talking about, I cannot help you, heh...

The time is variable in case of Lenz law with different induction coils. I learned that in hard way.

P.S> One of good sources with info: http://www.classicenergyvideos.com/brucedepalma.wmv

Quote from: gyulasun on July 14, 2012, 04:02:55 PM
Hi avalon,

On the domain site http://tet.in.ua (shown in the video) they do not claim the end result is negative, they claim just the opposite...   

...Experiments have shown that self-rotation of the generator is possible if the effect of Huber. Occurrence of the driving forces of this effect is observed at a certain speed.

So what do you think?
Gyula

My information doesn't come from the Web site. I have been in touch with the author directly. He wrote to me that

Quote
.... using all 6 rotors installed slowed down the rotation. I was disappointed...
All experiments have been put on hold for now but I would like you view on the mathematical model of the setup or your vision on Tomlin's process..

Also, the the author admitted that using the Guber effect in the current setup lowered the efficiency considerably.

So I think that a pulse driver should have been used instead. I have also suggested a different approach to the magnet holders to get rid of (or, at least to minimize) the eddy currents.

Overall, I am as disappointed with the results as the author.

Quote from: avalon on July 15, 2012, 02:27:22 PM
My information doesn't come from the Web site. I have been in touch with the author directly. He wrote to me that

Also, the the author admitted that using the Guber effect in the current setup lowered the efficiency considerably.

So I think that a pulse driver should have been used instead. I have also suggested a different approach to the magnet holders to get rid of (or, at least to minimize) the eddy currents.

Overall, I am as disappointed with the results as the author.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Ffiz.1september.ru%2Fview_article.php%3FID%3D200902308&act=url is not the case for Muller dynamo.

You might ask your guy to swap generator coils into high voltage ones and try again..

Quote from: T-1000 on July 15, 2012, 10:58:57 AM
That is incorrect.

It is correct (to a degree). The magnetic side of the effect is instantaneous. It is the electrical component that brings in the variations.

Using high inductance coils to delay the Lenz effect is a well known technique. The delayed reaction is not due to a delay in the Lenz effect but a simple effect of an inductor in a circuit. So, for the time-varying voltage: v(t)=L*(di(t)/dt) and the currect: i(t)=I*e^-(R/l)t.

In other words you can create a delay line (of sort) in an electrical circuit but it won't remove the Lenz effect.