Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of this Forum, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above
Thanks to ALL for your help!!


Re-Inventing The Wheel-Part1-Clemente_Figuera-THE INFINITE ENERGY MACHINE

Started by bajac, October 07, 2012, 06:21:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Doug1

Quote from: hanon on February 17, 2016, 06:12:37 PM
Two user saying to have success, one in this forum, and one in the spanish forum, are stating the same: more than one single set is required, because sets seems to interact and increase the output.

Both users say that with one set they could not find OU. One user got it with 2 sets and same poles confronted, and the commutator. The other user think that a minimum of 4 sets are required. He also used same poles  confronted, but he is just using pulsed DC, as the 1902 patent.. Pay attention..!!

I need to build my second set !!

Randy, all the info that I think it is important about same poles confronted is collected in my website, in the Globe Sketch below my username

Good luck

None of the patents show a single set of inducers and only one patent sort of details the source with which the device is started the rest make little mention of the source. The early ones are moving the Y coil between two poles a N and S without moving the iron cores. It is a totally different generator more like the wind generators that place the coil outputs in a formed disk and on the ether side of the disk are permanent magnets that are stationary.The disk with coils is what is moving through the magnetic fields as it rotates. It is not motionless like the 1908 version. Even in a rotor for an automotive alternator the rotating field magnet is designed so the alternating poles work to squeeze the fields so they extend outward away from the pole faces as the field is increased. The shape and over all geometry of the fingers making up the poles are carefully designed.At first glance it would look like the fields should just complete the magnetic path going form one finger to the next and never even try to reach out to the stator. A closer examination will reveal the air gaps from finger to finger are greater then from finger to stator. The easy path is not from finger to finger but from finger to stator and back to opposite finger. There is yet another flaw if you imagine the gap from finger to stator is crossed twice so the distance between the finger and stator compared to finger to finger is accounted for over the entire path and the gap from finger to finger is greater then the two times added together of crossing the gap from finger to stator. They creatively use the gap to control the route which the magnetic field will take using air gaps. Thats all fine dandy for the alternator. They did their work solved the problems and found a happy medium for all the problems. they get what they deserve ,a working generator for a automobile. If they went off willy nilly and did not solve the problems they would not have a working generator just a big pile of trash. You get out what you put in. Trash in trash out.

hanon

Doug, I do not understand  your post clearly

This is my current two sets system . What can be wrong in this prototype? I am not getting good results with poles NN

6 identical coils, 2 inch long, 4 inch diameter, 300 turns with 1 mm diameter wire. 2.5 ohm resistance, about 31 mH

Any recommendation is really welcome

NRamaswami

Hi Hanon

Why not try NSNSNS which you promised to check any way earlier..

What is the input voltage..Increase it..

please check what happens and advice?

That is what worked for me. Iron core is so small and you are ignoring a major thing. But with what you check the other pole..

regards

Rams


NRamaswami

Mr. Perxime

Thanks for the link on the Newman book. I am personally aware copper is highly magnetic but using thick wires would have caused a lot of current to be drawn.  that was a problem.

You have now given me another method to use high voltage and low amperage. We will now use this method to drive large copper coil.

We are aware copper is highly magnetic and produces enormous amperage. We did not knowhow to produce high voltage and high amperage output. You have opened my eys. Copper is very expensive and I do not know when I will do the experiments I have in my mind. God alone knows.

Hanon..You are using very thin wires and you must use thicker wires.