Self accelerating reed switch magnet spinner.

[synchro1]

@TK,


       What's the COP of the rotorless MHOP?

[Robo]

This is in the wrong place I know, but is this possible or is it trickery?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3I2zeoUbzg

[TinselKoala]

@TK,


       What's the COP of the rotorless MHOP?

Well... if I follow the standard practice of some of the researchers on this forum, I would say that it is over 3.2157673, and it would be up to you to Prove Me Wrong. And if you don't get numbers like that from your replication.... that only proves that you are incompetent and you aren't holding your mouth right, in addition to performing the entire experiment upside down. Your test equipment must be faulty as well; try using an Atten 200 dollar digital scope, or even a sound-card based PC scope.
After all, I've been running for days and the battery voltage is still over 12 volts each, they are still _fully charged_. Aren't they?

[TinselKoala]

I have "found" to many of those by accident,, or finger in the wrong place

I suppose what I was getting at is simple.

If you get a reduction in draw while the cap is in use, but up at a higher voltage than the system, then if you take some of the high voltage off and send it back to the source you could get something like a 10 percent or so reduction in running costs.

Yes, I actually think you are right about that.  In this design, at least, the inductive spike and the associated ringdown represents power that is lost, in that it doesn't add to the drive of the rotor, it is just dissipated as heat in the coil and mosfet and as light in the neons. By siphoning the spike out and using it for something, anything at all, you are not taking away from the mechanical drive power of the rotor, you are just taking this wasted power and putting it to use. If you put it back into the run battery, like I'm trying to do through the "run neon" connected to the battery positive pole, or by using any of the various self-charging systems like Bowling's or Bedini's or many others, you might be able to get longer battery runtimes with the same mechanical power output than from the same motor without spike recycling.

Of course, if you designed the motor and driver from the beginning not to make these spikes or to recycle them into the coil at the right timing ... you'd probably get the same increase in runtime efficiency, or even more.

[synchro1]

Well... if I follow the standard practice of some of the researchers on this forum, I would say that it is over 3.2157673, and it would be up to you to Prove Me Wrong. And if you don't get numbers like that from your replication.... that only proves that you are incompetent and you aren't holding your mouth right, in addition to performing the entire experiment upside down. Your test equipment must be faulty as well; try using an Atten 200 dollar digital scope, or even a sound-card based PC scope.
After all, I've been running for days and the battery voltage is still over 12 volts each, they are still _fully charged_. Aren't they?

           Negative battery electrode ground scouring from the high voltage spikes may account for any actual gain. Briefly; The high voltage charge cleanses the ground electrode of any negative charge until it's below surrounding ambience, and positive power is drawn in backwards through the negative pole. Aaron Murakami and John Bedini spent alot of time discussing this theory over at Energetic forum. The problem is that this kind of charging seems to eventually kill the lead acid type battery.