Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

[NoBull]

6:1 means six parts magnetic energy to one part resistive dissipation.  So that's 6/7 total which is 85.7%.

Thanks for explaining.

Are my remaining questions too stupid to deserve an answer?

[gyulasun]

Hi Folks,

I would like to draw your attention to a test on an air cored electromagnet coil and the work done by the electromagnet. Input power to the coil was insured from a 10000 uF electrolytic capacitor, always charged up from a battery to around 12.5V DC before each test and the work it performed was to repel away cylinder shaped ceramic and Neo magnets. The mass of the magnets was measured and the distances covered by the magnets were also measured.

The result of the tests showed that the Neo magnet was pushed 4 to 5 times longer distance versus the distance covered by the ceramic magnet, even though the Neo magnet weighed heavier than the ceramic one. The mass of the ceramic magnet was 15 grams and of the Neo was 50 grams (the mass of the Neo was measured later and included in a thread here at overunity.com circa 8 years ago).

Here is the video showing the test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCkROMSGG0

From my part, no any special claim is made from the test,  the question is:

why did the Neo magnet with a higher mass cover a longer distance than the ceramic magnet did with a lower mass? 

Putting this otherwise:

How can the same input energy to an electromagnet exert higher pushing force on a body with higher mass compared to a body with a lower mass?

Of course we know that the bodies are that of a ceramic (15 gram) and Neo (50 gram) magnets which have differing magnetic strengths. At the end of the video you can see that the outside diameter of the two magnets was around the same (when they snapped together).

Gyula

[MileHigh]

Thanks for explaining.

Are my remaining questions too stupid to deserve an answer?

Sorry, I was tired and I suggest that you start a thread on the basic concepts and stuff like that and take it from there.

[MileHigh]

MH

Here is your CEMF imaginary battery test i did--just for hoots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J20qEB9Bc0U

It was indeed a hoot.  I don't know why you changed the setup but at least you have a coil that has superior performance compared to your original coil.  You apparently did no investigation into the timing of the new device when I said to you timing is everything for this stuff.  I am betting that the inductance of the new coil is higher.  You used a 1kHz 12% duty cycle pulse on the coil and read some numbers.  So that's not even remotely comparable to the pulse motor timing you were working with before.  I don't know what the resistance of the coil wire is, nor do I know what the impedance of the battery is and if they are comparable to each other and if the battery impedance will have an effect or not on the timing.  Incidentally, you don't need to put a resistor in the center of a coil to measure the current flowing through the coil.  Your test was inconclusive.

Here was the real test with your original setup:  You have your power-in and power-out numbers with the rotor in place and without the rotor in place using your trimmed-down minimal pulse timing for maximum efficiency.  We know that the numbers are better with the rotor in place.  Then, replace the battery with a variable power supply.  Remove the rotor and with the same pulse timing start off at 12.6 volts and replicate the poorer numbers.  Then, slowly lower the battery voltage and make some power-out and power-in measurements.  Will you find some lower voltage that gives you the same power-out and a lower power-in so that the numbers are more competitive with your spinning rotor numbers?  If you then play with the pulse width a bit can you find a configuration that gives you better numbers?  Taking it a step further, like I previously stated, a higher drive voltage and a shorter pulse time going into a higher voltage charging battery might give you better numbers.

If the counter-EMF from the spinning magnets is the main agent reducing your input power you might achieve a better result.  On the other hand, if what PW said about the spinning rotor acting as an agent for conveying power to the battery by acing as a temporary mechanical energy store is true, you might not.  And like I said before, with the amount of waste heat power you have "masking the signal," it may be difficult to discern anything.

I'll also address your comments and Digitalindustry's comments here:

they will simply never say you are correct because they want to draw out every point so that you keep spending time on videos running over tiny points and less time on  innovation, trusting that if you self loop YT will pull the video, or it will be trolled as 'fake'

everyone can see what is obvious but every time you will be asked to do more videos, how many videos have these guys posted showing these concepts?

ha ha it's like they are sitting back and demanding you make videos for them, the 'EEE'  = 'EE Elite'

Nothing could be further from the truth, the above comments are total horseshit.  Brad what you do is up to you.  But making one simple test and reading some numbers on some meters and then nearly blindly proclaiming that you have a setup with "magnets doing useful work" is ultra shortsighted.  Right now, you are simply an amateur experimenter testing a coil on a bench, nothing more.  You dropped a line somewhere back in the thread with the old cliche that you were doing new research that the Old School would not understand.  One more time, nothing could be further from the truth.  Your biggest mistake is to do a one-shot test and proclaim victory.  Your "counter-EMF" test clip that I am commenting on in this posting is a good example of your shortsightedness.  You need to take your time and invent tests in your head to double-check your conclusions before you make any definitive statements.  Meanwhile the sycophants want to proclaim victory the minute they see something and almost without thinking.  Do you remember the madness that took place with the RomeroUK fiasco?  That's a lesson that everybody needs to learn - don't jump to conclusions.

MileHigh

[tinman]

Hi Folks,

I would like to draw your attention to a test on an air cored electromagnet coil and the work done by the electromagnet. Input power to the coil was insured from a 10000 uF electrolytic capacitor, always charged up from a battery to around 12.5V DC before each test and the work it performed was to repel away cylinder shaped ceramic and Neo magnets. The mass of the magnets was measured and the distances covered by the magnets were also measured.

The result of the tests showed that the Neo magnet was pushed 4 to 5 times longer distance versus the distance covered by the ceramic magnet, even though the Neo magnet weighed heavier than the ceramic one. The mass of the ceramic magnet was 15 grams and of the Neo was 50 grams (the mass of the Neo was measured later and included in a thread here at overunity.com circa 8 years ago).

Here is the video showing the test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCkROMSGG0

From my part, no any special claim is made from the test,  the question is:

why did the Neo magnet with a higher mass cover a longer distance than the ceramic magnet did with a lower mass? 

Putting this otherwise:

How can the same input energy to an electromagnet exert higher pushing force on a body with higher mass compared to a body with a lower mass?

Of course we know that the bodies are that of a ceramic (15 gram) and Neo (50 gram) magnets which have differing magnetic strengths. At the end of the video you can see that the outside diameter of the two magnets was around the same (when they snapped together).

Gyula

A simple but telling test Gyula.
The same results will be had by any type of motor that requires a fixed magnetic field to operate. If you replace the electromagnets for permanent magnets,you will reduce your P/in requirements,while maintaining the same mechanical output. The permanent magnet is now doing the work the electromagnet was--it is that simple. It will be said that the waste heat from the electromagnet has now been turned into mechanical energy,but i say-what made that conversion?,and was work required to make that conversion from heat to mechanical energy?. The other thing is,you can now increase the P/in back to what it was when the electromagnet was in place,and dissipate the same amount of heat,but at the same time,you have also increased the mechanical output of that motor.

So far i have carried out the test given to me by those !!in the know!!,and so far the results from those test have not shown that the PM's are not doing work--everything is showing that they are.

Brad