Newman machine with a closed loop selfrunning without batteries or solar panels

[Thaelin]

    This brings to mind just what he "is" doing with the bemf. The flywheel has a contact at the bottom and I think one at the top. Sure this monster has two coils in it. Makes me wonder if not more. Like an avalanche setup. Power the first, bemf to a cap. That fires another coil with bemf to a cap and so on. Hmmmmmm?  That size of coils would fill a cap bank darn quick. Something to ponder.
   I encountered a glitch just before the last speed reading, did any one else? Just curious.

thaelin

[mikestocks2006]

Hi Emdevices and Humbugger,
you are right with your amphour examples.

So the energy stored in Newman?s 16 x 9 Volts battery pack was about
144 Volts x 0.625 mA x 1 Hour= 90 Watthours.
....

Heh, that?s what I?ve been saying since post 1 in this thread.
A stcack 16 bateries at 625 mAh each is the same as one at 10000 mAh or 10Ah

Equivalent of one 9v with 10Ah energy charge capacity rating

Ok to get some closure here and not divert the thread away from the original focus:
.Battery manufacturer adopted terminology of Ah to describe battery stored energy can be confusing
.Amp hour in the Strict sense (SI) is not a Unit of Energy Measurement, even though it is used by Battery manufacturers to describe energy charge capacity.
.A pack of Multiple batteries in series or in parallel has the same total available energy to deliver = energy per battery x number of batteries. etc

Back to the Newman video.
It doesn?t appear to self sustain as it is clear the flywheel seems to be slowing down. From about 35 rpm at start of video to about 30 at the end.

Again it appears to take about 58 seconds to come to a stop from 30 rpm, fter the batteries are removed.
If we can find out the materials used and geometries of the rotating parts from Mr Newman, we can easily derive the total system rotational energy at eg 35 rpm and since it takes 58 seconds to come to a stop from 30rpm, we can determine the energy loss per cycle due to frictions, add circuit losses and so on
From that we can also calculate how much draw per cycle is needed by the battery stack to keep it running etc.

Can the stack of 16 x 9v in series batteries (144v total) start and sustain the movement?

Even though the initial acceleration is remarkable, it is possible for a stack of  144 9v cells to give it a good initial jolt.
Cold cranking amps of even a AA cell can be in the multiple amps range. Easily tested at home.
The wheel appears to reach 0-35 rpm in less than 2 secs
Ok lets say a 9v shorted for 1-2 secs and allow 1.5 amp flow.
The batteries will squat down some. So lets say 100 volts x 1.5 amps =  150watt about 1/5 hp feasible to accelerate it to 35 rpm? Yes but we need the actual specs as noted above for a better dynamic analysis.

Sustain movement? Most definitely yes, with low enough friction it can sustain movement on a great mass!

It would be also helpful to have the battery stack readout at the end of the demo.

Bottom line is, for this video, that machine is not self sustaining.
As fellow posters also noted above, it needs to close the loop and self sustain, for claim of OU.
Maybe one of these days he?ll get it to OU

Good thread, civil, interesting tech discussions.
Thanks

[RunningBare]

errr guys, in all your debate about batteries in parallel and in series you neglected the batteries internal resistance which sets the current.

So a 9 volt battery at 625ma has an internal resistance of 14.4 ohms, each individual battery will have this.

Now, 16 of these batteries in series will give an internal resistance of 16x14.4 = 230 ohms

The total voltage will be 16x9 = 144 volts

144 devided by 230 = 0.626 ma (0.625) 

So in short in series you will have 144 volts at 0.625 ma. : 144x0.625 = 90 watts.

Parallel is simply 16x0.625 = 10 amps at 9 volts.: 9x10 = 90 watts.

[TEguy]

40 scientists signed in agreement and not one is prepared to come forward and verify these claims. Even now when they should all be real old and retired and dont have much to fear??? Not one of them is prepared to support him??? I don't buy that. So many crazy claims by this guy I don't know where to begin. He's had this invention for most of his life and the best example is this primitive looking thing. I am also confused with the efficiency claims, I guess it is because I watched both videos, but if his invention is over 100% efficient why does it need batteries to run it?? I also would like to know is his house powered by this device?? What better way to convince the world that it works than showing us all that he is not paying any energy bills to those big evil companies. If I were him that would be the first thing I do, instead of making videos. I have other concerns too. In the video that has a link in the very first post he goes on about saying that he unravelled the mistery of the universe that has been puzzling Einstein and Tesla, etc. Yet listening to his explanations I can see that he doesn't understand some pretty basic stuff. I strongly disagree with the idea that electric current is a GYROSCOPIC PARTICLE. Electrons are particles and they do not travel with the speed of light in an electric conductor. It seems to me that his gyroscopic particle is nothing more than an electron. It has a mass, a charge and it spins around. He hasn't discovered anything new, definately nothing that has puzzled Tesla. The most convincing evidence that his invention is nothing special is couse he's not dead yet.

[TEguy]

Sorry Stefan,you seem so enthusiastic every time you find one of these inventors and post their machines, I just don't think they are being honest. I really hope this guy is honest but I know better. If I were him and really had something that could change the world, I'd be a lot more convincing in my explanations and a lot less repetitive.