Working Magnetic Overunity Device - Magnetic Neutralization

[hartiberlin]

Sorry to jump so late onto this thread,
but now I caught up with this.

They now have their own Youtube channel at:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheGAPpower#g/a

I still have to take a closer look at their
scope shots and power calculations, but so far it looks
pretty interesting how much mechanical power they get
out of this magnet motor and how low the electrical input power
is and how much also the BackEMF power due to the scopeshots
(what they don´t show in the videos how they use this..)

Using both sides of the magnets via iron cores should yield still a much higher efficiency
which is currently not used...so this motor could still be scaled up in efficiency just
with a few additional iron core pieces...

Well done.

Regards, Stefan.

[hartiberlin]

I found the error, so this device is unfortunately not overunity !

He is not measuring the Input voltage at the battery, but wrongly on the coil only !

As the coil voltage is behind the relay he uses, this does not show the real input voltage.

He just must use the constant 45 Volts of his battery as the calculation for the input power.

As he shows in an analog ampmeter test, the AVERAGE input current is about 0.6 amps all the
time and this is validated via his 1 amp fuse test, which does not break !

So from the batteries always an average current of about 0.6 amps is drawn.

So we can say that the total input power all the time is battery voltage multiplied
by the average input current.

So 45 Volts x 0.6 amps = 27 Watts input power.

Now the mechanical output power lifting the 22 pounds weight is
7 Watts.

So 7 Watts out / 27  input power  is around 26 % efficiency only...

Too bad that he just did not measure the input voltage at the battery,
but only at the coil...


Regards, Stefan.

[FatChance!!!]

Great conclusion Hartmann.

As usual the inventor of this device is ignorant and his perception skills are simple.
Ignorance and simple minds always seems to come along in the Free Energy business.

[hartiberlin]

Well, the presentation and replication device and all the video presentation was very
well done and professionally and I think he really meant well and wanted to do it all in the open
and was thinking, he already had cracked the efficiency.

But unfortunately nobody saw this measurement error,
also not the quoted university professor.

I think with a changed unit and using both poles via iron core pieces
and chopped pulsed input current at higher input voltage and not a constant input current during the
100 Milliseconds ontime or so this unit could still get overunity.

If the input current is chopped several times during the 100 Milliseconds Ontime
via mechanical switches and the right mechanical material points are used, like
in a Newman commutator copper and graphite this will even generate more BackEMF output power.

Regards, Stefan.

[FatChance!!!]

I think with a changed unit and using both poles via iron core pieces
and chopped pulsed input current at higher input voltage and not a constant input
current during the 100 Milliseconds on time or so this unit could still get overunity.
Regards, Stefan.

Going from 26% efficiency to more than 100% is quite a goal.
Actually an impossible goal if history will repeat itself one more time.
It might be possible to reach +90% if most losses are eliminated but
going above 100% I can't see happening from this design.