Self-Runner NS Coil Pulse Motor Live Video Stream. It's been going for months!

[Mk1]

I am still surprised to see post lowering the NS coil as galvanic pile , it is clear that this is not a pile , it doesn't have the shape of it that much is clear , is it a battery well no its not , it dose show reading on a meter but too low to compare to any usable battery , yet it still kicks a motor .

The patent is clear its a electromagnet , its galvanic all right but not a battery .

To me it looks like the perfect oscillator because its physical ... think about it , what happen when you put a load on a JT for Ex it messes up the freq and loads the circuit , a mechanical oscillator has different advantages .


Some of those coil have a big magnetic pull , that is beyond the power of most JT , but we don't harvest this part yet , the pickup coil on the outside of the NS coil (the secondary ) needs to be improved , i also wonder since the original NS coil of many many turns really dose obey the transformer turn ratio ratio , because the coil is also the magnet test are needed , i would start at one turn of fat wire , and put loads on it not meters , a small led often reveal more then any meters in the world.

Mark

[capthook]

No interest/discussion on the effects/results of core saturation?

A couple more thoughts on *data*.....

So you can make an unloaded, low friction/size/weight rotor spin.
Just how much *work* is actually being done?

What is the *data* on the rotor?
1) dimensions
2) weight
3) bearings
4) *rpms*
5) **horsepower output of rotor**

#5 - horsepower output of the rotor - is now your important data point, rather than watts from the 'air battery'.

1 horsepower = 745 watts

Now compare this device - NS coil - to your - 'air battery':

The NS coil has introduced many more losses/inefficiencies into the system than the 'air battery'
A few examples:
- losses due to the resistance of the coil windings (heat/ohms)
- core losses
- airgap to the rotor
- bearing losses
- weight of the rotor
- air friction losses of rotor
- losses harnessing output of rotor

[Pirate88179]

Captain:

I find it interesting that you are talking about the losses supposedly associated with the NS coil while at the same time ignoring one very important detail.

Input Energy=0

Bill

[Rosemary Ainslie]

No interest/discussion on the effects/results of core saturation?

A couple more thoughts on *data*.....

So you can make an unloaded, low friction/size/weight rotor spin.
Just how much *work* is actually being done?

What is the *data* on the rotor?
1) dimensions
2) weight
3) bearings
4) *rpms*
5) **horsepower output of rotor**

#5 - horsepower output of the rotor - is now your important data point, rather than watts from the 'air battery'.

1 horsepower = 745 watts

Now compare this device - NS coil - to your - 'air battery':

The NS coil has introduced many more losses/inefficiencies into the system than the 'air battery'
A few examples:
- losses due to the resistance of the coil windings (heat/ohms)
- core losses
- airgap to the rotor
- bearing losses
- weight of the rotor
- air friction losses of rotor
- losses harnessing output of rotor

I wonder if these questions wouldn't perhaps be best answered if you just did your own experiments?  That way you could inform us all - rather than the other way around.  And that way you'll get all the answers you appear to so urgently require.

You see, it's one thing to conduct the tests and an entirely different thing to lean back in an armchair and speculate.  And what I find particularly tough to digest is the emphasis you apply to precisely those aspects of the test that are - at this stage - premature and somewhat irrelevant.  What we're looking to here is the evident continued current from a variation of the nathan stubblefield battery - without the evident input of any energies at all.  I think when these facts are established then we'll all be in a good position to take these tests further.  Meanwhile - to satisfy your need to establish these numbers - then, again.  DO THE TESTS.  And then perhaps you can oblige us all and give us the results of those tests.

Meanwhile I agree with Pirate.  There are more than a few Captains to this ship.  Don, Bill and Ted to name a few.  I rather think we should delegate you to the ranks here Hook.  At least until you can show us some experimental evidence of your actual interests.  I think like me we are both in need of guidance rather than otherwise.

Rosemary   

[capthook]

Input Energy=0

Hello Bill.

Input Energy = the volts/amps provided from the galvanic reaction > 0
Evidence of that is provided by Don:

reading:
Volts   Time    Day  Amps
.927V  7:05PM D1
.775V 10:15PM D1  9mA
.658V  6:44AM D2  6mA
.586V  7:23PM D2  3mA
.505V  7:51AM D3  1mA
.501V  6:26PM D3  1mA
.512V 11:20PM D3  1mA
.350V  7:40AM D4  .5mA
skipped Day 5
.300V  6:52PM D6  .2mA
After taking the plastic off of my coil and letting it dry for one day
.0V    7:30AM D8  0mA

And one point I was trying to make was that I see the 'air battery' as a better pursuit over the NS coil because of the many losses I mentioned.

The other is that it would be useful to all of you to provide more data, like DonL has.
Isn't the rpm of the rotor of primary concern/interest yet no where is that detail given?