Open discussion for projects on this forum.

[Matthew Jones]

Is it necessary too short the coil if you know it stopped oscillating?

How do you know?

Matt

[maxc]

How do you know?

Matt

Oscilloscope. But the on/off switch is broken. It's old Tektronix 564 from 1968. My Newman coil had about 3ms ring down time.

[Matthew Jones]

I would guess not. But we are talking about normal brushed motors and I am not sure how you would go about checking those. Obviously a Newman motor has access to the coil.

Matt

[shylo]

This is interesting because I'm working with shorting input coils as well as generating coils. I've done both but , never at the same time. Generating first, Where is the best time to do the short. Is it at max production , or just after when you use that production? It would be pointless before max occurs?
If we could charge enough cap banks , fast enough, it should self run.
Shorting does provide more stored for the same amount of time.
More storage means more power ,but more work for less time.
Motor coils second, When is the best time to cut power. Is it as soon as the core becomes saturated with lines of magnetic force, or just before or after?

Then I'm going to try and sync the fields to help each other.
artv

[forelle]

Hi Carroll, As far as motors go I think they are already quite efficient, there
is benefit to recovering the coil collapse from switched coils, but from what I see
if the motor is pulsed the max power is reduced, and when loading a
pulsed motor if the motor tries to maintain speed the input power will increase
and the recovered energy will be more. When a pulsed motor with recovery is
accelerated by increasing the voltage input, the recovered energy is less.

This all tells me there is no free energy in a motor, all that is possible is closer
to 100% efficient. Motors are for delivering shaft power and if we reduce
maximum input power we reduce maximum shaft power, it's the in between area's where
people see what appears to be extra energy because they reduce the input
by pulsing or removing windings and recover some energy, but under full load
at full power they cannot perform as a regular motor would in my opinion, only
slightly or partially loaded motors can afford to lose "on" time to get the
recovery in my opinion and I doubt it will ever be more out than in in a modified motor.

To improve a motor I think it needs to keep the same shaft power or more
and reduce input. Testing shaft power is not simple, using a generator could
work for testing but won't give a hard figure to compare so I have little
expectation any improvements will be made unless to already inefficient
motors. Almost a waste of time trying to improve on 97% efficient.

Cheers

I know your Statement was some years ago and i allways think if i read such statements and i would be a newbie i think i would belief someone who has more than 3000 posts,but how did you came to the conclusion that a motor could not have an efficiency over 100%?Have you ever heard from Robert Adams and David Squires?
Maybe i should Not read such old posts,but i have the Feeling i should correct some statements,Imagine somebody read it and is a beginner.

[Matthew Jones]

I know your Statement was some years ago and i allways think if i read such statements and i would be a newbie i think i would belief someone who has more than 3000 posts,but how did you came to the conclusion that a motor could not have an efficiency over 100%?Have you ever heard from Robert Adams and David Squires?
Maybe i should Not read such old posts,but i have the Feeling i should correct some statements,Imagine somebody read it and is a beginner.

No need to correct Farmhand, that only gives him a reason to post again. Better he just stays gone.

Matt

[mbrownn]

I know your Statement was some years ago and i allways think if i read such statements and i would be a newbie i think i would belief someone who has more than 3000 posts,but how did you came to the conclusion that a motor could not have an efficiency over 100%?Have you ever heard from Robert Adams and David Squires?
Maybe i should Not read such old posts,but i have the Feeling i should correct some statements,Imagine somebody read it and is a beginner.

Farmhand is quite correct if you look at a standard motor, power it in a standard way, and only consider its mechanical output as converted electrical input, and assume it is a closed system. But is that truly the case?

If you consider the electrical recovery that can be done on such a device as merely capturing losses, then it fits with the world view of things and we are wasting our time. I will tell you why this world view may not be correct.

If we have a closed system, and we know what there is going on in that system, then we would require anything extra we find to be created out of nothing, but we don't know everything. When a motor is running on electricity we assume we know what electricity is, but as electricity manifests in so many forms, I doubt that we do. The next thing we do not know about is magnetism, its becoming obvious these days that it is far more complex that what is in the physics text books. These two things are often treated as different things even though we know that one can cause the other. It may even be the case that both phenomenon are actually the same thing, or that both phenomenon are caused by the same thing. If we don’t know what all the things are in our system, how can we know it is a closed system.

Proof that it isn’t a closed system is easily provided, just bringing a radio or a compass close to a motor results in the radio and compass being effected. The motor is leaking all over the place. Add to that the heat losses and you can see that a motor leaks like a sieve. We also know that there is a sea of environmental electrical and magnetic phenomenon that we live in, and so the motor is immersed in that too. As it leaks like a sieve, it is quite likely that environmental phenomenon are leaking into it too.

Nature tends to supply equal and opposite forces to what we are creating. As we expend energy to create these forces, does nature also expend energy or is it really us that are creating twice as much energy as we believe we are? if either of these are true then there is twice as much energy in a motor than what we use in our calculations.

Farmhand knows all this too. I suspect that if we take a post alone and without the context within which it was used, we can draw the wrong conclusions from it. Farmhand has helped me understand many things about motors which are contrary to that post, so I don’t understand where he was coming from when he wrote it. Who knows what sort of debate was going on when he said it. So there is no point in taking any single statement out of context and dissecting it. The fact that he used words like "think" and "believe" suggest that he wasn't making a definitive statement, and was referring to a specific thing.

Reading old posts is a great idea, there is so much valuable information there, but we have to use discernment and/or tests to really know for our selves that something works or not.

I personally believe that motors are very inefficient and that is why it is easy to recover energy form them under certain conditions. Alternatively we reuse that energy within the device without even thinking about it. Induction motors and the use of PWM both do that in a way. That's quite a bold statement so I will clarify where I am coming from.

In an induction motor the rotor is not powered by us directly, If it was, it would probably be around 35 t0 60% efficient like similar motors. It is the transformer action that powers the squirrel cage on the rotor and increases the apparent efficiency of the device. There is a lot more to this, but I think you may understand where I am coming from.
In PWM there is a diode that passes current from inductive kickback back into the motor therefore increasing apparent motor efficiency. The motor is still very inefficient, but this recycling makes the motor appear more efficient.

[bistander]

motor efficiency

As far as motors go I think they are already quite efficient, ....

Farmhand is quite correct if you look at a standard motor,
<snip>
I personally believe that motors are very inefficient
<snip>
around 35 t0 60% efficient like similar motors.
<snip>
In PWM there is a diode that passes current from inductive kickback back into the motor therefore increasing apparent motor efficiency. The motor is still very inefficient
<snip>

I've worked with induction motors of the 1 to 100 kW size for the past few decades. My experience is that they are very efficient to the tune of nominally 85% at rated load and speed and for very large regions of the load-speed operational map. Within a percent or so, this efficiency does not change when driven from an inverter (PWM) compared to the mains connected operation. You can find NEMA rated efficiency figures for induction motors on the sales literature and web sites of the suppliers of these motors. Those figures support the high efficiency and are verifiable.

Sorry to take your comments out of context but the source is linked and close by. Just trying to keep the post short.

bi

[citfta]

I recently spent some time going back and forth with some PMs with another member of this forum about magnetic amplifiers. It seems this subject comes up on this forum from time to time. The idea keeps coming up that somehow a magnetic amplifier will amplify power. I guess the idea keeps coming up because those that have never worked in electronics are under a misconception about what an amplifier actually does.

Basically all an amplifier does is amplify a signal NOT power. There is a major difference between the two. As far as I know there is NO way to amplify power. That is what a lot of us looking for OU would love to have. I have seen some interesting results where extra power seemed to be coming from somewhere, but I have never seen anything that would be considered an amplification of power. Of course we can use leverage to increase torque or speed but that is not an increase in power.

So if an amplifier does not increase power then how does it amplify? Whether we are talking about a tube type amplifier or a solid state amplify they all work on the same principle. You use a small signal to control a large current or voltage. But you have to have a source to supply the large current or voltage. Vacuum tubes amplify voltage signals and transistors amplify current signals.

In a transistor circuit when a small signal is applied to the base of the transistor this allows a large signal to flow from the collector to emitter. So a small current signal can control a large current to give a signal that is the same as the small signal but larger. But you have to supply that large current to the collector or the small signal does nothing.

In a tube type circuit a small voltage applied to the grid of the tube can control a large voltage on the plate of the tube by controlling the small current going from the cathode to the plate (or anode) of the tube. But here again you have to supply the voltage to the plate.

A couple of years ago someone posted a circuit that was supposed to have come from Tesla (don't they all). It was a circuit that had a bunch of tubes connected in series that was supposed to amplify the power from the air to the point it could be used to run a car or your home. There was no way that circuit could do what was claimed. If you had even a very basic understanding of how vacuum tubes worked you could see it couldn't work. Yet when I tried to point that out I was of course accused of not being a "believer" in OU. While I actually do believe in OU I also don't believe in people posting garbage and insisting it is real. Especially when they have no evidence to back up their claims.

And lastly a magnetic amplifier is called that because a small DC current is used to control the saturation of the transformer and thus a 40 milliamp DC signal can control a few thousand amps of AC current.

So again to make it clear. Amplifiers amplify signal not power. They cannot produce power they only control the power that is supplied to them.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[dR-Green]

It's a curious phenomenon.

If you tell someone something that they already happen to believe, they will accept your words without question.

If you tell them something that is contrary to what they believe, they will argue against you and resist your words.

Reality is irrelevant in either case, it depends entirely on what the person believes to begin with.

This applies in general, but I find it particularly ironic when the most guilty are the ones who claim to be searching for the truth. As if you are the one who is trying to tell them lies.

[citfta]

I agree with you completely. What has always really puzzled me is the argument that those with education and experience in the field that is being discussed are accused of being blinded by that education and experience. I suppose those people would go out to explore looking for an unknown area and refuse to look at any maps of the known area. So how are they going to know when they find an unknown area? My years of experience and education are exactly what gives me the ability to recognize when something unusual is going on.

It's a curious phenomenon.

If you tell someone something that they already happen to believe, they will accept your words without question.

If you tell them something that is contrary to what they believe, they will argue against you and resist your words.

Reality is irrelevant in either case, it depends entirely on what the person believes to begin with.

This applies in general, but I find it particularly ironic when the most guilty are the ones who claim to be searching for the truth. As if you are the one who is trying to tell them lies.

Thanks for you comments.
Carroll

[shylo]

switch

Hi all, I wasted 3 days trying to get this switch to work.
Hi Carroll ,will the transistor make switching in sequence , with multiple banks?
I'm loading cap banks and want to discharge them in order to keep the rotation.
I need a switch that can connect one bank after the other.
artv

[Matthew Jones]

....
Basically all an amplifier does is amplify a signal NOT power. There is a major difference between the two. As far as I know there is NO way to amplify power. That is what a lot of us looking for OU would love to have. I have seen some interesting results where extra power seemed to be coming from somewhere, but I have never seen anything that would be considered an amplification of power. Of course we can use leverage to increase torque or speed but that is not an increase in power.......
Respectfully,
Carroll

So lets talk about how to amplify power, really amplify it. Lets talk about how to emulate a ground for the sole purpose of catching power, and routing it back to the front end.
Here is how it would work out. You have a load capable of power up to 150 vdc at 10 amp. Maybe a motor, everyone likes motors. Because they are capable.
So you feed 20 vdc @ 1.5 amp per second into the motor and it outputs 15 volt at 1 amp to ground, or in this case to ground emulation. Ground emulation being a set of caps that can hold around 150 +- vdc at 1500 joules, maybe 150k micro farad..... And by the way they need to be ZEROED OUT every second. From that cap we then discharge in time with input pulse and in serial to the original input power. So now we have a situation in which the serial or parallel power with starting power adds up to the full potential of our load. So now..

20 vdc at 1.5 amp on the first round
35 vdc at 2.5 amp on the second round
50 vdc at 3.5 amp....ect...ect...ect.

You see how that work to amplify the power we put in.

I can almost see clearly how every device talked about in history added up to that and that alone. How small the input would need to be would depend on the efficiency of the ground emulation. Would depend on how much accumulated energy accountably stayed in the system and what its actual source ended up being, IE the input or the environment.

True amplification is true conservation. And I am not talking to Carroll alone but all I have to say is, You haven't tried this yet?

Matt

[citfta]

Hi Matt.

Let me see if I understand correctly what you are suggesting. I don't have time right now to draw it up but will later if you think I need to. You are going to have a power source like a battery connected to a motor or other load. And the return is going to charge a cap. Similar to the way we use the third battery in the 3BGS. Then on the next cycle we would connect that first cap in series with our battery and run the motor on the higher voltage and the return this time goes to another cap to charge it to an even higher voltage. Then on the next cycle we use the second cap as a series voltage source and charge the first cap back up again to an even higher voltage. Did I get that right? And no I have not thought of trying that. You may remember I told you before I am not a very good original thinker but if you give me the idea I can usually figure out how to make it work. I can see how this idea could certainly have the potential to increase the use of the power you have. Like you said you have to conserve power in order to amplify it. I need to sit down and try to come up with a way to do this. It would be easy to use relays to test the idea but in the long run they wouldn't last long. So solid state would be best. Or a commutator might work pretty good too.

Thanks for the idea. Have you tried it yet?

Take care my friend.
Carroll

[citfta]

Hi art,

Yes you can use transistors to switch from one bank to another. I am not sure what switch you were trying to use so can't tell what you were having a problem with. If I were going to use transistors I would use mosfets which can be controlled by mosfet driver chips. Mosfets have a very low resistance when turned all the way on so they make good switches. I have a circuit somewhere that Matt Jones designed using 4 mosfets in parallel and driven by one driver chip. I have used this circuit several times and it works without any of the mosfets getting even warm. You would need at least one of these circuits for each bank of capacitors. If you wanted to switch both the charging and discharging of the caps you would need two for each cap bank. If you think you want to go to the trouble to build all the electronics involved with this circuit I can post it for you. Of you can probably find it somewhere in the Use for the Tesla Switch thread but that could take a while.

Later,
Carroll

Hi all, I wasted 3 days trying to get this switch to work.
Hi Carroll ,will the transistor make switching in sequence , with multiple banks?
I'm loading cap banks and want to discharge them in order to keep the rotation.
I need a switch that can connect one bank after the other.
artv