Newman Motor Finally Explained?

[clarence]

Capacitor

Hello Clarence,

not really a big fan of motor here, as I'm not very good at the phase that you are in now (timing).
Usually when tinkering with large coils I tend to stick with battery voltage of 12v.. I tend to blow holes in my winding since I work much with step-up transformers..

on the Inductive discharge capture, I tend to use very high voltage diodes (10kv upwards) especially on such big coils, I find that using only 1kv diodes you get less "charge" per pulse compared to higher kv ratings. (maybe its flowing back.. not sure..) and I find it fascinating that whatever is the voltage rating of my capacitor it is able to convert the Inductive discharge into some form of "charge", without punching a whole in that capacitor.. the only problem that I have experience is when I overcharge it above its rating.

I agree that only in experimenting we can find out the truth..
and sorry but there is no failure.
as they say failure is only when you stop trying..
if it doesn't work, we just gonna have to find another way.

good luck with your build.

Hello ricards,

In his (JWNewman) build he uses DC capacitors to return the BEMF current
to the series battery system.
When the coil is energized NO WORK is performed so ALL of the milli amps of current in BEMF form is returned to the series battery system PLUS an amount of extra ambient charge within the capacitor fields. The end result is that the series battery system maintains its charge plus a slight additional charge.
That's how his units worked so I will see how well my build works.

Thanks Again,

Respectfully.

Clarence

[wantomake]

Serious spikes

Hello Clarence,
I remember the video of J. Newman's big machine. The large spinning commutator and all the sparks it produced. Some serious shorting. The smaller unit commutator picture showed many shorting segments per revolution. If I understand correctly, it is possible to get more than one coil shorting as each magnet passed.

I noticed Newman handmade his commutator to fit the need to do that. The timing/tuning will be the hard part here.

But I know you'll get 'er done. Toasting with coffee in hand to your success.

Much respect,
wantomake

[Kokomoj0]

That's like choosing sides, kokomojo.

in the documentary there are people actually siding with Newman.. who happens to be electrical engineers too..
so do the guys who are in Position have higher credibility than those who are not?.. yet they all are electrical engineers?..
covered in the video newman's side is contesting that the entire testing was not done properly.. they had the prototype grounded, which it should not, as you would have all the inductive discharges to ground.

unwise for people who are trying to achieve OU..

just because you did not get good terms with the guy doesn't make him a con..

In general, you should not define people by their current behavior.

I hate to be the spoiler out here, but do any of these guys have any idea what all those sparks do to the power factor? They completely destroy it. Do they even know what power factor is? Grounding is irrellevant and a red herring. I am surprised that the govmnt even got 67% efficiency out of the newman sparkler. I hope everyone here has enough knowledge to comprehend that to get ou you need to be above 100% efficiency?

The best motors run maybe 96% at rated load.



What's the Difference Between AC Induction, Permanent Magnet, and Servomotor Technologies? | Machine Design

Engineers or people simply claiming they are engineers? If you look on youtube you will see people claiming EPD is a 'professor'...really? Professor of what? Phd in what?

If you ask any of these guys by what method their devices generates ou their explanations are magic, or some measurement method that does not give correct results. Measuring these kinds of signals can be so difficult that it even stumps 'real' physics professors like steven jones, but jones is smart enough to add the disclaimer that if in fact there is more power out than in then he must be 'receiving' it from somewhere else. Thats what a real professor sounds like. OU people simply stick their 5 dollar chinese meters on a circuit without any knowledge what so ever about the limitations of their measuring devices, and it goes without saying the best they have is not good enough to measure these types of outputs with even minimal degree of accuracy. I have spent many posts on this site and others explaining to people how to properly test their devices and without fail its always shunned, they are more interested in 'believing' than finding out the truth.



Even tesla would not so far as to claim to violate any laws of physics as these people are doing. Dont get me wrong, I certainly do not want to discourage people from playing with coils, only that they should be reasonable with their expectations. These production motors that can run up to 96% efficiency have extremely small gaps, take eddy currents into account etc etc etc and that is why they can achieve upwards of 90% efficiency, now compare that to the experimenters who simply throw a bar magnet in coil and it goes clunkity clunk clinkity clank? Have reasonable expectations and dont waste your time chasing ghosts and goblins.

Case in point, all as in every tesla transmitter test you will find out here are all garbage because they do not know how to properly test it. There is only one person who did it right and that is a real professor, Meyl, because he understands whats actually happening.

So build your coils and have fun, but dont expect ou, it wont happen...caveat unless you are receiving it from an external souce.

[ricards]

the point

kokomojo,

I see your point, no need to mention someone else who isn't relevant to the thread.

It's just that you don't see "The Point" of Newman motor or pulse motors in general (switch on and off). I based this because you state "Grounding is Irrelevant"..
By all means all the measurement and test of conventional science fall into the category of "Facts" or "The Truth", nothing wrong there..

but Is that ALL there is to it?..

when a coil is energized and switched off, you would have an inductive discharge from coil magnetic field collapse, technically this is energy, and is recoverable..
when you have recovered energy from your input, do you not add it to the total efficiency of the machine?..
now If you would have a machine that constantly have inductive discharges and you ground it.. all the inductive discharges would go to ground (as that is its nature to ground itself)..
if Inductive Discharges are recoverable energy.. technically speaking you are leaking energy to the ground, doing no work which will result in lower overall total efficiency of the motor.. is it not?..

I had an experiment.. a self oscillating coil, 1 power source (capacitor) and 1 recovery (capacitor)..
first test.
Initially I connected two capacitors together (one charged and one is not) upon connection the voltage would balance (if you would calculate the total energy of the capacitors you would have 1/2 of the energy than what you initially have).
second test.
next I did the same test only this time I have a coil in series and it is pulsing (on and off) and made the circuit so I would have the inductive discharges recovered in the second cap.
test was done and I compared the total energy in both capacitors to be higher compared to non-pulsing.
third test.
same with the second test now this time with a much bigger coil..
Results shows that the total energy in both capacitors now is even higher than the second..

from these statements can you still say "Grounding is Irrelevant".. when in a very simple test shows that Inductive discharge is recoverable energy..

I was able to recover as much as 89% of the initial energy in that experiment. and that is without motor action..

energy doesn't necessarily have to come from an outside source, in fact you can have the energy from the very "energy" that you started with..

"energy" can neither be created nor destroyed,
what makes you think it should come from some "Source".

[Kokomoj0]

kokomojo,

I see your point, no need to mention someone else who isn't relevant to the thread.

I simply gave a real life example the name is irrelevant.

It's just that you don't see "The Point" of Newman motor or pulse motors in general (switch on and off).

Its a sparkler with very loose coupling coefficient and very low efficiency.

I based this because you state "Grounding is Irrelevant"..

It is for motors in so far as sucking all your energy away.

By all means all the measurement and test of conventional science fall into the category of "Facts" or "The Truth", nothing wrong there..

Like I said however, the measuring accuracy is severely limited as they are highly dependent on the signal quality being measured.

but Is that ALL there is to it?..

when a coil is energized and switched off, you would have an inductive discharge from coil magnetic field collapse, technically this is energy, and is recoverable..

The collapsing magnetic field creates a momentary pulse with a total output that less than the input, as I said earlier limited by the coil resistance, thermal, and magnetic losses etc.

when you have recovered energy from your input, do you not add it to the total efficiency of the machine?..

No its not additive, its a ratio of input to output.

now If you would have a machine that constantly have inductive discharges and you ground it.. all the inductive discharges would go to ground (as that is its nature to ground itself)..

if Inductive Discharges are recoverable energy.. technically speaking you are leaking energy to the ground, doing no work which will result in lower overall total efficiency of the motor.. is it not?..

yes/no, I'd have to see the circuit

I had an experiment.. a self oscillating coil, 1 power source (capacitor) and 1 recovery (capacitor)..

If you have a self oscillating coil like stifflers it should charge the cap indefinitely.

first test.
Initially I connected two capacitors together (one charged and one is not) upon connection the voltage would balance (if you would calculate the total energy of the capacitors you would have 1/2 of the energy than what you initially have).

The voltage divides between the 2, if your cap were a 'perfect' cap you would have no losses.

second test.
next I did the same test only this time I have a coil in series and it is pulsing (on and off) and made the circuit so I would have the inductive discharges recovered in the second cap.
test was done and I compared the total energy in both capacitors to be higher compared to non-pulsing.

Its not clear if this is the same test. So you pulsed 1/2 the cap voltage to the second cap instead of simply shorting 2 caps together as you did the first time is that it?


third test.
same with the second test now this time with a much bigger coil..
Results shows that the total energy in both capacitors now is even higher than the second..

It should be if you are using stiffler style self oscillating coils since they will oscillate with no input what so ever.

from these statements can you still say "Grounding is Irrelevant".. when in a very simple test shows that Inductive discharge is recoverable energy..

Thats a nonsequitur conclusion without further information what and how you did what you did.

I was able to recover as much as 89% of the initial energy in that experiment. and that is without motor action..

Which should prove to you that you are 12% below the point you need for over unity. To get ou you must be over 100% recovery.

energy doesn't necessarily have to come from an outside source, in fact you can have the energy from the very "energy" that you started with..

"energy" can neither be created nor destroyed,
what makes you think it should come from some "Source".

calculating efficiency

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Circui...Power_Transfer

When you are using coils, caps, and magnets it does have to come from an outside source because ou is not possible under those conditions.

http://www.psma.com/sites/default/fi...plications.pdf

as for multimeter accuracy, you meter wont even know a 5ghz signal exists if you try to measure it, same problem with measuring random harmonics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimeter

[ricards]

kokomojo,

quick reply,

you find out more about the experiment here,

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ll+experiments

its a small and simple experiment..

though I have to clarify.. self oscillating coil means, If you connect it to a power source.. It would switch itself on and off..

got to go.

[Kokomoj0]

kokomojo,

quick reply,

you find out more about the experiment here,

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ll+experiments

its a small and simple experiment..

though I have to clarify.. self oscillating coil means, If you connect it to a power source.. It would switch itself on and off..

got to go.

first blush glance there is an error in your second circuit, its not as described. if you want to get so called energy from your coil on the collapsing field you cant have the cap directly being fed from the transistor/coil, or in series as you have it.

You would need to run a series diode to capture only the pulse not the pulse plus the driving current. In other words your circuit is not designed to provide the data that you described.

Also the correct description would be 'self switching' not self oscillating. self switching because while the switch point is determined by the some value of magnetism self oscillating refers to a stand alone coil, not an automatic switching arrangement.

You would need to isolate your cap from being directly driven so that you only get the collapse voltage using something along these lines:



the diode across the transistor is for protection from reverse bias which would cause a c-e punch through and short but may be removed if your negative spikes across the collector are not too high since the reverse voltage would clamp at the voltage on the output cap, removing it would not be proper design methods however. thats a standard ole chopper inverter btw. I suppose you could also add a diode across the coil to ring back to the source.

But no matter what you do you wont get OU out of it. (at least not in the final analysis)

this is a self oscillating coil:

Driving LED, No Battery and No Transistor

Published on Feb 24, 2011
[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIIhgHTEoM0[/VIDEO]
Using just self resonance in three properly chosen and spaced coils coupled to earth will allow a condition where LED(s) can be driven. Coils MUST be spaced properly and all must match as close as possible to the same SRF. With a diode and small capacitor a circuit is constructed that will oscillate and build to a point of powering LED(s). Is there an energy gain in the space between coils when positioned properly? Energy coupling from coil to coil through space sees a merry dance between spatial partners.

[ricards]

Kokomojo,

Yeah sorry, self switching coil..

The idea of the experiment was to test if you could get something out of magnetic field collapse, it proved its worth, its not to show OU by itself..
You missed exp no 1, to see if the motor consumes the "energy".

If your reasoning that I should only get the spikes, and not the current flow.. that is not being smart at all,
Your right we can never exceed the energy we get back from what we put into a coil, but you can get motor action work and recover some of your electrical input energy, if you would have a motor that could achieve 90% eff. And be able to get recovery from coil collapse you should be able to do more work which in turn to generate more energy..
That is the point. To get the most out of the energy you have..

If you disregard the inductive discharges you lose, if you disregard the motor action you lose as well, why choose if you can get both?..

Newman always do claim 100% direct conversion of matter to energy of his machine why?.. he is very well aware that fact that an inductive discharge could not exceed 100% of the input energy but is achievable how? His idea was to increase the copper mass, i find that to be true by the same ezperiments i posted above, I have created a table showing an increase in copper mass coils resulted in an imcrease in final resting voltage of the capacitors..
What else?..
Lets not forget the fact that a magnet spinning inside a coil is a generator as well.. if you would add the generated voltage from this.. it just keeps adding..

You just gonna have to be wise, take everything nature offers you...

[Kokomoj0]

Kokomojo,

Yeah sorry, self switching coil..

The idea of the experiment was to test if you could get something out of magnetic field collapse, it proved its worth, its not to show OU by itself..
You missed exp no 1, to see if the motor consumes the "energy".

If your reasoning that I should only get the spikes, and not the current flow.. that is not being smart at all,
Your right we can never exceed the energy we get back from what we put into a coil, but you can get motor action work and recover some of your electrical input energy, if you would have a motor that could achieve 90% eff. And be able to get recovery from coil collapse you should be able to do more work which in turn to generate more energy..
That is the point. To get the most out of the energy you have..

If you disregard the inductive discharges you lose, if you disregard the motor action you lose as well, why choose if you can get both?..

Newman always do claim 100% direct conversion of matter to energy of his machine why?.. he is very well aware that fact that an inductive discharge could not exceed 100% of the input energy but is achievable how? His idea was to increase the copper mass, i find that to be true by the same ezperiments i posted above, I have created a table showing an increase in copper mass coils resulted in an imcrease in final resting voltage of the capacitors..
What else?..
Lets not forget the fact that a magnet spinning inside a coil is a generator as well.. if you would add the generated voltage from this.. it just keeps adding..

You just gonna have to be wise, take everything nature offers you...

Nature offers us 'entropy', you are looking at the generating effects and dismissing out of hand the counter emf effects that kill the generating effects.

The increase in copper mass resulted in better conductance so of course you will get a greater voltage, or power transfer.

experiment 1 was simply equalized voltage between 2 caps, nothing to do with motors.

His idea was to wind a coil with 100 miles of wire which is why it took 100 9 volt batteries to run it. That is not increasing copper mass. Increasing copper mass is when you go from a number 30 awg to 10awg, not add 100 miles of the same size wire to it.

[ricards]

Nature offers us 'entropy', you are looking at the generating effects and dismissing out of hand the counter emf effects that kill the generating effects.

The increase in copper mass resulted in better conductance so of course you will get a greater voltage, or power transfer.

experiment 1 was simply equalized voltage between 2 caps, nothing to do with motors.

His idea was to wind a coil with 100 miles of wire which is why it took 100 9 volt batteries to run it. That is not increasing copper mass. Increasing copper mass is when you go from a number 30 awg to 10awg, not add 100 miles of the same size wire to it.

Kokomojo,

It seems you have your own way of interpreting things, that is good but please don't apply it to us.
A 1kg of #20 wire is the same mass as 1kg of #32 wire.. isnt it? Why argue with how he increase the mass?.

Just to mention in my experiments I use the same wire guage.

I have seen the effect with my own eyes, have tested how much charge I could get from a single pulse from two different mass of coil. Same wire size, the bigger coil offers higher charge per pulse.. it makes sense really you have higher inductance larger imductive diacharges.

Entropy is there for a good reason. Not to stop us.

On experiment 1 though I was able to get motor action on the process of equalizing the caps. Sure it super small. But if you get the idea and apply on bigger scale like increasing voltage and cap sizes.. That super small gets bigger as well..

Counter emf another obstacle.. still not to stop us. Do you know how to wind coils to minimize it?.. there are ways i have seen people claim how teach how.. i immitated and followed.. guess what?.. their telling the truth

[Kokomoj0]

Kokomojo,

It seems you have your own way of interpreting things, that is good but please don't apply it to us.
A 1kg of #20 wire is the same mass as 1kg of #32 wire.. isnt it? Why argue with how he increase the mass?.

Just to mention in my experiments I use the same wire guage.

I have seen the effect with my own eyes, have tested how much charge I could get from a single pulse from two different mass of coil. Same wire size, the bigger coil offers higher charge per pulse.. it makes sense really you have higher inductance larger imductive diacharges.

Entropy is there for a good reason. Not to stop us.

On experiment 1 though I was able to get motor action on the process of equalizing the caps. Sure it super small. But if you get the idea and apply on bigger scale like increasing voltage and cap sizes.. That super small gets bigger as well..

Counter emf another obstacle.. still not to stop us. Do you know how to wind coils to minimize it?.. there are ways i have seen people claim how teach how.. i immitated and followed.. guess what?.. their telling the truth

Sorry I am not the one using incorrect terminology you are. When you say increasing the mass it can mean going from awg 30 to awg000 in which the copper is the size of a dime. In other words the way you stated it is totally meaningless.

Again 'correctly' stated you increased the inductance of course you will get more emf with more inductance.

Another thing they are not 'discharges' unless you have a spark gap.

Yes entropy is there for a good reason, its why you cant get OU from coils caps and magnets, not to mention the other losses explained in the study material I posted for you that you apparently did not read.

Who is they and what truth do you think 'they' are telling?

[ricards]

Sorry I am not the one using incorrect terminology you are. When you say increasing the mass it can mean going from awg 30 to awg000 in which the copper is the size of a dime. In other words the way you stated it is totally meaningless.

Again 'correctly' stated you increased the inductance of course you will get more emf with more inductance.

Another thing they are not 'discharges' unless you have a spark gap.

Yes entropy is there for a good reason, its why you cant get OU from coils caps and magnets, not to mention the other losses explained in the study material I posted for you that you apparently did not read.

Who is they and what truth do you think 'they' are telling?

Kokomojo,

I feel sorry for you my friend. If you can't accept simple Additional facts aside from what conventional teachings gives us.. What you believe will get you nowhere..

[Kokomoj0]

Kokomojo,

I feel sorry for you my friend. If you can't accept simple Additional facts aside from what conventional teachings gives us.. What you believe will get you nowhere..

puhlease, you cant even tell me who 'they' are and what their secret 'truth' is that you go on about.

I even gave you a circuit to properly accomplish the test you want to make and I posted stifflers 3 coil array that is known to work as several people have replicated it. Something you can build and expect success in the end but you insist on chasing ghosts and imagined facts.

You should have more appreciation for those who are trying to help you instead of ridiculing them for their education, especially when they are on your side, the quest for free energy.

[ricards]

puhlease, you cant even tell me who 'they' are and what their secret 'truth' is that you go on about.

I even gave you a circuit to properly accomplish the test you want to make and I posted stifflers 3 coil array that is known to work as several people have replicated it. Something you can build and expect success in the end but you insist on chasing ghosts and imagined facts.

You should have more appreciation for those who are trying to help you instead of ridiculing them for their education, especially when they are on your side, the quest for free energy.

kokomojo,

I'm on this side as well, I just don't like the closed mindedness your showing on experiments like this.. and by the way I already built that circuit. thank you.

if you put 1 more coil on that wire in between cap and battery you would have an output there from the "Charging of the capacitor" if you add this to your overall system, it will increase efficiency overall.

[Kokomoj0]

kokomojo,

I'm on this side as well, I just don't like the closed mindedness your showing on experiments like this.. and by the way I already built that circuit. thank you.

if you put 1 more coil on that wire in between cap and battery you would have an output there from the "Charging of the capacitor" if you add this to your overall system, it will increase efficiency overall.

Its difficult to comprehend why you are having so much trouble with such a simple circuit. I hope this helps.




The battery is not in the circuit when it is running so adding a coil between the battery and the cap does nothing at all.

The switch is placed to the left to charge the source cap, once the source cap is charged the switch is placed to the right for operation and as you can see the battery is completely removed from the circuit. I omitted the transistor switching circuit for less clutter.

C1 is the source cap, D2 in series with the the output cap charges c2, D3 is just added for safety so you dont toast your transistor. I omitted D1 and put up the original drawing.

The circuit you used for your test has the output cap in series with the transistor and charges it directly off the source. The circuit as shown above only allows pulses through from the coil to the output or load cap.

If you want correct results you need to do your experiment again using the above circuit.

Yes I have a closed mind because laws of physics are called laws because you cannot defeat them. If you or anyone else could we would be running our cars using your free energy devices long ago, and none of that changes the fact these guys are frauds.

Again I dont want to discourage anyone from leaning about coils, but I can tell people out here that a little bit of school goes a long way, both in producing correct designs and understanding what is really going on and why you will never get OU from coils caps and magnets, unless they are set up to receive some outside source, like stifflers resonator.