Topic: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )

[RAMSET]

Some Light on the subject

Member Lumen at OU.com is sharing some interesting work on " Lenz" here

The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )

thx

Chet

[desa]

You asked for Over Unity,,, here it is. It was staring in our face all this time only we were to blind and ignorant to recognize it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Spf5WVGgSY

[wantomake]

great video

You asked for Over Unity,,, here it is. It was staring in our face all this time only we were to blind and ignorant to recognize it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Spf5WVGgSY

Thanks desa,
Wow that guy really sounds a lot like our friend Ufopolitics!!!!!

But the circuit at the end really shows very little. Or did I miss something?

wantomake

Edit: After watching the other videos I did miss so much. Someone needs to start a new thread for this. I don't know how, sorry.

[ZeroMassInertia]

Mr. Morin needs more input and output Data

You asked for Over Unity,,, here it is. It was staring in our face all this time only we were to blind and ignorant to recognize it. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Spf5WVGgSY

What got my attention in the Gerard Morin video was the nonconventional Mite-E-Lite Generator. It seems to me it‘s putting out a good amount of wattage for the input Horse power. Here a video of what is on the inside of the generator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3b03aKYDi4

[jimboot]

yep it would be great if it was a separate thread

[gotoluc]

Hi everyone,

I know you're all at the edge of your seats waiting for someone to build a test device and post the results, so today I made an effort to get mine done and as I'm writing this a video demo with basic test results is being uploaded.

I must say even though the video has some interesting results I will ask those who have hope this device is the real thing to please stay calm and not jump to the conclusion this is a free energy device until we have done many more tests and I'm ready to make that claim.

I'll explain a little why I ask this.
When I first tested the device I used the drill press (prime mover) at the slowest speed and when I connected the load it consumed the exact power from the prime mover that the load delivered. So I thought this device isn't working and was going to post the video that way.

However, just before uploading the video I had the idea to try a higher RPM just to see what would happen. So I went up two speeds and to my surprise it now was delivering power to the load without affecting the prime mover. So then I went up another speed and now it actually uses less power when under load.
So I shot the video of that and at the end of the video I said I would try a higher load resistor to see what happens and used a 12.5 Ohm load instead of the 1 Ohm load and it delivered 30 watts to it but also used 30 watts from the prime mover.

So there's something interesting going on but we need to take our time to better understand it.

Also, some weeks back I posted that I had the feeling this was similar to the ReGen-X effect and after seeing today's results I'm still thinking the very same way. So lets work together in a caring way so we can improve this effect as a group effort.

Link to video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZXFns8PZ38

Help ever hurt never

Luc

[Dog-One]

So lets work together in a caring way so we can improve this effect as a group effort.

Nothing to be ashamed of there Luc, nice work.

The only thing that I can spot immediately is the thickness of the rotating core. I know it will take a lot of work to make it wider so that it completely clamps across the two static cores like a keeper, but I must say I would be very curious how it behaves and if the output waveform changes.

I suppose another possibility would be to use thinner magnets and bring the two static cores in closer together. This may be an easier modification to attempt.

I feel that it is important to understand the behavior of partial versus full clamping. Your video shows partial clamping results quite nicely.

[gotoluc]

Nothing to be ashamed of there Luc, nice work.

The only thing that I can spot immediately is the thickness of the rotating core. I know it will take a lot of work to make it wider so that it completely clamps across the two static cores like a keeper, but I must say I would be very curious how it behaves and if the output waveform changes.

I suppose another possibility would be to use thinner magnets and bring the two static cores in closer together. This may be an easier modification to attempt.

I feel that it is important to understand the behavior of partial versus full clamping. Your video shows partial clamping results quite nicely.

Thanks Dog-One,

I'll make another C core as I have more. How much of an overlap would you think it needs?... like the C core would reach the center of each I core?

Let me know what you think and what you think it will do.

Luc

[Dog-One]

I'll make another C core as I have more. How much of an overlap would you think it needs?... like the C core would reach the center of each I core?

I was thinking the same width as the outer edges of the two I-Cores, but the cogging may be quite extreme, so maybe work your way up in thickness.

Let me know what you think and what you think it will do.

Right now you have a very quick snap of only a few degrees per half cycle as the flux flips in the C-Core. I'm guessing you have a dead zone when the C-Core is in direct alignment with the I-Cores.

What I'm curious about with a thicker C-Core is if there will be a smooth transition on the scope. I can picture in my head the C-Core closing in on the I-Cores, acquiring a flux, then turning to full alignment with the i-Cores completely clamping off the flux, then turning some more and receiving the flux in the opposite polarity and finally moving away. And when I say "clamping off", it will do this at the face of the C-Core and not through the C-Core as I think it only does now.

Now unfortunately, this won't quite represent the RamaGen device because the C-Core will have to turn quite a ways before the cycle repeats, since your setup is effectively only a two-pole device. So on the exit side as the C-Core turns completely away, it may carry some residual magnetism, but at 90Hz, probably not very far, not enough to matter when it comes back into alignment.


The most interesting part of your experiment is seeing the magnets and core static, with the rotating keeper. The trouble I see is the keeper working with only two poles. If the cogging is actually balanced, meaning it pulls the prime mover into alignment with the same amount of force it takes for the prime mover to push it back out of alignment, we should be okay. If the cogging is unbalanced, then it will be hard to tell just how much force the prime mover is exerting to keep the C-Core in motion.

Anyway, what you're demonstrating is very interesting. If you can lower the drill table down enough where there is no effect, try getting a baseline power consumption so we can compare that to when the prime mover is actually operating the DUT. Having three numbers: baseline, no load and full load will be very helpful.

[dragon]

Nice Work gotoluc ! Interesting little test rig you have there. Now it seems to me that you could remove all the components related to that test and take a watt reading of the drill running unloaded. Then re-assemble the test rig and read directly the difference in power consumption by subtracting the baseline number. Probably not super accurate but it would at least give you a general idea of power being used while running through various tests.

Something a little more difficult to build but more accurate, if you need perfection, would be to mount the coil/core on a bearing plate attached to the drill table. This would allow the core to rotate with torque - connect a spring scale to the rotating table, read torque directly and measure rpm. This could be calculated directly into HP or watts to compare input and output.

[prochiro]

Luc
As Dog-One suggested " If you can lower the drill table down enough where there is no effect", also check if a greater gap position, say where drag gets less and RPM goes up will be helpful.

prochiro

[gotoluc]

Hi everyone,

as some of us have been suspecting the higher RPM seems to be storing magnetic flux in the core and possibly if it has no where to go when coil is not under load it discharges or causes a braking effect when the C core changes phase which may be the slaps sound we hear. When the coil is on load the stored flux gets out so the C core makes it through to the next phase with ease.

Here is a test example of the prime mover input power when the drill press is at medium RPM range.

120w just turning the C core with I core away
140W with I cores in position and coil not on load
135W with coil on 1 Ohm load and delivering 5W to load.

So there's 10W which is not accounted for and it's hard for me to believe that so much power is being wasted in such small cores as Eddy currents and heat losses. At lower RPM there is less losses but also less output. It all seems to be linear and under unity.
If we could come close to a break even point I would say we are on the right track but it's not looking that good at the moment.
I have tried different load values, RPM's and so on but there is always losses.
I will still try different combinations and give an update if I find something better.

Please keep in mind what I'm testing is a variation of the original idea shared in this topic.

Luc

[dragon]

Luc - The losses most likely aren't connected to eddy currents or heat - if you have a magnet with say 25 lbs of pull with a given airgap and rotate an iron between N and S you'll end up with a 50 lb lock. Rotating the magnets will require less force than pulling them straight up yet still require a fair amount of force. So let's say we have a 10 lb force required to break that connection during rotation, as an example, also lets assume the radius of the connection is 2 inches... so 10 lbs * 2 inches / 12 inches = 1.67 ft lbs required to break that connection. Now if this structure is running say 1000 rpm with 1.67 ft lbs force we have an input requirement of 237 watts just to overcome these forces. The input required would actually be considerably less as it's moving fairly fast and doesn't have a lot of time to make a direct lock, momentum of rotating parts and stored energy help in this case. All fictional numbers used for this example...

So your lost 10 watts are most likely in breaking the magnetic connection. This was one of the challenges I mentioned in an earlier post...

[machinealive]

Hello everyone

I have been working on a build. It's a motor generator, the generator is based on the patent presented in the beginning. I don't know how long before I get to start wiring but it's going fairly quick!

Anyhow, I thought I would post a small video of what I a building, I'm getting excited to test this.

Comments and complaints welcome!


http://youtu.be/SWschGT0G-I

Happy holidays to everyone

[jimboot]

Hello everyone

I have been working on a build. It's a motor generator, the generator is based on the patent presented in the beginning. I don't know how long before I get to start wiring but it's going fairly quick!

Anyhow, I thought I would post a small video of what I a building, I'm getting excited to test this.

Comments and complaints welcome!


http://youtu.be/SWschGT0G-I

Happy holidays to everyone

Looking good, where will you put the coils?