Miller Colson Magnetic Motor

[lota]

Hello
I had contact with him. I think that the motor works. I will continue to work. But waiting for a part of Korea.
It does not work with small magnets. I have a new idea, as it is easier to build. When the time comes there is also a picture.

Merry Christmas
Lota

[lota]

Hello,
my new setup.
https://youtu.be/9jw86lrpvJ8

lota

[Allen Burgess]

Conclusions.

Hello,
my new setup.
https://youtu.be/9jw86lrpvJ8

lota

Iota,

Any conclusions so far as to the effectivness of the system?

[gotoluc]

Hello,
my new setup.
https://youtu.be/9jw86lrpvJ8

lota

Hi lota,

Nice workmanship

Some months back I had the opportunity to visit and test the Miller device.
They are excellent mechanics and machinists but they don't have the skills in electrical or electronics to be able to correctly measure the electrical power going in their device.
Luckily I brought a quality 4 channel scope and a current probe. It became clear that their assist (sync) motors used much more power when the device was under load.
They could not measure this with their clamp amp meter.
It was clearly under unity. Around 250 watts to deliver 20 foot pounds of torque.

I'm taking the time to share this as I don't like people wasting time and money.
I've been working on a similar project but using a much simpler and cost effective approach.
You can see for yourself how quickly and easily you can see real results here: TD replications

Here is the original topic: Work from 2 magnets > 19% output 2

Regards

Luc

[bistander]

Conformation

...:

Some months back I had the opportunity to visit and test the Miller device.
They are excellent mechanics and machinists but they don't have the skills in electrical or electronics to be able to correctly measure the electrical power going in their device.
Luckily I brought a quality 4 channel scope and a current probe. It became clear that their assist (sync) motors used much more power when the device was under load.
They could not measure this with their clamp amp meter.
It was clearly under unity. Around 250 watts to deliver 20 foot pounds of torque.

I'm taking the time to share this as I don't like people wasting time and money.
...
Luc

Thanks Luc, for running the tests and for posting your findings. It confirms my post #5 in this thread.

Regards,

bi

Hi guys,

What makes you think this is perpetual motion? I see an electric motor powering the contraption. The patent description also shows an electric motor input (#36 on diagram). And why don't they get someone who can read an instrument correctly? The guy is claiming "1.3 watts" when the meter is visibly set to the Ampere scale. That meter is incapable of measuring power.

bi

[gotoluc]

Thanks Luc, for running the tests and for posting your findings. It confirms my post #5 in this thread.

Regards,

bi

Yes, your post and warning was bang on

Luc

[lota]

Hi Luc,.

were you directly with Sonny Miller?

I've seen the engines and also the clamp. Also she was not connected properly. I've seen your attempts in the Overunity. I'm going in this direction attempts.
I can only learn. Or?
My English is bad. I hope you understand me.

Lota

[citfta]

And I want to clarify one other point about measuring power. Torque or foot pounds alone does not signify how much power is being produced. You have to multiply torque and rpm together to get a real measure of the power. I can easily use 100 watts of input power to generate 100 foot pounds of torque. but the rpm would be very low. It is just a matter of proper gear ratios. I saw a post the other day of someone claiming OU because he had generated some torque using low input power. But the speed was very low so no OU. Most of the claims of OU are made because people just do not and will take the time to learn the basics. But they are real quick to bash those that have taken the time to learn.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[gotoluc]

Hi Luc,.

were you directly with Sonny Miller?

I've seen the engines and also the clamp. Also she was not connected properly. I've seen your attempts in the Overunity. I'm going in this direction attempts.
I can only learn. Or?
My English is bad. I hope you understand me.

Lota

Yes lota, I met Sonny Miller's at his work shop and tested the large device with him.

I can understand your English

Luc

[gotoluc]

And I want to clarify one other point about measuring power. Torque or foot pounds alone does not signify how much power is being produced. You have to multiply torque and rpm together to get a real measure of the power. I can easily use 100 watts of input power to generate 100 foot pounds of torque. but the rpm would be very low. It is just a matter of proper gear ratios. I saw a post the other day of someone claiming OU because he had generated some torque using low input power. But the speed was very low so no OU. Most of the claims of OU are made because people just do not and will take the time to learn the basics. But they are real quick to bash those that have taken the time to learn.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Yes Carroll, that is correct. Torque on its own is no indication of power. Just like Amps or Volts on their own is no indication of power.

The 20 foot pounds of torque the Sunny Miller device produced was at a low RPM of 10 revolutions per minute in case someone wants to do the math.
We tried higher RPM but input power (watts) kept rising with it.

Luc

[bistander]

I was going to comment about that. Recalling the video from early in this thread, when he was measuring torque, I didn't even need to take off my shoes to count the RPM.

I am glad to see someone who knows what they're doing stick a meter on it. The fellow in the video was "reading" 1.3 Watts. Thanks again Luc.

bi

[mike_kilroy]

Yes Carroll, that is correct. Torque on its own is no indication of power. Just like Amps or Volts on their own is no indication of power.

The 20 foot pounds of torque the Sunny Miller device produced was at a low RPM of 10 revolutions per minute in case someone wants to do the math.
We tried higher RPM but input power (watts) kept rising with it.

Luc

When was your visit and measurements Luc? Significant improvements were made in what I call errant magnetic fields. With that 250w input, I watched, observed, and measured, 20#-ft constant output at 125rpm. In case you want to do the math.

BTW, how did you rms the weird spiky 3ph current and voltage feeding the motor to come up with your motor watts? I would be thrilled to see your voltage and current waveforms for a revolution as well as your math to rms them. Thanks.

[gotoluc]

Hi Mike,

the visit was around 3 months ago.

I brought my own Tektronics 4 channel digital scope with a voltage probe and a current probe.
I turned on the scope Math function and adjusted the time division to have more than enough samples in the display to get a good average of power.

The 20 lbs. torque is not continuous throughout the 360 degrees. At best 50% of each revolution.

Regards

Luc

[mike_kilroy]

Hi Mike,
the visit was around 3 months ago.

I brought my own Tektronics 4 channel digital scope with a voltage probe and a current probe.
I turned on the scope Math function and adjusted the time division to have more than enough samples in the display to get a good average of power.

The 20 lbs. torque is not continuous throughout the 360 degrees. At best 50% of each revolution.

Regards

Luc

Thanks for the reply Luc.

And of course the 20#ft torque is not continuous throughout the whole 360 degree rotation: I do not believe anyone ever said it was. That is why ICE engines have fly wheels, just like Sonny's machine had a flywheel...

It is a shame you could not put your 4 channel scope on his machine when the timing was correct...

Shame so many folks are working against each other to be the "first" to come up with the greater than unity machine.... but that is a politically incorrect comment...

I have looked at the stuff you and floor have done - very good. Ya'all understand that the greater than unity - excuse me, torque multiplying stuff, is done by exploiting the fact that the magnetic attraction can be larger than the un-attraction of the same equal but opposite motion by devious means. Ie., by exploiting using attraction (or revulsion - it does not matter which you do) and making a SMALLER force on reverse stroke by either TURNING magnets 90 degrees from each other, AND/OR (no one has yet to try to use BOTH to get reduction in 1/2 again!!!!), as you saw Sonny do, SLIDE them sideways off each other. In either method, the magnet strength of the "return" stroke can be made LESS than the "forward" stroke and thus torque multiplication. Pretty basic stuff, but it requires the wizardry and out of box thinking such as Mr. Sonny Miller has shown so many of you.

You really should give Sonny his due: he has shown that this is possible, and then you guys are now expanded on what he taught you.

It is my opinion too that Sonny may not understand the electronic excitation side of this enough to have taken his design AT THIS TIME to the next final step, but he certainly led you guys in the direction you need to go to finish it. I have high hopes that Mr. Miller will hire a LOCAL electronic wizard (God knows I have tried to make it so!) to take him through his timing issues; to date that has happened. If he had LOCAL DAILY electrical servo guidance I believe he would in 2 months have the finished product that is a true torque multiplier. But of course that is just my opinion, having supplied the servo and controls to date.

Good luck to you sir, and floor, in furthering the use of this magnetic force no one knows the source of. Perhaps if the three of you wizards were to work together...

[bistander]

Constant / continuous

And of course the 20#ft torque is not continuous throughout the whole 360 degree rotation: I do not believe anyone ever said it was. ...

Wait.... you said it was!

... I watched, observed, and measured, 20#-ft constant output at 125rpm. In case you want to do the math.

...

20#-ft constant at 125rpm doesn't imply a full 360° rotation? That's less than half a second... but not continuous? So your definition of constant is for less than a forth of a second. And just in case somebody wanted to do the math... for what? The power output for a partial revolution?

O.K.

bi