Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 81922
  • *Latest: bobdring

  • *Total Posts: 490757
  • *Total Topics: 14441
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 236
  • *Total: 240

Facebook

Author Topic: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8  (Read 475260 times)

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« on: March 22, 2011, 09:07:09 PM »
The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

Operation: Thane Heins effect based device.
Replication: None yet.
Closed-loop: Not attempted, can fry the windings without input current control circuitry.  (i.e. inverter, battery charger , and battery)
Independent Verification:  The Heins' effect has been independently verified, but Klingelhoefer's implementation has not.

Input: 120VAC at 0.5Amp
Output: 120VAC at 4Amp

Quote
[David Klingelhoefer's] idea is simple, but fundamentally changes the design of Thane Heins system. He takes a large M-146 nanoperm toroid produced by Magnetec and winds approximately 300 feet of 16 awg insulated copper wire around it as tight as can be wound by hand. For those of you that are not familiar with various magnetic materials, nanoperm has a very high permeability. This is the secondary of his system.

The next step is to place a large, cold rolled steel shell around the secondary. One piece loosely fits on top of the nanoperm toroid and other piece fits loosely on the bottom. The two halves form a shell or primary toroid that encloses the secondary. The gap around the circumference is welded shut or sealed with epoxy. It is then wound with 400 feet of 16 awg copper "boat wire" (he just happened to have that kind of wire available). This is the primary of his system. Both the primary and secondary coils are wound in the same direction.

Without a load on the secondary, the primary circuit consumes 420 watts (3.5 amps at 120 volts) as displayed by the power meter plugged into the wall. As he adds loads (usually lights) to the secondary, something very interesting happens. The primary current starts to drop! Actually, the more load he places on the secondary, the less power the primary consumes. He has been able to get the primary circuit power consumption down to 60 watts (.5 amps at 120 volts) while outputting 480 watts (4 amps at 120 volts). His output is 800% that of the primary consumption!

http://pesn.com/2011/03/20/9501793_Two_Toroid_Over-Unity_Gabriel_Device_--_Part_1/


You can read my comments to this in the Thane Heins thread here
Thane Heins BI-TOROID TRANSFORMER
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7833.msg278868#new

I will be attempting replication and am in contact with David Klingelhoefer. Exciting stuff.

Let's hope it's not a measurement error, but I have high hopes.

Cheers,
Feynman

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2011, 09:23:20 PM »
OKay guys, good news!  David wants to open-source this, and I'm in contact with him.

I'm posting here so we don't overwhelm him with the same questions over and over.

Apparently, Thane offered to help David patent it, which is really cool if true.  Let's keep our fingers crossed that this device works as it appears (back-EMF magnetic flux modulation , possibly via differences in magnetic permeability).

----


Subject    Re: The Gabriel Device Breakthrough
Sender    David Klingelhoefer Add contact
Recipient    feynman@feynmanslab.com Add contact
Date    Today 20:13
To protect your privacy, remote images are blocked in this message. Display images

Hello Feynman,

1) I have attached a drawing I did;  Can you confirm this is correct?

it is mostly correct your toaster is actually a snack master grill thing I picked up at good will for 6 bucks, it has a power usage of 750 watts but I could only get it to use 3.5 amps of that instead of the 6.5 it requires to run....(which is anomalous)

the connections look good, I would use more wire on your primary and secondary to combat the crash, in the neighbor hood of 800 to 1000 feet this will make a more stable reaction.


2) Maybe the reason the Nanoperm core is needed because of the really high
permeability, u =110,000.  Why did you pick the M-146, and do you think
there is a better core?


I would think there would be a better core considering I chose this core for rodin coil experiments to which I completely gave up on. Although the things I found out about the rodin coil and my conduit Idea may make for a interesting contraption someday.

I would leave it up to the replicator to achieve a better standard than the crude version I built out of spare parts that I had lying around.

3) Can you explain more in detail what you tried in the unsuccessful
experiment with the 5" powdered iron core?  Did you make a cold-rolled
steel shell for the powdered iron-core experiment?


it was unsuccessful because I was using a cylinder set in the center of the toroid it was a attempt to see if the fields are truly moving or if its something else since I couldn't make it transfer I chalk it up to me wasting my time when I already had something that worked. Make that work better than move to the conduit.

4) Do you think iron (instead of cold-rolled steel) will work for the
outer primary shell?

I selected Steel because of its high tesla rating that's the only reason the iron may work but I have no experience with that as of yet.

5) Could you provide a couple of more details on the primary/secondary
wire?  I know both were 16AWG, but were they magnet wire, stranded, or
solid?


For that guy I used tinned copper wire on the outside that I had made in to twisted pair, the inner toroid was a solid insulated copper wire.
Reason for the insulation when or if you weld you may throw a spark inside your toroid then you will be S.O.L. if it melts a piece and fuses them together.

Although I have changed that up for the next version using enameled wire then a insulated layer on top of the 800 feet I have on there.  This way the enameled wire is protected.

6) Did you weld the cold-rolled steel shell shut for your experiment?
Does welding vs. glue effect the power output?


I just spot welded the outside so I don't think it would matter at all. I plan on JB weld this time around. plan on heating from the secondary try and make a air gap in the center so it can breath.

make sure you get the M-416 not the M-146.

Oh lastly, is it okay if I publish your responses on overunity.com and/or
make a PDF?  It might save you some headache because if this actually works
you are going to be getting the same questions over and over.  :)


By all means push out all the info to everywhere under the sun and beyond.

I would like to add that Thane has contacted me on wanting me to get a patent filed and said he would write it for me.... Im in the circle that everyone has the right to free energy and by the hand that guides me it will happen.

Dave

Open Source!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM, <feynman@feynmanslab.com> wrote:

    Thanks David, for your prompt and detailed reply.

    1) I have attached a drawing I did;  Can you confirm this is correct?

    2) Maybe the reason the Nanoperm core is needed because of the really high
    permeability, u =110,000.  Why did you pick the M-146, and do you think
    there is a better core?

    3) Can you explain more in detail what you tried in the unsuccessful
    experiment with the 5" powdered iron core?  Did you make a cold-rolled
    steel shell for the powdered iron-core experiment?

    4) Do you think iron (instead of cold-rolled steel) will work for the
    outer primary shell?

    5) Could you provide a couple of more details on the primary/secondary
    wire?  I know both were 16AWG, but were they magnet wire, stranded, or
    solid?

    6) Did you weld the cold-rolled steel shell shut for your experiment?
    Does welding vs. glue effect the power output?

    Thanks.

    I will look more into how we can get an inexpensive source of outer-core
    toroids, and maybe also for a source of cheaper inner-core material.  I
    will order a Nanoperm M-146 for my replication.

    Oh lastly, is it okay if I publish your responses on overunity.com and/or
    make a PDF?  It might save you some headache because if this actually works
    you are going to be getting the same questions over and over.  :)

    Sincerely,
    "Feynman"

    On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:48:12 -0500, David Klingelhoefer
    <nebwindpower@gmail.com> wrote:
    > Hello Feynman,
    >
    > Ill address your questions and possible solutions to increase
    performance,
    > please understand im not a scientist or a engineer more of a tinkerer so
    if
    > I can't answer your questions completely please don't be offended or
    think
    > im holding anything back.
    >
    > The reason I gave this over to PESN is to open source, I have a plan of
    my
    > own on how to make money but it needs to be open sourced so we can get
    off
    > this crap of nukes and oil.
    >
    >  1) How are you making iron cores which 'fit' onto the toroid?  Are
    these
    > custom or off-the-shelf?  Do you have a supplier you are willing to
    share?
    > What is your opinion of various materials for the shell (iron vs steel
    > etc)?
    >
    > These are custom pieces with expensive tooling of which I have already
    > purchased, its a spun steel cold rolled shell approximately 17 awg, Im
    > having a new piece made with thicker steel and hopefully if they can get
    > the
    > material have it be CRGO, as well it will be form fitting as you can see
    > from the pictures I had to cut a major hole out of the center to fit the
    > wire thru and I still ran out of room. If you want to purchase the shell
    I
    > have them made here in Kearney Nebraska from L&S industries 4100 East
    39th
    > Street Kearney, NE 68847-3987
    > (308) 236-5853 you will want to talk to Jeff. the part is like 25 bucks
    you
    > will need two of them tho
    >
    > This is cheaply as I can make it, personally I would like to have it
    > Stamped
    > so there is less bending of the metal and removing of the magnetic
    > properties.
    >
    > My hopes in changing to grain oriented steel and more primary wire we
    can
    > charge the outer shell with less power and keep a more stable reaction
    in
    > the secondary core.
    >
    > I have tried to make a conduit style one of these with a cylinder of
    steel
    > (primary) and a iron powder core (secondary) I couldn't get the voltages
    to
    > transfer so I put it on the shelf and went back to this design.
    > although I haven't given up. Other thoughts are to make several Gabriels
    > and
    > shove a rod of sorts thru the center of them all for more magnetic
    storage.
    >
    > 2) What is your opinion of nano-perm vs cheaper materials?  For example,
    a
    > 6.5" OD powdered iron core toroid is only approx $48 from Micrometals
    Inc.
    > This is what Bob Boyce has been using in his various pulsed-DC
    devices...
    > for example the T650-52.
    >
    > I would stick with Nanoperm, Fetite, or Metglas all are amorphous alloys
    > which will do very well.
    > I think Fetite is manufactured in America Nanoperm is germany and
    metglas
    > is
    > china I may be wrong.
    >
    > I had problems doing ac transfer with iron powder 5inch rings I may not
    > have
    > enough wire on the primary or its just built wrong
    >
    > 3) Have you tried making the system closed-loop?  Any ideas on how to
    > proceed with that?  My ideas involve perhaps controlling the input power
    /
    > output power with an inexpensive programmable microcontroller such as an
    > Arduino (approx $30, programmable in Java).   Using a microcontroller
    gives
    > alot of experimental flexibility.
    >
    > Im not super into java and would have a learning curve for that I was
    > thinking something a bit more simple, like a battery, inverter, and a
    > battery charger on the secondary side.
    > keep in mind if you try and close the loop directly the OU effect may
    cause
    > catastrophic failure due to a step up of voltage on the secondary side
    > which
    > would translate back to the primary and then back to the secondary so on
    a
    > so forth till meltdown.
    >
    > Some electronics would probably help with that but really I kept in mind
    to
    > have this come from the power company and back to the grid with excess
    > power
    > if the grid goes down then the transformer stops, which means its safe
    for
    > the lines man thats fixing the downed line. At which point a battery and
    > inverter will get your electronics back up and running with continuous
    > recharge.
    >
    > Feel free to spread the news on where to get the part if they need
    > permission, I can call Jeff and have him source it out. I really don't
    > think
    > it would be a problem.
    > The M-416 with about 1000feet of 16awg wire will fit perfectly in the
    new
    > part. Like a glove. you can then make your modifications IE a air gap in
    > the
    > center or drilling holes in the primary to give magnetic resistance ect
    > ect...
    >
    > I hope I answered your questions and if you have more let me know
    > Dave
    >
    > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM, <feynman@feynmanslab.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Greetings Mr David Klingelhoefer ,
    >>
    >> My internet handle is Feynman, and I'm a poster at overunity.com,
    >> overunityresearch.com, and overunity.org.uk.
    >>
    >> First, I want to contragulate you on your success, and I hoping your
    >> results stand up to scrutiny -- which I think they will. This is by far
    >> the
    >> most promising OU device I've ever seen, and I've been doing this for
    >> several years.
    >>
    >> I find it honorable you chose Gabriel as the name for your device, as
    >> theologically he is the messenger of God the Creator for multiple
    >> monotheistic religions.  I pray that God has revealed to you something
    >> which will be a gift to the world.
    >>
    >> I am interested in replication of your device, as it is obvious to me
    >> what
    >> a brilliant simplification it is of Heins' methods.  I would like to
    >> open-source the design in order to provide rapid global replication of
    >> usable free-energy devices in the 500W-1kW range.
    >>
    >> To dispense with formalities, I'll get straight to some questions:
    >>
    >> 1) How are you making iron cores which 'fit' onto the toroid?  Are
    these
    >> custom or off-the-shelf?  Do you have a supplier you are willing to
    >> share?
    >> What is your opinion of various materials for the shell (iron vs steel
    >> etc)?
    >>
    >> 2) What is your opinion of nano-perm vs cheaper materials?  For
    example,
    >> a
    >> 6.5" OD powdered iron core toroid is only approx $48 from Micrometals
    >> Inc.
    >> This is what Bob Boyce has been using in his various pulsed-DC
    devices...
    >> for example the T650-52.
    >>
    >> http://www.micrometals.com/parts_index.html
    >>
    >> 3) Have you tried making the system closed-loop?  Any ideas on how to
    >> proceed with that?  My ideas involve perhaps controlling the input
    power
    >> /
    >> output power with an inexpensive programmable microcontroller such as
    an
    >> Arduino (approx $30, programmable in Java).   Using a microcontroller
    >> gives
    >> alot of experimental flexibility.
    >> http://arduino.cc
    >> source: http://sparkfun.com
    >>
    >> Sincerely,
    >> "Feynman" / Washington DC
    >>
    >>
    >> P.S. Attached is the post which I made to overunity.com upon reading
    >> about
    >> your device earlier today.
    >>
    >> http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7833.msg278860#msg278860
    >>
    >> Holy smokes, great find!
    >>
    >> Thanks!!!   If this is true, this is the breakthrough we've all been
    >> looking for.
    >>
    >> This is absolutely the most promising design I have found so far
    >> regarding
    >> the potential COP>1 system with usable output, due to its elegance and
    >> simplicity.   This is like Thane's system on crack.  Let's hope this is
    >> for
    >> real.
    >>
    >>
    >> Quote
    >>
    >>    Without a load on the secondary, the primary circuit consumes 420
    >> watts (3.5 amps at 120 volts) as displayed by the power meter plugged
    >> into
    >> the wall. As he adds loads (usually lights) to the secondary, something
    >> very interesting happens. The primary current starts to drop! Actually,
    >> the
    >> more load he places on the secondary, the less power the primary
    >> consumes.
    >> He has been able to get the primary circuit power consumption down to
    60
    >> watts (.5 amps at 120 volts) while outputting 480 watts (4 amps at 120
    >> volts). His output is 800% that of the primary consumption!
    >>
    >>
    >> Incredible.  I'm very strongly considering diverting resources from all
    >> other projects to this particular replication effort, as it greatly
    >> simplifies Thane Heins' design.
    >>
    >> The main reason I was not bothering with the Thane Heins replication
    was
    >> due to the complexity of creating his primary design, creating the iron
    >> core primary from scratch, etc. This is alot of work!  Though, I
    >> absolutely
    >> believe Thane has overunity, well above COP=3.
    >>
    >> This breakthrough toroidal design by David Klingelhoefer , if it holds
    up
    >> to scrutiny, will have much higher efficiency and is much simpler!
    Much
    >> much easier to create.
    >>
    >> The only problem is the patent (intellectual property), which arguably
    >> may
    >> or may not belong to Thane Heins and/or David Klingelhoefer if he
    applies
    >> for a patent within a year.  I don't want to get involved in
    >> lawyer-nonsense, but the Gabriel device might be called an 'obvious'
    >> replication of Thane's work.  I have no idea.  We can leave this for
    the
    >> lawyers to sort out.  As long as people don't sell these units (we
    >> open-source the design), I think we are okay.
    >>
    >> I should also add we make sure both Thane Heins and David Klingelhoefer
    >> get credit for their work, and that one (or both of them) get royalties
    >> for
    >> any commercial use. However, this does not prevent us from open-source
    >> and/or replications.
    >>
    >> As many of you know, the problem with commercial OU devices anyway is
    the
    >> bastards at the UL / FCC suppressing innovation with their bureaucracy
    (I
    >> mean, uh, prevent circuits from starting fires).
    >>
    >> Anyway I'm going to divert resources to a replication of this
    phenomenon.
    >>
    >>
    >> P.S.  I suspect (but can't prove) the reason the output peaks at 480
    >> watts
    >> is due to the flux-capacity ('flux capacitor', lol) aka. saturation of
    >> the
    >> toroid and/or the iron shell.  The way to increase the system's
    >> capability
    >> above 480 watts is to (A) get a bigger toroid with more magnetic flux
    >> capacity  or (B) wire multiple toroids together in parallel, perhaps
    >> through inverter or rectifier, or (C) make the iron shell more
    >> form-fitting.
    >>
    >> I know David Klingelhoefer is persuing option (C) over the next few
    weeks
    >> in order to increase his claimed COP.
    >>
    >> You can probably make this into a self-runner by looping the output
    >> through a power control circuit , perhaps with a capacitor
    >> /microcontroller
    >> to provide a buffer to prevent the thing from frying itself.   It may
    >> also
    >> be necessary to isolate the input AC circuit for self-running operation
    >> with an inverter, perhaps also with diodes, capacitor and/or battery.
    >>
    >> Anyway this is great news if it's legit, which in my personal opinion,
    I
    >> think is 'yes'.  But the only way to tell is via replication, which I
    >> will
    >> be starting on immediately.   This toroidal idea is simply brilliant if
    >> it
    >> works.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>





Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2011, 09:41:33 PM »
Attached is an diagram of the Heins' effect.  If the toroid version by David Klingelhoefer is confirmed, it would be the toroidal analogy of the Heins effect.

You can read more about the Heins effect in Chapter 3 of Free Energy devices.
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter3.pdf

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2011, 10:20:15 PM »
Okay, talking to my friend on the phone, who works with iron and steel in his forge.  He's a blacksmith, an expert at working with metals; he actually once made a metal flower out of copper.  He makes other things like swords, transformers, whatever.

The outer steel shell for the Gabriel primary: The hard way

My blacksmith friend suggests that you can get steel-core 'donuts' (toroids) from exhaust systems for cars -- up to 9" in diameter.  The material is usually galvanized steel, sometimes iron. 

Occasionally they can come aluminum-plated or zinc-plated (galvanized).  He says you can uncoat a coated (galvanized) toroid by sticking in charcoal fire for about 30 - 40 minutes.   Just let it burn off but don't breathe it he says.  Use a P100 mask with charcoal filter (one intended for chemical vapors) so you don't breathe the burning zinc fumes.  Apparently galvanized steel fumes are really toxic, so be careful.

Anyway, So this method turns a galvanized / coated steel toroid into a un-galvanized steel toroid, according to my friend.

You can also get rid of the coating  of galvanized coating (zinc) steel or aluminum coated steel, by putting it in Draino (NaOH), apparently to get rid of the coating. You'd have to keep it in there until it stops bubbling  (it bubbles off hydrogen).

You can get these exhaust donuts uncoated by going to an exhaust shop.  You just tell them you need to weld it, so they will give you welding steel donut rather than galvanized steel.   

You can cut the exhaust donut in half by using a dremel with a cutoff wheel, but he says this is tricky.  A lathe would also work.

My friend also says, Make sure not to weld a galvanized (zinc-coated) one unless you remove the coating.  Welding galvanized steel is toxic.  If you are going to weld, you just want regular iron or steel.  But yeah, there are places to get nice non-galvanized steel toroids for car exhausts that should fit, the only question is the magnetic permeability / properties.

http://www.mazdatrix.com/getprice.asp?partnum=40-0610-1114
http://www.mazdatrix.com/e7.htm

Also, Search for 'exhaust donuts' on google images if you want to make the outer toroid from a car part. 


The outer steel shell for the Gabriel primary: The easy way

Order it off-the-shelf from where David gets it.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 11:17:07 PM by Feynman »


Offline e2matrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1771
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2011, 10:28:51 PM »
Nice find and great to see the open source being allowed.  Toroid concept is something I have always thought had potential for OU. 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2011, 10:28:51 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline twinbeard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2011, 10:39:34 PM »
Hi All,

I have done a BiTT of research, pun well intended.  If I may make a recommendation of something I will be trying with my replication... high perm material on the inner core is crucial, of course, but the outer core need not be this difficult.  One can set iron powder, iron filings, magnetite, etc in a resin, and cast the outer core around the wound inner core.  A drill press and/or grinder may be necessary to put the finish shape on it after the resin has set.

Cheers,
Twinbeard

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2011, 10:39:41 PM »
Also: David confirmed to me the Nanoperm toroid he uses for the secondary is a Nanoperm M-416, not M-146 as mentioned in the PESN article.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2011, 10:39:41 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Mavendex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2011, 10:39:49 PM »
I have them made here in Kearney Nebraska from L&S industries
4100 East 39th Street Kearney, NE 68847-3987
(308) 236-5853 you will want to talk to Jeff. the part is like 25 bucks you
will need two of them tho.

You can select your metal as well.
The tooling has been paid for... so just order it. no need to make it hard.

The M-416 with about 1000feet of 16awg wire will fit perfectly in the new part. "Like a glove."
 
You can select your metal as well.
The tooling has been paid for... so just order it. no need to make it hard.
Mav

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2011, 10:44:33 PM »

Quote
I have done a BiTT of research, pun well intended.  If I may make a recommendation of something I will be trying with my replication... high perm material on the inner core is crucial, of course, but the outer core need not be this difficult.  One can set iron powder, iron filings, magnetite, etc in a resin, and cast the outer core around the wound inner core.  A drill press and/or grinder may be necessary to put the finish shape on it after the resin has set.

That's a great idea... have you confirmed that it works?  I'm just wondering out loud, because perhaps there might be something needed in terms resistivity (or lack thereof) in the material?   

Also what do you plan on using as a 'form' so you get a good shaped outer toroid?

Thanks,
Feynman


Offline twinbeard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2011, 11:16:00 PM »
Hi,

You must be the inventor.  Nice work, and a pleasure to meet you.  I understand... you are making it totally easy for replication with essentially off the shelf parts, in the interest of exact replication and independent verification.  Very admirable.  You may find some interested parties here, however, for whom the expense or hassle in freight and customs may be burdensome. 

The permeability gradient between the two core materials is the critical factor here.  High permeability on the secondary (inner) core and low permeability on the primary (outer) core.  This is what prevents the flux induced in the secondary from returning to the primary.  The coils need to be tuned properly as well, of course, to reach optimal conditions, but there is a wider tuning band available in your device, I would propose, than in the BiTT, as respects the coils.

My recommendation as to casting is not so tough... some fiberglass or epoxy resin, and some powdered ferrous material.  It may make this project accessible to a wider group of people, and an improvement in terms of magnetic coupling between primary core and secondary windings may be achieved this way as well.

Just my $.02.

Cheers and well done!
Twinbeard


I have them made here in Kearney Nebraska from L&S industries
4100 East 39th Street Kearney, NE 68847-3987
(308) 236-5853 you will want to talk to Jeff. the part is like 25 bucks you
will need two of them tho.

You can select your metal as well.
The tooling has been paid for... so just order it. no need to make it hard.

The M-416 with about 1000feet of 16awg wire will fit perfectly in the new part. "Like a glove."
 
You can select your metal as well.
The tooling has been paid for... so just order it. no need to make it hard.
Mav

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2011, 11:16:00 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline wayne49s

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2011, 11:21:06 PM »
That's a great idea... have you confirmed that it works?  I'm just wondering out loud, because perhaps there might be something needed in terms resistivity (or lack thereof) in the material?   

Also what do you plan on using as a 'form' so you get a good shaped outer toroid?

Thanks,
Feynman

Actually making the form would be a good part of the work if you're going to do this. I think the simplest is to just to go with the existing tooling that is available as mentioned by Mav.

The exhaust donut might be a good option to try if you have the equipment to make a clean cut.
/Wayne

Offline FatBird

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2011, 11:26:49 PM »
Great posts.  However, I see a wiring mistake.

Take a look at the toaster.  The toaster is NOT in series with the toroid.
The BLUE wire from the toroid not only goes to the toaster, but it also goes directly to the wall outlet.
The way the diagram is drawn, the toaster is NOT in series with the toroid.

Can someone contact the originator to see what he has to say?

Thank you.

.


Offline twinbeard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2011, 11:34:00 PM »
That's a great idea... have you confirmed that it works?

Thank you.
We have made cores with this process, yes, but not in this geometrical configuration.  I am planning on doing so tho:)  I will put together a vid of making it, but it may take me a bit of time... I am overloaded at the moment.

I'm just wondering out loud, because perhaps there might be something needed in terms resistivity (or lack thereof) in the material?   

Like I said 1 post back... it is the gradient of permeability between the cores.

Also what do you plan on using as a 'form' so you get a good shaped outer toroid?

Thanks,
Feynman

I had not really thought of that so much... one of those toy donuts people wind rodin coils on perhaps.
Maybe just a straight cylinder, with the wound secondary core immersed, then drill, rout, and grind to shape.

Cheers,
Twinbeard


Offline e2matrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1771
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2011, 12:00:39 AM »
Yep, I got my last set of 6 Fischer-Price toroid forms from a yard sale for $1.  :)   Common yard sale item as the kids don't use them long.  I think Twinbeard has a good idea here too worth exploring but since the original concept is what works either way is probably well worth exploring. 

Welcome Mavendex!  Glad to see you here.  I really like the concept you have here of a toroid inside a toroid.  I think it is something like this which will eventually make Free energy a reality.  Just a feeling ... 

I started typing a long message here a few minutes ago and lost it when I had to get up for a few minutes - hate it when that happens.  I'm not starting over on it but look forward to following this and trying some things.  I think it will be most important to try this with a power supply of some sort where you don't need to use a toaster or similar to reduce current.  Would it be possible to test your setup with a small AC transformer like a 12 volt AC wall transformer to eliminate the toaster or grill?  If you would be able to still get a power increase to output to some 12 volt bulbs (might need a diode but probably would work without) like car headlights.  That would be very encouraging.  You probably have a very good sense on where you are going with this so I don't want to sidetrack you but I think it may be good to eliminate the toaster part if possible.  Thanks much for choosing to open source as many here have seen all attempts to patent or get investors inevitably seems to fail to get a device out to the public.  It's a lot safer too.


Offline Mavendex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2011, 12:07:31 AM »
Hi,

You must be the inventor.  Nice work, and a pleasure to meet you.  I understand... you are making it totally easy for replication with essentially off the shelf parts, in the interest of exact replication and independent verification.  Very admirable.  You may find some interested parties here, however, for whom the expense or hassle in freight and customs may be burdensome. 

The permeability gradient between the two core materials is the critical factor here.  High permeability on the secondary (inner) core and low permeability on the primary (outer) core.  This is what prevents the flux induced in the secondary from returning to the primary.  The coils need to be tuned properly as well, of course, to reach optimal conditions, but there is a wider tuning band available in your device, I would propose, than in the BiTT, as respects the coils.

My recommendation as to casting is not so tough... some fiberglass or epoxy resin, and some powdered ferrous material.  It may make this project accessible to a wider group of people, and an improvement in terms of magnetic coupling between primary core and secondary windings may be achieved this way as well.

Just my $.02.

Cheers and well done!
Twinbeard

Aye, Im just trying to help everyone get a good result is all plus new ideas is what makes it better and better and better.

with a light weight power source anything is pretty much possible.

Mav

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2011, 12:07:31 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: