Author Topic: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8 (Read 695615 times)

SkyWatcher123 · « **Reply #150 on:** March 29, 2011, 12:50:38 AM »

Hi TEKTRON, Don't remember exactly, though it was either hobby lobby or michaels crafts if you have one of those stores by you.
Most craft stores should have the floral steel enameled wire.
Here's a link from hobby lobby
http://shop.hobbylobby.com/search/default.aspx?searchTerm=floral+wire
peace love light
Tyson

SkyWatcher123 · « **Reply #151 on:** March 29, 2011, 05:34:35 AM »

Hi importfanatik, must have been typing when you guys posted.
It's green enameled steel floral wire and the ends are left open so no current should flow through it, just acting as the primary shell. It shouldn't matter how the ferromagnetic material is placed, as long as it has the right properties i suppose.
Hi magluvin, thanks for comments, only way to know if it will work is give it a go. I'm going to wind one layer for primary and I'm wondering if using a 555 timer to pulse the primary might work.
Otherwise, I will use a transformer output of 12 volts or so AC and see what happens.
Though i do have a 700 watt 12 volt inverter, though that might be too much voltage for this primary. We'll see.
peace love light
Tyson

Magluvin · « **Reply #152 on:** March 29, 2011, 05:54:32 AM »

Hey Sky

That was my thoughts exactly on how to approach an input to start with.
First i was thinking just a small 1A 12v wall supply, ac of course. =]
And the 555 will be interesting as we wont be sure of a freq that the transformer will be comfortable with.
And yes, we wont know till you try. =]
Wishing very good luck for you. I applaud the trying something different than the shells, as your way, teslas way, is more viable for builders. ;]

Im taking some different approaches also. As many are going with the shells, we can wait for them to test that way while we take steps forward into the known/unknown. ;]

Either way, it all seems too logical not to work as described.

Mags

TEKTRON · « **Reply #153 on:** March 29, 2011, 08:05:41 AM »

Quote from: SkyWatcher123 on March 29, 2011, 05:34:35 AM

must have been typing
It's green enameled steel floral wire and the ends are left open so no current should flow through it, just acting as the primary shell. It shouldn't matter how the ferromagnetic material is placed, as long as it has the right properties i suppose.
Hi magluvin, thanks for comments, only way to know if it will work is give it a go. I'm going to wind one layer for primary and I'm wondering if using a 555 timer to pulse the primary might work.
Otherwise, I will use a transformer output of 12 volts or so AC and see what happens.
Though i do have a 700 watt 12 volt inverter, though that might be too much voltage for this primary. We'll see.
peace love light
Tyson

Thanks for the source... I am thinking the ends of the iron wire may need to be shorted together to complete the magnetic circuit?

SkyWatcher123 · « **Reply #154 on:** March 29, 2011, 08:25:49 AM »

Hi TEKTRON, connecting the steel wire ends is not needed, think of it like Bedinis welding rod cores, that's its only function.
If you did connect the ends, whatever voltage is induced in the steel wire would create a current, which hinders its function, unless eddy currents are needed for this device to operate, I doubt it. As magluvin pointed out, Tesla used ferromagnetic wire also in his patent.
peace love light
Tyson

SkyWatcher123 · « **Reply #155 on:** March 30, 2011, 02:23:25 AM »

Hi folks, I read the tesla patent #us433702 that might be similar to the gabriel device. Tesla says in his transformer, the outer primary shell creates a phase lag or time lag between the primary coil and secondary coil.
Kind of reminds of Thanes rotating generators where at certain speed a lag occurs, causing a repulsive kick to his moving magnets instead of a slow down.
This might explain why a load is not reflected back to the primary in gabriels device. Maybe the higher permeability inner toroid only helps to lengthen this phase or time lag between primary and secondary coil.

Also Tesla points out how his primary ferromagnetic shell will only transfer induction to secondary, if primary shell is saturated enough.
I think this sheds more light on what may be happening.
Even in Thanes design, it could very well be that the larger more permeable secondary transformer legs, only help to create a greater phase, time lag so that the loaded secondary coils do not reflect back to primary coil.
Anyway, here is my finished small gabriel device. I placed two layers of the 24 gauge for the primary coil.
peace love light
Tyson

Magluvin · « **Reply #156 on:** March 30, 2011, 02:47:22 AM »

Quote from: SkyWatcher123 on March 30, 2011, 02:23:25 AM

Also Tesla points out how his primary ferromagnetic shell will only transfer induction to secondary, if primary shell is saturated enough.
I think this sheds more light on what may be happening.

Tyson

Hmm, I wonder if the On and Off action of the primary shield/core, from under saturation, to over saturation shows up on the secondary. A kind of pulsed humps, + and - . I suppose if we were to dose the primary core with a magnet, we might get rectified humps. =]

Mags

WindsorFarmer · « **Reply #157 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:49:01 AM »

Howdy;

Been following this thread since Friday, read through it twice. I'm interested in replicating also, once I have a better understanding of this. I see where the steel rolled toroids can be ordered, and I've found 1000' of 16 gauge wire and speaker wire for around $100, and that's good for about 10 amps. Then there's the nanoperm.

I see there are two suggestions for measuring current by FatBird, would one of each of those be a good choice (I used to have a clamp on ages ago).

Thanks y'all.

Windsor (Mike)

e2matrix · « **Reply #158 on:** March 30, 2011, 05:50:41 AM »

WindsorFarmer, Welcom to OU forum! I think either one may give you some idea of power in and power out but they can be fooled somewhat and as I believe was discussed here the better proof of OU at least IMO would be to run a small inverter from a battery in which case you might even be able to loop the setup with a battery charger. But even if you don't do that you can calculate your DC volts and amps in and get a fairly good idea of what kind of COP you have from what load you are able to run from the output. In other words if you are only using 3 amps at 12 volts (36 watts) and you can light up three 60 watt light bulbs to full brightness (I suggest a light meter to verify) then you've got a winner as that would easily be 5 to 1 COP not even taking into consideration losses in the inverter. But whatever way you choose will be helpful in evaluating this device. The more build the more we can learn about it. Good luck!

e2matrix · « **Reply #159 on:** March 30, 2011, 05:51:47 AM »

Skywatcher - interesting setup and hoping you have success as that would be easier / cheaper

Do you have everything else needed for a test run? I'm trying to keep my eyes open for some Metglas or similar at a good price.

Magluvin · « **Reply #160 on:** March 30, 2011, 06:24:16 AM »

Quote from: e2matrix on March 30, 2011, 05:50:41 AM

WindsorFarmer, Welcom to OU forum! I think either one may give you some idea of power in and power out but they can be fooled somewhat and as I believe was discussed here the better proof of OU at least IMO would be to run a small inverter from a battery in which case you might even be able to loop the setup with a battery charger. But even if you don't do that you can calculate your DC volts and amps in and get a fairly good idea of what kind of COP you have from what load you are able to run from the output. In other words if you are only using 3 amps at 12 volts (36 watts) and you can light up three 60 watt light bulbs to full brightness (I suggest a light meter to verify) then you've got a winner as that would easily be 5 to 1 COP not even taking into consideration losses in the inverter. But whatever way you choose will be helpful in evaluating this device. The more build the more we can learn about it. Good luck!

One thing with trying an inverter at first is, we need to know the impedance at 60hz of the primary. This will determine the amount of idle power in the primary. Some here like sky will need to experiment first, as his way is not as prescribed from the onset, and probably most are looking to eliminate the toaster. lol =]

So if what you build is different in any way from Gabriels, testing should be done at low power to be sure of what the idle, no load current in the primary will be. Just to be careful and try not to suffer any losses, like a $20 inverter, maybe 2 of them, who knows. This can be discouraging.

And Skys setup may work better at other freq, probably higher. Just a guess.

Mags

SkyWatcher123 · « **Reply #161 on:** March 30, 2011, 07:16:28 AM »

Hi folks, hi e2matrix, I have what I think I need.
I have a 750 watt inverter I picked up a few years back at target. The one at this link. http://www.audioallies.com/GetItem.asp?Item=VEC1043

I thought first to use the 110vac output from the inverter and run it through a smaller transformer I have from I think was in a battery charger and use the small transformer in step down for around 12 volts to the gabriel primary coil.
Maybe this smaller transformer will help smooth out the modified sine wave also.
Will use a 1 ohm resistor and/or my dmm to test 12 volt inverter amp draw.
peace love light
Tyson

energia9 · « **Reply #162 on:** March 30, 2011, 12:04:26 PM »

hi people im new to this thread.

we have to clarify a few things here:

who have done the experiment yet?
sometimes you can not measure true power from the outcoming side for whatever reason.

please make a diode bridge and place a capacitor on the outcoming side, then measure power.

Potemkyn · « **Reply #163 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:26:28 PM »

That toaster is an interesting critter, providing impedence. I like the idea of using a dimmer switch, but since it has the possibility of changing the wave form - even if it's just a square wave - that should not be done quite yet.

I have worked with Java, but that was over ten years ago. It would take a little bit to get spun up on making a control circuit for this device, which may provide some really good information about what is happening on the inside as well as some controls.

twinbeard · « **Reply #164 on:** March 30, 2011, 04:41:56 PM »

If you are considering writing a software control for this device, please consider using a portable language as opposed to a proprietary one. The last thing we need is a free energy device with a non-free control app.

Cheers,
Twinberd

Quote from: Potemkyn on March 30, 2011, 04:26:28 PM

That toaster is an interesting critter, providing impedence. I like the idea of using a dimmer switch, but since it has the possibility of changing the wave form - even if it's just a square wave - that should not be done quite yet.

I've worked in electronics, but it's been a few years since I really delved in. I worked on air conditioning systems for three and a half years, then was able to work on Air Traffic Radar systems for almost ten years. High voltage, tube, IC, whatever. If it was or around the radar or the display systems, we worked on it. I was lucky enough to be there when they still worked down tothe component level.

Iâ€™m currently an application developer. Most of my code is in ActionScript 2.0 and 3.0, but I also use Visual Basic, C#, SQL, and Javascript. I have worked with Java, but that was over ten years ago.

It would take a little bit to get spun up on making a control circuit for this device, which may provide some really good information about what is happening on the inside as well as some controls.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8 (Read 695615 times)

SkyWatcher123

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

SkyWatcher123

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

Magluvin

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

TEKTRON

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

SkyWatcher123

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

SkyWatcher123

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

Magluvin

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

WindsorFarmer

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

e2matrix

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

e2matrix

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

Magluvin

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

SkyWatcher123

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

energia9

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

Potemkyn

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

twinbeard

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8