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: 81879
  • *Latest: Tesla432

  • *Total Posts: 489510
  • *Total Topics: 14402
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 8
  • *Guests: 262
  • *Total: 270

Facebook

Author Topic: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8  (Read 467954 times)

Offline wayne49s

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #45 on: March 23, 2011, 05:52:01 PM »
@Feynman
I just did a cursory internet scan..didn't find any that had the right fit for the outer shell. Figure it was best to validate with the same cores first, but here's one that has also some large toroids for future reference:

http://www.hilltech.com/products/power_components/amorphous_nanocrystalline_cores.html

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #45 on: March 23, 2011, 05:52:01 PM »

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #46 on: March 23, 2011, 05:57:48 PM »
I've been looking a bit more in detail how the device is suppose to work, and I don't believe this device works according to Thane's approach. To avoid the BEMF to the primary, Thane's approach was to move some of the magnetic flux from the secondary to a separate core (the secondary core). This requires that the secondary coil be wound over the 2 cores as pictured above. If you look at the Garbriel device, it is exactly the opposite; it is the primary core that encapsulates the 2 cores concentrically. According to Faraday's law, the magnetic flux from the secondary coil will impact and generate a BEMF in the primary coil since the primary coil turns are wrapped over the secondary core also.

If we were to apply Thane's approach to the toroid configuration, the primary and secondary coils would be switched (i.e. the primary on the inside toroid), and the higher permeability core on the outside also. In this way the outside secondary core would absorb most of the secondary flux and not impact on the interior primary coil to generate the BEMF.

Assuming we can replicate the results, it may be a lot tougher to explain how the device works, lol! If anyone sees something wrong in the analysis, let me know.

/Wayne

You make some great points... for me, the fact that Thane was in contact and was enthusiastic about David's device suggests to me maybe Thane has a deeper understanding than he did previously.

 I think the first thing we need to do is bench this thing out to make sure we've actually got anomalous phenomenon. It's promising, but we don't have a replication yet.  If we can get a successful replication, then we can try to make theories to predict the anomaly. Because it's not science unless it can be replicated.  So that's why I've taken the plunge on the expense.

Since we're all going to be waiting a few weeks anyway for parts to arrive, it probably wouldn't hurt to speculate.  Assuming the Gabriel device is working as claimed, my 'explanation' for it would be that the primary somehow induces magnetic flux in the secondary (proportional to the rate of change in 'current'), with the back-EMF somehow trapped in the primary shell.  That's one vague idea.

Another related idea, in terms of the secondary magnetic flux inducing back-EMF into the primary, maybe this is stopped because the metal shell acts as a 'Faraday cage' of some sort, a sort of "one-way" mirror for magnetic flux. 

My last speculation to consider is that if properly done, the vast majority of magnetic flux in the secondary is going to stay inside the Nanoperm core, particularly in one of these high-permeability toroids  (besides the leakage flux). So again, perhaps it's the combination of the really high magnetic permeability of the core combined with the 'Faraday-cage' like properties of the steel shell.  How it works exactly I have no clue, but these are my thoughts at the moment anyway.

Let's keep our fingers crossed...

P.S. Also I think it's important also to factor in the material resistivity


Offline wayne49s

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #47 on: March 23, 2011, 06:02:30 PM »
Hi Wayne,

I'll have a look at his claims just to make sure.

I am not sure I understand the meaning of the primary core, the metal donut shell.
If I am correct this can be a plastic shell as well? Maybe even preferred....

Hi Tesla,
If it is a plastic shell, then it has no magnetic significance. Then it magnetically reduces to a standard toroid with 2 windings which wouldn't account for the power gain. It may take a while to figure how this thing works.

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #48 on: March 23, 2011, 06:05:14 PM »
These look like they'd be useful for experiments, but not sure about the replication...

Quote
MagnaPerm® High Permeability Cores

These cores are manufactured with cobalt-based Metglas amorphous alloy 2714AF for high frequency applications. Theses flat loop toroidal cores offer a unique combination of ultra-high permeability, high saturation flux density and extremely low core loss for electronic component designers.

http://www.hilltech.com/products/power_components/amorphous_nanocrystalline_cores.html#MagnaPerm


Offline popolibero

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #49 on: March 23, 2011, 06:15:19 PM »
Hi Mavendex and all,

sorry if this has been mentioned already but it seems very crucial to me. About the primary donut, I've heard iron and steel, that's a BIG difference. Is this primary core magnetic material or not?

thanks,
Mario

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #49 on: March 23, 2011, 06:15:19 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline twinbeard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #50 on: March 23, 2011, 06:24:28 PM »
It might be worth considering for those in the U.S. to look at Metglas.com to see if they have an equivalent for the M-416.  Metglas is a quality manufacturer of high permeability toroid cores as well as other related things and have been used by numerous energy researchers.  It would likely save a lot on shipping as well as possible cost savings due to dollar conversion.  And keep the $$ in the U.S.

One could likely cut and stack these as well:  ultraperm 80, permeability 400K
http://www.goldmine-elec-products.com/prodinfo.asp?number=G16600A

Cheers,
Twinbeard

Offline Mavendex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #51 on: March 23, 2011, 06:26:58 PM »
Hi Mavendex and all,

sorry if this has been mentioned already but it seems very crucial to me. About the primary donut, I've heard iron and steel, that's a BIG difference. Is this primary core magnetic material or not?

thanks,
Mario

Its cold rolled steel, I'm trying to get L&S to find CRGO steel to increase the tesla rating in the primary, I wish we could make it out of that graphene stuff but thats a long long way off..

mav

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #51 on: March 23, 2011, 06:26:58 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #52 on: March 23, 2011, 07:12:43 PM »
@all

I noticed that these Nanoperm guys are rating their magnetic permeability u, as "18.000" for the M-416 core.  Some of their cores have claimed permeability up to "u = 100.000"

Magnetec Nanoperm Specs
http://www.magnetec.de/eng/universal-kerne1.htm

Shouldn't that decimal be a comma?!  I think that means relative permeability u_r=100,000 in American, right?   ;)   Because I saw a site that claims Nanoperm is up to 5 times as permeable as T38 ferrite, and T38 ferrite has a permeability u_i of around 10,000.

http://www.epcos.com/web/generator/Web/Sections/ProductCatalog/Ferrites/Materials/PDF/PDF__T38,property=Data__en.pdf;/PDF_T38.pdf


Material / Relative Permeability (u/u0)

NanoPerm / 10,000-100,000  (?)
Mu-metal / 20,000-50,000
Ferrite (T38) / 10,000
Permalloy / 8,000
Electrical steel / 4,000
Ferrite (nickel zinc) / 16-640
Ferrite (magnanese zinc) / >640
Steel / 100
Concrete / 1
Air / 1.000000037
Vacuum / 1
Water / 0.999992
Superconductors / 0.000

source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_permeability

----

The other question I have is the resistivity of this Nanoperm stuff vs the cold-rolled steel. David, did you ever test the electrical resistance of the Nanoperm core material?

Nanoperm supposedly has a resistivity of 115 microOhm x cm, which is equivalent to 1.15 x 10^-6 Ohm x meters.

http://online.unitconverterpro.com/unit-conversion/convert-
alpha/convert.php?cat=resistivity


Let's compare Nanoperm's resistivity to other materials, for example the outer cold-rolled steel shell....

 Nanoperm is 10x to 100x less conductive than conductors such as silver and copper, and probably 10x less conductive than cold-rolled steel shell.  However, if this is correct, this means Nanoperm is ~10,000x more electrically conductive than ferrite, even though it has higher magnetic permeability than ferrite.  This may be an important property should this experiment be replicated.


Material vs Resistivity
Silver    1.59×10−8 Ohm Meters
Copper    1.68×10−8 Ohm Meters
Aluminium 2.82×10−8 Ohm Meters
Steel (cast) 1.61x10-7 Ohm Meters
Iron    1.0×10−7 Ohm Meters
Nanoperm 1.15x10-6 Ohm Meters
Carbon (graphite) 3.0×10−3
Sea water       2×10−1
Ferrite (T38) 1.0x10-1 Ohm Meters
Silicon              6.40×10^2
Rubber              1x10^13
Teflon               1x10^22

sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistivity
http://www.feryster.pl/polski/nanoperm.php?lang=en
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/UmranUgur.shtml
http://www.epcos.com/web/generator/Web/Sections/ProductCatalog/Ferrites/Materials/PDF/PDF__T38,property=Data__en.pdf;/PDF_T38.pdf

---

The saturation inductance between the cold-rolled steel and the NanoPerm core seem similar (around 2 Tesla).

Offline mscoffman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #53 on: March 23, 2011, 07:31:13 PM »
If this is real and you decide to instrument correctly then it is important.

If you don’t instrument it correctly then it's no good and most likely
you guys are just fooling yourselves by relying on readings caused by
instrumentation that can't handle the signals. Don't forget that according
the EU licensing authority, a high power electronic device can't have
a PF power factor that differs from 1.0. due to the availability of power
factor correction circuits.
 
A raw transformer and Schottky diode 110volt to 12Volt dc power supply
makes it easy to measure filtered power with two DVM’s simultaneously
and the 12volt to 110volt inverter will put any PF power factor and signal
anomalies into the loss column so you can show that you still have energy
gain.

(Also moving clip leads is all that it takes to loop the device).

Using the time delay derived from the DC filter capacitor and two 110
variacs variable autotransformers you can efficiently split the power out
of the inverter up between power going to a dummy load and the power
going to the input of your circuit. This stops any voltage overloading. 
Instead of variacs you can also use incandescent light dimmers except
that these add there own harmonic signal hash anomalies to the situation
but they will still factor the average power. The toaster would make an
excellent dummy load since it is purely resistive.

Light dimmers need a transformer that has a load, because pure
inductance doesn't work. And a 1:1 110V transformer can filter the
pulse power draw from your circuit.

Look I have criticized your instrumentation and methods – why can’t
you either do it this way or criticize what I am describing. I mean I can
understand…As soon as you do it correctly your instrumentation errors
are going to disappear.

The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
...

Closed-loop: Not attempted, can fry the windings without input current control circuitry.  (i.e. inverter, battery charger , and battery)

...

Feynman


The output power splitting is a manual setting of the
two variacs or two lamp dimmers which assume that
the gain of the device remains relatively constant.

This is how the input current control circuitry would actually
work except in automatic mode rather than manual mode.

See, what we do at each stage is we move in the direction
that we are going and want to go to build a product. Just wait
to design the regulating circuitry for a demand (user variable)
load.

:S:MarkSCoffman

Offline Mavendex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #54 on: March 23, 2011, 07:34:37 PM »
Sorry I did not test the resistivity of the nanoperm material only the wire I wrapped around it, I have a fluke clamp meter/voltage meter no real fancy equipment how would one go about testing that mine is currently wrapped up awaiting the shell if you want me to test something I surely can.

Honestly Im half tempted to wrap the old shell around this rewired secondary it won't be form fitting but we can at least test somethings out.

Although I did cut a huge chunk out of the center to fit more wire thru so the results may not be the same as last time and its not form fitting.

My only problem with doing that is getting it back out again...

I like the dimmer switch Idea how many amps will go thru it? Its a great way to measure amps but still returning power to the source without consuming it in the toaster.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #54 on: March 23, 2011, 07:34:37 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline wayne49s

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #55 on: March 23, 2011, 07:52:02 PM »
Shouldn't that decimal be a comma?! 
...
Germany is one of those countries that reverses the period and decimal.

Is the impact of the resistivity limited to only eddy currents and heating? I was thinking about the outer shell, which acts as one shorted continuous conductor.

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #56 on: March 23, 2011, 07:53:03 PM »
If this is real and you decide to instrument correctly then it is important.

If you don’t instrument it correctly then it's no good and most likely
you guys are just fooling yourselves by relying on readings caused by
instrumentation that can't handle the signals.

Absolutely.  How do you think that David's instrumentation introduced error?  I mean , this is pretty straightforward.  120VAC at 60hz, no?  He's using Kill-A-Watt meters.  He either (A) telling the truth,( B) made a measurement error  or C) is being dishonest.  There are only 3 possibilities.  I think it's (A) or (B).

I mean the holy grail is closed loop, but you have to start somewhere and follow up on promising leads.

Quote

A raw transformer and Schottky diode 110volt to 12Volt dc power supply
makes it easy to measure filtered power with two DVM’s simultaneously
and the 12volt to 110volt inverter will put any PF power factor and signal
anomalies into the loss column so you can show that you still have energy
gain.

(Also moving clip leads is all that it takes to loop the device).
Thanks, I like this idea. 

Quote
Using the time delay derived from the DC filter capacitor and two 110
variacs variable autotransformers you can efficiently split the power out
of the inverter up between power going to a dummy load and the power
going to the input of your circuit. This stops any voltage overloading. 
Instead of variacs you can also use incandescent light dimmers except
that these add there own harmonic signal hash anomalies to the situation
but they will still factor the average power. The toaster would make an
excellent dummy load since it is purely resistive.

Also great info, thanks.  Yeah I thought the same thing, since toaster is essentially just a giant resistor.

Quote
Light dimmers need a transformer that has a load, because pure
inductance doesn't work.

Okay.

Quote
And a 1:1 110V transformer can filter the pulse power draw from your circuit.
Can you explain what you mean here a different way? I don't understand.

Quote
Look I have criticized your instrumentation and methods – why can’t
you either do it this way or criticize what I am describing. I mean I can
understand…As soon as you do it correctly your instrumentation errors
are going to disappear.

Hmm... not sure I understand...Mark , have you been talking to David on this device prior to today?  The first I heard about this was yesterday,  and I've decided to take the plunge since I need these materials (toroids of varying permeability/resistivity) anyway.  Not sure who you are referring to here.

I haven't done any experiment on this at all; I've ordered materials.  One thing to keep in mind is that often people are limited by their knowledge and experience, as well as material and financial resources...


Quote
If you don’t instrument it correctly then it's no good and most likely
you guys are just fooling yourselves by relying on readings caused by
instrumentation that can't handle the signals

Can you elaborate on this thought? 

Quote
The output power splitting is a manual setting of the
two variacs or two lamp dimmers which assume that
the gain of the device remains relatively constant.

This is how the input current control circuitry would actually
work except in automatic mode rather than manual mode.

I'll have to study what you've posted more, as it's beyond my experience, but I think you have great ideas for controlling a device that runs with gain.

Quote
See, what we do at each stage is we move in the direction
that we are going and want to go to build a product. Just wait
to design the regulating circuitry for a demand (user variable)
load.

Agreed.  Hopefully we'll be able to apply your ideas to a solid-state power device running with gain by the end of 2011, whether it's this device or another one!  Open-source...

Cheers,
Feynman


Offline twinbeard

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #57 on: March 23, 2011, 07:57:40 PM »
Germany is one of those countries that reverses the period and decimal.

Is the impact of the resistivity limited to only eddy currents and heating? I was thinking about the outer shell, which acts as one shorted continuous conductor.

If heat due to eddy currents is an issue in this device, in might be overcome with a material that does not conduct electricity, and hence can have no eddy currents, like magnetite;)

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #58 on: March 23, 2011, 08:02:01 PM »
Germany is one of those countries that reverses the period and decimal.

That explains it, thanks.  So that means Nanoperm is one of highest magnetically permeable materials in existence.

Quote
Is the impact of the resistivity limited to only eddy currents and heating? I was thinking about the outer shell, which acts as one shorted continuous conductor.

Well I'm just sort of thinking out loud on here, I have no idea as for the impact of resistivity on the operation of this device.  The resistivity of the outer vs inner core might be critical, or it might be irrelevant. Normally , yeah, I think it's major impact is on eddy currents.

Eddy Current Loss

The induction of eddy currents within the core causes a resistive loss. The higher the resistance of the core material the lower the loss. Lamination of the core material can reduce eddy current loss, and also making the core of a nonconductive magnetic material like ferrite.

...

Unfortunately , due to the electrical conductivity of [soft iron], at AC frequencies a bulk block or rod of soft iron can often suffer from large eddy currents circulating within it that waste energy and cause undesirable heating of the iron.

Because iron is a relatively good conductor, it cannot be used in bulk form with a rapidly changing field, such as in a transformer, as intense eddy currents would appear due to the magnetic field, resulting in huge losses (this is used in induction heating).

source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_core



Offline popolibero

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #59 on: March 23, 2011, 08:36:55 PM »
Quote
Its cold rolled steel, I'm trying to get L&S to find CRGO steel to increase the tesla rating in the primary, I wish we could make it out of that graphene stuff but thats a long long way off..


Mav, sorry for asking again,

if it's rolled steel it most likely is not magnetic, for instance stainless steel is absolutely NON magnetic, so my question is does a magnet stick to the steel donut? (easiest way to find out)

If it actually is not magnetic than even a wood donut would do. Anything that keeps the primary winding at a certain distance from the secondary.

Mario



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #59 on: March 23, 2011, 08:36:55 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: