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: 81960
  • *Latest: Stella

  • *Total Posts: 491771
  • *Total Topics: 14473
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 65
  • *Total: 67

Facebook

Author Topic: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8  (Read 479339 times)

Offline wayne49s

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #75 on: March 24, 2011, 03:26:36 PM »
Ya it measures true power.
That's good to know! I also further thought that if the meter did not consider inductance and just used a resistor to extract the current to calculate the power, that the error would be such that it would indicate more power used than actual (ie. PF is less than the assume 1). This means that the primary would show more power used than actual. The secondary is all resistive in your setup, so no need to question this reading. Therefore if there was any error in the primary measurement, it would mean actual power gain is more than indicated! If there is anything wrong with this conclusion, please comment.

Mav: I noticed the last schematic indicated turns for the coil, but in other place, it was mentioned in ft. Which is right?.. and there is a big difference from a 1:1 turn ratio which would mean a lot of flux leakage. Can you clarify?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #75 on: March 24, 2011, 03:26:36 PM »

Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 938
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #76 on: March 24, 2011, 03:37:08 PM »
hi Feynman

thanks for the kind words posted on my thread recently!

it's a breath of fresh air to see your 'no-nonsense/'can-do' approach returning to the forum - we need more of this!

...just a few thoughts & suggestions relating to this project:-

1) as the toaster heats up, what effect does its
   resistance/current characteristics have on the system?
   (with & without an o/p load on system)?

2) the K-o-W meter measuring the sytsem o/p is designed to accept power at 120V AC from wall socket;
   so how does it respond to 120V from the toaster/transformer combo?
   (which is presumably not at all similar to the impedance of the utility supply)


here is a simple test to confirm meter & system characteristics:

A) plug K-o-W meter #2 into wall socket;
   plug 100W lamp into K-o-W #2
 - what is K-o-W #2 RMS power reading?

B) plug K-o-W meter #1 into wall socket;
   plug same 100W lamp into K-o-W #1
 - what is K-o-W #1 RMS power reading?

C) switch off K-o-W #1 at wall socket;
   plug 100W lamp back into K-o-W #2;
   connect K-o-W meter #2 up to toroid o/p;
   plug toaster/toroid into into K-o-W #1;
   plug K-o-W meter #1 into wall socket;
   switch on K-o-W #1 at wall socket

 - what is K-o-W #1 RMS power reading?
 - what is K-o-W #2 RMS power reading?

how soon could Mav tell us these 4 readings?


Thane heins is obviously aware of this system (he offered to write Mav's patent) - it would be good to contact Thane & ask him for his comments on the system


looking forward to seeing how this develops

all the best
np


http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/

 


Offline Mavendex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #77 on: March 24, 2011, 03:44:38 PM »
Hey Wayne,

I use feet of wire, then measure my ohms on the wire, as it stands now what I have on the secondary is 4.2 ohms of resistance and then I try and match that on the primary so I can get 120 volts or more hopefully more it doesn't always work out that way but its a good guesstimate. Like I said before Im no engineer just a tinker ling who is fascinated with how things work and trys to find good simple ways to make things work better.

So in your replication with the part you will be receiving from L&S 1000 feet of 16awg wire will fit perfectly in shell, if you want to use less wire you can always move to useing more insulation on your wire too fill the space.

As far as how the device works I think that Thanes Ideas are sound on this although we don't use 2 secondaries its just simplified down to 1 in Thanes model he uses 1 of the secondaries to transfer power to the second core and then extracts the energy here its pretty much the same its just layered so the primary is transferring power to the second core and then the bef is trapped in the secondary then all we do is extract the energy. Honestly I don't think it works any differently than Thanes model the biggest difference is that the secondary is getting the Full on flux of the primary vs. thanes model where its more spread out.

I should have this guy put back together by the weekend I was told that I should get a new killowatts out of the box incase mine have been damaged due to my experimentation. So I'll order those as well we can do some tests hopefully have a video up for you guys by the end of next week, depends on how much actual work I have to do at my job it ebbs and flows.

Mav

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #78 on: March 24, 2011, 05:06:22 PM »
Okay, this is promising.  I think the objections on the Kill-O-watt meter are not to the level that it would prevent me, personally, from attempting replication, especially if it is the higher-end Kill-O-Watt model which measures actual power.

The output power capacitor measurement thing is a good idea... but so are 60W light bulbs. I mean , if you can light 8 60W light bulbs at full brightness (480W) on the secondary, with 60W (120VAC at 0.5A) of input power consumption on the primary, that's an indication something interesting is happening.

I agree there need to be more 'scientific' measurements, but we've basically got to do the best we can with limited budgets and time etc.  Hopefully if we can get at least one working replication going of whatever we are observing here, then this will become easier -- to either confirm or disconfirm anomalous energetic phenomenon.  I ordered Nanoperm cores yesterday -- they'll probably ship next week.

@mavendex

Thanks for posting these pictures. Your craftsmanship is impressive.  It's going to be interesting when I post my replication because it's going to be 90% duct tape and superglue!

Anyway, I noticed that the outer steel core in these pictures has a large amount (2"-3"  aka 4.4cm -6.6cm) of steel cut out of the center.  Why is this?   Do you think this will effect the back-EMF canceling effect of the outer shell?  Would it be better to have the shell completely contain the primary?

Did your original device that you made before (with COP=8) have this break in the center of the outer steel toroidal primary?

Thanks,
Feynman


Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #79 on: March 24, 2011, 05:33:39 PM »
hi Feynman

thanks for the kind words posted on my thread recently!

No problem, I'm just trying to get open-source OU!

Quote
it's a breath of fresh air to see your 'no-nonsense/'can-do' approach returning to the forum - we need more of this!

Thanks. I want someone to make something like Linux for overunity.  Like a base 'kernel' on which people can build tons of variations on devices, with full open source documentation in PDF.   So I'm just trying to propagate that idea, and it was encouraging to see you were thinking the same way by making a PDF.

Quote
1) as the toaster heats up, what effect does its
   resistance/current characteristics have on the system?
   (with & without an o/p load on system)?

I don't know about a toaster... but I know this:

When a light bulb starts from cold, it has very low resistance.  It can be as low as 16 Ohms!!  So when it starts up the 'kick' (ala Steven Mark) shoots across the tungsten carrying alot of 'impulse' (voltage, current, and whatever else EMF is -really- comprised of).  Then, as the light bulb starts to heat up , the resistance increases (and thus the current consumption decreases).  I think a 60W light bulb will climb up to the vicinity of 500 Ohms to 2K Ohms after it heats up.

It's possible a toaster has a similar temperature dependent effect, so we'll need to consider this during any sort of modeling or calculations unless the toaster resistance is experimentally derived.  I doubt it's fixed, (I think toaster has temp-dependent resistance), but I don't know for sure.  I'm just basing this on the behavior of light bulbs.

Quote
2) the K-o-W meter measuring the sytsem o/p is designed to accept power at 120V AC from wall socket;
   so how does it respond to 120V from the toaster/transformer combo?
   (which is presumably not at all similar to the impedance of the utility supply)

This is a good question.  My theoretical knowledge here is too shallow to answer . I'll leave that to someone else.  My solution to everything is to experimentally test it,  so to answer that question I'd probably scope the waveform loaded and unloaded and post the pictures -- lol.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #79 on: March 24, 2011, 05:33:39 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Mavendex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #80 on: March 24, 2011, 05:37:01 PM »


@mavendex

Thanks for posting these pictures. Your craftsmanship is impressive.  It's going to be interesting when I post my replication because it's going to be 90% duct tape and superglue!

Anyway, I noticed that the outer steel core in these pictures has a large amount (2"-3"  aka 4.4cm -6.6cm) of steel cut out of the center.  Why is this?   Do you think this will effect the back-EMF canceling effect of the outer shell?  Would it be better to have the shell completely contain the primary?

Did your original device that you made before (with COP=8) have this break in the center of the outer steel toroidal primary?

Thanks,
Feynman

@ Feynman

yes I  cut it out before by 1 inch,  only this time I took a plasma cutter to it  and took out a extra inch. This is why I had L&S retool the tool to make the shell form fitting all the way around, My theory is that if we contain it 100% that we can get a better outcome and less power being used possibly just feeding it from the wall with that Dimmer switch instead of having a resistive load, which will make things even more simple.

I also have a theory that the secondary is just transferring amps from the primary while voltage doesn't drop until you try and take a large amount of amps from the primary if that is the case increasing the flow with the dimmer switch would allow us to keep our OU properties and allow us to recapture even more energy, up to the ampicity of the wire. All the while the energy is being returned to the source with little or no loss.

I do have a question tho if 16 awg wire is rated for 600volts then can I still draw up to its 22 amp capacity without it blowing, IF yes then 1 unit should be able to power a home at peak performance, although the device wouldn't be powering the house directly only taking from the grid and pumping it back with excess while your home would still be running on the grid.

Thus stopping your meter from turning or just turning it backwards and then if you live in a public power state like Nebraska its is Law that they have to pay you the adjusted cost.

Just some ideas
Mav

I hope that makes sense.

Offline FatBird

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #81 on: March 24, 2011, 05:49:38 PM »
Ebay.Com  sells Kill-A-Watt Meters for $22 with FREE SHIPPING.

HarborFreight.Com  sells Clamp On Ammeters for $20.

.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 06:20:13 PM by FatBird »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #81 on: March 24, 2011, 05:49:38 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #82 on: March 24, 2011, 05:54:34 PM »
@ Feynman

yes I  cut it out before by 1 inch,  only this time I took a plasma cutter to it  and took out a extra inch.

Okay, thanks.  But why did you cut it out in the first place?  Sorry I don't understand, maybe try explaining it a different way... Did you cut the primary steel shell with the plasma cutter , so the secondary with wiring would fit inside the primary?    Did you cut it so you'd have wiring access to the inside of the secondary?  I'm don't understand why you cut the primary part out , basically.

Quote
This is why I had L&S retool the tool to make the shell form fitting all the way around,

Okay.  Let us know what part we should order from L&S... have you talked to them lately?  I called them about 3 days ago and they didn't seem to remember the part number .  I emailed them pictures but haven't gotten a response yet.

If I call them today or tomorrow, will they sell me the new part?  Or is it better to wait until next week...

Quote
My theory is that if we contain it 100% that we can get a better outcome and less power being used possibly just feeding it from the wall with that Dimmer switch instead of having a resistive load, which will make things even more simple.

I like the idea of the dimmer switch too, it gives more control.  Hopefully that works and an inductive heating element is not a requirement for the effect.

Quote
I also have a theory that the secondary is just transferring amps from the primary while voltage doesn't drop until you try and take a large amount of amps from the primary if that is the case increasing the flow with the dimmer switch would allow us to keep our OU properties and allow us to recapture even more energy, up to the ampicity of the wire. All the while the energy is being returned to the source with little or no loss.

This is a good idea.  Another to consider is that you might not be able to take out more power than is circulating in the primary or secondary toroid in magnetic flux.  There might be some sort of flux equilibrium that gets disturbed. Also maybe it has something to do with inductive coupling.

Quote
I do have a question tho if 16 awg wire is rated for 600volts then can I still draw up to its 22 amp capacity without it blowing, IF yes then 1 unit should be able to power a home at peak performance, although the device wouldn't be powering the house directly only taking from the grid and pumping it back with excess while your home would still be running on the grid.

No idea, though I know from previous experiments with high voltage you need lots of insulation because it arcs really easily.  This was at 6kV with laser power supply....  Maybe someone else can answer this question.

Quote
Thus stopping your meter from turning or just turning it backwards and then if you live in a public power state like Nebraska its is Law that they have to pay you the adjusted cost.

I'm sure the power companies will be delighted, haha.  Hey it's only fair with all this contrived concern over 'energy' (oil supplies, nuclear power, etc) that somehow it get solved open-source sometime soon.


Offline Mavendex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #83 on: March 24, 2011, 06:09:47 PM »
Okay, thanks.  But why did you cut it out in the first place?  Sorry I don't understand, maybe try explaining it a different way... Did you cut the primary steel shell with the plasma cutter , so the secondary with wiring would fit inside the primary?    Did you cut it so you'd have wiring access to the inside of the secondary?  I'm don't understand why you cut the primary part out , basically.



The original Toroid I had made was for rodin coil experiments, thats why it looks like it does, but for this experiment I needed more room to feed wire on to the primary, the last variation when I cut out 1 inch allowed me to put on extra wire but I still ran out of room, so I took out another inch so we can get the necessary wire placed on to the primary.

As far as L&S I called them and told them to source out the part you will be getting the new piece I had retooled, because this shell isn't optimal. the only nice thing about having such a large gap in the center is it allows the inside parts to breath a bit. but we can do the same with the new part if need be.

Offline Montec

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #84 on: March 24, 2011, 06:10:41 PM »
Hello Mavendex
As a test you can calculate the value of a capacitor and put it in parallel with the coil. The reactance of the capacitor should remove the reactive power drain portion of the total power measured by the "Kill-O-Watt" meter.

Calculating the value of the capacitor:
Measure the voltage drop across the toaster. Measure the current in the circuit. Calculate power used by toaster P=IV. Subtract the toaster power (P) from the power (S) measured by the "Kill-O-Watt" meter. Whats left is the reactive power (Q) drawn by the coil from the power supply. BTW cosÓ¨ = P/S (Power factor of the circuit )

The reactance (Xc) of the required capacitor is
Xc = V2/Q   V = mains power voltage

C = 1/(ωXc) where ω = 2πf (f = frequency of mains) This should give you an approximate value for a capacitor to try.

Now when you draw power from the second "Kill-O-Watt" meter, the first meter should indicate an increase in power consumption. If it does not then you have a possibility of an over unity device.

:)



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #84 on: March 24, 2011, 06:10:41 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline FatBird

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1175
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #85 on: March 24, 2011, 06:15:28 PM »
For those that don't know, Kill-A-Watt meters measure

Volts, Amps, Watts, Hertz, Power Factor, & KWH (Killawatt Hours).


.

Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #86 on: March 24, 2011, 06:26:57 PM »
The original Toroid I had made was for rodin coil experiments, thats why it looks like it does, but for this experiment I needed more room to feed wire on to the primary, the last variation when I cut out 1 inch allowed me to put on extra wire but I still ran out of room, so I took out another inch so we can get the necessary wire placed on to the primary.

Okay, thanks, that answers my question.

Quote
As far as L&S I called them and told them to source out the part you will be getting the new piece I had retooled, because this shell isn't optimal. the only nice thing about having such a large gap in the center is it allows the inside parts to breath a bit. but we can do the same with the new part if need be.

Okay sounds good.  I suppose we can always add a CPU fan if there are eddy current losses in the steel and it heats up. 


Offline Feynman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 621
    • Feynman's Lab
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #87 on: March 24, 2011, 06:39:11 PM »
Hello Mavendex
As a test you can calculate the value of a capacitor and put it in parallel with the coil. The reactance of the capacitor should remove the reactive power drain portion of the total power measured by the "Kill-O-Watt" meter.

Allright I'm gonna put my ignorance on full display here.

Quote
Calculating the value of the capacitor:
Measure the voltage drop across the toaster.
How do you suggest one does that?   By measuring the impedance of the toaster, and then calculate the voltage drop as E = IZ, where I is toaster current consumption , and Z is toaster impedance?   This may suffer from the problem , as the toaster current consumption / resistance is probably temperature dependent if it's anything like a conventional light bulb.

Quote
Measure the current in the circuit.
With conventional DMM in series with the toaster while powered on?  Isn't this prone to the same error that you objected to in the first place (amp meters being 'tricked' by inductive reactance?)  The toaster current might be time-variant even without the primary.

Quote
Using a conventional DMM Calculate power used by toaster P=IV. Subtract the toaster power (P) from the power (S) measured by the "Kill-O-Watt" meter.
So here you would use the E value calculated previously for the voltage drop for V, and you would use the current you measured previously for I just for just the powered-on toaster in isolation?

Quote
Whats left is the reactive power (Q) drawn by the coil from the power supply. BTW cosÓ¨ = P/S (Power factor of the circuit )
Okay.

Quote
The reactance (Xc) of the required capacitor is
Xc = V2/Q   V = mains power voltage
Okay.  What material capacitor is preferable?

Quote
C = 1/(ωXc) where ω = 2πf (f = frequency of mains) This should give you an approximate value for a capacitor to try.
Okay that's a PI value not an 'n' just to clarify for the record. :)

Quote
Now when you draw power from the second "Kill-O-Watt" meter, the first meter should indicate an increase in power consumption. If it does not then you have a possibility of an over unity device.

Okay, thanks.  This is pretty complicated and is beyond my understanding, but hopefully we still get COP>1 even if we add the capacitor to the coil. 


Offline teslaalset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #88 on: March 24, 2011, 06:53:41 PM »
Just a question on the winding ratio.
At the PesWiKi website I noticed that the around 300 feet of wire is used for the secondary (inner) coil and 400 feet for the primary (outer) coil.
It seems that because of the diameter difference between primary and secondary coil, the winding ratio is far from 1:1.
I would estimate it around prim:sec = 1:10.
This means that the voltage at the secondary would be 10 times higher as the input voltage.

So, the diagram of Kampen (reply #65) likely contains some flaws regarding the windings.

Also, mind you, we are probably talking 1kV at the output.
That's probably lethal for those that do not mind.
Is there any measurement data available on the voltages?

« Last Edit: March 24, 2011, 07:15:29 PM by teslaalset »


Offline Montec

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #89 on: March 24, 2011, 06:54:50 PM »
Hello
As an addendum to my previous post:

If you know the power factor for an inductive device or circuit then the reactive power (Q) is

Q = S x sin(cos-1(power factor)) where S is the power in VA (volt amps) measured by the watt meter.

Just for information:

S (apparent power) is measured in VA (volt amps)

P (real power) is measured in W (watts) This power is able to do work.

Q (reactive power) is measured in "vars" (quadrature "imaginary" power)

So S2 = P2 + Q2

:)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #89 on: March 24, 2011, 06:54:50 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: