Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) 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:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8  (Read 695289 times)

matthewklinko

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 41
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #975 on: April 04, 2012, 01:58:25 AM »
Hello Mav, any updates?

Cheap4All

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #976 on: April 04, 2012, 11:22:00 AM »
Hello Mav
I'm starting to get worried since its been a strangely long time since we last heard from you, in fact over 2 months now since you last checked in.
I hope all is well with you and that nothing untoward has happened, you haven't befallen any accidents, or anything like that.
Just getting concerning since you have gone so quiet for so long.
Just log in and tell us that you are Ok if nothing else...
Cheers

Mavendex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #977 on: April 10, 2012, 07:06:20 PM »
Sorry for the disappearing that hacker thing got real stupid took over my pc, churchs network, phone couldn't get on the internet. Church didn't want to pay me overtime for the work I was doing keeping thier stuff safe so I quit last week going to get my CEH and hunt those bastards down for making my life miserable, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQbOG7STI7A&feature=channel here is a quick video of small gain on the device. Ill do another one when I finish this guy up.
Mav

Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #978 on: April 11, 2012, 02:24:54 AM »
Nice work Mav.  ;]
If your just using 60hz, those meters should be correct.  Good Good Good.

Thanks for enduring so long on this. It just goes to show that large amounts of time and persistence CAN pay off in this business.

Some out there would not agree.

Mags

Mavendex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #979 on: April 18, 2012, 07:00:33 PM »
Nice work Mav.  ;]
If your just using 60hz, those meters should be correct.  Good Good Good.

Thanks for enduring so long on this. It just goes to show that large amounts of time and persistence CAN pay off in this business.

Some out there would not agree.

Mags
Thanks Mags,
After that test I put a ballast in front of the transformer and the frequency dropped to 10 hz or so, but when I took readings at the ballast with my fluke the ballast was outputing 830 volts into the device at .15 amps @ 10hz probably what the ballast is set for, output of the device was 10hz 122volts 2.5 amps a nice almost 300 percent.
111 turns for secondary about 700 turns of primary, and the innercore was just holding the risidual power deffinitly more out than in @ 10hz when I input @ 60hz you could hear the hum of the magnetstrcition causeing problems in the shell which only made it about 105% effecient, so Im increaseing my secondary to 222 turns essentially doubling the output of the device, with 700 turns of primary.
Anomolies = 1 volt probe to 1 lead, 1 volt probe to ground in a potted plant = voltage reading on the fluke... about 280 volts out of the air, I think this is a function of the ballast or resonance or both. Ghost voltage was explained and they told me that if I grounded the other probe we would have a 0 reading on the lead, so since I actually grounded it theres still voltage we have a nice little unexplained deal going on.
Anomolies = 2 volt probes in the air = 10 volts reading on the fluke when the device is on, about 2 ft from the device. So she is creating a RF at 10hz won't work unless the balast is in place.
We are sending the device to have the secondary and primary profesionally wound.
Changes to the device was JBKwik on the outside to magnetically connect the shells, and then we put some copper foil around the outside gap and inside gap, this helped leverage the field, (the copper foil is sitting on the JB kwick and inner concotion of water weld and JBKwik on the inside gap still not connecting the shells)
input @ 10 hz I know is low but free energy is still that free energy, drop it into some caps and should be honky dory, increasing the windings on the secondary will give us more out and stacking cores, thinner shell, plus I found silicon steel innercores we can use price 60 bucks for the same size of toroid, vs 270 bucks out of germany, they will have a output of 2.0 teslas at saturation with the ability to move towards 2.5 teslas saturated like crazy.
Vs. the nanoperms which saturate at 1.2 teslas and are very expensive. all in all we can probably build these guys with the same design for less than 500 dollars,
Mav.

broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2245
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #980 on: April 18, 2012, 07:37:26 PM »
Good to hear you're still keeping it alive. The toroids by any chance are they toroidal cores used typically in audio amplifiers?

And wouldn't you kill for one of these  :P :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lvm3FGTHSI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-FpeRf3RvQ

Crappy part is that they cost a fortune: http://www.ebay.com/itm/300mmOD-large-core-Toroidal-Transformer-Winding-Machine-/260597933444?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3cacd8e584

However with the advent of 3d printing we can build things like that very easily ourselves.

rfmmars

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #981 on: April 22, 2012, 02:49:06 AM »
Hello Mav, any updates?
Yes here's the best update

David Klingelhoefer, RemeroUK= FAKE

Whats wrong with you people?

Richard

JouleSeeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #982 on: April 30, 2012, 08:24:53 AM »
  I appreciate the vid, Mav -- very interesting and breathes some new life into this approach.

When you do another vid, may I suggest you take data over a sufficient time that the ENERGY can be shown, both input and output energy?   I found an energy meter that measures down to 0.0001 kW-hr, whereas the Kill-a-Watt just gives down to 0.01 kW-hr.  I found that by plugging one of these meters into the Kill-a-Watt, then plugging the test device into the 2-meter set, I can measure power (W) and energy (down to 0.1 Watt-hour) simultaneously; or I can measure watts on both and compare.  The agreement has been within about 4% comparing meters in this way.   I now have two meters of each type, so two paired-sets.

I would be glad to buy for you and send you two of these higher-precision meters for your work if you wish to try (at my expense of course).   Then you could use one pair for input, and one pair for output.  Really nails the measurement with this redundancy, adds confidence! 
Let me know (you may email me directly at ProfSJones@gmail.com).

Good work!  Thanks again for the vids.
Steven J

JouleSeeker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #983 on: April 30, 2012, 07:49:36 PM »
Attached photo shows the paired meters -- the one on top gives kW-hours down to 0.0001 precision, which I find very useful.  Again, the redundancy in the meters allows for a good check.  I have been using these pairs extensively of late.

Mavendex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #984 on: May 04, 2012, 01:28:00 AM »
  I appreciate the vid, Mav -- very interesting and breathes some new life into this approach.

When you do another vid, may I suggest you take data over a sufficient time that the ENERGY can be shown, both input and output energy?   I found an energy meter that measures down to 0.0001 kW-hr, whereas the Kill-a-Watt just gives down to 0.01 kW-hr.  I found that by plugging one of these meters into the Kill-a-Watt, then plugging the test device into the 2-meter set, I can measure power (W) and energy (down to 0.1 Watt-hour) simultaneously; or I can measure watts on both and compare.  The agreement has been within about 4% comparing meters in this way.   I now have two meters of each type, so two paired-sets.

I would be glad to buy for you and send you two of these higher-precision meters for your work if you wish to try (at my expense of course).   Then you could use one pair for input, and one pair for output.  Really nails the measurement with this redundancy, adds confidence! 
Let me know (you may email me directly at ProfSJones@gmail.com).

Good work!  Thanks again for the vids.
Steven J
Thanks I may take you up on that offer, but really I need something that can handle super high voltage I found that if I go over 180 volts on those killowatt meters they tend to fryout then I have to take it back to menards and get it replaced go go insurance.
I have been using a 110 watt florecent ballast as input for the last few times had 800 volts .15 amps going in and 120 v 2.5 amps comming out, so I had that device sent off to a company to wind it profesionally, and really get the boat a rockin should have some good results by monday im guessing we will output at least a few more amps since all the turns will be perfect.
the bad part about the ballast is it drops the frequency down to 10hz or so but free is free and there is always ways to store it I have another device here at the house Im going to video to show the anomolies I had a friend come buy we put one of my volt probes in a plant and took the other volt probe to a lead while the device was charged and got 300+ volts comming out of the machine as well the input leads from the ballast have a katty corner effect on the actual line comming off the ballast we have .15 amps which is normal its a 110 watt ballast its not going to output more than that but then if I run the clamp over the device lead that is connected to the ballast it will read something like .75 amps which is really wierd on the return its opposite .15 amps on the device lead and .75 amps on the line going back to the ballast.
so my guess on that is I can splice off those leads that say .75 and run that to a make before break switch and see if we can close the loop on input which would most fantastic. waiting on the switch from mouser should be here next week. Trial and error fun fun fun
Mav

Mavendex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #985 on: May 04, 2012, 06:02:23 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxKERIvz8mw
 
anomolies sorry bout the shaky video

Mavendex

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #986 on: May 06, 2012, 01:29:42 AM »

Thestone

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #987 on: May 10, 2012, 09:10:56 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

From my point of view all these devices are trying to duplicate the principles on the "Saturable Reactor".

The Stone.  :)

verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #988 on: May 19, 2012, 02:28:23 AM »
@rfmmars
David Klingelhoefer is the original inventor of the Gabriel Device, right?

Is this device non-working or a fake?  There is a big difference...
Can you elaborate why you think so?

@anyone else
Did anyone measure larger power output than the power input, on the Gabriel Device yet?
If yes then how was this measuremnt made?

Yes here's the best update
David Klingelhoefer, RemeroUK= FAKE

Cheap4All

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8
« Reply #989 on: May 25, 2012, 10:38:53 AM »
@Mav.  Its great to see you back, but by God you make me a nervous wreck watching your vids with you playing around with those live wires like that ! I don't know how you have the courage !!
No wonder a while ago, I thought you may have blown yourself up. If I had only known what you were doing with those live wires back then, I would have had even more reason to think that.  :o
But it seems like you are having great success which I am ever so pleased to hear because we sure do need a product like this. So am looking forward to your next update/s with great keenness.

@verpies. I don't know who you are, nor have I seen you here before, but what a damned cheek you have coming in here and chucking your weight around like Lord Almighty.
I suggest you stay away if that's the way you are going to carry on.