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: Romero's experiments and OU principles  (Read 122089 times)

teslaalset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
Re: Romero's experiments and OU principles
« Reply #15 on: June 12, 2011, 07:35:38 PM »
No im generalising without going into exotic iron mix like carbonyl iron with ceramics can run to a Ghz. But in practical terms anything over a couple of megs  is already heading towards air cores. As Ismael uses Tesla bifilar Air-Cores for his MEG.

Wiki

"Iron Powdered cores made of hydrogen reduced iron have higher permeability but lower Q. They are used mostly for electromagnetic interference filters and low-frequency chokes, mainly in switched-mode power supplies.
[edit]Ferrite
Main article: Ferrite (magnet)
Ferrite ceramics are used for high-frequency applications. The ferrite materials can be engineered with a wide range of parameters. As ceramics, they are essentially insulators, which prevents eddy currents, although losses such as hysteresis losses can still occur.

So unless you have an incredibly fast rotor its probably going to work better  with iron powder while the old AM LW MW radios used ferrite rods, slugs and cores for these frequencies and certainly not iron powder.

Mu-metal is pretty powerful stuff and as romero said VERY expensive. Don Smith used a lot of Mu-metal as well as another type which is around 10 times the cost of Mu-metal i cant think of the name right now,  Mu-metal has  permeabilities of 80,000–100,000. There is a trade off for materials there is no point making a 15 watt OU device that will take 200 years to pay for itself:)

Ok, thanks for elaborating a bit on that, although I prefer real data instead of Wiki stuff, I've used iron powder cores at pretty high frequencies myself (e.g. Bob Boyce hex controlled iron powder core )

For now, I think we better stick to ferrite and try to replicate what has been shown, before going into exotic materials without necessity.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 07:56:26 PM by teslaalset »

bolt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 921
Re: Romero's experiments and OU principles
« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2011, 07:54:51 PM »
Romero
have you tried what same type core material that John B
used?
welding rods
KC

Welding rods are a real terrible hack! They provide a little extra  inductance  suitable for only very low switching speeds. <20Hz They make work fine for bedini bicycle wheels spinning a couple hundred RPM but any higher the eddy losses are chronic.  Get decent cores suitable for the job.

romerouk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
Re: Romero's experiments and OU principles
« Reply #17 on: June 12, 2011, 08:58:07 PM »
I have used welding rods for some of the Bedini as probably many others here, but tried and used different materials too.
Below is a circuit diagram I modified and used recently.

Mk1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2068
Re: Romero's experiments and OU principles
« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2011, 09:40:30 PM »
Dose it really speed up , or is it just the core drag that is eliminated ?


neptune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
Re: Romero's experiments and OU principles
« Reply #19 on: June 12, 2011, 09:57:10 PM »
@Romerouk . You speak of using iron dust cores . Does this iron dust come as a powder , or in a solid form . Also have you tried Iron oxide [Fe3o4] please ?

romerouk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
Re: Romero's experiments and OU principles
« Reply #20 on: June 13, 2011, 12:59:04 AM »
@Romerouk . You speak of using iron dust cores . Does this iron dust come as a powder , or in a solid form . Also have you tried Iron oxide [Fe3o4] please ?
Hi Neptune,
I have tried everything possible. Some of the cores I made I used Iron oxide coming as a powder then I mixed with resin..
The round cores you see in the picture I posted yesterday I bought them, I have about 30 of them.
Are used in audio inductors for HIFI Systems and are of a high super quality.

@ Penno
At one time I was close to melt the coils but I think I have not affected them. In a uncontrolled selfloop you can burn everything in seconds, that was the reason for the dc/dc converter.Can you believe I have tried  a easy way using  a 7812 first and it burned instantly :)
If you managed to see what I know you will then be careful...

TEKTRON

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 300
Re: Romero's experiments and OU principles
« Reply #21 on: June 13, 2011, 01:37:57 AM »
Vid from diveflyfish
regarding parallel FWBRs  :o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkaR9lLY1DE&feature=feedu

romerouk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
Re: Romero's experiments and OU principles
« Reply #22 on: June 13, 2011, 03:02:05 AM »
Vid from diveflyfish
regarding parallel FWBRs  :o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkaR9lLY1DE&feature=feedu
Thank you, i have just looked at it now.
I would like to see this test done again with a load. I have someone here and on youtube (User2718218)who thinks that is no benefit at all having diodes in parallel.
This person talks  in very elevated technical words, maybe he is a clever guy but today he addressed a lot of injuries to me and I will just love to pay it pack nicely with a good demonstration and shut his mouth or learn how to speak.
Mister User2718218 I am maybe not as clever as you think you are but that does not make me smaller than you. I am just a simple and normal person, I am not pretending to be the Great man, The Big man,... as you said in your unlimited posts on youtube today.
We are born the same, what you have inside is the most important, that really makes a difference, Knowledge is an Addon.

Best Regards,
Romero

minoly

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: Romero's experiments and OU principles
« Reply #23 on: June 13, 2011, 03:59:56 AM »
Hi Romero,
pay no attention to that user, that is "Milehigh". the coward of OU debunker want-to-be's.
I have seen the increase myself, that was one of the first things I did after watching your vids. I see skycollection put some on his new coils :)
Patrick

Ren

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
Re: Romero's experiments and OU principles
« Reply #24 on: June 13, 2011, 05:44:52 AM »

Mu-metal is pretty powerful stuff and as romero said VERY expensive. Don Smith used a lot of Mu-metal as well as another type which is around 10 times the cost of Mu-metal i cant think of the name right now,  Mu-metal has  permeabilities of 80,000–100,000. There is a trade off for materials there is no point making a 15 watt OU device that will take 200 years to pay for itself:)

I believe it was Terfenol-D. Somewhere in the vicinity of $5000 for a small rod.


xenomorphlabs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 923
Re: Romero's experiments and OU principles
« Reply #25 on: June 13, 2011, 04:45:01 PM »
Thank you, i have just looked at it now.
I would like to see this test done again with a load. I have someone here and on youtube (User2718218)who thinks that is no benefit at all having diodes in parallel.
This person talks  in very elevated technical words, maybe he is a clever guy but today he addressed a lot of injuries to me and I will just love to pay it pack nicely with a good demonstration and shut his mouth or learn how to speak.
Mister User2718218 I am maybe not as clever as you think you are but that does not make me smaller than you. I am just a simple and normal person, I am not pretending to be the Great man, The Big man,... as you said in your unlimited posts on youtube today.
We are born the same, what you have inside is the most important, that really makes a difference, Knowledge is an Addon.

Best Regards,
Romero

You can always block a certain user from your youtube channel or delete posts.
As soon as someone calls you names or just tries to steal your time in a non-constructive manner,
it's time to just put him on the ban-list. Saves your nerves enormously and it's your good right.
Keep it up

By the way: 1 simple question. Can you verify the connections on your special
coil you once posted? There is some controversy about the diode directions and what rail they are connected to. I think it is a very interesting connection and might even try it out, before making my opinion about it.

romerouk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
Re: Romero's experiments and OU principles
« Reply #26 on: June 13, 2011, 05:40:42 PM »
@xenomorphlabs
Hi,
I have posted this picture only for a second or two then I removed it. I saw that someone made a copy very quick :) I realized that it should not be posted especially at that time...
I can tell you that it will do nice work, this is a different form of energy transfer but as it is in the picture will not work for these rotating magnets... this was made for solid state device, high frequency.
Bruce did some testing withe the same ideea but you need to change the order of the diodes on the right hand side.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2011, 06:07:03 PM by romerouk »

romerouk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
Re: Romero's experiments and OU principles
« Reply #27 on: June 13, 2011, 10:51:32 PM »
people pay attention to 'bolt' posting,  he is describing another way to do this and he is right, actually using capacitors will take you there more easy, if not, you need to build the coils according to many factors to replace what the capacitors will do.

teslaalset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 695
Re: Romero's experiments and OU principles
« Reply #28 on: June 13, 2011, 11:12:12 PM »
@RomeroUK,

So, you basically told us the wrong way in the beginning?
1) No extra capacitors in the circuit, otherwise you had told us
2) No hints towards special winding?
I strongly doubt that. I think you were very to the point back then.

I hope you are sincere about this and not trying to get us off the hook on purpose.
To be honest I have the impression you were more trustworthy at the start of all this and not being straight forward right now.
With all respect.

Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Romero's experiments and OU principles
« Reply #29 on: June 14, 2011, 01:25:46 AM »
@RomeroUK,

So, you basically told us the wrong way in the beginning?
1) No extra capacitors in the circuit, otherwise you had told us
2) No hints towards special winding?
I strongly doubt that. I think you were very to the point back then.

I hope you are sincere about this and not trying to get us off the hook on purpose.
To be honest I have the impression you were more trustworthy at the start of all this and not being straight forward right now.
With all respect.

And Romero posted this just before...

people pay attention to 'bolt' posting,  he is describing another way to do this and he is right, actually using capacitors will take you there more easy, if not, you need to build the coils according to many factors to replace what the capacitors will do.


From this I assume the coils need to be bifi,  err 7fi ?  ;]

Thats the only way I know to add capacitance without actual caps added. ;] Of which, Romero would be correct in stating that adding real caps would be easier, as a bifi or 7fi might be difficult to achieve the same capacitance per coil unless they are wound very neatly and consistent to each other. And even then may need tuning.


Mags