Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect  (Read 756419 times)

Offline Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #900 on: March 30, 2013, 04:26:04 AM »
@Farmhand,
 
                It's not my intention to claim overunity, but to demonstrate the deleyed Lenz effect. I get acceleration and decreased input under load. You know what happens to the battery when I disconnect the load?  What do you think of the See-Saw charging effect? i'ts a millivolt per second exchange. When that harmonic cycle commences, there's no longer any power depletion from the battery. I don't care what you have to say about batterys, this Motor Alternator, Battery oscillation , power recharge cycle,  has to balance. The audio track's the data not the multi meter. Piston like, alternating power surges, self modulating, too and fro, factor out any additional input. That demonstrates that the system has achieved unity. I know that batterys have a mind of there own. The super fast neo sphere has slipped the surly bond of Lenz drag, and the Battery and Alternator go into a charge recharge resonance that is the earmark of "Unity", and proximate confirmation of Lenz delay.
 
There's no extra energy coming into the system. We played a trick on entropy, and recovered primary flyback as OU factor.

Synchro, weather or not you care about what I had to say about batteries is irrelevant. It is said and shown.

A see sawing of the battery voltage means very little, when the charge in a battery can be reduced without reducing the voltage at it's terminals.

To me it appears as though you are just posting your opinion about what you see. Others see the same thing and have a different opinion.

My opinion is the only way to say for sure is to test it properly and accurately. Your entitled to your opinion as am I.

It doesn't matter either if people don't believe me, they can do the experiments and make their own opinion.

When all inputs and outputs are considered everything is unity. It must be. 

Cheers

Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4647
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #901 on: March 30, 2013, 10:41:58 PM »
Another provocative video from Skycollection:
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmZ6kGDT_Ow
 
 
Skycollection indicates he took amp meter readings, and he infers, in his Youtube comments, that the seond induction coil is generating an additional 4 watts of power, without increasing input. I advised him to turn the entire apparatus on it's side to spin the sphere on it's axis insread of "skidding"  Like he's been doing.

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4136
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #902 on: March 30, 2013, 11:48:30 PM »
Another provocative video from Skycollection:
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmZ6kGDT_Ow
 
 
Skycollection indicates he took amp meter readings, and he infers, in his Youtube comments, that the seond induction coil is generating an additional 4 watts of power, without increasing input. I advised him to turn the entire apparatus on it's side to spin the sphere on it's axis insread of "skidding"  Like he's been doing.

Well, this is what he wrote:

 " i did a test in other inductors and the results was: input 12 volts x 0.42 = 5.04 watts  and the output was 58 volts x 0.07 = 4.06 watts. this measurements not correspond to this experiment.  And you have to multiply by two, since I have two output inductors, 4.06 x 2 = 8.12 watts, this would be the total output watts. "

So his measurements he refers to have no connection to the above video as I understand from his last sentence.



What he calls conventional coil  i.e. a normal solenoid shaped output coil with which the LEDs did not get on or only barely, had inherently a much weaker magnetic coupling to the base coil which was a pancake coil because most of the number of turns in the cylinder windings were gradually away from the pancake windings while the pancake shaped output coil had a much higher magnetic coupling to the also pancake shaped base coil, so the LEDs were bright.  (He says low inductance coil for the cylinder shaped output coil but a low magnetic induction due to the bad coupling should be interpreted by that.)

 IT is ok that he also used two output LED arrays in this present experiment but as usual we did not see a correct input and output power measurement. 

Another problem is that LEDs has a threshold voltage i.e. a forward voltage under which they do not consume any current. This means that assuming a normal sine wave output as the result of the induction in the output coil, the LEDs do not load the output whenever the instanteneous AC waveform is below the threshold LED voltage, ok?  And this is valid for both halfwaves of a full AC wave because he uses a full wave rectifier bridge directly at the coils output to make unipolar series of halfwaves from the induced AC voltage. 

A real load like a power resistor should be used as a load instead of the LEDs and measure the output current though it and also the voltage across it.  Likewise, a continuous input current and voltage measurements should be performed.

Gyula

Offline Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #903 on: March 31, 2013, 04:11:29 AM »
Hi Gyulasun, That sounds like a good evaluation, I'm not really qualified to say much in the very technical arena, but your post makes sense.

All the OU claims without any descent measurements are running the free energy movement into the mud. there are so many errant claims from within the community itself
that tricksters jump on the bandwagon and add intentional fakes to the mix for ad sense money and they do it because the video's get lots of hits from people linking them in
places like this.

The fake claims continue because it appears to be seen as OK, the "boy who cried wolf syndrome" comes to mind, the way the villagers in that fable should have acted is to take
the responsibility for the "wolf watch" away from the liar after the second false claim, you see the villagers are really the ones at fault for the loss of the sheep because rather
than replace the liar they just ignored him, then the problem was just as much theirs as his. If the boy had cried " I think I see a wolf but I'm not sure because I don't know what a wolf looks like", then things might turn out different. Would the villagers be smart to still leave him on wolf watch if he couldn't tell what was a wolf ?

All energy is originally free, no one pays to run the Sun or paid to put oil in the ground or pays for the rain that deposit the high water that runs hydro electric plants.
The equipment to utilize free energy cost money just like any other equipment and if others harness the energy they can charge whatever they like for it.

Show me a truly closed system and Ill say I see a system that must be unity by definition. Otherwise it is an open system.

I don't think I have seen one single closed system yet on all the forum boards. The way I see it no closed system no breaking of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. I think it's the second law, I'm not big on laws I read a couple of them once and they seemed pretty logical to me at the time.

Disregarding the Laws of Thermodynamics is easy, we don't need to know them to measure an over 100% efficient device.

In my opinion two false claims of OU that are serious should get one banned.

Whats wrong with saying (look this is interesting, my experiment is showing unusual behavior), then show the behavior and receive comments and offers of replications.

Why does the claim of OU come before the investigation ?

I've got over 100 video's on you tube only three had (bogus) matched third party content (allows them to place ad's on your video's) which was not worth arguing over so I made them link only. One video I wanted to keep public so I contested the stupid false claim and won of course, thier claim was false but they try to scare people with talk of legal action. They are scum internet bullies, but it's their house, so I play by their rules.
Some of my video's have thousands of views but I will never allow ad's on them while I have a choice because I don't do it for money or view counts.
If I wanted I could make lots of money with a few key words and some tricky video's, but I'm not a deceiver, I seek truth.

Look what is so easy to do, If I promoted this video and didn't declare it a joke it could have 100 000 hit's.
There is no obvious input no capacitors and no battery just coils and load. Faking and misleading is easy, finding real solutions is difficult.

Free Energy coils in Action video clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9AjFM5VB2c

Cheers



 

Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4647
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #904 on: March 31, 2013, 05:05:29 PM »
Quote from Skycollection's Youtube comments:
 
" i did a test in other inductors and the results was: input 12 volts x 0.42 = 5.04 watts and the output was 58 volts x 0.07 = 4.06 watts. this measurements not correspond to this experiment. And you have to multiply by two, since I have two output inductors, 4.06 x 2 = 8.12 watts, this would be the total output watts. "
 
 
Jorge doubles the output data he extrapolates from an earlier experiment. 4.06 watts per output coil. He goes on to say that the input on the other experiment was 5.04 watts. I can assure everyone, 5 watts is plenty of power to spin that tiny 1/2" magnet sphere in the current video. I wrote and asked him to measure any rise in input when he adds the output coil.
 
The speed of the ball sounds like it's accelerating when both the solinoid and the pancake bifilar pickup coils are placed over the hot pancake.

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4136
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #905 on: March 31, 2013, 07:06:23 PM »
Hi synchro1,

What you quoted from Skycollection youtube comments, I had quoted exactly the same text in my Reply #902 two posts above.
I do not see any sense to mention his measurements in connection with his present video in question, however close his present setup is to his earlier experiment.

What you mention on the speed of the ball sounding like it is accelerating: exactly this is where the input power draw should be checked.  Not only the rise in input (if there is rise) but the total input is to be checked, together with the total output power measurements on both output coils.

And as I wrote, LED lamps as loads are misleading, power resistors should be used which continuously draw power from the outputs, not during the peaks of the waveform like LEDs do.

Gyula

Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4647
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #906 on: March 31, 2013, 07:36:37 PM »
"Zero Lenz Dynamo" from Zerofossilfuel:
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-dhIK2ozz0
 
 
My "Spiral Knot Tesla bifilar" is a "Lenz advantage" configuration output coil.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #907 on: March 31, 2013, 08:05:51 PM »
Guyla makes excellent points.  When you change the LEDs for a resistive load, then ideally you will have a True-RMS multimeter to measure the voltage.  Actually you must have a True-RMS multimeter.  You simply measure the load resistance with your multimeter before you attach it to the pick-up coil so you have a more accurate value for the resistance.  Then you measure the True-RMS voltage across the resistor and do the calculation for the power.  So essentially it's just one measurement while you run your tests.   At the same time you measure your input power and compare the two.

An exercise would be to check what happens if you change the load resistance.  For small, medium and large resistance values, what trends do you see in the measured power output?  Can you explain why this is happening?

Another exercise would be to put one scope channel on the pick-up coil voltage.  That's your timing reference.  Then put the other scope channel on the signal that fires the main transistor that energizes the drive coil.  If you have a moveable Hall sensor to control the triggering then you can observe how moving the Hall sensor changes the timing of the triggering.  So by moving the Hall sensor around you can change the phase and duration of the transistor firing pulse and see it in real time on your scope display.  At the same time you are assuming that the ball (or rotor) is speeding up and slowing down and you can use your scope to measure the frequency.  You can try to find the sweet-spot place to put the Hall sensor for the sweet-spot timing, for the phase and the pulse duration for firing the transistor, to give you either the maximum RPM, or the most efficient RPM.

Another trend line has to do with the input power vs. RPM.  The higher the speed the more you pay in terms of air friction.  So the "watts per RPM" must go up as you increase in RPM.  Can you measure it?

I have read Skycollection's comments over the past two weeks and he states several times that he is only doing demonstrations and not serious measurements.  If you have a scope and a True-RMS multimeter and a pulse motor, you can indeed make some serious measurements to define the performance characteristics of your motor.

Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4647
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #908 on: April 01, 2013, 06:57:57 AM »
Skycollection new zero lenz coil:
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8iRrmxJcYg

Offline crazycut06

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #909 on: April 02, 2013, 01:51:09 AM »
Skycollection new zero lenz coil:
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8iRrmxJcYg


I don't understand why he always say his coils have zero lenz, as you can clearly hear deceleration when he approach the gen coil to the rotor...

Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4647
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #910 on: April 02, 2013, 01:58:28 AM »
Another "Zero Lenz" Dynamo video from Zerofossilfuel:
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi0dqWuC2MI
 
 
I already succeeded in building a "Spiral Knot" "Lenz Free Dynamo" that some people feel needs more testing, but what good are they? I discovered that multiple "Lenz Free" output coils merely SHARE the output along with their "Lenz free" null effect.
 
One "Lenz Free" output coil gathers and returns 100% of the available output generated by the 1/2" neo sphere. How could additional output coils help? I don't see any way to ever exceed unity with this effect alone by adding additional coils.
 
That leaves coils like Pirate Twinbeard demonstrates, that are more then just "Lenz Free", but additionally "Lenz Propulsive".  I believe The "Diametric Magnet Core" Tesla bifilar spool is in that catagory. Deppcut's currently testing this invention.

Offline ALVARO_CS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #911 on: April 02, 2013, 12:12:04 PM »
some considerations about the stacked bifilar panckakes.
may be this is only a wrong point of view,so any correction is welcomed.
I do not know how this could influence in the Lorenz law behavior
good theoreticians here may be can (or want to) say.
Just my two cents
cheers
Alvaro

Offline wings

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 750
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #912 on: April 02, 2013, 12:48:58 PM »
some considerations about the stacked bifilar panckakes.
may be this is only a wrong point of view,so any correction is welcomed.
I do not know how this could influence in the Lorenz law behavior
good theoreticians here may be can (or want to) say.
Just my two cents
cheers
Alvaro

http://www.newphysics.se/archives/old-archive/electromagnetism/hooper/HOOPREV.TXT
http://oriharu.net/ehooper2.htm
 ??? ??? ?


......
http://www.overunity.com/2814/marcos-dancing-magnets-doing-the-7-8hz-dance/#.UVq3tKsRC-M


http://www.rqm.ch/Central%20Oscillator%20and%20SpaceQuantaMedium.pdf



Offline skycollection

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #913 on: April 02, 2013, 06:53:36 PM »
I say ZERO LENZ SKYDYNAMOTOR, because the friction bitwin the magnet rotor and the pancake coil is 0...and you will see that in my next video, and because the pancake coil is a zero...!
saludos, jorge

Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4647
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #914 on: April 02, 2013, 07:04:18 PM »
Jorge,
 
      Please place an amp meter accross the input lead then engage the pancake output coil and check for a rise in input power.