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.

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: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect  (Read 811589 times)

Offline gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #270 on: October 08, 2011, 04:58:08 PM »
GOOD SCIENCE IS GOOD OBSERVATION AND YOU NEED A 4 CHANNEL SCOPE IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE MOVING PROBES AROUND BECAUSE WE NEED TO MAINTAIN OUR REFERENCE POINT. (THAT IS WHY I AM BRINGING YOU MY SCOPE TODAY... IF YOU ARE NOT OUT SAILING?)  8)
 
CHEERS
T

Hi Thane,

it's a nice day today but no wind so no Sailing.

So come on down with your Scope and bring me your Bifilar coil if you can. I have an idea how to test it in a Solid State way (no moving parts).

Thanks for your help

Luc

Offline gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #271 on: October 08, 2011, 05:01:24 PM »
Hi Thane,

it's a nice day today but no wind so no Sailing.

So come on down with your Scope and bring me your Bifilar coil if you can. I have an idea how to test it in a Solid State way (no moving parts).

Thanks for your help

Luc

Also, if you have a Signal Generator that can go over 2MHz please bring that over also.

Thanks

Luc

Offline Overunityguide

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #272 on: October 08, 2011, 05:13:56 PM »
Hello Guys,

As I had promised, today I should supply you with my input / output cop measurements regarding my MOT 950 Hz Experiment... (I will advice you, hold on to your seat...)

Input power going to the primary coil:
Calculated by I2*R (R primary coil) = 0.1A*0.1A*1.8Ohms = 0.018Watts
(This can be calculated this way, because the primary coil is running purely reactive at 950Hz)

Output power secondary coil going to the LED Light Bulb:
First I have to make a correction, in one of my previous posts, I have said that this value was about: 0.94Watts But Unfortunately after doing exact measurements with my scope on the secondary's connected load I had to conclude that it was actually running on: 36V at 0.0091A going to the LED Light Bulb, which gives us: 36V*0.0091A=0.327Watts going to the LED Light Bulb. (with the U and I running in phase)

At the end this will give us a (theoretical) cop of: 0.327/0.018 = 18

But I have to say, for now it only works on small loads... I also have tried connecting a 40Watts/240V rated incandescent light as a load with running the primary on higher (more dangerous voltage levels), and there no Lenz Delay was happening at higher power values... But for now it is a beginning of something new and unexplored...

And further I have to mention, that of course in the MOT experiment my frequency drive controller is consuming a whopping 17.5 Watts only to run Idle. So when you compare this to the 0.327Watts at the output, I must agree that in this way there is no overunity yet... But of course my mostly inefficient frequency drive controller can be replaced with much better and efficient (at lower power ratings) Mosfet H bridge controllers. And further in the video you saw that when comparing the loaded state (18.5 Watts) compared to the primary coil disconnected state (17.5 Watts) Will give you a 1 Watt difference in required input power, which is of course also bigger than the 0.327 Watts output. But this has to do with the primary running purely reactive, for which there is in my MOT experiment no power factor correcting capacitor connected to my primary coil, which can be done in higher efficient replications of my MOT experiment also.

So for now to conclude in short, my MOT experiment is showing that some interesting effects can take place in MOT like transformers running at a higher frequency. But for now I do think that a lot of experimenting (read: try to run on higher power values) needs to be done.

My Related MOT Experiment can be found on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3-x3JJDA4

And at gotoluc I would like to say: Good Work Dude...

With Kind Regards, Overunityguide

Offline CRANKYpants

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1062
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #273 on: October 08, 2011, 06:21:40 PM »
But I have to say, for now it only works on small loads... I also have tried connecting a 40Watts/240V rated incandescent light as a load with running the primary on higher (more dangerous voltage levels), and there no Lenz Delay was happening at higher power values...

WHAT IS THE RESISTANCE OF THAT LARGER INCANDESCENT BULB THAT MAY BE AFFECTING YOUR LENZ DELAY WHICH WOULD REQUIRED A HIGHER FREQUENCY TO COMPENSATE WHICH YOU CAN'T DO WITH YOUR FREQUENCY DRIVE CONTROLLER BUT YOU CAN DO IF YOU USE YOUR GENERATOR AS YOUR INPUT TO YOUR MOT...

CHEERS
T

Offline Overunityguide

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #274 on: October 08, 2011, 10:46:19 PM »
WHAT IS THE RESISTANCE OF THAT LARGER INCANDESCENT BULB THAT MAY BE AFFECTING YOUR LENZ DELAY WHICH WOULD REQUIRED A HIGHER FREQUENCY TO COMPENSATE WHICH YOU CAN'T DO WITH YOUR FREQUENCY DRIVE CONTROLLER BUT YOU CAN DO IF YOU USE YOUR GENERATOR AS YOUR INPUT TO YOUR MOT...

CHEERS
T

I have just measured it and (cold) it is about: 96 Ohms. But when we do the math... we get: R=U2/P = (240V*240V)/40Watts = 1440 Ohms (hot)

So indeed this can be way to high for my 950Hz which I am Applying...
But unfortunately, 950 Hz is the upper Limit of my Frequency Drive Controller. So for higher frequencies we do need to get our own H Bridge / microcontroller circuitry. So gotoluc is on the right way by now.

My Related MOT Experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j3-x3JJDA4

With Kind Regards, Overunityguide

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4139
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #275 on: October 08, 2011, 11:58:41 PM »

 TO THANE

Hi Thane,

I come across your patent application 2602439 Toroid generator coil and in its last page where the Figures are usually placed it is written:
 "Fig 1 and Fig 2: unscannable items received with this application"

Can I see those Figures please?

rgds,  Gyula



Offline CRANKYpants

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1062
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #276 on: October 09, 2011, 01:07:15 AM »
TO THANE

Hi Thane,

I come across your patent application 2602439 Toroid generator coil and in its last page where the Figures are usually placed it is written:
 "Fig 1 and Fig 2: unscannable items received with this application"

Can I see those Figures please?
rgds,  Gyula

DEAR GYULA,

THAT'S FUNNY THEY DID THE SAME THING WITH MY "INFINITY GENERATOR" PROVISIONAL PATENT.
TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH I FORGOT ABOUT THAT APPLICATION.
LET ME ROOT AROUND IN MY FILES TO SEE IF I CAN FIND THE ACTUAL FILING DIAGRAMS AND I WILL POST IT ASAP.

WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR SPECIFICALLY?

ALSO CAN YOU POST THE LINK?

CHEERS
T

 

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7870
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #277 on: October 09, 2011, 01:12:19 AM »

Offline CRANKYpants

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1062
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #278 on: October 09, 2011, 01:15:01 AM »
So indeed this can be way to high for my 950Hz which I am Applying...
But unfortunately, 950 Hz is the upper Limit of my Frequency Drive Controller. So for higher frequencies we do need to get our own H Bridge / microcontroller circuitry. So gotoluc is on the right way by now.
With Kind Regards, Overunityguide

I WILL REQUEST (AGAIN) THAT YOU USE YOUR GENERATOR OUTPUT AS THE INPUT TO YOUR MOT   :P... YOUR INDUCTION MOTOR IS OPERATING AT 950 HZ BUT YOUR GENERATOR MUST BE AT ABOUT 2700 HZ OR SO.

I JUST THINK THIS WOULD A COOL VIDEO  8)...

CHEERS
T

Offline CRANKYpants

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1062
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #279 on: October 09, 2011, 01:34:59 AM »
Hello Guys,

As I had promised, today I should supply you with my input / output cop measurements regarding my MOT 950 Hz Experiment... (I will advice you, hold on to your seat...)

At the end this will give us a (theoretical) cop of: 0.327/0.018 = 18

But I have to say, for now it only works on small loads...

And further I have to mention, that of course in the MOT experiment my frequency drive controller is consuming a whopping 17.5 Watts only to run Idle.

With Kind Regards, Overunityguide

DEAR OUG,

THE EFFICIENCY OF A TRANSFORMER IS CALCULATED BY THE OUTPUT POWER TO A LOAD DIVIDED BY THE INPUT TO THE TRANSFORMER PRIMARY.

THAT IS IT...!  :D

THE FREQUENCY OF A CONVENTIONAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE GENERATOR CAN EASILY BE 950 HZ OR EVEN HIGHER SO YOUR SIMPLE PROCESS MAY WORK VERY WELL AND ONCE CONVERTED TO DC THE FREQUENCY IS A NON ISSUE.

CHEERS
T

Offline gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #280 on: October 09, 2011, 07:45:16 AM »
Hi everyone,

I built a transformer with a Bifilar Coil as Secondary.

Thane has suggested he uses Bifilar Coils in his Generator so I was thinking good chances are that same effect could work in a Transformer.

I have tested it and it works the same ;D
The big advantage is, now we can save Tons of Wire and have Low Coil Resistance which translates to more Current to the Load.
So put away your MOT's and make yourself a Transformer with a Bifilar Coil ;)

See video Demo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUmVSf878aY

@Overunityguide, can you or someone do the math on the efficiency. Thank you

Luc

Data of Coils and Electrical:

Primary DC Resistance 79 Ohms
Primary Inductance 665mH
Secondary DC Resistance 8 Ohms
Secondary Inductance 418mH

Idle H-Bridge (not connected to primary)
Input Voltage 62.7vdc
H-Bridge Current wasted 30ua

H-Bridge Connected to Primary
Input Voltage 62.4vdc
Current to H-Bridge input 8.3ma (no load or with load)

Load on Secondary is 150 Ohms @ 4.10 Volts RMS

Scope Sots below are Orange is Current Probe across 1 Ohm Shunt, Light Blue is Voltage Probe across the Coil and Purple is Probe across the 150 Ohm Load on Secondary
First Scope Shot is No Load on Secondary
Second Scope Shot is 150 Ohm Load on Secondary
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 08:22:10 AM by gotoluc »

Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #281 on: October 09, 2011, 08:21:54 AM »
Hi everyone,
[...]
or someone do the math on the efficiency. Thank you

Luc
[...]

hi Luc

assuming that the scope is presenting True (calculated) RMS values (which appears to be the case, looking at the 'square wave' values):

i/p power to primary would appear to be approx 2W

o/p power in 150 ohm load would appear to be approx 100mW

efficiency approx 5% - is this the calc you wanted?

HTH

Offline gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #282 on: October 09, 2011, 08:38:48 AM »
hi Luc

assuming that the scope is presenting True (calculated) RMS values (which appears to be the case, looking at the 'square wave' values):

i/p power to primary would appear to be approx 2W

o/p power in 150 ohm load would appear to be approx 100mW

efficiency approx 5% - is this the calc you wanted?

HTH

Hi NP

No I don't think so

For Total Input I calculate 62.4vdc @ 8.3ma = 0.51792 Watts
This is the Total Input Power to the Transformer. However the 79 Ohm Primary is eating most of that in its Resistance. So to be fare we need to factor that out to find the true power transfer available to the Secondary. However, this is where I need help.

The output is 4.10 Volts RMS on a 150 Ohm load = 0.1121 Watts

Thanks anyways

Luc

Offline nul-points

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
    • Doc Ringwood's Free Energy blog
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #283 on: October 09, 2011, 09:08:06 AM »
Hi NP

No I don't think so

For Total Input I calculate 62.4vdc @ 8.3ma = 0.51792 Watts
This is the Total Input Power to the Transformer. However the 79 Ohm Primary is eating most of that in its Resistance. So to be fare we need to factor that out to find the true power transfer available to the Secondary. However, this is where I need help.

The output is 4.10 Volts RMS on a 150 Ohm load = 0.1121 Watts

Thanks anyways

Luc

hi again Luc

you want the efficiency of the transformer, is that correct? 

if so, you don't need to include the power used by your H-bridge

your scope shows 32mV RMS across a 1 ohm shunt - this equates to a current of 32mA RMS

you don't state shunt location explicitly but it appears to be on the primary side of the transformer
(because the waveform is not in phase with the voltage across the 150 ohm output load resistor)

so my calc for i/p power = 61.5 * 0.032 = 1.97W (approx 2W)

my calc for your o/p power is 4.1 * 0.027 =  0.1107W (approx 100mW)

hence my calc of your transformer efficiency**  is approx (0.1 / 2) * 100 = 5%

HTH


[EDIT:  ** for this frequency and load]
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 09:48:08 AM by nul-points »

Offline Overunityguide

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #284 on: October 09, 2011, 11:48:50 AM »
so my calc for i/p power = 61.5 * 0.032 = 1.97W (approx 2W)

@nul-points, sorry but I have to give you 'zero points' for your input calculation. (please don't take it personal)

I say this because you are forgetting one very important parameter which also should be added in your input power calculation. This one important parameter is the phase angle (power factor) between current and voltage at the primary side of the transformer... So when comparing the loaded state with the unloaded state of gotoluc's bifilar secondary's transformer. You can see that in the loaded state this phase angle is becoming higher.
(So read: more to 90 degrees). Further you can see that the amperage to the primary went up when connecting the load, but that in relation with this the phase angle (power factor) also becomes bigger.
Those two related parameters (primary amperage and phase angle) are why you don't see any change in the total input power in gotoluc's very need input power measurement setup.

my calc for your o/p power is 4.1 * 0.027 =  0.1107W (approx 100mW)

@nul-points, this is where I totally agree with you, so it looks like that there is for now 0.1107W coming out of the transformer for no noticeable input power change at all!

@Thane & Gotoluc... Great work and great cooperation guys. And if I may give one suggestion, maybe it is better to replace the input coil in the setup with a low Ohms / high current one, so that more usable power can be transferred to the secondary. And maybe try to run it at some higher frequency settings (1000Hz/1500Hz). But I am sure that you already thought about this...

So than again: Great work.

With Kind Regards, Overunityguide