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.
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.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84030
  • *Latest: ggvpower

  • *Total Posts: 893750
  • *Total Topics: 15703
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 9
  • *Total: 13

Author Topic: Jeff Cook Paper  (Read 9199 times)

Offline DreamThinkBuild

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
Jeff Cook Paper
« on: August 01, 2012, 07:56:58 PM »
Hi All,

Jeff Cook has a new paper titled "Experiment on the Linear Increase in Efficiency with Multiple Moving Magnets over Pulsed Inductors".

Quote
Abstract:

I have prepared an experimental apparatus consisting of an inductor and five reversible DC motors, used as DC electrical generators, hooked to ring magnets suspended above the inductor whose radii are ninety degrees from the radius of the inductor and hooked from belts to the motors. I then DC pulse the inductor causing the magnets to experience three motions, but confine all energy with the belt to the rotational motion alone, which turns the motors. I include many iterations of varied waveforms and different numbers of generators in order to measure the power IN to the inductor and OUT from the reversible DC motors, used as electrical generators (not hooked to the same electrical circuit with the inductor in any way). I have measured over many iterations and varied resistive loads (though only a ten Ohm load is described in this paper for sake of straight forward simplicity) that the COP (the coefficient of power OUT divided by power IN) is greater than unity of significant magnitude when the amplified signal frequency input to the inductor is above a certain threshold, while the power IN is reduced below another threshold.

source/pdf: http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6483&tab=2

Not sure if a thread was created for this yet but it looks interesting, have to study it some more.

Looks like he is also making a new toy "Zeta Trax" which can magnetically launch a toy car, how much force or angle change you need to create this effect is unknown.

Link to video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLJDQwHnItA

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Jeff Cook Paper
« on: August 01, 2012, 07:56:58 PM »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Jeff Cook Paper
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2012, 11:06:56 PM »
I don't know about his paper.... I'll have to digest it thoroughly and see if it's nourishing or not.

Meanwhile his little car and trax thing is very old news, and even so he seems to miss some critical points about the "effect".
He also makes the very clear claim that there is no back-reaction or "recoil" on the ring magnet as the car goes shooting out the other end.
My own experiments indicate otherwise. If he is in error about this simple empirical fact.... it's going to be very difficult for me to accept any further claims of unusual behaviour or measurements from him.

And, even before reading the paper, I will make this prediction: He claims significant and repeatable output energy greater than input energy... but his device still needs a power supply to run. I'm always happy to be proven wrong, with repeatable empirical demonstrations and checkable outside references, of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUihboGkJnE (this is a remake of a video I shot and posted in 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C69a28Jpmec (made just now in response to Cook's claim of no back reaction)


Offline DreamThinkBuild

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
Re: Jeff Cook Paper
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2012, 12:31:26 AM »
Hi TinselKoala,

Thanks for those links and the new video. I do see the recoil, I re-looked at his video but it's hard to see if a recoil is present due to small car model, his hands are pushing on the lever arm and large wide base from which it is launched.

His magnet seems to to get stuck in the middle not pushed to the outside. I think I see how he is doing it now. Both magnets are parallel to each other. One is south facing the other north. It gets pulled in and when the other magnet turns 90 degrees it gets forced out. You can see how the car starts to twist at 1:30-1:31 in the video but it's locked in that round plastic channel so it can only be pushed out instead of flipping around.

As for his current paper. He needs to run from an ultracap bank and feed the outputs to charge it. I think that is the only way to validate a device. Never use batteries, each one has a mind of their own.

Quote
but his device still needs a power supply to run.

I don't think you can get any machine to work that doesn't require an input source. Even biological systems need to eat, that reminds me pizza is ready.  8)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Jeff Cook Paper
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2012, 12:31:26 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Jeff Cook Paper
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2012, 05:18:37 AM »
Hi TinselKoala,

Thanks for those links and the new video. I do see the recoil, I re-looked at his video but it's hard to see if a recoil is present due to small car model, his hands are pushing on the lever arm and large wide base from which it is launched.

His magnet seems to to get stuck in the middle not pushed to the outside. I think I see how he is doing it now. Both magnets are parallel to each other. One is south facing the other north. It gets pulled in and when the other magnet turns 90 degrees it gets forced out. You can see how the car starts to twist at 1:30-1:31 in the video but it's locked in that round plastic channel so it can only be pushed out instead of flipping around.
Same is true for the config I show in the recent vid. The magnet wants to flip around but the tube prevents it. Depending on which way you have the projectile / car magnet oriented, the stable positions are different, but the recoil on pushing thru is there. I think the only difference with his car is that the relative "lengths" of the magnets are different from mine: I use a cylinder projectile and I think he's using a disk in the car. This means that the "lock" position for his car will be very narrow and not very "springy" which may be why he's not noticing the reaction. With a longer magnet like I use the lock position is much deeper and requires relatively more force to exit... and thus returns more stored energy when the magnet finally does pop out.
Quote
As for his current paper. He needs to run from an ultracap bank and feed the outputs to charge it. I think that is the only way to validate a device. Never use batteries, each one has a mind of their own.

I don't think you can get any machine to work that doesn't require an input source. Even biological systems need to eat, that reminds me pizza is ready.  8)
Agreed... but if you've got one machine that makes more output than input, yet it still needs some input... that's not really much of a problem. Make 2 machines. Use the output of the first one, filtered however necessary, to run the input of the second one, and the output of the second one then runs the input of the first one. If you are claiming huge amounts of OU like 17 or infinity.... then even a very INefficient conversion process between units would still make possible a self-running loop of several devices. If I can boil water with 17 times the efficiency of DC current... then I can EASILY run a steam powered generator, with overall efficiency of a miserable 10 percent, and still wind up with plenty of electrical power output to feed another COP > 17 boiler/steamengine/genset.

The problem lies in getting that little bit of COP>1 in the first place. If it's really there it will show up in many different ways, not just wiggly lines on an oscilloscope. For example the Steorn magnet motor, claimed to add something like 10 Joules of mechanical energy for each magnet passage based on instrument readings, should have accelerated on its own, since the power dissipation of the rotor was known to be quite a bit less than that and the mechanical energy should have accumulated, speeding up the rotor. But it did not....

So if Cook is claiming this robust, repeatable, significant amount of energy out in excess of energy in.... if it's real he should be able to demonstrate it unequivocally with some means other than numbers and squiggly colored lines.

As a thing is viewed so it appears. If what one is seeing appears to violate some long-held established principle that's intertwined with everything else we do..... then one really should carefully re-evaluate what one is seeing... and perhaps look at it a different way.

Offline Lakes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
Re: Jeff Cook Paper
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2012, 11:21:31 AM »
Measure the amount of push (or pull) with a weight measure attached to both ends of the magnet, should be equal, no?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Jeff Cook Paper
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2012, 11:21:31 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Jeff Cook Paper
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2012, 05:29:18 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C69a28Jpmec (made just now in response to Cook's claim of no back reaction)

Hi TK,

One question: are you absolutely sure that the back movement is not due to the potential energy stored by the big wood board due to its deformation?
(Of course I'm not expecting any violation of Newton 's principle but I'm just curious).

Best regards,
Tinu

Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2218
Re: Jeff Cook Paper
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2012, 07:19:24 PM »
Nice experiment TK and nice point tinu. Experimentation is not about expecting something but discovering something.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Jeff Cook Paper
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2012, 07:19:24 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Jeff Cook Paper
« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2012, 09:48:53 PM »
Hi TK,

One question: are you absolutely sure that the back movement is not due to the potential energy stored by the big wood board due to its deformation?
(Of course I'm not expecting any violation of Newton 's principle but I'm just curious).

Best regards,
Tinu

I did take some pains to prevent the gross motion of the board from influencing the recoil, and I illustrated the degree of recoil caused by a gross motion of the board, and it was different both in character and magnitude from the recoil in the experimental situation. However, if the board itself is compressing like a spring my experiment obviously didn't control for that. However, this mechanism for producing recoil is "inelastic", in that softer, more highly damped boards would produce less recoil, right?
I'd be happy to repeat the experiment with a more precise and rigid setup if anybody really thinks it's worthwhile. But I think the onus is on Cook to support his contention that there "isn't" a recoil. Perhaps he's carrying the railgun analogy too far.... but there is recoil in a railgun too, you just have to know where to look for it.
I suppose the test of whether the board compression is doing it would be to use a non-magnetic projectile and a physical constriction in the tube that would require the same pull on the string to pull the projectile past it. This would pull the ring against the board with the same force as in the experimental trial, and so should produce the same recoil contribution from the board. Except that with magnets it is the ring being pulled on, and in the non-magnet case the pull will be on the tube, which then pulls on the ring. Right now my tube is rather loose in the ring; I'll have to firm that connection up before I do another series of tests.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Jeff Cook Paper
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2012, 09:57:21 PM »
Measure the amount of push (or pull) with a weight measure attached to both ends of the magnet, should be equal, no?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If the pushes (or pulls) on both ends of a magnet are equal, the magnet won't accelerate, it will just sit there, or continue moving at a constant velocity. Likewise... if a magnet isn't moving, the forces on it are in balance.

There have been lots of studies examining whether or not "repulsion" is stronger than "attraction" using the N and S poles of magnets. If you draw out how field lines behave you will be able to see why some people think there could be a difference.

In the ring magnet - bar magnet case I show, there are several "stable" positions and behaviours, depending on the strengths of the magnets of course, but also sensitively depending on the length of the bar magnet (very short in Cook's case: a disk) and the thickness of the ring magnet, and their relative radii.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Jeff Cook Paper
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2012, 09:57:21 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Jeff Cook Paper
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2012, 10:06:31 PM »
Nice experiment TK and nice point tinu. Experimentation is not about expecting something but discovering something.

I'd go even further. It's ok to have expectations.... as long as you are trying to _disprove_ them with your experiment.

My experiment could have had a null result. That is, it could have shown NO recoil. That would have disproved my expectation, and would also have been fairly unambiguous, given the setup, using strong magnets and a bar instead of a disc for the projectile. If I saw no recoil, I'd repeat the test with a lighter, or perhaps mechanically biased, ring magnet, until there was no doubt at all that there was no recoil and my apparatus wasn't just hiding it by its lack of sensitivity.

But simply making an arrangement of parts that then appear to show no recoil, and then using that as "proof" that there isn't recoil .... that is not an experiment, yet I could have easily done that, by using heavier rings, shorter bars, pushing instead of pulling, etc.

The point I'm trying to emphasise is that your experiment must be capable of showing that your expectations are false, for it to be a real experiment. Many "experiments" I see are actually carefully constructed _demonstrations_ that don't even have the potential to "go wrong" and produce a result that does not agree with the experimenter's expectations or pet theory. These demonstrations "prove" nothing at all.

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Jeff Cook Paper
« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2012, 09:11:46 PM »
I did take some pains to prevent the gross motion of the board from influencing the recoil, and I illustrated the degree of recoil caused by a gross motion of the board, and it was different both in character and magnitude from the recoil in the experimental situation.

Fair enough to me.
Best regards,
Tinu

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Jeff Cook Paper
« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2012, 09:11:46 PM »
3D Solar Panels

 

OneLink