I viewed the "Tuning Bifilar Tank" video by the "Old Scientist", and he concluded that the bifilar tank needs capacitive resonance.I think that you mean reactance.
The Reed Switch capacitance of .2 pico farads must have matched the self capacitance of the tiny thread spool air core solenoid bifilar in my prototype. I really need to test the coil, but the math holds up.When you can add a load without affecting the input, it invariably means that you are shunting power away from another loss mechanism. The analogy is idling your car in Drive and controlling your speed with the brake.
Take a good look at this "Resonance of a Bifilar Coil" video if you haven't already seen it: "While in resonance we are able to capture the reactive energy into the inductance of the ferrite, lighting the led without affecting amperage".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtI1CPBSm-o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtI1CPBSm-o)
We can capture reactive energy from the oscillating sine wave in the "Bifilar Coil" to power a "Magnet Spinner" in resonance without affecting amperage too.
I viewed the "Tuning Bifilar Tank" video by the "Old Scientist", and he concluded that the bifilar tank needs capacitive resonance. The Reed Switch capacitance of .2 pico farads must have matched the self capacitance of the tiny thread spool air core solenoid bifilar in my prototype. I really need to test the coil, but the math holds up.
Take a good look at this "Resonance of a Bifilar Coil" video if you haven't already seen it: "While in resonance we are able to capture the reactive energy into the inductance of the ferrite, lighting the led without affecting amperage".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtI1CPBSm-o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtI1CPBSm-o)
We can capture reactive energy from the oscillating sine wave in the "Bifilar Coil" to power a "Magnet Spinner" in resonance without affecting amperage too. A tiny axle and bearing disk spinner mounted inside the 100 hertz resonating bifilar coil core, spun up to 6000 R.P.M. let's say by compressed air , should start to spin with the same reactive power that lights the LED.
@MarkE,
"I believe you meant reactance"
No, I didn't mean "Capacitive Reactance", I meant what I said when I said resonance LCC. When we wire a capacitor to a series bifilar, we basicly have two capacitors in the Tank. The external capacitance can either be in "Harmonic Resonance" with the self capacitance, or dissonant!
Here's what "The Old Scientist" had to say about it:
"Bifilar coil has strong harmonics, but it's not influenced in the same way a standsrd or series LC circuit would work by achieving resonance between the capacitor and the self capacitance of the coil".
Try to understand what he's saying: The external capacitor can not be tailored to the biflar tank in the standard way!
What do you make of TK's sine wave spinner that acts as a "Negative Load" in regards to your views on power shunting? Think about this; How much input do you think the spinner would feed back into the tank?
@MarkE,Well then you are just mistaken. There is no such thing as "capacitive resonance". In the realm of lumped elements, resonance occurs where the capacitive and inductive reactances are equal.
"I believe you meant reactance"
No, I didn't mean "Capacitive Reactance", I meant what I said when I said resonance LCC. When we wire a capacitor to a series bifilar, we basicly have two capacitors in the Tank. The external capacitance can either be in "Harmonic Resonance" with the self capacitance, or dissonant!
There are only two possibilities in this world: One has OU or one does not. Since no one has successfully proven OU, under the assumption that a circuit is UU, when load changes do not reflect to the source, it is because the load simply shunts power that was already being drawn from the source.
Here's what "The Old Scientist" had to say about it:
"Bifilar coil has strong harmonics, but it's not influenced in the same way a standsrd or series LC circuit would work by achieving resonance between the capacitor and the self capacitance of the coil".
Try to understand what he's saying: The external capacitor can not be tailored to the biflar tank in the standard way!
What do you make of TK's sine wave spinner that acts as a "Negative Load" in regards to your views on power shunting? Think about this; How much input do you think the spinner would feed back into the tank?
Look, I do not care any more that you are misrepresenting and misinterpreting Tesla's work as well as common electrical parameters and relationships
BUT STOP MISREPRESENTING MY WORK !!
I have asked you MANY TIMES to stop misrepresenting me and my work but STILL YOU CONTINUE TO DO IT.
If you cannot describe MY WORK ACCURATELY then PLEASE STOP MENTIONING ME AND MY WORK.
I simply do not have the time nor the inclination to monitor your posts and clean up your messes.
STOP MISREPRESENTING MY WORK.
Synchro I don't want to degenerate into pedantry, but technical terms have specific meanings. An LC tank circuit resonates. Ignoring parasitics, neither the individual capacitor(s) resonate. There is not a capacitive resonance or an inductive resonance. There is just a resonant frequency where XC = XL.
Synchro I don't want to degenerate into pedantry, but technical terms have specific meanings. An LC tank circuit resonates. Ignoring parasitics, neither the individual capacitor(s) resonate. There is not a capacitive resonance or an inductive resonance. There is just a resonant frequency where XC = XL.
jbignes with all due respect I very explicitly referred to lumped parameters. Synchro is using a nonsense term of his invention. That is not helpful to any discussion.
This is a logical fallacy you are presenting. Lets look at parts in a simulator and you will see that all parts talked about have individual C/L/R values and hence why it can be resonated by itself. They add those characteristics to make up for the anomalies present and because no part is perfect or ideal. A real l/c/r circuit has to have all the information of each parts inductance, capacitance and resistance. When you sum them they add or subtract minute losses or gain for each component to the whole. Yes there are formulas to give a general output but each part has to have a resonance in itself to add or subtract from the whole resonance of the circuit.
Saying parts like a cap don't have a resonant frequency is the logical fallacy seeing that all simulators include this information in each part presented to the simulated circuit. If they did not do this no simulator would work in the real world. A simple fact.
As for some trying to claim ownership to their work, well thats fine but do not make demands on others interpreting that work, especially with a new understanding of how things really work. It is not my job or anyone elses of cleaning up messes as someone put. If someone misinterprets your work then let it be, it's only an interpretation and not the truth if it proves false. We must reinterpret all work to see if other plausible explanations exist and hold true. If we stick to your interpretation then we go nowhere and learn nothing new in the process. We have to do this because we can not see with our eyes what is going on yet with induction events, both magnetic and electric. We must interpret the events with the knowledge we hold individually and not rely on "I told you how it works." because yours is an interpretation as well. Nothing is set in stone here because we can not detect this event yet.
The term that you invented in post #4 is "capacitive resonance". There is no such thing. The self-resonant frequency of a capacitor is the result of the component capacitance and the effective loop inductance of the component as it is hooked up in the circuit. At the self-resonant frequency, the capacitor and its wiring appear as a resistance across whatever they are wired to that is generally rather small, IOW approximately a short-circuit. If connected in parallel to another capacitor that has a much higher self-resonant frequency, then the combination has a parallel resonance between the two self resonant frequencies that exhibits a local impedance maximum.
Quote from MarkE:
"Synchro is using a nonsense term of his invention".
How's "two matching self resonant capacitors"? Capacitors can be of equal value but have dissonant self resonance.
@MarkE,Synchro you used a term that has no meaning. It doesn't matter if you borrowed it from someone else. It is still meaningless. Meaningless terms only distract from the conversation.
One Quadfilar of two bifilars, sharing one capacitor. The coils magnetically coupled instead of connected in series. A Hartley?
I copied the term from the "Old Scientist" I didn't invent it. Secondly, I acknowledged that capacitance is additive, why are you over working his semantics?
@MarkE,Again: There is no such thing as "capacitive resonance". I have explained this several times and yet you persist in using that meaningless term. It takes capacitance and inductance to resonate. Physical components such as capacitors and inductors all exhibit self resonances once connected with external wiring such that an inductance loop is closed. This is true for a simple single loop of wire, or even a soda can. In the 1960's and 1970's it was popular among microwave engineers to use beer cans as microwave resonators. A bifilar coil, is no exception, and has parasitic capacitance that sets a self resonance like all the aforementioned devices and structures. The resonance results from the combination of the parasitic capacitance acting in parallel with the inductance. Connecting a larger value discrete capacitor across a coil of any kind creates a dominant pole pair at a lower frequency than the coil's self-resonant frequency. The resistance in the circuit dissipates energy, which means for a larger resistance, a lower percentage of energy remains in storage each cycle than with a lower resistance. IE the circuit has a lower Q.
You persisted in projecting your misunderstanding on me. I want to clear this up once and for all; The series bifilar tank circuit does not conform to to the resonant formula for the standard LC circuit.
The capacitance of the series bifilar coil is "Evenly Distributed". The external bifilar tank condenser is connected to the coil through two wires. The resistance of these wires acts as a bottle neck that results in losses that interfer with the "Capacative resonance" of the condenser and the bifilar coil. The "Bifilar Coil" can't see the external capacitor!
To sum it up: The "Bifilar Tank" is a pig with wings!
@MarkE,No, you are once again doing your misrepresenting thing. MarkE is correct in his explanations. If you want to know the real story of lumped vs distributed capacitance in TBF windings you really need to read the work of the Corum brothers.
Maybe you should go back and re-read the comment. The "Old Scientist" reports that the external capacitor does not have a major influence
on the "Series Bifilar Coil" as you infer! There's an additive formula for the twin capacitors in the Colpitt oscillating circuit that won't work on the bifilar tank as you imply. You're making a mistake!
@MarkE,We have been discussing your use of a meaningless term.
Maybe you should go back and re-read the comment. The "Old Scientist" reports that the external capacitor does not have a major influence on the "Series Bifilar Coil" as you infer! There's an additive formula for the twin capacitors in the Colpitts oscillating circuit that won't work on the bifilar tank as you imply. You're making a mistake! Capacitance is evenly distributed in the series bifilar unlike the external capacitor that's wired across a divide of calculated resistance.
Quote from the "Old Scientist":
"It seams that the Bifilar coil does not participate in the dependence of (external) capacitance".
Wiring a separate capacitor to a series bifilar coil does not behave additively like wiring two capacitors in parallel to a regular coil. The unequal distribution of capacitance between the bifilar coil and the external capacitor precludes the use of the standard formulas you're falsley trying to apply!
@TinselKoala,
Snorkling up from under your trash heap? I told you to DROP DEAD!
@TinselKoala,Synchro1: Fair is fair. When you referenced TK's work you opened yourself to TK's comments, especially when he disputes your representations of his work.
Because you're BULLSHIT! Stay off my thread!
@MarkE,There are two problems: It is a public message forum. Unless someone is so abusive that Stefan deems it necessary to intervene, people get to express their opinions. Second: It should be common sense that if one cites somebody else' work, they have invited that other person's comments. If you want to discourage TK making comments about your ideas, then inviting him by referencing his work is contrary to that goal.
TK is an egocentric sadist. I am unwilling to stand for his abuse. He denied the existence of the "Negative Mico Henry" and "Magnetic Resonance", he also preaches "Atheism!" He portrays me as a fraud. He's challenging us to supply material proof of a Creator, in denial of everything sacred in the Universe. Who wants to be preached to about Holiness from a shabby "Row House Basement"?
Wiring a 0 to 10 pico farad variable trimmer capacitor to the series bifilar would not only eliminate the need for a "Super Cray" calculation for fixed bifilar tank capacitance, but set at zero, would allow for the ground only test. The only other possibility as I see it, would be to investigate the possibility of a Reed Switch oscillation type fluttering. Most of those switches are crap and wind up sticking right off the bat.
@MarkE,Synchro1, in message #6 you asked:
You have it backwards! I commented on a video he uploaded of a "Coil Core Magnet Spinner" he gave me credit for innovating. I was among the first builders to begin experimenting with this approach nearly nine years ago, and I believe the first person to succeed at building a "Sine Wave Harmonic Self Accelerator".
I believe that the spinner picked up on a third harmonic of fractional amplitude, and climbed the Harmonics in "Barkhausen Spikes" to the bifilar's self resonating frequency where it's speed stabilized.
Try lighting a D.C. filament bulb with a D.C. pulse at 180Kz. What an incredible display! The light is separated into standing waves that form a spherical magnetic field as if it were a planetary field. Truly Fantastic! This frequency is the "Oscillating Frequency of Magnetisem" and has nothing to do with ferrite characteristics. TinselKoala denies it exists!
What do you make of TK's sine wave spinner that acts as a "Negative Load" in regards to your views on power shunting? Think about this; How much input do you think the spinner would feed back into the tank?
Try lighting a D.C. filament bulb with a D.C. pulse at 180Kz. What an incredible display! The light is separated into standing waves that form a spherical magnetic field as if it were a planetary field. Truly Fantastic! This frequency is the "Oscillating Frequency of Magnetisem" and has nothing to do with ferrite characteristics. TinselKoala denies it exists!
@MarkE,
TK is an egocentric sadist. I am unwilling to stand for his abuse. He denied the existence of the "Negative Mico Henry" and "Magnetic Resonance", he also preaches "Atheism!" He portrays me as a fraud. He's challenging us to supply material proof of a Creator, in denial of everything sacred in the Universe. Who wants to be preached to about Holiness from a shabby "Row House Basement"?
Wiring a 0 to 10 pico farad variable trimmer capacitor to the series bifilar would not only eliminate the need for a "Super Cray" calculation for fixed bifilar tank capacitance, but set at zero, would allow for the ground only test. The only other possibility as I see it, would be to investigate the possibility of a Reed Switch oscillation type fluttering. Most of those switches are crap and wind up sticking right off the bat.
Figure 2, the crystal oscillator frequencies are adjusted with a small 50pF rotary capacitor. With the circuit as shown, with a five-volt power supply (http://www.oddmix.com/elec/elt_pwr_1.html), the audio output frequency range is 10 Hz to a little over 2 kHz. The gates used are all belong to the first generation TTL group. It is very beneficial if the inside circuit is known to save many hours spent on discovery work.I would not recommend using, and that is if you can still find "original TTL" IE straight 7400 series in a circuit like this. The circuits will work a lot more reliably if you use CMOS which is easy to get in 74HC or 74LVC.
The Android I-Phone audio frequency generator we've seen Daniel Nunez demonstrate would probably do an excellent job! The frequency's adjusted by a bar slider on the I-Phone screen! Nunez ties into an amplifier to control power.Daniel Nunez's power measurements are unfortunately very, very bad.
@Quote from God's creator KooklaOllie:That's a cool video TK made. By "Nunez set-up" I am sure TK is referring to the drive capability of the audio amplifier that Daniel Nunez used in some demonstrations. There isn't anyplace in TK's demonstration to put one Daniel Nunez's transformers.
Published on Apr 26, 2013
"I was inspired to build a little magnet spinner by synchro1's interesting work with a large powerful sphere magnet.
I don't have such a magnet, but I did have some little discs. So I mounted a disc magnet on an axle and support, very crude, and wound a couple of coils to exite it with. Assembled with hot glue and driven by the Interstate F43 function generator with a sine or a square wave, the little contraption spins at nearly 12000 RPM.
I've not started looking at output from the system yet. The coils are wired in series. I'll also be trying parallel wiring to see if there's a difference. I would like to use a self-triggering system so that the coil drive power can be triggered by the magnet's rotation directly, but the circuit I tried, posted by conradelectro, didn't work, so I'm still fiddling. Maybe I didn't have the right transistors".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-Xrwt-50AA&list=UUZFlznLV3IyePfbc2TfDetA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-Xrwt-50AA&list=UUZFlznLV3IyePfbc2TfDetA)
We can series connect two normal coils wound to nest inside the PVC coupling shown above, and run the precision bearing spinner from zero to the disintigration point with the Nunez setup.
@TinselKoala,
Get Help Bub!
I mentioned "Spiral Output Coils". Assuming the sine wave motor can only power itself, it can gain acceleration by sliding a solenoid output coil down a ferrite core like JLN does in this video:Those demonstrations show changes in low efficiency configurations. I don't see how you think that introducing something that kills efficiency is going to help you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUoyuiQTrRA&list=UUWBgBvRQ0nJkotHljpyrvGQ
@MarkE,Synchro1 you brought up DN. Why did you highlight TK's reference to Daniel Nunez if you didn't have some point to make that related to his devices?
With all due respect;
Forget about Nunez! I'm not getting sidetracked by "Kiboshers" anymore. A signal generator can do the job just like it did in Koolaids video.
I thought TK's simple little motor worked pretty well. He wasn't chasing OU that I can tell. No one else has achieved OU so you have an open field in which to work.
The important factor now is what I call "Lenz Delay Threshold". JLN has a different name for this Lenzless R.P.M. range. TK's crappy paper clip axle job just won't make the cut for O.U. sine wave output at 12K.
All an LC tank spinner can do is surf the the sine wave. Any attempt to draw output kills the resonance.Conventional theory says that is true for all resonant devices. All energy that is removed decreases Q.
I got it to work with "Lenz Accelerating" magnet core output coils. JLN's using ferrite. The Hartley oscillator trimmer would need to increase capacity to tailor a "Lower" frequency to compensate for the rotor acceleration caused by the output load.The JLN scheme with the soft iron rod just looks like it saps power and efficiency to me. If you have measurements that show a gain, I'd like to see them.
Do you have plans to build a test rig for your idea?
The output cores can pass through neoprene "O" rings in the housing end caps, and the housing evacuated. The housing can be made from "Kryon" nano carbon tube alloy flak jacket material stonger than anything on the Planet. We can fit an air valve into the rotor housing along with the plexiglass viewing window and evacuate it with a squeeze ball.
We need to power the spinner up with the signal generator, then push the cores through the "O" ring seals close to the spinner then position the output coils as JLN does to shift the phase correctly for lenz acceleration. After the output coils are tuned, we can flop over to Tank Oscillation. There will be no need to ever want to stop it after that!
@MarkE,JLN doesn't have measurements that show OU from that device.
Quote from MarkE:
"The JLN scheme with the soft iron rod just looks like it saps power and efficiency to me. If you have measurements that show a gain, I'd like to see them".
I'm not here to spoon feed you. Here's a link to JLN's web site. Type "regenerative acceleration" into the site's search engine, and review the videos.
Help yourself!
http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=7894721&map=0&page=3&ics=1 (http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=7894721&map=0&page=3&ics=1)
Threshold speed is critical for the reversal of the "Lenz Acceleration" efficiency curve. The inefficiency of the iron cores reverses itself at a sufficiently high R.P.M. One needs to study JLN's very high quality test videos to understand this. Compare JLN's test bed to the "Trash Ball of Christmas Ornament's".The faster one oscillates a field near conductive material such as iron, the greater the induction heating losses that result.
@MarkE,Synchro1 over the years I have become pretty framiliar with JLN's work. He does not get surplus energy out of the arrangements we are discussing, (or any other experiments that he has conducted either). Eddy currents are a real thing that cause real loss that increases with frequency. JLN like a lot of other people has conducted experiments where one really inefficient mechanism is replaced by another less inefficient mechanism. Thes particular experiments are no different.
I asked that you review JLN's videos. You'll find his calorimetric testing shows that there's an opposite cooling effect over the Threshold. Something I noticed myself and commented on repeatedly over the years.
The insertion of the ferrite output cores would alter the inductance of the air core power coils somewhat, but that would tend to increase the efficiency. The variable oscillator can tune to the new resonant frequency. Apparently you haven't studied JLN's tiny series of excellent videos enough.
Here's a definitive JLN video. JLN has completely mastered control of the "Lenz Delay Acceleration effect" by sliding the output coil along his "Barkhausen Core":The experiment that you are looking at demonstrates different amounts of power shunting. If you allow your car engine to idle with the car in gear it will move forward with a small amount of pressure on the brakes, and more quickly with less pressure on the brakes. The engine efficiency is unchanged by what you do with the brakes. If you were to put a motor and a cam on the throttle, the car would then accelerate in an undulating pattern. If you time application of the brakes you could arrange that the brakes are pressed hardest when the throttle is open and the least when the throttle is closed, or alternately the most when the throttle is closed and the least when the throttle is open. The average speed will be differnt between the two cases, but engine efficiency is still unaltered.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/dlenz/DLE21en.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/dlenz/DLE21en.htm)
Comments :
We notice on the curve below, that the braking effect (common Lenz effect) and the accelerating effect (reverse Lenz effect) of the rotating magnetic rotor (blue curve) is DIRECTLY LINKED to the phase shifting curve of the magnetic fluctuation (red curve). The acceleration of the rotor is maximal when the phase angle switches from postive to negative (the green rectangle area at a distance of 30mm). The loaded secondary coil is set at the phase shifting point and acts as a wave reflector, it returns the magnetic wave in opposition phase to the magnetic rotor in rotation, producing its acceleration.
@MarkE,So, what is that as much fun as magnetic viscosity may be, it is a loss mechanism. More of the effect does not improve efficiency, it hurts efficiency.
Quote from you:
"What one cannot do is convert the braking forces into self-accelerating forces".
So what?
@MarkE,If speaking only in terms of the driving waveform, a sine wave source with the same peak amplitude as a square wave source will be free of harmonics that mostly just waste power.
Help solve this one: Suppose JLN's pulse power input is many times greater then sine wave drive. Accepting that we can accelerate the spinner to 25k both ways; Would the "Magnet Wave Reflector Coil" behave any differently with one power source over the other?
@MarkE,One measures actual input and output power. Incremental efficiency gains can be interesting, and exploitable or a nuisance depending on the circumstances.
How do you measure a loss when the input drops as the rotor accelerates? Maybe you'll start to pretend you know more then Nicola Tesla like that other know it all show off, hiding in a side tracked portion of the London sewer system like a Sax Rohmer character, not Tyrone Power:
Everyone's told magnets are the worst choice for a coil core, because they 'Gum up the coil" too much. So, you're right about increased magnetic viscosity hurting efficency, but the loss helps increase "Lenz acceleration" by delaying the pole shift past TDC and suppling propulsion to the rotor at lower R.P.M.! Got it?
MileHigh developed the extremely efficient MHOP circuit on my "Self Accelerating Reed Switch" thread that looks like a natural for the two coil power circuit under consideration. The circuit includes an onboard "Stroboscope". This circuit replaces the need for a signal generator and a Laser Tach. I rejected this initially because I didn't feel it would run up to "Lenz Delay" R.P.M. threshold speed; However, raising the output coil ferrite core "Magnetic Viscosity" with tail magnets like Doug demonstrates, would help it interface!
The trigger and power coils would be joined on the "Flop Over" to Hartley Oscillator.
@MarkE,
How do you measure a loss when the input drops as the rotor accelerates? Maybe you'll start to pretend you know more then Nicola Tesla like that other know it all show off, hiding in a side tracked portion of the London sewer system like a Sax Rohmer character, not Tyrone Power:
Quote from "Fu's" awesome ground breaking video:
"The Secret of DPDT allows instant, On-The-Fly reversal of the drive coil magnetic polarity. This turns the MHOP into a Repulsion type pulse motor".
TinselKoala really set the mark high scarfing this "Midnight Find" onto MileHigh's Op Amp circuit. Holy Moly!
I can tell you who The-Fly's-On!
I have a riddle to solve: Let's say we have 6 "Lenz Delay Coils" facing one rotor of 16 magnets. Now, what difference would it make to have the same 6 "Lenz Delay Coils" facing 3 rotors of 48 magnets, 2 coils per rotor? All the magnets equal strength, all the rotors equal diameter, and equal power supplied to the axle bearings.Get your hands on some FEM software that has a magnetics package and you can explore such questions from the comfort of your computer.
Quote from Gotoluc's Mostly Permanent Magnet Motor with minimal input power:
"In my design I use the most powerful magnet available and have the magnet itself (or PM field) as cores for the coil. In this kind of arrangement we only need a very small amount of input energy for the coil to create work".
There's an inverse relationship here!
As Gotoluc adds magnets to his coil core his pull power increases per watt of coil power.
As we add rotor axle magnets, the "Lenz Delay Coils" increase propulsion and output per watt of input.
Increasing the number of "Lenz propulsion Coils" around a fixed number of magnets splits the propulsion between the coils instead of adding to the advantage, following the "Law of Diminishing Returns". This is similar to increasing the number of regular "Lenz Drag" output coils; They merely share the available output rather then multiply it.
However, when we add magnets to the wave reflector coils, the propulsion increases! We'd get three times the reflection off three mirrors then we would from one. Adding rotor magnets to normal "Lenz Drag Coils" would increase the drag along with output but require additional input, so power in equals power out. The "Lenz Propulsion Coil" has an opposite relationship to the addition of more magnets! Very simple once you understand it.
The true Alternating Current is Pulsed Direct Current because it works more in accordance with nature. Since PDC is an interrupted current, it does not offer any resistance to the second, returning component of Essential Energy, which begins to act naturally, moving in the same direction as the external movement of the rotor but in the opposite direction as the first, pulsed component. This actually completes the full energy cycle, as if power were pumping in from the scalar field from its natural internal vibration. The rotor spins much more efficiently, with dramatically reduced electrical consumption, and almost zero heat loss.Source: Keppe Motor Manual - Working Principles PP 16- 17 http://www.pure-energy.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/keppe_motor_manual_v1.1_-_working_principle.pdf
Yesterday I went nuts learning how to say "Roller Skate Bearing" in Spanish.Knock yourself out man!
Any two solinoid coils with sliding steel cores connected in parallel and wired to a butterfly capacitor should be able to run a diametric spinner between them with the LC resonant sine wave. Pushing the steel cores in and closing the capacitor plates would lower the frequency and R.P.M..Why do you think that is a contradiction (sic) paradox?
Increasing power input, would increase the amplitude of the LC sine wave, strengthen the magnetic field of the coils and add power to the spinner, but the resonant frequency would still control the R.P.M.
3000 R.P.M. with a finger flick? Scaling harmonics!
The contradiction of this sine wave motor is that speeding it up would force the operator to turn the power down!
Here's a picture of four variable Inductors. Two variable Inductors in parallel can power the spinner from the LLC sine wave from a variable capacitor matching impedence. We should be able to control the frequency and R.P.M. by increasing or decreasing the Inductance and Capacitance, thereby altering the resonant frequency.
Those sure don't look like "variable inductors" to me. Unless you want to try varying their inductance by using an external magnetic field or something.
Here's one simple type of _actual_ Variable Inductor, called a "loopstick". The ferrite core is able to be adjusted in and out of the center of the Litz wire windings.
Two coils built just like this in parallel is just what we need, connected to a variable capacitor: The more the ferrite core's inserted into the coil, the higher the inductance and the greater the matching capacitance needed from the butterfly to lower the frequency of the LLC tank oscillation.
Wraping the end of the ferrite core with a Primary coil and pulsing it with D.C. at resonant frequency supplies the design with a second avenue for input to sustain the sine wave oscillation; A great efficiency improvement.
Tinselkoala has apparently chosen to ignore me. He once again has proven himself completely worthless for any kind of constructive dialogue. I plan to ignore him completely from this point forward.
Nobody has ever missed anything important by ignoring YOU.
You are the one who constantly misrepresents the work of others, and you just posted a photo of four FIXED INDUCTANCE chokes and called them "variable inductors". Leave me out of your ignorant fantasies and false statements.
And if you were paying attention at all you'd know that I have already shown the value range of those loopsticks and incorporated them in various tuned circuit designs that actually work. And they can be looked up on the internet as well.
Ignore these, idiot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80D92QaOcM4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqBK00tuI8Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjgemF5zpeE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHI7LnVWBlY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyVZWkYAvkk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcGTBA7NoVI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeIWpkywGXs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8S02SB-ENA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd1VNFBFPik
The best approach would be to "Mag Amp" the core with a D.C. primary winding. This is an inefficient method, but allows for a reinforcing pulse at LC resonant frequency. Saturating the core wih D.C. current eliminates any inductance value to the coil. Placing magnets in a coil core alters performance compared to air. Saturating the ferrite creates an electromagnet. Adding inductance by reducing the D.C. current would be matched by increasing the capacitance to slow the rotor R.P.M.It is an amusing way to waste energy.
Air has greater inductance value to the coil then a saturated ferrite core, or permanent magnets. We can precisly control rotor speed with this "Mag Amp" core saturator primary wrap, maybe a few hundred turns of 28 gauge. This creates an additional pathway for pulsed D.C. input.
The D.C. pulse should be able to spin the tube rotor at high power alone from the same source battery that charges the tank capacitor. The core saturator would be powered by the same battery. The core should be set back away from the magnet rotor, it doesn't need to extend completely through. The core would retract all the way coupled with reduced capacitance for top sine wave R.P.M. This speed up would be coupled with a reduction in input.
It is an amusing way to waste energy.
The nested coils, D.C. primary and tank inductor secondary have two independent circuits. The primary is sufficient to drive the rotor independently. This can save on broken fingers on the run up. The primary can serve as an auxilliary first stage booster coil. The straight D.C. induction suppressor feature is definitely a bust, as you point out, but it allows for very fine precision tuning of the inductor for high Q factor once resonance has been achieved at a specifc R.P.M.. The primary along with the core need to be retracted completely from the secondary core for maximum efficiency under sine wave drive.Tuning inductance by swinging near saturation aggravates copper loss and throws away energy.
Tuning inductance by swinging near saturation aggravates copper loss and throws away energy.
You should be asking yourself what you hope to gain from making the system resonant. Tuned networks make sense when there is an existing power source that operates in a narrow frequency band that you want to transmit or block while doing the opposite to energy sources outside the band. For instance if you have a loosely coupled transformer and you want to pass more power at some frequency than the stray inductance would allow, then you can make a tuned circuit that will cancel the reactance of the stray inductance with a matched capacitive reactance. It doesn't make free energy. It does make it possible to pass more useful energy for a given set of circumstances.
Synchro1!
This self-deception (as well).
where the surplus?
where is he from?
:)
Do not you think?
;)
Magic? = scam
Resonance? well with the beautiful music.
harmony.
Do not let him fool you scam.
or magic.
;)
asshole.
Time will solve.
I will not fight with you.
stupid idea.
The truth will win.
ungabunga. ;)
@MarkE,It is not a paradox. It means that the system is non-linear. Many systems are. The common mistake that many people make is that they confuse increasing efficiency or increasing output with reduced input as a sign of over unity. They invariably find that try as they might, they can't ever manage to get the system to the point that the absolute output energy exceeds the input energy, cycle by cycle. There is always the "sticky spot" or its equivalent to overcome. the predicted self-running machines only ever run down.
I witnessed the "Paradox" of increased acceleration with decreased input before. What happens between the rotor and output coils as the rotor accelerates? Power is generated in inverse proportion to the input reduction. Going from 50 to a 100 hertz by halving inductance and capacitance, doubles the rotor output. This kind of "Synchronous" motor supplies power to help run itself as it speeds up from input reduction. This motor does indeed make it's own free energy!
The rotor needs to spin it's own field strength up in the coils before it can begin to surf the "Sine Wave". Once the rotor makes the transition to the oscillating current, it's basicly turned into a self runner.
The "Keppe Motor" can run as an A.C. synchronous, or D.C. pulse motor. Keppe has reported the same reduction of input under load as Gotoluc. Luc grabs ahold of the rotor axle untill it starts to slip, and measures a drop in input.The Keppe fan motor is an electronically commutated DC motor. It will not run as a synchronous AC motor.
The slowed rotating magnets are forced to do work to try and catch up with the A.C. frequency. The permanent magnet's field is actually strengthened from the quantum plane to help the rotation get back in synchronicity with the A.C. frequency. When Luc squeezes the axle and causes the magnet rotor to begin to "Slip", the magnets really start growing stronger to help catch back up to the input frequency from the atomic level. This results in the reduction in input, and amounts to "Free energy".
@MarkE,The picture is 1262 pixels wide.
Your block diagram above stretched the page! Please delete it.
Unique Features of the Keppe Motor:That is not at all unique. The schematics of the Keppe motor I reviewed would not even safely run on 110V. 220V would cause the electronics to catch fire. I made specific recommendations for safety changes that they may have later incorporated.
•Automatic dual voltage: can run on either 110 V or 220 V, or 50 Hz or 60 Hz, with no customer settings required, making it universal.
That's because there is a full-wave bridge rectifier and filter capacitor. DC input simply means current only ever runs through two of the four diodes in the full-wave bridge. The rectification and filtering means that it cannot run as an AC synchronous motor.
•Can run on AC or DC, making the switch back to DC more achievable.
Anyone can make a motor run cool simply by oversizing as Keppe do. What matters is how much power the motor wastes. In the schematic above, Keppe ineptly get their low power setting with a wasteful power dropping resistor, when a simple multivibrator could have been used to chop current.
•The Keppe Motor runs barely 5º C above ambient, whereas conventional motors run as much as 20-60º C above ambient.
@MarkE,Keppe are FOS. They make a number of false claims such as resonant operation that does not occur. It is like all their utter BS about "disinverted physics". You didn't know better. OK, now you do know better.
I didn't say that the Keppe Motor was an A.C. synchronous motor. I merely restated what Keppe says; That "the motor can run as one" either on 110 V or 220 V, or 50 Hz or 60 Hz.
Keppe also maintains that the motor draws less input under load, like Gotoluc's A.C. synchronous job. I'm suggesting a common factor that involves a strengthening of magnet force from slip lag to account for the seperate but similar effects.Well, the problem there is that Keppe compare their poorly designed, electronically commutated motor against extremely inefficient shaded pole AC motors. A fair comparison is against other DC motors, such as DC BLMs. Keppe do not want to make such comparisons because when they do, their crude POS motor comes up short. The Keppe motor compares poorly against commercial DC BLMs that cost less to build, are more efficient, and don't constitute electrocution and fire hazards that the Keppe fan kit motor did as released a couple of years ago.
Quote*****
Posts: 2366
View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Oscillating sine wave LC tank magnet motor.
« Reply #142 on: Today at 04:09:57 PM »
Quote
The "Keppe Motor" can run as an A.C. synchronous...
@MarkE,What they were marketing a couple of years ago would never get past safety agency requirements in the USA.
Thanks Mark, the Keppe Motor sounds like just another piece of crap!
Look at the perpendicular toroid coil orientation to the N.S. magnet faces in this 14 volts at 20 hertz "Synchronous Motor" video. This video shows how the turntable coils need to face the diametric tube rotor:The motor in the video is very primitive, and one of the results is that it does not start by itself. That's one of the reasons that the Keppe motor has a bias magnet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoDnqzYzSu4
There's a transformer built into the turntable coil that does nearly the same work as the "stand alone" model in Kim's video.
It is not a paradox. It means that the system is non-linear. Many systems are. The common mistake that many people make is that they confuse increasing efficiency or increasing output with reduced input as a sign of over unity. They invariably find that try as they might, they can't ever manage to get the system to the point that the absolute output energy exceeds the input energy, cycle by cycle. There is always the "sticky spot" or its equivalent to overcome. the predicted self-running machines only ever run down.
Self propulsive "Hatem Magic" video:
Watch "Hatem" multiply power with magnetic cogging:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UJZ9hDQnyA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UJZ9hDQnyA)
sorry but the "Hatem Magic" does not work but she under multiply power easely
@Tagor,
Let's say Hatem magnetically coupled an additional 15 alternator rotors on top of his existing 4. Do you think his power motor would draw additional input? What if someone were to tell you that the input would drop?
[/size][/color]Léon-Raoul HATEM
[/size][/b][/color]
[/size][/b][/color]Horloger[/size][/color]inventeur français du moteur à dégravitation[/size][/color]Un pas de géant concret[/size][/b][/color]pour la production d'énergie sur-unitaire individuelle[/size][/b][/color]au refuge de Sarenne[/size][/b][/color]http://www.mythesetrealites.org/crbst_96.html
[/size]Dans le domaine de l'autonomie énergétique, le Refuge de Sarenne est un modèle du genre. Situé dans l'Oisan à 2000 m d'altitude, près de l'Alpe d'Huez, il combine toutes les sources d'énergies renouvelables pour produire l'électricité nécessaire au fonctionnement du refuge en totale autonomie : solaire, hydraulique, moteur Stirling, gazéification du bois, éolien, épuration des eaux usées dans un bassin de phytoépuration, recyclage des déchets, etc. Même s'il est rare de retrouver sur un même lieu une telle concentration de combinaisons innovantes ce ne sont pas celles-là que nous souhaitons vous faire partager. Toutes ces techniques sont largement diffusées et encouragées dans les grands médias. [/size][/color]
[/size]Fabrice André,[/size][/b][/color] propriétaire du refuge de Sarenne, vient de mettre au point, sur la base des travaux de Léon-Raoul Hatem, une machine sur-unitaire capable de produire suffisamment d'énergie électrique pour alimenter largement l'ensemble du domaine de Sarenne. [/size][/color]
[/size]Pour faire fonctionner ce système il suffit d'une très modeste source d'énergie de 200 à 750 W pour générer par amplification magnétique une énergie allant de 14 kW à 90 kW.[/size][/color]
A simple way to test Hatem's cogging method would involve 3 magnet spheres and three toroid coils. All three coils would need a power circuit, but the outer two would flop over for output when their satellite spheres were up to speed and driven by the center sphere's magnetic coupling alone.
The satellites may speed up over CMF and propel the central rotor with "Lenz Reverse" acceleration and deliver a drop in input when the load's connected.
This guy claims he got OU results:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4FEba4kQb0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4FEba4kQb0)
My claims are not dependent on any of Hatem's research. However, it might be possible for Mindfreer to show that the input doesn't rise on the power motor when he connects the two light bulb load through the alternator, because of the "One Direction Grab Rule".
The one real advantage to Mindfreer's Hatem setup is that the alternator can't pass it's "Lenz Drag" back to the generator rotor. He doesn't bother to underscore this point.
Lidmotor says that his oscillator input drops when he's pulling a load through his generator coil at 1:40 in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afEWXadfpqY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afEWXadfpqY)
Does "Slip Torque" play role in this input reversal?
Hey synchro1. This is a very interesting topic, regarding the magnetic cogs. I watched the video by mindfreer, and honestly, my only question is why he didn't remove the battery or replace it with a capacitor. An alternator produces 12-14 volts, and obviously a drained battery acts more like a load than a ballast (which it appears he is using it as a type of energy reserve, so to speak). So if I had to guess, I'd say it was not overunity.
If the alternator were driven by a belt, it would be turning at the same rpm as the motor, and the motor would show the load. However, with magnetic cogging, the alternator can slip and run at a lower rpm, just enough to provide 98 watts of power to aid the battery in producing 159 watts to power the bulbs.
The problem with his setup is that we have to assume and draw conclusions, like we assume the battery is mostly dead and the alternator is charging it while powering the inverter. But for that to happen we would need to know that the alternator is at full rpm, which he doesn't show, but we can safely assume it is not because the motor would show 159 watts of power.
In Lidmotor's video, the current increases because he moves the coil away from the magnet. In every motor, or AC motor, the rotor generates a back EMF which opposes the input current. It's not that the load dropped the input current, but that the rotor generated back EMF when it was in the proper position.
And I guess it may have been rhetorical, but a DC motor produces more power when you add magnets because you increase the magnetic lines. However, this is nothing special because if the manufacturers wanted the motor to be more powerful they would have made it twice as big and twice as heavy for you.
@antijon,
Thanks for your participation. A motor twice the size and powerful would consume more input, where-as increasing the motor weight in magnets would reduce it. This is what makes it special.