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

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 Posts: 498716
  • *Total Topics: 14782
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 33
  • *Total: 37

Author Topic: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator  (Read 88144 times)

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2014, 01:27:30 AM »
Scorch:

Thanks for the information and the picture.

I am going to make a prediction for you.  I am assuming that the system is wired so that the set of coils in the first disk is independent of the coils in the second disk.   So you have the option of pulsing the motor coils on "one side" only if you want to.   I am also pretty sure that pulsing on one side only will not affect the bearing and there will be no increased bearing friction.

The prediction is that motor will perform better if you only pulse on one side.  Say for example if you do a basic test where you look at motor RPM vs. input power.  You will get higher RPMs for the same input power when you pulse on one side only as opposed to pulsing on both sides.  It's very likely that many other performance metrics that you can come up with will show better performance if you only pulse on one side.

So when you finish your build and start testing, I hope that you will try that basic "RPM vs. input power, once side pulsing vs. two side pulsing"  test suggested above.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2014, 01:27:30 AM »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13723
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2014, 06:24:59 AM »
The ability to put both poles of the magnets and coils to work (except for the ends of the stack) is the one thing about this kind of design that is "better" than single-pole PMs like the MHOP. But is this feature implemented correctly, or even optimally? Eventually one winds up with a design that strongly resembles ordinary "can" DC motors. Even good strong and efficient "inside out" brushless DC motors, so called "outrunners", suffer from this pole problem, where only one pole of the coils interacts with only one pole of the rotor magnets. Making a vertical sandwich like the Quanta designs is one attempt at a cure, even though it "orphans" the poles that are on the outside of the sandwich. Perhaps a better way to do it would be to wrap horseshoes (U-shaped cores) around the edge of the rotor disc, and wind coils on the outer portions of the horseshoes. This way both poles of the coil will affect both poles of a rotor magnet embedded in the disk Quanta-style.

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2014, 06:46:13 AM »
I am making some basic assumptions about the timing and the energizing of the coils.  I think there is a reed switch to control the pulsing of the coils. The reed switch is governed by small separate magnets that concentrically spin somewhere else in the motor.  You can move the reed switch around to adjust he timing, add your own little biasing magnets, etc.

It looks like all of the coils will pulse at the same time, six per left "slab" and six per right "slab."  It may very well be more flexible than that because most of the Quanta Magnetics motors have some kind of a patch field for rewiring things.

But I am guessing that the basic default mode of operation is that 6 coils + 6 coils all pulse at the same time, and there are six pulses per revolution.  The physical build has the left and right energizing coils facing each other with the six-magnet main rotor spinning in the center between the two slabs that hold the drive coils.  Hence my thought that you will get better performance with only only one 6-coil "slab" pulsing.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2014, 06:46:13 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Scorch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
    • Scorch's Private Contractor Site
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2014, 06:37:03 PM »
Hey MileHigh.  :)

Yes; there is a timing disk and reed switch controlling a solid state relay part # SDP4020D.
Reed switch types have varied in these designs but it has been discovered that a reed relay actually performs better in this application and the current version is an OMR-C-105H.

And this particular, G1, design does not, necessarily, energize all coils for each magnet six times per revolution.
The timing disk does have 6 holes for 6 pulses but there are tuning choices to run from anywhere between 1 to 6 pulses per revolution depending on desired performance.
And, yes, both timing and pulse width may be adjusted by moving reed switch in or out or around the timing disk.

And this system has at least nine tuning parameters so I am expecting some challenges just trying to tune this experiment.  :P
(See image capture from youtube comments.)
And there are even external influences including position of device in relation to magnetic north and location of device in relation to the junctions and lines of the icosahedron shaped core of this planet and its effects on the source field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesic_grid
http://cs.sou.edu/~sahrk/dgg/pubs/gdggs03.pdf
Also see or hear:
www.amazon.com/Source-Field-Investigations-Civilizations-Prophecies/dp/0452297974/
(Includes references to scientific investigations, studies, papers, journals and etcetera.)

And, because this system incorporates a substantial flywheel storing kinetic energy resulting in a three phrase alternator that continues charging even when pulse motor is off, one does the option to only run pulse motor intermittently through additional control circuitry (not part of this experimental kit) such as a manual switch, 555 timer, voltage, frequency, or RPM based sensor and control system, or whatever.

This is one of the many interesting things about this design.
I have built many pulse motors but have never incorporated a large flywheel or a high efficiency, three phase, alternator that fits INSIDE the motor rotor.
Think of a standard automotive alternator that is actually mounted INSIDE a high efficiency motor.

It would appear this provides for the highest possible 'leverage' (mechanical advantage) for the motor to turn the alternator when the motor rotor has effectively been replaced with an alternator at its core.
Therefore requires less electrical and magnetic effort to turn the alternator as compared to something more conventional such as a belt or direct drive between a motor and alternator of similar diameter.

The farther away from the central shaft you can locate the coil and rotor magnet; the more mechanical advantage-leverage there is for that same coil and magnet to actually turn that shaft.

This one of the great advantages of a disk design. But, of course, there may be limits to this.
Because the larger your disk; the more you have fill that space with larger coils and magnets or simply add additional coils and magnets...
Of course, with the Muller/Wood disk motor design, there is an "offset" number of magnets to coil pairs so that coils are pulsing sequentially and I believe this also has advantages and we may see this design more often in the future.

And, yes, some of the other QM designs, including the Q2 and Q3, do have a patchwork design in which each of the 6 coil pairs have independent bridge rectifiers for better capture of BEMF.
The "T" series and "G1" does not incorporate this complicated patchwork of wiring into 6 rectifiers.
And I am very thankful for this because that patchwork is a very time consuming pain in tail to build...  ;D

I intend to build the alternator stator next but not sure when I will begin that.
Have lots of other priorities around here. . .
Hopefully within the next few days but I do have to tackle a major plumbing project soon to replace a bathtub faucet in addition to everything else I am trying to complete, before winter, including cutting down and processing no less than 7 large, dead, elm trees on this land which is what I have been occasionally working on this summer... by myself... while trying NOT to kill my vessel (body) in the process...

Kindest regards;

}:>




I am making some basic assumptions about the timing and the energizing of the coils.  I think there is a reed switch to control the pulsing of the coils. The reed switch is governed by small separate magnets that concentrically spin somewhere else in the motor.  You can move the reed switch around to adjust he timing, add your own little biasing magnets, etc.

It looks like all of the coils will pulse at the same time, six per left "slab" and six per right "slab."  It may very well be more flexible than that because most of the Quanta Magnetics motors have some kind of a patch field for rewiring things.

But I am guessing that the basic default mode of operation is that 6 coils + 6 coils all pulse at the same time, and there are six pulses per revolution.  The physical build has the left and right energizing coils facing each other with the six-magnet main rotor spinning in the center between the two slabs that hold the drive coils.  Hence my thought that you will get better performance with only only one 6-coil "slab" pulsing.

Offline Scorch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
    • Scorch's Private Contractor Site
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2014, 06:39:57 PM »
Hey Milehigh.  :)

There does not appear to be an option to pulse just one side but there are options to pulse anywhere from one to six times per revolution.

Kindest regards;

}:>

Scorch:

Thanks for the information and the picture.

I am going to make a prediction for you.  I am assuming that the system is wired so that the set of coils in the first disk is independent of the coils in the second disk.   So you have the option of pulsing the motor coils on "one side" only if you want to.   I am also pretty sure that pulsing on one side only will not affect the bearing and there will be no increased bearing friction.

The prediction is that motor will perform better if you only pulse on one side.  Say for example if you do a basic test where you look at motor RPM vs. input power.  You will get higher RPMs for the same input power when you pulse on one side only as opposed to pulsing on both sides.  It's very likely that many other performance metrics that you can come up with will show better performance if you only pulse on one side.

So when you finish your build and start testing, I hope that you will try that basic "RPM vs. input power, once side pulsing vs. two side pulsing"  test suggested above.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2014, 06:39:57 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2014, 09:37:23 PM »
Scorch:

Okay, this may be my last comment and you will build your motor and do your testing on your own terms.

You know how I feel about the esoteric stuff and I don't want to repeat myself, but I will just address this new concept that you mentioned:

Quote
location of device in relation to the junctions and lines of the icosahedron shaped core of this planet and its effects on the source field

There is no icosahedron shaped core of the planet and there are no line junctions to worry about.  That is just a technique to map out the surface area of the globe or any other area (like a petri dish with bacteria growing on it) in order to analyze something.  You have one hexagon surrounded by six equal hexagons.  You can therefore create some kind of mathematical model for how the six boundaries of the center hexagon will interact with the six neighbouring hexagons.  You could use that to create a mathematical model for how a forest fire will progress with a certain wind velocity and direction, as an example.  You crunch data in time steps where every hexagon interacts with every bordering hexagon.  It's used for numerical analysis and mathematical modeling and has nothing to do with a pulse motor.

Okay moving on, my last major point about your pulse motor and the issue of firing one set of coils vs. firing both sets of coils.  Also, I understand how you can determine the number of firings per rotation, it all depends on how many little button magnets you put into their respective slots in the timing disk.

I am advising you to take the output from the solid state relay and split it into two so that you feed separate power to the left and right sets of coils.  Put an in-line switch in series with each power feed so that you have the option to fire the left coils only, the right coils only, or "normal operation" where you fire both sets of coils.

Here is the reason: For starters, we are not going to discuss the outer rotors that couple to the "outside sides" of the two sets of coils.  I am only going to discuss the center rotor below, there is no issue with the two outer rotors.

Mr. Quanta Magnetics probably said to himself, "I will make an improved design where I put drive coils on both sides of the main center rotor.  With two drive coils on opposite sides of the rotor magnets I should get double the torque to make the rotor spin faster and more efficiently."

The fact is that he is wrong.  And I told you already many times that he has no true understanding of what he is doing.  I don't like repeating this all the time but in this case it merits repeating.  He is supposedly charging for his "intellectual property."

Let's just use abstract units to illustrate the problem.  Let's say that a single coil gives you 100 units of "torque energy" when you pulse the coil.  So, Mike Kantz probably said to himself, "I will put a coil on each side and get an even stronger field to push on the rotor magnet.  I will take advantage of both sides of the rotor magnet instead of only using one side of the rotor magnet.  With one coil I will get 100 units of torque energy per pulse, so with two coils I should get 200 units of torque energy per pulse."

Note the coils are fairly wide and narrow, and note that the coils are in fairly close proximity to each other since the rotor disk is relatively thin.  When those two coils on opposite sides of the magnet are energized, their magnetic fields will "fight" with each other.  In more simple technical terms the magnetic fields generated by the two coils on either side of the rotor magnet will mostly cancel each other out.  There will not be a stronger field between the two coils, there will be a weaker field between the two coils.

So here is what you get for each coil:  100 units of torque energy minus 70 units of torque energy due to magnetic field self-cancellation for a net 30 units of torque energy.

Single coil pulsing:  100 units of torque energy
Both coils pulsing:  60 units of torque energy.

Mike Kantz probably thought that he would be getting about 200 units of torque energy per pulse, but in fact he is only getting about 60 units of torque energy per pulse.  Therefore, it's highly likely that the pulse motor will perform better if you only pulse with one set of coils and not both sets.  You pay a price for all of that magnetic field self-cancellation also.  You have battery energy expended that goes "nowhere" due to the self-cancellation of the magnetic field.  It just becomes waste heat resistive losses in the coils, i.e.; battery energy poured down the drain.

Please see the attached graphic.  The orange area represents where there will be lots of self-cancellation of the magnetic field.

MileHigh

Offline Scorch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
    • Scorch's Private Contractor Site
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #21 on: October 23, 2014, 02:27:18 AM »
Hey MileHigh.  :)

No problem.
I accept your position and personal belief system (within your own reality and sphere of influence) that such things as the specific geometric shape of a planet's core, or its related energy fields, do not exist, or are merely "esoteric", despite the growing scientific evidence of such things and their practical applications.  Such as the construction of the pyramids or coral castle, alternative energy systems, interstellar travel, genetic engineering and etcetera.

And, no, I do not know what another man feels, knows, or believes. ::)
This is because, even though we all appear to be connected on this particular plain of existence, we are all still individuals each walking our own path of learning and experience.
Such as a decision to NOT study such things as the scientific source field investigations or the synchronicity key and its 680+ verifiable scientific references.  8)

And, please forgive me, but I will not be making any such major modifications (per your advisory) at this time of an honest attempt to merely replicate the original experiment on those terms.
Although it is an interesting idea and I may consider such things sometime in the distant future, if conditions warrant it, AFTER replication of the device, tuning, experiments and measurements have been completed per the stated purpose of this topic and endeavor.

Although such modifications may also involve other experiments as well.

Such as the reintroduction of a toroidal generator which does appear to have some very unique benefits such as operating in direct violation of Lenz's Law (no back torque) and no apparent motor effect.
Motor effect: A conventional generator can usually be used as a motor simply by sending power back into it.
But if one attempts to send power to the coils of a toroidal generator; there is no applied force back to the rotor!  :o
This because the magnetic flux currents remain within the closed loop of the toroid which is easily demonstrated with a simple experiment.
Such as this experiment with a closed loop that has a removable 'gate' which allows the flux currents to remain in place when gate is closed or released when gate is opened resulting in a collapse of the field and subsequent surge of potential from the coil at a much later time-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwUYgabGw9g
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wASgrVr2eg
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mBnw0hg8ME

Kindest regards;

}:>

Scorch:

Okay, this may be my last comment and you will build your motor and do your testing on your own terms.

You know how I feel about the esoteric stuff and I don't want to repeat myself, but I will just address this new concept that you mentioned:

There is no icosahedron shaped core of the planet ...

...I am advising you to take the output from the solid state relay and split it into two so that you feed separate power to the left and right sets of coils....

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #21 on: October 23, 2014, 02:27:18 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #22 on: October 23, 2014, 03:51:15 AM »
Scorch:

Adding the switches, or even a single switch to disable one side only, does not change the pulse motor at all.  If I were you I would be very curious to investigate this issue at an appropriate time.

I watched all three of your Leedskalnin clips.  There is nothing there and physics can explain it all.  You can research it if you want and find the truth.  You know how there was a time before Louis Pasteur when people did not know about bacteria and how disease was transmitted and they were not aware of the need for living in sanitary conditions?  That's what the clips feel like from an electronics perspective.  If it's any consolation you have a lot of company with respect to the "perpetual motion holder."

Quote
Such as the reintroduction of a toroidal generator which does appear to have some very unique benefits such as operating in direct violation of Lenz's Law (no back torque) and no apparent motor effect.
Motor effect: A conventional generator can usually be used as a motor simply by sending power back into it.
But if one attempts to send power to the coils of a toroidal generator; there is no applied force back to the rotor!  (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)
This because the magnetic flux currents remain within the closed loop of the toroid which is easily demonstrated with a simple experiment.

Nope, some of the flux leaks out of the toroid.  Also, you are hedging your bets and expressing wishful thinking about the lack of Lenz drag with out any true evidence of that.  There is an easy experiment you can do to prove that I am right.  All that you have to do is spin the magnet inside the toroid in a separate small setup.  Measure the spin-down time with no load resistors on the two coils and with load resistors on the two coils.  You may have to experiment a bit to find a good value for the load resistors.  Then you will see that the spin-down is always shorter when the load resistors are across the two coils.  That will prove the existence of the Lenz drag.

MileHigh

Offline Scorch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
    • Scorch's Private Contractor Site
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2014, 04:34:17 PM »
Hey MileHigh.  :)

Please forgive me as I do agree this modification is relatively simple to implement especially since I did provide for separate stator leads and would not even require a switch since I can merely disconnect one side or the or the other.  But until such time the replication of the original experiment is completed; I will not be performing any modifications or extra experiments such as disabling half the stator in what is intended to be a well balanced circuit and system operating in a resonate condition.

I am of the firm belief that resonance, in harmony with the source field, is the key to OU.
Please forgive my beliefs in such things as source fields often represented as "sacred geometry".  ;)

www.coralcastlecode.com

And please forgive my confusion with regards to your statements regarding the benefits of a toroidal generator which has its roots in the "Gamme Machine"-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramme_machine

Are we to understand you are of the position that Stefan's (administrator of this forum) verification of these benefits (of a modern version of the Gramme Machine) is false?!?
(see attached images of quote from the June 1994 issue of "new energy news magazine" page 9.)

And, if so, may we (including Stefan) please see the proof of your alleged claim?

Kindest regards;

}:>



Scorch:

Adding the switches, or even a single switch to disable one side only, does not change the pulse motor at all.  If I were you I would be very curious to investigate this issue at an appropriate time.

I watched all three of your Leedskalnin clips.  There is nothing there and physics can explain it all.  You can research it if you want and find the truth.  You know how there was a time before Louis Pasteur when people did not know about bacteria and how disease was transmitted and they were not aware of the need for living in sanitary conditions?  That's what the clips feel like from an electronics perspective.  If it's any consolation you have a lot of company with respect to the "perpetual motion holder."

Nope, some of the flux leaks out of the toroid.  Also, you are hedging your bets and expressing wishful thinking about the lack of Lenz drag with out any true evidence of that.  There is an easy experiment you can do to prove that I am right.  All that you have to do is spin the magnet inside the toroid in a separate small setup.  Measure the spin-down time with no load resistors on the two coils and with load resistors on the two coils.  You may have to experiment a bit to find a good value for the load resistors.  Then you will see that the spin-down is always shorter when the load resistors are across the two coils.  That will prove the existence of the Lenz drag.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2014, 04:34:17 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Scorch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
    • Scorch's Private Contractor Site
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #24 on: October 23, 2014, 04:50:09 PM »
Hello Everybody.  :)

Last night, while listening to talk radio, I heard an ad for this Ultra Capacitor based "truck start module" and thought some of you may be interested in this product from my favorite capacitor manufacturer-
www.maxwell.com/esm/

This is a product I may consider acquiring some day as I do own several Cumins Turbo-Diesel engines including a Dodge Pickup, a spare engine, and two step vans that I re powered with Cumins engines.
See:
www.furaffinity.net/view/3454528/

That is all.

}:>

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #25 on: October 23, 2014, 08:56:38 PM »
Scorch:

Here is a thought experiment:   You have two coils that are facing each other like in your pulse motor setup with the same current flowing through them because they are connected in series.  They start at 10 cm apart and they approach each other.  The closer they get to each other the more the magnetic fields they generate will cancel each other out.  If you measure the inductance of the pair with an inductance meter it will decrease the closer they get together.  At 5 cm apart there is moderate cancellation and the inductance is moderately reduced.  At 1 cm apart there is significant cancellation and a significant reduction in inductance.  If they could occupy the same volume (zero distance between each other) the magnetic field becomes zero, the inductance becomes zero, and you are just left with the resistance of the wire.

So in the pulse motor setup they might be 1.5 cm apart.  You end up with a weak torque imparted on the center rotor when the two coils pulse.  Plus you are driving two coils instead of a single coil, so that means you are consuming twice the power.  So when you compare two coils to one coil, you are consuming twice the power and only getting roughly 60% of the push on the center rotor (as per my previous example).

So while you are running your main tests you can disconnect a wire to make a spot check to see if this is indeed the case.  If the pulse motor is just free running, it looks like disconnecting the wire will reduce your power consumption by half and then the motor will start to speed up.  It's a worthwhile test.

Quote
be a well balanced circuit and system operating in a resonate condition.

Can you please explain what you mean by a resonant condition?

Quote
I am of the firm belief that resonance, in harmony with the source field, is the key to OU.

Can you please explain what you mean by the source field?

For the Gramme Machine, it's not exactly the same as the setup for your motor because you don't have a commutator but they are quite similar.

Here is a claim you made in your previous posting:

Quote
Motor effect: A conventional generator can usually be used as a motor simply by sending power back into it.
But if one attempts to send power to the coils of a toroidal generator; there is no applied force back to the rotor!

From your Wikipedia link:

Quote
During a demonstration at an industrial exposition in Vienna in 1873, Gramme accidentally discovered that this device, if supplied with a constant-voltage power supply, will act as an electric motor. Gramme's partner, Hippolyte Fontaine, carelessly connected the terminals of a Gramme machine to another dynamo which was producing electricity, and its shaft began to spin.[3] The Gramme machine was the first powerful electric motor useful as more than a toy or laboratory curiosity. Today the design forms the basis of nearly all DC electric motors.

So your statement "Such as the reintroduction of a toroidal generator which does appear to have some very unique benefits such as operating in direct violation of Lenz's Law (no back torque) and no apparent motor effect." is false.  There are no unique benefits and no violations in Lenz's law.  If you can do the spin-down test like I suggested you will prove that there is Lenz drag.  If you are outputting power into a load resistor with any kind of generator setup that you can possibly imagine, there will always be Lenz drag.  The big mistake on your part is to believe in a "magic" generator configuration.

I am not making any specific comments on a test that Stefan did 15 years ago that I haven't read up on.  You cannot put words in my my mouth like that and play straw man.  In a generic sense it's likely that there were measurement errors.  That happens all the time.  For example, take the example of JL Naudin.  He has had to retract his claims of over unity many times over.  Additionally, can you cite any replications of Stefan's data?  We are 20 years later, has anything come of it?  Look at the example above where you made claims that were refuted in the same Wikipedia link that you provided yourself.  These kinds of things happen all the time.  There is simply no "magic" motor or generator configuration that doesn't obey the basic laws of physics.  The burden would be on your shoulders to prove that if you believed it.

MileHigh

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #25 on: October 23, 2014, 08:56:38 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Scorch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
    • Scorch's Private Contractor Site
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #26 on: October 23, 2014, 11:31:49 PM »
Scorch:
... Can you please explain what you mean by a resonant condition?

Hey MileHigh.  :)

This would be the basic definition in physics:
"the reinforcement or prolongation of sound by reflection from a surface or by the synchronous vibration of a neighboring object."
And, yes, I do expect a motor/generator operating in an electro-magic resonance to produce a distinct, two tone, synchronous sound.
This is why the Muller motor, the QEG, and G1 all produce a unique, sometimes very loud, synchronous sound.

Think of a humming transformer that changes tones and octaves as the frequency changes.
All materials, including living biological systems, right down to its smallest particle, all have a natural resonance depending on shape such as a tuning fork or violin string.

Same goes for the humming transformer. Somewhere within a wide range of frequency is the resonant frequency of that particular transformer including it's coils, core, and hardware.
At this resonant frequency; the transformer may produce a very unique, synchronous, resonant tone that only appears at that specific frequency and may reappear at different octaves of that same frequency.
With enough power there may even be a noticeable increase of force from the resonance actually resulting in visible movement such as the device scooting across the bench much like toy football players scoot across the vibrating table.

And, if there is any sand on the same table, some very interesting patterns may emerge in the shapes of "sacred geometry" providing a visual representation of these resonant frequencies.
And here is an interesting video demonstrating the geometry that may appear as the table resonates at these different frequencies.-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMIvAsZvBiw
Alternate-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zw0uWCNsyw

Do the sounds, from either one of these resonant pattern experiments, sound anything like the introductory sound at 1:07 of this Quanta Magnetics video?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8VdsWn-Q9Y&

And, BTW, every unit that APPEARS to be identical may have different resonant frequencies and something as simple as how tight the windings are wound, and bolts are torqued, do effect this.
SO; to actually TUNE such a system, including changing clearances and adjusting bolts, does require a good ear for such things, some finesse, and LOTS of patience....  :P

Says I; the one who has been tuning engines, most of his life, based merely on how they sound...  8)

Can you please explain what you mean by the source field?

Not easily, or in short period of time, no.
Please forgive me as I am not qualified to fully explain these things that I first began investigating nearly twenty years ago beginning with coral castle and the revealing images and interesting experiments found at the www.coralcastlecode.com web site as well as other interesting stuff here- www.leedskalnin.com

I only have one reference book and it took me about 20 hours just to listen to this one audio book in its entirety without much note taking or stopping to check references.
http://rodscontracts.com/audio/science/audiobooks/SourceFieldInvestigations/
Which reads like a laundry list of verifiable scientific experiments, investigations, tests and laboratory results.
And, no, I have not attempted to verify ALL of them and I'm not going to because I have been witness to enough to believe this is honest, true, research and knowledge.  8)

So this is the extent of my knowledge of these physics, including the quantum physics, beyond what I might see in my mind's eye.
And other sources such as www.coralcastlecode.com and vortex math and physics also plays a part in these resonant systems and geometries.
http://vortexspace.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity

Seek the positive truth and ye shall find it.
Seek the negative and ye shall that as well.  :D
50/50, Yin & Yang, Positive and Negative...
Energy sucked in, and very cold, at North & South.
Energy out, and very hot, in the middle...

And I am currently, still, attempting to absorb the synchronicity key materials.
I usually just play these files while behind the wheel running service calls.
Hear: http://rodscontracts.com/audio/science/audiobooks/SynchronicityKey/

I gain a lot of my 'book' knowledge in this manner.
Simply by listening to lectures over and over including law studies, health, new energy systems and etcetera.
And, once in awhile, the subject is interesting enough for me to actually take a note, or two, then confirm the knowledge (at a later date) through personal discernment and first hand experience.  8)

Kindest regards;

}:>
« Last Edit: October 24, 2014, 01:32:35 AM by Scorch »

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #27 on: October 24, 2014, 02:02:15 AM »
Scorch:

What are you talking about, mechanical resonance or electrical resonance?

If you are talking about mechanical resonance, how could that possibly apply to your pulse motor, which is an electrical device?

If you are talking about electrical resonance, then please be specific.  Please describe the resonance mechanism.  There are always two components and two variables in any resonance system, be it mechanical or electrical.  So if you are implying electrical resonance, what components and what variables?

Quote
All materials, including living biological systems, right down to its smallest particle, all have a natural resonance depending on shape such as a tuning fork or violin string.

It all depends on what type of resonance you are talking about, what the components are, and what the variables are.  Everything does not necessarily have a "natural resonance," that's a meaningless statement that you will hear at some kind of New Age conference.  Do you understand where I am coming from?  When you state something, it has to really mean something.  Otherwise we all end up drowning in BS.  You have to be able to back up your statements with real facts and real logic.  Just pointing to something is not an 'escape clause' either.

I have seen the clips with the patterns in the sand on the vibrating surfaces.  It's not the "shapes of 'sacred geometry,'" you are falling hook, line, and sinker for some New Age gibberish.  Those patterns at the resonant nodes on the vibrating surfaces are showing you Nature in action, where Nature is following the symmetry of the mathematics that describe Nature and vice-versa.  No pun intended, but you need to "get your head out of the sand."  Those patterns are real-world demonstrations of solutions to differential equations.  It's that kind of mathematical modeling that allows us to design bridges where we can be sure that the resonances in the bridge structure are dealt with properly so that the bridge doesn't shake itself to pieces.  That of course actually happened and we learned from our mistakes and oversights.  But there is nothing "sacred" about this.  It just makes me uncomfortable to try to attach some kind of spirituality to something concrete and real.

Resonance is one of the most misunderstood and abused terms in the whole realm of free energy and "New Age consciousness."  It's used to sucker people and create the pretense that something special is going on.  My advice to you is to only use that term when you can back it up with reasoning and facts.  When Quanta Magnetics tries to link their vanilla pulse motor with the Schumann resonance, it an abuse of the term.  I have already challenged you on that one and you can't back it up.

Quote
And, BTW, every unit that APPEARS to be identical may have different resonant frequencies and something as simple as how tight the windings are wound, and bolts are torqued, do effect this.
SO; to actually TUNE such a system, including changing clearances and adjusting bolts, does require a good ear for such things, some finesse, and LOTS of patience....

That all sounds fine and dandy but take note of what I said above.   I challenge you:  whenever you mention "resonance" explain the mechanism, the two components, and the two variables.  Otherwise, there is nothing there.

The classic example is when you blow air across the top of a beer bottle and you hear a tone.  Without looking anything up, can you explain the resonance in this situation?   I seriously doubt that you can, and that means you have to learn what you are talking about before you discuss something.  It's a very important principle that you want to live by.

Perhaps sometime later I will tackle the issue of the "source field" but I don't have the time today to look at your links.

MileHigh

Offline MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7617
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #28 on: October 24, 2014, 02:38:06 AM »
Scorch:

Let me just "temper" my comments to give you some context.  I am not involved and don't really care about your pulse motor.  Likewise, I have no involvement in what you think and believe and in the final analysis I don't really care, those are your affairs and live and let live.  Nor do I really care about your YouTube clips.

This is just an exercise on my part to make you really think about what you are saying.  And by extension the readers can contemplate these issues also.  It's all fine and dandy to read all of this stuff and gobble it all up and believe that it's all true.  But as a society we can't afford to lose sight of what really counts.  Sometimes these cockamamie ideas are harmless, other times they really hurt people.  They hurt people financially, they put people in danger, sometimes people die for totally stupid reasons that should never have happened.

So you should really think about these issues.  Your "belief system" is a house of cards that will collapse when real-world results are demanded.  There is a Rodin coil promoter guy and he managed to slip through the cracks and managed to get on a "Ted Talks."  He said that the Rodin mathematics and the Rodin coil where going to "change the world and solve ALL of our problems."  He was supposed to back up some of his statements with data and he promised two weeks after his Ted Talk that he would email the organizers.  He never did.  Probably about two-hundred thousand dollars total have been "invested" in the "QEG phenomenon" over the past nine months.  No QEG will ever produce so much as a pico-Joule of excess energy.  A "mass movement of nothingness."  Those are the problems and pitfalls that we have to work together to prevent from happening.  Those are things for you to think about.  Is your Quanta Magnetics pulse motor something amazing or is it just a glorified grade 8 science fair project?  Is Mike Kantz part of the "new energy paradigm" or is he just a Joe Blow that knows very little out to make a buck?  It's important for all of us to know the right answers to those questions.

MileHigh

Offline Scorch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 264
    • Scorch's Private Contractor Site
Re: Gyroscopic Inertia Generator
« Reply #29 on: October 24, 2014, 07:01:09 PM »
Scorch:

Mr. Quanta Magnetics probably said to himself, "I will make an improved design where I put drive coils on both sides of the main center rotor.  With two drive coils on opposite sides of the rotor magnets I should get double the torque to make the rotor spin faster and more efficiently."

The fact is that he is wrong.  And I told you already many times that he has no true understanding of what he is doing.  I don't like repeating this all the time but in this case it merits repeating.  He is supposedly charging for his "intellectual property."

Let's just use abstract units to illustrate the problem.  Let's say that a single coil gives you 100 units of "torque energy" when you pulse the coil.  So, Mike Kantz probably said to himself, "I will put a coil on each side and get an even stronger field to push on the rotor magnet.  I will take advantage of both sides of the rotor magnet instead of only using one side of the rotor magnet.  With one coil I will get 100 units of torque energy per pulse, so with two coils I should get 200 units of torque energy per pulse."

MileHigh

Are you of the position we should speak for others?


Scorch:

I am not making any specific comments on a test that Stefan did 15 years ago that I haven't read up on.  You cannot put words in my my mouth like that and play straw man.

MileHigh

Are you of the position we should not speak for others?!?  :o

Did I speak for another or did I merely ask a question?

Please forgive my confusion caused by your words versus your other words...

And please forgive my choice to concentrate on replicating this experiment versus expending a lot of my time and energy for these multi-page dualism word games or attempting to educate the ignorant.  :P
Such as the belief that splitting a balanced system in half may be an improvement.  Or a belief that a resonating electric system emitting obvious sound, such as a vibrating coil, transformer, or motor actually producing said sound, is, somehow, separate or completely independent from it's physical-mechanical characteristics required to actually produce a sound including an electro-mechanical resonant sound.

Nor am I here to resolve multiple challenges issued from the ignorant regarding obvious unknowns such as a system we haven't built yet...
If one takes a firm position regarding the unknown; what shall we call this? Is it mere ignorance or is it something else?  ???

Kindest regards;

}:>

PS: The term "ignorant" is not derogatory. It simply means "not educated" in a field of study such as merely reading a book and testing its references.
Or: "not educated" in the existence of these verifiable scientific investigations into the source field that effects all these systems including these solar systems, planetary systems, biological systems, mental systems, fluid systems, gas systems, electrical systems and, of course, all these energy systems all the way down to the to the quantum level and torsion field physics.

 

OneLink