Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )  (Read 608543 times)

l0stf0x

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #645 on: December 29, 2014, 02:18:33 PM »
Hi Jimboot, can you  or anyone else help me find the "New thread" button? :-\
thanks

T-1000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #646 on: December 29, 2014, 02:39:33 PM »
There was one design mentioned in overunityresearch forum - http://u2.lege.net/newebmasters.com__freeenergy/external_links_from_theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/ElectromagneticDev/olafberens/olaf.htm

That build is close to Syrain's and also has merit to be tested by some experienced people. The magnetic forces are not balanced there so you will have drag due core attraction to magnet but the rest of build is on same principle with changing magnetic field on coil with iron core (should be transformer core to avoid Eddy currents) which is moving across path between coil and magnet...

http://www.google.com/patents/US5191258

http://u2.lege.net/newebmasters.com__freeenergy/external_links_from_theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/ElectromagneticDev/olafberens/photos/ger4.gif

Cheers!

Jimboot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #647 on: December 29, 2014, 02:41:08 PM »
Hi Jimboot, can you  or anyone else help me find the "New thread" button? :-\
thanks
Go here http://overunity.com/news/#.VKFZtMAACI and you'll see the new topic button

lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #648 on: December 29, 2014, 05:24:48 PM »
Luc:

In order to get the "C" core to pull to the gap in the "I" cores the "C" core would need to be much thicker. Going thinner would cause the "C" core to not want to stay in the gap but pull to one side or the other while if it was wider it would pull to where the flux is best conducted.

We can see by rotating a large "C" section that flux moves into the "C" making it a magnet, then as the core rotates it pushes back from the next pole causing a load on the drive system.  The problem with a wider "C" core is that it will load with even more flux and increase the drag.

To me the solution is to mount the "C" core stationary below the "I" cores and make the "C" core as wide as the outside of the "I" cores. (about twice as wide as is now)

Space the "C" from the "I" cores and rotate other smaller segments to transfer the flux.

The idea is that flux retained in the smaller rotating pieces will be small because they can only retain a small amount of flux.

Overall, the way to reduce the core drag is to reduce the size of the moving iron.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 09:12:53 PM by lumen »

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #649 on: December 29, 2014, 10:33:21 PM »
Luc-please watch this test. You need ferrite core's,as steel laminated core's are shocking,even at low rpm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAXtB_7RkEg

Good day Brad,

thank you for making this important video. I am aware of the difference in drag between Steel and Ferrite cores and why I used a ferrite as core in my test coil of the "Delayed Lenz or not?" topic:  http://overunity.com/15289/delayed-lenz-or-not-post-your-explaination/msg428570/#msg428570

However, what I don't know is how much the effect we are researching, often referred to as" Delayed Lenz" is reduced when using Ferrite compared to steel laminations?... all this needs much more testing.

Naturally it is much faster and cheaper to used steel laminations to build and test these new idea and is why I do so until I find what is the best design. Once this has been established we can order Ferrite cores and see how much better it does.

So I appreciate you taking the time to make this video so others can see there are possibly much more efficient core material we can use once we know the direction we want to take.

I have also experimented with Iron Powder cores and they are also very efficient and much easier to cut and shape then Ferrite, so they also need to be tested.

Thanks mate

Luc

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #650 on: December 29, 2014, 10:40:46 PM »
I have dificulty with construction with laminations, so this is going to take time, or I could use ferrite cores (small version) but this also will take time..

and because I don't want you to wait for me, but rather everyone build his own one..  so I decide to make some drawings and explanations so everybody will understand the idea.

I am drawing them now..

I'm glad you came to that decision l0stf0x. Some of us are better equipped to build. Also, working as a group is much more efficient and productive.

Thanks for sharing

Luc

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #651 on: December 29, 2014, 10:56:03 PM »
Hey brad in my experiments the ferrite did not work nearly as well as steel laminates. It was explained by arenas and Matt that it's because the poles can't as flip as fast. I'm trying to work out where to get soft iron like syair used. Paul Babcock swears by steel shot but its a bit hard to get in melbourne.


Ferrite will transition much faster that iron or steel,this is why they use ferrite in high frequency transformers or inductors. Steel and iron hold residual magnetism quite well-im guessing you have a few magnetised screwdrivers lying around?. See how much magnetised ferrite you have that wasnt a magnet to start with-my guess is none.

As Jimboot has found in his experiments (as I have), much of the effect is lost when using ferrite!... maybe Iron powder cores would be a better choice? 

Maybe MarKE can explain Iron powder vs Ferrite core characteristics.

Luc

l0stf0x

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #652 on: December 29, 2014, 11:06:06 PM »
I'm glad you came to that decision l0stf0x. Some of us are better equipped to build. Also, working as a group is much more efficient and productive.

Thanks for sharing

Luc

Sharing is wise :)

Here it is check it please.. its simple idea but I can't find anything similar at google.. thanks ;)


http://overunity.com/15341/sotogen#.VKHP_14CAA

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #653 on: December 29, 2014, 11:14:50 PM »
Luc:

In order to get the "C" core to pull to the gap in the "I" cores the "C" core would need to be much thicker. Going thinner would cause the "C" core to not want to stay in the gap but pull to one side or the other while if it was wider it would pull to where the flux is best conducted.

We can see by rotating a large "C" section that flux moves into the "C" making it a magnet, then as the core rotates it pushes back from the next pole causing a load on the drive system.  The problem with a wider "C" core is that it will load with even more flux and increase the drag.

To me the solution is to mount the "C" core stationary below the "I" cores and make the "C" core as wide as the outside of the "I" cores. (about twice as wide as is now)

Space the "C" from the "I" cores and rotate other smaller segments to transfer the flux.

The idea is that flux retained in the smaller rotating pieces will be small because they can only retain a small amount of flux.

Overall, the way to reduce the core drag is to reduce the size of the moving iron.

A few days ago I made a new rotating plate with a C core that is as wide as both the I cores (outside end to end). The result was a standard generator action. When coil was on load no matter the RPM the input to prime mover did not go down and the power across the load was exactly reflected back to the prime mover.

So I fail to see what you recommend would be any different?

Luc



MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #654 on: December 30, 2014, 01:02:26 AM »
Okay it's time for a generic rant at all of you.  This is not specific to any individual even though I am going to discuss Luc's build.  It's directed at the original participants in this thread, the original people interested in this proposition and Luc's build.  You all know who you are.

First of all Luc should be congratulated for doing the build.  It's real, it's very solid, and overall very well built and it obviously does what it is supposed to do.  I view Luc's build as your collective project and test bed.

Here is the problem:  Doing the build is only half of the project.  Doing the testing and measurements on the build is the other half of the project.  And to be be more realistic, it's the testing and measurements and drawing your conclusions from the data that really counts.  The build itself is only of secondary importance.  It's more like 10% build and 90% testing and analysis.

All of you guys have almost nothing to say about actually testing the device now that it has been built.  There is something seriously wrong there.  I have not seen a single suggestion from anybody on what to do now that the thing is actually built.

So many times I have been chastised by you guys, some of you are participants in this very thread.  I hear, "You know nothing if you don't build it yourself," or I hear, "We are builders and doers, and you are not a doer."  I also hear, "What you are saying is 'just words.'"

Well, right now I don't see any "doing" at all.  I see the usual bullshit where people start talking about different ferrite choices and stuff like that, bla bla bla.  That's bullshit, the build is done.  It's almost like you want to say anything to escape actually analyzing the system.  It's time for you to talk about what you are going to DO.

This is an energy forum, all about searching for new and alternative sources of energy.  You now have a perfectly good test bed, it's time for you to put your brains together and talk about how to test the energy aspects of this device.

If none of you have any ideas or something to say about testing the device, then why even bother building it in the first place?  I am serious.  I can't tell you how many times I have seen all sorts of enthusiasm for a new project, a few people build replications, and then nobody knows what to do.  You see somebody measure the current draw for their build, big fucking deal.

Now that this thing is built, what the hell do you do?   Is somebody going to step up to the plate and offer something real?  With all due respect to Luc, his first attempt at an analysis is no good.  But it is not just for him to do this himself.  It's up to you collectively to do something.  Right now you have a good solid build, and almost no data.  You have nothing to speak of.

So the challenge is out there to all of you.  If you all move on and nobody says anything, then this whole thing was an exercise in bullshit.  Likewise, when a new YouTube clip clip comes along and you want to replicate it in search of over unity, you had better seriously consider my words.  If you build something with no idea what you really are going to do, with no preliminary test plan, with no predefined goals for what the project is supposed to accomplish, then you are full of shit.  There is no point in being stuck in a revolving door going around in circles.

The "bonus rant" is that I don't want to hear people tell me, "Oh you are not a builder, you are not a doer, you have no right to say anything" - well you guys can kiss my ass because my credibility has long been establish by what I say.  I don't want to hear any stupid flack like that when I clearly can bring some value to the table.  Saying that "I am not a builder" is just an excuse to avoid listening or responding to what I have have to say.  I am not always right but at least I say something.

So, is this project already dead and gone, or do you guys as a collective group interested in this project and in the original YouTube clip have something of value to say?  What suggestions can you now offer to Luc after all the time and effort and expense he put into making his build?  His build is a test bed, so where do you guys, you "energy researchers" go from here?

MileHigh

lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #655 on: December 30, 2014, 01:10:44 AM »
A few days ago I made a new rotating plate with a C core that is as wide as both the I cores (outside end to end). The result was a standard generator action. When coil was on load no matter the RPM the input to prime mover did not go down and the power across the load was exactly reflected back to the prime mover.

So I fail to see what you recommend would be any different?

Luc

Luc:
There are many interesting changes you could do and I suppose we don't know all that you have tried already.
Any results from changes both good or bad could be useful information.
 
It appears that flipping the flux back and forth through the "C" core requires a fair amount of work.
Do you think it would be the same if you kept the "C" section stationary also and used small iron sections for the switching.
 
What about if you had two stationary "C" sections forming an X. One on top and one on bottom.
Then used a small iron piece to transfer flux on bottom C and a different iron piece to transfer the flux on top C.
This way none of the cores need to change flux direction and there should be near zero loading from core loss.
 
Just some ideas.

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #656 on: December 30, 2014, 01:27:47 AM »
Lumen,

Taking into context my previous posting, you are just clutching at straws.  There is no point in trying some "new flux workaround" when the basic design as it exists right now redirects flux already.  In my opinion there is just no point in going in the directions you are suggesting.

I have another generic comment for your consideration.  When you talk about modifying builds or circuits, if your description is longer than three sentences then forget it.  Nobody can follow a full-paragraph description of a modification to a build or a schematic in their heads.  But they are usually too polite to tell the other person that.  What you end up with is a bullshit conversation where both parties are generating words, but neither party really and truly understands the other party.  Sometimes you see whole threads talking about new pick-up coil positions, and new circuitry, and that "that will generate a big spike here" and "that should recharge your source battery" and it's all bullshit.

Seriously, if it takes more than three sentences then you need a drawing or a schematic preferably with a timing diagram.  I read your prose but I simply don't have a 3D CAD program running in my head.  Please don't be offended, I am just being honest with you.

MileHigh

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #657 on: December 30, 2014, 01:39:09 AM »
Well MileHigh, out of the builds and tests so far, I would say I'm the only one that supplied the most power data. However, they don't meet your standards or expectations.
As I see it, if someone can't do at least the basic power tests I do, then they are not wanting to give the truth or they just don't know how to do it.  For myself this is all I know to do, so you saying I didn't do a good job is not going to change anything, as I always give as much as I know to do. I have said many times that I have no education and what I know has been self tough.
So the bottom line is, if you want to see more test data then you will have to explain how to do the test you would like to see. Also, you will have to write it in a laymen way as if it gets too technical (needing school education) it won't help.

Regards

Luc

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #658 on: December 30, 2014, 02:06:26 AM »
Luc:

Everybody has their strengths and weaknesses.  You have very strong build skills but you need to work on your analysis skills.  But like I said, this is not all on you.

The fantasy is that you collectively pool your brain power together so that the whole group is much stronger than any one individual.  I just stated that your first attempt at your analysis is no good.  It's only the first attempt.  All of your peers reading this thread are also reading this.  In theory you can all work together on the project and bounce ideas off each other and move forward together.  When you do that you all will learn off of each other also.  It's almost shocking that nobody can suggest a test method or work with you to analyze the system.  It's just as equally shocking that nobody has anything to say about your first analysis or can suggest a better way to anlyse the data that you have collected so far.

What I do know is that spoon feeding all of you my take on what is taking place will only be about 10% as effective as all of you working together towards a common goal.  You even need to define that goal amongst yourselves.  Likewise, ideally you all would come to some conclusion about your build and the original proposition as shown in the original YouTube clip.  The fantasy is that you can all say, "I UNDERSTAND" like I referenced in another posting on another thread.  In other words you all understand why this works, or why it does not work.

I am just not up to spoon-feeding all of you because almost nothing of that will sink in.  The way for you guys to learn and evaluate a free energy proposition is to do it yourselves.

Where the "I UNDERSTAND" comes into play is that you understand how and why it works, so that when the next proposition comes along that is nothing more than a variation on a very similar theme, then you all will be able to say, "I UNDERSTAND why it will not work."  Get into a real debate with the YouTube guy that is making the proposition.  Have him defend his claims before you even consider making a replication.

This "flux redirecting" stuff is not fundamentally different from a magnet moving past a coil or a coil moving past a magnet.  If you all understood, you would would see what foolishness a proposition like this actually is.

So is this whole project dead already with barely any testing done, or do you as a group on this thread start bouncing ideas off each other and start turning the testing in to something real?

MileHigh

ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8073
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #659 on: December 30, 2014, 04:04:27 AM »
Just a reminder to those unaware this is also being discussed and developed over here


http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19851-topic-new-generator-no-effect-counter-b-emf-part-2-selfrunning-8.html#post268994


thx for looking


Chet