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: Question: Promises requested  (Read 25511 times)

FreeEnergy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
    • The Freedom Cell Network
Re: Question: Promises requested
« Reply #45 on: October 08, 2006, 10:05:40 PM »

PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: Question: Promises requested
« Reply #46 on: October 08, 2006, 11:03:04 PM »
Hi FreeEnergy,

I saw that on Mythbusters. Actually the MEMM is a completely solid-state device. The only moving part, that's actually not required, is a fan or some type of thermal conducting fins, but this would only be require for high output devices to keep the device withint operating temperature.  The output would be good old electricity. :)

---
"Relevant Post" was appended to ->

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:MEMM

Paul Lowrance

Kator01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 898
Re: Question: Promises requested
« Reply #47 on: October 08, 2006, 11:14:45 PM »
Hi PaulL,

I remember that Bil Muller used some amorpheous magnetic tape-material. I had seen this on Don Adsitts
Page : www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com

Here is the email of his daughter :

carmen@mullerpower.com

As far as I know Don Adsitt has passed away some time ago


Kator

gyulasun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4117
Re: Question: Promises requested
« Reply #48 on: October 09, 2006, 12:49:51 AM »

@gyulasun,
I agree. I've pointed out incorrect scope interpretations regarding Naudin's silicon iron version. Although the good news is that Naudin's Metglas version scope shots seem to clearly demonstrate "free energy" ->
http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/meg21io.gif
occurs in:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm
The above image shows both current and voltages. It's difficult to ignore the obvious huge difference from input versus output unless Naudin faked the scope images. Some may debate the scope is not picking up on high frequency output, but such undetected output signals would merely increase to the output. As for the input, it's a DC power supply so AC current means nothing-- we want to know the average input power, which is the DC current * DC voltage coming from the power supply or battery. If AC current is somehow effecting Naudin's scopes display of DC current then I would say it's a faulty scope. What are your thoughts on this?  It's always been my experience that frequencies beyond the scope are merely dampened out and do not affect the lower frequencies displayed on the scope.

Naudin is misinterpreting his scopes power output. It shows 3.976 W input, that is correct, but the 28.98 W output is not exact, but close enough for government work, right, lol?  What the scope is showing is the average power output as displayed on the screen at present. As we can see, there are roughly 5.5 cycles displayed on the output. To display the average power output we want one exact cycle or multiples of one.

So I spent some time last month studying the pictures pixel by pixel, going over each pixel and multiplying voltage by current per segment of time and adding them up. That being said I am confident Naudin's Metglas machine was generating "free energy."
.....

Hi Paul,

Sorry for being a bit late in reflecting your question, have been busy. Well, if an oscilloscope has a bandwidth less than the frequency of the components constituting the measured signal, than, although it displays a more sinusoid-like waveform but the main lower frequency amplitudes remain more or less correct. However, this cannot be revelant or applicable here because the scope THS720P has a 100MHz bandwidth and the measured signal is around 56-57kHz with MEG v2.1 and 24kHz with v3.0 (at least this is seen so on this page from the scope pictures http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm )
And I agree: the AC current measurements cannot influence the DC current measurements.

It is interesting that Naudin's conditioned resistor he used for loading the 1.5kVpp output voltage was just conditioned to be 10kOhm from the 100kOhm value (because it comes from his measured RMS current of 48.08mA for his MEG v2.1), the difference just a factor of 10 in the resistor values.  And if I multiply the RMS output voltage with the RMS current (486.2V * 48.08mA) I get 23.37W but his scope shows 28.97W RMS. ( Of course this 23.37W output would still be fantasticly good for a 3.976W input power. )  Where was the error coming from I wonder. Correct answer can only be given by repeating his measurements.

Regards
Gyula

Trump

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: Question: Promises requested
« Reply #49 on: October 09, 2006, 11:16:46 PM »
HI' Paul,

I have looked back and read all of the replies to your electric motor concept, others feel you are close to  achieving the design of the ?over unity motor?.  Have you been working on this concept for a long time?  I don't possess the knowledge as you and others do, but it does seem that there are many who agree with you on how things look so far. Have you been working mostly on the theory of how this motor may work, or have you got physical testing  with a prototype model ?  Once you get some testing done and are satisfied that your motor is doing what you feel it should do, will you test this motor for a good length of time and then tell us how the motor works, or will you just test the motor and tell us as your testing goes along. I feel everyone would just like to see a small motor to set on the desk and produce over unity, lighting a light bulb or something. It looks like you have a vast amount of peopole on this site to get information from, if we all stick together and help one another I feel as things will work out for the best. I wish that there were  other people with your knowledge close to me, I live in Tennessee. When the time comes and you have the plans to build the motor, I will do whatever it take to build it, even if I need to fly out and have you help me with it.

Hope that a lot of the stumbling blocks are out of the way now so you can get a working model going soon.  Keep in touch and I must say I am ready for this to come true. Most of the other ?over unity? motors seem to be a talk of the town for awhile and then fade out of site.

Trump !

Trump

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: Question: Promises requested
« Reply #50 on: October 12, 2006, 09:52:20 PM »
Paul Lowrance,

It seems that this forum is a little slow lately, I guess many people are working on things or using some other sites. How are things going with your project? I have looked at a lot of the listings on the over unity type of electric motors, it appears that most of the concept lately is the motor with windings and not the type of motor that has moving parts. Is there a good reason for the winding type motor over the moving parts motor. Can you get as much workable voltage on the winding type motor as the type that has moving parts?
 
  Respectfully

   Trump

PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: Question: Promises requested
« Reply #51 on: October 12, 2006, 10:24:46 PM »
Hi Trump.

I think both methods are promising, but the solid-state method should be most promising since there are no moving parts. I think the solid-state could eventually generate more power. Although I could perhaps be biased since the MEMM will be solid-state, except for the high power compact versions will need a fan or method of keeping the core at near room temperature. :)

Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Trump

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: Question: Promises requested
« Reply #52 on: October 12, 2006, 10:44:42 PM »
Paul,

Thanks for the quick reply, I was just wondering on the two types of motors and which may turn out to be the best to lean to. Less moving parts may have less problems I am sure. Thanks for your reply and I  hope that the motor concept you are working on will prevail. I have been reading a lot and trying to get a better understanding on how the winding type motor works. I will keep reading and I will watch the postings closely.

   Respectfully

   Trump

supersam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
Re: Question: Promises requested
« Reply #53 on: October 14, 2006, 04:07:19 PM »
paul,

i really don't have the knowledge or expertice in this field to promise that i will build this project personally.  i do, however have the resources to promise i will have one built.  i can hardly wait!!!! will you please get a move on it!!!! ;D

it will be the best day of my life when i get a check from my utility company for power that i sold them instead of just the quarterly dividend check..

thanks for your efforts, lol,
sam

PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: Question: Promises requested
« Reply #54 on: October 14, 2006, 05:14:00 PM »
Hi Sam,

Yes, that will be one of the greatest days in history. My huge problem in life is being an astronomically huge perfectionist. :(  It's just difficult to overcome, but will try to get with the program and get a nanocrystalline core to close to loop.  I already have my proof that "free energy" is available by means of MCE. Now it's just a matter of time.

There is still question as to if amorphous magnetic material has atomic size or even nano size domains. I've swept the Internet so many times, emailed dozens of magnetic specialists, lol and cannot find any information.  It really doesn't matter that much initially since nanocrystalline cores have very small domains, which will work, but it just bothers me such cores are so expensive.  So if we can manage to squeeze 100 watts of "free energy" per $120 Metglas core in a closed loop system then we'll need 10 cores to achieve 1 KW for a total of $1200 plus other parts. So lets say $1500. And initially 100 watts will be a huge challenge.  I know there must be cheaper cores out there that can get the job done. It's just a matter of time finding them. So perhaps initially the first 1 KW design might be a little expensive. Time will tell.

Regards,
Paul Lowrance

PaulLowrance

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
    • Global Free Energy
Re: Question: Promises requested
« Reply #55 on: October 14, 2006, 09:14:45 PM »
I made a major post regarding the MEMM in this thread -->

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1565.msg14714.html#msg14714

Paul Lowrance